446 ON PHYSIOGNOMY 



allotted to some distinct purpose ; as, for example, that of forming the seat 

 of thinking, or of the soul; the seat of the local senses of sight, sound, taste, 

 and smell ; and the seat of that general feeling which is diffused all over the 

 body; but as the nice hand of the anatomist has confounded even so rational 

 a speculation as this, by proving that many of the nerves productive of dif- 

 ferent functions originate in the same division of the brain, while othrrs, 

 limited to a single function, originate in different divisions of it ;* as it has 

 hereby shown that we know nothing of the reason of this palpable conforma- 

 tion, nor the respective share which each of these grand divisions takes in 

 producing the general effect, how fanciful and presumptuous must it be to 

 partition each or any one of these divisions into a number of imaginary 

 regions, and to guess, for, after all, it comes to nothing more, at the respec- 

 tive duties allotted to these boundaries of our own conceit ! 



But the most serious, or perhaps I should rather say the most ludicrous, 

 and as it appears to me the most fatal, objection to this hypothesis, is the ex- 

 traordinary fact that the different professors of it cannot agree in dividing the 

 brain, or in mapping the scull-bone ; some of them telling us, that a bump or 

 protuberance in a given situation imports one faculty, and others, that it im- 

 ports another faculty; while one or two of them have, at different times, 

 assigned different faculties or manifestations to the same* bump. The organ 

 which Dr. Gall at first called that of courage, he afterward denominated that 

 of quarrelsomeness, and still later that of self-defence. Now, the qualities of 

 self-defence and of quarrelsomeness are as opposite as those of light and 

 darkness; while that of courage is distinct from both of them. So the organ 

 of the theatrical talent he afterward detected to be, and consequently deno- 

 minated it, the organ of poetry; and Dr. Spurzheim has since found out that 

 even this name, to adopt his own words, " does not indicate the essential 

 faculty of the organ,"f which is rather that of fancy or imagination; and he 

 has hence called it the organ of ideality. Gall asserts that there is no sepa- 

 rate organ for hope: Spurzheim contends that there is, and that its protu- 

 berance lies near the crown of the head. Gall asserts that nature has fur- 

 nished us with one region or propensity for assassination or murder, and two 

 for thieving or stealing daring and audacious-stealing, and cunning circum- 

 spect stealing. SpurZheim is more moderate : he contends that nature has 

 given us but one for each, and maintains that the second stealing bump of 

 Gall manifests nothing more than a general propensity to reserve or secrecy.;}: 

 Gall makes the same organ which impels various animals, as the chamois or 

 wild goat, to prefer lofty situations, indicative of pride or self-love in man. 

 This, in Bojames's table, is denominated the region of vanity or conceit ; but 

 as such a term will not cover the idea of fondness for elevated situations, 

 Dr. Gall has since called it the region of haughtiness. Now, this would do 

 well enough for a conundrum-maker: why is a wild goat like a proud man ] 

 because it is fond of what is haughty or lofty; but such quirks and punnings 

 are altogether unworthy of the dignity of serious philosophy. Dr. Spurzheim, 

 indeed, has felt it so ; but then he has still farther confounded the hypothesis, 

 by honestly confessing, in the first place, that he does not know where the 

 organ that impels us to prefer one place rather than another resides, though 

 he apprehends there is such an organ; while he positively affirms that the 

 bump or protuberance of self-love or pride lies in another part of the head 

 than that affirmed by his colleague and master. 



"Who shall decide when doctors disagree ?" 



A thousand other objections and inconsistencies, each of them perhaps 

 fatal to the hypothesis, might be pointed out if we had time. I may espe- 

 cially ask, since murder and thieving have express organs in the brain, how 

 it comes to pass that lying, and swearing, and backbiting have not equal or- 

 gans ? If tli mechanic and the painter have organs that specificallv identify 



* See Smdy of Mt d. vol. iv. p. 6, 2d edit. t Ph.VB'mlog. Syst. p. 417. J Ibid. p. 400. 408. 



