Ribot 164 0519

The seminal contributions of Théodule Ribot (1839-1916):
The centenary of the passing of the founder of modern

French psychology
Serge Nicolas, Michel Sabourin, Pascale Piolino
Dans L’Année psychologique 2016/4 (Vol. 116), pages 519 à 546
Éditions NecPlus
ISSN 0003-5033
DOI 10.3917/anpsy.164.0519
© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)
Article disponible en ligne à l’adresse

https://www.cairn.info/revue-l-annee-psychologique1-2016-4-page-519.htm
Découvrir le sommaire de ce numéro, suivre la revue par email, s’abonner...

Flashez ce QR Code pour accéder à la page de ce numéro sur Cairn.info.
Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour NecPlus.

La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le
cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque
forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est
précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.
The seminal contributions of Théodule Ribot
(1839-1916): The centenary of the passing
of the founder of modern French psychology
1∗ 2 1
Serge Nicolas , Michel Sabourin and Pascale Piolino
1 Institut Universitaire de France, Paris Descartes University, Laboratoire Mémoire
et Cognition – Institut de Psychologie, Centre de Psychiatrie et Neurosciences, Inserm
UMR U894, France
2 Department of Psychology, University of Montreal, Montreal (Quebec), Canada
RÉSUMÉ
De nos jours, qui se souvient du nom et des travaux de Théodule
Ribot (1839-1916) ? Le centenaire de la mort de Ribot est donc une
occasion unique pour l’honorer comme l’une des grandes figures de la
psychologie. Non seulement il joué un rôle majeur dans le développement
de la psychologie en France, mais il est également devenu un acteur
international majeur de la psychologie au tournant du XXe siècle. Depuis
cette époque, ses travaux ont profondément influencé des générations
de psychologues. Au niveau international, 1. il peut être crédité de la
première chaire ayant pour titre « Psychologie expérimentale » (1885 :
Sorbonne ; 1888 : Collège de France) ; 2. il a été le président par intérim
du premier Congrès International de Psychologie Physiologique, qui s’est
tenu à Paris en 1889 ; 3. sa réputation en tant que chercheur en psychologie

va bien au-delà des frontières françaises, puisqu’il a introduit et répandu
la méthode pathologique en psychologie, et que la plupart de ses livres ont
très rapidement été traduits en anglais et dans d’autres langues (espagnol,
allemand, italien, etc.). Cette étude montre que Ribot était en contact
étroit avec d’autres grandes figures de la psychologie de son temps tels que
Wilhelm Wundt et William James.
Les contributions majeures de Théodule Ribot (1839-1916) : centenaire

de la disparition du fondateur de la psychologie française moderne
ABSTRACT
Today the name and contributions of Théodule Ribot (1839-1916) are little remembered.
The centenary of Ribot’s passing is thus a unique occasion to honor him as one of the great
∗ Corresponding author: Serge Nicolas, Institut de Psychologie, Laboratoire Mémoire et Cognition, 71 avenue
Edouard Vaillant, 92774 Boulogne-Billancourt Cedex, France, or email: serge.nicolas@parisdescartes.fr
L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

520 Serge Nicolas et al.
figures of psychology. Not only did he play a major role in the development of psychology
in France, but he also became a major international figure of psychology at the turn of the
20th century. Since that time, his work has deeply influenced generations of psychologists.
At the international level, 1. he can be credited as having held in France the first Chair
entitled “Experimental Psychology” (1885: Sorbonne; 1888: Collège de France); 2. he was
the acting president of the very first International Congress of Physiological Psychology,
held in Paris in 1889; 3. his reputation as a psychological researcher went much beyond the
French borders, having introduced the pathological method in psychology, and most of
his books were translated, at the time, in English and other languages (Spanish, German,
Italian, etc.). Interestingly, this paper shows Ribot was in close contact with other great
figures of the time such as Wilhelm Wundt and William James.
In 2016, French psychology celebrates the 100th anniversary of Théodule

Ribot’s passing (see Carroy, Feuerhahn, Plas, & Trochu, 2016a; for his
biography, see Nicolas & Murray, 1999). On this occasion, various
demonstrations have taken place throughout the year in Guingamp (where
he was born) and in Paris (where he passed away) to honor him as
the founder of modern French psychology (Nicolas, 2005a). Why is
Théodule Ribot (1839-1916, see figure 1) such an important figure of
French psychology? It is because not only did he play a major role in the
development of psychology in his country, but also because he became a
major international figure of psychology at the turn of the 20th century.
His name can certainly be placed, along side, with the names of William
James and Wilhelm Wundt (with whom he was then in close contact) since
his work has deeply influenced generations of psychologists.
Théodule Ribot became first known for his criticism of old, philo-
sophically oriented psychology and for the popularization of the new,

experimentally oriented psychology in France and abroad, illustrating the
work of the English (Ribot, 1870, 1874a; see Hameline, 1971; Turbiaux,
1987) and German psychologists (Ribot, 1879, 1886) who were active
during that period. Without him, without his books and other publications,
without the founding in 1876 of the Revue Philosophique de la France
et de l’Étranger, an international review (Mucchielli, 1998; Nicolas, 2013;
Thirard, 1976), many scientists would never have thought of devoting their
attention to the new ways of doing research in psychology, mainly the
German experimental research.
Ribot can take credit for having introduced a new way of doing
psychology at the Université de la Sorbonne (Brooks, 1993, 1998) in 1873
by defending a doctoral dissertation on “L’hérédité: Étude psychologique
sur ses phénomènes, ses lois, ses causes, ses conséquences” (Heredity: A
psychological study of its phenomena, its laws, its causes, its consequences)
(Ribot, 1873, 1875e). Ribot’s dissertation was a major turning point

The seminal contributions of Théodule Ribot (1839-1916) 521
Figure 1. Théodule Ribot (1839-1916). Private collection S. Nicolas


in French psychology, because it was the first time that new trends in
psychology were introduced at the then very conservative Sorbonne (see
Nicolas, 1998; Plas, 2013). But his most enduring contribution concerns the
scientific method he privileged in his early works: the pathological method.
This specifically French method consisted in elucidating the mechanisms
associated with the normal state by resorting to mental pathology (see
Carroy & Plas, 1993, 1996).
At the international level, certain facts can be reported in order to show
the major achievements of Ribot: 1. he can be credited as having held,
in France, the first Chair in Experimental Psychology (1888: Collège de
France); 2. he was the acting president of the first International Congress
of Physiological Psychology, held in Paris in 1889; 3. his reputation as a
psychological researcher went much beyond the French borders, since most

of his books were translated at the time in English and other languages
(Spanish, German, Italian, etc.). 4. Ribot was in close contact with great
figures of the time such as Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) and William James
(1842-1910, see Trochu, 2015).
1. RIBOT AS A PROMOTER OF WUNDT’S

PSYCHOLOGY
In 1870, Ribot had published a first book on British psychology (translated
in English in 1874, and in Spanish, in 1877) in which he presented the
ideas of contemporary British philosophers (Mill, Spencer, Lewes, etc.); his
preface to this book was a true manifesto for a new psychology, liberated
from metaphysical influences (Guillin, 2004). He had noted that progress
in psychology goes back to when it broke away from metaphysics. But these
metaphysical influences disappeared only when German scientists decided
to apply measurement and calculation to mental facts. This had in turn
given rise to two branches of psychology, psychophysics and psychometry.
E. H. Weber (1795-1878) was the first to consolidate this orientation in his
work on sensations. However, it was Gustav Theodor Fechner (1801-1887)
who was responsible for having given psychology a new direction, of having
devoted to this subject a comprehensive and systematic opus based on
precise, orderly work, and of having attempted to formulate the first laws
of the discipline. The publication of Fechner’s Elemente der Psychophysik

