86 
which we are just now interested. M. Maximin 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 
affected, 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 point. 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 congenitally absent 3 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 
