PHRENOLOGY. 215 



which can enable us to connect particular injuries of the 

 brain with corresponding injuries of particular facul- 

 ties. 



" The position that the size of an organ is an indica- 

 tion of the degree of its power, or capacity, a position 

 which may be regarded as almost the fundamental prin- 

 ciple on which the whole doctrine rests, is in direct con- 

 tradiction to fact. To revert to the case of the eye ; it 

 may be asserted that this perfection of this organ, either 

 when considered with respect to the different species of 

 animals, or to the different individuals of the same spe- 

 cies, does not bear the least relation to its size, but 

 depends entirely upon the nature of its organization, 

 and, except in those cases where the exercise of an 

 organ is connected with mechanical force, as in muscu- 

 lar contraction, bulk has no relation to the perfection of 

 a part. * * * * 



" And even were it proved, as a general principle 

 that distinct parts of the brain were appropriated to 

 distinct mental functions, we may still be permitted to 

 doubt whether the cranioscopists have been fortunate 

 in their division and appropriation of the functions 

 which are supposed to possess these distinct localities. 

 If we consider the subject theoretically, we might pre- 

 sume, that there would be a separate organ correspond- 

 ing to each of the external senses, as the impressions 

 are themselves distinct in their nature, and might be sup- 

 posed to require some different modification of the nervous 

 matter for their perception. And again, with respect 

 to the intellectual powers, there are some which appear 

 so distinct from the others, that we might apply to them 

 the same mode of reasoning, and suppose it probable that 

 they might possess their appropriate organs. The fac- 

 ulty of memory might be supposed to require a different 

 modification of the nervous power from that of the 

 imagination ; and this again from that of abstraction 

 or volition. But we do not observe any classification or 

 division of this kind in the faculties that are enumerated 

 by Dr. Spurzheim, or his disciples. Some of them are 

 complex feelings, resulting from the union of primary 

 perceptions with ideas ; others appear to be a com- 

 bination of ideas only ; some may be regarded as the 

 obvious result of association, and others again as the 



