and round. I am not writing a treatise on Cranioscopy, but it will be helpful if we go a little into detail here; of course upon the understanding that even supposing the reader's observation corresponds with mine upon any particular points, he is committed to nothing more than the purely empirical agreement so far. Indeed, I repeat that I here commit my own self no farther than that. Look then, I say, at a portrait in profile of Archbishop Manning and a portrait in profile of Mr. Mill. You cannot but be struck, both with the resemblance and with the difference. The elevation of the crown just over the forehead is about the same in each case; but in the centre of the crown, the height is immensely greater in the case of Dr. Manning. Dr. Gall placed his organ of Veneration under the summit of the crown, and he affirmed that those in whom the corresponding portion of the brain was highly developed were so constituted that reverence for authority and the tendency to dwell in the contemplation of superior natures were among their very highest characteristics and most deeply felt pleasures. You will notice that the expression of the eye corresponds to the differing indications of the skull. In Dr. Manning the eyelid droops, and the outlook has a veiled and withdrawn expression. In Mr. Mill it is not so, it is straightforward and inquisitive. I may mention by the way, that the common photographs of Dr. Vaughan, the Master of the Temple, furnish a very striking instance of that expression of the eyes which is said to accompany a large organ of Veneration. A strong case of the contrary expression of the eye may be seen in the case of the equally well-known photograph of Professor Huxley.

I must once more beg the reader to bear in mind-what he will soon discover over again for himself—that no passing indications of this kind are to be taken as conveying any preferential judgment upon the character of any person mentioned-much less upon his fitness for any particular function or place in the work of his age. The organ of Veneration is well marked in Mr. Gladstone, and is weak in the Earl of Derby; yet I would much rather see Lord Derby prime minister than Mr. Gladstone, supposing Lord Derby had the general qualities and the ambition which seem to be needed in a premier now-a-days. Of course, this preference implies no verdict upon the total preferability of Lord Derby's character to Mr. Gladstone's.

However, I must now beg the reader to turn his attention to any good full-face portrait of Garibaldi or Washington. My impression is that Tom Paine, also, would serve my purpose; but I am not quite sure about him, for I only once saw his likeness; and of course that was not a photograph or taken from one. If, then, you look at a portrait of Garibaldi, you will at once observe how different it is from that of a man in whom Veneration is the dominant of the character. I believe there is no full-face photograph of either Dr. Manning or Dr. Vaughan; but luckily for my purpose, there is one of Sir Roundell Palmer, who will do very well. Sir Roundell has a keen grey eye,

but, in spite of the keenness, the expression is veiled and withdrawn, -the lid falls, and even the straight-a-head glance has something of an upward quality in it. But Sir Roundell Palmer's head and face have not the peculiar "set" which may be noticed in the case of Dr. Manning and Dr. Vaughan. There is more erectness of carriage. In the two clergymen there is a bowed or bent set of the skull, in addition to the veiling of the eyes. Now return to your Garibaldi photograph, and notice, not only the shape of the head, square as that is from the part over the ears to the forehead, but notice also the set of the head. That also might be described as square. I am allowing fully for the military element in all its bearings, and, when that is done and over, I find something very remarkable in the balanced squareness of the set of the head. A similar set may be noticed in men as dissimilar otherwise as Washington, Count Moltke, Louis Blanc, Robespierre, Milton, Priestley and Voltaire.

In the last case, as in that of Sterne, there is something of the peculiar twist or duck of the humorist's head; but only very dull or very conceited persons will laugh at this motley list. Even a rising smile would, I should think, be checked by simply recalling the fact that the best judges among the warmest friends, "good Catholics" all, of the Curé d'Ars, were struck with the resemblance between his mask and that of Voltaire. Now, the Curé d'Ars was a Roman Catholic clergyman, who lived a life of tender austerity and selfmortification, and exercised his calling as a priest in a spirit of the most intense saintliness. In speaking of so self-denying and benevolent a man, it seems harsh to qualify one word of the homage he compels even from the most bigoted Protestant; but when I say that he was tenderly benevolent, my own convictions compel me to add, as much so as his creed would permit him to be. Such language cannot without qualification be justly applied to a man who could go about to make the minds of the young familiar with the most horrible images of torture in hell. It is a top-heavy sentiment of Veneration for Authority which makes such discrepancies possible; but, however large -to use strict phrenological language-the organ of Benevolence may be in a man like this, the organ of Destructiveness must also be large. When I say a thing with which I know some of my readers will disagree and how can I have opinions without often doing so?-I entreat them to believe that I am, at the same time, fully mindful of what they would say, and that, in a subauditur, I make their protests for them. I know perfectly well, for example, what an enlightened Romanist, or, indeed, many an enlightened Protestant would reply to me in a case like the present. Be at ease, sir or madam, I have heard and registered your reply.

