inquiry by a multiplied observation. In certain circles, which we hope are both confined and few in number, we have the means of knowing that the mania has already spread too much. For example, we have known more than one instance in which the heads of servants were examined, previous to engaging them, and in which those who had any suspicious bump were rejected, though otherwise their character was good. We have even known the system influence the opinion of a juryman, though his fellow-jurors, not being illuminati, were all against him. Viewing it in this light, it becomes greatly more serious than a matter of vain speculation, and every rational person ought to set himself against the delusion. Who could have believed, in these enlightened times, we should have begun to imitate savage tribes in squeezing and moulding the heads of our children? Yet such a project has been proposed for the purpose of producing the requisite bumps to form a great character. According to this project, nothing more is necessary to produce a Newton, or a Columbus, or a Washington, or a Shakspeare, than to procure a mould of the particular head, which it is wished to imitate, and by pinching, squeezing, and binding, to form that of the child to correspond.

One thing suggests itself unfavourable to this, granting it practicable and the system true; namely, that a person may have the requisite bumps in perfection, and yet the faculties or appetites may lie dormant. This, it will be perceived, is a most convenient loophole for our phrenologists to escape through, whenever they are puzzled: and accordingly when characters are not found to correspond with the bumps, the faculties of the protuberant ones are either said to be dormant, or counteracted by some other bump! Such is a specimen of the subterfuges to which the supporters of a system are driven. We do not, however, make these objections in the spirit of cavil, how much soever we may have used strong and even severe expressions. We beg that these may be applied to the system only, and not to Dr. Gall or his disciples. Indeed it would be exceedingly unhandsome to speak harshly of a man, who bears with so much apparent composure the ill-treatment which he has had to endure from the enemies of his system. The following passage forcibly demonstrates his good intentions, whatever the consequences of his doctrines are or may be.

'The followers of the different schools of philosophy among the Greeks accused each other of impiety and perjury. The people, in their turn, detested the philosophers, and accused those who investigated principles with presumptuously encroaching upon the rights of the Deity. The novelty of the opinions of Pythagoras caused his banishment from Athens; those of Anaxagoras threw him into prison; the Abderites treated Democritus as a madman, because he dis: ected dead bodies to discover the cause of insanity; and Socrates, for demonstrating the unity of God, was condemued to drink hemlock.

The same scandal has been renewed at all times, and in all nations.

Many of those who distinguished themselves in the fourteenth century by their knowledge of natural things, were put to death by magicians. Galileo, for proving the earth's motion, was imprisoned at the age of seventy. Those who first maintained the influence of climate upon the intellectual faculties of nations, were suspected of materialism.

،

Universally, nature treats new truths and their discoverers in a singular and uniform manner. With what indignation and animosity have not the greatest benefits been rejected? For instance, potatoes, Peruvian bark, vaccination, &c. As soon as Varolius made his anatomical discoveries, he was decried by Silvius as the most infamous and ignorant madman. Vesanum, litterarum imperitissimum, arrogantissimum, calumniatorem maledicentissimum, rerum omnium, ignarissimum; transfugam, impium, ingratum, monstrum ignorantiæ, impietatis exemplar perniciosissimum, quod pestilentiali habitu Europam venenat, &c. Varolius was reproached with dazzing his auditors by a seductive eloquence, and artificially affecting the prolongation of the optic nerves as far as the thalami. Harvey, for maintaining the circulation of the blood, was treated as a visionary; and depravity went so far as to attempt his ruin with James and Charles the First. When it was no longer possible to shorten the optic nerve, or arrest the course of the blood in its vessels, the honour of these discoveries was all at once given to Hippocrates. The physical truths announced by Linnæus, Buffon, the pious philosopher Bonnet, by George Le Roy, were represented as impieties likely to ruin religion and morality. Even the virtuous and generous Lavater was treated as a fatalist and materialist. Every where do fatalism and materialism, placed before the sanctuary of truth, make the world retire. Every where do those, upon whose judgment the public relies, not merely ascribe to the author of a discovery the absurdities of their own prejudices, but even renounce established truths, if contrary to their purposes, and revive ancient errors, if calculated to ruin the man who is in their way.

