^{page 1 note *} Since this paper was read before the Society, I have been enabled, by subsequent communications, to enlarge it considerably. I have still reason to expect farther information on the subject; but various circumstances make it desirable, that so curious an article of philosophical intelligence should not be any longer withheld from the public.

^{page 2 note *} This letter was dated October 4. 1810.

^{page 2 note †} Mr Ware's paper here alluded to, is to be found in the Philosophical Transactions for 1801. The argument which it has been supposed to afford against Cheselden (founded on the case of Master W.) has always appeared to me to prove nothing, in consequence of its aiming to prove too much. Of this patient, (a boy who was restored to sight at seven years of age, after he had been blind from very early infancy), we are told, that two days after the operation, the handkerchief which was tied over his eyes having slipped upward. he distinguished the table, by the side of which his mother was sitting. “It was about a yard and a half from him; and he observed, that it was covered with a green cloth, (which was really the case), and that it was a little farther off than he was able to reach.”

Mr Ware afterwards informs us, that “he held a letter before his patient, at the distance of about twelve inches, when he told him, after a short hesitation, that it was a piece of paper; that it was square, which he knew by its corners, and that it was longer in one direction than it was in the other.”—“I then (says he) shewed him a small oblong band-box, covered with red leather; which he said was red, and square, and pointed at once to its four corners. The observation, however, which appeared to me most remarkable, was, that which related to a white stone-mug; which he first called a white bason, but, soon after, recollecting himself, said it was a mug, because it had a handle.”

Of the correctness and fidelity of this statement, I have not the slightest doubt. But the only inference which can, with certainty, be deduced from it is, that the patient saw too well before the operation, to make his perceptions afterwards of any value for deciding the point in question. If he was able to recognise a green cloth, and a piece of white paper, the very moment that the bandage was removed, the degree of sight which he possessed previous to Mr Ware's acquaintance with him, must have been such as to furnish him with a variety of sensations, quite sufficient to serve as materials for an imperfect visual language;—a language, if not accurately significant of comparative distances from the eye, at least fully adequate to convey, through the channel of that organ, the intimation of distance in general, or of what Berkeley calls outness;—perhaps, also, some indistinct perception of diversities of visible figure. The slightest, and, to us, the most evanescent shades of difference in these sensations, will, we may be assured, become in the case of such an individual, signs of all the various changes in the state of surrounding objects, with which they have any connection.

Having mentioned, on this occasion, the name of Mr Ware, I think it but justice to him to add, that he does not appear to me to be himself disposed to push his argument against Cheselden so far as has been apprehended by some later writers. In the following passages, he not only seems to admit the truth of that optical principle which he has been generally understood to controvert, but even points at the same explanation which I have already suggested, of the apparent inconsistency between his own experience and that of his predecessor.

“I beg leave (says he) to add further, that on making inquiries of two children, between seven and eight years of age, now under my care, both of whom have been blind from birth, and on whom no operation has yet been performed, I find that the knowledge they have of colours, limited as it is, is sufficient to enable them to tell whether coloured objects be brought nearer to, or carried farther from them; for instance, whether they are at the distance of two inches or four inches from their eyes.

“I am aware, that these observations not only differ from those that are related of Mr Cheselden's patient, but appear, on the first statement, to oppose a principle in optics, which I believe is commonly and justly admitted, that the senses of sight and feeling have no other connection but that which is formed by experience; and therefore, that the ideas derived from feeling, can have no power to direct the judgment, with respect either to the distance or form of visible objects. It should be recollected, however, that persons who have cataracts in their eyes, are not, in strictness of speech, blind, though they are deprived of all useful sight. The instances I have adduced prove, that the knowledge they have of colours is sufficient to give them some idea of distance, even in their darkest state. When, therefore, their sight is cleared by the removal of the opaque crystalline which intercepted the light, and the colour of objects is thereby made to appear stronger, will it be difficult or unphilosophical to conceive, that their ideas of distance will be strengthened, and so far extended, as to give them a knowledge even of the outline and figure of those objects with the colour of which they were previously acquainted?”

^{page 5 note *} The blind man of Puiseaux (mentioned by Diderot) judged of his distance from the fire-place by the degree of heat; and of his approach to any solid obstacle, by the action or pulse of the air upon his face. The same thing is recorded of Dr Sanderson by his successor Mr Colson.

^{page 6 note *} For the assistance of those to whom such a subject of observation may occur, some judicious hints are suggested in the Lettre sur les Aveugles à l'usage de ceux qui voient.

^{page 11 note *} I have said, the “general tenor of Cheselden's narrative,”—for there are some expressions ascribed by him to his patient, which must, in my opinion, be understood with a considerable degree of latitude. And, indeed, if we reflect for a moment on the astonishment and agitation likely to be produced by the sudden acquisition of a new sense, we cannot fail to be satisfied, that the authority of the narrative rests much more on the conviction which the whole circumstances of the case had left on Cheselden's own mind, than on the verbal answers (intelligent and satisfactory as most of these are), which his patient gave to the queries of his attendants. It was for this reason, among others, that I before hinted at the advantages which he would have enjoyed, in observing and describing the facts before him, if his patient had beendeaf as well as blind, like the subject of this memoir.

Of one expression employed by Cheselden's young man, I think it proper to take some notice here, on account of the stress which Mr Ware seems disposed to lay upon it, as at variance with the language used by his patient Master W. “When the young gentleman first saw, (says Cheselden), he was so far from making any judgment about distances, that he thought all objects whatever touched his eyes, (as he expressed it), as what he felt did his skin.” It seems to me inconceivable, that Cheselden could have meant this last phrase to be interpreted literally; for the thing which it implies is altogether impossible. The most obvious meaning which the words convey is, that the object seemed to be contiguous to, or in contact with, the cornea; whereas the truth is, that the office of the cornea is merely to transmit the rays to the retina, which it does without itself receiving any sensible impression of which we are conscious. Mr Smith, too, has objected to this mode of speaking, though on grounds somewhat different. “When the young gentleman said, (I quote Mr Smith's words), that the objects which he saw touched his eyes, he certainly could not mean that they pressed upon or resisted his eyes; for the objects of sight never act upon the organ in any way that resembles pressure or resistance. He could mean no more than that they were close upon his eyes, or, to speak mort properly, perhaps, that they were in his eyes†.” Mr Smith's idea in this last clause, was, I presume, that the local situation of the object was referred by the patient to the retina, where the image of the object is painted. Now, I confess, for my own part, that although I perfectly agree with Mr Smith in his criticism on Cheselden, I am by no means satisfied, that the emendation which he has suggested of the young gentleman's description is unexceptionable; for it does not appear to me, that the impression of a moderate light on the retina, is accompanied with any perception of the part of the body on which the impression is made. Where the light, indeed, is so powerful as to produce pain, the case comes to be different; for a sensation of touch is then united with the proper sensations of sight; and it is characteristical of all sensations of touch, that they are accompanied with a perception of the local situation of their exciting causes. This, however, it is well known, does not take place with respect to the sensations of smell and of sound; nor do I imagine it to take place, prior to experience, with respect to the sensations received by the eye. And, therefore, if a patient, in such circumstances, should be led, by his first visual perceptions, to connect them locally with the organ by which they are received, I should be inclined rather to ascribe this to concomitant feelings of pain, (produced by the recent operation, or by the too sudden impression of a strong light), than to any of those sensations which are exclusively appropriated to the sense of sight. But this discussion it is unnecessary for me to prosecute at present, as the opinion we may happen to form with respect to it, (whatever that opinion may be), can never affect the truth of that clause in Cheselden's statement, in which he asserts, upon the evidence of his own observations, that “when his patient first saw, he was unable to form any judgment about distances.” The remainder of the sentence is only a loose and unintelligible comment of the young man on this simple fact.

