I.-RAILING AND ABUSE.

Examples from the Edinburgh Review, No 49, June 1815.

"We look upon the whole doctrines taught by these two mo"dern peripatetics, (Drs Gall and Spurzheim), anatomical, phy"siological, and physiognomical, as a piece of thorough quackery "from beginning to end."

"There are a certain number of individuals, however, in every "community, who are destined to be the dupes of empirics, so "it would be rather matter of surprise if these itinerant philo"sophers did not make some proselytes wherever they come.

"Well has the learned and most witty historian of Mrs John "Bull's indisposition remarked, 'there is nothing so impossible in nature, but mountebanks will undertake; nothing so incredi"ble, but they will affirm.'"

"Were they (Drs Gall and Spurzheim) even to succeed in "shaking off the suspicion of mala fides, which we apprehend is "inseparably attached to their character, we should not hesitate "to say," &c.

"We have two objects in view in a formal exposé and expo"sure of the contents of the volume before us. The first is to " contradict directly various statements, in point of fact, made " by Drs Gall and Spurzheim with unparalleled boldness and ef"frontery, which persons, perfectly satisfied of the general ab

66

surdity(!) of their opinions, may not have the same opportu"nity of refuting as ourselves: The second, and by far the most "important, to save the purses of our readers, if possible, be"fore it be too late, by satisfying that curiosity which might "otherwise lead them to purchase the books themselves, or at"tend the lectures of these cunning craniologers."

"Such are the opinions of Drs Gall and Spurzheim on the "Functions in general of man, and on his Intellectual Faculties in "particular. We have been the more minute in our sketch of "them, that their absurdity might be the more apparent. To "enter on a particular refutation of them, would be to insult "the understandings of our readers. Indeed, we will flatter the "authors so far as to say, that their observations are of a nature "to set criticism entirely at defiance. (This has two meanings). "They are a collection of mere absurdities, without truth, con"nexion, or consistency; an incoherent raphsody, which no"thing could have induced any man to have presented to the

"public, under a pretence of instructing them, but absolute insanity, gross ignorance, or the most matchless assurance."

*

"Such is the trash, the despicable trumpery, which two men, "calling themselves scientific inquirers, have the impudence gravely to present to the physiologists of the nineteenth cen"tury, as specimens of reasoning and induction."

66

66

*

"We are so heartily tired of the mass of nonsense we have "been obliged to wade through, that we could now most will"ingly have done. But the anatomical discoveries of Drs Gall "and Spurzheim yet remain to be considered, and these are on no account to be passed over in silence. It appears to us, that "in this department they have displayed more quackery than "in any other; and their bad faith is here the more unpardonable, that it was much more likely to escape detection. These gentlemen are too knowing not to have perceived that the science of anatomy is in general cultivated with most zeal by those who "have the least leisure to devote to it; that is, by persons who are "toiling with weariness through medical practice, and that those "whose PROFESSION it is to improve this department of human knowledge, are usually content to bequeath it to their sons, JUST 66 AS IT WAS HANDED DOWN TO THEM BY THEIR FATHERS AND GRANDFATHERS. They calculated, no doubt, that as the num"ber of individuals is INCONSIDERABLE, who are not only zealous "in anatomical pursuits, but, by a fortunate combination of circum"stances, are enabled to bestow their whole time on them, the "chance that a few bold affirmations respecting the structure of a "delicate and complicated organ would be put to the test of experi ment was proportionally small. Perhaps it would occur to them, "too, that as UNPROFESSIONAL PEOPLE ARE IN NO RESPECT AWARE

66

66

HOW VERY LITTLE FAMILIAR EVEN PHYSICIANS OF THE FIRST

EMINENCE ARE WITH THE STRUCTURE OF THE BRAIN, it might "contribute materially towards their reputation with the public to 66 DELUDE A FEW OF THE MEDICAL TRIBE, WHO ARE NATURALLY "6 Looked up TO AS JUDGES IN QUESTIONS OF THIS SORT."

Although the above passage in italics contains but a moderate portion of insulting and abusive matter, we could not withhold it, and beg our readers to peruse, reperuse, and never forget it. It contains, Primo, a declaration, that the medical profession, with a very few exceptions, are all but ignorant even of the structure of the brain: Secundo, That the anatomical professors are, quoad the brain, old women; and, Tertio, That it was the easiest thing for Gall and Spurzheim to cheat them all, from their not being able to detect the imposture. Now our readers will please to observe, that all soberly-thinking families believe or reject phrenology according to the creed on the subject of the family doctor, who, they affirm, and even argue, must be the best judge; and that that gentleman is generally a very decided anti-phrenologist, without knowing what phrenology is. Indeed, from the nature of medical education, which almost excludes any attention to the philosophy of mind, this result is by no means wonderful They will farther keep in view, that thousands attempt to dispute on phrenology who

This never-to-be-forgotten review thus concludes: "The writings of Drs Gall and Spurzheim HAVE NOT ADDED "ONE FACT to the stock of our knowledge, respecting either the "structure or the functions of man; but consist of such a mix"ture of gross errors, extravagant absurdities, downright mis"statements, and unmeaning quotations from Scripture, as can "leave no doubt, we apprehend, in the minds of honest and in"telligent men, as to the real ignorance, the real hypocrisy, and the real empiricism of the authors."

