phases. If we have a correct knowledge of psychology, and we can comprehend the number of the mental faculties and their relative importance, the means of training thesc faculties seems to me not a work of great labour.

But let me ask, who can trace any particular idea to the source from whence it has been derived, as nearly all our knowledge arises from the productions and experiences of others, which we mentally assimilate, (like the food we digest, and which in time forms part of our body,) so, ultimately, other persons' ideas form part and parcel of our mental constitution? On this obvious truism I would rest my whole defence, and ask, what is the moral difference, then, between other writers on Phrenology and myself? All I have written in all probability I owe to reading and conversation, and a habit of observing passing events, and therefore it is unjust to state that I have taken the mental property of others to adorn myself, and allow another writer to have done actually the same thing, and that he should enjoy an impunity, because he has the saving clause, the merely saying, most probably these ideas may have been met with in other works. Any impartial man will give me credit in reading my work, that in no instance does it appear that I have attempted to foist upon the public views which are only adopted; he will recognise that my great object had been to render obvious the advantages of Phrenology. That this is no mere illusion of an excited Selfesteem, I may appeal to the talented members of the Manchester and Liverpool Phrenological Societies, (and I am sure they are well acquainted with all the phrenological works); and yet the latter society made me an honorary member, "having proved the cui bono of the science," &c. If the principle upon which I am so unjustly attacked be admitted, there is not a recent writer that would escape. Even Gall may be charged with receiving his first ideas of the true physiology of the brain from Herder's "History of a Philosophy of Man." Herder makes many interesting observations, which might be strictly called phrenological*. And Spurzheim may be charged with borrowing largely from the same source, and from Helvetius, Rousseau, and Volney, and from the writings of the Jewish philosopher, Mendlesohn! But who would dare to charge these philosophers (Gall and Spurzheim) with wilful plagiarism ?

"I must apologise for the length of this article; but, in conclusion, must request that the whole of it may be inserted in the

1 will just trouble you with a single instance, it is as follows: "Great Parent Nature, with what trifles hast thou connected the fate of the human species! With a change in the form of the head and brain, with a little alteration in the structure of the nerves and the organization, effected by climate, descent, and habit, the fate of the world, the whole sum of what mankind do and suffer throughout the earth, is also changed."-Vide Herder on the Philosophy of a History of Man.

Journal, for I would not have any thing like a mere selection. In case it should be withheld, I shall deem the Journal as partial as it will prove itself unjust; and however repugnant to my feelings, shall he obliged to have recourse to some other channel for doing myself justice.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant, J. L. LEVISON.

P.S.-Having removed from London to this town was the cause of my not seeing the reply in the Berkshire Chronicle until a few days since, having sent for one after having read the notice in the September number of your Journal.

The foregoing communication, which we have no inducement to withhold, compels us, at the risk of being egotistical, to offer a few remarks.

On commencing the perusal of Mr Levison's book, we had the full expectation of thereby adding to our knowledge on the subject of education, or at least of finding previous ideas set in a new and striking light; and we had no doubt of discovering in it grounds for publishing-what it was our sincere wish to publish—a favourable opinion of its merits. We were, however, considerably disappointed; and, though unwilling to cause uneasiness to Mr Levison, of course could not, consistently with that spirit of honesty and independence in which we have always endeavoured to act, bestow much commendation on his work. Accordingly, we spoke of it in the following terms-the mildest we felt ourselves authorised to employ: Mr Levison's style is neither so accurate nor so precise as we should have liked to see it, and it is rather deficient in method; but the work exhibits not a few indications of good feeling and philanthropy, and contains some useful practical suggestions. Want of space prevents us from giving any thing like an analysis of its contents; but this is the less to be regretted, as the author's ideas seem, in many instances, borrowed from Dr Spurzheim. We can merely extract a few of the more instructive passages.

We regret our inability to speak favourably of the phrenological portion of Mr Levison's treatise. It is far from being calculated to convey accurate notions concerning the mental faculties, or the evidence on which Phrenology rests. Facts as well as doctrines are occasionally misstated; a fault which it is the duty of every writer on controverted subjects like Phrenology to avoid with peculiar care." (No. 40, pp. 647-649.)

These sentences were so unpleasant to Mr Levison, that, as mentioned in our last number, he published, in the Berkshire Chronicle of 14th June 1834, a hasty attack on the Edinburgh phrenologists in general; to this we replied in the same paper on 12th July, and also in our 41st number; and, finally, the pre

sent communication from Mr Levison has been elicited. We have marked in italics the two clauses which he has made the subject of animadversion.

66

With regard to the first of these, we would ask, what is the obvious meaning expressed by it? Simply, that as our readers were already acquainted with Dr Spurzheim's views on education, from having either read his own work or the analysis of it given in this Journal, they had little cause to regret the want of an abstract of Mr Levison's book, in which the same ideas are expressed in an inferior manner. This is the sense in which the words were intended to be understood, and we humbly think they will bear no other interpretation." Such being the statement of our meaning given in the 41st Number of this Journal, Mr Levison acts inconsiderately in persisting to argue on the assumption that we accused him of "moral delinquency" and "wilful plagiarism." We merely stated as a fact, that "his ideas seem, in many instances, borrowed from Dr Spurzheim ;" and that many of them are so borrowed, he fully admits, not only in the Berkshire Chronicle, but also in his present letter. In the former he says: With gratitude I confess, that my first clear notions upon mental philosophy and education, were obtained by attending the lectures of Spurzheim, and from viva voce communications with him. When a man is charged with repeating the ideas he has received from the master he affectionately respected and honoured, it would be rather creditable to him than otherwise, particularly if he regarded the views as con. taining important truths. A thirst for origi

nality rather indicates the approbative man than one of great profundity of thought, there being often greater merit in illustrating subjects, and shewing them in new phases, than in furnishing fine shewy speculations." This is a most explicit admission of the whole amount of our averment, and, moreover, expresses sentiments in which we entirely concur. Thus, as we have never doubted the "obvious truism" on which Mr Levison "rests his whole defence," it is clear that, in the greater portion of his letter, he is fighting with a phantom which has no existence but in his own imagination.

