317

there seemed to be a reluctance to adopt theoperation,—a reluctance in some measureeasily accounted for, still he expected muchfrom the continued successes of lithotrity,and he exonerated Mr. Costello from allblame in his mode of treating the subject. tMr. COSTELLO made some further re-

marks, followed by a eulogy fromMr. HuNT.The end was, that two resolutions were

proposed,-one a vote of thanks to Mr.Costello, seconded by Mr. Walker, whoexpressed regret at having been led intowarmth of language (perhaps by mistake)on the occasion,-the other, suggested byDr. Epps. that a committee be formed forthe purpose of investigating and comparingthe instruments of Mr. Costello and BaronHeurteloup, provided the latter gentlemanwould accede to the request of the society,and favour them with his instrument for in-

spection. Both resolutions being unani-mously adopted, the meeting separated.A paper was announced for next Satur-

day. by Dr. Epps, " on an interesting caseof Epilepsy," and at the succeeding meetingPhrenology is to be discussed.

LONDON PHRENOLOGICALSOCIETY.

Monday, Nov. 19, 1832.

MR. THOMAS CARTER HALL, Mr. Pothi-cary, Mr. Halliwell, and Mr. Robinson,were proposed as ordinary members.Mr. Talrich presented for the exaniina-

tion of the society a beautiful model inwax, of the head and brain. It could betaken to pieces and put together again withthe utmost facility and expedition. Thefollowing paper was afterwards read by theMarquis MOSCATI, in consequence of the dis-cussion which followed respecting his pre-sumed organization at the previous meeting.ON THE ANTIQUITY OF CRANIOLOGY, ANDTHE PHRENOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS OF

THE AUTHORS HEAD.

When I addressed my first letter, I hadnot the least idea that it would be madepublic beyond the walls of this room. HadI foreseen it, I am certain I should not havementioned names. But since the Editor ofTHE LANCET has done me the honour of

printing it verbatim with his remarks, Ithank him, and candidly declare, that if Iam anything, 1 do not deserve all the

eulogies which have been kindly bestowedon me. I long ago experienced the evilsof notoriety, and, crede perito, all the noodintentions of those who know me, will be ofno use to a man who has never been lucky.However, as t’ccctuua infectum fieri nequit,

I will not think of the past, but now requestthe favour of reading the present letter tothe members of the Phrenological Society,to have it recorded in your reports, if it de-serve mention, but then it must not be

published.*Among the fragments which have reached

us, from the numerous works of Ennius, Iremember the following :—

"Non liabeo denique nauci Marsum Augurem,Non vicanos aruspices, non de circo astrologos,Non isiacos conjectores, non interpretes somnium ;Non enim sunt aut scientia, aut artt divini;Sed superstitiosi vates, inpudenterque harioli,Qui sui quætus causa fictas suscitant sententias,Qui sibi semitam non sapiunt, alteri monstraiit

viam ; ;Sed saptentibus qui mentis penetraliaRecte scrutantur, iis præbeo fidem."

This long quotation seems à propos withregard to phrenology. There are amongthe phrenologists many whom I call quacks,and thev, of course, deserve to be de.

spised; but the true phrenologists must berespected, for they are very useful to

mankind. I mention nobody, but you mayeasily guess what I mean.

j Now before I answer the just remarks ofDr. Moore, allow me to add a few obser-vations on the knowledge which the an-

cients possessed of this branch of philo-sophy. and the great beuefit they derivedfrom its application. I know that severalof them were called physiognomists and so-phists, but I am certain that they werepractical phrenologists. In fact, what givesthe expression to the countenance? Is itnot the moral, intellectual, and sentimentalfaculties ? Are not those faculties theemanation of the brain ? Therefore theancient pli3,siogiiomists were phrenologists,and they felt the cranium exactly as we do.I must, however, say, that they had notarrived at the same degree of perfectionand accuracy as are conspicuous at the pre-sent day, and that the classification of theorgans was most probably unknown to them.Socrates, however, appears to me to havehad a profound knowledge of craniology ;and I think that to relate to vou how that

great philosopher became convinced of theaccuracy of this science may prove in-teresting.At that epoch there lived in Greece a

philosopher who, like Gall, was laughedat and despised, because he asserted, thatby the examination of the head and coun-tenance of an individual, he was able todiscover his general character and his qzriiz-

cipal propensities. Ilis name was Zopyrus,

* The -,visli of the learned author would havebeen complied with, but the Society is a publicone, and the direct request of the Members, convey-ed through one of’ it. utncers, has been received,

that this paper, having been read publicly, mayappear in the pages of THE LANCET.

