AN INTRODUCTORY LECTURE DELIVERED BEFORE HARVARD UNIVERSITY, January 4, 1893. BY W. J. ASHLEY, M.A. PROFESSOR OF ECONOMIC HISTORY IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY, LATE PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, SOMETIME FELLOW OF LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXFORD. Reprinted from the (Harvard) “Quarterly Journal of Economics] Vol. vii., No. 2 ; January , i8gj ON THE STUDY OF ECONOMIC HISTORY AN INTRODUCTORY LECTURE DELIVERED BEFORE HARVARD UNIVERSITY, January 4 , 1893. BY W. J. ASHLEY, M.A. PROFESSOR OF ECONOMIC HISTORY IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY, LATE PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, SOMETIME FELLOW OF LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXFORD. Reprinted from the (Harvard) “Quarterly Journal of Economics,' Vol. vii., No. 2 ; January , 1893. yyp OEO. H. ELLIS, PRINTER, 1 FRANKLIN ST., BOSTON, ON THE STUDY OF ECONOMIC HISTORY.* The teacher in England or America who seeks to ex- jlain his attitude towards economic science does so at he present time under peculiarly favorable conditions. There reigns just now a spirit of tolerance and mutual charity among political economists such as has not always been found within their circle. It is not that we have returned to the confident dogmatism and unanimity ot the last generation,— of the period which extended from the publication of John Stuart Mill’s treatise to the sounding of the first note of revolt in Cliffe Leslie s essays. It is rather that, though there are still marked divergencies, the followers of one method no longer maintain that it is the only method of scientific inves¬ tigation ; that, on the other hand, the believers m induc¬ tion now recognize more fully the value of deduction; that the most abstract sometimes refer to facts and the most concrete occasionally make use of abstraction ; and, what is far more important, that they are inclined, whatever their own turn of thought may be, to let others alone who walk not with them, or even to cheer them on their way m y the benevolent hope that they may arrive at something worth the getting. It has now become almost a common¬ place even with economists of the older school that stu¬ dents may usefully be led to work in different ways, owing to “varieties of mind, of temper, of training, and of oppor- tunities.”t In England an association has at last been * An introductory lecture delivered before Harvard University, January 4, 1893. t Marshall, Principles , p. 92 (2d ed.). ' o ? . 113 4 founded which includes among its members most of those writers and teachers who are seriously interested in eco¬ nomics, and a journal has been established which welcomes contributions from every side with admirable impartiality. In America an association, which has for some years been doing excellent work, but which has hitherto been a little one-sided in its membership, has just widened its borders, and brought in even those against whose teach¬ ings it was once its business to protest. The controversies which break the monotony of life for our German col¬ leagues have now but a faint echo among English-speak¬ ing economists; the personal antagonisms which separate French schools are altogether absent; and to most of us the recent exchange of hostilities between two distin¬ guished English economists has seemed almost an anach¬ ronism. It is, therefore, with something of trepidation that I venture upon what may possibly look like a renewal of old controversies. Yet it is encouraging to think that, even if one had something very “ extreme ” to say, one might now count upon being heard with patience and urbanity. It would be idle to deny that the hopes which were en¬ tertained by the younger men of the “ historical ” or “ in¬ ductive ” school in Germany some twenty years ago, and by Cliffe Leslie and more recently by Dr. Ingram among English writers, have not hitherto been realized. They looked for a complete and rapid transformation of eco¬ nomic science; and it needs only a glance at the most widely used text-books of to-day to see that no such com¬ plete transformation has taken place. Of this disappoint¬ ment a partial explanation may be found in the fact that the historical economists were still so far under the spell of the old discipline as to continue to conceive of economics under the forms made familiar by the manuals. They still had before their eyes the customary rubrics of Pro¬ duction, Distribution, and Exchange; they still handled 5 the sacred terms Value, Supply, Demand, Capital, Rent, and the rest,— terms which, to use Oliver Wendell Holmes’s phrase, were just as much in need of depolariza¬ tion as the terms of theology; they still looked forward to framing “ laws ” similar in character, however different in content, to the “ laws ” in possession of the field. Aiming, as they unconsciously did, at the construction of a body of general propositions dealing with just the same rela¬ tions between individuals as the older school had given its attention to, it was natural that they should fall back on the use of that deductive method which is certainly of service for the analysis of modern competitive conditions, although they had begun by unnecessarily rejecting it. And thus the “ methodological ” arguments of the ortho¬ dox may seem to have gained an easy