available supply of natural resources; and the existing technique had adapted itself to both. In fact so harmoniously did the three fit together that the craft technique was just adequate to supply the customary wants of a slowly increasing population by making use of the whole of the available natural resources. In view of its adequacy, this technique, almost perfect, was in little danger of being replaced.

However, the gradual revelation of the natural resources of the New World, or the "economic discovery of America," created an acute technical problem, whose solution promised alike individual fortune and social prosperity. Its significance lies in the fact that it disturbed the happy harmony between population, technique, and natural resources. Resources were all of a sudden tremendously increased. Being potential wealth, they promised fortune to him who could turn them into finished commodities. The craft technique, however, was incapable of handling so large an order. At best, it could but leave large quantities of resources untouched. Yet the almost infinite expansibility of human wants, particularly in view of the inability of population mechanically to assume a given size, demanded that the largest possible quantity of raw material be converted into usable goods. Consequently the problem of finding a new and adequate technique became one of increasing social importance during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In terms of an instinctive and semi-conscious struggle to solve this problem much of the intellectual history of these centuries becomes intelligible.

Properly speaking, the problem included two closely related problems, that of technique proper, and that of industrial organization. The first of these presented grave difficulties. The craft technique could, of course, suggest, and parts of it could even be taken over. But, for all that, its development was complete; its primary basis was individual skill; and certainly in view of its present high development, it was impossible to establish a more adequate technique by a further development of human dexterity. Furthermore, the development of skill pointed to delicacy, quality, refinement. Since these were not what was wanted, the new technique had to start from new beginnings. Its demands were cruder than those made upon the older system. Its problem was to find a means of handling immense quantities of raw material in the rough, and of turning out large quantities of crude products. It involved, too, handling these masses rapidly, which necessitated finding a source of power other than human labor. The first requirement imposed the necessity of the exact handling of materials; the second involved devising a scheme for throwing the burden of the work upon nature. The first imposed

an understanding of the laws of quantity; this made necessary the development of mathematics, and rendered it a basic science of the new technique. The second rendered imperative a study of the phenomena of expansion, heat, motion, etc.; this necessitated the further development of the science of physics, or natural philosophy, and prescribed it as antecedent to technique. How diligently and successfully these preliminary studies were made, the histories of mathematics and of physics in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries abundantly attest. It is significant that chemistry and biology, which were not needed for the new technique which found expression in the Industrial Revolution, did not receive their significant development until later. How closely developments in physics and mathematics were related to the general social movement is evidenced by the expression of rationalism and empiricism in the philosophy of these centuries, culminating in the naturalistic philosophy of the later eighteenth century. It is of note, too, that many of the philosophers of the period were deeply interested in mathematics, several making notable contributions to the subject. These sciences had to do the basic work, before significant technical development could occur. Technology had to bide its time.

For a time the development of industrial organization distanced that of pure technique. Gradually England built up a foreign trade for its finished commodities. This was greatly increased by the over-seas demand. In proper economic order the larger market led to an increase in the size of the industrial establishment, and the latter, to a thorough reorganization. The object of this was to subdivide tasks, and thus to reap the advantage of increased individual efficiency due to a more minute specialization of labor. The expected advantage of a decrease in costs was realized. Further it has an ulterior, and perhaps more permanent, effect in supplying the last condition necessary to the appearance of the new technique. Specialization is nothing else than the breaking up of a production operation into its elements: it is a differentiation of productive acts, the isolation of a unit of the process. It tends to make the work of the laborer the monotonous repetition of a single routine act. The task, consequently, assumes just the form in which it can better be done by some mechanical contrivance, that repeats the single necessary motion, than by a laborer. It was in just this way that factory reorganization constantly threw off new isolated tasks and visualized the need of the machine. How important this is as a necessary antecedent of the machine is indicated by the use of the term Industrial Revolution as synonymous with factory reorganization by a recent writer, who contends that the machine was not the cause, but the result, of the Industrial Revolution.

The very introduction of the machine led to a tendency toward the extension of its use. Four aspects of this tendency are noteworthy. First, the introduction of machines in industrial establishments is followed by a lack of harmony between the machine-work and the auxiliary craft-work in the establishment. /Secondly, there is a like incompatibility between the machine-operations carried on in an industrial establishment and the craft-operations which are antecedent or subsequent to it in the industrial process. Friction in such cases leads to an extension of the machine system to complementary activities within or without the factory. Thirdly, complete harmony, as Marx has pointed out, requires the application of the machine method to the making of machines. And, fourthly, the application of machinery to transportation demands, for anything more than its most meager use, a thoroughgoing localization of industry and a great enlargement of the market for particular commodities.

