Max Nettlau in “Liberty”

[one_third padding=”0 10px 0 0px”]

  • Benjamin R. Tucker, “The Literature of Anarchism,” Liberty 13 no. 3 (May, 1897): 4.
  • Benjamin R. Tucker, “On Picket Duty,” Liberty 15 no. 1 (February, 1906): 11.
  • Max Nettlau, “Anarchism in England Fifty Years Ago,” Liberty 15 no. 1 (February, 1906): 44–51.

[/one_third][two_third_last padding=”0 0px 0 10px”]

The Literature of Anarchism.

A remarkable volume has recently been issued in the French language, valuable to all students of social questions and of especial interest to Anarchists. It is nothing less than a classified guide to the literature of Anarchism in all countries and tongues, including books, pamphlets, and newspapers, with titles; names of authors, editors, and publishers; and dates of issue. “Probably a little pamphlet of about thirty-two pages,” the reader may say to himself before seeing it. But on seeing it he will be as surprised as I was to find it a bulky book of almost three hundred large octavo pages. As Elisée Reclus says in the preface: “I confess, for my part, that I did not know we were so rich; the importance that this still incomplete collection has assumed is a great surprise to me.” We are indebted for this work, which must have been one of great labor, to M. Nettlau, a Communist living in London.

Undoubtedly one of the most puzzling features of the compiler’s task was that of evolving a scheme of classification for this “Bibliographie de l’Anarchie” (I had forgotten before to give the title) which would properly dispose of the various schools claiming to be Anarchistic, without doing injustice to any. In my judgment, such a task is intrinsically incapable of accomplishment. To compile a consistent bibliography of Anarchy it is necessary first to determine what Anarchy is, after which it will be a comparatively easy matter to catalogue the works representing that which Anarchy has been decided to be. Then geography, language, and chronology will be the sole motives in the scheme of classification, alphabetical indices supplying a key to the whole. But, if the compiler starts, as Mr. Nettlau appears to have started, with the theory that all are Anarchists who so call themselves, he will promptly and continually come upon blendings and shadings and overlappings and contradictions and contrasts which no arrangement of divisions and subdivisions, however minute, and no system of cross-references, however elaborate, can possibly reduce to order, or shape satisfactorily to any, to say nothing of all. Mr. Nettlau’s book abounds in proofs of this, although containing also plenty of evidence that it was his sincere endeavor to sink his partisanship. Spite of all his efforts to be impartial, the bias of Communism has had its marked effect. In commenting on this, I am moved by no spirit of captiousness. My main feeling is one of gratitude to Mr. Nettlau for the good work he has done. His book in any case is an extremely serviceable one, and the purpose of my criticism is to enable him to make his subsequent editions less imperfect.

At first glance Individualist Anarchism seems to have the place of honor in this compilation, the first thirty or forty pages being devoted to it mainly. But a closer examination shows that Individualist Anarchism is thus placed by the compiler on the theory that it is, or was, one of several precursory influences leading up to what he styles “Modern Anarchism,” which had its beginning as a definitive movement in the final congresses of the Jurassian Federation at the initiative of Kropotkine and Reclus,—in other words, to “Anarchist Communism,” to which the bulk of the volume is given. Of course, under such a scheme, the bulk properly belongs to that school, for Individualist Anarchism hardly exists as a movement outside of the United States and Eng land, in spite of the fact that some of its earliest and most important sources belong to the European continent. But this is no excuse for a scheme of classification which, by implication, if not by direct assertion, treats Individualist Anarchism as a back number, and “Communist Anarchism” as the only Anarchism up to-date. Under this scheme Proudhon, to whom a special chapter is devoted, is counted, of course, only a precursor, though there is nothing Anarchistic in “Communist Anarchism ” that cannot be found in Proudhon’s writings, while there is much in it that is authoritarian to which he would have lent no sanction. And even Bakounine, to my surprise, is not numbered among the purely orthodox. It seems that he was a “Collectivist Anarchist,” whatever that may be. So that the chapter given to him appears immediately preceding the final refinement in the process which has culminated in “Communist Anarchism.”

