Chapter XXVII: Part 27

I thought I had made it quite clear, that these 121 concepts, conveyed by about 800 roots, are simply and solely the residue of a careful analysis of Sanskrit, and of Sanskrit only. I took particular care to make this clear. 'They constitute the stock in trade,' I said, 'with which every thought that has ever passed through the mind of India, so far as it is known to us in its literature, has been expressed.' What can be clearer? Still Professor Romanes thinks it necessary to remark that 'these concepts do not represent the ideation of primitive man!' I never said they did. I never pretended to be acquainted with the ideation of primitive man. All I maintained was that, making allowance for obscure words, every thought, that of the lowest savage as well as that of the most minute philosopher, can be expressed with these 800 roots, and traced back to these 121 concepts. I even hinted that the number of these concepts might be considerably reduced. The question is not whether forms of activity, such as _to yawn_, _to spew_, _to vomit_, _to sweat_, were of vital importance to the needs of a primitive community, but whether they were known and therefore named, in the early vocabulary of India. If on the other hand some of these concepts, such as _to cook_, _to roast_, _to measure_, _to dig_, _to plat_, _to milk_, betoken an advanced condition of life, all we can say is that they would probably not occur in the dictionary of primeval savages, wherever such a being can be found, and that they do not profess to be the first utterances of the _Homo alalus_, whoever that may be.

Immediately after this, Professor Romanes dwells on what he calls the interesting feature of all roots being verbs. This is simply a contradiction in terms. In giving the meaning of roots scholars generally employ the infinitive or the participle, to go, or going, but they have stated again and again that a root ceases to be a root as soon as it is used in a sentence, either as a subject or as a predicate, either as a noun or a verb. All his arguments therefore that archaic words, expressive of actions, would have stood a better chance of surviving as roots than those which may have been expressive of objects, are simply out of place. The question whether verbs came first or nouns, may be argued _ad infinitum_, quite as much as the question whether the egg came first or the chicken. Every sentence requires a subject as well as a predicate. If Professor Romanes approves of my saying that roots stood for any part of speech, just as the monosyllabic expressions of children do, I can only say that if I ever said so, I expressed myself incorrectly. A root never stands for any part of speech, because as soon as it is a part of speech, it is no longer a root.

After that, Professor Romanes returns once more to his statement that the roots of Aryan speech are not the aboriginal elements of language, as first spoken by man. Why deny what has never been asserted? I know nothing of the language as first spoken by man. I say with Steinthal, 'Who was present when the first sound of language burst forth from the breast of the first man, as yet dumb?' All that we, the students of language, undertake to do is to take language as we find it, to analyse it, and to reduce it to its simplest component elements. What we cannot analyse, we leave alone. The utmost we venture to do is to suggest an hypothesis as to the possible origin of these elements. Of the _Homo alalus_, the speechless progenitor of _Homo sapiens_, with whom Professor Romanes seems so intimately acquainted, students of human speech naturally know nothing. Professor Romanes assures us (p. 211) that the reducing of language to a certain small number of roots, and the fact that all the roots of language are expressive of general and generic ideas, yield no support whatever to the doctrine either, that these roots were themselves the aboriginal elements of language, or, _a fortiori_, that the aboriginal elements of language were expressive of general ideas. He evidently does not see that we are speaking of two quite different things. I am speaking of the facts of language, he is speaking of the postulates of a biological theory which may be right or wrong, but which certainly derives no support whatever from the Science of Language. If, like Professor Romanes, we begin with the 'immense presumption that there has been no interruption in the developmental process in the course of psychological history,' the protest of language counts for nothing; the very fact that no animal has ever formed a language, is put aside simply as an unfortunate accident. But to students to whom facts are facts, immense presumptions count for nothing: on the contrary they are looked upon as the most dangerous merchandise and most likely to lead to shipwreck and ruin.

Instead of closing with these facts, Professor Romanes tries to show that those who try to explain them are not always consistent. That may be so, and I should be sorry indeed if my latest views were not more advanced and more correct than those which I expressed forty years ago. But very often where Professor Romanes sees inconsistency, there is none at all.

Speaking of roots in my "Science of Thought," I said: 'Although during the time when the growth of language becomes historical and most accessible, therefore, to our observation, the tendency certainly is from the general to the special, I cannot resist the conviction that before that time there was a pre-historic period during which language followed an opposite direction. During that period, roots beginning with special meanings, (though, of course, always general in character) became more and more generalised, and it was only after reaching that stage, that they branched off again into special channels.'

The observation which I recorded in these words, was simply this, that a root meaning originally to yawn, may in time assume the meaning of opening, while during a latter period, a root meaning to open, may come to be used in the more special sense of yawning. Facts are there to prove this. But whether a root expresses the act of yawning or opening, it remains general and conceptual in either case, though the intension of the concept may be smaller or larger. Where Professor Romanes sees inconsistency, he only shows that he has not apprehended the drift of my remarks.

