Herrick, Modern Algedonic Theones. 5 



brings to bear the theory of apperception but the latter is itself 

 much in need of explanation. Marshall adheres to the third 

 view that pleasure-pain, like intensity, form qiiales of all pre- 

 sentation. According to this view it is not necessary to assume 

 any special organs or nerves for pleasure-pain. 



In Chapter IV is a comprehensive discussion of the physi- 

 cal basis of pleasure and pain. Five groups of theories are 

 recognized ; first, that pain is an overstepping of the limits of 

 normal activity. Pleasure consists in a return to the normal 

 state. The fatal objection to this theroy in its simple form is 

 the failure to account tor pleasures of exercise. 



Second, pain is due to tension, pain to equilibrium. This 

 theory also fails to account for pleasure of exercise. 



Third, pleasure and pain are contrast phenomena, one be- 

 ing the absence of the other. This theory fails to accord with 

 facts of familiar observation. 



Fourth, pain is due to limitation or restriction. Such the- 

 ories the author thinks fail to account for pleasure. On the 

 contrary, in no direction are physiological suggestions more di- 

 rect than in emphasing the connection between free irradiation 

 of stimuli and pleasure. The fifth class includes such as con- 

 nect pain with activities dangerous to the system and pleasures 

 with healthful function. The great number of exceptions to 

 this rule shows that however true this may be as a tendency it 

 cannot constitute the basis of pleasure and pain. 



As a working hypothesis Mr, Marshall formulates the fol- 

 lowing : 



Pleasure is experienced whenever the physical activity 

 coincident with the psychic state to which the pleasure is at- 

 tached inv 'ves the use of surplus stored force. Pain is experi- 

 enced whenever the physical action which determines the con- 

 tent is so related to the supply of nutriment to its organ, that 

 the energy involved in its reaction to the stimulus is less in 

 amount than the energy which the stimulus habitually calls forth. 

 It is not a little strange that the author here and elsewhere 

 seems to be oblivious of the nutrition theory of Meynert, which 

 in some respects is a counterpart of his own. 



