approve. Such a measure is justifiable only on one of two grounds, or on both united-necessity or usefulness. And, in the present case, no plea, we think, can be based on either. The nomenclature of Gall and Spurzheim, and their co-labourers and followers, sufficiently subserved the purposes of the science. It is not necessary, therefore, to change it. And we are much mistaken if the change made by Mr. Grimes amounts to an improvement. In most respects, we deem it the reverse. Nor are we satisfied that it is otherwise in

In our remarks on this subject, we must necessarily We shall limit our observations to two organs.

any respect. be brief.

On the organ heretofore denominated Wit and Mirthfulness, our author has bestowed the name of Playfulness, and considers it as belonging to all animals, from fishes to man, and as being peculiarly predominant in young animals. Why? Because all animals play; and young ones play more than old ones. Here our author makes no distinction between playfulness of mind and playfulness of body— between the mirthful exercise of the human brain, and the clumsy muscular gambols of the grampus. He considers the source of the refined and exquisite wit of Shakspeare and Cervantes, Rabelais and Voltaire, the same with that of the frisking of the kitten, the awk. ward capering of the pig, and the sport of the gosling and the duckling in the mud-puddle! But this topic is really too ludicrous to be introduced and gravely treated of in a philosophical discussion. It is calculated to bring phrenology into disrepute, rather than to benefit it. We therefore decline its farther consideration. Again:

To the organ heretofore called Veneration or Reverence, Mr. Grimes gives the name of Submissiveness. And this organ, also, which all other phrenologists, Broussais perhaps excepted, consider as peculiar to man, and as constituting one of the most prominent marks of distinction between him and inferior beings, Mr. Grimes bestows on dogs, horses, cows, and other animals, characterised by a disposition to submit and be tractable. Nor is this all. He asserts that the sentiment of Veneration is the product of Submissiveness; thus palpably substituting the effect for the cause. He contends that we venerate men and beings of a superior order, up to the Deity himself, because we submit to them, instead of submitting to them because we venerate them-an opinion which involves as palpable a perversion of cause and effect as can possibly be imagined. Has Mr. Grimes ever discovered in the brains of dogs, cows, and horses, or of any other inferior animals, that convolution which forms the organ of Veneration? Or has he ever found in them the organ of Mirthfulness? He will not reply to these questions affirmatively, and submit his reply to the test of anatomy. The truth is, that the

two organs referred to belong as exclusvely to man, as either Hope or Ideality, which our author has correctly placed in his "human range," but under the names of "Perfectiveness" and "Hopefulness," without either necessity or usefulness to justify the change, and therefore, as we conceive, on indefensible ground.

Our author has been at fault in the new names he has bestowed on several other organs, especially in calling Self-esteem "Imperativeness," and Locality, "Direction." The former of these organs, with its sentiment, does not alone constitute the love of empire or command, although it forms an element of it; and an ability to remember and recognise places, and steer courses with dexterity and correctness, is the result of the united action of several organs, Individuality and Size being two of them.

Of Mr. Grimes' calling Benevolence "Kindness," and Wonder, "Credenciveness," we shall only say, that it appears to us to be a change made by him merely from a love of change. Assuredly it is not necessary, and no useful end is attained by it. With his new name of Sanitativeness, and his remarks on the organ thus denominated, we are also dissatisfied. It might be easily made to appear, that a fair analysis of the subject is adverse to his views.

can pursue this discussion no farther.

But we

Notwithstanding the numerous exceptions we have taken to Mr. Grimes' "New System of Phrenology," we have no disposition to disparage the author. Far from it. He possesses a mind of penetration and activity, perceives and thinks clearly, and is, we doubt not, an attractive lecturer. But he has written indiscreetly, under the ambitious character of a reformer, at too early a period of his studies. Many of his views are therefore limited and crude, and ought not to have been submitted to the public, except as mere suggestions, until farther reflected on, expanded, and matured. His style, moreover, without being in a high degree faulty, is certainly neither chaste, vigorous, nor polished. It should therefore be carefully cultivated and amended by him. And, with his command of language, the task may be easily accomplished. He is comparatively young in science, and has before him a flattering prospect and an honourable career, provided he be true to science and himself. But as regards the standing and distinction he aims at, and even thinks, perhaps, that he already possesses, (we mean as a reformer and an instructor of the world in phrenology,) he must labour for them many years before he shall have attained them, and should deem himself fortunate if he attain them at last. With these remarks, accompanied by the kindest feelings, and best wishes for his success and prosperity, we respectfully take leave of him.

