PHRENOLOGY. 



547 



cranium. An organ, they say, may be so extremely 

 developed as to push the neighbouring organs from 

 the places usually occupied by them ; and sometimes 

 several organs, in the vicinity of each other, are 

 equally or proportionally developed, so that, in place 

 of a protuberance, from which the indication might 

 be taken, a smooth or regular surface is met with. 

 Now, there are no fewer than five important organs 

 in the line of each eyebrow, and if no distinct protu- 

 berance appear in this region, what is the observer 

 to infer ? Are the organs all deficient or all re- 

 dundant ? Must we estimate them by their absolute 

 or relative size? Or if the smoothness arises from 

 the extreme development of one organ raising up 

 another, how are we to distinguish between the one 

 which elevates and the one which is elevated ? 



The fundamental doctrine of phrenologists is, that 

 the size of an organ determines the power of the al- 

 leged faculty or propensity belonging to it, just as if 

 the size of a man's eye determined the strength of his 

 vision, or the largeness of his ears the excellence of 

 his hearing ! But size alone, they admit, is not in 

 all cases, a true criterion and here is another per- 

 plexity or scape-goat for the manipulator of heads. 

 The vigour of any faculty may be increased by edu- 

 cation or exercise, or even by disease, without any 

 corresponding increase in its size. Thus, if a man is 

 found with a very small organ, and a very vigorous 

 manifestation of its supposed faculty, phrenologists 

 escape from the fact by pronouncing the organ to be 

 in a state of unnatural activity, from disease or some 

 other cause. This is virtually giving up phrenology, 

 by confessing that the size of an organ cannot be de- 

 pended on alone. It proves that faculties may have 

 a vigour independent of their outward protuberances 

 ^-a doctrine diametrically opposed to the first princi- 

 ples of phrenology. Mr Combe, on this point, feel- 

 ing the dilemma on which it places his favourite sci- 

 ence, has endeavoured to draw a distinction between 

 the power and activity of a faculty, by say ing. that 

 size indicates the presence of the one, though not of 

 the other. But the distinction is without a difference. 

 For what is the power of a faculty but its activity ? 

 What is Cautiousness, but a quick sense of danger ? 

 What Imitation, but a ready faculty of copying ? 

 What Language, but a copious elocution, or a prompt 

 recollection of words ? What Wit, but sparkling 

 thoughts and apt allusions ? What Destructiveness, 

 but readiness to destroy, the power lying in the arm 

 and not in the brain ? 



Phrenology claims to be called the science of ob- 

 servation, and phrenologists are constantly vaunting 

 of the facts they can adduce in support of their 

 theories. Their cry is, ' Come to our schools and 

 collections, arid observe along with us, whether men- 

 tal manifestations are, or are not, in constant propor- 

 tion to cerebral development ; whether a given shape 

 of head is not always accompanied by a certain talent 

 and a certain character. If this be not so, we are in 

 error.' We confess that the opponents of phrenology 

 have responded little to this invitation. They have 

 been so satisfied with the overwhelming arguments 

 adduced against the system from almost every point 

 of mental and physical philosophy, that they have 

 left the manipulating of heads and handling of skulls 

 and nasts, to the phrenologists themselves. The 

 result I as been, that phrenologists, in almost every 

 instance, being left to state their facts and balance 

 their organs after their own fashion, have made out 

 many what they call triumphant cases in support of 

 their theory, and challenged their opponents to a 

 refutation of the same. In one distinguished instance, 

 the challenge has been accepted. Mr Stone, presi- 

 dent of the Royal Medical Society of Edinburgh, has 

 met them on their own ground, and by a series of th 



most indefatigable examinations and measurements of 

 a vast variety of skulls, has proved many of their 

 most vaunted hypotheses to be erroneous and false. 

 The following are some of the results of his investiga- 

 tions. 1. By comparing the crania of eighteen mur- 

 derers with two extensive series of crania, this able 

 inquirer has undeniably shown, that the crania of 

 such criminals are not characterized by any superior 

 development in the region of Destructiveness ; and 

 that, instead of being broader, they are frequently 

 much narrower than crania in general. 2. The su- 

 perior part of the cranium, to which region phrenolo- 

 gists have referred the^organs of the moral sentiments, 

 is frequently found higher and better in the crania of 

 murderers, than in crania in general. 3. The crania 

 of murderers have not been found to exhibit any de- 

 ficiency of anterior development ; and sometimes, in 

 contrast with other crania, the anterior region is evm 

 fuller and better developed in such criminals, than in 

 crania in general. 4. The posterior development, or 

 quantity of brain behind the ear, to which region 

 phrenologists refer the animal propensities, has not 

 been found to exhibit any remarkable preponderance 

 in the crania of murderers. 5. The region of the 

 head, to which the supposed organ of Acquisitiveness 

 is referred, has not been found broader in notorious 

 thieves than in individuals of exemplary character ; 

 and sometimes even narrower proved by the distance 

 from Acquisitiveness to Acquisitiveness having been 

 taken in twenty-two thieves, and compared with the 

 same dimensions in various persons, English, Scotch, 

 and Irish, each class of individuals having been taken 

 without any selection. 6. By a comparison of the 

 heads of the same individuals, thieves are frequently 

 found to possess that region of the head, to which the 

 organ of Conscientiousness is ascribed, more highly 

 developed than individuals of exemplary character. 



The limits assigned to this article prevent us from 

 entering upon the wide fields of physics and meta- 

 physics with which the subject of phrenology is con- 

 nected. Were it otherwise, we might deny the exis- 

 tence of separate and independent faculties at all, in 

 the composition of what is called the human mind, 

 which we believe to be one and indivisible ; what 

 are denominated faculties being rather different acts 

 or rather states of it. But we confine ourselves to 

 the theories and statements of the phrenologists them- 

 selves. We give them the benefit of their own as- 

 sumptions, feeling assured that, even with that, their 

 science is unable to uphold itself before the slightest 

 investigation. 



In looking over the list of faculties assigned by 

 phrenologists to the mind of man, it is impossible not 

 to be struck with their redundancy on some particular 

 points, and their lamentable deficiency on others. 

 Thus we have both form and size. According to 

 metaphysicians, a knowledge of extension includes 

 the two, form being but the comparative extension of 

 the several parts of the same object, and size the 

 comparative extension of two several objects. Again, 

 the organs of combativeness and destructiveness 

 coincide so nearly, that the absence of one would 

 scarcely be missed if the other were in vigour. The 

 use of Destructiveness is said to be to teach us to 

 ' kill for food,' upon which it has been well remark- 

 ed, that we should also have organs to teach us to 

 dig for food, and to roast or boil for food. Such organs 

 as concentrativeness and adhesiveness can never be 

 considered as primitive faculties, but only as intensi- 

 fiers of other faculties. What is the meaning of the 

 development of an organ, but that the faculty attri- 

 buted to it is strong, and wherein, therefore, lies the 

 utility of such organs as concentrativeness and adhe- 

 siveness, which only mean a strong and constant ak- 

 tachment to any particular object ? Besides, what 

 2 M 2 



