PHRENOLOGY. 43 



pond exactly with those of the brain. This is of no consequence to 

 phrenology as a science of observation. And it does not follow that 

 the representation of faculties is equivalent to physical correspondence 

 or similar undulation of surface. The nose represents the sense of 

 smell, although the olfactory nerve does not lie under it in the form 

 of a nerve nose. And destructiveness may lie in its bony den with- 

 out exactly fitting the bone. On the contrary we might suppose that 

 where activity was involved, there would be room for exercise; and 

 that the inner table of the skull would represent something more 

 than the limits of the greatest exertions of the faculty — the arms- 

 length, spring and hatchet-play, for instance, of the destroying organ. 



Moreover, looking at the instance of the face, it does not appear 

 certain that the ratio is between the surface and the parts immedi- 

 ately beneath it. Concealment and projection are elements of repre- 

 sentation. The eyes are put forth far away from those cerebral 

 origins which they signify, and with which they communicate. The 

 parts that functionally underlie the eyes are not the structures nearest 

 to them inwards. The superficial-making process is often slanting, 

 as is seen in the ducts of many organs, which carry the produce by 

 which they represent the organ to a spot remote from the surface 

 above it. 



We are inclined however to believe that there is a fitness between 

 the parts of the phrenological head and the brain underneath them. 

 And we suspect also that the ratio is one of quantity. For when 

 we consider the whole frame as representative, the front half of the 

 body stands for expression, or that which represents the mind ac- 

 tively, and in the face intelligibly ; while the back half stands for 

 representation or reaction. The front impresses spiritually, the back 

 materially ; or in other words, the front acts, and the back reacts. 

 Now the reaction consists in the gross pushing of the frame, while 

 the action is skillfully supported upon this, and busy in the front. 

 This pushing for a rest necessarily is quantitative, and moulds to its 

 shape what it comes against, if the latter can take an impression. 

 The skill of action on the other hand similarly moulds, but at a dis- 

 tance from itself, and upon the models of quality or design, which 

 issue from its creative fingers. Now it seems as if the brain, con- 

 sidered as made of organs, and as determined to without, leans the 



