Page images
PDF
EPUB

because it abounds in hitherto unpublished notes throwing light on the administration of various politicians. But it leaves in the shadow the economic, literary, and scientific life of the nation. The questions of the budget and loans are but very briefly touched upon. Nothing whatever is said of the conditions of life of the workingmen, the peasants, and the bourgeoisie. It is a political history and nothing more. As such it is good. One clearly perceives the desire for impartiality of the author. But his efforts are vain. When he writes about the Commune, he cannot help showing his sympathy for M. Thiers and the Versaillais. The whole work is a panegyric of M. Thiers. He appears in this book as a great politician and a great patriot. We cannot subscribe, however, to the conclusion at which M. Hanotaux arrives, because he entirely omits to mention the personal motives of the acts of M. Thiers, which were very clever indeed, but quite shameless.

The book of M. Hanotaux is certainly a good contribution to the contemporary political history of France, but it does not constitute the definite work which one may read who wishes to know well the social and political life of France from 1871 to 1873.

A. AND H. HAMON.

La Commune vécue. Par GASTON DA COSTA. Tome I, "18 mars-28 mai 1871." Paris: Librairie Quentin. Pp. xvi +474. Fr. 3.50.

M. DA COSTA took part in the Commune. He was very young then and holding an office in it. He relates what he saw and heard, either during the events themselves or in the prisons and the bagnios. He questioned others, also witnesses to this tragedy. He had in his hands unpublished records, manuscript memoirs, and official documents. He is able, therefore, to state precisely some little-known facts, and to present some others quite unknown, but of great importance. He discusses, besides, the works written before him treating of the Commune. M. Da Costa's work, of which the first volume alone is issued so far, shows a noble effort toward impartiality. And he would have completely succeeded if he had put in it less passion and had refrained from using certain qualifications and certain appreciations which are too violent. He forgot that the men, whoever they be, are always inevitably determined to act as they do. The author follows but imperfectly the chronological order of events. Thus, in

the first part, after having told about the day of March 18, he relates the process that followed, after the repression of the Versaillais.

The second part is devoted to the "Dictature du Comité central" in the days that followed. The third part treats of the "Commune révolutionnaire;" the fourth part, of the "Tragédie des otages." This last part will be concluded in the second volume.

La Commune vécue is a work fully documented and with many an anecdote which tells of the mentalities of the actors of those events. M. G. Hanotaux should read this book to correct his panegyric of M. Thiers.

A. AND H. HAMON.

"Die Stellung der amerikanischen Wohltätigkeitsvereine," Zeitschrift für das Armenwesen, March, 1904.

In this paper Dr. Gustav Herzfeld, of Berlin, discusses "The Position of American Charity Organizations." The writer's thorough familiarity with the methods of charity both in Germany and America adds weight to words that will be read with interest and pleasure on this side of the water. Dr. Herzfeld was particularly impressed by the facilities afforded for practical education in charity work in the United States-university instruction, the New York Summer School in Philanthropic Work soon to be expanded into a two-year course, residence in settlements, training in connection with charity-organization societies, clubs for the study of philanthropic activities, etc., etc. Germany's deficiency in this respect is not concealed, nor the fact that proportionally the German field offers far less opportunity for the employment of technically educated charity administrators. One consequence of this is that investigations into cases applying for relief is much less thorough in Germany than in America, particularly where non-salaried agents are employed. "There are reasons," writes Dr. Herzfeld, "why we should earnestly consider the question whether, leaving the fundamental principles of the Elberfeld system untouched, we should not instal a number of salaried investigators and inspectors in public poor-relief work, as has already been done with success in a number of [German] cities."

The question as to whether, and how far, a charity-organization society itself should give relief is also considered. Mr. Charles F. Weller's position on this subject, as expressed at the Charity Con

ference of 1902, and the practical solution of the problem under Mr. Ufford at Baltimore, are quoted as full of suggestion for Dr. Herzfeld's German readers.

R. C. BROOKS.

La Coopération. Par P. HUBERT-VALLEROUX.

Lecoffre, 1904. Pp. 228.

Paris: Victor

It is desirable to have brief popular accounts of the growth and condition of the co-operative movement in various countries published at frequent intervals in order to direct it and save it from errors and extravagance. The author of this work has rendered a valuable service in this field. He does not conceal his attitude of hostility toward the socialists, whom he regards as enemies of the nation and of religion, and a foreign reader will make allowance for this bias. While the discussion of co-operation in production is severely critical, it does not quite equal in insight the much earlier treatment of Beatrice Potter (Mrs. Webb), who showed clearly that it is a purely capitalistic affair, while the Rochdale societies are more openly and consistently democratic. The conditions under which these various kinds of co-operation are, in certain form and degree, useful, are, on the whole, intelligently interpreted, and recent statistics for all countries are supplied. C. R. H.

Intégralisme, philosophie et sociologie. Par EDOUARD BOULARD. Paris: Giard & Brière, 1903. Pp. 401.

THIS is the work of a self-taught man familiar with socialistic phrases and modes of thought, and untroubled by the history of philosophy in the schools. It is interesting as the sincere revelation of one who makes his political and economic creed a sort of religion, but apparently does not add to our knowledge of facts, tendencies, or principles. C. R. H.

NOTES AND ABSTRACTS.

Discussion of the Papers on the Relation of Sociology to the Social Sciences and to Philosophy, by Professor Durkheim and Mr. Branford.1

professor BOSANQUET (In the chair).

