persons known to Dr Prichard are somewhat inferior to such men as Napoleon, Sully, Chatham, Franklin, and Washington; and, moreover, that possibly he is not an adept in the art of distinguishing the signs of intellectual talent.

We cannot help thinking that Dr Prichard has examined the Cretins very imperfectly, when he speaks of their intellects, and not their appetites, bearing a relation to the size of the cerebellum. We have seen numbers of them with unusually large cerebella, in whom reason was but a ray, compared to the energy of the sexual passion which they manifested; and we can state, as an additional fact, that, in such cases, the forehead is either unusually small and contracted, or presents the appearance of morbid distention. In a very few instances, nothing remarkable appears in its external configuration, but the whole expression and aspect of the body indicate structural disease in the brain itself. But to return to Tiedemann. "This," he continues, "would appear to shew that there is some truth in the doctrines of Gall and Spurzheim, and it would be well if the heads of individuals intended for an intellectual or studious life were measured before they commenced their studies, as many disappointments would be avoided. The assertion, however, that in one part of the brain resides this faculty, and in another that, I cannot believe. In dissection of intellectual persons, the convolutions are found more numerous than usual, and the anfractuosities deeper. In women the sulci are less deep than in men."

We are glad to perceive that Dr Tiedemann is a man of the practical understanding which the above quotation betokens. No doubt, a statement of facts like his does " appear" to support Phrenology, but it is Nature and not Tiedemann that must be blamed for the coincidence. It is evident that he would have avoided every appearance of supporting such doctrines, if truth would have allowed him. As it is, we suspect that he is a sounder Phrenologist than many who arrogate the title. He distinctly, although by implication, admits the fundamental principle of size of brain being an index of mental power; and he farther admits, that intellect has a direct relation to the cerebral convolutions situated in the anterior lobes. If, after these admissions, he differs as to the functions of other parts of the brain, it is a difference only as to details; and when principles are once established, details can be easily verified and corrected. We are bound, indeed, to declare, that the learned Professor is not conscious of being a phrenologist; but his evidence in its favour is only the more valuable on that account, and whatever he may now do or say about the cerebellum is of little consequence, as time and farther progress in his new field of study will ultimately remove all his present difficulties.

VOL. IX.-NO. XI.

D

Having noticed the opinion of one of the Heidelberg professors respecting Phrenology, we take the opportunity of adverting to those of another. We learn from excellent authority, that Professor Arnold stated in his lectures last summer, that he agrees with Gall in thinking that the cerebellum is the organ of Amativeness; though he believes it-for what reason we know not-to be also in some way connected with involuntary motion. Personal observation has satisfied him that the animal, moral, and intellectual faculties are connected with different regions of the brain; and he entirely concurs with Gall as to the individual regions occupied by each class of faculties, but, like Tiedemann, thinks that Gall has gone too far in asserting that these regions consist of a number of smaller organs. Arnold, then, admits, from observation, the grand fundamental principle, that different parts of the brain perform different functions; and, in particular, that on the basilar and occipital regions depend the propensities, on the coronal region the moral sentiments, and on the forehead the intellect. As a commentary on his and Tiedemann's refusal to admit the existence of organs of individual faculties—— in other words to assent to the details of Phrenology—we shall extract, but without meaning to apply the whole of it to the two professors, a lively and forcible passage from a work published in 1829 by Dr Caldwell of Lexington.

"Nothing is more common," says Dr Caldwell," than for physicians and others, who ought to be better informed, to observe very gravely, and, as some may think, very knowingly, We believe in the general principles of Phrenology, but not in its details.' But a few years ago those same sage and cautious gentlemen denounced it, by the lump,' principles,' and all. This they will not deny. But times have changed, and they have changed their creed and their tone. Phrenology has gained strength, and, in the same ratio, have their opposition and hostility to it gained weakness. They think by fashion, as they shape their apparel. They feel the breeze of popular sentiment with as much attention and accuracy as they do their patients' pulses, or as they examine the state of respiration by means of the stethoscope, and turn and turn' as it turns, yet still go on.' Thus do they completely verify the common adage, that those who talk at random should have good memories.' Although they may forget, the world will remember.

6

"But let them occupy their new ground undisturbed. What have they gained by it? What are the meaning and force of their objection to Phrenology? Literally nothing. In the general principles' of the science they avow their belief; and in that avowal they concede every thing. What are Generalizations of details,' and nothing more. aggregates or classifications of recognised facts.

principles ?" They are but • Details' are

parts, principles' the whole. Of Phrenology, this is proverbially true. By those who know the history of it, it is perfectly understood, that, in all his discoveries, in developing the science, the march of Gall was from 'details' to principles,'-from individuals to generals-not the reverse. His method, like that of Bacon, was strictly inductive. In this consisted his chief merit as a discoverer and a philosopher. Could he, then, out of false details' construct true principles? No antiphrenologist will answer in the affirmative. No such alchemy pertained to Gall or any of his followers. Nor did they ever profess it. It is by their opponents that it is virtually professed; and to them belongs the task to reconcile the inconsistency, or to bear the burden of it. A

"But they cannot reconcile it. As well may they attempt any other impossibility; and as soon will they succeed in it. If the ⚫ general principles' of Phrenology are true, so are its' details.' If the parts be corrupt, the whole cannot be sound. The enemies of the science, then, have but one alternative; to reject or receive it in toto.

