Of Heartache and Head Injury: Reading Minds in Persuasion Alan Richardson English, Boston College Abstract Thenew intellectual climate inaugurated by the cognitive revolution can help elicit neglected contexts for literary historical study, to pose new questions for analysis and reopen old ones. The current challenge to social constructionist ac- counts of subjectivity, for example, can lead toa fundamentallynewreadingof Jane Austen’s last novel, Persuasion (!"!"). Austen’s was a period when a dominant con- structionist psychology—associationism—vied with emergent brain-based, organi- cist, and nativist theories of mind. Austen pointedly contrasts a heroine seemingly formedbyahistoryof eroticdisappointmentwithanantiheroine,whosecharacter is transformedinsteadbyasevereblowtothehead,atatimewhenbraininjuryfeatured centrally indebatesonthematerialityofmind.Moreover, thenovel’s innovativenar- rative style and approach to characterization take up and extend the embodied ap- proach to subjectivity beingworkedout contemporaneously byRomantic poets and brain scientists alike. How might the study of literary history change in the wake of the ‘‘cog- nitive revolution’’ (Gardner !#"$)? A few literary scholars, most notably MaryCraneandF.ElizabethHart, havebegun toexplore the tensionsbe- tween relatively stable patterns of cognition and linguistic categorization on the one hand and the specific cultural and ideological milieus within which they develop and gain expression on the other (Crane !##"; Hart !##"). Suchwork illustratesMarkTurner’s contention (posed elsewhere in this issue) that cognitive theory can inspire a ‘‘more sophisticated’’ notion of human history by supplementing the prevailing emphasis on cultural Poetics Today %&:! (Spring %''%). Copyright © %''% by the Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. 142 Poetics Today 23:1 historywithan increasedattention to the claimsofphylogenetic andonto- genetic history. Even within the current parameters of literary historical studies, however, an awareness of recent developments in cognitive theory andneuroscience can significantly a(ect critical practice by shifting atten- tion to previously unexamined issues, providing new terms for the critical lexicon,andreopeningquestionsforeclosedore(ectivelyabandonedbythe reigning consensus. TheBritishRomanticperiod,tociteaparticularlyrichexample,haslong beenviewedasdominatedbyanassociationistaccountofmind,reliedupon by writers as diverse asWilliamWordsworth and Jane Austen, and chal- lenged primarily by the transcendental idealism best represented by S.T. Coleridge (Caldwell !#)$). However, as cognitive psychology and neuro- sciencehave returnedfigures likeF. J.Gall,withhis brain-based,modular accountofmind, toacentralplace in thehistoryofpsychology,anewview ofBritishRomanticismhasbecomeavailable, one thatplaces it in relation to the contemporary development ofmany basic neuroscientific concepts in thework ofGall andother early brain scientists (Marshall !#"';Clarke and Jacyna !#"*).The new interest in the brain and nervous system,me- diated by prominent writers like the poet-physician-psychologist Erasmus Darwin, regularly reported in the leading reviews, andgivenwide cultural circulationbythephrenologymovementandthematerialist-vitalistcontro- versy,providedastrikingalternativetomechanistic, tabularasapsychology exemplifiedbytheassociationismofDavidHartley(Reed!##*).EvenCole- ridge’s seeminglyoriginalemphasisonanactivemind,creatingtheworld it perceives, canbe viewedas formed in reaction to (while incorporating key elements of) thepioneeringbrain scienceof theday (Richardson !###).At the same time, poets and novelists made contributions of their own to an activeandembodiedconceptionofmind,emphasizingtheemotive,uncon- scious, and intuitive aspects of mental life that have long been associated with literary Romanticism but that are equally salient for Romantic-era brain science aswell. Austen is often thought of as a novelist working primarily from the em- piriciststandpointofanexperientiallyconstructedsubject,andasuccession ofcriticshavepaiddueattention to theeducation, socialization,andencul- turation of her heroines (for example, Devlin !#*$; Poovey !#"); Johnson !#"";HandlerandSegal!##').InPersuasion (!"!"),herfinalcompletenovel, however, Austen turns to biological and innate aspects ofmind and char- acter in anunusuallydeftmanner, in tunewithand in someways aheadof the brain science of the era.Moreover, Austen’s famously innovative style for conveying the heroine’s impressions in Persuasion speaks as much to a Richardson • Of Heartache and Head Injury: Reading Minds in Persuasion 143 newappreciationof unconsciousmental life andembodied cognitionas to a newmode for representing the flux of conscious experience. The shift within Romantic-era discourses onmind and character from environmental tobiologicalapproaches topsychologicalbehaviorandsub- ject formation emerges most starkly, perhaps, in the changing views of William Godwin. In the !*#'s Godwin presents a rigorous and influen- tial social constructivist account ofmind, one obviously indebted to John Locke.The ‘‘actions and dispositions ofmankind,’’ hewrites, are the ‘‘o(- spring of circumstances and events, andnot of any original determination that they bring into the world’’; ‘‘innate principles’’ and ‘‘original di(er- ences’’ ofphysiological ‘‘structure’’ havenorole in shapingmindorcharac- ter (Godwin !#*+ [!*#&]:#*–#").Education inparticular, and thee(ectsof social and political life—institutions and ideologies—in general, become all important in shaping and imprinting the mind’s initially ‘‘ductile and yielding substance’’ for good or ill (!!!–!%). By !"&!, however, in Thoughts on Man, His Nature, Productions, and Discoveries,Godwin (!"&!:%#–&') hasbe- come convinced that ‘‘human creatures are born into theworldwith vari- ous dispositions’’ most likely rooted in the ‘‘subtle network of the brain.’’ Contrary to the claimofClaude-AdrienHelvétius (andby implication his ownearlierview) that thehumancharacter ‘‘dependsuponeducationonly, in the largest sense of that word,’’ Godwin ()!) nowmaintains that innate ‘‘temper’’ significantly shapes psychological development. ‘‘Hemust have beenavery inattentiveobserverof the indicationsof temper inan infant in the firstmonths of his existence, who does not confess that there are vari- ous peculiarities in that respectwhich the child brings into theworldwith him’’ (&%). Godwin’snewemphasis on individuality, human ‘‘peculiarities,’’ and in- nate predispositions reflects the considerable influence of the new brain- based psychologies of theRomantic era, particularlyGall’s ‘‘organology.’’ A later essay in Thoughts is devoted to the ‘‘extraordinaryvogue’’ forphren- ology, dismissing its precise division of themind into ‘‘twenty-seven com- partments’’butacceptingsomeof itsbasicpremises:thatthe‘‘thinkingprin- ciple’’ is located in the brain, the ‘‘great ligament which binds together’’ body andmind; that the sensory ‘‘nerves all lead up to the brain’’ and acts of volition initiate ‘‘in thebrain itself ’’; and that thebrain ismodular,with ‘‘one structure of the brain better adapted’’ for a given discrete ‘‘intellec- tual purpose’’ than another (&+&–+$).A third essay in the collection shows anewappreciation, alsocognatewith ‘‘organology’’ andotherbrain-based psychologies, for thepervasive roleof unconscious cognitionorwhatGod- win (!$#) quaintly terms ‘‘human vegetation.’’ As biological approaches to 144 Poetics Today 23:1 physiologycametodisplacemechanisticones,brain-basedmodelsofmind took notice, in Johann Gottfried von Herder’s (!#++ [!"'']: !*#) phrase, of the ‘‘innate, organical, genetic’’ aspects of mind. Herder, Pierre-Jean- GeorgeCabanis,andGallalldepart from‘‘tabularasa’’ accountsofmental development to argue that innatemental characters are ‘‘transmitted from family to family’’bymeansofaheritableneural ‘‘organization’’ shapingex- perience evenwhile beingmodified by various experiences (Cabanis !#"! [!"'%–!"'$], %:$+#; Gall !"&$, !:!&$, !"$). Because, however, the brain is inseparable for these writers from the entire nervous system with its inti- mate links to the circulatoryand respiratory systems, thenewpsychologies that relocated themind in thebrain also emphasized adense and intricate networkof linksbetweenmentaleventsandthebodilyeconomyasawhole. The novel of the Romantic era made its own contribution to this pro- founddiscursiveshift regardingcharacter, individuality,andtemperament. The radical or ‘‘Jacobin’’ novel of the !*#'s o(ers a fleshed out version of theLockeanconstructionistapproach,showinginvividdetailhow,asMary Hays (!#*) [!*#+], !: )) writes in Memoirs of Emma Courtney, ‘‘We are all the creatures of education.’’ In place of the anecdotal childhood episode or two revealing innate bias of character supplied by earlier eighteenth- century novelists such as Henry Fielding, detailed accounts of childhood andearlyeducationbecamethenorm.Novelists learned toelaboratebasic fairy-tale plots to display the ‘‘advantages of education,’’ contrasting the fortunes of one of three daughters (or cousins) inCinderella fashion (as in Austen’s Mansfield Park [!"!)]) or one of two sisters (or friends) in the tradi- tion of the ‘‘kind and unkind’’ tale type (as in Austen’s Sense and Sensibility [!"!!]).Needless toadd, theheroinewith thebest education—theonewho hasmost thoroughly internalizedmoralprinciples anddevelopedhabits of self-regulation—wins out (Richardson !##): !"$–%'%). AstheexampleofSusanFerrier’s Marriage (!"!") shows,however,notions of innate bias, if they ever disappeared entirely, were returning to at least complicate fictional representations of character by the time of the materialist-vitalist controversy in the late !"!'s. Anticipating the later use of twin studies to explore issues of nature andnurture, Ferrier invents twin sisters,Mary andAdelaide, raised in di(erent families according tomark- edly di(erent principles. Mary, the sister whose more careful education hasproduceda ‘‘well-regulatedmind,’’ endsup (predictablyenough) rising from her Cinderella status to marry happily and well, while her vacuous twinAdelaide (likeMaria in Mansfield Park)marries awealthy ‘‘fool’’ before ruining her reputationwith an adulterous elopement (Ferrier !#"+ [!"!"]: %##,)*$).Complicatinganotherwise schematicplot,however, is the twins’ cousin Emily, who is raised in the same fashion and environment as Ade- Richardson • Of Heartache and Head Injury: Reading Minds in Persuasion 145 laide but whose native intelligence and generosity assert themselves in a ‘‘noble’’ though ‘‘wild’’ character, lackingMary’s exemplary self-control to be sure but also remarkably free ofAdelaide’smeretriciousness and short- sightedegotism()))).Withinanotherdecade,novelistsbegintotake innate biasesof characterexplicitly intoaccount,using themtobalanceorat least qualify environmental influences on development. AsMary Shelley (!#"$ [!"%+]: )*) puts it in The Last Man (!"%+), ‘‘Weare born;we chooseneither our parents, nor our station; we are educated by others, or by theworld’s circumstances, and this cultivation, mingling with our innate disposition, is the soil in which our desires, passions, and motives grow’’ (emphasis added). Whereas Shelley’s Frankenstein (!"!")might be seen as the extreme expres- sionofa socially constructedmind, featuringamonstrous characterwho is ‘‘‘made’ not born’’ (Poovey !#"): !%"), Shelley’s later work anticipates the growing influenceof phrenological andotherphysiological conceptions of mind on the nineteenth-century novel fromCharlotte Brontë on (Oppen- heim !##!; Shuttleworth !##+). Austen’s portrayal of character in relation to experience has been seen as thoroughlyLockean in spirit thoughunusuallydeft in execution (Devlin !#*$). Her novels include some of the most inventive and subtle rework- ings of traditional tale types to display the e(ects of contrasting upbring- ings and thehabits of self-scrutiny anddiscipline they instill—or fail to in- still, as Sir Thomas finds to his grief in contrasting Fanny to her favored but miseducated elder cousins at the end of Mansfield Park. In Persua- sion, Austen again deploys a Cinderella plot to set o( the virtues of an undervaluedheroine,AnneElliot, to thedetriment of her spoiled siblings, the status-conscious, superficial Elizabeth and the plaintive, self-involved Mary.Austenvaries this traditionalplotbymakingAnnethemiddle rather than the youngest sister aswell as by introducing still another folk charac- ter type, the ‘‘falseheroine,’’ in thepersonofLouisaMusgrove (Propp !#+": +').As inmanya folktale, the false heroine in Persuasion functions todelay the eventual union of the true heroinewith her ‘‘object’’ (FrederickWent- worth) by temporarily displacingAnne and claimingFrederick for herself. As in many a domestic novel, Anne and Louisa are contrasted in terms of the quality of their upbringing and the degree of their self-discipline. Louisa ismore ‘‘fashionable’’ and adept at superficial ‘‘accomplishments,’’ while Anne is ‘‘more elegant and cultivated,’’ showing modesty and self- restraint where Louisa appears willful and flirtatious, a combination that proves nearly fatal at the novel’s crisis point (Austen !#+$ [!"!"]:+*). That crisis—Louisa’s mistimed leap toward Frederick’s arms and her headfirst fallonto thepavingstonesofamassive seawall—introducesa fur- ther and more surprising contrast, this time one without precedent. For 146 Poetics Today 23:1 whileAnne’scharacterhasbeenshapedoverhertwenty-sevenyearsofoften painful experience, most notably hermother’s death (whenAnne is four- teen)andheryouthfulbreakwithFrederick (fiveyears later),Louisa’s char- acter is ‘‘altered,’’ remarkablyandapparently for life,byasingle incident,a severeblowon thehead (%%&).Once ‘‘happy, andmerry’’ and rather giddy, Louisa is, asaconsequenceof head injury, ‘‘turned intoapersonof literary taste,andsentimental reflection,’’ sedentaryandneurasthenic. ‘‘Thedayat Lyme, the fall from theCobb,might influence her health, her nerves, her courage, her character to the end of her life, as thoroughly as it appeared to have influencedher fate’’ (+*, !