The History of Phrenology on the Web (http://www.historyofphrenology.org.uk/) By John van Wyhe Last modified 9 August 2000 Williams, W. Mattieu, A Vindication of Phrenology. London, 1894. selections which are taken from Gall, Combe, and Spurzheim etc. MODIFY THE EFFECTS OF SIZE. 49 we behold it possessing some parts of which animals are destitute, and wanting none which theirs possess." There is here, then, pretty strong evidence and authority for the assertion, that the brain does not form an exception to the general law of organized nature, that, other conditions being equal, size of organ is a measure of power of function.' The circumstances which modify the effects of size demand next to be considered. These are, constitution, health, exercise, excitement from without, and, in some cases, the mutual influence of the organs. The question naturally presents itself, Do we Vossess any index to constitutional qualities of brain? There are some constitutional qualities' which can be judged of only by knowing the qualities of the stock, or race, from which the individual under examination is descended. I have observed a certain feebleness in the brain, indicating itself by weakness of mind, without derangement, in some individuals born in India of an English father and Hindoo mother. The tinge of colour and the form of the features indicate this descent. I have noticed feebleness and sometimes irregularity of action in the brains of individuals, not insane, but who belonged to a family in which insanity abounded. I do not know any external physical indication of this condition. The temperaments indicate to a certain extent important constitutional qualities. There are four temperaments, accompanied by different degrees of 1 It is certified by hatters, that the lower classes of the community, who are distinguished for muscular vigour much more than mental capacity, require a smaller size of hat than those classes whose occupations are chiefly mental, and in whom vigour of mind surpasses that of body. But the phrenologist does not compare intellectual power with the size of brain in general; and, besides, the hat does not indicate the size of the whole head. The reader will find details on this point in the Phrenological Journal, iv. 539, v. 213, and ix. 221. p See an able Essay " On Quality of Brain as influencing functional Manifestation," by Mr Daniel Noble; Plaren. Journ. v ol. xii. p. 121. 50 TEMPERAMENT, DISEASE, &C. strength and activity in the brain-the lymphatic, the sanguine, the bilious, and the nervous. The temperaments are supposed to depend upon the constitution of particular systems of the body: the brain and nerves being predominantly active from constitutional causes, seem to produce the nervous temperament; the lungs, heart, and bloodvessels being constitutionally predominant, to give rise to the sanguine ; the muscular and fibrous systems to the bilious; and the glands and assimilating organs to the lymphatic. The different temperaments are indicated by external signs, which are open to observation. The first, or lymphatic, is distinguishable by a round form of the body, softness of the muscular system, repletion of the cellular tissue, fair hair, and a pale skin. It is accompanied by languid vital actions, with weakness and slowness in the circulation. The brain, as part of the system, is also slow, languid, and feeble in its action, and the mental manifestations are proportionally weak. The second or sanguine temperament, is indicated by well defined forms, moderate plumpness of person, tolerable firmness of flesh, light hair inclining to chestnut, blue eyes, and fair complexion, with ruddiness of countenance. It is marked by great activity of the bloodvessels, fondness for exercise, and an animated countenance. The brain partakes of the general state, and is vigorous and active. The fibrous (generally, but inappropriately, termed the bilious) temperament; is recognised by black hair, dark skin, moderate fulness and much firmness of flesh, with harshly expressed outline of the person. The functions partake of great energy of action, which extends to the brain; and the countenance, in consequence, shews strong, marked, and decided features. The nervous temperament is recognised by fine thin hair, thin skin, small thin muscles, quickness in muscular motion, paleness of countenance, and often delicate health. The whole nervous system, including the brain, is predominantly active and energetic, and the mental manifestations are proportionally vivacious and powerful. 48 A VINDICATION OF PHRENOLOGY The apologetic tone in which he introduces an account of his visits to the prisons of Berlin and Spandau (' Fonctions du Cerveau,' vol. 6, p. 476) shows that Gall only supplies such an account as supplementary, and in accordance with the above-stated qualifications. He says:- The reader will pardon me if independently of the evidence that I have furnished in favour of organology, in treating the special fundamental forces, I state the results of experiments made in the presence of a large number of persons who accompanied us in prisons, etc. I do this from a desire to neglect nothing which may encourage the lovers of science to study the functions of the different parts of the brain. With the same intent and subject to the same limitations I submit the following to the readers of this book. It is from Nos. 97 to 98 of ' Freimiithige.' It was also reported by VI. Demaugeon in his ' Physiologic intellectuelle,' Paris, 1806, ,and by Chevenix. Dr. Gall haring manifested a desire to visit the prisons of Berlin, both for the purpose of seeing their interior arrangements and for adding to his experiences by observations on the heads of the prisoners, it was arranged that he should commence on April 17, 1805, in the presence of the directors and superior employes of this .establishment (the State prison of Berlin), the inspectors of the criminal deputation, of councillors Thiirnage and Schmidt, of assessors Miihlberg and Wunder, of the. superior councillor of medical inspection, Welper, of Dr. Flemming, of Professor Wildenow, and several others. Dr. Gall being instructed concerning the general rules of the establishment, the party proceeded to the criminal prisons and the workshops, where they found about two hundred prisoners, whom Dr. Gall was allowed to examine without being told anything concerning their crimes or their characters. The greater proporticn of the prisoners being thieves, it was to be expected that if Gall's doctrine were true the organ of theft should as a general rule be found predominant among them. This proved to be the case. The heads of all the thieves resembled each other in presenting a width and prominence in that part of the temple where the organ is situated, with a depression above the eyebrows, a retreating forehead, and skull flattened towards the top. These peculiarities were perceptible at a single glance, but the touch rendered still more striking the difference between the forms of the skulls of robbers and of those detained for other causes. The peculiar shape of the head generally characteristic of thieves astonished the arty still more when several prisoners were arranged in line; but it was never so strikingly displayed as when, at the :request of Gall, all the youths from 12 to 15 years of age who were GALL'S DIAGNOSIS OF CI:LIIl_1'ALS 49 imprisoned for theft were collected together; their heads presented so nearly the same configuration that they appeared like offspring of the same stock. With great ease Dr. Gall distinguished confirmed thieves from those less dangerous, and in every case his diagnosis agreed with the result of the proceedings of their trial. The heads in which the organ of theft was found the most pronounced was that of Columbus, and among the children that of little H., whom Gall advised to be kept in confinement for life as utterly incorrigible. The judicial proceedings showed that both had manifested an extraordinary propensity for theft. On entering one of the prisons, where all the women excepting one presented a predominance of the organ of theft, and all at the same employment and in the same dress, Gall asked why this exceptional one was there. He was told that she was not a criminal, but an inspectress of the work. In like manner he distinguished others who were imprisoned for other crimes than theft. Several opportunities occurred of seeing the organ of theft combined with other largely developed organs. In one prisoner it was joined with benevolence and veneration, the latter particularly prominent. This prisoner was questioned, and expressed great horror of thefts accompanied by violence, and manifested strong religious disposition. He was asked which he thought the worse, to ruin a poor workman by taking all he possessed or to steal from a church without harming any one? He replied that it was too revolting to rob a church, and that he could never resolve to do so. Gall was especially requested to examine the heads of prisoners implicated in the murder of a Jewess which had taken place in the preceding year. In the principal murderer, Marcus Hirsch, he found a head which, besides indicating a low type generally, presented nothing further remarkable excepting great development of the organ of perseverance. His accomplice Jeanette Marcus had an extremely vicious conformation of brain, the organ of theft being greatly developed, also that of destructiveness (then named by Gall the organ of murder). In the female servants Benkendorf and Babette he found great want of circumspection, and in the wife of Marcus Hirsch an insignificant form of head. All this was in perfect accord with the evidence concerning the characters of the prisoners presented at the trial. He was next shown the prisoner Fritze, suspected