that work; although the injury is by no means confined to the consequences of inserting a superficial and inaccurate treatise on the science named; since it must extend through the Encyclopædia, in relation with almost every subject, for the right understanding of which a correct knowledge of the human mind is required.

Whether you were able or unable to estimate the essay of Dr. Roget at its very low value, some feeling of courtesy towards him, as the writer of the article published in the Supplement, may be presumed to have influenced your sanction of him; for it would doubtless have been an unpleasant duty on your part, to have rejected Dr. Roget's essay on account of its unfairness and insufficiency, and, by seeking a substitute more competent to the undertaking, to have also refused him the chance of writing one better. Besides this, you could not be expected to entertain any strong desire for the success of doctrines, which are innovations upon views that have been supported by your own pen. And in addition to these disadvantages, personal to yourself, you were perhaps trammelled by other parties, whose pecuniary interests are closely connected with the Encyclopædia, and who would be unwilling to offend such elderly persons as those above alluded to, if their frown might be supposed likely to interfere with the present sale of the work.

Your position has thus probably been one of some difficulty; and under all the circumstances which may be supposed to have impeded your course, the full sacrifice required of you, by the strict demands of truth and justice, could only have been made by one whose conceptions of moral duty were so great as to be paramount over all other and more selfish considerations. And since this is a refinement of rectitude very rarely met with, it is unlikely that any phrenologist expected the entire sacrifice of inclination and interest, implied in the substitution of an accurate and honest account of Phrenology, in place of the article furnished by Dr. Roget. Whether the subscribers to the Encyclopædia had or had not a right to expect such an account of the science, may be left to the decision of those amongst them who are not sharers in the prejudices against it. But the course you have taken renders it incumbent on persons who stand before the public as supporters of Phrenology, to make their public protest against that article, which we must pronounce disgraceful alike to the writer of it, and to the work in which it is printed.

Let it be clearly understood, that it is solely on account of the work in which the incorrect and superficial essay of Dr. Roget is published, under your auspice, and not on account either of the

writer's reputation or of any force in his adverse arguments, that phrenologists will feel called upon to take notice of it. Dr. Roget is a gentleman of some talent, and he has acquired knowledge of various kinds, albeit his abilities are not of the highest order, and he is already in the painful situation of a person who has had a higher credit given to him by anticipation than he has proved able to sustain; and we find from inquiries in the scientific circles of London, that he is now commonly looked upon as "shallow" and "over-estimated." A considerable popular reputation still adheres to Dr. Roget, which is the present "over-estimate" spoken of; but it cannot be necessary to remind a gentleman so intimately connected with the public press as you are, that mere popular reputation is a very insufficient test of sterling merit, when bestowed upon one who has hitherto shown neither originality nor profundity, and whose absence from the theatre of the world would have made no difference worth naming in the present aspects of any science.

The object of this letter, is that of calling your attention to a brief contrast of the promises made to the subscribers to the Encyclopædia, with the non-fulfilment of them so far as Phrenology is concerned. In the advertisements of the Encyclopædia, its proprietors profess to have been "aware that extensive alterations were required to accommodate the present edition to the improved taste and advancing intelligence of the times. Arrangements were accordingly made, to secure the co-operation of the most distinguished living authors, whose contributions in the various departments of science, history, geography, and biography, and miscellaneous literature, have rendered the work in every respect worthy of the intelligence of the age, and of the national name. It may therefore be said, in the words of a recent reviewer, that the present edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, unites all the genius and erudition of past times, with the advanced practical knowledge of the present." It has been further promised that "what is antiquated or imperfect will be expunged, in order to the substitution of more instructive matter and more complete inquiry;" and that "those arts and sciences which were not treated in the Supplement, or which have assumed a new aspect, either from the progress of discovery, the accumulation of facts, or improved systems of classification, will be considered anew." On these promises we have to make the following remarks in contradiction:

1st. You have not secured the most distinguished living author, or one in any degree distinguished as an author, on Phrenology.

2dly. The science of Phrenology, in many of its parts, has assumed a new aspect, both from the progress of discovery and

the accumulation of facts, since the year 1818; yet it has not been considered anew, the old article being reprinted, as expressly stated by the writer, and the five additional pages of controversial matter being even below the pretended representation of the phrenological doctrines.

3dly. The antiquated and imperfect matter has not been expunged, unless to a very trifling extent, to make room for more instructive matter and more complete inquiry, concerning Phrenology.

4thly. The present edition of the Encyclopædia, does not contain either the genius and erudition of past times or the advanced practical knowledge of the present, on the subject of Phrenology.

5thly. A competent phrenologist would have been able to convey a much more complete outline of his science, in the same number of pages.

6thly. The account, as given, is not only insufficient in itself, but is also a garbled and grossly inaccurate account.

