THE STUDY OF CHARACTER 609 



the physiologists and chemists discovered in the laboratory of the body 

 — such as distillation and absorption, or fermentation and evaporation, 

 along with the older conception of animal spirits (the latter term used 

 confusedly at once in a psychological and a chemical sense; hence 

 "spirits" of ammonia, turpentine, etc.) were in turn called upon to 

 account for the transformations responsible for the elementary mental 

 processes. 



There is nothing notably distinctive in the successive formulations 

 of " nervous " function from the days of Harvey, who gave the directive 

 impetus to physiological conceptions, to those of Haller, who first 

 applied them with marked success to develop the conception of nervous 

 responsiveness (irritability) through specific adaptation of the organism 

 to the stimulus. Haller was not free from the speculative vagaries of 

 his predecessors; yet he thought of the problem of the physiological 

 basis of mental processes consistently and clearly. His contributions 

 so decidedly advanced the conception of nervous function that it was 

 relatively easy to make the transition to the true interpretation given 

 first by a group of physiologists in the early nineteenth century (Mar- 

 shall Hall, Charles Bell, Majendi) and culminating in the actual 

 measurement of the rate of nervous impulse by Helmholtz in 1850. 

 The position of Haller is notable not only for the general correctness 

 of his conclusions and the experimental evidence upon which they were 

 based, but equally because he separated so clearly what was conjectural 

 from what was established. In a number of cases the task of his suc- 

 cessors was merely to follow his lead and transform conjecture into 

 proof.^ 



6 An admirable statement of the development of knowledge of the nervous 

 system is found in Sir Michael Foster's "Lectures on the History of Physiol- 

 ogy" (1901), Chapter X. G. Stanley Hall's "History of Eeflex Action" 

 (American Journal of Psychology, January, 1896) should also be consulted. 

 Andrew D. White's "History of the Warfare of Science and Theology" (1896) 

 provides an illuminating commentary upon the movement of thought through which 

 the present subject reached its modern stage. Of the histories of psychology that 

 of Dessoir (1912) contains the most distinctive appreciation of the " character and 

 temperament" movement. Of the more recent studies the most noteworthy are: 

 A. Levy, "Psychologie du Caract&re" (1896); Malapert, "Temperament et 

 Caractere" (1902), "Les elements du Caraetere" (1906); Alfred Fouille, 

 "Temperament et Caract&re, etc."; Paulhan, "Les Caraet&res" (1894); Th. 

 Eibery, " Essai de Classification Naturel des Caract&res" (1902); L. Klages, 

 "Prinzipien der Characterologie" (1911); Sternberg, "Characterologie als Wis- 

 senschaft" (1907); C. J. Whitby, "The Logic of Human Character." These 

 works are by no means of comparable value, scope or treatment ; nor does any one 

 of them interpret accurately the message of modern psychologj' upon the subject. 

 The literature bearing upon the training of character is large, but not pertinent 

 to the present survey. Of books of other purpose with important bearing upon 

 the subject may be mentioned MacDougall, "Social Psychology" (1908) and 

 Wallas, "The Great Society" (1914). A peculiarly notable volume is A. F. 

 Shand, "The Foundations of Character" (1914). Xo reference is made in the 

 retrospective view or in the recent literature to the several modern attempts to 



