Although the conductors of this Journal have admitted that our Article was "regarded in the South as the most formidable attack Phrenology ever had to sustain," and have in so far paid us a compliment, we deem it unnecessary to answer, otherwise than very generally, their comments on the reasonings contained in it; because most of those comments are founded on a misconception of the scope of our arguments. When, for instance, we attempted to show, that, in establishing a philosophical principle, mere analogies ought not to be esteemed as equivalent to proofs, and when we maintained that they are still less to be relied on, when other analogies, of contrary tendency, can be adduced on the other side of the question, we are represented by Dr. Combe as building our arguments on analogy, the very principle of which we were pointing out the fallacy, and repudiating the authority; and we are even charged with being guilty of the strange inconsistency of endeavouring to "refute direct inductive evidence, by that drawn from analogy." Any reader who had paid the least attention to the train of reasoning we employed, must have perceived that our reasoning was diametrically the reverse of that which is imputed to us; and that we had even guarded against the possibility of mistake by the sentence concluding with the words, "all such reasonings a priori must be completely illusory."

By the help of a mis-quotation, in which the qualifying adverb "nearly" is omitted, we are represented as having asserted, that the anatomy of the brain "will suit any physiological system equally well." All the notions we can form of the nature of mental operations are so completely and essentially different from any of the affections of which we can conceive matter to be capable, that it is utterly impossible for us to understand the mode in which a connexion has been established between them; or to imagine any physical structure whatsoever, which shall, in the remotest manner, correspond with the metaphysical constitution of the soul. This, however, we may confidently assert, that amongst all the hypotheses which have been propounded respecting the correspondence between the corporeal instruments of the mind, and the mental faculties themselves, the one which is the least in accordance with the actual structure of the brain, is that devised by the phrenologists. Let a person, unacquainted with the anatomy of that organ, be shown the phrenological map of the cerebral regions, and let him be told, that to each corresponding subjacent portion of the brain is ascribed, as to a separate organ, a certain special mental function; one set of these organs being appropriated to the establishment of certain definite propensities, whilst another set gives rise respectively to various sentiments, and a third confers each its peculiar intellectual power; with what immeasurable surprise, on lifting up the bony covering which had concealed this expected assemblage of well defined organs, would he behold a uniform mass of pulpy substance, divided by furrows only, into serpentine but continuous convolutions, bearing no conformity or even similitude to the notions which his previous instructions had led him to form of distinct masses, divided from each other in accordance with their phrenological functions. Each of these pretended organs, far from being isolated in its structure, as its alleged isolated functions would imply, from the neighbouring parts, is seen to pass on, without visible boundary, to the next, by a continuity of cerebral substance. Turning round upon his instructor, would he not complain of being misled by him; and would he not require him to explain what intermediate function he can ascribe to those portions of the same convolution which occupy an intermediate place between two organs, to which he has already assigned functions utterly heterogeneous with one another? What lucid ideas can he convey of a function intermediate between benevolence and Phrenology imitation, between ideality and acquisitiveness, between cautiousness and adhesiveness, or between self-esteem and concentriciveness or inhabitiveness, of which the respective organs are not merely contiguous, but pass insensibly into one another; and what is the curious and hitherto nondescript office that he will assign to those portions of the brain which occupy the central space at the junction of quintuple groups of organs, such as those of ideality, acquisitiveness, constructiveness, tune, and wit, all of which, though separated by the fancy of the phrenologist, have been by nature amalgamated into one continuous mass, undistinguishable by any visible lines of demarcation?

