them. A true science of mind is of the highest possible importance to the interests of civilised man. Why, then, should not every public library and news-room be supplied with a journal devoted to it? Why should not every true phrenologist use his best exertions, each in his own sphere, to effect this? Why should not a copy be regularly taken by those phrenologists to whom the trifling annual cost is no obstacle? We are no friends to forced circulation; nor do we wish that our Journal should be purchased by those who would only lay it on the book-shelf unread. What we do desire is, that it should be brought into notice, and rendered serviceable to others, by being placed before persons likely to receive advantage from its pages, and to become interested in the science to which it relates; and whilst we number amongst our supporters and contributors most of the ablest phrenologists of Britain, whose own private works are in the highest esteem, there is no presumption in saying that our pages cannot be unworthy of perusal.

Lastly, in evidence of past services, and to give the encouragement of past success as an inducement to future exertions, we call attention to the undeniable fact that Phrenology has already greatly advanced in public estimation, notwithstanding the many efforts formerly made to arrest its progress; that it is still advancing with sure steps, and gives full earnest of continuing to advance with an accelerating speed. By the exertions of phrenologists, it may now be urged onward at a greatly increased rate. We wish to aid them in their efforts, and we beg of them to aid us in turn. Phrenologists have no longer to contend against public contempt or hostility. The time for this has gone by, never to return. A clear knowledge of the subject, combined with a judicious and unobtrusive use of that knowledge, will be found to ensure for its possessor the respect, and usually also the good-will, of those with whom he associates. A phrenologist will still occasionally meet with persons, even some few persons of intellectual eminence, who pretend to despise his science. Let such pretended contempt be disregarded. It is unreal. It is impossible that it should be otherwise than unreal, unless when the offspring of utter ignorance of the subject. The pretence is just a mask assumed to hide dislike and jealousy. A well-trained, well-informed phrenologist, as such, never is despised by those who know him. He has a vantage-ground in his knowledge, from which he cannot be dislodged. It is a power which he can make instantly and forcibly felt by those who resist it. How, then, is it possible, that a science which gives him this power, which is this power, can be really contemned by those who feel its pressure against themselves? There is an absurdity in the idea, mere drivelling in the asser

tion of it. We have, indeed, seen a few-a very few-professed phrenologists, who were evidently despised by some of their self-esteeming acquaintances; but even here Phrenology seemed to have a redeeming power, for the individuals would probably have been still less respected, had they wanted the advantage given by only an imperfect knowledge of the science. As to the personal impression made by competent phrenologists, in general society, we are inclined to believe that so far from being less than it ought to be, it is in some sense greater than what should be. Many persons are now disposed to give phrenologists credit for a deeper insight into character, a far more accurate appreciation of motives and talents, than can truly be made. Hence the number of pretenders to Phrenology rapidly increases. Deceptive persons, who deem the reputation of ability and knowledge useful to their professional or other interests, often make undue pretensions to phrenological skill, where they believe their auditors little acquainted with the subject. Why should this be done, if it be not felt by them that such knowledge draws respect from others, and so far elevates its supposed possessor in their eyes? We recommend the timid and the approbative-those who fear openly to avow their convictions — to attend to such indications of the feelings of society; and they will soon reach the conclusion of being more likely to advance than to recede in the estimation of others, if making a straightforward and confident declaration of their own convictions on the subject. The independent phrenologist needs not such encouragement; but he observes these signs with interest, as being so many proofs that his science speeds and prospers. It is vain to point to A., B., or C., men known or unknown and say that they refuse credence. What matters it if a thousand recusants can be named? The fault is their own. The loss is their own. We can do without them. We We may find enough of the willing, to dispense with the unwilling, though joyfully welcoming all. We repeat, without fear of confutation, that where a competent and judicious phrenologist is found, fearless to defend and ready to explain his science; there Phrenology neither will nor can be contemned. That our own exertions, as journalists, may assist in increasing the numbers of such competent phrenologists, is our first and most earnest wish. Hitherto this Journal has been of much service in such respect : may it continue to be so !

1. MISCELLANEOUS PAPERS.

1. Remarks on the Fallacy of Professor Tiedemann's Comparison of the Negro Brain and Intellect with those of the European. By ANDREW COMBE, M.D.

PROFESSOR TIEDEMANN's elaborate essay is remarkable in several points of view. It proceeds from the pen of one of the first physiologists of Europe; its materials have been gathered from a personal examination "of the most celebrated anatomical museums, both on the continent and in Great Britain;" and its subject is considered to be "of great importance in the natural history, anatomy and physiology of Man; interesting also in a political and legislative point of view." The mode of inquiry pursued in it is based upon the two principles long considered by the phrenologists as demonstrated, but still scouted by many as unworthy of serious discussion—namely, first, that the brain is the organ of the mind, and secondly, that there is a constant relation, cæteris paribus, between mental power and cerebral development. A fallacy, however, runs through almost all the author's applications of the above principles, and consequently vitiates many of his most important conclusions. In these circumstances, a more detailed examination of the original essay, than the notice already given in the Phrenological Journal (No. lii. page 627.), seems to be called for, as Tiedemann's name and influence will mislead many, and for a time give to error all the authority of truth.

