The effects of temperament are distinguishable in national skulls. The grain of the New Holland skulls is extremely rough and coarse; that of the Hindoos, fine, smooth, and compact, more closely resembling ivory; the Swiss skulls are open and soft in the grain, while the Greek are closer and finer. There would be a corresponding quality of brain in the individuals, which would influence the mental character.

The Phrenological Society have more specimens of national skulls than are here noticed. They afford interesting materials for philosophical reflection, but the great length to which this work has extended, compels me to omit the notice of them. (See p. 583.)

These measurements do not represent the size of any organs in particular, for the reasons stated on p. 90. They are intended to indicate whether the skulls are large or small. They do not, however, accomplish this object successfully, in consequence of the impossibility of measuring irregular spheres by diameters. They are therefore indications merely of the length of the particular lines stated in the different skulls; from which a rough estimate of the relative dimensions of the skulls may be formed. A scientific mode of measurement is much wanted. These measurements are taken from individual skulls, and cannot be given as an exact statement of the average of the different national crania. They are, however, an approximation to truth, and are sufficient to show the interest of the investigation. The collection is still too limited to enable us to draw average results. The Negro skull is a very favorable specimen, and the Swiss is perhaps under the average.

The real characters of foreign nations will never be philosophically delineated, until travellers shall describe their temperaments, and the size and combinations of their brains. Blumenbach's extensive work on National Crania is destitute of moral interest, owing to his omission of all notice of the characters of the nations whose heads he represents. Donations of national skulls are highly esteemed by the Phrenological Society.

OBJECTIONS TO PHRENOLOGY CONSIDERED.

HAVING now considered the elements of Phrenology, I shall notice briefly some objections which have been urged against it. These shall be given, as nearly as possible, in the words of actual opponents, and an answer shall be subjoined.

Objection. The idea of ascribing different faculties to different parts of the brain is not new. Many authors did so before Dr. Gall; but their systems have fallen into disrepute, which proves that the doctrine is not true.

Answer. Dr. Gall himself has called the attention of philosophers to the fact, that the idea alluded to is very ancient; he has given a history of previous opinions concerning the functions of the brain; and shown, that different functions have been attributed to different parts of it for centuries past, while he has assigned reasons for these ideas falling into oblivion. Dr. Spurzheim in his works does the same; and, in the Phrenological Journal, No. vii. Art. 8, "An Historical Notice of early Opinions concerning the brain" is given, accompanied with a plate of the head, showing it marked out into different organs in 1562: it is copied on p. 20 of this work. The difference, however, between the mode of proceeding of prior authors and that of Dr. Gall, is so great, that different results are accounted for. Former speculators assigned to certain mental faculties local situations in the brain, on account of the supposed aptitude of the place to the faculty. Common sense, for example, was placed in the forehead, because it was near the eyes and nose; while memory was lodged in the cerebellum, because it lay like a store-house behind, to receive and accommodate all kinds of knowledge, till required to be brought forth for use. This was not philosophy. It was the human imagination constructing man, instead of the intellect observing how the Creator had constituted him. Dr. Gall acted on different principles. He did not assume any mental faculties, and neither did he assign them habitations

OBJECTIONS TO PHRENOLOGY CONSIDERED.

585

in the brain according to his own fancy. On the contrary, he observed, first, the manifestations of mental talents and dispositions; and, secondly, The form of brain which accompanied each of these when strong and weak. He simply reported what Nature had done. There is the same difference between his method of proceeding and that of prior authors, as between that of Des Cartes and Newton; and hence it is equally intelligible, why he should be successful in discovering truth, while they invented only ingenious errors.

Objection. It is ridiculous to suppose that the mind has thirtyfive faculties; why not fifty-five? or an hundred and five? Besides, the phrenologists have been continually altering the number.

Answer. As well may it be said to be absurd, that we should possess exactly five senses; why not ten, or fifteen? The phrenologists deny all responsibility for the number of the faculties. They admit neither fewer, nor a greater number, than they find manifested in nature. Besides, authors on mental philosophy admit as many, and some more, faculties than the phrenologists. Lord Kames, for example, admits twenty of the phrenological faculties; while Mr. Dugald Stewart, in his System, ascribes more faculties to the mind than are enumerated in the phrenological works. The increase of the number of the phrenological faculties is easily accounted for. It has invariably been stated, that the functions of certain portions of the brain remain to be discovered; and, in proportion as this discovery proceeds, the list of mental powers will necessarily be augmented.

Objection." On opening the skull, and examining the brain towards the surface, where the organs are said to be situated, it seems to require no small share of creative fancy, to see any thing more than a number of almost similar convolutions, all composed of cineritious and medullary substance, very nearly in the same proportions, and all exhibiting as little difference in their form and structure, as the convolutions of the intestine." "No phrenologist

See answer to Mr. Jeffrey in Phren. Jour. vol. iv. P. 30.

has ever yet observed the supposed lines of distinction between them; and no phrenologist, therefore, has ventured, in the course of his dissections, to divide a hemisphere of the brain accurately into any such number of well marked and specific organs."

This objection was urged by the late Dr. John Barclay, and is answered at full length by Dr. A. Combe, in the Phrenological Transactions. A summary only of his observations can be introduced here. First, Although the objection were literally true, it is not relevant; because it is an admitted principle of physiology, that the form and structure of an organ are not sufficient to convey an idea of its functions; no man who saw an eye, an ear, or a nostril, for the first time (supposing it were possible for a man to be so situated), could, merely by looking at it, infer its uses. The most expert anatomist had looked frequently and long upon a bundle of nervous fibres, enclosed in a common sheath, without discovering that one set of them was the organ of voluntary motion, and another that of feeling; on the contrary, from their similarity of appearance, these nerves had, for ages, been regarded as possessing similar functions. Nevertheless, Mr. C. Bell and Magendie have demonstrated, by experiment, that they possess the distinct functions of feeling and motion. Mr. Bell has, more recently, proved, that another nerve, the use of which nobody had conjectured from its structure, serves to convey to the brain intimation of the state of the muscles, so that there is now evidence of the muscular system being supplied with three distinct sets of nerves, having separate functions, which was never conjectured from appearances. These discoveries are discussed on p. 51. It may therefore competently be proved, by observation, that different parts of the brain have distinct functions, although it were true that no difference of structure could be perceived.

But, 2dly, it is not the fact that difference of appearance is not discoverable. It is easy to distinguish the anterior, the middle, and posterior lobes of the human brain from each other; and, were they shown separately to a skilful phrenological anatomist, he would never take one for the other. The mental manifestations are so different, according as one or other of these lobes predominate in