the objective interpretation of history is inadequate. Marx believed himself to have proved that the age of communism was approaching by historical necessity; he believed that this proof could be furnished by the use of the Hegelian dialectic. But what would be the result of such a proof for my personal conduct, for yours, for Marx's own, for everyone's? The socialist decides in favour of socialism and communism upon ethical and not upon historical grounds; the Russian socialists are right; Marx's attempt to give socialism a purely objective historical foundation was futile. It is only because men of the present day are deciding in favour of communism, and have reasons and motives for this decision, that historians have been able to point to the beginning of the communistic epoch. Other philosophers of history, differing from Marx, refuse to consider the socialist movement as the opening of a new historical epoch, and look upon it as no more than a morbid episode. Which party is right? Upon whose side, that is to say, is the truth—a truth which, as I see it, can be no more than relative? It is clear that the question with which Mihailovskii is really concerned when he discusses the subjective method, is whether psychology, and sociology grounded upon psychology, are really possible. To-day we may say that the question has been adequately answered, thas been answered alike theoretically, epistemologically, and practically, by the advent of a genuinely scientific psychology and sociology, whereby the objections of the Marxists have been rendered simply anachronistic.
But for Mihailovskii the question has a yet more general significance. If every human being be involuntarily and necessarily guided by the preconceived opinions of his class and of his day, how is science possible? To put the matter in concrete terms, Which class can contend that it possesses science, that science is enlisted in its service? Mihailovskii replies by amending Lassalle and Engels, by saying that science serves the people, that is, the "entirety of the labouring classes of society."
It is necessary to note and to commend the way in which Mihailovskii invariably pays great attention to the problem of accurate method. When discussing individual scientific philosophic writers, he never fails to examine their methodology, and to consider how it corresponds to their actual treatment of the topic. As regards sociology, he
