Rabbeno, that the interval should be one of comparatively low tariff duties.

The third portion of the volume is devoted to the history of the economic theory of protection. It is made up of a criticism of Alexander Hamilton, Frederick List, Henry C. Carey and finally of Professor Patten, these being taken as typical theorists. Here our author appears at his best, and gives a keen and exhaustive analysis which well merits examination. As might be expected, Professor Patten's theory of the relation of rents to international trade is the main point of interest. And the theory that “in an exporting country free trade tends to raise the rent of land" is held "from the abstract point of view as absolutely unassailable." Unfortunately, says our author, rents appear to be rising side by side with the increase of tariff duties, and industrial protection cannot long endure unless the farmers are indemnified by an increase of duties on their products, a truth, be it observed, which the recent Méline tariff of France amply illustrates.

Despite most destructive criticism, our author admits that the theories of Professor Patten really correspond to two great features of American civilization: first, the enormous extent and variety of our land area, demanding a new conception of consumption if we are to utilize its vast resources; and second, an unconscious foreboding of the impending doom of manufacturing industry in face of the persistent fall in profits and the rise of rents. Protection, he says, marks a struggle between the landowner and the entrepreneur; and there will be no settlement of the difficulty under the present system of landowning and production.

The famous statement with regard to the arithmetic of the customs which the author quotes from Professor Ely, should be credited to Dean Swift. WILLIAM Z. RIPLEY.

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

BOSTON, MASS.

The Mark in England and America. A Review of the Discussion on Early Land Tenure. By ENOCH A. BRYAN, A.M. Boston, Ginn & Co., 1893. viii, 164 pp.

It is not quite clear for whom Mr. Bryan has intended his brief sketch of the mark controversy. He certainly would not presume, in view of the limited study he has given to the matter, to speak to specialists, and his style, manner of treatment and knowledge of the relative importance of the various parts of his subject to each other

and to present politics, make the book an unsafe guide for beginners. The economic side of the question has now become so important historically, that a good preliminary sketch of the subject would be extremely useful and, it is to be hoped, will be some day forthcoming. The difficulty with Mr. Bryan's book is that it gives an entirely false impression of the present state of some phases of the controversy, and he treats the pro-markists in so disagreeable a manner as to bespeak the partisan. A word of explanation will illustrate my meaning.

The student who gets his first knowledge of the mark theory from this work will infer that M. Fustel de Coulanges and Mr. Seebohm are absolutely and unqualifiedly right, and that no scholar of any importance or any respect for his historical reputation would still presume to hold other views than theirs. It might surprise such a reader to learn that these views, which in Mr. Bryan's book exclude all else, are after all simply inferences drawn from debatable evidence. He certainly would not be led to infer that some modified form of the mark theory has at the present time a much better prospect of life than the conclusions of those who reject it entirely; nor would he conjecture that so late as the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and ninety-three so thorough a scholar as Professor Vinogradoff can still state it as his belief that between the tribal and the manorial system there existed a distinct transitional form, which was distinguished from the tribe by its territorial basis, from the manor by the freedom of its members, and from both by the extent of its self-government. What I want to say is, that in a review of the discussion these opinions should have been given an honorable place, and should not have been brushed aside as if they were the opinions of ignorant and misguided men. Mr. Bryan's

year of study hardly qualifies him for the position of critic.

It is not necessary to enter into a detailed examination of the book; it offers nothing new except the criticisms upon the mark in America and the mark in economic discussion. As to the first of these points, the theories there controverted have long since gone by default and it hardly seems necessary to revive them; as to the second point, Mr. Bryan has a very exaggerated idea of the importance of the mark theory in practical economics and present politics.

One matter I should like to discuss briefly, as its importance extends much beyond Mr. Bryan's book. It is the prominence given to what is called the "curve" of social evolution (pp. 75, 106-108). When once the idea of such a mathematically accurate curve, "sweeping backward through the slowly changing system of culti

vation to its beginnings," takes possession of the mind, it is difficult to avoid the manipulation of historical facts in its favor, instead of conforming the direction of social advance to the facts. It is possible to modify one of Mr. Bryan's own statements as an argument against him and to say that "if one approaches the evidence with this direction in his mind, he is apt to find the direction in the evidence" (page 22). Throughout the whole of the second and third chapters Mr. Bryan is mastered by this positivist idea, and he seems to be a follower of Condorcet and Comte without knowing it; for his line of progress is destined to lead to human perfectibility if long enough persisted in. Mr. Bryan does not see that it is possible for just as true a social evolution to take place under a theory other than that which he has adopted. He does not see that while the apparent direction of social evolution is represented by a broken. line which sometimes rises and sometimes falls, the real direction is continuously forward. It is impossible for the apparent advance of social progress to be one of unchanging improvement. Economic history is showing that society, through the introduction of new economic factors at certain stages in its history, has passed through periods and crises in which the condition of the mass of the people was worse than before. The transition from tribal to political life, with land as the new economic factor; from self-sufficient to profitgaining economy; from the open-field system to enclosures and rotation of crops; from hand-labor to machinery, - was in each case a crisis and led to the deflection of the apparent line of progress and to disastrous consequences for masses of the population. Yet no one will say that the real direction was not toward a better social order and a truer freedom.

