nents, from the Edinburgh Reviewer down to Dr. Holland-the latest who has published on the subject-continue to utterly disregard it, and speak of the proposition as maintaining that size alone is the measure of functional power; or, as Dr. Holland chooses to state it, that "the gross condition of quantity represents the intensity of quality." Having set up this phantom of their own imaginations, like a pyramid on its apex, many of the anti-phrenologists proceed, with heavy blows and an approving conscience, to knock the support from under it; and when it topples over in obedience to their efforts, they turn round in triumph, and claim the merit of having upset phrenology. We have seen this feat performed again and again in the presence of phrenologists. On such occasions, their simple answer was, "You have upset a phantom of your own creation, but you have left the phrenological pyramid, resting on its basis, untouched and undamaged;" and such is in reality the case.

As it is in general far more easy to make merry with fiction than with truth, it required no great effort of wit in Lord Jeffrey to divert his readers, by referring to grandmamma Wolf, in the fairy tale, as a high physiological authority on the side of the phrenologists, when she tells little Red Riding Hood that she has large ears to hear her the better, large eyes to see her the clearer, and a large mouth to gobble her up with the greater facility. But his mirth did not alter the substantial fact established by the researches of comparative anatomists, that where great nervous sensibility is required, whether for hearing or sight, a proportionally large nerve is an invariable accompaniment, whatever the shape or appearance of the organ on which it is ramified. Neither did it alter the fact that the venerable lady's large external ear was really capable of receiving a larger number of atmospherical pulses, and her large eye a greater number of the rays of light, than a smaller ear or eye would have been. His joke, nevertheless, was a good joke. It possessed the rare merit of diverting, at the same moment, not only himself and those whom he misled, but also those against whom it was directed. The only difference was, that he laughed at what he supposed the absurdity of his opponents, while they were merry at the absurdity of the egregious blunder into which he had fallen, and from perceiving that, in point of both fact and argument, the venerable grandmamma had the great reviewer entirely at her mercy.

If the phrenologists are to be judged by their own statements and acts, and not by those falsely ascribed to them, we should say that, so far from having adopted the proposition which Dr. Holland refutes, they even deserve credit for adding to the evidence formerly existing, that "gross quantity" or size alone is NOT a measure of the

functional power of an organ. We have taken some trouble to inquire, and have never met with one phrenologist who did not utterly scout the notion of organic size being THE ONLY condition of functional energy; and who was not prepared with proofs by the dozen of the absurdity of such a proposition. Dr. Holland says, "This relation of mere bulk of substance to the perfection or intensity of a faculty is, prima facia, very improbable.' To be sure it is; but what surprises us is, that a man of Dr. Holland's good sense should have had any doubts about the matter, when he might have satisfied himself of the fact by half an hour's observation; or, if he preferred the authority of others, by consulting any good phrenological treatise in his library. Yet, strangely enough, while he stickles about the insufficiency of the evidence in support of phrenology, he does not hesitate to admit opinions unfavourable to it upon no evidence at all; and in this particular instance really argues against one of its plainest and most easily demonstrable principles, merely because he has not taken the trouble to understand its meaning.

For demonstrative evidence of organic size being, cæteris paribus, a measure of functional power (a very different proposition from "mere bulk," being a constant relation to "intensity of quality”), we would refer the reader, first, to personal observation in the field of nature; and secondly, to the concurring testimony of every anatomist and physiologist who treats of the relation between structure and function. We are not aware of a single work of any reputation in which the above principle is not tacitly adopted as nearly self-evident. It pervades every corner of comparative anatomy, and is constantly, though not ostensibly, resorted to as a guide to the discovery of function. If, in an unknown animal, the optic nerve is found to be large relatively to the other nerves of the senses, we never hesitate to infer that the power of vision will be greater in proportion than where the nerve is relatively small. In the same way, we never discover a large olfactory nerve and extended nasal apparatus, without inferring that the animal must be endowed with a powerful sense of smell. And when it is affirmed by phrenologists that the brain forms no exception in this respect to the rest of the organisation, they merely state a principle in words which is admitted universally in practice. Indeed, all the modes of discovery hitherto employed, Camper's facial angle among the rest, tacitly assume this very principle as their basis; while it has been left to Gall and his followers to direct attention to it, and demonstrate its importance, as a specific truth. In proof of this statement, it would be easy to multiply quotations from any accredited work on comparative anatomy; but one from indisputable authority may suffice: "It appears," says Cuvier, "that there are always

certain relations between the faculties of animals and the PROPORTIONS of the different parts of the brain. Thus, their intelligence appears to be always great in proportion to the developement of the hemispheres and their several commissures. It appears even that certain parts of the brain attain, in all classes of animals, a developement PROPORTIONED to the peculiar properties of these animals; and one may hope that, in following up these researches, we may at length acquire some notions respecting the particular uses of each part of the brain." On another occasion, when speaking of the cerebral lobes being the place "where all the sensations take a distinct form, and leave durable impressions," Cuvier adds, "l'anatomie comparée en offre une autre confirmation dans la proportion constante du volume de ces lobes avec le degré d'intelligence des animaux;" thus admitting the influence of size of the cerebral organs upon the power of manifesting the mental faculties as distinctly as Dr. Gall himself could assert it.

