Compare and contrast Aristotles and John Lockes ideals of citizenship. How do these differing ideals of citizenship reflect diffe
Four (4) double-spaced pages on the topic below:
Compare and contrast Aristotle’s and John Locke’s ideals of citizenship. How do these differing ideals of citizenship reflect different ideas about human flourishing—about what makes a good life? Whose vision of citizenship is more convincing, and why? Substantiate your answer with textual evidence.
Read the following before writing:
Aristotle, Politics (c. 347-322 B.C.E.), Book III:
Chapters 6-9, 11-12, 15-18, Book IV: Chapters 7-
11, Book VI: Chapters 2-3, Book VII: Chaps. 1-3,
13-14, 17, Book VIII: Chapters 1-2 (48pp.)
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (1690),
Chapters 1-5, 7-9 Chapters 10-15, 18-19
Benjamin Constant(Attached)
CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE
HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT
Series editors
RAYMOND GEUSS
Luturer in Philosophy, University of Cambridge
QUENTIN SKINNER
Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Cambridge
Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought is now firmly established as the major student textbook series in political theory. It aims to make available to students all the most important texts in the
of western political thought, from ancient Greece to the early twentieth century. All the familiar classic texts will be included, but the series seeks at the same time to enlarge the conventional canon incorporating an extensive range of less well-known works, many of them never before available in a modern English edition. Wherever possible, texts are published in complete and unabridged form, and translations are specially commissioned for the series. Each volume contains a critical introduction together with chronologies, biographical sketches, a guide to further reading and any necessary glossaries and textual apparatus. When completed the series will aim to offer an outline of the entire evolution of western political thought.
For a list the series, please see end of book
BENJAMIN CONSTANT
Political Writings
TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY
BIANCAMARIA FONTANA
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CO2 2RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA
10 Stamford Road, OaJdeigh, VIC 3166, Australia Ruiz de AlarcOn 13,28014 Madrid, Spain
Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa
htrp:llwww.cambridge.org
© Cambridge University Press 1988
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 1988 Reprinted 1989. 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000
Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data Constant, Benjamin
The political writings of Benjamin Constant. I. Political science
I. Title II. Fontana, Biancamaria
320 JA71
Library ofCongress Cataloguing in Publication data Constant, Benjamin, 1767-1830
The political writings of Benjamin Constant. (Cambridge texts in the history of political thought)
Bibliography. Includes index.
I. Political science – Collected works. I. Fontana, Biancamaria. II. Title. III. Series.
JC179·c6713 1988 320'.092'4 87-24228
ISBN 0 52 I 30336 2 hardback ISBN 0 52 I 3I 632 4 paperback
IUVCP
Contents
Acknowledgements Introduction
ix
THE SPIRIT OF CONQUEST AND USURPATION AND THEIR RELATION
TO EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION
Bibliographical note Preface to the first edition Preface to the third edition Foreword to the fourth edition
44 45 46 48
Part I . The spirit ofconquest I The virtues compatible with war at given stages of social
development 2 The character of modem nations in relation to war 3 The spirit of conquest in the present condition of Europe 4 Of a military race acting on self-interest alone 5 A further reason for the deterioration of the military class
within the system of conquest 6 The influence of this military spirit upon the internal
condition of nations 7 A further drawback of the formation of this military spirit
51 52 55 56
59
60 62
v
THE LIBERTY
OF THE ANCIENTS
COMPARED WITH THAT
OF THE MODERNS
SPEECH GIVEN AT
THE ATHENEE ROYAL
IN PARIS
Bibliographical note This translation of Constant's speech of 18 I 9 on the liberty of the ancients and the moderns reproduces the text published in his Co/leaion complete des ouvrages publits sur Ie gouvemement representatif et 111, constitution aetuel/e, ou Cout'S de po/itique constitutionnelle, 4 vols. (Paris and Rouen, 1820), vol 4, pp. 238-74.
