monster was haunting her. He repeated the experiment with the same result; and on noticing more narrowly the spot which he had touched, found that the finger was not on Alimentiveness, but was just below and before the spot assigned to that organ. On moving the finger slightly upwards and backwards, the usual manifestation of Alimentiveness appeared. Some time afterwards I also mesmerised this lady, and obtained the same result on touching the same spot: her countenance assumed the aspect of perfect horror; she raised her hands, drew back her chair, and cried in agony, "Good God! what is that? A horrible monster is staring at me with all his eyes, and his body is covered with eyes!" 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; and though I do not for a moment maintain that two isolated cases are sufficient to establish a new organ in that locality, nor, if they were, am I yet prepared even to guess at its proper function (for it cannot be for a moment thought, that we have an organ whose province it is-save in abuse-to excite the idea of being haunted with ogres and spectres); yet this single example surely proves that the operator's volition had nothing whatever to do with eliciting the manifestation in question.* Many similar instances might be adduced; but this one may suffice to shew the non-necessity 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."

5thly, Again, it is well known to most mesmeric operators, that the force and vividness of the manifestations elicited, bear direct reference to the size of the organs excited, rather than to the force of the operator's volition. Every mesmerist with whom I have conversed on the subject, has found that a small organ evolves but a feeble manifestation, while a large one in the same head, may, in proportion to its size, be vi

* Dr Owens has suggested, that if it should eventually be found that an organ, which, when in abuse, leads to the idea of being haunted with spectres, &c., be located in this part of the head, it will afford a hypothetical explanation of the horrors of night-mare after taking a hearty supper, as well as of the visions which sometimes haunt the dyspeptic, and the fearful spectres that are conjured up during attacks of delirium tremens after excessive drinking, by supposing the undue excitement of Alimentiveness to extend to this, its neighbouring convolution.

gorously excited. This is admitted even by Mr Braid, who, though no phreno-mesmerist, has been extremely diligent in observing facts, and who says, at p. 97 of his interesting treatise on Neurypnology, that "the sympathetic points," as he terms them, 66 are pretty near the centres of the organs, as mapped out on heads generally approved by phrenologists: and he has had decided proof that there is some relation subsists betwixt the size and function, as in general there is more energy displayed when there is large development, and the negative when it is defective. Thus a patient with large Combativeness or Destructiveness, when excited during hypnotism, will display great violence and disposition to attack others, whereas when they are defective they will shrink, and express a fear that some one is quarrelling, or angry with them."

6thly, The fact, already adverted to, that, in some individuals, merely pointing at the organs is sufficient to excite them; while in others, though volition may be as energetically exercised as in the former cases, nothing can be elicited, save by actual contact,-seems singularly at variance with the idea that volition is the only agent at work.

And, 7thly, If the will be the sole means of exciting mesmeric manifestations, why is it not equally efficacious in causing them to subside? Such is certainly not the case; for, when a large organ is vigorously excited, merely willing the subsidence of that excitement, without demesmerising, is not found sufficient for the purpose; and on removing the finger from one organ to another, without demesmerising the former by a breath of air or otherwise, the manifestations of the latter are frequently of a compound character, indicating the continued partial activity of the organ previously excited. This I have seen in numerous cases, sometimes to the great annoyance of operators in public, who have thus found the manifestations less distinct and clear than they could have wished. So again, when an organ has been excited through the head of a third person (i. e. a non-mesmerised person being placed in contact with the patient, and the organs touched in the head of the former, when the manifestations are immediately given by the latter), it is frequently found necessary to demesmerise the organ in the head of the interposed person, as well as of the patient, before the manifestations cease.*

*The singular, and sometimes distressing phenomena of " cross mesmerism" (as it has been termed), which have often been evinced when highly susceptible patients have been touched by some other person than the original operator, seem also to indicate the activity of some

The foregoing remarks, hastily thrown together, will, I trust, be received by Mr Prideaux and his followers in that spirit of candour in which they are written. We are all anxious to arrive at the same goal, Truth; though, as yet, the path which leads to it (in this subject at least) seems obscure and uncertain. Phreno-Mesmerism, like the enigma of the Sphinx of old, is at present difficult of explication; and, though further investigation will doubtless clear away many of the difficulties, enough has, I think, been urged, to show that the theory of volition is, at all events, not the Edipus to solve its mysteries.

WOLVERHAMPTON, May 18. 1844.

VII.-Facts against Mr Prideaux's "Fallacies of PhrenoMagnetism." By H. G. ATKINSON, F.G.S., &c.*

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHRENOLOGICAL JOURNAL.

