that the representations in plates VI. and XI. "are particularly " inaccurate;" that others do not in the least degree approach to "accuracy;" and on p. 267, that in several plates "the omissions "are great, and in a considerable number the errors extravagant.” Is it not surprising, that in a place like Paris, where, from the abundance of subjects, every one can so easily verify the anatomical statements of Gall and Spurzheim, their descriptions should now be those adopted by the established professors and teachers of the science? I have already cited Cuvier and Cloquet, and I may safely add, that the late lamented Beclard, professor of anatomy at the Faculty of Medicine, whose genius is incontestable, and whose reputation is already European, although he was cut off in his prime, describes the structure in terms scarcely different from those of the phrenological doctors themselves. Besides, in London, in 1826, Dr Spurzheim was entreated by the medical students to teach them the anatomy of the brain, and they raised a subscription to recompense him for doing so. These statements may seem tedious and unnecessary, but truth required them to be brought forward to dissipate the deception which you, unintentionally and in ignorance, endeavour to practise on those who pin their faith to your dicta, on the erroneous supposition that you are acquainted with the subject on which you are writing. Can you peruse the testimonies now adduced, and still" venture to affirm" that your own conduct is, in this instance, "reconcileable with the dignity of scien"tific investigation ?"

*

On p. 317, you quote the case of a Welshman in St Thomas's Hospital," who had received a considerable injury of "the head, but from which he ultimately recovered, and "who, when he became convalescent, spoke a language which "no one about him could comprehend." It turned out that he had recovered the use of the Welsh language which he had learned in his youth, but, owing to long disuse, had

Beclard's Additions to Bichat, p. 38.

८८

subsequently forgotten. After citing the case, you proceed: "The phenomenon is explained by supposing that a part of the "organ of Language was injured, and that the effects of this injury were, 1st, to destroy for the time, that part of the machinery which served for the recollection of English words, and, 2d, to restore to a serviceable state, that part which had "been originally used for recollecting Welsh ones, but had long "been so much rusted and decayed as to be quite unfit for ser"vice. These are not metaphors employed to assist our concep"tion of an obscure fact, or to give a sort of coherence to a strange "statement, they ARE ALLEGED BY THE PHRENOLOGISTS as se"rious and literal truths, affording a plain and satisfactory explanation of a very extraordinary occurrence." Now, would any mortal believe that every word of these explanations and statements is a pure fiction of your own, gratuitously put into the mouths of the Phrenologists, apparently for no purpose but to afford scope for ridicule. Not only are there no such assertions or expositions in my work, but there is nothing approaching to them. After uoting from an opponent of Phrenology the case of the Welshman, the only remark made upon it by me is, "Such a fact as this is totally inexplicable on any principle, except that of the existence of organs by which the faculties are manifested; for it could not be "the mind itself that was affected, and its faculties impaired by the fever, or which recovered long-lost knowledge by the influence of "this disease."-System of Phrenology, p. 315.

cr

66

66

On page 318 of the Review, it is said, "We have left room "enough, we dare say, for cavil and misrepresentation on the "part of those who think those the best weapons of controver"sy; it is not, however, to them that we address ourselves, ❝and we care nothing at all for their hostility." There are no limits certainly to the abuse of words; but if your Review is deliberately exhibited as a specimen of what you mean by candour and scrupulosity, no doubt this answer to it may be viewed as replete with "cavil and misrepresenta"tion."

You attempt another refutation of Phrenology, by affirming, that a man may not only be well banged on all his organs, but that he may be deprived of the greater number of them altogether, without injury to any mental faculty. Instead

of wasting time in answering at length, a proposition worthy indeed of the author of the discovery, that insects perform all their functions as well without, as with heads, I shall merely state, that the principle of a plurality of organs, as applied to the explanation of the phenomena attendant on partial injuries of the brain, has been recognized by the best professional authorities, as the most satisfactory and consistent that has ever been propounded. In the Medico-Chirurgical Review for October, 1826, the following passage occurs:"The last of these questions" (the objection arising from injuries of the brain)" is investigated in an elaborate paper fur"nished to the "System," by Dr A. Combe, who succeeds "completely in removing the objection. His reasonings to us "seem unanswerable, and unfold views which the physician can "apply to the best purposes: the Essay altogether is satisfac"tory."-P. 466.

On page 296, you say, "If it were really true, that cer"tain very visible and well-defined bumps on the skull were the necessary organs of all our faculties and propensities,—just as our eyes are of sight and our ears of hearing,—it is, in the first place, "inconceivable, that the discovery should have remained to be made "in the beginning of the 19th century."

