remarkable for either vigour or variety of intellectual faculties. The intellect, although the nobler part of the mind, has a smaller portion of brain for its organic support than the other divisions of the mental faculties; and hence it may be defective, and yet the size of the brain relatively large. On the other hand, when we learn that a person has a small brain, we cannot, simply from this announcement, tell whether he is deficient in, or remarkable for, intelligence. A large head, with fully proportioned developements in all the regions, anterior as well as posterior, leaves us in no doubt of the powers of the mind of its possessor, and of his being endowed with both strong intellect and strong feelings; of his being, in fact, a man of excellent contradictory parts. But a large head, with a deficiency anteriorly, gives no promise of power; on the contrary, to the phrenologist it is evidence of deficiency of intellect. On the other hand, the collection of organs on which the exercise of the intellectual faculties depends may be present, and the organs of other faculties, in small developement; and here will be a man with a small head remarkable, perhaps, for his intellect. It is no argument against the function of the anterior lobes, through the instrumentality of which the intellectual faculties are, according to phrenology, displayed, to allege that an individual, distinguished for the variety and extent of his "native talent," had an uncommonly small brain-unless we had been informed at the same time, that, with the variety and extent of his native talent, he had also been noted for the power and energetic display of all the faculties which are represented by the phrenologists to depend on the middle and posterior lobes of the cerebrum and the cerebellum. Had we been told that the individual cited by Dr. Warren as thus distinguished, had at the same time a notable deficiency in the developement of the anterior part of his cerebrum, we should have had more cause of wonderment, and for agreeing with Dr. W. and Dr. Sewall, that this fact furnishes an objection to phrenology.

The remark of Dr. Sewall, therefore, that "if we look around upon the intellectual world, we shall find as many men distinguished for intellectual power with a head of small or medium size, and as many with a large head possessing a feeble intellect, as the reverse of these," is entirely without point, and inapplicable for his purposes. Its truth is not adverse to phrenology; it is rather a strong confirmation of the doctrines of this science. But to those who believe in the unity of the brain, it must appear to be a manifest absurdity, unless they deny that this part is at all necessary for thought and sentiment. What! that an instrument, whether it be large or small, closely knit together in its several parts, or loosely joined, (a dense

or a lax fibrous structure,) is equally fit for the offices, simple or complex, which it is known to fulfil.

Dr. Sewall, whilst he admits "that there is a difference in the natural capacities of men," is equally clear that this difference is utterly insignificant, compared with what is impressed upon the mind by circumstances.

"The influence of climate, occupation, literature, science, and the arts, commerce, war, civil and religious institutions, the state of society, and the modes of life, all exert a powerful influence upon the human intellect; but, above all, it is the discipline of the mind which gives it power."

No one can deny the power of circumstances; but it is not so great as the lecturer affirms it to be. A seed will not germinate without the "circumstances" of heat and moisture; and a plant will not bring forth leaves, flowers, and fruits, without the added circumstance of light. But we believe it will be difficult, by any possible combination of circumstances, to make a barren seed germinate, or to cause a pumpkin seed to grow into a pomegranate tree, or a cucumber seed shoot up into Indian corn. And yet, to our mind, these events would not be more strange than if, by all the circumstances enumerated, certain brains could be made to perform the higher intellectual functions, and enable their possessors to manifest genius and invention. Did "circumstances" cause the differences between the Egyptians and the Greeks, or between the Ionian Greeks and their Asiatic neighbours? In later times, wherein were the circumstances through which the followers of Mahomet from Arabia, the conquerors of Egypt, Mauritania, and Spain, so soon felt the humanising influence of letters, and extended their cultivation, and that of the arts and sciences, far beyond any other people of their time; whilst the Turks, with the same religion, also conquerors of Asia Minor, Egypt, and the remains of the Greek empire, persisted in barbarism, and up to this day are encamped, as it were, on the fairest portion of Europe, alien to her letters, her arts of usefulness and ornament, and her sciences? Are there not some other than the circumstances, either mentioned or meant by the lecturer, which can explain these differences? Need we go farther, or can we go beyond the innate differences of mental constitution and capacity?

The whole history of genius is a continued refutation of the dogma of circumstances alone, or mainly causing the differences between men in their intellectual manifestations. Where were the fostering influences of climate and situation, or the encouragement of friends and the patronage of the great, under which Linnæus, the Swede,

began and pursued his botanical studies, and acquired an enduring reputation in all the branches of natural history? Was it a favourable combination of circumstances by which Columbus, in opposition to the opinions of the learned, and amidst the coldness and indifference of princes and rulers, discovered this continent? Was Franklin indebted to circumstances for his distinction as a natural philosopher, and the reputation and influence as a politician and political economist, which he acquired in both Europe and America? But why need we multiply examples, which are nearly as numerous as the names of men of genius.

When a youth leaves his paternal farm, perhaps cot, and becomes one of the busy throng of a city in which he is a stranger, unknown, unbefriended, without wealth, or any aid or appliance but the conviction of his own powers, and works his way to honours and fame in a learned profession, or in the legislative hall, can he be said to be the favourite of circumstances?