Now, it is almost needless to say that this arrangement is purely factitious, devised and executed for the purpose of sustaining a theory as to the evolution of Communism,—quite honestly, no doubt, but none the less unwarrantably. That theory is that the more or less rebellious spirits who, from the earliest period in the history of Socialism, have exhibited a growing aversion to the formal authoritarianism of State Socialism have after years of groping through a multitude of vagaries and experimental notions, such as Individualist Anarchism and Mutualism and extreme Manchesterism and Collectivist Anarchism, settled down at last with virtual unanimity upon Communism as the final and complete expression of the libertarian idea and tendency. Nothing could be falser. The truth is that the early rebellion against State Socialism was not prompted by a hatred of authoritarianism exclusively, but frequently—perhaps in most cases—by a hatred simply of formalism. This rebellion grew sporadically, men of force expressing it here and there in their own way. But, as time went on, the two elements of opposition to State Socialism began to crystallize into two distinct movements, and it was at about the same period that they received clear recognition as such. One crystallized into the revolt of the instinctive men, the anti-formalists, and dates as stated, from the final congresses of the Jurassian Federation, (1880), at which the Kropotkinians gained definitive ascendency; the other crystallized into the revolt of the rational men, the anti-authoritarians, and dates from the foundation of Liberty at Boston in 1881. Since then “Communist Anarchism” and Individualist Anarchism have commanded the attention of the world, being confused by the ignorant, and diametrically differentiated by the intelligent. Individualist Anarchism, therefore, instead of being one of numerous forerunners of Communism that have fonally died away or been merged in it, represents a distinctly opposite tendency to that of Communism, which came into emphasis before the public contemporaneously with it.

Now, Individualist Anarchism proposing to substitute for the existing order as well as for the order contemplated by a completer State Socialism a thorough libertarianism, and “Communist Anarchism” proposing to substitute simply a formless and unorganized authoritarianism denying liberty in some of the most important of its applications, it is obvious that the two cannot properly be catalogued in a “Bibliography of Anarchy,” for one is Anarchism and the other isn’t. Nevertheless, there being those who think that this can be done and who insist upon attempting it, it is incumbent upon them to award to each of these schools its proper dignity and treat them in accordance with the lines of evolution upon which they have developed.

That this has not been done in the “Bibliography ” in question is my chief criticism upon it. That in dealing with so large a mass of material Mr. Nettlau should have made some minor errors is not wonderful. On the contrary, the wonder is that he has done his work so accurately. Some of his errors, however, grow out of his erroneous scheme of classification. For instance, Robert Reitzel’s unclassifiable “Arme Teufel,” as well as Bachmann’s “Zukunft,” which leaned strongly towards Individualist Anarchism, are classed with Most’s “Freiheit” and the Chicago “Arbeiterzeitung ” in order to swell the list of “Communist Anarchist ” journals in the German language, while my “Libertas” (the German edition of Liberty, in issuing which the Schumms cooperated with me) and the German translation of my “State Socialism and Anarchism,” as well as all the works of our comrade, John Henry Mackay, and of Dr. Arthur Mülberger, the German champion of Proudhon, are placed in the early pages of the book under the heading, “German Anarchism from 1840 to 1880,” in order to represent us as among the erratic precursors, though all of these appeared subsequent to 1880 (excepting one or two of Mülberger’s) and most of them subsequent to 1890. Again, Lum’s “Alarm ” is placed in the “Communist Anarchist” section of the book, in a list of journals published in the United States. This list, if somewhat heterogeneous, is avowedly distinguished by Mr. Nettlau from Individualist Anarchist journals in the English language; yet Lum’s “Alarm,” in the main, taught the economics and ultimate politics of Individualist Anarchism. Lum himself, too, though characterized by Mr. Nettlau as a Mutualist, appears in the Communist category, and not elsewhere. If he was a Mutualist,—that is, a Proudhonian,—why is he not classed with Mutualists? The same error is made regarding Voltairine de Cleyre. And to Communism is given the credit of the “Twentieth Century’s” economic symposium, “The Why I Am’s,” though of the six contributors to it named by Mr. Nettlau only John Most is a Communist,—Yarros, Lam, and Tucker being Individualist Anarchists, Stuart an Individualist, and Holmes a nondescript. And, most astonishing of all, Henrik Ibsen, certainly the most famous of living Individualist Anarchists, is mentioned but once in the book, and then near the end, in a miscellaneous chapter on modern libertarian literature. It is not strange that the Communists are loth to concede Ibsen to the Individualist Anarchists, but that he belongs with them nobody can deny. Perhaps we ought to congratulate ourselves that Mr. Nettlau does not claim him as a Communist.

