Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive)










                                   THE

                     AMERICAN PHRENOLOGICAL JOURNAL

                                   AND

                               MISCELLANY.

           Vol. I.      Philadelphia, May 1, 1839.      No. 8.




ARTICLE I.

UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY.


_Phrenology is useful, because it forms the most correct basis of a
system of mental philosophy._

In a previous number of this Journal (see Art. I, page 161), we entered
somewhat at length upon the discussion of the above proposition. We
there contrasted the merits of phrenology, as the _true science of the
mind_, with other systems of mental philosophy, particularly Dugald
Stewart’s. We pointed out several important defects which have hitherto
existed in every system of mental science. We stated that all writers on
the philosophy of the mind had committed the following mistakes. First,
_they leave out of view almost entirely all connection of the mind with
the brain_; and, secondly, _they make their own individual consciousness
the chief and principal source of information_. And that, from these
two radical defects in their premises, they have fallen into numerous
errors. Among others, _they do not recognise all the primitive faculties
of the mind_; and throughout all their writings, _they confound primitive
faculties of the mind with modes of activity_.

Another radical defect in the systems of previous writers on mental
science is, _When they admit and treat of the elementary faculties of the
mind, they consider them merely as existing by themselves, and disregard
almost entirely the influence of combination_.

This defect is similar to what would appear in that system of chemistry
which should contain only a physical description of elements of matter,
without saying any thing of the various substances which they form in
combination. Thus the chemist might describe oxygen by itself. He might
say it is a gas, colourless, heavier than common air, a supporter of
combustion and animal life, and many other things equally important,
interesting, and true; and if such facts were all that is known of this
substance, they should be received and appreciated according to their
value. But how much is added to our knowledge, when we are informed
that oxygen enters into combination with almost every other element of
matter? That in one combination it forms the deadly poison; in another,
the refreshing cordial. That united with nitrogen in one proportion, it
constitutes the air we breathe; in another, it forms the nitrous oxyde,
a substance producing the most remarkable effects of exhilaration; in a
third proportion, the nitrous oxyde, which, coming in contact with our
lungs, produces instant death; and in a fourth, one of the most powerful
agents in nature. That with hydrogen it forms the valuable substance
called water; and in other various combinations, acids so valuable in the
arts and all the economy of civilised life.

Much likewise might be said, which would be interesting and true, of
acids—of their general properties—their sour taste—their effects on
vegetable blues, &c.; but how imperfect would be the description which
should fail to give us not only the elements of which each is composed,
but the nature of those substances which they form in compositions?

We have room only for a single example to illustrate the truth of our
position. We select the mental power termed by Dr. Brown “_anger_;”
in phrenology, “Combativeness.” In his description of this feeling,
Dr. Brown is truly eloquent. His organ of Combativeness must have been
large, or he could not have described the feeling with such vividness and
accuracy.

“There is a principle in our mind,” says he, “which is to us like a
constant protector; which may slumber, indeed, but which slumbers only
at seasons when its vigilance would be useless; which awakes, therefore,
at the first appearance of unjust intentions, and which becomes more
watchful and more vigorous in proportion to the violence of the attack
which it has to dread. What should we think of the providence of nature,
if, when aggressions were made against the weak and unarmed, at a
distance from the aid of others, there were instantly and uniformly, by
the intervention of some wonder-working power, to rush into the hand of
the defenceless a sword or other weapon of defence? And yet this would
be but a feeble assistance, if compared with that which we receive from
those simple emotions which Heaven has caused to rush, as it were,
into our mind for repelling every attack. What would be a sword in the
trembling hand of the infirm, of the aged—of him whose pusillanimous
spirit shrinks at the very appearance not of danger merely, but even
of arms by the use of which danger might be averted, and to whom,
consequently, the very sword which he scarcely knew how to grasp would
be an additional cause of terror? The _instant anger_ which arises, does
more than many such weapons. It gives the spirit which knows how to make
a weapon of every thing, or which itself without a weapon does what even
a thunderbolt would be powerless to do in the shuddering grasp of a
coward. When anger rises, fear is gone. There is no coward, for all are
brave.”—_Brown’s Lects. Hedge’s ed._ vol. ii. p. 32.

This is a correct description, as far as it goes, of the feeling or
emotion which may be termed _instant anger_, and which depends on
Combativeness. But he confines himself to the simple emotion as it
rises in view of provocation or insult, or any threatened injury. It
is true he speaks of resentment being “too long protracted,” (which
depends on Destructiveness, and this is another example of confounding
primitive elements of the mind with each other,) and _disproportionate
to the offence; transferred from the guilty to the innocent; rising too
soon_, when it _should be entirely suppressed_; and as _not confined to
the individual aggrieved_; but it is all in such a manner as to show
conclusively that he thinks the subject exhausted with a description of
what in common language is usually termed _anger_. But phrenology teaches
that the element of the mind, which is at the foundation of anger, is
“an active impulse exerting an influence on the mental constitution,
independent of unjust attacks.” Dr. Brown has confined his description of
the faculty to one mode of manifestation or activity, which is precisely
analogous to the case we have supposed above from chemistry. But how
imperfect is the description till we are told that this elementary
feeling is the basis not only of _anger_ or _resentment_ at injury, but
constitutes in every mind, according to its strength, the propensity
to oppose; that it aids the good man to carry through his plans of
benevolence, as well as the bad to execute his purposes of malice; that
united with deficient intellect and weak moral sentiment, it makes the
quarrelsome, vaunting boxer, while in a different combination it is an
important element in the character of the unflinching philanthropist;
that it not only gives boldness to the soldier on the field of battle,
and fills with indignation the mind of an injured person, but imparts
energy to the messenger of peace, and even enables gentle and virtuous
woman better to fulfil the important duties of her station. We want to
know what is that element of mind which is the _basis of anger_, and then
the influence of this element in all its varieties of combination.

We are not aware that this representation is in the least open to the
charge of exaggeration. Nor is the defect of which we speak confined
to the system of Dr. Brown. It extends to all the systems of the old
philosophers, and almost to every part of those systems; nor could their
principles of investigation and the data they had at command, or which
they would use, furnish any remedy. If they went to the extent of their
powers or their data, we should not complain; and yet if there are
additional helps or data, why should we not employ them?

There is one more topic connected with this part of the subject upon
which we would remark, viz. the _nomenclature of phrenology_. We cannot
better introduce what we have to say, than by quoting the language of Dr.
Whately, published in the second number of this Journal, page 47.

“I am convinced that, even if all connection of the brain with the mind
were regarded not merely as doubtful, but as a perfect chimera, still
the treatises of many phrenological writers, especially yours,” (Mr.
Combe’s,) “would be of great value, from their employing a metaphysical
nomenclature far more accurate, logical, and convenient, than Locke,
Stewart, and other writers of their schools.”

Higher authority on this subject than Dr. Whately could not be cited.
But the testimony of many persons of high authority might be quoted.
Even the opponents of phrenology will express their admiration of its
classification and nomenclature; and that, too, while they profess entire
unbelief in the truth of the system, not reflecting that this excellency
is an important argument in favour of its truth. Simplicity and clearness
are only attributes of _truth_; and the principle is without exception,
that of two systems, that which is most simple and clear is most
accordant with truth. Such ever has, and ever will be, the verdict of
mankind.

Without claiming perfection for phrenology in regard to _classification_
and _nomenclature_, we think its advantages in this respect to mental
science will be incalculable. Every writer on metaphysics usually tills
some scores of pages on the importance of being precise in the use of
language, and the danger of employing terms in a loose and careless
manner; and no one who looks at the history of metaphysical science will
consider such cautions as unnecessary. One half or three fourths of the
controversies which have taken place in reference to the philosophy of
the mind, have doubtless arisen from a misunderstanding of _terms_. This
is true not only in regard to subjects purely metaphysical, but many
controversial treatises on religious doctrines would never have been
inflicted on the world, had the parties understood each other. We do not
claim for a knowledge of phrenology the quality of a sovereign universal
remedy for those evils. There are many subjects of controversy not
directly connected with the science; and difference of opinion as often
arises from difference of feeling as from difference in intellectual
apprehension. Even phrenologists, equally well versed in the principles
of their science, will sometimes have different views. But with them,
controversies and discussions do not arise from a misunderstanding of
language. Although there is still _terra incognita_ within the limits of
the system, and many indefinite points, some of which probably never will
be settled in our mortal state, yet the harmony of phrenologists on the
science of the mind is scarcely surpassed by that of other philosophers
on the science of matter; and even where only a partial acquaintance with
the science is possessed, such is the clearness of its classification
and the definitions of its terms, that misunderstanding in relation to
subjects legitimately involving such language is almost necessarily
excluded from minds of ordinary discipline and capacity.

We entirely accord with the opinion of Dr. Whately, that if the science
were regarded “as a perfect chimera,” still the “employing a metaphysical
nomenclature,” to which it has given rise, “would be of great value.”




ARTICLE II.

REMARKS UPON THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF REGENERATION.


We have waited with some little impatience for some time past, to see an
article upon the philosophy of regeneration, based upon views in harmony
with Scripture and the phrenological philosophy of the human mind. The
third article in the first number of this Journal is very correct, as
far as it goes, but cannot be considered as taking up the subject at the
foundation. The truth is, the subject is one belonging to the clerical
profession, and to some able divine who is heartily convinced of the
truth of phrenology. To do justice to the subject, in all its length and
breadth, its height and its depth, will require the hand of a master:
and however well the work should be accomplished, it would be certain to
meet with opposition from the ignorance, prejudice, and bigotry of some.
This has doubtless been foreseen by those best qualified to enter upon
the task, and the public mind has been left in the dark; and those who
would seize a true mental philosophy as a pearl of great price, have been
frightened from going out after it, because there was a “lion in their
way.” But the subject cannot long remain in this state; things are coming
to a crisis; the public will embrace phrenology, and trust to their own
sagacity and comprehension to reconcile it with religious truth. If
phrenologists and divines neglect to settle where the boundary lines are
in the disputed territory, infidel trespassers will commit depredations.
It is with a view to call attention to the subject rather than with any
expectation of doing it justice, that we have resolved to prepare the
present article.

That our readers may be emboldened to approach the subject, we beg of
them to bear in mind that all truth, whether religious or scientific,
historical or prophetical—whether rational or miraculous—when fully and
rightly known and comprehended, must, from the nature of things, and the
character of the Great Author of all truth, be consistent with itself.

Whenever, therefore, we see apparent inconsistency, we may rest assured
we do not fully understand the whole truth; and that the reason is to
be found either in our own ignorance, prejudice, or incapacity. There
are indeed many truths wholly beyond human comprehension; and a miracle
is nothing but a manifestation of power by the Almighty upon principles
perfectly consistent with all his laws, but of which man, from his
limited capacity, is unable to see the consistency.

We would never stifle enquiry short of the utmost limit of human capacity
to pursue it; believing that when short and partial views of truth give
wrong impressions, it is better to enlarge and perfect the view, so
far as we are enabled to do, than to attempt to withdraw the mind, and
suppress enquiry. This we think is especially correct in relation to all
those truths which are so important to us, as are those which explain our
character, condition, and future destiny.

Man is the only being on the face of the earth capable of being
religious; or, in other words, he is the only being endowed with
faculties whose functions are in relation to religious truths and to
objects of religious worship. He is the only being whose faculties enable
him to conceive of and worship the Author of his own existence. What a
glorious distinction! and how little do most people seem to realise it!
And on this glorious truth what additional light has been thrown by the
discovery and analysis of the mental organs—by the demonstration that man
possesses organs more numerous and of more exalted functions than belong
to any other portion of his animal creation!

The faculties thus peculiar to man, and more especially connected with
the religious character of man, are not, however, exclusively so. _They
have another range of functional relation and action._ These two ranges
of functional relation we will denominate, for the sake of perspicuity,
the one _religious_ and the other _secular_. By way of indulging in
range of expression, and using language acceptable to several classes
of Christians, we may occasionally speak of the one as sanctified or
evangelical, and the other worldly or temporal. The faculties which
come under this class, are those termed by phrenologists the higher
sentiments. They are more particularly those denominated Reverence, Hope,
Marvellousness, Ideality, Benevolence, and Conscientiousness. Some of
these are more particularly connected with the religious character than
others. This is the case with the three first named. They seem to be the
earliest, deepest, and most abundant fountains of religious feeling.
The others fall into a course of religious manifestation, and give
consistency of life and practical goodness to what would otherwise end in
mere worship, faith, and expectation. When the character is thoroughly
and consistently religious—when religious principle has become, like a
piece of leaven, operative until it has leavened the whole—then, indeed,
all the faculties may be said in some sort to manifest a religious
function. It is then that the propensities act in subordination to,
and in harmony with, the higher sentiments while those sentiments take
a religious direction. The higher sentiments may predominate over the
propensities in the ordinary life and conversation of the merely moral
man. Such a man may be honest, benevolent, respectable, and upright,
and have his propensities in subjection. He may not only be punctual in
attendance on divine worship, and unite in the services with some degree
of attention and feeling, but he may even erect the domestic altar,
and worship morning and evening, (because all this may be true with an
individual without a just charge of hypocrisy,) and yet the individual
may have no prevailing, predominating, or _supreme_ love to God. This
is the case with many persons who have been blessed with favourable
organisations and education combined. _But this is not that kind of
control of the higher sentiments which characterises the converted and
thoroughly religious man._ A thoroughly religious man does all things
as in the presence of God, and in obedience to his will; his thoughts
are habitually upon divine things. _We do not say of such an individual,
that he has any more or other faculties than the irreligious and profane
individual._ Were it so, a religious man would be either something more
than a man, or the irreligious would be something less. No, blessed
be God, the vilest wretch that lives has all the primitive faculties
necessary to enable him to feel and appreciate religious truth. We shall
show by and by that what is called the new principle, which takes place,
and which guides and animates the will of the religious man, is not a new
faculty.

We have now, as we trust, explained satisfactorily, according to the
phrenological philosophy of the mind, what the state of the religious
and the moral or irreligious is. The difference between them is now very
apparent. It is easily seen that this difference is very great. It is not
a difference of being, or existence, or entity. It is not the difference
between one that is active and one that is inactive. They are both
progressive; they both use the same faculties. They are both travellers
to eternity; but they go different roads. They follow the direction of
different leaders; they think and talk of different subjects. They have
different anticipations: one looks to a guide, and moves forward in the
broad effulgent light of divine truth; the other endeavours to find his
own way in the dark, and relies upon his own unaided sagacity. One looks
forward to the end of the journey of life as the point whence open to his
boundless view the glories of another and brighter world; the other feels
himself at best but obliged to make a leap in the dark.

