''•/"'t^i-^ 
 
 /, * •. V n ^ 0> 
 
 
 
 A^^• 
 
 •^ 
 
 ■V "C 
 
 ci-. 
 
 / O' s . 
 
 li//. 
 
 0^ 
 
 .-j.^^ 
 
 
 x^^' '^>>. 
 
 \ 1 fl '-^ 
 
 
 ^•^^ "'^^ 
 
 
 
 ri': '^-^' -^A; 
 
 ^^\v 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 >^ c- 
 
 ■^^. 
 
 ,x^^' 
 
 :<«,'?' 
 
 ^- V 
 
 
 %■ 
 
 
 <J> 
 
 
 
 .0- c/^ 
 
 . 'ff^^<.. 
 
 ■^/ 
 
 .^^ '^h 
 
 A^ 
 
 .'f' 
 
 
 ^. 
 
> 
 
 V- V" 
 
 Oo 
 
 ^;>:^ 
 
 x^ -^ 
 
 
 1^.^, 
 
 '.. -'c- 
 
 vfe^--- >v.. X 
 
 
 ^V'^ ^^ 
 
 r» 
 
 OO 
 
 
 I ^ 
 
 ^cH^^v,,;^. 
 
 
 \-' 
 
 V) s 
 
 ■\^ 
 
 aX^' -. 
 
 '^:..<^' :.i^ 
 
 
 V 1 e 
 
 * ''o 
 
 . "^ f. 
 
 ■",^'^..\^\ 
 
 >- V' 
 
 
 ^^ -^c^. 
 
 
 
 ,^;J'^.- 
 
 ^/ C' 
 
 
 V' ^ 
 
 
 ^ "^iS^^ 
 
 -4 0^1 
 
 OC' 
 
 ^0^ . 
 
 ^V^ 
 
 
 
 V ■/>. 
 
 ^0 O. 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 ci- 
 
 
 a; 
 
 ^ -^^ 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 
 
 0^. ^ 
 
 c ^ ^. ^^ 
 
 - 
 
 ^^5^'- 
 
 oo^ 
 
 .;j 
 
 
 o^ %^, 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 '<f ,<v 
 
 i: 
 
 
 .0^. 
 
 >^^ ■"> 
 
 
 >, "/-. '^^' 
 
 
 '/, 'C' 
 
 .^•^' ■". 
 
 />. 
 
FHrOJvh by Cwtia Sc RaxdnJcs 
 
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES 
 
 OP 
 
 PHRENOLOGY 
 
 ARE THE 
 
 ONLY PRINCIPLES 
 
 CAPABLE OF BEINO RECONCILED WITH THE IMMATERIALITY 
 
 AND IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES C. L. CAESON, M.D. 
 
 •* > ^* , i^ « , J- t> ) , t 9 > C 
 
 *- i -i^ J 
 
 
 ' 5 > 3 ^ D J J 
 
 LONDON: 
 HOULSTOX & WEIGHT, PATEENOSTEE EOW. 
 
 1868, 
 

 EDINBURGH : 
 PRINTED BY BALLANTVNE AND COMPANY, 
 PAUL'S WORK. 
 
 \0Z5-l 
 
 ^02. 
 
 e •• I • • • 
 
 • • • • • 
 
 .•• .♦. •*: 
 
 ••• ••• ••( 
 
 •.:* 
 
 •? •' 
 
 • I • • • 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 At the risk of being considered somewhat egotisti- 
 cal, I shall detail the history of my connexion with 
 Phrenology. My medical education was commenced 
 at Trinity College, Dublin, early in 1833. Towards 
 the end of that year, it was arranged to take out 
 Anatomical Dissections under Dr Power, who was 
 highly spoken of as a lecturer at the Richmond 
 School of Medicine. I repaired to his class-room, 
 and there heard the first lecture on Anatomy I ever 
 listened to. His subject was the Human Brain. 
 There was a brain on the table, but the description 
 he gave of it was quite unintelligible to me. He 
 sliced it away from above downwards after the 
 orthodox anatomical method. His descriptions of 
 the different sections, as he used the scalpel, were 
 very minute ; but as he sliced away portion after 
 portion he always took care to tell us that the use 
 of this part, and this part, and this part, was not 
 known. The whole affair appeared such a farce 
 that I had a strong idea of giving up the profession. 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 I thouglit if anatomy were all like this, it would 
 hardly be possible to learn it, as there was no 
 apparent system or design in it ; and even if it 
 could be learned, it would be of no practical use. 
 Dr Power appeared to be by nature an able and 
 accomplished lecturer, and therefore it was evident 
 the defect lay in his subject and not in himself. 
 What, then, was to be done ? Before coming to a 
 final determination, I strolled into another school, 
 and there heard a lecture from Hargrave on the 
 Muscles of the Human Body. It was followed by 
 another from Bevan on the same subject. I was so 
 thoroughly delighted with the descriptions given of 
 the muscular system that I at once put down my 
 name on the list of pupils. I became such an 
 enthusiastic anatomist that I usually spent six hours 
 a day in the dissecting-room and anatomical theatre. 
 During the whole course of my anatomical studies 
 in Dublin, however, I carefully avoided dissecting 
 the brain. All I heard about it seemed perfect 
 jargon, and therefore it was a very uninteresting 
 subject. Indeed, no student seemed to trouble him- 
 self about it beyond the necessary process of cram- 
 ming himself with technicalities to enable him to 
 pass the examinations. This was the necessary 
 result of the stupid method of dissection adopted by 
 anatomists. Although Gall and Spurzheim, at that 
 
PEEFACE. V 
 
 time, had been engaged for more than thirty years 
 in dissecting the brain after the method of its 
 structural development from below upwards, I never 
 saw the dissection performed on their plan. The 
 old method alone was required to be known, as it 
 was the one adopted at the examinations for Degrees 
 and Diplomas at the different Universities and Col- 
 leges over the Empire. This is a truly marvellous 
 and most disgraceful fact. It shows that corporate 
 bodies will make improvements only when they are 
 forced upon them from without. 
 
 In 1836, I attended lectures on Physiology at the 
 University of Glasgow. The physiology of the brain 
 was dwelt on at considerable length, and the struc- 
 ture of the organ, as traced from below upwards, 
 was demonstrated in the simplest and most beauti- 
 ful manner by the use of plates which were said to 
 be founded on a plan of dissection originally in- 
 vented by Heil, but which I now know was really 
 adopted by Reil from Gall and Spurzheim. This 
 plan of tracing the anatomy of the brain was quite 
 new to me, as I had never seen anything of the 
 kind in Dublin. All now seemed so simple, beauti- 
 ful, and perfectly intelligible, that I became a great 
 admirer of Eeil. Matters had so far changed since 
 leaving Dublin, that the brain became by far the 
 most fascinating portion of anatomy to me. I had 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 not the slightest difficulty in mastering its structural 
 development. At this juncture, the papers an- 
 nounced that Mr George Combe had arrived in 
 Glasgow to deliver a course of lectures on Phren- 
 ology. I was about to attend the class when the 
 Physiological Professor stated from the chair that he 
 would give us four lectures on Phrenology. This 
 had the effect of stopping me from going to hear Mr 
 Combe. I listened most attentively to the Pro- 
 fessor's lectures, which were directly opposed to the 
 system of Gall, but they appeared extremely unsatis- 
 factory. The objections urged against Phrenology 
 were so frivolous that they only served to awaken 
 my desire for information on the subject. At the 
 conclusion of the course, I told the Professor that I 
 never liked to decide on any subject without hearing 
 both sides of the question, and therefore I would be 
 obliged if he would give me the name of the best 
 work he had read in favour of Phrenology, in order 
 that I might obtain a copy of it. He said he 
 thought Gall and Spurzheim's works would likely be 
 the best, but he could give me very little informa- 
 tion about them, as he had not read them. This 
 struck me with utter amazement. 1 could not 
 understand how any man could bring himself to 
 deliver four lectures against Phrenology without 
 having first made himself well acquainted with the 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 best works in its favour. I at once lost all confi- 
 dence in Ms judgment, and regretted exceedingly that 
 I had missed the opportunity of hearing Mr Combe. 
 It also struck me as a remarkable fact that Reil's 
 plan of dissecting the brain after its structural 
 development should be taught by the use of plates 
 in the Physiological class-room, and that I should 
 never have seen such a mode of dissection practised 
 in the Anatomical theatres of either Dublin or Glas- 
 gow. The plan seemed so plain and simple that it 
 was difficult to understand why it was kept in the 
 dark. All appeared mysterious. I never heard 
 even a hint, at that time, that this plan of dissec- 
 tion, which was directly attributed to Reil, was 
 really the original invention of Gall and Spurzheim, 
 and no more belonged to Eeil than to me. The 
 reader will find this point more particularly alluded 
 to at the 129th and the 432d pages of this work. 
 
 Before leaving Glasgow, I was spending an even- 
 ing with a scientific friend. A gentleman, whose 
 name I know not, sat beside me at the supper-table. 
 He was well versed in Phrenology, and told me some 
 of the most important features of my own character. 
 This made a deep impression upon my mind, but 1 
 was so overwhelmed with professional work that I 
 could not give any further attention to the subject. 
 Matters remained pretty much in this position till 
 
Vlll PBEFACE. 
 
 the year 1840, when a Polish exile came to Cole- 
 raine to practise Phrenology. Being determined to 
 take advantage of his visit to examine the science, 
 I spent all the time I could command in his room«. 
 The public were flocking to him in great numbers, 
 and this gave me an opportunity of seeing many 
 parties examined, with whose characters I was well 
 acquainted. The delineations were so extremely 
 accurate that. I could no more doubt the truth of the 
 science than I could doubt my own existence. If, 
 under the circumstances in which I was placed, I 
 had denied the truth of Phrenology, I must of neces- 
 sity have admitted the inspiration of the practitioner. 
 To have remained sceptical would have been to act 
 the part of a fool. I became a very willing disciple, 
 and took every advantage of the opportunities pre- 
 sented, so as to become as well versed as possible in 
 the practical department of the science. 
 
 In the spring of 1842, I delivered a course of 
 lectures on Phrenology for the benefit of the funds 
 of the Coleraine Mechanics' Institute. The prepara- 
 tion of these lectures brought me to the considera- 
 tion of the question of materialism. I had not 
 then the slightest doubt, from practical observation, 
 that the principles of Phrenology were founded in 
 \ nature, and therefore I was not ashamed to acknow- 
 
 ledge them, or afraid of their consequences. Al- 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 tliough I could not then clearly see my way on the 
 question of materialism, I had no fear whatever on 
 the subject. I knew God could not contradict 
 Himself, and felt certain that truth would always 
 square with truth. To think otherwise would be 
 to doubt the wisdom and perfection of God. As I 
 knew from the infallible words of inspiration that 
 man was endowed with an immaterial and immortal 
 principle, I felt absolutely certain that Phrenology, 
 if rightly understood, could never contradict Eevela- 
 tion on this point. On the contrary, I had no 
 doubt that Phrenology and Revelation, both being 
 true, would one day be squared with each other. 
 This was just the point at which I was obliged to 
 stop in the year 1842. My mind, however, could 
 not rest contented here, and therefore I reverted 
 to the subject in 1843. Having read Mr Combe's 
 observations on materialism, I was by no means 
 satisfied with them. They appeared entirely in- 
 consistent with proper views of Christianity. He 
 says, '' The solution of this question (materialism) 
 is not only unimportant, but impossible." Now, 
 although Mr Combe admits the existence of mind, 
 I could not agree with him in thinking that it is a 
 matter of no importance to determine whether or not 
 man possesses a principle within him which, in its 
 own nature, is immaterial^ and consequently im- 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 mortal unless directly annihilated by the Almighty. 
 Neither could I subscribe to Mr Combe's argument 
 that it is of no importance whether God has made a 
 brain to think or a mind to think, because He could 
 make the one immortal as readily as the other. 
 This is a complete begging of the question. The 
 point for investigation is not, What could God do ? 
 but, What has He done '? In place of fruitlessly 
 speculating on what God could make, we ought to 
 acquaint ourselves, as far as possible, with what He 
 has made. This is the point. If there be no 
 thinking principle besides the brain, immortality, 
 under present circumstances, is only a dream, be- 
 cause we know for a certainty that the brain dies, 
 corrupts, and dwindles into dust. Mr Combe asserts 
 that it is impossible to solve this question of ma- 
 terialism. Why is it impossible ? Because, says 
 he, '' All our knowledge must be derived from 
 either consciousness or observation, and as no other 
 modes of arriving at certain knowledge are open to 
 man, the solution of this question appears to be 
 placed completely beyond his reach." This state- 
 ment is specially objectionable. It practically 
 ignores the existence of Kevelation, and directly 
 excludes it as a mode of conveying certain know- 
 ledge to man. Observation is indeed the only sure 
 foundation for physical science ; but this is very 
 
PEEFACE. XI 
 
 different from saying that observation and reflection 
 on consciousness are tlie only possible channels of 
 knowledge. Mr Combe's statement excludes Ke- 
 velation, not only as a mode of receiving informa- 
 tion regarding the existence, nature, and destiny of 
 the human soul, but also as a mode of receiving 
 information regarding the existence of God, a future 
 state, and everything else. If, as he asserts, there 
 be no other mode of arriving at certain knowledge 
 open to man than consciousness and observation, as 
 a matter of course Eevelation is out of the question, 
 because it cannot be brought in under either of these 
 heads. On this principle, we could not derive 
 certain knowledge from it on any subject. Nay, 
 more, on his own principles, Mr Combe cannot 
 consistently admit the existence of mind at all. 
 He has excluded Revelation as a source of informa- 
 tion j he says, '^ Consciousness gives us no informa- 
 tion whether God, in creating man, was pleased to 
 invest his material organs with the property of 
 thought, or to infuse into him a portion of imma- 
 terial fire ; " and in regard to observation, he re- 
 marks, " Xo eye can penetrate the integuments of 
 the head to obtain a view of the operations per- 
 formed in the brain." Where, then, can he get any 
 proof of the existence of mind ? JSTowhere. If he 
 believed in the existence of mind, according to his 
 
Xll PREFACE. 
 
 own principles, he believed without evidence. It 
 is truly surprising to find that a man of Mr Combe's 
 perspicacity should be so far overseen as not to ob- 
 serve that the arguments he uses in reference to 
 the nature of mind are equally applicable as to its 
 very existence. When a man forsakes the paths of 
 truth he cannot square with himself. It is greatly 
 to be regretted that Mr Combe held the opinions 
 which he did on this and kindred subjects, as the 
 progress of Phrenology has been immensely re- 
 tarded by their promulgation. They have made 
 the religious public look with extreme suspicion on 
 the entire question. This is hardly to be wondered 
 at. But still the public cannot be justified for re- 
 jecting Phrenology on such grounds, because the 
 obnoxious sentiments are not, in any instance, neces- 
 sarily Phrenological, but result from Mr Combe's 
 peculiar views. With all my respect for Mr Combe, 
 I would dissent as strenuously from his insidious, 
 and therefore highly dangerous, religious opinions, 
 as I would from the barefaced materialism of Dr 
 EUiotson and Sir William Lawrence. 
 
 If Phrenologists were to say that we must look 
 to Revelation, and not to Phrenology, or to any 
 other physical science, for information regarding 
 the existence and nature of the soul, no person 
 could find fault, because no sensible man would 
 
PREFACE. XI 11 
 
 expect Phrenology to be responsible for demonstrat- 
 ing the existence and immateriality of the soul, just 
 because this is not within its province, but belongs 
 specially to the domain of Eevelation. The exist- 
 ence, immateriality, and immortality of the soul 
 having been established from Scripture, however, it 
 then fakly devolves on the Phrenologist to show 
 that his science is perfectly compatible with this 
 doctrine of Revelation. This view of the case has 
 been met by Gall on the principle that his doctrines 
 are no more open to the charge of materialism than 
 are those of his neighbours, inasmuch as he holds that 
 the organs of the brain bear the same relationship 
 to the mind that the eye and the ear do. Conse- 
 quently, if he is a materialist, all others must be the 
 same. This is both a legitimate and sufficient 
 line of defence. It occurred to me, however, when 
 pondering on the subject in the year 1843, that the 
 argument was capable of being driven a great deal 
 further ; and hence in my second course of lectures 
 in Coleraine, as well as in those I delivered in Dublin 
 in 1851, I took the bold step of turning the tables 
 on my opponents, and of thus carrying the battle 
 into the enemy's country. I undertook to prove 
 that the Phrenologist, so far from being necessarily 
 a materialist, is the only man who can properly and 
 consistently avoid materialism. This surely is a 
 
XIV PREFACE. 
 
 matter of overwhelming importance. How far I 
 have succeeded in my onerous task, must be left to 
 the judgment of my readers. If the arguments 
 adduced can stand the test of criticism, I shall have 
 the satisfaction of knowing that I have removed 
 Phrenology far from the field of materialism, and 
 placed it, as the only science which can unravel the 
 nature of man, in direct harmony with the profes- 
 sion of what is known by the title of Evangelical 
 Christianity. 
 
 This work beino- confined to the fundamental 
 principles of Phrenology, I hope, at some future 
 period, to be able to command suflStcient time to 
 write a volume on the position, appearance, and 
 functions of the various organs of which the brain 
 is composed. 
 
 CoLERAiNE, Ireland, 1868. 
 
CONTENTS, 
 
 PHRENOLOGY, 
 
 THE RECEPTION OF TRUTH, 
 PROGRESS OF PHREXOLOGT, 
 UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY, 
 REPLY TO OBJECTIONS, . 
 IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 
 IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 
 INFLUENCE OF AGE, 
 SIZE, POWER, AND ACTIVITY, 
 TEMPERAMENT, •. 
 HEALTH OF THE BRAIN, . 
 EFFECTS OF EXERCISE, . 
 THE BRAIN AND SKULL, . 
 ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BRAIN, 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 21 
 24 
 46 
 114 
 211 
 210 
 315 
 345 
 363 
 366 
 410 
 454 
 
PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 If I had not the most decided and well-grounded con- 
 viction of the truth, and practical utility, of Phrenology, 
 I could not possibly be induced to undertake its advo- 
 cacy. The experimental knowledge which I have of 
 the science, however, is such as to rivet conviction on 
 my own mind, and, at the same time, imbue me with 
 an irresistible desire for prosecuting its study, in order 
 that I^may obtain correct and satisfactory views on 
 every point connected with mental philosophy. Al- 
 though I maintain that the truths which Phrenology 
 has revealed are of more importance in the various 
 concerns of life, than those which have yet been dis- 
 covered in any other branch of science, and also that 
 the majority of mankind are capable of acquiring a 
 highly useful amount of information on the subject, 
 I am still free to confess that it is a difficult matter 
 to become a good practical and scientific phrenologist. 
 Such a condition can be arrived at only by an exten- 
 sive course of study and a patient investigation of 
 
Ji PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 nature. When the celebrated Sir Joshua Keynolds 
 visited Italy, and gazed for the first time on the im- 
 mortal works of Eaphael and Michael Angelo, he could 
 discover nothing extraordinary ; but a closer inspec- 
 tion, and a more accurate examination, began to unfold 
 their beauties, and he then saw they were really in- 
 imitable. So is it with Phrenology. To the super- 
 ficial observer it may appear trifling and unimportant ; 
 but the patient and scientific inquirer will find, that it 
 opens to his view a rich and extensive field, which is 
 adorned with all the majesty, and yet beautiful sim- 
 plicity, of nature ; that it contains precious metals 
 which must be sought for before they are obtained, 
 but which, when once discovered, will more than 
 compensate for the toil and expense of the investi- 
 gation. 
 
 ' THE KECEPTION OF TEUTH. 
 
 In every age, prejudice, ignorance, and interest have 
 formed a barrier to the reception of truth. There are 
 few men capable of throwing overboard, all at once, 
 those opinions which have been impressed on their 
 minds from their earliest infancy, and adopting new 
 ones, no matter how strong soever the evidence may 
 be on which the novel doctrines depend. ** There is 
 nothing more difficult," says Dr Stokes, in his Lec- 
 tures on Fever ^ " than for a man who has been edu- 
 
THE RECEPTION OF TRUTH. 3 
 
 cated in a particular doctrine to free himself from 
 it, even though he has found it to be wrong. There 
 is nothing more difficult than to unlearn.^^ "Who 
 ever," observes Locke, ^'bj the most cogent argu- 
 ments, will be prevailed upon to disrobe himself at 
 once of all his old opinions and pretensions to know- 
 ledge and learning, which with hard study he hath 
 all his time been labouring for, and turn himself out 
 stark naked in quest of fresh notions ? All the argu- 
 ments that can be used will be as little able to prevail 
 as the wind did with the traveller to part with his 
 cloak, which he held only the faster." 
 
 Incredible as it may appear, it is nevertheless true^ 
 that even ocular demonstration has sometimes been 
 insufficient for the removal of preconceived ideas. 
 Those who have read Brewster's Life of Galileo are 
 aware that Aristotle taught that all bodies, in falling 
 to the earth, had a velocity exactly in proportion to 
 their own weight, so that the heaviest would invariably 
 touch the ground first, provided they all had an equal 
 start. Galileo, however, denied this principle, and main- 
 tained that all bodies would fall through the same space 
 exactly in the same time, without any regard to their 
 weight, provided only they were not retarded by the 
 resistance of the atmosphere. He undertook to prove 
 the correctness of his opinions by dropping bodies of 
 different weights, at the same time, in the presence of 
 the disciples of Aristotle, from the tower of Pisa. His 
 
4 PHRENOLOGY. ^| 
 
 experiments were so entirely successful that they called 
 forth " the enthusiastic admiration of an immense con- 
 course of public spectators who were present to wit- 
 ness them ; but it was those who claimed the name 
 of Philosophers that most bitterly opposed him." 
 Yes, the Philosophers, — the Philosophers, —the Philo- 
 sophers, opposed him ! That they did ! The Aristo- 
 telians could not deny the success of his practical 
 demonstrations ; but they ascribed it to chance, or 
 some unknown cause, and would not allow the opinions 
 of their master to be upset, even by the practical and 
 successful experiments which were performed before 
 their own eyes ! ! They were exactly like the Anti- 
 phrenologists, who call the practical delineations of 
 character, the accuracy of which they cannot dispute, 
 ^* a good guess." The one class of philosophers is just 
 about as wise as the other. Again, Bostock informs 
 us that the disciples of Galen, when they saw his 
 anatomical theories overturned by dissections of the 
 human body, chose rather to affirm that the human 
 body had undergone a permanent change in its ana- 
 tomical structure, than admit that Galen could have 
 committed an error. To such parties, demonstrative 
 proof could be of no use ; and I am sorry to say their 
 obstinate resistance to practical evidence has been 
 imitated in numerous instances, in our own genera- 
 tion, by the followers of Sir William Hamilton and 
 Lord Jeffrey. 
 
THE RECEPTION OF TEUTH. 5 
 
 The real Philosoplier is always prepared to receive 
 truth, and reject error, without the slightest regard 
 to the consequences which may ensue. With him, it 
 is not of the least importance whether the alleged 
 facts were produced yesterday, or have been known 
 for a thousand years ; whether they were discovered 
 by a man of eminence, or by a person unknown to 
 literature or fame. The only question is, Are they 
 really facts ? If they are, he will at once receive them ; 
 but if they are not, he will unhesitatingly reject them. 
 He will never go to the side of either scepticism or 
 credulity, because he knows the one is as unphiloso- 
 phical as the other. " Everywhere," observes Macaulay 
 in his History of England, " there is a class of men who 
 cling with fondness to what is ancient, and who, even 
 when convinced by overpowering reasons, that inno- 
 vation would be beneficial, consent to it with many 
 misgivings and forebodings. We find also everywhere 
 another class of men, sanguine in hope, bold in specu- 
 lation, and disposed to give every change credit for 
 being an improvement. In the sentiments of both 
 classes there is something to approve. But of both 
 the best specimens will be found not far from the 
 common frontier. The extreme section of the one 
 class consists of bigoted dotards : the extreme section 
 of the other consists of shallow and reckless empirics." 
 " I am accustomed," says Professor Mittermaier of 
 Heidelberg, " neither to surrender myself blindly and 
 
6 PHRENOLOGY. ^ ^X 
 
 instantaneously to new ideas and systems, nor to re- 
 ject them from prejudice, merely because they are new. 
 I try all things ; and every inquiry which has for its 
 object a more accurate knowledge of the nature of 
 man, or which can contribute to the progress of hu- 
 manity, is important in my estimation." Sentiments 
 such as these must commend themselves to every man 
 who is possessed of a well-balanced brain. They ought 
 to be engraved on our memory. " I have always con- 
 sidered,^' remarks a sensible newspaper writer, " that 
 there can be no greater proof of an enlightened and 
 really cultivated mind than a readiness to acknowledge 
 error. Every man is liable to inaccuracy ; but that 
 man frees himself from a load of difficulties who has 
 the generosity to admit his imperfections. Many men 
 have lost the greater part of their days in defending 
 opinions which were maintained only because they 
 had once been expressed, and because they were want- 
 ing in that moral courage which is necessary to confess 
 the truth, and retrieve the past. The pride which pre- 
 vents our acknowledging truth, wherever it is to be 
 found, can only end in humiliation ; real indepen- 
 dence, which is the best of all pride, can only exist 
 in the fearless assertion of what we conscientiously 
 conceive to be right." ^' What has always made me 
 easy," says Dr Priestley, ^' in any controversy in which 
 I have been engaged, has been my fixed resolution 
 frankly to acknowledge any mistake that I might per- 
 
THE EECEPTION OF TRUTH. 7 
 
 ceive I had fallen into." '' He that opposes his own 
 judgment against the consent of the times," says De 
 Foe, " ought to be backed with unanswerable truths ; 
 and he that has truth on his side is a fool, as well as 
 a coward, if he is afraid to own it because of the cur- 
 rency or multitude of other men's opinions." 
 
 Dr Macnish has correctly asserted " that persecution 
 is the reward of innovation in whatever form it ap- 
 pears.'^ The truth of this statement is borne out to 
 the fullest extent by examples from every source. The 
 only difficulty lies in the selection. Pythagoras, we 
 are informed, was banished from Athens, and Anexa- 
 goras imprisoned, on account of their new opinions. 
 The Abderites considered Democritus insane, because 
 he attempted to discover the cause of madness by dis- 
 section ; and Socrates was obliged to drink the poisonous 
 juice of hemlock for having attempted to prove the 
 unity of God, (Gall's Works.) When Galileo, having 
 invented a telescope, by which bodies invisible to the 
 naked eye are brought into view, discovered the satel- 
 lites of Jupiter and the inequalities on the surface of 
 the moon, and when he further affirmed the daily 
 motion of the earth, he was brought before the Inqui- 
 sition and cast into a dungeon, without the slightest 
 regard to his old age and much infirmity, {Life of 
 Galileo.) Prinella was beat with rods for saying the 
 stars would not fall ; and Camparella was seven times 
 tortured for asserting there was a multitude of 
 
8 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 worlds, (Dr Dill's Ireland) When Paracelsus intro- 
 duced the use of antimony as a medicine, he was per- 
 secuted for the innovation, and the French Parliament 
 made it penal to prescribe it. Even in our own country 
 the same spirit of persecution, and bitter opposition to 
 truth, have been frequently manifested. Sir Isaac 
 Newton was most violently opposed for his discovery 
 of the composition of light. " Though," as Professor 
 Piayfair observes, " it was not a theory or system of 
 opinions, but the generalisation of facts made known 
 by experiments, and though it was brought forward 
 in a most simple and unpretending form, a host of 
 enemies appeared, each eager to obtain the unfortunate 
 pre-eminence of being the first to attack conclusions 
 which the unanimous voice of posterity was to con- 
 firm," His opinions made such little progress in other 
 countries that he had not more than twenty followers 
 on the Continent, we are told, at the end of forty years 
 after the publication of the Principia. " The slow 
 progress," says Voltaire, " of truths so simple, irrefrag- 
 able, and beautiful, explaining an infinity of phenomena 
 with such ease, shows, in a striking light, how educa- 
 tion and habit triumph over reason, and how the ad- 
 vance of knowledge is impeded by the vassalage of 
 mind to established opinions." I cannot understand 
 how Dr Eoget, having regard to such well-known facts, 
 could say, when writing against Phrenology about 
 forty years after its discovery, that if it " had been a 
 
THE EECEPTION OF TEUTH. 9 
 
 real science, like that of Chemistrj, and other branches 
 of Natural Philosophy, founded on uniform and un- 
 questionable evidence, it could not have failed by this 
 time of being generally recognised as true," (Eoget's 
 Physiology and Phrenology , vol. i. p. 92.) If there was 
 any good in Dr Eoget's argument, it would tell with far 
 greater force against Sir Isaac Newton than against 
 Dr Gall. 
 
 In this country, we have also to blush for the treat- 
 ment received by the illustrious and immortal Harvey, 
 who was ridiculed and persecuted by almost all his 
 learned contemporaries, and, by the consequent loss of 
 his practice, was reduced to comparative poverty, 
 simply because he made the grand discovery of the 
 general circulation of the blood. To this day, even, 
 his remains have been allowed to lie in their ignoble 
 position in a village graveyard in Essex, whilst costly 
 monuments have been erected to men who were a 
 disgrace to humanity. Well might the editor of the 
 London Medical Times and Gazette exclaim, "In no 
 country but England would the remains of the dis- 
 coverer of the circulation of the blood have been left 
 to repose so long in obscurity." 
 
 One of the most interesting books, in its own depart- 
 ment, I have ever read, is the Life of George Stephen- 
 son, by Samuel Smiles. It contains an uninterrupted 
 illustration of the struggles of genius and science 
 against everything which is usually called great and 
 
10 PHRENOLOGY. ^| 
 
 learned in the world. It places thousands of our 
 countrymen in everlasting disgrace. When the cir- 
 cumstances in which he was placed are taken into con- 
 sideration, it is very questionable if George Stephenson 
 ever had a superior in mechanical genius. He com- 
 menced life by working for twopence a day, and learned 
 to read at eighteen years of age. He had no money ; 
 little patronage ; a poor education ; no scientific books ; 
 no philosophical instruments ; no skilled artisans to 
 assist him ; and yet, by the mighty power of his own 
 genius, he raised himself to the highest pitch of emin- 
 ence. He not only invented the safety lamp, but he 
 also invented the Locomotive Steam Engine, and the 
 entire of our present railway system. He will get full 
 credit for all this now ; but how was he treated at the 
 time he made his great discoveries ? He was just 
 ridiculed, abused, despised, and violently opposed by 
 learned engineers, men of science, eminent lawyers, 
 the Houses of Lords and Commons, and, in short, with 
 a few noble exceptions, by all the great men in the 
 realm. Still he had truth on his side, and ultimately 
 conquered all opposition. The name of Sir Humphrey 
 Davy has been very generally connected with the safety 
 lamp ; and there is no question he did invent a very 
 elegant, but by no means the safest, lamp, without any 
 extraneous assistance. For this he should get every 
 credit. But that is no reason why another should be 
 robbed of the merit which is his due. No honest man 
 
THE EECEPTION OF TRUTH. 1 1 
 
 could read the history of the facts, with their dates, 
 as given in detail by Mr Smiles, without coming to the 
 inevitable conclusion that a safety lamp, on the same 
 principle as Sir Humphrey Davy^s, was invented by 
 George Stephenson, and that Stephenson's lamp was 
 in use for some time before ever Davy's was heard of. 
 These facts are unquestionable. But still Dr Paris, 
 the learned biographer of Davy, has thought proper to 
 say, " It will hereafter be scarcely believed that an 
 invention so eminently scientific, and which could 
 never have been derived but from the sterling treasury 
 of science, should have been claimed on behalf of an 
 engine-wright of Killingworth, of the name of Stephen- 
 son — a person not even possessing a knowledge of the 
 elements of Chemistry." Here Dr Paris, who was one 
 of the most polished members of the College of Physi- 
 cians, sets out with the a pi^iori principle that a dis- 
 covery of this description could be made only by one 
 who was learned in the doctrines of the schools. The 
 facts, however, are directly against him ; but what 
 chance have the facts at the hands of men who con- 
 sider that nothing great could originate except at the 
 fountains of learning. "What chance," says Mr Smiles, 
 " had the unknown workman of Killingworth with so 
 distinguished a competitor as Sir Humphrey Davy 1 
 The one was as yet but a colliery engine-wright, scarce 
 raised above the manual-labour class, without chemical 
 knowledge or literary culture, pursuing his experiments 
 
12 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 in obscurity, with a view only to usefulness ; the other 
 was the scientific prodigy of his day, the pet of the 
 Royal Society, the favourite of princes, the most bril- 
 liant of lecturers, and the most popular of philoso- 
 phers." The history of Stephenson shows very plainly 
 that he had no chance against such men as Sir Hum- 
 phrey Davy, till the prodigious results of his discovery 
 of the Locomotive Steam Engine, and of his unparal- 
 leled railway engineering capabilities, placed him in 
 such a position that those who formerly despised him 
 were glad to take advantage of his counsel, and felt 
 honoured by his acquaintance. It would, indeed, be 
 well for the world now if they could learn a practical 
 lesson from, and be warned by, the conduct of those 
 who gave such determined opposition to the " Engine- 
 wright of Killingworth, of the name of Stephenson." 
 
 When the Duke of Bridge water wished to make a 
 canal near Manchester, he was quite perplexed to know 
 how he could carry it across the river Irwell. Brind- 
 ley, the millwright, who was in the duke's employ- 
 ment, suggested the plan of making an aqueduct over 
 the Irwell, near Barton Bridge. As the idea of carry- 
 ing one water across another in this w^ay had never 
 before been heard of, it was considered to be an insane 
 project. The duke himself was so sceptical on the 
 subject that he called in an engineer of great eminence 
 to examine the matter, and give his opinion. Those 
 who have full confidence in antiquated lore, and high 
 
THE RECEPTION OF TEUTH. 13 
 
 scientific pretensions, would now expect, of course, that 
 a decision bordering on infallibility would be given. 
 Well, what was the result ? " I have often," said this 
 great engineer, " heard of castles in the air, but never 
 before was shown where any of them were to be 
 erected." Notwithstanding this adverse opinion from 
 the recognised source of authority, the duke, like a 
 wise man, gave the millwright leave to proceed. On 
 the 17th July 1761, {Chambers^ s Journal,) the aque- 
 duct was ready for the admission of the water. Poor 
 Brindley, whose judgment was now placed in direct 
 opposition to that of the great engineer, was so anxious 
 about the result that he ran away as the water was 
 being admitted. His success, however, was complete. 
 The experiment proved him to be a man of practical 
 sense ; whilst the learned engineer, who condemned 
 the project, was shown to be an ignorant, self-conceited 
 creature, who was incapable of appreciating anything 
 which did not originate with a person as great as him- 
 self. Alas ! what multitudes of followers has this 
 great engineer in the present day ! The question re- 
 garding Phrenology frequently is not. Is it practically 
 true ? But, How will it square with our favourite 
 theories ? Into what college has it been admitted ? 
 What great men have believed the report ? 
 
 In 1693, Dr Groenvelt used cantharides internally 
 for dropsy. So soon as this became known, he was 
 committed to Newgate by warrant of — some illiterate 
 
14 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 fellow, of course — no, but actually by warrant of the 
 President of the College of Physicians ! ! , The College 
 of Physicians must also bear the credit of having ridi- 
 culed, persecuted, and oppressed the immortal Jenner, 
 {Chambers's Journal^ vol. i. New Series,) on account of 
 his discovery of vaccination, — a discovery which now 
 saves the lives of more than 500,000 persons annually 
 in Europe alone, (Sir J. Y. Simpson's Obstetrics^ vol. ii. ;) 
 but the application of which, on its introduction to the 
 world, Professor Monro, of the Edinburgh University, 
 said " should be prohibited by Act of Parliament." 
 How truly contemptible do such men now appear in our 
 eyes ! They are a disgrace to their race. " The lancet 
 of Jenner," says Sir J. Y. Simpson, " has saved more 
 lives than the sword of Napoleon destroyed. On the 
 devastating European wars England lavished millions 
 of money, and freely bestowed honours, peerages, and 
 heavy annual pensions upon the soldiers who were 
 most successful in fighting her battles, and destroying 
 their fellow-men ; but she grudgingly rewarded Jenner 
 with thirty thousand pounds" for saving the lives of a 
 large number of her subjects. When Jenner intro- 
 duced his favourite topic at the Medical Club, he was 
 threatened with expulsion, and the subject was de- 
 nounced as a nuisance. The opposition, however, did 
 not stop here, as he was actually prevented from pub- 
 lishing the results of his experiments in The Trans- 
 actions of the Royal Society 1 1 {Life of Jenner^ In 
 
THE RECEPTION OF TRUTH. 13 
 
 order to give the Eoyal Society full credit for its de- 
 termined and never-ending opposition to truth, I may 
 also mention that it would not permit the publication, 
 in its Transactions^ of Dr Marshall Hall's early papers 
 on his great and extremely important discoveries on 
 the nervous system ! ! This conduct is just on 
 a par with that of the Faculty of Medicine of 
 Paris, who carried their blind opposition to prac- 
 tical knowledge so far as to refuse permission to 
 Ambrose Parr for the printing of his invaluable 
 discovery of the application of ligatures to arteries, 
 — a discovery which enabled the surgeon, in the 
 amputation of a limb, to arrest the flow of blood by 
 the application of a thread to the artery, in place of 
 searing the stump over with a red-hot iron, {London 
 Medical Gazette, Oct. 5, 1844.) 
 
 Who, after becoming acquainted with these facts, 
 could place the slightest confidence in colleges, and 
 what is commonly called learned societies, or yet ex- 
 pect that they ever could become the real fountains of 
 knowledge ? Their history plainly proves that they 
 have received truth, at least in their corporate capa- 
 city, only when it was absolutely forced on them from 
 without. Instead of being, what they ought to be, 
 the pioneers, they have been a constant drag on the 
 chariot-wheels of truth. They are " beacons moored 
 in the stream of time, which serve only to mark the 
 rapidity with which the tide of civilisation is flowing 
 
16 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 past them." " In proportion," says the learned Arch- 
 bishop Whately, " as any branch of study leads to im- 
 portant and useful results, in proportion as it gains 
 ground in public estimation, in proportion as it tends 
 to overthrow prevailing errors, in the same degree it 
 may be expected to call forth angry declamation from 
 those who are trying to despise what they will not 
 learn, and wedded to prejudices which they cannot 
 defend. Galileo probably would have escaped perse- 
 cution, if his discoveries could have been disproved, 
 and his reasonings refuted." 
 
 When we reflect on the various historical facts I 
 have already adduced, we could not expect that Phren- 
 ology would escape the most determined opposition on 
 its first introduction to the world. It would be quite 
 unreasonable to imagine it would fare any better than 
 the other great discoveries which were promulgated at 
 different periods of the history of our race. If it had 
 been at once universally received in the ranks of litera- 
 ture, we would have had a strong a priori, I might 
 almost say an insuperable, reason for doubting its truth. 
 On the supposition of its being true, our knowledge of 
 previous events would lead us inevitably and imme- 
 diately to the conclusion, that it must of necessity 
 pass through the fiery ordeal of a bitter persecution. 
 Persecution is not an absolute test of truth, because 
 error may be, and sometimes is, persecuted. But there 
 is this great difference between truth and error, that 
 
THE RECEPTION OF TRUTH. 17 
 
 error generally escapes determined opposition and per- 
 secution — truth never does ; error spreads rapidly — 
 truth travels slowly ; error has comparatively few re- 
 sources, and must come to an end — ^truth is quite in- 
 exhaustible, and knows no end. 
 
 On the 9th of January 1802, the Austrian Government 
 commanded Dr Gall, the illustrious discoverer of Phren- 
 ology, to discontinue his lectures on the functions of 
 the brain. As his public expositions were thus authori- 
 tatively put an end to, he left Vienna, in company with 
 Dr Spurzheim, in the year 1805, and never afterwards 
 returned to that benighted region. After having thus 
 deprived himself of the comforts of home, and given 
 up his professional prospects, in order to prosecute the 
 study, and promote the advancement, of his beloved 
 science, and thus make known to the world those great 
 truths which he considered capable of wielding the 
 destinies of nations, he has been loaded with ridicule 
 and covered with abuse from almost every quarter. 
 Few men have suffered more for their opinions than 
 Gall and Spurzheim ; but, armed with a feeling of 
 greatness from the mighty power of those truths 
 which they taught, they felt they were invincible, 
 and therefore were enabled to look with majestic com- 
 placency upon all those mortals who thought they 
 were elevating themselves in the social scale whilst 
 they were opposing and persecuting the discoverers 
 and the advocates of some of the noblest laws of crea- 
 
 B 
 
18 PHKENOLOGY. 
 
 tion. They felt their opponents occupied the position 
 of the creature fighting against the works of the Crea- 
 tor. They were strong in the unconquerable power 
 of truth. 
 
 The late Professor Ucelli was deprived of his chair 
 in the University of Florence, and after his death all 
 biographical accounts of him were prohibited, merely 
 because he professed his belief in Phrenology. Dr 
 Ferrarese, of Naples, was called before the Holy Tri- 
 bunal for having written in favour of Phrenology, and 
 was actually imprisoned for twenty-eight days in the 
 year 1 840. Mr George Combe, who visited him, says, 
 " He was suspended from his office of Physician in 
 Ordinary to the Royal Lunatic Asylum at Aversa, and 
 crushed to the earth by every engine of persecution 
 ^hich bigotry and tyranny, combined, could employ 
 against him." 
 
 The advocates of Phrenology could not be corpore- 
 ally punished in Great Britain in the nineteenth cen- 
 tury ; but they met with a very hot reception in the 
 form of ridicule and abuse of every imaginable de- 
 scription. A few specimens on this head will suffice 
 to exhibit their position. Take the following : — " In 
 our opinion, fool and Phrenologist are terms as nearly 
 synonymous as can be found in any language. . . . 
 These infernal idiots, the Phrenologists." — {Blach- 
 wood's Magazine, JSTos. 72 and 76.) " Such ignorant 
 and interested quacks as the Craniologist Dr Gall." — 
 
THE RECEPTION OF TEUTH. 19 
 
 {Quarterly Review,) "A tribe of crazy sciolists, deno* 
 minating themselves Craniologists. . . . Visionary 
 abortions. . . . This crew." — {The Literary Gazette for 
 1823.) " Is there no Arbuthnot now to chastise the 
 follies of our Craniologists?" — {Dug aid Stewart, as 
 quoted by Sir George S. Mackenzie, Bart.) " Man of 
 skulls. . . . Cleverer than most of his tribe. . . . 
 These two modern peripatetics, . . . empirics, . . . 
 thorough quackery. . . . There is nothing so impos- 
 sible in nature, but mountebanks will undertake. . . . 
 The suspicion of mala fides is inseparably attached to 
 their character. . . . These cunning Craniologers. . . . 
 An incoherent rhapsody. . . . Absolute insanity, gross 
 ignorance, or the most matchless assurance. . . . The 
 writings of Drs Gall and Spurzheim can leave no doubt 
 as to the real ignorance, the real hypocrisy, and the 
 real empiricism of the authors." — {Edinhurgk Review, 
 Xo. 49.) " Phrenology is implicit ' atheism — physical 
 necessity — materialism." — {Sir William HamiltoUy 
 Bart., Professor in the University of Edinburgh.) 
 " This bubble. . . . What outrage on common sense, 
 on natural laws, on scientific facts, will men not teach 
 and men believe ! " — (Editor of The London Medical 
 Times and Gazette, December 15, 1860.) 
 
 All I can say is, the language I have quoted is 
 worthy of the authors from whom it has emanated. 
 The time will yet come when they, in common with 
 all our opponents, will be known to posterity chiefly 
 
20 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 as tlie blind and ignorant opposers of truth. It be- 
 hoves every Phrenologist to assist in handing down 
 their names to future generations as the fitting com- 
 panions of those who opposed and defamed Galileo, 
 Harvey, Newton, and Jenner. They are certainly 
 destined to an inglorious immortality, in relation to 
 their ungenerous, unfounded, practically ignorant, and 
 very ill-natured attacks on Phrenology and its illus- 
 trious and honourable founders. The names of Dr 
 Gordon, Dr Roget, Sir William Hamilton, Lord Jefirey, 
 and Baron Cuvier, must occupy a prominent position 
 in the history of that bitter opposition through which 
 the science has been forced to pass. The conduct of 
 Baron Cuvier was mean and disgusting in the extreme. 
 He is said to have allowed his opinions to be so 
 far swayed by the virulent observations, adverse to 
 Phrenology, which fell from the lips of Bonaparte at 
 the levee, that he drew up a report, for the French 
 Institute, on the labours of Gall and Spurzheim, in 
 direct opposition to the sentiments expressed by him- 
 self in private society, and " in a circle which was not 
 particularly private." In relation to his conduct in 
 this matter, Chenevix is forced to remark that he 
 was as much distinguished by " the suppleness of his 
 opinions as the versatility of his understanding.'' 
 Those who wish for full information on this point, 
 will please consult Gall's Works, and Spurzheim's 
 Physiognomy, 
 
PROGRESS OF PHRENOLOGY. 21 
 
 PEOGEESS OF PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 Notwithstanding all the opposition it has had to 
 encounter, Phrenology has gathered considerable 
 strength, and has been ardently cultivated, or fairly 
 received, by a large number of celebrated men both 
 at home and abroad. I may just mention the names 
 of Mr George Combe ; Dr Andrew Combe ; Sir George 
 Mackenzie, Bart. ; Dr Barlow, of Bath ; Dr Brown, of 
 Dumfries, (now a Commissioner in Lunacy ;) Sir 
 WilHam C. ElHs ; Dr Mackintosh ; Dr Macnish ; Dr 
 Conolly, Dr EUiotson, and Dr James Johnson, of Lon- 
 don ; Mr Laurence, of London ; Professor Welsh, of 
 Edinburgh University ; Professor Caldwell, of America ; 
 Dr Hoppe, and Professor Otto, of Copenhagen ; Berze- 
 lius, of Stockholm ; Mr Eichard Carmichael, Professor 
 Montgomery, Professor Harrison, Sir Henry Marsh, 
 Bart., and Dr William Stokes, of Dublin ; Professor 
 Ucelli, of Florence ; Corvisart, Eoyer, Bouillaud, An- 
 dral, Broussais, Amusat, Blondeau, Cloquet, Sanson, 
 Dumoutier, Falret, Ferrus, Fossati, Foville, Yoisin, 
 Le Gallois, G. Pinel, Eostan, and Vimont, in France ; 
 with an immense host of others in various parts of 
 the world, which it would be too tedious to particu- 
 larise. Let any persons acquainted with the literature 
 of Europe look over these names, — let them remember 
 the list contains a Combe, a Conolly, a Johnson, a 
 
22 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 Caldwell, a Berzelius, a Carmichael, a Harrison, a 
 Stokes, a Gorvisart, an Andral, a Broussais, a Cloquet, 
 a Le Gallois, and a Vimont, — and then let them think 
 of applying to them such language as I have already- 
 quoted from Blackwood, The Quarterly Review^ The 
 Literary Gazette, Dugald Stewart, Sir William Hamil- 
 ton, The Edinburgh Review^ and The London Medical 
 Gazette, and I ask, Is it not so truly ridiculous as to 
 be beneath contempt ? 
 
 The mode of Vimont's conversion is so remarkable, 
 that it is worthy of being specially referred to. He 
 "was so far opposed to Phrenology that he made a 
 collection of skulls, brains, casts, and drawings, 
 amounting to several thousands, for the express pur- 
 pose of overturning the science ; but when he came 
 to examine his collection with attention, he was actu- 
 ally converted, through its instrumentality, to a belief 
 in the doctrines of Gall and Spurzheim, and he has 
 since been one of their most strenuous supporters.— 
 {Phrenological Journal.) He spent six years in mak- 
 ing his collection, at a cost of more than twelve thou- 
 sand francs. — {Royer.) 
 
 " Many of the phenomena of disease," says Dr Con- 
 olly. Consulting Physician to the Hanwell Lunatic 
 Asylum, " and the observation of all mankind, seem 
 to me to prove that the first principles of Phrenology 
 are founded in nature. On these, it is very probable 
 that many fancies and errors may have been built; 
 
PEOGRESS OF PHRENOLOGY. 23 
 
 but, now that anatomy and physiology have together 
 penetrated so far into the separateness of structure 
 and functions of the nerves, of the spinal marrow, and 
 even of certain portions of the cerebral mass, I can 
 see nothing which merits the praise of being philoso- 
 phical in the real or affected contempt professed by so 
 many anatomists and physiologists for a science which, 
 however imperfect, has for its object the demonstra- 
 tion that for other functions, the existence of which 
 none can deny, there are further separations and dis- 
 tinctions of hitherto unexplained portions of nervous 
 matter." ''Those who now sneer at Phrenology in 
 totOy^ observes Dr Johnson, the late eminent and ta- 
 lented Editor of the Medico-Chirurgical Review, " are 
 neither anatomists nor physiologists. That the brain 
 is the organ of the mind is undeniable. . . . When we 
 see, as in the Caucasian race, that size of cranium is 
 the great criterion of intellect — that certain forms of 
 head are historically, and by all admission, stamped 
 as peculiarly intellectual —that even special mental 
 qualities have a special cranial conformation, — when 
 we see all this, which common daily observation proves, 
 shall we say that these superficial truths, these facts 
 that swim upon the surface of experience, are all that 
 study, time, and reflection can amass — that philos- 
 ophy must attempt no more without being set in 
 the stocks as a witch, or pelted as a natural "? To our 
 apprehension, to argue in this way is the fanaticism of 
 
24 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 prejudice, the confidence of ignorance, the re-enactment 
 of that opposition to induction which has worn so 
 many shapes, and has been foiled in all/' — {Medico- 
 Chirurgical Review^ July 1842.) 
 
 UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 **I TAKE it for granted," says Spurzheim, "that every 
 kind of knowledge is useful, or, as Lord Bacon said, 
 ' Knowledge is power/ I only add, that Phrenology con- 
 cerns the most important element in the nature of 
 man, the manifestations of his affective and intel- 
 lectual faculties. Now, we examine all the beings 
 which surround us ; we divide and subdivide the dif- 
 ferent objects which nature presents to us ; we study 
 mineralogy, botany, zoology : why should we not study 
 man, who manifests the greatest number of faculties, 
 and who is lord of the terrestrial creation? Man, 
 therefore, considered merely as the most important 
 being of creation, ought especially to interest every 
 thinking person. Moreover, it must be surely of the 
 utmost importance to know our own nature. Among 
 the Greeks, the divine precept written upon the temple 
 of Delphos was — Know thyself." — {Phrenology, vol. i.) 
 The Hon. Judge Crampton, one of our best and most 
 experienced Irish judges, said he was " persuaded that 
 Phrenology is amongst the most important of the 
 
UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY. 25 
 
 acquisitions made to the stock of modern knowledge, 
 and that upon it must be based every sound system 
 of philosophy." — (Mr Combe's Testimonials.) And Dr 
 Stokes, of Dublin, says, " There can be no doubt that 
 the principles of Phrenology are founded on truth, 
 and, of course, highly deserving of your attention, as 
 likely, at some future period, when properly cultivated, 
 to exercise a great influence over medical practice. We 
 shall then, I have no doubt, recognise it as the greatest 
 discovery in the science of the moral and physical 
 nature of man that has ever been made. I feel happy 
 in thinking that of late the science has been taken up 
 on its true grounds in Paris, London, and Dublin, 
 Vimont's splendid work on Comparative Phrenology 
 will form an era in the science. In London, Dr Elliot- 
 son has directed the energies of his powerful mind to 
 the subject ; and in Dublin we have a Phrenological 
 Society, of which Sir Henry Marsh is the president, 
 and Dr Evanson the secretary, and under such auspices 
 much is to be expected." — (Eyan's London Medical 
 Journal, vol. v. p. 646.) What think ye of this, Dr 
 Gordon, Lord Jeffrey, and Mr Spencer Wells ? Surely 
 Judge Crampton and Dr Stokes must have forgotten 
 that Phrenology was a bubble ; that mountebank, fool, 
 and phrenologist were synonymous terms ! 
 
 The Eev. Dr Welsh, Professor of Church History in 
 the University of Edinburgh, said, in the presence of 
 Spurzheim, " It affords me inexpressible delight to see 
 
36 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 ^with mine own eyes that great and gifted man," (the 
 mountebank,) " who, from his extraordinary talents 
 and indefatigable exertions, is to hold so conspicuous 
 a place in the eye of all futurity. ... I feel as if I 
 were discharging a debt of gratitude, under which he 
 has placed me, when I bear public testimony in his 
 presence to the pleasure and benefit which Phren- 
 ology has afforded me in my own speculations, and 
 still more to the unspeakable advantages I have de- 
 rived from it in my professional capacity. I have 
 found the greatest benefit from the science as a min- 
 ister of the Gospel. ... I have examined the doctrines 
 of our Church, (the Presbyterian,) one by one, in con- 
 nexion with the truths of our new science, and have 
 found the most wonderful harmony subsisting between 
 them ; and, in dealing with my people in the ordinary 
 duties of my calling, the practical benefit I have de- 
 rived from Phrenology is inestimable. . . . The mo- 
 ment we satisfied ourselves in regard to the evidence 
 on which the science rests, we saw that Phrenology 
 would be immortal, and we felt it opening up to our 
 minds new views in regard to the condition of our 
 nature and the destinies of our race. . . . We had 
 nothing to fear from the reasoning of our opponents ; 
 and as for their ridicule, so thoroughly am I devoted 
 to the science, that I have always experienced a degree 
 of satisfaction even in being laughed at for being a 
 Phrenologist.'^ — {Phrenological Journal, vol. v. p. 110.) 
 
UTILITY OF PHEENOLOGY. 27 
 
 What think you of this, Sir William Hamilton ? Has 
 the Professor of Church History, in your own univer- 
 sity, adopted a system of " implicit atheism — physical 
 necessity — materialism ? " Why did you not get him 
 expelled ? How did it come that, in place of being 
 denounced for his atheism, he was actually appointed 
 a professor for the Free Church of Scotland ? 
 
 "How would we rejoice," said Mr George Combe, 
 " to sit at table with Galileo, Harvey, and Newton, 
 and to pay them the homage of our gratitude and 
 respect, and yet we have the felicity to be now in 
 company with Dr Spurzheim, whose name will rival 
 theirs in brilliancy and duration ; to whom ages un- 
 born will look with fond admiration, as the first great 
 champion of this magnificent discovery ; as the part- 
 ner in honour, in courage, and in toil with Dr Gall ; 
 as the rival in genius of him by whose master-mind 
 the science of man started into existence. Dr Spur- 
 zheim, gentlemen, is an historical personage ; — a glory 
 dwells on that brow which will never wax dim, and 
 which will one day illuminate the civilised world." 
 
 Most fully, heartily, and completely do I join Mr 
 Combe in saying, " Were I at this moment offered the 
 wealth of India on condition of Phrenology being 
 blotted from my mind for ever, I would scorn the 
 gift ; nay, were everything I possess in the world 
 placed in one hand, and Phrenology in the other, and 
 orders issued for me to choose one, Phrenology, with- 
 
26 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 out a moment's hesitation, would be preferred." '* I 
 know Phrenology to be true/' says Professor Caldwell 
 of America, '' in its details as well as in its principles, 
 and surpassingly useful in its application and effects. 
 The Book of Nature, which is in the handwriting of 
 the living God, and bears on every page the inefface- 
 able impress of His glorious signet, amply testifies to 
 its correctness ; and, notwithstanding the thousand 
 forms of obstinate and artful opposition it has encoun- 
 tered, the world is already experiencing its benefits. 
 With all who have honestly examined it, its triumph 
 is complete. If there be any labours of my life, in 
 which I would presume to glory, they are those which 
 mark me as its steady adherent. And should men, in 
 after-times, condescend to remember my name in kind- 
 ness, their chief reason for the favour will be, that I 
 have dared to be the friend of Phrenology, while most 
 of my contemporaries have been its foes — and have 
 never shrunk from raising my voice, or employing my 
 feeble pen in its defence, through every stage of the 
 long, ungenerous, and imbittered persecution it has 
 been made to sustain." 
 
 A practical acquaintance with Phrenology will be 
 of the greatest advantage to us in our intercourse with 
 society. It will enable us, at first sight, to form a 
 tolerably accurate estimate of the talents, peculiarities, 
 and natural dispositions of those with whom we may 
 come in contact, even although we have nothing but 
 
UTILITY OF THRENOLOGY. 29 
 
 our eye to judge by. Of course, without a manual 
 examination, we could not be quite certain on all 
 points ; but still the eye alone can form a correct 
 estimate of a great many. Men who are shallow, but 
 very plausible, will then cease to be placed on a par 
 with those who are blessed with a more gigantic in- 
 tellect ; and the sneaking, hypocritical class will no 
 more be confounded with those who are endowed with 
 strong moral faculties. 
 
 To the teacher, Phrenology must be invaluable. It 
 will enable him to measure exactly the capacity of the 
 children who are committed to his care, and he will 
 thus be saved from the present barbarous system of 
 overloading those who are not naturally fitted for the 
 burden. " How should that science fail to be of 
 primary importance to a teacher, which should enable 
 him to turn the studies of his pupils into the proper 
 channel, and to have a thorough knowledge of their 
 characters, which should inform him with certainty 
 that such a one has a decided talent for drawing, such 
 another for languages, a third for calculation, and a 
 fourth for poetry ; and which should warn him that it 
 would be a loss of time to urge the progress of a fifth 
 in a particular direction ! How many tears would be 
 spared to childhood ! How many vexations would the 
 teacher himself escape ! And who will presume to 
 
 foretell the results of such a system of education?'^ 
 
 * 
 
 — {Prospectus of the Paris Phrenological Society.) 
 
30 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 The history of Dean Swift, Thomas Chatterton, the 
 Duke of Wellington, Sir Walter Scott, and Baron 
 Liebig, is very instructive on this point. Swift was 
 rejected at Trinity College, Dublin ; Chatterton was 
 sent home from school as " being incapable of receiv- 
 ing instruction ; " Wellington exhibited no superiority 
 over his rivals f and Scott was the dunce of his class. 
 There was nothing in the ordinary routine of juvenile 
 education to call forth an exhibition of Scott's peculiar 
 talents, and consequently he had to suffer in the esti- 
 mation of his teacher and school-fellows ; but a Phreno- 
 logist would have seen at a glance, that in one depart- 
 ment at least the development of his brain placed him 
 beyond the chance of rivalry. I cannot understand 
 how any person can now look at the cast of Scott's 
 head without being forcibly struck with the truth of 
 Phrenology. (See Plate.) It is so remarkable, extra- 
 ordinary, and perfectly unique in its form, that no 
 person has ever seen one closely resembling it ; and I 
 believe the history of the world does not produce a 
 match for its owner in his own peculiar province. 
 Should not these two facts go together? If a man 
 with a unique head has a unique mental power, are 
 we to be told there is no connexion whatever between 
 them 1 Is this a rational course to pursue ? Liebig 
 was considered such an incorrigible dunce at school 
 that the master, after asking him some questions one 
 day, threw down the book in absolute despair, and 
 
UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY. ^ 31 
 
 said, " What on earth will you be ! " Liebig imme- 
 diately straightened himself up in a dignified manner, 
 and replied, " I will be a Chemist.'^ The thing seemed 
 so ludicrous and perfectly ridiculous that all the boys 
 in the school burst out in a roar of laughter. But still 
 Liebig was right. He felt the innate power ; and he 
 cultivated his gift, and is now one of the most eminent 
 chemists in the world. He is held in such estimation 
 that he has been raised by his sovereign to the dignity 
 of a Baron of the Empire. I do not wish to be under- 
 stood as setting forth that Swift, Chatterton, Scott, and 
 Liebig were incapable of acquiring a knowledge of any 
 of the ordinary branches of education, if they had been 
 properly taught. But the bent of their inclinations was 
 so strong in the direction in which their special talents 
 lay, that they could not well be kept to anything else 
 by teachers who were wholly ignorant of their nature. 
 Besides, we are informed by Professor Gregory that 
 Liebig was deficient in the organs of Language and 
 Number, and consequently could not succeed in a 
 school where nearly everything was committed to 
 memory. This miserable and most pernicious system 
 of teaching left all the other important organs, which 
 were largely developed, without the necessary and 
 proper cultivation. If Liebig had not felt his own 
 natural power, his great talents would have been lost 
 to the world in consequence of the very defective plan 
 on which his early education was conducted. 
 
32 ^^^^ PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 " It is singular," says Allan Cunningham, " how few 
 have had the fortune to be put at the outset of life 
 into the path wherein their genius lay." This is a 
 true and most lamentable fact ; but I cannot consider 
 it by any means remarkable under present circum- 
 stances. The anti-phrenological public have scarcely 
 any means of judging of the peculiar talents and dis- 
 positions of the rising generation, until they are de- 
 veloped by time ; but then, alas ! the knowledge comes 
 too late, as the fate of the parties, in most instances, 
 has been irrevocably fixed. It would be nearly im- 
 possible to over-rate the pleasure and advantages which 
 would arise from having " the right man invariably in 
 the right place." This would very generally be the 
 case, if parents would make themselves well acquainted 
 with the principles of Physiology and Phrenology. They 
 would then have little difficulty in knowing whether or 
 not their sons were adapted, by their constitutions 
 and talents, for the professions or avocations in life 
 which they might intend to place them in. Those who 
 are in possession of real genius would not, as frequently 
 happens now, be obliged to pine away their lives in a 
 garret ; and parties would no longer be put to the 
 learned professions, who are scarcely fitted for driving 
 a plough, or scraping on a fiddle. " To hope," says Dr 
 James Johnson, in his Economy of Healthy " for a good 
 crop of science or literature from some intellects, is 
 about the same as to expect olives to thrive on the 
 
. UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY. 33 
 
 craggy summit of Ben Nevis, or the pine-apple to ex- 
 pand amid the glaciers of Grindenwalde. Yet, from 
 these sterile regions of mind, the hapless pedagogue is 
 expected by some [anti-phrenological] parents to turn 
 out Miltons, Lockes, and Newtons, with as much faci- 
 lity as a gardener raises broccoli or cauliflowers from 
 the rich alluvial grounds about Fulham or Eotterdam.'* 
 The advantages which the system of education might 
 derive from Phrenology are not more important than 
 those which have already been experienced at its hands 
 in the management of the insane. Phrenology has 
 thrown such a flood of light on the condition of the 
 hapless lunatic, that the plan of treatment has been 
 completely reversed. Humanity has now been sub- 
 stituted for the most barbarous cruelty. It is but 
 right, however, to mention that^ although it has de- 
 monstrated the theory and developed the principles on 
 which the new plan of treatment is founded, and has 
 compelled its general adoption, Phrenology has not the 
 merit of originating the system of practical kindness 
 towards the insane, as, to his immortal honour be it 
 told, it was advocated and practised by Philip Pinel 
 before the days of Gall's discovery. In the year 1792, 
 Pinel, after having in vain urged the Government to 
 allow him to unchain the maniacs of the Bicetre, went 
 himself to the authorities and earnestly advocated the 
 removal of this monstrous abuse. Couthon, a member 
 of the Commune, yielded to the force of his arguments. 
 
34 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 and agreed to meet him at the Bicetre. When Couthon 
 began to interrogate the inmates, he was so much 
 alarmed by their abusive language, their crieSj and 
 their yells, and by the clanking of their chains in their 
 dark and filthy cells, that he was glad to get out of the 
 way, and prophesied that Pinel would become their 
 victim as soon as he released them. The heroic and 
 benevolent Pinel, however, was determined to make 
 the trial. The first man on whom he experimented 
 was an English captain, who had been in chains for 
 forty years. His keepers were afraid to go near him, 
 as he had already killed one by a sudden blow from 
 his manacles. Pinel entered his cell unattended, and 
 said, " Captain, I will order your chains to be taken 
 off, and give you liberty to walk in the court, if you 
 promise me to behave well, and injure no one.^' "Yes," 
 replied the maniac, " I promise you, but you are all 
 too much afraid of me." " Believe me, on my word," 
 said Pinel, " I will give you your liberty if you put on 
 this waistcoat." It was done ; the chains were re- 
 moved ; and the door of the cell was thrown open. 
 The captain raised himself several times from his seat, 
 but as often fell back again, as he had been so long 
 chained down that he had lost the use of his legs. 
 Poor fellow ! After a quarter of an hour's practice, 
 he was able to maintain his balance, and came totter- 
 ing forth from his dark and gloomy abode. He re- 
 covered his strength, became happy and perfectly 
 
UTILITY OF PHIIENOLOGY. 35 
 
 tranquil, and never afterwards gave any trouble, 
 but rather assisted in managing other inmates. In 
 the course of a few days, Pinel released upwards of 
 fifty maniacs from their chains and miserable cells, 
 and he had the great satisfaction of seeing tumult and 
 disorder succeeded by tranquillity and harmony. — 
 {Report ly PineVs son to the Academy of Sciences,) 
 
 It is not more strange than true, that the success 
 which attended Pinel's experiments in France, and 
 Tuke's experiments in England, was unable to keep up 
 public attention to the matter, or yet to secure per- 
 manency of action. In the course of a short time, 
 matters were as bad as ever. In his Memoir to the 
 Minister of the Interior on the Establishments for the 
 Insane in France, in the year 1818, Esquirol represents 
 the patients as naked, or covered only with rags ; lying 
 on the pavement with a little straw ; badly nourished ; 
 deprived of fresh air, water, and all the comforts of 
 life; at the mercy of brutal jailers; chained in dark 
 and pestilential cells ; and less cared for than wild 
 beasts. Whips, chains, and imprisonment constituted 
 the whole of their treatment. — {London Medical Times 
 and Gazette, February 1859.) 
 
 Such was the condition of the insane in France in 
 the year 1818. That it was no better in England in 
 the year 1815, will appear from the following particu- 
 lars, which were testified before a Committee of the 
 House of Commons. In the York Asylum, the straw 
 
36 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 of the cells was saturated with filth ; thirteen women 
 were confined in a room measuring only twelve feet by 
 six ; and one man was covered with vermin, his legs 
 were mortified, and the mark of the whip was on his 
 back. In Bethlehem, London, one room contained ten 
 females, each chained to the wall by a leg or arm. 
 Their nakedness was covered only by a blanket-gown, 
 and they had no shoes on their feet. Some of them 
 were nearly unconscious. The men also were chained 
 to the wall. One was locked to the wall by the arm 
 and leg, and others were handcuffed. They were 
 filthy, cold, and nearly naked. Their cells were kept 
 in such a state that the visitors were obliged to throw 
 off, if they remained in the contaminated atmosphere 
 longer than a few minutes. 
 
 Dr Crawford, of the Glasgow Asylum, in 1842, says, 
 "At a period by no means remote, such establishments 
 wore an aspect very different from what they do at 
 present. The lunatic of those days was looked upon 
 with a singular mixture of dread and pity. Eegarded 
 as the victim of a peculiar and mysterious malady of 
 mind, and as placed beyond the pale of humanity, by a 
 disease which was inaccessible to all modes of moral 
 treatment, and not amenable to the usual resources of 
 medical science, little else was desired by his friends 
 than the means of concealing him from a world to 
 which they believed him already hopelessly dead, and 
 the opportunity of shutting him up in a confinement 
 
UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY. 37 
 
 where lie might be prevented from indulging those 
 propensities of violence and ferocity, which they re- 
 garded as the results of some inscrutable change in 
 his mental constitution, and of which they stood in so 
 much awe. Hence, at that period, such institutions 
 not unfrequently combined the attributes of the 
 prison-house and the grave ; and the restraints, 
 punishments, and severity of the one, were veiled 
 by the secrecy and silence of the other. Shut up 
 in cells and cages — chains, fetters, iron collars, iron 
 masks, and leather muzzles, the scourge, the blows, 
 and the threats of a brutal keeper, together with the 
 indiscriminate use of tartar-emetic and drastic purga- 
 tives, constituted the treatment to which the hapless 
 lunatic was subjected. The furious imprecations of 
 the maniac, and the clanking of his fetters, were to be 
 heard, mingled with the blows of the lash and the 
 oaths of the attendant ; while the drivelling of hope- 
 less idiocy, and the emaciation of person and distor- 
 tion of figure caused by long confinement and restraint, 
 illustrated the efficacy of the treatment. This 
 picture is not an overcharged one, and many of its 
 descriptions apply to even our principal public insti- 
 tutions during the first ten years of the present cen- 
 tury." 
 
 " Not long before I began my residence at Hanwell," 
 says Dr Conolly, '' I had seen, in some of our Enghsh 
 provinces, patients chained to walls and pillars, raving. 
 
38 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 and scarcely clothed ; and whole apartments appropri- 
 ated to the most troublesome, or to the most helpless 
 and dirty patients, as they were called ; in which 
 offensive places might be seen twenty or more men 
 or women fastened in a row, and seated in clumsy 
 wooden chairs, and fixed in a sort of narrow cell- 
 stall. . . . There they sat, from morning to night, eat- 
 ing there their miserable meals, and only removed at 
 night to miserable beds of straw." — {Medical Gazette^ 
 March 1860.) At his commencement in Hanwell, Dr 
 Conolly found, " of restraint-chairs, forty-nine ; of re- 
 straint-sleeves, seventy-eight ; of leg -locks and hand- 
 cuffs, three hundred and fifty-two ; and of leather 
 straps, fifty-one ; besides ten leather muffs, two extra 
 strong iron leg-locks, and two dreadful screw-gags." — 
 {Medical Gazette, April 1860.) 
 
 "In 1815, a committee was appointed by the House 
 of Commons to inquire into the condition of things at 
 Bedlam. Many of the patients were found locked in 
 their cells, stark naked, and lying chained on straw, 
 with only one blanket for a covering." — {Lancet, Dec. 
 1864.) The Eev. Dr Eeed says he had seen, "both in 
 Wales and in Cornwall, the wretched idiot chained, 
 like a felon, in the common pound, or lock-up house 
 of the village green, or chased hither and thither, the 
 scoff and the outcast of the whole hamlet." — {Life of 
 Reed, the founder of the Earlswood Asylum.) 
 
 In his work on Insanity, Dr Spurzheim gives a 
 
UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY. 39 
 
 most distressing account of what he witnessed in his 
 travels. ^'Even the separation of the patients," he 
 says, " was neglected. The most furious and the 
 most melancholy ; the most imperious and the most 
 fearful ; the most vociferous and the most cheerful ; 
 the most villanous and most religious ; clean and un- 
 clean ; curable, convalescent, and incurable— are put 
 together ; all is chaos and confusion. I have seen 
 patients fastened by chains, sitting at the grating of 
 their doors or windows, like savage animals in cages. 
 The villains who have disturbed the peace of society 
 live in palaces, and have everything comfortable and 
 clean ; while the poor insane, who want and deserve 
 our pity, lie on straw and dirt, exposed to all the vicis- 
 situdes of season and weather, reduced to the mercy 
 of the turnkey, and less attended to than a horse or a 
 wild beast." 
 
 Europe was not alone in this matter. America was 
 in pretty much the same predicament, as may be seen 
 by referring to the Second Report of the Prison Dis- 
 cipline Society : — " One man was found in an apart- 
 ment in which he has been for nine years. He had a 
 wreath of rags round his body, and another round his 
 neck. This was all his clothing. He had no bed, 
 chair, or bench. A heap of filthy straw, like the nest 
 of swine, was in the corner. He had built a bird's 
 nest of mud in the iron grate of his den. Connected 
 with his wretched apartment was a dark dungeon, 
 
40 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 having no orifice for the admission of light, heat, or 
 air, except the iron door, about 2^ feet square, open- 
 ing into it from the prison. The other lunatics in the 
 same prison were scattered about in different apart- 
 ments with thieves and murderers, and persons under 
 arrest, but not yet convicted of guilt. In the prison, 
 or House of Correction, so called, in which were ten 
 lunatics, two were found about seventy years of age, a 
 male and female, in tbe same apartment. The female 
 was lying on a heap of straw under a broken window. 
 The snow, in a severe storm, was beating through the 
 window, and lay upon the straw around her withered 
 body, which was partially covered with a few filthy and 
 tattered garments. The man was lying in the corner \ 
 of the room in a similar situation, except that he was 
 less exposed to the storm. The former had been in 
 this apartment six, and the latter twenty-one years. 
 Another lunatic, in the same prison, was found in an 
 apartment where he had been eight years. During 
 this time he had never left the room but twice. The 
 door had not been opened in eighteen months. The 
 food was furnished through a small orifice in the door. 
 The room was warmed by no fire ; and still the woman 
 of the house said ^ he had never froze? The hair was 
 gone from one side of his head, and his eyes were like 
 balls of fife." 
 
 Such was the state of the management of the insane 
 all over the world about the time when the discoveries 
 
UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY. 41 
 
 of Gall and Spurzheim began to take root in the public 
 mind. Their investigations on the complexity of the 
 brain, I am happy to say, opened up new and very 
 important views regarding insanity ; and developed a 
 simple, rational, and, in many instances, successful 
 method of treating the poor lunatic. " If all my re- 
 searches," says Gall, ^' should only conduct me to this 
 result, I should deem myself sufficiently rewarded for 
 my labours. If men of sense will not thank me, I 
 ought, at least, to be sure of the thanks of fools." 
 Yes ; the fools had a good right to thank him, as he 
 was the first to throw such light on the different forms 
 of insanity as enabled its treatment to be based on 
 perfectly rational and scientific principles. Dr Guy, 
 the Professor of Forensic Medicine at King's College, 
 London, very fairly admits that ''to Gall and Spurz- 
 heim, and their followers, is due the great merit of 
 having directed attention to those faculties which are 
 the real source of action — the emotions and passions ; 
 and to them must be ascribed the praise of having 
 originated the simplest, and by far the most practical, 
 theory of the human mind," (Forensic Medicine, by 
 Guy). " The business of reform," says Dr Clendin- 
 ning, " in mental science, has been resumed on other 
 and sounder principles by Dr Gall ; and Phrenology 
 will, I doubt not, generally be regarded as the only 
 system before the pubhc that makes any tolerable ap- 
 proach to what the enlightened common sense of man- 
 
42 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 kind can recognise as real in science, or useful for 
 practical purposes. It was the study of insanity very 
 much that gave Gall the clue ; mad people are uncon- 
 scious witnesses against, and telling illustrations of, 
 the unsoundness of the earlier systems." — {Clinical 
 Lectures^ 1842.) 
 
 Sir William C. ElKs, Physician to the great Han- 
 well Asylum, candidly owns that until he " became 
 acquainted with Phrenology, he had no solid basis on 
 which he could ground any treatment for the cure of 
 the disease of insanity." He very properly considers 
 that insanity is almost always partial, — that it seldom 
 involves the whole of the organs, and consequently, 
 that in all cases alleviation, and in many cure, may be 
 effected by temperately, yet steadily, exercising the 
 sane organs, and soothing the insane to repose. This 
 is the grand principle which lies at the foundation of 
 successful treatment. It is based upon the phreno- 
 logical doctrine, that the brain, and not the mind, 
 is the real seat of disease ; and also that the brain, 
 in place of being a single organ, is composed of a 
 variety of parts performing different functions. The 
 parts of the brain which are under disease should be 
 allowed to rest, whilst the sound are called into regular 
 exercise. In order to accomplish this object, occupa- 
 tion of such a description as will suit the individual is 
 provided for every patient in those Institutions which 
 are managed on the new and improved system, whilst 
 
UTILITY UF PHRENOLOGY. 43 
 
 cruelty and harshness of all kinds are peremptorily 
 interdicted. 
 
 It is pleasing to reflect on the results produced by 
 kind treatment, freedom from restraint, and suitable 
 employment of the insane. When this system was 
 introduced by the medical superintendent, at the 
 Wakefield Asylum, the prejudice against it was so 
 great, that it was actually suggested that no patient 
 should be employed at work outside the walls without 
 being chained to a keeper. The superintendent of 
 this asylum was Sir William C. Ellis, (already referred 
 to as a Phrenologist,) who afterwards had charge of the 
 Hanwell Institution. When at Han well, Sir W. C. Ellis 
 made it a rule to occupy his patients as much as pos- 
 sible with light, but useful, labour in the open air. 
 He found they had always sufficient sense to enjoy 
 useful labour, whilst they had a particular dislike to 
 what was useless. The result of this plan of manage- 
 ment was most satisfactory. One poor woman, who 
 had previously been furiously mad, and ten years in 
 chains, was only fifteen months in this house till she 
 was as free from restraint as any of the others. In- 
 stead of being placed in chains, she was allowed to 
 work in the garden ; and she took great pleasure in 
 her employment. Such is the history of many others. 
 Out of 610 patients, 454 were in regular work of some 
 sort ; and they were all treated with kindness and 
 sympathy. This plan produced such health of body 
 
44 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 and tranquillity of disposition, that the patients slept 
 the entire night. Dr Ellis says his sleep was not in- 
 terrupted by them three times in the year. 
 
 Dr Crawford gives a very interesting account of the 
 effects produced by entire freedom from restraint in 
 the Northampton Asylum, in August 1838. A num- 
 ber of pauper lunatics were brought to it from other 
 places of confinement where the system of restraint 
 was in force. Two men were admitted with their legs 
 confined by heavy irons, and their wrists by handcuffs. 
 The officer who brought them from the other institu- 
 tion refused to take back these instruments, when he 
 heard there were none in the new institution, because 
 he was certain the maniacs would take lives, if they 
 were set at liberty, as they had hitherto been very 
 ferocious. All restraint, however, was removed at 
 bedtime, and never afterwards had recourse to. One 
 of the men became so kind, useful, and trustworthy, 
 that he was allowed to carry a pass-key, and assist 
 the attendants. The other became quiet and tract- 
 able, although at first he was particularly formidable 
 and bloodthirsty. A powerful, violent, and dangerous 
 young woman, who had been in irons for 59 weeks, 
 was admitted. Her shackles were removed, she was 
 set to scour the floors and do other sorts of work, 
 and at the end of eight months she was discharged 
 cured. Were it necessary, I could multiply examples 
 of this description to a great extent, but I refrain from 
 
UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY. 43 
 
 SO doiDg, as I am not writing a treatise on insanity. 
 Suffice it to say, that whilst the diseased cerebral organs 
 are allowed to rest, the healthy ones are brought into 
 full play ; and regular employment, healthful recrea- 
 tion, rational amusement, and entire freedom from 
 restraint, are the invariable rule of every important 
 and well-conducted asylum in the empire at the pre- 
 sent day. 
 
 Dr W. A. r. Browne, who is now one of her Majesty's 
 Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland, says, that, in 
 consequence of his previous knowledge of Phrenology, 
 he was able to derive great additional information dur- 
 ing his studies at Salpetriere and Charenton ; and he 
 ascribes the success which attended his treatment at 
 the large institutions in Scotland which were under 
 his charge, to his phrenological acquirements. '^ I un- 
 hesitatingly give it as my deliberate conviction,^' says 
 Dr Scott, of the Eoyal Hospital at Haslar, " that no 
 man, whatever may be the qualification in other re- 
 spects, will be very successful in the treatment of 
 insanity in its various forms, if he be not well ac- 
 quainted with practical Phrenology ; and I will add, 
 that whatever success may have attended my own 
 practice in the Lunatic Asylum of this great national 
 establishment, over which I have presided as chief 
 medical officer for many years, I owe it, almost ex- 
 clusively, to my knowledge of Phrenology." 
 
 I need not dwell longer on the advantages to be 
 
46 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 derived from Phrenology, as its utility extends to 
 nearly every subject we can contemplate, and its 
 benefit will be felt in almost every position in which 
 we can be placed in this life. It includes the intel- 
 lectual, moral, and animal nature of man, and there- 
 fore has to do with the thoughts and actions of the 
 human race. 
 
 EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 
 
 There is nothing more common than to hear people 
 asserting their belief in the general principles of Phren- 
 ology, and at the same time objecting to its minute 
 details. Now, I apprehend this sort of reasoning is 
 both shallow and inconsistent. Take away the details 
 from any subject, and where are its general principles ? 
 Whence did Lavoisier, Dalton, and others deduce the 
 general laws and principles of Chemistry? Surely 
 from those minute details which were discovered by 
 practical observation. This is the only true method 
 of philosophising. What would you think of the man 
 who would tell you he believed in the reality of the 
 human body as a whole, but denied the existence and 
 construction of the different parts of which it is com- 
 posed ? You would undoubtedly denounce him as an 
 ignorant pretender. And yet, many men who are 
 classed amongst the learned are in the constant habit 
 of expressing similar opinions regarding Phrenology. 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 47 
 
 Such opinions, however, correspond very well with 
 the system of those would-be-philosophers who form 
 a number of general principles out of their own ima- 
 ginations, and then go in quest of details to support 
 them. Of course, the details are always made to agree 
 with the imaginary principles. This is a much speedier 
 and easier plan than the one which recognises general 
 principles only when they result from, and rest upon, 
 an extensive series of carefully-observed details. It is 
 really lamentable to think how prone men are to de- 
 pend on theory, and how difficult it is to teach them 
 that observation is the only sure foundation on which 
 scientific knowledge can be built. As Dr Gall has 
 correctly observed, "they are more disposed to give 
 themselves to speculation, than to the painful study 
 of nature." 
 
 I was rather surprised to see that Ephemera, a sen- 
 sible writer on fishing, has fallen into the common 
 error regarding philosophy. In his controversy with 
 Mr Boccius, he says his opinions are taken " from 
 practical persons who have resided constantly for 
 many years on the banks of salmon rivers, and fished 
 them observantly. Their opinions, therefore, are worthy 
 of great attention. The opinions of Mr Boccius are 
 those of a philosopher. Philosophy is very good, but 
 the long experience of intelligent and indefatigable 
 observers is better." We here find philosophy and 
 observation placed in direct antagonism to each other, 
 
4:8 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 which is truly preposterous. Philosophy of this de- 
 scription is no better than the ravings of a madman. 
 It is the only sort of philosophy, however, which has 
 yet been brought to bear against the truths of Phren- 
 ology. 
 
 The Prospectus which has been issued by Dr Todd, 
 on the completion of his Cijclopcedia of Anatomy and 
 Physiology y contains the following remarkable and in- 
 structive sentence : " So rapid," says he, '' have been 
 the advances which physical science has made within 
 the last quarter of a century, that most, if not all^ 
 the formerly received doctrines of physiology have 
 required revision, while its ^established' facts have de- 
 manded re-investigation by original experiment." This 
 sentence correctly represents the miserable plight in 
 which physiology has been placed by its theorising 
 adherents, whilst it plainly proves that the physio- 
 logical school has not been guided by rigid philoso- 
 phical principles. If nearly all these doctrines require 
 revision they are not founded in nature, but are the 
 result of pure imagination. Nature does not change 
 in this sort of way. Whatever she says once, she 
 says for ever. How can those things be " established 
 facts" which Dr Todd says require "re-investigation 
 by original experiment " ? Just imagine an established 
 fact which requires a new set of experiments to prove 
 whether it is a fact at all, or not ! What a contempt- 
 ible idea does this give us of that much-boasted science 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 49 
 
 of Physiology which has taken such a high hand in 
 endeavouriog to put down Phrenology ! ! Some cele- 
 brated Physiologists have taken their stand on the 
 side of the Phrenologists. To the puny efforts of the 
 remainder we can bid a proud defiance. 
 