[Elements of Psychophysics] in 1860 marks an important milestone in
the history of psychology, one that genuinely ushered the discipline in
a completely new era. The impetus given by Fechner was pursued even
more systematically by Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920). Wundt’s Vorlesungen
über die Menschen und Thierseele [Lectures about Human and Animal
Psychology] (Wundt, 1863) and Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie
[Principles of Physiological Psychology] (Wundt, 1874) covered every aspect
of psychology as a science for the very first time. It is in relation to the
scientific method that psychology would become a science of observation
and experimentation, that is to say a genuine science in the same way as
the other natural sciences. In the 1870s, experimental psychology was thus
a new science very well represented in Wundt’s work (see Araujo, 2016;
Wontorra, 2009).
It was in December 1874 that Ribot informed Wundt (see figure 2), in a
letter [Universitätsarchiv Leipzig NA Wundt, Briefe 1378] written in French,

Figure 2. Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920)
that a first article concerning his work on psychology (Ribot, 1874b) had
been the object of a recent publication in a scientific journal.
Paris, 12 December 1874


Distinguished colleague,
I am sending you with this letter an article that I have
published in the Revue Scientifique on the measurement of
sensations, article which is inspired to a large extent by your
own Vorlesungen über die Menschen und Thierseele [Lectures
about Human and Animal Psychology].
I have also just completed a longer article (50 pages) containing
a full presentation and explanation of your ideas concerning
psychology as set out in the Vorlesungen. Finally, I am preparing
to have your recent work Grundzüge der physiologischen
Psychologie [Principles of Physiological Psychology] made
known to all our readers. All these studies will be published in

the Revue Scientifique and will thus constitute a more or less

complete presentation of your ideas concerning psychology.
I consider myself to be extremely fortunate to be the first to
enable your psychological work to be made better known in
France. I would like your studies to be translated and I have tried
on several occasions to find an appropriate translator for them.
I would undertake the task myself, if I was not so overwhelmed
by other tasks.
Please be assured of my most sincere admiration,
Prof. Th. Ribot
Agrégé de philosophie. Docteur ès lettres
63, rue Monsieur le Prince
P.S. Forgive me for writing to you in French. My German
wouldn’t be good enough.
In this first letter, Ribot informed Wundt that a long article had been
written by him on a full presentation of his ideas on psychology (for
a recent review of Wundt’s psychological work, see Araujo, 2016) as
presented in the Vorlesungen über die Menschen und Thierseele [Lectures
about Human and Animal Psychology] (Wundt, 1863). This paper had
been published in two parts, first in January 1875 (Ribot, 1875a) and

second, in February 1875 (Ribot, 1875b). At the time, Ribot was studying
carefully Wundt’s Grundzüge der phyiologischen Psychologie [Principles of
Physiological Psychology]. It was at the end of the year 1875 that Ribot’s
papers were published in the Revue Scientifique (Ribot, 1875c, 1875d),
centered on the presentation of Wundt’s new book (Wundt, 1874).
In 1876, Ribot founded the Revue philosophique de la France et de
l’Étranger [The same year that Bain founded the English journal Mind]
which was to have such a significant influence (Mucchielli, 1998; Nicolas,
2013; Thirard, 1976) on the philosophical movement in France and which,
as of its very first editions, devoted a large proportion of its pages to
experimental psychology [Ribot included a paper from Wundt in the first
volume of the journal]. It is within this context that Ribot published in
the journal he edited several papers on German psychology (Ribot, 1876a,
1876b, 1876c, 1878). Remaining in close relation with Wundt, Ribot writes
to him on May 10, 1878: “I hope that, towards the end of the year, I will

be able to publish my own book on contemporary German psychology,

which is already well advanced.” [Universitätsarchiv Leipzig NA Wundt,
Briefe 1381]. This book, edited on February 20, 1879, was entitled German
psychology of today [the same year that Wundt established his famous
laboratory, see Nicolas, 2005b].
This book on contemporary German psychology (Ribot, 1879, 1886)
was mainly a reprint of the series of papers he had written in the Revue
Scientifique. But the introductory chapter (pp. I-XXXIV) was new and
definitely written to arouse controversy. He notes that a dividing line
had been drawned, everyday more apparent, between the old and the
new psychology. For Ribot, the psychologist should abandon metaphysical
concepts. The new psychology should differ from the old one in its spirit,
which is not metaphysical; its goal is to study only phenomena, and
its procedures should borrow as much as possible from the biological
sciences. In contrast to the new (associationist) English psychology, the
new (experimental) German psychology relies on experimentation. Indeed,
contemporary German psychology is empirical in nature. In his book,
Ribot (1879, 1886) insists on Fechner’s “psychophysical” investigations
(pp. 155-214) and on the concepts of “physiological psychology”, as
developed in Wundt’s work (pp. 215-298).
The reception given to Ribot’s new book in the French philosophical
circles was polemical. In Germany, Wundt was delighted by the publication
of this book even if criticisms of it, in particular on the part of the
German philosopher Benno Erdmann (1851-1921), had been published
in the Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie (Erdmann, 1879).
About these criticisms, Ribot responded to the author himself as can be

found in a letter dated 30 October 1879 written to Wundt: “I acknowledge
that most of his criticisms are correct. Nevertheless, there are certain aspects
with which I am in disagreement: he seems to believe that I wanted to
write a history of German psychology. This was not my aim. Although
presented in an historical form, my book is both critical and polemical. My
book was written for French readers and I am convinced that it is already
too difficult for the average reader.” [Universitätsarchiv Leipzig NA Wundt,
Briefe 1382].
Today, Ribot’s work on German psychology is considered to be a
classic book. It was translated in various languages, notably in Spanish
(Ribot, 1880), German (Ribot, 1881b) and English (Ribot, 1886). In his
correspondence (Archives de la Sorbonne, ref. 341) with the philosopher
Lionel Dauriac (1847-1924), Ribot provided a concise but accurate
summary of his ideas and feelings at the time: “When, in February 1870,
I published on English psychology, nobody in France knew about it.

Everyone spoke frantically of innovation or voiced all sorts of concerns: it

was treated as an absolute heterodoxy. Now I see that it has entered into the
public domain, because of your own desire. However, German psychology
is being met with the same opposition. All this is to a large extent a matter
of habituation. Let time take its effect and all will be well. At least, this
is the hope that keeps me going” (Letter dated 15 September 1879; see
Carroy, Feuerhahn, Plas, & Trochu, 2016b, p. 557-558). It is true that it was
laboratory-based German psychology that enabled psychology to become a
science in its own right. But Ribot was not himself an experimentalist.
Ribot thinks that the experimental method is an excellent exercise
for the mind: it requires discipline, it promotes patience and it helps
prevent hasty and arbitrary generalizations. However, it produces certain
inconveniences and shortcomings. This is the case of the formula that
psychophysics has put forward, that is to say the famous Weber-Fechner law.
Ribot (1909) no longer accepts it in its absolute form. What remains is that
sensation increases more slowly than the stimulus that is responsible for it;
for example, lighting of two, three or, four times the initial intensity will
be felt as less than two, three or four times greater. For Ribot, quantitative
determination is merely an approximation. Moreover, he considers that
many experiments are, to a greater or lesser extent, artificial. The conditions
of a laboratory study are very different from those of everyday life in which
the mental phenomenon occurs naturally. Experimental results can only
be applicable to a better understanding of conscious life, if the conditions
under which the phenomenon is induced are the same as in reality.
However, for Ribot, this is not always the case. Thus, he decided to promote
another method which he called the pathological method.
2. THE PATHOLOGICAL METHOD AND RIBOT’S LAW © NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)
Jastrow (1890) noted the predominance of psychophysics in Germany and

