Archists, Anarchists and Egoists

by Sidney Parker
"I am an anarchist! Wherefore I will not rule And also ruled I will not be." -- John Henry Mackay "What I get by force I get by force, and what I do not get by force I have no right to." -- Max Stirner In his book MAX STIRNER'S EGOISM John P. Clark claims that Stirner is an anarchist, but that his anarchism is "greatly inadequate". This is because "he opposes domination of the ego by the State, but he advises people to seek to dominate others in any other way they can manage...Stirner, for all his opposition to the State...still exalts the will to dominate." Clark's criticism springs from his definition of anarchism as opposition to "domination" in all its forms "not only domination of subjects by political rulers, but domination of races by other races, of females by males, of the young by the old, of the weak by the strong, and not least of all, the domination of nature by humans." In view of the comprehensiveness of his definition it is odd that Clark still sees Stirner's philosophy as a type of anarchism - albeit a "greatly inadequate" one. He is quite correct in stating that the leitmotif of theoretical anarchism is opposition to domination and that, despite his anti-Statist sentiments, Stirner has no principled objection to domination. Indeed, he writes "I know that my freedom is diminished even by my not being able to carry out my will on another object, be this something without will, like a government, an individual etc." Is conscious egoism, therefore, compatible with anarchism? There is no doubt that it is possible to formulate a concept of anarchism that is ostensibly egoistic. For many years I tried to do this and I know of several individuals who still claim to be anarchists because they are egoists. The problem, however, is that anarchism as a theory of nondomination demands that individuals refrain from dominating others even if they could gain greater satisfaction from dominating than from not dominating. To allow domination would be to deny anarchism. In other words, the "freedom" of the anarchist is yet another yoke placed around the neck of the individual in the name of yet another conceptual imperative. The question was answered at some length by Dora Marsden in two essays that appeared in her review for THE EGOIST September 12, 1914 and February 1, 1915. The first was entitled THE ILLUSION OF ANARCHISM; the second SOME CRITICS ANSWERED. Some months before the appearance of her first essay on anarchism Marsden had been engaged in a controversy with the redoubtable Benjamin Tucker in which she had defended what she called "egoist anarchism" against what she saw as the "clerico-libertarianism" of Tucker. At the premature end of the controversy Tucker denounced her as an

"egoist and archist," to which she rep+lied that she was quite willing to "not - according to Mr Tucker - be called 'Anarchist'" but responded readily to "Egoist". In the interval between the end of the controversy and the publication of her first essay she had evidently given considerable thought to the relation of egoism to anarchism and had decided that the latter was something in which she could no longer believe. The gist of her new position was as follows: Every form of life is archistic. "An archist is one who seeks to establish, maintain, and protect by the strongest weapons at his disposal, the law of his own interest." All growing life-forms are aggressive: "aggressive is what growing means. Each fights for its own place, and to enlarge it, and enlarging it is a growth. And because life-forms are gregarious there are myriads of claims to lay exclusive hold on any place. The claimants are myriad: bird, beast, plant, insect, vermin - each will assert its sole claim to any place as long as it is permitted: as witness the pugnacity of gnat, weed, and flea, the scant ceremony of the housewife's broom, the axe which makes a clearing, the scythe, the fisherman's net, the slaughter- house bludgeon: all assertions of aggressive interest promptly countered by more powerful interests! The world falls to him who can take it, if instinctive action can tell us anything." It is this aggressive 'territoriality' that motivates domination. "The living unit is an organism of embodied wants; and a want is a term which indicates an apprehension of the existence of barriers - conditions easy or hard - which lie between the 'setting onwards' and the 'arrival', i.e. the satisfaction. Thus every want has two sides, obverse and reverse, of which the one would read the 'not yet dominated', and the other 'progressive domination'. The two sides grow at the expense of each other. The co-existence of the consciousness of a lacking satisfaction, with the corresponding and inevitable 'instinct to dominate', that which prolongs the lack, are features which characterize 'life'. Bridging the interval between the want and its satisfaction is the exercising of the 'instinct to dominate' - obstructing conditions. The distinction between the lifeless and the living is comprised under an inability to be other than a victim to conditions. That of which the latter can be said, possesses life; that of which the former, is inanimate. It is to this doministic instinct to which we have applied the label archistic." Of course, this exercising of the doministic instinct does not result in every life-form becoming dominant. Power being naturally unequal the struggle for predominance usually settles down into a condition in which the less powerful end up being dominated by the more powerful. Indeed, many of the less powerful satisfy the instinct to dominate by identifying themselves with those who actually do dominate: "the great lord can always count on having doorkeepers in abundance." Marsden argues that anarchists are among those who, like Christians, seek to muzzle the doministic tendency by urging us to renounce our desires to dominate. Their purpose "is to make men willing to assert that though they are born and inclined archists they ought to be anarchists." Faced with "this colossal encounter of interest, i.e. of lives... the anarchist breaks in with his 'Thus far and no further'" and "introduces his 'law' of 'the inviolability of individual liberty'." The anarchist is thus a principled embargoist who sees in domination the evil of evils. "'It is the first article of my faith that archistic encroachments upon the 'free' activity of Men are not compatible with the respect due to the dignity of Man as Man. The ideal of Humanity forbids the domination of one man by his fellows'....This humanitarian embargo is an Absolute: a procedure of which the observance is Good-in-itself. The government of Man by Man is wrong: the respect of an embargo constitutes Right." The irony is, that in the process of seeking to establish this condition of non-domination called anarchy, the anarchist would be compelled to turn to a sanction that is but another form of domination. In the theoretical society of the anarchist they would have to resort to the intra-individual domination of conscience in order to prevent the inter-

