governmental organization who has not had this couplet thrown in his face so often that he has come to regard its use as an evidence of an absolutely hopeless condition of mind in the one who uses it. A study of government which excludes the consideration of the administrative system and actual administrative methods is as liable to lead to error as the speculations of a political theorist which have no regard for the principles of public law.

2. Divisions of political science. In the introduction to his great work, "Lehre vom modernen Staat," Bluntschli gives the divisions of political science as follows:

The ancient Greeks applied the name woλɩɩký to all political science. We (Germans) distinguish Public Law and Politics as two special sciences. Alongside of these we put many special branches with distinct names, e.g. Political Statistics, Administration, International Law, Police, etc.

Public Law and Politics both consider the State on the whole, but each from a different point of view and in a different direction. In order to understand the State more thoroughly, we distinguish its two main aspects its existence and its life. We examine the parts in order more completely to comprehend the whole. In this procedure there are not only theoretic but practical advantages. Law has gained in clearness, moderation, and strength, since it has been more sharply distinguished from politics; and Politics has gained in fullness and in freedom by being considered separately.

Public Law deals with the State as it is, i.e. its normal arrangements, the permanent conditions of its existence.

Politics, on the other hand, has to do with the life and conduct of the State, pointing out the end toward which public efforts are directed and teaching the means which lead to these ends, observing the action of laws upon facts and considering how to avoid injurious consequences and how to remedy the defects of existing arrangements.

Public Law is thus related to Politics as order to freedom, as the tranquil fixedness of relations to their complex movement, as bodies are related to their actions and to the various mental movements. Public Law asks whether what is conforms to law: Politics whether the action conforms to the end in view. . . .

Public Law and Politics must not be absolutely separated from one another. The actual State lives, i.e. it is a combination of Law and Politics. Again, Law is not absolutely fixed or unalterable; and the movement of Politics has rest as its aim. Law is not merely a system, it has a history; on the other hand, politics has to do with legislation.

As with all organic beings, the influence is reciprocal. The difference we have recognized is not thereby set aside, but is better explained. The distinction between the history of Law and political history is just this: the former has only to point out the development of the normal and established existence of the State and to describe the rise and change of permanent institutions and laws: the latter lays stress chiefly on the changing fortunes and circumstances of the nation, the motives and conduct of its statesmen, and the actions and sufferings of both the nation and its statesmen. The highest and purest expression of Public Law is to be found in the Constitution or enacted positive laws: the clearest and most vivid manifestation of Politics is the practical conduct or guidance of the State itself, viz. Government. Politics is more of an art than a science. Law is a presupposition of Politics, a fundamental (though not of course the only) condition of its freedom. Politics in its course must have regard to legal limits, caring as it does for the varying needs of life. Law, on the other hand, requires the help of Politics in order to escape the numbness of death and to keep step with the development of life. Without the animating breath of politics the corpus juris would be a corpse; without the foundations and the limits of Law, Politics would perish in unbridled selfishness and in a fatal passion for destruction.

It is solely for the sake of clearness and simplicity that before these two branches of the Theory of the State- Public Law and Politics we place a third, or rather a first, division of Political Science, viz. the Theory of the State in general. In this we consider the State as a whole without as yet distinguishing its two aspects (Law and Politics). The conception of the State, its basis, its principal elements (the people, the country), its rise, its end or aim, the chief forms of its constitution, the definition and the division of sovereignty form the subjects of the Theory of the State in general, and this in turn is at the base of the two special political sciences, Public Law and Politics.

