« السابقةمتابعة »
wide sweep, based on the vision of Deutero-Isaiah. All these marks carry us down for this as for the other collections of the Elohistic Psalter to the time when passive obedience to the Achaemenians was interrupted. Several points indicate that the collection was not originally formed as part of the temple liturgy. The title, as preserved in the subscription to Ps. lxxii. 20, was not “Psalms.” but “Prayers of David.” Again, while the Levitical psalms were sung in the name of righteous Israel, of which, according to the theory of the second temple, the priestly and Levitical circles were the special holy representatives, these Davidic psalms contain touching expressions of contrition and confession (li., lxv.). And, while there are direct references to the temple service, these are often made from the standpoint, not of the ministers of the temple, but of the laity who come up to join in the solemn feasts or appear before the altar to fulfil their vows (Pss. liv. 6, lv. 14, lxiii., lxvi. 13, &c.). Moreover, the didactic element so prominent in the Levitical psalms is not found here. Such is the fragmentary and conjectural outline which it seems possible to supply of the history of the two Davidic collections, from which it appears that the name of David which they bear is at least so far appropriate as it marks the generally non-clerical origin of these poems. But the positive origin of this title must be sought in another direction and in connexion with book i. From the days of Amos, and in full accordance with the older history, the name of David had been connected with musical skill and even the invention of musical instruments (Amos vi. 5). In the days of Nehemiah, though we do not hear of psalms of David," we do learn that instruments of the singers were designated as Davidic, and the epithet “man of God” (Neh. xii. 36) probably implies that agreeably with this David was already regarded as having furnished psalms as well as instruments. But it was because the temple music was ascribed to him that the oldest liturgy came to be known in its totality as “Psalms of David,” and the same name was extended to the lay collection of “Prayers of David,” while the psalms whose origin was known because they had always been temple psalms were simply named from the Levitical choirs, or at a later date had no title. J/usical Erecution and Place of the Psalms in the Temple Service. —The musical notes found in the titles of the psalms and occasionally also in the text (Selah, Higgaion) are so obscure that it seems unnecessary to enter here upon the various conjectures that have been made about them. The clearest point is that a number of the psalms were set to melodies named after songs,” and that one of these songs, beginning nnon-os (Al-taschith in E. W., Ps. lvii. sq.), may be probably identified with the vintage song, Isa. lxv. S. The temple music was therefore apparently based on popular melodies. A good deal is said about the musical services of the Levites in Chronicles, both in the account given of David's ordinances and in the descriptions of particular festival occasions. But unfortunately it has not been found possible to get from these accounts any clear picture of the ritual or any certainty as to the technical terms used. By the time of the Septuagint these terms were no longer understood ; it is not quite clear whether even the Chronicler understood them fully. The music of the temple attracted the attention of Theophrastus (ap. Porph., De Abst., ii. 26), who was perhaps the first of the Greeks to make observations on the Jews. His description of the temple ritual is not strictly accurate, but he speaks of the worshippers as passing the night in gazing at the stars and calling on *. in prayer; his words, if they do not exactly fit anything in the later ritual, are well fitted to illustrate the original liturgical use of Pss. viii., cyxxiv. Some of the Jewish traditions as to the use of particular psalms have been already cited ; it may be added that the Mishna (Tāmīd) assigns to the service of the continual
* I.e., not in the parts of the book of Nehemiah which are by Nehemiah himself. * Compare the similar way of citing melodies with the prep. ‘al or i. : &c., in Syriac (Land, Anecd., iv.; Ephr. Syr., IIymni, ed. almy).
