futility, but view him as a critic open to conviction if he has pronounced an erroneous judgment. Many persons, no doubt, regard the doctrines as too ridiculous to merit a serious refutation, but we cannot subscribe to this opinion. The writings of Drs. Gall and Spurzheim themselves are worthy of a calm and philosophical refutation, if they contain erroneous views; but when other men of judgment, and not destitute of talent, come forward as supporters of their opinions; and not only so, but when societies are formed for their cultivation, we suspect that the tide of ridicule will soon begin to flow in an opposite direction, if those who patronize the established system, persevere in this supercilious treatment of their opponents. The contempt of the Chinese for the science and literature of Europe, does not arise from a more enlarged and comprehensive understanding in that nation; but it marks the extent to which ignorance and prejudice possess the mastery over their minds.

Other, and still stronger reasons, however, exist, why serious enquiry should he no longer delayed. The reader will bear in mind, that the general rejection of any new discovery affords no test whatever of its falsity. In proof of this, we have only to recollect the historics of the most important discoveries in medical or philosophical science. The celebrated Harvey, for his glorious discovery of the circulation of the blood, was long ridiculed and persecuted; his facts were neglected, and his theory met with almost universal condemnation. Hume mentions as a curious historical fact, that no physician, at that time, above 40 years of age, ever acknowledged his theory. Galileo was rewarded for his discovery of the motion of the earth, by persecution and imprisonment. Nor are these, by any means, solitary instances. Such occurrences are, in fact, but too common, and since such things have happened, we ought to be the more cautious, lest unwillingly, we add another to the list, even in this enlightened age.

In the next place, notwithstanding our almost total ignorance of the use of the brain, it has been universally regarded as one of the most important organs in the whole body, consequently, there has been no lack of talent or of zeal in endeavouring to ascertain its precise functions. The unceasing efforts of the most ingenious and profound philosophers, bowever, having, after a lapse of many hundred years, added so exceedingly little to our knowledge, we cannot but suspect that, if its precise functions are ever to be discovered, the modes of investigation hitherto in use, are not those, by which we shall be able to attain the end in view.

Physiologists are agreed, that the functions of any organ

are not to be discovered by dissection alone; nevertheless, investigations of this kind ought to be conducted in such a way, as to afford, at least, a chance of discovering the struc ture of the organ, and the relation of its parts. In dissecting the brain, however, this rule has not hitherto been generally attended to. The organ is frequently examined, by slicing it horizontally, a mode of dissection, the use of which may be aptly illustrated, by supposing the same method applied in tracing the structure of the arm or thigh. What notion could be formed of the anatomy of these parts, by cutting circular slices through skin, muscles, blood-vessels, nerves, and bone, and minutely noting the appearances presented by each different section? How, then, can anatomists expect to succeed in discovering the structure of the brain, by slicing across the convolutions, instead of following the course of the fibres from the medulla oblongata to the farthest point of divergence to which they can be traced. The method of dissection, therefore, recommended by Drs. Gall and Spurzheim, appears to us well worthy of serious attention, in consequence of its own obvious merits alone, and still more so, seeing that it has met with the approbation of the French anatomists, whose opportunities of procuring brains in a proper state for examination, enable them to decide this point upon a more extensive experience than ours.

Although, however, the structure were perfectly ascertained, the functions would not be thereby disclosed; and as the founders of phrenology pretend to have discovered the functions also, two points naturally present themselves for our consideration, previously to forming a judgment upon their assertions. First; the means which they employed in their investigations: and, secondly, the coincidence or contradiction between the results obtained, and such facts in nature as are already known and established. If the means be philosophic and adequate, we may then listen to the conclusions. Should the results stand in opposition to established opinions, we ought not on this account alone to reject them, because established opinions may be erroneous; but as Nature is never inconsistent, if we find ascertained facts contradicting the phrenological views, we shall then have a good reason for treating them with disrespect.

First, then, with regard to the means. The operations of mind never come under our cognizance, but as connected with, and influenced by, certain changes in the state of the brain, for this organ is admitted, in all systems of philosophy, to be the medium, the sine qua non; by means of which, the mind acts upon, and is put in communication with, the external world. The immaterial principle eludes the research

of our grosser senses, and we are obviously incapable of attaining a knowledge of the nature of mind as it exists in a disembodied state. All therefore that properly comes within the province of the physiologist or philosopher, is to ascertain the mutual influence of mind and organization upon each other, and the conditions of the organization required for the healthy operations of the different mental powers. Hitherto the extent of certain knowledge goes no farther than this, that a sound state of the brain is requisite for the sound manifestations of the mind; but whether the whole brain is requisite for every single mental act, or, if not, what particular part is required for the due operation of any particular faculty has not been demonstrated. Dr. Gall advances still farther, and tries to prove that the latter view, viz. that of the plurality of faculties and organs is the true one, and this forms the fundamental principle of phrenology.

