322 
who had previously taught the supremacy 
of the brain itself, and who had regretted 
the lack of knowledge of the anatomy of 
this important viscus. In support of their 
views, a few observations could be cited of 
patients who had lost particular functions, 
such as sensations, or the ability to move 
or to speak, when the brain was injured. 
The associations of these losses with brain 
injuries had rightly led some to believe 
that the brain is an organ with diversified 
functions. Many of the adherents to this 
view held, however, ‘‘that one can not ex- 
plain the loss of certain intellectual facul- 
ties in certain cases except by admitting 
that the brain is composed of many partial 
organs,’’ and also that ‘‘the smallest parts 
of the brain have special functions.’’ 
Gall, as he remarks in the preface to the 
work on the ‘‘ Anatomy and Physiology of 
the Nervous System,’’ had made numer- 
ous observations of the relation of facial, 
eranial and mental characteristics, and the 
hypothesis of diversified functions for dif- 
ferent brain areas well fitted his own 
views. This was the origin of physiog- 
nomy and of phrenology. The mind, it 
was supposed, is composed of a collection 
of units, of mental states or faculties 
which differ from one another in degree 
or in kind. It was presumed, there- 
fore, that some localized part of the brain 
was concerned with each of these sup- 
posedly different states and processes, and, 
consequently, it was believed that it should 
be possible to find definite brain centers 
which are associated with, or which pro- 
duce by their activity, different mental 
processes. Thus was born a definite con- 
ception of centers in the brain for par- 
ticular mental acts. This conception was 
naive and crude, to be sure, but it is the 
one which has dominated neurology and 
nervous physiology for the past century, 
SCIENCE 
[N.S. Vou, XXXV. No. 896 
and which is still to be recognized in pres- 
ent-day teaching and writing. 
This view led to various attacks and 
defences, bombardments and counter at- 
tacks, which were usually futile in ad- 
vaneing the knowledge of the relations 
which were discussed but which were indi- 
rectly of the greatest value in the advance 
toward a better understanding of the rela- 
tion of clinical phenomena to brain lesions. 
The discussions led to observations and to 
careful comparisons of material so that the 
doctrine of exact localization of centers was 
not new at the time that Broca startled the 
neurological world with the report of the 
relation of a definite brain lesion with the 
loss of the ability to speak. 
The rigid localizations of Gall and. the 
vagaries of Spurzheim and his imitators 
were not received with entire confidence 
and faith, but the conception of one fune- 
tion for one part of the brain was too 
simple and too alluring to be dispensed 
with. Instead of the general formula that 
the brain is the organ of mind, divisions 
were introduced and both the brain and 
the mind were fractioned. Observations 
of other aphasic conditions with concomi- 
tant cerebral lesions were recorded and the 
strict localization view continued to be 
dominant. Wernicke and his disciples 
stood on the platform with Gall, and dis- 
cussed learnedly of concept and percept 
centers and centers for motor images in the 
cerebral cortex. It was supposed that the 
recently announced discovery of Fritsch 
and Hitzig afforded evidence of this for 
the motor sphere and the precise localiza- 
tion in the cortex of definite centers for 
sensory processes by various physiologists 
made many certain that the hypotheses 
underlying phrenology were correct. All 
were compelled to admit the principle of 
cortical cerebral localization, but the mean- 
ing of localization proved to be an apple 
