Circumference of the head around Philoprogenitiveness,
Secretiveness, and Eventuality, 21⅞
From Occipital Spine to Individuality, over Firmness, 12⅝
” Destructiveness to Destructiveness, 7
” Combativeness to Combativeness, 6½
” Ear to Firmness, 6⅜
” ” Benevolence, 4¾
” ” Individuality, 5
The _general_ configuration of the head was not less
interesting than the particular developments. Whilst the
heads of highly moral and intellectual men generally measure
from one and a half to three inches more from Individuality
to Philoprogenitiveness than from Destructiveness to
Destructiveness, _his_ head was nearly round. The coronal
region was poorly developed. The sides of the head were bulged
out to an extraordinary extent, whilst it was flattened
behind, evidently indicating deficient social feelings. The
cerebral fibres were very short from the ear to the organs in
the anterior lobe of the brain, as well as from the ear to
Adhesiveness and Philoprogenitiveness. His head was somewhat
above the average size. His body was strong and well built,
yet the quality of his organisation was rather gross. His
temperament was principally lymphatic bilious, with some of the
sanguine, but scarcely any traces of the nervous.[3] Such a
temperament is much more favourable to the exercise of physical
than mental power, and to the manifestations of the animal
propensities than of the moral sentiments and the intellectual
faculties.
Having observed the organisation of the body, and of the
_general_ form of the head, I commenced a minute comparison of
the relative size of the respective organs. The result is as
follows:—
Amativeness, full.
Philoprogenitiveness, average.
Adhesiveness, moderate.
Inhabitiveness, full.
Concentrativeness, large.
Combativeness, large.
Destructiveness, very large.+
Alimentiveness, large.
Acquisitiveness, very large.+
Secretiveness, very large.
Cautiousness, large.
Approbativeness, moderate.
Self-esteem, very large.
Firmness, very large.
Conscientiousness, small.
Hope, large.
Marvellousness, moderate.
Veneration, full.
Benevolence, moderate.
Imitation, average.
Ideality, small.
Constructiveness, full.
Mirthfulness, moderate.
Individuality, full.
Form, full.
Size, large.
Weight, full.
Colour, moderate.
Order, average.
Calculation, full.
Locality, large.
Eventuality, average.
Tune, uncertain.
Time, ”
Language, average.
Causality, ”
Comparison, ”
I shall describe only the _extremes_ of development, and the
general result of their respective combinations in activity.
The organs located in the sides of the head were the first
to arrest my attention. It was the development, not of any
_one_ of these organs (selfish propensities), but the immense
size of the _whole_ of them, acting without the restraints
of either the intellect or the moral sentiments, which would
constitute the leading features of character. Acquisitiveness,
Secretiveness, Destructiveness, Self-esteem, and Firmness, were
all “very large;” Combativeness and Cautiousness were “large,”
with Benevolence, Ideality, and Adhesiveness, “moderate.” Any
well informed phrenologist can easily predicate the effects
resulting from such combination.
His predominating Acquisitiveness and Self-esteem would render
him _supremely_ selfish, and incline him (Conscientiousness
being deficient) to appropriate things to himself, without
regard to the principles of justice or the right of others. His
Secretiveness, Destructiveness, Firmness, and Combativeness,
with average intellect, would enable him to devise and execute
plans with tolerable success for gratifying his selfish
feelings. Still he had not sufficient Causality to plan on
a large scale, nor to adapt means to ends successfully in
the long run. He would deal principally in “little things.”
Conscientiousness and Benevolence would but feebly remonstrate
against any measures, however unjust or cruel, which his other
faculties might devise and carry into effect. Having weak
Adhesiveness and Benevolence, and very large Secretiveness,
he would be unsocial, almost destitute of friendship, spend
most of his time _by himself_, would have few intimates, and
no confidants among his acquaintances or even relatives. Few
persons would know any thing concerning him; a mystery would
hang over all his affairs and conduct.
His “very large” Secretiveness and Acquisitiveness doubtless
held predominant sway in his character. These, unrestrained,
would lay claim to, and appropriate to himself, that which did
not belong to him, by fraud, deception, stealth, cheating,
pilfering, &c. And Destructiveness “very large” would add to
these, robbery and even murder. Having little sympathy or
affection, with this organisation, I should not be surprised to
learn that even his relatives and friends had fallen victims
to his predominating Acquisitiveness and Destructiveness.
There is one faculty in particular which must have entered
very largely into the composition of his character—viz.
Secretiveness. He was doubtless very sly, artful, and full
of plots and stratagems. While he would be cunning, and make
few, if any, confessions or acknowledgments, still he did not
possess great fore-thought or penetration. But in the art of
dissembling, and making false pretensions, he must have been a
perfect adept.
Having “moderate” Approbativeness and “small”
Conscientiousness, he would have little regard for his
character, or for what was thought and said of him, and
experience but little shame or remorse. His “very large”
Firmness would render him persevering in deception and
crime—would carry him through any difficulties, and render him
obstinate, wilful, and blindly set upon gratifying his selfish
propensities. This organisation would render him vindictive
in the highest degree, and whatever he might do or say, he
would always _justify himself_. Another striking fact was the
“small” development of Ideality. I have long observed that this
organ was almost invariably small in criminals, and its marked
deficiency in the present instance struck me with peculiar
force. Numerous facts have led me to believe, that a proper
development and exercise of Ideality is about as favourable to
virtue and morality as even the influence of Conscientiousness.
By refining the feelings, it begets a disgust for vice, because
it is loathsome, and thereby promotes virtue. The organs of
the intellect were not remarkable for either their size or
deficiency. But in their exercise, they would be controlled
principally by the selfish feelings.
During the examination, allusion was made to the fact, (which
he had frequently related before,) that the day previous to the
murder he had become very angry, in consequence of meeting with
some accident in his mechanical labours, and broke in pieces
the object of his resentment. I afterwards was informed, that
he was often subject to turns of anger, and that he conducted
strangely at such times—that he would neither work, talk, nor
eat, but either sit or lie down in silence and sullenness for
hours. In view of these facts, the prisoner’s counsel attempted
to account for the murder by pleading at the trial partial
insanity, but were unsuccessful. I was partly of the opinion,
that Destructiveness was morbidly excited prior to the murder.
But subsequent facts induced me to change it.
I have thus stated the impressions made upon my mind during the
examination, and deduced a few leading features of character,
on strictly phrenological principles, without any knowledge of
the real character or private history of William Miller, aside
from a few immediate facts connected with the murder of Hoffman.
Yours, &c.
O. S. FOWLER,
210 Chesnut street.
Philadelphia, October 20th, 1838.
On the reception of the above letter, wishing to learn farther
particulars, we addressed a line to the Hon. Ellis Lewis, presiding judge
of the court at the trial of William Miller, to which we received the
following reply:—
_To the Editor of the American Phrenological Journal._
Williamsport, December 29th, 1838.