it a part of common school education seemed to prove this, for few failed to learn something of melody, and all are pleased with it. Harmony required a combination of tune, time, and other powers, and was a rare attainment. On this ground, Mr. F. said, the music at our theatres and in our churches, where the object is, or should be, to please or move the many, and not the few, fails of its effect. Mr. F. showed masks of most of the eminent composers, and remarked that the difference of their heads accounted for the different character of their compositions ; in some mirth, in some wonder, in others veneration, &c., predominating.

The organ of Language has regard to words only, and not to their meaning. Mr. F. described the difference between natural language and artificial, the former, common to all animals, and the latter, peculiar to man. He denied that speech proceeded from the sense of hearing or the possession of the organs of voice. Some animals excel man in hearing, and one order, at least, has the same organs of speech. Mr. F. thought the organ of language necessary, for man had it, and monkies had not. Mr. F. gave a very interesting account of the proofs of the existence and proper location of this organ, drawn from injuries of the brain in this particular part, which only affected the use of language, and left the mind in other respects unharmed. The cases were very numerous and well authenticated.

The two remaining powers, Comparison and Causality, correspond to what is usually called reason. They are called also the Reflective Powers. Mr. F. very distinctly defined these powers, but we have only room to notice one illustration. A person, said Mr. F., who examines several heads, and compares the several organs with the character, if he finds several agreeing, as phrenologists say they do, will call it a remarkable coincidence only, if his causality be small; but if it be large, he will think the coincidence good ground for further inquiry, and will try to find the cause of such a remarkable coincidence. Mr. F. thought the reason why some denied the existence of a First Cause was their inability to draw conclusions, aris

ing from a small developement of causality; at least, we understood him to say this, and give it as the opinion of Dr. Spurzheim, as delivered in his lectures.

After finishing his description of the organs, Mr. F. gave some general views of them, in connection with the anatomy of the brain. He contended that phrenology

had done more to elucidate the structure of the brain than was ever done before. He said that most of its important discoveries had been adopted, silently or avowedly, by the most distinguished anatomists. He concluded his lecture by a summary of the principal reasons for believing that the brain is a complex organ, and not a single one. They were briefly these:

1. The brain has evident divisions and subdivisions, and man has some parts which other animals have not.

2. No organ of the body can perform two different functions: how then can the brain, if it be a single organ, perform three dozen or more?

3. If the brain be a single organ, how are some faculties stronger than others, of the same mind.

4. If the brain be but one organ, the moment it exists, all the faculties must exist, and all must decay together, which is not the case.

5. The faculties of body and mind require repose. Study of one kind fatigues the mind; change the subject, and the mind is relieved, which could not be the case, if the brain were a single organ, any more than a tired hand would be relieved by taking out of it one weight, and putting into it another as heavy.

6. If the mind be a single organ, it must all sleep or all wake together; but in dreams, it is evident that some faculties sleep while others are active. The theory of dreams, said Mr. F., is beautifully as well as simply explained by phrenology.

7. If the brain be a single organ, its faculties must be all sick or all well at the same time. But in many diseases of the brain, only one mental faculty is affected. Monomania, or insanity in a single faculty, is almost as common as any other form of insanity.

Mr. Fowle's sixth lecture commenced with a description, and occasionally an illustration, of the natural language of the various organs. We will not pretend to describe this part of the lecture, which is exceedingly interesting and important to those who would move or imitate others.

He then considered phrenology in its bearing upon education. The range was very wide. He first alluded to the importance of attending to hereditary descent, mental as well as bodily defects being handed down from one generation to another. A sound body was necessary to a sound mind. Physical education, therefore, was all important. Mr. F. severely reprobated many prevalent notions on this subject, thought the present a very feeble race of females, and augured worse for the next. He objected to learning by rote, as worse than useless, and made other important observations upon the prevalent modes of instruction. He thought phrenology would enable parents and instructors to set out right, and to adapt the instruction to the powers of the child. He next alluded to the influence of phrenology upon the healing art. better knowledge of the human frame, and especially of the nervous system, must be beneficial, and the influence of the new science was already apparent in the improved methods of treating the insane.