So recent is the science of phrenology, and so few are the religious
minds who have thoroughly examined it in all its bearings, and more
especially its religious bearings, that we feel constrained to detain
our readers to explain some few of the laws which govern the functional
activity of the faculties in general, and also to describe the functions
of several of the faculties of the religious sentiments.

1. It is a law of the manifestation of the faculties in general, that the
larger the organ the greater is its tendency to vigorous action under
excitement, and the greater its tendency to spontaneity.

2. When the organs of the so called religious sentiments are large, other
things being equal, they are most likely to manifest their peculiarly
religious function.

3. The objects of religion are so much more elevated and vast than any of
the objects of mere time and sense, that they give a much more intense
and powerful excitement and exercise to the faculties, especially of
persons of vigorous intellect and cultivated minds. The low, groveling,
sensual, and ignorant, do not so easily realise things of a spiritual
nature. Hence persons with large and active organs of the higher
sentiments, especially of Reverence, Marvellousness, Hope, and Ideality,
find no where but in religion full satisfaction to their aspirations.
They seem, as Dr. Spurzheim once remarked of such an individual, “not
made for this world.” The objects which engross the minds of the world
around them, appear “poor, stale, and unprofitable.” They literally go
through the world as pilgrims and strangers. In such, the Christian
character is incomplete; they especially need benevolence to interest
them in their fellow-mortals, and to exert their energies in the glorious
employment of doing good.

Our attentive readers will at once anticipate the remark, that those
persons who are not converted, in whom the organs of the higher
sentiments are large, other things being equal, are more susceptible of
religious impressions than those who have small organs of the higher
sentiments and large propensities. Does not observation of facts go to
prove its truth? and is it not at least tacitly admitted by many? Indeed,
this great truth has been too little known and appreciated by religious
teachers, and especially in the selection of mission stations. The
organisations of the inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands, and of some
parts of Asia, are far more favourable to the reception of Christianity
than are those of many other portions of the heathen world. But this is
a subject to which we can only allude now; at some future day we hope to
give it a full consideration.

We will add, for the benefit of those who have not made themselves
acquainted with the leading principles of our science, that it is by
means of intellectual organs that the affective faculties are all brought
into relation with their objects. Hence they may be said to be in a
measure the causes of excitement to such of the affective faculties, as
are interested by the objects contemplated. The intellectual organs may
be spontaneously active, and conjure up scenes which excite the feelings;
or they may be acted upon by external objects or by other minds. We may
therefore bring our feelings into a high state of excitement merely by
the recollection of an exciting scene.

_Reverence._—It is not easy to give a brief analysis of this sentiment.
We think, however, it is constituted to be excited to action by whatever
is perceived by intellect, or believed by Marvellousness to possess the
quality of greatness or superior power, whether physical, moral, or
intellectual. Many of the objects of respect in society are conventional.
The vast works of nature excite the feeling strongly; so also do the
majestic works of art, as shown in the temples erected to the Most High.
Who would not feel more reverence in going up to worship in a vast temple
than when seated in a hovel? None better understood how to excite the
feeling of reverence than the ancient Egyptians. In them, as also in the
ancient Jews, the organ must have been exceedingly developed.

2. But when the mind contemplates the Deity in all his wonderful
attributes—the power which, with a word, could create a universe of
worlds, and by whose wisdom all things are governed, and whose mercy,
goodness, and justice, are past conception—how much greater is the
excitement to the feeling of reverence! How different, too, is the
emotion! It is more elevated, pure, and rapturous. When, too, the mind
brings to its contemplation the wonderful dealings of the Almighty with
his dependent erring creatures, as exhibited in his providences, his
plan of redemption, and the influence of the Holy Spirit, our reverence
scarcely knows bounds.

_Marvellousness_ next claims our attention. 1, The simple _secular_
function of this faculty is belief; the degree, kind, and conclusiveness
of the evidence, are no part of its function. We may believe on mere
authority. We may believe because it is rational, consistent, or
agreeable to experience. Without this sentiment, we should scarcely
believe the evidence of our senses, and perhaps we might say nothing
would appear to _be evident_. The every day occasions for the exercise
of this faculty are numerous. When large, it often becomes too active,
and is apt to render persons weakly credulous. It also leads to believe
in the wonderful, the spiritual, the improbable, the unnatural. 2, Its
_religious_ function is manifested in our belief in the existence and
attributes of God—his revelation to man; the Saviour and his miracles—his
resurrection and ascension; in the Holy Spirit and his influence on the
heart, &c. How infinitely greater are these objects of belief than those
of a secular kind! Immortality is spread before the eye of faith in
brighter worlds above.

    “The faith that unites to the Lamb,
      And brings such salvation as this,
    Is more than mere fancy or name—
      The work of God’s Spirit it is.”

_Hope_ is constantly active in reference, first, to the _immediate_
future. We hope all things, and are carried along by this feeling through
dangers innumerable, until we at last drop into the grave. Had hope no
ken beyond the grave, all would be dreary; but secondly, this feeling, in
its _religious_ function, brings to view a happy eternity, where all is
joy, peace, love, and praise. How different, and how much more exciting,
is the hope which dwells on eternity than that which has reference to
time!

We must remark here, that in the doctrines of phrenology there is nothing
which can be construed to aid or oppose the peculiarly sectarian views of
Christians. All those who disbelieve in the doctrine of the Trinity, will
not have the same views of regeneration as those who believe in it. They
will not believe in the agency of the Holy Spirit; but they will believe
in a change of heart from the use of purely human means, and those will
be governed by precisely the same laws in both views of the subject. We
will therefore attempt to give what will be called the evangelical view
of conversion, and leave it for persons of different views to account for
the _power_ which produces this change in their own way.

The first inquiry is this, What are the degrees of activity among the
faculties as governed by the ordinary laws of exercise?

1. Thus some of the faculties, especially those termed religious, are
brought into a very great degree of _activity_. This arises from the
great extent and importance of the objects with which they are brought
into relation.

2. The propensities in general, and Self-esteem and Approbativeness in
particular, are deprived of their ordinary stimulus, and for a time
become in a measure paralysed; as self, and the objects which excite the
propensities, appear much diminished by contrast. To some, the contrast
appears so great that they feel humbled as in the dust.

3. By little and little the higher sentiments become accustomed to this
newly acquired higher degree of activity, and spontaneously range in
their newly acquired world of objects. Every thing is now viewed as in
the light of eternity. Man is now not only known, but felt to be an
immortal being with a soul of uncounted worth. There is often a degree of
exaltation of the feelings, and an increased mental power, which greatly
surprises those who knew them in their former state. This appears in
their deep insight into divine things, and in their exalted devotional
exercises.

4. As the religious sentiments become more and more evangelized, or, in
other words, as growth in grace progresses, they acquire an habitual, an
uncontested ascendency over the propensities, and take the religious lead
of their newly acquired masters.

In all this change, great, thorough, radical, and abiding as it really
is, we recognise only the operation of the same general laws which
characterise all great changes in mental character. The physical organs
are affected powerfully; and the emotions are only in exact proportion to
the felt importance of their objects. If exerted too much at one time,
or too frequently for the healthy endurance of the cerebral organs,
inflammation follows, and, with it, religious mania.

Next, inasmuch as different minds are very differently constituted,
so are they differently affected by the actual process of conversion
to a holy life. We shall be better understood, when we say that the
temperament, age, education, intellectual and affective faculties,
&c., all have an influence in relation to the manner in which their
minds will be brought to the realisation of religious truth, and to
experience its sanctifying efficacy. Hence it is of immense importance,
that those whose office it is to bring religious truth to bear upon
the minds of their fellow-men, should understand the peculiar nature
of the minds on which they are to exert their action. In short, they
should understand phrenology familiarly and practically, and should
apply it daily to their fellow-men. We will put one or two cases. If,
for instance, Conscientiousness be a strong faculty in an individual,
with Cautiousness also large, and at the same time he has gone on for
many years in a careless worldly course of unbelief, the religious
teacher would be likely to bring vividly to his mind that searching
attribute of the Almighty, viz. his justice, which cannot look upon
sin but with abhorrence. He would point out the purity of heaven, and
contrast it with the impurity of a world lying in wretchedness, and
depict the nature, desert, and awfulness of sin, &c. &c. In this way he
would probably excite remorse and apprehension. But if the individual
have respectable reasoning powers, he should be impressed with the utter
hopelessness of entering Heaven while remaining in his sins. He cannot
fail to see at once, that Heaven is no place for him, until he becomes
fit for its society. The importance of things connected with religion,
should be clearly set forth and contrasted with the temporary, fleeting,
unsatisfactory things of this world.

We may reasonably expect, that labours of this kind rendered discreetly,
prayerfully, and in faith, will be availing through the influences of the
Holy Spirit.

We would here remark, that we should never judge of the genuineness of
a conversion by any special, infallible process the individual may have
gone through. It may have been a slow, gradual process, as would be
likely to be the case of a naturally finely organised young person, whose
moral and religious education had been well conducted; or it may be quiet
or unobserved, as in an individual of a large organ of Reverence, and the
higher sentiments generally, but of a sluggish temperament. It may have
been violent, overwhelming, and attended by a remarkable experience—as
the seeing of visions, &c.—if the individual have been of an ardent
temperament, and with large perceptive organs and large Marvellousness.

Equally diverse will be the growth in grace of different individuals.
Some will be almost like ground by the way side, some like stony places,
some like good ground covered with thorns, and some still like good
ground. Aside from peculiarities of individual character, external
circumstances, whether favourable or otherwise, may exert a very great
degree of influence. They may be like the genial influences of a summer’s
sun after refreshing showers, or they may be as the chills of the winter
frost.

Equally diverse will be the ultimately formed Christian character of
different individuals. But all who are truly pious, will show some
indubitable signs of it in their subsequent life and character; “By their
_fruits_ ye shall know them.” Whether they have the same mind which was
in Jesus in its general cast; whether they be changed in the general
spirit and temper of the mind; whether they have love to, and faith in,
Christ, meekness, benevolence, sincerity, tenderness, simplicity of life,
love to the brethren, &c.

The means that are rendered effectual in regeneration by the agency of
the Holy Spirit are equally diverse. But your next enquiry is, how do we
know that the Holy Spirit has any agency in the conversion of sinners? We
answer, we only know by the Scriptures that He is the agent. The point is
not strictly susceptible of any other proof. But this is certain, that
the agency must be one beyond our own; no one could convert himself. We
know, too, that persons who have resisted all the influence of a pious
education, cogent preaching, example, the ordinary and extraordinary
providences of God, &c., have, when alone, and without any apparent
external influence, been suddenly brought to feel the great power and
efficacy of religion. All must therefore acknowledge the influence to be
mysterious. It would indeed be difficult, as we believe, to account for
revivals wholly from natural causes. Still, however, this point rests
upon Scripture; _and phrenology certainly contributes nothing to render
the Scripture doctrine less easy of belief_.

It is proper to notice here, that when conversions appear mysterious,
or when sudden and in advanced life, they are almost miraculous. It is
not the _ordinary_ method, in which the mind is prepared for the hearty
reception of divine truth. The _new principle_ introduced into the mind
is, as we before said, no new _faculty_. The expression is at best
obscure, and calculated to produce erroneous impressions. In one of our
beautiful hymns it is thus expressed—

    But when the Holy Ghost imparts
      A knowledge of a Saviour’s love,
    Our wand’ring, weary, restless hearts
      Are then renewed no more to rove.

    Now a _new principle_ takes place,
      Which guides and animates the will,
    This love,—another name for grace,—
      Constrains to good, and bars from ill.

Here the _new principle_, which is otherwise expressed as love to God, is
no other than this. The higher sentiments are excited into predominating
activity, and led to contemplate with love and gratitude the government
of God and the wonderful love, revealed in the great work of redemption
of fallen men, a work in which he now feels himself especially
interested. It is a change of the _balance_ and _direction_ of the
faculties. They have seized hold of new things, which are now regarded
as all important; but before they were looked upon with indifference.
In relation to the mental faculties, it is not a new principle, but a
new _administration, produced by a change of majority_. Hence the mental
decisions are different. The actions spring from different motives—from a
prevailing love to God, and obedience to his will.

In thus far speaking of conversion, we have shown what the Holy Spirit
does not do, rather than what He does. We have done this to narrow down
the field of mystery to its due limits, and to impress our readers
with the necessity and importance of understanding and applying the
true principles of mind in relation to religious action, as well as to
education and self-culture. Having done this, we believe we have gone the
full extent to which reason can go. We must look to revelation, and that
alone, for whatever further light is obtained on this subject. In doing
so, we are confident the reader will find nothing inconsistent with our
views. What is not explained in revelation is known only to the Almighty,
and is therefore a mystery past finding out.

The great laws which regulate the growth, exercise, and rest of the
organs, and the force of the principle of habit or repetition, all go
to show the following propositions to be eminently true and of immense
importance.

1. That it is unphrenological, as well as unsafe and presumptuous,
to allow children to grow up without early, constant, and judicious
religious instruction and example. Where these are neglected, a sudden
change may come over the person late in life; but this is hardly to be
expected. How much better to commence and continue in the right course,
than to go on wrong for years, trusting to a miracle to set us right.
When to do so, we must turn quite round, and, as it were, to go back and
begin anew!

2. That religion does not consist in belief merely, and that the work
of grace requires long training of the faculties to give them strength,
stability, habit, and harmonious action, so that the person will be
constantly in the easy, delightful exercise of the Christian graces. One
of this cast and _training_, where organisation favours its strong and
healthy development, will show by his life and conversation that his
religion not only sets well upon him, but is a part of him and pervades
him throughout. It will beam forth upon his countenance, his gestures,
his gait, his subdued, simple, and kind manners. His habitual obedience
as a dutiful child of his heavenly Father, will show itself in his
appointments, promises, and engagements. “With the blessing of God,”
“With divine permission,” &c. will habitually be his language. It will
show itself in his crosses, his self-denials, his labours of love, and by
the ejaculation, “Thy will be done,” &c.; his moderation in relation to
the objects of this world; his longing after immortality; his devotional
habits, &c.

When we commenced our article, we had intended to have cited Scripture to
show the harmony of all the above views with it; but we feel confident
that our views will so readily call to mind all those passages of
Scripture which harmonise with them, that it would be in a measure
unnecessary. Besides, we did not promise to attempt a full view of the
subject, but rather to embolden others to do so. We should delight to see
a small work, written on the subject. It would be the _vade mecum_ of all
those who exert themselves in the cause of religious education, and the
dissemination of Christian truth.

