suppose that the animal could survive such mutilations, how should it manifest a sensation of which it has been deprived? and how should it indicate the want of this sensation? More over, such operations are too violent, and the animals might restr tain several faculties without manifesting them. A bird whose brain is violently injured, will not sing or build a nest, &c. Hence it is impossible to determine the functions of the cerebral parts by their mutilation." (P. 240.)

The next section, therefore, proceeds to informs us of the manner actually pursued to determine the point in question. Upon this subject our authors are not very clear; but the only method which appears to have remained to them was the external process of examining the peculiar marks, or protuberances, in the craniums of persons of peculiar characters.

"Gall," says Dr. Spurzheim," compared all energetic actions with the greatest development of any part of the brain; and if he s found that a greater developement of any cerebral part corres in sponded with any given energetic action, he supposed that this 309 part of the brain might be the respective organ. The probability then increased in the same proportion as the number of observa-w tions was multiplied. Moreover, if any individual presented on onl his head any protuberance, which evidently was the result of the 3 developement of some cerebral part, Gall endeavoured to be acolls quainted with the talents or the dominant character of this person. If 3 it were an organ which he had determined according to the actions, and if the actions or inclinations of this person were concordant, the probability increased. If it was a new organ, he compared in other individuals similar actions or inclinations with the developement of the respective part of the brain. In these two ways he determined all the organs he discovered; for instance, he pointed out the organs as they were called by him, of propagation, of murder, of theft, of mechanical arts, of music, of mathematics, and of metaphysics, by determining the organs according to energetic actions; and he discovered the organs of philoprogeny, circumspection, and religion, by determining the actions according to the protuberances.

༣

"On the other hand, if energetic actions are attached to large organs, and if large organs produce energetic actions, it unavoidably follows that weak actions are indicated by small organs, and that small organs produce weak actions. On this account, Gall compared the weak.. functions of individuals who were almost destitute of a particular faculty with the determinate organ, and a determinate organ with the respective actions; and if weak actions were corresponding to small organs,metru or small organs to weak actions, these proofs in a negative way con- !!! firmed the first conclusion. A great number of circumstances have the contributed to multiply these positive and negative observations. To this end it is necessary to live in large towns, and to frequent all classes of society Gall was professionally acquainted with many families; he was physician to the director of the schools, and could examine every child who excelled. He had himself no children, and

was not obliged to spare expense for their sake. He was also bold enough to speak to every person in whose head be observed any distinct protuberance. In our travels, we have been able to obtain much information; to observe a great number of distinguished persons, and to compare their organization; in one word, to collect innumerable facts in our visits to establishments for education, in hospitals for idiots and madmen; in the houses of correction, in prisons, and in our intercourse with different nations and with all classes of society." (P. 281 -283.)

Now, it must be admitted, that this is a very loose and limited source of information, though it appears to be the chief, if not the only one, to which the authors of this hypothesis could directly apply. After all they give us no account of the history of their visits to the different schools, hospitals, and houses of correction, which were open to their inspection, and of which they surely might have made a very interesting narrative. We shall presently endeavour to supply this omission from M. Böttiger's work, to which we have already referred, and from which it will, we think, appear, that even this only mode of acquiring definite information, and drawing legitimate results, was not attended with much success. We cannot, however, avoid remarking, in the present place, that, from the view of the subject thus offered us in Dr. Spurzheim's own pages, the anatomy and speculations upon the structure of the brain and nerves which occupy the first part of the volume, though highly ingenious and interesting, have but little bearing upon his physiognomical doctrines, for either of them may be separately true or separately false; and upon this point, therefore, we fully agree with the members of the French National Institute. The study, to say the most of it, is but at present in its infancy, and we have no reason to believe it will ever advance to manhood. Its basis, even upon the present writer's own showing, is empirical or experimental, rather than methodical or inductive; and we cannot, therefore, but be surprised at the frequent and triumphant use, by the author, of the terms, science, system, certainty, proof, demonstration; upon some of which we shall find it expedient to make a remark or two before we conclude. The following is a singular passage, but in close connexion with our present estimate of the subject; and were it allowable to draw a general inference from a single paragraph, it could only be that our author's feeling at the moment was not essentially different from our own. "It is known," says he, "that, in general, physical truths improve in proportion as observations are repeated. We continue, therefore, to multiply our observations, and in respect to several organs, the number of these observations is immense; and we consider the respective organs as determinate. We shall insist on our opinion as long as we are not convinced, by experience, of the contrary.

Several organs, however, are still conjectural, and require a greater number of observations, in order to be determined with the same degree of certitude as the others, which are supported by the most satisfactory proofs." (P. 283.)

Putting together matter of conjecture, and what, in their opinion, is matter of proof, our craniologists have thought themselves justified in representing the brain as consisting of, from twenty-seven to thirty-three internal parts, organs, or chambers; and consequently, in dividing the cranium into as many sections, from the lowest part of the back of the head, over the crown, to the orbits of the eyes. According to Professor Böttiger, the original number of manifestations was twenty-seven, certain parts of the cranium being left at his time of writing as a kind of terra incognita for the discoveries of future circumnavigators. The head, however, has been since so well travelled over, that four other regions were explored and named at the date of Dr. Bojames's publication; since which Dr. Spurzheim has detected and denominated two additional tracts: so that the map seems now to be complete, and the skull, with all its districts, divisions, and intersections, wild and cultivated spots, seats of arts and philosophy, and love and war, presents man in all his forms and varieties to the contemplation of man.

