That

experimentum crucis which will decide more satisfactorily than the most elaborate reasonings, the number and nature of those various simple organs, which, in the complicated machinery of the brain, forge and evolve our various thoughts, feelings, and emotions. That the greatest caution is necessary in observing the phenomena presented, as well as the precise portion of the cranial surface on contact with which those phenomena are produced, is of course admitted; and that imagination should have as little, and the most jealous reasoning as much as possible to do in drawing conclusions from the phenomena observed, is with equal readiness conceded. Still, after witnessing many, and performing some experiments on this subject (all of which tend to the same conclusion), I am led to believe with Mr Spencer Hall, that the number of the primitive cerebral functions is very considerably greater than phrenologists generally have been in the habit of imagining. this number is as large as Mr Hall considers it, I am certainly not prepared to admit ; not, however, from want of confidence in that gentleman's observations, but because I have not been privileged to witness all the experiments by which he has been led to his conclusions-and on a subject so mysterious and startling as this, it is prudent at least not to believe more than one's own opportunities have afforded the means of testing. If it be an error at all, it is, in matters of scientific research, erring on the right side, to believe too little rather than too much; though, in all probability, had my means of observing been as great as Mr Hall's, my belief might have increased in the same ratio. The object of this article is, however, not to speak of belief, but to detail (and that not in a dogmatical spirit) some few experiments which I have witnessed, and which certainly prove one of two things; viz. either that Mesmerism does not confirm Phrenology at all, or that, if it does, it establishes, in addition, the subdivision of most of our present organs. Take, for instance, that of Colour. I had the pleasure of seeing Mr Hall's experiments on one of his patients in Wolverhampton, and this not one of his co-travelling subjects (for these, however respectable themselves, are always unsatisfactory when they afford the only evidence adduced), but a very respectable gentleman from this immediate neighbourhood, whose character for trustworthiness was far better known to many of the spectators than to Mr Hall himself. On the organ of Colour being touched (combined, I think, with Language), he suddenly exclaimed, "It's black; all black;" but on the operator very slightly moving his finger, he said "No, it's blue;" and on the tip of his finger being again slightly moved, and the operator saying interrogatively, "Oh! it's blue,

is it?" he replied with a smile, "No; who ever heard talk of a blue rose? It's red, to be sure." So with a highly accomplished lady, with whom I was successful in inducing meşmeric sleep, and calling forth the cerebral manifestations; on touching the same organ, she exclaimed, "What a beautiful rose ! Oh! what a lovely red!" and on immediately moving the apex of the little finger which was in contact with the organ, she continued in the same breath,-" And what splendid green leaves!" Other similar cases might be adduced, but it is needless to multiply examples. Now, the only conclusion which the writer's Causality enables him to draw from these cases is this; that if the fact of the perception of colour being excited on touching the appropriate organ, establish the correctness of the localization of that organ, so it with equal force establishes the second view likewise,-viz., that particular portions of that hitherto-considered single organ, are engaged in the perception of single or individual colours. This idea, too, supposing it to be correct (which further investigation must determine), seems to explain a series of cases, quite inexplicable by Phrenology as at present generally received. I allude to those of individuals who can perhaps perceive and appreciate colours generally, but whose perception of some one particular shade (green, yellow, or other) is alone defective. It is well known that such cases are of frequent occurrence; and in discussing with the opponents in this neighbourhood the phrenological doctrine, that the fact of some persons being able to discriminate forms, but not tunesor forms and numbers, but not colours (as in Mr Milne's case, for example) was at variance with the idea of the brain being a single organ, and only explicable by supposing these distinct kinds of perception to be dependent on distinct organs, I have frequently been met by the anti-phrenologists with a reference to this class of cases; it having been argued by them that phrenologists should admit the little portion, designated the organ of Colour, to contain really a distinct organ for every colour, or else that their whole reasoning on the subject of distinct kinds of perception requiring distinct organs must fall to the ground. The former inference was considered by them a reductio ad absurdum; but if the idea suggested by the mesmeric excitation of this portion of the head prove correct, then not only do these cases not militate against Phrenology, but they may be rationally explained thereby; for if the perception of distinct colours be dependent upon distinct portions or fibres of that part of the cerebral mass called the organ of Colour, then the inability to perceive particular colours may be consequent upon a deficient development of some of those

particular fibres or subdivisions, while the others may be of average or even unusual capacity.

Alimentiveness may next be mentioned. On touching the lower portion usually assigned to this organ, the feeling of hunger is excited, and the patient calls for food, or imagines himself eating; but on moving the finger slightly upwards and forwards, hunger gives place to thirst, and instead of food, the patient earnestly desires to drink. It must be observed, further, that these manifestations do not vary, but appear to be uniform on touching the same parts in different persons; at least, in each of the four cases which I have had an opportunity of scrutinizing such has been the fact, and Mr Hall informs me that he has found it universally so.. If, then, the first fact, that, on touching the organ of Alimentiveness, its function is called into exercise, be considered a proof of the correctness of the function attributed to that portion of the brain, then, by parity of reasoning, the second fact, that two separate portions of that organ manifest two separate functions, is conclusive as to the view here contended for, viz. that Alimentiveness in reality includes two organs, the one bearing reference to meat and the other to drink. If it prove anything, it proves both.