318

and Cicero reports the following anecdotein his Tusculan questions. One day theadversaries and mockers of Zopyrus per-suaded Socrates to present himself in dis-guise before the Greek Gall. Zopyrus ex-amined diligently the forehead, and theanimal portion of the cranium of Socrates,and then said, that he might now be good,but that be had once possessed, and had still,very bad -natural propensities. This observa-tion caused general laughter among the

spectators ; but Socrates did not laugh,and with great composure assured hisfriends, that what Zopyrus had advancedwas very true ; that he had been obliged-tomake use of continual exertion to conquerhis bad natural inclinations, and that hestill daily combated to be what he was.From that day Socrates was observed to

have often recourse to a looking-glass, andto feel his own head before it; and havingbeen asked why he did so, he answered,that he studied to mend his defects. Anothersimilar anecdote was related by Aristotleto Alexander the Great, his pupil, and Iwill give it here, perhaps it may be newto some of our auditors.

Hippocrates, while living, had the repu-tation not only of being a great physician,but a virtuous and upright man. His dis-

ciples and contemporaries almost adored him.At his epoch there was a philosopher calledPhilemon, who also professed to discoverthe character of individuals from the ex.amination of their countenances and heads.The pupils of Hippocrates demanded hisopinion with regard to their master, andPhilemon, having previously examined Hip-pocrates, said that he was naturally luxu-riosus et deceptor (inclined to luxurv and de-ceit). This opinion offended so much themedical students and admirers of Hip-pocrates, that they assaulted the poorPhilemon, and would probably have dis-sected his body, had not Hippocrates pre-vented them, by observing that Philemonhad spoken the truth ; that " se amore phi-losophix ac honestatis omnes sui cordis concu-piscientias ejecisse, et studio ac abstinentia

conquisisse quod prius ejus naturœ ntegat2a»xfuerat." ’ I could here report some otherancient anecdotes to prove my assertionstill better, but I should be too prolix.

I come now to my ownself, and while Iwrite, the cast of the unfortunate Moscatiis before me.* Gall often told me that if

I would study craniology on myself, hewas convinced I should not be long an

anti-craniologist, and I confess that he wasright, for I find that from the organs of mycast I recognise my feelings, my passions,and my intellectual and sentimental facul-

* A cast of the Marquis’s head was on the table.*-REP.

ties, and I advise those who do not believein the science to have their casts taken,and impartially and conscientiously to ex-amine themselves according to the develop-ment of their organs, and if they find thattheir feelings, passions, and propensities,do not answer to the combination and relationof the prominent organs, then they maycontinue as I did in their incredulity.I am, however, convinced that by thesemeans the most obstinate adversaries willbecome the best promoters of phrenology.

Dr. Moore wished to know whether, inthe development of the organs of my cra-nium, there was to be found any reasonableground to explain phrenologically my stub-born obstinacy against craniology. I musthere observe that the principal cause of myobstinacy was the great respect, and almostadoration, which I professed for my tutor,the celebrated Father Andrez, the authorof the Course of Universal Literature. Hehad been a Jesuit, and after the expulsionof that order from Naples, had remained inmy family, and with the most assiduouszeal had given me the best classical educa-tion. It is to him that I owe the little Iknow of the Hebrew, Chaldaic, Samaritan,Arabian, Greek, Latin, and lllyrian lan-guages. When Gall was named beforehim, he always made the sign of the cross,and told me that such a man deserved tobe excommunicated, and that his systemwas diabolical, and he often requested methe kindness of opposing his doctrine when-ever I could; so that I never improvised asong, which had any reference to the hu-man mind, in which I did not introducesome verses against Gall. Therefore, mwanimosity towards craniology had its originin the organs of 2eneoatinn and conscientious-ness, for I was convinced that Father An-drez was a very clever and a very virtuousman. But when I perused the system ofGall, my obstinacy against him had othergrounds. I had always spoken against him:my self-esteem was great, my marvel-lousuess moderate, my combativeness great,and my firmness extraordinarily large. Thecombination of these organs, strengthenedby the great veneration for my tutor, ren-dered my organs of conscientiousness and

comparison of little use to me, and I op-posed craniology without seeing the truththat was before my eyes. However, when

