IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-S)

.^/

1.0

III 1.1

lli^

11.25

Its

1^ 1^

2 ,„„22
2.0

■ 4.0

1.8

M. I L6

'^^,

^^j^*-*- //yi

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

2G WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14560

(716) 877-4503

i *->,

' >.*

*',

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/iCMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian rnstitute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproducticns historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniques at bibiiographiques

The
toti

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommagie

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicui^e

I I Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartes gdographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

□ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Relit avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distorsion le long de la marge int6rieurj

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte.
mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas itd filmtes.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppldmentaires;

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mithode normale de filmage
sont indiquts ci-dessous.

□ Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

□
D

D
D

Pages damaged/
Pages endommagies

Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restauries et/ou pellicultes

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages dicolortes, tachettes ou piquies

Pages detached/
Pages ditachtes

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of print varies/
Qualiti indgale de I'impression

Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire

The
post
of tl
film

Orig

begi

the

sion

oth«

first

sion

Drill

□ Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

The
shall
TINI
whi<

Map
diffe
entii
begi
right
requ
metl

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6ti filmies d nouveau de fapon i
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est filmt au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous.

10X 14X 18X 22X

26X

30X

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity off:

La BibiiotMque de ia Villa da Montreal

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol — ^> (mean.ng "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

1 2 3

L'exemplaire filmA f ut reproduit grAce A la
g6n*rosit6 de:

La Bibllothkiua da la Villa da Montreal

Les images suivantes ont At4 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film«, et en
conformity avec las conditions du contrat de
tiimage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimte sont film69 en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont filmfo en commenpant par la
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d 'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur !a
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols ^^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbols V signifie "FIN".

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre
fiimds A des taux de reduction difffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre
reproduit en un seul clichA, il est film6 A partir
de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mAthode.

f'-'t. :»•

,'i

/_^f/i- 35360 . ■

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUmiES.

PARTS I & II,

BEING

«RST, OF THE CAUSES WHICH HAVE PREVENTED

OF PHRENOLOGY :

THE GENERAL RECEPTION

SECONDLV, or THE NATURE AND

ADVANTAGES OF THE RESEARCHES OF
ITS ADVOCATES :

AND ELUCIDATING

THE IMPERFECTIONS OF THE « fhESEN^ SVSTEM," AND THE IMPROVE-
MENTS AND DISCOVERIES OF IHE AUTHOR.

By LUKE BURK

QUEBEC,

PUBLUHED rOK THE AUTHOR Br VVm. CowA« & So«.

v!l

1S40.

,-*!

prothonotary's officb,

the r,th Auguu, lS<Oi

Be It remembered that on the sixth day of Aujust in the year of Our Lord Chriit
one thousand eight hundred and forty, one Luke Burke hath deposited in this Oifice
the title of a work, which title is in the words and figures following, that is to sav
« ^""""'"e'cal Enquiries, parts I & IF, bein? an Invest! stion first, of the causes

which have prevented the general reception ol Phrenology ; secondly, of the nature
• and advrntages of the researches of its advocates ; and elucidating the imperfections

01 the " present system," and the impiovements and discoveries of the Author. Bv
" Luke Burke," the right whereof he claims as proprietor. '

Entered according to the Act of the Provincial Legislature, intituled " An Act
for the protection of Copy Rights."

PEHRAULT * BURROUGHS,

Prothonotar J of Her Majesty's Court of King's Bench , for the District of Quebec;

PREFACE.

llugutt, IftlOi

tituled " An Act

iitrict of Quebec;

The immediate object of the present work may be sufficiently
explained in a few words. In the first part of it, ihe author ex-
amines the principal causes of the rejection of Phrenology, and en-
deavours to prove that those usually assigned by Phrenologists are
but accessaries to this result, while its essential causes have been
very generally overlooked as well by the advocates of the doctrine,
as by its opponents. He seeks to convince both the one, and the
other, of the necessity of a careful reconsideration of their respective
opinions ; — to lead the believer to question the propriety of the un-
hesitating assent usually given by Phrenologists to the whole of the
doctrine as at present understood, and to awaken in the mind of its
opponent the suspicion at least, that after all there may be much
truth in Phrenology, though appearances have hitherto seemed to him
so decidedly opposed to it. In the second part, he first endeavours
to shew, that even on the supposition of Phrenology being false, the
researches ofitsadvocates are extremely important, while if true,
it is a science which must confer on mankind benefits of the very
highest order ; and secondly he examines the disadvantages which
some imagine would attend the introduction of a science of this na-
ture—especially in reference to its bearing upon the questions of
materialism, and fatalism — and endeavours to prove that all such
objections have originated partly from superficial views of the moral
influenceof scientific truths in general, and partly from ignorance
of the true nature of Phrenology.

Such is the immediate, and direct aim of the work. — As
however there are many ulterior objects which it is designed to ac-
complish, as it is the first of a series intended some time or other to
be laid before the public, and as the circumstances of its appearance
as well as the author's views of Phrenology are in many respects
peculiar, some preliminary explanations will be necessary before

entering upon the immediate subjects of enquiry. He trusts to be ex-
cused for toucl.ing upon matters of a personal nature, since the
pleasure of his task, (and in some degree the success also) must
very much depend on the reader's understanding the circumstances
which have led to its being undertaken.

To the study of Phrenology the author has for many years past
devoted a great deal of attention, and it has happened that the
peculiar direction wliich his enquiries have take.i,* has led (so at
least he conceives) to a variety of important im^)rovements, and
discoveries in it. Till within the last three years, no publicity has
been given to those views except in a single instance— about seven
years back— when an announcement of some of them was made to a
body of Phrenologists. The sweeping condemnation then passed
upon them as the crude notions of a young man— the hacknied
charge of presumption &c., -nade against the author by men who
would not condescend to examine his opinions though submitted to
them with much more deference and humility than was due to
them— the grossly inaccurate representation of the whole affair in
the pages of one ot the periodicals of the day— were sufficient to
satisfy him that he must expect to share the usual fate of innovators,
and to determine him not again to give any publicity to his opinions
until he was prepared to follow up their announcement with a work
fully explaining, and (lefending them. Such a work has hitherto
been deferred, and the autlior remained silent on the subject until
about three years back, when he determined again to bring it for-
ward. Anxious however to submit his opinions to the severest
test of experiment before giving much publicity to them, ^md
wishing at the same time to avail himself of every opportunity
of making further improvements, he undertook a course of
travels, in conjunction with lectures and experiments :— a method
which the peculiar nature of Phrenology renders almost indispen-
sable to those who aim at improving the science, especially in its
more practical departments. As the nature of his peculiar opinions
was such :that it was impossible to avoid stating them in his dis-

cussion. he folt from the commencement the extreme inconve-

nicnco o fl,,-,vmg „„ wo,k explanator,- of them to place in the hand.

of Ins amhtors. For not only .11.1 his general .lefenee of PhrenoloB-

<le|«n.I .nuch upon thorn, but they were themselves also occasS.

nally matters of controversy, an.l in either case the .liscus-

sto,, could be but imperfocllycarriclonwilluut.he ai.l of some

uchtreafso. Ihen again his rtatements were continually liable

obem,sm„ler>:tood anrlmisreprcsento,), since there was nothing

to depen.1 upon I, ..ttho attention ami memory of his auditors, or of

hose to whom they repeale.l them. Finally the impression made

by h,s arguments could at best be but evanescent, since with the

termmatton of a course of lectures nothing remained to refresh the

memory, or to keep alive any degree of ardour which happened to
have been excited.

Still with these and many other in.lucements before him, the
author has to the present moment refrained from publication ; first,
because there was much in the science which he wanted still to ex-
ammo, and he hoped by further delay ,0 be able to do something
mer I kejusl.ce both to his own system, and to the cause in ge-
nera t an he felt to be then in his power ;-.econdly, he was !l
w,lhng to hrmg forward a partial view of his system, and it would
have been too great an interference with his' studies to haTea^
tempted the preparation of a large work ; and thirdly, he wished
tod er t.U a ported of greater leisure the controversy in which his
pee , bar v.ews were likely to engage him. Thi,, silence howeve

rtonoftM"'"!""?" '"'''''"""' "" ">« ^"ccessfulprose-
cu„„„ o h,s,abo„rs that he resolved partially at least to break

Itr A °""™'" <=»""»»=«' the preparation of a brief
ab*actofh,s system of Phrenology, merely intending i, as an ae
compantment to his lectures, and consequenllv purposfn. to confine
.Ue,rcula.on to those places where he had already ex^pl nod h"
vtews or des,g„ed shortly to do so. With this intention he or.^

SfwlrtT ^- ''""r '■»™''i"l-'« i-Po-ible to satisfy him-
selfwith the very imperfect explanations which the nature of the

♦'1

,: if

})<!

m !-

!■■ 'Ill

work aclmmed of: he therefore abandoned it, and as his intention of
immediaiely publishing had often been announced to his friends
a leeling of consistency, as well as the reasons already stated, made'
him anxious to produce something upon the subject as soon as pos-
sible. After therefore considering and rejecting different plans, he
came to the determination of preparing for the full discussion of his
opmions, and ofissuing the present essay as the first step in the
process. Still as he does not desire for some time to come to seek
any further publicity than may be necessary to aid his researches
the circulation of the work will for the present be limited to this
side of the Atlantic.

