mind, were probably confined to his parents, teachers, relations, and friends, and are sufficiently explained by his large Veneration, Adhesiveness, Amativeness, and Love of Approbation. At the same time, in the absence of excited Destructiveness, it is to be observed that the size of Benevolence is quite enough to have produced some traits of a humane description. I am afraid, however, these would not be frequent. From the irregularities in the shape of the head, I have stated the development in the coronal surface with some hesitation. At the same time, taking into account the extreme shortness of that region from Firmness to Causality, and the diminished length superficially of Benevolence, I do not conceive myself warranted in stating its amount higher than 15. ARTICLE V. ON THE UNKNOWN ORGAN SITUATED BEHIND IDEALITY. (TO GEORGE COMBE, ESQ.) EDINBURGH, May 15. 1837. SIR, In addressing you, my presumption may perhaps be pardoned when it is considered that it is dictated by a sincere wish for the advancement and progressive improvement of that true philosophy of the human mind, of which you are the great and able living defender. Though I have been a considerable time acquainted with Phrenology, yet it was not till within a few months back that I discovered that that organ marked " unascertained" in the bust was very largely developed in myself. This attracted my attention very much at the time; but after two or three days' fruitless search after some unknown feeling within me, the curiosity roused on the subject quickly died away; and I had forgotten the circumstance altogether. In the beginning of this year, however, I happened to read a work on a subject which called forth an emotion, which I cannot describe in other words than as a curious feeling for the past, or a direction of the mind to what was gone by. This struck me as being perhaps the unknown feeling that some time before I had been in search of. But then, again, I remembered that some such similar feeling had been ascribed by some phrenologists to the still disputed faculty of Concentrativeness. The strength of that feeling in my own mind, however, was not at all warranted by the comparative size of the organ of Concentrative ness. There were other phrenologists also, who never men tioned such a feeling as being connected with the organ of Concentrativeness, among whom were yourself, and all the other eminent phrenologists. Seeing that this was the case, I resolved to make a few observations on the organs marked 3 and unascertained. In the first place, I considered that the development of my own head favoured my opinion that that part of the brain whose functions were considered as unknown, was the organ of a faculty which gave the mind a tendency to look to the past. I examined the head of an intimate friend also, whom I knew to be disposed to such a feeling. In fact, he was the only person I had known whose mind sympathized with mine in this respect. In him I found that part of the brain also largely developed. This gave me fresh confidence. And I made a few more observations, all of which tended to the same effect. I also watched the character of persons whom I had previously known as having the organ marked No. 3, large. There were three of them, and they were pretty constantly under my observation. observation. I did not, however, discover any thing in them farther than that they all seemed to want a varied memory, or, in other words, when their minds were fixed on one particular object, they forgot every thing else; and also that they had a peculiar love for reading books over again which they had before read. Two of them had favourite authors, which they read once every month. This proved very satisfactory to me that your views respecting the organ of Concentrativeness were in accordance with nature, and also that the two feelings in question were quite distinct. For proof of this I may refer to Sir Walter Scott: Throughout the whole of his poem of Marmion, especially his introduction to the cantos, there runs a vein of reflection on the past, that has been called by the critics good feeling. From the first time that I read it, I have continually delighted in it. And so interested was I in it, that I learned pages upon pages of it without an effort. To give you an idea of what this feeling of the past, of which I have been speaking, is, I will extract the two following passages from the poem, as a specimen of that feeling with which it abounds : Still days, and weeks, and months but) seem The recollection of a dream,- "Blackford! on whose uncultured Among the broom, the thorn and whin, The murmur of the city crowd, Now from the summit to the plain, To me they make a heavy moan, I will now return to the object I had first in view in speaking of Sir Walter Scott, viz. that of shewing to those phrenologists who make this feeling a part of the functions of that organ marked No. 3, that it is distinct from Concentrativeness. For we find that Sir Walter Scott, upon your authority, was deficient in the organ of Concentrativeness. There can be no doubt that Sir Walter had the emotion of the past very strongly in his mind :—and to shew how I arrive with certainty at this conclusion, I shall again extract a few lines from his poem of Marmion : "An ancient minstrel sagely said, Whom humorous Jacques with envy viewed,- . ON THAT TRITE TEXT SO LONG AS I." If I may be allowed to speculate already on the subject, may it not have been such a feeling that led Sir Walter's mind back with such devotion to times and usages long gone by; and, perhaps, also gave him a taste as an antiquary. What seemed to strengthen my opinion, that that part of the brain marked unascertained is the organ of a faculty which gives a tendency to the mind to look to the past, was the fact of its being immediately below another faculty, which gives to the mind a tendency to look to the future. At all events, my opinion respecting the functions of this organ is not inconsistent with its situation. I will now draw to a close this too long letter; I have merely suggested to you what I think is true. But observations and facts are still wanted; but I am content that the examination of the subject is in hands more able to pursue and investigate it than I can ever be. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, J. K. [P. S.-I may state that Gray's Elegy, and Burns's song of "Auld Langsyne," seem to breathe the very spirit of the faculty, especially the latter.] * * We have much pleasure in inserting this letter sent us by Mr Combe, and consider the views contained in it to be worthy of a careful examination. EDITOR. ARTICLE VI. PHILANTHROPIC ECONOMY; OR THE PHILOSOPHY OF HAPPINESS PRACTICALLY APPLIED TO THE SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN. By MRS LOUDON. London: Christison. 1835. A remnant of Edinburgh anti-phrenologists, whose cases are for life, struck, no doubt, with the sound practical wisdom which the phrenological writings deduce from a clear analysis of mind, and the relation of its faculties to the rest of nature, have imagined a new formula which is fast getting into cuckoo currency;-"The phrenologists, in their boundless presumption, would monopolise all the good sense current in the world to themselves, and allow to no one else a particle of natural sagacity." On this notable charge we would observe, first, that it admits our possession of, and traffic in, good sense, which was long denied us; all forestallers and engrossers, commercially at least, not only possessing the valuable commodity monopolised, but possessing it abundantly; and, secondly, while we have arrived at good sense by a road entirely of our own, which has rendered it more demonstrable than any other, and decidedly more systematic and practical, we have not only not grudged the meed of it to others who have come at it by other ways, but have uniformly hailed them as fellow-labourers in the same cause; and by applying our own test to their views, have made it matter of certainty that they were right; allotting them the more merit, just because, while we are aided by a powerful instrument, they reached the work by their own unaided sagacity. There would be more merit in surveying a field by the eye, though more accuracy in doing it by the theodolite. If the said clique would condescend to look into our books, now rather voluminous we grant for zeal of the temperature of theirs, they would find this spirit of fairness, and even favour, to good-sense" writers manifested in every page. This is answer too, to what is always, in such cases, at our opponents' tongue end," So! you admit that your science can be done without." We admit no such thing. We say this. Our science, by discovering and ascertaining the primitive faculties of the human mind, and the relation of these to external nature, has given us the means of testing good sense, and reducing it to a regular harmonious means of human happiness; while the merely sagacious writers had no such standard, and neither themselves nor their readers could have perfect confidence in the soundness of their views. Phrenological writers have received, in several instances, this tribute from writers of the na 66 tural-sagacity character;-that they, the phrenologists, were the first to give them perfect confidence in theirown speculations. Of this class is the talented writer of the work before us,a work which would have given any man a high place as a moral philosopher; but, as the production of a woman, is not exceeded by anything in the language. She has written good sense from native sagacity; she has got more than a haphazard glimpse; she has commanded a systematic view of the moral fitness of things,the true sources of human happiness. But we know, from herself, that when she came to read the phrenological books, which she had not done when she wrote, she felt, though not till then, with the power of demonstration, that what she had written was sound; adding, with that modesty which graces real talent and merit, that had she read the phrenological philosophy first, she would not have dared to have written at all. Every phrenological reader of our fair author's work will rejoice with us, that she was not a phrenologist when she wrote her " Philanthropic Economy," and that her modest declaration itself may be taken as an avowal that she is a phrenologist now. We hail her accession to the good cause. These are converts worth having. The lamented Dr Macnish, our readers know well, was another such. In applying to the general plan of the work before us the test of the phrenological philosophy, we may observe, that if it be only the phrenologist who is qualified fully to appreciate the author's views, it is not matter of wonder that they are understood and appreciated to so limited an extent by an unphrenological public, as not to have had nearly the circulation, or done nearly the good to which they are entitled, and for which they are calculated. They are far above the practical apprehension of the mass of an age of which a mere handful know what are the primitive faculties of man, with the relation of these to the creation of which he forms a part;-a knowledge which has thrown a flood of light upon the moral world, which was previously as dark and inscrutable as the physical world was clear and harmonious. "Philanthropic economy" is a position too high for the age; which, moreover, is yet without means to mount up to it. It is a tower's top without ascending steps,-a mountain's summit without a practicable slope. It is read, imperfectly understood, much admired, considerably distrusted, perhaps pronounced utopian (an invaluable and easily pronounced word to many), and forgotten. We can name a work which will supply the desiderated slope to its elevation; and we deem the previous study of that work so important to the due impression of that before us, that we counsel the author herself to recommend it in her next edition; we mean Mr George Combe's "Constitution of Man in relation |