of having killed his wife, although he still stoutly denied it. Gall found the organs of secretiveness and firmness largely developed, qualities which his interrogator had found him to manifest in the highest degree. In the tailor Maschke, arrested for fabricating false money, and whose mechanical genius was shown in the execution of his crime, Gall found, without knowing for what he was imprisoned, the organ of constructiveness (or ' mechanical art ') much developed, and a E co A 111.1 DICA TION OF PHREA'OLOG Y head so well organised that he several times expressed leis sorrow at the fate of the man. The truth is that this 11laschke was well known to have combined much kindness of disposition with his great mechanical skill. On entering another prison Gall at once recognised the great development of ' constructiveness' in a man named Troppe, a shoemaker who, without any apprenticeship, applied himself to snaking watches and other mechanical objects, and obtained a living thereby. On examining him more closely Gall found the organ of imitation (then called 'pantomime') largely developed ; a correct conclusion, seeing that the crime of Troppe was that of having extorted a considerable sum of money by personating the character of an officer of police. Gall stated that he must certainly have.ainused himself when young by playing tricks of personation, which he acknowledged. When Gall said to the visiting party, ' If this man bad fallen among comedians he certainly would have been an actor,' Troppe, astonished at the accuracy of Gall's description of his dispositions, stated that lie had been some time (six months) member of a strolling company of actors, a fact that had escaped the judicial interrogatory. Gall found that the head of the unhappy Heisig, who when drunk stabbed her friend, was of good conformation, excepting that there was a deficiency of ' caution,' or great rashness. He remarked in several other prisoners full development of 'language, colour and number,' in perfect accordance with the manifestations: some of the first spoke several languages ; those with large ' colour' were fond of showy clothes, flowers, paintings, etc. ; and those with ' number ' large displayed facility in mental calculation. On Saturday, April 20, a party accompanied Dr. Gall to Spandau. Among these were the Privy Councillor Hufeland, the Councillor of the Chamber of Justice, Albrecht, the Privy Councillor Idols, Professor Reich, Dr. Meyer, and many others. Observations were made at the House of Correction on 270 heads, and at the Fortress on 200 heads. The majority of these were thieves who presented more or less exactly the same form of head as that of which the prisons of Berlin had supplied a model. Altogether, the prisons of Berlin and Spandau had thus offered to the researches of Gall a suin total of about 500 thieves, most of them guilty of repeated o'fences, and in all it was easy to verify the form of skull indicated by Gall as denoting tli;s unhappy propensity, and it was evident from the discourse of the majority of them that they felt no remorse for their crimes, but on the contrary spoke of them with a sort of internal satisfaction. The morning was spent in examining the House of Correction and its inmates, the most remarkable of whom were submitted in the Hall of Conference to the particular observation of Gall, sometimes one by one, and sometimes in groups. The combination of other organs with that of theft was also noted here. In the head of Kunisch, a notorious thief who worked as a carpenter in Berlin, and who, with accomplices, had committed GALL'S DIAGNOSIS OF CRIMINALS many burglaries, Gall found at first glance the organs of calculation and the mechanical arts (number and constructiveness) very prominent, and although the organ of theft was strongly developed Gall exclaimed, ' Here is an artist, a mathematician, and a good head ; it is a pity that he is here ; ' observations of remarkable accuracy, as Kunisch is so skilful in mechanical work that he has been appointed inspector of the spinning machinery, the repairing of which is entrusted to him. Gall asked him if he could calculate, to which he replied, ' How could I invent or construct a work without having first calculated the details ?' The head of an old woman who was imprisoned a second time for theft presented the organs of theft, of tUosophie (veneration) and love of offspring very highly developed, especially the last. When Gall asked her the cause of her detention she replied that she had committed theft, but that every day she fell upon her knees to thank God for bringing her to the prison, for she saw in this how many were the miraculous doings of Providence, for she had nothing so much at heart as her children, whom she could not bring up properly; but since her imprisonment they had been taken to the Hospital for Orphans, where they received a good education, such as she lad not otherwise the means of giving them. Deficiency of caution was frequently combined with prominence of the organ of theft. This was the case with the woman Miller, of Sulzburg, whose skull presented a very remarkable prominence of the organ of ambition (love of approbation), which, according to, Gall, degenerates into vanity in narrow-minded persons. She denied that she was fond of dress, but her companions insisted that she was very vain, and was careful about nothing but her dress. In one prisoner the organ of hauteur, source de l'orgueil (selfesteem) was united with that of theft. 'Is it not the case,' said Gall to him, 'that you always sought to be first and to distinguish yourself, even when a small boy, and to take the lead in all games ? ' Albert confessed that it was so, and it is a fact that he is still distinguished by assuming a command over the other prisoners, and by his insubordination. When a soldier he could only be forced to submit to discipline by severe punishment, and now he only escapes one punishment to fall into another. Here, as at Berlin, Gall distinguished at first glance the prisoners who were not thieves. Among others brought before him was Regine Doering, an infanticide imprisoned for life. This woman differed from other infanticides in showing no remorse for her crime. Gall at once directed the attention of Dr. Spurzheim to this person, asking him if she had not the same form of head and the same propensity to murder as his gardener at Vienna, Dlariandel, whose chief pleasure consisted in killing animals, and whose skull now serves to illustrate the organ of murder in his lectures. This organ was found equally prominent in Regine Doering, and the back part of the head, m the region of philoprogenitiveness, was absolutely flattened. This accords exactly with the character of this criminal, as indi- E 2 52 A VINDICATION OF PHREA'OLOGY cated by the evidence at her trial ; she had had several children, and somehow secretly got rid of them, and recently had exposed and murdered one already four years old. She escaped capital punishment because the evidence was vague and incomplete. One of the company of visitors was a distinguished musician, upon whom Gall had incidentally pointed out one of the forms of development of the organ of music, which consists of a projection above the external angle of the eye. When Runowappeared before him Gall said, ' Hold! here is the other form in which the organ of music shows itself ; it is here, as in _Mozart, a pyramidal elevation extending to the upper part of the skull.' hunow at once acknowledged that he was passionately fond of music, which he had acquired with facility, and the gaol register showed that this prisoner was an amateur who had spent his fortune, and recently proposed to give lessons in music at Berlin. He was imprisoned for criminal sensuality, the propensity for which was visibly indicated to all by the shape of the back part of his head. After dinner the party went to the Fortress, where the Commandant, Major de Beckendorf, had the prisoners drawn up in line and presented to Dr. Gall. Here, again, the organs of cunning and theft were visibly predominant, and in some cases displayed so strikingly that at a glance the thief could be distinguished from other criminals. Raps, in whom the organ of theft was very conspicuous, was the first to fix the attention of Gall, who found at the same time large organs of meurtre et de la bonhomie (destructiveness and benevolence). The justness of these observations was rendered very striking by the fact that Raps, having strangled a woman in order to rob her, turned back before leaving the house in order to loosen the rope from compassion, and thus savad the woman's life. He afterwards examined young Brunnert, in whom he found large development of the organs of theft, of cosmognose (locality), mechanical skill and pride. Brunnert had committed many robberies, and was confined in several prisons, from which he escaped; he was always a wanderer, deserted from the army, and was frequently punished for insubordination, and was now awaiting sentence for rebellion. He was a skilful mechanician, and showed some exquisitely finished works in pasteboard, executed in prison under very unfavourable circumstances. The organ of calculation was prominent in some cases, and in each was verified by its accompaniment with a corresponding facility for mental arithmetic. Two peasants, father and son, who were among the thieves, were remarkable by presenting a form of head quite different from the others. Gall examined them and found the organ of pride (hauteur) remarkably prominent. He said, 'These two are unwilling to be governed; they wish to be their own masters, or to resist anything like subordination.' It was found on inquiry that the cause of their detention was insolence to their superiors. An old soldier among the