As frequent allusions will be made both in the present work, and
in those which are intended to follow it, to the discoveries, and
changes which the author proposes to introduce into Phrenology
It may be as well thus early to give some notice of them, that his
readers may at once perceive-" the very head, and front of his
oflTending"— while he may have an apportunity of extenuating in
some degree the grievous fault of innovation.

He has to observe then, that the reflections and experiments of
many years, have forced him to regard the present system of Phre-
nology as being not only extremely imperfect (which was to be
expected) but also as abounding in positive errors. These errors
may be referred to two classes-the first resulting from the very
imperfect system of mental analysis which has hitherto been
brought to bear upon the subject-the second from the slight know-
ledge hitherto possessed by Phrenologists of the nature, and extent
of the inmence oftemperament.

As to the first, it appears to him that in few instances only has
the exact function of any of the organs been ascertained, though
It IS usually considered that every thing requisite has been discovered
m regard to most of them. Thus (generally speaking) what is
termed the function of an organ, appears to him a complex manifesta-
tion of mind depending chiefly on that organ, but very much also

hi i
ll' I

A ii|

Vil

sent work, and

upon the combined action of several others.* Many of these im
perfections he conceives he has remedied, while in regard to others
he has been unable to do more than point out their existence.
He behoves too that he has discovered several neu, or^an., and
saUsfactonly ascertained the functions of most of them, th^se of
others being as yet more or less desiderata. These changes and
additions have necessarily led to several alterations in the classieca-
tion and norijenclature at present adopted, as well as to several
subdivisions of the spaces at present assigned to some of the re-
cognised organs.

In the .second place ho conceives that a, far aa praclicol
PAre«o%j„s concerned, undue iraporlance has hitherto been aet
..pon the mere nze and shape of the brain. In theoretical Phre-
nohgy imleed the brain may almost he said to be every thing, ,im;e
-t .s the immediate mstrument of intelligence and desire, bufwhen
these faa,lt,es are considered in reference to particular individuals
and we have to determine their various degrees and mode. ofm.
n,festafon-the,r excitability, duration, and'power-their delic™
coarseness, and other modifications more easily felt than expS
-th n ,t appears to him that the more si^e and shape of the b™^
m.ght«too,, bo said to be of secondary consideration! so great is Z
mporance of the jua^j, of the nervous substatlce, ' n^ of he

He.e the author bei.eves that he has greatly extended the phreno o
g. al apphcafons of the knowledge already possessed on the ubM
ftemperament, as well as pointed out the only method of studyC
it With full advantage. °^""ying

"•ot. is meant than that it dewnds o„ » " , , ' """ "'"^ """'i"!!

fm«.Ph„n„,„,is..rega,/.;:t;a: f:,:::;irr""'"'^^^^

ments, by the means of which the soul m»nf T 7^^ "'"'''' ""^'■"■

the eye, and hears with th ea so it thi^ .' f ?°"''"- ""' " '''' ^''»^
w in (ne ear, so it thinks, and desires with the brain.

•Hi

! i- -A

• ■ t

In regard to all the.e matters the author seldom dirters from his
brethren upon points of fact ; it is rather upon the inferences to be
drawn from those facts that he varies from them. His own experi-
ments have satisfied him that they have been close and careful
observers of nature, and so far from his views being in contradiction
o the facts they have brought to light, he conceives that they cons-
, tuute the true explanation of them. It seems to him however that
they have often generalized too much, and that many manifestations
oi mind which they conceive to be always proportionate to certain
peculiarities of organization, will upon closer investigation be found
to be only occasionally so. It is seldom therefore that his infer-
ences are altogether different from those of other Phrenologists. He
believes that the opinions of the founders of the doctrine will almost
always be found to be at least partially correct, though from the
peculiar direction which their enquiries have taken, and the cir-
cumstances under which they have been introduced, they have
often made but an approximation to the truth, where they fancied
that all hau been discovered. So far therefore from these discre-
pancies of opinion serving as an argument against Phrenology, thev
will be found when there is an opportunity of fairly examinL thern
ofadecidedly opposite tendency.

Among the consequences of these changes and additions it mav
be mentioned that with all the improvements which the author con-
ceives he has made, he still regards Phrenology as much more
imperfect than it is usually considered by its advocates. It appears
to him that m the present system there is too much explained--too
ready an answer for every difficulty-a great deal too little of
doubt There IS an apparent simplicity in it which is peculiarly
deceptive, and which has often won for it the admiration of

ornir'""'r'^'' ""^'*'^ "^«J«"*^ ^' ^*« ^'^ocie.

ffr N l"'^^^^^^^^^ -dinary

affair. Nothing could be plainer it would seem, than to say that

t ;s organ enables us to perceive and remembe.>rm., that In/

this other pte.^that this produces ..7, that ca./.o;; t^^^^^^^

IX .

nesa &c. But whon Mre look a little below the surface, and a^k
what are forms, and events, and placos-what wit, or caution or
firmness,~and when we coni|)aro (he answers given, with thefunda
mental principle of the science-the unity of function of each or^an
-^nd seek to make elementary manifestations of mind of these per-
ceptions or powers,— then matters are entirely reversed, and we
perceive obscurities, and contradictions, where we had imagined
that all was simple and obvious.

An other consequence is, that the author frequently finds
himselfoccupying a middle ground, between the extreme of anti-
phrenology on the one hand, and the present system of the science
on the other :— that for instance he readily admits the validity of
many of the objections (especially the metaphysical ones) which-
have been urged against Phrenology— not as affectir r the real
sctence, but as directly militating against much that is at present
considered as such ; while in other cases he approximates to many
ancient, and generally received opinions with which Phrenology
has hitherto been considered altogether at variance. These ap-
proximations to antiphrenology have not been made designedly—
The author did not commence by believing these views, and then
endeavouring to bring Phrenology in harmony with them. On the
contrary, like other Phrenologists, he has been in the habit of reject-
ing them, but has been brought to his present position gradually and
often imperceptibly, by the course of his experiments. Whether he
has succeeded in attaining in most, or any of these cases to the
juste milieuy must be for others to determine, when his views have
been fully laid before them.

As a third consequence he may state, that his system seems to him
to enable us to account minutely, and satisfactorily for the various
discrepancies of opinion existing in regard to this subject— its re-
jection by the majority of the learned— its ardent support by some
among them— the differences of opinion between Gall, and Spurzheim
—the partial differences between other Phrenologists— and finally,

^!i

:''P

H^ ' '

' 1

|i'i|!i '

those between the present system in general, and that of the

author.

There are other important consequences that must also result
from these changes in Phrenology, should the) pi ove legitimate ; but
it is unnecessary to touch upon them at the present time.

The author is well awarr that the freedom with which he has
here, as well as through the work generally, stated his opinions, and
ventured to criticise the received doctrines of the science, ind
above all the many changes which he proposes to introduce, and the
discoveries to which he lays claim, are little calculated to gain for
him the sympathy or favour of a certain portion of his brethren. A
• rigorous criticism oftheir doctrines by one of their own body— one
who professes to be a Phrenologist in the full sense of the word—
an experimentalist, as well as a theorist, h (if he mistake not) a
circumstance so unusual, that it can hardly fail to excite the dis-
pleasure of some of the more zealous advocates of the sc':ence :—
of those especially who, not having experimented extensively them-
selves, have been in the habit of placing almost implicit reliance on
the opinions of the leading members of their body. If such a result
should follow the appearance of this work (and it would be con-
trary to the almost invariable rule in such matters of it did not)
the author will certainly regret it, but he cannot suffer his desire of
pleasing to interfeie with a ccurse to which he can tJ^e no valid
objection. Why should he refrain from the free expression of his
opinions ?— Perhaps he tvill be told that he is unknown to science—
that this ?»tepin^ forth with such innovations is premature— that it
argues much presumption— that these views should have been in
th^. first instance Idd before a body of Phrenologists, and if approved
of, then submitted to the public, &c. But after all, what ir. '' "ro
in th ese objecticis ? If he happens to reason justly, if he b. . - for-
^ itrd truths not generally known or places known truths ii« a new
light, of what great consequence is it to the public— whal, indeed
does it at all matter to the cause of science— whether this be his first,
or his twentieth effort ? If on the other hand, he otTers errors,

instead of truths, t' e less his influence, the less his talents— the less
of course the mischiefs his errors will produce. If the communica-
tions of error be at all dangerous, it is only when it comes stamped
with the characterestics of genius, or recommended by the voice
of authority. Such at least is the case in matters of science.

