IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 
 // 
 
 .^/ 
 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 III 1.1 
 
 lli^ 
 
 11.25 
 
 Its 
 
 U 
 
 1^ 1^ 
 
 2 ,„„22 
 2.0 
 
 ■ 4.0 
 
 6" 
 
 1.8 
 
 M. I L6 
 
 V] 
 
 "Z 
 
 '^^, 
 
 f 
 
 V 
 
 
 ^^j^*-*- //yi 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 2G WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14560 
 
 (716) 877-4503 
 
 i *->, 
 
' >.* 
 
 *', 
 
 
 c5 
 
 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. 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 D 
 
 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 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 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 
 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 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
f'-'t. :»• 
 
 ,'i 
 
 /_^f/i- 35360 . ■ 
 
 li 
 
 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. 
 
 m 
 
 By LUKE BURK 
 
 E 
 
 QUEBEC, 
 
 PUBLUHED rOK THE AUTHOR Br VVm. CowA« & So«. 
 
 v!l 
 
 1S40. 
 
 .^ 
 
 
:i 
 
 ,-*! 
 
 
 i 
 
 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 
 
IV 
 
 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- 
 
1 
 
 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 
 
VI 
 
 ♦'1 
 
 ,: if 
 
 })<! 
 
 iU 
 
 
 m !- 
 
 f 
 
 !■■ '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| 
 
 M 
 
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. 
 
 I 
 
•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^^^^^^^ 
 
 1 
 
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, 
 
R* 
 
 
 r 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 || 
 
 ^!i 
 
 :''P 
 
 H^ ' ' 
 
 ' 1 
 
 &f 
 
 |i'i|!i ' 
 
 J 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 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, 
 
m 
 
 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 
 
 i 
 
3dt 
 
 i 
 
 
 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 
 

 f 
 
 f 
 
 m 
 
 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 
 . 
 
 j 
 
 i 
 
 'i 
 
 ■ i. ■' 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 
 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, 
 
 B 
 
IS 
 
 PHRENOLOGICAL EWQUIRIES. 
 
 , s( 
 
 ' IS 
 
 \i 
 
 ,'^ 
 
 :i:i. 
 
 Ill 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 L 
 
 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- 
 
 19 
 
 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. 
 
ao 
 
 PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES. 
 
 ■'IP 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 tm 
 
 ) 
 
 fi 
 
 f . :\ 
 
 1 
 
 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. 
 
 91 
 
 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 
 
22 
 
 PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES. 
 
 '1' m 
 
 I 
 
 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. 
 
 23 
 
 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. 
 
24 
 
 PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIhIES. 
 
 i 
 
 «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 
 
 v. 
 
 !,,«■ 
 
s. 
 
 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. 
 
 25 
 
 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 
 
 D 
 
 ■.•'if 
 
 MHil 
 
fS» 
 
 PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES. 
 
 '■ 1? 
 
 9 
 
 jlj'-i 
 
 H 
 
 ► r 
 
 m 
 
 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. 
 
 27 
 
 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 
 
 fi 
 
 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. 
 
 S9 
 
 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 
 
30 
 
 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. 
 
 31 
 
 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. 
 
 ■ !■■ 
 
 I' 
 
 ill' 
 
 i''! 
 
 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. 
 
 E 
 
34 
 
 PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES. 
 
 n 
 
 ti 
 
 11 
 
 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. 
 
 30 
 
 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 
 
'!i <ll 
 
 n 
 
 ; • 'iniBM I 
 
 IHV 
 
 1 i,:l 
 
 ■ ■ i 
 i 
 
 H 
 
 ■ 
 
 1 
 
 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, 
 
 37 
 
 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. 
 
 
38 
 
 PHREirOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES. 
 
 1 " I 
 
 J 
 
 
 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) 
 
s. 
 
 PHRENOLOGICAL ENQUIRIES. 
 
 39 
 
 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.