"dantly obvious, that another step in the process might be conceived, without taking away from the simplicity of the im"material part, and that, instead of an affection of the optic "nerve being the immediate antecedent of the notion of colour, "it might be a particular portion of the encephalon. As the "notion of colour, upon this supposition, is a relation of the "mind to the organ of Colour, it follows, that, if an organ were changed in any respect, the state of the mind would also be changed. Thus, if it were larger, or of a finer structure, or more active, the perception of colour would be more delicate, "or quick, or pleasing. The same remarks might be extended "to all the organs. Where the organ of Causality is large, as "in the case of Dr Brown himself, then there will be a ten"dency to reason; which tendency is a state of the mind in re"lation to a material organ, which state would have been dif"ferent had the organ been different.

66

cr

"A multitude of organs may all be affecting the mind at the same instant, and in that case a variety of feelings will be ex"perienced; but still the mind is simple, and it is only its re"lations to these different organs that are complex."

This metaphysical reply to your objection appears to me tolerably complete; but there are more tangible and practical answers to your denial of separate faculties and organs. Dr Barclay, in his work on Life and Organization, stated arguments on this point extremely similar to those now adduced by you, and Dr Andrew Combe answered him in the Phrenological Transactions. From his paper I select the following passages. They will show also to what extent your objections have been anticipated and refuted, apparently without your knowing any thing of the matter.

"First, Then," says Dr Combe, "it is an undisputed truth, that the various mental powers of man appear in succession, and as a general rule, that the reflecting or reasoning faculties are those which arrive latest at perfection. In the child, the powers of observing the existence and qualities of external objects arrive much sooner at their maturity than the reasoning faculties. Daily observation shows that the brain undergoes a corresponding change; whereas we have no evidence that the immaterial principle varies in its powers from year to year. If the brain, as a whole, is the organ of the mind, this successive development of faculties

is utterly at variance with what we should expect a priori; because, if the general organ is fitted for manifesting with success one mental faculty, it, one should think, ought to be equally so for the operation of all, which we see is not the case. Observation indeed shows, that different parts of the brain are really developed at different periods of life. In infancy, according to Chaussier, the cerebellum forms one-fifteenth of the encephalic mass; and in adult age, from one-sixth to one-eighth, its size being thus in strict accordance with the energy of the propensity of which it is the organ. In childhood, the middle and lower part of the forehead generally predominates; in later life, the upper lateral parts become more prominent, which facts also are in strict accordance with the periods of unfolding of the knowing and reasoning powers.

"2d, Genius is almost always partial, which it ought not to be, if the organ of the mind were single. A genius for poetry, for mechanics, for music, or for mathematics, sometimes appears at a very early age in individuals, who, in regard to all other pursuits, are mere ordinary men, and who, with every effort, can never attain to any thing above mediocrity.

"Sdly, The phenomena of dreaming are at variance with the supposition of the mind manifesting all its faculties by means of a single organ, while they are quite consistent with, and explicable by, that of a plurality of organs. In dreaming, the mind experiences numerous vivid emotions, such as those of fear, joy, affection, arising, succeeding one another, and departing without control from the intellectual powers;-or, it is filled with a thousand varied conceptions, sometimes connected and rational, but more frequently disjointed and absurd, and all differing widely from the waking operations of the mind, in wanting harmony, consistency, and sense. These phenomena harmonize remarkably with the notion of a variety of faculties and organs, some of which, being active, would communicate these ideas and

feelings which constitute a dream, while others remaining asleep would, by their inactivity, permit that disordered action which characterizes the pictures formed by the fancy during sleep.

"Were the organ of mind single, it is clear that all the faculties should be asleep or awake to the same extent at the same time; or, in other words, that no such thing as dreaming could take place. Somnambulism, although in itself a species of dreaming, affords a still stronger illustration. In that state, one or more of the external as well as internal senses are awake, while the others are dormant. In this instance we see that the organs asleep and awake are different, as when a person walks with his eyes shut; but let us suppose that they were as much hidden as the brain, would any man infer from the phenomena, that sight, smell, taste, and voluntary motion, could be exercised by one and the same organ, when he finds all of them in different states and degrees of intensity in one individual at the same time? Never. Then, on what principle does any one draw a different inference from similar phenomena, when the internal faculties and organs are in question?