But

"But wherefore is it that the opponents of Phrenology do not believe in its details? The reply is easy. They have not studied them, and do not, therefore, understand them. It is praise enough for any one, to say of him, that he thoroughly understands what he has carefully studied. What he has not thus studied, no man ever yet understood, nor ever can. to pursue 'details' is much more troublesome and laborious, than to comprehend principles' when completely established and clearly enunciated. Hence the reason why, as relates to Phrenology, gentlemen profess a belief in the latter and not in the former. Let them first acquire a correct and thorough knowledge of the latter, and then deny and subvert them, if they can. As soon would they dream of denying, or attempting to subvert, the facts of the descent of ponderous bodies, the reflexion of light, or the pressure of the atmosphere. Why did the prince of Ceylon disbelieve in the consolidation of water by cold? He was ignorant of details.' Why have the Chinese denied the possibility of throwing balls to a great distance, and with a destructive force, by means of water acted on by fire? For the same reason, an ignorance of details.' Why did the world remain so long incredulous of the identity of electricity and lightning, and of the compressibility of water? Franklin and Perkins had not yet instructed them in the requisite details.' Away, then, with such idle affectation of sagacity and wisdom! It is but a tattered covering for a want of information; a hackneyed apology for a neglect to inquire. In truth, with men who make a pretence to knowledge, a disbelief in details,' and an entire ignorance of them, are too frequently synonymous

expressions. As relates to the opponents of Phrenology, this is certainly true. To know the details' of that science, and to believe in them, are the same. No one has ever thoroughly studied them, by a faithful examination of man as he is, without arriving at a conviction of their truth If such an instance has ever occurred, it has been in some individual whose cerebral developments were unfavourable; in plainer English, whose head was badly formed. Neither Homer's Thersites, whose cranium was misshapen,' nor any of Shakspeare's personages, with ⚫ foreheads villanously low, could have been easily proselyted to the doctrines of Phrenology. The reason is obvious. Their own heads would not have passed muster.? Their belief, therefore, would have been self-condemnatory. And as no man is bound, in common law, to give evidence against himself, neither is it very consistent with the laws of human nature, for any one to believe, more especially to avow his belief, to his own disparagement. As the hump-backed, knock-kneed, and bandylegged have an instinctive hostility to the science of gymnastics, it is scarcely to be expected that the flat-heads, apple-heads, and sugar-loaf-heads will be favourably disposed to that of Phrenology. Nor will those whose brains are so ponderous behind and light before, that their heads seem in danger of tilting backward *."

We have no doubt that, on widening the sphere of his observations, Arnold will become satisfied with respect to the details, as well as the principles of Phrenology. Should he ultimately declare himself a phrenologist, of which we have little doubt, the cause of the science will be greatly forwarded in Germany; for he is there universally known, and it is all but certain that he will succeed Tiedemann as Professor of Anatomy and Physiology in the University of Heidelberg. རྨུ་

AN ESSAY ON THE CHARACTER AND CEREBRAL DEVELOPMENT OF ROBERT BURNS. Read, on 5th May 1834, before The Edinburgh Ethical Society for the Study and Practical Application of Phrenology. By Mr ROBERT Cox.

IT may be affirmed without fear of contradiction, that there is no individual whose character and history are better known in Scotland than those of Robert Burns. To Scotchmen, even in the most distant parts of the world, his works are hardly

Caldwell's New Views of Penitentiary Discipline, &c. Philadelphia, 1829. Preface, pp. 5 and 6.

less familiar than the sacred writings themselves. The minutest incidents of his life have been recorded, commented on, and repeated almost to satiety, by a succession of talented biographers; and his career is in itself pregnant with interest and instruction to every student of the nature of man. For these reasons, the Edinburgh phrenologists have long been anxious to ascertain the cerebral development of Burns; and they consider themselves highly indebted to those gentlemen in Dumfries, through whose exertions there is now before us an accurate and authentic representation of the poet's skull *.

The circumstances in which the cast was procured are fully stated in the following narrative, from the pen of Mr Blacklock, surgeon, originally published in the Dumfries Courier.

if we ex

"On Monday night, 31st March 1834, Mr John M'Diarmid, Mr Adam Rankine, Mr James Kerr, Mr James Bogie, Mr Andrew Crombie, and the subscriber, descended into the vault of the mausoleum for the purpose of examining the remains of Burns, and, if possible, procuring a cast of his skull. Mr Crombie having witnessed the exhumation of the bard's remains in 1815, and seen them deposited in their present resting place, at once pointed out the exact spot where the head would be found, and a few spadefuls of loose sandy soil being removed, the skull was brought into view, and carefully lifted. "The cranial bones were perfect in every respect, cept a little erosion of their external table, and firmly held together by their sutures; even the delicate bones of the orbits, with the trifling exception of the os unguis in the left, were sound and uninjured by death and the grave. The superior maxillary bones still retained the four most posterior teeth on each side, including the dentes sapientiæ, and all without spot or blemish; the incisores, cuspidati, &c. had, in all probability, recently dropt from the jaw, for the alveoli were but little decayed. The bones of the face and palate were also sound. Some small portions of black hair, with a very few grey hairs intermixed, were observed while detaching some extraneous matter from the occiput. Indeed nothing could exceed the high state of preservation in which we found the bones of the cranium, or offer a fairer opportunity of supplying what has so long been desiderated by phrenologists-a correct model of our immortal poet's head: and in order to accomplish this in the most

A report has been widely circulated, that, long before the present cast was obtained, the phrenologists had made an imaginary bust of Burns, and adduced it in support of their doctrines. Nothing can be more unfounded. The report has been contradicted in a number of the Scotch newspapers: but the English press, which widely copied the story as an excellent joke against the phrenologists, has not in general been so candid as to insert the contradiction. Many of our friends, as well as enemies, are consequently full of astonishment at the folly and bad faith of the Scotch phrenologists!