A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Homepage

Societies, Learned

SOCIETIES, LEARNED. Under ACADEMIES will be found a general account of the principal bodies of which that word forms part of the titles, usually denoting some kind of state support or patronage. But that account excludes a number of important scientific, archaeological, and literary societies, chiefly founded and carried on by private collective effort. Most of the institutions hereinafter mentioned are still flourishing. Fine art societies are not included.

In their modern form learned and literary societies have their origin in the Italian academies of the Renaissance: private scientific societies arose 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, compare results, and collect facts for future generalization. These bodies rapidly tend to increase in number and to become more and more specialized, and it has been necessary to systematize and co-ordinate their scattered work. Many efforts have been made from time to time to tabulate and analyse the literature published in their proceedings, as, for instance, in the Reperlorium of Reuss (1801-1821) and the Catalogue of Scientific Papers of the Royal Society (1867-1902) for physics and natural science, with its subject indexes and the indexes of Walther (1845) and Koner (1852-1856) for German historical societies. A more recent example may be found in G. L. Gomme's Iitdex of Archaeological Papers (1907). A further development of the work done by societies was made in 1822, when, chiefly owing to Humboldt, the Gesellschaft deulscher Naturforscher und Arzte first met at Leipzig. 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, Italy, Australia and South Africa. The merit of introducing the idea of migratory congresses into France is due to the distinguished archaeologist, M. Arcisse de Caumont (1802-1873), who established the Association Normande, which from 1845 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 Congres Archeologique.de, France (1834), which was organized by the Societe Franc,aise pour la Conservation des Monuments Historiques, the Congres Scientifique, which held its first meeting at Caen in 1833 (directed by the Institut des Provinces), and the Congres des Socieles Savantes des Departements, which for many years after 1850 held its annual sittings at Paris. The idea received the sanction of the French government in 1 86 1, when a Congres des Societes Savantes was first convoked at the Sorbonne by the minister of public instruction, who had in 1846 produced an Annuaire des Societes Savantes. 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 national congresses. Two remarkable examples of these cosmopolitan societies are the Congres International d' Archtologie el d' Anthropologie Prehisloriques, founded at Spezzia in 1865, and the Congres International des Orientalistes (1873).

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 <p,opo 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, etc.); and its Proceedings (1764-1775; 1848, etc.) and Journal (1856-1876, etc.) are still issued. The Dublin Univ. Phil. Soc. issues Proceedings. For the Royal Irish Academy, see ACADEMIES.

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 Chirur go- 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 Transactions and Proceedings (1858, etc.). From the Philosophical Society of Edinburgh (1731) 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 Huttpn, 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 (410, 1788, etc.) and Proceedings (8vo, 1832, etc.). The Royal Scottish Soc. of Arts (1821) publishes Transactions.

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, etc.). The Journal (8vo, 1856, etc.) and the Transactions (4to, 1791, etc.) 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 exhibitions of the Royal Academy took place in its rooms. A fresh start in a new career was made by the Society of Arts (since 1909 known as the Royal 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, etc.). 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, an 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 at some place in the British empire chosen at a previous meeting. 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, etc.). 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 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 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, etc.). The Royal A siatic Society and the East India Association (1866) publish Journals. The African Society meets at the Imperial Institute and publishes a Journal. The Selborne Soc. (1885) promotes nature study and issues a Mag. The foundation in 1 82 1 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. Soc. (1863), Trans.; Phil. Soc. (1840). Alloa, Soc. of Nat. Hist, and Arch. (1863), Proc. (1865, etc.). Banff, Banffshire Field Club and Sc. Soc. (1880), Proc. Bath, Nat. Hist, and Antiq. Field Club (1866), Proc. (1867, etc.); Roy. Lit. and Sc. Inst. (1825), Proc. ; Bath Lit. and Phil. Assn. Bedford, Bedfordshire Nat. Hist. Soc. (1875), Trans. Belfast, Nat. Hist, and Phil. Soc. (1821), Proc. (1852, etc.), museum; Naturalists' Field Club (1863), Proc. (1875, etc.). Berwickshire Naturalists' Club (1831), Proc. (1834, etc.). Birkenhead, Lit. and Sc. Soc. (1857). Birmingham, Nat. Hist, and Phil. Soc. (1858), Trans.; Birmingham and Midland Institute Sc. Soc. (1870), Trans, of archaeological section (1871, etc.); 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) ; Bradford Scientific Assn. (1875), Journal. Brighton, Brighton and Hove Nat. Hist, and Phil. Soc. (1855), Proc. Bristol, Naturalists' Soc. (1862), Proc. (1866, etc.). Burnley, Lit. and Sc. Club (1873), Trans. Burton-on-Trent, Nat. Hist, and Arch. Soc. (1876), Trans. Cambridge, Phil. Soc. (1819; incorporated 1832), for the promotion of philosophy and natural science, owns museum and library, Proc. (1843, etc.), Trans. (1821, etc.). Cardiff, Naturalists' Soc. (1867), Trans. Chester, Soc. of Nat. Sc., Lit. and Arts (1871). 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, etc.); Royal Cornwall 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, etc.). Cumberland Asspc. for the Advancement of Lit. and Sc. (1876), provided a means of union for the local societies of Cumberland and Westmoreland, Trans. Derbyshire Arch, and Nat. Hist. Soc. (1878), Journal. Derry Nat. Hist, and Phil. Soc. (1870). Devonshire Assoc. for the Advancement of Sc. (1862). Dorset Nat. Hist, and Antiq. Field Club (1875), Proc. Dumfriesshire and Galloway Sc., Nat. Hist, and Antiq. Soc. (1876), Trans. Dundee, Naturalists' Soc. (1873). Eastbourne, Nat. Hist. Soc. (1867), Proc. (1869, etc.). East of Scotland Union of Naturalists' Societies (1884), Trans. Ebbw Vale, Lit. and Sc. Inst. (1850). Elgin, Elgin and Morayshire Lit. and Sc. Assoc. (1836). Essex Field Club (1880), museums at Stratford and Chingford. Exeter, Naturalists' Club and Arch. Assoc. (1862). Glasgow, Roy. Phil. Soc. (1802), Proc. (1844, etc.); Nat. Hist. Soc. (1851), Proc. (1868, etc.); Soc. of Field Naturalists (1872), Trans. (1872, etc.); Andersonian Naturalists' Soc. 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, etc.). 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, etc.). Hull, Lit. and Phil. Soc. (1822), Trans. (1824, etc.). 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. (1835), 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, etc.); Philomathic Soc. (1825), Trans.; Polytechnic Soc. (1838), Journal (1838, etc.); 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, etc.), also Proc. ; Field Naturalists' and Arch. Soc. (1860), Proc.; Scientific Students' Assoc. (1861). Montrose, Nat. Hist, and Antiq. Soc. (1836), museum. Newbury, District Field Club (1870), Trans. (1871, etc.). Newcastleon-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 Nattiralists' Soc. (1869), Trans. (1870, etc.). Nottingham, Lit. and Phil. Soc. (1864) ; Naturalists' Soc. (1852), Trans. Orkney Antiq. and Nat. Hist. Soc. (1837), museum. Oxford, Ashmolean Nat. Hist. Soc. (1828), Proc. 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, etc.). Perth, Lit. and Antiq. Soc. (1784); Perthshire Soc. of Nat. Sc. (1867), Proc. (1869, etc.), the Scottish Naturalist (1870, etc.). Peterhead, Buchan Field Club (1887), Trans. Plymouth, Plymouth Inst. and Devon and Cornwall Nat. Hist. Soc. (1812), museum, art gallery and library. Preston Sc. Soc., affiliated with British Assn. Richmond, Richmond and North Riding Naturalists' Field Club (1863), Trans. Ripon, Naturalists' Club and Sc. Assoc. (1882). Rochdale Lit. and Sc. Soc., Trans. Scarborough, Phil, and Arch. Soc. (1831), museum and library. Severn Valley Naturalists' Field Club, at Bridgenorth (1863). Sheffield, Lit. and Phil. Soc. (1822) ; Museums Assoc. (1889), Proc. and Journ. 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, etc.). 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) Field Club and Arch. Soc. (founded as a natural history society in 1865; enlarged 1877), meets at Stone, Trans. Stirling, Nat. Hist, 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, etc.), The East Anglian (1859, etc.). Swansea, Royal Institution of South Wales (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); Warwickshire Field Club (1854). Whitby, Lit. and Phil. Soc. (1822). Whitehaven Sc. Assn., Journal. Wiltshire Arch, and Nat. Hist. Soc., at Devizes (1853), Wiltshire Magazine (1853, etc.). Windsor, Windsor -and Eton Sc. Soc., Trans. Witney, Nat. Hist, 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; 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), publishes the Naturalist (1876, etc.), Trans.

AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND: Adelaide, Phil. Soc., Trans. (1865, etc.) ; South Australian Inst. (1836), library; Roy. Soc. of S. Australia (1853), Trans., Proc., Reports. Auckland, Auckland Inst. Brisbane, Queensland Phil. Soc. (1860), now the Roy. Soc. of Queensland (1884), Proc. Christchurch, Phil. Inst. Hobart Town, Roy. Soc. of Tasmania,^ Papers and Proc. (1843, etc.). Melbourne, Roy. Soc. of Victoria, Trans, and Proc. (1854, etc.); Nat. Hist. Soc.; Zoo/, and Acdim. Soc., Proc. (1872, etc.). Sydney, Roy. Soc. of N.S. Wales (1821), Proc. (1867, etc.); Linnean Soc. of N.S. Wales (1874), Proc. (1875, etc.); Phil. Soc., Trans. (1862, etc.); Australasian Assoc. for Advancement of Sc., Reports of Annual Meetings (held at different place each year) (1888, etc.). Wellington, New Zealand Inst., Trans, and Proc. (1868, etc.).

CANADA: Halifax, Nova Scotia Inst. of Sc., Proc. and Trans. (1862, etc.). Montreal, Nat. Hist. Soc. of Montreal (1827), Canadian Rec.ofSc. Ottawa, Roy. Soc. of Canada, Trans. (3 ser.) (1882, etc.); Lit. and Sc. Soc. (1870), Trans. (1897, etc.). St John, Nat. Hist. Soc. of N. Bruns. (1862), Bulletins (26 vols.). Toronto, Canadian Inst. (1849), Trans. and Proc. (1852, etc.); Roy. Canadian Acad. of Arts (1880). Winnipeg, Hist, and Sc. Soc.

SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Town, South Afr. Phil. Soc., Trans. (1878, etc.).

WEST INDIES: Kingston, Roy. Soc. of Arts of Jamaica, Trans. (1854, etc.); Port of Spain, Sc. Assoc. of Trinidad, Proc. (1866, etc.).

INDIA, etc.: Calcutta, Asiatic Soc. of Bengal (1784), Journal (1832, etc.; 1865, etc.), Bibl. Indica (1848, etc.), Mem. (1905, etc.). Singapore, Roy. Asiatic Soc. (Straits Br.), Journal (1880, etc.). Shanghai, Roy. Asiatic Soc. (N. China Br.), Journal (1857, etc.). Cairo, Inst. Egyptien (1859). Mauritius, Roy. Soc. of Arts and Sc., Proc. (1846, etc.) and Trans. (1848, etc.).

UNITED STATES. The Smithsonian Institution (q.v.), the most important scientific body in America, is dealt with in a separate article. 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 2nd 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 (410, 1771, etc.) and Proceedings (8vo, 1838, etc.). Second in point of date comes the American Academy of Arts and Sciences of Boston, incorporated in 1780 with the object of furthering the study of the antiquities and natural history of the country. Its Memoirs (410, 1785, etc.) and Proceedings (8vo, 1846, etc.) are still published. The Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences was incorporated at New Haven in 1799. At first only devoted to matters connected with the state of Connecticut, it now embraces the whole field of the sciences and useful arts. It has issued Memoirs (1810-1816), and now publishes Transactions (1866, etc.). One of the leading societies in the United States,, the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, founded in 1812 and incorporated in 1817, possesses an excellent library; the natural history museum is especially rich in conchology. It issues a Journal (1817, etc.) and Proceedings (1843, etc.). The American Entomological Society is merged with it. The Franklin Institute of the same city, incorporated in 1825, possesses a library, gives lectures and issues a Journal (1826, c.). The Boston Society of Natural History was founded upon the Linnean Society (1814) in 1830 and incorporated in 1831. It possesses a library and a cabinet of specimens. It has published the Boston Journal of Natural History (8vo, 1837- 1863), Memoirs (410, 1866, etc.) and Proceedings (1841, etc.). The Lyceum of Natural History, New York, was incorporated in 1818 and has published Annals from 1823 (1824, etc.) and Proceedings (1870, etc.). In 1875 the name was changed to New York Academy of Sciences. A number of American naturalists and geologists, having held meetings in various cities between 1840 and 1847, resolved themselves at their Boston congress in the latter year into the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which was incorporated in 1874. Its object is " by periodical and migratory meetings to promote intercourse between American scientists." It has published Proceedings (1849, etc.). The National Academy of Sciences was incorporated at Washington in 1863 with a view to making the knowledge of specialists available for the service of government. There are two classes of members, those in mathematics and physics and those in natural history. It has issued Annuals (Cambridge, 1865, etc.) and Reports, as well as Memoirs (1866, etc.). The Academies of Sciences at San Francisco (1853), St Louis (1856, incorporated 1857), and Chicago (1857, incorporated 1865) deserve special mention.

Among the remaining societies of a general scientific character are Albany Inst. (1829), Trans. (1830-1893), Proc. (1873-1882). Ann Arbor, Mich. Ac. of Sc. (1894). Baltimore, Maryland Acad. of Sc., Trans. (1901). Boston, Col. Sac. of Mass. (1892), Trans. Brooklyn Inst. of Arts and Sc. Buffalo, Soc. of Nat. Sc. (1861), Bull. Cincinnati, Soc. of Nat. Hist. (1870), Journal (1878, etc.); Cin. Museum Assoc. (1881). Cleveland, Acad. of Nat. Sc. (1852), Annals and Proc.; The Cleveland Society [Archaeol. Inst. of America] (1895). Columbus, Ohio State Acad. of Sc. (1891), Publ. Des Moines, Iowa Inst. of Sc. and Arts, Trans. Hartford, Sc. Soc. (1896); formerly Hartford Soc. of Nat. Sc. (1885), Bull. (1902, etc.). Indianapolis, Indiana Acad. of Sc. (1885), Proc. (1891, etc.). Ithaca, Amer. Phil. Assoc. (1902). Lincoln, Nebraska Acad. of Sc. (1891), Publ. Los Angeles, South California Acad. of Sc. (1891), Bull. Madison, Wisconsin Acad. of Sc. Arts and Letters, Trans. (1870, etc.). Milwaukee, Wisconsin Nat. Hist. Soc. (1857), Bull. [Minneapolis, Minnesota Acad. of Sc., Bull. (1873, etc.). Minneapolis Acad. of Fine Arts (1883), Bull. (1905). New Orleans, Athenee Louicianais (1876), Comptcs Rendus. New York, Amer. Inst. of the City of New York (1829), Journal (1834), Trans. (1841, etc.); Amer. Inst. for Sc. Research (1904), Proc. and Journal. Portland (Maine), Soc. of Nat. Hist. (1850), Proc. (1862, etc.). Poughkeepsie, Vassar, Brothers' Inst. (1874), Proc. (1874, etc., 1876, etc.). Rochester Acad. of Nat. Sc. (1881) Trans. Salem (Mass.), Essex County Nat. Hist. Soc. (1833; now merged in the Essex Institute) published the American Naturalist (1867-1868), afterwards issued by the Peabody Acad. of Science, as well as Proc. (1856, etc.) and Bulletin (1869, etc.). San Francisco, Tech. Soc. o'f the Pacific Coast (1884), Trans, in Journal of the Assoc. of Engineering Societies. Santa Barbara Society of Natural History (1876), Bull. (1887). Sioux City, Acad. of Sc. and Letters (1887), Proc. (1903, etc.). Topeka, Kansas Acad. of Science (1868), Trans. Washington, Phil. Soc. of Washington (1871), Bull. (1874, etc.). Wilkes-Barrc, Wyoming Hist, and Geol. Soc. (1858), Proc. and Coll.

FRANCE. The Inslitut de France (see ACADEMIES), which includes five separate academies, stands at the head of all French societies. The Societe Philotechnique, founded in 1795 and recognized as of public usefulness by a decree of nth May 1861, had for its object the encouragement and study of literature, science and the fine arts; literary organ was an Annuaire (1840, etc.). The Societe d' Encouragement pour I'Industrie Nationale was founded in 1801 for the amelioration of all branches of French industry, and was recognized by the state in 1824; Bidlctin. The Academie Nalionale, Agricole, Manufacluriere, Commerciale was founded by the due de Montmorency in 1830, and offers prizes and medals, and brings out a Bulletin (1830, etc.). The Association Frangaise pour I' Avancement des Sciences^ (1872), founded on the model of the British Association, holds migratory meetings and publishes Comptes rendus. With it has been amalgamated the Association Scientifique de France, founded by Le Verrier in 1864.

The departmental societies are very numerous and active. The chief are the following: Abbeville, Soc. d 'Emulation (1797), Mem. (1833, etc.). Agen, Soc. d'Agr., Sc.etArts ( 1 784) , Recueil (1800, etc.). Aix, Acad. des Sc., etc. (1829), based on Soc. des Amis de la Sc. (1765), Mem. (1819, etc.). Alais, Soc. Sc. el Lilt. (1868), Bull. (1868, etc.). Amiens, Acad., based on Soc. Lilt. (1750), Mem. (1835, etc.) ; Soc. Linneenne (1838), Mem. (1866, etc.). Angers, Soc. Acad. de Maine-el-Loire (1857), Mem. (1857, etc.); Soc. d'Agr., etc. (1799), Mem. (1831, etc.); Soc. Linn, de M.-et-L. (1852), Annales (1853, etc.). Angouleme, Soc. d'Agr., etc., de la Charente (1803), Annales (1819, etc.). Annecy, Soc. Florimontane (1851), Annales (1851, etc.) and Rev. Savoisienne (1851). Apt, Soc. Lilt., Sc. el Art. (1863), Annales (1865, etc.). Arras, Acad. (1737), Mem. (1818, etc.) and other publications. Autun, Soc. Eduenne (1836), Mem. (1872, etc.) and other publications. Auxerre.Soc. des Sc. (1847), Bull. (1847, etc.). Avignon, Acad.de Vaucluse (formerly the Lycee d'Agr., etc., l8oi),Mem. (1804), Documents and Cartulaires. Bar-le-Duc, Soc. des Lettres, etc. (1870), Mem. (1871, etc.). Bayeux, Soc. des Sc., Arts et B.-Lett. (1841), Mem. (1842, etc.). Beauvais, Soc. Acad. (1847), Mem. (1847, etc.), Comptes Rendus (1882, etc.). Belfort, Soc. d'Emulation (1872), Bull. (1872). Besangon, Acad. des Sc., etc. (1752; suppressed in 1793; re-established 1805), Proc. -verb. (1754, etc.), Mem. (1838, etc.); Soc. d'Emulation (1840), Mem. (1841, etc.). Beziers, Soc. Arch., Sc., etc. (1834), Bull. (1836, etc.). Blois, Soc. des Sc. et Lettres de Loiret-Cher (1832), Mem. (1833, etc.). Bordeaux, Acad. (1712 ; suppressed 1793; re-established 1816), Actes (1839, etc.) ; Soc. Linn. (1818), Bull. (1826-1829) and Actes (1830, etc.); Soc. des Sc. (1850), Mem. (1855, etc.). Boulogne, Soc. Acad. (1864), Mem. (1864, etc.). Bourg, Soc. d'Emulation (1755), Journal (1817-1868) and Annales (1868, etc.). Bourges, Soc. Hist., etc., du Cher (1849), Mem. (1857, etc.). Brive la Gaillarde, Soc. Sc., Hist, et Archeol. (1878), Bull. (1879, etc.). Caen, Acad. (1652), Rec. (1731-1816), Mem. (1825); Soc. Linn. (1823), Mem. (1824, etc.), and Bull. (1855, etc.) ; Assoc. Normande (1831), Annuaire (1835, etc.). Cahors, Soc. des Etudes Lilt., Sc. et Artistiques (1872), Bull. (1873, etc.). Cambrai, Soc. d'Emulation (1804), Mem. (1808, etc.). Cannes, Soc. des Sc. (1868), Mem. (1869, etc.). Carcassonne, Soc. d'Etudes, etc. (1889), Bull. (1890, etc.). Chambery, Acad. (1819), Mem. (1825, etc.). Chateaudun, Soc. Dunoise (1864), Bull. (1864, etc.). Cherbourg, Soc. Acad. (1755), Mem. (1833, etc.); Soc. Nat. (1851), Mem. (1852, etc.). ClermontFerrand, Acad. (1747), Annales (1828, etc.) and Bull. (1881, etc.). Dijon, Acad. (1725; suppressed 1793; re-established 1800), Mem. (1769, etc.). Douai, Soc. d'Agr., etc., du Nord (1799), Mem. (1826, etc.). Draguinan, Soc. d'Etudes Sc. (1855), Bull. (1856, etc.). Dunkirk, Soc. Dunkerquoise (1851), Mem. (1853, etc.). Epinal, Soc. d'Emulation (1825), Journal (1825-1827), Seances (1828-1830), Annales (1828, etc.). Evreux, Soc. Libre d'Agr., etc. (1798), Recueil. Gap, Soc. d'Etudes (1881), Bull. (1882, etc.). Grenoble, Acad. Delphinale (1789), based on Soc. Lilt. (1772), Bull. (1836, etc.). Havre, Soc. d'Etudes Diverses (1833), Recueil (1834, etc.). Laon, Soc. Acad. (1850), Bull. (1852, etc.). La Roche, Soc. d'Emulation (1854), Annuaire (1855, etc.). La Rochelle, Acad. (1732; suppressed 1791; reconstituted in 1803 as Lycee Rochelais and in 1 853 under its former name), Annales (1854, etc.). Le Havre, Soc. des Sc. et Arts (1868), Bull. (1868, etc.). Le Mans, Soc. d'Agr., etc., de la Sarthe (founded in 1761; reorganized on several occasions, and finally in 1839), Bull. (1833, etc.). Le Puy, Soc. d'Agr., Sc.;etc. (1819), Annales (1826, etc.) and Bull. (1836, etc.). Lille, Soc. des Sc., etc. (founded 1802 as Soc. d' Amateurs), Mem. (1802, etc.) ; Soc. d'Etudes, Bull. (1899). Limoges, Soc. d'Agr., Sc., etc., dcja Haute-Vienne (1759), Bull. (1822, etc.). Lons-le-Saunier, Soc. d'Emulation (1817), Mem. (1818, etc.). Lyons, Acad. (1724), Mem. (1854, etc.); Soc. d'Agr., Hist. Nat., etc. (1761}, Comptes rend. (1806, etc.) and Mem. (1838, etc.) ; Soc. Linn. (1822), Annales (1836, etc.). Macon, Acad. (1805), Comptes rend. (1806-1847) and Annales (1851, etc.). Marseilles, Acad. (1726; in 1766 called Sec. des Sciences; suppressed in 1793; reorganized in 1799, and finally in 1802), Recueil (1727-1786) and Mem. (1803, etc.). Meaux, Soc. Libre d'Agr., Sc., etc. (1798; reorganized in 1820), Publ. (1833, etc.). Mende, Soc. d'Agr., etc., de la Lozere (1819), Mem. (1827, etc.) and Bull. (1850, etc.). Montauban, Acad. (1730), Recueil (1742-1750 and 1869, etc.). Montbcliard, Soc. d'Em. (1850), Mem. (1852, etc.). Montpellier, Acad. (iounded in 1706 as Soc. Royale; suppressed in 1793; finally reorganized in 1046), Mem. (1847, etc.) ; Soc. d' Horticult., etc., de I'Herault (1860), Annales (1860, etc.). Moulins, Soc. d'Em. (1846), Bull. (1846, etc.). Nancy, Acad. de Stanislas (1750), Mem. (1754, etc.); Soc. des Sc. (1873), founded on Soc. des Sc. Nat. de Strasbourg (1823 , Mem. (1830, etc.) and Bull. (1866, etc.); Soc. d'archcol., etc. (1848; Mem. (1849, etc.), Journal (1852, etc.). Nantes, Soc. Acad. de la Loire-Inf. (1848), founded in 1798 as Institut Departmental, Annales (1830, etc.). Nevers, Soc. Nivernaise (1851) , Bull. (1851, etc.). Nice, Soc. ues Lettres, etc. (1861), Annales (1865, etc.). Nimes, Acad. (1682,, Mem. (1805); Soc. d' Etude des Sc. Nat. (1871), Bull, (i 873 , etc . ) . Niort , Soc. de Statist. Sc. , etc. , des Deux-Sevres ( 1 836) , Mem. (1836, etc.) and Buh. (1852, etc.). Orleans, Acad. de SainteCroix ,1863), Led. et Mem. (1865, etc.); Soc. d'Agr., Sc., etc. (1809), Bull. (1810-1813), Ann. (1818-1837), and Mem. (1837, etc.). Pau.Soc. des Sc., Lettres, etc. (1841), Bull. (1841, etc.). Perigueux, Soc. d'Agr., Sc., etc., de la Dordogne (1820), Annales (1840, etc.)_. Perpignan, Soc. Agr., etc. et Litl. (1833), Bull. (1834, etc.). Poitiers, Soc. d'Agr., Belles-Lctlres, etc. ("1789), Bull. (1818, etc.). Privas, Soc. des Sc. Nat. etHist. (1861), Bull. (1861, etc.). Reims, Acad. Nat. (1841), Seances (1844, etc.). Rochefort, Soc. de Geog. Lettres, Sc. et Arts (1878), Bull. (1879, etc.). Rodez, Soc. des Lettres, Sc., etc., de I'Aveyron (1836), Mem. (1838, etc.) and Prods- Verb. (1864, etc.). Rouen, Acad. (1744), Precis Analyt. (1744, etc.) ; Soc. Libre d'Emulation, etc. (1790). Bull. (1797, etc.); Soc. des Amis des Sc. Nat. (1864), Bull. (1865, etc.). Saint-Brieuc, Soc. d'Em., Bttll. et Mem. (1861, etc.). Saint-Die, Soc. Philomatique\1875), Bull. (1876, etc.). Saint-Etienne, Soc. d'Agr., tjfc., de la Loire (1822), Annales (1857). Saint-Lo, Soc. d'Agr., etc. (1833), Mem., etc. (1837, etc.). Saint-Quentin, Soc. Acad. (1825), Mem. (1830, etc.). Semur, Soc. des Sc. Hist, et Nat. (1842), Bull, (1864, etc.). Soissons, Soc. Arch., Hist, et Sc. (1846), Mem. (1847, etc.). Tarbes, Soc. Acad. des Hautes- Pyrenees (1853), Bull. (1854, etc.). Toulon, Soc. Acad. du Var (1811), Mem. (1832, etc.). Toulouse, Acad. (founded in 1640; known to 1704 as Soc. des Lanternistes and by other names to 1807, when present title was acquired), Hist, et Mem. (1782-1790) and Mem. (1827, etc.) ; Soc. d'Hist. Nat. (1866), Bull. (1867, etc.); Soc. des Sc., (1872), Bull. (1872, etc.). Tours, Soc. d'Agr., etc., d' Indre-et-Loire (founded in 1761 as Soc. Roy. d'Agr.), Recueil (1763 and 1803-1810) and Annales (1821, etc.). Troyes, Soc. Acad., based on Soc. Acad. de I'Aube (1798), Mem. (1801, etc.). Valenciennes, Soc. d'Agr., Sc. et Arts (1831), Mem. (1833, etc.; 1865, etc.) and Revue Agricole (1849, etc.). Vannes, Soc. Polymathique du Morbihan (1826), Proc.-verb. (1827, etc.) and Bull. (1857, etc.). Vend&me, Soc. Arch., Sc. et Litt. (1862), Bull. (1862, etc.). Verdun, Soc. Philomath. (1822), Mem. (1840). Versailles, Soc. d'Agr. et des Arts (1798), Mem. (1799-1864) and Bull. (1866, etc.); Soc. des Sc. Nat. et Med. (1832), Mem. (1835, etc.); Soc. des Sc. morales, etc. (1798), Mem. (1847-1897), Revue (1899, etc.). Vesoul. Soc. d'Agr., etc., de la Haute-Saone (1801 ; reorganized in 1819 and 1832), Recueil Agronom. (1836, etc.), Mem. (1859, etc.), and Bull. (1869, etc.). Vitry-le-Francois, Soc. des Sc. et Arts (1861), Bull. (1867, etc.). Constantine (Algeria), Soc. Archeol. (1852), Annuaire et Recueil (1853, etc.).

