should make sure whether it points to theistic purpose or pantheistic necessity. Our author does not make the matter clear.

The vogue this book has had in England is a striking offset to the remark, sometimes made of late, that "Calvinism has gone from England, and left not a shadow behind." Such a remark shows a strange obliviousness to the persistence, in all the history of thought, of the stern and serious view of life, represented in varying phases by Stoic against Epicurean, by Augustine against Pelagius, by Calvin against Arminius. In spite of many excrescences that have attached themselves to this view of human life, the general scheme of thought suggested by a proper use of the word "Calvinism" has been associated with a large part of that which has been noblest in character and grandest in achievement. Kidd's "Social Evolution," like the rest of the Darwinian literature, is strongly and in places extremely Calvinistic. He does not use the theological terminoiogy, but the theological reader inevitably translates. Behold original sin extended to the whole realm of organic life in the averment, that if individuals were allowed to follow their own inclinations the tendency in all species would be distinctly the reverse of progress (p. 34). In the accumulation by natural selection of congenital variations, but not of acquired characteristics (p. 192), what a sweeping doctrine of absolute election and prevenient grace injecting the desirable characteristics before the individuals are born! In science (or the scientific man) complacently viewing the host exterminated in the process of securing the advance of an infinitesimal number (chaps. ii. and iii.), one finds the counterpart of some scholastic theologian, writing without a tremor of pity, in his cell far from human fellowship, of the doctrine of Reprobation. The extremest high Calvinism of science is reached, however, in the varied phrases which exclude free will and all second causes: "Character a product of circumstances" (p. 25); “Every quality of mind and body a product of this rivalry" (p. 211); “Progress born of conditions" (p. 41); "We are all the creatures of inheritance and environment" (p. 76); “No power to help ourselves" (p. 189); “Destiny which works itself out irresistibly ' (p. 46). The frequency of such phrases shows the strong fatalistic drift of studies in Natural History, unless one has been better grounded than our author in metaphysics.

The fourth chapter of the book finds "the central feature of human history" in the strife between religion and reason. Yet in another place (p. 116), he calls religious beliefs "the natural and inevitable complement of our reason"; and again (p. 194) says, "The central feature of human history" is the "dominance of that progressively developing class of phenomena included under the head of religious." This is by no means the only instance of discord between different parts of the book.

In treating of the conflict between reason and religion, Mr. Kidd makes the reason capable of considering nothing but self-interest, and uses "rational sanction" as equivalent to selfish utility. From his failure

to discern that the whole conflict described is caused by the element of selfishness or sin that has slipped in beside "reason," he is not aware that this part of the book is only a confused and confusing attempt to give in terms of modern science an exposition of Paul's law in his members warring against the law of his mind. Paul gives us an assured hope of an end of the struggle through the power of Christ. This peace is not, as Mr. Kidd would find it, through the subordination of the individual and his interests to the antagonistic interests of the social organism (p. 103), nor through the surrender of the reason to “ultra-rational sanctions,” but is found in the “reasonable service" of the re-born sons of God.

When we pass to the parts of the book more closely connected with its title, we find, as in the subsidiary parts, a broad and breezy treatment that is everywhere interesting and suggestive of thought, but everywhere raising question marks both as to the meaning of terms and the correctness of details. His fundamental thesis is vastly important and no doubt true, that social progress has no tendency to eliminate competition or rivalry, but broadens and deepens the struggle which is the necessary lot of every progressive being, by continually lifting more and more classes into the higher ranges of competition. To an American reader more striking evidence of this truth than any Mr. Kidd presents is the spectacle of the negro population of the United States thrust by emancipation into the struggle of competition of which they had had no experience as slaves. The lack of thrift, adaptiveness, and self-reliance with which they emerged from generations of entire absence of competition, shows us what flaccid moral fibre would be the inevitable outcome of any scheme of national socialism that kept a whole population untouched by competition. From the danger of the degradation of society and of individuals by the organization of such a socialist state the human race is guarded by other defences than the "ultra-rational sanctions" on which our author places his sole reliance. The individual self-interest of men makes competition as persistent as gravity, and as inevitable in its results as that round stones will roll farther down a hillside than flat stones. Competition need not be selfish, nor cruel, nor unjust. It may be an essential part of a wholesome, helpful, Christian life in the individual and in society, as the weight of granite in a temple's walls may be essential to the stability with which it supports the roof and makes the interior safe for worshippers. This Mr. Kidd partly sees, but depends too much for comfort on the development of "altruism."

