PHRENOLOGY. 



PHRENOLOGY. 



81 Ctrnparuj* is the reflective ficultj which compares tha sensa- 

 tions and ides* excited by all the other faculties, and poinU out their 

 difleraxw, analogy, similitude, or identity. It induce* men to arguit 

 from analogy, to draw illustrations of their subject* from thing* well 

 known, to speak by parable*, and explain by examples and similes. It 

 lead* to the invention and employment of figurative language, and 

 according to the degree of iu nstionsl development, the language 

 of each country will be full of or deficient in figure* and meta- 

 phor*. It* organ U situated in the middle of the upper part of the 



35. Cntttaliiy.Tbt reflective faculty which engages men in the 

 study of the cause* and origins of things, and which guides to the 

 employment of processes of induction, is thus named. The faculty 

 of individuality make* us acquainted with objects ; eventuality, with 

 facts ; comparison, with the analogy, identity, difference, and other 

 of things; and causality leads us to search for their causes : 

 these faculties, when fully developed, constitute the truly 

 lie mind. The organ of causality is at the upper part of the 

 , on each side of comparison, and their coincident development j 

 give* the peculiar fullness of the front of the head, which is universally 

 regarded a* the sign of a powerful reasoning intellect. 



Having now given a general view of the principles of phrenology, as 

 stated in the writings of Dr. Spurzheim, and adopted by most of the 

 present advocates of the system, it will probably be desirable* to con- 

 sider how far it is what it " professes to be, a system of philosophy of 

 the human mind, founded on the physiology of the brain." (Combe, 

 'System of Phrenology,' p. 1.) Neglecting for the present all meta- 

 physical views on the subject, and regarding the theory of the 

 existence of some such primary faculties of the mind as are assumed 

 in phrenology, and of the dependence of each upon a separate 

 portion of the brain, as one deserving of being tested by observa- 

 tion, we will examine only bow far the doctrine, as it now stands, 

 is supported by facts of anatomy and physiology, and whether it 

 is capable of being established by the evidence of craniological 

 investigation. 



Many of the objections commonly made against phrenology are 

 undoubtedly of little weight : such for example are the statements 

 that in consequence of the irregularities of thickness in the coverings 

 of the brain, it is impossible to determine its form by examination of 

 the exterior. This objection only shows that there are sources of 

 fallacy in the practice of cranioiogy, a fact which no phrenologist 

 tea. But on the greater part of the head, the differences of thick- 

 i of the coverings of the brain are not such as would lead into 

 ,r; the majority of them are nearly constant in their amount, and 

 are easily recognised by any one acquainted with the anatomy of the 

 kull, and the rest are not sufficient to give that degree of elevation or 

 depression to any part of the exterior of the head which would be 

 regarded as indicative of excessive or deficient development of any 

 organ. No one accustomed to post mortem- examination can hesitate 

 to admit that the form of the greater part of the exterior of the head 

 corresponds as nearly with that of the surface of the brain as is neces- 

 sary for craniological purposes. The parts in which the correspondence 

 is often inexact are those over and in the neighbourhood of the eye- 

 brows. The thickness of the superciliary ridge of the frontal bone is 

 variable, and would certainly in some cases make a moderately 

 developed organ appear large ; and still more the size of the frontal 

 sinuses (the cavities between the two plates of the frontal bone 

 immediately above and by the sides of the root of the nose) must 

 always be a source of fallacy in determining the size of that part of 

 the adult brain in which the organs of form, individuality, size, and 

 weight, and tort of that of locality are supposed to be placed. The 

 estimate of the supposed organ of language also, which is indicated. by 

 the prominence of the eye, must be liable to error from the varying 

 quantity of the contents of the orbit From these several circum- 

 stances however the utmost objection that can be raised is, that there 

 must in general be some difficulty in determining the size of these few 

 parts of the brain. In consequence of disease also the whole or parts 

 of the brain may diminish in size without being accompanied by any 

 corresponding change in the external form of the skull* But as a 

 general rule the subjects of disease are excluded in phrenological 

 observations. The objection that parts of the brain have been 

 destroyed without affecting any of the faculties of the mind is also of 

 little weight, unless it be first proved that the organs are not double. 

 The cases of this kind recorded before the promulgation of phrenology 

 cannot fairly be deduced as evidence, because the statements which 

 It b common:/ lUtrd In phrenological wortu that u the brain diminishes 

 to i!= ihe Internal table of the ikull grows inwards, Incrcanlng the thickness of 

 the k<UL The writer U convinced from numerous observation* tbat the space 

 U ft m the eaTitjr of the ikull by the diminution of the volume of the brain i 

 la a Urge majority of Instance* nUed up bjr an accumulation of fluid In the pla 

 mater and In the ventricles [Butx, In NAT. HUT. l>iv.] ; and that the ukull 

 ran ly underg i>e* anjr tach chance In Iu thlckne ai would be phrenologically 

 Important. Even when the whole, or, aa in more ran Ijr the ease, a part of the 

 ak*U doss (boa IncrcM In Ihlcknox, It doe> not Indicate that there was wasting 

 of Use pans of the brain immediately beneath It, but more frequently Is conse- 

 quent on a diminution of port* deeply .Hunted, u the optic tlialaml and corpora, 

 otrlata. The examination of the ikull* of tboi* in whom particular organ, are 

 uppoaed to hi>e wealed, moat therefore be too fallacious to admit of any con. 

