66

"We cannot

in view by Phrenologists :-You proceed, "help suspecting that it was nothing but the plain impossibility of ascertaining any thing as to their structure and quality that drove our dogmatic theorists upon that bold proposition. Their assumed organs, however, are all buried deep under skin and bone of an uniform appearance; and "having nothing, therefore, but Size left to go upon (at least "in the living subject), they seem to have even made up their "minds to say that that was quite enough, and that nothing "else was to be regarded. In the next place, however, the pro"position is no less contrary to the analogy of all our known or"gans than to general probability. The grand mamma Wolf, in "the fairy tale, does indeed lean a little to the phrenological "heresy, when she tells little Riding-hood that she has large

eyes to see her the better. But with this one venerable ex"ception, we rather think it has never been held before that the "strength of vision depended 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 or palate."

66

On page 258 of the Review, you say, "We see with our eyes, hear with our ears, and touch with our hands, or the surface of "the whole body. These are facts, we think, which may be as"sumed without argument or explanation. Anatomy and experi"ment show farther, that the sensibility of these organs depends "on the nerves which belong to them, on the optic and auditory nerves, for example, as to seeing and hearing, or on the nerves " of touch for many other sensations." Your real proposition, then, must be, that, with the venerable exception of grand mamma Wolf, it has never been held before that the strength of vision depends on the size of the optic nerves, the perfection of hearing on the magnitude of the auditory nerves, or the nicety of taste on the size of the gustatory nerves.

In an early part of this Letter I observed, that your objections have, in general, been anticipated by other opponents of Phrenology, and refuted before you brought them forward. The following extract from a letter written by Dr A. Combe, and published in the Edinburgh and Leith Advertiser of 18th March, 1826, will serve at once to establish this, and to answer your doctrine about the organs of sense:" It is a fact," says he, "admitted by the highest "physiological authorities, and by the greatest authority of allNature, that the functions of the five senses are executed with a "degree of acuteness and intensity exactly proportioned, cæteris 'paribus, to the development of their respective organs. Monro,

"Blumenbach, Sommering, Cuvier, Magendie, Georget, and a whole "host of authors, might be quoted in proof, but one is enough; and, having Blumenbach at hand, I turn to the section on Smell, "and find as follows:- While animals of the most acute smell ""have the nasal organs most extensively evolved, precisely the "same holds in regard to some barbarous nations. For instance, "in the head of a North-American Indian,' (represented in one "of his plates), the internal nares are of an extraordinary "size,' &c. And again, The nearest to this, in point of mag"nitude, are the internal nares of the Ethiopians, from among "whom I have seen heads very different from each other, but ""each possessing a nasal organ much larger than that describ"ed by Sommering. These anatomical observations ac"cord with the accounts given by the most respectable travel"lers concerning the wonderful acuteness of smell possessed by "these savages.

"In like manner, Dr Monro, primus, no mean authority to put "against a nameless pamphleteer, in treating, in his Comparative Anatomy, of the large organ of smell in the dog, says, 'the sensi'bility (of smell) seems to be increased in proportion to the sur'face; AND THIS WILL ALSO BE FOUND TO TAKE PLACE IN ALL THE OTHER SENSES.' A late French physiological writer is equally explicit. In treating of the nerves, M. Georget says, "The volume of these organs bears a uniform relation, in all the "different animals, to the extent and force of the sensations and "" movements over which they preside. Thus, the nerve of smell "in the dog is larger than the five nerves of the external senses "in man."

A large eye too takes in more light, and a large ear more impulses of air than small ones; so that the venerable "Grand Mamma Wolf" really turns out to be a sounder physiological authority than the "Oracle" of the Edinburgh Review!

The principle, that size in the organ, cæteris paribus, determines the power of manifestation is admitted by physiologists to apply equally to the brain. Magendie says,

"The

"volume of the brain is generally in direct proportion to the capa"city of the mind. We ought not to suppose, however, that "every man having a large head is necessarily a person of superior intelligence, for there are many causes of an augmentation of the "volume of the head beside the size of the brain, but it is rarely "found, that a man distinguished by his mental faculties has not a "large head. The only way of estimating the volume of the brain, "in a living person, is to measure the dimensions of the skull ; every other means, even that proposed by Camper, is uncertain.” -Compendium of Physiology, p. 104, edition 1826.

"All the world knows," you continue, " and the Phrenologists "themselves admit, that the vigour of any faculty may be improv

"ed by exercise and education; and the strength of any propensity "by habitual indulgence, though these changes are not accompanied "by any increase in the size of the organ. But is not this admit"ted and most familiar fact in absolute and glaring contradiction to "the fundamental assumption of the System ?"-P. 302.

This objection is already answered in the following passage of the "System," of which, of course, you take no notice:Suppose that two individuals possess an organization exactly simi"lar, but that one is highly educated, and the other left entirely to the "impulses of nature, the former will manifest his faculties with higher power than the latter; and hence it is argued, that size is "not in all cases a measure of energy.

66

"Here, however, the requisite of cæteris paribus does not hold. "An important condition is altered, and the Phrenologist uniformly "allows for the effects of education, before drawing positive conclu"sions.* It may be supposed, that, if exercise thus increases power, it is impossible to draw the line of distinction between energy derived from this cause and that which proceeds from size "in the organs, and hence that the real effects of size can never be "determined. The answer to this objection is, that education may "cause the faculties to manifest themselves with the highest degree "of energy which the size of the organs will permit, but that size "fixes a limit which education cannot surpass. DENNIS, we may

presume, received some improvement from education; but it did "not render him equal to POPE, much less to SHAKSPEARE or "MILTON: therefore, if we take two individuals whose brains are equally healthy, but whose organs differ in size, and educate them "alike, the advantages in power and attainment will be greatest in "the direct ratio of the size in favour of the largest brain. Thus, "the objection ends in this,-that, if we compare brains in oppo"site conditions, we may be led into error-which is granted; but "this is not in opposition to the doctrine, that, cæteris paribus, "size determines power. Finally, extreme deficiency in size pro"duces incapacity for education, as in idiots; while extreme deve"lopment, if healthy, as in SHAKSPEARE, BURNS, MOZART, anticipates its effects, in so far that the individuals educate them"selves.

