See The American Commonwealth, vol. ii., p. 705. Footnote 10: Memoirs of U. S. Grant, vol. i., p. 344. Footnote 11: See his Primitive Culture, vol. ii., p. 372. Footnote 12: K. C. Moore, The Mental Development of a Child, p. 37. Footnote 13: The Senses and the Will, p. 295. Footnote 14: See his First Three Years of Childhood, p. 13. Footnote 15: Oxenford’s Translation, vol. i., p. 501. Footnote 16: See his Essay on Vanity. Footnote 17: Early Spring in Massachusetts, p. 232. Footnote 18: The First Three Years of Childhood, p. 77. Footnote 19: See his Biographical Sketch of an Infant, Mind, vol. ii., p. 289. Footnote 20: A good way to interpret a man’s face is to ask oneself how he would look saying “I” in an emphatic manner. This seems to help the imagination in grasping what is most essential and characteristic in him. Footnote 21: Only four words—“heart,” “love,” “man,” “world”—take up more space in the index of “Familiar Quotations” than “eye.” Footnote 22: On the fear of (imaginary) eyes see G. Stanley Hall’s study of Fear in The American Journal of Psychology, vol. 8, p. 147. Footnote 23: Two apparently opposite views are current as to what style is. One regards it as the distinctive or characteristic in expression, that which marks off a writer or other artist from all the rest; according to the other, style is mastery over the common medium of expression, as language or the technique of painting or sculpture. These are not so inconsistent as they seem. Good style is both; that is, a significant personality expressed in a workmanlike manner. Footnote 24: P. 493. Footnote 25: With me, at least, this is the case. Some whom I have consulted find that certain sentiments—for instance, pity—may be directly suggested by the word, without the mediation of a personal symbol. This hardly affects the argument, as it will not be doubted that the sentiment was in its inception associated with a personal symbol. Footnote 26: This idea that social persons are not mutually exclusive but composed largely of common elements is implied in Professor William James’s doctrine of the Social Self and set forth at more length in Professor James Mark Baldwin’s Social and Ethical Interpretations of Mental Development. Like other students of social psychology I have received much instruction and even more helpful provocation from the latter brilliant and original work. To Professor James my obligation is perhaps greater still. Footnote 27: