and construct the world, instead of observing its existence. He, on the contrary, in whom the faculty of causality is less active, will reject this mode of consideration, and may think it unphilosophical to admit a primitive cause. Another who has individuality very small may doubt of external existence. The philosopher in whom the superior sentiments are very energetic, directs his mind principally to moral principles, and then we have various systems of virtue and morality, according to the predominance of one or other of these. One makes virtue consist in prudence, another in benevolence. One considers all actions as done from love of praise or from vanity; another from self-esteem, from love of self-preservation, self-interest and so on. Philosophers as well as other men think differently, and each is also apt to consider his own manner of thinking and feeling as the best; his consciousness tells him it is so; but every one errs who assumes himself as a measure of the absolute nature of man. In examining human nature, we ought to make abstraction of ourselves entirely; we ought never to admit in man a feeling as the strongest, and a manner of thinking as the best, solely because they are conformable to our own; nor ought we ever to deny in others what we ourselves do not possess. We should observe mental phenomena in the conviction that all the essential kinds or particular faculties inhere in human nature; and we should observe how and under what circumstances each faculty can and does act. In this way I think it possible to determine the absolute nature of man, and to become acquainted with the infinity of modifications occurring in individuals.

It would be easy to quote examples in the case of every faculty, to prove the mutual influence of the whole; but I shall only dwell on this principle, in reference to abuses of the faculties, for the sake of showing how peculiarities may be explained which seem inconceivable to those who know nothing of Phrenology.

Suppose, for instance, we are told that of two inveterate thieves presented to us, one has never scrupled to rob churches whilst the other has, the robber of the church may be distinguished from the other: he who has the smallest organ of veneration is the thief of

the holy articles. Suppose we see two women in confinement, and are told that one has stolen, and that the other has concealed the stolen things; the former will have the organ of acquisitiveness larger, and that of the propensity to conceal less, while the second will have the organ of secretiveness much developed. If we would detect the chief of a robber band, we examine the organs of selfesteem and determinateness. We may distinguish an habitual vagabond thief from a coiner of false money by his having, besides the organ of acquisitiveness, the organ of locality larger, and smaller organs of cautiousness and of constructiveness. We may also distinguish dangerous and incorrigible criminals from the less desperate and more easily amended. They who have the organs of the sentiments proper to man and of intellect very small, but those of the propensities to fight, to destroy, to conceal, and to acquire, very much developed, will be corrected with far more difficulty than such as have the organ of acquisitiveness very much developed, but at the same time the organs of the human faculties and of intellect large, who, in short, are susceptible of moral will.

CHAPTER II.

On the difficulty of judging others.

Having examined the modified manifestations of the faculties of the mind, natural order leads me to consider the difficulty of judging, and of determining the motives and actions of others. From the preceding views it follows, first, that the judgment of every one as well as all his other functions must be modified. If we but attend to the judgments of different individuals upon the same object, if we note their reflections, and consider what each praises or blames, we may speedily be convinced by experience of the truth of this. It may, indeed, be admitted as a principle, that every one judges according to the natural modifications and the mutual influence of

his faculties; that all judge others by their own nature, or take themselves as the measure of good and evil. Therefore it is that God has at all times been anthropomorphosed; every one has modified the Divinity, and conceived a Creator conformable to his own manner of judging and feeling. And when philosophers, moralists, and the virtuous, regard conscience as the severest judge of malefactors generally, they suppose in these degenerate beings the sentiment they feel themselves;-they judge themselves in the actions of others. In the same way, whatever is conformable to our manner of feeling and thinking is apt to be approved, and the contrary to be disapproved of. To judge well, therefore, we must first distinguish the common nature of man from the modifications of every individual; and then we must know our own nature and the modifications of our faculties to avoid censuring or lauding others according to our own favorite sentiments or ideas. We must, in fact, judge others and ourselves by one and the same standard-absolute good and evil.

