In his “Marche de la criminalité en France, 1825–1880”, the author points out, among other things, the connection between criminality and economic conditions. An examination of the movement of crimes against property shows that the great fluctuations to be observed there are intimately connected with economic conditions. The number of crimes against property corresponds almost exactly with the fluctuation in the price of wheat; and all the economic crises make their influence felt. During the years 1828, 1835–1837, 1847, 1848–1854, 1865–1868, and 1872–1876, in which the price of wheat was high, there were also a great number of crimes against property. The year 1855 was the sole exception, for then crimes against property did not increase, although the price of grain was very high. This is to be explained by the fact that the government then took measures to lessen the consequences of this calamity. Further, other provisions were then very cheap. From 1860 on the number of crimes against property decreases, which, according to the author, is to be explained by the importation of grain, which increased greatly at this time. The influence of the production and consumption of alcohol is strongly felt in crimes against persons, especially in assaults. I would further call attention to the report made by Professor Lacassagne to the Fourth Congress of Criminal Anthropology at Geneva, entitled, “Les vols à l’étalage et dans les grands magasins”, in which he shows how the display of goods on the counters in the great bazaars, which are meant to fascinate visitors, and force them to buy, so to speak, leads to crime in individuals predisposed to kleptomania. Professor Lacassagne has always remained faithful to the judgment that he pronounced at Rome; at the Congress at Brussels, [139] and at Amsterdam as well [140], he repeated: “Societies have the criminals they deserve.” II. G. TARDE. This author considers criminality as being preëminently a social phenomenon, which, like all social phenomena, is to be explained by imitation. “All the important acts of the social life are performed under the sway of example. One begets, or one does not beget, through imitation; the statistics of births have shown us that. One kills, or one does not kill, through imitation; should we have the idea today of fighting a duel, or declaring war, if we did not know that this is always done in the country where we live? One kills himself, or he does not kill himself, through imitation; it is recognized that suicide is an imitative phenomenon in the highest degree.... How can we doubt, then, that a man steals or does not steal, murders or does not murder, through imitation?” [141]