Here then arises a distinction between Fourierism as a theory propounded by Fourier, and Fourierism as a practical movement administered in this country by Brisbane and Greeley. The constitution of a country is one thing; the government is another. Fourier furnished constitutional principles; Brisbane was the working President of the administration. We must not judge Fourier's theory by Brisbane's execution. We can not conclude or safely imagine, from the actual events under Brisbane's administration, what would have been the course of things, if Fourier himself had been President of the American movement. It might have been worse; or it might have been better. It certainly would not have been the same; for Brisbane was a very different man from Fourier. For one thing, Fourier was practically a cautious man; while Brisbane was a young enthusiast. Again, Fourier was a poor man and a worker; while Brisbane was a capitalist. Our impression also is, that Fourier was more religious than Brisbane. From these differences we might conjecture, that Fourier would not have succeeded so well as Brisbane did, in getting up a vast and swift excitement; but would have conducted his operations to a safer end. At all events, it is unfair to judge the French theory by the American movement under Brisbane. The value of Fourier's ideas is not determined, nor the hope of good from them foreclosed, merely by the disasters of these local experiments. And, to deal fairly all round, it must further be said, that it is not right to judge Brisbane by such experiments as that of the Sylvania Association. Let it be remembered that, with all his enthusiasm, he gave warning from time to time in his publications of the deficiencies and possible failures of these hybrid ventures; and was cautious enough to keep himself and his money out of them. We have not found his name in connection with any of the experiments, except the North American Phalanx; and he appears never to have been a member even of that; but only was recommended for its presidency by the Fourier Association of New York, which was a sort of mother to it. What then shall we say of the rank-and-file that formed themselves into Phalanxes and marched into the wilderness to the music of Fourierism? Multitudes of them, like the poor Sylvanians, lost their all in the battle. To them it was no mere matter of theory or pleasant propagandism, but a miserable "Bull Run." And surely there was a great mistake somewhere. Who was responsible for the enormous miscalculation of times, and forces, and capabilities of human nature, that is manifest in the universal disaster of the experiments? Shall we clear the generals, and leave the poor soldiers to be called volunteer fools, without the comfort even of being in good company? After looking the whole case over again, we propose the following distribution of criticism: