believe, nevertheless, that, once the reality of the mind as a permanent indivisible energy is admitted, the assumption of faculties when properly explained is unassailable. A mental faculty or power is not of the nature of a particular part of the soul, or of a member different from it as a limb is distinct from the rest of the body. It is not an independent reality, a separate agent, which originates conscious states out of itself apart from the mind. But neither is it merely a group of conscious states of a particular kind. It is simply a special mode through which the mind itself acts. "It is admitted by all that a faculty is not a force distinct from and independent of the essence of the soul, but it is the soul itself, which operates in and through the faculty." 10 A faculty is, in fact, the proximate ground of some special form of activity of which the mind is capable. That we are justified in attributing to the soul faculties in this sense is abundantly clear. Careful use of our power of introspection reveals to us a number of modes of psychical energy radically distinct from each other, and incapable of further analysis. To see, to hear, to remember, to desire, are essentially different kinds of consciousness, though all proceed from the same source. Sometimes one is in action, sometimes another, but no one of them ever exhausts the total energy of the mind. They are partial utterances of the same indivisible subject. But this is equivalent to the establishment of certain distinct aptitudes in the mind.11

In England the chief psychologist during the early

10 Cf. Die Psychologie, von Dr. Constantin Gutberlet, p. 4. 11 "The proposition, 'our soul possesses different faculties,' means nothing else than our soul is a substance which as active principle is capable of exerting different species of energies.' 'If the soul produces within itself acts of perception, then must it also be endowed with a property corresponding to this effect, and this property must be something actual, objectively real in it: otherwise a stone may at times be just as capable of percipient acts. To deny that property whilst we admit its manifestations, is to assert that the faculty of perception is nothing else than the sum of its acts, and is equivalent to postulating accidents without a substance, effects without a cause, and to discoursing of phenomena and operations when the subject, the agent, is abolished." (Das Gemüth und das Gefühlsvermögen der neueren Psychologie, von Jungmann, p. 11.)

part of this century who attacked the doctrine of mental faculties, was Brown. As the right view was sufficiently vindicated then by Hamilton, 12 we need not return to refute the former writer or Bailey, who added little of any value on the same side. Recently, however, Mr. Sully reasserts the old exploded charge, so a word in answer to this author may be useful. After premising that the discussion of the ultimate nature of the "so-called faculties" belongs to Rational Psychology, and so lies outside of his sphere, he continues: The hypothesis of faculties can, however, be criticized from the point of view of Empirical Psychology in so far as it succeeds or does not succeed in giving a clear account of the phenomena. Looked at in this way, it must be regarded as productive of much error in Psychology. It has led to the false supposition that mental activity, instead of being one and the same throughout its manifold phases is a juxtaposition of totally distinct activities answering to a bundle of detached powers, somehow standing side by side, and exerting no influence on one another. Sometimes this absolute separation of the parts of mind has gone so far as to personify the several faculties as though they were distinct entities. This has been especially the case with the faculty or power of willing." 13

One or two observations may be urged in reply. (1) Mr. Sully, in asserting that all mental activity 1S one and the same, cannot seriously intend to maintain that the conscious activity known as seeing is identical with that of hearing, or that cognition is not different in nature from desire. But if he allows these energies to be radically distinct modes of consciousness under the vague saving clause of "manifold phases," then all that is needed for the establishment of a variety of mental aptitudes in the sense for which we contend is admitted. (2) The description of the theory as involving the absurd view that

12 Metaph. lxx.

18 Outlines, p. 26. Mr. Sully is undoubtedly right when he says that discussion of the nature of the faculties pertains to Rational Psychology. But this only shows the essentially abortive character of a purely Phenomenal Psychology.

