all explaining theories or hypotheses, to suppose like impulses and adopt like language. The body longs for rest after much and varied labour, as the mind languishes for repose after active enjoyment. Hunger and thirst, repletion and satiety, are alike common to both. In most cases we know the seat of the bodily affections, as we know the parts devoted to the functions of life. And we know too that the mind, however immaterial we conceive it to be, has still a material seat, and that no simple homogeneous mass, but which exhibits a most delicate and complicated organization.

2.) Shall we persist therefore in considering this organ as one and indivisible, in spite of appearances, more particularly when we find that this organ, supposed to be one and simple, produces many and compound effects? Let us suppose the brain to be the one simple organ of mind and all its faculties; wherever we find any one faculty in a state of high energy, we suppose the organ also adapted to produce this energy. But how does it then happen that the same person is remarkably deficient in other faculties equally dependent on the same organ? If we think the brain to be in any way an instrument, it cannot be both weak and strong at once. But if it

be

be the receptacle of many organs, they may be as infinitely diversified as the actions and powers of man. This argument receives greater force if applied to the brute creation, who evince also diversity of character, who have also a curiously framed brain, and to whom we do not ascribe a moral character, a freedom of the will, which so intrusively incumber our speculations concerning man. Whence are some of our domestic animals cunning and thievish, and resentful? Why are others generous and grateful? Why are some kinds of dogs particularly susceptible of instruction and of affectionate attachment? We are told it is their nature, their instinct; but surely their instinct is not a principle, but an effect of their organisation; and if this organisation lie any where, we may presume it lies in the brain. In like manner, the diversities of character in the same individual at different periods of his existence add force to the supposition of distinct organs, which grow to maturity and decline.

3. There is a third argument which is founded on medical experience as well as general observation; the brain is susceptible of being partially affected by disease, wounds, &c. the consequence of which has been the loss of certain faculties and powers of mind;

and

and insanity very frequently assumes the shape of a partial disease. Instances will be given hereafter.

The notion thus supported explains many of the common phænomena of life, viz.

a.) Watchfulness, which is that state in which all the organs of animal life are at the command of our will.

b.) Sleep, (that is, healthy and sound sleep) which is that state when all the organs of animal life are at rest, (the organs of organic life are distinguished by never tiring.)

c.) Dreaming, which takes place when some one or more of the organs of animal life are in a state of activity, while the others are at rest. The activity of these organs awakens the consciousness of the others, Consciousness appertains to all organs, and has none of its own: Hence there is no dream without consciousness, however we may forget our dreams. During disease, there may be dreaming without sleep, owing to the disordered activity of certain organs, of this kind is delirium. In a state of somnambulism the whole vital energy is concentred in certain organs, while the others entirely rest. And in the same way are we to account for the high concentration of power, the heightened sensibility, and the sudden bursts of

intellect,

intellect, and the extasies of a disordered frame.

d.) Lastly, confirmed madness, or that disorder which consists in certain false notions and conceptions of things, which lies in the power of volition being lost over certain organs of intellectual life; and this arises from those organs (it matters not how) being in an highly excited or irritated state.

-

Such are the arguments a priori in favor of distinct organs in the brain; they can be confirmed only by those distinct organs, or at least their site, being pointed out in fact. And in this lies the science, which Dr. Gall professes to have first discovered and made known to the world. I have used the term science here, not in its proper sense, but vaguely as we use it to express any knowledge, or any probable opinion founded on observation. The physiologist knows very well on what evidence his theories rest, as to the more obvious and palpable functions of animal life, and will, in respect to Dr. Gall's speculation, be content with proof as strong as the nature of the case admits, even should it fall short of the evidence which some departments of his science afford. He will not expect that the organs should be laid before the eye, in like manner as the

E

muscles of

the

the body may be laid open. He will be content if any uniforin appearance justify our supposing an organ; and if the result of a long observation of this uniform appearance, be the detection of a certain relation which it bears to the phænomena of character, he will adopt, as a matter of opinion, what may never be scientifically demonstrated, being always guided by analogy, the sole basis of experimental deductions.

The physiologist has observed in the animal creation, that the nerves of those animals which are distinguished for smelling, seeing, hearing, &c. are marked by being numerous and large, evincing a more elaborate developement. And having been accustomed to see the olfactory, optic, and auditory nerves in animals proportionally large with the senses they severally furnish the individual with, he will draw the general inference that whereever any organ is met with in a higher state of developement, there we may expect to find the power dependent on it, in corresponding energy.

CHAP.