the totality is the reality. And this situation becomes the more dangerous the greater the tendency is, under the influence of this newest fad for most modern psychology, to give the attention either to the emptiest generalities or to the most specialistic details which have not even an indirect bearing on that which could be important for the teacher. I see it again and again; the women come into my laboratory and ask, casually, either, "Doctor, do you think that we have a soul?" or they ask me to show them the electrical details of a chronoscope for measuring the time of mental acts in thousandths of a second. They may have seen a woodcut of it in the last Sunday paper, or have read of it in the last illustrated magazine, and as they wish to be "modern" teachers they must know all about it. They come and look around, listen to the rattling of some instruments, and go away after half an hour, assuring me that they have learned very much indeed, and, what is worse, they really believe it. If a scientific pedagogue takes as theoretical study the problem how to get from the modern psychology suggestions for the methods of teaching, all right; his results may be useful hints for the teacher, but the individual teacher who has picked up no more psychology than the few crumbs which have fallen from the table, and thinks that his own psychological studies can control his teaching, is misguided. .

But I go further. Even for the scientific student of pedagogics, whose profession it is to look out for educational suggestions, even for him, the outcome of experimental and physiological psychology is relatively still small, because psychology itself knows still too little. It is often said that psychology is to-day in a state in which physics was in the sixteenth century. Does not that in itself suggest modesty? And the necessary characteristics of a science in so early a stage is the quick change of opinions. A famous physiologist said once that he got secretly the statistical result; that every important new physiological discovery has an average life of four years. It seems to me that the new discoveries in modern psychology have often an existence of only four months. That is no opprobrium; just the contrary. For the development of a science it is the most healthful state when many new ideas grow up as working hypotheses, with provisional character; they help to find new facts, but the new facts demand a change of the ideas, and so every discovery is only a new step, which is left as soon as possible for the next step. That is a splendid state for psychology, but it is no state in which practical conclusions from such new discoveries can upset the mature experience of good teachers.

But it seems to me, if I speak sincerely, that all arguments in opposition of this kind, the arguments of the narrow limitation of individual kwledge and of the narrow limitation of psychology itself, do not lenore than the surface of the problem. There is another and dos pe, pour, which is to me far more important, and which is the real moi ve of my unmodern attitude. I can not hope to bring it out in a

convincing way in such a short talk, but I must show at least the direc tion in which it lies.

To be sure, all phenomena of the world are physical or psychical; the physical ones are described in physics and chemistry, the psychical ones in psychology, and there can not be a phenomenon which is, as such, not an object for physics or psychology. But it seems to me the mistake of our time-more than that, the disease of our time-to believe that the full reality can be understood as a phenomenon. The world is a series of physical and psychological phenomena, if we think of it as an object of perception, outer and inner perception; but the personality is not only a perceiving subject; it is, above all, a willing subject, and the object of this subject is, therefore, not only a world of phenomena, but a world of objects of the will; that is, a world of values, of appreciation, of duties. The world of phenomena is causal, the world of values is teleological; the one is atomistic, the other seeks the reality, not in the parts, but in the unity of the whole; the one is the world of physical and psychical laws, the other is a world of freedom; in the one everything exists for itself, in the other all reality is given by its relation to us. And this world of freedom is the primary, as it is a free act itself to think of the world as an unfree world in the categories of phenomena, and the world appears as existing phenomenon only if we think the objects of our will independent of our will, and cut loose from it. When I talk to you, to be sure, you can take it as a series of phenomena. Physical phenomena are the nervous processes in me, and the air vibrations which go to your ears, and the nervous processes in you; and the psychical phenomena are the psychical elements which are together in this moment in my consciousness and the contents of your consciousness; but if we describe all these physical and psychical phenomena, even in the most exact way, we describe the experience of this moment in terms which have nothing to do with that reality which really interests you and me. My words may interest the physicist and psychologist as phenomena; for you and me they do not belong to the world of phenomena, because we have not cut them loose in this moment from our will; a responsible free personality expresses its intentions and its convictions to other free personalities. We do not care how all this appears to a perceiving personality; we ask only what it is to willing personalities and what it is to them, is just as much reality, and even more than all that it is to the perceiving subject; that is, as phenomenon. When I speak I do not think about the phenomena which are going on in me, in you, in the air; I do not think of them, and the thought of them would not help me. If I should think of them I could not speak at all. I do not produce sounds and, indirectly, associations by psychophysic laws, but I express a meaning to judging personalities; organisms underlie the laws of physics and psychology; personalities obey the laws of logics and ethics, and the relation between teacher and pupils has not to be thought of as a relation of psychophysical organisms, but as a relation of free personalities.

he psychophysical concep e political and economical and out phenomena after the scheme hat philosophy has to be looked on new, and now comes pedagogics and logical psychology! Not one of you srest in psychological observation and ewo little children, but I have never them. Not because I think it harmful

not say anything against it if other make little experiments on my children. even observe them from a psychological ...be certainly harmless for them. I do not I can not do it, because the reality of those their existence as a series of psychological ...eo phenomena for me, because I can not cut rom my attitude, from my personality. They celta, not objects of perception, but values; my love, of my duty. You may artificially train. cast Screen the two attitudes, and observe in one u the moment before, but the one will always er; to acknowledge the existence of a phenomsuvinced that it is independent of our attitude. sers may not give up so easily their attitude of

M

May not go over so easily to the position of pera. they may love their pupils instead of observing ne hoy ray not hunt for bits and ends of psychology, and sible personality.