individual domination that characterizes political government. In the end, therefore, anarchism boils down to a species of "clerico-libertarianism" and is the gloss covering the wishes of "a unit possessed of the instinct to dominate - even his fellow-men." Not only this, but faced with the practical problems of achieving the "Free Society", the anarchist fantasy would melt away before the realities of power. "'The State is fallen, long live the State' - the furthest going revolutionary anarchist cannot get away from this. On the morrow of his successful revolution he would need to set about finding means to protect his 'anarchistic' notions: and would find himself protecting his own interests with all the powers he could command, like an archist: formulating his laws and maintaining his State, until some franker archist arrived to displace and supersede him." Nonetheless, having abandoned anarchism Marsden has no intention of returning to an acceptance of the authority of the State and its laws for this would be to confuse "an attitude which refused to hold laws and interests sacred (i.e. whole unquestioned, untouched) and that which refuses to respect the existence of forces, of which Laws are merely the outward visible index. It is a very general error, but the anarchist is especially the victim of it: the greater intelligence of the archist will understand that though laws considered as sacred are foolishness, respect for any and every law is due for just the amount of retaliatory force there may be involved in it, if it be flouted. Respect for 'sanctity' and respect for 'power' stand at opposite poles, the respecter of the one is the verbalist, of the other - the archist: the egoist." I agree with Dora Marsden. Anarchism is a redemptionist secular religion concerned to purge the world of the sin of political govern- ment. Its adherents envisage a "free society" in which all archistic acts are forbidden. Cleansed of the evil of domination "mankind" will live, so they say, in freedom and harmony and our present "oppressions" will be confined to the pages of history books. When, therefore, Marsden writes that "anarchists are not separated in any way from kinship with the devout. They belong to the Christian Church and should be recognized as Christianity's picked children" she is not being merely frivolous. Anarchism is a theory of an ideal society - whether communist, mutualist, or individualist, matters little in this respect - of necessity must demand renunciation of domination both in means and ends. That in practice it would necessitate another form of domination for its operation is a contradiction not unknown in other religions - which in no way alter their essence. The conscious egoist, in contrast, is not bound by any demand for renunciation of domination and if it is within his competence he will dominate others if this is in his interest. That anarchism and egoism are not equivalent is admitted, albeit unwillingly, by the well-known American anarchist John Beverley Robinson - who depicted an anarchist society in the most lachrymous terms in his REBUILDING THE WORLD - in his succinct essay EGOISM. Throwing anarchist principles overboard he writes of the egoist that "if the State does things that benefit him, he will support it; if it attacks him and encroaches on his liberty, he will evade it by any means in his power, if he is not strong enough to withstand it." Again, "if the law happens to be to his advantage, he will avail himself of it; if it invades his liberty he will transgress it as far as he thinks it wise to do so. But he has no regard for it as a thing supernal." Robinson thus denies the validity of the anarchist principle of non-domination, since the existence of the State and its laws necessitates the existence of a permanent apparatus of repression. If I make use of them for my advantage, then I invoke their repressive power against anyone who stands opposed to what I want. In other words, I make use of an archistic action to gain my end. Egoism, conscious egoism, seen for what it is instead of being pressed into the service of a utopian ideology, has

nothing to do with what Marsden well-called "clerico-libertarianism". It means, as she put it in her controversy with Tucker, "....a tub for Diogenes; a continent for Napoleon; control of a Trust for Rockefeller; all that I desire for me: if we can get them." It is not based upon any fantasy for its champions are well aware of the vital difference between "if I want something I ought to get it" and "being competent to achieve what I want". The egoist lives among the realities of power in the world of archists, not among the myths of the renouncers in the dream world of anarchists.

