Correspondence relative to phrenology, between Sir William Hamilton, bart., Dr. Spurzheim, and Mr. George Combe, in January, February, and March, 1828.

  • Combe George, 1788-1858.
Date:
1828
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Correspondence relative to phrenology, between Sir William Hamilton, bart., Dr. Spurzheim, and Mr. George Combe, in January, February, and March, 1828. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

    11/72 (page 9)
    “ regularity is the effect, ancl consequently the index of disease “ in the brain ?” (See his Vllth Phrenological Proposition.)— And, 3d, that “ The lower region of the brow is found more “ largely developed in children than the superior parts of the “forehead?” (See his XIVth Phrenological Proposition.) I declare these three statements to be inexact, and deny them to be my opinions. With respect to the greater number of his counter proposi- tions, Sir William refers the public and myself to fifty skulls in the Museum of Natural History at Edinburgh. As he styles Hr Gall and myself theorists, and accuses us as being “the most “ worthless of observers,” your readers may be glad to become acquainted with Sir William’s accuracy in observing, and his close reasoning in drawing inferences from his observations. He comes forward with fifty skulls of persons of whom he knows neither age nor condition of life, neither character nor talent. These skulls were picked out by myself in the catacombs of Paris, among thousands of skulls, on account of their singular shapes, in order to send them to the Phrenologists of Edin- burgh, as proofs against the Edinburgh Review, which had af- firmed that such different forms of heads as we speak of are not to be found in nature, and never existed. They were forward- ed by Mr Royer of the Jardin du Roi of Paris, to this city, with this intention, and are evidently anomalies. It is farther known to a certainty, that an immense quantity of bones was carried to the catacombs of Paris from the church-yard Des In- nocens, when it was changed into a market-place. It is also cer- tain that in the church-yard Des Innocens, the very canaille of Paris, and the lower classes of the quartiers de St Denis and de St Martin, were buried. Now, I leave it to the public to de- cide on the merit of Sir William’s accuracy in observing, and of the fairness of his inferences, when he takes singular, and several of them monstrous configurations, as types of female heads, whilst some of them were perhaps poissardes, or even prostitutes. If Sir William has no facility of collecting skulls of boys and girls, men and women, why does he not compare living persons, in order to convince himself, that among the na- tive females in all good families in Edinburgh, there is probably not one single specimen of head similar to those skulls which he holds out as standard forms of females, and on which “ he “ is content to rest the decision of the contested points ?” If this be accuracy of observation, I confess it is beyond my power of comprehension. I also wish to Sir William success in proving to the medical world, that “ the cerebellum reaches its full relative pro- “ portion to the brain, probably at the age of three years (see “ his Xth Counter Proposition); that the cerebellum of women 13> on an average, and in proportion to their smaller heads, “ much larger than the cerebellum of men; and that this ana- L