Tiedemann's grand objects are, to prove, 1st, that the opinion of Negro inferiority expressed by Camper, Sommering, Cuvier, and almost all naturalists of any eminence, is incorrect; 2ndly, that the Negro brain is equal in size and similar in structure to that of the European; and, 3rdly, that consequently the former is equally capable of civilization as the latter, and owes his present inferiority entirely to bad treatment and unfavourable circumstances, and will lose it when placed in the position in society, which has been recently assigned to him by the "noble British Government." These positions are urged by Tiedemann with so much philanthropic warmth, and with such hearty zeal in the cause of the Negro, that we feel no small reluctance to enter the lists against him; but having a thorough reliance on the supremacy of truth, and believing its diffusion to be fraught with more ultimate happiness to the Negro himself than he can

On the Brain of the Negro compared with that of the European and the Ourang-Outang. By Professor Tiedemann, of Heidelberg. (Philosophical Transactions for 1836. Part II.)

possibly derive from the propagation of an amiable error, we offer no apology for attempting to show that the prevailing opinion remains unaffected by any evidence brought against it by Tiedemann, and that de facto the Negro brain is inferior in intellectual power to that of the European.

In pursuance of the above objects Tiedemann first inquires, whether the Negro has the same quantity of brain as the European?" and to ascertain the fact he institutes an elaborate comparison between the weight of the brain, as determined in upwards of fifty Europeans of different ages and countries, and its weight in several Negroes examined either by himself or others, and the results obtained are not only full of interest to the phrenologist, but well worthy of the attention of those among our opponents who still continue to ridicule the principle of size of brain being, cæteris paribus, a measure of mental power. Every fact mentioned by Tiedemann adds to the already overwhelming proofs adduced by the phrenologists; but coming in this instance from the pen of a hostile authority they may probably carry more weight with them than if found in a phrenological essay.

After quoting the statements of many authors and detailing the weights of fifty-two European brains examined by himself, Tiedemann mentions that "the weight of the brain in an adult male European varies between 3 lbs. 2 oz. and 4 lbs. 6 oz. troy. 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 oz. 4 dr. 30 gr. troy, and that of the celebrated surgeon Dupuytren weighed 4 lbs. 10 oz. troy. The brain of men endowed with but feeble intellectual powers is, on the contrary, often very small, particularly in congenital idiotismus." Here then is ample confirmation of the phrenological evidence, and from a source which cannot be considered as biassed in our favour. Tiedemann proceeds, "The female brain is lighter than that of the male. It varies between 2 lbs. 8 oz. and 3 lbs. 11 oz. Inever found a female brain that weighed 4 lbs. The female brain weighs on an average from four to eight ounces less than that of the male; and this difference is already perceptible in a newborn child." This also corresponds entirely with the long repudiated statements of the phrenologists, and it is pleasant to see the fact thus broadly admitted.

Tiedemann goes even beyond the phrenologists in his applications of the principle of size being a measure of power. He says, "There is undoubtedly a very close connexion between the absolute size of the brain and the INTELLECTUAL powers and functions of the mind. This is evident from the remarkable smallness of the brain in cases of congenital idiotismus, few much exceeding in

weight the brain of a new-born child. Gall, Spurzheim, Haslam, Esquirol, and others, have already observed this, which is also confirmed by my own researches. The brain of very talented men is remarkable on the other hand for its size." (page 502.) Here certainly is ample corroboration of the influence of organic size on mental power; but Tiedemann has fallen into the very serious error of taking absolute size of the brain as a measure of intellectual power only; whereas, it indicates, as might be expected à priori, absolute mental power, without determining whether that power lies in extent of intellect, in strength of moral feeling, or in the force of passion or affection. A brain of four pounds' weight may be large in the anterior lobe and smaller in the middle and posterior lobes; or its chief size and weight may be in the posterior lobes, and the anterior portions be actually small. In both cases Tiedemann would infer equal "intellectual" power, whereas the phrenologist would perceive at a glance, that in the former the intellectual ability would far preponderate; while in the latter the power of mind would consist entirely in intensity of feeling, and the intellect, properly so called, be rather weak than strong.

If, for example, we compare the Charib with the Hindoo brain, we find the entire mass of the former considerably to outweigh the latter, and according to Tiedemann we should find more intellectual talent in the Charib. The fact, however, is notoriously the reverse, and the explanation is very easy when we distinguish the regions of the brain in which the size exists. In the Charib, the anterior lobe is very small, in perfect harmony with his poverty of intellect; but the posterior and basilar regions of the brain are very large, also in harmony with his ferocity and energy of passion. In the Hindoo, again, the reverse holds; the anterior lobe is well developed, and so is his intellect; but the basilar region, so large in the Charib, is small in him; and consequently in vehemence of passion, active courage, and general force of character, the Hindoo is greatly inferior to the more savage Charib.

We

The same distinction occurs every day in social life. meet with an individual,—a criminal, for instance, -in whom the brain is absolutely large, but who is nevertheless stupid in intellect, and powerful only in the department of the propensities; while, on the contrary, we find many an amiable member of society possessed of a brain smaller in absolute size, but far superior to the criminal in the size of its anterior lobe or organs of intellect, and consequently far superior to the criminal in thinking power and general talents; results at utter variance with Tiedemann's rule, but perfectly reconcileable according to the phrenological application of the principle.