Footnote 29: [(return)]
Mill's Analysis, vol. i. p. 73.
Footnote 30: [(return)]
This reasoning of Dr Brown's is founded upon an assumed analogy between the structure of the optic nerve, and the structure of the olfactory nerves and other sensitive nerves, and is completely disproved by the physiological observations of Treviranus, who has shown that no such analogy exists: that the ends of the nervous fibres in the retina being elevated into distinct separate papillæ, enable us to perceive the extension, and discriminate the position of visible bodies, while the nerves of the other senses being less delicately defined, are not fitted to furnish us with any such perception, or to aid us in making any such discrimination. See Müller's Physiology, translated by W. Baly, M.D., vol. ii. pp. 1073, 1074. Although the application of Treviranus's discovery to the refutation of Dr Brown's reasoning is our own, we may remark, in justice to an eminent philosopher, that it was Sir William Hamilton who first directed our attention to the fact as established by the great physiologist.
Footnote 31: [(return)]
Mr Bailey seems disposed to carp at us for having confined our remarks to this first question, and for not having given a more complete review of his book. But the reason why we cut short our critique is obvious; for if it be proved, as we believe it can, that objects are originally seen at no distance whatever from the sight, it becomes quite superfluous to enquire what appearance they would present if originally seen at some distance from the sight. The way in which we disposed of the first question, however imperfect our treatment of it may have been, necessarily prevented us from entering upon the second; and our review, with all its deficiencies, was thus a complete review of his book, though not a review of his complete book.
Footnote 32: [(return)]
Review of Berkeley's Theory, p 35.
Footnote 33: [(return)]
Ibid. p. 136.
Footnote 34: [(return)]
Review of Berkeley's Theory, p. 137.
Footnote 35: [(return)]
Essay, § 158.
Footnote 36: [(return)]
It would not be difficult to show, that as, on the one hand, distance is not involved in the original intuitions of sight, so, on the other hand, proximity is not involved in the original intuitions of touch; but that, while it is the touch which establishes an interval between the organ and the objects of sight, it is the sight which establishes no interval between the organ and the objects of touch. Sight thus pays back every fraction of the debt it has incurred to its brother sense. This is an interesting subject, but we can only glance at it here.
Footnote 37: [(return)]
We observe that even Müller speaks of the "faculty of projection" as if he sanctioned and adopted the hypothesis.—See Physiology, vol. ii. p. 1167.
Footnote 38: [(return)]
Lucretius.