GERMANY AND AUSTRIA-HUNGARY. Agram, Jugo-slavenska Akademija or South Slav. Acad. (1866), various publications; Croatian Nat. Hist. Soc. (1885). Altenburg, Naturforsch. Ges. d. Osterlandes (1817), Mittheti. Augsburg, Naturforsch. Ver. (1846), Ber. (184.8, etc.)- Bamberg, Naturforsch. Ges. (1834), Ber. (1852, etc.). Berlin, Ges. naturf. Freunde (1773), Sitzungsber. (l86o,etc.) ;Deutsch-asiatischeGes. (1902), Zeitschrift. Blankenburg, Naturwiss. Ver. des Harzes (1831), Ber. (1841, etc.)- Bonn, Naturh.-Verein (1843), Verhandl. (1844,etc.) ; Carres Ges. (1876), Hist. Jahrbuch. (1879, etc.); Niederrhein. Ges. (1818, reorganized, 1839). Bremen, Naturwiss. Ver. (1864), Abhandl. (1868, etc.)- Breslau, Schles. Ges.f. vaterl. Kultur (1803), Jahresber. (1804, etc.). Bromberg, Deutsche Ges. f. Kunst u. Wiss. (1902) with 7 sections, Jahresber. (1902, etc.). Briinn, K. k. Mdhr. -Schles. Ges., Mittheil (1821, etc.). Budapest, K. Magyar Termeszettudomdnyi TdrsulatorRoy. Hung. Soc. of Nat. Sciences (1841), many publications, monthly proceedings of zoological, chemical and botanical sections. Cassel, Ver. f. Naturkunde, Jahresber. (1837, etc.). Colmar, Soc. d'Hist. Nat. (1859), Bull. (1860, etc.). Cracow, Towarzystwo Naukowe, afterwards Akademija Umiejetnosci or Acad. of Science (1815), with several sections each publishing proceedings; the Acad. issues a Bulletin (1873, etc.). Danzig, Naturforsch. Ges., Versuche (1745- 1757) and Schriften (1820, etc.); Bot.-zoolog. Ver. (1878). Donaueschingen, Ver. f. Gesch. u. Naturgesch. (1801), Schriften. Dresden, Naturwiss. Ges. Isis (1833), Sitzungsber. (1861, etc.); Ges.f. Natur-u. Heilkunde (1818), Jahresber. (1848, etc.); Ges.f. Botanik u. Zoologie, Nunquam Otiosus (1870, etc.). Diirkheim, Pollichio, Naturwiss. Ver., Jahresber. (1843, etc.). Elberfeld, Naturwiss. Ver., Jahresber. (1851, etc.). Emden, Naturforsch. Ges. (1814), Jahresber. (1837, etc.). Erfurt, Kgl. Pr. Akad. gemeinnutz. Wiss., Ada (1757, etcji Abhandl. (1860, etc.). Frankfort, Seckenbergische naturforsch. Ges. (1817), Museum (1834-1845) and Abhandl. (1854, etc.). Freiburg (in Baden), Naturforsch. Ges. (1821), Ber. (1858, etc.). Fulda, Ver. f. Naturkunde (1865), Ber. (1870, etc.). Giessen, Oberhess. Ges. f. Naturund Heilkunde (1833), Ber. (1847, etc.). Gorlitz, Oberlausitzer Ges. d. Wiss. (1779), Magazin (1822); Naturforsch. Ges. (1811), Abhandl. (1827, etc.). Gorz, Soc. Imp. Reale, Mem. Gottingen, K. Ges. d. Wissensch. (1751, 1893), Coll. gelehrte Anzeigen, Abhandl. (1845, etc.) and Nachr. (1845, etc.). Gratz, Naturwiss. Ver. Mittheil. (1863, etc.). Greifswald, Naturwiss. Ver. von Neu-Vorpommern, Mittheil. (1869, etc.). Halle, Naturf. Ges. (1779), Abhandl. (1853, etc.); Naturwiss. Ver. (1848), Zeitschrift (1853, etc.). Hamburg, Naturwiss. Ver. (1837), Abhandl. (1846, etc.). Hanau, Wetterauische Ges. (1808), Jahresber. (1852, etc.). Heidelberg, Naturhist.-med. Ver., Verhandl. (1857, etc.) ; Akad. der Wiss. Stiftung H. Lanz (1909). Hermannstadt, Siebenburgisch. med. Ver. f. Naturwiss., Verhandl. (1849, etc.)- Innsbruck, Ferdinandeum, Beitrdge (1825-1834) and Neue Zeitschrift (1835, etc.). Jena, K. Leopold.-Carol. Akad. Athenaeum (1875, etc.); K. Leopold.-Carol. D. Akad. d. Naturf., Leopoldina (1859, etc.) ; Med.-naturwiss. Ges. Jen., Zeitschr. (1864, etc.). Karlsruhe, Naturwiss. Ver. (1863), Verhandl. (1864, etc.). Klausenburg, ^Siebenburg. Museum, Annalen. Leipzig, Ges. Deut. Naturforscher u. Arzte (1822), Tageblatt (1836, etc.), Verhandl.; K. Sachs. Ges. d. Wiss. (1846), Ber. (1846, etc.) and Abhandl. (1850, etc.); Deutsche morgenldnd. Ges. (1845), Zeitschrift (1847, etc.), Abhandl. (1857, etc.). Lemberg, Ges. v. Galizien, Ber. Liineburg, Naturwiss. Ver., Jahresber. (1852, etc.). Magdeburg, Naturwiss. Ver., Abhandl. (1869, etc.). Mainz, Rhein. naturforsch. Ges. (1834). Mannheim, Ver. f. Naturk., Jahresber. (1834, etc.). Marburg, Ges. z. Beforderung der gesamtem Naturwiss., founded in i8i6as Kurhessische Akademie, Schriften (1823, etc.) and Sitzungsber. (1866, etc.). Meissen, Ver. f. Erdk., Isis (1845). Metz, Acad., based on Soc. des Lettres, etc. (1819), Mem. (1828, etc.); Soc. d'Hist. Nat., Mem. (1843) and Bull. (1844, etc.). Munich, Miinchener Orient. Ges. (1901), Beitrage. Nuremberg, Naturhist. Ges. (1801), Abhandl. (1852, etc.), Mittheilungen; Naturhist. Ges. (1801), Mittheil. and Abhandl. Posen, Deutsche Ges.f. Kunst. u. Wiss. (1901). Prague, K. Bohm. Ges. (1770, 1784) consists of two classes, receives a state subsidy, Abhandl. (1785, etc.) and Sitzungsber. (1859, etc.); Naturhist. Ver. Lotos, Lotos (1851, etc.) ; Ges. zur Forderung deutscher Wiss., Kunst. u. Lit. in Bohmen (1891), state subsidy and many private bequests, Mittheil. and other publications. Pressburg, Ver.f. Naturk., Verhandl. (1856, etc.). Ratisbon, Zoolog.-mineralog. Ver. (1846, since 1883 called Naturwiss. Ver.}, Abhandl. (1849, etc.). Reichenbach (Voigtland, Saxony), Ver.f. Naturk. (1859), Mittheil. Rostock, Verein f. Freunde der Naturgeschichte (1847), Archiv. Roveredo, I.R. Accad.

(1750), Atti (1826, etc.). Strassburg, Soc. des Sc. Agr. et Arts (1802), Mem. (1811, etc.) and Bull. (1843, etc.); Wissenschaftl. Ges. (1906), Schriften (1906, etc.). Stuttgart, Ver.f. vaterl. Naturk. (1845), Jahresber. (1850, etc.). Thorn, Copernicus Ver. (1854). Trieste, Soc. Adriatica, Boll. Ulm, Ver.f. Mathem. u. Naturwiss. (1865), Verhandl. Vienna, K. k. Zoolog.-bot. Ges., Verhandl. (1851, etc.) ; Verein z. Verb. Naturwiss. Kentnisse, Schriften (1862, etc.). Wiesbaden, Nassauischer Ver.f. Naturk. (1829), Jahrbiicher (1844, etc.). Zweibrucken, Naturhist. Ver. (1863), Jahresber. (1864, etc.).

SWITZERLAND. Basel, Naturforsch. Ges. (1817), Ber. (1835, etc.) and Verhandl. (1835, etc.). Bern, Soc. Helvetique des Sciences Nat. (1815), Actes (1816, etc.), Comptes rendus (1879), Memoires (1829, etc.). Chur, Naturforsch. Ges., Jahresber. (1856, etc.). Geneva, Soc. de Phys. et d'Hist. Nat., Mem. (1821 , etc.) ; Societe des Arts (Athenee), founded by H. B. de Saussure in 1776; Institut National genevois (1853), Mem. and Bull. Lausanne, Soc. Vaudoise des Sc. Nat., Bull. (1842, etc.). Neuchatel, Soc. des Sc. Nat., Mem. (1835, etc.) and Bull. (1844, etc.). St Gall, Naturwiss. Ges., Ber. (1860, etc.). Solothurn, Naturhist. Kantonal-Ges., Jahresber. (1825, etc.). Zurich, Naturforsch. Ges. (1746), Abhandl. (1761-1856), Mittheil. (1846, etc.), and Vierteljahrsschr. (1856, etc.); Allg. Schweizer Ges. f. d. Naturwiss., Verhandl., Anzeiger, and Denkschr. (1829, etc.).

ITALY. Congresso degli Scienziati Italiani, Atti (1844-1845); Riunione degli Sc. /to/., Atti (1839-1847; 1873, etc.). Bologna, Accad. delle Sc. dell' Istit. di Bologna (1714), Rendic. (1833, etc.), and Mem. (1850, etc.). Brescia, Accad., afterwards Ateneo, Comment. (1808, etc.). Catania, Accad. Gioenia di Sc. Nat., Atti (1825, etc.). Florence, R. Museo di Fis. e Star. Nat., Annali (1808, etc.) ; Soc. Asiatica Italiana (1886), Giornale. Lucca, R. Accad. Lucchese (1584), Atti (1821, etc.). Messina, R. Accad. Peloritana. Milan, Accad. Fis. Med. Statist., Diario ed Atti (1846, etc.); R. Istit. Lombardo, Mem. (1819, etc.), Giornale (1840, etc.), Atti (1860, etc.), and Rendic. (1864, etc.) ; Soc. Ital. delle Sc. Nat., Atti (1860, etc.) and Mem. (1865, etc.). Modena, R. Accad. di Sc., etc., Mem. (1833, etc.) ; Soc. Ital. delle Sc., Mem. (1782, etc.). Naples, R. Istit. d'Incoragg. alle Sc. Nat. (1806), Atti (1811, etc.); Soc. Reale di Napoli (1808), consists of three sectional academies. Padua, R. Accad. di Sc., Lett., ed Arti (1779), Saggi (1786, etc.) and Revista (1851, etc.). Palermo, R. Accad. di Scienze (1722). Rome, Soc. Ital. per il progresso delle Scienze (1907). Venice, R. Istit. Veneto di Sc. (1838), Atti (1841, etc.) and Mem. (1843, etc.); Ateneo Veneto, two sections, literature and science. Verona, Accad. d'Agricoltura, Scienze, Lettere, Arti e Commercio (1768), Atti and Memorie.

BELGIUM. Brussels, Soc. Roy. des Sc. Nat. et Med. (1822), Journ. de Med. (1842-1895) and Annales (1892, etc.) ; Soc. Roy. Linn. (1835), Bull. (1872, etc.); Soc. scientifique de Bruxelles (1875), Revue (1877, etc.), Annales (1877, etc.). Ghent, K. Vlaamische Acad. (1886). Liege, Soc. Roy. des Sc. (1835), Mem. (1843, etc.). Mons, Soc. Prov. des Sc., &fc., du Hainaul (1833), Mem. (1839, etc.).

HOLLAND. Amsterdam, K. Nederlandsch Instituut, Proc.-verb. (1808, etc.), Verhandel. (1812, etc.), Tijdschrift (1847); Genootschap ter Beford. der Natuur-, etc., Kunde, Maanblad (1807, etc.) and Werken (1870, etc.); Hollandsche Maatschappij, Werken (1810, etc.); Maatschappij ter Befordering van net Natuurkundig onderzoek der Nederl. Kolonien (1890), branches in Batavia and Paramaribo, Notulen, Bulletins, etc. Arnheim, Natuurkundig Genootschap, Tijdschrift (1844, etc.). Bois-le-Duc, Provinc. Genootschap, Handelingen (1837, etcj. Gron\ngen,Natuurk. Genootschap, Versl. (1862, etc.). Haarlem, Hollandsche Maatschappij der Wetensch. (1752), Verhandel. ( 1 754, etc.) . The Hague, K. Zoolog.-Botanisch Genootschap, Versl. (1864, etc.). Luxembourg, Soc. des Sc. Nat., Publ. (1853, etc.). Middelburg, Zeeuwsch Genootschap der Wetensch., Verhandel. (1769, etc.) and Archief (1856, etc.). Utrecht, Provinc. Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetensch. (1773), Verhandel. (1781, etc.) and Aanteekeningen (1845, etc.) promotes the study of medicine, natural history, law and literature. Batavia, Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetensch. (1778), Verhandel. (1781, etc.), Tijdschrift (1853, etc.), and Notulen (1862, etc.) ; Natuurk. Vereeniging in Nederl. Indie (1850), Tijdschrift (1851-1865) and Verhandel. (1856, etc.).

DENMARK. Copenhagen, K. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, based on Kjobenhavnske Selskab (1743-1813), Skrifter (1781, etc.) and Afhandlinger (1824, etc.) ; Naturhist. Forening, Meddelelser (1849, etc.). Reykjavik, Islenzka Ndtturufraedisfelag (1889), annual reports.

SWEDEN. Gottenburg, K. Vetenskaps och Vitterhets Samhalle, Handlingar (1778, etc.). Stockholm, K. Svenska Vetenskaps Akademi, Handlingar (1740, etc.) and Arberattelser (1820, etc.). Upsala, K. Vetenskaps Societeten (1710), Acta (1720, etc.).

NORWAY. Christiania, Physiographiske Forening, Mag. for NaturVidensk. (1832, etc.); Videnskabs-Selskabet (1857), Forhandl. (1859, etc.), Skrifter (1894, etc.). Throndhjem, K. Norske Vidensk.-Selskab, Skrifter (1817, etc.).

SPAIN. Barcelona, R. Acad. de Buenas Letras, the oldest Spanish society, Mem. and Boletin; R. Acad. de Ciencias y Aries (1763). Madrid, R. Acad. de Cien. Exactas, Fis., y Nat. (1847), Mem. (1850, etc.) ; Soc. Expan. de Hist. Nat., Anales (1872, etc.). San Fernando, R. Acad., Mem.

PORTUGAL. Coimbra, Institute de Coimbra (1852). Lisbon, Soc. Portugueza de Sciencias Naturais (1907), Bulletin (1907, etc.).

RUSSIA. Siezd Russkikh Yestestvoispytately (Meeting of Russ. Naturalists), first meeting at St Petersburg 1867-1868, Trudy or Trans. (410, 1868, etc.). Dorpat, Naturforsch. Ges. (1853), Sitzungsber. (1853, etc.) Archiv (1854, etc.) and Trudy (1884, etc.) ; Gelehrte Estnische Ges., Verhandl. (1840, etc.), Schriften (1863-1869) and Sttzungsber. (i 86 1 , etc.) . Ekaterinburg, Soc. of Naturalists ( 1 870) , Zapiski. Helsingfors, Societas pro Fauna et Flora Fennica (1821), Acta (1875, etc.); Finska Vetenskaps-Soc. (1838), three sections. Kammietz, Naturforsch. Ges. Kazan, Soc. of Naturalists at University, Protokoly (1870, etc.) and Trudy (i 872, etc.). Kharkoff, Soc. of Scientists at Univ., Trudy (1870, etc.) and Protokoly (1870, etc.). Kieff, Soc. of Naturalists, Zapiski. Lemberg, Polish Soc. for the Advancement of Science (1901). Moscow, Imp. Soc. of the Friends of Nat. Hist., Anthrop., etc. (1863), Izviestiya or Bull. (1865, etc.); Soc. Imp. des Naturalises (1805), Mem. (4to, 1806) and Bull. (8vo, 1829, etc.). Odessa, Soc. of Naturalists of New Russia, Zapiski (1872, etc.) and Protokoly (1874, etc.)- Riga, Naturforsch.-Ver. (1845), Corr.-Blatt (1846, etc.) and Arbeiten (1865, etc.)- St Petersburg, Imp. Soc. of Naturalists (1868), Trudy (1870, etc.). Saratov, Soc. of Naturalists (1895), Trudy (1899, etc.). Warsaw, Soc. of Friends of Sc., Roczniki (1802-1828); Warsaw Naturalists' Soc. (1889).

RUMANIA. Bucharest, Acad. Rom&na (1866), Annahle (1867, etc.); Soc. de Stunte (1891); Soc. Politechnicd (1881). Jassy, Soc. Stuntifica jt Literara (1889).

GREECE. Athens, 4>tXoXo7oc4s<76XXo7osIIapi'a<T<r6s (i 865) , IIap>'o<r<r6s and other publications; 'H kv 'Afli^ais 'ETTIOTTIJUOI'IKIJ 'Eraipda (1888), since 1899 styled Sivala 'Aicaiifrttta.

CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA. Bogota, Soc. de Naturahstas Colombianos, Contribuciones (1860, etc.). Buenos Aires, Soc. Cientifica Argentina (1872), Anales (1876, etc.). Caracas, Soc. de Ciencias, Boletin (1868, etc.). Cordova, Acad. Nacion., Bol. (1874, etc.). Guatemala, Instil. Nac.; Academia (1888) ; Ateneo (1903), 7 sections. Havana, Acad. de Cien. (1861), Anales (1864, etc.). La Paz (Bolivia), Academia Aymara (1901). Mexico, Soc. Mex. de Hist. Nat. (1868), La Naturaleza (1869, etc.); Academia Mejicana (1875), Memorias (1876-1896); Acad. Mex. de Sciencias (1894), Anales. Rio de Janeiro, Palestra dent., Archwos (1858, etc.). Santiago, Soc. de Hist. Nat.

JAPAN. Tokyo, Asiatic Soc. of Japan (1872), Trans. (1874, etc.); Deutsche Ges. f. Natur-u. Volkerkunde Ostasiens (1873), Mitteil. (1873, etc.).

II. MATHEMATICS Many of the general scientific societies (see class i.) have mathematical and other special sections. Among defunct English societies may be mentioned the Mathematical Society, which used to meet in Spitalfields (1717-1845) and possessed a library, and the Cambridge A nalytical Society, which published Memoirs (4to, 1813). The London Mathematical Society (1865, incorporated 1894), Proc. (1865, etc.), the Mathematical Assn. (1871), Gazette, and the Edinburgh Mathematical Society (1883), Proc. (1883, etc.), are still nourishing.

UNITED STATES: American Mathem. Soc. (reorganized 1894), meets at Columbia University, Bull, and Trans. FRANCE: Paris, Soc. MatUm. de France (1872), Bull. (1873, etc.). GERMANY and AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: Berlin, Mathem. Ver. der Univ. (1861), Ber. (1876, etc.); Berliner Mathem. Ges. (1901), Sitzungsber. Budapest, Mathematikai es Phys. Tdrsulat (1891). Cassel, Geometer-Ver. (1878). Dresden, Ver. praktisch. Geometer (1854), Jahresber. (1861, etc.). Essen, Feldmesser-Ver. (1869). Gottingen, Mathemat. Ver. (1868). Hamburg, Mathemat. Ges. (1690), Mittheil. Konigsberg, GeometerVer. (1872). Leipzig, Deutsche Mathem. Vereinigung (i 891), founded at Halle, Jahresb. Strassburg, Geometer- Ver. (i 88 1 ) . Stuttgart, Deulscher Geometer-Ver., Zeitschrift (1872, etc.). HOLLAND: Amsterdam, Genootschap der Mathemat. Welensch. Kunstoeffinengen (1782-1788), Mengelwerken (1793-1816), and Archie} (1856, etc.). Spain: Valladolid, R. Acad. de Matematicas (1803, etc.), now dissolved. Russia: Kazan, Phys. and Math. Soc. (1880). Moscow, Mathemat. Soc. (1867). Japan: Mathemat. Soc. of Tokyo, Journal (1878, etc.).

III. ASTRONOMY The first International Astronomical Congress met at Heidelberg in 1863, and the first international conference for photographing the heavens at Paris in 1887. The Royal Astronomical Society was founded in 1820 under the title of Astronomical Society of London and was incorporated on the 7th of March 1831. It occupies rooms in Burlington House, and has published Memoirs (1882, etc.) anc Monthly Notices (1831, etc.). There are also the British Astronom Soc. in London, and societies at Bristol (1869), Reports; Leeds (1859), Manchester and Liverpool (1881); Toronto, Roy. Astr. Soc of Canada (1890), Trans. (1890), Proc. (1902), Journal (1907, etc.) Madison, Astronomical and A strophysical Soc. of America (1899) San Francisco, Astr. Soc. of the Pacific (1889), Publ.; Paris, Soc Astr. (1887), Bull.; Berlin, Kgl. Astr. Recheninstitut (1897); Leipzig Astronomische Ges. (1863), Publ. (1865, etc.) and Vierteljahrsschrif (1866, etc.); Turin, Soc. Astr. Ital. (1906), Revista; Brussels, Soc Beige d'Astr., de Meteorol. et de Physique du Globe (1893), Bull. mens. Antwerp, Soc. d'Astr. (1905), Gazette; St Petersburg, Russ. Astr. Soc (1890), Investija (1896, etc.); and Mexico, Soc. Astr. (1902), Boletin (1902, etc.).

IV. PHYSICS The first International Electrical Congress was held at Paris in 1 88 1 The Physical Society of London was founded in 1874 and registera inder the Companies Act; it publishes Proceedings (1874, etc.). The London Electrical Society (1836) did useful work in its Transactions (1837-1840, vol. i.) and Proceedings (1841-1843). Sir W.

Biemens was one of the originators of the Institution of Electrical Engineers (founded in 1871 and registered in 1883). It owns the lonalds library of electricity and magnetism and publishes a Journal. n London there are also the Faraday Soc. (1903), Trans, and Proc., and the Optical Soc.

UNITED STATES: Philadelphia, Amer. Electrochem. Soc., Trans. 1902). New York, Nat. Elec. Light Assn. (1885), Proc. (1885) ;Amer. y hys. Soc. (1899), Bull. (1899) included since 1903 in the Physical Review; Am. Inst. of Eleclr. Eng. (1884), Trans, and Proc. FRANCE: lambrai, Soc. Magnetique, Archives (1845). Paris, Soc. FranQ. de hys. (recognized as of public utility on the 15th of January 1881), Bull.; Soc. Int. des Electriciens (1883), Bull. GERMANY: Berlin, 'hysikalische Ges. (1843), Forlschritte der Physik (1847, etc.); Elekotechnisch. Ver. (1879), Ztschr. (1880, etc.). Breslau, Physikalischer Ver. Frankfort, Physikalischer Ver. (1824), Jahresber. (1841, etc.), nd Wetterkarten daily. Konigsberg, Phys.-okon. Ges. (1790), Schr.

(1859, etc.). Italy: Naples, R. Accad. delle Sc. Fis. e Maiem., lendic. (1856, etc.) and Atti (1863). Rome, Soc. degli Spettroscopisti \tal.; Soc. Ital. di Fisica (1897), // nuovo cimento. HOLLAND: Rotterdam, Bataafsch. Genootschap van Proefondcniindelijke wijs- begeerte, Verhandel. (1774, etc.). Russia: St Petersburg, Russ.

Physico-Chemical Soc., Journal (1869, etc.).

V. CHEMISTRY Pharmaceutical societies are placed in class xiii. (Medicine, etc.). The Chemical Society of London for the promotion of chemistry and the sciences immediately connected with it was instituted on the 23rd of February 1841 ; a charter of incorporation was obtained in 1848. It publishes Memoi'S (1843, etc.), and Quarterly Journal (1849, etc.). Chemistry and its connexion with the arts, and agricultural and technical matters, form the subjects of the Institute of Chemistry, founded on the 2nd of September 1877 and incorporated in 1885. It publishes Proc. The Society of Chemical Industry (1881) was incorporated in 1907, and publishes a Journal. The Society of Public Analysts publishes the Analyst (1876, etc.)- The oldest oi the numerous photographic societies is the Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain (1853), which issues a Journal. The Royal College of Chemistry was founded in July 1845, and had a brief career; it published Reports (1849). The Cavendish Society was instituted in 1846 for the publication and translation of works and papers on chemistry. It came to an end in 1872 after having issued 30 vols.

UNITED STATES: New York, American Chemical Soc. (1876), Proc. (1876), Journ. (187^) and Abstracts (1907). Washington, Chem. Soc. (1884), Bull, now the Journal of the Amer. Chem. Soc. FRANCE: Paris, Soc. Chimique (1857), Bull. (1861, etc.). GERMANY: Berlin, Deutsche Chemische Ges. ( 1 867) , Ber. ( 1 868, etc.) ; Deutsche Bunsen-Ges. (i 894) , Ztschr. fur Elektrochemie ; Verein Chem. Reichsanstalt. Frankfort, Chem. Ges. Jena, Chem. Laborat. Leipzig, Ver. Deulscher Chem. (1888), based on the Ver. Analyt. Chemiker, Ztschr. (1900, etc.). Wiirzburg, Chemische Ges. (1872). BOHEMIA: Prague, Spolek Chemiku Ceskych or Soc. of Bohemian Chemists, Zpravy or Trans. (1872, etc.). BELGIUM: Brussels, Soc. Chim.de Belgique, formerly Assoc. Beige des Chimistes (1887), Bull.

VI. GEOLOGY, MINERALOGY AND PALAEONTOLOGY The first International Congress of Geology took place at Bologna in 1878. The Geological Society of London, founded in 1807 and incorporated in 1826, is the largest and most important in Great Britain; it has published Proceedings (1834-1846), Transactions (1811, etc.), and a Quarterly Journal (1845, etc.). The Geologists' Association was instituted in 1858, and issues Proceedings (1859, etc.). The Mineralogical Society (1876) has united with it the Crystallogical . Society; it issues the Mineralogical Magazine (1876, etc.). The Palaeontographical Society was founded in 1847 for the delineation and description of British fossils; it issues Publications (410, 1847, etc.). The Royal Geological Society of Cornwall (1814) devotes special attention to the mining interests of the county, and publishes Transactions (1818, etc.). It holds its meetings at Penzance. The Geological Society of Edinburgh (1834) issues Transactions (1870, etc.). The Royal Geological Society of Ireland (1832) principally studied the geology of the country. It published a Journal (1837, etc.). There are also the Geological Associations of Leeds (1874) and Liverpool (1880), Trans., and the Societies of Liverpool (1859), Proc., and Manchester (1838), Trans.