To return. Was it a fact that the mask of Voltaire and the mask of the Curé d'Ars resembled each other? My answer is, in the first place, that there is a millionfold presumption in favour of an observer who affirms a facial resemblance as against one who denies. But

secondly, there is in this case no presumption whatever on moral grounds, against the existence of the alleged resemblance. Here, however, I cannot get on without asking the reader to refer to a marked bust (unless he is already at home in such matters and carries the details in his head). In the long face there might, of course, be any amount of resemblance. There would be the same high nervous temperament; the same thinness; the same kindly expression; the same predominance of brow over jaw, and the same cheerfulness. But, coming to the skull as far as the mask will take us, there would be the same well-marked organ of Benevolence, and, till we get near to the temporal ridges, a general development not dissimilar enough for the dissimilarity to strike an ordinary observer. At or near the temporal ridges, however, a difference would arise. That portion of the head known in the phrenological books as "the poet's corner," could not have been wholly similar in the Curé d'Ars and Voltaire. Mirthfulness would probably have been larger in the latter; Ideality larger also; and Wonder or Marvellousness much less. It is probable, however, that Hope was about equally developed in both heads. A glance will show any one that the organs of Wonder* and of Ideality are contiguous on the bust, and certain observers might very well take the large Wonder of the Curé adjoining a good but not large Ideality for the same thing as the large Ideality of Voltaire, sweeping round into the organ of Mirthfulness farther forward. Supposing all this to be so, we have the resemblance of the two masks accounted for. But, supposing the phrenologists to be right, the resemblance would cease when we got to the summit of the head. The Veneration of Voltaire need not have been as deficient as Richard Carlile's, for he was a worshipper,-it may even have been good, but it would not have been like that of the Curé d'Ars. The sentiment of reverence for authority for its own sake was evidently strange to his mind-(I leave open the question whether that is or is not in itself a pernicious and unreasonable sentiment). And yet there may well have been a point in which the morale of Voltaire was far superior to that of the Curé d'Ars. It very often happens, say the phrenologists, that one group of organs is found largely developed at the apparent expense of another. We may, and frequently do, find large Veneration, Wonder, and Benevolence,--all the elements of an intense

*

Appended to his sketch of the functions of the organ of Ideality, Spurzheim has these striking words :-"I have here to mention certain curious observations without being capable of determining their peculiar nature. We have observed that if the part of the head, above the organ of Ideality and a little backward from it, be very much developed, the persons are disposed to mysticism, to have visions, to see ghosts, demons, and phantoms, and to believe in astrology, magic, and sorcery. I cannot say whether this is a particular organ, or a greater development of the organ of Hope, or of that of Ideality, or of both together." To this it may be added, as an explanatory touch of the kind which goes a long way, that a person who had Veneration large, might be a worshipper, but that unless he also had Wonder large he would be

slow to believe in miracles.

religious life, with sadly imperfect Conscientiousness. Perhaps the reader will recall some rhymes, with a mad chorus, which I (perhaps imperfectly) remember in Punch a great many years ago. A phrenologist lecturing over a cast is supposed to be singing them :

"Ladies and gentlemen, this cast displays a combination
Of Benevolence deficient, with excessive Veneration;
Destructiveness is very large, Acquisitiveness ample;
Of a criminal development this head is an example.
Highly corroborative!

Bow, wow, wow!

This man was executed, bow, wow, wow!

