|Henry V, painting by an unknown artist; in the National Portrait Gallery, London
King Henry V of England (1387–1422)
The hero of Agincourt; the man who broke the French; the ideal knight - the epitome of piety and chivalry. He tends to be
regarded as a medieval superman, applauded for his genius and dynamism, yet, his shortcomings overlooked. To Mortimer
“He was an extraordinary
man, in that he demonstrated phenomenal organisational skills, focus, determination, resilience, leadership
and – above all else – religious conviction; but…he was a deeply flawed individual. He lacked the simpler
qualities of compassion, warmth, and the understanding of human frailty that one naturally looks for in all men – yeomen
and paupers as well as kings...” (
Such aspects of Henry’s personality have proved something of a conundrum for many historians and chroniclers of his life:
his sudden transformation from a wild, brawling, drinking, womanising youth to a fervently pious King upon the death of his
father Henry IV in 1413; his devout religious beliefs - a contrast to the atrocities he commited: the ordering of the slaughter
of noble prisoners at Agincourt in 1415 which defied the chivalric law; his treatment of the inhabitants and defenders of
towns he besieged and his persecution of the Lollard sect, (Barker 2005, 2009, Curry 2000, 2005, Dockray 2007, McGlynn, 2008, Mortimer 2009).
According to legend, and to Shakespeare in his play “Henry V”,
(written in 1599), Henry, the wild prince who enjoyed taverns and carousing turned into a pious overnight. As a youth, the anonymous “Vita
et Gesta Henrici Quinti” (Hearne 1727) describes him as:
the bounds of modesty he was the fervent soldier of venus as well as mars; youthlike he was fired by her torches, in the midst
of his brave deeds as a soldier, he also found leisure for the excesses of untamed youth” (p.21, Dockray 2007).
However, upon ascending
the throne as King Henry V on April 9th 1413 following
the death of his father Henry IV:
suddenly changed into a new man and henceforth devoted himself single-mindedly to live as virtuously as maintaining Holy Church,
destroying heretics, keeping justice and defending his realm and subjects” (Anonymous English Chronicler in Dockray
2007, p. 96)
“[He] reformed and amended his life and manners…all
his acts were suddenly changed into gravity and discretion” (Tito Livio in the "Vita Henrici Quinti" in Dockray 2007, p.96)
“…as soon as he was made King he was changed suddenly into another man, zealous for honesty, modesty
and gravity, there being no sort of virtue that he was not anxious to display” (Thomas Walshingham, in Dockray 2007, p.23) “…as soon as he was made King he was changed suddenly into
another man, zealous for honesty, modesty and gravity, there being no sort of virtue that he was not anxious to display”
(Thomas Walshingham, in Dockray
This was, and has been, interpreted as Henry having a religious
conversion (Seward 1987).
A number of his personal characteristics and behaviours have been seen as admirable in the
past and today: his piety; his passion for justice; his bravery and courage; his skills as an administrator and manager who
recognised talent and rewarded loyalty; his honesty; his decisiveness in planning and effectiveness in delivering policy.
As a military commander he has been admired for: his gift of command: planning and masterminding of strategies and sieges;
diplomatic negotiations; maintaining firm control over deployment of manpower; enforcement of discipline and the redistribution
of conquered territories, (Barker 2005, 2009;
Curry 2000, 2005; Dockray 2007 ; Mortimer 2009; Seward 1987).
In contrast, he is also described as: severe; cold; humourless;
aloof; domineering; ruthless; bad tempered vindictive and inhumane. He was intolerant of dissent and prepared to punish, even
remove those whose loyalty he suspected. Men feared his anger and avoided questioning the wisdom of his judgements or the
rightness of his decisions - when his honour was impugned he could suddenly become very angry (Dockray 2007; Mortimer 2009; Seward 1987):
was] much feared and dreaded by his princes, knights and captains and by people of every degree because all those who disobeyed
his orders or infringed his edicts he would put to death without mercy.” (Waurin: Hardy 1868, p.429)
Many of his behaviours have been viewed as excessive. His religious behaviour was extreme,
even for the time (Mortimer 2009). He constantly went on pilgrimage to the shrines of saints, heard several masses a day, (refusing to be interrupted while at
prayer). The Gesta states:
was] devoted to the hearing of divine praises and to his own private prayers that, once he had begun them there was not anyone,
even from amongst his nobles and magnates, who was able, by conversation however brief, at anytime to interrupt them. There
cannot, therefore, be denied by the Prince of princes to a prince also, in the judgement of all men, is of such goodness and
obedience, whatever he may justly ask of them.”
