and the American Quarterly. But we are not exactly informed, whether this interval is parallel, inter pares or perpendicular, a matter of very material concernment to one or the other of those respectable works. We wholly forgive the circumstance, that he had not discovered the existence, of the Southern Review, clearly as learned a work of the kind, as our country possesses. The little thing, in which this is written, had, probably, not reached his eye. Or if it had, a young man and a poet withal, may be allowed to be a little near sighted. Some would say, that the leanest of the lean kine of the Egyptian king, was one with a double name, 'magnificent promise and lean performance.' But we will not say this. We had admired the verses of Mr. Willis, before we knew the name of the author. He offers poetical promise of that, of which our country may one day be proud, and he sometimes writes prose of great interest and eloquence. It is his apology, that he is young, and has not yet gained a sore head against the post of experience, nor been taught his place by comparison, nor learned to temper, or hide his inward aspirations. We see in this work a germ, betokening magnificent development. We will admire, and cherish it according to its spirit and eloquence, whether he discovers, that there are other reviews, than the two between which he has taken his stand, or not.

New views of Penitentiary Discipline and Moral Education and Reform. By CHARLES CALDWELL, M. D. Philadelphia. pp. 52.

THE bitterness of opposition, which many people manifest to phrenology, is to us utterly inexplicable. One would suppose, that the first and most important inquiry was, is the system true? If true, it can hardly be doubted, that it involves truth, that is not unimportant, truth, which must have some bearing upon knowledge and happiness. But, admit even, that we have a right to inquire into the supposed tendency of a system, previous to our proceeding to that investigation, which, however, we admit only for the sake of the supposition, and what evil moral consequences can be supposed capable of flowing from the truth of phrenology? The system affirms, that the original elements of human character are laid in the brain. The common opinion, we believe, substitutes the word temperament for cerebral developement. Weigh the two phrases, and what is there in the one, of more moral evil tendency, than in the other? The disciple of temperament receives the opinion, that we must meliorate human character by education, discipline, moral suasion, example, gymnastics, &c. The phrenologist affirms substantially the same, asserting, that the different organs of the brain can be changed, as regards their relation and ascendancy, as the lungs of the singer, the legs of the runner, the arms of the blacksmith are improved. So far from allowing, that the system tends to weaken a sense of moral responsibility, the phrenologist affirms, that the adoption of his principles will new mould, and regenerate the moral character of the world.

We believe, that none deny at present, that there are as essential differences of moral, as of physical organization. The phrenologist traces all these differences to the structure and conformation of the brain. He affirms, that it is the simple and sole organ of thinking, or in other words, and in ancient phrase, the seat of the soul. A thousand facts convince us,

that such is the case, that the brain is actually the organ of thinking, and the seat of the soul. But we see, in the zeal with which phrenologists press this doctrine, and the prodigious stress, which they lay upon it, the extravagant and intolerant spirit of the neophytes of all new sects. If the disciple of the phrenological and anti-phrenological schools agree, in their general views of education, and adopt nearly the same processes, what matters it, whether, with the one, this discipline operates upon the temperament, or with the other upon the brain? The process similar, the result the same, we see not the utility of contention about the part of the human structure, that was operated upon. In their zeal, too, for the doctrine, that all intellection' is performed by the instrumentality of the brain, it seems clear to us, that the phrenologists overlook action and reaction, and the sympathy of one part of the frame with the other. Suppose a brain, of the best possible structure and developement of thinking, placed in a feeble and diseased body, always subject to infirmity and feebleness, and it is very clear, that the individual in question would fall behind another individual, with a poorer developement and a better body, in the intellectual march. If the brain be, as we believe, the chief and more direct instrument of mental operation, every part of the human frame, so fearfully and wonderfully made, has its concurrent agency; and sound thinking and the highest mental results will always indicate mens sana in corpore sano.

The astonishing diversities, in the moulding of the human head, have but just begun to be matter of common observation. We were never so strongly impressed with the fact, as recently at the late famous dispute between Mr. Owen and Mr. Campbell. We sat, where a level pavement of heads, just below us, gave a full and distinct view of the moulding of every head in the assembly. When the debate was, as it often was, excessively prosing, we occupied our eyes in examination of the heads of our fellow sufferers. No two heads in the whole assembly were alike. Nor does it seem to us extravagant, to affirm, that there were quite as striking differences in the moulding of the heads, as there were in the individuality of countenances.

