« AnteriorContinuar »
enabling us to judge of the tendency of society in Germany, and doubly important when coming from such an authority as Prof. Schmoller.
The inaugural address of Prof. Stieda delivered in Feb. 1897, on assuming the position of rector of the University of Rostock, is very significant as confirming for one branch of business the general conclusions of Prof. Schmoller.
His subject was the Vitality of the Handicrafts in Germany. The handicraftsman of the middle ages, that is the mechanic, not working for wages nor for a capitalist, but directly for his customers, is a figure whose decadence has often been laid at the door of the factory system, and on whose behalf the sympathy of the historical student has often been elicited. Undoubtedly many trades which were formerly carried on in the household and on a small scale are now located in large factories under superintendents and foremen, and the workers have lost a great deal of their former independence as a consequence of the wage system, but here too, there seem to be counter currents, and Prof. Stieda shows very clearly that while many articles formerly produced by the handicraftsmen have ceased to be used and many others are now produced more cheaply by means of machines, on the other hand new demands have arisen for new trades which have to be carried on on a small scale. The tinsmith and the plumber no longer make kitchen utensils, yet find occupation in the laying of gas and water pipes, in making ornamental work for buildings, etc. The locksmith, too, no longer makes by hand complete locks, but finds occupation in the making of objects of household art, in electrical work, etc.
“The handicraft," says Prof. Stieda, "still supports him who understands it quite well, and what it has lost in one field it has gained in another."
The Social Teaching of Jesus; an Essay in Christian Sociology. By
Shailer Mathews, A.M., Professor of New Testament History and Interpretation in the University of Chicago. New York, The Macmillan Co., 1897—16mo, vi, 235 pp.
Genesis of the Social Conscience; the Relation between the Establish
ment of Christianity in Europe and the Social Question. By H. S. Nash, Professor in the Episcopal Theological School at Cambridge. New York, The Macmillan Co., 1897—16mo, viii, 304 PP.
Christianity and Social Problems. By Lyman Abbott. Boston and
New York, Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1896—16mo, v, 370 pp.
These three works represent the three different methods by which the bearing of Christianity on "the social questions" may be treated. The first is expository; the second, historical and philosophical; the third, dogmatic and practical. The task which Professor Mathews sets before himself is to classify and interpret such teachings of Jesus as have a social reference, precisely as he would do in the case of Plato or a great poet. Professor Nash undertakes to trace the influence which Greek, Roman, Hebrew and Christian ideas have severally and conjointly exercised on the definition of the Individual as related to Society. Dr. Abbott seeks to elucidate the ethical bearing of Christian truth on present-day problems, and to rouse the conscience. The advantage of the first method is, that it is scientific, that it operates directly upon the sources, and that it is relatively easy to work; its disadvantage is, that its field is comparatively narrow and remote from present interests. The advantage of the second method is, that it is a study not of words onlyeven the best words—but of the most vital and decisive movements in the whole world's history; its disadvantage is, that it imposes a task which is unmanagable from its very bulk and complexity. The third method has the capital advantage that its themes are familiar and fascinating to the common man; but this is also in a sense a drawback, inasmuch as it brings the author out of the remote and the vague, holds him to plain reality and gives him an audience of competent critics.
All these advantages and disadvantages are illustrated in the three books before us. The first is a study, by an accomplished
New Testament scholar, of the teachings of Jesus as to man, society, the family, the state, wealth, social life, the forces of human progress, and the process of social regeneration. It is comprehensive, though precise in scope, impartial in spirit, and lucid in style. The second work abounds in keen and deep insights, in brilliant generalizations and epigrams, and in idiosyncracies of style which sometimes weary the reader. It claims the right to be one-sidedand is. But we account it one of the strongest and most fructifying books we have seen of late. The third work, that of Dr. Abbott, is in its author's well-known vein. It sets forth what he conceives to be the Christian view concerning democracy, communism, socialism, the family, the settlement of controversies—personal, international and industrial-crime, prostitution, and other problems of modern society. Manifestly, it is not the work of a scholar for scholars, but of a preacher for the people. It lacks somewhat in clear definition, in close analysis, in firmness of grasp on economic and sociological law-as, e. g., in its treatment of competition and of the aim and scope of political economy. One looks through it in vain for any adequate emphasis on intelligence, industry, selfcontrol, thrist, and individual initiative and responsibility, as the first essentials of a healthy society. Dr. Abbott rejects socialism, but perhaps he does not wholly clear himself of the fallacies on which socialism rests. Nevertheless, the work is pervaded by a noble spirit, and enforces certain social duties with fine vigor.
