ARTICLE VI.

INJURIES OF THE BRAIN NOT ALWAYS ATTENDED BY MANIFEST DISORDERS OF MIND. ANALOGY BETWEEN SUCH INJURIES, AND THOSE OF OTHER ORGANS.

CASES Occasionally present themselves, in which, after a severe injury or loss of a portion of the brain, the patient continues perfectly collected, and answers rationally any question which may be put to him. From these facts, it is often triumphantly inferred that the phrenological views of the faculties of the mind being manifested by different portions of the brain cannot possibly be true, otherwise some striking mental deficiency would always be apparent after accidents of this nature.

Those who rely on such objections forget that the brain is double, and that one side may be injured without destroying the function of the other, just as one eye may be lost without the person becoming blind in both; and they also overlook the fact, that there is not a single organ of the human body, in which extensive disease has not taken place, in some rare instances, without exciting disturbances in the corresponding function, sufficient to have been observable during life even to a careful inquirer. In one case which fell under the notice of Dr Abercrombie, and on which he lays considerable stress, the left side of the brain was almost entirely disorganized, and yet the lady was well enough to spend the evening preceding her death at a party in a friend's house. The same thing happens with the liver. It has been found almost wholly disorganized where no striking biliary disorder was observable during life. Even the lungs, which sustain so important a part in the animal economy, are sometimes diseased to an extraordinary extent without any remarkable disturbance of respiration. In the number for July 1833 of our able contemporary the Glasgow Medical Journal, it is mentioned that in a patient at the Stirling Dispensary, six pounds of fluid were found in the right cavity of the chest, compressing the corresponding lung into " a mere membrane" "a fourth of an inch in thickness ;" and yet, that during life," breathing, although a very little hurried, appeared to be fully and freely performed, and the man had no symptom which indicated, in the most remote degree, the existence of thoracic disease," p. 254. Dr Ferrier also describes a case of pleurisy attended with effusion into the chest and pericardium and causing death, but in which there was "no cough, no difficulty in breathing, nor pain in his breast;" and Dr Ferrier "could not find from the most careful inquiry, that he had ever made such complaints." (Mackintosh's Practice of Physic, vol. i. p. 367.)

By

Our opponents infer from cases of diseased brain, that that organ cannot be necessary for the manifestations of mind. a similar mode of reasoning, therefore, we ought to infer from the above facts, that the liver is not required for the secretion of bile, nor the lungs for the function of respiration. In the one instance as in the other, we have the function apparently unaffected by extensive organic disease, and consequently the same inferences ought to be drawn from both. In reality, however, it is only by means of Phrenology, that the phenomena relative to the brain admit of explanation at all. If the brain were not composed of two halves, one of which can continue to act, although the other is injured, it would be impossible to believe it to be really the organ of mind. Whereas, if we admit the organs of the brain to be double, we can as easily explain why the mind is not palpably disturbed when only one side is hurt; as we can explain why we continue to see with one eye, or hear with one ear, after the other is destroyed. If, on the contrary, we possessed only one eye instead of two, and a single brain instead of one composed of two similar halves, it would be difficult to conceive how vision could continue unimpaired when half of that eye was diseased, or the mind remain sound, when half of its organ was gone. The difficulty, therefore, lies entirely on the side of the objectors, and does not affect the phrenologist.

very

There is, however, another ground of fallacy which must be kept in mind. In disease we are apt to affirm that the mind is unimpaired, merely because the patient is calm and collected, and answers a question with readiness. But we would ask, is there no difference between being able to answer a common question, and being able for those vigorous mental efforts required for treating successfully an abstract or difficult subject? are we not all conscious of possessing different degrees of mental power even at different periods of the same day, although even when at the lowest ebb we are still reasonable beings? and is the mind to be considered unimpaired, when its organ is no longer able for the clear thinking and vigorous emotions in which it formerly delighted? So far as we have ever observed, there are no instances of extensive lesion of the brain in which all the mental powers continue to be exercised with undiminished energy. On the contrary, there is scarcely any cerebral affection which does not impair or alter in some degree the condition of the mind. Even a common cold in the head reduces the powers of thinking for a time; and the true statement ought to be, that all injuries of the brain are not attended with marked aberration or weakness of mind, or delirium but it is a gratuitous delusion to maintain on that account, that all the faculties remain in their original strength. In the case of the lungs

again, it is quite credible that the patient may not have been sensible of any shortness of breathing in walking leisurely about the wards of an hospital, where no great exertion is needed; but if he had been made to ascend a hill, or to engage in labour requiring full respiration, the deficiency would have become obvious enough. In the one case there was sufficient mind for common-place purposes, just as in the other there was breath enough for moderate exertion; but had either patient been called upon for an effort to which any person in ordinary health would be perfectly equal, he would assuredly have been found wanting. It is true, that when one side is rendered inefficient from disease, the other takes on increased action to make up for the loss; but it rarely if ever happens, that the increase thus produced goes sufficiently far to compensate entirely for what is subtracted.

ARTICLE VI.

THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW, No. 80. JULY 1833. ARTICLE "PHRENOLOGY."

of

THIS article in the North American Review is intended as a refutation of Phrenology. The reviewer assures us that it was not without much deliberation that he resolved to meddle at all with the subject; seeing that "the probability that any individual, at all acquainted with physiology or mental philosophy, can seriously believe it, is so small, that the question seems to be hardly worth arguing." Proceeding in the spirit of hostility and prejudice thus displayed at the outset, he finds that "the cry persecution and interested opposition," raised by the phrenologists, plainly shews them to be quacks;-altogether forgetting that the "cry" is merely defensive, and raised for the purpose of meeting an argument of their opponents, viz. that the opposition which the doctrine has met with forms a presumption against its truth. The object of the "cry" is simply to neutralize such sagacious reasonings as Mr Jeffrey's,-that "the fact that, after seventeen years' preaching in its favour, the doctrine is far more generally rejected than believed, might seem to afford pretty conclusive evidence against the possibility of its truth." (Edin. Rev. No. 88, p. 296.) After various misrepresentations, arising partly from ignorance, and partly, to all appearance, from perversity, the Reviewer goes on to discuss the question, What is phrenology ? but instead of answering it in the words of the phrenoTogists themselves, he fabricates the following propositions, and represents them to be the principles of Phrenology

First, "The human brain consists of a number of separate portions, of which the general figure may be considered that as of a cone, the apex of which is situated somewhere about the medulla oblongata, and the base at the surface of the brain.”

Second, "That the liability of any individual of the human race to be the subject of those affections which are commonly considered and treated of as mental, or of certain modes and varieties of them, is in direct proportion to the relative development of these portions of the brain."

The first of these propositions, so far as we are aware, has never been maintained by any phrenologist. No one has pretended, as the reviewer afterwards affirms, that "there are natural divisions in the brain ;" or has ever spoken of " the separate nature of the cerebral portions," or said that "the fact of their existence depends on anatomy." These "natural divisions" were originally invented by Dr Barclay, who argued against their existence as a phrenological doctrine. Thereafter, the subject was taken up by Mr Stone, and to him the American critic appears to be deeply indebted for the arguments now brought forward. Those who wish to study this question, will find an answer to Dr Barclay in the Transactions of the Phrenological Society, pp. 397, 406, and Combe's System of Phrenology, page 624; and we refer the admirers of Mr Stone to a flagellation of that gentleman in the third number of the London Medical and Surgical Journal.

The reviewer's second proposition also misrepresents us materially, inasmuch as it leaves out of view the quality of the organs, to which, as well as to their size, phrenologists strictly attend. To this Proposition the reviewer devotes four pages, of which the substance is, that "the difficulty, in OUR view of the matter with phrenology, is the utter absence of any evidence in favour of it!" None are so blind as those who will not see.

It appears, that in turning over the leaves of some phrenological book, our critic happened to light on a discussion about "slow but powerful action" of the cerebral organs; "rapid and feeble action, and so forth." And he immediately jumps to the conclusion that the phrenologists, considering that "muscles are fibrous organs," and observing that "the brain exhibits, in certain circumstances, a fibrous appearance," have," with the reasoning of Fluellen," ascribed to the brain motions resembling those of the muscles! "Nobody," says he, "ever witnessed any thing of the kind in the case of the brain, any more than in that of the hair and nails, which have something of a fibrous appearance." Either gross inattention or wilful dishonesty is here manifested. When the action of the liver, stomach, or kidneys, is spoken of, what do educated men understand by that expression? Not mechanical motion, certainly; but the performance

of the functions of the organ-digestion or secretion. And, in like manner, when the brain is said to act, neither more nor less is meant than that its functions are performed.

The reviewer tries to shew the impossibility of discovering the relative size of the different portions of the brain. The fallacy of his arguments will be rendered obvious by applying them to other parts of the body-such as the face. For the sake of convenience, we shall throw the discussion into the shape of a dialogue between the Reviewer and a Phrenologist, the former being made to speak of the face and its constituent parts, instead of the brain and its regions and organs. The reviewer's own

words shall be quoted, so far as this is practicable; but where mention is made in the Review, of the organs of Destructiveness, Veneration, and Tune, for example, the cheeks, the chin, and the nose, are spoken of in the dialogue. We shall put into the reviewer's mouth no argument or opinion that is not clearly discoverable in what he has written.

Phrenologist.-Did you observe that gentleman who has just left us? His chin is of enormous size; while, on the other hand, his nose and under lip are the smallest I have ever seen. Reviewer.-The gentleman sat directly opposite me for nearly half an hour, but I am certain that his visage presented nothing remarkable. I cannot admit the truth of your observa

tions.

Have you any proof that his chin is large, and that his nose and lip are small? It is impossible for you to put your finger on any part of the face, and to say with certainty, This is the chin, or this the cheek. "Demonstrate the fact anatomically." Where are the natural divisions between the cheeks and the chin? and what structural difference enables you to distinguish them?

Phren. I do not pretend to have discovered any natural divisions such as those you speak of; nor has it hitherto appeared that any difference in their structure exists. I admit also that there is no boundary between the nose and the cheeks. Nevertheless, every one who is familiar with faces, knows what parts are the cheeks, the nose, and the chin. The part which I now touch with my finger is the chin.

Rev.-" No such thing. We deny it, and maintain that at least half of the portion in question belongs to the cheek, and who shall gainsay us?" "If, indeed, it could be shewn that the margin of the chin is bounded by an artery, a particular fold of the skin, or the like, one might ascertain when it encroached on the domain of the cheek; but this is not pretended."

Phren.—It is true, as I have already admitted, that no palpable boundary exists; yet the great majority of mankind would be unanimous in pronouncing the chin of that gentleman to be