[12] Wilhelm Windelband, _Geschichte und Naturwissenschaft, Rede zum Antritt des Rectorats der Kaiser-Wilhelms Universitat Stra.s.sburg_ (Stra.s.sburg, 1900). The logical principle outlined by Windelband has been further elaborated by Heinrich Rickert in _Die Grenzen der naturwissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung, eine logische Einleitung in die historischen Wissenschaften_ (Tubingen u. Leipzig, 1902). See also Georg Simmel, _Die Probleme der Geschichtsphilosophie, eine erkenntnistheoretische Studie_ (2d ed., Leipzig, 1915).

[13] J. Arthur Thomson, _The System of Animate Nature_ (New York, 1920), pp. 8-9. See also Karl Pearson, _The Grammar of Science_ (2d ed.; London, 1900), chap. iii, "The Scientific Law."

[14] Karl Pearson, _op. cit._, p. 359.

[15] Henry Adams, _op. cit._, p. 127.

[16] Professor Robertson Smith (_Nature_, XLIV, 270), criticizing Westermarck's _History of Human Marriage_, complains that the author has confused history with natural history. "The history of an inst.i.tution,"

he writes, "which is controlled by public opinion and regulated by law is not natural history. The true history of marriage begins where the natural history of pairing ends.... To treat these topics (polyandry, kinship through the female only, infanticide, exogamy) as essentially a part of the natural history of pairing involves a tacit a.s.sumption that the laws of society are at bottom mere formulated instincts, and this a.s.sumption really underlies all our author's theories. His fundamental position compels him, if he will be consistent with himself, to hold that every inst.i.tution connected with marriage that has universal validity, or forms an integral part of the main line of development, is rooted in instinct, and that inst.i.tutions which are not based on instinct are necessarily exceptional and unimportant for scientific history."

[17] Edward Westermarck, _The History of Human Marriage_ (London, 1901), p. 1.

[18] _Ibid._, p. 5.

[19] Jane Ellen Harrison, _Themis_, _A Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion_ (Cambridge, 1912), p. ix.

[20] Robert H. Lowie, _Primitive Society_ (New York, 1920), pp. 7-8.

[21] Wilhelm Wundt, _Volkerpsychologie, eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte_. Erster Band, _Die Sprache_, Erster Theil (Leipzig, 1900), p. 13. The name folk-psychology was first used by Lazarus and Steinthal, _Zeitschrift fur Volkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft_, I, 1860. Wundt's folk-psychology is a continuation of the tradition of these earlier writers.

[22] G. Tarde, _Social Laws, An Outline of Sociology_, translated from the French by Howard C. Warren (New York, 1899), pp. 40-41.

[23] Hanns Oertel, "Some Present Problems and Tendencies in Comparative Philology," _Congress of Arts and Science, Universal Exposition, St.

Louis, 1904_ (Boston, 1906), III, 59.

[24] Edward A. Freeman, _Comparative Politics_ (London, 1873), p. 23.

[25] L. Levy-Bruhl, _The Philosophy of Auguste Comte_, authorized translation; an Introduction by Frederic Harrison (New York, 1903), p.

337.

[26] _Ibid._, p. 234.

[27] Hobbes's statement is as follows: "For by art is created that great _Leviathan_ called a _Commonwealth_, or _State_, in Latin _Civitas_, which is but an artificial man; though of greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defence it was intended; and in which the _sovereignty_ is an artificial _soul_, as giving life and motion to the whole body; the _magistrates_, and other _officers_ of judicature, artificial _joints_; _reward_ and _punishment_, by which fastened to the seat of the sovereignty every joint and member is moved to perform his duty, are the _nerves_, that do the same in the body natural." Spencer criticizes this conception of Hobbes as representing society as a "fact.i.tious" and artificial rather than a "natural"

product. Herbert Spencer, _The Principles of Sociology_ (London, 1893), I, 437, 579-80. See also chap. iii, "Social Growth," pp. 453-58.

[28] Herbert Spencer, _op. cit._, I, 437.

[29] _Ibid._, p. 440.

[30] _Ibid._, p. 450.

[31] _Ibid._, pp. 449-50.

[32] _Westminster Review_, January, 1860.

[33] Rene Worms, _Organisme et Societe_, "Bibliotheque Sociologique Internationale" (Paris, 1896), pp. 210-13.

[34] W. Trotter, _Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War_ (New York, 1916), pp. 29-30.

[35] _Ibid._, pp. 40-41.

[36] Franklin Henry Giddings, _The Concepts and Methods of Sociology_, Congress of Arts and Science, Universal Exposition (St. Louis, 1904), pp. 789-90.

[37] G. Tarde, _op. cit._, pp. 38-39.

[38] emile Durkheim, _Elementary Forms of Religious Life_ (New York, 1915), pp. 206-8.

[39] John Dewey, _Democracy and Education_ (New York, 1916), p. 5.

[40] _Ibid._, pp. 6-7.

[41] emile Durkheim, "Representations individuelles et representations collectives," _Revue metaphysique_, VI (1898), 295. Quoted and translated by Charles Elmer Gehlke, "emile Durkheim's Contributions to Sociological Theory," _Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law_, LXIII, 29-30.

[42] Bliss Perry, _The American Mind_ (Boston, 1912), p. 47.

[43] James Mark Baldwin, _Mental Development in the Child and the Race_ (New York and London, 1895); Charles A. Ellwood, _Sociology in Its Psychological Aspects_ (New York and London, 1912).

[44] _Labour and Life of the People_ (London, 1889), I, pp. 6-7.

[45] Thomas and Znaniecki, _The Polish Peasant in Europe and America_ (Boston, 1918), I, 3.

[46] Walter B. Bodenhafer, "The Comparative Role of the Group Concept in Ward's Dynamic Sociology and Contemporary American Sociology," _American Journal of Sociology_, XXVI (1920-21), 273-314; 425-74; 588-600; 716-43.

[47] _Stillwater, the Queen of the St. Croix_, a report of a social survey, published by The Community Service of Stillwater, Minnesota, 1920, p. 71.

[48] Frank Tannenbaum, "Prison Democracy," _Atlantic Monthly_, October, 1920, pp. 438-39. (Psychology of the criminal group.)

[49] _Ibid._, pp. 443-46.

[50] Franz Oppenheimer, _The State_ (Indianapolis, 1914), p. 5.

[51] Thomas and Znaniecki, _op. cit._, III, 34-36.

[52] Original nature in its relation to social welfare and human progress has been made the subject-matter of a special science, eugenics. For a criticism of the claims of eugenics as a social science see Leonard T. Hobhouse, _Social Evolution and Political Theory_ (Columbia University Press, 1917).

[53] Charles H. Cooley, _Social Organization_, p. 28.

[54] Thomas and Znaniecki, _op. cit._, III, 63-64.

CHAPTER II

HUMAN NATURE

I. INTRODUCTION