ance in the body as dumbness, apoplexy, paralysis, fever, epilepsy, and the like. Gardiner has also contributed to the history of the affections by making a systematic survey of early views on the subject (31, 32, 30). In his first article he reviews the Platonic conceptions of affection and emotion. He finds in Plato "the first considerable attempt at an affective psychology" although it must be confessed that "he drew largely on his predecessors" for his material. These predecessors are Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Diogenes, Hippocrates, and so on. "Plato's doctrine of pleasure and pain was developed in relation to the ethical controversies of his time and conditioned by current conceptions as well as by his own ethical and metaphysical inquiry. . . The more complex affections, the emotions and passions, are regarded in part as modifications of pleasure and pain, and in part as distinct." The second article considers Aristotle. He, like Plato, treated affection, it is alleged, from other than purely psychological interests. Under Gardiner's interpretation of Aristotle "pleasure is the accompaniment of the free, unimpeded expression of the natural capacities, pain the accompaniment of conditions detrimental to such expression" (p. 6). Pleasures differ in quality, they exercise a facilitating effect upon the activity which they accompany, and they differ in purity. Gardiner then goes on to unravel Aristotle's tangled description of the passions and the emotions. In the third article he follows the development of the subject through the post-Aristotelian philosophy. Here, as in the case of Plato and Aristotle, he finds that the studies were always under the influence of practical interests and the results conditioned in no small degree by ethical and metaphysical considerations which lie largely outside of psychology. He finds evidence, however, of a growing sense of the complexity of the problem and believes that modern achievements in this field are by no means in proportion to the time that has elapsed since the Greeks struggled with them.

In another branch of the science Denton (18) has pointed out that the mature views of Herbert Spencer differed materially from his earlier psychological writings. "Crude notions of fatigue and of attention" as well as a thorough-going doctrine of phrenology are discovered by Denton in Spencer's earliest writings.

General reviews of recent history have been appearing in the PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN up to 1920 (72). Yearly summaries of progress in the science have appeared regularly in Appleton's Yearbook and in the Yearbook of the New International Encyclopedia. A few other general reviews have also been written. In a survey

of

ten years of American psychology Ruckmick (76) found that, contrary to the assertions of many that the science had fallen upon a "strange and troubled time" and that during the fifty-odd years of its existence as an experimental discipline it had signally failed "to make its place in the world as an undisputed natural science," there was every indication of an energetic growth and of the final attainment of first rank among other sciences. Dwelshauvers has reviewed more at length contemporary French psychology (24), but like too many historians of psychology much of his time is spent on the philosophers from Maine de Biran to Bergson instead of upon the psychologists.

66

In recognition of a quarter century birthday, the Philosophical Review published, in 1917, among other papers, two on the development of psychology during the preceding twenty-five years. Miss Washburn, in her retrospections over the quarter century (99), found that a statement made at the beginning of the period was just as true in 1917 as it was in 1892. The statement is Psychology which, by enlarging its field of observation and improving its methods of investigation, has within the last decade probably outstripped every other province of human knowledge in the rate of its growth." 1 Miss Washburn has shown in broad outline how the science has continued to enlarge its field of observation and to improve and multiply its methods. Pillsbury's paper cites some of the new developments in the science during the quarter-century (68). In 1892 "Wundt's system had reached approximately its final form; James had published his chief books, and Ribot had written his more important works. . . . With some important exceptions experiment had been confined to sensation, to Weber's law, to space perception, and to reaction times. Ebbinghaus alone had worked on memory; only preliminary experiments had been made upon association and the ideational processes; the physiological accompaniments of mental processes had been little studied, and most of the results obtained were found later to be incorrect" (68, p. 56). As examples. of new developments in the science since 1892 Pillsbury sets down the great amount of experimental work upon which modern discussions are based, the development of the applications and of the branches of psychology such as education, psychiatry and mental pathology, the development of tests of intelligence, animal psychology, the rise of behaviorism, the psychology of advertising, and the like. 1 See prefatory note, Phil. Rev., 1892, 1, 7.

