is obvious. Here the things compared differ in kind and power, the nerves of motion going to the limbs are one quality. The condition that size is a measure of pow-third more numerous than those of sensation. Whereas, er, other things being equal, has been entirely overlooked. in man, distinguished for acuteness of feeling, the nerves Take ten iron rods of like thickness, and you will find, of sensation are one fifth more numerous than those of as in the former case, that it is ten times as difficult to motion. The nerve of feeling going to the clephant's break ten rods as to break one. proboscis, and ramified on its tactile extremity, exceeds in volume all the muscular nerves of that organ put together. Birds require to rise in the air, which is a medium much lighter than their bodies: Nature, therefore, to avoid enlarging their muscles and thus increasing their weight, has bestowed on them large nerves of motion, and the power is thus secured by applying a powerful stimulus to muscles comparatively small. In fishes, on the contrary, which live in a medium almost equal in density to their own bodies, the muscles are comparatively large, and the nerves small. Thus does nature beautifully adapt the structure of the animal to its condition. And this leads me to observe that the things compared must be of the same species. The bee has a very minute brain, and yet it manifests great constructiveness. Now it may be argued, that if size be a measure of power, then should the comparatively enormous organ of constructiveness in man cause him to manifest the faculty with proportionate energy, which is not the case. But this objection is unsound. The structure of every species of animal is modified to suit its condition, and you can no more compare a bee with a man than a twig with an iron rod. Correct conclusions can be obtained only by comparing animals of the same species. It is to be observed, however, that the more nearly any two species resemble each other, the fitter they become for profitable comparison. Thus, the heads of the cat and tiger illustrate each other much better than those of the tiger and sheep; hence, too, by comparing man to the higher animals, analogy throws on human organization a reflected light, which serves admirably for illustration, though not for proof. Direct observation on man himself is the only evidence on which Phrenologists depend, and on such evidence alone their science rests. All animated nature teems with proofs that size is a measure of power. Large lungs aerate blood better than small ones, and large muscles are more powerful than small ones. If a liver with a surface of ten square inches secrete four ounces of bile, it is certain that, other conditions being equal, a liver with a surface twice as great would secrete twice as much. Bones are large in proportion to the weight they have to support: hence their enormous size in the elephant and the mammoth, a complete specimen of which I saw at Philadelphiaand their strength is always in proportion to their size, other things being equal. But suppose the arrangement of the bony matter to differ, then may the same quantity produce different degrees of strength. Thus, if you wished to place an iron pillar weighing ten tons in the centre of this room, for the purpose of supporting it, the strength of the pillar would be much greater if you disposed the matter in the cylindrical than if you disposed it in the solid form. So when nature wishes to give strength to the bones of birds without increasing weight, the bone is made of large diameter, but hollow in the middle. It would not do, therefore, to compare equal quantities of bone, in one case compacted and in the other arranged cylindrically, inasmuch as the conditions would not be equal. But of two cylindrical bones, containing matter in proportion to their size, the largest would be the most powerful. And of two compact bones, the same would hold good. We have striking confirmation of the principle I am advocating, in the relative distribution of the different kinds of nerves. Speaking generally, there are two classes of nerves, those of motion and those of sensation. Now, wherever the power of motion preponderates in an animal, there are the nerves of motion most numerous; and wherever the power of feeling predominates, there are the nerves of sensation most numerous. Thus, in the horse, which is noted for its muscular We find this adaptation well illustrated by the external senses. Each of these senses is composed of an instrument on which the impression is made, and of a nerve to conduct that impression to the brain. Now a large eye will evidently collect more rays of light, a large ear more vibrations of sound, and large nostrils more odorous particles, than the same organs if small. And the nerves ramified in these organs give intensity of perception proportionate to their extent. The organ of vision affords a most interesting example of this. A large eye collects a greater number of rays, and consequently commands a greater sphere of vision than a small one. The ox is remarkable for