DREAMS. 



137 





of 

 the blind. 



danger or horror ; and the same is the case, where the 

 mental feelings of indignation or sorrow have been ex- 

 cited in our dreams, we are conscious of them for some 

 time after we awake. 



It is not easy to determine whether all men dream ; 

 it is more certain that some men are more subject to 

 dreaming than others. Locke is of opinion that most 

 men pas? a great part of their sleep without dreaming : 

 lie adds, " I once knew a man, that was bred a scholar, 

 and had no bad memory, who told me, he had never 

 dreamt in his life, till he had that fever he was then 

 uewly recovered of, which was about the five or six-and- 

 twentieth year of his age." (lA>cke, Book II. Chap. i. 

 $ 14.) The probability, however, is, that all persons 

 dream more or less ; since some of the numerous causes 

 which produce dreams must operate in some degree, 

 nnd at some periods of their lives, on all men ; besides 

 dreams are apt to be forgotten ; and those who, by 

 some subsequent occurrence, or train of thought, are 

 reminded of their dreams, would, if this had not taken 

 place, have concluded that they had not dreamt. It is 

 more certain that very young children do not dream ; 

 at what age they generally begin has not been ascer- 

 tained. Many animals undoubtedly dream : this fart 

 was known to the ancients. 



A much more curious and interesting question is, of 

 what kind are the dreams of the blind, and of the deaf 

 and dumb, but especially of the blind ? for we have seen 

 that visible imagery constitutes by far the largest and 

 most important portion of our dreams. Unfortunately 

 on this subject we have very few facts ; from these, 

 however, we shall select two, which are given on good 

 authority, and one of them rather in detail. Mr Bew, 

 in his Essay on Blindness, published in the first volume 

 of the 3/(j-/i7ic./er Transactions, says, that a blind gen- 

 tleman with whom he conversed, clearly proved, that 

 in his dreams, he was conscious of the figure, though 

 he could not distinguish the varieties of the human 

 ci,unti-naixv : and that from the confused efforts he 

 made to explain liiiu>clf, it might be perceived that 

 he felt hiin-clf alarmed with new sensations, that bore 

 a strong relation to our ideas of light and colour, lint 

 which lie found it impossible to describe, because he 

 could not fix on any comparative idea whereby to ex- 

 plain himself. These dreams were always painful, and 

 the impressions extremely transient and "unsatisfactory. 



The other fact relates* to Dr Blacklock. Dr l!i id 

 asked him if he had any idea of light ? And upon his 

 replying in the negative, he enquired if there was any 

 difference between his ideas of persons and objects when 

 he dreamed, and those which were excited while awake? 

 Dr Blacklock replied the difference was great ; but at 

 first he was unable to explain it. At last, with some 

 degree of exultation, he exclaimed, " Now I have it !" 

 When he was awake, he could distinguish persons three 

 ways ; by hearing them speak, by feeling their head 

 and shoulders, or by attending, without the aid of 

 speech, to the sound and manner of breathing. But in 

 sleep, the objects which presented themselves were 

 more vivid, and without the intervention of any of the 

 three modes, he had distinct perceptions of distant ob- 

 jects, both animated and inanimated. Being asked by 

 what means he thought these impressions were convey- 

 ed to him? he replied, that he imagined his body 

 was united to theirs by a kind of distant contact, which 

 was effected by the instrumentality of threads or strings 

 which proceeded from their bodies to his own, and that 

 mutual ideas were conveyed by vibrations of these 

 strings. (Smellie, p. 398, 399 ) 



VOL. vui. PABT I. 



Having thus detailed the principal facts connected Dreams. 

 with dreaming, we shall conclude this article with a """V^ 

 very brief summary of the opinions and theories which 

 have been advanced by modern philosophers, either re- 

 specting the cause of dreams in general, or in explana- 

 tion of some of its phenomena. 



1. Wolfius, and after liim M. Formey, maintain, that Opinion of 

 dreams in all cases are caused by impressions on the J? 

 organs of sense. This theory has been confounded with sp "i^, tL 

 that of Aristotle, from which, however, it differs very dreams? 

 materially. The Grecian philosopher believed, that all 

 impressions on the brain were conveyed by means of 



the senses, and that these impressions being called up 

 again during sleep, produced dreams ; whereas Wolfius 

 and M. Formey are of opinion, that dreams are occa- 

 sioned not by renewed impressions, but by direct im- 

 pressions on some of the senses during sleep. That our 

 dreams are caused or modified by our bodily sensations 

 while we are asleep, we have already seen ; but it 

 does not hence follow, that in all cases they are pro- 

 duced in this manner ; on the contrary, dreams frequent- 

 ly occur when we have no reason to suppose that any 

 impression lias been made on our organs. This hypo- 

 thesis, therefore, is completely gratuitous and un- 

 founded. 



2. Sir Henry Wotton seems to have been of opinion, Of Sir Hen- 

 that during sleep the soul exercised a freer and wider T Wotton. 

 range ; or, as he expresses it, it had then a " more dc- 



ficated operation." This notion, borrowed from the an- 

 cients, and to which we shall afterwards have occasion 

 more particularly to advert, will, we apprehend, in the 

 present day gain few believers. Sir Thomas Brown, 

 however, entertained a similar opinion. The slumbers 

 of the body, according to him, were but the working of 

 the soul ; '' the ligation of sense, but the liberty of rea- 

 son;" and he appears to have grounded this opinion on 

 the fact, "that our waking conceptions do not match 

 the fancies of onr sleep." (Rtlitjiiut Jf'oltoniante, and 

 Re/igin Medici, torn ii. p. 11.) 



3. Mr Hobbes thought, that in all cases dreams were of Ilo 

 produced either by some particular distemper, by a ge- 

 neral bad state of hearth, or by unpleasant bodily sen- 

 sations. He has evidently fallen into the same errone- 

 ous mode of reasoning as Wolfius and M. Formey ; that 



is, he has drawn a general conclusion from particular 

 facts. Disease, an unhealthy state of the body, and 

 unpleasant bodily sensations, undoubtedly give rise to 

 dreams ; but hence it by no means follows, that these 

 are the only causes of dreams. Mr Hobbes mentions, 

 that lying cold produces dreams of fear. In some cases 

 it may ; but. in other cases, it either gives rise to no 

 dreams, or to dreams of a different character. 



4. Andrew Baxter, the author of Matho, entertained 



a very whimsical theory on this subject. He believed Ba *' er ' 

 that dreams were produced by the influence of unem- 

 bodied spirits on the mind during sleep. This theory 

 he adopted, in consequence of our dreams appearing to 

 be obtruded upon us against our will, and all our ef- 

 forts, by some external cause. (Baxter On the Haul, 

 chap, x.) 



5. Haller, and some other physiologists, are of opinion, Of Haller. 

 that dreams never accompany sound sleep. They 

 therefore suppose them to result from some strong sti- 

 mulating cause, or some forcible impression excited by 



the influence of undigested food. 



6. Locke does not, strictly speaking, endeavour to Of Locke, 

 account for dreams. He only explains what he con- 

 ceives to be their nature, and that incidentally and brief- 

 ly. " The dreams of sleeping men are, as J take it, all 



