Key Arguments

• Proudhon emphasizes that in Cicero’s comparison "the place that each one occupies is called his own; that is, it is a place possessed, not a place appropriated," so the analogy speaks of temporary, factual occupancy, not juristic property.
• He notes that in a theatre no one can occupy multiple seats in different locations at once "unless I have three bodies, like Geryon, or can exist in different places at the same time," implying a natural limit on occupation to what one body can use.
• He reinterprets the maxim "suum quidque cujusque sit" to mean that what belongs to each is not whatever one happens to possess, but only "that which each has a right to possess," which he then defines as "that which is required for our labor and consumption."
• On this interpretation, each person may choose, decorate, and improve a place, but "he must never allow himself to overstep the limit which separates him from another," so mutual toleration of occupancy entails equality of possessions.
• He concludes that "occupation being pure toleration, if the toleration is mutual (and it cannot be otherwise) the possessions are equal," so the very Ciceronian analogy used by jurists in favor of property in fact destroys the concept of absolute property.

Source Quotes

This passage is all that ancient philosophy has to say about the origin of property. The theatre, says Cicero, is common to all; nevertheless, the place that each one occupies is called his own; that is, it is a place possessed, not a place appropriated. This comparison annihilates property; moreover, it implies equality. Can I, in a theatre, occupy at the same time one place in the pit, another in the boxes, and a third in the gallery?

This comparison annihilates property; moreover, it implies equality. Can I, in a theatre, occupy at the same time one place in the pit, another in the boxes, and a third in the gallery? Not unless I have three bodies, like Geryon, or can exist in different places at the same time, as is related of the magician Apollonius. According to Cicero, no one has a right to more than he needs: such is the true interpretation of his famous axiom⁠—suum quidque cujusque sit, to each one that which belongs to him⁠—an axiom that has been strangely applied.

According to Cicero, no one has a right to more than he needs: such is the true interpretation of his famous axiom⁠—suum quidque cujusque sit, to each one that which belongs to him⁠—an axiom that has been strangely applied. That which belongs to each is not that which each may possess, but that which each has a right to possess. Now, what have we a right to possess? That which is required for our labor and consumption; Cicero’s comparison of the earth to a theatre proves it. According to that, each one may take what place he will, may beautify and adorn it, if he can; it is allowable: but he must never allow himself to overstep the limit which separates him from another.

That which is required for our labor and consumption; Cicero’s comparison of the earth to a theatre proves it. According to that, each one may take what place he will, may beautify and adorn it, if he can; it is allowable: but he must never allow himself to overstep the limit which separates him from another. The doctrine of Cicero leads directly to equality; for, occupation being pure toleration, if the toleration is mutual (and it cannot be otherwise) the possessions are equal.

According to that, each one may take what place he will, may beautify and adorn it, if he can; it is allowable: but he must never allow himself to overstep the limit which separates him from another. The doctrine of Cicero leads directly to equality; for, occupation being pure toleration, if the toleration is mutual (and it cannot be otherwise) the possessions are equal. Grotius rushes into history; but what kind of reasoning is that which seeks the origin of a right, said to be natural, elsewhere than in Nature?

Key Concepts

• The theatre, says Cicero, is common to all; nevertheless, the place that each one occupies is called his own; that is, it is a place possessed, not a place appropriated. This comparison annihilates property; moreover, it implies equality.
• Can I, in a theatre, occupy at the same time one place in the pit, another in the boxes, and a third in the gallery? Not unless I have three bodies, like Geryon, or can exist in different places at the same time, as is related of the magician Apollonius.
• That which belongs to each is not that which each may possess, but that which each has a right to possess. Now, what have we a right to possess? That which is required for our labor and consumption; Cicero’s comparison of the earth to a theatre proves it.
• each one may take what place he will, may beautify and adorn it, if he can; it is allowable: but he must never allow himself to overstep the limit which separates him from another.
• the doctrine of Cicero leads directly to equality; for, occupation being pure toleration, if the toleration is mutual (and it cannot be otherwise) the possessions are equal.

Context

Early in § 2, immediately after defining the right of occupation and citing Cicero’s theatre analogy as the core of ancient philosophy on property, Proudhon shows that this very analogy, properly read, undermines the juridical notion of property and supports egalitarian possession.