this individual during a long life (for he has been twice transported), and met with no success in reclaiming him, but left him in jail, under sentence for theft, at seventy years of age, I consider these facts a strong confirmation of my opinion that he ought to have been treated as a moral patient from the first.

ARTICLE IX.

DR SPURZHEIM AND THE EDINBURGH REVIEWER.

IN vol. viii. p. 263, we quoted from Mr Carmichael's Memoir of Dr Spurzheim, a letter written by Dr S. in the year 1815, giving an account of his meeting with Dr John Gordon, the author of the well-known scurrilous article against Phrenology in the 49th Number of the Edinburgh Review. We lately conversed with a gentleman who acted in 1815 as Dr Gordon's anatomical assistant, and were assured by him that Spurzheim's letter is a most faithful narrative of what passed in the lecture-room of Dr Gordon, whose mortification, he added, was abundantly apparent. So beautiful and satisfactory were the demonstrations of Dr Spurzheim, that our informant, though Gordon's own assistant, could not refrain from loudly testifying his applause. We have lately observed in the Medico-Chirurgical Journal and Review for May 1817 (vol. iii. p. 425), a spirited defence of Dr Spurzheim, probably the first which appeared in any medical periodical of Britain. It confirms the statements in Spurzheim's letter, and as it will doubtless be acceptable to many of our readers, we here reprint it

entire.

"To the Editors of the Medico-Chirurgical Journal and Review.

"GENTLEMEN,-The peculiar views which Dr Spurzheim entertains, with regard to the Anatomy and Physiology of the Brain and Nervous System, having engaged a considerable share of attention throughout Europe, the injurious treatment which he has met with in this city, instead of being a circumstance of local or temporary concern, will in all probability be, ere long, commented upon in other countries, so as to reflect ultimately much discredit on our national character for science as well as for hospitality. This weighty consideration, together with an innate love of justice, has prompted me to put forth a short outline of facts to the public; and I really do not know

so fit a medium for such a statement, as the spirited and independent Journal of which you are the directors.

"As I mean to state nothing save that of which I am perfectly certain from my own personal knowledge, I shall confine myself to a history of Dr Spurzheim's proceedings since his arrival in this city, which was about the end of last June. Previous to his coming hither, the scope of his investigations had been misrepresented, his anatomical views contradicted, and his physiological doctrines derided, by an anonymous writer in the Edinburgh Review for June 1815, who, regardless of the decorum due to science, 'conscientiously mingled detraction with criticism, and traduced the moral character of him whose system he was endeavouring to impugn. The lovers of learning were grieved to find, that a review, whose pages are generally distinguished no less by profound views than by elegance of composition, should contain any thing so petulant, shallow, and dogmatical, as the article in question. If this critic be assailed by his own weapons, we shall find him by no means invulnerable. Throughout the whole article, we observe a constant substitution of contradiction for proof, sneering for argument, and ridicule for reasoning; and as for the style, it is studded with quaintness, colloquial idioms, and puny witticisms, all in the very spirit of bad taste. I cannot better sum up my opinion of this writer, than in the words which the uncourtly Tacitus, speaking of the faded eloquence of Ancient Rome, applied to one of the public declaimers of his time: Omissa modestia ac pudore verborum, ipsis etiam quibus utitur armis incompositus, et studio feriendi plerumque detectus, non pugnat sed rixatur.'*

"Dr Spurzheim sank not under this cruelty of criticism, which he bore with a serenity of deportment worthy a man of science. On the contrary, his moral character appeared more bright in the eyes of those who knew him, simply from 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 that 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 he tried to disembarrass himself by pulling from his pocket and reading, or pretending to read, the superscription of a letter. He generally contented himself with distant hurried glances at what was demonstrated, and upon the whole, seemed both uneasy and inattentive.

as

"I am the more minute to those 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.

"It is unpleasant to be obliged to comment thus on the conduct of any individual; and although, in the present case, such a mode of proceeding is strictly retributive, I would rather have abstained from doing it, had not both the first and second demonstrations been lately mentioned in print by the individual in question; but after all, where is the unfairness? tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes?'-Surely, he who wrote the above-mentioned article in the Edinburgh Review, ought to be the last to complain of unfair personalities.

