no symptoms referrible to the brain, though, on dissection, effusion of fluid and other morbid appearances were found in the brain or membranes.- Cerebral diseases,' says M. Rostan, (Med. Clin. ii. 354.) may go on without there existing any symptoms to characterise them. At all times the occurrence of latent diseases has been acknowledged; there exist fewer of them at present than formerly; our means of investigation have been multiplied to such a degree, that many diseases which would formerly have been overlooked, are, in our days, easily recognised. Nevertheless, there are still affections of organs which we are surprised to meet with after death, and which have not produced during life any sign that could have revealed their existence. This point of pathology is truly very obscure, and almost inexplicable. It is very certain that these things happen when the affection has advanced slowly, and has destroyed the organ slowly; it is very certain also that a lesion of very limited extent, that has come on rapidly, gives rise to well-marked phenomena: but this does not alter the fact that, in the first case, an organ which is destroyed [injured?] continues its functions; and that, in the second, an organ almost unchanged ceases from its functions. How can the functions still go on in the first case? how do they stop in the second? It is therefore very difficult, not to say impossible, to recognise diseases when they are truly latent; and that there are such is proved by experience.'-The secreting glands seem to be capable of undergoing a very great degree of organic change without their secretion being put a stop to, or even sensibly disturbed; so that unless some other symptoms should happen to indicate the affection that exists, it will not be manifested by any deficient exercise of the proper function of the organ." Chardel mentions that observation convinced him that frequently even the most considerable diseases of the liver occasion no impediment to the secretion of bile. He makes a similar remark on the kidneys, "than which," says the writer of the article, "there is perhaps no organ of the body in which a greater extent of structural alteration may take place, without affecting, in a very marked degree, the exercise of its function." So, also, of the bladder."Fifth, Some other organ or part may supply the. place of that which, by a change of structure, has, in whole or in part, been rendered incapable of exercising its function: this is especially the case with those glandular organs which are double." When the functions of one kidney, for instance, are deranged or destroyed, the other may be left to the more vigorous performance of its duty; "a circumstance," as Mr. Howship remarks, "most happily calculated to guard the constitution from the ill effects of a disease, the complete establish

ment of which is almost invariably fatal." Here the writer of the article puts the question, "May we, in this point of view, consider the brain, or any portion of it, as a double organ; that is to say, may we believe that the corresponding portions of its two hemispheres co-operate in the exercise of a common function, and that this function will continue to be performed without any sensible or considerable impairment, though the part concerned in its exercise is injured or diseased on one side, provided the corresponding part of the opposite hemisphere remains sound?" On page 465. of the same volume of the Encyclopædia, Dr. Roget scouts the recourse had by Dr. Spurzheim (in answering objections to phrenology drawn from cases of cerebral injury) to the duplicity of the organs-"a principle," says Dr. R., "of very dubious application, on a subject of so much uncertainty as the physiology of the brain." The principle, nevertheless, appears from the facts already mentioned to be very strongly supported by analogy; and the writer from whose article I am now quoting seems to take a different view from that of his collaborateur, so, at least, we may infer from his quoting, in answer to his own question, two passages from eminent French authors, who look upon the principle as the reverse of " dubious." M. Bouillaud, (Traité de l'Encephalite, p. 263. 1825,) in speaking of the lesions of the intellectual functions which occur in encephalitis, or inflammation of the brain, decidedly adopts this idea. "When one of the hemispheres only," says he, "is diseased, either in whole or in part, the phenomena purely intellectual continue entire. I have adduced a great number of observations in support of this fact. The slightest reflection, indeed, might have enabled us to anticipate this result. It is obvious that the brain, the organ of the intellectual faculties, being composed of two halves, which are symmetrical and perfectly similar, each of them is equivalent, in what regards the mechanism of intelligence, to the two combined." And M. Lallemand had previously expressed his belief (Rech. Anat. Pathol. sur l'Encephale, 1820, i. 435.) "that when the sound hemisphere of the brain is not compressed by the one which is diseased, it will continue to perform its functions in respect of intelligence, as in respect of voluntary motion and sensibility; that the patient will continue to think with a half of his brain, as he continues to see with one eye, and to hear with one ear." Bouillaud, in the above quotation, goes farther than Gall and Spurzheim, who, although they maintain that one hemisphere may carry on the functions, do not venture to say that each is equivalent in power to the two combined.

I conclude this desultory communication with remarking

that in the article on Dr. Gall (Vol. X. p. 296.) there are two inaccuracies, probably derived from a French authority. He is named John Joseph Gall, instead of Francis Joseph; and of his and Spurzheim's Anatomie et Physiologie du Système Nerveux it is said, that "there only appeared a volume and a half." The fact is, that after the publication of the volume and a half by the two authors jointly, the work was completed by Dr. Gall alone, in four volumes, the last of which appeared in 1819. I am, &c.

ROBERT Cox.

EDINBURGH, March, 1840.

IV. Notes of Mr. Barber's Visit to the Exeter Institution for the Deaf and Dumb. (An Extract from the Journal of the Deaf and Dumb Society.)

Mr.

