The principles of phrenology

Front matter

• A V

V"

5°*

Preface

The following Treatise owes its origin to the conviction that there was both room and need for it.

The only works which even pretend to give more than a mere outline, or grammar of Phrenology, offer to the public an account of the most popular of all sciences at the most anti-popular of all prices. The Author has endeavoured to furnish ample details of the theory of mind and morals, which forms the subject of this digest, at a cost which will render it accessible to the great body of the people.

Phrenology has left the discoveries of its original expounders at a great distance behind. The Institutes of Gall and Spurzheim, excellent as in many respects they are, have now become almost obsolete. Mr. Combe's System contains an admirable exposition of the present state of the science ; but as his views differ materially from those of many, and as his doctrines, both relative to the function of the organs and the applications of the principles of this new philosophy, were supposed to be liable to numerous and grave objections, the writer of this work was induced to undertake it for the double purpose of expounding his own opinions of the analysis of the faculties, and of exposing what he conceives to be the errors of others. That he himself has escaped from falling into many, he does not venture to hope — that he will be blamed for more than he has committed, he feels too well assured. But if he shall have succeeded in rendering a competent knowledge of the science more easily attainable, in exciting a healthy spirit of free inquiry, and, above all, in stimulating others to a more careful investigation of, and to fresh discoveries in, that most defective of all departments of Phrenology, ite metaphysics, he shall rest satisfied that he has not written in vain.

1 PREFACE.

The task of collecting the errata, graphical and typographical, which may be found in this work, will no doubt be gladly undertaken by the critics of commas, the semicolon reviewers, the hunters of tautologies, and editors syntactic and rhetorical. It is hoped, that in conferring upon them the distinction of executing the duties of such an office, they will believe that it is intended to manifest towards them only the most substantial proofs of esteem and affection, for it may be remembered, that Boaz first indicated his attachment for Ruth by directing the reapers to make a slovenly stubble, in order that there might be the more for the poor gleaner to gather. If their ruthless strictures should prove the inaptitude of the comparison, authors will learn, when next they cut their harvest, to leave fewer stray ears among their sheaves.

Edinburgh, 16th June, 1838.

THE

PRINCIPLES OF PHRENOLOGY

Introduction

In the past history of the world, it is remarkable that theology has always overborne philosophy in political influence, and the power which is derived from conciliating the popular regards. Physicians and meta-physicians, the expounders of the laws of matter and of mind, have paled their ineffectual fire before the universal dominion of priests. The authority which "sweet religion" has failed to assert over the human mind, has been ceded to that science which has so often made it a " rhapsody of words;" and the rightful social ascendancy which sincere piety and fervent devotion in vain struggled to vindicate, has been usurped by the professors of that political theosophy which may everywhere be detected in the width of its lawn sleeves, and the ample latitude of its phylacteries. Why is this? Because worship has hitherto been a trade, and religion a state engine; because the love of truth has been less than the love of prejudice; because the courage of philosophers has been more evanescent than the bold arrogance which has maintained the supremacy of hierarchs. Mankind, in general, have in divinity done what the Chinese have instituted in medicine — made the clergyman alone responsible for the cure of their souls, as the latter make their bodies stand solely at the risk of the physician; seldom presuming, and never with success, even in their own personal case, to interfere with the practice of the privileged corporation of spiritual surgeons. They have looked upon the husbandry of their own immortal destiny, as a matter with which they would as soon have thought it incumbent on them to have any individual interest or concern, as the supercargo who had taken the precaution to get his life insured with a respectable company, would have felt himself called upon to intermeddle with the captain's management of his ship in a perilous gale; and so jealous have the people been of the encroachments of philosophical poachers upon clerical hunting-ground, that they have seconded the efforts of chartered priestcraft, to keep all men in the same state of theological dependence with themselves. Men of the most extensive acquirements and almost universal erudition, are, upon the subject of religion, even more ignorant than the great mass of the common inhabitants of every country; and neither the historian, the statesman, nor the patriot, are conversant, except in the most superficial degree, with the theory of popular theology, or the religious profession and general principles of belief which either prevail in the Church, or justify the various orders of Dissent. The gross ignorance of men of literature on all subjects of this nature is not less unpardonable than deplorable. By universal consent philosophers consider the topic as tabooed; and the enlightened and liberal conductors of the public press, from sheer unacquaintance with the Bible, and incompetency to approach the subject, fearless and honest on all other occasions,

Z INTRODUCTION.