*"). CriticsofPersuasionhavenotknownquitewhattomakeof theconnection Austenposes herebetweennerves and character, head traumaandmental alteration, and sometimes they have simplymade fun of it. ‘‘True, she has fallenonherhead,’’writes one, ‘‘but it hadneverbeenagoodone, and the blow seems to have cleared it’’ (Lascelles !#&#: *").To readwhat another calls the ‘‘zany incident at Lyme’’ (Gross !##&: !#$) as slapstick, however, fails todo justice towhathasbeenaptlydescribedas the ‘‘most sensational momentofphysical violence inAusten’swork’’ (Sokolsky !##): !&+). It also fails to bring out the truly remarkable implications of Louisa’s character change.At thevery least, the fall and its consequences serve, in JohnWilt- shire’s (!##%: !"*) phrase, as a ‘‘graphic reminder that human beings are bodies as well as minds.’’ In the context of Romantic-era speculation on the brain and nerves, however, it also suggests that the relation between bodies andminds is ofmore consequence, at least in Persuasion, thancritics ofAusten havewanted to acknowledge. Wiltshireo(ershisaccountof thebody’s salience inPersuasion tocounter- balancereadingsthat,hefeels,mayhaveexaggeratedits ‘‘historicistdimen- sion’’ (!#+).ButAusten’sportrayalofanembodiedmind—mostremarkably inrelationtoLouisa’s fallbut inquieterways throughout thenovel—hasan important historicist dimension of its own.Head injury, strange as itmay seem in retrospect, was a politically loaded topic at the very timeAusten was writing Persuasion, when to question the immateriality of mind could meantoquestionthephilosophicalunderpinningsoforthodoxreligiousbe- lief (Reed !##*: !)). FromDavidHartley toWilliamLawrence,proponents ofphysiologicalaccountsofmindcite thee(ectsof ‘‘BlowsupontheHead’’ amongotherreasons to locate themindinthebrain—anotionthatwasstill considered unproven,materialistic, and potentially subversive inAusten’s time (Hartley !#+* [!*)#], !: !#).Concussions serve, alongwith visual illu- sions, somnambulism,andintoxication,as favoriteexamplesofwhatmight be called in retrospect the neuropathology of everyday life. Particularly loadedare instances inwhich, asAndrewCombe (!")! [!"%$]: )*&)writes, Richardson • Of Heartache and Head Injury: Reading Minds in Persuasion 147 the ‘‘temper andmoral sentiments have . . . beenentirely changed, in con- sequenceofcertain injuries to thebrain,while the intellect remainedunim- paired,’’ suggesting thatnot only cognitionbut character is physiologically based. Some of these instances are evocative of Louisa’s transformation, includingHartley’s claim that ‘‘concussions’’ have sometimes resulted in a ‘‘Melancholy’’ temperament (Hartley !#+* [!*)#], !, &##), or Gall’s (!"&$, %: !!#) ‘‘lady of fine talents’’ who falls, striking the ‘‘back part of her head against themantel-piece,’’ and comes to lose ‘‘all of her brilliant qualities’’ as a result. The ideological threat that such accounts represented is clear from the response they generated in establishment journals, conservative and lib- eral alike. A few months before Austen began work on Persuasion (in Au- gust !"!$), in fact, the Edinburgh Review devoteda longarticle to countering the implications of an essay on localized brain injury published the year before in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.The author, Sir Everard Home, was not the ready object of ridicule presented by the phrenologistsandmostof theirallies,whomreviewerscoulddismiss for the outlandishness of their science aswell as for thematerialismand ‘‘French- inspired’’ radicalism it implied (Lawrence !##': %%&). In contrast, Home could be seen as something of amedical icon: fellowof theRoyal Society, sergeant-surgeon to theking,professor at theCollegeofSurgeons, protégé and executor of the celebrated physiologist JohnHunter, and baronet. In his ‘‘Observationson theFunctionsof theBrain’’ (!"!))Homeavoids ‘‘gen- eral deductions,’’ instead cataloging all of the cases of brain injury he has encounteredtohelp‘‘procureaccurateinformationrespectingthefunctions that belong to individual portions of the human brain.’’ Nevertheless, the implicationsofHome’sattempttoconnect ‘‘stillmorecloselythepursuitsof anatomywith those of philosophy’’werehard tomiss: an intimate relation (if not identity) betweenmind and brain, a physiological account ofmen- tal function, and a brain-based, modular conception of mental behavior distinctly related toGall’s organology if farmore scientifically respectable (Home !"!): )+#). Rather than attackHome directly, the reviewer in the Edinburgh Review insteadcompilesanimposinglistofcounterexamplesintendedtoprovethat brain injuryneednotdisruptmental functioningandultimately thatmen- tal life can go on in the entire absence of a brain. Some of the examples approachsurrealisminthenonchalancewithwhichtheytreatheadwounds andotherneural insults. ‘‘VESLINGIUS found the endof a stilletto in the brain of awoman,whohadbeenwoundedby it five years before, butwho had complained of nothing in the mean while but occasional head-ach; and . . .LACUTUSmentions a case, inwhich thehalf of a knife remained 148 Poetics Today 23:1 in thebrainofaman foreightyears,withouthisbeingatall incommoded’’ (‘‘ReviewofSirEverardHome’’ !"!$:))&).Fivepagesof suchexamplesare givennotasevidenceofneuralplasticity,whichCabanis (!#"! [!"'%–!"'$], !: !)') discusses fromaneuropsychological perspective in the Rapports, but rather to dismiss altogether anynecessary connection between themental actof ‘‘Sensation’’and‘‘particular’’partsof thebrain(‘‘ReviewofSirEverard Home’’ !"!$:))$).Thereviewerthengoesontoproduceexamples inwhich ‘‘the whole brain has been destroyedwithout loss of sensibility,’’ though as onemight imagine these are not very satisfying ())+). ‘‘Wehave found in- deed, several instances of children born without a brain who lived for a short time; but the state of the sensibility in these, is not quite unequivo- callyascertained’’ ())*–)").Nevertheless, theessayconcludes that,despite thecasesevidencedbya‘‘personofSIREVERARDHOME’Sreputation,’’ thereare ‘‘very stronggrounds forbelieving, that thebrain isnotatall con- cerned in the changes which precede Sensation,’’ and if not in sensation, then not, ‘‘mutatis mutandis,’’ in the ‘‘phenomena of Thought andVolition’’ ())", ))'). Home’spaperonbrain functionandtheresponse in the Edinburgh Review areworthnoting in this context not of course as possible ‘‘sources’’ for Per- suasion.They are valuable, rather, for underscoring the tense coexistence in Austen’s day of two diametrically opposed yet equally credible notions ofmind-body relations, one unabashedly dualistic and in linewith ortho- dox notions of the soul, the other aligningmental acts with discrete brain functions andopen toamaterialist interpretation.These rival conceptions seem initially to correspond, in an oddway, to the contrasting subjectivi- tiesof the rivalheroinesof Persuasion: one shapedbymental andemotional experience, able to transcend bodily discomfort, and exemplifying Fred- erick’s idealofa ‘‘strongmind’’; theother ‘‘altered’’byaninjurytothebrain andevenbefore thatdeficient (againaccording toFrederick) ‘‘inapointno less essential thanmind’’ (Austen !