Unfortunately my knowledge of the economic data for the period of the later Middle Ages and the Reformation does not permit me to speak with confidence of the results of the work of the economists of the historical school in these fields. Schmoller's presentation of the economic theory and practice of the later "pre-capitalistic" period is certainly to be excepted from the criticism given. But his ancient and early medieval pictures do not inspire confidence.

The reasons for the failure of the older economists to obtain results which have won the confidence either of their own group or of the historians, are fundamental ones. They lack that specialized knowledge of the sources of information which alone would enable them to distinguish between acceptable evidence and broken, isolated and doubtful hints or suggestions. Second: in their search for "stages" of economic development, they tend to group and tie up into packets marked with a single rubric, facts belonging to economic periods which are entirely different in character. Third: they lack that intimate knowledge of the manifold activities of men of the past which were not economic, within which and through which alone the economic movements obtained their sanction and their meaning. In this situation their demand upon the historian-that he furnish them with trustworthy information, tell them what can be known and what cannot be known-is from every standpoint justified. Historians have their own Organon, as Aristotle would say, and their own discipline. The products which they turn out should be such as to inspire confidence, both their own and that of those working in related fields of research.

The methods of the investigations of the historians who thus direct their interests toward the solution of economic and social problems, as it seems to me, must be determined by the nature and amount of the available evidence. In the statistical period (roughly from 1790-1840 to the present), they must either accept or reject the results obtained by the modern school of economists, according to their judgment as to the credibility or non-validity of such results; or they must acquaint themselves with the methodical use of statistical data, which seems to offer the safest guide to the goal of scientific results, and thus work out their own solutions.

For the entire historical period preceding this time, the methods, and consequently the results, will be non-statistical. The data will be composed of isolated and non-consecutive facts. The results will be non-scientific, in point of exactness, and must be frankly regarded and stated as estimates, impressionistic conclusions, or mere opinions, as the case may warrant. Though the methods of investigation employed must differ essentially from those used in the statistical period, the difference is one of kind but not one of intensity. The discipline must be quite as exacting-perhaps more so. Most particularly the investigator's power of personal inhibition must be great. Above all he must be aware of a natural desire to apply mercilessly the third degree to his evidence and exact from it, by force, confessions which normal treatment cannot substantiate. Again, the methods followed in the two periods will necessarily differ because of the fact that in the modern, or statistical, period the investigator must seek to set apart a given group of statistical data and study these in comparative isolation. The student working in the period of non-coherent data must, on the contrary, from the outset, attempt to see the facts which he has been able to gather in the light of all the related information which he has at his command. In other words, he cannot hope to make his observations in a sterilized medium, but must take into consideration, from the beginning, those externals into which the student of the data of the statistical period will eventually attempt to place his acquired results.

One does not deny that the factor of speculation was present in ancient and medieval economic life. But the student who gives his attention to the economic study of these fields must take warning that this economic agent, so powerfully and capriciously disturbing in the course of the modern business cycle, was far less potent in the earlier historical periods. The development of the credit system and the tremendous acceleration of the transmisson of both goods and information have given to this factor a much greater effect upon the course of business events in the period of statistical data.

The warning which I wish to give to the student of ancient and medieval economic life applies in more marked degree to

those who are attempting to teach history by the "sociological" approach. I must waive the question as to the present possibility of resolving the complexities of social phenomena by the process of mathematical analysis of statistical data, being incompetent to discuss it. Yet I am confident that the statistical approach is the only one which offers any hope of scientific results in sociological studies. The "social" historian must be aware of the fact that the loss of all "vital” statistics in ancient and medieval life-if such ever existed in any degree which would make them available for the study of the forces and accidents which moved society-is even more complete than the loss in the economic field. The period of the existence of social statistics, in any exact use of that term, is synchronous with the period of economic statistics. In the earlier period satisfactory results upon such questions as population movements, admixture of different racial strains, effects of disease and dietetics and their social results, cannot be attained, for scientific or semi-scientific use, because of the absence of sufficient information. Here again, in the ancient field at least, we shall be able to present to the sociologist the mere fragments of a mosaic, questionable conclusions based upon broken and scattered data.

I am fully aware that statistics were once available upon certain phases of the economic life of ancient times, particularly in the field of agricultural production in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. There the government kept annual and most detailed accounts of all the crops planted and of the amount of the production for each kind of crop. Some of these reports have been recovered in recent years and are of great value and interest to us. But they now exist for isolated and small districts only, and even for these without anything like the continuity of series necessary to actual statistical treatment. It is unfortunate, but it is true, that we will never have the information in quantity for satisfactory results by the statistical method.

For the study of the "market "-in the sense of the demand for consumables at a given price and subject to the speculative element induced by the manufacture and storing of goods for future, rather than purely immediate, consumption-the invest

igator in the fields of ancient and medieval history will be in somewhat better case than in the study of business cycles. The systematic organization and exploitation of archæological evidence in the ancient period is already progressing to the point that the geographic market extension of a number of the Greek city-states and cities of the Roman Empire, and the control of these markets by changing centers of production, are becoming increasingly clear. But again the picture which we may paint will remain impressionistic, and the outlines, though correct in the main, always rough and approximate. In the matter of price we will never be able to supply that accurate and definite body of data which the economists would desire us to give for their use.

W. L. WESTERMANN.

CORNELL UNIVERSITY.

A MONROE DOCTRINE DIVIDED: SUGGESTION FOR A PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE

'N August, 1920, the writer attended a "velada" in Santiago, Chile, in honor of a Chilean student who was being sent

I

to Oxford. The affair was the event of the day in that city, and the great Municipal Theatre was filled almost to the point of overflowing. On the stage, among the speakers, were some of the most distinguished men in Chile, as well as the British minister and other diplomatic representatives. Naturally, the keynote of the speeches was "the traditional friendship of England and Chile". More than one speaker took occasion to point out that never in their national history had the Chileans had any reason to fear a British policy of "imperialism".

The above is merely a single instance of what one hears many times, not only in Chile but also in other parts of Hispanic America. "Of course the Hispanic American republics have had no occasion to be afraid of England or any other European power", we may tell ourselves, "because they have been protected by the Monroe Doctrine".

The statement will bear investigation. If the Hispanic American republics have been free from aggressions, their predecessors, the Spanish and Portuguese empires, were not. Take, for example, the case of England. The history of English colonization in the Western Hemisphere is made up largely of encroachments on the Spanish domain. From Virginia to Florida there were once Spanish establishments which were supplanted by the English. Jamaica, Trinidad, and the regions now called British Guiana and British Honduras were filched from Spain. England pressed back the Spanish claims along

In accordance with their general policy, the editors disclaim all responsibility for the proposals put forth by contributors. The author of the present article, Dr. Chapman, is Associate Professor of Hispanic American History in the University of California, and was recently United States Exchange Professor to Chile.-ED.