CiiAP. XXVIIL] AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PROCESSES. 611 



individual muscles employed, than we could ever expect 

 to have of the volitional efforts needed, and of the states 

 of tension of individual muscles of the larynx and other 

 parts involved in Articulate Speech. 



But the objections to these two modifications of the 

 view promulgated by Hughlings Jackson and others, that 

 Words are revived in thought as ' motor processes ', have 

 been already considered (pp. 594, 691) and shown to be 

 insuperable. We found good reasons for believing that 

 the impressions referred to (as well for spoken and for 

 written words as for all other muscular movements) are 

 neither anterior to, nor concomitants of 'outgoing cur- 

 rents ', but distinctly sequential to the passage of such 

 currents — that they are, in fact, due to ' ingoing currents ' 

 derived from the moving parts themselves. 



Looked at from this newer point of view, we may first 

 consider the question of the degree of detiniteness and 

 recoverability of the Kinsesthetic Impressions derived from 

 Writing-movements. 



How almost impossible is any such recall to conscious- 

 ness, and how vague and blank a feeling is associated 

 with the attempt, as compared with the recall of a Visual 

 or of an Auditory Impression, any one may easily convince 

 himself who will make the following simple experiment. 

 Let him close his eyes, and with pen in hand make move- 

 ments in the air as though he were writing the word 

 * London.' He may thus assure himself that he has a 

 fiet of sensations accompanying these movements. After 

 an interval, say the next day, let him again close his eyes, 

 and, without making any movement, attempt to recall ' in 

 idea ' the muscular and other sensations he previously 

 experienced when writing the above-mentioned word. Let 

 him then contrast his comparative powerlessness in this 

 direction, with his ability to recall in idea the visual ap- 



