Introduction. This and following articles assume previous accounts of interpretations of the state by Sumner and Ward (American Journal of Sociology, XXV, 1 and 150). Seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century views of the state in England were essentially sociological. In spite of domination of naturalistic and legalistic views of the state, definite eighteenth-century anticipations of a sociological view (Bolingbroke, Hume, Ferguson, Burke). Ricardo, the Benthamites, and John Stuart Mill used certain sociological preconceptions. Then the Darwinian biology stimulated the "social organism" idea which in Herbert Spencer remained in the form of laissez faire doctrines, but in such thinkers as Hobhouse developed into positive conceptions. Part I. Herbert Spencer. 1. Life and Works. 2. His Philosophy of Soviet. 3. Specific Political Theories: i.e., (1) the relation of sociology to political science and the study of the state; (2) fundamental political concepts and definitions; (3) foundations and justification of political authority; (4) historical evolution of political institutions; (5) forms of the state and of government; (6) sovereignty, liberty, and the sociological theory of political rights; (7) proper scope of state activity; (8) progress, social reform, and state activity; (9) extra-legal aspects of political organization; (10) summary of Spencer's political theories.

INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY OF THE STATE IN ENGLAND

In an earlier article the writer attempted briefly to sketch the nature of the sociological conception of the state, preliminary to an exposition of the specific sociological interpretations of the state set forth by William Graham Sumner and Lester F. Ward.1 American Journal of Sociology, XXV (July, 1919), 1-3.

It will not be necessary to repeat this characterization of the sociologist's way of looking at political institutions and processes, but merely to indicate the historical background of those developments in the sociological interpretation of politics which the following articles will attempt to describe.

The views of the state which prevailed in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century in England, be they regarded as the contract theory or as the contemporary mercantilist conception, were distinctly sociological in their character. The contract theory rested upon the assumption of those social forces whose operation could only be controlled by the erection of political authority, and the mercantilist theory depended upon a theory of economic forces and classes in society and upon a notion of the economic function of the state which were quite sociological in their implications. Certain special or individual interpretations of the state, such as that of Harrington, were even more sociological than the prevailing notions. But with the general intellectual appropriation of the philosophical import of the Newtonian discoveries in the realm of celestial mechanics a notable change took place in the theory of the state. Social philosophers, particularly the English Deists and the French Philosophes, came to believe that society functioned most naturally, not when directed by a human social agent like the state, but when it conformed to that natural order that régime of natural law-which Newton had proved to govern the physical universe. The state, then, could be viewed in no other way than as a necessary evil whose function it was primarily, if not solely, to protect life and property. This attitude toward the state was appropriated for economics and politics by the French physiocrats and the English classical economists. It was distinctly naturalistic and metaphysical rather than sociological in character. The utilitarian or Benthamite theory of the state was but a variant of that introduced by the classical economists. In its most thorough systematization by Austin it was wholly

'For a thorough analysis of the sociological nature of the same conception in Germany see A. W. Small, The Cameralists.

'Perhaps the first systematic attempt in this direction was Berkeley's Principles of Moral Attraction.

legalistic in its nature, as shown, for example, by his view of the place of custom in political life and legal action.'

In spite of the domination of the naturalistic and legalistic views of the state, there were, even in the eighteenth century, certain very definite anticipations of a sociological view of the state, particularly those set forth in the writings of Bolingbroke, Hume, Ferguson, and Burke. Even the adherents to the naturalistic conception often unconsciously offered doctrines which assumed a distinctly sociological notion of political and economic life. Such was Ricardo's view of the struggle of the different economic classes within society for economic gain and political power-a notion which was elaborated by the Ricardian socialists in theory and proved by English political practice during the first half of the nineteenth century. The Benthamite theory of the state was also shown to be capable of extensive sociological application by John Stuart Mill. The real beginning of the sociological theory of the state in England, however, must be associated with the introduction of the Darwinian biology and the development of the doctrine of an analogy between organic and social evolution. Here was a conception which looked upon the state as an indispensable regulating organ belonging to the social organism. While it was at first, especially in the hands of Spencer, dominated by the laissez faire preconceptions of contemporary economic and political theory, it has developed from a negative into a positive sociological conception in the writings of such recent sociologists as Hobhouse. These more recent writers, in common with the Fabian socialists, have come to recognize the futility of the older conception of the inevitable and spontaneous nature of social evolution. They have become convinced that the great economic transformation wrought by the Industrial Revolution and modern applied science has produced the necessity for a revised conception of the state, which recognizes this great social institution as the only agency competent to cope with the complexity and volume of modern social problems. Finally, the developments in modern individual and social psychology have shown that neither the eighteenth-century shibboleth of "the 1 Cf. American Journal of Sociology, September, 1917, pp. 214-16, 229-38.