prisoners had the organ of theft very GALL'S DIAGNOSIS OF CRLUINALS 53 prominent. It was not, however, for theft, but for insubordination, that he was confined in the Fortress. On further inquiry, however, it was discovered that he had been punished several times previously for theft. This visit having taken place and having been reported in 1805, the old names of the organs 'vol,' ° ineitrtre,' etc. are used, and in translating I have generally used them. The free use of these two, theft and murder, or instinct carnassier, supplies one of the sources of the persecution to which Gall was subjected at this period ; but no amount of such persecution, no amount of odium, no preconceptions of his own prevented him from stating plainly, directly and truthfully the results of his researches. In Chapter ii. I have described the history of his discovery of these organs and what followed. As regards destructiveness' I should add that the French word ' nzenrtre ' is not quite correctly translated by our English word 'murder.' The French word is applied to the act of killing, and does not necessarily imply criminal killing; it includes that most fascinating recreation of people who are called ° sportsmen,' the wholesale or slashing slaughter of ° big game.' As the reader may desire to see an illustration of the form of head which Gall pointed out to the visitors as characteristic of these criminals, I copy one of his plates where destructiveness is marked 6, acquisitiveness 8, and secretiveness 9. The following history of this skull, which I translate from vol. 4 of ' Fonctions du Cerveau,' p. 239, is interesting. It illustrates a peculiar form of blindness to which opponents of Phrenology are sometimes liable. The physician of the prison of Graetz, in Styria, sent me a case filled with skulls. In unpacking them I was so much struck at the sight of one very large in the anterior temporal region that I exclaimed : ' Mon Dieu, what a skull of a robber! ' In the letter of advice sent me by the physician he stated that ' the skull marked xxx. is that of an incorrigible female thief,' but he could not find in it the protuberance that I had designated the organ of theft. Among the curious cases observed by Gall in prisons were some thieves with large benevolence who distributed the produce of their theft among the poor, and felt such repugnance 20 A VINDICATION OF PHRE.YOLOGY tomist, that be had any idea of their dependence upon the conformation of the brain. The following is his own account of the first of these observations, which I translate from vol. 4. p. 68 of his large quarto work (already cited). It is repeated in I Les Fonctions du Cerveau,' vol. 5, p. 12 (1823). In my ninth year my parents sent ine to one of my uncles who was a curd in the Black Forest. In order to stimulate my emulation he associated me in my studies with another boy of my own age. I was frequently scolded because I could not learn my lessons as readily as could my fellow-pupil. We afterwards went together to a school at Baden, near to Rastadt. There were about thirty scholars there, and whenever we had any contest in reciting by heart, I always had reason to fear some who, in original composition, only took seventh, or even tenth place. Two of my new schoolfellows even excelled my old comrade in learning by rote. These had large projecting eyes and were nicknamed bull eyes. Three years after we went to Bruchsal, and then again some bull-eyed students brought me to grief in contests depending upon learning by heart. Two years later I went to Strasburg, and continued to observe that the students who learned by rote with the greatest facility had large eyes thrust forward (u leur de We), and some of them displayed in other respects but very mediocre ability. The reader should understand that at this stage Gall had no idea of any connection between this peculiarity and cerebral development. It was only after he bad completed the ordinary curriculum of anatomical study that the idea of connecting this protrusion of the eyes with the development of a part of the brain presented itself to his mind, and not until long after that, not until he became an expert in cerebral anatomy, that he proceeded further with his researches in cerebral localization. Referring to this in a retrospective account of these researches, he says:- It will doubtless appear singular that it is precisely in reference to this faculty and its organ that my work leaves the most to be desired. But I rely only upon facts. The facts remain immovable, however interpretations of them may be modified. This last paragraph refers to the difficulty of determining the development of a part of the brain by the protrusion of the eyes. He proceeds to show how in his subsequent anatomical studies he learned that certain convolutions of the brain rest upon the orbit of the eye, and how their abnormal development flattens or even renders concave the ordinary rotundity HISTORICAL EVIDENCE which the upper and hinder part of this bony cavity presents to the base of the brain, thus pushing the eye downward and forward ; but he also shows that a similar outthrust may be produced by an abnormal development of the fatty cushion behind the eyeball, and how the projection of the eyeball is produced in certain diseases, such as exophthalmic goitre, which he describes, though not by this name, which is modern. Also the difficulties presented by varying sizes of the eyeball itself and the protrusion produced by other super and circum-orbital convolutions are discussed in a special chapter, ' Sur les former de 1'oeil et sur les causes qui determinent la diversite de ses former ' (' Fonctions du Cerveau,' v ol. 5, p. 5, and vol. 4, p. 64 of the quarto work above cited). In this, as in every other part of his subject, Gall has refuted by anticipation the sapient objections of his critics, who insolently assume that he and Spurzheim and their pupils require to be taught that the inequalities of the thickness of the skull, of the frontal sinuses, the temporal muscles, etc., etc., interfere with the determination of the shape of the brain by examination of the external form of the head. I will add one or two more examples of the manner in which Gall obtained the results which have culminated in the socalled 'mapping-out' of the, hqad. The reader should understand that similar histories and similar examples are given in connection with the localization of every faculty. I merely select a few characteristic examples. The following is Gall's history of the discovery of the ' Instinct de la defense de soiiu6ne et de sa propriRe ; peiachant aux nixes ; courage (tthuth, Raufsinn),' afterwards named Concbati-veness by Spurzheim :- I assembled together in my house a certain number of individuals of the lowest classes and of different occupations ; I gained their confidence and promoted their candour and loquacity by gifts of money and free supplies of wine and beer. When I had thus brought them into the required state of mind, I induced them to tell me what they knew of each other's character, both of their good and their bad qualities and doings. Among the varied characteristics which they described, the most prominent, that which had most attracted their .attention, was the disposition to quarrel and fight. The most pacific of their comrades were despised as cowards. The most quarrelsome found great pleasure in narrating to me their exploits, and I was curious to learn whether the heads of these braves displayed anything which distinguished them from the poltroons. 334 A VINDICA TIOLV OF PHRE2VOLOG Y was then in its prime, had great influence, and many followers and imitators among other magazines. These, of course, played the usual game of ' follow my leader,' and sneered at the German anatomists, especially at Spurzheim, who dared to cross the Channel, and presumed to teach anatomy and moral philosophy to the infallibles of our ancient universities.' Dr. Spurzheim was in London when Gordon's attack appeared, and he at once determined to visit Edinburgh in order to refute his antagonist by the best possible method, viz., that of demonstrating the falsehood of his statements by dissecting a brain in the presence of competent witnesses, the anatomists connected with the eminent medical school of that city. The result is thus described by Chevenix (' Foreign Quarterly Review,' No. 3) :- ' The 'Quarterly Review' (No. 25) politely designated Dr. Spurzheim as a fool.' SPURZHEIM'S RECEPTION TzV THIS COUNTRY 335 He procured one letter of introduction to that city, and but one; that was to the reputed author of the vituperating essay (Dr. Gordon). He visited him and obtained permission to dissect a brain in his presence. The author himself was a lecturer on ana- tomy, and the dissection took place in his dissecting room. Some eyes were a little more, or a little less, clear-sighted than others, for they saw, or thought they saw, fibres. A second day was named. The room was as full as it could be, particularly as an intermediate bench was reserved for Dr. Spurzheim to carry round the subject of enquiry to every spectator. There, with the 'Edinburgh Review' in one hand, and a brain in the other, he opposed fact to assertion. The writer of the article still believed the 'Edinburgh Review,' but the public believed the anatomist ; and that day won over near five hundred witnesses to the fibrous structure of the white substance of the brain, while it drew off a large portion of admiring pupils from the antagonist lecturer. The following is Dr. Spurzheim's own account of the incidents:- From the beginning I requested these gentlemen not to lose an opportunity of getting a brain. The partner of the reviewer, surgeon of the military hospital (Dr. Thompson), furnished me with arms to combat them in their