HOWEVER thoroughly and minutely the doctrines of GALL and SPURZHEIM may have been taught, the subject of phrenology is by no means exhausted. There is more in this system than many of our opponents believe, and far more than they will acknowledge. I propose to consider, in the ensuing pages, some of the principal objections that have always existed, in my own mind, to the popular method of teaching phrenology, as it has generally been taught in this country; and also to reply, in brief, to some of the chief popular objections which are brought against it. When the doctrines of phrenology were first promulgated; when it was taught that the size of the head, and its peculiar shape, indicated the character of the mind; the curiosity of people was excited to the utmost pitch. And, as many fancied that they possessed some faculties, either great or excellent, nothing would allay their curiosity but an examination of the cranium; and not often would they be satisfied, unless the character given by the phrenologist harmonized with their preconceived notions. People would have their heads examined, and phrenologists, whether capable or not, were compelled to give definite answers in regard to certain points of character. When their replies and decisions have been flattering, whether true or false, they have been agreeable to an individual, while they may have excited the envy of a looker-on; and thus, while one convert has been gained, there have been made a dozen enemies. Or, if the phrenologist has not given to an individual such a character as he or his friends thought him to deserve, they have all joined in full cry, in hunting down what they believed to be falsely called a science, and all those who dared to stand forth as its advocates. Thus it has been, and is yet; honest men are forced to test their doctrine by its application to the head; pretenders see this, and seize upon the opportunity to turn it to their own account; and both the learned and unlearned, the honest and dishonest, are denounced by those who forced them to test their science by this hazardous and unfair, and therefore inconclusive, experiment.

Our professed enemies, and other disbelievers, who are willing to be convinced, but want some touch-stone to prove the truth of phrenology, have not been satisfied with simple examination of heads, and allowing the phrenologist the use of his eyes, but they have insisted

VOL. XIII.

24

upon a proof of his skill blindfolded. And, with his eyes once covered, they have used various means to mislead and entrap him, and have practised the most unjustifiable and contemptible deception. Imposture and quackery on the one hand, and trickery on the other, make neither for nor against phrenology. All that can be said about it, is, that it is setting a rogue to catch a rogue;' and both are regarded in the same light, by every honest inquirer after truth. Suppose, for an instant, that the arts of deception are successful, and that the empyrical phrenologist, who deals out doses to suit his customers, is made to believe that, instead of examining a squash, or a block, he is examining a block-head, what is gained by it in reality? Just as much, I conceive, as when a bank-note is counterfeited, and passed as genuine. The bank is just as good as before its notes were counterfeited; so is phrenology just as true, as before the block of wood was substituted for the real head, or before the head of a judge was substituted for that of a criminal. All the fancied triumphs, obtained by deception of this kind, prove one fact only; and that is, that a man must be really ignorant of what he professes to teach, or he would not allow himself to become an experimenter under such circumstances. When a professed phrenologist has been unwise enough to allow himself to be thus entrapped, the editors of newspapers, who are in the ranks of the opposition, trumpet forth the experiment as conclusive proof against a system, of which they are most profoundly ignorant. Never had men more reason, than phrenologists, to cry out,Save us from our friends!'

Phrenology, however, is not alone in having been brought into disrepute by its professed friends and disciples. Who has not heard doctrines taught by one who 'spake as never man spake,' bitterly denounced, and utterly rejected, and treated as a fable, because those who professed to obey their precepts acted unwisely or wickedly? But, say some, 'We know nothing of phrenology, except as it is taught us by those who profess to understand it; we must judge of the tree by its fruits.' To such we reply, that, as phrenologists, we utterly repudiate any thing taught as phrenology, which wears, in the least respect, the air of quackery; and we advise those who are yet unacquainted with this science, to learn what are its fundamental principles, before judging of its merits.

By a manipulation of the head, many are led to believe that phrenology is nothing more or less than bumpology. It is considered a species of fortune-telling, like that by an inspection of the hand, or shuffling a pack of cards. But it is neither the one nor the other. Let us see what it claims to be.

The first claim that phrenology makes upon our belief is, that the brain is the organ by which the mind manifests itself; consequently, where there is no brain, there is no mind, or intellect. Secondly, that instead of being a single organ, it is a congeries of organs; or, in other words, different portions of the brain manifest different features of the mind; thus, one portion of the brain is called the organ of benevolence; another, firmness; another, self-esteem, and so on; and that these organs are larger in some persons than in others; making the differences which we see in the characters of different persons. Phrenology teaches, that these differences are the result of the natural

organization, and not of education; and they are what are called natural talents, or natural tastes. Thus some are poets, some mathematicians, some musicians, from their early childhood. Phrenology also teaches, that these natural faculties can be improved by education, when they are deficient, and repressed, when in excess. Phrenology also claims, in the third place, that as the brain is formed before the skull which covers it, and as the brain completely fills the cavity of the skull, so the skull generally, if not always, takes the form of the brain, indicating the size of the different organs.

We who are phrenologists, believe that we have sufficient proofs to warrant us in the conclusions at which we have arrived, and in acknowledging the claims of phrenology. Some of us strove long, and vigorously, in resisting the arguments brought forward in support of this new science; but were at last forced to confess ourselves convinced. Doubtless we made the same objections which have been often made, and as often refuted, but which are still made.

An objection, which is becoming rather stale, to the very first principle of our science is, that if we admit there is no manifestation of the mind, except through the brain, we plunge at once into materialism. The weight of this objection consists in our using the words mind and soul synonymously. Allow this, for the sake of the argument, to be so. We pretend to know nothing of the soul, or of the manner of its connection with the body, nor how it influences the corporeal organs. It is invisible, and not recognizable by any of our senses. All that we claim to know is, that the immaterial and immortal part of man is somehow connected with his frail body; and that it manifests itself only through material organs. We contend, therefore, that it is no more materialism to say that the brain is the organ of the mind, than to say that any other part of the body is the instrument by which the Almighty has chosen to exhibit that part of us which He has likened to Himself.

As it is my design rather to reply to popular objections, than to prove our science, step by step, we will now attempt to satisfy our friends, who are yet disbelievers, that bumpology,' as they choose to term it, is by no means necessary to the existence or practical utility of phrenology. Suppose a parent designs to educate a son with strict reference to his phrenological character, and suppose this parent wholly unacquainted with the location of the organs, and consequently, incapable of forming a judgment from the examination of his boy's head. Is there no other way by which to ascertain his mental peculiarities? Most certainly there are. And all parents, whether phrenologists or not, who would closely observe their children, would see for what purpose nature had fitted them, and if they followed her dictates, would not, as is too often the case, place their sons in the pulpit when they should be at the plough, or compel one to waste his time and fortune in commercial pursuits, when he is longing to be engaged in a different occupation. Let parents early observe their children, and take pains to place them in circumstances which shall elicit their peculiar traits of character, and they will seldom fail to see such manifestations as will be a safe and sure guide in directing their course. Here we see, at once, that there is no necessity of bumps; and, if this common-sense course had been always pursued,