the size of his eye; (hence the term 'ox-eyed,' applied to large-eyed individuals;) he consequently commands a large range of space without turning round; but as his provender lies at his feet, his sight need not be acute: accordingly, we find that the optic nerve is not large in proportion. The eagle, on the contrary, soaring as it does to an immense height, needs not a large eye to give it range of vision, but it needs intensity of vision, that it may perceive its prey at a great distance. We find its eye, therefore, of small size, but of great keenness: the optic nerve is enormously large. It does not, as in man, form a mere lining membrane to the posterior chamber, but is composed of folds hanging loosely into the eye, and augmenting largely both the nervous surface and nervous mass, giving that great intensity of vision, which particularly distinguishes this bird of prey and enables it to discover its quarry at immense distances. The external ear is for the purpose of collecting the vibrations of sound; and we find the lower animals to have large trumpet-ears, which man imitates when he wants to hear distinctly, by using an ear-trumpet. In man, the olfactory nerves spread over 20 square inches; in the seal, over 120-and in this animal the sense is so acute that the hunters have to approach him in the teeth of the wind. There are two dogs, the greyhound and pointer: the first follows the game by its eye, and the last by its smell. The nose of the first is narrow and pointed; that of the last broad and extended. The sheep excels man in the acuteness of smell; and accordingly, while in it the nerve is thicker than this pencil, in man its size is not greater than thin packthread or whip-cord. The mole is remarkable for the acuteness of its smell, and the nerve is very large. It the 0. or at P. L. is remarkable for the feebleness of vision-thus, "as | fluence of size reconcile these facts with their belief. blind as a mole," is a common saying. Corresponding We challenge them to produce a man with a small with this is the smallness of its optic nerve. sized head, who manifests great general mental power. Lord Jeffrey, in an article which he published in the Edinburgh Review, opposed this doctrine of size being a measure of power. "The proposition," he says, "is no less contrary to the analogy of all our known organs than to general probability. Grandmamma Wolf, in the fairy tale, does, indeed, lean a little to the phrenological heresy, when she has large eyes to see the better. But with this one venerable exception, we rather think that it has never been held before that the strength of vision depends on the size of the eye, the perfection of hearing on the magnitude of the ear, or the nicety of taste on the breadth of the tongue and palate." "But," say some, "we know idiots who have large heads." Our reply is-so do we; but, then, in these cases the brain is not healthy. A large leg is usually indicative of strength; but this is not the case when the leg is large from disease. But though disease be absent, if the size be very deficient, idiocy is invariable, and men remarkable for great force of character, as Bruce, Cromwell, Bonaparte, Franklin, and Burns, invariably have heads of unusual magnitude. But here allow me to save you from error. Many, after hearing this statement, immediately commence to try on the hats of their acquaintance, and are apt to Now it happens that so far as the weight of autho- conclude that the man with the largest hat is the most rity is concerned, the venerable grandmamma Wolf has clever. Now, here is a little bit of a mistake. The hat complete advantage over Lord Jeffrey, and fairly beats is only the measure of the head's circumference in a him out of the field-Sommering, Cuvier, Monro, part of which he need not be so proud. It does not Blumenbach, Magendie, Georget, and a host of others, measure a great part of the intellect and none at all of taking her side in the controversy. Blumenbach says: the moral sentiments. Hatters, in seeming anticipation "While animals of the most acute smell have the nasal of moral improvement, have left in the upper part of organs most extensively evolved, precisely the same our hats ample room for the moral sentiments to sprout holds in regard to some barbarous nations. For in- and grow. Sir Walter Scott's hatter told me that the stance, in the head of a North American Indian the in-hat of that celebrated individual was one of the smallternal nostrils are of an extraordinary size. The nearest which went out of his store. But then the percepest to these in point of magnitude are the internal nostrils of the Ethiopians." Monro primus says: "The sensibility of smell is increased in proportion to the surface; this will also be found to take place in all the other senses." Suppose that, after these expositions, I were to tell you that size has no influence on power in the human brain-would you be disposed to credit the assertion? I think not. Here is the skull of an infant; here one of an adult-mark the difference in size. This is the skull of a Swiss; this