the greatest prominence being near the centre of the large organ, and the swelling extending over a portion only of the other. In these cases the shape should be attended to; for the form of the organ is then easily recognised, and is a sure indication of the particular one which is largely developed. The observer should learn, by inspecting a skull, to distinguish the mastoid process behind the ear, as also bony excrescences sometimes formed by the sutures, and several bony prominences which occur in every head, from elevations produced by developement of brain.

In observing the appearance of individual organs, it is proper to begin with the largest, and select extreme cases. The mask of Mr. Joseph Hume may be contrasted with that of Dr. Chalmers for Ideality; the organ being much larger in the latter than in the former. The casts of the skulls of Burns and Haggart may be compared at the same part; the difference being equally conspicuous. The cast of the Reverend Mr. M. may be contrasted with that of Dempsey, in the region of Love of Approbation; the former having this organ large, and the latter small. SelfEsteem in the latter, being exceedingly large, may be compared with the same organ in the skull of Dr. Hette, in whom Love of Approbation is much larger than Self-Esteem. Destructiveness in Bellingham may be compared with the same organ in the skulls of the Hindoos; the latter people being in general tender of life. Firmness large, and Conscientiousness deficient, in King Robert Bruce, may be compared with the same organs reversed in the cast of the head of a lady, (Mrs. H.,) which is sold as illustrative of these organs. The object of making these contrasts is, to obtain an idea of the different appearances presented by organs, when very large and very small.

The terms used by the Edinburgh phrenologists to denote the grada. tions of size in the different organs, in an increasing ratio, are,

Very small

Rather small

Small

Moderate
Rather full
Full

Rather large
Large
Very large.

Sir John Ross has suggested, that numerals may be applied with advantage to the notation of developement. He uses decimals; but these appear unnecessarily minute. The end in view may be attained by such a scale as the following:

The intermediate figures denote intermediate degrees of size, for which we have no names. The advantage of adopting numerals is, that, the values of the extremes being known, we can judge accurately of the dimensions denoted by the intermediate numbers; whereas it is difficult to apprehend precisely the degrees of magnitude indicated by the terms small, full, large, &c., unless we have seen them applied by the individual who uses them. These divisions have been objected to as too minute; but by those who have long practiced Phrenology, this is not found to be the case. It has even been said that it is impossible to distinguish the existence of several of the organs in consequence of their minute size. This objection is obviously absurd. Artisans find it possible not only to distinguish the links in the chain attached to the mainspring of a watch, but to fabricate them; engravers distinguish the minutest lines which they employ to produce shade in pictures; and printers discriminate at a glance the smallest types used in their art;-compared with which objects the

smallest phrenological organ is of gigantic size. There is, however, difficulty in distinguishing the size and relative proportions of the minuter organs. But practice has an astonishing effect in giving acuteness to the perception of differences in the appearance of these as well as of other objects. A schoolboy or labourer will confound manuscripts of very different aspects, while the copyist of ten years' standing finds no difficulty in ascribing each of a hundred pages, written by as many individuals, to its appropriate writer. When there is a question of forgery in a court of law, the judge remits to an engraver to report whether or not the signature is genuine, because it is known that the familiarity of engravers with the minute forms of written characters enables them to discriminate points of identity and difference which would escape the notice of ordinary observers. How frequently, moreover, do strangers mistake one member of a family for another, although the real difference of features is so obvious to the remaining brothers and sisters that they are puzzled to discover any resemblance whatever! How easily does the experienced physician distinguish two diseases, by the similarity of whose symptoms a novice would be at once misled! And with what facility does a skilful painter discriminate a copy from an original! It was only after a continued and attentive study of Raphael's pictures that Sir Joshua Reynolds was able to perceive their excellencies. "Nor does painting," he adds, "in this respect differ from other arts. A just poetical taste and the acquisition of a nice discriminative musical ear are equally the work of time. Even the eye, however perfect in itself, is often unable to distinguish between the brilliancy of two diamonds: the experienced jeweller will be amazed at this blindness, though his own powers of discrimination were acquired by slow and scarcely perceptible degrees." The American Indians are able, from long and constant practice, to "discern the footsteps of a wild beast, which escape every other eye, and can follow them with certainty through the pathless forest."* Lord Kames remarks, that "those who live in the world, and in good company, are quick-sighted with respect to every defect or irregularity in behaviour: the very slightest singularity in motion, in speech, or in dress, which to a peasant would be invisible, escapes not their observation. The most minute differences in the human countenance, so minute as to be far beyond the reach of words, are distinctly perceived by the plainest person; while, at the same time, the generality have very little discernment in the faces of other animals, to which they are less accustomed. Sheep, for example, appear to have all the same face, except to the shepherd, who knows every individual in his flock as he does his relations and neighbours." So it is with Phrenology. The student is often at first unable to perceive differences which, after a few months, become palpably manifest to him, and at the former obscurity of which he is not a little surprised. The following anecdote, related by Dr. Gall, is in point: The physician of the House of Correction, at Grætz, in Stiria, sent him a box filled with skulls. In unpacking them, he was so much struck with the extreme breadth of one of them at the anterior region of the temples, that he exclaimed, "Mon Dieu, quel crâne de voleur!" Yet the physician had been unable to discover the organ of Acquisitiveness in that skull. His letter to Dr. Gall, sent with the box, was found to contain this information: "The skull marked N-, an incorrigible thief."