This is a faithful picture of what has happened to me. I have, therefore, soine reason to be proud of having experienced the same lot as men to whom the world is indebted for so great a mass of knowledge. It seems that nature has subjected all truths to persecution, in order to establish them the more firmly; for he who can snatch one from her, always presents a front of brass to the darts hurled against him, and has always force enough to defend and establish it. History shows us that all the efforts and sophisms, which are to be directed against a truth once drawn from darkness, fall like dust blown by the winds against a rock.

'The instance of Aristotle and Descartes should particularly be quoted, when we wish to display the influence of prejudice upon the good or bad fortune of new doctrines. The opponents of Aristotle burnt his books; afterwards, the books of Ramus, who had written against Aristotle, were burnt, and the opponents of the philosopher of Stagira declared heretics; and it was even forbidden by law to dispute his doctrines, under pain of being sent to the gallies. Now, there is no longer any discussion about the philosophy of Aristotle. Descartes was persecuted because he taught the innateness of ideas, and the University of Paris burnt his books. He had written the most sublime thoughts upon the existence of God; Vöet, his enemy, accused him of atheism. Afterwards, this same university declares itself in favour of innate ideas; and when Locke and Cordillac attacked innate ideas, the cry of materialism and fatalism resounded on all

sides.

Thus the same opinions have at one time been regarded as dangerous because they were new, and at another as useful, because they were ancient. We must, therefore, pity mankind, and conclude that the opinions of contemporaries, as to the truth or error, and dangerous or innocent tendencies of a doctrine, are very suspicious, and that the author of a discovery should be anxious only to ascertain whether he has really discovered a truth or not.'-vol. i. p. 221, &c.

We feel much of the force of these observations, and yet, after weighing them with some scrutiny and care, we cannot bring ourselves to retract aught of what we have above thought it our duty to say against the author's systematic doctrines, the chief of which appear to rest upon the most vague and fanciful proofs. When applied to individuals, the alleged discovery of characteristic dispositions is frequently most absurd and ludicrous. In a lecture, for example, lately delivered in London, by a physician who was a disciple of the system, he stated that he had attended a patient in the Dublin Hospital, in whom the brain-appetite of language was so insatiable, that she talked incessantly, except during sleep. After death, the head of this talking woman was dissected, when it was found the organ of language had worked with so much assiduity, that it had almost drilled a hole in the skull!!!

a

We may give another instance of phrenological absurdity, from the examination of the skull of King Robert Bruce, the hero of Bannockburn, recently discovered at Dumferline. The system is accordingly represented by its followers in the interesting light, as an auxiliary to history-as confirming, forsooth, or refuting, upon scientific principles, the frequently vague accounts of historians. We follow the account given by Sir George Mackenzie, distinguished member of the Phrenological Society of Edinburgh. Previous to seeing this account, we had heard it rumoured, that the Scots Phrenologists had decided Bruce to be a coward and a poltroon, at least while he wore the skull in question; but we must do Sir George the justice to say, that the rumour was most false and malicious, as courage is one of the first organs which he remarks, as being largely developed in the skull. It is, indeed, only by examining the sculls of persons distinguished like Bruce, that the system is supported; it was in this way, at first got up by Dr. Gall, and it would have been a woeful dereliction of principle to have made Bruce a coward.

Along with courage, Sir George found in the skull of Bruce, that firmness was "in great proportion, as well as love of approbation and self-esteem. Destructiveness, too," he says, "is large; and there is no doubt that Cumming fell by the hand of Bruce. Şecretiveness, is also large, so necessary to a man who undertakes the management of public affairs; but the sense of justice seems to have been scarcely sufficient to guide him in the path of rectitude. Veneration is well marked, but benevolence is not particularly prominent. The former led him to regret that he had not accomplished his purpose of visiting the Holy Land, and to direct that his heart should be carried thither after his death. No acts are ascribed to him to mark him as a being possessed of superior wisdom, or of a character particularly amiable; and a hero may be both a bad man and not remarkably clever." Mark what follows. "The reader is requested to compare the skull of Carnimbeigle, the New Holland Chief, with that of Robert Bruce." Sir George possesses this inestimable treasure, to wit, Carnimbeigle's skull, and finds that he had confidence in himself, courage in a high degree, ambition, a strong sense of justice (in which Bruce was very deficient), besides much cautiousness, and a talent for stratagem.

