In that famous passage in his De Civitate Dei which has been called the first “Mirror of Princes,” St. Augustine outlines the qualities of the good king. The passage is toolong to quote here, but certain of the qualities listed are pertinent to this discussion. He tells us that kings are happy

If they rule justly; … if they make their power the handmaid of His majesty by using it for the greatest possible extension of His worship; … if more than their own they love that kingdom in which they are not afraid to have partners; if they are slow to punish, quick to pardon; if they apply that punishment as necessary to government and the defense of the republic, and not to gratify their own enmity; … if they prefer to govern depraved desires rather than any nation whatsoever; and if they do all these things, not through ardent desire of empty glory, but through love of eternal felicity, not neglecting to offer to the true God, who is their God, for their sins the sacrifices of humility, contrition, and prayer.

Whether, some day, the twentieth century may claim to have inaugurated as fundamental a change in economic organization as did the monetary revolution of the sixteenth and the industrial revolution of the eighteenth century is still an open question. While in most European countries the transformation is evident, and from Spain to Scandinavia and from the British Isles to the Balkan states, it has been intensified under the impact of war economy, American public opinion still hesitates to admit any break with the past. Most people believe that expansion of governmental activities, concentration of economic power, rigidities, monopolies, public indebtedness and taxation as consequential as they are should be evaluated as accessories of an economic system which in its foundation has remained intact. In its very essence, this system is supposed to rest upon the great principles of private property, freedom of enterprise and social mobility.

Max Weber died in 1920, when Communism was in its beginnings and Fascism had not appeared on the scene at all. There can be no question of his having predicted anything like the exact nature of these movements. But he did develop a line of thought which, in connection with his broader analysis of authority, has an important bearing on the understanding of the process by which they came into prominence, and some of the possible consequence of their dominance.

In applying his theory of the state to the problem of discovering and expounding the true nature of the American republic Brownson deals with three major questions: the formation of the union under his concept of the Providential constitution; the proper distribution of governmental powers in terms of his theory of territorial democracy; and the resolution of the leading political problems of the United States in the light of the real meaning of American federalism thus revealed.

In the present crisis of Europe, some forward-looking observers are placing their ultimate hope in a corporative order. Within the first pages of a book recently published in Paris, a young French economist states that in the light of his country's defeat, “the modes of thought and action of a whole century, the XIXth, have been judged by their results and found wanting;” furthermore, under the stimulus of individualistic and utilitarian philosophies, joined with economic liberalism, a “disintegration” of society has resulted. After a close analysis of ancient and modern corporative regimes, Professor Denis concludes: “The only chance for salvation seemingly lies in the desperate effort of a small number of the old countries of the West to recreate a new community spirit, one manifestation of which would be the fostering of vocational groups. If this effort were not made or should fail, Europe would suffer irremediable decadence. … a new Dark Ages, without the hope of the Thirteenth Century.” We can recognize in this threat the pessimistic frame of mind which was so characteristic of young European intellectuals during the past decade. We shall see, however, that psychology is no less necessary than political science and economics for an understanding of the corporative movement in Europe.

War has been such a shaping force in human history that no period has escaped its influence. This century seems especially cursed with the burden of two World Wars, not to mention the Russian and the German revolutions. To satisfy current interest in military affairs, armies, and the conduct of war, the following survey of military literature has been prepared. Books in English have been emphasized as much as possible though there is a more abundant literature in foreign languages. So vast is this literature that some limitations have been made necessary: the field of international law, the issue of disarmament, peace-making, and conquest have not been considered. Only incidental references have been made to the economics of war, which is a field embraced by the popular concept “Total War.” Except for a few books no attempt has been made to discuss the important problem of the relation of government and armies in peace and war. The sociology of war, a proper topic, cannot be treated in detail here: ample discussion of this subject will be found in the works of Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History (London, 1934 ff. 6 v.); Pitirim Sorokin, Social and Cultural Dynamics (New York, 1937, especially v. 3); Max Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (Tübingen, 1925); and Werner Sombart, Der moderne Kapitalismus (Munich, 1921–1927, 3 v., 4th ed.).

Page 7 of the January. 1942 issue, line 27 should read as follows: technique, for the importance of the things to be made and of the