160 PHYSIOLOGY. 



surpass man, yet in the exquisite sensibility of his skin, man 

 stands unrivalled. " The skin of man," says Majendie, f is 

 more delicate, fuller of nerves than that of the mammiferae ; 

 its surface is covered only by the epidermis, insensible in- 

 deed, but so thin, that it does not intercept sensation, whilst 

 the hairs which cover so thickly the body of quadrupeds, the 

 feathers which clothe that of birds, quite deaden it.J The 

 hand of man, that admirable instrument of his intelligence, 

 of which the structure has appeared to some philosophers, to 

 explain sufficiently his superiority over all living species ; 

 the hand of man, naked, and divided into many moveable 

 parts, capable of changing every moment its form, of exactly 

 embracing the surface of bodies, is much fitter for as- 

 certaining their tangible qualities, than the foot of the quad- 

 ruped, inclosed in a horny substance, or than that of a bird, 

 covered with scales too thick not to blunt all sensation." 



11. The hand then, is the chief organ of touch, and in the 

 ends of the fingers it resides in the greatest perfection. Thus 

 we see that t\\e\blind are able to read with facility by passing 

 their fingers over the letters, which are raised by a particu- 

 lar kind of type^ In this manner they acquire a knowledge 

 of geography, arithmetic, reading, and the usual branches of 

 education, not often met with even in those who have the 

 use of their eyes as well as their hands. 



12. Buffon, the celebrated naturalist, thought so much of 

 the sense of touch, that he believed the cause, why one per- 

 son has more intellect than another is. his having made bet- 

 ter use of his hands from early infancy. Other philosophers, 

 as Majendie states, have ascribed man's superiority over ani- 

 mals, and his intelligence, to the fact that he possesses a 

 hand. But the hand is only the instrument of the mind, the 

 agent of the will ; it can only execute ; the mind must plan. 

 Besides, the idiot has sometimes the sense of touch more deli- 

 cate than the man of genius, or than the most skilful artist ; 

 while some of the most ingenious artists have by no means, 

 the most delicate touch. Galen truly says, that man had 



