_Phrenology, and the Moral Influence of Phrenology: Arranged for
General Study, and the Purposes of Education, from the first
published works of Gall and Spurzheim, to the latest discoveries of
the present period. By Mrs. L. Miles. Philadelphia: Carey, Lea, and
Blanchard._
Phrenology is no longer to be laughed at. It _is_ no longer laughed
at by men of common understanding. It has assumed the majesty of a
science; and, as a science, ranks among the most important which can
engage the attention of thinking beings--this too, whether we
consider it merely as an object of speculative inquiry, or as
involving consequences of the highest practical magnitude. As a study
it is very extensively accredited in Germany, in France, in Scotland,
and in both Americas. Some of its earliest and most violent opposers
have been converted to its doctrines. We may instance George Combe
who wrote the "Phrenology." Nearly all Edinburgh has been brought
over to belief--in spite of the Review and its ill sustained
opinions. Yet these latter were considered of so great weight that
Dr. Spurzheim was induced to visit Scotland for the purpose of
refuting them. There, with the Edinburgh Review in one hand, and a
brain in the other, he delivered a lecture before a numerous
assembly, among whom was the author of the most virulent attack which
perhaps the science has ever received. At this single lecture he is
said to have gained five hundred converts to Phrenology, and the
Northern Athens is now the strong hold of the faith.
In regard to the _uses_ of Phrenology--its most direct, and, perhaps,
most salutary, is that of _self-examination and self-knowledge_. It
is contended that, with proper caution, and well-directed inquiry,
individuals may obtain, through the science, a perfectly accurate
estimate of their own moral capabilities--and, thus instructed, will
be the better fitted for decision in regard to a choice of offices
and duties in life. But there are other and scarcely less important
uses too numerous to mention--at least here.
The beautiful little work now before us was originally printed in
London in a manner sufficiently quaint. The publication consisted of
forty cards contained in a box resembling a small pocket volume. An
embossed head accompanied the cards, giving at a glance the relative
situations and proportions of each organ, and superseding altogether
the necessity of a bust. This head served as an Index to the
explanations of the system. The whole formed a lucid, compact, and
portable compend of Phrenology. The present edition of the work,
however, is preferable in many respects, and is indeed exceedingly
neat and convenient--we presume that it pretends to be nothing more.
The Faculties are divided into _Instinctive Propensities and
Sentiments_ and _Intellectual Faculties_. The Instinctive
Propensities and Sentiments are subdivided into _Domestic
Affections_, embracing Amativeness, Philoprogenitiveness,
Inhabitiveness, and Attachment--_Preservative Faculties_, embracing
Combativeness, Destructiveness, and Gustativeness--_Prudential
Sentiments_, embracing Acquisitiveness, Secretiveness, and
Cautionness--_Regulating Powers_, including Self-Esteem, Love of
Approbation, Conscientiousness, and Firmness--_Imaginative
Faculties_, containing Hope, Ideality, and Marvellousness--and _Moral
Sentiments_, under which head come Benevolence, Veneration, and
Imitation. The _Intellectual Faculties_ are divided into _Observing
Faculties_, viz: Individuality, Form, Size, Weight, Color, Order, and
Number--_Scientific Faculties_, viz: Constructiveness, Locality,
Time, and Tune--_Reflecting Faculties_, viz: Eventuality, Comparison,
Casuality and Wit--and lastly, the _Subservient Faculty_, which is
Language. This classification is arranged with sufficient clearness,
but it would require no great degree of acumen to show that to mere
perspicuity points of vital importance to the science have been
sacrificed.
At page 17 is a brief chapter entitled a _Survey of Contour_, well
conceived and well adapted to its purpose which is--to convey by a
casual or superficial view of any head, an idea of what propensities,
sentiments, or faculties, most distinguish the individual. It is here
remarked that "any faculty may be possessed in perfection without
showing itself in a prominence or bump," (a fact not often attended
to) "it is only where _one_ organ predominates above those nearest to
it, that it becomes singly perceptible. Where a number of contiguous
organs are large, there will be a general fulness of that part of the
head."
Some passages in Mrs. Miles' little book have a very peculiar
interest. At page 26 we find what follows.
"The cerebral organs are double, and inhabit both sides of the head,
from the root of the nose to the middle of the neck at the nape. They
act in unison, and produce a single impression, as from the double
organs of sight and hearing. The loss of one eye does not destroy
vision. The deafness of one ear does not wholly deprive us of
hearing. In the same manner Tiedman reports the case of a madman,
whose disease was confined to one side of his head, the patient
having the power to perceive his own malady, with the unimpaired
faculties of the other side. It is no uncommon thing to find persons
acute on all subjects save _one_--thus proving the possibility of a
partial injury of the brain, or the hypothesis of a plurality of
organs."
In the chapter on _Combativeness_, we meet with the very sensible and
necessary observation that we must not consider the possession of
particular and instinctive propensities, as acquitting us of
responsibility in the indulgence of culpable actions. On the contrary
it is the perversion of our faculties which causes the greatest
misery we endure, and for which (having the free exercise of
_reason_) we are accountable to God.
{287} The following is quoted from _Edinensis, vol. iv._
"All the faculties are considered capable of producing actions which
are good, and it is not to be admitted that any one of them is
essentially, and in itself _evil_--but if given way to beyond a
certain degree, all of them (with the sole exception of
_Conscientiousness_) may lead to results which are improper,
injurious, or culpable."
The words annexed occur at page 102.
"Anatomy decides that the brain, notwithstanding the softness of its
consistence, _gives shape to the cranium_, as the crustaceous
tenement of the crab is adjusted to the animal that inhabits it. An
exception is made to this rule when disease or ill-treatment injure
the skull."
And again at page 159.
"By appealing to Nature herself, it can scarcely be doubted that
certain forms of the head denote particular talents or dispositions;
and anatomists find that _the surface of the brain_ presents the same
appearance in shape which the skull exhibits during life. Idiocy is
invariably the consequence of the brain being too small, while in
such heads the animal propensities are generally very full."
To this may be added the opinion of Gall, that a skull which is
large, which is elevated or high above the ears, and in which the
head is well developed and thrown forward, so as to be nearly
perpendicular with its base, may be presumed to lodge a brain of
greater power (whatever may be its propensities) than a skull
deficient in such proportion.