culties of Wonder, Hope, and Benevolence, are held up by high authority as feelings to be anxiously cultivated; for it is they which produce faith, hope, and charity. The more we inquire into and study our own nature, the more clearly are we satisfied that the Christian morality is not, as too many are apt to think, too elevated for human nature. The Creator has implanted in us such powers as, when duly cultivated and regulated, lead us to believe it to be no chimera that man may, and indeed will, improve himself, till at last the kingdoms of this world shall merge into one great and uniformly moral and religious family."

A new, and not a baseless, idea is started by Sir George Mackenzie, when treating of Ideality. He says, "Till I was writing these sentences, it had not occurred to me that this faculty might, and probably does, constitute a portion of the religious character. But not recollecting whether this has occurred to any one else, I may be mistaken. Yet it strikes me, that, since it excites a desire for perfection in all things, it leads to the contemplation of the perfection of the Creator in power, wisdom, and goodness; that, in searching into His works, it rouses an extraordinary admiration of them, and directs us at once to their Author. Many view the works of art and of nature with equal indifference, and I conceive that this faculty leads to genuine and lively admiration of both."

Sir George is inclined to agree with those who substitute the name of Mirthfulness for Wit. We never were in favour of this substitution; because thus we should have no specific faculty for perceiving the ludicrous, and laughing at the incongruous. Mirthfulness may be produced by good cheer, good fortune, and other causes of agreeable feelings; but the ludicrous produces a kind of laughter well distinguished from all others. Man is the only laughing animal. He must have a faculty for this distinguishing impulse.

When treating of the intellectual faculties, the author, considering Weight or Force in its order, says, "The next faculty has been called that of Weight, or Resistance, or Force, which last seems to be the most general term that can be employed to denote it; for weight is the force of gravitation, and resistance is a sense of something opposing force. By comparing degrees of the force of gravitation excited on different bodies, or different masses of the same body, we come to know what we call their different weights. We commonly measure forces by weight, by ascertaining what weight is necessary to overcome resistance. It is the activity of this faculty that enables us to learn by experience to judge what amount of force is needed to overcome any obstacle, or effect any purpose. We do not, after experience, employ so much force to move a ball of cork as one of lead. The faculty, then, seems to give us the knowledge and use of

muscular force or power, and of all other forces, whatever may be their origin, and teaches us to estimate and how to use them. The sense of touch is apparently resolvable into that of force, as it operates only by resistance to force. But I will not detain you with such discussions. If you look into the Phrenological Journal, you will find some papers on the subject by my friend Mr Simpson and myself, and I believe we are at last pretty nearly agreed." Mr Simpson considers Resistance a passive sense, and Force an active faculty; but not resolvable into each other. We recommend to Sir George Mackenzie's particular examination the speculations of Mr Richard Edmondson of Manchester on this interesting subject, vol. ix. pages 142 and 624 of this Journal.

Some homely and valuable truths are told with regard to the irrational manner in which languages are forced, by rewards and punishments, upon multitudes who lack the faculty of Language. Speaking of the pain and labour so perversely infused into education, Sir George says, in his own peculiar manner :— "Much may be done by making learning a thing of amusement. And here it may be remarked, that I have seldom met with a schoolmaster without a grave face, and apparently almost incapable of smiling. If ever it falls to my lot again to chuse a schoolmaster, the chief test of his qualification shall be his being able to tell a funny story, and being disposed to laugh and make merry. The corners of his mouth shall turn up, and not down. Instruction should be a thing of delight and amusement, not of labour and terror. I have suffered, and many of you may also have suffered, much terror, labour, and pain for the sake of the dead languages; and have gained nothing from it in after life.” The distinctive functions of Comparison and Causality are remarkably clearly stated, though perhaps nothing new is advanced. In treating of Causality, the author makes some forcible remarks on the qualifications of a legislator. "When Causality is feeble, the mind cannot enter into the abstractions of science, or the intricacies of business. In such a case, remote and contingent things are not perceived, and the profound investigations of Causality are deemed little better than dreams and impossibilities. In this we find the cause of imperfect legislation and inefficient government. The ambition which Love of Approbation excites, leads men to undertake what they cannot perform. Instead of examining into the dependence of one thing on another, they resort to temporary means of effecting an object, which may for a moment succeed, but end in making bad worse. Were our legislators well informed of things, and their relations to each other; if they knew man, and the relation in which he stands to external things; if they felt the imperative demands of Conscientiousness, and rose above their petty selves; they

would not tamper so much with the welfare of society, nor risk its peace and security. If well stored with the knowing and reflecting powers, six men would represent our community better than 600 ill-provided with aught but prejudice and party spirit."

