am compelled to remark that, contrary to Gall's usual procedure, which is as much marked by the absence of fancy and assumption as by unwearied zeal in collecting facts and cautious deductions from those facts, he in this case assumed a distinction in the talent manifested by each form of the organ. He stated he had no idea of the distinction; yet he presumed that a musician instructed in organology would observe the peculiarity of each, and thus discover the nature of the distinction. But, whatever this distinction might be, it does not determine the character of the composer's music; for Gall rightly ascribes this to the guidance of other organs; thus, when the organ of Veneration is largely developed, along with that of Music, the disposition is for sacred music; when a great developement of Combativeness and Destructiveness co-exist with that of Music, a tendency to martial music is observed; and so on with other combinations. The feelings have two natural languages, viz. Music and Gesture. When the feelings are active they express themselves by music, or by gesture, or by both, according to fixed laws. In this way the habitually active feelings (which are manifestations of the predominant organs) express themselves in the compositions of the musician, and thus confer a character on each composer's music, as in the cases of Boyeldieu, Weber, Kellner, Auber, &c. When this character is so uniform as to stamp itself continually the same on the ear, it then becomes a mannerism, as in much of Auber's music, in the quadrilles of Musard, and in the waltzes of Launer, and in those of Strauss. In some few great geniuses, on the contrary, the rich variety of musical ideas excludes repetition, as in the grand compositions of Handel, Rossini, and Mozart, whom the Germans term the Shakspeares of music.

The musical performer, also, is influenced by his predominant organs, both in the selection of the music he studies and also in the character of his performance *, as is observable in

"Je n'ai encore aucune idée de la différence du talent qui résulte de cette différence de conformation. Il est cependant à présumer qu'un musicien qui serait en même temps instruit dans l'organologie, découvrirait une nuance du talent de la musique; ce qu'il y a de certain, c'est que l'une ou l'autre de ces deux conformations se rencontre constamment chez toutes les personnes donées d'un grand génie musical.". -GALL sur le Cerveau, t. v. p. 113. 8vo. ed. Paris, 1823.

Spurzheim thus describes the two forms: "A greater developement of the organ on which musical perception depends enlarges the lateral parts of the forehead, but its form varies according to the direction and form of the convolution composing it. In Gluck, Haydn, and others, it had a pyramidal form; in Mozart, Viotti, Zumsteeg, Dussek, Crescentini, and others, the external corners of the forehead were only enlarged and rounded."- SPURZHEIM, Phrenology, p. 206. 4th ed. 1833. The fact of having a good voice often leads to the study of vocal music. But what determines a man to select a certain instrument for his study? I hope this question will engage attention. Why does a child of only three years of age select a double bass in preference to a violoncello or a violin ?

the vocalists Braham, Kellner, Lablache, Rubini, Tamburini, Malibran, and Schroeder Devrient; and also in the instrumentalists, Lindley, Dragonetti, Blagrove, Spohr, Adams, Bull, and the unapproachable Paganini.

As these diversities of character, both in musical composition and in performance, depend on various combinations occurring along with an ample developement of the organ of music, Gall's question is still unanswered, What is the difference of talent? In other words, What is the peculiarity of talent which each form of organ exclusively manifests? As I cannot state what these peculiarities are, I will narrow the inquiry by showing what they are not.

I. As regards composition, or the theory of music.

1. Neither form of organ exclusively confers the power of composition, since Mozart, with enlarged-temple form of organ, and Beethoven, with pyramidal form of organ, were both eminent composers.

2. Neither form of organ exclusively leads to the composition of vocal in preference to instrumental music, since Mozart and Haydn, with pyramidal form of organ, were each eminent in both kinds of musical composition.

3. Neither form of organ exclusively enables the musician to express sentiment and emotion in his compositions, since Mozart and Haydn were both eminent in expression.

II. As regards performance, or the practice of music. 1. Neither form of organ exclusively determines to the practice of music, since Moschelles, with the enlargedtemple form of organ, and Mr. G. Kiallmark, with pyramidal-formed organ, are both excellent pianists. 2. Neither form of organ exclusively leads to singing in preference to playing on instruments, since Malibran, with enlarged-temple form of organ, and Schroeder, with pyramidal form of organ, were both excellent vocalists. And neither form necessarily and exclusively leads to playing, as Moschelles and Kiallmark, above quoted, prove.

3. Neither form of organ exclusively confers the power of expressing sentiment and emotion by the voice, since Malibran and Schroeder were eminent for expression. Nor yet by instruments, since Nicholson with enlargedtemple form of organ was, and T. Cooke with pyramidal form of organ is, eminent for expression.

The negative results of this inquiry induced me to request the opinions of several musicians, both professional and amateur,

on the peculiarities of Mozart's music contrasted with Haydn's; and of Beethoven's contrasted with Rossini's, not as a language expressive of peculiar or other feeling, but simply as music, as abstract music. Amongst others I applied to Dr. Busby, but like the rest he answered only in those loose and unprofitable generalities, which couched in metaphorical language were entirely useless. The inquiry was evidently new to them all and each answer had reference either to the general scope and aim of the composer's works, or to the character of his music derived from the composer's mental consti

tution.