is that of

With respect to the practical employment of the scale above described, it is proper to remark, that as each phrenologist attaches to the terms small, moderate, full, &c., shades of meaning perfectly known only to * Robertson's Hist. of Amer., 5. iv.

t Elements of Criticism, London edit., 1805, ii., 400.
Sur les Fonctions du Cerveau, iv., 240.

himself and those accustomed to observe heads along with him, the separate statements of the developement of a particular head, by two phrenologists, are not likely to correspond entirely with each other. It ought to be kept in mind, also, that these terms indicate only the relative proportions of the organs to each other in the same head; but as the different organs may bear the same proportions in a small and in a large head, the terms mentioned do not enable the reader to discover whether the head treated of be in its general magnitude small, moderate, or large. To supply this information, measurement by callipers is resorted to; but this is used not to indicate the dimensions of particular organs, for which purpose they are not adapted, but merely to designate the general size of the head. The following are a few measurements from nature, taken promiscuously from many more in my possession:

These measurements are taken above the muscular integuments, and show the sizes of the different heads in the directions specified; but I repeat that they are not given as indicative of the dimensions of any particular organs. The callipers are not suited for giving this latter information, for they do not measure length from the medulla oblongata, or projection beyond the planes mentioned above; neither do they indicate breadth all of which dimensions must be attended to in estimating the size of individual organs. The average of these twenty heads is probably higher than that of the natives of Britain generally, because there are several large heads among them, and none small.

:

It ought to be kept constantly in view, in the practical application of Phrenology, that it is the size of each organ in proportion to the others in

the head of the individual observed, and not their absolute size, or their size in reference to any standard head, that determines the predominance in him of particular talents or dispositions.* Thus, in the head of Bellingham Destructiveness is very large, and the organs of the moral sentiments and intellect are small in proportion; and according to the rule, that, cæteris paribus, size determines energy, Bellingham's most powerful tendencies are inferred to have been toward cruelty and rage. In several Hindoo skulls in the Phrenological Society's collection, the organ of Destructiveness is small in proportion to the others, and we conclude that the tendency of such individuals would be weakest toward the foregoing passions. But in the head of Gordon, the murderer of a pedlar boy, the absolute size of Destructiveness is less than in the head of Dr. Spurzheim; yet Dr. S. was an amiable philosopher and Gordon an atrocious murderer. This illustrates the rule, that we ought not to judge by absolute size. In Gordon the organs of the moral sentiments and intellectual faculties are small in proportion to that of Destructiveness, which is the largest in the brain; while in Spurzheim the moral and intellectual organs are large in proportion to Destructiveness. On the foregoing principles, the most powerful manifestations of Spurzheim's mind ought to have been in the department of sentiment and intellect, and those of Gordon's mind in Destructiveness and other animal passions; and their actual dispositions corresponded. Still the dispositions of Spurzheim were affected by the large size of this organ. It communicated a warmth and vehemence of temper, which are found only when it is large, although the higher powers restrained it from abuse. Dr. Spurzheim said to me: "I am too angry to answer that attack just now; I shall wait six months;"-and he did so, and then wrote calmly like a philosopher.

