we gave a particular description of the leading characteristics of the work, to which we would refer the reader. Since that notice, we have had the pleasure of receiving several names as subscribers for the work, and should be happy to receive more, as we understand the number of copies are not quite all engaged. It should be remembered, that the work is published for subscribers only, and that it will never be deposited in bookstores for sale. If any persons, therefore, wish to procure a copy, they should forward their names and address immediately to the publisher, J. Dobson, No. 108 Chestnut street, Philadelphia.

As a part of this work is strictly phrenological, and is very important in its bearings on the science, it is our intention to draw somewhat largely from its pages for the Journal. But for the present we can refer only to one topic. We observe in the Preface, that in consequence of the author's receiving some valuable specimens of crania too late for the work, as well as from a desire to institute a more extended comparison between the five different races of men, it is his design to issue a supplementary volume. In this volume, the capacity of the anterior and posterior chambers of the skull will be given, and also numerous anatomical and phrenological measurements. To make a fair comparison, a very extended series of crania will be necessary, "and the author respectfully solicits the further aid of gentlemen interested in the cause of science, in procuring the skulls of all nations, and forwarding them to his address in this city." We hope this request will be faithfully responded to. The results of an investigation here proposed, will be of the highest importance. To illustrate this remark, we will present our readers with some striking facts on the subject, contained in the Crania Americana, page 260. The author obtained from correct measurements of skulls, without selection, the following results:-The mean internal capacity of

52 skulls of the Caucasian race was found to be 87 cubic inches,

It will be observed, that here the comparison is made between the whole internal capacity of the skulls; but when we have the capacities of the anterior and posterior chambers given, the results will be far more striking and important. But even in the present case, with the above comparison, we find that the Caucasian race, which is the most civilised, and is, in every respect, superior to the others, possess, on an average, heads four cubic inches larger in capacity than either of the other races, harmonising most strikingly with the fundamental principle in phrenology, that size, other things being equal, is a measure of power.

Lectures of Rev. J. A. Warne, A. M.-The lectures of this gentleman on phrenology, in this city, consisting of twenty in number, and commenced early in October, are now in a state of progress. The general objects of these lectures are to give the history of the science, and discuss, at length, its principles in their application to morals, education, insanity, jurisprudence, &c.; entering, at the same time, into a full and minute analysis of each faculty, in its uses and abuses. We shall revert again to Mr. W.'s lectures when they have closed.

Outlines of Physiology: with an Appendix on Phrenology. By P. M. ROGET, M. D., Secretary to the Royal Society, Professor of Physiology in the Royal Institution of Great Britain, &c. &c. First American edition, revised, with numerous notes. Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard, (successors to Carey and Co.,) 1839. 8vo. pp. 516.

To notice the whole of this volume is not our intention. Our concern is with the Appendix only; and chiefly with but a part of that; the other part having been already sufficiently examined, and satisfactorily replied to, in the Edinburgh Phrenological Journal, and elsewhere.

The portion of the Appendix thus already analysed, appears to have been written and published by Dr. Roget in 1818 or '19. The portion which we purpose to analyse is of a much later date, having probably been composed by him in 1837 or '38. Be its date, however, what it may, the preparation of its author for writing it does not seem to have been either ample or mature. Our reason for saying so, being as follows, is to ourselves satisfactory. Our readers will receive it for what they may think it worth.

In April, 1838, Dr. Roget wrote to a friend of ours, then in Great Britain, but now in the United States, assuring him that "between 1819 and that month (April, 1838) he (Dr. Roget) had never read one word on the subject (phrenology), and never made one observation on it." And yet, in the course of that same year (1838), that same writer published against the science another tirade, as bitter and condemnatory as hostile feelings and disrespectful language could render it. And that article constitutes the subject immediately before us.

But before commencing our analysis of the article, let us briefly but candidly enquire, what, at the date of that publication, must have VOL. II.-10

been the amount of our author's knowledge (or rather, what was necessarily the depth of his ignorance) of the then existing condition of phrenology? By this enquiry, we shall attain no inconsiderable acquaintance with his unfitness for writing on it.

From 1819 until 1838 is a period of nineteen years, during which, at least tenfold as much had been written, said, and effected by observation, experiment, and general research, to throw light on phrenology, as had been previously done, from the commencement of the science. And of that entire mass of instructive materials, Dr. Roget, by his own acknowledgment, is utterly ignorant, Assuredly he was so in April, 1838; and his preface, announcing the publication of the article we are considering, is dated "October 20th, 1838," only six months afterwards! Let it, moreover, be farther observed and borne in mind, that in that preface he represents his occupation and disposition to be such as to allow him, in his own words, "neither the leisure nor the inclination to engage in controversies" on the subject of phrenology. In plain terms, he neither employed the means, nor possessed even a willingness, to inform himself in the science.

From his own confession, then, literally interpreted, Dr. Roget was necessarily and intentionally ignorant of the state of phrenology at the time of his second attempt to refute it. So obvious is this, and so futile, not to say contemptible, does such proceeding, under such circumstances, render his sophistry and cavils on the subject, that were it not for the name he has attained in other branches of knowledge, we should entertain toward him, as an anti-phrenologist, no other sentiment than indignation and scorn for his deceptiveness and audacity, and pity for his weakness. And this would induce us to be silent and regardless of all he could say. Perhaps even now it would better become us to pass him unnoticed, under a conviction that, in the full meaning of the expression, he "knows not what he does," and that his anti-phrenological power is but impotence.

