III.-Phrenological Visit to the Exeter Deaf and Dumb Asylum. By Messrs W. J. VERNON and ADOLPHE KISTE.

Exeter, November 15. 1840.

Mr EDITOR, Phrenologists profess their science rests on facts; and, as well-authenticated facts are more valuable than the most acute reasonings, they are naturally desirous of publishing their experiments. Will you oblige us by inserting in your Journal the following extract from the Log-Book of the Deaf and Dumb Asylum in this city. You will perceive, by the language, that the book is kept by the pupils. About six months ago Mr Barber delivered a course of lectures here, and was allowed to examine phrenologically the pupils in the Asylum, the result of which was published in No. XI. of the New Series. Being here delivering lectures on the science, we were kindly allowed to examine the boys by Mr Gordon, the head-master, who is not a phrenologist, but rather, if we may so speak, an hereditary opponent, being a near relation of the late celebrated anatomist, Dr Gordon of Edinburgh, one of the earliest and most celebrated opponents of phrenology in this country.

Their

Extract from Log-Book of the Deaf and Dumb Asylum, St Leonard's, Exeter, November 10. 1840.-" A mild fine day. Two gentlemen came here and felt our heads; they were both phrenologists. Mr Gordon spoke to them (he referred to Mr Barber's remarks). He asked them what boy has a large imagination? They felt our heads, and pointed to Coyle. judgments are correct; Coyle has a powerful imagination, and delights in similes and deep thoughts. Mr Gordon again asked them to point out a boy of fine and generous dispositions, and who is fond of imitating others. One felt our heads, and pointed to Tom, and said he was fond of imitating others. He also said he possessed many fine qualities of the mind. He said also he is timid, and he is always frightened at pain, and again he is frightened at difficulties in his study. What boy is talented in mechanics? He felt our heads, and pointed to Cooke. We said his judgment, as that of Mr Barber, was correct, because G. Cooke was a great mechanic, and can make any thing he sees, and he invents many curious things. One of the phrenologists felt our heads, and pointed to Aubin, and spoke to Mr Gordon, and Mr Gordon told us the gentleman says Aubin is fond of drawing. We know he is so, because his faculty of drawing is admirable. The phrenologists felt another of our schoolfellows' heads: we must not name him, be

cause it would pain his heart; and the phrenologist said he is a vain and sly fellow, and is forgetful of kindness. We cannot say 'tis not true, but we pray it is not so. The phrenologists felt another of our schoolfellows' heads, and said he is a subtle and artful fellow; he always sets cunning schemes, and thinks himself successful, but he always fails in his deceitful designs that is very true; we know it is true. They felt B.'s head, and spoke to Mr Gordon and said he is sluggish; we said, their opinions are right, because we have often observed that boy does not love to write or learn of himself, but we are obliged often to remind him of his duties. The phrenologists felt E.'s head, and spoke to Mr Gordon and said, That boy is passionate, and when his temper is excited his features appear frowning and furrowed with rage; we said, it is true, and it is very true. The phrenologists felt P.'s head, and spoke to Mr Gordon and said, he was a cunning little fellow, but his habits are changing, and he is becoming more open we said it is true; we know it is true. We do not say these things are true because the phrenologists say they are true; but we say these things are true because we know they are so by experience and observation of our schoolfellows."

The examination of the boys took place in presence of Dr Ottley and a party of ladies.-We remain, Sir, yours obediently, WM. J. VERNON & ADOLPHE KISTE.

III. NOTICES OF BOOKS.

I. Timon but not of Athens. 2 vols. post 8vo. London: Saunders & Otley. 1840.

We have frequently adverted to the increasing interest in phrenology manifested by the numerous notices of it in contemporary literature. The author of "Timon but not of Athens" is obviously a phrenologist, and one of no mean talent. He is liberal in politics, in religion, and in philosophy; and he writes like a scholar, a philosopher, and a gentleman. The work is in the form of a novel, but in substance it is a collection of didactic and piquant remarks on education, catholicism, the established church, the law of primogeniture, conjugal affection, lawyers, priests, public schools, politics, and similar topics. Occasion is taken to introduce the original letters (quite authentic) which passed between George IV. when Prince of Wales, and Caroline his wife, afterwards Queen of England; and between George III. and the Princess of Wales, and other distinguished persons. We recognise phre

VOL. XIV. N. S.-NO. XIII.

F

nology running through the author's general thoughts; and he makes his leading and favourite character a phrenologist.

"You are, then," said I, "a believer in the system of Gall and Spurzheim ?"

"Yes; there was a time when I had no faith in the science of phrenology. It was through a conversation that I one day had with an intelligent German that my attention was first turned to it as a science. I began to study it perseveringly; and the result was, my complete conviction that all the faculties of the mind, and all those manifestations of it which make up the moral nature of man, depend on the organization of the brain."

