For such queries the simplest answer would be to refer to any elementary treatise on the science, where the several organs and faculties will be found specifically described; it may be replied, however, that there is an organ which may be considered xario, the organ of Imagination, although the Phrenologist does not so denominate it. In his vocabulary it is called " Ideality." It is the organ of Poetic Genius, and is modified in its prevailing tendencies by the co-existent faculties. Combined with Language it creates the poet; with Form and Colour, the imaginative painter; with Music, the ardent and impressive composer. In the various arts derived from faculties directly subservient, creative powers may be evinced to which the term Imagination may be loosely applied. These powers do not result from the phrenological organ of Ideality: this organ delights in grouping ideas derived from all the other in fanciful and visionary combinations; it creates new worlds,-peoples them with new existences, all derived from the materials of ordinary life, but combined so as to outstrip reality. I know not that I can answer this question more distinctly.

Question 6.-"Are the elevations of the cranium perceptible in children ?"

Certainly; though, from the immature state of the brain, the manifestations connected with organization are in them less determinate; still, even in infants, organization and sentiment, or passion, will be found to correspond.

Question 7.-"If a head should be submitted to a Phrenologist in the dark, will he answer any specific question concerning the character of the individual submitted to him, without indulging in any vague generalities, which may in some way comprehend almost every variety of human char

acter ?"

Perhaps this is already sufficiently answered in the reply to question 4; I must, however, repeat my opinion, that I can see no object to be served by mere palpable observation,

unaided by sight. As a mode of examination, it is less perfect than when two senses are allowed to act; while, as a test of the Phrenologist's precision, it can prove nothing beyond the acumen of the person so exhibiting his skill. A failure in such case would be no slur on the science, as it might proceed solely from the incompetency of the person making the examination. Were an enlightened Phrenologist of sound reasoning power to condescend so far as to exhibit this test of his practical skill, I have no doubt that he could, with much accuracy, both state the actual developments and pronounce on the resulting character; but I must repeat, that to do so under such disadvantages would require a combination of talents far exceeding that of ordinary minds. In my mind, however, all such trials would be derogatory to both parties; it might become the Phrenologist so to display his tact and discernment, if his object were to mystify instead of elucidate, to astonish instead of improve, to apply his knowledge so as to excite wonder and catch applause, by keeping the principles of his art secret while displaying the results, instead of, as he has uniformly done, communicating freely the principles themselves for the instruction and benefit of mankind. Phrenology deals in no sleight-of-hand, no legerdemain tricks; it explores natural truths, reducing them to fixed principles. By the laws of philosophizing alone, can these be confirmed or disproved; if the alleged facts on which it is founded be not true, let it be at once suppressed by demonstrating their falsity; if its inferences be unsound, let this be shown, and its claim to the dignity of a science in consequence disallowed; but let it not be assailed by objections which have no tendency to invalidate its principles, nor subjected to tests which can never establish the negative for which they are designed.

ARTICLE VII.

COMPARATIVE PHRENOLOGY.-SIZE AND ACTIVITY.

We have been favoured with a copy of the following correspondence betwixt Mr Leadbetter, Secretary of the Phrenological Society of Glasgow, and Dr Spurzheim.

66

"To Dr Spurzheim.

"Glasgow, 7th May, 1825.

"SIR,-A Society having been instituted here, some months ago, for "the cultivation and advancement of Phrenology, it has held regu"lar meetings, at each of which an essay on some branch of the "science has been contributed and read by the members in succes"sion, and these generally give rise to discussion in which the con"flict of opinions usually terminates in a stronger belief of its truth "and importance. At the last meeting of the society an essay was "read by one of its members, a medical gentleman, on comparative anatomy, as illustrative of phrenological doctrines. In that es"say he confines himself to the organ of Destructiveness, as develop"ed in the dog, hare, horse, cow, goat, badger, of which he exhi"bited skeleton-heads; but some difficulties having occurred as to "the mode of ascertaining the relative size of one organ in one spe"cies to the same organ in another species of animals, it was agreed "to communicate the matter to you, and to request the favour of your opinion before you returned to France. I cannot do better "than quote the words of the essayist in a letter to me as secretary "of the society, as embracing the points for your consideration.

66

666

"In estimating the size of organs in the lower animals a difficulty occurs. In measuring the size of Destructiveness in a horse, "for instance, how is that organ ascertained to be less than it ex"ists in the dog? Is the size of that organ in the horse less in

66 6

proportion to the size of the whole brain in that animal, than "the size of the same organ in the dog? If it is so, how can the "fact be proved? Is it evident to the eye? Then it must be ca66 6 pable of measurement. How is such a measurement to be con"ducted? If the determination of the size of organs in the lower "animals depends upon some other principle than the relation "which these organs bear to the bulk of the whole brain, what is "that principle, and how is it applied? In other words, there "must be some standard to which you apply the measurement of "every organ as possessed by every animal, and in proportion as the measurement falls above or below the standard, you pronounce the organ great or small. But each species must have a "standard for itself. You cannot estimate the absolute measure"ment of a horse's brain by the same standard you estimate the

"absolute measurement of a mouse's. There must be some rela"❝tive standard to which you refer on determining that the horse "has such or such an organ small which the mouse has large; "what is the relative standard, and how is it ascertained?'