6

We have not a shadow of doubt that, if the editor of the Edinburgh Review could, he would gladly recall this most imprudent manifesto. Our belief is, that he will not again meddle with the subject, although he will thereby be placed in an awkward predicament, if phrenology becomes, as it cannot fail to do, a subject of general interest. The old refutation will not suit the present state of the science. A new attempt by the Edinburgh Review would be good fortune quite beyond our hopes.

We deem a short notice enough for the Quarterly Review, which has dealt in more measured abuse than the Edinburgh. In concluding their manifesto, in which, as in duty bound, they reject the new science as "sheer non

sense," they take merit in softening their appellation of Dr Spurzheim to "Fool."-No XXV. p. 128. They had expressed their opinion of Dr Gall, more than a year before, when reviewing Madame de Staël's L'Allemagne.

"The natural philosophers of Germany are too well known. "to need commendation; but Madame de Staël is by far too in“dulgent to such ignorant and interested quacks as the craniolo"gist Dr Gall, and the magnetist Dr Mainaduc, if she regard "them in any other light than (that of) impostors."

2. Examples from other Publications.

Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine has distinguished itself as the most persevering, and, of course, the most ab

never saw the brain in their lives; and, lastly, they will please to be informed, that, so far from trusting to escape "detection," Dr Spurzheim did actually, as is perfectly notorious, court and obtain a public demonstration of the brain, with the late Dr Gordon, one of the most eminent anatomists of the Edinburgh school of medicine.

b

surd of the assailants of phrenology, and enemies of phrenologists. It would indeed be matter for wonder if such a work had abstained from abuse.

"We have already said, that, in our opinion, fool and phrenologist are terms as nearly synonimous as can be found in any "language. One writer in this work demolished the Edinburgh "Phrenological Society by one article, equal to any thing in "Arbuthnot or Swift. (In nastiness we presume.) The phren"sied called out against wit, and clamoured for pure argument. "Here they have it, and with a vengeance!"-BLACKWOOD'S Magazine, No lxxii. p. 100.

"These infernal idiots, the phrenologists," &c.—BLACKWOOD'S Magazine, No lxxvi. p. 593.

*

"It is not by extreme cases only, but by much more common "facts, that the flimsy theories of these German illuminati are "to be demolished."-RENNELL on Scepticism.

*

"A tribe of crazy sciolists, denominating themselves craniologists"- "these visionary abortions."--this crew."-London Literary Gazette, 13th September 1823. p. 587.

More of this flatterer in the sequel.

II.-FALSEHOODS AND MALIGNITIES..

1. On the authority of Blackwood's Magazine for May 1823, the following dialogue took place among certain gentlemen, declared enemies of phrenology and phrenologists, assembled in a pot-house :

Odoherty. What did your friend Brodiet die of, Mr Tickler? Tickler. Apoplexy, I suppose. His face was as black as my

hat.

Hogg. Lucky Mackinnon's bonny face was black too, they were saying.

Dr Mullion. Yes; "black, but comely." I saw her a day or two afterwards,-very like the print.

It was necessary to class these offences together, for it was always found that the falsehoods were malignities, and the malignities falsehoods. Indeed, some attacks, as the reader will perceive in the sequel, have a pancratic character, and exhaust the whole catalogue.

+ Brodie was a notorious criminal, executed for systematic and long-continued theft and housebreaking.

+ Proh pudor !

Tickler. These infernal idiots, the phrenologists, have been kicking up a dust about her skull, too, it appears. Will those fellows take no hint ?

Odoherty. They take a hint! Why, you might as well preach to the Jumpers, or the Harmonists, or any other set of stupid fanatics. Don't let me hear them mentioned again.

Dr Mullion. They have survived the turnip. What more can be said?

Hogg. The turnip, doctor?

Dr Mullion. You haven't heard of it, then?—I thought all the world had. You must know, however, that a certain ingenious person of this town lately met with a turnip of more than common foziness in his field; he made a cast of it, clapped it to the cast of somebody's face, and sent the composition to the Phrenological, with his compliments, as a fac-simile of the head of a celebrated Swede, by name Professor Tornhippson. They bit, a committee was appointed,- -a report was drawn up,and the whole character of the professor was soon made out as completely secundum artem, as Haggart's had been under the same happy auspices a little before. In a word, they found out that the illustrious Dr Tornhippson had been distinguished for his inhabitiveness, constructiveness, philoprogenitiveness, &c.— nay, even for "tune," "ideality," and "veneration."

Odoherty. I fear they have heard of the hoax, and cancelled that sheet of their Transactions. What a pity!

Hogg. Hoh, hoh, hoh! The organization of a fozey turnip! Hoh, hoh, hoh, hoh! the like o' that! The Swedish turnip,the celebrated Swede!-P. 593.

This ignoble discourse was published, by the respectable interloquitors, in the knowledge that the true tale of that "weak invention of the enemy," the turnip, was as follows:

In April 1821, a medical gentleman in Edinburgh, aided by a landscape painter, fashioned a turnip into the nearest resemblance to a human skull which their combined skill and ingenuity could produce. They had a cast made from it, and sent it to Mr G. Combe, requesting his observations on the mental talents and dispositions which it indicated; adding, that it was a cast from the skull of a person of an uncommon character. Mr C. instantly detected the trick, and returned the cast, with the following parody of "The "Man of Thessaly" pasted on the coronal surface:

THERE was a man in Edinburg,

And he was wond'rous wise;

He went into a turnip-field,

And cast about his eyes.