There is much useful practical instruction in the sections "On the Mutual Influence of the Faculties," "Religious Feeling," "Direction of the Faculties," "Motives of Action," and "Temperaments." Under the second of these heads, Sir George Mackenzie attributes the predominance of mere feeling in religion, over rational practical views, to the too early inculcation of doctrines. He says, "There exists great diversity of opinion in regard to the interpretations to be given to the contents of the Bible, which are the foundations of the various doctrines that divide Christians. There seems no prospect of a perfect union; and this will be more and more distant, while peculiar doctrines are infused into the minds of the young, before they are capable of judging for themselves, or understanding what they are commanded to believe. In this matter each sect must be left to itself, until knowledge shall be increased, or it shall please God to interpose and point out truth from error." For "Motives" and Temperaments" we must refer to the work itself.

66

On the whole, we think this volume well entitled to a place among the elementary guides in the study of Phrenology. We are not sure if it be not of a nature to induce us to recommend it as the first in order which should be put into the student's hands. It is, as we formerly observed, throughout attractive, and less calculated to excite prejudice than the organology offered at once. To the study of the organology it will nevertheless lead. Besides its intrinsic excellence, its extreme cheapness ought to secure for it an extensive circulation. No teacher of youth should be without it.

ARTICLE III.

PHRENOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES.

IT would be refreshing to hear new arguments adduced against Phrenology; but this is a gratification which, in these days, never falls to our lot. For several years Phrenology has been assailed only with weapons shattered and blunted in previous warfare, each new opponent coming boldly into the field with a firm reliance on their irresistible power. It is in truth ludicrous to see arguments which have been repelled again and again borrowed from the works of preceding antiphrenologists, and triumphantly flourished, without the slightest allusion to the replies which have been made to them. This probably arises in some cases from dishonesty, but in others may be the result

of ignorance. For the benefit, therefore, of all who design to attack Phrenology with artillery which has already been in the field, we subjoin a list of the principal aggressive and defensive champions, with references to the places in which the controversy has from time to time been carried on. After examining both sides of the question, they will perhaps feel disposed to exhibit their skill in some more profitable arena.

Dr JOHN GORDON. Edinburgh Review, 1815, No. 49; and Observations on the Structure of the Brain, Edinburgh, 1817.Answered by Dr Spurzheim, Examination of the Objections made in Britain against the Doctrines of Gall and Spurzheim, Edinburgh, 1817; and by an anonymous writer in the MedicoChirurgical Journal, 1817, vol. iv. p. 53, 117; see also vol. iii. p.425.

Dr P. M. ROGET. Supp. to Encyc. Brit., article Cranioscopy. -Answered by Mr G. Combe, Essays on Phrenology, Edinburgh, 1819, p. 62; also by Dr Andrew Combe, Phrenological Journal, i. 165.

Mr DUGALD STEWART. Correspondence between him and Sir G. S. Mackenzie, in 1821, published in the Phren. Jour. vii. 303.

Dr JOHN BARCLAY. On Life and Organization, Edinburgh, 1822, sect. 17.-Answered by Dr A. Combe, Trans. of the Phren. Soc., Edinburgh, 1824, p. 393.

Dr EDWARD MILLIGAN. Transl. of Magendie's Physiology. -Answered in Phren. Jour. i. 490.

Professor RUDOLPHI. Grundriss der Physiologie, Berlin, 1821-3.-Answered by Dr A. Combe, Phren. Jour. i. 592.

