solutely projecting, may in a mechanical sense (another orthodox term) be depressed Pp. 61, 62. "We ask the author what phrenological writers have made the declaration here imputed to them? and we assert, in self-reply, that, as here stated, no intelligent phrenologist ever made it, nor ever will, because it is self-contradictory, and involves an impossibility. An organ at the same time projecting and mechani cally depressed?! advancing outwardly, and retreating inwardly! as well may it be represented as, at once, round and triangular -hot and cold-in existence and out of it. True, an organ may project or reach a certain distance from its root, and still be relatively depressed; because its neighbouring organs, being largely developed, may project beyond it. But that is not what phrenologists mean by the projection of an organ. To project in the true phrenological sense, the organ must be prominent, not sunken. But the whole matter is only - A thing devised by the enemy' a petty fabrication, designed to prejudice Phrenology, by representing it as inconsistent with itself, and unworthy of belief. It is thus perpetually. Anti-phrenologists never assail the science as it is, but they misrepresent it. They construct a disjointed and feeble fabric of their own devising, and then demolish it and proclaim victory. We have never witnessed an attack on the genuine Phrenology of Gall and Spurzheim. The reason is plain. When viewed and examined in its true character, it is perceived to be proof against assault. No enemy, therefore, ventures to molest it. We should rather say, that, when seen in its real symmetry, strength, and beauty, it has no enemy. All those who have been such, become its friends. We defy its opponents to adduce a single instance in which it has been attacked, without having been, at the same time, falsely spoken of. Hence no one who has studied it thoroughly, and fully comprehended it, has ever failed to become a proselyte to it. Nor can an example of apostasy from it be cited. "The chief reason why the public are opposed to Phrenology is, that they are made acquainted only with the Phrenology of the newspapers and other periodicals of the country, and of common rumour, which, from the absurdities attached to it, is incredible and ridiculous. A chief device of the enemies of the science is thus to distort it in all its features, and then proclaim it incongruous and unfounded. From this stratagem has arisen much of their temporary success in retarding its progress. Let it be correctly expounded and comprehended, and it must soon become the creed in mental philosophy of the whole enlightened portion of the community. "One unqualified falschood more, (though we could specify dozens of them), and adieu to that part of the discussion. "We remember one learned gentleman, who, in the warmth of his zeal, declared that he was conscious that he studied metaphysics with one part of his head, and enjoyed poetry and light reading with the other." P. 76. "This is as positive a departure from truth, as the history of fiction can furnish. Nor do we consider it accidental. Our charity is not so flexible and accommodating. We are compelled to believe it a premeditated fabrication, intended for mischief. "The learned gentleman' referred to in the extract is intimately known to us. So are his views and discussions on Phrenology. And we assert positively, on authority which cannot be held doubtful, that he never made the remark here ascribed to him. He has said, and is prepared to repeat, that, when engaged in intense intellectual labour, he is conscious that his brain is in action, and that the part immediately exercised is that which lies in front. Farther than this, he has never gone in discussing the subject. Should the correspondent of the North American be dissatisfied with these remarks, he is invited to name the learned gentleman' he has alluded to, and he will receive from himself a similar statement, accompanied probably by a sterner rebuke than any contained in this paper, for the numerous violations of truth he has been guilty of. We say again, that there are many other palpable misrepresentations in the paper before us, to some of which it may possibly be requisite for us to refer hereafter. "We may observe, that, apart from his direct and open falsifications, the author of the article is inaccurate in many of his statements; we might almost have said, in all of them. A paper so replete with faults of this description, interwoven with a sort of shuffling sophistry, we have rarely, if ever, before perused." The reviewer states his belief," that the evidence in favour of the fact, that the human brain. does not increase in size after the age of seven, is stronger than we have seen adduced for any phrenological fact whatever." On this Dr Caldwell remarks: "To be convinced of his inaccuracy, in the present instance, the writer has only to provide himself with a piece of tape or riband, select promiscuously fifty boys of seven,' and an equal number of full-grown men in the same way, measure their heads, and note the result. Unless he be proof against the evidence of sense, this will satisfy him. He will find the adult heads much the largest. Nor is there, in Boston, a hatter's boy of the age of seven' who cannot profitably instruct the writer for the North American, on this point-notwithstanding the measurements he says he has taken with Mr Combe's craniometer. The boy will assure him, on the ground of daily obser vation and experience, that his own head is not as large as that of his master, or of other gentlemen to whom he sells hats. If asked for the reason of his belief, he will reply, that the crowns of hats which fit full grown men, are too big' for him-and that he is certain of this, because he has tried them on.org "Further, should the writer ever make a voyage to London or Paris, he may there receive additional information to the same effect. Let him, in those places, visit the great hat factories, many of which have been carried on in the same buildings for centuries. He will there learn, that, without even an acquaintance with the term Phrenology, the manufacturers, or their employers, have four* general and distinct measures for the crowns of hats. Of these, the smallest is for boys under twelve years of age; the next for servants and ordinary day-labourers; a larger size for farmers and common, mechanics; and the largest of all, for the more cultivated and intellectual classes, such as profes sional men generally, authors, mechanicians and artists of high standing, legislators, and ministers of state. And he will further learn, that such has been the arrangement, in those factories, almost time out of mind. On this we make no comment. Every intelligent reader can draw from it the proper inference. We merely state the fact, and vouch for its truth. Once more. "Mere hatter's measure does not determine the entire magnitude of the brain. It only gives its extent in one direction horizontally. It does nothing toward ascertaining the depth of it perpendicularly-we mean from its base to its arch or top. One man may require a larger hat than another, and yet have a smaller brain, on account of the greater depression of the top of his head. The Carib furnishes a striking exemplification of this. The same is true, to a certain extent, in boys, the upper portion of whose brain is not yet developed. That development does not take place until the period of puberty, when the reflecting and the moral organs attain their growth, and the youth becomes a being of morality and reason in a much higher degree than he was before. Even after the brain has ceased to enlarge horizontally, then, it continues to grow in the other direction. Though the boy, when thirteen, therefore, should require as large a hat as he does when he is a man of twenty-five, it does not follow that his whole head and brain must be as large-nor are they. 66 There is still another reason, why the boy, before puberty, and even for several years afterwards, is not so mature and vigorous, in his moral and reflecting faculties, as he becomes at a later period. The organs of those faculties, though of full size, "We are not confident that there are four sizes of hat-crowns, kept in the large London and Paris factories. But we are certain that there are three, and that crowns for boys and servants are the smallest." are not yet complete in th ported by Dr Pierquin, as having fallen underd of satural one of the hospitals of Montpelier, in the year 1821. The subject of it was a female, at the age of twenty had lost a large portion of her scalp, skull-bone, and dur in a neglected attack of lues venerea. A corresponding "This is particularly the case in relation to all striking skulls-all remarkable, we mean, for either size or form. The casts made in be recognised as far as they can be distinctly seen." reason be kept to, and if any part of the scriptural ac- **** Every religion that should, in this case, clash ure, would bear upon it the marks of repronot come from the AUTHOR of nature, who always faithful.' y other passages, of like import, from the from the writings of other pious and And we repeat, that between their geand those of the Philosophical Cateial discrepancy. In spirit and subWill our author, in his tender regard of his wrath on all these writers, , to the penalties of infidelity, ntertained opinions in unison, taire and Thomas Paine ? all the living clergy and If so, his condemnations sign to the worm that man race, than ever |
