ces sentiments, ne se dépensant point d'ordinaire par la voie de l'action, sauf dans les moments de surexitation et d'activité spasmodique, se dépensant, . . . à réveiller des idées ou à ébranler les organes internes, qui vibrent tous à l'unisson." 1 Hence the tendency of this temperament to become melancholic. M. Malapert remarks: "Ce sont les natures franchement émotionelles qui sont ainsi les natures douloureuses." 3 Bain also conceives it as divorced from action. It is, he says, "essentially inactive, given to emotional displays, as measured by mere continuance and repetition." But far from thinking it inclined to melancholy, he defines it as supposing a "full response to pleasurable or positive emotions, as Tenderness and Power; and a superiority to painful or negative emotions as Fear." 5

These accounts of the Nervous temperament are inconsistent with one another. Mill's account destroys any clear conception we had formed of the Bilious or Ardent temperament. For the nervous temperament when conceived of as "enduring in work," and as prosecuting it with such zeal that it is liable to exhaust the nervous system, is nothing less than the "ardent." For those only who have steadfast sentiments are capable of working with such persistency.

Returning to the more general descriptions of the nervous and phlegmatic temperaments as the quick and the slow, we notice that there is an assumption here which corresponds with that which vitiated the doctrine of the sanguine and bilious temperaments, namely, that the "quickness" of the nervous, or the "slowness" of the phlegmatic pervades all the intellectual processes of each, as well as their emotions and sentiments. But in point of fact we find that a man may be quick in some respects and slow in others, as he may have a good memory for certain subjects but not for others. He may learn quickly, provided that what he has to learn is suited to his abilities, but he will be inevitably slow in respect of subjects which are unsuited to them. Again, he may express himself quickly upon those which he understands and has ready information, but not upon those which he has 1 Op. cit. ch. iv. p. 39.

1

2 Ibid. p. 47. 'The Emotions and the Will,' ch. i. 31.

3 Op. cit. ch. iii. v. 5 Op. cit. ch. v. 6.

not. Passing next to the primary emotions, does it follow such a person will feel them quickly, and also quickly form sentiments of love and hate? Now, according to Bain, those who have a" very powerful intellect" are likely to be deficient in emotion. This opinion may be too general, but at least there are many men of powerful and quick intelligence whose temperament is cold. So far from quickly feeling emotion on slight occasion, they seem to be divested of it, and to be the embodiment of pure intellect. There is a moving force of ideas in them which resists the incoming of emotion as a disturbance. Provoke them to anger you may, but they seem proof against other and ordinary emotional appeals. The force of their intellect renders them phlegmatic to most emotions.

With regard to the phlegmatic temperament: in any given case slowness usually pervades certain processes, but not all. There are men who walk slowly whose minds are quick and active; and when their thoughts are most active and concentrated, their movements are slowest or stop altogether, when not agitated by emotion. There are men who are slow to form resolutions because their minds are quick to foresee consequences that escape other men ; or who are slow of speech because they think before they speak; or who appear slow of thought because they discern difficulties and contradictions, and exercise self-control to avoid precipitate judgments. All self-control delays action, and, apart from other influences, those are quickest who are the most impulsive.

Still we meet with individuals low in the scale of intelligence, with minds singularly inert, who are generally slow in carrying out all mental processes requiring thought; who, if questions are addressed to them, take an unusually long time in understanding and replying to them; who are naturally silent because they find it difficult to sustain conversation; who are sometimes slow in walking, and in carrying out tasks involving muscular exertion. But the slowness of their mental processes seems to depend on the low grade of their intelligence; their slowness of bodily movements results either from deficient energy or 1 Op. cit. ch. v. 6,

from lack of emotion. These different causes are by no means always combined. When, for instance, it is remarked that persons of this type "have in general an insurmountable inclination to sloth,"1 are "lazy," 2 it is deficiency in the amount of available energy, not in the quality of intelligence, which is referred to. Now where the quality of intelligence is low, mental activity involving the higher intellectual processes will be sluggish, because such men are unfitted to exercise them; but it does not follow that the lower mental processes of perception and recollection will be sluggish, and still less that bodily movements will be also slow.

With regard to the secondary characteristics of these temperaments there is no general agreement. Stewart remarks that the phlegmatic are "persistent" and "enduring in work," which is not consistent with the "inclination to sloth," also ascribed to them.

