The History of Phrenology on the Web (http://www.historyofphrenology.org.uk/) By John van Wyhe Lewes, George Henry, "Phrenology," in his The Biographical History of Philosophy from its origins in Greece down to the present day~. "Much enlarged and thoroughly revised," London: John W. Parker, 1857: 629-45. 629 CHAPTER II. PHRENOLOGY. I. LIFE OF GALL. FRANCIS JOSEPH GALL was born at Tiefenbrunn, in Suabia, on the 9th of March, 1757. In the preface to his great work, Anatomie et Pkysiologie du Système Nerveux,1810, he narrates how as a boy he was struck with the differences of character and talents displayed by members of the same family, and how he observed certain external peculiarities of the head to correspond with these differences. Finding no clue given in the works of metaphysicians, he resumed his observations of nature. The physician of a lunatic asylum at Vienna allowed him frequent occasions of noticing the coincidence of peculiar monommuacs with pcculiar configura-tions of the skull. The prisons and courts of justice furnished him with abundant material. Whenever lie heard of a man remarkable either for good or evil, he made his head a study. He extended his observation to animals; and finally sought confirmation ia an"-tomy. The extenor of the skull he found, as a general rule, to cor-respond with the form of the brain. After twenty years of observation, dissections theorizing, and ar-guing, lie delivered his first course of lectures ill Vienna. This was in 1796. The novelty of his views excited a great sensation; one party fanatically opposing them, another almost as fanatically espousing them. Ridicule was not sparing. The new system lent itself to ridicule, and angry opponents were anxious, as opponents usually are, to show that what made them angry was utterly farci-cal. In 1800 Gall gained his best disciple, Spursheim. Hitherto Gall had been aided by a young anatomist, named Niklas, to whom he taught the new method of dissecting the brain ;* now Spurz-heim's mastery of anatomical manipulation, eombined with his power of generalization and of popular exposition, came as welcome * Gall pays his tribute to Niklas in the first edition of the Asat. eC PAye. ~ ~ ~e~eir, i. pref~ xv. In the second edition this tribute is omitted; not very creditably. 680 PHRENOLOGY. aids in the gigantic task of establishing the new doctrine tific basis. In 1802 M. Charles Villers, the translator of Kant, p~ his Lettre a' George' Guvier s'ir une Nouvelle Tke'orie dzi ~ar le Docteur Gall. I have not been able to procure this but it is in many points interesting to the historian of P~ because it not only expounds the doctrine as it was then but describes the localization of the organs then fixed oi A plate represents the skull, marked by Gall himself with and-twenty organs, which at that period comprised the faculties' of the mind. Among these twenty~four, there subsequently discarded altogethcr: Vital Force-Suseepti~ Penetration (independent of that which ~iaraeterii'~es the m' sical faculty) -an(l Generosity (i 'idcpc~ide~ t of bcncvolence). only are these four astoni~1ing organs marl(ed by Gall as setiting original faculties, but ~ie twenty orgali' ~iieh were wards retained by him are d;jJ~i~en1ly localized ; so that, aco to ~[. L("lut, from whom I borrow these details, 'of those organs there is scarcely one which ocenpies the ~acc Gall assigned to it.~* Phrcn~ogists should give pronlineilce to tlds fact. bound not to pass it over. Iii every way it is iniportan history of the doctrine. It may perhaps be satisfactorily but until it be so explained, it must tell against them ; and very reason which they iiieessantlv adva'ice as their claim sideration, namely, that the several erg~s were establishe: servation, not by any tlieory.~ For, if the doctrhie had be' blished by a mingling of hypothesis alul observation, nothin~ be more lil~ely th~ that the first sketel~ of it would be iw in conception and 'nicertain in details; whereas, if the dq grew up slowly from a gradual accumulation of rigorously fitets, these facts would remain constant throu~ all the changes of doctrine. Gall had been twenty years cofle of correspondence between external configuration and pee of character. He had controlled these observations by * Lelut: Reje~ l~ 1' Or9anol()gie PAr~ologique, ~843, p. 29. 'On voit par Ia marche de ces recherches que le premier p55 ft lit de'~ouverte de quelques organes ; que ce n'est que graduellemen~ avons fait parler les faits pour en deduire les prineipes g~ne'raux, ~hs6quemment et a' lit fin que nous avons appris a' connaltre Is it'iiz cerveau.'