Errors of a different sort, such as that which represents Spooner’s “Trial by Jury” as an attack on the jury as an institution, I have not time or space for pointing out. Nor have I the disposition to do so, save as an aid to Mr. Nettlau in his work. I am sure that all my readers will join me in thanking him for his great service, even though his bias partially thwarted his undoubted desire to be fair.

The price of the “Bibliographie de l’Anarchie ” is five francs, and the volume can be obtained of P. V. Stock, 8 Galerie du Theatre Français, Paris. The compiler’s address is M. Nettlau, 36 Fortune Gate Terrace, Willesden, London, N. W.


from “On Picket Duty”

Perhaps some of the older readers of Liberty can give Max Nettlau, the bibliographer of Anarchism, the information which he asks for in the interesting article that I reprint from “Freedom.” I have never seen the pamphlet of which be writes, but there are references in some numbers of Warren’s “Periodical Letter” which indicate that Mr. Nettlau is correct in his surmise that A. C. Cuddon was its author. I think that I met Mr. Cuddon in London in 1874; though considerably more than eighty years of age, he was as enthusiastic a disciple of Warren as ever. Mr. Henry Edger too, the Positivist of whom Mr. Nettlau writes, I met once in New York in 1877, and, as a result of this meeting, he wrote for the “Radical Review,” the quarterly which I published in 1877-78 in New Bedford, Mass., a long article on “Prostitution and the International Woman’s League.” Now that Mr. Bailie’s life of Warren has appeared, it is hardly necessary [15] to correct Mr. Nettlau’s error in calling Warren an Englishman. On the other hand, what is left of the sect of Universologists will learn with joy from Mr. Nettlau’s article that, though since the death of the Pantarch the usually necessary period of one hundred years is far from having elapsed, he has already gained admission to the calendar of the Saints. Mr. Nettlau’s address is: Langham House, College Road, Harrow, Middlesex, England.


[Max Nettlau in London “Freedom.”]

A Contribution towards the Elucidation of the Science of Society
By a Member of the London Confederation of Rational Reformers
“Liberty is the realization of the sovereignty of the individual”
(London: J. Watson, Truelove, Goddard.)

The pamphlet advertised under this title in the “Reasoner,” of October 12 and 19, 1853, is, as far as I know, the first Anarchist propagandist pamphlet published in England. I cannot say where a copy of it may be found, but shall try to show to some extent under what circumstances the individualist Anarchist propaganda to which it belongs came into existence in the early fifties.

Godwin’s “Political Justice” (1793) was never quite forgotten, and was even reprinted in the forties (2 vols., 12mo.). William Thompson’s “Inquiry” (1824), however, though beginning in an almost Anarchist spirit, drifted into Owenism rather, and could not serve as a basis for an Anarchist movement. The mutualism of John Gray (1832, 1842, 1848) is logical, but dry, uninspiring, and anything but revolutionary. The individualism of W. Maccall is purely rhetorical, without aim, and purposeless. The rich Socialist literature of the forties contains no translation of Proudhon, no trace (as far as my limited knowledge goes) of any Proudhonist propaganda. It is wonderful that fifteen years of Chartism did not produce a single writer of mark who, after exposing the futility of the Chartist parliamentary panacea, would have arrived at Anarchism; the Owenites and simple cooperators of those times were anti-political, it is true, but that meant with most of them to acquiesce in any state of political oppression that might exist and just abstained from interfering with them. In France, after but one or two years of experience with representative assemblies (1848–49), parliamentarism was utterly rejected by several Socialists (Considérant, Rittinghausen, etc.) who advocated direct legislation; but the monstrous achievements of universal suffrage, the Napoleonic election and plébiscite, knocked the bottom out of this propaganda, which [45] did not to any extent touch England at all, though one of Considérant’s pamphlets was translated (London, 1851). So the field from which Anarchism might have sprung was almost barren.

