large, in the same proportion, as the corresponding part in that noble quadruped, the horse.

To the general principles of craniology, therefore, all experience would seem to be utterly contradictory. Let us come, then, to a more particular consideration of the several supposed organs.

The phrenologists assert, that the most remarkable and influencing propensities are accompanied by corresponding prominences in the skull, and that a mass of evidence has been collected in support of this pretension. How much weight must be given to this evidence? It would seem that it can have but little. For, first, from the nature of the subject, it is not likely to be unbiassed. There is, as was before observed, a natural and general desire to believe in this doctrine. It is of the utmost importance to man, especially to man in a state of civilization, to be able to judge of the characters and ruling propensities of those with whom he has to deal. We are continually seeking some method of forming just opinions at first sight. Moreover, we do form some opinion of an individual at first sight, and are frequently mortified when we find this opinion entirely erroneous. The witnesses are desirous to find the fact in accordance with the theory, and are, therefore, to be suspected.

Secondly; the character of the witnesses, for sound judgment and veracity, is not unquestionable. At the head of these stand the founders of the theory, Gall and Spurzheim. But, as they had a theory to complete and support, their evidence, taken by by itself, is worth little or nothing.

The next class of witnesses are those, who have, by the study of anatomy and physiology, qualified themselves to judge of the soundness of the pretensions of the craniologists. The number of these, however, is not great; while the opposers and contemners among persons thus qualified to judge, are numerous and celebrated. And we cannot but think, that, as to the few respectable names on the side of the craniologists, a warm imagination has often supplied the place of impartial examination. Give to the opinion of these, however, all the weight which they can reasonably expect, and they must still admit, that it is overbalanced by that of the unbelievers.

Another class of witnesses, are the members of phrenological societies, and students in phrenology, who have no other claim to any acquaintance with physiology. The testimony of these must clearly be of small value.

But the most serious objection to all testimony on this subject, is its illusive and intangible nature, and the difficulty of arriving at any conclusive facts.

Come and see, says the phrenologist, triumphantly; use your own eyes; make the experiment for yourselves. This is all very well; but here lies the very difficulty, namely, in making the experiment. One would think, from the language sometimes used, that the divisions of the head were as plain as those on a muskmelon; and that it was as easy to designate a man's cerebral organs, as to count the windows of a house or the squares of a chess-board. But in practice it is not quite so easy. At first, we were told, that the palm of the hand was to be applied to the surface of the organ, and that it required some little tact to estimate the comparative proportion of an organ in this way. Lately, however, this notion is beginning to assume the apparatus of an exact science, and to calculate geometrically the length and breadth of a propensity, and the solid contents of an emotion.

It is clear, however, that the craniometer will serve only to estimate the relative size among the organs of an individual; for the organ of imagination in a giant, may be small when compared with his other organs, and yet monstrous, when compared with that of any other individual. To make the experiment, therefore, we must find, first, what ought to be the size of an organ, in any given head, and measure its difference from the standard of mediocrity. A process which will readily be perceived to be easier to imagine than to perform.

But this is really the least difficulty. We have next to determine the character of the individual, the circumstances to which he has been exposed, his early education, habits, mode of employment, and the like. These things must be taken into consideration; for if the phrenologist denies the power of these to affect the character, he becomes an avowed fatalist. If he admits it, he must also admit that a man's character may disagree with the testimony of his organization. Moreover, our individual actions are the results of complicated and various motives, so that it is difficult to refer any series to their true source. And indeed many would seem to indicate the want, rather than the presence of an organ. Thus in the case of theft. Why does a man steal? Because he has a strong desire for money, or that which money can procure? Such desires are common and powerful in a state of civilization. The lover of pleasure, who wastes his fortune in ridiculous expences, and who is miserable when his credit is at length exhausted; the fine lady, who puts the profits of her husband's labors for a month upon her shoulders, in the shape of a Cashmere shawl, or bids it sparkle from the diamonds in her hair; the man of science, who sighs for new series of foreign Transactions; the lawyer, who

cannot buy the last volume of Reports; the country clergyman, who has found the quarter lasts longer than his salary; and the country doctor, who has worn out his horse and his saddlebags,all these agree with the thief, in the desire; but they are prevented from stealing by some organ which must be small in him. What is this organ? Is it self-esteem or pride? But is the thief without pride in his ingenuity, in his resources, his tricks, his cunning, and his escapes? Is it love of approbation? And where is it stronger than in the marauder, who thirsts for the noisy applause of his comrades, and screws his courage to the sticking-place, by the hope of ensuring it. Is it fear? Is the thief necessarily fearless? "The sound of a shaken leaf shall chase him."

