half thousand years old, and, as Morgan says, "although apparently a simple idea, it required centuries of time and a complete revolution of pre-existing conceptions of government to accomplish the result." Morgan declares private property to be the principal cause of the change. Thus he says, in regard to Athens: "The useful arts had attained a very considerable development; commerce on the sea had become a national interest; agriculture and manufactures were well advanced; and written composition in verse had commenced. They were in fact a civilized people, and had been for two centuries." Says Engels, in his "Origin of the Family," which follows "Ancient Society:" "Liberty, equality and fraternity, though never formulated, were cardinal principles of the gens." For a long while the wife perforce was the head of the family. "In all societies in which the matriarchal form of the family has maintained itself," Lafargue tells us, "we find landed property held by the woman. . . So long as property was a cause of subjection, it was abandoned to the woman; but no sooner had it become a means of emancipation and supremacy in the family and society than man tore it from her."

The family has undergone many changes. Morgan finds five forms of the family, each representing a different period: The consanguine, the intermarriage of brothers and sisters in a group, giving the Malayan system of relationships; the punaluan, the inter-marriage of several brothers to each other's wives in a group, and several sisters to each other's husbands in a group, creating the Turanian system of relationships; the syndyasmian family, the pairing of one male with one female, with no exclusive habitation and with separation at the option of either; the patriarchal family, the intermarriage of one man to several wives; the monogamian family, consisting of one man and one woman, creating the monogamian system of relationships. Evidence of the first two forms still remains, although they belong to savagery and precede the institution of the gens. The third form. is still extant among barbarians; Engels tells us it existed among the Irish and Welsh down to the twelfth century. The patriarchal form is that of pastoral tribes, notably the Hebrews of biblical times. It exists among the Mormons today. The last form is peculiar to private property and civilization. Here again, as Morgan says: "Property becomes sufficiently powerful in its influence to touch the organic structure of society."

The immorality of our time is, to a great extent, a reversion to what was formerly normal. Immorality is atavistic. Bigamy, the double code of sexual morals and the other one-sided secret arrangements especially prevalent among the upper class, are of this nature.

As a general rule, frequency of relapse to a former sexual relation depends upon how nearly it approaches the present relation. By what we can gather from evolution, the family of the future is likely to be one cf pure monogamy.

It has been well said that the freedom of any society may be measured by the freedom of its women. "Woman was the first human being to come into bondage; she was a slave before the male Slave existed," says Bebel, in his great work, "Woman under Socialism." Let us remember that as late as the sixteenth century— after Sappho had twanged her lyre and when we were about to have from Shakespeare the characters of Desdemona, Lady Macbeth, Ophelia and Portia-serious men were still in doubt as to whether or not woman has a soul; while Havelock Ellis tells us, in his work on "Man and Woman," "It can scarcely be said that the study of the brain from the present point of view leads to the revelation of any important sexual distinctions." For over a century woman has been struggling for the right of suffrage, a right she enjoyed in barbarism. Step by step she has fought her way up, bearing alone the sacred burden of motherhood and yet deemed unworthy to share the liberties of her offspring. At the present time over five million women in America, a large proportion of whom are married, crowd the labor market. Like man they are compelled to prostitute their minds and muscle for bread, while more than half a million are thrust in the mire even more deeply than man. The woman problem is most decidedly part of the social problem, although women are prevented from assisting at its solution.

Differences there are between the two sexes, differences that reach down into our very being. Havelock Eilis, after considering such distinctions, sums the matter up in this fashion: "All the evidence brought together points, with varying degrees of certainty, to the same conclusion-the greater physical fraility of men, the greater tenacity of life in women." "From an organic standpoint, therefore, women represent the more stable and conservative element in evolution." "In each sex there are undeveloped organs and functions which in the other sex are developed." Ward has this to say: "The dominant characteristic of the male faculty is courage, that of the female, prudence." "In the realm of the intellect, where he would fain reign supreme, she has proved herself fully his equal and is entitled to her share of whatever credit attaches to human progress thereby achieved." And Edward Carpenter, in "Love's Coming of Age," pays this tribute: "Since she keeps to the great lines of evolution and is less biased and influenced by the momentary currents of the

day; since her life is bound up with the life of the child; since in a way she is nearer the child herself, and nearer to the savage; it is to her that Man, after his excursions and wanderings, mental and physical, continually tends to return as to his primitive home and resting place, to restore his balance, to find his centre of life and to draw stores of energy and inspiration for fresh conquests of the outer world." It is the male who searches for new worlds to conquer, while the female conserves what has been gained. Organic inequalities tend to make the sexes complement each other and work for social betterment. Each is realized only through a perfect union with the other. There is no room for social distinctions.