of a Hindoo-see how large the one compared with the other-and what says history of their manifestations of power? While the one people achieved their independence at an early day, and have maintained it at times against fearful odds, the other have ever been the prey of invaders, and one hundred millions of them are at this moment kept in subjection by forty or fifty thousand Englishmen. Before studying Phrenology this last fact was utterly inexplicable to me. The Hindoos are considerably advanced in the arts of civilized life. They have written language, systems of law and religion; and yet, they are utterly unable to contend against a mere handful of Anglo-Saxons. But now the reason is perfectly plain. The small comparative size of their brains explains all. Again, here is the head of a Peruvian Indian, a fair specimen of the race. See how small compared with the European head; and you know that a few Spaniards conquered a nation of them. But again, when the brain is below a certain size, idiotism is the invariable result. In the lowest class of idiots, the horizontal circumference of the head, taken a little higher than the orbit, varied from 11 to 13 inches; in a full-sized head, the circumference is 22 inches; in Spurzheim's skull it is 224. In such idiots the distance from the root of the nose backwards over the top of the head to the occipital spine is only 8 and 9 inches; in a full-sized head it is 14; in the skull of Spurzheim it is 13 6-10. Let those who deny the in tive faculties, which were large in Scott, were not reached by the hat. The upper and lateral portions of his forehead were only full. Cautiousness was little more than moderately, and concentrativeness only moderately developed; and these organs, taken collectively, determine the circumference of the hat. His forehead and coronal region towered high. His head from the ear to veneration, was the highest I ever beheld; but of these dimensions his hat gave no account. That size has an important influence on the power of manifestation, is now admitted even by the Edinburgh Review. In the 94th number appeared a paper written by Dr. Conolley, containing this sentence: "The brain is observed progressively to be improved in its structure, and, with reference to the spinal marrow and nerves, augmented in volume more and more, until we reach the human brain, each addition being marked by some addition to, or amplification of, the powers of the animal-until in man we behold it possessing some parts of which animals are destitute, and wanting none which they possess." The principle for which we contend being thus established, we would remark that it is susceptible of a most important application. It is found, in four cases out of five, that in insanity the nature of the derangement bears direct reference to the predominant organ or organs. Some are affected with melancholia; in these the organ of cautiousness will be found large. Some fancy themselves the Deity; in these, self-esteem will be found predominant. Some are furious: in these destructiveness will be found large. These are generally cases of functional derangement; and by examining the heads of the insane I can generally determine with accuracy the nature of their derangements. But a small organ may become diseased, and sometimes does so. Most frequently, however, the derangement is structural: thus, I have seen a small organ deranged by a spicula of bone growing into it, and by the pressure of a fungous deposition. The nervous and sanguine temperaments both give activity; but the first is more of a mental, and the last more of a physical character. One of the former temperament would rather write a note than walk across the floor; one of the latter would rather walk the length of Broadway than write a note. Let us now inquire into the circumstances which predominance, and again for two or three days would modify the effects of size. The most important of these he apply himself most assiduously to study. is the constitution of the brain; and the question naturally arises-do we possess any means of ascertaining this constitution? We do, in the observation of what are called the temperaments, which are four in number-the lymphatic, the sanguine, the bilious, and the nervous-each of which is accompanied by a different degree of activity in the brain. The temperaments are supposed to depend upon the condition of particular systems of the body: the brain and nerves being predominantly active, seem to produce the nervous temperament; the blood-vessels being constitutionally predominant, give rise to the sanguine; the muscular and fibrous systems being predominant, give rise to what is called the bilious, but what should be called the fibrous temperament; and the predominance of the glands and assimilating organs give rise to the lymphatic. The temperaments are indicated by external signs: 1. The lymphatic is indicated by roundness of form, softness of muscle, fair hair, pale skin, sleepy eyes, and inexpressive face. In this temperament the brain and all other parts of the system are feeble in action, slow and languid. 