learning which he makes in his " Two Lectures," I venture to assert, that, in a single hour, I can make any sophomore in the country, as learned on the subject of authorities in phrenology as he is. In the compass of five or six pages I can show him the whole of them.

I have said that Dr. Sewall begins, with Aristotle, his descant on the multiplex character of the brain. And on one of his assertions respecting that writer, I have a few remarks to offer; because I believe the assertion unfounded. His words are as follows: "But while he (Aristotle) regarded the brain as multiplex, he considered a small head as the standard of perfection, and contends that it is indicative of superior intellect."

In the truth of the underscored clause of the sentence I have no confidence. In plainer terms, I deem it unfounded. I do not believe that Aristotle ever pronounced a "small head" either "the standard of perfection," or a mark of "superior intellect." And I will state the ground of my disbelief. First however, I must do Dr. Sewall the justice to observe, that the error, if it be one, did not originate with him. In truth he is not guilty of originating any thing. He is essentially, in all things of mind, a borrower or a taker. And this is as true of his assertion respecting the great Greek philosopher, as of his other assertions. I venture to say that he has never looked into the original writings of that author. Nor, I further say, could he have read them if he had. He is therefore ignorant of them. And as to translations and interpolations, they are insufficient authority or rather no authority at all. But to my

purpose.

I do not believe that Aristotle has pronounced a small

head an evidence of "superior intellect;" because I have been unable to find the assertion in his original works I mean his works in his native tongue. And though I have not read, in Greek, one third of his writings; I have looked carefully through his philosophical writings for the sentiment in question; but looked in vain. I could no where meet with it. If it be, notwithstanding, there, Professor Sewall will confer a favour on me, by informing me of the place.

I have still another reason for disbelieving that Aristotle considered a small head a mark of superior intellect in its possessor. Such was not the prevalent opinion in ancient Greece-but the reverse. Painters and sculptors were there, as well as in every other place, strict observers and imitators of nature. On no other plea could the products of their labours have been creditable to them, or valuable in themselves. But it is well known, that to the figures and likenesses of their philosophers, sages, and other men of highly gifted minds, they never failed to give large heads. On the other hand, to their gladiators, wrestlers, foot-racers, and other persons of mere corporeal distinction, they gave much smaller heads. Hence the heads of Zeno, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle himself, as represented by the artists of their time, were large. The head of Pericles is handed down to us as large to deformity. The heads of Hercules, and other mere heroes and warriors, were comparitively small. In a special manner the frontal region was contracted.

In representing their deities, on canvass and in marble, the artists observed the same rule. Hence the head of Minerva, the goddess of wisdom, is much

larger than that of Venus, the goddess of beauty, or of Diana, the huntress, whose occupation consisted chiefly in muscular action. And the head of Jupiter, the wisest and greatest of the heavenly throng, is immensely large. The frontal region in particular, where the organs of intellect lie, is enormous. In size, it is a counterpart to the muscles which he employs in hurling his thunderbolts. The head of Apollo, the god of science, poetry and taste, is also sufficiently large; while the heads of Mercury and Bacchus, who held inferior and far less creditable godships, were much smaller. For the preceding reasons, I say, I do not believe that ever Aristotle declared a small head to be the badge of mental superiority. The notion is wholly unworthy of him; because it is untrue. Were I even to find it in his writings, I should be compelled to regard it as a misprint or an interpolation. I can, in no shape, attach to Aristotle, an opinion which would now bring disgrace on a schoolboy. If he has intentionally expressed it in his writings, it must have been in the form of irony, jest, or ridicule. In earnest it could not have been.

As respects the Baron Swedenborg, I know not whether Dr. Sewall is serious, in asserting a likeness between the visions of that amiable but wild monomaniac, and the doctrines of Gall and Spurzheim. If he is, I pity him. His power of comparison, and his perception of similarity and dissimilarity must be extinct. He is so far therefore a monomaniac himself. For monomania consists in some derangement-excessive, diminished, extinguished, or perverted action-in one or a few of the original faculties of the mind, the others remaining unaffected. And nothing short of paralytic feebleness,

deep perversion, or entire extinction, of the powers of comparison, and of the perception of likeness and unlikeness, can induce Dr. Sewall or any body else, to identify the fancies of Swedenborg with the tenets of Phrenology. Swedenborg's writings, taken in matter, spirit, and manner, resemble the heated and irregular outpourings of high-toned fanatacism; while those of Gall and Spurzheim are the grave, and calm, and substantial productions of profound philosophy. Gall's great work on the anatomy and functions of the brain and nerves, and their instrumentality in the operations of the mind, is not surpassed in dignity, depth, and solidity, by any production I have ever examined. Such at least is my own opinion; and in making the comparison, I do not except either the "Novum Organum" of Bacon, the "Principia" of Newton, or the "Mechanique Celeste" of Laplace. And, of the four, it is a work of much the greater variety of matter and thought. analyze the human mind, discover and expound its original powers, and explain their functions and range of action, is, to say the least of it, as grand an achievement, and requires as capacious, discriminating, and powerful an intellect to accomplish it, as the discovery and illustration of the true mode of attaining knowledge by Bacon, or the detection of the organization of the heavens, and the movements and laws of the celestial bodies, by Newton and Laplace. However extravagant this opinion may perhaps appear to many persons now, the time is approaching, when it will be viewed in the light of a familiar truth.

To

I have said that there is neither affinity nor actual similarity between the discoveries and doctrines of Gall

and Spurzheim, and the crude notions and shapeless réveries of the Baron Swedenborg. In proof of this, the following extract from the Baron's writings is offered; and it makes perhaps something more nearly resembling an approach toward some of the sentiments of Gall and Spurzheim, than any other clause which those writings contain.

"The peculiar distinctions of man, will and understanding, have their seat in the brain, which is excited by the fleeting desires of the will, and the ideas of the intellect. Near the various spots where these irritations produce their effects, this or that part of the brain is called into a greater or less degree of activity, and forms along with itself corresponding parts of the skull.”

Such is the incoherent jumble of words, expressing nothing but indefinite unintelligible notions, between which and the doctrines of Phrenology Dr. Sewall perceives a likeness. I shall only add, that it may be and probably is near akin to the Doctor's Phrenology, the fallacies and trashiness of which will be shown hereafter. But it is as unlike the Phrenology of Gall and Spurzheim, as sophistry is unlike solid argument, and balderdash unlike sound philosophy-or, stronger still, as the writings of Professor Sewall are unlike those of a well disciplined scholar, and a candid and profound inquirer.

Equally inconsistent with justice and correct representation is it, to liken the discoveries and doctrines of Gall and Spurzheim to the visions and crude hypotheses of Gordon, Albertus Magnus, Peter de Montagnana, Servetus, Dolci, Portæ, certain Arabian physicians, and other theorists, with which they have been frequently and disparagingly compared. Taken in their matter,