America, of introspective psychology in England, and of pathological stud-
ies in France and Italy. This description seemed accurate enough to Ribot
(see Ribot, 1900b), because it well characterized the above-mentioned
countries. These areas of psychology, though not the exclusive subject
of study there, were nevertheless the preferred areas at the time. Ribot
has found in the pathology of the mind or in the pathology of nervous
action, the data to render intelligible the mechanisms of the normal
state (see Carroy & Plas, 1993, 1996). Nevertheless, he was neither a
physician, nor an observer. The pathological data which he makes use

of, were always second-hand. But with an unusually extensive range of

knowledge, he added great judgment to the selection and interpretation
of facts. Moreover, he presents his psychological conclusions in a language
so clear and precise, as to form a fortunate contrast to the terminology
of the classic philosophers. Indeed, Ribot privileged in his work the
pathological method (Carroy & Plas, 1993). This method consists in
elucidating the mechanisms of the normal state by resorting to mental
pathology. The pathological method involves both pure observation and
experimentation. It is a powerful investigation tool and has led to an
abundant production of results. According to Ribot, disease is, indeed,
a most subtle experiment conducted by nature itself, under well-defined
conditions and using processes unavailable to human skills: it accesses the
inaccessible. “Moreover, if disease did not assume the task of disorganizing
for us the mechanisms of the mind and thus give us a better understanding
of its normal functioning, who would risk conducting experiments that
even the lowest morality would disapprove of? Could we find anyone who
would submit himself to these and anyone else who would dare to attempt
them?” (Ribot, 1909, p. 253). Physiology and pathology—of the mind as
much as of the body—are therefore not contrasted with one another as two
opposites, but are instead two parts of the same entity.
The law of mental dissolution (Nicolas, 1997; Rainville & Carter,
1998) can be regarded as the keystone of the structure he has developed.
Ribot has very properly observed, and better than had been done before
him, that there are stable states—strongly organized, resistive; and weak
states—unstable, artificial, and easily lost. For instance, regarding memory
(Ribot, 1881a, 1882), the stable states are the simple and common

movements of adaptation; the more complex are the delicate movements
of professional activity, the more special are the memories. Concerning will
(Ribot, 1883, 1894), the stable and resistive states are the simple impulses,
having their origin in an organic state, as hunger, thirst; the less stable
ones are the complex determinations of volition, in combination with
changing moral elements, such as duty or remote interest. As for attention
(Ribot, 1889a, 1898), the stable state is spontaneous attention, kept alert
by an active sensation; the weak state is voluntary attention and reflection.
Ribot has shown, that in progressive mental dissolutions, the progression
invariably follows the same order; it proceeds from the more stable to the
less stable; from the better organized to the less perfectly organized; from
the higher to the lower. In substance, this is a great law of general pathology,
for which Ribot has made a successful application to psychology. It is in the
field of memory research that Ribot proposed this famous law that now
bears his name.

Ribot was greatly influenced by the English evolutionary philosopher

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), since he qualifies him as being his preferred
guide. In his correspondence (Lenoir, 1957; see Feuerhahn & Trochu, 2016),
he states on several occasions his admiration for the work entitled Principles
of psychology (Spencer, 1855). Ribot translated in French the second edition
of Spencer’s book (published in 1874) and was influenced by his chapter
devoted to memory (Spencer, 1874). Ribot (1881a) thus went on to further
elaborate the main ideas of this English philosopher in a small essay on
memory entitled “Diseases of memory”, translated in English the following
year (Ribot, 1882). He adopted Spencer’s distinction between a conscious
memory, which is mental in nature, and an unconscious, organic memory.
He was to show that memory is the result of a developmental process
through which instinct (organized, unconscious memory) becomes ever
more complex until it is finally lost in the higher forms of mental activity
(conscious memory).
Ribot’s fundamental idea was that “memory is, in essence, a biological
fact and, accidentally, a psychological fact” (Ribot, 1881a, p. 1). He
considers that memory is a general function of the nervous system which
is based on the ability of the nerve elements (nerve cells) to change as a
function of received impressions and form associations among themselves
(Gasser, 1988). The older the modifications imprinted in the nerve elements
are, the more resistant they are to the disruption caused by trauma or
disease because they are likely to be more deeply etched in the nervous
matter and form part of a stable associative network. Thus the acquisitions
which resist for the longest are those that are almost entirely organic and
which have become automatic habits adopted many years back. But it is

necessary to distinguish between memory in its broad organic sense (true
memory) and memory in its strict psychological sense (which implies
an epiphenomenal consciousness). For Ribot (1881a, p. 2): “By common
usage, the word memory has a triple meaning: the maintenance of certain
conditions, their reproduction, and their localization in the past. This,
however, is only a certain kind of memory, which we can improve. The three
elements are of unequal value: the first two are necessary, indispensable; the
third, which in the language of the schools is called ‘recollection’, completes
the act of memory, but does not constitute it. Suppress the first two, and
memory is annihilated; suppress the third, and memory ceases to exist in
an objective, but not in a subjective sense. This third element, which is
purely psychological, would appear, then, to be additional to the others:
they are stable; it is unstable; it appears and disappears; it represents the
extent of consciousness in the act of memory, and nothing more.” (Ribot,
1882, pp. 10-11). The specific characteristic of mental memory lies in our
consciousness of a recollection (the act of remembering). But conscious

memory is only one specific case of biological memory (Ribot, 1881a,

p. 50). All forms of memory, from the highest to the lowest, are based on
the dynamic associations between nerve elements and the specific changes
undergone by these elements. When we move on to the question of mental
memory, we pass from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the
higher, from a stable to an unstable form of memory (Ribot, 1881a, p. 21).
“In fact, we see that it is impossible to establish where memory—whether
psychical or organic—ends. In what we designate under the collective name
of memory, there are series having every degree of organization, from a
nascent state, to that which is most highly developed. There is an unceasing
transition from the unstable to the stable, from a state of consciousness
with indeterminate acquisition to an organic state where the acquisition is
fixed. Thanks to this continuous movement toward organization, there is a
simplification, an order, which leaves room for the highest form of thought.
Left to itself, with no opposing forces, the process of registration would
tend to produce the progressive annihilation of consciousness, and would
transform man into an automaton.” (Ribot, 1881a, p. 49; 1882, p. 65-66).
Speaking about memory, Ribot adds: “There is no form of mental
activity more strongly in favor of the theory of evolution.” (Ribot, 1881a,
p. 47; 1882, p. 62). Seen from this perspective, it is possible to understand
the nature of memory and understand, also, that it cannot be studied
solely within a physiological framework and that, more importantly, we
must study the history of its transformations. To understand how it works,
we must study it in its abnormal, and most importantly, pathological
forms since these reveal its genesis. Ribot discovers that the dissolution
of memory follows a law. Ribot (1881a, p. 73) first stresses that, in its