It may be worth while to notice that Dr. Gall's disciples have made several innovations, or as they term it, discoveries, in addition to the system of their master. One of these is, the attempt to establish a new brain-appetite, under the name of Supernaturality, or the Appetite for the Marvellous, which lies between the organ of Hope and that of Ideality. Those who possess it in perfection, are disposed to mysticism, to have visions, to see ghosts, demons, and phantoms, and to believe in astrology, magic, and sorcery." "It contributes much, also, to religious faith, by inducing a belief of mysteries and miracles." So says Dr. Spurzheim, and it is added, that a few of our best living poets and novelists have this appetite, of great capacity. This is a very comfortable piece of information to all those who may have the organ strongly developed, and might be alarmed lest they should, in consequence, receive a vision from departed spirits, or from some of old Lucifer's myrmidons-an occurrence which many would encounter for the honour of becoming great poets.

:

The spirit of innovation, however, does not hold with adding to the system; for the Edinburgh Phrenologists have actually ventured upon the rejection of the brain-appetite, denominated Inhabitativeness. Now we protest strongly against this conduct, as being contrary to good disciplineship, particularly where a German is the master. The disciples of Kant, Werner, Mesmer, Von Feinagle, and Beer, look upon their masters as all perfect and infallible, and would almost as soon think of resigning their existence, as of altering, or objecting to, their lessons and doctrines. Whence, then, comes the anomaly of members of the Edinburgh Society renouncing their allegiance in the case of Inhabitativeness, when they are such faithful adherents to the other parts of the system? It must, indeed, be confessed, that this appetite of inhabitativeness is not the least absurd in the catalogue; for we are told, that according to its development, it causes one rat to live in a garret, and another rat in a cellar, or in a coal-pit; and induces cod-fish to live in water rather than on land; and cats to live on land rather than in water. On considering these cases more circumspectly, the Edinburgh Phrenologists were for once deserted by their credulity, and ventured accordingly to refute the Doctor, in spite of his " αυτος έφη.” The following is their reasoning, but we vouch not for its excellence:

"In the lower animals, it is extremely probable that a faculty, or several faculties, of this kind may exist, directing some to seek their food and safety in water, and some to build nests on trees and on rocky cliffs. But in regard to the existence of this organ even among lower animals, many difficulties are to be encountered. For instance, we cannot conceive that the same faculty prompts a rook to make a nest on a lofty tree, and the rabbit to burrow in the ground. It is possible that there may be a faculty in man, which inclines him to be stationary or sedentary. Such a faculty, however, would be different from that described under the name of Inhabitativeness!!!"

Such is the nonsense written and published by those who talk of Phrenology as a science. That Dr. Gall, as well as his coadjutor, Dr. Spurzheim, demonstrated the brain in a novel and ingenious manner, and made many curious observations, physiological and metaphysical, we are most ready to grant; and after what we have above said, we can scarcely be accused of a particle of animosity or prejudice against the masters or their disciples; but after admitting all this, we must, in the most unmeasured terms, condemn the system of Phrenology, as wanting the most requisite foundations of a science.

ART. VI. Biographie Universelle. Ancienne et Moderne. 52 tomes. Paris: 1811-28.

A GREAT authority in such matters, the late M., Barbier, the author of the well known and extremely well executed dictionary of Anonymous and Pseudonymous Publications, said of this work several years ago, and before it had been half completed, that its appearance might be considered as forming as remarkable an era in the literary history of the nineteenth century, as the Encyclopædia had done in that of the eighteenth. To those who take their notions of what a biographical dictionary is, or may be, from the ordinary compilations that pass under that title, this language of Barbier's will probably seem somewhat extravagant. Works of this description, indeed, have generally, it must be confessed, been. got up after a fashion but little entitling them to any estimation whatever as literary performances, still less to be regarded as conferring any distinction upon either the age or country in which they have been produced. Even the most ambitious of them have scarcely aspired to any thing beyond a correct statement of dates and other dry matters of fact; or if more has been attempted,