since innate faculties may be inactive on account of the defective developement of their respective organs, and their functions may be modified by their combined operation with other faculties.

Locke derives the primitive activity of the mind, from external impressions on the senses; phrenology on the contrary, in admitting external senses and two orders of internal faculties, maintains that the internal dispositions, though they may be excited by external impressions, are often active by their own inherent power alone. According to Locke, moral principles must be proved. I think they must be felt. It is to be remarked that according to phrenology, there is an internal and spontaneous or instinctive activity, independent of external impressions, as far as the feelings are concerned, but also as the intellectual faculties and experimental knowledge are implicated. The abstract conceptions or intuitive notions are furnished by the intellectual faculties themselves. The notion of identity, for instance, or that the same is the same; that the whole is greater than the half; that two and two are four that nothing can exist except in space; that nothing can happen except in time; and that there is nothing without a cause, &c., are internal operations of mind as well as the instincts, propensities, and sentiments.

Another essential difference between Locke, Dr. Brown and all other philosophers on one side, and phrenology on the other, is that the former think that we perceive the existence of external objects and their original qualities, such as size, figure, mobility, number, color, &c., by means of the five senses and their impressions alone; whilst I treat of the immediate and mediate functions of the senses (See Vol. I. Art. external senses,) and ascribe very few ideas to the external senses, but the greater number, as those of size, figure, weight, color, order and number, to internal faculties.

Thus I admit in the mind external senses by which the mind and the external world are brought into communication, and made mutually influential. The internal faculties are feelings and intellect. Both sorts may act by their internal power, or may be excited by appropriate impressions from without. The knowledge of our

feelings is as positive as the experimental from without. Every determinate action of any faculty depends on two conditions, the faculty and the object. The intellectual faculties are perceptive and reflective. The feelings and perceptive faculties are in relation and adapted to the external world, whilst the reflective faculties are applied to the feelings and experimental knowledge and are destined to bring all the particular feelings and notions into harmony.

From this summary view of philosophy it follows, that the ancient philosophers were principally occupied with theogony, cosmogony, physics, logic, dialectics, ethics and politics, and that in reference to man they examined his intellectual operations, moral actions and social relations, rather than his nature.

Though this important object—the basis of all political sciences -has been investigated by later philosophers, its study will be newly modelled and its principles established by phrenology, in showing a posteriori the nature, number and origin of the human faculties, the conditions of their operations, their mutual influence, their modes of acting, and the natural laws by which their manifestations are regulated. I conclude this chapter with D'Alembert, in saying, that hitherto there has been a great deal of philosophizing in which there is but little philosophy.

CHAPTER II.

RECTIFICATION OF PARTICULAR VIEWS OF PHILOSOPHERS.

In order to prosecute advantageously the study of the mental functions, a capital error must be avoided, -an error which prevails in the systems of all philosophers, and which consists in their having been satisfied with general ideas, and not, like naturalists, having admitted three sorts of notions: general, common, and special. This distinction is essential to the classification of beings into kingdoms, classes, orders, genera, and species. In knowing the

general qualities of inanimate objects, such as extension, configuration, consistency, color,—even in knowing the common qualities of metals, earths, or acids; we are not yet made acquainted with iron, copper, chalk, or vinegar. To indicate a determinate body, its specific qualities must be exposed. In natural history it is not sufficient to say that we possess a stone, a plant, an animal, a bird, &c., it is indispensable to mention the species of each possessed, and if varieties exist, to state even their distinctive characters.

In the study of the human body, general and common notions are also distinguished and separated from those which are particular; the body is divided into several systems, such as the muscular, osseous, nervous, glandular, &c. ; determinate functions, too, are specified, as the secretion of saliva, of bile, tears, &c. But this distinction between general, common, and special notions is entirely neglected in the study of the mind, and even in that of the functions which in animals take place with consciousness.

Instinct.

Zoologists divide and subdivide the organization of the beings they study, and determine the structure of each particularly, but they consider their animal life in a manner quite general. Whatever is done with consciousness is explained by means of the word instinct. Animals eat and drink, and construct habitations by instinct; the nightingale sings, the swallow migrates, the hamster makes provision for the winter, the chamois places sentinels, sheep live in society, &c., and all by instinct. This is certainly a very easy manner of explaining facts; instinct is the talisman which produces every variety in the actions of animals. The knowledge conveyed, however, is general, and therefore completely vague. What is instinct? Is it a personified being, an entity, a principle? or does the word, according to its Latin etymology, signify only an internal impulse to act in a certain way in ignorance of the cause? I take it in the latter signification; thus the word instinct denotes every inclination to act arising from within.

Instincts, moreover, are merely effects, and do not express peculiar causes producing determinate inclinations. In stating that one animal sings and that another migrates, we specify some sorts of instincts, but leave their individual causes undetermined. The term instinct may be compared with that of motion. Planets revolve round the sun; the moon round the earth; the magnetic needle points towards the north; rivers fall into the ocean; animals walk, run, or fly; the blood circulates; and all these phenomena are conjoined with the idea of motion. Motion certainly attends on all, just as the actions of animals are always joined with instinct, but the causes of the various motions and of the different instincts are not alike, and must, therefore, be looked for and specified.

Finally, it is an error to say that animals act solely by instinct. It is true that some of their doings, such as the labors of insects, are the result of mere instinctive powers, but many animals modify their actions according to external circumstances; they even select one among different motives, and often resist their internal impulsions or instincts. A dog may be hungry, but with the opportunity he will not eat, because he remembers the blows which he has received for having done so under similar circumstances. If, in following his master, he is separated from him by a carriage, he does not throw himself under the feet of the horses or its wheels, but waits till it has passed, and then by increasing his speed he overtakes his master.

On the

This shows that some animals act with understanding. other hand, though new-born children cry, and suck the finger, they certainly do not act from understanding. And, if men of great genius manifest talents without knowing that such faculties exist; if they calculate, sing, or draw, without any previous education, do they not so by some internal impulse or instinct, as well as the animals which sing, build, migrate, and gather provisions? Instinct, then, is not confined to animals, and understanding is not a prerogative of mankind.

The above reflections on instinct elucidate the ideas entertained

by philosophers generally in regard to the mind and its faculties.

Many of them reduce all the mind's operations to sensation, and all its faculties to sensibility; others call this general faculty understanding, or intellect.

Understanding.

We must make reflections on understanding similar to those already made on instinct. There are, in the first place, different sorts of understanding, which may exist independent of each other. Great painters cannot always become great musicians; profound mathematicians may be without any talent for poetry; and excellent generals may be miserable legislators. Hence, in the study of man, it is necessary to specify the different kinds of understanding or sensation. For, if we say, with Destut de Tracy, that memory, judgment, and imagination, are only modifications of sensation and the effects of unknown causes, it is still necessary to specify the kinds of sensation; since sensations of hunger, friendship, hatred, anger, or compassion, and knowledge of forms, colors, localities, &c., cannot be of one and the same sort, any more than the senses of feeling, smelling, tasting, hearing, and seeing. Thus, then, it is necessary to specify the various internal, as well as the external senses.

Moreover, the causes of the different kinds of understanding must also be pointed out, and new observations in consequence become necessary. Finally, I repeat, that man does not always act with understanding. Suddenly threatened by any danger, the limbs are drawn back before there has been time to think of the means of escape. All the gestures and peculiar sounds which accompany the rather energetic expression of the sentiments, are as involuntary as the feelings themselves, and by no means the effect of understanding. Who can say that he always acts with understanding? We too often choose the worse even in knowing the better.

The greater number of philosophers explain the actions of man upon the supposition of two fundamental powers: understanding