become timid and time-serving on this. Such is the evil resulting from the erection of religion into a profession. Were each man to make it the concern of personal investigation and individual inquiry, he would no longer be dependent for his views upon the dictum of others, or leave with them his proxy of political and social influence. Were he to feel called upon as a responsible creature to frame his own religious belief, and form, as well as investigate, his own theological opinions, instead of inheriting faith as an heir of a spiritual entail, he would be without prejudices to rouse into intolerance — he would be above the domination of men, whom he was no longer necessitated to entrust with the formation of articles of belief for his guidance and acceptance; and finding from personal experience, the difficulty in which the question was involved, he would have a full measure of charity for whatever conclusions might be the result of the investigations of others, who were discharging conscientiously the duty of examining for themselves. Religion, instead of obstructing, would take rank among the sciences — be studied in the same spirit, and by minds which, in things sacred as well as civil, would be equally open to conviction. By each man being called upon to think for himself, he would infallibly think differently from his neighbour; and the political conspiracy against individuality of opinion, and independence of thought, which is produced by banding theologians into one class of common professional interests, would speedily be crushed with the dispersion of the conspirators who planned it.

Free inquiry has always been obstructed by the priests of prevailing creeds, and ever will be, where it can be done by the exertion of influence. Power is always sweet. Wherever it triumphs, it will be exercised; wherever it is feared, it will domineer. Bigotry and intolerance owe their victory over truth, altogether to the cowardice and dishonesty of philosophers. It has been considered the height of wisdom to be calm and dispassionate. Enthusiasm and intrepidity have been hitherto reckoned as heavy deductions from the sum of sagacity. A bigot has been looked upon as a wild beast, that was to be sopped into slumber, rather than subdued by energy and boldness. Popular superstition it has been thought proper to propitiate by acquiescence, rather than confront by opposition. Error was too formidable to be corrected, intolerance too awful to be bearded; and men at this hour do not scruple to admire and praise the moderation of ancient philosophers, who suppressed the expression of what was unpopular, bowed their heads to the storm of the prevailing prejudices, and pretended to acquiesce in false — so long as they were fashionable — doctrines, trusting, forsooth, to time and change for the success of those views which it was inexpedient at that crisis to maintain or promulgate. Yes, such is the state of modern philosophical morality ! Men who pretend to love truth, admire the equanimity of those who concealed it when it was unpalatable, and disclaimed it when it was rejected. And Christ, and Paul, and John, because they loved truth rather than a little life, and preferred sincerity and enlightened religion, to safety and the encouragement of superstition, are pronounced crazy enthusiasts by men whp deem themselves philosophers, and are even mistaken for refined and profound thinkers!

Phrenologists are not exempt from a charge, which, without them, already included too many. They have met bigotry by conciliation, not by the assertion of independence; and have been more anxious to disclaim the imputations cast on them by ignorant superstition, than to justify the opinions they have been supposed to entertain by proving their truth. The authority of priestcraft has been strengthened by pleading to its jurisdiction, rather than attacked by denying the competency of the tribunal; and the hierarchy have been encouraged to interfere with the speculations of philosophy, and to raise the hue and cry of heresy, by the supporters of the science pleading the general issue of obedience to orthodoxy, rather than objecting to the relevancy of the accusation of rebellion against established theology. They have satisfied their scruples, by the reflection, that it is needless to offend popular prejudices by an assertion of independence, which the exigencies of the case do not require; and that if clerical mugitations can be silenced, and the ululations of Pharisees prevented, without disputing their right to raise the question, or the accuracy of the standard whereby they propose to measure the opinions on which their demurrage is charged, a great advance without risk is made in the promotion of truth! This is singular language for an honest man, and a strange resource in the hands of a brave one. A tyrant accuses a patriot of endeavouring to compass

INTRODUCTION. 3

his freedom, and his answer is, not that he is entitled to liberty, but that he has done nothing which is incompatible with the position that he is still a slave. Popular prejudice! What is it? Simply, error, ignorance, falsehood. To offend this prejudice, what is the process? Only the proclamation of truth, knowledge, and honesty. In acquiescing in, or yielding to it, what is implied? To aid, abet, and encourage deception, " omninescience," and cowardly dishonesty. Such a stratagem is unworthy of a philosopher, and incompatible with the far higher character of an honest man. Above all, it offends every principle of philanthropy, because it conceals from the eyes of blind ignorance, that truth and knowledge, which are the only sources of virtue and happiness; nay, makes philosophy a party to the imposture, by flattering superstition into the assurance of the truth of its absurdities.