When all the facts of real language are against him, Professor Romanes betakes himself to baby-language. Here he is safe, and he knows quite well, why I refuse to argue with him or any other philosopher either in the nursery, or in the menagerie, either about Mamma and Papa, or about 'Poor Polly.' But if all he wants is to prove the possibility of onomatopœia, he could have found much ampler evidence in my own laboratory, only with this restriction that, after we have analysed these onomatopœic words which in some languages are far more numerous than even Professor Romanes seems to be aware of, we are only on the threshold of the real problem, namely how to deal with real language, that is, with those conceptual words which _cannot_ be traced back to natural sounds or interjections.

Professor Romanes appeals to philology in support of his theory, and, to use a favorite phrase of his own, to philology let him go! It was long considered an irrefragable proof in support of the onomatopœic theory that _thunder_ was called _thunder_. People imagined they heard the rumbling noise of the clouds echoed in the sound of thunder. However, the word was taken to pieces by comparative philologists, _thunder_ was found out to be closely connected with the Latin _tonitru_ and the Sanskrit _tanyatu_, and there could be no doubt that these words were all derived from the root TAN, to stretch, from which the Greek τόνος, stretching, tension, and tone. Thunder, therefore, was clearly shown to owe its origin to this root TAN, in which there is very little trace of distant rumble. But what does Professor Romanes do? He appeals in his distress to Archdeacon Farrar, who is reported to have said that the word _thunder_, even if not originally onomatopœic, became so from a feeling of the need that it should be! Now, this fairly takes away one's breath, and I cannot believe that Professor Romanes could have used this argument seriously. He begins by maintaining that words are formed by imitation of natural sounds. He quotes _thunder_ as a case in point. He is told by comparative philologists that thunder is derived from a root TAN, to stretch. He does not attempt to deny this, but he appeals to Archdeacon Farrar, who says that the word became afterwards onomatopœic, from a feeling of the need that it should be so. If that is not shirking the question, I do not know what is. Suppose it were true that thunder had been supposed to be an imitation of a rumbling noise by those who, like Professor Romanes, are convinced that all words must be more or less onomatopœic. What in all the world has that to do with the real origin of the word? We want to know how the word thunder came to be, and we are told, if it was not onomatopœic, it ought to have been so, nay that by certain ignorant people it was supposed to be so. This goes beyond the limits of what is allowed in any serious discussion.

But Professor Romanes attempts a still greater triumph in forensic adroitness, when he suddenly turns round and declares himself altogether convinced by the theory proposed by Noiré and myself, though at the same time placing it on a level with the Bow-wow and Pooh-pooh theories. Now the fact is, that both Noiré and myself have been most anxious to show the fundamental difference between these two exploded theories and our own. The theory which I, for clearness' sake, was quite willing to call the _Yo-he-ho_ theory, is the very opposite of what Noiré called the _Synergastic_ theory. Those who appeal to words like _thunder_ as derived from the rumbling sound in the clouds, without any conceptual root standing between our conceptual word _thunder_ and these unconceptual noises, hold the Bow-wow theory. Those who hold that _fiend_ is derived direct from the interjection _fie_, without any conceptual root standing between the unconceptual _fie_ and the conceptual word _fiend_, hold the Pooh-pooh theory. Those who would derive _to heave_ and _to hoist_ from sounds like _Yo-he-ho_ would hold what may be called the _Yo-he-ho_ theory. I have never denied that there are some words in every language which may be so explained.

But what similarity is there between these theories and our own? We begin with the fact that the great bulk of a language consists of words, derived, according to the strictest rules, not from cries, but from articulate roots. No one denies this. We follow this up with a second fact, that nearly all these roots express acts of men. No one denies that. We then propound an hypothesis that possibly the phonetic elements of these roots may be the remnants of utterances such as even now sailors make when rowing, soldiers when marching, builders in pulling and lifting, and that as expressing originally the consciousness of such repeated acts, performed in common, these roots would fulfil what is wanted, they would express conceptual thought, such as beating, cutting, rubbing, binding, and all the other 121 concepts from which, as a matter of fact, all the words that fill our dictionaries have been derived. Those who cannot see the difference between a man, or, for all that, between a mocking bird, saying _Cuckoo_, and a whole community fixing on the sound of TAN, as differentiated by various suffixes and prefixes, and expressing the concept of stretching in such words as _tonos_, _tone_, _tonitru_, _thunder_, _tanu_, _tenuis_, _thin_, should not meddle with the Science of Language.

Observations, for instance, on the language of children, or on what I call Nursery psychology, are very interesting and may be useful for other purposes. But what have they to do with the problem of the origin of language? The two problems, how a child learns to speak English, and how language was elaborated for the first time, are as remote from each other as the two poles. The one is perfectly clear, though it may vary in different children. No child makes its language, it simply accepts what has been made. What _we_ are concerned with is, how each word was originally made, how the first impulse to speech was given, what were the rough materials out of which words were shaped, how words assumed different meanings by becoming specialised or generalised, or by being used metaphorically—how, in the end, some words became purely formal, and served as the grammatical articulations of human speech. What has that to do with a child learning to say _Bread_ or _Milk_, or with a parrot learning to say _Poor Polly_? We might as well try to study the geological stratification of the earth from watching the layers of a wedding-cake. I know quite well that every philosopher, when he becomes a father thinks that he may discover the origin of language in his nursery. The books which owe their origin to these paternal experiments are endless. But they have thrown hardly one ray of pure light on the dark problem of the origin and evolution of human speech. That problem, if it can be solved at all, can only be solved by a careful analysis of language, such as it exists in the immense varieties of spoken languages all over the globe. This is the work which the Science of Language has carried out for nearly a century, and which will occupy the minds of many students and philosophers for centuries to come.

