conservative, a socialist or a bonapartist; as I was neither one nor
the other, nor even anything, I often envied those around me who were
so fortunate as to have arrived at definite conclusions. After
listening to various doctrines, I acknowledged that there undoubtedly
was something wrong with my head. The motives that influenced others
did not influence me; I could not comprehend how, in political
matters, a man could be governed by preferences. My assertive
countrymen planned a constitution just like a house, according to the
latest, simplest, and most attractive plan; and there were several
under consideration - the mansion of a marquis, the house of a common
citizen, the tenement of a laborer, the barracks of a soldier, the
kibbutz of a socialist, and even the camp of savages. Each claimed
that his was "the true habitation for Man, the only one in which a
sensible person could live." In my opinion, the argument was weak;
personal taste could not be valid for everyone. It seemed to me that a
house should not be built for the architect alone, or for itself, but
for the owner who was to live in it. Referring to the owner for his
advice, that is submitting to the French people the plans of its
future habitation, would evidently be either for show or just to
deceive them; since the question, obviously, was put in such a manner
that it provided the answer in advance. Besides, had the people been
allowed to reply in all liberty, their response was in any case not of
much value since France was scarcely more competent than I was; the
combined ignorance of ten millions is not the equivalent of one man's
wisdom. A people may be consulted and, in an extreme case, may declare
what form of government it would like best, but not that which it most
needs. Nothing but experience can determine this; it must have time to
ascertain whether the political structure is convenient, substantial,
able to withstand inclemency, and adapted to customs, habits,
occupations, characters, peculiarities and caprices. For example, the