The Project Gutenberg EBook, The Social Contract & Discourses, By This .
The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Social Contract & Discourses, byJean-Jacques Rousseau, Translated by George Douglas Howard ColeThis eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and withalmost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away orre-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License includedwith this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.orgTitle: The Social Contract & DiscoursesAuthor: Jean-Jacques RousseauRelease Date: July 19, 2014[eBook #46333]Language: EnglishCharacter set encoding: UTF-8***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE SOCIAL CONTRACT & DISCOURSES***E-text prepared by Marc D'Hooghe (http://www.freeliterature.org) from pageimages generously made available by the Google Books Library Project(http://books.google.com)Note: Images of the original pages are available throughthe the Google Books Library Project. Seehttp://www.google.com/books?id exNPAAAAMAAJTHE SOCIAL CONTRACT & DISCOURSESbyJEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAULondon & TorontoPublished by J. M. Dent & SonsIn New York by E. P. Dutton & CoEveryman's LibraryEdited by Ernest RhysPhilosophy and TheologyROUSSEAU'S SOCIAL CONTRACT, ETC.Translated with Introduction by G.D.H. Cole,Fellow of Magdalen College, 6333/46333-0.txt[8/5/2015 12:05:38 PM]
For the study of the great writers and thinkers of the past, historicalimagination is the first necessity. Without mentally referring to theenvironment in which they lived, we cannot hope to penetrate below theinessential and temporary to the absolute and permanent value of theirthought. Theory, no less than action, is subject to these necessities;the form in which men cast their speculations, no less than the waysin which they behave, are the result of the habits of thought andaction which they find around them. Great men make, indeed, individualcontributions to the knowledge of their times; but they can nevertranscend the age in which they live. The questions they try to answerwill always be those their contemporaries are asking; their statementof fundamental problems will always be relative to the traditionalstatements that have been handed down to them. When they are statingwhat is most startlingly new, they will be most likely to put it in anold-fashioned form, and to use the inadequate ideas and formulae oftradition to express the deeper truths towards which they are feelingtheir way. They will be most the children of their age, when they arerising most above it.Rousseau has suffered as much as any one from critics without a senseof history. He has been cried up and cried down by democrats andoppressors with an equal lack of understanding and imagination. Hisname, a hundred and fifty years after the publication of the SocialContract , is still a controversial watchword and a party cry. He isaccepted as one of the greatest writers France has produced; but evennow men are inclined, as political bias prompts them, to accept orreject his political doctrines as a whole, without sifting them orattempting to understand and discriminate. He is still revered or hatedas the author who, above all others, inspired the French Revolution.At the present day, his works possess a double significance. They areimportant historically, alike as giving us an insight into the mindof the eighteenth century, and for the actual influence they have hadon the course of events in Europe. Certainly no other writer of thetime has exercised such an influence as his. He may fairly be calledthe parent of the romantic movement in art, letters and life; heaffected profoundly the German romantics and Goethe himself; he set thefashion of a new introspection which has permeated nineteenth centuryliterature; he began modern educational theory; and, above all, inpolitical thought he represents the passage from a traditional theoryrooted in the Middle Ages to the modern philosophy of the State. Hisinfluence on Kant's moral philosophy and on Hegel's philosophy of Rightare two sides of the same fundamental contribution to modern thought.He is, in fact, the great forerunner of German and English Idealism.It would not be possible, in the course of a short introduction, todeal both with the positive content of Rousseau's thought and withthe actual influence he has had on practical affairs. The statesmenof the French Revolution, from Robespierre downwards, were throughoutprofoundly affected by the study of his works. Though they seem oftento have misunderstood him, they had on the whole studied him withthe attention he demands. In the nineteenth century, men continuedto appeal to Rousseau, without, as a rule, knowing him well orpenetrating deeply into his meaning. "The Social Contract ," saysM. Dreyfus-Brisac, "is the book of all books that is most talked ofand least read." But with the great revival of interest in politicalphilosophy there has come a desire for the better understanding ofRousseau's work. He is again being studied more as a thinker and lessas an ally or an opponent; there is more eagerness to sift the