In 1850 Thornton Hunt begun to publish the “Leader,” a weekly review, which under his editorship (until January, 1859) was in some sort of contact with the advanced movements, but which later soon degenerated into a malignant anti-democratic paper. Probably the ideas of Josiah Warren (the time store) were known to the readers of Owenite papers by American letters for many years, but to a larger public some letters and reviews published since 1851 in the “Leader” probably first made Anarchism known. Herbert Spencer’s ‘Social Statics” were given a very full review (March 15, 22, April 12, 1851), followed soon by four articles on Proudhon’s French book, “Idée Générale de la Révolution au XIX. Siècle” (September 6, 13, 27, October 18, 1851). Here Proudhon’s famous words of 1840 are reproduced, ending with: “I am an Anarchist,” and it added: “By ‘Anarchy’ he means no more than what our admirable friend Herbert Spencer sets forth as the goal to which civilization is irresistibly tending,—viz., the final disappearance of government, become unnecessary because man will have learned so to control themselves as to need no external coercion.” In another place: “We caution the reader against a natural misapprehension of the word Anarchy, which is not used as synonymous with disorder; but simply what the Greek word implies,—viz., absence of government, absolute liberty;’ etc.

In this paper, then, on July 19, 1851, was published a letter, signed “H. E.” (New York, June 19), in which the writer, who went to America to join Cabet’s Icarien Community, says: “Fourier is more known here than any other European Socialist writer, but Proudhon seems to me more adapted to meet the sympathies of American Socialism. He, in his paradoxical way, proclaims himself an Anarchist; and recently, in England, Herbert Spencer taught substantially the same thing, and tells you that government is not to be regarded as an institution, to be for ever needful to man.” Then he tells how he got acquainted with Stephen Pearl Andrews’s “The True Constitution of Government in the Sovereignty of the Individual” (The Science of Society,” No. 1, New York, 1851). “Here,” he says, “the principle of absolute individualism—or, if Proudhon prefers, we will say Anarchy (an-archê)—is laid down in plain English unconditionally; but the party profess to have made a grand discovery,—viz, of a principle which will render this absolute abolition of government possible and practicable forthwith—at once, by such as choose.” y this he refers to a book then in the press: “Cost the Limit of Price” (“The Science of Society,” No. 2, New York, 1853).

These ideas of individualist Anarchism (which I need not discuss here) were formed at the end of the twenties (1827) by Josiah Warren, an Englishman who had lived in Robert Owen’s New Harmony community, and then began various experiments by himself, His work, “Equitable Commerce: a New Development of Principles as Substitutes for Law and Government,” in part published in 1846, was edited In New York in 1852 by Stephen Pearl Andrews; it was followed by “Practical Details in Equitable Commerce” (New York, 1852).

“H. E.” is Henry Edger (born in Sussex, 1890, died In Versailles, 1888, a London barrister, later on an agriculturist in Modern Times, indications taken from Positivist publications). He sent several other letters to “Ion:” the pseudonym of a contributor to the “Leader.” Next, on March 4, 1851, a lady signing “M” wrote to William Parr on a lecture by St. P. Andrews at the North American Phalanx, in New Jersey, who mentioned the existence of an “equitable” village in Ohio, at that time; land had already been taken on Long Island, where the Modern Times community was soon to be started (the “Leader,” Sept. 6, 1851). On March 13, 1852, “Ion” publishes in The “Leader” a review of Andrews’s “Science of Society,” which had also casually been mentioned in the “Westminster Review.” Henry Edger sends very full notes on Modern Times) as “Trialville” on Long Island had been called (November 91, 1851, in the “Leader” of March 27, 1852): “it seems to me not unworthy of remark that a heresy among social reformers should have sprung up simultaneously on both sides of the Atlantic. Proudhon and Andrews alike discard association, alike proclaim Anarchy; but Andrews, more intelligently to English ears, proclaims it as the sovereignty of the Individual. Nor is Andrews alone here: a small party of thinkers, of whom Henry James and Dr. Curtis may be considered the chief, unite with him In teaching the doctrine that the individual is above the institution. Society is for man—not man for society.” This is, of all the letters by Edger, the most descriptive and fullest of details scarcely anywhere accessible now, I believe. The “Leader” (August 14 and 21, 1852) reviews Henry James’s “Lectures and Miscellanies.” (New York, 1852), saying: “That his thoughts point in the direction of no government, whither Proudhon, Herbert Spencer, and others also tend, will startle only those unaccustomed to modern speculations. Everywhere the police becomes less and less a faith with thinking men; end the necessity for ‘strong government’ in the baser physical sense gets less recognition” (the latter qualification being the means by which the critic of the “Leader” usually retracts everything sensible he has advanced). I have looked up some of the writings of Henry James, but whatever good he may have had to say is hopelessly buried in religious twaddle, and it is impossible to resuscitate him as an Anarchist sympathizer of any use.

