50G 



ON JPii¥$IOGNpMY 



be, ^nd consequently denominated it, the organ of poetry ; and l>r. Hpyr>i- 

 heim has since found out that even this name, to adopt his own words, 

 " does not indicate the essential faculty of the organ,"* which is rather 

 that of fancy or imagination ; and he has hence called it the organ of 

 ideality. Gall asserts that there is no separate organ for hope ; Spurzheim 

 contends that there is^ and that its protuberance lies near the crown of the 

 head. Gall asserts that nature has furnished us with one region or pro- 

 pensity for assassination or murder, and two for thieving or stealing— 

 ^firing and audacious steaUng, and cunning circumspect stealing. Spur?- 

 Wm is more moderate : he contends that nature has given us but one fpr 

 each, and maintains that the second stealing bump of Gall manifests no- 

 thing more than a general propensity to reserve or secrecy. t 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 the dignity of serious philosophy. Dr, 

 Spurzheim, indeed, has felt it so ; but then he has still further confounded 

 the hypothesis, by honestly confessing, in the first place, that he do€5 ni>^ 

 know where the organ that impels us to prefer one place rather than an- 

 other resides, though he apprehends there is such an organ ; while he 

 positively affirms that the bump or protuberance of self-loye or pride 

 lies in another part of the head than that affirmed by his colleague and! 

 master. 



" Who shall decide when doctoFS disagree." 



A thousand other objections and inconsistencies, each of them fHJrhaps 

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

 pecially ask, since murder and thieving have express organs in the brainj 

 how it comes to pass, that lying, and swearing, and backbiting have not 

 equal organs ? If the mechanic and the painter have organs that specifically 

 identify them, why has not the haberdasher and the tailor ? the latter more 

 especially, since, as it has lately been attempted to be proved, by a learned 

 writer on the subject, that the calling of the tailor is the oldest of all pro- 

 fessions whatever ; " a calling," says he, that commenced immediately 

 after the fall : for it was then that mankind sewed fig-leaves together, and 

 made themselves clothes." 



Even upon the subject of the rehgious bump, upon which I have said 

 so much already, the professors of the new school cannot altogether agree ; 

 for while Dr. Gall and Dr. Bojames aflirm that this protuberance on the 

 top of the head indicates the existence of a God, and is the most cogent 

 proof mankind possess of such existence. Dr. Spurzheim contends that it 

 is no praof whatever — that his friends have mistaken the quality — and that 

 it indicates neither religion nor morality ; both which,, it seems, in the 

 opinion of this enlightened philosopher, have nothing to do with each 

 other: for, " one man," says Dr. Spurzheim, " may be religious without 

 being just, and another may be just without being religious. "| Dr. 



♦ Physiolog. Syst. p. 417. 



tlbid.pp> 400.402, 



1 Ibid, p. 415 



