Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/362

350 most part by works of no great importance, more biblographical than critical.

The sociological system of Gabriel Tarde does not find many followers in Italy. Sighele varies from it somewhat, but Tosti, favorably known by his articles on the psychology of the insane, is a warm disciple of his.

The works of Roberty, of De Greef, and especially of Novicow are favorably known in Italy, but it cannot be said that these authors have any true followers. As to their conception of sociology, it may be said of both Roberty and de Greef that they are faithful followers of the system of Comte.

Professor Simon N. Patton has published a paper entitled: The Failure of Biologic Sociology. I have read this essay attentively, and it seems to me that the author has not taken into account many of the latest discoveries in biology and sociology, which are worthy of the greatest attention.

Comte, who in spite of the criticisms of his sociological system remains the father of sociology, has written: "The necessity of taking the ensemble of biology as the point of departure for sociology is evident. . . . The subordination of social science to biology is so incontestable that no one any longer dares to dispute it." This principle, always with due limitations, inspires the theories of Espinas, of Perrier, of Fouillée, of Schäffle, of Lilienfeld, of Sergi, etc., the three latter of whom have pushed the conclusion of this principle a little too far. Novicow himself, even on the first page of his splendid work, Les luttes entre sociétés humaines et leur phases successives, writes: "All that is not based on the natural sciences is founded upon the sand. We have thought it necessary, therefore, to base our conclusions upon the contributions of chemistry and biology." On the other hand, Spencer departs entirely from this conception. But to Spencer there is wanting a profound historical culture. Letourneau was perfectly right, therefore, when he wrote: "The sociology of Herbert Spencer, principally ethnographic, has deceived the public because it expected something better from an author with one of the broadest, most ingenious