burnt-offering the following weekly cycle of psalms, –(1) xxiv., (2) xlviii., (3) lxxxii., (4) xciv., (5) lxxxi., (6) xciii., (Sabbath) xcii., as in the title. Many other details are given in the treatise Söférim, but these for the most part refer primarily to the synagogue service after the destruction of the temple. For details on the liturgical use of the Psalter in Christendom the reader may refer to Smith's
Dict. Chr. Ant., s.v. “Psalmody.” Ancient Persions.—A. The oldest version, the LXX., follows a text generally closely corresponding to the Massoretic Hebrew, the main variations being in the titles and in the addition (lacking in some MSS.) of an apocryphal psalm ascribed to David when he fought with Goliath. Pss. ix. and x. are rightly taken as one psalm, but conversely Ps. cxlvii. is divided into two. The LXX. text has many “daughters,” of which may be noticed (a) the Memphitic (ed. Lagarde, 1875); (b) the old Latin, which as revised by Jerome in 3S3 after the current Greek text forms the Psalterium Romanum, long read in the Roman Church and still used in St Peter's; (c) various Arabic versions, including that printed in the polyglotts of Le Jay and Walton, and two others of the four exhibited together in Lagarde's Psalterium, Iob, Proverbia, Arabice, 1876; on the relations and history of these versions, see G. Hostmann, in Jenster Literaturz., 1876, art. 539; the fourth of Lagarde's versions is from the Peshito. The Hexaplar text of the LXX., as reduced by Origen into greater conformity with the Hebrew by the aid of subsequent Greek versions, 3 was further the mother (d) of the Psalt, rium Gallicanum, that is, of Jerome's second revision of the Psalter (385) by the aid of the Hexaplar text; this edition became current in Gaul and ultimately was taken into the Vulgate () of the Syro-Liexaplar version (published by Bugati, 1820, and in facsimile from the famous Ambrosian MS. by Ceriani, Milan, 1874). 13. The Christian Aramaic version or Peshito (I”shittà) is largely influenced by the LXX.; compare Baethgen. Untersuchungen. illu r die I's time a narch der P. schito, Kiel, 1878 (unfinished). This version has peculiar titles taken from Eusebius and Theodore of Mopsuestia (see Nestle, in Thool. Literatur:., 1870, p. 2 C. The Jewish Aramaic version or Targum is probably a late work. The most convenient edition is in Lagarde, Hagiographa -(-hulda ice, 1873. I). The best of all the old versions is that made by Jerome after the Hebrew in 405. It did not, however, obtain ecclesiastical currency— the old versions holding their ground, just as English churchmen still read the Psalms in the version of the “Great Bible" printed in their Prayer Book. This important version was first published in a good text by Lagarde, Psalto rium in...to II, brovos Hieronymi, Leipsic, 1874. Erotical Works. –While some works of patristic writers are still of value for text criticism and for the history of early exegetical tradition, the treatment of the Psalms by ancient and mediæval Christian writers is as a whole such as to throw light on the ideas of the commentators and their times rather than on the sense of a text which most of them knew only through translations. For the Psallins as for the other books of the ()ld Testament the scholars of the period of the revival of Hebrew studies about the time of the Reformation were mainly dependent on the ancient versions and on the Jewish scholars of the Middle Ages. In the latter class Kimhi stands pre-eminent; to the editions of his commentary on the Psalms enumerated in the article KIMHI must now be added the admirable edition of Dr Schiller-Szinessy (Cambridge, 1883), containing unfortunately only the first book of his longer commentary. Among the works of older Christian scholar ice the revival of letters, the cominentary Calvin (1557)—full of religious insight and sound thought—and the laborious work of M. Geier (1668, 16Sl et sopius) may still be consulted with advantage, but for most purposes Rosenmüller's Scholia in 1'ss. (2d ed., 1821-22) supersedes the necessity of frequent reference to the predecessors of that industrious compiler. Of more recent works the freshest and most indispensable are Ewald's, in the first two half volumes of his 10icht, r des alt. n. Iown:les (2d ed., Göttingen, 1stit; ; Eug. tr., 1s0), and Olshausen's (1833). To these may be added (excluding general commentaries on the Old Testament) the two acute but wayward coinunentaries of Hitzig (1836, 1863-65), that of Delitzsch (1859-60, then in shorter form in several editions since 1807; Eng. tr., 1871), and that of Hupfeld (2d ed. by Riehm, 1st 7, 2 vols.). The last-named work, though lacking in original power and clearness of judgment, is extremely convenient and useful, and has had an influence perhaps disproportionate to its real exegetical merits. The question of the text was first properly raised by Olshausen, and has since received special attention from, among others, Lagarde (1’roplute Chald., 1872, p. xlvi ), Dyserinck (in the “scholia” to his Dutch translation of the Psalms, Theol. , 1878, p. 279 sq.), and Bickell (Carminor J. T. metrice, &c.,
lsch Innsbruck, ISS2), whose critical services are not to be judged merely by the measure of assent which his metrical theories may commuand. In English we have, among others, the useful work of Perowne (5th ed., 1883), that of Lowe and Jennings (2.1 ed., 1885), and the valuable translation of Cheyne (1SS4). The lmass of literature on the Psalms is so enormous that no full list even of revent cominentaries can be here attempted, much less an enumeration of treatises on individual psalms and special critical questions. For the latter Kuenen's (nder:ock, vol. iii., is, up to its date (1S65), the most complete, and the new edition now in preparation will doubtless prove the standard work of reference. As regards the lates and historical interpretation of the Psalms, all older discussions, even those of Ewald, are in great measure antiquated by recent progress in Pentateuch criticism and the history of the canon, and an entirely fresh treatment of the Psalter by a sober critical commentator is urgently needed. (W. R. S.) PSALTERY. For the mediaeval instrument of this name (“sautrie” or “cembalo.”), see PIANoFoRTE (vol. xix. p. 65). The Hebrew So, rendered |a)\Tiptor," witHAa, ow Mués (Ps. lxxi. 22), kut/dpa (Ps. lxxxi. 2), Öpyarov (Am. v. 23, vi. 5), in the LXX., and “psaltery” or “viol” in the A.V. (also “lute” in the Prayer-Book version of the Psalms), appears to have been a small stringed instrument, harp or lyre, the strings of which were touched with the player's fingers. The statement of Josephus (Ant., vii. 12, 3), that the Kuopu (nio) had ten strings and was struck with the plectrum, while the vés'Aa had twelve and was played with the hand, is the earliest definition having any authority to be met with of these obscure instruments.
