manner, the manuscripts of which I submitted to you for your approval or correction in any way you might think fit. I then proposed to print your objections by themselves, and subjoin my reply to them; and I cannot help being of opinion that no fairer way of doing this could exist. I regret that the unexpectedly imperfect nature of the Report has rendered this impossible; and I have now only to say, that if at any future time your leisure or health (which I am sorry to hear so bad an account of) or inclination should induce you to write out your objections in a tangible form, I shall be ready to publish them, with my reply, in the manner I have mentioned; submitting the manuscript to you previous to printing, for the purpose of avoiding the possibility of my misapprehending or misrepresenting any of your arguments; a thing that too often happens in such questions, and occasions much unnecessary trouble.

I hope you will not accuse me of too great an activity of the organ of Self-Esteem in making this proposition, seeing that I am not a medical man; but that you will allow me to have some acquaintance with the subject of Phrenology, for I have studied it (impartially, I hope,) during several years, and have made my observations on it, in almost every civilised country in Europe, as well as among savages of different tribes on the coast of Africa, which have proved so satisfactory to my mind, as to lead me irresistibly to concur with all the arguments of phrenologists, as in Mr. Combe's books for instance.

I must beg of you to pardon my troubling you with so long a communication, which has insensibly extended to a degree I did not contemplate at the beginning, and believe me, &c.

18th September, 1837.

W. CARGILL.

To the above Letter Dr. Knott sent the following reply.

MY DEAR SIR,I am extremely sorry that circumstances mentioned in my last note prevent me from being able to forward your views on the subject of Phrenology. I am a warm friend to the utmost stretch of liberal and candid investigation; of course the mode of proceeding must be a matter of opinion. During the Lectures I was obliged to explain as to the expenditure of an hour extra in Lecture, which did not yield to the opponent of Phrenology the advantage you suppose, as during that period on him devolved a description (of course general) of the Nervous System, and a sketch of Phrenology, &c. Although not an advocate of the system, still I have paid

much attention to the subject, as to reject as well as believe in it, a rational man should duly inform himself of the data for and against. As to my statements Anatomical, and Physiological, &c. I spoke under correction of Mr. Fife, and he did not impugn the accuracy of any of the merely descriptive facts stated by me. I trust, my dear Sir, you will give me credit for the most candid wish to do all in my power to elicit truth, and I need hardly assure you, if in my power, it would, and will afford me sincere pleasure to forward your efforts to obtain that object.

NORTHUMBEBLAND STREET, 18th September, 1837.

I am, &c.

SAMUEL KNott.

ences.

I make no comment on this mode of avoiding an examination of the arguments. I leave every one to draw their own inferI am the last person to wish to interfere with the time or health of any professional gentleman, but I certainly did expect that in a discussion which was made public by means of advertisements in every Newspaper in the district, and placards plentifully distributed headed "DISPUTATIONS ON PHRENOLOGY," and every thing bearing the appearance of a general invitation to discuss the subject, "freely" and "liberally" (such were the words used in the placards), — and I think I was justified in expecting that, when I took the only means that can be used for obtaining an account of public proceedings, I should be enabled to succeed in obtaining such an account recognised as authentic.

I hope the Chairman will allow me to make one remark more. It is, to allude to Dr. Knott's apparent attempt to transform this discussion which is a public one, into an affair of personal obligation which he appears to consider he would be conferring upon me by kindly permitting me to have authorised data, whereby I should be enabled to reply to arguments used in a discussion originated by himself, in the sole desire to elicit truth, as he says, and in which he invites any one to assist! He several times, in his notes, expresses "his regret that he is unable to accommodate me, to meet my wishes," &c. I beg distinctly to disavow any such obligation or accommodation on the contrary, if the Doctor chooses to enter upon a crusade to elicit and disseminate truth, on the subject of the "Square Inch," or any other system, I consider all attempts to assist him in such discovery and its dissemination, as a decided obligation conferred upon himself. With this view, therefore, if no other member give notice of an intention to read a paper at

the next meeting, I shall then claim your attention while I deal with the Doctor's "hard facts" as well as I can from the Report and my own memory, for I attended the Lectures, and I hope to be able to illustrate many of my arguments by casts from the heads of gentlemen living in the town, and whose mental manifestations may be ascertained by you.

IX. An Exposure of the Blunders of the Popular Encyclopædia,' under the Article PHRENOLOGY;'. - in a Letter to the Editor of this Journal, from MR. CARGILL, Secretary to the Newcastle Phrenological Society.

