exercises not for himself, but for several, for many, for the nation, or also for foreigners." (Page 327.) Thus the differentiation of the primitive professions of priest, warrior, and official is an example of the division of labor. This idea is not in itself new, but its treatment is extremely skillful and suggestive, especially as it is fully illustrated by statistics showing the division of labor in modern states. In describing the general results and contrasting the optimistic view of classical economics with the pessimistic view of the socialists, he says: "The division of labor is neither an absolutely harmonious, nor an entirely anarchical but a social process, which has its foundation in unity of speech, thought, needs, and moral ideas, and its support in unity of custom, law, and commercial organization. It is a battlefield upon which strife for the mastery and error have left their marks, but it is at the same time a community of peace with an increasing moral order." (Page 363.)

The subject of social classes does not immediately follow that of the division of labor, but a chapter upon property and its distribution is inserted between the two. The book ends with an admirable chapter upon the forms of business enterprise, in which not only the various types of industry, such as small trades, house industry, factories, etc., are described, but also the legal organization which shows itself in the modern firm, the joint stock company, the coöperative society and the union of undertakers known as a trust, or ring.

From what has been said of this volume one might judge that the method adopted by Professor Schmoller was entirely that of the historian. In his discussion of method, however, he shows that he takes a much broader view. He does not confine himself to observation and analysis. He also recognizes the importance of deduction as a logical aid. "Those," he says, "who are regarded as the advocates of inductive investigation among modern German economists, do not condemn deduction as such, but only such deduction as rests on shallow, insufficient premises, which they believe they can replace by more exact ones, based upon better observation." (Page 110.) The distinction is obviously one of degree and proportion rather than of essence. Professor Schmoller does not reject deduction, Professor Men

ger, Professor Wagner and the English economists do not reject induction. But Professor Schmoller has less confidence in the former and more in the latter.

II.

Having endeavored to explain the conception of the aim and method of economics which Professor Schmoller's book embodies, we must now say a few words with regard to the success with which he has realized his ideal. That the book gives evidence of broad scholarship will be readily taken for granted, but it does much more. It shows a thorough grasp of the subjects treated. We have here an example of the best work of the historical school. In reading Roscher one cannot always avoid the impression that his historical lore has been pigeon-holed rather than digested. In the case of Schmoller it is all assimilated. Moreover the story is told in a most agreeable form. The book is never tedicus. Though filled with references to a wide range of literature, with descriptions, and with statistics, it is written with a grace of style which prevents the reader from being overpowered by the mass of facts presented. A very remarkable thing is that in the whole book there is not a single foot-note, so that the reader can follow the thought of the author without interruption. The convenience of the reader is further ministered to by a full analytical table of contents, by the division of the book into paragraphs, by running head lines at the tops of the pages, and by two full alphabetical indices at the end, one referring to persons, the other to subjects. Finally the book is published in a neat cloth binding with the leaves cut, a convenience which every consumer of foreign books will certainly appreciate. All of these mechanical and semi-mechanical details deserve full recognition, as well as the comparative freedom of the book from misprints. The few that we have noted have been mainly in the spelling of foreign words and are seldom of importance. It is the more to be regretted that, since so much was done for the reader, the publishers did not go one small step farther and use Latin type, a concession which even the great Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenchaften has made in its second edition. For one who desires a comprehensive review of economic history

and of the growth of economic institutions written in the evolutionary spirit, no better work can be found than the present volume.

This statement does not, of course, imply that the book is infallible. The very fact that the author has undertaken to cover so many auxiliary sciences, such as history, philosophy, geography, ethnology, sociology, must render him peculiarly liable to errors which will be detected by specialists. Take e. g., the second chapter of Book I, in which he enters into a description of the economic peculiarities of the different nations of the world. In speaking of the inhabitants of the United States he says: "Precocious children, half-grown youths rush into the chase for the dollar. It is true that moral elements are not lacking: in the old New England States there is still found Puritan Quakerism; in New York there is still something of the Dutch thrift; in Virginia and other Southern States the traditions of the English aristocracy have not died out, while in Boston and Philadelphia English learning is mixed with American Puritanism. On the whole, however, the character is everywhere similar. They are efficient (tüchtige) men, but without deep culture, without rich feeling, without amiability. . Enthusiasm is, in the United States, a rare thing; cool calmness of mind is necessary in order to become rich. Even the view of the Falls of Niagara only awakens in the Yankee the thought of how much unused water power is going to waste." (Page 157.) Professor Schmoller disarms criticism at the very opening of this section by speaking of the difficulty of getting at the exact facts and especially of expressing the truth in a few lines, and as he has never visited the United States, any criticism of the onesidedness of this characterization would apply less to him than to those from whom he has derived his information. American readers of German newspapers will be as little surprised at this passage, as at the statement that the Englishman "brutalizes and abuses the weaker races and classes." The important point is, not that such statements are misleading, but that they are gratuitous. The degree of fondness which the Yankee shows for the almighty dollar may be important to the German immigrant who settles in the United States, but it is not clear that it has any

