qualities he cannot discern, although he may be very sharpsighted in regard to those of other people.

The misery in which the life of Johnson was constantly involved arose from a want of harmony in the proportions of his most powerful faculties. The animal propensities were in a state of continual warfare with his higher sentiments, which we know to have been powerful, from the general tendency of his writings towards virtue, from his religious feelings, and from many acts of "generosity and humanity" which he performed, "when not under the influence of personal pique, of pride, or of religious or political prejudices;" all of which interested his predominant faculties too strongly to allow his benevolence alone to work against them. Unfortunately for his happiness, society was the very field for still farther exciting faculties naturally too active, in a degree that his moral and religious sentiments made him feel keenly was improper, but which they were unable to restrain. Their effect was aggravated by large and almost diseased sentiments of Cautiousness and Wonder, which we have seen added a gloomy and superstitious despondency to his inward discontent. When placed in circumstances in which his Self-esteem, Firmness, Combativeness, and Cautiousness, could find no object to contend with, as, when writing in his closet on general subjects, his moral sentiments and intellect maintained a complete ascendency, and infused a spirit of benevolence and justice into all his productions. Even in society, when "listened to with reverence," he was "placid and instructive." But when his Pride, his Combativeness, and his Firmness, were excited by opposition, they all worked in one direction, with an energy proportioned to his large brain and mighty mind, and made him in reality a " tremendous companion." If he had possessed a smaller share either of moral sentiments, or of animal propensities, he would have been happier. In the first case, his happiness would have been allied to that of the brutes, indulging their propensities without any feeling of remorse; in the second, it

would have been the happiness of the good man, whose tendencies rarely lead him into temptation.

His favourite intellectual pursuits, we are told, were those of metaphysical discussion, moral theories, biography, &c. ; but he was never systematical. He knew little, and cared less, about history or the natural sciences. This is explained phrenologically, by a larger endowment of Causality and Comparison," which give deep penetration and a percep❝tion of logical consequence in argument, and are large in "metaphysicians," &c. than of Individuality, which gives a "capacity for observation and detail," and for "natural "history, botany," &c. for "knowing something of almost "all sciences and arts" with ease to the possessor.

In this short analysis, I have confined myself entirely to the more prominent features in the character of Dr Johnson, because many of those whom I now address, being unacquainted with Phrenology, would be unable to understand the explanation of the more delicate shades into the composition of which a combination of faculties enters. Instead of pursuing it farther, I therefore prefer a short examination of some peculiarities in the character of Pope, as given in Dr Johnson's Lives of the Poets, and which are equally inexplicable on any metaphysical theory with which I am acquainted. But in this, as in the former, it must be kept in mind, that I do not mean to embrace the whole, but a part only, of the character.

Dr Johnson tells us, that Pope was remarkable for great delight in artifice, and that he endeavoured to attain all "his purposes by indirect and unsuspected methods;" that "he hardly drank tea without a stratagem;" that if he wanted any thing in the house of a friend, he never asked for it in plain terms, but would mention it remotely, as something convenient." "He practised his arts on such small occasions, that Lady Bol"lingbroke used to say, in a French phrase, that he played the politician about cabbages and turnips." Dr J. adds, that "he, Pope, was afraid of writing, lest the clerks of the post-office "should know his secrets," and then speaks of "his general "habit of secrecy and cunning."

tr

There is no metaphysical principle to which this peculiarity of Pope's character can be referred; but, upon opening

the first book on Phrenology, we see at once that it comes precisely within the domain of the faculty of Secretiveness. Mr Combe, for instance, tells us in his "Essays," that those in whom this organ is " largely developed, are fond of throwing a dense covering of secrecy over all their senti"ments and actions, even the most trifling and unimportant, and conceive that the eye of the world (in Pope's "case, the eye of the clerk of the post-office,) is always looking into their breasts, to read the purposes and designs there "hatched, but which discovery they are solicitous to prevent." This faculty was clearly the moving principle in such conduct.