severe forms, amnesia “affects only the least automatic and least organized
forms of memory. [. . .] Pathological destruction is limited to the most
highly developed and most unstable forms of memory, to those which
have a personal character, and which, accompanied by consciousness and
localization in time, constitute what we denominated [. . .] the psychical
memory, properly so called.” (Ribot, 1881a, pp. 73; 1882, pp. 95-96). Ribot
does not at this point dwell on the progress of morbid disintegration that
he has just delineated because it is to reemerge in a much clearer and more
evident form in his discussion of the development of progressive amnesias.
Indeed, it was on the basis of his study of progressive amnesias, which
result in the complete elimination of memory through the mechanism of
dissolution, that Ribot was truly to elaborate his famous law of regression.
Indeed, to discover the law of memory dissolution, it is necessary to
undertake the psychological study of the progress of dementia. According
to Ribot, the progress of dementias is extremely instructive for the study
of normal memory because, by showing us how the disorganization of

memory occurs, it also teaches us how it is organized. “We thus see

that the progressive destruction of memory follows a logical order—a
law. It advances progressively from the unstable to the stable. It begins
with the most recent recollections, which, lightly impressed upon the
nervous elements, rarely repeated and consequently having no permanent
associations, represent organization in its feeblest form. It ends with the
sensorial, instinctive memory, which, become a permanent and integral
part of the organism, represents organization in its most highly developed
stage. From the first term of the series to the last, the movement of amnesia
is governed by natural forces, and follows the path of least resistance—that
is to say, of least organization. Thus pathology confirms what we have
already postulated of the memory, viz., that the process of organization
is variable and is comprised between two extreme limits: the new state
and organic registration. This law, which I shall designate as the law of
regression or reversion, seems to me to be a natural conclusion stemming
from the observed facts.” (Ribot, 1881a, pp. 94-95; 1882, pp. 121-122).
That Ribot’s law (Nicolas, 1997; Rainville & Carter, 1998) on the diseases
of memory had a very widespread impact in France and abroad can be seen
in the fact that his book (Ribot, 1881a) was translated into several languages
(in particular English, German, Spanish and Russian) and was published in
29 successive French editions (the last of which appeared in 1936). Many
authors have paid tribute to Ribot’s work in the field of memory and its
pathologies. Among these, we must mention Jean-Martin Charcot (1890),
Charles Richet (1890), A. Pitres (1898), Korsakoff (1889), etc.

3. THE SORBONNE VS. COLLÈGE DE FRANCE
AND THE TEACHING OF PSYCHOLOGY
Throughout the nineteenth century, it was the Sorbonne in Paris that
trained the majority of French philosophy instructors at the secondary
school (lycée) or university level.
Until the 1880s, the teaching of philosophy and psychology at the
Sorbonne (see figure 3) remained quite similar to what it had been before
(Brooks, 1998; Nicolas, 2007). The Sorbonne, center of official philosophy,
remained spiritualist. It was in the context of reforms that “scientific”
psychology entered the Sorbonne. In the decree of July 31, 1885, Ribot
was officially given a complementary philosophy course on the doctrines of
experimental psychology at the Sorbonne (Faculty of Letters) (cf., Nicolas,

Figure 3. The Sorbonne (main entrance). Private collection S. Nicolas
2000). Hearing about this news, William James (see figure 4) wrote to Ribot
(October 28, 1885; see Bixler, 1945, p. 156; Skupskelis & Berkeley, 1998,
p. 89; Carroy, Feuerhahn, Plas, & Trochu, 2016b, p. 564):
Dear Monsieur Ribot,
Your announcement fills me with delight, first for the cause,

second that the Ministry should have been intelligent enough
to pick you out as the new professor. I hope, however, that
it will not interfere with your editorial duties in the Revue
[Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger]. No professorship
can begin to be as important as that place. And it could hardly
have been possible that any professor could have done as much
good to philosophy in France as you have done by founding and
editing so well that review. [. . .]
Please receive my cordial felicitations and prayers for health and
strength to do your double work.
Always faithfully yours,
William James

Figure 4. William James (1842-1910)
In his opening lecture (Ribot, 1885b), which was held on Monday,

7 December, 1885, he presented the new psychology, its nature and
its methods, based on those of the natural sciences and without any

metaphysical concerns, based on his conception of psychology that he
had formulated in his introductions to contemporary English psychology
(Ribot, 1870, 1874) and contemporary German psychology (Ribot,
1879, 1886). This opening lecture was an important event. Lionel
Dauriac (1847-1924), professor of philosophy at the Faculty of Letters in
Montpellier, wrote:
The entry of Mr. Ribot into the Faculty of Letters in Paris was
one of the most important philosophical events of our time. Let
there be no mistake: Novus rerum nascitur ordo [“A new order is
born”]. [. . .] The doors of the old building are ajar, letting in the
dissidents and heretics. What a revolution! But why do we speak
of dissidents and heretics when it is agreed that the Sorbonne
has ceased to be a church? So there will be no more official

philosophy, no more doctrines taught in the name of the state?

So the distinction between healthy philosophy and unhealthy
philosophy will be erased? So everyone, provided only that he
knows his subject, will be able to say freely what he knows
and teach what he thinks? No doubt, and things will unfold at
the University of Paris as they do in the English and German
universities, no more, no less. The Sorbonne has taken a new
path—an absolutely new one; it is important to say that and
to congratulate it. The inauguration [. . .] of Mr. Ribot’s course
is the first step in a direction in which we may have to keep
walking for a long time if we are to achieve all the improvements
we hope for. Until today, we might have thought that these
improvements were to be postponed indefinitely. As of today,
we are permitted to believe that the present generation will live
to see them accomplished. (Dauriac, 1885, pp. 297-298)
During two years, Ribot taught psychology to an eclectic public but

he was not enthusiastic. No trace of the contents of his lectures has
come down to us. Because the philosophers of the Sorbonne had
no intention of promoting psychology up to the point of granting
it a chair, one solution was to transform an existing chair in some
other institution of higher education. Ribot benefited from favorable
circumstances when in 1886 the spiritualist philosopher Adolphe Franck
(1809-1893) decided to retire and to abandon his Chair at the Collège de

France (http://www.college-de-france.fr/site/en-college/index.htm). This
public higher education institution founded by King François I (Francis I),
was both a duplicate and a rival of the Sorbonne (Liard, 1888-1894; Prost,
1968; Weisz, 1983). Indeed, situated close to the buildings of the Sorbonne
(see figure 5), the Collège de France cultivated marginality with respect to
the official culture and entailed a growing erudition with the presence of
specialists.
Entering the Collège de France was a sign of scientific recognition. As
the number of chairs was limited to 40 for budgetary reasons, admission
to the Collège de France was (and remains today) very difficult. Franck’s
impeding retirement offered an excuse for the introduction of psychology
into this famous Collège. Indeed, the titles of the chairs were (and remain
today) changeable and it was a necessity for the Collège de France to
represent the current state of the scientific movement. The transformation
of the Chair was decided during an Assembly of the Collège de France that

Figure 5. The Collège de France (in the rear, to the right, we can see the buildings of
the Sorbonne). Private collection S. Nicolas
met on 4 December 1887 and the Chair was relabelled “Experimental and
Comparative Psychology”. Despite various vicissitudes and conspiracies
(see Feuerhahn, 2016; Nicolas & Charvillat, 2001), Ribot finally obtained
the coveted Chair when a decree was signed on 18 February 1888. To our
knowledge, this Chair was the first one in the world labelled “experimental

psychology”.
Ribot wrote to James (March 10, 1888; see Carroy, Feuerhahn, Plas, &
Trochu, 2016b, p. 565-566):
Dear Sir:
I was destined not to stay for very long as lecturer at the
Sorbonne, since I am now Professor at the Collège de France.
There was a rugged battle that lasted for three and one-half
months, but I emerged in the winning position. The Collège
de France is outside the university and represents “heterodox
science”: the Chair in psychology that I am holding has just been
created, in large part due to the initiative of Renan, the director

of the Collège de France, who had, for many years back, chosen
me as his candidate.
To be appointed Professor at the Collège de France, one must be
elected:
(1) first, by the Assembly of Professors (I received two-thirds of
the votes),
(2) and second, by the Academy of Moral Sciences. This group,
composed of spiritualists and cousiniens, fought against me
furiously and instead supported Joly (the author of a book on
instinct).
In case of a disagreement, it’s the Minister who decides. He
did so in my favor, in spite of the very complicated political
intrigues. I was very vigorously supported by Mr. Renan and
Mr. Liard, the director of Higher Education. I think that without
them, I would have failed.
What’s left to do is to set up a laboratory; but the lack of space
at the Collège de France and particularly the absolute shortage
of money will surely delay this operation.
In my Inaugural Lecture which is dedicated to the contempo-
rary status of psychology, I announce the future publication of
your treatise.

