they are all above and beside them. He who is lead to indulge in beautiful and sublime speculations concerning the grand œconomy of nature and providence, by the evidence of moral fitness which he finds within him, or the natural and historic testimony with which he is acquainted from without, will not be op pressed either by the imperfections or fixed organisation of the physical world, as burthening the intellectual and moral universe. He will perceive that it is not absurd to suppose a corresponding change in both. Man Man may be bound for the present to certain organic limitations and restrictions of his faculties, which can never be infinite in any state of melio、 ration. With his moral and intellectual nature, his organic nature may also be improved. Why should it not? REMARKS REMARKS ON DR. GALL's THEORY CONCERNING THE ORGANS OF THE BRAIN. BY DR. C. W HUFELAND. It is with great pleasure and interest that I have listened to Dr. Gall's own statement of his new doctrine. And I am fully persuaded that he belongs to the most remarkable persons of our age, and his doctrine to the boldest and most important advances that have been made in the study of nature. It is necessary to see and hear him himself, in order to perceive how far removed he is from every kind of quackery, metaphysical enthu L 2 enthusiasm, and the spirit of party. Endued with a rare spirit of observation, acuteness, and the talent of deduction; brought up in the bosom of nature, and by constant intercourse with her, become her favourite ; he has detected a number of phænomena in the whole circle of organic beings, which have hitherto been not at all, or but superficially observed. He has ingeniously combined these observations, discovered their ana logical relations and import, deduced inferences from them, and established certain truths, which are particularly worthy our notice, because they are the pure result of observation alone. It is thus that he has contemplated the properties, connections, and functions of the nervous system. Hẹ himself ascribes his discoveries alone to his having devoted himself to the study of nature with his senses awake, and his undertanding unprejudiced; and to his having regularly pursued the operations of nature through all their gradations, from the simplest to the most -complete exhibition of plastic power. It is hence In the original the author says, transcendental enthusiasm, a term which cannot briefly be explained. Gall and Hufeland are alike hostile to the modern metaphysicians; and the compliment here paid to Gall is in fact merely a sneer upon the disciples of Kant, and the other metaphysical leaders. hence unjust to call this doctrine a System, or to judge of it as such. The genuine observers of nature are bad System-makers. They could not see so correctly did they set out in their enquiries with a system ready formed in their minds. They would misunderstand the real objects they contemplated if they troubled themselves too much about unity of idea. Hence Dr. Gall's doctrine is nothing but a collection of instructive, and, in part too, unconnected observations of the phænomena of nature, with their immediate deductions. Nor does Gall himself wish that his assertions should be seen from any other point of view. It would be yet too soon to attempt criticising and judging the theory decisively. All that can be done is to subject the particular assertions to a long and experimental examination. begin with doubt and My object here is merely to state a few remarks and doubts. For examination should incredulity, and so it began with me. There cannot be found a more decided adversary of Gall's doctrine than I was: nor was it till I remarked with what profundity of research, and genuine love of truth, the author of these discoveries proceeded, and what pregnant truths his L 3 doctrine doctrine contained, that I began to be a believer Still I am far from being entirely convinced of its truth. There are chasms, vague positions, and inadequate proofs to be. found in it. And I consider it to be my duty towards Dr. Gall, and towards that truth which is the object of his search, freely to point out these to his attention. It is necessary, in judging of Gall's opinions, carefully to distinguish what is anatomical, which respects the form and structure of the brain, from that which is physiological, and concerns its functions. The first treats of objects of sensible perception, and can therefore be ascertained to be true only by being sensibly perceived. The second contains the results of perception, derived from various phænomena, by induction, and inference. Assertions of this kind must always be considered as hypothetical, and the truth of them can only be determined by an examination into the inferences and their premises, What has First, as to the matters of fact. Gall shewn us in the structure of the brain which we did not know before? This has been so correctly stated by Professor Bischoff, in the first of the preceding chapters, that I have nothing to add but that I have |