Key Arguments

• He says he could 'accommodate myself equally well, and perhaps better' to a republic, since 'by nature, I hate all signs of distinction, crosses of honor, gold lace, liveries, costumes, honorary titles, etc., and, above all, parades.'
• He asserts that, in his ideal, 'no general should be distinguished from a soldier, nor a peer of France from a peasant,' and notes that he avoids reviews because 'they have fools for officers whom I am compelled to obey.'
• He ironically calls his life 'a perpetual sacrifice to the republic' because of his refusal to indulge in such pomp despite 'my conservative opinions.'
• He doubts 'that such simplicity would be agreeable to French vanity, to that inordinate love of distinction and flattery which makes our nation the most frivolous in the world.'
• He mocks Lamartine’s phrase 'a nation of Brutuses' and counters, 'We are merely a nation of Narcissuses.'
• He traces a historical sequence: before ’89 the 'aristocracy of blood', then post‑Revolution 'distinction was based on wealth', and in 1830 the bourgeoisie used events 'to promote, not liberty by any means, but the aristocracy of wealth.'
• He predicts that when equality of functions and fortunes is established 'the beaux and the belles, the savants and the artists, will form new classes' because 'There is a universal and innate desire in this Gallic country for fame and glory. We must have distinctions, be they what they may⁠—nobility, wealth, talent, beauty, or dress.'
• He suspects democratic politicians like MM. Arage and Garnier‑Pagès of 'aristocratic manners' and imagines popular journalists 'administering rough kicks to the compositors in their printing offices.'
• He satirizes Le National for having 'proclaimed [Carrel] first consul' and infers that now 'M. Armand Marrast is now first consul, and M. Garnier-Pagès second consul,' implying that many democrats want 'universal suffrage in order to make themselves kings.'

Source Quotes

I do not say, however, that, if France wanted a republic, I could not accommodate myself equally well, and perhaps better. By nature, I hate all signs of distinction, crosses of honor, gold lace, liveries, costumes, honorary titles, etc., and, above all, parades. If I had my way, no general should be distinguished from a soldier, nor a peer of France from a peasant.

By nature, I hate all signs of distinction, crosses of honor, gold lace, liveries, costumes, honorary titles, etc., and, above all, parades. If I had my way, no general should be distinguished from a soldier, nor a peer of France from a peasant. Why have I never taken part in a review? for I am happy to say, sir, that I am a national guard; I have nothing else in the world but that.

Because the review is always held at a place which I do not like, and because they have fools for officers whom I am compelled to obey. You see⁠—and this is not the best of my history⁠—that, in spite of my conservative opinions, my life is a perpetual sacrifice to the republic. Nevertheless, I doubt if such simplicity would be agreeable to French vanity, to that inordinate love of distinction and flattery which makes our nation the most frivolous in the world.

You see⁠—and this is not the best of my history⁠—that, in spite of my conservative opinions, my life is a perpetual sacrifice to the republic. Nevertheless, I doubt if such simplicity would be agreeable to French vanity, to that inordinate love of distinction and flattery which makes our nation the most frivolous in the world. M.

Nevertheless, I doubt if such simplicity would be agreeable to French vanity, to that inordinate love of distinction and flattery which makes our nation the most frivolous in the world. M. Lamartine, in his grand “Meditation on Bonaparte,” calls the French a nation of Brutuses. We are merely a nation of Narcissuses. Previous to ’89, we had the aristocracy of blood; then every bourgeois looked down upon the commonalty, and wished to be a nobleman.

When, through the force of events, and the natural laws of society, for the development of which France offers such free play, equality shall be established in functions and fortunes, then the beaux and the belles, the savants and the artists, will form new classes. There is a universal and innate desire in this Gallic country for fame and glory. We must have distinctions, be they what they may⁠—nobility, wealth, talent, beauty, or dress. I suspect MM.

Arage and Garnier-Pagès of having aristocratic manners, and I picture to myself our great journalists, in their columns so friendly to the people, administering rough kicks to the compositors in their printing offices. “This man,” once said Le National in speaking of Carrel, “whom we had proclaimed first consul!⁠ ⁠…” Is it not true that the monarchical principle still lives in the hearts of our democrats, and that they want universal suffrage in order to make themselves kings? Since Le National prides itself on holding more fixed opinions than Le Journal des Debats, I presume that, Armand Carrel being dead, M.

Key Concepts

• By nature, I hate all signs of distinction, crosses of honor, gold lace, liveries, costumes, honorary titles, etc., and, above all, parades.
• If I had my way, no general should be distinguished from a soldier, nor a peer of France from a peasant.
• in spite of my conservative opinions, my life is a perpetual sacrifice to the republic.
• such simplicity would be agreeable to French vanity, to that inordinate love of distinction and flattery which makes our nation the most frivolous in the world.
• M. Lamartine, in his grand “Meditation on Bonaparte,” calls the French a nation of Brutuses. We are merely a nation of Narcissuses.
• There is a universal and innate desire in this Gallic country for fame and glory. We must have distinctions, be they what they may⁠—nobility, wealth, talent, beauty, or dress.
• Is it not true that the monarchical principle still lives in the hearts of our democrats, and that they want universal suffrage in order to make themselves kings?

Context

Second Memoir, after describing how he can compromise with monarchy; Proudhon reveals his personal anti‑distinction ethos and uses satire to expose the persistence of monarchical and aristocratic impulses among French democrats and the broader public.