Among the moral sentiments, Gaiety measures 100, and that being its mean number, is so marked in the column zero. The same arrangement and method of notation is followed in the list of the intellectual faculties; and the three columns taken together exhibit at once and in their relative proportions the organs that excel, those that are of medium energy, and those that are deficient in the head examined; thus, Constructiveness and Alimentiveness alone, among the animal propensities, exceed the average measurement; only one, Gaiety, is of medium force among the moral sentiments, all the rest being below, in the relative proportions shown. The perceptive organs, again, exceed, while the reflective fall short, of the mean development. Lastly, by adding up the columns plus" (amounting in this instance to 63), and "minus" (to 101), and subtracting the less from the greater number, there remains 38; this again being subtracted from the sum of the mean numbers (viz. 3197), leaves 3159, giving the decimal proportion 986 (the average size of the European head being as 1) for the head of Greenacre, which is accordingly written at the bottom of the column "minus; thus affording an accurate and ready method of estimating and noting the size of the individual head, which I propose to substitute for the terms "large" and "small," expressing at most only the estimates of the observer. 66 In conclusion, it ought to be remembered, that the scale of notation exhibited above applies only to casts or living heads; and that to adapt it to skulls, of which, from the absence of the soft parts, a very material difference in the measurements must obviously exist, a separate series of mean numbers must be obtained for them by an equally extensive collection of observations. - Briefly to recapitulate: - By an extended use of the organometer and the scale of notation adapted to it, we may obtain, The average development of each organ in the European head. The particular development of each organ in any individual head with reference to this general scale. — The development of each organ, relatively to others, in the same head. An accurate and intelligible method of noting the comparative size of an individual head. The comparative developments of the male and female, of the different tribes of mankind, - of the educated and illiterate, &c. And finally, as lapse of time affords the means of observation, the comparative size of the head or any organ at different ages. The age is probably still distant when the truths of Phrenology, and its beneficial applications in the economy of life, will be universally recognised; when it shall have been rescued from the fopperies of the drawing-room, from the prejudices of the bigotted, the empiricism of the mercenary, and from the discredit it suffers from those of all classes whose policy it is to contemn and decry whatever they want talent or industry to examine. Nothing, however, in my humble estimate, is more calculated to hasten this period, than the employment of mathematical accuracy, in comparing structure and function in the investigations of phrenologists; and the adoption of a rational, precise, and universally understood system of notation and nomenclature in their language. Facility and encouragement would thereby be afforded to extended researches in nature, in preference to hasty speculations on few and inaccurately observed facts; and the phrenologist would be enabled to appeal with greater confidence to the results of his observations, and the inferences deduced from them, when divested of the fallacies and discrepancies so likely to arise from differences in the capacity of the observers. These several ends, I am led to think, may be attained by the use of some such instrument as the one I have described, and those whose time will permit them to scrutinise the principles on which it is constructed, to test its fitness for the purpose, and to examine the utility of the scale of notation, will, I am satisfied, whether approving and adopting it, amending its defects, or rejecting it altogether for the substitution of something better, equally serve the interests of Phrenology and realise my intention. Note by the Editor. An attempt to substitute scientific observation, in place of the empirical estimates at present in use with phrenologists, should be deserving of their attention; and we accordingly present the views of Mr. Nicol to our readers, along with a figure of his organometer. To those who have seen a craniometer, it will be evident that the organometer is constructed on exactly the same principle, namely, that of measuring the length of a line drawn to the surface of the head, from the top of the spinal cord, in the presumption that this line would be the length of the particular phrenological organ corresponding with the portion of brain immediately beneath the surface to which the index is applied; and also, that the length of any organ would give a correct measurement of its absolute bulk. But before we can rely on the indications, either of an organometer or a craniometer, we must settle these two presumptions on something like solid ground. In the first place, let us ask, What is an organ, in the phrenological sense of the term, as a part of the brain having a distinct function or use? (1st) Does it consist of a bundle of those fibres or fine tubes, composing the medullary portion of the brain, or (2dly) does it consist of a certain extent of the cortical matter, or (3dly) does it consist both of the medullary and the cortical matter? The choice amongst these is not easy, but let us select the third; which Mr. Nicol must also do, seeing that he measures both medullary and cortical matter. Next, we must grant the supposition, of each organ being