the injustice of the review of my work on Mental Culture, or your comment on my last letter in your Jour mmy Journal, but shall request you to insert all the misstated facts and doctrines which you have promised to do, should I wish it-tha I am not taxing your courtesy too much, I refer you to the last number of your Journal, page 187, where you say,- From delicacy to Mr Levison, no details were originally entered into regarding the 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. I shall, therefore, expect to see a list of the mistakes, &c., in the next Journal.— I am, &c. J. L. LEVISON."

In compliance with Mr Levison's request, we shall now exhibit, at some length, the grounds on which we said that, in his book, "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.

Speaking of the mode in which the activity of Acquisitiveness may be allayed, Mr Levison says: It would be advisable to treat a covetous child in the following manner; viz., never to excite the tendency, but always to praise generous and disinterested acts; and thus, if we cannot eradicate the feeling, we have it in our power to give it a better and more salutary direction. Induce the little being to desire the acquisition of knowledge, by initiating it in some department of natural history, for instance; you may gratify the feeling without any demoralization, and thus a propensity, otherwise tending to vice, may be rendered a means of instruction and intellectual advantage, acting in concert with the moral and reflective qualities of the mind, and exercising a salutary influence on the character."(P. 137.)

We refrain from inquiring to what extent the moral and reflective faculties are called into action by the study of natural history; and shall simply express our surprise that the word Acquisitiveness should have so far misled Mr Levison as to make him believe that this propensity is gratified by the acquisition of knowledge. The function of Acquisitiveness, as correctly stated by Dr Spurzheim (to whose authority Mr Levison bows), is merely to give a desire for every sort of property", (Phrenology, 3d edit. p. 171); and, in the words of the same phrenologist, it is the intellectual faculties alone" which procure to man or animals any kind of knowledge.”—(Id. p. 216.)

"

"We are told," says Mr Levison on pp. 80, 31, " that Pizarro, with a few Spaniards, conquered the kingdom of Montezuma; and it is a fact that the crania of the Peruvians have the organ of Combativeness small, whilst in the heads of the

Spaniards it is large. This phrenological test is further established by a similar comparison between the heads of the Mexicans and their conquerors. There are many Mexican and Peruvian skulls (Aborigines) in the excellent museum of the Edinburgh Phrenological Society. On the other hand, we find that many of the natives who inhabit some of the Malacca Islands (the Caribbean Indians, for example) are notorious for their brutal courage, and their skulls form a striking contrast to those of the Lascars and Hindoos, both which people are proverbial for their timidity and cowardice."

In this short paragraph are comprised several inaccuracies of which any writer ought to be ashamed. In the first place, It was not the kingdom of Montezuma (in other words, Mexico,) but that of Atahualpa (namely Peru), which was conquered by Pizarro. Secondly, No phrenological comparison has ever been made between the heads of the Mexicans and those of the Spaniards-there being in the museum of the Phrenological Society, instead of "many" Mexican skulls, not one. And, thirdly, The geographical statement made by Mr Levison is very erroneous; for the Caribbean Indians do not inhabit "some of the Malacca Islands," but the Caribbee Islands in the West Indies, and the northern part of South America. Where, we take leave to ask, are "the Malacca Islands?" In the East Indies there is a peninsula called Malacca ; but as for the "Islands," their position on the face of the globe is not very apparent.

On page 35, Mr Levison affirms that the Hindoos have "Benevolence large." Unless he is able to invalidate the evidence given to the contrary by Dr George Murray Paterson,* who made very extensive observations in India, and to annul the testimony afforded by about forty Hindoo skulls in the Phrenological Society's museum, we are entitled to say that his statement is not borne out by facts.

Such expressions as "the size of the venerative faculty" (p. 55); " This organ is situated laterally on each side of the last mentioned faculty" (p. 88); and, "It should be remembered that the brain, composed of these diversified faculties," &c. (p. 109)-are unphilosophical and absurd; for faculties have neither size nor place, and it is of organs, not faculties, that the brain is composed. These absurdities were, we doubt not, uttered through mere carelessness; but such carelessness is very injurious in a philosophical work. The whole book, it may be mentioned, bears obvious marks of negligence and haste; the reason of which may be partly found in a fact stated by Mr. Levison in the Berkshire Chronicle, viz. that it "was composed

• Transactions of the Phrenological Society, pp. 437, 438.

after his professional hours, and that in a very few months." Respect for the public ought to have induced him to bestow more of the labor lima on an elementary treatise like this, where accuracy is of greater importance than in works intended for the advanced student.

"When the head is very small," he says on p. 20, " (but accompanied with the nervous temperament), there is great general activity, but, at the same time, we feel that there is a mental feebleness. On the contrary, if the head be very large, then, with the same temperament, there is a corresponding superiority: the individual is impressively profound, driving all before him by the strength and energy of his genius, sometimes like a hurricane carrying desolation whenever he appears, or, as the glorious sun, enlightening and blessing mankind with the rays emanating from his moral and intellectual attributes: such a man was the great Lord Chatham." Now, these last effects occur only when the organs of the moral sentiments and intellect are large, which either may or may not be the case in a very large head. Mr Levison's statement, therefore, is too unqualified, and gives countenance to an error very prevalent among persons ignorant of phrenology-that a large and active brain, of whatever form, is, according to the cultivators of our science, always accompanied by genius. That Mr Levison meant otherwise, there can be little doubt; but the inaccuracy of his statement is certainly " a fault which it is the duty of every writer on controverted subjects like phrenology to avoid with peculiar care."