quiring a plectrum, may, as some suppose, have been a kind of guitar, rather a tamboura, the most extensively known Eastern stringed instrument, which, in principle, is found represented in the oldest Egyptian monuments. The paucity of strings in the latter is, however, against this attribution. Nothing being more variable than the number of strings attached to the various stringed instruments at different times and in different places, eight, nine, or ten strings to the kwápa, or ten (see Ps. xxxiii. 2, cxliv. 9, Heb.) or twelve to the vés Aa, are probably immaterial variations. The musical instruments of the Bible are the most difficult subject in musical archaeology, about which the translators of the A.V. or the Prayer-Book Psalms did not trouble themselves, but named the instruments from those in use around them. PSAMMETICHUS. See Egypt, vol. vii. p. 743. PSELLUS, the name of several Byzantine writers, of whom the following were the most important. 1. Michari, Psell'Us the elder, a native of Andros and a pupil of Photius. He flourished in the second half of the 9th century, and strove to stem the rising tide of barbarism by his devotion to letters and philosophy. His study of the Alexandrine theology, as well as of profane literature, brought him under the suspicions of the orthodox, and a former pupil of his, by name Constantine, accused him in an elegiac poem of having abandoned ("hristianity. In order to perfect his knowledge of Christian doctrine, Psellus had recourse to the instructions of Photius, and then replied to his adversary in a long iambic poem, in which he maintained his orthodoxy. It has been conjectured by Allatius, Cave, and others that some of the books commonly attributed to the younger Psellus are the works of the elder, e.g., the Dialogue on Operations of Demons, and the short treatises On the Virtues of Stones and On Demons. Their reasons, however, resting on the inferiority of literary style and mode of treatment, are inconclusive. 2. Michi AFL Coxsta NTINE Psellus the younger was born at Constantinople in 1020, of a consular and patrician family. He studied at Athens, and by his talents and vast industry made himself master of all the learning of the age, including theology, law, physics, mathematics, philosophy, and history. At Constantinople he taught philosophy, rhetoric, and dialectic with the greatest suecess, and was honoured with the title of “Prince of Philosophers” by the emperors, who sometimes sought his alvice and employed his services. But in 107 S, when his pupil, the emperor Michael Ducas, was deposed, losellus shared his downfall, being compelled by the new emperor, Nicephorus lotanias, to retire to a monastery. On his accession to the empire in 1081 Alexius Comnenus deprived Isollus of his title of “Prince of Philosophers” and transferr, l it to his less talented rival John the Italian. Ile appears to have been still alive in 1105 and perhaps in l l l (). of 1.i- works, which are very numerous, many have not yet be n :-int, ... Ev, u of those which have been print, d there is no compl. r. solution.
3 an I to “s ... Miril aft. I’sri. LU's above".
PSKOFF, a government of the lake-region of northwest Russia, which extends from Lake Peipus to the source of the Dwina, having St Petersburg on the N., Novgorod, Tver, and Smolensk on the E., Witchsk on the S., and Livonia on the W. It has an area of 16,678 square miles. In the south-east it extends partly over the Alaun heights —a broad ridge 800 to 1000 feet above the sea, deeply indented with numerous valleys and ravines, thickly covered with forests, and dotted with small lakes and ponds. In the district of Toropets these heights take the name of Vorobiovy Hills; extending westwards into Vitebsk, they send to the north a series of irregular ranges, separated by broad valleys, which occupy the north-western parts of Pskoff and give rise to the rivers slowing into Lakes Peipus and Ilmeià. A depression 120 miles long and 35 miles broad, watered by the Lovat and Polist, occupies the interval between the two hilly tracts; it is covered throughout with forests and thickly studded with marshes overgrown with rank vegetation, the only tracts suitable for human occupation being narrow isolated strips of land on the banks of rivers, or between the marshes, and no communication is possible except along the watercourses. These marshy tracts, which extend westwards into Vitebsk and north-eastwards towards St Petersburg, were even more impassable ten centuries ago, and, encircling the old Russian city of Pskoff, formed its best protection against the repeated attacks of its neighbours. With the exception of the south-eastern corner, where Carboniferous rocks make their appearance, nearly the whole of the government consists of Devonian deposits of great thickness, the Old IRed Sandstone, with subordinate layers of various sandstones, and clays containing brown iron ore ; and the White Limestone, which contains layers of dolomite, marls, clays with deposits of gypsum, and white sandstone, which is extensively quarried for building purposes. As regards the fauna the I) evonian deposits of Pskoff are intermediate between those of Belgium, the Eifel, and Poland and those of middle Russia. The whole is covered with very thick sheets of houlder clay and bears unmistakable traces of glacial action ; the bottom moraine of the Scandinavian and Finnish ice-sheet formerly extended over the whole of this region, which often takes the shape of ridges (kam's or 'sk, rs), the upper parts consisting of Glacial sands and post-Glacial clays, sands, and peat-bogs. The soil is thus not only infertile on the whole, but also loudly drained, on account of the impermeable nature of the boull. I clay and the frequent occurrence of depressions having no distinct outlets to the rivers. Only those l'arts of the territory which are covered with thicker strata of lost-Glacial deposits are suitable for agri, ulture. The rivers are nium, rous arol lolo to thi, o so larate basins-- to Lakes l'oisons and l’sk, to the rivers in the northwest, to Lake lines, those in the uillo, and to that of the IOwina the rivers in the south-, ast. A groit numlor of small streams our into Lake l’-kots, the chief living the Velikaya, which shows from south to north and rectives numerous wributaries, which are us d for to ati, of ratt-,