#+$ [!"!"]: "*, !#%). One is living with the pangs of a broken heart, the otherwith the lasting e(ects of a cracked head.ThoughtheepisodeontheCobbisnotmeant toelicit laughter, these rival systems for representing subjectivity do collide comically later in the novel.WhenAnne, overwhelmedwith emotion, struggles to composeher- selfafterreadingapassionateletterfromFrederick,Louisa’smother,appar- ently converted toabrain-basedpsychology,needs reassurance that ‘‘there hadbeenno fall in the case; thatAnnehadnot, at any time lately, slipped down, and got a blow on her head; that she was perfectly convinced of havinghadno fall’’ (%)!). ButAnne’s very confusionhere andelsewhere in thenovelsuggeststhatthecomicdisparityinthispassagebetweenmindand brain, heart andhead, is something of a redherring. For the characteriza- Richardson • Of Heartache and Head Injury: Reading Minds in Persuasion 149 tionofAnne touches, in its ownway, on the embodiednotionofmind, the fragmentation of the subject, and the greater appreciation of unconscious mental life, all characteristic of the newRomantic psychologies. Mrs. Musgrove’s comic mistake, that is, reasserts the contrast between Anne and Louisa while also emphasizing that this is a moment when, as Wiltshire (!##%: !#$) puts it, Anne’s ‘‘body takes over.’’ Not that Anne be- comesevenremotelycomatoseat suchtimes; rather,herperiodsofdisloca- tionmark the collision of conscious awareness with unconscious thoughts andfeelingsandtheintensephysiological sensationsthataccompanythem. Annemaybeprized forher ‘‘rational’’demeanor,yet shealsoproveshighly susceptibleto ‘‘inneragitation’’ fromsourcesnotalwaysconsciouslypresent toAnneherself, registered instead in thebody inways thatat timesbecome so pressing as to overwhelm the conscious subject (!**). ‘‘The absolute ne- cessity of seeming like herself produced then an immediate struggle, but afterawhileshecoulddonomore.Shebegannottounderstandawordthey said’’ (Austen !#+$ [!"!"]:%)'–)!).The ‘‘struggle’’betweenrationalcontrol andpassionate feeling, conscious volition and thephysiological rushof in- tense inner emotionsmanifests not a split betweenmind andbodybut the impossibilityofever teasing themapart.The illusoryunityof theconscious subject ispuncturedbytheactionsofanembodiedmindthatoftenfindsun- conscious action and expressionmore expedient,working indespite of the conscious subject ifneedbe. ‘‘Mary talked,but [Anne]couldnotattend . . . she began to reasonwith herself, and try to be feeling less. . . . Alas! with all her reasonings, she found, that to retentive feelings eight yearsmay be littlemore thannothing’’ ("$). Underlyingsuchpassages isaviewofmindassensibility, lessreminiscent ofLockethanofHerder (!#++ [!"'']: !'')—‘‘Itsvibratingfibres, its sympa- thizingnerves, neednot the call ofReason: they runbeforeher, theyoften disobediently and forcibly oppose her’’—or of Darwin, Gall, or Cabanis. Austen grants the ‘‘inward’’ senses (never discussed by Locke) the central rolegiventhembybrain-basedRomanticpsychologies,necessarilybroach- ing the subject’s fragmentation in the process. ‘‘For a fewminutes she saw nothing before her. It was all confusion. She was lost; and when she had scoldedbackher senses, she found theothers stillwaiting for the carriage’’ (Austen!#+$[!"!"]:!"$).Theintimationofadividedsubject (‘‘scoldedback her senses’’) builds to the acknowledgment of a fundamental split between a superintending conscious self and a potentially unruly, desiring, uncon- scious other: ‘‘Whywas she to suspect herself of anothermotive? . . .One half of her shouldnot alwaysbe somuchwiser than theotherhalf ’’ (ibid.). In related passages, equally in keepingwith the emphasis on unconscious mental life foundthroughoutRomanticbrainscience,Anneperformscom- 150 Poetics Today 23:1 plex behaviors in an explicitly ‘‘unconscious’’ manner, playing at the key- board (a prominent example of nonconscious cognition in Darwin’s Zoo- nomia !*#)–!*#+, !: !#'–#)) and even conversing ‘‘unconsciously’’ (Austen !#+$ [!"!"]:#+, !!&).Anne canmakemusic andmake conversational sense equallywellwithout thebenefitofconsciousawareness, thoughheruncon- scious life emergesmore spectacularly in thosemomentswhen she seems, for a time, altogether senseless. Anne’s periods of ‘‘confusion,’’ episodes lasting up to ‘‘severalminutes’’ when internal sensations crowdout external ones, rendering her unseeing and inattentive, bear an uncanny resemblance (seen from the outside) to Louisa’s deeper passage into unconsciousness after her fall. Louisa’s head injurycallsattention,insensationalisticfashion,tothemind’sembodiment, a condition that is shown inmore subtleways to be shared by the charac- ters around her.The chapter that recounts the accident is generally seen as the novel’s dramatic hinge, limning the contrast between the two rivals by juxtaposing Louisa’s ‘‘heedlessness’’ withAnne’s display of the ‘‘resolu- tion of a collectedmind’’ (%))).Yet the scene at theCobb also softens that very contrast as one character after another succumbs to emotional and cognitive overload, lapsing into various mental states that appear not so very di(erent fromLouisa’s. Frederick looks at the ‘‘corpse-like figure’’ of Louisa ‘‘with a face as pallid as her own’’; Charles is rendered ‘‘immove- able’’; Henrietta, ‘‘sinking under the conviction, lost her senses too, and would have fallen on the steps’’ (!%#–&'). Overcome with genuine shock and horror, one character after another becomes, like Louisa, a prone or otherwise inert body. Austenunderscores theparallel invariouswaysas theepisodecontinues to unfold.WhenAnne proposes to sendBenwick for a doctor, ‘‘Every one capableofthinkingfelttheadvantageoftheidea,’’aformulathatgroupsthe faintingHenrietta and the ‘‘hysterical’’Marywith theunconsciousLouisa. Harville’s arrival is described in terms that in context seem to reduce him toaphysiological specimen: ‘‘ShockedasCaptainHarvillewas,hebrought senses andnerves that couldbe instantlyuseful’’ (!&'–&!).Even the ‘‘think- ing’’ characters, that is, are portrayed as organic assemblages of nerves and senses under duress. Frederick, though remaining sentient, becomes automaton-like, responding asmechanically as anyHartleyan association networkwhenAnnementions a surgeon. ‘‘He caught theword; it seemed to rouse himat once, and sayingonly, ‘True, true, a surgeon this instant,’’’ hebegins rushingawaywhenAnneremindshimthatonlyBenwick ‘‘knows where a surgeon is tobe found’’ (!