324 PHYSIO 
when aft'eifted another, anger: grant that, when it a£ts in 
one mode, we reafon ; when in another, that we receive im- 
preflions; then thefe adts, and the phenomena of fatigue re¬ 
fusing from exertion, of dreaming, of fomnambulifm, &c. 
areas well explained as by Gall’s theory. The fameadmif- 
fion will greatly explain the pathological fadts adduced in 
reference to mania or injuries of the head. Say that the mad¬ 
man, who is mad only on one fubjedl, has a particular 
fundion, not a particular organ, deranged ; and the ex¬ 
planation will hold good. We fee good reafon why a 
man fhould forget proper names fooner than other nouns, 
becaufe thefe names are not learned in our infancy, and 
they are not fo perpetually in requeft as to make them fa¬ 
miliar by repetition. The inftance of Brouffonet is not 
ltronger : he forgot the long and difficult names of plants, 
names which he had not learned in infancy, when com¬ 
mon language is acquired; and this is not furprifing: 
whoever has noticed the gradual failure of memory in old 
age, will have obferved that, as man declines, he firtt finds 
a difficulty in remembering the names of his friends ; then 
of every circumftance which has lately happened to him ; 
but that he will retain in his memory the occurrences of 
his youth until the latter hours of his exiftence. 
As we are called upon to examine this fcience by the 
refults of difledtions, we cannot help remarking, that 
Haller and many others have related cafes which go to 
prove, that a very large portion of the brain may be de- 
llroyed without the mind being at all aft'edted. We could 
multiply thefe cafes indeed to an unlimited extent, had 
we room. But it is ufelefs ; for Gall and Spurzheim afl'ert 
that thefe cafes are erroneoufiy defcribed ; they fay, that 
the circumftance that each organ is double has been over¬ 
looked, and that the precife iituation of the organs has 
been miftaken. It is known that in patients afflidted 
with hydrocephalus, the brain appears to be completely 
deftroyed, and replaced by water; and yet the intellectual 
and moral faculties have remained perfedt to the lalt ; 
but Drs. Gall and Spurzheim fay, that the fadts have been 
erroneoufiy reprefented ; and that the only alteration 
which the brain fuftains in thefe cafes, is a difplacement 
of its parts, and not an abforption of its fubftance ; for 
that the effufed fluid, by accumulating in the ventricles, 
gradually unfolds the convolutions of the hemifpheres of 
the brain, and expands them to fuch a degree, that they 
are reduced to a thin ftratum of fubftance, conftituting a 
fort of bag, within which the fluid is ftill contained. This 
ftratum of brain is fometimes not more than a line in 
thicknefs, and is generally lacerated in attempting the dif- 
fedion; in which cafe the water rufhes out, the real 
itrudture efcapes notice, and the fluid is erroneoufiy fup- 
pofed to have been accumulated between the brain and 
its membranes. 
It has been advanced, as another objedtion to the fame 
theory, that monfters are fometimes born without any 
brain, who yet fuck and perform various movements. 
ACfions of this kind, fay the craniologifts, are purely 
automatic, and appear to be unattended with confciouf- 
nefs; with fuch actions the brain has no concern what¬ 
ever. But this is, of courfe, no anfwer, becaufe it obvi- 
oufly means nothing but that the caufe of thefe emotions 
is not underftood. Laftly, Dr. Spurzheim flatly denies 
the accuracy of the obfervations of Morgagni, Zacutus, 
Lufitanus, Bartholine, Haller, Vallifneri, Morefchi, Giro, 
Dr. Simfon, Scemmering, and others, who tell us that 
petrified or oflified brains have been found in individuals, 
without prejudice to the exercife of their inteileClual fa¬ 
culties. 
