arts; and from the portraits of Raphael, but more especially from the delicate texture of the skull, it appears that the quality of the brain was exceedingly fine. It is well known that designing and expression were the departments of art in which Raphael most excelled; and in conformity with this, both of our correspondents notice a large development of Form and Imitation. The organ of Colouring Dr Verity states to be only full; a circumstance which holds also in the case of Don Desiderio. Constructiveness does not seem to be so protuberant as with the latter. On several points our friends are a little at variance; so that we refrain from offering any detailed remarks at present. Both agree as to large Amativeness, Concentrativeness, Adhesiveness, Secretiveness, Cautiousness, Love of Approbation, Imitation, Form, Size, Locality, Causality, and Comparison. Of the organ of Hope, Raphael had only a full or moderate development. Dr Verity adds: "In the Capitoline Museum, there is a bust of Raphael, executed by Carlo Maratta in 1674, giving very much the same development of the intellectual organs, of Benevolence, and of Imitation, as appears from the skull; together with large Form. In his own portrait, painted by himself, in the School of Athens, there is the same broad expanse of forehead, and a deep pensive intellectual expression pervading the whole countenance. His stature was below the average; and, as far as we can judge from portraits, his temperament must have been highly nervous, with that combination of the bilious so prevalent among the southern Italians."-We are informed that Don Desiderio Adjutorio was passionately fond of the fine arts, an amateur, a priest, a man of learning and refinement, and the founder of St Luke's Academy of Painting. Is it wonderful, then, that, in cerebral development as well as character, he and Raphael should have in many particulars resembled each other?

Dr WILLIAM STOKES, in a lecture delivered at the Medical School, Park Street, Dublin, and published in the London Medical and Surgical Journal of 21st June 1834, adverts at considerable length to Phrenology, and states that, in his opinion, " there can be no doubt that the principles of Phrenology are founded on truth." He falls, however, into the extraordinary error of stating that pathology is entirely disregarded by the phrenologists,—an averment which he repeats in a great variety of forms throughout the lecture. "It is idle," says he, "to say, as they do, that theirs is the science of health, and that it is unfair to apply to it the test of disease. From pathology is drawn a host of facts, from which the doctrines they profess derive their principal support." Now, it cannot fail to be well known to every one who has perused the writings of Dr Gall, Dr Spurzheim, Mr Combe, or Dr Andrew Combe, that, almost at every turn, pathology is there referred to in support of Phrenology. Dr Gall's book, in particular, contains a regular array of "Preuves Pathologiques" of the plurality of cerebral organs. (Sur Les Fonctions du Cerveau, ii. 443–457.) In what work did Dr Stokes find the idle saying with which he charges the phrenologists? Though we are tolerably well versed in phrenological literature, it has certainly not hitherto fallen in our way. The Doctor expresses a strong desire to see the science in better hands than those of the rejecters of pathology, and adds, "We shall then, I have no doubt, recognise it as the greatest discovery in the science of the moral and physical nature of man that has ever been made."

Mr J. L. LEVISON's temper has been somewhat ruffled by our late notice of his book on Mental Culture; and he has, in consequence, heartily abused us in a letter published in the Berkshire Chronicle of 14th June 1834. Having already replied to him in a communication politely inserted by the editor of that paper, on 12th July, we deem only a few remarks necessary on the present occasion. The passage in our review which has given offence to Mr Levison is as follows: Want of space prevents us from giving any thing like an analysis of its (the book's) contents; but this is the less to be regretted, as the author's ideas seem, in many instances, borrowed from Dr Spurzheim." Now, what is the obvious meaning of this sentence? Simply, that as our readers were already acquainted with Dr Spurzheim's views on education, from having read either his own work or the analysis of it given in this Journal, they had little cause to regret the want of an abstract of Mr

