CRITICAL NOTICES OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. 337 
from deficient zeal. This could hardly be otherwise, for phrenology 
is not an independent science ; it is an integer in physiology, and 
cannot be dealt with by ordinary minds with ordinary attainments. 
Indeed, such individuals are as little capable of thorough conversion 
to, as they are impercipient of arguments militating against, the 
doctrines. 
We believe that Phrenology cannot, for those reasons, ever be po- 
pular; in other words, it must remain an affair of faith to all who 
bring not the talent, learning, and great observation, essential to con- 
viction. As it is expounded by the majority of its teachers, it is 
the crude, fanciful, unsatisfying affair, that its equally ignorant objec- 
tors partially succeed in representing it, many of them, honestly, 
knowing no more of it than is described by the vulgar and incapable, 
who, adding enthusiasm to ignorance, bring down discredit on that, 
which, if understood, deserves all honour, A wide space sunders 
Miiller from Elliotson ; the last is a worshipping disciple of Gall; and 
what is vastly more rare than admiration of that great man, perfectly 
understands the doctrines of which Gall is the apostle: on the other 
hand, Miiller, after making admissions the force and effect of which 
he seems not to haye calculated, winds up by concurring with the 
opinion of a French physiologist, every way inferior to himself, (Ma- 
jendie) that cranioscopy or phrenology may be reckoned with astrology 
and alchemy! which opinion is tantamount to absolute proof that 
Miller never read Gall, which is equivalent to proving, that, ex ne- 
cessitate, he cannot by any possibility understand phrenology, al- 
though he presumes to pronounce ex cathedra against it. Nearly all 
the normal and also the morbid phenomena of the nervous system, 
were known to the ancients; but it was left to others, and of this day, 
to claim the merit of more correct knowledge going beyond that, 
which is merely observed without being understood. To the known 
functions of the brain, spinal cord, and ganglionic system, is now, by 
some, added another, long since obscurely recognised as something 
allied to “sympathy,” and now baptised by one of the claimants to 
originality, as the “reflex function” of the spinal- cord, a term, it is 
insisted, about as original as the discovery, both of which, it is assert- 
ed, with much confirming testimnoy, were not unknown to Prochaska 
in the last century. Of living candidates for the credit of a “ discover- 
er,” Miiller is one, and that he is a “ discoverer” we have no doubt. 
To the existence of the reflex function as a previously unknown and 
not understood function, Dr. Elliotson is opposed, and with candour 
and ability, makes a strong opposition to the novel claims of recent dis- 
covery and superior information. As the advocates of the novelty of the 
theory admit that more remains to be done, e.g. the discovery of special 
nerves, (called by Dr. Hall “ excito-motory”) for the performance of 
the reflex function, it is hard to come to a conclusion unalterable : 
while it ought to be mentioned that an excellent anatomist (Mr. Grain- 
VOL. IX., NO. XXVI. 43 
