necessary to correctness in treating of any part of the system, that all the modifying influences should be estimated as accurately as possible. The only true mode of stating the proposition is, therefore, the phrenological mode," size, other things being equal, is the measure of power." But we must now change our course, in accordance with our Petruchio's varying mood. We have seen that above he has been too latitudinarian in his views. It was, however, when not under the disturbing and darkening influence of anti-phrenological excitement. No sooner does he come within the verge of that influence, than principles have to change, and nature to reverse her laws, rather than the phrenologist be allowed a foot of neutral ground on which he may rest in peace. The professor attacks the very principle which he has so broadly and explicitly stated, as though it were fearful heresy, and soon arrives, to his own entire satisfaction, at the conclusion that it is false and groundless! After which, however, as if suddenly relenting, he says as a matter of "generosity" that he " will concede something to the size of the head, and the varying conditions of the circulation." We in return would propose that nature unite with the phrenologist in returning thanks to the professor for this liberal concession.

On page 129, after stating that "a brain weighing thirty ounces or less, is so incapable of performing its functions that idiocy results," he acknowledges that he is "inclined to believe that if you take one thousand persons with heads unusually large, and one thousand with heads unusually small, that the former will, collectively, surpass the latter," and that "since the brain forms the material instrument of thought, it may well happen that quantity is, to a certain extent, indispensable to its efficiency!" As if fearful, however, that this doubt may be construed too liberally, he afterwards very gravely affirms that "between individual and individual, mere bulk of head is an element of no appreciable importance," pp. 130. But as if he had not already sufficiently puzzled the reader about his meaning, he follows up this by stating his opinion that" comparing races of men and classes of animals, the intelligence will be in proportion to the projection of the frontal lobes," and by eulogizing the accuracy of phrenologists in taking the distance directly from the auditory passage to the most projecting part of the forehead, as the measure of intelligence. May we not ask the professor on what "projection" and "distance" depend, if not upon size? the very element which he has been treating so cavalierly! The phrenologists must indeed be sorry dialecticians, if Professor Smith is entitled to school them about logic and consistency.

The fact is that the doctrine of size, as stated by the phrenologist, is

fully and completely recognized by all physiologists when treating of every part of the animal economy, except the brain, and by many of them, as Cuvier, and Tiedemann, when treating of this organ also. Let us show their usual language by a few extracts from a treatise of Dr. Roget, an anti-phrenologist of some eminence. First observing, however, that this writer, in his article "Craniscopy," published in the Encyclopedia Britannica, opposes the doctrine of size by the following argument: "To the perfection of a refined and delicate instrument, such as must be that which is subservient to the operations of the intellect, innumerable conditions must concur, among which that of size, it is reasonable to suppose, is the least important. Delicacy of texture, fineness of organization, and harmony of adjustment between the several parts of its complete structure, must contribute infinitely more towards rendering it capable of performing its office, than superior magnitude." This is a specimen of the truly fallacious mode of reasoning resorted to in what has been called "the most formidable attack phrenology ever had to sustain." The phrenologist, comparing two instruments of like structure and function, says that the largest, other things being equal, will be the most powerful. This is a "phantom," says Dr. Roget. Size is not the measure of power in the brain, because its appropriateness of structure, its perfection as an instrument, its capability of acting as the mind's organ, depends more upon other things than size! And thus one truth is gravely opposed by the assertion of another equally plain and perfectly harmonious truth. We have the form but not the substance of an argument; a collocation of words by which sound is enabled to play a trick upon the understanding.

Let us turn, however, to Dr. Roget's article on Physiology, also published in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and mark the living energy, the pervading influence of this much abused principle:

§926. “Every part of the organ of smell is developed in quadrupeds in a degree corresponding to the greater extent and acuteness in which they enjoy this sense compared with man."

$938. The eye of the bat is remarkably small, but the imperfections which probably exist in the sense of sight, are amply compensated by the singular acuteness of that of hearing, the organ of which is exceedingly developed."

$940. "The ethmoid bone is of very complicated formation in the male, especially in the numerous convolutions of its turbinated process by which a very large surface is given to the Schneiderian membrane which lines every portion. This structure indicates the possession of a very acute sense of smell. The remarkable developement of the

internal parts of the ears, is also conclusive evidence of the delicacy of the sense of hearing in this animal, although it has no external ear whatever."

$948. "In the genus felia, the long bristly hairs which constitute the whiskers, receive very considerable nervous filaments and appear subservient to the sense of touch in a very remarkable degree.”

$998. "In the whale, the olfactory organs are not adapted to the possession of any accurate sense of smell, being furnished neither with turbinated bones nor with any considerable nerves.”

§1015. "The eyes of birds are very large in proportion to the size of the head, and appear to be adapted to a great range of vision."

