а

In the same manner, then, that a disorder in the circulation of blood by the mentioned congestion to the brain is able to produce giddiness or headache, in the same manner a particular congestion to that part of the brain which is the material instrument for the manifestation of Destructiveness, is able to cause an involuntary and invincible propensity to kill. The case is certainly “remarkable” for the psychologist, who either finds his views of the human mind confirmed or refuted by it; but it is no more “extraordinary” than the many that at all times have happened. If, therefore, those who are to judge in this criminal case, or those whose opinion about it shall be asked, are psychologists, as they ought to be, a true mental aberration will be acknowledged, and the unfortunate who suffered from it will not be put to death. Only those who do not know Phrenology will be disposed to call the case “inconceivable.” We see here again one of those riddles of life perfectly clear from our principles, do not make any exclamations about the “ incomprehensiblenesses of the human mind,”—and congratulate ourselves in having acknowledged and adopted the truth of a philosophy of mind, which, as we have seen, does not deny her illuminating torch even there, where all others find mere obscurity and darkness.

Copenhagen, Sept. 21, 1827.

ARTICLE IV.

THE ARGUMENTS OF DR MAGENDIE AND DR BOSTOCK

AGAINST PHRENOLOGY, READ TO THE LONDON PHRENOLOGICAL SOCIETY, DEC. 3, 1827, BY J. ELLIOTSON, M. D.

“ PHRENOLOGY,” says Dr Magendie,“ which I scruple not to « denominate a pseudo-science, such as was formerly astrology “ and necromancy, has attempted to localize the different kinds * of memories; but these endeavours, laudable in themselves, “cannot yet bear examination.”—P. 113.

Now, astrology and necromancy were pseudo-sciences, not because imperfect, but because destitute of foundation. Necromancy is universally allowed to be so, and astrology, by being classed with it, is evidently regarded by Magendie in this light. No science, because imperfect, is a pseudoscience; a doctrine is pseudos because unreal, because built on a false foundation ; because, in short, it is no science, nor capable of becoming one. Such must, therefore, be Magendie's meaning; and yet, most strangely, he calls the efforts to cultivate this unreal science laudable. Laudable, then, would it be to cultivate necromancy, for with him necromancy and Phrenology are on a level; and these laudable endeavours “ cannot yet bear examination !"

If not examined, how can they be known to be futile ? But he says, “ not yet bear examination;" so that some day or other they may, notwithstanding the science is as destitute of foundation as necromancy; and if they have not been examined, from their supposed want of foundation, how is it proved that they are good for nothing ?

But farther on he informs us, that he has “ been engaged “ at intervals on experiments directed to this point,” (the use of the different parts of the brain, in regard to the understanding and instincts), “ and will make the results known as “ soon as they appear worthy of notice.”_P. 119. He therefore regards such a science as founded in nature, and intends to cultivate it; but the results of the labours of others are unworthy of notice, although not yet capable even of examination, and therefore, of course, not examined ; and

l he intends to cultivate the inquiry, although like the prosecu- . tion of necromancy.

Surely never was such a confusion of statements made by a philosopher. We may, however, collect from this, that Magendie utterly despises Phrenology; and yet it is easy prove that he admits much of our science.

66 The dimensions,” he asserts, “of this organ (the brain) are proportioned to those of the head.”—P. 103.

to

- The

"only way of estimating the volume of brain in a living 66 person is to measure the dimensions of the skull.”—P. 104.

Now, if the dimensions of the whole brain bear a proportion to the head, it is certain that the dimensions of most separate parts of the organ must do the same. This Antiphrenologist, therefore, does not side with the party, once numerous, who denied the possibility of forming any judgment respecting the brain by measuring the cranium.

In the same paragraph he goes a step farther:-" The vo"lume of the brain is generally in direct proportion to the "capacity of the mind."" It is rarely found that a man' "distinguished by his mental faculties has not a large head."

In the next page he alleges, that the brain changes exactly as Gall asserts, and in the proportion that all allow the mind to change. "The substance of the brain is almost

liquid in the fœtus; it is more firm in infancy, and still "more in manhood." In the number of his Physiological Journal for last January he states, as Cotugno did long ago, that, "in general, at seventy, and especially at eighty 66 years of age, the cerebrum and cerebellum are far from ❝ having a volume sufficient to fill the cavity of the cranium." P. 4. Hence "one convolution is often six or eight lines "distant from the next. Frequently, at this age, the sur"face of the brain has hollows an inch or an inch and a half "deep, and of at least equal breadth."-P. 5.

