The name was thus first applied in England to Owen’s theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of Saint-Simon and Fourier. The best usage has always connected it with the views of these men and the cognate opinions which have since appeared. The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning not only in popular speech and by politicians but even by economists and learned critics of socialism. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference with property undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, the limitation of the principle of laissez-faire in favour of the suffering classes, radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property as regulated by free competition. It is probable enough that the word will be permanently used to express the tendency indicated in these phrases, as a general name for the strong reaction that has now set in against the overstrained individualism and one-sided freedom which date from the latter half of the 18th century. The application is neither precise nor accurate; but it is use and wont that determine the meaning of words, and this seems to be the tendency of use and wont.

Even economic writers differ greatly in the meaning they attach to the word. The great German economist Roscher defines it as including “those tendencies which demand a greater regard for the common weal than consists with human nature.” Adolf Held says that “we may define as socialistic every tendency which demands the subordination of the individual will to the community.” Janet more precisely defines it as follows :—“We call socialism every doctrine which teaches that the state has a right to correct the inequality of wealth which exists among men and to legally establish the balance by taking from those who have too much in order to give to those who have not enough, and that in a permanent manner, and not in such and such a particular case,—a famine, for instance, a public calamity, &c.” Laveleye explains it thus: “In the first place every socialistic doctrine aims at introducing greater equality in social conditions, and in the second place at realizing those reforms by the law or the state.” Von Scheel simply defines it as the “economic philosophy of the suffering classes.” Of all these definitions it can only be said that they more or less faithfully reflect current opinion as to the nature of socialism. They are either too vague economic anarchy, to the degradation of the working man and his family, to the growth of vice and idleness among the wealthy classes and their dependants, to bad and inartistic workmanship, and to adulteration in all its forms; and that it is tending more and more to separate society into two classes,—wealthy millionaires confronted with an enormous mass of proletarians,—the issue out of which must either be socialism or social ruin. To avoid all these evils and to secure a more equitable distribution of the means and appliances of happiness, the socialists propose that land and capital, which are the requisites of labour and the sources of all wealth and culture, should become the property of society, and be managed by it for the general good. In thus maintaining that society should assume the management of industry and secure an equitable distribution of its fruits socialists are agreed, but in the most important points of detail they differ very greatly.

They differ as to the form society will take in carrying out the socialist programme, as to the relation of local bodies to the central government, and whether there is to be any central government, or any government at all in the ordinary sense of the word, as to the influence of the national idea in the society of the future, &c. They differ also as to what should be regarded as an “equitable” system of distribution. The school of Saint-Simon advocated a social hierarchy in which every man should be placed according to his capacity and rewarded according to his works. In the communities of Fourier the minimum of subsistence was to be guaranteed to each out of the common gain, the remainder to be divided between labour, capital, and talent,—five-twelfths going to the first, four-twelfths to the second, and three-twelfths to the third. At the revolution of 1848 Louis Blanc proposed that remuneration should be equal for all members of his social workshops. In the programme drawn up by the united social democrats of Germany (Gotha, 1875) it is provided that all shall enjoy the results of labour “according to their reasonable wants,” all of course being bound to work. It is needless to say also that the theories of socialism have been held in connexion with the most varying opinions in philosophy and religion. A great deal of the historic socialism has been regarded as a necessary implicate of idealism. Most of the prevailing socialism of the day is based on the frankest and most outspoken revolutionary materialism. On the other hand, many socialists hold that their system is a necessary outcome of Christianity, that socialism and Christianity are essential the one to the other; and it should be said that the ethics of socialism are closely akin to the ethics of Christianity, if not identical with them.

Still it should be insisted that the basis of socialism is economic, involving a fundamental change in the relation of labour to land and capital,—a change which will largely affect production, but will entirely revolutionize the existing system of distribution. But, while its basis is economic, socialism implies and carries with it a change in the political, ethical, technical, and artistic arrangements and institutions of society which would constitute a revolution greater probably than has ever taken place in human history, greater than the transition from the ancient to the mediaeval world, or from the latter to the existing order of society. In the first place, such a change generally assumes as its political complement the most thoroughly democratic organization of society. The early socialism of Owen and Saint-Simon was marked by not a little of the autocratic spirit; but the tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. Socialism, in fact, claims to be the economic complement of democracy, maintaining that without a fundamental economic change political privilege has neither meaning nor value. In the second place, socialism naturally goes with an unselfish or altruistic system of ethics. The most characteristic feature of the old societies was the exploitation of the weak by the strong under the systems of slavery, serfdom, and wage-labour. Under the socialistic régime it is the privilege and duty of the strong and talented to use their superior force and richer endowments in the service of their fellow-men without distinction of class or nation or creed. In the third place, socialists maintain that under their system and no other can the highest excellence and beauty be realized in industrial production and in art, whereas under the present system beauty and thoroughness are alike sacrificed to cheapness, which is a necessity of successful competition. Lastly, the socialists refuse to admit that individual happiness or freedom or character would be sacrificed under the social arrangements they propose. They believe that under the present system a free and harmonious development of individual capacity and happiness is possible only for the privileged minority, and that socialism alone can open up a fair opportunity for all. They believe, in short, that there is no opposition whatever between socialism and individuality rightly understood, that these two are complements the one of the other, that in socialism alone may every individual have hope of free development and a full realization of himself.