^{page 12 note †} See an Essay on the External Senses, by Adam Smith, LL. D. (published among his posthumous papers.)

^{page 15 note *} I have since learned from Mr Glennie, that the paper in question was written by the Reverend Thomas Macfarlane, minister of Edinkillie, in the presbytery of Forres. Mr Glennie adds a sentence which I beg leave to quote, as some apology for the liberty I now take in mentioning Mr Macfarlane's name without his express authority. I certainly would not have presumed to do so, if I had not been fully persuaded, that all who are competent to form a judgment on such subjects, will' feel much indebted to him for his very interesting and satisfactory statement.

“As I communicated to Mr Macfarlane your wish to print his memoir, I take for granted that he has no objection to your making this use of his papers, although he has not expressed his sentiments explicitly to this purpose.”

^{page 17 note *} That one of these operations was attended with considerable success in the first instance, appears not only from the extracts already copied from Mr Wardrop's narrative, but from the following passage in a letter to that gentleman from the Reverend Mr Mitchell. This letter is dated 5th October 1810, about a month after Mr Mitchell and his son had left London, to return home by sea.

“James seemed much amused with the shipping in the River, and till we passed Yarmouth Roads. During the rest of the passage, we were so far out at sea, that there was little to attract his notice, except the objects around him on deck……………………………………His eye is now pretty free of the redness it had when he left town, and the cataract in the same moveable state, sometimes covering more and sometimes less of the pupil. Though his sight is not much increased since we left London, yet I am perfectly satisfied that what he has got is of essential service.”

^{page 25 note *} ……. “You will perceive, from the account of the state of the cataract immediately after the operation, that a part of the opaque body still hung over a portion of the pupil. I have been told lately, that he now sees little or none. If this be the case, I suspect it must have been from the cataract passing over the whole of the pupillar opening, instead of being altogether absorbed, or remaining out of the way, as might have been expected.”

Extract of a letter from Mr Wardrop to Mr Stewart, (dated August 10. 1812.)

^{page 28 note *} Somewhat similar to the above anecdote, is the following very pleasing fact, communicated to Mr Glennie by Hugh Irvine, Esq; (son of Mr Irvine of Drum). I give it in Mr Irvine's own words.

“Mr Leslie of Darkland, a clergyman, called one day, and was taken by Miss Mitchell to see something out of doors. When they returned, James Mitchell perceived (no doubt by the sense of smell) that his sister's shoes were wet: he then went and felt them, and would not let her rest till she changed them.”

^{page 30 note *} Soon after this memoir was read, I informed Mr Glennie of the difference in the accounts given by Mr Macfarlane and by Dr Gordon, of young Mitchell's behaviour on the day of his father's funeral. In a letter with which he has lately favoured me (dated May 10. 1812,) there is a passage transcribed from a letter of Mr Macfarlane's (dated May 7.) which I think it proper to subjoin to the foregoing details, as an important document with respect to this interesting point;—the only point of any consequence in which the two papers do not perfectly agree.

“In the account which I transmitted to you of James Mitchell, I mentioned that he seemed much afflicted and very sorrowful the day of his father's funeral; and I now beg leave explicitly and positively to state, that when the coffin which enclosed his father's corpse was brought from the house, and placed upon chairs in the court before the manse, previous to the interment, I approached to the coffin, and soon after saw James Mitchell come from the house in considerable agitation. He turned about his head rapidly, and snuffed very much, evidently guiding himself by the sense of smell. He directly approached the coffin, smelled it most eagerly for several seconds; then laid himself down upon the lid, on his face, and embraced the coffin, while his countenance discovered marks of the most lively sorrow. I stood close by him, and after a short time, patted his head once or twice; upon which he rose, and returned into the house. This occurred immediately upon the coffin being brought out, and about twenty minutes before it was lifted, in order to be carried to the church-yard. As the accuracy of my information on this subject has been doubted, I purposely delayed writing to you, till I should have an opportunity of conversing with the Reverend Pryse Campbell, minister of Ardersier, brother-in-law to Mrs Mitchell, who was present at the funeral, and by whose direction every thing was conducted. I fell in with this gentleman on Tuesday se'ennight, at the meeting of our Provincial Synod. I took an opportunity there of asking him, if he observed any marks of sorrow about James Mitchell on the day of his father's funeral. He replied, that he did observe the most unequivocal marks of grief in his countenance; and added a circumstance which escaped my notice, that when the coffin was about to be lifted, in order to be carried to the church-yard, James Mitchell clung to it, endeavouring to prevent its being carried away, and that he (Mr Campbell) was obliged to remove him from it by force.”

