of post-natal experiences. It was granted that congenital traits must count. But it was also pointed out that the inherent good in man needed only a right stimulus to suppress proclivities for sordid pleasure. Hence, what Smith had deemed a task in part fulfilled by Providence, and for the rest a natural expression in an age-long evolution of mankind, the Historians hoped to accomplish by a direct and systematic control of individual actions. Social heredity, since it surrounded man from birth to death, was to lead him under proper surveillance into right channels of thought and conduct.

Accordingly individual and social interests were not considered as necessarily indentical at all vital points. What a man desired might be good enough, but what he achieved might do harm. Furthermore, what a man earned could not matter as much as what he produced, and how he produced it. An uncompromising business viewpoint was avoided as possibly damaging to public welfare. What was needed, we are told again and again, is a socializing of religion, a substitution of practicable aims here on earth for fancies nowhere realizable. Hence it is not surprising perhaps that German economists, even when not strictly of the Historical School, had great faith in state regulations and purposely widened the field of economics in one sense while narrowing it elsewhere; including programs and aspects looked askance at by orthodox writers, but emphasizing a nationalistic end whose pragmatic tests endangered one of the most fundamental rules of pure science.

However, it must also be admitted that traditional orthodox economics has recently been criticized from within. Not only outsiders have passed slighting remarks, but increasingly economists of the profession, even when in the main Utilitarian or Marginal, have taken

occasion to demur to points of doctrine. A ferment has been noticeable in the last few decades which bodes ill for the old-time system. New ideas have been broached, and new ends are diligently sought.

Thus, for one thing, our concept of human nature has materially changed. Its simplicity from either the psychological or biological standpoint is being questioned, and the difficulty of untangling its numerous factors reluctantly conceded. We know more now of laws of heredity and variation, but have at the same time found the question of instincts and the passions to be as vexing as ever. Investigators have come to stress the plasticity of innate traits and predispositions, and to rely more upon education in many phases.

How men value things, and how price takes the place of personal wants, this problem has gained renewed interest. The force of legal institutions is no longer disregarded in analyzing demand. And what is more important, the central theme has gradually been impugned as being an error of judgment. Some would minimize Price and Distribution and pass over to a more careful consideration of Consumption and Control.

But however that may be, it will further be agreed that the logic and methodology of social science is itself undergoing a revision of no trifling sort. What is reasoning and what the relation between induction and deduction, what really should be meant by causation and how our answer bears on a selection of fields for inquiry, to what extent measurements may be undertaken and whither laws so arrived at may lead to in their practical uses, how static concepts and statistical methods may together furnish an instrument of discoveries-all these queries are tending to reappear in new guise and with a new meaning.

The old mechanistic psychology is passing away. Some

would remark that it has long passed away. What mind is and how human will labors to produce history is a topic for examination with appliances not formerly known. Consequently, too, our view of what morality is and of what ethics depends on for its conclusions is being altered by degrees. Eventually, no doubt, new norms of prosperity will be contrasted with the ancient absolutistic ones. To government will be assigned more onerous duties than have been given to it formerly. A changed economic environment is bidding students to prepare for recantations and research. Marginism, therefore, cannot be held to reign unchallenged, much less to have brought the development of economics to a close.

Heretofore economics belonged essentially to Europe. It was in France that the science had its inception, and in England that it reached its highest development along lines suggested by the author of "The Wealth of Nations." Throughout the entire course of its growth economics must be granted to have found eminent leaders on British soil. There method and principles were studied most carefully, and in an original manner; there the practical aspects engaged thinkers and legislators more seriously than perhaps anywhere else. The historical standpoint was treated best by the Germans, although other nations had contributed something in earlier days. The Austrians in the next place, gained prestige by their clear and complete exposition of the marginal principle, a rather odd fact considering the Anglo-Saxon origin of the psychological doctrines at the root of it. And lastly, the United States laid Europe under obligation for ideas essential to both static and dynamic economics, the last half century having in this respect fulfilled promises made many generations ago by philosophers and psychologists unacquainted with a science of economics.

Whether hereafter the leadership shall remain with a few countries-not denying the laudable part played by Italy and minor nations of the Old World-no one can say. But it seems not unlikely that changed conditions, precipitated by the Great War, will stimulate additional people to constructive thinking. Civilization is no doubt to be less centralized geographically from now on than it has been so far. A number of countries have been awakened to the western viewpoint whose voice should not go unheard in the long run. Much new material, and new modes of approach, are to be tried out for partly new purposes, wherefore histories of thought, and of economic theories in particular, will very probably gain rather than lose in importance.

A WORKING BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

(1) A complete and thorough history of economics as a science, that would do justice to all its phases including particularly its roots in philosophy and psychology, has not yet been written. It is therefore not supposed that the materials here listed will afford an exhaustive treatment of the subject, or even cover all aspects involved. However, they are meant to give a working bibliography for a study of many important sources, especially such as are readily available in the United States. Further materials will inevitably be encountered in the perusal of materials here listed, notably of course in scientific periodicals and cyclopedias.

(2) The non-economic literature bearing on the development of economics is so important that it seems expedient to include much of it even in an introductory survey. The main line of division (A and B in this bibliography) between non-economic and economic literature will therefore explain itself. On the other hand, the distinction between works on methodology and works on principles of economics is made chiefly to call attention to the important rôle that premises have always played in the exposition of economic doctrines.

(3) Books and articles have been selected on the principle of giving what is most representative of a school or outlook, or is pioneer labor, or was peculiarly influential in the history of economics. Many works of equal intrinsic merit have thus been ignored merely because of the restriction in number.

(4) It cannot be emphasized too strongly that a careful student must rely upon sources rather than upon secondary works on his subject. The study of primary materials will give that touch of realism and of conviction that no other authority can promise. Hence the divisions I and II made below under both A and B.

(5) For the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries a number of doctrinal works have been given, classified by countries, becausewith very few exceptions-individual treatises are not considered in this book. However, the footnotes provide further references of value.

(6) For all source materials the date of first publication is given, though in some cases the dates of later editions and of translations have been added. Furthermore, excepting American literature, which has been considered up to 1910, the bibliography reaches only up

to 1900.

Finally, histories of economics best suited to the needs of American students have been marked with an asterisk; but this does