victory. I shall attempt to show later that this is not an ade¬ quate version of the matter; that during this period the historical movement has been slowly pushing its way towards its own true field of work. Even in its relation to current economic teaching, it has performed a work of vital importance. It has been no mere aberration, passing away and leaving no trace; nor is it quite a complete ac¬ count of it to say that it has contributed useful elements which have been incorporated in the body of economic science. It has done more than this: it has changed the whole mental attitude of economists towards their own teaching. The acceptance of the two great principles,— which are but different forms of the same idea,— that y economic conclusions are relative to given conditions, and that they possess only hypothetical validity, is at last a part of the mental habit of economists. The same is true of the conviction that economic considerations are not the only ones of which we must take account in judg-1 ing of social phenomena, and that economic forces are not the only forces which move men. It need hardly be said that all this was recognized in word long ago; but 6 it may be left to the verdict of those who are conversant with the literature of the last generation whether these convictions were really underlying and fruitful parts of daily thought, as they are now tending to be. The remark, indeed, is not out of place in passing that, al¬ though this salutary conversion may be discerned among professional economists, it has hardly taken place so com¬ pletely as one could wish with the educated public, and that historical zealots may still do good service in insist¬ ing on these well-worn platitudes. The altered mental attitude of the theoretic economists themselves towards their own doctrine is so much the most important result, from the point of view of current teach- y ing, of the historical movement that it dwarfs its other effects in the same direction. But these other effects are well worth looking at; and they are evident enough, if we turn over the two most important of modern treatises, the Principles of Professor Marshall and the Lelirbuch of Professor Wagner. Professor Marshall so clearly realizes that the understanding of modern conditions is assisted by a consideration of their genesis that he introduces his work by two chapters on “ The Growth of Free Industry and Enterprise,” and by another chapter on “ The Growth of Economic Science.” So, again, his discussion of Popu¬ lation is preceded by a history of the doctrine, and a his¬ tory of population itself in England. His treatment of Industrial Organization consists largely of historical re¬ flections. The theory of Distribution is introduced by a sketch of its history, and the doctrine of Bent is con¬ sidered in relation to early forms of land tenure. With Professor Wagner the influence of historical thought is even more marked. As every one is aware who has had occasion to consult the recent volumes of his Finanz- wissenschaft , his accumulation of historical material has grown so fast that it is threatening to become unwieldy. A more convincing evidence of his familiarity with his- 7 torical modes of thought is presented in many parts of his treatment of general theory; e.g ., in his acceptance of the position that “capital,” as it is now understood, is an “historical,” and not an eternally necessary “category.” He even attempts to formulate an historical law,— a law of the course of economic evolution,— and that in a matter which touches modern problems very closely; to wit, his “law of the increasing extension of public and state activity.” That Wagner should to-day be regarded, and should regard himself, as a champion of abstraction and deduction as against the “extrem e Historismus ”—though just enough in the main,— has in it something of the irony of circumstances. It reminds one of the observa¬ tion of John Stuart Mill that the great advantage from the presence of extremists is that any course short of the extreme gains the charm of “ moderation.” It need hardly be said with regard to the examples just given that, suggestive as such historical reflections and generalizations may be, they are not to be regarded as necessarily either accurate or desirable methods of using historical material. They illustrate, however,— and that is all I wish to show,— the influence, to a large extent the unrealized influence, of the Zeitgeist even over writers who wish to carry on the old traditions. In the wider issue of the comparative merits of induc¬ tion and deduction, it may be observed that conservative economists themselves no longer employ the sweeping language in favor of deduction which characterized their predecessors. They have discovered, like M. Jourdain with his prose, that in one very important field, that of Production, they have been inductive all along without knowing it.* It is further allowed by recognized authori¬ ties that “ within the province of descriptive and classifica- tory economics there is unlimited scope for valuable economic work.” f And, accordingly, we see a series of * Sidgwick, Principles , Introduction, chap. ii. § 1 . t Keynes, Scope and Method of Political Economy , p. 166 , 8 useful studies in modern industrial life,— studies largely historical,— appearing under the highest economic patron¬ age. * Even the pages of the Harvard Quarterly Journal of Economics .