This is a thick bookNota edytorska: Elektroniczna wersja drugiego wydania książki Novicowa znajduje się w serwisie Gallica Francuskiej Biblioteki Narodowej pod adresem: http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k77058d / Anmerkung des Editors: Elektonische Version Novicows Buches (der zweiten Edition) kann im System Gallica Französischer Nationalibibliotken angesehen werden. Link: http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k77058d / Editors Note: The electronic version of Novicow’s publication (2nd edition) can be viewed online in the service Gallica of the French National Library under the adress: http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k77058d , and makes very tiresome reading. The authorundertakes to prove that conflict is the general law of the universe. It even begins, according to his view, among atoms and molecules. „The struggle among atoms will be eternal” (p. 6). This conflict is continued among the heavenly bodies, in our solar system, in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, and among men. Side by side with it there exists a tendency toward association. „Human hordes unite to form tribes; tribes form towns; towns combine into States” (p. 10). „There is nothing opposed to the assumption that, some time in the future, a great federation of States will take the place of the present order of things” (p. II). In all associations the constituent elements continue the struggle. Every conflict, however, must end with adaptation to the whole, or with the elimination of that element which does not so adapt itself. Among men this conflict passes through several successive phases. Its first form is cannibalism; then follows slavery, pillage and political subjugation. In other words, the struggle among men passes through the alimentary, economic and political phases, and becomes in the end a mental conflict.

The author describes at length the different aspects of this conflict, and, in this connection, censures those who carry on war for the sake sake of riches. „War and wealth are antagonistic,” since every war destroys wealth. The author rings in the changes on this thought in the most varied forms, in order to express his conviction that a better insight and more perfect wisdom must some day lead to doing away with war. „Political tactics have been, therefore, hitherto on the wrong road” (p. 236). Instead of waging wars, it would be better „to settle the political boundaries of States by the free agreement of the citizens” (p. 237). Then the basis of the different political territories would be nationality, which rests chiefly on similarity of language and customs. In conflicts between nationalities, however, the State should not interfere.

The author devotes one part of his book (Part IV) to the phenomenon of solidarity. This is promoted by political administration, by security, justice, etc. He speaks in the next part (Part V) of the errors of modern political principles, which he finds „inconsistent and absurd” (p. 658), and he cites, as proof of his views, numerous incidents from modern history. He looks for an improvement resulting from the development of social science and from socialism. „Yes, it is the socialist party which is preparing for us a better destiny” (p. 737).

This is in brief the substance of the book. With its political tendencies tlle reader feels himself to be partly in accord, but the scientific method leaves much to be desired. It must always be prejudicial to objective investigation when the econonlist has the purpose of making the world better. The idea of doing away with war and dividing off States according to nationality is no new one, but it belongs in the realm of Utopias. In the case of the author, who is a Russian, it suggests that he would like to see all the European Slavs united under one government. Subjective desires such as this obscure the view of human evolution, which proceeds according to natural laws. Political tendencies such as this do not belong to science.

Mention should be made of yet another circumstance. Simultaneously with the appearance of this book, there was published in Paris, by Guillaumin, the French translation [1] of a work by Gumplowicz on „The Conflict of Races,” a work which had come out in German ten years before. A French sociologist, Gustave Tarde, reviewed both these books at the same time in the Revue Philosophique ofRibot, and expressed his surprise that the two authors, who did not know one another, agreed on so many leading points. Now, it was impossible for Gumplowicz, in 1882, to know the work of Novicow, which appeared first in I893. But Novicow, in his reply to Tarde in the Revue Philosophique, acknowledges that he had read Gumplowicz’s book on „The Conflict of Races” in German, and states that he does not agree with some of the views expressed in it. Now, it is strange that he did not mention that book in his own work. If the book of Gumplowicz had not accidentally appeared in French translation at the same time as that by Novicow, the similarity between the two works in many leading points would have quite escaped the French critics.

LUDWIG GUMPLOWICZ.

[Translated by Ellen C. Semple.]