Here we see the principle which Dr. Roget styles a "phantom," completely imbuing, as it were, his physiological remarks. Its truth is indeed so plainly written on every page of nature, that LARGE and POWERFUL are treated almost as synonymous terms. We might note down volumes of such facts as the foregoing, confirmatory of this principle, but these must suffice. Let us turn again, for an instant, to Dr. Roget's "Cranioscopy." There we shall find in opposition to facts by him so explicitly stated, that he quotes approvingly, Professor Hufeland's assertion that small eyes see with more strength than large ones,* and then asks, “Why may not this be also the case with the organs of the brain ?" Aye, why not? What reason can be given why a brain may not be increased in power by a diminution of its size? Why may not size, caeteris paribus, be the measure of feebleness instead of might? This very interesting anti-phrenological problem we leave, as an exercise of the reader's ingenuity. After solving it, he will be prepared to try his skill on another problem equally difficult, namely, Why may not a half be greater than the whole?

To prove that size is the measure of power in the brain, as well as in other organs, we will proceed to the consideration of a few well ascertained facts in relation to man himself.

In

That man is superior to woman in general mental power, is almost universally acknowledged, we believe, by the gentler sex even. accordance with this, is the superior size and weight of the brain in man. In the appendix to Dr. Monro's work on the brain, Sir William Hamilton states the average weight of the adult male Scotch brain to be three pounds eight ounces, and that of the adult female Scotch brain to be three pounds four ounces. Professor Tiedemann states that "the female

* In the application which he makes of this quotation, Dr. Roget seems to have forgotten that it is not the mechanical frame work of the eye, but the retina, which constitutes the true external organ of vision.

brain weighs, on an average, from four to eight ounces less than that of the male, and that this difference is already perceptible in a new born child!"

The varying size of the brain at different ages, is another strong corroboration of the principle for which we contend, Mental power is least in infancy; it strengthens in childhood and youth; attains its acme in the vigor of manhood, and declines in old age. The size of the brain follows precisely the same course. It is least in infancy, increases through childhood and youth, attains its full size from about twenty-two to thirty, in some cases as late as forty years of age, and diminishes in the decline of life. These facts have been amply proved by phrenologists, but let us turn to general physiologists for corroboration. Cruvilhier ascertained the brain in three young subjects to weigh, on an average, two pounds nine ounces each, The average of the adult Scotch male brain, we have seen above, to be three pounds eight ounces. Professor Tiedemann examined fifty-two brains, and states as the results that the weight of the brain in an adult male European, varies from three pounds two ounces, to four pounds six ounces, troy. He also remarks, “I have generally found the cavity of the skull smaller in old men than in middleaged persons. It appears to me, therefore, probable, that the brain really decreases in old age, only more remarkably in some persons than in others." "According to the researches of Desmoulins," says Dr. Stokes, (Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Physic, edited by Dr, Bell, pp. 256,) "it appears that in persons who have passed the age of seventy, the specific gravity of the brain becomes from one twentieth to one fifteenth less than that of the adult. It has also been proved that this atrophy of the brain is connected with old age, and not, as it might be thought, with general emaciation of the body: for in chronic emaciation from disease in adults, the brain is the last part which is found to atrophy,"

The difference between the brain of the idiot and that of the man of great general mental power, strongly corroborates our proposition. Dr. Voisin states that in the lowest class of idiots under his care at the Hospital of Incurables, the horizontal circumference varied from eleven to thirteen inches and the distance from the top of the nose to the occipital spine, over the top of the head, was but eight or nine inches. Professor Tiedemann says that in cases of congenital idiotismus, the brain rarely exceeds in weight that of a new born child. On the contrary, he remarks, that "the brain of men who have distinguished themselves by their great talents, is often very large. The brain of the celebrated Cuvier weighed 4 lbs. 11 ozs. 4 dr. 30 grs. troy, and that of the celebrated Surgeon.

Dupuytren, weighed 4 lbs. 10 ozs. troy." He subsequently remarks that the observations of Gall, Spurzheim, Halsam, Esquirol, and others, on this subject, are confirmed by his own researches. Independently of the overwhelming proofs by which it might be demonstrated, might we not reasonably infer from such facts that the gradations of general mental power would accord with the gradations of general cerebral bulk, from the idiot through all intermediate degrees, up to the master minds of their race?

But let us look at facts as we see them presented in the organization of the various races of mankind. And here, in addition to all that the phrenologists have accomplished, we have the results, especially, of Dr. Morton's labors as presented in his truly valuable work, the Crania Americana, almost every page of which is confirmatory of phrenological doctrines. From this work we copy the following most interesting table, containing the results of his measurements of the capacity of near two hundred and fifty skulls:

He who is acquainted with the history of mankind, and the character and comparative influence of its various races, will at once' appreciate the bearing and force of the above results. At the head of the list we see the Caucasian race, the master of the world, the arbiter of its feebler brethren. At the foot of the list we find the poor Ethiopian, the “servants of servants." Dr. Morton remarks that, with a single exception, the Caucasian skulls were taken from the lowest and least educated class of society, and included three Hindoo skulls. Now as the lowest class of society have generally smaller heads than the educated and influential, and as the Hindoo skulls were of 75 inches only in capacity, the above average is too low for the European head, and ought to be stated at not less than 90 cubic inches. We find the European brain then to be on an average twelve cubic inches larger, and the largest of the European brains to be thirty-one cubic inches larger than the average Ethiopian brain. If we had time to enter into details, it would be easy to show the light which the principle for which we are contending throws on the path of the historian. The conquest of Peru by Pizarro, with his 164 soldiers, loses much of its marvellousness to the enlightened physiologist,