The essay of Dr. Roget is thus calculated to deceive the readers of the Encyclopædia, in regard both to the value of the science of Phrenology, and to the merits of those who support and extend it; and the publication of that essay in a work of authority, is an act of injustice to phrenologists and a breach of faith towards the subscribers to the Encyclopædia. If you have any doubts on the demerits of the essay the annexed letter, addressed to Dr. Roget, may help to remove them. But it may be added, that when a writer ventures to publish an essay upon a science, in which he is notoriously neither a master nor a student, the judgment expressed by those who have long and carefully studied the subject, must be esteemed conclusive in regard to the merits or demerits of his production.

In addition to this, Dr. Roget's own confession, bearing the date of April last, has been communicated to us, stating that he had "as yet, indeed, had very little leisure to study the subject." As the essay was published a few weeks after that time, you may decide what leisure he could have then had for studying a department of science most comprehensive in its scope and applications, and, by another hostile writer, superior to Dr. Roget in natural ability, pronounced to be "a subject of vast extent, too great to be investigated within any moderate limits of time, including, as it does, all that relates to the sentient, the intellectual, and the moral nature of man, or the entire sciences of metaphysics and morals." That you are to be held responsible for all the faults of the essay and the tergiversations of its author, no one will maintain; but the blame

of choosing a writer who was incompetent from lack of knowledge of his subject, must rest either with yourself, or with those whom you represent.

The publishers' advertisements intimate that Dr. Roget's "PHRENOLOGY" will be published apart from the Encyclopædia. We do not attach sufficient importance to that essay, to follow the same course with this Letter and the following one addressed to Dr. Roget; but since a longer period than usual will intervene before the next Number of the Phrenological Journal can appear, a few copies of the two Letters will be taken, for earlier private distribution to phrenologists within convenient reach of the Editor.

II. A Letter to PETER MARK ROGET, M.D., AUTHOR of the Article entitled "PHRENOLOGY," in the Seventh Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica.

SIR, The authorship of the article miscalled "PHRENOLOGY," in the new edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, is attributed to you, by the publishers' advertisements of the separate treatises taken from that work; and in it you allude to strictures on yourself, as author of the article "CRANIOSCOPY," in the Supplement to a former edition of the Encyclopædia. Consequently, you are to be held responsible to phrenologists and to the public, for all the errors, improper suppressions, garbled quotations, and positive misrepresentations, which so largely characterise the treatise in question. We apply these terms advisedly, and shall shortly establish the justness of their application, as descriptive of your treatise. But since they may be construed to imply moral, equally as intellectual, defects in your writing, it is proper to state that you may choose between the two, or adopt both implications, at your pleasure; for in most instances it is quite impossible for another person to decide whether your mis-statements of fact and opinion, and your suppressions of important matters, have been occasioned by ignorance of the subject on which you have written, or from a deliberate intention of concealing truth and promulgating garbled representations of it. To the writer of this Letter it appears almost an impossibility for so many egregious errors to have been innocently committed by a gentleman who enjoys an average share of intellectual ability, and perhaps more than an average fund of acquired knowledge. Others may think differently; and if they prefer to regard all your suppressions

and misrepresentations as being errors incidental to a very slender knowledge of the subject treated, we cannot gainsay their right to do so. Should you deem this open admission of an individual opinion to be an overstepping of the ordinary bounds of courtesy due to any philosophical opponent, we refer you to a charge of bearing false witness, most unjustly thrown upon phrenologists by yourself, as a reason wherefore they may hold themselves in turn absolved from attention to any common forms of social etiquette, beyond those which are dictated by their own feelings of self-respect. That charge will be discussed in its proper place. (See page 16.)

To supply all your omissions, to expose all your misrepresentations, and to correct all your errors of assertion and argument, would require a treatise on Phrenology, longer than your own; because it would be necessary to state, not only what Phrenology is, but also what it is not, not only to show the analogies and inferences which go to support the system, but also to show the true bearing of those analogies and inferences which you profess to think adverse to it. That cannot be done in the compass within which it is desired to confine this letter; but a few pages will suffice for showing the defects of your treatise to be so great and glaring, as ought to deprive it of all authority in the judgment of honest and reflecting men. Although short as is your treatise on Phrenology, it is, at the same time, so loose and so devoid of unity, and is so much taken up with captious peckings at minor points, to the exclusion of the essential questions connected with the truth or fallacy of the phrenological doctrines, that the employment of serious argument in refutation might be likened to the fancy of employing heavy artillery for dispersing a swarm of flies.

You first introduce a brief historical sketch of Gall's early efforts to discover external signs of particular talents and dispositions; and following this history, there is a pretended exposition of the science of Phrenology, given as the "result of his labours." This, and some "objections" which you urge against the principles at which phrenologists have arrived, make up your account of Phrenology; and you say of it, "We have here reprinted the Essay on this subject which appeared under the head of CRANIOSCOPY, in the Supplement to the last edition of the present work. We have done so because we have not seen any reason to alter our views." Then follow five additional pages of "Reply to Criticism," &c. You may be entitled to call this a reprint of the article CRANIOSCOPY, although a few rather curious alterations have been made in it. * But

* Several years having elapsed since we saw the article CRANIOSCOPY, the extent of change cannot be distinctly averred.