In Kraepelin’s book it is impossible to overlook the influence of Lombroso’s ideas; and the same influence can be traced also in Von Liszt’s “Lehrbuch des Deutschen Strafrechts” (“Textbook of German Criminal Jurisprudence”), of which the first edition was published in 1881; but it could be foreseen that in the psychiatric and legal circles of Germany, this influence would be indirect and limited. I was myself convinced of this fact at the time when, in the year 1886, after long study of the writings of the Italian school, I had resolved to do my best to diffuse the views of that school in Germany, both verbally and in writing. It is not possible to give a detailed account here of the diffusion of the ideas and methods of the “New School” outside Italy. The conservatism which inevitably results from a legal education gave rise to violent opposition on the part of lawyers in Italy, as well as elsewhere. It was, therefore, above all, necessary to approach the scientific leaders of the legal circles with the ideas of the “New School” of criminology. In this respect it was a fact no less impressive than useful that Lombroso, at the outset of his activity as chief of a school, published in the year 1881, in the first number of Von Liszt’s _Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafwissenschaft_ (_Journal of Criminology_), an article upon the origin, the essence, and the aims of the new criminal anthropological school in Italy. In this article he insists upon the importance of the different causes of criminality, its anthropological, social, and cosmic factors, upon the aim of repression as a means of social self-defence, and upon the importance of the substitutes for punishment (“sostituoi penali”), and the reforms necessary in the application of punishment. Finally, he deals with the “positive” character and the inductive methods of the new school. Professor van Hamel describes this article as “The entrance of the positive school and of its founder, Lombroso, into the legal world through its chief portal—_i.e._, the German portal,” which was opened to him by Von Liszt. Van Hamel’s intention was to indicate the great importance attached at the outset by lawyers of the first rank to the introduction of modern criminology into the circle of the legal sciences. Van Hamel continues in the following terms: “Some years after this there ensued the foundation of l’Union Internationale de Droit Pénal, whose statutes have been recognized as providing the basic principles alike for criminological science and for practical penal methods.”