462 



NATURE 



[September ii, 1890 



one which it is perhaps undesirable to pass without 

 remark : — 



"All researches prove that unsaturated compounds 

 possess a greater heat of combustion than saturated 

 ones ; their heats of formation are therefore less and their 

 energy greater than that of compounds containing carbon 

 atoms linked only by single bonds. The thermal be- 

 haviour of unsaturated compounds also shows that the 

 so-called double bond is a weaker, not a stronger , form of 

 atomic attraction than the simple bond.'" 



The first of these sentences is a mere statement of fact ; 

 the second is an unwarrantable and illogical deduction 

 from the facts, and yet the fallacy which it embodies is 

 very generally overlooked. Chemists are persuaded that 

 the ethylenic form of linkage is not the equivalent of two 

 paraffinic linkages, but is considerably weaker ; beyond 

 this, however, all is surmise. It is not determined whether 

 or no the carbon atoms in ethylenic compounds are united 

 by more than a single affinity ; and as we have no means 

 at present of calculating the thermal equivalent of even 

 a paraffinic linkage, thermal behaviour cannot enable us 

 to judge which is the stronger form of atomic attraction — 

 the paraffinic or the ethylenic. The greater stability of 

 saturated as compared with unsaturated compounds would 

 appear to be due to the greater readiness with which the 

 latter are acted on. To defeat an enemy it is neces- 

 sary to approach within striking distance ; and so it is 

 in affairs chemical. The vulnerable points in saturated 

 compounds are few or limited in extent, but in the case 

 of the unsaturated it is easy for the attacking party— the 

 chemical agent — to effect a lodgment. 



Our criticisms thus far have had reference chiefly to 

 Parts I. and II. ; but of Part III., which is the more 

 important section of the book and the more novel in 

 plan, we cannot speak in terms much less unfavourable. 

 We can only say : Defend us from the student whose 

 knowledge of the general behaviour of organic com- 

 pounds has been derived from such a course of study. 

 We wish, in the interests of English chemical students, 

 that the book had remained untranslated. 



H. E. A. 



THE THEORY OF INTEREST. 



Capital ajid Interest : a Critical History of Economic 

 Theory. By Prof. Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk. Trans- 

 lated by William Smart, M.A. (London : Macmillan 

 and Co., 1890.) 



PROF. SMART shares with Mr. James Bonar the 

 honour of introducing to the English public a 

 leader of the important Austrian school of economists. 

 Mr. Bonar, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, 

 transfuses into his own happy style the spirit of Prof. 

 Bohm-Bawerk's theory of value. Prof. Smart translates 

 the same writer's theory of interest, which, to be fully 

 appreciated, should be read in connection with the earlier 

 work. The translation is enhanced by an analysis and a 

 preface, in which the author's theory is, so to speak, 

 " brought down to earth," and adapted, by examples taken 

 from the highway and the market-place, to the compre- 

 hension of the wayfaring man. Referring to his own 

 labours, Mr. Smart makes a suggestion which deserves 

 attention : — 



NO. 1089, VOL. 42] 



" The time I have given to this work may excuse my 

 suggesting that a valuable service might be rendered to 

 the science, and a valuable training in economics given, 

 if clubs were organized, under qualified professors, to 

 translate, adapt, and publish works which are now indis- 

 pensable to the economic student." 



Mr. Smart should be one of these professors ; for he 

 has proved himself to be eminently qualified, not only to 

 translate, but to adapt an important work. 



One quality of this work, about the excellence of which 

 there can be no question, is the learning with which 

 it abounds. The Austrian economists rival their German 

 neighbours of the exclusively " historical " school in 

 laboriousness of research. He must be a ripe scholar to 

 whom many even of the names, as well as matters, in 

 our author's review of theorists and theories are not new. 

 We shall not expose our own ignorance by mentioning 

 the writers of whom we had never heard before. As an 

 instance of one whose name was not unknown, but whose 

 position in economical history was not sufficiently recog- 

 nized, may be noticed Salmasius. The average English 

 reader is aware that Salmasius was underrated by Milton 

 and his biographer. Dr. Johnson. But it requires Prof. 

 Bohm-Bawerk's acquaintance with economic literature to 

 realize how much Salmasius contributed to the explosion 

 of the old prejudices against interest. Not only does 

 his doctrine 



" indicate an advance, but it long indicates the high- 

 water mark of the advance. . . . There was no essen- 

 tial advance on Salmatius (in respect of the theory of 

 interest) till the time of Smith and Turgot." 



J. B. Say, if we remember rightly, has observed that 

 there is not much use in studying the theories of the 

 earlier economists, as they were mostly wrong. Prof 

 Bohm-Bawerk evidently does not accept this somewhat 

 Philistine conclusion. But we suspect that he does not 

 deny the premiss. For it appears to be the motive of 

 this "Critical History of Economic Theory" to prove 

 that all preceding economists have gone astray, and fallen 

 short of the glory which we fully concede appertains in a 

 special degree to Prof. Bohm-Bawerk as the formulator of 

 the true theory of interest. Now we cannot agree to the 

 negative proposition here implied. Our approbation of 

 Prof. Bohm-Bawerk does not rest upon the censure of his 

 predecessors. Of course it must be admitted that on the 

 theory of interest, as on other economical subjects, a 

 great deal of nonsense has been talked. But — hindered 

 perhaps by the proverbial difficulty of unlearning the 

 lessons of youth— we can hardly believe that the leaders 

 of economic thought, that Ricardo and Senior and J. S. 

 Mill, deserve to be involved in such a sweeping con- 

 demnation. 



In expressing this doubt we shall shelter ourselves 

 behind the authority of one to whom most readers con- 

 versant with economic science will be disposed to defer. 

 In one of the scrupulously weighed notes attached to the 

 epoch-making work which Prof. Alfred Marshall has just 

 published, he thus refers to Prof. Bohm-Bawerk :— 



" The question may be raised whether he has not 

 somewhat exaggerated the difference between his own 

 position and that of his predecessors ; whether the sharp 

 contrasts which he finds between the doctrines of succes- 

 sive schools really existed, and whether those doctrines 



