occurrence of such cases with their system; for as soon as the principle of a plurality of organs is acknowledged, they admit of an easy and satisfactory explanation.

From the preceding considerations, then, it appears that any theory, founded upon the notion of a single organ, is uniformly at variance with all that is ascertained to be fact in the philosophy of mind and that, on the other hand, the principle of a plurality of organs, while it satisfactorily explains most of these facts, is consistent with all of them. Its truth is thus almost demonstrated, not by far-fetched or pretended facts, which few can verify, but by facts which daily" obtrude themselves upon the notice of the senses." This principle, indeed, bears on the face of it so much greater a degree of probability than the opposite one, as to have long since forced itself on the minds of many inquirers. Foderé himself a very zealous opponent of Phrenology, after recapitulating a great many reasons similar to those already mentioned, which had been employed by philosophers antecedent to Drs. Gall and Spurzheim, for believing in a plurality of mental organs, is constrained to admit, that “this kind of reasoning has been employed by the greater number of anatomists, who, from the time of Galen, down to those of our own day, and even by the great Haller, who experienced a necessity for assigning a function to each department of the brain. Pinel also (in the article Manie in the Encyclopedie Methodique) after relating some cases of partial insanity, asks, whether all this collection of facts can be reconciled with the opinion of a single faculty and a single organ of the understanding?" Farther, the Edinburgh Reviewer, also already referred to, commends Mr. Charles Bell for "attacking the common opinion, that a separate sensation and volition are conveyed by the same nerves, and for asserting the different functions of different parts of the cerebrum and cerebellum.'”

These considerations early impressed reflecting men with the conviction, that particular mental powers must be connected with particular parts of the brain; and accordingly, before the eighteenth century, when modern metaphysics sprung up, we find traces of this opinion common, not only among eminent anatomist and

physiologists, but among authors on human nature in general. Burton, in his Anatomy of Melancholy, says, "Inner senses are three in number, so called, because they be within the brain-pan, as common sense, phantasie, and memory:" of common sense, "the fore part of the brain is his organ or seat;" of phantasie or imagination, which some call æstimative or cogitative, his "organ is the middle cell of the brain ;" and of memory, "his seat and organ, the back part of the brain." This was the account of the faculties given by Aristotle, and repeated, with little variation, by the writers of the middle ages. In the thirteenth century, a head divided into regions, according to these opinions, was designed by Albert the Great, bishop of Ratisbon; and another was published by Petrus Montagnana, in 1491. One published at Venice, in 1562, by Ludovico Dolci, a Venetian, in a work upon strengthening and preserving the memory, is here represented :

In the British Museum is a chart of the universe and the elements of all sciences, in which a large head so delineated is conspicuous. It was published at Rome so late as 1632.*

If, then, the majority of anatomists, for the last two thousand years, and such illustrious physiologists as Haller, and the others above referred to, were led to the belief of a plurality of mental organs, by a perception of the contradiction and inconsistency

* Elliotson's Blumenbach, p. 205.

existing between the phenomena, and the supposition of the whole brain being the single organ of mind, I cannot be far wrong in saying, that the latter notion, so far from being self-evident, appears so improbable as to require even stronger facts to prove it than the opposite view; and that the presumptions are all in favor of a plurality of mental faculties, manifesting themselves by means of a plurality of organs.

I have now endeavored to show, first, That the ridicule and abuse with which Phrenology was treated at its first announcement, and its continued rejection by men of established reputation, whose opinions it contradicts, afford no presumption that it is untrue, for all great discoveries have met with a similar fate : Secondly, That we are really unacquainted with the mind, as an entity distinct from the body, and that it is owing to the mind not being conscious of its organs, that metaphysicians have supposed their feelings and intellectual perceptions to be emanations of pure mind, whereas they are the results of mind and its organs acting in combination. Thirdly, That the greatest anatomists and physiologists admit the brain to be the organ of the mind, and common feeling localizes the mind in the head, although it does not inform us what substance occupies the interior of the skull Farther, That the very idea of the mind having an organ, implies that every mental act is accompanied with an affection of the organ, and vice versa; so that the true philosophy of the mind cannot be discovered without taking the influence of the organs into account at every step. Fourthly, That the analogy of the nerves of feeling and motion, of the five senses, and other parts of the body, all of which perform distinct functions by separate organs; also the successive appearance of the faculties in youth; the phenomena of partial genius, of dreaming, of partial insanity, of monomania, and of partial injuries of the brain, furnish presumptive evidence that the mind manifests a variety of faculties by means of a variety of organs, and exclude the supposition of a single power operating by a single organ. The next inquiry, therefore, naturally is, What effect does the condition of the organs produce on the states of the