 I once heard a much-esteemed physiological pro 
 fessor declare, after the example of Berard and De 
 Montegre, that the different organs which the Phreno- 
 logists- have delineated on the head can have no exist- 
 ence, because it is impossible to point out the exact 
 spot where one organ ends and another begins. Now, 
 I ask, would he deny the existence of the separate 
 features in the human countenance merely because he 
 could not demonstrate the exact line which separates 
 the one from the other ? Certainly not. Why, then, 
 will he act differently towards Phrenology ? When he 
 points out to a hair's-breadth the divisions of the face, 
 I will undertake to do the same with the organs of the 
 head. Till then, I shall rest satisfied in knowing that 
 the organs are as easily distinguished from each other 
 as the chin is from the cheeks. I would further like 
 to know if he could survey the billows which roll over 
 the bosom of the mighty deep, and point out the exact 
 spot where the little rippling waves arise from the sur- 
 face of the water which surrounds them. Because this 
 is impossible, are we to deny there is such a thing 
 on all the surface of the ocean as a wave ? Surely 
 not. Why, then, are Phrenologists to be tormented 
 
50 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 with such, miserable objections, even from the pro- 
 fessor's chair? They are so very frivolous as to be 
 altogether unworthy of the slightest notice, were it 
 not that they obtain an artificial importance from the 
 position of the parties who have thought proper to 
 adduce them. It is truly marvellous how the most 
 frivolous objections are produced over and over again. 
 If they were answered a thousand times, they would 
 crop up the next day as fresh as ever. How are we to 
 account for this fact ? Is it owing to an ungenerous 
 intention on the part of our opponents ? This may 
 be the case in some instances ; but I believe, in the 
 great majority of cases, it is owing to the consummate 
 ignorance of our opponents in regard to the science 
 which they attempt to overturn. In his Evidences of 
 Divine Revelation^ Mr Haldane says : ^' From the age 
 of Celsus and Porphyry, down to that of Yoltaire and 
 Thomas Paine, it may safely be affirmed there never 
 has appeared one solitary unbeliever who has disco- 
 vered by his writings, that he was thoroughly conversant 
 with the nature or the evidences of that Eevelation 
 which he undertook to overthrow." This is exactly 
 the position of matters regarding the opponents of 
 Phrenology. Their arguments are all founded on false 
 conceptions, arising from ignorance of the subject of 
 which they treat. There can be no possible excuse, 
 however, for such conduct. It is unphilosophical as 
 well as unprincipled. It is the duty of every man, 
 
EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 5 1 
 
 before rejecting or believing the science, to put him- 
 self in the best position he possibly can for obtaining 
 a thorough and perfectly accurate practical knowledge 
 of the subject. If he enter the opposition list with- 
 out taking this precaution, he is neither honest as a 
 man nor true as a philosopher. 
 
 Since the foregoing pages went to press, my atten- 
 tion has been directed to an article against Phrenology 
 in the first number of Good Words for 1863. It is 
 from the pen of Sir David Brewster. I would recom- 
 mend all my readers to peruse this article, in order 
 that they may see the insignificance and utter worth- 
 lessness of the arguments adduced against the science. 
 It speaks volumes in favour of Phrenology, to find that 
 a man in the position of the learned Principal of the 
 Edinburgh University is unable to bring any substan- 
 tial objection against it. There is only one observa- 
 tion in the article which requires even a passing notice, 
 and that is, the case of the turnip. " Mr Alexander 
 Nasmyth, the celebrated landscape painter," says Sir 
 David Brewster, " sent to his Phrenological friend, Dr 
 
 , the cast of a remarkable head. The cast was 
 
 carefully examined, and its high moral and intellectual 
 development duly recorded, and presented to the artist. 
 But, alas ! for science, the cast had been taken from a 
 remarkable turnip that had presumed to compete with 
 the craniology of man." So much for the statement 
 which is to overturn Phrenology. Now for its truth. 
 
52 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 That such a story might have passed as true with a 
 certain gullible portion of the community in the year 
 1821, when the trick was attempted to be perpetrated, 
 is not very remarkable, but that it should be seriously 
 adduced, in the year 1863, as a fact to overturn Phren- 
 ology, by a person in Sir David Brewster's position, is 
 all but incredible. For the sake of his great scientific 
 character, it is to be hoped he was doting when he 
 wrote the article for Good Words, The Phrenological 
 Journal for 1823 contains an accurate report of the 
 matter regarding the turnip from the pen of Mr 
 Combe, on whom the trick was tried to be played. 
 " In April 1821," says the Journal, " a medical gentle- 
 man in Edinburgh, aided by a landscape painter, 
 fashioned a turnip into the nearest resemblance to a 
 human skull which their combined skill and ingenuity 
 could produce. They had a cast made from it, and 
 sent it to Mr Combe, requesting his observations on 
 the mental talents and dispositions which it indicated, 
 adding, that it was the cast of the skull of a person of 
 uncommon character. Mr Combe, who says that the 
 imitation was execrably bad, and the cast smelled so 
 strongly of turnip that a cow could have discovered its 
 origin, instantly detected the trick, and returned the 
 cast, with the following parody of ' The Man of Thes- 
 saly ' pasted on the coronal surface :— 
 
 " Th^ere was a man in Edinburg, 
 And he was wond'rous wise ; 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 53 
 
 He we at into a turnip field, 
 And cast about his eyes. 
 
 " And when he cast his eyes about, 
 He saw the turnips fine ; 
 ' How many heads are there,' says he, 
 * That likeness bear to mine ? 
 
 *' ' *S^o very like they are, indeed, 
 No sage, I 'm sure, could know 
 This turnip -head that I have on 
 From those that there do grow.' 
 
 " He pull'd a turnip from the ground ; 
 A cast from it was thrown ; 
 He sent it to a Spurzheimite, 
 And pass'd it for his own. 
 
 " And so, indeed, it truly was 
 His own in every sense ; 
 For CAST and joke alike were made 
 All at his own expense." 
 
 So much for the truthfulness of the story adduced by 
 Sir David Brewster to overturn Phrenology. But 
 there is another view of the matter which has been 
 referred to by Mr Combe. Suppose the doctor and 
 the landscape painter had been handy enough to carve 
 the turnip into a perfect representation of the human 
 head, would the cast taken from it not have been as 
 accurate a representation of humanity as the cast 
 taken from the head itself? To be sure it would. 
 How, then, could such a case militate against Phren- 
 ology ? Impossible. If Chantrey had carved an accu- 
 
54 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 rate bust from Sir David Brewster's head, would a 
 cast from the bust not show the same Phrenological 
 developments as a cast from the real head? It cer- 
 tainly would. If this were not so, the bust, would not 
 be worth having. On the supposition of the bust 
 being accurate, the Phrenologist must take the same 
 out of the one cast as out of the other. To imagine 
 anything else would be as absurd as to argue that the 
 cast from the bust made by Chantrey did not represent 
 mouthj nose, eyes, or chin, because it was cast on the 
 bust in place of the real head. In fact, if Sir David 
 Brewster had given the slightest possible considera- 
 tion to the subject, he must have seen that his argu- 
 ment was perfectly childish, even if his story had been 
 true. As Mr Combe says, " There was a lack, not only 
 of wit, but of judgment, in the very conception of the 
 trick. If the imitation was complete, no difference 
 could exist between a cast from a turnip, and a cast 
 from the skull which it was made exactly to resemble ;" 
 but if it was imperfect, the trick, as in this case, would 
 at once be detected. Again, supposing the representa- 
 tion to be very imperfect, and that the Phrenologist 
 would be so far overseen as to mistake the cast from 
 the turnip for one from the real head, would this prove 
 Phrenology untrue ? Certainly not. It would prove 
 the Phrenologist to be incompetent for the task he 
 undertook ; but it would in no way militate against 
 the truth of Phrenology. Sir David Brewster's argu- 
 
EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 55 
 
 ment confounds the truth of the science with the 
 capacity of the observer. In point of fact, his objec- 
 tions to Phrenology are so trifling and miserably in- 
 significant, that I could not bring myself to believe he 
 ever wrote the article for Good Words, were it not that 
 his name is signed to it. A superficial writer like Dr 
 Gordon or Dr Eoget might produce such an article ; 
 but that a real philosopher like Sir David Brewster 
 should be so far overseen, is hardly within the bounds 
 of credibility. 
 
 It has been objected that Phrenology gives a redun- 
 dancy of organs on some points, whilst there is a de- 
 ficiency on others. I am perfectly willing to grant 
 that, if the objector were at it, he would make all to 
 his own mind. He would observe a part, and then, 
 by theorising, make up the remainder according to his 
 own fancy and imagination. This would be an easy 
 and a speedy method, but it would not satisfy the 
 Phrenologists, who prefer to confine themselves to the 
 observation of nature, and take things exactly as they 
 find them. They prefer to collect facts, rather than 
 make them. As regards the deficiency of organs, I 
 confess it with sorrow ; but as the science is far from 
 complete, future observations will make additions to 
 the number. In reference to the redundancy spoken 
 of, I shall endeavour to show what is meant by the 
 term. It is said to be a point of redundancy to have 
 an organ of Form and an organ of Size, because the 
 
56 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 metaphysicians imagine that extension includes both. 
 Now, I just ask my common-sense readers, will the 
 extent of a horse give them a proper idea of his sym- 
 metry and form, and will his shape give them an exact 
 idea of his size or measurement ? Can two eggs not 
 have the same form, and the size of the one still be 
 double that of the other ? The distinction between 
 the size of an object and its form is as plain as the 
 light of heaven. No man but a metaphysician could 
 ever think of questioning it. Again, in relation to 
 Concentrativeness and Adhesiveness, it is asked, 
 "What is the meaning of the development of an 
 organ, but that the faculty attributed to it is strong, 
 and wherein, therefore, Hes the utility of having two 
 such organs as Concentrativeness and Adhesiveness '* 
 to express an attachment to a particular object, which 
 arises from Adhesiveness alone? Supposing, now, 
 that a person's feeling of attachment, arising from a 
 large Adhesiveness, is strong, does it by any means 
 follow, in the absence of Concentrativeness and Firm- 
 ness, that it must be constant ? Will the mere 
 strength of it insure its constancy ? Alas ! it is very 
 frequently the reverse. Has the objector never met 
 any person in the world whose friendship was strong 
 and fervid for the time being, but who was, neverthe- 
 less, as fickle and uncertain as the wind ? And has he 
 not met others whose attachment, though less power- 
 ful at the time, was as constant as the sun ? How 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 57 
 
 ignorant such objectors are of the plainest elements of 
 human nature ! 
 
 *^Some of the organs," says the Popular Encyclo- 
 pcedia, " have balancing faculties, such as Destructive- 
 ness, which is balanced by Benevolence, &c. But 
 why have two organs, when the two principles neces- 
 sarily imply each other, and when either could be in- 
 dicated by the elevation or depression of a single 
 bump. It would be easier to bring down Destructive- 
 ness to the requisite standard, by diminishing its 
 peculiar organ, than by leaving it large, and adding to 
 the bulk of Benevolence. Or if a particular organ re- 
 quires a compensating one, why not carry the principle 
 out through the whole system ? Why not match 
 Veneration with an organ of Scorn, or Language with 
 an organ of Silence ? " It would be difficult to find 
 another paragraph which could manifest such a de- 
 plorable ignorance of human nature, and of the 
 method in which philosophical investigation should 
 be conducted, as this one. It proves completely the 
 spirit of the writer. He would never think of resting 
 contented with observing man as he is, but he would 
 make him after his own fancy, and wherever nature 
 appeared to his eyes to require amendment, he would 
 fill up the picture out of his own crude imagination. 
 Phrenology would never suit for a novelist of this 
 description. Nature would be beneath his notice. 
 He is a builder of castles in the air. In looking at his 
 
58 PHKENOLOGY. 
 
 objection, however, we may throw Phrenology aside for 
 the present, and try his principles on the broad basis 
 of human nature. If there be any meaning in what 
 he says, it must be that man does not possess distinct 
 principles of Benevolence and Destructiveness ; — that 
 they are one and the same thing, if, as he asserts, 
 they necessarily imply each other, and do not require 
 separate organs ; — that they do not exist as separate 
 faculties in nature. If this be not his meaning, how 
 would he make out the " redundancy" of which he 
 speaks ? On his principle of redundancy there can be 
 no such thing in nature as a feeling of Destructiveness 
 distinct from a feeling of Benevolence. If, as he says, 
 " Destructiveness and Benevolence necessarily imply 
 each other" in such a way as to require only one 
 organ, of course they must be one and the same thing, 
 and cannot be considered as distinct faculties either 
 in mind or body. How, then, can he account for the 
 occurrences which are constantly taking place before 
 his eyes 1 Is it Destructiveness which prompts the 
 British nation to furnish each regiment of soldiers 
 with a couple of surgeons for the purpose of binding 
 up the wounds of those who fall in battle ? Is it 
 Benevolence which crowns with honour the soldier who 
 has carried the most deadly weapon, and who has dealt 
 out death and destruction to all who opposed him ? 
 Will any man stand up and tell me that our nation 
 does not possess a distinct principle of Benevolence 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 59 
 
 and Destructiveness, and that they cannot both be in 
 operation at the same time, the one towards our 
 friends and the other towards our enemies ? Nay, 
 more, the faculty of Benevolence may be the very 
 means of rousing the faculty of Destructiveness into 
 action. This is quite a common occurrence. "Which 
 of us," says Falingieri, " on hearing the narrative of an 
 atrocious crime, would not wish to have in his own 
 grasp the wretch who has committed it, in order to 
 avenge the wrong done to the unfortunate man totally 
 unknown to us." We have an example of the same 
 feeling in Burns the poet, who, when he saw a man 
 shooting at and wounding a hare, cursed him bitterly 
 and threatened to throw him into the river Nith. 
 When Mr Wm. M^Intyre was walking on the Coleraine 
 bridge, he saw a young fellow kicking the crutches 
 from a very old man who had two wooden legs, and 
 thus bringing him to the ground. M'lntyre's feeling 
 of Benevolence towards the old man roused his feeling 
 of Destructiveness against the young miscreant to 
 such a pitch that, he told me, he could not restrain 
 himself from inflicting summary punishment. It so 
 happens that both these organs are very largely de- 
 veloped in my own head, and I can testify from per- 
 sonal experience as to the perfect correctness of every 
 distinction the Phrenologists have made concerning 
 them. The Daily Argus ^ Madison, Indiana, reports a 
 trial for murder under the following circumstances : — 
 
60 PHRENOLOGY, 
 
 "A beautiful, fair-haired, blue-eyed boy, about nine 
 years of age, was taken from the orphan asylum in 
 Milwaukie, and adopted by a respectable farmer at 
 Marquette. A girl, a little older than the boy, was 
 also adopted into the same family. Soon after these 
 children were installed in their new home, the boy dis- 
 covered criminal conduct on the part of his new 
 mother, which he mentioned to the little girl, and it 
 thereby came to the ears of the woman. She indig- 
 nantly denied the story, to the satisfaction of her 
 husband, and insisted that the boy should be whipped 
 until he confessed the falsehood. The man proceeded 
 to the task assigned him, by procuring a bundle of 
 rods, stripping the child naked, and suspending him 
 by a cord to the rafters of the house, and whipping 
 him at intervals for over two hours, till the blood ran 
 through the floor, making a pool upon the floor below, 
 stopping only to rest and interrogate the boy, and 
 getting no other reply than * Pa, I told the truth — I 
 cannot tell a lie ; ' the woman all the time urging him 
 to ^ do his duty.' The poor little hero, at length re- 
 leased from his torture, threw his arms around the 
 neck of his tormentor, kissed him, and said, ^ Pa, I am 
 so cold ! ' and died." The man who can read this 
 without feeling that he possesses both Benevolence 
 and Destructiveness, is not to be envied. For my 
 part, I feel that I could almost pull the rope which 
 would hang the culprit, whilst I could shed tears over 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 61 
 
 the heroic little martyr to truth, very nearly as readily 
 as I did when I made myself sick in childhood over the 
 stories of " The Hunted Hare " and " The Babes in the 
 Wood/' 
 
 Can the judge have no softness in his bosom when 
 he pronounces the fatal sentence on the culprit ? and 
 can the surgeon feel no tender sympathy for his patient 
 when he is about to remove a portion of his body? 
 " Perhaps no surgeon ever operated/' says Sir J. Y. 
 Simpson, " either more frequently or more successfully 
 than the celebrated Cheselden ; and, notwithstanding 
 the extensive practice he had enjoyed, he always, be- 
 fore an operation, felt sick at the thoughts of the pain 
 he was about to inflict ; though during its perform- 
 ance, his coolness and presence of mind never forsook 
 him." Here, again, we have the two faculties in power- 
 ful action. Is there an individual, I ask, within the 
 pale of well-balanced humanity whose blood does not 
 boil within him, and whose feeling of Destructiveness 
 is not roused to the highest pitch, when he remembers 
 the base and treacherous massacre at Cabool ? and, 
 nevertheless, does he not feel that his bowels yearn 
 with Benevolent compassion over the fate of the un- 
 daunted Macnaghten and his brave associates ? Again, 
 was it Destructiveness that actuated a Wilberforce, a 
 Howard, and a Fry ? and was it pure Benevolence that 
 prompted the bloody deeds of Greenacre, Hare, and 
 Delahunt ? And still we are expected to keep our 
 
62 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 temper when we are told that Phrenology is a fable, 
 because it grants distinct principles of Benevolence 
 and Destructiveness to human nature 1 ! 
 
 It is almost universally the case that the individual 
 who holds the wrong side of a question either wilfully 
 misrepresents the doctrine of his opponents, or shows 
 great ignorance of the subject under debate. The 
 author of the article on Phrenology, in the Popular 
 Encyclopcedia, has thrown himself open to one or other 
 of these charges, as is proved by the following state- 
 ment : — " The organ of Secretiveness," says he, " which, 
 indicates a thief, also indicates a liar, an actor, and a 
 novelist ! It is even said to be necessary to constitute 
 dignity of character ! " On this I observe, that Phren- 
 ologists do not say the organ of Secretiveness indicates 
 either one or other of the characters mentioned. It is 
 a necessary ingredient in their character ; but it alone 
 will not distinguish them from other people, and 
 therefore can never indicate their dispositions. For 
 example, an actor requires eyes, and a thief must have 
 hands ; but would any person out of Bedlam ever 
 imagine that hands and eyes always iiidicate a thief 
 and an actor ? And yet the sage writer for the Ency^ 
 clopcedia would stuff* an analogous doctrine into the 
 mouths of Phrenologists. Besides, I presume, accord- 
 ing to his view of the question, Secretiveness does not 
 enter into the composition of these characters at all. 
 Let him, however, adopt his favourite metaphysical 
 
EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 63 
 
 theory, or any other he chooses, and I would just ask 
 him to inform us how a person can be a thief without 
 the power of hiding ? or an actor without the capacity 
 for concealing his own character, while he represents 
 that of his hero ? or how the lady could support her 
 dignity, whose tongue would rattle off every thought 
 of her mind on the instant ? "A fool," says Solomon, 
 " uttereth all his mind ; but a wise man keepeth it in 
 till afterwards." 
 
 We are frequently, however, urged with a much 
 greater and more serious objection than any of those 
 I have yet mentioned ; and it is this, — Phrenology re- 
 presents such a relationship between mind and matter 
 as is calculated to lead men into materialism and in- 
 fidelity, and would, either directly or indirectly, under- 
 mine human responsibility, and the very foundations 
 of Christianity. This objection demands our most 
 serious consideration. It has been frequently put for- 
 ward with great plausibility, and has had an immense 
 influence in retarding the progress of Phrenology. 
 The very sound of it alarms ill-informed but well- 
 meaning people. It often prevents them from investi- 
 gating the subject at all. The fear of this point, 
 together with a wholesome objection to the theological 
 sentiments which some leading Phrenologists have 
 j)laced before the world, has hitherto been the means 
 of throwing Phrenology, in a great measure, into the 
 hands of materialists, free-thinkers, and infidels. This 
 
64 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 is not as it should be ; but the blame rests chiefly on 
 the leaders of the Christian community, who have 
 neglected or refused to investigate the matter. In 
 many instances, they have condemned the science 
 without knowing anything about it. Their conduct is 
 blameworthy in the extreme. I hope to see the day, 
 however, when matters will wear a different aspect, 
 when Phrenology will be the favourite science of the 
 Christian philosopher. That it is not open to the 
 charge of materialism will be abundantly evident be- 
 fore this work is concluded. In the meantime, let us 
 look at the three following points : — 
 
 In the FIRST place, then, I observe, the science of 
 Phrenology rests upon the observation of facts alone, 
 and consequently cannot be overturned by mere argu- 
 ment from preconceived opinions, unless we adopt the 
 sentiments of the Frenchman, who, when reminded 
 that the facts were against his theories, at once re- 
 plied, " So much de vorse for de facts, den." The 
 truth is, facts are " stubborn things," and they cannot 
 be evaded or annihilated by any process of reasoning 
 whatever. As Dr Spurzheim very properly remarks, 
 " that which is, is." But even on theoretical grounds, 
 I would not yield the point, as the science is capable 
 of being supported by reasoning the most rigid and 
 conclusive. It matters not in what direction almost 
 we turn our thoughts, we will find arguments in its 
 favour. Indeed, I could gather a vast amount of 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 65 
 
 strong corroborative proof for it out of the writings of 
 its opponents ; and I believe it is impossible to raise a 
 single objection against it which cannot be answered, 
 (at least I have never heard one,) although that is 
 not absolutely necessary in making out a case for it. 
 Many objections might be answered, and the theory 
 might be very attractive ; but still a cautious inquirer 
 after truth should not receive it, unless it is fully sup- 
 ported by practice. Again, if practice can establish 
 it, it is the part of a complete fool to attempt to over- 
 turn it by theory. Hence a necessity of grappling 
 with its facts lies upon those individuals who raise a 
 clamour against it. If it be practically false, let them 
 banish it from enlightened society ; but if it be founded 
 in nature, the ridicule and opprobrium which have 
 fallen on the persecutors of Galileo and Harvey must 
 one day be the lot of those who render it such frivo- 
 lous opposition. If our system be untrue, let our 
 opponents brings us to the test of practice, and thus 
 prove that such is the case. We are ready to meet 
 them fearlessly, and that gives them a fine oppor- 
 tunity of heaping confusion and disgrace upon our 
 benighted heads, provided we are not able to maintain 
 our ground. By our works alone will we be judged ; 
 by them we are resolved to stand or fall. Besides, of 
 all others, this plan would be the speediest for settling 
 our claims, as all would be accomplished in a few 
 hours. Although a challenge of this description has 
 
 E 
 
66 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 been before the world for more than half a century, 
 our adversaries have never yet come forward to the 
 contest. They know full well they would soon be 
 obliged to quit the field. This backwardness on their 
 part is highly culpable, and altogether unjustifiable, 
 because they believe we teach erroneous doctrines, 
 which, in their estimation, are calculated to do irre- 
 parable mischief, and are spreading like a torrent over 
 a large portion of the civilised world. How can they, 
 under these circumstances, with a clear conscience, 
 stand aloof from the contest, when it would be such 
 an easy matter to overturn our system, if resting on a 
 false foundation ? 
 
 Perhaps some parties who have seen the ^article. 
 Phrenology, in the Popular Unc^dopcedia, may imagine 
 I have gone too far in saying that no person has ever 
 yet grappled with our facts, because it is there asserted 
 that, " in one distinguished instance, the challenge has 
 been accepted. Mr Stone, President of the Koyal 
 Medical Society of Edinburgh, has met them on their 
 own grounds, and by a series of the most indefatigable 
 examinations and measurements of a vast variety of 
 skulls, has proved many of their most vaunted hypo- 
 theses to be erroneous and false." This is surely 
 coming to the work at last, even although it is only 
 *' in one distinguished instance." It is well that even 
 in one instance our opponents have condescended to 
 come down from their reasoning reverie, and have 
 
BEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 67 
 
 stooped to the simple observation of nature. I have 
 already paid my respects to Mr Stone, and have taken 
 the liberty of proving, in Goyders' PJirenological An- 
 nual for 1845, that he has made such a radical mistake 
 in this matter as shows him to be utterly incompetent 
 to perform any philosophical investigation whatever. 
 Let us look at him again. 
 
 " By comparing the crania of eighteen murderers," 
 says the Encydoi^cedia^ " with two extensive [eighty 
 cases] series of crania, [this is what the Encyclopcedia 
 calls " indefatigable examinations and measurements 
 of a vast vamety of skulls." Bless the mark ! whole 
 eighteen cases compared with eighty ! I He is surely 
 greatly exhausted after all this, and if he were not 
 " indefatigable," he could not have survived it ! ! ! ] this 
 able inquirer has undeniably shown that the crania of 
 such criminals are not characterised by any superior 
 development in the region of Destructiveness ; and 
 that, instead of being broader, they are frequently 
 much narrower than crania in general. . . . The re- 
 gion of the head to which the supposed organ of 
 Acquisitiveness is referred, has not been found broader 
 in notorious thieves than in individuals of exemplary 
 character, and sometimes even narrower — proved by the 
 distance from Acquisitiveness to Acquisitiveness having 
 been taken in twenty-two thieves, and compared with the 
 same dimensions in various persons, English [twenty- 
 eight], Scotch [twenty-five], and Irish [twenty-seven], 
 
6S PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 each class of individuals having been taken without 
 any selection/' Verily, it is no wonder the writer has 
 kept back the record of the numbers which I have placed 
 in brackets. He has spoken so big about them that I 
 thought it right to get a correct record of the entire 
 numbers examined. We now see what he has the 
 audacity to call "a series of the most indefatigable 
 examinations." Truly, the life -long labours of Gall, 
 Spurzheim, and Combe, and the m.any thousand speci- 
 mens collected by Yimont during a period of six years, 
 and at an expense of more than 12,000 francs, are but 
 as a drop in the bucket, when compared with the 
 wonderful and unequalled exertions of this '' most in- 
 defatigable observer " 1 ! 
 
 Without dwelling on the fact that we have no 
 evidence of Mr Stone's acquaintance with the situa- 
 tion of the different organs, I may just remark that 
 there is an error lying at the very foundation of his 
 experiments, which renders them all perfectly value- 
 less, and which proves his utter incompetency for the 
 task he undertook. His observations are founded on 
 the principle of comparing the absolute size of De- 
 structiveness, or Acquisitiveness, in one mane's head, 
 with the absolute size of the same organ in another 
 man's head ; whereas he should have compared the 
 absolute size of Destructiveness, or Acquisitiveness, 
 in an individual head, with the absolute size of all the 
 counteracting moral organs in the same head ; and 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 69 
 
 then, having struck the balance, he should have gone 
 over all the heads observed in the same way. After 
 this, he would have been in a position to contrast the 
 different heads. This would have been the proper 
 way to do the business, but it would not have suited 
 his purpose, as it would have supported the truth of 
 Phrenology. His blundering here is either excessively 
 stupid, or excessively perverse. There can be no ex- 
 cuse for it, because it is laid down in the writings of 
 Phrenologists, that a man with a very large organ of 
 Destructiveness, or Acquisitiveness, may be as moral 
 as any other man in the world, provided his counter- 
 acting organs, such as Benevolence and Conscientious- 
 ness, are in still larger development than his Destruc- 
 tiveness and Acquisitiveness. The question is not, 
 What is the absolute size of Destructiveness, or Ac- 
 quisitiveness, in any particular case ? but. What is its 
 relative size, or, in other words, its size in comparison 
 with the development of all the counteracting organs 
 of the same head ? A man's character is not made up 
 partly from himself and partly from another man, but 
 results entirely from his own individual faculties. 
 Hence, we must compare one organ with another in 
 the same man, if we wish to know his character, in 
 place of comparing it with the same organ in his 
 neighbour, as Mr Stone has done. 
 
 In order to render this matter a little plainer to 
 the inexperienced, I shall take an illustration. On 
 
70 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 applying the calipers, I have found that the organ of 
 Destructiveness in the head of Eammohun Eoj, the 
 great Hindoo reformer, was as near as possible the same 
 size as the organ of Destructiveness in the head of 
 Greenacre, the cold-blooded Edgeware Eoad murderer. 
 Whence, then, such a difference in their character ? 
 As the absolute size of Destructiveness was about the 
 same in each, the one should be as bad as the other, 
 on Mr Stone's plan of judging. It is only right, how- 
 ever, to deal fairly by Phrenology, and therefore I shall 
 go a little further into the matter than Mr Stone has 
 done, and take a glance at the condition of the coun- 
 teracting organs in each head. I shall try to ascertain 
 the relative proportion which the different organs bear 
 to each other in the head of the one individual, and, 
 after having done the same in the other case, I shall 
 draw the contrast between the two parties. On again 
 applying the calipers, then, I find that the organs of 
 Conscientiousness and Benevolence measure (each) 
 exactly about one inch more in the head of Eam- 
 mohun Eoy than in the head of Greenacre. Conse- 
 quently, the disparity in their character is very easily 
 understood ; and the gross inaccuracy of Mr Stone's 
 plan of investigation is demonstrated. In the case of 
 Eammohun Eoy, Destructiveness is far more than 
 balanced by his immense Benevolence and Conscien- 
 tiousness; whereas the moral organs in Greenacre's 
 head are quite insignificant in comparison with his 
 
EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 71 
 
 Destructiveness. If Mr Stone could find a cold-bloodecf 
 murderer in whom the organ of Destructiveness was 
 excessively deficient, whilst his organs of Benevolence 
 and Conscientiousness were remarkably large, he would 
 then, indeed, cut out some hard work for the Phreno- 
 logist. In the meantime, however, if he had any sense, 
 he would hide his diminished head. 
 
 We are further informed, that " the posterior de- 
 velopment, or quantity of brain behind the ear, to 
 which region Phrenologists refer the animal propensi- 
 ties, has not been found, by Mr Stone, to exhibit any 
 remarkable preponderance in the crania of murder- 
 ers." This statement, like others he has made, is cer- 
 tainly as vague as any anti-phrenologist could make it. 
 It does not refer, as it should have done, in philoso- 
 phical accuracy, to any particular spot, but to the 
 whole of the back of the head, in which region are 
 placed the organs of Philoprogenitiveness, Amative- 
 ness, Adhesiveness, Concentrativeness, Love of Appro- 
 bation, and Self-esteem ; and I should like to be in- 
 formed where the Phrenologist is, who states that all 
 these organs must be well developed in the head of a 
 murderer. I am sur23rised that any man, who is able 
 to spell his own name, would venture on such loose, 
 inaccurate, and unphilosophical statements as those 
 put forth by Mr Stone. 
 
 There is another mistake in Mr Stone's plan of in- 
 vestigation. It will be seen, from the quotation I 
 
72 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 have already given, that in estimating the size of 
 Acquisitiveness, he measured straight through the 
 head, from Acquisitiveness to Acquisitiveness, in place 
 of measuring from the orifice of the ear to the surface 
 of Acquisitiveness, as laid down by writers on Phren- 
 ology. If we wish to isolate an organ and measure its 
 size, we must do it by observing the extent of its ex- 
 pansion on the surface of the head, as well as by mea- 
 suring its length or depth from this peripheral expan- 
 sion to its origin in the region of the medulla oblongata, 
 which lies opposite the orifice of the ear. For this rea- 
 son, the line should be drawn, by a pair of calipers, 
 from the orifice of the internal ear to the surface of 
 the phrenological organ. We thus get the dimensions 
 of the organ without interfering with other parts, 
 whereas, on Mr Stone's plan of going right across the 
 head, in place of getting the dimensions of any one 
 organ, we get the breadth of the root of all the organs 
 in the head where they meet in the base of the brain. 
 In point of fact, Mr Stone's blundering is such, that it 
 is difficult to know whether he is naturally stupid or 
 wilfully perverse. If he be so stupid as not to see 
 what he was about, he is incapable of dealing with any 
 philosophical subject ; but if he really saw his own 
 blunders, he is unworthy of confidence. As I am dis- 
 posed to take a lenient view of the case, and con- 
 sider his conduct the result of sheer ignorance, I 
 would just recommend that he be sent to school 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 73 
 
 for anotlier quarter, to see if anything can be made 
 of him. 
 
 Since writing my article for Goyders' Annual^ I 
 have had an opportunity of perusing a very able com- 
 munication from Mr George Combe to one of the 
 early numbers of the Fhr etiological Journal, on Mr 
 Stone's exploits. The following paragraph is so spicy 
 that it must be a thorough treat to my readers: — 
 " The results of his measurements and tables/' says 
 Mr Combe, " show that he has proceeded on no intel- 
 ligible or consistent principle whatever. They are palp- 
 ably ludicrous. For example, — in discussing Hare's 
 head, he says, ^ The proportion of Destructiveness to 
 the size of the head is as 1 to 2-319 ; the proportion 
 of Benevolence to ditto is as 1 to 2*555 ; the proportion 
 of Conscientiousness to ditto is as 1 to 3 ;' that is to 
 say, of Hare's head, Destructiveness constitutes within 
 a small fraction of one half ; it is as 1 to 2 J^ ; Benevo- 
 lence constitutes very nearly another half ; for it is as 
 1 to 2J ; and Conscientiousness is exactly one third ; 
 so that the size of these three organs exceeds that of 
 the whole head which contains them, and all the other 
 32 organs have no size whatever ! In citing this ex- 
 ample, I am not taking Mr Stone at disadvantage, 
 catching him tripping, as it were, in some huge cal- 
 culation amidst his mighty chaos of decimals ; on the 
 contrary, his whole tables present similar absurdities 
 to the eye. For instance, Table 2 gives the average 
 
74 PHRENOLOGYc 
 
 size of the head in 28 living Englishmen to be 13'557, 
 and the average proportion of Destructiveness, Benevo- 
 lence, Conscientiousness, and Acquisitiveness com- 
 bined^ to the whole size of the same head to be 9*968, 
 thus leaving 3-589 for the other 31 organs. It is quite 
 evident that, if Mr Stone had proceeded two steps 
 further in his measurement of particular organs, he 
 would again have made the sum of the separate dimen- 
 sions of a few organs greater than the size of the whole 
 head." Bravo ! Mr Stone ; you are a clever fellow after 
 all. You can do what no Phrenologist has ever at- 
 tempted ; you can make the skull hold more than it is 
 able to contain, and can prove that the parts are greater 
 than the whole. You can pack up 32 organs of the brain 
 without having any space to put them in ! Your " in- 
 defatigable" experiments are invaluable. I have no 
 doubt they could settle the ancient controversy 
 amongst the Spirittialists, concerning the number of 
 devils that could dance on the point of a needle. 
 Your equal has not arisen in this generation. You 
 even exceed a neighbour of mine, who firmly believes, 
 when he increases the length of the furrow, by plough- 
 ing the ridges in a zig-zag form, that he actually in- 
 creases the quantity of land in the field ! I suppose 
 it was in consideration of your being able to prove 
 that the skull, after being completely filled, can hold 
 32 organs more, that the Edinburgh Literary Journal^ 
 for May 2, 1829, asserted that '• Mr Stone's pamphlet 
 
EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 75 
 
 contains nothing but plain statements and incontro- 
 vertible deductions '' ! ! Hurrah ! hurrah ! ! 
 
 It is very amusing to consider the way in which 
 Phrenology, which is still living, has been so often killed 
 by the public press. Mr Combe very properly asks, " If 
 it was refuted by Dr Gordon, why did they laud Dr Eoget 
 for demolishing it ? — if Dr Koget succeeded, why did 
 they praise Dr Barclay so extravagantly for subverting 
 what was already overturned ? — if Dr Barclay was a 
 fatal enemy, why did they extol Mr Jeffrey to the skies 
 as the prince of all anti-phrenologists ? — if Jeffrey left 
 no shred of the science sticking to another, why did 
 they sound a loud acclaim to Sir W. Hamilton for his 
 reputed victories over its scattered members? — and 
 if Sir William's brows were decorated with well-earned 
 laurels on account of his magnanimous achievements, 
 why do they now cling to Mr Stone as if no other 
 champion had tilted with success against Phrenology ? " 
 Those who oppose the science would do well to imbibe 
 the truly philosophic spirit of Professor Syme, who, 
 though an unbeliever in Phrenology, said, in writing to 
 Mr Combe, ^* I should certainly be the last person to 
 ridicule or cry down the exertions of any man who 
 attempts to extend the limits of our knowledge by 
 observation." 
 
 In the leading article of the London Medical Times 
 and Gazette for the 15th of December 1860, the editor, 
 Mr Spencer Wells, says, " This bubble (Phrenology) has 
 
7 6 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 been so often, and so demonstratively exploded, that 
 we scarcely think men of science are bound any more 
 to trouble their heads about it. That such a fanciful 
 idea as that of reading a man's soul by the language 
 of bumps on his head, should be taught and believed 
 in, is nothing wonderful. What outrage on common 
 sense, on natural laws, on scientific facts, will men not 
 teach and men believe ? " Here, then, was a very strong 
 denunciation by an eminent surgeon and the editor of 
 a most important medical journal. He said that 
 Phrenology had been " demonstratively " exploded. 
 The use of this word placed it far beyond a mere 
 matter of opinion. Being a practical science, it could 
 be ''demonstratively exploded" in no other way than 
 by a series of carefully and accurately observed facts. 
 A practical science could not be " demonstratively " 
 exploded by mere theory. The demonstration must 
 result from facts. Of course I was anxious to know 
 what facts had come under the observation of the 
 learned editor, which enabled him to pronounce such 
 a positive and sweeping judgment. I therefore wrote 
 the following letter, which he kindly published in his 
 journal for the 5th of January 1861 : — 
 
 " To the editor of The Medical Times and Gazette. 
 Sir, — In your leading article for the 15th of December, 
 you say Phrenology is a bubble, a fanciful idea, and an 
 outrage on common sense. If it be all this, it should 
 immediately be exposed and banished from civilised 
 
EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 77 
 
 society. I would not presume to criticise your re- 
 marks through your own pages ; but there is one point 
 which I hope you will give your readers some light 
 upon. You say ' it has been often and demonstratively 
 exploded.' Now, I shall feel much obliged if you will 
 inform me when and by whom a practical demonstra- 
 tion, adverse to Phrenology, has been made from a 
 series of carefully-observed facts. If there be any 
 account of them in print, I must have it. I have 
 never yet seen anything of the kind, although I have 
 read everything of any importance which has been 
 printed against the science in Great Britain. Words 
 there are plenty ; facts are more scanty than jewels. 
 There is one fact, however, on the other side, with 
 which I am well acquainted. My own head has been 
 examined by five different Phrenologists, all strangers 
 to me, in England, Ireland, and Scotland. They all 
 gave almost 'identically the same traits of character, 
 and drew them out with a minuteness and extreme 
 accuracy which could not be attempted by the most 
 intimate acquaintance I have in the world. Now, had 
 these men a science to guide them, or were they in- 
 spired and superhuman ? — I am, &c., 
 
 " James C. L. Carson." 
 
 What reply did the editor make to this note ? Here 
 
 it is, " Our correspondent is quite entitled to hold any 
 
 opinion he pleases concerning Phrenology, or any other 
 
 ology or opathy ; and so also are we. We regret that 
 
78 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 we do not agree on the subject of Phrenology, but we 
 have nothing to subtract from the opinion we gave of 
 the so-called science in the passage to which he refers 
 in his note. Neither have we either time or inclina- 
 tion to enter into any discussion on the subject ; our 
 mind is made up about it, just as it is made up about 
 mesmerism, homoeo-quackery, or perpetual motion ; 
 and besides, we know only too well where all discus- 
 sions on matters wherein faith rather than reason is 
 concerned, end. We, therefore, cannot oblige our cor- 
 respondent by pointing out to him practical demon- 
 strations of the absurdity of Phrenology." Let us just 
 look at this reply. Mr Wells says he has a right to 
 hold any opinion he pleases. No doubt of it ; but I 
 did not ask him one word about his opinion, because 
 I would not give half a farthing for the mere opinion 
 of any man on earth on a question which can be settled 
 only by practice. He made the assertion that Phren- 
 ology was demonstratively exploded. All I asked was 
 the record of the practical observations on which the 
 demonstration was founded. If any such had been 
 made, he could easily have referred to them and 
 pointed them out. If no such observations had ever 
 been made, his attack upon Phrenology, and conse- 
 quently on Phrenologists, was as uncalled for as it was 
 unfounded, and he was honourably bound to retract 
 his assertion. Such, however, has been the sort of 
 treatment Phrenology has ever met with at the hands 
 
EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 79 
 
 of its opponents. Their opposition is grounded on a 
 mere bundle of opinions^ which must be swallowed for 
 no other reason than because they and their ancestors 
 have held them, I am greatly surprised that so emi- 
 nent a surgeon as Mr Spencer Wells would place him- 
 self in such a humiliating position. He^ of all men, as 
 the opponent of Dr Eobert Lee on Ovariotomy, ought 
 to know that mere opinion is of no value against a prac- 
 tical science. If he looks to his own journal for Feb- 
 ruary 23d, 1861, he will see that Mr Thomas Bryant 
 states, at the Medical and Chirurgical Society, ^Hhat 
 the science of medicine and surgery was one purely of 
 observation, and that its principles and practice could 
 only be regarded as sound so long as they were based 
 on facts, the result of recorded and carefully-observed 
 phenomena.'* Now, if any person had been foolish 
 enough to start up and oppose these sensible observa- 
 tions of Mr Bryant's, by merely giving it as his opinion 
 from theoretical grounds, that medicine and surgery 
 were a bubble, and had no foundation in truth, and 
 could not in his opinion bear comparison with homceo- 
 pathy, what would the editor of the Gazette have said 
 to him ? Would the objector not have caught it in 
 good style in the next number of the journal ? Would 
 his opinion not have been set down, and properly set 
 down, as not worth a moment's consideration in the 
 scale against well-ascertained facts ? And if the dis- 
 pute were continued, would it not have to be settled 
 
80 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 by a reference to facts, and facts alone ? To be sure it 
 would. Why, then, is Phrenology to be treated in a 
 different manner from all other subjects ? Why is it 
 to be always opposed by theory, and its facts, or 
 alleged facts if you will, cast aside as unworthy of 
 investigation ? 
 
 The editor of the Gazette says he has no inclination 
 to enter into any discussion on the subject. I never 
 asked him to enter on a discussion. So far from that, 
 I said, *' I would not presume to criticise your remarks 
 through your own pages." I know full well, no 
 editor will carry on a discussion, in his own journal, 
 with his correspondents. I asked not for a discussion ; 
 but I asked for a far more troublesome affair,— ^Ae 
 record ofthefacts^ — the record of facts which never had 
 an existence ! This was a poser to him ; and he was 
 obliged to acknowledge that he could not point out 
 *^ practical demonstrations of the absurdity of Phreno- 
 logy." Why, then, was he so reckless as to assert it 
 was " demonstratively exploded " ? Why did he make 
 this assertion,— an assertion which he has couched in 
 language most derogatory to all Phrenologists,~with- 
 out having the shadow of a foundation to rest it on ? 
 Shame ! shame ! He talks about faith and reason ; 
 but in his case it is all faith and no reason. Is it not 
 absurd to talk about reason, when he attempts to cast 
 aside a practical science, although he has not been able 
 to allege a single particle of practical evidence as the 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 81 
 
 basis of his opposition? What reason does such a 
 course unfold ? None whatever. It is slavish and 
 blind credulity. " Truly," says the Eclectic Revievj^ for 
 July 1861, " the credulities of ignorance are amusing ; 
 but for the most amusing evidence of the flights of 
 credulity, we have to turn to the achievements of 
 speculative savans." 
 
 If a man be not acquainted with the facts of a case, 
 he has a perfect right to suspend his judgment, and 
 call for proofs. Under these circumstances he is not 
 bound to give an opinion on the one side or the other. 
 He is not only not bound to decide, but real philosophy 
 demands that he should not decide in his state of 
 ignorance. His judgment should be completely sus- 
 pended. The editor of the Gazette, however, is not in 
 this position. His credulity is so great that he believes 
 what he has read, or been told on the subject, and 
 decides against the science without knowing the facts. 
 He says it has been demonstratively exploded, although 
 he is not able to point to a single demonstration on 
 the subject. If he had said the evidence in its favour, 
 after a careful practical examination, did not appear to 
 him sufficient to establish it, no person would have a 
 right to complain. But when he says it is demonstra- 
 tively exploded, without being able to point to a 
 single fact on which the demonstration rests, he places 
 himself in a position wdiich is as unphilosophical as it 
 
 is inaccurate. 
 
 F 
 
82 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 As a matter of amusement, as well as instruction, I 
 may refer to a paragraph from the learned gentleman 
 who understands so well the province of " faith " and 
 " reason," as it appears on the 497th page of the Medical 
 Times and Gazette for May 11th, 1861. " The art of 
 teaching," says the editor, " is a special gift, which may 
 or may not be superadded to a sound practical know- 
 ledge of the subject to be taught. A man may be a 
 first-rate anatomist, and yet be unable to teach even 
 the rudiments in clear, intelligible language, in due 
 order, and without confusion." No statement could 
 be more correct, or more important in a practical point 
 of view, than this ; and the facts are capable of a very 
 simple and satisfactory explanation on Phrenological 
 principles. But my business, at present, is rather to 
 deal with the explanation of the learned editor. *^ It 
 is no doubt owing to the fact," he continues, '' that the 
 regularly-appointed professors in the medical schools 
 have not always the logical faculties requisite for good 
 teachers, that a system of private tutorship has become 
 not merely popular, but necessary, to men of slow 
 brains and inadequate general education." Let us 
 analyse these statements. " The art of teaching is a 
 special gift." There must, then, of necessity, be a 
 special faculty either in the brain or in the mind. If 
 it be in the brain, it will accord with Phrenology ; but 
 if in the mind, the mind must be divisible into dif- 
 ferent faculties, and therefore material and mortal. 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. S3 
 
 What " ology " do you call this, Mr Editor ? Again, 
 you say a man may be able to take m the knowledge 
 in first-rate style, without being able to give it out in 
 an intelligible manner. Are these gifts not distinct I 
 Do they not depend on distinct faculties ? If you place 
 them in the brain, you slide into Phrenology ; but if 
 you put them in the mind, you make it compound, 
 divisible, and material. What " ology " do you belong 
 to now, Mr Editor % Further, the professors have the 
 faculty for acquiring knowledge, but they have not the 
 " logical faculties for good teachers." A complete dis- 
 tinction is here made between the faculties for acquir- 
 ing information and the logical faculties. Conse- 
 quently, if these distinct, separate, and perhaps 
 opposite, faculties are in the mind, the mind must be 
 compound and material. What '' ology " are you at 
 now, Mr Editor ? Finally^ this " logical faculty " is 
 necessary for those who teach men who have "slow 
 brains." How will the logical faculty of the teacher 
 make the slow brain of the pupil go fast ? I could 
 form some idea of an active brain exciting the energies 
 of a slow one ; but I cannot see what the logical faculty 
 has to do with it. It is not the greatest logician who is 
 the best teacher. Surely the slow brain of the pupil 
 would require a logical faculty in itself to be roused by 
 the logical faculty of the quick-brained teacher. 
 
 The editor of the Gazette, in reply to my note, says 
 regarding Phrenology : " Our mind is made up about 
 
84 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 it, just as it is made up about mesmerism, homcEO- 
 quackery, or perpetual motion." That is just the 
 secret. It is never the want of evidence prevents any 
 man from believing the truth. His mind is made up, 
 and therefore he will not investigate. His early edu- 
 cation, predilections, and prejudices, prevent him from 
 giving that careful attention to new views and new 
 subjects which^ in many instances, their importance 
 demands. His mind is made up ; he steels himself 
 hard and fast against the truth. To convert such men 
 is nearly impossible. The conduct of Mr Wells in re- 
 gard to Phrenology is just on a par with that of Dr 
 Eobert Lee in relation to ovariotomy. In each case the 
 mind is made up, and practical evidence has no weight. 
 Preconceived opinions cannot be got rid of. There is 
 no man so blind as the man who closes his eyes against 
 proper investigation. He is almost in a hopeless con- 
 dition. Without being able to refer to any practical 
 demonstration on the subject, Mr Wells rejects Phren- 
 ology in the most contemptuous terms, although it is 
 a science which professes to rest entirely on observa- 
 tion, and consequently cannot be overturned by theory. 
 In this case he is just as devoid of a truly philosophic 
 spirit as Dr Eobert Lee is in opposing ovariotomy. As 
 Dr Savage remarks, {Lancet, Nov. 1862:) "Dr Lee 
 never would see the operation of ovariotomy done. 
 He (Dr Savage) had asked him to come and see a case, 
 but Dr Lee said he would rather not. Dr Lee had ex- 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 85 
 
 pressed strong opinions against ovariotomy, and he did 
 not ^Yant to see anything which could alter his opinions." 
 Dr Lee replied, " It was true that he had never per- 
 formed the operation of ovariotomy on the living 
 body, that he had never sanctioned its performance, 
 and that he had never seen it performed by others." 
 Such is the condition of the man who has given this 
 operation all the opposition in his power ! To such 
 parties practical evidence is of little use. Old opinions 
 are far superior to newly-discovered facts. The history 
 of ovariotomy, like the history of all other practical 
 innovations, is full of instruction. It was referred to 
 by " De Haen as an operation of which it would not do 
 to talk, lest some reckless surgeon should attempt its 
 performance ; and by Scanzoni as a proof of madness 
 in the patient who should adopt, and of crime in the 
 surgeon who should abet, such a mode of suicide ; and 
 again energetically denounced by Velpeau as an opera- 
 tion on no account to be admitted into French surgery." 
 And finally, it has met the bitterest opposition in 
 London from Dr Eobert Lee. It is satisfactory to 
 know, however, that, after all this, it has been fairly 
 submitted to the only proper test — the practical test — 
 and its triumph is complete. Thanks to Dr Clay, Mr 
 Spencer AYells, Dr Tyler Smith, and Mr Baker Brown, 
 it is now estabhshed as an operation which adds lustre 
 to the brilliancy of British surgery. Like many other 
 things, in theory it looked bad, but in practice it has 
 
S^ PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 turned out well. It is a far less dangerous operation 
 than amputation of the thigh and leg. The recoveries 
 actually amount to 76 per cent, of those operated on, 
 {Lancetj Feb. 25, 1865 ;) whereas Mr Erichsen shows 
 {Medical Gazette, Dec. 20^ 1862) that the recoveries 
 after amputation of the lower extremity, at Guy's 
 Hospital, do not exceed, in all classes, 50 per cent. 
 Dr Lee's opposition to ovariotomy, and Mr Spencer 
 Wells's theoretical denunciation of a practical science 
 like Phrenology, are about as sensible as the statement 
 of Velpeau, who accounted for the greater success which 
 followed surgical operations in the London than in the 
 French hospitals, by asserting that it was owing to " a 
 kind of immunity in favour of the flesh of the English, 
 which, by some kind of physiological privilege, is more 
 refractory than is French flesh to the accidents which 
 follow great operations." — {Medical Times andj Gazette, 
 Dec. 14, 1861). It is really wonderful how men of 
 great ability can sometimes place themselves in ridi- 
 culous positions. No man should ever oppose a prac- 
 tical subject without having first submitted it to a 
 careful, close, and fair practical investigation. 
 
 In the Phrenological Journal for 1829, Mr Combe 
 cites a melancholy example of opposition to opinions 
 which are new, in the case of Mr Dugald Stewart, who, 
 in writing on the 15th of June 1820, to Dr Poole, re- 
 garding Dr Thomas Brown's metaphysical views, says : 
 " May I add to this, that, not having taken up very 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 87 
 
 lightly my philosophical opinions, I cannot afford to 
 waste my time in the study of new theories, which 
 profess to accomplish a complete revolution in that 
 branch of science to which I have devoted the best 
 part of my life. I must, therefore, during my few 
 remaining years, content myself with plodding on in 
 the beaten track, and with treading, as far as I can, in 
 the footsteps of those humbler guides whom it has 
 hitherto been my ambition to follow.^' This is the 
 man who cried, " Is there no Arbuthnot now to chastise 
 the follies of our modern Craniologists ?" This is the 
 man who, when called to account for his exclamation 
 by Sir George S. Mackenzie, Bart., peremptorily refused 
 to say a word on the subject, " as his own opinions, 
 whatever they are, have been the result of too much 
 reflection to be easily changed, and he must leave it 
 to those who come after him to judge of their truth." 
 This is the man who would not even examine Dv 
 Thomas Brown's new views on his own favourite sub- 
 ject, metaphysics, because his mind was made up, and 
 he would not trouble himself about those new views 
 which, if true, would uproot his previous opinions. 
 Is it not wonderful that people of common sense should 
 be influenced by the opinions of such a man ? Not- 
 withstanding his neglect of Dr Brown's views, Dr 
 Brown's theories have been read by the whole meta- 
 physical world since ; and notwithstanding his refusal 
 to discuss Phrenology with Sir George Mackenzie, we 
 
88 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 can still bid a proud defiance to all those who would 
 " chastise our follies." 
 
 No man who knows poor human nature would ex- 
 pect all men to become Phrenologists. Some could not 
 bear to have their own failings discovered ; some would 
 not change, even if they knew they were wrong ; some 
 would not believe anything which is new ; and some of 
 those who fill professors' chairs would not sacrifice 
 their worldly interests. As Andral, the great French 
 pathologist, has observed, " Some one must be put to 
 inconvenience in the progress of Phrenology, and few 
 people are fond of being set aside. It has, moreover, 
 the great fault of being younger than those whom it 
 pretends to enlighten ; but let it alone, and it will soon 
 throw all obstacles behind it with marvellous force." 
 A gentleman came to Coleraine about twenty-seven 
 years ago, to deliver lectures on Phrenology and 
 examine heads. There was a clergyman at that time 
 in the district who had been dabbling a little in the 
 science, and had even gone the length of passing his 
 fingers over some people's heads. He called on me, 
 and asked me to go with him to the Phrenologist, in 
 order to have his head examined as a test of the science. 
 I said, if that were his object he had better put on a 
 black neck-tie, and go quite alone. He did so, and 
 asked me to stay in the house till he would return to 
 show me the written character. To this I agreed, as I 
 thought it would not occupy more than half an hour. 
 
EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 89 
 
 After waiting three or four hours, however, I went out 
 to see what had become of him. To my great surprise 
 I found him engaged in an angry discussion with the 
 Phrenologist. The character he got was not nearly so 
 good as he wished, and he was in a regular passion. 
 But the Phrenologist maintained that it was an exact 
 description of the head, and he would not alter it for 
 any man. The clergyman referred the whole matter 
 to me. I read the character, and pronounced it to be 
 perfectly correct. By this decision I was at once placed 
 on the back of the books. He said there was a lady in 
 town who was well acquainted with him, and he would 
 refer it to her. Accordingly he did so ; and she said 
 she had always thought Phrenology to be nonsense, but 
 she was wonderfully struck with the extreme accuracy 
 of this delineation, and thought there must be some 
 truth in the science. After all, the clergyman was so 
 much disappointed with the examination of his own 
 head, that he said Phrenology was a humbug, and he 
 would never believe in it again. 
 
 ^'Xo one," says Professor Caldwell of America, "has 
 ever thoroughly studied the details of Phrenology, by 
 a faithful examination of man as he is, without arriving 
 at a conviction of their truth. If such an instance has 
 ever occurred, it has been in some individual whose 
 cerebral developments were unfavourable — in plainer 
 English, whose head was badly formed. Neither 
 Homer's Thersites, whose cranium was ^ misshapen/ 
 
90 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 nor any of Shakspeare's personages, with ^foreheads 
 villainously low,' could have been easily proselyted to 
 the doctrines of Phrenology. The reason is obvious. 
 Their own heads would not have ^ passed muster.' 
 Their belief, therefore, would have been self-condem- 
 natory. As the hump-backed, knock-kneed, and bandy- 
 legged, have an instinctive hostility to the science of 
 gymnastics, it is scarcely to be expected that the fiat- 
 heads, apple-heads, and sugar-loaf heads will be favour- 
 ably disposed to that of Phrenology. Nor will those 
 whose brains are so ponderous behind and light before 
 that their heads seem in danger of tilting backwards." 
 " Were Phrenology an established science," says the 
 Popular Encyclopoedia, " and were it possible to draw 
 unerring deductions from the data which it lays down, 
 it cannot be denied that its discovery would be the 
 greatest step ever made in mental philosophy, and its 
 application the most beneficial ever used for the ame- 
 lioration of the human race. It would give man a 
 knowledge of himself, and direct him in the application 
 of the faculties with which he might be endowed. By 
 disclosing individual character, it would give security 
 to social intercourse, and make communication prompt 
 and easy. It would disclose real merit and expose un- 
 worthiness. The truly wise and good would at last 
 attain their proper station in society, while the ignorant 
 and vicious would be obliged to hide their diminished 
 heads. To parents the science would be of invaluable 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 91 
 
 service, in directing them as to the proper moral and 
 intellectual training of their children ; nor would any 
 difficulty longer exist regarding the choice of a profes- 
 sion — no one, in future, would be made a lawyer who 
 should have been a painter, nor a clergyman, who should 
 have been a fiddler." 
 
 After such a statement as this, a person would 
 naturally expect that the writer would have ransacked 
 every possible source of human knowledge, in order to 
 see whether Phrenology was founded on truth or not ; 
 and more especially as the science always professed to 
 rest exclusively on observation, it would at once be 
 concluded that he would have acceded, with the utmost 
 readiness and delight, to the invitations of the Phren- 
 ologists, to examine it practically. Marvellous to 
 relate, however, — incredibly marvellous to relate ! — he 
 confesses " that the opponents of Phrenology have re- 
 sponded little to this invitation. They have been so 
 satisfied with the overwhelming arguments adduced 
 against the system, from almost every point of mental 
 and physical philosophy, that they have left the manip- 
 ulation of heads and handling of skulls and casts 
 to the Phrenologists themselves." What! what!! 
 what ! ! ! Can it be possible he has thrown overboard 
 a subject he confesses to be so extremely important, 
 without ever taking the trouble of carefully examin- 
 ing the very foundation on which it rests ? Such 
 conduct is truly marvellous. Moreover such a mode 
 
92' PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 of procedure is not confined to himself, because, ac- 
 cording to his own showing, all the opponents of 
 Phrenology have done the same, with the single excep- 
 tion of the " one distinguished instance," Mr Stone. 
 In place of examining the matter for himself, in its 
 practical details, the Encyclopsedist has rested satisfied 
 with the false reports, distorted statements, and 
 downright misrepresentations of the opponents of the 
 science. In this respect he forcibly reminds me of the 
 opponents of vaccination, who, as may be seen by 
 referring to the second volume of Sir J. Y. Simpson's 
 Obstetric Memoirs, adopted a similar course in an 
 attempt to overturn Jenner's discovery. For example, 
 '' I have," said Dr Moseley, " seen children die of the 
 cow-pox without losing the sense of torment^even in the 
 article of death ; '^ and Dr Kowley speaks of " parents 
 being robbed of their serenity, and the minds of 
 tender mothers being wrung with eternal suspense 
 . . . whilst a few projectors or visionists are pursuing 
 their deleterious projects on human victims. ... In 
 fact the senses are appalled, and the pen is tired of 
 recording its dreadful disasters. . . . This boy is 
 gradually losing the human lineaments, and his coun- 
 tenance is transmuting into the visage of a cow." 
 " Cow-pox," said Drew and Forrester, " is a far more 
 severe disease than small-pox." Some, after vaccin- 
 ation, were said to " cough like cows," and " bellow 
 like bulls." And so great is the credulity attendant 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. .93 
 
 upon ignorance, even in what is called the highest 
 walks of scientific life, that these direct misrepresent- 
 ations and fabulous reports were all but universally 
 believed for a considerable time. Would that men 
 would learn a lesson from the history of the past ! 
 
 The writer in the Encyclopcedia has been so satisfied 
 with the overwhelming arguments adduced against a 
 practical system, that he does not think it necessary 
 to examine it practically ! What confidence could any 
 rational being place in the opinions of such wretched, 
 miserable, unphilosophical theorists ? They are not 
 one whit better than the disciples of Galen and Aris- 
 totle, previously referred to. Can mere argument 
 overturn observable facts ? Is the Baconian philoso- 
 j)hy exploded in the nineteenth century ? Is observa- 
 tion no longer the foundation of scientific investigation ? 
 Are we to be once more buried in the interminable 
 meshes of speculation and theory % Have we actually 
 returned to the dark ages ? Shame ! Oh, shame ! 
 upon the man who neglects or despises observation 
 and attempts to trample it underfoot by refusing its 
 assistance ! He is unworthy of being reasoned with, 
 and is only fit to be lashed with ridicule. The Phren- 
 ologist should consider himself highly honoured when 
 such men declare that ^^ fool and Phrenologist are 
 synonymous terms." Praise from them would indeed 
 be the highest censure. 
 
 Our theorising opponents remind us of Bishop 
 
94 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 Berkeley. Observation was of no use to him ; but still 
 his speculations produced a great effect on the men of 
 his day, — even on those who passed for being learned. 
 He reasoned himself so far out of his common sense as 
 actually to deny we had any proof of the existence of 
 matter. He was not sure there was such a thing as 
 the world he walked on. If he had not belonged to 
 the list of so-called philosophers, he would certainly 
 have been placed in an asylum. He was one day taught 
 a good practical lesson, however, by a gentleman whom 
 he went to visit. As the gentleman sat at his drawing- 
 room window, he saw the bishop walking up the 
 avenue under a perfect torrent of rain. He immedi- 
 ately directed his servants to keep out of the way and 
 on no account to open the door. The bishop reached 
 the door and gave a tremendous knock. The owner of 
 the house put his head out of the drawing-room window 
 and politely requested the bishop to walk in out of the 
 rain. " I cannot get in," said the bishop, " for the door 
 is shut." " Walk in, walk in ; " said the other, " you 
 are under a great mistake ; there is no door there ; 
 you are aware we have no evidence of the existence of 
 matter ; you have no evidence of any door being there ; 
 just walk in out of the rain." The bishop was thus 
 completely caught by the folly of his own philosophy. 
 Now, here was a man who was universally considered, 
 by his theorising contemporaries, as one of the greatest 
 philosophers of his day ; and yet we find him brought 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 95 
 
 down to the level of a mere simpleton, or I should 
 rather say below it, by a person who was under the 
 influence of plain, practical, common sense. It would 
 be well if the enemies of Phrenology would take warn- 
 ing by his example, and cease to revel in the wild mazes 
 of pure speculation. 
 
 In the SECOND place, I remark that God, who is the 
 Author of the Bible, is also the Creator of man and of 
 every material object in the universe ; and as a neces- 
 sary consequence of this, there can be no real jarring 
 between the Book of Eevelation and the wide field of 
 natui^. The one has nothing to fear from the other, 
 as they both come from that Infallible Beiog who has 
 arranged all things in perfect harmony with each other. 
 They are both infallible witnesses for truth, and there- 
 fore can never falsify each other's testimony. To fear 
 any evil consequences from an unfolding of those laws 
 by which God works in the material world, is a being 
 wiser than, and a direct dishonouring of, God himself. 
 On the contrary, the more we study His works, the 
 more harmony and beauty do we discover in them 
 — the more are we disposed, if we are Christians, to 
 adore and venerate the great Being who has formed 
 them all in such admirable perfection — and the more 
 will we see their accordance with, bearing upon, and 
 proof of, those great and glorious truths which are 
 revealed in the Scriptures. At the same time, it 
 behoves us, in the interpretation of either the book 
 
96 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 of Nature or of Eevelation, to see that our opinions 
 rest upon a sure and well-ascertained foundation, in 
 place of being the result, as thej often are, of our own 
 weak and foolish imaginations. We should never draw 
 hasty conclusions, nor yet follow the example of the 
 one class, which forces Scripture to bend to science, 
 nor of the other, which compels science to yield to 
 Scripture. Such a course is as unphilosophical as it 
 is injurious. When rightly understood, science and 
 Scripture cannot possibly contradict each other. If 
 the one required to yield to the other, in the way they 
 are generally made to do, their Author could not be 
 perfect. When a contradiction occurs, it will be found 
 to be owing to hasty conclusions from imperfect data, 
 ignorance of facts, or a spurious and infidel philosophy. 
 There can be but one way of correctly interpreting 
 Scripture, and that is by a strict adherence to the laws 
 of language. It is impossible that one passage can 
 have two literal meanings directly the reverse of each 
 other. The Sacred Writings are not like the oracle at 
 Delphi. If two meanings, contradicting each other, 
 are given, one of them must necessarily be a false 
 interpretation, otherwise the Bible would be no better 
 than an Act of Parliament, through which Mr O'Connell 
 said he could drive a coach and four. The Scriptures 
 can be proved by irrefragable evidence to be the word 
 of the living God, and as such they must be perfect, 
 and are capable of bearing a proper and truthful inter- 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 97 
 
 pretation. But, alas ! how many have read the Bible, 
 and have wilfully misunderstood its doctrines and 
 precepts, and, spurred on by their own evil imagina- 
 tions and wicked dispositions, have endeavoured to 
 overturn, or explain away, the plainest portions of 
 Scriptui-e ! Because wicked and perverse men have 
 dealt thus with the Word of the Most High God, are 
 we to reject the Scripture as a mere fiction, which is 
 calculated only to deceive blind and infatuated mortals ? 
 By no means. This would be a silly mode of procedure. 
 Let it rather be the means of spurring us forward 
 to learn with more avidity all those truths which are 
 revealed in the Bible, in order that we may be able to 
 prove to the world that the system of Christianity is 
 true, and also that we may be thoroughly prepared to 
 refute, from Scripture, those daring attempts of infi- 
 delity which would never hesitate to wrest the language 
 of inspiration for the purpose of propping up a favourite 
 system, or, perhaps, would even go so far as to under- 
 mine everything which is calculated to give comfort 
 and consolation in the hour of final trial, when the 
 bosom is about to heave the sigh which will usher the 
 immortal soul into the realm of spirits. 
 
 If we are candid inquirers after truth, we will adopt 
 a somewhat similar ijourse regarding Phrenology. Let 
 us first inquire if it has well-ascertained facts to rest 
 upon. If such be the case, we should fearlessly avow 
 
 it, knowing then that it comes from the Hand which 
 
 G 
 
98 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 created the universe, and has stamped perfection upon 
 all His works. Let us cultivate the science, in order 
 that we may be able to separate the wheat from the 
 chafip, and thereby be prepared to overturn that baneful 
 system of doctrine which some men have endeavoured 
 to deduce from Phrenology, but which is not, by any 
 means, necessarily connected therewith, and for which, 
 consequently, Phrenology has no right whatever to be 
 made responsible. This point has been ably handled 
 by the late Mr Scott of Edinburgh, who, while he was a 
 devoted Christian, was also a distinguished Phrenolo- 
 gist. His work is called " The Harmony of Phrenology 
 with Scripture ; shown in a refutation of the Philoso- 
 phical errors contained in Mr Combe's Constitution of 
 Manr 
 
 I think it necessary to draw attention to the mistake 
 which is being constantly made by our opponents and 
 the general public, in confounding Phrenology with 
 the ^culiar opinions which are developed by Mr 
 Combe in his Constitution of Man, As one example 
 of this, I may refer to what was said at a meeting of 
 Independent ministers in Manchester, as it is reported 
 in the Manchester Guardian for 30th December 1843 : 
 " The Kev. J. W. Massy took occasion to condemn, in 
 strong terms, the philosophy inculcated in Combe's 
 Constitution of Man, and characterised the daily and 
 hebdomadal press of this country as the vehicle for 
 conveying the poison of Combe's system of philosophy 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 99 
 
 tlirougliout the length and breadth of the land. It 
 was high time that our schoolmasters should be able 
 to grapple with this insidious system, and until they 
 were able to show the dry-rot of Phrenology, they 
 would not be prepared to grapple with it." Here Dr 
 Massy confounds Phrenology with Combe's Constitution 
 of Man, He makes the one responsible for the errors 
 of the other. This, however, is a great mistake, and I 
 regret Dr Massy has fallen into it after the example of 
 the multitude. He could hardly have fallen into this 
 error if he had read the preface to the work, in which 
 Mr Combe says, "Taken separately, I would hardly 
 say that a new truth has been presented in the follow- 
 ing work. The facts have nearly all been admitted, 
 and employed again and again, by writers on morals, 
 from the time of Socrates down to the present day." 
 It surely is not fair to charge Phrenology with the 
 consequences of opinions which were held long before 
 it was discovered. It has no right whatever to answer 
 for them, unless it can be shown that they necessarily 
 and inevitably result from it, — a thing which I defy 
 any man on earth to prove. Whilst I have the very 
 highest respect for Mr Combe as a Phrenologist, I will 
 yield to no man in my anxiety to bear testimony against 
 the antichristian principles which are put forth in nearly 
 all his writings. I wish it to be remembered that I 
 advocate Phrenology, not Phrenologists. It is as in- 
 consistent to charge Phrenology with all the wild 
 L.ci V. 
 
100 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 theories of its adherents, as it would be to make the 
 Bible responsible for the errors of those who call them- 
 selves Christians. To do so, is as unphilosophical as 
 it is absurd. 
 
 If I agreed with the religious public in believing 
 that Mr Combe's sentiments on Moral Philosophy 
 and Christianity are the necessary result of Phren- 
 ology, I would deal with the matter in a very different 
 way from what they have done. Their conduct is 
 cowardly and irrational. In place of warning the 
 community against the consequences of belief, and 
 ignorantly abusing the system by any and every 
 means, I would go right at the foundation at once. I 
 would bring Phrenology to the test of practice, and if 
 it were then made out to be without a certain foun- 
 dation in nature, I would heave it, and all its conse- 
 quences, overboard once and for ever. This would be 
 the rational way of settling its pretensions, and it 
 would save the advocates of Christianity from being 
 looked upon with perfect contempt by philosophers. 
 But, on the other hand, if I found that the truth of 
 Phrenology could be demonstrated, beyond doubt, by 
 practical observation, I would receive it as coming 
 from the hands of my Maker, let the consequences be 
 what they might. I would make no whining about it, 
 as I know that God cannot err. 
 
 In the THIRD and last place, I remark that most of 
 our opponents maintain there is a connexion between 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. lOl 
 
 the soul and tlie body ; — that the body is the habita- 
 tion or receptacle of the soul ; — and that it is through 
 the body the soul has communication with the external 
 world. The only difference between us then is, that 
 we consider certain portions of the brain are used in 
 connexion with certain mental manifestations, whilst 
 they extend the operation to the whole brain, or the 
 whole body. Now, I ask, is there any more difficulty 
 in the one case than in the other ? If our doctrines 
 involve materialism, it is as plain as the light of heaven 
 that theirs must do the same, as there is no difference 
 whatever between us except in the relative size of the 
 organs in use. Dr Spurzheim has well remarked that 
 the question of materialism is essentially the same, 
 whether we suppose the mind to act through the whole 
 body, the whole brain, or some particular part of the 
 brain. It is still mind in connexion with matter. " It 
 is evident," says Gall, " that one party, as well as the 
 other, subjects the faculties of the soul to material 
 conditions ; and, consequently, were this language 
 sufficient to charge me with materialism, the same 
 charge would apply to all physicians, all philosophers, 
 and all the fathers of the Church." It is rather amus- 
 ing to find that Professor Walter of Berlin, in the same 
 passage in which he charges Phrenology with material- 
 ism, states that the brain " must have a certain degree 
 of firmness and elasticity, that the soul may manifest 
 itself with great splendour." Language such as this 
 
102 PHRENOLOGY, 
 
 is all safe and unobjectionable when used by the 
 physiologist, but the moment a Phrenologist adopts it^ 
 it becomes rank materialism ! I once had a conversa- 
 tion with a learned gentleman who had such a whole- 
 some dread of confining the soul to a material taber- 
 nacle, that he thought it formed a sort of atmosphere 
 around the body, and that its density varied with the 
 square of the distance. He forgot, however, that den- 
 sity is essentially a property of matter, and thus over- 
 looked the fact that his anxiety to avoid materialism 
 drove him into the very heart of it. He showed nearly 
 as much sense, however, as another of our opponents, 
 Professor Ackermann of Heidelberg, who considers 
 there is " an extremely subtle, nervous medulla, soft 
 and almost fluid, which converts itself by degrees in 
 the cavities of the brain into animal vapour, and which 
 becomes a medium between the soul and the nerves 
 of sense." — (Gall.) What will the anti-phrenologists 
 end with ! There seems to be no limit to their 
 theoretical inventions. 
 
 In place of systematically discussing the question of 
 materialism here, I shall take it up from time to time 
 as I proceed with my subject. This is the method 
 which will render the argument the most interesting 
 to the reader. In the meantime, however, it is neces- 
 sary to make a few observations on the question of 
 human responsibility. 
 
 No person in his senses would expect Phrenology 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 103 
 
 to be responsible for the settlement of a question, which 
 has puzzled and perplexed the greatest philosophers, 
 and the most profound theologians the world has ever 
 produced. The accountability of man has been a bone 
 of contention in every age, and, in all probability, will 
 be so to the end of time. Hence it would be quite 
 unreasonable to imagine that Phrenology is called on 
 to settle and explain this most difficult subject. The 
 Phrenologist has no more to say to it than any of his 
 neighbours. He just leaves it where he found it, 
 without making it one whit better or worse. When 
 the anti-phrenologist removes all the difficulty, the 
 Phrenologist will do the same. The explanation which 
 will suit the one will be equally applicable for the 
 other. Hence, as a starting point, I demand an indis- 
 putable solution on the part of my opponents, and 
 when it is produced I undertake to prove that it 
 suits me as well as them. From the way this question 
 has been raised against Phrenology, a person would 
 imagine that the anti-phrenologist either had no dif- 
 ficulty whatever in solving it, or had nothing to do 
 with it. The truth is, however, it lies equally at the 
 door of all men. It does not make the slightest 
 difference whether the matter is referred to the eyes, 
 the hands, the brain, or the mind. If it be anywhere 
 in nature it is all the same. On the supposition of 
 there being a natural proneness to evil in man as we 
 find him, it does not signify one snuff whether it is to 
 
104 phrenology/ 
 
 be found in bis mind or his body. The solution of 
 his accountability is just as difficult in the one case as 
 in the other ; and the explanation which could clear it 
 up on the one supposition, would do it equally well on 
 the other. A person, if he choose to run counter to 
 revelation, may deny altogether the natural depravity 
 of man ; but if he admit the depravity, he will not find 
 the slightest difference in explaining the accountability, 
 whether he places it in the mind or the body. It is 
 all alike, if it be there at all. Hence, the Phrenologist 
 has no right to grapple with this question till his 
 opponents have settled it first on their own principles. 
 After they have done this, he is fairly called upon to 
 show that the explanation will accord with his system. 
 When my opponents settle it, I will undertake to settle 
 it also. 
 
 After all, the Phrenologist, perhaps, has less difficulty 
 'on this point than the metaphysician. Throwing aside, 
 by consent of all parties, the lunatic and the idiot, we 
 have to deal only with the case of the perfectly rational 
 creature. Supposing we place his intellectual, moral, 
 and animal faculties all in the brain, what then ? 
 Surely the intellectual and moral faculties must have 
 some controlling power over the animal propensities. 
 We have certain evidence of this fact even in the case 
 of the very worst criminals, as we know that their 
 crimes have been committed only occasionally. If they 
 have been able to avoid the crime for ten or twenty 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIOXS. 105 
 
 years, there can be no reason, as far as tlie divisions of 
 the brain are concerned, why they might not avoid it 
 still. Under these circumstances, it can hardly be 
 considered as absolutely irresistible. Supposing a man 
 to be prone to murder, and that he is about to commit 
 the deed, he will instantly desist at the sight of a few 
 policemen. Hence, the act is not absolutely inevitable ; 
 and this fact, which is undeniable, leads us to see that 
 there is a great difference between the propensity to, 
 and the power for, the commission of a crime, and the 
 absolute necessity for its performance. In fact, every 
 man must feel that he is naturally disposed to the 
 commission of crimes or sins of which he is never 
 guilty. Although he is inclined to do them, he is 
 restrained by other faculties. In short, Phrenology 
 is much more simple on this subject than Metaphysics. 
 It merely finds that the brain is divided into distinct 
 faculties, or organs, and that the mind can use one or 
 more of these organs at a time as the case may require, 
 just in the same way as it can use the hands, eyes, or 
 feet. Besides, in looking at the question of accounta- 
 bility, we must remember that every intellectual and 
 moral organ is to be found in the brain of every man 
 who is not an idiot. A person would imagine, from 
 the conduct of our opponents, that the criminaFs head 
 is composed exclusively of propensities. This, how- 
 ever, is in no instance the case. There is always a 
 development of the counteracting organs ; and the 
 
106 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 great difference between the criminal and well-balanced 
 head, is to be found in the fact, that the propensities 
 bear a much larger proportion to the amount of the 
 moral faculties in the depraved than in the well-dis- 
 posed man. It is a question of degree, not of absolute 
 want. No man above the level of an idiot is to be 
 found entirely wanting in those cerebral organs which 
 balance and control the propensities. He may be bad 
 in comparison with his neighbour in this respect, but 
 he is never left absolutely without controlling organs. 
 Hence, as far as the divisions of his brain merely are 
 concerned, I cannot see how his propensities are totally 
 and entirely irresistible. In short, we know that they 
 are not absolutely irresistible, from the fact that the 
 criminal resists them during the greater portion of his 
 life, and only yields occasionally. This demonstrates 
 beyond question that they are not absolutely irresist- 
 ible. If we wish to arrive at the true cause of man's 
 proneness to evil, in place of locating it in the division 
 of the brain which the Phrenologist has pointed out, 
 we must go a step higher. We must at once adopt the 
 principle, that the taint is to be found in the fact, that 
 man since the fall is utterly injured and depraved in 
 every faculty and imaginable feature of his entire 
 nature. This is the only true way of getting at it, but 
 for this Phrenology is in no way accountable. I hold 
 firmly by this doctrine, not as a Phrenologist, but as a 
 believer in revelation. Phrenology is quite compatible 
 
EEPLY TO OBJECTION'S. 107 
 
 with the fall and consequent natural depravity of man ; 
 but it can neither be made responsible for it, nor asked 
 to account for it. It has no more to say to it than 
 has Physiology, Pathology, or any other science which 
 makes the body, either in part or in whole, the instru- 
 ment through which the mind acts. They are all alike 
 in this respect, as they all connect the operations of 
 mind in some way or other with corporeal organs. 
 
 The fall of man ; his consequent natural and utter 
 depravity ; his constant proneness to evil, even in his 
 highest state ; his inability, by nature, to do good ; 
 his irresistible necessity towards evil ; and his perfect 
 accountability to God, are doctrines which I most 
 surely hold. They are doctrines, however, which can 
 never be learned from, or accounted for by, natural 
 science. They do not come within the pale of natural 
 philosophy in any of its branches. They belong exclu- 
 sively to the domain of revelation. Nothing could be 
 more certain than that the Scripture plainly teaches 
 that man^ since the fall, is necessarily and inevitably 
 prone to evil, whilst, at the same time, he is held ac- 
 countable to God for all his actions. The man must 
 deny the use of his senses who cannot see these two 
 things in revelation. If we are called on to explain or 
 reconcile them, we must at once confess our inability 
 to do so. It is a point which is far beyond the compass 
 of our reason, and God has not thought fit to explain 
 it in revelation. We must, therefore, leave it as we 
 
108 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 find it. As it is not within the province of reason, and 
 as it has not been revealed, we must not attempt to 
 fathom it. We are no more able to comprehend it 
 than we are able to fathom time, eternity, space, life, 
 death, and Deity. Although we cannot comprehend 
 them, we are bound to believe the two doctrines re- 
 ferred to, because they are plainly set forth in various 
 places in the infallible words of inspiration. How any 
 man has been able to deny their existence in Scrix^ture 
 is a marvel to me. His opposition to the doctrines 
 cannot possibly be based on the want of evidence ; but 
 must be owing to an utter want of disposition to sub- 
 mit to the evidence which is so plainly before him. 
 The denial of these doctrines is just a species of in- 
 fidelity. 
 
 Although this is not the place for discussing these 
 questions, I shall, before quitting the subject, refer to 
 one point, which I imagine the most reckless amongst 
 the professors of Christianity will not venture to dis- 
 pute — namely. That man may sin, and be held account- 
 able for his sin, in carrying out the very decrees of the 
 Almighty. This is a wonderful idea ; but it is an in- 
 controvertible truth. Christ came into the world for 
 the very purpose of dying on Calvary's cross for the 
 sins of His people. Every single thing that happened 
 was absolutely necessary for the fulfilment of that 
 marvellous fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. All was pro- 
 phesied and decreed beforehand. It must happen, and 
 
HEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 109 
 
 happen in an exact and particular manner. It was 
 unavoidable, because it belonged to the eternal pur- 
 poses of the Almighty. But yet, notwithstanding all 
 this, the parties who' carried God's decrees into opera- 
 tion were held accountable as sinners for their actions. 
 The action was inevitable, and yet it was sinful. Here 
 we have the two doctrines palpably and plainly taught. 
 No man dare venture to deny the fact. We cannot 
 explain it, but we must admit it. The facts are patent 
 throughout revelation, and the words of Scripture are 
 unmistakable : " Him, being delivered by the deter- 
 minate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have 
 taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain* 
 . . . But those things, which God before had showed 
 by the mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should 
 suffer. He hath so fulfilled. Eepent ye therefore, and 
 be converted, that your sins may be blotted out. . . . 
 All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the 
 law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, 
 concerning me. . . . Truly the Son of man goeth as it 
 was determined ; but woe unto that man by whom He 
 is betrayed. It had been good for that man if he had 
 not been born." No language could be more decisive 
 than this. Christ was delivered by the determinate 
 counsel and foreknowledge of God ; His sufferings were 
 foretold by all the prophets ; and yet the parties who 
 fulfilled the predictions, and carried out the determinate 
 counsels, were held responsible as having done it by 
 
110 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 wicked hands. Here the two doctrines are as plainly 
 set forth as words can depict them. The crucifixion 
 was inevitable from all eternity, and yet the perform- 
 ance of it was sin. Christ must needs be betrayed, 
 and yet it would have been well for Judas he had never 
 been born. We may look upon this as a marvellous 
 and inexplicable doctrine ; but that is no reason why 
 we should vainly and foolishly attempt to deny its 
 existence in Scripture. Deny it as we may, it is there. 
 To some it is very unpalatable ; but that does not 
 make it untrue. Neither is there any valid reason why 
 we should reject revelation because it contains such 
 doctrines. On the contrary, if the Book were of man, 
 it would have been differently written, and the plan 
 on which it is written, being objectionable to the 
 natural mind of man, is a strong argument for its 
 Divine origin. We can neither fathom nor reconcile 
 man's necessity and responsibility. They are not 
 within the compass of reason. It is perfectly possible 
 that the one may be true in one sense, and the other 
 in a different sense, and therefore there is no necessary 
 contradiction between them. When they do not ne- 
 cessarily contradict each other, they have a just right 
 to be believed on proper evidence. These doctrines 
 just occupy the same position in regard to the exercise 
 of reason that the Trinity does. They are far above 
 its reach, and therefore we cannot comprehend or ex- 
 plain them. Under these circumstances, and seeing 
 
EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. Ill 
 
 they are plainly set forth in Scripture, we are bound 
 to believe them. This course is consistent alike with 
 revelation, reason, and good common sense. Since 
 they are not contrary to reason, it would be anything 
 but rational to reject them as untrue, whilst we firmly 
 believe in many other things, such as life, death, eter- 
 nity, time, space, and Deity, which are quite as incom- 
 prehensible as necessity and responsibility. If we were 
 to believe nothing but what we are able to comprehend, 
 we would believe very little. Every man believes he 
 has life ; but I would like to see the man who can tell 
 me what life is. We may know its consequences, and 
 the indications of its existence, but we cannot in the 
 least degree fathom its nature. It is a great mistake 
 to imagine, as some have done, that the doctrines I 
 have been referring to are in the same position as the 
 doctrine of Transubstantiation. They are above rea- 
 son, it is within the bounds of reason ; they do not 
 necessarily contain a contradiction, it does. Take the 
 Trinity as an illustration. It would certainly be a con- 
 tradiction to say that one God is three Gods, and that 
 three Gods are one God ; or to say that one person is 
 three persons, and that three persons are one person. 
 This would come within the compass of reason, and 
 would involve a contradiction, and could not be true. 
 But this is not the Trinitarian doctrine. It involves 
 no contradiction, because it holds that the three per- 
 sons are one God, and the one God is three persons. 
 
