But however widely we may differ in the use of language, however much we may mutually be barbarians to one another, could such a misapprehension, or anything approaching it, be at all possible?

I develop (page 32) my view, explicitly and in detail, to the effect that this is precisely the characteristic mark of the fourth estate, that its principle contains no ground of discrimination, whether in point of fact or in point of law, such as could be erected into a domineering prerogative and applied to reconstruct the institutions of society to that end.  The words I use are as follows (page 32):  “Laborers we all are, in so far as we are willing to make ourselves useful to human society in any way whatever.  This fourth estate, in the recesses of whose heart there lies no germ of a new and further development of privilege, is therefore a term coincident with the human race.  Its concerns are, therefore, in truth the concerns of mankind as a whole; its freedom is the freedom of mankind itself; its sovereignty is the sovereignty of all men.”  And I thereupon go on to say:  “Therefore, whoever appeals to the principle of the working class as the dominant principle of society, in the sense in which I have presented this idea,—­his cry is not a cry designed to divide the classes of society,” etc.  And while I, with all my heart and soul, am making an appeal for the termination of all class rule and all class antagonism, the public prosecutor charges me with inciting the laborers to establish class rule over the propertied classes.  I ask again:  How is such an astonishing misunderstanding to be explained?  Permit me once again, to quote the father against the son: 

“The medium,” says Schelling (Vol.  I, p. 243, Abhandlungen zur Erlaeuterung des Idealismus der Wissenschaftslehre)—­“The medium whereby intellects understand one another is not the circumambient atmosphere, but the joint and common freedom whose movements penetrate to the innermost recesses of the soul.  A human spirit not consciously replete with freedom is excluded from all spiritual communion, not only with others but even with himself.  No wonder, therefore, that he remains incomprehensible to himself as well as to others, and wearies himself in his pitiable solitude with empty words which stir no friendly response whether in his own or in another’s breast.  To be unintelligible to such an unfortunate is a credit and an honor before God and man.”

So says Schelling, the father.

Gentlemen, I have now reached the close of my argument.  It were bootless to ask whether this charge could possibly have any weight with you, Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Court.  But there was probably another design at the root of the prosecution.  The political struggle between the bourgeoisie and the government has lately shown some slight signs of life.  It has, not improbably, been thought that under these circumstances a prosecution for incitement