truefrom the false, and to seek in the Social Contract the "principles ofpolitical right," rather than the great revolutionary's ipse dixitin favour of some view about circumstances which he could never have;contemplated.The Social Contract , then, may be regarded either as a documentof the French Revolution, or as one of the greatest books dealingwith political philosophy. It is in the second capacity, as a workof permanent value containing truth, that it finds a place among theworld's great books. It is in that capacity also that it will betreated in this introduction. Taking it in this aspect, we have no lessneed of historical insight than if we came to it as historians pure andsimple. To understand--its value we must grasp its limitations; whenthe questions it answers seem unnaturally put, we must not concludethat they are meaningless; we must see if the answer still holds whenthe question is put in a more up-to-date form.First, then, we must always remember that Rousseau is writing in theeighteenth century, and for the most part in France. Neither the Frenchmonarchy nor the Genevese aristocracy loved outspoken criticism,and Rousseau had always to be very careful what he said. This t[8/5/2015 12:05:38 PM]
seem a curious statement to make about a man who suffered continualpersecution on account of his subversive doctrines; but, althoughRousseau was one of the most daring writers of his time, he was forcedcontinually to moderate his language and, as a rule, to confine himselfto generalisation instead of attacking particular abuses. Rousseau'stheory has often been decried as too abstract and metaphysical. This isin many ways its great strength; but where it is excessively so, theaccident of time is to blame. In the eighteenth century it was, broadlyspeaking, safe to generalise and unsafe to particularise. Scepticismand discontent were the prevailing temper of the intellectual classes,and a short-sighted despotism held that, as long as they were confinedto these, they would do little harm. Subversive doctrines were onlyregarded as dangerous when they were so put as to appeal to themasses; philosophy was regarded as impotent. The intellectuals of theeighteenth century therefore generalised to their hearts' content, andas a rule suffered little for their lèse-majesté : Voltaire is thetypical example of such generalisation. The spirit of the age favouredsuch methods, and it was therefore natural for Rousseau to pursuethem. But his general remarks had such a way of bearing very obviousparticular applications, and were so obviously inspired by a particularattitude towards the government of his day, that even philosophy becamein his hands unsafe, and he was attacked for what men read betweenthe lines of his works. It is owing to this faculty of giving hisgeneralisations content and actuality that Rousseau has become thefather of modern political philosophy. He uses the method of his timeonly to transcend it; out of the abstract and general he creates theconcrete and universal.Secondly, we must not forget that Rousseau's theories are to be studiedin a wider historical environment. If he is the first of modernpolitical theorists, he is also the last of a long line of Renaissancetheorists, who in turn inherit and transform the concepts of mediævalthought. So many critics have spent so much wasted time in provingthat Rousseau was not original only because they began by identifyingoriginality with isolation: they studied first the Social Contract byitself, out of relation to earlier works, and then, having discoveredthat these earlier works resembled it, decided that everything it hadto say was borrowed. Had they begun their study in a truly historicalspirit, they would have seen that Rousseau's importance lies just inthe new use he makes of old ideas, in the transition he makes from oldto new in the general conception of politics. No mere innovator couldhave exercised such an influence or hit on so much truth. Theory makesno great leaps; it proceeds to new concepts by the adjustment andrenovation of old ones. Just as theological writers on politics, fromHooker to Bossuet, make use of Biblical terminology and ideas; just asmore modern writers, from Hegel to Herbert Spencer, make use of theconcept of evolution, Rousseau uses the ideas and terms of the SocialContract theory. We should feel, throughout his work, his struggle tofree himself from what is lifeless and outworn in that theory, whilehe develops out of it fruitful conceptions that go beyond its scope. Atoo rigid literalism in the interpretation of Rousseau's thought mayeasily reduce it to the possession of a merely "historical interest":if we approach it in a truly historical spirit, we shall be able toappreciate at once its temporary and its lasting value, to see how itserved his contemporaries, and at the same time to disentangle from itwhat may be serviceable to us and for all time.Rousseau's Emile , the greatest of all works on education, has alreadybeen issued in this series. In this volume are contained the mostimportant of his political works. Of these the Social Contract , byfar the most significant, is the latest