that they are not in fact separate functions in the usual acceptation of that expression, it is perhaps more correct, and accords better with our limited knowledge of mind, to speak simply of the operations which it is capable of performing upon a given series of facts. These seem to be chiefly referable to the following heads.

I. We remember the facts; and we can also recall them into the mind at pleasure. The former is MEMORY; the latter is that modification of it which we call RECOLLECTION. But, besides this simple recollection of facts, we can recall a perception; that is, the impression of an actual scene which has been witnessed, or a person who has been seen, so as to place them, as it were, before the mind, with all the vividness of the original perception. This process is called CONCEPTION.

It is often described as a distinct power, or a distinct operation of the mind; but it seems to be so nearly allied to memory that it may be considered as a modification of it. It is the memory of a perception.

II. We separate facts from the relation in which they were originally presented to us, and contemplate some of them apart from the rest;-considering, for example, certain properties of bodies apart from their other properties. Among a variety of objects, we thus fix upon qualities which are common to a certain number of them, and so arrange them into genera and species. This process is usually called ABSTRACTION.

III. We separate scenes or classes of facts into their constituent elements, and form these elements into new combinations, so as to represent to ourselves scenes, or combinations of events, which have no real existence. This is IMAGINATION.

IV. We compare facts with each other,-observe their relations and connexions,-and trace the results which follow particular combinations of them. We also observe their general characters, so as to deduce from the whole general facts or general principles. This is REASON OF JUDGment.

In this arrangement, it will be observed, I confine myself entirely to facts. I do not say that the mind possesses distinct faculties, which we call memory, abstraction, imagination, and judgment,—for this at once leads into hypothesis; but simply, that, in point of fact, the mind remembers, abstracts, imagines, and judges. These processes appear to constitute distinct mental acts, which every one is conscious of who attends to the phenomena of his own mind. But beyond the simple facts we know nothing, and no human ingenuity can lead us one step farther. Some of the followers of Dr. Reid appear to have erred in this respect, by ascribing to the mind distinct faculties or functions, somewhat in the manner in which we ascribe to the body distinct senses. Dr. Brown, on the other hand, has shown much ingenuity in his attempts to simplify the arrangement of the mental processes, by referring them all to his two principles of simple and relative suggestion. But, without inquiring what has been gained to the science by this new phraseology, and avoiding entirely any system which seems to suppose distinct functions of mind, I confine myself to facts respecting the actual mental operations; and it appears to answer best the purpose of practical utility to speak of these operations in the arrangement, and by the names, which are commonly used by the generality of mankind.

SECTION I.

MEMORY.

BY MEMORY we retain the impression of facts or events; and by RECOLLECTION we recall them into the mind by a voluntary effort. By CONCEPTION we recali perceptions, or the impression of actual scenes, persons, or transactions: thus a skilful painter can delineate from conception a landscape a considerable time after he has seen it, or the countenance of a friend who is dead or absent. These appear to be the leading phenomena which are referable to the head of memory.

There seem to be original differences in the power of memory, some individuals being remarkable for retentive memory, though not otherwise distinguished by their intellectual endowments. Thus, persons have been known to repeat a long discourse after once hearing it. or even a series of things without connexion, as a long column of figures, or a number of words without meaning. There is on record the account of a man who could repeat the whole contents of a newspaper; and of another who could retain words that were dictated to him, without any connexion, to the amount of six thousand. A man mentioned by Seneca, after hearing a poet read a new poem, claimed it as his own; and, in proof of his claim, repeated the poem from beginning to end, which the author could not do. A similar anecdote is told of an Englishman, whom the King of Prussia placed behind a screen when Voltaire came to read to him a new poem of considerable length. It has been alleged, that this kind of memory is generally connected with inferiority of

the other intellectual powers; but there appears to be no foundation for this. For, though the mere memory of words may be met with in a high degree in persons of defective understanding, it is also true that men of high endowments have been remarkable for memory. It is said that Themistocles could name all the citizens of Athens, amounting to twenty thousand; and that Cyrus knew the name of every soldier in his army.

The late Dr. Leyden was remarkable for his memory. I am informed, through a gentleman who was intimately acquainted with him, that he could repeat correctly a long act of parliament, or any similar document, after having once read it. When he was, on one occasion, congratulated by a friend on his remarkable power in this respect, he replied, that instead of an advantage it was often a source of great inconvenience. This he explained by say. ing, that when he wished to recollect a particular point in any thing which he had read, he could do it only by repeating to himself the whole from the commencement till he reached the point which he wished to recall.

We may find a mere local memory combined with very little judgment; that is, the power of remembering facts in the order in which they occurred, or words in the order in which they were addressed to the individual; but that kind of memory which is founded, not upon local or incidental relations, but on real analogies, must be considered as an important feature of a cultivated mind, and as holding an important place in the formation of intellectual character. The former kind of memory, however, is often the more ready, and is that which generally makes the greater show, both on account of its readiness, and likewise because the kind of facts with which it is chiefly conversant are usually those most in request in common conversation.

The facts now referred to are matters of curiosity

only. The points of real interest and practical importance, in regard to memory, respect the manner in which it is influenced by the intellectual habits of individuals, and the principles on which it may be improved. These are referable chiefly to two heads, namely, ATTENTION and ASSOCIATION.

Memory is very much influenced by ATTENTION, or a full and distinct perception of the fact or object with a view to its being remembered; and by the perception being kept before the mind, in this distinct manner, for a certain time. The distinct recollection of the fact, in such cases, is generally in proportion to the intensity with which it has been contemplated; and this is also very much strengthened by its being repeatedly brought before the mind. Most people, accordingly, have experienced that a statement is more strongly impressed upon the memory by being several times repeated to others. It is on the same principle, that memory is greatly assisted by writing down the object of our knowledge, especially if this be done in a distinct and systematic manner. A subject also is more distinctly conceived, and more correctly remembered, after we have instructed another person in it. Such exercises are not strictly to be considered as helps to the memory, but as excitements to attention; and as thus leading to that clear and full comprehension of the subject which is required for the distinct remembrance of it.

It is familiar to every one that there are great differences in memory, both in respect to the facility of acquirement and the power of retention. In the former there appear to be original differences, but a great deal also depends upon habit. In the power

of retention much depends, as we shall afterward see, upon the habit of correct association; but, besides this, there are facts which seem to show a singular connexion with the manner in which the acquisition was made. The following fact was