of the others; and as he thinks it proved, that two-thirds of the bran constitute the organs of the propensities and sentiments, he may still be quite consistent in believing that large portions of these two-thirds, even on both sides, may be injured without necessarily disturbing, in any high degree, the intellectual operations carried on by the remaining sound third, which he has previously ascertained to constitute the organs of the intel lectual faculties. But the opponent, who believes in the unity of the brain, is very differently circumstanced, and can no more account for the intellect continuing unimpaired, after the destruction of any part, than he could for sight remaining unaffected by disease or destruction of the eye. What, then, are we to think of the consistency of those philosophers who, like Dr. Ferriar, in one page gravely doubt whether the brain has not been altogether destroyed, without loss of mental faculties; and yet in another declare that they consider, as he does, "these medical facts as almost demonstrating that the brain is the instrument, not the cause, of the reasoning powers?" We, too, consider the brain as the instrument of the mental faculties; but we are not so inconsistent as to suppose that it is a matter of indifference to the manifestations of these faculties, whether that instrument be a whole or a broken one, or have even altogether ceased to exist. We farther consider that Phrenology, so far from having any. thing to fear from these "medical facts," derives additional confirmation from them, since it is upon phrenological principles alone that they are either explicable or consistent with any of the known laws of nature. It is in such circumstances that the new science rises so far superior to any theory of the mind hitherto invented; and it can only be from its being founded on the solid basis of truth, that it is ever so beautifully and simply consistent with the observed phenomena of mind, alike in a state of health and of disease.

I proceed, before concluding the subject, (being in some measure connected with the present essay,) to make a few observations on a mode of investigating the functions of the individual parts of the brain, proposed by that excellent surgeon, Sir E. Home, and differing widely from that in use among the phrenologists. "The various attempts," says he, "which have been made to procure accurate information respecting the functions that belong to individual portions of the human brain having been attended with very little success, it has occurred to me that, were anatomical surgeons to collect, in one view, all the appearances they had met with in cases of injury of that organ, and of the effects that such injuries produced upon its functions, a body of evidence might be formed, that would materially advance this highly important investigation."

As this mode of inquiry is still looked upon by many as the most premising and philosophical that has yet been tried, and as such is recommended by the Edinburgh Review, it may be worth while to see what it is really able to effect. To me it appears to be totally inadequate to the purposes of original discovery, although it may be usefully employed to procure additional information, after the functions of the different parts of the brain have been ascertained by other means.

The defects of this mode of investigation are, 1st, That, so long as we remain unacquainted with the situation and limits of the different cerebral organs, it is impossible for us to pronounce whether, in any given case, one only, or several, are implicated; and also, whether the destruction of any organ is partial or complete.

2dly, That, so long as we remain ignorant of the number and functions of the mental faculties, and of the effects of their various combinations with each other, we are necessarily unable to decide, in any case, what particular faculty or quality of mind has been impaired or destroyed. Some * Philosophical Transactions for 1814, p. 469.

faculties, for instance, require the presence of such external objects for their operation as are not to be found in the chambers of the sick or in the wards of an hospital; and, therefore, it is possible that the power may be altogether destroyed, and yet its absence may not even be suspected 1 by the surgeon or his attendants, who never were aware of its existence as an independent faculty, even when the brain was entire.

3dly, That the complex and delicate structure of the brain makes it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to injure or destroy one part, without the neighbouring parts, and the functions which they perform, participating in a greater or less degree. Thus, Professor Rolando, of Turin, who has devoted much of his time to the study of the anatomy and functions of the brain, in speaking of mutilations which he had performed with a view to discover the functions of a particular part of that organ in the lower animals, complains of this as an almost unsurmountable obstacle. "I have made," says he, "innumerable experiments to discover the results of injuries done to the bigeminal tubercles, and the parts in the neighbourhood of the optic thalami, but I have rarely obtained consistent results; which is not surprising, if we consider the peculiar interlacing of the numerous medullary fibres which meet in these parts; for, as it is extremely difficult to know what bundles of fibres have been affected in these operations, we cannot draw clear and precise conclusions where there is a difference in the result." If this holds true with regard to mutilations performed with every precaution to avoid wounding other parts, and under every advantage which an acquaintance with anatomy can afford, it cèrtainly applies with tenfold force to injuries, the results of accidental and unguided violence.

Lastly, That, from the mere aspect of the wound, we are never certain of the precise extent of the injury done to the brain; and, consequently, can never positively refer the phenomena to an affection of any particular part, and of it alone. One injury, for instance, apparently of the very slightest nature, often produces the most serious constitutional symptoms, and disturbance of the whole mind; while another, in appearance much more severe, is productive of little inconvenience. In the former the effects of the violence seem to extend either immediately or from sympathy over the whole brain, or, at least, much farther than its external or visible seat; while in the latter the affection is more strictly of a local nature; and thus the results obtained in one case are often entirely negatived by those obtained in another.