112 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 They are not three in the same sense in which they 
 are one, nor one in the same sense in which they are 
 three. They are three in one sense, and one in another 
 sense. In their personality they are three, in their 
 Godhead they are one. It is surely as plain as the 
 light of heaven that there is no contradiction here. 
 The thing is incomprehensible because it is beyond our 
 reason ; but there is no contradiction in the matter. 
 On the other hand, however, the doctrine of Transub- 
 stantiation comes perfectly within the province of, and 
 directly contradicts, our reason, and therefore cannot 
 possibly be true. Its essential point is, that a piece of 
 bread is changed into the real body, flesh, blood, and 
 bones, of Christ, whilst at the same time, according to 
 the testimony of our senses of sight, touch, taste^ 
 hearing, and smelling, there is not the least change on it 
 — it has all the qualities and properties of bread, and 
 gives us no evidence whatever of being flesh, blood, and 
 bones. Now, this is a point within the power of our 
 reason, is perfectly cognizable to our senses, and as it is 
 plainly contradictory to our senses and reason, it cannot 
 possibly be true. No evidence could prove its truth. A 
 contradiction cannot be true. It is different, however, 
 with all the other doctrines I have been writing about. 
 They are all above our reason, and may be true, and 
 hence ought to be received as true on sufficient evi- 
 dence. It is very foolish, and quite unphilosophical, to 
 refuse to believe a thing merely because it is beyond 
 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 113 
 
 our reason. To do so is to imagine that we are equal 
 
 with God, who knows all things. We can understand 
 
 many things ; but there are thousands of things which 
 
 we cannot comprehend. Let us not on this account 
 
 foolishly imagine that they must be untrue. They 
 
 may or may not be true for aught our reason can tell. 
 
 If our reason were more perfect and more extended, we 
 
 might understand many things which are now quite 
 
 dark. Things which are incomprehensible to an idiot 
 
 might be quite easily understood by a man like Sir 
 
 Isaac Newton. On the same principle, things which 
 
 were incomprehensible to Newton might be as plain as 
 
 the light of day to another man, provided only the 
 
 Creator had endowed him with one or two additional 
 
 reasoning faculties to those which Newton possessed. 
 
 This is the right way to look at it. If one of our present 
 
 reasoning faculties were taken from us, we would be 
 
 unable to comprehend many things which we now 
 
 understand. Would that make these things untrue, 
 
 or be a proper reason for our denying their truth ? 
 
 Certainly not. They would only then be above the 
 
 reason we possessed, and might be true for aught we 
 
 could tell by reason. So in the other case ; the things 
 
 which are above our present reason might be completely 
 
 within our compass if we had another faculty added to 
 
 our present stock. If God had created a man as far 
 
 above Sir Isaac Newton as Newton was above an idiot, 
 
 that man would be amused at the tiny efforts of our 
 
 H 
 
114 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 present puny intellects. Hence I conclude that, whilst 
 we ought to reject everything which contradicts reason, 
 because, being thus within its compass, we know it is 
 untrue, we should never reject a properly attested doc- 
 trine, which is free from contradiction, on the mere 
 grounds of its being beyond the reach of our present 
 reasoning faculties. This is the course which appears 
 to me to be consistent with revelation as well as with 
 genuine philosophy. 
 
 IS THE BEAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 
 
 In entering more particularly on our subject, the first 
 question of importance which presents itself for our 
 consideration is this, Is the brain in a special sense the 
 organ of the mind ? The common observation of man- 
 kind is on the phrenological side of the question. We 
 frequently hear people say, That fellow is a numb-skull, 
 a thick-head ; or, he has a badly-furnished upper story. 
 They will remark of some other person, He has a splendid 
 forehead, a long head, a strong head ; or, he is furnished 
 with plenty of brains. These and all similar expres- 
 sions prove incontestably that the correspondence be- 
 tween the size and shape of the head and the mental 
 manifestations of the individual has not escaped pop- 
 ular observation ; but the public have never attempted 
 to elucidate the precise points on which their opinions 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE OEGAN OF THE MIND ? 115 
 
 are based. In fact they are, to a certain extent, prac- 
 tical Phrenologists, although they will not admit it in so 
 many words. When promising a refutation of Luther's 
 sermon, Tetzel said, " Then it will be manifest to the 
 eyes of all, who has a dull brain.'" — {UAubigne.) 
 Speaking of Johnson, Boswell observes, " He united a 
 most logical head with a most fertile imagination." — 
 {Tour to the Hebrides?) And Churchill, referring to the 
 taxation of literary property, has the following lines — 
 
 *' No statesman yet has thought it worth his pains 
 To tax our labours or excise our hrains?'' 
 
 The experiments and observations of Camper, 
 Lavater, Daubenton, Cuvier, Blumenbach, and Soem- 
 mering, on the facial and occipital angles, and on 
 the proportional development of the brain, face, and 
 body, although frequently erroneous, and devoid of 
 practical value, are founded on the idea that there is 
 some sort of connexion between the development of 
 the brain and the mental manifestations of the indi- 
 vidual. The same may also be said of the fanciful ideas 
 of Plato, Bichat, and Eicherand, who considered the 
 length of the neck had something to do with the 
 state of the intellect. " According to them," says 
 Spurzheim, " the intellectual' faculties are weaker the 
 longer the neck is, because the brain is more removed 
 from the heart, and consequently is less excited by the 
 blood." This theory has no evidence whatever to 
 
116 PHKENOLOGY. 
 
 support it, but still it shows that the brain was looked 
 on, in some sense^ by its authors as an instrument 
 for the mind. 
 
 The connection of soul and body has occupied the 
 attention of philosophers in all ages of the world. Stahl 
 gave the whole body as a habitation to the soul ; Yan 
 Helmont placed it in the stomach, and Drelincourt in 
 the cerebellum. The great body of philosophers, how- 
 ever, have connected it more or less with the brain. 
 This has been the case with Pythagoras, Plato, Galen, 
 Haller, Hartley, and nearly all the moderns. " Aris- 
 totle taught that the first or anterior ventricle of the 
 brain, which he supposed to look towards the front, 
 was the ventricle of common sense, because from it, 
 according to him, the nerves of the five senses branched 
 off, and into it, by aid of these nerves, all smells, 
 colours, tastes, sounds, and tactile afiections, were 
 brought together. The second ventricle, connected by a 
 minute opening with the first, he fixed upon as the seat 
 of imagination, judgment, and reflection, because the im- 
 pressions from the five senses are transmitted from the 
 first ventricle into it, as a second stage in their progress 
 through the brain. The third ventricle was sacred to 
 memory, because it was commodiously situated as a 
 storehouse into which the conceptions of the mind, 
 digested in the second ventricle, might be transmitted 
 for retention and accumulation. . . . Bernard Gordon, 
 a Scotch physician, Professor of Medicine at Mont- 
 
IS THE BRAIX THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? Il7 
 
 pelier, in a tract written in 1296, gives nearly the same 
 account as Aristotle, of the functions of the brain. 
 There are, he says, three cells, or ventricles, in the 
 brain. In the anterior part of the first ventricle lies 
 Common Sense. In the posterior part of the first 
 ventricle lies Phantasia. In the anterior department 
 of the second ventricle lies Imaginativa. In the poste- 
 rior portion of the middle ventricle lies Estimativa. 
 In the third, or posterior, ventricle Memory holds its 
 seat. Above them all, however, is another, a higher, a 
 divine, and an incorruptible faculty, or virtue, called 
 Intellect, which has no organ, although it makes use of 
 the organs just mentioned as media for acting on the 
 external world. . . . Andrew Vesalius, in the sixteenth 
 century, informs us that the air which we breathe, 
 penetrating through the cribriform process of the eth- 
 moidal bone, and through the Eustachian tubes, is by 
 rarefaction rendered fit for the brain, and then insinu- 
 ates itself into the first and second ventricles, where it 
 is formed into animal spirits. These then pass into 
 the third ventricle of the brain, and thence into the 
 ventricle of the cerebellum. From this no small 
 portion of them is transmitted into the medulla oblong- 
 gata, and into the nerves propagated from it. . . . In 
 a work upon the memory by Lodovico Dolce, a Venetian, 
 published in 1562, precisely the same account of the 
 divisions of the brain, and of the mental faculties, as 
 that by Bernard Gordon, is given, accom23anied by a 
 
118 PHKENOLOaY. 
 
 plate of the head with these divisions marked on it." 
 — {Phren. Jour, 1824.) 
 
 Such were the opinions at one time held regarding 
 the brain. They show that even in the middle ages 
 the brain was supposed to be connected with the mind. 
 Beyond this, however, they are of little value, as they 
 are not founded on observation, but are laid upon a 
 fanciful idea of the existence of animal spirits, and of 
 the uses of the cavities, or ventricles, which are found 
 in the brain. Indeed the notions inculcated by these 
 parties are so entirely visionary and useless, that I 
 would not spend my time transcribing them, were it 
 not that some anti-phrenologists, on finding themselves 
 beaten, have endeavoured to rob Gall of the merit of 
 his grand discoveries, by asserting that they were 
 made long before his time by Aristotle, Gordon, and 
 Lodovico Dolce. The difference between Gall's svstem 
 and the visionary ideas of Aristotle, Gordon, Lodovico 
 Dolce, and Vesalius, is so great, however, and the 
 method of proceeding is so entirely and fundamentally 
 opposed, that I cannot possibly go the length of 
 believing that the anti-phrenologists referred to are 
 honest in stating that they imagine the two systems 
 to be alike. They must know that the system which, 
 as the result of observation, divides the substance of 
 the brain into distinct organs, having each a special 
 manifestation, is altogether different from those which, 
 from pure imagination, decoct animal spirits to hunt 
 
IS THE BRAIX THE OEGAN OF THE MIND 1 119 
 
 each other through the cavities of the brain. No 
 honest man could pretend that Gall was anticipated in 
 his discovery of Phrenology. There was not even a 
 foundation laid for his views by the works of his pre- 
 decessors, in the way that was done for Harvey's dis- 
 covery of the circulation of the blood. Erasistratus im- 
 agined that the arteries contained air, but Galen proved 
 that they contained blood ; Yesalius showed that the 
 division between the two sides of the heart was com- 
 plete ; Servetus, Colombo, and Cesalpinus, ascertained 
 that the blood passed from the right side of the heart 
 through the lungs and returned again by the left side ; 
 Fabricius d'Aquapendente observed valves in the 
 veins ; and then Harvey completed the whole by 
 making the grand discovery of the circulation of the 
 blood throughout the entire body. No man in this 
 generation would follow the example of the ancients in 
 attempting to rob Harvey of the glory which was his 
 due as the discoverer of the general circulation, merely 
 because there was some foundation laid for it in the 
 works of his predecessors. Why, then, will they 
 attempt to deprive Gall of his merits, seeing that none 
 of his predecessors gave the slightest inkling of a 
 foundation for his science ? Harvey^s merits were very 
 great, but Gall's are still greater. Harvey must have 
 derived considerable advantage'from the observations 
 of his predecessors ; Gall could have derived none 
 from those who went before him, as they were not in 
 
120 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 the same track, and if he had depended upon them they 
 must have led him entirely astray. So that, take it 
 as you will. Gall is without a rival in the discovery of 
 Phrenology. The merit is all his own. 
 
 Great faith has been placed in Lavater's system of 
 Physiognomy. I fear, however, if the Phrenological 
 element be taken out of it, there will be little left, and 
 that little will be perfectly valueless. If any informa- 
 tion could be gathered from the appearance and action 
 of the muscles of the face, it would only lead us a step 
 higher up to ascertain the cause in the organs of the 
 brain, which convey mental impressions through their 
 nerves directly to the muscles of the face. So that 
 whatever information the condition of these muscles 
 gives us, it must go to the side of Phrenology, which 
 maintains the compound nature of the brain in which 
 the nerves supplying these muscles have their origin. 
 If the constant action of the mind produces a certain 
 fixed appearance in the muscles of the face, it can do 
 so only through the organs of the brain with which 
 the nerves supplying the muscles of the face are con- 
 nected ; and if this points out different traits of char- 
 acter, it must be because the nerves communicate with 
 organs performing separate and distinct duties ; and 
 hence, if it be true, it is only a corroboration of the 
 truth of Gall's discovery that the brain is composed of 
 a variety of organs, each performing a distinct func- 
 tion. Besides, if Physiognomy is to be separated from 
 
IS THE BEAIX THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 121 
 
 Phrenology, it has no right whatever to use the fore- 
 head, or any portion of the head containing brain. 
 The brain belongs to the domain of Phrenology, and 
 the mere physiognomist has no right to appropriate it. 
 The advantage of the one system over the other is well 
 illustrated by placing a large sheet of paper over the 
 face, from the eyes down, to cover the physiognomical 
 part and exhibit the Phrenological ; and then to re- 
 verse it by exposing the face and covering the fore- 
 head. This will demonstrate how far Gall is superior 
 to Lavater. 
 
 The author of the Memorials of Early Genius says, 
 regarding Giotto, " that a high and very full forehead 
 amply confirms the idea we form from his works of his 
 vigorous intellect and lively genius ; " and Allan Cun- 
 ningham, in his Lives of British Painters^ remarks, in 
 reference to Vandyke, he was excelled by none " in the 
 rare and important gift of endowing his heads with 
 power to think and actP Surely this savours strongly 
 of Phrenology. Again, in Davenport's Life of William 
 Gifford, the following occurs, " I believe he would have 
 puzzled the Phrenologists strangely ; but that is an 
 ordinary occurrence ; and I, not being a disciple of 
 these philosophers, shall not concern myself in their 
 distress." Here we have a writer endeavouring to throw 
 ridicule on Phrenology, whereas in the very same 
 paragraph he describes this most extraordinary man 
 as having a most extraordinary head. *'His head," 
 
122 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 says he, " was of a very singular shape^ being by no 
 means high if measured from the chin to the crown, 
 but of a greater horizontal length from the forehead 
 to the back of the head than any I remember to have 
 seen. His forehead projected at a right angle from his 
 face, in a very uncommon manner." Is it not astonish- 
 ing, almost beyond belief, that Mr Davenport never 
 thought of connecting the remarkable shape of this 
 man's head with the equally remarkable state of his 
 character as a strong proof of the truth of Phrenology, 
 in place of adducing it against it ? Will the time ever 
 come when men will be guided by common sense, — 
 or, perhaps, I should rather say, by uncommon sense ? 
 When we have an instance of an extraordinary head 
 in connexion with an extraordinary character, it surely 
 might strike any person, the least degree above sim- 
 plicity, that they bore some relation to each other, 
 unless we are prepared to deny that the brain is in 
 any sense the organ of the mind. If Mr Davenport 
 had found an extraordinary character in combination 
 with an ordinary head, he would have had a much 
 better chance of puzzling the Phrenologists than with 
 the example he has been so foolish as to adduce. 
 
 Mr Moffat, the celebrated African missionary, was 
 astonished at the wonderful memory possessed by a 
 young man, who could repeat every word of the ser- 
 mon he had just heard ; and when the fact was 
 referred to, the young man rephed, touching his fore- 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND? 123 
 
 head with his finger, " When I hear anything great, it 
 remains there.'' — (Moffat's Mission to Africa.) Would 
 not the experience of mj readers dictate a similar 
 answer 1 Are they not all aware that they think 
 through their brains, and not through their fingers ? 
 And what is this but Phrenology ? The reply of the 
 poor African proved that he felt he thought through 
 his brain. In this instance he had the decided advan- 
 tage of the far-famed editor of the Edinburgh Review^ 
 who, in his attack on Phrenology at the 247th page of 
 the 49th number, says, " We solemnly declare that we, 
 for our part, have never yet known what it is to feel 
 that we think by means of our brainsr After reading 
 his article, I am not at all disposed to doubt the truth 
 of his statement, but I do pity his most lamentable 
 condition. The man who reflects so little as never to 
 have been made aware that he thinks through his 
 brain, is truly in a lamentable plight, and deserves the 
 commiseration of the human race. Haslam mentions 
 the case even of a madman who knew he thought 
 through his brain. This man " always stopped his ears 
 closely with wool, and, in addition to a flannel night-cap, 
 usually slept with his head in a tin saucepan. Being 
 asked the reason why he so fortified his head, he re- 
 plied, ' to prevent the intrusion of the sprites.' He 
 was apprehensive that his head would become the 
 receptacle of these imaginary formations ; that they 
 would penetrate into the interior of his hrain^ become 
 
124 
 
 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 acquainted with his hidden thoughts and intellectual 
 observations, and then depart and communicate to 
 others the ideas they had thus derived. ^ In this 
 manner/ said he, ' I have been defrauded of discoveries 
 that would have entitled me to opulence and distinc- 
 tion, and have lived to see others reap honours and 
 emoluments for speculations which were the .offspring 
 of mj own brain, " — (Beck's Medical Jurisprudence, p. 
 394.) 
 
 Painters and sculptors generally observe nature 
 pretty closely ; but no person ever yet found them 
 giving the same sort of head to a ISTero and a Howard, 
 to a Socrates and an idiot. They never make mistakes 
 of this description. They know right well that differ- 
 ent characters have different heads ; and a great part 
 of their success depends on the power they have of 
 making the heads speak the proper character. The 
 man who would give a narrow base and a small poste- 
 rior development of brain, with a high and noble fore- 
 head, to a Bacchus, a Vitellius, or a Pope Alexander 
 the sixth, would have a poor chance of election at the 
 Eoyal Academy. ' 
 
 Of all parts of the body, the brain has confessedly 
 been the greatest puzzle to Physiologists. For the 
 last century, they have been cutting and carving it in 
 every direction, both before and after death, but still, 
 according even to their own acknowledgments, they are 
 almost completely in the dark. The truth is, the only 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 12o 
 
 system which can throw hght on the comphcated 
 functions of this organ, is that one propounded by Drs 
 Gall and Spurzheim, and the Physiologists are rapidly 
 flowing into the ranks of the Phrenologists. " The 
 science of which Gall is the founder/^ says that great 
 pathologist, Andral, " must henceforward be included 
 among the grave and serious studies of Physiology." 
 " Fierce opponents," observes Dr Rumball, " are sinking 
 into unwilling admirers of Phrenology. Those who 
 used to find it easier to laugh than to learn — to deny 
 than to appreciate — now discover that their objec- 
 tions are so met and refuted, that their only safe 
 course is to be silent, or at once admit, what in no 
 single instance they have been able to disprove ; a line 
 of conduct adopted by many of the first Physiologists 
 of the day.'' 
 
 I have said that the Physiologists know exceedingly 
 little of the functions of the brain. Here are some of 
 my proofs : — Dr Prichard, who was an opponent of 
 Phrenology, says at the 41st page of his work on 
 Nervous Diseases, '' I am sanguine enough to hope 
 that the time will arrive when we may be enabled to 
 ascertain the nature of the cerebral functions, and, 
 perhaps, to understand thoroughly the whole of the 
 process which is carried on in this part of our bodily 
 fabric. At present, however, we must confess that we 
 are not in possession of 07ie fact that belongs to it." 
 And Dr Eoget, who wrote specially against Phrenology, 
 
126 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 is obliged to admit, as a Physiologist, that " one organ 
 alone has baffled all investigation, and still presents a 
 wide blank in this rich and cultivated field of knowledge. 
 The brain, that large mass of pulpy substance, which 
 fills the cavity of the cranium, is, even at the present 
 day, as incomprehensible in its functions^ as it is subtle 
 and complex in its anatomy."— (TVea^z^e on Physiology 
 and Phrenology^ vol. i. p. 6.) " Physiologists in 
 general," says Professor Solly of London, " have too 
 constantly amused themselves with creating theories 
 on one or two isolated facts, or in vainly searching 
 after the ultimate cause of vital phenomena ; it is but 
 of late that they have begun to content themselves 
 with observing their uniform relations, and with 
 scrutinising their efiects, and that they have ceased to 
 be the laughing stocks of true philosophy. If, indeed, 
 we required proof of the present imperfect state of 
 Physiology, and the mean rank which it holds in com- 
 parison with the other branches of natural philosophy 
 we have only to refer to contemporary writers, where 
 we still find such passages as ' the pride of Philosophy 
 is humbled by the spectacle of the Physiologist bend- 
 ing in fruitless ardour over the dissection of the human 
 brain.' Surely we ought to see how absolutely neces- 
 sary it has become to cast aside crude and ill-digested 
 hypotheses, and to study Physiology under the guidance 
 of the general laws of nature, deduced from an unpre- 
 judiced observation of fact and circumstance." — (Solly 
 
IS THE BRATJS" THE OKGAN OF THE MINdI 127 
 
 on The Brain, p. 265.) I hope some of our Physiolo- 
 gists, who look down with disdain on Phrenology, will 
 derive a wholesome lesson from these admirable re- 
 marks of Mr Solly. Pinel despaired of ever being able 
 to distinguish the different species of alienation, be- 
 cause there was too little knowledge of the healthy- 
 functions of the parts upon which the derangement 
 depended ; and Haslam says, " Until we are better ac- 
 quainted with the functions of the brain, and each of 
 its parts, we shall be incapable of judging correctly of 
 the derangements incident to these functions." 
 
 Steno had good reason for saying in his day, " that 
 the books of the anatomy of the brain are not more 
 numerous than the quicksands of doubt and contro- 
 versy occasioned by them ; '' and the same would still 
 hold good if Gall and Spurzheim had not appeared. 
 Hippocrates .and Astruc thought the brain was a 
 sponge ; Aristotle took it for a bloodless mass which 
 tempered the heat of the heart ; Praxagoras, Plistonicus, 
 Philotinus, and others, considered it a mere excrescence 
 of the spinal marrow ; Misticelli called it an inorganic 
 mass ; Malpighi thought it was a collection of confused 
 intestines ; Sabatier and Boyer made it a secretory 
 organ ; Galen and many others imagined that it se- 
 creted vital spirits, and distributed them through the 
 arteries to the body ; whilst Bichat considered it an 
 envelope to protect the parts beneath it. — {Gall^ vol. 
 ii.) Even Haller, Cuvier, and Good, embraced the 
 
128 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 theory of vital spirits, {Bostocic ;) and Wilson Philip 
 seemed to look on the brain as a sort of galvanic 
 battery. It was quite impossible that any benefit 
 could arise from dissections of the brain before the 
 days of Gall and Spurzheim, in consequence of the way 
 in which they were performed by slicing from above 
 downwards. Gall and Spurzheim were the originators 
 of the method of dissecting it from below upwards, 
 after the arrangement of its structure. This is the 
 only rational plan ; and it is very remarkable that 
 anatomists have been so slow in adopting it. Its ad- 
 vantages are so evident that a person would have 
 supposed it would have been universally and exclu- 
 sively adopted the moment it was pointed out, were it 
 not that the history of the world shows that truth 
 travels slowly. " According to the plan generally 
 pursued in treating the anatomy of the brain in sys- 
 tematic works of the present day," says Mr Solly of 
 London, in 1836, " all the information conveyed 
 amounts to little more than a vain catalogue of names 
 applied to parts, without reference to their structure, 
 their functions, or even their analogies in the nervous 
 system of the lower animals. . . . It is unfortunate 
 that candidates for the diploma are still very generally 
 required to describe the appearances presented by the 
 brain dissected, or rather destroyed^ by the old method 
 of slicing — a method most unphilosophical in its con- 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 129 
 
 ception, and totally inadequate to impart any real in- 
 formation in regard to the structure of the organ.'^ 
 
 I am sorry to find Mr Solly has followed the course 
 of many other anatomists and physiologists in adopt- 
 ing as true the assertion first made by Dr Gordon, that 
 to Eeil belongs the merit of having discovered the new 
 method of dissecting the brain. This is an unfair and 
 ungenerous course to adopt. The merit should at once 
 be awarded to Gall and Spurzheim, to wthom, and to 
 whom alone, it is rightly due. No men could be worse 
 treated than these two philosophers. Their discoveries 
 have often been denied altogether, or else plagiarised, 
 or claimed for other people. '^ Professor Eeil, of Halle," 
 says Solly, ^'preceded Gail and Spurzheim in adopt- 
 ing a scientific method of dissecting the brain, . . . 
 Eeil first published the result of his researches in 1807, 
 in the Archives of Physiology, conducted by Auten- 
 rieth." Now, how will this statement square with the 
 facts and the dates ? Let it be observed, Eeil's first 
 publication was in 1807. Gall and Spurzheim com- 
 menced their united anatomical investigations in 1804, 
 (Preface to Spurzheim's Anatomy of the Brain) ; they 
 were banished from Vienna in 1805 : they arrived in 
 Halle on the 8th of July 1805, and dissected a brain in 
 the presence of P rofessor Reil ; in regard to which Eeil 
 said to Professor Bischoff, ^' I have seen more, in the 
 anatomical demonstrations of the brain, made by Gall, 
 
 than I thought that a man could discover in bis whole 
 
 I 
 
130 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 life."— (Spurzheim's Physiognomy, pp. 23 and 30 : and 
 Phrenological Journal^ vol. 6, p. 306.) What can any 
 man say after comparing these dates, and reading this 
 statement from Eeil himself? In place of allowing 
 their miserable prejudices against Phrenology, to force 
 them to detract from the anatomical merits of Gall 
 and Spurzheim, the Anatomists and Physiologists 
 should, one and all, throw blame on Reil for 
 adopting th^ discoveries of these other philosophers 
 without a sufficiently precise acknowledgment. Gall 
 and Spurzheim claimed these discoveries from the 
 very first ; Eeil never did, and this alone should settle 
 the question of ownership. But still Reil should have 
 acknowledged the source of his information in more 
 specific language than is contained in the above 
 passage. 
 
 " I affirm," says Dr Bailly, " without fear of contra- 
 diction, that no anatomist before Gall had ever the 
 slightest idea of the true structure of the convolu- 
 tions of the brain," {Journal of the Paris Phrenological 
 Society for 1835.) And Professor Blumenbach, writing 
 from Gottingen to Dr Albers of Bremen, on the 10th 
 of September 1805, two years before Reil's publication, 
 says, " I need not inform you that I congratulate my- 
 self uncommonly on having heard Dr Gall. . . . His 
 lectures were equally interesting and entertaining to 
 me. . . . The views which he maintains on the organ- 
 isation of the brain, the derivation of some of the sup- 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 131 
 
 posed cerebral nerves from the spinal-cord, &c., are to 
 me extremely important." Sir Astley Cooper declared 
 in his lectm^es at the Eoyal College of Surgeons, Lon- 
 don, that he knew nothing of the brain before he read 
 Dr Spurzheim's book. — (Rjam's London MedicalJouriia I, 
 for 11th August 1832.) The great anatomist, Loder, in 
 writing to Hufeland, remarks, " Now that Gall has been 
 at Halle, and I have had an opportunity, not only of 
 listening to his lectures, but also of dissecting with 
 him, either alone or in the company of Eeil and several 
 others, nine human brains and fourtecD of brutes, 1 
 think I am able and entitled to pronounce my opinion of 
 his doctrines. . . . The discoveries in the brain made 
 by Gall are of the highest importance. I speak of the 
 corpora striata, the passage of the pyramidal bodies 
 into the crura, the bundles of the spinal marrow, tlitr 
 decussation of the fibres in the pyramidal and olivary 
 bodies, &c., (fee. These discoveries alone would be 
 sufiicient to render Gall's name immortal. They are 
 the most important that have been made in anatomy 
 since that of the absorbent system. The unfolding 
 the convolutions is a capital thing. What have w^e 
 not a right to expect from farther progress in a route 
 thus opened ? 1 am ashamed of myself for having, 
 like others, for thirty years cut up some hundreds of 
 brains, as vre sUce up cheese, and not perceived the 
 forest by reason of the great number of trees. The 
 best thing we can do is, to hst en to the truth and learn 
 
133 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 what we are ignorant of." — (Quoted by Gall, in his 6th 
 vol, from Demangeon and Bischoff.) ^^ I am fully con= 
 vinced," says Professor Hufeland, " that the doctrine of 
 Gall ought to be considered as one of the most remark- 
 able phenomena of the eighteenth century, and one of 
 the most important and boldest advances that have 
 been made in the study of nature. One must see and 
 hear in order to learn that the man is entirely free 
 from prejudice^ charlatanism, deceit, and metaphysical 
 reveries." 
 
 Now that my readers have had an opportunity of 
 perusing the foregoing testimonies, I ask them what 
 they think of the following : — " It appears to ns, that 
 in the anatomical department, Gall and Spurzheim 
 have displayed more quackery than in any other ; and 
 their bad faith is here the more unpardonable that it 
 was so much the more likely to escape detection. . . , 
 Such is the grand system of the diverging and con- 
 verging fibres of the brain, of which Drs Gall and 
 Spurzheim are the sole inventors and proprietors. . . . 
 It is our painful duty to remark that the system is a 
 complete fiction from beginning to end. . . . We must 
 ascribe their inaccuracies solely to intention. . . . The 
 writings of Drs Gall and Spurzheim have not added 
 one fact to the stock of our knowledge respecting either 
 the structure or the functions of man." — (Edinburgh 
 Rpvieiv, No. 49, pages 254, 261, 268.) Is there a man 
 throughout the length and breadth of Scotland who, 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 133 
 
 after reading the testimonies I have produced, and, 
 more particularlj;, after making himself acquainted 
 with the opinions on the structure of the brain which 
 are now ahnost universally taught by anatomists, could 
 read the above extract without feeling that the Edin- 
 hurgh Revieiu is an everlasting disgrace to his country ] 
 Mr James Paget has claimed {Lancet^ March 10th, 
 1866) the honour of discovering the trichina spiralis, 
 on the grounds that his discovery was known to the 
 students in the dissecting room for some days before 
 Professor Owen's investigations on the subject, and 
 also that his communication to the Abernethian 
 Society preceded Professor Owen's paper at the Zoolo- 
 gical Society by eighteen days. On these grounds, 
 Mr Paget's claim to the discovery has been admitted, 
 and very properly admitted. No man would venture 
 to deprive him of his just reward. This is as it should 
 be. But I would like to know the reason why the 
 same principle of fair play should not be extended to 
 Gall and Spurzheim. Is the fact of their being 
 Phrenologists a sufficient reason for depriving them 
 of the merit of their great anatomical discoveries 
 regarding the dissection of the brain ? Are they 
 legitimate objects of plunder, because they are Phren- 
 ologists ? Mr Paget very properly gets credit because 
 he anticipated Professor Owen by a few days. In the 
 name of justice, then, I ask, why should Reil get credit 
 for discovering, in 1807, a method of dissecting the 
 
134 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 brain, which had been practised by Gall and Spurzheim 
 previous to 1804, and which had actually been demon- 
 strated by themselves to Eeil, at Halle in 1805, as 
 testified both by Eeil and Loder 1 Is the pupil to get 
 the honour of a discovery which was taught him by 
 his master ? The treatment which Gall and Spurzheim 
 have received at the hands of various parties is very dis- 
 creditable. Dr Gordon and his followers would allow 
 them no credit at all ; but there are others, such as 
 Herbert Mayo, who would be disposed, [Physiology by 
 Mayo, 3d Edit. p. 241,) to associate them to a certain 
 extent with Reil. They cannot have the face to allot 
 all the honour to Reil, and therefore they associate him 
 vvith Gall and Spurzheim. In this particular, they 
 forcibly remind me of the story which I heard on the 
 platform from the teetotal orator, John Gough, about 
 Betty and the bear. Betty and her husband were 
 alone in their cottage, which consisted of a single 
 ajjartment. A bear walked into the place. The cour- 
 ageous husband put a ladder to the beam which stretched 
 across the cottage, and climbed up as fast as he could. 
 When he got on the beam, he was afraid the bear 
 would follow, and he instantly pulled up the ladder, 
 leaving poor Betty on the floor to the mercy of the 
 bear. Betty got hold of a bludgeon and gave the bear 
 a right good blow on the head. " That 's right, Betty ; '^ 
 said the husband, " well done, Betty ! give him another 
 blow, Betty ! hit him again, Betty ! '^ When Betty had 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 135 
 
 finished off the bear, her valiant husband descended, 
 remarking, at the same time, "Didn't we do that 
 well, Betty ? " Here the husband laid claim to a 
 share in the merit of killing the bear ; and he had 
 just as much right to it as Reil has to the discovery 
 of Gall's method of dissecting the brain. It seems 
 to have been a principle in human nature, at all 
 times, to deny a discovery, detract from its merits, if 
 made, or else, when it has become established and 
 fashionable, to join in, and take share in the merit 
 which originally belonged to it. These principles are 
 well illustrated in the chapter on Chloroform in the 
 second volume of Sir J. Y. Simpson's most admirable 
 Obstetric Works. " Whenever an invention or a pro- 
 ject has made its way so well by itself as to establish a 
 certain reputation, most people are 'sure to find out 
 that they always patronised it from the beginning; 
 and a happy gift of forgetfulness enables many to 
 believe their own assertion." — ( Works of Lady M. W. 
 Montagu^ by Lord Wharncliffe.) I have not the 
 slightest doubt that, if some of those individuals who 
 have given such bitter opposition to Gall, were to live 
 till Phrenology would become universally popular, they 
 would " whirl " at once with the tide of success, in the 
 same way as the newspapers did in the following 
 '' Political Gamut. — In 1815, the French newspapers 
 announced the departure of Bonaparte from Elba, his 
 progress through France, and his entry into Paris, iii 
 
136 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 the following manner : — ' March 9. The Anthropopha- 
 gus has quitted his den. March 10. The Corsican 
 Ogre has landed at Cape Juan. March 11. The Tiger 
 has arrived at Gap. March 12. The Monster slept at 
 Grenoble. March 13. The Tyrant has passed through 
 Lyons. March 14, The Usurper is directing his steps 
 towards Dijon, but the brave and loyal Burgundians 
 have risen en masse, and surrounded him on all sides. 
 March 18. Bonaparte is only sixty leagues from the 
 capital ; he has been fortunate enough to escape the 
 hands of his pursuers. March 18. Bonaparte is advanc- 
 ing with rapid steps, but he will never enter Paris. 
 March 20. Napoleon will, to-morrow, be under our 
 ramparts. March 21. The Emperor is at Fontainebleau. 
 March 22. His Imperial and Eoyal Majesty yesterday 
 evening arrived at the Tuileries, amidst the joyful 
 acclamations of his devoted and faithful subjects.' " 
 — (Notes and Queries.) 
 
 Tiedemann, the very distinguished Heidelberg Pro- 
 fessor, confesses, " that persons with large foreheads 
 are endowed with superior intellects, and that indi- 
 viduals with small heads have inferior intellects. . . . 
 This," he continues, " would appear to show that there 
 is some truth in the doctrines of Gall and Spurzheim." 
 No doubt of it. The person who goes thus far, if he 
 had one particle of consistency, must admit there is a 
 vast deal of truth in the doctrines of Gall and Spurz- 
 heim. Tiedemann here admits two very important 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 137 
 
 points, — namely, that there is a direct relation be- 
 tween the size of the head and the capacity for mental 
 manifestation ; and also, that the forehead is, in a 
 special sense, connected with intellectual power. From 
 this it is evident he has imbibed Phrenological opinions, 
 and therefore he goes on to say, " it would be well if 
 the heads of individuals intended for an intellectual 
 or studious life, were measured before they com- 
 menced their studies, as many disappointments would 
 be avoided." — {Phren. Journal^ vol. ix.) Is not this 
 very like Phrenology ? ' It surely is. But yet, the 
 man who made these statements was a most decided 
 opponent of the science ! Alas, for consistency ! ! Pro- 
 fessor Miiller, of Berlin, who is reckoned a first-class 
 physiologist, but who is an unquestionable opponent 
 of Phrenology, says, " In no part of Physiology can we 
 derive greater aid from Comparative Anatomy than in 
 the physiology of the brain. Corresponding with the 
 development of the intellectual faculties in the dif- 
 ferent classes, we meet with very great differences in 
 the form of the brain, which are highly important in 
 aiding us to determine the functions of the different 
 parts of the organ. . . . The brain undergoes a gradual 
 increase of size from fishes up to man, in accordance 
 with the development of the intellectual faculties. 
 All parts of the encephalon, however, do not keep 
 pace equally with the development of the intellectual 
 powers. It is in the cerebral hemispheres that the 
 
138 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 increase of size in the higher animals chiefly takes 
 place/' — (Miiller's Physiology.) Is it not astonishing 
 almost beyond belief, that any man could hold prin- 
 ciples so thoroughly identical as these are with the 
 fundamental doctrines of Phrenology, and after all 
 deny the truth of that science ? Such observations, 
 however, coming from an anti-phrenologist like Pro- 
 fessor Miiller, are extremely important, and may be 
 placed in amusing contrast with the ridiculous state- 
 ments of the Edinhurgh Review^ when it says, " We 
 deny that there is any connexion or proportion what- 
 ever to be observed, on a comparison of animals with 
 each other, between their intellect or inclinations and 
 the number of parts in their brains." — (Edin, Reviev), 
 No. 49, p. 245.) 
 
 " It is remarked by physiologists,'' says the Rev. 
 John Barlow, " that the development of the hemis- 
 pheres of the brain proceeds step by step with the 
 development of intelligence through the successive 
 classes of the animal kingdom till it arrives at perfec- 
 tion in man." And Dr Fletcher, of Edinburgh, in his 
 Lectures on Physiology, asks, " Who has not seen 
 artificially educated horses, dogs, lions, pigs, elephants, 
 bears, monkeys, canary birds, and even hens, but who 
 has ever seen, or ever will see, an educated worm or 
 oyster ? The educability of animals, then, or in other 
 words their intellect, is in proportion to the size and 
 composition of their brains." A moment's reflection, it 
 
IS THE BEAIX THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 139 
 
 appears to me, would be sufficient to convince us that 
 this is only what reason and common sense would 
 point out as likely to be the case. I would like to 
 know what would be the use of our receiving an 
 intellect superior to the lower animals, if we had not. 
 at the same time, been endowed with a brain, or 
 material instrument, equally elevated, through which 
 our minds could manifest all their high and noble 
 functions. If this were not the case — if the quality, 
 quantity, complexity, and proportional development 
 of the brain were not in strict accordance with the 
 elevation of the mind conferred, the human race 
 would be in a sort of idiotic condition. 
 
 The late Professor Graves of Dublin was one of the 
 most eminent men the medical profession in Ireland 
 could ever boast of. He was not an out and out 
 Phrenologist,, but he was something like " half seas 
 over." It is evident, however, he had not the fear of 
 the Edinburgh Revievj before his eyes when he uttered 
 the following : " Accordingly we find that exactly in 
 proportion as the encephalic portion of the nervous 
 system is developed in the vertebrated animals, we 
 can trace the appearance of new faculties, which, few 
 and obscure in the lower species, become, as we as- 
 cend, more numerous and more distinct until we 
 arrive at man, in whom the brain attains a degree of 
 pre-eminence sufficient to place him far above all other 
 species of mammalia. And has the Creator conferred 
 
140 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 on man this gift in vain ? Certainly not ; for His 
 wisdom has attached to this superiority of cerebral 
 development a corresponding exaltation of intellectual 
 faculties. . . . Through the various degrees of instinct 
 and intelligence observable in the different classes of 
 the animal kingdom we perceive an uninterrupted gra- 
 dation, an unbroken chain, until we arrive at man, when 
 the nervous system and the intellect receive a simul- 
 taneous improvement, so great as to place man far 
 above the rest of his fellow-creatures. But man does 
 not only differ from other animals in the configuration 
 of his brain and the capacity of his mind, but also 
 exhibits the singular fact of a great difference, in these 
 respects, between individuals of the same species : it 
 being an obvious fact, that different men exhibit as 
 much disparity in their intellectual powers as if they 
 were animals of a different genus. In all such cases 
 (where the difference between the intellectual powers 
 is extreme), there also we invariably find a striking 
 difference between the form and size of their skulls ; the 
 most highly-gifted always presenting a greater relative 
 proportion of brain. So far then must every reflecting 
 man be a Phrenologist — so far must all concede that 
 cerebral development and mental power are mutually 
 proportioned to each other. But can we advance farther 
 than this general proposition, and may we not affirm 
 that the anterior portion of the brain is proportioned 
 in size to the intellectual faculties ? Experiments on 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 141 
 
 animals, and observations on man, afford verj strong- 
 reasons for arriving at such a conclusion, which tends 
 to establish the leading principle of the Phrenologist, 
 ' that different portions of the brain perform different 
 intellectual functions.' ... It would appear, certainly, 
 that the anterior portion of the brain is devoted to the 
 intellectual faculties, but that the strength of the moral 
 feelings and animal propensities is regulated by the 
 development of the remaining portions of the en- 
 cephalic mass." — (Graves' Lectures in R^an'^s London 
 Journal, vol. ii. p. 393.) 
 
 " It was long ago observed by Physiologists," says 
 the anti-phrenological writer in the Popular Encyclo- 
 pcedia^ " that the characters of animals were in a great 
 measure determinable by the formation of the fore- 
 head ; and that the intelligence of the animal, in most 
 cases, rose or fell in proportion to the elevation or 
 prostration of his skull." This is very good indeed ! 
 What more could any Phrenologist ask from an op- 
 ponent ? Although he does not seem to be aware of 
 it, he is half converted already. If he be not a real 
 Phrenologist, he is certainly touching on the borders, 
 and he would require to look sharp that he does not 
 fall into the awful chasm which yawns beneath ! He 
 is nearly as blind to the dangers of his position as the 
 poor labourer was, who, during the time of quarrying 
 over the top of the railway tunnel at Downhill, was 
 found standing on a stone at the top of the precipice; 
 
142 , PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 with his back to the sea, whilst with a crowbar he 
 was using his energies to cant the very stone on which 
 he stood over the rocks into the abyss beneath. When 
 Colonel Babington saved the man's life by pointing 
 out the nature of his predicament, the poor fellow 
 was so shocked at the view of his danger that he 
 blessed himself, vowed he would never work at a rail- 
 way again, dropped his crowbar, left his coat and hat 
 on the ground, and ran home as fast as he was able- 
 There may be an excuse for the poor ignorant man, 
 who did not see that he was rolling himself over along 
 with the stone ; but no apology can be made for the 
 blindness or inconsistency of the writer in the En- 
 cyclopcedia. 
 
 So long as the various statements I have been quot- 
 ing come from Physiologists, under the name of Physi- 
 ology, they will be sure to pass current, and will be 
 received as quite orthodox ; but the moment they are 
 adduced under the startling title of Phrenology they 
 become completely heterodox, or are unworthy of 
 credit ! The public either speak of the matter as 
 ridiculous, or get so terrified for the consequences 
 that they are actually afraid to look the facts in the 
 face. Such conduct forcibly reminds me of an anec- 
 dote I once heard related on the platform, to the 
 following effect : — A poor Presbyterian, who was not 
 so well instructed as the generality of that respectable 
 body are, happened to be placed in the convalescent 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 143 
 
 wards of an hospital. When the clergyman called to 
 visit him, he congratulated him on his having become 
 a convalescent. " Convalescent ! " said he, " I am no 
 convalescent ; nor will I ever be a convalescent, for I 
 was born a Presbyterian, and I'll die a Presbyterian." 
 So is it with the authors I have referred to, and with 
 many others. They seem to have been born Physi- 
 ologists, and they are determined to die Physiologists. 
 "What an extraordinary charm there is in names. 
 
 The condemnation of Phrenology by Baron Cuvier 
 at the bar of the French Institute, has been gravely 
 adduced against it. We are even told that his report 
 *• went so far as to excuse the Institute for having 
 taken the subject into consideration at all." Alas for 
 Phrenology ! It is surely dead for ever. The fatal 
 blow has been struck, and Gall and Spurzheim must 
 be buried in oblivion. The celebrated Cuvier has 
 denounced it, and his opinion surely is decisive, and 
 cannot be controverted on any subject. Let every 
 man's reason now submit, with proper resignation, to 
 authority — let us trample on private judgment and 
 common sense — and let us return at once to the 
 opinions of Aristotle, Galen, Descartes, Berkeley, Stahl, 
 and Van Helmont. If great names can prove any- 
 thing, it would be impossible to overturn the opinions 
 of these men. It must be borne in mind, however, 
 that Cuvier does not stand alone in his hostile opinions, 
 because, to use the v/ords of the Popular Encyclopoedia, 
 
144 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 " this, it may be curious to remark, has been the fate 
 of Phrenology with every really distinguished Physiolo- 
 gist and Metaphysician/^ 
 
 In regard to the metaphysicians, I will just say, 
 with Dr Caldwell of America, " as soon would I bind 
 myself to discover the philosopher's stone, or to con- 
 coct the elixir of life out of simples, as to find sub- 
 stantial meaning in many of the tenets of fashionable 
 Metaphysics." An old Scotchwoman, on being asked 
 to define Metaphysics, looked up and said, " Meta- 
 pheesics ! Do you no ken what metapheesics mean ? 
 Metapheesics just mean a thing which the writer 
 does na ken himseF, and which nae other body kens." 
 If any person be favourably disposed towards Meta- 
 physics, let him wade through the subject, and then 
 ask himself the question, Does this bear the impress 
 of that simplicity which invariably accompanies the 
 works of the Almighty, and is it capable of being 
 closely studied, and practically applied, on that uni- 
 versal scale, which common sense would point out as 
 being absolutely requisite in a science professing to 
 deal with the nature of man in his e very-day life ? If 
 it bears the simple impress which the Almighty stamps 
 upon everything which is essential to know in our 
 daily life, how does it come, that so very few have 
 studied the subject at all, although it comes to them 
 with all the advantages which scholastic, clerical, and 
 University authority can confer upon it? How does 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? Ii5 
 
 it come, that of the few who have studied it, the ma- 
 jority have done so for no other reason than because 
 they were compelled to do it, and the moment they 
 left the university it became a dead letter? In my 
 opinion, when any subject is so dry, uninteresting, 
 unintelligible, impracticable, and useless as to be be- 
 yond the reach of the vast majority of the human i^ce, 
 it has not God for its A^uthor, and consequently is not 
 founded in nature. Tested by this rule, metaphysics 
 must stand out without one solitary companion in the 
 whole range of human knowledge. I know of no other 
 subject which is incapable of being brought, by a per- 
 son who has a real capacity for teaching, within the 
 grasp of the general public, or which could not be 
 made interesting to them. Metaphysics, however, are 
 so dismally dark, that a person is commonly said to 
 be metaphysical, when he goes so far out of his lati- 
 tude, on any subject, as to be wholly unintelligible. 
 It is truly delightful to pass from the mazes of meta- 
 physics to the simple, intelligible, and highly practical 
 principles of Phrenology. Instead of humbling itself 
 in the presence of Metaphysics, Phrenology shines 
 out more gloriously when contrasted with it, as the 
 science of mind, than with any other subject whatever. 
 Standing in this contrast, its beauty, harmony, extreme 
 simplicity, and practical applicability, must ultimately 
 commend it to all rational creatures. 
 
 A reference to the list, in a previous section, of the 
 
 K 
 
146 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 eminent men who have embraced Phrenological views, 
 will show at a glance, to those who have studied Physi- 
 ology, that the statement concerning Physiologists, 
 which I have quoted from the Popular Encyclopcedia, 
 is not strictly correct. But even if it were true, it 
 would be a matter of no importance whatever, because 
 it would not signify one farthing if all the Physiologists 
 in the world were against us, seeing that such a man 
 as Magendie has shed rivers of blood, in the experi- 
 ments he performed on living animals, for the purpose 
 of discovering the use of the different parts of the 
 brain, and after all is left, to a very great extent, in a 
 completely bewildered condition. If any of my readers 
 will take the trouble, as I have done, of perusing the 
 accounts of the experiments performed by Magendie, 
 Eolando, Bouillaud, Flourens, Serres, Desmoulin, Fo- 
 dera, Legallois, and others, they will see that the ex- 
 perimenters were often led to different and even 
 opposite conclusions. This is just what might be 
 expected, because, as Bostock justly observes, " there 
 are difficulties in all experiments that are performed 
 on living animals, and especially those respecting the 
 nervous system, which no dexterity or address on the 
 part of the operator can entirely overcome. We have 
 Physiologists, between whose claims on attention it 
 would be dif&cult to decide, who relate the results of 
 their experiments with minuteness, and with every 
 appearance of candour and correctness, and yet whose 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 1 47 
 
 conclusions are frequently at variance witli eacla other." 
 — (Bostock's Physiology?) 
 
 " That Physiologists," says Claude Bernard, the 
 greatest, and at the same time most cruelly reckless, 
 experimental Physiologist of the present day, " should 
 differ in their views, will certainly not astonish you ; 
 have we not seen how different the results of the same ex- 
 periment may prove to be, when the conditions in which 
 it is performed by various observers do not happen to 
 beidenticaU" — {Medical Gazette, January 26th, 1861.) 
 No doubt of it, Doctor Bernard ; and we have no right 
 to complain of the inaccuracies on these points, if we 
 were only let alone ; but we do, must, and will com- 
 plain that such contradictory, and comparatively use- 
 less experiments, whilst good for little else, should be 
 considered, by many parties, as amply sufficient to 
 overturn and 'upset the whole system of Phrenology. 
 " We fully concur with Sir Charles Bell," observes an 
 American reviewer, " that it is doubtful whether the 
 contradictory practice of cultivating Physiology by the 
 cutting up of living bodies, and thus throwing them 
 into a pathological state, has not propagated more 
 error than truth. As evidence in favour of this view 
 of the subject, it is well known that it is a rare occur- 
 rence for any two of these experiments to agree in 
 their results." "The errors," writes Mr Solly, "to 
 which all deductions made from experiments on living 
 animals are liable, are so universally acknowledged in 
 
148 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 the present day, that little reliance is placed upon 
 them as faithful and unerring sources of knowledge. 
 Notwithstanding the hundreds of animals which have 
 been sacrificed, on the Continent particularly, the re- 
 sults have been generally contradictory, and, with few 
 exceptions, are therefore unproductive of facts that 
 can be depended on." — (Solly on The Brain.) " Most 
 experimenters have operated after systems imagined 
 beforehand, and were apt to overlook whatever they 
 did not wish to see." — (Keport by Portal, Berthollet, 
 Pinel, Dumeril, and Cuvier to the French Institute, 
 on Flouren's Memoir, as quoted by Solly.) Could any 
 Phrenologist make a more serious charge against them 
 than this ? 
 
 " I have made," says Eolando, as quoted by Gall, 
 '' innumerable experiments to observe the results of 
 injuries to the tubercula quadrigemina and the parts 
 adjoining the thalami optici, but have rarely obtained 
 constant results, which is not surprising, when we 
 reflect on the intimate interlacing of the numerous 
 medullary filaments which are met with in these parts ; 
 for, as it is extremely difficult to ascertain what fila- 
 ments have been divided in these operations, we can- 
 not draw clear and precise conclusions where there is 
 some difference in the results." Exactly so, M. Rolando. 
 You have made a pefectly clear and indubitable case 
 against the value of such experiments. The filaments 
 of the brain are so minute and closely connected with 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 149 
 
 each other, that it is quite impossible for any man, in 
 carving a living animal, to be certain of the precise 
 part he is cutting, and therefore the experiments are 
 altogether unworthy of confidence as far as the brain 
 is concerned. As these barbarous experiments are so 
 fruitless in their results, they should never be resorted 
 to, except under some very peculiar circumstances. 
 What an outcry would be made against the Phrenolo- 
 gists, if they were to imitate the example of M. Ber- 
 nard, of Paris, who makes a constant practice of 
 carving living animals, for the sole purpose of showing 
 the experiments to those students who attend his 
 Physiological lectures ! "It frequently happens," says 
 Dr Carpenter in his lectures on Physiology, " that 
 when such violent operations are practised on the 
 nervous centres, they occasion an amount of general 
 disturbance, which suspends or modifies functions 
 that have no immediate connexion with the organ in 
 question. . . . Every one who has been engaged in 
 Physiological experiments, is aware of the amount of 
 difi'erence caused by very minute variations in their 
 circumstances ; in no department of inquiry is this 
 more the case than in regard to the nervous system ; 
 and such difi'erences are yet more likely to occur in 
 experiments made upon the nervous centres, than in 
 those which concern their trunks." — {Medical Gazette, 
 September 1841.) 
 
 I think I have now produced enough, even from the 
 
150 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 anti'flirenqlogists^ to prove to the entire satisfaction of 
 my readers, that the Physiologists will have to turn 
 over a new leaf, and adopt a different method of in- 
 vestigation, before they have any chance of driving 
 the Phrenologists from the field. Before leaving this 
 point, however, I shall treat my readers to the follow- 
 ing extract from an opponent, who calls Phrenology 
 a " superstition," and Phrenologists " a sect with 
 whom it is impossible to be serious without being 
 ridiculous.'' Here is the extract : — ^^ The elegant 
 ideas of Blumenbach on the nisus formativus," says 
 Dr Milligan, " and of Hunter on the diffused matter 
 of life, brought reasonable men to see that the forma- 
 tion of all such parts (the projections on the surfaces 
 of bones) is comprehended in the original desigrl^ of 
 the Author of the animal microcosm, and for the evolu- 
 tion of which certain springs or forces have been im- 
 pressed from the beginning upon the embryotic mass, 
 which act as truly in response to their time and ob- 
 ject as the compound forces which exhibit and pre- 
 serve the harmonious movements of the heavenly 
 bodies, and of the developments of which, in fine, the 
 muscles are not the cause, but the humble, though 
 frequently the modifying, instruments." — {The Lancet^ 
 as quoted in Phren. Journal^ September 1833.) I am 
 glad that men like Dr Milligan, who are full of learned 
 nonsense, do not become Phrenologists, as they would 
 be sure to injure the progress of the science by put- 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAX OF THE MIND ? lol 
 
 ting it before the public in a form which coald hardly 
 be understood by any ordinary being. When Dr 
 Milligan used such bombastic language on a subject 
 which he did not understand, he should just have 
 gone the length of adopting Mr Hope's theory of the 
 formation of man. " When," says Mr Hope, the 
 author of " Anastasius," " in the progress of creation, 
 the elements of organised substance, by successive 
 combinations and decombinations, had arrived at a 
 condition suited to the formation of beings, not only 
 vital and sentient, but intellectual, these elements, 
 meeting from opposite points by pressure, gradually 
 accumulated and combined, until they resulted in 
 man.'^ — (Ryan's Medical and Surgical Journal for 
 February 1832.) When Moses is overturned by Mr 
 Hope, Phrenologists will tremble for Dr Milligan, but 
 certainly not till then. Dr Milligan unquestionably 
 spoke the downright truth, when he said he could not 
 "be serious" with the Phrenologists "without being 
 ridiculous." I hope he was serious, and I am sure it 
 cannot be doubted, as the Lancet remarks, that he 
 could not easily be made more ridiculous. 
 
 There are few questions which have given rise to a 
 greater variety of opinion than the one which has 
 reference to the organ which is specially designed as 
 the material instrument for the manifestations of the 
 mind. Erasistratus, we are informed, placed the soul 
 in the meninges ; Herophilus, and Auranti, in the 
 
152 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 ventricles ; Van Helmont, in the stomach ; Descartes, 
 in the pineal gland ; Wharton, and Schellhammer, in 
 the origin of the spinal marrow ; Drelincourt, in the 
 cerebellum ; Boutekoe, Maria, La Peyronie, and Lan- 
 cisi, in the corpus callosum ; Digbj, in the septum 
 lucidum ; Willis, in the corpora striata ; Vieussens, in 
 the centrum ovale ; Servetus, in the aqueduct of Sil- 
 vius ; Molinetti, and Wrisberg, in the pons Varolii ; 
 Soemmering, in the serosity of the ventricles ; Pytha- 
 goras, Plato, Galen, Haller, and most of the moderns, 
 in the brain generally. Many parties, even in the 
 present day, imagine that the passions have their 
 special seat in the heart and abdominal viscera. Put- 
 ting aside, however, in the meantime, the positive evi- 
 dence we have for connecting them with the brain, I 
 would remark, it is somewhat ridiculous "to consti- 
 tute the heart the seat of cruelty in the tiger ; of 
 gentleness in the lamb ; of fidelity in the dog ; of 
 perfidy in the cat ; of courage in the bison ; and of 
 timidity in the hare.'^ — {Gall.) 
 
 Professor Eicherand exhibited little power of dis- 
 crimination when he said, "Eeduce by bleeding this 
 intrepid warrior — who «has braved death in twenty 
 battles — you make him weak and pusillanimous ; in 
 vain will his cranium exhibit then the bump, which 
 Gall is pleased to consider indicative of bravery." 
 Does Richerand really imagine the warrior becomes a 
 coward the moment he becomes weak ? What would 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 153 
 
 Nelson, NapoleoD, Wellington, Havelock, and Garibaldi 
 say to such a doctrine ? Would the loss of a little 
 blood have made them run away? To say that 
 cowardice is a part of their nature, either mental or 
 corporeal, would be to traduce the character of these 
 mighty warriors. You might weaken the action of all 
 the powers they possessed, but that would not put a 
 new one into their nature, or alter the balance of those 
 they already had. Instead of one faculty being de- 
 stroyed and another substituted in its place, the 
 activity of all the faculties would be reduced together. 
 Even supposing that the power of all the organs of the 
 brain was reduced by a severe bleeding, it would not, 
 in the slightest degree, affect the question as to 
 whether bravery is connected with the heart or 
 brain, because the bleeding would have fully as much 
 influence over the heart as over the brain ; conse- 
 quently, Richerand^s objection will not hold good in 
 this point of view. His argument would not even 
 assist in proving that courage was a pure mental 
 faculty, in accordance with the metaphysical theory, 
 unless he could first prove that the mental faculty 
 was in full action after the power of the brain was 
 thoroughly extinguished. It would be just as reason- 
 able to argue that we do not see through our eyes, 
 because we lose the power of sight in a fainting-fit, as 
 to maintain that the organ of courage is not in the 
 brain, because its manifestation, for the time being, is 
 
154 PHKENOLOGY. 
 
 weakened by a heavy bleeding. The one argument is 
 quite as good as the other. I might therefore turn 
 round on Eicherand, and use the following language 
 after his own fashion : — Eeduce by bleeding this clear- 
 sighted man, whose eye has scanned many battle-fields, 
 you make him weak and incapable of vision ; in vain 
 will his face exhibit then the eye which Eicherand is 
 pleased to call the organ of sight ; and this plainly 
 proves we are entirely wrong in supposing that the 
 eyes have anything to do with the power of vision. 
 What think you of this, Mr Eeader ? Would you 
 have any confidence in such an argument ? Professor 
 Eicherand' s objection may be considered powerful 
 when directed against Phrenology ; but if it were 
 produced on any other subject, it would be looked 
 upon as beneath the notice of a simpleton. 
 
 If the affections and passions were connected with 
 the abdominal viscera, as some have supposed, they 
 would of necessity be in proportion to the develop- 
 ment of these parts, because size is a measure of 
 power. I should like to know, however, how this 
 theory could be reconciled with the placid disposition 
 of the cow and the sheep, in whom the abdominal 
 organs are so enormously developed. There cannot be 
 the slightest reason for supposing that the heart, the 
 lungs, the stomach, the liver, the kidneys, and the 
 bowels, are in any special sense the organs for the 
 manifestations of the mind. The heart may be struct- 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 155 
 
 urally diseased, the lungs may be extensively dis- 
 organised, the stomach and bowels may be ulcerated, 
 the liver may be enlarged, and the kidneys may be 
 organically changed, without directly obstructing the 
 operations of the mind on any point whatever. In 
 this respect, they differ entirely from the brain, as we 
 shall see hereafter, when I come to consider the effects 
 of injuries and diseases of the brain. In any case 
 where the mental manifestations seem to be affected 
 by the state of the stomach, or any of the other organs 
 I have mentioned, a careful investigation will show 
 that the effect is produced in a round-about, secondary 
 way, in consequence of the sympathy which exists 
 through the nervous connexion of those parts with 
 the brain. 
 
 Some think that the heart must be the seat of the 
 affections, because the Scriptures so frequently refer 
 to the depravity and wickedness of the human heart. 
 I will yield to no man in the support of the Scriptural 
 doctrine of the utter depravity of man ; but I maintain 
 that the depravity pertains to his entire nature, and 
 does not reside in that mass of flesh called the heart. 
 There is a principle of Biblical interpretation under- 
 lying this question, which, when rightly understood, 
 will not only clear us of difficulties regarding this 
 point, but will also cut through the root of a great 
 number of religious errors which are currently received 
 as true in the present day. If we wish to ascertain the 
 
156 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 meaning of any difficult, doubtful, or disputed word 
 or sentence in the Scriptures, how are we to arrive at 
 it ? Are we to judge by the meaning which the words 
 may bear by use in our own generation? Certainly 
 not. We must go back, and find out the exact meaning 
 which the words bore in the Hebrew or Greek language 
 up to the time at which the Scriptures were written. 
 Great errors, and it is to be feared some of them wilful, 
 have been made by neglecting this point. In inter- 
 preting Scripture, it is not of the slightest importance 
 what meaning may be attached to a particular word 
 now ; but what was the meaning of the word in the 
 Hebrew, or the Greek, at the time the Old, or New, 
 Testament was written. This is the point which should 
 always be kept in view if we honestly wish to get the 
 exact meaning of Scripture. A word might have come 
 by use to bear an entirely different meaning now to 
 what it did in apostolic days ; but no man, having 
 any pretensions to honesty of purpose, could say the 
 apostles are bound by the altered meaning which usage 
 has given to the word since their time. No man would 
 attempt to interpret human writings on the principle 
 which I am combating. Why then should the Scriptures 
 be treated differently ? It can be for no other object 
 than to serve a purpose. The Scriptures could not be 
 a revelation from God to man unless they were given 
 in language which was capable of being understood by 
 those to whom they were immediately delivered. If 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE OEGAN OF THE MIND? 157 
 
 the language was not tg be understood in the meaning 
 which it then had, but in the meaning which it might 
 happen to have at some centuries after the book was 
 written, its interpretation could not be made out by 
 any man alive at that time, and consequently it could 
 not possibly have been a revelation at all. I am sure 
 this principle must at once commend itself to every 
 rational and honest man ; and if we kept it constantly 
 in view, we would have comparatively little trouble in 
 interpreting Scripture. If any person, however, doubts 
 the deep depravity of human nature, let him read the 
 works of some learned divines whose interest lies in 
 using every exertion in their power to conceal these 
 principles from the general public, and to argue as if 
 they had no existence, and I am confident he will at 
 once be converted to a belief in the total corruption 
 of human nature. It is really refreshing and delightful 
 to find a man who is thoroughly in earnest in searching 
 after and adopting truth, let the consequences be what 
 they may ; but there is nothing more distressing and 
 humiliating than the sight of a man who is using all 
 his energies and ingenuity in hiding, evading, and per- 
 verting truth, at a time when its open and candid 
 avowal would mar his pecuniary condition or his social 
 elevation in the world. The one is a specimen of real 
 nobility, the other is worse than a crawling reptile. If 
 we go into a court of law and hear a man on his oath 
 fencing every answer with the greatest ingenuity, and 
 
158 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 in such a way as to darken the case and evade the 
 truth, because he feels that his cause cannot stand 
 honest deahng, what are we to think of him ? Are we 
 to make excuses for his innocence and simpHcity, and 
 for the uncertainty which usually hangs about legal 
 decisions ? If we do so, are we not as guilty as the per- 
 jured villain we are endeavouring to screen ? Would 
 any honest man become his advocate ? No. His blood 
 would boil with virtuous indignation at the very 
 thought. Why then are we to screen a learned divine 
 if he follows a similar course ? In place of allowing his 
 profession of Christianity to be a cloak for him, it 
 should rather be the means of forcing us to unmask 
 his deep hypocrisy. There are plenty of men who are 
 not endowed with the natural capacity for seeing their 
 own false positions. Their simplicity is so evident 
 that there is no possibility of mistaking them. We 
 should always think a pity of such men, and, having 
 given them credit for honesty of purpose, we should 
 recommend them to turn their attention to some call- 
 ing for which their Creator has endowed them. We 
 must be careful, however, not to use the same leniency 
 towards the other class, who employ learning, ingenuity, 
 research, and eminent powers of special pleading in hid- 
 ing the truth, and in placing false principles in such a 
 plausible light that it requires more ability than falls to 
 the lot of the general run of men to unravel the mys- 
 tery and separate the truth from the falsehood. To 
 
IS THE BEAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND? 159 
 
 my thinking, a man of this description is far more 
 despicable than a murderer or highway robber. They 
 may have some principle of honour left about them ; 
 but he is a sneaking, low, unprincipled creature that 
 deserves to be shunned as a disgrace to even fallen 
 humanity. 
 
 A principle of interpretation similar to the one I 
 have already laid down, will enable us to deal with 
 those portions of the sacred writings which refer to the 
 sun as standing still, and to the heart of man as being 
 deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. The 
 Scriptures were never intended to teach us philosophy, 
 and therefore it was by no means necessary that the 
 references which they make to^ and the illustrations 
 which they draw from, philosophical questions, should 
 be in strict accordance with the improvements and dis- 
 coveries of after ages. If it had been necessary for 
 them to be in perfect agreement, on every point, with 
 true philosophy, they could not have been understood 
 by the inhabitants of the world at the time they were 
 written, and consequently could not have been a revela- 
 tion to them at all. Nay, more, on this principle, they 
 could not be a revelation even to us at the present day, 
 because we have not yet arrived at perfection on some 
 philosophical points touched on in the sacred pages. 
 When it was said the sun stood still, and the heart 
 was deceitful, there was not the slightest difficulty in 
 understanding what was meant, because such expres- 
 
160 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 sions were in direct harmony with the extent of philo- 
 sophical knowledge in that day ; but if the discoveries 
 of later ages had been anticipated, the statements 
 would have been wholly unintelligible to the people, 
 as there were no Galileos, Newtons, and "Galls, in that 
 generation. We know now it was the earth, not the 
 sun, that stood still, and that the brain, not the heart, 
 is the material instrument of the affections and pas- 
 sions ; but the ancients were entirely ignorant on these 
 points, and could not have understood them. The 
 Scriptures were written on the proper principle, and 
 consequently the parties to whom they were delivered 
 at first had no difficulty in understanding the intention 
 of their expressions in accordance with their own 
 amount of philosophical knowledge ; and neither have 
 we in the face of the enlightenment of the present 
 age. The Word of God was intelligible at the time it 
 was given, is so now, and ever shall be till the end of 
 the world. 
 
 If any person now attempts to bind me down by 
 Scripture to make the heart, in place of the brain, the 
 seat of the affections, I will compel him, by virtue of his 
 own arguments, to believe in the daily motions of the 
 sun instead of the earth, and thus force him to over- 
 turn the discoveries of modern astronomy. The same 
 principle will apply in both cases. If the one be 
 good, so is the other. When a new heart is promised 
 in Scripture, it does not mean that the present literal 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 161 
 
 heart is to be taken out and another put in its place. 
 An interpretation of this description would not satisfy 
 the mind of any man. It just means that a new nature, 
 of a spiritual kind^ is to be planted within us, which 
 will keep up a constant warfare with the old nature, 
 and thus control the thoughts, feelings, affections, and 
 passions of the entire man. 
 
 If, then, the heart be not the special seat of the 
 affections, nor the abdominal viscera of the passions, 
 as some have imagined, where is the organ which is 
 more especially appropriated to all the manifestations 
 of the mind ? I answer, the Brain ; and my readers, 
 whether they think it or not, all practically hold the 
 same opinion. On theoretical grounds some would 
 deny it, but, in practice, they are all absolutely com- 
 pelled to admit it. Men may talk a great deal of non- 
 sense, but when they are brought to a plain practical 
 test, they are obliged to yield to the dictates of com- 
 mon sense. Suppose, for example, a man falls from 
 the house-top to the street, and that he is taken up in 
 an insensible condition, — devoid of all passion, affec- 
 tion, and intellectual ability, — what part of his body 
 would you suppose was injured? If a surgeon were 
 called in, would you expect him to commence his 
 examination with the heart, the lungs, the liver, the 
 stomach, the kidneys, the arms, the legs, or the big 
 toe, in order to ascertain the source of the mental im- 
 becihty ? K he did so, would you place the slightest 
 
 L 
 
162 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 confidence in his judgment? Would you not think 
 him a perfect booby if he did not go right straight to 
 the head at once, as the seat of injury ? To be sure 
 you would ; and this plainly proves that the public 
 universally believe the brain to be the special instru- 
 ment of the mind. ^' Man," says an old writer, " doth 
 not, I suppose, find himself to think^ see, hear, &c., all 
 over, in any part of his body ; but the seat of cogitation 
 and reflection he finds in his head; and the nerves by 
 which the knowledge of external objects are conveyed 
 to him, all tend to the same place." — (The Religion of 
 Nature delineated. Glasgow, 1746.) 
 
 Some of our opponents tell us that injuries and 
 diseases have occurred in every part of the brain, in 
 different cases, without in the slightest degree affect- 
 ing the mental operations on any point. In their over- 
 zeal, however, they seem to have overlooked the fact 
 that these cases, if true, would prove a great deal too 
 much. They would not only overturn Phrenology, 
 but they would also set aside, at once and for ever, all 
 the opinions which are held, regarding the functions of 
 the brain, by those Physiologists who have adduced 
 them. Take, for example, the Physiological experi- 
 ments which have been performed by Magendie, Le 
 Gallois, Kolando, Flourens, and Bernard, and see how 
 they bear upon this point. Owing to the impossibility 
 of always dividing the exact same fibres of the brain 
 in living animals, the results of their experiments did 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND'? 163 
 
 not agree, and could not agree, on all points ; and 
 therefore, to a certain extent, are very unsatisfactory. 
 But they agree on, and prove, one great point, namely, 
 that the brain is not a single, but a compound organ. 
 The experiments produced extremely different results 
 when performed on different parts of the brain. Hence 
 it follows that all parts of the brain do not perform 
 the same function. If they did, the same results 
 would follow, no matter what portion was cut into. 
 Indeed, we might gather the same ideas from our know- 
 ledge of the five senses. The portion of brain which 
 is connected with sight, cannot be the same which 
 serves for hearing, smelling, touching, and tasting. 
 Hence we have undoubted evidence that all parts of 
 the brain do not perform the same function, and that 
 in place of being single the brain is a compound organ. 
 From this we ' see that the opponents who allege that 
 injuries have occurred, at different times, to every 
 portion of the brain, without producing any effects on 
 mental manifestation, cannot be stating facts. They 
 are placing Pathology in direct opposition to Physio- 
 logy, and these two should fight it out before they 
 attack Phrenology. Let them first settle their own 
 quarrels before they interfere with their neighbour. 
 Besides, these assertions of our opponents would not 
 hold good even if the brain were a single organ, like a 
 muscle, because if we cut away the half of a muscle we 
 most undoubtedly curtail its action by one-half ; we 
 
164 PHRElSrOLOOY. 
 
 interfere so far with its power of manifestation. So- 
 that, take it as you will, you must come to the con- 
 clusion, that, if these opponents could really produce 
 unmistakable cases to support their assertions, it would 
 follow, as a matter of course, that the mind has no 
 more to do with the brain than with the watch which 
 these wiseacres carry in their waistcoat pocket ; and 
 this is a result which they never seem to have antici- 
 pated. If one portion of the brain can be destroyed 
 without curtailing, impeding, altering, weakening, or 
 abridging the operations of the mind on any point, of 
 course that portion had no necessary connexion with 
 the mind, and was of no special use to it. And if the 
 same can be said of another, and another, and another 
 piece, till we go over the whole brain, it is as plain as 
 the light of heaven that the brain has nothing in par- 
 ticular to do with the mind at all 1 As far as the mind 
 is concerned, a headless man would be as good as one 
 with a head on him I There is no end to the folly and 
 weakness of our opponents. I will take the liberty, 
 however, of giving all their assertions, regarding 
 injuries and disease, a flat contradiction, and demand 
 of them one single authenticated and accurately ob- 
 served and reported case in proof of their opinions. 
 Until they do this, which they have never yet at- 
 tempted with anything like philosophical accuracy, I 
 must remain an unbeliever in their doctrines. 
 
 " The cases," says the Edinburgh Review, " in which 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 165 
 
 •portions of various sizes have been removed from 
 almost all regions of this organ, without the slightest 
 affection either of intellect or inclinations, are numer- 
 ous and most unequivocal." — (No. 49, p. 243.) Such 
 is the sweeping assertion of the Edinhurgh Review ; 
 but the consistent and philosophical writer had not 
 long penned the statement till he gave himself a most 
 delightful and instructive contradiction in the following 
 terms: — "We will not say that there are any facts 
 which absolutely demonstrate that the brain is not the 
 organ of intellect." — (No. 49, p. 245.) You will not 
 say there are ''any facts .'" The only conclusion we 
 can draw, then, is, that what you have stated as facts, 
 on the 243d page, are pure fabrications. If they were 
 facts, they would certainly prove that the brain is not 
 the organ for the manifestation of the intellect or 
 inclinations. .These two extracts are calculated to give 
 us a high estimate of the calibre of our opponents ! 
 
 " The truth is," says Dr Roget, " that there is not a 
 single part of the encephalon, [or brain,] which has 
 not, in one case or other, been impaired, destroyed, or 
 found defective, without any apparent change in the 
 sensitive, intellectual, or moral faculties." — {Physiology^ 
 vol. i. p. 57.) If so, Dr Roget, what is the use of the 
 brain ? It cannot be necessary for the manifestations 
 of the mind, if your statement be correct ; and we 
 know from those cases in which children, although 
 bom without brain, have lived up to the period of, and 
 
166 PHKENOLOGY. 
 
 for some time after, birth, that it is not essential for 
 secretion, nutrition, excretion, circulation, and motion. 
 What, then, is the use of it ? Is it merely for orna- 
 ment, or is it a useless appendage — a freak of nature ? 
 If Dr Roget's statement were true, it would answer as 
 good a purpose for him to have his skull filled with a 
 turnip as a brain. If there be not a single part of the 
 whole brain which has not been found deficient, im- 
 paired, or destroyed, in one case or other, without pro- 
 ducing any change in, or curtailment of, the mental 
 manifestations, it requires no argument to prove that 
 the mind, in exhibiting its action in this life, is as little 
 connected with the brain as it is with the stars in the 
 firmament. 
 
 The opinions of Morgagni, Bonetus, and Haller, on 
 this subject, are reiterated by Dr A. T. Thomson in 
 his lectures on Medical Jurisprudence as reported in 
 Ryan, vol. vii. p. 162. " We find," says he, " that the 
 texture of every part of the brain may be morbidly 
 altered from its natural state, and yet all the faculties 
 of the mind remain entire. Abscesses have been 
 formed in the brain ; tumours have been found in it, 
 which have slowly enlarged and hardened ; its arteries 
 have been ossified ; indeed, every portion of it, in 
 difierent instances, have exhibited morbid alterations 
 of structure, and yet the mind has remained entire." 
 I presume Dr Thomson, in speaking of the mind re- 
 maining entire, means entire in its manifestations. 
 
IS THE BKAIN THE OKGAN OF THE MIND? 167 
 
 This is the only view which could lend any weight 
 or force to his argument on the point on which he is 
 reasoning. In place of stopping to give a denial to his 
 alleged facts, I will just ask him to reconcile his state- 
 ment here with those he delivered m his very next 
 lecture, when he said, '* In mania, the pia mater has 
 been found thickened and studded with small globular, 
 spongy bodies, and in a few instances ossified. The 
 spongy bodies are situated chiefly under the crown and 
 forehead, sometimes as large as a pea. The ossifica- 
 tions are commonly met with on the anterior surface 
 of the anterior lobe of the brain, on the upper surface of 
 each hemisphere, and on the flat surface lying on the falx. 
 In the substance of the brain indications of inflamma- 
 tion are common, sometimes hydatids are found, and 
 occasionally an insupportable foetor is exhaled on 
 cutting into the brain. In many instances, water is 
 found in the ventricles. This has been the case in all 
 the brains of madmen which I have examined." I 
 must leave Dr Thomson to square the opinions he 
 uttered in the one lecture with those he delivered in 
 the next. The task is one which I would not like to 
 undertake. If it be true that every part of the brain 
 may be morbidly altered in its structure, whilst all the 
 mental manifestations are quite perfect, how could it 
 happen that any disease of the brain could ever alter 
 the mental manifestations ? The thing is impossible. 
 If the mind be perfectly independent in one case, it 
 
168 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 must be so in every other case. There is no way of 
 getting out of this difficulty at all. It is no relief 
 whatever to say that the brain is a single mass, and 
 that every part of it performs perfectly the same 
 function, because it would then follow that the mani- 
 festation of the mind could never be altered in the 
 nature or bent of its action on one point without 
 being altered on every point. There could be no 
 insanity unless the entire mass was diseased, and such 
 a case is nowhere to be found. In fact, the opponents 
 of Phrenology are driven to a corner. If cerebral dis- 
 ease be found to produce deranged mental manifes- 
 tations in some cases, the mind is not perfectly inde- 
 pendent of the brain in its manifestations in this life. 
 Not only so, but we are certain that some change 
 must have taken place in the brain in every case in 
 which we have deranged mental manifestations, unless 
 we hold that the mind can manifest itself without the 
 brain altogether, or that the disease may be in the 
 mind itself. Now, we know that the mind cannot 
 manifest itself without the brain, because if it could, 
 it would never be affected by disease of the brain in 
 any case. If it could act independently in one case, it 
 could do so in every case, — more especially so, on the 
 supposition of the brain being a single organ. The 
 only alternative, then, left for the anti-phrenologist is 
 to maintain that the disease is in the mind itself, — 
 that there is, as Dr A. T. Thomson holds, " a malady 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIN D *? lt)9 
 
 purely of the mind/^ It is remarkable, however, that 
 Dr Thomson did not see that this expression is quite 
 inconsistent with his avowal of his belief in the im- 
 materiality of mind. If the mind be capable of dis- 
 ease, it must be material and mortal, as I will show 
 hereafter. 
 
 It appears, however, the Phrenologist has a more 
 difficult case, if possible, to deal with than any I have 
 yet alluded to_, as Bartholin, Duverney, Moreschi, Giro, 
 and Ultini found the brain of the ox completely ossi- 
 fied, whilst the animal retained all its faculties, and 
 senses of smell, taste, &c., as perfect as ever. This 
 certainly is a poser. But it was rather unfortunate 
 for these accurate observers, that, when cut across, 
 the mass contained no cavities, no thalami, no corpora 
 striata, no third and fourth ventricle, no corpora 
 quadrigemina, no pineal gland ; and no trace of the 
 origin of nerves on its base. In short, that it had not 
 a single character belonging to the brain. The crown- 
 ing point of all, however, was that the accurate 
 observations of these philosophers were sadly dis- 
 figured by a butcher at Modena, who, on making a 
 careful inspection of a case, discovered that what was 
 taken for an ossified brain was nothing more or less 
 than a morbid projection of bone from the inside of 
 the skull, and that the real brain was found under- 
 neath it ! (Spurzheim.) The discovery made by the 
 butcher must have been a sad blow to Dumas, who 
 
170 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 had adduced the above cases as a complete refutation 
 of the doctrines of Gall. Well might Gall and Spurz- 
 heim exclaim, " If ever a brain be ossified, and the 
 animal preserve its intellectual faculties, we shall be 
 the first to declare our doctrine of the functions of the 
 brain a purely chimerical fabrication." We might go 
 farther than this, and make the same declaration con- 
 cerning the opinions of all our Physiological opponents 
 concerning the functions of the brain. If Duverney, 
 Moreschi, and Giro are right, the Phrenologists, 
 Physiologists, Pathologists, Physicians, and general 
 public, are no better than simpletons, in believing 
 that the brain is in any way related to the operations 
 of the mind, or to the manifestations of the external 
 senses. 
 
 If a Physiologist would leave his judgment so far 
 behind him as to assert, that every portion of the 
 optic and auditory nerves had been found, in different 
 cases, diseased, destroyed, defective, or altogether 
 wanting, without in the slightest degree affecting the 
 power, accuracy, and extent of seeing and hearing ; 
 and also that the power of seeing or hearing was 
 altered or destroyed, whilst every material organ con- 
 nected therewith remained perfect and in health, 
 what would be thought of him ? Would not every 
 ocuHst and aurist in the realm pronounce him astray ? 
 Certainly they would. And if he persisted and said 
 he had seen such cases, they would just set him down 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE OEGAN OF THE MIND 1 171 
 
 as one who was so incapable of making observations 
 on others that he would require some person to take 
 care of himself. What, then, are we to think of those 
 men who imagine they have overturned Phrenology 
 by arguments of a similar kind ? Do they expect we 
 can bow with reverence to their philosophy ? If they 
 do, they are greatly mistaken. When they inform us 
 that they have heard of, or seen, cases in which every 
 portion of the brain, in different instances, has been 
 diseased, destroyed, or absent, without in the slightest 
 degree affecting the manifestations of the mind, we 
 must just tell them that, in regard to what they have 
 heard, they are credulous dupes, and in relation to 
 what they have seen, they are utterly incompetent of 
 making practical observations. 
 
 As a set-off against the assertions I have been com- 
 bating, I shall give an extract from Professor MUller, 
 who is considered to be one of the best Physiologists 
 of the present day, and who, recollect, is so far opposed 
 to Phrenology that he says it is no better than alchemy 
 and astrology. It surely ought to be sufficient to 
 satisfy my opponents, when I give them testimony 
 against themselves out of the mouth of one of their 
 own authorities. *' Every cause," says Mdller, " which 
 disturbs the action of the brain slowly or suddenly 
 affects at the same time the mind. Inflammation of 
 the brain is never unattended with delirium, and at a 
 kter period with stupor ; pressure on the cerebrum 
 
172 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 whether produced by depressed bone, foreign bodies, 
 serum, blood, or pus, always gives rise to delirium or 
 stupor, according as there is or is not irritation with 
 the pressure. . . . Injury of the cerebral hemispheres 
 in animals gives rise to stupor and loss of memory ; 
 and in most kmatics considerable structural changes 
 have taken place in the brain, although in other cases, 
 particularly when the affection is inherited, the 
 changes that have affected the microscopic fibrous 
 texture cannot be recognised with our imperfect 
 means of investigation and defective knowledge." — 
 {Physiology.) And Professor Rostan, who is not a 
 Phrenologist, lays it down as an axiom that "there 
 is no lesion of function without a co-existent organic 
 lesion." — {Medico- Chirurgical Review, for Oct. 1838, p. 
 598.) 
 
 Sir William C. Ellis, in his Treatise on Insanity, 
 reports that out of two hundred and twenty-one cases 
 of dissection, he found two hundred and seven of them 
 with decided marks of disease. Of the remainder, four 
 were idiots from birth, and consequently must be ex- 
 eluded from the list. So that in all his examinations, 
 he found only ten cases in which he could not detect 
 organic disease of the brain ; and of these ten, seven 
 were recent cases, being only about a month ill. — 
 {Medico-Chirurgical Revievi, for July 1838, p. 122.) 
 On the 24th June 1 845, Dr Webster called the atten- 
 tion of the Medico-Chirurgical Society of London to 
 
IS THE BEAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 173 
 
 the history of one hundred and eight post-mortem 
 examinations of the brain, by Mr Laurence of London, 
 at the Bethlehem Hospital, in every one of which dis- 
 tinct organic disease was detected. These were the 
 only cases examined, and consequently Dr Webster 
 has not selected them for any purpose. He has given 
 the whole of them. — {PhrenologicalJournal, vol. xix. p. 
 
 m.) 
 