own lecture room. Indeed, I could never have expected such a gratification. The whole happened accidentally, but I could not wish it more favourably. I gave nctice to a few of my friends, that the opposite party might not be alone. The reviewer was to lecture at tzvo in his class. I intended to cease and continue after; but he was so kind as to yield his hour to me ; so that I had the pleasure of demonstrating the brain to his own class at his lecture table in presence of himself, Drs. Thompson, Barclay, Duncan Junr., Irwin, Emery, and many others. There could not have been a better many everything was clear and satisfactory. The poor reviewer was in a most disagreeable predicament. However, as I was at his table I did not wish to appear impolite. I did not mention him; and it was not necessary, as he was known to the audience. I only stated : This is denied,- and then made the preparation. We are accused of such a thing, or blamed for showing such or such a structure. And then I presented the structure in nature. At the same time I had our plates at hand, and asked the audience whether they represented the preparations as I had made them. The answer was always affirmative. The reviewer avoids me entirely. After the lecture he went immediately to his little room. His partner spoke to me, and mentioned that now he will study our plates. You perceive by this that I have taken a strong position, and am no longer on the defensive. My friends who are in opposition to the reviewer's party tell the story everywhere ; and I continue to invite everyone to procure me an opportunity of showing what we 336 A v[NDiCATION OF PHRENOLOGY maintain. As to the anatomy, complete victory is no longer doubtful, because competent judges were present ; and with that gratification I shall begin to speak to the public in November. The poor reviewer, as physiologist, can scarcely avoid to come. I shall invite him, and he must be prepared to undergo a severe discipline. I certainly shall provoke him to appear, if he like candour and faith. An ordinary foreigner would have taken it for granted that the great I Edinburgh Review' represented the character of Scotchmen generally, and would have judged them accordingly; but Spurzheim was an adept in the estimation of character, and said to them :- You are slow, but you are sure; I must remain some time with you, and then I'll leave the fruit of my labours to ripen in your hands. This is the spot from which, as a centre, the doctrines of Phrenology shall spread over Britain. The prophecy has been fulfilled, as proved by the labours of the Combes and the establishment of the Phrenological Museum and Library with the aid of the Henderson bequest. Other accounts of these demonstrations were published by writers who witnessed them. I add the following extracts from a communication from Edinburgh to the ' MedicoChirurgical Journal and Review' of May 1817. After describing the 'petulant, shallow, and dogmatical' character of the 'Edinburgh Review' article, the writer goes on to state that- Dr. Spurzheim sank not under this cruelty of criticism, which he bore with a serenity of deportment worthy of a man of science. On the contrary, his moral character appeared more bright in the eyes of those who knew him, simply by being contrasted with the foulness of the epithets that had been thrown upon it. He came to Edinburgh, therefore, not to indulge feelings of personal irritation, but in a spirit of meekness, anxious to find out his opponent, for no other purpose than that he might convince him, by ocular demonstration, of the peculiar structure of the brain which he had described in his works and plates. I had the good fortune to be present at his first demonstration; which took place before a considerable number of eminent anatomists; the person also was there whom rumour alleges to be the author of the offensive article in the Review. I marked the conduct of that individual, and if the outward deportment could be viewed as an indication of what was passing in the mind, he was certainly labouring under suppressed emotion; and more than once tried to disembarrass himself by pulling from his pocket and reading, or pretending to read, the superscription of a letter. He generally SPURZHEIM'S RECEPTION IN THIS COUNTRY 337 contented himself.with distant hurried glances at what was demonstrated, and upon the whole seemed both uneasy and inattentive. I am the more minute as to these facts, because he has since alluded to this demonstration as being by no means satisfactory ; he was probably, however, the only individual to whom it was not satisfactory. In reference to the second demonstration this writer says The scene was most interesting to the audience. Dr. Spurzheim, in his usual most masterly manner, proceeded in the demonstration, and, like the Admirable Crichton, sustained for upwards of four hours and a half, and in a language which was foreign to him, a public disputation with his adversary, explaining himself in terms at once philosophical and perspicuous, and very successfully and coolly ridding himself of the disingenuous cavilling about words with which it was sought to embarrass him. During this public disputation, it is pretty generally admitted there was, in one quarter, a right plentiful lack of temper, as well as of argument. The writer goes on to state that- Attempts have been made to misrepresent the feelings and judgment of the audience, which were unquestionably in favour of Dr. Spurzheim, in the proportion of at least twenty to one. It would have been too much to expect perfect unanimity on a question and an occasion of this sort. Since this notable occasion, Dr. Spurzheim has dissected the brain before the Royal Physical Society, and repeatedly to mixed audiences ; and it is but bare truth to say, that I do not know any man of sense or candour who does not bow to the correctness of his pathological views, and admire the beautiful accuracy of his demonstrations. The writer adds.-- I conclude by saying, that I have no connection with Dr. Spurzheim, and he knows nothing of my having taken this step. To my respect, as to that of every other man, he is entitled by his superior talents as well as his excellent and amiable character ; but upon me he has no particular claim, save that which I am ever ready to allow to injured merit. The editors of the I Medico-Chirurgical Journal ' state that the writer is known to them, and that ° his character is beyond suspicion of misrepresentation.' In the fourth volume of this Journal, pp. 53 and 117, is another able review of the controversy between Dr. Spurzheim and Dr. Gordon, including an account of Gall and Spurzheim's chief anatomical discoveries. In this Dr. Cordon's delin- 338 A VINDICATION OF PHRENOLOGY quencies are unsparingly treated, and the conclusiveness of Spurzheim's dissection of the brain is stoutly maintained. The writer says:- We have not taken our notions from hearsay or verbal descriptions, but have several times witnessed, with the closest attention, Dr. Spurzheim's demonstrations of the recent unprepared brain, and can vouch for the truly satisfactory, as well as able, manner in which they are performed. We have also repeated in private the dissections after his manner, and the result has been a belief of their entire correctness. I have before rne a small volume entitled a ' Memoir of the Life and Writings of John Gordon, M.D., F.R.S.E., late Lecturer on Anatomy and Physiology in Edinburgh, by Daniel Ellis, F.R.S.E.,' and also a copy of Dr. Gordon's ' Observations on the Structure of the Brain, comprising an Estimate of the Claims of Drs. Gall and Spurzheim to Discovery in the Anatomy of that Organ.' This was published in 1817 by Blackwood R; Co., Edinburgh, and T. and J. Underwood, London. Readers who desire to enter further into the details of this controversy should read these. They present an amusing contrast between the two Cordons : the dictatorial, vituperative Gordon of the ' Edinburgh Review,' who evidently supposed that the fulminations of this literary dictator would crush the foreigners ; and the Gordon of the ' Observations,' the Gordon that had been publicly whipped in his own class-room. But amusement will be exchanged. for another feeling when the reader analyses the device by which the reviewer seeks to exculpate and avenge himself. In the 'Review' Dr. Gordon describes the anatomical doctrines of ' the two modern peripatetics' as ' quackery from beginning to end,' as ' amazing absurdities'; states that ' in this department (the anatomical) they displayed more quackery than in any others, and that their bad faith is here more unpardonable that it was so much more likely to escape detection,' etc., and that they stated falsehoods concerning cerebral anatomy intentionally' and deliberately, and supported them by trickery in the use of the handle of the scalpel, and deceived their less knowing pupils concerning the fibrous structure of the whole of the white matter by selecting portions where fibrous appearance was due SPURZHEIM'S RECEPTION IN THIS COUNTRY 339 to alternations of white and grey matter, etc. After all these libellous denunciations of Gall's and Spurzheim's descriptions of the brain in general, and of the fibrous structure of the white matter in particular, by the Dr. Cordon of the ' Edinburgh Review' in 1815, the other Dr. Cordon devotes page after page of his ' Observations' in 1817 to show that Gall and Spurzheim borrowed their ideas from Reil and other anatomists. Poor Dr. Cordon seems to have been incapable of perceiving the illogical absurdity of his position; of understanding that if the anatomical statements of Gall and Spurzheim were borrowed from Vesalius, Tulpius, Petit, Ilunauld, Morgagni, and Reil, all these must be charlatans, impostors, tricksters, men