of temper, which are found only when it is large, although the higher powers might restrain it from abuse.

It is one object to prove Phrenology to be true, and another to teach a beginner how to observe organs. For the first purpose, we never compare an organ in one head with the same organ in another; because, it is the predominance of particular organs in the same head, that gives ascendency to particular faculties in the individuals; and, therefore, in proving phrenology, we compare the different organs of the same head. But in learning to observe, it is useful to contrast the same organ in different heads, in order to become familiar with its appearance in different sizes and combinations.

With this view, it is proper to begin with the larger organs; and two persons of opposite dispositions, in the particular points to be compared, ought to be placed in juxtaposition, and their heads observed. Thus, if we take the organ of Cautiousness, we should examine its developement in those whom we know to be remarkable for timidity, doubts and hesitation. We should contrast the appearance of the organ in such cases with that which it presents in individuals remarkable for precipitancy, and into whose minds doubt or fear rarely enters or a person who is unable to distinguish one note from another, may be compared, in regard to the organ of Tune, with another who has a high natural genius for music. No error is more to be avoided, than beginning with the observation of the smaller organs, and examining these without a contrast.

An objection is frequently stated, that persons having large heads have "little wit," while others with small heads are very clever." The phrenologist never compares mental ability in general with size of brain in general; for the fundamental principle of the science is, that different parts of the brain have different functions, and that hence the same absolute quantity of brain, if consisting of intellectual organs, may be connected with the highest genius; while, if consisting of the animal organs, lying immediately above and behind the ears, may indicate the most fearful energy of the lower propensities. The brains of Charibs seem to be equal in absolute size to those of average Europeans, but the chief developement of

the former is in the animal organs, and of the latter in the organs of sentiment and intellect; and no phrenologist would expect the one to be equal in intelligence and morality to the other, merely because their brains are equal in absolute magnitude. The proper test is to take two heads, in sound health, and of similar temperament and ages, in each of which the several organs are similar in their proportions, but the one of which is large, and the other small; and then, if the preponderance of power of manifestation is not in favor of the first, Phrenology must be abandoned as destitute of foundation.

In comparing the brains of the lower animals with the human brain, the phrenologist looks solely for the reflected light of analogy, to guide him in his researches, and never founds a direct argument in favor of the functions of the different parts of the human brain from any facts observed in regard to the lower animals; and the reason is, that such different genera of animals are too dissimilar in constitution and external circumstances, to authorise him to draw positive results from comparing them.* Many philosophers, being convinced that the brain is the organ of mind, and having observed that the brain of a man is larger than that of the majority of tame animals, as the horse, dog, ox, have attributed the mental superiority of man to the superiority in absolute size of his brain; but the phrenologist does not acknowledge this conclusion as in accordance with the principles of his science. The brain in one of the lower creatures may be very large, and, nevertheless, if it be composed of parts appropriated to the exercise of muscular energy, or the manifestation of animal propensities, its possessor may be far inferior in understanding or sagacity to another animal, having a smaller brain, but composed chiefly of parts destined to manifest intellectual power.† Whales and elephants have a brain larger than that of man, and yet their sagacity is not equal to his; but nobody pretends that the parts destined to manifest intellect are larger, in proportion to the convolutions intended to manifest

* Dr. Vimont of Paris, in his work on Human and Comparative Phrenology, has made an admirable and splendid contribution to the science in this department. + Spurzheim's Physiognomical System, chap. 4.

propensity, in these animals than in man; and hence the superior intelligence of the human species is no departure from the general analogy of nature.

In like manner, the brains of the monkey and dog are smaller than those of the ox, ass, and hog, and yet the former approach nearer to man in regard to their intellectual faculties. To apply the principles of Phrenology to them, it would be necessary to discover what parts manifest intellect, and what propensity, in each species; and then to compare the power of manifesting each faculty with the size of its appropriate organ. If size were found not to be a measure of power, then, in that species, the rule under discussion would fail; but even this would not authorise us to conclude that it did not hold good in regard to man; for human Phrenology is founded, not on analogy, but on positive observations. Some persons are pleased to affirm, that the brains of the lower animals consist of the same parts as the human brain, only on a smaller scale; but this is highly erroneous. If the student will procure brains of the sheep, dog, fox, calf, horse, or hog, and compare them with the human brain, or the casts of it sold in the shops, he will find a variety of parts, especially in the convolutions which form the organs of the moral sentiments and the reflecting faculties, wanting in the animals.

In commencing the study of Phrenology, it is of great importance to have a definite object in view. If the student desire to find the truth, he will consider first the general principles, developed in the introduction, and the presumptions for and against them, arising from admitted facts in mental Philosophy and Physiology. He will next proceed to make observations in nature, qualifying himself by previous instruction in the forms, situations, appearances, and functions of the organs.

The circumstances which modify the effects of size, are corstitution, health, and exercise; and the student ought never to omit the consideration of these, for they are highly important. The first and second have already been considered on pages 29, 30, and 31, to which I beg leave to refer. In addition to what is there stated, I observe that the temperaments rarely occur simple in any

individual, two or more being generally combined. The bilious and nervous is a common combination, which gives strength and activity; the lymphatic and nervous is also common, and produces sensitive delicacy of mental constitution, conjoined with indolence. The nervous and sanguine combined give extreme vivacity, but without corresponding vigor. Dr. Thomas of Paris has published a theory of the temperaments to the following effect. When the digestive organs filling the abdominal cavity are large, and the lungs and brain small, the individual is lymphatic; he is fond of feeding, and averse to mental and muscular exertion. When the heart and lungs are large, and the brain and abdomen small, the individual is sanguine; blood abounds and is propelled with vigor: he is therefore fond of muscular exercise, but averse to thought. When the brain is large, and the abdominal and thoracic viscera sinall, great mental energy is the consequence. These proportions may be combined in great varieties, and modified results will ensue.

In some individuals the brain seems to be of a finer texture than in others; and there is then a delicacy and fineness of manifestation, which is one ingredient in genius. A harmonious combination of organs gives justness and soundness of perception, but there is a quality of fineness distinguishable from this. Byron possessed this quality in a high degree.

If, in each of two individuals, the organs of propensity, sentiment, and intellect, are equally balanced, the general conduct of one may be vicious, and that of another moral and religious. But the question here is not one of power, for as much energy may be displayed in vice as in virtue, but it is one of direction merely. Now, in cases where an equal developement of all the organs exists, direction depends on external influences, and no phrenologist pretends to tell to what objects the faculties have been directed, by merely observing the size of the organs.

Suppose that two individuals possess an organization exactly similar, 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.

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 conclusions.* 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 favor of the largest brain. Thus the objection ends in this,-that if we compare brains in opposite 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 produces incapacity for education, as in idiots; while extreme developement, if healthy, as in Shakspeare, Burns, Mozart, anticipates its effects, in so far that the individuals educate themselves.

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.

There is a great distinction between power and activity of mind; and, as size in the organs is an indication of the former only, it is proper to keep this difference in view. In physics, power is quite distinguishable from activity. The balance-wheel of a watch moves with much rapidity; but so slight is its impetus, that a hair would suffice to stop it; the beam of a steam-engine traverses slowly and ponderously through space, but its power is prodigiously great.