long and 3 to 10 wide, with Lake Peipus. Its islands, numbering nearly fifty, have an aggregate population of 2000 persons. The marshes on the banks of the Polist are nearly 1250 square miles in extent; one in the neighbourhood of Lake Dviniye is 27 miles long and 17 broad, and another on the Toropa extends for 17 miles, while many elongated marshes, 15, 20, and 30 miles long and from 2 to 3 broad, run parallel to one another in the broad depression of the Lovat. Forests occupy nearly one-half (about 45 per cent.) of the entire area, and in some districts (Cholm, Toropets, Porkhoff) as much as twothirds of the surface. Large pine forests are met with in the north ; in other parts the birch and aspen prevail; but almost one-quarter of the forest area is covered with low brushwood.
The climate is very moist and changeable. The average temperature is 41°Fahr. (17° 1 in January and 64°8 in July). The population of the government, which was 895,710 in 1881 (718,910 in 1863), consists almost exclusively of Great Russians, there being only 8000 Esthonians (in the district of Pskoff), about 500 Letts, and less than 1500 Jews. Many German traders live at Pskos. The Russians and the greater part of the Esthonians belong to the Greek Church, or are Nonconformists (upwards of 12,000 in 1866, according to oslicial figures). Of the total number of inhabitants only 58,900 live in towns, the remainder being distributed over no fewer than 15,000 small villages. Notwithstanding the insertility of the soil the chief occupation is agriculture—rye, oats, barley, and potatoes being grown everywhere ; but though corn is exported by the larger landowners to the average annual amount of nearly 1,600,000 bushels the amount imported is much greater (9,600,000 bushels). The annual export of flax is estimated at 530,000 cwts., Pskoff, Ostroll, Opotchka, Porkhoff, and Soltsy being important centres for the trade. The average annual crops during 1870-77 were 28,972,800 bushels of corn and 5,984,000 bushels of potatoes. The limited area of pasture lands is unfavourable for cattle-breeding, and in 1881 there were only 171,000 horses, 304,000 head of cattle, and 166,000 sheep; murrains are very frequent. Fishing is a considerable source of wealth on the shores of the larger lakes, small salted or frozen fish (snyctki) being annually exported to the value of £25,000 or £35,000. The timber trade is steadily increasing, the exports being estimated at present at nearly £50,000; wood for fuel is, however, at the same time imported from the government of St Petersburg. The population engage also in the preparation of lime, in stone-quarrying, in the transport of merchandise, and in some domestic trades. The manufactures are insignificant; their aggregate production in 1879 reached £518,800, and gave occupation to only 2350 persons. The total amount of merchandise loaded and discharged on the rivers within the government in 1880 was 1,761,000 cwts. Pskos is divided into eight districts, the chief towns of which are—Pskoff (21, 170 inhabitants), Cholm (5550), Novorjess (1915), Opotchka (4075), Ostross (4.200), Porkhoff (3925), Toropets (57.60), Velikiya Luki (6600). Alexandrovskii Posad (2920) and Soltsy (5825, an important shipping place on the Sheloi river) have also municipal institutions. PSKOFF, capital of the above government, is picturesquely situated on both banks of the broad Velikaya river, 9 miles from Lake Pskoff and 171 miles by rail south-west of St Petersburg. The chief part of the town, with its kremlin on a hill and several suburbs, occupies the right bank of the river, to which the ruins of its old walls descend; the Zapskovie, consisting of several suburbs, stretches along the same bank of the Velikaya below its confluence with the Pskova; and the Zavelitchie occupies the left bank of the Velikaya, all three keeping their old historical names. The cathedral in the kremlin has been four times rebuilt since the 12th century and contains some very old shrines, as also the graves of the bishops of Pskoff and of several princes, including those of Dovimont and Vsevolod. The church of Dmitrii Solunskii also dates originally from the 12th century; there are others belonging to the 14th and 15th. The Spaso-Mirojskii monastery, founded in 1156, has many remarkable antiquities. The ruins of numerous rich and populous monasteries in or near the town attest its former wealth and greatness. The present town is ill built, chiefly of wood, and shows traces of decay. Many of the inhabitants live by agriculture
or gardening; the remainder are engaged in loading and unloading merchandise on the Velikaya and at the railway station, in combing flax, fishing, and domestic trades. The manufactures are unimportant. Since the completion of the St Petersburg and Warsaw railway the trade of Pskoff has increased. In 1880 the exports reached 99,000 cwts. on the Velikaya and 463,000 cwts. by rail; the imports were 125,700 cwts, on the Velikaya and 591,600 cwts. by rail. Pskoff has regular steam communication with Dorpat. The population in 1882 was 21,170 (15,086 in 1866).
