MISCELLANY.

—— —— ——“And his pure brain,Which some suppose the soul’s frail dwelling-house.”Shakspeare.

—— —— ——“And his pure brain,Which some suppose the soul’s frail dwelling-house.”

—— —— ——“And his pure brain,

Which some suppose the soul’s frail dwelling-house.”

Shakspeare.

We have just alighted upon a most curious and interesting document, and propose to base upon it a phrenological article.

The late lamented Dr. Lovell, Surgeon General of the U. S. Army, set himself about investigating the claims of phrenology in what seems to us the only fair and philosophical manner, viz. taking measurement of the heads of all persons of his acquaintance, particularly those who were distinguished for any talent.

Below is a paper drawn up by that gentleman and Dr. Brereton; a document of incontestable genuineness, giving the measurement of more than fifty distinguished individuals, among whom are Van Buren, Webster, Calhoun, Clay, Marshall, M’Duffie, John Quincy Adams, &c.

We insert the document entire, sure that it will be examined with care by all who are examining phrenology, and regarded with interest by general readers, who can thus place head by head our great men.

For the benefit of the uninitiated, we will explain the principles of these admeasurements, and then give the inferences to be drawn from them.

The occipital spine is the lump or knob which every person may feel on the back of his own head, just in the centre of the skull, a little above the nape of the neck; lower Individuality is just between the eyes, where the root of the nose springs from the forehead; this measurement gives the whole length of the head. The average length of men’s heads is seven inches five-tenths; the average length of the fifty-two heads in this table, is seven inches seven-tenths, being two-tenths of an inch more than common heads. Now, this may seem at first a small matter, but two-tenths of an inch added to the length of a man’s nose, would make a very different proboscis, and added to the length of the fibre of his brain, might make him longer headed than his neighbours in more than one sense of the word. But,n’importe, we are looking at the facts; the longest heads are those of Daniel Webster, Langdon Cheeves, James Barbour, and Mr. M’Duffie, each measuring eight inches two-tenths; or seven-tenths of an inch more than the average measure of men’s heads.

Next come John M’Lean and William Wirt, measuring eight inches one-tenth; then John C. Calhoun, Judge Marshall, Attorney General Berrien, and Judge Baldwin, each eight inches; next come Henry Clay, Samuel L. Southard, Judge Trimble, John Quincy Adams, and Martin Van Buren. These are all longer headed men than the average of the list; while Levi Woodbury is smaller by one-tenth;and the last postmaster, Barry, by two-tenths. The shortest head in the list is that of Col. M’Kenney.

The next measurement is from the cochile, or hollow of the ear, to the occipital spine on the bump felt in the back of the head. It is asserted by some phrenologists, that this measurement gives the development of Inhabitiveness, or in the vernacular, the disposition to stay at home, attachment to place; but others, schismatics, say it indicates Concentrativeness, or power of fixing and concentrating thought. Be this as it may, among those on our list, John M’Lean and Judge Baldwin are the longest in this direction; next Henry Clay, Judge Johnson, &c. The smallest, and very small, (the average being in common men four inches two-tenths,) is Col. M’Kenney, who, (Heaven help him) is tied to home by a fibre of only three inches. No wonder he has trotted all over the world, and received the appointment of U. S. Indian Agent.

The next line of the table gives the measurements from the ear forward to Individuality, on the centre of the forehead between the eyes. This measurement, when taken in relation to the other measurements of each individual’s head, is much relied on by phrenologists as a test of the strength of the perceptive faculties; men who perceive and remember a multitude of individual facts and things, should belong here.

The longest in the list are J. Q. Adams, Judge Baldwin, and Gen. D. Parker. The average length of men’s heads in this direction, is less than five inches; the above measure five inches three-tenths; James Barbour, William Wirt, and Langdon Cheeves, each measure five inches two-tenths; Judge M’Lean and Mr. M’Duffie measure five inches one-tenth. Webster, Clay, and Calhoun, are a little longer than the average; Van Buren falls considerably short of the mark.