Gall gave me the exact character of thePolish officer, I was almost convinced byconscientiousness, .but my self-esteem and

: combativeness still were prominent, and Ibecame indifferent, not a convert. The

same has been the case with regard to

my aversion to Spurzheim, and I may saythat for the last six years I was opposed tocraniology, only for the pleasure of dis-

playing my abilities in discussion ; and as

319

I was much praised by those who heard myeverlasting sophistical cavilling, the organof approbativeness, which in my cranium israther large, may have still procrastinatedthe avowal of my conversion to phrenology.However, this is only my opinion, and Ishould be very glad if Dr. Moore, who cer-tainly must be well acquainted with thescience, will examine my cast, compare itwith my cranium, and discover a more rea-sonable explication of my long obstinacyand incredulity.Who can examine my cast, and at the

sight of my organs of locality, individuality,and time, will not discover in me an ex-traordinary power of memory, and ofthe memory which I have possessedof almost seeing the places, pages, andwords, of which I was at any time speak-ing or writing ? Who can feel my organ of

gaiety and not recognise the man who isalmost always smiling, who in 1816 wasfound playing on the guitar the eve of the’dav appointed for his execution ? Who canexamine the organs of ideality, comparison,and melody, with the concomitant intellec-tual organs and not easily see that I havebeen a poet? Who will not find my pre-sent condition in examining my organ ofbenevolence, and compare it with my almostunperceivable organ of acquisitiveness ? In

looking at my organ of langtwge, accom-panied by all the organs of the forehead,who can doubt that I am a linguist ? It isa fact that I am continually speaking withand caressing all the children of the neigh-bourhood of my cottage, and my organ of

philoprogenitiveness corresponds exactly withthis propensity. Who that has knownme for some time cannot recognise in

my cast the man continually in despair andin some scrape, in seeing that my organsof hope, secretiveness, and caution, are almostunperceivable? With regard to my ani.mal propensities, I shall say nothing elsethan homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum

puto, and as Horace asserts that ° Nemovitiis sine nascitur, optimus ille est quiminimis urgetur," I thank my Maker forhaving formed me of the middle-class.

Briefly; with my hand on my heart Ihere acknowledge that the organs of mycast answer exactly with my feelings andmy propensities.May this statement excite in those who

hear it the desire of doing the same thingwhich I have done, and I have no doubt thatmany of them will then address similar let-ters to the members of the Phrenological So-cietv.

Sir, Broussais was ten years ago a greatadversary to phrenology ; Demarait was thesame ; Le Blanc still worse ; and now theyare the principal members of the Phrenolo-gical Society of Paris. The epoch is fast

approaching when those English Doctorswho now glory in their opposition to phre-nology, will appear before you as membersof the same body, and concur with you inforwarding the general welfare of mankindby means of phrenology.

A cast of the Marquis was, as we haveobserved in a note, placed on the table.

The organization was very beautiful ; an

amazing length was observable from the eartQ the brow, while the proportion of headbehind the ear was exceedingly small, theanimal part being thus very inconsiderable.The head was very high at firmness, con-scientiousness, and self-esteem, and largelydeveloped at love of approbation.

HUNTERIAN MEDICAL SOCIETY

OF EDINBURGH.

MURIATE OF MORPHIA IN DIABETES.

THIS society held its first public meetingfor the session on the 7th instant. Twentynew members were admitted by ballot, andsixteen were proposed for ballot on the nextevening. Mr. G. Hamilton delivered an

introductory address, and a paper on Dia-betes was then read by Mr. Bennett. In

the course of an animated debate which

ensued, Dr. Rogers adverted to a case of

diabetes, occurring in a female, in which hehad tried the muriate of morphia, used withsuch advantage by Dr. Elliotson. A pill,containing half a grain, was given at firstevery eighth hour, and afterwards everysixth hour ; and at the end of a fortnightthe urine (spec. grav. 1’033) was reducedfrom 461bs in the twenty-fours, to 35lbs;and the liquid ingesta from 4lbs to 32lbs.The greatest quantity of animal food whichthis patient could be prevailed on to take was12 ounces of beefsteak and two eggs, in

the twenty-four hours ; and even then shegot four ounces exchanged for an additionalegg. She took thirty-two ounces of bread

’ and six ounces of oatmeal, and was alwaysanxious to obtain more.