*— the peculiar home of theory,— furnish articles on the history of the tariff or of the currency; though it must be allowed that even the severest theorists have sometimes coquetted with facts when they ap¬ proached these particular topics. It is true that we are cautioned that “ the knowledge of particular facts, which is thus afforded, does not in itself constitute the end and aim of economic science.” f But we will not be distressed by this if only the work of inquiry will go on. It marks the awakening,— or the reawakening,— in American and English economics of a sacred passion for the observation of real life, of which it has too long been devoid. I have, however, already remarked that, while thus af¬ fecting the character of the teaching of economic theory, the historical movement has pursued its way, and is now settling down into a channel of its own. This is none other than the actual investigation of economic history itself. This may, perhaps, be a somewhat surprising re¬ mark. It may be asked, “ What, then, have the economists of that school been doing hitherto ? ” It will, however, I think be found that the creators of the school were rather men who had been touched by the historical thought around them, and inspired by its ideas, than original investigators. This was not to their discredit: it was the result of the situation. But to-day the leaders of the school are throw¬ ing themselves into detailed research, and are feeling their way towards independent historical construction. We have only to look at the publications of Professor *E.g., Price’s Industrial Peace , with preface by Professor Marshall; and the other publications of the Toynbee Trust. f Keynes, p. 167. 9 Schmoller, of Berlin, and of the body of fellow-workers he has gathered around him, or at the large programme of inquiry into agrarian history which Professor Knapp, of Strasburg, and his circle have put before themselves,* to discover how strong is the current in this direction. And with this serious engagement in historical inquiry has come a clearer perception of the nature of the generaliza¬ tions towards which that inquiry must work. It is seen that these will not be mere corrections or amplifications»/ of current economic doctrines: they will rather be con¬ clusions as to the character and sequence of the stages in economic development. The point of view is here no longer that of a bargain between individuals in given social conditions, but of the life and movement of whole industries and classes, of the creation and modification of social mechanism, of the parallel progress and inter¬ action of economic phenomena and economic thought. The studies of the school are no longer individualist and psychological, but collectivist and institutional. To help out my meaning by two hackneyed but convenient phrases, the “ laws ” of which they think are “ dynamic ” rather than “ static ”; and they aim at presenting the * “philosophy” of economic history. And, thus, their in¬ terest in any one period is not that they may directly compare it with the present or any other period, but be¬ cause every period may furnish them with points from which they may determine the curve of economic evolu¬ tion. It has been inevitable that, with such an ideal before him, the leader of this newer historical school, Gustav Schmoiler, should sometimes have spoken slightingly of the attempt to continue the old work of deductive argu¬ mentation : it was inevitable that the theorists he has in * The reader who is unacquainted with the really considerable work under¬ taken by Professor Knapp and his friends will find some account of it in a review by Mr. Keasbey and another by the present writer in the Political Sci¬ ence Quarterly for December, 1892 . 10 mind should retort with language of equal confidence in the superior merits of their own methods. It is often hard for a man to recognize that he pursues a particu¬ lar line of thought chiefly because his own mental gifts lie in that direction. It is very natural that he should feel that the task towards which he is himself drawn is the most urgent and beneficent of all tasks. But when Pro¬ fessor Schmoller, instead of being submissive to the lessons read to him, remarks that it is useless to expect progress from “the further distillation of the already-a- hundred-times-distilled abstractions of the old dogma¬ tism,” * and declares very plainly that those who attempt the process lack a wide philosophical training,! he uses language, which, as Matthew Arnold said on a somewhat similar occasion, has certainly 44 too much vivacity,” and is sure to create soreness. And when Professor Menger retorts by inventing for the labors of his opponent the pleasing terms 44 miniature-painting,” J 44 micrography,” § and 44 specialissima about some gilds or other,” || he can hardly be acquitted of a certain acerbity. It is surely time to cry a truce to controversy. Let it be acknowledged that for a long time to come there are likely to be many honest and hard-working and intelligent men who will be interested in economic theory: let it be acknowledged, likewise, that there are likely to be a num¬ ber,— small, indeed, in America and England, but still noticeable,— who also are honest and hard-working and not altogether unintelligent, who will be interested in eco¬ nomic history. Let us try for the next twenty years to leave one another severely alone, and see what will come of it. If we have time, let us read one another’s books. Perhaps we shall be converted: perhaps we shall only get a suggestion here and there; but, if we cannot agree, let * Zur Litteraturgeschichte der Staats- und Sozialwissenschaften, p. 279. t Ibid., p. 293. $ Die Irrthumer des Historismus , pp. 26, 37. § Ibid., pp. 27, 37. || Ibid., p. 40. 