2. The sanguine is indicated by a well-defined form, moderate plumpness, firm flesh, chesnut hair, blue eyes, and ruddy fair complexion. There is great fondness for exercise and intolerance of muscular quiescence. The brain partakes of the general activity. 3. The bilious is indicated by black hair, dark skin, moderate stoutness, firm flesh and harsh features. It gives great power of endurance, or bottom, as the jockies call it. 4. The nervous is indicated by fine thin hair, small muscles, thin skin, paleness of countenance, and brightness of eye. This temperament gives great vivacity of mental action. These temperaments are, however, seldom found pure. We have a mixture of the nervous and bilious, as in Lord Brougham, giving great activity and endurance. As an example of Brougham's power of continuous activity, I may mention a circumstance related to me by one who knew it well. Brougham was engaged in a Court of Law all day; he went from the Court to the House of Commons and remained there till two in the morning; on going home he wrote an article for the Edinburgh Review, by the time of finishing which he had to go to Court; from the Court he again proceeded to the House of Commons, where he remained till some time in the morning-and it was not till the morning of the third day that he retired to bed. During all this time his vigor seemed unabated. Shakspeare admirably contrasts the lymphatic and nervous temperaments in the scene between Cæsar and Anthony: Cæsar. Let me have men about me that are fat- I do not know the man I should avoid It is to be remembered, then, that a large organ may, in fact, be less powerful than a smaller one, if its temperament be inferior. But in judging the relative power of organs, temperament need not be considered, as all the organs of the same head are in this respect alike. In cases of disease, great size may be present, and yet the manifestations of mind may be very feeble and imperfect. In this case, size forms no measure of power any more than does the size of a leg affected with dropsy. Now, if the brain be the organ of mind, and different parts of the brain manifest different faculties, it cannot be indifferent what part is most or least developed, for it is obvious that two brains may be composed of precisely the same quantity of cerebral matter, and yet manifest totally different qualities. The form of the head, therefore, is not less interesting and important to phrenologists than the size. Before proceeding further with the consideration of this subject, however, let us glance at the means which have been used by those not of the phrenological school, to ascertain the true philosophy of mind and functions of the brain. By one set of philosophers, the laws of thought have been expounded without any reference to organization. Such were Locke, Hume, Reid, Stewart, and others. They reflected on their own consciousness, and they inform us of the result of their investigations, what they have thought and what they have felt. The dependence of the mind on material organs forms no part of their philosophy. With the hope of obtaining some information concerning the functions of the brain, the anatomists cut it The nervous and lymphatic temperaments are not up in every possible direction; but no sentiment was unfrequently combined: this gives alternations of great ever perceived slumbering in its fibres, nor half-formed activity and indolence. It was the combination of Pro- ideas starting from its folds. In fact, a dissection never fessor Leslie. He would for a day or two apply him- yet disclosed the functions of any part whatever. Forself with great vigor, assiduity and success, to scientific merly it was very prevalent in France to cut out parts studies. It would then seem as though the nervous from the brains of living animals, in order to ascertain energy were exhausted, and the nutritive system came functions; a practice as absurd as it was cruel. The into predominance. He would sit and eat, and dose experimenters proceeded on the supposition that noand sleep-paying no attention to study for one or two thing was known concerning the functions of the brain, days. He would often take another day to go about and yet they expected to ascertain their functions, by and attend to any matters not requiring much mental observing what powers were not manifested when vaexertion. Again would the nervous system come intorious parts were destroyed. Suppose an instrument were the or at P. presented to one of these operators, and that his object | most violent of men. He abused his aged gardener, was to discover, by experiments, what sounds it was capable of producing, and by what part of it each sound was emitted. Imagine him to take a hammer and smash at random a number of its springs and wheels, and then set the machine a-going. By listening to the sounds emitted, how could he tell what were wanting, when he did not know the whole originally within its compass? and how could he tell by their silence, the sounds which the broken strings were originally calculated to emit? Yet