Your very devoted,
Th. Ribot
Many scholars recognized Ribot’s achievement as a legitimate success.

Amongst others, James wrote to Ribot (April 22, 1888; see Bixler, 1945,
p. 158; Skupskelis & Berkeley, 1998, p. 387; Carroy, Feuerhahn, Plas, &
Trochu, 2016b, p. 566-567):
Dear Professor Ribot,

I should ere now have written to extend you my hearty
congratulations on your appointment, which is a piece of good
fortune, not only for yourself, but for the cause. The details you
gave me of the “politics” of the election were very interesting.

Things are tamer here, quand il s’agit of a scientific place. Party

spirit runs less high.
I hope you won’t be overlooked with these duties added to your
editorship. Can’t you drop some of the latter work? The Revue
[Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger] never seemed to
me so good as now – so much empirical matter in it. And how
that sort of matter is lacking in Mind! Certainly at this moment
France is doing more for psychology than any other country.
Wundt’s school breaks no new ground, as such articles as Binet’s
and Pierre Janet’s have done. [. . .]
Wishing you the greatest success and happiness in your new
position, I am as always.
Faithfully yours
William James
In his inaugural lecture, dated 9 April 1888, under the heading
“Experimental and comparative psychology” (see figure 6), Ribot (1888)
described the situation of psychology in 1888 in the main countries that
had started developing this new science, that is France, England, Germany,
Italy and the United States of America (for an English translation of this
lecture, see Nicolas & Charvillat, 2001). James wrote again to Ribot (May
13, 1888; see Bixler, 1945, p. 159; Skupskelis & Berkeley, 1998, pp. 409-410;
Carroy, Feuerhahn, Plas, & Trochu, 2016b, p. 567):

Dear Monsieur Ribot,
I receive this morning the Revue Scientifique with your very
interesting leçon d’ouverture—a delicate and difficult task very
nicely executed indeed. Of your flattering mention of my
humble name, I am of course very proud. My Psychology, to
which you give such publicity in advance, still lags behind. It is
one thing to write chapters, another to write a book, on a subject
of which the first principles are as yet undetermined. [. . .]
That you may enjoy your professorial duties, and exert the
influence you so richly deserve to, is the ardent wish of yours,
Most cordially,
William James

Ribot’s lectures at the Collège de France (see figure 6) were successful during
eight years and most of these courses were published in the form of books
(see Ribot, 1896, 1897, 1900a). Ribot resumed his teaching in 1897-1898,
with a lecture on “creative imagination”. It was Pierre Janet who replaced
Ribot in 1901 (today this chair is held by Stanislas Dehaene; cf. Carroy,
Ohayon, & Plas, 2015).
4. INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION WITH

TWO CONGRESSES OF PSYCHOLOGY:
PARIS (1889 AND 1900)
For as long as scientific fields have built their own history, congresses
have appeared as a necessary step in the process of the maturation of
knowledge. The first International Psychology Congress in 1889 in Paris
was an important event in the history of the institutionalization of scientific
psychology, because it is one of the major factors that promoted the
field (in parallel with lectures, journals and laboratories). The history
of international congresses has been discussed in a variety of articles
(e.g. Rosenzweig, Holtzman, Sabourin, & Bélanger, 2000; Sabourin &
Cooper, 2014). The first scientist to explicitly suggest the necessity of an
international congress of psychology was Julian Ochorowicz (1850-1917),
considered to be the founder of Polish psychology. In 1881, he sent an article
to Ribot entitled “Project for an International Congress of Psychology”

(Ochorowicz, 1881). This article was published in the Revue Philosophique
de la France et de l’Étranger (founded by Ribot in 1876), but his project
appeared fanciful to Ribot (see Nicolas & Soderlund, 2005; Sabourin &
Cooper, 2014).
Despite Ribot’s doubts, the first International Congress of Psychology
took place in Paris a few years later (1889). In his opening talk
(see Nicolas & Meunier, 2002), Ribot (1889b) admitted in front of his
distinguished audience, and Ochorowicz himself: “I was not expecting such
a rapid fruition: I blame myself for not having enough faith”. As Joseph
Nuttin (1909-1988) later noted in a posthumous document (Nuttin, 1992),
the main factor that explains this rapid fruition is surely the creation of
the psychology societies. They were the technical infrastructure that was
needed to organize a congress of this importance. In France, the Society for
physiological psychology (Société de Psychologie Physiologique) founded

Figure 6. Advertisement of the inaugural lecture of Théodule Ribot on the 9th of April,
1888 at the Collège de France (Courtesy from the Archives du Collège de France).

in 1885 paved the way for the official creation of a psychology based on
facts and rejection of metaphysics. The society was founded under the
auspices of Théodule Ribot and Jean-Martin Charcot, whose interests were
to dominate the tone of the work of the society. At the end of 1888, the
physiologist and famous investigator of psychical phenomena (psychical
research), Charles Richet (1850-1935), who became a future winner of
the Nobel prize (1913), took up the ideas of Ochorowicz. He thought
that the congress could be held during the famous Universal Exhibition of
1889 organized to celebrate the centenary of the French revolution. It was
important for France to appear full of vitality, novelty and ingenuity for the
occasion. This had been achieved with several technical projects, including
the prestigious Eiffel tower, but also with many scientific projects such as
congresses. Richet, who was at that time vice-president of the new Society of
Physiological Psychology, proposed to the others members that they should
organize the first International Congress of Psychology. After obtaining the
hard-won agreement of the members of the society, a committee for the
organization of the congress was set up with Jean-Martin Charcot as its
president.
The organization Committee was composed as follow: Charcot
(president); Magnan, Taine and Ribot (vice-presidents); Richet (Chief
secretary). The first International Congress of Psychology was named after
the society that organized it. The term “physiological” was chosen to create
distance from speculative philosophy and to give psychology a scientific
basis. In his report, the secretary Marillier (1889) noted: “the most eminent
psychologists in Europe had agreed to participate [in the congress], and
registrations arrived in great numbers, so great, in fact, that they far

surpassed the expectations of the organizing Committee”. James (1889)
reported that among the well-known researchers that had registered, only
few in fact attended: from England, Galton, Sidgwick and Myers, from
America, Jastrow, Riley and James, from Germany, von Schrenck-Notzing,
Münsterberg and Sperling. There were also several Swiss and Russians, and
the Belgian Joseph Delboeuf (1831-1896) who took an active part in the
congress. It seems that Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), who was registered, in
fact attended another congress: the International Congress of Hypnotism.
The congress began on 6 August 1889 under the presidency of Théodule
Ribot, who had reluctantly become a pivotal member of the congress,
along with Charles Richet, as Charcot was absent. The two vice-presidents
(Magnan & Taine) were also not present for the opening session. In
his opening address, Ribot (1889b) summarized the great progress of
psychology over the preceding 20 years and sketched an outline for future
research.