11 ns be silent. We shall, at any rate, gain some little ad¬ ditional time for our own inquiries; and meanwhile the general progress of human thought may quietly bring a solution. And yet I would hardly be supposed to imply that the controversy of the last few years has been a waste of words. A good deal of fighting was necessary before the right of the historical economist to a fair field was recognized in England and America. I should not be surprised to hear that in Germany some few years ago there was the opposite evil,— a too complete exclusion of economic theorists from places of academic influence. But now that an armistice can be signed on honorable terms, it were well to do so. Harvard must receive the credit of having been the first among universities to real¬ ize the altered situation. It has been the first to see the wisdom of having both attitudes — the theoretical and the historical — represented in a great institution of learning. Its action is the more commendable because it has been determined upon at the instigation of teachers already in possession of the territory, whose own intellectual sympa¬ thies are chiefly on the side of theory. They have shown a confidence in free inquiry, and an understanding of the true nature of a university, which are still rare. But such a truce ought not certainly to prevent any of us from frankly expressing his own private opinions to any student who cares to ask for them. And the oppor¬ tunity to make one’s own position plain upon assuming new duties in a new sphere is so rare that it may fairly be brought within the same exception. It must be re¬ membered that I shall be expressing only my own individ¬ ual judgment; that I know full well that there are many able men who absolutely differ from me; that it is probable enough that, having heard what I may have to say, stu¬ dents will straightway go off and work in another direc¬ tion ; and that they may be happy in doing so. Still, what 12 I should say to an able and properly prepared student of mature mind who came to me for suggestions would be somewhat as follows : — “ You have already, I understand, given some attention to Political Economy. You are acquainted with the main outline of the theory as it is presented, for instance, by John Stuart Mill. You know something of the history of Political Economy from Adam Smith to Mill, and of the general character of the development since Mill’s time. If, indeed, you have not already got this equipment, I would advise you to get it; the study will supply you with points of view which you will afterwards find convenient, and it will introduce you to an interesting chapter of modern thought. Moreover, as teaching is now arranged in the great universities, you will have little difficulty in making these preliminary studies. Six months’ steady work will probably suffice. I can assume, you tell me, that you already have this knowledge ; you are interested in the economic life of society; you would like to attempt a little independent work of your own; and you ask in what direction your efforts are likely to be most fruitful. I cannot say that the outlook in the field of theoretic discussion looks very hopeful. For years there has been a keen controversy going on upon the subject of Distribution; and economists, even economists of the first rank, seem as far from agreement as ever. According to President Walker, Wages are the Residual Share which falls to the laborer out of the joint produce of capitalist, employer, land-owner, and laborer, the three other shares being limited. For fifteen years he has maintained this in books of every size: it has been echoed in half the colleges of America and Great Britain; and yet I doubt whether you could discover another living economist of importance who agrees with him. Or take Profits. You will find equally competent writers who explain Profits as the Wages of management, as a reward for Risk, and as a 13 species of gain governed by laws similar to those of Rent. I am aware that several of the younger American econo¬ mists are accepting wholesale the new Austrian doctrine of ‘ subjective value,’ and think they find in it the key to every problem. But I notice that, in the judgment of Dr. Bonar,— who has himself done more than any one else to introduce the Austrian writers to the attention of English-speaking students,— what they have given us is ‘rather a definition of value than an explanation of its causes.’ * Their principles have still to be applied to ‘the problems of distribution as they meet us in modern countries ’; f and it is not clear that in this undertaking their American disciples are being greatly helped by the new phraseology. Moreover, one cannot but observe that the early difficulty is still constantly turning up,— that economists cannot understand one another. There is a page in one of the back numbers of our own Quarterly Journal which makes one pause. It contains two brief let¬ ters. In one, distinguished economist A says of a criti¬ cism of his views by distinguished economist B, ‘ I abide by my doctrines as expounded by myself, and I do not ac¬ cept the paraphrase of them given by Mr. B.’ In the other, well-known writer C remarks of well-known writer D, ‘I shall have no difficulty in showing that Mr. D, despite his denial, did use the term “profits” as I under¬ stood it.’ J One takes up by chance another number of the Quarterly , and one’s eye catches ‘ The misunderstanding that is the basis of President Z’s chief criticism [of me] is radical and unexpected.’ § I see no reason to suppose,” I should say to my inquiring friend, “that you are likely to be much more successful in interpreting statements of the¬ ory than these able persons have been. Of course, if you have reason to believe that you possess a peculiar aptitude for abstract reasoning, and are strongly attracted towards * Quarterly Journal of Economics, iii. p. 26. t Ibid., p. 31. | Ibid., p. 109. § Ibid., vi. p. 116. 14 economic theory, you may find a good deal of pleasure in turning your thoughts in that direction. I hardly care to prophesy, with any very strong feeling of certitude, that you will not arrive at valuable results; though I scarcely think it probable. Farther than that I am not inclined to go. But, if you have no such strong bent, then I would suggest that you should consider the advisability of trying your hand at economic history. Here is an al¬ most untrodden field : here is abundance of material; and, even if you do not arrive at any very wide-reaching con¬ clusions, the facts which you may discover will themselves be positive accessions to knowledge. As Lotze says, c To know facts is not everything, but it is a great deal; and to think lightly of them because one yearns for something further is fitting only to those who do not understand that the half is often better than the whole.’ ” Before proceeding now to speak more at length of economic history itself, there are two criticisms which it will be well to clear out of the way. It is urged, in the first place, that “some familiarity with economic theory is essential to the interpretation of industrial phenomena such as it falls within the province of the historian to give.” * It will be remembered that I have advised the imaginary enthusiast to begin by gaining even a consid¬ erable familiarity with economic theory. But I must confess that I have done so chiefly from a sense of justice to the man himself in the present state of opinion. Theor¬ etic political economy is still so strong in the support of most teachers in England and America that it would be hardly fair to set a man against the current,— especially if his professional prospects as a teacher were at all involved, — unless he were in a position to judge for himself. But, so far as the actual utility of economic theory to the his¬ torian is concerned, I cannot help feeling that much of * Keynes, p. 271. 15 the language used is unnecessarily grandiose, especially as 1 applied to those earlier periods which are in most need of investigation. Says the same writer, “ All that is really i given us in each case by direct evidence is a highly com¬ plex sequence of events, in which the true bonds of causal connection may be disguised in a thousand different ways, so that, far from being patent to every observer, they can be detected only by the trained student thor¬ oughly equipped with scientific knowledge.” But, when this same writer goes on to illustrate economic theory from history, the sort of illustration he takes is a state¬ ment that “ a dry summer ” in the Middle Ages “ caused much wear and tear of implements, and consequently an increased demand and a higher price, so that the bailiffs’ accounts frequently mention ‘the dearness of iron on account of drought.’” “We could not,” he says, “have a better illustration of the effect of demand on price.” * Surely, the power of tracing so obvious a connection between phenomena demands nothing more than plain common sense: we might even use the amusing phrase of Thorold Rogers, and say that “so much was known in the days of the Egyptian and Babylonian kings.” The author whom I have quoted would seem to have i been unwittingly taking for granted that the historical economist is anxious to discuss just such problems as the modern theorist, only in a different environment. Such exaggerated estimates of the value of theory will disappear when the character of the work before the economic historian comes to be better understood. It will be seen to be almost as great a mistake to use such language in relation to the historian of economic con¬ ditions as it would be to use it in relation to the his- : torian of constitutional or legal conditions. It is strange that this is not already apparent. No one, for instance, i would deny the great value for a true understanding of Keynes, p. 287. 