Augustin Thierry

It became possible in recent years to place the history of the origin and development of human institutions upon as firm a basis as that of the development of any form of plants or animals.

It would, of course, be extremely unfair to forget the enormous work that was done earlier, already in the 30s, toward the working out of the history of institutions by the school of Augustin Thierry in France, by that of Maurer and the Germanists in Germany, and in Russia somewhat later by Kostomarov, Believ, and others.

In fact, the principle of evolution had been applied to the study of manners and institutions, and also to languages, from the time of the encyclopedists.

but to obtain correct scientific deductions from all this massive work became possible only when the scientists could look upon the established facts in the same way as the naturalist regards the continuous development of the organs of a plant or of a new

It became possible in recent years to place the history of the origin and development of human institutions upon as firm a basis as that of the development of any form of plants or animals.

It would, of course, be extremely unfair to forget the enormous work that was done earlier, already in the 30s, toward the working out of the history of institutions by the school of Augustin Thierry in France, by

that of Maurer

and the Germanists in Germany, and in Russia somewhat later by Kostomarov, Believ, and others.

It is interesting to note in this connection the extent to which the socialist teachings of the thirties and forties, and also the revolution of 1848, have helped science to throw off the fetters placed upon it by the post-revolutionary reaction.

Without entering here into detail, it is sufficient to say that the above-mentioned Seguin and Augustin Thierry, the historian who laid the foundations for the study of the folk-mode regime and of federalism, were Saint-Simonists, that Darwin's fellow-worker, A.R. Wallace, was in his younger days an enthusiastic follower of Robert Owen, that Auguste Comte was a Saint-Simonist, that Ricardo and Bentham were Owenists, and that the materialist, Charles Wolt and George Lewis, as well as Grove, Mill, Spencer, and many others, had lived under the influence of the radical socialist movement of the thirties and forties.

It was to this very influence that they owed their scientific boldness.

The simultaneous appearance of the works of Grove, Joule, Berthelot, and Helmholtz, of Darwin, Claude Bernard, Moléshotte, and Würth, of Lyle, Banne, Mill, and Björnoff, all in the brief space of five or six years, 1856 to 1862, radically changed the most fundamental views of science.

It became possible in recent years to place the history of the origin and development of human institutions upon as firm a basis as that of the development of any form of plants or animals.

It would, of course, be extremely unfair to forget the enormous work that was done earlier, already in the 30s, toward the working out of the history of institutions by the school of Augustin Thierry in France, by that

of

Maurer and the Germanists in Germany, and in Russia somewhat later by Kostomarov, Believ, and others.

It became possible in recent years to place the history of the origin and development of human institutions upon as firm a basis as that of the development of any form of plants or animals.

It would, of course, be extremely unfair to forget the enormous work that was done earlier, already in the 30s, toward the working out of the history of institutions by the school of Augustin Thierry in France, by that of Maurer and the Germanists in Germany, and in Russia somewhat later by Kostomarov, Believ, and others.

In fact, the principle of evolution had been applied to the study of manners and institutions, and also to languages, from the time of the encyclopedists.

but to obtain correct scientific deductions from all this massive work became possible only when the scientists could look upon the established facts in the same way as the naturalist regards the continuous development of the organs of a plant or of a new

It became possible in recent years to place the history of the origin and development of human institutions upon as firm a basis as that of the development of any form of plants or animals.

It would, of course, be extremely unfair to forget the enormous work that was done earlier, already in the 30s, toward the working out of the history of institutions by the school of Augustin Thierry in France, by that of Maurer and the Germanists in Germany, and in Russia somewhat later by Kostomarov, Believ, and others.

In fact, the principle of evolution had been applied to the study of manners and institutions, and also to languages, from the time of the encyclopedists.

but to obtain correct scientific deductions from all this massive work became possible only when the scientists could look upon the established facts in the same way as the naturalist regards the continuous development of the organs of a plant or of a new species.

It became possible in recent years to place the history of the origin and development of human institutions upon as firm a basis as that of the development of any form of plants or animals.

It would, of course, be extremely unfair to forget the enormous work that was done earlier, already in the 30s, toward the working out of the history of institutions by the school of Augustin Thierry in France, by that of Maurer and the Germanists in Germany, and in Russia somewhat later by Kostomarov, Believ, and others.

In fact, the principle of evolution had been applied to the study of manners and institutions, and also to languages, from the time of the encyclopedists.

But to obtain correct scientific deductions from all this massive work became possible only when the scientists could look upon the established facts in the same way as the naturalist regards the continuous development of the organs of a plant or of a new species.

It became possible in recent years to place the history of the origin and development of human institutions upon as firm a basis as that of the development of any form of plants or animals.

It would, of course, be extremely unfair to forget the enormous work that was done earlier, already in the 30s, toward the working out of the history of institutions by the school of Augustin Thierry in France,

by that of Maurer and the Germanists in

Germany, and in Russia somewhat later by Kostomarov, Believ, and others.

Owing on the one hand to the labors of the naturalists and on the other to those of Henry Maine and his followers, who applied the same inductive method to the study of primitive customs and laws that had grown out of them, it became possible in recent years to place the history of the origin and development of human institutions upon as firm a basis as that of the development of any form of plants or animals.

It would of course be extremely unfair to forget the enormous work that was done earlier, already in the thirties, toward the working out of the history of institutions by the school of Augustin Thierry in France, by that of Maurer and the Germanists in Germany, and in Russia somewhat later by Kostomarov, Belyaev, and others.

In fact the principle of evolution had been applied to the study of manners and institutions and also to languages from the time of the encyclopedists.

But to obtain correct scientific deductions from all this massive work became possible only when the scientists could look upon the established facts in the same way as the naturalist regards the continuous development of the organs of a plant or of a new species.

I noticed Cornelier, Ressin, Moliere, Le Fontaine, Ronsard, Victor Hugo, and Lamartine.

Our moralists, Montaigne, Pascal, Labrouillere, our historians, Meseret, Chateaubriand, Augustin, Thierry, our philosophers, Cuvier, Bedouin, Elie de Beaumont.

Besides those were several volumes of romances and other books, amongst which I recognized with a certain pride my own impressions of travel.

The keys were in the drawer of the bureau.