296 
A na lyses of Books. 
[May, 
An Analysis of the Principles of Economics. Part I. By 
Patrick Geddes. London and Edinburgh : Williams and 
Norgate. 
The substance of this treatise is a memoir read before the 
Royal Society of Edinburgh, on March 17th, April 17th, and 
July 7th, last year. The contents, as will be anticipated by all 
who are acquainted with the author’s antecedents, differ most 
favourably from the productions of the normal British econo- 
mists. Of this class of men it may truly be said that, with the 
exception of the lamented Prof. Jevons, they are chiefly distin- 
guished by their ignorance of, and often contempt for, every 
science, save their own body of dodtrine. 
The question must arise, In what light must political economy 
be considered ? We should be apt to regard it as a fragmentary 
portion of Sociology, just as would be, e.g., the physiology of 
respiration or of digestion if studied apart from, and in negledt 
of, general physiology. Mr. Geddes, however, advances a dif- 
ferent view, for which much may be said, viz., that it is a “ crude 
science, standing to Sociology much as the Psychology _ of the 
last century to that now in process of evolution.” In its ulti- 
mate results this way of regarding economics differs little from 
our own, since both alike refuse to it the rank of a definitive body 
of dodtrine. 
Mr. Geddes warns his readers against two errors, formidable 
in all sciences which bear diredtly upon man, and here perhaps 
most formidable of all. One of these aberrations is that “ theo- 
retic conceptions are subtly, almost inextricably, interwoven with 
pradtical considerations.” 
The first aim of the work before us is the disentangling of this 
confusion, or, in the author’s own words, “ to distinguish dodtrine 
from pradtice, to separate principle from precept, and to construdt 
Science apart from Art.” 
The second error — still more difficult of elimination — is the 
introduction of extra-scientific conceptions and methods. 
The “ notorious discord and sterility of modern economics ”* 
has now to be explained. For this unsatisfactory state of things 
the author propounds two valid reasons : — The applications of 
the various sciences to the elaboration of this discipline has not 
been systematic or co-ordinated, and, when and where attempted, 
such applications have been imperfect or faulty. As instances, 
it can scarcely be assumed that “ material wealth,” “ intrinsic 
value,” &c., can be rightly discussed in negledt of the funda- 
mental principles of modern physics. Yet “ in the outset of 
almost every economic treatise ” this vain attempt is made. 
* Ingram, On Present Position of Political Economy. 