A year after his first visit H. Edger saw Modern Times again (letters in the “Leader,” January 8, 1853); the first winter had bean vary trying. “For, there being no association, the first leaders cherishing a horror of Fraternity-sentimentalism, everyone had to shift for himself as he best could.” In 1853 H. Edger spent five months at the North American Phalanx, but expresses himself strongly in favor of Modem Times (letter of July, 1853, the “Leader:’ September 10): “The intelligent portion of social reformers are nearly all looking in the direction of Modem Times. . . . Social reforms, then, which limit themselves to industrial organization, and studiously ignore the existence of the deepest and most widespread social disease, end the social want thereby indicated, may well be failures. . . . The Modern Times reform alone attempts to grapple with this master difficulty, and it does It in the way at once manly and philosophical—of boldly guaranteeing to woman her natural right and highest duty: that of supreme sovereignty in her own legitimate domain— that of the affections. This is the central idea of Fourier’s speculations, the identity of which with the Modern Times movement is again very remarkable. A movement which starts by eliminating altogether the idea of association, or any combination of interests whatever, is coming to effectuate the very reforms which have in this country gone generally by the name of Associationism, while the associations themselves are sinking into inanition.”

In this year Edger, who prepared to go to live at Modern Times, got hold of Positivism, which from that time onward he zealously propagated. Letters of January and February 5, 1854 (the “Leader,” July 8, 1854), and of March, 1854’ (dated Modern Times, ib. July 22), show how it was possible for men of different social ideas to live together at Modern Times. “Beyond our one principle [that of the sovereignty of the individual],” he says, “we are in no wise responsible for each other’s doctrines any more than for each other’s acts, here, In our village of Modern Times. But our principle does this one thing, and here I distinctly take my stand: it unites all of us here in a firm, final protest against the competency of political authorities to decide questions of morals.”

I have not found further letters by Edger in the “Leader,” but the little French volume, “Letters d’Auguste Comte . . . à Henry Edger et à M. John Metcalf” (Paris, Apostolat Positiviste, 1889) contains Comte’s letters to H. Edger at Modern Times, 1854-57, published by Jorge Lagarrigue. Early in 1854 Edger sent his “full adhesion” to Comte, who was delighted over another example “of aptitude towards noble submission with souls who had been most led astray by anarchical utopias” (March 10, 1854). They agreed, it seems, on the “affinity of Catholicism and Positivism,” and Comte recommends “the particular importance of a dignified contact with the Jesuits, to whom, I presume, the supreme direction of the Catholic movement in America belongs. You will feel in this way that their success prepares our success.” These are not jokes, as can be seen from the article, “Auguste Comte et les Jésuites,” by G. Dumas (“Revue do Paris,” October, 1898). Edger entertained Comte with a project of a sort of Positivist colony, which Comte at first rejected (“I cannot accept your proposal of a sort of Positivist monastery”); but Edger maintained his idea of an agricultural colony (1836), and tells Comte of the influence his ideas begin to exercise round him. Comte thinks that Modern Times may, some years hence, “really become a Positivist village,” and after fifteen or twenty years the “spiritualist centre of a Positivist island [Long Island] which would soon form a separate State in the [United States] Federation.”

If Comte addressed himself to the Jesuits, Robert Owen tried to convert the kings of the Holy Affiance, Fourier looked to Napoleon and later on to the never arriving millionaire, and the St. Simonians endeavored to win over a prince to their ideas. It was Blanqui who first struck the note of uncompromising revolutionary Socialism.

As to Henry Edger, we learn more about him and Modern Times from his pamphlet “Modern Times, the Labor Question, and the Family (Modern Times, October 8, 1858), which contains a fair general statement and an exposition of Positivism. I ignore his second tract: “Brief Exposition of Religious Positivism” (1856). His third “Modern Times Tract” is: “The Positive Community: Glimpse of the Regenerated Future of the Human Race. A Sermon Preached at Modern Times . . . 6th September, 1863” (Modern Times, 1804), which is curious, as it shows his endeavor to put forward something real and tangible about Positivist aims.

Modern Times is best known now by Moncure D. Conway’s description, “Fortnightly Review,” 1865; he visited it in 1800, and found all the Anarchist arrangements working very well. Of its end he reports there, as well as in his “Autobiography,” 1904, that “soon after the [American Civil] war broke out, most of those 1 had seen there sailed from Montauk Point on a small ship, and fixed their tents on some peaceful shore in South America” (“ Autobiography”). I hope that fuller accounts are in existence, but have not seen them.