Having seen, then, how wide a social revolution is implied in the socialistic scheme of reconstruction, let us repeat (1) that the essence of the theory consists in this —associated production with a collective capital with the view to an equitable distribution. In the words of Schaffte, “the Alpha and Omega of socialism is the transformation of private competing capitals into a united collective capital” {Quintessenz des Socialismus). A. Wagner’s more elaborate definition of it (in his Grundlegung') is entirely in agreement with that of Schäffle. This is the principle on which all the schools of socialism, however opposed otherwise, are at one. Such a system, while insisting on collective capital (including land), is quite consistent with private property in other forms, and with perfect freedom in the use of one’s own share in the equitable distribution of the produce of the associated labour. A thoroughgoing socialism demands that this principle should be applied to the capital and production of the whole world; only then can it attain to supreme and perfect realization. But a sober-minded socialism will admit that the various intermediate stages in which the principle finds a partial application are so far a true and real development of the socialistic idea. (2) Socialism is both a theory of social evolution and a working force in the history of the 19th century. Some of the most eminent socialists, such as Rodbertus, regard their theory as a prophecy concerning the social development of the future rather than as a subject of agitation. In their view socialism is the next stage in the evolution of society, destined after many generations to supersede capitalism, as capitalism displaced feudalism and feudalism succeeded to slavery. Even the majority of the most active socialists consider the question as still in the stage of agitation and propaganda, their present task being that of enlightening the masses until the consummation of the present social development, and the declared bankruptcy of the present social order, shall have delivered the world into their hands. Socialism, therefore, is for the most part a theory affecting the future, more or less remote, and has only to a limited degree gained a real and practical footing in the life of our time. Yet it should not be forgotten that its theories have most powerfully affected all the ablest recent economic writers of Germany, and have even considerably modified German legislation. Its influence is rapidly growing among the lower and also among the most advanced classes in almost every country dominated by European culture, following as a destroying negation the development of capitalism. (3) In its doctrinal aspects socialism is most interesting as a criticism of the present economic order, of what socialists call the capitalistic system, with which the existing land system is connected. Under the present economic order land and capital (the material and instruments without which industry is impossible) are the property of a class, employing a class of wage-labourers handicapped by their exclusion from land and capital. Competition is the general rule by which the share of the members of those classes in the fruits of production is determined. Against this system critical socialism is a reasoned protest; and it is at issue also with the prevailing political economy, in so far as it assumes or maintains the permanence or righteousness of this economic order. Of the economic optimism implied in the historic doctrine of laissez-faire socialism is an uncompromising rejection. (4) Socialism is usually regarded as a phase of the struggle for the emancipation of labour, for the complete participation of the working classes in the material, intellectual, and spiritual inheritance of the human race. This is certainly the most substantial and most prominent part of the socialist programme, the working classes being the most numerous and the worst sufferers from the present régime. This view, however, is rather one-sided, for socialism claims not less to be in the interest of the small capitalist gradually crushed by the competition of the larger, and in the interest also of the large capitalist, whose position is endangered by the huge unmanageableness of his success, and by the world-wide economic anarchy from which even the greatest are not secure. Still it is the deliverance of the working class that stands in the front of every socialistic theory; and, though the initiative in socialist speculation and action has usually come from the middle and upper classes, yet it is to the working men that they generally appeal.

While recognizing the great confusion in the use of the word “socialism,” we have treated it as properly a phenomenon of the 19th century, beginning in France with Saint-Simon and Fourier, in England with Robert Owen, and most powerfully represented at the present day by the school of Karl Marx. As we have seen, however, there are definitions of the word which would give it a wider range of meaning and a more ancient beginning, compared with which capitalism is but of yesterday,—which would, in fact, make it as old as human society itself. In the early stages of human development, when the tribe or the village community was the social unit, the subordination of the individual to the society in which he dwelt was the rule, and common property was the prevalent form. In the development of the idea of property, especially as regards land, three successive historical stages are broadly recognized,—common property and common enjoyment of it, common property and private enjoyment, private property and private enjoyment. The last form did not attain to full expression till the end of the 18th century, when the principle of individual freedom, which was really a reaction against privileged restriction, was proclaimed as a positive axiom of government and of economics. The free individual struggle for wealth and for the social advantages dependent on wealth is a comparatively recent thing. In all periods of history the state reserved to itself the right to interpose in the arrangements of property,—sometimes in favour of the poor, as in the case of the English poor law, which may thus be regarded as a socialistic measure. Moreover, all through history revolts in favour of a rearrangement of property have been very frequent. And in the societies of the Catholic Church we have a permanent example of common property and a common enjoyment of it.

How are we to distinguish the socialism of the 19th century from these old-world phenomena, and especially from the communism which has played so great a part in history? To this query socialists, especially of the school of Marx, have a clear and precise answer. Socialism is a stage in the evolution of society which could not arrive till the conditions necessary to it had been established. The first and most essential of these was the development of the great industrialism which after a long period of preparation and gradual growth began to reach its culminating point with the inventions and technical improvements, with the application of steam and the rise of the factory system, in England towards the end of the 18th century. Under this system industry was organized into a vast social operation, and was thus already socialized; but it was a system that was exploited by the individual owner of the capital at his own pleasure and for his own behoof. Under the pressure of the competition of the large industry, the small capitalist is gradually crushed out, and the working producers become wage-labourers organized and drilled in immense factories and workshops. The development of this system still continues and is enveloping the 2hole world. Such is the industrial revolution. Parallel with this a revolution in the world of ideas equally great and equally necessary to the rise of socialism has taken place. This change of thought which made its world-historic announcement in the French Revolution made reason the supreme judge and had freedom for its great practical watchword. It was represented in the economic sphere by the school of Adam Smith. Socialism was an outcome of it too, and first of all in Saint-Simon and his school professed to give the positive and constructive corrective to a negative movement which did not see that it was merely negative and therefore temporary. In other words, Saint-Simon may be said to aim at nothing less than the completion of the work of Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith. Thus socialism professes to be the legitimate child of two great revolutions,—of the industrial revolution which began to establish itself in England towards the end of the 18th century, and of the parallel revolution in thought which about the same time found most prominent expression in France. Robert Owen worked chiefly under the influence of the former; Saint-Simon and Fourier grew up under the latter. The conspiracy of Babeuf is properly to be regarded as a crude revolutionary communism not essentially different from the rude efforts in communism made in earlier periods of history. With Saint-Simon and Owen historic socialism really begins, and is no longer an isolated fact, but has had a continuous and widening development, the succession of socialistic teaching and propaganda being taken up by one country after another throughout the civilized world.