Col. M’Kenney should be well endowed in the perceptive faculties, for although his fibre measures but four inches nine-tenths, we must recollect that his head is small. The shortest in the list is R. Johnson. Now, among all men we ever met, no one can match John Q. Adams for minute and varied knowledge, save and except Lord Brougham.

The next measurement is from the ear to the top of the head, where, it is said, is the organ of Firmness; and the height of the head should indicate the strength of this quality. And here we used to think we had the phrenologists on the hip, judging from some of our own eye measurements; but we were told it must be taken in relation with other qualities; a man may be firm in vice’s cause as well as virtue’s, but then he is called stubborn; or his firmness may be qualified bycaution or cowardice—he may be a confirmed coward, &c. But no matter, we proceed to the measurements. The average of Firmness of these men, measured by Gunter’s scale, is five inches seven-tenths. We find Judge M’Lean overtops them all, and has a mountain of Firmness, measuring six inches three-tenths; next comes Mr. Mitchell, of South Carolina, then Messrs. Webster and Cheeves—six inches one-tenth; then lower, but yet high, John Quincy Adams, Calhoun, Barbour, Johnson, M’Duffie, Baldwin, Barry. Van Buren’s Firmness would never be in his way, being a tenth lower than the average; Mr. Clay’s is three-tenths; and one person, Lt. Simonson, is only five inches and two-tenths! The small Firmness, alias, small obstinacy, of Clay, perhaps qualifies him so well for mediator—pacificator.

Now let us apply the rule and compass the other way, and look at the measurements through the head; that is, from ear to ear, or rather along the ear from Destructiveness to Destructiveness, which indicates, also, the size of Secretiveness; it is said to be necessary to statesmen, players, and thieves.

Men generally measure five inches six-tenths in this direction; but the average measure of this list gives seven inches seven-tenths; from whence phrenologists would infer, that our worthies destroy and secrete only in the ratio of one-tenth more than the rest of the people; a very charitable conclusion, truly! The longest is Dr. Todsen, of the United States Army; who,horribile dictu! measures six inches and six-tenths! No wonder he was afterwards cashiered for theft; how could he help it, with such a bump! Next to this unfortunate worthy—and, as if to mark the contrast, and note the folly of phrenological predictions, comes—who? why, our present magnanimous and open-hearted president, who was then (nine years ago) the innocent and unsophisticated Martin Van Buren!

We feel almost indignant at the insinuation implied in this measurement; not that we doubt its correctness, or the motives of Doctors Lovell and Brereton, but they should have put in as a salvo the measurement of our president’s Conscientiousness, which, we think, must be enormous, in order to counterbalance this Secretiveness; for we are confident that nine years ago he had no fixed plans and determinations which hesecretedfrom the world.

To be sure Judge Trimble is placed in the same category, and following close after, comes Daniel Webster, whose Destructiveness, measuring a tenth less than the president’s, is, nevertheless, enormously developed, and probably is

—— “the direful springOf woes unnumbered,”

—— “the direful spring

Of woes unnumbered,”

to the feathered and finny tribes which are so unfortunate as to frequent his neighbourhood. He is rather apt also to attack and destroy the arguments of his opponents. Barbour and Southard also are set down as destructives to the extent of six inches and three-tenths; while M’Lean, Marshall, Woodbury, and Baldwin, go the length of six inches two-tenths; John Quincy Adams and Tazewell, six and one-tenth; even Clay cannot be called a conservative, for he, with Calhoun, M’Duffie, and others, go the length of three-tenths of an inch more than the average of men in the destructive line.

The next measurement is from Cautiousness to Cautiousness; that is, the breadth of the head about four fingers above the ears at the broadest part. Some heads run up in a regular slope from above the ears to the crown; of course there can be little of the organ of caution there, and phrenologists maintain that this is the characteristic of French skulls; while other heads bulge out above the ear, having what they call large Cautiousness, and they point to the well-known bulge in Hindoo skulls.

