VI. Remarks on Mr Prideaux's Theory of Volition, as the Having already appeared in the Phrenological Journal as an advocate of Phreno-Mesmerism, so far at least as it appears to be borne out by facts, the readers of these pages will, I am sure, acquit me of anything like obtrusion, in offering a few remarks on the recent papers of Mr Brindley and Mr Prideaux on the same subject.* The paper of Mr Brindley requires no very extended notice. His experiments, if they were carefully conducted, appear to militate against those mentioned by myself as suggesting the subdivision of many of our ascertained organs. Let such experiments be multiplied and carefully recorded by various operators, and we may then, perhaps, ere long be able satisfactorily to adjust the subject. Of course, no truth-loving phrenologist can have any interest in the matter, further than the desire of coming to correct conclusions, if possible; and the object of my own paper was (as therein stated) not to make proselytes, but merely to excite others to similar experiments. Mr Prideaux considers Phreno-Mesmerism entirely a delusion, and expresses the opinion that volition (whether consciously or unconsciously exercised), on the part of the operator, is in reality the primum mobile, or sole agent at work. Mr Prideaux's paper is ably and ingeniously argued; and as any views receiving the sanction of that gentleman's well-known name necessarily deserve the respect and examination of phrenologists at large, he will, without doubt, pardon me for expressing the opposite belief, viz. that volition is not sufficient to unravel the tangled web of Mesmerism; and for stating a few facts and reasons in favour of that opinion. In doing this, I am far from denying that an operator's volition may, or indeed does, produce in certain patients certain effects: for, though we have the high authority of Dr Elliotson for the facts, that "his will has hitherto been powerless in all mesmeric experiments," "that he has never yet accomplished anything in Mesmerism by it alone," and that "he has willed the excitement of distinct cerebral organs, but always in vain," and "has looked intently at the situation of distinct cerebral organs, and willed powerfully, but always in vain ;" and though my own limited experience has been of a precisely similar description-I having never educed any * See Phrenological Journal, No. LXXIX. pp. 172 and 158. manifestation which could fairly be attributed to the willyet from the number of highly respectable operators who have found their mesmerised patients unwittingly fulfilling their volitions, it seems evident that the will (like association and suggestion in certain other cases) is at least one of the agents concerned in the production of mesmeric phenomena. Still, if it be one, it does not necessarily follow that it should be the only agent at work; and the one class of cases, wherein manifestations are elicited in obedience to an operator's will, cannot possibly invalidate the other class of cases, in which similar manifestations are produced by contact with, or pointing to, the organs themselves, while no volition is exerted. I am, therefore, after carefully perusing Mr Prideaux's article, and reviewing the various facts which have come before me, compelled to express the opinion, that the phenomena of Phreno-Mesmerism may be produced both by contact with the scalp of the patient, without the operator exerting his will; and by will, without contact; and also perhaps by will and contact together. This opinion Mr Prideaux considers "more ingenious than probable;" though, with deference, as it appears to me the only one capable of accounting for all the phenomena, I think that designation reversed; "more probable than ingenious" would more correctly describe it. Mr Prideaux is certainly correct in stating that volition may be exercised unconsciously, and (if such a solecism may be allowed) almost unintentionally; and that hence it may have been exerted in numerous instances without the operator being aware of this. But he will surely grant that will may be as powerful in one direction as in another; and hence, if Dr Elliotson, or any other mesmerist, will to remain a passive spectator of results, consciously determining not to influence, the patient at all, I presume that he can do so; and that, therefore, when Dr Elliotson advises operators to "will no thing," he is not enjoining an impossibility. Again, I cannot attach so much importance as Mr Prideaux, to the fact that we cannot at present describe the mode of transmission of the exciting influence (whatever that may be) to the organs. The mesmeric excitation of the cerebral organs is a discovery of recent date, and is only just now be coming sufficiently respectable in the eyes of the world to receive that investigation which it deserves. The history of every science, moreover, will shew that the observation of phenomena, sometimes of a startling and anomalous character, has always been antecedent to the discovery of the causes which produced them; but the fact of those causes being at first hidden or obscure, has not been considered a sufficient 66 reason for the rejection of the phenomena themselves. The mesmerists of the present day appear to be in a somewhat analogous position to that of the astronomers before the discovery of gravitation: facts have been observed to which they cannot refuse credence, but which time and patience can alone enable them to explain. Further, however, I cannot perceive how the theory of volition (supposing that to have overturned the phreno-mesmerists) would help us out of this difficulty; for if the phreno-mesmerist cannot at present tell how he transmits or applies the exciting influence to distinct portions of the encephalon, so neither can the volitionist (if I may coin a word) explain how it is that his will becomes transmitted to another person, and that his very thoughts are patent to, and shared by, his mesmerisee. If we reject the doctrine of mind (or spirit), moreover, and believe, with Mr Prideaux, that the mental phenomena are a mere product of a certain form and arrangement of nervous matter,"* then the modus operandi of volition, or (in more correct terms) the modus transmissionis of the will from one organization to another, appears still more difficult of explication. Further still, I am not aware that the phreno-mesmerist is in a worse position than the mere phrenologist, for the latter would be just as much puzzled to explain the undue transmission of the "vis nervosa," or exciting influence, to any particular