We have seen, then, that the rise of socialism as a new and reasoned theory of society was relative to the industrial revolution and to the ideas proclaimed in the French Revolution, prominent among which, besides the much emphasized idea of freedom and the less easily realized ideals of equality and fraternity, was the conception of the worth and dignity of labour. Though Owen was most largely influenced by the former and Saint-Simon and Fourier by the latter, it is certain that all three were greatly affected by both the new movements. The motive power in Owen’s career was the philanthropy and humanitarianism of the 18th century. He had grown up in the midst of the industrial revolution; he was one of the most successful pioneers in the improvement of the cotton manufacture. No one could be more deeply conscious of the enormous abuses of the factory system; and no one better knew the wonderful services it could render if technical improvement were only made subordinate to human wellbeing. In the career of Owen we see the new spirit of the 18th century seeking to bring the mechanism of the new industrial system under the direction of a nobler principle, in which the good of all should be the great and sole aim. The position of Saint-Simon was considerably different, yet akin. As Owen had before his eyes the evils of a young but gigantic industrialism, Saint-Simon contemplated the hoary abuses of an idle and privileged feudalism, fearfully shaken no doubt by the Revolution, but still strong in Europe, and in France as elsewhere powerfully revived during the period after Waterloo. Saint-Simon saw that a new world, an industrial world resting on labour, had arisen, while the old feudal and theological world— -fainéant courtiers and a clergy steeped in ignorance —still ruled. All this array of parasites, who had no longer any useful function to perform for society, Saint-Simon sought to replace by the industrial chiefs and scientific leaders...

The name was thus first applied in England to Owen’s theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of Saint-Simon and Fourier. The best usage has always connected it with the views of these men and the cognate opinions which have since appeared. The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning not only in popular speech and by politicians but even by economists and learned critics of socialism. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference with property undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, the limitation of the principle of laissez-faire in favour of the suffering classes, radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property as regulated by free competition. It is probable enough that the word will be permanently used to express the tendency indicated in these phrases, as a general name for the strong reaction that has now set in against the overstrained individualism and one-sided freedom which date from the latter half of the 18th century. The application is neither precise nor accurate; but it is use and wont that determine the meaning of words, and this seems to be the tendency of use and wont.

Even economic writers differ greatly in the meaning they attach to the word. The great German economist Roscher defines it as including “those tendencies which demand a greater regard for the common weal than consists with human nature.” Adolf Held says that “we may define as socialistic every tendency which demands the subordination of the individual will to the community.” Janet more precisely defines it as follows :—“We call socialism every doctrine which teaches that the state has a right to correct the inequality of wealth which exists among men and to legally establish the balance by taking from those who have too much in order to give to those who have not enough, and that in a permanent manner, and not in such and such a particular case,—a famine, for instance, a public calamity, &c.” Laveleye explains it thus: “In the first place every socialistic doctrine aims at introducing greater equality in social conditions, and in the second place at realizing those reforms by the law or the state.” Von Scheel simply defines it as the “economic philosophy of the suffering classes.” Of all these definitions it can only be said that they more or less faithfully reflect current opinion as to the nature of socialism. They are either too vague or they are misleading, and they quite fail to bring out the clear and strongly marked characteristics that distinguish the phenomena to which the name of socialism is properly applied. To say that socialism exacts a greater regard for the common weal than is compatible with human nature is to pass sentence on the movement, not to define it. In all ages of the world, and under all forms and tendencies of government and of social evolution, the will of the individual has been subordinated to the will of society, often unduly so. It is also most misleading to speak as if socialism must proceed from the state as we know it. The early socialism proceeded from private effort and experiment. A great deal of the most notorious socialism of the present day aims not only at subverting the existing state in every form but all the existing political and social institutions. The most powerful and most philosophic, that of Karl Marx, aimed at superseding the existing governments by a vast international combination of the workers of all nations, without distinction of creed, colour, or nationality.

Still more objectionable, however, is the tendency not unfrequently shown to identify socialism with a violent and lawless revolutionary spirit. As sometimes used, “socialism” means nothing more nor less than the most modern form of the revolutionary spirit with a suggestion of anarchy and dynamite. This is to confound the essence of the movement with an accidental feature more or less common to all great innovations. Every new thing of any moment, whether good or evil, has its revolutionary stage in which it disturbs and upsets the accepted beliefs and institutions. The Protestant Reformation was for more than a century and a half the occasion of national and international trouble and bloodshed. The suppression of American slavery could not be effected without a tremendous civil war. There was a time when the opinions comprehended under the name of “liberalism” had to fight to the death for toleration; and representative government was at one time a revolutionary innovation. The fact that a movement is revolutionary generally implies only that it is new, that it is disposed to exert itself by strong methods, and is calculated to make great changes. It is an unhappy feature of most great changes that they have been attended with the exercise of force, but that is because the powers in possession have generally attempted to suppress them by the exercise of force.

In point of fact socialism is one of the most elastic and protean phenomena of history, varying according to the time and circumstances in which it appears and with the character and opinions and institutions of the people who adopt it. Such a movement cannot be condemned or approved en bloc. Most of the current formulae to which it has been referred for praise or censure are totally erroneous and misleading. Yet in the midst of the various theories that go by the name of “socialism” there is a kernel of principle that is common to them all. That principle is of an economic nature, and is most clear and precise. The central aim of socialism is to terminate the divorce of the workers from the natural sources of subsistence and of culture. The socialist theory is based on the historical assertion that the course of social evolution for centuries has gradually been to exclude the producing classes from the possession of land and capital and to establish a new subjection, the subjection of workers, who have nothing to depend on but precarious wage-labour. The socialists maintain that the present system (in which land and capital are the property of private individuals freely struggling for increase of wealth) leads inevitably to social andeconomic anarchy, to the degradation of the working man and his family, to the growth of vice and idleness among the wealthy classes and their dependants, to bad and inartistic workmanship, and to adulteration in all its forms; and that it is tending more and more to separate society into two classes,—wealthy millionaires confronted with an enormous mass of proletarians,—the issue out of which must either be socialism or social ruin. To avoid all these evils and to secure a more equitable distribution of the means and appliances of happiness, the socialists propose that land and capital, which are the requisites of labour and the sources of all wealth and culture, should become the property of society, and be managed by it for the general good. In thus maintaining that society should assume the management of industry and secure an equitable distribution of its fruits socialists are agreed, but in the most important points of detail they differ very greatly.

