excitement of the religious feelings. That of Hope is equally clearly indicated by the confidence with which the patient looked forward to happiness in a future life, and lastly, that of Wonder by the visions by which she was visited.

The progress of the case was probably this. Her organ of Veneration possessed great natural activity, bordering perhaps on disease; for its development, though good, is not remarkable. By being frequently excited, it at last fell into a state of actual disease, ushered in by the first apparently apoplectic attack, a state from which it never recovered, but which, continuing to increase, gave rise at last to the ramollissement and effusion of serum, implicating thereby so great an extent of the brain as to affect not only her entire mind, but also her powers of locomotion.

ARTICLE VIII.

REMARKS ON THE SECRETIVENESS OF THEIVES.
By W. B. HODGSON.

P.

Ir is very generally admitted by phrenologists that Secretiveness is an important element in the character of a thief. The first attempt to explain the mode of its operation was made, I believe, by Dr A. Combe, in an essay in the 4th Number of the Phrenological Journal, vol. i. 611; and the following sentence contains the substance of that writer's views: "Now there is nothing more certain than that a small Secretiveness gives that perfect feeling of openness and impossibility of hiding, which is equivalent to a certainty of detection, and that a large one gives that feeling of concealment and impenetrability, which, in its effects, is almost equivalent to a physical impossibility of discovery."+) This idea regarding the function of Secretiveness is recognised in the 3d Number of the Phrenological Journal; "Report on the cast of John Pallet," (vol. i. p. 433.) "Secretiveness assured him that because he wished to be hidden, he therefore must be hidden; like a child who, when it shuts its eyes and sees nobody, imagines that it also in its turn becomes invisible to others." Again, in the 2d vol. of the Journal, p. 533, "On the Cerebral Development of Luscombe, a criminal," the writer of this article remarks: “It has

* She has two sisters who are considered by her son as not entirely compotes mentis.

+Dr Combe refers to Mr Scott's Analysis of Secretiveness in the Phrenological Transactions, p. 164, in which he thinks the same view is stated. All that Mr Scott, however, says is," It inspires the idea that whatever is wrong may be concealed.

been well observed, that Secretiveness produces an inward feeling of extreme secrecy, and lessens the fear of detection; and this, united with small caution, will enable us to account for the daring manner in which he committed the murders." Mr George Combe, in his System of Phrenology, fourth edition, vol. i. p. 253, observes: "Secretiveness is more invariably large in thieves than Acquisitiveness; and it prompts to this crime, probably by the feeling of secrecy which it generates in the mind. It gives the idea that all is hidden, that no eye sees, and that no intellect will be able to trace the fraud." Mr Combe then refers to the article by Dr Andrew Combe just quoted.

With all deference to the opinion of these writers, it seems to me that they have mistaken the nature of this organ, and that their views are not merely at variance with facts; but inconsistent with the acknowledged office of the faculty itself. I am satisfied that Secretiveness does aid the thief; but several considerations induce me to believe that the mode of its operation is very different from that just mentioned.

1st, The primitive function of Secretiveness is understood to be a disposition to conceal one's thoughts and actions from others. Now there is no perceptible_connexion between desire of concealment, and consciousness of concealment: Cautiousness produces fear of danger, or the converse, desire of safety; but the desire of safety is not necessarily productive of the consciousness that you are safe. The same appears to me to hold true of Secretiveness.*

2dly, Not only is consciousness of concealment not necessarily proportioned to desire of concealment, but the reverse; for the more anxious an individual is to conceal, the more doubtful is he of the sufficiency of his measures for that end. This follows from the acknowledged tendency of Secretiveness to render us suspicious of others, and fearful lest they know too much of our designs. Mr Combe observes in his Essays, that those in whom this organ is "largely developed, are fond of throwing a dense covering of secrecy over all their sentiments

Cautiousness bears the closest analogy to Secretiveness, but the principle applies to all the faculties. Imitation, for example, produces the desire to imitate; but by no means gives the consciousness that you are actually imitating. In fact, the stronger the sentiment, the more likely is an individual to act under its influence, automatically and unconsciously. Mr Simpson, in his excellent Essay on Ventriloquism (Phren. Journ. vol. ii. p. 589), mentions that he has met with several cases of great power of imitation existing without the consciousness of the possessors, one of whom denied that he had ever imitated any person in his life, though he involuntarily copied the voice and manner of every one with whom he held much intercourse. Imitation, however, to be an exact parallel to the alleged function of Secretiveness, would require to produce consciousness not merely of imitation, but of successful imitation.

and actions, even the most trifling and unimportant, and conceive that the eye of the world is always looking into their breasts, to read the purposes and designs there hatched, but which discovery they are solicitous to prevent." Now a faculty which leads a man to conceive" that the eye of the world is always looking into his breast," when increased in power, can surely never give the idea "that no eye sees. It is more consistent to believe that it is the man with small Secretiveness who fancies that no eye sees. In the same way Cautiousness, from causing fear of danger, prompts us to take precautions against it; but the stronger the Cautiousness in any individual, the less is he satisfied of his security, even after all the means which he adopts to ensure it.