The above cuts are designed to present two different views of the head of Gesche Margarethe Gottfried, who rendered herself notorious as a murderess. She resided at Bremen, Germany, and was executed in September, 1830. Dr. Hirschfeld took a east of her head, and forwarded it to the Edinburgh Phrenological Society, from whose collection Mr. George Combe brought a copy to this country, and from which the above cuts are drawn. The developements of the cast are so striking, and the character of the individual which it represents is so notorious, that it serves as a most interesting specimen to prove and illustrate the principles of phrenology. extended article on the subject may be found in the thirty-second number of the Edinburgh Phrenological Journal, the mere substance of which can here only be presented.

The father of Gottfried was a tailor in Bremen, of active and industrious habits, but of a stingy and selfish disposition. Gesche was an only daughter. In the seventh year of her age, she became addicted to stealing, and continued committing thefts at every convenient opportunity through life. When about twenty, she was married to a man by the name of Miltenberg, who is represented to have treated her with much kindness and affection. But she had been married to him only four months before she fell in love with

Gottfried, her future

husband, and soon after, with another man by the name of Kassou. She determined to kill Miltenberg, in order to marry Gottfried, but was defeated in several of her first attempts. At last she seized an opportunity, when he was sick, to give him some poison, which took effect and produced his death. But now two serious obstacles stood in the way of her union with Gottfried: 1st, Her parents interfered, and forbid the match; and 2dly, He objected to the marriage on account of her children-having had three by her first husband.

About this time, her parents came to reside with her, both of whom she poisoned, and soon after this, each of her children followed in quick succession-the victims of her cruelty. But here, unexpectedly, another obstacle rose-her brother, who had long been absent on a military campaign in Russia, came home unwell, and opposed her marriage. He soon, however, met with the same fate. Thus, within a few months, she destroyed the lives of six persons, who were bound to her by the nearest and dearest relations in life.

Her marriage with Gottfried proved unhappy, and he, within one year from their union, became also the victim of her cruelty. After this, says her biographer," she began to poison her acquaintances, without any visible motive: a child came to congratulate her on her birth-day, and received a dose on a piece of biscuit; a friend called one forenoon, and also received a dose; and she tried the strength of her poison on another of her friends, on whose face it caused blotches to appear." At different times, she had many suitors, several of whom she murdered, besides others of her acquaintances. She was finally detected, convicted, and condemned to death, for murdering thirteen individuals, most of whom were related to her in life by the strongest possible ties of consanguinity and friendship.

The phrenological developements of Gottfried were very marked and striking, as may be seen by the cuts. The chief portions of her brain were located in the lower and posterior regions of the head, giving very strong selfish feelings and animal propensities. There was a great deficiency of brain (as the cuts very clearly indicate) in the frontal and coronal regions, showing that she was almost entirely destitute of the moral sentiments. Her strongest faculties appear to have been Amativeness, Secretiveness, Acquisitiveness, Destructiveness, Firmness, and Self-esteem; and those most deficient, were Benevolence, Conscientiousness, Adhesiveness, and Philoprogenitive

ness.

The cut presenting a back view of the head, shows very great breadth of head over the ears, indicating exceedingly strong Secretiveness and Destructiveness; and the great size and breadth of the neck indicates very large Amativeness. The cuts also show

that the organs of Benevolence and Conscientiousness were very small, and that the organs of Firmness and Self-esteem were extremely large. The reader is referred to the location of those organs, as indicated by the cuts. We deem it unnecessary to enter into any farther analysis of Gottfried's character, or to attempt to show the harmony existing between her phrenological developements and actual life; our object is simply to present the facts in the case, and leave the reader to make the requisite applications, or to draw his own inferences.

"Progress of Phrenology.-Sinee Mr. Combe took his departure for Europe, very little is said on this heretofore engrossing topicStill, a few individuals are devotedly pursuing investigations, and accumulating important facts illustrative of the leading principles of the science, which will be regarded, at some future period, with interest by philosophers. Mr. L. N. Fowler, of New York, and his brother, O. S. Fowler, who resides in Philadelphia, are collecting cabinets of casts, which embrace fac-similes of the heads of men, women, and children, who have been distinguished for qualities out of the common order of mankind; and the stranger who visits their collection, is positively astonished at the results of their unobstrusive industry in this department of nature. Through the politeness of Dr. Bond, we had an opportunity of inspecting the Philadelphia Phrenological Museum (for such it actually is) the other day-the rarest assemblage, perhaps, on this continent of unique skulls, and casts of persons now living. Each one is characterised by some developement either a little out of the ordinary course, or so strongly marked by peculiarities as to be considered nearly, if not wholly, unparalleled in the series of cranioscopal formations.

"The art of taking casts has been greatly improved by the Messrs. Fowler. Some of their work is quite equal to the best specimens of clay modeling by Clavenger or Ives. The bust of Dr. Reynell Coates was admirably finished, and altogether superior to any method before known to artists, or, at least, practised by them, in New England. If the progress of phrenology depends on accuracy in copying nature, in amassing specimens of her handy work, in connection with the study of mental phenomena, the science is surely losing nothing in the United States."-Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, July 8th.