January 23, 1903.] 



SCIENCE. 



143 



SCIEXTIFIG BOOKS. 

 Dictionary of Pliilosophy and Psychology. 

 Edited by James Mark Baldwin, Ph.D. 

 Vol. II. New York, The Macmillan Com- 

 pany. 1902. 



In this volume of the ' Dictionary,' the first 

 volume of which was reviewed in Volume XV., 

 No. 373, of this journal, the text of the work 

 is completed. The third and last volume 

 will contain bibliographies. We have very 

 little to add to what has already been said 

 concerning the general character and value 

 of the undertaking. It should always be 

 borne in mind that this dictionary is intended 

 primarily for the student and not for the prac- 

 tised man of research. It aims ' to state for- 

 mulated and well-defined results rather than 

 to present discussions.' Its worth must be 

 measured by the ideal which it sets itself, 

 and this fact must be kept in view in our 

 criticisms. The question which we shall have 

 to ask ourselves here is. What help . does the 

 ' Dictionary ' give to persons seeking informa- 

 tion? 



This question can not be answered indis- 

 criminately, in a word. Some of the articles 

 in this second volume realize their purpose 

 well; others do not. The psychological (nor- 

 mal and abnormal), physiological and gen- 

 eral biological subjects are, in my opinion, 

 ably handled. The treatment of the history 

 of philosophy and epistemology is, as a rule, 

 good; it is clear and sound; it does not aim 

 at originality, but bases itself upon stand- 

 ard works. The ethical articles are much 

 better than those in the first volume, though 

 not, to my judgment, fully adequate. The 

 majority of the logical articles are remarkable 

 for their display of historical learning rather 

 than for their utility to the student. They 

 contain a mass of material which one would 

 expect to find in a work like Prantl's 

 ' Geschichte der Logik ' instead of in a book 

 like this. Besides, they are often vague, dif- 

 fuse and polemical, reminding one of the 

 quibbles of the schoolmen, and are not suited 

 to the needs of the persons for whom they are 

 supposed to be intended. The educational 

 articles are few, but their character is not 

 such as to cause one to regret this fact. 



The bibliographical material is, as in the 

 former volume, of unequal value. The psy- 

 chological and biological bibliographies are 

 good, although there is too great a tendency 

 to mention almost every monograph that has- 

 been published in the experimental-psycho- 

 logical field. Most of the other bibliographies 

 are not at all adequate. Of course, the third 

 volume may remedy this defect, but the text 

 itself should give the student the greatest 

 possible assistance, and that is not always 

 done, in my opinion. There is no reason why 

 the references under living matter, localiza- 

 tion, memory, nervous system, organic selec- 

 tion, optical illusions, reaction time, speech 

 and its defects, spinal cord and vision, for 

 example, should be so full, and those under 

 equally important subjects so very meager. 

 Modern logical books are seldom mentioned; 

 only where the writers of articles are dealing 

 with subjects very near to their hearts, as 

 for example in the case of symbolic logic, do 

 we get satisfactory lists. The educational 

 book-lists are very poor. The habit which 

 some writers have of constantly referring to 

 their own worlis and even praising them, does 

 not seem to me to be in good taste. I think 

 it would be a distinct gain if we could develop 

 a little more modesty along these lines. 



The biographical portion of the 'Diction- 

 ary ' is the least satisfactory of all. The edi- 

 tor declares in the preface: "And, again, we 

 are not in any way claiming that the treat- 

 ment of biography is more than the proverbial 

 ' part of a loaf ' ; it was a question, indeed, 

 of part of a loaf or no bread." But the sins 

 here are not merely sins of omission. Un- 

 important details are often inserted, and gen- 

 erally no hint is given of what the men 

 described actually stood for. Besides, com- 

 paratively unimportant persons are mentioned 

 and important ones left out. We look in 

 vain for such names as Lyell, Machiavelli, 

 Maine de Biran, Mandeville, Marcianus Ca- 

 pella, Karl Marx, Maupertuis, Maxwell, 

 Eobert Mayer, Moleschott, Pherecydes, Plat- 

 ner Quintilian, Ratke, Renan, Savigny, 

 Spener, Stirner, Stobaeus, Jeremy Taylor, 

 Tindall, Toland, Tyndall, Vanini, Leonardo 

 da Vinci, Vischer, Whately, Wiclif, Winckel- 