I regret that the absence of our president and vice-presidents has

imposed upon me a task that they would have accomplished
with more authority than I, namely to welcome the scientists
from different countries that have answered our call, and have
gathered here to inaugurate the first Congress of Physiological
Psychology. [. . .] I hope that before you leave this congress,
you will have agreed on a place and a date for the second
congress. This practical problem can only be discussed and
resolved during a session of the committee. Our first attempt
of meeting has been received so attentively and kindly that it
allows me to believe that you will give a positive answer to my
proposal. It will be a new claim of the vitality of the study of
psychology, and an act of faith in its future. (p. 177)
The Congress ended on Saturday August 12 1889 and James wrote to Ribot
(see Bixler, 1945, p. 160; Carroy, Feuerhahn, Plas, & Trochu, 2016b, p. 568):
My dear Monsieur Ribot, 34, De Vere Gardens, W., London

On the eve of my departure for America, I cannot help writing
you a word of farewell, and saying how successful I think
the Congress to have been. The chief thing of course was the
sociability, the [opportunity to] make the acquaint[ance] of so
many first rate men. I am only sorry it was so short, and that I

could really talk with so few. Apart from M. Richet, the French
psychologists with whom I had most to do were Marillier, Gley,
and Pierre Janet. From all of them great things are to be hoped,
it seems to me. I had no talk with Binet, nor with several others
whom I should have been glad to see in a more intimate way.
No matter! I go home quite “set up” as a psychologist and shall
finish my everlasting text book on that subject with infinitely
more interest and zeal after finding myself in presence of this
large number of persons to whom the subject is a reality.
The great pity of the Congress was that you were not there!
Cordially yours,
William James

We do not know exactly why Ribot did not take an active part in the first
International Congress of Psychology. It was also the case in the second
and third congresses. In 1892, the 2d edition of the Congress (chaired by
Professor Sidgwick) was held in London (England), in 1896, the 3d edition
(chaired by Professor Stumpf) was held in Munich (Germany). Four years
later (1900), it was in Paris, host for the second time, and was to be held
within the framework of the new Universal Exhibition.
The invitation (dated 15 April 1899) signed by Ribot (president), Richet
(vice-president) and Janet (General secretary) stipulated that the Congress
will be held in the Palais des Congrès, Paris, located close to the Universal
Exhibition grounds, from Monday 20 to Saturday 25 August 1900. In
his presidential address, Ribot (1900b) spoke about how psychology has
developed since the last Congress of Psychology and provided a summary
of the work conducted by psychologists during the preceding four years.
He emphasized the constant increase in psychological research, relating,
in particular, to the field of sensations and noted his disappointment that
certain higher mental forms, such as judgment, reasoning and imagination,
had been the object of very little study.
International congresses acted as a sort of mirror for the state of a
science and its progress. They reflect the zeitgeist, the psychology of the
time. Each Congress was influenced by the country that had organized it
and the progress made by psychology. Throughout the history of pre-war
international congresses, we can witness what were the mainstreams in the
area. The Congress in Paris (1889) showed the craze for the question of
hypnotism, a then fashionable topic in France. The Congress of London
(1892) confirmed the interest of the English in questions of cerebral

localization, but also offered the opportunity for the first communication
on genetic psychology (Preyer, Baldwin). The Congress of Munich (1896)
showed the importance of psychophysical questions in Germany and
witnessed the appearance of applied psychology. For the Congress of Paris
(1900), it was animal psychology, for the Congress in Rome (1905), social
and criminal psychology; etc. (see Nuttin, 1992; Piéron, 1954; Rosenzweig,
Holtzman, Sabourin, & Bélanger, 2000).
5. CONCLUSION
In the 1870s, a great scientific movement had emerged in favour of
experimental psychology. While most of the professors of the Universities
were continuing to teach philosophical psychology, whose only method

was that of introspection, a body of work had arisen on all sides

in the philosophical, physiological and medical journals, in which the
investigation of mental phenomena was conducted according to the
methods of natural science. Ribot was a pioneer of this new psychology
movement, the difficulties he experienced and the slow pace of this
introduction in France reflecting the conservative climate that prevailed in
French universities at the time.
Ribot developed a specific French research method: the pathological
method (see Danziger, 1990). In his studies on pathological psychology, the
subject to which he has given special prominence, was the law of mental
dissolution. That law can be regarded as the keystone of the structure he
has reared. With relatively few exceptions, the French psychologists devoted
themselves almost exclusively to the study of pathological psychology, that
is to say psychology affected by disease. Such is the foremost feature of his
work in psychology. One only needs to glance at the titles of the principal
original treatises written by Ribot to note that they deal with pathological
conditions: Diseases of Memory (Ribot, 1881a, 1894), of Will (Ribot, 1883,
1894), of Personality (Ribot, 1885a, 1891), of Attention (Ribot, 1889a,
1898), etc.
Although Ribot was not himself an experimenter, he pioneered in
France the introduction of laboratory-based experimental psychology (see
Nicolas & Sanitioso, 2012). Finally, Ribot was a well-known international
figure of psychology and his books were classics in psychology for many
years. We hope that some of his writings will be rediscovered. Some
examples of this could be his work on heredity and anthropology (e.g.
Ribot, 1873; see Staum, 2011) and on affective psychology (Ribot, 1907,

1910; see Chatelain, 1922; Carroy, 2016).
Received September 22, 2016.

Revision accepted March 14 2017.
REFERENCES
Araujo, S. F. (2016). Wundt and the Brooks, J. I. (1993). Philosophy and psy-
philosophical foundations of psychology: A chology at the Sorbonne, 1885-1913. Jour-
reappraisal. New York: Springer. nal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences,
Bixler, J. S. (1945). Letters from William 29, 123-145.
James to Théodule A. Ribot. Colby Library Brooks, J. I. (1998). The eclectic legacy.
Quarterly, 1, 153-161. Academic philosophy and the human sciences

in nineteenth-century France. London: As- Erdmann, B. (1879). Zur Zeitgenössischen

sociates University Press. Psychologie in Deutschland. Vierteljahrss-
Carroy, J. (2016). Psychologie des senti- chrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie, 3,
ments et mémoire affective de Ribot à 377-407.
Proust. Revue Philosophique de la France et Fechner, G. T. (1860). Elemente der Psy-
de l’Étranger, 141, 509-520. chophysik. Leipzig: Breikopf & Hartel.
Carroy, J., & Plas, R. (1993). La méth- Feuerhahn, W. (2016). De la Sorbonne
ode pathologique et les origines de la au Collège de France, enjeux du titre des
psychologie française au XIXe siècle. Re- chaires de Ribot. Revue Philosophique de la
vue Internationale de Psychopathologie, 12, France et de l’Etranger, 141, 477-488.
603-610. Feuerhahn, W., & Trochu, T. (2016). Auto-
Carroy, J., & Plas, R. (1996). The origins portraits de Théodule Ribot en correspon-
of French experimental psychology: Exper- dant. Revue Philosophique de la France et de
iment and experimentalism. History of the l’Étranger, 141, 521-540.
Human Sciences, 9, 73-84. Gasser, J. (1988). La notion de mémoire
Carroy, J., Feuerhahn, W., Plas, R., & organique dans l’œuvre de T. Ribot. History
Trochu, T. (2016a). Les entreprises in- and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 10,
tellectuelles de Théodule Ribot. Revue 293-313.
Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, Guillin, V. (2004). Théodule Ribot’s am-
141, 451-464. biguous positivism: Philosophical and es-
Carroy, J., Feuerhahn, W., Plas, R., & pistemological strategies in the founding
Trochu, T. (2016b). Edition critique et of French scientific psychology. Journal of
annotée de correspondances inédites de the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 40,
Théodule Ribot. Revue Philosophique de la 165-181.
France et de l’Étranger, 141, 549-595. Hameline, D. (1971). Le centenaire de
Carroy, J., Ohayon, A., & Plas, R. (2015). « La psychologie anglaise contemporaine »
La « psychologie » au Collège de France. de Théodule Ribot. Cent ans de psycholo-
Revue Philosophique de la France et de gie scientifique ou « le psychologue au
l’Étranger, 140, 225-228. malconfort ». Bulletin de Psychologie, 24,
Charcot, J. M. (1890). Sur un cas de 242-252.