F. MAX MUELLER.

LITERARY CORRESPONDENCE.

I.

Some distinguished foreigners have called my attention to the _Manuals of Moral and Civic Instruction_ which circulate in our schools, thinking with reason that they mark perhaps the most important reform in public teaching. There have been published in France a dozen or more during the last ten years or so. The clerical party has thundered against these little books: it had good reason for alarm, for they aim at nothing less than to take the place of the catechism.

How do they replace it? What is their inferiority, or, what their advantages? What is their principle, their disposition? This can be sufficiently judged of by the five we have before us, signed by names more or less known, those of PAUL BERT, PIERRE LALOI, CHARLES BIGOT, MME. HENRY GRÉVILLE, and GABRIEL COMPAYRÉ.[139]

[139] Paul Bert, _L'Instruction civique à l'école_,
Picard-Bernheim, Pub.; Pierre Laloi, _La première année
d'instruction morale et civique_, Armand Colin, Pub.; Charles
Bigot, _Le petit Français_, Weill et Maurice, Pub.; Mme.
Henry Gréville, _Instruction morale et civique des jeunes
filles_, Weill et Maurice, Pub.; Gabriel Compayré, _Eléments
d'instruction morale et civique_, Paul Delaplane, Pub.

The manuals of MM. Paul Bert and Laloi, are models of style: the one in familiar, easy dialogues; the other in simple and clear precepts, set off and illustrated by pleasant stories. Lists of questions facilitate the use of the book by the master. The divisions or chapters relate to special subjects,—the military service, taxes, the fatherland, the parliament, the law, the government, etc. So much as to the form; let us look at the groundwork.

The catechism imparted general moral precepts which concerned the man, and particular commands which concerned the Christian. Our manuals also tend to form the man; but in the man, above all, the good Frenchman. We find there glowing pages on the love of one's native land, and on the beauty of one's country, which we must love. Far be it from me to cast censure on this noble sentiment. Nevertheless, I do not think exaggeration on that point is desirable, lest we should seek a cause of patriotism even in the acknowledged superiority, from a gastronomic point of view, of the hare of France over the hare of Germany! Our writers, undoubtedly, have too much tact to lay themselves open to this ridicule. It is very striking, though, that the notion of the moral man considered as a Frenchman, German, Englishman, or Italian, is narrower than that of the Christian man: this reversion into the folds of nationality is a characteristic phenomenon of our old world in this latter end of the century. If our encyclopædists had hit on the idea of writing a laic catechism, the tone of it would have been different. Our authors of to-day alas! have only too much excuse to wish to form at first the _little Frenchman_, and to promote the reaction against a cosmopolitanism which had become dangerous to our national existence. They have done it, however, with sufficient caution, and without detriment to justice.

I shall not say as much for M. Paul Bert, in relation to his manual dedicated to the Revolution. Still here, undoubtedly, it is necessary to make allowance for the political necessities of the present time. But what a danger to sanctify at any cost the sanguinary epoch of our democracy; what an error to date the French era from 1789, and to make our children believe that our fathers should have had hardly the sentiment of public virtue! The worst is not that their young souls are thus embittered, but that their judgment on the facts of history is falsified. We are here only too much inclined to disregard the necessity of human evolution, and to imagine that it suffices to change the label of the sack to improve the merchandise. M. Bigot and M. Laloi, at least, have more wisdom, more prudence in this respect.

The ambition of the catechism, on another point, seems to go beyond that of our manuals. It offered an explanation of the world, a complete conception of human destiny, in a word, a doctrine which _returns into itself_. This doctrine holds no longer, it is known nevertheless, and it is necessary now to replace it. Unfortunately scientific morality has not yet found its formula in a practical book, and the divergences of views are confessed in our manuals, where the conception of a fundamental ensemble almost entirely fails. It is sufficient to read the tables of contents to convince oneself of this. The work of M. Compayré, who addresses himself especially to the "middle and higher grades," changes suddenly in Book III. entitled _La Nature humaine et la morale_. What signifies the definition, that "morality is nothing more than the ensemble of the laws that nature has engraved in your soul before human legislators inscribed them in their codes"? What is doing here the vain affirmation of the existence of God and of the immortality of the soul, and this "let us contemplate and adore" which sums it up? In the mouth of M. Compayré it is only a concession and an avowal of infirmity. A frank spiritualist will resolutely establish his moral conception on his belief; but nominal deism causes God to play the rôle of an ignominious personage who has no longer a suitable occupation on the scene.

After all is said, however, our manuals have the advantage over the catechism in the clearness of their definitions (not all correct, it is true) and in the immediate value of the instruction. For example, M. Laloi gives information as to the placing out of money, reproduces the formulas in use in the ordinary acts of life, etc. I should take care not to blame, either this good practical sense, or this manner of instructing the child according to his capacity to understand himself and understand the world which surrounds him. In the modest articles of our little class-books, is found summed up, definitively, the secular experience of human societies, and this also has an aggregative value.

