thods of observation, in order that they who are disposed to deny the universality of the coincidences asserted may prove the exceptions, and produce instances to the contrary.* Prove the exceptions, and produce instances to the contrary! They ask, (and know it, for they boast there. fore,) what is impossible,-not because their theory is true; but precisely because it is false. Do they not know that exceptions prove the rule? And that, before the exception can be produced, the principles of phrenology must be as sumed to be true by the exceptor. He must adopt its methods, and proceed upon its system. The objector's preferable mode would be, to examine the truth of the prin ciples, ascertain the value of the methods proceeded on, and satisfy himself whether the asserted universality be established, which, however the phrenologist may protest, is not to be done by seeking exceptions, but by investigating the possibility of its existence. Truly, the phrenologists have but a poor opinion of their opponents, if they think they can drive them thus into a corner;-to produce exceptions to what they will not acknowledge to be a rule;-to a system which is an exception to all rules, and founded in none of the methods of philosophising, which demand that a thing should be proved, before science be called upon to demonstrate how it is possible, to exist. Until this be accomplished, their opponents must be per mitted to dispute the possibility of these coincidences being universal. It is utterly impossible that two cases of the same kind can occur. If the leading proposition of the phre nologist he correct, it is impossible for two crania to manifest the same organic development, since no two skulls, and no two individual characters, are identically alike. Every man is himself and not another. It is only upon the examination of all the organs that the character can be estimated, for one compensates another, and this counteracts that. Thus then every individual development stands apart-it is a fragment from the system-it remains an isolated fact, and forms no portion of a general truth. There is neither progressive transition nor continuity in arguing from one fact to another, but each rests upon its own merits;-the system, therefore, is incapable of legitimate induction. But, say they, a boy has large eyes, and he has a surprising memory for language; a man has a protuberance behind his ear, and he committed a murder. Well! (to say nothing of what other peculiarities may be observable in every part of their bodies, and this argument holds good here also,) had the boy with large eyes, and the murderer with his well-backed ear, no other inequalities of skull? Why might not some other of these protuberances have been the organ of the faculty sought for? Had any other portion of the cranium been fixed on, it would have answered the purpose equally well—it would, no doubt, have been found developed where and whenever it was needed; and the head might have been mapped out in any other manner, and been equally available for the peculiar ends which the system is calculated to answer. Again, the phrenologists do not pretend to have discovered all the faculties of the mind, nor all the organs of the brain for instance, though they have an organ of parental affection, they have none for filial affection; and who knows, but what with compensations and counteractions, the undiscovered organs might cause the balance to be differently struck, and so give a character differing from that which is now made admirably to correspond with that of the individual whose cranium is phrenologically operated upon? -it Again, it is but asserted that the organs are duplex, has never been attempted to be proved, it has been supposed probable by analogy. One hypothesis is as good as another. Suppose they are not duplex,-not only would the system lose the advantage of the former supposition as a loop-hole to creep out at, where injuries are found to affect only one hemisphere of the brain, without injury to any mental manifestation; but what a beadroll of another 33 or 35 faculties would there be, to compensate and counteract deficiences and excesses on the opposite side! What a difference might this make in the calculations-how might this vary the balance, and reverse the character! And what, after all, is the test of the truth of the calcu lation? The actual character of the individual! And who shall declare the actual character? Who shall say, what was done from an original impulse of natural constitution? What from the influence of circumstances? Who shall fathom the motives to action? Who shall dive into the intention of the agent? Who shall distinguish the benevolent from the ostentatious? Who shall separate the Quaker's humility from well-concealed pride? Truly, none but He in whose book all our members are written; and who seeth every thought of the heart before it be uttered! VIIt was asserted, that the system accounts for nothing. It is incapable of accounting for any phenomena of character or intellect. The inductive philosopher would demand of the phrenologist, and would indeed stake the question upon this issue whether the mind, independent of organization, be not in itself three-or-five-and-thirty-fold facultive? Whether mind, independent of organization, be not amative, philo progenitive, inhabitive, adhesive, combative, destructive, constructive, covetive, secretive, proud, fond of approbation, cautious, benevolent, venerative, hopeful, idealilive, conscientious, firm; perceptive of individuality, of form, of size, of weight and momenta, of colouring, of locality, of order, of time, of number, of tune, of language; comparative, causalitive, witty, and imitative? If all these be qualities of mind, and the phrenologist cannot deny that they are, are not the manifestations of each and all capable of being exemplified by the already acknowledged organization of the body? And in what manner does it account for a man committing a murder, to transfer the act of a mind in its nature destructive from the hand which actually committed the crime, to a cranial protuberance, which, for all the evidence that can be produced, may be guiltless of offence? If the mind be not possessed of these qualities, but be entirely dependant on these organs, then the mind may be dispensed with altogether. It is the act of the