W. F. B.
Constantinople. By Edwin A. Grosvenor, Professor of European
History at Amherst College, formerly Professor of History at Robert College, Constantinople; member of the Hellenic Philologic Syllogos of Constantinople; of the Society of Mediæval Researches, Constantinople; of the Syllogos Parnassos of Athens, Greece. Boston, Roberts Brother, 1895-2 vols., large 8vo, 811 PP.
Cities, like people, have a certain individuality. To understand them thoroughly requires more than occasional acquaintance. There must be a summering and wintering with the attendant opportunities for gauging the effect of frost and heat, dry and wet, storm as well as sunshine. We must know, too, something of their antecedents. There is an heredity of nations and of places as well as of individuals. All this is especially true of a class of cities where oriental and occidental mingle in varying proportion. London is
English; Paris, French; Benares, Hindu; Peking, Chinese. But what is Constantinople? To appearance it is largely Turkish; witness its minarets, its Asiatic crowds, its bazaars; so also it is French in its Pera streets, shops and cafés, and English in much of its building and its shipping, while Byzantine domes and aqueducts help to show us that the life is a manifold one defying description or classification. Thus it is that no one not a long resident ever ought to write about the city. Marion Crawford had come perhaps the nearest to success, although Edmondo di Amicis had done much to satisfy the demands for something more than a guide book, when Professor Grosvenor met the want completely. He had, it is true, peculiar advantage-a long time resident of the city, he was intimately acquainted with its best scholars and most widely informed men and women, and received in his early stay the impulse to research from Alexander Paspati, than whom probably no one knew Constantinople better. He was also by personal characteristics and by his lines of study well fitted for the work. The result is the best book on the city not merely as it is, but as it has been.
The plan of the book is singularly well adapted to its purpose. The first half of the first volume is given to history and a general description of the topography. Neither is drawn out in detail, both are sketchy rather than complete, forming the frame work for what follows. Then through half of the first volume and the whole of the second the author takes the reader on a sort of saunter through the city, describing one thing after another-mosques, bazaars, churches, walls, aqueducts, places of resort, palaces, streets, people—just exactly as one would take a friend. He is, too, not content with mere description, but binds each particular object to its history in the past. The plainest sort of a mosque-church, with no peculiar architecture to attract the eye, becomes a point of special interest when connected with some stirring scene of Byzantine days; the capture of the city or some intrigue of palace or harem through the years succeeding. Occasionally the locality gives opportunity for a detailed statement, as the story of the carrying of the galleys across the hills from the Bosporus to the Golden Horn, but in most cases the outline is given rather than the detail, and the interest is kept up throughout the two volumes.
In such a book, as is natural, accuracy is the first essential, and accuracy in such a case requires broad sympathies. Professor Grosvenor is above all things else Greek in his sympathies, and
the antagonism that history has developed so fully between the different nationalities might, not unnaturally, have warped his vision so that others, whether Turks, Armenians, Bulgarians or even Europeans, should get scarcely the full meed of attention. In this respect he has done remarkably well. In one thing many will perhaps differ from him, and that is his estimate of the Turkish Sultan. It must be remembered, however, that the book was written before the proof of the complicity of the ruler with the massacres was before the world, and at no time has there been failure, even of those who felt most keenly his tyranny, to recognize the many personal qualities of Abdul Hamid which have won encomiums from almost if not all of those who have come into close contact with him. It is in some respects fortunate that the book antedated the disturbances, for since that time it would be difficult to get as clear a perspective as it furnishes.
So far as the archæology and general history of the city is concerned this book may be accepted absolutely. Undoubtedly there are points where the author differs from well known students, and it may be that he would on occasion have to yield in some minor question. For the general reader, however, such points are so few and far between as to be of no appreciable value. Any one who will take these two volumes and read them carefully may feel that he has secured as clear, complete and accurate a statement as it is possible for any one to give.
Still more valuable, however, than the accuracy of detail is the general tone of the book, the clearness with which the historical continuity of the city's history is set forth, the close relation between its different epochs, the part which each has played in its development. The result is that we have, as already noted, the peculiar individuality of the city life, its Byzantine foundation, its Asiatic dress, its modern European adornment. We feel, as it is difficult for any one except a resident of the city to feel, that all three phases are present and living elements in the city life. What will be Constantinople's fate in the future no one can tell, although that at some time the Russians will dominate it politically is probably true. It is therefore very fortunate that before that change comes we have so perfect and valuable a statement of the city life and character. Mention should be made of the excellent and very full illustrations and the charming style which never wearies the reader, and the general elegant make-up of the book by its publishers.
E. M. Bliss.