state that I do not allude to the facial bones, or the features only-which, however, as indicating peculiarities of race, have some connection with the historical growth and form of the human brain-but that I confine myself to pathognomy, or the natural language of particular faculties. The expression of the emotions, the passions, the intellectual operations, displayed as reflex-actions-or as conscious mimickry and pantomime—in the eyes, the voice, the movements of the face, limbs, &c., is of highest interest. Every positive emotion has its characteristic signs, which, to some extent, confirm the position in the head of several of the special faculties, and show their influence on the facial expression and automatic movements of the body. For instance, it has been generally remarked that habitually proud and haughty men carry themselves erect and stiffly; and that in supreme moments of their egotism, they throw their heads backwards. 'Er trägt die Nase hoch,' (He carries his nose high) as a German proverb says of a proud man. This coincides with

the position of a large faculty of self-esteem,' located in the backward bend of the crown of the head. Very benevolent, and very thoughtful men, on the other hand, incline their heads forwards. Very cautious men sway their heads gently from side to side, to which fact, probably, the term circumspect (from circumspicere) came to be applied to them.

Very cunning, false men, carry their heads obliquely. Their eyes, too, have an unsteady fox-like expression; they can seldom look anyone full in the face. These natural signs of character agree with the position of the faculties respectively alluded to. Of course very intellectually astute men have great power of repressing or disguising the natural expression of falsehood, as well as of their thoughts and feelings in general. It is in children and impulsive adults that pathognomy is most easily studied. It is remarkable, however, that children and dogs are often better judges of the natural dispositions, than highly educated adults. The more value we attach to articulate and conventional language, the less attention we pay to so-called natural language. I have frequently seen those who have no natural liking for children, try to flatter their parents by caressing them. The latter may be deceived; the little ones not. In such cases, a two-fold expression may be observed; the one form true, beyond the power of control, the other, strained and false. These few remarks on a much-embracing subject, must here suffice.

it

If all be true, that I have advanced, how comes it,

may be asked, that the main principles of so-called phrenology meet with so little. acknowledgment ; that anatomists and medical men generally, that psychologists, even of an 'objective reality' school,

Causes of the Opposition to Phrenology

65

do not allow them to have any scientific value ? Further, how comes it that believers in these principles are generally looked upon as dreamers, fools, or charlatans ? The causes of the opposition to phrenology are manifold. I will point to a few that appear to me most prominent.

Firstly. The mapping of the head into so many separate organs of various forms and sizes, now round, now oblong, &c., with positive boundary lines, has done much to discredit phrenology. But Dr. Gall, as already stated, is not answerable for this. He merely marked little circles on skulls indicating the parts he had observed to be prominent in unusual instances of predominant dispositions, talents, &c.

The vulgar notion, too, that the followers of Dr. Gall examine heads to find out little protuberances -'bumps,' as they are called in derision by small wits has assisted in throwing ridicule on the subject of their inquiry. But Dr. Gall's method of observing heads actually excluded attention to minor points of skull development. His words are: 'Jamais je n'ai prétendu distinguer des modifications peu prononcées des formes du crâne, ou des légères nuances du caractère.' 1

I have confined myself to calling attention to

1 Gall, 'Sur les Fonctions du Cerveau,' tom. iii. p. 41.

F

prominent forms of the head; to the different directions in which the brain hemispheres may be seen to be developed; to regions of the head, and some subdivisions or seats of particular faculties. And even in regard to these, I confess myself unable to mark out absolutely boundary lines. The knowledge which has been acquired of the seats of faculties can be said at present to be only estimative, approximative; similar to that of the medical practitioner, when he estimates the size of internal organs of the body which he can neither weigh nor measure. Anatomists in particular repudiate phrenology, because of the inability to distinguish separate organs in the hemispheres of the brain. But such an objection to the principle of localisation of mental faculties applies likewise, I repeat, to the nervous system in general. Although it is well known by experiments, reflex-actions, &c., that complexes of nerve-fibres running in the same sheaths subserve different purposes, yet, absolutely speaking, boundary lines of the different sets of nerves are not at present distinguishable. In respect, however, to the possibility of distinguishing anatomically separate organs in the brain hemispheres, a late discovery of a distinguished English physiologist is of the greatest importance. Dr. W. B. Richardson has discovered in a dried human brain that numerous small portions of the convolutions are separated from one another

Dr. W. B. Richardson on the Brain

67

by a delicate membrane (the pia mater), so that he can take them out and put them together again—as he expressed himself to me- like a Chinese puzzle' ! I have been favoured with the view of a slice from a dried brain-hemisphere, and the fact is as described. Dr. Richardson, further, has given his views of the brain in the following words: 'It appears to me as though the brain were not made up of portions of the same matter all united into one organism, but as though it were distinctly mapped out into insular divisions, each well separated from its neighbour, and having its own duties.'1

Secondly. Physiologists generally have uncritically accepted the metaphysical doctrines of mental philosophers. They have thus, so to speak, put themselves out of court as witnesses respecting the localisation of mental faculties in the brain of a character, as I have explained, so totally different to those of the philosophers. Moreover, as regards insight into the anatomy and functions of the brain, I will quote the words of a distinguished anatomist. Professor Aeby says: For the full understanding of the functions of the nerves of the peripheral system, the closely interlaced nets of the nerve-trunks often offer insurmountable difficulties, not to speak

1 'Memoir of Dr. Conolly,' by Sir James Clark, p. 71. In the sixth chapter of this valuable work, from which the above passage has been extracted, are many sound arguments in support of the principles of phrenology.