SOUTH AFRICA: Johannesburg, Geol. Soc. of S. A. (1895), Trans. (1895, etc.). UNITED STATES: Louisville, Ky., Ohio Falls Geolog. Soc. San Francisco, California State Geolog. Soc. (1876). New York, Geol. Soc. of Amer. (1888), Bull. Washington, Geol. Soc. of Washington (1893). FRANCE: Lille, Soc. Geol. du Nord (1870), Annales (1874, etc.). Havre, Soc. Geol. de Normandie, Bull. (1873, etc.). Paris, Soc. Geol. de France (1830, recognized 1832), awards the Prix Viquesnel (40) every three years, Bull. (1830, etc.) and Mem. (1833, &'c.); Soc. Frang. de Mineralogie (1878, recognized 1886), formerly Soc. Mineral, de France, Butt. (1879. etc.). Saint-Eticnne, Soc. d'Ind. Minerale (1855), Bull. (1855, etc.). GERMANY and AUSTRIA- HUNGARY: Berlin, Deutsche Geol. Ges. (1848), Ztschr. (1849, etc.), Monatsberichte (1903, etc.) ; Budapest, Magyarhoni Foldtam Tarsulat 1zz 850) or Hungarian Geolog. Soc. (1850), Foldtani Kozlony. Briinn, Wernerscher Geol. Ver., Jahresber. Darmstadt, Mittelrheinischer Geolog. Ver. (1851), Mittheil. (1855, etc.). Dresden, Gebirgs-Ver. (1855). SWITZERLAND: Schweizerische Geolog. Ges. (1882), section of Allg. Schw. Ges. ZUrich, Schweiz. Palaontol. Ges. (1874), Abhandl. (1875, etc.). Italy: Rome, Soc. Sismol. Ital. (1895), Bell. ; Soc. Geol. Ital., founded at the second International Geological Congress. BELGIUM: Antwerp, Soc. Paleontol. (1857), Bull. Brussels, Soc. Beige de Geol., dePaleont. et d'Hydrol. (1887), Bull., Mem. and Proc.- verb. Charleroi, Soc. Paleontol. (1863), Documents et Rapports (1866, etc.)- Li6ge, Soc. Geol. de Belgique, Annales (1874, etc.). SWEDEN: Stockholm, Geologiska Forening (1871), Forhandlingar (1872, etc.). Russia: St Petersburg, Imp. Russian Mineralog. Soc. (1816), Trans., pub. in Russian, German and French (1830, etc.). ARGEN- TINE REPUBLIC: Buenos Aires, Soc. Paleontol, MEXICO: Mexico, Soc. Geol. Mexicana (1904), Bol.

VII. METEOROLOGY The International Meteorological Congress first met at Brussels in 1853. The Royal Meteorological Society (1850) of London was incorporated in 1866; its organ is Quarterly Journal (1873, etc.). To this must be added the British Rainfall Society; the Scottish Meteorological Society holds its meetings at Edinburgh and issues a Journal (1866, etc.)- Port Louis (Mauritius), Meteorolog. Soc., Trans. (1853, etc.). Paris, Soc. Meteoroloe. de France (1852), Annuaire (1853, etc.) and Nouvelles Meteorolog. (1868, etc.). Berlin, Deutsche Meteor. Ges. (1883), Ztschr. Hamburg, Deutsche Meteorolog. Ges. (1883), Ztschr. Magdeburg, Ver. f. landwirtsch. Wellerkunde (1881). Meissen, Gesellsch., Isis. Vienna, Osterreich. Ges. f. Meteorol., Zeitschrift (1866, etc.). Modena, Soc. Meteorolog. ltd. Gothenburg, Kungl. Vetenskaps- och Vitterhets-samhiillet (1778), Handligar.

VIII. MICROSCOPY The Royal Microscopical Society (1839, incorporated 1866), with Transactions (1842-1868) and Journal (1869, etc.); the Quekett Microscopical Club (1865), with a Journal (1868, etc.) ; and the Postal Microscopic Society (1873), also with a Journal, are located in London. There are suburban societies at Ealing (1877), Hackney (1877), Highbury (1878), South London (1871), and Sydenham (1871). In the provinces may be mentioned those at Bath (1859), Birmingham (1880), Bolton (1877), Bradford (1882), Bristol (1843), Carlisle, Chichester (Trans.), Croydon (1870, Trans.), Dublin (1840), East Kent (1858), Edinburgh, Liverpool (1868, Trans.), Manchester(i88o), and Sheffield (1877). In the United States the State Microscop. Soc. of Illinois publishes the Lens (1872, etc.); Buffalo, Amer. Soc. f-f Microscopists; New York, Microscop. Soc.; Urbana, Amcr. Micros. Soc. (1878), Proc. (1879), Trans. (1895, etc.). Brussels, Soc. Beige de Microscop. (1875), Proc.-verb. (1875, etc.) and Annales (1876, etc.). Berlin, Ges. f. Mikroskop. (1877), Ztschr. (1878, etc.). Hanover, Ges. f. Mikroskop. (1879), Jahresber.

IX. BOTANY AND HORTICULTURE Linnaean societies, which usually deal with both zoology and botany, are placed in the general class (No. i.). The Congres International d' Horticulture first met at Brussels in 1864, and the Congres International de Botanique at Amsterdam in 1865. The Royal Botanic Society of London (incorporated 1839) has gardens in the inner circle of Regent's Park, and issues a Quarterly Record (1880, etc.). The Royal Horticultural Society (established in 1804, incorporated in 1809) has gardens at Chiswick, and publishes a Journal (1846, etc.). The chief provincial societies are Aberdeen, North of Scotl. Hortic. Assoc. (1879), Trans. Arbroath, Hortic. Assoc. (1880). Birmingham, Bot. and Hortic. Soc. (1829), gardens. Dublin, Roy. Hortic. Soc. (1830). Liverpool, Bot. Soc. (1906). Edinburgh, Bot. Soc. (1836), Proc. (1837, etc.) and Trans. (1844, etc.) ; Royal Scottish Arboric. Soc. (1854), Trans.; Cryptogamic Soc. of Scotl. (1875)., CANADA: Kingston, Bot. Soc. of Canada (1860), Annals (1861, etc.).

UNITED STATES: Baltimore, Bot. Soc. Amer. (1894). Boston, Hortic. Soc. (1829). New York, Torrey Botanical Club (1858, reorganized 1867), Butt. (1870, etc.). San Francisco, State Hortic. Soc. Washington, Bot. Soc. of Wash. (1901). FRANCE: Beauvais, Soc. d' Hortic. et de Bot. (1864), Bull. (1864, etc.). Bordeaux, Soc. d' Hortic. Chartres, Soc. d'Hortic. et de Viticulture. Chauny, Soc. de Pomplogie, Dijon, Soc. d'Hortic. Fontenay-le-Comte, Soc. d'Horlic. Lisieux, Soc. d'Hortic. et de Bot. (1866), Bull. (1866, etc.). Lyons, Soc. d'Hortic. Pratique (1844), Bull. (1844, etc.) Soc. Bot. (1872), Annales (1872, etc.); Soc. Pomologique (1872), Bull. (1872, etc.). Moulins, Soc. d'Hortic. Nimes, Soc. d'Hortic. Niort, Soc. d'Hortic. Orleans, Soc. d'Hortic. (1839), Bull. (1841, etc.). Paris, Soc. Nat. d'Hortic., (1827; declared of public utility 1852), Journal; Soc. Bot. de France, Bull. (1854), Mem. (1905, etc.). Rouen, Soc. Centr. d'Hortic. Saint Germain-en-Laye, Soc. d'Hortic. Senlis, Soc. d'Hortic. Troyes, Soc. d'Hortic. Versailles, Soc. d'Hortic. GERMANY and AUSTRIA- HUNGARY: Berlin, Bot. Ver. (1859), Verhandl. (1859, etc.); Deutsche Bot. Ges. (1882), Berichte (1883, etc.); Horticult. Ges. Blankenburg, Bol. Ver. Bonn, Bot. Ver. (1818), Jahresber. (1837, etc.). Danzig, Westpr. Bot.-zool. Ver. (1878), Jahresber. Dresden, "Flora": Ges. fur Bnt. u. Gartenbau (1826), Sitzungsber. Erfurt, Gartenbau Ver. Frankfort, Gartenbau Ges. Freiburg, Bot. Ver. Gorlitz, Gartenbau Ver. Gotha, Thuringer Gartenbau Ver. Klagenfurt, Karntnerische Gartenbau Ges. Landshtit, Bot. Ver. (1864). Meiningen, Ver. f. Pomologie u. Gartenbau. Munich, Bayerische Botanische Ges., Mittheil. (1890). Ratisbon, K. Bayerische Bot. Ges. (1790), Flora (1818, etc.) and Repertorium (1864, etc.). Reutlingen, Pomolog. Inst. Sondershausen, Bot. Ver. Stuttgart, Gartenbau Ges., Flora. Vienna, K. k. Gartenbau Ges.; Botan. Ver., Verhandl. (1851, etc.). Weimar, Ver. f. Blumislik. Wiirzburg, Bot. Inst., Arbeiten (1871, etc.). Italy: Milan, Soc. Criltog. Hal., Alii (1878, etc.). BELGIUM: Antwerp, Soc. Roy. d'Hortic. et d'Agr.; Soc. Phytologique, Annales (1864, etc.). Bruges, Soc. d'Hortic. et dela Bot. Brussels, Soc. Roy. de Bot. with Slate Botanical Garden (1862), Bull. (1862, etc.); Soc. Roy. de Flore; Soc. Centr. d' Arboric., Annales. Liege, Soc. Roy. d'Hortic. HOLLAND: Ghent, Kruidkundig Genootschap Dodonaea (1887), Tijdschr. Leiden, Nederl. Bot. Vereen. Luxembourg, Soc. de Bot., Recueil (1874, etc.). Nimeguen, Nederl. Bot. Vereen, Archief (1871, etc.). DENMARK: Copenhagen, Bot. Forening, Tidsskrift (1866, etc.).

X. ZOOLOGY Societies dealing with natural history in general, or zoology and botany together, come under class i. The first International Ornithological Congress was held at St Petersburg. The Zoological Society of London (1826, incorporated 1829) is famous for its collection of animals at Regent's Park. It publishes Proceedings (8vo, 1830, etc.) and Transactions (410, 1835, etc.). In London also are the British Ornithologists' Union (1859) ; Entomological Society of London (1833), Trans. (1834, etc.) ; National Fish Culture Association (1883); Malacolog. Soc. (1893). The Concholog. Soc. (1876) meets at Manchester, which also has an Entomolog. Soc. (1902). The Marine Biological Association of Great Britain (1884), for the study of marine food fishes and shell-fish, has a laboratory at Plymouth. The Royal Zoological Society of Ireland (1831) has gardens in the Phoenix Park. There is the British Beekeepers' Association (1874). AUSTRALIA and New Zealand: Auckland, Acclimatisation Soc. Brisbane, Acclimat. Soc. Christchurch, Acclimat. Soc. Melbourne, Zoolog. and Acclimat. Soc. of Victoria, Report (1861, etc.); Australasian Ornitho. Union (1896), The Emu. Sydney, Acclimat. Soc. of N.S. Wales, Report (1862, etc.); Enlomolog. Soc. of N.S.W., Trans. (1863, etc.). Wellington, Westland Nat. and Acclimat. Soc. AFRICA: Cape Town, Zoolog. Soc. Port Louis (Mauritius), Soc. d' Acclimat. CANADA: Toronto, Entomolog. Soc.; Beekeepers' Assoc.

UNITED STATES: Cambridge, Nuttall Ormtholog. Club, Bull. (1876) and Memoirs (1886) ; and Entomolog. Club, Psyche (1874, etc.) ; Amer. Soc. Zoologists (1890). Cincinnati Soc. of Nat. Hist. (1870), Journs. (1879). Illinois Central Beekeepers' Association. New York, Enlom. Soc. (1892), Journal; N. Y. Zoolog. Soc. (1895), Rep. Guide Book. Pasadena, Cooper Ornith. Club (1893) founded at San Jose, Pacific Avifauna (1900, etc.), The Condor (1899, etc.). Philadelphia, Zoolog. Soc. (1859), Report (1874, etc.); and Amer. Entomolog. Soc. (1859), Proc. (1861-1866), Trans. (1867, etc.). Washington, Amer. Ornith. Union (1883), The Auk (1884, etc.); Biolog. Soc. (1901); and Entomolog. Soc. (1884), Proc. FRANCE: Alais, Soc. Sericicole, Bull. (1876, etc.). Amiens, Soc. d' Apiculture, Bull. (1875, etc.). Clermont, Soc. Centr. d'Apicult., Butt. (1875, etc.). Lille, Inst. Zoolog. a Wimereux, Travaux (1877, etc.). Paris, Soc. Nat. d' Acclimat. (1854), Bull. Mensuel (1854, etc.) and Chron. Bimens. (1875, etc.); Soc. Zoolog. de France, Bull. (1876, etc.); Soc. Entomolog. de France, Annales (1832); and Soc. de Biologic (1848), Comptes Rendus (1849, etc.). GERMANY and AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: Wanderversammlung Deutscher Bicnenziichler, Verhandl. (1856, etc.). Bendorf, Akklimat.-Ver. Berlin, Akklimat.-Vcr. (1856), Zeitschr. (1858, etc.); Cenlral-Inst. f. Akklimat., Mittheil. (1859, etc.); Deutsche Zoolog. Ges. ; Deutsche Ornilhol. Ges. (1850), Journal (1853, etc.); Deutsche Fischerei Ver., Publikat. (1871, etc.); Berliner Entomolog. Ges. (1856), Entomolog. Zeitschr. (1857, etc.);>. Entomol. Ges. (1881), Ztschr.; Ver. zum Beford. des Seidenbaues, Jahresber. (1869, etc.); Physiolog. Ges. (1875), Verhandl. (1877, etc.). Breslau, Physiolog. Inst., Studien (1861, etc.) ; Ver. f. Schles. Insektenkunde, Zeitschr, (1847, etc.). Brunswick, Deutsche Ornitholog. Ges. Carls'ruhe, Badischer Ver. f. Gefltigelzucht, Monatsblatt (1872, etc.). Frankenberg, Bienemvirthschaftl. Haupt-Ver., Sachs. Bienenfreund (1865, etc.). Frankfort, Zoolog. Ges., Der Zoolog. Garten (1860, etc.); Deutsche Malakozoolog. Ges. (1868), Jahrbiicher (1874-1887) and Nachrichtsblatt (1869, etc.). Halberstadt, Deutsche Ornitholog. Ges. Halle, Ornitholog. Central-Ver. Hamburg, Zoolog. Ges., Ber. (1862, etc.). Hanover, Bienenwirthschaftl. Central-Ver., Centralblalt (1865, etc.). Leipzig, Sachs. Seidenbau Ver., Zeitschr. (1868, etc.). Munich, Entomolog. Ver. (1876); Fischerei Ver., Mittheil. (1876, etc.). Nordlingen, Ver. Deutscher Bienenwirthe, B.-Zeitung (1845, etc.). Ratisbon Zoolog.-mineralog. Ver. (seeclassi.). Stettin, Ornitholog. Ver. (1873), Jahresber. (187-5, etc.); Entomolog. Ver. (1837), Enl. Zeitung (1840, etc.). Trieste, 'Zoolog. Inst. u. Zoolog. Station (1875), Arbeiten (1878, etc.). Troppau, Schles. Bienenzucht-Ver. (1873). Vienna, Entomolog. Ver.; Embryolog. Inst., Mittheil. (1871, etc.); Ornitholog. Ver. Wtirzburg, Zoolog.-zootomisches Inst. (1872), Arbeiten (1874, &C.X SWITZERLAND: Bern, Schweiz. Entomolog. Ges. (1858), Mitteil. (1862, etc.). Geneva, Assoc. Zoolog. du Leman; Soc. Ornitholog. Suisse (1865), Bull. (1866, etc.). Zurich, Internal. Entomologenverein (1886), Societas Entomologica (1886, etc.)- Italy: Casale, Soc. Bacologica, Boll. (1866, etc.). Florence, Soc. Allantina /to/., La Sericoltura (1865, etc.); Soc. Enlomolog. Ital., Boll. (1869, etc.). Naples, Zoolog. Station, Mittheil. (1878). Palermo, Soc. diAcdimaz., Atti (1861, etc.). Pisa, Soc. Malacolog. Ital., Boll. (1875, etc.)- Rome, Soc. di Pisicolt. Ital. (1872). BELGIUM: Antwerp, Soc. Roy. de Zoologie (1843) with Jardin Zool. and Mus. Brussels, Soc. Roy. de Zoologie et Malacologique de Beige (1863), Annales (1870, etc.); Soc. Entomolog. de Belgique (1856), Annales and Bull. (1857, etc.)- HOLLAND: Amsterdam, K. Zoolog. Genootschap "Natura Artis Magistra " (1838), Bijdragen (1848), Jaarboekje (1852, etc.) and Tijdschr. (1863, etc.), zoolog. garden and museum. The Hague, Nederl. Entomolog. Vereen., Tijdschr. (1857, etc.). Rotterdam, Nederl. Dierkundige Vereen., Tijdschr. (1874, etc.). NORWAY: Bergen, Selskabet for Norges Fiskerier. Christiania, Del Biol. Selskab. (1894), Aaresber. SWEDEN: Stockholm, Entomolog. Forening (1879), Ent. Tidskrift (1880, etc.). Russia: Moscow, Acclimat. Soc. St Petersburg, Russian Entomolog. Soc. (1859), Horae societalis entom. ross. ARGEN- TINE REPUBLIC: Buenos Aires, Soc. Zoolog. Argentina, Period. Zoolog. (1875, etc.); Soc. Entomolog. Argent.

XI. ANTHROPOLOGY The Congres International d' Anthropologie et d' Archeologie Prehisloriques held its first meeting at Neuchatel in 1866; it issues Comptes rendus (1866, etc.). The Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland was founded in 1871 upon the Ethnological Society (1843), which published a Journal (1848-1856) and Transactions (1859-1869), and the Anthropological Society (1863), which issued Memoirs (1863-1869) and the Anthropological Review (1864-1870). The Institute brings out a Journal (1871, etc.).

Sydney, Roy. Anthropolog. Soc. (1896). Bombay, The Gatha Soc. (1903), occasional pamphlets.

UNITED STATES: Cleveland, Amer. Inst. Antkrop. (1890), Journal. New York, Amer. Ethnolog. Soc. (1842), Trans, (1845- 1853) and Bull. (1860-1861); formerly Anthropolog. Inst., Journ. (1871). Washington, Anthropolog. Soc. (1879), Trans. (1882, etc.); Amer. Anthrop. Assoc. (1902), Amer. Anthropologist. Havana (Cuba), Soc. Antrop. FRANCE: Grenoble, Soc. dauphinoise d'Ethn. et d' Anthrop. (1894), Bull. (1894, etc.). Lyons, Soc. d' Anthrop. (1881), Bull. (1881, etc.). Paris, Soc. d' Anthropologie (1859; recognized 1864), Bull, and Mem. (1860, etc.); Soc. d'Ethnogr., Annuai-e (1862, etc.), and Revue (1869, etc.); Soc. des Traditions Populaires (1886) Revue (1886, etc.). GERMANY and AUSTRIA- HUNGARY: Berlin, Ges. f. Anthropologie, etc. (1869), Ztschr. (1870, etc.) and Verhandl. (1871, &C.)L Deutsche Ges. fur Anthrop., Ethn. etc. (1870), Archiv (1866, etc.). Brunswick, Deutsche Ges. f. Anthropologie, Architi (1870, etc.) and Corr-Blatt (1874, etc.). Budapest, Magyar Neprajzi Tdrsasdg (i 889) , Ethnographia (i 889, etc.). Cologne, Ver. zur Forderung des Stadt-Rautenstrauch-Joest Museums fiir Volkerkunde (1904), Jahresber. (1904, etc.). Gorlitz, Ges. fur Anthrop. etc. (1888), Jahreshefte. Gottingen, Anthropolog. Ver., Mittheil. (1874, etc.). Kiel, Anthrop. Ver. (1877), Mitteil. (1888, etc.). Leipzig, Ver. f. Anthropolog., Ber. (1871, etc.), afterwards joined to the Ver. der Erdk. Munich, Ges. f. Anthropolog. etc. (1870), Beitr. (1876, etc.). Stuttgart,^ nthropolog. Ges. (1871), Fundber. (1893, etc.). Vienna, Anthropolog. Ges. (1870), Mittheil. (1870, etc.). Italy: Florence, Soc. Ital. di Antropologia (1868), Archivio (1871, etc.). BELGIUM: Brussels, Soc. d'Anthrop., Bull. (1882, etc.). SWEDEN: Stockholm, Svenska Sallskapet for Antrop. (1873), Tidskrift (1873, etc.). Spain: Madrid, Soc. Antropolog. Esp., Revista (1875, etc.). Russia: St Petersburg, Russian Anthrop. Soc. (1888), Protokolyzasedanij (1901, etc.).

XII. SOCIOLOGY (Economic Science, Statistics, Law, Education) The international societies are the Association Internationale pour le Progres des Sciences Sociales and the Congres International de Statistique, which first met at Brussels in 1853. Both have issued Comptes rendus. The Congres International de Bienfaisance may be traced to a suggestion at the Congres Penitentiaire held at Frankfort in 1847. The first meeting took place at Brussels in 1856. The Inst. Internal, de Sociplogie (1893) has its headquarters at Paris. The National Association for the Promotion of Social Science (1857) had united with it in 1864 the Society for Promoting the Amendment of the Law. It held a yearly migratory meeting, and published Transactions (1858, etc.) and Social Science (1866; etc.). The Sociological Soc., the Eugenics Education Soc, and the Roy. Economic Soc. are established in London. The Royal Statistical Society (1834), incorporated 1887, publishes a Journal (1839, etc.); Cobden Club (1866), for the diffusion of the political and economical principles with which Cobden's name is associated, has issued a variety of publications; Institute of Actuaries (incorp. 1884); Institute of Chartered Accountants (1880); Institute of Bankers (1879); the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors (1885), and the Chartered Institute of Secretaries, also meet in London. There are also the Manchester Statistical Society (1833), with Transactions; the Faculty of Actuaries in Scotland and the Scottish Society of Economists (1897), both meeting at Edinburgh; and the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland (1847), with a Journal, at Dublin. After the INNS OF COURT (q.v.), the most important of British legal societies is the Law Society (1827, incorporated 1832, reincorp. 1845); it began courses of lectures for students in 1833, and was appointed registrar of solicitors ten years later, and obtained supplementary charters in 1845 and 1878. This society has a fine building, with library and examination hall in Chancery Lane, London. There are over 70 provincial societies, most of them being associated with the parent body. The Verulam Society (1846) published a few books and came to an end. The Selden Society, established in 1887 for the promotion of the study of the history of law, prints ancient records. The headquarters of the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations are in London, but conferences are held in various continental towns. The Chartered Institute of Patent Agents (founded 1882, incorporated 1891) issues Transactions. The Juridical Society of Edinburgh (1773) published five editions of a Complete System of Conveyancing. The Ascham Society was founded in 1879 for the improvement of educational methods; and the Society for the Development of the Science of Education (1875) issued Transactions.

UNITED STATES: Baltimore, Amer. Pol. Sc. Assoc. (1903), Proc. Boston, Amer. Soc. Sc. Assoc.; Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1839), Collections (1847, etc.). Cambridge, Amer. Econ. Assoc. (1886). New York, Am. Inst. of Social Service, Social Service (1899,etc.) ; Actuarial Soc. of Amer. (1899) ; Philadelphia, A mer. A cad. Pol. and Social Sc. (1899), Annals ; A merican Bar A ssoc. , Reports ; A ssn. of A mer. Law Schools ( I go I ) . Washington, Amer. Soc. of Int. Law (1906), Journal; Nat. Educ. Assoc. (1857), Proc. FRANCE: Grenoble, Soc. de Statist. (1838), Bull. (1838, etc.). Marseilles, Soc. de Statist. (1827), Repertoire (1837, etcj; Soc. Sc. industr : (1871), Bull. (1872, etc.). Paris, Soc. Int. des Etudes Pratiques d'Econ. (1856, recognized 1869); Soc. Fran, de Statist. Univ. (1829), Journal issued jointly with Acad. Nat. since 1849; Soc. de Statist, de Paris (1860, recognized 1869), Journ. (1860, etc.); Soc. de Legislation Comparee (1869, recognized 1873), Bull., Annuaire de Leg. Franc.., and Ann. de Leg. Elran.; Soc. pour Vlnstr. Element (1815, recognized 1831), Bull.; Soc. de Linguistique (1864), Mem. (1868, etc.); Soc. de I ' Enseignement Superieure (1878), Rev. (1881, etc.); Soc. d'Econ. Sociale (1856), Les Ouvriers des deux mondes (1857, etc.), La Reforme sociale (1881, etc.); Soc. d'Econ. Pol. (1842), Annales (1846-1847), Bull. (1888, etc.) ; Soc. del'Ecoledes Charles (1839), Mem. St Maixent, Soc. de Statist, des Deux-Sevres. Toulouse, Acad. de Legis. (1851), Rec. (1851, etc.). GERMANY and AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: Debreczen, Magyar Kir Gazdasdgi Akad. (1868). Berlin, Volkswirths. Ges. (1860), Volkswirths. Zeitfragen (1879, etc.); Ver.f. deutsche Volkswirths. (1876), Ztschr. (1880, etc.); Ver.f. Forderung d. Handelsfreiheit (1878), Mittheil. (1879, etc.) ; Ver. f. d. Statist.; Jurist. Ges. (1859), Jahresber. (1863, etc.). Dresden, Statistischer Ver. (1831), Mittheil. Frankfort, Statistische Ges.; Juristische Ges. (1866), Rundschau (1867, etc.); Akad. fiir Sozial- u. Handels'diissenschaflen (1901). Freiburg, Badische Heimat (1893), Volkeskunde. Halle, Kantgesellschaft (1904), Kantstudien. Laibach, Jurist. Ges. Leipzig, Ver. f. wiss. Padagogik, Jahrbuch and Mittheil. ITALY : Tortona, Soc. di Storia Economia, Boll. BELGIUM : Brussels, Ligue de V Enseignement (1864), Bull.; Soc. Centr. des Instituteurs Beiges (1860), Le Progres; Inst. Solvay de Sociologie (1901). HOLLAND: Amsterdam, Ver. voor de Statist, in Nederland, Jaarboekje (1849, etc.) and Jaarcijfers (1882, etc.). Spain: Madrid, Junta Estadist; R. Acad. de Jurisprudencia y Legis. (1763, 1826); R. Acad. de Ciencias Mor. y Pol. (1857). Russia: Moscow, Juridical Soc. St Petersburg, Pedagogical Soc. Egypt: Cairo, Bureau Central de Statist. HAVANA (Cuba), Soc. Econ. de Amigos del Pais (1792), Memorias. Japan: Tokio, Statist. Soc.

