But the error that Spurzheim combats is not the whole of Gall’s error; it is only a particular and secondary error:[139] the error that he does not perceive, the error that he follows, is a general and capital one. From the independence of the external senses, Gall concludes the independence of the faculties of the soul: he reasons upon an apparent analogy, which conceals a profound dissimilitude; and Spurzheim reasons just as Gall does. “In the nervous system,” says he, “we find the five external senses separate and independent of each other.”[140] “The faculties of the external senses are attached to different organs; they may exist separately. The same holds true of the internal senses.”[141] “We assert that there is a particular organ for each species of sentiment or thought, as there is for each species of exterior sensation.”[142] Like Gall, Spurzheim denominates the faculties of the soul _internal senses_; in the same spirit he says: “The _sense of colour_, the _sense of number_, _sense of language_, _sense of comparison_, _sense of causality_,”[143] &c. &c. Both authors begin by calling the faculties of the soul _internal senses_; and then, misled by the word, they conclude from the _independence of the external senses_, to the _independence_ of their _internal senses_; that is to say, the independence of the faculties of the soul. 2. _Names of the faculties._ Spurzheim accuses Gall of having given denominations only to actions, and not to the principles of those actions. “Finding,” says he, “a relation betwixt the development of a cerebral part and a sort of action, M. Gall denominated the cerebral part from the action; thus, he spoke of the organs of music, poetry, &c.”[144] “The nomenclature,” says he further, “ought to be conformed to the faculties, without regard to any action whatever.... When we attribute to an organ cunning, management, hypocrisy, intrigue, &c. we do not make known the primary faculty which contributes to all these modified actions.”[145] Gall replies: “M. Spurzheim cannot have forgotten how often we reasoned without end, with a view to determine the primitive destination of an organ.... I confess, that there are several organs, with whose primary faculties I am not yet acquainted; and I continue to denominate them from the degree of activity that led me to the discovery of them. M. Spurzheim thinks himself more fortunate: his metaphysical temperament has led him to the discovery of the fundamental or primitive faculty of every one of the organs. Let us put it to the proof.”[146] Indeed, Spurzheim’s expedient for rendering himself master of the primary faculties is very simple. He creates a word: he calls the instinct of propagation _amativity_, the propensity to steal, _convoitivity_; courage is _combativity_, &c. &c.