As to being premature, or presumptuous, — this is his answer. —
He has not approached this study without preparation, nor given to
it a small share of atten^on. For more than twelve years it has
been with him a subject of constant reflection : during many por-
tions of that period it has almost exclusively occupied his mind.
Ilis peculiar views are not mere theoretical notions : they have
been subjected to the test of a rigorous, and extensive course of
experiments, repeatedly discussed both publicly, and privately
before persons of the most varied orders of mind, and the results
both of his arguments, and experiments have been eminently cal-
c'Uated to give him confidence in their accuracy. And yet there
are persons who will find fault with him for thus laying them
before the public. He has already been blamed for advocating
them even in his lectures. He has been advised to refrain for some
time at least. He has been told that it will be injurious to the
cause to create divisions ; that it will give a new impulse to the op-
ponents of the science when they find Phrenologists differing amongst
themselves &c. But he really cannot see the reasonableness of
such advice, or the force of such arguments. To follow out a
coarse like this, would be to prevent altogether, or at least greatly
retard the discovery of truth.— Why should Phrenology be thus
protected? If it be true, it cannot suffer from investigation. If it
cannot bear the most searching investigation, why wish to support

it ? If there are errors in it as at present understood, the sooner

they are detected, and discarded, the sooner will it recommend itself
to :he favour of those now opposed to it. If on the contrary the
errors are to be found in the views which the author advances,
Phrenology has an abundance of advocates capable of detecting,
iind willing to denounce them. And the public will surely look

kit

■;,ij
1 1

3dt

ilw!

kk.

|i"f»

on with more favour when they find Phrenologists reasoning, and
experimenting with entire independence, freely stating their diffi-
culties, their doubts, and their objections, and pointing out the
imperfections of their system, as well as its excellencies,— than if
they perceived among them a rigorous uniformity of opinion, and
a dread of innovation. The very fact of unanimity among the dis-
ciples of an infant science— such a one especially as Phrenology-
would alone be sufficient to excite the suspicion of judicious ob-
servers.

As to submitting his views to the decision of his brethren, he
would ask, how is ihis to be accomplished ? Is he to call together
a congress ofPhrenologists?-Will they come at his requisition?
Or IS he to take a journey to London, or Edinburg, or Paris, and
lay hisopmions before the societies established there ? If so, is he
sure that any of them would condescend to enquire Into them ? In
tact the very circumstances that cause this course to be recommend-
ed to h,m, are those which render its success questionable. A
person standing high in science or litterature, or being otherwise
influential, would have no difficulty in obtaining 8uch an enquiry
as IS here proposed ; but the case is very apt to be different in regard
to those who have no such advantages. It is idle in fact to talk of
consultmg the heads of the science, few, and dispersed over the
world as they are-and as to consulting any particular Phrenological
society, there would not after al? be much advantage in it. If the
inajorpartofthe members of such societies were really deeply in-
formed upon the subject, even theoretically, the inducement to con-
sul hem would be great, if also skilful experimentalists, there
would be every reasonfordeferringtotheir judgement: but this is
not the case ; and if the author is to judge of other societies by those
he has known, he does not consider that the majority of their mem-
bers are much more entitled to pronounce definitively on his opinions
than any other body of scientific men. This to some persons mav
seem an unwarrantable assertion; but those who take the trouble
of mvestigatmg the matter, will find it true. The author therefore

II ri'

XIU

prefers to plead his causer before the public, even in the first in-
stance, rather than by adopting the course proposed, to submit
himself to so many certain inconveniences, for the sake of very
questionable advantages. Indeed after all, his present course is
the only one by which his views can come effectually before either
the advocates, or the opponents of Phrenology.

As to his opinions indeed, they are most certainly legitimate oh-
jects of attack, and he should be sorry to complain of any criticism
however searching, that may be applied to them. However he
may at present be convinced of their truth, he has no idea of claim-
ing for himself, the infallibility which he denies to others. He has
already given up many opinions in Phrenology which he had lone
held and some too which he had publicly taught, and it is quite
possible that he may have to do so again ; at all events he is per-
fectly ready to do so, whenever he finds himself in error. If this
confession does not satisfy the class of persons for whom it is in-
tended, he has really nothing further to offer.

These observations are not of course meant for the candid, and
enlightened advocates of this science. They will no doubt narrowly

^ft every novelty that may appear either in the present work, or in
those to which it is intended to serve as an introduction-and this
IS what should be done, for too much care cannot be used in matters
ofscience-but they will at the same time readily acknowledge
truth when it is made manifest to them.

To those opposed to Phrenology the author has to observe, that
as the discovery oftruth is his only object, he has laid down for
himselfasseverea test ofthe accuracy of his opinions as the most
determined adversary could require. Satisfied of the invariable-
nessof the laws of organization, he is ready to abandon any opinion
against which a single unexceptionable fact can be adduced.
And when it is considered that Phrenology professes to be aUo-
gether a science of facts, and that almost all its positions require
to be supported by thousands of facts before they can be admitted as
proved, surely no one can require more from him than a readiness

XIV

to abandon any of them, when found inconsistent witheven a Hngk
fact. If then he has e.red, it has not been from an undue altachment
tohisopmions, orfrorathe want of careful, and frequent examina-
toi of hem, m the various bearings in which they have been pre-
sented to h.s mmd ; for ,t so liappens that even upon mere personal
cons,derat.ons, he feels the utmost anxiety to arrive at the truth,
Whatever it may be. '

These statements are not made from an affectation of candour,
but rather from a des.re that his readers should from the commen
cement understand his feelings, and thus be the more ready to 1
proach this discussion, when they find that frtrfA, not ^ictoj, is the
object a.medat:-when they perceive that he enters this arena
not as a dtsputant merely, or as one determined to support a favorite
theory, but as one who having taken much pains to investigate a
certam department of science, is desirous of laying his opinions
before, e tribunal of the public, both as the surest m!ans ofTrr!
tainmg he.r truth, as because in the event of that being estaWished

itc:'™ '"'"'™ '""^' "^ "'"^-^ °f "— ^. -^ g-

As to the contents of the present volume, little need he said beyond
what has already been stated. In regard ,o the first essay it wil^ be
sufficent to observe,,hat although by no means intended as a regula
d^usston either of the imperfections of the present theo.y of PI e
nologtsts or of the improvements which the author proposes to intro-
tat'w^t "- — of 'ho argument will require him to treat of
both with sufficient minuteness to enable the reader clearly to un
ders and the chief peculiarities of his system, viz. hi, views „f
amlysU .niternperament.~ln the seco'nd ess'ay, he h exaled
at considerable length there%«,„, bearings of Phrenology a„d
he trusts to be able to satisfy his readers that on these point he

de'rZd Tr T' "'t'^ ''''''''' »" "•-' complet'ely t'is n!
de stood This subject indeed would have fallen more appropriately

withm the range ofa succeeding work, hut knowing Zt ag! t
«>any worthy persons have been deterred from investigti^g'

XV i

doctrine, by a misconception of its tendencies, he thought it better to
endeavour to remove that obstacle in the first instance.

It may be as well to observe also, that it would have been more
consistent with regularity to have reversed the order of these essays-
-to have first considered the importance of Phrenology, and then
sought for the causes of its rejection ; but it happened that the essay
commenced with was in a state of greater forwardness than the other,
and as the appearance of the work had been much longer delayed
than had been anticipated, it was thought better to sacrifice the
advantage m regularity for that of an earlier issue—After all the
matter is hardly of sufficient consequence to require notice. '

Such then are the objects of this little work-such the circum-
stances which have called it into existence-such the position of its
author in reference to the subject he treats of. He now submits it
to Its ordeal ;-with confidence indeed as far as the general truth of
his theory IS concerned, but with much diffidence in every other
respect. Should it be deemed worthy of attention, it is his design
to follow It up as soon as possible, by a more direct and minute in-
vestigatronofthe merits of Phrenology-an enquiry into the truth
Its fundamental principles. Should he be deceived however in his
anticipations regarding it, he must only wait with what patience he
can, until time, and further investigation shall enable him to produce
something that may deserve attention.

Quebec, July, 1840.

i^Hr:!

.» m

ri!!

H r

1
.

■ i. ■'
1

n
er
th
th
cc

sal
rk

'at

PHRENOLOGICAL ENUUIRIES.

-9<^^9)-^

INTRODUCTION.

More than forty years have now elapsed since the first an-
nouncement of Phrenology, and its truth still remains a matter of
controversy. It i, not that it has been regarded with indiffereDC
euner by the puhhc or the learned; on the contrary it has every
where exctted intense curiosity. It is not that few have had an
opportunity of judging of it; for enthusiastic teachers have every
where tntroduced it while extensive and valuable treati.es upon ii

and s e, and on wh.ch consequently i, would be natural to expeof
a va ety of op.n.ons ; the very reverse of this : it is altogethVr a

(attaTt L f'' " '"'"'^^■'f ^■■■"P"' '"-J-'ion. Neitherin fne is «
(at least m ,ts more prom.nent, and important features) a matter of
research so deep that few have either the means or the abilities ^
n„nre,„to..s,ru,h; on the contrary more than a sufBcie cy tf
h facts re,„,s,te for its verification are accessible to all me^-
he more .mporlant inferences drawn from them within the

Forthe time that it has been before the world, no subject has bee*

achty has been afforded for testing it experimentally : U,

PHRENOLOGICAL EWQUIRIES.