XIII. MEDICINE AND SURGERY The first meeting of the Congres Medical International was held at Paris in 1867; a Bulletin has been issued annually since 1868, and the first Surgical Congress was held in Paris in 1885. The first Congres Periodique Internal. d'Ophthalmologie took place at Brussels in 1857. The Royal Colleges of Physicians and of Surgeons of London, Edinburgh and Dublin dp not come within our scope. The Medical Society of London (1773) is the oldest in the metropolis; it has issued Memoirs (1787-1805), Transactions (i8ip, etc.), and Proceedings (1872, etc.). The Royal Society of Medicine was formed, by Royal charter, in 1907 by the amalgamation of the following societies: Roy. Med. and Chir. Soc. (1805), Pathological Soc. (1846), Epidemiological Soc. (1850), Odontol. Soc. of Gt. Britain (1856), Obstetrical Soc. (1858), Clinical Soc. (1867), Dermatolvgical Soc. of London (1882), British Gynaecological Soc. (1884), Neurolog. Soc. (1886), British Laryngol. Rhinol. and Otological Assoc. (1888), Laryngol. Soc. (1893), Soc. of Anaesthetists (1893), Dermatol. Soc. of Gt. Brit, and Ireland (1894), Otological Soc. (1899), Soc. for Study of Diseases in Children (1900), British Electro-therapeutic Soc. (1901) and the Therapeutical Soc. (1902). Most of these societies have separate Transactions or Proceedings. Other London societies (past and present) include the Abernethian Society (1795), which issues Proceedings; British Dental Association (1880), with a Journal (1880, etc.) ; British Homoeopathic Association (1859), with Annals (1860, etc.) ; British Medical Association (1832), which has more than forty home and colonial branches, and publishes British Medical Journal (1857, etc.); Hahnemann Publishing Society (1852), Materia Medica (1852, etc.) ; Harveian Society (1831); Hunterian Society (1819), Trans.; Lister Institute (incorp. 1891); Medico-Legal Soc. of London, Trans.; Medito-Psycholog. Assn. of Gt. Britain and Ireland (1841, incorp. 1895); New Sydenham Society (1858), which published Biennial Retrospect (1867, etc.), and translations and reprints of books and papers of value, succeeded the old Sydenham Society (1844-1858), which issued 40 vols. ; Ophthalmological Society (1880), Trans.; Pharmaceutical Society (1841), with museum, Pharmaceutical Journal (1842, etc.); Physiological Association (1876), Journ. of Physiology (1878, etc.); Rontgen Soc., Journal; Royal Institute of Public Health (1886, incorp. 1892), Journ. Royal Sanitary Institute (1876, incorp. 1888), the council of which appoints examiners, directs Parkes Museum, founded in 1876 in memory of Dr E. A. Parkes; Society of Medical Officers of Health (1856), Trans, and Public Health; Soc. of Public Analysts, Analyst. The provincial societies are very numerous and include: Bradford, Med. Chir. Soc. (1863); Bristol, Med. Chir. Soc.; Cardiff, Med. Soc. (1870); Liverpool, Sch. of Tropical Med. (1898, incorp. 1905), Memoirs; Manchester, Med. Soc. (1848); Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North, and Durham Med. Soc. (1848). Dublin, Roy. Acad. of Med. in Ireland (1882), Trans. (1883, etc.) ; Pharmac. Soc. of Ireland (1875). Edinburgh, Roy. Med. Soc. (1737; charter 1778); Harveian Soc. (1752); Medico- Chirurg. Soc. (1821), Trans. (1824, etc.); and Obstetrical Soc. (1840). Aberdeen, Med. Chir. Soc. (1789). Glasgow, Medico-Chirurg. Soc. (1866), based upon Med. Soc. and Med.-Chirurg. Soc. (both 1814), joined by Path. Soc. in 1907.

AUSTRALIA: Melbourne, Med. Soc. of Victoria, Austr. Med. Journ. (1856, etc.). CANADA: Montreal, Union Med. du Canada, Revue (1872, etc.); Canada Med. Assoc., Trans. (1877, etc.). India: Bombay, Med. and Physical Soc., Trans. (1838, etc.). Calcutta, Med. Soc., Trans. (1883, etc.).

UNITED STATES: Amer. Pub. Health Assoc., Reports (1873, etc.); Amer. Dental Assoc., Trans. (1860, etc.) ; and Amer. Inst. of Homoeop., Trans. (1878, etc.). The headquarters of the American Medical Association (1847) are at Chicago; it publishes a Journal. The American Surgical Association (1880) unites at Washington every third year with the Congress of American Physicians and Surgeons. The State medical associations include those of Alabama, Trans. (1869, etc.) ; Georgia, Trans. (1873, etc.); Maine, Trans. (1853, etc.); Missouri, Trans. (1851, etc.); and South Carolina, Trans. The State medical societies include those of Arkansas, Trans. (1877, etc.) ; California, Trans. (1870, etc.); Illinois, Trans. (1851, etc.); Kansas, Trans. (1867, etc.); Michigan, Trans. (1869, etc.); Minnesota, Trans. (1874, etc.); Nebraska, Trans. (1869, etc.); New Jersey, Trans. (1859, etc.); Pennsylvania, Trans. (1851, etc.); Rhode Island, Trans. (1877, etc.) ; Texas, Trans. (1874) ; and Wisconsin, Trans. (1880, etc.). To these have to be added the following town associations. Albany, Med. Soc., Journal (1807, etc.). Baltimore, Med. and Chirurg. Faculty of Maryland, Trans. (1856, etc.). Boston, Amer. Gynaecolog. Soc., Trans. (1876, etc.); Mass. Medico-Legal Soc., Trans. (1878, etc.). Denver, Acad. of Med. (1903). New York, Acad. of Med., Trans. (1847, etc.) and Bull. (1860, etc.); Med. Soc., Trans. (1815, etc.); Medico-Chirurg. Soc., Trans. (1878, etc.) ; Amer. Surg. Assoc., Trans. (1883, etc.); Medico-Legal Soc., Sanitarian (1873, etc.); Amer. Ophthalmolog. Soc., Trans. (1865, etc.); Path. Soc. (1844), Trans. (1875-1879), Proc. (1888, etc.). Philadelphia, Med. Soc., Trans. (1850, etc.); Obstet. Soc., Trans. (1869, etc.); Amer. Pharm. Assoc., Proc.; Patholog. Soc. (1857), Trans. (1897, etc.); Coll. of Physicians (1787); Amer. Soc. of Tropical Med. (1903). Richmond, Med. Soc., Trans. (1871, etc.).

FRANCE: Besancon, Soc. de Med. (1845), Bull. (1845, etc.). Bordeaux, Soc. de Med. (1798), Journ. (1829, etc.); Soc. de Pharm. (1834), Bull. (1860, etc.); Soc. de Med. et de Chirurg.; Soc. a' Anal, et de Physiol. (1879), Bull. (1880). Caen, Soc. de Med. (1799; known by its present name since 1875), Journal (1829), Mem. (1869). Chambery, Soc. de Med. (1848), Comptes rend. (1848, etc.) and Butt. (1859, etc.). Grenoble, Soc. de Med. Havre, Soc. de Pharm. (1858), Mem. Lille, Soc. de Med. (1843), Bull. (1845, etc.). Lyons, Soc. Nat. de Med. (1789), Le Lyon med. (1869, etc.). Marseilles, Soc. de Med. (1800), Comptes rend. (1826-1853) and Le Mars. med. (1869, etc.) ; Soc. Med.-Chirurg. (1872). Paris, Soc. de Med. Pratique (1808), Bull. ; Acad. Nat. de Med. (1820); Soc. Nat. de Chirurg. (1843, reorganized 1859), Mem. (1847, etc.) and Bull. (1851, etc.); Soc. Anal. (1803), Bull. (1826, etc.); Soc. Clinique, Bull. (1877, etc.); Soc. Med. des Hopitaux, Bull. (1849, etc.); Soc. Med. Legate; Soc. de Pharm. (1803), Journ. (1815, etc.); Soc. de Therapeutique; Soc. Fran, de Hygiene; Soc. Centr. de Med. Veterinaire (1844), Bull.; Assoc. Int. de Tlnst. Marey (1898) (for examining physiological methods and apparatus), Bull., Travaux. Rouen, Soc. de Med. (1821), Union Med. (1861, etc.); Soc. Libre des Pharmaciens (1802), Bull. Toulouse, Soc. de Med. (1801), Bull, and Revue (1867, etc.). Tours,. Soc. Med. (1801). GERMANY and AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: Deutscher Arztevereinsbund (1872), Verhandl.; Central Ver. a. Zahnarzte (1859), Miltheil.; D. Veterinarrath (1874) ; D. Apotheker- Ver. (1820), Archiv (1822, etc.). Berlin, Ver. f. Heilkunde (1832), Magazin (1835, etc.); Ges. f. Geburtshiilfe u. Gynaekologie (1876), Ztschr. (1877, etc.); Ges. f. Heilkunde (1855); Berl. Med. Ges. (1860), Verhandl. (1865, etc.); Physiolog. Ges. (1875), Verhandl. (1877, etc.); D.'Ver. f. Med. Statistik (1868); Ver. Homoop. Arzte (1871), Ztschr. (1882, etc.).; D. Ges. f. Chirurgie (1872), Verhandl. Bonn, Verband der Arztl, Vereine (1865). Breslau. Ver. f. Physiolog. Heilkunde (1848), Ztschr. (1850, etc.); Verband d. Schles. Arzte-Ver. (1878). Cologne, Rhein.

Med.-Chirurg. Ver. (1848), Organ (1852, etc.). Darmstadt, Arztl. Kreisver. (1844). Dresden, Ges.f. Natur- u. Heil-Kunde (1818), Jahresber. (1848, etc.). Erlangen, Physik.-Med. Soc. (1808), Sitzungsber. (1870, etc.). Frankfort, Arztl. Ver. (1845), Jahresber. (1857, etc.). Hamburg, Arztl. Ver. (1816); Deutsche Ges. fur Gesch. der Medizin (1901), Mitteil. Hanover, Ver. Analyt. Chemiker (1878). Heidelberg, Ophthal. Ges. (1857). Jena. Med.-naturunssenschaftliche Ges. (1854), Zeitschr. (1874, etc.). Konigsberg, Ver. f. wiss. Heilkunde (1851). Leipzig, Med. Ges. (1829); Ges. f. Geburtshiilfe (1854), Mittheil.; Homoop. Central-Ver. (1829); Magdeburg, D. Chirurgen-Ver. (1844), Ztschr. (1847, etc.). Munich, Arztl. Ver. (1833), Int.- Blatt (1854, etc.). Strasburg, Soc. de Med. (1842), Mem. (1850, etc.); Soc. Veterin. (1864); Medizinisch.-Naturwissenschaftlicher Ver. (1873). Stuttgart, Wiirttemb. Arztl. Ver. (1831), Corr.-Blatt (1832, etc.); Hahnemannia (1868), .Mittheil. (1873, etc.); Apotheker -Ver. (1822), Pharm. Wochenblatt (1861, etc.). Vienna, K. k. Ges. der Arzte r Ztschr. (1844, etc.); Ges. fur innere Medizin u. Kinderheilkunde, Med. Wochenschrift. Weimar, Med.-naturwiss. Ver. (1863). Wiirzburg, Physikal.-med. Ges. (1849), Verhandl. (1850, etc.). SWITZER- LAND: Geneva, Soc. Med. Zurich, Soc. de Med.; Schweiz. ApothekerVer. Italy: Bologna, Soc. Med.-chirurg. Genoa, Accad. Med.- chirurg. Milan, Soc. Ital. d' Igiena. Modena, Soc. Med.-chirurg. Naples, Real Accad. Med.-chirurg. Palermo, R. Accad. delle Sc. Med. (1649), Atti (1889, etc.). Rome, R. Istit. Fisico-patologico. Turin, Accad. Real Med.-chirurg. BELGIUM : Antwerp, Soc. de Med. (1839), Annales. Brussels, Acad. Roy. de Med. (1841), Bull. (1841, etc.) and Mem. (1843, etc.); Soc. Roy de Pharm. (1845), Bull.; Soc. d'Anat. Patholog. (1846), Annales; Soc. Beige de Med. Homoeop.; Soc. Roy. des Sc. Med. et Nat. (1822), Journal (1842, etc.), Annales (1892, etc.), Bulletin (1843, c.) ; Inst. Solvay de Physiol. (1894), with electrophysiological, chemical, embryological and other laboratories, and lecture hall. Ghent, Soc. de Med. (1834), Annales. Li6ge, Soc. Med.- chirurg. HOLLAND: Amsterdam, Genootschap ter Bevordering der^ Genees- en Heel-Kunde, Verhandel. (1841, etc.); Nederl. Maatschappij ter Bevord. der Pharmacie. Batavia (Java), Geneeskundige Vereemging. DENMARK: Copenhagen, K. Med. Selskab; Veterinaer Selskab. NORWAY : Christiania, Med. Selskab, Magazin (1840, etc.)- SWEDEN: Stockholm, Farmaceutiska Inst.; Svenska Lakaresallskapet (1808), Handl. (1813, etc.). Upsala, Lakareforenig, Forhandl. (1865, etc.). Spain: Madrid, R. Acad. Med. (1732). PORTUGAL: Lisbon, Soc. de Sc. Med. (1835), Jornal (1835, etc.); Soc. Pharm. Lusitana. Russia: Dorpat, Pharm. Soc. Helsingfors, Finska Lakaresallskapet (1835), Handl. (1841). Moscow, Phys.-med. Soc. Riga, Soc. of Practical Physicians. St Petersburg, Soc. of Practical Physicians; Imp. Pharm. Soc. Vilna, Imp. Med. Soc. (1805), Protokoly. Warsaw, Med.- Chirurg. Soc. Tomsk (Siberia), Soc. of Naturalists and Physicians (1889), Protocol. RUMANIA : Jassy, Soc. of Naturalists and Physicians (1830), Buletinul. GREECE : Athens, Soc. Med. TURKEY : Constantinople, Soc. Imp. de Med.; Soc. de Pharm. CENTRAL and SOUTH AMERICA: Buenos Aires, Asoc. Med. Caracas, Escuela Med. Guadalajara (Mexico), Soc. Med. Merida (Mexico), Soc. Med. Mexico, Acad. de Med. ; Soc. Med. Monte Video, Soc. de Med. Rio de Janeiro, Institute Oswaldo Cruz, formerly Institute de Manguinhos (for the promotion of experimental pathology) ; Soc. Med. e Cirurgia. Santiago, Soc. Med. Japan: Tokyo, Soc. for Adv. of Med. Sc., Trans. (1885, etc.).

XIV. ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE The principal English society dealing with mechanical science is the Institution of Civil Engineers (established in 1818, incorporated in 1828), which publishes Transactions (410, 1836-1842) and Minutes of Proceedings (8vo, 1837, etc.). George Stephenson was the first president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, which was founded at Birmingham in 1847, removed to London in 1877, and registered under the Companies Act in 1878. It holds migratory meetings and publishes Proceedings. The Society of Engineers (1854), with Transactions (1861, etc.) ; the Civil and Mechanical Engineers' Society (1859) ; the Iron and Steel Institute (1869, incorp. 1899), with Journal and Mem.; the Surveyors' Institution (1868, incorporated in 1881), which publishes Transactions and holds professional examinations; the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain (1866), the Institution of Electrical Engineers (1871, incorp. 1883), Journal; the Institution of Mining Engineers has associated with it many branch institutions in the provinces, Journal; the Institute of Gas Engineers (1863); the Illuminating Engineers' Soc. (1909); the Institute of Metals; and the Instn. of Mining and Metallurgy, meet in London. There are institutions in the provinces at Bradford, Bristol, Cardiff (1857, incorp. in 1881), Chesterfield (1871), Dublin (1835, incorp. in 1857), Glasgow (1857, with Transactions), Liverpool (1875), Middlesbrough (1864), Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1852, incorp. in 1876, with Transactions), Nottingham (1871), Dudley (1866), and Belfast (1892).

The leading architectural society is the Royal Institute of British Architects, founded in 1834, incorporated in 1837, and granted new charters in 1887 and 1908. It appoints examining professional boards and publishes Transactions (1836; 1879, etc.) and Proceedings (1879, etc.). There are also the associations of Birmingham (1873), Edinburgh (1850), Exeter (1843), Glasgow (1868), Leeds (1876), Leicestershire (1855), Liverpool (1848), Manchester (1875), Newcastleupon-Tyne, and the societies of Manchester (1865) and Oxford (1837).

The Architectural Association of London publishes a Sketch Book (1870, etc.). The Architectural Publishing Society (1848) has published Essays (1848-1852), and since 1852 has been bringing out a Dictionary of Architecture. There is also a Society of Architects (1884, incorp. 1893). The Roy. Inst. of Architects of Ireland meets in Dublin and publishes a Journal.

UNITED STATES: New York, Insl. of Mining, Engineers. Amer. Soc. of Civ. Eng. Trans.; Amer. Soc. of Mec.h. Eng., Trans.; Amer. Inst. of Min. Eng.; Amer. Inst. of Architects (1857); Washington, Society of Naval Eng. FRANCE: Lyons, Soc. Acad. d'Arch. (1830), Annales (1867, etc.). Paris, Soc. des Ingenieurs Civils, Annuaire (1848, etc.) ; Soc. Cent, des Architectes, Bull. (1851, etc.) and Annales (1875, etc.) ; it has held a congress since 1875. SaintEtienne, Soc. de I'Jndustrie Min. (1855), Bull. GERMANY and AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: Berlin, Ver. Deutscher Ingenieure, Ztschr. (1857) and Wochenschrift (1877, etc.); Ver.f. Eisenbahnkunde; Akad. des Bauwesens; Architekten-Ver., Ztschr. Breslau, Ver. f. Ges. der Bild. K-iinste (1862). Constance, Miinsterbau Ver. (1881). Dresden, Sachs. Ingen.-u. Architekten-Ver., Protok. Hanover, Arch.-u. Ingen. Ver., Ztschr. Klagenfurt, Berg-und Hutlen-Mdnnischer Ver. Leoben, K. k. Berg-Akad. Munich, Bayr. Arch.- u. Ingen.-Ver., Ztschr. Prague, Arch.- und Ingen.-Ver. Vienna, Osterr. Ingen.- u. Arch. Ver., Ztschr.; Ges. f. Bild. Kiinste. SWITZERLAND: Lausanne, Soc. Vaudoise des Ingen. et des Arch. Zurich, Ver. Schweiz. Ingen. u. Arch. Italy: Turin, Soc. degli Ingeneri, Atti (1868-1870). BELGIUM: Brussels, Assoc. des Ingen. Li6ge, Assoc. des Ingen. (1847), Annuaire (1851, etc.)- HOLLAND: Amsterdam, Maatschappij ter Bevordering der Bouwkunst, Bouwkundige Bijdragen (1843, etc.). The Hague, Kon. Inst. van Ingen., Verslag (1848, etc.), Verhandel. (1848, etc.) and Tijdschr. (1870, etc.). Spain and PORTUGAL : Lisbon, Assoc. dos Engenheiros Civ. Port.; Soc. dos Architectos e Archeologos. Madrid, Soc. Central de Arquitectos.

XV. NAVAL AND MILITARY SCIENCE The Royal United Service Institution, first known as the Naval and Military Library and Museum (1831), took the name of the United Service Institution in 1839, and was incorporated in 1860; its professional museum is housed in the banqueting hall at Whitehall ; it publishes a Journal (1857, etc.). The Institution of Naval Architects (1860) publishes Transactions (4to, 1860, etc.). The Royal Artillery Institution (1838), which issues Minutes of Proceedings (i 858, etc.) , is at Woolwich, and the Royal Engineers' Institute (1875) , which issues Royal Engineers' Professional Papers, at Chatham. The Navy Records Soc. (1893) publishes works connected with the history of the British Navy. CANADA: Toronto, Military Inst. India : Simla, United Service Institution.

UNITED STATES: New York, Military Service Inst. (1877), Journal (1879, etc.); Soc. of Naval Architects and Marine Eng., Proc. Annapolis, U.S. Naval Institute (1873), Proc. FRANCE: Paris, Reunion des Officers, now Cercle Militaire, Bull. (1871, etc.)- GERMANY and AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: Munich, Militar. Ges. (1868), Jahrbuch. (1871, etc.). Vienna, K. k. Milit.-Geogr. Inst., Arbeiten (1871, etc.). HOLLAND: Utrecht, Vereen. tot Verspreiding van Kennis aangaande s'Lands Verdediging, Jaarsverslag (1872, etc.) and Werken. NORWAY : Christiania, Militaere Samfund, Nordsk Milit. Tidsskrift (1848, etc.). DENMARK: Copenhagen, Krigsvidenskabelige Selskab, Milit. Tidsskrift (1872, etc.).

XVI. AGRICULTURE AND TRADES The Royal Agricultural Society of England began as the English Agricultural Society in 1838 and was incorporated in 1840. It holds annually one migratory meeting in some part of England or Wales and meetings in London, where are its headquarters; it publishes a Journal (1840, etc.). Among provincial agricultural societies and associations may be mentioned Aberdeen, Roy. Northern Agr. Soc. (1843). Arbroath, Angus Agr. Assoc. Banbury (1834). Basingstoke, Roy. Counties Agr. Soc. (1859). Bath, Bath and West of Engl. Soc. and Southern Counties Assoc. (founded in 1777, enlarged in 1852, and reorganized in 1866), Letters and Papers (1780-1816) and Journal (1852, etc.). Belfast, Chemico-Agr. Soc. of Ulster (1845), Proc.; N.E. Agr. Assoc. of Ireland. Birkenhead, Wirral and Birkenhead Agr. Soc. (1842). Brecknock (1855). Carluke (1833). Chelmsford, Essex Agr. Soc. (1858). Chertsey (1833). Doncaster (1872). Dublin, Roy. Agr. Soc. of Ireland (1841). Edinburgh, Highland and Agr. Soc. of Scotland (1784, incorporated in 1787), Trans. (1799. etc.). Halifax (1839, enlarged in 1858). Ipswich, Suffolk Agr. Assoc. (1831). Otley, Wharfedale Agr. Soc. Paisley, Renfrewshire Agr. Soc. (1802). 'Warwick. Worcester (1838). AFRICA: Cape Town, Agr. Soc. AUSTRALIA: Sydney, Agr. Soc. of N. S. Wales. BRITISH GUIANA: Georgetown, Roy. Agr. and Commercial Soc. CANADA: Montreal, Soc. d'Agr. India: Calcutta, Agr. and Hortic. Soc., Journ. (1842, etc.).

UNITED STATES: There were agricultural societies formed at Philadelphia and in South Carolina in 1785. The New York Soc. for the Promotion of Agriculture, Arts and Manufactures (1791), the Massachusetts Soc. for Prom. Agriculture (1792), and Columbian Agr. Soc. (1809), issued publications. Albany, State Agr. Soc. (1832), The Cultivator and Journal. Atlanta, State Agr. Soc. Boston, Inst. of Technology. Hoboken, Stevens Inst. of Technol. Madison, State Agr. Soc., Trans. (1852, etc.). Sacramento, Soc. of Agr. and Ilortic. San Francisco, Agr. and Hort. Soc. Troy, Rensselaer Polytechnic InsL (1824). Worcester Polytechnic Institute (1865), Journ. (1897, etc.).

FRANCE: Algiers, Soc. d'Agr. (1840), Bull. Agen, Soc. d'Agr. (1776), Rec. (1800, etc.). Amiens, Soc. Industrielle (1861), Butt, Angers, Soc. d'Agr. (1799), formerly Acad. d'Angers, Proc.-verb. (1846-1854), Mem. (1831, etc.), Documents (1896, etc.). Bordeaux, Soc. d'Agr. Boulogne, Soc. d'Agr. Caen, Assoc. Normande pour I' Agr., I' Industrie, etc. (1831), Annuaire (1835, etc.); Soc. d'Agr. et de Commerce (1762), Mem. (1853-1858) and Bull. (1827, etc.). Chalons-sur-Marne, Soc. d'Agr., etc. (1750), Comptes rendus (1807- 1855), Mem. (1855, etc.). Uouai, Soc. d'Agr., etc. (1799), Souv. (1861-1885), Mem. (1826, etc.). Elbeuf, Soc. Industr. (1858), Bull. Grenoble, Soc. d'Agr. et d'Hortic. (1835), Sud-Est (1855, etc.). Le Mans, Soc. du Materiel Agr. (1857), Bull. Lyons, Soc. des Sc. Industr. (1862), Annales. Montpellier, Soc. d'Agr. (1799), Bull. (1808, etc ). Nancy, Soc. Centr. d'Agr. Paris, Soc. Nat. d'Agr. de France (1761; reconstructed in 1878 with a view of advising Government on agricultural matters), Mem. and Bull. Perpignan, Soc. Agr. Scientifique et Litt. (1833), Bull. (1834, etc.). Reims, Soc. Industr. (1833). Bull. (1858, etc.). Rouen, Soc. Industr. (1872), Bull. ; Soc. Libre a' Emulation, Commerce et Industrie (1790), Bull. (1797). Saint- Jeand'Angely, Soc. d'Agr. (1819), Bull. (1833, etc.). St Quentin, Soc. Industr. (i&6&), Bull. Toulouse, Soc. d'A gr. Vesoul, Soc. d' Encouragement d'Agr. (1883), Bull. GERMANY and AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: The migratory Congress Deutscher Volkswirthe first met at Gotha in 1858. Agram, Kroatisch-Slav. Landwirths. Ges., Blatter. Augsburg, Landwirths. Ver., Landw. Blatter. Berlin, Vereinigt. Berliner Kaufleute u. Industr.; Bonn, Landwirthsch. Central-Ver. Bremen, Landwirths Ver. Breslau, Landwirths. Central- Ver. ; Schles. Central Gewerbe- Ver. Budapest, Ungar. Ackerbau Ges. Mittheil.; Industrielle Ges. Cassel, Landwirths. Central-Ver., Mittheil. Cracow, Ackerbau Ges , Annalen. Danzig, Volkswirths. Ges. (1850). Darmstadt, Landwirths. Ver., Ztschr. Dresden, K. Okonomie Ges.; K. Sachs. Polytechnicum. Fiirth, Gewerbe- Ver* Gratz, K. k. Steiermarkische Landwirths. Ges. Greifswald, Baltischer Central-Ver. Halle, Landwirths. Central-Ver. Hanover, Gewerbe-Ver. Innsbruck, K. k. Landwirths. Ges., Wochenschr.; Kdrnt. Industrie- u. Gewerbe-Ver. Jena, Landwirths. Inst. Kassa, Magyar Kir. Gazdasagi Akad. or Academy for Agriculture. Klausenburg, Magyar Kir. Gazdasagi Akad. (1869). Konigsberg, Ostpreuss. Landwirths. Central-Ver. Leipzig, Landwirths. Kreis-Ver. ;, Polytechn. Ges. Linz, K. k. Landwirths. Ges. Liibeck, Landwirths. Ver., Mittheil. Miihlhausen, Soc. Industr., Bull. Munich, Landwirths. Kreis-Ver.; Polytechn. Ver. Nuremberg, Polytechn. Ver. Prague, Bohmischer Gewerbe-Ver.; Industrie Ges., Mittheil. and Annalen. Ratisbon, Landwirths. Kreis-Ver., Bauernfreund. Stuttgart, X. Wurttemb. Central- Stelle, Wochenblatt. Trieste, A ckerbau Ges. Tubingen, Landwirths. Ver. Vienna, K. k. Reichs Landwirths. Ges., Ztschr. Wiesbaden, Gewerbe-Ver. SWITZERLAND: Bern, Okonom. Ges. Lausanne, Soc. d'Agr. de la Suisse Romande. Zurich, Ver. f. Landwirths. u. Gartenbau. Italy: Bologna, Soc. Agraria, Annali. Cagliari, Soc. Agr. ed Econom. Florence, Soc. Econom. ed Agr., Rendiconti. Milan, Soc. Agr. diLombardia; Soc. Gen. degli Agricolt. Ital.; Soc. d'Incoragg. di Arti e Mestieri, Discorsi. Perugia, Soc. Econom. ed Agr., AM. Turin, Accad. Reale di Agricolt.; Assoc. Agr. Ital., Esercitazioni. Verona, Accad. d' Agricolt. BELGIUM : Soc. Centr. d'Agricult. (1854), Bull. Ghent, Soc. Roy. d'Agr. et de Bot. Liege^ Soc. d'Agr., Journ. (1850, etc.). Verviers, Soc. Industr. et Commerc. (1863), Bull. HOLLAND: Amsterdam, Aardrijskundig Genootschap;. Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt. DENMARK: Copenhagen, K. Landhuusholdnings Selskab; Del Statist. Tabelvaerk. NORWAY: Christiania, Polytekniske Forening. SWEDEN: K. Landtbruks Akademien. Spain and PORTUGAL: Barcelona, Soc. Econom., Actas. Lisbon, Inst. Real de Agric.; Soc. Promotora de Industr. Madrid, Soc. Econom. Matritense, Anales. Oporto, Acad. Polytechn. Russia: Dorpat, K. Livlandische Okonom. Ges., Jahrbuch. Kazan, Imp. Econom. Soc. Moscow, Imp. Soc. of Agriculturists. Odessa, Imp. Agronom. Soc. of S. Russia. Riga, Technical Soc. St Petersburg, Imp. Econom. Soc., Trans.; Technical Soc. RUMANIA: Bucharest, Soc. Politechnicd (1881), Buletinul. SOUTH AMERICA: Rio de Janeiro, Soc. de Agr.

