in order that both parties might have in common an indisputable foundation of reality, on which to establish or to refute the hypothesis in question. (See p. 404.) If any hardship be felt by Dr Spurzheim at the delay thus necessarily occasioned, this cannot with justice be attributed to me; but though it would be preposterous, under these circumstances, to publish my argument before the state of the decisive facts on which it

proceeds is recognized as correct, it will certainly be admitted that I act with equal fairness and intrepidity, and afford to Dr Spurzheim the most advantageous opportunity of subverting my objections to his doctrine, by allowing, nay urging

him to disprove, by a comparison with nature, the positions

of fact on which the objections are established. I am willing to join issue with Dr Spurzheim, as with Mr Combe, in periling the whole question on the truth or falsehood of the propositions I am soon to propose. Res non verba quæso.

Dr Spurzheim seems to suppose that the objections I alleged against Phrenology were founded, not on sensible appearances, but on speculative opinions ; not on my own observations, but on the authority of others.

It is true, that in the first paper which I read before the Royal Society, in attempting to prove that the consequences of the theory were diametrically opposite to those so fondly deduced from it by its supporters, I only indirectly assailed the doctrine itself, through the logical incompetency of those on whose authority it rested ; and I there endeavoured merely to establish a general presumption, that the same causes of error—the same prepossession, partiality, and enthusiasm-would be found in the constitution of Phrenology to have vitiated the observation of the fundamental facts, which, in their reasonings on its consequences, were displayed by the Phrenologists in the chimerical superstructure reared on so incongruous a basis. I did not attempt to show that Phrenology was false, because it immediately involved the conclusions of fatalism, materialism, and atheism, but that, as the Phrenologists were so egregiously deceived in maintaining that their doctrine supplied the most secure foundation of moral liberty, of the immateriality of mind, and of religion, natural and revealed, we were entitled to infer the probability, that they were equally deluded in the slippery task of authenticating and applying the phenomena which condition or constitute the theory itself. It was only subsequently to the reading of this paper, that I satisfied myself that this analogical inference was correct; and in the second paper I applied myself exclusively to show, that the determining and integral facts of Phrenology, when not merely selected specialties, were either petitory or false.

Petilory-Because Phrenology assumes the very facts, of whose existence, otherwise established, it could only, as a legitimate hypothesis, attempt to explain the law. Professing to demonstrate

a

as its law the co-relation between the two phenomena of mental manifestation and cerebral development, phenomena which were necessarily supposed cognizable in themselves ; Phrenology is compelled, however, to resort to sundry subsidiary hypotheses in order to evince the reality of the latter fact, and is only able to equalize them with each other by postulating, in its defi ion of development, the occult quality of internal structure, an exploded theory of the temperaments, and a baseless distinction between activity and power. And even in so far as the more discoverable phenomenon of Sise was allowed to constitute development, though their doctrine was solely, a doctrine of proportion, the Phrenologists, vacillating at their convenience between the different standards of absolute, of relative, and even of topical size, have, to this hour, never yet established on any of these standards a fixed scale, in reference to which alone could their statements of comparison be held significant of aught but the fancy of the individual manipulator.

False-Because the anatomical positions which Phrenology assumes, either as the conditions of its proof, or as the most certain of its constitutive elements, were, as far as I could bring these to examination, not only untrue, but even at the greatest possible distance from the truth. Resolved to take nothing upon trust, I had' (during the interval between my two papers) looked with some attention both at nature and at books; and, notwithstanding my anticipation, was astonished to find that many facts, lying at the root of the hypothesis, and which the Phrenologists coolly postulated as indisputable, were diametrically opposed to all that nature manifested, and other physiologists had observed. As a merely casual investigator, I was certainly glad to find that my own observations were, in general, confirmed by the concurrent testimony of all impartial anatomists; but I never allowed any weight of authority to supersede a personal examination of the fact. On several points I could appeal to natural appearances alone, and overlooked many statements of the most accurate inquirers, because unable to verify them by any adequate induction of my own.

