1884.! Moral Epidemics and Contagions. 647 
mind is no easy task. But there is here one point which 
M. Rambosson has overlooked, — a point in which moral 
contagions differ from physical epidemics. We know that 
in the one case, as in the other, persons of exceptional 
health and vigour, though exposed to the influence, come 
out unharmed. But healthy persons do not readt upon a 
man suffering (say) from smallpox. His disease is not ren- 
dered either more virulent by their liability to infection, nor 
more benign by their immunity. 
As regards moral contagions the case is different ; persons 
may not only resist the movement, but may exert an opposing 
influence upon the brain in which it originated. Everyone 
must have noticed, or at least heard of, the different effects 
produced upon an orator according as he feels that his 
audience are with him or against him. In the latter case, 
even though there may be no overt expression of disapproval, 
yet the most hardened agitator feels his confidence diminish 
and his flow of sophisms become obstructed while suffering 
under stricture. 
To take a case which we will not pronounce exactly 
analogous, let us turn to the records of spiritual manifesta- 
tions. We find it stated, over and over again, that the 
presence of even a single obstinate sceptic prevented, or at 
least greatly limited, the phenomena which were expeCted. 
Something similar occurs in cases of so-called magical 
or miraculous healing. Want of faith is declared a fatal 
obstacle. But if the views of M. Rambosson are correct, 
faith is simply a ready accord between the brain-movements 
of the operator and those of the patient. Knowing the 
various influences of the nervous system upon the entire 
living animal, we need feel little surprised that a physician 
who feels perfect confidence in the plan of treatment he is 
adopting, and who can impress that confidence upon his 
patient, — i.e., who can induce in the brain of the latter a 
movement synchronous with that existing in his own, — • 
should be eminently successful. 
Turning once more to public meetings as the great means, 
in this country at least, for the propagation of moral conta- 
gion, we have often — on analysing the arguments of some 
agitator, and pointing out the baselessness of his premisses 
and the falsity of his conclusions — been met with the 
remark, “ Yes, but you should hear him ! ” We reply, “No, 
my good friend : we are quite satisfied to read what he has 
to advance, without exposing our judgment to be warped 
either by the personality of the speaker or by the sympathy 
of his hearers.” Fadts, and legitimate inferences from fadts, 