(p.155, Taylor and Roskell 1975)
He founded monasteries for the most
zealous orders: Celestines, Bridgettines and Carthusians (Dockray 2007; Seward 1987; Taylor and Roskell 1975).
He has been described as “Messianic”, (Dockray 2007; Mortimer 2009), believing he was divinely ordained as the
servant of God, with full divine approval for his
actions, (Dockray 2007). Thus, his every deed was moved by God: his will was God’s will and his war against the French was God’s war and
the ensuing victories were God’s victory. So fervent was his belief that he had been blessed by God he fought in the
front line at Agincourt because God protected him (Mortimer 2009) As he stated:
“I am the scourge of God
sent to punish the people of God for their sins” (Dockray 2007, p.222).
This may also explains the atrocities he commited. His persecution of the Lollards,
who followed the teachings of John Wycliffe (Hudson 1988; Lutton 2006; Rex 2002), resulted from his intolerance of religious dissent (Dockray 2007). His slaughter of the prisoners at Agincourt (1415) and the savage reprisals
against the inhabitants and defenders of Caen (1417), Rouen, (1418), Pontoise (1419), Rougement (1421) and Meaux
(1422) were punishments authorised by God. Henry cited the “Law of Deuteronomy”, as justification
for his behaviour towards besieged towns in his own correspondence (Taylor and Roskell 1975):
“When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.
If they accept and open their gates, all the people
in it shall be subject to forced labour and shall work for you.
If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in
battle, lay siege to that city.
When the lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.
As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these
as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.”
acquired chasteness has also been linked to his religious fervour. His friends claimed he never took a mistress or slept with a woman after becoming King
until he married Catherine of Valois in June 1420 and fathered only one child, Henry, (1421-1471), taking no mistresses or
siring any illegitimate children, (Dockray 2007; Kingsford 1911; Mortimer 2009).
Mortimer (2009) attributes these contrasts and the enigmas of Henry’s character
to his upbringing; however, they may result from the injury he suffered at the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403.
THE BATTLE OF SHREWSBURY (1403) AND THE WOUNDING OF PRINCE HENRY
On Saturday 21 July 1403 the armies of King Henry IV and the rebel
Henry Percy met in battle just north of the town of Shrewsbury. The royal forces were victorious, (Priestley
1979), but during the battle Prince Henry was wounded in the face by an arrow while leading a cavalry charge. Despite
the severity of the wound, he continued to fight on refusing to leave, demanding, according to one of his chroniclers, Tito
Livio: “Lead me, thus wounded, to the front line so that I may, as a prince should, kindle our fighting men with deeds
not words” (Dockray 2007 p.85).
Henry IV’s surgeon,
John Bradmore, treated the wound. He described it as:
“…smetyn in the face be syd the nose on the lefte syd with an arrow the wyche sayd arrow entryd overwharte
and after the schafte was takyn owt and the hede ther of a bod styll in the hyndyr parte of a bone of the hede after the mesur
of vj ynche” (p.129, Lang 2003)
Cole and Lang (2003) translate this as:
arrow] struck in the face with an arrow beside the nose on the left side, which arrow entered from the side , and the said
arrow, after the arrow was extracted, remained in the back part of the bone of the head six inches deep.” (Cole and
Lang 2003, p.95).
Strickland and Hardy (2005) as:
“…[the arrow] entered at an angle (ex traverso), and after the arrow shaft
was extracted, the head of the aforesaid arrow remained in the furthermost part of the bone of the skull for the depth of
To Cole and Lang (2003)
the arrow was embedded in the interior bone of the skulls posterior.
Pollard and Oliver (2002) describe the arrow as being “lodged in
a bone behind the nose” (p.45), although this differs from Bradmore’s description.
