of an antinazi network which he hasnconstructed to keep a zealous but untrustworthynwoman away from the genuinenresistance is the cause of an actualnmurder. Fictions may have serious consequencesnin reality. But reality maynalso turn out to be more stubborn thannthe “idealists” believe. Brandys’s heronbitterly criticizes the regime’s monopolynover information, but recent Polishnexperience demonstrates that peoplenmay retain a residual sense of realitynwhich the most artful intellectual manipulationncannot eliminate. Djilas admiresnTito at bottom because he wasnRobber Barons ReconsiderednSaul Engelbourg: Power and Moralityn: American Business Ethics, 1840-n1914; Greenwood Press; Westport,nConnecticut.nby Frederick R. Dempseynlower and Morality is an examinationnof the trends in the behavior of bignbusinessmen from the era popularlynconsidered the age of robber barons.nOne might expect more bad news thanngood; perhaps even endless accounts ofnthe abuse of power and shameless subjectionsnof morality to the pursuit ofnprofit. After twenty years of research,nhowever, Saul Engelbourg has an entirelyndifferent interpretation. In fact,nhe argues that this period witnessed andramatic improvement in businessnethics.nUnder consideration are the yearsnbetween 1840 and 1914, when America’snessentially localized, agriculturalneconomy developed into one dominatednby large, industrial corporations. Byn1914, the transformation was complete:nmany of America’s major corporationsnwere already in existence; the fortunesnMr. Dempsey is the assistant managingneditor of Immaculata, a journal publishednin Libertyville, Illinois.nS8inChronicles of Culturenvictorious; he despises Tito’s great opponent,nDraza Mihajlovic, because henwas defeated, and speaks sarcasticallynof his “heroic legend” created by “Westernnpropaganda.” But the jury of historynis still out on the question ofnwhether reality can be created throughnpolitical manipulation buttressed by rawnphysical power, as Tito and Djilas believed,nor whether pluralistic reality innits intellectually less elegant but stillnsturdy democratic forms—the sort innwhich Mihajlovic and Brandys’s narratornplaced their trust—will ultimatelynprevail. Dnand reputations of Vanderbilt, Gouldnand Rockefeller had been made, andnAmerica was a fully industrialized society.nBut the emergence of this newneconomy disrupted a balance of powernthat had existed between” buyers andnsellers. Economies of scale now centerednenormous power in the hands of mennwhose moral values had been formed inna simpler age.nAs the economy developed it becamenclear that the business ethics of the pre-n1840 era were inadequate to guide businessmennin their new circumstances.nConflict of interest is a case in point.nWhat had once been acceptable behaviornfor the sole proprietor of a business (e.g.nspecial discounts to friends or valuednclients) became a moral issue when thenman was the president of a corporation.nHis first responsibility then was to thenstockholders. However, a man schoolednin the past era was accustomed to thinkingnof the company’s interests in termsnof his own. He found himself caught betweennconflicting values. The dilemmanhere rests on the failure to grasp thendistinction between owners and managers,na point that might seem obviousnto us today, but which was somethingnbarely comprehended in the middle ofnthe 19th century.nEngelbourg would not necessarilynnncondemn the behavior of the man innour conflict-of-interest case, even if bynfavoring the valued client he breaksnmodern canons of ethical conduct. Tonjudge him thus would be anachronistic.nThe author would first determinenwhether the action was in conflict withn”standards of the particular businessnelement involved and those of businessnin general,” or whether it conflictednwith “standards of business in generalnand those of society as a whole.” Thenman still might deserve censure, butnthe judgment would be based on criterianthat accounted for the acceptable practicesnof the day.nWith his principles for moral evaluationsnthus clearly defined, Engelbourgnsets out to discover whether businessnmorality did in fact change betweenn1840 and 1914, and if so, what causednthis change. He focuses his study onnthe behavior of business leaders in fivenareas of action involving moral decisions:nconflict of interest, restraint ofntrade, competitive tactics, stock wateringnand financial reporting. Furthermore,nhe divides the era itself into threensubperiods: 1840 to 1880, when largenindustrial corporations first emerged;n1880 to 1900, when the federal governmentnstarted to regulate business activities;nand 1900 to 1914, when the worldnof high finance began dominating thennewly industrialized economy.nJ. he detailed nature of Engelbourg’snstructured, unbiased and well-documentednanalysis contrasts sharply withnthe treatment this complex period hasnreceived in the past. Matthew Josephson,nwho caricaturized the era’s magnatesnof wealth and power as robbernbarons, dismissed nearly the entire lotnof them as men who “tended to act withoutnthose established moral principlesnwhich fixed more or less the conductnof the common people of the community.”nWithout proving such a sweepingnassertion, or even defining what werenthe common standards of the community,nJosephson—and all those who mouthnhis arbitrary denunciation—foist uponn