"Did you ever read Jeffrey's attack upon it, in the Edinburgh Review, when the system was first rising into notice?" Yes; the number which contained it was forwarded to me; I read that article attentively, and I rose from the perusal of it with a lowered opinion of the writer. The attempt at ridicule is flippant and puerile. There is no trace in it of enlightened, or even of rational discussion. His mind is manifestly strong, excursive, and sarcastic; but it has all the littleness of intellectual vanity, mingled with a large leaven of national pride. He felt that if Gall and Spurzheim's philosophy of the human mind was true, that of his countrymen Reid and Stewart would fall to the ground. The aim of the article in question was not to examine the doctrines of phrenology with reference to their truth or fallacy, but, if possible, to get the laugh against them, lest the fame of the Scotch philosophers should suffer damage. But the reviewer made no way with those who think for themselves. To them he proved nothing but his own self-sufficiency; and, while the disciples of phrenology were daily multiplying in Europe and in America, his attack upon it was thrown aside and forgotten." (vol. i. p. 220.)

The author of "Timon" stands in no need of commendation from us; but we are proud of him as an ally, and hope that he will continue to disseminate wholesome truths in future works.

II. Fraser's Magazine for November 1840.-Article on the Philosophy of Phrenology.

This Number of Fraser's Magazine contains a temperate and well-written article entitled "Mr George Combe and the Philosophy of Phrenology," which demands a brief notice in

our pages. The history of the article has been communicated to us by a correspondent, and will form an appropriate introduction to our remarks.

In March 1840, Mr James K. Dow, of the British School, Nottingham, delivered a public course of eight lectures on phrenology in that town, the attendance on which ranged from 70 to 120 persons. After the close of the lectures, it was announced in the Tory newspaper of Nottingham, that the Rev. W. J. Butler, Rector of St Nicholas, would deliver a lecture to shew that "the philosophy of Mr Combe, as advocated in his Constitution of Man, was deistical in its tendencies." The lecture was delivered gratis, and about 70 persons attended, including Mr Dow himself and other phrenologists. This lecture, a little more polished and extended, constitutes the article in Fraser's Magazine. A report of it was published in the Tory newspaper, and highly commended. About ten days afterwards, Mr Dow, in the same room and also gratuitously, delivered "a lecture in vindication of Mr Combe's Constitution of Man from the attack of the Rev. W. J. Butler ;* and which was attended by not less than 300 individuals, consisting chiefly of the most thinking and respectable mechanics. It was so well received that it led to a controversy in the newspapers, in the form of letters, two of which were written by the Rev. Mr Butler in defence of his lectures.

As it is a rule in conducting this Journal to exclude discussions concerning Scripture and Scripture doctrines, and to confine ourselves to natural facts and philosophical inferences from them, we do not mean to follow the Rev. Mr Butler into the details of his objections. Nor is this necessary, Mr Combe's "Constitution of Man" has been twelve years before the public, and has met with the approval of a large section of the Christian world. It is beyond the risk, therefore, of sustaining prejudice from any review. All that we propose to do, is

to notice the manner in which the Reverend Rector of St Nicholas has conducted his attack.

He cites two cases to shew that phrenology is unfounded in nature. The first was an experiment performed "some few years ago" by a physician, a firm believer in the "theories of Dr Spurzheim," who declared that, in the cast of the skull of a murderer," Secretiveness was the quality, of all others,

*This lecture, we are assured, was highly creditable to Mr Dow, not only for the able and complete refutation of the arguments of Mr Butler, but for the moral courage displayed in so promptly stepping forward in defence of phrenological truth, at the risk of exciting considerable obloquy against himself from the prejudiced portion of the religious public, and that, too, in opposition to an antagonist, however illiberal, of acknowledged talent and attainments.

most strongly indicated;" from which conclusion the reverend gentleman dissented, "since it was manifest, from the evidence on his trial, that the fellow could never have been convicted, and, in all probability, never would have been even suspected, if he had only kept his own counsel." Whatever effect this experiment may have had on the mind of Mr Butler, his report of it is entitled to no weight whatever with any philosophical inquirer. He does not give the name either of the physician or of the criminal, nor does he inform us where the cast may be inspected, or where the record of the trial may be read. If any phrenologist had offered an equally vague and meagre case as a fact in favour of phrenology, he would justly have been treated with ridicule; and informed that he was ignorant of the first principles of philosophical induction.

The second case, Mr Butler" can vouch for." "It shews a second signal failure," says he, "in this pretended art or science." A phrenologist "confidently announced a taste and organ for music as forming the characteristic" of a certain individual. The subject of the experiment answered, "I would not positively say whether I could distinguish God save the King' from the 104th Psalm or not."

In answering this objection, the first point is to ascertain whether the organ was really large, or whether only an error was committed by the phrenologist who called it so, when it was actually small; but on this we can say nothing, as no evidence is presented, and no reference made, by which the fact may be verified. In the former case, the objection would have weight, but in the latter none.

Farther, we could furnish Mr Butler with other instances in which persons, even well skilled in phrenology, have made mistakes in regard to the organ of Tune; but this does not alter its size, or convert a large into a small organ. The answer to such cases will be found in Mr Combe's address to the Phrenological Association, in page 4 of our present number. The real point at issue is this-Is the organ of Tune ascertained? To answer this question, every philosopher will seek for the strongest evidence, and that which is freest from difficulty. If, then, any person capable of discriminating size, will compare casts of the foreheads of Hadyn, Mozart, Paganini, and other men celebrated for their musical genius, with casts of the heads of Anne Ormerod, and other individuals who can hardly distinguish melody from a common noise, and prove that the development is equally large in this organ in them all, phrenologists will give up their belief in it; but, while truly philosophical evidence is shunned, we must be excused for attaching no importance to what may be the error of an