They differ as to the form society will take in carrying out the socialist programme, as to the relation of local bodies to the central government, and whether there is to be any central government, or any government at all in the ordinary sense of the word, as to the influence of the national idea in the society of the future, &c. They differ also as to what should be regarded as an “equitable” system of distribution. The school of Saint-Simon advocated a social hierarchy in which every man should be placed according to his capacity and rewarded according to his works. In the communities of Fourier the minimum of subsistence was to be guaranteed to each out of the common gain, the remainder to be divided between labour, capital, and talent,—five-twelfths going to the first, four-twelfths to the second, and three-twelfths to the third. At the revolution of 1848 Louis Blanc proposed that remuneration should be equal for all members of his social workshops. In the programme drawn up by the united social democrats of Germany (Gotha, 1875) it is provided that all shall enjoy the results of labour “according to their reasonable wants,” all of course being bound to work. It is needless to say also that the theories of socialism have been held in connexion with the most varying opinions in philosophy and religion. A great deal of the historic socialism has been regarded as a necessary implicate of idealism. Most of the prevailing socialism of the day is based on the frankest and most outspoken revolutionary materialism. On the other hand, many socialists hold that their system is a necessary outcome of Christianity, that socialism and Christianity are essential the one to the other; and it should be said that the ethics of socialism are closely akin to the ethics of Christianity, if not identical with them.

Still it should be insisted that the basis of socialism is economic, involving a fundamental change in the relation of labour to land and capital,—a change which will largely affect production, but will entirely revolutionize the existing system of distribution. But, while its basis is economic, socialism implies and carries with it a change in the political, ethical, technical, and artistic arrangements and institutions of society which would constitute a revolution greater probably than has ever taken place in human history, greater than the transition from the ancient to the mediaeval world, or from the latter to the existing order of society. In the first place, such a change generally assumes as its political complement the most thoroughly democratic organization of society. The early socialism of Owen and Saint-Simon was marked by not a little of the autocratic spirit; but the tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. Socialism, in fact, claims to be the economic complement of democracy, maintaining that without a fundamental economic change political privilege has neither meaning nor value. In the second place, socialism naturally goes with an unselfish or altruistic system of ethics. The most characteristic feature of the old societies was the exploitation of the weak by the strong under the systems of slavery, serfdom, and wage-labour. Under the socialistic régime it is the privilege and duty of the strong and talented to use their superior force and richer endowments in the service of their fellow-men without distinction of class or nation or creed. In the third place, socialists maintain that under their system and no other can the highest excellence and beauty be realized in industrial production and in art, whereas under the present system beauty and thoroughness are alike sacrificed to cheapness, which is a necessity of successful competition. Lastly, the socialists refuse to admit that individual happiness or freedom or character would be sacrificed under the social arrangements they propose. They believe that under the present system a free and harmonious development of individual capacity and happiness is possible only for the privileged minority, and that socialism alone can open up a fair opportunity for all. They believe, in short, that there is no opposition whatever between socialism and individuality rightly understood, that these two are complements the one of the other, that in socialism alone may every individual have hope of free development and a full realization of himself.

Having seen, then, how wide a social revolution is implied in the socialistic scheme of reconstruction, let us repeat (1) that the essence of the theory consists in this —associated production with a collective capital with the view to an equitable distribution. In the words of Schaffte, “the Alpha and Omega of socialism is the transformation of private competing capitals into a united collective capital” (Quintessenz des Socialismus). A. Wagner’s more elaborate definition of it (in his Grundlegung') is entirely in agreement with that of Schäffle. This is the principle on which all the schools of socialism, however opposed otherwise, are at one. Such a system, while insisting on collective capital (including land), is quite consistent with private property in other forms, and with perfect freedom in the use of one’s own share in the equitable distribution of the produce of the associated labour. A thoroughgoing socialism demands that this principle should be applied to the capital and production of the whole world; only then can it attain to supreme and perfect realization. But a sober-minded socialism will admit that the various intermediate stages in which the principle finds a partial application are so far a true and real development of the socialistic idea. (2) Socialism is both a theory of social evolution and a working force in the history of the 19th century. Some of the most eminent socialists, such as Rodbertus, regard their theory as a prophecy concerning the social development of the future rather than as a subject of agitation. In their view socialism is the next stage in the evolution of society, destined after many generations to supersede capitalism, as capitalism displaced feudalism and feudalism succeeded to slavery. Even the majority of the most active socialists consider the question as still in the stage of agitation and propaganda, their present task being that of enlightening the masses until the consummation of the present social development, and the declared bankruptcy of the present social order, shall have delivered the world into their hands. Socialism, therefore, is for the most part a theory affecting the future, more or less remote, and has only to a limited degree gained a real and practical footing in the life of our time. Yet it should not be forgotten that its theories have most powerfully affected all the ablest recent economic writers of Germany, and have even considerablymodified German legislation. Its influence is rapidly growing among the lower and also among the most advanced classes in almost every country dominated by European culture, following as a destroying negation the development of capitalism. (3) In its doctrinal aspects socialism is most interesting as a criticism of the present economic order, of what socialists call the capitalistic system, with which the existing land system is connected. Under the present economic order land and capital (the material and instruments without which industry is impossible) are the property of a class, employing a class of wage-labourers handicapped by their exclusion from land and capital. Competition is the general rule by which the share of the members of those classes in the fruits of production is determined. Against this system critical socialism is a reasoned protest; and it is at issue also with the prevailing political economy, in so far as it assumes or maintains the permanence or righteousness of this economic order. Of the economic optimism implied in the historic doctrine of laissez-faire socialism is an uncompromising rejection. (4) Socialism is usually regarded as a phase of the struggle for the emancipation of labour, for the complete participation of the working classes in the material, intellectual, and spiritual inheritance of the human race. This is certainly the most substantial and most prominent part of the socialist programme, the working classes being the most numerous and the worst sufferers from the present régime. This view, however, is rather one-sided, for socialism claims not less to be in the interest of the small capitalist gradually crushed by the competition of the larger, and in the interest also of the large capitalist, whose position is endangered by the huge unmanageableness of his success, and by the world-wide economic anarchy from which even the greatest are not secure. Still it is the deliverance of the working class that stands in the front of every socialistic theory; and, though the initiative in socialist speculation and action has usually come from the middle and upper classes, yet it is to the working men that they generally appeal.