XVII. LITERATURE, HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY The Congres International des Orientalistes first met at Paris in 1873. The Congres Bibliographique International held its first meeting in 1878, and the Congres des Americanistes its first meeting_ in 1875. The first Internal. Conference of Librarians took place in London in 1877. Congresses of Archivists, Librarians and Bibliographers were held at Brussels in 1910. The Royal Society of Literature (1823, incorporated in 1825) with Transactions (410, 1829-1839; 8vo, 1843, etc.), and the Royal Asiatic Society (1823), with Journal (1834, etc.), have their headquarters in London, as well as the following literary societies, all of which issue publications: Aristotelian (1879), Ballad (1868), Chaucer (1868), Dante (1881), Early English Text (1864), East India Association (1866), Hellenic Studies (1879), Incorp. Soc. of Authors (1884), Institute of Journalists, Irish Lit., Japan (1892), Library Association (1877), 'Library Assistants (1895), Malone (1906), Oriental Translation Fund (1828), Pali Text (1882), Philological (1842), Roxburghe Club (1812), Shorthand, Viking Club (1892), Wyclif (1882). The Lancashire and Cheshire Historic Society (1848), at Liverpool, the Manchester Literary Club, with Transactions and Papers (1874, etc.), and the Manx Society (1858), at Douglas, may also be mentioned. In Glasgow are the Ballad Club (1876), and the Scottish Soc. of Lit. and Art (1886), and in Dublin the Nat. Lit. Soc. of Ireland (1892).

The oldest and most important society in England dealing with history and archaeology is the Society of A ntiquaries of London, which enthusiasts trace to an association founded by Archbishop Parker in 1572. The meetings were not publicly recommenced until 1707 ; the present body was incorporated in 1751 ; it publishes Vetera Monumenta (fol., 1747, etc.), Archaeologia (4to, 1770, etc.), and Proceedings (8vo, 1849, etc.). The Royal Archaeological Institute (1843), issuing the Archaeological Journal (1845; etc.) ; the British Archaeological Association (1843), with Journal (1846. etc.) ; the Royal Numismatic Society (1836), issuing the Numismatic Chronicle (1838, etc.) ; and the Royal Historical Society (1868), publishing Transactions, and the works of the Camden Society (1838), belong to London, as well as the following societies, all of which issue publications: Bibliographical (1892), British School at Athens, British School at Rome, British Record (1888, incorp. 1893, incl. Index Soc. 1878). Canterbury and York Catholic Record (1904), Egypt Expl. Fund (1883), Genealog. and Biogr., Cymmrodorion (1751-1773, revived in 1820), Dilettanti (1734), Folk Lore (1879), Harleian (1869), Huguenot (1885), London and Middlesex Archaeol. (1855), London Topogr. Soc., Middlesex County Records (1884), Palaeo graphical, Palestine Expl. Fund, Parish Registers, Pipe Roll (1883), Soc. Bibl. Archaeol. (1870), Soc. for Prot. Anc. Buildings (1877). Outside London are the Roy. Soc. of Antiquaries of Ireland founded in 1849 as the Kilkenny Arch. Soc., changed to Roy. Hist, and Arch. Assn. in 1869 and to present title in 1890; the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (1780), at Edinburgh, and the Irish Archaeological and Celtic Society, at Dublin. Among others are Aberdeen, New Spalding Club (1886); Bedfordshire Archaeological and Architect. Soc. (1844); Bristol, Bristol and Gloucester Arch. Soc. (1876); Cambrian Arch. Assoc. (1846); Cambridge Antiq. Soc. (1840); Carlisle, Cumb. and Westm. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. (1866); Devizes, Wiltshire Arch, and Nat. H. Soc. (1853) ; Durham, Surtees Soc. (1834) ; Colchester, Essex Arch. Soc. (1852); Edinburgh, Bibliogr. Soc. (1890), Scottish Hist. (1886); Exeter, Diocesan Arch. Soc. (1841); Glasgow Arch. Soc. (1856) ; Kent Arch. Soc. (1857) ; Lane, and Cheshire Antiq. Soc. (1883). Leeds Thoresby Soc. (1889) ; Manchester, Chetham Soc. (1843); Newcastle-on-Tyne Soc. of Antiq. (1813); Norwich, Norfolk and Norwich Arch. Soc. (1846); Oxford, Architect, and Hist. Soc. (1839), and Hist. Soc. (1884) ; Purbeck Soc. ; Reading, Berkshire Arch, and Architectural Soc. (1871); Surrey Arch. Soc.; Sussex Arch. Soc. (1846); Welshpool, Powys Land Club (1867); and Yorkshire Arch. Soc. (1863).

CANADA: Halifax, Nova Scotia Hist. Soc. (1878), Coll. Montreal, Soc. Hist., Mem. (1859, etc.) ; Numism. and Antiq. Soc. (1872), Journ. (1872, etc.). Quebec, Lit. and Hist. Soc. (1824), Trans. (1837, etc.). Toronto, Ontario Hist. Soc. (1888, 1898), Rep.; Lit. and Hist. Soc. CHINA: Hong-Kong, Roy. Asiatic Soc. Shanghai, Roy. Asiatic Soc., Journ. (1858, etc.). India: Bombay, Roy. Asiatic Soc. (Branch) (1804), Journal (1844, etc.). Calcutta, Asiatic Society of Bengal, Journ. (1832, etc.) and Proc. (1865, etc.) ; Indian Research Soc. (1907), Trans. Colombo, Roy. Asiatic Soc., Journ. (1844, etc.). Madras, Lit. Soc. (1818), Journal (1827, etc.). Singapore, Roy. Asiatic Soc.

UNITED STATES: The central antiquarian body in the United States is established at Washington the Archaeological Institute of Amer. (1879), which publishes Amer. Journ. Arch. (1897, etc.), and has affiliated with it 28 societies, including the Boston Society (1879), Cincinnati Soc. (1905), Iowa Soc. (1902), Wisconsin Soc. (1889), New York Soc. (1884), San Francisco (1906), North West Soc. (Seattle) (1906). Albany, Institute and Hist, and Art Soc., Trans. (1792- 1819, 1830-1893), Proc. (1865-1882). Baltimore, Maryland Hist. Soc. (1844). Boston, Mass. Hist. Soc. (1791), Collections (1792, etc.) and Proc. (1859, etc.) ; New Engl. Hist.-Gen. Soc. (1845), Genealog. Register (1847) ; Amer. Oriental Soc. (1843), Journ. (1849, etc.) ; Amer. Library Assoc. (1876), Liby. Journal; Soc. Bibl. Lit. and Exegesis (1880), Journal (1882, etc.) ; Bostonian Soc. (1881), Proc. (1882, etc.). Brookline Hist. Soc. (1891). Buffalo, Hist. Soc. (1862). Cambridge, Hist. Soc. (1905), Proc. (1906, etc.) ; Dante Soc. (1881). Chicago, Hist. Soc. (1856). Cincinnati, Hist, and Phil. Soc. of Ohio (1831), Pubins. (1906). Concord, Hist. Soc., Coll. (1824, etc.). Frankfort, Kentucky State Hist. Soc. (1836), Reg. Hartford, Amer. Philolog. Soc. (1869); Hist. Soc. (1825), Coll. (1860, etc.). Lincoln, Nebraska State Hist. Soc. (1867), Trans. (1885-1893), Proc. (1894, etc.). Madison, Hist. Soc., Coll. (1849, etc.). Minneapolis, Hist. Soc., Coll. (1869, etc.). Montpelier, Hist. Soc. of Vermont, Coll. (1869, etc.). New Haven, Amer. Orient. Soc. (1842), Journal (1849, etc.). New Orleans, Louisiana Hist. Soc. (1867), Pubins. (1895, etc.). New York, Hist. Soc. (1804), Pubins. (1868, etc.); Geneal. and Biogr. Soc. (1869), Record (1870); Bibliogr. Soc. (1904), Proc. (1906, etc.), Bull. (1907, etc.); Amer. Numis. Soc., Proc. (1882). Philadelphia, Hist. Soc. (1824), Mem. (1820, etc.); Numism. and Arch. Soc. (1858), Proc. (1867, etc.); Shakspere Soc. (1852). Portland, Maine Hist. Soc., Coll. (1831, etc.). Providence, Hist. Soc. (1822), Coll. (1827, etc.). Richmond, Virg. Hist, and Phil. (1831), Publ. (1874, etc.). St Louis, Missouri Hist. Soc. (1866), St Paul, Minnesota Hist. Soc. (1849), Coll. Savannah, Georgia Hist. Soc. (1839), Proc. Topeka, Hist. Soc. (1875), Trans. (1881, etc.). Washington, Arch. Soc. (1902) ; Columbia Hist. Soc. (1894), Rec.; Amer. Hist. Assn. (1884), Amer. Hist. Rev (1895, etc.). Worcester, Amer. Antiq. Soc. (1812), Proc. and Arch. Amer. (1820, etc.).

FRANCE: The Congres Archeologique de la France first met in 1834. Algiers, Soc. Hist. (1856), Revue (1856, etc.). Amiens, Soc. des Antiq. (1836), Mem. (1838, etc.) and Bull. Angouleme, Soc. Arch, et Hist. (1844), Bull. Bordeaux, Soc. Archeol. (1873) ; Soc. des Arch. Hist. (1858), Archives Hist. (1858, etc.). Bourges, Soc. Hist, et Litt. (1849), Bull, et Mem. (.1852, etc.). Caen, Soc. des Antiq. de Normandie (1823), Mem. (1824, etc.) and Bull. (1860, etc.) ; Soc. Fran. d'Arch. (1834), Comptes rend. (1834, etc.) and Bull. Mens. (1835, etc.). Chalon-sur-Saone, Soc. d'Hist. et d'Arch. (1844), Mem. (1844, etc.). Chambery, Soc. Savoisienne d'Hist. et d'Arch. (1855), Mem. (1856, etc.). Constantine, Soc. Arch. (1852), Recueil. Dijon, Comm. des Antiquiles (1831), Mem. (1882, etc.). Lille, Comm. hist, du Nord (1839), Bull. (1843, etc.). Limoges, Soc. Hist, et Arch. (1845), Bull.; Soc. des Archives hist. (1886), Archives (1887, etc.). Lyons, Soc. Hist., Litt. et Arch. (1807), Mem. (1860, etc.). Montpellier, Soc. Arch. (1833), Mem. (1835, etc.). Nancy, Soc. d'Arch. de Lorraine (1845), Mem. (1850, etc.) and Journ. (1852, etc.). Nantes, Soc. Arch. (1845), Bull. (1859, etc.). Orleans, Soc. Arch, et Hist. (1848), Mem. (1851, etc.) and Butt. Paris, Soc. Nat. des Antiq. de Fr. (1813) (based on the Academic Celtique, 1804), Mem. (1805, etc.) and Butt. (1817, etc.); Soc. de I' Hist, de France (1833), Annuaire (1837) and nearly 400 vols. besides; Soc. de VEcole Nat. des Charles (1839), Documents (1873, etc.) ; Soc. Asiatique (1822), Journal Asiat. (1822, etc.), etc. ; Soc. d'Arch. et de Numism. (1865) ; Soc. de I'Hist. du Prot. Fran. (1866) ; Soc. de Linguistique; Soc. Bibliogr. (1868), Polybiblion. ; Soc. Philol. (1867), Actes (1869, etc.) ; Soc. des Etudes Hist. (1833), Revue (1834, etc.) ; Soc. d'Hist. Moderne (1901), Bull.; Soc. d'Hist. Contemp. (1890); Soc. de I'Hist. de la Revolution Fran. (1888); Soc. d'Hist. Diplomatique (1886); Soc. des Bibliophiles Fran. (1820); Soc. des Anciens Textes Fran. (1875), Bull. Poitiers, Soc. des Antiq. (1834), Mem. Rouen, Soc. de I'Hist. de Norm. (1869), Bull. (1870, etc.) and 75 vols. besides; Comm. des Antiquites (1818), Bull. (1867, etc.). Saint-Omer, Soc. des Antiq. (1831), Mem. (1833, etc.). Toulouse, Soc. Arch. (1831), Mem. (1831-1868), Bull. (1869, etc.); Acad. des Jeux floraux (1323, reorganized 1773), Rec. (1696, etc.). Tours, Soc. Arch. (1840), Mem. (1842, etc.). GERMANY and AUSTRIA- HUNGARY: Gesam. Ver. d. D. Gesch. u. Alt. Vereine (1852). Agrair, Ges. f. Siid-Slav. Alterth. Aix-la-Chapelle, Geschichtsver. (1879), Ztschr. (1879, etc.). Altenburg, Gesch. u. Alterthums Ges. (1838), Mittheil. (1841, etc.). Augsburg, Hist. Ver. (1820, reorganized in 1834), Jahresber. (1835, etc.). Baden, Alterthums-Ver . (1844), Schriften. Bamberg, Hist. Ver. (1830), Ber. (1834, etc.). Berlin, Ver. f. Gesch. d. Mark Brandenb. (1836), Forschungen (1841, etc.) ; Ver.f. d. Gesch. Berlins (1865), Schriften; Hist. Ges. (1871), Mittheil. (1873, etc.); Archaolog. Ges. (1842), Sitzungsber., Archaol. Zeitung; Numism. Ges. (1843), Jahresber. (1845, etc.), Herald (1869) ; Phil. Ges. (1843), DerGedanke (1861,etc.) ; Gtt.f. D. PhUologie (1877), Jahresler. (1879, etc.); D. Bibliogr. Ges. (1902), Ztschr. (1903, etc.); Ver. D. Bibliothekare (1900), Jahrbuch (1902); D. Orient-Ges. (1898), Mitteil. Bonn, Ver.f. Alterth. (1841), Jahresber. ; Soc. Philologa (1854). Brandenburg, Hist. Ver. (1868), Jahresber. (1870, etc.). Braunsberg, Hist. Ver. (1856). Breslau, Ver.f. Gesch. u. Alt. Schl. (1846), Ztschr. (1856, etc.), Scriptores rerum Silesicarum (1847, etc.) ; Breslauer Dichterschule (1860). Budapest, Hungarian Hist. Soc. (1867), Szdzadok. Cassel, Ver. f. Hess. Gesch. (1834), Ztschr. (1837, &C.J. Cologne, Hist. Ver. (1854), Annalen (1855, etc.); Ges. fur rheinische Geschichtskunde (1881). Cracow, Hist. Soc. Danzig, Westpreuss. Geschichtsver. (1879), Ztschr., Mitteil., Akten. Darmstadt, Hist. Ver. (1834), Archiv (1835, etc.). Dresden, K. Sachs. Alt. Ver. (1825), Jahresber. (1835, etc.) and Mittheil. (1835, etc.). Frankfort, Ges. f. Deutschlands alt. Geschichtskunde (1819; since 1875 under guidance of Central-Dir. d. Man. Germ.), Man. Germ. (1826, etc.) ; Ges. f. Gesch. u. Kunst (1837), Mittheil. (1858, etc.); Freies D. Hochstift in Goethe's Vaterhaus (1859); Ver. fur Gesch. u. Alt. (1857), Archiv. Halle, Thur.-Sachs. Ver. (1819), Mittheil. (1822, etc.) ; D. Morgenl. Ges. (1844), Ztschr. (1847, etc.) and Abhandl. (1859, etc.). Hanover, Hist. Ver. (1835), Ztschr. Kiel, Ges. f. Gesch. Schl.-Holst. (1833, reorganized in 1873), Archiv (1833, etc.) and Ztschr. (1870, etc.). Konigsberg, Altertumsges. Prussia (1844), Sitzungsber. Leipzig, D. Ges. z. Erforschung vaterl. Spr. u. Alterth. (1697, reorganized in 1824), Jahresber. (1825, etc.) and Mittheil. (1845, etc.) ; Furstlich Jablonowski' s Ges. (1768), Acta (1772, etc.); Borsenver. d. D. Buchhdndler (1825), Borsenblatt (1834, etc.) ; Hist. Theolog. Ges. (1814). Liibeck, Hansischer Ges. Ver. (1870). Munich, Hist. Ver. (1837), ' Archiv (l&y),etc.);Alterthums-Ver. (1864). Nuremberg, Pegnesischer Blumenorden (1644), had united with it in 1874 tne Lit. Ver. (1839), Prague, Ver.f. Gesch. Ratisbon, Hist. Ver. (1830), Verhandl. (1832, etc.). Rostock, Ver. fur. Alt. (1883), Beitrdge (1890, etc.). Schwerin, Ver.f. Meckl. Gesch. u. Alterthumsk. (1835), Jahrbuch (1835, etc.) and other publications. Strassburg, Soc. pour la conservation des Monuments Historiques d' Alsace (1855), Bull. (1855, also since 1889 with German title Mitteilungen). Stuttgart, Lit. Ver. (1839), Bibliothek (1843, etc.); Wurttemb. Alterth. Ver. (1843). Jahreshefte (1844) and many records, handbooks, etc. Tubingen, Lit. Ver. (1839), Bibliothek (1842, etc.). Vienna, K. k. Orient. Akad.; K. k. Heraldische Ges. "Adler" (1870), Jahrbiicher (1874, etc.) ; Ver. fur Osterr. Volkskunde (1894), Ztschr. Weimar, D. Shakespeare Ges. (1864, Jahrbuch (1865, etc.); Goethe Ges. (1885), Schriften (1885, etc.); Ges. der BMiophilen (1899). Wiesbaden, Ver. f. Nass. Alterth. (1821), Annalen (1830, etc.). Wiirzburg, Hist. Ver. (1831), Archiv (1833). SWITZERLAND : Basle, Hist. u. Antiq. Ges. (1836). Berne, Allgemeine Geschichtforschende Ges. (1840). Freiberg, Soc. d'Hist. Geneva, Soc. d'Hist. et d'Arch. (1838). Lausanne, Soc. d'Hist.; Soc. Vaudoise d'Hist. et d'Arch. (1902), Revue. St Gall, Hist. Ver. (1859), Mitteil. (1862, etc.). Zurich, Soc. d'Hist. ; Antiq. Ges., Denkmdler. Italy: Bologna, Reg. Deputazione di Storia Patria. Catania, Soc. di Storia Patria (1903). Ferrara, Deput. Ferrarese di Storia Patria (1884). Florence, Societa Colombaria (1823); Soc. Dantesca Italiana (1888); R. Deputazione Tosc. di Storia Patria (1862). Genoa, Soc. di Storia Patria (1857). Milan, Soc. Numis. Ital.; Soc. Storica Lombarda. Naples, Soc. Nap. di Storia Patria (1875). Palermo, Soc. Sic. di Storia Patria (1873), Doc. Parma, R. Deputazione di Storia Patria. Rome, Accad. Rom. di Arch.; Soc. Rom. di Storia Patria (1877), Archivio (1877, etc.); 1st. di Corr. Arch.; Brit, and Amer. Arch. Soc.; Soc. Filol. Rom. (1901); Istituto Star. Ital. (1883), Fonti (1887, etc.) ; K. Deutsch. Archdolog. Inst., Arch. Zing. (1843-1885) and Jahrb. Turin, Real Deputaz. di Star. Pair. (1833). Venice, R. Dep. Yen. di Storia Patria. Verona, Soc. Lett. (1808). BELGIUM: Antwerp, Acad. d'Archeol. (1842), Bull. (1865, etc.). Bruges, Soc. pour I'Hist. et les Antiq. de la Flandre (1839), Publ. Brussels, Soc. de I'Hist. de Belgique (1858), Publ.; Soc. Roy. de Numism. (1841), Revue; Soc. des Bibliophiles (1865); Soc. d'Archeol. (1887), Annuaire, Annales; Inst. Int. de Bibliogr. (1895), Repertoire. Ghent, Soc. Roy. des BeauxArts et de la Litt. (1808), Annales (1844, etc.); Willems Fond (1851) ; Maatschappij de Vlaamsche Bibliophilen (1839) ; Soc. d'Hist. et d'Archeol. (founded 1893 as Cercle Hist, et Archeol.), Bull. Liege, Inst. Archeol. (1850), Bull. (1852, etc.). Louvain, Soc. Litt. (1839), Mem. and Publ. Mons, Cercle Archeol. (1856), Annales (1857, etc.). Namur, Soc. Archeol. et Musee de Namur (1845), Annales. Tournai, Soc. Hist, et Litt. (1846), Bull. (1849, etc.). Verviers, Soc. Arch. Ypres, Soc. Hist. (1861). HOLLAND: Leiden, Acad. LugdunoBatava; Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde (1766) Tijdschrift. Luxembourg, Inst. Archeol. (1846, reorganized in 1862), Annales (1849, etc.). Utrecht, Hist. Genootschap (1845). DEN- MARK: Copenhagen, Island. Litt. Selskab; K. Danske Selskab (1745), Magazin; K. Nordisk Oldskrift Selskab, Aarboger (1866, etc.), Fortidsminder (1890, etc.). Reykjavik (Iceland), Fornleifarfelag; Hid islenzka Bokmentafelag (1816), Skirnir. NORWAY: Christiania, Norske Hist. Forening (1869) ; Norske Oldskrift Selskab; Foreningen til Norske Forlidsminde maerkers Bevaring (1844). SWEDEN: Stockholm, K. Witterhets Hist, och Antiq. Akad. ; Svcnska Akad. ; Sv. Fornskriftsdllskapet (1843) Proc.; K. Samfundet for utgifvande af handskrifter rorande Skandinaviens hist. (1815-1817), Handl. (1816, etc.). Spain: Barcelona, R. Acad. de Buenas Letras. Madrid, R. Acad. de Cienc. Mor. y Pol.; R. Acad. Esp. Arq.; R. Acad. de la Hist. (1738). Russia: Helsingfors, Finska Litt. Sdllskapet (1831), Ztschr. (1841); Finnish Archaeol. Soc. (1870), Tidskrift (1874, etc.) ; Hist. Soc. (1875), Arkisto (1876, etc.). Kazan, Soc. of Arch. Hist, and Ethnogr. (1877), Izvestija (1878). Mitau, Courland Soc. of Lit. and Art. Moscow, Imp. Russ. Soc. of Hist, and Antiq.; Archaeolog. Soc. (1864). Narva, Archaeolog. Soc. Odessa, Hist, and Antiq. Soc. (1839), Zapiski (1844, etc.). Riga, Lett. Lit. Ges.; Hist, and Antiq. Soc. (1834), Mitteil. (1873, etc.). St Petersburg, Russ. Hist. Soc. (1866), Sbornik (1867, etc.) ; Imp. Soc. for Study of Ancient Lit. (1877); Imp. Russ. Archeol. Soc. (1846); Russ. Bibliogr. Soc. (1899); Soc. for Orient. Studies, with numerous branches; NeoPhilol. Soc. (1885). GREECE: Athens, Soc. Archeol.; Amer. School Class. Studies (1882); Ecole Franc,. d'Alhenes (1846); British School at Athens (1886); 'Apxa'.oXo-yuo) 'Ertuptia (Arch. Soc.) (1837), 'Efaufpls. TURKEY: Constantinople, Soc. for Adv. of Turkish Lit.; Greek Lit. Soc.; Hellenic Philolog. Soc. BULGARIA: Sofia, Bulg. Lit. Soc. (1869), now the Bulgarian Acad. (1910), Periqd. (1870, etc.). SOUTH AMERICA: Rio dc Janeiro, Inst. hist, e geogr. (1838). Japan: Yokohama, Asiatic Soc. of Japan, Trans. (1874, etc.).

XVIII. GEOGRAPHY The Congres International pour les Progres des Sciences Geographiques first met in 1871. The Royal Geographical Society of London, founded in 1830, had joined to it in the following year the African Association (1788), the successor of the Saturday Club; the Palestine Association (1805) became merged with it in 1834. It publishes Journal (1832, etc.) and Proceedings (1857, etc.). The Hakluyt Society (1846) has printed more than 136 vols. of rare voyages and travels. The Alpine Club (1858), whose publications are Peaks, Passes and Glaciers (1859-1862) and Journal (1863, etc.), meets in London. The Royal Scottish Geographical Society (1884) has its centre at Edinburgh, and issues the Scottish Geographical Magazine. Liverpool, Tyneside and Manchester have also Geographical Societies. AUSTRALIA: Adelaide, R. Geogr. Soc. of Australasia (1885), Proc. Brisbane, R. Geogr. Soc. of Australasia (1885). Melbourne, Roy. Geogr. Soc. of Australasia (1883). Sydney, Geogr. Inst. CANADA: Quebec, Geogr. Soc. India: .Bombay, Geogr. Soc., Trans. (1836, etc.). Egypt: Cairo, Soc. Khediviale de Geogr. (1875), Bull. (1876, etc.).

