tion of the organs on the bust is the dictate of fancy, and not the result of observing Nature. I do not deny that the geometrical figures may justly describe the objects which they were intended to represent: but as they do not represent the conformation of the organs, they are unworthy of notice. This, however, ought not to be the case. The organs possess some specific form if they did not, the discoverers would not have distinguished them from those surrounding; if they did not, how could the first observer have known where they commenced, and where they terminated?

:

I will adduce some instances to show that " Ideality" has been largely developed by the designers of Phrenological busts. In the elementary works "Comparison" is stated to assume the form of a reversed cone, and that this statement is partially correct is the testimony of observation. But in the bust it is invariably delineated as a parallelogram. "Causality" is delineated somewhat like a parallelogram; but amongst those persons in whom I observed it largely developed it invariably wore the appearance of a circle. "Ideality" resembles an oval; but it is drawn on the busts as a parallelogram. Again "Amativeness" is delineated as an oval; but it partakes more of the form of a triangle. Discrepancies much greater than these can scarcely be conceived; and they evince that the bust is unfit to perform one of the intentions of its constructors, — namely to show the shape of the organs. Nor are these false representations limited in number; and were I to proceed with my enquiries, and examine every organ, I am convinced the conclusion would be, that the makers of Phrenological Busts have endeavoured to do exactly different to what the founders of the science did, and that is to do exactly different to what Nature has done! There is no necessity for me to show that such should not be the case: our principles are drawn from Nature; they are the result of observation, not the offspring of imagination; and as our principles are, so should be our tools.

If, however, it is not considered desirable to adopt the proposed alteration in the delineation of the organs, I would suggest the propriety of leaving blank spaces on the busts, and that the numbers should alone be engraved on the sites of the organs. As the situations of the organs would thus be revealed to the phrenological student, much would still be gained of truth, and much more prevented of error. Mr. Combe says that "the Phrenological Bust shows the situation of the organs only in one head; and it is impossible by it to communicate more information." It must, however, I consider, be evident, that it is essential to a thorough knowledge of Phrenology that the relative sizes of the organs should be learned, and nothing

can so well impart that information as a properly marked bust. If so, it will follow that the adoption of my first proposal will be most beneficial; that is, that a proper delineation of the organs is preferable to leaving their sites unoccupied.

The bust also requires enlargement. It is so small that the organs above the superciliary ridge can scarcely be perceived even in the best published bust. I am, of course, aware that these organs are relatively small in size; but as in a head properly formed-I mean one in which all the organs are large and in a state of activity-they are sufficiently large to be easily distinguished, why should we not take such a head as the model for a good phrenological bust? But even allowing that the organs above the superciliary ridge are so small as to forbid their being properly delineated, that will offer no excuse for the present practice of placing them beneath the eyebrows, and for drawing "Time" and "Locality" where the organs alluded to ought to be situated. That such a practice should be adopted must excite astonishment; and to condemn it, no censure can be too harsh, nor can any animadversion sufficiently describe the evils of which it may be productive. To remedy this defect is not, however, difficult. Let the authorized bust be of a natural size; and then there would not only be sufficient space afforded for the proper delineation of the organs, but also to allow them to be drawn on their natural sites, and of their comparative

sizes.

Probably, however, some lover of the present state of things may be ready to quote those much-abused words of Shakspeare, and say that

"It is better to bear the ills we have

Than fly to others that we know not of."

But of how much evil an obedience to this maxim would be productive! Everything that blesses us is the result of change: if things changed not we should have occasion to regret that they possessed not that quality. Where improvements are needful and can be made, they should be made, whatever the consequences may be to the weak and frivolous, who ever misunderstand the simplest subject. Thus, when an alteration was made in the numbering of the organs, an outcry was raised against the promulgators of the science as though it was an abandonment of the principles they advocated. But it should be recollected that Phrenology is not yet a perfect science. It has principles-well deduced, defined, and systematized principles; but, probably, many discoveries are to be made before it can be properly called perfect. Faculties may

yet be discovered, principles may yet be known, and improvements may yet be made in the phrenological apparatus, which shall reveal many more secrets of philosophy, and educe principles such as shall create a moral revolution in society, compared with which all former ones shall appear evanescent in their duration, and insignificant in their results.

New Court, Carey Street, London.

E. J. HYTCH.

II. CASES AND FACTS.

I. Case in which the Organs of Concentrativeness are small, while those of Inhabitiveness are supposed to be large.-Communicated in a Letter to the EDITOR.

SIR, My zeal to discover the truth of Phrenology induced me to have my head shaved, that, procuring a cast of it, I might make it the first object of study of course, knowing my own feelings, I could best compare them with the external development. I was struck with their general coincidence, but I intended to write to you with reference to the organ marked No. 3, as I could neither agree with Dr. Spurzheim, nor perfectly with Mr. George Combe. The view Dr. Vimont takes of this subject, published in the last Number of your Journal, however, completely solves my difficulty.

