"There are outbreaks of rage so groundless and unbridled that all must admit them to be expressions of disease.For the medical layman hardly anything can be more instructive than the observation of such a pathological attack of rage， especially when it presents itself pure and unmixed with other psychical disturbances.This happens in that rather rare disease named transitory mania.The patient predisposed to this -- otherwise an entirely reasonable person -- will be attacked suddenly without the slightest outward provocation， and thrown (to use the words of the latest writer on the subject， O.Schwartzer， Die transitorische Tobsucht， Wien， 1880)， 'into a paroxy** of the wildest rage， with a fearful and blindly furious impulse to do violence and destroy.' He flies at those about him； strikes， kicks， and throttles whomever he can catch； dashes every object about which he can lay his hands on； breaks and crushes what is near him； tears his clothes； shouts， howls， and roars， with eyes that flash and roll， and shows meanwhile all those symptoms of vaso-motor congestion which we have learned to know as the concomitants of anger.His face is red， swollen， his cheeks hot， his eyes protuberant and their whites bloodshot， the heart beats vio-
lently， the pulse marks 100-120 strokes a minutes.The arteries of the neck are full and pulsating， the veins are swollen， the saliva flows.
The fit lasts only a few hours， and ends suddenly with a sleep of from 8 to 12 hours， on waking from which the patient has entirely forgotten what has happened."
In these (outwardly) causeless emotional conditions the particular paths which are explosive are discharged by any and every incoming sensation.
Just as， when we are seasick， every smell， every taste， every sound， every sight， every movement， every sensible experience whatever， augments our nausea， so the morbid terror or anger is increased by each and every sensation which stirs up the nerve-centres.Absolute quiet is the only treatment for the time.It seems impossible not to admit that in all this the bodily condition takes the lead， and that the mental emotion follows.The intellect may， in fact， be so little affected as to play the cold-blooded spectator all the while， and note the absence of a real object for the emotion.
A few words from Henle may close my reply to this first objection：
"Does it not seem as if the excitations of the bodily nerves met the ideas half way， in order to raise the latter to the height of emotions？
That they do so is proved by the cases in which particular nerves， when specially irritable， share in the emotion and determine its quality.When one is suffering from an open wound， any grievous or horrid spectacle will cause pain in the wound.In sufferers from heart-disease there is developed a psychic excitability， which is often incomprehensible to the patients themselves， but which comes from the heart's liability to palpitate.I said that the very quality of the emotion is determined by the organs disposed to participate in it.Just as surely as a dark foreboding， rightly grounded on inference from the constellations， will be accompanied by a feeling of oppression in the chest， so surely will a similar feeling of oppression， when due to disease of the thoracic organs， be accompanied by groundless forebodings.
So small a thing as a bubble of air rising from the stomach through the 渟ophagus， and loitering on its way a few minutes and exerting pressure on the heart， is able during sleep to occasion a nightmare， and during waking to produce a vague anxiety.On the other hand， we see that joyous thoughts dilate our blood-vessels， and that a suitable quantity of wine， because it dilates the vessels， also disposes us to joyous thoughts.If both the jest and the wine work together， they supplement each other in producing the emotional effect， and our demands on the jest are the more modest in proportion as the wine takes upon itself a larger part of the task."
Second Objection.If our theory be true， a necessary corollary of it ought to be this： that any voluntary and cold-blooded arousal of the so-called manifestations of a special emotion ought to give us the emotion itself.Now this (the objection says) is not found to be the case.
An actor can perfectly simulate an emotion and yet be inwardly cold； and we can all pretend to cry and not feel grief； and feign laughter without being amused.
Reply.In the majority of emotions this test is inapplicable；
for many of the manifestations are in organs over which we have no voluntary control.Few people in pretending to cry can shed real tears， for example.