Failing to obtain the required information, and unable to discover any peculiarity myself apart from the influence of the general character of the composer, I was inclined to suspect that no such peculiarity existed; and then began to inquire if the difference in the forehead's form described by Gall were really dependent alone on the organ of music, or were produced by the relative developement of surrounding organs. I consulted the octavo edition of Gall's works, being his latest, and again studied his text in connexion with the folio plates, which convinced me that Gall actually meant that there are two distinct forms of the organ of music. His description of these two forms are already quoted in a preceding note in his own words. I then observed the heads, casts or portraits of the following distinguished musicians; besides many others both professional and amateur, viz. Adams, Busby, Arne, Arnold, Alcock, Burney, Crotch, Blow, Purcell, Wesley, Kellner, Mozart father and son, Kollmann father and son, Parry father and son, Joseph and Michael Haydn, Neukom, Handel, Bach, Cramer, Weber, Rossini, Kiallmark, Spohr, Catrufo, Thalberg, Herz, Webbe, Corelli, Geminiani, Dussek, Marchesi, Viotti, Gretry, Zumsteeg, Crescentini, T. Cooke, Broschi, better known as Farinella, Tenducci, Mara, Banti, Liberti, C. Novello, C. Fisher, Bull, Dulcken, Monticelli, Rauzzini, Benucci, Strauss, Harper, Gluck, Mori, Nicholson, Malibran, Grisi, Lablache, Rubini, Tamburini, Persiani, Schroeder, Mendlesohn, Robinson, Bartleman, Braham, Kiesewetter, Ole Bull, Bochsa, Bishop, Hummel, Sandoni, Pepusch, Paisiello, Hensett, Beethoven, Clementi, Spagnoletti, Dragonetti, Lindley, Puzzi, Barnett, Catalani, Blagrove, and Paganini. In all these examples the forehead presented the appearance of either one or other of the forms described by Gall. But after repeated and attentive observation, it appears to me that these two forms of forehead are not produced by the shape of the organ of music alone; but result from the relative developement of the surrounding organs also, along with that of music.

Should this view be confirmed by other observers, it will somewhat modify Gall's doctrine on this organ. Gall well knew that a more extended inquiry suggesting more exact observation would modify some of his doctrines: and he well knew the unchangeableness of the facts on which those doctrines are based; for he says of the Sens des Mots, "Les faits resteront immuables, dans le cas même où ma manière de les envisager subirait encore des modifications."* And speaking of the deep and varied knowledge necessary to treat of his science in all its bearings, he says, "Il me faudrait des connaissances presque universelles, chose impossible, mais qui doit engager un jour les connoisseurs à faire l'application de l'organologie à chaque partie en particulier." +

In conclusion, a few words on the name of the organ on which musical perception depends. It is known that when Gall could not convey his idea of an organ's function by one term, that he endeavoured to suggest what he meant by the adoption of several terms of kindred meaning. Thus he adopted the German term Tonsinn (Tone sense), the French terms Sens des Rapports des tons, Talent de la musique, L'organ de la musique, in his published works, and he is reported to have used the terms Organ of Sounds ‡, and Organ of aptness to learn and retain music §, in his lectures in Germany, to describe the function of this organ. And British phrenologists indiscriminately term the organ Tune, Melody, and Music.

I have shown that the terms Tune, Melody, and Music are improper terms as they overname the organ's function by comprising Duration and Rhythmus. || The word tone is of so lax a signification as to be inadmissible unless qualified; and that especially since Dr. Fossati makes Son convertible with Ton, (sound with tone) in the phrase which he adopts to describe the organ's function. Sens du Rapport des Sons: and also since Mr. Simpson so emphatically asserts that ALL sounds are musical **, from which it is fair to assume that he also would use the terms sound and tone as convertible with each other. Dr. Gall's phrase, Sense of the relations of tones, would be the best term of any that have been adopted, were it not for the ambiguity of the word tone; but the addition of the word pitch to his term would remove the ambiguity, and thus make it an

*Gall sur le Cerveau, tom. v. p. 13.

+ Ibid. p. 88.

Phrenological Transactions, p. 24.

§ Some Account of Gall's new Theory of Physiognomy, p. 115. London, 1807, Phren. Journ. New Series vol. i. p. 34.

Journal de la Société Phrenologique de Paris. Janvier, 1835, p. 93. et seq. ** Phren. Journ. Old Series, Vol. X. p. 436. et seq.

accurate description of the organ's function in the phrase Sense of the pitch-relations of tones.

14. Caroline Street, Bedford Square, May 11. 1840.

RICHARD CULL.

II. Copy of a Letter lately addressed to the President and Mem bers of the Phrenological Society of Paris, by Sir G. S. MACKENZIE, Bart.*

GENTLEMEN,In requesting you to place in your library a little volume on the Principles of Education, I wish to express my respect for the Phrenologists of Paris. The volume may be scarcely deemed worthy of the honour; but I trust you will duly appreciate my motives for having attempted to call the attention of the French nation to one of the most important applications of our science.

It has given me deep concern to be informed that Phrenology languishes amongst you. The cause of this I am inclined to attribute to the want of a strong effort to exhibit its practical utility, and to make the success of its application known to the public. I was told by a French physician in this town, that France was not the country in which great perseverance, and devoted energy, was ever bestowed on any object; and that, while we in Britain never ceased to push Truth forward until she was embraced, in France she was too much left to make her own way. I have some doubts of this, as a general proposition; because no people on the globe are more earnest in the pursuit of scientific discovery than the French, and no people have excelled them in that department. If the individual to whom I refer intended to say, that the French were not active in applying discovery when made, your nation is not singular in that respect. Everywhere the charm is found in making discovery; and no sooner is one discovery made than it is left to itself, and another is sought for. In every country it is certain that, when discovery can be applied to increase supply to our physical wants, and add to wealth, its application is pursued with eagerness. But it is disgraceful to the present age that our moral wants are scarcely, if at all, attended to. Crime is

The contents of this letter will sufficiently explain wherefore it is printed here. We understand that no notice was taken of it by the Paris Society. Surely there must have been some oversight in this neglect ! - Editor.