16 social progress of two recent books touching very dif¬ ferent periods, Mr. Seebohm’s Village Community and Mr. Charles Booth’s Labor and Life of the People . In neither of these books has economic theory been of any visible service. Nevertheless, to provide against the chance that even the simplest causal connections may be overlooked, it will be a wise precaution to advise students to begin by mak¬ ing themselves familiar with the rudiments of modern Political Economy. Moreover, since modern Political Economy has certainly brought into prominence some of the leading characteristics of the agriculture and industry and trade of to-day, its formulae will give the economic historian convenient standards of comparison, whereby he may the better perceive what are the distinctive features of past conditions. But more than this economic theory will not, in my opinion, do for any save those states of society to which its ablest vindicator, Bagehot, expressly restricted its applicability,— those “ states of society in which commerce has largely developed, and where it has taken the form of development, or something near the form, which it has taken in England ” and America dur¬ ing the last hundred years.* And even for this very recent period a good deal of excellent work, of indispen¬ sable work, is possible without the use of “ the economic j organon ”; f as is abundantly shown by the writings of i Mr. Charles Booth and what may be called his school,— * Economic Studies , p. 6 ; cf. pp. 5, 17. fThis is the happy phrase of Professor Marshall, and the text of his Present Position of Economics (1885). With a very great part of Professor Marshall’s argument the present writer would entirely agree; though he would point out that the “ examination of facts by reason” (p 44) and the use of the “three familiar scientific methods” (p. 45) do not necessarily involve the use of the “organon.” He would urge, also, that to say, as Professor Marshall does, that “ facts by themselves are silent” (p. 41) is to overshoot the mark. The lecture, however, shows the dawn of the sun of conciliation seven years ago rather than the present effulgence of its noon¬ tide beams. 17 such investigators as Mr. Schloss, Mr. Llewellyn Smith, and Miss Collet. The other stumbling-block to be cleared out of the way is the argument based on the imperfection of the historical record. Mr. Keynes has quoted from Richard Jones the remark that “ history has suffered to drop from her pages, perhaps has never recorded, much of the information which would now be most precious to us ”; * and, as Jones is one of the fathers of the historical church, the objection is a depressing one. But, on referring to the passage itself, it will be found that Richard Jones went on to put a more cheering view of the matter in language which, though a little rhetorical, ought always to be quoted after citing the preceding sentence: “Yet this defect does not always exist when we think it does. The compiler and the student are sometimes more to blame than the original historian. The labors of Niebuhr, Savigny, Heeren, Miiller, have proved that there is much knowledge, most important to our subject, in historical records, which has faded from the minds of men, and must be laboriously recovered from the recesses of neg¬ lected literature, like lost and sunken riches from the secret depths of the ocean. Our own scholars and anti¬ quaries will not, we may hope, be backward in imitating them; and the historical documents, both of our own and ' of foreign countries, contain, we may well believe, large and unknown stores of economical instruction,— many a heap of unsunned treasures to reward their researches.” f We are now in a position to look at the nature of economic history a little more closely. Let us begin by asking wherein it differs from what has hitherto been known as social history, or what the Germans call “ the history of civilization,”— Culturgeschichte. Social history, — so far, indeed, as it has existed at all,— has appealed * Scope and Method , p. 308. t Literary Remains , p. 570. 18 to a multiplicity of interests. It has appealed, e.g ., to a psychological interest, curious to study forms of thought remote from our own; it has appealed still more to what may be called an aesthetic interest, the pleasure we take in mere quaintness or strangeness, like our satisfaction at seeing a mediaeval market-place on the stage. But eco¬ nomic history is throughout dominated by one main inter¬ est,— the economic. It asks what has been the material basis of social existence; how have the necessities and conveniences of human life been produced; by what organization has labor been provided and directed; how have the commodities thus produced been distributed; what have been the institutions resting on this direction and distribution; what changes have taken place in the methods of agriculture, of industry, of trade; can any intelligible development be traced; and, if so, has it been from worse to better. These, and many like them, are the questions which will be asked by the student of eco¬ nomic history. The marking out of such a field of study is only a fresh example of the division of scientific labor: it is the provisional isolation, for the better investigation of them, of a particular group of facts and forces. And this especial study of what may at first sight seem a sordid side of human affairs is justified by its importance. For “the two things best worth attending to in history,” as Mr. John Morley has well remarked, “ are the great move¬ ments of the economic forces of a society, on the one hand, and, on the other, the forms of religious opinion and ecclesiastical organization.” * Much that has been in¬ cluded in social history the student will now relegate to the historian of art, of literature, of technical processes, of superstition, and what not. What remains he will utilize for his special purpose, endeavoring to place in order and coherence what has hitherto been but a heap of discon¬ nected particulars. * “ On Popular Culture,” in Miscellanies (ed. 1886), iii. p. 9. 