Cautiousness, however, we believe, is not now considered by phrenologists to be merely a negative quality, as was taught by Gall, but a positive one, and more like fear. When this organ is deficient, the individual should be rash and precipitate; when full, cautious and circumspect; when very large, irresolute and wavering. Too much in a judge would be a failing, “which leans to virtue’s side;” too much in a soldier would oftener prove his disgrace than his honour; for one Fabius, who gained the name of Great, we have a thousand Marcelli; the glitter of the sword dazzles the multitude, but the virtue of the shield is known only to a few.

The first thing which strikes one on examining this part of the table, is the great difference between the measurements of caution in military men, and in the statesmen and judges; the latter are all large—some of them very large—the former are small; the average measurement of the judges and statesmen is six inches, while that of the officers is but five inches and three-tenths!

For instance, Judge Marshall has the enormous measurement of six inches and three-tenths in the organ of Cautiousness—that of the average being only five inches seven-tenths; Judge Trimble and Mr. Barbour measure 6-2; Messrs. Van Buren and Adams, Judges M’Lean and Berrien, 6-1; Messrs. Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Tazewell, &c. six inches. On the other hand, Major Wade measures only five inches; Lieut. Farley 5-1; Col. Towson 5-2; Col. Gibson, Major Kearney, and Lieut. Graham, 5-3. Most of the rest are below the average; and only two, General Parker and Col. Bomford, measure over six inches.

The last measurement we shall notice, is from Ideality to Ideality, that is, through the head, just above and behind the temple. Phrenologists suppose that this organ is essential to the poet, though it alone will not make a poet; he must have, besides, Language, Time, Tune, &c. Ideality in the common man may show itself in his good taste, in dress, furniture, &c.; in the orator or writer, in his tropes and figures; in all men, by the conception of, and aspiration to, something finer, better, superior to what it actually is.

In our list, it is largest, and enormously large, in Charles Hill, who was, we believe, an elegant dresser, quite a Corinthian; he measures six inches five-tenths, the average being five inches seven-tenths; Webster is 6-4 [Qy. 6-2?]; next Messrs. Barry, Parker, Woodbury, Cheeves, Van Buren, Wirt, &c., all of whom have it large. On the other hand, Judges Berrien and Marshall, Adams, Barbour, Southard, fall below the average; and Calhoun measures only five inches one-tenth. The remarkable diminutiveness of this organ, taken with the terseness of his language, which never shows a trope or figure of any kind, is a “coincidence” at least.

The measurements of this paper correct some erroneous impressions which the public generally have. We always supposed, for instance, that the heads of Judge Marshall and Mr. Calhoun were unfavourable to the phrenological doctrine, as being quite small; but it seems they are actually large; and, though narrow, the region of Ideality capable of containing a more than usual quantity of brain.

The largest head in the list is that of Daniel Webster, but it is not most to our liking, for there is a goodly share in the animal region; and though he has “most brains of the bunch,” they are not of the very choicest kind.

Phrenologists, looking over these measurements, and without regarding the names, would say that the best head was No. 7, belonging to Judge M’Lean, because it is full in the upper or moral region; Firmness, and its neighbouring Veneration, are large; they would call it a well-balanced head, and conclude that its great intellectual power would not be made a pander to the animal propensities. (We ourselves should prefer it; but, lest we should be suspected of a political bias in favour of the latter, we avow that our vote is for Daniel,malgré, his occiput.) The next heads, in the order of size, are Judges Baldwin, Marshall, Trimble, and Johnson; Messrs. Cheeves, M’Duffie, Wirt, Adams, (a quartetto of the same size); next, Clay, Van Buren, Calhoun, and Southard.

