ventive means, is, on the
contrary, an incentive, etc.

These ideas, in evident disagreement with the inductions of biology and
of criminal psychology and sociology--as I have elsewhere
demonstrated--nevertheless did not prevent harmony among the positivists
of the new school. In fact, these personal and antiquated conceptions of
M. Garofalo passed almost unnoticed. His action was especially notable
by reason of the greater importance and development he gave to the
purely juridical inductions of the new school, which he systematized
into a plan of reforms in criminal law and procedure. He was the jurist
of the new school, M. Lombroso was the anthropologist, and I the
sociologist.

But while in Lombroso and myself the progressive and heterodox
tendency--extending even to socialism--became more and more marked, it
could already be foreseen that in M. Garofalo the orthodox and
reactionary tendencies would prevail, thus leading us away from that
common ground on which we have fought side by side, and might still so
fight. For I do not believe that these disagreements concerning the
social future must necessarily prevent our agreement on the more limited
field of the present diagnosis of a phenomenon of social pathology.

* * * * *

After the explanation of this personal matter, we must now examine the
contents of this "_Superstition socialiste_," in order to see, in this
schism of the scientific criminologists, which side has followed most
systematically the method of experimental science, and traced with the
most rigorous exactness the trajectory of human evolution.

We must see who is the more scientific, he who in carrying the
experimental science beyond the narrow confines of criminal anthropology
and applying it in the broad field of social science, accepts all the
logical consequences of scientific observations and gives his open
adherence to Marxian socialism--or he who while being a positivist and
innovator in one special branch of science, remains a conservative in
the other branches, to which he refuses to apply the positive method,
and which he does not study with a critical spirit, but in which he
contents himself with the easy and superficial repetition of trite
commonplaces.

To those familiar with the former work of the author, this book, from
the first page to the last, presents a striking contrast between M.
Garofalo, the heterodox criminologist ever ready to criticize