"The brain," he observes in his Physiology, "is the or"gan of intelligence."-P. 108. "Whatever be the number and the diversity of the phenomena which belong to human intelligence, however different they appear from the other phenomena of life, though they evidently depend on the soul, it is absolutely necessary to consider them as the result of the action of the brain, and to make no distinction between them and the other phenomena that depend on the actions of that organ." "The functions of the brain are abso"lutely subject to the same laws as the other functions;

they become developed, and decay in the progress of age;

“ they are modified by habit, sex, temperament, and indivi“ dual disposition; they become confused, weakened, or ele“ vated in diseases; the physical injuries of the brain weaken “ or destroy them.”—P. 109. “ There are even individuals “ to whom nature, by a vicious organization, has refused the

faculty of employing signs, and forming abstractions or “ general ideas; they remain all their lives in a state of stu

pidity, as is seen in idiots.”—P. 115. Crimes, vices, bad “ conduct, spring from false judgment." I take no notice of this strange perversion of language, but proceed to quote :“ Pure judgment, or good sense, and false judgment, or “ wrong-headedness, depend on organization.”—P. 114.

Those Antiphrenologists, therefore, who, with the Edinburgh Reviewers, deny that the brain has any thing more to do with the mind than any other organ, will not find Magendie in their ranks; any more than their friends who deny the possibility of judging of the brain by the cranium.

But Magendie is still more of a Phrenologist :-“Every "animal fulfils this (its own preservation and that of the species) " in its own way, and according to its organization ; there are, “ therefore, as many different instincts as there are different " species; and as the organization varies in individuals, instinct

presents individual differences, sometimes strongly marked."P. 116.

Notwithstanding he professes to believe in the old doctrine of memory, judgment, &c. being the component faculties of the mind, he actually says,—“ There is a memory of words, “ of places, of names, of forms, of music, &c. It is rare that

one man enjoys a union of all these memories; they scarcely “show themselves, except in an insulated or solitary state, and “ almost always form the most distinguishing trait of that un“derstanding of which they form a part."-P. 113. Now, if this is the case with memory, it cannot but be the same with the other similar faculties, perception, judgment, imagination (and yet M. Magendie considers Phrenology a pseudoscience ! and yet the efforts of Phrenologists will not even bear examination !) Yes, they will bear examination; he has examined them, or he could not have written a sen

tence which will be found at page 118" The instincts, "the innate dispositions, occupy Phrenologists much at pre"sent; their efforts are particularly directed to the triple object "of ascertaining, of classing the instinctive dispositions, and, "above all, of assigning to them distinct organs in the brain; "but it must be confessed that they are still far from seeing "their attempts crowned with success." Proof of this he offers none, but contents himself with a mere general assertion, and reminds us of his denial of the existence of lymphatics in birds,* although he says he dissected more than fifty; when several Germans soon afterwards looked for them, and it was universally confessed that their attempts were crowned with success.

In Dr Bostock's last volume of his Physiology, vol. III. p. 263, Nature and Object of Cranioscopy, we read, "The sub"ject was first placed in this point of view by Drs Gall and Spurzheim, who, in consequence of their recent dissection of the "brain, and their mode of separating its different parts from "each other, were led to conjecture that these parts were appropriated to distinct mental faculties."

Now, 1st, Dr Gall expressly states, over and over again, that he made his discoveries of the faculties and their organs before he made any in the structure of the brain; and he particularly insists, in numerous parts of his works, that the functions of no organ can be learnt from anatomy alone.

2d, I am not aware that any part of the brain separated peculiarly in Dr Gall's method is considered by him as having a distinct faculty appropriated to it. The organs are chiefly the convolutions of the cerebrum and the cerebellum, and these were seen separate by all the world.

"Partly," continues Dr Bostock, as it would appear from "his idea of the anatomical structure of the brain, in what regards the relation of its parts to each other, and partly from a preconceived hypothesis, he fixed upon the external convolu ❝tions of the cerebrum and cerebellum as the respective seats

He could find them only in the necks of swans and geese.