be adduced (?) at all, from the proposition next in order." The proposition here referred to being that size, cæteris paribus, is the measure of power. Until, consequently, that proposition comes regularly before us, no proof," he says, "can be offered, and of course no replication made. Were we, therefore," he continues, "to insist upon our logical rights there would be no controversy."

It is not true that the doctrine of distinct organs is a mere inference from the doctrine that size is the measure of power. It rests upon observation and can be demonstrated by attention to form alone even. But this whole objection arises from confounding a systematic presentation of certain conclusions with the mode of arriving at those conclusions. It is erected on the false presumption that phrenologists laid down one proposition, on that grounded another, and on that a third, so proceeding to the end. But we maintain that our fundamental principles are, on the contrary, generalizations of individual facts: therefore to the consideration of these the professor must of necessity resort. But independently of this, the circumstance of one proposition being laid dowr before another, by no means proves that the former must be demonstra ted without reference to the other; for propositions may be dependan on the same facts, and may be of equal importance, though one must of necessity be first in order. And again the objection shows ignorance or forgetfulness of the general mode of arranging systematic works. In investigation, we ascend from particulars to that which is general. In systematizing, the order is reversed, the concluding generalization, the crowning fact, being often the first proposition laid down, thus preceding all the subordinate propositions and particular cases on the truth of which its correctness is dependent. It is evident, therefore, that in whatever light we view the objection of Professor Smith, it is futile and unsound. He cannot, under this illogical cry about "logical rights," escape the necessity of investigation. Nor can he be allowed, what he seems to claim, the reputation of generosity, for neglecting to stop his argument at this fancy-wrought barrier of his own erection.

On page 98, the professor charges phrenologists with "assuming facts to be true without an attempt to prove them," and with making “reasoning premises and inferences to change places as occasion may require.” To prove this, he narrates a dispute which he had with somebody, from which, as we are informed, and as is usual in such cases, the narrator came off triumphantly. We leave him full possession of this triumph and proceed to notice the following other confirmation of his charge. "A patient," says he, "in a fit of sickness forgot the use of language. Now, says the phrenologist, the case is plain, the man's organ of Language was disordered. Here of course we have an assertion

66

deduced from the truth of phrenology, the hypothesis being taken for granted, and then made to do the duty of a premise." But," continues the professor, "when a reversal becomes convenient, we are gravely assured that an inability to employ words through some malady, proves the doctrine of distinct organs. In this way, what was before an inference, is now converted into an assumption, and in lieu of being the offspring, is made to stand in loco parentis."

This is very plausible but also very fallacious and erroneous. It is not true that phrenologists "assume" their facts; it is not true that they do not attempt to prove whatever they advance; it is not true that the doctrine of distinct organs is a hypothesis; it is not true that they take this doctrine for granted. It is true, however, that the professor founds an argument against phrenology on the assumption that phrenologists assume their facts; that he takes for granted that the phrenologists have taken for granted the truth of phrenology. So readily does he fall into the errors which he is charging upon others! Now if the professor will prove that the facts of phrenology are assumptions, and that its doctrines are hypotheses, then clearly the controversy will be at an end, and to continue the argument would be to batter the air after prostrating the fortress. The truth is that the phrenologists never applied the above explanation to forgetfulness of language until after they had established the existence of an organ of language. And having established the existence of such an organ, the above inference is plainly deduced not from the premise pointed out by the professor, but from a universal law of pathology, which his hostility to phrenology even will hardly induce him to controvert, the major proposition of the argument being that the disordered manifestation of a faculty is always indicative of the functional or organic derangement of the organ of that faculty. The minor proposition expresses the disordered manifestation of the faculty of language in a particular case, and the conclusion inevitably follows that in the case referred to, the organ of that faculty was deranged. Could Dr. Smith prove that no distinct portion of the brain constitutes the peculiar organ of the faculty of language, he would not indeed impair the efficacy of the above argument, but he would force the phrenologist to acknowledge that the brain as a whole was deranged and not a particular part. Here we are again at the very point of the controversy. Is there a peculiar portion of the brain which constitutes the organ of Language? We say this is a fact not only demonstrable but demonstrated. The professor denies this, but offers no proof beyond the above logical quibbles; but until he disproves our doctrine, his objection is a mere play of words. As to the "convenient reversal" of which he speaks, it is a

fiction of his own invention. The phrenologist has in every case proved the seats of the various organs by physiological observations, and pathological facts have been brought in merely as corroborative or cumulative proof; as such, we deem them to possess great weight and interest. They show beyond dispute that one faculty of the mind may be singly and solely deranged, a phenomenon which the phrenological doctrine clearly explains, but which the anti-phrenological notion renders absolutely mysterious and inexplicable. Nay, still farther; pathological cases often confirm in the most striking manner the correctness of the phrenologist as to the seat of the various organs. Let us take one instance bearing directly on the question in hand. Sir Robert Liston was a gentleman of great talents; he was once minister plenipotentiary to this country, and at another time to the Court of Russia; he spoke ten languages, knew four others, and was remarkable for amiability and courtesy until seven years before his death, when his mental manifestations commenced to undergo a marked change. He saw apparitions: long trains of Greeks, Turks, and others, each in appropriate costume, would pass before his eyes. At first he was amused, being aware of their unreal nature, but finally one vision became so terribly real that he never afterwards spoke of these visitations. He saw his wife, who had been dead some years, standing in the room, so life-like in appearance that he spoke to her; she walked towards the window, he followed, and it was not till his head and hands crashed against the glass, that he became aware of the illusion. Again, from being one of the most amiable and courteous, he became one of the most violent of men, and from being an admirable linguist, he became unable to use words. At his death, Dr. Abercrombie and Mr. Craig examined the brain, Mr. Combe being present. Over the organ of Wonder, the appearance of the dura-mater and skull indicated that chronic inflammation had existed. In the posterior lobe, where Combativeness is situated, an abscess was found, an inch in length and half an inch in breadth. An abscess was also discovered in the line of the fibres of the organ of Language. (Combe's lectures on phrenology, edited by Dr. Boardman, pp. 118, 214, Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal, Oct. 1836, Edinburgh Phrenological Journal, Oct. 1836, American Journal of Science and Arts, July 1840.) Will Professor Smith be kind enough to let us know his opinion of this and the numerous analagous cases to be found in the phrenological writings?