                                                                    S. J.




ARTICLE III.

ON DUELLING.

_To the Editor of the American Phrenological Journal._


Having examined the heads of several gentlemen, since I have been in
the southern states, who have fought DUELS, I have been struck with
the fact, that most of them have _Combativeness moderately_ developed,
_Cautiousness large_, and _Approbativeness very large_. This has led me
to reflect upon the principles in our nature which instigate and keep up
the practice of duelling.

Duelling is a pretended display of courage, personal prowess, or
bravery, in defence of one’s character and honour. But it strikes me
that, on phrenological principles, with such an organisation as I have
alluded to, a man can be neither truly _brave_ nor _courageous_, natural
_fear_ or actual _cowardice_ being the more legitimate result of such
a conformation. Hence it would follow, if we are permitted to take the
cases alluded to as proper data from which to reason, that the fighting
of duels is _no test_ of courage at all; but rather the result of fear,
or (as I shall hereafter show) they generally evince a want of _moral_
courage in those who engage in them; and this view, if I mistake not,
exactly corresponds with the popular notion upon this subject. But
suppose they _did_ display courage; what then? What is this boasted
courage, of which we hear so much?

Courage may be divided into two kinds—_physical_ and _moral_. The
former, when analysed, will be found to consist mainly in the exercise
of Combativeness; and this is one of the lower propensities, common
to man and brute. Of course, then, physical courage is a low passion;
and one that is often displayed in the bull-dog or game-cock far more
powerfully than in the most gallant knight that ever shivered a lance,
or the most renowned hero that ever waded to the temple of fame through
fields of carnage and blood. But moral courage, which is made up of
_Combativeness_, _Firmness_, _Self-esteem_, and the _higher sentiments_,
and which enables us to go boldly forward in our own integrity and
strength, and on all occasions support the _right_, and do whatever
Conscientiousness, Benevolence, affection, and the reasoning faculties
dictate, is an exalted feeling—a noble sentiment—and none can show too
much of it; for, since it cannot be exercised but in a worthy cause, it
is incapable of being perverted or abused.

The manifestation of physical courage is proper when exerted in
defence of our natural rights; but is very liable to be abused, and
when misdirected, instead of its being a virtue, it becomes one of the
worst of vices. Man is not the natural enemy of man; and we live in a
community which professes to be regulated by wholesome laws. Therefore,
when one man voluntarily turns this instrument of defence against his
fellow-man, or exercises it improperly upon a brute, he tramples upon the
laws, and is justly held amenable and punishable. Such a manifestation
of Combativeness or courage is a plain _perversion_ of a naturally good
faculty, and becomes odious and sinful; and such I cannot but conceive
to be the _kind_ of manifestation of this feeling which generally takes
place in duelling.

“But,” says the advocate of duelling, “must I submit, then, when I am
insulted, to be disgraced?” Certainly not, sir; but, in order to preserve
your character from infamy, you should be careful not to employ means
which, instead of rescuing it, actually adds to its degradation; or, in
other words, in order to preserve your _honour_, you should not resort to
means really _dishonourable_.

But with the view to appreciate the weight of this subject, I have
endeavoured to bring it home to myself, and consider what reply I would
make in case I should be _challenged_. In our country, where we have no
_Court of Honour_, (an institution, by the way, which I think ought to
be set up,) I would say to the challenger, “Sir, if you think yourself
injured or insulted beyond the redress of civil laws, I am willing to
submit the case to gentlemen of honourable standing, and settle it
according to their decision.” If he would not listen to this proposal,
but still insisted on fighting, I would say to him, “Sir, neither my
conscience nor my judgment will allow me to be so fool-hardy as to throw
my life away by meeting a man who seeks my blood, nor will my humanity
nor my moral feelings allow me to imbrue my hands in the blood of a
fellow-being.”

Should he then call me a coward, I would reply, “Sir, you show _no
proof_ of it. I hold that fighting duels is more frequently an evidence
of a _want_ of _moral_ courage, than a proof of physical courage. If,
by my course, I display no proof of the _latter_, I certainly do of the
_former_, by thus braving public opinion on a point which I consider
wrong. But suppose you _did_ thus prove my want of physical courage, you
only show that my _intellectual_ and _moral faculties_ are stronger than
my _brute propensities_; and is this a disgrace to a rational being?” Let
the advocates of this practice say what they will in vindication of it,
and attempt to justify it on the ground of its expediency, necessity,
&c., the fact is, all their reasonings upon the subject are shallow,
sophistical, and disgraceful in a civilised, or more especially Christian
community.

The only proper grounds on which to meet the question, are its
_reasonableness_ and its _justice_. Is it _rational_? is it right? In
a barbarous community, where _might_ is held as the only grounds of
_right_, the doctrine might meet with favour; but among us, who reject
such a principle of action, and who profess to be governed by established
laws, it is evidently _irrational_; nay, a gross neglect of duty in
those who profess to administer our laws, to permit individuals thus
to set them at defiance, and under the excitement of passion execute
vengeance on each other. But, on the scope of right, the question does
not admit of debate. Not only do the principles of our holy religion,
in the broadest and most direct terms, condemn all such practices as
sinful, but every moral principle of our nature revolts at them. True,
were we to suppress the influence of our moral sentiments, and exercise
our reasoning faculties in connection with our selfish propensities only,
we might say, “injury for injury,” “blow for blow;” but even then we
could not say, “death for insult,” for there is no comparison between
the two. An insult is limited in its consequence to time; death reaches
to eternity. But phrenology teaches us, that we have no right to settle
a question of this nature, without exercising our reasoning faculties in
connection with the moral sentiments; and I defy any one to prove that
the _latter_ ever sanctioned duelling. Nothing can be clearer than that
to _decline_ a challenge would be an act of _moral_ courage, and as much
more _honourable_ than to accept, as the moral feelings are above the
animal instincts. If, therefore, any one choose to differ with me in
opinion upon this point, he is welcome to do so, and I envy him not his
privilege, for I hold mine to be the legitimate conclusion of a rational
and moral view of the subject; ergo, the opposite conclusion must spring
from the predominance of the brute propensities acting in concert with
the intellect.

Again; I am aware that it will be urged, as the most specious argument
in favour of duelling, that, in this matter, we are bound to respect
_public opinion_. But it has been clearly shown, that public opinion (or
that part of it which still advocates this practice) is unquestionably
_wrong_ on this subject; and in this enlightened age, every honest man,
and every brave man, is bound to _resist_ public opinion in all matters
that interfere with humanity, justice, and moral obligation, and thus
set forth the noble example of _correcting_ public opinion. And more
especially is it the prerogative of phrenology, above all other sciences,
(inasmuch as it enables us clearly to analyse the passions and motives
of men,) to wield its giant strength, against those vices which neither
civilisation nor Christianity has yet been able to subdue.

_Public opinion_, forsooth! And what is public opinion? What but an
evanescent and a capricious thing—a fickle dame, ever varying, ever
changing—that raises a man a hero and a demi-god to-day, and tramples
him in the dust as a base wretch and outcast to-morrow? Look at the
Protean aspects of public opinion in the different ages of the world,
and among the different nations of the earth. Look at public opinion in
the different epochs of the Roman empire, and of the Grecian states.
Behold its changes. Look at it under the mighty Egyptian, Babylonian,
Assyrian, Medean, and Persian dynasties. Compare public opinion at the
present day in China, with that in the United States. Compare it among
our rude Saxon forefathers, with that which prevailed in the days of
William the Conqueror. And in English society, what mighty changes has
it not undergone since the days of Henry the Eighth. Look at the changes
produced on public opinion by a Solon, a Zoroaster, a Pythagoras, a
Homer, a Socrates, or a Plato; an Alexander, a Cæsar, or an Alfred. See
the tyrant bow its neck to the mild, but sublime influence of the Gospel,
wherever it has been introduced. See it bend again before the influence
of philosophy, science, and the arts, and, more especially, before
improvements in our political and civil codes. And are we to be told,
then, that, amid the full glare of light and knowledge which beams upon
us, we are passively and submissively to bow to this capricious tyrant,
and not dare to raise our voices against its cruel and absurd edicts? No.
Reason forbids it; morality forbids it; Heaven forbids it. Let the light
of science and morality, then, clear the mist from our eyes; and let us
go on to _refine_ and _correct_ public opinion, until every vestige of
barbarism and superstition are expunged from our herald-roll. And what is
duelling but a vestige of barbarism that has too long formed a foul blot
upon our national escutcheon?

                                                Mobile, March 12th, 1839.




ARTICLE IV.

REMARKS ON THE POSSIBILITY OF INCREASING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CEREBRAL
ORGANS BY ADEQUATE EXERCISE OF THE MENTAL FACULTIES. By Andrew Combe, M.
D.

(Continued from No. 6 of this Journal, page 191.)


The next enquiry, and one of not less moment, is to discover _why the
increase does not follow in every instance_? and what are the conditions
which favour it? Multitudes of the young, engaged in the same mental
exercise, manifest no proportionate increase of power or organ; and yet,
if the rule holds good in one instance, there must be causes for every
exception, and to these I shall now direct a few remarks, but necessarily
of a crude and imperfect kind.

The first impeding cause is one already alluded to. On looking at the
analogous instance of muscular increase from muscular action, it will
be granted at once that, in some constitutions, there is a much greater
susceptibility of change than in others. In the nervous system, the
same principle of the influence of the original type undoubtedly holds
good; and while some are easily susceptible of mental impressions and
cerebral improvement, others are the reverse. Here, then, is one ground
of difference of result.

Another fact in regard to muscular development is, that while it is
favoured by due exercise, it is prevented alike by insufficient and by
excessive action, and that _what constitutes due exercise to one, may be
insufficient for another, and excessive for a third_. From this follows
the acknowledged axiom—That exercise ought to be adapted in kind and
degree to the individual constitution, otherwise it will fail to increase
either the muscles or the general strength. I have elsewhere[1] shown
that the same law applies to the brain and nervous system, and that, if
we act regardless of its existence, we inevitably fail in successfully
attaining our object. From ignorance of physiology, however, on the part
of teachers and parents, and ignorance of the connection subsisting
between the brain and the mind, this law has been utterly neglected in
practice. In our larger schools, accordingly, we have from one hundred
to one hundred and fifty boys in each class, or from five hundred to six
hundred in all, subjected to precisely the same amount of work, and to
the same general management, in so far as the period of confinement and
mental activity are concerned; and the individual powers and wants of
each constitution are as little consulted, as if the whole were cast of
the same material, and the same mould—and the result is what we behold
and lament. In some, the degree of mental exercise is adapted to their
capability, and they improve; in others, it falls much short, and their
powers languish from inaction; while in a third portion it goes as far
beyond the limit, and their minds and organs are worn out and impaired.

Healthy vigour is another essential to healthy growth, whether of the
brain or of the body; but, from general ignorance of physiology, this has
been, and still is, equally disregarded in the treatment of the young. In
our public schools, the whole pupils of a large class are set to the same
task, and undergo precisely the same confinement and absence of wholesome
bodily action. It matters not whether they be robust or weak, indolent or
vivacious, fond of play or fond of books. It never occurs to us that what
may be sport to one is a heavy burden to another; and that the length
of confinement, and absence of food, which a robust boy can withstand,
may seriously injure one of a weaker constitution. It is needless to
add, that nothing can be less in accordance with the dictates of a sound
physiology than the ordinary arrangements of our schools; and, judging
from the very inadequate results with which so much labour is repaid,
and the very indifferent health which attends it, it may be inferred,
that no discipline can be less in accordance with the laws of nature, or
less available as a means of improving the minds and brains of those who
are subjected to it. The young, on account of their growing and rapid
nutrition, stand doubly in need of a pure and bracing air, and of ample
muscular exercise out of doors; and yet, so entirely is this condition
disregarded in our plans of education, that in the winter the whole day
is spent in the close and corrupted atmosphere of the school, and the
exercise is restricted to little more than walking to and from it. It is
in vain to think that the brain is not injured in its development, and
the mind not weakened in its powers, by this neglect. The brain partakes
in the general qualities of the constitution. If the body be imperfectly
nourished and supported, the brain is weakened in common with the rest of
the system, and the mind is retarded in its progress, and often impaired
in vigour, by otherwise inadequate causes.

Another circumstance which tends in youth to impede the vigorous growth
of the brain and impair its action, and which owes its existence equally
to ignorance of the laws of physiology, is error in diet. No fact can be
more certain, or, indeed, is more generally admitted, than that the young
require wholesome nourishing food, in larger quantities and at shorter
intervals than when arrived at maturity. Accordingly, undue abstinence
is admitted to be very hurtful in early life. And yet, notwithstanding
the abstract acknowledgment of the fact, the practice of society is
diametrically opposed to it, to the manifold injury of the young. The
proper interval which ought to separate breakfast from dinner, because
that at which vigorous appetite usually returns in healthy and active
young people, is from four to five hours.[2] Beyond that time, waste goes
on without any compensating supply, and exhaustion consequently follows,
attended by weariness and a deteriorated state even of the digestive
organs. So far are we, however, from conforming to the indications of
nature in this respect, that the prevailing plan is, to make young
people breakfast early, say at eight o’clock, that they may go to school
in time; and, instead of giving them a good dinner, with an hour or
two of relaxation, about four or five hours later, their lessons are
considered more necessary than food, and while they are pushed on almost
without interruption, dinner is postponed till eight or nine hours after
breakfast, being at least three, and often five, hours after the time at
which it is wanted by nature.

From much observation I am persuaded, not only that the growth and
activity of the brain are impaired by this sad conduct, but that a
great deal of the delicacy and bad health of the rising generation,
and particularly a great deal of the increasing liability to dyspepsia
which pervades society, is owing to the same preposterous departure from
the laws of the Creator. It is no apology for the evil to say that it
cannot be helped—that there is so much to be learned that the whole day
must be given to it. When we become wiser, we shall discover that it is
easier and pleasanter to learn in accordance with, than in opposition
to, nature’s laws; and if we were once convinced of the fact, there
would be no difficulty in altering the practice. We all admit that
sleep is necessary, and that nature intended the night for repose; and,
consequently, neither parent nor teacher thinks of setting his child to
school in the night-time, however anxious he may be for its progress.
And, in like manner, let society once be convinced that food at proper
intervals is essential to the well-being of the young, and both time and
opportunity will be found for giving it.

