ལ་

a predominating faculty, exciting the function of this into action. But if this be their nature, the function itself is clearly dependent on the stimulus, and, therefore, no facultynatmall Suppose this faculty alone possessed of inordinate strength in a head in which every other organ was equally well developed, and, consequently, every other faculty possessed of equal strength, could it, under those circumstances, act at all? If its action were obedient to stimulus, it clearly could not, because here there is none. Its dependence must preclude it from ruling, and, under this state of things, leave it to rust in its mansion, a lord in the garb of a menial, a monarch in the bonds of a slave. "But if no dependence exist, its action must be of an arbitrary nature; and an arbitrary power, to coerce two or more faculties to combine, and concentrate, and continue their energies, I should regard as an innovator upon existing relations, and hence doubt the propriety or necessity of its services. Not to urge that the possession of this arbitrary power, which is not intellectual, and, therefore, not susceptible of being enlightened, would be of dangerous tendency.. If it be urged that the fune tion of the faculty is rather to continue the object as the single subject of contemplation for the faculties, to the exclusion of every other; it may be answered, that the same original power that is competent to apprehend or seize upon the object, is also competent to retain it as the subject of contemplation, for all the purposes for which it was apprehended.

"I have thus given my views somewhat at large in relation to the alleged functions of this faculty. I consider the whole as open to future investigation. An appeal on all sides is made to facts, for the phrenologist is ever more solicitous to have the truth established, than his own particular views.”—P. 82–86.

The objection here urged against the views of Dr Spurzheim, appears to us of no force whatever, and indeed is fully answered by Dr Spurzheim himself in his work entitled "Phrenology." It is true that the constitution and capacities of animals are adapted to the circumstances in which they live; but as observation shews, it is equally true, that there is a special instinct directing them to choose the situations to which their constitutions are adapted. This is a blind instinct, and is followed before any opportunity has been enjoyed by the animal of ascertaining what place is most suitable for its abode. Nor is such an instinct superfluous; for the understanding is in many animals insufficient to serve as a guide,—and even where the case is otherwise, half a lifetime might be spent before discovering the appropriate habitation. Moreover, without supposing the existence of such an instinct, it is impossible to explain why animals with similar constitutions-different varieties of the same species, for instance-often choose to live in dissimilar localities.

So far as the lower animals are concerned, therefore, we have no doubt of the existence of the faculty contended for by Dr Spurzheim, in whatever part of the brain its organ may be situated. As to the possession of a peculiar faculty of this description by the human race, we are not without scruples; for attachment to the place in which a person happens to have been born, or to have lived for many years, is, in our view, essentially different from a propensity to choose an abode, and appears to fall naturally enough within the sphere of Adhesiveness.

Mr Dean's objections to Mr Combe's opinion are, for the most part, purely metaphysical, and apply with equal force to the organ of Firmness, whose function is beyond the reach of controversy. It appears to us, however, that Mr Combe has laid himself open to some of the objections of Mr Dean, and also of Dr Spurzheim, by ascribing to the organ two radically different functions, one of which he passes over in a very cursory way, without illustrating it fully as he does the other "Concentrativeness," says he, acts along with the feelings as well as the intellect, and prolongs emotions." Now, to prolong emotions is just to prolong the period of activity of the feelings; an operation of Concentrativeness by no means the same in kind with that which it is said to perform in relation to the intellect, namely, the detention of particular ideas in the mind-the fastening of the attention on a particular subject of thought. An intellectual faculty might have its activity prolonged to any extent, and yet be all the while engaged with a quick succession of straggling and unconnected ideas. In reality, therefore, Concentrativeness seems to influence the intellectual faculties alone; attention being a mode of activity peculiar to them. Its function, we conceive, is, in the words of Cowper,

༔

To arrest the fleeting images that fill

The mirror of the mind, and hold them fast.” But though unable to see how Concentrativeness can prolong emotions by acting along with the feelings," we have no difficulty in understanding that this result may indirectly flow from it. If Acquisitiveness be grieved by loss of fortune, the grief will, in all probability, be more enduring where Concentrativeness is large, than where it is small. The idea, circumstance, or fact, of the pecuniary misfortune, will be maintained by Concentrativeness before the mind; the attention will be rivetted upon it; and thus, through the medium of the intellectual faculties, will Acquisitiveness be affected and kept in a state of excitement. In other words, we are far more apt to grieve when thinking of a misfortune than when the thoughts are employed on a totally different subject.

It would be difficult to find a better illustration of what we conceive to be the true influence of Concentrativeness on the intellectual faculties, than a case of its morbid impairment, re

lated by Sir A. Crichton, in his work on Mental Derangement, vol. i. p. 281. The patient (attended by Dr Pitcairn and Sir Alexander himself) was a young gentleman of large fortune, who, till the age of twenty-one and he does not seem to have been much more at the time of describing his case had enjoyed a tolerable share of health, though of a delicate frame. His absence of mind was extreme, and he would sometimes willingly sit for a whole day without moving: yet he was in no de gree melancholy; and it was easy to discover, by his countenance, that a multiplicity of thoughts were constantly succeeding each other in his mind, many of which were gay and cheerful; for he would laugh heartily at times, not with an unmeaning countenance, but evidently from internal merriment. He was occasionally so strangely inattentive, that, when pushed by some want which he wished to express, if he had begun a sentence, he would suddenly stop short after getting half way through it, as though he had forgotten what else he had to say. Yet, when his attention was roused and he was induced to speak, he always expressed himself in good language and with much propriety; and if a question were proposed to him which required the exercise of judgment, and he could be made to attend to it, he judged correctly. It was with difficulty he could be made to take any exercise; but he was at length prevailed upon to drive his curricle, in which Sir Alexander at times accompanied him. At first he could not be induced to go beyond half a mile; but, in succeeding attempts, he consented to go farther. He drove steadily, and, when about to pass a carriage, took pains to avoid it; but when at last he became familiarized with this exercise, he would often fall into desultory and wandering thoughts, and allow the reins to hang loose in his hands. His ideus seemed to be for ever varying. When any one came across his mind, which excited anger, the horses suffered for it; but the spirit they exhibited at such an unusual and unkind treatment made him soon desist, and re-excited his attention to his own safety. As soon as they were quieted, he would relapse into unsettled thought: if his ideas were melancholy, the horses were allowed to walk slow; if they were gay and cheerful, they were generally encouraged to go fast.