, s(

' IS

,'^

:i:i.

Ill

h''

[ii_

i'*

advocates have had every opportunity of submitting all their opf-
monstothe world in any form they pleased to adopt and they have
brought nothing forward bearing the slightest impress of talent which
has not been received with attention :-why then if this doctrine
be true, is it not generally received ? This is an important and a
frequent question. Have Phrenologists given to it a satisfactory
answer ? Let us examine what may be ur^ed in reference lo it.

The fact of Phrenology being a novelty interfering with many long
established opinions, of its being the discovery of a young, and unin-
fluential man, of its partaking in its earliest forms of much that was
calculated to shock the religious feelings of many persons, is alone
sufficient to account for its first rejection even on the supposition
of Its general truth. There are however many other reasons for
this result. Amongst these may be mentioned the false represen-
tations of many of the Reviewers, and journalists of the time,
who directed against a novelty which they dreaded, or despised'
every weapon of wit, sarcasm, or argument of which they could
avail themselves. Some would seem to have criticised on mere
heresay, without taking any pains to ascertain from the only legiti-
mate sources, the precise views of Phrenologists ; some seem to
have given their works so hasty a perusal as to mistake their
opinions in many essential matters ; while others again appear to
have satisfied themselves with understanding the mere annuncia-
tion of their principal positions, and then to have proceeded to
disprove them on the theory of their supposed tendency to materia-
lism, fatalism, or some other obnoxious doctrine. In a word the
most widely circulated and popular criticisms, were little better
than appeals to the passions, and prejudices of men, and many of
them are of such a nature, that it requires no small stretch of charity
to forbear charging their authors with such conscious misrepre-
sentation. Neither is it in works of a comparatively ephemeral na-
ture such as those alluded to, that these imperfect and untair cri-
ticisms are to be met with, we find them also in the pages of re-
gular scientific treatises, and often from the pens of writers of un-

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES.

all their opf-
and they have
of talent which
f this doctrine
iportant and a
t a satisfactory
jrence lo it.

vith many long
ung, and unin-
much that was
rsons, is alone
le supposition
)r reasons for
alse represen-
5 of the time,
, or despised,
h they could
ised on mere
le only iegiti-
ome seem to
mistake their
in appear to
ire annuncia-
proceeded to
to materia-
a word the
J little better
and many of
tch of charity
us misrepre*
phemeral na-
:1 untair cri-
pages of re-
riters of un-

questionable eminence. Indeed we occasionally meet with the
most ridiculous blunders where (judging from appearance ) we
should least expect to meet them.

Prejudice however has not been the only source of misrepre-
sentation ; much is also due to the natural difficulties of some
portions of the subject, much to the inaccuracies necessarily in-
cidental to the cultivation of a new science, still more to the
well-meant though injudicious efforts of incipient Phrenologists,
who often undertook to explain and defend the science before
they had thoroughly mastered its principles, or appreciated its
difhculties. But whatever may be the cause of tliese false views
there can be no doubt of their having greatly influenced the recep-
tion of Phrenology. Had the real opinions of Phrenologists been
always given, coupled even with the severest animadversions of
their opponents, they would have been favorably received by a
portion at least of the public-for we fiind them at the present day
continually advancing in favor-but when the representation was
such as to convey the Ailsest ideas, it is not surprising to find them
almost universally scouted as absurd, and impious. It may be
readily imagined then that under these circumstances much time
must necessarily have elapsed before the Phrenologists were able
to force their real opinions upon the attention of even a limitted
portion of the public; to the present hour the majority, (and I
speak solely of the educated public-of the reading classes of the
community) are not aware of them. In a word, a very moderate
acquaintance with the facts of the case, will be sufficient to satisfy
any one that Phrenology has but shared the common fate of all in-
novations, and that its first rejection at least, was far more an
affair of prejudice, than of reason.

We will now refer to an other cause which has operated power-
fully not merely against its first, but also against its subsequent •
reception. I allude to the frequent failure of the experiments made
<o test its truth.

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES.

■'IP

)

f . :\

T ■ ■

Th.M experiraenls arc ms.le by (hreo classes of person. ; those
Who are opposed to the science, th.«e who are neutral, and those
Whobeheve m Us .ruth. To any one .tall acquainted with the
preltmrnary difficulties necesarily to be encountere.1 in some
ola«K» of these experiments, it will occasion no surprise to hear of
frequent failures .n them when conducted without the assistance
ofsomeexpenenced manipulator, more especially when the mind
« at ..Under the influence of prejudice. For though there be
much that It needs but a glance to determine, still difiiculties con-
tmually present themselves that the most experienced can but par-
tially obviate Such experiments therefore have led to no satisfac-
tory results ; for though it is universally admitted that frequent and
».«k,„g confirmations of the views of Phrenologists have been

signal exceptions have appeared. These contrarieties then whether
.nounced by acknowledged opponents, or by those whose mL:
had no previously been made up upon the subject, must have
greatly influenced the decision of the public; fand yet taken bv
^emselves they ought not to weigh much against Ph'tn^ ^^
tte advocates ofthe science have invariably contended eitheftha
hediffirr"; K ^^^ "■""""•^ "-ffio-nt preparation again!

«n .tied to consideration, or that they were insuflioiently acquainted
with the very opinions which they had undertaken to test, and e„^
»,«e»«y that facts were continually represented by them as Sirecl
opposed to Phrenology, which a more careful investigation wouW
prove to be as decidedly in its favor.

.he^Cre'cU'^Ter;';^,^:: "t \ ^'-"Si^"

Uen -^frequent, tL;Vv7aSe7l^irm:re'ul;;^L" il^
».nta against the science; and yet such errors are quite poSe
consistently even with the entire truth of Phrenolgy. 'Tet
e.T«, may be divided into two classes : those made by fxperil.^
Penologists, and those made by persons whome'elyTJ^

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES.

ersons ; those
al> and those
inted with the
red in some
se to hear of
he assistance
len the mind
igh there be
Acuities con-
2an but par-
' no satisfac-
Vequent and

have been
and equally
hen whether
rhose minds

must have
et taken by
enology for

either that
ition against
ts could be
' acquainted
t, and con-
1 as directly
ation would

irenologists
also have
sible argu-
te possible
K. These
xperienced
y imagine

that they understand the matter. Unfortunately for Phrenolojry
there have been too many of this latter clasfl ; and as their blunder!
of every kind however obvious to those who were really acquainted
with the science, could not be equally so, sometimes not at all
to those who were not— the frequent failure of their attempts
at infering character from organization, has naturally enough been
usually considered as decisive against Phrenology. And yet it is
almost needless to say that errors of this kind prove in reality noth-
ing against it.

As for the errors of experienced Phrenologists, they may be such
as direcUy militate against the truth of the doctrine, or they may
merely affect the individual skill or knowledge of the manipulator'.
When for mstance the case is such that different Phrenologists
may arrive at different conclusions, the opinions of any one, or even
ofa number of them, might be erroneous, and yet the truth of the
science be not affected thereby.-A glance at the nature of Phreno-
logywiUmakethisevident.— Aseachofthe organs is the instru-
ment of a single element of mind only, and as what are usually
termed traits of character, or particular talents, are always made
up ofmany of these elements, the Phrenologist has continually to
speak ofthe organs in their combined action. Now it is evident
that his accuracy here, must depend on much more than his judg-
ment of the precise size, and function of each organ. It will in
fact be proportionate to his general power of combiniiig, analizing
drawing inferences, &c., and to his skill in estimating ^he effects of
temperament, education, and other modifying circumstances. There
18 here therefore a wide field for the display of individual talents,
and knowledge, and the result of the calculation must often vary
with these, precisely as happens in the calculations ot medicine,
or other sciences. Errors of this class therefore not involving
principles, do not affect the truth of Phrenology ; but yet speaking
generally, they very much affect the dicision of those opposed to it,
who being usually unaware ofthe necessity of making these allow-
ances, consider the failure of the advocate, as an evidence of the

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES.

'1' m

I: ■ I

!!ll!l

■I

t if

faliacy of his principles. And when an explanation is attempted it
has too much the appearance of an endeavour to cover defeat to
carry much weight with it. These errors therefore though inci-
dental to every imperfectly developed, and difficult science, have
Irom their frequency, and their apparent weight, powefully aided in
preventing the reception of Phrenology.

