Malebranche commences one of his chapters with these words: “Every body agrees that the _animal spirits_....”[197] He had no idea that every body would agree some day, that the _animal spirits_ is mere nonsense. There were animal spirits of all sorts; as Gall had _faculties_ of all sorts: there were _agitated_[198] animal spirits, _languid_ animal spirits.[199] There were even _libertine_ animal spirits. “Wine is so spirituous,” says Malebranche, “that it is _animal spirits_ almost completely formed, but libertine spirits.”[200] The animal spirits seemed to have become the _ultima ratio_ of the philosophers. The author of a book, in other respects to be esteemed, thus defined _imagination_: “Imagination is a perception of the soul’s caused by the internal motion of the animal spirits.”[201] That author had no doubt that he was saying something. NOTE V. EXAGGERATION OF BROUSSAIS, EVEN IN PHRENOLOGY. Page 120. _We ought to read that volume over again, and forget the Cours de Phrénologie._ Broussais does not adopt merely the general ideas of the phrenologists—he adopts even the smallest of them. Gall had located the _instinct_ of _murder_ in a given part of the brain; and he supposed, be it understood, that this part existed only in the brain of the carnivorous animals. But see, it is found in the brain of the herbivora; and one would suppose that the phrenologists would be in trouble about it. Don’t deceive yourself, the _instinct of murder_ is the _instinct of destruction_. Spurzheim denominates it _destructivity_; and the herbivorous animals must possess it, for they eat plants and consequently _destroy_ them. “The herbivora” says Broussais, “effect a real destruction among plants.[202] An attempt has been made to turn these ideas into ridicule, even in an Academy.... It was in a learned society of this kind considered ridiculous in the phrenologists to compare the destruction of vegetables to that of animals. For my own part I do not see why the idea should be rejected, if the fundamental object of the organ be to procure the means of alimentation, which seems to be quite certain.”[203] Gall imagines an organ for religion; he thinks it peculiar to man, and denominates it the _Organ of Theosophy_. The same organ is found quite down in the scale as low as the sheep;[204] and do not suppose that Broussais is at all shocked by the discovery. If necessary he will go further than all the phrenologists taken together. “The phrenologists” says he, “have denied that this sentiment (the sentiment of veneration) belongs to the animals. I am not of that opinion. A certain shade of _veneration_ exists in many species, among the vertebrate, that choose their leaders, and march according to a signal given by their chiefs and obey them. Thus even among the sheep you may see a chief.”[205] Who would have believed it? Broussais finds Gall too timorous.