in date. It represents thematurity of his thought, while the other works only illustrate hisdevelopment. Born in 1712, he issued no work of importance till 1750;but he tells us, in the Confessions, that in 1743, when he wasattached to the Embassy at Venice, he had already conceived the idea ofa great work on Political Institutions , "which was to put the seal onhis reputation." He seems, however, to have made little progress withthis work, until in 1749 he happened to light on the announcement of aprize offered by the Academy of Dijon for an answer to the question,"Has the progress of the arts and sciences tended to the purificationor to the corruption of morality?" His old ideas came thronging back,and sick at heart of the life he had been leading among the Parislumières , he composed a violent and rhetorical diatribe againstcivilisation generally. In the following year, this work, having beenawarded the prize by the Academy, was published by its author. Hissuccess was instantaneous; he became at once a famous man, the "lion"of Parisian literary circles. Refutations of his work were issued byprofessors, scribblers, outraged theologians and even by the King ofPoland. Rousseau endeavoured to answer them all, and in the course ofargument his thought developed. From 1750 to the publication of theSocial Contract and Emile in 1762 he gradually evolved his .txt[8/5/2015 12:05:38 PM]
in those twelve years he made his unique contribution to politicalthought.The Discourse on the Arts and Sciences , the earliest of the worksreproduced in this volume, is not in itself of very great importance.Rousseau has given his opinion of it in the Confessions . "Full ofwarmth and force, it is wholly without logic or order; of all myworks it is the weakest in argument and the least harmonious. Butwhatever gifts a man may be born with, he cannot learn the art ofwriting in a moment." This criticism is just. The first Discourseneither is, nor attempts to be, a reasoned or a balanced production.It is the speech of an advocate, wholly one-sided and arbitrary, butso obviously and naively one-sided, that it is difficult for us tobelieve in its entire seriousness. At the most, it is only a ratherbrilliant but flimsy rhetorical effort, a sophistical improvisation,but not a serious contribution to thought. Yet it is certain that thisdeclamation made Rousseau's name, and established his position as agreat writer in Parisian circles. D'Alembert even devoted the prefaceof the Encyclopædia to a refutation. The plan of the first Discourseis essentially simple: it sets out from the badness, immorality andmisery of modern nations, traces all these ills to the departure from a"natural" state, and then credits the progress of the arts and scienceswith being the cause of that departure. In it, Rousseau is already inpossession of his idea of "nature" as an ideal; but he has at presentmade no attempt to discriminate, in what is unnatural, between goodand bad. He is merely using a single idea, putting it as strongly ashe can, and neglecting all its limitations. The first Discourse isimportant not for any positive doctrine it contains, but as a key tothe development of Rousseau's mind. Here we see him at the beginningof the long journey which was to lead on at last to the theory of theSocial Contract .In 1755 appeared the Discourse on the Origin and Foundation ofInequality among Men , which is the second of the works given in thisvolume. With this essay, Rousseau had unsuccessfully competed in 1753for a second prize offered by the Academy of Dijon, and he now issuedit prefaced by a long Dedication to the Republic of Geneva. In thiswork, which Voltaire, in thanking him for a presentation copy, termedhis "second book against the human race," his style and his ideashave made a great advance; he is no longer content merely to push asingle idea to extremes: while preserving the broad opposition betweenthe state of nature and the state of society, which runs through allhis work, he is concerned to present a rational justification ofhis views and to admit that a little at any rate may be said on theother side. Moreover, the idea of "nature" has already undergone agreat development; it is no longer an empty opposition to the evilsof society; it possesses a positive content. Thus half the Discourseon Inequality is occupied by an imaginary description of the stateof nature, in which man is shown with ideas limited within thenarrowest range, with little need of his fellows, and little carebeyond provision for the necessities of the moment. Rousseau declaresexplicitly that he does not suppose the "state of nature" ever to haveexisted: it is a pure "idea of reason," a working concept reached byabstraction from the "state of society." The "natural man," as opposedto "man's man," is man stripped of all that society confers upon him, acreature formed by a process of abstraction, and never intended for ahistorical portrait. The conclusion of the Discourse favours not thispurely abstract being, but a state of savagery intermediate between the"natural" and the "social" conditions, in which men may preserve thesimplicity and the