We should indeed expect that among different observers of this type some would attribute indolence to it while others would not, since there is no necessary connection between a certain deficiency of energy and deficiency of intelligence. But indolence may be also accounted for by lack of interest or apathy. Accordingly we find that the phlegmatic type is often regarded as apathetic, as by M. Malapert.* They are well-nigh passionless," says Cortes.5 In most cases apathy does not affect all sides of the character. A strong love, and still more a great sorrow, renders us apathetic in many directions. But extreme and general apathy, except in some idiots, is not an innate temperament, but the consequence of disease. It is found among those suffering from Dementia Praecox. "In the very

66

earliest stages apathy is evidenced by a certain degree of listlessness, lack of interest in their surroundings," until at last they may lead a "purely vegitative existence." But the phlegmatic only appear apathetic, because they cannot react with sufficient quickness to momentary stimuli, and

1 Richerand, op. cit. quoted by Stewart, op. cit. ch. iv. appendix.

therefore remain indifferent when others are affected by them. But where a stimulus is sufficiently strong and persistent, the slowness of their reaction does not prevent them from feeling strong emotions. M. Malapert remarks, "La lenteur ici produit l'apathie extérieure et commune, mais si l'échauffement est lent, il peut aboutir à une conflagration violente."1 Here too we find, as we expect,

opposite opinions.

There is then no general connection between the slowness due to a low grade of intelligence and an incapacity to feel strong emotions, where the stimuli are sufficiently prolonged and such as can be readily understood. The connection between slowness due to this cause and a relative apathy arises from the fact that our primary emotions may be aroused by ideas as well as by their primitive sensational stimuli. If a deficient and sluggish intelligence can only feel fear when danger is obviously present, it will escape from many fears to which quicker and more imaginative minds are subject.

The attribution of a universal slowness and apathy to the phlegmatic is another of those uncritical assumptions that pervade the doctrine of the Temperaments. An extreme slowness which is due to temperament and not to disease has its limits. In most cases the slowness may be found to exist; but the connection between the primary emotions and the primitive causes that arouse them may be unaffected by it. Such persons often respond quickly to certain kinds of fear or anger. Under the influence of a strong emotion to which they still remain subject, their appearance is transformed. The apathetic or placid expression gives place to another that shows how deeply they are stirred. Their mental processes and bodily movements are quickened. They are able to converse with animation. They cease for a time to be phlegmatic.

3. Of the Chief Defects of the Classical Doctrine of the

Temperaments

There are certain inherent defects of the classical doctrine we have been considering that seem to render fruitless all

Op. cit. ch. iii. vi.

attempts to use it as the base of a scientific theory of the Temperaments. The first, to which we have already referred, is the assumption that one or other of such qualities as 'superficiality' or 'depth,' or 'quickness' or 'slowness may be safely inferred to be present in all the mental processes, emotions, and sentiments of any individual who inherits one or other of the four temperaments in question. This assumption we have seen reason to reject.

The second defect of these types is that they are based on conceptions of quantities that are indefinable in amount. One type has superficial feelings; but what degree of this quality constitutes the sanguine temperament? We have no means of judging. The sanguine man, it is said, is "very" superficial. Now we have throughout this book avoided all problems which require quantitative solutions, because assertions that an individual has "much" or "little," "more "less" of a certain quality, when we have no means of measuring the degree, do not lend themselves to scientific treatment. But these assertions are essential to the classical doctrine of the temperaments.

or

The third defect is that these types are artificial and exaggerated, and do not represent the real temperaments of men. This is so far recognised that it is admitted that most persons have "mixed" temperaments. M. Fouillée remarks: "Loin de soutenir avec Kant qu'il n'y a point de tempéraments composés, nous soutenons qu'il n'y a point de tempérament simple. Ce qui est introuvable, c'est un pur sanguin, un pur nerveux, &c."1

If we try to understand what this "mixture" which constitutes the real temperaments of men involves, we shall see how much farther it extends than is commonly recognised. Taking first the sanguine and ardent temperaments, and setting aside all their characteristics, except the opposite qualities of superficiality and depth which distinguish them, we notice first that these types are at opposite poles, and that somewhere in the intermediate stages between them all the existing temperaments of men must be found. Thus every real sanguine temperament will be stable in some direction 1 Op. cit. ch. vi.