When he traces all the amelioration of human life to a "fund of altruism," we desire a definition of the phrase. Does “altruism" mean loving the other with a disregard of relative values, like that of Buddha casting himself before a tiger in pity of his hunger? Does it mean self-annihilation, akin to Nirvana? Is it, perchance, simply another name for the golden rule of loving others as ourselves? The golden rule is at least three parts righteousness or justice to one part sacri

fice. Only in exceptional cases do we need or wish that others should sacrifice themselves for us. For the most part we would have them treat us justly, give us a fair chance. Mr. Kidd recognizes this when he represents the goal of the progress of society to be a condition where competition shall be raised to its highest degree as a means of progress by "bringing all the people into it on a footing of equality" (pp. 140, 238). The value of his book would have been much increased by holding firm-• ly to the supreme importance of this "footing of equality," i.e., of justice or fair dealing. If the reader will substitute for “altruism" some such definite term as "sense of justice," the substitution will add clearness to many a passage. This may be tested in the pages (175-182) that describe the privileged classes of England helping for a century to abolish privileges and enfranchise the people. A similar substitution will relegate to the waste-basket some other remarks like those about "anti-vivisection" and "vegetarianism," and will assign to more conspicuous rejection the laudatory comments on England's policy in Egypt, and the very crude discussion of the negro problem. In some of the most valuable parts of the book the author forgets "altruism" and "ultra-rational sanctions" as in the suggestive passage on the French Revolution, pointing out the influence of such intelligible forces as "ideas" and "conceptions" and "humanitarian feeling" (pp. 170 173).

Among the book's defects may be mentioned, as one of the least important, an amusing admiration of almost everything English and belittling of almost everything else, except ancient Greece. More disappointing is the thinness in much of the historical parts. After reading such a book as George Burton Adams' "Civilization of the Middle Ages," one feels in Kidd's historical pages, like a skater on ice that bends and cracks beneath him. The most serious defect is the mystical and sentimental element. This element appears most in the use of "altruism," and in the discussion of the relation between religion and the intellect.

In spite of defects, the book is profitable and wholesome. It is not sentimental, but intellectual. It presents a serious and at the same time a hopeful view of life. It discourages belief in any short method for a social millennium. It expects further intervention by the state in social life, but only “in order to preserve or secure free competition" (p. 237), which must mean the restraint of tyranny, whether by monopolies or by labor organizations. It magnifies not the showy qualities of intellectual keenness, but the moral qualities that make for social stability and efficiency; such as, reverence, persistence, probity, and devotion to duty.

If such teaching can be made to penetrate the popular mind, it will rob of all terror the advance of Demos which our author pictures so graphically, and will justify his optimistic peroration.

W. E. C. WRIGHT.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. By John R. Commons, Professor of Economics and Social Science, Indiana University. New York: Macmillan & Co. 1893. (Pp. x, 258. 5%x3%.) $1.75.

The time-honored division of Political Economy into Production, Exchange, Distribution, and Consumption is still retained for purposes of instruction, but the attention of economists is now concentrated upon the subject of Distribution. This is the subject that is uppermost in the minds of the public generally. Human limitations are such that we must expect a great deal of work to be done along this line and rejected before a final solution is reached. Accordingly we ought to welcome any work that makes a contribution to the subject, even though it be in some respects faulty. On this ground we must commend Professor Commons' book.

