The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1901-10-20

-"
In hastily I framing system whoee
CORRECTNESS did not admit OF proof ithe
system was founded by Spurzheim. not
by GALL; but out Of IL arose discussions
on the different faculties Of the body and
MIND which must nave made the phreno-
logical s~ocietiee In London overflow with
interesting debates. They discussed the
subject OF language In a manner whicn
had never before been attempted. ss well
as coordination. time, the muscular sense
the feeling OF resistance. and kindred SUD
jects. Aphasia. indeed. secmed clearly
Understood. and language was located by
them In the region where psychologists
are now agreed To place II. IL phreno'o-
gists had not stated 40 strongly their fe-
lief In the existence Of se.arate organs
In the brain. but had used their system
merely as an hypothesis, no objection
could nave been urged against II. Tor u
developed. for the first time, a numl'r of
theories as to the nature OF the different
facultc. of the mind. The TRANSACTIONS
and reports uf the old chronological so
cietiss give accounts Of debates on SUB
ject- Of the deepest interest, such az can
nowhere 10 found In the records OF other
learned societiee.- Sir Samuel Wlk- also
recalls that the Observation-Disclosures. a class
Of practitioners produced by a fusion OF
phrcnologists with ~nesmerists. used both
to teach and ~practice what the most adj
vanced psychologists are now supposed
90 do In their laboratories, when they es-
cite certain cunvolu,ions Of the brain by
the galvanic current.
II se,m~ worth while 10 hear some other
Authoritative testimony on the same subject.
SIR William Turner. professor Of anatomy
In Edinburgh University. writing In 1886
observes In Tho Convolutions Of the Human
Cercbrum. geographically Considered,
that tho precise morphological inve-tiga-
lions Of tho las, few wears into tho cerebral
cnnvulutions have led to the revival IN
Paris Of discussions in which the doctrine
nf Gall and his disciples that the brain
i not one organ. but consists OF many
organs has been supported by new argu-
ments. and the opinion has been expressed
that the primary oonvolutions, at least.
are both mo1rholngically aud physiologi-
cally distinct organs" Sir Frederick Bate
man tes, in"s in his book 'Aphasia. or Loss
Of speech London. ism. that in spit"
81 all that has been said against Gall and
all TINT has been written In depreciation
Of his IaborS. beyond all doubt his re-
zearche- gave an impulse Ia the cerebral
localization 81 our faculties, the effect
~ which il especially visible In our own
day. and | lonk upon his work as a vas
s~tnrchousc Of knowledge, and n an i'm
perishahlc monument 10 III" genius and
industry 81 ono Of tho greatest philoso-
phcrs 81 tho present age.
We quote. finally. the opinion expressed
hv Havrlnck Fills In The Criminal, Lon
don. iSsp Gal thrust aside forever the
credulous fancies OF tho physiognomis's;
and he has been described, not altogether
without reason. as the founder Of the modern
scicnce 81 criminal a~nthropoiogy. He was
c-rtainly it, most brilliant pioneer.
Gall studded the brain. solght TO dtfercn-
tiate the functions 81 It's various parts.
and the effects OF its varying develop
mrnt on the skull Havelock Fills goes on
10 recall that for Gall the varying de-
velnpman' ~ the brain was the Ca,I-e OF
the divergent mental and moral qualities
Of the individual he was firmly c~onvlnc~-d
that all the facts 81 psychical life arr rooted
in the physical organization: I've wished 10
write the natural history 81 every primitive,
moral. and intellectual force, in health a.
| well az In disease. To the hes, Of his ability
he carried out his programme In detail.
! hv an uncrasing study ~ all the varieties
81 the brain and Of tho living head that he
| could find he pursued his studies through
ont Europe. In lunatic asylum- and IN
| prisons. - well as among the ordinary
population. and he forcsaw the extent ~
the applications Of the science he was oI'n-
ing up TO medicine and to law, TO mortality
and a. education While his work extended
far lryond the borders Of what "" should
now call criminal nuthropology, he de-
voted much attention to the problems 81
the criminal organization. and even To is
varieties. many - his observations Rc-
cording well with the results of r"Cent in-
Vestigations.- FlliS recognizes that more
than this. Gall clearly advocated "A method
~ dealing with the criminal which II now
rightly regarded as the only right and rca-
sonahle method. There can LIS no guess
ton Call said. OF culpability or OF Justice
in tho severe sen@e: the question II OF the
necs.ssity of society preventing crime.
The measure Of culpability and the measure
Of punishment cannot 10 determined by a
study ~ The illegal act. but only by n study
of tho individual committing it In hls
great work. les Fonciions du CsrreaH,
Paris. 1922. Call has summed up his con-
illusions