-Aeat. et Phys. i. preface xvui. ½ /½ LIPE OF GALL. verifications. Prisons, lunatic asylums, busts, portraits, remarkable men, even ammals, had furnished him with facts. Unless these facts really deserve all the credit which is demanded for them, Phren~ogy has the ground cut from under it; and if we are to give them our confidence, upon what ground can we relinquish it in favour of subsequent facts, which deny all that has been said before? If Gall could be deceived after twenty years of observation of facts which, according to his statement, are very easily observed, because very obvious in their characters, why may he not have been equally deceived in subsequent observations? If one collection of facts forced him to assign the organ of poetry to a particular spot (on the skull marked by him for M. Villers), how came another coflection of facts to displace poetry, and substitute benevolence on that spot? Are the manifestations of poetry aml ben evolence so closely allied as to mislead the observer? Probably SpurAicim's assistance came at the right moment to rectify many of the hazardous psych~ogical statements, and to mar-shal the facts in better order. Together they made a tour through Germany anil Switzerland, diffusing the kitowledge of their doc-trine, and everywhere c~lcetiiig fresh facts. On the 30th October, 1806, they entered Paris. In lS0~ ~iey 1)reseiltcd to the lustitute their Memoire on ~ic Anatomy and Physiology ofihe Nervous System in general, and of tiLe Brain in particular; and in 1810 appeared the first volume of their great work, mider tlie same title, which work was remodelled in 1823, and published in six volumes, octavo, under the title of Fonctions du Cerveau. In 1813 G~I and Spuraheim quarrelled and separated. Spur~ heim came to England, Gall rernained in Paris, where lie died on the 22d of August, 1828. At the post-mortem examination, his skull was found to be of at least twice the usual thickness,-a fact which has been the source Cf abundant witticisms, for the most part feeble. A small tumour was also found in his cerebellum: 'a fact of some interest, from that being the portion of the brain in which he had placed the organ of amativeness, a propensity which had always been very strongly marked in. him .'* I know not in what sense the writer just quoted thi~~s the fact so remarkable. Tumours in other organs are not u~~i~y the indications of increased activity; nor are we accustomed to fi~id great po~~ts with tumours in the organ of 'imagination~;' great as~ti with tumours in the * ~ £~ZiaA ~ vo~ ~., Arg. Gall. 632 PILPaNOLOGY. GALL'S I£ISTORICAL POSITION. 683 perceptive region; great philanthropists with tumoura on t~ arch; great rehels with tumours behind their ears.* II. GALL'S HISTORICAL POSITION. The day for ridiculing Gall has gone by. Every impart~ petent thinker, whether accepting or rejecting Phrenology, of the immense services Gall has rendered to Physiology chology, both by his valuable discoveries, and by his bold, tionable, hypotheses. He revolutionized Physiology by his of dissecting the brain, and by his bold assignment of defini tions to definite Organs. To verify or refute his hyp researches were undertaken; the nervous system of azii explored with new and passion ate zeal; and now there is siologist who openly denies that mental phenomena are ( connected with nervous structure; while even ~tctaphysici~ beginning to understand the mechanism of tbe Senses, general laws of nervous action. ~ic time has amved in seems almost as absurd to thernize on mental ~ienninena in of physiological laws, as it would be to adopt Stahl's consider anatomical and chemical researches futile in the Medicine. We owe this mai~~y to the influence of Gall. bronght into requisite prominence the priuciple of the relation between organ and function. Others had proclair principle incidentally; he made it paraInonIlt by constant tion, by showing it in detail, by tea~iing that every vnriatio~ organ must necessarily bring about a corresponding van.atio~ function. He (lid not say mind was the produtl of org~ 'Nous ne coufondons pas Ics conditions avee les causes efficici he asserted was the correspondence between tiLe state of th and its manifestations.f This was at once to call the atten Europe to the marvellous apparatus of organs, which bad " To anticipate the reply that the existence of disease in the org~ provoke unusual activity of the organ, it is only necessary to state ~ 'propensity' Is not said to have been called into unusual activity shc his death, but to have always been very active. Ilad there been a neetion between the disease and the activity increase of the aci have followed the rapid progress of the dis~se t So also Spnrzheim says: 'Both Dr. Gall and I have always dft we merely observe the affective and intellectual manifestations, and conditions under which they take place; and that in using only mesa the organic parts by means of which the faculties of come appareat, but not that these constitute the mind. '-PA,,,~oi - been so little studied, except from a purely anatomical point of view, that no one, mitil Sb' mmerrig (who was Gall's contemporary), had observed the relation between sise of the brain and intellectaal power, as a tolerably constant fact in the animal kingdom. This one detail is sufficient to make every reader suspect the chaotic con-dition of physiological Psychology when Gall appeared. Nor has Gall's influence heen less remarkable in the purely psy chological direction. People are little aware how that influence is diffused, even through the writings of the opponents of Phrenology, and has percolated down td the most ordinsy intelligences. 