“ and earnest to defend the philosophy of Gall, while you remained “ sceptical on the subject, and full of mirth at our expense, are now “ smiling in our turn at the seriousness and pertinacity with which

you endeavour to uphold the falling structure: Precisely as we “ did with regard to the system of medicine of the Scottish profess“or, which we were maintaining to be excellent with all our might, “ while you, who had been the first to adopt, were laughing at our « bonhommie, and what you were pleased to call German stupidity, “ for yielding credence to it, though not till after a period of in

credulity. But if you wish to hear more on the subject of the « skull-doctrine, see Rudolphi about it. Unfortunately the pro“ fessor of anatomy was absent from Berlin,--a circumstance which “ I regretted much on this as well as on many other accounts. I “ had, however, been informed beforehand, that Rudolphi was one “ of the most powerful opponents to the doctrine of Gall, and that “his testimony goes a great way in settling that much-debated

question.”_Vol. I. p. 320, 321.

We notice this statement merely to remind our readers, that in the first volume of the Phrenological Journal, p. 592, article XII. the subject of “ Professor Rudolphi and Phrenology” is fully discussed. Extracts are given from Rudolphi's work, “ Grŭndriss der Physiologie," printed in 1821 and 1823, which show that he was as profoundly ignorant of the subject as Dr Barclay and Mr Jeffrey ; and, in point of fact, after our exposition of the futility of his objections, he was entirely given up as an authority by the antiphrenologists of Britain. It amuses us to see exploded and threadbare nonsense brought forward through pure ignorance in a book of travels, and gravely taken up by the newspaper press as matter of high authority. Dr Granville and the newspaper editors appear to be equally unacquainted with Pbrenology and the value of Rudolphi's objections to it, and ascribe importance to the latter exclusively on the principle, that “omne ignotum pro magnifico habetur."

It is not true that Phrenology was once embraced and then abandoned in Germany. It was never understood there; and the reasons for this, as well as the fact itself, are well known. Dr Gall, in common with all other great discoverers, experienced that a prophet hath no honour in his own country. His lectures were interdicted in Vienna, and he removed to Paris. In consequence, neither he nor Dr

а

Spurzheim have at any time published one word on Phrenology in the German language ; they have not resided nor lectured in Germany since 1807; and even when Dr Gall did lecture in that country in 1805 and 1806, he delivered only a few discourses in a city, and then left it, without staying sufficiently long to make a deep impression. The doctrines were then less perfect than now; the evidence had not undergone so severe and extensive a scrutiny ; and the war raged in all its violence, and distracted men's minds from science. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that in these circumstances the few passing lectures delivered by Dr Gall, unsupported by books, and never repeated, were soon forgotten; but this is very different from Hufeland's assertion, repeated by Dr Granville, that Germany first embraced and then rejected the science. The Germans have a day of shame awaiting them. After England shall have taught them the value of Phrenology, which they now boast to have despised, they will visit the memories of such men as Hufeland and Rudolphi with that virtuous indignation which they would at this moment pour out upon their persons, if they knew how shamefully they have been deceived by them, and how contemptibly and unjustly they have been prompted to act towards one of the greatest discoverers who ever graced the annals of their country.

ARTICLE XI.

CASE OF

MACDONALD, THE ASSOCIATE OF MARY

MACKINNON.

(To the Editor of the Phrenological Journal.)

EDINBURGH, November 3, 1828. SIR, -HAVING heard in the course of this afternoon that a very celebrated person, Mrs Macdonald, the associate of the notorious Mary Mackinnon, (whose case is detailed in the Transactions of the Phrenological Society,) and the supposed incendiary of Edinburgh, died yesterday in one of the clinical wards of the Hospital, I went in company with Dr John Scott on purpose to examine her head. We found, as we expected, the anterior region of the head very small, while the posterior and middle regions were large. The basilar region was also much broader then the coronal surface. The head, upon the whole, was rather large ; but the forehead and upper part were low and narrow, and an immense mass of brain behind the ear. Altogether the appearance of the head, which had been shaved before death, was as nearly as possible like that of the cast taken from the head of Mary Mackinnon; and if I had not known otherwise, I could have supposed the latter to be a cast from this head. The measurements and development taken down on the spot are as follows:

She was

The above development corresponds entirely with what is known of the character of the individual. She was, I believe, for years a keeper of or servant in a brothel. the person who locked the door of Mrs Mackinnon's house on Howit and his friends, and detained them with the view of extorting more money from them. The evidence on the trial will show the part she took upon that occasion ; and although legal evidence could not be found to convict her of having set fire to her house in the Parliament Square in 1824, the circumstances of suspicion were so strong as to make it more than probable that she did so. Any farther remarks on such a character seem unnecessary. I am, &c. :

W. S.

ARTICLE XII.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF "THE HERCULANEUM” OF MR

EDWIN ATHERSTONE, AND CORRESPONDING DEVELOPMENT, FROM A CAST IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PHRENOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

(Read to the Phrenological Society by Mr Simpson; the

Cast of the Head on the Table.)

When Mr Wheatston, the late secretary of the London Phrenological Society, was in Edinburgh, in October, 1827; he presented, in name of that Society, to the Phrenological Society, a liberal and valuable donation of casts. When they were unpacked, Mr W. placed two remarkable heads on the table, and requested two of the members present to try their skill off-hand on the predominant intellectual powers which each cast indicated.

One was a boy's, or rather a child's head of large dimensions, with the organs of Individuality, Imitation, Secretive

VOL. V. -No XIX.

2 F

ness, Ideality, Wit, and Language, so large as to leave no doubt of the manifestation of precocious histrionic powers. Upon this being predicated, the cast was declared to be of the head of little Burke, the comedian and violin-player, doticed in the 2d volume of the Phrenological Journal, page 597, and since introduced to the public of Edinburgh. There was a large development of the constructive and mechanical organs; but Tune was not so prominent as to lead the Phrenologists alluded to to observe that these powers would take the direction of performance on a musical instrument, It is, however, true that Burke's mechanical powers have taken that direction; but it is also true, that his incorrectness in melody is actually complained of by those who play along with him ; but that his manipulation of the violin is allowed to be, for his age, quite wonderful.

The other cast was that of a full-grown man, with a large brow, and well-marked Ideality. It was concluded, that he must be devoted to intellectual pursuits, and likely to be eminent both in philosophy and elegant literature, if circumstances had led him to their cultivation. Mr Wheatston said, that he was a generally accomplished man, but had one pursuit to a passion. This, from the Ideality, it was guessed, must be poetry. Mr W. then declared, that the original was Mr Edwin Atherstone, a native of the south of England, a poet of no ordinary genius, and the author, among other poetical works, of a splendid description of The Last Days of Herculaneum ; a copy of which poem, for a more minute comparison of its details with the rest of the organization, was, along with the cast, obligingly left by Mr W.

A humble attempt at this comparison is the object of the paper now submitted to the Society; and it may, perhaps, tend to increase the interest to declare, that, although one of the two inspectors above alluded to, the writer has not seen the cast since the first glance of it,--and it was a mere glance,—which he has described ; on which occasion he gave his attention for a few moments to the Intellect and the