that superactivity somewhere exists, and is robbing the countenance of its due proportion of blood. What aid does pathology give to the professor's objection? None; but demonstrates its erroneousness by the notable fact that death by cerebral apoplexy, death from what the professor calls the "suffocation of an organ by excessive supply of blood," is as often the effect of excessive fear as of excessive rage. In whatever point of view we regard this objection of Professor Smith, it is discreditable to his knowledge and accuracy, and not quite so correct in argument as might be expected from a great logician who volunteers to pronounce sentence so freely and confidently on the dialectics of the phrenologists.

We here close our review of the "Select Discourses." Their errors and fallacies are not yet exhausted, but we have endeavored fully and fairly to meet all those facts, assertions and arguments on which their author seems most confidently to rely. In taking leave of the professor, we would humbly express the hope that he may yet be induced to reconsider the whole subject, and investigate for himself the groundwork of the phrenological doctrines. Should he do this with the single desire of arriving at correct conclusions, we cannot doubt the result; and if he arrive at the conclusions which, in such a case, we deem inevitable, the requisitions of conscience and honor are plain; fortunately, too, they prescribe such a course as even an enlightened and far-sighted expediency would suggest the open renunciation of error. Whoever discovers that with the means of correct knowledge in his power, he has been seeking pre-eminence by assailing truth, may well regret his course, but need never be ashamed of defeat, for truth no man can conquer; its assailant, however, may confidently reckon on a rebound which, if reparation be not made, will, sooner or later, render his reputation a wreck, if not a mockery.

ARTICLE II.

PHRENOLOGY IN SCHOOLS.

The attention of the public has, of late, been repeatedly called to the importance of introducing Physiology and Anatomy as regular studies into our common schools and institutions of learning. Several works embracing the elements of these sciences have already been prepared and published with this object in view. It is truly gratifying to witness the increasing interest in the community on these subjects, and we hope

the day is not far distant when the study of Anatomy and Physiology will receive that attention in all schools, both public and private, which their nature and importance absolutely demand. The saying of the poet that "the proper study of mankind is man," is no less trite than

But hitherto, this study has been sadly neglected, while almost every other branch that could be thought of, whether it afforded any mental discipline or practical utility or not, has received far greater attention A century hence, the tables will be turned: the physical and mental constitution of man and their relations to external objects, will then occupy a conspicuous place.

Among the various means which will operate to bring about such a state of things, the influence of Phrenology will have no small agency. It is not to be expected that those who have passed the meridian of life will ever become much interested in the science themselves, or do much for its advancement; but it will be studied and embraced by the young, and they, too, will carry out and apply its principles. It will yet be made a distinct branch of study in our schools, as much as chemistry and astronomy. In fact, the science is already introduced into several popular works on Physiology, which are extensively used as text-books of study in various parts of the union. In the February number of the Journal, we had occasion to notice a work of this kind by Dr. Reynall Coates of this city, since which a friend has placed in our hands a similar work by Dr. Charles A. Lee, late Professor in the University of New York. This work is published by the American Common School Union, and has passed through several editions. We rejoice to find so correct and full exposition of Phrenology in a work which has such an extensive circulation, and which is doubtless studied by many thousands of the young. The following extract will show how clearly and correctly the principles of the science are presented in Dr. Lee's work on Human Physiology:

Phrenology. The actual meaning of the term Phrenology, is "a discourse about the mind," or, "the doctrine of the mind." It professes indeed to be a system of Mental Philosophy, and as it is pretends to be founded in nature and supported by facts, it certainly is not beneath the attention of the candid enquirer after truth.

The chief doctrines which phrenology claims to have established, are the following:

1. That the moral and the intellectual faculties are innate.

2. That their exercise, or manifestation, depends on organization. 3. That the brain is the organ of all the propensities, sentiments, and faculties.

4. That the brain is composed of as many particular organs as there are propensities, sentiments, and faculties, which differ essentially from each other. These four propositions may be said to constitute the phrenological doctrine, and they are sustained by such numerous experiments, observations, and facts, that a large proportion of enlightened physiologists of the present day acquiesce in their correctness.

Another and a different proposition, however, and one which, by many, is erroneously supposed, alone, to constitute phrenology, is, that we are able to recognize on the exterior of the skull, the seats of the particular organs, or intellectual and moral faculties, and thus determine the character of individuals. This proposition has not received that general concurrence of physiologists, in its support, which has attended the former; but there are so many zealous and able inquiriers now in the field, and such is the ardor in pursuit of knowledge, connected with this subject, that a few years at farthest, probably, will suffice to overthrow or establish it.

