languages; and the examination of his brain afforded an opportunity of observing the size of the convolution, which, according to the phrenologists, constitutes the organ of the faculty of Language. Mr Craig takes no notice of its size. I affirm that it was unusually large, and that there was a distinct transverse furrow in each super-orbitar plate, of more than ordinary depth, corresponding to its dimensions.

II. Mr N. retained the knowledge of the signification of words when addressed to him, but could not use words intelligibly himself, so that his faculty of Language was impaired, but not destroyed. In concomitance with this fact, the organ of Language was entire in the right hemisphere, while in the left there was a cavity in the line of the fibres of it. Mr Craig and Dr Craigie avoid all allusion to the phrenological doctrine that there are separate organs for the faculty of Language independent of the other organs, and also all notice of the bearing of the facts of Mr N.'s case on these doctrines.

III. Mr Craig denies all morbid change of temper in Mr N. at the period of his loss of the use of language. I have produced evidence of the change, and it forms an important feature in the case taken in connection with the morbid appearances in the organ of Combativeness. To record the latter, and omit the former, is to mutilate and give a signification to the facts at variance with their real import.

IV. In the phrenological works published by Dr Gall, Dr Spurzheim, and their followers, facts are stated, tending to shew that spectral illusions are connected in some way with large development or diseased action of the organs of Wonder, or of those of Wonder and Imitation. In the present case the skull was thickened over these organs in the left hemisphere, indicating a degree of morbid action in that region which did not present itself in other parts of the skull. No notice is taken of this concomitance in Mr Craig's report.

V. Dr Craigie cites some cases of lesions of the brain accompanying loss of the use of words, but he makes no allusion to Mr Hood's case, which, in regard both to the mental manifestations and morbid appearances, was closely analogous to the present, but which contradicts Dr Craigie's supposition, that the lesion in the posterior lobe was the cause of the loss of the use of words.

In short, if scientific truth be an object worth pursuing, I leave the reader to judge to what extent its cause has been promoted by the manner in which Mr Craig and Dr Craigie have brought this case before the public and the medical profession. It is the fashion with those who oppose Phrenology, and also with those who, like Dr Prichard and Academicus, simply affirm that there is no evidence of its truth, to treat with in

credulity every fact observed and reported by phrenologists, In this instance we see, that when facts of the most palpable character are presented to non-phrenological or anti-phrenological observers, they do not perceive them, or do_not_report them. How, then, can Phrenology ever be proved to be true to the satisfaction of such men, while this system shall be pursued? If a phrenologist had not had access to the facts of this case, it would have continued to be cited as a striking evidence against the doctrines. How How many similar examples may exist?

Edinburgh, 21st Nov. 1836.

G. C.

P. S. Before the foregoing remarks were printed off, I received an answer to my letter to Mr Craig, dated the 18th of November, which I consider it due to him to present also to the reader.

66

"MY DEAR SIR,

LUDGATE LODGE, 19th November 1836.

66 My letter to you of the 5th was never intended for publication; if, however, you do so, you will see the propriety of omitting the real and substituting the fictitious name of Mr N. Upon maturely re-considering the case,-upon examining those who had every opportunity of seeing the subject of it,—I see not the slightest grounds for altering my deliberately formed opinion, confirmed as it is by the eminent medical men who visited along with me, as well as others who were in the habit of seeing Mr N. frequently, and giving the decided preference to an opinion formed upon my own daily personal observation, to your report, second hand as it must be, which, however, I shall be glad to see when published. I am, &c.

"JAMES CRAIG."

This letter led me to make additional inquiries to ascertain to what extent the statement of John Smeal might be relied on; and I have received the following letter from a gentleman of great respectability, well known to the public.

"MY DEAR SIR,

21st November 1836.

"Only once after the loss of the command of words did I happen to come in contact with Mr N., when he immediately recognised me, and I believe alluded to Dr J, but he spoke what appeared to me to be Spanish, or chiefly Spanish, and of course I made my bow as speedily as possible. Only once, too, did I see Mr Smeal senior after that event, and I can assure you that all that I gathered from him, confirms most amply the account given by you of the change of temper from remarkable mildness to marked irritability. Whoever knows the character of Mr Joseph Smeal, for quietness, mildness,"at

tachment to his old master, well tried probity, and general worth of every sort, cannot hesitate a moment in giving implicit credence to his report, and in being satisfied that it would not be exaggerated, but rather understated, and the examples of bad temper either concealed or apologised for. His son I believe to be equally trustworthy. I am, &c.

66

I am authorized to communicate to Mr Craig the name of the writer of this letter.

The public will now form their own judgment on the case.

G. C.

23d November 1836.

ARTICLE XI.

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS.

Statistics of Phrenology.-Since the publication of the work bearing this title, several communications have been made to me, which tend to shew that the actual strength of phrenologists in numbers, is under-estimated in the work. Thus, in London, there is "The Anthropological Society," including thirty-eight members, and the society of " Phrenological Inquirers," comprehending forty-five members. Phrenological societies or classes have also been formed in several places additional to those mentioned in the work, as at Paisley, Berwick, and Southampton. And I am further informed of phrenologists in different towns of which no notice was made. I shall feel greatly obliged by any other communications of this kind, and will make public the particulars, when collected, in a supplemental sheet, or some other form. It is obviously for the advantage of Phrenology that the full numerical strength of its adherents should be known; and on this account I do not hesitate in earnestly requesting phrenologists to forward the publicity of circumstances calculated to answer such end. Great caution, however, is requisite that no over-estimate of numbers be made.-While alluding to the Statistics," I take advantage of the opportunity for correcting a slight error in allusion to Liverpool. Mr Levison's lectures were delivered in December 1833, not in January 1836. This gentleman is anxious that the correction should be made, but it would not interest other persons to enter into any explanation as to the cause of the mistaken date.-H. C. W.

