(he says) it was perceived, that she had lost her hearing, and ever since, though she hears great noises, yet hears nothing of what is said to her but by observing the mo tion of the lips and mouths of others, she acquired so many words, that out of these she has formed a sort of jargon in which she can hold conversation, whole days, with those who can speak her language.

She knows nothing of what is said to her, unless she sees the motion of their lips that speak to her one thing will appear the strangest part of the whole narrative. She has a sister with whom she has practised her language more than with any body else, and in the night, by laying her hands on her sister's mouth, she can perceive by that what she says, and so can discourse with her in the dark." (London Quarterly Review, Vol. xxiv. p. 399.)

Such are the views, which have been opened to us, in considering the law of HABIT in connection with the senses; and we may venture to say with confidence, that they are exceedingly worthy of notice. There are two suggestions, which they are especially fitted to call up. They evince the striking powers of the human mind, its irrepressible energies, which no obstacles can bear down. They evince also the benevolence of our Creator, who opens in the hour of misery new sources of comfort, and compensates for what we have not, by increasing the powcr and value of what we have.

§. 189. Sensations may possess a relative, as well as positive increase of power.

There remains a remark of some importance to be made in connection with the general principle, which has been brought forward, and as in some measure auxiliary to it; for it will help to explain the more striking instances of habits, if any should imagine, that the fact of mere repetition is not sufficient to account for them. Our sensations and perceptions may acquire not only a direct and positive, but a relative and virtual increase of power.

This remark is thus explained. We shall hereafter see the truth of an important principle to this, effect, that

there will be a weakness of remembrance in any particular case in proportion to the want of interest in it. Now hundreds and thousands of our sensations and perceptions are not remembered, because we take no interest in them. Of course they are the same, relatively to our amount of knowledge and our practice, as if they had never existed at all. But when we are placed in some novel situation, or when in particular we are deprived of any one of the senses, the pressure of our necessities creates that interest, which was wanting before. Then we delay upon, and mark, and remember, and interpret a multitude of evanescent intimations, which were formerly neglected. They thus acquire a very considerable relative power and value. And in order to make out a satisfactory explanation of some instances of habits, it is perhaps necessary, that this relative increase should be added to the direct and positive augmentation of vigour and quickness, resulting from mere repetition or exercise.

§. 190. Whether the mind can attend to more than one object at the same time.

In connection with what has been said in this chapter, we are in some degree prepared to consider the question, Whether the mind can attend to more than one thing at one and the same instant? The question can perhaps be stated more clearly thus ; Whether the mind can attend at one and the same instant to objects, which we can attend to separately?-The question, when proposed as here, without any limitation, hardly admits a discussion. If a rose is presented to us, we can handle it; we can inhale its fragrance, and behold its colours at the same moment. The mind exists in the states of seeing, smelling, and feeling at once; that is to say, it is in a complex state. Whereas if the question, as above stated, were answered in the negative, complexity in the states of the mind would be an impossibility.

But the question may be further simplified, and proposed thus; viz. Whether we can, by means of one and the same sense, simultaneously notice and attend to more than one

object, which objects that sense is capable of attending to separately?When the question is modified and stated in this way, it seems to be the general sentiment, that the mind notices only one thing at a time.

§. 191. On allending at the same time to different parts of

music.

But there are certain facts, which at first sight contradict this doctrine, however generally it may have been entertained. For instance, it is the opinion with very many persons, that, in a concert of music, a good ear can attend to different parts at the same time, and feel the full effect of the harmony. It is not denied, that they are fully able to feel the effect of the harmony; and it is also admitted, that they appear to attend to the different parts, which combine to form that harmony, at one and the same instant. But this appearance, (for we conceive it to be merely such,) is to be thus explained.

It has appeared in the course of this chapter, that our sensations and external perceptions are susceptible of being strengthened and quickened. By various examples it has been seen, that they can be brought to an astonishing degree both of acuteness and rapidity of exercise. We may suppose, therefore, that a HABIT has been formed in the case under consideration,and that the mind passes from one part of the music to the other with such quickness, as to give us no perception of an interval of time. The operation is so rapid, and the attention so slight, that there is no remembrance, and we are unable to recal the mental acts. Hence we shall seem to be attending to all the parts at once. The apparent result will be the same, as if this were actually the fact. But as this mere appearance may be otherwise satisfactorily explained, it is not necessary to admit the doctrine of originally coexistent perceptions of distinct and separate sounds.

Nor is this all. It is to be remembered, that, in the case under consideration, one sense only, the sense of hear. ing, is employed. And it is a natural inquiry, if it can at

tend to more than one object at once, which it is capable of attending to separately, why may it not attend to three, five, twenty, or more? An objection certainly arises here; and furthermore, the opinion, that the mind can simultaneously attend to separate objects by means of a single sense, strikes at the root of what there is abundant reason to consider a great and fixed law of our nature; viz. That the first intimations from the separate senses are simple, are uncompounded.

§. 192. The principle considered in reference to the outlines and forms of objects.

The inquiry, which has just been attended to, may be considered in reference to the outlines and forms of bodies. In discussing the subject of attention, Mr. Stewart, in con. nection with his views on that subject, introduces some remarks in respect to vision. He makes this supposition, That the eye is fixed in a particular position, and the picture of an object is painted on the retina. He then starts this inquiry; Does the mind perceive the complete figure of the object at once, or is this perception the result of the various perceptions we have of the different points in the outline?—He holds the opinion, that the perception is the result of our perceptions of the different points in the outline, which he adopts as naturally consequent on such viows, as the following; the outline of every body is made up of points or smallest visible portions; no two of these points can be in precisely the same direction; therefore, every point by itself constitutes just as distinct an object of attention to the mind, as if it were separated by some interval of empty space from all other points. The conclusion, therefore, is, as every body is made up of parts, and as the perception of the figure of the whole object implies a knowledge of the relative situation of the different parts with respect to each other, that such perception is the result of a number of different acts of

attention.

But if we adopt this ingenious explanation of Mr. Stewart, it is incumbent upon us to show how it happens,

The answer

that we appear to see the object at once? is, that the acts of perception are performed with such rapidity, that the effect with respect to us is the same, as if it were instantaneous. A habit has been formed; the glance of the mind, in the highest exercise of that habit, is indescribably quick; there is no remembrance; time is virtually annihilated; and separate moments are to our apprehension of them crowded into one.

§. 193. Notice of some facts which favour the above doctrine.

There are various facts, which go to confirm Mr. Stewart's doctrine as to the mode of the perception of external objects. When we look for the first time on any object, which is diversified with gaudy colours, the mind is evidently perplexed with the variety of percepsions which arise; the view is indistinct, which would not be the case, if there were only one, and that an immediate perception.. And even in paintings, which are of a more laudable execution, the effects at the first perception will be similar. But there is another fact, which comes still more directly to the present point. We find, that we do not have as distinct an idea, at the first glance, of a figure of an hundred sides, as we do of a triangle or square. But we evidently should, if the perception of visible figure were the immediate consequence of the picture on the retina, and not the combined result of the separate perceptions of the points in the outline. Whenever the figure is very simple, the process of the mind is so very rapid, that the perception seems to be instantaneous. But when the sides are multiplied beyond a certain number, the interval of time necessary for these different acts of attention becomes perceptible. We are then distinctly conscious, that the mind labours from one part of the object to another, and that some time elapses before we grasp it as a whole.