FUNCTIONS OF THE CEREBRUM. 215 



observing on the heads of those who manifested any remarkable faculty or 

 tendency, a corresponding prominence ; and to have found confirmation of his 

 inferences, by comparing in like manner the skulls of the lower animals with 

 their peculiar powers and dispositions. Both these branches of inquiry have 

 been taken up by numerous observers ; and a large amount of evidence has 

 been adduced by them in support of Gall's views, which appears in itself 

 plausible, and which is regarded by many physiologists of much intelligence 

 as quite decisive. Nevertheless, it does not appear that the doctrine is widely 

 received amongst those whose peculiar attention to the Physiology and Patho- 

 logy of the Nervous System gives them the highest authority on the subject ; 

 and much additional proof would seem to be requisite, before it can take rank 

 as substantially true. It may be freely admitted that Mankind is in the habit 

 of forming an impression of an individual's intellectual capacity, by the height 

 and expansion of his forehead ; and that a low forehead and crown, with great 

 development of the occipital portion of the brain, generally accompany a cha- 

 racter in which the influence of the animal passions is predominant ; and 

 correspondences even more detailed may be admitted, without the inference 

 being then conclusive, that these several parts are the distinct organs of the 

 several faculties, or that the size of the organ is a measure of its functional 

 power. It may be thought to be, in regard to the form of the head, very 

 much as in respect to the character of the face, that we may draw from it a 

 general idea as to the character of the mind, and may not unfrequently be 

 able to predicate correctly some minute details ; and yet that an attempt to 

 localize the organs more minutely, may be as destitute of truth as were the 

 details of the system of Lavater. Moreover, a fundamental doubt hangs over 

 every determination of function, which results from a comparison of the size 

 of the supposed organ or region in different cases. If it be true that the gray 

 matter only is the source of power, and that the white is merely a conductor, 

 we have no right to assume that the total size of the organ affords a measure 

 of its power, until it has been shown that the thickness of the cortical substance 

 can be judged of by the size of the Brain, or of any part of it. Certainly 

 there is a considerable variation in this respect among different individuals ; 

 and it is yet to be proved that the relation is constant in different parts of the 

 same individual Brain. Until this is substantiated, all inferences drawn from 

 correspondence between the prominence of a certain part of the brain, and the 

 intensity of a particular function, are invalid ; that is, if the general doctrine 

 of the relative functions of the gray and white matter be true. Further, there 

 is unfortunately a considerable uncertainty attending all Phrenological obser- 

 vations, which are made upon the cranium, rather than upon the brain ; this 

 we have seen from the discrepancy between the statements of Gall, and the 

 facts ascertained regarding the comparative weight of the Cerebellum in 

 castrated and entire horses. It appears to the Author, too, that Comparative 

 anatomy and psychology are very far from supporting the system, when their 

 evidence is fairly weighed.* It is a very curious circumstance, that the 

 difference in the antero-posterior diameter, between the brain of Man and that 

 - of the lower Mammalia, principally arises from the shortness of the posterior 

 lobes in the latter, these being seldom long enough to cover the Cerebellum ; 

 yet it is in these posterior lobes that the animal propensities are regarded by 



* Much is said by Phrenologists respecting M. Vimont's examination of this question, 

 and of the affirmative decision to which he has come; but they are not so ready to men- 

 tion, that M. Leuret, from at least equally extensive observations, has arrived at an oppo- 

 site conclusion. Of these two, if authority is to decide the matter, the Author would 

 certainly give the preference to M. Leuret, as a man of general eminence, and one who 

 had a reputation to lose; whilst M. Vimont was previously unknown, and had only 

 brought himself into notoriety by his advocacy of Phrenology. 