'Ni les vains efforts d'un despotisme ~uergique,' says Auguste Gomte, 'seconde's par Ia honteuse condescendanee do quelques savans fbrt aecredite's, ni les sarcasmes ~ph~me'res do l'esprit lit~ralre et meta-physique, ni IncA me la frivole irrationali~ do Ia plapart des essais tentes par les imitateurs do Gall, n'out pu empecher pendant los trente dernk'~es aunocs ltaccroissement rapide et contiun, dans toutes les parties du monde savant, du nouveau syste'.me d'e'tudes de l'homme intellectual et moral. A quels autres sigues voudrait-on reconnaltre le sucees progressif d'une heureuse revolution philosophique ?'* Gall may be said to have definitively settled the dispute between the partisans of innate ideas and the partisans of Sensationalism, by establishing the consiate tendencies, both affective and intellectual, which belong to the Organic structure of man. Two psychological facts, familiar from all time to the ordinary understanding, but shrouded from all time in the perplexities of philosophy, were by Gall made the basis of a doctrine. The flmt of these facts is, that all the fundamental tendencies are connate, and can no more be created by precept and education than they can he aholished by denunciation and punishment. The second ~t is, that man's va-rious faculties are essential~y distinet and independent, although intimately connected with each other. What followed? That the Mind consists of a plurality of functions5 consequently must have a plurality of organs, became the neoe.msry corollary of this second proposition, as soon as the relation betwem organ and function was steadily conceived. These two propositions have entered into the body of all European doctrines, although the corollary ~ tise second is still vehemently disputed by many. No man of any i~o11ectua1 eminence would now repeat Johnson's celebrated aa~o~ of the poetic faculty being · Co-.. ~ P~ Pessti~ jii. 766. 634 PHRENOLOGY. C~RANIO~OP~Y. 635 simply intellectual activity in a special direction, whei might have written Othello, and Shakspeare the Print cidier of these great men set themselves the task, 'Sir, e walk as far east as he can walk west,' was thought a couc tration; which indeed it was, when the 'unity' of the found no contradiction; but which no one would now aecei than a fallacious analogy. Another conception systematized by Gall has also passed neral acceptance, namcly, the pre-eminenee of the affeedve over the intellectual; and the subdivision of die affective into propensities and sentiments, and of the intellectual into perceptives and refiectives; thus marking die progress lopment from the individual to die social, from the seusuoi intellectual, which constitutes die great progress of civilis: the triumph of sociality over animality. III. CnA~~oscorY. Phrenology has two dis~'net aspects. It is a doctrine of I logy, and it is mi Art of readitig character. The scientific d is based on the physiology of the nervoiis system, to which psychological analysis ~i(1 classification. The Art is based pirical observation of coiticidenecs between certain confignr~ the skull and certain mental ~ienomena. This latter is tru nioseopy, and is no more entitled to the name of a ~eience, ti Physiognomy or Clicirmionsy; a point whicli (lall's suceesi with scarcely ~i exception, entirely overlooked. When the plirenologists widi much emphasis declare their system system of 'facts' and ' obscrvations,' which elai~ our cor because they are facts and not 'mere theories,' it is absolul cessary that we should accurately discriminate hi what sen said facts arc to be miderstood; because accord hig to that: be the kind of confidence they will claim. If, for instance, presented purely as empirical facts-the observed coineid tween certain cranial appearances and corresponding men festations-we may thankfully accept them as valuable Abundance of such material does exist; no one aequal: superficially, with phrenological writings will deny it. B desiring to lessen the vahie of these facts by rigorous C: the evidence on which they rest, we may, nay more, we inquiry be regulated by scientific precision, treat them all other empirical facts, namely, hold them as mere siga~posts, until they be proved unz.ver8al, and until they be hound together by some ascertained law. Now it will scarcely be denied that the observed correspondences between special cranial configuration and mental peculiarities, do, in many iustances, fail. Large heads are sometimes observed in connection with very mediocre abilities; small heads, on the contrary, with very splendid abilities; particular 'organs' do not always justify their prominence by the presence of the particular 'faculties' which they are said to indicate. I wish rather to understate than overstate the difficulty, and I will not seek to gain any advantage by multiplying exceptions; it is enough for the present argument if any exceptions have been observed; because any exception to an empirical generalization is fatal to it as an em-pirical generalization, and can only be set aside when the generaliza-tion has ceased to be empirical, and has become scientific. Thus, I am aware that phrenologists explain each exception to ~icir perfect satisfiiction. But, in explaining it, they quit die sphere of empirical observation to enter that of science; and thus their explanation itself