When however the case is such that all Phrenologists are by their
principles bound to pronounce alike, then indeed a single fully invps-
l^<»tedfact must be fatal to the opinion against which it militates.
Thus ,f speaking of the organ of a certain faculty, a case should oc
cur in which it is unquestionably large according to all the a iv^ by
Which Phrenologists measure the size of an organ, and it should
appearalso that there are no indications of the individual's beintr
or having been, affected by any disease, or injury, cerebral, or other'
wise which could be reasonably supposed to interfere with its ac
tion, and that still the faculty supposed to depend upon it has not
been manifested by him at all, or only in a very feeble degree-
then that single case might fairly be considered as counterbalancing
a thousand of an opposite tendency, for noting would be wanting but
the ccrtoin^yofthere being no cerebral injury to render the case
absolutely decisive. Or better still, if the converse of this had
taken place, if for instance a person remarkable for a certain trait
of character, were found to have an extremely small developement
of the organ on which that trait was considered entirely to depend
that single case would be sufficient to prove the error of that
opinion ; for it is contrary to all the views of Phrenologists to sup-
pose that very energetic manifestation oo- ',' ev.r result from a very
feeble organization. If Phrenologists fall ii . • ,uors ofth*,- kind
they must to be consistent give up every opiiuon against which they
militate. A few such facts directed against each organ, would in
the opmionofall candid reasoners entirely destroy the whole pre-
tentions of the science. Phrenologists will of course maintain
^hy>t no facts of this kind have been brought against them. Still as
.1,3 mo.,£ experienced of them often make great errors, and as the ge-

PHRENOLOGICAL fiNCJUIRlKg.

ncrnlity of persons seldom trouhio tl.nm.sclves Hbout j^oinR l«»yoni!
the mere lact thnt such errors are made, it happens of co„r«>
(whether justly or not) that all such failures very much interfere
with the reception of the science.

In addition to all this, an other cause of the sli,?ht advance whfch
the science has made in public estimation may be found in the nu-
merous difficulties inherent iri it-difficulties which are fargreater
in reality, than in appearance. In this respect indeed there is no
science so deceptive. It would seem at the first glance the simplest
thing m the world to investigate one's own feelings and powers,
and to make experiments on the size and shape of the head, bu
the farther we proceed w ith these investigations, the more do we
experience their difficulty. Those therefore who are satisfied with
asuperficial view of the matter, usually remain ignorant of them,
and consequently decide too readily from first appearances.

b Jr„„!^r u •'""^'''"^^' "^ ''"^^' individually powerful have

Phrenobgy. Still though these and similar reasons if fairly
weighed, be acknowledged to afford not merelv a plausible, but to
a certain extent a fair answer to the question « why has Phre-
nology not been generally received ?"-yet when all the circum-
stances of the case are considered they do not by any means give
an answer that can be regarded as entirly satisfactory. Did the
matter concern the public only, these causes might perhaps have been
sufficient to have hitherto prevented the general reception of Phre.
nology, but it must be remembered that on questions of pure
science it is the/.t., not the many, who give the tone to opinions,
and 1 IS evident that several of the causes stated, cannot have much
1 at all, influenced the decision of the higher class of scientific men.
It is then to the causes acting on their minds, that we must look
for the reception, or rejection of opinions of this nature, especially
when they have been so long before the world as those of Phreno-
logists.

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIhIES.

«H ' ' l||

.,■ II

Inctependently too of all . ^. / . slat* cc' public opinion in
reference to thJs science hat- v.,. timo par*, been very favo-
rable for the discovery of truth. . ^y has now ceased to be

a novelty, th-^ prejudices against it have .o a considerable degree
died away, and tl>e public have evinced their willingness to be
convinced of its truth, by -iving it a greater share of their attention
than tlisy are in the habit or according to most other matters of
science. The writings of Gall, Spirzheim, Combe &c. ac. have
been extensively read-their lectures listened to-their experiments
witnessed, by candid and intelligent Anti-phrenologi.ts, and if these
have stiU remained unconvinced, is it fair to assert that the fauU
Ijcs entirelif with themselves ? What more can Phrenologists re-
quire than is :.t present accorded to them ? What more can the ad-
vocate of any opinion require than the patient attention of candid
and intelligent hearers ? It is certain that many have been converted
by the labours of Phrenologists-some partially, some entirely-
but under the circumstances of the case, it would be unfair to infer
that these were the only persons who happened to be in the proper
frame of mind for receiving truth, or that they were superior either
m candour, talent, or knowledge to those who remained uncon-
vinced. Their conversion is certainly an argument in favour of
Phrenology, but by no means a decicive one, for it might be as
justly asserted on the contrary side, that they were led away by the
enthusiasm of the advocate, cr swayed by arguments, specious,
father than profound. For my own part I see no reason for sup-
posing that at the present time there exists in the minds of any con-
siderable portion of the intelligent public, anything like an unfair
prepossession against the science. In the numerous instances I
have had for the last three years of publicly discussing this subject,
1 have rarely ever found any thing exhibited but the fairest spirit
of controversy. Were I to judge indeed from my own experience I
should certainly say that the majority of the intelligent public would

be delighted /o6ea6/c/oto«t;c that Phrenology cou.'d realize its
pretentions ; and if a portion of them still regard it with dread it is

!,,«■

pubiie (pinion m
been very favo-
now ceased to be
•nsid^rable degree
willingness to be
of their attention
t other matters of
tibe &c. uc. have
■their experiments
giats, and if these
rt that the fauli
Phrenologists re-
more can the ad-
ention of candid
e been converted
some entirely —
R unfair to infer
e in the proper
B superior either
emained uncon-
ent in favour of
it might be as
ed away by the
nents, specious,
reason for sup-
ndsof any con-
like an unfair
ous instances 1
\g this subject,
le fairest spirit
n experience I
rit public would
u.'d realize its
ith dread, it is

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES.

simply because they have taken a false view of its bearing on some
questions of morality, and religion. In a >vord, it seems to be re-
jected merely because it is deemed false, not because there is any
reluctance to receive it could it be proved true. If then we find
the prejudices of the public so much abated, we may be certain
that men of science are not behind them in this respect. And such
indeed is the case ; for not only have many very eminent men de-
clared decidedly in its favour, but there are comparatively few
among the learned who do not now speak of it with more or less of
respect.

The question then returns with full force—" why, under
such favorable circumstances, is the science not more generally
received ?" I confess I cannot see how the present school of Phre-
nologists can answer satisfactorily this question. Were Phrenolo-
gy all its advocates deem it to be— unexceptionable in its princi-
ples, fully borne out by facts in its leading details— I cannot see
wh?t could have so long prevented ita universal reception. Even
at first sight, it appears in the highest degree improbable that at a
time like the present when, in pure science at least, facts are every
thing, when the learned are familiarized with constant innovations,
improvements, wondersof every kind, that Phrenology should be
still rejected, were there not some very good reasons for that rejec-
tion. I readily admit that the investigation which it has generally
received has not been sufficiently minute, extensive, and long
continued ;— but why has it not been so ? What has prevented
those who <!ommenced, from continuing ? Is it not that they met
with what they considered insuperable objections either in theory,
or in fact ? And is it probable that a conclusion arrived at by so
many men of high talent should be entirely erroneous ? Was
there ever a controversy of such a nature as this— embracing so many
opinions— extending into so many iamilications— connected with so
many other subjects— in which either side, much less the minority,
happened to be entirely right ? I cannot but think then, that both
the advocates, and opponents of this science, have still to learn the

■.•'if

MHil

fS»

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES.

'■ 1?

jlj'-i

► r

III

WMM

,1 '

\m . 1

VI j,

'C 1

"'Ht^^H •

true cause of Its continued rejection on the one hand, and of its

ardent support on the other, although this has often been sufficiently

apparent to those who have taken a middle ground in the contro

versy. I cannot but think that as the one result would not have

appeared did it not contain much that was inaccurate, so neither

would the other did it not also contain a great deal that was true

I cannot but think that the peculiar state in which it has hitherto been

presented— a state in which errors and truths are so intermino-led

that It ,s often extremely difficult to separate the one from the other

-IS the true cause of this protracted controversy, the cause to

which all others have been but accessories, and without which

tinTance ''"''^'^''^"'^^''''''''"^"'' ''''"''* "''^''^'^ ''^^^ ^^ longcon-

Hence the belief, or rejection of Phrenology has generally
been an affitir of circumstances. Some have found its doctrines so
conformable to their previous views, or have had the subject pre
sented m so fovorable a light, or have been so struck with the feli
city of some experiments they have witnessed, or finally are so
ready to embrace novelties, that they have become entire converts •
others,on the contrary,have remained altogether unconvinced, either
because their previous opinions having been of an entirely different
cast from those of Phrenologists they have consequently been
more clear-sighted in regard to what bore against, than what fa-
voured the science, or because they have s^en signal failures in
some of the experiments they have seen performed, or because thev
have not examined the subject with sufficient attention, or because
they have an unreasonable antipathy to innovations.

Thus, what with the natural difficulty of the subject, and the im-
perfect state m which it has been presented, and what with the
varying prepossessions, and circumstances of those who have
exammed it, it still continues a matter of controversv, altofre-
ther rejected by some, either partially, or wholly received by

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES.

