occupations to increase their remunerations, Professor Taussig remarks, that the science of political economy can give too little sure guidance. He says: "It is safe to say that in concrete life it happens very rarely, probably never, that a specific rise of wages, secured by strike or tradesunions pressure or single agreement, can be shown to bring any off-setting loss in the wages of those not directly concerned." Although in the comparatively new sense intended by the author there is a sort of wages fund, the conception is of so little value in solving current problems of distribution, that more of interest attaches to this work because of its extremely valuable criticism of the attacks and defenses of the wages fund theory, from the time of Adam Smith to that of Böhm Bawerk, than to any other part of the work. It is, however, interesting to note how the virtual head of the department of economics at Harvard can write with such fairness and moderation respecting the wage-worker. Professor Taussig, who began with admirable studies of the tariff and the silver question, has been yearly growing in strength and in liberality of view, or at least in the expression of it with reference to various great questions of the day, and no one interested in the wages problem can afford to ignore the work under review, although it is to be regretted that the author did not devote a chapter to that form of the productivity theory of wages held by Professor John B. Clark, and other eminent economists of the present day. EDWARD W. BEMIS. WARD'S DYNAMIC SOCIOLOGY.1 MR. LESTER F. WARD, of the Smithsonian Institution at Washington, was the earliest important sociologist in America, and still ranks, among most good judges, as one of our most original thinkers, his reputation being largely established by the issue of the first edition of the above work, in 1883. It is now published with the correction of typographical errors, and with the addition of a preface which gives an interesting account of possible reasons for the cremation of the Russian edition, by the Russian Censor, in 1891. The Government has never vouchsafed an explanation, while a University of Warsaw professor thinks it due to the attitude of the book toward religion, but the same Warsaw professor, in a previous review of the book, had made no mention of the "atheistic" tendencies which he refers to in his later letters to Mr. Ward, and the author himself believes that the title "Dynamic Sociology" was supposed to have something to do with dynamite and socialism, or that the insistence in the work upon universal education was thought to undermine the government of the Czar. The author's truly great contributions to sociology have never received 1 Dynamic Sociology, or Applied Social Science. Two Vols. Pp. 706, 690. Second Edition. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1897. $5.00. the popular indorsement they deserved: first, because of the essential imperfections of a pioneer in a new science, for sociology was hardly recognized, or its name even known by most Americans, when Mr. Ward wrote; and, secondly, because of his rejection of all religious conceptions. Social scientists to-day, even when they reject the religious ideas of the age, are more reverential toward them than was common fifteen years ago. But the cosmogony of this work may be entirely omitted by those who prefer to do so, without trenching upon the really great contribution of our author. These contributions, as brought out in the introductory and concluding chapters, of over eighty pages each, and in his recent "Psychic Factors of Civilization," and his articles during the last two years in the American Journal of Sociology, may be here briefly referred to. Five great truths have been discovered, or so ably treated by him as to couple his name closely with them. First and foremost may be mentioned his addition to the law of natural selection, or the "survival of the fittest" (strongest) fighters, namely, the law of artificial selection, or the survival through the deliberate action of society, of those types of development considered the best for society. The latter can largely control its own evolution, and determine thus what it shall be fifty years hence. While human purposeful selection, which we are only just beginning to realize and practice, is called artificial, it is held by Ward to be just as natural in the true sense as is the mother instinct of self-forgetfulness in her life for others, so beautifully described by Drummond. This possibility of a conscious shaping by society of its destiny is the most fruitful and encouraging supplement we have to the harshness of the law of evolution as stated by Spencer and others. A second important contribution of our author is his emphasis upon the possibilities of an improved public education to effect this conscious development. Mr. Ward holds that, through the control of the public school system and other educational institutions, society can ultimately control, in large measure, its further evolution. He thus lays the foundation for a most extensive improvement and development of this system. The progress of society is conceived as having hitherto occurred through the blind operation of such natural forces as the survival of the fittest. A new force the action of human intelligence-is now beginning to act, and may in time be the controlling factor, so that human progress will occur with less waste and suffering, and with greater rapidity than hitherto. This conception is now found in most sociological works, but had received little emphasis before 1883, and indeed gets less now than its vital importance merits. Mr. Ward has been practically alone among sociologists in the recognition of the fundamental importance of a great extension and improvement of a public education as a necessary prerequisite for any lasting industrial or political reforms. In this connection the importance of absolute freedom of opinion and of expression in our institutions of learning, which has been so startlingly brought to the attention of the country by the recent action of the Brown trustees, is finely illustrated in the words of Mr. Ward: "The forcible suppression of the utterance or publication, in any