The Egoism of Max Stirner

by Sidney Parker (The following extracts are taken from my booklet entitled THE EGOISM OF MAX STIRNER: SOME CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES to be published by the Mackay Society of New York) Albert Camus Camus devotes a section of THE REBEL to Stirner. Despite a fairly accurate summarization of some of Stirner's ideas he nonetheless consigns him to dwelling in a desert of isolation and negation "drunk with destruction". Camus accuses Stirner of going "as far as he can in blasphemy" as if in some strange way an atheist like Stirner can "blaspheme" against something he does not believe in. He proclaims that Stirner is "intoxicated" with the "perspective" of "justifying" crime without mentioning that Stirner carefully distinguishes between the ordinary criminal and the "criminal" as violator of the "sacred". He brands Stirner as the direct ancestor of "terrorist anarchy" when in fact Stirner regards political terrorists as acting under the possession of a "spook". He furthermore misquotes Stirner by asserting that he "specifies" in relation to other human beings "kill them, do not martyr them" when in fact he writes "I can kill them, not torture them" - and this in relation to the moralist who both kills and tortures to serve the "concept of the 'good'". Although throughout his book Camus is concerned to present "the rebel" as a preferred alternative to "the revolutionary" he nowhere acknowledges that this distinction is taken from the one that Stirner makes between "the revolutionary" and "the insurrectionist". That this should occur in a work whose purpose is a somewhat frantic attempt at rehabilitating "ethics" well illustrates Stirner's ironic statement that "the hard fist of morality treats the noble nature of egoism altogether without compassion." Eugene Fleischmann Academic treatment of Stirner is often obfuscating even when it is not downright hostile. A marked contrast is Fleischmann's essay STIRNER, MARX AND HEGEL which is included in the symposium HEGEL'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. Clearly preferring Stirner to Marx, Fleischmann presents a straightforward account of his ideas unencumbered by "psychiatric" interpretations and _ad_hominem_ arguments. He correctly points out that the "human self" signifies for Stirner "the individual in all his indefinable, empirical concreteness. The word 'unique' [einzig] means for Stirner man as he is in his irreducible individuality, always different from his fellows, and always thrown back on himself in his dealings with them. Thus, when he talks of 'egoism' as the ultimate definition os the human 'essence' it is not at all a question of a moral category . . . . but of a simple existential fact."