IIistory.—Pskos, formerly the sister republic of Novgorod, and one of the oldest cities of Russia, maintained its independence and its free institutions until the 16th century, being thus the last to be brought under the rule of Moscow. Its annals, unquestionably the fullest and liveliest of any in Russia, affirm that it already existed in the time of Rurik; and Nestor mentions under the year 914 that Igor's wife, Olga, was brought from Pleskoff (i.e., Pskoff). It was quite natural that a Russian fortified town should rise at the entrance of the Velikaya valley within the earliest period of the Russian colonization of that region ; the river had from a remote antiquity been a channel for the trade of the south with the north Baltic coast. Pskost being an important strategic point, its possession was obstinately disputed between the Russians and the Germans and Lithuanians, and throughout the 11th and 12th centuries numerous battles were fought. At that time the place had its own independent institutions; but, attacked as it was from the west, it became in the 12th century a “prigorod" of the Novgorod republic, that is (so far as can be judged from the incomplete testimony of historical documents), a city having its own free institutions, but included in certain respects within the jurisdiction of the metropolis, and compelled in time of war to march against the common enemy. Pskoff had, however, its own prince (defensor municipii); and in the second half of the 13th century Prince (Timotheus) Dowmont fortified it so strongly, and was so successful in repelling its enemies, that the town acquired much importance and asserted its independence of Novgorod, with which in 1348 it concluded a treaty wherein the two republics were recognized as equals. The institutions of Pskoff resembled those of Novgorod; it, in its turn, had several prigorods, and its rule extended over the territory which now forms the districts of Pskoff, Ostroff, Opotchka, and Gdoff. Within this territory the “vyetche” or “forum ” of Pskoff was sovereign, the vyetches of the subordinate towns being supreme in their own municipal affairs. The city of l’skost was divided into several sections or “kontsy,” according to the prevalent occupations of the inhabitants, and the kontsy were divided into “ulitsy” (streets), which enjoyed extensive powers of self-government. The vyetche was supreme in all affairs of general interest, as well as a supreme court of justice, and the o were elected by it ; these last had to defend the city and evied the taxes, which were assessed by twelve citizens, who combined to some extent the functions of judges with those of a jury. Pskoff differed widely, however, from Novgorod in the more democratic character of its institutions; and, while the latter constantly showed a tendency to become an oligarchy of the wealthier merchants, the former figured as a republic where the influence of the poorer classes prevailed. Its trading associations, supported by those of the labourers, checked the influence of the wealthier merchants.
This struggle (of which the annals give a lively picture) continued throughout the 14th and 15th centuries, resulting sometimes in armed riots. Notwithstanding these conflicts Pskoff was a very wealthy city. Its strong walls, whose ruins are still to be seen, its forty-two large and wealthy churches, built during this period, as also its numerous monasteries and its extensive trade, bear testimony to the wealth of the inhabitants, who then numbered about 60,000. The “dyetincts” or fort, enclosed by a stone wall erected by Dovmont, stood on a hill between the Pskova and the Velikaya, having within its walls the cathedral of the Holy Trinity. Another stone wall enclosed the commercial part, the Rromy (kremlin) or middle town. In 1465 the suburb Polonische became so prosperous that it also was enclosed by a wall, and included within the circuit of the town proper. Even the Zapskovie was enclosed by a wooden palisade in the 15th century and later on by a stone wall; while the Zavelitchie was a busy centre of foreign trade. As early as the 13th century Pskos had become an important station for the trade between Novgorod and Riga. A century later it entered the Hanseatic League. Its merchants and trading associations had factories at Narva, Revel, Riga, and exported flax, corn, tallow, skins, tar, pitch, honey, and timber for shipbuilding, which were transported or shipped via Lake Peipus, the Narova, and the Embach to the ports on the Baltic and on the Gulf of Finland. Silks, woollen stuffs, and all kinds of manufactured wares were brought back in exchange and sold throughout northern Russia.