conical, or commencing in a point at the top of the spinal cord, and widening out to the surface of the brain; also, the supposition of these conical organs each increasing in thickness after an uniform rate, from point to base; and also, the supposition, of these cones proceeding in a direct line from the spinal cord to the part of the surface, where they are marked in the modelled brains or busts, since both instruments measure the length of a straight line. When, however, we examine a brain, and see that the surface is convoluted, something like a bag crumpled up in the hand, and that the fibres of the medullary matter do not run in a direct line from the supposed central point to the surface, there appears no sufficient reason for assuming the existence of these cones, proceeding in a direct line, and widening uniformly. No experiment has demonstrated them, and they appear rather discountenanced than supported by actual strucAnd when we trace such direct lines in a figure repre ture. senting a vertical section of the brain (from Spurzheim's Anatomy), we see that those drawn to the organs at the back of the head, cross the cerebellum as well as the brain itself, and that all must, to a greater or less extent, cross the course of the fibres in the medullary portion, as is shewn by the four thick lines in the annexed figure, which cross the fibres represented by the finer lines. They would thus measure, not single organs, but often portions of several organs. Under these circumstances, we fear that the organometer will not be of much use in measuring individual organs; although it may assist young observers, by showing the direction in which the brain is developed either more or less largely than the average; and it would evidently be a very serviceable instrument to any one desirous of making an average or standard head, both for size and shape. It is to be feared that phrenological writers, by their manner of alluding to the cerebral organs as if they were known to be cones of matter, extending, in a direct line, from a central point to the surface, have given notions to their non-professional readers, which are not borne out by the realities of nature. One lecturer on Phrenology has even exhibited a model of the brain, composed of some score of such cones, for groups of organs. (See our Eleventh Volume, page 445.) There may really be some approach to this, in the brain itself; but if so, the structure of the brain, and the course of its fibres (see the cut), almost imply that the cones are curved, and of irregular bulk, and therefore not capable of measurement by any instrument formed to measure straight lines only. Mr. Nichol no doubt perfectly understands these grounds of uncertainty, but some of our readers may require to have them explained by the figure. VI. Correspondence between DR. BARDSLEY, Senior, of Manchester, and Mr. HEWETT WATSON. In the fifty-eighth No. of this Journal, it was stated, in a notice of various lectures on Phrenology, that Mr, Hewett Watson would deliver courses of lectures, in the (now last) spring, at the Athenæum and Royal Institution, Manchester. That notice was given, in consequence of a positive engagement having been made on behalf of both Institutions by the Secretary of the Athenæum. Subsequently, Mr. Hewett Watson received an intimation from the Secretary of the Royal Institution, that the agreement of their Lecture Committee had not been "confirmed" by the Council. As this was the first intimation that the agreement was thus conditional on the decision of another body, Mr. Hewett Watson made some enquiry touching the matter, from different persons in Manchester, who concurred in stating that it was an unprecedented proceeding on the part of the Council, and had been brought about by Dr. Bardsley. This gentleman is an elderly and retired physician*, a respectable man, and locally influential; but hostile to Phrenology on personal grounds, which we do not feel disposed to explain publicly, albeit ludicrous enough, inasmuch as the conduct of Dr. Bardsley was not exactly a public attack on Phrenology, and he declines to appear in any other light than that of a private and local enemy to the science. Whatever was the value of his reasons, or the cogency of his objections, it seems that they were not such as he would venture to make public; and we shall consequently abstain from stating them, although in fact communicated to us by other parties, who had seen the written protest, by Dr. Bardsley, which had led to the unwonted proceeding of the Council. Our object in printing the letters, is chiefly that of adding another example of the under-current of hostility to the science of mind, still kept in motion by elderly and (we must add) prejudiced persons; an under-current of sufficient force, in this instance, to induce the Council of the principal institution, in the largest town in England (the capital only excepted), to affirm that subject unworthy of attention, which their Lecture Committee (consisting partly of the same persons) had decided to be the contrary. The correspondence will explain itself, as far as needful in other respects. From Mr. Watson to Dr. Bardsley. Manchester, 29. Dickinson Street, SIR, I take the liberty of addressing you, on account of the hostile position openly assumed by yourself, against a science whose public advocate I may more particularly hold myself to be, whilst the Proprietor and Editor of the only public Journal devoted to it in this country; and as I am also the party towards whom your objections against Phrenology have been immediately directed, these circumstances entitle me, both It is Dr. Bardsley, the younger, nephew of the gentleman above spoken of, who is the author of a work of some merit- Hospital Facts. |