good biologist in Europe. If Phrenology is the Physiology of the nervous system, it must give up Gall's approximative method for a method more rigorously scientific; and as Auguste Comte justly remarks, phrenologists, before they can take rank among men of science, must "reprendre, par une série derecte de travaux anatomiques, l'analyse fondamentale de l'appareil cérébral, en faisant provisoirement abstraction de toute idée de fonctions."

One of the fundamental questions which must be answered by this anatomical analysis, is that which no phrenologist condescends to ask, namely, Are the convolutions the seat of intelligence? in other words, Is the gray vesicular matter which forms the surface of the brain, the sole and specific seat of those changes on which all mental phenomena depend? This is a question which Cranioscopy may ignore, since the facts on which Cranioscopy is founded are little if at all affected by it. To Phrenology the question is initial, all-important; because if the "Physiology of the nervous system" should turn out defective in its basis, the whole scaffolding will have to be erected anew. I put the question in two forms, because although it is commonly said that the convolutions of the brain form the organs, yet as many animals are altogether without convolutions, the vesicular surface, whether convoluted or not, must be understood as the seat of mental changes; the convolutions being only a mode of increasing the surface.

As the space at my disposal is inadequate to any exhaustive. discussion of this important question, the reader will be satisfied with a brief indication of the doubt which Physiology forces me to express respecting the convolutions as the specific seat of mental manifestations. I cannot reconcile the current opinion on that subject with anatomical and zoological facts. I believe that the vesicular matter which constitutes the convolutions, is only one factor in the sum; it would, however, lead me too far to enter on the discussion, which might be objected to as at present only hypothetical.

*Cours de Philosophie Positive, iii. 821. Comte is much more favorable to Gall than I am, yet see his remarks on the multiplication of the faculties, p. 828 sq.

Quitting all hypothetical considerations for the less questionable evidence of facts, I find M. Baillarger*-who invented a new method of measuring the surfaces of brains, by dissecting out all the white substance from their interior, and then unfolding the exterior, and taking a cast of it-declaring from his measurements that it is far from true that in general the intelligence of different animals is in direct proportion to their respective extents of cerebral surface. If their absolute extents of surface

be taken, the rule is manifestly untrue in many instances; and it is not 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 proportion to its volume than that of many inferior mammalia: its volume is two and a half times as great in proportion to its surface, as it is in the rabbit, for example.

Nor is this all. The researches of M. Camille Darestet estab lish beyond dispute that the number and depth of the convolu tions bear no direct relation to the development of intelligence; whereas they do bear a direct relation to the size of the animal; so that, given the size of the animal in any genus, he can predict the degree of convoluted development; or given the convolutions, he can predict the size: "toutes les espèces à cerveau lisse ont une petite taille; toutes les espèces à circonvolutions nombreuses et compliquées sont, au contraire, de gran detaille." Further, I am informed by Professor Owen that the 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 accordance with the present state of our knowledge of the nervous system as to require complete revision.

Phrenology has another important point to determine, namely, the relation of the size of the brain to mental power. Is the size of the brain to be taken absolutely, and its functional activity in

* Gazette Médicale, 19 April, 1845. Paget: Report on the Progress of Anatomy, in British and Foreign Med. Rev. July, 1846.

↑ Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 3a série, xvii. 30, and 4e série, i. 78.

the purely mental direction to be measured by its absolute bulk? A galvanic battery of fifty plates is five times as powerful as a battery of ten plates; a cord of twenty threads is five times as strong as a cord of four threads, other things equal; and, in like manner, we should expect that a brain of fifty ounces would be twice as powerful as one of twenty-five ounces (the limits are really greater than these). Nevertheless, we find no such absolute and constant relation between size and mental power as would justify the phrenological position; the weight of the human brain being about three pounds; the weight of the whale's brain being five pounds; the weight of the elephant's between eight and ten pounds. If therefore the function of the brain be solely or mainly that of mental manifestation, and if size be the measure of power, the whale and the elephant ought to surpass man, as a Newton surpasses an idiot. If on the contrary the brain, as a nervous centre, has other functions besides that of mental manifestation, these discrepancies can be explained, although Phrenology must take these other functions into account.*

It is true that phrenologists have been aware of these discrepancies; and, unable to admit the whale and elephant as superior to man, they have met the objection by saying the size must be estimated relatively, not absolutely. Compared with the weight of his body, the brain of man is certainly heavier than the brains of most animals, including the whale and the elephant; and this fact seems to restore Phrenology to its cheerfulness on the subject; but the fact does not hold good of monkeys, the smaller apes, many species of birds, and some rodents. This is the dilemma: either the ratio of mental power depends on the absolute size of the brain, and in this case the elephant will be thrice as intelligent as man; or it depends on the relative size of the brain compared with the body, and in this case man will be less intelligent than a monkey or a rat, although more intelligent than

I have sketched the relations of the brain to the body in the paper before referred to, on Dwarfs and Giants. See Frazer's Mag., Sept. 1856, P. 289.

the elephant. Moreover, if relative size is the basis taken, phrenologists would be bound to compare in each case the weight of the brain with the weight of the body, before they could establish a conclusion; and this is obviously impracticable. I have stated the dilemma; but having stated it, I will add that although phrenologists attach importance to questions of weight of the brain, there seems to me a great fallacy involved in such estimates. Intelligence is not to be measured by the balance. Weight is no index of cerebral activity, nor of the special directions of the activity.

Enough has been said to show that Phrenology, so far from at present being the only true physiological explanation of the nervous system, is in so chaotic and unstable a position with respect to its basis, as to need thorough revision; and until some phrenologist shall arise who, following up the impulsion given by Gall, can once more place the doctrine on a level with the science of the age, all men of science must be expected to slight the pretensions of Phrenology as a psychological system, whatever it may hereafter become. That a new Gall will some day arise I have little doubt, for I am convinced that Psychology must be established on a physiological basis. Meanwhile, for the purposes of this History, it suffices to have indicated the nature of Gall's innovation, and the course of inquiry he opened. As a psychological classification, the one now adopted in Phrenology can only be regarded in the light of a tentative sketch; superior indeed to those which preceded it, but one which 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 Method. 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 variously directed, and all ended in skepticism and dissatisfaction, because a true psychological Method did not guide them. The history of the tentatives towards a true Method has been sketched in various chapters of this volume, and with Gall that Method may be said to have finally settled its fundamental principles.

ELEVENTH EPOCH.

PHILOSOPHY FINALLY RELINQUISHING ITS PLACE IN FAVOR OF POSITIVE SCIENCE.

CHAPTER I.

ECLECTICISM.

"Nous ne croyons pas les choses parce qu'elles sont vraies," says Pascal, "mais nous les croyons vraies parce que nous les aimons." This is one ever-present obstacle to the progress of mankind. We do not love truth because it is true, but because it seems to countenance other opinions which we believe necessary to our well-being. Only a few philosophic minds have strength enough to detach their eyes from consequences, and concentrate all their attention on Truth; and these few can only do so in virtue of their steadfast conviction that Truth can never be really injurious, whatever phantoms apprehensive ignorance may conjure up around it.

The reaction against the Philosophy of the eighteenth century was not a reaction against a doctrine proved to be incompetent, but against a doctrine believed to be the source of frightful immorality. The reaction was vigorous because it was animated by the horror which agitated Europe at the hideous excesses of the French Revolution. Associated in men's minds with the saturnalia of the Terror, the philosophical opinions of Condillac, Diderot, and Cabanis were held responsible for the crimes of the Convention; and what might be true in those opinions was flung aside with what was false, without discrimination, without

L