Not content with expressing his dissatisfaction at our failing to perceive the accordance between the structure of the human brain and the doctrines of phrenology, Dr. Combe extends his censure to our objection as to the evidence which observations on lower animals are supposed to afford in their favour; and to our assertion, that in the construction of their system "much was made to hang" on facts derived from comparative anatomy. That the founders of the system placed great reliance on this kind of evidence, is a proposition sufficiently borne out by the testimony of Sir George Mackenzie, who, when speaking of inhabitiveness, remarks, "it is chiefly from observation on the lower animals that Dr. Spurzheim seems to consider it as certain, that there is such a faculty in man." The fallacy of the reasoning by which comparative anatomy has been pressed into the service of phrenology, has been so ably exposed by Dr. Prichard, in his Treatise on Insanity, that we shall beg leave to borrow from that work the following judicious remarks. "The chief peculiarity," observes Dr. Prichard, "of Dr. Gall's psychological theory, was the attempt to draw a parallel between the animal qualities displayed by the lower animals and the individual varieties discovered among men." He proceeded "on the principle, that the innate or original faculties are common to man and the lower tribes of animals, to those at least which bear to man a general analogy in their organization, and especially in the structure of their nervous system; and sought for analogies in physical phenomena between the brute tribes, tracing in them the rudiments of those properties which, taken collectively, and in their highest degree of development, form the human character, and which, in lower degrees and various relations, constitute the distinctive nature of each of the inferior kinds. The attempt was ingenious, and seemed to hold out the prospect of discovering curious and interesting relations; but it is necessary, before embarking in the inquiry, to determine whether the analogies are real or apparent; for it has been tacitly assumed that the supposed distinction between instinct and reason is unreal, and that the active principles are of the same kind in the higher and lower beings of the creation." Perhaps metaphysical writers have been mistaken in laying down so broad a line of difference as they have established. We must, then, either elevate the brutes, or lower the superiority of mankind. Shall we say, after tracing the operations of a constructive instinct so wonderfully displayed by the beaver, or in the cells in which the bee lays up his honey, that an impulse to action precisely similar gave origin to the pyramids of Egypt, or to the building of Constantinople? Shall we venture to affirm that the tunnel under the Thames owes its existence to a burrowing propensity resembling that of the rabbit or the mole? Shall we conclude that Parry and Franklin sought the regions of the north, impelled by the instinct of the migratory rat; and that Magellan and De Gama traversed the Southern Oceans directed by an influence analogous to that which moves the flight of swallows? Or may we, with greater probability, determine that the lower

---

1 Phrenological Journal, i. 166. 2 Ib. i. 168, 169. 3 Ib. i. 166. 4 Illustrations of Phrenology, p. 92. Phrenology tribes act under the guidance, not of blind instinct, but of enlightened reason; that metaphysicians were mistaken when they laid down the principle, 'Deus est anima brutorum,' that the birds of passage have some acquaintance with physical geography, and know the quarter where tropical warmth exists and genial breezes blow; that the bee has studied the exact sciences, and knows by calculation the form most advisable for its cells? In short, that there is a real analogy and correspondence between the mental faculties of man and the physical endowments of those creatures whom he conceitedly regards as his inferiors? If either of these positions can be maintained, there will be a sound foundation for the comparative psychology of Dr. Gall and his followers; but if they should be rejected as improbable, we must admit that the analogies pointed out are remote, the things compared are different in kind, they agree only in external appearances; and we shall be brought to the conclusion that it has pleased the Author of nature to bring about corresponding results in the rational and irrational departments of the creation, by very different means.

"If the evidence," continues Dr. Prichard, "brought in support of the organological system depends so entirely on universal coincidence between psychical properties and corresponding varieties in the structure of the nervous fabric, it must be important to determine whether there are any departments of the animal kingdom in which instincts and motive habitudes, and an entire psychical nature are displayed analogous to those of vertebrated animals, while yet in these departments there is no structure which can be said to bear resemblance to the complicated cerebral system of the so termed higher animals. In all the vertebrated kinds, the organization of the nervous fabric is in one principle, and the same fundamental type, with different degrees of development, is traced in man and all other mammifers, in birds, reptiles, and fishes; but here the resemblance terminates, and the nervous system of molluscous animals and insects presented but few and remote analogies to that which belongs to the first great branch of the animal creation. It is, indeed, to be presumed that the nervous system, taken as a whole, fulfils, in the tribes last mentioned, the same offices as in those animals who have it enclosed in a bony case. Still, nothing exists at all resembling the complicated formation of a brain, with its lobes and convolutions. It is so much the more surprising to find the higher instincts, which had almost disappeared in fishes, display themselves with new splendour and variety in the brainless insects; creatures which, in the wonderful imitations of intelligence that govern their motive habits, rival, if they do not even exceed, the sagacity of the animals which most approximate to man."