Dr J. C. PRICHARD. On Nervous Diseases; also Cyclop. of Prac. Med., article Temperament.-Auswered by Dr A. Combe, Phren. Jour. ii. 47, viii. 649, and ix. 48.

Lord JEFFREY. Edin. Rev. 1826, No. 88.-Answered by Mr G. Combe, Letter to F. Jeffrey, Esq., Edinburgh, 1826, reprinted in Phren. Jour. iv. 1; and Second Letter, ibid. p. 242: also by Mr Richard Chenevix, For. Quart. Rev. No. 3, and Dr Caldwell, Elements of Phrenology, second edition, pp. 1-59.

Sir WILLIAM HAMILTON. Correspondence with Dr Spurzheim, Mr G. Combe, &c. Phren. Jour. iv. 377, and v. 1, 153, 163. Also Experiments on the Brain, prefixed to Monro's Anat. of the Brain, Edinburgh, 1831. The latter answered by Mr H. C. Watson, Phren. Jour. vii. 434.

Rev. R. W. HAMILTON, Leeds. Essay on Craniology, London, 1826-Answered by Mr William Wildsmith in An Inquiry concerning the Connexion between the Mind and the Brain, &c. London, 1828.

M. MAGENDIE. Physiology, p. 113, &c.-Answered by Dr John Elliotson, Phren. Jour. v. 92.

Dr JOHN BOSTOCK. Elementary View of Physiology, iii. 263. -Answered by Dr Elliotson, Phren. Jour. v. 96.

Mr T. STONE. Evidences against the System of Phrenology, Edinburgh, 1828; answered by Dr James Kennedy of Ashbyde-la-Zouch, in London Med. and Surg. Jour. i. 153, 249, 349, 435; ii. 46, 130, 507.-Obs. on the Phrenological Developement of Burke, Hare, &c., Edinburgh, 1829; answered by Mr G. Combe, Phren. Jour. vi. 1; see also pp. 93, 180, 232, 234, 317. Mr Stone published a Rejoinder to the Answer of George Combe, Esq. &c. Edinburgh, 1829.

Dr JOHN WAYTE. Antiphrenology, London, 1829.-Answered anonymously in An Exposure of the Unphilosophical and Unchristian Expedients adopted by Antiphrenologists for the purpose of obstructing the Moral and Philanthropical Tendencies of Phrenology, London, 1831.

Sir CHARLES BELL. Anatomy, fifth edition, i. 189; answered in Phren. Jour. viii. 333.-Also Phil. Trans, cviii. 306; answered by Dr Spurzheim, App. to Anat. of Brain, or Phren. Jour. vi. 606.

FOREIGN REVIEW, No. 8, 1829.-Answered by Mr G. Combe, Phren. Jour. vi. 222.

Mr JAMES MONTGOMERY, Sheffield. Essay on the Phrenology of the Hindoos and Negroes, London, 1829.-Answered by Dr Corden Thompson, Sheffield, in Strictures on Mr Montgomery's Essay, annexed thereto.

EDINBURGH WEEKLY JOURNAL, 1829.-Answered by Mr G. Combe, Letter on the Prejudices of the Great in Science and Philosophy against Phrenology, Phren. Jour. vi. 14, 211.

NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW, No. 80, July 1833.-Answered by Dr Caldwell, Annals of Phren. i. 1.; also by Mr R. Cox, Phren. Jour. viii. 638.

CHRISTIAN EXAMINER, Boston, Nov. 1834, article Pretensions of Phrenology examined.-Answered in Annals of Phren. ii. 1, and New England Magazine for March 1835; likewise by Dr Caldwell, Phrenology Vindicated, &c. Lexington, Kentucky, 1835.

It deserves to be remarked, that some of the more eminent and well-informed antiphrenologists, while they seem to regard their own refutations as unanswerable, speak very lightly of those of their predecessors. Dr Prichard, for instance, states that nearly all that has been said of late by English writers on this the (antiphrenological) side of the question was advanced many years since in the most forcible manner, by the author of a critique in the Edinburgh Review (Dr Gordon). Similar objections," he adds, " are still frequently repeated, though most persons have become, or might have become, aware of their inconclusiveness. It must, for example, be evident to those who reflect.