sity of volition, and to answer Mr Prideaux's objection, that if Phreno-Mesmerism were true, the earliest experimenters would occasionally, whilst operating on the supposed locality of one organ, with a view to elicit its function, have been surprised by the manifestation of some new faculty, of the existence of which they previously entertained no idea." must remark, in reply, that the evidence against PhrenoMesmerism afforded by the unquestionable fact that, generally (nine times out of ten, perhaps ninety-nine out of a hundred), precisely in proportion to the orthodoxy of the operator's opinions has been the orthodoxy of the results he has obtained, and vice-versa, cannot be done away with by a few subsequent cases, in which the imagination of the patient, or some undetected source of suggestion, gives birth to results unexpected by the operator. With reference to the particular case quoted by Mr Lowe, I will observe that, having the pleasure of being acquainted with Mr Leighton, I know him to be an accomplished phrenologist, and fully aware that there is supposed to be an 66 organ of love of life" seated at the base of the brain. The position of the organ of Alimentiveness not being considered to be quite so accurately determined as that of some others, it does not appear to me improbable that he may have had some little misgiving as to his accuracy, and the possibility of his acting on "Love of Life" may have occurred to him. Another explanation may be given: The young lady, perceiving that some very unladylike exhibition of voracity was expected to ensue on the excitement of the organ, may have had her Love of Approbation so shocked at the idea, as to have caused the appearance of alarm perceived by Mr Leighton; and the imagination, as often happens in dreams, may subsequently have conjured up a phantom as the cause of the feeling. Possibly the young lady had been reading Sir Lytton Bulwer's novel of Zanoni, and had her imagination excited by his description of the "Terrible Dweller of the Threshold." Mr Lowe observes that " Dr Owens, of this town, though he had never seen anything of the kind before, elicited a similar manifestation on touching the same part of the head in another patient." We are not told whether Dr Owens had, or had not, heard of the result of Mr Leighton's experiments. I will, however, hazard the prediction that he had; but if Mr Lowe can inform me to the contrary, then I will frankly confess that the circumstance forms the best argument in favour of Phreno-Mesmerism I have yet met with, being, as it will be, the only case I have ever heard of, in which two operators, ignorant of the experiments of each other, stumbled by any chance upon the same results. I fear, however, there is little hope of this striking discovery of an "Organ of Nightmare" proving an exception to the general rule. Mr Lowe's 5th, 6th, and 7th counts apply solely to the question of volition; on which subject he evidently entertains a total misconception of my opinions. Having now examined in detail, and, I trust, shewn the inconclusiveness of the cases adduced by Mr Lowe in favour of Phreno-Mesmerism, I shall make two general observations applicable to all such cases in common. First, Considering the ample evidence we have of the occult modes of perception possessed by mesmeric patients, it appears to me puerile to rely upon the superior conclusiveness of experiments, where only pointing is employed, to those in which the organs are touched; and, secondly, I believe it is generally admitted that Mr Spencer Hall's experiments are as unexceptionably conducted as those of other phreno-mesmeric operators, yet we know that the results which ensue are most absurd. Now, no one, who rejects the results obtained by this gentleman, has any right to rely upon any results of phreno-mesmeric experiments conducted in a similar manner. Whether we are able to point out the source of error is a secondary question; the circumstance, that a certain species of evidence supports results palpably false, totally invalidates such evidence for establishing any proposition whatever, quite irrespectively of the question of our ability to determine where the fallacy lies. Some of the most powerful arguments against PhrenoMesmerism-such as the discordance in the results obtained, by all operators who have been ignorant of the fancied discoveries of each other; the fact that not a single addition has been made to our science by its employment; and the circumstance that phreno-mesmeric phenomena never resulted from the contact of the operator's hand or inanimate bodies, till the operators became phrenologists-Mr Lowe has not even attempted to grapple with. In none of the remarks I have made in the course of this paper, do I wish to be understood to express any opinion derogatory to the judgment of the first observers of phrenomesmeric phenomena, for arriving at the conclusions they were led to form. They might then, perhaps, have decided in accordance with the balance of the evidence they were acquainted with, in attributing the phenomena to the application of a local stimulus, in preference to sympathy, volition, imagination, or any other cause. Now, in deciding on its claims, and determining on which side probability preponderates, we have to take into account the immense mass of weighty, if not decisive, evidence since collected, which forbids this conclusion. A spectator, for the first time, of a mesmeric sitting, who should have the interior of his house, at many miles' distance (and which he knew no one present but himself had ever entered), minutely and accurately described to him, would doubtless feel the most profound conviction that the patient possessed the faculty of vision at a distance; but if he subsequently discovered that all the patient had stated with respect to what was occurring at the moment was incorrect, and that he was able to describe only such distant objects as some individual present was acquainted with, and further learnt that community of perception was one of the most frequently developed phenomena of Mesmerism, he would form a very different conclusion as to the cause of the previous phenomena he had witnessed. In the same way, a spectator of experiments on the excitation of the organs for the first time, would unhesitatingly attribute the results to the