{30 INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF EDUCATION. 
Dr. DE GaRMO : I've been trying to accustom myself to this criticism on the exces- 
sive use of the eye and hand. To me it comes to this : If these are used badly, then it 
's bad. But why not use them well ? The old style of ¢“ science ” used to be all read- 
ing; that is no science at all. But now the eye reads objects, and is an aid to thought. 
The observation of isolated details is bad. I apprehend Professor Patrick had in mind 
jiffused observation, in the line of the much abused Pestalozzian method. For my part, 
[ lay great stress on the saying of Herbart. ¢ Bring thought out of observation.” 
Principal F. L. SoLDAN, St. Louis, Mo : A story of Madame de Sta#l runs as follows : 
At a dinner-party she was unable to get a word from her partoer, a famous author. 
«Poor man !” she said, * he has put so much thought into his books that he has none 
eft for himself.” In a way this criticism will apply to our schools. Time spent on 
nemorizing has left no time for thought. This, at least, is one place for economy. 
But the cause of excessive eye training lies in matters we cannot control. The eye sees 
juicker and better than any other sense. We feel heat, but to express our feeling we 
make use of a scale that appeals to the eye. Yet, with Professor Patrick, I recognize 
the great importance of the ear in all social intercourse. The ear is the only sense that 
has deteriorated in civilization ; I am glad it has declined. The days of Buddhist 
priests who memorize and transmit orally thousands of words have gone by. Memory 
must not be formal. serial, but closely connected with thought. 
DREAMING AND POETIC INVENTION. 
BY PROFESSOR JAMES SULLY, LONDON, ENGLAND. 
AT the close of an article on ¢ Dreams as related to Literature,” pub- 
lished in the Forum, March, 1889, I threw out the conjecture, already 
sdumbrated by Lamb, that the dreaming faculty is akin to the poetic fac- 
ulty, and that the development of either must tend to react on that of the 
other. 
With a view to see whether this guess was supported by fact, I decided 
so carry out a little statistical investigation. I drew up a schedule of 
juestions, with reference on the one hand to frequency and coherence of 
reams and other allied points, and on the other hand to mode of literary 
activity. These questions were sent to persons engaged in the production 
of imaginative literature in England, America, and elsewhere. 
As might have been expected, some of the recipients of the questions, 
possibly feeling, as a distinguished novelist put it, that it was disagreeable 
to be turned inside out in this way, declined the friendly challenge sent 
chem. At the same time my appeal drew out a fair number of responses. 
These included a large number of leading names in the contemporary fic- 
sion of England and of America. 
The number of complete sets of answers was twenty-eight. This was, 
of course, far too small to serve as the basis of an exhaustive statistical 
investigation. At the same time it seemed to me sufficient to suggest 
some probable conclusions. I may add that some of my correspondents 
furnished me with particularly interesting details of their modus operandi 
in literary production. I judged, therefore, that I had collected material 
enough for a further elucidation of the subject.