storms and inundations, when those things which are but weakly moored in their position are swept away, and only those which are strongly fastened remain.

CHAPTER III.

DISORDERED ACTION OF THE PROPENSITIES.

(II.) PROPENSITY TO ACQUIRE OR ACQUISITIVENESS.

§ 176. The propensity to acquire an original or implanted one.

So far as we have been able to observe, it seems to be at last very generally conceded by writers on the Human Mind, however much they may differ on other points, that there is implanted within us an original disposition or propensity to acquire. Nor could we reasonably expect that it should be otherwise. It is difficult to conceive of a being, sustaining in the moral world the high rank which man does, and yet constituted on the principle of an entire exclusion of the Possessory desire. How can a rational being, in the undisturbed exercise of his powers, do otherwise than desire his own existence and happiness; and, consequently, those things, whatever they may be, which are essential to his existence and happiness. Accordingly, an inspired apostle directs the Corinthians not only to "covet to

prophesy," but, in general terms, "to covet earnestly the best gifts." 1 Cor., xii., 31; xiv., 39.

We

On this topic, however, we need not delay. take it for granted (and do not suppose, after the inquiries that have been made on the subject, that it will be considered a matter of dispute) that the principle in question is a connatural or implanted one. Like all the other propensive principles (and the same view will apply to the appetites and the affections), the Acquisitive or Possessory principle has a twofold action, viz., INSTINCTIVE and Voluntary. And in both of these forms, as we shall now proceed to show, it is susceptible of an abnormal or disordered movement.

§ 177. Instances of the first kind or form of disor dered action of the Possessory Principle.

The instances of disordered action of the principle of Acquisitiveness, which naturally present themselves to our notice first, are what may be termed Congenital or Constitutional; and are evidently the irregular or disordered manifestations of the Instinctive, rather than of the Voluntary modification of this propensity. In the case of the persons to whom we now have reference, the disposition to get possession of whatever can be regarded as property, whether of greater or less value, shows itself, not only in great strength, but at a very early period of life. And at no period of life does it appear to be a matter over which they have a full voluntary control.

There are a considerable number of cases of this kind to be found in the writings of Gall and Spur

zheim; and there are some notices of similar cases in a few other writers.-Foderè (Medicine Legale, t. i., p. 237) relates the case of a female servant in his own family, "who could not help stealing secretly from himself and others articles even of trifling value; though she was intelligent, modest, and religious, and was all the while conscious of and admitted the turpitude of her actions. He placed her in an hospital, considering her insane, and, after apparent restoration and a long trial, he again took her into his services. Gradually, in spite of herself, the instinct again mastered her; and in the midst of an incessant struggle between her vicious propensity on the one hand and a conscientious horror of her condition on the other, she was suddenly attacked with mania, and died in one of its paroxysms.' 99*

Dr. Rush, in his Medical Inquiries, mentions a woman who was entirely exemplary in her conduct, except in one particular. "She could not refrain from stealing. What made this vice the more remarkable was, that she was in easy circumstances, and not addicted to extravagance in anything. was the propensity to this vice, that, when she could lay her hands on nothing more valuable, she would often, at the table of a friend, fill her pockets secretly with bread. She both confessed and lamented her crime."

Such

*This case is given as it is found in Dr. Ray's Medical Jurisprudence, p. 190.

§ 178. Instances illustrative of the subject from Dr.

Gall.

Some of the facts which are given by Dr. Gall are as follows.“ Victor Amadeus I., king of Sardinia, was in the constant habit of stealing trifles. Saurin, pastor of Geneva, though possessing the strongest principles of reason and religion, frequently yielded to the propensity to steal. Another individual was, from early youth, a victim to this inclination. He entered the military service, on purpose that he might be restrained by the severity of the discipline; but, having continued his practices, he was on the point of being condemned to be hanged. Ever seeking to combat his ruling passion, he studied theology and became a Capuchin. But this propensity followed him even to the cloister. Here, however, as he found only trifles to tempt him, he indulged himself in his strange fancy with less scruple. He seized scissors, candlesticks, snuffers, cups, goblets, and conveyed them to his cell. An agent of the government at Vienna had the singular mania for stealing nothing but kitchen utensils. He hired two rooms as a place of deposite; he did not sell, and made no use of them. The wife of the famous physician Gaubius had such a propensity to pilfer, that, when she made a purchase, she always sought to take something. The Countess M., at Wessel, and P., at Frankfort, had also this propensity. Madame de W. had been educated with peculiar care. Her wit and talents secured her a distinguished place in society. But neither her education

nor her fortune saved her from the most decided propensity to theft. Lavater speaks of a physician, who never left the room of his patient without robbing them of something, and who never thought of the matter afterward. In the evening his wife used to examine his pockets; she there found keys, scissors, thimbles, knives, spoons, buckles, cases, and sent them to their respective owners.'

§ 179. Second form of the alienated action of the Possessory principle.

There is another, a second form of the irregular and alienated action of the Acquisitive Propensity, which differs from the first-mentioned modification in the important circumstance of its depending more upon the Will of the person himself than upon any constitutional or connatural trait. Cases of this kind, therefore, are voluntary; that is to say, are brought about by a course of action, the responsibility of which rests upon the individual himself.

Nor is there anything inconsistent with reason, any philosophical anomaly in this view. It is well known that all the principles of the mind rapidly increase in energy and facility of movement by mere repetition. Not only this; but the process may be carried so far as to give altogether an undue degree of strength to some one principle as compared with another. In other words, a right or healthy action of the mind may in this way be gradually, converted into an inordinate, uncontrollable, or unhealthy action. Such as we see it not unfrequently in game

* Gall's Works, vol. iv., Am. ed., p. 132.