questions connected with these conceptions, such as the universality of moral principles and the conflict of duties. Having thus described and analyzed in a comprehensive way the psychological elements and the concrete types of moral conduct, Professor Ladd proceeds, in the third main division of the book, to submit the results of his survey to a process of metaphysical scrutiny with a view to discover their ultimate meaning and implications. This third or metaphysical division may, like the second, be subdivided roughly into two sections. In the first of these, the interpretations of morality in terms of Utilitarianism and Kantian Legalism are discussed and rejected in favor of an interpretation, which is characterized as Idealistic, but is stated in a very vague form. In the second half of the metaphysical division, the actual or historical connection between morality and religion is discussed, and the necessity of a religious basis of morality contended for. From this sketch, it will be sufficiently evident that Professor Ladd has spared no pains to give a complete treatment of his subject. In what I said above, I assumed that the work was to be regarded as a text-book. By this I mean that Professor Ladd does not seek to set forth any profound or novel conception by which the whole science would be organized in a fresh and striking way. The book is not, in fact, conspicuously systematic in this higher sense. Professor Ladd's Idealism is too vague a thing to afford the unity of a 'system.' And of course it is only right to remind ourselves that such a unity may be purchased at too great a cost. I take it that the author's aim has been, in the main, simply that of communicating in a comprehensive and orderly way sound instruction upon the various topics with which the teacher of ethics may be expected to deal.
It follows that a criticism of the work must necessarily concern itself mainly with particular topics taken up each on its own account. There are, however, a few remarks of a more general nature which I have to make before passing to consider special topics. One is, that the book is not an easy or attractive one to read. And its difficulty and unattractiveness seem to me (to speak frankly) to be largely due to the character of Professor Ladd's style, which is decidedly diffuse, and not infrequently vague, cumbrous, and ineffective. Such, at least, is the impression which the work has left upon one reader. I will quote a single sentence by way of example. "Conflicts of duty differ in all sorts of ways; and all the members not only of that particular social organization to which each modern man more especially belongs, but also of the race of which all the different social organizations are parts, make increasing demands upon one another for the discharge of