mind? Is it indifferent whether the organs be large or small, well or ill constituted, in health or in disease?

『*

I submit the following facts to prove that in other departments of organized nature, size in an organ, other conditions being equal, is a measure of power in its function, i. e. that small size indicates weak power, and large size strong power, all other circumstances being alike.*

In our infancy, we have been delighted with the fable of the old man who showed his sons a bundle of rods, and pointed out to them how easy it was to snap asunder one, and how difficult to break the whole. The principle involved in this simple story pervades all material substances; for example, a muscle is composed of a number of fleshy fibres, and hence it follows that each muscle will be strong in proportion to the number of fibres which enter into its composition. If nerves be composed of parts, a nerve which is composed of twenty parts must be more vigorous. than one which is constituted of only one. To render this principle universally true, however, one condition must be observed, namely, that in comparing parts with each other, or with the whole, all shall be of the same quality; for example, if the old man in the fable had presented ten twigs of wood tied up in a bundle, and desired his sons to observe how much more difficult it was to break ten than to sever one; and if his sons, in refutation of this assertion, had presented him with a rod of iron of the same thickness as one twig, and said that it was as difficult to break that iron rod, although single, as his whole bundle of twigs, although tenfold, the answer would have been obvious, that the things compared differed in kind and quality; and that if he took ten iron rods, and tried to break them, the difficulty would be as great compared with that of severing one, as to break ten twigs of wood compared with that of breaking one. In like manner, nerves, muscles, brain, and

*This subject is fully treated of by Dr. Andrew Combe in an Essay on the Influence of Organic Size on Energy of Function, particularly as applied to the Organs of the external Senses and Brain, in the Phrenological Journal, vol iv p. 161.

all other parts of the body, may be sound, or they may be diseased; they may be of a fine structure or a coarse structure; they may be old or young; they may be almost dissolved with the burning heat of a tropical sun, or nearly frozen under the influence of an arctic winter; and it would be altogether irrational to expect that the influence of size was to stand forth as a fixed energy to overrule all these circumstances, and to produce effects constantly equal. The strength of iron itself and adamantine rock depends on temperature, for either will melt with a certain degree of heat, and at a still higher point they will be dissipated into vapor. The true principle then, is, that constitution, health, and outward circumstances being the same, a large muscle, or large nerve, composed of numerous fibres, will act with more force than a small one comprehending few.

Let us, however, trace the influence of this law in animated beings. It will scarcely be disputed, that the strength of the bones is always, other circumstances being equal, proportioned to their size. So certain is this, that when nature requires to give strength to a bone in a bird, and, at the same time, to avoid increasing the weight of the animal, the bone is made of large diameter, but hollow in the middle; and, on mechanical principles, the increase of volume adds to its strength. That the law of size holds in regard to the bloodvessels and heart, is self-evident to every one who knows that a tube of three inches diameter will transmit more water than a tube of only one inch. And the same may be said in regard to the lungs, liver, kidneys, and every other part. If a liver, suppose of four square inches, can secrete four ounces of bile, it is perfectly manifest, that one of eight square inches will be able, all other things being equal, to secrete a quantity greater in proportion to its greater size. If this law did not hold true, What would be the advantage of large and capacious, There could be none.

over small and confined lungs? Speaking, generally, there are two classes of nerves distributed over the body, those of motion and those of sensation or feeling. In motion, the muscle is the essential or chief apparatus, and the nerve is required only to communicate to it the impulse of the