Speaking of Combativeness, he says (p. 31):-" In the well organized individual it is a feeling of great importance, infusing a moral courage which fits the possessor for the noblest acts, and urges him to make, if necessary, a sacrifice of personal ease, and even of life, in the cause of truth and virtue, from a stern sense of duty." Here is an obvious misapprehension. Combativeness no doubt gives the courage which enables men to act according to the dictates of higher powers, but it "urges" no sacrifice whatever.

On Constructiveness, according to Mr Levison, " depend all our powers of contrivance" (p. 43). The truth is, that the intellectual faculties are the contriving powers, and that Constructiveness merely gives the manual dexterity necessary for carrying their contrivances into execution. "It guides," says Dr Spurzheim, "the practical part of construction, but does not determine the objects to be constructed." (Manual of Phrenology.) There are persons who, though excellent contrivers, are (as in a case mentioned on p. 207 of our present number,) obliged to employ other men to construct what they plan; and, on the other hand, many good constructers are almost, or even wholly, destitute of the power of contrivance.

In the section on Self-Esteem, the following words occur: "This cerebral organ is situated above the organ of Adhesiveness, and was supposed to give nobleness to thought, and consequently to infuse a kind of dignity into all our actions," (p. 43). Its real situation is above the organ of Concentrativeness, that over Adhesiveness being the organ of Love of Approbation. By whom has Self-Esteem been" supposed to give nobleness to thought?" Certainly not by Gall or Spurzheim.

Speaking of Love of Approbation, Mr Levison says, "When this feeling is comparatively small, an individual is indifferent whether he has the good or the bad opinion of his associates; and such a person will be negligent, uncourteous, and selfish," (p. 46). But these results by no means necessarily follow. There is a courtesy of Benevolence as well as of Love of Approbation; and selfishness may exist either with or without a strong endowment of the latter sentiment, which simply operates as a check upon its outward manifestation. Persons ignorant of phrenology would naturally infer from Mr Levison's statement, that a small organ of Love of Approbation indicates selfishness, and a large one disinterestedness. The reverse of this is often seen.

"The organ of Conscientiousness," we are told, " is situated on each side of Firmness, and the two sentiments taken together may be compared to censors appointed by the Creator, to guard us against acting from the mere impulse of our lower feelings; or they may be regarded as a moral balance, by which we should weigh all our motives, so that we may not infringe upon the rights of others, or gratify personal desires by compromising our dignity as moral and intelligent beings," (p. 56). Firmness has nothing whatever to do with the weighing of motives in a moral balance. It is only a tendency to persist in such conduct, and such opinions and purposes, as the other faculties moral or otherwise-may determine.

"These (the reflective) faculties," says Mr Levison, "are perfectly developed about the age of puberty, and indicate the greatest energy between thirty and forty," (p. 95). Nothing is more rare than their perfect development about the age of puberty. Perfection of development, and possession of the greatest energy, are co-existent, the latter being the necessary result of the former.

According to Mr Levison, had man been destitute of Locality," his thoughts would have had nothing of regularity, but would have been like the fleeting and evanescent forms of passing clouds; and it would have been impossible for him to conceive the natural or accidental relations existing between the different objects of the universe on which he moves and dwells." "It is that power of the mind which informs us of the relation

of one object to another," (p. 84). The word relation is here most inaccurately used instead of relative position; and as to regularity and stability of the thoughts, we are puzzled to discover how these are influenced by a faculty whose entire function is to observe, remember, and judge of the physical position of objects. We know individuals who, with deficient Locality, are remarkable for thoughts the very opposite of irregular and

Mr Levison says of Eventuality, that when an object is spoken of, or presented to us, whether in a tangible form or merely orally, in an instant this highly valuable faculty recalls all circumstances connected with it," (p. 88). Surely it is not intended that these concluding words should receive a literal interpretation.

"The organ of Melody is situated in a lateral direction, on each side of Time," (p. 89). Another very careless expression.

66

Mr Levison entertains unsound and novel opinions respecting the sentiment of Wonder, though he propounds them as established doctrine. He thinks that this faculty gives mankind "an instinctive faith" in the recurrence of natural phenomena of which a regular and unbroken series has for a long time been observed. "Possessing this sentiment of natural belief," says he, we are not now under the necessity of reconvincing ourselves that the operations of nature, which we observe, are uniform and constant: we feel certain that they are so," (p. 63). Facts, it humbly appears to us, are wholly at variance with such an idea of the function of the organ of Wonder-an idea in support of which Mr Levison offers not the shadow of an argument. Observation proves, that the larger this organ is, the less confidence have men in the uni. formity and constancy of the operations of nature, and the more are they disposed to expect the supernatural interference of occult beings.

Some very odd statements are made with regard to Imitation. "When we reflect on the multiplicity of IDEAS which are acquired by children without any kind of direct tuition, we must conclude that there is an innate faculty of IMITATION"! (p. 69.) In what part of Dr Spurzheim's works, we again ask, did Mr Levison find that Imitation, or any other affective faculty, acquires ideas? But this is not all: Imitation, he says, besides conferring the power of imitating or assuming the natural language of the faculties; is the source of natural language itself, and of the power of comprehending it. His words are the following: The organ of Imitation is situated on each side of Benevolence, and, from its natural tendency, might be designated the mimic power,' as it is this same faculty which gives to children a language of natural expression long before they ac