the faculties form "a juxta-position of totally distinct activities answering to a bundle of detached powers, somehow standing side by side and exerting no influence on each other," is a strange travesty of the doctrine, and hardly to be expected in an author of Mr. Sully's wide reading after Hamilton's elaborate confutation of Brown. Indeed, so far have the supporters of the doctrine been from setting "the faculties side by side exerting no influence on one another," that a great part of the modern attack is based on quite an opposite representation of their view. They are charged in Germany with making the mind the theatre of a perpetual civil war among the faculties; and Vorländer compared the world of consciousness in their system to the condition of the Roman Germanic Empire, when the vassals (the faculties) usurped the functions of the regent (the soul), and were perpetually intriguing and struggling with each other, whilst Schleiermacher styled the theory a "romance replete with public outrages and secret intrigues." If the faculties are to be annihilated on the charge of being everlastingly involved in mutual conflict, it is rather hard that they should be condemned at the same time for exerting no influence on each other. The truth is, no such ridiculous view regarding the nature of our mental powers has ever been held by any psychologist of repute, but in talking of the obvious and indisputable fact that our intellectual operations, emotions, and volitions, interfere with and condition each other, philosophers, like other folk, have been compelled by the exigencies of language to speak as if the faculties were endowed with a certain independent autonomy of their own. They have, however, of course, from the days of St. Augustine, and long before, been aware that it is the one indivisible soul which remembers, understands, and wills.14 (3) Even regarding the activities of sense and intellect, which we hold, and shall prove to be essentially different, the assertion of

14" Hæc tria, memoria, intelligentia, voluntas, quoniam non sunt tres vitæ, sed una vita; nec tres mentes, sed una mens; consequenter utique nec tres substantiæ sunt, sed una substantia." (Cf. St. Aug. De Trinitate, Lib. X. c. xi.)

an imagined real independence is untrue. The second faculty pre-supposes as a necessary condition of its action the exercise of the first, and is dependent on it for its operation, whilst both are merely diverse energies of the same simple soul. (4) Finally, the Will is not an independent member, an entity separate from the mind; it is merely that perfection of the Ego which constitutes it capable of that special form of energizing called willing; it is the soul itself which wills.

There is, however, a tenet implied in our system irreconcilably opposed to the phenomenalist view of Mr. Sully and all other sensationist writers. We hold as a fundamental all-important truth that there exists one real indivisible agent called the Mind, which is something more than the series of events known as conscious states. And we would venture to ask which party is really guilty of the charge of disintegration. Who are the true separatists on the question? Is it the school which maintaining the existence of one indivisible mind recognize in it a number of capabilities for diverse forms of action? Or is it the sect which teaches that the mind is nothing but an aggregate, a procession, of separate states connected by no real bond? The transition from even an oligarchy of faculties to a headless democracy of conscious atoms, is scarcely an advance towards the unity of the Ego.

There remains another question related to our present subject: Which is to be conceived as the most fundamental of our activities? To answer this we must recall our double division of faculties, on the one hand, into sensuous and rational, and on the other into cognitive and appetitive. Now of the two former kinds of mental life that of sense is primary. The faculty of sense manifests itself at the earliest age, it extends throughout the entire animal kingdom, and its exercise is always pre-supposed in order to furnish materials to be elaborated by the rational powers in man. Intellect, on the other hand, is something superadded to sense. In all its forms it requires as the condition of its operation the previous excitation of the lower powers, it manifests itself later in life than sense, and it is confined to the human species. Turning now

to the other division: Whether is cognition or appetite the more primordial? But little reflection is required, we think, to make it clear that knowledge is naturally prior to volition. We desire because we perceive or imagine the object of our desire to be good. We are drawn or repelled by the pleasurable or painful character of the cognitive act. A sensation of colour, sound, or contact, viewed in its proper character, is a rudimentary act of apprehension, and it may awaken a striving either for its continuance or for its cessation; an intellectual judgment may similarly give rise to a volition. It is true that some desires manifest themselves in an obscure way without any antecedent cognitive representation that we can clearly realize. This is especially the case with the cravings of physical appetite, such as hunger and thirst. Purely organic states which give rise to yearnings of this kind, however, are rather of the nature of physiological needs than properly psychical desires; and in proportion as they emerge into the strata of mental acts the cognitive element comes into clearer consciousness. We may, therefore, lay it down as a general truth that appetite is subsequent to knowledge and dependent on it. These faculties are thus to be viewed, not so much in the light of two co-ordinate powers standing side by side, as in that of two properties of the soul, the exertion of one of which bears to that of the other the relation of antecedent to consequent.

What position as regards the two powers just mentioned does the so-called third Faculty of Feeling hold in our system? Feelings understood as a group of emotional states are not, we have already remarked, the offspring of a third ultimate distinct energy, but complex products resulting from the action of both cognitive and appetitive faculties. Feeling viewed simply as pleasure and pain, and such is the only sense in which this form of consciousness has even an apparent claim to the position of a separate faculty, is merely an aspect of our cognitive and. appetitive energies. It exhibits itself as a positive or negative colouring, which marks the operations of these powers. As a quality of knowledge it must be