has only the validity which can be given it by theory. To make my meaning more definite, let us suppose that the empirical generali-zatimi of large chests being the cause of great muscular power, is unsler discussion. As an observed fact-an empirical fact-the cor-respondence of broad chests and muscular strength, is a valuable addition to our empirical knowledge. Taken as an indication, no one disputes the fact; but taken as a cause, and connected with a physiological theory, it bears quite a-- different value. The physio-logist may say that the fact proves breadth of chest to admit of more perfect oxygenation of the blood, and thus causes greater muscular power. Against such a theory we bring the ~ that no absolute and constant relation between bread chests. and muscular power exists; if we find large chests accompanying strength, we also find small chests in certain lithe3- wiry f'a~es acoompanying even greater strength; the empin cal generalization i. thus destroyed, the ex-plan ation is shown to be imper~ct, and the ratio of muscular power is shown to depend on some other ~ bessd~ the oxygenation of ~e blood. When phrenologists explain away. the excepti~ ~ their em-pirical facts, they are on the ~eld of pu~ --'i~~, and their ex-planations can only have value in ~por~on to the validity of the scientific principles invoked; a~d - thus the Art of Cranioscopy is perpetually forced to recur to that ~ Physiology which the sue- r 636 F~RE~OL0GY. OR AN~SOOPY. 637 cessors of Gall have so nnwisely neglected, and of which (b~ refuses its aid?) they often speak so contemptuously. The a large head with a small mental capacity, or of a small a great mental capacity, is explained by them as resulting difference in the 'temperaments' of the two. But have criminated the conditions thus vaguely indicated by the wo~ perament? Have they estimated the proeortions in which t peraments arc mingled? Have they discovered a means of v~ by which the exact influence of each temperament can be They have not even made the attempt. And yet that such a valuation is indispensable to the Si precision of tl~eir results, must be evident to every one. strictly speaking, is this 'temperamcnt,' which acts as a dist' forcc in the calculation? I believe that science will one that it is the result of that law of indet~ra~i~ate composition distinguishes living tissue from all other substances. In( bodies combinc according to ~ie law of determinate compo the proportions of the constituent elements are fixed, defin variable. In water wc invanably find 88~9 of oxygen, a of hydrogen, in every 100 parts; never niore, never less; water he dew, rain, snow, or artificially produced in the labo its composition is always determinate, even to the fractia a"y piece of flint every 100 parts will be composed of silicon and 5i~8 of oxygen; never more, never less. Bu iiot the ease with organic substances (those at least which tured to distingui~i as teleorganic substances),* which are inmate in composition. Elementary analyses do iiot yield results, as do the analyses of inorganic substances. Nerve for example, contains both phosphorus and water, us constitu~ ments; but the qu~itity of these elements varies within limits; some nerve-tissues have more phosphorus; 501 water; and according to these variations in the compo.' be the variations in the nervous force evolved. This is the why brains differ so enormously even when their volumes The brain differs at different ages, and in different * Matter is divided into Thorganic and Organic; in 1853 I p~ dification of this division into-i. Anorganic; 2. Merorganic; a' ganie: the ~rst in~uding those usually styled inorganic; the seeou those substances in an intermediate state, either wanting some become living, or having lost some elements, and passed from thi into that of prodact; the third includmg only the truly vital sub' Sometimes water constitutes three-fourths of the whole weight, sometimes four-fifths, and sometimes even seven-eighths. The phosphorus varies from 0~80 to 1.65, and l~80; the cerebral fat varies from 3~45 to 5~3O, and even 6~10 These facts will help to explain many of the striking exceptions to phrenological obser-vations (such, for example, as the manifest superiority of some small brains over some large brah~s), and are, indeed, included within the comprehensive fermula constantly advanced by phreno logists that 'size is a measure of power, other things being equal.' In this formula there is a trnth, and an equivoque. The truth may he passed over by us, as claiming instantaneous assent. The equivoque must arrest us. Phrenologists forget that here 'the other things' never are equal; and consequently their dictum 'size is a measure of power,' is without application. There never is equality in the things compared, because two brain~ exactly similar in size, and external configuration, will nevertheless differ in ele-mentary composition. The difference may be slight, but however slight, it materially affects the result. The difference of elementary composition brings with it a difference in development; and by de-velopment, I do not mean growth, but diftc~entiation.