Search

Focuses on the authorship and dating of the memorandum "For the Understanding of the Exchange." The most telling argument against attributing the memorandum to the author Thomas Gresham is that its whole line of thought runs counter to Gresham's point of view. The treatise argues that the only "naturall exchaunge" is at mint par, making allowances for costs. The Huntington copy of the memorandum apparently contains more material than other copies. The two introductory pages are from a different quire of paper than the rest of the manuscript and bear a different watermark. Furthermore, numbering of the pages begins after the first two pages. The memorandum is full of anachronisms which throw doubt on any effort to infer a specific date between 1553 and 1576. The most glaring is the use of a balance-of-payments account for the year 1354 in a paper written two hundred or more years later. But of all the people who might have written the memorandum, Richard Martin is the only one to be firmly connected with it by documentary evidence of any significance. To sum up, even if the memorandum is not actually by Gresham, it incorporates most of his ideas and suggestions.

This article focuses on the broad objective of publishing "European Journal of Social Psychology," while there were so many journals dedicated to this particular field of social psychology. It reveals that since long European social psychologists remained largely ignorant of what their colleagues in other parts of Europe were doing. This led to the idea of a journal which would serve the needs of all social psychologists in Europe by providing them with a common forum. It informs that the contents including articles, reporting empirical research, theoretical papers and articles on methodology, contributions by authors from related fields, dealing with social psychological topics, and review articles are welcomed.

The article presents the farewell of H. Füchtbauer as editor-in-chief of the "Sedimentology" journal. He expresses gratitude for the efficient and devoted efforts of his co-editors. He is transferring his responsibility to Kenneth J. Hsü. He points out that the mean period from the submission of a manuscript to its appearance in the journal has been 9.7 months.

The article provides an overview of the topics discussed in the journal about governmental programs and their relationships to the structure and functions of the family in the U.S. Each article gives serious attention to current government programs and their historical antecedents, philosophies of the programs and issues in their development and direction, impact of changes in family life on the programs, and impact of the programs on family life. Each author selected the topic he considered the most significant legislation in a specific area and the issues which he considered important and relevant.

The article presents information about authorship. The authors describe the development and application of Bayesian methods to the historical conflict about the authorship of twelve of the seventy-seven Federalist papers. These papers were written using the pseudonym "Publius" in 1787-1788 by writers Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison in an attempt to persuade the citizens of New York to ratify the Constitution. Jay is credited with five papers, Hamilton with forty-three, Madison with fourteen, and three papers are considered the joint work of Hamilton and Madison. The authors assume that both Hamilton and Madison wrote with consistent styles.

This article lists the names of books received by the journal "Rural Sociology." They are, "All These People," by Rupert B. Vance, "Theory and Practice in Historical Study: A Report of the Committee on Historiography," "Outline of Family and Civilization," by Cane C. Zimmerman and others.

A word concerning the March 1946 issue of the journal Rural Sociology is in order. Sociologist Bruce Melvin, for many years closely associated with sociologist Dwight Sanderson at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, was the first to suggest that one issue of Rural Sociology be devoted to articles concerned with the life and work of Dwight Sanderson. At the 1945 annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society in Chicago, Illinois sociologists called together all former students of Sanderson, who were present, to determine what form the memorial should take. At this meeting it was decided that a series of articles should be written. A delegation then requested that sociologists Carl Taylor and Lowry Nelson organize the issue and get the manuscripts in. To these two men, neither of who were students of Sanderson but both of who were among his closest friends should go the credit of organizing this issue. Originally sociologists planned to have one of those who knew Dwight Sanderson and his works best, organize an integrated article, which would analyze Sanderson's conceptual scheme and contributions and relate them to those of other outstanding sociologists.

From the beginning of his career in sociology, sociologist Dwight Sanderson was committed to the conception of this discipline as a science of the forms of human association, thus taking his stand with the formalists. As the so-called "formal" school came under attack, Sanderson admitted that sociology might indeed deal with phenomena other than forms of association, but "whatever else it may include," he wrote, "sociology deals primarily with the phenomena of groups or the forms of association." Sanderson's ideas about the social group were expressed in fewer publications and they have stimulated less response from sociologists than his views about the community and the family. In a bibliography of his sociological writings, only two of 94 titles refer specifically arid solely to the social group. His work on the community has been taken up and is being advanced. A host of workers are moving ahead in the sociology of the family, but there has been no rush of students toward the group-classification idea.

According to the author, Dwight Sanderson was a scientist and not a propagandist. In attempting to evaluate his contribution to the field of the family it is both necessary and illuminating to look at his entire career. Here was a man well trained in the biological sciences and one who had made an outstanding success in his chosen profession at the time he definitely moved into the field of rural sociology after having completed his work for the doctorate in this field at the University of Chicago, Illinois. The author say that Dr. Sanderson was a scientist and not a propagandist because his main approach to the study of the family was a scientific one with a fine feeling for what needed to be done in making sociological contributions to the family practical and useful, but at the same time understanding that no ultimate improvement could be made unless it were based upon a sound scientific foundation. It is difficult to review the contributions of a man with so many diverse interests, but one outstanding regret seems to cling to author's mind with reference to Sanderson's contribution to the field of the farm family. He did formulate a sound scientific framework within which research should be done.

The article reports that there is a tendency in the historiography of assassinations to mix up extremely different types of political murder with that of Tyrannicide. It is true that tyrannicide has this one trait in common with political murder: both try to achieve certain political results, that is, changes in the possession or exercise of state power, through the killing of an individual or group of individuals who are regarded as the chief obstacles in the way of the realization of certain aims. This had led certain writers to apply the same moral and political judgment to tyrannicide as to any other form of political murder. This confusion is furthered by the tendency of the supporters of existing power to exaggerate the danger and the importance of tyrannicide which is always directed against the supreme, or at least prominent representatives of state power. On the other hand they do not sufficiently analyze those political murders, in which so-called legitimate rulers are involved for the elimination of persons and groups dangerous to them.

This article describes the process of editing articles for scientific journals and report common errors. Although it is obviously illegal to use "more" and "most" or the terminations "-er" and "-est" with certain adjectives, there are many violators. The common uncomparable adjectives include absolute, basic, complete, contemporary, devoid, empty, entire, essential, final, full, ideal, impossible, perfect, possible, pure, sufficient, superior, and unique. Participles have been found hanging in some of the otherwise respectable sentences. Some of these maniacal boners successfully elude the editor's blue pencil and take refuge in print, from where they continue their depradations.

Presents an abstract of the article "Technical Writing," published in the December 1954 issue of the "Journal of Documentation." Analysis of the main components of technical writing; Discussion of the special techniques the technical author must have at his command.

Presents information about the book "A Guide to Technical Writing," W. George Crouch and Robert L. Zetler. Includes preparation of business letters, technical letters, formal technical reports, journal articles.

The article focuses on improving scientific communication. It pleads for some agreement among journal editors on the style of manuscripts required, the number of copies that must be submitted, the use of photocopies and mounts, and the extent to which citations are listed in full. Such agreements would benefit authors, editors, printers, abstracters, and readers--all links in the chain of scientific communication.

This article focuses on the study "Syntopicon of the Great Books of the Western World," by Mortimer J. Adler and William Gorman. The study is a two-volume index to the ideas contained in a 54 volume set of great books, containing 443 works by 74 authors. Each chapter begins with an essay on the subject summarizing the views of the great writers. Appendix I of the study is a complete bibliography of the additional readings listed in the chapters. Appendix II discusses the intellectual and editorial problems faced in the study.