suppression brusque et isolée de la vision James, W. (1889). The congress of phys-
mentale des signes et des objets (formes iological psychology at Paris. Mind, 14,
et couleurs). In Leçons sur les maladies 614-616.
du système nerveux: Œuvres complètes de Jastrow, J. (1890). Aspects of modern
J. M. Charcot (tome III, pp. 178-192). Paris: Psychology. In Oldenberg, H., Jastrow, J., &
Lecrosnier & Babé. Cornill, C. H., Epitomes of Three Sciences.
Chatelain, F. (1922). La philosophie affective Comparative Philology, Psychology, and Old
de Th. Ribot. Sion: Imprimerie Charles Testament History (pp. 57-100). Chicago:
Aymon. The Open Court Publishing Company.
Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the sub- Korsakoff, S. (1889). Étude médico-
ject: Historical origins of psychological re- psychologique sur une forme des maladies
search. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge Univer- de la mémoire. Revue Philosophique de la
sity Press. France et de l’Étranger, 14, 501-530.
Dauriac, L. (1885). La philosophie à Lenoir, R. (1957). Lettres de Théodule
la Sorbonne. Critique Philosophique, 27, Ribot à Espinas. Revue Philosophique de la
283-299. France et de l’Étranger, 147, 1-14.

Liard, L. (1888-1894). L’enseignement Nicolas, S., & Charvillat, A. (2001). Intro-

supérieur en France (2 vols.). Paris: Armand ducing psychology as an academic disci-
Colin. pline in France: Théodule Ribot and the
Marillier, L. (1889). Le congrès de psy- “Collège de France” (1888-1901). Journal
chologie physiologique de 1889. Revue of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 37,
Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 143-164.
28, 539-546. Nicolas, S., & Meunier, F. (2002). Causes,
Mucchielli, L. (1998). Aux origines de la consequences of the first international
psychologie universitaire en France (1870- Congress of psychology. Teorie & Modelli:
1900): Enjeux intellectuels, contexte Rivista di Storia & Metodologia della
politique, réseaux et stratégies d’alliance Psicologia, 7, 19-40.
autour de la Revue philosophique de Nicolas, S., & Murray, D. (1999). Théod-
Théodule Ribot. Annals of Science, 55, ule Ribot (1839-1916), founder of French
263-289. psychology: A biographical introduction.
Nicolas, S. (1997). La loi de Ribot: History of Psychology, 2, 277-301.
L’application de la doctrine évolutionniste Nicolas, S., & Sanitioso, R. B. (2012). Alfred
à l’étude neuropsychologique de la Binet and experimental psychology at the
mémoire. Revue de Neuropsychologie, 7, Sorbonne laboratory. History of Psychology,
377-410. 15, 328-363.
Nicolas, S. (1998). L’hérédité psycho- Nicolas, S., & Söderlund, H. (2005).
logique d’après Théodule Ribot (1873): La The project of an international congress
première thèse française de psychologie of psychology by J. Ochorowicz (1881).
“scientifique”. L’Année Psychologique, 99, International Journal of Psychology, 40,
295-348. 395-406.
Nicolas, S. (2000). L’introduction Nuttin, J. R. (1992). Les premiers congrès
de l’enseignement de la psychologie internationaux de psychologie. In Richelle,
scientifique en France: Théodule Ribot M. & Carpintero, H. (Eds.), Contribu-
(1839-1916) à la Sorbonne (1885). L’Année tions to the history of the international
Psychologique, 100, 285-331. congresses of psychology (pp. 7-74). Valen-
Nicolas, S. (2005a). Théodule Ribot. cia: Revista de Historia de la Psicologia

Philosophe breton, fondateur de la Monographs.
psychologie française. Paris: L’Harmattan. Ochorowicz, J. (1881). Projet d’un con-
Nicolas, S. (2005b). Wundt et la fondation grès international de psychologie. Revue
en 1879 de son laboratoire. Histoire doc- Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger,
umentaire de la création et du développe- 12, 1-17.
ment de l’Institut de psychologie expéri- Piéron, H. (1954). Histoire succincte des
mentale de Leipzig. L’Année Psychologique, congrès internationaux de psychologie.
105, 133-170. L’Année Psychologique, 54, 397-405.
Nicolas, S. (2007). Histoire de la philosophie Pitres, A. (1898). L’aphasie amnésique et ses
en France au XIXe siècle: Naissance de la variétés cliniques. Paris: Alcan.
psychologie spiritualiste (1789-1830). Paris: Plas, R. (2013). ¿Un momento spence-
L’Harmattan. riano en los orígenes de la psicología
Nicolas, S. (2013). “A Big Piece of News”: « científica » francesa ? La herencia psi-
Théodule Ribot and the Founding of the cológica de Théodule Ribot. Revista de
“Revue Philosophique de la France et de Historia de la Psicología, 34, 9-24.
l’Etranger”. Journal of the History of the Prost, A. (1968). Histoire de l’enseignement
Behavioral Sciences, 49, 1-17. en France. Paris: Armand Colin.

Rainville, C., & Carter, D. (1998). La Ribot, T. (1876c). La psychologie

« loi de Ribot »: régression ou dissolution ? ethnographique en Allemagne. Revue
Bulletin de Psychologie, 51(433), 45-66. Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger,
Ribot, T. (1870). La psychologie anglaise 2, 596-607.
contemporaine (école expérimentale). Paris: Ribot, T. (1878). Les théories allemandes
Ladrange. sur l’espace tactile. Revue Philosophique de
Ribot, T. (1873). L’hérédité: Étude psy- la France et de l’Étranger, 6, 130-145.
chologique sur ses phénomènes, ses lois, ses Ribot, T. (1879). La psychologie allemande
causes, ses conséquences. Paris: Ladrange. contemporaine (école expérimentale). Paris:
Ribot, T. (1874a). English psychology. New Baillière.
York: D. Appleton & C◦ . Ribot, T. (1880). Psicología alemana.
Ribot, T. (1874b). La psychologie phys- Madrid: V. Suarez.
iologique en Allemagne. La mesure des Ribot, T. (1881a). Les maladies de la
sensations. Revue Scientifique de la France mémoire. Paris: Baillière.
et de l’Étranger, vol. 7, 2e série, 4e année, n◦ Ribot, T. (1881b). Die Experimentelle Psy-
24, 12 décembre, 553-563. chologie der Gegenwart in Deutschland.
Ribot, T. (1875a). La psychologie allemande Braunschweig: Vieweg und Sohn.
contemporaine (I). M. Wilhelm Wundt. Ribot, T. (1882). Diseases of memory: An
Revue Scientifique de la France et de essay in the positive psychology (Smith,
l’Étranger, vol. 7, 2e série, 4e année, n◦ 31, W. H., translator). New York: D. Appleton
30 janvier, 723-732. & C◦ .
Ribot, T. (1875b). La psychologie alle- Ribot, T. (1883). Les maladies de la volonté.
mande contemporaine (II). M. Wilhelm Paris: Baillière.
Wundt. Revue Scientifique de la France et de Ribot, T. (1885a). Les maladies de la
l’Étranger, vol. 8, 2e série, 4e année, n◦ 32, 6 personnalité. Paris: Alcan.
février, 751-760.
Ribot, T. (1885b). Leçon d’ouverture du
Ribot, T. (1875c). La psychologie physi- cours de la Sorbonne: La psychologie
ologique en Allemagne (I). M. Wilhelm nouvelle. Revue Politique et Littéraire, 36,
Wundt. Revue Scientifique de la France et de 780-787.
l’Étranger, vol. 9, 2e série, 5e année, n◦ 22,

