1

the varieties of relative size, must be discovered by inspecting a number of heads; and especially by contrasting instances of extreme developement with others of extreme deficiency. No adequate idea of the foundation of the science can be formed until this is done. In cases of extreme size of single organs, the form delineated in the bust is distinctly perceived.

The question will perhaps occur, If the relative proportions of the organs differ in each individual, and if the phrenological bust represents only their most common proportions, how are their boundaries to be distinguished in any particular living head? The

might be brought still more closely to resemble the most common proportions of the organs in Britain; and, on 1st April, 1829, certain modifications were made on it accordingly. The nature of this operation may be explained by a simple illustration. Suppose that, in 1819, an artist had modelled a bust, resembling, as closely as his skill could reach, the face most commonly met with in Scotland, and that, to save the trouble of referring to the different features by name, he had attached numbers to them, beginning at the chin, and calling it No. 1., and so on up to the brow, which we may suppose to be No. 33. In this bust he would necessarily give certain proportions to the eyes, nose, cheek, mouth, and chin. But suppose he were to continue his observations for five years, it is quite conceivable he might come to be of opinion that, by making the nose a little shorter, the mouth a little longer, the cheeks a little broader, and the chin a little sharper, he could bring the artificial face nearer to the most general form of the Scottish countenance; and that he might arrange the numbers of the features with greater philosophical accuracy; and suppose he were to publish a new edition of his bust with these modifications of the features, and with the numeration changed so that the mouth should be No. 1., and the chin No. 5., and the brow No. 35., what should we think of a critic who should announce these alterations as "a revolution" in human physiognomy, and assert that, because the numbers were changed, the nose had obliterated the eyes, and the chin had extinguished the mouth? This is what the opponents have done in regard to the new phrenological bust. In the modifications which have been made on it, the essential forms and relative situations of all the organs have been preserved, and there is no instance of the organ of Benevolence being turned into that of Veneration, or Veneration into Hope, any more than, in the supposed new modelled face, the nose would be converted into the eyes, or the eyes into the mouth.

In regard to the numeration, again, the changes are exactly analogous to those which are before supposed to take place in regard to the features: The organ of Ideality formerly was numbered 16, and now it is numbered 19, but the organ and function are nothing different on this account. Dr. Spurzheim adopted a new order of numbering, from enlarged observation of the anatomical relation of the organs, and his improvements have been adopted in Edinburgh and Dublin

answer is, By their forms and appearances. Each organ has a form, appearance, and situation, which it is possible, by practice, to distinguish, in the living head, otherwise Phrenology cannot have any foundation.

When one organ is very largely developed, it encroaches on the space usually occupied by the neighboring organs, the relative situations of which are thereby slightly altered. When this occurs, it may be distinguished by the greatest prominence being near the centre of the large organ, and the swelling extending over a portion only of the other. In these cases the shape should be attended to; for the form of the organ is then easily recognised, and is a sure indication of the particular one which is largely developed. The observer should learn, by inspecting a skull, to distinguish the mastoid process behind the ear, as also bony excrescences sometimes formed by the sutures, several bony prominences which occur in every head, from elevations produced by developement of brain.

In observing the appearance of individual organs, it is proper to begin with the largest, and select extreme cases. The mask of Mr. Joseph Hume may be contrasted with that of Dr. Chalmers for Ideality; the organ being much larger in the latter than in the former. The casts of the skulls of Raphael and Haggart may be compared at the same part; the difference being equally conspicuous. The cast of the Reverend Mr. M. may be contrasted with that of Dempsey, in the Love of Approbation; the former having this organ large, and the latter small. Self-Esteem in the latter being exceedingly large, may be compared with the same organ in the skull of Dr. Hette, in whom Love of Approbation is much larger than Self-Esteem. The organ of Constructiveness in Raphael may be compared with the same organ in the New Holland skulls. Destructiveness in Bellingham may be compared with the same organ in the skulls of the Hindoos; the latter people being in general tender of life. Firmness large, and Conscientiousness deficient, in King Robert Bruce, may be compared with the same organs reversed in the cast of the head of a lady (Mrs. H.), which is sold as illustrative of these organs. The object of making

these contrasts is to obtain an idea of the different appearances

presented by organs, when very large and very small.

The terms used to denote the gradations of size in the different organs, in an increasing ratio, are

Captain Ross has suggested, that numerals may be applied with advantage to the notation of developement. He uses decimals; but these appear unnecessarily minute. The end in view may be attained by such a scale as the following:

The intermediate figures denote intermediate degrees of size, for which we have no names. The advantage of adopting numerals would be, that the values of the extremes being known, we could judge accurately of the dimensions denoted by the intermediate numbers; whereas it is difficult to apprehend precisely the degrees of magnitude indicated by the terms small, full, large, &c. unless we have seen them applied by the individual who uses them.

The terms small, moderate, full, &c. indicate the relative proportions of the organs to each other in the same head; but as the different organs may bear the same proportions in a small and in a large head, these terms do not enable the reader to discover, whether the head treated of be in its general magnitude small, moderate, or large. To supply this information, measurements by callipers are resorted to; but these are used not to indicate the dimensions of particular organs, for whicn purpose they are not adapted, but merely to designate the general size of the head.

The following are a few measurements from nature taken promiscuously from many more in my possession.

These measurements are taken above the muscular integuments, and show the sizes of the different heads in these directions; but I repeat that they are not given as indications of the dimensions of

any particular organs. The callipers are not suited for giving this latter information, for they do not measure length from the medulla oblongata, nor do they indicate breadth, both of which dimensions must be attended to, in estimating the size of individual organs. The new craniometer is preferable for ascertaining length, and the breadth may be judged of by means of the hand or eye. The average of these twenty heads will be higher than that of the natives of Britain generally, because there are several large heads among them, and none small.

It ought to be kept constantly in view, in the practical application of Phrenology, that it is the size of each organ in proportion to the others in the head of the individual observed, and not their absolute size, or their size in reference to any standard head, that determines the predominance in him of particular talents or dispositions. Thus, in the head of Bellingham, Destructiveness is very large, and the organs of the moral sentiments and intellect are small in proportion; and according to the rule, that, cæteris paribus, size determines energy, Bellingham's most powerful tendencies are inferred to have been towards cruelty and rage. In the skulls of several Hindoos, the organ of Destructiveness is small in proportion to the others, and we conclude, that the tendency of such individuals would be weakest towards the foregoing passions. But in the head of Gordon, the murderer of the pedlar boy, the absolute size of Destructiveness is less than in the head of Raphael; yet Raphael was an amiable man of genius, and Gordon an atrocious murderer. This illustrates the rule, that we ought not to judge by absolute size. In Gordon, the organs of the moral sentiments and intellectual faculties are small in proportion to that of Destructiveness, which is the largest in the brain; while in Raphael, the moral and intellectual organs are large in proportion to Destructiveness. On the foregoing principle, the most powerful manifestations of Raphael's mind ought to have been in the department of sentiment and intellect, and those of Gordon's mind in Destructiveness and animal passion; and their actual dispositions corresponded. Still the dispositions of Raphael would be characterised by the large size of this organ. It would communicate that warmth and vehemence