19 It may, however, be observed in this connection that the economic historian will often think it wise to postpone the consideration of many bits of information,— may even be tempted to thrust them impatiently on one side,— which are commonly supposed to be of prime importance for his purpose. This is particularly true of statistics as to prices and wages in the Middle Ages. Partly because Thorold Rogers gave his whole attention to the collection of this sort of material, partly because the economic theorists are * preoccupied by the operations of the market, there has grown up an idea that what the economic historian most craves for is to learn the price of a day’s labor or of a day’s food in past centuries. Facts of this kind are valu¬ able, but only when we can place them in their proper setting. Our first requirement is to understand, far more ^ precisely than we do at present, what has been the institu¬ tional framework of society at the several periods, what has been the constitution of the various social classes, and their relation to one another. This is the explanation of what must have struck every one who has given serious attention to English agrarian history,— the infinitely greater importance of the first one hundred pages of Mr. Seebohm’s work than of all Thorold Rogers’s voluminous collections, and that although the former had not in all probability given to the subject one-fifth of the time and labor bestowed by the second. It is because Mr. Seebohm has given us a vivid picture of the daily life of the agri¬ cultural population, which for the first time has imparted to Mr. Rogers’s facts a true significance. “If ‘economic history,’ after all, is only a branch of history, why not leave it,” it may be asked, “ to the his¬ torian pure and simple ? or, if you are not content to do that, why thrust yourself into the ranks of the econo¬ mists?” Well, the time may come when those who are interested in economic history will have to turn their 20 backs on the “ economists,” and cry, Ecce convertimur ad gentes! It may be granted that, as things are now, economic history belongs equally to the departments of history and economics. But this same characteristic of touching two fields which are nevertheless fenced off from one another is equally true of legal history and of ecclesiastical history. There is no reason in the nature of things why the “ pure historian,” as he is called, should not investigate both the history of religion and the history of law. But, as a matter of fact, the work of research in these two fields has usually been carried on by men who began by being theologians and lawyers in the narrow sense. So, similarly, the men who have of late done most to advance the knowledge of economic history are men like Schanz, Ochenkowski, Held, Brentano, Toynbee, Cunningham,— to mention only those writers who have given special attention to England. All these have been men who have had an “ economic ” training, and have been drawn to the study of the past by their interest in the problems of the present. Professor Menger has indeed complained, in language which leaves nothing to be desired in point of vehemence, that “the historical school has been from the very first not the result of the profound study of the problems of our own science: it has not arisen, like historical jurisprudence, from the sci¬ entific needs of economists dealing seriously with their own questions.”* “Like foreign conquerors have the historians entered upon the territory of our science, to force upon us their speech and usages, their terminology and methods.” f Professor Menger may have had in his mind, while thus writing, circumstances hidden from the world; but, certainly, his statement is very far from being precise, so far as English work is concerned. No one would, I imagine, deny the name of economist to Richard Jones, to Cliffe Leslie, to Thorold Rogers, to Arnold * Irrthumer, Vorwort, p. iii. t Ibid., p. yi. 21 Toynbee. The case of Toynbee is sufficient to illus¬ trate the motives that have been at work. Toynbee came towards the end of his life to give his attention more and more exclusively to the economic history of the last two centuries, precisely because of his inexorable desire to penetrate more deeply into “the problems of our own science.” But to dwell on the somewhat grudging attitude of certain writers would be to partake of their spirit. In my lectures here,— if I may speak for myself,— I shall assume such an acquaintance with the main facts of “pure history ” and also with the main ideas of “pure eco¬ nomics” as may fairly be asked of educated men. My hearers may be expected, I hope, to know the centuries to which belong the Norman Conquest, the Fall of Con¬ stantinople, the Discovery of America, the French Revol¬ ution, just as they may be expected to know the general meaning of Division of Labor, and Supply and Demand. It will be cause for rejoicing if the study attracts men from the historical