of the eighty-eight topics listed by "The Psychological Index' have remained barren throughout the ten years, not having received a single notice. They comprise almost one half of the whole field so listed, showing a rather surprising lack of breadth of treatment. It should be observed, however, that these topics are largely pathological in scope. It is unnecessary here to recount these special topics, which are readily traced in the table.

If one wishes to ascertain the points emphasized in the work of the association. thus represented, and learn what have been the lines of dominant interest expressing themselves, he may take numbers as indicative thereof. Arranged in the order beginning with the maximum and ending with the minimum, the summary shows the following results, of course presupposing that all the material has been of a distinctly psychological character: General (56), sensation (53), genetic, social and

1

2

1 2

2 4 2

1

2

1 1

1

41 14+

215

2

477

471

11 4

21 21 24 19 23 37 41 52 25 20 283 100

individual psychology (41), higher manifestation of mind (39), cognition (34), conation and movement (17), characters of consciousness (13), mental tests (11), sleep, trance and pathology (10), anatomy and physiology of the nervous system (7), affection (2).

This topical arrangement offers only the advantages of a cross-section view of the ten years, and is, therefore, inadequate to point out the more interesting perspective of the drifts and tendencies which may be taken to mark the ups and downs of interest in so far as they may have been evoked by the association. I have, therefore, redistributed the material under such rubrics as, it seems to me, more adequately point out the methods, types of interest, and perhaps results, which are what we chiefly seek in the historical way. The selection of the headings employed in Table III., such as 'historical,' 'theoretical,' 'descriptive,' 'experimental,' etc., must be left to justify itself. It need scarcely be added that in the preparation of this table, as was the case in the preceding table, recurring difficulty was encountered in tabbing off a paper under this topic, or under

In ten years

the association has countenanced eighty-six items of an experimental character, thirtyfour philosophical, twenty-eight on apparatus, twenty-five theoretical, twenty-five genetic, twenty-three descriptive, twenty physical and physiological, twelve historical, twelve pedagogical, seven comparative, seven miscellaneous and four discussions outside. A detailed study of this table shows some interesting contrasts, which the reader can not fail to detect. Attention may be called to some of them. The first, sixth, second, third, seventh and eighth meetings have been predominantly experimental in the order named. The fifth and ninth meetings have been mark

every direction. The pedagogical interests of the science have had the smallest distribution, having been in evidence at only six meetings. In spite of the apparently shifting interests, the association may claim for itself a scientific and inductive character. Forty per cent. of the material belongs to the experimental and apparatus items alone. And more than eleven per cent. properly contributes to the developmental point of view.

Not to undertake a discussion of the contributive values of the papers to the growth of the science is a restriction we have placed upon this historical survey, and the relative merits of the contributions made under each heading we refrain from discussing, except the one instance of the presidential addresses, to which we now turn.

THE PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES.

The ten presidential addresses delivered before the association, which have been included as so many units in the general summaries above, are interesting enough for separate note. These reviews and discussions of our psychological nestors may well be regarded-at least be expected to be so as indicating the high-water mark reached by the psychological tides in the ebb and flow of the years. They are, in truth, made up of congratulations, instructions and warnings to psychology. There have been ten of them; hence their mere numerical evaluation can count for but little. Four men, Presidents Hall, Ladd, Cattell and Jastrow, have reviewed the history, progress, present position and the prospects of psychology; while six, Presidents James, Fullerton, Baldwin, Münsterberg, Dewey and Royce, have specialized in the problems they presented. Four of the latter, oddly enough, have allowed their presidential thoughts to center around certain cognitive problems of the intellect. One address was expressly devoted to the ontological differentiations between 'Psy

Self in its Function of Knower,' 'Recent Logical Inquiries and their Psychological Bearings.' Six presidents dwelt upon the relation between psychology and philosophy, some at length, but all approvingly, including one who has stood most stoutly and clearly for the development of exact, quantitative results in the laboratory. Thus the majority have either affirmed in general or illustratively detailed the interdependent relation between this new science and the old love of reason.

It is disappointing to discover in the scope of these addresses that only three presidents have dealt with the laboratory field of problems, the scope and the conditions of the psychological experiment and the relations of statistical and experimental studies of mind to the total science of psychology. Not even the experimentalist presidents-professionally such, of whom there have been at least three, and at most six-have improved the presidential occasion for giving greater momentum and needed clarity to the experimental development of the science. Where prejudice against the method might have been sup

one address of the ten attempted in extenso to make good the claim that psychology has manifest and manifold practical appli

cations, which occurred under terms of 'Psychology and Social Practice,' the special form of social practice considered being education.

It is not a little interesting to see how hard it is for the psychologists von Fach to keep from trespassing on the green fields of epistemology and metaphysics. The borderland between the scientific and the speculative interests has not only been wandered over, but there have been technical discussions of the latter. This appears unquestionably in such themes as "The Knowing of Things Together,' 'The

generosity in recognizing it; and where passion for the method should have existed, there has been actual default in the use

made of the opportunity.

One half of the presidents have treated of purely formal, theoretical or speculative interests. Two have supported the genetic method and attempted to vindicate the bearing of the conception of evolution on the problems, methods and attitudes of psychology. Only one has suggested the psychological values of abnormal and decadent experience, while none has dealt with the feelings.

Six presidents have been content to look backwards, or to feel certain only up to the present; while not more than four have looked forward and suggested new prob