UNITED STATES: Baltimore, Geogr. Soc. (1902). Chicago, Geogr. Soc. (1894). Hamilton, Assoc. of Amer. Geogr. (1904). New York, Amer. Geogr. Soc. (1852), Bull. (1852-1857), Journ., later Bull. (1859, etc.), and Proc. (1862-1865). Philadelphia, Geogr. Soc. (1891). San Francisco, Geogr. Soc. (1891), Bull. Washington, Nat. Geogr. Soc. (1852), Magazine (1888). FRANCE: Algiers, Soc. Geogr. (1896), Bull. Bordeaux, Soc. de Geogr. Commercials (1874), Bull. Dijon, Soc. Bourg. de Geogr. et d'Hist. (1881), Mem. (1884, etc.). Lyons, Soc. de Geogr. (1873), Bull Marseilles, Soc.deGeogr. (1876), Bull. Montpellier, Soc. Languedocienne de Geogr. (1878), Bull. Nancy, Soc. de Geogr. (1878). Bull. Paris, Soc.deGeogr. (1821 ; l82f),Bull, Toulouse, Soc.deGeogr. (1882), Bull. GERMANY and AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: D. Alpen-Ver. (1869), Ztschr. u. Jahrb. (1869, etc.). Berlin, Ges.f. Erdkunde (1828), Ztschr. (1853, etc.), and Verhandl. (1873, etc.) ; Ges. zur Erforschung Aquat. Afrikas (1873), Corr.-Blatt; Afrik. Ges. (1878), Mittheil.; D. Geographentag (1881), Verhandl. Bremen, Geograph. Ges. (1876), Geogr. Blatter. Budapest, Hung.-Geogr. Soc. (1872). Carlsruhe, Badische Geogr. Ges. (1880), Verhandl. Cassel, Ver. f. Erdk. (1882). Darmstadt, Ver.}. Erdk. (1845), Notizblatt (1854, &)' Dresden, Ver. f. Erdk. (1863), Jahresber. (1865-1901), Mitteil. (1905, etc.). Frankfort, Ver. f. Geogr. u. Statist. (1836), Jahresber. Giessen, Ges. fur Erd. u. Volkerkunde (1896). Halle, Ver.f. Erdk. (1873). Hamburg, Geogr. Ges. (1873), Jahresber. Hanover, Geogr. Ges. (1878), Jahresber. Jena, Geogr. Ges. (1880), Mittheil. Leipzig, Ver. f. Erdk. (1861), Jahresber. Liibeck, Geogr. Ges. (1882). Munich, Geogr. Ges. (1869), Jahresber. Vienna, K. k. Geogr. Ges., Milt. (1857, etc.) ; Ver. der Geogr. Weimar, Geogr. Inst. SWITZERLAND : Berne, Inst. Geogr. ; Geogr. Ges. (1873), Jahresber. (1879, etc.) ; Schweiz. Alpen-Club. Geneva, Soc. de Geogr., Mem. (1860, etc.). Zurich, Karten- Ver. Italy: Rome, Soc. Geogr. Ital., Bull. (1868, etc.). Turin, Circolo Geogr. Ital. (1868). BELGIUM: Antwerp, Soc. Beige de Geogr. (1870), Bull. ; Soc. Roy. de Geogr. (1876), Bull. Brussels, Soc. Beige de Geogr. (1876). HOL- LAND: Amsterdam, K. Nederl. Aardrijkskundig Genoot. (1873), Tijdschrift (1874, & c -)'< Landkundige Genootschap. DENMARK: Copenhagen, Geogr. Selskab. NORWAY: Christiania, Detnorske geogr. Selskab (1889). Spain and PORTUGAL: Lisbon, Soc. de Geogr., Bol. (1875, etc.). Madrid, Soc. Geogr., Bol. (1876, etc.). Russia: Helsingfors, Geogr. Soc. (1888), Tidskrift; Sdllskapet for Finland* geografi (1888). Irkutsk, Geogr. Soc., Bull. (1871, etc.). St Petersburg, Imp. Russ. Geogr. Soc., Mem. (1845, etc.), and Bull. (1865, etc.). Tiflis, Geogr. Soc., Mem. (1852, etc.). RUMANIA: Bucharest, Societatea Geografica Romdna (1875), Bull. Egypt: Cairo, Soc. Khediviale de Geogr., Bull. (1876, etc.). Japan: Tokyo, Geogr. Soc. CENTRAL and SOUTH AMERICA: Buenos Aires, Inst. Geogr. Argent. La Paz, Soc. Geogr. (1889), Bol. Lima, Soc. Geogr. (1888), Bol. Mexico, Soc. de Geogr. y Estad., Bol. (1833, etc.). Rio de Janeiro, Soc. de Geogr.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. The Catal. of Printed Books in the British Museum (1841), folio, s.v. "Academies," contains a list of all the publications of societies at that time in the museum. This has been rearranged and greatly enlarged as Academies (1885-1886), 5 parts folio, with Suppl. (19001903). Smithsonian Instn. International Exchange List (1908); B. Quaritch, List of Learned Societies (Odd Vols.) (1886). S. H. Scudder, Cat. of Scientific Serials (1633-1876); Camb. (U.S.) (1879), 8vo. For general indexes see J. D. Reuss, Repertorium (1801-1821), 16 vols., Roy. Soc. Cat of Sc. Papers (1867-1902) ; Societatum Lilterae, Verzeichniss (1887-1900, 14 vols.). For list of indexes to transactions, etc., see A. Stein, Manuel de Bibliographie ge.nerale (1897), p. 642, etc. Minerva (Strassb. Triibner), from 1891 on, is most useful for all the chief existing societies in the world. British societies are now well represented in the Year Book of the Scientific and Learned Societies of Great Brit, and Ireland (1884, etc.). See also Hume's Learned Societies and Printing Clubs of the U.K. (1853, 8vo) ; E. Mailly, Inst. Sc. de la Grande-Bret. (1861-1867, 6 pts.); H. G. Bohn, App. to Bibliographer's Manual (1864), 8vo; Engl. Catal. of Books (1864-1909); C. S. Terry, Cat. of Publications of Scottish Historical Societies and Clubs, 1909; " Sc. Societies and Field Clubs," in Nature, v., viii. For American Societies see R. R. Bowker, Publns. of Societies (New York, 1899); Handbk. of Learned Societies, Carnegie Inst. of Washington (1908) ; A. P. C. Griffin, Bibl. of Amer. Historical Societies (1905); A. Growoll, Am. Book Clubs (New York, 1897). For France, see U. Robert, Bibl. des. Soc. sav. de la France, pt. i. (1878) ; F. Bouillier, L'Institut et les acad. de province (1879, 8vo) ; Lasteyrie, Lefevre-Pontalis et A. Vidier, Bibliogr. des travaux hist, et arch. publ. par les soc. sav. de la France (1888-1904, 4 vols. 4to). J. Deniker, Bibliogr. des travaux scientifiques publ. par les soc. savantes de la France (1895, etc.) ; H. Delauny, Les Soc. savantes de la France (1902); E. LefevrePontalis, Bibl. des soc. savantes de la France (1887); Annuaire des Soc. savantes de la France et de I' Stranger (1846); A. d'Hericourt, Annuaire (1863-1866); continued in Revue de soc. savantes. For Germany and Austria-Hungary, see H. A. Stohr, Allg. Deutsches Vereinshandbuch (1873, etc., 8vo) ; J. Miiller, Die wiss. Vereine u. Ges. Deutschlands im iy' m Jahrh. (1883-1888); I. Winckler, Die period. Presse Osterreichs (1875, 8vo) ; and P. A. F. Walther for German historical societies (1845). See also " Les Congres scientifiques," by Comte de Marsy, in Compte rendu du Congres Bibliogr. (1879). For Belgium, see Introd. a la Bibl. de la Belgique (1875). For Italy, see Statistica della stampa periodica, 1880-1895; Elenco bibl. delle accademie ec. corrisp. con. la R. Accad. dei Lincei Roma, 1908. For Russia, consult C. Woldemar, Gesch. d. russ. Gelehrten- und Schulanstalten (St Petersburg, 1865, 8vo), and Kawall, Die neuen russ. Naturforschergesellschaften (Riga, 1872-1874). (H. R. T.)

SOCIETY ISLANDS (French Archipel de la Societe). an archipelago of the Pacific Ocean, in the eastern part of Polynesia, between 16 and 18 S., 148 and 155 W., with a total land area of 637 sq. m., belonging to France. (For map, see PACIFIC OCEAN.) The principal island is Tahiti (g.v.). Part of the archipelago was discovered by Pedro Fernandez Quiros in 1607. In 1767 Samuel Wallis re-discovered it, and named it King George's Island. In 1768 Louis de Bougainville visited Tahiti, claimed it as French, and named it La Nouvelle Cythere. On the 12th of April 1769 the British expedition to observe the transit of Venus, under the naval command of James Cook, arrived at Tahiti. On this first voyage (he subsequently revisited the islands twice) he named the Leeward group of islands Society in honour of the Royal Society, at the instigation of which the expedition had been sent; Tahiti and the adjacent islands he called Georgian, but the first name was subsequently adopted for the whole group. In 1772 and 1774 the islands were visited by a Spanish government expedition, and some attempt was made at colonization. In 1788 Lieutenant Bligh of the " Bounty " spent some time at Tahiti, to which island the historical interest now passes.

The archipelago is divided into two groups the Leeward (lies sous le Vent) and the Windward Islands (lies du Vent) by a clear channel of 60 m. in breadth. The Leeward Islands are Tubai or Motuiti, a small uninhabited- lagoon island, the most northern of the group; Marua or Maupiti " Double Mountain," the most western; BolaBola or Bora-Bora; Huaheine; Raiatea or Ulietea (Spanish Princessa), the largest island of this cluster, and Tahaa, which approach each other very closely, and are encircled by one reef. To the west lie the small groups of coral islets Mopiha (Lord Howe), Ura (Scilly) .and Bellingshausen (discovered by Otto von Kotzebue, 1824). To the Windward Islands belong Tapamanu or Maiaiti (Wallis's Sir Charles Saunders's Island and Spanish Pelada) ; Moorea or Eimeo (Wallis's Duke of York Island and Spanish San Domingo) ; Tahiti Cook's Otaheite (probably Quiros's Sagittaria ; Wallis's King George's Island, Bougainville's Nouvelle Cythere and Spanish Isla d'Amat) ; Tetuaroa " The Distant Sea " (? Quiros's Fugitiva; Bougainville's Umaitia and Spanish Tres Hermanos) ; and Maitea (? Quiros's La Dezana, Wallis's Osnaburg Island, Bougainville's Boudoir and Pic de la Boudeuse and Spanish Cristoval), the most eastern and southern of the archipelago. Tetuaroa and Tubai, besides the three western Leeward Isles, are coral atolls. The length of the Tetuaroa reef ring is about six miles; it bears twelve palm-covered islets, of which several are inhabited, and has one narrow boat-passage leading into the lagoon. With the exception just named, the islands, which agree very closely in geological structure, are mountainous, and present, perhaps, the most wonderful example of volcanic rocks to be found on the globe. They are formed of trachyte, dolerite and basalt. There are raised coral beds high up the mountains, and lava occurs in a variety of forms, even in solid flows; but all active volcanic agency has so long ceased that the craters have been almost entirely obliterated by denudation. Hot springs are unknown, and earthquakes are slight and rare. Nevertheless, under some of these flows remains of plants and insects of species now living in the islands have been found a proof that the formation as well as the denudation of the country is, geologically speaking, recent. In profile the islands are rugged and elevated (7349 ft. in Tahiti, Moorea 4045 ft., Raiatea 3389, Bola-Bola 2165). A mountain, usually with very steep peaks, forms the centre, if not the whole island; on all sides steep ridges descend to the sea, or, as is oftener the case, to a considerable belt of flat land. These mountains, excepting some stony crags and cliffs, are clothed with dense forest, the soil being exceptionally fertile. All voyagers agree that for varied beauty of form and colour the Society Islands arc unsurpassed in the Pacific. Innumerable rills gather in lovely streams, and, after heavy rains, torrents precipitate themselves in grand cascades from the mountain cliffs a feature so striking as to have attracted the attention of all voyagers, from Wallis downwards. Round most of the islands there is a luxuriant coral growth ; but, as the reefs lie at no great distance, and follow the line of the coast, the inter-island channels are comparatively safe. Maitea, which rises from the sea as an exceedingly abrupt cone, and Tapamanu, appear to be the only islands without almost completely encircling barrier-reefs. The coasts are fairly indented, and, protected by these reefs, which often support a chain of green islets, afford many good harbours and safe anchorages. In this respect the Society Islands have the advantage of many Polynesian islands.

The populations of the chief islands are: Tahiti 10,300, Moorea 1600, Raiatea and Tahaa 2300, Huaheine 1300, Bola-Bola 800; and that of the whole archipelago is about 18,500.

SOCINUS, the latinized form of the Italian Sozini, Sozzini or Soccini, a name born by two Italian theologians.

I. LELIO FRANCESCO MARIA SOZINI (1525-1562) was born at Siena on the 29th of January 1525. His family descended from Sozzo, a banker at Percena, whose second son, Mino Sozzi, settled as a notary at Siena in 1304. Mino Sozzi's grandson, Sozzino (d. 1403), was ancestor of a line of patrician jurists and canonists, Mariano Sozzini senior (1397-1467) being the first and the most famous, and traditionally regarded as the first freethinker in the family. Lelio (who spells his surname Sozini, latinizing it Sozinus) was the sixth son of Mariano Sozzini junior (1482-1556) by his wife Camilla Salvetti, and was educated as a jurist under his father's eye at Bologna. He told Melanchthon that his desire to reach the f antes juris led him to Biblical research, and hence to rejection of " the idolatry of Rome." He gained some knowledge of Hebrew and Arabic (to Bibliander he gave a manuscript of the Koran) as well as Greek, but was never a laborious student. His father supplied him with means, and on coming of age he repaired to Venice, the headquarters of the evangelical movement in Italy. A tradition, first published by Sand in 1678, amplified by subsequent writers, makes him a leading spirit in alleged theological conferences at Vicenza, about 1546; the whole account ( abounding in anachronisms, including the story ol Sozini's flight) must be rejected as fabulous. At this period the standpoint of Sozini was that of evangelical reform; he exhibits a singular union of enthusiastic piety with subtle theological speculation. At Chiavenna in 1547 he came under the influence of Camillo of Sicily, a gentle mystic, surnamed Renato, whose teaching at many points resembled that of the early Quakers. Pursuing his religious travels, his family name and his personal charm ensured him a welcome in Switzerland, France, England and Holland. Returning to Switzerland at the close of 1548, with commendatory letters to the Swiss churches from Nicolas Meyer, envoy from Wittenberg to Italy, we find him (1549-1550) at Geneva, Basel (with Sebastian Miinster) and Zurich (lodging with Pellican). He is next at Wittenberg (July 1550 to June 1551), first as Melanchthon's guest, then with Johann Forster for improvement of his Hebrew. From Wittenberg he returned to Zurich (end of 1551), after visiting Prague, Vienna and Cracow. Political events drew him back to Italy in June 1552; two visits to Siena (where freedom of speech was for the moment possible, owing to the shaking off of the Spanish yoke) brought him into fruitful contact with his young nephew Fausto. He was at Padua (not Geneva, as is often said) at the date of Servetus's execution (Oct. 27, 1553). Thence he made his way to Basel (January 1554), Geneva (April) and Zurich (May), where he took up his abode.

Calvin, like Melanchthcn, received Sozini with open arms. Melanchthon (though a phrase in one of his letters has been strangely misconstrued) never regarded him with theological suspicion. To Calvin's keen glance Sozini's over-speculative tendency and the genuineness of his religious nature were equally apparent. A passage often quoted (apart from the context) in one of Calvin's letters (January i, 1552) has been viewed as a rapture of amicable intercourse; but, while more than once uneasy apprehensions arose in Calvin's mind, there was no breach of correspondence or of kindliness. Of all the Reformers, Bullinger was Sozini's closest intimate, his warmest and wisest friend. Sozini's theological difficulties turned on the resurrection of the body, predestination, the ground of salvation (on these points he corresponded with Calvin), the doctrinal basis of the original gospel (his queries to Bullinger), the nature of repentance (to Rudolph Gualther), the sacraments (to Johann Wolff). It was the fate of Servetus that directed his mind to the problem of the Trinity. At Geneva (April 1554) he made incautious remarks on the common doctrine, emphasized in a subsequent letter to Martinengo, the Italian pastor. Bullinger, at the instance of correspondents (including Calvin), questioned Sozini as to his faith, and received from him an explicitly orthodox confession (reduced to writing on the 15th of July 1555) with a frank reservation of the right of further inquiry. A month before this Sozini had been sent with Martino Muralto to Basel, to secure Ochino as pastor of the Italian church at Zurich; and it is clear that in their subsequent intercourse the minds of Sozini and Ochino (a thinker of the same type as Camillo, with finer dialectic skill) acted powerfully on each other in the radical discussion of theological problems. In 1556 by the death of his father (who left him nothing by will), Sozini was involved in pecuniary anxieties. With influential introductions (one from Calvin) he visited in 1558 the courts of Vienna and Cracow to obtain support for an appeal to the reigning duke at Florence for the realization of his own and the family estates. Curiously enough Melanchthon's letter introducing Sozini to Maximilian II. invokes as an historic parallel the hospitable reception rendered by the emperor Constans to Athanasius, when he fled from Egypt to Treves. Well received out of Italy, Sozini could do nothing at home, and apparently did not proceed beyond Venice. The Inquisition had its eye on the family; his brother Cornelio was imprisoned at Rome; his brothers Celso and Camillo and his nephew Fausto were " reputati Luterani," and Camillo had fled from Siena. In August 1559 Sozini returned to Zurich, where his brief career was closed by his death on the 14th of May 1562, at his lodging in the house of Hans Wyss, silk-weaver. No authentic portrait of him exists; alleged likenesses on medals, etc., are spurious. The news of his uncle's death reached Fausto at Lyons through Antonio Maria Besozzo. Repairing to Zurich Fausto got his uncle's few papers, comprising very little connected writing but a good many notes. Fausto has so often been treated as a plagiarist from Lelio that it may be well to state that his indebtedness, somewhat over-estimated by himself, was twofold: (i) He derived from Lelio in conversation (1552-1553) the germ of his theory of salvation; (2) Lelio's paraphrase (1561) of apxri in John i. i as " the beginning of the gospel " gave Fausto an ex-egetical hint for the construction of his Christology. Apart from these suggestions, Fausto owed nothing to Lelio, save a curiously far-fetched interpretation of John viii. 58 and the stimulus of his pure character and shining qualities. The two men were of contrasted types. Lelio, impulsive and inquisitive, was in quest of the spiritual ground of religious truths; the drier mind of Fausto sought in 'external authority a basis for the ethical teaching of Christianity.

Sozini's extant writings are: (i) De sacramentis dissertatio (1560), four parts, and (2) De resurreclione (a fragment) ; these were first printed in F. et L. Socini, item E. Soneri tractatus (Amsterdam, 1654). To these may be added his Confession (1555), printed in Hottinger, Hist, eccles. N.T. ix. 16, 5 (1667); and about twenty-four letters, not collected, but may be found dispersed, and more or less correctly given in Illgen, in Trechsel, in the Corpus reformatorum edition of Calvin's works, and in E. Burnat, L. Socin (1894); the handwriting of the originals is exceedingly crabbed. Sand adds a Rhapsodia in Esaiam prophetam, of which nothing is known. Beza suspected that Sozini had a hand in the De haereticis, an sint persequendi (1553); and to him has also been assigned the Contra libellum Calvini (1554); both are the work of Castellio, and there is no ground for attributing any part of them to Sozini. Beza also assigned to him (in 1567) an anonymous Explicatio (1562) of the. proem of St John's Gospel, which was the work of Fausto; this error, adopted by Zanchi, has been a chief source of the misconception which treats Lelio as a heresiarch. In Franc. Gwmo'sDefensiv cath. doct. de S. Trin. (1590-1591) is an anonymous enumeralio of motives for professing the doctrine of the Trinity, by some ascribed to Lelio; by others, with somewhat more probability, to Fausto.

For the life of L. Sozini the best guide is Trechsel, Die prot. antitrin. vor F. Socin, vol. ii. (1844) ; but there are valuable materials in Illgen, Vita L. Socini (1814), and especially Symbolae ad vitam et doctrinam L. Soc., etc. (1826). R. Wallace, Antitrin. biog. (1850), gives the ordinary Unitarian view, relying on Bock, Da Porta and Lubieniecki. See also Theological Review (July 1879), and BonetMaury's Early Sources of Eng. Unit. Christ, (trans. E. P. Hall, 1884). Use has been made above of unprinted sources.

II. FAUSTO PAOLO SOZZINI (1539-1604) was born at Siena on the 5th of December 1539, the only son of Alessandro Sozzini, " princeps subtilitatum," by Agnese, daughter of Borghese Petrucci, a descendant of Pandolfo Petrucci, the Cromwell of Siena. Unlike his uncle Lelio, Fausto spells his] surname Sozzini, latinizing it Socinus. His father died in 1541, in his thirty-second year. Fausto had no regular education, being brought up at home with his sister Fillide, and spent his youth in desultory reading at Scopeto, the family country-seat. To the able women of his family he owed the strong moral impress XXV. II which marked him through life; his early intellectual stimulus came from his uncle Celso, a nominal Catholic, but an esprit fort, founder of the short-lived Accademia dei Sizienti (1554), of which young Fausto was a member. In 1556 his grandfather's will, leaving him one-fourth of the family estates, made him independent. Next year he entered the Accademia degli intronati, the centre of intellectual life in Siena, taking the academic name " II Frastagliato," his badge Un mare turbato da venti, his motto Turbant sed extollunt. About this time Panzirolo (De Claris legg. interpp., first published 1637) describes him as a young man of fine talent, with promise of a legal career; but he despised the law, preferring to write sonnets. In 1558-1559 the suspicion of Lutheranism fell on him in common with his uncles Celso and Camillo. Coming of age (1561) he went to Lyons, probably engaging in mercantile business; he revisited Italy after his uncle Lelio's death; we find him in 1562 on the roll of the Italian church at Geneva; there is no trace of any relations with Calvin; to Lyons he returned next year. The evangelical position was not radical enough for him. In his Explicatio (1562) of the proem to St John's Gospel he already attributes to our Lord an official, not an essential, deity; a letter of 1563 rejects the natural immortality of man (a position subsequently developed in his disputation with Pucci). Towards the end of 1563 he returned to Italy, conforming to the Catholic Church, and for twelve years, as his unpublished letters show, was in the service of Isabella de Medici, daughter of the grand-duke Cosimo of Tuscany (not, as Przypkowski says, in the service of the grandduke). This portion of his life he regarded as wasted; till 1567 he gave some attention to legal duties, and at the instance of "a great personage" wrote (1570) his treatise De auctoritate s. scripturae. In 1571 he was in Rome, probably with his patroness. He left Italy at the end of 1575, and after Isabella's death (strangled by her husband in 1576) he declined the overtures of her brother Francesco, now grand-duke, who pressed him to return. Francesco was doubtless aware of the motive which led Sozzini to quit Italy; there is every reason to believe Przypkowski's statement that the grand-duke agreed to secure to him the income of his property so long as he published nothing in his own name. Sozzini now fixed himself at Basel, gave himself to close study of the Bible, began translating the Psalms into Italian verse, and, in spite of increasing deafness, became a centre of theological debates. His discussion with Jacques Couet on the doctrine of salvation issued in a treatise De Jesu Christo seruatore (finished July 12, 1578), the circulation of which in manuscript commended him to the notice of Giorgio Blandrata (q.v.), court physician in Poland and Transylvania, and ecclesiastical wire puller in the interests of heterodoxy.

Transylvania had for a short time (1559-1571) enjoyed full religious liberty under an anti-Trinitarian prince, John Sigismund. The existing ruler, Christopher Bathori, favoured the Jesuits; it was now Blandrata's object to limit the " Judaic " tendencies of the eloquent anti-Trinitarian bishop, Francis David (1510- I 579)> with whom he had previously co-operated. A charge of the gravest sort against Blandrata's morals had destroyed his influence with David. Hence he called in Sozzini to reason with David, who had renounced the worship of Christ. In Sozzini's scheme of doctrine, terms in themselves orthodox were employed in a heretical sense. Thus Christ was God, though in nature purely human, namely as un Dio subalterno, al quale in un data tempo il Dio supremo cedetle U governo del mondo (Cantu). In matter of worship Sozzini distinguished between adoratio Chrisli, the homage of the heart, imperative on all Christians, and inwcatio Chrisli, the direct address of prayer, which was simply permissive (Blandrata would have made it imperative); though in Sozzini's view, prayer, to whomsoever addressed, was received by Christ as mediator, for transmission to the father. In November 1578 Sozzini reached Kolozsvar (Klausenburg) from Poland, and did his best, during a visit of four months and a half under David's roof, to argue him into this modified doctrine of invocation. The upshot was that David from the pulpit exerted all his powers in denouncing all cultus of Christ. His civil trial followed, on a charge of innovation. Sozzini hurried back to Poland before it began. He cannot be accused of complicity with what he calls the rage of Blandrata; he was no party to David's incarceration at Deva, where the old man miserably perished in less than three months. He was willing that David should be prohibited from preaching pending the decision of a general synod; and his references to the case show that (as in the later instances of Jacobo Paleology, Christian Franken and Martin Seidel) theological aversions, though they never made him uncivil, froze up his native kindness and blinded his perceptions of character. Blandrata ultimately conformed to the Catholic Church; hence Sozzini's laudatory dedication to him (1584) of his De Jesu Christi natura, in reply to the Calvinist Andrew Wolan, though printed in his works, was not used. The remainder (1570-1604) of Sozzini's life was spent in Poland. Excluded at first by his views on baptism (which he regarded as applicable only to Gentile converts) from the Minor or anti-Trinitarian Church (largely anabaptist), he acquired by degrees a predominant influence in its synods. He converted the Arians from their avowal of our Lord's pre-existence, and from their rejection of the invocatio Christi; he repressed the semi-Judaizers whom he failed to convince. Through correspondence with friends he directed also the policy of the anti-Trinitarian Church of Transylvania. Forced to leave Cracow in 1583, he found a home with a Polish noble, Christopher Morsztyn, whose daughter Elizabeth he married (1586). She died in the following year, a few months after the birth of a daughter, Agnese (1587-1654), afterwards the wife of Stanislas Wiszowaty, and the progenitress of numerous descendants. In 1587 the grand-duke Francesco died; to this event Sozzini's biographers attribute the loss of his Italian property, but his unpublished letters show that he was on good terms with the new grand-duke, Ferdinando. Family disputes had arisen respecting the interpretation of his grandfather's will; in October 1590 the holy office at Siena disinherited him, allowing him a pension, apparently never paid. Failure of supplies from Italy dissolved the compact under which his writings were to remain anonymous, and he began to publish in his own name. The consequence was that in 1598 a mob expelled him from Cracow, wrecking his house, and grossly ill-using his person. Friends gave him a ready welcome at Luslawice, 30 miles east from Cracow; and here, having long been troubled with colic and the stone, he died on the 4th of March 1604. A limestone block with illegible inscriptions marks his grave. 1 His engraved portrait is prefixed to his works (the original is not extant) ; an oil-painting, formerly at Siena, cannot be considered authentic.

Sozzini's works, edited by his grandson Andrew Wiszowaty and the learned printer F. Kuyper, are contained in two closely printed folios (Amsterdam, 1668). They rank as the first two volumes of the Bibliotheca fratrum polonorum, though the works of Crell and Schlichting were the first of the series to be printed. They include all Sozzini's extant theological writings, except his essay on predestination (in which he denies that God foresees the actions of free agents) prefixed to Castellio's Dialogi IV. (1578, reprinted 1613) and his revision of a school manual Instrumentum doctrinarum arislotelicum (1586). His pseudonyms, easily interpreted, were Felix Turpio Urbevetanus, Prosper Dysidaeus, Gratianus Prosper and Gratianus Turpio Gerapolensis ( = Senensis). Some of his early verse is in Ferentilli's Scielta di stanze di diversi autori toscani (1579, 1594); other specimens are given in Cantu and in the Athenaeum (Aug. II, 1877); more are preserved at Siena. Sozzini considered that his ablest work was his Contra atheos, which perished in the riot at Cracow (1598). Later he began, but left incomplete, more than one work designed to exhibit his system as a whole. His reputation as a thinker must rest upon (l) his De auctoritate s. scripturae (1570) and (2) his De Jesu Christo servatore (1578). The former was first published (Seville, 1588) by Lopez, a Jesuit, who claimed it as his own, but prefixed a preface maintaining (contrary to a fundamental position of Sozzini) that man by nature has a knowledge of God. A French version (1592) was approved by the ministers of Basel ; the English translation by Edward Coombe (1731) was undertaken in consequence of the commendation in a charge (1728) by Bishop Smalbroke, who observes that Grotius had borrowed from it in his De veritate Christ, rel. In small 1 No trace is discoverable on the stone of the alleged epitaph : " Tota ruit Babylon ; destruxit tecta Lutherus, Calvinus muros, sed fundamenta Socinus."

compass it anticipates the historical argument of the " credibility " writers; in trying it by modern tests, it should be remembered that Sozzini, regarding it (1581) as not adequately meeting the cardinal difficulties attending the proof of the Christian religion, began to reconstruct its positions in his Lectiones sacrae (unfinished). His treatise on the Saviour renders a real service to theology] placing orthodoxy and heresy in new relations of fundamental antagonism, and narrowing the conflict to the main personal benefit of religion. _ Of the person of Christ in this treatise he says nothing; its one topic is the work of Christ, which in his view operates upon man alone; the theological sagacity of Sozzini may be measured by the persistency with which this idea tends to recur. Though his name has been attached to a school of opinion, he disclaimed the r61e of a heresiarch, and declined to give his unreserved adhesion to any one sect. His confidence in the conclusions of his own mind has earned him the repute of a dogmatist ; but it was his constant aim to reduce and simplify the fundamentals of Christianity. Not without some ground does the memorial tablet at Siena (inscription by Brigidi, 1879) characterize him as vindicator of human reason against the supernatural. Of his non-theological doctrines the most important is his assertion of the unlawfulness, not only of war, but of the taking of human life in any circumstances. Hence ciie comparative mildness of his proposals for dealing with religious and anti-religious offenders, though it cannot be said that he had grasped the complete theory of toleration. Hence, too, his contention that magisterial office is unlawful for a Christian.