Fleischmann contends that "Marx and Engels' critique of Stirner is notoriously misleading. It is not just that ridicule of a man's person is not equivalent to refutation of his ideas, for the reader is also aware that the authors are not reacting at all to the problems raised by their adversary." Stirner is not simply "just another doctrinaire ideologue". His "reality is the world of his immediate experience" and he wants "to come into his own power now, not after some remote and hypothetical 'proletarian revolution'. Marx and Engels had nothing to offer the individual in the present: Stirner has." In his conclusion Fleischmann states that Stirner's view that the individual "must find his entire satisfaction in his own life" is a reversion "to the resigned attitude of a simple mortal". This is not a serious criticism. If I cannot find satisfaction in my own life, where can I find it? Even if it is my satisfaction that I experience, any satisfaction that the other may have being something that he or she experiences - not me. If this constitutes being a "simple mortal" then so be it, but that it is a "resigned attitude" is another matter. Benedict Lachmann and Herbert Stourzh Lachmann's and Stourzh's TWO ESSAYS ON EGOISM provide a stimulating and instructive introduction to Stirner's ideas. Although both authors give a good summary of his egoism they differ sufficiently in their approach to allow the reader to enjoy adjudicating between them. Lachmann's essay PROTAGORAS - NIETZSCHE - STIRNER traces the development of relativist thinking as exemplified in the three philosophers of its title. Protagoras is the originator of relativism with his dictum "Man (the individual) is the measure of all things". This in turn is taken up by Stirner and Nietzsche. Of the two, however, Stirner is by far the most consistent and for this reason Lachmann places him after Nietzsche in his account. For him Stirner surpasses Nietzsche by bringing Protagorean relativism to its logical conclusion in conscious egoism - the fulfilment of one's own will. In fact, he views Nietzsche as markedly inferior to Stirner both in respect to his style and the clarity of his thinking. "In contrast to Nietzsche's work," he writes, THE EGO AND ITS OWN "is written in a clear, precise form and language, though it avoids the pitfalls of a dry academic style. Its sharpness, clarity and passion make the book truly shattering and overwhelming." Unlike Nietzsche's, Stirner's philosophy does not lead to the replacement of one religious "spook" by another, the substitution of the "Superman" for the Christian "God". On the contrary, it makes "the individual's interests the centre of the world." Intelligent, lucid and well-conceived, Lachmann's essay throws new light on Stirner's ideas. Its companion essay, Stourzh's MAX STIRNER'S PHILOSOPHY OF THE EGO is evidently the work of a theist, but it is nonetheless sympathetic to Stirnerian egoism. Stourzh states that one of his aims in writing it "is beyond the categories of master and slave to foster an intellectual and spiritual stand-point different from the stand-point prescribed by the prophets of mass thinking, the dogmatists of socialism, who conceive of the individual only as an insignificant part of the whole, as a number or mere addenda of the group." Stourzh draws a valuable distinction between the "imperative" approach of the moralist and the "indicative" approach of Stirner towards human behaviour. He also gives an informative outline of the critical reaction to Stirner of such philosophers as Ludwig Feuerbach, Kuno Fischer and Eduard von Hartman. Stourzh mars his interpretation,

however, by making the nonsensical claim that Stirner's egoism "need in no sense mean the destruction of the divine mystery itself." And in line with his desire to preserve the "sacredness" of this "divine mystery" he at times patently seeks to "sweeten" Stirner by avoiding certain of his most challenging remarks. References: Camus, Albert: THE REBEL: AN ESSAY ON MAN IN REVOLT. Knopf, New York. 1961 Fleischmann, Eugene: THE ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN PRE-REVOLUTIONARY SOCIETY: STIRNER, MARX AND HEGEL in HEGEL'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. Cambridge University Press, London. 1971 Lachmann, Benedict and Stourzh, Herbert: TWO ESSAYS ON EGOISM. To be published by The Mackay Society, New York.

On Revisiting "Saint Max"

by Sidney Parker Increasing academic attention to the philosophy of Max Stirner has not meant any greater accuracy in interpretation. A case in point is an essay by Kathy E. Ferguson which appeared in a recent issue of the philosophical review IDEALISTIC STUDIES [1] entitled "Saint Max revisited". Ms Ferguson makes some perceptive remarks. She writes of Stirner's view of the self as being "not a substantive thing .... but rather a process" which cannot be confined within any net of concepts or categorical imperatives. It is "an unbroken unity of temporal experience that is ontologically prior to any essence later attributed to [it] .... or any role, function or belief that [it] .... might embrace." Stirner, she says, calls "the irreducible, temporal, concrete individual self .... the Unique One; the Unique One is both nothing, in the sense of having no predicate affixed to it as a defining essence, and everything, in that it is the source of the creative power which endows the whole of reality with meaning." More's the pity then that these suggestive insights are followed by a whole series of misinterpretations os Stirner's ideas. Some of these have their origin in that hoary old spook "the human community as a whole", others in what appears to be a sheer inability to grasp what Stirner's egoism is about. Here are a few examples. Ferguson considers that Stirner was an anarchist. As evidence for this belief she cites John Carroll's "Break Out From The Crystal Palace" and John P. Clark's "Max Stirner's Egoism". Carroll's conception of an anarchist, however, embraces not only Stirner but also Nietzsche (who called anarchists "decadents" and blood-suckers) and Dostoyevsky, although he admits that the latter's anarchism is "equivocal". As for Clark, he certainly regards Stirner as an anarchist and claims that Stirner's "ideal society is the union of egoists, in which peaceful egoistic competition would replace the state and society" (a piece of doubtful extrapolation). However, he does not appear to be very convinced by his own claim for he comments that "Stirner's position is a form of anarchism; yet a greatly inadequate form" because "he opposes domination of the ego by the

