neophytes in this matter pin their faith principally upon some of these extraneous considerations, neglecting, or perhaps rejecting altogether, that which is peculiar to the system.

We are of opinion that the two propositions above stated contain a fair and candid account of the doctrine, and such as any rational phrenologist would be willing to stand or fall by. In this opinion we may be mistaken, but we can only act up to our light, and we proceed to consider them accordingly.

The first proposition is clearly a matter for experiment and demonstration. Whoever pretends, that there are any such natural divisions in the brain, is bound to show them, when a fair opportunity is presented. He must either dissect one or more of them fairly out, or at least point out distinctly the natural lines of separation. Now we apprehend, that so far from this having been satisfactorily shown, it has not even been pretended to be shown. We find it stated, indeed, by Dr. Spurzheim, that he read before the Royal Society of London a paper on the boundaries of the organs, which they did not think worthy of publication; but we are yet to learn on what occasion such demonstration has been offered to the public. Who ever saw such a dissection, and when, where, and with what degree of publicity has it been performed, or pretended to be performed? Sure we are, that if such things have been seen, they can be shown, and we may take for granted, that no evidence of any such natural division into organs has ever been offered to anatomists,-that in short it is a pure hypothesis. We except of course the case of the cerebellum, which we understand to be a distinct organ, and which we shall have occasion to consider by and by.

That there is a set of fibres running from the base to the surface of the brain, and another set back again, may be true, though we have the authority of eminent anatomists for denying that any such fibres can be continuously traced. We do not

contest the assertion, but we consider it as one of no importance. We cannot see that it has any tendency, if true, to establish the proposition that particular masses, or bundles of these fibres, separated by no natural divisions, are truly conical portions.

This point of the separate nature of the cerebral portions, be they conical, or of whatever other form, is a vital one,-so far as the fact of their existence depends on anatomy. It is a sine qua non that their boundaries be pointed out, or else all discussion is at an end. Is there any anatomist now living, who

pretends to demonstrate them? Is there any publication in which they are pointed out, in such a manner as to render either verification or disproof possible? Suppose it should happen, as phrenologists admit it may happen, that the enormous development of one organ should cause it to occupy the place of a neighboring one; can the knife of the anatomist follow the boundary, and point out where one of these ends, and the other begins? We are yet to learn that this is pretended to be possible; and if it be not, can any quackery be more enormous, than that which appeals to experiment for the proof of the development of an organ, which may, for aught the experimenter knows, or pretends to know, be either the organ in question, or some other organ?

When Mr. Stone produced a series of experiments, to show that the organ of destructiveness, in the heads of a number of murderers, was not more prominent than it is in average heads, it was replied, that it was unfair to consider organs in regard to their long diameter only, which should be taken in connexion with their basc. Mr. Stone then asked very naturally where the base was, and how it was bounded. We have looked into Spurzheim's remarks on this subject for a triumphant reply, but are as much at a loss as ever. We find indeed a contemptuous assertion, that the boundaries are established. But the questions how, or where, are left as doubtful as that of the true river St. Croix, or the Papal division of the Indies.

But all this, replies the phrenologist, is an instance of that magisterial assertion, with which it is attempted to depress our cause. We hold it, on the contrary, to be a fair and regular plea. We deny the facts, and call for the proof. We admit that this would not be easy, supposing the position to be well founded. The brain is a soft gelatinous substance, in which it is not easy to demonstrate admitted organization, and none but dissectors, experienced in this particular branch of anatomy, are capable of judging of the true nature of the arrangement of its parts, or of deciding upon the reality of a supposed discovery. Had the evidence been publicly offered, we might still have doubted, whether it was sufficient; but we have at least a right to expect to see it offered. There have been, within our knowledge, three occasions, when it might have been looked for,-the examination before the Committee of the French Institute, the public lectures in Edinburgh, and those in this city. On neither of these was there any attempt to demon

strate, or any pretence of ability to demonstrate, the actual boundaries of the separate organs. We have carefully perused the report of the Institute, the account of the lectures at Edinburgh by Gordon, and the reply to it by Spurzheim. And finally, we have inquired of our most distinguished medical men in this city, who attended these lectures, and we have found no where the slightest evidence, or intimation of any attempt to demonstrate the boundaries of the organs. Under these circumstances, we consider ourselves fully warranted in declaring that no anatomical demonstration of the separate organs has ever been offered, and that there is pretty strong ground for doubting whether any such demonstration will ever be attempted.

It is no answer to, or apology for this fatal deficiency, to talk vaguely about the great anatomical skill and dexterity of Messrs. Gall and Spurzheim,―to maintain that they discovered this commissure, or that foramen,-the grayness of the corpus dentatum, or the swelling in the spinal marrow of calves. These discoveries may be real, and of vast importance; and if any one believe so, we dispute not with him, at present. But they do not touch the question, which is, whether the phrenological organs can be demonstrated to exist separately in the brain by any mode or form of dissection, or maceration. We repeat that no tolerable evidence has yet been offered of the possibility of such demonstration, and we therefore consider it an unwarranted assumption.