* * * * *

Numerous are the works written among us by distinguished authors to introduce youthful minds into the various sciences. The _Bibliothèque utile_ already includes several, and among them one of the best will always be the book of ADOLPHE COSTE, _La Richesse et le Bonheur_,[140] with which that library is about to enrich itself. M. Coste has reproduced here, in order to express them in a simple form, the doctrines expounded in his large works. But there is also contributed something new, as to what he calls property, for example. The _Manuals_ of which I just spoke base all property on labor alone. Mme. Henry Gréville defines it "a right, based on the difficulty that any one has had in acquiring a thing." It would be proper to add—"and to save a thing," in taking account of the more exact analysis made by M. Coste. For if it is true that "consumable goods" are always due to labor in some manner, it is no less true that "productive capital," can only be acquired by putting a part of these goods outside of the current consumption, that is to say by saving something of that which one possesses. Saving is to-day the only regular source of accumulation of wealth; it is one of the indispensable factors of property. The usual definition sees only the other factor of wealth, labor, and opens thus the road to the dangerous sophism of which the workmen make a weapon, when they claim that they alone ought to possess, as they produce.

[140] Publisher of the _Bibliothèque utile_, F. Alcan.

Let us quote the passage. It is exact. "By his labor man takes possession of the fruits, he enters into the enjoyment of his part of the product: this is in some sort only a personal right which disappears at once with consumption. But from the time that this man saves something from consumption and establishes capital, he becomes a proprietor, he acquires a social right. Fundamentally, property is the public acknowledgment of the service rendered to the community by the increase of the productive capital" (p. 25).

I will notice further, in the work of M. Coste, the difficulty that it describes, and that greatly embarrasses economists, of reconciling the value of labor, due to individual effort, with the value of exchange, imposed by the general needs. As to the relations between Wealth and Happiness, he judges them intimate enough: happiness resides chiefly, according to him, in activity, which has for its principal forms the acquisition of wealth and the productive employment of wealth. The question would appear undoubtedly more complex, from the psychological point of view. But we could very well content ourselves with this notion, clear and sound, of an economical happiness.

One has always pleasure in reading M. Coste, because he has just ideas, because he approaches questions of political economy as a naturalist and studies the facts in their evolution. It is the best method for understanding the subject. The deductive economists have never failed to deceive us. I would wish in the public interest for numerous readers of treatises of this kind.

* * * * *

Some day or other, the occasion will present itself for us to speak somewhat fully of pedagogy. Certainly, if the passion of _magister_ was ever exaggerated, it is in our day, and, through logic and principles, it will become in time more difficult to make a little boy eat his porridge than to govern an empire. In all that has been done, I see some good, but much evil; I am afraid that little artificial prodigies will in time be produced, and that we shall be given hot-house oranges instead of fine fruit ripened in full sunshine. Books follow books, and mistakes succeed mistakes. There is everywhere an embarrassment of _talents_, scarcity of _characters_. Have the causes of it been unravelled and the remedy discovered? In order to judge the results, let us wait half a century!

M. EUGENE MAILLET, whose work—_L'Education, Elements de psychologie de l'homme et de l'enfant appliquée à la pédagogie_—I have formally to announce,[141] will readily excuse, I hope, this quarter of an hour's bad humor. It is not from him that I take it, and his work gives evidence of too much experience, too much study, that a high value should not be placed on it. The present volume is only the first part of it; "the second part will have for its object education itself, considered at first in its idea, then in its various forms,—physical education, education of the heart, education of the mind, education of the will and of the character, finally in the general principles of logic and morality which ought to dominate it and without which the rules of a wisely graduated methodology or of a rational discipline cannot be established."

[141] Belin frères, Publishers.

In these _Elements of Psychology_, M. Maillet shows himself acquainted with new studies and methods. It is regrettable only that he does not enter into them with sufficient freedom. He has not consented to rid himself of the old terminology, he preserves the outlines almost of spiritual psychology, and appears even to seek in the affirmation of spiritualism the indispensable completion of a science of education. His work will perhaps be better welcomed for it by the university public; but we should have preferred, for our part, that he had remained less "classic," while retaining his entire freedom of criticism.

With this limitation we can recommend his work without mental reservation; some portions of it are excellent, and many readers will profit by consulting it. It is written with order, clearness, and good sense.

* * * * *

Here now is a curiosity, the first number of the _Annales des sciences psychiques, recueil d'observations et d'expériences_, appearing every two months, founded under the patronage of M. Charles Richet, with M. Dr. Dariex as editor.[142] This magazine will publish "Observations relative to so-called occult facts, _telepathy_, _lucidity_, _presentiment_, _objective apparitions_, etc." _Experiences_,—there can hardly yet be any question of them except in appearance; M. Richet so avows with good grace in a letter forming an introduction,—a very curious letter, rich in excellent advice which will perhaps not be sufficiently listened to, and with a declaration of principle which has a chance of being far too much so.

[142] Felix Alcan, Publisher.

"We have the firm conviction," writes M. Richet, in effect, "that there is, mixed up with the known and described forces, forces that we do not know; that the simple, vulgar mechanical explanation will not suffice to explain all that passes around us; in a word, that there are occult psychic phenomena, and, if we say 'occult,' it is a word intended to express simply what is unknown."

