Copy-edit the new Marx quote

diff --git a/Sources/Page/MarxQuotes.djot b/Sources/Page/MarxQuotes.djot
index b7e4005b9fb37a6ed9d9ba9c8e77c8dda4d52ea0..339e427378c960f5660de38ce3dd67d3f8da5b6d 100644 (file)
--- a/Sources/Page/MarxQuotes.djot
+++ b/Sources/Page/MarxQuotes.djot
@@ -492,39 +492,48 @@ It does not precede it.
 {as=figure}
 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::
 > But in spite of all his apparent iconoclasm one already finds in
->   Qu’est-ce que la propriété’?  the contradiction that Proudhon is
+>   _Qu’est-ce que la propriété_{as="cite" lang="fr"}? the
+>   contradiction that Proudhon is
 >   criticising society, on the one hand, from the standpoint and with
->   the eyes of a French small-holding peasant (later petit bourgeois)
+>   the eyes of a French small-holding peasant (later
+>   _petit bourgeois_{as="i" lang="fr"})
 >   and, on the other, that he measures it with the standards he
 >   inherited from the socialists.
 >
 > The deficiency of the book is indicated by its very title.
 >   The question is so badly formulated that it cannot be answered
 >   correctly.
-> Ancient “property relations” were superseded by feudal property
->   relations and these by “bourgeois” property relations.
->   Thus history itself had expressed its criticism upon past property
->   relations.
-> What Proudhon was actually dealing with was modern bourgeois
->   property as it exists today.
+> _Ancient “property relations”_ were superseded by _feudal_ property
+>   relations and these by “_bourgeois_” property relations.
+>   Thus history itself had expressed its criticism upon past
+>   _property
+>   relations_.
+> What Proudhon was actually dealing with was _modern bourgeois
+>   property_ as it exists today.
 > The question of what this is could have only been answered by a
->   critical analysis of “political economy,” embracing the totality of
->   these property relations, considering not their legal aspect as
->   relations of volition but their real form, that is, as relations of
->   production.
+>   critical analysis of “_political economy_,” embracing the totality
+>   of
+>   these _property relations_, considering not their _legal_ aspect
+>   as
+>   _relations of volition_ but their real form, that is, as
+>   _relations of
+>   production_.
 > But as Proudhon entangled the whole of these economic relations in
->   the general legal concept of “property,” “la propriété,” he could
+>   the general legal concept of “_property_,”
+>   “_la propriété_{as="i" lang="fr"},” he could
 >   not get beyond the answer which, in a similar work published before
->   1789, Brissot had already given in the same words: “La propriété
->   c’est le vol.”
+>   1789, Brissot had already given in the same words: “_La propriété
+>   c’est le vol._{as="i" lang="fr"}”
 >
 > The upshot is at best that the bourgeois legal conceptions of
->   “theft” apply equally well to the “honest” gains of the bourgeois
+>   “_theft_” apply equally well to the “_honest_” gains of the
+>   bourgeois
 >   himself.
-> On the other hand, since “theft” as a forcible violation of
->   property presupposes the existence of property, Proudhon entangled
+> On the other hand, since “_theft_” as a forcible violation of
+>   property _presupposes the existence of property_, Proudhon
+>   entangled
 >   himself in all sorts of fantasies, obscure even to himself, about
->   true bourgeois property.
+>   _true bourgeois property_.
 {as=figcaption}
 :::::::::::::::
 “What is property?” is a bad question;