These considerations seem to me to reveal the underlying fallacy in Mr. Bryan's reasoning. That the facts are against him is clear enough. Professor Vinogradoff shows plainly that thirteenth century conditions were worse than those of the eleventh century. Every one knows that thousands of artisans were discharged as machinery was introduced into manufactures, and that the distress of the wageearners in the beginning of this century was greater than in the century before. I affirm that the same was true of the transition from tribal to political life: the apparent change as seen in manorial serfdom was for the worse; the real change, the passing to a higher form of social and political order, was for the better.

BRYN MAWR College.

CHARLES M. ANDREWS.

Abnormal Man. Being Essays on Education and Crime and Related Subjects, with Digests of Literature and a Bibliography.

By ARTHUR MACDONALD. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1893.-445 PP.

This book is evidence of the important position that the scientific study of criminals has assumed, and its publication under the auspices of the national bureau of education is in itself worthy of comment. There is evidently a recognition by the government that the usefulness of its trained staff of assistants can be extended beyond the limits of seed distribution and the collection of population statistics.

People are slowly becoming aware that the proper treatment of the delinquent classes is of the gravest importance, and intimately connected with the welfare of society in general. They begin to see that crime is less an excrescence than an organic disorder, in the treatment of which, while local applications are useful and even indispensable and the scalpel and lancet must often be used, still the main reliance is to be placed on those remedies which affect the organization as a whole- which, restoring the general health, increase the power to reject and resist deleterious influences. The grave dimensions of the problem are bringing its consideration more and more into the foreground, and everywhere at the present day we see scientists resolutely grappling with the difficulties which it involves. However, it must be conceded that the investigations in this domain have been more actively carried on in Europe, and especially on the continent, than in our own land, and hence Mr. MacDonald does the cause of the American study of criminology a great service in presenting the most advanced European views, with a very brief statement of the contents of the various books on the subject.

Mr. MacDonald is well known as a writer who has given to the subjects treated in the book under review his close and earnest study for many years. He apparently is an advocate of the extension of the laboratory method to the study of history, political economy and indeed all manifestations of human will and activity. But he does not devote much space in this book to his own views. His object is rather to make a careful study of the works of others, and, by a very brief summing up, to present the dominant ideas found therein, and to define clearly each author's position. This catalogue raisonné is accordingly of great service to the student. At

times, however, in the author's laudable attempt to present in the tersest form the arguments of extensive works, he has sacrificed clearness to condensation. This happily occurs seldom, less frequently than experience has taught us to expect in a digest.

The bibliography, more than two hundred pages in length, has the great merit of being almost a complete list of books and articles on sociological subjects, criminology, suicide, pauperism, insanity and genius, etc., with a brief discussion of each subject. Even the retention in the list of many articles of ephemeral value-superficial newspaper treatment of matters which belong to the exclusive sphere of the specialist serves at least to show the amount of popular interest existing, and the extent to which the specialist's teachings, by influencing the lay mind, have borne fruit.

S. H. SCHWARZ.

Grundzüge einer Socialpädagogik und Socialpolitik. By PROFESSOR DR. KARL FISCHER. Eisenach, M. Wilckens, 1892. —

429 pp.

The chief aim of Professor Fischer in this work is not so much of a theoretical as of a practical nature, namely, to show how we can emerge from the present state of social war into the state of

social peace. The "war "is that between the Social Democrats and

66

the rest of the German people. Naturally, for the author, the 'enemy" is the Social-Democratic Party. Professor Fischer does not believe that, if their teachings are refuted, the party itself will be annihilated. Therefore, he does not enlarge upon theories, but sets himself a more practical task. From a rapid survey of the writings of the leading Social Democrats he gathers that they have declared war on the monarchic state, on society and on the church, and that they teach republicanism, socialism and atheism. Accordingly, he proceeds to examine these positions.

First, does political science teach republicanism? To settle this question Professor Fischer glances over both ancient and modern history. Observing that the Orient and Egypt know nothing but monarchy, and that in the history of Europe monarchy predominates by far; and observing further that the great majority of thinkers have expressed themselves in favor of the monarchic principle: he concludes that science is against republicanism.

Secondly, does economic science teach socialism? Under this head the author deals with Adam Smith, Ricardo and Marx as