The following are the names assigned to these various protuberances and the faculties they manifest, in the language of Dr. Spurzheim: 1. Organ of amativeness; 2. of philoprogeni tiveness; 3. inhabitiveness; 4. adhesiveness; 5. combativeness; 6. destructiveness; 7. constructiveness; 8. covetiveness; 9. secretiveness; 10. self-love; 11. approbation; 12. cautiousness; 18. benevolence; 14. veneration; 15. hope and faith; 16, ideality; 17. righteousness, or conscientiousness; 18. firmness; 19. individuality; 20. form; 21. size; 22. weight; 23. colour: 24. space; 25. order; 26. time; 27. number; 28. tune; 29. language; 30. comparison; 31. causality; S2. wit: 33. imitation. The arrange ment of all these into orders, genera, species, and varieties, we shall give in the words of the author.

The expression Mind designates the class of faculties. I divide it into two orders: into feelings (gemueth, in German) and intellect. The feelings are subdivided into two genera: into propensities and sentiments. The propensities begin with that of eating and drinking. Many instincts of animals belong to this genus, while other instincts of animals, as those of singing and migrating, belong to the knowing faculties. The second genus of feelings consists in sentiments, some of which are common to man and animals, and others proper to man. The second order of mental faculties and intellect is subdivided also into two genera, into knowing and into reflecting faculties. Moreover, there are different species of propensities, of sentiments, of knowing.

2

and of reflecting faculties. There are varieties in the different species; and we observe even monstrosities in the manifestations of the peculiar faculties.” (P. 293.

By studying the brain through such a medium of cabalistical verbiage our own would soon be turned. Dr. Gall's language is humbler and more intelligible; and our readers will perhaps thank us for presenting it to them as an explanatory glossary of Dr. Spurzheim. It is thus given us by M. Böttinger: 1. Organ of sensual instinct; 2. of parental and filial love; 3. of susceptibility for instruction, memoria realis ; 4. of finding and remem bering places; 5. of recollecting persons; 6. of comparing co lours; 7. of music; 8. of arithmetic; 9. of finding and remem bering words; 10. of philology; 11. of mechanical arts; 12. of friendship and attachment; 13. of fighting; 14. of murder; 15. of cunning; 16. of thieving; 17. of loftiness and high-mindedness; 18. of thirst for glory, and of vanity; 19. of reflection; 20. of ingenuity; 21. of philosophical judgment; 22. of wit: 23. of induction; 24. of meckness or good-nature; 25, of reli gious fanaticism; 26. of constancy; 27. of imitative power. The rest, as we have already observed, were undecided at the date of this table.

It is to be remarked, that the order of numeration between the two catalogues is somewhat different; Dr. Gall having appar rently named the various regions according to the time of their discovery, and Dr. Spurzheim according to the line of their proximity. The latter, moreover, aims at generalizing his names: in his own language, he derives them from the faculties of the respective organs; while Gall, on the contrary, aims at particu Lizing them, and, according to the language of his colleague, derives them from the actions to which they more immediately lead. In other words, Gall comes artlessly to the point; while Spurzheim plays artfully about it; and instead of specific, uses generic terms, and those, too, of so vast an amplitude, that each of them has a fair chance of covering almost every propensity, faculty, developement, and manifestation, that can be thought of

The organ of amativeness, which comes first in the order of both lists, was discovered long after many of the rest. In the infaucy of the science, and in the simplicity of his heart, Dr. Gall, it seems, did not at that time know there was any such organ in nature. He discovered it, by chance, in a female patient, while under the influence of a fit of hysterics; of which we are presented with a very grave description.

Not a few of our readers will perhaps be surprised at finding, that Nature has kindly provided mankind with express organs for the cultivation of murder and thieving; words which are softened down by Dr. Spurzheim into those of destructiveness and

Sovetiveness; but which, in the body of his work, he generally changes for the ordinary and more intelligible terms. The proofs of these organs are laboured with peculiar force, and not without some apology for their existence. "Our opponents," says the author," maintain, that such a doctrine is both ridiculous and dangerous; ridiculous, because nature could not produce any faculty absolutely hurtful to man; dangerous, because it would permit what is punished as a crime by the laws. Gall was accustomed to answer, nobody can deny the facts which prove that theft exists; and as it exists, it is not against the will of the Creator; and there are very few persons who have never stolen any thing. The organ is moreover very considerable in invete rate thieves."alvit

The morality here offered is certainly not of the purest kind; it directly avows, that the Creator has given an express sanction and countenance to robbery and murder, by the construction both of the body and of the mind, by natural organs and innate propensities for the commission of these crimes. It cannot be denied, that God has willed them; for nothing can take place contrary to his will; but the wilt and the desire, are two distinct attributes, though in ordinary language, and occasionally by our author himself, confounded and used synonymously. An indulgent father, observes Mr. Locke, often wills the chastisement of his child, but never desires it; so far from it, indeed, that whilst he executes his will, he usually suffers more from the infliction of the chastisement than the child itself. It is true, then, that God has willed robbery and murder, but it is equally true that he has not desired them: it is equally true that he has most positively expressed his desire upon the subject, and has forbidden them under the severest threats. Our duty then is to attend to the prohibition: our moral conduct is to be collected from his desire and not from his will, except where the word will is employed in its popular sense and synonymously with desire.

The professors of the new physiognomy, however, having thus advanced their peculiar doctrine upon the subject before us, en deavour to illustrate it by copious examples of persons who, in consequence of having been endowed with the stealing bump, and stealing organ, the stealing function, and stealing faculty, havet manifested an irrestible propensity to rob and plunder.

But, by way of compensation, we have a natural organ for re ligion, it seems, as well as for thieving and murder. This, by Dr. Bojames, is denominated the organ of theosophy; by professor Bottiger the organ of religious fanaticism, and more generally and generically by Dr. Spurzheim, the organ of veneration. They all agree with respect to its position. The organ of theosophy," says Dr. Bojames, "occupies the most elevated part of the os