The arrowhead was left imbedded
in the skull and Bradmore invented a set of tongs to remove the arrowhead, (recreated by Hector Cole: Cole and Lang 2003)
According to Cole and Lang (2003):
“…it is just possible for an arrow to enter beside the nose and lodge at the back of the head without causing
immediate death or lasting disability, but the margin of error either way is
extremely small, and the Prince was clearly very fortunate indeed to survive
the wound.” (Cole and Lang 2003 p.96)
The injury Henry received
would be classed today as a “penetrating head trauma caused by a missile”.
This is a wound in which a projectile breaches the skull but does not exit it, (an injury in which the projectile passes entirely
though the head, leaving both entrance and exit wounds, is described as “perforating”), (Vinas and Pilitsis 2006). Patients with penetrating wounds have a greater survival rate than those with perforating wounds, (Aarabi 1999).
a missile wound, the amount of damage to the brain depends on numerous factors including:
(1) The kinetic
(2) The trajectory
of the missile and bone fragments through the brain
pressure changes at the moment of impact
mechanisms of injury, (infection caused by the penetrating missile or shards of bone)
(Vinas and Pilitsis 2009)
Injury is related to:
(1) The direct crush injury produced by the missile
(2) The cavitation produced
by the centrifugal effects of the missile on organ tissue
(3) The shock waves produced
(Vinas and Pilitsis 2009)
to Bradmore’s account we know that Henry was struck in the face some where beside the nose on the left side, the arrow
entering from the side with the arrowhead remaining in the posterior interior of the skull at a depth of six inches (Cole
and Lang 2003; Lang 2003; Strickland and Hardy 2005). Unfortunately,
there are number of unknown variables:
The rate the arrow was travelling at when it struck Henry.
The trajectory of the arrow when it struck, (did it come from the left or right side?).To
McKinnell et al (2007) the precise meaning of the description of the arrow entering sideways, (“Overwharte”) is
The exact location where the arrow penetrated Henry’s face.
The trajectory of the arrow through the skull.
The exact location where the arrowhead was imbedded in the skull’s interior.
The length of time before the arrowhead was removed, (Henry was transported to Kenilworth Castle after the battle,
yet how long it was before the arrow was removed is unknown and Bradmore was not the first physician to attempt to remove
the arrow, Lang 2003).
A variety of arrowheads were in use during this period, (Jessop 1996), but Bradmore refers to the
arrow as a “bod” (p.129, Lang 2003) or bodkin. This was an arrow head used to penetrate armour and maille, (Strickland
and Hardy 2005). The remains of bodkin arrowheads have been found at the
site of the battle (Pollard and Oliver 2002).
rate the arrow was travelling at when it struck Henry is unknown. Stretton (2006) found when shot from a yew war-bow with
a draw weight of 144 pounds (65.3 kg), an arrow with a bodkin head weighing 86 grams (1,324 grains), travelling at 47.9 m
(157 ft) per second has a kinetic energy of 99 joules. The draw weight is defined as the amount of force, expressed as a weight, which needs to be applied to the string
in order to bend the strung bow to its full extent. The formula for calculating kinetic energy:
= Mass (kg) x Velocity2
or missile striking a vital area with a kinetic energy of 80 joules or more is considered a fatal blow, (Health and Safety
arrowhead travelling at this rate is capable of penetrating armour 1.6mm thick to a depth of 7.62cm (3 in), (Stretton 2006).
Should the target be moving towards the archer, as in the case of a mounted knight, then the bodkin can penetrate a further
2.54 -5.08 cm (1-2 in), (Stretton 2006). However, the caviation and shock wave damage would be far less than those caused by bullets,
(Davies and Harbinson 2002, Hain 1989). The injuries inflicted by medieval arrow wounds have been documented (Fiorato et al 2000; Karger et al 2001;
It is not recorded whether Henry lost consciousness. It appears he did not as he was
able to continue fighting, (Dockray 2007). This may indicate that the penetrating arrow had ricocheted and its speed and kinetic
energy had substantially decreased. There is also no record of any impairment immediately or after treatment.
He was also fortunate in the medical care he received.
The arrow head was left in place, patients in whom the penetrating object is
left in place have a significantly lower mortality than those in whom the objects are inserted and then removed (26% versus
11% respectively), (Vinas and Pilitsis 2009).