of bad faith, who, taking advantage of the ignorance of their dupes, describe as truth what they know to be false ; and all their anatomical work, especially that of Reil (who is described as the true author of most of Gall and Spurzheim's ideas), must be 'thorough quackery from beginning to end.' Instead. of this, Dr. Cordon expresses profound admiration of Reil and of his anticipations of the discoveries of Gall and Spurzheim (that is, of their trickery, charlatanism, bad faith, wilful imposture, etc., etc.), and states his intention of making his (Red's) labours better known to British anatomists by means of a translation. This intention, however, was not carried out. In his 'Examination of the Objections made in Britain against the Doctrines of Gall and Spurzheim' (1817) Dr. Spurzheim demolishes all these afterthought accusations of plagiarism, and exposes the means by which Dr. Cordon obtains sections of the corpus dentatum, etc., which differ somewhat in shape and colour from those displayed in the plates of Gall and Spurzheim, as well as the absurdity of the petty criticisms of their other plates-details of ridiculous insignificance compared with the accusations of wholesale fraudulent misrepresentations of the whole anatomy of the brain, so insolently asserted in the 'Edinburgh Review.' I have reprinted part of this pamphlet of Spurzheim's in my appendix. It has now become a classical landmark in connection with the history of discovery in cerebral anatomy. I have already quoted Reil's own testimony to the merit of Gall as an anatomist. Professor Bischoff, who records z 2 340 A VINDICATION OF PHRENOLOGY this, adds further testimonies and particulars from Loder, given in a letter to Professor Hufeland :-- Now that Gall has visited Halle, and that I have had the opportunity of not only attending his lectures, but also of dissecting with him, sometimes alone, sometimes in presence of Reil and of many other of my friends, nine human brains and fourteen brains of animals, I believe that I am able to form a judgment of his doctrines. Then follows a long eulogy, which I need not quote, as my present object is to show the truth concerning the relations between Reil and Gall. Referring to these attempts to attribute the discoveries of Gall and Spurzheim to Reil, Gall says (' Fonctions du Cerveau,' vol. ii., p. 19) :- Let them compare the early works of Reil with those he has published since he attended our dissections at Halle (in 1805), and let them also compare the successive improvements in both the lectures and books of Richerand, Beclar, Blainville, Serre, Georget, Lallemand, Tiedemann, Carus, etc., etc., and they will be astonished at the progress which has been made (b'intervalle qui cc W franchi) since the appearance of my expositions. On p. 14 of the same volume Gall says, ' The enthusiasm with which Reil and Loder have received my discoveries are well known.' There were differences between Gall and Spurzheim and Reil concerning some details of cerebral structure, and these were freely discussed between them without any sacrifice of their mutual esteem. All three were gentlemen, not I Edinburgh Reviewers.' 341 CHAPTER XIX LORD JEFFREY'S ATTACK AFTER its discomfiture and disgrace in 1815 the I Edinburgh Review' wisely dropped the subject for eleven years, when it again resumed the offensive in 1826, the author at this date being Mr. F. Jeffrey, afterwards Lord Jeffrey. The general tone of this is very different from the vulgar scurrility of Dr. Gordon's attack. It takes the form of a review of the second edition of G. Combe's ' System of Phrenology,' and commences with many phrases which are verbally complimentary to the author, but they are such compliments as a man of Mr. Combe's moral nature could not accept as anything better than veiled insults. This will be understood by the following, which is the conclusion of the complimentary opening paragraph. After expressing admiration of Mr. Combe's dexterity in evading weak parts of his subject-in cooking it generally-the reviewer says of Phrenology, that its radical absurdity is so glaring that, in spite of his zeal and earnestness, we really have great difficulty in believing the author to be in good faith with us, and suspect that few reflecting readers will be able to get through the work without many starts of impatient surprise, and a general uneasy surmise that it is a mere exercise of intellectual ingenuity or an elaborate experiment upon public credulity. It is evident from this description of zeal and earnestness combined with imposture that the moral ° zeal and earnestness ' of George Combe were as unintelligible to Jeffrey as the harmony of colour to a blind man, and for corresponding organic reasons. Combe, of course, promptly and scornfully denied the accusation of modifying or accommodating the Phrenology of Gall and Spurzheim, of ° balancing the opinions of Gall against those of Spurzheim, or compounding out of them a tertium quid,' or 342 A VINDICATION OF PHRENOLOGY ' the reconcilement of the schisms which seem already to threaten ' Phrenology, to which object Jeffrey with gross falsehood dared to say that ' no inconsiderable portion of it (Combe's- System of Phrenology") is dedicated.' Mr. Jeffrey's claim to sit in judgment on cerebral physiology may be estimated by his preliminary or fundamental assertion (p. 256), that 'the only organs of the mind of which we have hitherto had any knowledge are those of the external senses ' ; and again (p. 257)- The truth, we do not scruple to say it, is that there is not the smallest reason for supposing that the mind ever operates through the agency of any material organs except in the perception of material objects, or in the spontaneous movements of the body which it inhabits ; and that this whole science rests upon a postulate or assumption for which there is neither any shadow of evidence nor any show of reasoning. The postulate or assumption referred to is that the brain is the organ of the mind. As I have already explained, Gall, Spurzheim, Combe, and the early phrenologists had to struggle with this denial of psychic cerebral function, and to present to their readers a large number of facts in order to prove that the brain is something more than a sponge for the absorption of the pestiferous humours of the body, that it is the organ of the mind. In my chapters on the evidences I have not repeated any of these arguments, for the simple reason that the subsequent progress of science has rendered the denial of this fundamental ' postulate or assumption' of Phrenology too ridiculous for serious discussion. I shall therefore dismiss the subsequent dozen pages in which the reviewer struggles with much verbosity to show that most of the faculties enumerated by phrenologists cannot have cerebral organs, because they are not physical sensations. I must deal almost as summarily with the next thirty-one pages, 263 to 294, which are devoted to showing that the primary faculties of the mind, as described by phrenologists, are not in accordance with what Mr. Jeffrey thinks they ought to be. If the facts are not in accordance with Mr. Jeffrey's preconceptions, so much the worse for the facts. He says, in summing up his view of the primary faculties (p. 224) : ' If these things be, as we humbly conceive them to be, it is plain enough that the phrenological theory cannot possibly be true' (the latter italics are the reviewer's). LORD JEFFREY'S ATTACK 343 It would, however, be unfair to describe these thirty-one pages as entirely occupied with such argument, the fact being that a large acreage of the 165 pages of the whole article consists of what is called by governesses ' literary composition,' and of melancholy strivings to be funny. Mr. Jeffrey's estimate of the value of inductive evidence in comparison with that of metaphysical dreaming is shown in the following (p. 268) :- And is not the absurdity of their metaphysics sufficient to excuse us from any examination of the evidence relied on by the phrenologists ? If any man can believe that there are, or can be, so many distinct powers and faculties as we have now referred to, he may possibly be justified in seeking and be satisfied as to the existence and locality of their material organs. For ourselves, we see no occasion to go further. This disregard of evidence is well displayed by the reviewer's denial of Mr. Combe's statement ' that there are persons who have the sense of vision, and yet are almost destitute of the power of perceiving colours ' (p. 287). This is supposed to be refuted by Mr. Jeffrey's metaphysical reasoning, as follows Colour in short is the only quality of light by which we are made aware of its existence, and to say that we do not see colour by the eye, is in reality to say that we do not see at all, for the strict and ultimate fact is that we never see anything else. ' Now, can any person, with the least capacity of reflection, really suppose that hope is a primitive independent faculty ? ' is the sort of argument by which the multitude of careful observations of the kind I have described in Chapter IV'are refuted by this critic, whose metaphysical refutation of this part of Phrenology is summed up as follows (p. 293) :- (1) That there is not the least reason to suppose that any of our faculties, but those which connect us with external objects, or direct the movements of our bodies, act by material organs at all, and that the phrenological organs have no analogy whatever with those of the external senses ; (2) that it is quite plain that there neither are nor can be any such primitive and original faculties as the greater part of those to which organs are assigned by the phrenologists ; and (3) that if the 36 faculties, with the organs of which they have covered the whole skull, are admitted to exist, it seems improbable to refuse a similar existence to many hundreds or thousands of the same kind, for the organs and operations of which they have, however, left no room. 416 A VINDICATION OF PHRENOLOGY orthodox capital by attacking Phrenology have (since 1819) blindly re-echoed each other's admiration of these measurements of Mr. Stone and the conclusions based upon them. We must never forget that they are the most largely and generally, I may almost say universally, quoted and lauded of all the anti-phrenological literature. The enemies of Phrenology all agree in placing the keys of their anti-phrenological academy in the hands of Mr. Stone! They all exclaim with one accord Tic es Petrus, et super hane petram we build our I inductive'-ouf ' Baconian 'refutation of Phrenology. 