66

The same profound objection goes to show, that the discovery of the revolution of the globe could not be true, because it was not made by Copernicus till 1510, nor defended by Galileo till 1608; that Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood must be a fable, because mankind continued ignorant of it till 1619; and that gas-light must be a perfect nonentity, because it was unknown till our own day! In the introduction to the " System" it is explained how the discovery was not made sooner; Dissection does not reveal the functions of any organ, and Consciousness does not intimate even the existence of organs of the mental faculties; nevertheless, anatomists prior to Dr Gall studied the brain chiefly by dissection, and metaphysicians studied the mind by reflection on their own consciousness; while he adopted a method entirely new, that of comparing the power of manifesting the various faculties with the size of particular parts

of the brain. It is, therefore, not strange, that he should arrive at results which the imperfections of their methods rendered it impossible for them to reach.

You proceed:-" In the second place, it is still more incon"ceivable, that, after the discovery was made, there should be any body who could pretend to doubt of its reality. The means of verifying it, one would think, must have been such as not to leave a pretext for the slightest hesitation; and the fact that, after twenty years preaching in its favour, it is far more generally rejected than believed, might seem to afford pretty conclusive evidence against "the possibility of its truth."-P. 296.

66

In answer, I beg to refer you to Mr Locke's observations, cited on p. 9 of this Letter, and to the following extract from Professor Playfair's "Dissertation," prefixed to the Supplement of the Encyclopædia Britannica :

"It must not be supposed," says he," that so great a revo "lution in science, as that which was made by the new analysis, (by Newton,) could be brought about entirely without oppo"sition, as in every society there are some who think them"selves interested to maintain things in the condition wherein "they have found them. The considerations are indeed sufficiently obvious, which, in the moral and political world, tend "to produce this effect, and to give a stability to huma insti"tutions often so little proportionate to their real value, or to "their general utility. Even in matters purely intellectual, " and in which the abstract truths of arithmetic and geometry "seem alone concerned, the prejudices, the selfishness, or the vanity of those who pursue them, not unfrequently combine to "resist improvement, and often engage no inconsiderable degree of "talent in drawing back, instead of pushing forward, the machine "of science. The introduction of methods entirely new must often change the relative place of the men engaged in scientific pursuits, and must oblige many, after descending from the stations they "formerly occupied, to take a lower position in the scale of intel lectual improvement. The enmity of such men, if they be not "animated by a spirit of real candour and the love of truth, is "likely to be directed against methods by which their vanity "is mortified and their importance lessened."-Dissertation, part 2d, p. 27.

66

Mr Playfair, again, speaking of the discoveries of Newton in regard to the composition of light, says, "But all were "not equally candid with the Dutch philosopher, [Huygens], "and though the discovery now communicated had every thing to recommend it which can arise from what is great, new,

"and singular, though it was not a theory or system of opinions, "but the generalization of facts made known by experiments, and though it was brought forward in a most simple and unpre"tending form, a host of enemies appeared, each eager to obtain "the unfortunate pre-eminence of being the first to attack conclu"sions which the unanimous voice of posterity was to confirm.”— (P. 56.) Among them, one of the first was Father Pardies, "who wrote against the experiments, and what he was pleased to "call the HYPOTHESIS of Newton. A satisfactory and calm reply convinced him of his mistake, which he had the candour "very readily to acknowledge. A countryman of his, Mariotte, was more difficult to be reconciled, and though very conver"sant with experiment, appears never to have succeeded in repeating the experiments of Newton.”—Ib. p. 57.

66

Here Mr Playfair's arm is raised not only to avenge the illustrious dead, but to protect from insult discoverers of every age. It is impossible to arrest the blow, even although it is you, his friend, who have thrust your head into the line of its descent.

On pages 295 and 296, you make a variety of allegations hostile to Phrenology, and say, that the Phrenologists "know well enough that the great body of the public concurs" with you ;-you should have added, "and the whole empire of "China !"—If I have been successful in showing, that it is impossible to know any thing at all of the matter, except by practising observations, which you, and the great body of the public, misled by you, have never done, it follows that the good people of China are in every respect as competent witnesses against the truth of Phrenology as you and your adherents; and if numbers are to decide the question, they are not to be despised. You know well enough, that that portion of the public who have examined the evidence are to a man against you; and according to all rules of probation hitherto acted upon, the testimony of ten men informed on a subject outweighs that of a countless multitude whose ignorance is their only qualification. If I am not greatly deceived, you have in the present article over-estimated the extent of public ignorance regarding Phrenology, and relied on it a little more. than may be advantageous to your philosophical reputation.