the dictum that two eyes working together are an absolute necessity if we are to get a correct visual impression; so instead of being confused by considering how we can see with two eyes, it is clear that we cannot see well without them.

Now it is plain that a representation cannot in any case furnish all the data of vision at first hand; that is, no picture can be altogether as good as original sight. But it is just as clear that as far as monocular vision is inferior to sight with both eyes, at least so far will monocular representations be inferior to those which are in accord with the principles of binocular vision. Indeed, a moment's reflection will show that more difference exists between monocular and binocular photographs than between natural sight with one eye and with two; for all photographs lack color and motion, both of which operate as an aid in compensating for the loss of one eye in natural sight. These being absent in the photograph, the mind is, in the case of the single picture, thrown back on the bare resource of monocular perspective, and must form its judgments of depth, distance, and relative size of objects chiefly from lights and shadows and receding lines; while in the binocular photograph the mind has besides these data the powerful aid of the double images and convergence of the two eyes.

There is also to be considered the necessity of excluding from sight everything which is not characteristic of the scene to be studied. In the contemplation of pictures this is never done. The student sees the book, desk, room, playmate; the illusion is so fleeting, so incomplete, that he never for an instant regards it as he would the original. But is this true with the stereoscope? First, he has an image on each eye, and they differ to just the proper degree; second, his eyes turn toward the nose in combining these pictures just as in natural vision; and third, his eyes are enclosed by a screen, and he must think that he is in Egypt or Cathay. It is not reasonable to expect a student to feel that he is in China when his eyes tell him that he is surrounded by American children in an American schoolroomwhen, in brief, the atmosphere is American. All are familiar with the case of the telephone. If anything could make one feel that he is in Buffalo when he is really in New York, it

would seem that it would be the telephone, for the voice which he hears and recognizes tells him that the person who is speaking is in Buffalo. But the fact is, instead of inducing in us the sensation of being in Buffalo, we feel that our friend is here in New York; we even emphasize our utterances by gesticulations, as if he were present and could see them. But, after all, this is a phenomenon that is easily accounted for. We always feel that we are just where our eyes bear testimony that we are. The messages of the eyes are always given more weight in the formation of judgments than those sent by the ear when both messages are received at the same time. To feel that I am in Buffalo when my eyes tell me that I am in New York is just as impossible as for the child to feel that he is in China when his eyes tell him that he is not. Obviously, then, the remedy will be to give his eyes but one message to report to the brain, all others being canceled; and let that message be: "This is China; there is the pagoda (you know the peculiar architecture); there is the Chinaman (you recognize his dress, and you have seen the queue). Why, this is a Chinese atmosphere! And what is that plant? And what are these coolies doing?" The stereograph has delivered its message. Then the student finds (and usually from another source) that he is actually looking at a tea field. He has seen tea,—perhaps he has drank some, but he never knew it grows that way, is cultivated that way, by those strange people, in that strange land. But there are the clouds-the same as in our sky at home; there are the shadows-just as bodies cast in the sunlight at home. This is all terra firma; it is not wonderland, it is not magic; it is the plain, unvarnished tale delivered by the eyes to the wondering, inquiring mind of the child. Hereafter, when he thinks "tea field" there will rise in his mind, not a recollection of verbal descriptions he has read, not a pale, mirage-like image of some picture he saw,-an image which recedes as he tries to approach it for analysis,-but there will "flash upon his inward eye" a clear, solid, substantial, accurate image of a real tea field. And its setting will not be a schoolroom, lecture room, book or art gallery, but he will think "tea field" in China. He has "seen with emotional sight." He knows and feels that he knows.

The History of Economic and Political Studies in Williams College

C. J. BULLOCK, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY; LATE ORRIN SAGE PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY IN

H

WILLIAMS COLLEGE

ISTORICAL and political studies seem to have

been almost wholly neglected in the American colleges of the colonial epoch. In this direction the first serious impulse came from the stirring discussions of the Revolutionary period and of the years that witnessed the adoption of the Federal Constitution. In 1784 the first law school was established at Litchfield, Connecticut; and during the next twenty years lectureships or professorships of law were created in various institutions. Before this movement had spent its force, political philosophy, political economy, and, in some cases, history had benefited by the interest thus aroused, so that one or more of these subjects found a place in the curricula of many colleges.