As the conclusion here arrived at must to many appear question-
able, if not altogether unwarranted by facts, it will be necessary to
state some of the arguments on which it is founded. To give all
of them would swell this es.say into a large work, and would besides
be unnecessary, as my present object Is simply to prove the fact of
there being errors^ not to investigate their numbers. I shall there-
fore speak of nothing more than appears necessary to satisfy the
reader, first, that errors of various kinds exist, and secondly, that
those errors are of such a nature as obviously to interfere with the
reception of the science. I shall first allude to those errors of analysis
which have led Phrenologists to admit as the functions of the organs
v^ hich they have discovered, manifestations of mind easily proved
to be very complex, and shall commence with a specimen of the
system of Dr. Gall. This indeed has been much improved by
succeeding Phrenologists, yet his errors, even where remedied
have greatly influenced, and still continue to influence, the recep-
tion of his discoveries ; as many who have read his works or
heard of his opinions, are not aware that his disciples have already
rejected, or modified much of what he taught.*

* Such at least is the case in the countries in which the English language
is spoken, where the propagation of Phrenology has been chiefly eflTected by
the labours and writings of Dr. Spurzheim, and his immediate disciples. In
these countries indeed the works of Dr. Gall are far less known than they
deserve* to be, but his opinions have been widely circulated, and the more
erroneous of them are those which have received most notice.

mm"'^^

I'HREI^OLOOICAL EN^QUmiES.

I I

'I 'I

ANALYSIS.

1 .J"^ '°"?°"7'*^ °*^^>" Phrenologists, I beleive that Dr. Gall ha*
Uidihe foundation o( the only useful method of analizing and
classifying the mental powers, but I conceive also, that he has
seldom done more than approximate to the functions of the oreans
which he discovered. Almost every where, he attributes to each
one of them manifestations which, according to the principles of the
science, must depend upon the combined action of several. As an
Illustration, we will consider his views of the organ and instinct of
Destrucfon-views which have not a little contributed to the pre-
judice existing against the science.

He had observed that the heads of violent, destructive, blood-
thirsty characters, were much developed in a certain region, viz •
that immediately above the orifice of the ear, while persons of a
decidedly contrary character had the same part flat, or depressed,
or at least in proper proportion to other regions.-He was led to
these observations by noticing among the inferior animals a diffe-
rencem this region between the heads of the carnivora, and herbi-
Vora.--After therefore collecting a great-number of facts, many of
a remarkable cast, and all, as it appeared to him, tending the same
way, he conceived himself warranted in asserting ihe exi.vtence in
man as well as in many other animals, of an instinct, or tendency
to kill, variously modified according to the nature of the animal
possessi^ng it. The following quotations and remarks will explain

the mode of reasoning by which he sought to establish this portion
of his system.* i-^ruon

• I quote from Dn Spurzheim, as I have not by me at the moment a copy of

S-

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES.

that Dr. Gall ha*
of analizing and
ilso, that he has
►ns of the organs
ittributes to each
principles of the
r several. As an
n and instinct of
)uted to the pre-

jstructive, blood-
ain region, viz :
hile persons of a
»t, or depressed,
-He was led to
animals a diffe-
»^ora, and herbi-
'f facts, many of
ending th§ same
ihe exiiitence in
'ct, or tendency
- of the animal
irks will explain
lish this portion

! moment a copy of
ave caade use &f

" The propensity to kill exists beyond doubt in certain animals.
It is more or less energetic in animals of different species, and even
in the individuals of the same kind. There are some species
which do not kill more than they need for their nourishment. Other
species, as the wolf, tiger, polecat &c. kill all living beings
around them, and that seemingly for the pleasure of killing alone."

" If carnivorous animals have the propensity to kill, man ought
to have it also ; for he is omnivoious. There is no carnivorous
animal which eats so many kinrls of animals as man does. Animals
are confined to a certain number of species for the choice of their
food, but man lives upon all, and anthropophagi even upon their
fellow creatures." " In man this propensity presents different degrees
of activity, from a mere indifference to the pain of animals to the
pleasure ofseeing them killed, or even the most imperious desire
to kill. This doctrine shocks sensibility, but it is not less true.
Whoever endeavours to study nature, and judge its phenomina
ought to admit the existence of things as they are. It may be ob-
served that in children as well as in adults, among the uncultivated,
as well as among the polite and well bred classes of society, certairv
individuals are sensible, and others indifferent, to the sufferings of
others. Some persons feel a pleasure in tormenting animals, and
in seeing them tortured or killed, even when it is impossible to
ascribe this disposition to bad habit or bad education."

" We may also determine the existence of this propensity, and
its diversities by the impressions different persons receive from
public executions. The view^ of them is insupportable to some
individuals, and delightful to others. Mr. Bruggmans, professor
atLeyden, told us of a Dutch priest who had so violent a desire to
kill, and to see animals killed, that he became chaplain of a regi-
ment solely in order to have an opportunity of seeing men des-
troyed. The same clergyman kept in his house a great number of
different domestic animals, as cats, in order to satisfy his natural
propensity by killing their young ones. He also killed all the
animals for the use of his kitchen. He was acquainted with the

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES.

IK:

M '

'M I

Langmen oflhc country, and he rcceivea notice of each execution
wh,d, he travelled on foot several davs in order winor'.-
.^ the eg,„„,„g„f„,e last century several murders w eln,.
m (ted ,n Ho land, on the frontiers of the province of Cleves X
a long teethe murderer remained unknown ; but a. ZJZ
(idler, who was accustomed to play on the violin a. country Cedd
.ng. was suspected in consequence of some e.pre«io„' 71
c . Wren. Led before the justice, he confessed thir y-f„ur murde
and he assorted that ho had committed them without any "autol'
enrady, and without any intention of robbing, but onlyZcaurhe
was extremely delighted by this action." ^ ^^

.}1 '!™'"V"''-"«' """ " ^man of Milan, flattered little chil-
■Iren, led them home, killed them, salted their flesh, and I „ t
every day. He quotes also the example of a ,K3rson who, excLd
by h,s hernous propensity, killed a traveller and a youn. gwt
rder toeat them. Gaubius speaks of a girl wlJe fa'thf; "
incted by a violent propensity to cat the flesh of man and X
commrtted several murders for this purpose. This g rl tholi
-parated from her father for a long titie, and thougT educated
care ully among respectable persons, who had no relation t"ter
arr-""^ "^ '"^ '-livable desire of eati^; Z

idrot, after having killed two children of his brother came' smil^.
and announced the action to him. An other i I ^t exc t! by
anger, murdered his brother, and intended to burn hi,; ope^tan^
ceremoniously before the house. A third accord " oHeX
after aving seen a hog killed, thought he had a righl tZtl'r
hisfellow^reatures, and actually cut the throat of a man."

.ity to'::::ei?™" "" ^''^"''*^'' °"'^ '" ---' '» ^^^ r-pen.

J' Pinel has also observed in various mad persons, the fierce im
pulsion to destroy. He speaks of one who did not ^hew an7 m-l'

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES.

of alienation in respect to memory, imagination, ami judgment
an,lwhoconfe,„ed that in hi» narrow seclusion l,i» ,.,Usu"^
murder was quite involunlary, and utterly irresistible."

"All tliese and many similar examples, observed in the healthy
and .eased stato of man, i. idiots and madmen, prove evid „ y
th the propensity to kill, and destroy is innate, not only in a I
mal , but m man. Moreover does not the whole history of man-

edtirbiZd'.'rr^''""-' '"»""^-'--""- ^^- <.-,:

These facts must be admitted to be very striking, and there is no
reason for questioning their truth. ,nde J it wouu' be ,ui e us 1"
-do so, ™ce there are upon record numberless cases 'fa simi a
n..ture, perfectly well authenticated. But what do thev prov "
Simply, that men, and other animals have a tendency t'o destroy
li/o- o kill But no one ever questioned this. It is as evident

111; t'i, t° r'""'' '° "■^'- '"'" "™" '» '^ determined
whetherkiing be the result of a single instinct, or whether it

depend on the combined action of severaLt I^.hero.nv thing in
ueh facts as diose to prove that the former is the m^re correct
apposition. Surely not. But let us suppose for „ moment that
the e ,s , ,ee what will be the consequences of such a .supposi-
tion. If there must be a speciHc instinct and organ of destruction,

Pager'a,'!^':"""""^"™"''"- '^'"''"^ ^f"-"™' •'""^o". 18.6.
t It must be bornt in mlnj that, acconling to the imncinles of l>k„„ i

onj. ""istcrmedtlief.cully, or function of tlieor-an, and ,n,„l ;„ ih!

str,c.e.l »e„se of tl.c „„„!, be elementary; o.herwke, (ha nan, er of tie

organs would „„ nearly infinite. I„ a subsci'ent part of hi chap , .b

My explain „, at ..to be undeislood by >he.e elementary f,c , s My

V tat present ,s simply to shew that this portion of the ev dence irtal^

lea t ; lT,i,?rf'° ;""""' "'""""°' '» '""= '-"--"», si„ce
ieaus to a multitude of absurdities.

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES.

■ !■■

ill'

i''!