this would be precisely analogous to the procedure of the vivisectors. They are unacquainted with the number of the mental powers, and they destroy several of them at random, that they may find it out. They do not know what particular power is manifested by any particular part of the brain, yet they destroy that part to get it to reveal its function. They destroy the string of a musical instrument, and then listen to hear what sound it will not emit! We hear of Magendie and others cutting away certain portions of the brain, and some animals went for wards, some backwards, some to the right, some to the left, some seemed drunk, some stupid. And then we have from these experiments, a number of so-called important deductions drawn. But how can deductions, fit to be depended on, be drawn from the actions of animals so tortured? Suppose you take a beautiful black bird and cut through its integuments and skull, and cut out a portion of its brain, do you think it would favor you with a song? And because it did not, would you be correct in calling the excised portion of brain the organ of time? Suppose you take another animal and serve it in like manner, do you think it would be in the humor or condition to tend and nurture its young? And because it did not, would it be correct to say that the excised brain was the part which manifested love of offspring? Had phrenology been based on such observations, then would it have merited all the obloquy which has been heaped upon it. But because such cruel experiments have been performed to overthrow phrenology, they have been lauded as most philosophical! Again, pathological cases have been brought forward to illustrate the functions of the brain; and sometimes to oppose phrenology. Now, before you can draw any conclusion concerning the function of a part from a state of disease, you must know the function of the part in health. But as the non-phrenologist is ignorant of the situation of particular organs, he cannot tell, when a certain feeling is deranged, in what organ to look for disease,-nor, when he sees disease in an organ, what faculty was probably deranged. To illustrate my meaning, I relate the following circumstance: Sir RL-* was a man highly respected for talent and character; he was at one time minister plenipotentiary to this country, and at another to the court of Constantinople. He lived to the age of ninety-three. Seven years before his death, his character commenced to undergo a remarkable change; from being one of the most amicable and courteous, he became one of the spit in his face, and threw things at him. He also from being an admirable linguist, became unable to use words. When he died, Dr. Abercrombie and Mr. Craig examined the brain, and I, being related to the family by marriage, obtained leave to be present. I knew that the organs of combativeness and language were those in which to look for lesions. Accordingly the medical gentlemen found an abscess, one inch in length by half an inch in breadth, in the posterior lobe, where combativeness is situated; thinking they had found out the cause of disease, they were about to stop, but I got them to proceed, and when Mr. Craig came near the organ of language, I took the scalpel and proceeded very carefully, and in the convolution which is marked as the organ of language, I found another leison. Mr. Craig published an account of the case, in which he mentioned the large lesion, and connected it with the loss of words. He had been unacquainted with the furious conduct of Sir Robert. I immediately published another report, stating the conduct of the patient in this respect, and showing clearly the manner in which the post mortem appearances harmonized with phrenological doctrines. I repeat that a non-phrenologist is incapable of reporting pathological cases of the cerebral organs with success. Dr. Roget, an opponent of phrenology, confesses, that "the brain is still as incomprehensible in its functions, as it is subtle and complex in its anatomy." Dr. Conolley, in the 94th No. of the Edinburgh Review, well describes the utter confusion of the anatomists and physiologists, even in late years, when trying to unravel the mysteries of the brain. It is plain, then, that if Dr. Gall could boast no superior method to that of ordinary physiologists and metaphysicians, he would have been unable to solve the question, What parts of the brain and what mental faculties are connected? He was led, however, to adopt a different and superior mode of inquiry, which will be best explained by relating briefly the history of his discovery. Dr. Gall, from an early age, was given to observation, and was struck with the fact, that each individual was distinguished for some peculiarity of talent or disposition. Some of his schoolmates were distinguished for the beauty of their penmanship, some for the elegance, others for the stiffness and dryness of their style of composition. Their dispositions were equally different; and this diversity appeared to determine their partialities and aversions. Some manifested a fondness for employments