* Parallel with these differences, not appreciable by any means in the phre-nologist's power, there are psychological differences, resulting from the effect of education. So that to say 'size is the measure of power,' is as vague as to say 'age is the measure of wisdom;' he-cause, although it is true that size is an index of power, and, other things being equal, the greater the brain the greater the mental power, it is equally true, that age and experience in minds of equal capacity will produce proportionate wisdom unfortunately we can-not get minds of equal capacity placed under the aame conditions: and thus it happens that we find some men with large brains in-ferior to others with much smufler brains, and men of patriarchal length of years more unwise than thei~ ~phews. And, in a less degree, this is true of sism, taken as the measure of power, between one organ and another i~ the same brain. ll"iling utterly when two different hraiue sse ewopare~ the indication of size will be no more than ~ when two parts of the same brain are compared; although in t~is case the other things are necessarily more nearly equul~: it is the same ~erve-tissue, the * I have explained, at some l~ ths r~1~tLoa o~ growth and development in an article oa Dwa~ ~ sa ~ ~qesi~ie for Augast and September, 1858. 638 F11R~~OLO~Y. P~RENOLOGY AS A BCJE~CE. 639 same temperament we are dealing with. In a given brain, forc, wc may reasonably cxpect to find that miy one organ is largcr ill size than another, will be more powerful in futi Bat although this, as an empirical generaiization, is a vain dication, it is by 110 means certain, because thcre may be, deed usuaily is, a difficulty thrown ill tile way by the il)appr yet potent differences of development which have taken place. reutiations occur in two directions, in elementary compos in morphological development. One brain may have more pliorus thaii ano~)cr; and ill the same brain one organ m more vesicular or more fibrous thaa another. Thas it by no n f~lo'vs that a mall with re~eet'.ve orga1)~ lar~e iu size, shall ha exercised these orgalls as to have brou~it their development proportional advance; while on the other hand his smaller i~ native organs may have been so dev~oped by culture and exer as to have plaee~l them 0)) a par in e~licieaey with the reflee Daily experience assures ns that ~ieh is tIle case; and the pl phic phrcnolo~ist might point to it as one explanation of the exceptions which Cranioseopy nIust necessarily encounter in tempt to read character according to external indications. This is not the place for an examination of Phrenology Art, or as a Science. I content myself therefofe with the going indication of what I believe to be the true po~ition of Illoseopy, ~ld 5~)lnC of tIle diflietlities which beset it. Tb collection of Ol)SCfVCd correspondences between certain cont tions of tlte skull mid certain mental characteristics, is a ~ task, aini one which must nlaterially aid the science of P~ 1 do not think wolild be denied by ally philosopher, if it we~ dertaken ~~itli that subsidiary aim ; bitt when plirenologists ob~ their 'system' on the notice of philosophers, declaring it to completed science of Psychology, and a true method of readii racter, they must not be surprised if contradiction meet all sides, and if this contradiction often speak the language tempt; since daily experience cannot sanction the present p sbus of the Art, because the Art is found to be constantly at nor can psych~ogists recognize the pretensions of the Science IV. PHRENOLOGY AS A SCIENCE. To defend their Art, phrcnologists are compelled to recur Doctrine, fonaded on flie physiology of the nervous system, a psychological classification of tile faculties. Indeed) whilE one hand we find every phrenologist since Gall, Spursheim, and Vim ont, occupied entirely with Cranioseopy, and many even speaking with disdain of anatomists and physiologists; on the other hand we find them anxious to bring forward physiological and pathological evidence, whenever that evidence favours their views; and we hear them confidently assert that Phrenology is the ouly true Physiology of the nervous system. This latter assertion I am quite willing to echo, if the terms be somewhat ~odified, and the phrase run thus Phrenology aspires to be the true Physiology of the nervous system; when that Physiology is complete, Phrenology wil~ be complete.' But for the present we find Physiology confessing its incompleteness confessing itself in its infancy; whereas Phrenology claims to be complete, equipped, full-statured! ltightly considered, that very claim is a condemnation of Phrenology, as at present understood. The pretension of being a perfect or nearly perfect system, surely implies a profound ignorance of the subject, an entire misconception of the complexity of the problem it pretends to have solved? At a time when Science is unable to solve the problem of three gravitat mg bodies, pbrcnologists pretend to find 110 difficulty in calculating the result of forces so complex as those ~iicll cotistitute character; at a time when ~tc nervous systeua is confessed, by all who have studied it, to be extremely ill-understood, the functions of that sys-tem arc supposed to be established; at a time when Physiology is so rapidly advancing that every decade renders most books antiquated, a Psychology professedly founded on that advancing science remains minovable Gall was on the right path when he entitled his first great Work A~t('(omIE. and P~~*toioll~ of the Nereetia SWStem.