'■I

\fm

because there exists a desire of destroying, and because this desire
varies much in intensity in dirterent species of animals, as well as
in different mdividuals of the same species, there must equally be
<listmct instmcts and organs for a thousand manifestations of mind
Which a glance shews to he eilher very complex, or mere modifi-
cations of some one organ, or set of organs. Will it not follow, for
instance, that there must be a special instinct, and organ of hunting?
Carnivorous animals hunt: manhunts. The propensity varies in
intensity in different species, and in d.f/erent individuals of the same
species. It is evidently distinct from the mere desire of killing ; for
some persons are fond of killing, who are indifferent to hunting Twhile
others are very fond of hunting, who are rather averse to°killing.
Must there not also be a specific organ for the carnivorous instinct ?
Even Dr. Spurzheim considered that the propensity to eat flesh,
and the desire of killing, depended on different organs, though Dr.'
Gall did not. He says—" the power which desires to kill is not
the same as that which chooses flesh." " Some persons like meat,
but they cannot kill any animal ; others have no reluctance to kill
and yet prefer vegetables for nourishment. Children, in general,
have this propensity more energetic than adult persons, but they
prefer fr uits to meat. Hence it must be allowed that this propensity
is necessary to carnivorous animals, bufnot that they are carnivorous
because Ihey have the propensity."* Yet Dr. Spurzheim did not
admit the existence of a specific carnivorous organ, though such is
necessary according to his own mode of reasoning, And why not
also admit the necessity of herbivorous, and frugivorous organs, and
m fine of a specific organ for every variety of food ? Why not admit
in certain individuals an organ for eating the flesh of man ? The
propensity exists, jr has existed : why not a sjHcial organ for it?
There have been persons possessing an irresistible propensity to eat
raw flesh -.-why not suppose them to possess, in common with the
inferior carnivorous animals, some organ of which the generality of

H'ia

• Physiognomical system, page 388-

ause this desire
nals, as well as
nust equally be
jstations of mind
3r mere modifi-
t not follow, for
fan o[ hunting?
ensity varies in
uals of the same
5 ofkilling ; for
(hunting; while
srse to killing,
orous instinct ?
y to eat flesh,
is, though Dr.

to kill is not
sons like meat,
uctance to kill
en, in general,
sons, but they
this propensity
ire carnivorous
jheim did not
10 ugh such is
And why not
us organs, and
Why not admit
fman ? The
organ for it?
pensity to eat
mon with the

generality of

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES. 33

men are destitute? Or (to turn to another class of examples) why
not admit an organ oUurning ? The existence of the propensiL
s unquestionable. Some persons have possessed it to a i^ee 2
has led them mto crime. Dr. Spurzheim relates the' case of
sSTt^T' ^•^^"'"^^^n-ed, whom Dr. Gall and himself

saw at Fnbourg, m Brisgaw, where he was confined in prison, in
CO sequence of havmg set fire to nine houses successively "He
helped to quench the fire, and on one occasion, he saved the life of a
chi Id who was nearly destroyed by the flames. When the fire was
extrngu-shed he thought no more of it. This proves that his ZJZ
was excited by some bestial instinct. Indeed he was half an idiot »•
This .s by no means an isolated case.-In the human race this pro-
pensity .s usually very energetic. Most persons are delighted with
witnessing conflagrations, fire-works, illuminations &c The infe-
rior animals vary greatly in respect to it. The domestic classes have
no antipathy to fire ; the ferocious tribes dread, and avoid it ; while
m insects oi the moth kind, the presence of flame seems to produce
an intoxication of pleasure that occasions their destruction. Why
not therefore admit an organ of6i/rmn^, or of the love of fire, at
something of that sort, as weil as one ofM/ing-, or destroying?

Buc it is useless to go on with these examples. They might be
multiplied to infinity. More than sufficient has been said to show
that It IS not by such arguments that we can prove the necessty
or existence of any organ : and yet, we continually meet with su(h
in the pages of Phrenologists. There can be no objection cerlainly
to the statement of facts of this nature, for they evidently lead to
conclus,ons favorable to Phrenology : it is the use made of them
which IS objectionable. Nothing can be more reasonable than the
supposition that where mental differences are noticed, corresponding
organic dderences also exist: but then these mental differences
attord, of themselves, no evidence whatever as to what may be the

• Physiognomical sy.Uem, page 384.

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES.

nafiircof the organic differences from which they result. If Phre-
nologists contented themselves with enumerating the mental difier-
ences existing among animals, and then endeavoured, by observe
tionson the brain, to show the existence of corresponding cerebral
differences, their course would have been unexceptionable ; but it
is quite otherwise when they adduce these as evidence of the exis-
tence of the identical cerebral differences they are in search of.
The first principles of Phrenology indeed once admitted, it follows,
that there must be a particular organ for every mental manifesta-
tion of a certain kind ; but it has not been proved that these are
of the requisite kind. It is not for every manifestation of mind,
but for every elementary manifestation, that Phrenology supposes
a distinct organ. Now before the existence of the tendency to
destroy could be considered as any evidence of the necessity of a
particular organ of destroying, it was necessary to have proved
that tendency to be elementary. This has not been done.* We
may therefore fairly conclude thai neither the facts we have quoted,
nor any others of a similar nature can afford any evidence in favour
of the existence of a special organ of destruction. Let us now
see what other evidence has been brought forward in support of the
existence of such an organ

It is asserted that the eneigy of the tendency to kill, is found to
be proportionate to the development of a particular part of the
brain. " If we place a skull of a carnivorous animal horizontally,

* Dr. SpuTzheim has indeed laid down rules for ascertaining whether or
not any given mental manifestation requires a special organ, and his reasoning
in reference to destructiveness is in harmony with many of these rules ; but
Dr. Gall made use of no method of this kind. He simply considered the pro-
minent differences found among men, and other animals, and then sought to
discover by observations on the brain, whether there existed organs corres-
ponding to them. We shall examine the rules of Dr. Spurzheim when we
come to treat particularly of his opinions, and show how utterly incapable they
are of leading to a knowledge of the elementary faculties. At present it is
unnecessary to touch upon them.

(1/ i^

i;; 1

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES.

and trace a vertical line through the external meatus auditorius a
great portion of the cerebral mass is situated behind that line. The
more an animal is carnivorous, the more considerable is the portion
of the cerebral mass situated there."* It is said also that the cor-
responding part of the human brain has been found large in the
heads of severa! murderers, as well as in those of violent and des-
tructive characters generally ; while persons averse to destruc-
tion are asserted to have a contrary development.— Such in a few
words, is the nature of the evidence, by which the opinion we are ex-
amining is supported. The facts here alluded to are certainly very
numerous, most of them perfectly well authenticated, many entire-
ly unexceptionable. But admitting that they are all so, admitting
even that they are borne out in all cases— as well m those which
have not come within the notice of Phrenologists as in those which
have— still they prove nothing more than that there is some neces-
sary connection between the action of that part of .he brain, and the
tendency to kill. They do not prove that part to be a single
organ: the probability o{ such being the case is the very utmost
that can be reasonably asserted. The space may contain two
three, or even more organs, for any thing that such facts as these
prove to the contrary. Neither do they prove that the whole of the
manifestations noticed depend on this particular part of the
brain. There is nothing in them contrary to the theory, that se-
veral other parts are equally necessary for their production. Here
a judicious system of analysis should have been brought to the aid
of observation, for to prove, by observation alone, ail that is ne-
cessarily involved in the assertion that a certain part of the brain is
the organ of a certain feeling, requires a course of experiment far
more extensive, minute, and rigorous, than Phrenologists have
yet brought to bear upon any part of their science, great and well
directed as have been their labours. — Some explanation will be ne-
cessary to make this assertion perfectly evident.

• Physiognomical system, page 377.

'!i <ll

; • 'iniBM I

IHV

1 i,:l

■ ■ i
i

■

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES.