"Now, if it should be established, that all those properties of animal life, approximating to intelligence, or bearing analogies so striking to the manifestations of mind, which, in one great division of the animal kingdom are assumed to be essentially connected with, and depending on, a particular system of organization, exist in another department, and display themselves in all the same various profusion, while the creatures belonging to this latter department are yet destitute of that system of organization, and of any thing that bears the resemblance to it, the advocates of Phrenology will be obliged to abandon that broad ground on which they have attempted to fortify their position. Within the more confined field which the vertebrated tribes alone present, it will be more easy to maintain such an assumed connexion of physical properties with a peculiar structure; or, rather, it is more difficult to disprove it when assumed. The general analogy which prevails throughout these tribes in the organization of their cerebral and nervous system, affords no room for so decisive a contradiction to the relation which the phrenologists would establish. Yet even within this field great and striking facts display themselves which are adverse to the hypothesis. Birds and reptiles, as Jacobi has observed, are nearly, if not wholly destitute of many cerebral parts, which in mammifers are held as of high importance for the manifestation of psychical properties, and yet they display psychical phenomena similar to those of mammifers. Whenever an undoubted and tangible fact can be laid hold of in the different proportional development of cerebral parts, which can be brought into comparison with the relative differences of animal instinct, or of psychical properties in general, there is, if I am not mistaken, a manifest failure of correspondence between the two series of observations. This has been shown by Rudolph in a striking manner, with respect to the cerebellum. The cerebellum, as this writer has observed, is found to lessen in its proportional development as we descend in the scale of organized beings, without any corresponding diminution, and even with an increase of the propensity which Gall connects with it. How remarkably powerful is this instinct in birds; and yet how small is the cerebellum in the feathered tribes compared with its size in mammifers, and even in the latter, when we consider the magnitude which it attains in the human species? We observe those tribes in which the cerebellum nearly or entirely ceases to exist, obeying, nevertheless, the impulsion of instinct as blindly or devotedly as other kinds which have the organ in question remarkably developed. When we consider the great amplitude which the cerebellum attains in man, in comparison with its size in lower animals, we are obliged, if we really attach any importance to such a system of correspondence, to acknowledge some relation between this circumstance and the transcendant superiority of the human intellect, compared with the psychical powers of brutes."

"The facts which suggest themselves as we follow these trains of reflection, are scarcely to be reconciled with the phrenological theory: they seem, in the first place, to show, that the relations which in it are assumed to prevail through all nature are subject to vast exceptions; and as one great proof of the doctrine is the assumed universality of such relations, or the endowment of psychical properties in coextension with certain peculiarities of structure in cerebral parts, the exceptions endanger at least the outworks of the whole doctrine. When, in a more limited survey, we confine our observation to the sphere of vertebrated animals, and discover that variations in psychical phenomena take place without any evidence of corresponding changes in the structure of cerebral parts, and that these changes, on the other hand, occur without such alterations as we are led to anticipate in psychical properties, the system of organology seems to be shaken to its very centre."

