truth and relevancy in relation to the question in hand.* But he answered that the essential point at issue is: "Whether there really exists such a uniform correspondence between certain forms of the head, skull, or brain, and certain characters of mind, as can be distinctly recognised by observation ;" and that, in his opinion, the evidence derived from the observations of Drs Gall and Spurzheim "is quite inconclusive." In reply, I wrote that if the object be important, and if there be no method of attaining it, except that followed by Gall and Spurzheim, why, if their evidence was insufficient, did he not proceed to observe nature and seek for evidence of his own? He rejoined: "My comments of course applied solely to the evidence brought forward by its founders, Drs Gall and Spurzheim; I accordingly thought it right to omit all reference to my personal experience on the matter, more especially as I was not exactly writing in my own name; and I felt it nowise incumbent on me to lay the foundations of any similar system myself, or presume to direct others in the pursuit, by laying down a plan of operations to be followed for that purpose." I have referred to this correspondence because it represents the condition of mind of the men who rejected Dr Gall's discovery forty years ago, and whose writings and authority formed the public opinion on it at that time. I can safely affirm that, after the most careful study of the objections, the conviction was irresistibly forced on me that their authors had not made themselves acquainted with the evidence adduced by Drs Gall and Spurzheim, and had never seriously considered the propositions that Gall's method is the only one by which the object can be reached, and that every person who has not resorted to the practice of it, is absolutely and necessarily ignorant whether his discoveries are true or false. The only exception to this style of condemnation known to me was presented by Mr John Abernethy, who said: "I see no mode by which we can with propriety admit or reject the assertions of Drs Gall and Spurzheim, except by pursuing the same course of investigations which they themselves have followed; a task of great labour and difficulty, and one which, for various reasons, I should feel great repugnance to undertake."† * See the correspondence in my translation of Gall on the Cerebellum, p. 217. † Memoir of John Abernethy, by George Macilwain. These observations are worthy of the honest and powerful mind that uttered them. The study is difficult, perhaps the most difficult of all subjects of scientific inquiry. The difficulties arise from the following circumstances. Phrenology is the Physiology of the Brain; and is not, and cannot become, an exact, but must ever remain an estimative science. In no department of Physiology can mathematical measurements be applied to determine the size of organs, on which, cæteris paribus, the amount of their vital power depends. We must estimate their size by tact, improved by experience. Again, the force of a vital function cannot be mathematically measured, but must be estimated. In Phrenology, therefore, we have to learn -1st, To know the exact situation of each organ; 2dly, To estimate its absolute size, and its size in relation to the other organs; 3dly, To discover the primitive faculty on which each particular mental manifestation depends; to estimate the strength of that faculty; and then to compare its strength with the size of its organs; 4thly, To discover by observation and experience what changes in the direction of the faculties are occasioned by the combinations of their organs in different degrees of relative size; 5thly, To estimate the effects of temperament and training on the strength and activity of the faculties; 6thly, To pursue these inquiries in a wide field of active life, and to devote time, observation, and intelligence to the study, with a sincere desire to arrive at truth. All this is possible-has been done--and may be accomplished by an inquirer of adequate ability who will qualify himself for conducting it by obtaining knowledge of the method and principles through which success can be attained. But it is no undue pretension to affirm that not one of the persons who so authoritatively pronounced Phrenology to be false, had qualified himself, in this manner, to form a judgment on the subject. In point of fact, as already observed, they were wholly unaware of their own incompetence, for the reasons before assigned, to form any rational opinion on its merits. Yet the generation of Lecturers and Professors,* Preachers, The University of Edinburgh possesses two Professors who form exceptions to the observations in the text. Professor Gregory has long been a strenuous advocate of Phrenology; and Dr Laycock, Professor of the Practice of Medicine, without enrolling himself as a Phrenologist, recognises the soundness of its general principles, and applies them to cerebral pathology. Reviewers, mental philosophers, and the reading public, who continue to reject Phrenology, have almost universally derived their opinions of it from the representations given by those guides whom they implicitly followed in their youth. Lord Jeffrey denied that the mind in its higher functions uses organs at all; and Dr William Stenhouse Kirkes, in his Handbook of Physiology recently published, informs us that "the reason or spirit of man, which has knowledge of Divine truths, and the conscience, with its natural discernment of right and wrong, cannot be proved to have any connection with the brain."