18 THE PLAY OP ANIMALS. 



play of animals, and probably they have no conception 

 of the extent of the subject. But the child whose whole 

 mental life, as J. Schaller rightly remarks,* partakes 

 predominantly of the character of play, must bear wit- 

 ness to the fact that while play may satisfy in many cases 

 the need for recreation, it most certainly does not origi- 

 nate in it. I have been obliged to give special attention 

 to the recreation theory, because it seemed to contradict 

 the doctrine of surplus energy. It has now been shown 

 that this is not the case. In seeking to go a step further 

 in my criticism of the Spencerian theory, I find no sup- 

 port in the recreation idea, but must attempt to go on 

 independently. Let us present clearly to our minds the 

 position of our inquiry. Setting out with the overflow- 

 of-energy idea, we found that Spencer's connection of 

 this principle with that of imitation was not applicable 

 to all play. Thus the expectation of explaining it all 

 by means of surplus energy alone was found to be un- 

 tenable. We then went on to include the idea of in- 

 stinct. The overflow of accumulated vigour no longer 

 appeared as the source of play, but yet as its conditio 

 sine qua non. As now I proceed in the following pages 

 to throw doubt also upon this formulation of the Schiller- 

 Spencerian principle, I wish to avoid misunderstanding 

 by making it clear at the outset that I do not underesti- 

 mate the worth of that idea. It only seems to me that, 

 even considering it as a mere conditio sine qua non of 

 play, there is still a large territory to be accounted for 

 outside of its limits. However, the overflow of energy 

 is sufficiently important, and must be considered still the 

 most favourable though not the necessary condition of 

 play. 



* Das Spiel und die Spiele, 1861, p. 2. 



