VIEWS OF PHRENOLOGISTS. 339 



manner, as there are as many sensorial nervous systems and organs of 

 sense as there are external senses, so there are, it is maintained, as 

 many encephalic nervous systems as there are special moral faculties 

 or internal senses. Each moral faculty has, in the encephalon, a 

 nervous part concerned in its production; as each sense has its special 

 nervous system ; the sole difference being, that the nervous systems of 

 the senses are separate and distinct, whilst those of the encephalon are 

 crowded together in the small cavity of the cranium, and appear to 

 form but one mass. 



The proofs, adduced by Gall 1 in favour of his proposition, are the 

 following : 1st. It has been established as a principle, that differences 

 in the psychology of man and animals correspond to varieties in the 

 structure of the encephalon, and that the latter are dependent on the 

 former. Now, differences of the encephalon consist less in changes of 

 the general form of the organ, than in parts, which are present in some 

 and not in others ; and if the presence or absence of such parts is the 

 cause why certain animals have a greater or less number of faculties 

 than others, they ought certainly to be esteemed special organs of such 

 faculties. 2dly. The intellectual and moral faculties are multiple. 

 This every one admits. Each, consequently, ought to have its special 

 organ ; and the admission of a plurality of intellectual moral faculties 

 must induce that of a plurality of encephalic organs, in the same man- 

 ner as each external sense has its proper nervous system. 3dly. In 

 different individuals of the same species, in different men, much 

 psychological variety is observable. The cause of this is doubtless in 

 the encephalon ; but we can hardly ascribe it to a difference in the 

 general shape of the organ, which is sensibly the same. It is owing 

 rather to differences in its separate parts. Are not such parts, there- 

 fore, he asks, distinct nervous systems ? 4thly. In the same individual 

 in the same man the intellectual and affective faculties have never the 

 same degree of activity: whilst one predominates, another may be 

 feeble. Now, this fact, which is inexplicable under the hypothesis, 

 that the encephalon is a single organ, is readily intelligible under the 

 theory of the plurality of organs. Whilst the encephalic part, which 

 is the agent of the one faculty, is proportionably more voluminous or 

 more active, that which presides over the other is less so. Why, he 

 asks, may not this happen with the encephalic organs, as with the 

 other organs of the body, the senses, for example ? Cannot one of 

 these be feeble, and the other energetic? 5thly. In the same indi- 

 vidual, all the faculties do not appear, nor are they all lost at the same 

 period. Each age has its own psychology. How can we explain these 

 intellectual and moral varieties according to age, under the hypothesis 

 that the encephalon is a single organ ? Under the doctrine of the 

 plurality of encephalic organs, the explanation is simple. Each ence- 

 phalic system has its special period of developement and decay. 6thly. 

 It is a common observation, that when we are fatigued by one kind of 

 mental occupation, we have recourse to another; yet it often happens, 

 that the new labour, instead of adding to the fatigue experienced by 



1 Op. cit., ii. 394. 