which they were not taught. Some would spend their leisure in painting, some in cultivating a garden, some in carving, some in noisy games. Each individual presented a peculiar character, and Gall observed, that an individual who one year had displayed selfish or knavish dispositions, never became in the next a good and faithful friend. The most formidable rivals of Gall, at school, were such as learned by heart with great facility, and these he noticed had prominent eyes. They gained from him, by their repetitions, the places which he had obtained Mr. Combe, for the sake of authenticity, mentioned the by the merit of his original compositions. Some years name, which the reporter deems it proper on this and like occa-afterwards he changed his residence, and he still found sions to suppress, lest pain should be given to individuals in private life, with whom the parties mentioned were connected that his school-fellows so gifted had prominent eyes. by the ties of blood or friendship. He made the same observation on entering the Univer sity. Gall could not believe this connection to be purely So far indeed was Gall from advocating a hypothesis, accidental, but suspected that they stood in an impor- that in the disjointed items of information which he first tant relation to each other. After much reflection, he presented to the public, there appears a want of ordiconceived that there might be external signs for the nary regard for systematic arrangement. A candid and other intellectual powers, and thereafter all individuals uncolored statement of facts was all he seemed desirous remarkable for any mental quality became the objects | of furnishing, leaving their value to be ascertained by of his attention. Light broke in upon him by an almost time and farther investigation. But gradually a system imperceptible induction, and by degrees he conceived of mental philosophy emanated, almost spontaneously, himself to have found external characteristics, indicative from the seeming chaos. of a decided disposition for painting, music, and the mechanical arts. In following out the principle which had thus presented itself to his mind, he encountered great difficulties. The prevailing notions of the philosophers and physiologists were a continual stumbling-block, till abandoning every theory and preconceived opinion, he gave himself up to the study of nature. He visited prisons and schools, and was introduced into the courts of princes, to colleges, and the seats of justice, and visited every individual remarkable for any particular endowment. During my recent visit to Vienna, I was informed that such was the ardor with which Gall pursued his inquiries, that he created quite an alarm; people were afraid of dying lest Gall should obtain their skull, and some left orders in their wills that means should be taken to prevent him. On reflection, Gall was convinced that, without anatomy, physiology must be imperfect; and although he had always supposed the external indications to depend on the brain, he had not gone beyond other anatomists in explaining its structure. From observing a woman afflicted with hydrocephelus, who manifested an active and intelligent mind, he declared that the structure of the brain must differ from what was generally conceived. From that commenced his anatomical discoveries. Gall did not first dissect the brain and thus pretend to discover the mental organs, nor did he first map out the skull according to his imagination. On the contrary, he first observed a concomitance between particular talents and dispositions, and particular forms of the head; he next ascertained, by the removal of the skull, that the size and figure of the brain are indicated by external appearances; and it was only after these facts were ascertained, that the brain was minutely dissected, and light thrown upon its structure. Dr. Gall, for the first time, delivered lectures on his system in 1796, at Vienna; in 1800, Dr. Spurzheim became a student of his, and in 1804, his associate. When I was in Germany, I saw a collection of barks describing the science at different stages of its progress, and also skulls marked at different times; all proving that the organs were discovered piece-meal. Indeed I found in this country a most unexpected corroboration of the fact. Mr. Nicholas Biddle, when quite a young man, and on a visit to Europe, in 1806, attended a course of Dr. Gall's lectures, and was so much interested, that he requested Dr. Gall to mark out the places of the organs on the skull, which the Dr. did. When in Philadelphia, Mr. Biddle presented me with the skull so marked, saying, that I could make a better use of it than he. This is it, and you perceive that there are quite a number of unoccupied places. You perceive that Hope, Conscientiousness, Individuality, Concentrativeness, Time, Size and Weight are not marked upon it—they, at that time, being unascertained. A REMEMBRANCE. Yes, 'midst the lingering visions of the past, It almost seemed, when first I read the book, To bear the world's cold scorn-the unhallow'd glance the or at P. |