767 going character, and cleansing the orthodox school from much super- ficial optimism. V. Schullern is therefore not wrong in taking the year 1875 as his base-line to start from, and the little exaggeration or equivoque about the precise nature of the influence exerted by that year on economical work in Italy is not really his fault, but simply the effect of a legend which has settled down, and which probably nothing more will ever shake. A prirnd facie criterion for the extent and the minuteness of the work done by v. Schullern is to be had by an inspection of his register of authors quoted. It is simply marvellous that v. Schullern should have been able to dig out all the authors he names. Two of them were unknown to me. Under this aspect therefore v. Schullern has done more than could have been expected from any foreigner, and more than probably a good many Italians could have done. There are some omissions, but they are to a certain extent excusable. The absence in Italy of those copious bibliographical sources which Germany possesses, and the frequency of books printed at the expense of authors, without the co-operation of a publisher who looks to their diffusion, must have rendered his task a very hard one. Besides, the omissions, when they have any importance, relate to books written by followers of the extremest individualism, generally disciples of Ferrara, who are in no odour of sanctity with most Italian pro- fessors, and very likely would not be pointed out by these to a foreigner as noteworthy. Such is, for example, a book by Berardi On the Func- tions of the State, vigorously written, but quite as much opposed to nearly every function of the State as anything Herbert Spencer has written on the subject. Another book' omitted is by Martello, On Money and Errors connected with this Subject, which is prefaced by Ferrara himself, and concludes in fayour of leaving money, like any other commodity, to the care of private enterprise. However, as it stands, v. Schullern's book is brim full, and nothing more coulcl be desired as far as completeness is concerned. As to the spirit in which it is written, I would call it a benevolent objectivity. V. Schullern does his very best to give the exact kernel of the doctrines which he examines, and mostly succeeds, I think, in rendering the authors' thoughts; generally he abstains from criticising directly; his criticisms are implicit, consisting' in his classifications of authors or books into groups, in graduations, according to supposed merit, in the amount of space and time he devotes to the different authors, and he is evidently a man inclined to see rather the good sides than the bacl sides of his neighbours and fellow-creatures. Being himself a disciple of the cloctrines of Menger, he perhaps has favoured unconsciously ?he numerous followers of this, or Jevons' line of thought, to the detriment of sociologues and historians. Many of these might perhaps complain o? being noticed with comparative briefheSS, and some of being altogether omitted. A man of signal talent, Icilio Vanni, is omitted, and Cognetti