We have stated that we are candid enquirers into the nature of phrenology; we believe we are so; and if the facts shown in this paper are favourable to its pretensions, the fault is not ours, butnature’s; we admire and we adopt the motto of one of its lights, “res non verba quæso.”

It would have been as easy for us to seek for, and to set forth, opposing arguments and facts; and we should have done it in the spirit of the motto just quoted; but as the vast majority of men of learning, and almost all writers, are opposed to phrenology—as it is assailed every day by argument and ridicule—as its opponents are rather uproarious whenever it is seriously mentioned—we deem it but fairaudire alteram partem.

In plain truth, we are all, to a certain extent, phrenologists; and the disciples of Gall and Spurzheim have no right to claim for their masters the credit of originality, or for themselves the credit of peculiar and new views of nature. No age, since Aristotle, has been without its philosophers, who pointed out the brain as the organ by which the mind carried on its operations; and it is now generally admitted to be its primary and essential instrument.

A shrewd and practical English philosopher, and an uncompromising anti-phrenologist, writes thus: “Mind, connected with body, can only acquire knowledge slowly through the bodily organs of sense, and more or less perfectly according as these organs and the central brain are perfect. A human being, born blind and deaf, and therefore remaining dumb, as in the noted case of the boy Mitchell, grows up closely to resemble an automaton; and an originally misshapen or deficient brain causes idiocy for life. Childhood, maturity, dotage, which have such differences of bodily powers, have corresponding differences of mental faculties; and as no two bodies, so no two minds, in their external manifestations, are quite alike. Fever, or a blow on the head, will change the most gifted individual into a maniac, cause the lips of virgin innocence to utter the most revolting obscenity, and those of pure religion to speak horrible blasphemy; and most cases of madness and eccentricity can now be traced to a peculiar state of the brain.”

What the nature and the powers of the human soul may be, we know not, nor can we know, until it is disembodied and disenthralled; until this mortal shall put on immortality, and time and space shall be no more; then, doubtless, the power of ubiquity, and a searching vision to which the diameter of the globe will present no more of an obstacle than does the thinnest glass to the mortal eye, will be among the least of the spiritual powers; but, until then, if we would study the nature of the spirit, we must consider it as trammeled by, and operating through, a corporeal organisation.

The difference between the vast majority of thinking men and ultra-phrenologists, we believe to be narrowed down to this; alladmit that the spirit of man, manifesting itself through corporeal organisation, is influenced and modified by, and indeed entirely dependent upon, the nature and state of that organisation, particularly of the brain and nervous system; while phrenologists go farther, and say, that according to the length and breadth of certain bundles of fibres in certain compartments of the brain does the spirit manifest its different faculties with different degrees of activity and power.

We all of us admit, that even the giant mind of a Newton, or a Napoleon, would struggle in vain against the finger of an infant pressing upon the brain; but phrenologists maintain, that as the finger should be pressed upon one or another organ, so would one or another of the mental powers be immediately affected. Perhaps the truth is beyond the extremes; and while we should strive to attain thejuste milieu, we should not be deterred by any fears of what may be the inferences from searching for truth in observations upon nature.

S. G. H.

[4]This article is copied from the “American Monthly Magazine” of April, 1838. It is a valuable document, on account of thefactsit contains respecting the size of the heads of many of our distinguished men. These facts accord most strikingly with a fundamental law in phrenology, viz. that “size, other things being equal, is a measure of power.” We would, however, state that the conditions involved in the phrase—“other things being equal”—are of the greatest importance, and should always be taken into the account, in judging of character on phrenological principles. The above article is spiced in several places with considerable humour and pleasantry, exhibiting a very fair, if not a large, organ of “Mirthfulness” in the writer. We would simply remark, that the article was prepared for the magazine by a gentleman very favourably known to the public, particularly for his labours in behalf of science andhumanity.—Ed.

