Proudhon - A Biography

THE PRISONER
Michelet, whom in 1847 he regarded with distrust, but whose
book, Le Peuple, later revealed many ideas which he shared.
Their relationship began in April, 1851, when Michelet sent him
a copy o f his History of the French Revolution. Proudhon replied
with a long letter discussing their points o f agreement and
difference, and thanking Michelet for giving such a clear account
of the Revolution. His tone had an unusual humility. ‘The nature
of my mind and the mediocrity o f my scientific and literary
resources do not allow me undertakings of discovery such as
your History is and will be, I hope, to its end. I can only analyse
and deepen what others have established and brought to light; my
speciality, like my method, is the dissection o f facts and the
isolation o f their content.’
The relationship established by this correspondence continued,
for Michelet and Proudhon shared not only their conceptions of
the autonomy of the popular consciousness (an idea to which
Jung has given important support in our day) and their views on
the character of the French Revolution, but also their independ­
ence o f political alliances and their general abstention from the
construction of elaborate systems of social or historical dogma.
Towards the end o f 1851, indeed, Proudhon showed an
admiration for Michelet which it was rare for him to display
towards any man. Michelet had tried to visit him in prison, and
through some misunderstanding had been unable to obtain access.
Proudhon wrote, full o f regret: ‘It is for me, your disciple o f the
past eleven or twelve years, to go and see my teacher. Your
words o f ’30 and ’40 astounded me; a provincial newcomer,
I understood nothing o f that way of judging human events;
I thought I was listening to a St. John reciting his apocalypse.
Since then I have seen that what seemed to me revelation was
the true reality o f history. The brute fact is nothing; the idea it
covers is truly all. N ow I follow you. God grant that I remain
as wise as you!’
Their friendship lasted through the subsequent vicissitudes of
Proudhon’s life, and, though the latter’s high opinion of Michelet
declined in some respects, and the two writers disagreed on such
basic subjects as women and love (in 1858 Proudhon dismissed
Michelet’s UAm our as ‘erotic babbling’ and later he called La
Femme ‘another piece o f obscenity’), their relationship remained
cordial to the end.