vault is highest; and if you measure their height, from the insertion of the nasal bones, you will find it equal to an inch. Such is the condition of this cavity when moderate. That there are sinuses far greater, was taught me by another inspection of a cranium. In this case, the vacuity on the right did not pass the middle of the orbit, but that on the left stretched so far that it only ended over the external angle of the eyebrow, forming a cavity of at least two inches in breadth. Its depth was such as easily to admit the least joint of the middle finger. Its height, measured from the root of the nose on the left side, exceeded two inches, on the right it was a little less; the left sinus was, however, shallower than the right. On the left side I have said the cavity terminated over the external angle of the orbit. From this place, a bony wall ran towards the middle of the crista Galli, and thus separated the sinus into a posterior and an anterior cavity. The posterior extended so far towards the temples, that it reached the place where the frontal and sincipetal bones and the processes of the sphenoidal meet. It covered the whole arch of the orbit, so that all was here seen hollow," etc.

After describing sundry appearances which the sinuses exhibited in another skull, he observes: "It was my fortune to see and to obtain possession of one cranium in which of neither of the frontal nor the sphenoidal cavities was there any vestige whatsoever. In this specimen the bones in which these vacuities are situated were thicker than usual, and more cavernous;' an observation, as we have seen, made by other anatomists. However subversive of the phrenological statement, it will soon be seen that Schulze has understated the usual extent of the impediment.

Dr. Monro,1 after mentioning that there "were forty-five crania of adults in the Anatomical Museum, cut with a view to exhibit the different sizes and forms of the frontal sinuses," says: "I measured the breadth or distance across the forehead; the height or distance upwards from the transverse suture, where it divides the frontal bones and bones of the nose; and also the depth of the frontal sinuses; in nine different skulls in which these sinuses were large.” Omitting the table, it is sufficient to say, that in these crania the average is as follows:- Breadth, within a trifle of three inches; height, one inch and fivetenths; depth, above one inch. Here the depth seems not merely the distance between the external and internal tables, but the horizontal distance from the glabella to the posterior wall of the sinus. These nine crania thus yield an average, little larger than an indifferent induction; and though the sinuses are stated to have been large, the skulls appear to have been selected by Dr. Monro, not so much in consequence of that circumstance, as because they were so cut as to afford the means of measuring the cavity in its three dimensions.

By the kindness of Dr. Monro and Mr. Mackenzie, I was permitted to examine all the crania in the public anatomical museum, and in the private collection of the Professor; many were, for the first time, laid open for my inspection. I was thus enabled to institute an impartial induction. A random measurement of above thirty perfect crania (laying aside three skulls of old persons, in which the cavity of the sinus was almost entirely occupied by a pumicose deposit) gave the following average result: breadth, two inches four-tenths;

1 Elements, i., p. 134.

height, one inch and nearly five-tenths; depth (taken like Dr. Monro), rather more than eight-tenths of an inch. What in this induction was probably accidental, the sinuses of the female crania exhibited an average, in all the three dimensions, almost absolutely equal to that of the male. The relative size was consequently greater.

Before the sinuses of the fifty crania of Dr. Spurzheim's collection (of which I am immediately to speak) were, with the sanction of Professor Jameson, laid open upon one side, I had measured their three dimensions by the probe. This certainly could not ascertain their full extent, as, among other impediments, the probe is arrested by the septa, which so frequently subdivide each sinus into lesser chambers; but the labor was not to be undergone a second time, especially as the proportional extent of these cavities is by relation to the phrenological organs articulately exhibited in the table. As it was, the average obtained by the probe is as follows: In the thirty-six male crania (one could not be measured by the probe), the breadth was two inches and nearly four-tenths; the height, one inch and nearly three-tenths; the depth, rather more than one inch. In the twelve female crania (here, also, one could not be measured by the probe), the breadth was one inch, and rather more than nine-tenths; the height, nearly one inch; the depth, within a trifle of nine-tenths.

I should notice that in all these measurements, the thickness of the external plate is included in the depth.

So true is the observation of Portal, that the "frontal sinuses are much more extensive than is generally believed.”

The collection of fifty crania, of which the average size of the frontal sinuses has been given above, and of which a detailed table of the impediment interposed by these cavities to phrenological observation now follows, was sent by M. Royer, of the Jardin des Plantes (probably by mistake) to the Royal Museum of Natural History in Edinburgh; the skulls, taken from the catacombs of Paris, having, under Dr. Spurzheim's inspection, been selected to illustrate the development of the various phrenological organs, which development is diligently marked on the several crania.

Thus, though I have it in my power to afford a greatly more extensive table, the table of these fifty crania is, for the present purpose, sufficient. For1°, They constitute a complete and definite collection;

2o, A collection authoritative in all points against the phrenologists;

3o, One to which it can be objected by none, that it affords only a selected or partial induction in a question touching the frontal sinus;

4°, It is a collection patent to the examination of the whole world;

5o, In all the skulls a sinus has on one side been laid open to its full extent; the capacity of both is thus easily ascertained; and, at the same time with the size of the cavity, the thickness and salience of the external frontal table remains apparent.

