to regions, according to these opinions, was designed by ALBERT the Great, bishop of Ratisbon; and another was published by PETRUS MONTAGNANA, in 1491. One published at Venice, in 1562, by LUDOVICO DOLCI, a Venetian, in a work upon strengthening and preserving the memory, is here represented :

In the British Museum is a chart of the universe and the elements of all sciences, in which a large head so delineated is conspicuous. It was published at Rome so late as 1632 *.

If, then, the majority of anatomists, for the last two thousand years, and such illustrious physiologists as HALLER, and the others above referred to, were led to the belief of a plurality of mental organs, by a perception of the contradiction and inconsistency existing between the phenomena, and the supposition of the whole brain being the single organ of mind, I cannot be far wrong in saying, that the latter notion, so far from being self-evident, appears so improbable as to require even stronger facts to prove it than the opposite view; and that the presumptions are all in favour of a plurality of mental faculties, manifesting themselves by means of a plurality of organs.

I have now endeavoured to shew, first, That the ridicule

ELLIOTSON'S Blumenbach. p. 205.

and abuse with which Phrenology was treated at its first announcement, and its continued rejection by men of established reputation, whose opinions it contradicts, afford no presumption that it is untrue, for all great discoveries have met with a similar fate: Secondly, That we are really unacquainted with the mind, as an entity distinct from the body, and that it is owing to the mind not being conscious of its organs, that metaphysicians have supposed their feelings and intellectual perceptions to be emanations of pure mind, whereas they are the results of mind and its organs acting in combination. Thirdly, That the greatest anatomists and physiologists admit the brain to be the organ of the mind, and common feeling localizes the mind in the head, although it does not inform us what substance occupies the interior of the skull: Farther, That the very idea of the mind having an organ, implies that every mental act is accompanied with an affection of the organ, and vice versa; so that the true philosophy of the mind cannot be discovered without taking the influence of the organs into account at every step. Fourthly, That the analogy of the nerves of feeling and motion, of the five senses, and other parts of the body, all of which perform distinct functions by separate organs; also the successive appearance of the faculties in youth; the phenomena of partial genius, of dreaming, of partial insanity, of monomania, and of partial injuries of the brain, furnish presumptive evidence that the mind manifests a variety of faculties by means of a variety of organs, and exclude the supposition of a single power operating by a single organ. The next inquiry, therefore, naturally is, What effect does the condition of the organs produce on the states of the mind? Is it indifferent whether the organs be large or small, well or ill constituted, in health or in disease?

I submit the following facts to prove that in other departments of organised nature, size in an organ, other conditions being equal, is a measure of power in its function,

i. e. that small size indicates weak power, and large size strong power, all other circumstances being alike *.

In our infancy, we have been delighted with the fable of the old man who shewed his sons a bundle of rods, and pointed out to them how easy it was to snap asunder one, and how difficult to break the whole. The principle involved in this simple story pervades all material substances; for example, a muscle is composed of a number of fleshy fibres, and hence it follows that each muscle will be strong in proportion to the number of fibres which enter into its composition. If nerves be composed of parts, a nerve which is composed of twenty parts must be more vigorous than one which is constituted of only one. To render this principle universally true, however, one condition must be observed, namely, that in comparing parts with each other, or with the whole, all shall be of the same quality; for example, if the old man in the fable had presented ten twigs of wood tied up in a bundle, and desired his sons to observe how much more difficult it was to break ten than to sever one; and if his sons, in refutation of this assertion, had presented him with a rod of iron of the same thickness as one twig, and said that it was as difficult to break that iron rod, although single, as his whole bundle of twigs, although tenfold, the answer would have been obvious, that the things compared differed in kind and quality; and that if he took ten iron rods, and tried to break them, the difficulty would be as great compared with that of severing one, as to break ten twigs of wood compared with that of breaking one. In like manner, nerves, muscles, brain, and all other parts of the body, may be sound, or they may be diseased; they may be of a fine structure or a coarse structure; they may be old or young; they may be almost dissolved with the burning heat of a tropical sun, or nearly frozen

This subject is fully treated of by Dr ANDREW COMBE in an Essay on the Influence of Organic Size on Energy of Function, particularly as applied to the Organs of the external Senses and Brain, in the Phrenolo gical Journal, vol. iv. p. 161.

under the influence of an arctic winter; and it would be altogether irrational to expect that the influence of size was to stand forth as a fixed energy to overrule all these circumstances, and to produce effects constantly equal. The strength of iron itself and adamantine rock depends on temperature, for either will melt with a certain degree of heat, and at a still higher point they will be dissipated into vapour. The true principle then, is, that constitution, health, and outward circumstances being the same, a large muscle, or large nerve, composed of numerous fibres, will act with more force than a small one comprehending few. Let us, however, trace the influence of this law in animated beings. It will scarcely be disputed, that the strength of the bones is always, other circumstances being equal, proportioned to their size. So certain is this, that when nature requires to give strength to a bone in a bird, and, at the same time, to avoid increasing the weight of the animal, the bone is made of large diameter, but hollow in the middle; and, on mechanical principles, the increase of volume adds to its strength. That the law of size holds in regard to the bloodvessels and heart, is self-evident to every one who knows that a tube of three inches diameter will transmit more water than a tube of only one inch. And the same may be said in regard to the lungs, liver, kidneys, and every other part. If a liver, suppose of four square inches, can secrete four ounces of bile, it is perfectly manifest, that one of eight square inches will be able, all other things being equal, to secrete a quantity greater in proportion to its greater size. If this law did not hold true, What would be the advantage of large and capacious, over small and confined lungs? There could be none.

Speaking, generally, there are two classes of nerves distributed over the body, those of motion and those of sensation or feeling. In motion, the muscle is the essential or chief apparatus, and the nerve is required only to communicate to it the impulse of the will; but in sensation the reverse is the case,—the nerve itself is the chief instrument,

and the part on which it is ramified is merely a medium for putting it in relation with the specific qualities which it is destined to recognize.

To shew the effect of size in regard to these nerves, the following cases may be mentioned, and they are stated on the authority of DESMOULINS, a celebrated French physiologist, when no other authority is given. The horse and ox have much greater muscular power, and much less intensity of sensation in their limbs than man; and, in conformity with the principle now under discussion, the nerves of motion going to the four limbs in the horse and ox are at least one-third more numerous than the nerves of sensation going to the same parts; whereas in man the nerves of motion going to the legs and arms are a fifth or a sixth part less than the nerves of sensation distributed on the same parts. In like manner, in birds and reptiles which have scaly skins and limited touch, but vigorous powers of motion, the nerves of sensation are few and small, and the nerves of motion numerous and large. Farther, wherever nature has given a higher degree of sensation or touch to any particular part than to the other parts of an animal, there the nerve of sensation is invariably increased; for example, the single nerve of feeling ramified on the tactile extremity of the proboscis of the elephant exceeds in size the united volume of all the muscular nerves of that organ. Some species of monkeys possess great sensibility in the tail, and some species of bats possess great sensibility in their wings, and in these parts the nerves of sensation are increased in size in proportion to the increased function. Birds require to rise in the air, which is a medium much lighter than their own bodies. To have enlarged the size of their muscles would have added to their weight, and increased their difficulty in rising. Nature, to avoid this disadvantage, has bestowed on them large nerves of motion which infuse a very powerful stimulus into the muscles, and increase their power of motion. Fishes live in water which is almost in equilibrium with their bodies. To them