 Although in the great majority of cases of insanity 
 in which the brain has been examined after death, 
 unmistakable evidence of organic change has been 
 found, it by no means follows that we must expect to 
 be able to discover a change in every case which occurs, 
 although it exists. This would suppose our means of 
 investigation to be far more accurate and minute than 
 they are. It is not only possible, but it is certain 
 that the brain and nervous system may be diseased 
 during life without our being able, with our present 
 appliances, to detect the change, which has taken 
 place, after death. Who, for example, can doubt that 
 tic doloureux, hydrophobia, epilepsy, toothache, te- 
 tanus, convulsions, and paralysis are real affections of 
 the nervous system. And yet, in multitudes of in- 
 stances, it is impossible, with our present means of 
 investigation, to ascertain the existence of any organic 
 lesion. If this be the case, and no person can deny it, 
 is it reasonable to expect the Phrenologist to discover 
 the organic change in every case of disease of the 
 
174 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 brain ? On what principle of fair play could this be 
 demanded of him ? Is he to be considered so super- 
 human, that he must be compelled to submit to a test 
 which no other man can submit to ? When our 
 opponents can demonstrate, in every case, the organic 
 changes produced in the nerve by tic doloureux, I will 
 undertake to point out the molecular changes in the 
 brain in every instance of insanity. 
 
 In order to be able to detect exceedingly minute 
 shades of organic change in the structure of the brain, 
 we would require to have a perfect knowledge of the 
 exact state of its appearance in the healthy condition. 
 Unless we are thoroughly informed of its healthy ap- 
 pearance, we are not competent to judge of its dis- 
 eased state. If the change were very evident and well 
 marked, we could have no difficulty ; but if it were in 
 a less appreciable condition, we would be entirely at 
 sea, or perhaps would foolishly draw the conclusion 
 that no change whatever had taken place. In point of 
 fact, few men are so thoroughly experienced, and so 
 accurate in their nature, as to be entirely competent 
 and trustworthy in delicate cases of investigation. It 
 has been well remarked by Georget, "that we are 
 seldom enabled to see a brain perfectly sound, since 
 few patients die without having been affected by fever 
 and delirium, phenomena which depend upon irritation 
 of this organ. A truly pathological state of the brain 
 is therefore most generally taken for a sound one. . . . 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND? 175 
 
 The inflammatory state of the brain is far from being 
 known in all its organic gradations of colour, and yet 
 this state must very often occur. ... I am convinced 
 that, in the course of a few years, the pathological 
 anatomy of the brain will make great advances, and 
 that few bodies of insane persons will be examined, 
 without exhibiting appreciable traces of affection of 
 this organ." 
 
 The introduction of the microscope has brought us 
 to a new era in the examination of the brain. It has 
 already thrown considerable light on its minute struc- 
 ture, both in the healthy and diseased state, and great 
 things may yet be expected from it. Professor Jacu- 
 bowitsch has made more than twenty-five thousand 
 preparations, under its use, from the brain and 
 nervous system. His researches " have already shown 
 that in affections of the nervous system, in which 
 the most minute ordinary examination could detect 
 no material lesion^ such lesion was nevertheless con- 
 siderable, since one or more of these (natural) orders 
 of elements had become greatly altered in their form, 
 or even had undergone destruction. This single result 
 sufficiently indicates the brilliant horizon that may be 
 opening to the pathological anatomist." There can be 
 little doubt it will yet be seen that the texture of the 
 brain is really altered in every case of what is called 
 mental disease. Those who wish to see an accurate 
 and interesting detail of Jacubowitsch's discoveries, 
 
176 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 may do so by referring to the London Medical Times 
 and Gazette, iov the 17th Oct. 1857, p. 405. 
 
 That the mental operations are performed through 
 the brain, is capable of being proved by an immense 
 number of facts. Indeed, the fact is so patent to all, 
 that it would hardly be necessary to refer to it again, 
 were it not that multitudes who are disposed to admit 
 it in words, overlook it in practice, and, in so far as 
 regards their own conduct and the educational de- 
 mands which they make on their children, proceed 
 apparently on the supposition that the mind has no 
 connexion whatever with the body. The practice 
 founded on this fallacious and thoughtless assump- 
 tion, is fraught with so much mischief, and brings 
 such dreadful consequences in its train, that it would 
 be exceedingly difficult to over-estimate the impor- 
 tance of fixing the attention of the public on the 
 matter. A great deal of the practical evils on this 
 head, may fairly be laid at the door of the erroneous 
 teaching of some of the supporters of the metaphysi- 
 cal school. For example, Dr Prichard, in his work on 
 Nervous Diseases, says, " The operations of judgment, 
 or the rational faculty, as well as the phenomena of 
 passion or emotion, desire or aversion, love or hatred, 
 are mental processes or affections of the soul, with 
 which I think it must be concluded, that we have no 
 proof of the connexion of any co-operating organic 
 process. And this conclusion may be drawn perhaps 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE OEGAN OF THE MIND ? 177 
 
 more confidently with respect to volition." He further 
 states regarding the propensities and sentiments, that 
 he is " acquainted with no fact, either in physiology or 
 pathology, which furnishes any ground for presuming 
 that those mental phenomena take place through the 
 instrumentality of any corporeal ^irocess whatever, ^^ In 
 the 88th number of the Edinburgh Review^ Lord 
 Jeffrey says, ^' There is not the smallest reason for 
 supposing that the mind ever operates through the 
 agency of any material organs^ except in its percep- 
 tion of material objects, or in the spontaneous move- 
 ments of the body which it inhabits." He further 
 speaks of it as a " strange attempt to assign material 
 organs for such purely mental operations as have no 
 immediate reference to matter." From these obser- 
 vations, as well as from the general tenor of the 
 article, it is quite evident he holds that our bodily 
 organs have nothing to do with the powers of re- 
 flection and imagination, or with the moral sentiments, 
 I shall take an opportunity hereafter of proving that 
 metaphysical opinions, such as those propounded by 
 Dr Prichard and Lord Jeffrey, must either drive us to 
 the highly important practical conclusion, that no 
 amount of deep and continued reflection, and no flight 
 of imagination, can ever produce fatigue, and result, as 
 the public have hitherto been foolish enough to believe, 
 in insanity and imbecility ; or else land us directly in 
 
 materiahsm by compelling us to look upon the mind, 
 
 M 
 
178 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 instead of the brain, as the seat of the fatigue and 
 exhaustion which are produced by a lengthened pro- 
 cess of deep reflection, or the constant indulgence of 
 a fertile imagination. But, in the meantime, I shall 
 add a few more proofs to those already given in sup- 
 port of the proposition that the brain is the organ of 
 the mind. 
 
 It may be safely laid down as a fundamental prin- 
 ciple, that the All-wise Author of Nature has made 
 nothing in vain. There is a purpose for everything, 
 and everything fulfils the purpose for which it was 
 originally designed. Hence I am entitled to ask my 
 opponents what purpose they consider the brain fulfils 
 in the animal economy ? Most certainly, if it be not 
 the organ of the mind, its functions are as yet almost 
 entirely unknown. Some may say it gives energy to 
 the spinal marrow, and through it to the whole muscu- 
 lar system ; but that its duties cannot possibly be con- 
 fined to this is proved by the fact that man has a much 
 larger, and by far more complicated, brain than the 
 lower animals, although he has not anything like the 
 same amount of muscular energy and power which 
 many of them possess, — " He can neither grapple with 
 the gorilla, run with the deer, see with the owl, nor 
 smell with the hound." Again, if we look into the 
 manner of our creation, we will find, as a general rule, 
 that the difierent organs of the body are more or less 
 protected from external injury, in exact proportion to 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND? 170 
 
 the importance of the office, which they have to falhl 
 in the animal machine. In this point of view, the 
 brain stands pre-eminent, as it is protected on all sides 
 by a solid case of bone. " Nature,'' says Magendie, 
 " has been extremely careful to defend it against every 
 injury arising from surrounding objects." Hence, >ve 
 are fully justified in concluding that it performs a pro- 
 portionally high and important duty. This idea is 
 strongly corroborated by the fact that it is supplied 
 with a much larger quantity of blood, in proportion to 
 its size, than any other organ in the body. According 
 to Munro, one-tenth, but, according to Haller, one- 
 fifth of all the blood in the system goes to the brain. 
 Further, I ask, for what purpose are the nerves for see- 
 ing, hearing, smelling, and tasting, immediately and 
 directly connected with the brain, if they do not serve 
 for conveying the impressions of external objects 
 through it to the mind ? 
 
 The intimate connexion which subsists between the 
 mind and the brain is well illustrated by the efiects of 
 what is called sudden mental impressions. Take the 
 following examples : — " Juventius Thalma, on being 
 told that a triumph had been decreed to him for 
 having subdued Corsica, fell down dead before the 
 altar at which he was ofi'ering up his thanksgiving. 
 Zimmerman has related the circumstance of a family 
 in Holland being reduced to indigence ; the elder 
 brother passed over to the East Indies, acquired con- 
 
180 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 siderable fortune there, and, returning home, presented 
 his sister with the richest jewel. The young woman, 
 at this unexpected change of fortune, became motion- 
 less and died.^^— {Ryan's Journal, vol. i. p. 334.) "A 
 young gentleman," says Dr Gaitskell, " having £10,000 
 unemployed, placed it in the hands of his broker. 
 The sum was invested in a stock, which had subse- 
 quently an enormous rise ; the broker prudently sold 
 it, and the £10,000 became £60,000. When the young 
 gentleman was informed of the result, an idiotic state 
 of mind was immediately prcMuced, from which he 
 never recovered ; his constant occupation is playing 
 with his fingers, and continually repeating the words, 
 ' Sixty thousand pounds.' An accomplished young 
 lady," he continues, " being on a visit at a house where 
 there was a human skeleton, her giddy young friends 
 determined to play her a trick by placing it in her bed 
 at night. In the morning they found her playing with 
 its fingers, a confirmed idiot, from which state she 
 never recovered." ^' A lady was walking through the 
 street in Norwich when a man, who was dressed up so 
 as to resemble the jaws of an alligator, suddenly 
 peeped over her shoulder. She immediately fainted, 
 and had a premature confinement." — {.Dr Gooch.) 
 '' An Irish girl, aged seventeen, who had borne a good 
 character, was tried at Stafford for having stolen a 
 gown and petticoat, and was sentenced to seven years 
 transportation. It is now believed she merely took the 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 181 
 
 goods to wear oq some particular occasion, without 
 any intention of keeping them. She heard of the 
 judgment, and remained stupefied ; in twenty-four 
 hours she was a lunatic, without hope of recovery. 
 She was a remarkably handsome girl, but from the 
 period of her sentence her health visibly declined, and 
 her hair has actually turned gray." — {Phrenological 
 Journal, vol. xvii. p. 318.) '' A young lady, aged six- 
 teen, residing in Wighmore Street, London, was at- 
 tacked with convulsive fits for upwards of two hours, 
 on the return home of a brother whom she had believed 
 was dead for the last three years, and on recovery from 
 her fit she had lost the power of articulation and was 
 seemingly idiotic." — {Coleraine Chronicle, Dec. 27, 
 1845.) '' On Monday Mr Bedford held an inquest at 
 the Old George, Stanhope Street, Clare Market, on the 
 body of Henry Solomon, aged seventy-three, for many 
 years a respectable tailor, living in the above street, 
 A few days since deceased was a successful candidate 
 at an election for pensioners on the Holborn' Estate 
 Charity, and ever since he displayed great excite- 
 ment, caused by joy at his good fortune. His election 
 insured him £30, and a residence in the almshouses 
 when completed. He received the first instalment of 
 his pension on Wednesday last, and this augmented 
 his excitement, and on Friday evening last he was 
 found in an apoplectic fit in his bedroom. The attack 
 terminated fatally in a few hours. Mr Lovett, the 
 
182 . PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 parish surgeon, who attended him, and afterwards 
 opened the body, attributed the death to sanguineous 
 apoplexy, produced by great mental emotion." — 
 {C'Oleraine Chronicle, Dec. 27, 1845.) The Limerick 
 Chronicle says, " A fine young girl, daughter of WilHapa 
 Shirley, tenant of W. Cox, Esq., Ballynoe, Ballingarry, 
 has become idiotic from terror of the burning of her 
 father's house and furniture, by incendiaries on Mon- 
 day night."— (July 1846.) 
 
 All these cases prove that the mind and the brain 
 are very intimately associated with each other. I shall 
 now give a few well-authenticated and remarkable 
 examples, demonstrating the effects on the manifesta- 
 tions of the mind which are produced by pressure on 
 the brain. They prove beyond all controversy that 
 the brain is the organ through which the mind acts. 
 
 In his lectures on the Practice of Medicine, as they 
 are found in The London Medical and Surgical Journal 
 for June 28th, 1834, Dr Stokes details a case reported 
 by Berard, junior, in the Gazette Medicale, in which a 
 tumour was removed from the inside of the skull, and 
 the patient was immediately attacked, for the first time^ 
 with loss of consciousness and convulsions of the 
 trunk and extremities. The operator justly concluding 
 that the symptoms were produced by the removal of 
 the pressure from the brain to which it had gradually 
 become accommodated during the growth of the tumour, 
 at once made gentle pressure on the denuded surface, 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 183 
 
 and he found that the convulsions immediately ceased, 
 and the intelligence was restored. " Avellan says that 
 a girl of fourteen had a depression of the right parietal 
 bone from a blow, which gave rise to mental derange- 
 ment, amounting almost to imbecility, for three months ; 
 at the end of which time the depressed bone gradually 
 resumed its level, and the girl completely recovered." — 
 {Phren. Journal^ vol. xvii. p. 80.) Hildanus reports the 
 case of a boy whose skull had been depressed by an 
 accident. As there were no urgent symptoms, there 
 was nothing done for the depressed bone. In the 
 meantime the patient, who bad previously shown ex- 
 cellent capacities, gradually lost his memory and judg- 
 ment. He became completely stupid, and remained 
 so for thirty years, when he died. — (Gall, vol. ii. p. 
 118.) Professor Richerand, of France, attended an 
 old woman, a portion of whose brain had been laid bare 
 by caries. One day, while cleansing away the pus, he 
 accidentally pressed downwards a little on the brain ; 
 immediately the patient, who, an instant before, an- 
 swered his inquiries very correctly, became silent in 
 the middle of a sentence. As this pressure occasioned 
 no pain, he repeated it three times, and always with 
 the same result. Each time the pressure was removed 
 the patient instantly recovered her faculties. — {Gall, 
 vol. ii. p. 120.) Professor Chapman, of America, had a 
 patient in whom the brain was exposed by the loss of 
 a portion of bone. In this individual, all feeling of 
 
184 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 consciousness J and all the operations of the mind, 
 could be suspended at pleasure, by pressing on the 
 brain with the point of the finger ; and all the faculties 
 returned to their wonted activity immediately after the 
 pressure was removed. " M. Bonnessous relates the 
 case of a man, who two years and eight months before 
 he saw him had been attacked and wounded in the 
 head by an assassin. He suffered much in his head, and 
 had become almost idiotic. On examining the head, 
 Bonnessous found, just above the left ear, a resisting 
 tumour about the size of a bean. Pressure on this 
 gave great pain, and aggravated the cerebral symptoms. 
 Cutting into the tumour, the blade of a poinard-knife 
 was extracted. A probe carried into the track whence 
 the knife had been extracted, passed quite horizontally, 
 so that no doubt could remain that this blade had 
 been buried within the cerebral mass for two years and 
 eight months. The patient went on well and recovered 
 his mental energies."^ — {Medical Times and Gazette, 
 Sept. 1861.) Sir Astley Cooper, of London, in his 
 Lectures on Sitrgery, relates a most extraordinary case, 
 and he very properly expresses his surprise that the 
 case has not made a greater impression on the public 
 mind than it appears to have done. A man who was 
 on board a vessel in the Mediterranean, was entirely 
 deprived of consciousness by a wound in the head, 
 produced by a fall from the yard arm. He remained 
 in this state, with complete and total suppression of 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 185 
 
 consciousness, for the whole period of thirteen months ^ 
 until Mr Cline, who was then one of the surgeons to St 
 Thomas's Hospital, London, trephined him and removed 
 a piece of bone which was driven in on the brain. In 
 the course of a few days, he was as well as ever. The 
 last thing he had any recollection of was the capture of 
 his vessel in the Mediterranean thirteen months before. 
 For this length of time he had been deprived of the 
 use of all his mental powers ; but by the removal from 
 his brain of a portion of bone with a saw, '' he was at 
 once restored to all the functions of his mind." 
 
 Were it necessary, I might multiply cases of this 
 description ; but I think it would be quite useless to 
 do so, as enough has been said already to satisfy any 
 rational man that the brain is the organ through 
 which the mind operates. Indeed, the one half of 
 what I have produced would be sufficient, were it not 
 for the prejudices which have been raised through 
 metaphysical speculations. Let it be particularly ob- 
 served that I speak of the brain as the organ through 
 which the mind acts, rather than as the seat of the 
 mind. Dr Gall has very properly made this distinction. 
 The one point is capable of being proved to a demon- 
 stration ; the other would lead to endless and useless 
 speculation. 
 
 Although the Scripture very satisfactorily and abu n- 
 dantly testifies as to the existence of the mind, or soul, 
 still I have no hesitation in saying we have no means 
 
186 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 of becoming acquainted with its peculiar and varied 
 manifestations y on this side the grave, in any other 
 way than by its action through corporeal organs, be- 
 cause in this life it is never separated from its material 
 tabernacle. To use the eloquent language of Mr Geo. 
 Combe, " The soul sparkling in the eye of beauty trans- 
 mits its sweet influence to a kindred spirit only 
 through the filaments of an optic nerve; and- even 
 the bursts of eloquence which flow from the lips of 
 the impassioned orator, when mind appears to trans- 
 fuse itself almost directly into mind, emanate from, 
 and are transmitted to, corporeal beings, through a 
 voluminous apparatus of organs. If we trace the 
 mind's progress from the cradle to the grave, every 
 appearance which it presents reminds us of this im- 
 portant truth. In earliest life, the mental powers are 
 feeble as the body ; but when manhood comes, they 
 glow with energy, and expand with power ; till at last 
 the chill of age makes the limbs totter, and the fan^cy's 
 fires decay. Nay, not only the great stages of our in- 
 fancy, vigour, and decline, but the experience of every 
 hour, reminds us of our alliance with the dust. The 
 lowering clouds and stormy sky depress the spirits 
 and enerve the mind • after short and stated intervals 
 of toil, our wearied faculties demand repose in sleep ; 
 famine or disease is capable of levelling the proudest 
 energies with the earth; and even the finest portion of 
 our compound being, the mind itself, apparently be- 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE OEGAN OF THE MIND ? 1 87 
 
 comes diseased, and, leaving nature's course, flies to 
 self-destruction to escape from woe. These pheno- 
 mena must be referred to the organs with which, in 
 this life, the mind is connected ; but if the organs 
 exert so great an effect over the mental manifestations 
 no system of philosophy is entitled to consideration, 
 which neglects their influence, and treats the thinking 
 principle as a disembodied spirit." 
 
 It has been stated in support of the metaphysical 
 theory, that our eunscio^isiiess gives us no indication of 
 the use of material organs during several of our mental 
 operations, and that therefore we have no evidence of 
 the existence of such organs. Consequently we may con- 
 clude with Lord Jeffrey, ''that there is not the smallest 
 reason for supposing that the mind ever operates 
 through the agency of any material organs, except 
 in its perception of material objects, or in the spon- 
 taneous movements of the body which it inhabits.' 
 This objection, however, has been extremely well met 
 by Dr Spurzheim, and Mr Geo. Combe, who show that 
 our consciousness has not been commissioned, and 
 consequently need not be expected, to give us full 
 information on such subjects. For example, I -^dll 
 to move my arm ; the action is performed, I feel that 
 such is the case ; but I am not by any means conscious 
 of the various parts which are used, and of all the 
 Hnks in the chain which are necessary for the per- 
 formance of this simjDle action. Eecent experiments 
 
188 PHKENOLOGY. 
 
 and observations in anatomy and physiology have 
 proved, that so soon as the mind communicates its will 
 to the brain, a certain influence is transmitted by a set 
 of motor nervous fibres to the muscles of the arm ; — 
 that the muscles, in obedience to the nervous influence 
 act on the bones so as to put them in motion ; — and 
 that the knowledge of this motion having been per- 
 formed is conveyed upwards to the brain through 
 another set of nervous fibres which are specially set 
 apart for sensation. Here, then, we have a complex 
 machinery brought into operation for the elevation of 
 my arm ; and still my consciousness gives me no infor- 
 mation whatever on the subject, save and except that 
 the arm has been moved in obedience to my will. Con- 
 sciousness makes us aware of the result, but it never 
 has made, and never could make, us acquainted with 
 the existence, number, and peculiar construction of the 
 nerves through which the mind conveys its mandates 
 and receives its information. There is not one of my 
 readers could tell by his consciousness whether it re- 
 quires one nerve, or a dozen, to do this duty ; nor yet 
 whether one nerve is composed entirely of motor fibres, 
 or of sensitive fibres, or of both. Such, then, being 
 the state of matters with this, as well as with other 
 parts of the nervous system, I ask. Is it rational to 
 expect, or is it fair to call upon the Phrenologist to 
 prove, that the brain must be an exception to the 
 ordinary rules of nature 1 If our consciousness does 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 189 
 
 not inform us as to the very existence and structure of 
 one portion of our nervous system, why are we to 
 demand of it to throw light upon every other ? We 
 are perfectly aware from our own experience that our 
 eyes are for seeing, our ears for hearing, and our nose 
 for smelling, and also that our heads are the special 
 seat of thought ; but still our consciousness has never 
 given us the slightest information concerning the 
 number, variety, nature, structure, shape, and position 
 of the different organs of which the eye, the ear, and 
 the nose are composed. It has not even told us of the 
 very existence of an optic, an auditory, and an olfactory 
 nerve. On what principle, then, are we to demand of 
 it to inform us about the number, variety, nature, 
 extent, and position of the organs of the brain ? For 
 aught that consciousness could tell, the brain, spinal 
 marrow, and all the nerves of the body might be made 
 of green cheese. It is no part of the province of con- 
 sciousness to throw light on these subjects. If our 
 opponents would only exercise the least possible por- 
 tion of common sense, they would see that information 
 on these points, in place of being obtained from con- 
 sciousness, must be gathered from the careful observa- 
 tion of facts. This is the true — the Phrenological — 
 method of philosophising. 
 
 Notwithstanding all Mr Drew, and others, have 
 written on the subject, I am strongly inchned to go 
 the whole length of saying, that the Scriptures give us 
 
190 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 the only evidence on which we can perfectly and satis- 
 factorily rely as to the existence, immateriality, and 
 immortality of the soul. On this point my mind has 
 never been fully convinced by the arguments which 
 have been drawn by learned men and elaborate writers, 
 from the light of nature alone. Fortunately, however, 
 we are not left in doubt, or to grope in darkness, on 
 such a momentous subject. The Scriptures abound 
 with the most distinct, indubitable, and irresistible 
 evidence on this vital question. They plainly and dis- 
 tinctly tell us that we have a soul ; and that it is 
 spiritual and immortal ; consequently, we can have no 
 ground whatever for rational hesitation concerning the 
 matter. What is left more or less dark when viewed 
 from the point of nature alone, is placed beyond all 
 doubt and difficulty in the light of the Inspired "Word. 
 Man has a mind which is spiritual and immortal. 
 
 But there are various points regarding the opera- 
 tions of the mind or soul, on which the Scriptures are 
 silent, and with which we have no means of becoming 
 acquainted, unless we study the mind in its manifesta- 
 tions through those corporeal organs with which, in 
 this state of existence, it has been connected. And 
 this assertion is not open, as many have supposed, to 
 the charge of materialism. To say the mind acts 
 through the brain is very different from saying that it 
 is a mere quality or property of the brain, in the same 
 way as contractility is a property of muscular fibre. 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 191 
 
 The mind can no more be a mere quality of the organ 
 through which it operates than the tenant of a house 
 can be a quahty of the house in which he resides. If 
 I denied the existence of spirit, and held with Dr 
 Elliotson, Dr Engledue, and Sir William Laurence, 
 that thought is an inherent property of the brain, in the 
 very same way as contractility is a property of muscular 
 fibre and secretion of a gland ; then, indeed, I would 
 be fully chargeable with materialism in its very lowest 
 form. I hold no such doctrine, however, but the very 
 reverse. I believe in the Scripture which tells us that 
 man may kill the body but cannot kill the soul. 
 Whereas, if the idea of cerebration, as Dr Engledue 
 has called it, were correct, the killing of the body 
 would be the killing of everything. In place of main- 
 taining that the brain itself thinks, I hold that the 
 brain is just the instrument, or material organ, through 
 which the mind acts in this life ; in short, that the 
 mind, in the process of thought, uses the different 
 organs of the brain in the very same way, and on the 
 very same principle, as it uses the nerves of the eye, 
 the ear, and the nose, in the act of seeing, hearing, and 
 smelling. If any man imagines he can make me out 
 a materialist from these principles, let him just try it. 
 Our eyes are specially organised for the purpose of 
 receiving the impression of external objects, and of 
 conveying that impression to the mind through the 
 instrumentality of the brain. They also serve to con- 
 
192 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 vey the mental impressions to external nature. They 
 are a channel, as it were, both for taking in and giving 
 out. " The glare, the stare, the sneer, the invitation, 
 the denial, the look of love, the flash of rage, the 
 sparkling of hope, the languishment of softness, the 
 squint of suspicion, the fire of jealousy, and the lustre 
 of pleasure, are all expressed through the eye." Still 
 the eye does not originate these. We must trace them 
 to a deeper source. If we destroy the connexion be- 
 tween the eye and the brain, it matters not how per- 
 fect the structure of the eye may remain, sight is 
 directly extinguished, and the eye has lost its lustre 
 and power of expression. This unquestionably proves 
 that the eye alone does not see. It is merely the 
 organ through which we see. It just receives the 
 image of the object we look at, and conveys it to the 
 brain, in order that the mind may take cognizance of 
 it. Now, does this doctrine, which has been acknow- 
 ledged for centuries by every person conversant with 
 the structure and functions of the eye, lead to 
 materialism, or is it ever suspected of doing so ? No. 
 Why, then, are we to be branded with infamy when 
 we apply the same mode of reasoning to the organs of 
 the brain '? The eye alone cannot see, it is the mind 
 which takes cognizance of the objects depicted on the 
 retina. The brain alone cannot think, it is the mind 
 which makes use of the impressions which are made 
 upon the organs of the brain. The destruction of the 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE OKGAN OF THE MIND ? 193 
 
 eye does not knock a corner out of the mind, and put 
 an end to its power of vision ; but it takes away the 
 only instrument through which it can manifest its 
 capabihty of seeing the external world during this life. 
 The destruction of the brain, so far as is compatible 
 with the continuance of life, does not extinguish the 
 mind, or reduce its capacity in any respect, but it puts 
 an end to the only instrument through which its 
 varied operations can be manifested on this side the 
 grave. Hence, I conclude that I am no more a 
 materialist than my opponents, if T study the mani- 
 festations of mind in connexion with any or all of those 
 material instruments composing the tabernacle from 
 which, in this world, it is never separated. 
 
 It must not be forgotten that it is no part of my in- 
 tention, in this work, to 'prove the existence, immate- 
 riality, and immortality of the soul. Phrenology 
 undertakes no such duty, because it does not lie within 
 its province. All that can possibly be required of it, 
 is to show that it is perfectly consistent with the truth 
 of all these other points. It is not called upon to 
 prove them, as that must be done from another source, 
 namely, from Scripture. Phrenology only requires to 
 demonstrate that, as far as these points are concerned, 
 Scripture and it are quite compatible. Besides, all my 
 opponents, whose opinions I value, agree with me in 
 believing, from Scripture, in the existence, immateri- 
 ality, and immortality of the soul. On these great and 
 
194 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 fundamental doctrines we are thoroughly one ; and 
 hence do not require to prove them to each other. 
 Neither do I think it necessary to touch upon the 
 distinctions which have sometimes been made between 
 the soul, mind, and spirit. So far as my doctrines 
 in Phrenology are concerned, it does not make the 
 slightest difference what views are held on this point. 
 Consequently, for the sake of simplicity and precision, 
 as well as because it is in accordance with my own 
 opinions, I shall use the words soul, mind, and spirit, 
 as perfectly synonymous terms to represent the one, 
 indivisible, thinking principle. 
 
 Now, assupaing the mind to be immaterial, which I 
 am fully persuaded it is, how can we conceive of its 
 being diseased, as in cases of madness ? To say that 
 it is subject to disease, in the common acceptation of 
 the term, is plainly and directly equivalent to an as- 
 sertion of its materiality. Hence, 1 unhesitatingly 
 fling back upon my opponents the charge of material- 
 ism, and make them responsible for all the conse- 
 quences of such a doctrine. I do not exactly mean to 
 say they are all materialists ; because I agree with the 
 great President Edwards in thinking "it would be un- 
 just, in many instances, to charge every author with 
 believing and maintaining all the real consequences 
 of his avowed doctrines." He may not be capable 
 of seeing the result of his own sentiments. On these 
 grounds, therefore, I will not say my opponents 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 195 
 
 are actually materialists ; but I do say they hold opinions 
 which, if carried to their legitimate extent, must inevit- 
 ably end in materialism. I now call upon them at 
 once to change their sentiments, or else I shall hold 
 them fairly and fully responsible for every result which 
 I can show to be the necessary and inevitable effect of 
 their opinions. This I am fully entitled to ; and I 
 heartily concede the same privilege to the other side. 
 
 What is disease ? It is nothing more or less than 
 a deranged state of the structure and functions of a 
 material organ ; and, consequently, if the mind can 
 become diseased, it must be material. But the ques- 
 tion which was once put to me by a minister, in the 
 presence of a public audience, will probably occur to 
 some of my readers — namely, What are we to make of 
 sin ? If so, I shall give the same reply I gave to him. 
 That sin is a disease affecting both soul and body, I 
 most readily admit, and am prepared to maintain ; but 
 that it is a disease of the same kind, nature, or class, 
 as insanity, epilepsy, tetanus, drunkenness, or delirium 
 tremens, I most positively deny. It does not bear the 
 most distant resemblance to them. It has nothing m 
 common with disease, as we usually understand the 
 term, except that it leads to death. Besides, we know 
 that disease has come upon man as a consequence of, 
 and punishment for, sin. How, then, could we imagine 
 the cause and effect to be the same thing ? It is a 
 common practice, when a person becomes deranged, to 
 
196 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 have recourse to leeches and cold lotions for the head ; 
 and under this system of management the patient 
 sometimes improves ; but I have never yet heard of 
 the same line of treatment being recommended for the 
 removal, or prevention, of sin. Moreover, it is univer- 
 sally admitted that the person who is really insane is 
 not responsible to either God or man for his actions. 
 As Dr Thomson, in his Lectures on Jurisprudence, 
 says, " No man who is of insane mind is an accountable 
 being." Will any man, however, venture to make the 
 same statement in regard to sin ? Will any person 
 assert that the sinner is not an accountable being, 
 either in this world or the next ? I rather think not. 
 
 Until very lately, I had imagined that most men 
 agreed with Lord Erskine in stating that "it is the 
 reason of man which makes him accountable for his 
 actions ; and the deprivation of reason acquits him of 
 crime." I find, however, from the London Medical 
 Times and Gazette, for 15th December 1860, that there 
 is one notable exception to this rule. In sentencing a 
 person who had committed arson, but who was proved 
 to be a lunatic, and whose counsel did not plead lunacy 
 for fear of confining him to an asylam for life, the 
 presiding judge, Baron Bramwell, said, " That you are 
 of unsound mind, I believe, but that is no reason why 
 you should not be punished. ... I feel bound to sen- 
 tence you to the same punishment as if you were sane." 
 He then sentenced the unfortunate lunatic to penal 
 
IS THE BEAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 197 
 
 servitude for life ! ! I am certain no person can think 
 of this fact without feeling something worse than mere 
 contempt for such a judge. His statement is an out- 
 rage upon common sense, and a disgrace to the bench. 
 Instead of supposing that the immaterial and im- 
 mortal soul is capable of such a change as disease, we 
 should at once come to the rational principle of be- 
 lieving that the brain, having become diseased, is unfit 
 for the healthy manifestations of the mind, and that 
 the mind, thus acting through an unsound organ, will 
 have the appearance of being diseased, and receive 
 erroneous impressions from without, in the same way 
 as a jaundiced eye will give us false impressions of the 
 objects which surround us. The idea of the mind 
 itself being actually diseased conveys such a low and 
 grovelling view of spirit that I am surprised any 
 person, who is not an openly avowed materialist, 
 could for a moment entertain the supposition. Un- 
 fortunately, however, the opinion is but too generally 
 maintained. Even Dr Bostock, who is a learned 
 Physiologist, but not a Phrenologist, asserts, that " in 
 insanity the disease of the mind is frequently inde- 
 pendent of, or antecedent to, that of the brain." — 
 (^Physiology ^ 3d edition, p. 750.) How such an opinion 
 could be reconciled with the spirituality of mind is 
 entirely beyond my comprehension. To hold such an 
 idea is specially inconsistent in a man who believes 
 in the immateriality of mind. It directly involves 
 
198 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 materialism. If tlie mind can be diseased, it must be 
 material and mortal. " A.s in diseases of the body,'^ 
 says Dr West, '' so in affections of the mind in early 
 life, the power of repair furnishes us with a constant 
 ground for hopefulness. . . . The arrest of develop- 
 ment, or the positive retrocession of the mental 
 faculties in childhood, may be regarded almost invari- 
 ably as of far less serious import than any m^anifest 
 perversion of the moral powers. . . . Apart from those 
 instances, almost exclusively congenital, in which ar- 
 rested development of mind is associated with arrested 
 development of body, where the feeble and misshapen 
 frame forms a fit tenement for the feeble and un- 
 formed spirit," &c.— (Dr West's Lectures in the Medical 
 Times and Gazette^ February 11th, 1860.) It is here 
 distinctly stated, not only that the mind may be 
 affected with disease, but also that it possesses, in 
 some cases, a power of repair ; that there may be an 
 arrest of development in the mental faculties ; and 
 that the spirit may be feeble and unformed ! Could 
 any language be used which would more certainly end 
 in materialism than this ? I rather think not. " But 
 where the body does not suffer," observes Sir Benjamin 
 Brodie, in his Psychological Inquiries, p. 8-11, "the 
 mind often does. . . . Mental relaxation after severe 
 mental exertion is not less agreeable than bodily re- 
 pose after bodily labour." To say the least of it, such 
 remarks are open to great suspicion, and plainly show 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND? 199 
 
 that the celebrated author had not made himself 
 acquainted with the true philosophy of mind. We 
 cannot imagine the possibility of a spirit getting 
 fatigued ; consequently, if the mind suffers from work 
 and requires repose, it must be material. The Phren- 
 ologist says the brain requires repose, the mind never. 
 '' The morbid conditions," says Dr Clendinning, " ex- 
 isting in this patient were partly and primarily moral, 
 and partly and secondarily physical. To 'the mind 
 diseased ' we can minister directly in no way. With 
 respect to the moral portion of mental alleviation, we 
 have therefore to wait on time and circumstances, with- 
 out active interference with the spontaneous efforts 
 of nature. The physical part of the complaint, how- 
 ever, requires close attention, and sometimes calls for 
 vigorous remedies." — [Medical Gazette, December 17th, 
 1841.) From this extract, there can be no doubt Dr 
 Clendinning believes the mind itself is subject to 
 disease. After arguing in his Lectures on Jurisprudence 
 in favour of the immateriality of mind, Dr Anthony 
 Todd Thomson remarks, ^^We shall be led to admit 
 that two species of insanity may exist, or at least differ 
 in their origin ; one a malady purely of the mind, the 
 other a malady originating in the material organs, the 
 brain, and nervous system." — (Ryan^s Journal, vol. vii. 
 p. 162.) Is it not surpassing strange to find a man of 
 Dr Thomson's ability, at the very time he is advo- 
 cating immateriality, laying down the principle that 
 
200 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 the mind itself can be diseased? Surely he might 
 have seen that the mind, if it be subject to disease, 
 must be in its own nature material and mortal. When 
 a man, like Dr Bostock or Dr Thomson, sticks by the 
 old, or metaphysical, theory, and refuses to adopt the 
 new philosophy, he must of necessity get into diffi- 
 culty, as he has no means whatever of explaining the 
 phenomena of insanity unless he makes the mind 
 diseased. For the sake of consistency, however, he 
 should go the whole length to which his opinions in- 
 evitably lead, and avow materialism. This would be 
 the manly course. " Metaphysical studies," writes 
 Forbes Winslow, "have fallen, during the course of 
 the last century, into general disuse. . . . The object 
 of this paper is to endeavour to draw the attention 
 of the medical philosopher to the study of the human 
 mind, in order that some useful application of the 
 knowledge of its idiosyncrasies, its various diseases^ 
 and the effects of its powers on the bodily frame, may 
 be made to the purposes of his profession." — {Ryaii^s 
 Journal^ vol. i. p. 430.) Disease of the mind itself is 
 here distinctly recognised. 
 
 " Look at that intellect," says Dr Benson, in his 
 Clinical Lecture, "once so powerful, once able to 
 number the stars and call them by their names— to 
 weigh the planets and measure their distances — look 
 at it now in ruins ! " No, Dr Benson, if by intellect 
 you mean the mind, I will never look upon it in ruins. 
 
TS THE BRAIN THK ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 201 
 
 This is a proposition to which I cannot assent, even 
 though the maniac should roar, and the loud laugh of 
 fatuity should thrill awfully in my ears. The brain 
 may be in ruins, the mind cannot. If it were possible 
 for the mind to come into this condition, the inevitable 
 conclusion which every man must of necessity arrive 
 at, is, that it dies with the body, and descends into 
 the grave to lie in rottenness and corruption. 
 
 The effects of cerebral excitement are well displayed 
 in those who use intoxicating liquors. A small quan- 
 tity will give a moderate stimulus, and render the 
 person capable of considerable exertion in thinking 
 or acting ; an increase of dose wdll increase the ex- 
 citement, and the disposition to activity will become 
 greater ; and a still larger quantity will overdo the 
 powers of nature so far as to exhaust its energies, and 
 cause the individual to fall into a dull, listless, and 
 stupid condition. The man is thoroughly drunk. Now, 
 whether is it the mind or the brain is affected here ? 
 Would it not be worse than preposterous to suppose 
 the mind could get drunk ? If any person should ob- 
 ject to my illustration from the effects of drink, because 
 it is an artificial stimulus, I will take my stand upon 
 the effects of a supply of blood, w^hich is the natural 
 stimulus, to the brain. In moderate portions, it com- 
 municates health and vigour to the brain ; but in too 
 large quantities it causes stupor and death. Now, 
 where is the man who could exercise his mind, in a 
 
202 PHKENOLOGY. 
 
 fit of apoplexy, when the brain is gorged with blood, 
 or in a fit of fainting, when it is deprived of blood ? 
 Is it the mind or the brain is affected here ? Can the 
 mind become apoplectic or faint ? 
 
 If the questions I am discussing involved nothing 
 but theory, I would not think them worth dwelling on ; 
 but if practice is to be built upon principles, they are 
 matters of weighty aud momentous importance. If 
 we adopt correct notions regarding the connexion be- 
 tween the mind and the brain, we will be fully alive 
 to the necessity of attending to the condition of the 
 brain during what is called mental exertion ; whereas 
 if our ideas on the matter are erroneous, our practice 
 must be equally far astray. Were the mind alone 
 engaged in the operation of thought, no injury could 
 possibly accrue from overwork, because it is a spirit, and 
 consequently could not be fatigued or injured by any 
 amount of exertion. The case, ho we ver, is far otherwise. 
 Let Lord Jeffrey and his disciples say what they like, 
 I feel certain the brain is engaged in every thought 
 which occupies the mind ; and consequently that our ma- 
 terial organisation is sure to suffer by too much study. 
 
 " Excess of mental labour," says a newspaper editor, 
 when mentioning Dr Southey's death, " in every de- 
 partment of literature — poetry, history, biography, 
 criticism, and philosophy, continued from year to year, 
 without cessation — bowed his strong spirit at last, and 
 obscured the genius which had so long cast a glory 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ] 203 
 
 upon the literature of the age. For the last three 
 years, he had been in a state of mental darkness, and 
 a twelvemonth ago he was not able to recognise those 
 who had been his companions from youth. Scarcely 
 could his wife console herself with the poor hope that 
 he recognised even her." Such a case speaks volumes, 
 and should be a solemn warning to those who are in 
 the constant habit of indulging in too close study. 
 But, above all, what are we to think of it, when we 
 find that this man's powers of mind, as they are com- 
 monly called, at one time so gigantic, were, in his latter 
 days, reduced to such a degree that he appeared to have 
 no mind at all ? In fact, that, in this respect, he was 
 reduced beneath the level of the horse and the dog, who 
 know their master and friend. Are we to apply the 
 metaphysical, or the phrenological theory to the explana- 
 tion of this case ? Which of them will enable us to steer 
 clear of materialism ? Did the mind, that noble attri- 
 bute of man, dwindle away almost to nothing, as here 
 , represented, or was it the brain that became diseased 
 and debilitated from overwork ? Surely the man who 
 can believe the mind capable of such a change must 
 have a low and grovelling view of spirit. Away with 
 such a thought, as it is fraught with awful conse- 
 quences, and must inevitably lead to the supposition 
 that the soul of man dies with his body, and lies dor- 
 mant in the grave. " If the mind," says Dr Brigham 
 of America, " could be deranged, independently of 
 
204 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 bodily disease, such a possibility would tend to destroy 
 the hope of its immortality which we gain from reason ;■ 
 for that which is capable of disease and decay may die." 
 If Dr Southey's mind could dwindle down after such a 
 manner, the next and most natural stage would be its 
 death. It is just as capable of the one change as the 
 other. I verily believe, however, with the Phrenolo- 
 gists, that his mind was as perfect as at any other 
 period of his life ; and that the only defect was in the 
 brain, which had become so far changed, from over- 
 work, as to be altogether inadequate for the proper 
 manifestations of its noble occupant. Should any of 
 my metaphysical opponents happen to have an aged 
 father who has returned to a stage of childhood, and 
 whose mind appears to be as weak and exhausted as 
 the tottering limbs which carry him to the very verge 
 of the grave,— whose memory has become so trea- 
 cherous that it cannot be depended on to recall the 
 occurrences of the previous hour, — whose powers of 
 thought and of reason are now almost entirely extin- 
 guished, — and whose conversation is nothing more 
 than a senseless prattle, — I ask them what comfort 
 they can take from supposing that this state of mat- 
 ters results from the condition of the mind and not of 
 the brain ? How can they possibly rid themselves of 
 the idea, that, if the Phrenologist be astray in his 
 views, the mind and the body fall together, and sink 
 down into everlastinor oblivion ? 
 
IS THE BEAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 205 
 
 We may form some idea of the evils resulting from 
 too close, severe, and iong-protr acted study, or sudden 
 over-excitement, from the following cases. They show 
 very plainly that mental action is accompanied with an 
 increased determination of blood to the brain. In his 
 Lectures on Surgery, Sir Astley Cooper says, '^ A boy 
 ^vas brought to me from the north of England who had 
 lost a portion of his skull just above the eyebrow. . . . 
 On examining the brain, I distinctly perceived the 
 pulsation was regular and slow ; but at this time he 
 was agitated by some means or other ; directly the 
 blood was sent with increased force to the brain, and 
 the pulsation became more violent." A still more ex- 
 traordinary case than Sir Astley Cooper's occurred in 
 the practice of Dr Pierquin of Montpelier. " A female, 
 aged twenty-six, lost a large portion of her scalp, skull- 
 bone, and dura mater. A corresponding portion of her 
 brain was consequently bare, and subject to inspection. 
 When she was in a dreamless sleep, her brain was mo- 
 tionless, and lay within the cranium. When her sleep 
 was imperfect and she was agitated by dreams, her brain 
 moved and protruded without the cranium, forming 
 cerebral hernia. In vivid dreams, reported as such by 
 herself, the protrusion was considerable ; and when she 
 was perfectly awake, especially if engaged in active 
 thought or sprightly conversation, it was still greater." 
 — {Dr Andrew Combe.) We are informed by M. Broussais 
 that Captain Thavernier " received in the middle of 
 
206 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 the Palais Royal, in May 1815, ninety days before his 
 death, a letter containing bad news. Whilst perusing 
 it, he remained motionless as if thunderstruck, and 
 the left side of his face became paralysed, and drawn 
 to the opposite side. He was taken to Val de Gr^ce, 
 and attended to. . . . After using various remedies for 
 more than two months, he began to improve, and be- 
 came so much better as to be able to stand up, and to 
 speak, although with difficulty. In this state of im- 
 provement M. Thavernier received another letter, said 
 to be from his wife ; he read it, and instantly there 
 occurred loss of speech, general immobility, abolition 
 of sense, and complete apoplexy. He died in three 
 days after this attack, and, on examining the head, 
 there was found engorgement of blood in the sinuses, 
 &c. of the brain." — {Dr Brigkam) " It is well known," 
 says Professor Caldwell of America, " that, while in- 
 tensely engaged in a memorable debate, last winter in 
 Washington, a distinguished senator became so giddy, 
 by the inordinate rushing of blood into the brain, that 
 he was obliged to sit down ; and the Senate adjourned 
 to give him. time to recover. And, more recently, a 
 new member of the House of Representatives fell while 
 speaking, and suddenly expired from the same cause. 
 A member of the law class of Transylvania, moreover, 
 experienced, a few weeks ago, a convulsive affection 
 from a congestion of blood in the head, induced by 
 excessive excitement of the brain in the ardour of 
 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 207 
 
 debate." Pinel mentions the case of a young man, 
 "distinguished for his talents and his profound know- 
 ledge of chemistry, who was occupied with a dis- 
 covery which he hoped would lead him to fortune 
 and distinction. To effect it the sooner, he resolved 
 to shut himself up in his laboratory for several suc- 
 cessive days ; and, the better to banish sleep and to 
 raise himself to the level of his labours, he prepared a 
 variety of stimulants. A singing girl shared his re- 
 treat, he drank spirits, smelled frequently odoriferous 
 substances, and sprinkled the room with Eau de 
 Cologne. At the end of eight days, the most furious 
 delirium took place, followed by a regular attack of 
 mania." — (Br A. Combe,) Mr Philip Dixon Hardy, in 
 the Appendix to his Philosophy of Christianity.^ details 
 the case of a German philosopher, Mr Herman Goltz, 
 who, after spending a number of years in the closest 
 application to study for the purpose of discovering the 
 functions of the brain, hanged himself in his dissecting 
 room. " For more than twenty years,'^ says Goltz, " I 
 have pursued a phantom, an ignis fatuus^ that has de- 
 coyed me into misery and ruin. My vision has become 
 so dim that I cannot longer distinguish the objects of 
 my research — my hand is too tremulous to hold the 
 scalpel. Confined in this charnel-house, I have been 
 estranged from nature's fair and inviting prospects — I 
 have cultivated no man's friendship, nor sought for the 
 affection of women. I have, indeed, read of the charms 
 
208 PHEEisroLorxY. 
 
 of society, the exhilarations of wine, the delights of a 
 domestic partner, and the blessedness of children ; but 
 I have been a solitary student ; water has been my 
 only beverage ; no female can approach me with attach- 
 ment, nor can child curse me for its existence. To live 
 longer is useless, — the past has been misemployed, the 
 present is wearisome, and I will anticipate the future.'^ 
 
 The cases I have quoted are very important, and 
 they should impress us strongly with the necessity 
 there is of guarding against what is called sudden and 
 overpowering mental excitement, or too great and long 
 continued mental exertion. If the mind alone were 
 concerned, no injury could arise, because of its spir- 
 itual nature ; but these examples plainly prove that 
 the brain is directly acted upon, and is nearly certain 
 to suflPer to a dangerous extent by the so-called mental 
 shocks and long-continued mental exercise. " Men of 
 exalted intellect," says Pinel, " perish by their brains : 
 and such is the noble end of those whose genius pro- 
 cures for them that immortality which so many ar- 
 dently desire." — {Dr A. Combe.) ^'In the production 
 of insanity," says Esquirol, ^Hhe brain is over-excited 
 and goes beyond its physiological powers." — (Quetelet 
 on Man.) 
 
 That the brain, in some instances, retains a consider- 
 able amount of power under general bodily failure, or 
 to a good old age, is proved by the example of Sophocles, 
 Voltaire, Burke, Newton, Lyndhurst, Brougham, Hall, 
 
IS THE BEAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 209 
 
 Burnet, and many others ; but we are not, by any 
 means, warranted from this in supposing that the 
 brain retains its full and 'perfect vigour to the last 
 moment of our existence in any case. In regard to 
 those who have just passed from this sublunary scene, 
 it is often remarked they retained all their mental 
 faculties in full force and power to the very last. I 
 imagine, however, this is a mistake ; and I am certain 
 the parties who make the observation hardly believe it 
 themselves. If they had an estate of ten thousand a 
 year depending upon the solution of an intricate law 
 point, which involved the construction of several acts 
 of Parliament, they would not leave it to be determined 
 by the opinion, at the last moment, of a dying lawyer, 
 even though he was the greatest man that ever lived, 
 unless, indeed, he had previously studied the subject, 
 and knew it as well as the English alphabet. In ar- 
 gument, people often talk flippantly about what they 
 hardly beheve ; but when it comes to be tried by a 
 money value, they generally arrive at common sense. 
 ** We have heard a great deal," says Dr James Johnson, 
 in his Economy of Healthy " of those brilliant scintilla- 
 tions of intellect that sometimes cast a dazzling lustre 
 round the dying bed. Eloquent orations on this topic 
 have been addressed to audiences more disposed to 
 swallow the marvellous than investigate the probable 1 
 The whole is, in my opinion, an innocent romance, cal- 
 culated to gratify the f eeUngs — perhaps flatter the pride 
 
210 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 — of the living by throwing a halo around the couch of 
 the dead. . . . Few have had the melancholy task of 
 witnessing more deathbed scenes than myself, whether 
 amid the storms and havoc of war, or in the quiet walks 
 of peace. But no such corruscations of the mind have 
 I ever beheld when the immortal spark was deserting 
 its uninhabitable tenement.'^ In those diseases which 
 are not necessarily connected with alterations in the 
 state of the brain, all the mental operations may be 
 manifested to the last ; but most certainly not in the 
 same amount of continuous vigour as in health. Ee- 
 garding Hogarth, Allan Cunningham says, " Towards 
 the last^ his understanding continued clear, he had 
 full possession of his mental faculties, but wanted the 
 vigour to exert them.^' A man, at the point of death, 
 is no more capable of reasoning, for a length of time, 
 on a deep and intricate subject, provided it is entirely 
 new to him, than he would be of fighting a battle. He 
 might wield his sword in the usual manner, but he 
 certainly could not bring it down on the head of his 
 adversary with the same amount of force, nor yet re- 
 peat the stroke for the same length of time, as in 
 health. So is it with the brain. It may allow a man 
 to reason in the usual way, on a point on which he is 
 well trained ; its vivacity might even become exalted for 
 the time being by the excitement of -pddn or the realities 
 of approaching death ; but its strength and vigour, in 
 place of holding out as in health, would certainly fail. 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN? 211 
 
 IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN 1 
 
 Having established that the brain is the organ 
 through which the mind operates, the next question 
 which presents itself for our consideration is this : — 
 Does the mind, in every act, employ the whole brain 
 as a single organ ; or is the brain composed of an 
 assemblage of parts possessing entirely distinct func- 
 tions, but connected together in such a way that the 
 mind can employ them either singly or conjointly ? 
 
 " When the brain is fully developed," says Dr Car- 
 penter, " it offers innumerable diversities of form and 
 size among various individuals ; and there are as many 
 diversities of character. It may be doubted if two 
 individuals were ever exactly alike in this respect. 
 . . . That the different portions of the cerebrum have 
 different functions in the complex operations of thought, 
 must, I think, be admitted to be by no means an im- 
 probable speculation ;'' but, notwithstanding all this,Dr 
 Carpenter is not a Phrenologist. — (Lectures in Medical 
 Gazette, Sept. 1841.) "According to the researches of some 
 celebrated French pathologists," observes Dr Stokes, 
 "there are a number of facts to show that there is a re- 
 markable difference between the symptoms of arachnitis 
 of the convexity and of the base of the brain. This con- 
 clusion, which after a most careful series of investiga- 
 tions was adopted by them, is borne out by the results 
 
212 PHRENOLOGY* 
 
 of my experience, and appears to me to be established 
 on the basis of truth. They have discovered that 
 arachnitis of the convexity of the brain is a disease 
 characterised by prominent and violent symptoms, 
 early and marked delirium, intense pain, watchfulness, 
 and irritability. But in arachnitis of the base of the 
 brain, the symptoms are of a more latent and insidious 
 character, there is some pain, and the coma is profound, 
 but there is often no delirium. What an important 
 fact for the supporters of Phrenology is this ! Here 
 we find the remarkable fact, that inflammation of the 
 arachnoid investing the base of the brain, to which 
 Phrenologists attach comparatively no importance, is 
 commonly unattended with any lesion of the intel- 
 lectual powers, while the same inflammation on the 
 convexity is almost constantly accompanied by symp- 
 toms of distinct mental alienation." — {By art's Journal, 
 vol. V. p. 646.) These facts distinctly prove that the 
 surface of the convexity and the surface of the base of 
 the brain do not perform the same functions, and con- 
 sequently that the brain is a compound organ. If it 
 were a single organ, inflammation of the investing 
 membrane and surface at one part would exhibit the 
 very same mental aberrations as at every other part. 
 All would then be alike. Seeing that disease on the 
 top is accompanied with difl'erent symptoms from that 
 on the base, the brain cannot possibly be a unit. It 
 must be compound. 
 
IS THE BUAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN 1 213 
 
 If the brain were a single organ, there would be no 
 necessity for the extreme care which is at present ex- 
 ercised by the physiological experimenters in isolating 
 the different parts upon which their observations are 
 made. The experiments of Haller, Zinn, and Lorrj^ 
 would be quite as trustworthy as those of Flourens, 
 Magendie, and Bernard. The same results would 
 follow them all, and a dozen would be as good as a 
 million. So far, however, is this from being the case, 
 that there are scarcely two observers agreed as to the 
 effects produced by their operations; and this diversity 
 arises from the great difficulty — the absolute impossi- 
 bility — of isolating the different portions of the brain. 
 Hence it is evident the organ is compound. 
 
 In relation to the supposed unity of the cerebrum 
 and cerebellum. Portal asks, "Are not both of them 
 provided with cortical substance and medullary sub- 
 stance ? Are they not traversed and nourished by the 
 same vessels'?" — {Gall.) "The cerebral parts," says 
 Eudolphi, " are not sufficiently dissimilar to allow them 
 to be considered as distinct organs. They are all formed 
 of the same substance ; and all, even those situated in 
 the interior of the brain, are intimately united.^' — 
 {Gall.) Berard and De Montegre inquire, ^^Is it, how- 
 ever, well ascertained that the brain is really composed 
 of independent parts ? ... If the brain be attentively 
 studied, and if we apply to it the simple and luminous 
 ideas for which we are indebted to our great pbysiolo- 
 
214 phrenology; 
 
 gists, we shall soon be convinced that these parts are 
 not distinct and separate organs. . . . The brain is 
 characterised everywhere by unity ; no marked divi- 
 sion can be observed ; this anatomical disposition 
 X^roves the impossibility of placing in it distinct or- 
 gans." — {GalL) The absurdity and perfect childishness 
 of the above remarks from learned professors can be 
 demonstrated by reference to one single anatomical 
 and physiological fact. The whole stress of Portal's, 
 Eudolphi's, Berard^s, and De Montegre's argument lies 
 in the apparent similarity of structure of the different 
 parts of the brain. The parts, say they, are so like in 
 their anatomical arrangements that they cannot be 
 separate organs. Now let us see how this line of 
 argument will apply in the case of the voluntary 
 nerves. Take, for example, one of the nerves of the 
 arm. It is a small, white-looking cord, and the most 
 powerful microscope in the world could not reveal the 
 slightest difference in the appearance and construction 
 of its fibres. It is alike in all its parts. Consequently, 
 if the arguments adduced above regarding the brain 
 have the least weight, the nerve of the arm must of 
 necessity be a single organ, performing a single func- 
 tion. So far, however, is this from being the case, 
 that pathological observations, and the physiological 
 experiments of Sir Charles Bell, Magendie, Marshall 
 Hall, Bernard, and others, have demonstrated to the 
 entire satisfaction of the medical world, that this 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN? 21-5 
 
 simple-looking nerve is a double organ, performing a 
 double function : in short, that its fibres, which to 
 the eye appear identical, which are contained in the 
 same sheath, and which cannot be separated by the 
 finest process of dissection, are in reality so different 
 in their nature, that one half of them is for sensation 
 and the other half for motion. They are as distinct 
 in their functions as two parts can well be. It is owing 
 to this arrangement that we can understand paralysis 
 of the arm. If all the fibres of the nerve are aff'ected, 
 sensation and motion are both lost ; but if the fibres 
 for sensation only are diseased, the power of feeling 
 will be lost whilst the power of motion remains, and 
 vice versa. Medical men have frequent opportunities 
 of seeing cases to illustrate all these forms of paralysis. 
 In his Lectures on the Nervous System, Sir Charles 
 Bell gives an interesting case where the loss of sensa- 
 tion in the arm was compensated for by the use of the 
 eye. A woman, who was a mother, lost the power of 
 sensation whilst she retained the power of motion in 
 the arm. So long as she looked to what she was doing, 
 she could carry her child, but if she took away her eye, 
 the child would immediately drop from her grasp, as 
 the loss of sensation in the arm prevented her from 
 feeling what she was about. I have read of a similar 
 example in the case of a female waiter, who, so long as 
 she kept her eye to the hand, could carry her tray with 
 perfect accuracy, but the moment her eye was drawn 
 
216 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 off, the tray dropped to the ground, and the contents 
 were destroyed. — {Dr Yelloley,) 
 
 It is a great mistake to imagine that the apparent 
 anatomical structure of the brain should be an infal- 
 lible guide to its physiological action. Such a rule 
 would hardly hold good in regard to any organ in the 
 body. Why then should Portal, Eudolphi, Berard, 
 and De Montegre expect us to prove from its anatomi- 
 cal appearance alone, that the brain is composed of 
 various parts performing distinct functions 1 Such an 
 expectation is quite unreasonable. As Dr Spurzheim 
 has well said, the structure of a part must be in accord- 
 ance with its function ; but it does not follow from this 
 that it invariably reveals its function. Who, he asks, 
 could tell, from dissection, that the stomach secretes 
 gastric juice, the liver bile, and the kidneys urine ? 
 No one. Who could tell by dissection that one half of 
 a voluntary nerve was for sensation and the other half 
 for motion ? No one. And yet Prochaska (Carpenter's 
 Lectures in the Medical Gazette^ June 1841, p. 462,) and 
 Spurzheim, {Anatomy of Brain^ Boston edit., p. 44,) 
 from the observation of facts alone, taught the dis- 
 tinction between the sensitive and motor fibres long 
 before ever Sir Charles Bell thought of experimenting 
 on their roots. Who could tell by their appearance 
 that the optic, the auditory, the olfactory, and the 
 gustatory nerves differed so far in their functions, that 
 they served respectively for seeing, hearing, smelling, 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN] 217 
 
 and tasting 1 No one. Why then should any man be 
 so unreasonable as to expect the complex organs of the 
 brain to have their functions all unravelled by the use 
 of the scalpel ? 
 
 " If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature," 
 says the author of Sandford and Merton, "it is an 
 American patriot signing resolutions of independence 
 with the one hand^ and with the other brandishing a 
 whip over his affrighted slaves." So say I with all 
 my heart, and every man who wishes to acknowledge 
 truth must coincide with the sentiment expressed. 
 But still the position of the American is not one whit 
 more ridiculous than that of the Physiologist who 
 opposes the Phrenologist regarding the compound 
 nature of the brain ; because his opposition on this 
 point is at direct variance with his own acknowledged 
 principles respecting the functions of those portions 
 of the brain into which the nerves of the senses are 
 inserted. The Anatomists and Physiologists have 
 taken extreme pains in tracing, to different parts of 
 the brain, the origin or termination, whichever they 
 may choose to call it, of those nerves which serve for 
 seeing, hearing, tasting, and smelling. Now, as these 
 nerves all terminate in different parts of the brain, and 
 as each of them performs a function entirely different 
 from its neighbour, and as their duties are never found 
 to be interchangeable, it surely must be as plain as 
 the light of heaven, that the spot with which "any 
 
218 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 one of them is connected must have a function pecu- 
 liar to itself, and consequently that the brain into 
 which they are all inserted must be a compound organ. 
 This is undeniable. If one spot in the brain be spe- 
 cially connected with seeing, another with hearing, and 
 a third with smelling, and the part which is for seeing 
 cannot answer for smelling, nor the part which is for 
 smelling take the place of that which is for seeing, it 
 surely requires no further proof to establish, even on 
 the avowed principles of my opponents, that the brain 
 must be composed of a number of distinct organs per- 
 forming distinct and separate functions. 
 
 On the supposition of the brain being a single organ, 
 and consequently that every part of it is engaged in 
 each mental manifestation, how would it be possible 
 to account for monomania, or in other words, for a 
 case of derangement in reference to a single subject, 
 whilst the person is perfectly sane in regard to every 
 other point? In defending Hatfield, Lord Erskine 
 mentioned an interesting case of this description in 
 which he was concerned. His lordship had spent 
 a considerable time in a fruitless effort to convince 
 the judge and jury of the insanity of a gentleman 
 who maintained his perfect sanity, and brought an 
 action against his brother for confining him in a lunatic 
 asylum. He answered all Lord Erskine's questions, on 
 different subjects, with such perfect accuracy, that all 
 who were present in court considered he was the sub- 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN? 219 
 
 ject of wanton cruelty and oppression, until at last his 
 lordship found out the weak point, and asked if he 
 was Jesus Christ. He immediately replied, "I am the 
 Christ/' This of course settled the question ; he was 
 a monomaniac. Whatever difficulty monomania may 
 present to the Metaphysician, to the Phrenologist it 
 has none. It can be explained most satisfactorily on 
 the supposition that the disease is exclusively in the 
 brain, and that the brain, in place of being a single 
 organ, is composed of a number of organs, and that 
 each of these organs performs a different function. 
 One organ is the seat of disease, whilst all the rest are 
 in their normal or healthy condition. When the mind 
 acts through the sound organs, it manifests healthy 
 functions ; but when it operates through the diseased 
 organ, there is an aberration of thought upon the point 
 to which that organ has reference, on the very same 
 principle as everything looks yellow when viewed 
 through a jaundiced eye. When the eye is jaundiced, 
 there is an imperfection in vision ; but still the mind 
 itself is not touched ; nor is it in any way incapacitated 
 for receiving correct impressions through the ear, the 
 nose, and the palate, which are healthy. On these 
 principles monomania is simple and intelhgible. If 
 the brain were single, and not compound, there could 
 not possibly be such a thing as derangement on one 
 subject, unless the disease was in the mind itself, and 
 then we would be completely shut up to materialism. 
 
220 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 " Who can affirm/' says Professor Kudolphi, " that 
 the mind has need of different cerebral parts ? Per- 
 haps a larger brain, being a more powerful apparatus, 
 is sufficient for it." — (Gall.) I can not only affirm this, 
 Professor Eudolphi, but I can also affirm, that you do 
 not believe in your own statement, unless when you 
 are making an effi)rt to overthrow Phrenology. Let us 
 take the example of the senses. Do you, or does any 
 man, believe, that the mind has no need of a compound 
 brain as far as they are concerned 1 Do you, or does 
 any man, believe, that an increase in the absolute size 
 of the brain, because of its thus becoming a " more 
 powerful apparatus," would enable the mind to hear 
 through the points of the fingers, to see through the 
 nose, to smell through the eyes, and to taste through 
 the ears] Do you, or does any man, believe, that a 
 whale, in whom the brain is absolutely larger than in 
 man, would have become one of our greatest philoso- 
 phers if the mind of Newton had been located in its 
 brain ? I am sure you are not such a thorough 
 simpleton as to believe any of these things ; and if so, 
 I would like to know on what grounds you could 
 imagine, that a single and perfectly homogeneous brain 
 could manifest such opposite and different things as 
 honesty and theft, cruelty and benevolence, reasoning 
 power and idiocy, sanity on one point and insanity on 
 another ; in short, that the very same spot would suit 
 for the affections, the passions, the moral feelings, the 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 221 
 
 observing and the reasoning faculties. No man who is 
 two degrees above idiocy could really believe such a 
 thing, if he would only allow himself to reflect fairly 
 on the matter. 
 
 If the mind be simple and the brain compound, the 
 organs of the brain then become the windows through 
 which the mind can survey the external world, as well 
 as receive the impressions from without. An old author 
 has well observed regarding the mind and the five 
 senses, that, " whilst it remains in the brain, it can, 
 as it were, look out at a few apertures ; that is, receive 
 the notices of many things by those nerves and organs 
 which are the instruments of sensation ; but if any of 
 those avenues to it be stopped, that branch of its 
 knowledge is for a time cut off." — {The Religion of 
 Nature Delineated^ Glasgow, 1746.) The same mode 
 of reasoning may be applied and extended to every 
 organ of the brain through which the mind acts. A 
 single mind acting through a compound brain might 
 be fairly compared to a man sitting in the middle of 
 a room, and looking out through a window composed 
 of a number of panes of glass. If all the panes are 
 transparent, the person in the room will see the objects 
 outside in a continuous and uninterrupted form ; but 
 if some of the panes are darkened, the scene outside 
 will appear to the individual in the room to be inter- 
 rupted in a corresponding degree. Nevertheless, if 
 the entire window were built up, it would not in the 
 
222 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 slightest degree affect the existence and capacity of the 
 man in the room. It would only just deprive him of 
 the avenues of communication which connected him 
 with the external scene. So is it with the mind and 
 the brain. The mind is simple, the brain is compound ; 
 and every organ of the brain which becomes diseased 
 prevents the healthy manifestation of the mind through 
 that particular portion ; but yet if the entire brain 
 were diseased, it could not affect the mind in any 
 other way than by stopping up the channels through 
 which it was accustomed to give out its mandates 
 and take in its information. The disease of the brain 
 will neither divide, dissolve, nor annihilate the mind. 
 As the old writer I have already quoted from says, " If 
 the soul is immaterial, it is indiscerptible, and therefore 
 incapable of being dissolved or demolished, as bodies are. 
 Such a being can only perish by annihilation, that is, it 
 will continue to subsist and live, if some other being, able 
 to do this, doth not by a particular act annihilate it." 
 
 Perhaps some of my readers may be disposed to 
 question the existence of a case of monomania, 
 although it is recognised by the whole medical pro- 
 fession. If they do so, however, it will serve no 
 purpose, as it will not clear them of the difficulty of 
 their position, because examples of partial insanity 
 are innumerable, whilst the history of the world, per- 
 haps, could not produce one instance of complete in- 
 sanity. When in Edinburgh in the year 1850, I asked 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN '? 223 
 
 Mr George Combe if, in his extensive experience, and 
 in his travels over different parts of the world, he had 
 ever met with a case of complete insanity, that is to 
 say, derangement of every faculty without any excep- 
 tion. He said the thought had not previously struck 
 him ; but in turning it over in his mind at the moment 
 he could not remember a single example. He had seen 
 one case in America which was more general than any 
 other he knew of, but still it was not universal. I 
 believe the nearest approach we have to complete in- 
 sanity will be found in an aggravated case of delirium 
 tremens. Even here, however, it is not complete. No 
 matter how many other points the patient may be 
 astray on, he will not mistake the glass of whisky, if 
 it be brought within his reach. He also recognises 
 his relatives and friends. The maddest man I ever 
 saw, or read of, had still some points on which he was 
 sane ; and a single sound corner of his mind, if the 
 disease be in the mind, will answer the purpose of my 
 argument as well as if the half of it were sound. The 
 slightest portion of the mind being sound, whilst the 
 remainder is diseased, makes it divisible, and conse- 
 quently material. 
 
 Pinel relates the case of a man who had an irresist- 
 ible propensity to kill his wife, whom he dearly loved, 
 at the very time he was warning her to fly out of his 
 reach. This was an example of partial insanity. And 
 Sir Geo. Mackenzie mentions an instance where a 
 
224 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 man seemed discreet, and could converse most per- 
 tinently on every subject, till they spoke of the moon. 
 On hearing the moon named, however, he fell into a 
 state of great excitement, as he believed himself to be 
 secretary to the moon. " A madman," says Gall, " so 
 imposed on a magistrate who was visiting the hospital 
 at Bic^tre, and succeeded so well in persuading him 
 that he was a victim of the cupidity and cruelty of his 
 relatives, that the magistrate had serious thoughts of 
 examining his complaints, and of setting the injured 
 man at liberty. But, just as he was bidding the in- 
 jured man farewell, promising to return shortly with 
 good tidings, ' Your excellency,' said he, ' will always 
 be welcome, except on Saturday ; for, on that day, the 
 Holy Virgin makes me a visit.'" 
 
 Some years since, an intelligent man came a distance 
 of ten or twelve miles to consult me about himself. 
 He explained to me all his symptoms most minutely, 
 and said he could not possibly restrain his disposition to 
 self-destruction. He was as calm and collected as any 
 man could be, and no person would have known there 
 was anything wrong with him, if he had not mentioned 
 the matter himself. I explained to him the nature of 
 bis ailment, and strongly urged the propriety of an 
 asylum. He at once agreed to the proposal ; went to 
 the bank, and lifted some money to pay the expenses 
 of a public institution ; and made all his arrangements 
 to go. He was quite able to do all himself ; but still 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN? 225 
 
 I told his friends it was not safe to leave him alone 
 for an instant. When all the arrangements were com- 
 pleted, and the car was at the door to convey him to 
 the steamer, he made an excuse of going to the stable, 
 and then took the opportunity of hanging himself. 
 
 On another occasion, I got a message from a distant 
 locality to visit a gentleman who required constant 
 watching to prevent him from drowning himself. 
 When I arrived, he was just going to dinner, and 
 asked me to join him. We had a great deal of con- 
 versation on different subjects, as well as about him- 
 self. He occupied a good position in society, had 
 received a good education, and was highly intelligent. 
 He said his disposition to self-destruction was so great 
 that he felt quite unable to restrain it. He described 
 his condition most accurately, and said he was as well 
 aware of his insanity as I was. He made special re- 
 ference to the important fact, that he felt the two 
 processes, of sanity and insanity, going on in his mind 
 at the same time, as if he had a double mind. In fact, 
 he had a double consciousness. His case was heredi- 
 tary for three or four generations. I advised this 
 gentleman to be placed under the care of a physician 
 who had charge of a lunatic asylum, and I know no- 
 thing of his history since. 
 
 Again, I was consulted by a gentleman, who, with 
 some of his friends, came from a distance to have my 
 advice. He was a nice, sensible man in ordinary con- 
 
226 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 versation, and described his case most minutely. He 
 was sane and insane at the same time, and was per- 
 fectly conscious of his own condition. He said he 
 struggled all he could, as he was a religious man and 
 knew the evil of it, but he could not resist the tempta- 
 tion to self-destruction. He had attempted it, but was 
 saved, the day before I saw him. I explained to him 
 and his friends the nature of his disease, and warned 
 them of the danger of trusting him in his own house. 
 I advised his immediate removal to a private asylum, 
 and he heartily acquiesced in the arrangements. He 
 was taken to the asylum. When he had been there 
 for a few weeks, I received a letter from one of his 
 friends, to say he was so much better that he was 
 going to be removed from the institution, and that his 
 relations were reflecting on me for having sent him 
 away, as they considered it quite unnecessary. I re- 
 plied that I did not mind the reflections, as I knew 
 I had done what was my imperative duty ; and that I 
 now warned his relatives that if they took him from 
 the asylum they would undergo a grave responsibility, 
 as he was nearly certain to commit suicide, and it 
 would be impossible to watch him. They removed 
 him, notwithstanding all I said, and in a short time 
 after I got a letter telling me he had hanged himself. 
 
 Now, in these three cases, as well as in the one I 
 have just quoted from Pinel, there was a perfect con- 
 sciousness of sanity and insanity at the same time. 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 227 
 
 In Pinel's case, the man was determined to kill his 
 wife at the very instant that he was anxious not to 
 kill her ; and in my own cases, there was an irresistible 
 feeling for self-destruction, accompanied by a great wish 
 to avoid it. The question, then, comes, Were these 
 contrary, but simultaneous, feelings, in the mind or 
 in the brain ? The organ in which they existed could 
 not be single ; it must be compound. The Phrenolo- 
 gist escapes from all difficulty by connecting them with 
 a compound brain ; but the Metaphysician, in placing 
 them in the mind, must adopt the materialistic theory, 
 as they prove, if in the mind, that the mind is com- 
 pound, and divisible, and consequently material. A 
 single mind could not possibly possess two such oppo- 
 site feelings at the same time as existed in these 
 instances. Neither is it credible, as alleged by some 
 Metaphysicians, that the whole mind could be con- 
 stantly jumping out of the one state into the other 
 and back again. Such an idea is just about as sensible 
 as the old controversy about the number of devils that 
 could dance on the point of a needle. Just imagine 
 the dignity of the philosophy which requires the mind 
 to be hopping so many times in the minute from a 
 state of sanity to insanity, and from a state of insanity 
 back to a state of sanity ! Could the man be con- 
 sidered sane who believes in such nonsense ? And 
 yet this is the great metaphysical system which is to 
 " chastise the craniologists" ! 
 
228 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 Dr Wigan, who rejects Phrenology, has adopted the 
 theory of a double mind, and endeavours to support 
 his view by a number of cases, two of which I shall 
 quote, as they illustrate the Phrenological position 
 which he repudiates. " A celebrated chemist, of a 
 mild and social disposition, committed himself a pri- 
 soner to an asylum, to save himself from an intense 
 desire to commit murder. He used, when he felt the 
 desire coming on, to ask to have his thumbs tied to- 
 gether. ... A clergyman, of middle age, called on one 
 of the most eminent of the physicians devoted to the 
 treatment of insanity, and addressed him to the follow- 
 ing effect : ' I am come to consult you in my embarrass- 
 ment, and hope you will give me a candid opinion. I 
 have been for some time engaged in a speculation, into 
 which I have unfortunately drawn one of my intimate 
 friends, and totally ruined him. It is a dreadful thing 
 that a man of my station, and at my time of life, should 
 have engaged in so wicked a scheme ; but there is no 
 truth in it. I know that I have not done any such 
 thing — that I have not entered on any speculation, or 
 made attempts to induce any one to join me, — still it 
 is so, and I am overwhelmed with my guilt.' " — (Dr 
 Wigan on the Duality of the Mind.) If the insanity 
 and sanity in these examples must be placed in the 
 mind, there is no course left but to adopt Dr Wigan's 
 theory of the double mind ; but the Phrenological ex- 
 planation, which allows some organs of the brain to 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 229 
 
 be diseased at the time others are in health, is very 
 simple and satisfactory, whilst it enables us to steer 
 clear of the materialism which necessarily results from 
 the duplicity or complexity of mind. 
 
 Dr Clendinning, physician to the St Marylebone In- 
 firmary, London, records a very interesting case of 
 partial insanity. " A woman, fifty-seven years of age, 
 was subject to occasional fits of an epileptic character. 
 The night before her admission she had one, and, after 
 her recovery from the fit, her mind was afiected ; she 
 said that she had been bewitched by somebody in the 
 workhouse ; on every other subject her mind appeared 
 quite clear, but on this subject she never hesitated ; 
 she seemed quite satisfied of the reality of her fancy. 
 . . . On examining her person, the head was found hot, 
 the carotids full, and resisting compression strongly ; 
 her manner and expression indicated excitement ; she 
 complained of headache. She was put on broth diet, 
 and was cupped on the nape of the neck to eight ounces, 
 and had a senna draught immediately. Cold was then 
 applied to the head, and light antimonials were ordered. 
 In a day or two the head was much relieved, and she 
 said she had no trouble from the witch after the second 
 day of treatment." — {Lancet^ March 1842.) Here is a 
 case of partial insanity, and the man who would say 
 the disease was in her mind, instead of the brain, 
 might, in my opinion, be classed amongst the insane 
 himself. All her symptoms indicated, in the plainest 
 
230 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 manner, a determination of blood to the head ; and 
 when she was treated by local depletion and other anti- 
 inflammatory means, for the purpose of depriving the 
 brain of its extra excitement, her hallucination entirely 
 disappeared. I do not consider this an example of 
 monomania, because, in addition to the hallucination, 
 " her manner and expression indicated excitement." 
 Consequently the disturbance was not confined to one 
 spot in the brain. On the supposition of the imma- 
 terial mind being affected, I should like to know how 
 Dr Clendinning's treatment could act upon it. On this 
 view, the only consistent plan would have been a strong 
 appeal to the reasoning faculties ! 
 
 In the year 1838, I attended a man in the town of 
 Bally mena who could not be persuaded but he heard 
 the joy-bells ringing in Belfast ; and when I said I 
 could not hear them, he was very indignant, as he 
 imagined I was impugning his veracity. I should like 
 to see those parties who attribute such things to the 
 mind at the bedside of such a patient. I am afraid 
 before their reasoning — for this is the only course they 
 would have a right to adopt — could make any favour- 
 able impression, the man would be in a hopeless con- 
 dition. In fact, it would just be as rational to begin 
 to reason with the stones in the walls of his chamber 
 as with him. It would be all in vain. I treated him, 
 on the ordinary principles of my profession, for a 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN 1 231 
 
 disease of the brain, and he made a speedy and satis- 
 factory recovery. 
 
 Having said so mucli on the Phrenological side of 
 this question, I shall now turn to take a peep at its 
 Metaphysical aspect. Suppose the disease is not in 
 the brain, but in the mind, what then ? Why, simply 
 this, the mind is material and mortal. As Dr Spurz- 
 heim has remarked, at the 75th page of his work on 
 Insanity, " We have no idea of any disease, or of any 
 derangement of an immaterial being itself, such as the 
 mind or soul is. The soul cannot fall sick, any more 
 than it can die." Disease is the precursor of death. 
 Insanity must be a disease either of the body or the 
 mind. We have no valid reason for setting it down, 
 as it may suit our convenience, for the one, or the 
 other, or for both. This is not fair. A confused mix- 
 ing up of the two views is particularly observable in 
 Dr Cheyne's writings on insanity. He sometimes rea- 
 sons on the idea of the mind itself being diseased; and 
 at other times refers all to the state of the brain and 
 nerves of the senses. We should fairly and boldly 
 adopt either the one side or the other. We will then 
 be kept from confusion and inconsistency. 
 
 The case of Sprevale is transferred from Magendie's 
 Journal de Pliysiologie to the Phrenological Journal 
 for 1825. He was admitted into the Maison-de-Sant^ 
 in October 1806, and died in March 1823. " During 
 
232 , PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 the first ten years of his stay, he remained taciturn 
 and slothful, never satisfied when out of bed, and 
 scarcely answering the questions addressed to him. 
 . . . Sometimes he shook off his apathy, and became 
 ill-tempered, and tried to strike every one he met. 
 The inferior extremities became more and more feeble, 
 till at last he could no longer walk, and he remained 
 seven years with the thighs bent upon the pelvis, 
 and the legs upon the thighs, without executing any 
 movement of these parts. . . . His intellectual facul- 
 ties were almost extinct, and he lived only to drink, 
 eat, and sometimes get into a passion. . . . He died. 
 . . . Dissection ; skull ivory like, three times thicker 
 than in the sound state. The dura mater thickened. 
 . . . Tne corpora olivaria and pyramidalia were found 
 grayish, and soft as houillie. The softening is continued 
 over all the anterior part of the medulla ; towards the 
 encephalon it can be followed across the pons varolii 
 into the crura cerebri, the optic thalami, the corpora 
 striata, and some of the cerebral convolutions, espe- 
 cially towards the middle of the right lobe." We have 
 here a very marked case of insanity accompanied with 
 very marked disease of the brain, on dissection. The 
 brain was pressed on by a thickened skull and thick- 
 ened dura mater ; and there was very extensive soften- 
 ing of its substance. Now, whether is it more rational 
 to suppose the insanity in this case was owing to the 
 state of the brain, or the state of the mind ? Was the 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ] 233 
 
 apparent extinction of the mental faculties owing to 
 the disease in the organs of the brain, or was it the 
 mind itself was partly extinguished ? If the mind were 
 partly extinguished in this way, how could we, for a 
 moment, imagine that it was either immaterial or im- 
 mortal ? Impossible ; utterly impossible. 
 
 If one part of the mind, as in partial insanity, has 
 become diseased, whilst the rest of it is healthy, as a 
 matter of course it must be capable of being divided 
 into parts, and consequently must be matter, and not 
 spirit, because divisibility is a property essentially be- 
 longing to matter, and can never be applied to spirit. 
 Hence those who oppose the Phrenological view must 
 be materialists. There is no possible way of escape 
 for them. If I speak of the body as possessing hands, 
 feet, head, trunk, brain, lungs, and abdominal viscera, 
 I surely make it compound, and divisible into different 
 parts. There can be no mistake about this. Neither 
 can there be any mistake about the Metaphysicians 
 doing the very same thing concerning the mind, when 
 they speak of it, as they always do, as possessing re- 
 flection, imagination, will, judgment, understanding, 
 emotions, and passions. If this language does not 
 make the mind compound and divisible, there is no 
 meaning in words. No bodily organs could be more 
 distinct in their nature^ than the passions, emotions, 
 and reasoning powers, which the Metaphysicians give 
 to the mind. If these faculties really pertain to the 
 
234 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 mind, it must be divisible, because, as M. Capuron has 
 well observed in connexion with another subject, " we 
 cannot believe the same organ to be the seat of the 
 reasoning principle which controls the passions, and 
 of these very passions which so often overthrow the 
 reason." 
 
 Even Dr Chalmers has followed the Metaphysicians 
 on this point. In his Bridgewater Treatise, he says, 
 " Certain it is, that variety in the proportion of their 
 faculties^ is one chief cause of the difference between 
 the minds men. And whatever the one faculty may 
 be in any individual, which predominates greatly 
 beyond the average of the rest, that faculty is selected 
 as the characteristic by which to distinguish him ; and 
 thus he may be designated as a man of judgment, or 
 information, or fancy, or wit, or oratory, ... In almost 
 all the instances of mental superiority, it will be 
 found, that it is a superiority above the average level 
 of the species, in but one thing — or that arises from 
 the predominance of one faculty above all the rest. . . . 
 For the right working of the mind, it is not enough 
 that each of its separate powers shall be provided with 
 adequate strength, they must be mixed in a certain 
 proportion, for the greatest inconvenience might be 
 felt, not in the defect merely, but in the excess of some 
 of them.'' And again, in his Natural Theology, he re- 
 marks, " The supremacy of conscience does not seem 
 to have been sufficiently adverted to by Dr Thomas 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 235 
 
 Brown. He treats the moral feeling rather as an indi- 
 vidual emotion, which takes its part in the enumera- 
 tion along with others in his list, than as the great 
 master emotion that is not appeased but by its ascend- 
 ency over them all. Now, instead of a single com- 
 batant in the play of many others, and which will only 
 obtain the victory if physically of greater power and 
 force, it should be viewed as separate and signalised 
 from the rest by its own felt and inherent claim of 
 superiority over them. Each emotion hath its own 
 characteristic object wherewith it is satisfied. But 
 the specific object of this emotion, is the regulation of 
 all the active powers of the soul ; and without this, it 
 is not satisfied. ... In the moral system of man we 
 see various parts and principles. We see ambition^ 
 having power for its object, and without the attain- 
 ment of which it is not satisfied ; and avarice, having 
 wealth for its object, without the attainment of which 
 it is not satisfied ; and benevolence , having for its 
 object the good of others, without the attainment of 
 which it is not satisfied ; and the love of reputation, 
 having for its object their applause, without which it 
 is not satisfied ; and lastly, to proceed no further in 
 the enumeration, conscience, which surveys and superin- 
 tends the whole man, whose distinct and appropriate 
 object it is to have the entire control, both of his in- 
 ward desires and outward doings, and without the 
 attainment of this, it is thwarted from its proper aim, 
 
236 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 and remains unsatisfied." I have placed the words in 
 itahcs which I wish more particularly to draw atten- 
 tion to. It is said there is a variety in the proportion 
 of the faculties ; — that one faculty, in the individual, 
 predominates over the rest ; that each of the separate 
 powers of the mind must have strength ; that none of 
 them is to be in excess or defective ; that they must 
 be mixed in a certain proportion ; that conscience is a 
 master emotion ; that there are distinct principles of 
 ambition, avarice, benevolence, love of reputation, &c., 
 and that conscience is the master principle which 
 superintends them all. If these expressions do not 
 divide the mind, and make it compound, if the prin- 
 ciples of reasoning here adopted do not divide the 
 mind into separate parts, I confess I am not uble to 
 understand the meaning of the English language, or 
 yet the foundation of Dr Chalmers's reasoning. Words 
 could not make the matter plainer than it is. If the 
 word " mind '^ were put out, and the word ^' brain " 
 were put in, the whole argument would be that of a 
 full-fledged Phrenologist. It would then be perfectly 
 harmless, because the division of parts, so plainly 
 pointed out, would apply to a material organ which is 
 capable of division ; but the matter stands in an en- 
 tirely different and much more formidable light when 
 it has reference solely to spirit, — it is rank materialism. 
 It shows in a striking manner the great evils resulting 
 from a false philosophy, when a man like the immortal 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ] 237 
 
 Chalmers failed to be impressed with the consequences 
 of his own statements. 
 