The wound was also treated with honey. Research has shown that honey has antibacterial properties and promotes tissue healing and blood vessel formation, (Dunford et al 2000ab; Dunford 2005; Simon et al 2009).
However, despite Cole and Lang’s (2003) assertion that Henry was fortunate to have escaped without
lasting disability, Henry may not have escaped entirely unscathed, as his later behaviours are indicative of temporal lobe
PERSONALITY CHANGES AS RESULT OF LEFT
TEMPORAL LOBE DAMAGE
The temporal lobes are areas of he cerebral cortex, located
on both the left and right hemispheres of the brain, (below).
Impairment affecting temporal areas tends to leave intellectual functions intact while
causing alterations in personality (Blumer and Benson 1975). Left temporal lobe damage produces a number of effects:
Altered sexual behaviour: Increase or decrease in libido (Blumer, 1975; Blumer and Walker, 1975; Geschwind ,1975, 1979;
Kolb & Wishaw, 1990)
Extreme, heightened sense of religiosity with augmented sense of personal destiny (Bear and Fedio, 1977; Blumer, 1975; Geschwind 1975, 1979)
Extreme morality and ethical concerns: Bear and Fedio, 1977; Blumer, 1975; Geschwind 1975, 1979)
- Paranoia and aggressive
rages (Blumer and Benson 1975; Geschwind ,1975, 1979; Kolb & Wishaw, 1990)
- Sudden Mood Changes (Bear and Fedio, 1977; Blumer, 1975; Geschwind 1975, 1979)
- Deepened Emotional Response: (Bear and Fedio, 1977; Geschwind 1975, 1979)
- Humourlessness (Bear and Fedio, 1977; Blumer, 1975)
All of these are prominent in Henry’s character and behaviour: the disinterest in sex; the extreme religious and messianic
beliefs and behaviours; the deeply held moral and ethical beliefs; the cold, severe humourlessness; the feared aggressive
and violent rages which would swiftly appear. It may explain his change from a “…fervent soldier of venus”
(p.21, Dockray 2007) into“… another man, zealous for honesty, modesty and gravity” (Thomas Walshingham in
Dockray 2007, p.23). However, it
is unlikely such a transformation occurred as soon as he was crowned as believed by his chroniclers.
observable impairments may have commenced several years earlier. In 1408, an Oxford academic, Richard Ullerston, noted Henry’s
desire for spiritual study and knowledge of the scriptures, (Dockray 2007). By 1409, there were problems developing between
Henry and his father, King Henry IV, as Prince Henry launched an attempted coup and in 1412 when Prince Henry had to be restrained
from seizing his father’s throne by force, (Dockray 2007; Mortimer 2007; Seward, 1987).
there appeared to be no immediate impairment after being wounded, it is possible that an abscess on the left temporal lobe
may have caused such impairment.
Patients who survive penetrating head injuries are at risk of experiencing multiple complications,
including infections and abscesses from bone or missile fragments imbedded in the brain, (Vinas and Pilitsis 2006). Brain
abscess can occur after a long period of silent infection,(Hagan 1971; Peneck and Burchiel, 1986)..
Hida et al (1978) reported a case of delayed brain abscess following a penetrating gunshot injury 38 years after the injury;
Pencek and Burchiel (1986), 15 years after an injury;
Lee and Kim (2000) 47 years after and Aulino et al (2005) 16 years later. Thus it is feasible that
Henry could also have experienced similar damage either from a fragment from the arrow or fragment of bone.
This also may indicate a possible trajectory through the skull: not coming in contact with
the brain, but passing close to the left temporal lobe from the entry point in the left half of the face.
are obvious problems in formulating a hypothesis concerning the personality and behaviour of a major historical figure. In
this instance, not only is there a lack of archaeological evidence but there is also
a deficit of contemporary accounts regarding Henry’s life.
