ARTICLE VII.

COMPARATIVE PHRENOLOGY.-SIZE AND ACTIVITY.

WE have been favoured with a copy of the following correspondence betwixt Mr Leadbetter, Secretary of the Phrenological Society of Glasgow, and Dr Spurzheim.

"To Dr Spurzheim.

"Glasgow, 7th May, 1825.

"SIR,-A Society having been instituted here, some months ago, for "the cultivation and advancement of Phrenology, it has held regu"lar meetings, at each of which an essay on some branch of the "science has been contributed and read by the members in succes"sion, and these generally give rise to discussion in which the con"flict of opinions usually terminates in a stronger belief of its truth " and importance. At the last meeting of the society an essay was "read by one of its members, a medical gentleman, on comparative anatomy, as illustrative of phrenological doctrines. In that essay he confines himself to the organ of Destructiveness, as develop"ed in the dog, hare, horse, cow, goat, badger, of which he exhi"bited skeleton-heads; but some difficulties having occurred as to "the mode of ascertaining the relative size of one organ in one spe"cies to the same organ in another species of animals, it was agreed "to communicate the matter to you, and to request the favour of your opinion before you returned to France. I cannot do better "than quote the words of the essayist in a letter to me as secretary "of the society, as embracing the points for your consideration.

66 6

"In estimating the size of organs in the lower animals a difficulty occurs. In measuring the size of Destructiveness in a horse, "for instance, how is that organ ascertained to be less than it ex"ists in the dog? Is the size of that organ in the horse less in

66 6

proportion to the size of the whole brain in that animal, than "the size of the same organ in the dog? If it is so, how can the "fact be proved? Is it evident to the eye? Then it must be ca"pable of measurement. How is such a measurement to be con"ducted? If the determination of the size of organs in the lower "animals depends upon some other principle than the relation "which these organs bear to the bulk of the whole brain, what is "that principle, and how is it applied? In other words, there "must be soine standard to which you apply the measurement of

66 6

every organ as possessed by every animal, and in proportion as "the measurement falls above or below the standard, you pro"nounce the organ great or small. But each species must have a "standard for itself. You cannot estimate the absolute measure"ment of a horse's brain by the same standard you estimate the

« ‹ absolute measurement of a mouse's. There must be some rela"❝tive standard to which you refer on determining that the horse "has such or such an organ small which the mouse has large; "what is the relative standard, and how is it ascertained?'

"Your works show the extent of your information on this branch " of Phrenology, and this would perhaps afford an apology for troub"ling you with this communication; but knowing the interest you "take in every thing relating to this science of mind, a science to "which your name will be indissolubly connected, it were unpar"donable to suppose any formal introduction to you or apology neI am, Sir, &c.

cessary.

"JOHN LEADBETTER.”

ANSWER.

"Paris, the 10th June, 1825.

"To John Leadbetter, Esq., Secretary to the Phrenological Society

"in Glasgow.

"SIR,-I had left London before the letter you did me the honour "to send arrived. It was delivered to me by a private opportunity, " and this explains my tardy answer. In reply to it I confine my"self to say, that in my publications (see Phrenology, 3d edition, "p. 99,) and in my Lectures (see Lancet, April 22, 1825, p. 71, 66 passage, "I come now,-in this way,") I state that the size alone "of the organs is sufficient to discover the nature of their functions; "but that size does not explain the different degrees of activity of "the organs, and that, therefore, Phrenologists cannot compare the "same organ in different species of animals, nor even in different in"dividuals of the same species, and that they must judge of each "individual for himself, his larger organs showing more activity " and the smaller ones less of it. There is a larger quantity of brain "above the ear in carnivorous than in herbivorous animals; but "Destructiveness is not proportionate to the absolute size of the organ in different species of carnivorous animals; even in a given species, man for instance, Destructiveness will not act in propor"tion to the development of the organ in itself, but in each indivi"dual the organ of Destructiveness will be inclined to act in the "proportion of its size to that of the other organs.

The following is the extract from Dr Spurzheim's Phrenology, referred to in his letter:

"From the preceding considerations it follows, that the size of "the cerebral parts is compared with very energetic actions, and "with determinate characters, in order to discover their functions VOL. III-No X.

Q

as the organs of the mind. All functions, however, differ not only "in quality, but also in quantity, and there are, undoubtedly, seve"ral organic conditions which contribute to bestow energy and to

modify them individually. The size of the organs is only the most "easily observed condition. The reader must therefore remember, "that, in endeavouring to discover the organs of the mind, in other "words, to determine the nature of the functions of the cerebral masses, their size suffices. The organic constitution, or the temperament of the cerebral organs, is another very important condi"tion to their natural energy, and Dr Gall and I attend to it also as much as possible; but it is more difficult to observe modifica❝tions here, than in size and configuration. They are, therefore, "mistaken who object that we neglect the organic constitution of "the cerebral parts, since it is in fact a leading point with us, that every fundamental faculty must be compared with its appropriate organ, not in individuals of different kinds, not even in different "individuals of the same species, but in the same individual. If we examine the different degrees of activity of the cerebral organs, "it is necessary to consider not only their size and organic consti"tution, but also the exercise every faculty has undergone, and the "mutual influence of the whole. These considerations, however, "do not come within the sphere of physiology, but belong to the practical part of Phrenology."

