The author, formerly president of the University of Tokio, investigates the relation of might to right, a question which has been the subject of much controversy in Europe since Bismark’s utterance, „Might goes before right.” He arrives at the conclusion that all right does certainly spring only from the advantage of the strong in the conflict with the weak, but that it first attains its truly just nature through mutual concession, through compromise with the weak. Since, however, such an adjustment would be made only in a moment when the powers of the opponents were equal, the „true right” first arises when the forces of the conflicting parties come into such a state of equilibrium; in other words, only when the weaker side is so far reinforced that the stronger is compelled to yield to a compromise. „Therefore,” he says (p. 125), „not yet between the two sexes does there exist that entirely fair, noble, and worthy right which can only be the fruit of the conflict and adjustment of the claims (powers) of two equally strong parties.” The author clearly shows the tendency to modify the proposition that might is the source and fountain-head of all right, to mean that right first develops to a „perfect right” when it secures acknowledgment at the hands of the originally weaker side.

In applying this theory to politics, he suggests the establishment of a „universal state,” into which the civilized peoples of Europe, America and Asia (Japan and China) shall unite. In this „universal state,” the „uncivilized” races should take a subordinate and not a free position; for „the civilized peoples must be the possessors and rulers of the whole earth.” These views of the author give ample proof of his somewhat idealistic standpoint. I think that, from a realistic standpoint, one is compelled to dispute the possibility of a „universal state,” within a calculable time, although it be but a federation of all „civilized peoples.” For civilized peoples, too, are less likely to follow ideal than material interests, and the latter will not permit within a conceivable time the necessity of war to disappear even among the civilized. If the author had had the privilege of experiencing the war between Japan and China, he would perhaps have changed his views; he would perhaps have discovered that even between „civilized peoples” there are questions of might, and indeed thoroughly brutal, material questions of might, which cannot be answered otherwise than by war and desolation. In view of such gloomy necessities, every thought of a „universal state,” consisting of the civilized peoples, is a dream of the idealist. However, this book by the Japanese scholar is at all events well worth reading because it is very stimulating.

LUDWIG GUMPLOWICZ.

[Translated from the German by ELLEN C. SEMPLE.]