"At present, however, it is chiefly to the admitted phenomena of what are called Partial Idiocy and Partial Insanity that I am anxious to direct your attention; because these states of the mind are so plainly and strongly in contradiction with the notion of a single organ of mind, that Pinel himself, no friend to Phrenology, asks if their phenomena can be reconciled to such a conception.

"Partial Idiocy is that state in which an individual manifests one or several powers of the mind with an ordinary degree of energy, while he is deprived to a greater or less extent of the power of manifesting all the others. Pinel, Haslam, Rush, Esquirol, and, in short, every writer on insanity, speaks of the partial development of certain mental powers in idiots; and Rush in particular not only alludes to the powers of intellect, but also to the partial possession

of the moral faculties. markable for correct moral feelings as some great geniuses are for the reverse. In his Traité du Goitre et de la Crétinisme, Fodéré thus speaks, p. 133: It is remarked, that, by an inexplicable singularity, some of these individuals (cretins), endowed with so weak minds, are born with a particular talent for copying paintings, for rhyming, or for ' music. I have known several who taught themselves to play passably on the organ and harpsichord; others who understood, without ever having had a master, the repairing of watches, and the construction of some pieces of mechanism.' He adds, that these powers could not be attributed to the intellect, for these individuals not only could not read ⚫ books which treated of the principles of mechanics, but ils 'étaient deroutés lorsqu'on en parlait et ne se perfectionnaient 'jamais.' It must be observed also, that these unfortunate individuals differ very much in the kind as well as quantity of mental power possessed. For example, an instance is given by Pinel of an idiot girl who manifested a most wonderful propensity to imitate whatever she heard or saw, but who displayed no other intellectual faculty in a perceptible degree, and never attached an idea to the sound she uttered. Dr Rush particularizes one man who was remarkable for his religious feelings, although exceedingly deficient in intellectual power, and other moral sentiments; and among the cretins, many are to be found who scarcely manifest any other faculty of the mind except that of Amativeness. The above quotation from Fodéré also illustrates this fact. One is all kindness and good nature, another quarrelsome and mischievous. One has a lively perception of harmony in music, while another has none.

Some idiots, he observes, are as re

"It ought also to be observed, that the characteristic features of each particular case are strictly permanent. The idiot, who to-day manifests the faculty of Tune, the feeling of Benevolence, of Veneration, or of Self-esteem, will not to-morrow, nor in a year, change the nature of his predominant manifestations. Were the deficiency of the single organ the cause of idiocy, these phenomena ought not to appear; for the general organ being able to manifest one fa

culty, ought, according to the circumstances in which the individual is placed, to be equally able to manifest all others, whose activity may be required, and thus the character of the idiocy ought to change with every passing event, which it never does. Fodéré calls these inexplicable singularities,' and, no doubt, on his and Dr Barclay's theory they truly are so. To the Phrenologist, however, they offer no difficulty, for they are in perfect harmony with his views. The difference in the kind of powers manifested in cases of partial idiocy, between the capacity for mechanics, for instance, and the sentiment of Veneration, Self-esteem, or Benevolence, is as great as between the sensations excited by the perception of a sound, a taste, or a smell. To infer, therefore, that one organ serves for the manifestation of all these faculties, is really much the same in point of logic as if we were to suppose all the external senses to communicate with the mind through the medium of only one nerve, in spite of the facts of many individuals being blind who are not deaf, or deaf and still able to see and smell.

"Although partial idiots manifest one or more faculties more powerfully than others, yet they seldom or never manifest any with the energy of a sound mind. Consequently, according to the phrenological system, we ought in such cases generally to find the brain defective in size. Now, Pinel, and many other opponents, inform us, that this is precisely the case; and in the course of my own observations, both on the Continent and in this country, I have found the same fact to hold good in a considerable number of cases. It does not always occur, because, although small size is a frequent cause of idiocy, it is by no means the only one. I I may farther mention, that Phrenologists, by actual observation, have found in idiots those parts of the brain most fully developed which corresponded to the organs of the faculties most strongly manifested by them; and observation also has, in some instances, shown the entire absence of those convolutions which form a part of the organs of