among about eight hundred teachers and parents a questionnaire which brought the following returns: Miss Lillie Williams, State Normal School, New Jersey, 203 papers; St. George's High School, Edinburgh, Scotland, 67; Miss Jennie B. Merrill, New York City, 53; N. Y., 105; Miss S. E. Wiltse, 26; Miss Mary White, 18; and 176 from miscellaneous sources, making in all 648. These returns vere of very varied degrees of merit. Some were long letters of reminiscence by adults, some were observations by mers, and others were of the doll history of individual chudren. There were also school compositions by pupils of high and normal schools; 94 boys were reported on, the rest were girls; 96 were reminiscences, and the majority were written by females between fourteen and twenty-four. Altogether this constituted a stack of thousands of pages of manuscript. After a considerable time spent by both of us in a preliminary survey of this material, it was decided that, intractable, and lacking in uniformity as it was, it merited as careful a statistical treatment as could be given it, and this laborious task was finally undertaken by one of us (A. C. E.), who also conducted quite a voluminous correspondence, gathered the literary references with careful epitomes thereof, selected and condensed typical cases from the returns, preserving every salient phrase and incident, and issued a supplementary syllabus to get better statistical results.

These latter returns were given to Dr. Hall, under whose supervision they were tabulated, and to whom Mr. Ellis's tables, correspondence, digests, conclusions, suggestions, and everything else were turned over, and who must therefore bear the responsibility of the attempt herewith made to present such account of all these varied data as he is able to do under limitations of both time and space, which are such as leave much to be desired. He has also freely added inferences, data, etc.

MATERIAL OF WHICH DOLLS ARE MADE, SUbstitutes, AND PROXIES

Of 845 children, with 989 preferences, between the ages of three and twelve, 191 preferred wax dolls; 163, paper dol., 153, china dolls; 144, rag dolls; 116, bisque dolls; 83, chi and cloth dolls; 69, rubber dolls; 12, china and kid dolls; II, pasteboard dolls; 7, plaster of Paris dolls; 6, wood doll 3, knit dolls; while a few each preferred papier-maché, clay, glass, cotton, tin, celluloid, French, Japanese, brownie, Chinese, sailor, negro, Eskimo dolls, etc. Many children gave several as equally desirable, or their preferences changed and many preferred the substitute to the real doll.

We have grouped as substitutes objects used and treated by children as if they were dolls. Such treatment always involves ascribing more or less psychic qualities to the object, and treating it as if it were an animate or sentient thing. Nothing illustrates the strength of the doll instinct and the vigor of the animistic fancy like the following list of doll substitutes. In answers to the first syllabus, pillows were treated as dolls by 39 children, who often tied strings around the middle of the pillow, using a shawl for the skirt; sticks, sometimes dressed in flowers, leaves, and twisted grass were used by 29; bottles, filled with different-colored water and called different people, some with doll-head corks, by 24; cob or ear of corn (red ears favored, corn silk for the hair, a daisy perhaps serving for a hat) by 19; dogs by 18; cats and kittens by 15; shawls by 14; flowers by 12; clothespins (one a sailor, one a woman, sometimes both, used as servants) by 11; blocks by 9; children by 7; pieces of cloth by 7; daisies (taking off all but two petals, marking eyes, and making grass mothers) by 6; newspapers by 6; stuffed elephants (seemed like a real baby) by 6; clothes pegs by 5; peanuts by 5; sticks of wood by 5; apples by 4; clay pipes by 4; kindergarten material

by 4; handkerchiefs by 4; mud and clay by 4; chairs and stools by 3; buttons by 3; potatoes (one end the head, with eyes, matches used for arms and legs) by 3; wishbones by 3; nine-pins by 3; squashes by 3; toothpicks by 3; vegetables by 3; yarn strings by 3. The following are each mentioned twice as having been used as dolls: acorns, aprons, bootjacks, feathers, doughnuts, cucumbers, spools, shells, pumpkins (dressed in own clothes), towels (knotted in the middle), rubber balls, brooms (dressed in bolster case), nails, bedposts, sticks of candy (dressed), button hooks, keys, and umbrellas.

