f the property previous to its division。 There is no difficulty about this in the case of guardianship； when the estate is administered in the name of the minors。
2。 That which I have just said of the obligation incurred by talent of repaying the cost of its education does not embarrass the economist。 The man of talent； he says； inheriting from his family； inherits among other things a claim to the forty thousand francs which his education costs； and he becomes； in consequence； its proprietor。 But this is to abandon the right of talent； and to fall back upon the right of occupancy； which again calls up all the questions asked in Chapter II。 What is the right of occupancy？ what is inheritance？ Is the right of succession a right of accumulation or only a right of choice？ how did the physician's father get his fortune？ was he a proprietor； or only a usufructuary？ If he was rich； let him account for his wealth； if he was poor； how could he incur so large an expense？ If he received aid； what right had he to use that aid to the disadvantage of his benefactors； &c。？
3。 〃There remains an income of twenty…six thousand francs due to the personal talents given him by Nature。〃 （Say；as above quoted。） Reasoning from this premise； Say concludes that our physician's talent is equivalent to a capital of two hundred and sixty thousand francs。 This skilful calculator mistakes a consequence for a principle。 The talent must not be measured by the gain； but rather the gain by the talent； for it may happen； that； notwithstanding his merit； the physician in question will gain nothing at all； in which case will it be necessary to conclude that his talent or fortune is equivalent to zero？ To such a result； however； would Say's reasoning lead； a result which is clearly absurd。
Now； it is impossible to place a money value on any talent whatsoever； since talent and money have no common measure。 On what plausible ground can it be maintained that a physician should be paid two； three； or a hundred times as much as a peasant？ An unavoidable difficulty； which has never been solved save by avarice； necessity； and oppression。 It is not thus that the right of talent should be determined。 But how is it to be determined？
4。 I say； first； that the physician must be treated with as much favor as any other producer； that he must not be placed below the level of others。 This I will not stop to prove。 But I add that neither must he be lifted above that level； because his talent is collective property for which he did not pay； and for which he is ever in debt。
Just as the creation of every instrument of production is the result of collective force； so also are a man's talent and knowledge the product of universal intelligence and of general knowledge slowly accumulated by a number of masters； and through the aid of many inferior industries。 When the physician has paid for his teachers； his books； his diplomas； and all the other items of his educational expenses； he has no more paid for his talent than the capitalist pays for his house and land when he gives his employees their wages。 The man of talent has contributed to the production in himself of a useful instrument。 He has； then； a share in its possession； he is not its proprietor。 There exist side by side in him a free laborer and an accumulated social capital。 As a laborer； he is charged with the use of an instrument； with the superintendence of a machine； namely； his capacity。 As capital； he is not his own master； he uses himself； not for his own benefit； but for that of others。
Even if talent did not find in its own excellence a reward for the sacrifices which it costs； still would it be easier to find reasons for lowering its reward than for raising it above the common level。 Every producer receives an education； every laborer is a talent； a capacity；that is； a piece of collective property。 But all talents are not equally costly。 It takes but few teachers； but few years； and but little study； to make a farmer or a mechanic： the generative effort andif I may venture to use such languagethe period of social gestation are proportional to the loftiness of the capacity。 But while the physician； the poet； the artist； and the savant produce but little； and that slowly； the productions of the farmer are much less uncertain； and do not require so long a time。 Whatever be then the capacity of a man；when this capacity is once created；it does not belong to him。 Like the material fashioned by an industrious hand； it had the power of BECOMING； and society has given it BEING。 Shall the vase say to the potter； 〃I am that I am； and I owe you nothing〃？
The artist； the savant； and the poet find their just recompense in the permission that society gives them to devote themselves exclusively to science and to art： so that in reality they do not labor for themselves； but for society； which creates them； and requires of them no other duty。 Society can； if need be； do without prose and verse； music and painting； and the knowledge of the movements of the moon and stars； but it cannot live a single day without food and shelter。
Undoubtedly； man does not live by bread alone； he must； also （according to the Gospel）； LIVE BY THE WORD OF GOD； that is； he must love the good and do it； know and admire the beautiful； and study the marvels of Nature。 But in order to cultivate his mind； he must first take care of his body；the latter duty is as necessary as the former is noble。 If it is glorious to charm and instruct men； it is honorable as well to feed them。 When； then； societyfaithful to the principle of the division of labor intrusts a work of art or of science to one of its members； allowing him to abandon ordinary labor； it owes him an indemnity for all which it prevents him from producing industrially； but it owes him nothing more。 If he should demand more； society should； by refusing his services； annihilate his pretensions。 Forced； then； in order to live； to devote himself to labor repugnant to his nature； the man of genius would feel his weakness； and would live the most distasteful of lives。
They tell of a celebrated singer who demanded of the Empress of Russia （Catherine II） twenty thousand roubles for his services： 〃That is more than I give my field…marshals；〃 said Catherine。 〃Your majesty；〃 replied the other； 〃has only to make singers of her field…marshals。〃
If France （more powerful than Catherine II） should say to Mademoiselle Rachel； 〃You must act for one hundred louis； or else spin cotton；〃 to M。 Duprez； 〃You must sing for two thousand four hundred francs； or else work in the vineyard；〃do you think that the actress Rachel； and the singer Duprez； would abandon the stage？ If they did； they would be the first to repent it。
Mademoiselle Rachel receives； they say； sixty thousand francs annually from the Comedie…Francaise。 For a talent like hers； it is a slight fee。 Why not one hundred thousand francs； two hundred thousand francs？ Why！ not a civil list？ What meanness！ Are we really guilty of chaffering with an artist like Mademoiselle Rachel？
It is said； in reply； that the managers of the theatre cannot give more without incurring a loss； that they admit the superior talent of their young associate； but that； in fixing her salary； they have been compelled to take the account of the company's receipts and expenses into consideration also。
That is just； but it only confirms what I have said； namely； that an artist's talent may be infinite； but that its mercenary claims are necessarily limited；on the one hand； by its usefulness to the society which rewards it； on the other； by the resources of this society： in other words； that the demand of the seller is balanced by the right of the buyer。
Mademoiselle Rachel； they say； brings to the treasury of the Theatre…Francais more than sixty thousand francs。 I admit it； but then I blame the theatre。 From whom does the Theatre… Francais take this money？ From some curious people who are perfectly free。 Yes； but the workingmen； the lessees； the tenants； those who borrow by pawning their possessions； from whom these curious people recover all that they pay to the theatre； are they free？ And when the better part of their products are consumed by others at the play； do you assure me that their families are not in want？ Until the French people； reflecting on the salaries paid to all artists； savants； and public functionaries； have plainly expressed their wish and judgment as to the matter； the salaries of Mademoiselle Rachel and all her fellow…artists will be a compulsory tax extorted by violence； to reward pride； and support libertinism。
It is because we are neither free nor sufficiently enlightened； that we submit to be cheated in our bargains； that the laborer pays the duties levied by the prestige of power and the selfishness of talent upon the curiosity of the idle； and that we are perpetually scandalized by these monstrous inequalities which are encouraged and applauded by public opinion。
The whole nation； and the nation only； pays its authors； its savants； its artists； its officials； whatever be the hands through which their salaries pass。 On what basis should it pay them？ On the basis of equality。 I have prove