advantages of nature and at the same time secure therude comforts and assurances of early society. In one of the long notesappended to the Discourse, Rousseau further explains his position.He does not wish, he says, that modern corrupt society should returnto a state of nature: corruption has gone too far for that; he onlydesires now that men should palliate, by wiser use of the fatal arts,the mistake of their introduction. He recognises society as inevitableand is already feeling his way towards a justification of it. Thesecond Discourse represents a second stage in his political thought:the opposition between the state of nature and the state of society isstill presented in naked contrast; but the picture of the former hasalready filled out, and it only remains for Rousseau to take a nearerview of the fundamental implications of the state of society for histhought to reach maturity.Rousseau is often blamed, by modern critics, for pursuing in theDiscourses a method apparently that of history, but in reality whollyunhistorical. But it must be remembered that he himself lays nostress on the historical aspect of his work; he gives himself outas constructing a purely ideal picture, and not as depicting anyactual stages in human history. The use of false historical conceptsis characteristic of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, t[8/5/2015 12:05:38 PM]
Rousseau is more to be congratulated on having escaped from giving themtoo much importance than criticised for employing them at all.It is doubtful whether the Discourse on Political Economy, firstprinted in the great Encyclopædia in 1755, was composed before orafter the Discourse on Inequality . At first sight the former seems tobe far more in the manner of the Social Contract and to contain viewsbelonging essentially to Rousseau's constructive period. It would not,however, be safe to conclude from this that its date is really later.The Discourse on Inequality still has about it much of the rhetoricallooseness of the prize essay; it aims not so much at close reasoningas at effective and popular presentation of a case. But, by readingbetween the lines, an attentive student can detect in it a greatdeal of the positive doctrine afterwards incorporated in the SocialContract . Especially in the closing section, which lays down the planof a general treatment of the fundamental questions of politics, weare already to some extent in the atmosphere of the later works. Itis indeed almost certain that Rousseau never attempted to put intoeither of the first two Discourses any of the positive content of hispolitical theory. They were intended, not as final expositions of hispoint of view, but as partial and preliminary studies, in which his aimwas far more destructive than constructive. It is clear that in firstconceiving the plan of a work on Political Institutions , Rousseaucannot have meant to regard all society as in essence bad. It is indeedevident that he meant, from the first, to study human society andinstitutions in their rational aspect, and that he was rather divertedfrom his main purpose by the Academy of Dijon's competition than firstinduced by it to think about political questions. It need, therefore,cause no surprise that a work probably written before the Discourse onInequality should contain the germs of the theory given in full in theSocial Contract . The Discourse on Political Economy is important asgiving the first sketch of the theory of the "General Will." It willreadily be seen that Rousseau does not mean by "political economy"exactly what we mean nowadays. He begins with a discussion of thefundamental nature of the State, and the possibility of reconciling itsexistence with human liberty, and goes on with an admirable short studyof the principles of taxation. He is thinking throughout of "political"in the sense of "public" economy, of the State as the public financier,and not of the conditions governing industry. He conceives the Stateas a body aiming at the well-being of all its members and subordinatesall his views of taxation to that end. He who has only necessariesshould not be taxed at all; superfluities should be supertaxed; thereshould be heavy imposts on every sort of luxury. The first part ofthe article is still more interesting. Rousseau begins by demolishingthe exaggerated parallel so often drawn between the State and thefamily; he shows that the State is not, and cannot be, patriarchal innature, and goes on to lay down his view that its real being consistsin the General Will of its members. The essential features of theSocial Contract are present in this Discourse almost as if they werecommonplaces, certainly not as if they were new discoveries on whichthe author had just hit by some happy inspiration. There is everytemptation, after reading the Political Economy , to suppose thatRousseau's political ideas really reached maturity far earlier than hasgenerally been allowed.The Social Contract finally appeared, along with Emile , in 1762.This year, therefore, represents in every respect the culmination ofRousseau's career. Henceforth, he was to write only controversialand confessional