form, of unwelcome opinions, is equivalent to withholding from all undetermined minds the evidence upon which these views rest; and, since opinions are rigidly the products of the data previously furnished the mind, such opinions cannot exist because no data for them have ever been received." The selfevident truth of this remark shows the alarming possibility, in the form of an effective shaping of public opinion in the wrong direction, which may be accomplished through the control of our colleges and universities by Philistine boards of trustees. Mr. Ward has performed a third task, by insisting that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is as important as its discovery. Inequalities of knowledge are far greater than they should be, and render more difficult the problem of inequality of wealth. The head of the department of biology in a great university told a strong advanced student not to publish a remarkably good popularization of the most recent biological researches, for it might not be considered a scientific thing to do, and would destroy all chance of a professorship in that institution. aristocracy of learning received a well-merited attack from Ward. Space forbids more than a mere reference to two more important contributions of the author. He has recently shown how, in both animal and plant life, competition does not tend to permanency, as held by the orthodox English economists of the last generation. Rather, competi tion tends to end in monopoly, and, if let alone, a monopoly of such species as weeds and thistles. Such Again, Ward has shown that even where competition, or the struggle for survival, continues, the development is more backward and stunted than where human foresight develops, under monopoly, such species as are good for man, such as fruits and flowers and beasts of burden. Rejecting Giddings' claim, that society arises from a consciousness of kind, and Aristotle's dictum, that man is naturally a social political being, Ward holds that man was originally an unsocial animal, and was led by his interests to unite with his fellows. Out of the benefits observed from such conduct, social habits gradually arose and became instincts. At a recent gathering of his friends Mr. Ward was induced to describe his early life. He proceeded to sketch his youth of outdoor farm work in Illinois and Iowa until his eighteenth year, which contributed greatly to his physical vitality, and enabled him in his later years to do all his sociological work by devoting to it seven hours daily, after his seven hours of work for a livelihood. He also referred to his three years in the army, where he was severely wounded, and his clerkship in one of the Government departments for many years at Washington, until he received his present position as geologist in the Smithsonian Institution. He studied in a Pennsylvania preparatory school before the war, and in a Washington college after it, until he received his degree. He spent five years writing “Dynamic Sociology,” then read five years and spent five years more, until 1883, in rewriting it. In the meantime, in order to command a respectful hearing in other lines, he acquired a good reputation as a botanist. In that, and in biology and geology, he spent all his leisure time from 1883 until 1892, when the sudden awakening of sociological interest in this country turned him again to his first love, which he plans shall be the subject of his remaining years of work. While other writers may produce better text-books of sociology and attract a wider reading, Mr. Ward will ever receive the respect that should be paid to a great pioneer, and one whose recent work gives promise of continued contributions to the new science. EDWARD W. BEMIS. ARTICLE XIII. NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS. THE VERACITY OF THE HEXATEUCH. A Defense of the Historic Character of the First Six Books of the Bible. By SAMUEL COLCORD BARTLETT, D.D., LL. D., ex-President of Dartmouth College. Pp. xiv, 404. Chicago, New York, Toronto: Fleming H. Revell Co. 1897. $1.50. It is a far more difficult task for a scholar to write a book for the general public on a subject contested among the learned, than it is to write for scholars. To be accurate, with all the knowledge of the scholar, to unravel the tangle of technical terms, to show the fundamental facts in language that is common to all and in a way easily apprehended by all; that is the last and highest plane on which a scholar can move. Intelligence, diligence, and time will enable any man to write in the language of text-books; but to throw open the doors of the best learning in its results, one must know all sides of his subject so thoroughly that he can accurately express himself in simple terms. All that the world in general can know, or cares to know, of any specialist's work, is its final results stated in plain language. These it has the inalienable right to judge and will judge. Nothing can prevent the final translation of the work of specialists into the language of every day when people will accept or reject it. The Bible, treating of the highest themes that can engage the mind of man, was written in the language of the people to be understood by them, that they might accept or reject it, and be responsible for their judgment. But there have been learned men of all the ages who have sought to claim it as the exclusive privilege of scholarship to pronounce the final judgment on the Bible, which the people were bound to accept as coming from their high authority. What people want to know is, whether the Bible is true or false? That large question can be settled, has been settled by myriads of intelligent men in all the ages, and now, against the testimony of professed experts who have pronounced the Bible false. That is the fundamental, final, simple question to-day about the Bible. A few professed scholars and their followers decide against the Bible. A still smaller number of weaker ones decide both ways at once-it is both true and false. But the vast majority of Christians decide that the Bible is true in all that it states. Dr. Bartlett in the work cited has written with remarkable clearness and point, in excellent temper and courtesy, a statement of the present |