Table exhibiting the variable extent and unappreciable impediment, in a phrenological relation, of the Frontal Sinuses; in a collection of fifty crania, selected, and their development marked, under the direction of Dr. Spurzheim :

(1) The organs denoted by these numbers:-ix. 7, Constructiveness; xx. 32, Mirthfulness or Wit: xxii. 19 (), Individuality, Lower Individuality xxiii. 20, Configuration, Figure; xxiv. 21, Size; xxv. 22, Weight, Resistance: xxvi. 2, Color; xxvii. 24, Locality; xxviii. 26, Calculation, Number; xxix. 25, Order; xxx. 19, (1) Eventuality, Upper Individuality; xxxi. 2, Time; xxxii. Melody, Tune; xxxviii. 29, Language - this organ Gall divides in two, to wit, into the organ of Language and the organ of Words: xxxiv. 30, Comparison: xxxv. 31, Causality. The order of the numbers in this table was taken from that of a more extensive and general table: so that whilst here xx. 32, has not been affected at all, there it was affected more frequently than ix. 7.

In these circumstances it is to be observed.

In the first place, that, as already noticed, while the developments of all the crania have been carefully marked, the presence of the frontal sinuses has been signalized only in one skull (the male No. 19, xiv.), in which they are, however, greatly below even the average.

In the second place, that the extent of the sinus varies indeterminably from an affection of one to an affection of sixteen organs.

In the third place, in this induction of thirty-seven male and thirteen female crania, the average proportional extent of the sinuses is somewhat less in the female than in the male skulls; the sinus in the former covering 4.4, and affecting 1.2 organs; in the latter covering 5, and affecting 2.1 organs. This induction is, however, too limited, more especially in the female crania, to afford a determination of the point, even were it not at variance with other and more extensive observations.

In the fourth place, the male crania exhibit at once the largest and the smallest sinuses. The largest male sinus covers 12, and affects 4; while the largest female sinus covers 7, and affects 3 organs; whereas, while the smallest male sinus affects only 1, the smallest female sinus covers 2 organs.

In the fifth place, so far from supporting the phrenological assertion that the sinuses are only found, or only found in size, in the crania of the old, this their collection tends to prove the very reverse; for here we find about the smallest sinuses in the oldest heads.

III. PERCEPTION.-FRAGMENTS.—(See p. 286.)

(Written in connection with proposed MEMOIR OF MR. STEWART. On Desk, May 1856; written Autumn 1855.-Ed.)

There are three considerations which seem to have been principally effective in promoting the theory of a Mediate or Representative Perception, and by perception is meant the apprehension, through sense, of external things. These might operate severally or together.

The first is, that such a hypothesis is necessary to render possible the perception of distant objects. It was taken as granted that certain material realities, (as a sun, stars, etc.), not immediately present to sense, were cognized in a perceptive act. These realities could not be known immediately, or in themselves, unless known as they existed; and they existed only as they existed in their place in space. If, therefore, the perceptive mind did not sally out to them, (which, with the exception of one or two theorists, was scouted as an impossible hypothesis), an immediate perception behooved to be abandoned, and the sensitive cognition we have of them must be vicarious; that is, not of the realities themselves, as present to our organs, and presented to apprehension, but of something different from the realities eternally existing, through which, however, they are mediately represented. Various theories in regard to the nature of this mediate or vicarious object may be entertained; but these may be over

passed. This first consideration alone was principally effectual among materialists on them the second had no influence.

A second consideration was the opposite and apparently inconsistent nature of the object and subject of cognition; for here the reality to be known is material, whereas the mind knowing is immaterial; while it was long generally believed, that what is known must be of an analogous essence (the same or similar) to what knows. In consequence of this persuasion, it was deemed impossible that the immaterial, unextended mind could apprehend in itself, as extended, a material reality. To explain the fact of sensitive perception, it was therefore supposed requisite to attenuate to immaterialize the immediate object of perception, by dividing the object known from the reality existing. Perception thus became a vicarious or mediate cognition, in which the corporeal was said to be represented by the incorporeal.

PERCEPTION

-POSITIVE RESULT.

1. We perceive only through the senses.

-

2. The senses are corporeal instruments, parts of our bodily organism. 3. We are, therefore, percipient only through, or by means of, the body. In other words, material and external things are to us only not as zero, inasmuch as they are apprehended by the mind in their relation with the material organ which it animates, and with which it is united.

4. An external existence, and an organ of sense, as both material, can stand in relation only according to the laws of matter. According to these laws, things related, connected, must act and be acted on; but a thing can act only where it is. Therefore the thing perceived, and the percipient organ, must meet in place,- must be contiguous. The consequence of this doctrine is a complete simplification of the theory of perception, and a return to the most ancient speculation on the point. All sensible cognition is, in a certain acceptation, reduced to Touch, and this is the very conclusion maintained by the venerable authority of Democritus.

According to this doctrine, it is erroneous, in the first place, to affirm that we are percipient of distant, etc., objects.

It is erroneous, in the second place, to say that we perceive external things in themselves, in the signification that we perceive them as existing in their own nature, and not in relation to the living organ. The real, the total, the only object perceived has, as a relative, two phases. It may be described either as the idiopathic affection of the sense (i. e. the sense in relation to an external reality), or as the quality of a thing actually determining such or such an affection of the sentient organ (i. e. an external reality in correlation to the sense).

A corollary of the same doctrine is, that what have been denominated the Primary Qualities of body, are only perceived through the Secondary; in fact, Perception Proper cannot be realized except through Sensation Proper. But synchronous.

The object of perception is an affection, not of the mind as apart from body,