 " A mass of metal may be magnetised," says the 
 author of Vestiges of Natural History of Creation^ ** or 
 heated to 700° of Fahrenheit, without becoming the 
 hundredth part of a grain heavier. And yet electricity 
 is a real thing, an actual existence in nature, as witness 
 its effects of heat and light in vegetation, . . . the 
 rending force of the thunderbolt as it strikes the oak, 
 (fee. So mental action may be imponderable, intangible, 
 and yet a real existence, and ruled by the Eternal 
 through His laws." Here mental action is confounded 
 with mind itself. The action of mind is made to be a 
 real existence, in the same way as electricity is an 
 existence. This is a very inaccurate and unphilo- 
 sophical mode of reasoning. The action of electricity 
 can never be electricity ; neither can the action of 
 mind ever be mind. It is highly important, on sub- 
 jeots of this description, to reason with philosophical 
 accuracy. A loose mode of reasoning is nearly certain 
 of leading one into the reception of false principles. 
 Indeed, this appears to me to be one great cause of 
 the many erroneous principles inculcated in the book 
 from which I am quoting. 
 
 In discussing the phenomena of dreaming, Dugald 
 Stewart asks, ^' What is the state of the mind in sleep ? 
 or, in other words, what faculties then continue to 
 operate^ and what faculties are then suspended ? " And 
 
238 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 in his Section on Memory, be says, " Among the vari- 
 ous powers of the understanding, there is none con- 
 cerning which so many important facts and observa- 
 tions have been collected, as i\iQ faculty of memory. , . 
 It is generally supposed, that, of all our faculties^ memory 
 is that which nature has bestowed in the most unequal 
 degrees on different individuals. . . . The improvement 
 of which the mind is susceptible by culture, is more 
 remarkable, perhaps, in the case of memory, than in 
 that of an J other of our faculties.^' —{Outlines of the 
 Philosophy of the Human Mind.) On another occa- 
 sion, when referring to Eobert Burns, Mr Stewart 
 said, '^All the faculties of Burns's mmd were, as far as 
 I could judge, equally vigorous^ — (Cox on T'he Character 
 of Burns.) If some faculties are in action, whilst 
 others are suspended during sleep ; if the faculty of 
 memory be more susceptible of culture than any of the 
 other faculties ; and if all the faculties in Burns's mind 
 were equally balanced, it surely must follow, that the 
 mind is compound, and divisible into distinct faculties. 
 Mr Stewart's expressions make this point as plain as 
 it could possibly be. It is just as impossible to mis- 
 understand the Metaphysician here, as it would be to 
 misunderstand the Physiologist when he speaks of the 
 strength of the sinews, bones, and muscles of the 
 body. Divisibility is directly and unequivocally im- 
 plied in each case. 
 It would be utterly impossible to unravel the nature 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 239 
 
 of man, on the metaphysical system, without allotting 
 to the mind a number of faculties which are not only 
 distinct in their action, but which, in some instances, 
 such as may be seen in connexion with cruelty and 
 kindness, generosity and avarice, justice and theft, are 
 actually antagonistic to each other. Whereas the 
 Phrenologist can look upon the mind as a simple, in- 
 divisible entity, and yet explain all the peculiarities 
 of man's nature, seeing that the mental operations 
 are performed and manifested through a compound 
 organ, the brain. To account for the phenomena of 
 daily life, there must be complexity somewhere. The 
 metaphysician is compelled to place it in the mind ; 
 but the Phrenologist <;an refer it to the brain. For 
 my part, I decidedly prefer the idea of a simple mind 
 and a complex brain, to the idea of a simple brain and 
 a compound mind. There is nothing unreasonable in 
 the supposition that a simple, indivisible mind, may 
 have the power of seeing, hearing, and reflecting^ pro- 
 vided it is supplied with distmct bodily organs which 
 are specially adapted for seeing, hearing, and reflect- 
 ing ; and also that all these, and many more opera- 
 tions may be going on at the very same time. A simple 
 mind, acting through a complex brain, may use any 
 or all of the parts of the brain, as the case may re- 
 quire. There is no more difficulty in this, than for 
 one steam engine to keep one wheel or a hundred in 
 motion. If the rest of the machinery suits, one 
 
240 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 engine can grind, clean, thrash, scutch, spin, weave, 
 and saw, at the same instant. So is it with the simple 
 mind and the compound brain. But if the mind pos- 
 sesses emotions, passions, judgment, hearing, sight, 
 imagination, wit, benevolence, and veneration, inde- 
 pendently of the brain, there is nothing in the world 
 plainer than that it must be divisible and material. 
 There is no possibility of evading this conclusion. 
 The ideas of the Metaphysicians about the faculties 
 of the mind, give a handle to the materialists which 
 could not be obtained from any other source. Priestley 
 was neither slow nor pusillanimous in turning them to 
 account. ^' We see," said he, '^ that every faculty of 
 the mind without exception is liable to be impaired, 
 and even to become wholly extinct, before death. 
 Since, therefore, all the faculties of the mind, separ- 
 ately taken, appear to be mortal, the substance or 
 principle in which they exist must be pronounced to 
 be mortal too." On the metaphysical plan of placing 
 the faculties in the mind itself, Priestley is unanswer- 
 able ; but the Phrenologist who looks upon the mind 
 as simple, and the brain as compound, can have no 
 difficulty in the matter. The organs of the brain may 
 be impaired or destroyed, whilst the mind remains in 
 its pristine, invulnerable condition. 
 
 The Metaphysicians have felt the absurdity of their 
 position regarding the faculties of the mind, and, 
 therefore, they tell us they do not exactly mean a 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN? 241 
 
 faculty when they speak of a faculty, but only under- 
 derstand the mind itself in a particular mode of action. 
 Or, in other words, their language is to be interpreted 
 after a plan of their own, rather than by the plain 
 meaning of the words they use, and in accordance 
 with the sense of their own line of argument. ' Cer- 
 tainly their system drives them to wonderful ex- 
 tremes. Thus, Dr Thomas Brown, who is one of the 
 ablest of the Metaphysicians, says, ^' The phenomena 
 of the mind are only the mind itself existing in certain 
 states. . . . All the feelings and thoughts of the mind, 
 I have already frequently repeated, are only the mind 
 itself existing in certain states." Now, what is the 
 result of all this 1 Simply that the mind is never 
 itself for one moment. If its feelings and thoughts 
 are only itself existing in certain states, it must be for 
 ever varying and changing, as there is no end to the 
 variety of feelings and thoughts. It would be so far 
 altered, by times, that it would not know itself. The 
 mind existing in a state of love would not be the same 
 as the mind existing in a state of reflection ; nor would 
 the mind existing in a state of imagination be the 
 same as the mind existing in a state of observation. 
 It would never be existing for two seconds in the 
 same state. If what are called the faculties of the 
 mind, are only the mind itself existing in certain 
 states, the mind must have a wonderful, busy, 
 changing time of it. It is just dancing out of one 
 
242 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 state into another, and would thus serve to amuse a 
 child, like the dancing of a sunbeam. As it must all 
 act at once, and can act only on one point at one time, 
 it has no means of acting, at the same instant, on 
 different subjects. The states into which it has to 
 throw itself must take a regular succession. If two 
 objects, for example, present themselves before us at 
 the same time, the one to excite our deep compassion, 
 and the other our strongest anger, the mind could not 
 deal with both at the same instant, as it must first 
 jump into the state of compassion, and then get clear 
 of it, before it can jump into the state of anger, and 
 vice versa. Is such an idea consistent with our ex- 
 perience ? I rather think not. Just imagine the 
 mind dancing through the jig of benevolence and 
 cruelty, honesty and theft, imagination and reflection, 
 wit and veneration, avarice and generosity, and love 
 and murder ! ! Verily, the thing is too childish for 
 common sense to dwell on for a single moment. It 
 looks very insignificant when contrasted with the 
 grandeur of the Phrenological idea which enables us 
 to contemplate the mind, as an indivisible entity, 
 reigning in, and acting through, a congeries of cerebral 
 organs in such a way as to receive information on, 
 and deal with, a variety of subjects simultaneously. 
 "No sooner," says Dr Thomas Brown, " were certain 
 affections of the mind classed together, as belonging 
 to the will, and certain others, as belonging to the un- 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN 1 243 
 
 derstanding, — that is to say, no sooner was the mind, 
 existing in certain states, denominated the understand- 
 ing, and in certain other states denominated the will, 
 — than the understanding and the will ceased to be 
 considered as the same individual substance, and be- 
 came immediately, as it were, two opposite and con- 
 tending powers in the empire of mind, as distinct as 
 any two sovereigns, with their separate nations under 
 their control." As the understanding could not be 
 the same thing as the will ; and as the mind could 
 not be looked on as dancing into understanding 
 oue minute, and into will the next ; and as these 
 faculties were attributed exclusively to the mind, 
 without any regard to the brain, the parties to whom 
 Dr Brown refers could not do otherwise than push 
 matters to their legitimate extent. They were cer- 
 tainly inconsistent, however, as Dr Brown observes, 
 '' in asserting the spiritual multiplicity, and at the 
 same time asserting the absolute indivisibility of that 
 which they divide." 
 
 The Metaphysical idea of the faculties of the mind 
 being neither more nor less than the mind itself exist- 
 ing in certain states, must be looked at from another 
 point of view. Supposing the Phrenologist to be 
 wrong in connecting peculiarity of talent with the 
 development of a special portion of the brain ; and 
 also supposing Dr Thomas Brown to be right in deny- 
 ing any real, distinct faculties to the mind ; what are 
 
244 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 we then to do with cases of special talent ? How are 
 they to be dealt with and explained ? If there are no 
 Phrenological organs in the brain with which they are 
 connected, and if the mind be devoid of real faculties, 
 both great and small, where is the seat of the special 
 talent 1 Nowhere. There is not a habitation for it in 
 the wide universe. If Dr Thomas Brown be correct 
 in stating, that what is commonly called a faculty, is 
 only the mind itself existing in a certain state, it is 
 then an incontrovertible fact, that there cannot be any 
 such thing as a special talent at all, because the mind, 
 being a spirit, must have the very same power in one 
 state as in every other state. All states must be alike 
 to it, and it must be capable of acting equally well 
 upon every subject. All men, by nature, must be 
 capable of acting exactly alike in practice, or else 
 there must be weak spirits and strong spirits, big 
 spirits and little spirits, idiotic spirits and sensible 
 spirits, deep spirits and shallow spirits, stupid spirits 
 and clever spirits. Further, if we take any particular 
 individual, on Dr Brown's theory, he must be equally 
 talented on every subject, because the faculty for one 
 subject is just the whole mind acting on that particu- 
 lar point, and we cannot believe the whole mind to be 
 strong upon one point and weak on another. 
 
 To my thinking, the above argument is quite suf- 
 ficient to settle for ever with Dr Brown's theory about 
 the states of the mind, unless it can be shown that 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN 1 245 
 
 all men have exactly the same amount of talent ; and 
 that each individual has the same extent of talent for 
 every subject. If any of my readers are disposed to 
 imagine that any man in the world is equally gifted 
 on all subjects, let them just put it to the practical 
 test, which is the only test worthy of being relied on. 
 Let them select a man who is a great poet, a great 
 orator, a great actor, a great imitator, a great ventrilo- 
 quist, or a profound reasoner, and put the question to 
 him which was put to George Bidder, when he was 
 only twelve years of age, and see if he will be able to 
 answer it. Of course if his talents are equal on all 
 subjects, a man of great ability in any of the branches 
 I have mentioned, and with the advantages of an ex- 
 tensive education, must be able with the greatest ease 
 to answer the question which was answered by an 
 uneducated boy. Try him in this way, and you will 
 soon see the difference between theory and practice. 
 George Bidder was the son of a labouring peasant in 
 Devonshire. He exhibited marvellous powers of cal- 
 culation from his childhood. At twelve years old he 
 was brought to the Stock Exchange, and he was 
 there asked the following question ; — If the pendulum 
 of a clock vibrated the distance of nine inches and 
 three quarters in a second of time, how many inches 
 will it vibrate in the course of seven years, fourteen 
 days, two hours, one minute and tifty-six seconds ; 
 each year to be three hundred and sixty-five days, five 
 
246 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 hours, forty-eight minutes, and fifty-five seconds ? 
 There is a question for some of our great Meta- 
 physicians to answer. I will venture to say it would 
 take some of them a week to answer it ; and others 
 could not do it at all. George Bidder, however, an- 
 swered correctly^ in the space of one minute ^ two thou- 
 sand one hundred and sixty-five millions, six hundred 
 and twenty-five thousand, seven hundred and forty- 
 four inches and three quarters. —(^?iec(io^^5 of From- 
 dence.) If this does not prove the existence of a 
 special talent, I would like to know what could prove 
 it. If Bidder had been equally talented on all other 
 points as on this one, he would have combined all the 
 wisdom and knowledge in the universe within himself. 
 "What we call the power of imagination," says Dugald 
 Stewart, " is not the gift of nature, but the result of 
 acquired habits, aided by favourable circumstances. 
 .... An uncommon degree of imagination constitutes 
 poetical genius; a talent which although chiefly dis- 
 played in poetical composition, is also the foundation 
 (though not precisely in the same manner) of various 
 other d.vi^r— {Elements, Ed. 1842, p. 258.) This extract 
 demonstrates the inconsistent shifts to which Meta- 
 physicians are obliged to resort. Mr Stewart tells us 
 the power of imagination is not the gift of nature ; 
 that it is only an acquired habit ; and in the next breath 
 he informs us, that it is a talent, and not only so, but 
 that this talent is the foundation of other arts. We thus 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN 1 247 
 
 find, according to Stewart, that a talent is not a gift of 
 nature ; that it is acquired by habit, and that this 
 thing which is only acquired, and is not original, is 
 actually the foundation of other things ! Such is 
 Metaphysics! Such are the sentiments of the naan 
 who called loudly for some person ''to chastise the 
 follies of these Craniologists ! " The Craniologists may 
 be chastised ; but it will require a person with more 
 brains than Dugald Stewart to do it. 
 
 The truth is, the idea about the states of the mind 
 is only a miserable make-shift of the Metaphysicians 
 to get rid of the difficulties in which they are other- 
 wise hopelessly involved. They should either turn 
 over to the Phrenological side, and adopt the simple 
 mind and compound brain, or else at once have 
 recourse to the straightforward, manly plan of fairly 
 dividing the mind into parts, and thus join the ranks 
 of one class of the materialists. Perhaps some 
 parties may be disposed to ask, if my view of the 
 simplicity of mind be correct, what state are matters 
 to be in after death, when the soul is separated from 
 the body, — how is the soul to act, if it be not supplied 
 with distinct and separate faculties ? If so, I will tell 
 them candidly I do not intend to discuss the question, 
 just because I know very little about it. We can get 
 no information on the subject from the light of nature, 
 and there is little in Scripture to satisfy our curiosity. 
 I will not go one inch farther than I have necessary 
 
248 PHUENOLOGY. 
 
 truth, or Eevelation to guide me. Observation is tlie 
 foundation of knowledge on matters terrestrial, but on 
 matters celestial we must go exclusively by the word 
 of Eevelation. Vague speculation will not do here. 
 We must stop where Scripture stops. We are in- 
 formed that, at death, " the dust shall return to the 
 earth as it was ; and the spirit shall return to God 
 who gave it ; " and we also learn, from various texts, 
 that when the soul is separated from the body, it 
 passes directly to either heaven or hell. Beyond this, 
 so far as I know, we have very little information, till 
 we arrive at the period of the day of judgment. When 
 that day comes, the body which was sown in corrup- 
 tion, dishonour, and weakness, shall be raised in in- 
 corruption, glory, and power, — a perfectly glorious 
 body, even like unto the body of Christ. To this 
 glorified body, the soul shall be reunited, and then there 
 will be the capacity for an inconceivable amount of 
 pleasure and happiness. Whether there will be the same 
 capacity for enjoyment between death and judgment, 
 that there will be after the reunion of soul and body, 
 I am not quite prepared to say, but I rather think 
 not. Further, we can form no idea of the nature, 
 manner, and extent of mental operations and mani- 
 festations in a purely spiritual world, where spirit has 
 to deal with spirit. Our present powers are not suffi- 
 cient to unravel the mystery ; Eevelation gives us very 
 little information on the point ; and therefore the 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN ? 249 
 
 only course left for a wise man is to avoid all specula- 
 tions on the subject. For my part, I will not attempt 
 the investigation, as it is not consistent with either 
 philosophy or Christianity to pry into things which 
 nature does not disclose, and which the Word of in- 
 spiration has not revealed. 
 
 I wish it to be particularly understood that the 
 truth of Phrenology should not be tested by, and in no 
 way depends upon, the correctness, or otherwise, of 
 my views regarding the simplicity of the mind. In- 
 deed, so far is this from being the test of the science, 
 that I believe I am the only Phrenologist who has 
 thought it necessary to examine, in all its bearings, 
 fully and completely, the Metaphysical theory regard- 
 ing the faculties of the mind. Dr Gall, Dr Caldwell, 
 and the Eev. Dr Welsh, have stated their belief in the 
 simplicity of mind ; and Dr Caldwell has further 
 expressed the opinion, that it is simple in its action as 
 well as in its substance ; but none of them has entered 
 with any degree of minuteness into the inquiry. So 
 far as I am aware, with the exception of those I have 
 named, all parties who admit a separate thinking prin- 
 ciple, have assented to the division of mind into facul- 
 ties, or else have refused to decide on the matter, or 
 enter into the question at all. Dr Spurzheim affirms 
 that he " makes no inquiry into the nature of the 
 soul ; " and Mr Combe says, " Observation reveals as 
 little in regard to the substance of mind, as does re- 
 
250 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 flection on consciousness ; and as no other modes of 
 arriving at certain knowledge are open to man, the 
 solution of the question appears to be placed com- 
 pletely beyond his reach." I take special exception to 
 this last remark of Mr Combe, because it entirely 
 excludes the testimony of Scripture, which I regard as 
 infallible on every subject on which it speaks. So far 
 as Phrenology is practically concerned, it does not 
 make the slightest difference whether we look on the 
 mind as simple and spiritual, or compound and mate- 
 rial. The Phrenological, or compound, brain would 
 work equally well in the one case as in the other. But 
 the matter is of incalculable importance in a religious 
 point of view, and therefore I have given it all the 
 consideration I was capable of ; and I feel confident 
 my labours will not be in vain. I am sure they will 
 tend to the glory of God and the advancement of 
 man. 
 
 If we refuse to adopt the Phrenological view of the 
 compound nature of the brain, we are compelled to 
 divide the mind into distinct faculties or parts, in 
 order to be able to explain the mental phenomena, as 
 we see them in every-day life. We are thus fairly 
 shut up to the doctrines of one class of the mate- 
 rialists. Phrenology alone will enable us to avoid the 
 nets, and steer clear of the difficulties, which its op- 
 ponents have felt. Let us just look at one or two 
 examples : — '^ It cannot be doubted," says Pinel, " that 
 
lb THE BRAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN] 251 
 
 to consider the faculties of the mind separately^ would 
 contribute to facilitate the study of pneumatology, as 
 well as to lead to very important knowledge in regard 
 to the nature and varieties of insanity." It is here 
 fairly admitted that a division of mind into faculties 
 is necessary to the proper study of pneumatology and 
 insanity. If insanity were in the mind, it could not 
 be interpreted on any other plan. Having alluded to 
 the doctrine of the mind being composed of an aggre- 
 gate of distinct faculties, Dr Cheyne says, " To this 
 assumed doctrine we are not wedded. We think in- 
 deed that it receives support from the state of the 
 mind in dreaming, and still more in somnambulism. 
 ... If, however, the reader should have arrived at the 
 conclusion that the mind is uncompounded, that its 
 faculties are but varied conditions or operations of 
 one simple subsistence, we are not so established in 
 our own opinion as to wish to unsettle his. . . . While 
 the mental faculties continue in their natural state, the 
 individual will retain his peculiar character ; but if any 
 one of the faculties of the mind should lose its natural 
 strength or activity, a change of conduct will soon take 
 place. ... A faculty may be altogether destroyed, in 
 which case the party may be deprived of the benefit of 
 that influence which one faculty often exercises over the 
 rest, and inconsistency of conduct, or insanity will be the 
 consequence." — (Cheyne on Insanity.) How any man 
 could hold such sentiments, and at the same time pre- 
 
252 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 tend to believe in the immateriality and immortality 
 of the soul, is more than I can possibly imagine. He 
 first makes the mind to be compounded of faculties ; 
 he next considers it capable of disease ; and he finally 
 tells us that a faculty may be altogether destroyed / / 
 If the mind be made up of faculties, if these faculties 
 can be actually diseased, and if one of them, and of 
 course all of them, can be destroyed in cases of in- 
 sanity, it must follow that the whole mind can be 
 diseased and destroyed ; it is necessarily material and 
 mortal. It would be difficult to find any statement 
 which more explicitly involves materialism than this 
 of Dr Cheyne's ; and yet we never hear the slightest 
 complaint made about his sentiments. His book is 
 read and valued by religious men. There is not one 
 word of complaint. But if the statement that a por- 
 tion of the mind might be actually destroyed were 
 published by a Phrenologist, we would hear it over the 
 length and breadth of Europe. 
 
 Another thought here strikes me. Supposing in- 
 sanity to be in the mind, how will a case of partial 
 insanity agree with Dr Thomas Brown's idea about the 
 faculties being only states of the mind ? If the whole 
 mind, as on Dr Brown's supposition, be engaged in 
 every thought upon every subject, and if the disease 
 be in the mind itself, how can the insanity be mani- 
 fested on one point without showing itself on all other 
 subjects ? Impossible, utterly impossible. How can 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN 1 253 
 
 the indivisible mind be sane and insane at the same 
 time ? Eidiculous, perfectly ridiculous. On the sup- 
 position of the inetaphysical theory being correct, the 
 managers of Swift's Hospital, Dublin, should have 
 been severely punished for confining, as a lunatic, the 
 authoress of the following touching lines to the 
 memory of her medical attendant, Mr Cusack, the 
 eminent surgeon : — 
 
 *' If costly piles should mark where virtue lies, 
 And worth by numbers to its grave be borne, 
 O'er thee the proudest pyramid should rise, 
 
 And weeping thousands at thy funeral mourn ! '* 
 
 There is no evidence of insanity here, but the very 
 reverse. Why, then, was the poor woman confined ? 
 How was the mind sane when making poetry about Mr 
 Cusack, and yet insane on another subject ? If the 
 mind was siraple, and yet diseased, it must have been 
 all equally afi'ected. It must either be all sane or all 
 insane. Truly the opinions of the Metaphysicians are 
 so contemptibly ridiculous that a person cannot but 
 wonder how they ever gained a footing in the scientific 
 walks of life. 
 
 In April 1861, Professor M^Cosh, of Belfast, gave a 
 Lecture to the Presbyterian Young Men's Association, 
 Coleraine, on " the association of ideas, and its lessons 
 in the training of the mind." Under the head of 
 " habit," he gave, as an illustration, a detailed account 
 of the effects of whisky and opium on their votaries 
 
254 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 till the habit became confirmed and irrevocably 
 settled. Now, to be of the slightest use as an illustra- 
 tion of, or to be in any way applicable to, the subject 
 of discussion, this habit must be supposed to be 
 formed in the mind. Otherwise it would throw no 
 light on ^Hhe association of ideas in the training of 
 the mind," because we cannot for a moment imagine 
 that the fact of the body requiring a frequent repeti- 
 tion of any impression in order to produce a permanent 
 result, is the slightest proof that a spirit must be in 
 the same predicament. This would be to subject a 
 spirit to the laws of material substances. Conse- 
 quently Dr M'Cosh must have been going on the sup- 
 position of the habit being formed in the mind. But 
 if opium and whisky can thus produce a mental 
 habit, it strikes me we are approaching rapidly to- 
 wards materialism. Hence it is evident Dr M'Cosh 
 and all other Metaphysicians would be saved from fall- 
 ing into critical positions, if they would at once adopt 
 the correct system of mental philosophy which is 
 brought to light by Phrenology. They would then be 
 able to see that the habit of eating opium and drink- 
 ing whisky is formed in the body, and not in the 
 mind. 
 
 The effects of a false philosophy are well seen in the 
 following extract from Judge Hayes' charge to the 
 Special Jury on the trial of Captain Crosbie for 
 lunacy : — " We have to enter upon a consideration 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ] 255 
 
 more metaphysical than I should have wished it to be. 
 The subject of insanity, which we have now to discuss, 
 is one which is as susceptible of metaphysical as of 
 legal definition. The human mind is, indeed, a compli- 
 cated and beautiful machine, made up of its numerous 
 faculties — temper, habit, emotion, and sentiment — all 
 together making up a wonderful structure from the 
 hand of the Divine Creator. It is not for me to 
 imagine where this machine has its seat in the human 
 brain, but complicated as it is, and beautiful as it is, 
 it is not to be wondered at that we should occasionally 
 sometimes meet with deranged minds." — (Eeport from 
 the Court of Queen's Bench, Ireland, in the Belfast 
 JVsws-letter, May 23, 1860.) Judge Hayes here carries 
 the Metaphysical theory to its fair and inevitable issue, 
 and looks upon the mind as a complicated and divisible 
 machine. Unless he would adopt the Phrenological 
 idea, he could not possibly follow any other course in 
 bringing the case in an intelligible form before the 
 Jury. On the Metaphysical plan, he is obliged to 
 make the mind divisible, and consequently material 
 and mortal in its own nature. 
 
 As I do not intend to lose sight of the followers of 
 Sir William Hamilton, I must adduce a few facts for 
 their careful consideration regarding the hereditary 
 transmission of qualities. If there be one thing better 
 established than another, it is, that the peculiarities 
 of the parents, whether we may call them mental or 
 
256 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 corporeal, are very frequently, to say the least of it, 
 manifested in the offspring. " The recognition of such 
 a law," says Dr W. A. F. Browne, one of Her Majesty's 
 Commissioners in Lunacy, " is not confined to men of 
 science. It is universal — it is part of the traditionary 
 knowledge of the vulgar, and is one of those truths 
 developed by the experience of ages, and gathered 
 from those family histories and domestic tragedies, 
 which are preserved better, and furnish more ample 
 materials for thought among the uneducated, than the 
 histories or calamities of nations." 
 
 " A child was admitted into the Long Island College 
 Hospital, having a superfluous finger on each hand. 
 This was the fourth child of the same parents, all 
 having these supernumerary fingers, except the second. 
 The first child had but one, and the third child had 
 two supernumerary fingers. The mother had one 
 attached to the same point as those of her chil- 
 dren. The grandmother had two, and the great-grand- 
 mother also two. The grandmother's brother had 
 supernumerary fingers on each hand, as also had one 
 of his nephews. The great-grandmother states that 
 her father had the same deformity." — {American Medi- 
 cal Times^ No. 16.) 
 
 " Suicide," says the editor of the Medical Gazette^ 
 " is undoubtedly hereditary. It is often the only sign 
 of madness which shows itself in a family. Fabret 
 speaks of a family where a taciturn father had six 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 257 
 
 children, five boys and one girl. The eldest, at forty 
 years of age, threw himself out of a window without 
 known motive ; the second strangled himself from 
 disappointment, at thirty-five ; the third jumped over 
 a window ; the fourth shot himself. A cousin threw 
 himself into the river." 
 
 Dr Burrows informs us that he ascertained a de- 
 cided hereditary predisposition to insanity in six- 
 sevenths of his insane patients in private practice ; 
 and Esquirol says nearly all the insane committed to 
 his charge presented " some irregularities in their 
 functions, in their intellectual faculties, in their afiec- 
 tions or feelings, before becoming insane, and that 
 often from their earliest infancy." — {Br A, Combe.) 
 " Gall knew a family of seven,'^ says Dr W. A. F. 
 Browne, '' who one and all destroyed themselves. Fal- 
 ret mentions a son, a father, and an uncle, who had 
 committed suicide. . . . The penurious habits of the 
 mother of Elwes, the celebrated miser, led to gradual 
 self-destruction by starvation ; she lost her life in 
 saving a penny. . . . From the same table, it appears 
 that the disease descended in seventy-six from the 
 mother, and in fifty-seven from the father. ... I have 
 myself compared the sexes of nearly a thousand cases, 
 in which hereditary taint could be traced, and find 
 that the proportions are as follows : of 969 patients 
 treated in various asylums, 440 were males, and 529 
 
 females. . . . Seventeen had one relation affected ; 
 
 R 
 
258 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 fifteen, two relations ; two, three relations ; and one, 
 four relations. . . . There was one case in which a 
 cousin was the relation insane ; in two, a son or daughter ; 
 in four, uncle or aunt ; in four, father and mother ; in 
 fourteen, father ; in eleven, mother ; and in sixteen, 
 brother or sister. ... A patient in the Morningside 
 asylum is a suicidal maniac ; her brother committed 
 suicide ; her sister has been threatened with melan- 
 cholia ; her mother, maternal grandmother, and paternal 
 uncle, were all insane." " There have been 214 insane 
 patients," says Sir William C. Ellis, '' whose parents 
 or relations we have ascertained to have been previ- 
 ously insane. In 125 of these cases, no other cause 
 could be assigned for the disease coming on than that 
 of its beiDg hereditary." "We know," says Haller, as 
 quoted by Combe, " a very remarkable instance of two 
 noble females, who got husbands on account of their 
 wealth, although they were nearly idiots, and from 
 whom this mental defect has extended for a century 
 into several families, so that some of all their descend- 
 ants still continue idiots in the fourth, and even in 
 the fifth generation." Sir John Sinclair, in his Code of 
 Health and Longevity, quotes, from The Annals of Medi- 
 cine for 1801, the case of the Marquis A. J. Brignole, 
 who was seized with epilepsy at the age of twenty-four. 
 His eldest son, who was born before the marquis had 
 any fits and his fourth son and daughters, who were 
 born after the fits had been cured in their father, were 
 
IS THE BEAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 259 
 
 all free from epilepsy ; but his second and third sons, 
 who were born at the time the marquis was affected 
 with the disease^ were dreadful martyrs to the com- 
 plaint, and one of them died in a fit. " James Caines 
 was executed at Gloucester in 1825. His grandfather 
 was transported, his father hanged, and Caines himself 
 is the fourth brother who has died by the hands of 
 the executioner.'' — (Phrenological Journal for 1825.) 
 
 1 might go on multiplying examples of this descrip- 
 tion to a great extent ; and I might also refer to the 
 history of the Cretins, the deaf, the dumb, the blind, 
 and the idiotic ; but I think it is quite unneces- 
 sary. There is, perhaps, no subject on which the 
 public are more generally agreed, than on the fact of 
 different qualities being hereditary. It is on this ac- 
 count that a reluctance is usually felt to marrying into 
 a family where insanity is known to exist. It is 
 vulgarly supposed to run in the blood. That a tainted 
 constitution, such as from syphilis, is frequently 
 transmitted from either father or mother, is proved 
 by every-day experience ; but these are not exactly 
 the sort of examples to which I am at present allud- 
 ing. My observations are intended to apply more 
 especially to those instances in which, as I have said 
 in another work, such a peculiarity of constitution or 
 form is handed down from generation to generation, 
 as renders the offspring liable to the same diseases as 
 their parents, whenever they are exposed to suitable 
 
260 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 exciting causes ; or in which certain defects of develop- 
 ment are hereditary. Every person who is a close ob- 
 server of nature must be aware that the children often 
 very closely resemble either father or mother, or are a 
 mixture of both, not only in the features of their face 
 and in the organs generally of the body, but also in 
 what is called their mental constitution, such as may be 
 seen in their temper, talents, tastes, passions, and 
 peculiar modes of thought. Now, if idiocy, proclivity 
 to crime, a tendency to insanity, temper, tastes, pas- 
 sions, and talents are handed down from parents to 
 children, on the side of both father and mother, and if 
 these things are all in the mind, in place of the body, 
 it must follow that the mind itself is hereditary. Just 
 see the position my opponents are placed in by such a 
 state of matters ! They are compelled to believe that 
 the mind is transmitted by the parents, as well as the 
 the body. Nay more, inasmuch as the child often 
 partakes of what is called the mental peculiarities of 
 hoth father and mother, the mind must be composed 
 of distinct and different parts, some of them derived 
 from the father, and some of them from the mother ! 
 Surely this is materialism with a vengeance. For my 
 part, I cannot believe that the mind, or soul, is derived 
 all from the mother, or all from the father, or a part 
 of it from each. I am satisfied the body alone is trans- 
 mitted ; and that the soul in every instance is a new 
 creation from the hand of the Omnipotent. I believe 
 
IS THE BEAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN 1 261 
 
 that uothing short of Almighty power can create or 
 confer a soul. If my opponents are correct, and the 
 mind be supplied in part by the mother, and in part 
 by the father, it cannot possibly be a spirit, — it must 
 be material and mortal. " If the mind," says Dr 
 James Johnson, " be derived from our parents, immor- 
 tality is a dream ! No, no. The soul's tenement 
 only is transmitted from generation to generation, 
 and with it many of its maladies. The immortal 
 spark is derived from Heaven, in every sub- 
 sequent as in the first creation." — (Economy/ of Health.) 
 I may perhaps be asked to explain, on my views, how 
 the mind becomes affected with sin. I acknowledge 
 my entire ignorance on the subject, and confess that 
 I can offer no explanation on the matter. Where Ee- 
 velation is silent, and reason cannot enter, I must stop 
 and simply receive the doctrine of Scripture, that after 
 soul and body are united so as to form a human being, 
 the individual is by nature thoroughly and entirely 
 affected with, and prone to, sin. 
 
 Dr Abercrombie, in his treatise on the Intellectual 
 Powers, says, "The brain, it is true, is the centre of 
 that influence on which depends sensation and motion. 
 There is a remarkable connexion between this organ 
 and the manifestations of mind, and by various diseases 
 of the brain these manifestations are often modified, 
 impaired, or suspended." When referring, in his 
 argument against materialism, to the constant renewal 
 
262 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 of the particles of matter in man, he says, "amid 
 these changes, he feels that the being, whom he calls 
 himself, remains essentially the same. In particular, 
 his rememberance of the occurrences of his early days 
 he feels to be totally inconsistent with the idea of an 
 impression made upon a material organ, unless he has 
 recourse to the absurdity of supposing that one series 
 of particles, as they departed, transferred the picture 
 to those which came to occupy their room." This is 
 an able argument, and requires to be f ally considered 
 and carefully examined. If I were perfectly satisfied 
 with its accuracy, and its capability of proving the 
 immateriality of the soul, irrespective of Scripture, I 
 would at once receive it ; but I am not. I believe it 
 is fallacious, and therefore must reject it. Dr Aber- 
 crombie fairly admits that if it establishes an im- 
 material principle in man, it does the same for the 
 lower animals. The horse will recollect, during all the 
 remainder of his life, the house he called at many 
 years before. He recollects the experience of former 
 years with as much accuracy, and often with far more 
 accuracy than man himself. Hence if Dr Abercrom- 
 bie be correct, the horse has an immaterial principle 
 within him. Some may object to Dr Abercrom^bie's* 
 view on this account ; but I do not. We are told in 
 Scripture that the spirit of man goeth upward, and 
 the spirit of the beast goeth downward to the earth. 
 I believe the lower animals have spirits which would 
 
\ 
 
 IS THE BKAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN ? 263 
 
 be immortal if God had not ordained that they were 
 to descend to the earth. According to my idea of 
 Scripture truth, man and the inferior animals have 
 an immaterial principle, which would necessarily be 
 immortal if not put an end to by Almighty power. 
 Hence I do not, on this head, object to Dr Abercrom- 
 bie's principles. My objections to Dr Abercrombie's 
 views rest upon another foundation. I utterly deny 
 the principle he lays down in relation to personal 
 identity. If his argument were correct, the law would 
 be universal, regular, and constant, in regard to man. 
 There could be no exception whatever, because one 
 single exception would ruin and overturn the whole 
 theory. I admit his rule would hold good in a state 
 of health and sanity, but if we consult the records of 
 insanity, we will find hundreds of exceptions. I have 
 myself seen several cases in which the patients not 
 only did not draw the conclusions Dr Abercrombie 
 lays down regarding their personal identity, but they 
 could not possibly be persuaded of their own identity. 
 They would not believe it ; they thought they were 
 some other parties. I cannot forget a scene which 
 occurred in my early days, when residing in one of the 
 Dublin Hospitals. I was placed in a room to take 
 charge of a gentleman who was brought in from the 
 streets in consequence of his having gone deranged 
 from the effects of drink. I tried to pacify him by 
 showing that his conduct was inconsistent with his 
 
264 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 official position. But it was of no use ; he would not 
 be persuaded that he was Mr So-and-so, and he got 
 so dreadfully angry that he threatened my life. He 
 tore off all his clothes, as they were not suitable for 
 him, as he was the Duke of Wellington at the head of 
 his army. In order to protect myself from his fury, 
 as I had no assistance, I was obliged to. change my 
 tactics to pacify him. I told him if he were the Duke 
 it would be quite derogatory to his lofty position to 
 condescend to lay his hands on one so insignificant as 
 I was. This had the desired effect. It quieted him, 
 and probably saved my life. This man did not believe 
 in his personal identity. I well remember another 
 case, where a man went deranged and would not be per- 
 suaded of his own identity. When told he was So-and- 
 so, he denied it, and said the body he possessed was a 
 dead body. So convinced was he of this, that he held 
 out his arm and entreated me to cut it off, as he knew 
 it was a dead body, and not his own, and therefore it 
 would not bleed even although the arm were cut 
 through. He remained in this miserable condition for 
 several months ; but eventually recovered. Dr Wigan 
 observes, '' I knew a very intelligent and amiable man, 
 who had the power of placing before his eyes himself^ 
 and often laughed heartily at his double^ who always 
 seemed to laugh in turn. This was long a subject of 
 amusement and joke, but the ultimate result was 
 lamentable, (he committed suicide.) He became gradu- 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN? 265 
 
 ally convinced that he was haunted by himself. This 
 other self would argue with him pertinaciously, and, 
 to his great mortification, sometimes refute him, 
 which, as he was very proud of his logical powers, 
 humihated him exceedingly." — (Wigan's Duality of 
 Mind.) 
 
 These, and many similar cases which might be 
 adduced, prove a diseased consciousness. There was 
 either a double consciousness, or a derangement in the 
 feeling of personal identity. Hence they strike at the 
 very foundation of the metaphysical system. If the 
 consciousness of personal identity belongs exclusively 
 to mind, as the Metaphysicians maintain, these cases 
 of double, or deranged, consciousness, demonstrate that 
 the mind must be divisible and material. There is no 
 escape from this. But no such difficulty presents 
 itself to the Phrenologist, as he can easily explain the 
 whole affair in connexion with a variety of organs in 
 the brain. The disease is all in the brain ; part of it 
 is healthy, and part of it is diseased ; and the mind^ in 
 using these parts, appears sane or insane as the case 
 may be. Further, such cases form distinct exceptions 
 to the principle laid down by Dr Abercrombie, and 
 therefore show that the law he propounds is not uni- 
 form, and consequently cannot properly be adduced 
 as a proof that the feeling of personal identity must 
 be connected with the mind and not with the body. 
 In a state of health man is always conscious of his 
 
266 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 own identity ; but when labouring under disease, it is 
 frequently far otherwise and quite the reverse. For 
 this reason, I refuse to admit the correctness of the 
 foundation on which Dr Abercrombie rests his argu- 
 ment. I would not admit or receive an erroneous 
 principle, even although it should establish the most 
 important doctrine I hold. I must have truth for the 
 foundation, the middle, and the end. 
 
 Dr Abercrombie, if he were alive, could escape from the 
 predicament in which 1 have here placed him, by main- 
 taining that insanity is specially a disease of the mind 
 itself. Indeed, it is difficult to gather from his writings 
 whether he exactly holds this opinion or not. Like all 
 those who refuse the light of Phrenology, he some- 
 times argues as if the mind was the seat of disease, 
 and at other times as if it was all in the body. In this 
 respect, there is a great amount of confusion and dark- 
 ness in the statements of all the antiphrenological 
 writers on insanity I have had an opportunity of con- 
 sulting. There is a jumbling u^ of mind and matter 
 in all they say ; and their theory of mind-disease is 
 wonderfully inconsistent with their practice of treat- 
 ing it on the principle of its being a bodily affection. 
 The confusion of their ideas, and the great inconsist- 
 ency of their theory and practice, contrast in a remark- 
 able manner with the beautiful simplicity and abso- 
 lute consistency of the Phrenological theory and 
 practice. Phrenology here shines out to great advan- 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 267 
 
 tage. If Dr Abercrombie escapes from his difficulty 
 by asserting disease of the mind itself, he is only 
 getting into a worse position. He would then be 
 making the mind divisible, material, and mortal ; he 
 would then be responsible for all the consequences I 
 have already shown to depend upon such a principle, 
 and which I need not here repeat. Disease is the 
 precursor of death. That which decays^ is sick, or 
 diseased, must die. 
 
 Dr Abercrombie's second point is, that the recollec- 
 tion of the occurrences of our early days is inconsistent 
 with the impression made upon a material organ, un- 
 less we suppose that one series of particles, as they 
 were removed from the system, transferred the picture 
 to those which came to occupy their place. Conse- 
 quently, everything which we can call up by memory 
 must belong exclusively to the mind. This is an im- 
 portant point, and we must have a look at it. I admit 
 that the particles of which our bodies are composed 
 are continually changing. The old material is being 
 constantly absorbed, and new particles are laid down 
 in its place. The experiments of Duhamel prove 
 beyond all controversy that this change is regularly 
 occurring even in the hardest bone. Our bodies this 
 day do not possess a single particle of the material of 
 which they were composed a few years since. This is 
 a remarkable fact. We know it to be a fact, and can 
 trace all the links in the chain of operation ; but we 
 
268 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 can go no farther. We cannot even guess how it 
 comes that, from the same blood, the vessels can 
 deposit bone, muscle, tendon, liver, lung, kidney, 
 brain, skm, and cellular tissue. We just know it to 
 be a law of our organisation that this should be the 
 case, and that every tissue shall be laid down with 
 perfect accuracy in its own place. We can form no 
 idea of how absorption and deposition should be regu- 
 larly going on, and at the same time that our personal 
 identity should be preserved. Are we justified, how- 
 ever, on this account, in adopting Dr Abercrombie's 
 principles, which, while they would retain the identity 
 of the mind, would entirely overturn the identity of 
 the body ? I rather think not. If a man who com- 
 mitted murder a dozen years since were to set up the 
 plea, that his present body could not be punished be- 
 cause it was not the same as the body which com- 
 mitted the crime, would the judge allow him to 
 escape 1 Certainly not. The law holds the identity 
 of the body as well as the mind ; and man not only 
 believes it, but, when he becomes a witness, will swear 
 to it, and identify the body of the culprit. If he 
 would adopt Dr Abercrombie's principles and refuse 
 the oath, he would be put in the dock himself. 
 
 I do not pretend to determine how it comes that the 
 features of our face remain the same from year to 
 year. Neither do I presume to understand how the 
 particles of the body can transmit the information 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ] 269 
 
 they have received to those which are to succeed them 
 in the animal machine. The how is beyond my power, 
 the fact is within my knowledge. Dr Abercrombie 
 may call it an absurdity, but still I am bold enough to 
 believe it myself, and further to maintain that Dr 
 Abercrombie believed it also. It is one thing to know 
 a fact, and another to be able to explain it. I know 
 the eyes are the organs of sight, but I cannot tell why 
 I should see through my eyes rather than through the 
 points of my fiogers. We can ascertain the fact, 
 although we cannot explain it. Is it therefore a fact, 
 as Dr Abercrombie asserts, that our bodily organs of 
 to-day have no knowledge whatever of the experience 
 of our bodily organs of last year ? Are his own views 
 on other points consistent with his statements on this 
 subject ? Is it the horse's mouth, or his mind, that 
 gets hardened by the use of the bit ? Is it a man's 
 palate, or his mind, that makes him a good wine- 
 taster by the dint of experience ? Is it the brain, the 
 eye, and the hand of the rifleman, or his mind, that 
 gets trained to hitting the mark by the practice of 
 years ? Is it the hand, or the mind, that gets accus- 
 tomed to the use of the pen in writing ? Is it the 
 hand, or the mind, acquires dexterity in playing the 
 fiddle 1 In short, will Dr Abercrombie, or any other 
 man, assert, if he has no purpose to serve, that the 
 organs of our senses gain nothing by experience, and 
 are in no way trained by practice ? I am sure no 
 
270 PHUENOLOGY. 
 
 man would venture on such an assertion. If so, then, 
 I turn round on Dr Abercrombie and ask him to 
 explain how the palate of to-day has received any in- 
 formation from the impressions which were made by 
 the wine on the palate of last year. He cannot defiy 
 the fact ; and when he explains it, I will unravel any 
 other question he chooses to put before me. If Dr 
 Abercrombie V7ere correct, the palate of the novice 
 should be able to judge the quality of port with as 
 much accuracy as the palate of the man who had 
 forty years' practice. I hold that the impressions 
 made upon our bodily organs are conveyed to the 
 brain, and that the mind takes full cognizance of 
 them ; but I hold at the same time, and I am sure all 
 my readers agree with me in the matter, that the 
 organs of the body themselves can be trained and 
 improved, and, although it can in no wise be explained, 
 that they are decidedly benefited by the practice of 
 years, notwithstanding the constant changing of the 
 particles which enter into their composition. When 
 taken off his guard, however, we find Dr Abercrombie 
 making statements which are at direct variance with 
 his own assertion on the point in discussion. He 
 believes in the improvement of the organs of the 
 senses by experience, and consequently in the trans- 
 mission of knowledge from particle to particle, as 
 firmly as I do. When writing on another point, he 
 says, " With regard to all our senses, the truth seems 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN 1 271 
 
 to be, that the first notions conveyed by them are of a 
 very limited and imperfect kind ; and that our real 
 knowledge is acquired only after considerable observa- 
 tion and experience, in the course of which, the im- 
 pressions of one sense are corrected and assisted by 
 those of others, and by a process of mind acting upon 
 the whole." The improvement of the organs them- 
 selves by experience is here distinctly recognised ; and 
 I am fully entitled to turn Dr Abercrombie's argument 
 on himself, and ask how it comes that the organ of 
 to-day is benefited by the experience of the organ of 
 last year, unless, to use his own words, '' we have re- 
 course to the absurdity of supposing that one series of 
 particles, as they departed, transferred the picture to 
 those which came to occupy their room 1 " 
 
 The Metaphysicians and Physiologists have some- 
 times puzzled themselves to ascertain how it is that 
 the mind and brain can call up a recollection of things 
 which are past, by what is called an act of memory. 
 To me, this has always appeared a fruitless inquiry. 
 We know from experience that we have the power of 
 recalling the past ; but to explain the how and the 
 wherefore is beyond our reach. We know it to be a 
 fact that our ears are for hearing, but we cannot tell 
 how it comes that we hear by our ears, rather than by 
 the soles of our feet. We may find out many things 
 respecting the laws of memory and hearing, but how 
 we remember and hear, or wh^ one part of our body is 
 
272 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 capable of the operation, instead of another, we cannot 
 possibly divine. We know it as a fact ; we know that 
 God has ordered it so ; and there we ought to stop, 
 and rest satisfied, without perplexing ourselves about 
 what never will be known by us in this life. 
 
 The observations I have already made in regard to 
 partial insanity as a proof of the plurality of organs in 
 the brain, will apply in all their force to cases of 
 partial Idiocy. Let us look at a few examples. Foder6, 
 one of the most eminent of the French physicians, 
 who was an enemy to Phrenology, tells us, that some 
 of the Cretins, who are in the most deplorable condi- 
 tion imaginable, — such a condition as would shock 
 humanity to think of, — he tells us, I say, " that several 
 of this class of individuals, possessed of such feeble in- 
 tellect, are born with a peculiar talent for copying, 
 drawing, for finding rhymes, and for music. I have 
 known several," he continues, " who have learned, by 
 themselves, to play tolerably on the organ and the 
 harpsichord ; and others who understand, without having 
 been taught, how to repair clocks, and to make some 
 pieces of machinery. This, probably, depends on the 
 more perfect organisation of the organ with which 
 such an act is connected, and not on the understand- 
 ing ; for these individuals not only could not read the 
 books which treated of the principles of their art, but 
 they were confounded if spoken to on the subject, and 
 never improved themselves." — {Gall.) I am not cer- 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 273 
 
 tain what Fodere means by stating that this peculiarity 
 probably depends on the perfection of the special organ 
 concerned, and not on the understanding. He cannot 
 mean the Phrenological organs, because he was not a 
 believer in Phrenology, and because he sets out by 
 saying that it all occurs "by an inexplicable singu- 
 larity." It is very easily explained and understood on 
 the Phrenological system, but in every other view it is 
 perfectly inexphcable. It proves that the brain is 
 composed of a number of organs performing different 
 functions, and that some organs may be properly 
 developed, whilst others are in such a rudimentary 
 condition as to be incapable of the proper manifesta- 
 tion of the mind. We are informed by Mr Schlatter, 
 of St Gall, that " the celebrated painter of cats, named 
 Mind, in Berne, was an idiot, in the fullest sense of the 
 word, and was altogether childish in his manners ; yet 
 he had such a great tendency and talent for painting 
 from his youth upwards, that he represented in various 
 pictures, large and small, his numerous favourites, 
 (cats,) of both sexes and of every age, in every possible 
 attitude and action, with the most striking effect, and 
 completely true to nature in their forms, proportions, 
 and colours." — {Phren. Journal, Oct. 1844.) I recollect 
 seeing at the Duke of Leinster's, about the year 1834, 
 a house which was composed of shells ; and the shells, 
 in the internal compartments, were arranged in such a 
 manner as to represent a great variety of scenery, 
 
274 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 showing land, water, mountain, valley, hill, and dale. 
 Altogether it was an object of great interest ; and I 
 was informed it was all planned and executed by a 
 simpleton. Mr Combe relates a remarkable case of an 
 idiot, in Liverpool, named Jones. Such is his facility 
 in acquiring languages, that if he is shown a passage in 
 the Bible, he will point out and read the parallel pas- 
 sages in seven or eight other languages, although he 
 has not the slightest idea of the meaning attached to 
 the words. In the asylum for idiots at Earlswood, 
 near London, there is a boy " who is an excellent 
 draughtsman, and who made the model of a man-of- 
 war, every part of which is in just proportion and 
 strictly correct, although he could not work by a scale ; 
 nor could he possibly be made to understand the value 
 of money." — {Chamber i s Journal, Nov. 1859.) 
 
 Now, in regard to all these cases of partial idiocy, if 
 the defect be in the brain, it is just as impossible for 
 the brain to be a single organ, as it would be for a man 
 " to have the power of walking east without having the 
 power of walking west." There must be a plurality of 
 organs, or else the idiocy, in place of being partial, would 
 be complete. If the whole brain performed but one 
 function, a defect in its structure must tell equally upon 
 every subject. But partial idiocy is very easily under- 
 stood in the light of a complex brain. If diflferent 
 parts perform different functions, and the ojgan is un- 
 equally developed, it is extremely easy to see that the 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN] 275 
 
 mental mauifestations will be correct and proper 
 through those portions which are properly developed, 
 and quite idiotic through those parts which are so 
 defective as to be merely rudimentary. This is as 
 simple as that two and two make four. The organs 
 are different in the exact same way as there are dif- 
 ferent parts in the brain for hearing, seeing, and sinell- 
 ing ; and as a man may be deaf without being blind, 
 or bhnd without being dumb, so may he be idiotic in 
 some faculties without being idiotic in others. And 
 the fact of the idiocy being partial, proves, if it be in 
 the brain, that the brain is not a single, but a com- 
 pound organ. Let us suppose, on the other hand, that 
 the idiocy is in the mind ; what then ? The mind 
 must be material. If one part of it be idiotic, whilst 
 another part is sound and strong, of necessity it must 
 be divisible, material, and mortal. On this view, it is 
 utterly impossible to escape materialism. The meta- 
 physical whine about the states of the mind will give 
 no relief here. We cannot believe that the whole mind 
 is jumping out of a state of idiocy into strength, and 
 out of a state of strength into idiocy, with every sub- 
 ject which engages the attention during life. Such a 
 belief would make us thorough '' tom-fools." In the 
 speech delivered by the late Earl of Carhsle, at the 
 Asylum for Idiots, idiocy is as plainly as possible made 
 to reside in the mind. " To their stagnant minds," 
 says his lordship, " literature, and science, and art, and 
 
276 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 the sacred muse, utter no varied voice ; to their torpid 
 souls, devotion points no God. . . . The managers will 
 not tell you, that they hope to convert the patients 
 whom they receive within this institution, into philo- 
 sophers, orators, poets, statesmen. The instantaneous 
 cure, the entire change of the possessed mind, were 
 the work of Him alone, whose voice the demons heard, 
 and at once came out. . . . Much may be done. . . . 
 In fact, the soul may, as it were, be re-created, so that 
 the idiot may be converted into a decent member of 
 society."— {Life of the Rev. Br Andrew Reed^ p. 401.) 
 This paragraph from beginning to end breathes the 
 strongest materialism. The connexion between idiocy 
 and the state of the brain is well illustrated by the 
 following example. " Two cases of congenital idiocy 
 have been reported to us, in which the cranium was 
 so low that the representations given of them call to 
 mind the state of the skull in hemicephalous monsters ; 
 but here the cranium is perfect. These idiots are the 
 two sons of a widow named Sohn, living within a mile 
 of Bromberg ; one is aged seventeen, the other ten 
 years. Both, enjoying excellent health, are at the same 
 time so stupid that they do not remember their way 
 back to their home if they leave it but a short dis- 
 tance.'^ — {M U ller'^s Physiology.) 
 
 There are few things which prove the existence of a 
 plurality of organs in the brain more clearly and satis- 
 factorily than the fact, that memory is almost invari- 
 
IS THE brai:n" a compound organ? 277 
 
 ably partial. One man recollects all the faces, and per- 
 haps all the places, he ever saw, without the slightest 
 difficulty or exertion ; but let him use what efforts he 
 may, he cannot remember events, dates, or numbers. 
 Another person can solve the most difficult questions 
 in arithmetic, without either pen or pencil, and has the 
 most vivid recollection of chronology and history ; but 
 perhaps is unable to recognise a person on the street 
 to w^hom he has been introduced a few days before ; 
 and if he be left alone in the heart of a city, he will 
 probably go astray. Again, a person may recollect 
 faces, places, numbers, events, and facts, without being 
 able to repeat poetry or remember music. We often 
 meet with parties who can recollect one thing without 
 having a memory for several other things. Indeed, 
 there are few men who possess a good memory on 
 every subject. I have seldom seen such a man ; and 
 I am certain there is not a man in the world whose 
 memory is equally good on every subject. There will 
 still be some point on which his memory will be better 
 than on others. Dr Gall records the case of a notary 
 who, after an attack of apoplexy, forgot his own name, 
 and the names of his wife, children, and friends, al- 
 though he remembered many other things. That 
 memor}^ is generally partial no man can deny. Every 
 person who carefully consults his own experience must 
 be aware of the fact. It is complete moonshine to say 
 that the difference which we find amongst men on this 
 
278 ' PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 point] is altogether owing to the attention they may 
 happen to bestow on the special subjects concerned. 
 There must be a difference in the original capacity. 
 Attention could not possibly account for it. For ex- 
 ample, my own memory for forms, faces, and places, 
 is such, that I do not require to make any exertion in 
 the matter. So far from having any difficulty in re- 
 membering them, I cannot possibly forget them. On 
 this head, to remember gives me no trouble, to forget 
 is out of my power. The case is far otherwise, how- 
 ever, on some other points. No amount of exertion and 
 attention which I can possibly command, will enable me 
 to recollect names, dates, and numbers. It matters 
 not how anxiously I may apply myself to the task, I 
 cannot by any means accomplish it. It is beyond my 
 power. These and all similar facts are capable of 
 being explained in the most satisfactory manner on 
 the Phrenological principle, which teaches that the 
 brain is composed of a variety of organs performing 
 different functions, and that each organ has a memory 
 of its own. The strength of memory, then, on any 
 particular subject, will depend upon the development 
 of the special organ which deals with that particular 
 point ; whereas, if memory depends upon the brain, and 
 if, as our opponents maintain, the brain be a single 
 organ performing a single function, the memory 
 would of necessity be perfectly equal on every 
 subject. Surely this is a sufficient reply to Professor 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN 1 279 
 
 Rudolplii, who thought that the mind, in the mani- 
 festation of different powers^ in place of requiring a 
 compound brain, only required a single brain varying 
 in its absolute size. An increase in the absolute size 
 of a single brain, will increase its general power ; but 
 could not by any means whatever increase its power 
 on one point without increasing it on all. A partial 
 increase proves a divided organ. 
 
 Now, take it for granted that the Phrenologists are 
 wrong, and the Metaphysicians right regarding memory, 
 — that it is a power belonging to the mind and not to 
 the brain, and what is the necessary result ? Nothing 
 more or less than that we must be materialists. If the 
 memory belongs exclusively to the mind, and if, as can- 
 not be denied, it is extremely powerful on some points, 
 and extremely weak and defective on other points, the 
 mind must be strong in some parts and weak in other 
 parts, and consequently is divisible, material, and mortal. 
 Nay, more, on this view, as age creeps on, the mind de- 
 cays in the memory part, and begins to dote ! A fair in- 
 terpretation of the system of our opponents would make 
 immortality a dream ; and the great floods of infidelity 
 which at times have overrun the world, must have been 
 materially promoted by the opinions of what has been 
 very improperly called the Christian Philosopher. If 
 the memory pertained exclusively to the mind, it would 
 be equally strong on all subjects, and at all times. 
 The mind could not be a spirit, if it were strong on 
 
280 i PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 one point and weak on another,— if it were weak to-day 
 and strong to-morrow. Just imagine a spirit becoming 
 imbecile, weak, tired, and exhausted ! Should my 
 opponents not be ashamed of their childish opinions ? 
 It has been well observed, if the brain were a single 
 organ, fatigue of one part should exhaust the energies 
 of the whole. Experience, however, informs us, that 
 after our reflecting organs have become wearied by 
 directing our attention, for a length of time, to a close 
 process of reasoning, we can turn with pleasure and 
 comfort to poetry, fiction, music, conversation, or 
 some other subject which will call forth a new set of 
 faculties into activity ; and this proves that the organ 
 is compound. I might walk till my legs would be so 
 tired that I could use them no longer ; but that would 
 not hinder me from sitting down and using my hands, 
 which were quite fresh for the work. So is it with 
 the brain. When one set of its organs has been 
 thoroughly exhausted, that set may be allowed to rest 
 and recruit its energies, whilst another is called into 
 action ; and we will thus be able to pursue a new sub- 
 ject with pleasure and ease. Dr Burchell, the African 
 traveller, when speaking of the stupidity of one of the 
 natives, called Mochunka, says, ''it was evident that 
 exertion of mind, or continued employment of the 
 faculty of thinking, soon wore out his powers of re- 
 flection, and rendered him really incapable of paying 
 any longer attention to the subject." Burchell here 
 
IS THE BKAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN? 281 
 
 distinctly places the exhaustion in the mind, and 
 therefore, although he should have known better, is 
 far behind Tissot, who, in speaking of disorders pro- 
 duced by incessant application to one subject, says^ 
 " in this case, there is only one part of the sensorium 
 acted upon, and that is kept always on the stretch ; it 
 is not relieved by the action of the other parts, and 
 therefore is soon fatigued and injured.'^ 
 
 I hope all my readers have thought as much as is 
 sufficient to convince them that deep reflection is fol- 
 lowed by a feeling of weariness and exhaustion in the 
 brain. If they have never felt this, I pity their condi- 
 tion ; and if they have felt it, they will admit the fact 
 without further proof. The all-important question 
 now comes. Is the fatigue in the mind or in the brain ? 
 The Phrenologist says a spirit cannot be wearied, and 
 therefore the exhaustion must be in the brain, which 
 is the material instrument through which the mind 
 operates. But the metaphysical school, to which 
 Lord Jeffrey and Dr Abercrombie belong, must take 
 the opposite view of the matter. " There is not the 
 smallest reason for supposing," says Lord Jeffrey, 
 " that the mind ever operates through the agency of 
 any material organs, except in its perception of mate- 
 rial objects, or in the spontaneous movements of the 
 body which it inhabits ; " and Dr Abercrombie asks 
 what reason we have " for believing that the mind 
 should be affected by any change in the arrangement 
 
282 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 of material organs, except in so far as relates to its 
 intercourse with this external world." Consequently, 
 they hold that the mind, during a process of deep 
 reflection, never uses any material instrument what- 
 ever. If, then, the mind in deep reflection never uses 
 a material organ, and if, as cannot be denied, pain and 
 fatigue are produced far more readily by a process of 
 deep and abstracted reflection, than '' by the percep- 
 tion of material objects," the mind itself must of 
 necessity be liable to exhaustion and fatigue. This is 
 the necessary result of such metaphysical opinions. 
 But, I ask, is this not the rankest materialism ? If 
 the mind can get tired, it must be matter. We can- 
 not for a moment imagine that a spirit can stop 
 through fatigue. Such a supposition is preposterous ; 
 and here again I am forced to the conclusion that no 
 man but the Phrenologist can escape materialism. 
 
 Having taken a survey of the human constitution, 
 I am prepared to say there is no example of two func- 
 tions being performed by the same part. On the con- 
 trary, every function has an organ specially appro- 
 priated to itself. For instance, the heart, the lungs, 
 the eye, and the ear, all perform distinct duties, and 
 no one of them is able exactly to take the place of the 
 other in the animal economy. The loss of sight may 
 compel us to cultivate to a greater degree the senses 
 of hearing, smelling, and feeling, so as, to a certain 
 extent, to compensate for the want of vision ; but 
 
IS THE BRATN A COMPOUND OEGAN 1 283 
 
 these other senses can never acquire the power of see- 
 ing. Their own natural function may be improved, 
 but thej cannot acquire the power of another organ. 
 Every organ is limited to its own duty. There are 
 various cases, however, which, to superficial thinkers, 
 like Dr Roget, might appear exceptions to the rule I 
 have here laid down ; but they are not so in reality. 
 For example, the tongue both speaks and tastes ; but 
 if it does, it is furnished with one nerve for taste, and 
 another nerve for motion, and consequently is a double 
 organ performing a double function ; so that, in place 
 of being an exception, it is a proof of the rule, that a 
 double function is an indication of a compound organ. 
 The same explanation will apply to all the examples 
 with which I am acquainted. May we not conclude, 
 then, with Gall and Spurzheim, by a strong analogical 
 argument, that each mental manifestation takes place 
 through a special and appropriate organ, and that the 
 brain consequently is not an exception to that unifor- 
 mity of design which we are able to trace in every 
 department of nature, and which is such an admirable 
 proof that all we see around us has sprung from the 
 hand of a great and wise Creator ? 
 
 It seems, however, Dr Roget has made a great dis- 
 covery. He has discovered that a single organ can 
 perform a double function. "Does not the same 
 stomach," says he, " digest very different and even 
 opposite kinds of aliment ? Yet we do not find that 
 
284 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 one portion of that organ is destined for the digestion 
 of meat, and another for the digestion of vegetable 
 matter." — (Physiology and Phrenology^ vol. i. p. 58.) 
 Does Dr Eoget really believe he has here given an 
 example of a double function ? As well might I main- 
 tain that speaking is a fifty-fold function, because 
 Carey and Burritt could speak in fifty languages, or 
 dialects. Surely it is the same gastric juice which 
 digests the one kind of aliment that digests the other ; 
 and hence the function must be single. But if Dr 
 Koget can show that the stomach must secrete one 
 kind of gastric juice for the animal, and an entirely dif- 
 ferent kind for the vegetable, food, then I reply, in 
 place of being a single organ, it must be a compound 
 viscus, containing a double apparatus for secretion. 
 This is the rational way of looking at it. I am sure 
 Dr Eoget would not venture to assert that the com- 
 mon mucus and the gastric juice are both secreted by 
 the very same vessel. Wherever there is a complex 
 function, we have a decisive proof of a complex organ. 
 The first volume of the Phrenological Journal con- 
 tains an able answer to this argument of Dr Eoget, 
 from the pen of Dr Andrew Combe. ^' The function^'' 
 says Dr Combe, ^' is the same in all, the subject only is 
 different. Digesting is no more than digesting, whether 
 it be performed on turtle or roast beef, animal food 
 or vegetable. In like manner, no Phrenologist ever 
 asserted that one part of the organ of causality reasoned 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN ? 285 
 
 in political economy, another in metaphysics, and a 
 third in medicine ; or that one portion of the organ 
 of tune was destined to produce soft and plaintive 
 notes, and another bold and warlike music. We only 
 maintain, that as the stomach cannot secrete bile, nor 
 perform the office of kidneys, neither can the organ 
 of causality produce a relish for music, nor that of 
 tune a talent for logical reasoning. We have never 
 said that causality cannot be exercised on all sorts of 
 subjects, sacred or profane, important or trifling ; but 
 we have said, that no change of subject will ever change 
 its specific function of reasoning, any more than any 
 change of diet will change that of the stomach from 
 digestion to the secretion of bile." 
 
 If Dr Roget be driven from this stronghold, he 
 has a more impregnable fortress still to enter. 
 " Nerves," says he, '' perform the double office of voli- 
 tion and sensation ; but the different bundles of fibres 
 which convey each impression, the one to the muscles, 
 the other to the sensorium, are wrapped up in the 
 same sheath, and are so intimately intermixed during 
 their course as to constitute a single cord,'' — (Physio- 
 logy and Phrenology^ vol. i. p. 59.) This surely is a 
 poser. We have here got a single cord performing two 
 very different functions ; why may a single brain not 
 do the same ? To use Dr Roget's own words, " Guided 
 by such analogies as these, might we not be equally 
 justified in concluding, that the same part of the brain 
 
2S6 PHKENOLOGY. 
 
 may serve for the memory of words, as for the memory 
 of things ; and that the same portion of that organ 
 which enables us to conceive the idea of figure, may 
 also suggest to us that of size ? " To be sure you 
 might, provided only the analogical case upon which 
 you ground your argument is true. If a nervous cord, 
 which is in reality single in its nature, can perform a 
 double function, there could be no reason why a single 
 brain might not do the same. But here, as in many 
 other cases, the whole point turns upon the if. The 
 case I am now considering gives us an excellent ex- 
 ample of the difference between a mere superficial writer 
 and a profound thinker. Dr Eoget looked at a nerv- 
 ous cord which performed two very distinct functions, 
 and because, to his eye, it looked single, he at once 
 drew the conclusion that the same part can perform 
 two duties which are entirely different in their nature. 
 But Dr Spurzheim looked at the same cord, and, in 
 the spirit of true philosophy, when he found it per- 
 forming two functions, he drew the conclusion that it 
 must be a double organ ; that it must be composed of 
 distinct and dissimilar fibres running in the one sheath. 
 (See Spurzheim's Fhydognomy ; and also his Anatomy 
 of the Brain,) The same idea had previously occurred 
 to Prochaska. " No reader of Prochaska's works," says 
 Dr Carpenter, " can avoid the conclusion that he enter- 
 tained the speculative opinion, that the nervous fibres 
 conducting impressions to the central organs, and trans- 
 
IS THE BEAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 287 
 
 mitting motor impulses from them, were distinct." — 
 {Medical Gazette^ June 1841.) Here, then, we have Pro- 
 chaska, in the end of the seventeenth centm*y, and Spur- 
 zheim, in 1815, coming to the very rational conclusion, 
 that, although a spinal nerve is a single cord, enveloped 
 in a single sheath, and, as far as the eye is concerned, 
 looks to be a simple nerve, it must yet be a compound 
 organ in reality, because it performs two functionsr 
 which are entirely dissimilar. This was surely a very 
 rational opinion ; but Dr Roget took a different view 
 of the case, and adduced the example of the spinal 
 nerves to overthrow Phrenology. It must have been 
 dreadfully mortifying to him, however, to find that the 
 opinions which were broached by Prochaska and 
 Spurzheim in regard to the structure and functions 
 of the spiual nerves were afterwards proved to be ab- 
 solutely correct, by the experiments which were per- 
 formed by Sir Charles Bell, Magendie, Mayo, Marshall 
 Hall, and many others, in and after the year 1821. 
 The discoveries of these Physiologists have made sad 
 havoc of Dr Roget' s argument. But so far as I am aware, 
 he has never had the manliness and honesty to come 
 forward with a public acknowledgment of his igno- 
 rance and mistake. If he had done so, like a man, he 
 would have redeemed his position. It was observed 
 by Dr Andrew Combe, in 1824, that the example of the 
 voluntary nerve is a strong corroboration of the truth 
 of Phrenology, in place of being against it. Dr Roget 
 
28S PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 looked at the nerve, and because it appeared single, 
 although it performed a double function, he drew the 
 conclusion that a single organ can perform two oppo- 
 site duties ; but the experiments and observations of 
 Bell, Magendie, and others, demonstrated, what Pro- 
 chaska and Spurzheim had previously believed, that 
 it performed a double duty, because it was a double 
 organ. So in regard to the brain. To the eye of the 
 Physiologist, it may appear to be a single organ ; but 
 inasmuch as it is well known to perform a great variety 
 of duties, it may be fairly presumed to be a compound 
 viscus ; and that it is so, has been demonstrated by 
 Gall and Spurzheim. 
 
 If we pass through the wide expanse of comparative 
 anatomy, we will find that in the lowest grade of ani- 
 mated existence there is no brain at all ; when we 
 advance a little higher in the range of creation, the 
 brain becomes apparent, and, from being a simple 
 protuberance, step by step as we proceed, it is increased 
 in size by the addition of new parts, in the shape of 
 processes, convolutions, and lobes, until -at last we 
 arrive at man, who is distinguished from all other 
 creatures by the very great size of the anterior and 
 superior lobes of his brain. If the brain were a single, 
 and not a compound, organ, where would be the neces- 
 sity for all this variety ? It would be a superfluity in 
 nature, and derogatory to the perfection of the works 
 of God. 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ] 289 
 
 The theory of a single brain could not possibly ac- 
 count for the successive development of the faculties 
 in children. They experience attachment^ anger, and 
 fear, as Mr George Combe has remarked, long before 
 they have any relish for the sublime and beautiful ; 
 and they are able to observe surrounding objects long 
 prior to , the exercise of their reasoning powers. If 
 this difference depends on the state of the brain, it 
 shows clearly that the brain is composed of a variety 
 of parts performing different functions, and that the 
 different parts are called into play, and matured in 
 their structure, at different periods of the child's 
 growth. But if we presume the difference to exist in 
 the condition of the mind, we are then compelled to 
 divide the mind into as many distinct faculties, which 
 come into play, grow, and are matured as material 
 parts, at different periods, and consequently must be 
 material and mortal. 
 
 The phenomena of dreaming have always been inex- 
 plicable on the principles of the metaphysicians. To 
 the Phrenologist, however, they present no difficulty 
 whatever. The brain is composed of a number of 
 organs performing separate functions ; some of these 
 organs may be very deeply under the influence of 
 sleep, and therefore incapable of manifesting the 
 mental operations, whilst the remainder may be more 
 or less in a state of activity ; and this will permit of 
 the operation called dreaming. If dreaming depended 
 
290 PHRENOLOGY, 
 
 exclusively on the state of the mind, the mind would 
 require to be compound, and material, in order to 
 admit of one part being asleep whilst another was 
 awake and active. But if, as Gall and Spurzheim 
 maintain, it results from the nature and condition of 
 the brain, it is a sure proof that the brain is composed 
 of a variety of parts performing different functions. 
 During the time the eyes are closed in sleep, a person 
 can turn in bed, hear and answer questions, or walk 
 about. This shows that some of the organs of the 
 senses may be asleep whilst others are awake. So is 
 it with the brain. Some of its organs may be active 
 whilst others are fast asleep, and thus produce dream- 
 ing or somnambulism. ^'I knew an instance of a 
 miller," says Gall, '' who, while dreaming with his eyes 
 open, went into his mill, occupied himself there, as he 
 usually did in the daytime, and then returned to bed^ 
 without having the faintest recollection^ in the morn- 
 ing, of his night's work," 
 
 When we are anxious to increase the activity of our 
 reflecting organs, as Gall and Spurzheim have re- 
 marked, we go into retirement, withdraw ourselves 
 from external excitement, and perhaps close our eyes 
 and place our hands over them. We are thus able, by 
 throwing a number of organs out of use, to concentrate 
 all our power on a few, and thereby to increase their 
 activity. The same condition exactly occurs in dream- 
 ing» The tranquillity of some organs will allow the 
 
IS THE BEAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN? 291 
 
 vital energies of others to be increased, so that, as Dr 
 Spurzheim has observed, ^* dreaming persons some- 
 times reason better than they do when they are 
 awake." I can corroborate this observation from my 
 own experience. I recollect, on one occasion, deliver- 
 ing, in a dream, an oration, which, for language and 
 matter, I could not equal in my waking moments. I 
 remembered every word of it when I awoke ; but I 
 never since could compose anything at all to compare 
 with it. I also had an opportunity of witnessing an 
 example of a similar nature in a patient. He lived a 
 reckless life, and paid no attention to religious matters. 
 I was called to see him, in company with his own 
 medical attendant, whilst he was labouring under a 
 severe attack of delirium tremens. On our arrival, we 
 found him asleep from the effects of some soothing 
 medicine ; and, to the surprise of all who heard him, 
 he prayed in an audible voice, in the most accurate, 
 eloquent, and able manner. This I am sure was more 
 than he ever did whilst awake. 
 
 Perhaps some parties may imagine that the idea of 
 a plurality of organs in the brain is inconsistent with 
 the results of the surgical cases already adduced, where 
 pressure on one part of the brain destroyed, for the 
 time being, all the mental manifestations. This, how- 
 ever, is easily and satisfactorily accounted for by the 
 fact that the brain is a softish mass, and therefore 
 that pressure on one part of it may sometimes be 
 
292 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 communicated to the whole, on the same principle 
 as pressure on the end of a pillow, or an air-cushion, 
 may be distributed through all its dimensions. In 
 regard to the brain, the direction of the pressure will 
 materially alter the results. If it be upwards, or side- 
 ways, it will not produce the same effects as down- 
 wards ; because the downward pressure may reach the 
 commissures, or those parts which unite the different 
 lobes so as to form of the whole one brain, and thus 
 interrupt the cerebral action on every point. An idea 
 just now strikes me. If pressure, confined strictly to 
 one spot, interrupts all the mental manifestations, it 
 would not after all prove that the whole brain is a 
 single organ. It would only show that all the mental 
 manifestations took place through the one spot, and 
 that the remainder of the brain was either useless or 
 destined for some other purpose. In fact, it would 
 demonstrate that it was a compound organ. But, again, 
 if the pressure was removed from this spot and placed 
 on a contiguous part, the mental manifestations would 
 again become affected, showing beyond doubt that the 
 part which previously was supposed to be useless, 
 really had to do in the manifestations of mind. 
 Hence the only way of properly accounting for the 
 facts, is, by supposing that pressure is communicated, 
 beyond the immediate locality, through a pultaceous 
 mass, like the brain. It is only on this principle the 
 Physiologist could account for the effects of pressure 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN? 293 
 
 on the brain, as they are sometimes seen by an exami- 
 nation of the functions of some, or all, of the nerves of 
 the senses. Whatever explanation the Physiologist 
 will give of the matter in relation to the nerves of the 
 senses which have their roots in the brain, will equally 
 suit the Phrenologist. They have both to meet the 
 point on the same grounds ; — the grounds of a com- 
 plex organ. If the pressure was in all cases strictly 
 confined to the spot where it commences, and if the 
 brain was a single organ, the effects would invariably 
 be the same whether the pressure was upwards, down- 
 wards, or sideways. This, however, we know is not 
 the case ; and hence, in order to account, on either 
 Phrenological or Physiological principles, for the 
 variety arising in practical experience, we must sup- 
 pose that the pressure is communicated to contiguous 
 parts of the spft mass of which the brain is composed. 
 Of all the opinions that have ever been promulgated 
 there is none which appears to me more absurd than 
 the one which supposes that all men at birth are gifted 
 alike ; and that all the diversity which they exhibit 
 in after life is owing to education and the circum- 
 stances in which they happen to be placed. Such, 
 we learn, was 'the doctrine of Beccaria, Diderot, and 
 Helvetius. This opinion may suit very well for those 
 who are fond of theory ; but it would not be easy to 
 get the public to believe it, as their practical observa- 
 tion has long since convinced them that there is every 
 
294 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 variety and degree of natural talent, from the greatest 
 philosopher or statesman down to the mere simpleton. 
 That all men are born with the same power of mind, 
 may be true or false for aught I can tell ; but of this 
 I am quite certain, that the organisation through 
 which the mind acts is very different in different cases. 
 Practically considered, there is an original and in- 
 superable difference amongst men. Whilst I attach 
 very great importance to the influence of education 
 and favourable opportunities, I cannot for a moment 
 imagine that they could convert a Burke or a Hare 
 into a Howard or a Fry : nor is it consistent with 
 rational experience to suppose that every man we 
 meet could be converted by these things into a 
 Newton, a Shakespeare, a Scott, a Mozart, a Herschell, 
 a Stephenson, a Keynolds, a Wellington, a Johnson, or 
 a Peel. Besides, the advocates of the doctrine of 
 equality have not given us any rules by which we 
 may certainly raise ourselves to the greatness of these 
 men. For my part, I would be glad if they could do 
 so, as I would not be one whit behind the greatest 
 philosopher the world ever saw, if I could help it. 
 Because education and favourable circumstances are 
 able to do a great deal, some parties seem to imagine 
 they are able to do anything and everything. This 
 may be a very consoling theory; but the great body 
 of those who may rely upon it will one day find out, 
 with deep mortification, that they have mistaken the 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND OBGAN ? 295 
 
 laws of nature ; they will drop far, very far, short of 
 the lofty pinnacle to which they attempted to soar* 
 That all men are not born with the same natural 
 powers is so abundantly evident that 1 am surprised 
 any person could ever have doubted it. Men who sit 
 in their studies and call themselves philosophers may 
 question it; but the careful observer of nature will 
 come to a more accurate conclusion. I am even in- 
 clined to think that the most theorising of all the 
 philosophers would be startled at his own principles, 
 if, in obedience to them, a common man were to start 
 up in a crowd and declare that, although he had not 
 read as much as Galileo and Newton, he was by nature 
 as clever as either of them, and was quite as worthy 
 of respect for his talents as any man that ever lived. 
 The person who made such a declaration would be for- 
 tunate if he, escaped being charged as a lunatic ; and 
 yet he would be as wise as Helvetius, who maintained 
 "that foxes hunt because they have learned hunting 
 from their parents ; birds sing and build nests in con- 
 sequence of instruction; and man becomes man by 
 education."— (/S^z^r^Aam.) The disciples of Helvetius 
 may consider him an eminent philosopher ; but I 
 would ask them, in the language of Quintilian, "if 
 precepts could produce eloquence, who would not be 
 eloquent ? " 
 
 "Were animals susceptible of change from every 
 impression, and not endowed with determinate 
 
296 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 natures," asks Dr Spurzheim, *^how comes it that 
 every species always preserves tlie same character? 
 Why do not fowls coo when they are reared with 
 pigeons ? Why do not female nightingales sing like 
 males ? Why do birds of one kind, hatched by those of 
 another, display the habits and instincts of their 
 parents ? Why does the duck, hatched by a hen, run 
 towards the water ? Why does not the cuckoo sing 
 like the bird that reared it 1 Why do squirrels, when 
 pursued, climb trees, and rabbits hide themselves in 
 burrows ? The same reasoning applies to man. If 
 his faculties be the result of external influences, why 
 does he never manifest any other nature but his own ?" 
 It would just be as rational to suppose with Anaxagoras 
 that man is the most intelligent being because he has 
 two hands, as to believe that the special powers which 
 are displayed by individuals are the result of education. 
 Education will improve the powers which nature has 
 bestowed, but it cannot produce them. "The poet is 
 born, not made." **The ox," says Gall, "will never 
 learn to run after mice, nor the cat to browse on grass ; 
 and we shall never teach the roe-buck and the pigeon 
 to hunt." 
 
 Allan Cunningham, in his British Painters, says, in 
 reference to that distinguished, but woefully neglected 
 landscape painter, Eichard Wilson, " His love of art 
 appeared early. How this came upon him in a place 
 where there were no paintings to awaken his emotions, 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN 1 297 
 
 we are not informed ; but a slight cause will arouse a 
 strong natural spirit." Further, lie says that Benjamin 
 West, at the age of seven years, drew an accurate like- 
 ness of his little sister with red and black ink, and this 
 is the more remarkable as " there were neither profes- 
 sors, paintings, nor prints amongst the primitives of 
 Pennsylvania." And again, he tells us that '^ George 
 Morland, at four, five, and six years of age, made draw- 
 ings worthy of ranking him among the common race 
 of students. The praise bestowed on these by the 
 Society of Artists, to whom they were exhibited, and 
 the money which collectors were willing to pay for the 
 works of this new wonder, induced his father to urge 
 him onwards in his studies — and his progress was 
 rapid." Now, it surely does not require any argument 
 from me to prove that these, and all similar cases of 
 the early development of genius, under such unfavour- 
 able circumstances, must be accounted for by the sup- 
 position of a great natural talent, rather than by any- 
 thing favourable, which there was not, in their original 
 position and education. 
 
 Yaucanson, when a child, saw a clock in the ante- 
 chamber of his mother's confessor. He immediately 
 examined the clock, and made a similar machine with- 
 out any other instrument than a bad knife. He after- 
 wards constructed an automaton flute-player and other 
 astonishing instruments. Now, what was the cause of 
 this display of early genius ? Was it owing to a won- 
 
298 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 derful natural talent, or was it the result, as Helvetius 
 would say, of the attention he bestowed on the object 
 which happened to attract his notice ? How does it 
 come that the sight of a clock' has not produced a 
 multitude of Vaucansons ? How did the clock attract 
 his attention more than the attention of other people ? 
 If these things are not the result of natural genius, 
 how does it come, as Gall has well remarked, that the 
 monkey is attentive to a nut, whilst he disregards jour 
 lectures on neatness and decency ? and who will in- 
 spire tho horse with attention for the monuments 
 which we erect to glory and immortality ? or the ram 
 for our arts and sciences ? 
 