There are many men who discover that error needs no recommendation, but that truth is a medicine which must be concealed in honey before the public will swallow it. They inform the philanthropist, that if he tell mankind what it really is that he is teaching, they will spurn it; and that, as he is doing the cause of truth a service, by expounding his doctrines, he is quite justified in concealing their real nature, and what he believes to be their practical deductions. They will placidly state, that Phrenology, for example, has enough of prejudice to overcome, without its expounder increasing its force by openly disregarding the religious objections which it encounters, and that, for the very sake of the progress of truth, prejudice ought not to be subverted, if, by any other process, he can procure audience to his principles. This is, soften it as we may, moral swindling, and is directly calculated to retard, instead of assisting, the progress of knowledge. The opponents of Phrenology have not, as in the case of a candid and honest teacher, to attempt its refutation by the standard of truth, but simply to discuss the question of its conformity with received doctrines. The temporising philosopher has, to avoid offending public prejudice, yielded the palm of authority to the dicta of the bigot, and confined himself to an assertion of the harmony of his discoveries with the regnant creed; and the fanatic, in turn, lets the truth or falsehood of his antagonist's theory alone, and tries it by the standard to which he himself has referred the issue of the controversy. Thus, mankind, who are not accustomed to analysis, are convinced that the philosopher's doctrines are not sound, while all the time they are simply not common. All truth is mutually dependent; it is consistent, harmonious, relative. To suppress, or constructively distort one branch of it, is to cripple the stalwart march of the rest. So long as it is inconsistent with popular theology, it must be impeded by assuming or implying that the latter has a solid foundation. If, therefore, it be desired that truth should progress, its disingenuous defender must at last openly disavow what he constructively professed, and the unpalatable nature of his principles must labour under the additional disadvantage of the insincerity of their professor.

It is indeed perfectly true, that resistance to prejudice, and the assertion of liberty of conscience, in speech and action, must produce temporary disadvantages; and it has been correctly asserted, although in very vague and general terms, that entire sincerity must do harm, and that the premature (as it has been called) disclosure of strange doctrines to the public, has retarded, rather than accelerated, the progress of knowledge. But the harm here spoken of, is, in sober fact, a mere flourish of rhetoric, to conceal by a generalised mode of expression, the distinction betwixt an injury to truth, and a blow struck at its professor; and the progress thus noticed, is not that of information itself, but of the personal prospects of the expounder of the new philosophy. It is the man, not his principles, which suffer by his honesty and courage; and this is what every lover of truth and of his kind, must expect to encounter and resolve to brave. Let the first discoverer of a new series of moral principles, consider himself as the individual whose lot it is to become the victim of superstition; and let him feel that after deducting all the obloquy, and scorn, and poverty, which will be the consequence of his sincere intrepidity, from the accountcurrent of his life, he has to strike a mighty balance in his favour, of truth discovered, good done, and mankind made better, and to hoard a treasure of satisfaction in his bosom, more precious than the " lust of the flesh and the pride of life." Let him feel that in the army of truth, the lot has fallen on him to lead the forlorn hope, the storming party, which is to encounter the dubious siege of the bristling fortress of superstition; and when he is to be offered up on the altar of bigotry, let him think of the chaplet which crowns his brow, not of the chains which bind his struggles —

4 INTRODUCTION.

let him remember that he is adorned for the sacrifice, and that the incense of his ashes will ascend to heaven; so will he forget that he is dressed for death, and immolated to intolerance. If, indeed, he who makes two blades of grass to grow where only one grew before, be a benefactor of his species, how much greater is he who has planted the rich harvest of truth in the place of the rank weeds of ignorance and error, and engrafted thought upon a mind that would otherwise have been barren of speculation.

These are the premises from which the details of our future conduct may be fairly deduced. We shall speak with perfect sincerity. " Licet omnes fremant — dicam quod sentio." The reader shall be as our bosom friend, or our strong box, the depositary of all we hold precious, and of all we know and feel. We shall suppress only what we do not believe, and shall conceal nothing because it may offend. To bigotry, we bid defiance; and on superstition, we look with all the contempt that pity has left us. With the humblest worshipper of truth, we are ready to take our part and lot, and from his side we shall be terrified by neither ridicule nor rags. Yes, our challenge is not an idle one, for we are not rich enough to be dependent, nor do we move in a circle so exalted as to make us the slave of its opinions. So long as there is a grade of society below the notice of persecution, and bread and water for hard but honest labour, we fear neither priest nor poverty, nay, not even neglect, obscurity, nor the slow, unmoving finger of jealous scorn. We are fool enough to think that he who can dare to act as he feels, and speak as he thinks, is a greater and richer man than a coward in a carriage, or a hypocrite at a prince's ear; and that there is consolation in the assurance, that although banished from society, or even persecuted by his country, a man has yet the power to retort the sentence, " I banish youV and to feel happy in the consciousness that " there is a world elsewhere." Let not the churchman fear that we will cheat him into heresv, nor the priest suspect that we will insinuate, implicate, and infer uncanonical views, and principles that contradict the standards of the church. When we are heterodox, we shall give fair warning, and fair battle also. So long as we hold our own opinion to be as probably correct as that of any other man, we shall not be at all sorrv to find that it differs from either the Confession or the Articles — productions, for no part of which we have any peculiar respect, except in so far as they state what is true; and against which, we entertain no prejudice, except where we conceive them to advance what they cannot prove, or confidently assert what is manifestly false.