“ We go not to books," says Dr Spurzheim, “ for support, " but with our five senses to nature; and no king nor emperor,

no Hamilton, no Gall, no Spurzheim, can determine what na“ture will do." No one can assuredly reproach the founders of the new doctrine with any dependence upon authority; but as all anatomists must be wrong if they are right, and as the fate of their hypothesis must hinge on the correctness of its authors, the question is of some interest :-Did Drs Gall and Spurzheim believe always what they perceived in nature, or did they not often perceive only what they were predisposed to believe? To bring this problem to a final issue appeared, however, a matter of no inconsiderable difficulty. These theorists, as I have elsewhere observed, had for thirty years

vo

a

been advancing certain statements in regard to the anatomy of the cranium and brain. These statements, in their truth or falsehood, involved the possibility or impossibility of the new opinion; and these statements were, in many instances, precisely the reverse of all that every other anatomist maintained. When the attention of those most competent to judge was occasionally attracted to the theory, the truth of these novelties was of course peremptorily denied. But the confidence with which its authors always asserted the superior accuracy of their observations,—the apparent impossibility of being deceived in what were at once facts of vital importance to the system, and, in most instances, of easy discovery, if not of obtrusive notoriety, and, in fine, the unacquaintance too generally prevalent upon subjects of this nature, -all contributed to obtain for the fashionable doctrine a crowd of converts, zealous, if not always intelligent, in their faith. Argumentum pessimi turba. But if the contradictions of the most illustrious anatomists were either wholly overlooked, or thought sufficiently refuted by the re-assertion of the litigious point by some partial adherent of the system, how was I, a mere anatomical interloper, to hope that any statements of mine, however articulate and correct, should meet with that attention which had not been obtained by the weighty authorities of Blumenbach, Hufeland, Wenzel, Monro, Magendie, Dumoulines, Rudolphi, Flourens, &c.? Confident, however, in the strength of my position, I was persuaded that I had only to constrain the Phrenologists to interrogate nature and to proclaim her answers, to prove, even to themselves, the fallacy of their best-established observations; while a concession of facts extorted from them, in opposition to all their previous asseverations, would at once excite the curiosity of the public, and subvert for ever all confidence in the credit of phrenological experience. This I hoped to accomplish by a mutual reference to umpires; as I was sure that my opponents had, like myself, no other end than the discovery and propagation of the truth. I accordingly proposed to Mr George Combe, (the most distinguished of our Scottish Phrenologists, and who had done me the honour of proposing to reply to my objections against the doctrine he so ably supported,) to bring the whole question to a decision of anatomical fact. "So long," I observed, “ as Phrenology is the compari

son of two hypothetical quantities,-a science of proportion “ without a determinate standard and an acknowledged scale,–

so long as it can be maintained, that its facts, even if not as

sumptive, constitute only a partial induction, which can never “represent the universality of nature, I deem it idle to dispute “ about the applications of a law which defines no phenomena, “ and the truth of an hypothesis which has no legal constitu“tion. But let us take, not the hypothesis in itself, but the “ foundations on which it rests, let us take facts, not of occult “ proportion, but of palpable existence, -facts which prove, not

a

" the probability, but the possibilily of the doctrine,-and, on “ the truth or falsehood of the phrenological statements in re

gard to these, I am content to join issue in regard to the cre

dibility of the opinion, and to the confidence that ought to be “accorded to its founders. In making this proposal, i concede

every thing, and ask nothing in return. I agree to stake the “ decision of the controversy on your proving, not the truth, but “ the mere possibility of the doctrine. `In refuting this possibi" lity, I bind myself to prove, not simply, that the assertions of “ Drs Gall and Spurzheim, in regard to the fundamental condi“tions of their hypothesis, are false, but that they are diametri“cally opposite to the truth. My proof shall rest, not only on the

concurrent testimony of anatomists, but on the notorious evi“dence of an extensive induction of crania, previously purged

on any general principle you may propose ; and I am con“ tented to leave to yourself the nomination of the umpires by « whom the result shall be determined.”