It is one object to prove Phrenology to be true, and another to teach a beginner how to observe organs. For the first purpose, we do not in general compare an organ in one head with the same organ in another; because it is the predominance of particular organs in the same head that gives ascendency to particular faculties in the individuals; and, therefore, in proving Phrenology, we usually compare the different organs of the same head. But in learning to observe, it is useful to contrast the same organ in different heads, in order to become familiar with its appearance in different sizes and combinations.

With this view, it is proper to begin with the larger organs; and two persons of opposite dispositions in the particular points to be compared, ought to be placed in juxtaposition, and their heads observed. Thus, if we take the organ of Cautiousness, we should examine its developement in those whom we know to be remarkable for timidity, doubt, and hesitation; and we should contrast its appearance with that which it presents in individuals remarkable for precipitancy, and into whose minds doubt or feat rarely enters: or a person who is passionately fond of children may be compared, in regard to the organ of Philoprogenitiveness, with another who regards them as an intolerable annoyance. No error is more to be avoided than beginning with the observation of the smaller organs, and examining these without a contrast.

An objection is frequently stated, that persons having large heads have "little wit," while others with small heads are "very clever." The phrenologist never compares intellectual ability with size of the brain in general; for a fundamental principle of the science is, that different parts of the brain have different functions, and that hence the same absolute quantity of brain, if consisting of intellectual organs, may be connected with the highest genius-while, if consisting of the animal organs, lying in the basilar and occipital regions of the head, it may indicate the most * See Phren. Journ., viii., 642.

fearful energy of the lower propensities. The brains of the Caribs seem to be equal in absolute size to those of average Europeans; but the chief developement of the former is in the animal organs, while the latter are far superior in the organs of moral sentiment and intellect: and no phrenologist would expect the one people to be equal in intelligence and morality to the other, merely because their brains are equal in absolute magnitude. The proper test is to take two heads, in sound health, and similar in temperament, age, and exercise, in each of which the several organs are similar in their proportions, but the one of which is large and the other small; and then, if the preponderance of power of manifestation be not in favour of the first, Phrenology must be abandoned as destitute of foundation.

In comparing the brains of the lower animals with the human brain, the phrenologist looks solely for the reflected light of analogy to guide him in his researches, and never founds a direct argument in favour of the functions of the different parts of the human brain upon any facts observed in regard to the lower animals; and the reason is, that such different genera of animals are too dissimilar in constitution and external circumstances, to authorize him to draw positive results from comparing them. Many philosophers, being convinced that the brain is the organ of mind, and having observed that the human brain is larger than that of the majority of tame animals, as the horse, dog, and ox, have attributed the mental superiority of man to the superiority in absolute size of his brain; but the phrenologist does not acknowledge this conclusion as in accordance with the principles of his science. The brain in one of the lower creatures may be very large, and, nevertheless, if it be composed of parts appropriated to the exercise of muscular energy or the manifes tation of animal propensities, its possessor may be far inferior in understanding or sagacity to another animal, having a smaller brain, but composed chiefly of parts destined to manifest intellectual power.* Whales and elephants have a brain larger than that of man, and yet their sagacity is not equal to his; but nobody has shown that the parts destined to manifest intellect are larger in these animals than in man; and hence the superior intelligence of the human species is no departure from the general analogy of nature. I repeat, however, that it is improper to expect accurate results of any kind from a comparison of the brains of different species of animals.

In like manner, the brains of the monkey and the dog are smaller than those of the ox, hog, and ass, and yet the former approach nearer to man in regard to their intellectual faculties. To apply the principles of Phrenology to them, it would be necessary to ascertain, first, that the brain, in structure, constitution, and temperament, is precisely similar in the different species compared (which it is not) :† then to discover what parts manifest intellect, and what propensity, in each species; and, lastly, to compare the power of manifesting each faculty with the size of its appropriate organ. If size were found not to be a measure of power, then the rule under discussion would fail in that species; but even this would not authorize us to conclude that it did not hold good in regard to man; for human Phrenology is founded, not on analogy, but on positive observations. Some persons are pleased to affirm that the brains of the lower animals consist of the same parts as the human brain, only on a smaller scale; but this is highly erroneous. If the student will procure brains of the sheep, dog, fox, calf, horse, or hog, and compare them with * Spurzheim's Phrenology, sect. iii, ch. 2, p. 54.

This subject is fully and ably discussed in The Annals of Phrenology, vol. ii., pp. 38-49; and in Dr. Caldwell's Phrenology Vindicated, (Lexington, Ky., 1835,) pp. 62-73.