592 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



In so far as the Spencer theory emphasizes the spontaneous character 

 of play as compared with work, it is illuminating. And if by super- 

 abounding energy Spencer means nothing more than a condition of vital 

 health of which play is the spontaneous expression, his theory is helpful 

 and true. But the impression that one gets from this theory is that 

 quiescence is considered to be the natural condition of the child and that 

 when energy superabounds then he plays. Thus far the theory needs a 

 radical revision. Still more, the Spencer theory makes no attempt to 

 explain the forms of children's play and of adults' sport, nor their his- 

 torical significance. 



The next theory of play was that of Karl Groos, developed in his two 

 books "The Play of Animals" and "The Play of Man." It is called 

 the "practise and preparation theory" and maintains that play is an 

 instinct whose purpose, during the long period of immaturity, is to per- 

 fect through play the activities afterward required in serious life. For 

 instance, the girl jumping rope doesn't know why she is doing it except 

 that it is fun. But really it is an instinct whose purpose is to develop 

 certain essential muscles. 



This theory is less illuminating than that of Spencer. All the activ- 

 ities of children are in a sense a preparation for life, but the form taken 

 by children's play is not the form of their future activities, except in a 

 comparatively few of the imitative plays. As we shall see presently, the 

 Groos theory does not apply to the characteristic and most deeply fasci- 

 nating plays of childhood and youth. Without denying the truth that 

 play is a preparation for life, a wholly different principle will be found 

 to determine the form which the plays take. Groos has more recently 

 supplemented his views by a " Katharsis " theory of play already sug- 

 gested by American psychologists. 



A third theory of play has connected the plays of children with the 

 serious pursuits of primitive man. A mass of facts showing this con- 

 nection has been collected by Stanley Hall and his school — facts which 

 no future writer on the theory of play can ignore. The manner of this 

 connection and the reason for it have not been clearly shown. Some- 

 times it has been included under the so-called law of recapitulation, a 

 theory to which critical reference will be made below. For the moment, 

 however, it will be sufficient to mention some instances of this striking 

 resemblance between the habits of our human ancestors and the plays of 

 children, calling attention to the fact that the resemblances extend not 

 only to the plays of children, but also to the sports of men. 



Haddon and Tylor have studied the history of the kite and the top 

 and of marbles and have shown their very ancient character and their 

 connection with early religious and divinatory rites. The same may be 

 said of casting lots, throwing dice, games of forfeits and games with 

 common playing cards. The mental habits of our ancestors, as we know, 



