of perception, memory, imagination, and reasoning. In like manner we may speak of his affections when he rejoices, sorrows, fears, and hopes, as emotions or feelings of the mind instead of the man; but by such phraseology, commodious and indispensable as it is, we do not make the slightest advance either in knowledge or in the explanation of what we know.

All these may also be correctly spoken of as states or events, or phenomena of consciousness; expressions which are equivalent to the other phrases, but add nothing to them. We do not both perceive, remember, reason, rejoice, and feel conscious of perceiving, remembering, reasoning and rejoicing, or rather, these phrases do not designate separate acts or states; perceiving is one state or mode of consciousness, remembering is another, reasoning is another, rejoicing is another. The contrary of this is, nevertheless, frequently asserted; as, for example, by Dr. Reid, and more recently by M. Cousin, who says, "It is not by consciousness that we feel, or will, or think; but it is by it we know that we do all this;" which is tantamount to saying that by consciousness we know we are conscious.

In a similar way, a very sensible writer on Intellectual Philosophy tells us, that consciousness is "the faculty by which the various powers of our own minds are made known to us*;" a kind of

* Elements of Intellectual Philosophy, by R. E. Scott, p. 27.

phraseology to which I shall have immediately to call your especial attention.

You will probably have observed that I have designated perception, memory, conception, imagination, and reasoning as operations of the mind.

They are often, however (as by the last author I have had occasion to quote), termed faculties, capacities, or powers; and in popular discourse with great advantage in respect of ease and variety of expression, and with sufficient precision for ordinary purposes; but these are forms of speech from which in accurate speculation we derive little or no assistance, while we are frequently misled by them.

Whatever a man does, whether he perceives or recollects, or imagines, or reasons, or feels, or wills, he must doubtless have the power or faculty, or capacity of doing; just as all other animated beings or inanimate substances must have the power of doing whatever they effect. There is, however, nothing gained to clear or scientific knowledge by introducing the capability in addition to the statement of the simple act, although as a mode of expression it is frequently convenient. "Water quenches thirst," is as expressive as "water has the power of quenching thirst." "Heat melts lead," conveys as much as "heat has the power of melting lead." "The loadstone attracts iron" is as significant as the assertion that it has the power of so affecting that metal.

So in the case of mental operations: the expres

sion "man perceives, and remembers, and imagines, and reasons," denotes all that is conveyed by the longer phrase, "the mind of man has the faculties of perception, and memory, and imagination, and reasoning." "Man hopes, and fears, and rejoices, and grieves," is a form of speech which expresses just the same meaning as the more circuitous and sonorous phraseology, "the mind of man is endowed with the susceptibilities, or subject to the affections of hope, and fear, and joy, and grief." illustrations would be superfluous. of the disadvantages which in science must always attend circuitous, tautological, and figurative expressions that add nothing to the sense, such language in mental philosophy gives rise to particular evils which require especial attention at the outset ; and these I purpose to exhibit at a length in some degree proportioned to their importance.

Further Independently

Do not, I implore you, be startled at the prospect of having some of your usual and favourite phrases proscribed. I am speaking of language now merely as an instrument of investigation and of philosophical statement, not as a vehicle of common intercourse, sentiment, and emotion. I wish not to deprive the poetical, the rhetorical, the sensitive, the romantic, or even the innumerable writers and conversers on ordinary topics, of any of their cherished expressions; and, indeed, should be sorry to lose them myself, when, quitting the path of methodical inquiry, I enter into common life, or into the sphere of fancy, taste, and feeling.

LETTER III.

PERSONIFICATION OF THE FACULTIES.

THE various forms of speech pointed out in my last letter as more or less prolix and circuitous, although they are perfectly unobjectionable and even needful in common discourse, have led, in philosophical speculation, to great errors, to much perplexity, and to no little mischievous jargon.

One of the chief consequences of such modes of speaking has been that the powers and faculties and susceptibilities to which the operations and affections of the mind are thus ascribed, or under which they are thus grouped, have been personified so to speak, or erected into separate entities distinct from the man himself. They have been represented as acting in the character of independent agents, originating ideas, passing them from one to another, and transacting other business amongst themselves. In this species of phraseology the mind frequently appears a sort of field in which perception, recollection, imagination, reason, will, conscience, and the passions, carry on their operations, like so many powers in alliance with or in hostility to each other. Sometimes one of these powers is supreme and

the others are subordinate; one usurps authority and another submits; one reports and others listen; one deludes and another is deceived. Meanwhile, the mind, or rather the intellectual being himself, is jostled out of sight altogether by transactions in which he appears to have no concern. At other times these powers are described as having dealings with their owner, or master, lending him ministerial assistance, acting under his control or direction, supplying him with evidence or instruction, and enlightening him by revelations, as if he himself were detached or apart from the faculties which he is said to possess and command, and to which he is represented as listening.

The same remarks may be extended to the senses, which are often spoken of as independent of the mind. The organs of the senses are doubtless distinct from the mind,- part of the physical framebut the senses themselves are not separate from the mind. When they are affected (to speak according to common phraseology), such affections are modifications of the mind. When a man sees or hears or feels tactually, it is he himself the conscious being-who does so, as much as when he thinks, or rejoices, or grieves. To say that his senses do these things, is on a level with using the expressions about reason and imagination performing certain acts to which I have already adverted. It is personifying the senses and raising them into distinct entities; whereas they are in truth mental