To make experiments, therefore, with any degree of accuracy, requires an intimate acquaintance with the laws of mental phenomena, which is certainly neither common nor easy of acquirement. We must, therefore, trust, in a great measure, to the evidence of others, in this matter, in which few, as we have shown before, can be competent witnesses. And thus this sounding boast of the experimental character of phrenology dwindles into insignificance.

One consequence of this last difficulty of judging concerning mental phenomena, is a frequent change of nomenclature, by the geographers of the skull. Thus the model, which was procured some years since, with its organs of murder, of theft, of cunning, of ambition. and of mechanic art, is no longer certain. Murder. and propensity to quarrel, are now transmuted into destructiveness and combativeness. Theft splits into acquisitiveness and Cunning and ambition can no longer be found; and the mechanic arts are swallowed up in constructiveness.

secretiveness

Another consequence is the difficulty of convicting the phrenologist of an error. Nature, in this instance, say they boldly, admits of no exceptions. A single one is sufficient to overturn our theory. Show us one, and we relinquish it. An assassin is found with a small organ of destructiveness; they are called on to fulfill their engagement, and what is the answer? That this is only a beautiful illustration of the truth of phrenology; for, though the organ of destructiveness is insignificant, that of avarice is so enormous, that the individual would rather destroy life, than want an addition to his hoard. But if you insist that the individual was a careless spendthrift, who hung loose upon the world, and who had no hoard to increase; it was then the organ of combativeness, which compelled to quarrelling and wrath so powerfully. If you deny that

the organ is large, you have the callipers and craniometer arrayed against you; and it is hard if some organ cannot be found sufficiently large to balance all deficiencies of the others.

In short, it is equally easy to fit the organ to the character, and the character to the organ. If a man has a large organ of imagination, it is not difficult to find that he wrote a few verses in the course of his life, which may claim for him the title of a poet; or he could tell a good story; or was given to building castles in the air, or engaging in wild speculations; or else he had a turn for drawing; or, at least, he sometimes told a lie, when he might as well have held to the truth. There is no difficulty in finding bad qualities to match the organs of those we dislike; or good ones, which shall correspond with the amiable prominences of our friends.

It seems to be almost a waste of time to oppose with gravity, a notion like that of the phrenologists. But, as I have before observed, it has received the sanction of a few respectable names, Persons of this class have sometimes complained, that they were attacked with ridicule rather than with argument; and that the community have only laughed at the doctrine, when they should have studied it. But it would seem that the general merriment excited by phrenology is a strong argument against it; an evidence, in short, that it is opposed to the common sense and common observation of mankind, if it does not prove, that the organs of individuality and comparison are only developed sufficiently in the select few who believe in phrenology.

However ridiculous this doctrine may appear to those who are acquainted with the history of man, there is nothing wonderful in its rise or diffusion; and there will be nothing wonderful in its decline and final repose with similar fanciful conceptions. It will doubtless, ere long, be found only in the same page of history with physiognomy, animal magnetism, and tractoration; and the memory of phrenological societies will rest with that of the Perkinean Institution.

ORIGINAL POETRY.

THE LIFE OF THE BLESSED.

[FROM THE SPANISH OF LUIS PONCE DE LEON.]

Alma region luciente,

Prado de bien andanza, que ni al hielo, &e.

REGION of life and light!

Land of the good whose earthly toils are o'er!

Nor frost nor heat may blight

Thy vernal beauty; fertile shore,

Yielding thy blessed fruits for evermore!

There, without crook or sling

Walks the good shepherd; blossoms white and red

Round his meek temples cling;

And, to sweet pastures led,

His own loved flock beneath his eye are fed.

He guides, and near him they

Follow delighted; for he makes them go

Where dwells eternal May,

And heavenly roses blow,

Deathless, and gathered but again to grow.

He leads them to the height

Named of the infinite and long sought Good,

And fountains of delight ;

And where his feet have stood

Springs up, along the way, their tender food.