The speech contains numerous repetitions and refor mulations of passages which appeared in the Spirit of Conquest and Usurpation and in the Principles ofPolitics. The general significance of these reformulations is dis cussed in the Introduction to this volume. It seemed too pedantic to indicate the repeated passages one by one in the annotation, as their presence does not affect the overall originality and interest of this text.
…
Gendemen,
I wish to submit for your attention a few distinctions, still rather new, between two kinds of liberty: these differences have thus far remained unnoticed, or at least insufficiendy remarked. The first is the liberty the exercise ofwhich was so dear to the ancient peoples; the second the one the enjoyment ofwhich is especially precious to the modem nations. If 1 am right, this investigation will prove interesting from two different angles.
Firsdy, the confusion of these two kinds ofliberty has been amongst us, in the all too famous days of our revolution, the cause of many an evil. France was exhausted by useless experiments, the authors of which, irritated by their poor success, sought to force her to enjoy the good she did not want, and denied her the good which she did want.
Secondly, called as we are by our happy revolution (I call it happy, despite its excesses, because I concentrate my attention on its results) to enjoy the benefits of representative government, it is curious and interesting to discover why this form of government, the only one in the shelter of which we could find some freedom and peace today, was totally unknown to the free nations of antiquity.
I know that there are writers who have claimed to distinguish traces ofit among some ancient peoples, in the Lacedaemonian republic for example, or amongst our ancestors the Gauls; but they are mistaken.
The Lacedaemonian government was a monastic aristocracy, and in no way a representative government. The power of the kings was limited, but it was limited by the ephors, and not by men invested with a
30 9
The liberty ojthe ancients compared with that ojthe moderns
~
mission similar to that which election confers today on the defenders of our liberties. The ephors, no doubt, though originally created by the kings, were elected by the people. But there were only five of theln. Their authority was as much religious as political; they even shared in the administration of government, that is, in the executive power. Thus their prerogative, like that of almost all popular magistrates in the ancient republics, far from being simply a barrier against tyranny, became sometimes itself an insufferable tyranny.
The regime of the Gauls, which quite resembled the one that a certain party would like to restore to us,. was at the same time theocratic and warlike. The priests enjoyed unlimited power. The military class or nobility had markedly insolent and oppressive privileges; the people had no rights and no safeguards.
In Rome the tribunes had, up to a point, a representative mission. They were the organs ofthose plebeians whom the oligarchy – which is the same in all ages – had submitted, in overthrowing the kings, to so harsh a slavery. The people, however, exercised a large part of the political rights directly. They met to vote on the laws and to judge the patricians against whom charges had been levelled: thus there were, in Rome, only feeble traces of a representative system.
This system is a discovery of the moderns, and you will see, Gentle men, that the condition of the human race in antiquity did not allow for the introduction or establishment of an institution of this nature. The ancient peoples could neither feel the need for it, nor appreciate its advantages. Their social organization led them to desire an entirely different freedom from the one which this system grants to us.
Tonight's lecture will be devoted to demonstrating this truth to you. First ask yourselves, Gentlemen, what an Englishman, a French
man, and a citizen ofthe United States ofAmerica understand today by the word 'liberty'.
For each of them it is the rightto be subjected only to the laws, and to be neither arrested, detained, put to death or maltreated in any way by the arbitrary will ofone or more individuals. It is the right ofeveryone to
• If the model of the ancient republics had dominared the politics of the Jacobins, during the Restoration the return to feudal liberty became the ideal of the mon archical 'reformers'. The most influential contemporary source is: Robert de Montlosier, D~ II/. ",onarrhitfrlJ.1lflJ.is~. For a survey of the political interpretations of France's feudal past, see: Stanley Mellon, Tht Poli/iCIJI UstS ofHistory, I/. Sludy of HislorialfJ in II" Frmch Resloration (Stanford, California, 1958); Shirley M. Gruner, 'Political Historiography in Restoration France', Hislory IJ.1Id Th{(lry, 8 (1969), 346-65·
310
Speech given at the Athettie Royal
express their opinion, choose a profession and practise it, to dispose of property, and even to abuse it; to come and go without permission, and without having to account for their motives or undertakings. It is everyone's right to associate with other individuals, either to discuss their interests, or to profess the religion which they and their associates prefer, or even simply to occupy their days or hours in a way which is most compatible with their inclinations or whims. Finally it is everyone's right to exercise some influence on the administration of the government, either by electing all or particular officials, or through representations, petitions, demands to which the authorities are more or less compelled to pay heed. Now compare this liberty with that of the ancients.
