« PreviousContinue »
HOWEVER thoroughly and minutely the doctrines of GALL and SPURZHEIM may have been taught, the subject of phrenology is by no means exhausted. There is more in this system than many of our opponents believe, and far more than they will acknowledge. I propose to consider, in the ensuing pages, some of the principal objections that have always existed, in my own mind, to the popular method of teaching phrenology, as it has generally been taught in this country; and also to reply, in brief, to some of the chief popular objections which are brought against it. When the doctrines of phrenology were first promulgated; when it was taught that the size of the head, and its peculiar shape, indicated the character of the mind; the curiosity of people was excited to the utmost pitch. And, as many fancied that they possessed some faculties, either great or excellent, nothing would allay their curiosity but an examination of the cranium; and not often would they be satisfied, unless the character given by the phrenologist harmonized with their preconceived notions. People would have their heads examined, and phrenologists, whether capable or not, were compelled to give definite answers in regard to certain points of character. When their replies and decisions have been flattering, whether true or false, they have been agreeable to an individual, while they may have excited the envy of a looker-on; and thus, while one convert has been gained, there have been made a dozen enemies. Or, if the phrenologist has not given to an individual such a character as he or his friends thought him to deserve, they have all joined in full cry, in hunting down what they believed to be falsely called a science, and all those who dared to stand forth as its advocates. Thus it has been, and is yet; honest men are forced to test their doctrine by its application to the head; pretenders see this, and seize upon the opportunity to turn it to their own account; and both the learned and unlearned, the honest and dishonest, are denounced by those who forced them to test their science by this hazardous and unfair, and therefore inconclusive, experiment.
Our professed enemies, and other disbelievers, who are willing to be convinced, but want some touch-stone to prove the truth of phrenology, have not been satisfied with simple examination of heads, and allowing the phrenologist the use of his eyes, but they have insisted