side as well as from the economic. But so long as students present themselves, and men are stimulated after a survey of the field to engage in new investigation, we need not greatly care to what group of studies this particular one is assigned. It is indeed one of the advantages of the elastic system of Harvard teach¬ ing that here such perplexities need hardly trouble us. And now let us ask ourselves, before we leave the sub¬ ject, why, after all, we should study economic history. First, then, we study economic history for a reason which some may think the lowest,— and others more truly will regard as of the essence of a liberal education,— in order to gratify a natural and innocent curiosity. The more we discover that history, as we have hitherto possessed it, has told us little more than the external movements of the surface waters of society, the more we shall be drawn to 22 the search for more trustworthy and penetrating know¬ ledge. The mere desire to know will be for many the only motive and the sufficient justification. A distin¬ guished man of letters has indeed said that he “does not in the least want to know what happened in the past, ex¬ cept as it enables him to see his way more clearly through what is happening to-day.”* Auguste Comte carried the principle further, and even proposed to put the continued pursuit of certain studies under the ban as unsocial, when once they had reached a point beyond which, in his judg¬ ment, they were incapable of being of service to mankind. It chanced that the very study which Comte would have proscribed, pursued, as it was, in spite of his anathema, from the mere love of truth, has since been fruitful in new and practical applications. And so it may be with economic history. Let us know all we can about it; and the application may be trusted to take care of itself. Even if the subject had no utility outside its interest for the student himself, it would widen his sympathies, en¬ large his conceptions of the possible, and save him from the Philistinism of the market-place. But with many of us it will properly be an additional motive that economic history is intimately bound up with modern discussions. This is a consequence of that pecul¬ iarly English and American trait, the love of precedent. To what is called the “ Anglo-Saxon ” mind the fact that such and such conditions existed in the past is itself a strong reason why they should be made to exist in the present. It is very noticeable to any one who has come into contact with popular socialistic or revolutionary movements that an alleged historical fact has often more hold upon men’s minds than any theoretic argument. Take, for instance, the belief in a primitive communism. Mr. Henry George tells his readers,— and he has doubtless a certain apparent justification in the writings of some Mr. John Morley, u. s. 23 recent authorities,— that “the common right to land has everywhere been primarily recognized, and private owner¬ ship has nowhere grown up save as the result of usurpa¬ tion ”; and, again, that “ historically, as ethically, private property in land is robbery.” * You have only to attend a single-tax meeting to find that this argument plays a much greater part in the thoughts of Mr. George’s disciples than it does even with Mr. George himself. Or, again, notice how prominent in English socialist literature has become the picture of the golden age of the English laborer in the fifteenth century,— a theory which was first borrowed from Thorold Rogers, and is now regarded almost as an ac¬ cepted truth. We are even beginning to be told that the eight-hours movement is but the restoration of the laborer’s long-lost happiness. We shall not, I trust, turn to history in order to find arguments for or against any such movements; but the circumstance that our study has this curious bearing on modern discussions may fairly endow it with a keener zest. And, finally, there may be some who will be drawn to this field of inquiry by a hope akin to that which has been so stimulating in the investigation of physical nature,— the hope that they may thereby arrive at a more satisfying and intelligible conception of the evolution of human soci¬ ety. Just as in biological and physical science the investi¬ gator is buoyed up by the conviction that every isolated fact, could he but learn how, has its own place in a se¬ quence, its own significance and appropriateness, so in the history of man we can never be content until we have found it a connected and consecutive whole, or until we know of a surety that it is but a chaos of meaningless fragments. We cannot cease attempting,— to use an old phrase in a more modern sense,— “ to justify the ways of God to man.” How far we still are from any such unify¬ ing conception of history I need hardly say, least of all to * Progress and Poverty , Book VII. chap. iv. 24 those who have tried in vain to satisfy their hunger with the husks of “ Sociology.” May it not be that in those constant daily needs which men have ever been compelled to meet on penalty of starvation, in the never-ceasi: labor to produce out of the earth the good things it coij£ tains, and in the efforts after a wiser distribution of tl product, we may find the thread of continuity, the unifjj ing generalizations, which shall at last make histori something more than “ a shallow village tale ” ?