AUTHORITIES. For the biography of Sozzini the best materials are his letters; a collection is in his works; others are given by Cantu; more are preserved at Siena and Florence ; his correspondence is open and frank, never sparing his weak points. The earliest life (prefixed to his works) is by S. Przypkowski (1636) ; in English, by J. Bidle (1653). This is the foundation of the article by Bayle, the Memoirs by J. Toulmin (1777), and the article by R. Wallace (Antitrin. Biog., 1850). Cantu's sketch in Gli Eretici d'ltalia (1866) gives a genealogy of the Sozzini (needing revision). The best defence of Sozzini in his relations with David is by James Yates (Christ. Pioneer, Feb. 1834); a less favourable view is taken by David's Hungarian biographer, Elek Jakab (Ddvid ' F. Emleke, 1879). Of his system best known through the Racovian Catechism (1605, planned by Sozzini and carried out by others, principally Valentine Schmalz) ; in English, by T. Rees (1818) there is a special study by O. Fock, Der Socinianismus (1847). See also The Sozzini and their School, by A. Gordon (Theol. Rev., 1879; cf. Christian Life, Aug. 25, 1883). Use has been made above of unpublished papers in the archives of Florence, with others in the archives, communal library and collection of Padre Toti at Siena. (A. Go. *)

SOCIOLOGY, a science which in the most inclusive sense may be defined as that of human society, in the same manner that Biology may be taken to imply the science of life. The word Sociologie was first used by Comte in 1839 as an equivalent of the expression, social physics, previously in use, and was introduced, he said, to describe by a single term that part of natural philosophy which relates to the positive study of the fundamental laws of social phenomena. The word is a hybrid, compounded from both Latin and Greek terms. It is now generally accepted in international usage; none of the terms, such as politics, political science, social economy, social philosophy and social science which have been suggested instead of it having succeeded in taking its place.

There has been in the past a certain hesitation, especially in England, to admit sociology as the title of a particular science in itself until it was made clear what the subject must be considered to cover. In certain quarters sociology is still often incorrectly spoken of as if it implied the practical equivalent of the science of politics. Henry Sidgwick, for instance, considered the word as usually employed in this sense, and while he himself recognized that sociology must have a wider scope than politics, he thought that in practice " the difference between the two subjects is not indeed great " (Elements of Politics). This view of sociology, which at one time widely prevailed, dates from an earh'er period of knowledge. The difference between sociology and the science of politics is wide and is due to fundamental causes, a true perception of which is essential to the proper study of the science of society. It is a feature of organisms that as we rise in the scale of life the meaning of the present life of the organism is to an increasing degree subordinate to the larger meaning of its life as a whole. Similarly, as the advance from primitive society to society of a more organic type takes place, a marked feature of the change is the development of the principles through which the increasing subordination of the present interests of society to the future interests of society is accomplished. It is, however, characteristic of the last-mentioned principles that their operation extends beyond the political consciousness of the state or nation, and that this distinction becomes more and more marked in the higher societies. The scope and meaning of sociology as a science is, therefore, quite different from the scope and meaning of the science of politics. In other quarters, again, the word sociology is often incorrectly used as no more than a covering term for subjects which are fully treated in various subdivisions of social science. Thus when the science of society is distinguished from the special social sciences which fall within its general purview, it may be considered, says Lester F. Ward, that " we may range the next most general departments as so many genera, each with its appropriate species that is, the classification of the sciences may be made strictly synoptical. When this is done it will be possible for philosophers, like good systematists, to avoid making their ordinal characters include any properly generic ones, or their generic characters include any that are only specific. Thus understood, sociology is freed from the unnecessary embarrassment of having hanging about it in more or less disorder a burden of complicated details, in a great variety of attitudes which make it next to impossible to secure due attention to the fundamental principles of so vast a science. These details are classified and assigned each to its proper place (genus or species), and the field is cleared for the calm contemplation of the central problem of determining the facts, the law and the principles of human association " (Outlines of Sociology). This definition, good as it is in some respects, does not make clear to the mind the essential fact of the science, namely, that the principles of sociology involve more than the generalized total of the principles of the subordinate sciences which it is said to include. In Herbert Spencer's writings we see the subject in a period of transition. Spencer placed his Principles of Sociology between his Principles of Psychology and Principles of Ethics. This fact brings out the unsettled state of the subject in his time, while it also serves to exhibit the dominance of the ideas of an earlier stage. For psychology, which Spencer thus places before sociology, cannot nowadays be fully, or even in any real sense scientifically, discussed apart from sociological principles, once it is accepted that in the evolution of the human mind the principles of the social process are always the ultimate controlling factor.

Sociology, therefore, as a true science in itself, must be regarded as a science occupied quite independently with the principles which underlie human society considered as in a con.n of development. In this sense the conclusions of sociology cannot be fully stated in relation to the phenomena dealt with in any of the divisions of social science, and they must be taken as implying more than the sum total of the results obtained in all of them. The sociologist must always keep clearly before him that the claims of sociology in the present conditions of knowledge go considerably beyond those involved in any of the foregoing positions. As it is the meaning of the social process which in the last resort controls everything, even the evolution of the human mind and all its contents, so none of the sciences of human action, such as ethics, politics, economics or psychology can have any standing as a real science except it obtains its credentials through sociology by making its approach through the sociological method. It is in sociology, in short, that we obtain the ruling principles to which the laws and principles of all the social sciences stand in controlled and subordinate relationship.

The fathers of the science of society may be said to be the Greek philosophers, and in particular Plato and Aristotle. The Sociology Laws and the Republic of the former and the Ethics among the and Politics of the latter have, down to modern times, Greets. an( j notwithstanding the great difference in the standpoint of the world and the change in social and political conditions, exercised a considerable influence on the development of the theory of society. To the Greeks the science of society presented itself briefly as the science of the best method of attaining the most perfect life within the consciousness of the associated life of the State. " In this ideal of the State," says Bluntschli, " are combined and mingled all the efforts of the Greeks in religion and in law, in morals and social life, in art and science, in the acquisition and management of wealth, in trade and industry. The individual requires the State to give him a legal existence: apart from the State he has neither safety nor freedom. The barbarian is a natural enemy, and conquered enemies become slaves. . . . The Hellenic State, like the ancient State in general . . . was all in all. The citizen was nothing except as a member of the State. His whole existence depended on and was subject to the State. . . . The State knew neither moral nor legal limits to its power " (Theory of the State).

It was within the limits of this conception that most of the Greek theories of society were constructed. The fundamental conception of the Roman writers was not essentially different, although the opportunism of the Rom State, when it became a universal power embracing the social and religious systems of many peoples, in some degree modified it; so that with the growth of jus gentium outside the jus civile, the later writers of the empire brought into view an aspect of the State in which law began to be to some extent distinguished from State morality. With the spread of Christianity in Western Europe there commenced a stage in which the social structure, and with it the theory of society, underwent profound modifications. These changes are still in progress, and the period over which they extend has produced a great and increasing number of writers on the science of society. The conceptions of each period have been intimately related to the character of the influences controlling development at the time. The writers up to the 14th century are nearly all absorbed in the great controversy between the spiritual and temporal power which was defining itself during this stage in Western history. In the period of the Renaissance and the Reformation the modern development of the theory of society may be said to begin. Machiavelli is the first great name in this period. Bodin with other writers up to the time of Montesquieu carry the development forward in France. The Dutch writer Grotius, although chiefly recognized at the time as an authority on international law, had much influence in bringing into view principles which mark more directly the transition to the modern period, his De jure belli et pads, issued in 1625, being in many respects an important contribution to the theory of society. Hobbes and Locke are the principal representatives of the influential school of writers on the principles of society which the period of the political and religious upheaval of the 17th century produced in England. The ideas of Locke, in particular, exercised a considerable influence on the subsequent development of the theory of the State in Western thought. From the lyth century forward it may be said, strictly speaking, that all the leading contributions to the general body of Western philosophy have been contributions to the development of the science of society. At the time of Locke, and to a large extent in Locke's writings, there may be distinguished three distinct tendencies in the prevailing theory of society. Each of these has since become more definite, and has progressed along a particular line of development. There is first the empirical tendency, which is to be followed through the philosophy of Hume down to the present day, in what may be called to borrow an idea from Huxley the physiological method in the modern study of the science of society. A second tendency which developed through the critical philosophy of Kant, the idealism of Hegel, and the historical methods of Savigny in the field of jurisprudence and of the school of Schmoller in the domain of economics finds its current expression in the more characteristically German conception of the organic nature of the modern State. A third tendency which is to be followed through the writings of Rousseau, Diderot, d'Alembert and the literature of the French Revolution found its most influential form of expression in the 1pth century in the theories of the English Utilitarians, from Bentham to John Stuart Mill. In this development it is a theory of the utilitarian State which is principally in view. In Comte.

its latest phase it has progressed to the expression which it has reached in the theories of Marxian Socialism, in which the corresponding conception of the ascendancy of the economic factor in history may now be said to be the characteristic feature. All of these developments, the meaning of which has now been absorbed into the larger evolutionary conception to be described later, must be considered to have contributed towards the foundation of modern sociology. The definition of the relations to each other of the positions they have severally brought into view is the first important v/ork of the new science.

At the period between 1830 and 1842, when Comte published the Philosophic positive, the conditions were not ready for a science of society. The Darwinian doctrine of evolution by natural selection had not yet been enunciated, and knowledge of social phenomena was limited and very imperfect. As an instance of the character of the change that has since been in progress, it may be mentioned that one of Comte's main positions that, indeed, to which most of the characteristic conceptions of his system of philosophy were related was that "the anatomical and physiological study of individual man " should precede the theory of the human mind and of human society. Here the position is the one already referred to which has prevailed in the study of the social sciences down into recent times. It was supposed that the governing principles of society were to be discovered by the introspective study of the individual mind, rather than that the clue to the governing principles of the individual mind was only to be discovered by the study of the social process. It must now be considered that no really fundamental or far-reaching principle of human development can be formulated as the result of Comte's position. For with the application of the doctrine of evolution to society a position is becoming defined which is almost the reverse of it, namely, that the development of the individual, and to a large extent of the human mind itself, must be regarded as|the correlative of the social process in evolution. The study of the principles of the process of social evolution would therefore in this sense have to come before the complete study of the individual, and even to precede the construction of a system of psychology scientific in the highest sense. Comte, apart from his want of mastery of the historical method in dealing with sociological 'development, possessed, on the whole, little insight into the meaning of the characteristic problem in which the human mind is involved in its social evolution, and to the definition of which not only the processes of Western history, but the positions successively developed in Western thought, must all be considered as contributing. His great merit was the perception of the importance of the biological method in the science of society, the comprehension of the fact that there can be no science of society if its divisions are studied apart from each other; and finally, and although it led at the time to the formulation of no important principle of human development, the intuition that sociology was not simply a theory of the State, but the science of what he called the associated life of humanity.

It has to be observed that, preceding the application of the doctrine of evolution to society, most of the contributions to The Ruling soc ' a l science have a certain aspect in which they Principle of resemble each other. While in current theories Early Sod- society tends to be presented as evolving, consciously oiogkal of unconsc iously, under stress of natural selection, /;o"s?/n/7u- towar d s social efficiency, the earlier contributions enceof were merely theories of the meaning and object Greek Coo- of society as a medium for the better realization of 'the'state' human desires - In tm s presentation of the subject the influence of the Greek conception of the State upon modern sociology may be traced down to the present day. At the beginning of the modern period it reappears in Machiavelli (Titus Livius, i., iii., and The Prince). It is represented in modified form in Hobbes (Leviathan), and in Locke (Two Treatises of Government), each of whom conceived man as desiring to leave the state of nature and as consciously founding civilized society, " in order that he might obtain the benefits of government " in the associated State. It is continued in Rousseau and the writers of the French Revolution, who similarly imagined the individual voluntarily leaving an earlier state of freedom to put " his person and his power under the direction of the' general will " (Social Contract). It is characteristic of Jeremy Bentham (e.g. Principles of Morals and Legislation, i.) and of J. S. Mill (e.g. Utilitarianism and Political Economy, iv., vi.). Finally, it survives in Herbert Spencer, who in like manner sees man originating society and submitting to political subordination in the associated State " through experience of the increased satisfaction derived under it " (Data of Ethics). It continues at the present day to be characteristic of many European and some American writers on sociology, who have been influenced both by Spencer and the Latin theory of the State, and who therefore, conceiving sociology not so much as a science of social evolution as a theory of association, proceed to consider the progress of human association as the development of a process " of catering to human desire for satisfactions of varying degrees of complexity." All these ideas of society bear the same stamp. They conceive the science of society as reached through the science of the individual, the associated State being regarded only as a medium through which he obtains increased satisfactions. In none of them is there a clear conception of an organic science of society with laws and principles of its own controlling all the meaning of the individual.

With the application of the doctrine of evolution the older idea in which society is always conceived as the State and as existing to give increased " satisfaction " is replaced The Docby a new and much more extended conception. In triaeof the evolutionary view, the development of human Evolution. society is regarded as the product of a process of stress, in which progress results from natural selection along the line not of least effort in realizing human desire, but of the highest social efficiency in the struggle for existence of the materials of which society is composed. In the intensity of this process society, evolving towards higher efficiency, tends to become increasingly organic, the distinctive feature being the growing subordination of the individual to the organic social process. All the tendencies of development political, economic, ethical and psychological and the contents of the human mind itself, have therefore to be regarded as having ultimate relations to the governing principles of the process as a whole. The science of social evolution has, in short, to be considered, according to this view, as the science of the causes and principles subordinating the individual to a process developing by inherent necessity towards social efficiency, and therefsre as ultimately over-ruling all desires and interests in the individual towards the highest social potentiality of the materials of which society is composed. The conflict between the old and the new conceptions may be distinguished to an increasing degree as the scope of modern sociology has gradually become defined; and the opposing ideas of each may be observed to be sometimes represented and blended, in varying degrees of complexity, in one and the same writer.

It was natural that one of the first ideas to be held by theorists, as soon as sociology began to make progress to the position of a real science, was that society must be considered Flrst Coa _ to be organic, and that the term "social organism " ceptionsof should be brought into use. An increasing number Society as of writers have been concerned with this aspect of aa Orgaathe 'subject, but it has to be noted as a fact of much interest that all the first ideas of society as an organism move within the narrow circle of the old conception of the State just described. The " social organism " in this first stage of theory is almost universally confused with the State. The interests of the social organism are therefore confused with the interest of the individuals which men saw around them in the State. The science of society was accordingly regarded as no more than the science of realizing most effectively here and now the desires of those comprising the existing State. Sidgwick, for instance, considered the science of politics and the science of sociology as practically coincident, and his Elements of Politics, extraordinary to relate, contains only a few words in which it is recognized that the welfare of the community may be interpreted to mean the welfare not only of living human beings, but of those who are to come hereafter; while there is no attempt to apply the fact to any law or principle of human development. Bentham's utilitarian philosophy, like that of the two Mills, was based almost entirely on the idea of the State conceived as the social organism. Writers like Herbert Spencer (Sociology) and Schaffle, who was for a time minister of commerce for Austria (Ban und Leben des socialen Korpers), instituted lengthy comparisons between the social organism considered as the State and the living individual organism. These efforts reached their most characteristic expression in the work of the sociologists who have followed G. Simmel in lengthy and ingenious attempts at classifying associations, considering them " as organizations for catering to human desire." In all these efforts the conception of the State as the social organism is vigorously represented, although it is particularly characteristic of the work of sociologists in countries where the influence of Roman law is still strong, and where, consequently, the Latin conception of the State tends to influence all theories of society as soon as the attempt is made to place them on a scientific basis. The sterilizing effect for long produced on sociology by this first restricted conception of the social organism has been most marked. It is often exemplified in ingenious attempts made, dealing with the principles of sociology, to construct long categories of human associations, based on quite superficial distinctions. None of the comparisons of this kind that have been made have contributed in any marked degree to the elucidation of the principles of modern society. Paul Leroy-Beaulieu's criticism of Schaffle's efforts at comparisons anatomical, physiological, biological and psychological between the individual organism and the State as a social organism applies to most of the attempts of this period to institute biological comparisons between the life of the social organism and that of organisms in general, " the mind sinks overwhelmed under the weight of all these analogies, these endless divisions and subdivisions to which they give rise. . . . The result is not in proportion to the effort " (L'Etat moderne el ses fonctions).

In tracing the direction of this conflict between the newer and older tendencies in modern sociology, it is in Herbert Spencer's writings that the student will find presented in Spencer clearest definition the characteristic difficulty with which the old view has tended to be confronted, as the attempt has continued to be made to enunciate the principles of human development from the standpoint that society is to be considered as a " social organism," but while as yet there is no clear idea of a social organism with its own laws and its own consciousness quite distinct from, and extending far beyond those governing the interests of the individuals at present comprising the State.

With the application of the doctrine of evolution to society considered as an organism, a position has been brought into view of great interest. It is evident in considering the application of natural selection to human society that there is a fact, encountered at the outset, which is so fundamental that it must be held to control all the phenomena of social evolution. It is nowadays a commonplace of knowledge, that the potential efficiency of an organism must always be taken to be greater than the sum total of the potential efficiency of all its members acting as individuals. This arises in the first instance from the fact, to be observed on all hands in life, of the effects of organization, of division of labour, and of specialization of work. But in an organism of indefinitely extended existence like human society, it arises in a special sense from the operation of principles giving society prolonged stability. By these principles individual interests are subordinated over long periods of time to the larger interests of organic society in which the individuals for the time being cannot participate; and it is from this cause that civilization of the highest type obtains its characteristic potency and efficiency in the struggle for existence with lower types.

There follows from this fact, obvious enough once it is mentioned, an important inference. This is that in the evolution of society natural selection will, in its characteristic results, reach the individual not directly, but through society. That is to say, in social evolution, the interests of the individual, qua individual, cease to be a matter of first importance. It is by development in the individual of the qualities which will contribute most to the efficiency of society, that natural selection will in the long run produce its distinctive results in the human individual. It is, in short, about this function of socialization, involving the increasing subordination of the individual, that the continued evolution of society by natural selection must be held to centre. Societies in which the individuals resist the process quickly reach the limits of their progress, and have to give way in the struggle for existence before others more organic in which the process of subordination continues to be developed. In the end it is the social organizations in which the interests of the individual are most effectively included in and rendered subservient to the interests of society considered in its most organic aspect that, from their higher efficiency, are naturally selected. In other words, it is the principles subordinating the individual to the efficiency of society in those higher organic aspects that project far beyond the life-interests of its existing units which must ultimately control all principles whatever of human association.

Spencer, in an elaborate comparison which he made (Essays, vol. i., and Principles of Sociology) between the social organism and the individual organism brought into viqw a Spencer ana position which in its relation to this capital fact of Natural human evolution exhibits in the clearest manner Se/ec *' ' how completely all the early evolutionists, still under the influence of old conceptions, failed at first to grasp the significance of the characteristic problems of the social organism. Spencer's comparison originally appeared in an article published in the Westminster Review for January 1860 entitled " The Social Organism." This article is in many respects one of the most noteworthy documents in the literature of the last half of the 19th century. In comparing the social with the individual organism Spencer proceeded, after noting the various aspects in which a close analogy between the two can be established, to make, as regards society, an important distinction by which the nature of the difficulty in which he is involved is immediately made apparent. While in an individual organism, he pointed out, it is necessary that the lives of all the parts should be merged in the life of the whole, because the whole has a corporate consciousness capable of happiness or misery, it is not so with society. For in society, he added, the " living units do not and cannot lose individual consciousness, since the community as a whole has no corporate consciousness." Spencer proceeded, therefore, to emphasize the conclusion that " this is an everlasting reason why the welfare of citizens cannot rightly be sacrificed to some supposed benefit of the State; but why, on the other hand, the State is to be maintained solely for the benefit of citizens." The extraordinary conclusion is indeed reached by Spencer that " the corporate life in society must be subservient to the lives of the parts, instead of the lives of the parts being subservient to the corporate life." It will be here clearly in evidence that the " social organism " which Spencer had in view was the State. But it will be noticed at the same time how altogether remarkable was the position into which he was carried. Spencer, like most thinking minds of his time, had the clearest vision, constantly displayed in his writings, of the scientific importance of that development in history which has gradually projected the conception of the individual's rights outside all theories of obligation to the State. He wrote at a time when the attention of the Western mind in all progressive movements in Western politics had been for generations fixed on that development in which the liberties of the individual as against the State had been won. This development had involved nearly all Western countries in a titanic struggle against the institutions of an earlier form of society resting on force organized in the State. Spencer, therefore, like almost every advanced writer of his period, had constantly before him the characteristic fact of his age, namely, that the meaning of the individual had come to be in some way accepted as transcending all theories of the State and all theories of his obligations to the State. The position was, therefore, very remarkable. Spencer has been for long accepted by the general mind as the modern writer who more than any other has brought into use the term "social organism," and who has applied the doctrine of evolution to the theory of its life. Yet here we see him involved in the apparent self-stultification of describing the social organism to us as that impossible thing, an organism " whose corporate life must be subservient to the lives of the parts instead of the lives of the parts being subservient to the corporate life." It was obvious that some profound confusion existed. The science of society was evidently destined to carry us much farther than this. If natural selection was to be taken as operating on society, and therefore as tending to produce the highest efficiency out of the materials that comprise it, it must be effecting the subordination of the interests of the units to the higher corporate efficiency of society. But one of only two conclusions could therefore result from Spencer's position. If we were to regard the " social organism " as an organism in which the corporate life must be subservient to the lives of the parts, instead of the lives of the parts being subservient to the corporate life, it would be necessary to hold that the individual had succeeded in arresting the characteristic effects of natural selection on society. But for the evolutionist, whose great triumph it had been to reveal to us the principles of natural selection in universal operation throughout life elsewhere, to have to regard them as suspended in human society would be an absurd anti-climax. Such being scarcely conceivable as a final position, it remained only to infer that natural selection must still be subordinating individual interests to some larger social meaning in the evolutionary process. But in this case, society must be subject to principles which reach farther than those Spencer conceived: it must be organic in some different and wider sense than he imagined, and the analogy of the " social organism " as confined within the consciousness of ascendant interests in the political State must be considered to be a false one.

We had, in short, reached a capital position in the history of sociology from which an entirely new horizon was about to A New become visible. The principles of society organic Horizon la [ n a wider sense than had hitherto been conceived Sociology. were a b ou t to be brought into the discussion. All the phenomena of the creeds and ethical systems of humanity, of the great systems of religion and philosophy, with the problems of which the human mind had struggled over immense stretches of time as the subordinating process had unfolded itself in history, were about to be brought into sociology. And not now as if these represented some detached and functionless development with which the science of society was not directly concerned, but as themselves the central feature of the evolutionary process in human society. The stage in the history of sociology characterized by the confusion of the principles governing the social organism with those governing the State, the stage which had lasted from the time of the Greeks to Spencer, and which had witnessed towards its close Sidgwick's statement that the science of sociology was in effect coincident with the science of politics, was thus bound to be definitely terminated by the application to the science of society of the doctrine of evolution. Yet Spencer, despite his popular association with the doctrine of evolution, is thus not to be reckoned as the first of the philosophers of this new stage. His place is really with the last great names of the preceding period. For his conception of society was that of Bentham, Mill and Sidgwick. His Principles of Sociology as a contribution to modern evolutionary science is necessarily rendered to a large extent futile by the sterilizing conception of a social organism " in which the corporate life must be subservient to the lives of the parts." It is indeed in the reversal of this conception that the whole significance of the application of the doctrine of evolution to the science of society consists. Henceforward we shall have to regard the social process in evolution as a process with its own interests, its own psychology, its own consciousness and its own laws, all quite distinct from the political consciousness of the modern State, though indirectly controlling and governing the consciousness of the State so thoroughly that there can be no true science of the latter without a science of the former.

The new situation created in sociology as the doctrine of evolution began to be applied to the science had features of great interest. The advance had been made to a central ne Flnt position along two entirely distinct lines. The Darwinian* army of workers was, in consequence, divided into in Sociology. two more or less isolated camps, each largely in ignorance of the relation of its own work to that in the other section. It is often said as a reproach to sociology in the period through which we are passing that it attracts the kind of recruits who are not best equipped for its work, while it repels the kind of mind of philosophical training and wide outlook which it ought to enlist in its service and for which it has most urgent need, the loss to sociology both in credit and efficiency being immense. This is the result of a peculiar situation. Those who are best qualified to understand the nature and scope of the problems with which sociology has to deal cannot fail to have the conviction strongly developed in them that the Darwinian principles of evolution which reveal to us what may be described as the dynamics of the universal life process have very important relations to the dynamics of the social process. The situation which has arisen in sociology, however, is a very curious one, although it is one easy to understand when the causes are explained. When the endeavour is made to follow Darwin and the early Darwinians through the facts and researches which led to the formulation of the law of natural selection it may be observed how their preoccupation was almost exclusively with the details of the struggle for existence not in societies, but as it was waged between individuals. This was so as a matter of course, from the character of the facts which wild nature supplied, reinforced as they were, by observations on domestic animals and the practices of breeders.

Darwin made no systematic study of society; and outside human society the struggle through which natural selection has operated has been mainly between individuals. It is, of course, sometimes remarked that the social life exists among animals and that the laws of the social life and of the herd are to be observed there, but as a matter of fact there is nothing whatever elsewhere in life to compare with what we see taking place in human society, namely, the gradual integration still under all the stress of natural selection expressing its effects in the person of the individual of an organic social process resting ultimately on mind. The laws of this process are necessarily quite different from the laws of the other and simpler process in operation lower down in life. If we regard the classes from which sociology as a science should be able to draw its most efficient recruits we see that at the present day they fall mainly into two camps. There are in the one camp the exponents of biological principles, often trained in one or more of the departments of biological science, who are attempting the application to human society of the principles with which they have become familiar elsewhere in life. There are in the second camp the exponents of various aspects of social philosophy. When the exponent of Darwinian principles advances to the study of society he is naturally strong in the conviction that he has in his hands a most potent instrument of knowledge which ought to carry him far in the organization of the social sciences and towards the unification of the leading principles underlying the facts with which they deal. But what we soon begin to see is that his training has been, and that his preoccupation still continues to be, with the facts and principles of the struggle for existence between individuals as displayed elsewhere in life. He does not easily realize, if he has not been trained in social philosophy, how infinitely more complex all the problems of natural selection have become in the social integration resting on mind which is taking place in human affairs; or how the social efficiency with which he has become now concerned is something quite distinct from the individual efficiency with which he has been concerned elsewhere. He does not readily comprehend how the institutions which he sees being evolved in history have, in their effects on the individual, laws quite different from those which he applies in the breeding of animals; or how the dualism which has been opened in the human mind, as natural selection acts first of all on the individual in his own struggle with his fellows, and then, and to a ruling degree, acts on his as a member of organic society in the evolution of social efficiency, has in the religious and ethical systems of the race a phenomenology of its own, stupendous in extent and absolutely characteristic of the social process, which remains a closed book to him and the study of which he is often apt to consider for his purposes as entirely meaningless. All this became rapidly visible in the first approach of the early Darwinians to the science of society.

Darwin, as stated, had attempted no comprehensive or systematic study of society. But in a few chapters of the Descent Darwin f ^ an ^ e ^ a d discussed the qualities of the human mind, including the social and moral feelings, from the point of view of the doctrine 'of natural selection enunciated in the Origin of Species. The standpoint he took up was, as might be expected, practically that of Mill and Spencer and other writers of the period on social subjects, from whom he quoted freely. But the note of bewilderment was remarkable. The conclusion remarked upon as implied in Spencer's theory of the social organism, but which Spencer himself hesitated to draw, namely, that natural selection was to be regarded as suspended in human society, Darwin practically formulated. Thus at times Darwin appeared to think that natural selection could effect but comparatively little in advanced society. " With highly civilized nations," he says, " continued progress depends to a subordinate degree on natural selection." While Darwin noted the obvious usefulness of the social and moral qualities in many cases, he felt constrained at the same time to remark upon their influence in arresting, as appeared to him, the action of natural selection in civilization. " We civilized men," he continues, " do our utmost to check the process of elimination (of the weak in body and mind) ; we build asylums for the imbeciles, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment." There is here in evidence no attempt to connect the phenomena thus brought into view with some wider principle of the evolutionary process which evidently must control them. There is no perception visible in Darwin's mind of these facts as constituting the phenomenology of a larger principle of natural selection; or of the higher organic efficiency in the struggle for existence of societies in which the sense of responsibility to life thus displayed has made most progress; or of the immense significance in social evolution as distinct from individual evolution of that deepening of the social consciousness of which this developing spiritual sense of responsibility to our fellow creatures is one of the outward marks characteristic of advanced societies.