It is unneceflary to diredl the reader’s attention to the 
futility of thefe replies; for they reft mainly on flatly de¬ 
nying the truth or the Ikill of other phyfiologifts. It is 
neceflary, however, to direCl his attention to the circum¬ 
ftance, that the idea of the brain being one organ fubjeCl 
to various aCiions is quite accordant with the obferva* 
tions of Haller and the other learned authors we have 
juft mentioned, as well as with the phenomena of cere- 
G N O M Y. 
bral difeafes. This is not indeed apparent at firft fight; 
for it may be argued, that, if we believe the brain can be 
deftroyed without the deftruCtion of the mind alfo, our 
own propofition falls to the ground, as furely as that of 
the craniologifts. Not fo. We find many parts of the 
body buffering great diminution of their fize, without de- 
feCt of function; but no function can continue if the 
whole organ be abfent. So, if the brain be the general 
organ of the mind, it may lofe much of its bulk, yet the 
remainder (being ftill the organ of all the functions) may 
aCt as before ; but, if the brain confifts of 53 fmall or¬ 
gans, and if, as we know from indifputable authority, a 
man has been found with an abfeefs extending over all 
the fore part of his brain, who neverthelefs retained his 
faculties till tiie hour of his diffolution, we fhould fay 
the organs of reflexion cannot be wholly confined to the 
fituation affigned them by Gall. 
Without engaging in metaphyfical controverfy, we 
will venture to afl'ert, that Gall and Spurzheim know lit¬ 
tle or nothing of the human mind. We do not fay this 
from any preconceived notions concerning metaphyfics, 
but from internal feelings, from a full confidence that 
many aCtions we perform are the refult of reafon, and not 
of thofe inftinCls to which Gall afligns them. Indeed it 
is aftoniftiing that any one could attribute the conftancy 
of a dog and the friendfhip of man to the fame organ ; 
could attribute the belief in God, or firmnefs in religion, 
to any other operation than that of reafon ; or could learn 
fo little from fociety as to confider cunning, hypocrify, 
and lying, the fame faculties as that which devifes inge¬ 
nious plots for plays and romances; or, laftly, could con¬ 
ceive that the belief in ghofts and apparitions has any re¬ 
lation to the poetical imagination. 
But Gall and Spurzheim overturn all argumentation 
by the appeal to experience. They fay “Where fuch a 
protuberance is found in the tkull, there will you find 
fuch a faculty,- If this be falfe, afl’ert the fame from ex¬ 
perience.” We confefs no one has done this, nor is it 
eafy. Few have the means of obferving or converfing 
with a fuflicient number of individuals,fewer of meafuring 
their heads, fewer (till of fathoming the depths of cha¬ 
racter, or of difeovering, what each man tries to conceal, 
his weak fide. Of thole who have thefe advantages, none 
have embarked in the talk, but have been content to ef- 
poufe the caufeof the phrenologifts by reafoningand ana¬ 
logies, to the negleft of aCtual obfervation. This faCt 
feems to have induced fome well-difpofed men toinvefti- 
gate the fubjeCt more narrowly than has been done here¬ 
tofore. At Edinburgh, a Phrenological Society has been 
founded, who have procured a multitude of calls and fkulls, 
and wdio have been making obfervations on a large fcale. 
The works, in which the labours of the Scotch phrenolo¬ 
gifts are to be found, are, The Tranfadtions of the Society 
(before mentioned), and a Phrenological Journal; and we 
hear moreover that Mr. Combe, an aCtive member of the 
fociety, is about commencing a courfe of leCtures on the 
fubjeCt in London. This is as it Ihould be. We rejoice to 
fee our brethren thus engaged in the fearch after truth; 
and we mull confefs that they have accumulated and put 
into form a mafs of evidence fo large and accurate as very 
much to lhake our previous opinions. We are forry to 
fee, however, that they have fo intolerant a fpirit as to ex¬ 
clude all from their ranks who do not profefs to believe 
in phrenology; for furely a philofopher fhould come to 
this queftion unbiafled. We are forry moreover to find 
that they have a fad fear of fome facetious fcribblers, who 
will, as they have always done, ridicule new and original 
difeoveries in fcience, becaufe they do not underhand 
them. But we think the phrenologifts might falely have 
defpifed thefe merry philofophers, whofe opinions never 
are taken for more than their value. At all events the-y 
have made bad worfe by their defence; for, of all ftupid 
wit, that which emanated from Edinburgh in one of the 
volumes juft alluded to, is the molt infipid. Indeed, whe¬ 
ther the fyftem be true or falfe, Spurzheim’s manner of 
fupporting 