The secrets of the Confessional being now disclosed to the reader, we proceed to the discharge of our secular duties, with the alacrity which attends the making of a clean breast, and the possession of a clear conscience.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

Chapter I

Object io ns co n side red — Christianity — Scepticism — Materialism — Fatalism .

The word " Phrenology" is intended to express the object of the science, which is the philosophy of mind, of which it embraces a new and peculiar hypothesis. Its leading doctrines are, that the mind (in which term are classed all sensations, instincts, appetites, sentiments, and modifications of reason) is manifested by the brain, the former being not single but complex in its action or faculties, and the latter exhibiting a corresponding multiplicity of divisions of organs and functions. It supposes the mind to perform its evolutions through the medium of these cerebral organs; the amount of power possessed by each mental faculty to be modified by, and the result of the size, structure, and quality of these encephalic divisions; and its energy indicated by certain easily distinguished convolutions of the brain, discoverable during life by parallel protuberances on its shield, the skull. It is based altogether upon the observation of a correspondence betwixt cerebral projection and mental manifestations, or absence of developement, and deficiency of relative psychological indications. It has not assumed a single principle — advancing in its career through a process of severe induction, and establishing its doctrines solely by the classification of individual phenomena. Professing to be founded altogether upon fact and observation, it declines the jurisdiction of all other systems, whether metaphysical or theological, and refuses to be tried by the standard of rival hypotheses.

It is an induction from existing phenomena, and the libel is irrelevant to infer the pains of refutation, which merely indicts it of contradiction to theory, however plausible, or of opposition to propositions, however skilfully advanced. Facts are its peers, and form the jury by which it clamours to be tried. The laws of nature are those alone to which it owns allegiance, and it will not admit the obligation of any other statutes. As the captain would scout the absurdity of measuring his recruits by their correspondence in height with a drummer who merely alleged that he was the regimental size, while he had at his elbow the metrical standard erected for the purpose of testing their altitude, so would the philosopher who beats up for recruits to join the ranks of knowledge, refuse to try one branch of science by its consonance with another, when both profess to appeal to the common gauge of nature. This proposition is indeed founded upon the plain principle, that facts alone are infallible, because they are the handiwork solely of God; and that the deductions from them, of which all theories ostensibly consist, are possibly erroneous, because the production of frail and fallible mortality. How absurd, then, as well as dangerous, is it, to peril the truth or falsehood of theory upon its conformity with, or dissent from, the canons of a fashionable hypothesis ; and how foolish is it, so long as the dictum of one man is as good as that of another, to rest satisfied with gauging either by the other, when both may be wrong. To measure one doctrine by another, when both may be tested by truth, is to act like the pilot who would steer by his knowledge of the coast, when the compass and chart are placed before him for the very purpose of directing his course. It was to the exposure of this fallacy, that Bacon owed his fame, and modern Europe its progress and philosophy; it was by adhering to it, that all prior ages may be called blanks in the stupendous history of science. The reason is plain. By making the reception of one theory consequent upon its conformity with another, without having recourse to nature, the error which existed in the pattern or model hypothesis, was perpetuated in all its collateral and descendant systems, while the truth of other doctrines, by its disagreement with this false and erroneous principle, formed the very reason and cause of their rejection. By the Baconian method of declining all mensuration of one theory by others, and testing each by one common crucible, the alchymy of nature, error when committed was discovered, and was never suffered to mislead or pervert.

6 CHRISTIANITY SCEPTICISM.

Those who object to Phrenology, upon the assumption that it is opposed to Christianity, have hitherto been answered by the apostles of the science in a spirit with the strain of which we cannot sympathise. They have pleaded the general issue, and have never ventured to demur to the relevancy of the accusation; thus, by implication, acquiescing in the competency of the objection. The conduct of both the accuser and the panel is the natural result of the prevalent irreligion of philosophers, and the want of philosophy among theologians. Did each combine a complement of both qualities, the one would be ashamed to start the objection, and the other would disdain to answer it. Truckling to the rampant fanaticism of modern ignorance, Phrenologists have not ventured to dispute the premises of the objectors, but have contented themselves with exposing the fallacy of their conclusions. They have not dared to decline the jurisdiction of the court before which they were arraigned, but, on the contrary, have acknowledged its authority, by pleading before it their innocence of the delict contained in the accusation. A little more courage would have produced a little more candour, and sincerity would wondrously have improved the logic of both parties.