In accordance with, and in corroboration of, the opinion which I have here ventured to express, as to the total inadequacy of this mode of investigation for the purposes of original discovery, I would ask no better authority than Sir E. Home himself. For although, for the sake of greater accuracy, he confines himself to cases which have come under his own immediate notice, and although these must have been observed with a view specially to this inquiry, yet his own essay on this subject affords the most convincing proof and apposite illustration of all the defects of the mode which it is written to recommend. The first things, for example, that strike the reader on referring to it are, 1st, That, out of the ten classes into which the cases are purposely divided by Sir Everard, no less than seven (1. Undue pressure of water on the brain, 2. Concussion of the brain, 3. Preternaturally dilated or diseased blood vessels of the brain, 4. Extravasated blood, 5. Formation of pus, 6. Depression or thickening of parts of the skull, 7. Pressure from tumours) resolve themselves into affections, in which the totality of the brain is, in some way or another, concerned; 2d, That in one (viz., 8. Injury of the medulla spinalis) the entire brain is unaffected; and, 3dly, That in two only (9. Injury to the substance of the brain; and, 10. Alternation of structure) is the affection

generally confined to individual portions of that organ; although in very many instances, even in these two classes, it extends over the whole brain. From his own statement, then, the reader would naturally anticipate a priori, that the effects resulting from most of these injuries would be such as are known to indicate derangement, not of one, or of several, but of all the parts of the brain; and, consequently, that they could not, by any possibility, lead to the discovery wished for, of the functions of its individual portions. Accordingly, Sir Everard himself informs us that the effects produced were, delirium, convulsions, coma, apoplexy, sickness, watching, and the like, and not lesion of any particular faculty or of any individual function. In one or two instances, indeed, the state of the memory and of the external senses is mentioned, but without being connected in any way with specific injury. The reviewer himself, with every wish to be pleased with Sir Everard's method, is constrained to say, that the results obtained in this manner are so vague and contradictory, that they serve only to confirm what had already perhaps been sufficiently made out by the authors we have named; to wit, that there is no sort of uniformity either in the kind or degree of the symptoms which accompany diseases of the brain." And in this sentiment I cordially concur with him, in so far as regards violent injuries.

1

To render the results obtained, either from observing the effects of cerebral injuries in man, or from the performance of mutilations upon the brains of animals, at all valuable in illustrating the cerebral physiology, a previous knowledge of the seats of the organs, and of the nature of the faculties which they subserve, has been already shown to be an indispensable requisite; and if we suppose these to have been accurately ascer tained by other means, then the facility of making interesting and precise physiological and pathological observations is so greatly increased, that much valuable information may be obtained, especially in some individual cases, in the last-mentioned two classes of Sir E. Home. But without this preliminary knowledge to guide us in our observations, it is obvious that nothing precise or practical can be got at.

If an injury of the cerebellum, for example, or of part of the posterior lobes of the brain, occurs to a philosopher, who is firmly satisfied in his own mind "that the whole brain is engaged in every act of thought," and that no part of it is appropriated to the manifestations of any of the propensities or sentiments, what inference can he draw as to the function, upon finding no intellectual faculty with which he is acquainted impaired or wanting? He cannot consistently investigate the state of the propensities, and refer any irregularities among them to the injury sustained"; because these are not intellectual faculties, and, according to him, have no connexion with the brain. He remains of necessity as much in the dark as ever. But let such a case occur to a phrenologist, or to him who has ascertained, by previous observation, the uses of the part, it is evident that, although he could not, any more than the philosopher, infer the function from a consideration of the symptoms alone, yet, having discovered it by other means, he comes to the injury fully competent to judge whether his former observations are confirmed or refuted by the phenomena now before him. It is only when in possession of this previous qualification that we can derive any advantage from such cases in increasing our knowledge of mind.

That the philosopher, with such views, could never have been led to the discovery of the connexion between certain parts of the brain and the propensities and sentiments, by the mere observation of their injuries, is proved by wounds of these parts having been actually attended with symptoms corresponding to their phrenological functions, and neither him nor the anatomical surgeon having drawn any such inference. Wounds

and diseases of the cerebellum, for instance, have forced themselves upon their notice, where the sexual propensity was extinguished by loss of substance, or preternaturally excited by the subsequent inflammatory action; and yet no one drew the inference that the cerebellum was the organ of Amativeness.* The temper and moral sentiments have also been entirely changed, in consequence of certain injuries of the brain, while the intellect remained unimpaired; and no one drew the conclusion that the parts affected were the organs of these sentiments. Nor would they have been warranted in doing so, because instances of injury confined so entirely to one part as to affect its function, without having any influence upon those of the neighbouring parts, are so rare, in comparison to those of an opposite kind, that no just inferences can be drawn from them alone; although, combined with other evidence, they are highly important.

CONCLUSION

(TO THE SECOND EDITION.)

