532 Notices of Books. [October, 
argument against its truth. Still both are facts which an apolo- 
gist like Mr. Morgan would have done well to examine. 
The work before us begins with a survey of the objections to 
phrenology, those especially urged by Mr. Lewes in his ‘ His- 
tory of Philosophy,” as published in 1871, and in his paper on 
‘«« Phrenology in France,” contained in ‘‘ Blackwood’s Magazine,” 
for December, 1857. Mr. Lewes is charged with a strong anti- 
phrenological bias, and with the ready acceptance, without due 
verification, of evidence telling against the system. ‘Thus, on 
the authority of M. Piesse (‘‘ La Médecine et les Médecins,” Paris, 
1857), he declares the head of the first Napoleon to have been 
‘‘ decidedly small.” Mr. Morgan, from actual measurements, 
made on ‘“‘an authentic copy of Dr. Antomarchi’s cast of him,” 
asserts that it was ‘‘ considerably larger than the average Euro- 
pean male head,” exceeding in most directions the heads of 8. 
T. Coleridge and Dr. A. Combe. The researches of Dr. Ferrier, 
which, by the way, will lay him open to the vengeance of the 
anti-vivisectionists, are cited in proof that the individual convo- 
lutions of the brain are separate and distinct organs. It is sug- 
gested that possibly Mr. Lewes “ will deem it advisable in the next 
edition of the ‘‘ History of Philosophy” to modify his viéws, and to 
eliminate the gratuitous assertion that the researches of ana- 
tomists have disproved every point advanced by Gall, in the 
same way as he found it necessary to re-write many portions of 
the last edition, so as to bring them more in consonance with the 
spirit of the times.” 
Dr. Ferrier’s results, though accepted in support of the view 
that the brain consists of a number of distinct organs, are other- 
wise called strongly in question. ‘This relates especially to his 
announcement that the cerebellum has no connection with the 
sexual instinét, since its excitement by a Faradic current failed 
to elicit any amatory symptoms. 
Incidentally, too, Dr. Carpenter is criticised. He maintains* 
‘‘that the posterior lobes of the cerebrum are the instruments, not 
(as maintained by phrenologists) of those passions and propensi- 
ties which man shares with the lower animals, but of attributes 
peculiar to man, which we fairly may suppose to consist in such 
mental operations of a peculiar intellectual character as do not 
express themselves in bodily action.” 
Our author remarks that the brains of idiots are generally 
remarkable for the largeness of these parts and the smallness of 
the anterior lobes, whilst those persons who are marked for in- 
tellectual power are, as a rule, equally noted for the extraor- 
dinary size of the anterior lobes. 
We should add that the number of attributes peculiar to man 
will be found, upon more careful and impartial scrutiny, to 
become ‘“ fine by degrees, and beautifully less.” The last objec- 
tion to phrenology which the author takes into consideration is 
* Mental Physiology, pp. 714, 715. 
