132 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
ascendency of the present. The reason for this is not apparent, and it seems that this institution with equal truth might be explained by the ascendency of the past, or even, as embodying some general ideal, by the ascendency of the future. In a similar manner, and with more apparent reason, infanticide is numbered among the institutions of the reign of the present. His treatment of these practices indicates that the author has given very little thought to oriental civilization, which it would certainly be very difficult for him to compress into the formula of the ascendency of the present.
According to the author, tolerance can be explained only as a con- viction of the religious consciousness. Here, too, while the general view is plausible, it fails utterly to explain the actual historical growth of religious toleration, unless atheism or agnosticism be considered expressions of religious feeling. It could certainly be argued, with greater reason, that the methods of scientific investigation are the true basis of toleration, notwithstanding the ultimate intolerance of Comte's positivism. The author's method is well illustrated by his treatment of the theory of social evolution held by Schmoller and Schaffle, which traces the gradually expanding social and political consciousness from the family and clan through the city-state to the nation. The author says that Schmoller gives us no real answer as to the controlling force in this evolution, and he then proceeds to supply the deficiency in the following manner: "It is no mere expansion of a race or of a nation- ality. It is the conquering march of principles becoming conscious. .... It represents the slow convergence toward each other in a majestic process of natural development of the forces and factors with which the ultimate meaning of our civilization is identified, and under the control of which the world is destined to pass in the future toward which we continue to move." It is pleasant to imagine the inward embarrassment of Professor Schmoller when he sees this simple and illuminating explanation.
In the latter part of the work the author attempts to outline the elements of the future civilization. He insists that, in the social state toward which we are moving, free competition, upheld by a tolerance based upon deep religious feeling, will be a cardinal element. He does not, however, make the least contribution toward the solution of the question how competition can be preserved against the absolutisms which are " closing down " on all sides. Nor does he show how com- petition in the future stage will differ from competition at present, nor how far the principle of laissez faire must be superseded by an exten-
