ARTICLE II. PHRENOLOGY. By Enoch Pond, D. D., Professor in Bangor Theological Seminary. ALTHOUGH We have done with the five fundamental principles of phrenology, we have still some additional objections and remarks, to which we would invite the attention of our readers. First of all, we object to the name of this alleged science. It should never have been called phrenology. It should rather have retained the name which Dr. Gall first gave to it, craniology. Phrenology is the science of mind; whereas this is primarily the science of skulls. To be sure, it treats of the mind more or less; but only of the mind as manifested through the brain and skull. The brain is, in the strictest sense, the organ of the mind; and the size of the brain, as indicated by the size and shape of the skull, is the measure of the mind's power. The brain consists of a congeries of organs, whose base is indicated on the outer surface of the skull; each of these organs has a corresponding mental faculty, which operates by it, and through it. In proportion to the size of the organ, as indicated on the skull, is the strength and vigor of its corresponding faculty; hence, by an examination of the skull, the mental traits of the subject may be discovered. Such are the acknowledged principles of the science; and who does not see that it is rather craniology, than phrenology? It does not begin with the mind, ascertain its phenomena and faculties, and from these reason outward to the skull; but it begins with the skull-its size, its shape, its indentations, and bumps; from which it infers the size and shape of the brain; and from this the faculties and character of the mind. It is primarily, therefore, craniology and not phrenology, and should not have been honored by its indiscreet friends with a name which does not properly belong to it. So far as the force of a name is concerned, they have in this way converted the noble science of mind (as one expresses it) into "a mere Golgotha a place of skulls." Our second remark is, that, so far as important practical knowl edge is concerned, phrenology teaches nothing new. One would think, from the boasts of its friends, from the sounding eulogiums which they are wont to pass upon it, that it had introduced a new era in philosophy, and should be regarded as the guiding star of the age. They claim that it is the most valuable discovery ever made, and that it will contribute more important aid towards the education and gradual improvement of the race, than can be derived from any other source. "Before the appearance of Gall and Spurzheim," says Mr. Combe, "the science of mind was in much the same state as that of the heavenly bodies, prior to Galileo and Newton." Again, he says: "The discoveries of the revolution of the globe, and the circulation of the blood, were splendid displays of genius in their authors, and interesting and beneficial to mankind; but their results, compared with the consequences which must inevitably follow from Dr. Gall's discovery of the functions of the brain, sink into relative insignificance."1 Let us, then, look at the subject a little, and see whether these boasts have ever been realized; see what phrenology has done, or is likely to do, for the benefit of the world. It has told us a deal great - which we do not believe about the functions and organs of the brain, and the ability of the operator, by fumbling over the head, to decide upon the mental traits and character of its owner. It has introduced a new and barbarous phraseology, under cover of which the commonest truths are made to assume a strange and scientific appearance. Still, it may be said, and said in truth, that so far as important practical knowledge is concerned, phrenology teaches nothing new. It was known, ages ago, that there were important differences among men in genius, disposition, propensities, habits, and traits of moral and religious character. Phrenology has taught us nothing new on this subject, except that it refers these different traits to different bumps on the head, a theory which we have shown to be unfounded, and which, if it were true, would be a circumstance of very little importance. Again; it was known, long before phrenology was born, that the exercise of any faculty, or the indulgence of any propensity or habit, tended to increase and strengthen it; and At the close of the fourteenth volume of their Phrenological Journal, the Messrs. Fowler very modestly say: "The Journal has done more to create an interest in the true philosophy of mind, and to awaken a spirit of self-culture, than all other periodicals, since its establishment," "Let another praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips." Prov. 27; 2, hence, that it was indispensable, in a good moral education, to repress the indulgence of everything evil, and encourage the exercise of everything good. Phrenology has nothing new on this subject, except its uncouth phraseology; and that only serves to make a plain matter obscure, or (as the Scripture hath it) to 'darken counsel by words without knowledge." " The great object of Mr. Combe, in his popular work on "the Constitution of Man," is to show, that we are made subject to three classes of laws, physical, organic and moral; and that suffering is the penalty for violating any of them. But men knew all this before. Who did not know, that, if he stepped off a precipice, he would fall and hurt him; that, if he overloaded his stomach, he would suffer from indigestion; and that, if he was wicked and cruel, his conscience would be likely to trouble him more or less. We are constrained to think, therefore, that this most popular of all phrenological books has added very little to the extent of human knowledge. Stripped of its phrenological cant and verbiage, it will be found to contain little more than stale truisms, some of which the child will understand, especially after he has had a few hard falls, or has made himself sick once or twice by eating green fruit, or has felt some twinges of conscience, after striking his brother, or telling a lie. Indeed, Mr. Combe, in his more candid moments, does not