portion of the brain, from internal causes (in cases of disease and monomania for example), while the greater portion of the cerebral mass remains only in a state of normal activity,-as would the phreno-mesmerist, to explain a similar excitement of single organs from external contact during mesmeric sleep. I repeat, then, that the difficulty of explaining this mode of exciting does not appear to me so formidable an objection as to Mr Prideaux; especially when we recollect, as Dr Elliotson has well observed, "that the brain is but an organ of the body, and its separate portions like so many separate portions of other organs. A great fault has been committed by physiologists and pathologists, in not viewing the brain and its functions exactly like those of all other organs. Its composition and organization are peculiar; but still it is an animal compound and organization, has blood circulating most abundantly through it, and possesses bloodless vessels and fibres, and pulpy matter; and is of necessity subject to all the general laws of structure and function with all other organs, both in health and disease. If, therefore, other parts, and portions of other parts, can be excited and *See Phren. Journal, vol. xvi. p. 54. stupefied or relaxed by true mesmeric means-by an occult influence-it would indeed be singular if this were not the case also with the brain. If Phrenology is true, and if Mesmerism is true, then we might presume that individual cerebral organs would, in many mesmeric patients, be acted upon like the individual parts of an extremity, or the individual organs of sense; but not in all, because we cannot affect every other organ, or every portion of every other part, at pleasure, in every patient."* Again, Mr Prideaux asks, "What becomes of the power of local stimulus, when an operator excites the organ of Benevolence by placing his finger upon Destructiveness ?" In reply to this I would state, that I have neither seen nor heard of any such cases, except when the patient has had previous training. (By training, I do not mean such in the usual acceptation of the term, but merely imply that arbitrary associations must in such cases have been formed, from suggestions or otherwise, which have thwarted and interfered with what would otherwise have been manifested.) I am not aware that any such contradictory result has occurred, where a non-phrenological patient has been mesmerised for the first time, and no suggestions have been suffered to interfere with the ordinary manifestations. At some recent private experiments in this town, for example, while shewing the community of taste in a mesmerised female (who was then highly susceptible to impressions from without), a small quantity of sugar was placed in my mouth without a syllable being spoken; when it was instantly described, and to all appearance actually tasted by the patient: immediately afterwards, however (as had been privately arranged between a clergymen and a physician present), a gentleman exclaimed audibly, "Try some vinegar;" but instead of vinegar, sugar was again placed in my mouth. The patient again smacked her lips as before, but on being asked what she was tasting, replied, "I do not exactly know; it is a lozenge of some kind; it tastes sweet, but has a sourish taste also with it." Now, here it is evident that the usual community of taste had been interfered with by a suggestion; but Mr Prideaux would not surely on that account reject community of taste as a fallacy: so, neither in the other cases should the effects of arbitrary associations or suggestions be considered valid evidence against phreno-mesmeric manifestations, when uninterrupted by these disturbing causes. Mr Prideaux objects further, "Above all, how are we to explain the fact, that hundreds of individuals have practised *Zoist, No. III. p. 240. his Mesmerism during the last fifty years, and thousands of persons been mesmerised on all parts of their bodies, without the peculiar phenomena of the excitation of the cerebral organs once occurring till the operators became phrenologists?" This objection, I apprehend, may be disposed of in much the same way as a denial of the circulation of the blood, because it was not discovered before the time of Harvey, though thousands of persons had been operated upon both in life and after death, by thousands of physicians and surgeons, prior to 1615. It does, indeed, appear surprising that the mesmeric excitability of distinct cerebral organs was not earlier discovered; and, accordingly, we find Dr Elliotson wondering that, “in the midst of innumerable experiments during the last five years, he never once thought of mesmerising them; but," continues he, "neither the possibility nor the impossibility once occurred to me." And surprising as this really appears, it is certainly not more so than the non-discovery of the circulation of the blood until comparatively so recent a date,-especially when we recollect that any man placing his hand upon wrist might have felt its motion for himself. The accidental, and sometimes trivial circumstances which have led to great discoveries, have always excited surprise (that of Gravitation may be mentioned as another example); and when once announced, a thousand reflecting individuals have been struck with astonishment, that they themselves should have lived so long, and not have been the lucky discoverers. Instead, indeed, of thinking with Mr Prideaux, that the late discovery of Phreno-Mesmerism affords any argument against its reality, the circumstances attending that discovery appear to me to tell the other way. They are thus related by Dr Elliotson in his address to the Phrenological Association last year:-"Dr Collyer first discovered, and quite accidentally, in November 1839, at Pittsfield, in North America, the possibility of exciting distinct cerebral organs by contact with the corresponding portions of the surface of the head. At a party, when Mesmerism was the topic of conversation, he threw into the mesmeric sleep a young lady who had always refused to allow him to examine her cerebral development. He took this opportunity of examining it with his hands, and, to his astonishment, as he touched over the organs of Self-esteem, Combativeness, Wit, &c., the respective faculties went into action. He was, however, already so excited with the occurrence of clairvoyance at this period, that he confesses he paid very little attention to the circumstance. In Louisiana, during the following spring, he produced the same results; and, having become a lecturer on Mesmerism at Boston, in the |