417 APPENDIX [See p. 339.] Extract from Dr. Spurzheim's 'Examination of the Objections made in Britain against the Doctrines of Gall and Spurzheirn.' THE most grave accusation, and which, if true, were indeed formidable, remains to be repelled. At the end the Historian positively states (p. 187) that Reil has been defrauded ; and in p. 99 that Reil has the sole merit of having revived the investigation of the fibrous structure of the brain in modern times ; that he is the original discoverer of our ideas, and that we have borrowed them from his writings. How will the conscientious Reviewer here extricate himself Why did he deny such things as we maintain in our works, since his Historian asserts that Reil has discovered them, and refers to his ' Archives of Physiology' for the year 1809 and 1812 ? The Dissector himself, in writing his book on the brain, forgot these essays of Reil. But why have we not acknowledged that we owe our anatomical information of the brain to the writings of Reil The reason is simple ; vii., because it is not the case. The proof of this assertion is equally simple : 1 have only to state the history of our investigations. While at Vienna, we spoke of the great leading points of our anatomical demonstrations ; vii., of the aggregation of various cerebral parts, and their connexion with the medulla oblongata ; of the proportion between the grey and white substance ; of the diverging and converging fibres; and of unfolding the convolutions. In the year 1805, the 6th of March, we left Vienna for Berlin,, where we repeated our anatomical demonstrations in presence of the medical Professors and numerous auditors. Outlines of our anatomical and physiological propositions were published, during that spring, by Prof. Bischoff. From Berlin we went to Potsdam, then to Leipzig, where Dr. Knoblauch published an account of our doctrines on the brain. Then the usual demonstrations and lectures were delivered in Dresden, and Mr. Bloede published outlines of our anatomical and physiological views. From Dresden we went to Halle, where Prof. Reil and Loder, and numerous gentlemen of the profession, honoured us with their presence at the public lectures and demonstrations. With Loder we repeated several times the E E 418 A VINDICATION OF PHRENOLOGY anatomical demonstrations, and once we dissected with Reil a brain quietly in his own room. He was so much pleased with our demonstrations, that he gave to Dr. Gall some drawings with which he was formerly occupied, de structwra nervorum et cerebella. Thus, I beg to observe that in the summer of 1805 we demonstrated to Reil the same leading points in the anatomy of the brain which we still maintain. We then continued to lecture and to demonstrate the brain, that very same year, in Weimar, Jena, Gottingen, Braunschweig, Hamburg, Kiel, and Copenhagen. In the year 1806, anatomical demonstrations were made .in Bremen, Munster in Westphalia, Amsterdam, Leyden, Frankfort upon the Main, Mannheim, Stuttgart and Freiburg im Breisgau. In the year 1807 we went to Marburg, Wiirzburg, Munich (where we had the pleasure of conversing with Soemerring), Augsburg, Ulm, Zurich, Bern, Bile ; and in the autumn of the same year to Paris, where we dissected the brain, first in presence of Cuvier, Fourcroy, Geoffroi de St.-Hilaire, Dumeril, Dr. Demangeon, and others, and successively in many learned societies. Meanwhile numerous publications had appeared in Germany. Dr. Demangeon, who had attended the lectures in Hamburg, published in Paris, 1806, his Physiologic Intellectuelle, and mentioned our anatomical views. In March 1808 we delivered our Memoir to the French Institute. The commissioners declare, at the beginning of their report, that they have hesitated a moment whether they should examine our paper ; because there is a rule, ' de ne point emettre avis sur les ouvrages deja soumis au grand tribunal du public par la voie de 1'impression, et 1'on pouvait croire que la doctrine anatomique de Mr Gall a regu, par 1'enseignement oral quo ce professeur en a fait dans les principales villes de 1'Europe, et par les nombreux extraits que ses disciples en ont repandus, une publicite h pen pres 6quivalente a celle d'une impression authentique.' They, however, add, that Gall had not given his sanction to any one of the publications, and that this circumstance was one of the motives which induced them to examine our Memoir. After this, Reil published, in his Archives, views, essentially the same as ours, of the aggregation of cerebral parts, of diverging and converging fibres, and of the possibility of separating the convolutions in the middle line. He does not state that he was the first who has conceived such general ideas; nor does he mention us as the inventors. He does not, and could not, say that we have learned them from him; he merely describes and represents them in engravings. As we had been in almost every remarkable town, and at all the universities, in Germany, our countrymen knew how to estimate the proceeding of Reil ; and it is only the great publicity of our demonstrations that can excuse Reil for not mentioning them. It is true, Reil has chosen other names; he calls our apparatus of formation Ilirraschenkel-System, and our apparatus of union Balken-System; our diverging bundles are his Stabkranz. We APPENDIX 419 speak simply of fibres, he of various convexities, obtuse and acute angles of the fibres, of laminee, fossx, and radii of the white substance; of wings, mountains, lobules, teeth, of a comb, and of similar mechanical denominations. These minute descriptions of mechanical forms, and such names, may appear interesting to a mechanical Dissector, who is attentive to every little cul-de-sac, and declares the anatomy of the brain unnecessary to physiological and pathological views. We, on the contrary, think that there would be no end of such mechanical details in comparative anatomy. If, for instance, in the gradation of animals, every new additional part in the cerebellum is to be named, who will learn all the names ? and of what use will such a study be ? We therefore point out the structure of each part, well aware, however, that each part is modified in the individuals of different species, nay, in the different individuals of the same species. This short account is sufficient to prove that there is no occasion whatever for us to apologise in the least with respect to the publications of Reil. A few years ago the Historian might have been easily pardoned for his ignorance of historical details ; but, in the present situation, what his merits are, let others decide. The learned Historian insinuates that Reil and Gall had agreed that the former was to examine the cerebellum, and the latter the brain proper. But I affirm that nothing of that kind happened, nor could happen, because our general views of the brain were discovered before we met Roil at Halle, in the year 1805. Reil, with such brains as he operated on, did not succeed by our method, and therefore thought it insufficient, and preferred maceration in alcohol or acids. His words are: ' The brain is too pulpy and too deliquescent to be examined in connexion without preparation.' He then made frequent use of laceration with the fingers, or of scraping. Thus, the essential difference between Reil's proceeding and ours is, that he prepares the brain artificially, while we prefer a good brain in its fresh state. With this narration I beg the reader to compare the following passage of the candid Historian, where he says (p. 188) : ' Roil's expectations of assistance from Dr. Gall were altogether disappointed, so much so, that he seems not to have considered that person's investigations as worthy of attention ; but pronouncing his method inadequate, extended his own inquiries to the department thus fruitlessly assigned to another.' This Historian and Critic is told by Reil that he had tried our method and did not succeed, and hence concludes that we have defrauded him. A finely contrived story! ! ! The Pamphleteer (p. 9) finds it I amusing to hear the committee of the French Institute occasionally named as supporters of our anatomical doctrines.' Cuvier, however, was too well acquainted with the German and European literature to accuse us of plagiarism. He allowed that our method of dissecting the brain is preferable to that commonly used in the schools ; that we are the first who have shown the swellings in the spinal cord of a calf ; the proportion between the brown and white substance in the brain; the true 420 A VINDICATION OF PHRENOLOGY origin of the optic and other nerves ; the certainty of the decussation ; the successive reinforcement through the pons, crura, optic thalami, and corpora striata ; the two sorts of fibres in the brain, and the generality of the commissures. As the Report is printed, even translated and inserted in the Edinbitrgh Medical and Surgical Journal for January 1809, the reader, in perusing the Report, may satisfy himself. I also ask the Historian why he has omitted to tell his readers that Cuvier, in the Annual Report at the end of 1808, published that our Alemoir was by far the most important which had occupied the attention of the class ? Before I finish with the Historian, I have still to reply to his remarks on our Plates. He relates (p. 2) that he has compared our descriptions and engravings strictly with nature ; and, according to p. 165, he has found, that in our Plate IV. which represents the basis of the brain in a female, the medulla oblongata points directly backwards, instead of downwards ; and the anterior surface of the annular protuberance downwards, instead of forwards ; that the anterior lobes are too broad, the surface neither concave nor sloping enough, the middle lobes too vide and not pointed enough, and the forms of the convolutions not natural. Ans.