He committed the atrocity a little boy of killing,

For a silken pocket-handkerchief, a pencil case and shilling ;
Was often fined for cruelty, had twice been tried for arson,
But in Newgate was remarkably attentive to the parson.
Highly corroborative!

Bow, wow, wow!

This man was executed, bow, wow, wow!"

Well, this is an extreme case; and I am not about to make any rash generalization; but it is pretty well known not only that, in business matters, the exceptionally pious people are too often exceptionally slippery, but that, in all ages, the distinctively religious mind has been apt to have but poor ideas of human rights in general On the whole (though I am fully alive to the difficulties of any such question) I think I would rather entrust my rights to Voltaire than to Keble; at all events, when you have made your way through the foam of Voltaire's irreverent cynicism, it is admitted on, I hope, all hands, that you come to a sincere love of truth and justice for their own sakes. This you would rarely come to in a nature like that of the Curé d'Ars. His rule is authority, and his terminus ad quem is edification. It is the same in all ages with that class of mind. It is the same with every clerical mind, without exception, though the degree of development differs. It was plainly visible even in Arnold -and in Coleridge-and it has been visible in some of their noblest disciples since. Of course, however, in saying it is the same with every clerical mind, I reserve that question of degree; and use the words "clerical mind" to indicate a type, and not to include every clergyman. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the necessary habit of the clerical life tends to give a bent towards edification.

Here again, I silently register certain protests which I overhear but cannot dwell upon. Nor do I forget that the tendency in question is to be found in certain methods of thought quite apart from anything that is ordinarily called Religion. It is, for instance, obtrusively and alarmingly visible in the later speculations of Auguste Comte; and it is latent in the astounding overbearingness and selfsufficiency of some of the propagandists of Comtism.

It may sound very wild to talk of entrusting one's rights to Voltaire rather than to Keble, and, indeed, this must not pass without a distinctly expressed reservation, to which we shall come in a moment. But the name of Keble (which, in its proper place, is dearer to no one than to me-which of you all will "go in " with me for an examination in the "Christian Year"?) came naturally to the surface when the preference of Edification to Justice was the topic of the moment. I shall be at least representatively true when I say that he once publicly quoted with approval the sentiment of some old lady who said that nothing but the fear of eternal punishment would keep her son's behaviour within bounds. I lay no stress now upon this, but it is the kind of thing which I should use to illustrate the preference of Edification to Truth or Justice.

Now for the reservation. I defy any intelligent man to read the most profane of Voltaire's "Dialogues Philosophiques" without feeling that the writer loved Justice, and desired the Truth for himself and for all men that he loved Justice, for that is the point, with a love which is alien to the sacerdotal type, and even, as a rule, to the saintly type of mind. Yet there is an awful reserve to be made. There are cases in which I would trust neither Voltaire nor Keble with the custody of my rights. But while on the one hand I would trust them with Keble so far as the written law went, I would not trust them with any man, on any conceivable point, at times of extreme pressure, unless he believed with his heart as well as his head in a Supreme Living Arbiter of all differences. Justice has a forked formula, Every man for himself and God for us all. Without this, "all goes to wilderness" sooner or later. A man in whom the sentiment of Reverence is almost wholly missing,* is as certain under pressure to degrade into a worshipper of expediency, as a man in whom the sentiment exists in great strength without correspondingly strong Conscientiousness. It is a serious, and very intricate subject (of course). As I write, I have present to my mind, Spinoza, Hobbes, Comte, J. H. Newman, F. W. Newman† and, more instructive than all, the social philosophy of Mr. Herbert Spencer, with and then without the "teleology" (affiliated to Theism) which he now disowns. It is out of the question to dwell upon these suggestions; speculative readers can do it for themselves.

Let us pass on to observe the difficulty which readers not accustomed to speculation may, and indeed must, feel in trying to think of Moral Determination as a force split up in this way. Here, as usual, an illustration may do much. Everybody knows "Vanity Fair," and has vividly present to his mind its startlingly true types

* The "almost "here is not an evasion on my part. It will be clear upon a little reflection, that a man totally without any one human sentiment would be an idiot. + See a tract by the latter on "Religious Freedom" for a curious illustration of the way in which two minds as widely divergent as those of these brothers may converge at last upon a single point!