sume the privilege of criticising him according to their own fancies. It will be our duty to expose such conduct. The anti-phrenological zeal, not to say prejudice, of this opponent, had undoubtedly blunted the usual acuteness of his intellectual perceptions before he penned the preceding sentences. Flourens' first proposition of the "irritability” of the nervés, spinal cord, &c. and of the non-irritability and absence of pain in injuries of the cerebral hemispheres, is not only in perfect harmony with all the phrenological doctrines, but long before Flourens appeared, we had more than once heard Dr Spurzheim insist on the importance of attending to the insensibility of the cerebral substance, as from the absence of pain, it was often suffering from disease, where, even although its mental functions were clearly deranged, no such thing was suspected; and in his very valuable work on Insanity, this circumstance is assigned as one of the causes which have given rise to so much misconception as to the real seat of that disease. A single quotation, which now presents itself on opening the book, will show this:-"The hypersthenical state of the brain," says Dr Spurzheim," is often without pain, which easily leads the phy"sician into error, when he forgets that the brain is insensible, and "differs in this respect from the nerves of the body. They "ought, however, to know, that fear, fury, contempt, and other disagreeable affections, are to the brain what pain is to the nerves. But farther, the mere fact of the brain being irrit able, or not irritable, throws no light upon the nature of the functions which it performs. When we merely know, for instance, that a muscle, when cut or injured, does or does not feel pain, we are still very far from knowing what function it performs. In the same way, when we wish to discover the functions of the brain, it is no very great step merely to know that it may be cut without causing pain; for this fact of itself can furnish no argument either for or against any theory of its functions which may be afterwards brought forward. Neither is the Journalist more happy in his witty description of the snatching from Dr Gall's hands

r

. Spurzheim, sur la folie, p. 315.

66

of the organs of Philoprogenitiveness, and many other propensities and noble faculties, to make up a contemptible "machine for conveying to the mind the impressions of "sense." For be it observed, that in removing the whole hemispheres of the brain, we necessarily remove the organs of all the "propensities and noble faculties," with the exception of Amativeness, and the result is said by Flourens to be the loss of hearing, sight, taste, and smell, and also of the will. The animal no longer moves of its own accord, and it runs its head against obstacles again and again. To the phrenologist, who believes from observation, that the organs of the knowing faculties, or those which perceive the presence of external objects, and those of all the propensities, and among others, of Cautiousness, which leads to the avoiding of pain or danger; are situated in different parts of the hemispheres, it seems a very obvious and natural result, that upon their removal the animal should have so weak a perception of the qualities of surrounding objects, and should feel so little of the sentiment of Cautiousness, as first to run its head against an obstacle, as if it did not see it, and then to strike it again and again, as if it neither felt its presence, nor any desire to avoid it. To the phrenologist it seems equally natural, that, when the organs of Constructiveness are thus destroyed and removed, the animal should manifest so little inclination for construction, as not to build a nest, or dig a hole in the ground. Our opponent, however, takes another view of the matter, and infers, from the animal not manifesting intellect, Cautiousness, or Constructiveness, after the organs of these faculties are destroyed, that the whole hemisphere (including these organs) can be nothing more than a contemptible machine, for conveying to the mind the impressions of sense, and that they can have nothing to do with the functions which the phrenologists have ascertained to belong to them; and he infers from the function disappearing with the organ, that the latter cannot possibly be the instrument of the former! The phrenologists, on the other hand, sup

pose, that the simultaneous disappearance of an organ and faculty, if it does not establish, is at least consistent with, the idea of their being connected with each other. Nay, they even go farther, and say, that if a function remains active after an organ is destroyed, the two cannot be dependent on each other. As, therefore, notwithstanding all our endeavours, we can really see nothing in Flourens' two first propositions which is at variance with our previous belief, we pass on to