The writer has found little change during the quarter century in "the persistence of opposing or contradictory theories and in the capacity of different men for drawing opposite conclusions from the same premises and the same observed facts" (p. 67). "As one compares the psychology of the present with the psychology at the time the Review was founded, one sees that the advance, great as it is, has not been in the line of development of a single system or even in a tendency to accept a common viewpoint. Rather has it been in the accumulation of facts in an ever widening domain and in the development of complete or partial explanations of separate problems there have been no revolutionary discoveries, and most of the great changes in the point of view that were proclaimed or proclaimed themselves to be epoch-making have with time proved to be less striking and of less importance than they seemed at first sight (p. 69).

Saffiotti's review of the development of experimental psychology in Italy is a distinct contribution to historiography (77). Into twenty-four pages he has crowded the rapid development of Italian psychology from the publication by Guisippi Sergi in 1873 of the Principi di Psicologia sulla base delle scienze sperimentali, to the other important systematic texts, to the organization in 1896 of the first experimental laboratory by Tamburini and the founding of the various psychological journals together with a characterization of the psychology which Italy has produced.

Aside from these studies of direct historical value, there is a group of miscellaneous writings which reflect more or less upon the history of psychology or which are introductory to the history. Galen's studies on the "natural faculties" (13), Leibnitz's life and work (14), Hume's relation to Malebranche (22), Rousseau's doctrine of the right to believe (105), Francis Bacon and the modern spirit (61), the James-Lange theory in Lessing (58), psychophysical parallelism as a psychological episode in history (56), the scientific productivity of American professional psychologists (29), the number of articles of psychological interest published in the different languages (25), notes on the presidents of the American Psychological Association (65), Jewish pillars of psychology (73), the Jewish founders of collective psychology (74), the blood and soul in ancient belief (107), the development of British thought (95), Malebranche's conception of psychology (92), the function of intuition in Descartes' philosophy of science (66), Ribot's psychology and its relation to contemporary thought (54), the history and development of thought and emotion

in the middle ages (86), and the relation between the color theories of Schopenhauer and of Goethe (4), are some of the topics which fall in this group.

Obituary notices and biographical notes often contribute generously to the history of a period. The life and work of Wundt have been referred to or reviewed by Kraepelin (51), Titchener (90, 91), Wirth (106), by his American Students (84), and by an anonymous writer (120). Ladd's work has been eulogized by Hicks (47), and Seashore (79). Brentano has been given his place temporarily in the science by Kraus (52), and Titchener (89). The latter sets Brentano over against Wundt both of whom are regarded in the light of the "conditions under which their respective psychologies acquired their form and substance." A notice of Külpe's life and writings has been written by Fischer (27). The fortunes of that great genius Helmholtz are traced by Karpinski (50) from his formulation at twenty-six of the law of the conservation of energy through the Handbuch der physiologischen Optik and through his other great achievements. Some of Helmholtz's possible predecessors in the field of audition are suggested by Gradenigo (35), Mendenhall reviews his work in physiological optics (64). Hess has written an appreciative review of the work of E. Hering, especially in the field of vision (46). Verworn likewise has written of him (93).

Sheard has given a timely review of Thomas Young's relation to the early development of physiological optics (80). Various aspects of the life and work of C. Pierce have been treated by Royce and Kernan (75), Ladd-Franklin (53), Jastrow (49), and Dewey (20). Royce has also been honored in the same way by Bennett (5), Cabot (15), Howison (48), and Olgiati (67). Among other men in psychology and in related fields who are listed biographically or historically are Ribot (94), Münsterberg (81), Tamburini (26, 38, 116), Southard (117), Raleigh (57), Haeckel (19), Ewald (33), Mach (44), Erdmann (85), da Vinci (7, 17, 55), Fabre (103), Crooks (3), Lombroso (12, 59), and Virchow (9, 60, 102). William Stern's fiftieth birthday has been signalized by a survey of his scientific work (16).

