authors and scientists
whose development he observed. His most decisive fact is the case of a
patient who lost the memory of names entirely, but not the power of
speech, by a thrust from a foil, which penetrated through the face,
the posterior inner part of the front lobe, at its junction with the
middle lobe, thus wounding the internal part of the organ of language,
but not reaching the outer posterior part, at the island of Reil, to
which pathologists have given their chief attention.

Evidently Gall had the correct idea, and should have been duly
credited by the pathologists who have verified his discovery.

In verifying this discovery by excitement of the organs, I find the
centre of language behind the external angle of the eye, on each side
of which, toward the nose and toward the temples, are analogous
functions which might, if we did not analyze closely, be included with
it, as portions of the organ of language.

The discoveries of Gall, though no longer sustained by colleges or
phrenological societies, have never lost their hold upon the students
who follow his teachings and study nature. A few phrenological writers
and lecturers maintain the interest among those they reach, but our
standard literature generally ignores the doctrines, and forgets the
name of Gall. Yet the eclipse is not total. It will pass away as this
century ends, and the fame of the great pioneer in science will be
immortal, for it rests not on any wave of eighteenth century opinion,
but is based on that which is "immutable and eternal."

Yet so thoroughly has the present generation of physicians been misled
by the colleges into ignorance of the labors of Gall, that although
they know the location of the faculty of language is now beyond doubt,
they do not think of the discoverer or understand his discoveries, but
vaguely suppose that Ferrier, Jackson, Fritsch, Hitzig, and others
have entirely superseded Gall by their inferences from experiments on
the brains of animals. In this how greatly are they deceived! All that
modern vivisectors have done has utterly failed to disturb the
cerebral science derived from cranial observation by Gall and myself,
and from direct experiment by myself. On the contrary, the immense
labor of their researches serves only to add new illustrations and
facts corroborating and co-operating with what was previously
ascertained, as will be fully shown when "Cerebral Psychology" shall
be published.

It was once