Fig. 4

alternate in the new series. The whole series shifted itself, and settled into a new equilibrium. Some of the subjects were able to feel all the former minor spaces still as such, but only by a definite effort, and not while taking any pleasure in it. The change in the alternates spoilt the whole scheme of the repetition as it already stood, and made a regrouping necessary. I next tried varying alternates by removing a string at intervals.

Fig. 5

Since the strings were not removed in any regular fashion, and because the subject could not find any possible consecutive way to group them with the double strings, this variation was partially overlooked, and although confusing the series somewhat, repetition of the double strings could still be felt. Thus a mere gap where the scheme remained the same was not so disturbing as an extra feature inserted, or one noticeably changed. Something could be supplied by the subject, but not altered so easily. In these cases, however, the change was only tolerated because it was ignored. They felt it as a mistake and so overlooked it, but, accepted as a component part of the series, it was impossible to feel it as a repetition or get pleasure from it.

The next variation was in the position of alternate figures. With a three-group as the major element of the repetition and a pair of strings in the alternate space, the size of the two minor spaces was altered, thus making the distance between the three-group and adjacent pair shorter than between that and the next three-group. This immediately threw out the feeling for the old series and made a new one. The new series thus formed varied with the different subjects, although no particular difference was noticed between spatial and temporal types. They all disliked the new arrangement, in whichever of a variety of ways it was apperceived. (It will be noted the actual distance between the three-groups was not varied, but the size of the spaces each side of the minor figure, i. e., the minor figure was shifted from its central position.) One typical spatial subject took it in either of three ways: (1) He grouped the three-group and pair nearest together, into the repeated element of the new series; (2) he ignored the pair and regarded it as a repetition of three-groups; or (3) ignored the difference in the division of the alternates, and regarded them as alike. The artificiality of the latter methods of taking the series is evident. What pleasure survived after such a strain was very slight, and was moreover not of the series as given, but as imagined differently, which was not a valid judgment. Most of the subjects grouped both figures into one, and, finding the unity thus made ugly and unsymmetrical, derived no pleasure from it. One tried to keep both elements in separate series and have them go along together, equally distant from those of their own kind, although not from each other. This was, however, very fatiguing and unsatisfactory. Those who grouped the different figures said they did so because they could not help it, not because they liked it, and said it was impossible to regard the alternate figure as such, if varied from its central position. If they were all varied together, they were grouped, with the major unit, into a new one. If varied irregularly the series was spoiled — no rhythm whatever remained. It became a heap.

Next, I tried varying the size of the alternate spaces, keeping the filling in its central position.

Fig. 7

Here also it was universally regrouped. They found it more difficult to feel the rhythm of the three-groups as separate elements than when the minor spaces had remained uniform in size, but different in the position of the filling. The alternate space, then, which had at first seemed the unimportant part of the rhythm and for which no subject could assign any conscious value whatever, was evidently a potent factor of the experience, and when varied either in size or filling (especially the former) it not only changed the feeling-tone, but shifted the entire scheme of the rhythm, or broke it up altogether.

Variation of major units: Was variation more allowable in the major than in the minor unit of a series? This was tested first in the same manner as for accents. In a series of which a double string was the major element, a third string was hung with every such double, thus changing the unit in both size and content.

Fig. 8

The series immediately readjusted itself with the three-group as element for most of the subjects, although one was still able to feel them all as one unit, varied by the added string. Varying only the size of the major unit gave the same result.

Fig. 9

The pairs, instead of remaining the same size, were made alternately larger and smaller, and a new repetition was made, i. e., with the larger pair as major element and the smaller one as minor. They all agreed, however, that less change was made in these cases than when the minor spaces had been changed in size. In the latter case either a regrouping was made, changing the whole character

of the series, or it was spoiled altogether. With change of major units alone, however, although a new element was made, it was still possible to take it in the old way without much difficulty or change in feeling-tone.

It was then necessary to see how change of content would affect the major unit, the size remaining constant. A group of two sets of double strings 10 ccm. apart was taken as the repeated element, and these groups placed at 10 ccm. from each other.

Fig. 10

Within one element was hung one string, and within the next two, thus varying the content while the size remained constant. In every case the answer was the same. It was not so pleasant as when the filling was the same, but the group still remained the unit of the repetition, and the series essentially the same.

Several variations were made in this element. Instead of hanging strings regularly (1 in one, and 2 in the next) they were hung irregularly, i. e., an extra one here and there at intervals in no special order. As long as the boundary-lines of each group remained at the same distance from each other, and from the next group, thus keeping the unit at uniform size, although the pleasure-tone varied, the balance of the series was not changed. No regrouping or shifting of the equilibrium resulted.

It would seem from the preceding experiments that in any series variation of the major unit was tolerated more than of the alternate; while in either case variation in content had less influence than variation in size.

Symmetry: In the previous experiment, three subjects had insisted on symmetry as a necessary attribute both of the unit and its alternate. U. (spatial type) described his experience as "a succession of symmetrical experiences or states of equilibrium; when they are not so, they must be regrouped, or pleasure is impossible." R. (temporal type) insisted especially on the necessity of the alternate figure being symmetrical as regards the major units, i. e., halfway between them; and also on symmetry as regards itself. One

temporal subject said there was some pleasure in merely going from one unit to the next, even though no repose was possible on each because of its asymmetry. This suggested experiments on the importance of symmetry in repeated series. Is it necessary that the separate elements of a series be symmetrical? Must both major and minor element be symmetrical? Does this necessity vary according to the temporal or spatial type of the subject, i. e., is it more necessary to the spatial type, whose pleasure depends more on repose in the unit, than to the temporal type, whose enjoyment rests mainly in the rhythm of movement from one unit to the next? Or is it a common demand? This experiment was begun in the following simple way. The strings were hung in two group-forms; one with three and the other with four.

Fig. 11

This was a symmetrical grouping and uniformly pleasant. The series was then changed by removing the second string in the fourgroup, thereby making it unsymmetrical.

Fig. 12

This change made the repetition less pleasant in every case, but did not spoil it. Instead of the four-groups becoming more prominent they seemed less so, and the three-group on account of its "compactness" became in most cases the major element, thereby shifting the balance of the repetition, but not detracting very much from the pleasure the three-group was changed by moving the By this means the group which had been

ymmetrical, while the four-group was