IS THERE ANY SPECIAL ACTIVITY OF ATTENTION? 309 shortened. The " Will," it may be said, controls the volun- tary muscles (and them alone), and the voluntary muscles by acting on the organs control sensation. And when we attend to an idea, and when the muscles do not move, yet the Will still controls. For in the idea attended to is "a mus- cular element," and this " mental, or revived, image occupies the same place in the brain and other parts of the system as the original sensation did" (Bain, Emotions, 370). Hence the Will is enabled to direct itself to the idea, and so to control it ; and in this way the activity of attention is explained. But this view will not bear an impartial scrutiny. I say nothing about the physiological hypothesis on which it seems to hang, and I will not ask whether, if the facts were as alleged, the explanation would be sufficient ; for the facts are largely otherwise. 1 I attend to various visceral sensa- tions, I attend to a single instrument in an orchestra, I attend to the several components of a smell, I attend to colour and not shape, and I attend in one colour, such as greenish-blue, to the blue or to the green ; but it is needless to go on. There is according to the theory " a muscular intervention" in all these cases. And this cannot mean merely that in all there exists some " muscular element," for this (if true) would be perfectly irrelevant. The fact to be explained is my attending to A or B and not to C or D, and unless there are special " muscular elements " a, b, e, and d, the fact is not explained. But, if such elements are every- where postulated, then I think I may say that, when the physiologists and the anatomists have been converted, it will be time enough for the psychologist to enquire. On the other hand, if, as I presume, Prof. Bain makes no such postulate, then I am unable to see how the theory can touch the fact to be explained. Active attention does not consist merely in muscular in- nervation, and, if so, we must go on to look elsewhere. But I should like to say first that it seems to me most doubtful if attention must have even a muscular concomitant. I do not deny that early in development this is so, and I do not deny that, if attention reaches a certain degree of strength, there is some muscular accompaniment, such as frowning. But in my actual experience, when I pass from inattention to a direction of my thoughts, I cannot verify the universal presence of a muscular element ; and I know no good a priori proof of that presence. I should add that to me this question 1 Cp. Lotze, Med. Psych. 509.