The Free School" at Williamstown was transformed into Williams College in 1793, at the very time when our institutions of higher education were beginning to recognize the importance of training young men for the legal profession, the service of the State, or the common duties of citizenship. In the first invoice of books purchased for the college library, political and historical works were well represented; and upon October 20, 1794, Hon. Theodore Sedgwick, at that time a member of Congress, was appointed Professor of Law and Civil Polity. It does not appear that Mr. Sedgwick ever entered upon the work of his professorship-a fact which may be readily explained by his absorption in the duties of public life or by the meagre resources of the college; but it is interesting to note that this was the first professorship which the trustees attempted to establish. In 1795 the first laws for the government of the college were adopted. From these we learn that the studies of the fourth year were metaphysics, ethics, history, the law of nature and nations, civil polity, and theology." Thomas Robbins, a member of the class of 1796, writes in his diary, under the date

66

of January 1st of his senior year, "Reciting now Paley's Moral Philosophy"; and under the date of March 22d, "Began to recite Vattel." Instruction in these subjects was given by President Fitch, as we learn from a letter * written by a member of the class of 1802 who says, "Those students who were instructed by him during their senior year will never forget the ability and interest with which he explained and illustrated the writings of Locke, Paley, and Vattel."

The facts just mentioned are sufficient to establish the character of the instruction given in political philosophy and international law; concerning the study of history, however, no evidence is now available. Paley's Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, published in England in 1785 and republished in Boston ten years later, devotes one entire book-the sixth to the philosophy of the State, and treats of such subjects. as forms of government, civil liberty, and the administration of justice. This book was used for many years at Williams, as elsewhere. Its author was a conservative by temperament, and a friend of the established social and political order; and these qualities would naturally commend his writings to such an ardent Federalist as President Fitch, who was greatly disturbed over the revolutionary movement in France and the rise of Jeffersonian democracy in the United States. † In his baccalaureate sermon of 1799, Dr. Fitch warned the graduating class that "every civil and religious institution is threatened with ruin,” that “the principles of deism, atheism, and disorganizing politics have of late years made rapid strides," and he urged his hearers to oppose manfully the progress of these destructive tendencies.

This arrangement of studies probably remained unchanged. for many years. The College Laws of 1805 repeated the provisions of those adopted in 1795; the Laws of 1815 are more general in their terms, but prescribe that history and the law of nations shall be included in the curriculum. These subjects,

undoubtedly, fell to the charge of the president. In 1812 Hon. Daniel Dewey was appointed Professor of Law and Civil Polity, but it is not known that he ever gave regular instruction

*Durfee, History of Williams College, p. 77.

† Cf. Perry, Williamstown and Williams College, pp. 230–233.

in the college, although his name appeared in the catalogue until his death in 1815. The laws of the latter year state merely that "the Professor of Law shall occasionally deliver lectures to the senior sophisters or to all the students."

In 1822 the catalogue of the college contains for the first time a statement of the courses of instruction. From it we learn that history was one of three subjects studied during the third term of the sophomore year, and that Tytler's Elements of History was used as a text-book. In the senior year Paley's Political Philosophy was studied during the second term, and Vattel's Law of Nations during the third. Altogether, one third of the instruction for three terms, or about one twelfth of the college course, was devoted to these three subjects. History was probably taught by one of the two tutors who had charge at this time of most of the studies of the lower classes; the senior courses were conducted chiefly by the president.

In 1827 William Porter was called to a newly established chair of Moral Philosophy and Rhetoric, and he appears to have relieved President Griffin of most of the instruction of the senior year.* Paley's Moral and Political Philosophy was now replaced by Say's Political Economy, of which an American translation had appeared in 1821; Vattel's Law of Nations, however, was retained several years longer. History held its place in the third term of the sophomore year.

In 1828 a Manual of Political Economy, by Willard Phillips, was published at Boston, and this work was immediately introduced in the place of Say's treatise. When we recall that in this year the passage of the " Tariff of Abominations" stimulated excited discussions of the tariff question, and that Phillips was an advocate of protectionism, we may venture upon the conjecture that Professor Porter was dissatisfied with the teachings. of Say concerning freedom of trade. At any rate Phillips' Manual continued to be used in the college for a number of years. When Mark Hopkins was called to the chair of Moral Philosophy in 1830, Paley's work was reintroduced, but only to supplement and not to displace Phillips and Vattel.

In 1835 Joseph Alden was called to a new professorship of Rhetoric and Political Economy, and more adequate provision moir of W. A. Porter, p. 41.