REFERENCES

1. Air Service, Medical. Washington: Gov. Printing Office, 1919, Pp. 446. 2. BALDWIN, B. T., HENMON, V. A. C., ET AL. Report of the Committee on the Academic Status of Psychology, Amer. Psychol. Assn.; A Survey of I. General and Experimental Psychology; II. Child Psychology; III. Applied Psychology. 1919. Pp. 31.

3. BARRETT, W. In Memory of Sir William Crooks, O.M., F.R.S. Proc. Soc. Psych. Res., 1920, 31, 12-29.

4. BARTHEL, E. Der Verhältnis der Schopenhauer'schen zur Goethe'schen Farbenlehre. Arch. f. Gesch. d. Phil., 1920, 33, 60-66.

5. BENNETT, C. A. Josiah Royce; notes. Phil. Rev., 1916, 25, 843-845. 6. BENTLEY, M. The psychological antecedents of phrenology. Psychol. Monog., 1916, 21 (No. 92), 102–115.

7. BILANCIONI, G. L'orecchio e il naso nel sistema autopometrico di Leonardo da Vinci. Roma: Nardecchia, 1920. Pp. 105.

8. BINGHAM, W. V. Army personnel work. J. of Appl. Psychol., 1919, 3,

I-12.

9. BOAK, E. R. Rudolph Virchow-Anthropologist and Archeologist. Scient. Mo., 1921, 13, 40-45.

10. BOAS, G. A note for the history of affective psychology. J. of Phil., Psychol., etc., 1920, 17, 157–159.

II. BORING, E. G., AND TITCHENER, E. B. Sir Thomas Wrightson's theory Am. J. of Psychol., 1920, 31, 101-113.

of hearing.

12. BOWERS, P. E.

Cesare Lombroso. J. of Delinq., 1919, 4, 210–220. (Trans.) Galen on the natural faculties. New York: Putnam, 1916. Pp. iv+339.

13. BROCK, A. J.

14. BURNS, C. D. Leibnitz's life and work. Monist, 1916, 26, 486–503. 15. CABOT, R. C. Josiah Royce as a teacher. Phil. Rev., 1916, 25, 466–473. 16. COHN, J. William Stern's wissenschaftlicher Werk. Rückblick und Ausblick au seinem 50. Geburtstage. Zsch. f. Päd., Psychol. u. exper. Päd., 1921, 22, 145-149.

17. CREDARO, L. Alcuni pensieri pedagogici di Leonardo da Vinci. Riv. ped., 1919, 12, 225-229.

18. DENTON, G. B. Early psychological theories of Herbert Spencer. Psychol. Rev., 1921, 32, 5-15.

19. DE SARLO, F. Ernesto Haeckel. Bilychnis, 1921, 8, 1-12.

20. DEWEY, J. The pragmatism of Pierce. J. of Phil., Psychol., etc., 1916, 73, 692-710.

21. DODGE, R. Laws of relative fatigue. Psychol. Rev., 1917, 24, 89-113. 22. Doxee, C. W. Hume's relation to Malebranche. Phil. Rev., 1916, 25, 692-710. 23. DUNLAP, K.

94-97.

Psychological Research in Aviation. Science, 1919, 49,

24. DWELSHAUVERS. La psychologie française contemporaine. Paris: Alcan, 1920. Pp. 256.

25. FERNBERGER, S. W. On the number of articles of psychological interest published in the different languages. Amer. J. of Psychol., 1917, 28, 141-150.

26. FERRARI, G. C. Augusto Tamburini. Riv. di Psicol., 1919, 15, 241-242. 27. FISCHER, A. Oswald Külpe. Zsch. f. päd. Psychol., 1916, 17, 96–99. 28. FRANZ, S. I. Cerebral-mental relations. Psychol. Rev., 1921, 28, 81-95. 29. FRANZ, S. I. The scientific productivity of American professional psychologists. Psychol. Rev., 1917, 24, 197–219.

30. GARDINER, H. N. Affective psychology in ancient writers after Aristotle. Psychol. Rev., 1919, 26, 204–229.