The only contemporary accounts of Henry’s
life which survive are the anonymous “Gesta Henrici Quinti” (c.1416) (Taylor
and Roskell 1975), Thomas of Elham’s “Liber Meticus de Henrico Quinto”
(“Memorials of Henry V”) (Cole 1858) and Thomas Walsingham’s
"Ypodigma Neustriae”(Riley 1876). Later works copied them and modern historians place their own interpretations
upon them. Further, such original works can be regarded as being propaganda as can later works, which created a medieval superman
much removed from reality: “…the ideal Englishman: plucky and persevering, austere and audacious, cool-headed,
stiff-lipped and effortlessly superior: simply the greatest man, ever to rule England” (Fernandez-Armesto
For example, stories of Henry’s wild, misspent youth and his dramatic conversion at his coronation
into a sober and righteous King were written long after his reign was over and have become accepted as historical because
of Shakespeare, (Barker 2005). Dockray (2007) concludes
that there is no evidence of wild behaviour, or at least for a sudden change when he was crowned, although to Curry (2005)
“The stories of a misspent youth have never been proven, but neither have they been disproved” (p.30).
The aim of this article has been an attempt to
forward a possible explanation for the puzzles surrounding Henry’s character and behaviour, albeit based on the limited
information possessed. However, while such information is limited and the conclusion controversial, is it merely coincidence
that many of his behaviours match the characteristics that are symptomatic of injuries to the left temporal lobe?
-Aarabi B. (1999) History of the management of craniocerebral wounds. In: Aarabi B, Kaufman
HH, Dagi TF, George ED, Levy ML, (eds.) Missile Wounds of the Head and Neck. Vol 1. Park Ridge, Ill: American
Association of Neurological Surgeons.
-Aurilino, J.M; Gyure, K.A. Morton, A. and Cole,
J.E. (2005) Temporal lobe Intraparenchymal Retained Foreign Body from Remote Orbital Trauma.
American Journal of Neuroradiology, 26: 1855-57.
-Barker, J. (2005) Agincourt: The King, the campaign, the battle. London: Little Brown.
--- (2009) Conquest: The English Kingdom of France 1417-1450. London: Little Brown.
- Bear, D. and Fedio, P. (1977) Quantitative analysis of interictal behaviour in temporal lobe epilepsy.
Archives of Neurology, 34, 454-67
- Blumer, D. (1975) Temporal lobe epilepsy and its psychiatric
significance. In: In D. Benson and D. Blumer, eds. Psychiatric Aspects of Neurologic
Disease. New York: Grune & Stratton.
- Blumer, D., & Benson, D.( 1975) Personality changes with frontal
and temporal lobe lesions. In D. Benson and D. Blumer, (eds.) Psychiatric Aspects of Neurologic Disease. New York: Grune & Stratton.
- Cole, C. A.(ed.) (1858) Thomas,of Elmham ,Memorials of Henry the Fifth, King of England. London : Longman, Brown,
Green, Longmans, and Roberts
- Cole H and Lang T. (2003) "The Treating of Prince Henry's Arrow Wound, 1403" in Journal of the
Society of Archer Antiquaries, 46, 95-101.
- Curry A. (2000) Henry V: A life and reign. In A. Curry (ed.) Agincourt 1415. Tempus: Gloucestershire
- --. (2005) Agincourt – a new history. Tempus: Gloucestershire
de Viriville, V. (ed) (1858) Chronique de Charles VII, roi de France. Paris.
- Davies, J. and Harbinson, M. (2002) Military Surgery 1300-1600. Bristol: Stuart Press.
- Dockray, K. (2007) Warrior King: The life of Henry V. Gloucestershire: Tempus
- Dunford C (2005) The use of
honey-derived dressings to promote effective wound management. Professional Nurse, 20(8): 35-8
- Dunford C, Cooper R, Molan P(2000a) Using honey as a dressing for infected skin lesions, Nursing Times. 96(14
- Dunford C, Cooper R, Molan P, White R., (2000b) The use of honey in wound management. Nursing Standard. 15(11) 63-8.
- Fernandez-Armesto,F. (2009) The Myth of Henry V (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/henry_v_01.shtml)
- Fiorato, V, Boylston, A., and Knusel, C. (2000) Blood Red Roses: The Archaeology of
a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton, AD 1461. London:
- Geschwind, N. (1975) The clinical setting of aggression
in temporal lobe epilepsy in Fields, W.S and Sweet W.H. (eds.) The Neurobiology of Violence. St. Louis, Warren H. Green
- -- (1979) Behavioural Changes in temporal lobe epilepsy. Psychological Medicine, 9,
Hagan, R.E. (1971) Early complications
following penetrating wounds of the brain. Journal of Neurosurgery, 34(2), 132-141.
