86 



which we are just now interested. ]M. Maximiii Legrand has 

 related the history of a man who was shot in the head during 

 the revolution of 1848, and whose speech was not in the least 

 aflPected, although after death it was ascertained that the left 

 anterior lobe had been shattered by the discharge of a gun. 

 M. Beclard has published a case of a patient whose speech re- 

 mained unaffected to the last, although it was found that all 

 the left hemisphere was reduced to a pulp. Lastly, M. Lelut, 

 one of the most uncompromising opponents of cerebral local- 

 ization, has recorded the case of an epileptic, who retained his 

 speech in its integrity to the last moment, although his entire 

 left hemisphere was completely disorganized. 



There is also another class of observations which seems to me to 

 be irreconcilable with M. Dax^s unilateral theory, for there exists 

 a certain number of carefully recorded cases in which loss of 

 language occurred, although the disease was limited to the right 

 hemisphere. It will strike you, perhaps, that it is somewhat 

 supererogatory to adduce evidence to show that language is not 

 located in the left anterior lobe, for it must be apparent that the 

 instances previously mentioned of destruction of both anterior 

 lobes, with preservation of the power of speech, apply equally to 

 the unilateral theory I am now discussing. My sketch, however, 

 of the various theories about the seat of language would be 

 incomplete without a reference to that of M. Dax. 



Having disposed of the theories which locate the faculty of 

 language in one or both anterior lobes, I arrived at the considera- 

 tion of the views of Professor Broca, the perpetual secretary of 

 the Anthropological Society of Paris, whose researches lead him 

 to confine the seat of speech to a very narrow limit, a particular 

 fold of the left anterior lobe, called the third left frontal convo- 

 lution. Of all the theories that have been advanced, this least of 

 all will stand the test of an impartial scrutiny, and evidence is 

 daily accumulating of such a nature as to undermine M. Broca's 

 position at every poiut. In my published work I have discussed 

 the value of this theory at considerable length ; I will simply 

 state here that I have myself met with cases of loss or impair- 

 ment of language in which this particular fold was found quite 

 healthy ; furthermore, one case has been observed by M. Moreau, 

 of Tours, in which this convolution was congemtalhj absent, and 

 yet the patient showed no symptom of loss of language. Now, 

 I need not dwell further on this hypothesis, for it must be 

 apparent to everybody that the cases I have quoted of destruc- 

 tion of the anterior lobes apply equally, or I may say a fortiori, 

 to this theory; for, what proves the greater proves the less ; and 

 it is not conceivable that M. Broca^s pet fold can have escaped 