The latter consisted in exercising collectively, but directly, several parts of the complete sovereignty; in deliberating, in the public square, over war and peace; in forming alliances with foreign governments; in voting laws, in pronouncing judgements; in examining the accounts, the acts, the stewardship of the magistrates; in calling them to appear in front of the assembled people, in accusing, condemning or absolving them. But if this was what the ancients called liberty, they admitted as compatible with this collective freedom the complete subjection of the individual to the authority of the community. You find among them almost none of the enjoyments which we have just seen form part ofthe liberty of the modems. All private actions were submitted to a severe surveillance. No importance was given to individual independence, neither in relation to opinions, nor to labour, nor, above all, to religion. The right to choose one's own religious affiliation, a right which we regard as one ofthe most precious, would have seemed to the ancients a crime and a sacrilege. In the domains which seem to us the most useful, the authority of the social body interposed itself and obstructed the will of individuals. Among the Spartans, Therpandrus could not add a string to his lyre without causing offence to the ephors. In the most domestic of relations the public authority again intervened. The young Lacedaemonian could not visit his new bride freely. In Rome, the censors cast a searching eye over family life. The laws regulated customs, and as customs touch on everything, there was hardly any thing that the laws did not regulate.
Thus among the ancients the individual, almost always sovereign in public affairs, was a slave in all his private relations. As a citizen, he decided on peace and war; as a private individual, he was constrained,
3 11
~ The liberty of the ancients compared with that of the moderns
watched and repressed in all his movements; as a member of the collective body, he interrogated, dismissed, condemned, beggared, exiled, or sentenced to death his magistrates and superiors; as a subject of the collective body he could himself be deprived of his status, stripped of his privileges, banished, put to death, by the discretionary will of the whole to which he belonged. Among the modems, on the contrary, the individual, independent in his private life, is, even in the freest of states, sovereign only in appearance. His sovereignty is re stricted and almost always suspended. If, at fixed and rare intervals, in which he is again surrounded by precautions and obstacles, he exer cises this sovereignty, it is always only to renounce it.
I must at this point, Gentlemen, pause for a moment to anticipate an objection which may be addressed to me. There was in antiquity a republic where the enslavement ofindividual existence to the collective body was not as complete as I have described it. This republic was the most famous of all: you will guess that I am speaking of Athens. I shall return to it later, and in subscribing to the truth of this fact, I shall also indicate its cause. We shall see why, ofall the ancient states, Athens was the one which most resembles the modem ones. Everywhere else social jurisdiction was unlimited. The ancients, as Condorcet says, had no notion of individual rights.- Men were, so to speak, merely machines, whose gears and cog-wheels were regulated by the law. The same subjection characterized the golden centuries of the Roman republic; the individual was in some way lost in the nation, the citizen in the city.
We shall now trace this essential difference between the ancients and ourselves back to its source.
All ancient republics were restricted to a narrow territory. The most populous, the most powerful, the most substantial among them, was not equal in extension to the smallest ofmodem states. As an inevitable consequence of their narrow territory, the spirit of these republics was bellicose; each people incessantly attacked their neighbours or was attacked by them. Thus driven by necessity against one another, they fought or threatened each other constantly. Those who had no ambi tion to be conquerors, could still not lay down their weapons, lest they should themselves be conquered. All had to buy their security, their independence, their whole existence at the price of war. This was the constant interest, the almost habitual occupation of the free states of
• J. A. N. Caritat de Condorcet, Sur /'inslnu:twn puhliqu., p. 47.
3 12
Speech given at the Athenie Royal
antiquity. Finally, by an equally necessary result of this way ofbeing, all these states had slaves." The mechanical professions and even, among some nations, the industrial ones, were committed to people in chains.