After considerably more erroneous assertion and fallacious reasoning, the readers progress through which is aptly characterized by Professor Smith himself as a "groping" in a "region of gloom," "at every step uncomfortably conscious of the obscurity by which we are surrounded,”

we arrive at a point of the controversy at which the author shows that he has had, during one interval at least, a just idea of the mode in which the phrenologists should be met, and that he himself is convinced of the inconclusiveness of all on which he has previously relied, and, as if cheered by the genial rays of truth which had thus fitfully visited him, he exclaims: "The region of gloom is past, the road before us is plain, the points to be reached obvious and essentially dependent on the testimony of our senses; for projections of the brain are visible, tangible, measurable. The prominent traits of character are also readily and certainly discernible. How far, consequently the latter corresponds. with the former, is a fact capable of the most easy and satisfactory proof, or that failing, phrenology may be safely and confidently pronounced a mere phantom of the imagination." (pp. 107.) For "projections" substitute "developements," and this quotation will correctly. express the test to which we wish our science to be subjected. And it recognizes, to the fullest extent, the correctness of the phrenological mode of investigation. "Which is the true alternative," adds the professor, "it is now our business to inquire." Gladly will we abide by whatever alternative may result from a faithful inquiry. Let us, therefore, pass in review, all the facts bearing on the subject presented by the professor from the commencement of the attack, that we may be enabled to decide their force understandingly.

Fact 1, (pp. 81.) "When perplexed by some puzzling problem, we experience uneasiness in the head, particularly, as I think, in its anterior part."

The consideration of a "problem," as such, is solely a work of the intellect, and the seat of the intellect being, according to our science, the "anterior" lobe, this fact is corroborative of phrenology.

Fact 2, (pp. 82.) "A young man lost a large portion of the frontal lobe by an accident. The wound healed, but the bone itself was not regenerated, so that a distinct osseous edge remained. In after life, when this person attempted close study, internal soreness and external inflammation took place and compelled him to desist."

"Study" is an operation of the intellect, and the seat of the intellectual organs being the "frontal" lobe, this fact also is directly corroborative of phrenology."

Fact 3, (pp. 93.) "The brain, its anterior part being in advance, acquires its full size at a very early period of life. Authors differ as to the exact date, which probably is not uniform, though not later than the seventh year."

Phrenologists maintain, as the result of numerous observations, that the brain very seldom attains its full size before the age of manhood.

The phrenological "authors," therefore, are not of the number to whom Professor Smith refers, yet he attempts not to give a reason for this exclusion. Surely he was bound to tell us why he considers the phrenological proposition false, and the non-phrenological one true. He has had numerous opportunities of deciding between them by actual observation of the brain itself. The subjects of all ages yearly presented in the dissecting room of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, have furnished him with ample means of weighing and measuring the brain, and of showing, if possible, most conclusively that the phrenologists are in the wrong. But he has chosen, on this and other occasions, with something, it seems to us, of credulity, to depend implicitly upon the sayings of "authors," when nature could so readily have been appealed to. It is evident from this and other parts of the "Select Discourses," that Meckel's Anatomy is the source of all Professor Smith's anatomical opinions. Let us turn, therefore, to Meckel. In volume ii. page 705, $1801, (Paris 1825) we find the following passage: "Jusqu'a l'epoque de l' entier developpement, l'encephale continue d'etre plus gros, en proportion du corps, qu'il nel'est dans la suite; car, entre six et cept ans suivant Wenzel, et meme de's la troisie me annee, selon Sommering, il a deja acquis le volume et la pesantour qu'il doit conserver pendant tout le reste de la vie." That is, between six and seven years, according to Wenzel, and at three years, according to Semmering, the brain acquires it full size and weight. Thus it is, then, the reader of the Select Discourses will quote Professor Smith as his authority for the assertion that the brain attains its full size at seven years of age. We turn to Smith and we find that he refers to Meckel; we turn to Meckel, and we ascertain that he speaks on the authority of Wenzel and Semmering, who differ enough to have put others on their guard and shown to them the necessity of farther observation. We turn to Wenzel and Sommering, and then learn the meagerness, the utter inadequacy of their induc tions of facts. Semmering, for instance, weighed the brain of a child and the brain of an adult; found them of about equal weight and forthwith concluded that the brain attains its full weight and size at two or three years of age! But, inasmuch as brains differ greatly in size and weight, there being idiots of adult age whose brains weigh no more than one and a half pounds, and there being men, such as Dupuytren and Cuvier, whose brains weigh four and a half pounds, or upwards, it is evident that even a child's brain of large size, might weigh as much as a small adult brain, and yet the proposition of the phrenologist be true, namely, that the brain increases in size till the age of manhood. Just suppose, if you can, reader, the head of Mr. Webster, twenty-five inches