Levison's book, in which the same ideas are expressed in an inferior manner. This is the sense in which the words were intended to be understood, and we humbly think they will bear no other interpretation. Mr Levison, however, finds in them a serious charge of "plagiarism," and speaks most feelingly of the lash of the critic ;" and he proceeds to justify his adoption of Dr Spurzheim's views, and to challenge us "to prove that, in any one instance, the language of Dr Spurzheim is servilely adopted." Now, in the first place, Mr Levison freely admits the whole extent of our averment, viz. that Dr Spurzheim's ideas are extensively borrowed, and consequently his cry of facta non verba is quite uncalled for; secondly, we did not say that the Doctor's language had been adopted ; and, thirdly, Mr Levison received from us neither commendation nor reproof for repeating the ideas of Dr Spurzheim. The readiness, however, with which he has discovered in the sentence above quoted a meaning which it does not and never was meant to express, and the warmth with which his letter is written, have induced us to look again into his book, and we now without hesitation affirm, that Mr Levison, although, according to his own explicit confession, he has "reiterated the opinions" of Dr Spurzheim on education, does not acknowledge his obligation to that philosopher for a single idea contained in the most important part of his book on Mental Culture-the chapters, namely, where Phrenology is applied to the business of education, and which constitute nearly two-thirds of the whole work (p. 117 to p. 269.) But even now, we are far from complaining that Mr Levison has reiterated Dr Spurzheim's opinions on education; every one who aids in diffusing them has our best wishes, and we have no doubt that his book will be of service in spreading them abroad. We only assert as a fact, that he expounds many of Dr Spurzheim's ideas as his own, and thus puts himself in the way of receiving the honour which is justly due to another. Whether this is intentional or not, we do not pretend to judge. Had Mr Levison expounded in philosophical and accurate language the opinions of Dr Spurzheim, and avoided the errors which are mixed up with the great body of true and use. ful ideas contained in his work on Mental Culture, no periodical would have more willingly and heartily commended his production than the Phrenological Journal. He tries to exculpate himself by saying that he "has not acted half so much the plagiarist as the writers who principally contribute to the Phrenological Journal;" in particular, he charges Mr Combe and Mr Simpson with the sin, and denies all originality to the Scotch phrenologists. Nor does he fail to make use of misrepresentation in doing so. But even assuming Mr Levison's assertion as to want of originality to be true, there is this great difference between his mode of proceeding and that of the Scotch phre nologists, that the latter every where acknowledge, in the most open and explicit manner, their obligations to Gall and Spurzheim; and not only so, but, as the readers of our Journal are well aware, have for many years zealously defended the merits and reputation of these philosophers. The question whether the Scotch phrenologists have displayed originality of thought, we leave to the decision of those who have studied their writings and compared them with those of Gall and Spurzheim.

Mr Levison calls for an enumeration of the errors by which we stated his book to be disfigured. We could easily quote a variety of statements little redounding to his credit as a phrenologist; but having exhausted our space, and already gratified him by pointing out, in the Berkshire Chronicle, some of the principal blunders, we must now take leave of the subject.

The fifty-second number of Fraser's Magazine (April 1834) contains one of the most paltry attacks on Phrenology which we have seen for many years. Such specimens of controversy are admirably fitted to bring the cause of antiphrenology into contempt. The critic admits (what certain other critics deny) that Gall and Spurzheim made some valuable discoveries relative to the anatomy of the nervous system; but for nothing beyond this will he allow them the slightest credit. So hot is his zeal against their doctrine, that he manfully sets himself in array against the whole world of physiologists, and, in a fit of chivalrous and disinterested enthusiasm, declares he "would rather die" than concede that the brain is the material instrument by means

of which the mind carries on intercourse with the external world! Does the critic really believe that any man can think in this world without brains, and that their only use is to save Nature from the horror of a vacuum in the skull ? With equal gravity he propounds the insufferably trite and contemptible piece of cant, that "Phrenology is now the stronghold of materialism;" an assertion a thousand times refuted, and which no respectable opponent has ever brought forward. He affirms, moreover, that "phrenologists present us with analogy only," to establish the fact that the brain is an aggregate of organs performing different functions ! We marvel that Oliver Yorke admits such trash into his magazine: he ought in future to submit all antiphrenological lucubrations sent him for insertion, to the scrutiny of his friend the Modern Pythagorean, whom he knows to be no fool, and who would not fail to treat the writers according to their deserts.

RAMMOHUN Roy. Some of our ideas about Rammohun Roy have been combated-though in a very friendly spirit—by a critic in the Christian Pioneer for July; but we have been so ably defended in the August num. ber of the same periodical, by an unknown Glasgow phrenologist, subscribing "M. A. C.," (to whom our best acknowledgments are due,) that any remarks on the subject in this place would be quite superfluous. The critic falls into various misapprehensions, which are well exposed by M. A. C. We still differ from both writers, however, in believing that Rammohun Roy doubted, at least till towards the close of his life, the miraculous origin of Christianity; nor is it possible to depart from this belief, till the reasons which led to it, and which are detailed in our last Number, shall be invalidated.

HEAD OF NAPOLEON BONAPARTE.-A paragraph lately appeared in the London Medical Gazette, stating that Dr Antommarchi had published a bust of Napoleon, taken by Dr A. himself from the dead body of the Emperor ; and that this bust is chiefly remarkable for the smallness of its size, the measurements being under the average. No details are given, but the case is described as one very unfavourable to Phrenology. Now we have seen and handled the cast in the possession of Dr Antommarchi, and are therefore entitled to request attention to the following facts.

