bt

mate acquaintance necessary to form an accurate judgment even of one single character, it would require the lifetime of one who had nothing else to do, to make extensive observation sufficient to verify the invariable connection even of one single bump with any one of these powers or propensities; or, if it is alleged that this verification is the result of the combined experience of great number of observers, the question recurs, How many of these observers had the capacity of appreciating a character? This pretended experience, therefore, ought absolutely to go for nothing.

a

(3.) The foolery of the system appears in the great multiplicity of powers and propensities, each different and distinct from the rest, and having each its own distinct cerebral organ, which the phrenologist attributes to the brain. And, indeed, did not the organ of smell appear outwardly to be one nose, I have no doubt that the phrenologist, with the same propensity to fritter down into particular individuality, and aversion at generalization, would be inclined to suppose two distinct organs, one for the perception of perfumes, and the other for that of stenches. They seem, indeed, in this respect, to have taken for their model the late Lord Kames, who, in his Elements of Criticism and Sketches of Man, when at a loss to refer any phenomenon to a general law, considers it as an ultimate fact constituting a law of itself, such as his principle of the desire of hunting, or of the desire of finishing. As a specimen of a similar mode of philosophising among phrenologists, I would instance what they denominate Acquisitiveness, by which I presume is meant what the uninitiated call avarice, which they seem to state as a distinct original principle, acting by a distinct organ of its own. It appears, however, by far more reasonable to consider it as a secondary passion, originating not in a primary liking to gold and silver, but attaching itself to these merely as the means of procuring the gratification of other desires; but that a persevering attention to the means makes the end be lost sight of, when the means come to be pursued as the end,-just as, at the restoration of learning, Greek and Latin were studied at first as the only accessible mode of attaining to useful knowledge, but were at last studied for their own sakes, the original end being forgotten. Now, if by Acquisitiveness is meant the desire of riches, which is called in common parlance avarice, and if this organ requires a separate distinct organ, -for the same reason a distinct organ ought to be sought after for the desire of acquiring the learned languages; or, if by Acquisitiveness is meant an undistinguishing desire of acquiring and accumulating, no matter whether gold and silver, or old cast-iron hoops and rusty nails, it might then be fitly likened to the undistinguishing voracity of the ostrich, who gobbles up iron or stones as readily as food.

(4.) But further, if these said bumps are the receptacles of cerebral organs, which there find shelter and protection; and if character is determined by the due order and proportions of these; it then behoves the phrenologist to explain what varieties of character are produced by the operations of savage nations upon the skull, who, not contented with Nature's conformation of the human head, reduce it by compression, while the bones remain flexible, into the more eligible forms of a square or a sugar-loaf, or flatten it at the top that it may extend laterallyoperations which cannot be performed without diminishing the space for the development of various organs, whilst it allows room for the expansion of others, perhaps to the extent of a supremacy over the rest. Surely were the same freedom used with the organs of sense, their functions could not but be strangely altered and disturbed.

(5.) It is presumed that the boldest of phrenologists will not deny that there is a material difference betwixt the characters of an ancient and a modern Greek-betwixt those of an ancient Roman and an Italian-betwixt a freeman and a slave; nor do I conceive any will be so hardy as to affirm that a corresponding difference takes place as to the bumps. In short, character, so far from being dependent upon bumps and their supposed contents, seems to depend chiefly on circumstances of situation; and of these principally upon political institutions. And indeed phrenologists, aware of this glaring fact, are obliged to allow a great influence to education, which they admit may produce a character widely different from that indicated by the bumps,an admission which reduces the theory to a state of complete inanity, from which I hope it shall never recover.

Reply to an Essay against Phrenology by the Rev. CHARLES FINDLATER, Newlands; in a Letter to the Author, by WALTER TOD.

MY DEAR SIR, I have read your essay against Phrenology with great attention, and am quite delighted that a man of your distinguished talents should have been able to do the system so little harm. Like most antiphrenologists, you have begun at the wrong end, and reasoned against the utility and consequences of the system, without first settling the great question of its truth or falsehood by an induction of facts. This, you must admit, is unphilosophical, as facts in nature cannot be overturned by reasoning against their supposed utility, and consequences, but must be disproved by evidence.

I am surprised that you should have imitated the conclave, that condemned the discoveries of Galileo for their assumed consequences, without being able to disprove the facts upon which

VOL. IX. - NO. XLIII.

Q

242 ИЛИХОЛЯ) ИМЕ (GOD'S/BERLY TO TНЕОЛОйлан

they rested, an Nobody knows better than yourself, that almost every important discovery has been met and opposed by the ignorant and vulgar outery of dangerous consequences. Tain or But waving this objection, you neither distinctly por accurately state the fundamental principles of the system you oppose. Allimental energy or susceptibility," ydunsaylorfwbeing presumed to be lodged in the bead, and these to be indicated by the skull either in its general conformation or in its particular prominences, distinguishable by sight or touch, the system set out under the modest title of Cranioscopy, Fe, &co Now, this is not a correct statement of the doctrines of Phrenologyy and I must therefore solicit your attention to an accurate accoririt of its real principlestiaadhese are one donde tot vd botei 2014 That the human mind, manifests its powers, in the present world, by means of the brain rot good and soz ai ant That the mental, manifestations are affected and modified by the size, health, and activity of that organ,ad auftodiel

:

3. That the brain does not act as one indivisible organ, but consists of a congeries of organs, having distinct and different functions noftriseob ind: elargoliziq bai 50 orans

