ABSTRACT
Last year an Italian scientist, Attilio Brunialti, in his monograph on 'Lo Stato Modemo,' traced, side by side, the growth of the state in theory and history. The authors before us have performed a similar service for socialism,whose triumph in the near future they endeavor to prove inevitable by a succinct examination of universal history. It is always difficult to criticise a book whose literary qualities fascinate us, while at the same time we clearly recognize the error ofthe authors' main views. This is the case with the volume in hand-a volume written in Mr. Morris's most exquisite style, and sincerely urging the most untenable of socialism's tenets. The historian cannot fail to see at first glance that Messrs. Morris and Bax have read extensively, in historical literature, both thoseworks dealingwith primitive institutions, and those describing more recent epochs. This is evidenced by the complete rejection ofSir Henry Summer Maine's patriarchal theory, as well as by the adoption of the best results ofIhering, Bachofen, Sohm, Stubbs, McLennan and Gross. As is usual with amateur historians, we find a certain boldness in accepting offhand solutions of some of the most vexed problems of history, such as the origin of the medieval manor and city. Their critical views also are not trustworthy, since their sole standpoint for judging an epoch is their estimate of the workman's happiness during that period. Lack of space prevents us from refuting
some of the main propositions, which, often erroneous, as often stimulate the mind to active thought by their suggestive originality. Like Carlyle in Past andPresent, Messrs. Morris and Bax surround the Middle Ages with a halo of glory; and, in addition, they contend that the 'bourgeois' historians, Hallam, Green, Freeman and Stubbs, have purposely exaggerated the gloom of that period, in order to cause modern civilization to appear the more brilliant by the contrast. It is needless to say that this view is absurd, and that, in our opinion, the differen.ces in favor of our century are more than even those writers would admit. One of the contentions in favor of this view is that 'the whole of our unskilled laboring classes are in a far worse position as to food, housing and clothing than any but the extreme fringe of the corresponding class in the Middle Ages.' The falsity of this statement will appear when we consider what awful ravages such plagues as the Black Death created. Towards the middle of the fourteenth century four great plagues swept over England, and of these the most severewas that of 1349. England was then sparsely inhabited, having only four millions of inhabitants, of which over half were carried off while in London the proportion of living to dead was two to three. The Rev. Dr. Jessopp describes a marital quarrel, illustrating in a most gruesome manner the terrific mortality. Reginald Goscelin had a dispute with his wife Emma about her dower. The question was never settled. 'Before the day of hearing came on, everyone of Emma Goscelin's witnesses was dead, and her husband was dead too.' A year ago cholera visited Europe, and killed but a few thousand people, absolutely and relatively a surprisingly small number. Even in the most crowded towns the mortality was not great, while in New York a few deaths nearly caused a panic. In view of such facts, does not our authors' assertion bear the stamp of absurdity on its face? The history of medieval plagues proves in a negative way that modern hygiene has immeasurably improved the housing ofall people. Need we call into witness the filthy rushes of Shakespeare's contemporaries?