While recognizing the great confusion in the use of the word “socialism,” we have treated it as properly a phenomenon of the 19th century, beginning in France with Saint-Simon and Fourier, in England with Robert Owen, and most powerfully represented at the present day by the school of Karl Marx. As we have seen, however, there are definitions of the word which would give it a wider range of meaning and a more ancient beginning, compared with which capitalism is but of yesterday,—which would, in fact, make it as old as human society itself. In the early stages of human development, when the tribe or the village community was the social unit, the subordination of the individual to the society in which he dwelt was the rule, and common property was the prevalent form. In the development of the idea of property, especially as regards land, three successive historical stages are broadly recognized,—common property and common enjoyment of it, common property and private enjoyment, private property and private enjoyment. The last form did not attain to full expression till the end of the 18th century, when the principle of individual freedom, which was really a reaction against privileged restriction, was proclaimed as a positive axiom of government and of economics. The free individual struggle for wealth and for the social advantages dependent on wealth is a comparatively recent thing. In all periods of history the state reserved to itself the right to interpose in the arrangements of property,—sometimes in favour of the poor, as in the case of the English poor law, which may thus be regarded as a socialistic measure. Moreover, all through history revolts in favour of a rearrangement of property have been very frequent. And in the societies of the Catholic Church we have a permanent example of common property and a common enjoyment of it.

How are we to distinguish the socialism of the 19th century from these old-world phenomena, and especially from the communism which has played so great a part in history? To this query socialists, especially of the school of Marx, have a clear and precise answer. Socialism is a stage in the evolution of society which could not arrive till the conditions necessary to it had been established. The first and most essential of these was the development of the great industrialism which after a long period of preparation and gradual growth began to reach its culminating point with the inventions and technical improvements, with the application of steam and the rise of the factory system, in England towards the end of the 18th century. Under this system industry was organized into a vast social operation, and was thus already socialized; but it was a system that was exploited by the individual owner of the capital at his own pleasure and for his own behoof. Under the pressure of the competition of the large industry, the small capitalist is gradually crushed out, and the working producers become wage-labourers organized and drilled in immense factories and workshops. The development of this system still continues and is enveloping the 2hole world. Such is the industrial revolution. Parallel with this a revolution in the world of ideas equally great and equally necessary to the rise of socialism has taken place. This change of thought which made its world-historic announcement in the French Revolution made reason the supreme judge and had freedom for its great practical watchword. It was represented in the economic sphere by the school of Adam Smith. Socialism was an outcome of it too, and first of all in Saint-Simon and his school professed to give the positive and constructive corrective to a negative movement which did not see that it was merely negative and therefore temporary. In other words, Saint-Simon may be said to aim at nothing less than the completion of the work of Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith. Thus socialism professes to be the legitimate child of two great revolutions,—of the industrial revolution which began to establish itself in England towards the end of the 18th century,...

In their modern form learned and literary societies have their origin in the Italian academies of the Renaissance; but private scientific societies have arisen chiefly during the 19th century, being due to the necessity of increased organization of knowledge and the desire among scholars for a common ground to meet and compare results and collect facts for future generalization. These bodies rapidly tend to increase in number and to become more and more specialized. Many efforts have been made from time to time to tabulate and analyse the literature published in their proceedings, as, for instance, in the indexes of Reuss (1801-21) and the Royal Society (1867-79) for physics and natural science, and those of Walther (1845) and Koner (1852-56) for history. A further development of the work done by societies was made in 1822, when, chiefly owing to Humboldt, the Gesellschaft deutscher Naturforscher und Aerzte first met at Leipsic. This inauguration of the system of national congresses was followed in 1831 by the British Association for the Advancement of Science, which has served as the model for similar societies in France, America, and elsewhere. The merit of introducing the idea of migratory congresses into France is due to the distinguished archaeologist, M. Arcisse de Caumont (1802-73), who established the Association Normande, which since 1845 has held a reunion in one or other of the towns of the province for the discussion of matters relating to history, archaeology, science, and agriculture, with local exhibitions. From the same initiation came the Congrès Archéologique de France (1834), which was organized by the Société Française pour la Conservation des Monuments Historiques, the Congrès Scientifique, which held its first meeting at Caen in 1833 (directed by the Institut des Provinces), and the Congrès des Sociétés Savantes des Départements, which for many years after 1850 held its annual sittings at Paris. The idea received the sanction of the French Government in 1861, when a Congrès des Sociétés Savantes was first convoked at the Sorbonne by the minister of public instruction. In Italy Charles Bonaparte, prince of Canino, started an association with like objects, which held its first meeting at Pisa in 1839. Russia has had an itinerant gathering of naturalists since 1867. International meetings are a natural growth from congresses in which specialists of one country or speech are alone represented. Two remarkable examples of these cosmopolitan societies are the Congrès International d'Archéologie et d'Anthropologie Préhistoriques, founded at Spezzia in I860, and the Congrès International des Orientalistes (1873). Another step towards more complete organization was taken when the Smithsonian Institution (Washington, U.S.) developed the admirable system of international exchanges of its publications, as well as of other works and specimens, among societies and individuals. The Institution has agents in every part of the globe, and entertains relations with all the leading societies in the world. The International Scientific Bureau, a private enterprise, was established at Haarlem by Dr Van Baumhauer to facilitate the sending of parcels among societies and scientific men in Holland. Since 1875 the French ministry of public instruction has organized a distribution of foreign publications among societies in France. In England local scientific societies are now officially represented at the meetings of the British Association. In 1883 rules were framed for the admission of corresponding societies and for the institution of a conference of delegates to hold sittings contemporaneously with the annual meeting of the Association, for the purpose of discussing “propositions bearing on the promotion of more systematic observation and plans of operation, and of greater uniformity in the mode of publishing results,” as well as for the consideration of “matters in which the co-operation of corresponding societies is desired.” A committee was appointed in 1882 at the Montreal meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science “to confer with committees of foreign associations for the advancement of science with reference to an international convention of scientific associations;” and a fund for the purpose has been started.