works; his theories were now developed, and,simultaneously, he gave to the world his views on the fundamentalproblems of politics and education. It is now time to ask whatRousseau's system, in its maturity, finally amounted to The SocialContract contains practically the whole of his constructive politicaltheory; it requires to be read, for full understanding, in connectionwith his other works, especially Emile and the Letters on the Mount(1764), but in the main it is self-contained and complete. The titlesufficiently defines its scope. It is called The Social Contractor Principles of Political Right , and the second title explainsthe first. Rousseau's object is not to deal, in a general way, likeMontesquieu, with the actual institutions of existing States, but tolay down the essential principles which must form the basis of everylegitimate society. Rousseau himself, in the fifth book of the Emile ,has stated the difference clearly. "Montesquieu," he says, "did notintend to treat of the principles of political right; he was contentto treat of the positive right (or law) of established governments;and no two studies could be more different than these." Rousseau thenconceives his object as being something very different from that ofthe Spirit of the Laws , and it is a wilful error to misconstruehis purpose. When he remarks that "the facts," the actual history ofpolitical societies, "do not concern him," he is not contemptuous offacts; he is merely asserting the sure principle that a fact can [8/5/2015 12:05:38 PM]
no case give rise to a right. His desire is to establish society on abasis of pure right, so as at once to disprove his attack on societygenerally and to reinforce his criticism of existing societies.Round this point centres the whole dispute about the methods properto political theory. There are, broadly speaking, two schools ofpolitical theorists, if we set aside the psychologists. One school, bycollecting facts, aims at reaching broad generalisations about whatactually happens in human societies! the other tries to penetrate tothe universal principles at the root of all human combination. For thelatter purpose facts may be useful, but in themselves they can provenothing. The question is not one of fact, but one of right.Rousseau belongs essentially to this philosophical school. He is not,as his less philosophic critics seem to suppose, a purely abstractthinker generalising from imaginary historical instances; he is aconcrete thinker trying to get beyond they inessential and changing tothe permanent and invariable basis of human society. Like Green, he isin search of the principle of political obligation, and beside thisquest all others fall into their place as secondary and derivative.It is required to find a form of association able to defend andprotect with the whole common force the person and goods of everyassociate, and of such a nature, that each, uniting himself with all,may still obey only himself, and remain as free as before. This isthe fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides thesolution. The problem of political obligation is seen as includingall other political problems, which fall into place in a system basedupon it. How, Rousseau asks, can the will of the State help being forme a merely external will, imposing itself upon my own? How can theexistence of the State be reconciled with human freedom? How can man,who is born free, rightly come to be everywhere in chains?No-one could help understanding the central problem of the SocialContract immediately, were it not that its doctrines often seemto be strangely formulated. We have seen that this strangeness isdue to Rousseau's historical position, to his use of the politicalconcepts current in his own age, and to his natural tendency to buildon the foundations laid by his predecessors. There are a great manypeople whose idea of Rousseau consists solely of the first words ofthe opening chapter of the Social Contract , "Man is born free, andeverywhere he is in chains." But, they tell you, man is not born free,even if he is everywhere in chains. Thus at the very outset we arefaced with the great difficulty in appreciating Rousseau. When weshould naturally say "man ought to be free," or perhaps "man is bornfor freedom," he prefers to say "man is born free," by which he meansexactly the same thing. There is doubtless, in his way of putting it,an appeal to a "golden age"; but this golden age is admittedly asimaginary as the freedom to which men are born is bound, for most ofthem, to be. Elsewhere Rousseau puts the point much as we might putit ourselves. "Nothing is more certain than that every man born inslavery is born for slavery. But if there are slaves by nature, itis because there have been slaves against nature" ( Social Contract ,Book I, chap. ii).We have seen that the contrast between the "state of nature" and the"state of society" runs through all Rousseau's work. The Emileis a plea for "natural" education; the Discourses are a plea for a"naturalisation" of society; the New Héloïse is the romantic'sappeal for more "nature" in human relationships. What then is theposition of this