The first article is an analysis of a Memoir on the Connexion between the Physical and Moral Nature of Man, read by Professor F. J. V. Broussais, on 16th and 23d August 1834, to the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences. The Professor has boldly introduced Phrenology into his memoir, which, however, is to our taste somewhat too metaphysical. It may be necessary to inform the reader, that the Academy of Sciences is a branch of the French Institute, a committee of which, consisting of Mм. Tenon, Sabatier, Portal, Pinel, and Cuvier, reported unfavourably on the anatomical discoveries of Gall and Spurzheim. This was in 1808; and, from that time, no one before M. Broussais ventured to espouse the cause of Phrenology within the walls of the Institute. The reading of the present memoir, says the journalist, ought therefore to be regarded as an epoch. "The gauntlet is thrown, and the psychologists are now bound to take it up. It has been proved that their science cannot be otherwise than incomplete; seeing that they neglect the use of materials indispensable for its formation-that it is for the most part mere hypothesis, partaking more of romance than of science-and that the only method of giving it a solid foundation and a firm superstructure is to put under contribution the facts unfolded by Phrenology. The attack is vigorous-we shall see what kind of defence will be made." The second article is an "Essay on the Means of forwarding the Progress of Phrenology; and on the Advantages, Defects, and Abuse of Cranioscopy; by Dr Bailly of Blois." This is one of the most vigorous, clear, and instructive articles which have appeared in the French Journal, and we rejoice to find Dr Bailly so earnest in his endeavours to promote the improvement of Phrenology, and to check the rashness of those who would stretch it beyond the limits of its legitimate applications. Although the essay occupies thirty-nine pages, the subjects discussed are so important that we intend to give a translation of the whole in our next number. Dr Bailly insists much on the abuse of cranioscopy by those who regard the form and size of the brain as the sole objects to be attended to in judging of dispositions and talents, and who ignorantly imagine every part of every head to afford sufficient grounds for accurate phrenological deductions. In reprobating the abuses of cranioscopy, however, he appears to us to err on the other side, by restricting too much its uses and applications. But to this subject we shall return hereafter. The title of article third is " Phrenological Researches made upon a Skull formerly supposed to be that of the famous Marchioness of Brinvilliers, but which is now proved to have belonged to Madame Tiquet, another criminal, whose history is recorded in the Causes Célèbres. By J. A. Leroi, of Versailles." The life of the Marchioness of Brinvilliers appears from the first volume of the Causes Célèbres to have been little else than a tissue of murders, drunkenness, and debauchery. She was condemned in 1676 to suffer death for her crimes, and to have her body afterwards burnt and its ashes scattered to the wind. Having observed it stated in the Biographie Universelle, article "Brinvilliers," that her skull was to be seen in the Museum of Versailles, M. Leroi obtained a sight of the skull, reputed to be hers from the librarian, who, however, could give him no information about its origin, or whether it was really that of Brinvilliers at all. M. Leroi, thinking that a phrenological examination of it might throw some light on the matter, proceeded to inspect it carefully. It seemed to have been artificially prepared, and to have belonged to a female from thirty-six to forty years of age. The posterior and lateral portions of the head greatly predominated over the superior and anterior, indicating an ascendancy of the animal faculties over the moral and intellectual powers. Amativeness, Love of Approbation, Secretiveness, and Destructiveness, he found very large; Philoprogenitiveness, Self-Esteem, Cautiousness, Acquisitiveness, and Firmness large; with a pretty good development of Constructiveness and Veneration. The organs of all the other affective faculties appeared to be very small; and among the intellectual organs, that of Wit was the only one whose size was remarkable. These circumstances, then, favoured the idea that the skull might have been that of Brinvilliers, or at least of some other atrocious criminal. Various considerations, however, tended to prove the inaccuracy of the common belief. In the first place, the head of Brinvilliers is known to have been very small, whereas the skull in question is of unusual size; secondly, she was fifty years of age at the time of her execution, whereas this skull appears to be that of a person between thirty and forty; and finally, as her body was burnt after the execution, it is improbable that the skull, if hers, would have been in such a perfect state of preservation. But though satisfied that it was not the skull of Brinvilliers, M. Leroi lost none of his confidence that it must nevertheless have belonged to some woman distinguished by great vices, if not for atrocious crimes. He therefore requested the librarian to make a farther search for some mark which might lead to the information wanted; and at length there was found, in a short account of various objects belonging to the institution, a notice of a head designated Tête de Mme. Tiquet. This was an important discovery; for M. Leroi, actuated by his strong impression that the skull was that of a criminal, lost no time in referring to the Causes Célèbres, where he found, what he was so anxious to obtain, the history of Madame Tiquet; and its details fully confirmed the accuracy of his deductions. a counsellor of Parliament. She had an ungovernable passion for display, insomuch that three years after marriage, her husband was obliged to inform her that her fortune no longer permitted the indulgence of her extravagance. Thenceforth she conceived an implacable hatred against him, launched into a career of licentious gallantry, and, after failing in an attempt to poison him, got him murdered one evening as he was returning home. For this crime she was beheaded in 1699. M. Leroi enters into a comparison of her character with the development of the individual organs, and finds a close agreement between them. A "Notice of F. A. Henri, a poet and religious madman, by M. Bernard Delafosse," is the subject of the fourth article. It is prefaced with expressions of regret that the skulls and casts to be found in phrenological collections are seldom accompanied by detailed notices respecting the organization and lives of the individuals. M. Delafosse has produced an interesting notice of this description; but our limits do not allow us to refer to it at greater length. The next article is from the pen of Dr Bailly, and is entitled "Reply to the Memoir of M. Leuret on the Configuration of the Brain of Man and the Mammiferous Animals, read