large, state, that all this is the very opposite of the sources of their pleasure from colours; and affirm, that they enjoy a direct agreeable impression from them, altogether independent of association. Some of them have added, that the very circumstance of your preferring bright flowers and peacocks' necks, indicates a weak perception of colours, because a strong stimulus appears requisite to excite it. This inference, they say, is rendered still more certain by the fact that, according to your own statement, even these striking objects do not detain your mind a moment on themselves, but serve only to usher in extraneous emotions. These two circumstances accordingly coincide in the completest manner with a "depressed" organ. Suppose a theorist were to assert, that there is no direct beauty in melody, and no harmony and discord between different sounds, but that nevertheless he perceives great beauty in music, and enjoys much delight in hearing a performance on the bugle, or bass-drum; and suppose that we proceeded to ask him what could be the source of his delight, and that he were to answer, 66 Oh, the notes themselves give me no "pleasure, but the bugle reminds me of the splendid and "elegant uniforms, the waving plumes, the finely-formed and "high-spirited horses of the lancers; and the bass-drum re"calls the summer evening parade, with the loveliness of "earth and sky in that delightful season, and all the fasci"nations of female beauty and fashion that animate and adorn "the scene, and hence music gives me the highest gratifica❝tion!" If such a statement were made, who, that enjoys a sensibility to music, would not say, that Phrenology would be at fault, if such a man were not deficient in the organ of Tune. The individual supposed would never dwell for a moment on the notes of the bugle, or the time of the drum; these to him would be mere sounds exciting in his mind ideas of the lancers and the parade; which objects alone would be the real sources of his enjoyment and causes of his admiration. This case is an exact parallel to yours. Colours are to you nothing in themselves; they only touch a train of extrinsic emotions, in which your whole gratification is founded. It would be a decided objection to Phrenology, therefore, if in your head the organ of colouring were in any other condition than "depressed." The second topic adverted to you in your note, is the Welshman's organ of Language. The subject of controversy here was the following:-"A Welshman in St Tho"mas's Hospital had received a considerable injury of the head, "but from which he ultimately recovered, and when he became "convalescent, spoke a language which no one about him could comprehend." It turned out that he had recovered the use of the Welsh language which he had learned in his youth, but, owing to long disuse, had subsequently forgotten. After citing the case, you proceeded in the Review as follows:-" The "phenomenon is explained by supposing that a part of the organ of "language was injured, and that the effects of this injury were, 1st, "to destroy for the time that part of the machinery which served "for the recollection of English words, and, 2d, to restore to a ser"viceable state that part which had been originally used for recol"lecting Welsh ones, but had long been so much rusted and decay"ed as to be quite unfit for service. These are not metaphors employed to assist our conception of an obscure fact, or to give a "sort of coherence to a strange statement; they are alleged by the Phrenologists as serious and literal truths, affording a plain and satisfactory explanation of a very extraordinary occurrence." My remark on this passage was the following:-" Now, "would any mortal believe that every word of these explanations "and statements is a fiction of your own, gratuitously put into the "mouths of the Phrenologists, apparently for no purpose but to af"ford scope for ridicule? Not only are there no such assertions or "expositions in my work, but there is nothing approaching to them." You now admit that the passage disowned by me was not intended to be given as my statement, but that the ideas in it were merely imputed "inferences from" my book. With this explanation of your intentions I am perfectly satisfied, and most readily acquit you of any purpose of misrepresentation; but I beg to make a few observations "on the "soundness of the inferences or deductions by which you at"tempt to fasten down these propositions on the Phrenolo "gists." In page 8 of the System of Phrenology (the book you were reviewing), it is stated that one set of philosophers have taught that the mind is a mere combination of matter, and "endeavoured to explain its functions by supposed mechanical mo"tions in its parts; but this course of proceeding is equally errone"ous as the other; and the only legitimate and philosophical me"thod of investigation is that which is pursued by Phrenologists, namely, observing the laws which regulate the union of the mental "and corporeal parts of man, WITHOUT PRETENDING TO DISCO"VER THE ESSENCE OR modus operandi OF EITHER.” It has been my endeavour, in the whole of my writings, to keep this principle in