It has been thought desirable to classify the societies treated of in the present article under the following headings, the first of which includes those of the widest scope, dealing with the whole range of natural history, or with archaeology and literature as well as science :—I. science generally; II. mathematics; III. astronomy; IV. physics; V. chemistry; VI. geology, mineralogy, and palaeontology; VII. meteorology; VIII. microscopy; IX. botany and horticulture; X. zoology; XI. anthropology; XII. sociology (embracing economic science, statistics, law, and education); XIII. medicine, surgery, &c.; XIV. engineering and architecture; XV. naval and military science; XVI. agriculture and trades; XVII. literature, archaeology, and history; XVIII. geography. I. Science generally.

United Kingdom. —First in antiquity and dignity among English societies comes the Royal Society (q. v. ) of London, which dates from 1660. In 1683 William Molyneux, the author of The Case of Ireland Stated, exerted himself to form a society in Dublin after the pattern of that of London. In consequence of his efforts and labours the Dublin Philosophical Society was established in January 1684, with Sir William Petty as first president. The members subsequently acquired a botanic garden, a laboratory, and a museum, and placed themselves in communication with the Royal Society of London. Their meetings after 1686 were few and irregular, and came to an end at the commencement of hostilities between James II. and William III. The society was reorganized in 1693 at Trinity College, Dublin, where meetings took place during several years. On 25th June 1731, chiefly owing to the exertions of Dr S. M. Madden, the Dublin Society for Improving Husbandry, Manufactures, and other Useful Arts came into existence. In January 1737 they commenced to publish the Dublin Society's Weekly Observations, and in 1746 the society was placed on the civil establishment, with an allowance of £500 a year from the Government. A charter of incorporation was granted in 1750, and seven years later the Royal Dublin Society for the first time owned a house of its own, and in the following year began the drawing school, which subsequently did so much for Irish art. Between 1761 and 1767 Government grants to the amount of £42,000 for promoting national agriculture and manufactures were distributed by the society, which claims to be the oldest scientific body in the United Kingdom after the Royal Society of London. It has published Transactions (1799- 1810); and its Proceedings (1764-75; 1848, &c.) and Journal (1858, &c.) are still issued. For the Royal Irish Academy, see Academy.

The Royal Physical Society of Edinburgh was instituted in 1771, and incorporated in 1788; it is exclusively devoted to natural history and the physical sciences. With it have been merged many other societies, such as the Chirurgo-Medical in 1796, the American Physical in 1796, the Hibernian Medical in 1799, the Chemical in 1803, the Natural History in 1812 (which brought in Brougham and Mackintosh), and the Didactic in 1813. It issues Proceedings (1858, &c. ). From the Philosophical Society of Edinburgh (1739) was developed the Royal Society of Edinburgh, whose charter is dated 29th March 1783. It was to comprise a physical and a literary class; among the members of the latter were Robertson, Hume, Burke, and Reid, and among those of the former Hutton, Black, Playfair, Dugald Stewart, and Watt. The literary division has been much less productive than the other. A second charter was obtained in 1811. The society has published Transactions (4to, 1788, &c.) and Proceedings (8vo, 1845, &c.).

The Linnean Society for the promotion of zoology and botany was founded in 1788 by Dr (afterwards Sir) J. E. Smith, in order to supplement the work of the Royal Society, and obtained a royal charter in 1802. The herbarium and collections of Linnaeus, with the founder’s additions, were purchased after his death. It removed from Sir Joseph Banks’s old house in Soho Square to Burlington House (London) in 1857, and assumed the apartments it now occupies in 1873. It has published Proceedings (1849, &c.). The Journal (8vo, 1857, &c.) and the Transactions (4to, 1791, &c. ) are divided into zoological and botanical sections. The Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Commerce, and Manufactures took its origin in 1753 from an academy established in the Strand by the landscape painter William Shipley. Attention was paid to the application of science to practical purposes, a subject passed over by the Royal Society. Exhibitions of pictures by native artists were held, and the first exhibition of the Royal Academy took place in its rooms. A fresh start in a new career was made by the Society of Arts in 1847, when it obtained a charter and the presidency of the Prince Consort. The International Exhibition of 1851 sprang from the smaller exhibitions previously held in its rooms. The East Indian section dates from 1869, the foreign and colonial and the chemical sections from 1874. Its organs have been Transactions (1783-1849) and the Journal (1853, &c. ). Sir Joseph Banks, Count Rumford, and other fellows of the Royal Society started the Royal Institution in 1799, when a site was purchased in Albemarle Street for “an establishment in London for diffusing the knowledge of useful mechanical improvements,” to “teach the application of science to the useful purposes of life.” The institution was incorporated in the following year. One of the most important epochs in the history of chemistry must be dated from the establishment of the laboratory where Davy and Faraday pursued their investigations. Belonging to the institution are foundations for professorships in natural philosophy, chemistry, and physiology. Courses of lectures on special subjects are given as well as discourses (once a week) of a more general and literary character. Its Journal has been issued since 1802. The London Institution was established on a similar basis in 1805 and incorporated in 1807. The building in Finsbury Circus was erected in 1819. The British Association for the Advancement of Science was instituted at York on 27th September 1831 in imitation of the itinerant scientific parliament held in Germany since 1822 (already referred to), and arose from a proposal by Sir D. Brewster. A meeting is held annually in one of the chief provincial towns of the United Kingdom. The object of the association is to promote science, to direct general attention to scientific matters, and to facilitate intercourse between scientific workers. Abstracts of the proceedings and reports of committees are published in the annual Report (1833, &c.). The Historical Society of Science (1841) printed a couple of volumes; and the Ray Society (1844), instituted for the printing of original and scarce old works (38 vols, have appeared) in zoology and botany, still flourishes. The Royal Colonial Institute was founded in 1868 and incorporated in 1882. It provides a place of meeting for gentlemen connected with the colonies and British India, undertakes investigations into subjects relating to the British empire, has established a museum and library, and gives lectures in its new building in Northumberland Avenue (London). It has published Proceedings since 1870. The Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, was founded in 1865 to form a connecting bond between men of science and others engaged in investigating important questions of philosophy and science, more especially those bearing upon the truths revealed in Holy Scripture. Its organ is the Journal (1867, &c.). The Balloon Society of Great Britain (1880) is not restricted to aeronautics, but deals with recent discoveries and inventions, and science generally. The foundation in 1821 of the Society for the Encouragement of the Useful Arts in Scotland, now usually known as the Royal Scottish Society of Arts, for the promotion of the useful arts and such branches of science as bear upon them was due to Sir D. Brewster, Sir J. Mackintosh, and others; it was incorporated in 1841, and has published Transactions since that year.