* His suecessors have quitted that path. In spite of his emphatic declarations, when lie ~ ezigaged in his exposition of the anatomy and physiology of tile nervous system,~ declarations of the necessity there was always to make tile study of organ and function go hand in hand, so that lie would only have his lahours regasded~' as the basis of an essay to-wards a more perfect work;' in spite, we Bay, of every philosophical consideration, his successors have neglecte~ Physiology for Cranio-seopy; not one of them has made or attempted to rn~e sny dis- * 'Quiconque,' he says, 'est o~uvainoa que la struetare des~~ies du cer-veau a un rapport n~ee88aire et itnxn~diat avec bum fonea'ons, trouvera qu'il est naturel de reunir ces deux obiets~run ~ l'sutrs, en lee ~onsid~rs~t et en les traitant ,omme un seul et mame cops de ~ootrine.'-4~ e~ ?A~a., pref. xxv. t Compare Ilis Aaat. et~~ ~ ~ Nci~~·, i. ~ and 271. 40 PHRE~OLOGY. PIIRENOLOGY AS A SCIENCE. 641 ~~very or extension of discovery in the direction Gall 80 ~1ly opened; and the result of this neglect has been tw( since Gall and Spnrzheim, Phreuelogy has not taken ~tep; second, that all the eminent physiologists of Europe ~ ~evoted themselves to the study of the nervous system un~ ;4eiecta theory which does not keep pace with the advance of ~tisvery easy for parenologists to disregard the unanimou ~ition of physiologists, and to place this opposition to the ~f prejudice, or the 'not having sufiaciently studied Phre ~ut an impartial on-looker sees clearly enough ~at, mak ~l1owance for prejudice, the opposition rests mainly 01) the ~ancy between the facts stated by phrenologists and tile facts Science has hitherto registered. Had phrcnologists kept them acquainted with ~hat was gradually being (1i~eovercd by p gists, they would have seen that some~~ing more tlian pr must be at work when all the em~iei't neurologists, such as Flourens, Majendie, Ijeuret, Longet, L(qut, Lafargue, Boi baillarger, Mijller, Valentin, and comparative anatomists St Owen, declare against Phrenology; although every one of ti~ ready to admit the importance of Gall's raetliod of dissectice to incorporate whatever results Gall arrived at, which can be way confirmed. I do not blame phrcnologists for having rei 1)0 assistance to ~)ysiology by tlieir own labours; but I am to point oat tim historical eonsc~ences of their ~Iaving neglec follow the path commenced by Gall, and deviated into that of Cranioscopy. The neglect of which they coui~ain, is entirely to their presenhug a rude sketch as a perfect science, and t keeping behind the science of their day, itistead of on a levE it. Impatient of contradiction, they ~iut ~ieir eyes to diflic unable to accommodate their pnaciplcs to the principles of I logy, they contemptuously dismiss objections as 'merely theo and fall back upon their 'well-estaNished facts.' Gall undertook a gigantic task. lie produced a revolutic his name will always live in the history of Science. It is attempt to undervalue his work by citing his predecessors. before him had thought of localizing the different faculties ferent parts of the brain. lie and Spurzheim have mention predecessors.* These, hdwever, are very vague unfertile * Fone~ion' da Cerveau, ii. ~5O sq Compare also Lelut: Rej'~ ~ no'o9ie, p.21 sq., and Prochaska, p.374 sq. tions; they in no way lesson Gall's originality. A nearer approach is to be read in Procliaska, whom Gall often mentions, although he does not, I think, mention this particular anticipation. It is the third section of chapter five, and is entitled, 'Do each of the divi-sions of the intellect occupy a separate portion of the Brain?' and it concludes thus: 'It is by no means improbable that each division of the int~cct has its allotted organ in the brain, so that there is one for the perceptions, another for the understanding, probably others also for the will and imagination and memory, which act wonderfully in concert and mutually excite each other to action. ~e organ of imagination, however, amongst the rest, will be far apart from ~ie organ of perceptions.'* How far this general suppo-sition of a 'probability' is from Gall's specific attempt to localize the orga) is,' need not be pointed ont. The attempt was far from ~)cing fully successful; but, as a tentative, it was truly philosophical, and produced a revolution. Having once conceived the brain to be an apparatas of organs, not a siligle organ, the problem was to analyze this apparatus into its constituent organs, aud to assign to each its special function. In ~1i' diffie~t pro~em Gail, by the necessities of his position as a systcm~fouuder, was forced to proceed on a false method, namely, that of determining the separate organs according to a purely phy-siological and superficial analysis, instead of subordinating this ann-lysis to anatomical verification. It is this arbitrary and unsoientifie proccoduig which has made all anatomists reject the