- Alone and by itself, "opulence,"
writes Saint-Just, "is a disgrace," and, according to him, a man is
opulent "who supports fewer children than he has thousands of livres
income; in effect, among the persons confined as "rich and egoists" we
find, according to the very declaration of the Revolutionary
Committee, persons with incomes of only 4,000, 3,700, 1,500, and even
500 livres.[121] Moreover, a fortune or a competence, inspires its
possessor with anti-revolutionary sentiments; consequently, he is for
the moment an obstruction; "You are rich," says Cambon, making use of
a personification, "you cherish an opinion, which compels us to be on
the defensive; pay then, so as to indemnify us and be thankful for our
indulgence which, precautionary and until peace is declared, keeps you
under bolt and bar."[122] Rich, anti-revolutionary, and vicious,"
according to Robespierre,[123] "these three traits depend on each
other, and, therefore, the possession of the superfluous is an
infallible sign of aristocracy, a visible mark of incivism" and, as
Fouch? says, "a stamp of reprobation." "The superfluous is an evident
and unwarrantable violation of the people's rights; every man who has
more than his wants call for, cannot use, and therefore he must only
abuse.
Pages:
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727