the disproportion is still greater in different species of the same genus, and even in different varieties of the same species: thus in some dogs the brain compared with the body is as one to fifty, while in others it is as one to three hundred.

Again, it appears that the brain of some of the genera of the lowest orders in a class is proportionally larger than that of some of the genera of the highest orders. Thus, in the mammalia, the brain of the dolphin, which animal is in the lowest order of that class, is in proportion to its body four times as large as the brain of the fox, which is an animal of one of the highest orders. And the brain of the mouse and of the mole are nearly, if not quite as large, in proportion to their body, as that of man. And the same circumstance occurs even in the second class, or birds; for the brain of the sparrow is in proportion to the body as large as, nay even larger, than that of man.

Lastly, for it is unnecessary, and would be tedious, to enter further into the detail of this part of the subject, there does not appear to be any connexion between the degree of intellectual faculties and the mutual proportions of the several constituent parts of the brain; or between the degree of the intellectual faculties and the mutual proportions of the brain and nerves. So that it appears, from a review of what has been advanced, that no criterion of the degree of in

tellect is found in the absolute size of the brain; nor in its relative size, as compared with that of the body of the individual; nor in the relative size of its constituent parts, or of the whole of it, to the nerves.

SECT. III.

Indications of natural Talent and Disposition deducible from the Structure of the Brain.

If the entire history of the brain were a primary object in this treatise, it would be right here to investigate in detail the observations and theory of Dr. Gall respecting this organ: but on the present occasion it will be unnecessary to refer to that theory further than may be required by the course of the argument.

The simple enunciation of Dr. Gall's theory is this, that “the brain in general is the instru"ment by which the intellectual faculties, and "the moral sentiments and propensities, are "manifested; particular parts of it being the organs of those several faculties, sentiments, “and propensities: and that according to the "state of these organs will be the faculties, sen"timents, and propensities of each individual."

66

To those who have objected to this theory, that it leads towards the doctrines of fatalism, and the material nature of the soul, it has been answered; first, that as, according to the theory, no individual, who is endued with intellect, is

deficient in the organs of those moral sentiments, which, if cultivated, will be sufficient to counteract whatever bad propensities he may have, the theory cannot consistently be accused of inculcating the doctrine of fatalism: and secondly, that without inquiring what the soul is, or in what manner it is united to the body in this life, which Dr. Gall considers as questions not only beyond the comprehension of human reason, but totally unconnected with his inquiries, the theory merely investigates the material conditions of that part of the body by which the soul is affirmed to manifest itself to our observation.

It has been already stated that, in exposing to view the lower surface of the brain, several pairs of nerves are observable which may be traced to the organs of sense and some other parts and it is admitted by many anatomists of acknowledged accuracy, that, of all these pairs, not one, excepting the olfactory and optic, is derived from the great mass of the brain called its hemispheres: but Dr. Gall shews it to be highly probable in fact, as it evidently is in reasoning, that neither the olfactory nor the optic nerves are derived from the hemispheres: whence it would appear that, with the doubtful exception of the nerves of smell and sight, not a single nerve of the whole body is derived from the great mass of the brain: for the organs of the other senses, and all the muscles of volun

tary motion, together with the whole assemblage of the organs of digestion, and the heart, and the lungs, are evidently supplied from other

sources.

Either then the great mass of the brain is allotted in a most anomalous disproportion to the two senses of smell and sight, which in many animals are comparatively weak; or, if it do not supply the nerves of sight and smell, there is no part of the body which it does apparently supply with nerves: and then the conclusion presses upon us with peculiar force, that the brain is exclusively the instrument of the immaterial part of our present existence.

It appears from Dr. Gall's own account, that he was originally led to this peculiar train of thought by observing the difference of talents and character in his own brothers, and in other children with whom he happened to associate; some of whom, though under perfectly similar circumstances of education with the rest, were much quicker in apprehending what was taught them and further, by observing in different individuals of the same species of animals, as dogs, that some were fierce, some mild: again, that in birds of the same species some continued to sing their own notes only, while others would listen to, and imitate, artificial music and with reference to the last mentioned instance particularly, he argued that the difference could not

arise from the greater or less degree of perfection in the organ of hearing, for it is the same in both; but must be looked for in the brain, to which the organ of hearing conveys sounds; and in which, and not in the ear itself, they are perceived. There are moreover numerous instances which shew that the sense of hearing is by no means in proportion to the degree of perfection in the construction of the ear. Thus, the dog hears with indifference the sweetest melody: and yet the construction of his ear approximates more to that of man than the construction of the ear of even the most musical birds. And on this point Dr. Gall asks, if the organ of hearing determine the power of singing, why should the female bird be mute, seeing that in this part of its bodily construction it differs not from the male? It is equally observable that in men the talent for music is not in proportion to any superiority in the organ of hearing; in the construction of which indeed there is little if any apparent difference between any two individuals.

Partial insanity and partial idiotcy are among the circumstances which Dr. Gall considers as favouring his theory. The frequency of the former must be a fact well known to all: the latter is not uncommon; and even persons of considerable intelligence occasionally exhibit very obscure traces of this or that particular faculty.