All this must mean something, must have some reference to the intellectual character of the wearer of each head. We have an unhesitating conviction, that in the order of creation, the brain was formed first, and then the cranium, as a parietal roof, or security for the internal lodger. It would follow thence, and we doubt not, that it is so, that when there was an indentation in the substance of the brain, there would be a corresponding indentation of the cranium, and so of the protuberances of each. It is clear to us, that there will be discovered some correspondence between extraordinary developement, and extraordinary intellectual character. If so, this will become a certain basis for a series of observations, as interesting, and as important, as can well be imagined; to wit, when extraordinary protuberance, or indentation appears on the cranium, to observe closely, whether there be any thing peculiar in the intellectual character of that person, and if so, whether the same peculiarity is found connected with the same marks on another cranium. In a long series of years, in this way, by sober, cautious, philosophic and patient investigation, some. thing like a system of observation might be collected, and there would he

good ground, a priori, to believe, that such a moulding of the cranium was an index to a particular and indicated intellectual character.

But Dr. Caldwell will place us, no doubt, in the class of those, of whom he predicates any thing, rather than wisdom and attainment, when we affirm, that we do not believe, that such observations have yet been made. It seems to us altogether premature, to suppose, that this science has made such progress, and arrived at such certainty, that these marks upon the cranium can be shown, as received testimony, even in an intellectual court; much less in a court of law and evidence. We would never cease to protest against the examination of the skull of the accused in a court of justice, to draw any inference, by way of evidence, for or against him; and where there was no other testimony, but an unlucky head, we should be for an immediate acquittal. We should be equally unwilling to see the kind or measure of penance and discipline dealt out to a penitentiary convict, according to the bumps on his skull. All these pretensions are, as we conceive, the mere vagaries and extravagancies of a system, the founders of which, having seen a ray of light, and 'men as trees walking,' begin to imagine, that the whole of a long, and minute, and detailed theory of their own, is matter of the clearest and distinctest vision. We have not the slightest faith, that the science has yet reached the certainty and discrimination, that there are just thirty-four, or thirty-six organs in the brain, that perform appropriate and specific operations in thinking. We are utterly incredulous, when we hear the compartments, and boundaries of these different intellectual provinces pointed out. We have no idea, that any phrenologist, or craniologist has warrant to say, in examining the head of a child, or man, this person has great memory, judgment, fancy, &c.' We have somewhat more faith, in ability to determine, from the structure of the head, whether the possessor is endowed strongly with irascibility, or the other animal propensities. But we have seen so many powerful minds in little heads, and the reverse, contrary to the dicta of the science, we have seen phrenologists so often at fault, and so diverse in their conclusions, and we are clear, that the circumstances, which form human character, are so infinitely combined, varied, and modified by health, condition, example, discipline, &c., that we cannot credit the precise and undoubting declarations, touching character, that are made by examining the structure of the human head.

Yet we fully assent to the repeated assertions of Dr. Caldwell, that every person is, to a considerable extent, unconsciously a practical phrenologist, so far as to form an instantaneous and involuntary, though vague, judgment, respecting the intellect of a person, from the concurrent view of the countenance and the head. But this judgment is entirely a general one, leading us only to general conclusions respecting the mental endow.. ments of the individual; and has never the distinctness and individuality to authorize the observer to believe, that the person has fancy, enthusiasm, obstinacy, combativeness, and the like.

But even were it otherwise, we are wholly unable to see any thing in this system, to call for either bitterness, or ridicule. That witlings should attempt to make the world imagine, they had wit, when they had none, we can readily conceive, that after two or three had perpetrated wit upon bumps, &c. tota armenta, the whole flock would follow the

bell-wether, and imitate his note, as well as they could; but that the tenets of phrenology could really call forth in opposition any other feelings in cultivated minds, than those, which originate legitimate argument against it, is a matter utterly beyond our comprehension. Half a century ago, philosophers, particularly in France and Germany, made a loud proclamation in favor of animal magnetism, mesremerism, &c. It had its day of acceptation, its day of trial, its day of rejection. It appeared in our country in the form of Perkinism, and the metallic tractors. It is now in a state of resurrection in France. We see advertised, by the board of royal physicians, publications and experiments upon the subject, that indicate, that the doctrine is once more boldly advanced. It was either true or false, in the day of its triumph, and of its humiliation. It is matter of joyful certainty, that truth is one, unchangeable and eternal. Whether we affirm, or deny, love, hate, are wits or foolish, the system of phrenology is either wholly or partially true, or false. Why not examine it dispassionately, like any other subject, proposed for our investigation? If a man, to whom God has not seen meet to give wit, ridicules the system, we see not why he might not as well set up his pretensions upon any other subject, and let this pass.

