nation of the nervous with the sanguine, when it approaches the athletic, or of the bilious with the nervous. The Antinous and the young Apollo belong to the pure sanguine, and it must be admitted that their excellencies belong rather to the feminine than to the masculine character. The beau-ideal of man will be looked for in something between the Apollo and the Farnesian Hercules; in which moderate fulness is given by the sanguine or the bilious, and determination of muscle with proper tenuity of the wrists and ancles by the nervous. In the celebrated picture of Fuseli of our first parents expelled from Paradise, the contrast between the two figures is shewn in the highest perfection, and the distinctions of temperament may be beautifully traced. The expression of each temperament is transcendently given in the description of the divine Milton, beginning with the words "Both Not equal as their sex, not equal seemed; With a few general remarks I shall conclude. The antithesis of the lymphatic temperament is the nervous; that of the sanguine, the bilious. Their tendencies will be seen, I think, in all the organs affected by each to be thus diametrically opposed to the other. The lymphatic and_the_nervous hold the simple and intelligible extremes of the laziest and the most active; the one will be only happy when he is doing something; the other will dispose of the question de finibus by considering, that exertion is the summum malum, and inaction the summum bonum. Equally well marked, though not quite so simple, is the distinction between the sanguine and the bilious: The sanguine man will have his pursuits and character formed by the circumstances which surround him; from them he will derive his pleasures, which will seldom have much relation to futurity, The bilious man, on the contrary, may perform the duties which may be placed before him by external circumstances, but he will perform them in his own way; more often will he choose his own pursuits, and he will always have a character of his own, his pleasure will be little dependent on those about him; they will originate in himself, and he will be generally prepared to say— "No matter where, if I be still the same." The sanguine man will ask and follow the advice of friends; the bilious will value advice only as it supplies him with materials on which to found his own judgment. The sanguine will be free and ready in his first introduction to strangers; the bilious will be taciturn and often repulsive. It may be objected that these differences of character are too marked to depend only on the temperaments, and will not exist unless there is a difference of/organization co-operating. It men may be so; but my own experience has led me to conclude, that variations of not less importance than those I have mentioned, are most frequently marked, if not produced, by a certain difference of temperaments. For illustration, we will pursue the comparison between the sanguine and the bilious man.: Let both, with their general development the same, have equally the organs of Imitation, Gaiety, Ideality, Eventuality and Language, Love of Approbation, and not too much Caution nor Secretiveness; both will therefore have the organization fitted to make them shine in conversation, but there may be as great a difference between them as would exist in the conversation of Lord Chesterfield and of Samuel Coleridge. The polished gentleman, the man who knows exactly the "when and how to commence a conversation, and to keep it going with little chit-chat when substance is wanting; who pleases every one, and pleases directly he is introduced, would have a predominance in the sanguine; with the same cerebral development, the bilious man would never be talkative, unless he had something worth saying; he may assume a respectful, but he would always retain a dignified air. He would have some reason for commencing a conversation, and would then charm by his intelligent eloquence. The sanguine man, powerfully operated on by Secretiveness, would be ready to extort from every one a promise not to tell, and would then tell them everything. The bilious man SO constituted, would realise the description of Tiberius given by Tacitus, "when he had no secret, he would always seem as if he wished to conceal something from you." The bilious and the sanguine man would both be susceptible of strong feelings of love and friendship. With the very same organs, the sanguine man would be a lover or a friend at first sight, and would change the object without much_compunction when absence or danger rendered it more conducive to his present gratification to do so. The bilious man would be somewhat less disposed to form a friendship, or to fall in love, but he would afterwards feel permanently and unceasingly, and neither absence nor danger would lessen his attachment. While the sanguine man would weep and express the sincerest sympathy with his friend in distress, the bilious man would die for him. Both organized as I have described above, might enjoy themselves in the same external circumstances, but they would derive their pleasure from different sources, and hold it in different manners. Milton's L'Allegro, may have the same organization as Il Penseroso; but L'Allegro must have a preponderance of the sanguine, and Il Penseroso of the bilious. But I fear, gentlemen, that I have already detained you too long with a paper, on the preparation of which I have been able to bestow a very insufficient degree of attention, considering that the subject is comparatively new. In regard to the views which I feel most anxious should be understood, that is, that each temperament has a more definite influence than is ascribed to it by phrenologists in general, I am aware that I must rest almost entirely on the appeal to your own individual experience. The few facts which I have adduced serve only as illustrations, as examples, indeed, of the proofs on which I have founded my own conclusions, but not as evidence for your judgment. One great difficulty in this respect, is the almost impossibility of discriminating slight shades of difference in temperament, except from the living subject, and hence I cannot make an appeal to skulls and casts. The importance of the investigation is not, however, lessened by its difficulty, and if, in this essay, I may have succeeded in shewing that the subject is important, and have added one single remark which may light the path to them, or made an arrangement which may assist the memory, I shall be fully satisfied. To conclude, I will abate something of my pretensions in regard to the value of observing the temperaments when a sanguine man can be found who is a profound investigator of abstract truth; let his Causality and Comparison be what they may; when a lymphatic man is found who is prompt and persevering, though he have Destructiveness and Firmness in their fullest development; when a nervous man can pursue a question in metaphysics with dogged inductive perseverance; or when an example is adduced of a bilious man who is always ready to concede everything, and to converse with every one; let him possess any development that a phrenologist may prescribe. Note by the Editor.—We have made room for the preceding communication, because it is ingeniously and ably written, and because the subject is of so much importance, that no opportunity should be lost of extending our knowledge of it. There are many of the author's remarks with which we do not agree, but as every one ought to be fairly heard, we have left them unaltered, in the hope of leading our readers to make fresh observations. In the fundamental idea that one kind of temperament is more favourable to the exercise of certain faculties than another, we entirely concur; but that it necessarily implies their uniform predominance as features of character, is, we think, disproved by daily experience. In his descriptions, the author seems to us to assign mental peculiarities too much to temperament, and too little to development of brain, and if his views were sound to the extent which he believes them, the result would be, that the old physiognomical doctrine of the temperaments (perhaps in a somewhat improved shape) would almost supersede the phrenological philosophy. We trust, that the author will receive these remarks in kindness, and accept our best thanks for his communication. The essay displays so much acuteness and general talent, that we are glad to hail him as a fellow-labourer in the cause of truth. ARTICLE XIII. THE POPE VERSUS PHRENOLOGY. MR GEORGE COMBE lately received the following letter from a friend in Rome: : "MY DEAR SIR, ROME, 20th March 1837. "Thinking it might interest you to see a Papal advertisement of one of your works, I send you one, which has also been posted in large placards on the walls. The edict is, I should think, rather directed against Fossati than you: he, I think, was banished from Milan some years ago, for lecturing on Phrenology. Broussais' lectures are exposed for sale in some of the windows here. "The publishers of the proscribed books are, I believe, generally gainers by these edicts. "I have shewn your article on cholera (in the Journal) to several persons, who highly approved of it; and I was at one time in hopes of being able to get it translated and printed for circulation: but one who was very earnest at first, and even commenced the translation-took fright-and so at present the matter is at a stand; but I shall hope to succeed better another opportunity." As our readers may feel some curiosity to see a Pope's Bull, we subjoin the document entire. DECRETUM Feria III die 14 Februarii 1837. Sacra Congregatio Eminentissimorum ac Reverendissimorum S. Romanae Eccle- |