What is meant here by the word forces? We are told "for three hundred years electricity was an unknown force." But it is always _occult_, as _force_; and if science is become positive, it is because it has neglected the vain entity, in order to see only a new group of empirical data, a new series of facts, that it is more or less easy to translate into unities of heat and of work. What then would forces be subtracted from mechanics, if not occult forces, with "chimerical functions"? The expression _vulgar mechanics_, does not suffice to correct the sense of the phrase and rather aggravates it, in allowing to be supposed that there exist two kinds of forces, one of which has no _measure_. But the comparison, then, is not worth anything, and it is not necessary to speak of electricity or chemical affinity in this matter.

As to the "observations," of what value are such as are presented to us? But little, after all, and many other facts will be necessary to lead us to accept the non-fortuitous relation of certain hallucinations with an objective event. Notwithstanding the wise reservations of the editor, it is to be regretted that we find already in this first number, under the title of _Une chambre hantée_, a real ghost story. Story for story, I would prefer much to read the _Chambre bleu_ of Mérimée; so also, I doubt not, would M. Richet.

This little censure is not meant in jest, which would be out of place. There is always advantage in collecting _facts_, on condition that they are chosen with care, and that haste is not made to interpret them. MM. Richet and Dariex insist on this point with the greatest force. Curious readers will not be wanting for these Annals, even among sceptics. It has always been necessary to carry the lamp to cause the phantoms to vanish.[143]

[143] Reference may be made to the first number of the _Revue
mensuelle de l'Ecole d'Anthropologie de Paris_, published by
the Professors at the _Librairie Alcan_. In this number will
be found a lecture by M. André Lefèvre, under this interesting
title: _Du Cri à la Parole_.

LUCIEN ARRÉAT.

II.

THE SCIENCE OF PEDAGOGICS IN GERMANY.

In view of the great care with which _The Monist_ cultivates psychology, I may be permitted in my first letter, consistently I judge, to speak of the most important application of this science—its application namely to pedagogics.

Psychological pedagogics, in the true sense of the word, exists with us in Germany only since the days of J. F. Herbart who abandoned the ancient psychological theory of the faculties and discovered in ideas the sole component elements of all psychical activity, derived feelings and volitions from the interrelation and interoperation of ideas, thus denied the absolute freedom which the possibility of formation of will, or education, excludes, and upheld the determinability of the will by the ideas.

Although Herbart himself applied his system of psychology pedagogically, yet it bore in the life-time of its author only scanty fruit in this direction. Psychological pedagogics was not developed beyond its original generality and unprofitableness of character until Professor STOY of Jena and especially Professor ZILLER of Leipsic took up, with an energy that equalled their tact, the practical construction of psychological pedagogics.

Pedagogics now exerted a reactive promotive influence, if not on the further development of psychology, yet on its study. After the psychological writings of Herbart, it was eminently the _Empirical Psychology_[144] of M. W. DROBISCH, sustained in the Herbartian spirit but written more in agreement with "scientific" (i. e. inductive) methods, that supplied psychological pedagogists with nourishment. The last-named work, which in many respects possesses value even to-day, was received with especial favor, since it avoided happily the metaphysical tendencies which Herbart rather assiduously employed. A like excellence and a like favorable reception were the merit and reward of the large work, later appearing, of LAZARUS: _Das Leben der Seele in Monographien_. Subsequently, were effective two little books by I. DRBAL and by LINDNER: _Lehrbuch der empirischen Psychologie_ and _Handbuch der empirischen Psychologie_. Lindner's treatise has recently appeared in an English translation, published by Heath of Boston, under the title of "A Manual of Empirical Psychology as an Inductive Science. A Text-book for High Schools and Colleges. By Dr. G. A. Lindner, of Prague. Translated by Chas. de Garmo." The English edition of this book received an unfavorable review in the London _Academy_ (Nov. 1, 1891); yet in one respect the criticism was in our opinion justified. Too little use, namely, has been made of the results of experimental psychology.

[144] Leipsic, 1842.

This is, moreover, not only true of Lindner's book but holds for all the psychological books that have exerted any considerable influence in pedagogical circles, is true in fact of the great _Lehrbuch der Psychologie_ by VOLKMANN, the latest edition of which, prepared by Cornelius, is not in this respect abreast of the position of the times.

Neglect in such a matter in the country of a Wundt appears striking at first glance; yet it has its good reasons. The labors of the school of Wundt were antagonistic to the Herbartian psychology and the pedagogics founded thereon, to the extent that a goodly portion of the old theory of the faculties has been re-introduced into those labors. The English association-psychology could have counted on a much more welcome reception. Happily, there has appeared within the last few months a remarkably clear, and withal handy, volume which will succeed in introducing into the pedagogical circles of Germany this association-psychology. It bears the modest title of _Leitfaden der physiologischen Psychologie_ (The Elements of Physiological Psychology, Jena, Fischer, 1891), and consists of lectures delivered by PROF. DR. ZIEHEN at the University of Jena. In many respects the book of Ziehen is like the recent work of Dr. Paul Carus[145]: except that everything of a speculative character is lacking in the former, of which from our point of view we cannot approve.