The leading provincial societies of Great Britain of a general character are as follows. Aberdeen, Nat. Hist. Sοc. (1863), Trans.; Phil. Sοc. (1840). Alloa, Sοc. of Nat. Hist. and Arch. (1863), Proc. (1865, &c.). Banffshire Field Club and Sc. Soc. (1880), Proc. Bath, Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Field Club (1866), Proc. (1867, &c.). Bedfordshire Nat. Hist. Soc. (1875), Trans. Belfast, Nat. Hist. and Phil. Soc. (1821), Proc. (1852, &c.); Naturalists' Field Club (1863), Proc. (1875, &c.). Berwickshire Naturalists’ Club (1831), Proc. (1834, &c.). Birkenhead, Lit. and Sc. Soc. (1857). Birmingham, Nat. Hist, and Micr. Soc. (1858), Proc. (1869, &c.); Birmingham and Midland Institute Sc. Soc. (1870), Trans. of archaeological section (1871, &c.); Phil. Soc. (1876), has a fund for promotion of original research, Proc.; Midland Union of Nat. Hist. Societies (1877), Midland Naturalist. Bolton, Lit. and Phil. Soc. (1871). Bradford, Phil. Soc. (1865), with various local societies afliliated to it. Brighton, Brighton and Sussex Nat. Hist. Soc. (1854), Ann. Reports (1855, &c.). Bristol, Museum and Library (formed by the amalgamation of the Institution for the Advancement of Sc., Lit., and the Fine Arts with the Lit. Soc., founded 1772); Naturalists' Soc. (1862), Proc. (1866, &c.). Burnley, Lit. and Sc. Club (1873), Trams. Burton-on-Trent, Nat. Hist. and Arch. Soc. (1876). Cambridge, Phil. Soc. (1819; incorporated 1832), for the promotion of philosophy and natural science, owns museum and library, Proc. (1865, &c.), Trans. (1821, &c.). Cardiff, Naturalists’ Soc. (1867), Trans. Chester, Soc. of Nat. Sc. (1871), Proc. Cork, Royal Inst. (1807), library; Cuvierian and Arch. Soc. (1836). Cornwall Royal Inst., at Truro (1818), devoted to natural philosophy, natural history, and antiquities, Journal (1864, &c.); Royal Polytechnic Soc., at Falmouth (1833; founded by the daughters of R. W. Fox and others), for the encouragement of science and the fine and industrial arts, Trans. (1835, &c.). Cumberland Assoc, for the Advancement of Lit. and Sc. (1876), provides a means of union for the local scientific societies of Cumberland and Westmoreland, Trans. Derry Nat. Hist. and Phil. Soc. (1870). Devonshire Assoc, for the Advancement of Sc. (1862). Dorset Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Club (1875). Dumfriesshire and Galloway Sc., Nat. Hist., and Antiq. Soc. (1876), Trans. Dundee, Naturalists' Soc. (1873). Eastbourne, Nat. Hist. Soc. (1867), Proc. (1869, &c.). East of Scotland Union of Naturalists' Societies (1884), Trans. Ebbw Vale, Lit. and Sc. Inst. (1850), owns laboratory. Elgin, Elgin and Morayshire Lit. and Sc. Assoc. (1836). Essex Field Club (1880), at Buckhurst Hill, Trans. Exeter, Naturalists' Club and Arch. Assoc. (1862). Glasgow, Phil. Soc. (1802), Proc. (1844, &c.); Nat. Hist. Soc. (1851), Proc. (1868, &c.); Soc. of Field Naturalists (1872), Trans. (1872, &c.). Gloucester, Lit. and Sc. Assoc. (1838). Greenock, Phil. Soc. (1861). Halifax, Phil. and Lit. Soc. (1830), museum and library. Hereford, Woolhope Naturalists' Field Club, Hereford Pomona and Trans. (1866, &c.). Hertfordshire Nat. Hist. Soc. and Field Club, formed in 1879 from the Watford Nat. Hist. Soc. (1875), Trans. High Wycombe, Nat. Hist. Soc. (1865), Magazine (1866, &c.). Hull, Lit. and Phil. Soc. (1822), Trans. (1824, &c.). Inverness, Sc. Soc. and Field Club (1875). Isle of Wight Phil. and Sc. Soc. (1850). Kent (East) Nat. Hist. Soc., at Canterbury (1858), Trans. Leeds, Phil. and Lit. Soc. (1820); Naturalists’ Club (1870), Trans. Leicester, Lit. and Phil. Soc. (1837), Trans. Lewes, Lewes and East Sussex Nat. Hist. Soc. (1864). Liverpool, Lit. and Phil. Soc. (1812; united with Nat. Hist. Soc. in 1844), Proc. (1845, &c.); Philomathic Soc. (1825), Trans.; Polytechnic Soc. (1838), Journal (1838, &c.); Naturalists' Field Club (1860). Manchester, Lit. and Phil. Soc. (1781), two sections, one physical and mathematical, the other for microscopy and natural history,—the original statements respecting the atomic theory were given by Dalton in the Memoirs (1789, &c.); Field Naturalists' and Arch. Soc. (1860), Trans.; Scientific Students Assoc. (1861). Montrose, Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc. (1836), museum. Newbury, District Field Club (1870), Trans. (1871, &c.). Newcastle-on-Tyne, Lit. and Phil. Soc. (1793), library; Northumberland, Durham, and Newcastle Nat. Hist. Soc. (1829), a museum (opened in 1884), Trans. Norfolk, Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists' Soc. (1869), Trans. (1870, &c.). Nottingham, Lit. and Phil. Soc. (1864). Orkney Antiq. and Nat. Hist. Soc. (1837), museum. Oxford, Ashmolean Soc. (1828), promotes all branches of practical knowledge. Paisley, Phil. Institution (1808), free library and museum; Mr Coats presented his observatory in 1882. Penzance, Nat . Hist. and Antiq. Soc. (1839), museum, Proc. (1845, &c.). Perth, Lit. and Antiq. Soc. (1784); Perthshire Soc. of Nat. Sc. (1867), Proc. (1869, &c.), The Scottish Naturalist (1870, &c.). Plymouth, Plymouth Inst, and Devon and Cornwall Nat. Hist. Soc. (1812), museum, art gallery, and library. Richmond, Richmond and North Riding Naturalists’ Field Club (1863), Trans. Ripon, Naturalists’ Club and Sc. Assoc. (1882). Scarborough, Phil, and Arch. Soc. (1831), museum and library. Severn Valley Naturalists Field Club, at Bridgenorth (1863). Sheffield, Lit. and Phil. Soc. (1822). Shetland Lit. and Sc. Soc., at Lerwick (1861). Shropshire and North Wales Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc. (1835), at Shrewsbury. Somersetshire Arch. and Nat. Hist. Soc., at Taunton (1849), Proc. (1851, &c.). Southampton, Hartley Institution (founded under bequest of H. R. Hartley in 1859, incorporated 1862), for the promotion of scientific, antiquarian, and Oriental studies and the fine arts, owns a museum and library. Staffordshire (North) Naturalists' Field Club and Arch. Soc. (founded as a natural history society in 1865; enlarged 1877), holds movable meetings. Stirling, Nat. Uist. and Arch. Soc. (1878), Trans. Stockport, Soc. of Naturalists (1884), Trans. Suffolk Inst. of Arch. and Nat. Hist., at Bury St Edmunds (1848), Proc. (1848, &c.), The East Anglian (1859, &c.). Swansea, Royal Institution (founded 1835; incorporated 1883), with a museum and library, promotes natural history and applied science, literature and fine arts, local history and antiquities. Tamworth, Nat. Hist., Geolog., and Antiq. Soc. (1871). Teign Naturalists' Field Club (1858). Torquay, Nat. Hist. Soc. (1844), museum and library. Tweedside and Kelso Physical and Antiq. Soc. (1834). Warrington, Lit. and Phil. Soc. (founded in 1870 upon the Micr. Soc.). Warwickshire Nat. Hist. and Arch. Soc. (1836), has a library and geological museum; Warwickshire Field Club (1854). Whitby, Lit. and Phil,Soc.(1822), owns a museum.

