though simple question," but who can decide," says he, "whether a plurality of mental organs is indispensably ne❝cessary; and if it is, who can tell for what purposes the "mind requires the same, and for what different organs ?"If we were to answer, that Dr G. and the phrenologists, in consequence of observation, can decide, Rudolphi would probably smile at our presumption, but the fact would not on that account be the less true. If we fairly analyze the question, it will be seen to destroy most effectually all Rudolphi's arguments; for it amounts to neither more nor less than a confession, that the question cannot be decided either by reasoning or by the analogy of any thing yet known, but only by the evidence of new facts and observations, and that therefore it is needless, in the absence of such, to argue about the matter. Rudolphi having no facts to adduce, is clearly hors du combat, and has no right to disturb Dr Gall in his possession of the field, otherwise than by wresting his facts and observations from his hand, and supplying their place by those of an opposite nature; but this he will never do.

Professor Rudolphi, still taking it for granted that Phrenology is a mere phantom of Dr Gall's imagination, says,-"Gall thinks he has discovered a great number of organs, and "he is quite clear about many of them, but the source of his "pretended knowledge is almost entirely an absolutely unten"able cranioscopy; he thought, for example, that in men distin"guished for any particular talent, (which they possessed in "common), music, for instance, or verbal memory, he had always found a certain formation of the head, and thus, if a part of "the skull was prominent, he FANCIED that behind it there was developed a certain portion of the brain on which that talent depended; vice versa, he ASSUMED, that where the talent was de"ficient, the elevation also was wanting, and thence he was oblig"ed to place all the organs on the surface of the brain. Those

66

cases which were calculated to support his hypothesis were brought forward, but the unfavourable ones got rid of in a "manner which proves the nullity of the whole."

Let those of our readers who think us too severe towards our opponents, ponder well the preceding quotation; and, before passing sentence, let them recollect, that Dr Gall has published four closely-printed quarto volumes of facts

ઠંડ

and proofs in support of all his statements,that he has laid down rules for repeating his observations, and for verifying his facts, that he has illustrated these by an immense atlas of plates,and that he has challenged the world to disprove their accuracy, and that Professor Rudolphi, without pretending to refute, utterly disregards all these labours, and, in profound ignorance, and with much presumption, boldly proceeds to charge Dr Gall with deceiving the world by fancies and assumptions; and finishes by the gratuitous and insulting accusation, that he, Gall, has met with cases unfavourable to his cause, but which he disingenuously conceals from the public. If the phrenologists can find differences of development and elevations on the head, only by "assuming that they are present," and "fancying they see "them," why do they, with such labour and expense, collect skulls, and casts of heads and skulls, from all quarters of the world, and not only freely admit, but anxiously invite the public to inspect and to compare them with each other; and, above all, why do they put a pair of calliper compasses into the hands of their visi tors, and request them to measure the differences of development in inches and tenths of inches? If these differences had no existence but in the fancies of Dr Gall and his followers, how long could this delusion last with such infallible means of destroying it placed in the hands of our enemies?

As to being obliged to place all the organs on the surface of the brain, it has already been stated, for the hundredth time, that they are not confined to the surface, but extend to it from the medulla oblongata; and, in truth, we are wearied of hearing this weak and glaring perversion of Dr Gall's words thus eternally repeated.

Such is a sample of the objections with which a great German physiologist chooses to assail Phrenology; and so very desperate is the condition of the opponents at home, that such arguments are hailed and proclaimed by them, as for ever exploding the only philosophy of mind which could boast of resting on the firm basis of Nature'!

Professor Rudolphi notices the existence of the Phreno logical Society, and kindly adds, that although Phrenology is nonsense, there cannot be a doubt but that some good will result to science from that association. We would re commend to him an early and attentive perusal of the So ciety's Transactions.

ARTICLE XIII.

DR NARES ON PHRENOLOGY.

WE lately chanced to light upon a work bearing the title of "Elements of General History, Ancient and Modern, by the "Reverend Edward Nares, D. D. Regius Professor of Mo, "dern History in the University of Oxford;" published in 1822; and we found in it the following sentence: "Even "the names of Mesmer, Mainaduc, Gall, and Spurzheim, may require to be mentioned, as having for some time, in "an extraordinary manner, amazed the ignorant, and de"ceived the credulous, by their strange systems of Animal "Magnetism and Craniology."-(Vol. II. p. 489.)

66

It is difficult to say precisely to what faculties such a manifestation ought to be attributed. The confident conceit of it is the first quality that arrests our attention, for it bears intrinsic evidence that the reverend historian is profoundly ignorant of the "strange systems of Animal Magnetism and Craniology," upon which he pronounces so decided an opinion. To persons who have studied Dr Gall's four volumes on the physiology of the brain, and found them replete with facts and arguments about which Dr Nares evidently knows nothing, and to which no opponent has ventured to reply, except by dogmatism and drivelling,-to those who have read Dr Spurzheim's works, distinguished by reflection, and the most pure and elevated sentiment,-and to those who have perused the Transactions of the Phrenological Society, abounding with the most interesting and authentic cases, and

bearing a long list of respectable names testifying to the truth, dignity, and utility of the science after examination, (not to mention our own Journal,) such observations as the foregoing, when introduced into a grave historical work, appear strange and extraordinary in no common degree. They amaze not the ignorant, but the informed, and seem truly calculated to deceive the credulous, for only the most simple gulls can mistake "confident nonsense" for the decision of a penetrating and enlightened understanding. Perhaps, however, Doctor Nares was carried away by the current of popular delusion, and wrote the above sentence through mere unreflecting levity, and in this case he may merit less severity of censure. His offence would then be attributable to much Love of Approbation, which prompts one to follow the multitude, and deficient Cautiousness. He should recollect, however, that litera scripta manet, and that the tendency of this sentence is to perpetuate the prejudice under which he laboured by instilling it into young minds for whom chiefly his history is composed; and it is this circumstance which has drawn upon him our present animadversions. If his history comes to a second edition, we recommend to him to read the works both on Magnetism and Phrenology before deciding as an oracle on their merits. If he does so, we predict a change of sentiment, at least in regard to the latter.

ARTICLE XIV.

CAPTAIN ROSS ON DECIMAL NOTATION OF THE ORGANS.* I HAVE practised phrenological observation a good deal; and finding a manifest defect in the common mode of expressing the value of the respective organs by words, I had recourse to the plan of setting them down on paper decimally as I examined them. To accomplish this, I called moderate 1000;

• We submit this communication to our readers without being understood as adopting all Captain Ross's ideas.

when the organ is so small as to be of no effect or value, (as in anidiot) I call it 0.000; and when "very large," so as to be particularly predominant, I called it 2,000; according to what the value relatively of each organ appeared to be in my mind I expressed it decimally in like manner; for example, 1,150 would be rather full. Thus a review of the whole gave me a far more correct idea of what my mind had conceived to be the actual value of each organ, than the common mode of expressing it in words could do. This mode I found particularly useful when intended for the opinion of other phrenologists; and for the elucidation of which I shall give you examples of two.

For the sake of experiment I proceeded to class the organs according to Dr Spurzheim, and having added together the respective decimals, and divided by the number of organs, I got the mean value of each class, and having taken the 1st, 2d, and 3d differences, (as will be seen by the following example,) I arrived at the value of the influence of each class as regards the rest, and was astonished, as well as gratified, to find how exactly the arithmetical results corresponded with the characters of the individuals.