[145] _The Soul of Man_, Chicago, 1891.

Now that I am speaking of pedagogics particularly, I will mention still another work of Lindner, to whom I referred above, which is the first of its kind in Germany. Its peculiarity appears from its title: _Grundriss der Pädagogik als Wissenschaft, auf Grund der Entwickelungslehre und der Sociologie neu aufgebaut_ (Outlines of Pedagogics as a Science, Newly Constructed on the Basis of the Doctrine of Evolution and of Sociology, Vienna, 1890). The endeavor of the author of this work has been, to make fruitful within the domain of the Herbartian system the principles of evolution and of the science of sociology; and though he has not been successful in this respect as regards all the details of educational methods, the book nevertheless represents a good beginning.

CHRISTIAN UFER.

BOOK REVIEWS.

OUTLINES OF A CRITICAL THEORY OF ETHICS. By _John Dewey_. Ann Arbor:
Register Publishing Company. 1891.

The title of this very thoughtful book expresses well the author's method of comparing opposite one-sided views with the aim of discovering a more adequate theory. In carrying out this aim not only is an analysis given of the main elements of the theory of ethics, but the main methods and problems of contemporary ethics are considered also. Professor Dewey rejects both Hedonism and Kantism. He rejects Hedonism because pleasure fails as a standard of ethics, and he rejects Kantism because it is a barren abstraction. Kant's "ought" does not root in and does not flower from the "is." Professor Dewey says:

"Hedonism finds the end of conduct, or the desirable, wholly determined by the various particular desires which a man happens to have; Kantianism holds that to discover the end of conduct, we must wholly exclude the desires. Hedonism holds that the rightness of conduct is determined wholly by its consequences; Kantianism holds that the consequences have nothing to do with the rightness of an act, but that it is decided wholly by the motive of the act. From this contrast we may anticipate both our criticism of the Kantian theory and our conception of the true end of action. The fundamental error of Hedonism and Kantianism is the same—the supposition that desires are for pleasure only. Let it be recognised that desires are for objects conceived as satisfying or developing the self, and that pleasure is incidental to this fulfilment of capacities of self, and we have the means of escaping the one-sidedness of Kantianism as well as of Hedonism. We can see that the end is neither the procuring of particular pleasures through the various desires, nor action from the mere idea of abstract law in general, but that it is the satisfaction of desires according to law" (pp. 82-83)

The author acknowledges his indebtedness to the writings of the late Professor Green and others for the "backbone" of his theory, which he states to be "the conception of the will as the expression of ideas, and of social ideas; the notion of an objective ethical world realised in institutions which afford moral ideals, theatre and impetus to the individual; the notion of the moral life as growth in freedom, as the individual finds and conforms to the law of his social placing." Among the specific forms which the author calls particular attention to, as giving "a flesh and blood of its own" to that backbone, are the idea of desire as the ideal activity in contrast with actual possession; the analysis of individuality into function including capacity and environment, and the statement of an ethical postulate.

This postulate may be regarded as summing up the ethical theory as presented by Professor Dewey. It is thus expressed: In the realisation of individuality there is found also the needed realization of some community of persons of which the individual is a member; and, conversely, the agent who duly satisfies the community in which he shares, by that same conduct satisfies himself. We have here postulated a community of persons, and a good which realised by the will of one is made public. In "this unity of individuals as respects the end of action, this existence of a practical common good," we have what is called "the moral order of the world." This view would seem to satisfy the requirements of both Individualism and Socialism, but is it consistent with the law of progress elsewhere insisted on by the author? He affirms, as against the Hedonism of Spencer, that moral ideals are always developing. Progress is itself the ideal, since "permanence of _specific_ ideals means moral death." But this progress must originate with the individual, who by the formation of the new ideal ceases to be in perfect accord with the community, and will continue to be in disaccord with it until the community has accepted his ideal. A perfect realisation of individuality in the community would be the "fixed millennium" which the author properly objects to, and to escape which it is necessary, that the equilibration towards which the individual, as well as the social, organism is ever tending shall never be actually attained. Its attainment would mean stagnation and death.

We have not space to say more of Professor Dewey's book than that it is a very thoughtful work, most so in its critical parts, and will form an excellent help for the student of ethics.

Ω.

AN INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY. By _John S. Mackenzie_. New
York: Macmillan & Co. Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1890.

We have here, in an enlarged form, the substance of the Shaw Lectures delivered by the author, at the University of Edinburg, in January, 1889. The work is professedly, not a systematic treatise on the subject dealt with, but only a slight contribution to the discussion of it; and it is said to be "not so much a book as an indication of the lines on which a book might be written." The force of these apparently deprecatory remarks depends entirely on the result attained. If an introductory study is based on true principles it may be of more general value than an elaborate work, because it will probably present the conclusions of the latter in a simpler and less technical form. This presupposes, however, a knowledge of previous inquiry, and, therefore, the use of the term "Introduction" is somewhat of a misnomer. Mr. Mackenzie remarks, indeed, that his inquiry may be thought to belong to the end rather than to the beginning of philosophic study.