66

- is

MR. EDITOR. Great are the complaints from some of our philosophical writers, of the vast quantity of superficial stuff palmed off upon the public, and dignified by the name of "Literature;" which literature is as greedily devoured by the reading public." Indeed, many go so far as to say, that nothing in the way of profound information would sell now-adays, except to a select few. One of the most complete exemplifications of this, I have seen for some time, one to which I take the liberty of calling your attention for a moment, on the part of Messrs. Blackie and Sons of Glasgow, who are now publishing, and disseminating widely over the country, a work entitled the " Popular Encyclopædia, being a Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, &c. &c. reprinted from the American edition of the Conversations Lexicon, with corrections and additions, so as to render it suitable to this country!" This work is largely circulated in England. I do not know whether it may be the case in Scotland, but if you can find one in Edinburgh [The letter was addressed to the Editor of the former Series of this Journal], pray allow me to refer you to the last volume of it, which came out a few days ago, and contains an article on "Phrenology." From the nature of it, it is probable that the original publishers may have engaged one of their apprentices to write the article, and it may be that Messrs. Blackie and Son have themselves made "corrections and additions so as to render it suitable to this country." On perusing it, you will perceive that the writer, aware that he was contributing to a scientific periodical, and deeply conscious of the necessity of accuracy and minuteness in laying a philosophical subject before the public, has so thoroughly made himself master of the science, so profoundly examined the writings of phrenologists, that he has gravely penned such a sentence as the

following: I say gravely, because there is not the slightest intention of joking indicated:-"The organ of Secretiveness, for instance, which indicates a thief, also indicates a liar, an actor, and a novelist! It is even said to be necessary to constitute dignity of character!" What think you, Sir, of this in a Popular Encyclopædia, which is to inform the people what the System of Phrenology is ? Further on, there is this sentence; "Besides, what proper distinction can be drawn between the organ of Firmness and the organs of Concentrativeness and Adhesiveness?" (The writer here seems to conceive that the functions of the organ of Adhesiveness are to stick fast!) "Some of the organs," he continues, "have balancing faculties, such as Hope, which is balanced by Cautiousness; Destructiveness by Benevolence, &c. But why have two organs where the two principles necessarily imply each other, and where either could be indicated by the elevation or depression of a single bump? It would be easier to bring down Hope to the requisite standard, by diminishing its peculiar organ, than by leaving it large, and adding to the bulk of Cautiousness." The next No. of the Popular Encyclopædia will begin with the letter S. It might be important to suggest to Messrs. Blackie and Son, that they should induce the same profound writer to contribute the article " Shakespear." No doubt he would throw a new light upon the works of that dramatist, and instead of the profound knowledge of human nature, usually attributed to him, would prove his representations of character to be the most arrant absurdities; to the confusion of his numerous commentators, whose shades would be ready to rise up and disclaim the subject, "just as a person, who has mistaken a turnip in a field for a human skull, flings it from him hastily, in the fear that he may be laughed at for having given it one moment's attention!" (See the article in question.) The learned writer would soon discover that Shakespear's mode of filling his heroes' minds with so many conflicting feelings was the greatest absurdity; a mere "balancing" of the faculties, which might have been much more easily arranged by an "equitable adjustment" of them, and thus bringing them all down to the "requisite standard." For instance, Macbeth's alternate determination to kill, and desire to spare, the king, he might describe as a mere balancing of Destructiveness by Benevolence, and his argument would be thus;

66

why have two mental feelings, where the two principles necessarily imply each other, and where either could be indicated by the increase or decrease of a single mental feeling? It would be easier to bring the desire to kill to the requisite standard, by diminishing the mental feeling occasioning it,

than by leaving it so unnecessarily great, and adding to the bulk of the desire to spare." The same foolish “ balancing" of the faculties would be observed in King Lear, struggling between affection for his daughters and his hatred of them; now giving them all his possessions, and now calling down imprecations on their heads. How much easier it would have been, had Shakespear brought both the feelings to the "requisite standard," instead of "balancing" them one against the other, in the manner he seems to take such delight in doing!

But my letter is getting so long that I must close the argument. Will you allow me to make one remark more? Horace advised all poets to keep their compositions nine years, before giving them to the world. Had this writer of the article on Phrenology kept his composition nine days, or only nine hours, until he had perused one of the many sixpenny publications on Phrenology, what would he have done with it? Would he have considered it fit for a Popular Encyclopædia rendered "suitable to this country?" At all events, in alluding to Mr. George Combe of Edinburgh, he would have acquired sufficient acquaintance with phrenological matters, to have avoided speaking of him as "Dr." Combe. I am, &c.

[Note by the Editor. — In reply to the remark in the first. part of the above letter, it may be stated that we have not seen the Popular Encyclopædia; but judging only from the short quotations given by Mr. Cargill, we can scarcely doubt that the author of the article alluded to has neither the knowledge nor the ability requisite for a writer on mental science. Individually, he is evidently "not worth powder and shot;" yet it is proper to take notice of such blundering misrepresentations of our science, because these "popular" works are read by many persons whose attainments are below those of the writers,

even such a writer as the one in question. But not being a work of any authority, no intelligent man will let the Popular Encyclopædia become his creed in matters of science or philosophy, and those who investigate before they believe, cannot be deceived by such trash as its " Phrenology." The mischief will fall upon the humbler seekers of information, who think they are purchasing knowledge, and are unable to see that they are making a very bad bargain. As there are readers of all degrees of mental ability, so will there be a demand for scientific and literary works of all gradations of intrinsic value; and