Whilst the defenders of phrenology have, on the one hand, misrepresented the minor points of our argument, they have, on the other, disguised from their readers that it is founded on the insufficiency of the evidence adduced in support of their doctrine, that we rest our main objection to its credibility. We maintain, that they have taken only a one-sided view of what nature presents to our observation; that they have paid attention to those facts alone, which are confirmatory of phrenology, and shut their eyes to those which oppose it. In order to establish what they consider as the rule, they have collected together all the instances in its favour, and have passed over or suppressed all the exceptions. What we assert is, that more enlarged inquiry, conducted with a more entire devotion to the cause of truth, and a scrupulous rejection of error, would have shewn the latter to be at least equal, if not superior in number to the former. Our own observations, as far as we have pursued them, have led

1 Treatise on Insanity, p. 465 to 474. make proselytes, and it will be ultimately discarded as an hypothesis without foundation. At present, most inquisitive persons seem to be in doubt on this subject, and to be looking out for evidence. I have taken every opportunity that has occurred to me for many years of making inquiries of persons who had a great field of observation within their reach, what had been the result of their experience on this subject. Many of the persons have been physicians, who were superintendents of extensive lunatic establishments. Some of them had been men who had addicted themselves to the study of phrenology, and were predisposed to imbibe the opinions of its authors; some have been persons distinguished by their researches in the anatomy and physiology of the brain and nervous system. Among these I do not remember to have found one who could say that his own observation had afforded any evidence favourable to the doctrine. Yet we should imagine, that a man who lives amidst hundreds of monomaniacs must have constantly before his eyes facts so obvious that he could not be mistaken in their bearing. Some hundreds, and even thousands of such persons have passed a part of their lives under the inspection of M. Esquirol, who possesses most extensive resources for elucidating almost every subject connected with the history of mental diseases, and has neglected no inquiry which could further the attainment of that object. The result of his observations will be allowed to be of some weight on the decision of this question, in which the appeal is principally to facts of the precise description of those with which he has been chiefly conversant. At his establishment at Ivry he has a large assemblage of crania and casts from the heads of lunatics, collected by him during the long course of his attendance at the Salpêtrière, and at the Royal Hospital at Charenton, which is under his superintendence. While inspecting this collection, I was assured by M. Esquirol, that the testimony of his experience is entirely adverse to the doctrine of the phrenologists; it has convinced him that there is no foundation whatever in facts for the system of correspondences which they lay down between given measurements of the head and the existence of particular mental endowments. This observation of M. Esquirol was made in the presence of M. Mitivé, physician to the Salpêtrière, and received his assent and confirmation. M. Foville, physician to the extensive lunatic asylum at St. Yon, gave me a similar assurance. There are few individuals in Europe whose sphere of observation has been so extensive as that of M. Esquirol and M. Foville, and certainly there are none whose science and habits of observation better qualify them to be witnesses in such a subject of inquiry; but testimonies to the same result may be collected from unbiased witnesses, whose evidence taken collectively may have nearly equal weight. Among these there are men unscientific, though capable of correct and unprejudiced observation, as well as anatomists and physiologists. In the number of the latter is Rudolph, who declares that he has examined many hundreds of brains without finding anything that appeared to him favourable to the phrenological theory.

The mode in which Dr. Combe evades the force of the strong testimony here adduced, is quite characteristic of the phrenologists, who resolve to find amongst confirmed phrenologists, oflogists, resolutely rejecting all evidence that militates against the system they have adopted. Thus, he says, in reference to the passage we have just quoted, "If Dr. Prichard believes that the intelligent and benevolent Esquirol, is that person," (namely, one "competent to form a judgment on the subject,") and if his collection of crania and casts be the hostile evidence which is relied on, this only proves, in a forcible manner, that Dr. Prichard is himself not competent to judge,

---

1 Life of Sir Walter Scott, by Lockhart, vol. vii. p. 395, note. 2 Treatise on Insanity, pp. 476, 477. Phrenology or that he has not taken time either to examine the collection of crania, or to ascertain the competency of Esquirol and Metivier, to decide on the merits of the question on which they volunteered an opinion. We cannot help remarking here, that, on another occasion, when criticising the suggestion we threw out, in the Essay on Cranioscopy, of the propriety of inquiring into the talents and qualifications of observers before admitting the truth of the facts received on their testimony, a very different language was held. "When they" (the advocates of phrenology) "affirm that the subjects of observation are patent to the whole world, who have eyes to see, and understandings to comprehend; and when they say, compare manifestations with cerebral development, and you are at the bottom of the problem yourself; what need for inquiry into their talents and qualifications to observe?"