Nevertheless, the continuous o between the “black” and “white" people (the patricians and the plebeians) offered many opportunities to Moscow for interference in the internal affairs of Pskoff, especially with regard to the election of the princes, which was often the occasion of severe conflicts. In 1399 the prince of Moscow arrogated the privilege of o; the elected prince of Pskost in his o: ; and though, fifty years later, Pskoff and Nov: gorod concluded several defensive treaties against Moscow the fall of both republics was inevitable, the poorer classes continuing to seek at Moscow a protection against the opposion of the richer citizens. After the fall of Novgorod (1475). Pskoff could no longer maintain its independence, and in 1510 it was taken by Vasilii Joannovitch. The vyetche was abolished and its bell taken away, and a waywode was nominated by Moscow to govern the city. Moscow merchants were settled at #s. and put in possession of the fortunes of the former citizens. The conquered territory still maintained to some extent its self-government, especially with re
N the several natural sciences the scope and subjectmatter of each are so evident that little preliminary discussion on this score is called for. It is easy to distinguish the facts dealt with in a treatise on light from those that belong to one on sound; and even when the need arises to compare the results of two such sciences— as in the case, say, of light and electricity—there is still no difficulty, apart, of course, from any which the imperfect state of the sciences themselves may occasion. Theoretically, a standpoint is attainable from which this comparison can be made, in so far, say, as the facts of both sciences can be expressed in terms of matter and motion. But with psychology, however much it is freed from metaphysics, all this is different. It is indeed ordinarily assumed that its subject-matter can be at once defined: “It is what you can perceive by consciousness or reflexion or the internal sense,” says one, “just as the subject-matter of optics is what you can perceive by sight.” Or, “psychology is the science of the phenomena of mind," we are told again, “and is thus marked off from the physical sciences, which treat only of the phenomena of matter.” But, whereas nothing is simpler than to distinguish between seeing and hearing, or between the phenomena of heat and the phenomena of gravitation, a very little reflexion may convince us that we cannot in the same fashion distinguish internal from external sense, or make clear to ourselves what we mean by phenomena of mind as distinct from phenomena of matter. Let us begin with the supposed differentia of internal and external; nud first of all what are we to understand by an inner sense To every sense there corresponds a sense-organ; the several senses are distinct and jo so that no one sense can add to or alter the materials of another ; and each is sui generis as regards quality.—the possession of five senses, e.g., furnishing no lata as to the character of a possible sixth. Moreover, sense-impressions are passively received and occur in the first instance without regard to the feeling or volition of the recipient and without any manner of relation to the “contents of consciousness” at the moment. Now such a description will apply but very partially to the so-callel “internal sense.” We can imagine consciousness without self-consciousness, still more without introspection, much as we ran imagine sight without taste or smell. But this does not entitle us to speak of self-consciousness as a sense. For we do not by means of it passively receive impressions differing from , all $o. presentations, as the sensations of colour for one touched differ from all he has experienced before : the new facts consist rather in the recognition of certain relations among pre-existing presentations, i.e., are due to our mental activity and not to a special mole of what has been called our sensitivity. For when we taste we cannot hear that we taste, when we see we cannot smell that we see: but when we taste we may be conscious that we taste, when we hear we may be conscious that we hear. In this way all the objects of the external senses are recognized as having now
relations by the miscalled “internal sense.” Moreover, the fats so.
ascertained are never independent of feeling and volition and of the contents of consciousness at the time, as true sensations are. Also if we consult the physiologist we learn that there is no evident e
gard to trade, but the struggle between rich and poor was aggravated by the intervention of foreigners. The “lutschive ludi” (wealthier merchants) prohibited the “malomotchnyie” (poorer merchants) from entering into direct trade relations with foreigners, and com: pelled them to sell their wares to themselves or to become their agents. These disputes furnished Moscow at the end of the 17th century with a pretext for abolishing the last vestiges of self-government at Pskoff, and for placing all affairs of local administration in the hands of the Moscow waywodes. Thenceforward Pskost fell into rapid decay. It became a stronghold of Russia against Poland and was besieged for seven months by Stephan Bathory during the Livonian War, and later on by Gustavus Adolphus. Under Peter I. it became a fortified camp, and its walls were protected by earthworks. . But it never recovered its former importance, and is now one of the poorer cities of the empire. (P. A. K.)