We ought, perhaps, to apologize for this long digression from the point in hand, which was to give some account of the pamphlet before us. We are told in the preface, that it was intended for insertion in the American Quarterly; and it incidentally appears, that, judging from circumstances, the author was impressed, that it would not meet with a kind reception from the editor of that journal. In manifesting something of the author's peculiar temperament, he seems to consider, that an editor is bound to admit what is presented, so that it is well written, whether agreeable to his opinions or not. We hope, we shall not incur his displeasure, when we enter our dissent to this opinion. True, a journal is the property of the public; and it is as true, that the public, by taking the editor's journal, have virtually consented to allow him to cater for them, to exercise his judgment, what to give, and what to withhold; and they have a sufficiently terrible rod of power to hold before his eyes after all, in the power to continue or withhold their subscription. It seems to us, that the editor of a journal must be despotic upon this point. He cannot but know, that he decides at the peril of his popularity. We deem, that his duty calls him to judge for himself, what to give, and what to withhold, and that the readers have but the alternative, to continue or close their patronage.

6

The pamphlet in question is entitled 'New Views,' and appears in the form of a comment on a letter, on penal law and penitentiary discipline,' addressed by Hon. E. Livingston to Roberts Vaux. The author, like Mr. Livingston, is averse to coercion, to compulsion, and corporeal punishment. He affirms, that crime is derived from the animal part of our nature altogether, and, in his own strong language, that to reform a criminal, you must make him less of an animal, and more of a human being.' He brings forward the discouraging fact, that criminals have seldom been dismissed from our best managed penitentiaries, without returning to their felonies, like famished wolves,' by deeper artifice, more concentrated plan, and more dextrous cunning, rendered doubly dangerous to society.

The sum of Mr. Livingston's letter to Mr. Vaux, as given by the author, is as follows.

'The Auburn penitentiary system is faulty, and ought not to be adopted by the state of Pennsylvania. Criminals cannot be reformed by corporeal punishment, and the dread of it. Nor can they be reformed, in any way, if they are permitted to associate with each other promiscuously, or even in classes, either by day or by night. That their reformation may be attempted, with any reasonable prospect of success, they must be held in absolute and permanent seclusion, permitted to labour, as a relief from feelings of desolation, and receive suitable instruction, as the reward of good behaviour, or in compliance with their own earnest request. But nothing, by which they are expected to be benefitted, should be forced on them as a punishment. When, in any number of them, satisfactory evidences of reform have appeared, and continued for a period deemed sufficiently long, they may be permitted, under proper supervision, to mingle with each other occasionally, as a special indulgence, and an encouragement to perseverance in correct conduct. Sound education, begun in childhood, and including the inculcation of knowledge, morality, religion, industry, and good manners, constitutes the only true and solid foundation, on which the prosperity and happiness of a people can rest.'

We are obliged to confess, that our author here proceeds to the adoption of a stratagem, something like hanging out a false flag to decoy an enemy's ship into port. The expectation is raised of an analysis of Mr. Livingston's views on the principles of the old school. We are led on, step by step, by the calm and philosophic tone of the treatise. We enter the precincts of his battlements, without alarm or apprehension. All at once, a new flag is hoisted, and we find ourselves within the lofty enclosures of phrenology. We are informed, that the principles of that science coincide precisely with the sentiments of Mr. Livingston. In a tone of gentlemanly courtesy, he entreats to be heard with calmness and candor. An appeal is made to the reader's reason, his magnanimity, justice and honorable feelings. He is informed, that phrenology has never been opposed, much less refuted by established facts; that in the most intelligent circles in London, Edinburgh, Paris, Dublin, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, and in the other capitals of Europe, it is spreading with an impetus, that nothing can resist, that many professional men, who profess to be enemies, do really adopt a language, which can only be predicated on the truth of phrenology; that all discoveries were originally as liable, as this, to the charge of being new, &c. &c. After this preliminary appeal ad hominem, a figure, which, as our readers know, is rather foreign from the author's habits, he enters forthwith into his subject. We find the muscular, erect and corporeally and mentally powerful professor, whip, spur, and riding cap, putting his whilorn hobby into a charging gallop.

His views of phrenology are more compactly, concisely and eloquently expressed, and the paper is written with more of the lima labor, with more care, and verbal accuracy, than any one of his, of the same extent, that we have read; but the views are, for substance, the same with those, advanced