He begins with a restatement of the Austrian theory of Value and its application to the shares in Distribution. He is thus in line with the most advanced investigators. In his discussion of the Factors in Distribution he seems to have given too much space to some of the unimportant factors and too little to the three primary factors,- Land, Labor, and Capital. Moreover, he has not escaped from the ancient delusion of Natural Rights. It is time for economists to discard this notion and to test everything by the Principle of Utility. He is even guilty of using that meaningless term "wage-slaves." He would find it extremely difficult to defend on scientific grounds such a statement as “But to-day freedom of industry is no boon except to the wealthy capitalist" (p. 81). Most people probably believe that the movement for Civil Service Reform is a demand for a more efficient public service, but Professor Commons is quite sure that it is "a demand for recognition of the right to employment" (p. 81).

His greatest contribution is his admirable analysis of the doctrine of Diminishing Returns. He shows that discussions on this question have been from four different standpoints, greatly to the confusion of all concerned. In straightening out the tangle he has performed a service which makes us all his debtors. T. N. CARVER.

THE THEORY OF SOCIOLOGY. By Franklin H. Giddings, M. A., Professor of Sociology in the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia College. Supplement to the Annals of the American Academy of . Political and Social Science, Philadelphia. (Pp. So. 612x35%.) Paper, 50 cents.

SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORM. By Richard T. Ely, Ph. D., LL.D., author of "The Labor Movement," Problems of To-day," "Taxation in American States and Cities,' Social Aspects of Christianity,” etc. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Co. (Pp. 449. 5'2x34)

$1.50.
SOCIAL REFORM AND THE CHURCH. By John R. Commons, Professor
of Economics and Social Science, Indiana University, Secretary of
the American Institute of Christian Sociology. With an Introduc-
tion by Prof. Richard T. Ely. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Co.
1894. (Pp. x, 176. 5x3.)

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIETY. By Albion W. Small,
Ph. D., and George E. Vincent. New York, Cincinnati, and Chicago:
American Book Company. (Pp. 385. 58x338.)

The year 1894 has been most prolific in the production of books, good, bad, and indifferent, on the subjects most near to the public heart, -socialism, social reform, sociology, political economy, and social aspects of Christianity. It has been a condition, and not a theory, that confronts the American people; and, as Benjamin Kidd says, the entire Western civilization is being shaped and influenced by the "political and social enfranchisement of the masses of the people hitherto universally excluded from participation in the rivalry of existence on terms of equality." Hence the deep interest taken in practical themes which formerly were supposed to belong to the domain of theory.

One of the most charming writers of the time is Professor Franklin H. Giddings, of Columbia College. In his THEORY OF SOCIOLOGY is brought out in clear language the idea, province, problems, and method of sociology. He agrees, with Kidd, Bascom, Ely, Small, and other reputable writers, that there is no science of sociology at the present time, and that the complexity of the data renders it well-nigh impossible to so observe, discriminate, and classify the phenomena of society as to generalize with safety and precision. Whether sociology and social statistics are not near of kin is an interesting question, and especially in view of Hon. Carroll D. Wright's opinion as to some misleading tendencies of statistics. It becomes a fruitful question, whether sociological students can do more than exercise the faculty of scientific imagination, and attempt to define society in terms of science, viewing society as an organism. Professor Giddings will soon issue a larger work which will be looked for with deepest interest by every student of social problems.

Professor Ely is always concrete, simple in his style, and in deepest sympathy with every effort to uplift humanity. He is, by all odds, the most popular writer on social problems in the United States. This was seen clearly in the quick collapse of the attempt to prove him a sympathizer with Socialists,--an attempt which proved to be an ill wind that blew somebody good no less than somebody ill. The most valuable part of Professor Ely's work, to our mind, is his earnest effort to "socialize the natural monopolies." We doubt the correctness of the use of the word "socialize" in such a connection, as it is misleading. The assuming by the State of the control of the natural monopolies is not socialistic, nor a single step in the direction of socialism.

If Professor Ely will write a few chapters in language as unmistakable as his statement in the Forum for October, he will no longer be interpreted as simply a popular book-maker, nor as a writer with secret wishes to make half-truths do him service. That statement was this: 'There is no royal road to a happy condition of society, but the road is long, arduous, and often painful. There is no escape from toil and suffering. Mitigation and gradual improvement are the utmost which we can hope for, and it is a duty of all those who have the ear of the masses 1 Kidd's Social Evolution, p. 139.