As deplorable as the condition of woman is today, that of the child is still worse. Two millions of the youngsters are turning their frail bodies into profit; thousands of them die before arriving at maturity. Says Charlotte Perkins Gilman, in her work, "Concerning Children": "As members of society, we find they have received almost no attention. They are treated as members of the family by the family, but not even recognized as belonging to society. Except for these rare cases of special playgrounds, except for the quite generous array of school houses and a few orphan asylums and kindred institutions, there are no indications in city or country that there are such people as children." And here it may be inserted that, whatever element of truth there may be in the view that Bernard Shaw writes plays for the opportunity it affords him of penning prefaces, true enough is it that many such a sociological contribution as Spencer's "Education" is badly in need of a long preliminary chapter, setting forth the fact that for the great mass of the people the treatise is largely inapplicable. Mrs. Gilman, for her part, knows that the welfare of the little ones is bound up in the general concern. "Our children suffer individually from bad social conditions," she says, "but cannot be saved individually."

Man's relations in society are the outcome of what has gone before, the fruit of historical conditions. Only by bearing this in mind can we understand existing institutions, learn how codes of morality come to be formulated and determine what course of action makes for the common good. This method is that of historical materialism, the Socialist interpretation of history. That the method is a rational one is shown by the fact that the establishment of international commercial connections is followed by the holding of international conferences on matters of a diplomatic, philosophical, scientific and sociological nature, although some of these conferences are international in little but name. It is shown in the fact that the so

called "individualistic" school of sociology, represented by Spencer, which was a reflex of capitalism in its younger days, is being ousted by the modern "social" school, indicating that our social order is drawing to a close.

It is in the domain of criminal sociology, of all special fields, that possibly the most satisfactory work has been done thus far. For this we are indebted particularly to Enrico Ferri, of the positive school of criminology of Lombroso.

Distinguishing three causes of crime-heredity, physical, and social environments-Ferri divides criminals into five groups: criminal madmen, born criminals, criminals by contracted habits, occasional criminals and criminals of passion, and declares that mad criminals and criminals of passion are 5 to 10 per cent of the total; born and habitual criminals, 40 to 50 per cent, and occasional criminals, 40 to 50 per cent. While laying due stress upon this fact, Ferri goes on to say: "It is to the social factors that we must chiefly attribute the periodic variations of criminality." Again, "The truth is that the balance of crime is determined by the physical and social environment. But by changing the condition of the social environment, which is most easily modified, the legislator may alter the influence of the telluric environment and the organic and pychic conditions. of the population, control the greater portion of crimes and reduce them considerably." His studies lead him to formulate a "law of criminal saturation," which he explains as follows: "Just as in a given volume of water, at a given temperature, we find a solution of a fixed quantity of any chemical substance, not an atom more or less, so in a given social environment, in certain defined physical conditions of the individual, we find the commission of a fixed number of crimes." It is in obeyance to this law that at one time men try to break out of jail, while at another time they try to break in.

The positive school, therefore, considers the criminal a victim. rather than a free will agent. It proceeds upon the theory that, as the saying goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," and, in its program, offers "penal substitutes," whereby criminal proclivities may be diverted into non-criminal and useful channels. It may be said, however, that the carrying out of this program is largely dependent upon the progress of the workers and the birth of a social consciousness. In the minor courts today, to the greatest degree, and to some extent in the superior courts, judges are chosen, not so much so for being learned in the law as for wealth or service to the political machine. It goes without saying that this is equally true of legislators and prison officials. Also, the "law of criminal saturation"

is quite acceptable to one who regards society from the standpoint of historical materialism. The theory of saturation may be applied to other social ills; it is but another way of putting it that the human race tolerates one social order until it is ready for another.

In some respects the most courageous work done in the field of sociology is that of the school of Ratzenhofer, represented by Albion W. Small. Says the latter, in his work on "General Sociology:" "In the beginning were interests. The primary interests of every The con

man, as of every animal, is in sheer keeping alive. spicuous element in the history of the race, so far as it has been recorded, is universal conflict of interests." The last sentiment is readily recognized as the opening thought of the "Communist Manifesto," Engels' footnote included. Small lays stress upon class interests, dividing society into "three chief groups: the privileged; the middle class; those without property, rights, or influence."

This is a pretty good working foundation. Furthermore, if sociology is, as its exponents affirm, the science of sciences, the bouquet of the others, it must take a stand in this great conflict of contending interests. Sociology that exists for its own sake is sterile. There is no sociology for the sake of sociology, as Ferri well puts it. It must exist for the sake of society. Just as there is a positive school of criminal sociology, so there must be a positive program for general sociology. Small perceives this. So he declares: "From the human standpoint no science is an end in itself. The proximate end of all science is organization into action." And again, "The sociologists believe that the most worthy work of men is effort to improve human conditions." Following this theme, Small talks in the language of the Socialist: "Civilization involves approach to a situation in which each person shall be a person, not a commodity for other persons; in which also each person shall be equally free with every other person to develop the type of personality latent in his natural endowment, not the sort of personality to which he would be limited by arbitrary division of opportunity." Small accepts Socialist economics: "In the first place, capital itself produces nothing. It earns nothing. This is contrary to general economic presumption." And following this: "If we are justified in drawing any general conclusions whatever from human experience thus far, it is safe to say that the social process tends to put an increasing proportion of individuals in possession of all the goods which have been discovered by the experience of humanity as a whole, and that all social program should be thought out with a view to promotion of this tendency."

How near Small comes to the Socialist position may be gathered