In the mental manifestations aii is combination. There is no
object in nature, which man can conceive of, that does not possess
several properties, and consequently, require for its perception
several^flicullies—Even an elementary atom of matter has/orm, and
me, and density : it exists, it is one &c.— Neither is there anv
object capable ofacting upon our affections, whether of sympathy,
or antipathy, which is not calculated to excite several of them'
Whenever then mental action results from external causes, it is of
necessity complex. It is nearly equally so, when its causes are
mternal. For though many of our abstract ideas are of course
elementary, and therefore require for their perception the action of
a single organ only, yet such is the nature of the laws by which the
succession of our ideas is regulated, and such the close affinity
between these elements themselves, that the mind cannot continue,
for any ap()reciable time, in the uninterrupted contemplation of any
of them : but either passes with inconceivable rapidity from one to
an other, or, which is more probable, has always many before it
at the same time. If such be the action of the mind, that of its
organs must be the same : the one can no moie continue isolated
than the other, since mental manifestation is, to a ce. tain extent at
least, the consequence of cerebral action. Indeed so intimate is
the connection between the different parts of the brain that, even
upon mere me« hanical principles, it would seem hardly possible
for action to take place in any organ without being instantaneously
communicated to others. As then there is so little isolated action
in the brain, as those organs which are closely allied in function are
so also in position, and as large size in any part of the body must
be the result of energetic, and long continued exercise, either in the
case of the individual himself, or of his progenitors,* we must

• Such at least is then itural course of things. If there are exceptions
they can be regarded only as cases of monstrosUy. It is easily conceivable
that children may have defects of organization which their parents have not,
since various accidents may interfere Mrith the natural course of formation ;

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES,

expect prominence, or depression to be met with in groups of organs,
rather than in individual instances. In experimenting therefore on
any organ, we have almost always to observe it as one of a cluster
in equal, or nearly equal development. To find any one presenting
an isolated protuberance, or depression, is a very rare occurrence,
even with the large spaces at present assigned to some of the or-
gans. Were each contined to its proper limits, there are I
believe, but a few very particular cases in which any thing
of the kind would ever be noticed.*— As then neighbouring
organs are closely allied in function, and as actions are almost,
always the result of many impulses, it is evidemly a problem of
extreme nicety, so to distinguish these dilferent impulses from each
other, and so to observe the constantly varying (leveh)pmentsof the
different parts of each cluster, as to assign to each individual
organ of the group its proper boundary, and function. And yet
with all these difficulties, it is upon observation alone that Phre.
nologists have mainly depended for determining these points.
This is peculiarly the case with Dr. Gall. But let us examine, a

• Except in one or two organs at the base of the brain (and for this excep-
tion there are very special reasons) I cannot recollect having met with a
case in which any portion ol the brain, that 1 should consider a single organ
presented an isolated prominence or depression. I also, of course except
cases of injury, an.l disease.-A depression, of the kind we are speaking of
may often be noticed at the point of junction of the frontal vu'th the parietal
bones, and also where the superior angle of the occipital meets the posteiior—
superior angles ol the same bones, but as corresponding prominences are
never, I beleive, noticed in these places, and as the depressions occur in the
line of the separation of the hemispherrs, between two or more organs, and not
mthe centre of any one, they cannot be considered as indications of special
deficiency in the organs situated there.

and It IS conceivable also that a child may have a structure either wholly, or
in part superior to that of either of its parents, since imperfection in the one
may be remedied by excellence in the other, but it is quite an other affair
when any particular deficiency exists equally in both parents The rul(*
f^ nemo dat quod noij habet" must surely apply in that case.

PHREirOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES.

1 " I

little more in detail, the nature of the evidence really afforded by
these experiments.

There is nothing in the system of Dr. Gall that could have
enabled him to say, a priori, that such or such a space was sufficient,
and only sufficient for a single organ. No attempt was made by
him to fix on any standard in this respect. The spaces which his
organs occupy vary considerably both in size, and shape ; some
being two or three times as large as others; some being round, others
oval &c. — This disproportion is even greater in the arrangements of
Dr. Spurzheim. — On what then had he to rely, in asserting that a
given space contained but one organ ? Simply on the fact that its
development was not always proportionate to that of the other
parts of the head, while there were reasons for believing that it was
proportionate to the energy with which a particular trait of cha-
racter was manifested. But can evidence of this kind be sufficient to
establish the reasonableness of such an assertion as this ? — Admitt-
ing that the part in question is sometimes found isolatedly prominent
or depressed, and at others times following the development of one
or other ofits neighbouring organs, still these facts prove nothing
more than that this portion of the brain is distinct from the surround-
ing parts. !t is as fair to say that there are two organs here, as
that there is but one ; for no part has been found thus developed,
that is not two or three times as large as some of the organs. Be-
sides, if what we have already stated of the combined action of
the mental powers be correct, it is far more likely that a part thus
varying should contain a cluster of organs, than only a single one.
It must be evident then that mere craniological observations are not
sufficient to prove that the parts of the brain considered by Gall as
single organs are really such. And as for anatomy, it is still more
silent on the subject.— Neither does the study of the mental mani-
Testations, as hitherto conducted, supply the deficiency. Every
thing is here so vague and complex, that it is far more reasonable to
attribute the phenomina to many, than to one organ. In lactthe only
way of proving (at all events in the earlier stages of this science)

PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES.

really aflforded by

1 that could have
pace was sufficient,
ipt was made by
spaces which his
and shape ; some
being round, others
le arrangements of
n asserting that a
I the fact that its
that of the other
lieving that it was
jlar trait of cha-
ind be sufficient to
s this? — Adraitt-
latedly prominent
velopment of one
ts prove nothing
rom the surround-
organs here, as
thus developed,
the organs. Be-
rn bined action of
that a part thus
ily a single one.

nervations are not
ered by Gall as
'^j it is still more
le mental mani-
iciency. Every
ore reasonable to
In fact the only
of this science)

that a particular part of the brain contained but a single organ,
was by demonstrating, in the first instance, that the mental pecu-
liarity noticed in conjunction with it was an elementary faculty,
and d pending, consequently, on a single organ, and secondly that
the energy of its manifestation was always proportionate to the
developementofthepartin question— making, of course, the re-
quisite allowance for the particular constitution of the individual,
the effects of education &c. Until the manifestation had been
analyzed, probability was the utmost that could be attained to in
regard to its dependence on one, or more organs.

This reasoning is still further supported by the fact that Phreno-
logists have, already, in different instances, admitted the existence
of two organs, where Gall spoke of but one. Besides theie are few
of them who do not think it likely that further subdivision will yet
take place.*

Granting then the experiments of Gall, in reference to the organ
we are treating of, to have been ever so extensive, and unexcep-
tionable, it is clear that they were quite insufficient to prove all that
he aimed at proving. In point of fact however, they were not by
any means so complete. The desire of killing, or the propensity
to destroy, or whatever else may be its name, is not always, not
even usually proportionate to the development of the part of the
brain considered as its organ. A thousand facts might be brought
in support of this assertionf— making full allowance also for all that

* It is not fcT the sake of finding fault, that I have insisted so much on
these points; but simply to lead my readers to the conclusion, that the errors
of Phrenology are merely incidental to it, not necessary ; that they spring from
the imperfect method in which it has been investigated, not from the fallacy
of its principles.

t Its truth may easily be tested by any person moderately skilled in phreno-
logical manipulations. Let him enquire, of those in whom this organ is well
developed, what are the' ''eelings in regard to destroying life, shedding blood
&c., and he will find that where one will acknowledge the desire to be stronjr,
hundreds will assert the contrary, numbers will maintain that it is absolulefy

. '^1

PHRENOLOGICAL EITQUIRIES.

phrenolo^^lsts tell us ofthe counteracting influence of other organs.
I readily admit however; indeed I fully beleive, that the instinct
or rather instincts of which destruction is one of the manifestations .
depends in a great degree on the part of the brain spoken of by
Gal; bjt, I cannot admit that there is a ;,rmi7m instinct of
killing, anymore than that there is one of dig-^i„g., or walking
or swimming. ° '

In selecting this particular organ as a specimen of the Phreno-
logy of Dr. Gall, I have by no means chosen one of his most vul-
nerable points. On the contrary, he here approximates to accuracy
of analysis far more than he does in the majority of cases. When
we mention such organs as Poetry, Mechanics, Theosophy, or the
organ ofGod and Religion, Metaphysical subtlety &c. &c. It is
clear that elementary faculties are entirely out of the question.*

Mt is far from being my object, in these remarks, to depreciate the lahour»
of Dr. Gall : on the contrary, I regard them as of the very highest value •
and this not merely as originating Phrenology, nor as bringing to light a vast
collection of important facts, but even for the very inferences which I have
here ventured to criticise. For though I regard these as extremely erroneous
yet they bring us so near the truth as to render its attainment a comparatively
easy task. No one, who examines with candour the writings of Gall can re-
fuse him the praise of being, noi merely, a most careful, and diligent observer
of nature, but also a profound, a fair, and a fearless reasoner. If he has
generally failed in his attempts at discovering the true functions of the cerebral
organs, yet he has proved that many such ort^ans exist ; and if he has not
succeeded in assertaining their precise boundaries, he has at least shown where
they are situated, and what are the principal phenomena that result from their
action. In a wo.d, he has laid the foundations of a science whirh, when

recogn,zed,mu8t be deemed one of the most important in the whole circle of
human knowledge.

painful to them even to witness any thing of the kind. He will find this
organ as often well developed in the female, as in the male head, if not
oftener indeed. He will find it so in the heads of all very active, bustling
restless characters, whether destructive or not. In fact he will find that the
Violent passions supposed by Gall to depend on it, are much more the result of
temperament than of any peculiar developement in this region of the head

'other organs.
at the instinct
manifestations,
spoken of by
live instinct of
•, or walkings

)f the Phreno-
his most vul-
esto accuracy
cases. When
•sophy, or the
c. &c. It is
luestion.*

iate the labours
r highest value j
to light a vast
which I have
nely erroneous,
a comparatively
)f Gall, can re-
iligent observer
ler. If he has
i of the cerebral
if he has not
it shown where
esult from their
i which, when
vhole circle of

will find this
e head, ifnot
tive, bustling,

find that the
e the result of
'the head.