The modem world offers us a completely opposing view. The smallest states of our day are incomparably larger than Sparta or than Rome was over five centuries. Even the division of Europe into several states is, thanks to the progress of enlightenment, more apparent than real. While each people, in the past, formed an isolated family, the born enemy of other families, a mass of human beings now exists, that under different names and under different forms of social organization are essentially homogeneous in their nature. This mass is strong enough to have nothing to fear from barbarian hordes. It is sufficiently civilized to find war a burden. Its uniform tendency is towards peace.
This difference leads to another one. War precedes commerce. War and commerce are only two different means of achieving the same end, that of getting what one wants. Commerce is simply a tribute paid to the strength of the possessor by the aspirant to possession. It is an attempt to conquer, by mutual agreement, what one can no longer hope to obtain through violence. A man who was always the stronger would never conceive the idea of commerce. It is experience, by proving to him that war, that is the use of his strength against the strength of others, exposes him to a variety of obstacles and defeats, that leads him to resort to commerce, that is to a milder and surer means of engaging the interest of others to agree to what suits his own. War is all impulse, commerce, calculation. Hence it follows that an age must come in which commerce replaces war. We have reached this age.
I do not mean that amongst the ancients there were no trading peoples. But these peoples were to some degree an exception to the general rule. The limits of this lecture do not allow me to illustrate all the obstacles which then opposed the progress ofcommerce; you know them as well as I do; I shall only mention one of them.
Their ignorance of the compass meant that the sailors of antiquity always had to keep close to the coast. To pass through the pillars of Hercules, that is, the straits of Gibraltar, was considered the most daring of enterprises. The Phoenicians and the Carthaginians, the
• In the 1806 draft, Constant observed: ' … slavery, universally practised by the ancients gave to their mores a severe and cruel imprint, which made it easy for them to sacrifice gentle affections to political interests.' E. Hofmann (ed.), Les 'Principes de Poliliqul, vol. z, p. 428.
3 13
The liberty of the ancients compared with that of the moderns
most able ofnavigators, did not risk it until very late, and their eX8.Jnplf*r' for long remained without imitators. In Athens, of which we shall ~:'{~ soon, the interest on maritime enterprises was around 60%, while~i current interest was only 12 %: that was how dangerous the idea of .. distant navigation seemed."
{..~, Moreover, if I could permit myself a digression which would uat'
fortunately prove too long, I would show you, Gentlemen, through the details of the customs, habits, way of trading with others of the tradina peoples of antiquity, that their commerce was itself impregnated by ~. spirit of the age, by the atmosphere of war and hostility which sur rounded it. Commerce then was a lucky accident, today it is the nOnnal state of things, the only aim, the universal tendency, the true IifeQf: nations. They want repose, and with repose comfort, and as a sourceofi: comfort, industry. Every day war becomes a more ineffective means of satisfying their wishes. Its hazards no longer offer to individuals bene,: . fits that match the results of peaceful work and regular exchanges, Among the ancients, a successful war increased both private and publiq
outcome of these
on
.. wealth in slaves, tributes and lands shared out. For the moderns, even. successful war costs infallibly more than it is worth.
Finally, thanks to commerce, to religion, to the moral and in: tellectual progress of the human race, there are no longer slaves amOIlJ the European nations. Free men must exercise all professions, for all the needs of society.
It is easy to see, Gentlemen, the inevitable differences.
Firstly, the size of a country causes a corresponding decrease of the political importance allotted to each individual. The most obscure republican of Sparta or Rome had power. The same is not true of the simple citizen of Britain or ofthe United States. His personal influence is an imperceptible part of the social will which impresses government its direction.
Secondly, the abolition of slavery has deprived the free population all the leisure which resulted from the fact that slaves took care of mOSl ofthe work. Without the slave population of Athens, 20,000 Athenian14 could never have spent every day at the public square in discussions.
