26
this name I form out of some property, or circumstance belonging to it; for instance, its colour, its situation, its size, its form, its appearance, &c. I then take its name, and draw a familiar notion out of this, and then connect the two familiars: thus, I take the plant Malva sylvestris; I call this the cheese plant, on account of its fruit resembling, and being generally called cheeses. I draw out of Malva sylvestris, the familiar notion, A Marl out of the wood. I say wood, because sylvestris means in Latin a wood. I then connect these two by saying, A marl in the wood cut into the shape of cheeses.
These, and the illustration given in the first lesson, will be sufficient to show you the nature, use, and applications of the third problem. It is decidedly the most difficult of the three: at the same time, it embraces a great portion of human studies.
We have thus arrived at the end of the three phrenotypic problems. For the present we will leave the connecting principal, and proceed to the consideration of a second principle, equally as important as the former. This principle we will call the principle of proximity. But before I enter into this principle, it will be necessary for me to explain to you what I mean when I speak of phrenotypic distance. By the expression, phrenotypic distance, I shall mean the time which elapses between the two notions, which are to be connected together, acting on the brain. I have to commit to memory a French vocabulary which I find printed in the following shape.
| Assurer | to assure |
| Avoir | to have |
| Barrer | to bar |
| Batter | to beat, &c. &c. |
The time that elapses betwen each French word, and its English meaning reaching my brain, I call the phrenotypic distance of these two notions; this distance may be long or short. When the two notions reach the brain without any distance in time between them, I say they act synchronically, and synchronism is the climax of proximity.