Another cause of failure in invigorating a faculty, and increasing an
organ by its active exercise, seems to be an inadequate temperament.
What is excitement to the faculties and brain of a person of a quick
nervous or sanguine temperament, may prove utterly unexciting to the
faculties and brain of one with a low apathetic lymphatic temperament;
and, consequently, improvement in the faculty and organ may follow in
the former, while no change on either will occur in the latter. The
susceptibility will thus vary according to the nature of the original
constitution; and hence, in attempting to develope any mental power,
we can expect to be successful only when we are certain that we have
really the means of exciting and keeping up its activity. A mere passing
stimulus will not suffice to increase nutrition and growth.

Perhaps, also, we sometimes fail from applying a wrong stimulant. In
seeking to improve a faculty, common sense dictates that it should be
exercised upon its most agreeable and perfect productions. Thus, in
cultivating a _taste for music_, we ought to present to the faculty the
most beautiful and harmonious music, because that is the best calculated
to excite it to agreeable and sustained activity. Accordingly, such is
the plan by which we cultivate the taste in communities. But when we take
an individual who has naturally no great liking for music, but in whom it
is desirable that the talent should be developed, we do not stimulate the
faculty to healthful exercise by daily accustoming it to the perception
and discrimination of fine sounds, but we set him or her to labour for
hours every day in producing sounds, remarkable at first only for being
so discordant and disagreeable as to make every one keep as far from
their source as possible; and thus our aim is defeated, and the taste
injured rather than improved. It is true, that by stoical perseverance
some arrive ultimately at the power of producing sounds pleasing to
their own ears; but it will be found that it is only then that their
musical faculty _begins_ to be improved, and that its activity is felt
to be delightful. Many never arrive at that point, and, after years of
ineffectual labour, give up the attempt in despair.

I do not mean by these remarks, that _playing on an instrument_ should
be taught merely by listening to good music. Playing is a mechanical
exercise, calling other faculties into activity, and cannot be acquired
without practice. Besides, playing is not music, but only the means
by which it is produced; and, so far as regards the music alone, the
enjoyment is quite as great _whoever_ produces it, as if we ourselves
did. Often, however, the mistake is committed of thinking that we are
using the most effectual means to develope a taste for music, when we
place the young person at an old piano to rattle out discordant sounds
for several hours a day; and we are grieved and disappointed at the
ultimate failure of an experiment which, in the very nature of things,
could not possibly succeed. By assiduous practice on an instrument we
exercise the _mechanical_ faculties, and may thus develope _their_ organs
to an increased extent. But to produce the same effect on the faculty of
Tune, we must stimulate it to sustained activity, by daily accustoming it
to the hearing of exquisite music, and by guiding the judgment to the
appreciation of beauties. We may then hope to promote increased action
and growth in its organ.

I believe that in regard to some of the other faculties we commit a
similar mistake, and imagine that education fails to invigorate them and
develope their organs, when, in fact, our endeavours have been wrongly
directed, and could not be successful; but the present paper has run
already to so great a length, that I must postpone any farther remarks on
this part of the subject till another opportunity.

Before taking leave, however, I would again enforce the absolute
necessity of physiological knowledge for the successful guidance of
teachers and parents. If the size of the cerebral organs admits of
being increased by judicious exercise, and impaired or retarded by
mismanagement, it obviously becomes an indispensable qualification
for those who undertake their right direction to possess an accurate
acquaintance with the functions and laws of the animal economy; and it
is rather strange that we should have gone on to the present day without
such an obvious truth having been universally perceived and acted upon.

Having now shown, 1st, That judicious mental exercise promotes the
development of the cerebral organs in youth; 2dly, That there is strong
presumptive evidence in proof of the same effect taking place even
in mature age; 3dly, That we are still little acquainted with other
important physiological conditions which act powerfully in modifying the
results of exercise; and 4thly, That the knowledge of these conditions
would greatly extend the efficacy of moral and intellectual education,
and multiply our means of advancing the moral welfare and happiness of
the race; I do not require to add another word to induce phrenologists to
collect additional evidence on all the doubtful points, and to prosecute
the enquiry with persevering accuracy, and with a constant view to its
important practical advantage.

    [1] “Principles of Physiology,” &c. 5th edit. p. 292, &c.

    [2] See “The Physiology of Digestion considered with Relation
    to the Principles of Dietetics.” Second edition, p. 198.

We have selected the above article from the “Edinburgh Phrenological
Journal” for the purpose of calling the attention of phrenologists in
this country to the important principles which it contains. The article
comes from the pen of a gentleman who probably understands the physiology
of the brain, and its real functions, better than any other man living.
It is unnecessary for us to dwell on the importance of correctly
understanding the above principles, as connected with phrenology, and the
desirableness of collecting additional evidence, in order to elucidate
them, and show their numerous applications to the various duties and
pursuits of life. We would therefore solicit for publication in this
Journal, facts showing the positive increase, either in _size_ or
_activity_, of any particular organ or organs; and also communications
tending to illustrate and establish more fully the truth of the enquiries
proposed by Dr. Combe, respecting the true physiological laws of the
brain.—ED.




ARTICLE V.

PHRENOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS AND CHARACTER OF WILLIAM MILLER, WHO WAS
EXECUTED AT WILLIAMSPORT, PA., JULY 27TH, 1838, FOR THE MURDER OF SOLOMON
HOFFMAN.


    MR. EDITOR,—

    Being in Williamsport, Pa., in the month of May, I was invited
    by James Armstrong, Esq., prosecuting attorney of Lycoming
    County, and Mr. Lloyd, high sheriff of said county, to examine
    the head of a William Miller, who was then in prison awaiting
    his trial for the murder of a German pedlar by the name of
    Hoffman. On entering his cell, I found a good looking, not to
    say a handsome young man, about twenty years of age, in irons,
    exhibiting no peculiar marks of intelligence, yet a vacuity
    of expression, a mysterious, reserved appearance, with a
    countenance somewhat downcast but rather sullen. On proceeding
    with the examination, I found it one of the most painfully
    interesting cases that had ever fallen under my observation.
    The developments and their combinations struck me at once
    as extremely unfavourable; and, upon this account, I took
    particular pains to obtain precise and accurate admeasurements.
    They were taken in the presence of the above named gentlemen,
    before the trial, and in the absence of all knowledge
    concerning the prisoner’s _real_ character, except that he was
    charged with murder.

    It is to _these measurements_, rather than to any statements
    of my own, that I wish to call particular attention. They
    are as follows, including the integuments. The allowance
    generally made for these, is two-eighths of an inch; but, as
    his integuments were unusually thick, three-eighths of an inch
    should be deducted in the present case. This will give very
    accurately the measurements of the skull itself.


                       _Measurements of the Head_

                                                             Inches

      Circumference of the head around Philoprogenitiveness,
          Secretiveness, and Eventuality,                     21⅞
      From Occipital Spine to Individuality, over Firmness,   12⅝
        ”  Destructiveness to Destructiveness,                 7
        ”  Combativeness to Combativeness,                     6½
        ”  Ear to Firmness,                                    6⅜
        ”    ”    Benevolence,                                 4¾
        ”    ”    Individuality,                               5

    The _general_ configuration of the head was not less
    interesting than the particular developments. Whilst the
    heads of highly moral and intellectual men generally measure
    from one and a half to three inches more from Individuality
    to Philoprogenitiveness than from Destructiveness to
    Destructiveness, _his_ head was nearly round. The coronal
    region was poorly developed. The sides of the head were bulged
    out to an extraordinary extent, whilst it was flattened
    behind, evidently indicating deficient social feelings. The
    cerebral fibres were very short from the ear to the organs in
    the anterior lobe of the brain, as well as from the ear to
    Adhesiveness and Philoprogenitiveness. His head was somewhat
    above the average size. His body was strong and well built,
    yet the quality of his organisation was rather gross. His
    temperament was principally lymphatic bilious, with some of the
    sanguine, but scarcely any traces of the nervous.[3] Such a
    temperament is much more favourable to the exercise of physical
    than mental power, and to the manifestations of the animal
    propensities than of the moral sentiments and the intellectual
    faculties.

    Having observed the organisation of the body, and of the
    _general_ form of the head, I commenced a minute comparison of
    the relative size of the respective organs. The result is as
    follows:—

      Amativeness, full.
      Philoprogenitiveness, average.
      Adhesiveness, moderate.
      Inhabitiveness, full.
      Concentrativeness, large.
      Combativeness, large.
      Destructiveness, very large.+
      Alimentiveness, large.
      Acquisitiveness, very large.+
      Secretiveness, very large.
      Cautiousness, large.
      Approbativeness, moderate.
      Self-esteem, very large.
      Firmness, very large.
      Conscientiousness, small.
      Hope, large.
      Marvellousness, moderate.
      Veneration, full.
      Benevolence, moderate.
      Imitation, average.
      Ideality, small.
      Constructiveness, full.
      Mirthfulness, moderate.
      Individuality, full.
      Form, full.
      Size, large.
      Weight, full.
      Colour, moderate.
      Order, average.
      Calculation, full.
      Locality, large.
      Eventuality, average.
      Tune, uncertain.
      Time,    ”
      Language, average.
      Causality,   ”
      Comparison,  ”

    I shall describe only the _extremes_ of development, and the
    general result of their respective combinations in activity.
    The organs located in the sides of the head were the first
    to arrest my attention. It was the development, not of any
    _one_ of these organs (selfish propensities), but the immense
    size of the _whole_ of them, acting without the restraints
    of either the intellect or the moral sentiments, which would
    constitute the leading features of character. Acquisitiveness,
    Secretiveness, Destructiveness, Self-esteem, and Firmness, were
    all “very large;” Combativeness and Cautiousness were “large,”
    with Benevolence, Ideality, and Adhesiveness, “moderate.” Any
    well informed phrenologist can easily predicate the effects
    resulting from such combination.

    His predominating Acquisitiveness and Self-esteem would render
    him _supremely_ selfish, and incline him (Conscientiousness
    being deficient) to appropriate things to himself, without
    regard to the principles of justice or the right of others. His
    Secretiveness, Destructiveness, Firmness, and Combativeness,
    with average intellect, would enable him to devise and execute
    plans with tolerable success for gratifying his selfish
    feelings. Still he had not sufficient Causality to plan on
    a large scale, nor to adapt means to ends successfully in
    the long run. He would deal principally in “little things.”
    Conscientiousness and Benevolence would but feebly remonstrate
    against any measures, however unjust or cruel, which his other
    faculties might devise and carry into effect. Having weak
    Adhesiveness and Benevolence, and very large Secretiveness,
    he would be unsocial, almost destitute of friendship, spend
    most of his time _by himself_, would have few intimates, and
    no confidants among his acquaintances or even relatives. Few
    persons would know any thing concerning him; a mystery would
    hang over all his affairs and conduct.

    His “very large” Secretiveness and Acquisitiveness doubtless
    held predominant sway in his character. These, unrestrained,
    would lay claim to, and appropriate to himself, that which did
    not belong to him, by fraud, deception, stealth, cheating,
    pilfering, &c. And Destructiveness “very large” would add to
    these, robbery and even murder. Having little sympathy or
    affection, with this organisation, I should not be surprised to
    learn that even his relatives and friends had fallen victims
    to his predominating Acquisitiveness and Destructiveness.

    There is one faculty in particular which must have entered
    very largely into the composition of his character—viz.
    Secretiveness. He was doubtless very sly, artful, and full
    of plots and stratagems. While he would be cunning, and make
    few, if any, confessions or acknowledgments, still he did not
    possess great fore-thought or penetration. But in the art of
    dissembling, and making false pretensions, he must have been a
    perfect adept.

    Having “moderate” Approbativeness and “small”
    Conscientiousness, he would have little regard for his
    character, or for what was thought and said of him, and
    experience but little shame or remorse. His “very large”
    Firmness would render him persevering in deception and
    crime—would carry him through any difficulties, and render him
    obstinate, wilful, and blindly set upon gratifying his selfish
    propensities. This organisation would render him vindictive
    in the highest degree, and whatever he might do or say, he
    would always _justify himself_. Another striking fact was the
    “small” development of Ideality. I have long observed that this
    organ was almost invariably small in criminals, and its marked
    deficiency in the present instance struck me with peculiar
    force. Numerous facts have led me to believe, that a proper
    development and exercise of Ideality is about as favourable to
    virtue and morality as even the influence of Conscientiousness.
    By refining the feelings, it begets a disgust for vice, because
    it is loathsome, and thereby promotes virtue. The organs of
    the intellect were not remarkable for either their size or
    deficiency. But in their exercise, they would be controlled
    principally by the selfish feelings.

    During the examination, allusion was made to the fact, (which
    he had frequently related before,) that the day previous to the
    murder he had become very angry, in consequence of meeting with
    some accident in his mechanical labours, and broke in pieces
    the object of his resentment. I afterwards was informed, that
    he was often subject to turns of anger, and that he conducted
    strangely at such times—that he would neither work, talk, nor
    eat, but either sit or lie down in silence and sullenness for
    hours. In view of these facts, the prisoner’s counsel attempted
    to account for the murder by pleading at the trial partial
    insanity, but were unsuccessful. I was partly of the opinion,
    that Destructiveness was morbidly excited prior to the murder.
    But subsequent facts induced me to change it.

    I have thus stated the impressions made upon my mind during the
    examination, and deduced a few leading features of character,
    on strictly phrenological principles, without any knowledge of
    the real character or private history of William Miller, aside
    from a few immediate facts connected with the murder of Hoffman.

                               Yours, &c.
                                                    O. S. FOWLER,
                                                  210 Chesnut street.

    Philadelphia, October 20th, 1838.

On the reception of the above letter, wishing to learn farther
particulars, we addressed a line to the Hon. Ellis Lewis, presiding judge
of the court at the trial of William Miller, to which we received the
following reply:—


_To the Editor of the American Phrenological Journal._

                                   Williamsport, December 29th, 1838.

    Sir,—

    Absence from home on public duties has prevented, until
    this time, an answer to yours of the 1st ult., requesting
    particulars respecting the trial and execution of WILLIAM
    MILLER. I do not know that any paper contains these
    particulars, and I will therefore endeavour to comply with your
    request by the following brief statement.