The leading idea of Mr. Mackenzie's work is embodied in the sentence just quoted. The value of social life depends on the ultimate end to be attained, and the author sets himself to discover what is the true aim of society. The existence of a society of human beings cannot be accounted for without the conception of purpose, for to whatever element of accident may be due the bringing of those human beings into relation to each other, "the particular direction in which their relations become developed is obviously due to certain aims by which they are guided." The inquiry into the principles which determine the nature of those aims, and as to the ideal to which such principles lead, is what constitutes Social Philosophy. This falls within the third of Hegel's chief divisions of philosophic study, the _Philosophy of Spirit_, which is concerned with objects in so far as they are themselves creations of thought; and the objects of Social Philosophy may be described as the relations of men to each other, their relations to the material world, and the development of individual character in so far as that is affected by these relations. Before treating of the aim which constitutes the social ideal, our author states the conditions of the social problem, those of _difficulty_ on the one hand, and of _hope_ on the other, and he finds that the general state of society for a number of generations back has been one of "tumultuous progress." There is a great improvement in the condition of nearly all classes of people and "a very great brightening of our general outlook." But life has become in many directions more chaotic and uncertain. What is now wanted is "some principle which will enable us to bring about a more perfect connection between the parts of our society, to form new links and ties, so that men may no longer be subject to the directions of iron laws over which they have no control. We have to overcome individualism, on the one hand, and the power of material conditions, on the other." To do this will be the chief step towards the realisation of the social ideal, which is dependent on the nature of society and on the nature of men.

The recognition of the fact that everything deepest in nature, and especially in human nature is a product of growth has, says Mr. Mackenzie, "passed over into popular thought, and become a part of our intellectual atmosphere." Nature is thus regarded as _organic_, by which our author means "a systematic unity, in which neither the parts exist independently of the whole nor the whole independently of its parts." This view is distinguished from that of Monadism, which regards the world as a collection of mutually independent parts, and of Monism, according to which Mr. Mackenzie declares the world is a single system, in which the nature of every part is predetermined by the whole. According to the organic view the world is a real unity, though it is a unity which expresses itself through difference. It goes without saying that there is no Monism of Mr. Mackenzie's description. No Monist would ever deny that the unity of the world expresses itself through difference.

Whether or not our author is right in rejecting what he describes as the monistic view of nature, does not really affect the conclusion as to the nature of Society. This he declares to be organic, and it is shown that society possesses the three conditions which belong essentially to the nature of an organic system; that is, the relations of the parts which form the whole are _intrinsic_, changes in it take place by an internal adaptation or growth, and its end forms an element in its own nature. This conclusion would, indeed, seem to be required by the fact that society consists of a number of individuals who are themselves organic units. At the same time it might be objected that, although many of the lower animals dwell together in societies, these can hardly be regarded as organic. This consideration gives rise to the thought that the organic nature of human society depends on the conditions by which man is differentiated from other animals. In treating of this point, Mr. Mackenzie shows that there are several stages in the development of the "self," and he concludes that although an animal is conscious of a self, yet that it is not conscious of "the unity of its individual life, the connected system of its experiences as a whole, in which each single experience has a definite place," being that which constitutes the highest development of self, and which is the distinguishing self-consciousness of humanity.

This faculty of self-consciousness might be reduced to simpler elements, but it is that by which, as Mr. Mackenzie shows, we are enabled to understand the organic nature of human society. The recognition of the fact that the universe is a systematic whole constitutes an ideal, which, although consciously aimed at by few, gives a progressive character to the general mind. Man is the only creature that has an ideal, because he has been able to catch a glimpse of a kind of consciousness of that which he has not attained, but which he is bound to strive to attain. He begins with vague impressions and animal impulses, "and his whole life is a struggle towards clearness—clearness in the conceptions which he applies to things in knowledge, clearness in the conception of ends of which he makes use in conduct." The struggle between the immediate experience of what is present in sense and "the 'still small voice' of the ideal, which bids us have regard for the Universal," would be fruitless, however, if the individual were alone. Society is necessary for the proper development of the more ideal elements in human nature, as it provides the rational environment required for a rational being. This leads to a consideration of the ultimate end of society. In the course of the discussion of this question the author deals with the different views entertained as to the principles by which we are guided in conduct and by which human progress is determined. He points out that what we seek is some definitely ascertainable end, which we recognise as good, and which is the happiness or well-being of persons. He rejects, however, the Utilitarian theory, showing that pleasure cannot be the end of conduct, and concludes that, if "we have any rational end at all, it must consist in some kind of realisation of our nature as a whole"; of knowledge, and will, and feeling, taken together. The true end is in fact self-realisation, and this includes society, for we cannot suppose that the ideal should be realised within our lives. It is conceivable only "by our being able to see the world as a system of intelligent beings who are mutually worlds for each other." The true nature of man's end is thus necessarily a social one, and it includes everything that belongs to the highest good. It embraces the realisation of Reason, Order, and Beauty in the world; the realisation of Life; the perfection of Knowledge and Wisdom, of Will and of Feeling.