3dly, Persons in whom Secretiveness is large feel any thing but a consciousness of secrecy. Dr Andrew Combe, in his phrenological essay (Phren. Journal, vol. i. p. 365), mentions Pope as an instance of predominant Secretiveness. Dr Johnson says that he could hardly drink tea without a stratagem and Lady Bolingbroke used to say that he played the politician about cabbages and turnips. Dr Johnson adds," he was afraid of writing, lest the clerks of the post-office should know his secrets." Here we see indisputable signs of great love of concealment, but the very opposite of a consciousness of secrecy. Had Secretiveness operated in the manner alleged, he would have had no fear of his letters being examined by the clerks of the post-office.* In many other cases I have observed the same fact. The rashness with which Luscombe and Pallet committed murders is accounted for, in the case of the former, by the writer of the article himself, who mentions that his Cautiousness was small; and in the case of the latter, by a reference to his stated development, in which Cautiousness is marked "rather full or moderate;" while in both the intellectual region was deficient.

4thly, If it were in this way that Secretiveness assisted theft, then the greater the Secretiveness, the more perfect would be the individual's feeling that he was unobserved, and consequently the more open would be his depredations. It follows, therefore, from this view of the operation of Secretiveness, that the thief in whom it is largest will be the most rash and the most easily detected. A feeling which acted in this way would be but a treacherous assistant; and Secretiveness would be an anomalous instance of a faculty which, by an increase of its powers, defeated its own ends.

*It is curious that Dr Combe quotes, in illustration of this character of Pope, the very passage from Mr Combe's essay which directly contradicts his own views regarding this faculty, as stated in the Phrenological Journal, vol. i. p. 611.

The manner in which Secretiveness aids the thief appears to me more consistent with the primitive function of the faculty 1st, It enables the individual to restrain the outward manifestations of his Acquisitiveness till he is satisfied that no eye is watching him. The larger his Secretiveness, the more difficult will it be, I conceive, to convince him that he is unobserved, and accordingly, the more patiently will be wait a favourable opportunity, 2dly, It gives a positive pleasure in abstracting an article, as a handkerchief from a pocket, in such a way as to escape observation. This pleasure is perfectly distinct from the gratification given to Acquisitiveness by the appropriation of the article. The exercise of all the organs is attended by a pleasant emotion, and writers who are not phrenologists recognise the pleasure which accompanies the activity of Secretiveness. James, in his novel of De L'Orme (vol. ii. p. 31), says of some smugglers-" They seemed to take delight in the mystery and secrecy of their ways. Persons have been known to pocket silver spoons and forks from their own tables. Now, such conduct can scarcely be referred to Acquisitiveness in individuals whose intellect is sane, because the spoons and forks are known to be their own property already; and much less to Secretiveness, on the theory to which I object; because, although the consciousness of concealment might leave the desire to steal at full liberty, yet it cannot of itself produce that desire, or prompt to theft." But, on the other view, it is easy to imagine such persons watching the eyes of all around them, seizing the favourable moment when attention is withdrawn, and dexterously conveying the spoon into their pocket, with all the satisfaction of gratified Secretiveness. In common society I have met persons who had the greatest pleasure in secreting articles which they had not the slightest intention or desire to retain. I should think it probable that Secretiveness will be found more fully developed in thieves, in proportion to the dexterity which they require and manifest; larger in pickpockets, for example, than in highwaymen 3dly, By giving a desire of concealment, Secretiveness leads a man in whom it is powerful to prefer the dark and tortuous paths of duplicity, to the openness and candour of undisguised integrity. It involves him in difficulties, in order to preserve the concealment which he has assumed,-subjects him to great temptations to falsehood and deceit,-weakens the distinctions between justice and injustice, and prepares the way for every sort of crime. It was not without reason observed, I think by Dr Johnson, that he who conceals for the sake of concealment, will soon find something which requires to be concealed.

make confirm my belief of their correctness.

I now propose

them for the consideration of the readers of the Phrenological Journal.

Remarks on the above Communication, by Dr A. Combe.

Having carefully read the preceding article after it was in types, I cannot perceive that there is much, if any, real difference between Mr Hodgson's views and my own, and believe that the supposed discrepancy has arisen from his having attached a meaning to an isolated sentence of my paper, which, when taken along with the context, does not really belong to it,

The whole of Mr Hodgson's objections proceed on the assumption that, by a "feeling of concealment," I mean a firm belief of being actually concealed; which however is a very different thing. I may feel that I am concealing a thought or deed, and yet be perfectly aware that it is not effectually concealed against any active effort to find it out. In the former case, the simple consciousness that "I am concealing" certainly seems to me to spring from Secretiveness alone; but it is not less clear that, before I can experience what I would call the compound consciousness of the concealment being either effectual or the opposite, I must take measures, by means of the other faculties, for the express purpose of deceiving, and employ the intellect to judge of their adequacy to the end proposed. From not attending to this distinction, and to the fact that the only object I had in view was to describe the operation of Secretiveness when so acting along with the other faculties, Mr Hodgson has ascribed to the sentence which he quotes a meaning quite different from that given to it by the substance of my exposition. I did not profess to give any analysis of the pri mitive function of Secretiveness considered per se, as Mr Hodgson's remarks would lead the reader to suppose, but merely to shew that where the moral organs are not largely developed, the difficulty of resisting temptation to crime is increased by the possession of a powerful Secretiveness; because the latter is then able to suggest schemes by which its possessor may so effectually conceal his conduct, as to give little alarm to Cautiousness from any fear of punishment, or to Love of Approbation from any probable loss of reputation, and thus weaken the influence of these feelings as restraining powers. Whereas, if Secretiveness be so small as to give little chance of effectual concealment, both of these propensities will come more actively into play, and suggest more strongly the prospect of punishment and disgrace as reasons for not vielding to the temptation.