contrast in Rousseau's mature political thought? Itis clear that the position is not merely that of the Discourses. Inthem, he envisaged only the faults of actual societies; now, he isconcerned with the possibility of a rational society. His aim is tojustify the change from "nature" to "society," although it has leftmen in chains. He is in search of the true society, which leaves men"as free as before." Altogether, the space occupied by the idea ofnature in the Social Contract is very small. It is used of necessityin the controversial chapters, in which Rousseau is refuting falsetheories of social obligation; but when once he has brushed asidethe false prophets, he lets the idea of nature go with them, andconcerns himself solely with giving society the rational sanction hehas promised. It becomes clear that, in political matters at any rate,the "state of nature" is for him only a term of controversy. He hasin effect abandoned, in so far as he ever held it, the theory of ahuman golden age; and where, as in the Emile , he makes use of theidea of nature, it is broadened and deepened out of all recognition.Despite many passages in which the old terminology cleaves to him, hemeans by "nature" in this period not the original state of a thing,nor even its reduction to the simplest terms: he is passing over tothe conception of "nature" as identical with the full development ofcapacity, with the higher! idea of human freedom. This view may be xt[8/5/2015 12:05:38 PM]
in germ even in the Discourse on Inequality , where, distinguishingself-respect ( amour de soi ) from egoism ( amour-propre ), Rousseaumakes the former, the property of the "natural" man, consist not inthe desire for self-aggrandisement, but in the seeking of satisfactionfor reasonable desire accompanied by benevolence; whereas egoism isthe preference of our own interests to those of others, self-respectmerely puts us on an equal footing with our fellows. It is true thatin the Discourse Rousseau is pleading against the development of manyhuman faculties; but he is equally advocating the fullest developmentof those he regards as "natural," by which he means merely "good."The "state of society," as envisaged in the Social Contract , is nolonger in contradiction to the "state of nature" upheld in the Emile ,where indeed the social environment is of the greatest importance, and,though the pupil is screened from it, he is none the less being trainedfor it. Indeed the views given in the Social Contract are summarisedin the fifth book of the Emile , and by this summary the essentialunity of Rousseau's system is emphasised.Rousseau's object, then, in the first words of the Social Contract ,"is to inquire if, in the civil order, there can be any sure andcertain, rule of administration, taking men as they are and laws asthey might be." Montesquieu took laws as they were, and saw what sortof men they made: Rousseau, founding his whole system on human freedom,takes man as the basis, and regards him as giving himself what laws hepleases. He takes his stand on the nature of human freedom: on this hebases his whole system, making the will of the members the sole basisof every society.In working out his theory, Rousseau makes use throughout of threegeneral and, to some extent, alternative conceptions. These are theSocial Contract, Sovereignty and the General Will. We shall now have toexamine each of these in turn.The Social Contract theory is as old as the sophists of Greece (seePlato, Republic , Book II and the Gorgias ), and as I elusive.It has been adapted to the most opposite points of view, and used,in different forms, on both sides of every question to which itcould conceivably be applied. It is frequent in mediæval writers,a commonplace with the theorists of the Renaissance, and in theeighteenth century already nearing its fall before a wider conception.It would be a long, as well as a thankless, task to trace its historyover again: it may be fo
The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Social Contract & Discourses, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Translated by George Douglas Howard Cole This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
The Project Gutenberg EBook of First Course in the Theory of Equations, by Leonard Eugene Dickson This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org Title: First Course in the Theory of Equations .
The Project Gutenberg EBook of Emma, by Jane Austen This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net Title: Emma Author: Jane Austen
The Project Gutenberg EBook of 'Jesus Himself', by Andrew Murray This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net Title: 'Jesus Himself' Author .
The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Extermination of the American Bison, by William T. Hornaday This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
The Project Gutenberg EBook of Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net Title: Looking Backward 2000-1887
The Project Gutenberg EBook of Heidi, by Johanna Spyri This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net Title: Heidi (Gift Edition) Author: Johanna .
