I have, without the aid of Gall's preparations, and by means of dissections which I myself made, convinced myself in a great degree of the truth of his statements; more especially as far as respects what he calls the diverging nerves. I have seen the separation of the medulla oblongata in fascicles; the crossing of the inner pair of the pyramids; the passage of layers of longitudinal fibres, mixed with fibres running across, through the pons varolii; the transition of this substance into the crura cerebri; the oval form and quality of the corpora striata; the radius-like spreading of the substance of the nerves, in all directions on the surface; the unfolding of the brain into a skin, or rather its being spread into a broad surface; and the origin of the optic nerves in the four eminences. All these are objects with which we were either altogether unacquainted, or which we at least did not know exactly and in connection. And even if we admitted that Gall had discovered nothing new in the external form of the different parts of the brain, yet it is undeniable that he has cast a new light on the internal structure and connection of those parts; and this alone would be enough to immortalize his name. Every one who has eyes to see may convince. himself

L4

himself of this; but it is, indeed, necessary to practice the method of anatomical enquiry which Gall has used, and without which he would never have made his discoveries: that is, first, by beginning the examination from below at the medulla oblongata, and pursuing it as it spreads above: and secondly, in using, not a knife which destroys the parts, but blunt instruments, in order to separate and unfold the pulpy parts. I leave minuter examinations of these anatomical discoveries to greater anatomists than I profess to be; but I would have them honest examiners, persons who do not confound the doctrine with him who teaches it.

Here I shall confine myself to what is hypothetical; and as every thing which can not be sensibly demonstrated, may be brought under this head, we shall meet here with much that is called anatomical, as, for instance, the course taken by the various congeries of brain.

This too has been completely stated by Professor Bischoff, so that I have nothing to add to it, and can build upon it as forming the essence of Dr. Gall's doctrine.

I entirely coincide with Dr. Gall in this, that what is spiritual or intellectual in us, ope

rates

the

rates by means of organs*, (which, indeed, every voluntary motion of the arm proves;) that this material condition of the exercise of our intellectual powers applies not merely to grosser faculties, but to the more internal and subtle energies, sensations, ideas, &c. that the brain is the organ of these more essential and elevated powers of the mind; and that we may assume with great probability, that as the external senses have their particular

Few will probably be found in the present age, who venture to dispute this position, in spight of the very vague and indistinct notion we form of organs. The reader will be amused by comparing with this opinion that of the cloquent Sir Thomas Brown. In his Religio Medici he says, with that peculiar felicity of style which renders him one of the finest writers in our language, as he is, one of the most original thinkers of our country. "In our study of ana

66

tomy, there is a mass of mysterious philosophy, and such "as reduced the very Heathens to divinity; yet, amongst "all those rare discourses, and curious pieces I find in "the fabric of man, I do not so much content myself, as “in that I find not, there is no [any] organ or instrument "for the rational soul; for in the brain, which we term "the seat of reason, there is not any thing of moment crany [cranium] ́of a

66

more than I can discover in the "beast; and this is a sensible and no inconsiderable argu

"ment of the inorganity of the soul, at least in that senge

፡፡

we usually so conceive it. Thus we are men, and we "know not how. There is something in us that can be "without us, and will be after us, though it is strange that "that it hath no history, what it was before us, nor cannot tell how it entered in us."-EDITOR.

particular organs, in like manner the internal sense may have its various organs in the brain, as is indeed intimated by the variously formed and different substances in the brain. But this opinion is not new or peculiar to Dr. Gall, but has been long and frequently asserted by medical men. Dr, Gall himself admits this, and cites particularly the late Dr. Mayer*.

But I am of opinion that we ought to distinguish between the spiritual substance in us, in as much as it has a reference to the world without

As a proof how long I have been of Dr. Gall's opinion, even without knowing him, I cite the following passage, which I wrote fifteen years ago:—

"I hope my readers will not here misunderstand my meaning, and imagine that I reckon the soul to be a part, or production, or property of the body. This is by no means the case. The soul is, in my opinion, something totally distinct from the body, a being of a totally different, more exalted, intellectual world; but in this sublunary combination, and in order to be a human soul, it must have organs to fit it, not only for action, but also for sensations, and even for the higher functions of thinking and combining ideas. The first cause of thought is, therefore, spiritual; but the business of thinking itself, as carried on in this mortal machine, is organic. In this manner alone can be explained that mechanism, in many of the laws of thought, and the influence of physical causes in improving or disordering the function of thinking; and one may consider the function as material, and cure it (a circumstance which often occurs

to

without us; and is to be put in connection with it; and this same spiritual substance, in

as

to us physicians) without being a materialist; that is, considering the soul the first cause of it, as matter, which, to me, at least, appears to be absurd.”

Art of Prolonging Life, v. 1, p. 203.

There are still more striking resemblances to Gall's ideas to be found in "Mayer's Treatise on the Brain," the spine, and the origin of the nerves. Berlin, 1779, I will quote only a few passages :—

P. 36. "The pons varolii, the medulla oblongata, and the "medulla spinalis, are the parts of the brain which the "creator has most closely connected with life."

P. 38. "It may be asked, Do the operations of the different powers of the soul take place in different parts of "the brain, especially organised for that purpose? This is "rendered probable by the partial loss of particular powers "of the soul, by disease and by wounds."

P. 41. "I see no contradiction in assuming, that each of "the operations of the soul takes place in particular de

partments of the brain. As the particular parts at such "a spot become, by the more frequent repetition of their "operation, more developed, the impulse of the juices "there will be encreased," (consequently their size enlarged.)

P. 43. "It is a much more probable opinion, that the "functions of the soul are performed in the parts of the

brain itself, rather than in its cavities; &c. but it would "be an extremely rash undertaking to attempt fixing with "certainty, the seat and disposition of the various faculties of the soul."

There is good plain sense in this note of the learned professor's work; but it cannot pass for a moment as a specimen of metaphysic correctness. We may assume au organ

as