PHRENOLOGY

Otago Witness, Issue 3783, 14 September 1926, Page 77

PHRENOLOGY

By

Colonel Arthur Lynch.

(Fob the Witness.) XXXIII. Is there anything in phrenology? A little, perhaps, of a general kind; hut, in detail, less than a little. The fact that the question is so often asked in this way is in itself significant, for there was a time when phrenology was so popular that all the world believed that it had some importance. Nowadays many people like to have their “bumps” felt, and they do not mind paying a reasonable sum for the privilege if the report be encouraging, and most of the phrenologists show their worldly wisdom by tempering the wind to the shorn lamb. When we pass a phrenologist’s shop we are interested in spite of ourselves in seeing the heads of great men appropriately labelled— Napoleon, with a protuberance labelled “military genius”; Gladstone plastered all over with virtues, and Sheridan with bulging eye-frames marked “language.” The phrenologist is not a wicked man, and his advice is often good. We bring a short-sighted and narrow-chested boy to him, and the phrenologist, after manipulating liis cranium, advises us not to make him a boxing champion; another with a ruddy countenance and pug nose, lie assures us should not be forced into highly intellectual pursuits. His advice, you see, is good. Most phrenologists are exponents of the big head theory, but even that elementary point of their system is subject to grave doubt. It is true that Cuvier, the great naturalist, had a big brain, but bigger brains have belonged to village idiots; the brain of Descartes, one of the greatest thinkers of all time, was noticeably small, and Leigh Hunt tells us that Byron, Shelley, and Keats all had small heads. Then, on the other side of the argument, Sir Ray Lankester says that the prehistoric Neanderthal man had us capacious a brain pan as most moderns, and Sir Arthur Keith, the great comparative anatomist, reinforces this opinion. Mere size of head, therefore, seems to count for little. Then, again, the cultivation of the intellectual qualities does not produce “bumps.” The process is rather like that of opening up new roads in an area hitherto left waste, and this, though useful for traffic and the interchange of goods, does not inciease the size of the holding. Then, again, let us form a theory, as sound as we can make it, of what constitutes a good head—a large volume, a good forehead, high and broad, a well-arched dome, and relatively small hind part of the head—and then let us try our model on the individuals good and bad whom we meet, or whose casts have been preserved. I have done that myself, but without finding any edifying results. Burns, the poet, had a head which was Voluminous at the back; Wellington had a poor forehead ; and one may observe in the failures of life, feckless, useless people with heads really better in form than those of cabinet ministers or great writers. I think the finest head I ever saw was that of a disreputable old Irishwoman who begged at a street corner. A friend of mine has a head like Julius Caesar, but lie has failed from want of energy. I am arguing against phrenology, and yet I cannot get away from the fact that when I hear anyone praised for bright intellect I almost involuntarily expect to find a good head, and it lias happened that I have not been disappointed. Dr. Bernard Hollander has taken up the task of rehabilitating Gall, the founder of the system, whose views have been misrepresented, and there is no doubt that here the disciple argues with great show of reason. It is evident that what principally distinguishes man from the other animals is his brain power, and he has a larger brain even than the elephant. Yes, there is something in it. Perhaps it is this: a large, good head is advantageous, but many other elements—moral qualities, special education, good opportunities—are necessary for high development. In these circumstances an inferior brain well trained may beat the brain originally better, and in this way anomalies arise.