Nor was he content merely to refer the mind to the brain in a general way.  He found the “little pineal gland” in the midst of the brain to be in what he regarded as an admirable position to serve as the seat of the soul.  To this convenient little central office he relegated it; and he describes in a way that may to-day well provoke a smile the movements that the soul imparts to the pineal gland, making it incline itself in this direction and in that, and making it push the “animal spirits,” the fluid contained in the cavities of the brain, towards various “pores.”

Thus he writes:[1] “Let us, then, conceive of the soul as having her chief seat in the little gland that is in the middle of the brain, whence she radiates to all the rest of the body by means of the spirits, the nerves, and even the blood, which, participating in the impressions of the spirits, can carry them through the arteries to all the members.”  And again:  “Thus, when the soul wills to call anything to remembrance, this volition brings it about that the gland, inclining itself successively in different directions, pushes the spirits towards divers parts of the brain, until they find the part which has the traces that the object which one wishes to recollect has left there.”

We must admit that Descartes’ scientific studies led him to make this mind that sits in the little pineal gland something very material.  It is spoken of as though it pushed the gland about; it is affected by the motions of the gland, as though it were a bit of matter.  It seems to be a less inconsistent thing than the “all in the whole body” soul of Plotinus; but it appears to have purchased its comprehensibility at the expense of its immateriality.

Shall we say that Descartes frankly repudiated the doctrine that had obtained for so many centuries?  We cannot say that; he still held to it.  But how could he?  The reader has perhaps remarked above that he speaks of the soul as having her chief seat in the pineal gland.  It seems odd that he should do so, but he still held, even after he had come to his definite conclusions as to the soul’s seat, to the ancient doctrine that the soul is united to all the parts of the body “conjointly.”  He could not wholly repudiate a venerable tradition.

We have seen, thus, that men first conceived of the mind as material and later came to rebel against such a conception.  But we have seen, also, that the attempt to conceive it as immaterial was not wholly successful.  It resulted in a something that we may describe as inconsistently material rather than as not material at all.

32.  MODERN COMMON SENSE NOTIONS OF THE MIND.—­Under this heading I mean to sum up the opinions as to the nature of the mind usually held by the intelligent persons about us to-day who make no claim to be regarded as philosophers.  Is it not true that a great many of them believe:—­

(1) That the mind is in the body?