A

Mr. F. thought phrenology altogether friendly to the Christian religion, as it was taught by its Divine Founder. He alluded to the fact that the organ of veneration is peculiar to the human brain, and as every organ has its end or object, he thought it might fairly be inferred that the end of this sentiment was God. Mr. F. thought every sect had a peculiar formation; the dogmatical had too much selfesteem, &c. All men are different, and must be so, and while each makes himself the standard, men must quarrel. When they are satisfied that their Creator intended they should differ, and that their opinions, even of his word, should be modified by their peculiar powers, they will see the necessity and propriety of mutual forbearance.

Mr. F. alluded to the charge of a tendency to materialism which has been brought against phrenology, and he

satisfactorily refuted it by showing that phrenologists believe in no closer connection between mind and matter than anti-phrenologists do, and they require for the exercise of the intellectual powers a much smaller portion of the brain than is allotted to them by the anti-phrenologists, who claim the whole brain, and the heart also.

Mr. F. also met the charge of fatalism. He denied that the doctrine of various organs by which the mind acted, restricted its freedom of action, any more than did the common notion that every faculty of the mind acted by the whole brain. In the latter case, the evil propensity lay concealed until it burst into action; in the other case, that of phrenology, the power of the propensity could be accurately measured, and watched, and perhaps restrained, and prevented from doing mischief. Where then, asked Mr. F., is the danger from phrenology?

Mr. F. next took up the subject of mental and moral philosophy. He showed that philosophers had never agreed upon any system of ethics or metaphysics, and were no nearer to it now than in the days of Aristotle. He said phrenology offered a simple and beautiful system, which explained all the difficulties of the prevalent systems. He explained this position by numerous examples, but we can only say in general terms, that he considered Attention, Memory, and some other of the old fundamental powers as phenomena of the organs, and not as fundamental faculties. He explained Judgment, Taste, Imagination, &c. &c. He considered that every organ had its Affection, Desire, and Passion. Pleasure and Pain were but satisfied or unsatisfied Desires. Will was not desire, but the action of the reflective powers upon the promptings of the other organs.

He treated more largely of Memory, because of its connection with instruction. He showed its varieties, and how it used what is called Association. Every faculty has its memory, and each person has the best memory for things relating to those faculties which are predominant and most active in his mind.

Mr. F. finally described the various systems of Mnemonics, or artificial memory, showed in what principles they differed, exhibited a system of his own, which exer

cised the organs of locality, form, number, and comparison; and concluded his course by applying this system to impress upon the minds of his audience the names and numbers of the thirty-six phrenological organs he had described.

This second course, which was a repetition of the first, was very numerously attended, and the respectful attention with which the audience listened to the lectures of at least an hour and a half each, must have satisfied the lecturer that if he had not converted all his hearers, he had powerfully interested them.

After Mr. Fowle had completed his course, he delivered an essay on the character of the celebrated Whitefield compared with the developement of his skull. Some doubts having been expressed in one of the daily prints, as to the genuineness of the cast which Mr. F. used, the Secretary of the Boston Phrenological Society published the following Report, which, as a record of facts, we think sufficiently interesting to be appended to the above abstract of Mr. F.'s lectures.

FRIDAY, AUG. 2, 1833.

To Wм. B. FOWLE, ESQ.-Having been requested, by the committee of which you are a member, to procure a cast of the skull of Whitefield, I thought it would not be amiss in me to give a description of the state in which the bones and dust of this distinguished philanthropist and preacher were found. It may, perhaps, give authenticity

to the cast.

In the fulfilment of your request, it was my first object to ascertain the authenticity of the bones and other remains, said to have once been his. This I very soon did, and had every doubt removed from my mind, if any had previously existed there. Such a belief have the inhabitants of Newburyport of the identity of the bones deposited in their church with those of Whitefield, that a doubt or mistrust would seem to them a heresy.

A few years ago, the church in Federal Street, Newburyport, under the pulpit of which the Rev. George Whitefield requested to have his remains deposited, in case he should die in that town, was repaired and altered, and the