    William Miller was indicted for the murder of Solomon Hoffman,
    an offence committed in Jackson township, in this county
    (Lycoming), on the first day of February, 1838. On the first
    day of May, 1838, a jury was sworn to try the cause. The first
    count charged the offence in the usual manner. The second count
    set forth that the crime was committed “by lying in wait in,
    upon, and near a public highway.” The evidence on the part of
    the commonwealth fully established the facts following:—That
    Solomon Hoffman was a traveling pedlar, carrying a pack on his
    back; that he sojourned one night at Bastian’s tavern, situate
    at the edge of the woods between the Block-House settlement and
    Pont Run; that William Miller was a cabinet-maker, boarding
    at the same house; that these two individuals slept in the
    same room together that night; that Miller, on being urged by
    Hoffman in the morning to purchase goods, declined, stating
    that he had borrowed money from Bastians, and did not wish them
    to know that he had money, but proposed to purchase of Hoffman,
    _if the latter would stop at the side of the road, in the
    woods_, where Miller stated that _he_ would be engaged cutting
    wood, as the other passed along on his way. This was agreed to.
    Miller stationed himself by the way side, with his axe, for
    the purpose of executing his plan of destruction. The deceased
    soon made his appearance; and while he was stooping down to
    take some articles out of the pack to exhibit to Miller, the
    latter killed him with the axe. Having taken such articles as
    he desired at the time, and all the money in the pocket book of
    the deceased, Miller buried the dead body and the pack under
    the leaves and snow, the latter being upwards of two feet deep
    in the woods. The deceased was a stranger—a German—and had but
    one relative, a brother, in this country. That brother he had
    engaged to meet the next day after the murder in Bloomingrove;
    but as he did not fulfil that appointment, the brother was
    alarmed, and made a most anxious and scrutinising search for
    the deceased, but could find no traces of him whatever after
    he left Bastians in the morning. The brother then came to the
    public house of George Duitch, in Williamsport, to proceed
    on his journey, giving up all hope of ascertaining the cause
    of the mysterious disappearance of the deceased. By what
    might be regarded as a singular intervention of Providence,
    Miller _came_ to _this tavern_, which was twenty or thirty
    miles from his residence, _introduced himself_ to the brother
    of the deceased, and, by his _voluntary prevarications_ and
    _falsehoods_, excited suspicion, which, upon farther scrutiny,
    led to the full disclosure of his guilt.

    The evidence was so full and satisfactory, that there was no
    room to doubt with respect to the agency of the prisoner in
    causing the death of Hoffman, in the manner already detailed.
    The counsel for the prisoner, in their anxiety to do all in
    their power to save his life, endeavoured to show that he was
    afflicted with that species of insanity called _monomania_. But
    the evidence on this subject consisted chiefly of the proof of
    _cases_ where _other_ individuals, whose minds appeared sound
    upon subjects in general, were nevertheless deranged upon
    particular subjects. The proof did not establish the fact that
    the _prisoner_ was afflicted with that species of insanity.

    In the course of the trial, the prisoner’s counsel, _without
    objection on the part of the commonwealth_, introduced Mr.
    O. S. Fowler, the celebrated phrenologist, as a witness. He
    described the prisoner as of the lymphatic temperament; and
    stated that persons of this temperament are more apt to be
    deranged upon the animal passions than upon the intellectual
    or moral faculties. He also, among other things, described the
    prisoner’s phrenological developments, as they appeared to
    him on an examination some days previously in the prisoner’s
    cell. The organs of _Destructiveness_, _Secretiveness_, and
    _Acquisitiveness_, were stated by Mr. Fowler to be immense, the
    head measuring about 7¼ inches in diameter from ear to ear.

    In giving the instructions to the jury, I stated to them
    that if the evidence for the commonwealth was believed, it
    established a case of murder of the first degree, unless
    they thought proper to acquit entirely upon the ground of
    _insanity_. The species of insanity relied upon by the
    prisoner’s counsel, was that denominated _monomania_. This
    exists where there is a _delusion_ on _one_ or a _small number_
    of subjects, which no course of reasoning or force of evidence
    can remove. Every man, of mature age, is _presumed_ to possess
    a sound mind until the _contrary_ appears. To establish this
    kind of insanity, _delusion_ must be shown to exist on one
    subject, or on some small number of subjects. It was stated to
    the jury, that the court could perceive no sufficient evidence
    of _delusion_ or hallucination on any subject to establish the
    existence of _monomania_; still, if the jury believed that
    the prisoner was, at the time of committing the act charged,
    “incapable of judging between right and wrong, and did not
    know that he was committing an offence against the laws of
    God and man,” it would be their duty to acquit; and if they
    did so, it would be necessary to specify in their verdict the
    ground of acquittal, in accordance with the act of assembly
    of 13th June, 1836. But (continued the court) if any insanity
    exists in this case, it is of that description denominated
    MORAL INSANITY. This _arises from the existence of some of the
    natural propensities in such violence, that it is impossible
    not to yield to them_. It bears a striking resemblance to
    _vice_, which is said to consist in “an undue excitement of
    the passions and will, and in their irregular or crooked
    actions leading to crime.” It is therefore to be received
    with the utmost scrutiny. It is not _generally_ admitted in
    legal tribunals as a species of insanity which relieves from
    responsibility for crime, and it ought _never_ to be admitted
    as a defence until it is shown that these propensities exist
    in such violence as to subjugate the intellect, control the
    will, and render it impossible for the party to do otherwise
    than yield. _Where its existence is thus fully established,
    this species of insanity, like every other, relieves from
    accountability to human laws._ But this state of mind is not to
    be presumed without evidence; nor does it usually occur without
    some premonitory symptoms indicating its approach. On this
    branch of the case the prisoner’s counsel have introduced the
    testimony of Mr. O. S. Fowler, one of the most distinguished
    phrenologists in the United States. The science of PHRENOLOGY,
    or rather CRANIOSCOPY, has not yet been brought to such a
    state of perfection and certainty as to be received and relied
    upon in courts of justice. Small deviations in the scull from
    its perfect form, not absolutely denoting insanity, appear to
    be too uncertain to be relied upon in the administration of
    justice, without endangering the rights of individuals and
    the more important interests of the public. It is the opinion
    of the court, that the testimony of Mr. Fowler proves no such
    development of the animal propensities as would, of itself,
    justify the belief of insanity in any of its forms.

    The jury found the prisoner guilty of murder by lying in wait,
    as set forth in the second count, and not guilty on the first
    count. The verdict was delivered on the 4th of May, 1838,
    and, on the same day, after overruling a motion in arrest of
    judgment, the court adjudged that _the verdict on the second
    count_ was a _finding of murder of the first degree_, and
    pronounced the sentence of DEATH. On the 27th of July, 1838,
    the prisoner was executed. He made a full confession. Before
    and after the trial he was visited by clergymen, and appeared,
    after the trial, much affected with his situation in reference
    to a future world. Seemed truly penitent. Met death with great
    firmness, even assisting the sheriff in some of the last sad
    offices of the melancholy scene. His body was delivered to his
    parents for burial. They are in low circumstances, but not in
    absolute poverty. They have never shown as much attention to
    education as people generally do, and their unhappy son was
    said to be exceedingly illiterate.

                           Yours, very truly,

                                                       ELLIS LEWIS.

The above letters have been in our possession now for some months,
and we had intended ere this, to have presented them in the pages of
the Journal. But by this delay we have recently and very opportunely
received, by a gentleman from Williamsport, the dying confession of
William Miller. Whilst on the one hand we were surprised, in its perusal,
to observe the striking coincidences between Mr. Fowler’s statements and
the individual’s own confession of his private history, on the other we
were shocked to read such a long series of youthful vice and crime. We
doubt whether a similar instance can be found recorded in the annals of
history. The facts in the case of this unfortunate young man involves
many important principles in jurisprudence, education, morals, &c. &c.;
but our present object is simply to present the _facts_ in the case.

The general facts connected with the murder are contained in the letter
of Judge Lewis. But as his confession relates the particulars more in
detail, preceded by a continued series of vicious and criminal conduct
for fifteen years, showing the gradual process by which he became so
hardened and cruel, we are induced to present the entire confession,
notwithstanding its length. It is undoubtedly similar in some respects
to that of many others much older than Miller, yet less experienced
in crime, who end their days in the prison or on the gallows. Though
young in years, he had emphatically grown old in the school of vice.
We earnestly request every reader to notice the following facts in his
melancholy narrative, which undoubtedly prepared the way for the number
and enormity of his crimes.

_His mother died when he was quite young. He was subject to little,
if any, parental restraint and government; received, comparatively,
no education, nor moral and religious instruction; early gave way to
his “evil passions;” was greatly encouraged by bad associates; was not
restrained by the ties of family affection, nor influenced much by any
relations to friends and acquaintances, either in regard to his business
or his character; first commenced stealing little things, then lying;
persevered constantly in such offences for nearly fifteen years, till he
finally committed robbery and murder._ But it appears that he had planned
several murders, and even that of his _own_ brother, before the execution
of his last fatal deed.

Let every reader observe, that Miller grew up with his intellectual
faculties _uneducated_, his moral sentiments _unenlightened_, his
domestic feelings _but little exercised_, and his selfish propensities
and sentiments _unrestrained_. We need not say, that these facts involve
important principles in the true physiology of the brain and the science
of mind.

The facts in the confession should also be compared with the statements
of Mr. Fowler’s letter. It is due to state, that Mr. F. has never seen
this confession, nor the letter of Judge Lewis—that he knows nothing of
the contents of either, and there is no reason to doubt his statement
concerning his knowledge of Miller’s _real_ character. A phrenologist
will readily perceive that, from the data first taken by Mr. F., even a
darker portrait might have been drawn on strict scientific principles,
than what Mr. F.’s letter presents. We have italicised some parts of the
confession which strikingly accord with the phrenological descriptions.

    [3] This case affords an additional confirmation of the truth
    of a physiological hypothesis, to which I have been led by
    numerous observations, and which, if true, is of considerable
    importance: viz. that the _nervous_ and _nervous bilious_
    temperaments favour the manifestation of the _moral_ and
    _intellectual_ faculties, the _sanguine_ and _lymphatic_, that
    of the organs located in the basilar and posterior region of
    the brain. I have never found, within the walls of a prison, a
    purely _nervous_ or _nervous bilious_ temperament.




THE CONFESSION OF WILLIAM MILLER,

_Who was convicted of the murder of Solomon Hoffman, and executed at
Williamsport, Lycoming county, Penn., on the 27th of July, 1838; made in
the presence of the sheriff and attending ministers, June 7, 1838._


I was born in York county, in the state of Pennsylvania, A. D. 1815. My
mother died when I was eleven years of age. My _natural disposition_,
from my _earliest infancy, was grossly depraved. I seemed fatally bent
on mischief_, and had a _relish_ for _dark and secret crime_; and
never having received any religious education or instruction, (except
from occasionally hearing the gospel preached,) my _evil passions_
and _malice_ of my nature grew with my growth, and strengthened with
my years. Before my imprisonment, I had not learned any principles of
religion or precepts of morality, by which I could discover the full
deformity of my character, or the deep wickedness of my conduct. The
after survey of my acts and conduct, and the _review of my crimes,
were scarcely ever attended, with a feeling of regret. I seemed too
spell bound, in my evil to relent_; and _my conduct so accorded with
my evil passions that reflection was without remorse._ I was greatly
addicted to _theft_. But I stole not through want so much as through the
_gratification of my wicked disposition_. _This disposition_ was carried
into action first when I was _nine years_ of age. I then stole an half
dollar from my father, and gave it to my mother. I told her I had found
it. She believed me, and bought a handkerchief for me with it.

Some time after the death of my mother, my father and family removed
from York county to Lycoming county, and resided in the Block-house
settlement. I lived with the family there till I attained the age of
nineteen years.

During my stay at the Block-house settlement, previously to learning a
trade, I _stole a pocket knife_ while at a religious meeting, held at the
house of Mr. Knodle. I then became more bold, and having discovered where
Samuel Hartman kept his money, I _attempted to rob_ him, by breaking into
his drawer; but in that I did not succeed. Soon after this, I was living
a short time in the family of Mrs. Bastian, who then, and always, treated
me with great kindness. I _stole_ from her twenty-five cents.

I next went to the borough of York, for the purpose of acquiring a trade,
and became an apprentice to Joseph Spangler, a cabinet maker of that
place, with whom I continued two years. At York I fell into very bad
company. I found there were others in the world, nearly, if not quite
as bad as myself; and wickedness is greatly encouraged with countenance
and company. _We were frequently engaged in robbing orchards, stealing
apples, peaches_, &c.

The first winter I lived at York, I _stole_ between four and five dollars
from Mr. Spangler. I took it out of a small chest I found in his bed
room. One of my shop-mates was blamed for it, but I now declare him
innocent of the crime.

I _frequently stole segars and tobacco_ from the store of George Small,
in York, and gave them to my associates, who had previously requested me
to do so.

After my apprenticeship was ended, I was employed as cabinet maker for
a short time, by John Beck, in York. I _stole_ from him, at different
times, such articles as I needed to finish some furniture I was making
for myself, such as paints, varnish, &c. I was strongly suspected for
this; _but I lied them out of it_, and contended most strenuously that I
had _bought_ all the articles I used.

Shortly after this, I lived a short time with Jacob Lehr, in Freystown,
near York. While there, a harvest frolic was held at Mrs. Smithmoyer’s.
I knew that all of Daniel Louck’s family would be at the frolic;
consequently, I went to his house, broke in through one of the windows,
opened a desk with a key of my own, and _took out a pocket book_, as I
then supposed, full of money. I then left the house as I entered it; and
on my way home through the fields, I examined the pocket book, and found
that it contained nothing but papers which I could not read. I threw the
pocket book and papers into some bushes that grew in a field belonging to
Mr. Diehl. All the money I got on that occasion was about one dollar and
fifty cents in silver. I never heard that I was suspected of this theft.

About the same time of the above occurrence, I was working in harvest at
Mr. Diehl’s, and I then _stole two five dollar bank notes_, which I saw
lying on the porch of their house; I was never suspected for this, and
never heard any enquiry made about it.

Shortly after this happened, I went again to Daniel Louck’s, and found
that all the family were from home except three of the women. After
staying a short time, I lay down in the hall of the house, as it were,
for the purpose of resting. After lying a short time, I discovered
that the ladies had all gone out to take a walk in the garden. I then
arose, and went to the same desk I had opened before. I also applied
the key I had formerly used, opened the desk, and _took out a pocket
book containing fifty dollars in bank notes_. Even this created no
suspicion against me, that I know of. I also frequented the house of
Mrs. Smithmoyer, in that neighbourhood, and _stole from her cakes,
confectionaries_, and occasionally some _small sums of money_.