After quoting the above passage, Mr Glennie adds:—“Mr Macfarlane, in his remarks on the apparent inconsistence between Dr Gordon's account of young Mitchell and his own, has expressed what occurred to me immediately after I read your last letter. His words are: “I would observe, that the circumstances mentioned by Dr Gordon, of Mitchell's running through the crowd, and touching every person, do not, in my opinion, amount to a proof, that he was insensible of the loss which he had sustained, and felt no grief on that account. In acting thus, Mitchell (if the expression may be allowed) was merely viewing the assemblage of people around him. This he could not do by his eyes; but being eager to examine them, he did so by means of the senses of which he has the use. In short, he was grieved; but, in this instance, his curiosity overcame his grief.” The remark certainly does honour to Mr Macfarlane's sagacity, and, in my opinion, goes far to reconcile the two narratives. I hope to be able soon, through Dr Gordon's means, who proposes to pass a part of this summer in that neighbourhood, to obtain from the mother and sister of the young man, a still more circumstantial account of his general behaviour, and of the apparent state of his feelings at this trying crisis of his life. Some very interesting particulars, with respect to these points, (which have been already communicated to me by this gentleman) may be found in an Appendix annexed to this memoir. (May 20. 1812.)

^{page 31 note *} In Diderot's very ingenious and fanciful Letter on the Blind, there are various allusions to the hypothetical case of an Aveugle-Sourd-Muct. In one passage, he remarks, somewhat whimsically, that if a person born in these circumstances, should begin to philosophize concerning man, according to the method of Descartes, he would place the seat of the soul at the tips of his fingers; and, in all probability, after an effort of profound meditation, would feel his fingers ache as much as we should do our heads. From the following sentence, one would be led to suppose, that Diderot had actually seen or heard of persons in the same condition with Mitchell; but if this really had been the fact, we may presume with some confidence, that he would not have contented himself with so vague and equivocal a reference to an occurrence at once so anomalous and so curious in the physical history of man. “Faute d'une langue, la communication “ est entièrement rompue entre nous et ceux qui naissent sourds, aveugles, et muets: “ ils croissent, mais ils restent dans un etat d'imbecillité.”

In those valleys of the Alps, indeed, where the disease of Crétinisme is common, examples are said frequently to occur of an almost total deprivation of all the senses; but, in such instances, the individual presents invariably, in the low and humiliating state of his intellectual capacity, a very striking contrast to the subject of this memoir. The universal torpor in the perceptive faculties of the Crétin, is plainly an effect of the same radical disorder which impairs his intellect; whereas, in the instance before us, (as in every instance where the intellect is entire), the mind, checked and confined in the exercise of one class of her powers, displays her native strength by the concentrated energy which she exhibits in others. The following description relates to an extreme case of Crétinisme; for it appears, that it admits of various gradations. It is taken from the most circumstantial, and apparently the most accurate, account of this local malady that has fallen in my way.

“The sensibility of the Crétin is extremely obtuse: he dreads neither cold nor heat, nor vermin; nor even those blows which would be insupportable to another.