state, but advises people to seek to dominate others in any other way they can manage. Ultimately, might makes right." Since Clark defines anarchism as being opposed to all domination of man by man (not to mention the domination of "nature" by human beings) it is clear that Stirner's "anarchism" is not "greatly inadequate" but, given his own definition, not anarchism at all. It can be seen, therefore, that Ferguson's effort to include Stirner in the anarchist tradition is not very plausible. Stirner did not claim to be an anarchist. Indeed, the one anarchist theoretician with whose writings he was familiar, Proudhon, is one of his favourite critical targets. Undoubtedly, there are some parallels between certain of Stirner's views and those of the anarchists, but, as I discovered after many years of trying to make the two fit, in the last analysis they do not and cannot. Anarchism is basically a theory of renunciation like Christianity: domination is evil and for "true" relations between individuals to prevail such a sin must not be committed. Stirner's philosophy has nothing against domination of another if that is within my power and in my interest. There are no "sacred principles" in conscious egoism - not even anarchist ones .... Ferguson also falls victim to a common mistake made by commentators on Stirner: that of confusing the account he gives of ideas he is opposing with his own views. She writes that Stirner "speaks with great disdain of .... commodity relations" and gives as an example a passage in THE EGO AND HIS OWN containing the words "the poor man needs the rich, the rich the poor .... So no one needs another as a person, but needs him as a giver." What she ignores is that this passage occurs in a chapter in which Stirner is describing the socialist case before subjecting it to his piercing criticism. It is not possible, therefore, to deduce from this passage that it reflects his "disdain" for "commodity relations", any more than it is possible to deduce from his poetic description of the argument from design that he believes in a god. Ferguson claims that Stirner does not recognize the "sociality" of human being and that "anthropologically and psychologically, it must be acknowledged that human being are born into groups." But Stirner quite clearly does acknowledge this fact. "Not isolation", he writes, "or being alone, but society is man's original state .... Society is our state of nature." To become one's own it is necessary to dissolve this original state of society, as the child does when it prefers the company of its playmates to its former "intimate conjunction" with its mother. It is not, as Ferguson contends, "our connection with others" that "provides us with our initial self-definition", but our awareness of contrast to them, our consciousness of being separate individuals. In other words, "self-definition" is a product of individuation, not socialization. Nor is Stirner an advocate of "the solitary" as she implies. Both in THE EGO AND HIS OWN and his REPLY TO CRITICS he rejects such an interpretation of his ideas. Nor is he a moralist - he is an amoralist. Presenting as evidence for his belief in "moral choice" an erroneous statement by John Carroll will not do. Nor does he reject "all socially (sic) acquired knowledge" if by that is meant "culture" (acquired by individuals, not by "society"). On the contrary, he states "I receive with thanks what the centuries of culture have acquired for me." Ferguson questions why the conscious egoist should not "wish to be free" from ownness. Why not "take a leap of faith into something like Christianity as did St Augustine or Kierkegaard?" Precisely because ownness is the condition for what she calls "the ontology of the self as process" - that is, ownness is me possessing me. Were I to abandon it by committing myself to the nonsense of Christianity, this would not be my self, but a "redeemed self" shaped according to an image prescribed by others. In her concluding remark Ferguson backs away from the challenge of Stirner's egoism. "Ownness is not a sufficient base for human life," she claims, because "authentic individual life requires that we have ties to others." She admits

that such ties can become stifling and that Stirner sees this danger, but contends that "he does not see the necessity or possibility of a liberating sociality." She thus ends up indulging in that half-this and half-that waffle that Stirner so unerringly dissected 140 years ago. Once one begins to think in terms of "authentic individual life" then that "authenticity" has to be distinguished from that "inauthentic". Once it is defined one is once again subjected to that "rule of concepts" that Stirner is so "startling acute" in rejecting. "Liberating sociality" based upon "authenticity" is simply a verbalism disguising the intent on deciding our lives for us. It is a philosophical confidence trick for which no conscious egoist will fall. [1] Vol XII, No. 3, 1982