The third proposition, or that which regards the cerebellum as the regulator of motion. It is stated that Dr Gall repeated these experiments, but with different results; but he, we are told, is not to be listened to, for reasons already mentioned; let us ask Cuvier and his illustrious associates, continues the journalist, whether the organ of Amativeness has not been snatched from Gall's unwilling hand? We shall call upon these gentlemen by-and-bye, but as a matter of courtesy, we are willing to begin with the journalist himself. In a kind of summing up, in which he had his eye fixed, not upon Dr Gall, but upon the question itself, this gentleman justly observes, "that on a subject of so much nicety and intricacy, "the medical world will naturally receive, not without much "wariness and hesitation, doctrines so precise, so important, "and so unexpected ;" and in another place, he speaks of the difficulty of determining by what causes the phenomena are actually produced, as the sympathetic connexion of the several parts of the nervous system is so close and intricate, that one part cannot be injured without a shock being communicated to the rest. Next, turning to Cuvier, we find his "deliberate approval" to be as follows: after stating that he recollects no other physiologist who has made known any such results as those already mentioned, he continues: "The experiments upon the cerebella of quadrupeds, and especially of adults, are very difficult, on account of the thick osseous parts which must be removed, and the great vessels which must be "opened. Besides, most experimenters operated according to some pre"vious theory, and saw a little too clearly what they wished to see; "and certainly no one before this ever thought of the cerebellum "being the regulator of motion This discovery, if experiments

66

"repeated with every possible precaution, prove its reality, will "do great honour to the young observer whose labours we are analysing. But as this deliberate approval still leaves the matter in doubt, let us inquire at another eminent physiologist, who has repeated the experiment with every possible precaution, viz. Majendie. In his Journal de Physiologie, he first notices the extreme difficulty of making a conclusive experiment on the cerebellum, and then remarks, that he could only observe that severe injury of that organ took away the power of advancing, and excited a constant tendency to walk, run, or swim backwards. But if this result is sufficient to entitle us to erect the cerebellum into a regulator of motion, then must we erect the thalami optici and corpora striata into assistant regulators; for, in a subsequent number of his journal, Majendie states, that a particular lesion of these bodies produces an irresistible tendency to run forwards. In short, for any thing yet published to the contrary, the function which the phrenologists ascribe to the cerebellum stands as firm and unshaken as ever, In common with other observers, we are perfectly aware how much the energy and activity of the propensity of Amativeness influences the development of the muscular system; but, in the first place, it is a very different thing to say, that one circumstance is the cause of, and to say, that it has an effect upon, another; and, in the second place, we know that the other systems participate in this influence almost, if not altogether, as much as the muscular. In the cases of castrati, the osseous, nervous, and vascular systems, sustain as great a check, and remain as feebly developed as the muscles. It is no proof, therefore, of the cerebellum being the regulator of motion, and not the organ of Amativeness, to say, that when it is injured, muscular weakness is induced, and that, too, in the midst of the pain, violence, and disturbance caused by the infliction of serious and deadly wounds. We suspect that it will be long before such a mode of proceeding will supply evidence calculated to weigh at all against the innumerable facts observed by the phrenologists, under all the disvantages which they possess. The organ in question is one

any

of large size and easily observed. Its function does not manifest itself with vigour till puberty, when the organ visibly increases in size. Its diseases and wounds produce symptoms precisely such as we should expect from the func tion assigned to it, while muscular motion remains undisturbed; and it is impossible, in the face of such evidence, to believe it to be any thing else than the organ of Amative

ness.

ARTICLE VIII.

PHRENOLOGY AND MR OWEN.

OUR readers will recollect, that in our last Number we laid before them an Analysis of Mr Owen's New Views of Society, in which we endeavoured to point out in what respects they were consistent with, and in what they differed from the views of human nature afforded by Phrenology. In preparing that analysis, every precaution that could be thought of was taken to ensure a fair and accurate statement of the nature of Mr Owen's doctrines. With this view, as stated at p. 218, the manuscript was submitted to the revision of one of Mr Owen's most intelligent and most devoted disciples, who was requested to make corrections in the shape of notes, wherever an erroneous statement was to be found. After this request was obligingly complied with, the paper was read to the Phrenological Society in the presence of that gentleman and several other Owenites. The corrective notes were read along with the text, and all present were requested to make any observations that occurred to them, but nothing was said. After being printed, a proof was sent to the same gentleman, and at his suggestion some slight alterations were again made; and, last of all, the three concluding pages were sent in proof to Mr Owen himself, and his notes to them were also added. The author of the article had previously perused with attention Mr Owen's printed works; he had heard that