We have given so full a summary of Mr. Mackenzie's argument that we can add only a mere outline of what he considers "the form of social union in which, under given conditions, the progress will be most rapid and most secure towards that good which we must regard as the ultimate end." The social ideal is said to depend on three chief elements of well-being, Individual Culture, Subjugation of Nature, and Social Organisation; which give rise to the one-sided ideals of Liberty, Equality, and Aristocracy, not of birth but of talent. The Organic ideal, which is that of Fraternity, is the true one, and it consists in constant progress. This progress includes the three elements of human well-being, personal development being the most important, as education reacts on social life generally, by bringing new ideals of life as well as a new sense of duty. In leaving Mr. Mackenzie's excellent work, we may say that it deals in a clear and logical manner with the important questions considered, and that it fully justifies the author's remark that "Social Philosophy is a subject which at present will repay a careful study."

Ω.

TWELVE LECTURES ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. By
_Ludwig Edinger_. Philadelphia and London: F. A. Davis, Publisher,
1890.

Dr. Edinger, of Frankfort-on-the-Main, Germany, is one of the very best authorities on the anatomy of the nervous system and the brain. His twelve lectures contain a statement of our present knowledge of the subject, to which the author has added considerably in several not unimportant details. No one who is a student of the human brain can do without Edinger's book, and we are glad that so soon after its appearance in German it has been translated by competent men into English.

κρς.

HYPNOTISM. By _Albert Moll_. New York: Scribner & Welford. 1890.
Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Company.

The present book is a translation from the second edition of the German original. It reviews in 410 pages the main facts of Hypnotism. The author begins with the history of Hypnotism (Chap. i); he then explains the different hypnotic methods and stages of hypnotism (Chap. ii). The symptoms of hypnotism (Chap. iii) are contrasted and compared with cognate states (Chap. iv). Information is given concerning several theories of hypnotism (Chap. v); all of them, however, are meagrely sketched and the author does not arrive at a conclusion himself. Simulation and its influences are briefly treated (Chap. vi). The medical and legal aspects of hypnotism (Chap. vii and viii) are good expositions of the matter, presented in lucid terms and impartially. The last chapter, on Animal Magnetism, treats of a series of questions which, as the author rightly remarks, refer to "phenomena which are often mentioned in connection with hypnotism, although the connection is rather historical than essential." In Mr. Moll's view they "are the consequences of erroneously interpreted observations." The topics here discussed are (1) animal magnetism, (2) telepathy, (3) supernormal acts of somnambulism, (4) the experiments with the magnet, and (5) the effects of the mere approach of drugs.

The author does not present new views of his subject, but he is considerate in his statements, as well as scientific and clear. He is not blind to the dangers of hypnotism, yet upon the whole he looks upon it favorably, saying that "hypnotism and suggestion will outlive many remedies whose praises fill the columns of medical journals at present."

κρς.

DER HYPNOTISMUS: SEINE PSYCHO-PHYSIOLOGISCHE, MEDICINISCHE,
STRAFRECHTLICHE BEDEUTUNG UND SEINE HANDHABUNG. By Dr. _August
Forel_. Zweite umgearbeitete und vermehrte Auflage. Stuttgart:
Verlag von Ferdinand Enke. 1891.

Prof. August Forel's pamphlet on hypnotism was, even in its first edition, one of the best publications of its kind. The second edition which now lies before us is enlarged and improved. The author has not changed his views; he retains his old definitions, explaining hypnosis as a state of abnormally increased suggestibility; but at the same time he has added some chapters which present his position much more accurately than he has ever done before. He rejects most positively the fluidum theories; he opposes the views of Dr. Luys whose experiments Dr. Forel repeated with his most sensitive somnambulists and obtained negative results.

The position which Professor Forel takes is unequivocal Monism. He says in his preface:

"A psychological introduction seemed to me indispensable, for it is a daily discovery with me, how much the monistic foundation of the doctrine of suggestion is misunderstood. Normal dream-life, the theory of suggestion, and the relation of the latter to medicine and to mental disorders generally, demanded substantial complements, and the addition of a few new instances of therapeutic suggestion seemed to me advantageous."

In agreement with this proposition he says in the first chapter of his pamphlet:

"Hypnotism throws much light on the phenomenon we call consciousness, and in a manner that substantially agrees with the monistic world-conception. To understand hypnotism in other relations, we must know what we have to understand by consciousness and its relation to nervous activity....

"With dualists, who regard the soul as one thing and the body together with all matter and all the forces of nature thereto appurtenant as a totally different thing, the doctrine of the psychical faculties follows of itself: herein the consciousness, the will, the mind, and the rest must be regarded as separate departments of the soul....

"The monistic conception of the world aims to reduce all cosmic phenomena to a single unity, and regards matter, force, and consciousness ultimately as only forms of appearance of a same primitive potency. Especially, however, it denies, that the soul is anything else than forces of nature....

"Considered from the monistic point of view, consciousness by itself is nothing; as Ribot ('The Diseases of Memory') correctly remarks with Huxley and others, 'Consciousness is merely the accompaniment of certain nervous processes; it is as incompetent to influence the latter as the shadow is the steps of the wayfarer it follows.' It follows, however, immediately from this, that the notions of consciousness and subject, or subjectivism, are identical and undefinable. Consciousness is merely the subjective form of appearance of nervous activity....

"Consequently, our human consciousness denotes only a summarised, synthetical, subjective illumination Of the more powerful portion of our cerebral activity....