New audio recording of individualist classic -Max Stirner, whose radical defense of liberty provoked a 300-page outburst from Karl Marx THE EGO AND HIS OWN: The Case of the Individual Against Authority by Max Stirner, translated by Steven Byington, read by Jeff Riggenbach, introduction by James S. Martin (reviewed by Jim Powell)
Few Americans seem to know much about the great German individualist Johann Caspar Schmidt (1806-1856), who wrote under the pseudonym Max Stirner, in part because his work is almost impossible to find here. Stirner taught history, wrote essays about education, translated works by Adam Smith and J.B. Say into German and produced this radical case for individualism. First published in 1845, The Ego and His Own isn't elegantly written like John Stuart Mill's famous On Liberty, but Stirner based his case on bedrock principle. Whereas Mill urged that individuality should be tolerated because of potential usefulness -- you never know who will contribute to society -- Stirner insisted that individuals have rights because they are human beings, regardless what they might contribute. He attacked any doctrine which subordinates individuals to a powerful authority. "Every State is a despotism, be the despot one or many," he declared. Stirner's opponents dismissed his views as selfishness, but he observed that individualism is hated because it makes individuals sovereign and seeks strict limits on government power: "The own will of Me is the State's destroyer; it is therefore branded by the State as 'self will.'" Stirner displayed awesome insight when he attacked communism, then in its infancy: "loudly as it always attacks the 'State', what it intends is itself again a State ... a sovereign power over me." Well, Karl Marx recognized that individualism, especially an uncompromising free spirit like Stirner, was an archenemy of his frenzied collectivism. Within a year after The Ego and His Own appeared, Marx wrote The German Ideology, 300 pages of vicious bombast aimed mainly at Stirner. It's hard to imagine a more impressive compliment for a friend of freedom. Stirner's master work is still hard to find, but Laissez Faire Books arranged for this thoughtful reading of the

complete text by noted national broadcaster Jeff Riggenbach. He displays a firm, pleasing command of Stirner's provocative ideas. In a vinyl binder. LI6170 (10 audiotapes, 14.5 hours) $49.95

Translator's Preface TO THE ENGLISH EDITIONS OF 'THE EGO AND HIS OWN', MAX STIRNER
If the style of this book is found unattractive, it will show that I have done my work ill and not represented the author truly; but, if it is found odd, I beg that I may not bear all the blame. I have simply tried to reproduce the author's own mixture of colloquialisms and technicalities, and his preference for the precise expression of his thought rather than the word conventionally expected. One especial feature of the style, however, gives the reason why this preface should exist. It is characteristic of Stirner's writing that the thread of thought is carried on largely by the repetition of the same word in a modified form or sense. That connection of ideas which has guided popular instinct in the formation of words is made to suggest the line of thought which the writer wishes to follow. If this echoing of words is missed, the bearing of the statements on each other is in a measure lost; and, where the ideas are very new, one cannot afford to throw away any help in following their connection.Therefore, where a useful echo (and then are few useless ones in the book) could not be reproduced in English, I have generally called attention to it in a note. My notes are distinguished from the author's by being enclosed in parentheses. One or two of such coincidences of language, occurring in words which are prominent throughout the book, should be borne constantly in mind as a sort of Keri perpetuum; for instance, the identity in the original of the words "spirit" and "mind," and of the phrases "supreme being" and "highest essence." In such cases I have repeated the note where it seemed that such repetition might be absolutely necessary, but have trusted the reader to carry it in his head where a failure of his memory would not be ruinous or likely. For the same reasonQthat is, in order not to miss any indication of the drift of the thought Q I have followed the original in the very liberal use of italics, and in the occasional eccentric use of a punctuation mark, as I might not have done in translating a work of a different nature. I have set my face as a flint against the temptation to add notes that were not part of the translation. There is no telling how much I might have enlarged the book if I had put a note at every sentence which deserved to have its truth brought out by fuller elucidation Q or even at every one which I thought needed correction. It might have been within my province, if I had been able, to explain all the allusions to contemporary events, but I doubt whether any one could do that properly without having access to the files of three or four well-chosen German newspapers of Stirner's time. The allusions are clear enough, without names and dates, to give a vivid picture of certain aspects of German life then. The tone of some of them is explained by the fact that the book was published under censorship.

I have usually preferred, for the sake of the connection, to translate Biblical quotations somewhat as they stand in the German, rather than conform them altogether to the English Bible. I am sometimes quite as near the original Greek as if I had followed the current translation. Where German books are referred to, the pages cited are those of the German editions even when (usually because of some allusions in the text) the titles of the books are translated. STEVEN T. BYINGTON