I have already mentioned some facts to prove that the brain is the organ of the mind, and that the condition of that organ influences the mind; let us now inquire whether the mind, in every act, employs the whole brain as one organ, or whether separate faculties of the mind are connected with distinct portions of the brain as their respective organs? It is a well established fact in physiology, that different functions are never performed by the same organ, but that each function has an organ for itself. Thus the eyes see, the ears hear, the tongue tastes, the nose smells, the stomach digests food, the heart circulates the blood, the liver secretes bile, &c. Even where the function is compound, as in the tongue, where a feeling, taste, and motion are all combined, we find a separate nerve for each function, and the same occurs in every part of the body. Now, as no nerve performs two functions, we may, reasoning from analogy, conclude, that it is so in the brain; different sentiments, different faculties, and different propensities, require for their manifestation different organs or portions of cerebral matter.

Again, the external senses have for their exercise, not only separate and external organs, but also as many separate internal organs. Hearing, seeing, smelling, &c., require different portions of cerebral substance for their exercise; may we not then from analogy, be justified in the conclusion, that there are as many cerebral, or nervous systems, or organs, as there are special internal senses, and particular intellectual and moral faculties? The legitimate inference then is, that each faculty does possess in the brain a nervous organ appropriated to its production, the same as each of the senses has its particular nervous organ. The struc

ture of the brain is not homogeneous, but differs greatly in different parts, both in composition, form, color, consistence, and arrangement. But what object could there be in all this variety, if the brain acted as a whole, and there was but a single intellectual principle or faculty? A difference of structure shows that there must be a difference of function, and as the brain has been proved to be the organ of the mind, it follows that different portions or organs of the brain must be employed by the intellectual and moral faculties.

The faculties do not all appear at once, nor do they fail at once, but they appear in succession, and as a general rule, the reflecting or reasoning faculties are the latest in arriving at perfection. So also the organization of the brain is unfolded in a slow and gradual manner, and the intellectual faculties appear in succession only as the structure is perfected. For example, in infancy, the cerebellum forms one fifteenth of the encephalic mass; in adult age about one sixth. In childhood the middle parts of the forehead preponderate; in later life, the upper lateral regions are more prominent, which facts are also in accordance with the periods of unfolding the knowing and reasoning faculties.

Genius is almost always partial; that is, men generally have a taste or faculty for one particular pursuit, or study, in which alone they have the power of excelling. One has a talent for poetry, another for mechanics, another for drawing, music, or mathematics, and that is often developed at a very early age, and without the advantages of education, or particular instruction, and these persons may, in all other pursuits, be below mediocrity. Indeed, nothing is more common than to see in the same individuals some faculties acute and powerful, while others are feeble and defective, &c., while as to other things it is deficient. Such facts are not easily explained on the scheme of a single intellectual faculty, and a single organ devoted to its exercise.

It is an observation of common notoriety, that when the mind is fatigued with one kind of occupation or study, it can engage with vigor in one of a different kind, requiring the exercise of different faculties; and thus, instead of fatiguing, actually acts as a restorative. Could this happen unless there were a plurality of faculties and organs of the intellect? The phenomena of partial idiocy and partial insanity are at variance with the doctrine of a single organ of mind. We often see persons in a state of monomania, that is, they are rational enough on all subjects but one; but in relation to that, they are entirely mad. Now if the brain be sufficiently sound to manifest all the other faculties in their perfect state, why is it not also able to manifest this?

Numerous cases are contained in medical works where a wound of

the brain was succeeded by the loss of a single faculty. Larrey, in his surgical memoirs, mentions several cases of wounds made by bayonets and swords penetrating the brain through the orbit of the eye, which entailed the loss of memory for names, but not of things, &c.

Such are a few of the arguments adduced by writers on this subject, to prove that the brain is not only the organ of the mind, but an apparatus, a congeries of organs, each of which is the seat of a particular faculty, the organ of a particular function. The evidence to most minds will appear satisfactory and conclusive on this point, though other facts and more extended investigations are needed to place the science on a permanent foundation.

ARTICLE III.

PRACTICAL PHRENOLOGY TESTED.*

The following is an authentic phrenological examination of a gentleman of our acquaintance, recently made by those excellent Phrenologists and able lecturers, the Messrs. Fowlers, at the Marlboro' Chapel, separately, and without any previous consultation between themselves, or personal knowledge of the gentleman examined. There is a remarkable concurrence in their opinions, which could hardly have been the result of conjecture. It will no doubt be read and examined with interest by those who doubt the science, as well as by its friends. The gentleman examined thinks every body will now be compelled to believe in phrenology "in spite of their teeth."

Examination by O. S. Fowler.-This gentleman's leading quality is energy of character, and that disposition to rise in the world which will render him conspicuous in some capacity. He never will be a servant to any one; will be at the head or no where, and will make a noise in the world; rather proud, and thinks he knows and can do a little better than any one else; firm even to obstinacy; loves opposition and debate better than his dinner, which is saying considerable; cannot

*The above article is copied verbatim from the Boston Daily Mail of April 29th. We will merely add that the gentleman examined is by profession a Surgeon Dentist, well known in Boston; and the analysis of his character as here given, is acknowledged by those who are best acquainted with him, to be remarkably correct in every particular.-ED.