system. What would lie have said to a physiologist who, knowing that the liver f~~rmed bile and sugar, should have assigned the fuuction of bile-formation to one lobe, and the function of sugar-formation to an other lobe, no structural differences having been observed? or who should assign to the different lobales of the kidney ~inctions as dif-ferent as are assigned to the different convolutions of the brain? It is perfectly true that from inspection of an organ no idea of its flinction can he obtalued; and this truth has blinded phrenologists who are not physiologists to the neoe~ty of nevertheless always making anatomy the basis of every physiological analysis. No in-spection of the alimentary ~ conla disclose to us that its fune- * Proeliaska, p. 447. There is a rs~~l'able pssaage, to~ long for quotation here, in Willis's Ce~~ri As'st~, C. X. p. 1~, en t~e convolutions as indi-Lating intellectual superlority. I give only the openig: 'Pliese suat convo-lutiones cerebri long~ plures se ~ in harnine suat q~~m in quovis aijo animali, nempe' propter vsrlos ct multiplicea ~Gnltstum superiorum a(~tus.' 2T 642 Fll1~E~OLOb~ ~. PIIBENOLOGY AS A SOI~NCID. 648 tion was that of digestion. Nevertb~ess ~ funehon of except in the crude conception of ordinary men, is ouly mt after a rigorous analysis of the several processes, buecal, stv and intestinal; for the intelligence of each of which, we must to each gland its specific secretion, and to each secretion its action: a physi~ogist who should attempt tlie explanation o~ tion on any other mode would justly be ~i~itcd by every go logist in Europe. If Phrenology is the Physiology of the system, it must give up Gall's approximative method for a more rigorously scientific; and, as Auguste Comte justly ~ ~)renologists, befor6 they can take rank among men of sciene 'reprendre, par une serie direete de travaux anatomiques, l'at foudameutale de l'appareil e6re'bral, en faisaut provisoirenient traction de tonte idec de f~ctions.'* One of the fundamental questions which must T)e answe~ this anatomical analysis, is that which no phrenologist condesc to ask, nam~y, Arc the convolutions the seat of iiit~ligence other words, Is the grey vesicular matter ~iicli forms the of the braiii, the sole and specific scat of those ehauges on ' mental phenomena depend? This is a quection which Cranici may ignore, since the facts on ~~ieli Cranioscopy is found~ litfle if at all affected by it. To Phrenology the questioli is all-important ; because if the ' Phy si~ogy of the nervous should turn out defective ~i its basis, the whole scaffohung will to he erected anew. I put tlie question iii two forms, becaui though it is conimoilly said ~iat tuc convolutions of the braii the org~s, yet as many animals are altogeHier witliont convelul the vesicular surface, ~ietlier convoluted or not, must be stood as the seat of mental ebmiges: the convolutions being u mole of increasing the surface. As the space at my disposal is inadequate to any exhausti~ cussion of this important qliestion, ~ic reader w~l be a brief indication of the doubt which ~iysiology forces me press respecting the convohitious as the specific seat of merit nifestatious. I eanuot reconcile tlie current opinion on tliat with anatomical and zoological facts. I believe that the V' matter which constitutes ~e conv~utions, is ouly one factor sum; it would however lead me too far to enter on the di~ which might be objected to as at present only hypothetical. * d~ Philo~opkie Po,~i~icc, iii. 821. Comte is much more fs to Gall than I am, yet see his remark~ on the multiplication of the p. 823 ~. Qmtting all hypothetical considerations for the less questionable evidence of facts, I find M. Bamarger*~who invented a new me-thod of measuring the surfaces of brains, by dissecting out all the white substance from their interior, and then unfolding the exterior, and taking a east of it-deelaring from his measurements that it is far from true that in general the intelligence of different animals is lii direct proporhon to their respective extents of cerebral surface. If their al)solUte extents of surface be taken, the inle is manifestly untriie in many instances; and it is iiot more true if the extent of surface in proportion to the volume of the brain be regarded; for the human brain has less superficial extent in proporhon to its vo-lume than that of many inferior mammalia: its volume is 2j times as great in proportion to its surface; as it is in tha rabbit, for ex-ample. Nor is this all. The researches of M. Camille Dnreste~ establish beyond dispute that the number and depth of ~ie convolutions bear no direct relation to the development of intelligence; whereas they do bear a direct relation to the size of ~'e animal: so that, given tIle size of the animal in any genus, he can prodict the degree of convoluted development; or given the convolutions, lie can predict the 5i?.C : 'tontc~ les Csp('CCs h cervean lisse out line petite taille tontes les esp~ces i~ circonvolutimis nombrenses et compliquecs sont, an contraire, Ic gr~i detaille.' Further, I am informed by Pro-fessor Owen that tlic grampus has convolutions deeper and more complicated than those of man. From all which