316 SOME REMARKS ON A REVIEW, &C. 



the same opinion to the works of Gall, Spurzheim, and Combe, 

 and to the " Phrenological Journal." I will, however, just remark 

 that one of the organs (Alimentiveness) was discovered by two 

 individuals nearly at the same time, without either of them 

 having any knowledge of the good fortune of the other. Dr. 

 Milligan continues as follows : — 'Considered in relation to the 

 brain, the membranes, the inner table, and the diploe itself, the 

 outer table presents no other definite organization beyond that 

 of an irregular envelope, which is in some places as thin as a 

 wafer, in others thicker than all the rest of the cranium. But, if 

 we view it from without, we find that every particle of its surface 

 is adapted to some purpose which it has to answer in combination 

 with the soft parts with which it is in contact. Many processes 

 are levers for the muscles : others are merely scabrous surfaces 

 for their insertion ; others are condyles for joints ; others organs 

 of hearing; others organs of fixation; others of protection ; and 

 all this in direct reference to the organs in contact, but without 

 the least relation, that can be discovered, to the encephalon. 

 Hence we are forced to conclude that its projections solely origi- 

 nate under the influence, and for the completion of functions 

 that are all external to the cranium ; and the same thing must 

 necessarily be inferred of the external table, which is merely 

 their substratum.* This apparently plausible theory might 

 probably induce many persons to believe it, as seems to have been 

 the case with C. R. Let us, however, examine into its truth. 

 If the worthy doctor really supposed that the outer table of the 

 skull presented " no other definite organization beyond that of 

 an irregular envelope," he can only be pitied for the deficiency 

 of his organ of individuality (observation) ; but, when he pro- 

 ceeds to state that " from without, we find that every particle of 

 its surface is adapted to some purpose which it has to answer in 

 combination with the soft parts with which it is in contact," &c. 

 the question immediately presents itself why the external con- 

 formation of the head should vary so greatly in different 

 individuals ? and why these modifications of structure should 

 invariably indicate certain manifestations ? If this be the case — 

 as no one who has impartially investigated the subject can deny — 

 Dr. Milligan's theory falls to the ground. 



C. R. remarks, in conclusion, that ''The conciseness of Dr. 

 Milligan's observations renders abridgment almost impossible, 

 while the closeness of his reasonings, and the indubitable facts 

 upon which they are founded [all of which "indubitable facts" 

 I would undertake to refute], are certainly calculated to make a 

 very strong impression against the doctrines which he opposes." 

 Dr. Milligan certainly did show some ability in his essay, more 

 especially because, although on the wrong side of the question, 

 his theories had some plausibility. My hump of gullibility (as 

 an antiphrenologist might say) is not, however, sufficiently 

 large to allow me to be imposed upon by arguments like these. 