I returned in 183- to the Block-house settlement; _my evil propensities_
increasing by former successful indulgence, and by being able to avoid
suspicion, I commenced the cabinet making business for myself, at the
house of Mrs. Bastian, with whom I had lived a short time before I went
to York to acquire a trade. Mrs. Bastian’s residence is situated in the
northern part of Lycoming county, at the foot of Laurel Hill, on the post
road from Williamsport to Wellsborough. The country immediately around
is composed of high and broken mountains, covered with thick and dark
forests. The road often for great lengths without a house, and not very
frequently traveled—generally as lonely as the pathway of a wilderness. I
did not at first settle there for the purposes for which I afterwards saw
it possessed so many advantages. But it very soon occurred to me, that I
had chosen an excellent situation for _robbery_, _theft_, and _murder_,
_on which my mind was now fully bent_.

I re-commenced my unfortunate career at the Block-house, by _first
stealing_ from Mrs. Bastian fifteen dollars, and frequently afterwards,
such sums as I needed, to the amount of about five dollars more. I had
the confidence of the family, and free access to every part of the house,
which greatly facilitated my thefts. I was not suspected of these crimes
until just before my last arrest, when some money was accidentally found
in my pocket which was identified as a part of the money that had been
taken. This induced them to suspect me strongly, but _I denied it with
great firmness and constancy to the last_.

Some time in the fall of 1837, a drover (whose name I do not know)
passing through the settlement, stopped for a short time at Mrs.
Bastian’s house. At first sight, I supposed him to have _a large amount
of money, and immediately determined to murder him_. For this purpose,
before he could have time to pursue his journey, I hastened to the woods
with an axe, and cut a large club, which I thought more suitable for the
purpose, it being longer and more easily handled than the axe, and yet
sufficiently large for the fatal execution. I then concealed myself close
by the road he would pass, and not far from the scene of my last dread
crime. I then waited, planning the manner of my attack. I expected he
would be riding slowly and listlessly along, that I could spring upon him
by surprise, knock him from his horse, and despatch him before he could
make resistance. The drover was a large man and had an excellent horse.
When I saw him coming, contrary to my expectation, he was riding rapidly,
and consequently I could not have a good opportunity to aim a fatal blow.
I then reflected that if I should miss him, or wound him slightly, he
would be too strong for me, and I should be detected, and so I let him
pass. But _I felt disappointed, and wished very much to kill him_, and
if I thought I could have succeeded, would certainly have murdered him.
I saw him afterwards pass through the settlement again, but I made no
further attempt upon his life.

Not long after the failure of my design against the drover, Michael
Knipe, a blacksmith, was traveling from the Block-house towards Lycoming
creek, and called at Mrs. Bastian’s. He had previously _incurred my
ill-will_, and I felt some _revengeful feelings towards him_. I learned
also that he had _some money_. I then _determined to murder him, with
the double motive of wreaking my vengeance and getting his money_. For
this purpose I proposed accompanying him on his way. We traveled amicably
together until we came to the Six Mile Spring. There _pretending_ that
I was tired, and needed a staff to walk with, I went into the woods
and cut a club, with which, at a proper place, I intended to despatch
my fellow-traveler. But as we traveled on, still conversing amicably
together, my murderous feelings began to subside a little, and I became
more irresolute, until having passed the most appropriate places for so
dark a deed, I finally gave over murdering him; and so we traveled, as
far as I went with him, without any thing actually occurring to show that
we were not the best friends.

The awful murder for which I am shortly to suffer the just penalty of
the law, occurred on Thursday, the first day of February, 1838. Solomon
Hoffman, a foot pedler, called at Mrs. Bastian’s the day previous to the
murder, on his way to Lycoming creek. At that time I was particularly
ill-tempered, on account of spoiling some furniture I was making. My shop
stood near Mrs. Bastian’s house. The same afternoon that Hoffman arrived,
I had occasion to go into the house, and saw him with his pack open,
offering his goods for sale to the family. He asked me if I would buy any
thing. I told him I could not. I then returned to my shop, and continued
to work till supper time. I took my supper in company with Hoffman; and
during supper it occurred to me _to rob him_, and I resolved to do so the
next day. After supper we conversed a while in the bar-room, and then he
accompanied me to my shop.

Hoffman continued at my shop for some time, and we conversed principally
about my trade; I told him I could make sales enough, but could get no
cash. He returned to the house again; I continued to work till late,
and then went to the house also. We then soon retired; Hoffman and I
slept in the same room. As I lay in bed, I thought of the difficulty of
highway robbery escaping detection, and came to the conclusion that I
had better attempt _to kill him_, although I had failed in two previous
attempts. I did not sleep well, thinking about it; _I felt no fear or
horror of the crime_, but I did not know how I could accomplish it. _I
woke up frequently during the night and thought on the subject, and my
disposition to murder him still grew stronger_, and in the morning I
was fully resolved, if I could get an opportunity at all, I would kill
him. I got up early in the morning, and Hoffman rose shortly after. I
then got my axe and whet it. He asked me what I would do with the axe.
I told him I was going to the woods to chop. He then asked me again if
I would not buy some goods from him. On asking me this question, a plan
instantly occurred to me of luring him into the woods and executing my
fell purpose. So I told him I would not buy any goods at Bastian’s house,
and gave him as a reason for not buying there, that I had borrowed some
money from Bastian’s, that I had not repaid, and therefore did not wish
them to know that I had any; but I told him, if it was not too cold for
him to come to me in the woods where I would be chopping, I would buy
from him there. Hoffman replied to this, that he would go on in the
stage that day. I answered he might if he pleased. He then changed his
determination, and he was only going to Blooming-grove, and would walk
and stop with me where I was chopping.

Upon his saying this, I designated where on the road he would find me,
and told him he could hear me chopping from that place, and so find
precisely where I was; and having said this, I went off immediately
towards the woods. After proceeding a short distance, I overtook
William Folkerson, of the Block-house settlement, driving a sled. He had
started from Bastian’s a short time before I did. He asked me what I was
going to do. I told him I was going to cut back-logs. We had no other
conversation. This was the man whom I at first blamed with the murder,
but who, I now solemnly declare, as I shall answer to God, is entirely
innocent of it. And I sincerely hope he will forgive me for making this
most false and dreadful charge. After Mr. Folkerson passed on, I went
into the woods at the appointed place, and hunted round, but could find
no trees to suit me. I then went down into the road expecting Hoffman.
Then went back into the woods again, and found trees to suit. I cut one
down, and was going to the second, when Hoffman came to me. He first
addressed me, saying it is cold. I replied, tolerable. He then placed his
pack on the log I had cut, opened his goods and handed them out. I walked
up to him with my axe in my hand, and placed it down by the stump of the
tree. I then selected from his goods a pair of gloves and a handkerchief,
and told him I would take these. Then I suddenly became a little
irresolute, and had almost told him I had no money; but in an instant _I
again resolved_ “_kill him I will_.” He then stood bending down looking
at his goods. I stood partly behind him, and taking up the axe, gave him
a hard blow with the pole on the back part of the head. He fell dead on
his side the first blow. _I stood and looked at him for a moment, and
then gave him three or four more blows on the back and side of the head._

Then for a moment I looked up to heaven, and cried three times tolerably
loud, Lord Jesus! what have I done!! I then took up Hoffman, and carried
him a short distance and threw him behind a hemlock log. I was not
satisfied with this, and took him up again and carried him further, and
then removed him, and covered him in the place at which he was found.
I tried to bury him, but could not succeed well, the ground was too
hard. I intended, as soon as I could, to remove him from that and bury
him securely. On the same day I hid his pack, only taking out a few
articles for the present. I found on his person about one hundred dollars
in money, and some other small articles, which I took then. The week
after the murder, I went to Williamsport and bought some goods from Mr.
Updegraff, which I paid for, or nearly all, with Hoffman’s money. I also,
at the same time, bought some articles from Dr. Power, and paid him in
the same way, and at the same time _stole from him one dollar in money,
and several chisels of different kinds_. When I returned, Bastians asked
me where I got the goods. _I told them my father had given me money, and
I also had bought goods on trust. In short, I stole and robbed every
chance I could get, from my cradle to the day of my imprisonment._

I wish now further to declare, that no false evidence was delivered
against me at my trial.

I am sincerely thankful to the officers of justice, ministers, and
counsel, for their uniform kindness to me.

I now pray the world to forgive me the many injuries I have done, as I
hope I will freely forgive all who have injured me.




APPENDIX.

TAKEN JUNE 30, 1838.


Before my emigration to York, when the family were all on the farm
together, at a certain time which I cannot now recollect, I was then
about fourteen years old, and for the _first time was tempted to murder_.
In the absence of my father, my brother Michael had the management of
his father’s affairs, and the government of us children given to him. My
brother was very strict with us and tried to make us do what was right,
and on failing to do so, he would chastise us, _which created a hatred
in my breast towards him, and I determined in my own mind to destroy
him. To carry out this determination, I gathered vegetable poison from
trees, mixed it in soup, and intended fully to give it to him, and did
so._ My brother saw something in his soup that did not please him, took
up his plate, went to the door, and threw it out, which saved him. I
do now sincerely pray Almighty God to forgive me, and I humbly pray my
brother to forgive me for attempting to make him suffer so awful a death.
After my return from York, while living at Bastian’s, I went into the
Block-house settlement on some business which I do not now recollect; on
my way home, after doing my business, I stopped a while at John Howard’s
barn, looking at some hands engaged in threshing with a machine. There
came a stranger riding by—_it immediately occurred to me that I might
follow and murder him, if he was not a methodist preacher_. I did follow
him, and cut a good club to put my designs into execution. He took the
new road, I took the old one, and intended to overtake him at the place
where the two roads met; but when I came to the place where I expected to
meet him, luckily for himself, he got past before I reached the place,
and I never saw him more. The reason why I intended not to kill him if he
was a preacher, was, _that clergymen never have money, and are considered
poor game_. This was in the fall of the year.

After this, in the winter, I was in at Messrs. Benners’ store, in the
Block-house settlement, and introduced some conversation with respect to
some mahogany that I wanted to make some bureaus, and asked Elias Benner
when he expected to go to Philadelphia. He told me he could not say to a
certainty, but thought some time in the spring. I then asked him if he
would let me know when he did go, that I would go as far as Williamsport,
and there make arrangements with him to buy mahogany and other materials
I wanted. _This plan was laid by me to murder him on the way, as I knew
he would have money_; but, fortunately for himself, ere the time arrived,
I committed the awful deed for which I must soon suffer, and the prison
became my home, or he too might now be in eternity.

Not long after this, _I had also intended to murder David Raker, for
this reason_; in a conversation with him at his house, he told me he
was _going to collect money_; he did go, called at my shop—we had some
conversation, which I do not now recollect; but while there, _I forgot
this determination, why or wherefore I cannot say, but sure I am it was
no goodness in me_. I also _stole_ from Jacob Bastian, in the Block-house
settlement, screws and nails, as I had opportunity when at work there.
I also _intended robbing my brother Daniel’s chest_ in Blooming-grove,
cannot say whether I did or did not. The last winter I worked at York, _I
intended robbing_ Dr. Ness, went up stairs, rummaged his bureau, &c. but
found no money.

I also _went to rob my cousin, Daniel Seib_, in York; he told me he had
$400 in his chest; I went to the chest, opened and searched for the
money, but found none, and was much disappointed.

I also _intended robbing_ James Dinkle’s chest, but could not get it
open. James Dinkle is a mulatto, and then lived with Daniel Louck,
at Diehl’s mill, near York. About a month before I left my master,
Mr. Spangler, I _stole_ from him a hammer and a two foot rule, which
I brought to the Block-house with me. I also _robbed_ my shop-mate,
John Smith, of about fifty cents, which he left in the garden house and
forgot. Soon as he came out I went in, found it, put it in my pocket.
He missed it, soon went back, and it was gone. Soon as he returned he
charged me with it; _I lied him out of it_; he then gave me clear, and
blamed a black boy belonging to Mr. Kelly.

The first harvest, whilst reaping for Jacob Kindig, on Mr. Longenecker’s
farm, in the evening _I stole_ a sickle out of the field, whom it
belonged to I do not know. I also _stole_ a board from Daniel Wiser, in
York, to make myself a chest.

I also _stole_ from William Stine’s store, mint-sticks, and attempted to
rob his money drawer, but found it locked.

Taken June 30, 1838, before Jacob Grafius, Reverends J. F. Abele and G.
Schulze, as substantially correct, and whereunto I have subscribed my
name or mark in their presence.

Witnesses present:

    JACOB GRAFIUS,
    G. SCHULZE,
    JOHN F. ABELE.

                                                                 X
                                                          WILLIAM MILLER.
                                                             his mark.




ARTICLE VI.

THE HEADS OF OUR GREAT MEN.[4]

    —— —— ——“And his pure brain,
    Which some suppose the soul’s frail dwelling-house.”

                                           _Shakspeare._


We have just alighted upon a most curious and interesting document, and
propose to base upon it a phrenological article.

The late lamented Dr. Lovell, Surgeon General of the U. S. Army, set
himself about investigating the claims of phrenology in what seems to us
the only fair and philosophical manner, viz. taking measurement of the
heads of all persons of his acquaintance, particularly those who were
distinguished for any talent.

Below is a paper drawn up by that gentleman and Dr. Brereton; a document
of incontestable genuineness, giving the measurement of more than fifty
distinguished individuals, among whom are Van Buren, Webster, Calhoun,
Clay, Marshall, M’Duffie, John Quincy Adams, &c.

We insert the document entire, sure that it will be examined with care by
all who are examining phrenology, and regarded with interest by general
readers, who can thus place head by head our great men.

 1. Occipital Spine to Lower Individ.
 2. Occipital Spine to Ear.
 3. Ear to Individuality.
 4. Ear to Firmness.
 5. Destructiveness to Destruct.
 6. Cautiousness to Cautiousness.
 7. Ideality to Ideality.
 8. Ear to Comparison.