Mr Combe, as was to be expected, frankly accepted the conditions, but declined nominating the umpires, who were accordingly appointed in the usual way. Dr Scott was named by Mr Combe, Professor Christison by me, and Mr Syme by the two other arbiters. I proposed for their determination the following conflicting propositions :

1. Phrenological Proposition.-In old age the walls of the skull increase in thickness, and the cases in which the cranial bones wax thinner, as the subject declines in life, constitute exceptions from the general rule.

Counter Proposition.-The rule is here the exception, and the exception the rule.

II. Phrenological Proposition.-(Maintained by Spurzheim) Young and adult persons have no cavities between the tables of the frontal bone ; and the real frontal sinuses occur only in old persons, or after chronic insanity.

Counter Proposition.—The absence of the sinus in young and adult subjects, so far from constituting the universal law, is a rare, if not a doubtful, anomaly.

III. Phrenological Proposition.-Before the age of twelve or fourteen, the frontal sinus never, or almost never, exists.

Counter Proposition.-Before this age the sinus is frequently, if not generally, present.

IV. Phrenological Proposition. The frontal sinuses are rarely to be found in women.

Counter Propositions.-1. These cavities are rarely absent in the female cranium. 2. Even more rarely than in the male.

V. Phrenological Proposition.—The sinus, when present, betrays its existence and extent by an irregular elevation of a peculiar character, constituting a bony crest or ridge, or blister, and is distinguished from the forms under which the pbrenological organs are developed.

a

Counter Proposition. There is no correlation between the existence and extent of a sinus, and the existence and extent of any such elevation, whether superciliary or glabellar :-either may be present without the other; and when both are coexistent, they hold no reciprocal proportion in their dimensions, or in their figure. Neither is there any form of cranial development which excludes the subjacent presence of a sinus.

VI. Phrenological Proposition.-In ordinary cases the sinus only extends an obstacle over two organs (Size and Lower Individuality), or, at most, partially affects a third (Locality).

Counter Proposition. In very ordinary cases the sinus covers a greatly larger proportion of the supposed organs, and frequently affects more than a third part of the whole thirty-six.

VII. Phrenological Proposition. The opposite sides of the cranium are in general commensurate; and, when not symmetrical, this inequality is the effect, and consequently the index of disease in the brain.

Counter Proposition. The opposite sides of the cranium are very rarely symmetrical, very frequently widely different in development; and this disproportion is seldom the consequence of any morbid affection.

VIII. Phrenological Proposition.—The convolutions of the opposite hemispheres of the human brain are almost perfectly symmetrical.

Counter Proposition.-Neither on the upper nor on the under surface of the brain, and in no age or sex of the human subject, have the convolutions of the two hemispheres any reciprocal symmetry, but differ remarkably from each other in figure, connexion, situation, length, and breadth.

Note.—In the brain of the horse, which is adduced by Gall

as an example of an absolutely perfect symmetry, the cere

bral convolutions are also widely dissimilar. IX. Phrenological Proposition.—The whole brain (encephalon) does not in general attain its full complement of size till thirty, and in many individuals not till forty years of age.

Counter Proposition.—From the age of seven the cerebral mass gains little or nothing in volume ; and the increase of the head about the time of puberty, and afterwards, is determined by the greater development of the cranial bones, muscles, integuments, and hair.

X. Phrenological Proposition. The cerebellum only attains its full relative proportion to the brain proper, from the age of eighteen to twenty-six.

Counter Proposition. The cerebellum reaches this proportion many years before puberty, and even probably as early as three

XI. Phrenological Proposition. In male animals the cerebel. lum, proportionally even to their larger brain, is generally greater than the cerebellum of females of the same kind; and

years old.