&'). EvenAnne, foremost among themi- nority who remain ‘‘rational,’’ rises to the occasion through the ‘‘strength and zeal, and thought, which instinct supplied’’ (ibid.). Appearing just at Richardson • Of Heartache and Head Injury: Reading Minds in Persuasion 151 thispoint in theepisode,Austen’schoiceof ‘‘instinct’’doesnotseemcasual. At a time when writers like Coleridge adamantly distinguished between the ‘‘instinct’’ of beasts and the ‘‘higher’’ intuitionsof humanbeings, coun- tering ‘‘materialists’’ like Darwin, who view instinctive human responses as a crucial animal inheritance and a key manifestation of the adaptive ‘‘inner’’ senses, ‘‘instinct’’was a loaded term,one that earlybrain scientists likeCabanis andGall had only recently reasserted in the teeth of Locke’s dismissal (Coleridge !##$, %:!&#'). In this context Anne’smost heroically ‘‘rational’’ episode could be placed on a continuum with, rather than di- rectly opposed to, her automatic, nonrational, but quite natural responses elsewhere inthenovelat timesofheightenedemotion.Markedbya ‘‘strong sensibility’’ from her adolescence, Anne is represented not as some evis- cerated or denervated rational agent but as an emotive, embodied sub- ject,uncommonly reasonableandalsouncommonly sensitive (Austen !#+$ [!"!"]: !+$). Anne’sblendofexemplaryrationalityandheightenedsensibility,hersus- ceptibility to surgesofemotionwith theirmarkedcognitiveandphysiologi- cal e(ects, and themental splittingor fragmenting she regularlymanifests together find voice in the stylistic innovation critics have noted in Persua- sion. A.WaltonLitz (!#*$: %%"–%#) first called attention toAusten’s ‘‘move awayfromtheJohnsoniannorm’’ inthesentencestructureofher lastnovel, with its ‘‘rapidandnervous syntaxdesigned to imitate thebombardmentof impressionsupon themind.’’MarilynButler (!#"*:%**) similarlydescribes Austen’s ‘‘experiment with a new kind of subjective writing,’’ marked by a ‘‘high-wrought nervous tension’’ in conveying a particular consciousness (Anne’s), for which ‘‘the senses have a distinct advantage over reason and fact.’’ It is appropriate thatbothcritics use the term ‘‘nervous’’ to evoke the qualityofAnne’s subjectivityand theprose that conveys it, for in thisnovel mind cannot be disentangled from the central nervous system that enacts it. Austen’s new subjective style is all themore innovative for prominently including thegapsanddisruptions in therepresentedfluxofconsciousness, what Wiltshire (!##%: !**) calls ‘‘invasions of feeling.’’ Unconscious men- tal events are shown in a complex and frequently adversarial relationwith conscious ones, and feeling is often known through its mark on the body before it can be registered in conscious awareness. ‘‘No, it was not regret whichmadeAnne’s heart beat in spite of itself, andbrought the color into her cheeks when she thought of CaptainWentworth unshackled and free. Shehad some feelingswhich shewasashamed to investigate’’ (Austen !#+$ [!"!"]: !*").Anne’s shamehereremindsus that thedomesticnovel, consid- ered as an extension of the literature of female conduct, implicitly enjoins such inner splitting by insisting that ‘‘proper’’ youngwomen feel desire for 152 Poetics Today 23:1 their futurehusbands—marry for love—without acknowledging suchdesire too soon, even to themselves (Richardson !##): !#!–#%).Yet the deft inter- play inpassages likethisbetweenthoughtandfeeling,physiologicalexpres- sionandconscious introspectionsignalsnot justanotherelaborationonthe modest blush but a new,Romantic sense ofmind-body relations. Terms like ‘‘flowof consciousness’’ (Butler !#"*:%#') or ‘‘interiormono- logue’’ (Litz !#*$: %%") cannot entirely do this new style justice. Even if they allow for some shading from unconscious impulses or bodily intru- sions upon introspective awareness, they tend to evoke a conscious, in- tegral Cartesian subject, the central self that oversees the conscious flow or articulates the internal monologue. As represented through the ‘‘ner- vous’’ sentences of Persuasion, however, subjectivity seems corporate rather than monologic, unconscious feelings and ideas become as important as conscious ones, and the division between interior and exterior is regularly breached. Anne’s ‘‘shudder,’’ for example, should be read as a simulta- neously physical and psychological reaction in the passage that describes Anne’s semiconscious acknowledgment of her temporary interest in her wealthycousinWilliamWalterElliot. ‘‘Annecould justacknowledgewithin herself such a possibility of having been induced to marry him, as made her shudder at the idea of themisery whichmust have followed’’ (Austen !#+$ [!"!"]: %!+).The tentative, dim character ofAnne’s acknowledgment (‘‘just . . . such a possibility’’) suggests that the psychic region ‘‘within her- self ’’ remains only flittingly and uncertainly available to conscious aware- ness.The ‘‘shudder’’ represents both an aversive reaction to the disturbing ‘‘idea’’—one that seems to have emerged full-blown intoAnne’s conscious mind—as well as an important physiological cue that conveys not only to the reader but to Anne herself the emotional intensity of that reaction and the unforeseen danger it forestalls, not amoment too soon.The plot owesmuchof its tension, in fact, to the ongoing threat that feelingswhich canbe readonlyhaphazardly, throughmomentaryglimpses, or indirectly, through their bodilymanifestations, can always bemisread. Frederickwill continuetoovervaluehis feelings forLouisa,Annewillbe ‘‘induced’’ todis- play feelings forMr.Elliot,neitherFredericknorAnnewill correctlygauge the strengthorvalidityof their renewed feelings foroneanother.Frederick makesthisdilemmaexplicit inanacknowledgmentofhisown: ‘‘Thusmuch indeedhewasobliged toacknowledge—thathehadbeenconstant uncon- sciously,nay,unintentionally; thathehadmeant to forgether,andbelieved it to be done’’ (%))). In a novel of the !*#'’s generation, the claim to have been constant ‘‘unintentionally’’ would be transparently absurd, the state- ment of a cad, the sort of thing that Darnford, in MaryWollstonecraft’s Maria (!*#"),mightbeexpectedtocomeupwith.InPersuasion,however, the Richardson • Of Heartache and Head Injury: Reading Minds in Persuasion 153 claim,self-servingas itobviously is, canneverthelessbeconsideredsincere. Unconsciousmotives cancontradict andevencome tooutweighconscious ones, feelings that are ‘‘believed’’ to be forgotten canhavebeenpresent, in retrospect, all along. It is aRomantic novel indeed, one that takes up and extends, in its innovatory syntax, characterization, andnarrative style, the embodied approach to human subjectivity beingworked out concurrently byRomanticpoets likeColeridgeandKeats andRomanticbrain scientists likeGall andBell. The concurrence between Austen’s late style and emergent biological notionsofthesubjectwouldnotcommithernecessarilyofcoursetoviewing character or temperament as even partly shaped by heredity. Even if one believesthatasignificantchangeinbrainphysiology(suchastheneurologi- cal e(ects of a particularly severe head injury) could bring about a change in temperament,oneneednotagreewithGall orCabanis that certainpat- terns of neurophysiological organization associatedwith specific tempera- ments or character traits can be passed down within families like a snub noseor apredisposition tohemophilia. Physiological psychologyanda re- newed interest in the hereditary transmission of character traits, however, dogenerallygotogether inRomantic-erabrainscience,and it is significant that, in Persuasion, Austen seems to pose a similar connection. Again, the most overt example in the book concerns a relativelyminor female char- acter who functions as yet another foil to Anne, her former school friend Mrs. Smith. Smith’s experience has beenmuch harsher still thanAnne’s: marriagetoaspendthrifthusband,earlywidowhood,relativepoverty (‘‘un- ableeventoa(ordherself thecomfortofaservant’’),andillness (!