;ssor of chemistry or mineralogy, and an artist, a co to wo and told me that he wished to create a marble ved cha, he came to study chemistry and mineralogy because sa scone and a chemical substance, what would I tell him? I way Dear friend, chemistry is an extremely important science, vosa may study it as an educated man, but as an artist you have g to do with it. To be sure, you must have a general idea of the 9:26, and of its difference from clay or plaster, but a real, exact, homeal study of the marble as substance in the laboratory is not your business. If you wish to create your work of art, ask Phidias and Michael Angelo, and, above all, ask your own genius." I think the teacher is an artist, too, who has to create his ideal of an educated personality out of the material which the psychologist studies. he comes to me as a psychologist, I must say to him, too, psychology is a very important study, take part in it as a man of broad interests, but as a teacher let it go-it is not your business. If you wish to go to work, ask your Phidiases, ask your Michael Angelos, and, above all, ask your own genius, ask your own conscience, ask your own heart.

But if

PSYCHOLOGY IN UNIVERSITIES.

[In his article on the new psychology as a basis of education, which appeared in the Forum for August, 1894, Dr. G. Stanley Hall, after sketching the development of logic, ethics, and the history of philosophy as subjects in the college course, gives the following account of the later development of courses in psychology.-Ed.]

The fourth and last movement began in this country at the Johns Hopkins University only thirteen years ago, when the first chair of experimental psychology was established. The beginning was extremely modest, and with a less bold and sagacious leadership of that university might perhaps to this day never have been made. The history of this departure shows, better than any other I know of, one of the best sides of our American institutions, viz, readiness to recognize a good thing when seen and to adopt it. Although the second American chair in this department has not been established ten years, an American association of between two and three score instructors is now nearly two years old. Instead of the first lack of text-books, there is now almost an excess of them; and transforming effects in this oldest and most conservative department are incalculable. Two journals, one founded in 1887, and the other in 1894, are devoted exclusively, and eight or ten others partially, to this work. A score of psycho-physic laboratories, with more men and apparatus than can be found in all Europe combined, and with a reputable output of original work, are now in operation. A glance at the chief fields, now cultivated by a complete university department of psychology, will show how transforming for other philosophical disciplines, how all-conditioning for education, and how full of promise for religion this regenerate "science of man" is now fast becoming.

I. First came the laboratory or experimental work. Perhaps in no department will a very little money do so much, as a few even of the normal schools have lately found out to their great benefit. Experiments on the senses, motion, time of psychic actions, fatigue, pain, rhythm, etc., now take most of the vital problems of perception, association, attention, and will, into the laboratory; they quadruple the power of introspection while obviating all its dangers; they shed new light in many dark corners, and they have already reconstructed many old doctrines. Dr. Sanford is embodying the results of this development in a course of about three hundred and fifty experiments hardly less valuable for logic than psychology.

In the modern laboratory conditions, whether of a bit of nerve fiber or cell of a normal human being, are varied indefinitely, and really enlarge human experience. Men sleep on balances with apparatus that records the slightest change of pulse, respiration, circulation, and heat; they test themselves with mild doses of narcotics and other nervines; they multiply or reduce air pressures over the entire dermal

surface; they select a square inch of skin, and with every known test educate it for months; they fatigue definite muscle groups; they measure the exact time and force of memory and will; they register diurnal and even monthly periodicities; they explore the hypnotic state; they apply the various forms of electricity; light, heat, and sound with chemicals for taste and smell..

Fruitful and important as all this is, it by no means covers the ground of the old college philosophy. It has little ethical power in it, and for the average student it is not, perhaps, always idealizing. Hence it is all the more to be regretted that a few of the new psychologists go no further, but are content only to make methods more exact and results more refined. Although they are hardly open to the charge of teaching "psychology without a soul," which is sometimes made, they certainly represent only a single section of the new psychology.

II. Another field is that of comparative psychology. The more we know of animal life, the vaster becomes our conception of instinct. How philosophy treats this, Schelling once said, is one of its best tests. Broadest and lowest are the instincts in the vegetable world, such as the movements by which a root penetrates the soil with sagacity as if its tip were a tiny brain; the tricks of carnivorous and climbing plants and fertilization; the movements of bacteria, infusoria, and from these up to earthworms, ants, bees, trapdoor spiders, and the higher mammals-all these studies shed light upon the nature, and often upon the genesis of what is a priori and innate in man. Neither the instinctive nor the conscious should be allowed to become the key or type by which to explain the other. The psychologist who can surround himself with every form of animal life until his sympathy and insight into its ways are as deep as that of Audubon, or White, of Selborne, and as reverent as that of St. Francis, can not fail of a deep religious feeling that the world is rational to the core. Instinct will seem larger and deeper though not so high as reason. The joy of finding traces of purpose and design beneath us will become a kind of atonement between consciousness in its unconscious basis. The boundless plasticity which fits every condition and fills full every possibility of life shows a wisdom beneath us which we can not escape if we would, and on which, when conscious purpose and endeavor droop, we can fall back with trust as on everlasting arms.

III. Anthropology, which is very lately coming into some of our American colleges, is never, in fact, so large as its name. In older and theological institutions it designated the processes in the fall and redemption of man. For some it is mainly anthropometry, the Benedict school having refined some hundred measurements of the skull alone. For others its means the study of primitive man, cave dwellers, and ehke. The psychological side which interests us here is devoted to b. custom, and belief. If psychology is truly historical, it goes ha: all finished systems to their roots in the primary thoughts,