"Your works show the extent of your information on this branch "of Phrenology, and this would perhaps afford an apology for troubling you with this communication; but knowing the interest you "take in every thing relating to this science of mind, a science to "which your name will be indissolubly connected, it were unpar"donable to suppose any formal introduction to you or apology ne66 cessary. I am, Sir, &c.

"To John Leadbetter, Esq., Secretary to the Phrenological Society "in Glasgow.

"SIR,-I had left London before the letter you did me the honour "to send arrived. It was delivered to me by a private opportunity, "and this explains my tardy answer. In reply to it I confine my"self to say, that in my publications (see Phrenology, 3d edition, "p. 99,) and in my Lectures (see Lancet, April 22, 1825, p. 71, passage, "I come now,-in this way,") I state that the size alone "of the organs is sufficient to discover the nature of their functions; "but that size does not explain the different degrees of activity of "the organs, and that, therefore, Phrenologists cannot compare the "same organ in different species of animals, nor even in different in"dividuals of the same species, and that they must judge of each "individual for himself, his larger organs showing more activity " and the smaller ones less of it. There is a larger quantity of brain "above the ear in carnivorous than in herbivorous animals; but "Destructiveness is not proportionate to the absolute size of the or66 gan in different species of carnivorous animals; even in a given species, man for instance, Destructiveness will not act in propor❝tion to the development of the organ in itself, but in each indivi"dual the organ of Destructiveness will be inclined to act in the proportion of its size to that of the other organs.

I am, Sir,

"Yours respectfully,

"SPURZHEIM."

The following is the extract from Dr Spurzheim's Phrenology, referred to in his letter:

"From the preceding considerations it follows, that the size of "the cerebral parts is compared with very energetic actions, and "with determinate characters, in order to discover their functions VOL. III.-No X.

Q

66

66 as the organs of the mind. All functions, however, differ not only "in quality, but also in quantity, and there are, undoubtedly, seve"ral organic conditions which contribute to bestow energy and to modify them individually. The size of the organs is only the most easily observed condition. The reader must therefore remember, "that, in endeavouring to discover the organs of the mind, in other "words, to determine the nature of the functions of the cerebral 66 masses, their size suffices. The organic constitution, or the temperament of the cerebral organs, is another very important condi"tion to their natural energy, and Dr Gall and I attend to it also 66 as much as possible; but it is more difficult to observe modifica"tions here, than in size and configuration. They are, therefore, "mistaken who object that we neglect the organic constitution of "the cerebral parts, since it is in fact a leading point with us, that "every fundamental faculty must be compared with its appropriate organ, not in individuals of different kinds, not even in different "individuals of the same species, but in the same individual. If we examine the different degrees of activity of the cerebral organs, "it is necessary to consider not only their size and organic consti"tution, but also the exercise every faculty has undergone, and the "mutual influence of the whole. These considerations, however, "do not come within the sphere of physiology, but belong to the practical part of Phrenology."

66

66

66

The paper in the Lancet is to the following effect:

"I come now to another mode which we have recourse to for as"certaining the functions of the several parts, namely, the size. "Here I must request you to attend to the distinction between the means we employ to ascertain the nature of the cerebral functions, "and the causes which produce the different degress of activity of "the primitive functions. I repeat, that it is an essential thing in "Phrenology to understand these two sorts of ideas; for if any man "confounds them he can never become a good practical Phrenolo'gist. We employ the size of the cerebral parts as means to ascer"tain the nature of their functions; but different degrees of activity "cannot be measured by the size alone. A muscle is destined to "voluntary motion, and we may observe the muscles when in ac"tion; but do the different degrees of voluntary motion depend upon the size of the muscle alone? Can we be satisfied with say"ing that? If this were true, we should find that the large muscles "have more strength than the little ones, and that the large are more active than the small; but daily experience teaches us the contrary. The same may be said of the brain; the size is suffi"cient to determine the nature of the function of the brain, but the "size is not the only condition which contributes to the activity of "the brain. The study of determining the nature of a function is "more easy than it is to determine the degree of activity of a func"tion. We speak first of the nature and then of the degree of ac"tivity of a function; and the second is more difficult than the first. 'Bodily constitution, exercise of the individual parts destined to cer

66

66