Thirdly, commerce does not, like war, leave in men's lives intervals of inactivity. The constant exercise of political rights, the daily dis cussion of the affairs of the state, disagreements, confabulations, the whole entourage and movement of factions, necessary agitations, the
3 14
Speech given at the Athettie Royal
compulsory filling, if I may use the term, of the life of the peoples of antiquity, who, without this resource would have languished under the weight of painful inaction, would only cause trouble and fatigue to modem nations, where each individual, occupied with his speculations, his enterprises, the pleasures he obtains or hopes for, does not wish to be distracted from them other than momentarily, and as little as possible.
Finally, commerce inspires in men a vivid love ofindividual indepen dence. Commerce supplies their needs, satisfies their desires, without the intervention of the authorities. This intervention is almost always and I do not know why I say almost – this intervention is indeed always a trouble and an embarrassment. Every time collective power wishes to meddle with private speculations, it harasses the speculators. Every time governments pretend to do our own business, they do it more incompetently and expensively than we would.
I said, Gentlemen, that I would return to Athens, whose example tnight be opposed to some of my assertions, but which will in fact confirm all of them.
Athens, as I have already pointed out, was of all the Greek republics the most closely engaged in trade:" thus it allowed to its citizens an infinitely greater individual liberty than Sparta or Rome. If I could enter into historical details, I would show you that, among the Athe nians, commerce had removed several of the differences which dis tinguished the ancient from the modem peoples. The spirit of the Athenian merchants was similar to that of the merchants of our days. Xenophon tells us that during the Peloponnesian war, they moved their capitals from the continent of Attica to place them on the islands of the archipelago. Commerce had created among them the circulation of money. In Isocrates there are signs that bills of exchange were used. Observe how their customs resemble our own. In their relations with women, you will see, again I cite Xenophon, husbands, satisfied when peace and a decorous friendship reigned in their households, make allowances for the wife who is too vulnerable before the tyranny of nature, dose their eyes to the irresistible power ofpassions, forgive the first weakness and forget the second. In their relations with strangers, we shall see them extending the rights ofcitizenship to whoever would,
• Constant's notes to the 1806 draft show that he derived most of his illustrations and examples about Athens in this passage from Cornelius de Pauw, Rechl1Tches phi/OSo phiques su' ks Crt"" vol. I, pp. 93ff.
3 1 5
The liberty of the ancients compared with that ofthe moderns
by moving among them with his family, establish some trade or try. Finally, we shall be struck by their excessive love of individual independence. In Sparta, says a philosopher, the citizens quicken step when they are called by a magistrate; but an Athenian would be desperate if he were thought to be dependent on a magistrate.
However, as several of the other circumstances which determined' the character of ancient nations existed in Athens as well; as there was'i " slave population and the territory was very restricted; we find there too the traces of the liberty proper to the ancients. The people made the laws, examined the behaviour of the magistrates, called Pericles to account for his conduct, sentenced to death the generals who had commanded the battle of the Arginusae. Similarly ostracism, that legal. arbitrariness, extolled by all the legislators of the age; ostracism, which appears to us, and rightly so, a revolting iniquity, proves that the individual was much more subservient to the supremacy of the social , body in Athens, than he is in any of the free states of Europe today,
It follows from what I have just indicated that we can no longer enjoy the liberty of the ancients, which consisted in an active and constant participation in collective power. Our freedom must consist ofpeaceful enjoyment and private independence. The share which in antiquity everyone held in national sovereignty was by no means an abstract presumption as it is in our own day. The will of each individual had real influence: the exercise of this will was a vivid and repeated pleasure. Consequently the ancients were ready to make many a sacrifice to preserve their political rights and their share in the administration of the state. Everybody, feeling with pride all that his suffrage was worth, found in this awareness of his personal importance a great compensation.
This compensation no longer exists for us today. Lost in the multi tude, the individual can almost never perceive the influence he exer cises. Never does his will impress itself upon the whole; nothing confirms in his eyes his own cooperation.
The exercise ofpolitical rights, therefore, offers us but a part of the pleasures that the ancients found in it, while at the same time the progress of civilization, the commercial tendency of the age, the com munication amongst peoples, have infinitely multiplied and varied the means of personal happiness.