Dr. Sewall tells us "The intellectual, like the physical functions, acquire strength by use; and he who would attain to eminence, must subject himself to the habit of long-continued and close application to study, to deep and systematic reflection, severe investigation, and accurate analysis. These give a vigour to the mind that nature never imparts." With much truth there is mixed up no little fallacy in these opinions. The lecturer has forgotten that the greatest geniuses have ever been among the most devoted students. No obstacle has withheld them from their darling study and pursuit. Out of the wildest confusion around them, they have methodised their labours, and, undisturbed even by the din and tumult of war, they have continued their calculations and experiments. They but gratify, in so doing, a craving of their nature, a thirst for knowledge, which, though constantly ministered to, is never satiated. The mere student from imitation or vanity may accumulate a large and not unprofitable store; but unless he be quickened by genius, it will be Newton has of comparatively little avail for great and noble ends.

had many to equal him in "the habit of long-continued and close application to study, to deep and systematic reflection, severe investigation, and accurate analysis." His genius-impelled him to this course: others, in a spirit of imitation, and from a sense of duty, followed it; but with what result, the annals of science will show. Milton gratified his powerful mind by deep and various study: he was a poet and a student-a student rather because he was a poet, than a poet because he was a student. According to Dr. Sewall's opinion, labour imparts genius, but not genius impels to labour. Two of the most celebrated painters of Italy, Michael Angelo and

Leonardo da Vinci, and men of the greatest genius in their art, were also the most persevering students, and noted for their varied attainments. Study and attainments were here, as in the other instances mentioned, but effects, and not, as Dr. Sewail would imply, causes of their intellectual vigour and inventive faculty. Were it otherwise, every academy of art and school of science should furnish, by its mere discipline and the intentness of some of their students, a Michael Angelo and a Newton.

If men of the greatest genius have ever been among the most indefatigable students, the fact must be received as an acknowledg ment of the importance, nay, absolute necessity, of diligence and labour for the accomplishment of great ends. No distinction in literature, science, or the arts, was ever yet attained without the individual submitting to these indispensable conditions. With some more happily gifted, it is a labour of love, with others, of duty; but in all, there must be a continued straining to reach the goal of their hopes and their ambition.

We find, indeed, every now and then, a particular faculty in early and active exercise, with comparatively little labour or education. This fact itself is sufficient proof of the innate power, and separate action and plurality of the faculties of the mind. But their display, isolatedly, will seldom be productive of very varied or beneficial effects, or redound much to the honour of their possessor, without study, meditation, and frequent trials.

Dr. Sewall says: "The individual who exclusively cultivates his memory, acquires a faculty of retaining facts to an extent inconceivable to those who neglect this faculty." Here is another specimen of the vagueness and inaccuracy of thought and expression into which the followers of the old school of philosophy are continually led, in treating of the mind and its attributes. Memory is not a faculty; but a modification, a mode of exercise of a faculty. There are as many kinds or varieties of memory as there are of the intellectual faculties. One person exhibits a great facility in remembering and repeating the words of a speaker or author, no matter on what subject; but often with hardly any understanding of its nature or merits. Another remembers places and objects, or a landscape which he has once seen, but has no memory for mere words. Α third, again, remembers all the combinations of figures and calculations of a difficult problem in mathematics, whilst he cannot bear in mind any details of description of men or things, of history or poetry. One man will have a most tenacious memory for every thing connected with painting, whilst another will be equally retentive of musical combinations and details; and neither of the two, by any

VOL. III.-11

effort of intellect, shall be able to acquire the knowledge, or display the kind of memory, of the other.

It may be alleged that, in these cases, the strength of memory is proportionate to the exclusive direction of the mind, and its intentness on one subject or series. But it will be found that the direction and intentness are the effect of the strength of a particular faculty, which naturally seeks for, or impels its possessor to seek for, its gratification, and which enables him to remember best that which gave him most pleasure.

Similar comments might be made on the remarks of the lecturer which follow the above extract, touching the success of a metaphysician who principally exercises his understanding, in arriving at a power of analysis-fancy being checked causes a neglect of judg ment, &c.

An argument frequently urged in support of phrenology, is the success with which its principles have been applied to practice, in distinguishing character. To this Dr. Sewall replies, by alleging, that the same manifestations of mind, as in crime, for example, cannot grow out of the same or one unit cerebral developement; "men,” says he, "of the same natural propensities perpetrate different crimes when placed under different circumstances." Doubtless they do ; and the admission of the fact is the best reply to those who argue against phrenology and craniology, because every murderer has not Destructiveness large, and every thief, Acquisitiveness in excessive developement. It is not the solitary crime that proclaims the character, or even the innate propensity, of the individual, so much as a series of crimes of the like nature, persisted in, often without apparent object or common motive-as where a man repeatedly commits murder in cold blood, or systematically robs without necessity, and without regard to the application which he will make of his booty. In cases like these, we expect to find a correspondence between structure and function-between the cranial configuration and the mental manifestation. Where, also, the cerebral developement and cranial configuration are very marked in a young person, we have reason to believe that he will be prone to acts constituting the range of the function of the organ, and that if he is not restrained by suitable education and the exercise of counteracting faculties, he will habitually indulge the dominant propensity.

We agree with Dr. Sewall in exclaiming, "How preposterous, then, to look to the developements of the head as the measure of a man's virtues and vices, or even to regard his known propensities and dispositions as the true index to the history of his life." We do not, ourselves, know of any class of philosophers, phrenologists or