It is also difficult to judge of the actions of others, and to determine their real motives, because the motives of the same action may be quite different. Appearances are proverbially deceitful. I shall quote but a few examples in illustration; a very superficial glance, however, will, at all times, show us many motives for the same act done by different individuals. One gives to the poor from ostentation, another from duty, a third from the hope of gaining heaven, and others again from real charity. One wishes to know the history and situation of the unfortunate,-if he be of his sect or party, &c, before he does good; another relieves as soon as he sees misery, every one is his neighbor, his left hand knows not what his right hand does. One goes to church because it is usual; another to see or to be seen; another to obtain the good opinion of the pious; and another from feelings of sincere veneration. One is neat and clean only when he goes into society, while another is so at all times, even in solitude. One cultivates an art or science from vanity; another because he is charmed with it; and a third because he finds it advantageous, &c.

It is the same with the abstaining from abuses. One, for instance, from charity does not steal; another steals every where except in the house where he lives; another robs churches, but not the poor; another does not steal, for fear of being punished, for fear of injuring his reputation, or from a sense of duty and justice, &c. In short, every one knows that the same action he did, or abstained from, has not always followed from the same motive. Thus, if an action or omission is to be judged, it is necessary to consider whether it resulted from the natural energy or inactivity of the respective faculty, or whether other faculties exerted a determinative influence. In judging others, we must remember that every faculty may be active by its own energy or by the excitement of other powers, and, again, may be inactive by its own insufficient energy, or by the influence of other faculties. Hence it follows, that, on one hand, every function does not suppose large developement of the respective organ; and, on the other, that organs may be greatly developed without producing abuses. The organ of acquisitiveness may be very large without causing theft; the organ of amativeness much developed without occasioning libertinism; and so of the rest. The functions of very large organs may be suppressed, though certainly not without difficulty. The activity of every organ only produces a particular inclination; the faculties mutually influence each other, and regulate their subordination. Thus we cannot judge of other persons from our own sentiments and intellectual endowments, nor by one or several, but by the whole of their faculties together; and then only censure or praise their actions as they disagree or harmonize with the absolute moral nature of man.

The principle that every faculty may be active by its internal energy, answers the question so often proposed in books: What is the origin of the arts and sciences? In examining their source, writers commonly begin from remote antiquity, and endeavor to show how external circumstances have produced and improved them. Without denying the importance of external circumstances as exciting causes, I still think that the most important, the pri

mary cause, indeed, is overlooked; that, namely, which exists in the conate organization; the same, in fact, as that of the instinctive labors of animals. Man invents and cultivates arts and sciences in the same way and for the same reason that the beaver builds its hut, and the nightingale sings. Every sentiment and every intellectual faculty may act by its internal activity without external excitement; and this is the primitive source of the arts and sciences. Scarcely could Handel speak, before he articulated musical sounds, and his father, grieved at the child's propensity to music, banished all musical instruments from his house; but this sublime genius was not to be extinguished by the caprice of a mistaken parent; for the boy contrived to get a little clavichord into a garret, and applying himself to this after the family retired to rest, he soon learnt to produce both melody and harmony.

Nature, then, invented arts and sciences, and revealed them to man by means of his organization. Arts and sciences are also gradually perfected only in proportion as they who cultivate them are possessed of energetic organs.

Inferences.

The consideration of the two sources of activity of the faculties leads me to the following question: What actions in reference to morality deserve the greatest confidence, those which result from the goodness of nature, or those which are the effect of virtue ? Though I think that good is always good in itself, and must ever be approved of, I still allow that there is greater merit in virtue than in natural goodness. I agree with the definition of virtue which all the great ancient and modern philosophers have given, as Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, Kant, and others. I admit that those who have vanquished temptations deserve particularly to be rewarded, and that by the possibility of being either virtuous or vicious, our actions have the greatest merit or demerit.* Never

*Non virtus est, non posse peccare, cum renunciatur improbitati, statim adsciscetur virtus. St. Ambrosius.-Nulla sine labore virtus est. Non est gloriosa