But, it may be asked, if the principle of size being, cæteris paribus, a measure of power, has been thus virtually and universally admitted by men of science, whence arise the objections advanced against it by such men as Dr. Holland, when it is specially brought forward by the phrenologists? The only answer that can be given is, that the full value of the principle as a means of successfully prosecuting inquiry, was unknown till demonstrated by Dr. Gall, and that, consequently, it had never been a subject of serious consideration among men of science as a distinct and specific proposition. Even now, however, its truth is so palpable that it is never objected to, except when confounded with the very different and erroneous proposition that size alone is a measure of power; and, in point of fact, Dr. Gall has been the first to explain the apparent anomalies which other physiologists met with in their researches, by drawing attention to the necessary limitation of cæteris paribus. And when this is kept fairly in view, it becomes nearly as impossible to deny it, as to deny that a whole is greater than a part. Both phrenologists and anti-phrenologists are agreed, for example, that a large forehead generally indicates superior intelligence; but the faith of the former in the influence of organic size, as affecting intensity of function, is not in the least shaken by the fact that there are some large foreheads unaccompanied by any intellectual superiority. Nobody, indeed, knows this fact so well as the phrenologist, because he has not only observed it, but alone has examined the cause of the difference, and found that the other conditions of the brain are not the same, and, consequently, that so long as cause and effect continue related as such, the results in mental power cannot possibly coincide. The large and healthy expanse of

brow which distinguishes the bust of Bacon may be equalled, in mere size, by the unhealthy expanse of forehead in the cretin or idiot; but will any one venture to infer from this, that the size of Bacon's healthy brain added nothing to its functional power? A single example of this kind is sufficient to demonstrate that size alone is not a measure of intensity, but it leaves absolutely untouched the phrenological proposition that size is an important condition of functional power. Great energy of mind cannot coexist with a small size of brain, because no other healthy conditions can supply the want of size. But a large brain may coexist with feebleness of mind, because, from original malformation, defective constitution, or disease, its power of action may be also defective. Large muscles, in the same

way, may coexist with little bodily strength in a very lymphatic or relaxed constitution, and in certain states of health; and yet it is never doubted that, all other conditions being equal, large muscles are more powerful than small ones. For more than this, the phrenologists do not contend.

Had Dr. Holland attended to the foregoing most obvious distinction, as laid down in all the works on phrenology which we have ever seen, he would scarcely have ventured to misrepresent Gall's discovery as resting "on the presumption of the gross condition of quantity representing the intensity of quality;" and, when speaking of the small brains of idiots, and the large brains of eminent men, as affording the best proofs of the influence of size, he would have had no difficulty in explaining the apparent exceptions to which he alludes, and reconciling them to the general rule. Rightly interpreted, there can be no exception to a law of nature; and when we meet with cases which seem to contradict the principle of organic size being a chief condition of functional power, we can come only to one of two conclusions. Either the principle must be fallacious and size be wholly uninfluential in all cases, or it must be real and operating in all. In particular cases its power may be controlled, or its action modified, by causes which have escaped observation; but there is no contradiction in the laws of nature, and we may rest assured, that if the principle under discussion has a real operation in any case, it will exercise an influence in all, whether or not we can detect the causes by which its perceptible results are modified.

We almost feel that an apology is due to our readers for insisting so much on so obvious a truth; but the very fact that science has been retarded by its neglect and misconstruction, compels us to enforce it even at the risk of tediousness. Sometimes in conversation, after we imagined that the question was placed clearly before the mind's eye, we have been met with the triumphant assertion that our proposition

was annihilated by the single comparison of the small brain of the intelligent poodle with the large brain of the stupid ox. But are all the other conditions the same in such a case except size? No doubt the brain of an ox is a brain as well as that of a poodle; but is there no difference in their structure, no difference in the proportions of their anterior lobes, and no difference in the number and complexity of their convolutions sufficient to exercise an influence on their functions in addition to mere size? Looking to the philosophical principle of cæteris paribus, it is clear that the proper way to arrive at the truth, is to compare the brain of a clever with that of a stupid poodle, and of one ox with another, as nearly as possible of the same age, state of health, and constitution. If this be done, and the intelligent poodle be found to have the smaller anterior lobe, then by all means denounce the principle of size as untrue, and at variance with fact. But if the reverse be the case, do not attempt to set the truth aside, by comparing two things so essentially different as to make absolute agreement impossible. If this precaution be kept in view, we venture to affirm that the more the proposition is scrutinised, the more firmly will it be found to rest on the uassailable foundation of truth.

(To be continued.)

ARTICLE II.

FURTHER REMARKS BY MR. SAMPSON ON THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF

IDEALITY.

To the Editor of the American Phrenological Journal.

Dear Sir,

London, April 14th, 1840.

The editor of the London Phrenological Journal, in reviewing the essay which appeared in No. 9 of your Miscellany, on the organ of Ideality, concludes with the following observation: "For our own part, we cannot avoid the suspicion that there are both physiological and metaphysical difficulties in the way of appointing Ideality to the office of over-looker or drill-serjeant to the other organs; and that, as a matter of fact, individuals endowed with large Ideality are rather more prone than others to run into some extremes, though not into the extremes of brutality and sordid vice."

The plausibility of an objection of this nature had not escaped my attention at the time when I first detailed my views upon the subject,