The Psychology of the New "Britannica"

E. B. Titchener
The American Journal of Psychology
Vol. 23, No. 1 (Jan., 1912), pp. 37-58
DOI: 10.2307/1413113
Stable URL:
Page Count: 22
  • Download PDF
  • Cite this Item

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:


Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

The Psychology of the New

Notes and References

This item contains 19 references.

  • 1
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • A General Analysis of Mind Journal of Speculative Philosophy, XVI. 1882, 366)
    • Objects and their Interaction (ibid., XVII. 1883, 169)
    • Psychological Principles (Mind, O. S. VIII. 1883, 153, 465)
  • 2
    Mr. James Ward's "Psychology," Mind, O. S. XI. 1886, 457.
  • 3
    Mind, N. S. II. 1893, 347
  • 4
    Psychological Principles, III. Mind, O. S. XII. 1887, 45
  • 5
    The Present Problems of General Psychology, Philos. Review, XIII. 1904, 619
  • 6
    Cf. I. xiv. The italics are mine.
  • 8
    Will it be objected that psychology is not a 'science'? But Professor Ward gives as its formal definition 'the science of mind;' and the Editorial Introduction makes but one, quite casual, reference to Philosophy. See also Note 12 below.
  • 9
    Cf. I. xviii.
  • 11
    The article Classification makes mention of a 'Carl Wundt,' whom I take to be a portmanteau-person, compounded of Carl Stumpf and Wilhelm Wundt.
  • 17
    In the course of correspondence regarding the eleventh edition, Dr. L. N. Wilson called my attention to the fact that Vol. XIV. of the set in the Clark Library repeats the Insanity statistics of the ninth edition, although the date as- signed is 1901. I find, by personal examination and by further correspondence, that some sets have the correct, others the incorrect figures. (On p. 600 the Total of the first line of the table should be 48,882; if it is 29,452 the statistics of 1871 have been repeated.) Plainly, the plates have been changed since the Encyclopædia was issued. I have made inquiry at the New York office of the Cambridge Uni- versity Press, b1it have so for received no reply.
  • 21
    In the article Voice (J. G. M.) there is a new section, entitled "Vowel Tones." The author is concerned with the alternative of relative vs. fixed pitch of the characteristic partials, and decides by a compromise. This preoccupation forbids any clear statement of the Hermann-Pipping controversy: not, indeed, that the author is unique in that regard, for a sort of fatality of confusion seems to attach to the topic. But, at all events, the reader of the article will get no notion of the difference between the fixed-pitch theories of Helmholtz and Hermann; he may even be led to suppose that Fourier analysis reveals inharmonic partials.
  • 25
    The reviser has crossed out Hartley's acknowledgment of in- debtedness to Gay; and, in the article Hartley, has dropped a qualify- ing clause and a sentence which were valuable as giving the reader a just perspective. Condensation is all very well: but the Encyclo- paedia contains such choice specimens of verbiage that these special instances of space-hunger are annoying.
  • 26
    This article ends with the words: "Machines have been devised which make allowance for the error caused by the personal equation (see Micrometer)." The 'make allowance' is puzzling; and I find a reference to the eye and ear method not under Micrometer but under Transit Circle.—There is, I should add, a mention of associa- tion reactions under Association.
  • 29
    The initials should be C. G. The correction is trivial, as the name in question is Carl; but it gives me an opportunity to remark that the initials of the Encyclopaedia—so far as psychology is con- cerned—are not always trustworthy.
  • 30
    I am glad to be able to place Professor Ribot here; the Encyclo- paedia dates his death 1903.
  • 31
    So far as I have observed, Stumpf and the Tonpsychologie re- ceive textual mention only in the article Aesthetics.
  • 32
    There are articles on Charcot, Galton, Myers, Porter. It may save some reader trouble if I add that I have looked in vain for Aubert, Delboeuf, Drobisch, Hering, Horwicz, Meinong, Mosso, Pear- son, Richet, Sergi, Tetens, Volkmann, E. H. Weber. There is no attempt at a psychological appraisement of Crusius, Priestley, Rei- marus, J. L. Vives; the latter's De anima et vita is not named. In truth, psychological perspective, whether geographical or temporal, is sadly lacking.
  • I have worked out the references under the topical heading Psychology (p. 640), and under a number of special headings; there has not been time for a thorough search. I find that the general heading gives the sub-headings Ethics, relation to; Logic, relation to; Metaphysics, relation to,—and as I have not mentioned in the text any discussion of the relation of psychology to other disciplines, I am glad to repair the neglect here. The article Ethics, then, devotes twenty lines to psy- chology; ethics, we are told, must hold its ground against the intrusion of ideas from alien sources, and the conviction of 'the ultimate character of moral obli- gation' "may produce quite unforeseen results for psychology." Logic informs us that metaphysics, logic and psychology form together a 'triad of sciences;' the interdependence is "so intimate that one sign of great philosophy is a con- sistent metaphysics, psychology and logic." A paragraph under Kant's Logic treats of the post-Kantian psychological logic. Metaphysics teaches that "to pro- ceed from psychology to metaphysics is to proceed from the less to the more known; and the paradoxes of psychological have caused those of metaphysical idealism." These brief notes must suffice.
  • The Preface admits that "every index has its humors:" here is an illustration. There is a sub-heading Pioneers of Physiological Psychology, and the names to which reference is made are A. Bain, F. E. Beneke, and J. Huarte.