Quis

"On a subsequent occasion, Dr Spurzheim, with his usual readiness, demonstrated the brain to about two hundred spectators, among whom were several of the medical professors, and other competent judges. It was previously concerted that his opponent should ask him questions; and by so doing, it was hoped to give him and his doctrines a public and final overthrow. The scene was most interesting to the audience. Dr Spurzheim, in his usual 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, that there was, in one quarter, a right plentiful lack of temper, as well as of argument; and that had Rare Ben Johnson been alive to witness the scene, he might have found hints for improving one of his best characters, viz. that of the Angry Boy' in the Alchymist.'

" I am thus particular in my statement, because 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. would have been too much to expect perfect unanimity on a

It

question and an occasion of this sort; for little does he know of human nature, who is not aware what erroneous impressions on the mind's eye' the mirage of prejudice and predilection now and then produces.

" 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. It has long been customary in anatomy for the names of individuals to be handed down to posterity, in connection with those parts of our frame which they were the first to discover, or accurately to describe; in this view, I will venture to allege, that Dr Spurzheim has done more to deserve the meed of this sort of immortality than perhaps any living anatomist, whatever be his name or fame.

"Had Dr Spurzheim's persecution ceased here, I should not, in all probability, have troubled you with this statement; but within these few months an expensive pamphlet has appeared, the cumbrous materials of which have been raked out of old anatomical books, for the obvious purpose of depriving this meritorious gentleman of the rank he holds as a discoverer, and of implicating his moral character for candour and good faith. At page 43 of this pamphlet, the writer is pleased to aver, that the spectators of Dr Spurzheim's demonstrations were incompetent to judge of what was shewn them. This proves that the author's modesty is on a level with his other powers. The passage, however, comes in very happily to enliven the dryness of his other matter; for doubtless, it is one which must relax the frown of criticism, and sheath all its acrimony in irrepressible laughter.

" I would be strongly tempted to enter at large into the demerits of this performance, had I not already occupied so large a space of your Journal; this being the case, I must be content to conclude with two or three general reflections.

"It must be admitted by all, that our knowledge of the physiology and pathology of the brain is yet in its very infancy. Why then persecute Dr Spurzheim for attempting to elucidate this science? Until his investigations, no advance had been made in this department of knowledge for many years; because the despair of medical philosophers has set it aside amongst the arcana of Nature. Any step forward must therefore he an advantage; for, as Mr Burke has well observed, Science is never more apt to become corrupt than when it is allowed to stagnate.'

VOL. IX. NO. XLVI.

L1

:

"I am the last that would propose to bridle discussions in matters of science; on the contrary, let it be free as the winds of heaven. But every man of feeling would surely wish to draw with me a line of distinction between legitimate, temperate criticism, and coarse brochures, undertaken in malevolence, and executed in imperfect mechanical views of the subject agitated.

"In the above observations I have adhered rigidly to the truth. I trust I have as high a sense of the ' nil nisi verum' as any man breathing; and besides, respect for your independent Journal would not permit me to make it the vehicle of wilful falsehood.

" I conclude by saying, that I have no connection with Dr Spurzheim, and that 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 peculiar claim, save that which I am ever ready to allow to injured merit. I am, VERIDICUS.

&c.

EDINBURGH, 1817.

"Anonymous strictures on anonymous writings are fair. But Veridicus is known to us; and his character is beyond suspicion of misrepresentation. In these islands we hope and trust that the STRANGER'S cause will never want an advocate. While the MEDICO-CHIRURGICAL JOURNAL exists, the advocate of injured merit shall never want a medium of conveying his sentiments to the public ear.

"Hanc veniam petimus damusque vicissim.'

"EDITORS."

In the fourth volume of the same Journal, pp. 53 and 117, will be found an able review of the controversy between Dr Spurzheim and Dr Gordon, comprehending an account of Gall and Spurzheim's chief anatomical discoveries. Here, also, Dr Gordon's delinquencies are unsparingly treated, and the excellence and conclusiveness of his antagonist's dissections of the brain stoutly maintained. "We have not taken our notions," says the writer, " 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." The reviewer denounces the conduct of Dr Gordon as “ most illiberal and most unscience-like;"