To return to England, Modern Times was described In “Chambers’s Journal,” December 18, 1852—which I have not seen—and in a lecture by William Parr before the British Association at Glasgow, 1855, printed in the “Journal of the Statistical Society of London: June, 1856, pp. 197-143 (“ Equitable Villages in America”). Here is mentioned “The Periodical Letter on the Principles and Progress of the Equity Movement,” a monthly paper by Josiah Warren, since July, 1854, which, like the “Social Revolutionist” and similar papers of early Anarchist experiments in America, seems to be quite inaccessible in Europe.

These remarks led me a long way from the consideration of the pamphlet of October, 1853, mentioned above. I saw it noticed only in a paragraph of the “Leader,” October 15, 1853, headed “New Society of Reformers,” mentioning that this London Confederation of Rational Reformers—perhaps the first English Anarchist group—was “composed, we believe, of seceders from” J. Bronterre O’Brien’s organization, the National Reform League. This was their “initiatory tract.” Perhaps a paper that stands nearer to Bronterre O’Brien’s party may contain further details; Ernest Jones’s “People’s Paper” contains none.

Meanwhile I can only add that the only other Anarchist publication of the fifties which I know is: “The Inherent Evil of all State Government Demonstrated”; being a reprint of Edmund Burke’s celebrated essay, entitled, “A Vindication of Natural Society” [1756], with notes and an appendix, briefly enunciating the principles through which “Natural Society” may be realized. (London, Holyoake & Co., 1858, vi,, 66 pp., 8vo). The notes and appendix are written by an unknown author [50] entirely in sympathy with Josiah Warren’s ideas, and who bad been in Modern Times himself. They contain no reference to any existing propaganda In England. Perhaps Mr. G. J. Holyoake (who knew so well Ebenezer Edger) will be able to supply the name of the author.

I need hardly add that any further indications on this subject—e.g., where this first English propagandist pamphlet may be found, etc.—are more than welcome.

P. S.—Two days after writing the above, when looking over a truly remarkable collection of early literature, my eye caught a four-page leaflet, bound up among currency tracts, which the owner, an old member of the Socialist League, with great kindness let me have, though he had only this copy of it. This is:

An Outline of the Principles, Objects, and Regulation of the London Confederation of Rational Reformers, founded August, 1853, by a few private individuals of the middle and working classes.

This programme, published after the above-mentioned twelve-page tract No. 1, is an amalgamation of the Anarchist ideas of Warren and Andrews with the general demands of advanced reformers of the time. The ideas which the Americans tried to realize in small communities these Englishmen wanted applied to the whole country; hence some practical compromising, but also the idea of a broad and large propaganda.

The secretaries of the new organization were A. McN. Dickey and A. C. Cuddon. With the second name we re-enter known territory, for this is Ambrose Custon Cuddon, whose articles with strong Anarchist leanings in the “Cosmopolitan Review” (London, 1861—Feb. 1, ‘62)—also in the “Working M[an]” (1861-62)—I have long since noticed.

As chairman of the “Working Man’s” Committee be headed the deputation which greeted Bakounine on his escape from Siberia and arrival in London, January 10, 1869; he also spoke at the famous gathering in Freemason’s Hall, August 5, 1862, when the same committee welcomed the French delegates to the International Exhibition and the Idea of the International Working Men’s Association was first alluded to in public. He had been in America early in 1858, and as early as 1841 he was honorary secretary of the “Home Colonization Society,” an organization with somewhat more practical, more immediate intentions than the main Owenite body—as he explained in the [51] “New Moral World,” Leeds, February 13, March 20, 1841. The “Dictionary of National Biography” records Ambrose Cuddon, a Catholic publisher and journalist in the twenties. A. C. Cuddon may have been his son; neither his articles in the sixties nor the above-mentioned programme, 1853, lack some useless religious phraseology. From such a comparison of ideas and style I conclude that A. C. Cuddon wrote the “Programme of the Rational Reformers” of 1853, and it is at least probable to me that be was also the author of the pamphlet in question, and very likely also of the notes to Burke’s Vindication, 1858.


About Shawn P. Wilbur 2703 Articles
Independent scholar, translator and archivist.