Since the publication of Professor van der Wijck's Zielkunde (psychology) in 1872, which was reviewed in the Academy for that year, no work of any importance bearing upon subjects of metaphysical and psychological investigation has appeared in Holland. The second part of the Zielkunde, which has for some time been expected, has not yet come to hand.(10 § 3 ¶ 1)

In the absence of anything more definite, it may be well to point out to English psychologists what we may reasonably expect from Holland. The Dutch writers of the present day attempt to hold a position between English and German philosophers, and endeavour to mediate between them. This was the position occupied by Opzoomer, and it has been taken up by most of his disciples, who try to mediate between German writers of the Idealist-Realist School like Hermann Lotze, and English psychologists like Prof. Bain and the late Mr. Mill. The study of Dutch psychology ought, therefore, to bring England and Germany nearer to each other, and enable psychologists in both countries to appreciate better than they do now each other's method, starting-point and general line of work.(10 § 3 ¶ 2)

In another and more definite line of work English Philosophy may take advantage of the labours of Dutch psychologists. The writings of Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Tylor, Mr. John McLennan, and others have familiarised us with the fact that the study of the beliefs and usages of savage tribes are of great value to the scientific student of psychology, law, and ethics. Now a great deal of the present philosophical activity of Holland belongs to the Leyden school of theologians, or, as they call themselves, the Modernen. This school maintains (1) that a comparative study of religions, especially of the great types of religions, should precede the study of theology, and (2) that theology is in all respects founded on anthropology, and is one of the divisions of the philosophy of mind, like ethics or metaphysics. With the theological worth or worthlessness of these principles we have, of course, nothing to do, but it is manifest that their application ought to enrich psychology in two ways--by directing attention to the subject of the psychological beliefs of primitive man, and so to the historical method of studying psychology, and also by throwing light upon that somewhat neglected division of the sphere of mind whose outcome we have in what is called natural religion. Unfortunately this last year has been a singularly barren one; for the Modernen, instead of prosecuting their researches along the lines they themselves have laid down, have got entangled in the discussion of a very old, and, according to their mode of dealing with it, not a very productive problem, viz.: whether the core of religion is to be regarded as ethical or intellectual. The psychological interest in the controversy is narrowed to a single point, whether moral intuition is for all practical purposes a special use of the ordinary cognitive faculties, or whether there is something more in it than that. The two best essays which the controversy has produced are those of Dr. Hooijkaas Ter beschrijvin van de Ethische richting, in the Theol. Tijdschrift for March, 1875, and Prof. F. W. van Bell, De godsdienst als een levensrichting, die de geheele persoonlijkheid van den mensch aangaat, in the November number of the same journal. Prof. Van Bell's paper is short, clear, and incisive; he argues from the basis of the ordinary empirical psychology. Dr. Hooijkaas is not so clear, but there seem to be deeper psychological glimpses vouchsafed to him than to his clever young opponent.(10 § 3 ¶ 3)

Thomas M. Lindsay.