+$).Yetas Annewonderinglyobserves: ‘‘Inspiteofall this . . . shehadmomentsonlyof langouranddepression, tohoursofoccupationandenjoyment.Howcould it be?’’ (!+*).Howcould temperament so thoroughlybelie the e(ects of ex- perience?Mrs. Smith exemplifies, Anne decides, that ‘‘elasticity of mind, that disposition tobe comforted, that powerof turning readily fromevil to good, and of finding employment which carried her out of herself, which was fromNaturealone’’ (ibid.).Hereat least isonecharacternotaltogether shapedbyexperiencebutwithapronounced (andonecouldaddadaptive) native ‘‘disposition.’’ Anne herself initially seems another case altogether. Psychoanalytical critics of Persuasion argue that Anne’s particular temperament is precisely whatonewouldexpectofagirle(ectivelyabandonedbyhermotheratfour- teen, a traumatic and formative experience thatmakes a history of heart- break andmelancholy seem to follow as amatter of course (Dalton !##$: $!). As Anita Sokolsky (!##): !&&) writes, ‘‘Anne’s tendency tomelancholy emerges inreactiontothedeathofamotherwhoseattachmenttoherhome 154 Poetics Today 23:1 anddaughtershad, terribly,made it ‘no smallmatterof indi(erence toher to leave this life.’’’Austen,however,does suggest thatAnne’s temperament mayoweasmuchtoabiologicalastoapsychologicalrelationtothemother. Later in the same chapter inwhichAnne speculates onMrs. Smith’s elas- tic ‘‘disposition’’ (a key term forGall and his sympathizers), LadyRussell remarks thatAnne is ‘‘hermother’s self in countenanceanddisposition’’— that she has inherited hermother’s temperament alongwith her physical features (Austen !#+$ [!"!"]: !*%).LadyRussell’s judgment is evidentlyone of long standing: in thenovel’s first chapter, her early preference forAnne reflectsher sense that ‘‘itwasonly inAnne that she could fancy themother to revive again’’ (&*). Aparagraphabove, SirWalter’s contrary preference for his eldest daughter, Elizabeth, is similarly explained on the basis of physical and temperamental resemblance to a parent: ‘‘being very hand- some, and very like himself, her influence had always been great’’ (ibid.). Few readers would disagree with SirWalter’s assessment; throughout the novel Elizabeth reacts and behaves in a manner all too like her father’s. Physiologymay not be destiny in Persuasion, but it seems to play no small role in character formation. The links implied here between character and physique, heredity and fate, raise the issue of how sexual di(erences are perceived to shapedi(er- ences in mind, an issue Austen raises herself toward the end of the book (%&*). In a novel that in various ways works to ‘‘upset conventional con- junctions of ideas about gender,’’ it might seem that appeals to physio- logical notions ofmind andhereditary notions of ‘‘disposition’’ could only servetoreassertthosesameconjunctions(Johnson!#"":!$!–$%).BothSally Shuttleworth and Janet Oppenheim have demonstrated how in the Vic- torian era the new biological psychologies were invoked to ‘‘bear witness againstwomen’s brains’’ and to reassert conventional oppositions between male self-controland femalehelplessness,male rationalityand female sen- sibility (Oppenheim !##!: !"$).As JohnElliotson, a radicalmaterialist and earlyproponentofphrenology,puts it in Human Physiolo! (!"&$), the ‘‘male is formed for corporeal and intellectual power; the female for gentleness, a(ections,anddelicacyof feeling’’ (quotedinShuttleworth!##+:"%).These tendencies, though much exaggerated over the course of the nineteenth century, are certainly present already in thework of pioneers likeCabanis and Gall. Cabanis (!#"! [!"'%–!"'$], !: !"&, %%*) holds that women have ‘‘softer’’ brains than men and remain in some respects ‘‘children all their lives.’’Gall (!"&$, &: %*%) illustrates the power of instinct by observing that the ‘‘little girl reaches out her hand for the doll, as the boy, for a drumor sword.’’ ‘‘Thewhole physical constitutionofwoman,’’ he continues, ‘‘com- bineswithhermoralandintellectualcharacter,toprovethatsheisdestined, Richardson • Of Heartache and Head Injury: Reading Minds in Persuasion 155 more particularly thanman, to take care of children’’ (ibid.). ForWilliam Lawrence (!"%%: #)) the mind is ‘‘male or female, according to the sex of the body.’’ Yet as readily as the new physiological psychologies lent themselves to supporting the receiveddichotomies of the gender system, they could also serve to unsettle those sameoppositions and, at least in principle, destabi- lize the traditional system of evaluations. William Hazlitt (!#&'–!#&) [!"%#]), inacritiqueofphrenology,complainsthatGall’sorganologyweak- ens the distinction between men and women by localizing it, limiting it to relative di(erences between only several among the numerous brain ‘‘organs.’’ ‘‘Women in general,’’ Hazlitt (!#&'–!#&) [!"%#], %': %$&) coun- ters, ‘‘havemore softness and flexibility both ofmind and body thanmen —they have not the same strength and perseverance, but they take their revenge in tact and delicacy: Shall we suppose this marked and universal di(erencewhich runs through thewhole frameand throughevery thought and action of life, to proceed from a particular bump or excrescence of the skull, and not to be inherent in the principle (whatever that may be) whichfeels,andthinks,atall times,andinallcircumstances?’’Byfragment- ing themind anddisrupting the continuity of the thinking ‘‘principle,’’ the new physiological psychologies not only threaten orthodox notions of the soul but throw the system of absolute gender di(erences into question. If gender-specificmental di(erences can be localized,moreover, those local di(erences canbe further erodedby thee(ectsof accidentandexperience. Men, for example, come equipped with the same mental predisposition (andaccompanyingbrainorgan) for child-rearingaswomenbut inamuch lesspronouncedmanner; throughexercise, however, that organcanbede- veloped and the original di(erence can be ‘‘repressed’’ (Gall !"&$, &:%+&, %*$).A thoroughly ‘‘domestic’’man likeCaptainHarvillewouldfit readily intoGall’s system but would seem aberrant withinHazlitt’s (Austen !#+$ [!"!"]: !