view; and I am not aware of having attempted, in any instance, to explain the mode of operation of the organs in manifesting the mental faculties. This being the case, I appeal to every intelligent man, whether your commentary was a legitimate deduction from the case, on my principles. You inform the Phrenologists that you "part with them, "not only in peace, but in amity;" and also, that "if we find, at "the end of a few more years, that the science is still known by name among persons of sense, we may think it our duty to look "once more into its pretensions, and give ourselves another chance " of conversion." Were I disposed to be critical, I might perhaps allege, that this last sentence indicates a latent suspicion that, after all, you have not succeeded in demolishing Phrenology, to the satisfaction even of your own judgment; and that it may be quite as creditable to be found hereafter among its friends as heading the luckless column of names destined to an unhappy immortality as its opponents. But I waive all such sinister interpretations, and sincerely rejoice in the announcement of a resolution so truly liberal and philosophical. That Phrenology, like every real science," will "flourish in immortal youth," is, with me, not matter of doubt, but of certain anticipation. Could the kind wishes of the Phrenologists procure for you a life as long, vigorous, You say that it is not mentioned in my work that this case is quoted from an opponent; but the authority is given at the bottom of the page, in these words:"Tupper's Inquiry into Gall's System, p. 33,"-and every one conversant with Phrenology knows that Tupper is an opponent. and glorious, as awaits this science, their Benevolence would thrill with joy in bestowing on society so rich a boon; but although this is beyond their power, a humbler hope may be entertained and sincerely do they cherish it-that you may live to display still greater wit, eloquence, and ingenuity, in defence of their cause, than you have exhibited in opposing it. In all cordiality, then, I conclude the present controversy, and trust that, when next I shall resume the pen in reference to you, it shall be to announce that Mr Jeffrey is at length a Phrenologist. I have the honour to be, &c. Edinburgh, February 1, 1827. GEO. COMBE. ARTICLE V. LETTER FROM THE HONOURABLE D. G. HALLYBURTON TO GEORGE LYON, ESQ. MY DEAR SIR, Hallyburton House, Monday Evening, HAVING understood from yourself and others of my friends, members of the Phrenological Society, that casts from certain busts which I brought from Italy might be an acceptable present, I now beg leave to send them, and to request that you will, in my name, solicit the Society to make these casts welcome to their already valuable collection. I hope I am myself too much of a Phrenologist not to know, that accurate copies of any heads, whose manifestations of character are matter of notoriety or of well-attested history, are truly valuable. The question then will immediately arise, Are these busts faithful representatives of the men whose names they bear? They are fac-similes of my copies in marble, and any merit which may belong to them as casts is due to Mr Baxter, figure-maker in Edinburgh, who certainly spared no pains to do them well. My casts, again, are accurate copies of the original busts now in Italy, and upon these I must beg leave to make a few remarks. Michael Angelo and the poet Ariosto flourished in the latter part of the fifteenth century, and lived a good way down in the sixteenth. The busts are the recognized and well-authenticated portraits of those great men, and were probably executed not long before the year 1540. At this period, as is well known, the arts of painting, sculpture, and architecture had, in Italy, reached the highest point of perfection, and were attended with the highest rewards. Galileo lived nearly a century later; this bust, too, passes current in Tuscany as the original portrait of their favourite philosopher. Upon the whole, there can be no question as to the identity of all the three. Their resemblance to the originals may probably be trusted to a great degree of accuracy, so far as the foreheads and posterior parts of the head are concerned. The other parts must, no doubt, be received with due allowance for the carelessness of artists who were not Phrenologists. I may remark here, that all the observations which occur in the larger French work of Drs Gall and Spurzheim, and which have been repeated in later publications, respecting the Ideality of Ariosto, the forming, constructing, and generally artist head of Buonarotti, and the expanded, philosophic front of Galileo, have been suggested by busts which, like mine, are derived from the prototypes now in Florence. I believe that the original bust of Ariosto being of a colossal size was to make it suitable to its situation on his monument in the town of Ferrara. I suspect it is in one sense not original, but had been copied from a bust of the poet taken during his life, and of the natural size. So much for these modern Italians. We may now ascend through ages of darkness and barbarism to the days of Cicero and of Cæsar. Everybody |