 --------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----
                           |  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8
 --------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----
 No. 1 J. Q. Adams,        | 7,8 | 4,2 | 5,3 | 6,0 | 6,1 | 6,1 | 5,6 | 5,6
  ”  2 J. C. Calhoun,      | 8,0 | 4,2 | 5,0 | 6,0 | 6,0 | 6,0 | 5,1 | 5,4
  ”  3 Henry Clay,         | 7,9 | 4,8 | 5,0 | 5,3 | 6,0 | 6,0 | 5,8 | 5,3
  ”  4 James Barbour,      | 8,2 | 4,2 | 5,2 | 6,0 | 6,3 | 6,2 | 5,3 |
  ”  5 Samuel L. Southard, | 7,9 | 4,3 | 5,1 | 5,5 | 6,3 | 5,4 | 5,2 |
  ”  6 William Wirt,       | 8,1 | 4,6 | 5,2 | 5,9 | 6,0 | 5,4 | 6,0 | 5,5
  ”  7 John M’Lean,        | 8,1 | 5,0 | 5,1 | 6,3 | 6,2 | 6,1 | 6,1 | 5,7
  ”  8 Martin Van Buren,   | 7,8 | 4,3 | 4,7 | 5,6 | 6,4 | 6,1 | 6,0 | 5,1
  ”  9 Wm. T. Barry,       | 7,5 | 3,5 | 5,0 | 6,0 | 6,0 | 6,0 | 6,2 | 6,1
  ” 10 Judge John Marshall,| 8,0 | 4,5 | 5,0 | 5,7 | 6,2 | 6,3 | 5,6 | 5,4
  ” 11 ” Johnson,          | 7,8 | 4,8 | 5,1 | 6,0 | 6,3 | 5,8 | 6,0 | 5,2
  ” 12 ” Trimble,          | 7,9 | 4,5 | 5,1 | 5,7 | 6,4 | 6,2 | 6,1 | 5,7
  ” 13 Gov. L. Woodbury,   | 7,6 | 4,5 | 5,0 | 6,0 | 6,2 | 6,0 | 6,1 | 5,7
  ” 14 Mr. Tazewell,       | 7,7 | 4,5 | 5,0 | 5,8 | 6,1 | 6,0 | 5,7 | 5,7
  ” 15 ” M’Duffie,         | 8,2 | 4,3 | 5,1 | 6,0 | 6,0 | 6,0 | 5,8 | 5,4
  ” 16 ” Cheeves,          | 8,2 | 4,1 | 5,2 | 6,1 | 6,1 | 5,9 | 6,1 | 5,7
  ” 17 ” Webster,          | 8,2 | 4,4 | 5,0 | 6,1 | 6,3 | 6,0 | 6,4 | 5,6
  ” 18 Judge M’P. Berrien, | 8,0 | 4,7 | 4,8 | 5,8 | 6,3 | 6,1 | 5,2 | 5,1
  ” 19 Mr. Bradlee,        |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
         senator, Vt.      | 8,1 | 4,5 | 5,1 | 5,8 | 5,9 | 6,0 | 6,0 | 5,1
  ” 20 ” Whipple, ” N. H.  | 8,2 | 4,5 | 5,1 | 5,6 | 6,0 | 5,8 | 5,8 | 5,5
  ” 21 ” Hamilton, ” S. C. | 7,8 | 4,8 | 4,7 | 5,6 | 6,0 | 5,9 | 5,7 | 5,1
  ” 22 ” Stewart, ” Pa.    | 8,0 | 5,0 | 5,1 | 6,0 | 6,0 | 5,7 | 5,8 | 5,7
  ” 23 Judge Henry Baldwin,| 8,0 | 5,0 | 5,3 | 6,0 | 6,2 | 6,0 | 6,0 | 5,8
  ” 24 Gen. D. Parker,     | 7,4 | 4,0 | 5,3 | 5,8 | 6,4 | 6,1 | 6,2 | 6,0
  ” 25 Col. Roger Jones,   | 7,8 | 4,5 | 4,8 | 5,3 | 5,6 | 5,8 | 5,7 |
  ” 26 Mr. Mitchell,       | 7,9 | 4,7 | 5,0 | 6,2 | 6,2 | 6,2 | 7,1 | 5,4
  ” 27 Col. Geo. Bomford,  | 7,9 | 4,6 | 5,0 | 5,6 | 6,2 | 6,2 | 5,7 | 5,4
  ” 28 ” N. Towson,        | 7,4 | 3,9 | 4,9 | 5,5 | 5,5 | 5,2 | 5,3 |
  ” 29 ” Geo. Gibson,      | 7,5 | 4,5 | 4,8 | 5,7 | 5,9 | 5,3 | 5,4 |
  ” 30 Maj. W. Wade,       | 7,8 | 4,1 | 5,1 | 5,8 | 5,9 | 5,0 | 5,5 | 5,4
  ” 31 ” Jas. Kearney,     | 7,4 | 4,0 | 5,1 | 5,6 | 5,6 | 5,3 | 5,6 | 5,3
  ” 32 Capt. John Smith,   | 7,6 | 4,1 | 4,8 | 6,0 | 5,9 | 5,6 | 5,6 | 5,0
  ” 33 ” Maurice,          | 8,0 | 4,6 | 5,1 | 5,4 | 6,0 | 5,8 | 5,6 | 5,3
  ” 34 Rev. J. N. Campbell,| 7,4 | 4,4 | 4,8 | 5,4 | 5,6 | 5,3 | 5,6 | 3,3
  ” 35 George Todsen,      | 7,5 | 4,4 | 4,8 | 5,9 | 6,6 | 5,4 | 5,9 | 5,3
  ” 36 Dr. Richard Randall,| 7,2 | 3,4 | 5,0 | 6,0 | 6,0 | 5,4 | 5,7 | 5,9
  ” 37 ” Cutting,          | 7,9 | 4,2 | 5,4 | 5,8 | 6,0 | 5,2 | 5,6 | 5,9
  ” 38 Maj. Vandeventor,   | 7,0 | 3,8 | 4,8 | 5,7 | 5,6 | 5,5 | 5,3 | 5,3
  ” 39 Lieut. John Farley, | 7,2 | 4,0 | 4,9 | 5,7 | 5,9 | 5,1 | 5,5 | 5,3
  ” 40  ”  Graham,         | 7,5 | 4,3 | 5,0 | 5,7 | 5,9 | 5,3 | 5,3 | 5,2
  ” 41  ”  Martin Thomas,  | 7,4 | 4,7 | 4,8 | 5,3 | 6,1 | 5,6 | 5,9 | 5,3
  ” 42 Dr. E. Cutbush,     | 7,5 | 4,5 | 5,1 | 5,3 | 5,6 | 6,0 | 5,2 | 5,6
  ” 43 I. Inman,           | 8,0 | 5,0 | 5,1 | 6,0 | 6,1 | 6,0 | 5,2 | 5,2
  ” 44 James H. Henshaw,   | 7,6 | 4,4 | 4,9 | 5,7 | 6,2 | 5,8 | 5,7 | 5,4
  ” 45 Charles Hill,       | 7,6 | 4,3 | 5,3 | 5,9 | 6,2 | 6,2 | 6,5 |
  ” 46 Nathaniel Frye,     | 7,5 | 4,3 | 5,0 | 5,9 | 6,0 | 5,0 | 5,9 |
  ” 47 Lieut. Simonson,    | 7,3 | 4,3 | 5,0 | 5,2 | 5,1 | 5,4 | 6,0 |
  ” 48 Col. J. L. M’Kenney,| 7,0 | 3,0 | 4,9 | 5,5 | 6,0 | 5,7 | 5,6 | 5,4
  ” 49 Dr. J. Lovell,      |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
         Sur. Gen.         | 7,6 | 4,6 | 5,0 | 5,4 | 5,6 | 5,0 | 5,5 |
  ” 50 R. Johnson,         | 7,3 | 4,0 | 4,6 | 5,5 | 5,7 | 5,4 | 5,2 | 5,1
  ” 51 Lieut. James Macomb,| 7,7 | 4,3 | 4,8 | 5,7 | 5,9 | 5,5 | 5,2 | 5,2
  ” 52 Wm. Lee, 2d Auditor.| 8,0 | 4,0 | 5,0 | 6,1 | 6,2 | 5,8 | 5,8 | 5,9
 --------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----

For the benefit of the uninitiated, we will explain the principles of
these admeasurements, and then give the inferences to be drawn from them.

The occipital spine is the lump or knob which every person may feel on
the back of his own head, just in the centre of the skull, a little above
the nape of the neck; lower Individuality is just between the eyes,
where the root of the nose springs from the forehead; this measurement
gives the whole length of the head. The average length of men’s heads is
seven inches five-tenths; the average length of the fifty-two heads in
this table, is seven inches seven-tenths, being two-tenths of an inch
more than common heads. Now, this may seem at first a small matter, but
two-tenths of an inch added to the length of a man’s nose, would make a
very different proboscis, and added to the length of the fibre of his
brain, might make him longer headed than his neighbours in more than
one sense of the word. But, _n’importe_, we are looking at the facts;
the longest heads are those of Daniel Webster, Langdon Cheeves, James
Barbour, and Mr. M’Duffie, each measuring eight inches two-tenths; or
seven-tenths of an inch more than the average measure of men’s heads.

Next come John M’Lean and William Wirt, measuring eight inches one-tenth;
then John C. Calhoun, Judge Marshall, Attorney General Berrien, and Judge
Baldwin, each eight inches; next come Henry Clay, Samuel L. Southard,
Judge Trimble, John Quincy Adams, and Martin Van Buren. These are all
longer headed men than the average of the list; while Levi Woodbury is
smaller by one-tenth; and the last postmaster, Barry, by two-tenths. The
shortest head in the list is that of Col. M’Kenney.

The next measurement is from the cochile, or hollow of the ear, to the
occipital spine on the bump felt in the back of the head. It is asserted
by some phrenologists, that this measurement gives the development
of Inhabitiveness, or in the vernacular, the disposition to stay at
home, attachment to place; but others, schismatics, say it indicates
Concentrativeness, or power of fixing and concentrating thought. Be this
as it may, among those on our list, John M’Lean and Judge Baldwin are
the longest in this direction; next Henry Clay, Judge Johnson, &c. The
smallest, and very small, (the average being in common men four inches
two-tenths,) is Col. M’Kenney, who, (Heaven help him) is tied to home
by a fibre of only three inches. No wonder he has trotted all over the
world, and received the appointment of U. S. Indian Agent.

The next line of the table gives the measurements from the ear forward
to Individuality, on the centre of the forehead between the eyes. This
measurement, when taken in relation to the other measurements of each
individual’s head, is much relied on by phrenologists as a test of the
strength of the perceptive faculties; men who perceive and remember a
multitude of individual facts and things, should belong here.

The longest in the list are J. Q. Adams, Judge Baldwin, and Gen. D.
Parker. The average length of men’s heads in this direction, is less than
five inches; the above measure five inches three-tenths; James Barbour,
William Wirt, and Langdon Cheeves, each measure five inches two-tenths;
Judge M’Lean and Mr. M’Duffie measure five inches one-tenth. Webster,
Clay, and Calhoun, are a little longer than the average; Van Buren falls
considerably short of the mark.

Col. M’Kenney should be well endowed in the perceptive faculties,
for although his fibre measures but four inches nine-tenths, we must
recollect that his head is small. The shortest in the list is R. Johnson.
Now, among all men we ever met, no one can match John Q. Adams for minute
and varied knowledge, save and except Lord Brougham.

The next measurement is from the ear to the top of the head, where, it
is said, is the organ of Firmness; and the height of the head should
indicate the strength of this quality. And here we used to think we
had the phrenologists on the hip, judging from some of our own eye
measurements; but we were told it must be taken in relation with other
qualities; a man may be firm in vice’s cause as well as virtue’s,
but then he is called stubborn; or his firmness may be qualified by
caution or cowardice—he may be a confirmed coward, &c. But no matter,
we proceed to the measurements. The average of Firmness of these men,
measured by Gunter’s scale, is five inches seven-tenths. We find Judge
M’Lean overtops them all, and has a mountain of Firmness, measuring six
inches three-tenths; next comes Mr. Mitchell, of South Carolina, then
Messrs. Webster and Cheeves—six inches one-tenth; then lower, but yet
high, John Quincy Adams, Calhoun, Barbour, Johnson, M’Duffie, Baldwin,
Barry. Van Buren’s Firmness would never be in his way, being a tenth
lower than the average; Mr. Clay’s is three-tenths; and one person,
Lt. Simonson, is only five inches and two-tenths! The small Firmness,
alias, small obstinacy, of Clay, perhaps qualifies him so well for
mediator—pacificator.

Now let us apply the rule and compass the other way, and look at the
measurements through the head; that is, from ear to ear, or rather along
the ear from Destructiveness to Destructiveness, which indicates, also,
the size of Secretiveness; it is said to be necessary to statesmen,
players, and thieves.

Men generally measure five inches six-tenths in this direction; but
the average measure of this list gives seven inches seven-tenths; from
whence phrenologists would infer, that our worthies destroy and secrete
only in the ratio of one-tenth more than the rest of the people; a very
charitable conclusion, truly! The longest is Dr. Todsen, of the United
States Army; who, _horribile dictu_! measures six inches and six-tenths!
No wonder he was afterwards cashiered for theft; how could he help it,
with such a bump! Next to this unfortunate worthy—and, as if to mark the
contrast, and note the folly of phrenological predictions, comes—who?
why, our present magnanimous and open-hearted president, who was then
(nine years ago) the innocent and unsophisticated Martin Van Buren!

We feel almost indignant at the insinuation implied in this measurement;
not that we doubt its correctness, or the motives of Doctors Lovell and
Brereton, but they should have put in as a salvo the measurement of
our president’s Conscientiousness, which, we think, must be enormous,
in order to counterbalance this Secretiveness; for we are confident
that nine years ago he had no fixed plans and determinations which he
_secreted_ from the world.

To be sure Judge Trimble is placed in the same category, and following
close after, comes Daniel Webster, whose Destructiveness, measuring a
tenth less than the president’s, is, nevertheless, enormously developed,
and probably is

    —— “the direful spring
    Of woes unnumbered,”

to the feathered and finny tribes which are so unfortunate as to frequent
his neighbourhood. He is rather apt also to attack and destroy the
arguments of his opponents. Barbour and Southard also are set down as
destructives to the extent of six inches and three-tenths; while M’Lean,
Marshall, Woodbury, and Baldwin, go the length of six inches two-tenths;
John Quincy Adams and Tazewell, six and one-tenth; even Clay cannot be
called a conservative, for he, with Calhoun, M’Duffie, and others, go the
length of three-tenths of an inch more than the average of men in the
destructive line.

The next measurement is from Cautiousness to Cautiousness; that is, the
breadth of the head about four fingers above the ears at the broadest
part. Some heads run up in a regular slope from above the ears to the
crown; of course there can be little of the organ of caution there, and
phrenologists maintain that this is the characteristic of French skulls;
while other heads bulge out above the ear, having what they call large
Cautiousness, and they point to the well-known bulge in Hindoo skulls.