The paper in the Lancet is to the following effect:

"I come now to another mode which we have recourse to for as"certaining the functions of the several parts, namely, the size. "Here I must request you to attend to the distinction between the

66

means we employ to ascertain the nature of the cerebral functions, " and the causes which produce the different degress of activity of "the primitive functions. I repeat, that it is an essential thing in "Phrenology to understand these two sorts of ideas; for if any man "confounds them he can never become a good practical Phrenolo"gist. We employ the size of the cerebral parts as means to ascer"tain the nature of their functions; but different degrees of activity "cannot be measured by the size alone. A muscle is destined to voluntary motion, and we may observe the muscles when in ac"tion; but do the different degrees of voluntary motion depend upon the size of the muscle alone? Can we be satisfied with say"ing that? If this were true, we should find that the large muscles "have more strength than the little ones, and that the large are "more active than the small; but daily experience teaches us the "contrary. The same may be said of the brain; the size is suffi"cient to determine the nature of the function of the brain, but the "size is not the only condition which contributes to the activity of "the brain. The study of determining the nature of a function is more easy than it is to determine the degree of activity of a func"tion. We speak first of the nature and then of the degree of activity of a function; and the second is more difficult than the first. "Bodily constitution, exercise of the individual parts destined to cer

"tain offices, will produce a greater degree of activity in them: we "see this every day. We must also consider the mutual influence "of the powers; one power is excited by another, and one part pre"vented from performing its office by injury done to another. "Every one who practises Phrenology is too much inclined to mea"sure the different degrees of activity by the size alone, and I, "therefore, never forget to insist so much on its accuracy in my lec"tures; hence, I hope you will not impute to me errors committed " in this way."

The essayist referred to in the correspondence, we are informed, "measured, with the callipers, the breadth over Destructiveness, from the highest part of the skull to its opposite on the base, which, says he, I find in my specimen to be a little before the foramen magnum; and for the length I inserted a scale through the foramen magnum to the most anterior part of the skull, which I found generally to be the crebriform plate of the ethmoid bone. Thus I had the length, breadth, and depth of the brain."

The difficulty which appears to have been experienced in this case may be removed by a brief explanation. Every organ, ceteris paribus, acts with a degree of energy proportioned to its size; to ascertain the practical effect of Destructiveness, therefore, in any individual, the size of that organ in relation to the other organs in his brain must be determined. Many persons inquire about a standard of size for each organ, by means of which they may predicate its manifestations without attending to the influence of the other organs with which it is combined; but the principle, that every organ acts with a degree of energy proportioned to its size, precludes the possibility of such a standard existing; for example, suppose that in each of two men Destructiveness is equal to 9, but that in one of them Benevolence, Cautiousness, and Reflection, are equal to 12, and in the other only to 6, it is obvious, that if the latter organs as well as the former act with energy proportioned to their size, the manifestations of Destructiveness in the first individual will be subordinate to those of the moral and intellectual faculties, while, on the same principle, they will be predominant in the second.

In

comparative Phrenology again, the seat and functions of each organ must be ascertained in every species of animal, by comparing the manifestations of its powers with the size of particular parts of its brain, as is done in the case of man: With a view to determine the disposition of each individual animal, the relative size of its different organs ought to be compared. The brain differs in form and the arrangement of its parts in every species; and because in man, and in the dog, and carnivorous animals in general, Destructiveness is discovered by observation to lie above the meatus auditorius, it does not follow that the portion of brain lying above the meatus in animals of a different species, which are not carnivorous, must have the same functions. To discover the propensities connected with different parts of the brain, in the sheep for example, a series of observations on it must be instituted After the functions of the different cerebral parts are thus discovered in each species, comparisons between the species may be instituted, and sound conclusions deduced, but not before.

Dr Spurzheim remarks, that "every one who practises Phrenology is too much inclined to measure the different degrees of activity by the size alone:" this is a serious error. In this Journal, vol. I. p. 297, and in Mr Combe's Elements and System of Phrenology, the distinction between power and activity of mind is explained, and the doctrine laid down, that size in the organs is an index of power alone. Activity is not in proportion to size, and no external sign of it is known. The brain may be moderate in size, but if very active, the mental faculties may be highly fertile and vivacious. These qualities are frequently mistaken for power, although they are very different Thomas Moore's brain is rather below than above an average size, but its activity is great; and although no one can dispute that he is distinguished for genius of a high order, depending on activity, and a particular combination of organs, yet, in comparing his productions with those of Shakspeare and Milton, in whom great