extended sense, as implying the aggregate faculties of man, both moral and intellectual.

I will not here insist on the evidence of the intellectual powers of brutes, as deducible from the effects of what we call instinct; because in all those actions which are the result of instinct, animals appear to be guided by a natural and irresistible impulse from within, which leads them to seek or to avoid that which will be either useful or injurious to them; and enables them to perform the most complicated acts, as the building of a nest or the construction of a comb, though they may never even have seen the same acts performed by other individuals of their species. I would rather insist on that evidence of their intellectual powers, which is derived from their conduct, when, in consequence of having been removed from their natural sphere of action, they are impelled by external and accidental circumstances. Thus the wariness of old animals in avoiding the pursuit or arts of man, and the sagacity with which a practised hound will cut off an angle in order to shorten his distance, may be considered as proofs of a considerable degree of intellectual rather than of instinctive prudence in brutes.

The playfulness of the young of most quadrupeds, often indeed observable in the adult animal also, may be regarded as no obscure proof of the exercise of the intellectual faculty which we call imagination; for that playfulness almost always consists in the representation of mutual hostility, though the real disposition at the same time is any thing but hostile. The dog for instance, under such circumstances, snarls and bites, but with evident intention not to hurt.

Of the existence of moral feelings in brutes, there is still more decided proof than of the existence of intellect. Thus the expression of joy in a dog at sight of his master is not to be mistaken, and the expression of fear in a horse at the sound of the whip is equally unequivocal in its character. Again, animals become attached not only to individuals of their own

species, but to individuals of even a different order or class: and they evidently feel regret upon separation from these their companions.

On the supposition that the brain is the organ of the intellectual powers, physiologists have been led to compare the proportions of the whole and of its several regions in man and brutes; in order to arrive at a knowledge of such facts as might serve for a basis for ascertaining which are the parts essential to its action as such an organ. It has been supposed by some that the intellectual faculties may be in proportion to the absolute size of the brain; such an opinion being grounded on the fact, that the human brain is larger than that of the horse or ox. But on the other hand, the brain of the whale or of the elephant taken in its whole mass is larger than that of man; though the intelligence even of the elephant bears no proportion to that of the human mind. Again, the brain of the monkey or of the dog is smaller than that of the ox or the ass; yet with respect to their intellectual faculties the former approximate much more closely to man than the latter. Neither do the dispositions or qualities of animals appear to be connected with the absolute size of their brain for animals most different and even opposite in disposition may be ranged in the same class with reference to the size of this organ; the tiger and the deer, for instance, among quadrupeds; and among birds, the hawk and the pigeon.

It would appear probable from some instances, that the proportional size of the brain with reference to the size of the body would give a more uniform result. Thus a crocodile twelve feet in length, a serpent eighteen feet in length, and a turtle that weighs from three hundred to five hundred pounds, have not any of them a quantity of substance in their brain equal to half an ounce; and the slight degree of intellectual power manifested by these animals corresponds with such a proportion. But on examination it appears that the proportional size of the brain is

not a more certain criterion than the absolute size. The brain of the elephant, for instance, is smaller in proportion to its body than that of any other quadruped: and yet what quadruped exceeds the elephant in sagacity and, in comparing many of the inferior animals with man in this respect, it is found that not only do different genera of the same order differ very widely from each other in the proportion of their brain to their body, as the bat and the fox; but that the proportion is sometimes inversely as the degree of intellect of the animal: thus, as far as we are capable of judging, the intellect of the fox is infinitely greater than that of the bat, and yet the brain of the former, proportionally to its body, is only one half the size of the latter. Occasionally 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 intellect 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.

SECTION III.

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

Ir 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 instrument 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, sentiments, and propensities of each individual."

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 shows 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 voluntary 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