Wiltshire Arch. and Nat. Uist. Soc., at Devizes (1853), Wiltshire Magazine (1853,

&c.). Windsor, Windsor and Elon Sc. Soc., Trans. Witney, Nat. Uist. and Lit. Soc. (1858). Yorkshire Phil. Soc. (1822), the museum in the grounds of St Mary’s Abbey, York, contains a remarkable collection of Roman remains; Geolog. and Polytechnic Soc. (1837), quarterly meetings in various Yorkshire towns; Naturalists' Union of the natural history and scientific societies of the county (founded in 1861 as the West Riding Consolidated Naturalists' Soc.; reorganized in 1876), the Naturalist (1876, &c.)

Africa : Cape Town, South Afr. Phil. Soc., Trails. (1878, &c.); Mauritius, Roy. Soc. of Arts and Sc., Proc. (1846, &c.)and Trans. (1848, &c.). Canada: Halifax, Nova Scotian Inst., Proc. (1863, &c.; 1867, &c.). Montreal, Nat. Uist. Soc., Canadian Naturalist (1857, &c.). Ottawa, Lit. and Sc. Soc. Toronto, Canadian Inst., Canadian Journal (1852-76), Proc. (1879, &c.). Winnipeg, Hist. and Sc. Soc. West Indies: Kingston, Roy. Soc. of Arts of Jamaica, Trans. (1854, &c.). Port of Spain, Sc. Assoc, of Trinidad, Proc. (1866, &c.). Australia and New Zealand: Adelaide, Phil. Soc., Trans. (1865, &c.); South Australian Inst. (1836), library; Roy. Soc. of S. Australia. Auckland, Auckland Inst. Brisbane, Queensland Phil. Soc. Christchurch, Phil. Inst. Hobart Town, Roy. Soc. of Van Diemen's Land, Papers (1851, &c.); Roy. Soc. of Tasmania, Monthly Notices (1869, &c.). Melbourne, Roy. Phil. Soc. of Victoria, Trans. (1855, &c.); Nat. Hist. Soc.; Zoolog. and Acclim. Soc., Proc. (1872). Sydney, Linnean Soc. of N. S. W., Proc. (1876, Ac.); Phil. Soc., Trans. (1862, &c.; 1866, &c.); Roy. Soc. of N. S. W., Trans. (1867, &c.). Wellington, New Zealand Inst., Trans. (1869, &c.).

United States. —The first scientific society in the United States originated from a Proposal for Promoting Useful Knowledge among the British Plantations, issued by Dr Franklin in 1743. In the following year the American Philosophical Society was founded at Philadelphia, with Thomas Hopkinson as president and Franklin as secretary. With it was united on 2d January 1769 another Philadelphia society, The Junto (1758), the records of which have been preserved. The American Philosophical Society is still in vigorous life, and is an exclusively scientific body and the oldest organized society in the United States for the pursuit of philosophical investigation in its broadest sense. It publishes Transactions (4 to , 1771, &c.) and Proceedings (8vo, 1840, &c.). Although not a society in the exact sense of the word, the Smithsonian Institution, the most important scientific body in America, must not be overlooked. It was...