pretend to have advanced anything of importance that is new. "I lay no claim," says he in his Preface, "to originality of conception. The materials employed lie open to all men. Taken separately, I would hardly say that a new truth has been presented, in the following work. The facts have nearly all been admitted and employed, again and again, by writers on morals, from the time of Socrates down to the present day." What Mr. Combe here acknowledges of himself, is more eminently true of inferior writers and speakers on the same subject. A gentleman in England, "who had been most successfully engaged in the business of education for more than forty years, was induced to attend a course of phrenological lectures, under the assurance that this new philosophy would afford him vast assistance in his vocation. But at the close of the lectures he solemnly declared, he had not heard a single principle enunciated, which had not been constantly in his view, from the time when the claims of phrenology were unknown in Britain." We would go even further than this, and say, with Mr. Morell, that, so far as mind is concerned, phrenology never can teach anything new. It can only assign certain ascertained mental qualities and propensities to what are conceived to be their appropriate organs on the skull. But by the supposition, these mental qualities are already ascertained., They must be ascertained, every one of them. And we must come to the knowledge of them in the ordinary way, that is, by reflection and consciousness, before the phrenologist can get hold of them, and assign them to their material organs. Our next objection to phrenology grows out of its bearings and teachings on the subject of education. Much credit is claimed. for it, by its advocates, on the score of education. Parents have been earnestly advised to obtain charts of their children's heads, that they may know early their dispositions and propensities, and thus be able to conduct their education in the wisest manner. And, if any accurate, reliable knowledge could be obtained in this way, we allow that it might be of some importance. But suppose (what is undoubtedly the fact) that no such reliable knowledge can be obtained. Suppose the parent, instead of getting any true ideas concerning his children, gets the opposite; instead of being instructed, he is deceived. The influence of phrenology, in this view, can only be hurtful, both to parents and children. There is a natural method in which parents are to learn the particular genius, the aptitudes, the propensities, and dispositions of their children; and this is by close observation and watchfulness. But the parent has no time, or no heart for this. He must come to his conclusions by a shorter cut. And so he applies to the phrenologist, and gets a chart. But his chart is no better than white paper. In fact, it is a great deal worse. White paper would not deceive him; whereas his chart, if he relies upon it, will be very likely to lead him astray. Nor is the effect of the process any better upon children and young persons. They are led to believe that they have got the truth, respecting their talents, their genius, their disposition, their destiny; and they follow it out as such, until they find, too late, that they have been deluded. More than one case we have ourselves known, in which young men have been completely baffled, turned aside from their appropriate pursuits, and in effect almost ruined, by trusting to their phrenological advisers. But this is not the only way in which phrenology bears disastrously on the cause of education. Its doctrine of distinct, inde pendent organs and faculties, is not only false in fact, but injurious in its influence. The doctrine is, as we have before remarked, that these numerous mental faculties are so distinct, that the exercise and improvement of one, has no tendency to improve any other. "It would be as unreasonable," says Mr. Simpson, "to attempt to sharpen hearing by exercising the eyes," as to improve one mental faculty, by working another. Now we all know that this statement is not true. Almost any sort of mental application imparts strength and vigor to the whole mind; just as exercising the arms, the legs, the chest, diffuses strength and elasticity through the entire frame. ence. And not only is this position false in fact, it is of hurtful influIt is this which has led phrenologists to oppose the study of the ancient languages, and the regular, grammatical study of all languages. "By such study," says Mr. Levison, "the mind is cramped; many of the most useful faculties remain in a state of inactivity; while verbal memory, like an especial favorite, engrosses all attention to itself." This writer admits " that a knowledge of our vernacular tongue is of great importance," yet this, he thinks, may be better acquired "without the usual drudgery of poring over a grammar. Let a child know the names of all things it sees, and how we express their qualities and modes of existence, and this plan, combined with a free intercourse with intelligent adults, will practically point out," without a grammar, the natural mode of arranging words to give the order of our ideas." Nor are languages the only study which phrenology proscribes. Listen to the following edifying passage from the Rev. George Blackburn: "What has the study of mathematics to do with giving success to one in the clerical profession, or to one who is occupied with the study of moral philosophy? Or what has Greek or Latin to do with a successful prosecution of the science of astronomy, or of chemistry? Oh, it will be said, the study of mathematics is essential to the clergyman and moral philosopher, because it tends wonderfully to discipline and strengthen the understanding; and that of the Greek and Latin, because they make us better acquainted with our vernacular language, and tend likewise to elevate and expand the mind. Now phrenology demonstrates that there is no sort of relation between mathematical and moral reasoning; that they depend upon different and distinct faculties; and that, by necessary consequence, the former may |