 (MOBS being drawn from tbsa. 



they contain relative to the preservation of the mental faculties after 

 injuries of the brain, regard only the general powers of sensation, 

 volition, memory, imagination, Ac., and not the primary faculties of 

 phrenologists, some of which might have been deficient without their 

 loss being observed. The observations that have been made since, it 

 must be confessed, are not of more weight against phrenology, than 

 those of the lose of peculiar faculties (especially those of language 

 and amativeness) by injury and disease of the brain are in its favour. 

 Experimental mutilations of the brains of animals must be regarded as 

 affording still less conclusive evidence ; when a part of the brain is 

 thus removed, the condition of the whole of the rest of its mass is 

 altered by the removal of the pressure of the skull, exposure to the 

 influence of the atmosphere, interference with the circulation of it* 

 blood, Ac. It U impossible that a correct conclusion upon any 

 part of the functions of the brain should be drawn from experi- 

 ments of this kind ; and the whole of the arguments deduced 

 from them by Kudolphi, Magendie, and others, may therefore be 

 neglected. 



Fully admitting the insufficiency of these, as of some other minor 

 objections to phrenology, we come to the consideration of some which 

 must be regarded as more important If phrenology were true, it 

 might be expected that its applications would extend through the 

 whole animal kingdom, ind that according to the degree in which each 

 mental faculty is developed in each animal, we should find a corre- 

 sponding portion of its brain large or small when compared with that 

 of man. Yet this is so far from being the case, that phrenologists are 

 compelled to rest their opinions almost exclusively on evidence derived 

 from the comparison of the brains of different individuals of the same 

 species, and to suppose that though many faculties are the same in 

 man and the lower animals, yet in each species they aro manifested in 

 some peculiar form and structure not admitting of comparison with 

 those of man. This is evidently contrary to the analogical mode of 

 reasoning which we pursue in other instances ; all eyes, all ears, and 

 all organs of smell are formed on the same principles, and so we might 

 presume are all organs of the mind ; so that as by the size or extent 

 of distribution of their nerves we can determine in each animal the 

 power of its sense of smell or sight or hearing, so by the size of a 

 special part of the brain we might in each estimate the energy of some 

 corresponding faculty. Between the vertebrate and the invertebrate 

 animals, for example, there is an abrupt step in the condition of the 

 nervous system ; the brain and spinal cord of the lowest of the former 

 class differ widely from the supra-cesophageal ganglion and the gangli- 

 ated cords of the latter; we might therefore expect to find an equally 

 sudden deterioration of mental power. Yet none such occurs : but 

 although the supra-cesophageal ganglion (which may be regarded as 

 the brain of insects) is only so much larger than the rest of their 

 ganglia as is proportionate to the number of organs requiring to be 

 supplied with nerves from it, yet none will deny that many insects 

 exhibit more exalted psychical powers than the majority of either 

 fish or reptiles do. But, taking the vertebrata alone, in all of which 

 there is a certain general plan observed in the nervous system, it is not 

 found that in each order or species, when compared with the re&t, the 

 parto of the brain are developed in proportion to the energy of the 

 faculty ascribed to each of them. The phrenological function of the 

 cerebellum, for example, is almost equally powerful in all species; yet 

 the absolute and proportionate size of the cerebellum regularly lessens 

 as one descends through the order of vertebrata, and in the batrachia, 

 in which its supposed function is extremely energetic, it is a mere 

 narrow cord passing across the fourth ventricle. The part of the brain 

 too, which U found decreasing as it is examined in the descending 

 scale of vertebrate animals, is not the anterior, the seat of the intel- 

 lectual faculties, but the posterior, in which are placed the organs of 

 the animal propensities. A fair mode of comparison to determine 

 this is to be found in the degree in which the hinder part of the 

 cerebrum overlaps the cerebellum; in man alone does the former ever 

 completely cover the latter; in idiots it often fails to do BO; in 

 monkeys it covers a still less portion ; and continuing to descend 

 through mammalia, the posterior lobes of the cerebrum grow con- 

 stantly smaller, and the cerebellum is proportionally more, and at last 

 completely, exposed. From these facts it might be assumed that the 

 posterior lobes are the seat of some intellectual faculties; and such an 

 assumption can be avoided only by believing that there is no analogy 

 between the form of the posterior lobes of the cerebrum in man and 

 mammalia. It is not denied that these apparent anomalies may 

 exist, and yet phrenology may be true;. but in balancing the proba- 

 bilities of its truth or falsity, they must not be neglected. 



The necessity which is felt of limiting the comparison of cerebral 

 and psychical development to individuals of the same species * proves 

 that some other condition than size is essential in determining the 

 energy of each faculty, and that peculiarity of form and position of 

 parts of the brain may give the external appearance of excess or 



Although, to meet the objection! mentioned above, phrenologiati Inniit on 

 tbe neeeatlty of comparing only individual! of the *.ime epeclea, it i< to be 

 observed that they readily make uae of illustrations favourable to their opinions 

 obt tlned by the contrary mean*, aa, for example, In the determination of the 

 organs of combutivcneM and destructircness by a comparison of carnivorous and 

 herbivorous imtmals, and of that of conitruotiveneM by comparing the head* of 

 the bare and the rabbit. 