There is, indeed, nothing so striking in the history of mankind, as the power of bigotry, and the weakness of philosophy. Why should the mouth of truth be shut before the ear of theology? Because, forsooth, priests are omnipotent, and mankind are their slaves. Why is this? May not moralists appeal to that very people from whose suffrages priests derive their sovereignty? May they not divide their empire, and eventually overthrow their dynasty? We know that the answer is, No. Men are not enlightened enough to listen to reason, but they are ignorant enough to love the flattery of their prejudices. And thus the evil of society, is its want of knowledge and liberality; and because this is so, it is still to have truth concealed from it, and error assumed by implication to be the proper path of every nation. This is, indeed, a specimen of dastardly selfishness, but has small pretensions to the character of philanthropy. It breathes the very spirit of aristocracy. It assumes that the great body of the people are base and vile, and that philosophy sits upon a throne, from which it should look down with calm indifference and contempt upon the cannaille of humanity, that lie, gasping slaves of superstition, at the feet of a vulgar tyrant, without one emotion of pity or generous regret. The vice of philosophers in all ages, has been that of not having sufficient confidence in the excellence of human nature, in its generous impulses, in its healthy mental condition, in its uniformity of genuine and unsophisticated feeling.

They might have been the leaders of mankind, had they trusted in man. The same ears that heard the yells of persecuting denunciations, were open to the nobler appeals of benevolence and truth; the popular heart is always sound, and pontiffs would have been compelled to resign the sceptre to philosophers. The real lover of truth will ever have sympathy with the people; he will live among them — he will be with them, and of them. But the lover of truth is the lover of religion, and it is from a want of devotion to this great object, that philosophy has not found a kindred spirit in unsophisticated but truthloving humanity. It has never yet condescended to investigate the harmony betwixt nature and religion, or the profundity of reason, which is to be found in the spirit, although often clouded by the words of revelation. It has never looked upon the contemplation of God and immortality as the highest aspiration of man; and hence, has it not roused the strongest sympathies of nations. It has left men to be the interpreters of religion, who knew nothing, and cared less, for the broad book of nature — who stuck to the letter of Scripture, however much it offended reason, and considered the discovery of a great plan and system of interpretation, as impious and sceptical. It has taken for granted, that reason was at antagonism with religion, because priests elevated religion above reason; and forgotten that fanatics had committed the. grand mistake of assuming, that he who was merely questioning the interpretation which they themselves presumed to put upon Scripture, was professing a doubt of revelation itself. These two classes of inquirers must be combined in the present state of society, if the friends of social order would preserve morality. Men have received enough of knowledge to emancipate them from priestly thraldom, and are in danger of being disengaged from piety also. What nobler office could philosophy fulfil than to discover and demonstrate the harmony of reason and Scripture? and what more necessary task can the theologian impose on himself, than that of proving by the test of fact, to which everything must be subjected, that nature,

CHRISTIANITY SCEPTICISM. 7

the elder revelation, has fixed its own 9tamp upon the only child whose parentage it can authenticate, the younger inspiration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

We believe in Christianity, deliberately, advisedly, solemnly, devoutly. Our dependence in it adds much to our soul's comfort, and to our mental satisfaction and happiness. It is the source and centre of our theory of morals, divinity, and psychological philosophy. We say this in no spirit of ostentation, which we now proceed to prove to the satisfaction of the most suspicious, by committing in the eyes of bigotry the unpardonable offence of declaring that we hold belief to be neither an indication of virtue nor a mark of vice, and that, too, upon the authority of the Bible, which preferred the servant who knew not his master's will but did it, to him who knew it and did it not. Although we are sincerely, and from heart-conviction, devoted to Christianity, its truth, its excellence, and the imperishable solidity of its foundation on the Rock of Ages, is, we are quite aware, a mere matter of opinion, held by us in common with many virtuous and able men, and disputed by not a few whose excellence and sagacity we would be proud to emulate. Although we trust wc are not among the number of those who make the blaspheming of the precious gift of what they term carnal reason, when it contradicts their principles, an apology for indulging their own spiritual pride, and feel assured that " they only cry out against reason because reason cries out against them," it is without cant or hypocrisy that we state our diffidence in the infallibility of our own judgment, and therefore our distrust in the proposition, that it is impossible we can be mistaken in our estimate of Christianity.