The difficulty of disabusing those who have adopted these notions, arises in very many instances from a vague impression, that the existence of the organs is proved in some other way than by observation of the external surface of the brain; that the belief of them finds some support in actual dissection. Now we have with us the clear and express declaration of the Committee of the Institute,* that every claim to anatomical discovery, by Gall and Spurzheim, might be admitted, without adding one tittle to the evidence of the existence of the phrenological organs, which no pretence was made of exhibiting.

But comparative anatomy, we are told, teaches us that there is a regular gradation in the relation of the anterior to the posterior part of the head, corresponding to the intellectual qualities of the subject. Certainly some comparative anatomists

* Tenon, Portal, Sabatier, Pinel, Cuvier. VOL. XXXVII.-NO. 80.

9

have taught this doctrine, while others have denied that any such correspondence can be made out. We are humbly but firmly of opinion that it cannot. But, admitting that it can be, it is no discovery of Phrenology, nor peculiar to it, any more than the general fact, disclosed by anatomy, that most animals have brains. The business of Phrenology is to prove its peculiar doctrines. We want no new names in physiology. There are plenty of hard and unmeaning ones now to pick and choose among.

Now what light can comparative anatomy throw on this matter? It may teach that a particular portion of the surface of the brain is at a greater distance from the medulla oblongata than some other, but it cannot show that any organ or cone is larger in one animal than another, unless the existence of organs or cones in the brains of both is first proved. And to the ability to do this, as we observed before, there is no pretence. The phrenologist may tell us that the beaver has a large organ of constructiveness. Demonstrate then this fact anatomically. This part of the brain is the organ of constructiveness. No such thing. We deny it, and maintain that at least half of the portion in question belongs to the organ of tune; and who shall gainsay us? If we agree to divide a piece of cloth into halves, it will not do to pretend that the half, on your side, is greater than the half on ours. We have divided by an agreement of which it is the essence, that the imaginary line shall run in the middle. If, indeed, it could be shown that the margin of the organ of constructiveness is bounded by a line of cineritious matter, an artery, a particular fold of membrane, or the like, one might ascertain when it encroached on the domain of its neighbors. But this is not pretended, and it follows that comparative anatomy can only teach us the relations in long diameter, or the projections of the organs, which, by admission, is not sufficient to settle any question.

The same may be said with regard to morbid anatomy. There is an extravasation in the organ of destructiveness. By no means. It is in the organ of secretiveness, which happens to be much developed in consequence of the miserly propensities of the individual. And who can confute this, or what inference, accordingly, can be drawn from morbid anatomy ? If there be no natural boundary, it is of course impossible to demonstrate that a particular wound is situated within a particular organ, unless the organs occupy proportional areas, which is to admit that they can differ only in long diameter.

As no evidence then is offered of the first proposition, we might dismiss the second without further remark.

propose to admit, for the sake of argument, that the existence of the continuous bundles of convergent and divergent fibres can be demonstrated; that certain sets of these constitute organs, truly differing in function; and that, though the exact position and boundaries of organs cannot yet be pointed out, it is nevertheless a reasonable and judicious undertaking to endeavor to ascertain them. We are to look next for evidence that individuals, other circumstances being equal, possess certain intellectual and moral qualities corresponding with the development of certain portions of the brain. The question, be it observed as before, is not concerning the great division into anterior and posterior, intellectual and animal. If this be disproved, indeed, Phrenology is at an end; but it may be granted, in our view of the matter, without accrediting this doctrine, which assumes to be an advance on former analyses, and to divide their grand divisions into smaller ones.

As in every other dispute, the first difficulty arises from the terms. What shall we understand by development? There are only two particulars, in regard to which an organ can be said to be developed, namely, size, and structure. Of structural differences little need be said, so long as phrenologists confine themselves to vague assertions of the certainty of the fact. Unless the nature of the difference is somewhere pointed out, it is obviously impossible either to examine, or argue about it. Certainly it would be so for us, who have been unable hitherto to find any such description. A difference which can be perceived, can be described, and till that is the case, it must be looked upon as a mere assertion, incapable of being examined. It is further obvious, that the establishment of the fact of structural difference is so nearly coincident with that of distinct boundaries, that, till some evidence of the latter point is offered, the former may be considered hypothetical.

We notice here a point, which is often alluded to vaguely, and sometimes even spoken of distinctly, as a thing admitted; we mean the action of the organs. We hear of slow but powerful action, rapid and feeble action, and so forth. The source of notions of this sort is evident enough to the physiologist. They arise from an indistinet analogy with muscular action. Muscles being fibrous organs, and the brain exhibiting in certain circumstances a fibrous appearance, the phrenologists, with