The following are each mentioned once as doll substitutes: box, jug, coat, orange peel, cribbage peg, chicken, whisk broom, board with face painted on it, croquet ball, dish top, finger of a person dressed as doll, hand dressed as doll, with thumb and finger wrapped up for arms, water bottle, celery, one corner of a blanket (the other was mother), log, shoe, curtain tassel, roll of batting, bundle from the store, turkey wing named Dinah, washboard (two legs, so much like a man), wooden spoon, weed, piece of lath, salt bag stuffed, fish, piece of Porterhouse steak, sweet potato, stuffed stocking, stuffed cat, hitching post (so dressed up as to scare horses), stick of stove wood, tongs, toy monkey, radish, scissors in a spool, sheet, shoulder blanket, stone block, spoon, petunia (stem pushed through for head and neck), pin, pronged stick (looked like arms and legs), linen book rolled up and marked, knife, fork and spoon (called servants), knitting needles, lead pencil, half-burned matches (black for hair), marbles, oranges, penholder, beets, grapes (pulps for heads, splints for arms and legs, set sailing in cucumber boats), geraniums, green peaches (with pins for arms and legs), gateposts (by a party of children), gourds, hickory nuts, hollyhocks, horse-chestnuts (pin for arms and legs), cuffs rolled up, dress folded, fuchsia, feather, forks, glass, corn husks, beans, berries, cradle quilt, carrot, crochet hook, hairbrush, cane, cricket, clamp,

carpenter's plane, axle of toy cart, a bench, books, balls, and bric-a-brac.

In reply to the supplementary questions, out of 579 children 57 had used a cat as a doll; 41, clothespins; 26, sticks; 21, vegetables; 20, a pillow. Only 26 of all these were boys. As an instance of flower dolls one correspondent writes:

I often took pansies for dolls because of their human faces; the rose I revered too much to play with, it was like my best wax doll, dressed in her prettiest, but always sitting in state in a big chair in some secluded corner where little visitors would not spy her out. I loved these nature dolls far better than the prettiest store dolls and ascribed special psychic qualities to them. The hepaticas seemed delicate children to be tenderly cared for but which soon drooped and faded. Violets were sturdy little ones which enjoyed a frolic and could be played with. The pansy was a willing, quick, bright flower child, the rose her grown-up sister, pretty, always charmingly dressed, but a quiet and sedate spectator. Violets were shy, good-natured children, but their pansy cousins were often naughty and would not play. The hepaticas were invalids and cripples who watched their livelier brothers and sisters and were entertained by stiff maiden aunts, marigolds, with long curls. The dahlias were colored servants and mammies; yellow violets were mischievous, fun-loving boys; sweet peas were the nurses with cap and kerchief on; the morning-glories were governesses and teachers. I often made little boats to give my flower dolls rides on the river. We built harbors, but in rough weather so many lives were lost that our pleasure was marred.

A kindergarten teacher writes:

Nothing interests the little girls so much as to take a sphere, cylinder, or cube, wrapping it in a handkerchief to have "a baby," putting it into the long box of the second gift for the cradle; the boys often share this play.

A girl of three lavished her affection on a rude wooden footstool. It was set on end, its legs were arms and feet, and it was dressed, named "Stooly," nursed when sick, taken to bed and table, taught to read and write, fed, and various parts of the body imagined. A scratch on the joint was a sore. A child of two did the same with an old red slipper; another with a bottle with cork head, eyes, necklace; another

with a bit of Parian marble; another with a covered brick, till her mother fancied living things grew uninteresting. My own boy had a long-continued craze for a big stuffed elephant and for a stove hook.1

Mud dolls are sometimes sick at first, but when dry are well. A shawl doll had no heart, so a ball was put in its folds so it could live and love.

Colored dolls sometimes need no clothing, "because they are so black nobody can see." A colored doll may be specially liked because others hate it, but fair hair and blue eyes are the favorites. When detected in "dollifying" very intractable objects children often show signs of self-consciousness and even shame. Besides the good and bad looks, dress, etc., of dolls, there are other influences that mediate likes and dislikes that we are not yet able to explain. A bottle resembled its giver and so took his name. Complimentary or uncomplimentary remarks of others often have much to do, but dispraise seems almost as apt to increase love as to diminish it. Real or fancied resemblance to people liked or disliked is a factor, and so is the feeling for the person who gave the doll, but why some dolls get all the whippings and others all the favors it is often very hard to ascertain.

The rudest doll has the great advantage of stimulating the imagination by giving it more to do than does the elaborately finished doll. It can also enter more fully into the child's life, because it can be played with more freely without danger of being soiled or injured. With rude dolls, too, the danger of both hypertrophy and of too great prolongation of the doll instinct is diminished. As between large and small dolls it would appear that dolls of from four to twelve inches are more common, and that interest in very large and very small dolls is later and less normal. It is opposed to large, elegant French dolls which teach love of dress and suggest luxury and dolls

1 "Notes on the Study of Infants," Pedagogical Seminary, Vol. I, pp. 135– 136, June, 1891.