“The greater part are evidently deaf and dumb; although I have happened to see a few who would shudder at the report of a pistol. These last would seem to receive some passive impression from sound; but they are certainly incapable of listening to what is passing around them. The organ of Smell is insensible; and the power of Taste but imperfectly developed. The sense of seeing alone appears uninjured by the disorder; but even from this they derive little benefit. They gaze with indifference on the spectacle of Nature; and if they see, can hardly be said to perceive” ……………………

“This disease is peculiar to the human species. All the classes of animals, from the oyster to the monkey, possess a sufficient degree of intelligence, to procure the means of their own subsistence. The Crétin, on the other hand, would die of hunger, if his wants were not provided for by the attentions of others.”

(Traité du Goître et du Crétinisme, par F. E. Foderé, Ancien Médecin des Hopitaux civils et militaires. A Paris, an viii.)

Since this note was written, I have received a letter from Mr Glennie, in which he remarks, and, in my opinion, very justly, that the case of Mitchell is probably not so very rare an occurrence, as we might, at first, be disposed to imagine. “Among the various merits (he observes) of this worthy family, their superiority to such prejudices as would have precluded our getting any information about the lad's state of mind, is deserving of peculiar notice…‥ I have reason to believe, that there are others in circumstances similar to young Mitchell's, whose cases are, at this day, kept so secret, that they are not so much as known to the inmates and members of the family to whom they belong.”

^{page 34 note *} In this translation, I have not only omitted several sentences in the original, which did not appear to bear upon my present object, but have not scrupled to interpolate a few clauses of my own, which I thought might be useful in conveying the author's meaning more clearly to an English reader. The sense of the passage is rendered, to the best of my judgment, with perfect fidelity.

^{page 36 note *} In the case of Mitchell, the difficulties here alluded ta would probably be experienced in a comparatively small degree, in consequence of the previous use of those significant pressures on his forehead, of which his sister has taught him to comprehend the meaning. If this should turn out to be the fact, she has already got over, by her own ingenuity, the first and most arduous step in the whole process of his education.

Mr Wardrop takes notice, in one of his communications, of his extreme docility, and of his obedience to the commands of his sister, who, during his stay in London, “was his constant companion and guide.” “It was astonishing (he adds) how readily she could communicate to him, by signs, her wishes.”

^{page 37 note *} It is somewhat surprising, that the Abbé Sicard should have overlooked the aid which the sense of Smelling seems so peculiarly calculated to furnish, for rearing his proposed Metaphysical Structure. Some of the most significant words relating to the Human Mind, (the word sagacity, for instance), are borrowed from this very sense; and the conspicuous place which its sensations occupy in the poetical language of all nations, shew how easily and naturally they ally themselves with the refined operations of the Fancy, and with the moral emotions of the Heart. The infinite variety of modifications, besides, of which they are susceptible, might furnish useful resources, in the way of association, for prompting the memory, where it stood in need of assistance.

One of the best schools for the education of such a pupil, would probably be a well-arranged Botanical Garden.

^{page 39 note *} See the Note at the end of the Memoir.

^{page 43 note *} I cannot help quoting here a very curious observation of Mr Wardrop's, with respect to the partialities and dislikes conceived by Mitchell, in consequence of the moral expression, (if I may be allowed such a phrase), which he seems to have attached to particular sensations of smell. “When a stranger (says he) approached him, he eagerly began to touch some part of his. body, commonly taking hold of his arm, which he held near his nose; and after two or three strong inspirations through his nostrils, appeared decided in his opinion. If it happened to be unfavourable, he suddenly went to a distance with the appearance of disgust; if favourable, he shewed a disposition to become more intimate, and expressed, by his countenance, more or less satisfaction.”

^{page 44 note *} In one of the communications which I have received, it is said, that “Mitchell has been known to follow the footsteps of another person for two miles, guided merely by the sense of smelling.” As this circumstance, however, is stated only on report, I have not introduced it into the text; and mention it here chiefly in the hope of obtaining more precise and authentic information upon the subject.

It would be desirable also to learn something more circumstantial and specific, both with respect to the discriminating powers of his palate, and his predilections in the article of food.