For nineteen of the busied and most prosperous years of the friends and fast-multiplying advocates of phrenology, in Europe and America, he sealed up in relation to it every inlet to knowledge, and thus, as respected all its concerns, continued in a state of lethean apathy, or virtual hybernation. And at the end of that period, awaking, like Rip Van Winkle, from his slumber of a lifetime, and dazzled into blindness by the effulgence around him, plunges again into his antiphrenological perversities. From the absolute puerility, moreover, of his efforts to suppress it, he seems to consider phrenology as still in the same state of comparative infancy in 1838, in which he had left it in 1819; and therefore resorts again to the same worn-out and oftrepelled contradictions of it. He is wholly imperceptive of the growth

healthy condition in the meridian of life-no more than the decayed and palsied limb of an octogenarian does of the same limb, when perfectly healthful, at the age of thirty-five! And we need scarcely add, that it is the healthy adult brain to which phrenology especially alludes, when it asserts that there is a correspondence in it between magnitude and power. Though the science derives evidence and strength from that viscus, at every age, and in every condition, whether morbid or sound, it is more substantially sustained, we say, by its phenomena in health.

In a heedless and unhappy moment, Dr. Roget has made a studied effort to mislead his readers, by palming on them the notion that comparatively few physicians are believers in phrenology. Than this a more groundless and futile allegation can hardly be inculcated, or even imagined. "But few physicians are believers in phrenology!" Why there can scarcely be found, in Christendom, a thoroughly educated and enlightened physician, under the age of forty-five, who is not more or less of a phrenologist. Indeed, "thoroughly educated" without it he cannot be; for phrenology is but another name for the anatomy and physiology of the brain. And without an acquaintance with these, no man deserves the title of physician. Why? Because the brain is the leading viscus of the system, of whose anatomy and physiology next to nothing was known, until light was thrown on them by the labours and disclosures of the founders of phrenology.

True, every cultivated and extensively informed physician may not be versed in the details and uses of the science, especially in its application to the detection of character. But he understands its fundamental principles, and believes in their truth. As respects the mere trading portion of the profession-those, we mean, who deal in medicine, as they would in button-making-to gain by their daily labour their daily bread, regardless alike of science and letters-as to this class of "medicine-men," no matter what they do or do not know, or what they believe or disbelieve. Philosophy disclaims them; and the world is neither benefited nor to any extent influenced by their thoughts or their actions. This corps of "mediciners," therefore, with all their appurtenances, we freely consign to the keeping and training of Dr. Roget, his friend, Dr. Prichard, and his American editor, and such other anti-phrenological chieftains as are ambitious of enlisting such soldiery, and enrolling them in their ranks. We are willing to dispense with their service. Nor do we expect or covet the aid or companionship of the elder members of the profession of medicine, whose notions are antiquated, and whose minds have taken rust, and become, by inaction, too rigid, decrepit, or both, to keep pace with the progress of knowledge. These knights of the

blunted lance, also, whom modern science has disbanded as unfit for service, but who still case themselves in a panoply of prejudice, and trumpet their own doings in by-gone days, we cheerfully quit claim to, and cordially commend them to the invalid and motley bands of Drs. Roget, Prichard, Sewall, and their comrades in the crusade against phrenology. With us, "SIMILIA SIMILIBUS-Birds of a feather, &c."-is a favourite motto. And it will becomingly grace

the banner of Dr. Roget, his subordinates, and retainers.

But the vast and rapidly multiplying hosts of soundly educated and enlightened physicians, from the age of forty-five and downward, who, both in mind and body, are in the summer-vigour, or the spring-time of life-these untold legions, who, as soldiers of truth, contend for principle and the advancement of science, have arrayed themselves under the flag of phrenology, and are determined and invincible.

We could refer to sundry other topics, on which our author has equally violated truth and justice. But we shall no farther pursue so repulsive a task.

It was our intention to offer a few remarks on Dr. Prichard's "Researches into the Physical History of Mankind," a work from which Dr. Roget has liberally extracted. But circumstances permit us not to execute our purpose. We take the liberty, however, of observing, that those two members of the holy alliance are, in some respects, very strikingly alike. "Par nobile fratrum" would be a suitable motto on their flag of conspiracy against the doctrines of phrenology. In the arts of mystifying and prevaricating, ill-intentional but impotent satire and caricature, and insidious deception in its Proteus-like modifications, they rank with the most vindictive spirits of the day. We speak of them as anti-phrenologists. In no other respect have we any concern with them. In proof of the accusation here preferred against them, we ask the reader's deliberate attention to the two following extracts from their anti-phrenological philippics.

"It is not enough," says Dr. Roget, "as Dr. Prichard very justly observes, to have a few chosen coincidences brought forward by zealous partisans, who go about in search of facts to support their doctrine, and pass by, or really cannot perceive, the evidence that ought to be placed in the opposite scale. The principles of the system ought to be applicable in every instance. The phrenologists, however, aware of numerous and striking exceptions, elude their evidence by asserting, that when a certain portion of the cranium and of the brain is greatly developed, while the faculty there lodged has never been remarkably distinguished, it nevertheless existed naturally, though the innate talent, for want of proper cultivation, has never been displayed; the predominant organic power was never discovered by the owner, though according to the prin