to the Academy of Medicine on 7th March 1835." This is a smart and well-merited castigation of M. Leuret, a gentleman very ignorant of Phrenology and the works of Gall, and who conceives himself to have overturned the science by deducing absurd conclusions from certain facts connected with the anatomy of the brain, and mostly stated by Dr Gall himself. Gall, it seems, though he gives many engravings of skulls, "singularly neglected the anatomical study of the convolutions;" for a reply to which "inconceivable accusation," Dr Bailly refers to Gall's large work, and to some thousands of physicians of divers countries, who, for upwards of twenty years, learned from the lectures of the founder of Phrenology the most accurate and rational anatomy of the cerebral convolutions yet known. " I affirm," he says, " without fear of contradiction, that no anatomist before Gall had ever the slightest idea of the true structure of the convolutions. This has been acknowledged by Cuvier himself, whom no one will accuse of too much partiality towards the works of Gall." After describing the form and direction of the cerebral convolutions in various animals, M. Leuret asks exultingly-" How can the phrenologist get rid of these facts? He places in the anterior region of the brain the organs which make men philosophers, savans, and artists; yet these very parts are found in the sheep, the ox, the goat, the horse, and the ass. He ascribes the sentiment of Veneration to the diverticulum at the top of the brain, although this diverticulum exists in all mam VOL. IX. -NO. XLVI. miferous animals." But why, asks Dr Bailly, should M. Leuret stop here? All the organs which Gall has found in the human brain are situated in some part of it; they are either at the top, at the back, at the side, or at the base. Now, as the brains of all animals have, like that of man, superior, anterior, lateral, and basilar regions, why does not M. Leuret follow out his principle, and conclude that every animal has the same faculties with the human race? The opinions held by phrenologists on this subject are well stated by Dr Bailly in two propositions : -" 1st, As inspection of the brain teaches nothing concerning the nature of its functions, it is only by observation of the actions of an animal that we can determine with what faculties it is endowed. 2dly, When observation of the habits of an animal has proved it to possess a certain instinct or faculty, we must then compare the brains of different individuals of the same cies, in order to determine the precise cerebral part with which that faculty is connected." Since, therefore, it is impossible, by merely looking at the brain, to discover the functions of its different parts, what grounds has M. Leuret for affirming that the convolution of Veneration is found in every animal? The truth is, that two brains, even supposing them perfectly equal in size, weight, volume, and external shape, may nevertheless, if they belong to animals of different species, genera, and classes, be the seat of totally different faculties, and this although the material organization has exactly the same appearance in both. In this respect the brains of two such animals would be analogous to the optic and olfactory nerves in man or any other animal. Supposing the diameter of both nerves to be the same, and portions of equal length to be presented together, no physiologist could discover in their for considering one of them to have the faculty of transmitting odours but not sounds, and the other the function of conveying impressions of sounds, but not of odours. Dr Bailly well observes, that certain parts of the brain are the seat of this or that function, not because they are above or below certain other parts, nor yet because they are convolutions of this or the other shape or contour; but because they have a specific organization, whereby they are enabled to manifest a particular function-and what that function is, observation of the concomitant manifestations can alone reveal to us. assertion, therefore, that the convolutions which render men philosophers and artists are found in brutes, is utterly absurd, and proves its author to be ignorant of the fundamental principles of Phrenology. Even although the anterior lobes of the brains of sheep and oxen resembled exactly (which in reality they do not) those of the human brain, what would this prove with respect to the functions? Absolutely nothing. The brain of the ox might have a specific organization, capable of manifesting the intelli reason any aspect The gence of an ox; just as the human brain is organized to be the seat of faculties peculiar to man-in a word, just as every brain has a special constitution peculiar to the class, genus, or species of the animal to which it belongs. It is a fundamental position in Phrenology, that to arrive at any certain knowledge of the cerebral functions, we must compare the brains of animals of the same species alone; not only because the function of a region locally the same in different species may entirely differ in quality or kind, but also because, even where the function is the same in kind, its quantity, force, or intensity, is often different. This is obvious in the case of the external senses of different species; the acuteness of hearing or smell depending not merely on the absolute bulk of the auditory and olfactory organs, but also on their specific internal constitution. So it is also with the organs of muscular motion, the power of which, in different species of animals, is by no means in proportion to their size. Muscular strength is proportionally much greater in the smaller than in the larger animals: a flea, for instance, can draw from seventy to eighty times its own weight; whereas a horse cannot draw with ease more than three times its own weight *. "I have seen," says Sir Gilbert Blane, "the sword of a swordfish sticking in a plank which it had penetrated from side to side; and when it is considered that the animal was then moving through a medium even a thousand times more dense than that through which a bird cleaves its course at different heights of the atmosphere, and that this was performed in the same direction with the ship, what a conception do we form of this display of muscular power!"+ Following Dr Bailly's article is a translation, from our 21st Number, of the account of Mr Combe's visit to Richmond Lunatic Asylum, Dublin, under the title of "Application des Connaissances Phrénologiques au Diagnostic de la Folie;" and the Number concludes with a controversial letter from Dr Mège on a subject of too little general interest or importance to require particular remark. ARTICLE VI. CASE OF IMPAIRMENT OF THE FACULTY OF LANGUAGE, ACCOMPANIED BY PAIN ABOVE THE EYES. By Mr WILLIAM GIBSON, Surgeon, Montrose. LATE in the evening of the 11th May last, I was asked to see Janet Whyte, wife of a miller at Rossie Mills in this neighbour • Haller, Elem. Physiol. L. ix. § 2. + On Muscular Motion. Select Dissertations, p. 281. |