We We are next told, that he had a great deal of vanity, "and felt great delight in enumerating the men of high rank "with whom he was acquainted;" and that "he was so ex"tremely sensible to praise and censure, that every pamphlet "disturbed his quiet, and his extreme irritability laid him open "to perpetual vexation." This comes precisely within the limits of the phrenological faculty of Love of Approbation, which is said to "make us attentive to the opinions of others," and "to give the capacity of being delighted with applause and grieved with censure.”

The extent to which this paper has already run, forces me to omit other points in Pope's character, which admit of as easy explanation as the above. What I have said, however, is sufficient to shew how every diversity of moral and animal character may co-exist with every variety of intellectual powers, and admit of a simple and consistent explanation on the principles of the new philosophy. In farther illustration of this part of the subject, I beg leave to refer to some beautiful and interesting specimens, contained in the Transactions of the Phrenological Society, of the successful application of Phrenology to the analysis of the talents and dispositions both of virtuous and of vicious individuals. The first of these by Mr Scott, on the natural talents and dispositions of King Robert Bruce, as compared with the cerebral development indicated by his skull, will be read with intense interest by every lover of nature. Nor are the reports on the natural characters of Mary M'Innes, Gordon, Bellingham, &c., of less interest or importance to the philosopher, whose object is the improvement and happiness of

the human race. Indeed, I may safely affirm, that that single volume contains evidence sufficient to settle for ever the question now under consideration.

If the peculiarities of individual character are so easily referable to, and explicable by, the principles of Phrenology as I have shewn them to be, it is natural to suppose that those of national character will admit of as simple a reference and explanation. This point I now propose shortly to dis

cuss.

Many philosophers, mistaking the effect for a cause, attribute the varieties of mental constitution which distinguish nations from each other to a difference of customs, habits, laws, and government; which, although not without a considerable re-active effect, are, strictly speaking, the result only and not the cause of the former. Phrenology will be found to afford us much assistance in investigating this interesting subject, as will be seen by a reference to a paper on the Phrenology of Indostan by Dr Paterson, read to the Phrenological Society, and published in their Transactions. His conclusions are drawn from the actual examination of upwards of 3000 Hindoo heads, of every tribe, and of every province, and from the careful study of many native crania, which he took the precaution of measuring to prevent mistakes. He thence explains, most satisfactorily, the weakness of the Hindoo character, taken as a nation, and their subjection to a few thousand Europeans, and also their stationary state of civilization; for the average size of the adult Hindoo head does not exceed that of a European at 15, consequently the mental energy and capacities are proportionate. They are very remarkable as observers, which he found to be uniformly connected with a large development of Individuality. The mildness and passive

softness which characterize them he found to arise from a deficient Combativeness and Destructiveness, and their cunning from a large development of Secretiveness. Dr Paterson's paper, in short, affords a novelty in the philosophy of mind, that of different individuals, in different parts of the

world, totally unconnected with each other, studying the phenomena of mind, and uniformly referring them to the same general principles or faculties—a thing utterly unknown to the old schools, and of itself a strong proof of the soundness of the principles of the new philosophy. Dr P. presented the Phrenological Society with a dozen of Hindoo crania, in illustration, which were selected for him by the celebrated Ram Mohan Roy. These skulls are open to public inspec

tion.

Among the barbarous and uncultivated nations of America, Asia, and Africa, the differences of cerebral development are more perceptible to the inexperienced eye, and more easily detected by the application of the callipers, and the traits of character are, in general, more broadly marked than among the civilized nations of Europe, and they consequently are more easily appreciated by those who are on the spot. Notwithstanding all these advantages, however, I shall not select them for examination, because the difficulty of obtaining a fair average form of head from travellers who have paid no attention to it, and of becoming acquainted with their motives and modes of thinking, from unacquaintance with their language, might be urged, however unjustly, against the strongest evidence which they could afford. Having resided for a considerable time in France, and made many observations of the development and manifestations of that nation, both in its capital and provinces, I shall content myself with a short but necessarily imperfect phrenological analysis and comparison of some of their natural talents and dispositions with those of the English. I choose these, because, if wrong in any one respect, I can most easily be confuted by other observers now present, who can speak as to the character, at least, if not as to the development of brain.

The French are universally admitted to be more ingenious than we are in the invention and construction of gewgaws, trinkets, and such trifling contrivances as require more neatness of workmanship than depth of reflection. It is also