1. Dr. Combe's Remarks on Dr. Prichard's Third Attack on Phre- 4. Connexion of Insanity with cerebral Development Busts at the Royal Academy (Queen Victoria - Professor Turner Cambridge - Ceres – Cupar — Dum- Philadelphia - Preston · Sheppey Isle-Wisbech - Mr. Aitken's Lectures Editorial Ignorance-Encyclopædia Britannica on Phre- nology-Phrenological Societies-Phrenological Quacks - Note to THE PHRENOLOGICAL JOURNAL. No. LIV. NEW SERIES.-No. I. Introductory Explanations to the New Series. IN commencing a New Series of the Phrenological Journal, conducted by different parties, and with its publication transferred from Edinburgh to London, it will be proper to offer some explanations respecting our future plans and prospects; and it will not be out of place to connect with these a few brief remarks on the present aspect of Phrenology. This Journal was commenced fourteen years ago, at a time when the current of public ridicule was running strongly against the science to the diffusion and elucidation of which it was devoted. The supporters of Phrenology were then few; and although amongst those few were several very able men whose superior power of mind was felt and acknowledged in their own social circles, yet no sooner did they address the public in explanation and defence of Phrenology, than any petty puppet deemed himself entitled and called on to set up his own limited ideas in array against them, and also modestly took upon himself to pronounce them fit denizens for the regions of irrationality, as so many wild enthusiasts or deluded fools. In that day, it was rare to meet with phrenologists hardy enough to avow their convictions. openly, in general society, and to disregard the usual manifestations of contempt or enmity which the avowal was almost sure to call forth. We have now reached a different era in the current history of Phrenology. So far from an avowal of belief in the principles of our science being seldom heard in mixed society, it has become quite a rare occurrence to meet with any intelligent and well-informed person who totally denies, or who even professes to entertain doubts of the general truth of the subject. From this common assent, we must, indeed, except a few rustic gentlemen, and some others, chiefly elderly men, still wholly ignorant of the matter, albeit persons of some knowledge on other subjects. With a few such exceptions as these, (overlooking also certain roof-shaped craniums, the possessors of which estimate themselves at a much higher premium than their neighbours would consent to buy them at,) almost everywhere in the present day we find the great body of the really educated public yielding assent in general terms, though each person has mostly his own particular doubts and difficulties to bring forward as objections in detail. These also will gradually cease to be made, since in nineteen out of twenty cases they are found to spring solely from want of knowledge, whether owing to the absence of ideas, or to the existence of misconceptions, in the minds of the objectors, the proper remedy for which will consist in the diffusion of more correct knowledge. Further, we see that the truth of our science is not only thus obtaining place amongst the received opinions of society, but that a deep and abiding interest is taken in the subject, and that most persons admit the vast importance of phrenological investigations, just so far as they happen to be acquainted with their real nature and objects. Hence may we safely assume that the general principles of Phrenology are now allowed by the intelligent portion of the public, to be true, useful, and interesting; and that we shall have little further need to defend our subject, in toto, before the public. Our future labours, on such ground, will rather be directed to meeting any individual objections made against particular departments of a science now generally received, though as yet far from being perfected. This we shall be glad to do; and believe that the agitation of such questions will not be found useless to phrenologists, some of whom do not always sufficiently keep in view the many uncertainties and difficulties that still remain. If we would arrive at truth, in enquiries connected with mental philosophy, it is of the first consequence that we should have numerous and very exact observations as a groundwork, or as data, on which to reason; and it is equally necessary that we should submit all our conclusions drawn from them, to the most rigid and repeated examinations. In investigations touching the philosophy of mind, the sources of error are many, very deceptive, and pregnant with great mischief if overlooked in practical applications. Thus, our first and paramount duty, as journalists, will still be the endeavour to complete and (where necessary) to correct the science of Phrenology, on the basis and in the outlines already laid out. For this purpose, all new facts, or newly-observed confirmations of opinions not supported by the most ample evidence, will be eagerly sought for, and gladly received when offered by others. Much has, indeed, been already effected in this way; but very much yet remains to be done. Nor must we only seek to perfect our science by additions to that which is already known or believed to be so. Doubtless the doctrines of phrenologists are mainly correct, while regarded as a whole; yet we do fear that some minor points, if not some of the later