1825.] 
Tur PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRER, 
No. I. 
DR. SPURZHEIM’S LECTURES. 
R. SPURZHEIM’S course of 
Lectures, on what used to be 
called Craniology, but which he has 
since dignified with the name of Phre- 
nology, has made considerable stir. 
The fundamental tenets of this science, 
as stated by Dr. S. in his opening lec- 
ture, are,—1l. That the cerebral sub- 
stance is the seat of thought ; and that 
where it is deficient, the intellect of 
the individual is deficient ;—2. That 
where it is diseased, the mind is like- 
wise impaired ;—and, 3. That in such 
cases which seem at variance with the 
theory,—namely, when a part of it is 
absorbed or destroyed, without a con- 
sequent diminution of mental energy, 
the apparent amomaly is to be explained 
by the fact, that all the organs of the 
brain are double, and that the one side 
might be sound, while the other was 
injured and decayed.* s 
On these facts, in his subsequent lec- 
tures, Dr. Spurzheim has erected the 
entire superstructure of his system. Two 
new steps in argument, one metaphy- 
sical, and the other anatomical, were 
necessary to support it :—1, That the 
mind operates through the medium of 
numerous séparate faculties ;—and, 
2. That these separate faculties are 
manifested by separate organs or deve- 
lopments of the cerebral mass, which. 
may be pointed out by the dissecting- 
knife. 
This much is requisite for the erec- 
tion of the theory: to complete it, in a 
practical point of view, one more de- 
monstration is necessary,—viz. That 
the above internal developments of the 
cerebral mass, have, each, externally, 
their consentaneous protuberance, and 
manifest boundary on the cranium. 
This process of reasoning, Dr. S. has 
followed, though irregularly, in his lec- 
* We remember, however, many years 
ago, an instance being quoted by Mr. Aber- 
nethy, at the “ Lyceum Medicum”’’ of the 
late John Hunter, of a man who had re- 
cently died at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, 
whose cranium, upon dissection, was found 
to be entirely filled up with pus—the whole 
of the brain, with the exception only of a 
small portion, not exceeding the size of a 
walnut, being so decomposed or superated, 
—although, eyen to the day before his death, 
there had been no appearance of any decay 
of his intellectual faculties. —Eprr. 
Montury Mae. No. 410. 
Dr. Spurzheim’s Lectures. 
401 
tures; the experimental department of 
the new system having composed the 
latter portion of them. In these, Dr. 
Spurzheim assigns to the organs deve- 
loped on the cranium, their name and 
power: as, Benevolence, Amativeness, 
Veneration, Religion, Self-esteem, and 
Firmness. 
This is the practical part of the 
theory ; and the deductions were stated, 
by the lecturer, to be drawn less.from 
anatomy than from experience and 
observation. With respect to the organ . 
of Firmness, for instance, Dr. Spur- 
zheim observed, ‘ 
“Tt was manifested in the cerebral part 
at the top of the head, between the organs 
of Self-esteem and. Veneration. It had never 
been considered fundamental till the science 
of Phrenology was invented,t though its 
organization was positive; it had usually 
been confounded with the Will. In those 
who had it fully developed, great positive- 
ness of tone and manner would be observed. 
It gaye the desire to command. Jf the 
individual were religious, he would be in- 
tolerant. Some persons had an excessive 
fulness of the organ: in them it produced 
obstinacy, stubbornness and infatuation. 
Where it was properly developed, it gave 
an independent turn of mind: where it was 
feebly developed, the individual was swayed 
by his own impulses, or the solicitations of 
others.” 
We give this, as an example of the 
manner in which the learned lecturer 
treats the details of this system, for the 
introduction of the whole of which »we 
have not sufficient space. In the same 
lecture (the eighth), Dr. Spurzheim re- 
plied to the arguments of such as 
oppose his theory, on the score of its 
conducting to materialism, 
‘** Some timid persons,’’ he said, “ had 
imagined that the doctrines of Phrenology 
were dangerous, So it was always with, 
new doctrines. But the phrenologist did 
not invent or create what he promulgated : 
he only observed what existed. Besides, 
if it really went to establish the materialism 
of the soul, it did not impugn the christian 
religion, or deny the doctrine of a future 
state. Might not the body be revived? 
Who was to set bounds to the power of 
the Creator?” 
Is 
+ We are somewhat surprised to find 
so learned a writer talking about invent- 
ing a science. Surely, whatever is invented 
cannot be science. Invention belongs to 
art, and to the creations of genius. Science 
analyses facts, and deyelopes principles. 
It discovers, but it does not invent.— 
Epir. 
3F 
