May 12, 1899.] 



SCIENCE. 



683 



ignored ; while among Americans we look in 

 vain for C. H. P. Peters and Watson, Benjamin 

 Peirce and G. P. Bond, Olmsted and H. A. 

 Newton, Kutherfurd and the Drapers, the 

 Clarks and Gould, and Langley's epoch-making 

 research on the infra-red rays of the solar spec- 

 trum. 



When Mr. Berry reaches the 19th century, 

 staggered by the accumulation of material, he 

 deliberately abandons his task by attempt- 

 ing a summary in a single chapter. Here he 

 scores a signal failure, in a sketchy agglomera- 

 tion of fragments, with omissions quite as 

 prominent as inclusions. As a running precis, 

 or evanescent periodical paper, the chapter is 

 excellent, though proportionately out of bal- 

 -ance with the preceding twelve chapters. Parts 

 of Mr. Berry's book are so well done that a 

 subsequent edition would be quite worth an 

 expansion or sub -division of this chapter, for 

 the sake of appropriate exposition of the ' New 

 Astronomy,' and the instrumental means that 

 alone have made its marvelous revelations pos- 

 sible. Had the whole of Mr. Berry's short his- 

 tory been compressed proportionately to this 

 chapter, the book would have been but one- 

 third its present size. Solar research, in par- 

 ticular, is dismissed very cavalierly. 



Every one using Mr. Berry's compend for 

 reference would appreciate a new index. A 

 double index is a mistake. But a greater one is 

 the baffling system of reference, wholly ignor- 

 ing the pages of the book, and increasing at 

 least fourfold the time and labor of finding any 

 indexed allusion to a name or subject. What 

 is printed is simply an index to the MS., not to 

 the printed volume itself ; whereby the author 

 has saved his own time and that of his helpers, 

 but has wasted that of everybody who attempts 

 to use his book as a reference work. The same 

 remark applies to frequent cross-references 

 throughout the volume, which would otherwise 

 have been most helpful. 



Misprints are, fortunately, few, but we find 

 preserved and dignified that widespread error 

 of the common kind that the navigator gets his 

 longitude from solar sights at apparent noon : 

 were all navigators to follow this method, and 

 no other, we wonder how many ships would 

 ■escape being put ashore. Nine excellent por- 



traits of astronomers adorn the book, from 

 Copernicus to Sir William Herschel. 



David P. Todd. 

 Amherst College. 



De la methode dans la psyehologie des sentiments. 



Par F. Rauh. Paris, Felix Alcan. 1899. 



This book is not what the title would sug- 

 gest, a monograph on Method in the Psychology 

 of Emotion, but a general summary and discus- 

 sion of theories of emotion, particularly of re- 

 cent theories, and of methods so far as involved. 

 After some introductory definition M. Rauh 

 takes up the physiological, intellectual, the 

 biological or voluntarist, and the specialist 

 theories, if we may summarize the theories by 

 abridging his terms. His critique of the phys- 

 iological, or organic, theory of the James-Lange 

 school is quite full. He concludes : " On pent 

 dire qu'une des caracteristiques de la phys- 

 iologic physiologique a ete la superstition du 

 mouvement, en particulier du mouvement mus- 

 culaire. Si au lieu de considerer les relations 

 des fails de conscience et des mouvements peri- 

 pheriques, on considere celle des fails de con- 

 science et du cerveau, nous avons vu combien 

 cette correspondance est complexe et encore 

 obscure. Ce qui fait croire que I'on peut ex- 

 pliquer scientiflquement les sentiments et en 

 g6n6ral les fails de conscience par les mouve- 

 ments oi'ganiques, c'est que ces mouvements 

 marquent en effet la limite d'action des faits 

 psychiques." (P. 148.) 



As to the intellectual interpretations of emo- 

 tion, whether from the side of sensations or 

 ideas, he regards this as of much more im- 

 portance than the psycho-physiologists allow. 

 It may be called a universal interpretation, 

 though not an explanation. In this he follows 

 a rather disputable distinction of theories. 

 "Nous d^signerons les theories, qui traduisent 

 les faits sans permettre de les prevoir, du nom 

 de theories interpretatives ; nous appellerons 

 theories explicatives celles qui permettent de les 

 pr6voir" (P. 27). But a mere formal or de- 

 scriptive interpi'etation scarcely deserves the 

 term tlieory. The biological principle of the 

 struggle of existence is discussed at some length 

 and granted some place, but not regarded as 

 universal. He emphasizes such exceptions as 