3. Outline of political science. The content of political science has been analyzed and classified according to numerous points of view. A good working outline is found in the division into (1) historical political science, — the origin and development of the state; (2) descriptive political science, the nature and organization of the state; and (3) applied political science, the purpose and functions of the state.1 The following table, based on a fundamental distinction between "the general theory of the state and

1 R. G. Gettell, "Introduction to Political Science," p. 15.

its possible forms" and "the study of particular institutions and the action of the state for particular purposes," aims to "show the range and variety of modern political science." 1

II. RELATION TO ALLIED SCIENCES

4. Political science and sociology. Stuckenberg, who considers sociology "the general social science of which the special social sciences are differentiations," thus states its relation to political science:

The science of politics needs differentiation from Sociology and the other social sciences, in order that its own peculiar sphere may be made more distinct. The function of the state is among the most momentous problems of the times; but this function can be distinctly brought out only when contrasted with the other social forces. In Russia the government aims to make society; in the United States society makes the government; in Russia the progress of voluntary association is a menace to the government; in the United States independent organizations may ignore the very existence of the government. Neither theoretically nor practically is there agreement respecting the limits of the state and its relation to voluntary associations.

The science of politics confines itself to the state, explaining its structure and functions, marking the peculiarity of its organization as distinguished from other societies, treating of the relations of the citizens to one another and to the state, and of the government to the governed, the constitution and laws, and all that belongs to the domain of national life. Some have questioned, as intimated above, whether the state ought to be included in Sociology or treated separately as outside of society. It is unquestionably a form of association, and therefore within the scope of Sociology; but it is only one of many social forms, and therefore political science cannot take the place of the science of society. The distinctive elements in the state, the peculiar authority it exercises, and the vast importance of the subject must receive full recognition. Its sphere is that of collective authority and coercion; the sphere of other societies is that of coöperation. Owing to the importance and extent of politics, it has become a special science. It is, however, a social science, which indicates its intimate relation to Sociology. The state of the people is society in a truer sense than when the state is treated as an abstraction, or as a power hovering over the people, to which unconditional submission is required. We can indeed distinguish between social and political, referring the latter to all that pertains to the state, and the former to society as distinct from the state; but reflection shows that political action is social action as organized in the form of collective authority. The state, whatever its particular form and whoever exercises the authority, is sovereignty. The functions and limits of the sovereignty are among the most important questions of the day.

The essence of the matter consists in the fact that in the individuals of a nation we abstract the political social factor from all other social factors. It thus becomes evident what the relation of Sociology to political science must be. It regards the state as social, and as therefore a part of the general social organism, determines its place and functions in that organism (correlates the state to the other social factors), but does not take the state by itself and develop the science of politics. This work, and all particulars about the state, it leaves to political science.

5. Political science and sociology. Giddings differentiates the fields of sociology and political science as follows: 1

In like manner, in political science as it has been written, there have been, since Aristotle's day, long prefatory accounts of the origins of human communities, usually mere elaborations of the patriarchal theory. But the greatest step forward that political science has made in recent years, has been its discovery that its province is not coextensive with the investigation of society, and that the lines of demarcation can be definitely drawn. In his important work on "Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law," Professor Burgess has not only sharply distinguished the government from the state, but for the first time in political philosophy he has clearly distinguished the state as it is organized in the constitution from the state behind the constitution. "A population speaking a common language and having ideas as to the fundamental principles of rights and wrongs, and resident upon a territory separated by high mountain ranges or broad bodies of water, or by climatic differences, from other territory," such is the state behind the constitution. It "presents us with the natural basis of a true and permanent political establishment." It is "the womb of constitutions and of revolutions." Political science studies the state within the constitution and shows how it expresses its will in acts of government. It inquires how' this state within the constitution is created and molded by the state behind the constitution, but beyond this political science proper does not go. The state behind the constitution, or natural society as we should otherwise call it, is for politics, as for political economy, a datum. The detailed study of its origins and evolution falls within the province of sociology. . .

How is it with the theory of the state? Political science, too, finds its premises in facts of human nature. The motive forces of political life, as of economic life, are the desires of men, but they are no longer merely individual desires, and they are no longer desires for satisfactions that must come for the most part in material forms. They are desires

1 Copyright, 1896, by Macmillan and Company.