 It has been well remarked by Fontenelle, that 
 ^'^ Heroes of all classes come ready formed from the 
 hands of nature, and with uncontrollable qualities." 
 They not only succeed when circumstances are in their 
 favour, but they rise victorious over every obstacle, 
 and amidst the most formidable and apparently in- 
 superable difficulties. The Memorials of Early Geniits 
 afford numerous illustrations of this fact. Giotto, the 
 early Italian painter, was devoid of education and every 
 opportunity of advancement up to his sixteenth year. 
 He was a poor shepherd boy ; but still his genius dis- 
 played itself. He was one day discovered by the painter, 
 Giovanni Cimabue, in the act of drawing on a stone, by 
 means of a pointed piece of stone, a picture of one of 
 the sheep he was tending. The representation was so 
 
IS THE BRAII^ A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 299 
 
 remarkably correct, that Cimabue took him and edu- 
 cated him as a painter. The uncontrollable power of 
 genius, under the most unfavourable circumstances, is 
 well marked in the case of George Stephenson. Helve • 
 tins would have found some trouble in discovering the 
 opportunities afforded by his lot. No man could 
 account for his advancement on any other principle 
 than that of an all-powerful natural talent. The cir- 
 cumstances in which he was placed, instead of being in 
 his favour, were directly against him. He commenced 
 life by working for twopence per day, and learned to 
 read at eighteen years of age. He had no money, little 
 patronage, a poor education, no scientific books, no 
 philosophical instruments, no skilled artisans to assist 
 him ; and yet, by the mighty power of his own natural 
 genius, he raised himself to the highest pitch of emin- 
 ence. He not only invented the safety-lamp, but he 
 also invented the Locomotive Steam Engine, and the 
 entire of our railway system. He was violently opposed, 
 abused, and ridiculed by learned engineers, men of 
 science, eminent lawyers, and the Houses of Lords and 
 Commons, but still his genius penetrated through all 
 the clouds of ignorance, and he came off victorious. 
 He had full confidence in the power of truth. He 
 knew he was right, and nothing could daunt his courage. 
 Such was his confidence in the principle of his safety- 
 lamp, that he did not hesitate to try his first experi- 
 ment with it in the very centre of the jet of explosive 
 
300 PHRENOLOGY. . 
 
 gas which was issuing from the roof of the mine at 
 Killingworth. If his calculations had been ill-founded 
 he must have been immediately blown to atoms. 
 Moodie and "Wood accompanied him into the pit, but 
 they placed themselves in a safe position, and would 
 not approach the spot of danger till the experiment 
 was proved to be correct. — {Smiles' s Life of Stephen- 
 son.) 
 
 Burns was another example of uncontrollable natural 
 talent. At the Centenary meeting in Glasgow, Sir Archi- 
 bald Alison said in regard to him, '' This child was des- 
 tined to immortality : nature had given him the patent 
 
 of true nobility, the passport to eternal fame 
 
 She gave it to the Bard of Chios, as, a blind and needy 
 supplicant, he wandered through the Isles of Greece. 
 She gave it to him of the Mantuan lake as he mourned 
 the loss of his little freehold under the shadow of his 
 wide -spreading beech-trees. She gave it to the Exile 
 of Florence as by the waters of the Po he sat down 
 and wept. She gave it to the Prisoner of Ferrara as 
 in the gloom of his dungeon he mourned a hopeless 
 love. She gave it to the Eepublican of England after 
 he had, poor and unbefriended, 
 
 *' ' dazzled by excess of light, 
 
 Closed his eyes in endless night.' " 
 
 The natural talent which Garrick possessed for act- 
 ing was such that people were often deceived, and 
 mistook the acting for reality. This is well illustrated 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 301 
 
 by the following anecdote : — " A grocer in Garrick's 
 native town coming to London with a letter of intro- 
 duction to the great performer from his brother, Peter 
 Garrick, went to the theatre first to see him in the 
 character of * Abel Drugger.' Like Partridge, the honest 
 grocer was completely taken in by the actor. ^ On 
 Garrick's appearance,' it is said, ' he was for some time 
 in doubt whether it could be him or not ; at last being 
 convinced of it by the people about him, he felt so 
 disgusted by the mean appearance and mercenary con- 
 duct of the performer (which, by a foolish combination, 
 he attached to the man,) that he went out of the town 
 without delivering the letter/ It is added that, on 
 returning to Litchfield, the grocer was naturally asked 
 by Mr Peter Garrick how his brother received him, 
 when he was informed, with some hesitation, that the 
 letter had never been delivered. ^ To say the truth,' 
 observed the ^townsman, ' I saw enough of him on the 
 stage to make that unnecessary ; he may be rich, as I 
 dare say any man who lives like him must be, but ' — - 
 and here the grocer delivered himself of a tremendous 
 oath — 'though he is your brother, Mr Garrick, he is 
 one of the shabbiest, meanest, most pitiful hounds I 
 ever saw in the whole course of my life.' " — {Lawrence^ s 
 Life of Fielding.) 
 
 Those who have read the British Workman will re- 
 member the story of John the scullion. There were 
 no favourable circumstances in his case, but his strong 
 
302 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 natural disposition urged him onwards in the road to 
 fame. The facts are these : — A small farmer in the 
 west of England had seven sons and ^ve daughters, 
 who were obliged to work hard for their subsistence. 
 They got no education except at the evening class of 
 the parish clerk. The fourth son, John, was intensely 
 anxious for study. Up to his seventeenth year he 
 worked in the fields by day, and wrote, read, and 
 counted at night. He had such an insuperable desire 
 for the acquisition of knowledge, that he determined to 
 make his way to Oxford. He walked the entire way 
 from Exeter, sleeping in barns or haystacks, and living 
 on bread and water. At last, with his boots worn out 
 and his feet sore, he reached the University, and 
 actually entered the kitchen of Exeter College, Oxford, 
 as a scullion under the cook. Here he worked, and 
 employed every idle minute in reading, till at length 
 he attracted the notice of those in authority, and then 
 was permitted to enter college as a poor student. He 
 worked incessantly, and brought himself forward, till 
 he was ordained for the church ; and thus John the 
 scullion became no less a personage than Dr John 
 Prideaux, the learned Bishop of Worcester, and the 
 author of some celebrated works. The man who will 
 attempt to account for his career by the favourable 
 circumstances in which he was placed must have a 
 curious obliquity of mental vision. 
 
 A friend of mine, when four years old, heard a per- 
 
IS THE BKAIN A C0:MP0UXD OEGAN 1 303 
 
 son reading a book which described cream as swimming 
 on the milk, and he immediately remarked, " That is 
 not correct ; it does not swim on the milk, but it floats 
 on it." This boy had a sister who, when three and a 
 half years old, got a fashion of tickling her sister in 
 the morning for amusement. On coming down stairs 
 one morning, her papa observed that he '* heard her 
 tickhng her sister this morning;^' but she at once 
 replied, '^ No, no, papa, you heard me laughing, but 
 you could not hear me tickling ! '' These remarks are 
 well worthy of observation, as they show a very early, 
 and entirely natm-al, power of critical accuracy which 
 is by no means common. 
 
 On what principles other than those I am advo- 
 cating, could we account for the wonderful powei-s 
 exhibited by individuals from time to time in the 
 history of the world ? For example, as already men- 
 tioned, George Bidder, the son of a labouring peasant 
 in Devonshire, when only twelve years old, was asked 
 on the Stock Exchange, " If the pendulum of a clock 
 vibrates the distance of nine inches and three quarters 
 in a second of time, how many inches will it vibrate in 
 the course of seven years, fourteen days, two hours, 
 one minute, and fifty-six seconds ; each year of three 
 hundred and sixty-five days, five hours, forty-eight 
 minutes, and fifty-five seconds 1 and he replied, after 
 only one minute's consideration, Two thousand one 
 hundred and sixty-five millions, six hundred and 
 
304 PHRENOLOGY, 
 
 twenty-five thousand, seven hundred and forty-four 
 inches and three quarters." — {Anecdotes of Providence.) 
 Let those who deny my principles try if they can train 
 themselves to compete with George Bidder. I will 
 venture to say that the question he answered in one 
 minute on his tongue, will take them some hours to 
 count with the pen. Again, Herr Paulsen played, at 
 one time, ten games of chess with players of reputa- 
 tion at Manchester. He did his work without ever look- 
 ing at the boards, and that too although the games had 
 been adjourned from the previous day. Of the ten 
 games, only one was lost by Herr Paulsen, one was not 
 played out, three were drawn, and five won. — {BelVs 
 Life.) We have a similar instance in the case of Paul 
 Morphy. On the 13th of April 1859, he played with 
 eight members of the London Club, blindfolded and in 
 a separate room. The eight games were played at the 
 same time. The moves were called out by a person 
 appointed, and others took them down on paper. He 
 never took more than five minutes for any move. At 
 the end of seven hours two games were won by him, 
 and the other six were drawn games. He never made 
 a mistake ; never called an impossible move ; and never 
 forgot the position of the humblest pawn. — {BelVs 
 Life) I have heard Master Willie Pape playing two 
 tunes, in admirable style, on the piano at one time. 
 This certainly is a remarkable power, and exhibits 
 duality of action, I can easily understand the possi- 
 
IS THE BEAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 305 
 
 bility of explaining the extraordinary and peculiar 
 talents of Paulsen, Paul Morphy, and Pape, through 
 the instrumentality of a complex brain ; but I cannot 
 understand how it can all be placed in the mind, and 
 yet permit the mind to be simple. A simultaneous 
 complex action is perfectly compatible with the nature 
 of a complex organ, but utterly inconsistent with the 
 idea of a single organ. Phrenology can easily account 
 for it. Metaphysics never. At any rate, these parties 
 possessed peculiar powers : and if any man were to 
 tell me that they had no natural talent, but that all 
 resulted from mere training and favourable circum- 
 stances, I would just set him down as being equally 
 senseless as the lawyer who, on taunting Lord St 
 Leonards (Sir Edward Sugden) for being the son of a 
 barber, got the very appropriate reply, — ^' Yes, I am ; 
 and if you had been the son of a barber, you would 
 still have been using the razor ! " 
 
 Dr Livingston, the celebrated African traveller, was 
 the son of poor parents. He was obhged to work in a 
 factory from six in the morning till eight at night, but 
 still his desire for knowledge was such that he con- 
 stantly placed a book before him on the spinning 
 jenny, and thus read through it sentence by sentence. 
 By these means, and by sitting up at night after the 
 hours of work, he contrived to obtain a good funda- 
 mental education as a preparation for college. After 
 entering college, he continued his cotton-spinning 
 
306 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 labours, and thus was enabled to support himself 
 throughout his entire collegiate course. — {Livingstones 
 Travels.) If Dr Livingston had been depending on 
 Helvetius' theory of favourable circumstances, instead 
 of on the powers of his own natural and uncontrollable 
 genius, he would have been on the spinning jenny 
 still. The power was there, and it burst through 
 every obstacle. He has the high honour of being 
 included in the band of men who, notwithstanding 
 their low birth, have produced some of the greatest 
 events in the world. Think of George Whitfield, the 
 boot-cleaner ; of Franklin, the printer ; of Virgil, the 
 son of a potter ; of Luther, the son of a miner ; of 
 Zuinglius, the son of a shepherd ; of Columbus, the 
 son of a weaver ; of Milton, the scrivener ; of Lin- 
 naeus, the shoemaker ; of John Hunter, the son of a 
 carpenter; of Melanchthon ; of Shakespeare; of Burns; 
 of Socrates, Theophrastes, Pythagoras, and Demos- 
 thenes ! Such examples, as Dr Gall observes, " refute 
 Hobbes, who held that the difference of talents, or of 
 mental faculties, comes from wealth, power, and the 
 condition in which one is born. .... Almost all great 
 men have either been educated by inferior masters, 
 or have received no education whatever. Homer, 
 Petrarch, Tasso, Dante, Eaphael, Michael Angelo, Ka- 
 cine, Moliere, Corneiile, Titian, Eubens, and Poussin, 
 are instances." 
 
 That talent is natural, rather than acquired, is 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 307 
 
 further proved by the examples we have of early genius. 
 Michael Angelo exhibited his powers at the age of thir- 
 teen, and took to painting, although most violently 
 opposed by his father for thinking of such a mean 
 occupation, as the old man foolishly imagined. Blaise 
 Pascal was a proficient in drawing geometrical figures, 
 without any instructions, in his tenth year, and " when 
 only sixteen he produced his famous paper upon conic 
 sections, in which all that Apollonius of Perga had 
 established in this branch of geometry, and whereon 
 the fame of the successor to Archimedes chiefly rests, 
 was deduced from one single proposition, illustrated by 
 four hundred corollaries ; and this without the aid of 
 the algebraic formula which Descartes subsequently 
 elaborated for the simplification of mathematical calcu- 
 lations." — [Life^ by Eussell). Mozart wrote ^' a concerto 
 for the harpsicord," with perfect accuracy when only 
 six years old. Sir Thomas Lawrence drew portraits in 
 his sixth year, with great fidelity to nature. And 
 Wilkie was able to draw before he was able to write, 
 and whether at school or at church, spent his time in 
 drawing all sorts of sketches on desks, doors, walls, and 
 books. 
 
 Were it necessary to say anything more on the point 
 under consideration, I might refer to the tinker, Bunyan, 
 who wrote the " Pilgrim's Progress ; '^ to the cobbler, 
 William Carey, who could speak in forty languages ; to 
 the blacksmith, Elihu Burritt, who acquired a thorough 
 
308 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 knowledge of fifty-six languages while working at his 
 anvil ; and to many others of a like description ; but 
 I think enough has been said to overturn the theory of 
 Dugald Stewart, who maintained that " a genius for 
 poetry, for painting, for music, or for mathematics is 
 gradually formed by particular habits of study or of 
 business ; " and that " invention in the arts and 
 sciences is the result of acquired habits, aided by favour- 
 able circumstances, and not the original gift of nature." 
 When the great Dr Johnson said he " could not 
 understand how a man could apply to one thing and 
 not to another," he was fairly answered by Eobertson 
 and Boswell. "One man," said Dr Eobertson, "had 
 more judgment, another more imagination.'^ "No, 
 sir," replied Johnson, " it is only one man has more 
 mind than another. He may direct it differently ; he 
 may, by accident, see the success of one kind of study, 
 and take a desire to excel in it. I am persuaded that 
 had Sir Isaac Newton applied to poetry, he would have 
 made a very fine epic poem. I could as easily apply to 
 law as to tragic poetry.^' " Yet, sir,'^ said Boswell, " you 
 did apply to tragic poetry, not to law." " Because, sir," 
 rejoined Johnson, " I had not money to study law. 
 Sir, the man who has vigour may walk to the east just 
 as well as to the west, if he happens to turn his head 
 that way." " But, sir," replied Boswell, " 'tis like walk- 
 ing up and down a hill ; one man will naturally do the 
 one better than the other. A hare will run up a hill 
 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 309 
 
 best, from her forelegs being short ; a dog down." — 
 [Tour to the Hebrides) 
 
 Having established that the brain is the organ 
 through which the mind operates ; that in place of 
 being single, it is composed of a number or congeries 
 of organs, and that the mind can manifest itself 
 through these organs, either separately or conjointly — 
 that is, through one or a number of the organs at a 
 time — I have put my readers in possession of a simple, 
 easy, and satisfactory method of accounting for the 
 phenomena of dreaming, of partial idiocy, of partial 
 insanity, of partial memory, and of partial genius, all of 
 which are a complete mystery in the writings of those 
 philosophers who treat of the mind as if it had little 
 or no connexion with the body during its manifesta- 
 tions. I must now proceed to the consideration of a 
 number of things which influence the state of the 
 brain, and which it is absolutely necessary to be well 
 acquainted with, before a person can become a practical 
 Phrenologist. To prepare my readers for the practical 
 application of the science, is the object which I wish 
 to keep constantly before my mind, as I care little for 
 the theories of any man if his system is not capable of 
 being turned to some practical advantage. 
 
310 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 INFLUENCE OF AGE. 
 
 Infancy, youth, and old age, exercise an important 
 influence on the state of the brain, Magendie, who 
 was a great Physiologist, but an opponent of Phren- 
 ology, tells us that the brain, at an early period, " is 
 almost liquid ; it is still more firm in infancy, and still 
 more in manhood." In infancy and childhood, the 
 brain, in common with all other parts of the body, 
 is more active and more susceptible of impressions, 
 but by no means capable of the same amount of vigour 
 and continuity of exertion as in manhood. This fact 
 should be kept always in view by those individuals 
 to whom the very important trust is committed of 
 educating the young and rising generation. Those 
 who despise or neglect it are apt to overwork the brains 
 of children, and thereby induce disease, which carries 
 to a premature grave those parties who were the most 
 highly gifted by the Creator, because they are by far 
 the most excitable and precocious. If a child be dull 
 its brain may be so lethargic that it will bear a little 
 pushing without getting over-excited ; but if it be very 
 clever, it should be kept back rather than pushed. 
 '^ I beseech parents," says Dr Brigham of America, 
 ^'to pause before they attempt to make prodigies of 
 their own children. Though they may not destroy them 
 by the measures they adopt to effect this purpose, yet 
 
INFLUENCE OF AGE. 311 
 
 they will surely enfeeble their bodies, and greatly dis- 
 pose them to nervous affections. Early mental excite» 
 ment will serve only to bring forth beautiful, but pre- 
 mature flowers, which are destined soon to wither 
 away, without producing fruit." " Till a child attains 
 the age of seven," observes Dr Macnish, " his education 
 should be chiefly, if not entirely, physical and moral. 
 Let him ramble about, and thus strcDgthen his frame, 
 and let him be taught to abhor lying, thieving, tale- 
 bearing, oppression, cruelty, gluttony, and every kind 
 of vice. When the weather admits of it, children 
 should be very much in the open air. Laughter, 
 shouting, and innocent mirth should never be checked, 
 but rather encouraged. They are the grand safety- 
 valves for the superabundant exuberances of the young 
 spirit ; yet some parents have the incalculable folly to 
 close these outlets of joy, and interdict, as much as 
 possible, every expression of vivacity in their children. 
 The young creatures are prohibited from laughing and 
 talking in their presence, obliged to sit stock-still like 
 so many waxen images, and compelled to smother the 
 glorious, and alas ! too brief, impulses of childhood in 
 the stagnation of silence." I have ever regarded the 
 repression of hilarity and innocent amusements in 
 children as a piece of extraordinary barbarity, which 
 could be equalled only by that of chastising a stupid 
 child for not getting a lesson which it was incapable 
 of learning. It is a melancholy reflection, but it is 
 
312 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 nevertheless true, that an overwhelming majority of 
 the human raoe, in civilised countries, have that 
 portion of their life which was intended by the Author 
 of nature for the most perfect enjoyment, turned into 
 a period of misery. " Man's inhumanity to man makes 
 countless thousands mourn.^^ The beasts of the field 
 treat their young with a degree of kindness far sur- 
 passing that which is evinced by their more barbarous 
 neighbours of the human race. 
 
 " Every one," says Dr Stokes, " is familiar with the 
 fact, that when a man arrives at an extreme age, he 
 generally experiences a marked decay of intellectual 
 power, and falls into a state of second childhood. Does 
 pathology throw any light upon this circumstance 1 It 
 does. From a series of ingenious and accurate inves- 
 tigations conducted by two continental pathologists, 
 Cauzevielh and Desmoulins, it has been found that a 
 kind of atrophy of the brain takes place in very old 
 persons. According to the researches of Desmoulins, 
 it appears that, in persons who have passed the age of 
 seventy, the specific gravity of the brain becomes 
 from a twentieth to a fifteenth less than that of the 
 adult. It has also been proved that this atrophy of 
 the brain is connected with old age, and not, as it 
 might be thought, with general emaciation of the 
 body ; for in cases of chronic emaciation from disease 
 in adults, the brain is the last part which is found to 
 atrophy ; and it has been suggested that this may ex- 
 
INFLUENCE OF AGE. 313 
 
 'plain the continuance of mental powers, during the 
 ravages of chronic disease ; and also the nervous irri- 
 tability of patients after acute diseases, in which 
 emaciation has taken place." — (RyainJs Journal for 1834, 
 vol. V. p. 647.) In old age, the impressions are slight, 
 and soon vanish away. There is a much better recol- 
 lection of things which happened in youth than of the 
 occurrences of the last week or year. The brain may 
 possess activity and sprightliness for a short time, but 
 it will require frequent intervals of repose. Dr Board- 
 man informs us that Dr Priestley, the celebrated che- 
 mist, who in the noontide of life could maintain great 
 mental exertion, as it is called, for a number of hours 
 in succession, began, towards the latter part of his life, 
 to experience that he was allied to the dust. He was 
 able to converse, for a short period, with the freshness 
 and vivacity of youth, but he soon became exhausted 
 and fell over asleep. Now, the question very naturally 
 suggests itself. Was this change in Dr Priestley's power 
 of thinking in his mind or in his brain % If metaphy- 
 sicians like Lord Jeffrey are correct in saying that 
 " there is not the smallest reason for supposing that the 
 mind ever operates through the agency of any material 
 organs, except in its perception of material objects, or 
 in the spontaneous movements of the body which it 
 inhabits," the defects in the power of thought in Dr 
 Priestley's case must have been in his mind ; and con- 
 sequently his mind must have been material and mortal. 
 
314 , PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 But the Phrenologist escapes the dreadful conse- 
 quences of this opinion, as he places the defect in the 
 brain, and not in the mind. The brain, being matter, 
 is liable to fatigue ; but the mind, being spirit, is in- 
 capable of weariness, and requires not repose. The 
 Phrenological idea on this point is not only consistent 
 with sound divinity, but it is also in the most perfect 
 accordance with the pathological cases referred to by 
 Dr Stokes, as having been observed by Cauzevielh and 
 Desmoulins. According to their researches, the appa- 
 rent decay of the mental powers is owing to the 
 atrophy of the brain which occurs in old age. Cor- 
 rect views regarding mind and matter would have pre- 
 vented Dr Tilt from stating " that the muscles are not 
 capable of obeying volition, and when they are not ex- 
 ercised, the loss of jpower is in the mind^ and a forcible 
 impression on the patient's mind is the heroic remedy." 
 — (Tilt on the Diseases of Women, 2d Ed. p. 106.) Lan- 
 guage, such as is used by Dr Tilt, may not, perhaps, be 
 intended to convey that the mind is diseased ; it may 
 be used in a loose sense, and in accordance with popu- 
 lar prejudice, but still it is more or less objectionable, 
 as it is grounded on principles which involve the ma- 
 teriality and mortality of the soul. 
 
SIZE, POWEE, AND ACTIVITY. 315 
 
 SIZE, POWEE, AND ACTIVITY. 
 
 The absolute size of the brain, and the relative size 
 of the different organs of which it is composed, are 
 matters of the greatest importance, and, therefore, I 
 must beg special attention to this part of my subject. 
 When I speak of the absolute size of the brain, I mean 
 the size of the whole brain as one mass ; and when I 
 speak of the relative size of the organs, or of the 
 regions, I mean the size which one organ, or one region 
 of the brain, bears in comparison with, or in relation 
 to, another organ, or region of the brain. In looking at 
 a head, it is necessary to form an estimate not only of 
 the size of the entire mass of brain, but also to observe 
 the proportion which the different compartments, such 
 as the back, the front, the top, and the base bear to 
 each other, as well as the proportion which each indi- 
 vidual organ bears to those which are connected with it 
 in function, or which are opposed to it in action. This 
 is all very important, because, other things being equal, 
 size is a direct measure of power, though not of acti- 
 vity. For example, if we take two individuals of the 
 same temperament, age, education, and health, the one 
 having a large, and the other a small brain, we will find 
 much more powerful manifestations of mind, be they 
 good or bad, in connexion with the large than with the 
 small brain. In judging of power, however, all the 
 
316 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 things which I have mentioned must be equal in the 
 instances of comparison. We cannot, strictly speak- 
 ing, compare the human brain with that of the inferior 
 animals in such a way as to arrive at unerring conclu- 
 sions on all points, because their constitutions are not 
 alike ; but we can always compare, with a tolerable 
 amount of precision, an individual out of any class of 
 animals with another belonging to the same tribe or 
 family. 
 
 It now devolves on me to prove that a connexion 
 exists between the size of an organ and the power 
 which that organ is capable of manifesting. This is 
 a fundamental, and therefore a most important point. 
 The brain is a component part of our system, and, in 
 so far as power is concerned, it must be under the 
 general laws of our vitality. The size of an organ, or 
 part, both in man and the inferior animals, bears a 
 direct correspondence with the amount of duty it is 
 intended to perform. Thus, in the case of any indivi- 
 dual, a large bone or muscle is stronger than a small 
 one. In man, the bones and muscles of the legs, which 
 are obliged to support the weight of, and move, the 
 whole body, are much thicker and stronger than the 
 same parts in the arms, and consequently the arms are 
 less capable of powerful exertion than the legs. But 
 the case is reversed in the swallow : its wings have far 
 more power than its legs, and therefore the strongest 
 muscles are attached to its winofs. As Sir Charles 
 
SIZE, POWEE, AND ACTIVITY. 317 
 
 Bell, in his work on The Hand^ has observed," The 
 pectoral muscle (the muscle which moves the wing) 
 constitutes the greater part of the bulk of the body. 
 Borelli makes the pectoral muscle of a bird exceed in 
 weight all the other muscles taken together, whilst he 
 calculates that in man the pectoral muscles are but a 
 seventieth part of the mass of muscles. And here we 
 perceive the correspondence between the strength of 
 this muscle and the rate of flying of the swallow, which 
 is a mile in a minute, for ten hours every day, or six 
 hundred miles a-day." So far as muscle is concerned, 
 then, size is a measure of power. How is it with ner- 
 vous matter ? The greater its volume, other things 
 being equal, the greater its power. 
 
 In his hot haste to overthrow Phrenology, Dr Eoget 
 has made some observations, already referred to, which 
 tend to show that he was as ignorant on some points 
 in Physiology as he was of Phrenology. '^It requires 
 no extensive knowledge of the animal economy," says 
 he, " to perceive that modifications of functions, 
 equally diversified with those of the intellect, are, in 
 many cases, the result of actions taking place in the 
 
 same organ Xerves perform the double office 
 
 of volition and sensation ; but the difierent bundles of 
 fibres which convey each impression, the one to the 
 muscles, the other to the sensorium, are wrapped up 
 in the same sheath, and are so intimately intermixed 
 during their course as to constitute a single cord 
 
318 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 . Guided by sucli analogies as these, might we not be 
 equally justified in concluding that the same part of 
 the brain may serve for the memory of words as for 
 the memory of things ? " It is indisputable from the 
 wording of this extract, as well as from the whole 
 tenor of the argument in the context in which it 
 occurs, that Dr Eoget alleged it as a fact that a nerve 
 of volition and sensation — a spinal nerve — was a single 
 organ performing a double function. This is the only 
 view in which his reasoning could bear on the ques- 
 tion in dispute. It may be quite possible that Dr 
 Eoget was perfectly honest in the use of this argument 
 when he first published it in the Encyclopoedia Brit- 
 annica, because that may have occurred before the 
 physiological discoveries regarding the true nature of 
 these nerves were made. But no such excuse can be 
 made for him in reiterating these arguments in the 
 Treatise on Physiology and Phreriology, from which I 
 am now quoting, which was published in 1838. At 
 the seventy-first page of the first volume he says : 
 " We have here reprinted the essay on this subject 
 which originally appeared under the head of Cranio- 
 scopy in the Supplement to the sixth edition of the 
 Encydopcedia Britannica, We have done so because 
 we have not seen any reason to alter our views." 
 Now, I would like to know how he can pretend to be 
 honest in repeating in this new, revised, and enlarged 
 edition, an argument against Phrenology which he 
 
SIZE, POWEE, AND ACTIVITY. 319 
 
 knew to be false. At the period of this pubHcation, 
 1838, the true nature of the spinal nerves was known 
 to every medical student in the world, and could not 
 possibly have been unknown to a writer on, and Pro- 
 fessor of. Physiology, hke Dr Roget. He must have 
 known that Dr Spurzheim, so early as the year 1815, 
 had published it as his opinion that a spinal nerve 
 consisted of two sets of fibres, each set performing a 
 different function, and also that Sir Charles Bell and 
 Magendie proved by their experiments, in and after 
 the year 1821, that the views which Prochaska and 
 Spurzheim had surmised were perfectly correct. I say 
 he must have known this when he reiterated the 
 argument against Phrenology. But I shall now follow 
 the example of the man who swore to the age of a 
 horse " on the best authority in the world, for he had 
 it out of his own mouth." I shall prove out of Dr 
 Eoget's own mouth that he knew the fact which he 
 reiterates to be untrue. When arguing against Phreno- 
 logy in the first volume, he tells us the spinal nerve is 
 a single organ performing a double function ; but 
 when Phrenology is forgotten, and Physiology is the 
 subject, he informs us, in the second volume, p. 144, 
 that " the observations which first suggested the idea 
 of there being two sets of nervous filaments, the one 
 subservient to sensation and the other to volition, 
 were those in which a limb was only partially paralysed, 
 the power of motion being retained, while that of 
 
320 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 feeling was lost Erasistratus and Herophilus 
 
 had long ago taught the doctrine of there being two 
 species of nerves, respectively appropriated to these 
 opposite functions, and Galen was inclined to the same 
 
 opinion But it is to Sir Charles Bell and to 
 
 Magendie that the merit belongs of bringing forward 
 decisive 'proofs of the reality of this distinction be- 
 tween nerves for sensation and nerves for motion, the 
 idea having before been only loosely thrown out by 
 speculative physiologists as a plausible conjecture. It 
 results from this discovery that the transmission of 
 impressions in opposite directions is effected by dif- 
 ferent nerves, or at least by different sets of nervous 
 filamentSy and that no filament is caioahle of transmitting 
 impressions hoth ways indiscriminately, but always in 
 one particular direction. These two kinds of filaments 
 are, it is true^ conjoined together in one nerve, hut the 
 object of this union is not community of function, hut 
 convenience of distribution, the two kinds of filaments 
 still remaining distinct in their functions as they are 
 likewise distinct in their origin^'' &c., &c. What do 
 you think of this, my reader ? We learn that in early 
 ages the disciples of Galen, on seeing his anatomical 
 theories overturned by dissections, chose to affirm 
 that the human body had undergone a permanent 
 change in its structure, rather than admit that Galen 
 could be wrong ; but Dr Eoget far outstrips them all, 
 because he can show that the very same nerve is in 
 
SIZE, POWER, AND ACTIVITY. 321 
 
 different conditions at the very same time, in accord- 
 ance with the mere wishes of the person who is 
 observing it. If it is to be used against Phrenology, 
 it becomes a single nerve performing a double func- 
 tion ; but if it is to be used in favour of Physiology, 
 it is so very complaisant that it at once becomes a 
 double nerve, performing a double function. Is it not 
 distressing to have to deal with such a class of oppo- 
 nents ? What can we expect from the lower grade, 
 when we find the author of one of the " Bridgewater 
 Treatises " resorting to such subterfuges ? It is posi- 
 tively disgusting to find a man like Dr Eoget repeating 
 an argument against Phrenology at the very time that 
 he knows that the alleged fact which he founds his 
 argument upon is utterly false. The man who can do 
 this is unworthy of confidence on any subject. People 
 talk about men of eminence not being converted to 
 the side of Phrenology ; but I tell them that men of 
 Dr Roget^s class, who endeavour to overturn a system 
 by an argument which they know to be false, would 
 not " be persuaded though one rose from the dead." 
 So far from proving against Phrenology, when viewed 
 in the light of advanced Physiology, the case of the 
 nerve is entirely in its favour. Every nerve which 
 performs a double function is now proved to be a 
 double nerve, and this is an analogical argument in 
 favour of the brain being a complex organ, seeing that 
 it performs such a variety of functions. 
 
322 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 The observations of eminent physiologists have 
 demonstrated that there are two sorts of nerves, the 
 one connected with motion, and the other with sensa- 
 tion. In some instances, these are distributed separ- 
 ately ; but in other cases they run in the same sheath, 
 and thus, to a superficial observer, might appear to be 
 one in their nature. They are so thoroughly distinct, 
 however, that the one cannot perform the duties of the 
 other. A nerve of sensation cannot produce motion, 
 nor can a nerve of motion produce sensation. Each 
 fulfils its own office. Now, we always find that the size 
 of the one or the other of these nerves varies according 
 as the power of motion or sensation predominates. 
 For instance, the single nerve of feeling in the ele- 
 phant's trunk is thicker than all the nerves of motion 
 which are distributed on the same part ; and I am sure 
 my readers are aware of the extreme sensibility which 
 the trunk of this animal possesses. The power of 
 feeling, in this case, is in exact accordance with the 
 great size of the nerve of sensation with which the 
 organ is supplied ; and here, size is a measure of 
 power. 
 
 The olfactory nerve, which is distributed over the 
 Schneiderian membrane of the nose for the purpose of 
 enabling us to smell, is spread over a surface of only 
 twenty square inches in man, whereas in the seal it 
 covers one hundred and twenty square inches ; and the 
 power of smelling in the seal is so much greater than 
 
SIZE, POWEE, AND ACTIVITY. 323 
 
 that possessed by human beings that the hunters are 
 always obliged to approach him directly against the 
 wind, otherwise he would recognise them by the smell. 
 The parts of the nose on which the convolutions of 
 the Schneiderian membrane are folded, are small in 
 the greyhound when compared with the beagle or blood- 
 hound, as any person may know who will look at the 
 thickness of the nose in these animals, and their power 
 of smell is in accordance with the development of their 
 organs. The greyhound, in pursuit of his game, is 
 guided by sight ; the beagle, or bloodhound, by smell. 
 Here again, size is a measure of power. 
 
 At the 77th page of his large work on Physiology, 
 Dr Bostock says, '' The apparatus of nerves which is 
 sent to the muscles is very considerable ; and especi- 
 ally to those which are under the control of the will, 
 being greater in proportion to their size than to any 
 other part of the body, except the organs of the senses. 
 . . . The nerves of the voluntary muscles are so much 
 more numerous than those of the viscera, that, accord- 
 ing to the remark of Haller, the nerves that go to the 
 thumb are more in quantity than those that supply 
 the whole substance of the liver." Here Dr Bostock 
 very emphatically recognises the connexion of size and 
 power in the nerves. The thumb has a great power 
 both of motion and sensation, and it is, for these pur- 
 poses, largely supplied with nerves ; but the liver is 
 very scantily supplied with nerves, although it is a very 
 
324 PHRENOLOGY, 
 
 large organ^ and the consequence is, it is devoid of 
 motion and has very httle feeling. Do these facts not 
 prove the connexion between the size and power of the 
 nerves? And is it not remarkable that while Dr 
 Bostock recognises this in one part of his book, he 
 overlooks it altogether in another part of the same 
 volume, where he undertakes to refute Phrenology ? 
 In his Physiological part he supports the principle ; in 
 his Phrenological he attempts to overthrow it ! This 
 should be a warning to ail men not to permit their 
 judgment to be overcome by their prejudices on any 
 subject. If Dr Bostock's opinions were all correct, 
 they would square with themselves, as truth can never 
 contradict truth. 
 
 Let us now pay attention to what Dr Bostock says at 
 the 785th page of the same volume from which I took 
 the last quotation. " The position," he remarks, " that 
 the size of an organ is an indication of the degree of 
 its power or capacity, a position which may be regarded 
 as almost the fundamental principle on which the 
 whole doctrine (of Phrenology) rests, is in direct con- 
 tradiction to fact. To revert to the case of the eye : 
 it may be asserted. that the perfection of this organ, 
 either when considered with respect to the different 
 species of animals, or to the different individuals of 
 the same species, does not bear the least relation to 
 its size, but depends entirely upon the nature of its 
 organization, and, except in those cases where the 
 
SIZE^ POWEE, AND ACTIVITY. 325 
 
 exercise of an organ is connected with mechanical 
 force, as in muscular contraction, bulk has no relation 
 to the perfection of a part." Nothing could surprise 
 m6 more than to find that a man of Dr Bostock's per- 
 spicacity could have fallen into so egregious an error in 
 reference to the eye. He seems to have entirely con- 
 founded the functions performed by the different 
 parts of which the eye is composed. He mistakes the 
 use of the whole eye for the use of the optic nerve, 
 which is only a part of the eye, and such a mistake is 
 unpardonable in a writer on Physiology. If a Phreno- 
 logist were to blunder in such a way, we would never 
 hear the end of it ; it would be trumpeted over the 
 length and breadth of the world. Did any man ever 
 imagine that the power of sight depended on the size 
 of the whole eye ? 'No. The man who could imagine 
 such a thing would be as ignorant as a Hottentot of the 
 nature of the eye. But if the power of sight does not 
 depend upon the size of the whole eye, it is inseparably 
 connected with the size of one part of the eye, namely, 
 the optic nerve, which Dr Bostock should know is the 
 real and essential organ of vision. Whilst, as Mr 
 Combe has pointed out, the cow is furnished with a 
 large eye, for the purpose of taking in a tolerably exten- 
 sive surface of the ground, clothed in verdure, which 
 immediately surrounds her, her optic nerve, or the 
 nerve which serves for conveying the impressions of 
 external objects from the eye to the brain, is small ; so 
 
326 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 that here we have a large eye adapted for gathering 
 the rays of light from an extensive and nearly approxi- 
 mated surface, but there is a small nerve, and the 
 animal is consequently prevented from enjoying power- 
 ful sight, and she is not able to see anything at a great 
 distance. On the other hand, in the eagle, the eye is 
 small because it does not require to take a view of 
 objects in its immediate vicinity in the same way as 
 the cow, but its optic nerve is remarkably large, and 
 this renders the power of its sight proverbial. It is 
 the size of its optic nerve which enables it, from the 
 towering height to which it has soared, to discover its 
 prey on the surface of the far distant earth. Desmou- 
 lins, a great French Physiologist, but not a Phrenolo- 
 gist, says, in the screech-owl, whose sight is defective, 
 the parts from which the optic nerves arise are not 
 more than one-twentieth part of the mass of the brain ; 
 whereas, in the eagle, who is proverbial for sight, the 
 same parts are about one-third of the entire brain. 
 The optic nerves are in the same proportion. The 
 same author tells us that in order to increase the surface 
 of the retina, which is the expansion of the optic nerve, 
 or the real organ of vision, it is thrown into folds in 
 eagles, vultures, and falcons, and these folds hang loose 
 in the eye ; but such a state of matters does not occur 
 in animals of ordinary sight. Is it not evident from 
 these facts that size is a measure of power ? Is it not 
 evident from these facts that Dr Bostock has fallen 
 
SIZE, POWER^ AND ACTIVITY. 327 
 
 into a gross mistake — a mistake so egregious that it 
 could be accounted for only by the blindness pro- 
 duced by his overwhelming anxiety to overturn 
 Phrenology ? 
 
 The Fhrenological Journal for 1825 contains the 
 report of an interesting case which came under the 
 observation of Surgeon Hood of Kilmarnock. The 
 patient had been blind in the left eye for twelve or 
 fourteen years, and it was found, on dissection after 
 death, that the optic nerve belonging to that eye 
 ^' was nearly one-half smaller than the corresponding 
 nerve on the opposite side." Here the diminution in 
 size was connected with loss of power. The depend- 
 ence of power upon size in development is also demon- 
 strated by the following remarks of Professor Tied- 
 emann : — " The remarkable and regularly disposed 
 enlargements • observed immediately behind the cere- 
 bellum in the flying-fish,^' says he, " are the origins of 
 the nerves destined to the digitiform prolongations 
 peculiar to these fishes, observed in front of the ven- 
 tral fins, and provided with numerous muscles, serving 
 at the same time as organs of touch and progression. 
 We find also in the torpedo two large ganglia, situated 
 also behind the cerebellum, the size of which they 
 much surpass, and from whence issue the nerves 
 analogous to the eighth pair, which furnish a great 
 number of branches to the electrical organs of these 
 fishes. The other species of the skate, properly 
 
328 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 called, present but a very small swelling, giving origin 
 to the eighth pair, which, in these animals, are only 
 distributed to the gills. In the sheaf-fish, the origin of 
 the fifth pair of nerves forms a very voluminous mass, 
 because this pair sends large branches to the long bar- 
 bules which cover the superior maxilla, and to the 
 muscles 'of these appendages/'— (Solly on TJie Brain^ 
 p. 23.) In these instances, we find there is a large 
 development in connexion with the manifestation of 
 special powers ; and when these powers are wanting, 
 or the nervQS supply some minor organ, the develop- 
 ment is in accordance with the function. 
 
 Examples might be multiplied to any extent, but I 
 think I have given a sufficient number of instances in 
 reference to the bones and muscles, as well as in con- 
 nexion with the nerves, which are so closely allied in 
 their nature to the brain, to prove that there is a 
 direct correspondence between the size of an organ, 
 and the power which it is enabled to manifest. Surely, 
 then, it is not unreasonable to expect, what observa- 
 tion directly proves, that the brain does not stand out 
 as an exception to all the ordinary laws of the rest of 
 the nervous system, — that system of which it forms 
 such an important part. '' Thab a brain," says Dr 
 Carpenter, " which is greatly under the average size, is 
 incapable of performing its proper functions, and that 
 the possessor of it must necessarily be more or less 
 idiotic, there can be no reasonable doubt. On the 
 
SIZE, POWER, AND ACTIVITY. 329 
 
 other hand, that a large well-developed brain is found 
 to exist in persons who have made themselves conspicu- 
 ous in the world by their attainments or their achieve- 
 ments, is, I think, a proposition of equal generality.'^ — 
 {Medical Gazette, Sept. 1841.) As in the nerve, so in the 
 brain, its size is a measure of its power. At the meet- 
 ing of the British Association, 1862, Professor Owen 
 contrasted the gorilla with man in regard to the devel- 
 opment of the brain. " The sudden advance," says he, 
 '^ of so supremely important an organ as the brain, in 
 the human race, and the marked hiatus between that 
 highest grade of its structure and the next step below, 
 attained by the orangs, chimpanzees, and gorillas, is 
 one of the most extraordinary in the whole range of 
 comparative anatomy. It is associated with the in- 
 tellectual capacities, the power of framing general pro- 
 positions, and of expressing thought in articulate 
 speech." Sir J. Y. Simpson of Edinburgh accounts 
 for the great difference which is observed between 
 the white and black races of the human family, in 
 regard to parturition, on the principle that increased 
 power of thought is connected with increased size of 
 brain. " The severity of pain," says he, '' could, I 
 think, be easily proved to be the result of civilisation, 
 and, as I believe, of that increased size of the infan- 
 tile head which results from civilisation." — {Obstetric 
 Works, vol. ii. p. 698.) A gradual increase, as the re- 
 sult of a progressive civilisation, in the use of the 
 
330 PHRENOLOaY. 
 
 brain would add, within certain limits, to its develop- 
 ment and power, and this continued over successive 
 generations would ultimately, in accordance with a 
 well-known law of the animal economy, produce an 
 increase in the size of the brain of the offspringc 
 Here, again, size and power go hand in hand. All 
 other things, such as temperament, health, and exer- 
 cise, being equal, the size of the brain invariably gives 
 us a direct measure of its power. Not so, however, as 
 to its activity. 
 
 It has been asserted by Lord Jeffrey and others that 
 it is a ridiculous makeshift of Phrenologists to draw 
 a distinction between the power of an organ and its 
 activity ; and Sir William Hamilton calls it '' a base- 
 less distinction between activity and power."- — {Phren, 
 Jour., 1828, p. 3.) I confess I am surprised beyond 
 measure that Lord Jeffrey and Sir William Hamilton 
 could so far forget themselves as to deny that there 
 is a distinction between power and activity. The 
 simplest schoolboy would be ashamed to father such 
 opinions. It is truly astonishing how far opposition 
 to truth will drive some men. What are we to think 
 of the individual who does not know that a person 
 may be a powerfully strong man and yet have little 
 activity ? Where is the man who could equal the 
 nimbleness and activity of the child, and yet the load 
 he could easily carry would crush it to the earth ? 
 The child has the activity, although it wants the 
 
SIZE, POWER, AND ACTIVITY. 331 
 
 power. Again, the legs of a man are much more 
 powerful than his lingers ; but I would like to see 
 with what activity the legs could be run over the 
 strings of a fiddle. When will men, calling them- 
 selves philosophers, cease to reason themselves out of 
 their common sense ? It is really painful to be obliged 
 to reply to such frivolous opponents. ^' In physics 
 power is quite distinguishable from activity. The 
 balance-wheel of a watch moves with much rapidity, 
 but so slight is its impetus that a hair would suffice 
 to stop it. The beam of a steam engine traverses 
 slowly and ponderously through space, but its power 
 is prodigiously great. In muscular action these quali- 
 ties are recognised as different with equal facility. 
 The greyhound bounds over hill and dale with ani- 
 mated agility, but a slight obstacle would counter- 
 balance his momentum and arrest his progress. The 
 elephant, on the other hand, rolls slowly and heavily 
 along, but the impetus of his motion would sweep 
 away an impediment sufficient to resist fifty grey- 
 hounds at the summit of their speed." — {Phren, Jour,j 
 1824.) To enter minutely into a formal proof of the 
 reality of a distinction between power and activity 
 would be an insult to the understanding of my readers, 
 and therefore I revert to the question of size and 
 power. 
 
 '^ The doctrine that size is a measure of power," says 
 Mr Combe, '^ is not to be held as implying that much 
 
332 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 power is the only, or even the most valuable, quality 
 which a mind in all circumstances can possess. To 
 drag artillery over a mountain, or a ponderous waggon 
 through the streets of London, we would prefer an 
 elephant or a horse of great size and muscular power, 
 while for graceful motion, agility, and nimbleness, we 
 would select an Arabian palfrey. In like manner, to 
 lead men in gigantic and difficult enterprises — to com- 
 mand by native greatness in perilous times, when law 
 is trampled under foot — to call forth the energies of a 
 people, and direct them against a tyrant at home or 
 an alliance of tyrants abroad — to stamp the impress 
 of a single mind upon a nation — to infuse strength 
 into thoughts and depth into feelings, which shall 
 command the homage of enlightened men in every 
 age — in short, to be a Bruce, Bonaparte, Luther, Knox, 
 Demosthenes, Shakespeare, Milton, or Cromwell, a 
 large brain is indispensably requisite ; but to display 
 skill, enterprise, and fidelity in the various professions 
 of civil life — to cultivate with success the less arduous 
 branches of philosophy — to excel in acuteness, taste, 
 and felicity of expression — to acquire extensive erudi- 
 tion and refined manners — a brain of moderate size is 
 perhaps more suitable than one that is very large, for 
 wherever the energy is intense, it is rare that delicacy, 
 refinement, and taste are present in an equal degree." 
 Mr Combe has very properly referred to the fact 
 that fifty thousand British soldiers are able to keep 
 
SIZE, POWER, AND ACTIVITY. 333 
 
 one hundred millions of the Hindoos in subjection, as= 
 a proof that size is a measure of power. This is the 
 only principle on which such a fact could be accounted 
 for. The power which the large British brain exercises 
 over the very small Hindoo brain is truly surprising, 
 when a person comes to examine it carefully. — (Com- 
 pare Plate of Hindoo head with Plate of Napoleon's 
 forehead.) We have seen a thorough illustration of it 
 during the late lamentable Indian rebellion. Havelock, 
 on his way to the relief of Lucknow, with his intrepid 
 band of only one thousand men, defeated, in the open 
 field, no less than twenty thousand of the enemy ; and, 
 although the city of Lucknow had ^'a population of 
 about three hundred thousand, wild and lawless in the 
 last degree — every man armed in some way or other, 
 he actually succeeded in fighting his road to the Kesi- 
 dency, and ha'd the inexpressible satisfaction of rescu- 
 ing that " illustrious band of not five hundred men 
 which held its own against at least fifty thousand, 
 without losing a foot of ground, or conceding to the 
 enemy a single success." — {Life of Havelock.) Again, 
 in the battle of Assaye, Wellington commanded only 
 eight thousand men in all. Of these only fifteen 
 hundred were native British. He had just seventeen 
 cannon and sixteen hundred horses. With this small, 
 but intrepid band, he attacked and utterly defeated, in 
 the open field, an army consisting of thirty thousand 
 cavalry, and twenty thousand infantry, with one 
 
f 
 
 334 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 hundred cannon in their front. — (Life of Wellington.) 
 It would be difficult to imagine greater victories than 
 these. How are they to be accounted for ? I freely 
 admit that Havelock and Wellington were as consum- 
 mate generals, and as gallant soldiers, as ever drew a 
 sword, and also that their faithful bands were com- 
 posed of warriors of the first water ; that they could 
 accomplish anything which was in the power of hu- 
 manity to perform ; but still their victories could not 
 be accounted for on any other than Phrenological 
 principles. They could have fought their way against 
 any reasonable odds, but the extremely overpowering 
 numbers by which they were opposed must have 
 proved fatal to their success, if the enemy had been 
 endowed with the same brain power as other equally 
 civilised tribes of the human race. Perhaps an expla- 
 nation may be sought in the Hindoo's want of civilisa- 
 tion, and in his ignorance of the superior method of 
 fighting possessed by the British soldier. This expla- 
 nation, however, will not sufiice. The North American 
 Indians, who know nothing of civilisation, have never 
 been subdued ; they may have been driven back into 
 the forest, or numbers of them may have been extir- 
 pated from the face of the earth, but they have never 
 yet been conquered. The Caribs and the New Hol- 
 landers, in vfhom the animal propensities are largely 
 developed (see Plates), are exactly in the same pre- 
 dicament. Slay them you may, but conquer them 
 
SIZE, POWEE, AND ACTIVITY. 335 
 
 you cannot. This cannot be owing to their high de- 
 gree of civilisation, because it does not exist. " The 
 aborigines of xlustralia/' says Dr Lang, *^ have no idea 
 of a Supreme Divinity, the Creator and Governor of 
 the world, the Witness of their actions, and their 
 future Judge. They have no objects of worship, even 
 of a subordinate or inferior rank. They have no idols, 
 no temples, no sacrifices. In short, they have nothing 
 whatever of the character of religion or of religious 
 observance to distinguish them from the beasts that 
 perish." And Sir Walter Scott informs us that, " The 
 natives of New Holland are in the very lowest scale 
 of humanity, and ignorant of every art which can add 
 comfort or decency to human life. These unfortunate 
 savages use no clothes, construct no cabins or huts, 
 and are ignorant even of the manner of chasing ani- 
 mals or catching fish, unless such of the latter as are 
 left by the tide, or which are found on the rocks. 
 They feed on the most disgusting substances, snakes, 
 worms, maggots, and whatever trash falls in their 
 way. They know, indeed, how to kindle a fire ; in that 
 respect only they have stepped beyond the deepest 
 ignorance to which man can be subjected." Civilisa- 
 tion, then, will not explain the condition of the North 
 American Indians, the Caribs, or the New Hollanders, 
 because they do not possess it. Neither will the 
 absence of civilisation account for the defeat and sub- 
 jugation of the Hindoos, because they are so far ad- 
 
336 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 vanced as to have a written language and systems of 
 law and religion ; and we are told that the heroic gar- 
 rison of the Lucknow Eesidency was surrounded by 
 ^' malignant and well-trained marksmen, who thirsted 
 like tigers for their prey."— (Z^/*? of Sir H, HavelocJc.) 
 The mode of accounting for their defeat and complete 
 subjugation, then, by a want of civilisation, or by their 
 ignorance of the proper method of fighting, will not 
 stand the test. I feel certain, however, that the 
 PhreDoiogical doctrine which asserts that the absolute 
 size of the brain is a direct measure of its power, will 
 enable us to give a satisfactory explanation upon every 
 point. In the North American Indian and the Carib, 
 the head is not only absolutely large, but it is specially 
 so in the region of the animal propensities when com- 
 pared with the reflecting organs ; hence the impossi- 
 bility of complete subjugation. On the other hand, of 
 all the tribes which have yet been discovered, there is 
 none in whom the head is absolutely so small, or the 
 fighting propensities so poorly developed, as in the 
 Hindoo (see Plate 6), and as a consequence of this, the 
 general force of character will be feeble, and complete 
 subjugation a matter of easy accomplishment. 
 
 There never was an instance of a man with a very 
 small head being able to subject nations and drive 
 consternation to the heart of almost every inhabitant 
 of the globe in the same way as did Alexander the 
 Great or Napoleon Bonaparte, nor yet to sway and 
 
SIZE, POWER, AND ACTIVITY. 337 
 
 control tlie opinions of the multitude, and wield the 
 destinies of a mighty empire, in the same manner as 
 did Daniel O'Connell and Sir Robert Peel. If such 
 ever existed, let our opponents point out the case. 
 They could have no difficulty whatever in doing this 
 if power of character depended alone, as the meta- 
 physicians would have us believe, on the state of the 
 mind, and • had no relation to the development of the 
 brain. If the anti-phrenologists were correct, a brain 
 the size of an infant's would be quite as good as the 
 sixty-four ounce mass which filled Baron Cuvier's skull, 
 and a man with " a forehead villanously low " might 
 be as benevolent as a Howard, or as great a general as 
 the illustrious Wellington. On this point, however, 
 the facts are all in favour of the Phrenologists, and 
 against the Jeffreys and the Rogets. A person with a 
 moderately-sized brain may be acute in all his percep- 
 tions, and remarkably clever as a critic and a scholar, 
 but he will never have the same general force of char- 
 acter as if his brain were large. Absolute size gives 
 power, but the relation which the size of one part of 
 the brain bears to that of another will alone determine 
 whether the power be good or bad. " We see," says 
 Gall, " that in their works which conform to the indi- 
 cations of nature, artists make large heads, and espe- 
 cially large foreheads, to denote energetic intellectual 
 qualities ; and they give small and depressed foreheads, 
 and a head very strong in the posterior parts, to in- 
 
338 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 dividuals who distinguish themselves only by qualities 
 of an inferior order. The ancients gave to the statues 
 of their priests and their philosophers much larger 
 foreheads than to those of their gladiators. Eemark, 
 especiallyj the distinction they have adopted in their 
 Jupiter of the Capitol. The form of no head has ever 
 been so strongly prominent in the anterior and supe- 
 rior part of the forehead. What a difference between 
 this and the head of Bacchus ! . . . A man who really 
 merits the title of great, but only in a single relation, 
 will not always have a vast, extended, voluminous 
 head, because he is not endowed with great and ex- 
 tended faculties. The greatest mechanician or archi- 
 tectj the greatest musician, the first painter, &c., may 
 excel in his art without the whole brain participating 
 in the great development of one or some few of its 
 parts." A large general development will give general 
 power, but a large development in one compartment, 
 when compared with the remainder, will give power 
 in the special department to which the development 
 belongs ; so that, view it as we will, size is a direct 
 measure of power. 
 
 Further, a brain measuring only from eleven to 
 thirteen inches in circumference, immediately above 
 the ear, and from seven to eight inches over the top of 
 the head from the nose backwards, is invariably accom- 
 panied by idiocy* " The perfect exercise of the facul- 
 ties," says Gall, ^^is absolutely incompatible with a 
 
SIZE, POWEE, AND ACTIVITY. 339 
 
 brain so small, and there always exists in such a case 
 idiocy more or less complete : to this rule no excep- 
 tion has been or ever will be found. Why then shall 
 we not render homage to truth ? Why not establish 
 it as a principle, that there does exist a direct re- 
 lation between imbecility and the mass of the brain 1 " 
 This is a very tangible point. If there be no truth in 
 Phrenology, how does it come that a brain, with the 
 dimensions stated, is invariably accompanied by 
 idiocy? If there be no relation between size and 
 power, how is it to be accounted for that a head of 
 this description is never found on the philosopher, the 
 statesman, or the general? If it be true, as Lord 
 Jeffrey asserts, that it is a " strange attempt (on the 
 part of the Phrenologist) to assign material organs for 
 such purely mental operations as have no immediate 
 reference to nlatter," how does it happen that a brain 
 of idiotic measurement has never been found on any 
 of the metaphysicians who have spent the greater part 
 of their lives in reflecting on things which relate to 
 spirit ? On Lord Jeffrey's principle, a brain the size of 
 an orange would be quite sufficient for them. If Dr 
 Koget be correct in asserting '' that there is not a single 
 part of the encephalon (the brain), which has not, in 
 one case or other, been impaired, destroyed, or found 
 defective, without any apparent change in the sensi- 
 tive, intellectual, or moral faculties," it must folio % 
 not only that an idiotic brain would do for a Socrates, 
 
340 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 a Haller, or a Stephenson, but also that a man should 
 be able to think at the rate of nine knots an hour 
 without a brain at all. The truth is, Lord Jeffrey's and 
 Dr Roget's nonsense may do for men in their study, 
 but the man of practical sense will at once recognise as 
 idiotic the brain which I have described.- — {See Plate of 
 idiot) The man who is guided by observation, rather 
 than wild theory, knows that size and power are 
 connected with each other. Dr Gall's assertion regard- 
 ing the idiot's head has been^efore the public for more 
 than half a century, and yet none of his opponents 
 have ever been able to produce one single example to 
 refute it. They have had the length and breadth 
 of the world before them, and ample time and oppor- 
 tunity, but still the thing is not accomplished. If any 
 man produces me a living, full-grown individual, pos- 
 sessing the talent of a George Stephenson, a Welling- 
 ton, a Bonaparte, or a Peel, whilst the head measures 
 only eleven inches in its greatest circumference, and 
 seven over the top from the root of the nose to the 
 nape of the neck, I will give him a fifty pound note for 
 his trouble, and throw Phrenology overboard into the 
 bargain. Here is a fair chance for the anti-phrenolo- 
 gist : let him earn my money if he can. One of the 
 most startling and humiliating sights which ever cama 
 before me, during my professional life, was that of a 
 child born without a brain. Its head was perfectly flat 
 across by the eyebrows, the root of the ears, and the 
 
SIZE, POWEE, AND •ACTIVITY. 341 
 
 nape of the neck ; but in all other respects, including 
 its face, limbs, and body, it was a remarkably fine 
 healthy child. It died in a few moments after its 
 birth. The sight of it made an impression on my 
 mind which cannot be effaced. No person could look 
 on it without forming a very exalted idea of the im- 
 portance of the brain in the human economy, and feel- 
 ing at the same time, if a parent himself, truly thankful 
 that he has never been called on to bear such a trial in 
 his own family. It has often occurred to me, since 
 witnessing this case, that parties who are dissatisfied 
 about having all sons, or all daughters, are guilty of a 
 great sin. They should feel extremely thankful to 
 Providence when their children have " their shapes and 
 features." 
 
 It must be specially observed that although want of 
 size invariably produces idiocy, it is not the only cause 
 of idiocy. A brain may, on the whole, be large, and 
 imbecility may result from defective structure, mal- 
 formation, or disease. There is often a coarseness of 
 structure and a want of energy about a large brain 
 which brings its possessor under the class of "big 
 head and little wit.'^ Defect in size, then, must not 
 be set down as the only cause of idiocy. Idiocy may 
 result from original malformation or disease. Dr 
 Mitchell, deputy-commissioner in Lunacy for Scotland, 
 has lately dravv^n our attention to the fact that injuries 
 inflicted on the brain during birth are frequently the 
 
342 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 cause of idiocy. In the London Medical Times and 
 Gazette, for July 12bh, 1862, he has given us a report of 
 his elaborate investigations on this point ; and after 
 having perused it, I can see no reason to doubt the 
 correctness of his conclusion, " that tedious labours 
 and instrumental deliveries do frequently injure the 
 child in such a manner as to lead to the manifestation 
 of idiocy. As to this/' he continues, " no doubt what- 
 ever rests on my mind." 
 
 It is a common, but an exceedingly erroneous 
 opinion, that the size of a man's head may be estimated 
 by the size of his hat. A person may have very large 
 moral and reflecting organs, and yet wear a moderate 
 sized hat. The part of the head on which the hat 
 rests is the seat of the animal propensities, of which 
 he need not be too proud. Those who have Phreno- 
 logical busts will see a good illustration of this point 
 in contrasting the wonderfully towering cast of Sir 
 Walter Scott with that of the low, flat, broad-headed 
 murderer, Templeton. — {See Plates), 
 
 For practical purposes, it is necessary that we should 
 have a standard by which to judge of the size of any 
 individual's head, so as to know whether it is large or 
 small. The average, or standard, head is usually set 
 down by Phrenologists as measuring twenty-two inches 
 in circumference, and fourteen inches over the top. 
 In taking the circumference, the tape line should be 
 placed immediately above the root of the ear, and 
 
SIZE, POWER, AND ACTIVITY. 343 
 
 passed round the head on a level with, and round the 
 eyebrows. This gives the circumference of the base 
 of the brain. The measurement over the top is taken 
 by some parties from the root of the nose to the 
 protuberance on the skull at the top of the neck, and 
 by others from the orifice of one ear over the crown of 
 the head to the orifice of the other ear. This last plan 
 is the one which I would prefer. 
 
 Seeing that the largest head is not always the best, 
 it behoves us now to inquire what are the circum- 
 stances which modify the effects of size. In laying 
 down the rule that size is a direct measure of power. 
 Phrenologists have invariably put in the proviso 
 that all other things must be equal in the cases of 
 comparison. Dr Andrew Combe has very justly com- 
 plained, {Phren. Jour., vol. iv. p. 162,) that our oppo- 
 nents have never dealt fairly with us on this point. 
 They have always " mis-stated or misrepresented its 
 meaning. For," he continues, ^' instead of fairly 
 grappling with it, as laid down in all the Phreno- 
 logical writings, those of our opponents who have 
 ever attacked it, and Mr Jeffrey among the number, 
 have chosen uniformly to represent it as affirming 
 that organic size is the only and exclusive condition of 
 energy of function, and have brought wit, fact, and 
 argument into .play, to upset, not our statement, but 
 this their own absurd misrepresentation." When they 
 cannot meet us on fair ground, they try to upset us by 
 
344 PHKENOLOGY. 
 
 misrepresenting our premises. It is lamentable to 
 think how often this plan is had recourse to in con- 
 troversy ; and what makes it, perhaps, more distress- 
 ing than any other consideration, is the fact that it is 
 the dodge — the dodge of misrepresentation — which is 
 had recourse to by writers on religious subjects, more 
 than by any other class in the community. Any per- 
 son who is acquainted with religious controversy must 
 be aware of this. An honest writer is obliged to spend 
 more time in exposing the disingenuous reasoning and 
 misrepresentations of his opponent, than in discussing 
 the real merits of the question. It is a great disgrace 
 that such a state of matters should exist, and it speaks 
 badly for poor human nature. My own impression is 
 that the evil will never be remedied till such conduct is 
 put on its proper foundation. In place of using such 
 mild terms as misunderstanding and misrepresentation, 
 ib must just be set down for what it really is in the 
 great majority of instances, the dishonest emanation of 
 a mind working through a brain in which the organ of 
 conscientiousness is decidedly defective. The man 
 who is naturally defective in moral rectitude will gain 
 a victory at any cost ; but the person who is endowed 
 with large conscientiousness, will give his opponent fair 
 play, no matter whether he is able to meet his argu- 
 ments or not, and he will never demean himself by 
 disingenuous reasoning to gain a point. Misrepre- 
 sentation is not had recourse to so much in scientific 
 
TEMPERAMENT. 345 
 
 as in religious discussions, Phrenology alone excepted. 
 In speaking of size as a measure of power, Phrenolo- 
 gists always put in the proviso, other things being 
 equal ; and I now come to consider what those things 
 are which must be equal, or, in other words, what the 
 circumstances are which modify the effects of size. 
 By far the most important of these is the constitution 
 of the brain, which is to be known by the tempera- 
 ment. 
 
 TEMPERAMENT. 
 
 Evert person understands what is meant by the 
 temper. Xot so, however, with the temperament. 
 Nor will I attempt any scientific explanation of it at 
 present, as I could not do so without occupying a 
 great deal of ■ time and space. Besides, it is a very 
 difficult thing to obtain an accurate scientific know- 
 ledge of the temperaments ; and such knowledge can 
 be arrived at only after minute, careful, and extensive 
 observation. Indeed, I question whether the subject 
 could be fully investigated b}^ parties who are devoid 
 of a medical education. An accurate and ready appre- 
 ciation of temperament, or, in other words, of consti- 
 tution, is just one of those difficult points in which 
 one physician often so much surpasses another. Pecu- 
 liarities of constitution are not so much to be learned 
 from written descriptions, as to be picked up from 
 
346 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 practical observation by a person who has a natural 
 aptitude for such things. There is a certain amount 
 of information, however, concerning the temperaments 
 which any man may acquire, and without which it is 
 impossible to become a good practical Phrenologist, 
 and thus far I must go with the subject. The question 
 of the temperaments, be it observed, is not one which 
 is confined to the province of the Phrenologist. It has 
 engaged the attention of medical observers ever since 
 the days of Hippocrates. The cause of the tempera- 
 ments has given rise to a diversity of opinion in 
 different ages, and even yet is not very satisfactorily 
 ascertained ; but their effects have been recognised with 
 a considerable degree of uniformity by all observers. 
 
 The temperaments are usually divided into four — 
 the nervous, bilious, sanguine, and lymphatic. They 
 are never found absolutely pure and unmixed, but are 
 combined in different proportions in different cases, 
 and the preponderance of one or more over the re- 
 mainder will always determine the peculiarity of the 
 individual constitution under consideration. This rule 
 is applicable to man and all the inferior animals. 
 There may be a difference of opinion as to which is 
 cause and which effect ; but there can be no question 
 that an intimate relationship exists between the tem- 
 perament and the minute anatomical structure of 
 every part of the body, including bone, muscle, sinew, 
 and nerve. If activity prevails, the structure will be 
 
TEMPEEAMENT. 347 
 
 fine and compact; if sluggishness predominates, tlie 
 texture will be coarse, open, and in some instances 
 spongy. That such a difference exists in regard to 
 muscle or flesh can be verified any day in a butcher's 
 shop by comparing the fine texture of the active 
 Galloway or Kerry cow with the coarse fibre of the 
 sluggish short-horned ox ; and that the bone even is 
 not exempt from the rule can be made manifest by 
 contrasting the shank of a Clydesdale horse with the 
 same part in the racer. In short, every part of the 
 body participates in the same law of development. I 
 have already observed, in my work on The Horse, that 
 the doctrine of the temperaments is applicable to the 
 inferior animals as well as to man. Form and size 
 alone will not account for the difference which exists 
 between the Clydesdale, Suffolk, or Belgian cart-horse 
 and the Engli-sh race-horse : temperament must be 
 taken largely into our calculation. It is on the same 
 principle, too, I think, we must explain some of the 
 facts connected with insect life. I know of no other 
 rational explanation of the following facts : — " M. De- 
 lisle once observed a fly, only as large as a grain of 
 sand, which ran three inches in half a second, and in 
 that space made the enormous number of five hundred 
 and forty steps. If a man were to be able to walk as 
 fast, in proportion to his size, supposing his step to 
 measure two feet, he would in the course of a minute* 
 have run upwards of twenty miles, a task far surpassing 
 
348 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 our express railroad eDgines, or the famous 'Seven- 
 League Boots ' recorded in the nursery fable. In leap- 
 ing, also, insects far excel man, or any other animal 
 whatsoever. The flea can leap two hundred times its 
 own length ; so also can the locust. If a man were six 
 feet high, and could leap in proportion to one of these 
 insects, he might stand near Bow Church, in Cheap- 
 side, leap up into the air over the top of St PauFs 
 cross, and alight at the bottom of Ludgate Hill ; which, 
 would be something more wonderful than it has ever 
 entered into the minds of the writers of fairy tales to 
 conceive." 
 
 The individual in whom the brain, spinal marrow, 
 and nerves predominate over the rest of the system, 
 has a nervous temperament, which is usually indicated 
 by fine, thin hair, thin skin, small muscles, paleness 
 of complexion, and frequently an irritable disposition, 
 which induces bad health. This temperament confers 
 great quickness and vivacity of mental action, without 
 the capability of endurance. The brain is so remark- 
 ably active that it is very easily excited, and, for the 
 want of endurance, soon exhausts its powers. It is 
 highly important that parties with this temperament 
 should avoid all sorts of excess. If the lower faculties 
 should happen to predominate in the individual over 
 the higher, he will speedily run, if exposed to tempta- 
 tion, into drunkenness or debauchery, and he will 
 spend what is called a merry life and a short one. 
 
TEMPEEAMENT. 349 
 
 His nervous system is too excitable to be able to en- 
 dure, and when accustomed to excess it gets beyond 
 control. A drunkard of this description is in a very 
 bojjeless condition. The great point lies in prevention 
 by way of teetotalism. His motto should be. Touch 
 not, taste not, handle not. If once excited, it is not 
 easy to stop. The power of control is lost. Accord- 
 ing to my observation, there is less hope for reclaim- 
 ing a drunkard who possesses this temperament, even 
 although his higher faculties may be well developed, 
 than one who runs to excess from a large gustative- 
 ness with a sluggish temperament. In the first case, 
 the excitement is excessive, arid raises a' brain-power 
 for the time being which gives a sort of pleasurable 
 sensation, and which is not easily controlled ; but in 
 the last case the stimulant has very little more action 
 than it would have on a sand-bed. The craving is not 
 so great if the party is removed out of the way of 
 temptation. Sir John Sinclair has very properly re- 
 marked that '^ it is of the highest importance to pay 
 particular attention to one's temperament and consti- 
 tutional weaknesses." This is specially so for the man 
 who, with a nervous predominance, is obliged to de- 
 vote his life to literary pursuits. If he does not 
 moderate, as well as regulate, his mental work, and 
 interlard it with plenty of exercise in the open air, he 
 will wear out his constitution, and pass into a prema- 
 ture grave. It is perhaps in some degree owing to the 
 
350 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 neglect of those rules wMcli promote a healthy and 
 vigorous action in the constitution that literary men 
 are seldom succeeded by an offspring equal to them- 
 selves. They have worked an excitable brain at the 
 expense of their general constitution, and the conse- 
 quence is, they have bequeathed to society a delicate 
 and useless offspring, if indeed there be any offspring 
 at all. This I believe is the rational solution of the 
 following facts, which are set forth in an early number 
 of the Quarterly Revieio : — " It is a fact,'' says the 
 Review^ " that men distinguished for extraordinary 
 intellectual power of any sort very rarely leave more 
 than a very brief line of progeny behind them — men 
 of imaginative genius, we might say, almost never. 
 With two exceptions, there is no real English poet 
 prior to the middle of the eighteenth century, of whose 
 blood we have any inheritance amongst us. Chaucer's 
 only son died childless. Shakespeare's line expired in 
 his daughter's only daughter. None of the other 
 dramatists of that age left any progeny — nor Ealeigh, 
 nor Bacon, nor Cowley, nor Butler. The granddaughter 
 of Milton was the last of his blood. Newton, Locke, 
 Pope, Swift, Arbuthnot, Hume, Gibbon, Cowper, Gray, 
 Walpole, Cavendish, never married. Neither Boling- 
 broke, nor Addison, nor Warburton, nor Johnson, nor 
 Burke, nor Goldsmith, transmitted their blood.'' Sir 
 Humphrey Davy died childless, and Sir Walter Scott 
 has only one representative bearing issue. These are 
 
TEMPERAMENT. Sol 
 
 remarkable facts, but tbey are capable of a perfectly 
 pbilosophical solution. If a man wishes to enjoy good 
 health to a proper old age, as well as to transmit a 
 vigorous progeny, he must attend to the laws which 
 govern the healthy energy of every organ in the entire 
 economy. He must not work his brain at the expense 
 of the rest of his system. 
 
 The bilious temperament is indicated by a pre- 
 dominant muscular system, darkish hair, dark or 
 yellowish skin, firm frame, hard flesh, and a more or 
 less harsh but manly expression of face. This tem- 
 perament confers the greatest power of endurance, 
 and will enable the brain, as well as all other parts of 
 the body, to undergo an immense deal of work without 
 much fatigue. It is a most important temperament, 
 and is essentially connected with strength, durability, 
 and sustained exertion. 
 
 The sanguine temperament, as its name imports, 
 has its origin in a large development of the lungs, 
 heart, and blood-vessels. It must therefore be evident, 
 that it is one of no trifling importance. On it, to a 
 considerable extent, depends the nourishment or sup- 
 port of all parts of the body. It is recognised by a 
 firm, plump, well-defined form, reddish or sandy- 
 coloured hair, blue eyes, and a ruddy complexion. In 
 this case, there will often be a fondness for exercise or 
 field sports, and a perfect antipathy to a state of 
 quiescence. Of course the brain will participate in the 
 
352 PHUENOLOGY. 
 
 general activity of the constitution. The temper is 
 frequently so hasty that it boils up into a towering 
 passion. 
 
 The lymphatic temperament is supposed to depend 
 on a predominance of the glandular and lymphatic 
 systems of vessels. It often happens that people 
 with this temperament are loaded with fat. They 
 have a large abdomen, a round and full form, flabby 
 flesh, fairish hair, dull and sleepy-looking eyes, inex- 
 pressive, vacant, and waxy countenance. Here we 
 have a slow, languid, and sluggish disposition, which is 
 extremely unfavourable for either mental or bodily 
 exertion. The individual with this temperament is a 
 sort of vegetative creature. He is not easily roused to 
 exertion, and even, if roused, he will soon sink into a 
 lull again. It matters not how favourable the develop- 
 ment of his cerebral organs may be, they will be of 
 little use, as they will be permitted to lie dormant the 
 greater part of their time. In place of being put out 
 to usury, they may be said to be buried in sand. 
 
 Such, then, are the leading peculiarities of the four 
 temperaments. They are generally mixed and com- 
 bined in various proportions in different individuals. 
 It is an exceedingly rare occurrence to find a person 
 with a perfectly pure temperament. Indeed, I ques- 
 tion if such a case is ever seen. At any rate, a well- 
 mixed temperament is infinitely preferable to any pure 
 one. They should all be found in the same individual, 
 
TEMPERAMENT. 353 
 
 as they are all of decided use in their own place, but 
 the exact proportion which they bear to each other is 
 a matter of overwhelming importance. The sanguine 
 and lymphatic are both of use in connexion with the 
 nutrition of the vital organs, but if these predominate 
 very decidedly over the others, the person will be more 
 characterised by the animal than the mental power. 
 On the other hand, when the nervous and bilious are 
 in excess, there may be a delicacy of constitution, 
 caused by defective nutrition, which is a great hind- 
 rance to steady brain- work. To use a common expres- 
 sion, the mind will be too strong for the body. A 
 good dash of the nervous and bihous, with a touch of 
 the sanguine, and a little of the lymphatic, will make 
 an excellent combination. The brain will possess an 
 energetic, durable, and healthy action. 
 
 Lord Brougham is usually cited as a good example 
 of the effects of a combination of the nervous and 
 bilious temperaments. He had both energy and en- 
 durance. After being engaged in the law court during 
 the day, he went to the House of Commons, where he 
 remained till two o^clock in the morning ; on going 
 home, he wrote an article for the Edinburgh Review ^ 
 after finishing which he returned to the court ; from 
 the court he again proceeded to the House of Commons, 
 and retired to sleep only on the morning of the third 
 day. During all this time his vigour is said to have 
 been unabated. No other combination of temperament 
 
354 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 would have enabled him to go through the same 
 amount of labour without repose. The Eev. Dr Cooke 
 of Belfast, and the Eev. Dr Guthrie of Edinburgh, are 
 good examples of this combination of the nervous and 
 bilious temperaments. 
 
 The nervous in combination with the lymphatic 
 temperament will produce activity alternating with 
 indolence. In general, the individual will be lazy and in- 
 dolent from the lymphatic portion of his temperament, 
 but extraordinary circumstances will call forth a con- 
 siderable degree of excitement and activity, depending 
 on the nervous portion of his temperament. I have 
 seen many people with this peculiar combination. 
 Some of them had well-formed heads, and were capable 
 of great things when roused ; but on the whole they 
 did not arrive at much, because they did nothing ex- 
 cept under special excitement. I once had a particular 
 friend of this description, who might have been called 
 a sleeping lion. When excited, he was capable of 
 manifesting prodigious power on any subject with 
 which he was acquainted ; but his fine development of 
 brain was to a considerable extent useless, owing to 
 the extreme indolence of his temperament. The 
 sluggishness of his constitution prevented him from 
 turning the great powers he possessed to their full 
 account. 
 
 Whilst the nervous and sanguine temperaments are 
 both active, the nervous is more of what is called a 
 
TEMPERAMENT. 355 
 
 mental, and the sanguine of a physical character. 
 " The nervous is a grave and thoughtful temperament ; 
 the sanguine is accompanied with an appearance of 
 hilarity and hope ; there is a peculiar lighting up of the 
 countenance and tendency to motion." The nervous 
 predisposes to brain work ; the sanguine to general 
 bodily activity. 
 
 The effect of the temperaments did not escape the 
 observant eye of William Cobbett. His remarks, 
 though not quite accurate, are so uncommonly good 
 that I shall transcribe them. In his Letter to a Lover, 
 he says, " Who is to tell whether a girl will make an 
 industrious woman ? How is the purblind lover, espe- 
 cially, to be able to ascertain whether she, whose smiles 
 and dimples and bewitching looks have half bereft 
 him of his senses — how is he to be able to judge, from 
 anything th^t he can see, whether the beloved object 
 will be lazy or industrious 1 Why, it is very difficult. 
 There are, however, certain outward signs, which, if 
 attended to with care, will serve as pretty sure guides. 
 And, first, if you find the tongue lazy, you may be 
 nearly certain that the hands and feet are the same. 
 By laziness of the tongue I do not mean silence ; I do 
 not mean an absence of talk, for that is, in most cases, 
 very good ; but I mean a slow and soft utterance ; a 
 sort of sighing out of the words, instead of speaking 
 them ; a sort of letting the sounds fall out, as if the 
 party were sick at stomach. The pronunciation of an 
 
356 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 industrious person is generally quick and distinct^ and 
 the voice, if not strong, j^rm at least. Not masculine, 
 as feminine as possible ; not a croak nor a bawl ; but 
 a quick, distinct, and sound voice. Another mark of 
 industry is a quick step^ and a somewhat heavy tread, 
 showing that the foot comes down with a hearty good- 
 will. I do not like, and I never liked, your sauntering, 
 soft-stepping girls, who move as if they were perfectly 
 indifferent as to the result." Such are Mr Cobbett's 
 observations, and I believe they are well worthy of 
 attentive consideration. 
 
 It is a very prevalent opinion that all parties should 
 be able to do with the same amount of sleep. Nothing, 
 however, could be farther from the true state of the 
 case, and I am convinced that many people injure 
 themselves most materially by denying their constitu- 
 tions the full amount of sleep which is necessary for 
 the proper and regular renewal of their bodily organs. 
 "How absurdly do those reason," says Sir John 
 Sinclair, " who imagine, that by taking as little sleep 
 as possible, they prolong their existence. They may 
 spend in a given period, say sixty years, more hours 
 with their eyes open, but they will never enjoy life, in 
 the proper sense of that word, nor possess that fresh- 
 ness and energy of mind, which are the certain conse- 
 quences of sound and sufficient sleep. . . . Intense 
 thought very speedily exhausts the nervous energy ; 
 and it requires even longer sleep to recruit the strength 
 
TEMPERAMENT. 357 
 
 and restore the spirits when wasted by study, than 
 by the effects of severe labour. . . . Let any one 
 devote from seven to eight hours to sleep, and from 
 three to four to exercise, and even four hours to meals 
 and to amusement, and he will be enabled, from the 
 refreshment which his body, his mind/ and his spirits 
 thus receive, to do a greater quantity of business, and 
 to study with more advantage, in the course of twelve 
 months, than if he were to labour at his books for ten 
 or twelve hours a day. . . . Those who have attempted 
 to fix one uniform measure of sleep for all persons, 
 have not sufficiently considered how widely different 
 the system is in various individuals. Bishop Taylor, for 
 instance, has very erroneously assigned only three hours 
 in the four-and-twenty, as the general standard ; and 
 Baxter is almost equally mistaken in supposing that 
 four hours will suffice for any man. Wesley justly 
 observes, that whatever may be done by extraordinary 
 persons, or in some remarkable cases, where little sleep 
 has sufficed, yet the human body can scarcely continue 
 in health and vigour without six hours' sleep in the 
 four-and-twenty. We should rather be inclined to 
 extend it to eight. ... It is proper to add, hovv^ever, 
 that nothing is more pernicious than too much sleep. 
 It brings on sluggishness, and dulness of all the animal 
 functions, and materially tends to weaken the body. 
 It blunts and destroys the senses, and renders both 
 the body and the mind unfit for action." — {Code of 
 
358 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 Health and Longevity.) The truth is, the secret of all 
 this lies in the temperaments. Eight hours' sleep 
 would be as little for a person possessing a lymphatic 
 temperament, as six would be for one of either a ner- 
 vous or sanguine temperament. I recollect once seeing 
 a large-eating, lymphatic gentleman falling sound asleep, 
 and snoring, on a chair in the drawing-room, at a party, 
 in the very midst of hilarity. He seemed so unable to 
 overcome the sluggishness of his constitution, that he 
 forcibly reminded me of the observations of Dr Macnish 
 about those " persons who have a disposition to sleep 
 on every occasion. They do so at all times, and in all 
 places. They sleep after dinner; they sleep in the 
 theatre ; they sleep in church. It is the same to them 
 in what situation they may be placed ; sleep is the 
 great end of their existence — their occupation — their 
 sole employment. Let them be placed in almost any 
 circumstances, and their constitutional failing prevails. 
 It falls upon them in the midst of mirth ; it assails 
 them when travelling. Let them sail, or ride, or sit, 
 or lie, or walk, sleep overtakes them — binds their 
 faculties in torpor, and makes them dead to all that is 
 passing around. Such are our dull, heavy-headed, 
 drowsy mortals, those sons and daughters of phlegm — 
 with passions as inert as a Dutch fog, and intellects as 
 sluggish as the movements of the hippopotamus or 
 leviathan. ; No class of society is so insufferable as this. 
 There is a torpor and obtuseness about their faculties 
 
TEMPEEAMENT. 359 
 
 which renders them dead to every impression. It is 
 not uncommon for persons of this stamp to fall asleep 
 in the midst of a party to which they have been invited. 
 Llr Mackenzie, in one of his papers, speaks of an honest 
 farmer having done so alongside of a young lady, who 
 was playing on the harp for his amusement. The cause 
 of this constitutional disposition to dose upon every 
 occasion seems to be a certain want of activity in the 
 brain, the result of which is, that the individual is 
 singularly void of fire, energy, and passion. He is of a 
 phlegmatic temperament, generally a great eater, and 
 very destitute of imagination." — (The Philosopky of 
 Sleep.) The proper rule is for every person to take as 
 much sleep as will suffice to renew the energy and 
 vigour of the constitution ; but no one should indulge 
 further than this. The parties who are advocates for 
 short sleep frequently tell us of this, that, or the other 
 great man who made it a rule never to sleep more than 
 four or five hours a night, and they exhort us to follow 
 his example ; but they never think of informing us 
 that this great man either came to a premature grave, 
 or possessed such a temperament as enabled him to 
 brave every tempest and surmount every difficulty that 
 
 came in his way. A friend of mine. Major , once 
 
 told me he was " as fresh as any little boy of eighty- 
 two could exj3ect to be," and that he " never knew the 
 meaning of the word tired." He had a most admirable 
 constitution, his bodily organs were well proportioned 
 
360 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 to each other, his temperament was very energetic, 
 and he took proper care in his mode of living. All 
 these combined to make him what he was, a man of 
 vigour and energy at an advanced age. All men are not 
 so happily constituted ; but if all would regulate their 
 passions and emotions, live in moderation, and take 
 regular exercise and regular sleep, they would have a 
 more reasonable prospect than they now possess of 
 enjoying a vigorous youth and a healthy old age. 
 