THE weather is inconstant. The sun has been sometimes glittering over the gloomy landscape. The winter is past. To-morrow the first month of spring commences. Mr. Barber and his son, and other gentlemen and ladies, visited us. Barber examined some of our heads. We did not know the meaning of it. Mr. Barber examined Coyle's head, and spoke to Mr. Gordon. Mr. Gordon then asked us who had the greatest imagination among the boys. They wrote on the tablet "Hugh Coyle." Mr. Gordon then signed to us that Mr. Barber discovered that Hugh Coyle had a large imagination by the examination of his head. We wondered. Mr. Barber looked at Facey. Mr. Gordon did not sign about his conversation with Mr. Barber, but asked what was Facey most fond of as a study. We wrote "geography and painting." Mr. Gordon signed Mr. Barber said so before you wrote. But we did not know he said so. We wonder much. Mr. Barber wrote, "You think me a conjurer." Mr. Barber told us that Tom has a beautiful head, and many fine and noble qualities. That is true. Tom is pure in his thoughts and signs. He said that Tom loved to mimic or imitate. That is right, because Tom is always drawing funny faces of us, and he signs cheerfully and prettily about many things, and he imitates all people's manners to make us laugh; but he is not rude or vulgar in his signs, but is very pleasing, and we love him. Mr. Barber said, Engraving is fitted to the ability of Aubin. That is right. Aubin is fond of drawing ships and

outlines of form, and he is very clever to copy writing or drawing. Mr. Barber said Edwards is the lover of approbabation, and he is fond of being admired, and he is amiable and talented. That is true. Mr. Barber looked at Sulby, and said, Sulby is always orderly and careful of his things. That is true; because Sulby's box is always neat, and he is vexed if boys disorder his desk. Mr. Barber said Harris is "benevolent." That is true. Harris is generous; he always unselfishly gives away his things to his favourite companions. His countenance looks open and enchanting. Mr. Barber examined George Cooke's head, and spoke to Mr. Gordon. Mr. Gordon asked us what sort of employment does Cooke like? George Cooke signed, "he liked using different tools," and he wrote, "He is fond of making pretty things, and he can make them cleverly." Mr. Gordon signed, "Mr. Barber said all this before you wrote." We signed to Mr. Gordon, "How does Mr. Barber know our characters? He is strange to us, and he is strange to you." Mr. Gordon spoke to Mr. Barber, and they smiled at us. Mr. Barber looked at Perry, and spoke to Mr. Gordon and the ladies and gentlemen, and Mr. Gordon asked us to tell Perry's character, and we wrote "cunning." Mr. Gordon signed Mr. Barber said Perry was cunning, scheming, and clever. We were surprised: Mr. Barber is true. Perry is very cunning. I will write about Perry's cunning. He dislikes gymnastics, and he said he could not see the exercises because his eyes were dim, but he has good eyes and quick; he said he wanted new spectacles, and Mr. Gordon gave him new spectacles: he was pleased; but he became cunning again, and said his trowsers were disagreeable when he marched, and he must have new breeches. The tayloress has measured him for new knee breeches, like old men's breeches. We laugh much at Perry's cunning and clever signs. Mr. Barber asked, "What is Attention?" "Is Attention a faculty of the mind or the modification of a faculty?" " I give attention to the forms of beauty because I wish to be an artist. My attention is then ardent, and I look into the changes of form, and I put forms together to make a beautiful imagination. Again, I give attention to the history of man, seek attentively for the motives of their actions, and I wish to make maxims; but in attention to history and in attention to my painting I have not equal pleasure, because I think of my livelihood when I give attention to my painting, but I think only of knowledge when I give my attention to history." (R. Facey.) "I think of a simile to explain Attention. I look at the master in a manufactory. He walks through the rooms and gives orders to his men; he directs their powers and abili

ties to their proper work. I think of my mind. It has Judgment, Reason, Hope, Fear, &c. Does Attention, like the master in a shop, bind my reason to its objects? Does Attention tell my judgment to weigh and decide? No, sir. It is not like that, because hope has its own world and fear its own world, and attention is different in hoping and fearing. I am not clever to write much about this as the metaphysician, but I think feebly about it, because I have not thought about it." (H. Coyle). Mr. Barber next asked, "What is Memory?" "Memory is an attribute of all the faculties of my mind. I remember the actions of my past years. I played, I idled, I looked in sadness on the world when I was ignorant. Memory of my ignorance is painful. I change my thoughts. I think of my progress in knowledge, and I count the subjects of my studies. The memory of this knowledge brings cheerfulness to my mind. But when I remember the maxims of my judgment, I do not remember the pains of my ignorance, but I remember those things when I think of them separately." (R. Facey.) "Sympathy has its memories, and the love of my God to my soul has its memories, holy in my heart; and the memories of my play-times and my laughs do not come with the memory of my Saviour's bleeding death, because my remembrance of Him is profound and single, and it has wonder to me, and it sweeps away the selfish memory of earth. Have I one memory like a kingdom with many mansions? Or is gratitude its own memory? and is conscience its own memory? I do not know, sir, but I will think much about this. (Hugh Coyle.)

J. H. H. (EXETER, Jan. 31. 1840.)

V. Copy of Dr. Spurzheim's Will.

WE have been requested by a friendly correspondent, to print the following copy of a letter from Dr. Spurzheim to Mr. Holm, which was proved as the Will of the former, after his unexpected death in America, without signing any more regular or formal document. The recent Act of Parliament, it is presumed, would now prevent such a letter being received as the Will of a dead person; but it may be remembered that two witnesses present at the signature of a Will, passing personal property only, were not required at the date of Spurzheim's