• Xenophon, De Republi((J L~iu"., VIn, 2 in: J. M:.Moore (ed.), Aristotle and Xmophon on dtrnocracy and oIigardry (London, 1975).
316
Speech given at the Athence Royal
It follows that we must be far more attached than the ancients to our individual independence. For the ancients when they sacrificed that independence to their political rights, sacrificed less to obtain more; while in making the same sacrifice, we would give more to obtain less.
The aim of the ancients was the sharing of social power among the citizens of the same fatherland: this is what they called liberty. The aim of the modems is the enjoyment of security in private pleasures; and they call liberty the guarantees accorded by institutions to these pleasures.
I said at the beginning that, through their failure to perceive these differences, otherwise well-intentioned men caused infinite evils during our long and stormy revolution. God forbid that I should reproach them too harshly. Their error itself was excusable. One could not read the beautiful pages of antiquity, one could not recall the actions of its great men, without feeling an indefinable and special emotion, which nothing modem can possibly arouse. The old elements of a nature, one could almost say, earlier than our own, seem to awaken in us in the face of these memories. It is difficult not to regret the time when the faculties ofman developed along an already trodden path, but in so wide a career, so strong in their own powers, with such a feeling of energy and dignity. Once we abandon ourselves to this regret, it is impossible not to wish to imitate what we regret. This impression was very deep, especially when we lived under vicious governments, which, without being strong, were repressive in their effects; absurd in their principles; wretched in action; governments which had as their strength arbitrary power; for their purpose the belittling of mankind; and which some individuals still dare to praise to us today, as ifwe could ever forget that we have been the witnesses and the victims of their obstinacy, of their impotence and of their overthrow. The aim of our reformers was noble and generous. Who among us did not feel his heart beat with hope at the outset of the course which they seemed to open up? And shame, even today, on whoever does not feel the need to declare that acknowledging a few errors committed by our first guides does not mean blighting their memory or disowning the opinions which the friends of mankind have professed throughout the ages.
But those men had derived several oftheir theories from the works of two philosophers who had themselves failed to recognize the changes brought by two thousand years in the dispositions of mankind. I shall perhaps at some point examine the system of the most illustrious of
31 7
The liberty ojthe ancients compared with that ofthe moderns Speech given at the Athenee Royal
these philosophers, ofJean-Jacques Rousseau, and I shall show that, by transposing into our modern age an extent ofsocial power, ofcollective:. sovereignty, which belonged to other centuries, this sublime genius, animated by the purest love of liberty, has nevertheless fUrnished deadly pretexts for more than one kind of tyranny. No doubt, in pointing out what I regard as a misunderstanding which it is imPOrtant to uncover, I shall be careful in my refutation, and respectful in my criticism. I shall certainly refrain from joining myself to the detractors of a great man. When chance has it that I find myself apparently in agreement with them on some one particular point, I suspect myself; and to console myself for appearing for a moment in agreement with them on a single partial question, I need to disown and denounce with all my energies these pretended allies.
Nevertheless, the interests of truth must prevail over considerations which make the glory of a prodigious talent and the authority of an immense reputation so powerful. Moreover, as we shall see, it is not to Rousseau that we must chiefly attribute the error against which I am going to argue; this is to be imputed much more to one of his suc cessors, less eloquent but no less austere and a hundred times more exaggerated. The latter, the abbe de Mably, can be …
,
Politics
Aristotle Translated by Benjamin Jowett
Batoche Books Kitchener
1999
Contents BOOK ONE …………………………………………………………………… 3 BOOK TWO ………………………………………………………………… 22 BOOK THREE …………………………………………………………….. 51 BOOK FOUR ………………………………………………………………. 80 BOOK FIVE ………………………………………………………………. 108 BOOK SIX ………………………………………………………………… 140 BOOK SEVEN …………………………………………………………… 152 BOOK EIGHT ……………………………………………………………. 180
BOOK ONE Part I
Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is es- tablished with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.
Some people think that the qualifications of a statesman, king, house- holder, and master are the same, and that they dif
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.