Mr. Combe’s Second Course of Lectures.—In our last number, we gave a particular account of the reception of Mr. Combe’s first course of lectures in this city. The second course (then in a state of progress) was completed on the evening of April 6th, at the Musical Fund Hall. A very large audience was in attendance. After the close of the lecture, and Mr. Combe had retired, on motion, Dr. Wylie, professor of ancient languages in the University of Pennsylvania, was called to the chair, and Dr. M’Clellan, professor of surgery in the Jefferson Medical College of this city, was appointed secretary.

The chairman addressed the audience in a few brief remarks upon the propriety of making some expression of the satisfaction which the very numerous class had derived from Mr. Combe’s lectures. On motion, the following resolutions, offered by Thomas Fisher, Esq., were unanimously adopted:—

“Resolved, That this class have listened with great interest to the able and highly instructive exposition of phrenology which Mr. Combe has offered us.“Resolved, That whatever may have been our previous acquaintance with the subject, the lectures of Mr. Combe have impressed us with much respect for its practical importance, and with the kindliest feeling for the learned lecturer.“Resolved, That phrenology is recognised and commended as a science founded in nature, by a large portion of the most distinguished anatomists on both sides of the Atlantic, and that we believe it to be the only adequate illustration of the existing, wonderfully various manifestations of the human mind.“Resolved, That it will afford us pleasure, and that we believe it will be highly acceptable to this community, that Mr. Combe should make it consistent with his arrangements in other cities, to give, during next winter, another course in Philadelphia.“Resolved, That a committee of seven gentlemen be appointed to communicate to Mr. Combe a copy of these resolutions.“The following gentlemen were accordingly appointed:—“Samuel B. Wylie, D. D., Samuel George Morton, M. D., George M’Clellan, M. D., Charles S. Coxe, Esq., Joseph Hartshorne, M. D., Thomas Gilpin, Esq., Thomas Fisher, Esq.”

“Resolved, That this class have listened with great interest to the able and highly instructive exposition of phrenology which Mr. Combe has offered us.

“Resolved, That whatever may have been our previous acquaintance with the subject, the lectures of Mr. Combe have impressed us with much respect for its practical importance, and with the kindliest feeling for the learned lecturer.

“Resolved, That phrenology is recognised and commended as a science founded in nature, by a large portion of the most distinguished anatomists on both sides of the Atlantic, and that we believe it to be the only adequate illustration of the existing, wonderfully various manifestations of the human mind.

“Resolved, That it will afford us pleasure, and that we believe it will be highly acceptable to this community, that Mr. Combe should make it consistent with his arrangements in other cities, to give, during next winter, another course in Philadelphia.

“Resolved, That a committee of seven gentlemen be appointed to communicate to Mr. Combe a copy of these resolutions.

“The following gentlemen were accordingly appointed:—

“Samuel B. Wylie, D. D., Samuel George Morton, M. D., George M’Clellan, M. D., Charles S. Coxe, Esq., Joseph Hartshorne, M. D., Thomas Gilpin, Esq., Thomas Fisher, Esq.”

Thus have closed two most interesting and valuable courses of lectures on phrenology in this city. Their reception has been of the most gratifying character. Some may be disposed to think that their influence will be of transitory effect, and that the interest will soon subside. But if such should be the fact, it would be an anomaly in the history of the science. Its principles have thus far proved too true, and too important, to share such a fate. And they have fallen, we believe, into too many and too able hands in this city to be so soon forgotten or easily neglected. The interest in the subject has resulted, not from idle curiosity, nor the mere excitement of feeling, but from the sober and deliberate exercise of the intellect. And wherever the truth of such principles is firmly lodged, there it will live, and its effects will be felt and seen.

We cannot but express a strong desire that Mr. Combe will favour the citizens of Philadelphia with another course of lectures during the ensuing winter.