"When Gay Lussac hears that Sir Humphry Davy has made a discovery in chemistry, and reads Sir Humphry's statement of the way in which it was made, does he begin by inquiring first, whether it be possible to make the discovery at all, seeing natural substances are so changed and modified, exalted and subdued by a multitude of powerful causes? And, after settling this point, does he, in the second place, proceed to inquire into Sir Humphry Davy's talents and qualifications as a chemist, and into his capacity to make the discovery, and then believe it, or not, according to the result of this investigation? No man who knows the first rudiments of philosophy would follow so absurd and preposterous a course. What should we think of Gay Lussac's refutation of Sir Humphry's discovery, founded on a metaphysical inquiry into the possibility of making it, and into the 'talents and qualifications' of the discoverer? We should pity him for his ignorance of the rudiments of philosophy."

This happy talent, possessed by the champions of phrenology, of shaping their course either one way or the opposite, according as it may suit the convenience of the occasion, enables them, at one time, to proclaim, that the evidences of their science are palpable and demonstrative, that the field of nature is open to all inquirers, that "every one who has eyes may see" and judge for himself; and at another, when such judgment is against them, they can turn round, and allege that in order to arrive at the truth a peculiar discretion and tact, acquired by long experience and careful appreciation of minute and hair-breadth differences of size is necessary. They can then declare that the observer who has not arrived at the same conclusions as themselves, is doubtless incompetent to the task he has attempted; and that his testimony, being of no value, ought to be wholly set aside.

Let it be borne in mind, then, by the practical inquirer into the truth of phrenology, that he will not be esteemed qualified to verify its doctrines, unless he be previously deeply versed in the new system of psychology, can assign to each of the thirty-five special and primary faculties of the soul its sphere of operation, and has acquired a readiness in unravelling their multifarious combinations, so as to analyze, by this subtle metaphysical chemistry, all human qualities into their proximate and ultimate elements, refer all actions to their proper innate impulses, and assign the proportions of the various ingredients which are mixed up in the formation of the character of each individual. No one is competent to excel in this new branch of philosophy who doubts the possibility of appreciating the intensities of moral or intellectual qualities by geometrical measurements, on scales divided into tenths and hundredths of inches. The young and ardent phrenologist, who after having applied his callipers to the skull subjected to his examination, and taken a note of the dimensions of each of the thirty-five organs, proceeds to verify his observations by comparing them with the character of the possessor of those organs, will never fail to meet with wonderful coincidences, sufficient to give him the greatest satisfaction, and confirm him in the persuasion that he possesses the real key to the secrets of nature in the hitherto recondite science of mental philosophy. A moderate share of dexterity in reconciling apparent discrepancies will suffice to ensure a preponderance of favourable evidence; since, fortunately, there have been provided in the brain different organs, sometimes of similar and sometimes of opposite properties, capable, by a little adjustment of plus or minus on either side of the equation, of furnishing the requisite degrees of the mental quality sought for, and of thus solving every psychological problem. We shall suppose, for instance, that he is inspecting the head of a person known to have given credit to the prophecies of a weather almanack; he finds, on reference to the "system of phrenology," that a belief in astrology is the offspring of No. 16, that is, ideality; so that if this organ happen to be sufficiently large, the phenomenon is at once accounted for. But if it be not, our phrenologist will have another chance; for he will probably discover it to arise from the dimensions of No. 15, which inspires hope, the source of the propensity to credulity. Habitual irresolution may result either from the magnitude of No. 12, or the diminutiveness of No. 18; thus affording very great convenience for making our observations of the character square with those of the dimensions of the organs, and vice versa. If, again, the magnitude of the organ of combativeness accord with the manifestations of pugnacity given by the individual, it is well and we need inquire no farther, but set it down at once as an irrefragable proof of the accuracy of phrenological determinations. Should the correspondence, however, not prove satisfactory, the organ being large for instance, and the manifestation small, we have then further to examine the dimensions of the organ of caution, the influence of which is to moderate and check the operation of the former; and we shall perhaps find this organ sufficiently large to account for the phenomenon. Both these organs may be large, or both small, or the first may be small and the second large, or the converse; and other modifications of action may result if either one or both be only of moderate size, allowing great latitude of choice in the assignment of motives. Should we be so unfortunate as to exhaust all the combinations without meeting with the success we desire, there is still an abundance of auxiliary faculties of which we may avail ourselves with advantage. If we were to explain the fact of the individual in question having accepted a challenge, he might have been inspired by conscientiousness, whose voice was "still for war," or goaded on by destructiveness, to fight that he might destroy; firmness may have urged him to persevere by the consideration that he had previously resolved it, and concentration, by riveting his attention to the subject, may have screwed his courage to the sticking place; or he may have been prompted by imitation to follow the example, or by approbation to gain the applause of his friends. We have also to take into the account the countervailing influence of faculties which are pulling in the opposite direction, and qualifying the combined powers of the former incentives: And should cautiousness not be in sufficient force, we are to consider the power of conscientiousness, which preaches forbearance, meekness, and forgiveness; of veneration which appeals to the high authority of religion and of law; of benevolence restraining the hand from inflicting pain and death; of approbation, who qualifies her sanction by raising other voices condemnatory of the deed; and last, though not least, the love of life which recoils with instinctive dread from the possible catastrophe. Drawing, then, a diagram of all these component moral forces, in their proper directions, and suitable proportions, it will not be very difficult to obtain by this artificial dynamic-phrenological process, the exact resultant which corresponds with the actual fact to be explained.