effects of stimulus applied to the seat of the organs. Farther experience, however, and the consideration of the opposing facts, should, I contend, induce him, in this latter case as in the former, to modify his opinions, and reject the explanation which at first sight appeared so clear, so obvious, and so unquestionable. One difficulty which arguments in opposition to PhrenoMesmerism have to contend against, is the circumstance that a much larger number of persons have a tendency to be satisfied with the prima facie evidence in its favour afforded by the excitement of the organs, than to subject such facts and their attendant circumstances to a rigorous analysis; and even if the latter be effected for them, the imposing character of those appeals to the senses on which their first opinion was founded, renders their impress on the memory much more durable, than that of reasons and arguments which, while listened to, perhaps seemed conclusive against it. Too frequently, also, a number of experiments of a similar kind, each inconclusive in itself, are, as a whole, allowed to make an undue impression. If, in an experiment of a certain character, the chances that the excitement of the organs resulted from a stimulus applied to their seat, or from some other cause, are supposed to be equal, and the value of the probability of each be represented by half, then ten thousand experiments of a similar character will make no change in the relative value of the probabilities. When, however, a slight prepossession in favour of Phreno-Mesmerism has ex isted, I have more than once been surprised to see that the effect of a reiteration of a number of experiments, each one of which the individual would have admitted to be characterised by a similar defect, has been to induce the most firm and unhesitating belief. When the revelations of Phreno-Mesmerism shall become confirmed by numerous and repeated observations of the relation between size and manifestation, when we can speak with confidence of the additions it has made to our science, then, but not before, shall I be inclined to believe in its existence. In the mean time, although we cannot assert positively that a mesmeric patient never shall be met with, in whom, through some peculiar idiosyncrasy of constitution, the cerebral organs shall be susceptible of being excited by a sensation being produced on the scalp over their seat, yet I think we have ample evidence to shew, that if such idiosyncrasies exist at all, they must be exceedingly rare, since I see no reason for believing,-in fact, I do disbelieve,—that a true phreno-mesmeric phenomenon has ever yet occurred. Portland Street, Southampton, T. S. PRIDEaux. IV. Contributions towards a more exact and positive knowledge of the organ named Language, and its Function. By Mr RICHARD CULL. Continued from Vol. xvii., p. 153. The inexact state of our knowledge of this organ and its function, was shewn in the preceding communication, and the means of arriving at more exact knowledge was also pointed out. In the present paper, attention will be drawn to some important facts in the Science of Words; and should the facts appear to be unconnected, and to have only a remote bearing on the subject under investigation, it is hoped that the judgment will be suspended until an application of such facts is made in the inquiry. In treating of verbal language, it is necessary to premise that the distinctions and nomenclature of linguists and philologers will be adopted. The ordinary grammatical terms are assumed to be familiar. The grammars adopted as textbooks state the rules of the several languages sufficiently well for common purposes, although they but loosely exhibit the powers of Cases, Tenses, &c. The laws of General Grammar do not fall within the scope of these text-books, and hence are omitted. In addition to such grammars, and in the absence of monographic treatises on the Science of Verbal Language, the reader is respectfully referred to the following works as good sources whence to gather for himself some of the more important facts and principles of the science: viz. Tooke's Diversions of Purley, Professor Long's Observations on the Greek and Latin Languages, Allen's Analysis of Latin Verbs, Professor Latham on the English Language, Professor Lee's Hebrew Grammar, Sir Wm. Jones' Persian Grammar, Sacy's Grammaire Arabique, Professor Wilson's Sanskrit Grammar, Bosworth's, and also Raske's Anglo-Saxon Grammars, Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik, Bopp's Vergleichender Grammatik, and Hartung Ueber die Casus. The words of the languages of civilized nations appear to have been originally monosyllabic. "All Anglo-Saxon words were originally, what are now termed, monosyllables; and consisted either, 1st, of a single vowel, as—a, always, ever: 2dly, of a diphthong, as-æ, a law: or, 3dly, of a vowel or diphthong, and one, two, or more consonants united; as-ac, an oak; ælc, all, each. For the sake of greater expedition in communicating the thoughts, and in the inattentive rapidity of pronunciation, two, three, or more words, expressing a complete thought, or a convenient part of one thought, were often uttered so closely together, as, at length, through the force of habit, to be considered as but one; consequently, those words which we call dissyllables, trisyllables, and polysyllables, are no other than two, three, or more entire words, or fragments of words, thus condensed into one. All words, therefore, of more than one syllable, are compounded of other words, which had a separate existence, either in the same language, or in some kindred tongue."* But further, Anglo-Saxon scholars know that many monosyllabic words are composed of the fragments of two or more words coalesced into one. Such words are also found in the kindred and in the derived dialects; thus, in the German language, the monosyllable "zum," is composed of the two monosyllabic words, "zu dem," coalesced into one word. "The Anglo-Saxons, like other Gothic nations, were remarkable for combining several short significant words to express any complex idea. Instead of adopting technical terms from other languages, it was their usual practice to translate them by a simple combination of the radical words, taken from their own nervous language."+ *Bosworth's Compendious Anglo-Saxon Grammar. + Idem. |