Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 84.djvu/596

592 In so far as the Spencer theory emphasizes the spontaneous character of play as compared with work, it is illuminating. And if by superabounding energy Spencer means nothing more than a condition of vital health of which play is the spontaneous expression, his theory is helpful and true. But the impression that one gets from this theory is that quiescence is considered to be the natural condition of the child and that when energy superabounds then he plays. Thus far the theory needs a radical revision. Still more, the Spencer theory makes no attempt to explain the forms of children's play and of adults' sport, nor their historical significance.

The next theory of play was that of Karl Groos, developed in his two books "The Play of Animals" and "The Play of Man." It is called the "practise and preparation theory" and maintains that play is an instinct whose purpose, during the long period of immaturity, is to perfect through play the activities afterward required in serious life. For instance, the girl jumping rope doesn't know why she is doing it except that it is fun. But really it is an instinct whose purpose is to develop certain essential muscles.

This theory is less illuminating than that of Spencer. All the activities of children are in a sense a preparation for life, but the form taken by children's play is not the form of their future activities, except in a comparatively few of the imitative plays. As we shall see presently, the Groos theory does not apply to the characteristic and most deeply fascinating plays of childhood and youth. Without denying the truth that play is a preparation for life, a wholly different principle will be found to determine the form which the plays take. Groos has more recently supplemented his views by a "Katharsis" theory of play already suggested by American psychologists.

A third theory of play has connected the plays of children with the serious pursuits of primitive man. A mass of facts showing this connection has been collected by Stanley Hall and his school—facts which no future writer on the theory of play can ignore. The manner of this connection and the reason for it have not been clearly shown. Sometimes it has been included under the so-called law of recapitulation, a theory to which critical reference will be made below. For the moment, however, it will be sufficient to mention some instances of this striking resemblance between the habits of our human ancestors and the plays of children, calling attention to the fact that the resemblances extend not only to the plays of children, but also to the sports of men.

Haddon and Tylor have studied the history of the kite and the top and of marbles and have shown their very ancient character and their connection with early religious and divinatory rites. The same may be said of casting lots, throwing dice, games of forfeits and games with common playing cards. The mental habits of our ancestors, as we know,