Cautiousness, however, we believe, is not now considered by phrenologists
to be merely a negative quality, as was taught by Gall, but a positive
one, and more like fear. When this organ is deficient, the individual
should be rash and precipitate; when full, cautious and circumspect;
when very large, irresolute and wavering. Too much in a judge would be
a failing, “which leans to virtue’s side;” too much in a soldier would
oftener prove his disgrace than his honour; for one Fabius, who gained
the name of Great, we have a thousand Marcelli; the glitter of the sword
dazzles the multitude, but the virtue of the shield is known only to a
few.

The first thing which strikes one on examining this part of the table, is
the great difference between the measurements of caution in military men,
and in the statesmen and judges; the latter are all large—some of them
very large—the former are small; the average measurement of the judges
and statesmen is six inches, while that of the officers is but five
inches and three-tenths!

For instance, Judge Marshall has the enormous measurement of six inches
and three-tenths in the organ of Cautiousness—that of the average being
only five inches seven-tenths; Judge Trimble and Mr. Barbour measure 6-2;
Messrs. Van Buren and Adams, Judges M’Lean and Berrien, 6-1; Messrs.
Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Tazewell, &c. six inches. On the other hand,
Major Wade measures only five inches; Lieut. Farley 5-1; Col. Towson 5-2;
Col. Gibson, Major Kearney, and Lieut. Graham, 5-3. Most of the rest are
below the average; and only two, General Parker and Col. Bomford, measure
over six inches.

The last measurement we shall notice, is from Ideality to Ideality, that
is, through the head, just above and behind the temple. Phrenologists
suppose that this organ is essential to the poet, though it alone will
not make a poet; he must have, besides, Language, Time, Tune, &c.
Ideality in the common man may show itself in his good taste, in dress,
furniture, &c.; in the orator or writer, in his tropes and figures;
in all men, by the conception of, and aspiration to, something finer,
better, superior to what it actually is.

In our list, it is largest, and enormously large, in Charles Hill, who
was, we believe, an elegant dresser, quite a Corinthian; he measures
six inches five-tenths, the average being five inches seven-tenths;
Webster is 6-4 [Qy. 6-2?]; next Messrs. Barry, Parker, Woodbury, Cheeves,
Van Buren, Wirt, &c., all of whom have it large. On the other hand,
Judges Berrien and Marshall, Adams, Barbour, Southard, fall below the
average; and Calhoun measures only five inches one-tenth. The remarkable
diminutiveness of this organ, taken with the terseness of his language,
which never shows a trope or figure of any kind, is a “coincidence” at
least.

The measurements of this paper correct some erroneous impressions which
the public generally have. We always supposed, for instance, that
the heads of Judge Marshall and Mr. Calhoun were unfavourable to the
phrenological doctrine, as being quite small; but it seems they are
actually large; and, though narrow, the region of Ideality capable of
containing a more than usual quantity of brain.

The largest head in the list is that of Daniel Webster, but it is not
most to our liking, for there is a goodly share in the animal region;
and though he has “most brains of the bunch,” they are not of the very
choicest kind.

Phrenologists, looking over these measurements, and without regarding the
names, would say that the best head was No. 7, belonging to Judge M’Lean,
because it is full in the upper or moral region; Firmness, and its
neighbouring Veneration, are large; they would call it a well-balanced
head, and conclude that its great intellectual power would not be made a
pander to the animal propensities. (We ourselves should prefer it; but,
lest we should be suspected of a political bias in favour of the latter,
we avow that our vote is for Daniel, _malgré_, his occiput.) The next
heads, in the order of size, are Judges Baldwin, Marshall, Trimble, and
Johnson; Messrs. Cheeves, M’Duffie, Wirt, Adams, (a quartetto of the same
size); next, Clay, Van Buren, Calhoun, and Southard.

We have stated that we are candid enquirers into the nature of
phrenology; we believe we are so; and if the facts shown in this paper
are favourable to its pretensions, the fault is not ours, but nature’s;
we admire and we adopt the motto of one of its lights, “_res non verba
quæso_.”

It would have been as easy for us to seek for, and to set forth, opposing
arguments and facts; and we should have done it in the spirit of the
motto just quoted; but as the vast majority of men of learning, and
almost all writers, are opposed to phrenology—as it is assailed every day
by argument and ridicule—as its opponents are rather uproarious whenever
it is seriously mentioned—we deem it but fair _audire alteram partem_.

In plain truth, we are all, to a certain extent, phrenologists; and the
disciples of Gall and Spurzheim have no right to claim for their masters
the credit of originality, or for themselves the credit of peculiar
and new views of nature. No age, since Aristotle, has been without its
philosophers, who pointed out the brain as the organ by which the mind
carried on its operations; and it is now generally admitted to be its
primary and essential instrument.

A shrewd and practical English philosopher, and an uncompromising
anti-phrenologist, writes thus: “Mind, connected with body, can only
acquire knowledge slowly through the bodily organs of sense, and more
or less perfectly according as these organs and the central brain are
perfect. A human being, born blind and deaf, and therefore remaining
dumb, as in the noted case of the boy Mitchell, grows up closely to
resemble an automaton; and an originally misshapen or deficient brain
causes idiocy for life. Childhood, maturity, dotage, which have such
differences of bodily powers, have corresponding differences of mental
faculties; and as no two bodies, so no two minds, in their external
manifestations, are quite alike. Fever, or a blow on the head, will
change the most gifted individual into a maniac, cause the lips of
virgin innocence to utter the most revolting obscenity, and those of
pure religion to speak horrible blasphemy; and most cases of madness and
eccentricity can now be traced to a peculiar state of the brain.”

What the nature and the powers of the human soul may be, we know not,
nor can we know, until it is disembodied and disenthralled; until this
mortal shall put on immortality, and time and space shall be no more;
then, doubtless, the power of ubiquity, and a searching vision to which
the diameter of the globe will present no more of an obstacle than does
the thinnest glass to the mortal eye, will be among the least of the
spiritual powers; but, until then, if we would study the nature of the
spirit, we must consider it as trammeled by, and operating through, a
corporeal organisation.

The difference between the vast majority of thinking men and
ultra-phrenologists, we believe to be narrowed down to this; all
admit that the spirit of man, manifesting itself through corporeal
organisation, is influenced and modified by, and indeed entirely
dependent upon, the nature and state of that organisation, particularly
of the brain and nervous system; while phrenologists go farther, and say,
that according to the length and breadth of certain bundles of fibres in
certain compartments of the brain does the spirit manifest its different
faculties with different degrees of activity and power.

We all of us admit, that even the giant mind of a Newton, or a Napoleon,
would struggle in vain against the finger of an infant pressing upon the
brain; but phrenologists maintain, that as the finger should be pressed
upon one or another organ, so would one or another of the mental powers
be immediately affected. Perhaps the truth is beyond the extremes; and
while we should strive to attain the _juste milieu_, we should not be
deterred by any fears of what may be the inferences from searching for
truth in observations upon nature.

                                                                 S. G. H.

    [4] This article is copied from the “American Monthly Magazine”
    of April, 1838. It is a valuable document, on account of the
    _facts_ it contains respecting the size of the heads of many
    of our distinguished men. These facts accord most strikingly
    with a fundamental law in phrenology, viz. that “size, other
    things being equal, is a measure of power.” We would, however,
    state that the conditions involved in the phrase—“other things
    being equal”—are of the greatest importance, and should
    always be taken into the account, in judging of character
    on phrenological principles. The above article is spiced
    in several places with considerable humour and pleasantry,
    exhibiting a very fair, if not a large, organ of “Mirthfulness”
    in the writer. We would simply remark, that the article was
    prepared for the magazine by a gentleman very favourably known
    to the public, particularly for his labours in behalf of
    science and _humanity_.—ED.




MISCELLANY.


_Mr. Combe’s Second Course of Lectures._—In our last number, we gave
a particular account of the reception of Mr. Combe’s first course of
lectures in this city. The second course (then in a state of progress)
was completed on the evening of April 6th, at the Musical Fund Hall. A
very large audience was in attendance. After the close of the lecture,
and Mr. Combe had retired, on motion, Dr. Wylie, professor of ancient
languages in the University of Pennsylvania, was called to the chair, and
Dr. M’Clellan, professor of surgery in the Jefferson Medical College of
this city, was appointed secretary.

The chairman addressed the audience in a few brief remarks upon the
propriety of making some expression of the satisfaction which the very
numerous class had derived from Mr. Combe’s lectures. On motion, the
following resolutions, offered by Thomas Fisher, Esq., were unanimously
adopted:—

    “_Resolved_, That this class have listened with great interest
    to the able and highly instructive exposition of phrenology
    which Mr. Combe has offered us.

    “_Resolved_, That whatever may have been our previous
    acquaintance with the subject, the lectures of Mr. Combe have
    impressed us with much respect for its practical importance,
    and with the kindliest feeling for the learned lecturer.

    “_Resolved_, That phrenology is recognised and commended as
    a science founded in nature, by a large portion of the most
    distinguished anatomists on both sides of the Atlantic, and
    that we believe it to be the only adequate illustration of the
    existing, wonderfully various manifestations of the human mind.

    “_Resolved_, That it will afford us pleasure, and that we
    believe it will be highly acceptable to this community, that
    Mr. Combe should make it consistent with his arrangements in
    other cities, to give, during next winter, another course in
    Philadelphia.

    “_Resolved_, That a committee of seven gentlemen be appointed
    to communicate to Mr. Combe a copy of these resolutions.

    “The following gentlemen were accordingly appointed:—

    “Samuel B. Wylie, D. D., Samuel George Morton, M. D., George
    M’Clellan, M. D., Charles S. Coxe, Esq., Joseph Hartshorne, M.
    D., Thomas Gilpin, Esq., Thomas Fisher, Esq.”

Thus have closed two most interesting and valuable courses of lectures on
phrenology in this city. Their reception has been of the most gratifying
character. Some may be disposed to think that their influence will be of
transitory effect, and that the interest will soon subside. But if such
should be the fact, it would be an anomaly in the history of the science.
Its principles have thus far proved too true, and too important, to share
such a fate. And they have fallen, we believe, into too many and too
able hands in this city to be so soon forgotten or easily neglected. The
interest in the subject has resulted, not from idle curiosity, nor the
mere excitement of feeling, but from the sober and deliberate exercise
of the intellect. And wherever the truth of such principles is firmly
lodged, there it will live, and its effects will be felt and seen.

We cannot but express a strong desire that Mr. Combe will favour the
citizens of Philadelphia with another course of lectures during the
ensuing winter.


_Lectures of Rev. J. A. Warne._—This gentleman has just closed in this
city, a course of six lectures upon the “Aspects of Phrenology on
Revelation.” This department of the science appropriately belongs to
the clergy. It is peculiarly _their_ duty to investigate the moral and
religious bearings of every science, but more especially of one that
professes to unfold _the laws of mind_. And it would seem, that if any
class of persons ought to be thoroughly acquainted with such a subject,
it is the clergy. For their various duties lead them to deal almost
constantly with _mind_, and, of all others, _they_ should understand its
laws.

We are therefore gratified in seeing one of this profession engaged in
discussing the merits of phrenology, and showing that its principles are
not only not inconsistent, but in striking harmony with the truths of
Christianity. Mr. Warne is favourably known to the public as the author
of a chapter on the harmony between phrenology and revelation, appended
to a Boston edition of “Combe’s Constitution of Man.” These lectures
have been attended by an audience, very respectable both as to numbers
and character. The subjects of the different lectures were handled in an
able manner. That our readers may better understand their nature, we give
below the leading topics discussed.

It was the object of the lecturer to show, that phrenology does not
teach materialism, nor fatalism, nor infidelity, either atheistical or
deistical; but that, on the contrary, it furnishes arguments refutatory
of each of these errors, and even affords advantages in assailing
them, not elsewhere found; that this science does not deny or destroy
human accountability, or teach the _irresistibility_ of motives, but
_demonstrates_ man to be a free agent, by proving him to possess all the
conditions of liberty—viz. _will_, _plurality of motives_, and _power
over the instruments_ of voluntary action; and, consequently, he _is_
and _must_ be accountable for his conduct.

The lecturer proceeded also to show, that the Scriptures agree with
phrenology in classifying the faculties of man into moral sentiments,
intellectual faculties, and animal feelings; that they invest, as
phrenology does, the moral sentiments with the dominion; that they
recognise and address the respective faculties which phrenology has
ascertained to belong to our nature; and that the principles of this
science are in harmony with the fundamental doctrines of Christianity,
such as human depravity, indwelling sin, regeneration, &c.

This is, to some extent, new ground, and as far as our knowledge extends,
no person in Europe, or in this country, has devoted so much attention to
this part of the science as Mr. W. And we are gratified in being able to
state, that he intends to prosecute the investigation of this subject, as
his other duties may permit, for some years.


_Dr. Elder’s Address._—We lately received a copy of an address, delivered
before the Penn Institute of Pittsburgh, Pa., February 28th, 1839, by
William Elder. It is truly encouraging to find so many friends and
advocates of our new science. It is now becoming the theme of many public
addresses and lectures, as well as leading articles in our regular
periodicals. There are also some who make a free use of its principles,
and very advantageously too, without employing its technical language,
or even giving due credit to the science. It is a fact, that whenever
and wherever truth on any subject is presented, in harmony with the
principles of phrenology, it will appear clearer, more consistent and
convincing to every mind, and consequently will be more powerful in its
effects. It is as certain as any mathematical demonstration can be,
that if phrenology is a _true interpretation_ of human nature, that all
truth connected with mind, and presented in harmony with the laws of its
correct interpretation, must touch a cord that will vibrate in every
person, though perhaps feebler in some than in others. We have known
many individuals very much pleased, and even captivated by a certain
production or performance, and to affirm repeatedly that the subject was
never discussed before so clearly and satisfactory to their minds; but
when they were afterwards informed that it was treated upon _strictly
phrenological principles_, they are much surprised, and sometimes seem
_mortified_. How true, in spite of prejudice and opposition, is the Latin
proverb—“_Magna est Veritas et prævalebit_.”

But to return to Dr. Elder’s address. We have perused it with much
interest. It appears that this address was delivered before an
association of young men, formed for mutual improvement. The principal
object of the author was to unfold the great laws of mind, a knowledge
of which is so important to mental and moral improvement. A subject
more appropriate to the occasion could not well have been selected; and
how far the author succeeded in accomplishing his object, we shall take
pleasure in giving our readers an opportunity to judge for themselves, by
presenting several extracts in the next number of the Journal.


The article promised in our last, on the “Elementary Principles of
Phrenology,” is necessarily deferred till the next number.