1. In October last, Dr Antommarchi possessed only a cast of the head as far back as a line passing downwards a little behind the vertex. The back part was wanting, and Dr A. was very anxious to obtain a copy of a cast of the posterior region of the head, which he stated to be in the possession of an English gentleman: from peculiar circumstances, however, he had very little hope of accomplishing this object. If, then, an entire cast has been published, it is, in all probability, authentic only in the middle and anterior regions, the back having been added by guess to make a bust. But,

2. The cast in the possession of Dr Antommarchi, as far as it goes, we can state, from personal observation, to be of a very unusually large size; almost every organ included in it being remarkably well developed. We had not permission to measure it, and indeed the measurements of a half bust would not have been satisfactory; but we are sure that, if the back part of the head was only in proportion to the parts seen in the cast, the whole head must have been one of the largest in Europe. We have no doubt that if Dr Antommarchi has procured the authentic cast of the posterior portion, and joined the two halves accurately (a matter of some difficulty, as they are not halves of one cast, but taken separately), the head will be found to correspond with our description of it. It is proper to explain, that when Dr A. took a cast of the head, the back part, as he informed us, was broken, owing to a deficiency of plaster, which caused it to be very thin, and that another cast of that part was subsequently made. In joining this to the other, if he had procured it, he was to have been guided by measurements made on the actual head.

Further observations would be superfluous until we either see the bust or obtain correct measurements, along with proper evidence of its authenticity. From the foregoing statement, our readers will be able to judge how far the anti-phrenological fact of the Medical Gazette is worthy of credit.

EDINBURGH, 1st September 1834.

THE

PHRENOLOGICAL JOURNAL.

No. XLII.

ARTICLE I.

THE PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERS OF RACES OF MANKIND CONSIDERED IN THEIR RELATIONS TO HISTORY; Being a Letter to M. Amédée Thierry, Author of the History of the Gauls. By W. F. EDWARDS, M. D., F. R. S. L. &c. &c. Faris, 1829.

THE very interesting work of the title of which a translation is prefixed, may be divided into two parts. In the first, the author endeavours, and we think successfully, to prove that a race, if not extirpated, continues, however it may be mixed with others, to present its characteristic features, and may thus be recognised after the lapse of many ages; and, in the second, he gives some examples of the application of this important principle in discovering, among modern nations, the descendants and representatives of various ancient races, commonly supposed to have been lost in the mixture of tribes which followed the various conquests and settlements which have taken place in Europe.

Dr Edwards justly observes, that, " When a people is conquer. ed, and has lost its independence, as it no longer forms a nation, it ceases to exist in history; and we are tempted to believe that in such revolutions each disaster annihilates the previously existing races. But an attentive study of languages enables us to detect, in those spoken at the present day, the ancient idioms which have formed them, and thus to trace, in countries where otherwise we should never have suspected it, an uninterrupted connexion between the ancient and the modern inhabitants. If, then, the forms of speech leave traces which betray their ancient origin, what are we to think of the physical characters of the race? Are they less permanent? Do we retain nothing of the features of our ancestors? Has climate so changed them that they can no longer be recognised? Has the mixture of races confounded every thing? Has civilization regenerated every thing? Has decay degraded every thing? Has force exterminat

VOL. X. NO. XLII.

G

ed or expelled entire peoples? Such are the questions which must be briefly examined, before coming to the observations which are the subject of this work.”

On the question of THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE, the author observes, that we must attend not to extraordinary and perhaps isolated instances, but to the general results when large masses of beings are exposed to this cause. He shews that the greater

number of plants, when brought into a new climate, retain their peculiar character, if they survive; and the same is the case with animals, with the remarkable exception of the well known changes in their fur and other coverings; but here the essential characters remain unaltered.

All the European nations have sent portions of their population into distant countries; and, as many of the colonies thus formed have existed very long, we can judge by them of the effect of the prolonged influence of climate. Now, asks Dr Edwards, do England, France, or Spain, find it difficult to recognise the descendants of the original colonists? Do not these colonists, on the contrary, exhibit the proper characters of their mother country? But as these characters, in the European nations, are not single and uniform, but mixed to a considerable extent, and consequently admit of some hesitation in pronouncing upon them, let us take, says he, an example which will leave no doubt on the subject. The physiognomy of the Jews is so marked, that it is universally known and recognised. They may be considered as colonists in all countries and climates; and, as they have preserved their customs, and have mixed little with the surrounding tribes, they are in the most favourable circumstances for shewing the real effect of climate.

In the first place, then, Jews in all countries resemble each other, and differ from the people among whom they live. Secondly, at distant periods, they had the same external characters. In the Last Supper of Leonardo da Vinci, this painter, who was an excellent naturalist and close observer, has painted faces which might be portraits of living Jews. This was 300 years ago; but we have evidence, that 3000 years ago the Jews had the same characters.

In the copy of the paintings adorning the tomb of an Egyptian king, exhibited in London about ten years ago, there are representations of four different races in procession:-1st, The natives, very numerous, of a dark brown tint, but without the woolly hair of the Negro; 2d, Negroes, with the black skin, thick lips, and woolly hair of that race; 3d, Persians; and, 4th, Jews, distinguished, says Belzoni, by their complexion and physiognomy. Dr Edwards says, "I had seen on the previous day, Jews in the streets of London; I thought that I now saw their portraits."