As some faculties arrive at maturity at a much earlier period than others, it is extremely advantageous to know the general order of their successive development,―because, by attempting to force into activity those faculties, the organs of which are not yet fully developed, and by neglecting those which are, our labour is not only entirely lost, but positive mischief produced. Information is still wanting on this point; but inquiries are now going on, which will ultimately lead to valuable results. Dr Spurzheim thinks, from observation, that the organs of Individuality are perhaps the earliest of the intellectual order. Those of Form, Comparison, and Language, also appear early in life; and those of Size, Colour, Locality, Tune, Number, and Order, appear successively. Among the propensities and sentiments, he thinks Amativeness and Veneration are the latest. Hence, every thing connected with observation, facts, history, geography, and general information, are best adapted to the youthful, and reasoning and deep reflection to the mature mind. Almost all the sentiments come into action at a very early age, and hence they ought to be carefully cultivated from the very beginning, according to the law, already mentioned, of exercising each faculty upon its own objects. And as artificial signs or language cannot be understood, until the feelings or ideas which they represent are felt by the individual, we should be very careful to use such only as can be completely understood, as otherwise we run much danger of cultivating the single faculty of Language, when we believe we are cultivating all the powers of intellect. What signs could convey to the mind of one who had never felt them, the sensations expressed by the words Hunger, Thirst, Cold, Heat, Anger, or Benevolence?

As it is desirable, in every system of education, to leave none of the faculties inactive, so that system is to be preferred which is calculated to exercise the greatest number of them. And, in this respect, the Lancasterian, or Mutual Instruction System, undoubtedly excels, as it brings into action many of the higher sentiments, as well as intellectual

powers, which either slumbered or became absolutely vitiated under the old practice. It excites a greater degree of attention in the pupil by addressing itself directly to Individuality, Comparison, &c., at the same time as to Language. And by making the pupils teach each other, and judge of each other's conduct, it calls into direct action the faculties of Conscientiousness, Benevolence, and Veneration, and gives the most virtuous direction to those of Self-esteem and Love of Approbation, so often perverted to the production of Envy, Jealousy, and Pride, It thus encourages the timid, and morally represses the overbearing and selfish, and produces that rational feeling of superiority founded on superior conduct. The emulation which it excites is of a far more generous kind than that of the old school. In the one, the child is led to conceive himself as one of many, and an equal among equals; in the other, as concentrated in self, and in opposition to both master and scholars.

As no part of the system should be cultivated at the expense of the rest, nor the mind at the expense of the bodily health, neither should the intellect be cultivated at the ex

pense of the moral. Each should be duly exercised, and made to harmonize as much as possible with the other; and, with this view, we ought carefully to distinguish between the nature of the faculties and their particular applications. Thus one manner of satisfying an inclination may be innocent in itself, but if granted to a faculty already too active, it becomes blameable. Thus praise is in itself a very good thing; but if weremark a child who possesses thefaculty of Love of Approbation in an uncommon degree, let us beware of flattering and praising him for the beauty of his face, his voice, or his figure. By doing so we prepare future misery for him. We complain of a child who is passionate, and yet we are foolish enough to encourage him to vent his anger upon a chair or a stone!

It is from this difference in the original strength of the natural dispositions, that the same treatment produces different and even opposite effects upon different persons. Thus an

individual, with small Conscientiousness and Benevolence, and large Acquisitiveness, Self-esteem, and Combativeness, will become worse under misfortune or injustice, and will think of revenge, and of making others as miserable as himself, where another, with a different combination, would submit with serenity and resignation. But the fact, that such a difference of result does take place, only shows more forcibly the necessity of knowing the functions and laws of the primitive faculties. It may be asked if exercise increases the size of the cerebral organs? Analogy would lead us to suppose that it did, but we have no positive information on the subject. But as agility or quickness may be acquired without increase of muscle or nerve, it is also probable that the cerebral organs may be made to work with greater activity from exercise, even when they do not increase in size.

Having considered the laws of exercise, Dr Spurzheim proceeds, in the 4th chapter, to treat of the mutual influence of the faculties, in exciting each other to activity. Thus, from the influence of Philoprogenitiveness upon Combativeness, females defend their young with more energy and resolution than any thing else; and thus Acquisitiveness often calls Cautiousness and Secretiveness into action to gain its object. And thus also Love of Approbation excites the intellectual faculties, as is daily seen in schools and in society. The intellectual faculties also excite and assist each other. Thus a person, with moderate Language and large Locality, in trying to commit to memory, will often succeed by mentally dividing the page into compartments, and fixing a few lines in each. It thus becomes an object of some consequence to ascertain the mental constitution of the individual, because, as the faculties most largely possessed always tend to act along with each other, the one may be used, when necessary, as a means of exciting another. This knowledge, which is only to be found in Phenology, lies at the bottom of the doctrine of motives, for one will exert himself for praise which another despises; and a second will act from the hope of gratifying his large Acquisitiveness; and a third VOL. I.-No IV.

2 Q

from an innate sense of duty; and a fourth from excessive constitutional activity making rest painful to him. The insight into human nature which Phrenology bestows upon its disciples, thus supplies them with an engine of immense power in the education and management of youth. But, for the present, we most stop, and defer to another Number the analysis of the second part of the book, or that which relates to the direction of the faculties.

ARTICLE XI.

ON SIZE.

WE have received the following letter from a correspondent, addressed to the Editor of the Phrenological Journal:

Edinburgh, June 3, 1824.

It is a principle of Phrenology, that if the head be large in all its parts, the individual so constructed will be distinguished for general talent; whereas, if the head be small in all its parts, but equally so, there will be observed talents in every department, but by no means to the extent to which it is seen in the large head. This is what Mr Combe, I think, calls difference in respect of power. To this, though I have not yet passed the Rubicon of scepticism, I completely assent. We see many instances of individuals who, as to general formation, possess a development equal to Byron's or Scott's or Chalmers', but who, though never ridiculous, and often acute, yet take no hold of the public mind.

Now, sir, the difficulty which I have experienced, and for which I have been unable to find a solution, is the standard by which we are to estimate the general size of the head. We know that the head of Chalmers is, from Ideality to Ideality, upwards of six inches. Would you consider, say seven inches, as the limit of this faculty on the one hand; or is there any rule of figures laid down by phrenologists by which I, for the first time, taking the callipers in my hand, could pronounce this to be a head of power?-And, connected with this question, (although my query may appear very like that of a novice), when you state one part to be large and another small, is such a notice given by a comparison of one part of the head with another part, or in relation to some standard of excellence generally fixed?

If you do not consider these queries beneath your notice, I would feel much obliged if you would notice them shortly in your next number of the Phrenological Journal, or drop a note to S. R., Mr Stewart's, bookseller, Howe Street; embracing a short and satisfactory answer. Might it not be in the power of

scientific men to state the sort of beau ideal of a head at once distinguished for excellence and power?-Wishing you all success in the prosecution of a subject which, whether it be true or false in all its positions, is at least extremely interesting, and confirmed in many particulars, I am, &c. S. R.

We prefer noticing this letter in the Journal, as the same difficulties may have presented themselves to other readers.

1st, In regard to "the standard by which we are to esti"mate the general size of the head," Mr Combe, in his Elemets of Phrenology, gives the following table.

"Measurement by callipers," says he, "is useful for ascertaining general size. The following are a few measurements "from nature, taken promiscuously from many more in my possession.

Table of Measurements by Callipers.