* The reader will judge of the soundness of this statement by comparing it with the observations made on pages 27 to 32, and 42 to 44, of this volume, and also the facts adduced in the Appendix, No. II. The young men of the present generation continue to imbibe the prejudices of their teachers without examination, and to retail them. Two examples have recently appeared in Edinburgh. Mr Edward Haughton, M.R.C.S.E., has published "The Criticism of an Essay" (by Mr Herring) "on Phrenology, read at the Hunterian Medical Society;" which criticism is remarkable only for puerility of thinking, and ignorance of the writings of the controversialists who have preceded him ; and obviously owes its origin to a desire to gratify “Dr J. Hughes Bennett, Professor of the Institutes of Medicine in the University of Edinburgh, &c., &c.," to whom it is dedicated. The views of Phrenology communicated by this gentleman to his students may be inferred from the "Criticism." The second example is afforded by Mr Thomas Spencer Baynes, LL.B., in a eulogy by him on Sir William Hamilton, published in the "Edinburgh Essays." He informs us that Sir William "proceeded to test the worth of Phrenology by an examination" of the facts on which it "professed to be wholly founded." "He selected several of the leading points laid down as the physiological basis of the system, such as the relative size and function of the cerebellum, the age at which the brain is fully developed, the presence and value of the frontal sinus-and found, after a series of experiments, that the dictum of the phrenologist on each point was not only * 3d Edition, p. 453. erroneous, but absolutely false." This is strong language; and Mr Baynes, after what I am about to mention, will perceive that he has exposed himself to the application of it to himself. First-Sir William Hamilton, in contradiction to the Phrenologists, asserted that "the cerebella of the two sexes absolutely are nearly equal,-the preponderance rather in favour of the women." But Dr John Reid, Chandos Professor of Anatomy and Medicine in the University of St Andrews, afterwards published* the average result arrived at by him, after weighing 53 male brains and 34 female brains, as follows: Cerebellum, 5 oz. 4 dr.-4 oz. 12 dr.; difference in favour of the male, 7 dr. Dr Reid's investigations were continued by Dr T. B. Peacock. He informs us that his tables† include the weights obtained by both Dr Reid and himself, and "are based on 356 weights of the encephalon." He states the average weight of the cerebellum in 57 males between 25 and 55 years of age, at 5 oz. 2.6 dr.-and in 34 females between the same ages, at 4 oz. 12.4 dr; making a difference in favour of the male of 6.2 dr., in direct contradiction to Sir William Hamilton's assertion. Secondly-As to the Frontal Sinus. By an arrangement between Sir William Hamilton and me, Professors Christison and Syme, and the late Dr John Scott, were chosen as a court of inquiry to test the validity of Sir William Hamilton's objections against Phrenology, and they began with the frontal sinus. After hearing Sir William Hamilton at great length on the subject, the umpires unanimously set aside all the skulls produced by him, as insufficient to support his propositions; and the proceedings under the reference never went farther. Their verdict is printed verbatim in the Phrenological Journal, vol. v., p. 34. Thirdly--Mr Baynes alludes to a correspondence between Sir William Hamilton and Dr Spurzheim, and says: "But the points at issue were never brought to a decision, as Dr Spurzheim refused to submit them to any adequate and impartial judges, demanding instead that they should be discussed before a popular assembly, and decided by the voice of a public * London and Edinburgh Monthly Journal of Medical Science for April 1843. † Published in the same Journal for August and September 1846. meeting. Of course Sir William Hamilton had too much respect for himself and the scientific questions at stake, to bring them before such an utterly incompetent tribunal." Now, this statement betrays culpable ignorance of the facts, or a reckless disregard of truth; for Sir William Hamilton addressed his first attack on Phrenology and Phrenologists to a popular audience of ladies and gentlemen assembled by advertisements, and he renewed his assaults before the Royal Society of Edinburgh, also a public body. (See Phrenological Journal, vol. iv., p. 378.) In a letter dated 18th February 1828, "Dr Spurzheim returns compliments to Sir William Hamilton," and says, "Sir William Hamilton publicly attacked Phrenology before Dr Spurzheim visited Edinburgh; it is now Sir William Hamilton's duty to prove publicly his assertions. Dr Spurzheim, therefore, repeats for the fourth and last time that he is willing to meet Sir William Hamilton before the public.” Again, on 29th February 1828, Dr Spurzheim writes that he “would have thankfully availed himself of a private meeting with Sir William Hamilton, and received from him private instruction in Anatomy and Physiology; but since Sir William publicly attacked Phrenology and its believers, Dr Spurzheim can meet him only before the public." (Phrenological Journal, vol. v., pp. 39-42.) In the words in italics, Mr Baynes has, through sheer ignorance, I presume, of the facts about which he was writing, pronounced a severe censure on the object of his eulogy. Neither party, probably, desired to constitute the public a "tribunal" to "decide" the questions at issue; but as Sir William Hamilton, by addressing a popular audience, had obviously intended to influence public opinion against Phrenology, Dr Spurzheim was certainly entitled to insist on having a public opportunity to refute his objections. So little consideration have physiologists bestowed on the question of the best method of discovering the functions of the brain, that Dr Carpenter, no mean authority, says that "All our positive knowledge of the functions of the nervous system in general, save that which results from our own consciousness of what passes within ourselves, and that which we obtain from watching the manifestations of disease in man, is derived from observations of the phenomena exhibited by ani * Principles of Human Physiology, p. 681. Fourth Edition. |