the Italian, English, or French books that had been written on the
science lined his shelves and covered his table. We read and discussed
them together, noting down the remarks that they suggested. The science
of political economy, which at that time laid down, as it still does in
the present day, more axioms than truths, and proposed more problems
than it can solve, had for us precisely the charm of mystery. It
became, moreover, between us an endless theme for those conversations
which exercise the intelligence without engrossing the mind, and suffer
us to feel, even while conversing, the presence of the one secret and
continuous thought concealed in the inmost recesses of our hearts. It
was an enigma of which we sought the answer without any great desire to
find it. After having read, examined, and noted all that constituted
the science at that time, I fancied I could discern a few theoretical
principles true in their generality, doubtful in their application,
ambitiously aspiring to be classed among absolute truths, often hollow
or false in their formula. I had no objection to make, but my
instinctive desire of demonstration was not thoroughly satisfied. I
threw down the books and awaited the light. Political economy at that
time did not exist; being an entirely experimental science, it had
neither sufficient maturity nor long standing to affirm so positively.
Since then it has progressed and promises to statesmen a few dogmas
which may be applied cautiously to society, a few sources of general
comfort, and some new ties of fraternity, to be strengthened between
nations.




LXIX.