In the year 1889 Alfred Russel Wallace in a statement of his conception of the doctrine of evolution in his book, Darwinism, Wallace brought more clearly into view the fundamental difficulty of the early Darwinians in applying the doctrine of natural selection to society. In the last chapter of the book Mr Wallace maintained that there were in " man's intellectual and moral nature . . . certain definite portions . . . which could not have been developed by variation and natural selection alone." Certain faculties, amongst which he classed the mathematical, artistic and metaphysical, the latter covering qualities with which he considered priests and philosophers to be concerned, were, he asserted, " altogether removed from utility in the struggle for life," and were, therefore, he thought, " wholly unexplained by the theory of natural selection." In this elementary conception which still survives in popular literature, the same confusion between individual efficiency and social efficiency has to be remarked upon. And there is in evidence the same failure to perceive that it is just these intellectual and moral qualities which are the absolutely characteristic products of natural selection in advanced society, in that they contribute to the highest organic social efficiency. Wallace in the result proposed to consider man, in respect of these higher portions of his mind, as under the influence of some cause or causes wholly distinct from those which had shaped the development of life in its other characteristics. The weakness of this position was immediately apparent. To remove man as regards qualities so directly associated with his social evolution from the influence of the law of natural selection was felt to be a step backwards. The effect produced on the minds of the younger school of evolutionists was deep. It operated, indeed, not to convince them that Wallace was right, but to make them feel that his conception of natural selection operating in human society was still in some respect profoundly and radically incomplete.

A few years later, Huxley, though approaching the matter from a different direction, displayed a like bewilderment in attempting to apply the doctrine of evolution to the xle phenomena of organic society. With his mind fixed on the details of the individual struggle for existence among animals, Huxley reached in the Romanes lecture, delivered at Oxford in 1893, a position little different from that in which Wallace found himself. In this lecture Huxley actually proceeded to place the ethical process in human society in opposition to the cosmic process, to which latter alone he considered the struggle for existence and the principle of natural selection belonged. " Social progress," he went on to say, " means a checking of the cosmic process at every step and the substitution for it of another which may be called the ethical process; the end of which is not the survival of those who may happen to be the fittest, in respect of the whole of the conditions which obtain, but of those who are ethically the best." Thus the remarkable spectacle already witnessed in Spencer, Darwin and Wallace of the evolutionist attempting to apply his doctrines to human society, but having to regard his own central principle of natural selection as having been suspended therein is repeated in Huxley. The futility of contemplating the ethical process as something distinct from the cosmic process was at once apparent. For the first lesson of evolution as applied to society must be that they are one and the same. So far indeed from ethical process checking the cosmic process, it must be regarded as the last and highest form of the cosmic process. The sense of subordination and sacrifice which forms the central principle of all the creeds of humanity, so far from being, as Wallace imagined, "altogether removed from utility" is, indeed, the highest form of social efficiency through which natural selection is producing its most far-reaching effects in the evolution of the most advanced and organic types of civilization.

A similar tendency continued to be in evidence in other directions. In an effort made a few years later to found a society for the study of sociology in Great Britain _ n a very characteristic feature of the first papers contributed was the attempt to apply elementary biological generalizations regarding natural selection to a highly complex organism like human society, the writers having in most cases made no previous extensive or special study of the social process in history. The confusion between what constitutes individual efficiency in the individual and that higher social efficiency in the individual which everywhere controls and overrules individual efficiency was very marked. An early paper contributed in 1904 was by Mr (afterwards Sir) Francis Gallon, one of the last and greatest of the early Darwinians. Gallon had made many original contributions to the doctrine of evolution, and had been occupied previously with researches into individual efficiency as displayed among families, his Hereditary Genius being a notable book of this type. The object of his paper was to explain the scope and aim of a new science, " eugenics," which he defined as the science which deals with all the influences that improve the inborn qualities of the race and develop them to the utmost advantage. Gallon found no difficulty whatever in selling up his sociological slandards for the best specimens of the race. Even the animals in the Zoological Gardens, he said, might be supposed to know the best specimens of their class. In society the list of best qualities would include health, energy, ability, manliness and the special aptitudes required by various professions and occupations. Everything in " the scientific breeding of the human race " was to be much as in the breeding of animals; for Gallon proposed to leave morals out of the question as involving too many hopeless difficulties. This was the basis of the scheme of qualities from which he proposed to proceed to the improved breeding of society. The proposal furnishes one of the most striking and characteristic examples which have appeared of the deep-seated confusion prevailing in the minds of the early Darwinians between social efficiency and individual efficiency. Even from the few minor examples of society among the lower animals the true sociological criticism of such standards in eugenics might easily be supplied. For at the point at which the social insects, for instance, began their social integration all their standards were in the qualities which gave success in the struggle for existence between individuals. Had they, therefore, understood eugenics only in this light and in Gallon's sense, they would have condemned at the first the beginnings of the peculiar social efficiency of the queen bee which now makes her devote her life entirely to egg-laying; still more would they have condemned the habils of the drones, through long persistence in which they have become degenerate as individuals; and in particular they would have condemned the habits of the workers which have led to their present undeveloped bodies and abortive individualistic instincts. But all these things have contributed in the highest degree to the social efficiency of the social insects and have made the type a winning one in evolution. The social integration of the social insects has been comparatively simple and did not, like that of human society, rest ultimately on mind, yet even in this elementary example it was evident what ruin and disaster would result from miscalled scientific breeding of the race if undertaken within the limits of such restricted conceptions of social efficiency. Gallon's preoccupation, as in the case of most biological and medical schemes of improvement in the past, was with those individualistic qualities which contribute to the individual's success in the struggle for existence with his fellows. But it has been continuously obvious in history that individuals of the very highest social efficiency, the great organic minds of the race who, often quite unsuccessful in their lives as judged by individualistic standards, and who, often quite unperceived and unappreciated by their contemporaries, have been the authors of ideas, or moral conceptions or works of such organic importance that they have carried the race from one social horizon into another, have been just those individuals who would have entirely failed to pass the kind of prize-animal standards which Gallon proposed to set up.

Gallon's essay may be said lo close that firsl epoch in the applicalion of biological conceptions to sociology which The ci s P ene( i with Spencer's essay in 1860. With the of the First extending conception of the organic interesls of Stage of sociely during the intervening period the idea of Darwinian soc j a i efficiency had altered profoundly. For instance, a supposed standard of efficiency, which like Malthusianism represenled to Mill at the opening of the period Ihe last conclusion of science, had become towards the close scarcely more than a slandard of " race suicide." Il was nol surprising that in these circumslances Ihe represenlalives of Ihose sciences which resled on a knowledge of the social process in hislory and philosophy conlinued lo look coldly on the altempt of the first Darwinians lo apply Darwinian principles lo sociology. True, the developmenl in Iheir own sciences had been almosl equally slerile, for Ihey had Ihemselves as yel no reasoned conception of the enormous importance of the Darwinian principle of evolution to these sciences in its capacity lo reveal lo Ihem the dynamics of the social process. Bui Ihey had walched the developmenl of inslilulions in hislory; Ihey had sludied the growlh of social lypes and Ihe inlegralion of great systems of belief; and Ihey had slruggled with the capital problems of the human mind in psychology and philosophy as the process had conlinued. The Iwo armies of workers conlinued to be organized into isolated camps, each with the mosl reslricted conception of the nalure and imporlance of Ihe work done by the olher and of ils bearing upon Iheir own conclusions. One of the mosl remarkable resulls of such a silualion a resull plainly visible in Ihe valuable colleclion of essays edited by Professor Seward which was issued from the Cambridge University Press in commemoration of the centenary of Darwin's birth is the extremely limited number of minds in our time of sufficienl scope of view lo be able lo cover the relation of the work of both sets of these workers to sociology.

It remains now to consider the relation to the position in modern sociology of the extended conception lhat sociely must be considered to be organic in some wider sense than the first Darwinians thus imagined it and also e"2ns/on in some wider sense lhan lhal in which Sidgwick to Sociology imagined il when he said lhal sociology was in effecl otthe Bv - coincidenl wilh the science of polilics. The present coated/on writer has laid il down elsewhere ( The Two Principal Laws of Sociology: Bologna) lhal Ihere is a fundamental principle of sociology which has to be grasped and applied before there can be any real science of sociology. This principle may be briefly staled as follows:

The social process is primarily evolving in the individual not the qualities which contribule lo his own efficiency in conflict with his fellows, but the qualities which contribule lo society's efficiency in the conflicl Ihrough which il is gradually rising lowards a more organic lype.

This is the first law of evolutionary sociology. It is this principle which conlrols the inegration which is taking place under all forms in human society in ethical systems, in all polilical and economic inslilulions, and in the creeds and beliefs of humanity in the long, slow, almosl invisible slruggle in which under a mullilude of phases nalural seleclion is discriminating between the standards of nalions and lypes of civilizalion.

Dealing first with political and economic instilutions; the position reached in Spencer's sociology may be said to represent the science of sociely in a slale of Iransilion. It represents it, that is to say, in a stage al which the Greek Iheory of sociely has become influenced by the doclrine of evolulion applied lo modern conceplions, bul while as yel no synlhesis has been achieved between the conflicting and even mutually exclusive ideas which are involved. The Greek theory of society is represented in Spencer in his practical idenlification of " the social organism " with the Slale. The modern idea, however, which carries Spencer far beyond the principles of Greek sociely as these principles were summarized, for instance, in the passage already quoled from Blunlschli is clearly in evidence. It may be observed to be expressed in the recognition of a principle resident in modern society which in some manner projects the individual's righls oulside and beyond the whole Iheory and meaning of the Slale. In olher words, in sociely as Spencer conceives il, " the welfare of cilizens cannol righlly be sacrificed 10 some supposed benefil of the Slale "; whereas, according to the Greek Iheory and the theory of Roman law, the citizen's whole existence depended on and was subject to the Stale. " The Slale knew neilher moral nor legal limils to its power." If, iowever, it be considered thai modern sociely has made progress Deyond the Greek, and if il be accepled lhal the Iheory of evolulion involves the conclusion lhat sociely progresses ;owards increased efficiency in a more organic lype, Ihere follows :rom the foregoing an imporlant inference. This is thai il now jecomes the lask of modern sociology, as a Irue science, to show thai the principle in modern civilizalion which dislinguishes 11 from sociely of the Greek period namely, that principle which Spencer rightly recognized, despite the contradiclions in which le became involved, as rendering the life of the individual no onger subservient to the corporate life of the State is ilself a arinciple idenlified not with individualism but with the increasing subordination of the individual lo a more organic lype of sociely. Il musl, in shorl, remain for the evolutionisl, working by the historical method scientifically applied, to present the intervening process in history including the whole modern movement towards liberty and enfranchisement, and towards equality of conditions, of rights and of economic opportunities not as a process of the increasing emancipation of the individual from the claims of society, but as a process of progress towards a more organic stage ot social subordination than has prevailed in the world before.

When society is considered as an organism developing under the influence of natural selection along the line of the causes which contribute to its highest potential efficiency, and therefore tending to have the mean centre of its organic processes projected farther and farther into the future, it is evident that it must be the principles and ideas which most effectively subordinate oyer long periods of time the interests and the capacities of the individuals of which it is composed to the efficiency of the whole which will play the leading part in social evolution. In primitive society, the first rudiments of social organization undoubtedly arose, not so much from conscious regard to The Basis expediency or "increased satisfactions" as from ot Modern fitness in the struggle for existence. " The first Sociology. or g an i z ed societies must have been developed, like any other advantage, under the sternest conditions of natural selection. In the flux and change of life the members of those groups of men which in favourable conditions first showed any tendency to social organization became possessed of a great advantage over their fellows, and these societies grew up simply because they possessed elements of -strength which led to the disappearance before them of other groups of men with which they came into competition. Such societies continued to flourish, until they in their turn had to give way before other associations of men of higher social efficiency " (Social Evolution, ii.). In the social process at this stage all the customs, habits, institutions, and beliefs contributing to produce a higher organic efficiency of society would be naturally selected, developed and perpetuated. It is in connexion with this fact that the clue must be sought to the evolution of those institutions and beliefs of early society which have been treated of at length in researches like those of M'Lennan, Tylor, Lubbock, Waitz. Letourneau, Quatrefages, Frazer, and others of equal importance. For a long period in the first stages the highest potentiality of the social organization would be closely associated with military efficiency. For hi the evolution of the social organism, as has been said, while the mean centre of the processes involving its organic identity would tend to be projected into the future, it would at the same time always be necessary to maintain efficiency in current environment in competition with rival types of lower future potentiality. Amongst primitive peoples, where a great chief, law-giver and military leader appeared, the efficiency of organized society resting on military efficiency would, as a matter of course, make itself felt in the struggle for existence. Yet as such societies would often be resolved into their component elements on the death of the leader, the overruling importance on the next stage of the advance towards a more organic type of ideas which would permanently subordinate the materials of society to the efficiency of the whole would make itself felt. Social systems of the type in which authority was perpetuated by ancestor-worship in which all the members were therefore held to be joined in an exclusive religious citizenship founded on blood relationship to the deities who were worshipped, and in which all outsiders were accordingly treated as natural enemies, whom it would be a kind of sacrilege to admit to the rights of the State would contain the elements of the highest military potentiality. The universal mark which ancestor-worship has left on human institutions in a certain stage of social development is doubtless closely associated with this fact. The new and th<> older tendencies in sociology are here also in contrast; for whereas Herbert Spencer has been content to explain ancestor-worship as arising from an introspective and comparatively trivial process of thought assumed to have taken place in the mind of early man in relation to a supposed beh'ef in ghosts (Principles of Sociology, 68-207), the newer tendency is to consider science as concerned with it in its relation to the characteristic principles through which the efficiency of the social organization expressed itself in its surroundings. The social, political and religious institutions disclosed in the study of the earliest civilizations within the purview of history must be considered to be all intimately related to the ruling principles of this military stage. The wide reach and significance of the causes governing the process of social evolution throughout the whole of this period may be gathered from treatises like Seebohm's Structure of Greek Tribal Society, Maine's Ancient Law, History of Institutions, and Early Law and Custom, Fowler's City-State of the Greeks and Romans, and in a special sense from the comparative study of Roman law, first of all as it is presented in the period of the Twelve Tables, then as the jus civile begins to be influenced by the jus gentium, and lastly as its principles are contrasted with those of English common law in the modern period. In most of the philosophical writings of the Greeks, and in particular in the Ethics and Politics of Aristotle, and in many of the Dialogues of Plato, the spirit of the principles upon which society was constructed in this stage may be perceived as soon as progress has been made with comparative studies in other directions.

A very pregnant saying of T. H. Green was that during the whole development of man the command, " Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself " has never varied. What ^tension of has varied is only the answer to the question Who the Sense of is my neighbour ? If in the light of this profoundly Human Retrue reflection we watch the progress of society from spoasl lty - primitive conditions to the higher stages, it may be observed to possess marked features. Where all human institutions, as in the ancient civilizations, rested ultimately on force; where outsiders were regarded as natural enemies, and conquered enemies became slaves; where, as throughout all this phase of social evolution, a rule of religion was a rule of law identified with the principles of the State (Maine, Ancient Law); where the State itself was absolute as against the individual, knowing "neither moral nor legal limits to its power"; and where all the moral, intellectual and industrial life of the community rested on a basis of slavery the full limits of the organic principle of social efficiency would in time be reached. The conditions would be inherent in which all social institutions would tend to become closed absolutisms organized round the conception of men's desires in the present. And the highest outward expression in which the tendencies in ethics, in politics, and in religion must necessarily culminate would be the military State, bounded in its energies only by the resistance of others, necessarily acknowledging no complete end short of absolute dominion, and therefore staying its course before no ideal short of universal conquest. This was the condition in the ancient State. It happened thus that the outward policy of the ancient State to other peoples became, by a fundamental principle of its life, a policy of military conquest and subjugation, the only limiting principle being the successful resistance of the others. The epoch of history moved by inherent forces towards the final emergence of one supreme military State, in an era of general conquest, and culminated in the example of universal dominion which we had in the Roman world before the rise of the civilization of our era.

The influence upon the development of civilization of the wider conception of duty and responsibility to one's fellow men which was introduced into the world with the spread of KS intluChristianity can hardly be over-estimated. The em* on extended conception of the answer to the question s ^ al BtaWho is my neighbour? which has resulted from the ceacy ' characteristic doctrines of the Christian religion a conception transcending all the claims of the family, group, state, nation, people or race, and even all the interests comprised in any existing order of society has been the most powerful evolutionary force which has ever acted on society. It has tended gradually to break up the absolutisms inherited from an older civilization and to bring into being, an entirely new type of social efficiency.

As society under this influence continued to be impelled to develop towards a still more organic type, the greatly higher potentiality of a state of social order which, while preserving the ideal of the highly organized state and the current efficiency of society in competition with lower types, was influenced by conceptions that dissolved all those closed absolutisms, and leased human energies into a free conflict of forces by projecting the principles of human responsibility (lathe outside the State, became apparent. In many of Present), the religions of the East such conceptions have been inherent, Christianity itself being a characteristically Eastern religion. But no Eastern people has been able to provide for them the permanent defensive military milieu in history in which alone their potentiality could be realized. The significance of modern Japan in evolution consists largely in the answer she is able to give to the question as to whether she will be able to provide in the future such a milieu for such a conception among an Eastern people.

The significance of the culmination of the military epoch in the ancient classic civilizations of the Western world, which preceded the opening of the era in which we are living, and of the fact that the peoples of the same descent who were destined to carry on the civilization of the existing era represent the supreme military stock by natural selection, not only of the entire world, but of the evolutionary process itself in human history, will therefore be evident.

With the spread, accordingly, amongst peoples of this origin, and in such a defensive military milieu in history, of a new conviction of responsibility to principles extending beyond the consciousness of the political State, there began a further and more organic stage of the evolutionary process in society. The gradual dissolution in the era in which we are living of all the closed absolutisms within the State, in which human action and ideas had hitherto been confined, is apparently the characteristic phenomenon of this stage. Progress is towards such a free and tolerant, but intense and efficient, conflict of forces as was not possible in the world before. It is, it would appear, in this light that we must regard the slow dissolution of the basis of ideas upon which slavery rested; the disintegration of the conceptions which supported the absolute position of the occupying classes in the State; the undermining of the ideas by which opinion was supported by the civil power of the State in the religious struggles of the middle ages; the growth of the conception that no power or opinion in the State can be considered as the representative of absolute truth; the consequent development of party government amongst the advanced peoples, with the acknowledgment of the right of every department of inquiry to carry results up to that utmost limit at which they are controlled only by the results obtained in other departments of activity with equal freedom; the growth of the conception, otherwise absurd, of the native equality of men; the resulting claim, otherwise similarly indefensible, of men to equal voting power irrespective of status or possessions in the State which has been behind the movement towards political enfranchisement; and, finally, the development of that conviction which is behind the existing challenge to all absolute tendencies in economic conditions in the modern world namely, that the distribution of wealth in a well-ordered State should aim at realizing political justice. There are all the features of an integrating process in modern history. They must be considered as all related to a controlling principle inherent in the Christian religion which has rendered the evolutionary process in society more organic than in any past stage namely, the projection of the sense of human responsibility outside the limits of all the creeds and interests which had in previous stages embodied it in the State (Kidd, Prin. West. Civil.). The meaning, in short, which differentiates our civilization from that of the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome is that modern Western civilization represents in an ever-increasing degree the enfranchisement of the future in the evolutionary process. So great has become the prestige of our civilization through the operation of this principle in it that its methods and results are being eagerly borrowed by other peoples. It is thereby so materially influencing the standards of conduct and culture thoughout the world that the developments which other nations are undergoing have in a real sense tended to become scarcely more than incidents in the expansion of Western civilization.

We live in the presence of colossal national armaments, and in a world, therefore, in which we are continually met with the taunt that force is still everywhere omnipotent. It Modem j may be perceived, however, that beneath all outward Militarism I appearances a vast change has been taking place. lstherefor f In the ancient civilizations the tendency to con- otfensfre," quest was an inherent principle in life of the military not an State. It is no longer an inherent principle in the Offensive modern State. The right of conquest is indeed still Priaclale - acknowledged in the international law of civilized States; but it may be observed to be a right becoming more and more impracticable among the more advanced peoples. Reflection, moreover, reveals the fact that the right of conquest is tending to become impracticable and impossible, not, as is often supposed, because of the huge armaments of resistance with which it might be opposed, but because the sense of social responsibility has been so deepened in our civilization that it is almost impossible that one nation should attempt to conquer and subdue another after the manner of the ancient world. It would be regarded as so great an outrage that it would undoubtedly prove to be one of the maddest and one of the most unprofitable adventures in which a civilized State could engage. Militarism, it may be distinguished, is becoming mainly defensive amongst the more advanced nations. Like the civil power within the State, it is tending to represent rather the organized means of resistance to the methods of force should these methods be invoked by others temporarily or permanently under the influence of less evolved standards of conduct.

In thus regarding the social process in Western history, the projected efficiency of which now, after many centuries of development, begins to realize itself to an increasing InaMa degree in determining competition with other types i sm ls "*jy a of society throughout the world, it may be observed Process ot that the result by which a synthesis of the older moreOrganlc and later views may be attained is already m o^toaoo" sight. It was pointed out that if the principle which Spencer rightly recognized in modern society as rendering the life of the individual no longer subservient to the corporate life of the State was to be accepted as a principle of progress distinguishing modern civilization from that of the Greek period, it would be necessary for the sociologist to exhibit it not as indicating the larger independence of the individual, but as a principle identified with the increasing subordination of the individual to a more organic type of society. Here, therefore, this result is in process of accomplishment . The intervening process in history including the whole modern movement towards liberty and enfranchisement, towards equality of conditions, towards equality of political rights and towards equality of economic opportunities -is presented as a process of development towards a more advanced and organic stage of social subordination than has ever prevailed in the world before (Princ. West. Civil, xi.). In this light, also, it may be observed how the claim of sociology to be the most advanced of all the theoretical sciences is justified. For if the historical process in the civilization of the era in which we are living is thus to be regarded as a process implying the increasing subordination of the individual to a more organic type of society, then the study of sociology as embracing the principles of the process must evidently involve the perception and comparison of the meaning of the fundamental positions disclosed in the history of political progress, of the problems with which the human mind has successively struggled in the phases of religious development, and, lastly, of the positions with which the intellect has been confronted as the stages of the subordinating process have gradually come to define themselves in history. The positions outlined in the developments already referred to which have come down through Humeund Huxley, through Kant and Hegel, through Grotius and Savigny, through Roscher and Schmoller, through the expression which English utilitarianism has reached in Herbert Spencer as influenced by the English theory of the rights of the individual on the one hand, and in Marxian Socialism as influenced by the Latin conception of the omnipotence of the State on the other, have thus all their place, meaning and scientific relations in the modern study of sociology. It must be considered that the theory of organic evolution by natural selection and the historical method will continue in an increasing degree to influence the science of society.

The sociological law that " the social process is primarily evolving in the individual not the qualities which contribute The Claim of t n ^ s own efficiency in conflict with his fellows, Sociology as but those qualities which contribute to society's the Master efficiency in the conflict through which it is gradually rising towards a more organic type," carries us into the innermost recesses of the human mind and controls the science of psychology. For it is thus not the human mind which is consciously constructing the social process in evolution ; it is the social process which is constructing the human mind in evolution. This is the ultimate fact which raises sociology to its true position as the master science. Nor is there any materialism in such a conception. It is in keeping with the highest spiritual ideal of man that the only conception of Truth or the Absolute which the human mind can hold at present is that which is being evolved in it in relation to its own environment which is in the social process.

AUTHORITIES. It has been one of the results of the conditions affecting sociology in the past, that many of the principal contributions to the science of society are not usually included in lists of sociological references. The following are mentioned only as indicating or suggesting others in the same classes of equal or perhaps greater importance. The dates given are usually those of the first edition of a work.

INTRODUCTORY. Darwin, Origin of Species (1859); Descent of Man, 1871 (chapters dealing with society); Wallace, Darwinism (1889); Romanes, Darwin and after Darwin (1892); Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin (1894). Economics, Historical. Ashley, Introduction to English Economic History and Theory, part i. (1888), part ii. (1893); Schmoller, The Mercantile System (1884); Roscher, Geschichte der Nationals konomik in Deutschland (1874) ; Nys, History of Economics (Trans. Dryhurst, 1899). Ethics, Historical. Sidgwick, History of Ethics (1886); Mackenzie, Manual of Ethics (1893); Hobhouse, Morals in Evolution (1906). Primitive Society. Lubbock, Origin of Civilization (1870); Tylor, Anthropology (1881); Quatrefages, Human Species (Eng. trans. 1879); Lang, Custom and Myth (1884); Maine, Ancient Law (1861); Early History of Institutions (1875); Early Law and Custom (1883); Frazer, Golden Bough (1890) ; Early History of the Kingship (1905).

GENERAL. Spencer, Synthetic Philosophy (Principles of Biology, Principles of Sociology and Principles of Ethics) ; Kidd, Social Evolution (1894); Principles of Western Civilization (1902); Individualism and After ; Two Principal Laws of Sociology: Bologna (1908) ; Barth, Die Philosophie der Geschichte als Sociologie (1897); Ward, Dynamic Sociology; Outlines of Sociology (1898); Flint, Philosophy of History in Europe (1874) ; Historical Philosophy in France (1894) ; Bagehot, Physics and Politics; Ratzenhofer, Die soziologische Erkennlnis (1898); Giddings, Principles of Sociology (1896); Tarde, Elude de psychologie sociale (1898); Stuckenberg, Introduction to the Study of Sociology (1898); Stephen, The English Utilitarians (1900); J. S. Mill, System of Logic (1843); On Liberty (1859); Utilitarianism (1861); Comte, Philosophie positive^ (6 vols., 1830-1842, Eng. trans., condensed by Martineau, in 2 vols. ; Baldwin, Social Psychology; Ritchie, Natural Rights (1895); Bluntschli, The Theory of the State (Eng. trans. 1892) ; Wright, Outline of Practical Sociology (1899); Sidgwick, Methods of Ethics (1874); Elements of Politics (1901) ; Philosophy, Us Scope (1902) ; Taylor, The Problem of Conduct (1901); Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (particularly 2nd Division), and Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysic; McDougall, An Introduction to Social Psychology (1908); Schiller, Studies in Humanism (1907); James, Pragmatism (1907); Fairbanks, Introduction to Sociology (1896); Pollock, History of the Science of Politics (1890); Maine, Popular Government (1885); Morley, Rousseau (1873); Diderot and the Encyclopaedists (1878) ; Burke (1879) ; Austin, Theory of Jurisprudence (1861-1863); Holland, Elements of Jurisprudence (parts i., iit. and iy., 1880); Studies in International Law (1898); Westlake, International Law (1894); Bentham, Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Oxf. ed., 1879; Sohm, Institutes of Roman Law; Sandars, Institutes of Justinian; Le Roy Beaulieu, L'Etat moderne et ses fonctions; Huxley, Evolution and Ethics (1894); Nietzsche, The Twilight of the Idols; Zarathustra; Loria, Les Bases economiques de la constitution sociale (French trans.); Pearson, National Life and Character (1893); Vincent, The Social Mind in Education (1897); Marx, Kapital (1867, Eng. trans. 1887); Engels, Socialism, Utopian and Scientific (Eng. trans., Aveling, 1892); Kirkup, An Inquiry into Socialism (1907); George, Progress and Poverty; Mazel, La Synergie sociale (1896); Mallock, Aristocracy and Evolution (1898); Ross, Social Control (1901); Mackenzie, Social Philosophy (1895); Hpbson, The Social Problem (1901); Fabian Essays; Rousseau, Social Contract; Hobbes, Leviathan; Locke, Two Treatises of Government; Webbs, Industrial Democracy (1897); History of Trades Unionism (1894); Booth, Life and Labour of the People (1891-1897) ; Patten, The Theory of Prosperity (1902) ; Wallas, Human Nature in Politics (1908) ; Urwick, Luxury and Waste (1908) ; Small, The Scope of Sociology (1902). (B. K.*)

Note - this article incorporates content from Encyclopaedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, (1910-1911)

About Maximapedia | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | GDPR