Lectures of Rev. J. A. Warne.—This gentleman has just closed in this city, a course of six lectures upon the “Aspects of Phrenology on Revelation.” This department of the science appropriately belongs to the clergy. It is peculiarlytheirduty to investigate the moral and religious bearings of every science, but more especially of one that professes to unfoldthe laws of mind. And it would seem, that if any class of persons ought to be thoroughly acquainted with such a subject, it is the clergy. For their various duties lead them to deal almost constantly withmind, and, of all others,theyshould understand its laws.

We are therefore gratified in seeing one of this profession engaged in discussing the merits of phrenology, and showing that its principles are not only not inconsistent, but in striking harmony with the truths of Christianity. Mr. Warne is favourably known to the public as the author of a chapter on the harmony between phrenology and revelation, appended to a Boston edition of “Combe’s Constitution of Man.” These lectures have been attended by an audience, very respectable both as to numbers and character. The subjects of the different lectures were handled in an able manner. That our readers may better understand their nature, we give below the leading topics discussed.

It was the object of the lecturer to show, that phrenology does not teach materialism, nor fatalism, nor infidelity, either atheistical or deistical; but that, on the contrary, it furnishes arguments refutatory of each of these errors, and even affords advantages in assailing them, not elsewhere found; that this science does not deny or destroy human accountability, or teach theirresistibilityof motives, butdemonstratesman to be a free agent, by proving him to possess all the conditions of liberty—viz.will,plurality of motives, andpower over the instrumentsof voluntary action; and, consequently, heisandmustbe accountable for his conduct.

The lecturer proceeded also to show, that the Scriptures agree with phrenology in classifying the faculties of man into moral sentiments, intellectual faculties, and animal feelings; that they invest, as phrenology does, the moral sentiments with the dominion; that they recognise and address the respective faculties which phrenology has ascertained to belong to our nature; and that the principles of this science are in harmony with the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, such as human depravity, indwelling sin, regeneration, &c.

This is, to some extent, new ground, and as far as our knowledge extends, no person in Europe, or in this country, has devoted so much attention to this part of the science as Mr. W. And we are gratified in being able to state, that he intends to prosecute the investigation of this subject, as his other duties may permit, for some years.

Dr. Elder’s Address.—We lately received a copy of an address, delivered before the Penn Institute of Pittsburgh, Pa., February 28th, 1839, by William Elder. It is truly encouraging to find so many friends and advocates of our new science. It is now becoming the theme of many public addresses and lectures, as well as leading articles in our regular periodicals. There are also some who make a free use of its principles, and very advantageously too, without employing its technical language, or even giving due credit to the science. It is a fact, that whenever and wherever truth on any subject is presented, in harmony with the principles of phrenology, it will appear clearer, more consistent and convincing to every mind, and consequently will be more powerful in its effects. It is as certain as any mathematical demonstration can be, that if phrenology is atrue interpretationof human nature, that all truth connected with mind, and presented in harmony with the laws of its correct interpretation, must touch a cord that will vibrate in every person, though perhaps feebler in some than in others. We have known many individuals very much pleased, and even captivated by a certain production or performance, and to affirm repeatedly that the subject was never discussed before so clearly and satisfactory to their minds; but when they were afterwards informed that it was treated uponstrictly phrenological principles, they are much surprised, and sometimes seemmortified. How true, in spite of prejudice and opposition, is the Latin proverb—“Magna est Veritas et prævalebit.”

But to return to Dr. Elder’s address. We have perused it with much interest. It appears that this address was delivered before an association of young men, formed for mutual improvement. The principal object of the author was to unfold the great laws of mind, a knowledge of which is so important to mental and moral improvement. A subject more appropriate to the occasion could not well have been selected; and how far the author succeeded in accomplishing his object, we shall take pleasure in giving our readers an opportunity to judge for themselves, by presenting several extracts in the next number of the Journal.

The article promised in our last, on the “Elementary Principles of Phrenology,” is necessarily deferred till the next number.

Back to Index Next