In these subsequent developments industrial organization and the machine technique have evidenced a constant interdependence. [An enlargement of the market increases the size of the factory; this leads to a further specialization in industrial acts; in this certain parts of the larger process are isolated and are taken over by machines; this leads to a decrease in costs and to a lower price for the goods; and this leads to an enlargement of the market and to a repetition of the cycle. One point as well as another marks the beginning of this endless round; logically there is no absolute cause and no absolute effect. But we must remember that as the cycle tends again and again to run its course, its convolutions become narrower; for even such a magical sequence is itself subject to the law of diminishing returns. Just as, if we attempt to find the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we get lost in a complicated past; so, if we look for its end, we lose ourselves in industrial change whose completion is not as yet.

Great as the change in technique has been, the conquest of the machine has by no means been complete. To call the present system the machine system is to overlook the great fields which the machine has failed to subdue. In practically all agriculture the larger part of production is still under the control of the craft; some agrarian work the machine has hardly touched. Professional and clerical work, as well as a large part of commercial work, knows as yet little of the machine. In country towns and small cities the crafts still survive. Even in the larger industrial centres the small establishment and handwork loom much larger in total than at first would appear. And even in the largest and best organized industrial establishments large oases, as it were, of the older system are left. It is perhaps

4

an understanding of the laws of quantity; this made necessary the development of mathematics, and rendered it a basic science of the new technique. The second rendered imperative a study of the phenomena of expansion, heat, motion, etc.; this necessitated the further development of the science of physics, or natural philosophy, and prescribed it as antecedent to technique. How diligently and successfully these preliminary studies were made, the histories of mathematics and of physics in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries abundantly attest. It is significant that chemistry and biology, which were not needed for the new technique which found expression in the Industrial Revolution, did not receive their significant development until later. How closely developments in physics and mathematics were related to the general social movement is evidenced by the expression of rationalism and empiricism in the philosophy of these centuries, culminating in the naturalistic philosophy of the later eighteenth century. It is of note, too, that many of the philosophers of the period were deeply interested in mathematics, several making notable contributions to the subject. These sciences had to do the basic work, before significant technical development could occur. Technology had to bide its time.

For a time the development of industrial organization distanced that of pure technique. Gradually England built up a foreign trade for its finished commodities. This was greatly increased by the over-seas demand. In proper economic order the larger market led to an increase in the size of the industrial establishment, and the latter, to a thorough reorganization. The object of this was to subdivide tasks, and thus to reap the advantage of increased individual efficiency due to a more minute specialization of labor. The expected advantage of a decrease in costs was realized. Further it has an ulterior, and perhaps more permanent, effect in supplying the last condition necessary to the appearance of the new technique. Specialization is nothing else than the breaking up of a production operation into its elements: it is a differentiation of productive acts, the isolation of a unit of the process. It tends to make the work of the laborer the monotonous repetition of a single routine act. The task, consequently, assumes just the form in which it can better be done by some mechanical contrivance, that repeats the single necessary motion, than by a laborer. It was in just this way that factory reorganization constantly threw off new isolated tasks and visualized the need of the machine. How important this is as a necessary antecedent of the machine is indicated by the use of the term Industrial Revolution as synonymous with factory reorganization by a recent writer, who contends that the machine was not the cause, but the result, of the Industrial Revolution.

The very introduction of the machine led to a tendency toward the extension of its use. Four aspects of this tendency are noteworthy. First, the introduction of machines in industrial establishments is followed by a lack of harmony between the machine-work and the auxiliary craft-work in the establishment. Secondly, there is a like incompatibility between the machine-operations carried on in an industrial establishment and the craft-operations which are antecedent or subsequent to it in the industrial process. Friction in such cases leads to an extension of the machine system to complementary activities within or without the factory. Thirdly, complete harmony, as Marx has pointed out, requires the application of the machine method to the making of machines. And, fourthly, the application of machinery to transportation demands, for anything more than its most meager use, a thoroughgoing localization of industry and a great enlargement of the market for particular commodities.

In these subsequent developments industrial organization and the machine technique have evidenced a constant interdependence. [An enlargement of the market increases the size of the factory; this leads to a further specialization in industrial acts; in this certain parts of the larger process are isolated and are taken over by ma· chines; this leads to a decrease in costs and to a lower price for the goods; and this leads to an enlargement of the market and to a repetition of the cycle. One point as well as another marks the beginning of this endless round; logically there is no absolute cause and no absolute effect. But we must remember that as the cycle tends again and again to run its course, its convolutions become narrower; for even such a magical sequence is itself subject to the law of diminishing returns. Just as, if we attempt to find the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we get lost in a complicated past; so, if we look for its end, we lose ourselves in industrial change whose completion is not as yet.

Great as the change in technique has been, the conquest of the machine has by no means been complete. To call the present system the machine system is to overlook the great fields which the machine has failed to subdue. In practically all agriculture the larger part of production is still under the control of the craft; some agrarian work the machine has hardly touched. Professional and clerical work, as well as a large part of commercial work, knows as yet little of the machine. In country towns and small cities the crafts still survive. Even in the larger industrial centres the small establishment and handwork loom much larger in total than at first would appear. And even in the largest and best organized industrial establishments large oases, as it were, of the older system are left. It is perhaps