-Who has ever shown or seen a brain, in which, when taken out of the skull, deprived of dura mater, and placed on its upper surface, the parts of the basis remained in the same position as in the skull ? Do not the parts sink more or less, according to the firmness of the brain? I beg the reader to compare with our plate that of Vicq d'Azyr, and see which is the better. I say the basis represented by Vicq d'Azyr looks like a soft, collapsed, and flat deliquescent mass. Indeed, no philosophical mind will, and no mechanical Dissector ought, to cavil about minute changes in relative situation of the cerebral parts, when taken out of the head; since these, like all other bodies, must follow the laws of gravity. I also maintain that a Dissector who adopts one general measurement and one general form for all brains, and their parts ; who does not know that each lobe in every person, as to size and form, is modified, while each, even the minuutest part of the brain, as well as of ears and noses, offers modifications, cannot have compared many brains. The important consideration, that each part is modified, is general, and applicable to the parts of every system. It has been well detailed by Dr,. Barclay with respect to the bloodvessels, in the preface of his Description of the Arteries, and will be admitted with respect to the nervous system by all those who compare the parts in different individuals. The anterior lobes, as they are represented in our Plate IV, may be larger than those of the acczerate Historian; but they are too small for those men to whom the medical school of Edinburgh is indebted for its first celebrity. I also assert that the females of Edinburgh, who are known for their talents, have the anterior lobes of their brains larger than those which we have copied. The remarks of the Historian on our fifth plate can be made only by one who is accustomed to cut the brain mechanically, and APPENDIX ¢21 who does not consider the parts in connexion, but thinks that all brains, and each part in every brain, are quite the same, without the least modification. I repeat that we have represented nature, and do affirm, that the general structure of the brain, and its parts, will be found as our plates indicate ; but that the modifications of each part are infinite. Such a configuration, however, as the Historian has given of the pons, in his Plate I. (Fig. 2), can only be seen in a putrid brain ; or, if he gives it as the exact appearance of this part in a fresh brain, he must never have seen the real structure. As each part in each brain is modified, how can the Dissector maintain that in Plate VI. our representations are not natural? The corpus dentatuin, and the arborescent appearance of the cerebellum, seem to him exceedingly incorrect. The former is represented in five different brains and sections, and the latter is shown in seven ditf'erent brains, partly in the same, partly in different sections ; and in each the appearance is modified, for no other reason but because it was so in nature. It was, indeed, more difficult to copy exactly nature than to make 6he appearance always the same. I rely on the decision of every anatomist who has had the opportunity of comparing brains. In the VIIIth, IXth, Xth, XIth and XIIth Plates the representations of the skull are particularly blamed, and declared fictitious or imaginary, so that they never could have been drawn from nature. In reply, I propose to the Dissector to open the head of a young man, of a very old person, and of a third who had been long maniacal, and he may then tell us whether there is one and the same appearance in the bone. Those who will examine my collection may convince themselves that still greater varieties occur in nature than we have represented in our plates. In Plate VIII. he finds fault with the outline of the cranium, particularly towards the forepart of the basis ; he has never seen an occipital bone of such a form and of such dimensions ; such arrangements of lobes and lobules were never observed ; the cerebellum is even called a case of monstrosity. Such assertions may be made by a Dissector who never has examined the differences of beads; who thinks that children of seven years have the full growth of their brains (the contrary of which, however, any maker of hats might have told him), and that the brains of women and men in general do not show any constant difference. We maintain that the anterior lobes, their basilar convolutions, and the cerebella, vary as well as the other parts, and for that reason we have copied them different in size and form, as they occurred. Plate XVII. is said to be in contradiction to Plate XII. The Dissector cannot easily conceive how they may be reconciled. The answer is, that each brain was different, and in the former the bundles were larger, in the latter smaller, and in the latter the bundles are traced to a. greater extent towards the convolutions. In short, he who has not yet observed that the arrangements, size, and form of the different parts of the brain present various INDEX ABSENCE of pedantry in the science, 267 - of visible separation of organs in the brain, 375 Absurd position of patronizing phrenologophobiacs,242 Acquisitiveness, 286 - and absence of cautiousness, 287 American phrenological experiment, 95 Aphasia, Bouillaud on, and modern blundering, 237 - case with pain over the eyes, 231 - Dr. Gibson's case of Janet Whyte, 224 - Dr. Inglis' case of Maria Wilson, 222 - Dr. Inglis' second case, 224 - Dr. Otto's case, 220 - Dr. South and Mr. Niddrie's case, 232 - left side disease and recovery, 230 - Mr. Bryan Donkin's case, 234 - Mr. Hood's case, 226 - - - -of Adam McConochie, 228 - Mr. Hytche's case, 221 - M. de Fouchy's case of himself, 235 - cases of records of other phrenologists anterior to Broca, 220 - Gall's cases of, 215 - Gall, the discovery of its seat, 197 Asses and the sick lion, 19 Average capabilities, 257 ' BACON'S Instantia Crucis, 45 - requirements in inductive logic, 44 Barber's, Mr., visit to Bath jail, 62 - -- visit to Glasgow Bridewell, 58 Believers in the generalizations of phrenology, 255 Benedict, Prof., on contradictions of cerebral mutilators, 170 Big brains and big intellect bugbcar, 249 Bischoff's testimony to Gall, 340 Brains of animals, mode of examin- ing, 245 Broca's alleged discovery, 193 - convolution, the same as Gall's organe de la memoire des mots, 213 - first cases, 173 Brown's, Dr. W. A. F., case of injury of hope, 127 - - - - case of disease of venera- tion, 129 - - - - cases of spectral illusions, 109 Brown-Sequard on motor and sensory centres, 177 Buchannan's, Mr., case of diseased combativeness, 144 CASE of Bianchi, 77 - - visions, 82 Cause of failure to train morals, 294 Cautiousness and secretiveness, 188 Centre of combativeness and destruc- tion, 189 - - vigilance versus centre of vision, 190 CENTRES,' GALL'S COMPARED WITH THOSE OE MODERN E%PEEDIENTEES, 180 Centre for leg same as Gall's, 180 - of tail wagging anticipated by Gall, 183 -for arms and hand extension anticipated by Gall, 185 - of grabbing or acquisitiveness, 185 - - mouth movements or gustativeness, 186 - - staring or wonder, 187 - - circumspection and looking askance, or cautiousness and secretiveness, 188 Cerebral excitation and mechanical injury, 144 qo A VINDICATION OF PHRENOLOGY I have spent more than thirty years in accumulating facts, both physiological and pathological, concerning both men and animals, All who have followed our courses of lectures and have read our books are astonished at their immense numbers. I have never stated a physiological proposition without supporting it by a multitude of facts. Further on he adds :- I should have filled whole volumes on each organ had I permitted myself to state all the individual cases and experiences upon which the location of each is founded, and that furnished subsequent confirmation of such location. And in vol. 3, p. 169 :- I have done that which I call upon my adversaries to do, I have devoted myself entirely to observation, waiting with patience and with resignation the results which it furnished. I have limited my work to the collection of facts, and to note the circumstances under which I observed them. I have carefully restrained my desire to explain these observations, fearing that otherwise I might allow my judgment to be seduced by my own ingenuity, instead of faithfully following the instructions of Nature. Spur zheim was less severe and more deductive. He had not passed through the same ordeal as that -which had confronted Gall on his psychological initiation, and which had taught him to be so extremely cautious. Gall's dread of theorising or hasty generalization was excessive. He is, so far as I can learn, the only scientist that has denounced reasoning as perfidious. In his ' Fonctions du Cerveau,' vol. 3, p. 206, speaking of his early work, he says: ' Jene me suis jamais laisse conduire par le raisonnement, ayant appris de bonne heure combien il est