---

1 Phrenological Journal, viii. p. 654. 2 Essays on Phrenology, p. 71. Lest it should be imagined that the above description is a caricature of the new method of philosophizing, so admirably calculated to establish the truths of phrenology, we shall beg to quote the following passage from Sir George Mackenzie's Illustrations as an example of this satisfactory process of ratiocination.

"In discussing the conjectured faculty of inhabitiveness with Mr. Combe, he had the goodness to make us acquainted with a case, in which locality and inhabitiveness were both very moderate in development, but the propensity to wander, as he informed us, very powerful. Dr. Spurzheim mentions this propensity as belonging to locality, and he states several remarkable cases in which the organ was much developed, and the propensity strong. The case referred to by Mr. Combe was, on this account, interesting; and we will state the result of our inquiries into the particulars, for the purpose of giving an example of the caution with which we ought to receive the description of any case brought in opposition, since it sometimes appears to be necessary even among friends.

"The young man to whose case we refer, had a very strong desire to adopt a seafaring life, contrary to the wishes of his friends. It occurred to them, that a voyage up the Baltic, during the stormy months of October and November, might have the effect of giving him a disgust to the profession for which he showed so ardent a desire. He suffered so many privations and hardships, that he yielded to the wishes of his friends, although the desire to go to sea continued as strong as ever. On proposing a few questions, we found that the propensity was confined to being at sea; that this propensity did not originate in a desire to wander; for neither travelling on land, nor mere change of place, would have gratified the propensity. At the same time, the person referred to declared, that regular voyages to the same place would not have satisfied him. The propensity had haunted him as long as he could remember anything. Being anxious himself to contribute to the unravelling of what appeared mysterious and irreconcilable to the system, he stated that he used to go once or twice a day to examine the mechanism and rigging of ships in Leith harbour, an employment of which he was passionately fond; and long before he commenced his trial voyage, he had become familiar with the names and uses of every part of a ship, and of the rigging. He was fond of machinery, and has often amused himself by making models of ships; and his mechanical turn was so strong, that he had constructed a model of machinery, by which a ship's motion may be applied to work the pumps. This mechanical propensity, and his early attachment to naval machines, together with firmness, appear to us to have given rise to his desire for a sea-faring life. Courage might also have prompted his wish to enter the navy. Thus the supposed propensity to wander appeared not to exist; and it was found that a mechanical genius, an early attachment to the mechanism of a ship, perseverance, courage, and probably also love of approbation, or ambition, and ideality, all of which were well developed in the individual referred to, combined to inspire the desire to enter the navy." (Illustrations of Phrenology, p. 170.)