- Hain, J.R. (1989) Fatal Arrow Wounds. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 34(3),691-3.
W, (ed) (1868) Jehan de Waurin Recueil des croniques et anchiennes istories de la Grant Bretaigne, a present nomme Engleterre.1399
to 1422. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer.
-Health and Safety Executive (2002) Controlling risks around explosives stores. London: HMSO
- Hearne, T. (ed.) (1727) Vita et Gesta Henrici Quinti . Kessinger Publishing
- Hida K, Tsuda
E, and Sato H. (1978) Brain abscess discovered 38 years after head injury. No Shinkei Geka, 6(8),
- Hudson, Anne. (1988) The Premature Reformation: Wycliffite Texts
and Lollard History. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
- Jessop, O. (1996) A new artefact typology for the study
of medieval arrowheads. Medieval Archaeology, 40, 192-205.
June-Ho Lee, and Dong Gyu Kim (2000) Brain abscess related to metal fragments 47 years after head injury. Journal
of Neurosurgery, 93(3), 477-479
- Karger B, Sudhues H, Brinkmann B,(2001) "Arrow Wounds: Major Stimulus in the History of Surgery" In
World Journal of Surgery, 25, pp.1550-1555.
C. L. (ed)( 1911) The first English life of King Henry the Fifth, written in 1513 by an anonymous author . Oxford :
S.J. (1992) John Bradmore and His book Philomena, Social History of Medicine, 5(1), 121-30.
Lutton, R. (2006) Lollardy and Orthodox Religion in Pre-Reformation England Woodbridge and Suffolk, U.K.: Boydell and
- McFarlane, K.N.(1936)
“England : The Lancastrian Kings 1399-1461: Cambridge Medieval History Vol.III. Cambridge.
- McGlynn, S. (2008)
By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Attrocity in Medieval Warfare. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
- McKinnell, T.; Whitaker, I.; Johns, R.; Brown, C. and McKinnell, J. (2007) The Management of Maxillofacial
Trauma in the Renaissance: A Mini-Case Series. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 59,(4), 372-374
- Mortimer, I. (2007) The Fears of Henry IV: The Life of England's Self-Made King. London: Cape.
-- (2009) 1415: Henry V’s year of Glory. London: Bodley Head.
Pencek, T.L. and Burchiel, K.J. (1986) Delayed brain abscess related to a retained
foreign body with culture of Clostridium bifermentans. Journal of Neurosurgery, 64(5), 813-815
- Pollard, T. and Oliver ,N. (2002) Two Men in a Trench. London: Michael Joseph
- Priestly, E.J. (1979) Battle
of Shrewsbury, 1403. Shrewsbury: Shrewsbury Museums Service.
- Riley, H.T, (ed.) (1876), Ypodigma
neustriae a Thoma Walsingham, quondam monacho monasterii S. Albani conscriptum. London : Longman
- Richard, R (2002) The Lollards: Social History in Perspective.
New York: Palgrave
- Seward, D. (1987) Henry V as Warlord. London: Penguin
- Shakespeare, W. (2010) Henry V. London: Penguin
- Simon A, Traynor K, Santos K, Blaser G, Bode U, Molan P. (2009) Medical honey for wound care--still the 'latest resort'? Evidence-based Complementary and
Alternative Medicine. 6(2):165-73
- Stretton, M. (2006) Experimental tests with different
types of medieval arrowheads. In D.H.Soar (ed.) Secrets of the English Warbow. Yardley: Westholme.
- Strickland S and Hardy R, The Great Warbow,
Sutton, 2005, pp 284-5.
- Taylor, F. and Roskell, J.S. (eds) (1975) Gesta Henrici Quinti : the deeds of Henry the Fifth Oxford : Clarendon Press,
- Thordeman, B. (2001) Armour from the Battle of Wisby. Chivalry Bookshelf
-Vinas,F.C. and Pilitsis,J. (2009) Penetrating
Head Trauma. (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/247664-overview)
Below: John Bradmore's Arrow Extractor recreated by
Hector Cole, (Picture by Jo Homfray)
Below: Map of the brain showing position of Temporal Lobe