Considering how many distinguished speakers they hoped to hear, he would make his remarks very few indeed.

In the first place, they would see that sociology was claimed as a natural science. That was the point which Professor Sorley had taken up in his communication. One remark he would make as to whether sociology was to be a science within the limits of nature as understood by the votaries of exact science: he thought when they got the ferment of the social idea within the conception of "nature," that ferment would take care of itself. The ferment of the social idea would perhaps not break the old bottles, but it would sufficiently stretch those bottles, and bring us back to something like the Greek conception of nature, which he thought was the true conception. The next thing was a more serious matter, on which he found himself at issue with Professor Durkheim, and to some extent with Mr. Branford also. He merely mentioned the point in passing, because, whether he was right or wrong, it went to the heart of the subject. It was presented to them rather that evening as if the important problem of the systematization of the specialisms subordinate to sociology was a question of classification. What struck him when he came across it was this, that, e. g., from the point of view of logic, classification was not a primary form of thought. It was, in his mind, always a secondary form of thought. Classification was to him merely a way of representing conveniently the actual relations, attributes, and affinities of things and ideas; in short, of experiences — distinctive experiences of various kinds. With that he did not propose again to go farther that night, but merely to say this- his main point. that it appeared to him that the real work to be done in all systematizations of this kind- in all science, in fact — was the analysis and estimate of the contents of special provinces of experience, distinctive types and forms of experience which constituted the object-matter of the different sciences. The problem did not present itself to his mind as classificatory, but one to be solved in actual concrete working in the various domains of experience. Otherwise it might seem to be a purely formal and methodological problem. He thought many of the men who had written contributions to their discussion had seen something of this difficulty. They must beware of systematizing too soon. That was how the problem presented itself to his mind.

[ocr errors]

He drew this conclusion: As to the nature of the unity to subsist in sociology, whether of a science or of a group of social sciences, every science had a distinct type of experience, and sociology itself would certainly be a distinct science in the sense that it dealt with a distinct and distinctive type of experience. When you came to consider sociology in relation to other sciences, it was not a problem for the logician or the classifier, but for the person who carefully, critically, and laboriously pursued these sciences themselves. All these sciences possessed a sociological aspect, and all went beyond sociology. They would tell you themselves where they needed to join hands as sciences dealing with society. Take the science of ethics in particular; it would tell them that; viz., how far it was a solid science, and how far something more. In the same way, let them pursue the distinctive experience which they called social as a subject of itself, 1 Vide AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, Vol. IX, pp. 134-37.

and it would tell them of itself when they must go out to seek the sociological part of those various special disciplines which have been mentioned in connection with it. Therefore, the question which Professor Durkheim raised was merely. a verbal question. It presented itself to him [the speaker] like that. It was the old logical trouble between the general and the particular. People thought that the general excluded the particular, or that the details excluded the general. But the concrete and special way in which these sciences should be studied, both on their own ground and also in the light of social experience, would give rise to a system of their own, in which part of them would deal with purely logical relations of object-matters, and part with such relations as they showed themselves among groups of people animated by the same mind (taking this as a rough description of social groups).

So that what he said was that they must certainly have a single sociological science with an analysis of the distinctive experience which they called social experience. But that did not mean that they did not have passing out of it a group of sciences which, so far as their sociological part was concerned, took light from and gave light to the analysis of the social experience. Only they were not to think that, if they described the system as a unity of the social sciences, that made sociology into an empty generality. The idea that a unity of a number of things must always be a generality was what they had to make war upon. It would be more like the conception of some kind of living creature or phase of life, some concrete living thing of some kind or another, aspects of which would be illuminated, and by the several sciences which treat the different sides of life.

They should never get into their minds that false formal antithesis that sociology was either a number of sciences which had no central science as their connection, or a single science which was not part of a number of sciences. It was quite certain that true unity and universality would always be, not a generality, but something concrete and individual. Therefore, he said, alternatives in the question, "Is there a science of sociology or a group of sociological sciences?" were not exclusive of one another. He thought the method to be pursued was the definite work of collecting data and their analysis in the various realms of experience of which the facts of social life and grouping form a distinct realm or province. But in science, unlike actual space, all provinces overlap. But the distinctive social science, though not abstract nor general, will include portions of sciences dealing with various positive kinds of experience, so far as these have a social aspect, an aspect manifested in and through groups of persons. Concrete work in the matter of the sciences will tell what their portions are and how connected. Classification will merely register the results. This could be easily illustrated from the science of religion, ethics, æsthetics, psychology, statistics, and other sciences.

DR. REICH.

I am afraid I am bringing a very discordant note into this discussion. When as a student I took up the study of history, I asked certain questions. My first question, of the utmost importance, was this: "How can we account for the existence of Roman law?" Its perfect systematic form, its charming clearness, its definite shape, were so wonderful to me that it seemed amazing that the Romans made such a wonderful thing. I was told they were a military nation a nation of warriors. How did it come they could make such an absolute science? Two things had remained absolute - Greek art and Roman law. When you come to think that that law was not public law or constitutional law, but that it was private law; not criminal or international, but the question of commerce and trade, of meum and tuum; then it becomes more wonderful. These Romans despised commerce and trade. They despised their slaves. How did they come to make that law? The problem is of first-class historical import. I wanted to know owing to what circumstances the Romans, of all nations, made the system of Roman law.

Again, why did the Reformation break out in the sixteenth century and not at some other time, and why in Germany and not in France? Fully believing in

« PreviousContinue »