organs, not of the mind, which is but an involuntary principle of life, an invisible energy, capable of communicating a blind activity to them; and the act is performed, not as resulting from intelligence, but the mechanical law of the material construction, which but fulfils the purpose for which it was organized, If the mind be possessed of these qualities or faculties, but be dependant on the organs, and, in consequence of natural constitution or defect, be only capable of exercising such organs as are large and strong, and incapable of exercising such as are small and weak, or not developed at all, then it is possible that not one act of such a mind may be according to its will or wish. Benevolent it may be, but not able to manifest the faculty of benevolence, because the organ is deficient. And the necessity of exercise might perchance induce it to employ the organ of destructiveness, instead of that which it would willingly substitute. It would be like a man without legs, who would willingly walk if he had them, but, not having them, crawls upon his hands, to keep his blood in healthful motion. Thus, the external development might be indicative of any thing but the actual disposition of the mind, and every action cease to be voluntary, every agent to be accountable.. VII. That the brain may be otherwise mapped out, and yet answer all the purposes of the system, is demonstrable. Nay, in any and every instance of development, one faculty may be substituted for another, and specific faculties made to change places, and yet the result be the same. This may be instanced in the case of Thurtell's development, chosen upon no other account than the recentness of the occurrence in which he was engaged, and the hold which his history has taken upon public attention. 1 Amativeness, very large 2 Philoprogenitiveness, verylarge 3 Concentrativeness, large 4 Adhesiveness, very large 15 Combativeness, very large 6 Destructiveness, very large 7 Constructiveness, small 8 Acquisitiveness, full 91 Secretiveness, very large 10.Self-esteem, large 1 Love of Approbation, very 12 Cautiousness, very large 16 Ideality, moderate, or rather Is it not evident, that if numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 18, all very large, were each called by the name of the other, still the result of the development would be the same, and that the result of any such development is insufficient to define the identity or locality of any one individual organ. The same thing will hold good of numbers 2, 3, 10, 14, 15, 19, 20, and 33, all large; of numbers 8, 25, and 29, all full; of numbers 16, 17, 23, 24, 27, 28, and 34, all moderate; and of numbers 30 and 31, both rather small. One may be substituted and denominated for another without any inconvenience. The same result may be brought to prove the accuracy of any mapping into which the head may be divided and the brain distributed. If many instances of development be examined, it will be found that every individual organ may change its nom de guerre and place of abode with any other. Thus the gnomonic parts of the system have no more hold on facts than the theory in reason or common sense. VIII. The phrenologists have left it undecided, whether the organs be developed by reason of the activity of the faculties, or the activity of the faculties be dependant on the development of the organs; at least, the phrenologists of the Philomathic Institution are not inclined to go so far as their brethren abroad. Dr. Spurzheim's View of the Elementary Principles of Education may possibly give some insight into the matter. If the energy of the faculties generate the energy of the particular site of the brain appropriated to its exercise, and increase the size of the organ,-then, indeed, it might be ascertained-" from a previous examination of those faculties and principles of the mind, which it is the great object of education to improve,-what intellectual stimuli should be administered, to equalize the power of the faculties, by a proportionate division of employment and exercise, and produce that happy configuration of skull which must be so devoutly wished by every faithful cranioscopist. But if the faculties be subjected to the control of the organs, the only education which they can receive must be physical. It would then be the imperative duty of every parent to call in either Dr. Gall or Dr. Spurzheim, or their medical disciples, to mould the cranium into the shape best fitted for the pursuits and the character intended for the child in after-life. Now Dr. Spurzheim talks of " Education operating invariably in subjection to the laws of organization," and, "by increasing the powers of those faculties which are too weak, by repres sing those which are too strong, and by directing the whole to legitimate and useful purposes," he proposes to "make the different faculties act with the greatest ease and energy of which the natural constitution of the brain, improved by a proper management of modifying causes, is susceptible; which modifying causes are, causes are, such as temperature, nourishment, choice of nurse, clothing, air, light, cleanliness, sleep, repose, and exercise, and which, as exemplified in diet, for instance, favour the development of different systems; and some of which, it is extremely probable, may, in the same manner, operate more immediately than others in the development of different parts of the brain, and consequently, on that of the different mental powers:-the degree of improvement all the while, of which each individual mind is susceptible, being in exact relation to the native constitution of the brain, limited by the degree of its development and healthy condition; and the result of education being merely an increased facility of operation in that organ, and not a change in the mind itself, independent of the organization, as is generally supposed."* The subject of education is entered into thus at large, because the opponents of phrenology had asserted in a previous part of the discussion that the system was, among its other deficiences, deficient of a final cause; and much stress is laid by its advocates upon the improved mode of education.. which it suggests, and the means it affords of ascertaining what is most wanting and proper in the case of each individual pupil. * See Phrenological Journal, vol. 1. p. 577. et seq. |