Here the intellect seems to have been perfectly sound, and capable of judgment and thought; but, apparently from some derangement of Concentrativeness, the subjects thought on underwent a perpetual change. The case resembles closely that of Dr John Walker, noticed in our 8th volume, p. 400. It would appear that although attention is undoubtedly a mode of activity of the intellect, yet Concentrativeness is essentially necessary to keep the intellectual faculties at their duty in this sort of employment. If this view be sound, inability to fasten the attention upon a subject of thought may arise either from deficiency

1

of intellect, which attends, or from weakness of Concentrativeness, which enables the intellect to attend. And may not this reconcile some apparently contradictory observations of phrenologists, by shewing that the thoughts may sometimes be apt to wander, even though Concentrativeness is full?n nood 976 The foregoing hints are from the pen of a correspondent, who says that they are thrown out with diffidence, and rather in the hope that they may aid in leading to a correct analysis of the faculty, than under the belief that they are entitled to be placed much above the rank of conjectures to hid ...food bor yay ɔpw doula to vaguf

ད་ ད་ ན

c2 vd bod25q 15dARTICLE VILA 20, Tec n91D-819god bed CHRISTIÁN PHRENOLOGY; or the Teachings of the New TesTAMENT RESPECTING THE ANIMAL, MORAL, AND INTELLECTUAL NA- TURE OF MAN, Three Lectures delivered in the Thistle Hall, Dundee, ou Sundays Jan. 25, Feb. 1. and 8, 1835. By HENRY CLARKE, Minister of the Congregation, Dundee Sold by the Booksellers; also by John Anderson Jun. Edinburgh, and R. Hunter, London, 3vo, pp. 48.

THE relation between Christianity and Phrenology appears to us to be the following. The communications of the Bible may be divided into two great classes; the one relating to matters which the human intellect could never, by its own powers, have discovered; and the other consisting of descriptions of beings which exist in this world, and of rules of duty to be observed by those beings,-which rules and beings appear to be subjected to the examination of every ordinary understanding. To the former class belong the character and offices of Jesus Christ, and the state of man after death; and in the latter are comprehended human nature such as it now exists, and all moral and religious duties which bear relation to human happiness in this world.

The Calvinist, Arminian, and Unitarian, entertain views widely different regarding the character and offices of Jesus Christ. On such subjects Phrenology can throw no light whatever, and therefore it would be unphilosophical to mix up a discussion of the one with a treatise on the other;—and this observation is equally applicable to every announcement contained in the Bible regarding matters which are not permanent portions of ordinary nature.

The Bible, however, contains numerous, descriptions of human nature, and numerous rules for the guidance of human conduct; all of which may be compared with the constitution of the mind as it is revealed to us by observation, and with the

inferences which may be drawn from that constitution concerning its most becoming and most advantageous modes of action. The result of this comparison appears to us to establish the harmony between Phrenology and the representations of Scripture on the points alluded to. But let us come to details.

We are informed in Matthew's Gospel (xv. 19), that "out of the heart" (clearly meaning the mind)" proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies;" and statements essentially to the same effect are made in the Epistles of St Paul to the Romans (i. 29-31), and to the Galatians (v. 19-21). Now, according to Phrenology, excessive and irregular action of various faculties produces evil thoughts;-an abuse of Destructiveness occasions murder; an abuse of Amativeness gives rise to adulteries and fornications; an abuse of Acquisitiveness produces thefts; an abuse of Secretiveness leads to falsehood; and an abuse of Destructiveness and Self-Esteem is the origin of blasphemies.

Here, then, is a striking accordance; and the harmony will be more fully appreciated if we put the faculties enumerated by Mr Dugald Stewart to the test of a similar contrast. Mr Stewart's" Active and Moral Powers" are the following:

I. APPETITES-Hunger; Thirst; Appetite of Sex.

II. DESIRES-The Desire of Knowledge; of Society; of Esteem; of Power; of Superiority.

III. AFFECTIONS-Parental and Filial Affection; Affections of Kindred; Love-Friendship; Patriotism; Universal Benevolence; Gratitude-Piety.

Malevolent Affections. The names which are given to these in common discourse," says Mr Stewart, 66 are various :-Hatred; Jealousy; Envy; Revenge: Misanthropy. But," continues he," it may be doubted if there be any principle of this kind implanted by nature in the mind, excepting the principle of resentment; the others being grafted on this stock by our erroneous opinions and criminal habits."

IV. SELF-LOVE.

V. THE MORAL FACULTY.

VI. PRINCIPLES WHICH CO-OPERATE WITH OUR MORAL POWERS IN THEIR INFLUENCE ON CONDUCT; viz. Decency, or Regard to Character; Sympathy; the Sense of the Ridiculous; and Taste.

These faculties, then, joined with intellect, compose the human mind, according to Mr Stewart; and it will be found much more difficult to account, by means of his single malevolent af