%').Thepropensity for sexualbehavioron theotherhand isgener- ally stronger inmenbutbynomeansalways.ForGall, despitehis commit- ment to pervasive gender di(erences, there are no absolute or unalterable distinctions. Intermsof their larger implications, theemergentbrain-basedpsycholo- gies of the era threatened todestabilize receivednotionsof gender inmore pervasiveways.Discussingtheambivalentrelationofwomenwriters tosci- entific discourse in the Romantic era,Marina Benjamin (!##!: %*–%") re- marks on the ‘‘masculine character of scientific epistemologies’’ that align the opposition of masculine to feminine with ‘‘dichotomies like rational/ emotional, deductive/intuitive, objective/subjective.’’ But the biological psychologiesofDarwin,Cabanis, andGallwereengaged inundoing those 156 Poetics Today 23:1 very dichotomies at a timewhen, according to Benjamin (%"), the ‘‘cogni- tiveroleof thepassions, imagination,sensation,andindividualexperience’’ wasbeing fundamentally rethought. Ingivinganexpandedandoften lead- ing role to unconscious cognition, instinctive behaviors, ‘‘inward’’ sensa- tions,emotionalreactions,andbodilysensationwithinmental life,Roman- tic brain science threw traditional valuations of reason over passion and mind over body into crisis. Moreover, although women still were seen as more emotional and ‘‘softer’’ thanmen,menwerenevertheless fully impli- catedwithin a changing vision of the human, one that displaced the ratio- nal, disembodied, male-coded ideal subject with an embodied model of humansubjectivity, forcingarevaluationof traditionally femininepreroga- tives like sensibility and intuition. Here too one finds unexpected convergence between Austen’s experi- ments with representing character and subjective life in Persuasion and the physiological psychologies of her time.Another of the features supporting a ‘‘Romantic’’ readingof thenovel is its revaluationof rationalityandemo- tion, one that cuts across gender lines (Litz !#*$: %%*).The heroine after all is onewho famously ‘‘hadbeen forced into prudence in her youth’’ and ‘‘learned romance as she grew older,’’ while Frederick too must learn to respect the wisdom of his ‘‘unconscious’’ and even ‘‘involuntary’’ feelings by the novel’s close (Austen !#+$ [!"!"]: $").The novel’s most systemati- cally ‘‘rational’’ characters,LadyRussell andWilliamWalterElliot, are the very ones who cause the most pain and give the worst counsel ()%, !*&). Frederick’s great advantage overMr.Elliot in fact resides in his character- istic ‘‘ardour,’’ a trait that is at once psychological and physical, described elsewhere as ‘‘glowing’’ ($", "+). All of the sympathetic naval characters share this quality of ‘‘warmth,’’ one singularly lacking in Frederick’s rival (!%'). ‘‘Mr Elliot was rational, discreet, polished,—but he was not open. Therewasneveranyburstof feeling,anywarmthof indignationordelight’’ (!*&). Or, inMrs. Smith’s harsher terms, Elliot is a ‘‘cold-blooded being,’’ a ‘‘man without heart’’ (%'+).This last phrase relies on the most conven- tional of figures, but in a novel that so insistently reevaluates the claims of the body, metaphors like heart ask to be taken quite seriously. In con- junctionwith terms like warmth and ardour, heart functionsmetaphorically preciselyat theuncertainbordersbetweenpsycheandsoma,wherecharac- ter traits are indistinguishable from the ‘‘glowing’’ physical sensations that make themknown—totheself aswell as toothers. (Theverynotionof tem- perament, a termobviouslyallied to temperature,ultimatelyreliesonthesame basicmetaphorical pattern [Kagan !##):&)–&$; Sweetser !##':%"]).Har- ville is ‘‘warm-hearted’’ not justmetaphorically but in the concretewayhe experiences his own body and thus knows his ownmind; after expressing Richardson • Of Heartache and Head Injury: Reading Minds in Persuasion 157 his love for hiswife and children ‘‘in a tone of strong feeling,’’ he adds, ‘‘‘I speak, you know, only of suchmen as have hearts!’ pressing his ownwith emotion’’ (Austen !#+$ [!"!"]: !!#,%&").Menwhofail to speak fromfeeling and to feel from the body are not to be trusted in Persuasion. Not that feelings, sensations, vocal tones, andphysiological displays can be trusted in any simple way either. Austen’s turn to an embodied episte- mology in Persuasion introduces new complications of its own, such as the di,culties bothAnneandFrederick encounterfirst in consciouslyperceiv- ing,theninfullyacknowledging,their ‘‘unconscious’’desireforoneanother. Sensations can bemisinterpreted and feelings under- or overvalued, as in thecaseofBenwick,whosebrokenheartheals sooner thananyone, leastof all himself, could reasonably suppose.Mrs.Musgrove,who rekindles feel- ings for a son’s death that she seemsnot really tohave felt at the time, and whose ‘‘substantial’’ physical bulk is said to belie her feelings of ‘‘tender- ness,’’ functionsas an iconof suchmisprision (Austen !#+$ [!"!"]:#%).This is still aJaneAustennovel. It is,however,aJaneAustennovel likenoother, and its di(erence owes a great deal to its a,nitieswith the biological psy- chologies just thenbecomingnotorious throughthedebatesonphrenology and thematerialist-vitalist controversy.Although it has been claimed that Austen ‘‘allbuterases’’ thebodyinhernovelsandthatabodyreconstructed fromher lexiconwould have no thighs, no ‘‘intestines, wombs, or navels,’’ not evenfingers or toes (Shields !##!: !&%), thebody is crucial to character, plot, and subjective life in Persuasion.The skin thatglowsorgoespallid, the heart that swellsorgoes ‘‘cold,’’ the ‘‘susceptible’’ nervesandthebrain that, once injured,mustbe ‘‘set torights’’ all speakofamindthathasno location ormeaning apart from the body (Austen !#+$ [!"!"]: !)), !"!). It could be objected that this new view of Persuasion, relying as it does primarilyonRomantic-eradocuments, couldhavebeenproducedwithout the inspiration of recent neuroscience and cognitive theory, which collec- tivelyhavedonesomuchtorevive interest in theembodiment,modularity, andnonconscious aspects ofmind.Perhaps, inprinciple, a literary scholar could have interpreted and contextualized Persuasion somewhat along the linesabovewithout such inspiration,but inpracticeAusten’s evident inter- est inquestionsofmind-body interactionand theirfictional representation hasbeenalmostentirelyoverlooked.Formost literaryhistoriansandcritics of theperiod,howeverelaborate theirattention to themind, thebrainmay aswellnothaveexisted—not justRomantic-eraworkonanddebatesabout the brain but the brain itself.One recent psychoanalytic reader of Persua- sion, forexample, remarks (ofLouisa’s fall) that ‘‘Louisa’s ‘lifeless’-ness is,of course, onlya concussion—‘therewasno injurybut to thehead’—suggest- ing that the significanceof the episode ismainlypsychological: everything 158 Poetics Today 23:1 has taken place in the head’’ (Dalton !##$: $)). Novelists, of course, are entirely at liberty to construct characters who, like this version of Louisa, do not have brains and therefore cannot su(er neurological injury. But as shouldbe clearbynow, that is bynomeanshowAusten chose to construct thecharactersof Persuasion.Evenareader likeWiltshire (!