1921 SHOUT. NOTICES 157 Irishmen might say the same of England. Once more, if nationality- is the true basis of political union, and if it deserves to be intensified wherever it exists, will not the family of nations prove to be a more unruly family than ever ? Ought we not in fact to discourage national- ism in the higher interest of internationalism ? Mr. Herbert is fully aware of the difficulties : he spends some time in showing, by an account of the Italian movement and a shorter reference to the rise of Greece, how nationality came to be associated in liberal circles with progress and to gain a reputation which is in some respects the opposite of that which it deserves. But he does not wish to discourage nationalism. He thinks that the strengthening of national feeling is as desirable for the world at large as the development of individual character is useful for the state. Nationalism must, however, be dissociated from politics ; otherwise the strong points of nationalism will be neutralized by opportunities for bringing pressure to bear on other nationalities. This suggestion is not quite a new one ; but it is interesting as an indication of the direction in which thought is moving. It bears some affinity to that depreciation of the state in relation to other forms of community which is becoming so much of a commonplace that its difficulties are apt to be overlooked. Certain writers tell us that the state only differs in the fact that membership of it is compulsory : this difference cannot well fail to be important, but, unless the sphere of the state is severely limited, it becomes so important as to make the comparison ridiculous. In the same way, unless politics are caused to be far less important than they are at present, the political authority will be engaged in continuous conflicts with nationalist ambitions and nationalism will never be content at being excluded from politics. The ideal of these thinkers appears to be a world-wide political authority, co-ordinating and intensifying nationalist aspirations, wherever they are found, as the best means of bringing out the highest human qualities. Those who have no quarrel with this as an ideal may yet feel that it is still a long way off from being realized, and that much hard thinking will have to be done about the inter- mediate steps before it can be brought about. P. V. M. B. The English title of The History of Social Development (London : Allen & Unwin, 1920) seems unfortunate, at least if the title in the trans- lator's Preface, Phasen der Kultur, is that of the original work. The author, Dr. F. Miiller-Lyer, does not profess to give a complete history of social development, but to mark out various phases in the course of human progress from savagery to the civilization of the present day. He sets forth the main lines of development to be observed in the use of tools, clothing, dwelling, the organization of labour, &c. The word 1 phaseology ' may seem to suggest a new science or at least a new method. But the-author does not seem to mean much more by it than the separation of the various departments of social life in their concomitance and sequence. Unless the early development of religion and art is reserved for another volume, it is probably due to the necessity of limiting his subject that Dr. Miiller-Lyer gives so much less prominence than most other anthropologists to these matters. When anthropologists come on well-traversed historical