systematic generalisations, have been assumed rather more hastily than a strictly philosophical induction would warrant. We speak here of proofs. It is one thing to satisfy our own minds, but another and often a more difficult labour, to adduce sufficient proofs to make doubt in others become unphilosophical. In the conflicting opinions respecting the real functions of some of the organs, there is ample evidence that individual observers do not find the received notions of others to be wholly authorised by the facts of nature. Whether the facts have been ill observed, or conclusions from them have been drawn prematurely, we need not here stop to enquire; it is a sufficient support to the accuracy of our remark, that such discrepancies do largely exist, whatever may be taken as the explanation of them. Facts, we repeat, numerous facts, accurately observed and precisely recorded, are yet wanting for the more satisfactory elucidation of many points in Phrenology; and we shall endeavour to specify under another article (probably in our next Number) the kind of observations which are among our desiderata on this head. In addition to the record of mere facts, we would have a watchful eye kept to the conclusions drawn from them by individuals. Sweeping generalisations in science are always to be received with caution, as being usually the offspring of slender knowledge or superficial powers of reasoning. Such are the natural manifestations of minds, whose range is too contracted to take in the counter-possibilities and the varied explanations of the self-same facts, such as may be given by different observers. To spring at once to conclusions, seems to be commonly a far more agreeable effort, than is the slower process of testing the soundness of our opinions, by a careful examination of the grounds on which they rest at each progressive step. Our best phrenologists, they whose opinions carry most weight in the estimation of others, have constantly endeavoured to make each step sure and solid; and keeping in view the difficulties of the subject, it may confidently be asserted, that they have steered clear of false conclusions with singular felicity. At the same time, it must be allowed, that some others have brought a temporary discredit upon the science, by venturing rash conclusions and dogmas, nominally on phrenological data, which they have been unable to support when pressed by the adverse arguments of opponents. We have occasionally witnessed with pain the dilemmas into which half-informed phrenologists have in this way caused themselves to be drawn. Per other subjects. With a few such exceptions as these, (overlooking also certain roof-shaped craniums, the possessors of which estimate themselves at a much higher premium than their neighbours would consent to buy them at,) almost everywhere in the present day we find the great body of the really educated public yielding assent in general terms, though each person has mostly his own particular doubts and difficulties to bring forward as objections in detail. These also will gradually cease to be made, since in nineteen out of twenty cases they are found to spring solely from want of knowledge, whether owing to the absence of ideas, or to the existence of misconceptions, in the minds of the objectors, the proper remedy for which will consist in the diffusion of more correct knowledge. Further, we see that the truth of our science is not only thus obtaining place amongst the received opinions of society, but that a deep and abiding interest is taken in the subject, and that most persons admit the vast importance of phrenological investigations, just so far as they happen to be acquainted with their real nature and objects. Hence may we safely assume that the general principles of Phrenology are now allowed by the intelligent portion of the public, to be true, useful, and interesting; and that we shall have little further need to defend our subject, in toto, before the public. Our future labours, on such ground, will rather be directed to meeting any individual objections made against particular departments of a science now generally received, though as yet far from being perfected. This we shall be glad to do; and believe that the agitation of such questions will not be found useless to phrenologists, some of whom do not always sufficiently keep in view the many uncertainties and difficulties that still remain. If we would arrive at truth, in enquiries connected with mental philosophy, it is of the first consequence that we should have numerous and very exact observations as a groundwork, or as data, on which to reason; and it is equally necessary that we should submit all our conclusions drawn from them, to the most rigid and repeated examinations. In investigations touching the philosophy of mind, the sources of error are many, very deceptive, and pregnant with great mischief if overlooked in practical applications. Thus, our first and paramount duty, as journalists, will still be the endeavour to complete and (where necessary) to correct the science of Phrenology, on the basis and in the outlines already laid out. For this purpose, all new facts, or newly-observed confirmations of opinions not supported by the most ample evidence, will be eagerly sought for, and gladly received when offered by others. Much has, indeed, been already effected in this way; but very much yet remains to be done. Nor must we only seek to |