facts it becomes evident that the phrenological basis is so far from being in accord-mice with the present state of our knowledge of the nervous system as to require complete revision. Flirenology has another important point to determine, namely, the relation of the size ~f the brain. to mental power. Is the size Ot tI~c brain to be taken abeolutely, and its functional activity in the purely mental directiou to be measared by its absolute bulk? A galvanic battery of fifty plates is five times as powerful as a bat-tery of ten plates; a cord of twenty threads is five times as strong as a cord of four threads, otlier things equal; and, in like manner, we should expect that a brain of ~f~y oun(~ep would be twice as pow-erful as one of twenty-five ounces (the limits are ~ea11y greater than these). Nevertheless, we find uo such absolute and constant rela- * Gaett6 Af~ica~, 19 April, 1845. Paget: ~ on t~e Pro~re~ of A'ia~eiy j,~ Brj'~k ae~ Fo"~n Me~. Reo. July, 1%4£. t Annq'e' des ~de,wes ~ 3' ~rie, xvii. 30, and 4' s~rie, i. 73. 2v2 r 644 PliRE~oLo~Y. PHRE~OLOQY AS A SCIR~oE. 645 tion between size and mental power as would justify the ph logical position; the weight of the human brain being about pounds; the weight of the whale's brain being five pounds weight of the elephant's betweca eight and ten pounds. If fore the function of the brain be solely or mainly that of mamfestation) and if size be the measure of power, the wh the elephant ought to surpass man, as a Newton surpasses an If on the contrary tile brain, as a nervous centre, has other tions besides ~)at of mental manifestation, these discrep: be explained, although Phrenology must take these other fun into acconiit.* It is true tl~at phre~i~ogists have been a~varc of tllcsc diser cies ; and, m~aNe to admit the w]1~e aud elephant as snpcr~ man, they have met the ohiection 1)y say~~g the size must be mated relatively, not absolutely. Compared with the weight b04y, the l)1.ail' of man is certainly heavier than the brains of i animals, iiicluding the wl~ale and the ~cphant; and this fact S. to restore PI~renology to its cheerfiihicss on the subject; fact does not hold good of monkeys, the smaller apes, many of birds, and some rodents. This is tIle dilemma: either the of mental power depends on the absolute sii~c of tile brain, a this ease the eleph~t will he thrice as intelligent as man; depends oh relative size of tl~e l)rain compared with the h in this ease man will he less iiitelligeut than a monkey or altlion~i more intelligmit ~ the (~e1~iant. Moreover, if r~ size is the basis take~i, ~)l1ren()lcgists wonid he bmind to comp each ease tile weight of tile heam with the wei~it of the hefore tl~ey could cstal'li~i a conclusion ; a'id lh'~ is oh' practicable. I have stated ~ic dilemma; hut havin~ state( will add that although phrcixologists attach importance to qu~ of weight of the brain, ~icre seems to mc a great f~Illacy ill' in such estimates. Intelligence is not to be measmed by lance. Weiglit is no index of cerebral activity, nor of the directions of the activity. Enough has been said to show that Phren~ogy, so far present being the only true physiological ex~anation of the system, is in so chaotic and unstable a position with respec basis, as to need thorough revision; and until some ph * I have sketehed the relations of the brain to the body in th before referred to, on Divarj~ an~ Oia,~ts. Sec F~~e~ep's Af~g. S~ p.289. shall arise who, following up the impulsion given by Gail, can once more place the doctrine on a level with the science of the age, all men of science must he expected to slight the pretensions of Phre nology as a psychological system, whatever it may hereafter become. That a new Gall will some day arise I have little doubt, for I ala convinced that Psychology must be cst~Aished on a physi~ogieal basis. Meanwhile, for the purposes of this History, it suffices to have indicated the nature of Gall's innovation, and the course of mqm.ry he opened. As a psych~ogical classification, the one flow adopted in Plirenology can only he regarded in the light of a ten-tative sketch; superior indeed to those which preceded it, but one wl~ich daily experience shows to be insufficient. To conclude this chapter, we may point to Gall as having formed an epoch in the History of Philosophy by inaugurating a new Me-thod. From the time when Philosophy itself became reduced to a question of Psychology, in order that a basis might, if possible, be laid, the efforts of men were vanonsly directed, and all ended in scepticism and dissatisfaction because a true psychological Method did not guide them. The history of the tentatives towards a true Method has been sket~ied in various el~apters of this volume, and with Gall that Method may he said to have finally settled its fun-damental principles. Scanned by John van Wyhe http://www.historyofphrenology.org.uk/ 1999 This work may be copied freely by individuals for personal use, research, and teaching (including distribution to classes) as long as this statement of availability is included in the text. It may not be converted to another format, altered or re-posted without the written consent of John van Wyhe. Use with acknowledgement.