Once again, Philoprogenitiveness may be adduced. On touching, during mesmeric sleep, the lower portion of the space marked "No 2," the patients have in every case that I have yet witnessed, manifested Philoprogenitiveness properly so called; but on raising the finger slightly, instead of fondling or nursing imaginary children (as in the former manifestations), it has been obvious that some favourite animals-dogs, cats, or some others have been the objects engaging their attention and affections. Here again, then, if any importance whatever be attached to mesmeric excitation, the only inference which we are justified in drawing seems to be, that these two portions of brain have separate functions, the one bearing reference to children, and the other to pet animals, &c. Of course, further experiments are necessary, either to confirm or overthrow these discoveries; but should they be established, which I have no reason to doubt, a considerable amplification of the organs already recognised by phrenologists must be the result.

In connexion with this supposed "pet organ," I may mention, in confirmation, an interesting non-mesmeric fact which came under my own observation. At a dinner party in this neighbourhood, the subjects of Phrenology and Mesmerism being introduced, a Swedish gentleman who happened to be present, and of whom I knew nothing, requested me to feel

66

a prominence at the back of his head. This I did; and finding that the upper portion of Philoprogenitiveness was enormously developed, while the lower part was not so, informed him of the fact, adding that though the protuberance was in the region of Philoprogenitiveness, yet if there were any truth in the revelations of Phreno-mesmerism, the function would shew itself in the love of pets, rather than in any remarkable attachment to children. He seemed astonished, and observed that he regretted to have to acknowledge that I was correct; he regretted it, because he detested Phrenology, but he was bound in honour to admit the correctness of the predication." The love of pets in this gentleman, as I subsequently learned, amounts almost to a monomania; for in addition to dogs, cats, &c., he has actually a collection of pet mice and spiders which he daily feeds with his own hands. He is not, however, remarkable for his attachment to children. This, being an isolated case, is not expected to be invested with very much importance; but it is related with the hope that it may be taken for just what it is worth, and that it may be the means of inducing other phrenologists to multiply and record their observations on the subject.

Other instances of mesmeric excitation suggesting the subdivision of the present organs, might be adduced (such, for instance, as Ideality, on touching one portion of which the patient is led to expatiate in glowing terms on the beauties of some piece of poetry or literary composition, while another portion directs the channel of thought to the loveliness of the earth, and a third to the glories of the sky); but these would only increase the prolixity of this communication, and enough has been already stated to establish what is here advocated; viz. that if Mesmerism confirm Phrenology at all, it establishes these subdivisions of the present organs as satisfactorily as it does the general functions of those organs themselves; and that, if phrenologists act consistently, they must either dispense with the evidence of Mesmerism in toto, or admit its validity in both cases. In penning this article, I am not writing as the apologist of Mr Hall, for I repeat that, not having seen all that gentleman's cases, I am not prepared to go to the same extent as himself, though all who have witnessed any of his experiments, must be convinced of his patience in investigation, his zeal, and his trustworthiness. Perhaps I may be permitted once again to impress investigators with a sense of the paramount importance of extreme caution and precision in ascertaining the parts of the head touched, and recording the manifestations thereby educed; as well as the propriety of interchanging notes with other obser

vers (or societies where these exist), in order that all who feel sufficiently interested to investigate the subject, may thus have opportunities of repeating and verifying any experiments that may be made. It may also be well, as soon as a sufficient number of careful observations have been recorded, to fill up charts, marking the relative situations of the parts on touching which certain manifestations have been caused, for the guidance of other investigators in ascertaining how far these results are uniform or the reverse.

It cannot be denied, that this almost unlimited multiplication of the cerebral organs will most materially increase the difficulties in the way of the practical application of Phrenology (a department already beset with difficulties enough); and on this account alone, if on no other, extreme jealousy should be exercised ere new organs be admitted into our category; but still the phrenologist, of all others (in accordance with his motto, "Res, non verba quæso," and whose aim it should be to be an honest votary of truth, an observer of facts, and not the framer of a system in accordance with preconceived views), should be the last to shun or evade tangible evidence, from a morbid fear of consequences. The difficulty, however, may be in some measure avoided, by predicating only of groups, rather than of the separate and small individual organs, into which it seems probable that our present ones must be divided.

I would close these remarks with one or two observations in reference to "The Zoist." On seeing the announcement of that publication, and the high auspices under which it made its appearance, and particularly on reading its own confession in its first article (No 1, p. 17), that "the geography of cerebral physiology, except a few additions, was accomplished by Gall, but the exploration of the several cerebral divisions, that which we would designate cerebral analysis, must be carried out by ourselves," I was delighted with the expectation that the conductors of that journal would soon favour us (in addition to the deeply interesting cases illustrating the curative effects of Mesmerism which have appeared in its pages) with their views and experiments on the aforesaid subject of "the exploration of the several cerebral divisions." Though, however, the four chief contributors to the Zoist, Drs Elliotson and Engledue, with Messrs Prideaux and Atkinson, are well known to be highly talented and enthusiastic "cerebral physiologists" and mesmerists, still we at present hear of none of their views or experiments in this deeply interesting subject, save those of Mr Atkinson on the cerebellum; but on the contrary, it has assumed a strangely querulous tone (a