It is to be lamented that, at the period when this elaborate investigation was undertaken, the organ of wonder had not yet been made; for as one of the functions of this organ, according to Mr. Combe, is to "incite young men to chase the sea as a profession," much light would have been thrown upon the object of the inquiry by a critical examination of its dimensions compared with those of all the other organs which were taken into consideration as combining their influence in producing the result.

There is this very remarkable peculiarity in the pursuit of phrenology, that the student is perplexed, not with the difficulties, but with the facilities it affords for explaining every phenomenon. The pliability of its doctrines is exemplified, not merely in the analysis of motives, but likewise in the influence which we are allowed to ascribe to the habitual exercise, or education of the faculties. The observed magnitudes of the respective organs indicate, not the acquired, but the natural powers, sentiments, and propensities. Now, the character of the individual is the joint result of the force of natural endowments, and of the amount of moral and intellectual cultivation which has been bestowed upon them. But can we ever know enough of the minute history of the progress of the mind of any individual to enable us to form a correct estimate of the relative power of these two elements, which have, in the formation of each respective faculty, combined their operations? If it be true that an organ may be the seat of a faculty varying in its activity according to the occasions which call it forth, by what physical criterion can we distinguish the active from the dormant conditions of that organ? Unless we can draw, with precision, these distinctions, it is evident that the ground of all craniotropical observation is cut from under us.

It may be indeed alleged, that at all periods of life, and even after the bones of the skull are consolidated, the organs increase or diminish in size according to the exercise or disuse of the faculty associated with it, whether such change may have been brought about by voluntary training, or by the discipline of circumstances; and certainly, if such were the fact, our experience would repose on a much surer basis, than if the form of the organs merely retained the stamp originally impressed upon them by nature. But the hypothesis that the cerebral organs acquire additional size by the exercise of their powers was positively rejected as untenable by Dr. Spurzheim, as we have heard him publicly declare; and it is, we believe, repudiated by the generality of phrenologists.

We do not think it difficult to account for the progress of phrenology has made amongst the very numerous class of persons who find in it a source of agreeable occupation, accounted for, giving exercise to their ingenuity in discovering striking coincidences, and gratifying their self-complacency by inspiring them with the fancy that they are penetrating far into the mystic regions of psychology. For the last twenty or thirty years, various popular writers, and lecturers without number, have been displaying their powers of elocution, exercising their skill in the critical examination of developments, and expounding the doctrines of the new philosophy to wondering and admiring audiences. With all these advantages and appliances to boot, the wonder seems to be, not that phrenology has met with the success of which so much boast is made, but that it has not speedily gained the universal assent; for had it been a real science, like that of Chemistry and other branches of Natural Philosophy, founded on uniform and unquestionable evidence, it could not have failed, by this time, of being generally recognised as true.

When we consider that the present age is not one in which there is any lack of credulity, or in which a doctrine is likely to be repudiated on the score of its novelty or its extravagance, we cannot but smile at the complaints of persecution uttered by the votaries of the system of Dr. Gall, and at the attempts they make to set up a parallel between its reception in this country, in these times, and that which, two centuries ago, attended the speculations of Galileo, and subjected him to the tyrannous cognisance of the Inquisition; or to establish an analogy between the dogmas of phrenology and the discoveries of the circulation of the blood, and of the analysis of light, which have immortalized the names of Harvey and of Newton.

---

1 Dr. Spurzheim has shown, that the faculty of attachment extends its influence to inanimate things, as well as to animate beings.