Function of Wit.-I have seen three cases of living individuals which strongly tend to corroborate the views of Spurzheim, and may be that the examples adduced by Mr Scott and myself

it

in former volumes of the Phrenological Journal, are the manifestations of Wit and Causality combined. We want an exact analysis of the manifestations of Causality taken by itself; almost every example cited by phrenological writers appears to involve other organs in united activity, particularly Time and Eventuality.-H. C. W.

Recent Attacks on Phrenology.-Two periodicals, which are widely known and circulated, have just published attacks on Phrenology." The Quarterly advocate of despotic principles is fast receding from the advancing intelligence of the age, writes Mr Babbage; and its opposition to Phrenology will be held by many to be recommendatory, or a sort of implied admission that the science is calculated to improve mankind. There seems no reason to doubt that the Review is still read by some antique gentlemen, but as these persons never would become phrenologists, the attack will be quite harmless, both to the science and to the Review. It is somewhat otherwise with Tait's Magazine. It may possibly encourage some few persons in their prejudices against Phrenology; but, looking to the class in which Tait chiefly circulates, it needs no great foresight to predict that any injurious consequences from its antiphrenological effusions in the October number will fall upon the pecuniary matters of the Magazine itself, and not upon the phrenological works which it is pleased to condemn. Here I am strongly tempted to ask the editors of the Phrenological Journal to allow ine to point out an example of the egregious blunders committed by critics destitute of any proper key to human character. The writer of the notice in Tait discovers proofs of the "bump" of credulity being very large in the author of the "Statistics of Phrenology." Never was there a more unlucky guess. So far is the author of that work from being liberally endowed with credulity, that, while yet in his teens, he had acquired the nicknames of " Sceptic" and "Caviller," in his own family and acquaintance-names not applied with reference to religious opinions, but on account of an excessive tendency to doubt and question every proposition set before him, until furnished with some good grounds or proof whereon to let it rest. The mental peculiarity, which procured for him such little-coveted appellations, still inheres; and assuredly no phrenologist could criticise the "Statistics of Phrenology," or any other work by the same writer, without discovering that very prominent mental feature, which the unphrenological critic in Tait has been altogether unable to detect. Such is criticism by persons destitute of any key to human character! As to Tait's notice in other respects, it is written with smartness and some point; but a phrenologist will certainly not discover a large bump" of Conscientiousness in the head of the writer. A little bump of

this kind would have prevented that notice being made the vehicle of circulating Mr Scott's glaring misstatement about Mr Combe's remarks on the habits of society being at variance with the precepts of Christianity; and it might also have prevented some other one-sided comments. The author of the " Statistics," however, will easily forgive the irony applied to himself, and will assure the writer of the notice that the strength of phrenologists is understated in the book in question.-H. C. W.

Faculty of Imitation.-Sir,-Conceiving that the following case, which I have found to-day in looking over Dr Plot's "Natural History of Staffordshire" (1686), p. 284, might interest you in a phrenological point of view, as exhibiting an extreme instance of morbid action in the organ of Imitation, I have taken the liberty of sending you a copy of the story as given in the author's own words. The case appears to have been originally published in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 129.

But when this imitating quality is so very strong that it becomes involuntary, as it is in Donald Monro of Scrachbogie, in Scotland, who pulls off his hat, and puts it on, wipes his nose, wrings his hands, stretches forth his arms, and imitates all other actions he sees other men doe, though much against his will, with so much exactness, and such a natural and unaffected an air, that no man can suspect he does it with designe, and yet with so strong an impulse (as the reverend and learned Dr Gordon informs us) that if his hands be held, he cannot forbeare pressing to get himself free to doe the same thing. Nay, so contrary to his mind does he ape these motions, that to hide his infirmity, he casts down his eyes when he walks the streets, and turns them away when in company, wherein too 'tis hard to make him stay, once he finds himself observed."-I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, JAMES Y. SIMPSON, M. D.

Edinburgh, 2 Teviot Row, Aug. 22. 1836.

Letter to the Editor.-Mr Editor,-In a town that must be nameless, I lately heard a gentleman say that the things you publish as facts are not facts. As this gentleman is supposed to be a philosopher, I did not think it becoming in me to contradict him; so I very respectfully inquired which were not facts. The gentleman opened his mouth, and shook his chin, and stammered, and twisted about on his chair, but not a syllable could he utter; and he looked so very uneasy, that all my respect was changed into pity, and I began to talk about the rainy weather; and then, all at once, he sat quite still, and talked very nicely without stammering at all. Now, Mr Editor, it is my private opinion (which I will tell you) that the gentleman would not have got out any answer to my question if I had waited an hour for it. Don't you think so too? I am, Mr Editor, with great regard, yours, MARIA.