The second ground of complaint is the averment, that "facts as well as doctrines are occasionally misstated." In using these words, our whole meaning was, that Mr Levison occasionally erred in his statement of phrenological doctrines and relative facts; but it never occurred to us either to suppose or to say that he had" purposely mutilated truth," nor did we cast the slightest "imputation on his moral character." We have always believed that Mr Levison intended to give an accurate representation of facts and doctrines; and if our words have conveyed to any reader a different impression, we sincerely regret it. From

delicacy to Mr Levison, no details were originally entered into regarding his mistakes, and inaccuracies, and, from the same motive, they are still withheld. Should Mr Levison, however, request us to publish them, this shall be instantly done.

6

6

There are other two subjects, adverted to in Mr Levison's letter, which we cannot pass over in silence. To render intelligible his allusion to Mr Combe's work on the "Constitution of Man," it is necessary to quote two passages from the Berkshire Chronicle. Mr Levison's statement was this:-" Mr Combe's most celebrated work is the Constitution of Man;' but Mr Combe had Dr Spur zheim's Natural Laws of Man' in his possession some months even before he contemplated writing the above justly celebrated work. But this is the ground of my complaint: Mr C. returned the MS. suggesting to the Doctor the impropriety of publishing it, society not being in a statefor such refined and exalted opinions on the philosophy of man,' and then afterwards published the above work, in which will be found Spurzheim's ideas in a new dress!" The following was our reply:" In all Mr Combe's works there is a direct acknowledgment of his obligations to Gall and Spurzheim. This is particularly the case in the prefaces to his System of Phrenology,' and Constitution of Man.' In the latter work, the very fact, triumphantly adverted to by Mr Levison, of his having read an unpublished MS. of Dr Spurzheim on the Natural Laws, is distinctly acknowledged. Mr Levison imputes to Mr Combe disingenuous if not dishonest motives, in publishing his work after reading that MS. It is a pitiful way of defending a man's self to state unfounded charges against another who has in no way offended him. Neither Mr Combe nor Mr Simpson is the author of the review, nor did either of them ever write a word about Mr Levison but in kindness. The facts of the circumstance from which Mr Levison fishes out a charge against Mr Combe are as follows. In 1824 Mr Combe recommended to Dr Spurzheim to allow the Edinburgh phrenologists to go on establishing the doctrines in the public mind till they became too firmly fixed to be shaken by any thing short of direct counterevidence, and that then he might apply them in any way he pleased with advantage and success; but gave it as his opinion that the publication of his work on the Natural Laws at that time would excite religious prejudices and retard the advance of the science. On this advice Dr Spurzheim acted. In 1827, Mr Combe printed, for private distribution, his own work on the Natural Laws (the Constitution of Man'), in which all interference with religion is scrupulously avoided, and sent a copy to Dr Spurzheim. It was not till twelve months afterwards that the work was published. During the whole interval Dr S. had ample opportunity of objecting to Mr Combe's proceedings, but

he did not do so. He published his own work on the Natural Laws in June 1828, and Mr Combe published his at the same time. They continued on terms of uninterrupted friendship with each other until Dr Spurzheim's death.”

Finally, we do not think that any reason exists for charging Gall" with receiving his first ideas of the true physiology of the brain from Herder's History of a Philosophy of Man." Herder was the contemporary of Gall (who was born in 1757), and published his work in 1784-1794. At the commencement of its publication, therefore, Gall was twenty-seven years of age, at which time it is well known he had advanced a great way in his discoveries. It is infinitely more probable that Herder borrowed from Gall than Gall from Herder.

ARTICLE XIII.

EPILEPSY, A CASE OF TWENTY YEARS STANDING CURED; WITH THE TREATMENT AND REMARKS THEREON. By JOHN EPPS, M.D., &c. London: Palmer. 1834.

THIS pamphlet contains an account of an interesting case of epilepsy, about which Dr Epps was consulted after a number of eminent practitioners had prescribed in vain. Some of the patient's friends "concluding that a phrenologist must know more of the diseased conditions of the nervous system than others not acquainted with the science, recommended him to consult" Dr Epps as a last resource. He did so, and the result was not less satisfactory to himself than highly creditable to Dr Epps. It would be out of place to give any details of the medical treatment here; but it may be mentioned generally, that Dr Epps was led to consider the disease as depending on a want of power in the nervous fibres of the cerebellum, and that the remedies which he successfully prescribed were selected in reference to this principle. So satisfied, indeed, is Dr Epps of its general truth, that he comes to the conclusion that "length of time in reference to epilepsy is no obstacle to the attempt at cure," and adds, that he has "no hesitation in undertaking any case of epilepsy of whatever duration, if general fatuity is not present." When that is the case, the organization of the brain is generally so far injured that recovery is impossible. Dr Epps does not consider this to be indicated unless the fatuity is constant. judging of the constancy of the fatuity," he says, "I find that the analysis of mental manifestations afforded by Phrenology is the only safe guide. Thus a person may not remember his friends; he may not know them one week, and he may know

3

"In