IN the Introduction to this work it is observed, that, "in surveying the philosophy of man as at present exhibited to us in the writings of philosophers, we perceive, first, That no account is given of the influence of the material organs on the manifestations of the mental powers; that the progress of the mind from youth to age, and the phenomena of sleep, dreaming, idiocy, and insanity, are left unexplained or unaccounted for; secondly, That the existence and functions of some of the most important primitive faculties are still in dispute; and, thirdly, That no light whatever has been thrown on the nature and effects of combinations of the primitive powers in different degrees of relative proportion. It is, with great truth, therefore, that Monsieur De Bonald, quoted by Mr. Stewart, observes, that "diversity of doctrine has increased, from age to age, with the number of masters and with the progress of knowledge; and Europe, which at present possesses libraries filled with philosophical works, and which reckons up almost as many philosophers as writers; poor in the midst of so much riches, and uncertain, with the aid of all its guides, which road it should follow; Europe, the centre and focus of all the lights of the world, has yet its philosophy only in expectation."

May I hope that Phrenology will now appear to the attentive reader calculated to supply the deficiency here pointed out, and to furnish Europe, at last, with the Philosophy so long in expectation?

Hitherto the writings of Dr. Gall have been little known to the British public, except through the medium of hostile reviews; and the most unmeasured ridicule and abuse have been poured out against them, as if they were a disgrace to the century in which they were produced: his fellowlabourer, Dr. Spurzheim, has sustained an equal share of this unmerited storm. In preparing the present volume for the press, I have drawn largely from the works of both of these founders of the science; in many instances I have compared their statements of fact with nature, sifted their arguments, and weighed deliberately their conclusions; and I now feel it an imperative duty to state, that the present generation has, in my humble judgment, reacted, in their cases, the scenes which have attached so deep a stigma to the ages of Galileo and Harvey. The discoveries of

Wepferus's Historia Apoplecticorum, edit. 1724, p. 487. Magendie's Journal de Physiologie for Apríl and August, 1822; also Medical Repository, vol. xviii., pp. 268-358.-Larrey's Memoires de Chirurgie Militaire et Cam pagnes, vol. ii., p. 150; vol. iii., p. 262.

474

the revolution of the globe and the circulation of the blood were splendid displays of genius, interesting and beneficial to mankind; but their results, compared with the consequences which must inevitably follow from Dr. Gail's discovery of the functions of the brain, (embracing, as it does, the true theory of the animal, moral, and intellectual constitution of man,) sink into relative insignificance. Looking forward to the time when the real nature and ultimate effects of Dr. Gall's discovery shall be fully recognised, I cannot entertain a doubt that posterity will manifest as eaget a desire to render honour to his memory, as his contemporaries have shown to treat himself with indignity and contempt. If the present work shall tend in any degree to rouse the public attention to his merits, and to excite the philosophers of England to do him justice ere he die, it will accomplish one great end of its publication. Let them at last lay aside the prejudice which has so long kept them back from looking with their own eyes into his works, and from appealing, with the lights which he affords, to Nature, as the standard by which to try the merits of his pretensions. If they will examine, they will find that a fortunate thought opened up to him a vast region of discovery, and that he has displayed gigantic powers in prosecuting it to its results; that, instead of being an ignorant pretender to knowledge, he is a man of profound and solid erudition; that, so far from being a reckless theorist, he is the most stubborn adherent to fact that has perhaps ever appeared in the annals of inductive philosophy; and that, instead of being characterized by a weak understanding and bewildered imagination, he manifests an intellect at once profound, regulated, and comprehensive.

Dr. Spurzheim's works and lectures have rendered him better known in this country, and the force of truth has for some years been operating in his favour. No reviewer would now reckon it creditable to use the terms so unceremoniously applied to him in 1815; but a great debt of respect and gratitude remains to be paid by Britain and the world to Dr. Spurzheim. He is second in fortune rather than in merit to Dr. Gall. The great discovery of Phrenology unquestionably belongs to the latter; but to Dr. Spurzheim is due the praise of early appreciating its importance, and of fearlessly dedicating his life to the enlargement of its boundaries and the dissemination of its principles, at a time when neither honour nor emolument, but on the contrary obloquy and censure, were bestowed on its adherents. In admiring the science as it now appears, it becomes us to recollect, that we owe much of its excellence and interest to this gifted individual. He has enriched it with the most valuable anatomical discoveries, ascertained the functions of several highly important organs, shed over it the lights of a refined analytic philosophy, and pointed out the most important fields of its application. With profound gratitude and respect, therefore, I acknowledge myself indebted to him for the greatest gift which it was possible for one individual to confer on another—a knowledge of the true Philosophy of Man.

To my excellent friends, also, the Reverend David Welsh, Mr. Scott, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Lyon, and Dr. Andrew Combe, fellow-labourers with me in Phrenology, I owe many obligations. In availing myself freely of the lights which they have struck out, it has been my constant wish to acknowledge the source of my information; but if, amid the habitual interchange of ideas with which they have honoured me, their discoveries have, in any instance, been amalgamated with my own thoughts, and their authors forgotten, I solicit their forgiveness, assuring them that inadvertency alone has been the cause of any such mistakes.

EDINBURGH, October, 1825.