effect upon economic principles. If the object of the section is to prove that men are not exactly alike in their temper and mental attributes in all parts of the world, it is unnecessary. Every child old enough to read knows that. If it is intended to go further and prove that these differences essentially modify economic processes, that, e. g., wages, interest, rent, are determined by different principles in different countries on account of these mental peculiarities, it is inadequate. In its implication that there exists a distinct and definable national type, especially in a country containing such heterogeneous elements as the United States, it is misleading.

Another thing which will, perhaps, strike the reader is that the proper proportion is not always observed in the treatment of individual subjects. A chapter of twenty-five pages, e. g., is devoted to the consideration of the family, and Professor Schmoller goes at great length into the much debated question as to whether the patriarchal family was generally the beginning of social organization or whether it was preceded by the matriarchal. It is difficult to see how this question, regarding which the evidence is at best very incomplete, can affect any purely economic question. On the other hand, the subject of the division of labor, which is so admirably treated, might well have been expanded in its purely mechanical part, and we miss altogether in this part of the work any attempt to define, analyze, and explain capital. This subject is obviously reserved for the second volume, and yet one would naturally think that if labor, population, land, and natural resources are so fully discussed in this part, as well as the different forms of organizing capital, the important category of capital as such would receive thorough treatment in the same connection.

There is another peculiarity of the book which the writer hesitates to touch upon for fear of doing injustice to Professor Schmoller. And yet precisely to prevent injustice and misinterpretation it should be referred to. In some parts of the book there is a tendency to use derogatory epithets and expressions regarding authors and opinions, which often seem to contradict the judgment expressed in other parts of the same book, and to be quite at variance with Professor Schmoller's natural generosity and fairness. Such words as schablonenhaft

kindlich-phrasenhaft-are not uncommon, and it would be easy, by putting together such passages, to make the author seem intolerant of all who differ with him in opinion or who do not belong to his school. Indeed, there are not lacking German economists of distinction who have reproached him with such a spirit. Not only in the use of phrases, but also in the general method of treatment does this tendency occasionally show itself. In the introduction of the chapter on the growth of scientific economics in the present century, he refers to certain writers of the XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries as the forerunners of the present scholars, who are endeavoring to increase the stock of accepted truth. Among them he mentions Süssmilch, but does not mention Malthus. He refers to Arthur Young's travels, but leaves out Adam Smith. The impression which one inevitably gets from a first reading of this section is that Süssmilch and Young were scientific authors while Malthus and Adam Smith were not. Yet in speaking of Adam Smith he says quite frankly that his work "bears the stamp of sober science and empirical investigation" (page 91), and in speaking of population he gives a fair account of the theory of Malthus. One cannot but feel that there is an apparent tendency to overrate the importance of purely descriptive, monographic work, which may not in reality agree with Professor Schmoller's own estimate of it. The best proof certainly that he considers the monographic work to be but a preparation for systematic work, lies in the fact that he himself should have undertaken the publication of a general treatise.

As stated above, it is not possible at the present time to estimate the positive advances in economic theory which Professor Schmoller's book will make, because the theoretical part is still to come. To estimate the final effects of the economic policy of which he is an advocate and which in Germany goes popularly by the name of Kathedersozialismus, is equally impossible in view of the comparatively short experience that we have had and the uncertainty as yet of the results. Even a brief discussion of it would carry us beyond the limits of the present article. We only note, in passing, that though he has always been an advocate of what is called state socialism and a strong opponent of the doctrine of laissez-faire, he recognizes that the movement must have its limits when he says: "Whether we have not now already