Now if you deny that the brain is, in any sense, the organ of the mind, you deny some of the best established facts in nature; for, that the most vigorous minds have frequently been reduced to mere idiocy by disease of the brain is a fact beyond all cavil or controversy, a pair oft totesin 18/1

And why bleed and blister the head for mental derangement, if the disease be really mental and not physical? Those physicians who use physical means for removing mental disease, and yet deny the truth of the first principle of Phrenology, practise as if Phrenology were true, and their own philosophy of the human mind false. Even you will hardly maintain that bleeding and blistering are for the purpose of restoring the tone and temper of the soul itself and yet to this absurd conclusion you must come, or admit the first and fundamental principle of Phrenology, that the brain is the organ of the mind ouing Itaqua

But I will not press you farther with this great fact in the constitution of human nature, as its denial would ruin the reputation of any man as a philosopher, whose reputation as a philosopher could be ruined.

The second phrenological principle is, that the mental manifestations are affected and modified by the size, health, and activity of the brain, Now, with regard to the first of these conditions, you will admit that size in an organ is the measure of its power for this proposition is universal, and one to which there are no exceptions in nature. A cannon-ball, or stream of water, produces (in like circumstances), effects in exact proportion to the quantity of matter which it contains; and wood, iron, brass, bone, and every substance in nature, have strength in proportion to their size. It is obvious that to this great lawthat size gives power there cannot be a single exception, as its denial would be the same thing as to deny that quantities which are equal to the same thing are not equal to one another so that this fundamental principle of Phrenology is not " contradicted by the whole analogy of nature," as you allege, but is in strict accordance with the most obvious and universal law of creation.

And with regard to the health of an organ being a condition of its power, I shall not waste a single word, as no sane man can believe for a moment that a diseased organ can perform its functions with the energy of one in health. Jenotete Dotion & Jointo Thus the two fundamental principles of Phrenology are established by facts which it seems to me impossible to resist

If, then, these two principles must be admitted, and, to be candid, you have brought forward neither facts nor arguments to disprove either, the only remaining question for discussion is, Whether the brain acts as a whole or in parts? It is on this point, indeed, that antiphrenologists have been the most wayward and wanton in their abuse.

All anatomists and physiologists that deserve the name, have admitted the two first principles; but when phrenologists brought multiplied and unanswerable facts to prove that the brain does not act as one and indivisible organ, but consists of a congeries of organs having distinct and different functions, some of the great masters of the healing art forgot their propriety, and, with the rudeness of ignorance, took leave to rail, most unsparingly, at what they were at no pains to understand--and for a very silly reason, namely, because they could not discover different orgaus in the brain by dissection.

-Now, the fact is, that dissection alone never did, and never will, discover the functions of a single organ. The spleen, for example, has been dissected for ages, yet at this moment its functions are totally unknown! So much for the anatomy of the business. But let us examine the question by facts and philosophical principles.

11. Andy in the first place, if the brain acted as one indivisible organ, partial genius would be impossible.

For if a brain possessed great energy, and acted as a unity, the same energy would appear in every mental manifestation in which that brain was employed. But is this the fact? Why, the very reverse is generally the case. Some children lay their hands upon an instrument, and make music at once; while thousands of young ladies who distinguish themselves in other branches of knowledge, never arrive at any proficiency in music, even after the labours of many years, under the greatest advantages of education. The same thing takes place in painting, poetry, sculpture, eloquence, and mechanics; in one word, in all the arts and sciences within the compass of human knowledge. Now, these facts are utterly incompatible with the unity of the brain.

But you seem to belong to that class of philosophers who maintain that partial genius is the result of habit and education. This is inverting the order of nature. For what is a habit but the effect of repetition of acts prompted by some mental impulse and hence the impulse must have formed the habit, and not the babit the impulse. No man will ever acquire the habit of making music who has hardly any perception of melody; and so in all other cases. You put the cart before the horse.

But besides the unphilosophical character of this philosophy of yours, it is contradicted by the whole history of mankind. How many men have remained sheer dolts, after circumstances, habit, and education had done their utmost! To schools and colleges they went in "stirks and came out asses;" and if honest nature made them fools, what serves their grammars? And how many men of original genius have risen to eminence regardless alike of helps and of hinderances! The list of such men is long and glorious, and from that list it were easy to mention names which ought to put your habit and education men to the blush. But in mercy I spare you, and shall only add, that the man who believes that the genius of Shakspeare was the result of habit and education, should have some reserve in speaking about the gullibility of mankind.

2. But, in the second place, partial insanity is incompatible with the unity of the brain. You must admit that nothing is more common than partial insanity. Now, if the brain acted as a unity, this phenomenon would be impossible; since, if the brain acted as a unity, whatever affected it must affect it as a whole and not as a part.

3. In the third place, that the mind is found to be relieved by merely changing the objects of thought and study, is another fact inconsistent with the unity of the brain. For, if the whole brain were employed in all manifestations of mind, it could not be rested by any change of thought or contemplation. A man would not be rested by first running east and then west upon the same level plain.

4. In the fourth place, partial injuries of the brain, by producing partial derangement of the mental manifestations, exhibit another fact inconsistent with the unity of the brain. Baron Larrey (no phrenologist) has given a body of facts on this point, which no sound understanding can resist.

5. In the fifth place, dreaming would be impossible, if the brain acted as a unity. For if the brain acted as a whole, it must be either all asleep or all awake, and in either case dreaming could not take place.

Thus, my dear sir, I have established by undeniable facts,