 The temperament has to do with the minute struc- 
 ture of all parts of the body. If it be active, the tex- 
 ture of the muscles, bones, &c., will be fine, wiry, and 
 compact ; if sluggish, the same parts will be coarse, 
 soft, and spongy. This is one essential point of differ- 
 ence between the thorough-bred and Clydesdale horse. 
 As I have said in my work on The Horse, " the muscle or 
 bone of a thorough-bred horse, whose temperament is 
 always active, is far stronger, inch for inch, than the 
 same part in the Clydesdale horse, whose temperament 
 is invariably sluggish. If the Clydesdale, Suffolk, or 
 Belgian horse, were as strong as he looks, in comparison 
 with the thorough-bred horse, ass, mule, or genet, he 
 would be able to carry or draw a vast deal more than 
 he has ever been known to do. Let us take two 
 animals with exactly the same temperament and the 
 same leverage, and we will invariably find that the one 
 which has the thickest muscle will have the most 
 strength ; but if the muscle and leverage are the same 
 
TEMPEEAMENT. 361 
 
 in both cases, and the temperament different, there 
 will be a corresponding difference in power and ac- 
 tivity." So is it with man. Take, for example, four 
 men, weighing twelve stone each, with a lymphatic 
 temperament, whose muscles are soft and flabby, and 
 place them in a boat opposite four antagonists of the 
 same weight, practice, and experience, with an ener- 
 getic and durable temperament, whose muscles are 
 hard, firm, and wiry, and start them over a four-mile 
 course, and s^e which will come off victorious. I ven- 
 ture to say there would be any odds in favour of the 
 latter. Every person who would see them lay their 
 shoulders, directed by their solid, firm, and active 
 muscles, to the oars, would exclaim. What tight and 
 hardy fellows these are — they will be sure to win ! 
 And so they would. The weight, training, and judg- 
 ment being all the same, the difference in the activity 
 of the temperament would make the race equal to a 
 walk-over. 
 
 As the brain is no exception to the other organs of 
 the economy, this law of the muscular system is per- 
 fectly applicable to it. Its power and activity are both 
 greatly influenced by the temperament. If we select 
 two individuals with the same cerebral development, 
 but having different temperaments, the one who has 
 the most active temperament will also have the most 
 active brain, and consequently must be superior to the 
 other in mental manifestation ; so that size alone will 
 
362 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 not make the best head. Take two men, however, 
 with the same temperament, but with different-sized 
 brains, and the one with the largest head will have the 
 greatest force of character, be that for good or for 
 evil. It behoves us, then, in comparing differeilt in- 
 dividuals with each other, to pay as much attention to 
 the temperament as to the size of the head. They are 
 both equally important. A moderate-sized head with 
 an active temperament is better than a large head with 
 a sluggish temperament. But if the temperament, 
 health, and exercise were the same in both individuals, 
 the size of the head would then be a direct measure of 
 its power. In drawing comparisons between different 
 parties, we must never lose sight of these principles, if 
 we wish to avoid falling into the grossest mistakes. 
 We must also go a little farther, and apply these prin- 
 ciples to the various organs in any specified head. As 
 the health and temperament are necessarily equal in 
 the same man, the largest organs in his head will, of 
 course, be the most powerful, and will be likely to take 
 the lead of the rest, so as to form a bold outline in the 
 person's character. A large organ will have more 
 power than a small one, and will form a trait in the 
 natural disposition. "We must first estimate the tem- 
 perament, to see whether the brain as a whole will be 
 active or sluggish ; we are then to ascertain the size of 
 the entire head, to give us an idea of the power of the 
 complete mass ; and then we are in a position to com- 
 
HEALTH OF THE BRAHS-. 363 
 
 pare the various organs witli each other, so as to group 
 the large ones together, as the largest organs, having 
 the greatest force, owing to the temperament and 
 health of all being alike, must determine the pro- 
 minent outlines of the person's talents and disposition. 
 From this it results, that, whilst the size of the whole 
 head is important, the chief point, after all, is the part 
 of the head which bears the greatest development. A 
 small head with prominent moral and intellectual 
 faculties, is decidedly better than a large one in which 
 these special parts are defective. A large, good head 
 is the best of all ; but a small good one is infinitely 
 preferable to a large bad one. 
 
 HEALTH OF THE BRAIN. 
 
 The health of the brain should be another ingredient 
 in our estimate of its power. A diseased brain is not 
 capable of manifesting the mental operations in the 
 same condition as a sound one. It may here be re- 
 marked that diseases are usually divided, whether 
 wisely or not, into two great classes, — structural and 
 functional. The walls of the heart, for example, may 
 become thicker or thinner than natural, and the cavity 
 of the organ may be lessened or enlarged in conse- 
 quence, and this would form an instance of structural 
 disease of the heart ; but, on the other hand, derange- 
 ment in the nervous system, or in the digestive organs, 
 
364 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 might cause a palpitation at the heart, although no 
 change, so far at least as to be cognisable by our senses, 
 has taken place in the structure of the heart itself, and 
 this constitutes what is called functional disease of the 
 heart. Hence it follows that the various organs of the 
 body may be more or less impeded or altered in their 
 action by either structural or functional disease. In 
 this point of view, the brain is no exception to the 
 rest of the system. Its functions may be lessened or 
 increased, as is well known to all properly-informed 
 medical practitioners, by the effects of disease, without 
 any visible change in the state of its fibres ; or its 
 substance may be so far changed by disease that the 
 alteration in its structure will be visible by our senses 
 on dissection. These are the two great divisions 
 adopted by the medical profession, and they answer 
 my purpose perfectly well, without going into the 
 question as to whether there can be any alteration of 
 function unaccompanied by previous alteration in the 
 physical condition of the part. It certainly does not 
 follow that there is no structural change because we 
 have no instrument at present powerful enough to dis- 
 cover it. This point should, for the time being, be 
 left an open question. All that the Phrenologist has 
 to do, is to see that the brain is free from disease either 
 functional or structural. If he neglects to do this, or 
 if he has not sufficient knowledge to enable him to 
 ascertain it, he will be very likely to fall into grievous 
 
HEALTH OF THE BEAIN. 365 
 
 errors. In addition to ordinary disease, there are some 
 cases on record where remarkable alterations had taken 
 place during life in the external appearance of the head. 
 The observations which have as yet been made on this 
 point are not so extensive as could be wished, nor as 
 accurate, in general, as they ought to be. Still, they 
 are of importance. The Phrenological Journal for 1824 
 contains the report of a very interesting case, which 
 was referred to in his clinical lectures by the cele- 
 brated Esquirol, physician to the Salpetriere, Paris. 
 "To-day (7th Feb. 1819) we have the dissection of a 
 woman," says Esquirol, "who was admitted into the 
 hospital, about four years ago, for a religious melan- 
 choly At the time of her admission she had a 
 
 large forehead, so much so that I had a drawing of it 
 made as remarkable. JSfow, the forehead is small and 
 receding^ " In* this case," says the reporter, " the de- 
 crease of the brain and the consequent retrocession of 
 the skull were very conspicuous. In the course of four 
 years, a forehead, remarkable for its size, had dwindled 
 down to one almost characteristic of idiocy." This is a 
 well-authenticated case, and it is specially interesting 
 on account of having occurred in the practice of an 
 eminent physician who was an opponent to Phrenology. 
 The Phrenological Journal for 1827, p. 495, and for 
 1835, p. 466, contains a most interesting account of 
 the changes which occurred, from disease of the brain, 
 in the size and shape of the skulls of T D , 
 
366 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 and the celebrated Dean Swift. Those who wish to 
 peruse it can refer to the Joitrnal, as it is too long to 
 be inserted here. 
 
 EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 
 
 That the human body is improved by regular exer- 
 cise, and that any part of it which is left in a state of 
 inactivity, such as a fractured leg, will become weak 
 and wasted, few will attempt to deny. Take, for ex- 
 ample, a man who has spent a number of years behind 
 his counter, or in his study, or in any sedentary occu- 
 pation, and send him out to a hard day's hunting, or 
 coursing, and you will, in all probability, lay him up 
 for a week ; whereas the man who is habituated to this 
 sort of exercise will be as fresh the next day as ever. 
 Regular exercise, at proper intervals, and duly accommo- 
 dated to the condition of the part, will invariably in- 
 crease its power. Witness its effects, for instance, on 
 the carman's legs, the arms and shoulders of the sawyer, 
 and the right arm with which the blacksmith wields 
 his hammer. All parts of the body are improved by 
 proper exercise, and deteriorated if deprived of it. The 
 brain forms no exception whatever to this law of the 
 animal economy ; and hence it is absolutely necessary 
 for the Phrenologist, in estimating character, to ascer- 
 tain whether the organs have been cultivated or not. 
 This is only fair and reasonable. We could not tell the 
 
EFFECTS OF EXEKCISE. 367 
 
 power of a man's muscles by measuring his arm, unless 
 we knew whether those muscles were exercised or not. 
 Why, then, should we be expected to perform greater 
 wonders in estimating the power of the brain ? We 
 demand fair play, and we must have it. An inch of 
 trained muscle is far stronger than an inch of untrained, 
 and therefore we could not judge of the power of the 
 part without knowing its training. So in regard to the 
 brain. Fair play demands that we know whether it has 
 been cultivated or not. Suppose I take a block of 
 mahogany and cut it into two halves exactly alike ; 
 that I leave one half aside, and get a cabinetmaker to 
 polish up the other to his highest state of finishing ; 
 and that I then place the two pieces together, and 
 show them to a person who is ignorant of the effects 
 of planing and polishing, he will hardly believe that 
 they were originally off the same block. So in regard 
 to the brain. If we take two individuals of exactly 
 the same dispositions, powers, and talents naturally, 
 and leave one of them to bad society and bad example, 
 and deprive him altogether of general and religious 
 education, whilst we place the other in the most fa- 
 vourable circumstances, and give him the best general 
 and moral training which our universities and pulpits 
 can afford, and then compare the two men together, 
 we will hardly be able to imagine that they were ori- 
 ginally the same. This shows the importance of attend- 
 ing to the training and education which the person has 
 
368 rHRENOLOGY. 
 
 received whose brain-powers are about to be estimated. 
 Let it be observed, however, that, although training 
 can improve the powers which already exist, it cannot 
 originate them, any more than a man could convert a 
 deal board into a mahogany table. The original de- 
 velopment must be there. It may be greatly improved 
 if there, but if wanting, it cannot be made. The saying 
 that "the poet is born, not made," is true in every 
 phasis of human existence. 
 
 It may be proper to remark in this place, that the 
 Phrenologist does not presume to tell the actions which 
 a man has performed, nor predict the conduct that he 
 will yet pursue ; but he can discover the motives by 
 which he is impelled, and the actions he is most in- 
 clined to perform. When our opponents imagine 
 Phrenology is called upon to do more than this, they 
 merely exhibit the inaccuracy of their own mode of 
 thinking, and their utter ignorance of human nature. 
 If they had any power of discrimination, they would at 
 once see, that men in the world are compelled to con- 
 trol their inclinations in various ways, and that their 
 actions are not by any means constantly in accordance 
 with their wishes — sometimes the very opposite. 
 Phrenology discovers the natural talents, dispositions, 
 and propensities. It tells what a man is most disposed 
 to do ; but not what he will do. '^ If, in social life,'^ 
 says Gall, " I perceive in any one the external sign of a 
 well-developed organ, I can say with confidence that, 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 369 
 
 in this man, the disposition of the faculty which be- 
 longs to this organ is stronger than the disposition 
 of his other qualities. But I am ignorant whether 
 circumstances have permitted this individual to devote 
 himself to the pursuit to which this principal disposi- 
 tion would direct him.'^ Professor Ackerman of 
 Heidelberg has penned some extremely childish and 
 ridiculous observations on this head. ^' As soon as Dr 
 Gall shows an organ of theft,'^ he remarks, " the being 
 in whom he observes it must be a robber ; and not only 
 has an assassin the organ of murder, but whosoever 
 has on his cranium the organ of murder must be an 
 assassin. If he says that one may have the organ of 
 murder without being an assassin, I deny this proposi- 
 tion, because no organ can exist without its faculty 
 being manifested. . . . Whoever has the organ of 
 murder must be an assassin, in the same way as who- 
 ever never has committed murder cannot have this 
 organ. . . . The organ and the manifestation of the 
 faculty belonging to it are the same thing ; without 
 exercise no organ can exist, or be produced." This 
 statement is extremely unphilosophical. Leaving 
 Phrenology entirely out of the question, it shows 
 great ignorance of the nature of man and the inferior 
 animals. It is in direct opposition to the opinions of 
 the physiologists, the metaphysicians, the moralists, 
 and the theologians ; and these parties all have as 
 
 much need to meet it as the Phrenologist. It is 
 
 2 A 
 
370 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 grounded on the supposition that a propensity cannot 
 exist in nature at all without acting in a full and mani- 
 fest manner. It confounds the inclination with the 
 deed. In replying to it, it is all the same whether we 
 suppose the propensities to be in the mind or the body. 
 It does not make the slightest difference where they 
 are, if they are to be found at all. The question is, If 
 a propensity exists in nature, must it always be in 
 action ? I say no. Does every man steal who is 
 inclined to steal ? Must the being in whom the in- 
 clination to theft exists be a robber ? If all those who 
 are roguishly inclined were actual manifested robbers, 
 the world would be in a sad condition. Does every 
 man murder who is disposed to murder ? The fear of 
 punishment may deter from the commission of the 
 crime, but it will not root out the inclination. Is 
 there anything in man's nature which disposes him to 
 theft or murder, or does he commit these crimes with- 
 out the least disposition to do them ? If he commits 
 the deed in consequence of being naturally disposed to 
 it, does he continue to perpetrate it, without a mo- 
 ment's interruption, throughout life ? or does he, on 
 ceasing to perform, lose the portion of his nature 
 which disposed him to the act ? This must happen, 
 if Professor Ackerman be correct, that the organ and 
 the manifestation are the same thing, and that the 
 organ ceases to exist when it ceases to act. Let us 
 apply these principles to the metaphysical system of 
 
EFFECTS OF EXEECISE. 371 
 
 philosophyj and then see what will follow. If a faculty 
 and the manifestation of it are the same thing, — if it 
 cannot exist without acting, — the moment a faculty of 
 the mind ceases to act in a manifest manner, that 
 moment it is extinguished from the mind and is lost 
 to our nature. Extend the rule to all the mental 
 faculties, and in the course of twenty-four hours we 
 will be left without a mind at all. Professor Acker- 
 man, in his hot haste to overthrow Phrenology, seems 
 to have forgotten that his principles would overturn 
 every system of mental philosophy which allots na- 
 tural propensities to a man's nature in any form. If 
 the propensity cannot exist without acting, there can 
 be no propensity whatever in either man or inferior 
 animal, because there is no instance of any man, or 
 inferior animal, being under the manifested influence 
 of all the prdpensities during every moment of exist- 
 ence. On these views, the propensities are all extin- 
 guished from nature. If they never exist except when 
 in action, they must come and go in a wonderful 
 manner. They must be void of any fixed abode. 
 They have no real residence in man's nature. Perhaps 
 they come from the " vasty deep." Professor Acker- 
 man's principles would overturn the natural depravity 
 of man, human responsibility, philosophy, and Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 Why does not Professor Ackerman act fairly, and 
 bring all the organs of the body to the same test as he 
 
372 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 brings the Phrenological? Why does he not give 
 Phrenology an honest trial ? Why does he not apply 
 his rule to the rest of the body ? If it be true, as he 
 asserts, that an organ cannot exist, or be produced, 
 without acting — that the organ and the manifestation 
 are the same thing — the child must be born without 
 eyes, nose, ears, lungs, or stomach. None of these 
 have been in action before birth^ and hence, on the 
 views promulgated by the Heidelberg professor, they 
 cannot have existed. Perhaps he has made the grand 
 discovery that they all come into existence, like a flash 
 of lightning, at the moment of birth ! How ridiculous 
 does this fundamental principle of his appear when 
 fully examined ! What will he do with the caged lion 
 and the chained hysena ? Their propensity to kill has 
 not been permitted to act ; has it ceased to exist ? 
 Would he prove the truth of his own theory by walk- 
 ing into the cage 1 It is a marvellous blunder to con- 
 found, as he and some others have done, the power of 
 acting with the action itself. Such blunders may pass 
 current when promulgated by those who occupy the 
 professor's chair ; but they would be heard of over the 
 length and breadth of the land if they were found in 
 the writings of a Phrenologist. If the propensities 
 cannot exist without acting, there can be no real pro- 
 pensity in nature for eating, drinking, theft, murder, 
 or sexual desire, because no man is under the influence 
 of all these propensities at the same time, and during 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 373 
 
 every moment throughout life from the cradle to the 
 grave. If they can exist for an hour, a day, a week, or 
 a month, without acting, it is manifest they might 
 exist for a longer period. Hence, their temporary ces- 
 sation from action is no proof that they have gone out 
 of existence, or that they never existed. No man 
 could steal and murder without some bodily organs, 
 such as hands, feet, or eyes ; but a child would know 
 that many men possess these organs who neither steal 
 nor murder. The child, I say, would know this ; but 
 it is the province of a learned professor, who sits in 
 state in his university chair, to make the noble dis- 
 covery that no organ can have any existence without 
 being in action. Just imagine the state of society we 
 would have if these men were correct ! If all men 
 were continually performing the deeds which their 
 unrestrained natural propensities inclined them to, 
 the world we inhabit would be a wonderful place. 
 There would be nothing but jarring, confusion, abuse, 
 and extermination. Does it follow, I ask, that man 
 has no natural propensities because his moral faculties 
 may be able to keep them within proper bounds, and 
 under proper restraint and control ? If the propensity 
 goes out of existence when there is no action, those 
 who used to consider that self-denial and the subjec- 
 tion of the propensities to the higher faculties under 
 the rules of morality and religion, were a virtue, must 
 have been under a great mistake. On this new Heidel- 
 

 374 PHUENOLoay. 
 
 berg view, the propensity having ceased to exist, there 
 can be no grounds for temptation, no necessity for 
 resistance, and no virtue in a control which is only 
 visionary. We need never pray to be kept out of 
 temptation, as there is no foundation for temptation 
 to act on. Such parties would have no more right to 
 merit than the eunuch has for resisting a passion 
 which he does not possess. In truth, these objections 
 of Professor Ackerman, like all the objections which 
 have been brought against Phrenology, are so frivolous 
 and unphilosophical that it is painful to be obliged to 
 reply to them. A child would not produce them. The 
 man must be extremely ignorant of his own nature 
 who does not feel that he possesses propensities, or 
 passions, which he does not let loose. 
 
 Professor Ackerman has started on a mistaken prin- 
 ciple in regard to Phrenology itself. He has assumed 
 that murder and the organ of destructiveness are equi- 
 valent terms, and that the organ of acquisitiveness is 
 synonymous with the word theft. This mistake may 
 have been excusable in his day ; but no apology for it 
 can be received from those who, like the author of the 
 article Phrenology in the Popular Encyclopedia^ have 
 followed his example, and run blindly in his wake. 
 They wrote at a time when the science was far ad- 
 vanced, and consequently their statements must be 
 put down as pure misrepresentations. It is not my 
 intention, however, to dwell on this point here, as it 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 375 
 
 will come up more appropriately under the description 
 of these organs and their functions in another place. 
 
 There seem to be three views with regard to an 
 organ and the manifestation of its faculty. Ackerman 
 holds that an organ and the manifestation of its 
 faculty are the same thing. This is simply ridiculous, 
 as it confounds the power of acting with the action 
 itself. Others, again, believe that the organisation of 
 an animal determines its faculties ; and they are right 
 thus far, but no further, that the functions manifested 
 bear a direct relation to the organisation in existence. 
 But there is a third party, with Lamarck at its head, 
 which has promulgated most extraordinary opinions. 
 According to Lamarck, the bird which seeks its nourish- 
 ment in the water, must stretch its toes ; hence, in 
 course of time, membranes will extend between them, 
 and the web-foot will be perfected, as has been the case 
 in the duck. But in the bird that perches on the 
 branch, the toes will have the points lengthened and 
 hooked, to embrace the twig. The bird which wades, 
 as the crane, and which either cannot swim or is un- 
 willing to put its body in the water, extends its toes 
 to obtain its food ; in time, those feet and limbs will 
 elongate, and the body will become mounted on stilts. 
 By a similar process of gradual development, the 
 ouran-outang has shortened his arms, lost his tail, 
 and broadened his feet, and has taken the stature and 
 bearing of a human being. " That a man," says Sir 
 
l iE.., ..!. !. tj™ ?-- ' 
 
 376 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 Charles Bell, "should have given expression to such 
 fancies, in jest, or in mere idleness, or to provoke dis- 
 cussion, is probable ; but that he should have published 
 them as a serious introduction to a system of natural 
 history, is indeed a marvel." Lamarck's opinions are 
 apparently so absurd that a person might wonder any 
 man could be found capable of believing them, were it 
 not that some men, in the present day, who are placed 
 in the highest position as scientific instructors, look 
 upon man merely as an advanced monkey. The Scrip- 
 tures and sound science seem to be thrown overboard, 
 in order to favour the theory of gradual and progres- 
 sive development, in the earth and all its inhabitants. 
 It appears to me a lamentable thing, that the cultiva- 
 tion of science has been left almost completely in the 
 hands of practical infidels. The fault of this lies en- 
 tirely on the true Christian, as he has neglected to do 
 his duty in advancing the knowledge of the works of 
 God, whilst he is endeavouring to advance the know- 
 ledge of His Word. These should both be cultivated 
 by the genuine Christian, as they will be certain, when 
 properly understood, to go hand in hand. Seeing they 
 take their origin from the same Infallible Being, they 
 can never contradict each other. " However often,'' 
 says my father, " science and letters have been per- 
 verted to oppose Christianity and its truths, their 
 natural use is to confirm truth of every kind. As 
 truth has in all things a real foundation and evid ence 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 377 
 
 it cannot be doubted that light of every kind will be 
 favourable to its discovery and proof. The learned 
 and the scientific have often used their talents to 
 obscure and perplex truth ; but in every instance, as 
 far as they have employed their acquirements to sup- 
 port their errors, they manifest ignorance. Greater 
 learning and sounder science will not only dispel the 
 mists of sophistry, but exhibit their object in a stronger 
 blaze of light. Truth is burnished by friction ; it is 
 only the quackery of science and literature that have 
 ever lent their aid to infidelity. Geology has often 
 threatened the Mosaic account of creation ; but after 
 every successive generation of geologists has proved 
 the preceding to be fools, as far as that subject can be 
 called a science and not wild theory, its real dis- 
 coveries are corroborative of the doctrine of Moses. 
 It is only science falsely so called that will ever bear 
 against the Bible. Truth and error cannot have equal 
 evidence ; as light discovers evidence, it must be de- 
 cidedly on the side of the former. The foundation of 
 the one is on a rock, that of the other is on the sand ; 
 and though the eye sees no difference on the surface, 
 learning mines to the bottom, and discovers the reality." 
 — {Car son's Works, vol. vi. p. 49.) 
 
 To return from this digression. It must be admitted 
 on all hands that the brain not only is the instrument 
 of the mind, but also that it is more or less connected 
 with the influence which pervades the nervous sys- 
 
378 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 tern ; and further, that it is to it the impressions 
 which are received through the external senses are 
 transferred. Consequently it becomes a matter of the 
 greatest importance that we should be accurately ac- 
 quainted with the laws which govern this part of the 
 animal machine. Its condition is greatly influenced 
 by mental exercise ; and hence the overwhelming ne- 
 cessity of attending to its state, and acting in obedience 
 to its laws, during the education of the young. The 
 human brain is capable of bearing with impunity a 
 certain amount of exercise and labour, but no more. 
 Parents, however, when they send their children to 
 school, in many instances seem to forget all this, and 
 act as if their unfortunate offspring were made of some- 
 thing far more durable than flesh and blood. The 
 teachers are sure to be blamed if they cannot, or do 
 not, make their pupils old ^men and women, as far 
 as learning is concerned, before the age of puberty. 
 Now, I look on this as a more barbarous sort of treat- 
 ment than a man would give his horse. All know if a 
 young horse is overworked he will be injured for life ; 
 and for this reason a valuable animal is taken par- 
 ticular care of till he arrives at a certain age, and then 
 he will bear a great deal of slavery for a number of 
 years afterwards. Many people, however, seem, by 
 their actions at least, to think that the brain of their 
 child is of far less importance than the health of their 
 horse. By overworking the brain they lay the founda- 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 379 
 
 tion of disease which leads to a premature grave, or 
 else makes the unfortunate creature a more talented 
 and important personage at the age of fifteen than he 
 will be at the age of fifty. Oh that the time were 
 come when the laws of cerebral health, and the educa- 
 tion of youth, would be properly understood and duly 
 appreciated by every person in the community ; and 
 when those individuals to whom the important trust 
 involved in youthful training is committed, would be 
 amongst the best educated, the best rewarded, and the 
 most respected and esteemed in society ! This would 
 indeed be a glorious era. The early days of our off- 
 spring would be days of joy and rejoicing, owing to the 
 pleasant acquisition of knowledge in accordance with 
 the rules which God has connected with the natural 
 organisation of their brain, in place of being rendered 
 miserable, as they are at present, by loading the 
 memory, and thereby destroying it, with a thousand 
 and one things which are not explained and simplified, 
 and therefore cannot be properly understood. People 
 may talk as they like about the march of intellect and 
 so forth, but I am bold enough to affirm that the 
 science of education is one hundred years behind what 
 it might be, and what it ought to be, in this great 
 empire. 
 
 "In children,'^ says Mr Noble, "the possession of 
 the nervous temperament, under the present rage for 
 early and strenuous mental excitation, is sometimes 
 
380 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 the worst of misfortunes ; since their youthful brains, 
 being so readily excited, often afford, in the mistaken 
 judgment of their guardians, the highest evidence of 
 genius ; and thus the poor victims are goaded on until 
 some affection of the exhausted brain or nervous 
 system hurries them to the close of their ill-fated 
 career, if it do not leave them the prey of some 
 serious nervous affection, as epilepsy, hysteria, or even 
 downright fatuity. In such cases, however, ill-judging 
 and mistaken parents usually console themselves by 
 observing that their children were too good for this 
 world, or that they themselves were too happy in the 
 contemplation of their excellencies, and that calamity 
 had befallen the children as a visitation for the sins 
 of their forefathers. I am far from disputing the 
 verity of the doctrine implied by the last proposition ; 
 but an Almighty Providence has given us the capa- 
 bility of noting, to a certain extent, the intermediate 
 links in the chain of causation, and has permitted us, 
 where practicable, to modify their relations ; and 
 hence I would exhort every guardian of youth or in- 
 fancy to consider well the effects of conduct such as I 
 have just mentioned." 
 
 " Infancy," says Bichat, " is the age of sensation. 
 As everything is new to the infant, everything attracts 
 its eyes, ears, &c. That which to us is an object of 
 indifference, is to it a source of pleasure. It is then 
 necessary that the nervous cerebral system should 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 381 
 
 be adapted by its early development to the degree 
 of action which it is then to have." " But this great 
 and early development," observes Dr Brigham of 
 America, "very much increases the liability to dis- 
 ease ; it gives a tendency to convulsions, and to 
 inflammation, and dropsy of the brain, and to other 
 diseases of the nervous system, which are most com- 
 mon and fatal in childhood. It is, therefore, deeply 
 important that the natural action of the nervous 
 system should not be too much increased, either by 
 too much exercise of the mind, or by too strong ex- 
 citement of the feelings, lest, at the same time, the 
 liability of children to nervous diseases be increased, 
 and such a predominance given to this system as to 
 make it always easily excited, and disposed to sympa- 
 thise with disorder in any part of the body ; thus gener- 
 ating a predisposition to numerous afflicting nervous 
 affections. The wonderful powers of mind which an 
 infant or child sometimes manifests, and by which he 
 surpasses ordinary children, do not arise from better 
 capacity in the mind itself of the child, but, in fact, 
 from a greater enlargement than usual of some portion 
 or the whole of the brain, by which the mind is 
 sooner enabled to manifest its powers. This en- 
 largement takes place whether the mental precocity 
 arises from too early and frequent exercise of the 
 mind or from disease, and it must arise in one of 
 those ways. But in my opinion, mental precocity is 
 
382 PHUENOLOGY. 
 
 generally a symptom of disease; and hence those 
 who exhibit it very frequently die young. This fact 
 ought to be specially remembered by parents, some of 
 whom regard precocity, unless accompanied by visible 
 disease, as a most gratifying indication, and on ac- 
 count of it, task the memory and intellect of the 
 child," " George Aspull and the Infant Lyra," remarks 
 the philosophic Macnish, "are cases in point. Both 
 exhibited, at a very early period, a wonderful genius 
 for music : the first performing upon the piano, while 
 a mere boy, in a style worthy of Cramer, Kalkbrenner, 
 or Moschelles ; and the latter, at an equally early age, 
 displaying powers hardly inferior on the harp.. The 
 heads of both were unusually large for their age, the 
 intellectual compartment of the brain splendid, and 
 the organ of tune finely developed. As in the case of 
 all prodigies, their brains were overworked, bad health 
 ensued, and death was the consequence. . . . The 
 gross error committed by parents of overworking the 
 brains of their ofispring had its origin in that false 
 system of philosophy which has existed from the 
 time of Plato till the present day, and by which the 
 mind is regarded as a separate entity, having no 
 sort of communion with, and b^ing nowise in- 
 fluenced by, matter. If Phrenology do nothing else 
 than dispel this preposterous idea, it will accomphsh 
 much. Had this science been discovered, and its 
 principles acted upon, a thousand years ago, what 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 383 
 
 grievous errors in education, what incalculable injury 
 to the brain, would have been avoided ! and what a 
 mass of splendid talent, which has been employed in 
 bootless metaphysical speculations, might have been 
 profitably turned into more useful channels! So 
 long as people were ignorant of the fact that, in this 
 life, the mind works through the agency of material 
 organs, no rational views of education, and of the 
 true method of preserving the health of the brain, 
 could be entertained." 
 
 " The second Septenniad," says Dr James Johnson, 
 "introduces us to one of the most important per- 
 sonages in this world — a personage whose image is 
 never effaced from our memory to the latest day of 
 our existence. Who have ever forgotten that happy 
 or unhappy epoch of their lives, and that stern arbiter 
 of their fate, when they were wont 
 
 ' To trace 
 The day's disaster in his morning face ' ? 
 
 After the lapse of more than half a century, the 
 lineaments of his countenance are as fresh on the 
 tablet of my memory as on the first day of their 
 impression. The person in question, however, is one 
 who is * more sinned against than sinning.' He who 
 cultivates the brains of pupils has often a most un- 
 grateful task to perform. To hope for a good crop of 
 science or literature from some intellects, is about the 
 same as to expect olives to thrive on the craggy sum- 
 
384 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 mit of Ben Nevis, or the pine-apple to expand amid 
 the glaciers of Grindenwalde. Yet, from these sterile 
 regions of mind the hapless pedagogue is expected 
 by parents to turn out Miltons, Lockes, and Newtons, 
 with as much facility as a gardener raises brocoli or 
 cauliflowers from the rich alluvial grounds about Ful- 
 ham or Eotterdam." 
 
 The brain requires regular intervals of exercise and 
 repose. If they are properly proportioned to each 
 other, it will improve, within certain limits, in size 
 and function ; but if the proportion be badly regu- 
 lated, it will be sure to sufiier in an equal ratio. 
 And this brings us to an important question in regard 
 to the management of a child at school, namely, what 
 time should the child be compelled to devote to study ? 
 If the parent consults his purse, he will say, work 
 close from ten till four, after the present fashion ; 
 but if he consults the comfort, health, welfare, and 
 advancement of his oflspring in after life, he will 
 look to nature, not to fashion or self-interest, and 
 say, let the pupil be employed only half an hour, an 
 hour, or at most two hours at a time, according to 
 age, and let him have regular exercise in the open 
 air in the intervals of study. On this plan, the 
 bodily health will be kept up, the constitution will 
 improve, and the brain will become invigorated. 
 There will be no necessity for long and frequent 
 vacations. Under the present system of manage- 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 385 
 
 ment, vacations are indispensable. Indeed, it would 
 require a very long one to compensate for the loss of 
 health usually sustained in consequence of the long 
 and close confinement which preceded it. But if 
 parents — and they alone are the responsible parties 
 — would allow the education of their children to be 
 conducted in accordance with the laws of the con- 
 stitution, they would find no other vacation necessary 
 than the one which will permit the occasional meeting 
 of friends or families. The laws of the organisation 
 dictate frequent and alternate periods of exercise and 
 repose ; and not all work at one time, which makes 
 Jack a dull boy, and all idleness at another time, 
 which encourages loose habits and an injurious ex- 
 cess of exercise. Many a fine boy is lost, or lays the 
 seeds of delicacy, by one day's violent exercise after 
 a lengthened' period of confinement. His tissues are 
 not trained by work, and therefore are too soft to 
 stand over-exertion with impunity. 
 
 If we are engaged for a length of time at very close 
 study, we get wearied and fatigued. Now, what is the 
 cause of this ? Is the weariness in the mind or the 
 brain 1 Can we believe that our soul gets tired ? 
 Surely not. The immaterial spirit is incapable of 
 fatigue. The mind has been using the brain as its in- 
 strument of thought, and the brain, not the mind, gets 
 wearied or pained. Fatigue is a good criterion by 
 
 which to judge of the proper amount of muscular exer- 
 
 2 B 
 
386 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 cise which should be taken ; and the same rule holds 
 good in regard to the brain. When pain, dulness, and 
 fatigue ensue, the brain should get repose. The in- 
 jury consequent on over-exertion takes place in the 
 brain, and not in the mind. This is a point I wish to 
 impress upon my readers, as it is important both in 
 theory and practice. We often hear people speaking 
 of parties who have become weak or diseased in the 
 mind. Now, with all due consideration, I assert that 
 such expressions directly involve the doctrine of 
 materialism — a doctrine which is justly chargeable on 
 the opponents of Phrenology. Fatigue, growth, and 
 disease, are all peculiar to matter ; consequently those 
 who attribute them to mind are bound to believe that 
 mind is matter. No such things could be attributed 
 to an immaterial spirit. The only possible way of 
 escaping materialism is to refer, with the Phrenologist, 
 such things to the brain itself, which is the material 
 instrument of the mind. 
 
 If we have been fortunate enough to be born 
 of healthy parents, who have transmitted to us a 
 healthy brain, we should make it our business to en- 
 deavour to preserve it in that condition ; or if it be 
 originally defective, to improve it. For this purpose, 
 it is absolutely necessary that it should be supplied 
 with healthy bloody — blood formed from a proper 
 description of food, and thoroughly purified by con- 
 tact wi^^ P^i"^ atmospheric air in the lungs. This 
 
EFFECTS OF EXEECISE. 387 
 
 purified or arterialised blood will give a healthy 
 stimulus to the brain, and increase its ability for the 
 performance of all its functions. "Without such 
 blood," says Dr Caldwell of America, " not a single 
 function belonging to man, whether it be physical, 
 intellectual, or moral, can be in unimpaired health and 
 perfection ; for, heterodox as the sentiment may 
 probably appear to some persons, it is, notwithstand- 
 ing, true, that florid, well-vitalised, arterial blood, is as 
 necessary to give full vigour to the intellectual and 
 moral powers of the philosopher, statesman, and 
 patriot, as it is to paint the roses on the virgin's 
 cheek, and the coral on her lips." Those of the meta- 
 physical school who imagine that the mind can act, in 
 this life, independently of the body, should prove the 
 truth of their doctrines by facts. If Lord Jeffrey were 
 correct in saying that it is a " strange attempt to assign 
 material organs for such purely mental operations as 
 have no immediate reference to matter," I would like 
 to know how it comes that a man is incapacitated for 
 deep study — and the deeper the study, the greater his 
 incapacity — immediately after eating a very full meal. 
 If Lord Jeffrey were correct, a thoroughly hearty dinner 
 would not present the slightest impediment to the 
 study of metaphysics, or any other subject requiring a 
 close process of reflection. Such nonsensical ideas 
 may satisfy theorists of the Jeffrey class, but they will 
 have no weight with men who exercise their common 
 
388 PHREN-OLOGY. 
 
 sense. The truth is. Lord Jeffrey's statement is the 
 reverse of the fact. The closer the process of reason- 
 ing, the more is it affected by the condition of the 
 brain. A man may be able, under almost any circum- 
 stances, to think of trivial matters which come under 
 "•^he cognisance of the external senses ; but if he sits 
 down to an abstract process of reasoning, after a very 
 full meal, whilst the brain is supplying the stomach 
 with nervous influence, he will make little or no pro- 
 gress. He will soon get dull and stupid. 
 
 " I have before alluded/' says the Eev. John Barlow, 
 " to the notion of some physiologists, that the negro 
 formed but the connecting-link between the baboon 
 and man. This has been so fully refuted by Professors 
 Tiedemann and Owen, that it is needless to go into it 
 at length ; but I mention it here to give a further 
 instance of the necessity of cultivating the mind, even 
 to give the bodily frame its due development, and the 
 duty, therefore, which even political economists must 
 acknowledge, of bestowing on all the power of doing so. 
 Dr Prichard, in his ^ Researches into the Physical His- 
 tory of Mankind,' quotes a fearful instance, drawn from 
 the early history of Ireland, of the deterioration conse- 
 quent on such a degree of poverty and suffering as re- 
 duces man to a merely instinctive existence. ' On the 
 plantation of Ulster,' says he, ^ and afterwards on the 
 successes of the British against the rebels of 1641 and 
 1689, great multitudes of the native Irish were driven 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 389 
 
 from Armagh, and the south of Down, into the moun- 
 tainous tract extending from the Barony of Flews east- 
 ward to the sea ; on the other side of the kingdom the 
 same race were expelled into Leitrim, Sligo, and Mayo. 
 Here they have been almost ever since exposed to the 
 worst effects of hunger and ignorance, the two great 
 brutahsers of the human race. The descendants of 
 these exiles are now distinguished physically from 
 their kindred in Meath and in other districts where 
 they are not in a state of physical degradation. They 
 are remarkable for open projecting mouths^ with pro- 
 minent teeth and exposed gums. Their advancing 
 cheek-bones and depressed noses bear barbarism in 
 their very front. In Sligo and the northern Mayo, the 
 consequences of two centuries of degradation and 
 hardship exhibit themselves in the whole physical con- 
 dition of the people, affecting not only the features, 
 but the frame, and giving such an example of human 
 deterioration from known causes, as almost compen- 
 sates, by its value to future ages, for the suffering and 
 debasement which past generations have endured in 
 perfecting the appalling lesson. Five feet two inches 
 on an average, pot-bellied, bow-legged, abortively fea- 
 tured, these spectres of a people that were once well 
 grown, able-bodied, and comely, stalk abroad into the 
 daylight of civilisation, the animal apparitions of Irish 
 ugliness and Irish want. In other parts of the island, 
 where the population has never undergone the ii> 
 
390 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 fluence of the same causes of physical degradation, it 
 is well known that the same race furnish the most 
 perfect specimens of human beauty and vigour, both 
 mental and bodily.' Every bodily fibre acquires 
 strength by exercise ; none need be told how much 
 muscular power is acquired by a constant and mode- 
 rate exertion ; the practised eye will see, the practised 
 ear hear, what these organs when unpractised dis- 
 tinguish with difficulty ; it is not wonderful, then, if 
 the practised brain can also carry on its functions with 
 greater facility and increased power. In savage life, 
 where subsistence is hardly obtained, and where danger 
 is always at a point that keeps the emotions which 
 guard existence in constant exercise, men who have to 
 struggle for their daily food, and defend themselves 
 from their no less daily perils, require from the brain 
 but a very small part of what it can accomplish ; their 
 greatest stretch of reasoning extends not beyond the 
 connecting a bent twig, or a down-trodden leaf, with 
 the steps of their prey or their enemy. In such in- 
 stances, we may easily conceive that the unexercised 
 faculties become as powerless as the limb of an animal 
 which from the moment of birth had been restrained 
 
 from movement Such I conceive to be the state 
 
 of the brain which has never been called to exercise 
 the higher faculties. The instinctive emotions are 
 propagated through it with the almost delirious vio- 
 lence which characterises the brute creation, because 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 391 
 
 the fibres destined to carry on the higher reasoning 
 functions have remained inert till they have become 
 powerless, and man is thus assimilated to the lower 
 tribes, not because the organ of thought is wanting, 
 but because it has not been exercised. Christophe, 
 the negro ruler of Haiti, was probably not removed 
 above a generation or two from the African savage, yet 
 his daughters were polished and accomplished women, 
 fit to take their place in European society. A better 
 proof could hardly be given of the improvability of all 
 the races of men by education, even in one generation. 
 A man is not to be considered as educated because 
 some years of his life have been spent in acquiring 
 a certain proficiency in the language, history, and 
 geography of Greece and Rome and their colonies, or 
 in bestowing a transitory attention on the principles of 
 mathematics and natural philosophy ; nor is a woman 
 to be considered as educated because she can execute 
 a difficult piece of music in a brilliant style, or speak 
 French, German, or Italian with fluency. Such at- 
 tainments require little more than mere mechanical 
 recollection, the lowest of all the cerebral faculties, or 
 the rapid transmission of an impulse from the sensi- 
 tive optic nerve to the motor ones of the arms and 
 fingers, which is nothing better than the instinctive 
 movements of the animal ; neither can the storing up 
 the opinions of others, or the accustoming the tongue 
 to the idioms of other languages, be properly termed 
 
392 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 an act of thought ; for in such cases the capacity of 
 combining ideas, of weighing and judging ere a course of 
 action is adopted, remains even less exercised than in 
 those who, though they are turned into the world with 
 the mind as it were a tabula rasa to receive any im- 
 pression, and too frequently a bad one, yet amid the 
 difficulties and sufferings of poverty, sometimes learn 
 to think. It is from the depths of man's interior life 
 that he must draw what separates him from the brute, 
 and hallows his animal existence ; and learning is no 
 further valuable than as it gives a quantity of raw 
 material to be separated and worked up in the intel- 
 lectual laboratory, till it comes forth as new in form 
 and as increased in value, as the porcelain vase which 
 entered the manufactory in the shape of metallic salts, 
 clay, and sand." — {Connection between Physiology and 
 Intellectual Philosophy) 
 
 There is a great deal of force and truth in these ob- 
 servations of Mr Barlow's. No doubt, the accomplish- 
 ments he refers to are all intimately connected with 
 the lower cerebral faculties, and therefore should not 
 be placed in so high a position as they usually are in 
 the world ; but still I am inclined to think he under- 
 values them too far. They are good in their own place, 
 and in some instances are of infinite service in supply- 
 ing the material for the higher faculties to use. They 
 should be valued at their own worth : but I agree 
 with Mr Barlow that it is a great mistake to imagine 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 393 
 
 that they should ever be confounded with the higher 
 faculties which raise man over the inferior animals. 
 The great beauty of Phrenology is, that it gives every 
 faculty its own place, and values it at its real worth. 
 In this point of view it stands in a proud position, 
 and far outstrips all its competitors. It shows that 
 every faculty should be educated. " If you look," says 
 Lord Bacon, " at the sculptor or painter, you see him 
 finishing a part here or a part there, and thus com- 
 pleting the whole ; but if you look at a tree growing, 
 you see every part of it growing together." This is 
 the great difference between the imperfect works of 
 man and the perfect works of God ; and, as Lord 
 Bacon very properly observed, the perfect principle 
 should be applied to the education of man — every part 
 of his nature should be going on in complete corre- 
 spondence — his moral nature, his intellectual nature, 
 and his physical nature should progress in harmony. 
 His education should embrace the intellectual, the re- 
 ligious, and the physical. And let me here observe, 
 that when I speak of religious education, I do not 
 mean alone a proper appreciation of the works of God, 
 but I most emphatically include a thorough training 
 in those truths which are contained in the Scriptures 
 of Truth. The Word of God and the works of God 
 should be the foundation of religious instruction. 
 How, then, is this part of education to be given ? Is 
 it to come from the State ? Most certainly not. A 
 
394 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 false system of religion should never be taught, and 
 therefore the State plan should never be adopted, for 
 the simple reason that the State, in place of standing 
 by true religion as contained in the Bible, pays for the 
 inculcation of religious principles as contrary to each 
 other as any two things could possibly be. This is 
 absurd. It is not my intention to enter, in this place, 
 on the consideration of what is true and what is false 
 in ""religion. But I must say that the State plan is 
 something far worse than ridiculous. Just think of 
 paying one man to inculcate a certain principle, and 
 then paying another man to knock it down ! Such a 
 course reminds one of children playing at Dutch bricks 
 — the one builds and the other knocks down. Such a 
 course, on the part of men, is contemptible. To get 
 a proper appreciation of the way in which the State 
 manages such matters, we have only to look at the 
 countenance it gives to systems as opposite as the 
 poles. It pays for Protestantism and Popery ; for 
 Trinitarianism and Unitarianism ; for Evangelical 
 Christianity and the infidel principles of Colenso ! 
 JSTo systems could be more entirely opposite to each 
 other than those I have here mentioned. They cannot 
 all be right, as they directly contradict each other. 
 Truth and falsehood cannot be the same. Hence it is 
 worse than absurd to advocate the State management 
 which endows them all. The truth is, the State will 
 support any system which is strong enough to make 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 395 
 
 itself a source of terror to parliamentary interest. 
 The proper plan would be for the State to look after 
 secular education, and then leave the religious depart- 
 ment where the Scriptures leave it^ — in the hands 
 of parents and pastors. This would be the scriptural 
 course, and it would put an end to eternal contentions 
 and squabbles. 
 
 Hannah More gives us a very good description of 
 the superficially educated, the fashionably educated^ 
 and the properly educated. For example, when Celebs, 
 at dinner, asked a young lady what she thought of 
 Virgil as a poet, " she stared, and said she never heard 
 of such a person, but that she had read ' Tears of Sen- 
 sibility,' and ' Eosa Matilda,' and ' Sympathy of Souls/ 
 and ^ Too Civil by Half,' and * The Sorrows of Werter,' 
 and ' The Stranger,' and ^ The Orphans of Snowden.' " 
 " Yes," said the younger sister, ^' and we have read 
 ' Perfidy Punished,' and * Jemmy and Jenny Jessamy,' 
 and the ^ Fortunate Footman/ and the ' Illustrious 
 Chambermaid.'" Such is superficial education. We 
 see the nature of the fashionable in Miss Hattle, who^ 
 when asked what progress she had made, replied, 
 "Indeed, I have not been idle, if I must speak the 
 truth. One has so many things to learn, you know. 
 I have gone on with my French and Italian, of course, 
 and I am beginning German. Then comes my drawing 
 master : he teaches me to paint flowers and shells, 
 and to draw ruins and buildings, and to take views. 
 
396 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 .... And then I learn varnishing, and gilding, and 
 japanning. And next winter I shall learn modelling, 
 and etching, and engraving in mezzotinto and aqua- 
 tint o ; for Lady Di Dash learns etching, and mamma 
 says, as I shall have a larger fortune than Lady Di, 
 she vows I shall learn everything she does. Then I 
 have a dancing master, who teaches me the Scotch 
 and Irish steps ; and another who teaches me atti- 
 tudes, and I shall soon learn the waltz, and I can stand 
 longer on one leg already than Lady Di. Then I have 
 a singing master, and another who teaches me the 
 harp, and another for the pianoforte. And what little 
 time I can spare from these principal things, I give 
 my odd minutes to ancient and modern history, and 
 geography, and astronomy, and grammar, and botany. 
 Then I attend lectures on chemistry and experimental 
 philosophy." Let us now turn from the nauseating 
 superficial and fashionable to the description of the 
 charming Lucilla. " She is not a professed beauty, she 
 is not a professed genius, she is not a professed philo- 
 sopher, she is Qiot a professed wit, she is not a professed 
 anything ; and, I thank my stars, she is not an artist ! 
 She is, from nature, — a woman, gentle, feeling, ani- 
 mated, modest. She is, by education, — elegant, in- 
 formed, enlightened. She is, from religion, — pious, 
 humble, candid, charitable." I would strongly recom- 
 mend my young gentlemen readers to look out for a 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 397 
 
 Lucilla, and when she is found she cannot be prized 
 too highly. 
 
 The fashionable orders of society afford us many ex- 
 amples of the effects of defective exercise, both bodily 
 and mentally, on the brain and nervous system. This is 
 more especially the case with the female sex. It gene- 
 rally happens that their circumstances are such as to 
 place them in a situation above any sort of exertion, 
 save that of lounging for a few hours in an easy car- 
 riage. The consequence is, that they are subject to 
 nervous affections, headaches, and general debility ; they 
 are easily shocked, or alarmed, and become fatigued on 
 slight exertion. There is not much tear and wear 
 about them. It too frequently happens also, that 
 their education is confined to a little polite literature, 
 the acquisition of some modern languages, and such 
 accomplishments as music, drawing, and dancing ; all 
 of which are good enough in their own place, but they 
 should never be permitted to exclude those subjects 
 which call into play the higher powers concerned in 
 deep reflection. If the reflecting portion of the brain 
 be not properly and regularly exercised, it will become 
 debilitated and incapable of supporting sustained ex- 
 ertion. Some ladies in the fashionable walks of Hfe 
 present noble examples of mental and bodily activity ; 
 but I am sorry to say they are the exceptions to the 
 rule. Any person conversant with the condition of a 
 
398 PHUEXOLOGY. 
 
 lending library must be aware of this. Books which 
 are almost devoid of thought are well read, whilst 
 those of greater depth are allowed to lie on the shelves 
 with the leaves uncut. A great many gentlemen are 
 in the same predicament as the ladies I have referred 
 to. Their muscular system may be better trained by 
 the exercise connected with field sports, but their 
 brains are sometimes barren enough* 
 
 A sudden change from activity to idleness is highly 
 injudicious. ^'I have known instances of persons," 
 says Sir Benjamin Brodie, "whose habits have been 
 suddenly changed from those of great activity to those 
 of no employment at all, who have been for a time 
 in a state of mental excitement bordering on mental 
 aberration. ... It was better for Diocletian to plant 
 cabbages than to do nothing." " It is the weakening 
 and depressing effect upon the brain of the with- 
 drawal of the stimulus necessary for its healthy 
 exercise," observes Dr Andrew Combe, " which 
 renders solitary confinement so severe a punishment 
 even to the most daring minds. It is a lower degree 
 of the same cause which renders continuous seclu- 
 sion from society so injurious to both mental and 
 bodily health, and which often renders the situation 
 of governesses one of misery and bad health, even 
 where every kindness is meant to be shown towards 
 them. In many families, especially in the higher ranks, 
 the governess lives so secluded that she is as much 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 399 
 
 out of society as if she were placed in solitary con- 
 finement. She is too much above the domestics to 
 make companions of them, and too much below her 
 employers to be treated by them either with confi- 
 dence or equality. With feelings as acute, interests 
 as dear to her, and a judgment as sound as those of 
 any of the persons who scarcely notice her existence, 
 she is denied every opportunity of gratifying the first 
 or expressing the last, merely because she ' is only the 
 governess ; ' as if governesses were not made of the 
 same flesh and blood, and sent into the world by the 
 same Creator, as their more fortunate employers." 
 
 The time which should be devoted to brain work 
 must vary according to age and constitution. Some 
 men, owing to temperament, have greater powers of 
 endurance than others ; and adults can stand more 
 work than children. My father was in the habit of 
 spending a considerable portion of his time in the 
 open air. He seldom devoted more than eight hours 
 a day to reading and writing. By thus judiciously 
 combining mental labour with bodily exercise, he kept 
 his constitution in first-rate order, and his brain in 
 healthy working condition. " I have been informed," 
 says Sir Benjamin Brodie, "that Cuvier was usually 
 engaged for seven hours daily in scientific researches ; 
 but these were not of a nature to require continuous 
 thought. Sir Walter Scott, if my recollection be 
 accurate, describes himself as having devoted about 
 
400 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 six hours daily to literary composition, and his mind 
 was then in a state to enjoy some lighter pursuit 
 afterwards. After his misfortunes, however, he 
 allowed himself no relaxation, and there can be little 
 doubt that this over-exertion contributed, as much as 
 the moral suffering which he endured, to the produc- 
 tion of the disease of the brain which ultimately 
 caused his death. Sir David Wilkie found that he 
 was exhausted if employed in his peculiar line of 
 art for more than four or five hours daily. In fact, 
 even among the higher grades of mind there are but 
 few that are capable of sustained thought, repeated 
 day after day, for a much longer period than this. 
 For any one who is engaged in intellectual pursuits 
 there is no more important rule of conduct than that 
 he should endeavour to take a just measure of his 
 own capacity, so that he may not be subject to the 
 ill consequences which arise from the mind being 
 strained beyond its natural powers." — [Psychological 
 Inquiries.) " The author," observes Sir John Sinclair, 
 " has studied twelve hours a day for three months ; 
 but that was in the prime of life, and for a particular 
 purpose ; and he would not recommend it to any 
 other person to try the same experiment for any 
 length of time. It appears from Cooper's Memoirs 
 of Dr Priestly, that though he is supposed to have 
 written more, and on a greater variety of subjects, 
 than any other English author, yet it does not appear 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 401 
 
 that at any period of his life he spent more than six 
 or eight hours a day in business requiring much 
 mental exertion. It is incredible, indeed, what may 
 be done at that rate in the course of a life of medium 
 duration." — {Code of Health and Longevity^ 
 
 If we allow the nerve of the eye to become inactive 
 by remaining for a length of time in a dark place, and 
 then suddenly expose it to the light, we will find it 
 very disagreeable. In order to preserve the full power 
 of vision, the eye must be strengthened by a regular, 
 moderate, and properly^ adjusted supply of light. It 
 will be weakened, on the one hand, by the exclusion 
 of light, and on the other, it will be overpowered, and 
 very likely injured, by being brought into contact with 
 the direct rays of the sun. As in other cases, moderar 
 tion is here the best. Those who use their eyes much 
 on minute objects, such as watchmakers and engravers, 
 or in too strong a light, such as glass-blowers, nailors, 
 and smiths, are far more liable than sailors and agri- 
 culturists to disease of the nervous expansion of the 
 eye. So is it also with the brain. A certain amount 
 of work will do it good, but more than this must be 
 injurious. Every person who is in the habit of think- 
 ing much may feel very sensibly the effects on the 
 brain of too great mental exertion. Nay, more, the 
 sensation of fatigue may even be locaUsed in the 
 forehead. There is a time when the sensations in 
 
 our head tell us we have gone far enough in study, 
 
 2c 
 
402 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 and if we neglect these natural admonitions, we will 
 certainly suffer for it. Intense study, and too great 
 and long-continued excitement, are sure to overwork 
 the powers of the brain, and exhaust its energies. The 
 waste of substance will be greater than the amount of 
 deposition : the brain will get soft, flabby, weak, and 
 incapable of much endurance. It will be injured in 
 every way. Such is the teaching of Phrenology, and 
 such is the experience of every man who consults 
 nature ; but it is quite otherwise with those who 
 follow the ravings of the Jeffrey school, which teaches 
 that the mind alone is engaged in the process of deep 
 reflection. Of course, on their system, the fatigue, 
 exhaustion, and decay must all be in the mind, and 
 therefore the mind must be material. They are all 
 compelled to be materialists. A spirit could not be 
 overworked or become fatigued. The idea of fatiguing 
 a spirit is absurd ; and therefore, if the weariness be 
 in the mind, the mind is not spirit, but matter. 
 
 The effects of excitement of the brain are well dis- 
 played in the use of spirituous liquors. A small dose 
 will increase the capability for either mental, as it is 
 called, or bodily exertion. In proportion as the dose 
 is increased will the excitement increase, until the 
 energies of the brain are exhausted, and the person 
 falls into such a stupid condition that the mind appears 
 to wander, and the brain's governing influence over 
 the muscles is so far lost that the individual totters 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 403 
 
 and falls powerless on the ground. The stimulant 
 makes an impression first on the nerves which are dis- 
 tributed on the coats of the stomach, and this is im- 
 mediately conveyed to the brain ; but at a later period 
 it may be absorbed into the circulation of the blood, 
 and part of it may be deposited even in the substance 
 or cavities of the brain itself. Sir Benjamin Brodie 
 concluded from his experiments that it acts through 
 the nerves of the stomach alone, and is not absorbed 
 into the circulation of the blood at all. The observa- 
 tions of Pommer and Andral would tend to the same 
 conclusion. That it is sometimes absorbed, however, 
 is proved by Christison, Coindet, Graves, and Cook. 
 '' I remember," says Dr Graves, " having witnessed the 
 dissection of a sweep whose brain and its membranes 
 exhaled a notable smell of spirits ; and Dr Cook, in 
 his work on Nervous Diseases, has recorded a case 
 where there was found in the ventricles a clear fluid 
 which had the taste "and smell of alcohol, and which took 
 fire on being brought near a burning body." — (Graves' 
 Studies in Physiology and Medicine.) I know of one 
 case myself which is very decisive on this point. In 
 the winter of 1833-4, a man got drunk, and attacked 
 the watchman in WiUiam Street, Dublin. A severe 
 scuffle ensued, and by some means or other the man's 
 skull was fractured. He was carried to the Hospital, 
 where he died. I was present at the dissection of his 
 brain. A quantity of fluid having a distinct smell of 
 
404 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 whisky was found in the ventricles of the brain, and 
 when a lighted candle was applied, it burned with a 
 blue flame. Now, the question arises, when the man 
 becomes drunk, and his mind appears to wander and 
 rave, is it the mind or the brain which is affected ? 
 Can the mind become intoxicated ? Is it not prepos- 
 terous to imagine that a spirit could get drunk ? And 
 yet such is the awful consequence of the opinions of 
 those who deny the connexion which the Phrenologist 
 attributes to the mind and the brain. The brain is the 
 part which really suffers, and it then becomes unfit for 
 the manifestations of the mind. A man intoxicated 
 is literally mad. He raves, is perhaps unconscious of 
 his actions, and commits crimes which at other times 
 would make him shudder to think of. He is neverthe- 
 less most certainly culpable and ought to be suitably 
 punished for his misdeeds, because he wilfully made 
 himself drunk. In this respect, he differs from the 
 ordinary maniac, and consequently no apology what- 
 ever can be made for him, except that his crimes were 
 not premeditated. Again I ask, is the derangement 
 in the brain or in the mind? Those who take the 
 phrenological explanation will say that the mind is not 
 in the slightest degree affected, but that all is in the 
 brain. Whereas those who deny the fundamental 
 principles of Phrenology are compelled to refer such 
 changes to the mind itself, or else hold opinions con- 
 trary to, and inconsistent with each other. They at- 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 405 
 
 tribute changes to mind which can take place in 
 material substances alone, and of course must believe 
 that the mind is not spirit, but matter. At least, this 
 is the only legitimate result of their opinions. They 
 raise the cry of materialism against the Phrenologist, 
 but I am determined to make them swallow their own 
 dogmas. 
 
 Whisky is a stimulant to the brain ; so is the blood. 
 The one is an artificial, the other is a natural stimu- 
 lant. In moderate portions, the blood communicates 
 health and vigour ; in large quantities, it causes stupor 
 and death. Where is the man who could exercise his 
 mind under a fit of apoplexy, when the brain is gorged 
 with blood, or in a fit of fainting, when it is deprived 
 of it ? Is it the mind or the brain is affected now ? 
 Can the mind faint or become apoplectic ? Truly, the 
 Phrenologist is the only man who can avoid being 
 ridiculous. The brain, not the mind, is the part which 
 really suffers from an over-circulation of blood, and 
 therefore it behoves all men to guard against cerebral 
 excitement. How many instances are there where 
 people die of apoplexy induced by a fit of passion ! I 
 am certain my readers have all heard of such cases. 
 But if sudden excitement can induce apoplexy and 
 death, there can be no doubt that equally injurious 
 consequences will be the result, by slower degrees, of 
 too great and too long-continued mental exercise. As 
 Esquirol remarks, the excessive excitement drives the 
 
406 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 brain '* beyond its physiological powers.'^ Facts, 
 almost innumerable, tend to prove that the brain be- 
 comes weakened by mental inactivity ; grows stronger 
 and more vigorous by properly-adjusted and regularly- 
 repeated mental exercise ; and becomes more or less 
 diseased by too violent or too long-continued mental 
 excitement. 
 
 ''The importance," says Professor Caldwell, of 
 America, " of the judicious education and general 
 management of the brain, and the serious evils arising 
 from neglect and errors in them, lead me to make a 
 few remarks on the subject. Dyspepsia and mental 
 derangement are among the most grievous maladies 
 that affect the human race ; and they are much more 
 nearly allied to each other [than they are generally 
 supposed to be. So true is this, that the one is not 
 unfrequently converted into the other, and often alter- 
 nates with it. The lunatic is usually dyspeptic during 
 his lucid intervals ; and complaints which begin in 
 some form of gastric derangement turn in many 
 instances to madness." This is owing to the connexion 
 and sympathy which exist between the stomach and 
 the brain. It generally happens that diseases affect- 
 ing one of these organs will more or less influence the 
 other, just in the same way as a blow on the head will 
 cause the stomach to eject its contents, or a sudden 
 stroke over the region of the stomach will cause a per- 
 son to faint. "Dyspepsia and madness," continues 
 
EFFECTS OF EXEECISE. 407 
 
 Dr Caldwell, '' prevail more extensively in the United 
 States, in proportion to the number of inhabitants, 
 than among the people of any other nation. Of the 
 amount of our dyspeptics no estimate can be formed, 
 but it is immense. Whether we inquire in cities, 
 towns, villages, or country places— among the rich, 
 the poor, or those in moderate circumstances — we find 
 dyspepsia more or less prevalent throughout the land. 
 In other countries this is not the case — not, I mean, 
 to anything near the same extent. True, in Great 
 Britain, Germany, and France, the complaint assails 
 the higher classes of society ; but there it stops, — the 
 common and lower classes scarcely knowing it except 
 by name. In Italy, Spain, and Portugal, it is still 
 less common among all ranks of the people. 
 
 " Insanity prevails in America to an alarming ex- 
 tent, and, in common with dyspepsia, is on the increase. 
 The entire number of the insane in the United States 
 is computed at fifty thousand. There are a thousand 
 lunatics in the State of Connecticut. This is in the 
 ratio of one to every two hundred and sixty-two of 
 the inhabitants of the State. In England, the number 
 of insane persons does not exceed twelve or thirteen 
 thousand. In the agricultural districts there, the 
 average ratio is about one in eight hundred and twenty 
 of the whole population, being to that of Connecticut 
 less than one to three. Yet in England the disease 
 prevails to a greater extent than in any other nation 
 
408 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 in Europe. In Scotland, the general proportion, in- 
 cluding towns and cities as well as country places, is 
 one in five hundred and seventy-four." The propor- 
 tion of insane persons is generally reported as being 
 greater in Scotland than in England ; but such state- 
 ments must be taken with some limitations, inasmuch 
 as Quetelet informs us that the difference is owing in 
 some measure to the fact that idiots are classed among 
 the insane, and as they amount to one half the number 
 of the deranged persons in Scotland, of course they 
 swell the list very materially. " There is everywhere 
 more madness," continues Dr Caldwell, " according to 
 the amount of population, in cities than in the country. 
 In Spain and Russia, the large cities excepted, there 
 is very little ; in Turkey, Persia^ and China, still less. 
 Of Hindoostan the same is true ; and in savage nations, 
 especially where no ardent spirits are used, the com- 
 plaint is scarcely known. Such is the report of aU 
 travellers among the Indians of North and South 
 America. To this it may be subjoined that the in- 
 sanity of a people is increased by the occurrence 
 among them of any deep and extensive mental com- 
 motion, whether from theological or political causes. 
 Such, as history informs us, was the effect of the Re- 
 formation by Luther, of the Revolution by Cromwell, 
 of the American Revolution, and more especially of 
 the first Revolution in France. During the convul- 
 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 409 
 
 sions of the latter event, the frequency of insanity in 
 Paris was frightful. 
 
 " From these facts it appears that, in proportion to 
 the freedom of action of the human mind in any 
 country, more especially in proportion as it is tossed 
 and perplexed by strong passions and emotions, is the 
 amount of madness by which that country is visited. 
 This result we should expect from calculations on well- 
 known principles ; and observation testifies to its 
 truth. In common times, there is more mental agita- 
 tion in Great Britain than in France ; more in France 
 than in Spain or Eussia, and much more in either of 
 them than in Turkey, Persia, or China. And in savage 
 tribes, except during the hours of hunting and battle, 
 there is no mental agitation at all — none, certainly, of 
 a distracting character. It clearly appears that, in 
 civilised nations, the degree of distracting mental 
 emotion which the people generally experience, is in 
 proportion to the amount of the freedom they enjoy. 
 The people of England and Scotland enjoy more freedom 
 than the people of France, and the latter more than 
 those of Spain or Eussia. In Turkey, Persia, and 
 China, political freedom is unknown. The despotism 
 of government compresses the mind of the subjects 
 into a dead and hopeless calm. Unable to render 
 their condition any better, the degraded population 
 cease, in appearance, to wish it so, or even to disquiet 
 
410 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 themselves on the subject. Very different is the con- 
 dition of things in the United States. Our freedom, 
 both political and religious, is ample, and we push 
 and enjoy it to its utmost limits. State and Church 
 preferment and office are open to every one ; and the 
 ardour, keenness, and constancy of competition and 
 struggle for them, have no example in the practices of 
 the present or the history of the past. The fervour 
 and commotion of electioneering intrigue has no res- 
 pite. Under such form the country is agitated, I 
 might almost say convulsed by it, from the beginning 
 to the end of the year, and of every year. Thus are 
 the angry and burning passions kept for ever awake 
 among the people, and often urged to the most in- 
 tense action." The brain is continually overworked 
 and over-excited, and consequently insanity frequently 
 results. If we wish to keep the brain in good working 
 condition, we must supply it with pure, well- vitalised 
 blood ; give it regular, but not excessive, exercise ; and 
 allow it such repose, at proper intervals, as will permit 
 it to recruit its flagging energies. 
 
 THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 
 
 In females, the head is usually longer and narrower 
 than in males. In the former, the brain weighs, on 
 the average, about three pounds and a quarter ; in the 
 latter, about three pounds and a half. The difference 
 
THE BEAIN AND SKULL. 411 
 
 in the development of the brain, whether we consider 
 it as to its absolute size, or in regard to the relation of 
 its different parts to each other, demonstrates in the 
 most satisfactory manner that the male and female 
 are intended by the Creator to occupy different spheres. 
 This is shown by the very characteristic differences 
 which are found in the development of the organ 
 through which the mind acts. Some parties advocate 
 the perfect equality of the sexes on every point, and 
 consider that their education, training, and occupations 
 should be assimilated. These views, however, appear 
 to me not only contrary to Scripture, but also contrary 
 to nature, as seen in the development of the brain. 
 They are not only opposed to observable facts, but 
 they are also inconsistent with what is to be wished 
 for as desirable. The female character is marked by 
 retiring modesty, delicacy, and refinement ; whilst the 
 masculine disposition is more energetic, rough, bust- 
 ling, business-like, and formidable. The one evidently 
 requires protection, and the other is calculated to give 
 it. The one softens and refines society, and the other 
 requires the balmy and soothing influence of the 
 softer sex. That this is the order of creation, and is 
 not owing to habit or civilisation, may be known from 
 the fact, that the same law is observable in the de- 
 velopment of the lower animals, from the lion of the 
 forest downwards. The male reigns over and protects 
 the female. The law which exists in the lower grades 
 
412 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 of creation is just the one which should exist in the 
 higher. Females are so much to be respected when 
 they properly occupy their own sphere, that they 
 should never attempt to go out of it. For my part, 
 I do not envy the taste of the man who admires an 
 extremely bold and masculine woman ; nor yet the 
 good sense of the woman who makes choice of a very 
 effeminate man. It is much nicer to see each sex 
 bearing its own proper characteristics. A lady has no 
 more right to feel herself complimented, when called 
 an amazon, than the Coleraine Militia had when Mr 
 Hunter said, after inspecting them, that "they had be- 
 haved like ladies." 
 
 As I have already observed, the brain, in the male, 
 averages about three pounds and a half. Of course, 
 there are many instances in which it is above or below 
 this standard. In Baron Cuvier, it weighed sixty-four 
 ounces and a half ; in Dr Abercrombie, sixty-three 
 ounces ; in Baron Dupuytren, sixty-three ounces and 
 a half ; in Lord Byron, fifty-eight ounces ; and in Dr 
 Chalmers, fifty-three ounces. Dr Chalmers had a 
 large head, but the skull was very thick. According 
 to Meckel, the brain of a new-born infant weighs ten 
 ounces ; and the relative size of its different sections 
 varies greatly up to the seventh year, when all its parts 
 are observable. Sir William Hamilton, who was a 
 bitter enemy of Phrenology, maintained the extraordi- 
 nary opinion that the brain came to its full size at 
 
THE BEAIN AND SKULL. 413 
 
 the seventh year. More accurate observers, however, 
 are of opinion that it does not arrive at its full dimen- 
 sions until after the twentieth year. But if Sir William 
 Hamilton opposed the Phrenologists by an excessively 
 early maturity of brain, some anatomists have gone as 
 far astray on the other side. Prochaska, for instance, 
 affirms that " the muscles in the foetus and the new- 
 born infant have the automatic movement, and not 
 the voluntary, because the brain is not yet in a state 
 to think ; " and Bichat says, ^' We may conclude with 
 confidence that in the foetus the animal life is nothing. 
 .... The foetus has, so to speak, nothing in its phe- 
 nomena of what especially characterises an animal ; its 
 
 existence is the same as that of a vegetable Its 
 
 destruction is that of a living being, not of an animated 
 being." Such views are highly dangerous in a moral 
 and religious aspect, inasmuch as they ignore the ex- 
 istence of mind, or soul, until some time after birth. 
 If the infant possesses nothing but vegetable life, it is 
 manifest that its destruction would involve no sin 
 whatever. The sentiments of these anatomists are 
 subversive of morality. A careful examination of his- 
 tory will show that the false opinions of philosophers 
 in one generation, become the popular sentiments of 
 the multitudes in succeeding generations ; and it may 
 perhaps be owing to this principle that opinions such 
 as uttered by Prochaska and Bichat, have T^een handed 
 down to the public in such a way as to produce the 
 
414 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 recklessness which we now witness in regard to the 
 practice of infanticide. I have constantly observed 
 that there is not the same feeling on the mind of the 
 mother of illegitimate children with regard to the pro- 
 duction of premature confinement or abortion that 
 there is about the destruction of their offspring after 
 birth. I have found it so impossible to persuade them 
 that the one act is as sinful as the other, that I have 
 frequently thought it right to frighten them by telling 
 them the position they would be placed in by the law 
 of the land if they attempted to take anything to pro- 
 cure abortion. I have seen many parties who thought 
 it would be no sin to induce abortion, because they 
 did not think the child had animal life. 
 
 The brain is a soft, whitish-coloured mass, totally 
 devoid of feeling. It may be cut or sliced away, in the 
 living animal, without causing the slightest pain, pro- 
 vided the operation is done cautiously, so as not to 
 press downwards on the top of the spinal marrow. 
 ^' The greatest part of the brain," says Magendie, '' is 
 insensible to puncture, lacerations, sections, and even 
 to cauterisation." The brain, with its membranes, fills 
 the entire skull above the level of the eye and ear. It 
 is divided (see Plate I.) down the centre, from before 
 backwards, (A to B,) into two equal and symmetrical 
 halves which become united at the bottom or base. 
 This is a most important arrangement, inasmuch as it 
 renders an organ which is completely double, capable 
 
THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 415 
 
 of single or united action. There are two sets of 
 organs, one on each side of the median line, which are 
 identical in their anatomical structure, as well as in 
 their physiological functions ; and although there is 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 PLATE I.— UPPER SURFACE OF BRAIN. 
 
 as perfect a separation between them as there is be- 
 tween the eyes, the ears, the hands, or the feet, (see 
 Plate I,) they are still capable of a combined action in 
 consequence of their union at the base. By keeping 
 this peculiar arrangement in view, (and it is an arrange- 
 ment which no anatomist or physiologist dare deny,) we 
 will be able to explain, without the least difficulty, all 
 the symptoms which are observed after accidents and 
 
416 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 injuries to the brain. Our opponents, owing to their 
 consummate ignorance, have raised some ridiculous ob- 
 jections to Phrenology on this head, just as if there 
 was any reason why a person should be unable to 
 think after receiving an injury on one side of the 
 head alone, any more than he would be incapable of 
 seeing after losing one eye. As I have already said, 
 no anatomist dare deny that the brain is actually 
 double. Why, then, is he so inconsistent as to hold 
 that injury of the one side must of necessity destroy 
 the functions of the other ? Nothing could account 
 for it, but blind and bitter opposition to Phrenology. 
 Nay, more, the position I am advocating is completely 
 sustained by our daily observation of cases of paralysis 
 affecting the base of the brain. The nerves which 
 take their origin from one side of the brain may be 
 completely paralysed, whilst those which are connected 
 with the other side may remain as perfect as ever, thus 
 proving, even on the acknowledged principles of my 
 opponents, that the brain is divided into two halves, 
 both anatomically and functionally. If a medical prac- 
 titioner be called to a patient, and he finds that one 
 side of the tongue, one side of the face, one side of the 
 body, and one eye, are paralysed, whilst the corre- 
 sponding organs on the other side are all perfect, he at 
 once draws the conclusion, which is based on his 
 anatomical and physiological knowledge, that only one 
 side of the brain and spinal marrow is affected by the 
 
THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 417 
 
 injury. Why, then, should the Phrenologist be ridi- 
 culed because he adopts the same principle, and main- 
 tains that an injury on the organ of causality or 
 caution on one side of the head does not of necessity 
 destroy the function of* the corresponding organ on 
 the other side of the head ? Is the privilege of the 
 double organ to be allowed to the Physiologist and 
 refused to the Phrenologist 1 No honest man would 
 say it is. 
 
 '' I have proved," says Dr Gall, " in the first volume 
 of my large work, that the nervous systems of the 
 spinal marrow, of the organs of sense, and of the brain, 
 are double, or in pairs. But as, when one of the eyes 
 is destroyed, we continue to see with the other eye ; 
 so when one of the hemispheres of the brain has be- 
 come incapable of executing its functions, the other 
 hemisphere may continue to perform those duties 
 belonging to itself. In other words, the functions 
 may be disturbed or suspended on one side, and re- 
 main perfect on the other. Tiedemann relates an 
 instance of a man, named Joseph Moser, who was 
 deranged on one side of his brain, and with the sound 
 side observed his own alienation." That the eyes, the 
 ears, and the Phrenological organs should all be double, 
 is a matter of great moment, because it permits the 
 functions on the one side to proceed after they have 
 been destroyed on the other ; and therefore the indi- 
 vidual is not left in such a miserable and helpless 
 
 2d 
 
418 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 condition, from occasional accidents or diseases, as lie 
 would be if those parts were all single. One organ 
 being left intact, enables the function to proceed, 
 although I do not imagine that the function will be 
 as strong and perfect as if both organs were in full 
 action. The one may do, but both would be better. 
 
 Mr Hewett Watson has very ingeniously suggested 
 another reason for the double brain. "The human 
 frame," says he, " is almost a double ; the one side 
 being nearly a counterpart of the other. But many 
 of the double parts, from their use and constitution, 
 act individually as well as jointly ; and when acting in 
 concert, their actions are often different, and some- 
 times opposed. In walking, the legs move alternately, 
 one being held more or less steady, while the other 
 is in motion ; and, when both move at once, their 
 motions usually differ in kind or degree. The hands, 
 in like manner, are made to perform different motions 
 at the same instant, and such are frequently antago- 
 nistic motions. So also the eyes and ears receive and 
 transmit sensations singly, at the same instant of 
 time. Hence it appears like a matter of necessity 
 that the internal organs, which guide the hands, legs, 
 eyes, and ears, as well as those which receive sensa- 
 tions therefrom or thereby, should also be double. 
 But if it be necessary that the two legs and hands, 
 the two eyes and ears, should be able to exert inde- 
 pendent and even antagonistic actions at the same 
 
THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 419 
 
 time ; so may the brain be required to perform inde- 
 pendent or antagonistic actions at the same time, and 
 thus necessarily be doubled throughout, the two hemi- 
 spheres being capable of acting singly or jointly. In 
 playing at chess, a person makes schemes and deter- 
 mines the movements of the pieces on his own side. 
 To do this successfully, he must mentally play the 
 game of his adversary as well as of himself ; within 
 his own cranium he must carry on the work of two 
 brains — brains working in opposition to each other. 
 It would hence appear that we must have the pre- 
 sumed ideas of others, as well as our own ideas, pic- 
 torially present in the brain at the same instant. But 
 if our own ideas co-exist with the represented ideas 
 of another, we are driven to conclude either that the 
 two corresponding organs, manifesting any given func- 
 tion, work individually, or that each exists in two 
 different states at the same instant. The only way 
 of escaping this dilemma, is by denying the co-exis- 
 tence of ideas, and attributing the apparent consci- 
 ousness of it to the rapidity with which they 
 succeed each other, — an assumption not unreasonable, 
 but fully as gratuitous. It appears to me, that the 
 co-existence of ideas is most easily reconcilable with 
 observed facts, and that the existence of two con- 
 nected brains thus becomes necessary.'^ Mr Watson's 
 hypothesis is certainly very ingenious, and I am dis- 
 posed to think that it rests on a solid foundation. It 
 
420 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 would certainly account in the most satisfactory 
 manner for the peculiar powers, already referred to, 
 which are possessed by Pape, Paulsen, and Paul Mor- 
 phy. It would also explain a fact which has often 
 occurred in my own experience — namely, that, in my 
 dreams, I have carried on vigorous discussions with 
 opponents on different questions. In these discus- 
 sions, I have heard my opponents' objections and 
 answered them, without having the least conscious- 
 ness, till I awoke, that the objections and answers 
 were both my own productions. In these cases, my 
 brain must, for the time being, have been acting a 
 double part, the part of two opposing individuals. I 
 can see no way of accounting for such phenomena 
 except on the principles suggested by Mr Wat- 
 son. 
 
 The Phrenological Journal^ for 1837, contains an 
 authentic case of dreaming, which is strongly cor- 
 roborative of Mr Watson's theory. " Mr S. dreamt 
 that he was in his parlour with a friend, and that a 
 piece of black cloth was lying upon the table, but 
 which his friend happened to remark was flesh-colour. 
 Hereupon arose a discussion as to the colour of the 
 cloth, Mr S. maintaining that it was black, and his 
 friend as strenuously insisting that it was flesh-colour. 
 The dispute became warm, and Mr S. offered to bet 
 that it was black ; his friend also offering to bet that 
 it was flesh-colour. Mr S. concluded the bet, when his 
 
THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 421 
 
 friend immediately exclaimed, ' And is not black the 
 colour of more than half the human race ? ' thus com- 
 pletely stealing a march upon Mr S., and winning the 
 bet. Mr S. declares that the idea of black being en- 
 titled to the name of ilesh-colour bad never before 
 occurred to him. The extraordinary part of this dream 
 is, that two operations were going on at the same time 
 in the mind of Mr S. — the workings of each apparently 
 quite concealed from the other. For instance, the 
 part of the brain which personated himself had no 
 knowledge of the loop-hole which the part of the brain 
 personating his friend had in reserve to close the argu- 
 ment. On the contrary, he says that he was utterly 
 abashed by the remark, immediately thinking to him- 
 self how foolish he was not to have been in possession 
 of the idea, A Phrenological solution of the mental 
 operation of this dream would probably be very in- 
 teresting, for there certainly appears to have been two 
 trains of argument carried on at the same time in the 
 same brain, ea^ch not only unconscious of the other, 
 but with an effectual barrier of concealment placed 
 between the two." Mr Watson's theory would give 
 a satisfactory explanation of this case ; more especially 
 when we consider that it is quite possible for the part 
 of the brain which connects the two hemispheres to 
 be lulled into temporary inactivity by sleep. One 
 part of the brain may be asleep, while another part is 
 in action, in the same w^ay as one arm or one leg may 
 
422 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 be in motioD, whilst the rest of the body is at rest and 
 asleep. 
 
 Ryan's London Medical and Surgical Journal for 
 1834, contains some observations by Dr Stokes, of 
 Dublin, on the double brain. ''To return," says he> 
 ''to the interesting consideration of great loss of 
 cerebral substance with preservation of intellect, I 
 have to remark, that this circumstance is one which 
 some persons might quote against the opinion that 
 the brain was the organ of intelligence ; and I believe 
 this fact has been laid hold of by the opponents of 
 Phrenology, and put forward as a powerful argument 
 against the truth of its doctrines. Thus, in the case 
 of Mr O'Halloran's patient, who lost a large portion of 
 one hemisphere, and yet, with all this mischief, the 
 powers of the intellect remained unimpaired ; it would 
 not seem strange if a person should say. Here is vast 
 destruction of substance without any lesion of intelli- 
 gence ; how then can the brain be considered as the 
 organ of thought ? " With all due deference to Dr 
 Stokes, I must say that it would appear to me very 
 strange, that, in the case supposed, where the brain is 
 double, and one hemisphere alone is stated to have 
 been injured, any person should imagine for a moment 
 that it militated against the idea of the brain being 
 the organ of thought. It would just be as foolish to 
 imagine that Mr O'Halloran's case removed the brain 
 from the province of thought, as it would be to sup- 
 
THE BEAIX AND SKULL. 423 
 
 pose that the eye was not the organ of sight, because 
 a person can continue to see after one eye is destroyed. 
 Seeing that the brain is double, Mr O'Halloran's case 
 can give the Phrenologist no trouble whatever. The 
 Phrenologist could be overturned only by the produc- 
 tion of a case which has never been seen in the world — 
 namely, a case in which the whole brain has been re- 
 moved whilst the patient has retained the power of 
 thought. 
 
 But Dr Stokes continues, " I have already shown 
 that it is a law in pathology that lesion of structure 
 and lesion of function are not always commensurate. 
 This law applies to the brain as well as to all the other 
 organs. To say that the brain was not the organ of 
 intelligence, because in cases of extensive cerebral 
 disease that intelligence was preserved, is false reason- 
 ing. A man will digest with a cancerous stomach ; — 
 is it to be argued from this that the stomach is not the 
 organ of digestion ? I have seen the liver completely 
 burrowed by abscesses, yet the gall-bladder was full of 
 healthy bile. I have seen one lung completely ob- 
 literated, and yet the respirations only sixteen in the 
 minute, and the face without lividity. What do these 
 facts prove ? Not that the health of organs is of no 
 consequence, but that with great disease there may be 
 little injury of function. Organs are primitively 
 double ; and we find, that though the fusion at the 
 median line is produced by development, yet that the 
 
424 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 symmetrical halves still, to a certain degree, preserve 
 their individuality. Now, admitting that the brain is 
 the organ of thought, we may suppose that, as in case 
 of partial obstruction of the lung from inflammation, 
 the remainder of the organ takes on an increased action, 
 so as to supply the place of that which has been in- 
 jured or dastroyed. We know, that if one lung be 
 hepatised the other takes on its functions, and carries 
 on the process of respiration for a time ; and it has 
 been further established, that the lung which thus 
 takes on a supplemental action may become enlarged 
 and hypertrophied. May not this also occur in the 
 brain ? There is no reason why such a pathological 
 phenomenon, occurring in one viscus, may not also take 
 place in another." The explanation here given by Dr 
 Stokes is both ingenious and rational. There can be 
 no doubt that after the loss of one eye, the other eye 
 takes on an increased action, and ultimately becomes 
 so far improved that it answers wonderfully well for 
 the purposes of vision, although I do not imagine that 
 it is ever quite equal to the power of two. So 
 also may it be with the brain. One hemisphere may 
 improve so much as to compensate to a great extent 
 for the loss of the other. There is nothing irrational 
 in this supposition. On the contrary, it is perfectly 
 consistent with analogous facts. 
 