perfide, et de combien d'erreurs plausibles il est la source.' To Spurzheim we are indebted for the introduction of Phrenology to this country. His English works were largely circulated at a time when we were far less versed in continental languages than at present. He was the teacher of both the Combes and the other Scotch phrenologists that have so worthily followed him. In consequence of this, the great merits and remarkable personality of Gall are less known than they should be, and hence I dwell more particularly upon them, and also add the following from a communication to the Birmingham Journal': HISTORICAL EVIDENCE A VISIT TO DR. GALL Most of us find some amusement in tracing on Fancy's tablet the portrait of a person of whom we have heard much, and particularly after we have read many of the works of an author, but with whom we have had no personal acquaintance. It generally happens, however, that our portrait is not correct when we compare it with the original. Thus it was with myself. I found Dr. Gall (in 1826) to be a man of middle stature, of an outline well proportioned; he was thin and rather pallid, and possessed a capacious head and chest. The peculiar brilliancy of his penetrating eye left an indelible impression. His countenance was remarkable ; his features strongly marked and rather large, yet devoid of coarseness. The general impression that a first glance was calculated to convey would be, that Dr. Gall was a man of originality and depth of mind, possessing much urbanity, with some self-esteem and inflexibility of design. After presenting my letters of introduction to him at seven o'clock in the morning, he showed me into a room, the walls of which were covered with bird-cages, and the floor with dogs, cats, etc. Observing that I was surprised at the number of his companions, he observed, ' All you Englishmen take me for a birdcatcher ; I am sure you feel surprised that I am not somewhat differently made to any of you, and that I should employ my time talking to birds. Birds, sir, differ in their dispositions, like men; and if they were but of more consequence, the peculiarities of their characters would have been as well delineated. Do you think,' said he, turning his eyes to two beautiful dogs at his feet which were endeavouring to gain his attention, ' do you think that these little pets possess pride and vanity like man ? We will call both these feelings into action,' said he. He then caressed the whelp, and took it into his arms. ' Mark his mother's offended pride,' said he, as she was walking quietly across the chamber to her mat; ' do you think she will come if I call her ? ' ' Oh yes,' I answered. ' No, not at all.' He made the attempt, but she heeded not the hand she had so earnestly endeavoured to lick but an instant before. ' She will not speak to me to-day,' said the doctor. He then described to me the peculiarity of many of his birds, and I was astonished to find that he seemed familiar also with their dispositions. I was delighted with his conversation; he seemed to me to take a wider view in the contemplation of man than any other person with whom.I had ever conversed. During breakfast he frequently fed the little suitors, who approached as near as their iron bars would permit. ' You see they all know me,' said he, 'and will feed from my hand, except this blackbird, who must gain his morsel by stealth before lie eats it; we will retire an instant, and in our absence he will take the bread.' On our return we found that he had secreted it in a corner of his cage. I mention these otherwise uninteresting anecdotes, to show how much Dr. Gall had studied the peculiarities of the smaller animals. 42 A VINDICATION OF PHRENOLOGY After our breakfast he showed me his extensive collection, and thus ended my first visit to the greatest moral philosopher that Europe has produced; toaman, than whom few were evermoreridi.culed, and few ever pursued their bent more determinately, despite its effects; to a man who alone effected more change in mental philosophy than perhaps any predecessor ; to a man who suffered more persecution, and yet possessed more philanthropy, than most philosophers. Birmingham, Sept. 19, 1828. Dr. Elliotson says :- I have seen Dr. Gall, seen much of him, and had repeated conversations with him on phrenological points, and on the history of his .discoveries. He lectures in Paris, to a class of above one hundred, at the Athenee Royale. His course consists of sixty or seventy lectures, and he spends several days in dissecting. When at the end of the hour he asks whether he shall proceed, the audience applaud violently, and he often continues two and upwards of three hours. Dr. Gall ranks high in Paris; he is a physician to ten ambassadors-has great practice--is considered a savant-and bears himself, and lives handsomely, like a gentleman. Gall's head is magnificent; and his countenance, dress, and manner, with the depth, continuousness, liberality, and simplicity of his remarks, show you that you are in company with a profound philosopher-a perfect gentleman-and a most kind-hearted friend. He is perfectly free from affectation or quackery; pursues truth only, regardless of all consequences ; and has sought it at an immense expense, and free from all interested motives. He knows the importance and reality of his discoveries; and though perfectly modest and simple, forms the just estimate of himself that posterity 2vill forma, and feels secure of immortality. I advised him to write some popular work, but lie objected; said he had written for the studious only-for those who desired to understand the subject thoroughly; that he had composed a work for posterity, and must leave to others the occupation of writing for loungers. It was delightful to see the good old man every day sitting on his sofa or sitting up in bed (for he was ill at the time), surrounded by his friends, all listening to him, while he spoke knowledge in the most amiable manner, attending to every question, and allowing some more voluble, though not less admiring than the rest, to interrupt him, patiently resuming his arguments when they had finished. He is incessantly meditating and observing; telling them that much remains to be done, and mentioning points upon which he wishes them to make observations, for the purpose of solving various difficulties. He acquired no mean reputation as a physician, as well as a writer and philosopher; and, independent of the respect shown him by all parties, he realised from his profession a handsome fortune. His skill as a physician may be inferred from the following fact. In the year 1820 a gold medal was presented to him, executed by lI. Barre, an eminent artist in HISTORICAL EVIDENCE 43 Paris, by order of Count Potosky, a rich Polish nobleman, who took this method of expressing his deep gratitude to Dr. Gall, who had cured him of an old and dangerous malady, for which he had in vain consulted the best medical men in Paris. On one side of the medal is the head of Dr. Gall, an admirable likeness ; and on the other is Esculapius, standing at the bedside of the patient, chasing away with one hand the birds of darkness, and crushing a frog, the symbol of ignorance, under his right foot. Behind Esculapius is an altar, with a skull placed upon it, to denote the particular kind of study to which Dr. Gall was devoted. The following is the testimony of that distinguished German physician and physiologist, Dr. C. W. Hufeland :- It is with great pleasure and much interest that I have heard this estimable man himself expound his new doctrine. I am fully convinced that he ought to be regarded as one of the most remarkable phenomena of the eighteenth century, and that his doctrine should be considered as forming one of the boldest and most important steps in the study of the kingdom of Nature. One must see and hear him to learn to appreciate a man completely exempt from prejudices, from charlatanism, from deception, and from metaphysical reveries. Gifted with a rare spirit of observation, with great penetration, and a sound judgment-identified, as it were, with Nature-becoming her confidant from a constant intercourse with her-he has collected, in the kingdom of organised beings, a multitude of signs and phenomena which nobody had remarked till now, or which had been only superficially observed. He has combined them in an ingenious manner-has discovered the relations which establish analogy between them-has learned their signification-has drawn consequences and established truths, which are so much the more valuable that, being based on experience, they emanate from Nature herself. He ascribes his discoveries solely to the circumstance of his having given himself up ingenuously and without reserve to the study of Nature-following her in all her gradations, from the simplest results of her productive power to the most perfect. It is an error, therefore, to give this doctrine the name of a system, and to judge of it as such. True naturalists are not men to form systems. Their observations would not be suffi ciently accurate if systems. were prompted by a systematic theory, and realities would not square with the various limits Qf their notions. Hence the doctrine of Gall is not, and cannot be, anything except a combination of instructive natural phenomena, of which a part consists at present only of fragments, and of which he makes known the immediate consequences. Scanned by John van Wyhe http://www.historyofphrenology.org.uk/ This work may be copied freely by individuals for personal use, research, and teaching (including distribution to classes) as long as this statement of availability is included in the text. It may not be converted to another format, altered or re-posted without the written consent of John van Wyhe. Use with acknowledgement.