##%:), !+$),how- ever, with a focus on the body, tends to emphasize ‘‘psychological’’ phe- nomena like ‘‘hypochondria’’ and ‘‘hysteria’’ in his reading of Austen and, thoughveryperceptive regarding the contrast betweenLouisa’s ‘‘physical’’ and Anne’s ‘‘mental’’ pain, fails to note how thoroughly this dichotomy breaksdown in thenovel.Wehavehardlybegun tounderstandhowperva- sivelyandcentrally the literatureof theRomanticera is caughtup inemer- gent notions of an embodiedmind becausewe have ourselves, up to now, shown almost no interest in the brain or in the remarkable developments in brain science of our own era. References Austen, Jane !#+$ [!"!"] Persuasion, edited byD.W.Harding (London: Penguin). Benjamin,Marina !##! ‘‘ElbowRoom:WomenWritersonScience,!*#'–!")',’’ inScience and Sensibility: Gender and Scientific Inquiry, edited byMarinaBenjamin, %*–$# (Oxford: Blackwell). Butler,Marilyn !#"* Jane Austen and the War of Ideas (NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press). Cabanis, Pierre-Jean-George !#"! [!"'%–!"'$] On the Relations between the Physical and Moral Aspects of Man, edited by George Mora, translated by Margaret Duggan Saidi, % vols. (Baltimore, MD: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press). Caldwell, JamesRalston !#)$ John Keats’ Fancy: The E"ect on Keats of the Psycholo! of His Day (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press). Clarke, Edwin, andL. S. Jacyna !#"* Nineteenth-Century Origins of Neuroscientific Concepts (Berkeley:University of California Press). Coleridge, S.T. !##$ Shorter Works and Fragments, edited byH. J. Jackson and J. R. de J. Jackson, % vols. (London andPrinceton,NJ:Routledge andPrincetonUniversity Press). Combe,Andrew !")! [!"%$] ‘‘On theE(ects of Injuries of theBrainupon theManifestationsof theMind,’’ in A System of Phrenolo!, edited by George Combe, )+'–*& (NewYork: Colyer). First published in Transactions of the Phrenological Society !: !"&–%'". Crane,MaryThomas !##" ‘‘Male Pregnancy and Cognitive Permeability in Measure for Measure,’’ Shakespeare Quarterly )#(&): %+#–#%. Dalton,Elizabeth !##$ ‘‘Mourning andMelancholia in Persuasion,’’ Partisan Review +%(!): )#–$#. Darwin, Erasmus !*#)–!*#+ Zoonomia; or, The Laws of Organic Life, % vols. (London: J. Johnson). Richardson • Of Heartache and Head Injury: Reading Minds in Persuasion 159 Devlin,D.D. !#*$ Jane Austen and Education (London:Macmillan). Ferrier, Susan !#"+ [!"!"] Marriage, edited byRosemaryAshton (Harmondsworth,U.K.: Penguin). Gall, François Joseph !"&$ On the Functions of the Brain and of Each of Its Parts: With Observations on the Possibility of De- termining the Instincts, Propensities, and Talents, or the Moral and Intellectual Dispositions of Men and Animals by the Configuration of the Brain and Head, translatedbyWinslowLewis,+vols. (Boston:Marsh,Capen, andLyon). Gardner,Howard !#"$ The Mind’s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution (NewYork: BasicBooks). Godwin,William !"&! Thoughts on Man, His Nature, Productions, and Discoveries (London:E,nghamWilson). !#*+ [!*#&] Enquiry concerning Political Justice and Its Influence on Modern Morals and Happiness, edited by IsaacKramnick (Harmondsworth,U.K.: Penguin). Gross,Gloria Sybil !##& ‘‘Flights intoIllness:SomeCharacters inJaneAusten,’’ inLiterature and Medicine during the Eighteenth Century, editedbyMarieMulveyRobertsandRoyPorter, !""–## (London: Routledge). Handler,Richard, andDaniel Segal !##' Jane Austen and the Fiction of Culture: An Essay on the Narration of Social Realities (Tucson: University ofArizonaPress). Hart, F. Elizabeth !##" ‘‘Matter, System, andEarlyModernStudies:Outlines for aMaterialist Linguistics,’’ Configurations +(&): &!!–)&. Hartley,David !#+*[!*)#]Observations on Man, His Frame, His Duty, and His Expectations,%vols. (Hildesheim: GeorgOlms). Hays,Mary !#*) [!*#+] Memoirs of Emma Courtney, editedbyGinaLuria, % vols. (NewYork:Garland). Hazlitt,William !#&'–!#&) [!"%#] ‘‘PhrenologicalFallacies,’’ in The Complete Works of William Hazlitt, edited byP. P.Howe, %! vols. (London:Dent). First published in Atlas, July $ and !%. Herder, JohannGottfried von !#++ [!"''] Outlines of the Philosophy of the History of Man, translated byT.Churchill (New York: Bergman). Home, Sir Everard !"!) ‘‘Observations on the Functions of the Brain,’’ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London !'): )+#–"+. Johnson,ClaudiaL. !#"" Jane Austen: Women, Politics, and the Novel (Chicago:University ofChicagoPress). Kagan, Jerome !##) Galen’s Prophecy: Temperament in Human Nature (NewYork: BasicBooks). Lascelles,Mary !#&# Jane Austen and Her Art (Oxford:Clarendon). Lawrence,Christopher !##' ‘‘The Power and theGlory:HumphryDavy andRomanticism,’’ in Romanticism and the Sciences, edited byAndrewCunninghamandNicholas Jardine, %!&–%* (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press). Lawrence,William !"%% Lectures on Physiolo!, Zoolo!, and the Natural History of Man, Delivered to the Royal College of Surgeons (London:Benbow). 160 Poetics Today 23:1 Litz,A.Walton !#*$ ‘‘Persuasion: FormsofEstrangement,’’ in Jane Austen: Bicentenary Essays, editedbyJohn Halperin, %%!–&% (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press). Marshall, JohnC. !#"' ‘‘TheNewOrganology,’’ Behaviorial and Brain Sciences &: %&–%$. Oppenheim, Janet !##! ‘‘Shattered Nerves’’: Doctors, Patients, and Depression in Victorian England (NewYork:Oxford University Press). Poovey,Mary !#") The Proper Lady and the Woman Writer: Ideolo! as Style in the Works of Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley, and Jane Austen (Chicago:University ofChicagoPress). Propp,Vladimir !#+" Morpholo! of the Folktale, %d ed., translated byLaurence Scott andLouis A.Wagner, edited byAlanDundes (Austin:University of Texas Press). Reed,EdwardS. !##* From Soul to Mind: The Emergence of Psycholo! from Erasmus Darwin to William James (New Haven,CT:YaleUniversity Press). Reviewof Sir EverardHome !"!$ ‘‘Observations on theFunctions of theBrain,’’ Edinburgh Review %)()"): )&#–$%. Richardson,Alan !##) Literature, Education, and Romanticism: Reading as Social Practice, #$%&–#%'( (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press). !### ‘‘Coleridge and theDreamof anEmbodiedMind,’’ Romanticism $: !–%$. Shelley,Mary !#"$ [!"%+] The Last Man, edited byBrianAldiss (London:HogarthPress). Shields,Carol !##! ‘‘JaneAusten Images of theBody:NoFingers,NoToes,’’ Persuasions !&: !&%–&*. Shuttleworth, Sally !##+ Charlotte Brontë and Victorian Psycholo! (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press). Sokolsky,Anita !##) ‘‘The Melancholy Persuasion,’’ in Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism, edited by Maud Ellman, !%"–)% (London:Longman). Sweetser, Eve !##' From Etymolo! to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure (Cam- bridge:CambridgeUniversity Press). Wiltshire, John !##% Jane Austen and the Body (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press).