18 UPPER GLOUCESTER PLACE, LONDON, 20th May 1844.

DEAR SIR,-At the meeting of the Phrenological Association in 1842, I read a paper on Mesmero-Phrenology, and during the discussion which ensued, Dr Engledue favoured us with the contents of a letter from Mr Prideaux, on the fallacies of that supposed discovery; but as I had anticipated the objections urged, and fully answered them in the paper alluded to, little attention was paid to the communication. The next year, Mr Prideaux published this letter in the Medical Times; and the third year, I find it, with some additions, again before the public, in the pages of your Journal. This is really very kind of Mr Prideaux to take so much pains in the hope that he shall clear the vision of more than a few on the subject of Phreno-Mesmerism, by again and again bringing forward his opinions on the subject; but I am exceedingly glad that he has taken this trouble upon himself to point out what he conceives to be objections to any conclusions drawn from experiments in this new science, which he considers a delusion; for I care not whether Phrenology, or Mesmerism, or Phreno-Mesmerism, be true or not-all I desire is to know what is true,

other principle than volition. Of course, neither operator nor spectators could unconsciously will the cramp and convulsions which have frequently been thus produced.

* Having already inserted Mr Lowe's reply to Mr Prideaux, we find it necessary to omit the less material portions of this communication from Mr Aitkinson. A third reply, by Mr T. B. Brindley, must be declined altogether.-ED.

and to avoid error; for when any opinions I have held to be true, are shown to be incorrect, most gladly shall I cast them aside, and embrace the truth; and those are not always our worst enemies who would carefully point out our faults. But Mr Prideaux puts forth these objections of his, as though they had not occurred to any but himself, and omits to answer the explanations given by others touching the very points to which he continues to refer. Why has he not shewn the insufficiency of the arguments in my last paper to the Phrenological Association, which was published in the Medical Times and other periodicals, or of similar arguments used by Dr Elliotson in his Letter on the subject, and in his Address to the Association? No, he omits to do this, and continues to put forth, as all-sufficient and unanswerable, objections which have already been well considered and disposed of; and from some motive or other, mentions Dr Elliotson and my humbler self in a most absurd and unjust manner, only to sneer at our doings, and in a style I think not most becoming a philosopher; yet declaring at the same time, "that he is actuated solely by a desire to arrive at the truth, and is unconscious of any motive likely to bias his judgment." Alas! how curiously blind are even practical phrenologists to the self-deluding bias arising in their own organism from peculiar circumstances in their position, to those motives which rise up like clouds of dust before their eyes at every turn!

The fact that Mr Prideaux's patients shew a degree of sympathy with the mesmeriser, is apparently the whole difficulty to be got over. Mr Prideaux's patients sympathise with him and obey his will, therefore Phreno-Mesmerism is a fallacy; and at first, indeed, this does seem like an insurmountable difficulty. But is there no way of meeting the objection which this power of sympathising presents? My answer is (and it has already been given again and again), that with the cases to which I have chiefly alluded, this great difficulty does not exist; the patients I refer to, do not sympathise with me at all, nor act in obedience to my will; and were I inclined to hasty generalization from partial and imperfect inquiry, I might, with others, have declared against the existence of sympathy and the power to will particular effects, with as much shew of reason as Mr Prideaux has against Phreno-Magnetism. But I know that, in many cases, sympathy, more or less, does exist, and with some mesmerisers more than with others; that the case of each patient should only be taken for what it is worth, and that worth to be ascertained only by careful observation of the peculiar conditions requisite in each instance. And to shew that others are alive to this objection of sympathy

in particular cases, to follow the will of the mesmeriser, I refer to my writings on the subject from the first announcement of my discoveries, and to a letter to Mr Spencer Hall, wherein I request a statement of the degree of sympathy existing in those patients on whom he has operated: Mr Hall promised to consider my observations and to answer them; nevertheless, his Phreno-Magnet came to an end without his having done so. But it is not my intention, Sir, to trouble you at present with all the variety of means by which Phreno-Mesmerism may be tested, and every objection satisfactorily answered; it is sufficient for me to say, that the sympathy objected to by Mr Prideaux, in a great number of cases of my own, and of others I have seen, does not exist, and that where it does exist, there are still means of making valuable experiments in PhrenoMesmerism, leading to most important ends.

Mr Prideaux says that I have put myself forward as the discoverer of Phreno-Mesmerism in this country, and unjustly so with reference to others. Now, I appeal to you, Sir, if I have been unjust in this; for I have done no more than to simply state the facts as they occurred to myself and others, and to correct misstatements; for I have always said that it was of no importance who was the first discoverer, but that it is important to know how several persons, unknown to each other, made similar discoveries; and it is interesting, of course, that the date of each should be recorded, with the circumstances under which such effects were first observed. Dear Sir, very sincerely yours,

HENRY G. ATKINSON.

II. NOTICES OF BOOKS.

I. Principles of Forensic Medicine. By WILLIAM A. GUY, M.B. Cantab., Professor of Forensic Medicine, King's College, London; Physician to King's College Hospital, &c., &c. PART II. London: H. Renshaw. 1843. 12mo.

The sixth chapter of Dr Guy's work, headed "Unsoundness of Mind," is the only portion of it within our critical province. To that subject the author has devoted sixty-seven closely printed pages; in attentively perusing which, we have been delighted with the acuteness, candour, extensive information, and sound judgment, which he displays. There is so much condensation of matter in the work itself, that any attempt to abridge the contents of the chapter would be vain. We must therefore confine ourselves to the points likely to be most interesting to our readers.

VOL. XVII.-N. S. NO. XXVII.-JULY 1844.

T