dreams and omens should ever be questioned by people upon the stage of the Homeric Greeks. If, as some Greek scholars think, the poet really burlesques and makes fun of the gods, our astonishment at the anachronism must be the greater.

But the last and greatest, and really inexplicable discrepancy is the emergence of the two epics themselves out of their social setting. I do not see how anybody can regard the Homeric society of the poems as a sort of antiquarian reconstruction; the picture of the society is too perfect, and too unconsciously so, to have been drawn from without. I do not know that this last statement could be proved—not, at least, without a searching of the text for the sources of the accumulation of impressions upon which the personal conviction has been, half-unconsciously, based. For this is the way such an impression must have arisen, just as the belief in the molding influence of a single mind upon these epics forces itself upon the person who reads and rereads Homer, and at length becomes aware of such a conviction through some subtle rolling-up of almost intangible impressions. Here is a society where the mores are not yet fully turned against the use of poisoned arrows; where human sacrifice upon the funeral pyre is actually practiced; where doughty heroes shrink in pale terror during a thunder-storm, not daring to drink their wine without pouring a libation; where it is only just becoming an "evil deed" to "dishonor the dumb clay," as in the dragging about of Hector's body in the dust to avenge the death of Patroclus. One only of the host of similes in Homer is drawn from the action of the waking mind.12 And yet out of this primitive setting comes one of the admittedly greatest examples of world-literature. The incongruity is too vast to need to be dwelt upon.

This last point does not align itself very evidently with the subject of this essay; but a contemplation of its exceptionality and its bearings cannot fail to enforce upon the student of human societies the futility of generalization unless it is done with the utmost modesty and discretion. The student of man and of human society must never be surprised to see his convenient systems and categories broken down before his eyes; nor yet 12 Jebb, Introduction to Homer, p. 31.

must he be disheartened thereby. If there is any branch of science which is in need of the very keenest and most cautious of scientific research, it is the science of society. And this leads me to say that a man could well spend a lifetime in developing the sociological aspects of legendary material similar to that of Homer. The Eddas, the Kalevala, the Vedic hymns, the ZendAvesta, the Old Testament—all of these are quoted by sociologists, and often, I suspect, uncritically. They furnish, for reasons I have mentioned, the best of fields for the beginner, who is too often under the impression that his salvation and that of the science lie in the speediest possible issuance to a panting public of grandiose sociological theories bearing the unmistakable stamp of his master-mind. Let such budding geniuses be shut up, as Carlyle would have all verdant youths, under a barrel, with a copy of one of these examples of an ancient people's selfrevelation, and a grain of common-sense withal, and the status of sociology, and of the world at large, would speedily become a less unendurable one.

THE TEACHING OF SOCIOLOGY

JAMES QUAYLE DEALEY

Brown University

The methodology of sociology has so often been set forth in formal volumes and in elaborated articles, that nothing more on this subject for the present needs to be said. But, given these formal discussions, there still may be occasion for statements in respect to methods of application, so as to show how in actual teaching the content of sociology may be built up in quantity and quality. The writer in attempting such an exposition disclaims any desire to depict a model procedure, and, admitting that one's "personal equation" always includes a fraction of error, he craves pardon for his sins of omission and commission and for the intrusion of personal methods, pleading in extenuation orders from the honorable President of this association.

Under the name of social science sociology has been taught at Brown University for nearly twenty years. In 1906 the growing importance of the subject resulted in the establishment within the department of a chair of sociology and this has been ably filled since that date by Dr. Lester F. Ward. Professor Ward now has charge of the advanced classes in sociology, using his own methods and system, so that the following remarks apply only to courses formerly or at present given by other members of the department.

In social studies proper we have about three hundred students a year, receiving them into our classes from the beginning of the sophomore year. In these courses the practical problem of teaching a difficult subject to large classes with the utmost economy of expense and energy has compelled us to limit ourselves in the main to the presentation of the fundamental aspects of sociology, and hence we were under the necessity of deciding what these fundamentals are.

In the early years of the department it seemed rather necessary occasionally to dogmatize, arguing that there really was

already existent a science of sociology. When one had a sort of suspicion that possibly there was no such science, there was a temptation to try all the harder to prove its existence; but as that secret suspicion faded away before the facts in the case, these were allowed to speak for themselves. Hence in recent years we have rather sought to present arguments showing that there is, or at any rate must be, such a science.

In asserting that there must be a science of sociology we have sought to show (1) the several senses in which the word science. may be used; (2) the need of a general science to co-ordinate and to synthesize the teachings of those special sciences devoted to the study of social institutions and their activities; (3) the need of a science able to give a social interpretation to the teachings of biology and psychology; and (4) the necessity for a science that can absorb and assimilate into a logical unity all knowledge bearing with any directness on the past, present, and future of human society. Only by developing such a science, it is argued, can society hope to look with any confidence toward the future, and by a clear understanding of conditions and principles, thereby work consciously toward a higher standard of civilization.

In asserting, however, the necessity for the existence of sociology we have become careful not to dogmatize overmuch. If a student prefers to believe in the non-existence of the science, we are very willing to supply him with references in support of his view. If another calls attention to errors and defects in the sociological scheme, we would not hesitate to call his attention to others also that he had failed to see. If a third showed that former sociological teachings had become obsolete, we would further admit that much of what is now sociology may also become obsolete in a few years. In fact we long ago became convinced that pure and unadulterated truth unmixed with error is not the predominating characteristic of sociological teachings. Yet, after all these admissions have been made, we should still assert our right to continue the teaching of sociology, believing that, while theories may come and theories may go, yet the idea of a unifying science of human association will remain as a permanent achievement of the human mind. Even if at this

moment we ourselves should admit that there is existent no science of sociology, and that the term merely represented an "attitude of mind," we would the next instant set about the making of the science, for the idea of it is fully born and a place must be made for it sooner or later among the sciences. Under such conditions the sociologist would simply have to maintain a faith in "the substance of things hoped for," or else dream prophetically of a future such as that Joseph dreamed about when his brothers' sheaves bowed themselves before him.

In the second place it has seemed to us important to distinguish carefully between the special social sciences devoted to some particular aspect or institution of society, and sociology proper as the science of laws and principles underlying human association. Here I must admit a dilemma arises. As a teacher of political science shall I assert with Brother Ford that there is no science of sociology, or as a sociologist shall I vindicate with Brother Small the right of sociology to exist? This is a question of no small importance and one cannot afford to dismiss it summarily. Yet the admission must be made that almost from the beginning at Brown political science and sociology have had their respective jurisdictions marked out, a modus vivendi agreed on, and peace maintained by having both subjects taught by the same teachers. Through these precautions we have never really had need to discuss the matter, but have naturally assumed that sociology is a science outranking the other in the hierarchy of the social sciences. Furthermore, the department of economics has always been in close affiliation with our department, so that in teaching these three great branches of human knowledge we have steadily worked together, harmonizing courses and agreeing on the several "spheres of influence" of these sciences.

In respect to other departments where friction might conceivably arise, time has brought about a full recognition of sociology's right to exist, and though our treaties of amity and peace have occasionally assumed the form of an armistice on the field of battle, yet there is in general an acknowledgement that several sciences may cover all or parts of the same field of phenomena

1 See Controversy, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. XV, Nos. 1 and 2.