of any organ or “centre” that could be regarded as the “physi al
basis” of this inner sense; and, if self-consciousness alone is temporarily in abeyance and a man merely “beside himself,” such state of delirium has little analogy to the functional blindness or deafness that constitutes the temporary suspension of sight or hearing. To the conception of an internal perception or observation the preceding objections do not necessarily apply,–that is to say, this conception may be so defined that they need not. But then in proportion as we escape the charge of assuming a special sense which furnishes the material for such perception or observation, in that same proportion are we compelled to seek for some other mode of distinguishing its subject-matter. For, so far as the mere mental activity of perceiving or observing is concerned, it is not easy to see any essential difference in the process whether what is observed be psychical or physical. It is quite true that the so-called psychological observation is more dislicult, because the facts observed are often loss definite and less persistent, and admit less of actual isolation than physical facts do ; but the process of recognizing similarities or differences, the dangers of ... tion or non-observation, are not materially altered on that account. It may be further allowed that there is one disliculty peculiarly felt in psychological observation, the one most inaccurately ex|...} ly saying that here the observer and the observed are one. But this disliculty is surely in the first instance due to the very obvious fact that our powers of attention are limited, so that we cannot alter the distribution of attention at any moment without altering the contents of consciousness at that moment. Accordingly, where there are no other ways of surmounting this disliculty, the psychological observer must either trust to representations at a later time, or he must acquire the power of taking momentary glances at the psychological aspects of the phase of consciousness in question. And this one with any aptitude for such studies can do with so slight a diversion of attention as not to disturb very seriously either the given state or that which immediately succeeds it. But very similar disticulties have to be similarly met by physical observers in certain special cases, as, , ..., in observing and registoring the phenomena of solar clipse ; and similar aptitudes in the distribution of attention have to be a quired, say, by extempore orators or skilful surgeons. Just as little, then, as there is anything that we can with propriety call an inner sense, just so little can we find in the pro ess of inn, r poleoption any satisfactory characteristic of the subject-matter of psychology. The question still is: What is it that is loor rived or olis, iv. l ; and the readiest answer of course is: Int, rn il exoti, u, v as distinguished from external, what takes I'la, e in the mind as listinct from what
takes pla ... without.
This answer, it must be at on allow, l, is adequate for most purposes, and a great deal of ovellen: loy hological work has lo on done without over , alling it in qu stion. 13:11 the listin lion ho tween internal and external exporience is not on th it in le drawn from the standpoint of psy, ho at lo 1-1 not at the outs, t. From this standpoint it alon its to lo violi, 1 into at, or .2 not extra-p-, hologi. il. As to 1, to lood ory to two n the internal and the w to 1; 11 wins, no d, : 1-11, toy the sous no of the lowly, with whili the sulje, to s of w is id noi:...] : and in this sense the trims are of , on- or 1, toy 1:- 4. For a t}.ing in ty, in the some so her of :ho word, he in on, t! . . . . . . not in —i.e., out of ino:hor: lot we x 1. -- ... i. i*i; in if we slo ak of two things as loino on” in a civ 1, or and the oth in list wo. k. Aoy - low oty to S v is 1... . ; thing is “in lii~ 1 * : ],...; t is in th: i- w i v 1. from som, thin: to• not in his inii, l, 1}, ... . . . . . i must imply one of two statenients.is a tunlly or possibly in some other alone on-il-rol, th it at the tin, 1.1.” exist at all. Y. t. vil, nt as it s, , 1 - to
sing l- > .
isl ho in:
Mental and material.
Standpoint of psychology.
time, presentation (or non-presentation) to a given subject, and so forth, we still find psychologists more or less consciously con: fused between “internal,” meaning “presented” in the psychological sense, and “external,” meaning not “not-presented" but corporeal or oftener extra-corporeal. But (2), when used to distinguish between presentations (some of which, or some relations of which with respect to others, are called “internal,” and others or other relations, “external”), these terms are at all events accurate; only then they cease to mark off the psychological from the extrapsychological, inasmuch as psychology has to analyse this distinction and to exhibit the steps by which it has come about. But we have still to examine whether the distinction of phenomena of Matter and phenomena of Mind furnishes a better dividing line than the distinction of internal and external. A phenomenon, as commonly understood, is what is manifest, sensible, evident, the implication being that there are eyes to see, cars to hear, and so forth, –in other words, that there is presentation to a subject; and wherever there is presentation to a subject it will be allowed that we are in the domain of psychology. But in talking of physical phenomena we, in a way, abstract from this fact of presentation. Though consciousness should cease, the physicist would consider the sum total of objects to remain the same : the orange would still be round, yellow, and fragrant as before. For the physicist—whether aware of it or not—has taken | a position which for the present may be described by saying that phenomenon with him means appearance or manifestation, or—as we had better say–object, not for a concrete individual, but rather for what Kant called Bewusstsein iherhaups, or, as some render it, the objective consciousness, i.e., for an imaginary subject freed from all the limitations of actual subjects save that of depending on “sensibility” for the material of experience. However, this is not all, for, as we shall see presently, the psychologist also occupies this position ; at least if he does not, his is not a true science. But further, the physicist leaves out of sight altogether the facts of attention, feeling, and so forth, all which actual presentation entails. From the