Neque inutile foret, neque ab honestissimâ sapientiâ alienum, novisse quomodo hic miserandus, jam puber factus, se habuerit quod ad res venereas; hunc appetitum an senserit necne; quâ formâ, quibus indiciis se prodiderit; fœminarum an virorum consortio adolescenti magis placeat; socii sexum an olfactu dignoscere videatur. Hæc et similia bene multa, dictu parum decora, scitu verò non indigna, si modò observandi copia data fuerit, unicuique in mentem venient cui Naturæ Humanæ scientia est cordi, quique infelicissimum et penè singularem illius statum ritè contemplabitur.

^{page 52 note *} In Grainger's Biographical History of England, mention is made of a still earlier publication than the Ars Signorum, entitled, “The Universal Character, by which all Nations in the World may understand one another's conceptions, reading out of one common Writing their own Tongue. By Cave Beck, Rector of St Helen's, in Ipswich, 1657.” This book I have never seen.

The name of Dalgarno (or Dalgarus, as it has been sometimes written) is not altogether unknown on the Continent. His Ars Signorum is alluded to by Leibnitz on various occasions, and also by Fontenelle in the Eloge of Leibnitz. His ideas with respect to the education of the Dumb, do not seem to have attracted any notice whatever The truth is, they were much too refined and enlightened to be duly appretiated at the period when he wrote.

^{page 56 note *} It would appear that this is the sign which Miss Mitchell usually employs on similar occasions; and the ready interpretation of it by her brother, implies, on his part, no inconsiderable a share of shrewdness and of reflection. I copy the following parallel incident from a paper of Mr Wardrop's now before me. (D.S.)

“When his new clothes were all made, I solicited his father not to allow him to put them on, until I was present. It was signified to him accordingly, that in two days he should have them. This was done by shutting his eyes, and bending down his head twice, in order to intimate to him, that he must first have two sleeps.”

^{page 58 note *} Although some of the information contained in this paper has been already anticipated in the communications of Dr Gordon and of Mr Wardrop, I have thought it proper to insert it here at full length; on account not only of the new light which it throws on various very interesting and important points, but of the high authority which it derives from Miss Mitchell's name. (D. S.)

^{page 58 note †} The following particulars are mentioned by Mr Wardrop with respect to the state of Mitchell's deafness at the time when he saw him in London. (D. S.)

…‥ “When a ring of keys was given to him, he seized them with great avidity, and tried each separately, by suspending it loosely between two of his fingers, so as to allow it to vibrate freely; and after tingling all of them amongst his teeth in this manner, he generally selected one from the others, the sound of which seemed to please him most. This, indeed, was one of his most favourite amusements, and it was surprising how long it would arrest his attention, and with what eagerness he would on all occasions renew it. Mr Brougham, having observed this circumstance, brought to him a musical snuffbox (a French trinket, containing a small musical instrument, which played airs by means of a spring), and placed it between his teeth. This seemed not only to excite his wonder, but to afford him exquisite delight, and his father and sister, who were present, remarked, that they had never seen him so much interested on any former occasion. Whilst the instrument continued to play, he kept it closely between his teeth, and even when the notes were ended, he continued to hold the box to his mouth, and to examine it minutely with his fingers, expressing by his gestures and by his countenance great curiosity.”

^{page 67 note *} Hic Adolescens, annum nune agens xviii, et optimâ semper usus valetudine, vegetus est, et admodum robustus: quin et solitâ ætate pubescere visus est, partibus genitalibus ut in viris se habentibus; neque dubitari potest quin brevi futurus sit ἐυπωγων, labiis et mento densâ jam inumbratis lanugine. Curiosè autem percontanti famuli et amici (masculini scilicet sexûs, quos solos de his rebus interrogare fas erat) omnes mihi testabantur nihil se observâsse, unde colligerent illum Veneris stimulum unquam sensisse, vel differentiæ sexûs notionem habuisse.

^{page 75 note *} Mrs Mitchell and her family have within these few months left Ardclach to reside at Nairn.