"In saying, then, that, cæteris paribus, size is a measure of power, Phrenologists demand no concessions which are not made "to physiologists in general; among whom, in this instance, they "rank themselves."

tr

The next objection is, that "A diseased state of the organ always makes its operations more vigorous and energetic; "and no instance is mentioned in which the occasional obscuration any faculty is referred to such a cause."-P. 305. This assertion is at utter variance with fact. On pages 333-4 of

of

* Phrenological Transactions, p. 308.

the System, a variety of cases are mentioned in which disease of the organ was accompanied by obscuration of the faculty.

"The imaginary disease," you continue, "has often no other "local indication but this increase of mental vigour, and is indeed, in "most cases, plainly imagined or assumed merely to account for "that phenomenon. It proves, at all events, that faculties may "have a vigour quite incommensurate with the size of their organs "which is precisely the reverse of what Phrenology teaches. "It proves that the state or quality of the organ, or of something else, quite independent of its size, may determine the state of the faculty, and that size, therefore, is no criterion whatever. If we "find a man with a very small organ, and a very vigorous manifes"tation of its supposed faculty, it is, to be sure, very easy to say, "that this is owing, not to the size, but the condition of the organ; "but it is saying what fundamentally contradicts the whole phrenological doctrine; and though it introduces another, pretty nearly as absurd, it completely puts an end to the former."

66

66

The answer to this objection also is explicitly given in the System; but you pass it over. It is as follows:

"It is proper next to advert to certain conditions which may co“exist in the brain with size, and to attend to their effects. Power “in the manifestations, and size in the organ, are, in the general

case, proportionate; and when differences in size are considerable, "no circumstance, consistent with health, will render the manifes"tations equal in power; one brain, however, may be more per"fect in constitution than another, and, in consequence, may act "more vigorously, although not larger in dimensions; but these "differences are slight and their effects limited. Size then is not "the only requisite to the manifestation of great mental power; the "brain must possess also a healthy constitution, and that degree of "activity which is the usual accompaniment of health. Now, the "brain, like other parts of the body, may be affected with certain "diseases which do not diminish or increase its magnitude, and yet impair its functions; and, in such cases, great size may be present, and very imperfect manifestations appear; or it may be at"tacked with other diseases, such as inflammation, or any of those particular affections whose nature is unknown, but to which the name of Mania is given in Nosology, and which greatly exalt its "action; and then very forcible manifestations may proceed from a brain comparatively small; but it is no less true, that when a "larger brain is excited to the same degree by the same causes, the "manifestations become increased in energy in proportion to the "increase of size. These cases, therefore, form no valid objection "to Phrenology. The Phrenologist ascertains, by previous inquiry, "that the brain is in a state of health. If it is not, he makes the "necesary limitations in drawing his conclusions."*-P. 46.

64

*This subject is discussed at greater length in the Phrenological Journal, No II. p. 300,

You add to your last objection the following recondite commentary:-" In some cases our author represents the faculty "as inordinately excited by disease, in persons who have the organ " of very small dimensions; in others he is guilty of the double ab"surdity of leaving it to disease to produce any manifestation of the faculty, although the organ has all along been unusually large, as in the following admirable illustration of Destructiveness:- When excited by intoxication, the organ sometimes becomes ungovernable; and hence arises the destruction of glasses, ""mirrors, chairs, and every frangible object, at the close of many ""a feast. Hence also the temptation, often almost irresistible, ex"perienced by many a worthy citizen, when inebriated, to smash "a lamp on his progress home. One gentleman assured me, that "the lamps have appeared to him, when in this state, as it were ""twinkling on his path with a wicked and scornful gleam, and "that he has frequently lifted his stick to punish their imperti"nence, when a remnant of reason restrained the meditated blow. "In him, Destructiveness is decidedly large; but, when sober, "there is not a more excellent person.'-P. 109.

Now," you say, "here we have, first of all, a man with a de"cidedly large organ, who yet, in his sound and natural state, "gives no manifestation whatever of the connected propensity, in "itself a complete falsification of the theory; but then, when dis"ordered with drink, this naturally quiet person becomes mischiev"ous; that is to say, he comes into the state to which drink and "disorder might bring a man with a decidedlysmall organ.”—P. 306.

This objection also is already answered in the System. It is there said, that "In no instance is it a matter of indiffer"ence to the talents and dispositions of the individual, whether any "particular organ be large or small. If it be large, although its "abuses may be prevented by restraint and direction imposed by "the other faculties, still its presence will operate on the mind. If, “for instance, large Combativeness and Destructiveness are combin"ed with a large development of the moral and intellectual organs, "the whole life may be passed without the occurrence of any out66 rage; and it may be asked, what effect, in this case, do the former "organs produce? We shall find the answer, by supposing all the "other organs to remain large, while those are diminished in size, " and tracing the effects of this change;-the result would be an " undue preponderance of moral and intellectual qualities degene"rating into effeminacy. Large Combativeness and Destructiveness "would add the elements of repulsion and aggression to such an ex"tent, as to permit the manifestation of manly enterprise and cour66 age. Hence, in the case supposed, these organs would be duly "performing their functions when the superficial observer would imagine them to be entirely superfluous.”—P. 450. On these principles it did not require intoxication to produce the first