 " But the opponents of Phrenology say,^^ continues 
 Dr Stokes, " supposing the organ of causation to be 
 
THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 425 
 
 destroyed, how can the person continue to reason ? It 
 strikes me that the only way in which we can account 
 for this is, by supposing that other parts of the brain 
 take on the functions of those which have been injured 
 or destroyed. We see, almost every day, examples of 
 this kind. We see that in certain diseased states of 
 the liver, accompanied by suppression of its secretion, 
 its functions are assumed by other parts, and bile con- 
 tinues to be separated from the blood by the kidneys, 
 salivary glands, and by the cutaneous exhalants. Here 
 is a remarkable case, in which the glands and other 
 parts take on the performance of a function totally 
 different from that in which they are ordinarily em- 
 ployed. Now, supposing that a portion of the brain is 
 to be looked upon as the organ of causation, and such 
 portion is injured or destroyed, there is no reason why 
 the remaining sound portion of brain should not take 
 on, at least to a certain extent, in addition to its own, 
 the functions of that part which has been injured." 
 I am sorry that I am obliged to dissent entirely from 
 the opinion here set forth. Although it is intended 
 to favour the Phrenological side of the question, I 
 cannot accept of it. I would not think it right to per- 
 mit my own case to be proved by any argument of the 
 truth of which I had reasonable doubt. If I could not 
 support Phrenology on perfectly satisfactory grounds, 
 I would give it up. I do not consider Dr Stokes' 
 illustration quite in point, because we are not suf- 
 
426 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 ficiently acquainted with the nature of secretion to be 
 able to draw unerring conclusions from the actions of 
 the secreting organs. I do not consider that any other 
 organ of the brain can perform the duty of the organ of 
 causality, and therefore, if I were placed in a difficulty, 
 I would not attempt to get out of it by this explanation. 
 It is just as impossible, for example, for the organ of 
 philoprogenitiveness to do the duty of the organ of 
 causality, as it is for us to see with our ears, hear with 
 our eyes, and smell with our fingers. Dr Stokes says 
 it is only by a supposition of the kind he has made 
 '' that we can account for the preservation of the in- 
 tegrity of mind in many cases of disease of the brain." 
 Let the consequences be what they may, I will not 
 adopt Dr Stokes' explanation, because I do not believe 
 it to be correct. I will never support my own side by 
 an argument which I would not permit my opponent 
 to use, if I were on the other side of the question. But 
 the point of importance is. Is the Phrenologist ever 
 placed in the predicament in which Dr Stokes imagines 
 him to be ? I say. Most decidedly not. He does not 
 require to get out of the difficulty, because he has never 
 been in it. No such case has ever occurred in the 
 history of the world. No example has ever been forth- 
 coming in which the organ of causality, on both sides 
 of the brain, has been completely removed down to its 
 base at the top of the spinal marrow, and yet the per- 
 son has retained the power of causation. It will be 
 
THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 427 
 
 quite time enough to discuss the question when an 
 example is produced. In the meantime it is only a 
 myth. If it were produced, however, in place of meet- 
 ing it on Dr Stokes' plan, I would renounce Phrenology 
 as a fable. 
 
 Dr Stokes concludes his argument with the follow- 
 ing important remarks, " On this subject one point 
 should be always borne in mind, viz., that we may be 
 WTong in saying that a patient is quite sane while he is 
 still an invalid and in bed. Unless we can show that 
 after his recovery, and in his various intercourse with 
 the world, he preserves his original intelligence, it 
 would be wrong to assert that there has been abso- 
 lutely no lesion of intellect consequent on the affection 
 of the brain. While lying at ease in bed, and un- 
 affected by any moral stimuli, he may seem to possess 
 a sound condition of mind ; he may put out his tongue 
 or stretch forth his hand when requested ; he may 
 give an accurate account of his symptoms, and answer 
 all the ordinary medical interrogatories with precision. 
 But you are not from this to conclude that he is per- 
 fectly sane." With these observationSj I entirely con- 
 cur. But what do we find in practice is the case ? 
 Just that the sanity of the patient is judged on the 
 most insignificant grounds. If be be able to answer a 
 few trivial questions, and put out his tongue, he is 
 considered to be equal to the deepest process of 
 mathematical reasoniiig. Without any further. tests, 
 
428 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 he woLild be placed almost on a par with Sir Isaac 
 Newton. 
 
 Although the brain is completely divided into two 
 hemispheres at the top, it is more or less connected 
 together at the base. From this it results, that the 
 variety of organs in the brain does not present con- 
 fusion to the mind. The organs in one sense are quite 
 independent of each other ; but in another sense, by 
 the crossing or interlacing of fibres, they are brought 
 into harmonious and united action. I believe that 
 this union of a complicated organ is the proper foun- 
 dation for explaining single consciousness. So long as 
 the parts are all in perfect development and health, 
 consciousness is single ; but when disease occurs in 
 the connecting or decussating parts, consciousness 
 may be double. There are numerous examples of 
 double consciousness in regard to vision in parties 
 affected with disease of the brain or optic nerves ;— 
 they see double. So is it also with the other cerebral 
 faculties. Books on insanity abound with records of 
 cases of double and perverted consciousness. All such 
 cases are capable of solution on the principle of a 
 double yet connected brain. When healthy, conscious- 
 ness is single ; when diseased in particular parts, it 
 may become double. 
 
 Each of the hemispheres of the brain has been sub- 
 divided by anatomists into an anterior, a middle, and 
 a posterior lobe, corresponding with the front, the 
 
THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 
 
 429 
 
 middle, and the back of the head. These divisions 
 are convenient in practice, and they are tolerably well 
 marked, but there is no such distinct line of separation 
 between them as that which is found between the two 
 hemispheres. Immediately under the posterior lobe 
 of the cerebrum, or true brain, as it is called by anato- 
 mists, and directly behind the ears, we have a toler- 
 ably large and well-defined mass, called the cerebellum, 
 or little, or false brain ; and at the place the cerebrum 
 and cerebellum unite, there is another small, roundish, 
 and long-shaped mass, called the medulla oblongata, 
 
 PLATE II. — VERTICAL SECTION OF THE HEAD. 
 
 which connects the brain with the spinal marrow. 
 (See Plate 2.) In man, the posterior lobe of the cere- 
 brum always projects over and covers the cerebellum. 
 
430 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 as seen in Plate 2. A sharp discussion occurred, some 
 time since, between Professor Owen and Professor 
 Huxley, as to the exact amount of projection of the 
 posterior lobe of the cerebrum, which is found in apes, 
 in comparison with man. I do not pretend to be able 
 to form an opinion as to the exact anatomical point 
 involved in this controversy ; but I believe a very 
 marked difference will be found between man and the 
 inferior animals in the development of some parts of 
 the middle and anterior lobes. It is by those chiefly 
 that man is distinguished from the inferior animals, 
 inasmuch as they contain the moral and reflecting 
 faculties. The convolutions on the surface of the 
 brain also present a mark worthy of observation. In 
 man they extend over the whole cerebral surface, are 
 deep, and very numerous, (See Plates 1 and 2 ;) 
 whereas, they become less numerous and shallower as 
 we pass downwards in the scale of creation, until, in 
 some of the lower grades, they are wanting entirely. 
 It is stated by Soemmering that the convolutions do not 
 appear on the brain of the human foetus until about the 
 sixth month of its existence. At this period they 
 commence to form, and go on increasing till the age of 
 puberty, thus keeping pace with the manifestation of 
 the intellectual powers of the individual. 
 
 There are ventricles, or cavities, in the interior of 
 the brain, which " are lined by a thin diaphanous 
 lining membrane, covered with ciliated epithelium, 
 
THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 431 
 
 and moistened by a serous fluid, which is sometimes, 
 even in health, secreted in considerable quantity." — 
 (Gray's Anatomy.) In the ordinary state, the secre- 
 tion and absorption of this serous fluid bear such a 
 relation to each other, that the quantity is never ex- 
 cessive ; but under disease the quantity sometimes 
 becomes very considerable, and produces death. 
 These cases must be familiar to my readers under 
 what is called hydrocephalus, or water in the brain. 
 When the bones of the skull are firmly united, and the 
 accumulation of fluid takes place suddenly, as in acute 
 inflammation of the brain, pressure from within, out- 
 wards and downwards, will be produced to such an 
 extent as to cause insensibility, convulsions, and death. 
 The brain is so squeezed against the solid and unyield- 
 ing bones of the skull, that its normal functions are 
 interrupted and destroyed. Death generally takes 
 place in a few days. But if the accumulation of fluid 
 be very slow and gradual, as in chronic hydrocephalus, 
 the bones of the skull will gradually extend and ac- 
 commodate themselves to the condition of the parts 
 within : the whole head will enlarge to an enormous 
 extent. Dr David Monro reports the case of a girl, 
 six years of age, whose head measured twenty-eight 
 inches in circumference ; and Dr Bright had a patient, 
 aged thirty, whose head, after death, was found to con- 
 tain about eight pints of fluid. 
 
 In chronic hydrocephalus, the efl'usion of fluid is so 
 
432 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 gradual, and the changes which occur in the condition 
 of the skull are so slow and so uniform, that the 
 functions of the brain are not always interfered with 
 as much as a person might at first sight expect. The 
 condition of the brain in these cases was at one time 
 involved in mystery. It was even supposed that the 
 substance of the brain was removed by absorption. 
 No person appeared to be able to throw any light on 
 the subject until Gall came on the stage. Previous to 
 the year 1804, Dr Gall met a woman, fifty-four years 
 of age, who had water on the brain, and who, at the 
 same time, was as intelligent as most people in her 
 position in life. As he was then aware that the brain 
 was the organ of the mind, he knew that the brain 
 could not be destroyed whilst the mind was in fair 
 operation. The case, however, could not be properly 
 explained in accordance with the views which were 
 then held regarding the anatomical structure of the 
 brain ; and he consequently at once set about a course 
 of dissections in order to throw light on the subject. 
 He soon discovered that the brain, in place of being 
 removed by absorption, was unfolded in such a manner 
 that it became a sort of bag for containing the fluid. 
 Instead of being lost, the parts were just packed in a 
 different manner, and placed in a different position. 
 This did not, of necessity, destroy their functions. It 
 might have been supposed that a great discovery of 
 this description would have been thankfully received, 
 
THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 433 
 
 althougli made by the founder of Phrenology, but it 
 was not so. Gall's discovery was warmly opposed by 
 the greatest anatomists of that day, such as Tiede- 
 mann, Eudolphi, Walter, Ackermann, and Soemmering. 
 '' I have tried," says Eudolphi, '' all the manipulations 
 indicated by Gall, in order to unfold the brain, and I 
 have always found that this cannot be effected but by 
 severely lacerating it, and that the convolutions are 
 never unfolded in a regular and natural manner, as he 
 pretends." " Those," remarks Gall, " who cannot suc- 
 ceed in this artificial operation, certainly have a right 
 to say, that they have not been able to convince them- 
 selves of this by their own dexterity ; but to hear 
 them, one would believe that they accused me of im^ 
 posture and charlatanism. But I invite Soemmering, 
 Rudolphi, Blainville, &c. &c., to come and see with 
 their own eyes this unfolding, which is so inconceiv- 
 able, and, in the course of half an hour, they will be 
 enabled to do it with as much promptitude as my- 
 self. . . . Let Rudolphi recollect the dictum of Yicq- 
 d'Azyr, that, in order to see well in anatomy, some- 
 thing more is requisite than two eyes." There is no 
 man so blind as the man who does not wish to see. 
 
 At first. Gall's discovery was denied as a fact. In 
 the course of time, however, it was found that denial 
 was of no use, as the fact was plainly demonstrated by 
 the manipulations of Gall and Spurzheim. What, 
 
 then, was to be done ? The Phrenologist must be 
 
 2 E 
 
434 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 kept down, and his credit handed over to another ! 
 , " The opinion/' says Dr Bostock, " that in those cases 
 of hydrocephalus where the skull allows of the exten- 
 sion of the size of the head, and the consequent for- 
 mation of a large central cavity, the substance of the 
 brain is not actually removed, but has only the rela- 
 tive situation of its parts changed, was maintained by 
 Sir Everard Home, probably before it had been pro- 
 mulgated by the continental anatomists. In the 
 Phil. Trans, for 1814, after giving an account of a case 
 in which the head had acquired an enormous size, 
 while the mental faculties were but little impaired, he 
 adds, ' The cerebrum is made up of thin convolutions 
 of medullary and cortical substance, surrounding the 
 two lateral ventricles, which are unfolded when the 
 cavities of these ventricles are enlarged, and in this 
 unfolded state the functions belonging to this part of 
 the organ can be carried on.' This affords us another 
 instance in which Sir Everard Home has anticipated 
 Drs Gall and Spurzheim in what has been supposed 
 among the most novel of their doctrines." — {BostocFs 
 Physiology.) Now, in this case, I deliberately charge 
 Sir Everard Home with the grossest plagiarism, as he 
 has usurped Dr Gall's discovery without the slightest 
 acknowledgment ; and I charge Dr Bostock with 
 either unjustifiable ignorance as an author, or wilful 
 misrepresentation. Such conduct is unjustifiable in the 
 extreme, and should reduce any man from the rank of a 
 
THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 435 
 
 philosopher. On Dr Bostock's own showing, Sir Everard 
 Home's opinion was pubhshed only in the year 1814. 
 How, then, could this anticipate a discovery of Gall's 
 which was made ten years previously ? Gall had made 
 his dissections, and announced his discovery of the 
 unfolding of the brain in hydrocephalus, previous to his 
 connexion with Dr Spurzheim, which commenced in the 
 year 1804 ; and the true structure of the convolutions, 
 and their connexion with the rest of the cerebral mass, 
 were fully described in the joint Memoir which was pre- 
 sented by Gall and Spurzheim to the French Institute 
 in the year 1808. — (Spurzheim's Anatomy of the Brain.) 
 We thus see that the discovery was made by Gall 
 previous to 1804, and was brought to perfection by 
 Spurzheim before 1808, when the joint Memoir by 
 Gall and Spurzheim was presented to the French In- 
 stitute. Nay, more, the connexion between Gall and 
 Spurzheim ceased in the year 1813. So that, take it 
 as you will, the assertion of Bostock regarding Sir 
 Everard Home's statement in 1814 as anticipating 
 Gall's discovery of the unfolding of the brain, has not 
 one particle of foundation in truth. The conduct of 
 Sir Everard Home and Dr Bostock is perfectly scan- 
 dalous. It is really marvellous, the treatment which 
 Gall's discovery of the unfolding of the convolutions 
 has received. It was first denied altogether as a fact 
 by Rudolphi, Soemmering, Walter, and Tiedemann ; 
 when this would not stand the test of practical ex- 
 
436 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 perience, Home and Bostock made a direct effort to 
 rob Gall of his glory ; later still, that plan will not 
 answer, and a different one must be adopted by Sir 
 Thomas Watson, who, in the article on hydrocephalus 
 in the first vol. of his great work on the Practice of 
 Physic, adopts, as a settled point, all the opinions 
 promulgated by Gall in this matter, whilst he ex- 
 cludes Gall's name as carefully from his pages as if 
 it would be a sin to mention it. Such is the treat- 
 ment received by Phrenologists. 
 
 The brain is composed of two substances differing 
 in colour and consistence. — (See Plates 1 and 2.) The 
 one is called the cortical, outer, or cineritious layer ; 
 and the other is called the medullary substance. The 
 medullary substance forms the chief bulk of the brain. 
 It is tolerably firm and fibrous in its texture, and is of 
 a whitish colour. This medullary substance is covered 
 over by the cortical, outer, or cineritious layer. The 
 cortical layer is of a gray, ashy, or cineritious colour, 
 and is of a soft or pulpy consistence. Ruysch, Vieus- 
 sens, Haller, Walter, Ackermann, and many others, 
 have imagined that this layer was composed altogether 
 of blood-vessels ; but Soemmering, and more recent ob- 
 servers, have demonstrated that, in addition to a 
 minute net-work of blood-vessels, it contains true 
 nervous matter. — {Spurzheim.) The opinions which 
 have been held regarding the functions of this cineri- 
 tious matter have been as varied as those which pre- 
 
THE BEAIN AXD SKULL. 437 
 
 vailed in relation to its ultimajte structure. Descartes 
 and his followers supposed that it secreted an ima- 
 ginary, subtle fluid, which they called animal spirits, 
 and this idea gained support from the researches of 
 Malpighi, who thought that he detected a glandular 
 structure. The discussions which arose in the days of 
 Haller on these points were almost endless ; and when 
 we look back upon that period, it is truly marvellous 
 how many eminent and learned men spent their time 
 discussing the nature, situation, and properties of vital 
 fluids, nervous spirits, and vibratory substances, which 
 had no existence whatever, except in their own ima- 
 ginations. " The whole," says Bostock, " is a hypo- 
 thesis entirely unfounded and quite gratuitous." 
 Foville maintained that the cortical substance of the 
 brain was appropriated to the intellectual functions, 
 and that the medullary portion was connected with 
 locomotion. This view was supported by Dr Stokes 
 of Dublin, who, in his Lectures on the Practice of 
 Medicine, affirmed, that mental delirium is found in 
 connexion with inflammation of the surface of the 
 brain, but not of its centre. " This fact," he says, 
 " would seem to confirm the truth of the opinion of 
 the difference in function between the medullary and 
 cortical parts of the brain. . . . Indeed, there can be 
 no doubt that the central portions of the brain have 
 functions very different from those on the surface. 
 They appear more connected with another function of 
 
438 PHKENOLOGY. 
 
 animal life, muscular motion and sensation." — (Eyan's 
 Journal for June 1834.) An opinion somewhat diiFer- 
 ent from this has been held by Carpenter, Solly, and 
 others, namely, that the cineritious layer is the source 
 of power, and that the medullary substance is a 
 mere conductor. " If it be true," says Dr Carpenter, 
 *' that the gray matter only is the source of power, and 
 that the white is merely a conductor, I cannot see 
 that we have any right to assume, with the Phrenolo- 
 gists, that the total size of the organ affords a measure 
 of its power, until it has been shown that the thick- 
 ness of the cortical substance can be judged of by the 
 size of the brain, or of any part of it." — (^Medical 
 Gazette for Sept. 1841.) " I have come to the con- 
 clusion," says Mr Solly, '^ that the peculiar power of 
 the nervous system resides in the cineritious portion^ 
 and that the office of the medullary is simply that of 
 a conductor." — (Solly on The Brain^ p. 19.) " I be- 
 lieve," remarks Mr Solly, " that I was one of the first 
 to insist upon the distinct office of the cineritious and 
 medullary neurine, and I felt that this was the more 
 necessary, inasmuch as Gall and Spurzheim, those 
 grand pioueers in nervine anatomy and physiology, 
 omitted to adopt this view." — {Lancet for Jan. 28, 
 1865.) The experiments of Flourens, Magendie, and 
 others, seem to me to be inconsistent with this 
 opinion regarding the use of the medullary substance 
 of the brain. These observers have shown that irrita- 
 
THE BRATN AND SKULL. 439 
 
 tion of a nerve is conducted to the muscles, and pro- 
 duces contraction and pain, but no amount of irrita- 
 tion, not even cutting and slicing^ of the medullary 
 substance of the brain will produce either pain or 
 muscular contraction ; hence it is evident that the 
 medulla of the brain is not a conductor in the same 
 sense in which the medullary substance of the nerve 
 is a conductor. 
 
 Such are the opinions of the Physiologists. The 
 Phrenologists do not agree with them. '^ Dr Gall and 
 I suppose," remarks Spurzheim, " that each nervous 
 apparatus is composed of two peculiar substances, the 
 pulpy and the fibrous, and that both are necessary to 
 produce an instrument adequate to the performance 
 of a particular function." — {Anatomy of the Brain.) 
 On this view, the cineritious and medullary substances 
 are both necessary to the formation of one organ ; and 
 it is for this reason that the length of an organ is 
 measured from the surface of the head to the orifice 
 of the internal ear, which corresponds as near as pos- 
 sible to the centre of the brain, at the medulla oblon- 
 gata. It also results from this arrangement, that, 
 although the peripheral expansion may vary consider- 
 ably in different cases, all the organs exist in every 
 human being who is not an idiot. The Phrenological 
 development of the brain is an overwhelming argu- 
 ment for the unity of the human race. As Gall has 
 observed, " All human brains, if they are not naturally 
 
44:0 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 defective, exhibit the same parts and the same prin- 
 cipal convolutions ; they are distinguished from each 
 other only by the relative proportions of the convolu- 
 tions, and by some differences in accessory convolu- 
 tions. . . . Hence, as I find in the brain of the negro, 
 the same parts as in that of the European, it is certain 
 that they both occupy the same degree in the scale of 
 the animal kingdom." All the organs which exist in 
 the white man are found in the black ; but many of 
 them do not occur in any of the lower animals. 
 Hence, this becomes a link of separation between man 
 and the inferior animals, at the same time that it 
 demonstrates the unity of the human race. When 
 naturalists, and comparative anatomists, adopt the 
 brain as the basis of their classification of animals, 
 the divisions of the animal kingdom will become cor- 
 rect, but not till then. 
 
 Let us now take a concise view of the bony case in 
 which the brain is inclosed. The bones of the skull, 
 which are generally flat, are composed of 
 three layers, — an internal hard layer and 
 an external hard layer, with a soft, spongy, 
 or cellular layer between them, which 
 is called the diploe. The internal and 
 external layers, or tables, of the skull 
 III.— FE-oNTAL ]^g pretty close to each other in every 
 
 SINUS. 
 
 part, except above the root of the nose, 
 where they separate for some distance to form what is 
 
THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 441 
 
 called the frontal sinus. — (See Plate 3.) The exist- 
 ence of this sinus, or cavity, has been made a won- 
 derful handle of by our opponents, who have imagined, 
 or pretended to imagine, that it forms an insurmount- 
 able barrier in our way, and that it is calculated to 
 throw doubt, and bring discredit, on all our opinions 
 and observations. In this instance, however, I think 
 they are reasoning rather hastily, and cutting a little 
 before the point. The organs which lie behind this 
 sinus are for the purpose of observation^ and are brought 
 into play at a very early period of our life. The child 
 can observe long before it is capable of much reasoning, 
 and the consequence is, that its observing faculties are 
 capable of being studied from its very infancy ; and 
 the functions, or uses, of these faculties may be dis- 
 covered in childhood, when they are in more active 
 exercise, perhaps, than at any other period of life. 
 Now, in this case, the frontal sinus can be no obstacle 
 whatever in our way, because it does not exist at all 
 before the age of twelve years. For this reason, it 
 can never be properly and' fairly brought forward as an 
 objection to the discovery of the functions of those 
 organs which lie in this locality ; but I readily admit 
 that it may, in some instances, in the adult, lead us 
 astray if we pronounce with too much confidence, and 
 without very accurate examination, on the develop- 
 ment. Whilst we keep this fact in mind, we should 
 not be too much deterred by it, because in an over- 
 
442 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 whelming majority of instances we shall find that the 
 appearance of the organ and its manifestations corres- 
 pond, owing to the fact that the two tables of the 
 skull, although separated, generally run parallel to 
 each other in this locality. 
 
 Our opponents have no right to raise this objection 
 to Phrenology, because it has invariably been alluded 
 to by Phrenologists themselves. " I was the first," 
 says Gall, " to maintain that it was impossible for us 
 to determine with exactness the development of certain 
 convolutions, by the inspection of the external surface 
 of the cranium. I was the first to treat in detail of 
 the variations in the thickness of the cranium which 
 happen in old age, in insanity, &c. I was the first who 
 remarked, with extreme care, that in certain cases the 
 external table of the cranium is not parallel to the 
 internal one. I have called the attention of anatomists 
 to all these, circumstances. What is it, then, that has 
 incited Messieurs Berard and De Mont6gre to turn 
 these facts into weapons against craniology'? Why 
 had they not the frankness to instruct their readers 
 by what means I have been enabled to remove many 
 of these difficulties^ and how I have derived advantage 
 from others ? Ought they not to have borne me 
 •testimony, that I pursued my researches with as much 
 candour as coolness ; that I considered my subject, in 
 all its aspects, with impartiality." 
 
 *' Even granting the sinus to be an insuperable 
 
THE BEAIN AND SKULL. 443 
 
 obstacle in the way of ascertaining the development 
 of the organs over which it is situated," says a sensible 
 writer in the Phrenological Journal for 1824, "" we 
 state, first, that in ordinary cases it extends only over 
 three, viz., Size, Lower Individuality, and Locality ; and, 
 secondly, we ask in what possible manner it can interfere 
 with the other thirty or thirty-one organs, the whole 
 external appearance of which it leaves as unaltered as 
 if it were a sinus in the moon ? It would, we think, 
 be quite as logical to talk of a snow-storm in Norway 
 obstructing the high road from Edinburgh to London, 
 as of a small sinus at the to]3 of the nose concealing 
 the development of Benevolence, Firmness, or Venera- 
 tion on the crown of the head." 
 
 It has always appeared to me that our opponents 
 are insincere, in pressing this objection against Phreno- 
 logy. I have come to this conclusion from their own 
 conduct. They say it is impossible to tell, with any 
 degree of accuracy, the condition of the organs behind 
 the frontal sinus. For argument sake, then, let us take 
 them on their own showing, and what do we find ? They 
 first lay down the principle, that the development in 
 this locality cannot be accurately ascertained, and then, 
 if they happen to find an instance where a Phrenologist 
 has made a mistake regarding the condition of the 
 organs here, they at once parade and trumpet it as an 
 unanswerable argument for the falsity of the entire 
 SQience. Is this honest ? On their own princijples, 
 
444 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 should they not expect mistakes to occur ? Nay, more, 
 on the principles laid down by Phrenologists them- 
 selves, they should expect mistakes to occur occasion- 
 ally regarding this particular spot. Why not honestly 
 and fairly make allowance, then, for these trifling and 
 occasional mistakes, rather than trumpet them up as 
 adverse to observations made on parts which present 
 no such obstacles ? The Phrenologist asks for nothing 
 but what he has a right to demand, — fair play. He 
 acknowledges that difficulties may sometimes arise in 
 connexion with the frontal sinus, and therefore he has 
 a right to demand allowance for occasional errors at 
 this locality ; but he neither looks for nor expects any 
 allowance to be made concerning parts where no such 
 difficulties present themselves. 
 
 After all, the difficulties connected with the frontal 
 sinus are neither very great nor very frequent. Still 
 they do sometimes occur. What then are we to d' > i 
 Are we to throw up the subject altogether on this ac- 
 count ? Would this course be consistent with good 
 sense ? Would it not be more consistent with courage, 
 and true philosophy, to apply ourselves only the more 
 rigorously, in order that we might find some means of 
 obviating the difficulty and of removing the obstruc- 
 tions which lie in our way ? It surely would, and this 
 the Phrenologists have done ; and their labours have 
 not been in vain. The pusillanimous efforts of their 
 opponents to overturn the whole system of cerebral 
 
THE BEAIN AND SKULL. 44-5 
 
 physiology by means of this sinus affair, in place of 
 alarming them in any way, have only served to urge 
 them onward in the observation of nature after the 
 manner of all real philosophers. Indeed, in this view, 
 we have a right to be obliged to Sir William Hamilton, 
 of Edinburgh, for the opposition which he gave us on 
 this head. I have taken the trouble of wading through 
 the almost interminable letters, regarding the frontal 
 sinus, which he wrote to Mr Combe and Dr Spurzheim, 
 and which are published in the 4th and oth vols, of 
 the Phrenological Journal. I must say I hardly ever 
 read so much trash, nonsense, and reckless assertion, 
 in the same bounds, in the whole course of my life. 
 Sir William Hamilton may have been well enough 
 suited for the reveries of metaphysics, but he was not 
 adapted for practical science. An American meta- 
 physician has remarked of him, that " he has not only 
 swallowed down, but digested libraries ;'' it would be 
 well for the honour of the Edinburgh University if 
 we could say that he had added, as a condiment for 
 this sort of food, a fair, careful, and honest observation 
 of nature. If he had he would not have written the 
 one-fiftieth of what he did regarding the preliminary 
 grounds on which he and Mr Combe should appear be- 
 fore an Edinburgh audience. Sir William Hamilton 
 insisted on disproving the Phrenological views regard- 
 ing the size of the frontal sinus, and the very frequent 
 parallelism of the outer and inner tables of the skull 
 at this locality, by an examination of fifty skulls be- 
 
446 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 longing to the University collection. So far so good ; 
 but how was the state of the cavity between the two 
 tables to be judged of ? By sawing it open of course. 
 Common sense would dictate this plan ; but it would 
 nob suit the anti-phrenologists. Mr Combe was to be 
 permitted to open one cavity in each of three skulls ; 
 and in regard to the remainder Sir William tells him 
 that '' every dimension, including the depth, can easily 
 be ascertained by the employment of a bit of wire." 
 " I shall send you," he continues, " a supply of such 
 probes.'^ Bless the mark ! Such a plan of settling a 
 practical scientific question ! It may suit for the chair 
 of metaphysics which was occupied by Sir William 
 Hamilton ; but it would disgrace the common sense of 
 a child. What now was Mr Combe to do ? Of course 
 he could not agree to such ridiculous preliminaries, 
 and still he was anxious not to miss the opportunity 
 of discomfiting the metaphysical professor. He then 
 offers a great deal too much, — he proposes to accept the 
 terms if he be allowed to open a dozen of the skulls 
 tahen at random from the collection of fifty in the^ 
 University Museum. Even this is objected to by 
 Professor Jamieson. What now ? There is a large 
 collection of skulls from all parts of the world in the 
 Phrenological Museum, in Clyde Street Hall, Edinburgh. 
 Is Mr Combe afraid to allow these to be seen ? Cer- 
 tainly not. The Phrenologist knows he has truth on 
 his side, and he never quibbles. Mr Combe writes to 
 
THE BEAIN AND SKULL. 447 
 
 Sir William Hamilton as follows, — " If you will honour 
 me with your attendance at Clyde Street Hall, on 
 Friday morning at ten, I shall saw open as many skulls 
 as you may select^ carry them to the Assembly Eooms, 
 and abide by the evidence they afford, both as to parallel- 
 ism and the frontal snius." Nothing could be fairer 
 than this ; and still Sir William Hamilton rejects it. 
 Such is a specimen of the way Phrenology has invariably 
 been treated by its theorising opponents. They are 
 afraid to look it fair in the face. When I look over 
 Sir William Hamilton's quibbling correspondence, I 
 am surprised that Mr Combe and Dr Spurzheim were 
 able to keep their temper with him. I cannot, how- 
 ever, undertake to give even a digest of their corres- 
 pondence here, as it occupies no less than one hundred 
 pages of an octavo volume. In concluding this point, 
 I must ask my readers what they would think of an 
 anatomist who, in order to ascertain the size, shape, 
 proportions, direction, and other peculiarities of the 
 cavities of the chest, skull, and ear, would take Sir 
 William Hamilton's grand scienti&c plan of sticking 
 pins into them, in place of opening them up to view ] 
 Would they not at once vote him a strait-waist- 
 coat? To be sure they would. But wonderful to re- 
 late, the ravings of a madman would pass for sound 
 sense against Phrenology, if emanating from a Pro- 
 fessor's chair 1 
 
 The skull is covered by the skin, and one or two 
 
448 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 muscles. These muscles are so thin that they cannot 
 mislead the most careless observer as to the size and 
 shape of the subjacent organs in any part except in 
 front of the ear, where the thick temporal muscles are 
 located. The exact position and thickness of these 
 temporal muscles may easily be ascertained, however, 
 by placing the finger on the part where they lie, during 
 the time that the individual moves the under jaw as in 
 the process of mastication. 
 
 When the brain is first capable of being examined 
 after its formation, it is found to be covered merely 
 by a membranous sack or bag. In the process of time 
 isolated pieces of bone are deposited in this membran- 
 ous bag or covering. These bony deposits gradually 
 increase in size by the addition of new material, until 
 they ultimately meet, and become firmly united so as 
 to form one solid case of bone inclosing the brain. 
 This union, however, of the bones of the skull does not 
 take place until a considerable time after birth. 
 This is a matter of great importance, because it teaches 
 us that the size and shape of the brain are not deter- 
 mined by the state of the skull ; but that the size and 
 shape of the skull are governed and determined by the 
 state of the brain. Although people in general are 
 not aware of this fact, which was known even by Galen, 
 still a little reflection might have enabled them to sus- 
 pect it. It would be absurd to suppose that an im- 
 portant organ like the brain could be limited in its 
 
THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 449 
 
 growth by a covering which is merely intended for its 
 protection. This would be placing the higher organ 
 at the mercy of the lower. As Gall has observed, " it 
 is reasonable to believe that the brain, being an object 
 more essential to the end of nature than its osseous 
 envelope, this last ought to yield to the developments 
 of the former, as everything demonstrates that it does.' 
 Could any person imagine that the size and shape of 
 the body are determined by the state of the skin which 
 surrounds and protects it ? Why, then, should the 
 brain be under a different law of development ? 
 Perhaps I may be told the skin is soft and easily 
 changed, whereas the skull is hard and difficult of 
 alteration. If so, I shall explain the matter. 
 
 There are two processes continually going on in the 
 animal economy. The one is performed by the ab- 
 sorbing, and the other by the secreting, vessels. The 
 absorbent vessels are constantly engaged in absorbing, 
 sucking up, or removing those particles of matter 
 which have become useless or served their purposes in 
 the system ; whilst the secreting, or secerning, vessels 
 are as regularly engaged in depositing, or laying down, 
 new matter in the place of that which has been re- 
 moved. By the never-ceasing action of these two 
 sets of vessels, every part of our body is being con- 
 tinually changed. If both sets of vessels are equally 
 active, the size of the body will remain unchanged, but 
 
 if one predominates over the other, in action, its effects 
 
 2f 
 
450 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 will soon become visible. Witness, for example, the 
 rapid wasting which occurs, through absorption, during 
 sickness, and the equally rapid deposition which takes 
 place, through secretion, on the return of health. Now, 
 these vessels have the power of acting with perfect 
 facility on every part of the body. They can act on 
 the solid bone as well as on the tender brain. All 
 substances are alike to them. In some tissues, the 
 action, though not more certain, is more rapid than in 
 others. This difference, however, does not depend 
 upon the density or sponginess of the substance to be 
 acted on, but upon the number of vessels which the 
 part contains. If the part be highly vitalised by an 
 abundant supply of vessels, the action is rapid ; if the 
 contrary^ the action is slow. 
 
 That absorption and deposition go on in bone as well 
 as in any other part of the body, was long since proved 
 by the experiments of Duhamel. He fed a number of 
 animals on food containing madder. The colouring 
 matter of the madder bids defiance to the powers of the 
 stomach, is taken up with the nutritive portions of the 
 food into the circulation of the blood, and is deposited 
 by the exhalant vessels in the texture of the bones. 
 When sawn across, the bones are found to be com- 
 pletely coloured by the madder. This proves the ac- 
 tion of the secreting vessels. After feeding fowls on 
 food containing madder, for a certain time, Duhamel 
 left off the madder, and killed the fowls from time to 
 
THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 451 
 
 time, and as the period advanced from the use of the 
 madder, he found the colour in the bones gradually 
 becoming fainter and fainter, till it entirely disappeared. 
 And this demonstrated the existence of absorbents. So 
 that we see the bones of the skull are subject to the 
 same laws of deposition and absorption as the rest of 
 the body. Not only so, but inasmuch as their office is 
 very inferior to that of tlieir noble occupant, the brain, 
 they are entirely subservient to it in their proportions 
 and development, in accordance with the law of the con- 
 stitution that the lower organs subserve the purposes 
 of those which are more essential to vitality. Many 
 fact^ conspire to prove this law. In obedience to it, 
 the hardest bone will absorb under the pressure of a 
 blood-vessel which is essential to hfe. The hard bone 
 yields rather than the soft vessel. " The effect of 
 aneurismal enlargements of the artery to cause absorp- 
 tion of the neighbouring tissues, upon which the 
 tumour presses, is very curious. We know that even 
 the solid bone," says Sir Thomas Watson, '^is removed, 
 worn away, as it were, before an advancing aneurism.'^ 
 — {Medical Gazette^ February 1842.) 
 
 " To conceive," writes Professor Byroe, of America, 
 ^' such a tender and delicate substance as the brain 
 forcing out such a hard and durable material as the 
 skull at a mature age, in particular places, is almost 
 argument enough to upset this anagram of a science 
 (Phrenology) in its first commencement." Not so fast. 
 
452 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 Professor Byrne. Before trying to upset Phrenology, 
 you would require to make yourself acquainted with 
 the laws of the human constitution, and with some of 
 the commonest facts which occur before your eyes. 
 You would not then be so likely to exhibit your con- 
 summate ignorance. As the occupant of a Professor's 
 chair, you may be ignorant of the fact, which is known 
 to nearly every man out of the chair, that the ^^ delicate 
 substance of the brain," when filled with water, can 
 ''force out such a hard and durable material as the 
 skull " to more than double its size in cases of hydro- 
 cephalus. On the principles of this mighty opponent 
 of Phrenology, the crabs, lobsters, tortoises, and all 
 animals which carry their bones outside the soft 
 textures, have a poor chance of increasing in growth. 
 When their bones once become hard, there is an end 
 to development ! Verily ! it would provoke a saint to 
 have to deal with such opponents, who are ignorant of 
 the very first principles of nature. In order that these 
 parties may learn something of the operations of nature, 
 I invite their attention to the following cases, which 
 prove that the hardest bone will yield even to the 
 pressure of a blood-vessel, in obedience to the law of 
 the economy that the inferior organs subserve the 
 purposes of the superior. " A porter, 38 years of age, 
 died in the hospital at Sienna, in consequence of a sus- 
 pected affection of the spinal cord. On dissection, 
 an aneurismal tumour, of the size of a hen's egg, was 
 
THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 453 
 
 found upon the posterior surface of the arch of the 
 aorta. The bodies of the third and fourth dorsal 
 vertebrae had been quite absorbed, so that the swelhng 
 lay in the spinal canal." — {Medico-Chirurgical Review, 
 for April 1838, p. 568.) Here the solid bones of the 
 back are absorbed to give room to a tender blood- 
 vessel. " When we were on the subject of aneurism,'^ 
 says Professor Samuel Cooper, ^' I exhibited to you a 
 specimen of aortic aneurism, which had occasioned 
 such an absorption of the lateral part of the spine, that 
 the medulla spinalis was exposed." — (Ryan's Medical 
 and Surgical Journal, June 1834.) At the meeting of 
 the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society, London, 
 in February 1861, Mr Toynbee laid before the mem- 
 bers the morbid specimens of eighteen cases, in which, 
 on dissection, he found that a soft molluscous growth 
 inside the ear had caused the absorption of the petrous 
 portion of the temporal bone. — {Medical Gazette, March 
 1861.) Mr Toynbee says there was no caries of the 
 bone, no inflammation of any kind ; that they were all 
 cases of simple absorption. Now, these are very im- 
 portant cases, because they prove the possibility of a 
 soft mass causing absorption in a bone which is not 
 only the hardest in the skull, but the hardest in the 
 whole body. It is called '' petrous " from its resem- 
 blance to the density of a stone. At a meeting of the 
 Dublin Pathological Society, "Professor Banks ex- 
 hibited a huge aneurismal tumour, springing from the 
 
454 PHEENOLOGY. 
 
 arch of the aorta, which by its pressure had completely 
 obliterated the sternum, and dislocated both sterno- 
 clavicular articulations.'^ — (Lancet for Jan. 30, 1864.) 
 I have a patient under my care at present whose case 
 is perfectly identical with that of Professor Banks. 
 But I think I need not multiply examples, as enough 
 have been produced to prove that nature knows nothing 
 of hardness, and that any bone in the body can make 
 way for the accommodation of a more important or 
 more vital organ. 
 
 ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BRAIN. 
 
 The first step, as far as the brain itself is concerned, 
 towards the discovery of a person's character and 
 abilities, is to ascertain the absolute or general size of 
 the head ; or, in other words, the size of the whole 
 brain. If the head measures only twelve or thirteen 
 inches in circumference, and only eight or nine inches 
 over the top, from the root of the nose to the occipital 
 spine at the nape of the neck, it is invariably idiotic. 
 No exception to this rule has ever been produced. 
 Want of size is invariably a source of idiocy ; but it is 
 not by any means the only source of idiocy. The law 
 holds good on the one side, though not on the other. 
 A head of the dimensions referred to must of necessity 
 be idiotic ; but every idiot must not of necessity have 
 
ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BEAIN. 455 
 
 a small head, because there are many reasons besides 
 want of size for a head 
 being idiotic. When 
 the circumference am- 
 ounts to twenty-two 
 inches, and the line over 
 the top to fourteen 
 inches, the head is con- 
 sidered to be the stand- 
 ard or average size in 
 the male ; and any- 
 thing beyond or below iv.-the idiot. 
 this will make the head large or small, as the case may 
 be ; so that w^e have every variety from the idiotic up 
 
 -NAPOLEON. 
 
 VI, — THE HINDOO. 
 
 to the largest size. A mere glance at Plates 4, 5, 
 and 6, which represent the casts of the idiot, Napoleon 
 and the Hindoo, will be quite sufficient to impress any 
 
456 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 person with an idea of the importance of size. In 
 fact, it is difficult to imagine that any rational being 
 could look at these plates without feeling the neces- 
 sity of practically examining into the truth of Phren- 
 ology. A mere child would recognise the difference 
 in these cases. There is not one of my readers who 
 will mistake the idiot for a man of genius, or 
 Napoleon for an idiot. This shows that to a certain 
 extent all are practical Phrenologists. I defy any man 
 of sense to believe that the plates of the idiot and 
 Hindoo exhibit the same power of intellect as that of 
 Napoleon. If he were ever so willing, he could not 
 believe it . It is only wild theorists like Dugald Stewart, 
 Lord Jeffrey, and Dr Eoget, that could reason them- 
 selves so far out of their senses as to imagine such a 
 thing possible. The idea could never be entertained 
 by any man under the guidance of common sense. 
 In the cast of the idiot, there is defect in proportion 
 as well as want of size ; but the fault of the Hindoo is 
 chiefly in size. The proportion of the different regions 
 in the Hindoo cast is so even as to make a nicely 
 balanced head. Its great fault is want of absolute size, 
 and consequently want of general force of character. 
 Hence the cause of the subjugation of the Hindoos 
 by the British. This plate (6) presents a fair specimen 
 of the average Hindoo skull, and it is plain to be seen 
 that the whole head is not much larger than Napoleon's 
 forehead. A nation of this description has no chance 
 
ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BRAIIS'. 457 
 
 of competing with the British. I may mention here 
 that the plates of Napoleon, the Hindoo, Scott, Carson, 
 Sheridan, Linn, Templeton, and the Carib, are all en- 
 graved from photographs which were very carefully 
 taken, by Mr Mack of Coleraine, from busts placed in a 
 line before the camera in such a manner as to preserve 
 their exact relative size. For this reason, though 
 smaller than natural, they can all well be compared 
 with each other on points having reference to size. 
 They are all in natural proportion to each other. The 
 plate of Napoleon is not perfect any farther back than 
 the ear and the slight elevation on the top of the fore- 
 head straight above the ear. 
 
 Having estimated the general, or absolute size of the 
 head, we must next proceed to the observation of its 
 relative proportions, — that is, we must ascertain the 
 relation in size which the anterior, middle, and pos- 
 terior parts of the head bear to each other. This is a 
 point of overwhelming importance, as it is on the rela- 
 tive development which these three parts bear to each 
 other that the predominance of the intellectual, moral, 
 or animal portion of the character depends. Two men 
 may have the same quantity of brain, by weight or 
 measure, and yet possess very different, even opposite, 
 characters, in consequence of an extra development of 
 one or other of the regions referred to. For this 
 reason, it is very necessary to make a close examina- 
 tion and comparison of the different regions. Those 
 
458 PHUENOLOGY. 
 
 who wish to become properly acquainted with this 
 part of my subject, would do well to procure one of the 
 ordinary marked Phrenological busts, and then paint 
 the regions of the animal propensities, the moral sen- 
 timents, the observing faculties, and the reflecting 
 organs of different colours. They will then be able to 
 see the regions at a glance ; and by a little practice 
 they will gain considerable facility in the observation 
 of real heads or casts. It is hardly possible for the 
 beginner to become acquainted with either the regions 
 or individual organs without having recourse to the 
 use of the bust. Each region must be examined as to 
 its length, breadth, and depth. An inspection in front, 
 above, behind, or on one side, may show the breadth 
 and depth, and the length is to be judged of by the dis- 
 tance from the surface of the brain to the root of the 
 organs at the medulla oblongata, which lies (See Plate 
 2) in the centre of the head opposite the orifice of 
 the ear. 
 
 The anterior lobe of the brain is the seat of the in- 
 tellectual organs. Its size may be estimated by draw- 
 ing a line from the organ of Constructiveness, in front 
 of the ear, to the organ of Benevolence , at the top of 
 the forehead, after the fashion which I have adopted 
 in the plates of Scott, Templeton, and the Carib. All 
 that lies in front of this line is included in the intel- 
 lectual organs. We should measure the height from 
 the root of the nose ; the breadth from side to side ; 
 
ABSOLUTE AND EELATIVE SIZE OF BHAIN. 459 
 
 and the length from the front to the ear. We can 
 form a good idea of this region by comparing the plates 
 of Sir Walter Scott and Napoleon with those of the 
 
 VII. — SIR WALTER SCOTT. 
 
 VIII. — TEMPLETON. 
 
 idiot, the New Hollander, and the Carib. The differ- 
 ence of development in these cases is so very marked 
 that I need not dwell on it, as it must be perceptible 
 to the commonest observer. Again, the intellectual 
 
 IX. — THE CARIB. 
 
 X. — NEW HOLLANDER. 
 
 organs are divided into the organs of perception and 
 the organs of reflection. The organs of perception, or 
 observation, which take cognisance of all that exists 
 
460 rHRENOLOGY. 
 
 around us in the world, lie in the lowest region of this 
 part of the brain, or that part which corresponds with 
 the eyebrows ; and the organs of reflection, or reason- 
 ing, occupy the space which intervenes between the 
 eyebrows and the line I have drawn on the forehead 
 of Scott, Templeton, and the Carib. It is not only im- 
 portant to observe the size of the whole intellectual 
 region, but it is also essential that we estimate the 
 relation which the observing and reflecting portions of 
 this region bear to each other. All these points must 
 be attended to. In some instances, the upper region, 
 containing the reflecting organs, is most prominent in 
 development and juts out beyond the eyebrows; in 
 other cases the two regions are nearly alike, and the 
 forehead is perpendicular ; whilst in a third class, the 
 eyebrows project the farthest forward. Some might 
 imagine that it would be better to have the upper, or 
 reflecting, region in excess of development, but this is 
 a great mistake. Parties with that sort of development 
 are generally dreamy and prosy and devoid of practical 
 ability ; whereas those of the opposite extreme are 
 practical and sharp but very shallow. I do not fancy 
 an extreme on either side, nor yet a development that 
 is quite perpendicular. When we remember that nearly 
 all the knowledge we possess is obtained through obser- 
 vation, we must see how necessary it is to have the 
 lower region of the forehead, or the region of observa- 
 tion, very largely developed. I could hardly imagine a 
 
ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BRAIN. 461 
 
 man of great ability to be defective in this part. The 
 larger it is, the greater the ability for the acquisition 
 of knowledge. The region of the eyebrows can hardly 
 be too much developed. Still, as one part cannot do 
 the duty of another, a large brow, such as we see in 
 the plate of the Carib, will not do without a good 
 development of the upper region also. There should 
 be great capacity for taking in knowledge, through the 
 lower region, and then plenty of power for making use 
 of that knowledge through a full development of the 
 upper, or reflecting, region. Both regions ought to be 
 well developed, but the lower should be slightly in 
 excess of the upper. The plates of Templeton, the 
 New Hollander, and the Carib show a tolerably large 
 development of the lower region, with a very shallow, 
 scanty, and n^iiserable development of the upper. This 
 conformation gives quickness of observation with- 
 out the power of deep reflection. But the plate of 
 Napoleon exhibits a beautiful development of both 
 regions — the lower in the nicest possible excess of the 
 upper — and this combines immense practical ability 
 with great depth of thought. Napoleon's forehead is 
 really beautiful, as far as the powers of observation 
 and reflection are concerned, in the eyes of a Phreno- 
 logist. In those cases where the forehead recedes very 
 much, we must be careful to observe the exact cause 
 of it, otherwise we are certain to fall into great mis- 
 takes. If the brows project far in front of the eyes, the 
 
462 
 
 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 forehead can afford to recede, and yet possess sufficient 
 reflecting power, provided the upper region also passes 
 the perpendicular of the eyes ; but if the forehead 
 recedes in such a way as to place the upper region 
 behind the perpendicular of the eyes, as may be seen 
 in the plates of the Carib, the New Hollander, and the 
 idiot, then the reflecting portion is decidedly defective. 
 The posterior lobes of the brain, and the cerebellum, 
 are the seat of the animal propensities. The size of 
 this part may be judged of by a line passing through 
 the head from ear to ear. The space which lies behind 
 this line is occupied by the animal propensities. The 
 organs included in this division also extend upwards 
 and forwards over the ear. Their situation is toler- 
 ably well marked out by the lower circular lines on the 
 plates of Scott, Templeton, and the Carib. This region 
 
 ':;iiiiillll\l!i''.h;i\ 
 
 M^.. 
 
 XT. — LINN. XII.— EEV. DR CARSON. 
 
 is largely developed in Sheridan, Templeton, the Carib, 
 and the New Hollander ; and for its side view, their 
 plates may be contrasted with that of Sir Walter 
 Scott. It is also very important to examine this region 
 as to its breadth, which can be done by an inspec- 
 
ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BRAIN. 163 
 
 tion above and behind. For this purpose, I have 
 drawn a line from each organ of CausaHty in the 
 forehead, right over the top of the head backwards, in 
 the plates of Linn the parricide, and my father. The 
 space outside these lines will show the breadth of the 
 
 XIII. — LINX, 
 
 XIV. — EEV. DR CARSON. 
 
 animal propensities. The top view of Dr Carson^s 
 head exhibits considerable length from before back- 
 wards in proportion to breadth ; and the back view 
 will show that the head was high in proportion to its 
 breadth ; or, in other words, that the reflecting and 
 moral regions overbalanced the animal propensities ; 
 whereas, the reverse of all this holds good in the case 
 of Linn. The posterior view of Linn's head exhibits 
 immense brain substance between the ears, and the 
 superior aspect shows the portion outside the lines to 
 be so largely developed that the brain, which is alto- 
 gether very large, is rounded like a bullet. 
 
464 
 
 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 The top of the head is the seat of the moral and 
 imaginative faculties. The size of this region may be 
 known by drawing a line from Causality in the fore- 
 head round Cautiousness on the side of the head, as 
 may be seen on the plates of Scott, Templeton, and 
 the Carib. When the brain is well developed, and 
 completely filled out, above the level of this line, as in 
 the case of Scott, the sentiments will be strong in pro- 
 portion ; but when this region is flat, shallow, or 
 narrow and contracted, as in the case of Templeton, 
 the Carib, or New Hollander, the moral and imagina- 
 tive faculties will be exceedingly weak. 
 
 As the power of a part bears a direct proportion to 
 its size, other things being equal, the necessity of 
 attending to the relative development of the different 
 regions which I have been describing must be abun- 
 dantly evident. A glance 
 
 at the plate of Sheridan's 
 head will show that all 
 the regions are so nearly 
 balanced that his character 
 must have been influenced 
 very much by education, 
 moral training, and the 
 description of society m 
 which he might happen to be placed for the time 
 being. He was nearly equally disposed in all direc- 
 tions, and hence was liable to go with the tide of his 
 
 I 
 
 XV. — SHEEIDAN. 
 
ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BEAIN. 4:65 
 
 circumstances. This is not by any means a desirable 
 
 character. In the plate of the Carib, we see that the 
 
 space above the black line, which is occupied by the 
 
 moral sentiments, is exceedingly small in comparison 
 
 with the great mass of animal region below the line. 
 
 It is even worse in the cast than it looks in the plate, 
 
 as a front view demonstrates great contraction of the 
 
 moral organs. The animal propensities predominate 
 
 here to a great extent over the moral faculties. The 
 
 observing organs, which occupy the eyebrows, are in 
 
 good development, but the reflecting region is most 
 
 miserable. This is a bad type of head in every 
 
 respect. The moral faculties are extremely deficient, 
 
 the reflecting organs are next to nothing, and the 
 
 animal propensities overtop everything else. The 
 
 New Hollander also belongs to a very low class. The 
 
 reflecting region is so narrow, low, and far behind the 
 
 eyes, that it could hardly be any worse than it is. The 
 
 reasoning powers are almost idiotic. The Hindoo 
 
 (Plate 6) presents a great contrast to the Carib and 
 
 New Hollander. It is considerably smaller than 
 
 either of them, but it is much more elevated in its 
 
 type. There is a great want of force or general power, 
 
 owing to want of general size ; but the balance of 
 
 the regions is in beautiful proportion. Leaving size 
 
 out of the question, this is a remarkably nice head. 
 
 The observing and reflecting organs are well developed, 
 
 the moral region is well thrown up and rounded, and 
 
 2 G 
 
466 
 
 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 rises gradually from before backwards, so as to present 
 the greatest elevation at the seat of Conscientiousness 
 and Firmness, which lies at the top of the head directly 
 above the ear. This sort of development in the moral 
 region is highly important. In short, the profile of 
 this head is truly beautiful, if it had sufficient size to 
 
 XV^I. — VITELLIUS. 
 
 give general power or force of character. The head of 
 Vitellius, the Eoman Emperor, is a regular contrast to 
 the Hindoo. He had great absolute size, immense 
 breadth between the ears, with a top as flat as a 
 flounder. There was great force of character, but the 
 moral faculties were wretched in the extreme. His 
 
ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BRAIN. 467 
 
 head was so broad, so low, and so flat, that his appear- 
 ance is disgusting in the eyes of a Phrenologist. He 
 was a regular monster of iniquity^ and this character is 
 in direct conformity with his Phrenological develop- 
 ment. Templeton's head (Plate 8) is also one of a very 
 bad type. It is even a dreadful specimen of the class 
 of murderers to which he belonged. The observing 
 region is fair enough, but the reflecting and moral 
 regions are extremely deficient when compared with 
 the animal, as may be seen by the position of the dark 
 lines. The whole animal region is very large in every 
 position in which it can be viewed, whilst the head is 
 low and the top nearly quite flat. It is even worse in 
 the bust than it looks in the plate. In place of rising, 
 like the Hindoo's, from before backwards in the upper 
 or moral region, it is as high at the top of the fore- 
 head as it is at the crown of the head. This is an 
 extremely bad head, whether we consider the regions 
 or the individual organs composing the regions. The 
 head of Sir Walter Scott (Plate 7) is so peculiar that I 
 imagine it is quite unique. At least, I have never 
 seen one like it. It was so high that it would almost 
 reach the top of his hat. This head alone ought to be 
 sufficient to attract universal attention to Phrenology. 
 It is in perfect accordance with his extraordinary 
 powers as a novelist. His works and his head combine 
 to prove that he was the prince of novelists ; his 
 writings and his head are both unique ; no person ever 
 
468 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 equalled him in his own province ; no man ever saw a 
 head exactly similar to his ; — what facts for Phren- 
 ology ! 
 
 In examining an organ or region, we must not in all 
 cases expect an elevation, or bump as it is called by 
 way of ridicule, as such a form of development oc- 
 curs only where one organ predominates greatly over 
 those in its vicinity. Such a thing may sometimes 
 be found, but in general we find a rounded elevation 
 of a considerable space arising from a full develop- 
 ment of several organs in contiguity. Before attempt- 
 ing to give an opinion of a person's character, every 
 organ in the head must be examined, in order to get 
 a fair estimate of the power of each individual faculty, 
 as well as of the effect which one organ is capable of 
 producing on another. Each organ has its own pecu- 
 liar sphere of action, but besides this it may some- 
 times act in unison with, or contrary to, other organs, 
 as circumstances may arise. The largest organs will 
 usually take the lead of others, and form a prominent 
 outline in the character. Our opponents pretend 
 that the balancing of antagonistic organs is a fatal 
 objection to the truth of the science, whereas they 
 should just look upon it as an evidence of the correct- 
 ness and beauty of the science. Every person who 
 is in the least degree conversant with the philosophy 
 of man, must be aware that there are conflicting ele- 
 ments in his nature somewhere ; and if Phrenology 
 
ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BRAIN. 469 
 
 did not admit them it would only prove itself untrue. 
 It would then be as inconsistent with nature as is 
 the philosophy of those creatures who raise such 
 ignorant objections against it. Moreover, a judicious 
 Phrenologist will always weigh the matter well, and 
 balance the organs, in his own mind, before telling 
 the character ; and when he has given his opinion he 
 will not ask to get out of it in any way. To estimate 
 the exact power of each organ, and the effect which 
 one has upon another, is the most difficult part of 
 the science, and there are not very many people suffi- 
 ciently instructed in it, nor are all men able to learn 
 it. It requires a particular development of brain 
 to make a good Phrenologist. The person must have 
 the power of holding up, at the same time, every 
 organ of the, head to his own mind's eye, in order to 
 balance them all, and estimate their several powers 
 separately and conjointly, in unison and antagonism. 
 In addition to all this, he must have a thorough apti- 
 tude for the observation and study of human nature 
 as it is to be seen in daily life. It is not such an easy 
 matter to become a good practical Phrenologist as 
 some parties imagine. I have not the slightest doubt 
 that grievous mistakes in the development of char- 
 acter are occasionally made ; but it should never be 
 forgotten that it is directly contrary to reason and 
 good sense to set down the mistakes and blunders of 
 either ignorant or incompetent observers as argu- 
 
470 PHRENOLOGY. 
 
 ments against the truth of any science. If the prin- 
 ciples of our opponents were adopted, we would 
 require to obtain inspired, and consequently, infallible 
 observers before we would be in a position to adopt 
 or reject any subject connected with natural science. 
 There is no end to the inconsistencies of those who 
 are determined to oppose truth. Phrenology is in a 
 position to stand as rigid a scrutiny as any other 
 science, based on human observation, that ever existed. 
 No true philosopher would ask for more than this. 
 If he did so, he would place himself beyond the pale 
 of common sense. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 BALLANTYNE AND COMPANY, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. 
 
Second Edition, 3s. 6d. 
 
 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 18 MURDER LEGALIZED. 
 
 BY JAMES C. L. CARSON, M.D, 
 
 London : Houlston & Wright. 
 
 REVIEWS. 
 <'Dr Carson with great propriety lays stress on the uncertainty of 
 Circumstantial Evidence, of which he cites many never-to-be-forgotten 
 illustrations. The proofs, as the reader of Dr Carson's book may see, 
 are frightfully abundant, that circumstances may be misinterpreted 
 and that their testimony may be insufiEicient, even when no one in 
 Court doubts its meaniDg. This we admit to be in itself a very power- 
 ful argument. . . . All who know his previous productions will be 
 prepared to find in this much keenness of perception and directness in 
 stating propositions, as well as acumen and force in defending them. 
 In all these characteristics, Dr Carson is very like his eminent father, 
 and our readers need know no more than this to induce them to give 
 their attention to this or any other production from his pen." — The 
 Freeman, London. 
 
 "Dr Carson's work deserves a careful perusal because of the import- 
 ance of the subject and the ability with which it is treated." — Dewy 
 Sentinel. 
 
 "Everything written by the learned and excellent author bears the 
 impress of ability, reflective thought, and of extensive information." — 
 Derry Standard. 
 
 "To those who desire to know all that can be said against Capital 
 Punishment, we recommend this pungent volume. It ought to be 
 read by all the friends of humanity, order, and religion. The chapter 
 on the Scriptural Argument is especially able and trenchant. The 
 work is written by one who evidently writes from earnest conviction, 
 and with a sincere regard for the authority of Scripture. Eifty-two 
 pages are taken up with an exhaustive and able criticism of the Sabbath 
 question, and this digression from the subject of the work is of immense 
 value Dr Carson's style is eminently lucid. He is as clear, concise, 
 and forcible as his able father. When we find it impossible to agree 
 with him, we are amazed at his forcible manner of expression. The 
 opponents of Capital Punishment will do well to circulate this well got- 
 up book by hundreds of thousands. We predict it will pass through 
 many editions."— ^ai^itsi Messenger, London. 
 
 "The author of a book with this strong title, to make good his as- 
 sertion, must be a man of singular ability, and have very decided views 
 on the subject. Dr Carson did not essay a task too difiicult for his ex- 
 alted talents as a convincing writer on any subject to which lie brings 
 the force of his powerful intellect. He takes up one after another all 
 the texts of Scripture which have been relied on as sanctioning the 
 punishment of death, and with the hand of a master, while shirking no 
 
responsibility as a believer in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, 
 he shows with the clearness of a sunbeam, that the genius and spirit of 
 Christianity are totally opposed to the death penalty. He, however, 
 does not content himself with the most luminous exposition of the 
 meaning of the exact words used by the sacred writers ; but with all the 
 acumen of the most accomplished logician, he takes up the premises 
 relied on by his opponents, and proves to a demonstration that the 
 conclusions to which they arrive have been arrived at by wilfully ignoring 
 facts, or by importing matters into the discussion which have nothing 
 in the world to do with it." — Ballymoney Free Press. 
 
 "In the chapter on the Scriptural Argument, he assails the stronghold 
 which his opponents regard as impregnable, and drives them before him 
 step by step until they have not a foot to stand upon. He gives quarter 
 to none, and never asks it. He has not only the courage to challenge 
 the best men in the rival camp, but he has the ability to vanquish them, 
 and tell them the reason why. The question of Capital Punishment is 
 one of extraordinary difl&culty ; but it has never yet had one who 
 grappled with it so thoroughly as Dr Carson. Not the least of the great 
 merits of his book consists in this, that it is plain fact and cogent argu- 
 ment from beginning to end— so lucidly stated, in clear language, that 
 the conclusions of the writer at once appeal to, and convince, the under- 
 standing of the reader." — Coleraine Chronicle. 
 
 "We commend this work to the careful perusal of the philanthropist 
 and the statesman. It embodies a large amount of powerful reasoning, 
 and all but exhausts the subject." — Western Star, Ballinasloe. 
 
 "One of their great advocates, Dr Carson, has published an able and 
 thoughtful work on the subject." — Belfast News-Letter. 
 
 "We feel sure that this work cannot fail to serve the noble end for 
 which it was written." — Tyrone Constitution. 
 
 "If our readers desire a fair, candid, shrewd, comprehensive, and 
 scriptural investigation of this subject, they can have it in Dr Carson's 
 book. If this does not oreatly assist in making some alteration in our 
 criminal arrangements, it certainly ought to. It is full of evidence and 
 argument unanswerable. Dr Carson is no superficial writer, no enthu- 
 siast, no novice ; he turns his attention to one of the greatest national 
 and social subjects, and pursues his argument with an amount of ability, 
 patience, and research, which reflect the highest credit upon the mind 
 and motive of the author." — The Earthen Vessel, London. 
 
 "If the enemy's works are not carried by storm, it is not for want of 
 the most brilliant powers of logic and ratiocination on the part of Dr 
 Carson. We sincerely thank him for this manly, logical, and outspoken 
 defence of what he sincerely believes to be the truth." — The Gospel 
 Herald, London. 
 
 "Dr Carson has subjected the question to a most exhaustive treat- 
 ment. No important point is overlooked : but the chapter on the 
 Scriptural Argument is by far the most important of all. We commend 
 Dr Carson's admirable work to all who desire to master this great public 
 question. It is certainly the ablest defence of the abolition of Capital 
 Punishment that has yet been published. We can give no higher praise, 
 and to give less would be unjust." — Primitive Church Magazine, 
 London. 
 
Second Edition, 3s. 6d. 
 
 THE FORM OF THE HORSE, 
 
 AS IT LIES OPEN TO THE INSPECTION OF THE ORDINARY 
 OBSERVER. 
 
 BY JAMES C. L. CARSON, M.D. 
 SiMPKiN, Marshall, & Co., London; Menzies, Edinburgh. 
 
 REVIEWS. 
 
 " This work is evidently written by one practically conversant with 
 the subject upon which he treats, and he records his knowledge, not 
 'because he has to say something,' but really 'because he has some- 
 thing to say.' He gives very judicious and explicit suggestions by 
 which a purchaser may be guided in the selection of a horse, and in 
 reference to every structural point of the animal." — Saunders' News- 
 Letter, Dublin. 
 
 "It is seldom that authors understate the qualities of their own la- 
 bours, and yet this error of delicacy has been committed by Dr Carson 
 when selecting the title of his book. We have no hesitation in com- 
 mending it to universal acceptance as one of the very best manuals of 
 useful knowledge in the department to which it belongs." — Londonderry 
 Standard. 
 
 "To breeders especially do we strongly recommend a perusal of his 
 hints. These are most valuable upon every point on which this class of 
 readers would like to be informed. There is a degeneracy in the breed 
 of Irish horses of late years, which attention to the directions given in 
 this work would completely recover." — Dublin Evening Packet. 
 
 " Our knowledge of horse-flesh is too limited to enable us to describe 
 this volume as it deserves, for the title would hardly lead one to suppose 
 that Dr Carson was giving a treatise on the horse, his management, 
 health, and breeding, besides the animal's description; yet he has done 
 so, and in a most pleasing manner too." — The Bookseller, London. 
 
 "Its author is a scholar, a man of science, a perspicuous writer, a 
 sound reasoner, and a shrewd observer." — The Morning Advertiser, 
 London. 
 
2 
 
 ' ' We have often wondered that a book of this kind has not been pre- 
 viously written. It is exactly what we consider the heau ideal of a work 
 on this subject. There is not a line in it which the most simple man 
 cannot understand, or which any but a very profound man could have 
 written. The unpretending pages which Dr Carson has here given to 
 the world are the fruit of a vast amount of reading, research, and obser- 
 vation." — Dublin University Magazine. 
 
 *' A work of great merit. Practical knowledge of every part treated 
 characterises the easy popular style in which the subjects are handled. 
 He discusses the subject in a very different manner to any other modern 
 English author. He is so far in advance of long-prevailing teaching that 
 we recommend his views as worthy of the attention of veterinary prac- 
 titioners. Not only do we hail the work before us as a useful manual 
 for popular reading, but we should be glad to see it in the hands of 
 veterinary students, that they might avail themselves, in practice, of 
 the sound precepts it inculcates." — Edinburgh Veterinary Review^ July 
 1861. 
 
 '' Dr Carson conclusively establishes that so far back as March 1848 
 he published in the Londonderry Standard, that in the progression of 
 the horse the heel is laid first to the ground. This, the substance of Mr 
 Lupton's paper in March 1858, is a proposition which Dr Carson rightly 
 claims to have first propounded. Dr Carson's book is one of the soundest, 
 clearest, and most useful we have ever perused. It should be read and 
 inwardly digested by every one interested in the management of horses." 
 ■^Edinburgh Veterinary Review, February 1862. 
 
 "Many of our modern writers are meagre and inaccurate when con- 
 trasted with the Earl of Pembroke ; and this is indeed the case with all, 
 one alone excepted, who have written on this subject. Dr Carson has 
 brought to bear on his labours a well-trained mind, a knowledge of phy- 
 siology, the aptitude for horsemanship peculiar to many Saxons and 
 Celts, and an ardent love of his subject. It is not to be wondered at, 
 then, if he is a good representative in the 19th century of that class of 
 men whose type in the 18th was the noble earl just mentioned." — The 
 Scottish Farmer. 
 
 *' It is a book which should be attentively studied and carefully kept 
 for reference." — Kilkenny Moderator. 
 
 " There are few topics upon which practical information is more neces- 
 sary ; and Dr Carson offers valuable suggestions to guide a purchaser in 
 the selection of a horse." — Dublin Evening Post. 
 
 "The information contained in the book now before us is vast, and 
 given with that regard to minuteness and clearness which characterises 
 all the literary efforts which have as yet come from the learned author's 
 pen." — Coleraine Chronicle. 
 
" It is concise and simple, and yet full of information." — Belfast Neivs- 
 Letter. 
 
 *' Dr Carson has produced a book which will be highly appreciated by 
 all who take an interest in the most useful of our domestic animals." — 
 Banner of Ulster. 
 
 '' The valuable anatomical descriptions the volume contains, the vast 
 amount of practical information to be found in its pages, and the popular 
 and entertaining style in which it is written, all combine to render it an 
 important manual on the subject on which it treats." — Dublin Daily 
 Express. 
 
 "We consider a good practical treatise on the subject of the greatest 
 importance, and such our readers will find in the work of Dr Carson." — 
 Cork Examiner. 
 
 " It alTords a variety of information, which may be found interesting 
 even by those who have no intentions of speculating in horse-flesh."— 
 Athenceum. 
 
 " Many a man has been * taken in' in a purchase, who, if he had read 
 the 'Form of the Horse,' might have escaped the deception." — Kilkenny 
 Journal. 
 
 " We ask those who are not adepts in horse-flesh to read this volume, 
 containing a ' simple review of the points of the horse ;' simple, inas- 
 much as they are certainly put together in a style comprehensible to 
 every one ; important, as they involve questions of serious consequences 
 to a great portion of the community." — Dublin Agricultural Review. 
 
 " Those who wish to purchase or breed horses have full information 
 which will guide them, and enable them to judge correctly of the horse's 
 development and peculiarities." — Derry Sentinel. 
 
 "We can unhesitatingly recommend 'The Form of the Horse' as an 
 able and comprehensive tresitise."— Bally money Herald. 
 
 " This work is well written, and cannot fail to be useful to all who are 
 interested in that noble animal, the horse." — The Christian World, 
 London. 
 
 " This is the second edition of a very useful book. All the topics are 
 handled in a very lucid and intelligible style." — BelVs Life. 
 
 " Dr Carson's work has now become an authoritative text-book upon 
 a topic concerning which a vast number of people are more or less in- 
 terested. The present edition may be well recommended, as illustrating 
 in a manner perfectly intelligible to every class of the community a very 
 intricate and treacherous subject." — The Lancet. 
 
Twelfth Thousand. 
 
 HBEE8IES OF THE PLYMOUTH BEETHKEN, 
 
 BY JAMES C. L. CARSON, M.D. 
 
 London : Houlston & Weight. 
 
 This Edition contains sections on the Mullerites, the Newtonites, and 
 the Darbyites ; the Law a rule of Life ; the Righteousness of Christ ; 
 the Recantation of Mr Mackintosh ; and a Christian Spirit in Contro- 
 versy ; together with an Answer to Mr Darby's Reply to Dr Carson. 
 
 REVIEWS. 
 
 ''Dr Carson, like his illustrious father, seems in his element as a 
 controversialist. He strikes home, and neither gives nor asks for mercy. 
 Those who wish to hear what can be said against this sect will find it 
 briefly stated in this pamphlet." — Christian Cabinet, London, 
 
 " Anything from the prolific pen of the learned writer must command 
 attention, and we have ourselves perused his pamphlet with much in- 
 terest." — Western Star, Ballinasloe. 
 
 "Dr Carson seems to have inherited not a little of the intellectual 
 vigour of his revered father, and we have no doubt but many who had a 
 leaning to the Plymouth Brethren will thank him for this exposure of 
 their doctrinal errors." — Glasgow Examiner. 
 
 " Dr Carson has done his work with signal ability and logical acute- 
 ness, and has brought to light doctrines held and promulgated by these 
 Plymouth missionaries, which cannot fail to startle the religious public 
 in this country. Dr Carson's masterly exposure of these dogmas cannot 
 be too widely circulated." — Londonderry Standard. 
 
 "The subject has been discussed with the author's wonted power; 
 and we can most cordially commend his pamphlet to such as desire to 
 have clearer conceptions of the peculiarities of Plymouth theology." — 
 Coleraine Chronicle. 
 
 " Dr Carson very ably exposes and confutes the mistakes of the Ply- 
 mouth sect." — The Patriot, London. 
 
 "Dr Carson, whose able pamphlet we strongly recommend, has 
 noticed and exposed this error and several others with singular ability. 
 Rewrites, in some respects, like his able and upright father, whose 
 memory will long be embalmed in the hearts of truth-loving and out- 
 spoken saints." — The Voice of Truth. 
 
 " The work published by Dr Carson effectually exposes the real 
 character of the Plymouthians." — London Morning Advertiser. 
 
" "We wish to recommend once more, before closing the present article, 
 the slashing pamphlet of Dr Carson. We again commend this lively 
 pamphlet to the reader." — London Record. 
 
 " A combination of the most startling disclosures, conclusive refuta- 
 tions, and trenchant attacks." — Baptist Magazine. 
 
 " This is an able pamphlet. The heresies loudly called for an ex- 
 posure, and this Dr Carson has given them, with the skill and power 
 of one who is thoroughly master of his subject." — Primitive Church 
 Magazine. 
 
 *' Dr Carson has conferred a boon of great value on the whole of the 
 Christian world by his manly and able exposure of the Plymouth 
 heresies. We thank him for his able defence of truth and for his manly 
 exposure of error. We pray that the mantle of his sainted father may 
 ever rest upon his shoulders. He has done his work well." — Letter in 
 The Earthen Vessel. 
 
 " Dr Carson is a thorough 'chip of the old block.' He has the in- 
 tensely quick perception of his illustrious sire, and therefore is no very 
 pleasant critic where all is not thoroughly sound. No one will doubt 
 what we say who will read this searching pamphlet." — Baptist Mes- 
 senger. 
 
 "This publication is worthy of attentive perusal, and those who are 
 disturbed by the pretentious sayings and doings of the ' Brethren' 
 would do well to promote its circulation as widely as possible." — The 
 Gospel Herald. 
 
 ' ' We would strongly advise those who wish to understand the Ply- 
 mouth principles to procure this vigorous pamphlet by Dr Carson." — 
 The Bulwark, Edinburgh. 
 
 <' Of this pamphlet we shall only say, that we wish it had been longer. 
 So far as it goes it is most excellent. We are much indebted to Dr 
 Carson for it." — Quarterly Journal of Prophecy. 
 
 "Dr Carson's withering exposures not only of their errors, but of their 
 Jesuitical morality, cannot fail to produce a ' sensation ' in the reUgious 
 world." — Berry Standard. 
 
 "The peculiarities of Plymouth Brethrenism are thoroughly sifted, 
 Scripturally tested, and faithfully exposed. As ten thousand copies 
 have already been sold, it is evident that its intrinsic value is duly ap- 
 preciated. " — Baptist Messenger. 
 
 " I had no idea that they held such heresies until I read this book by 
 Dr Carson, who is a son of the great Dr Carson of Tubbermore, Ireland, 
 and who appears to be a son worthy of such a father — one on whom the 
 mantle of the departed ' Elijah ' has fallen. This work proves its 
 author to be a man of no ordinary abilities — a man competent for the 
 task he has therein undertaken."— 77ie Canadian Baptist, Toronto, 
 Canada. 
 
6 
 
 " They have once and again been combated, but never, we believe, 
 with the same success as on the present occasion. Dr Carson is a 
 powerful friend and a very formidable adversary. He is largely en- 
 dowed with the intellect, the penetration, we had almost said intuition, 
 and the convincing logic of his admirable father, the far-famed Dr 
 Carson. The volume presents an analytical view of the whole subject. 
 As a piece of polemical theology, we attach exceeding great importance 
 to it ; it is really a book of thought far beyond what might be supposed. 
 A better shilling's worth of sound divinity and convincing logic is no- 
 where to be found. By making a physician of the author, his parents 
 have spoiled a first-rate divine ; however, even in that capacity he is 
 not wholly lost."— The British Standard, edited by the Rev. Dr 
 Campbell. 
 
 Price 5s. each Volume, 
 
 THE W0EK8 OF THE LATE EEV. ALEXANDEE 
 CAESON, LL.D. 
 
 London : Houlston & Wright. Edinburgh : Elliot. 
 Dublin : Carson. 
 
 Each Volume is complete in itself, is sold separately, and may be had 
 by order through any Bookseller. 
 
 Vol. 1. MlSCELLANEOtTS TREATISES. 
 
 Vol. 2. Tkeatises on the Roman and Unitarian Controversies. 
 
 Vol. 3. The Inspiration of the Scriptures. 
 
 Vol. 4. Church Government. 
 
 Vol. 5. Scripture and Science. 
 
 Vol. 6. The Providence of God. 
 
 REVIEWS. 
 
 ''Not in this countiy only, but in England, Scotland, and America, 
 and throughout the whole of Christendom, has been due homage ren- 
 dered to the genius and success with which he demonstrated that ' every 
 word of God is pure,' and that every page of Revelation is radiant with 
 Divine Majesty and glory." — Banner of Ulster. 
 
 " Dr Carson has long been well known as a first-rate scholar, a sound 
 philosopher, an irresistible reasoner, and a profound theologian. His 
 works shall be his monument, — a monument of transcendent genius, of 
 imperishable greatness, evincing to posterity that, with the strictest 
 propriety, he has been designated one of the first Biblical critics of the 
 nineteenth centuvj. "Scotsman. 
 
'< One of the first Biblical critics of the age. The great and almost 
 singular excellencies of this most extraordinary man, are his clear 
 philosophical conceptions, and his fearless philosophical spirit : even 
 the German exegetical writers are only scholars. The true critic is 
 made up of the scholar and philosopher combined." — Christian Free- 
 tnan. 
 
 "These treatises are distinguished by deep and original thought, 
 earnest piety, extensive knowledge, perfect command, yet great sim- 
 plicity of language, and withal, such a spirit of boldness and earnest- 
 ness in stating and vindicating truth, as is quite refreshing in these 
 days of hesitating statement and lukewarm advocacy." — Achill Mis- 
 sionary Herald. 
 
 "His pen has furnished some of the finest specimens of critical 
 acumen, well applied, that are to be found in our own or in any other 
 language. His exposure of the absurdities of the Popish doctrine of 
 Transubstantiation is a masterpiece. On the subject of Unitarianism, 
 too, none has dared to assail his positions." — Christian Freeman. 
 
 " As a profound and accurate thinker, an able metaphysician, a clear 
 reasoner, a deep theologian, Dr Carson can stand the ground against 
 any rivalship." — Scottish Guardian. 
 
 " In the knowledge of the philosophy of language he is far in advance 
 of the present age, and, with respect to metaphysical acuteness and 
 powers of reasoning, he has been called the ' Jonathan Edwards of the 
 nineteenth century.' His character, as a philosophic theologian, and a 
 profound, original, independent thinker, stands in the very highest rank ; 
 and he is only justly designated when called one of the most philosophic 
 reasoners of the present age.'' — Orthodox Presdyterian. 
 
 " Dr Carson's works will survive to justify the high character he bore 
 as an accomplished scholar, an acute and deep philologist, and a Chris- 
 tian philosopher." — London Record. 
 
 " For clear analysis, philosophical acumen, and argumentative power, 
 Dr Carson, on all hands, is acknowledged to have been a master in 
 Israel. The subject of this (third) volume is one in which the opinions 
 of learned and conscientious men have been somewhat various. Dr 
 Carson finds his principle of interpretation in one axiomatic utterance 
 of the Word itself—' All Scripture is given by inspiration of Grod.' Scrip- 
 ture, the writing itself, the very word, is inspired. Lifting this, in the 
 obvious sense in which he takes it, he meets all comers and defies their 
 assaults. Nay, he advances with the seeming intrepidity of conscious 
 truth, and bears down his assailants with apparent Samsonian ease. 
 Independently of the importance of the question at issue, the aspect 
 and attitude of this theological athlete, as he walks round the circle of 
 his assailants and shows the metal of his energies, affords an exhibition 
 of dialectic power and skill deeply interesting. No one, who is able to 
 appreciate what argumentation really is, can rise from the perusal of 
 
8 
 
 this volume without a vivid impression of the author's ability, and a 
 lively conviction that his position, logically; is not easily assailed. The 
 section that stands first — 'Characteristics of the Style of Scripture, as 
 Evidential of its Inspiration ' — is a masterly discussion of this important 
 topic. This section alone would have stamped its author as worthy to 
 be enrolled with the most enlightened defenders of the truth of revealed 
 Te\igioii..''-r-Glasgow Commonwealth. 
 
 "It is perfectly needless in us to recommend these essays to the 
 Christian public of the North of Ireland, where the name of Alexander 
 Carson is a household word among evangelical Protestants." — Belfast 
 News-letter. 
 
 "Every page lives with interest; there is nothing dry, nothing 
 tedious. Its style flows transparent and free as the mountain stream." 
 — Primitive Church Magazine. 
 
 "Dr Carson's style is clear, concise, and forcible. His arguments 
 display close and accurate reasoning. The scholar as well as the man 
 of genius appears in every page." — Belfast Weekly Mail. 
 
 "A charming book, and we could wish it were in every Christian 
 family." — Lutheran Observer, America. 
 
 "A book of vigorous thought, worthy of careful study." — Religious 
 Herald, America. 
 
 "Would do honour to any pen that ever wrote." — Troy Budget, 
 America. 
 
 " Other men of far inferior calibre have had their honours heaped 
 upon them ; but do I speak more than the words of truth and soberness 
 when I say that here is a man who has advanced every subject on which 
 h'5 has written, and who, in some respects, is in advance of the age in 
 which he lives— here is a man, a mere shred of whose capital has made 
 some men of small means great, and some really great men greater still 
 — himself, all the while, more unassuming than his fellows. Among his 
 excellencies, I have always rated high his impartiality and singleness of 
 purpose. One is never in doubt that his object is truth, and that his 
 determination is to follow evidence whithersoever it leads, untrammelled 
 by system or sect. The freedom from bias and independent honesty in 
 argument ever evinced by this writer, are qualities which we have 
 greatly to desiderate in many controversialists of the present day." — 
 A. K. Miller, Esq. 
 
 " He is a skilful and powerful advocate of all fundamental Scripture 
 truths, and such a champion as the present age imperatively demands." 
 — Sword and Trowel. 
 
 " Dr Carson was unquestionably one of the greatest Christian philoso- 
 phers of the age." — Baptist Messenger. 
 
 "Dr Carson appears as a profound theologian, a learned philologist, 
 and an accomplished rhetorician. Such a combination of the highest 
 spiritual and intellectual culture is indeed rare, and would render a man 
 an ornament and a credit to any Church." — Achill Herald. 
 

 
 -^^ 
 
 V .. ^ ' " >t ^^. 
 
 ^^ c^^ 
 
 
 
 
 Oo 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 ^ ^^^ 
 
 ^fi 
 
 ^;:^ v^ 
 
 
 
 .0 o 
 
 
 ■„% 
 
 ^^. 
 
 '?^. ^o', . ^ jO 
 
 -0- 
 
 v-^ 
 
 
 T< 
 
 L> "J -^ 
 
 ^^' 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 sV^ 
 
^<^^ 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^".0^ 
 
 V''- 
 
 -4^ 
 
 
 
 '. "^. .^^ 
 
 1^ 
 
 '^^^^^ 
 
 '^^ ^^' 
 
 \ * o 
 
 -J 
 
 
 
 x- 
 
 -^" X 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 . ^'c^ 
 
 ^^ ,^^^' 
 
 -- 0^ 
 
 %/^ 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 ,^^^' 
 
 \ 
 
 '^, 
 
 -^^ ^<^^