Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/448

 414

The Green Bag

of the eminence of Giddings, Jellinek, Willoughby, and Edmond Kelly, not to

theories. In the main the treatment, however, is cautious and scholarly, and the book is a useful one in a new and

mention many others. On the other hand, this sentiment is by no means unanimous, and the distinguished advo cates of the organismic theory, in some

important ﬁeld. Professor Garner has supplied an introductory text-book of such high excellence, on political science, that

one of its phases, have included writers

our only regret is that his abilities

like Gierke, Blutschli, Spencer and Comte. Of these Gierke is living, and his theories are marked by such contem porary vitality and importance as hardly

should have preparation rather than for scholars

to be capable of receiving adequate

so

treatment in a two-hundred page mono

Tarde,

Leroy-Beaulieu,

Gumplowia,

well

been concentrated on the of an elementary work, of that scientiﬁc treatise which he shows himself

qualiﬁed

to

write.

This

nineteenth century doctrines. While the

book has the merit of viewing a wide range of topics and giving a symmetrical exposition of the rudiments of political

writer has hardly underrated the organis

science, studied in proper perspective

mic theory in its extreme forms, he has

by a mind fully in touch with the ad

graph making a general examination of

possibly failed to pay due respect to

vanced tendencies of contemporary in

some of its later, saner manifestations. Moreover, there are some elements of truth in the organismic theory, as soci ety is always struggling to attain a

vestigation.

closer correlation of its parts, and the danger lies in the assumption not that

society has unity, but that this unity is absolute. If we go too far in denying the organic or quasi-organic unity of society we are apt to fall into the error

of propounding a doctrine just as arti

The writer has an admir

able mastery of the subject, and the style of the book is marked by clearness

and precision of statement and acuteness of analysis. In the conclusions sub mitted we ﬁnd nothing of material im portance to invite criticism. The book, fortunately, does not en

croach upon the ﬁeld either of descrip tive or of applied politics, conﬁning itself to the purer and higher side of the

ﬁcial and visionary as that from which we seek to escape. The author, in conveying the idea that every phase

science, and

the advantages of this

of the organismic theory is subject to criticism, tends to align himself with an individualistic school unlikely to sur vive late into the present century.

method adopted, of setting forth, by

mode of treatment are suﬂiciently obvi ous. Another advantage is found in the

we agree, our complaint being that he

means of numerous excerpts, the views of leading writers on the questions dis cussed. The student is thus enabled to familiarize himself with the discussion that the principal problems have called forth, and with the history of leading theories. He is thus placed in a better position to understand the more im portant issues than he would be by a treatise simply setting forth the views, however sound, of a single writer. The

has not been suﬁiciently copious and

only drawback to this method of dis

speciﬁc in his criticisms of particular

cussion is the self-effacement it enforces

The importance of the subject would

have rendered a more extended treatise proﬁtable. With the help of a fuller exposition of the views of the writers treated, their doctrines might have re

ceived more luminous discussion.

With

most of the author's general observations