In my head (the cast of which is at Deville's, Strand, marked A 1192, and quite at the service of the science of Phrenology), No. 3. is the smallest organ, and decidedly deficient, but immediately above it, in the place marked No. 6. by Dr. Vimont, and by him assigned to Inhabitiveness, is a decided protuberance, which I am convinced ought not to belong to either No. 10. or No. 3., i.e. either to Self-Esteem or Concentrativeness. My own experience is, that all the functions ascribed by Spurzheim to Inhabitiveness, in man, belong to me. Scarcely any circumstances can make me feel satisfied or happy a week together from home; no one ever felt a more decided love of a particular locality than I do. With reference to the concentrative view of the question, Mr. Combe appears to me to assign to it far too extensive a field of operation; he ascribes to it functions which seem to belong to the intellectual faculties only, viz., to Comparison, Causality, Order, &c. We must not forget its situation among the propensities; and its function, I

think, is confined to "the desire to retain, to dwell upon, present emotions and ideas.” I think that I am not deficient in the power of systematic or concentrated thinking, but it is a relief to me after some time to leave one subject for another. I frequently, and this is quite a characteristic, break off speaking in the middle of a sentence, to mention something else entirely foreign to the subject. I find it a great hindrance in public speaking, the not sufficiently dwelling on the main points on which I wish to insist. In fact my attention may be more readily diverted than that of many with whom I am acquainted. One gentleman I know in whom it is decidedly large, and there is no turning him from the subject which he is engaged upon, until he has thoroughly examined it, although such subject may be comparatively of trivial importance. Mr. Combe gives the use of the organ of Concentrativeness "as rendering permanent emotions or ideas in the mind," and its abuse as 66 a morbid dwelling on internal emotions and ideas." I do not know that I disagree with him altogether in this definition, but I would confine its functions to merely the wish, the desire, to retain or dwell upon particular emotions and ideas.

My object, Mr. Editor, is not to trouble you with too long a paper on a subject which has been already so ably treated, but merely to give my testimony, from the experience of my own mind, in favour of Dr. Vimont's division of the organ No. 3. into two, viz., Inhabitiveness and Concentrativeness. I am, &c.

August 1st., 1837.

C. B.

II. A peculiar Revival of Memory. -Communicated by MR. HEWETT WATSON.

THE following trivial incident is perhaps worthy of record, as showing a peculiar revival in memory, during sleep, or at the instant of change from sleep to wakefulness. In the spring of 1835 I was accused by a lady in a mixed party, of having been the principal agent in spoiling her dress, through an accidental awkwardness. The circumstances attending the accusation were rather singular, and such as to affect my Self Esteem and Love of Approbation very unpleasantly. Though the occurrence itself had taken place only half an hour previous, all the particulars of it had so totally lapsed from memory, that I was utterly unable to make any defence or explanation, although feeling satisfied of not being the guilty party. The particular circumstances alluded to which it is unnecessary here to state-caused the imputation to become a sort of standing jest

against me, and at different times afterwards, I was somewhat annoyed by having the imputation alluded to; besides which, the remembrance of it recurred several times involuntarily, and always disagreeably. Still, not the slightest approach towards a recollection of the real occurrence appeared to be made; indeed, the mere repetition had half persuaded me into a belief of having done the mischief. Upwards of a year afterwards, I chanced to be in company with the lady in question, and some other persons who had been present at the time of the accusation being first made. By way of enjoying a laugh at my expense, one of them induced the lady to repeat her story. In doing this, she made one trifling variation in the account, which I was conscious of at the moment, as being true only in part. About a month afterwards, on starting awake rather suddenly one morning, all the circumstances of the accident, so far as I was concerned, were vividly present to memory; and I was at once able to clear myself from the imputation, by explaining how the accident happened, and who was the party really in fault. The clue to this had been given by the trifling variation, above mentioned to have been introduced into the lady's second account of the occurrence. How was the activity of memory here renewed? Had a dream restored the lost ideas? Or had these ideas been in a nascent state (to borrow a chemical mode of expression) during the transition from sleep to waking, and become connected? It is commonly understood by phrenologists, that powerful affections of the organs of the propensities and sentiments have much influence in aiding memory; but in the present instance, as explained, the stimulus of the most habitually active sentiments was exerted in vain. I cannot mention any circumstance that seems to throw an explanatory light on the incident, unless the two following may have been in some way connected with it:-On the day first alluded to, I had waited for breakfast several hours beyond my usual time; and a severe headach was rapidly coming on when the accusation was made, which was immediately after breakfast. The loss of memory might arise from this circumstance. Secondly, having frequently been struck with the instantaneous and complete change of ideas, which usually occurs at the moment of awaking from a dreamy sleep, I have acquired the habit of trying to recollect the ideas then present, though the attempt has had little success hitherto; nor on the morning in question was I conscious of making it. Could an unconscious effort revive or retain the ideas?

Touching this latter circumstance, it may be remarked, that there seems something very inexplicable in the facts, that a person shall feel himself to be just awaking from sleep; shall be