psychological point of view, on the other hand, the removal of the subject removes not only all such facts as attention and feeling, but all presentation or possibility of presentation whatever. Surely, then, to call a certain object, when we abstract from its presentation, a material phenomenon, and to call the actual presentation of this object a mental phenomenon, is a clumsy and confusing way of representing the disserence between the two points of view. For the terms “material” and “mental” seem to imply that the two so-called phenomena have nothing in common, whereas the same object is involved in both, while the term “phenomenon" implies that the point of view is in each case the same, when in truth what is emphasized by the one the other ignores. Paradoxical though it may be, we must then conclude that psychology cannot be defined by reference to a special subject-matter as such concrete sciences, for example, as mineralogy and botany can ; and, since it deals in some sort with the whole of experience, it is obviously not an abstract science, in any ordinary sense of that term. To be characterized at all, therefore, apart from mctaphysical assumptions, it must be characterized by the standpoint from which this experience is viewed. It is by way of expressing this that widely different schools of psychology define it as subjective, all other positive sciences being distinguished as objective. But this seems scarcely more than a first approximation to the truth, and, as we have seen incidentally, is apt to be misleading. The distinction rather is that the standpoint of psychology is what is sometimes termed “individualistic,” that of the so-called objectsciences being “universalistic,” both alike being objective in the sense of being true for all, consisting of what Kant would call judgments of experience. For psychology is not a biography in any sense, still less a biography dealing with idiosyncrasies, and in an idiom having an interest and a meaning for one subject only, and incommunicable to any other. Locke, Perkeley, and Hume have been of late severely handled because they regarded the critical investigation of knowledge as a psychological problem, and set to work to study the individual mind simply for the sake of this problem. But none the less their standpoint was the proper one for the science of psychology itself; and, however surely their philosophy was foredoomed to a collapse, there is no denying a steady psychological advance as we pass from Locke to Hume and his modern representatives. By “idea." Locke tells us he
means “whatsoever is the object of the understanding when a man thinks” (i.e., is conscious), and having, as it were, shut himself within such a circle of ideas he finds himself powerless to explain his knowledge of a world that is independent of it; but he is able to give a very good account of some of these ideas themselves. He cannot justify his belief in the world of things whence certain of his simple ideas “were conveyed” any more than Robinson Crusoe could have explored the continents whose products were drifted to his desert island, though he might perhaps survey the island itself well enough. Berkeley accordingly, as Professor Fraser happily puts it, abolished Locke's hypothetical outer circle. Thereby he made the psychological standpoint clearer than ever—hence the truth of Hume's remark, that Berkeley’s arguments “admit of no answer”; at the same time the epistemological problem was as hopeless as before—hence again the truth of Hume's remark that those arguments “produced no conviction.” Of all the facts with which he deals, the psychologist may truly say that their esse is percipi, inasmuch as all his facts are facts of presentation, are ideas in Locke's sense, or objects which imply a subject. Before we became conscious there was no world for us; should our consciousness cease, the world for us ceases too; had we been born blind, the world would for us have had no colour; if deaf, it would have had no sounds; if idiotic, it would have had no meaning. Psychology, then, never transcends the limits of the individual; even the knowledge that there is a real world, as common-sense assumes, is, when psychologically regarded, an individual's knowledge, which had a beginning and a growth, and can have an end. In fact, for the psychologist it is not essentially knowledge, but presentations, partly possible, partly actual, in the mind of A, B, or C; just as this page is for the printer essentially “copy,” and only for the reader essentially “discourse.” But what the psychologist has to say about knowledge is, of course, itself knowledge, i.e., assuming it to be correct; the knowledge about which he knows is, however, for him not primarily knowledge, but “states of consciousness.” But now, though this Berkeleyan standpoint is the standpoint of psychology—as we find it occupied, say, by J. S. Mill and Dr Bain—psychology is not pledged to the method employed by Berkeley and by Locke. Psychology may be individualistic without being confined exclusively to the introspective method. There is nothing to hinder the psychologist from employing materials furnished by his observations of other men, of infants, of the lower animals, or of the insane; nothing to hinder him taking counsel with the philologist or even the physiologist, provided always he can show the psychological bearings of those facts which are not directly psychological. Nor, again, are we bound, because we take the individualistic standpoint as psychologists, to accept the philosophical conclusions that have been reached from it, unless, indeed, we hold that it is the right point of view for philosophical speculation. A psychologist may be an idealist in Berkeley's sense or in Fichte's, but he need not ; he is just as free, if he see reason, to call himself, after Hamilton, a natural realist; only psychology will afford him no safe warrant for the realism part of it. The standpoint of psychology, then, is individualistic; by whatever methods, from whatever sources its facts are ascertained, they must—to have a psychological import—be regarded as having place in, or as being part of, some one's consciousness. In this sense, i.e., as presented to an individual, “the whole choir of heaven and furniture of earth” may belong to psychology, but otherwise they are psychological nomentities. The problem of psychology, in dealing with this complex subject-matter, is in general—first, to ascertain its constituent