Now metaphysical philosophers, in investigating the phenomena of mind, have depended chiefly on the aid of consciousness for revealing the laws by which they are regulated, without attending to the effects of the organization. In doing so they appear to have taken too limited a view of the subject. The gradual and successive expansion of the infant faculties, keeping pace with the progressive perfection of the brain; the existence of idiotcy, and of insanity, and the every day phenomena of disease causing changes in the state of the mind, prove the constant and unceasing influence of the organic medium on the mental manifestations. The neglect of the influence of the organization appears therefore to have been one great cause of the constant failures which have hitherto occurred to metaphysicians in forming theories of the mind. Every mental act is performed by means of, and is influenced by, the organic medium, and yet, when in health, consciousness does not reveal to us even its existence. insufficiency, therefore, for unfolding the whole truth regarding the mind is obvious, and in consequence it is clearly an inadequate basis, on which to erect a complete system of mental philosophy. This conclusion appears the more sound, when we recollect that consciousness has never conducted two philosophers to precisely the same result; and that it varies in the same individual according to the state of his health, age, and other circumstances. By its aid we can discover only the successive conditions of our own mind upon the presentation of certain impressions, but because certain ideas or emotions arise or succeed each other in a certain order in one mind, and at a certain time, can we affirm, that such is the order in the minds of all men, at all times? Certainly not; for the first person we meet with has a mind differently conVol. II. No. 12. 5 Z

Its

stituted from our own, and he denies the accuracy of our observations. So that by this means alone we can never discover the nature and number of the mental faculties, or the existence of the organ by which they act.

Physiologists being fully convinced that the functions cannot be discovered by dissection, have next supposed that by careful observation of the effects of injuries of this organ, we shall be able to ascertain the functions of its different parts; but we suspect that this method also is as inefficient as the others. Sir Everard Home, with the laudable view of throwing light upon a difficult subject, made a collection of upwards of fifty cases of cerebral injury, and noted carefully the effects produced, but these effects were all general, as coma, delirium, sickness, vomiting, and the like, without any constant or particular modification of one or several mental faculties ensuing from each particular lesion suffered by the brain. Such are the modes of enquiry hitherto in use. In opposition to them, the phrenologists recommend the method of comparing the development of the head with the manifestations of particular faculties of the mind, in a state of health, and affirm that in cases where an individual propensity, sentiment, or intellectual power, is extremely vigorous, a certain part of the brain will be found very largely developed, while in other cases, where the same faculty is remarkably feeble, the same part will be found exceedingly small. The only rational objection which can be stated to this method, is that the skull does not indicate the size of the brain. The phrenologists reply to this objection that, admitting a certain degree of inequality or want of parallelism between the inner and outer tables to exist, it is so small (not exceeding the eighth part of an inch in the general case) as not to affect the result; because a large organ of cautiousness, or ideality, or love of approbation, for instance, will cause the skull to protrude a full inch more than a small organ will do, so that the inequality of one-eighth of an inch, even if it exists, is lost in the extent of the general difference. This also is a tangible statement; and if it be true, that persons of a very cautious character have an inch more of brain in a particular quarter than those who are very incautious, the fact is worth the knowing. Being solemnly asserted as a truth by persons of intelligence and reputation, it is the summit of absurdity to laugh at their assertion, but at the same time not dare to contradict it from observation. On the whole, therefore, we conclude that the common methods of investigating the connexion betwixt the mind and the brain, are not adequate to attain the ends in view, and that there is nothing in the phrenological mode of observation which ought to prevent us from putting it in practice.

In the next place, we may compare the alledged results of the phrenological method of enquiry with several well ascertained natural phenomena, and mark the coincidence or opposition between them.

The phrenologists affirm, that a plurality of faculties and organs exist, and that one of them may be diseased, deficient, or more than usually vigorous, without affecting the state of the others, just as the organ of vision, of taste, or of touch, may be defective in one individual, while that of hearing, or of smell, remains in its usual state. The doctrine which stands opposed to this is, that the whole brain constitutes but one organ, and that every part of it is employed in every mental act. Now let us apply the two theories to several well ascertained physiological and pathological phenomena, and mark which of them quadrates most exactly with positive experience. The following facts are too well ascertained to admit of dispute. We find some individuals, who, from birth, are deficient in some one or more of the internal faculties of the mind, as in the case of partial idiots.

"It is remarked," says Fodéré, in his Traité du Goitre et du Cretinisme, p. 133, "that by an inexplicable singularity, some of these individuals (cretins) endowed with so weak minds are born with a particular talent for copying paintings, for rhyming, or for music. I have known several who taught themselves to play passably on the organ and clavecin; others who understood, without ever having had a master, the repairing of watches, and the construction of some pieces of mechanism." He adds that these powers could not be attributed to the intellect, "for these individuals not only could not read the books which treated of the principles of mechanism, mais ils etaient deroutès lorsqu'on en parlait, et ne se perfectionnaient jamais."

Pinel speaks of a female idiot who had the most astonishing propensity to imitate whatever she heard or saw done. She repeated whole sentences, but without attaching any idea to them. He distinctly admits the fact that individuals exist who from birth possess a limited capacity for receiving certain kinds of ideas, and an utter incapacity for all other kinds; or in other words, who possess one or more faculties of the mind to a limited extent, and appear to be deprived of all the others. Every writer on insanity, as Rush, Haslam, Esquirol, admits the partial development of certain powers of the mind in idiots, and Rush in particular not only alludes to the powers of intellect, but also to the partial possession of the moral faculties. Some idiots, he observes, are as remarkable for correct moral feelings, as some great geniuses are for the reverse. One never utters an intelligible sentence, because he does not comprehend it, although he can repeat