27 novembre, 505-516. Ribot, T. (1886). German Psychology of
To-Day: The Empirical School [Preface
Ribot, T. (1875d). La psychologie physi- by McCosh, James. Translated from the
ologique en Allemagne (II). M. Wilhelm Second French Edition by Baldwin, James
Wundt. Revue Scientifique de la France et de Mark]. New York: Charles Scribner’s
l’Étranger, vol. 9, 2e série, 5e année, n◦ 23, 4 Sons.
décembre, 544-549.
Ribot, T. (1888). La psychologie contem-
Ribot, T. (1875e). Heredity: A psychological poraine: Leçon d’ouverture du cours de
study of its phenomena, laws, causes, and psychologie expérimentale et comparée du
consequences. London: Henry S. King & C◦ . Collège de France [Contemporary psy-
Ribot, T. (1876a). La durée des actes psychology: Opening lecture for the first
chiques d’après les travaux récents. Revue course on Experimental and Comparative
Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, psychology to be offered at the Col-
1, 267-288. lège de France]. Revue Scientifique, 41,
Ribot, T. (1876b). La psychologie de 449-455.
Herbart. Revue Philosophique de la France Ribot, T. (1889a). Psychologie de l’attention.
et de l’Étranger, 2, 68-85. Paris: Alcan.

Ribot, T. (1889b). La psychologie physi- Sabourin, M., & Cooper, S. (2014). The first
ologique en 1889 (Discours au 1er congrès International Congress of Physiological
international de Psychologie). Revue Scien- Psychology (Paris, August 1889): The birth
tifique, 14, 177-178. of the International Union of Psychological
Ribot, T. (1891). The diseases of personal- Science. International Journal of Psychology,
ity. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing 49, 222-232.
Company. Skupskelis, I. K., & Berkeley, E. (Eds.)
Ribot, T. (1894). The diseases of the will. (1998). The correspondence of William
Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Com- James (vol. VI). Charlottesville & London:
pany. University of Virginia Press.
Ribot, T. (1896). La psychologie des senti- Spencer, H. (1855). The principles of psy-
ments. Paris: Alcan. chology. London: Longman, Brown, Green
Ribot, T. (1897). L’évolution des idées & Longmans.
générales. Paris: Alcan. Spencer, H. (1874-75). Principes de psy-
Ribot, T. (1898). The psychology of atten- chologie (trad. fr. par Th. Ribot et A.
tion. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Espinas d’après la 2e éd. des principes de
Company. psychologie de Spencer établie en 1870-72).
Paris: Baillière.
Ribot, T. (1900a). Essai sur l’imagination
créatrice. Paris: Alcan. Staum, M. S. (2011). Nature and nur-
ture in French social sciences, 1859-1914.
Ribot, T. (1900b). La psychologie, de 1889 Montréal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Uni-
à 1900 (Discours au IVe congrès interna- versity Press.
tional de Psychologie). Revue Scientifique,
44, 353-356. Thirard, J. (1976). La fondation de la « Re-
vue Philosophique ». Revue Philosophique,
Ribot, T. (1907). Essai sur les passions. Paris: 160, 401-413.
Alcan.
Trochu, T. (2015). William James et la
Ribot, T. (1909). Psychologie. In Thomas, psychologie des « états seconds ». Paris: thèse
F. (Ed.), De la méthode dans les sciences de l’université Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne.
(pp. 229-257). Paris: Alcan.
Turbiaux, M. (1987). Théodule Ribot et
Ribot, T. (1910). Problèmes de psychologie cent ans de psychologie anglaise contempo-

affective. Paris: Alcan. raine. Bulletin de Psychologie, 41, 1-15.
Richet, C. (1890). Amnésie. In Berth- Weisz, G. (1983). The emergence of modern
elot, et al. (Eds.), La grande encyclopédie universities in France, 1863-1914. Princeton,
(pp. 785-786, Tome II). Paris: H. Lamirault NJ: Princeton University Press.
et Cie.
Wontorra, H. M. (2009). Frühe apparative
Rosenzweig, M. R., Holtzman, W. H., Psychologie. Marburg: Der Andrere Verlag.
Sabourin, M., & Bélanger, D. (2000). His-
tory of the international union of psychologi- Wundt, W. (1863). Vorlesungen über die
cal science. Hove: Psychology Press. Menschen und Thierseele. Leipzig: Enge-
mann.
Roth, M. S. (1989). Remembreing forget-
ting: Maladies de la Mémoire in nineteenth- Wundt, W. (1874). Grundzüge der phyiolo-
Century France. Representations, 26, 49-68. gischen Psychologie. Leipzig: Engelmann.

Ribot 164 0519

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ribot 164 0519

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The seminal contributions of Théodule Ribot (1839-1916):

The centenary of the passing of the founder of modern

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

Article disponible en ligne à l’adresse

Découvrir le sommaire de ce numéro, suivre la revue par email, s’abonner...

Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour NecPlus.

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

Les contributions majeures de Théodule Ribot (1839-1916) : centenaire

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

In 2016, French psychology celebrates the 100th anniversary of Théodule

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

Figure 1. Théodule Ribot (1839-1916). Private collection S. Nicolas

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

1. RIBOT AS A PROMOTER OF WUNDT’S

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

Figure 2. Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920)

Paris, 12 December 1874

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

the Revue Scientifique and will thus constitute a more or less

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

be able to publish my own book on contemporary German psychology,

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

Everyone spoke frantically of innovation or voiced all sorts of concerns: it

Jastrow (1890) noted the predominance of psychophysics in Germany and

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

of, were always second-hand. But with an unusually extensive range of

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

Ribot was greatly influenced by the English evolutionary philosopher

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

memory is only one specific case of biological memory (Ribot, 1881a,

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

memory occurs, it also teaches us how it is organized. “We thus see

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

Figure 3. The Sorbonne (main entrance). Private collection S. Nicolas

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

Figure 4. William James (1842-1910)

In his opening lecture (Ribot, 1885b), which was held on Monday,

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

philosophy, no more doctrines taught in the name of the state?

During two years, Ribot taught psychology to an eclectic public but

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

Many scholars recognized Ribot’s achievement as a legitimate success.

Dear Professor Ribot,

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546

Things are tamer here, quand il s’agit of a scientific place. Party

© NecPlus | Téléchargé le 19/03/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 82.76.50.131)

L’année psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 116, 519-546