Sir William Hamilton and phrenology. I. Correspondence published in the Caledonian Mercury between Sir William Hamilton and Dr. Spurzheim, and between Sir William Hamilton and Mr. George Combe.

  • Sir William Hamilton, 9th Baronet
Date:
1828
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Sir William Hamilton and phrenology. I. Correspondence published in the Caledonian Mercury between Sir William Hamilton and Dr. Spurzheim, and between Sir William Hamilton and Mr. George Combe. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    28/72 page 28
    puting to me a statement which I disavow, and which a printed record of my words, published in the Scotsman newspaper at the time, proves that I did not utter. This can easily be esta- blished. 1st, As to Dr Gall’s doctrine regarding the symmetry of the two sides of the cranium, that author says, “ We must not for- “ get, that often the healthiest heads, I mean those in which the “ form has not been influenced by disease, have two sides an- “ equal.” ’idly, As to my statement—On 31st January last, I wrote Sir William Hamilton as follows :—“ Will you oblige me by point- “ ing out the authority for which you ascribe to me the doc- “ trine, £ That irregularity in the opposite sides of the cranium “ £ is the effect, and consequently the index of disease in the “ ‘ brain ?’ ” The answer is in these terms :—“ 31st January, “ 1828.—The authority on which I ascribe to you the opinion “ in question, is your lecture in the Assembly Rooms. My memory “ is very distinct on the subject. You argued, that as the skull “ of the Bali murderer was twisted, the brain had probably been “ diseased. I was the more particularly struck with the argu- “ ment, because I had happened to have recently read in Dr <c Monro’s Anatomy, that not one skull in a hundred was to be “ found symmetrical, and to have examined an instrument in- “ vented by him for measuring this inequality.” The follow- ing is an extract from a report of my lecture in the Assembly Rooms, published in the Scotsman of 2d May, 1827, prepared not by me, but with the assistance of the notes from which I spoke:— “ The supposed skull of George Buchanan had been produced as an objection; but, in the first place, Buchanan died at the “ age of 78, which was at least 30 years beyond the period of “ middle life, to which Phrenologists confine their demonstra- “ tive observations, and no one could tell how much the brain “ and skull had diminished in the course of the ordinary decay “ of nature. In the second place, the evidence of the skull hav- “ ing belonged to Buchanan was found by the Phrenologists to “ be so defective, that they had, for this very reason, avoided “ publishing any account of it. In the third place, even grant- “ ing it to be the skull of Buchanan, no attempt had been made “ to show that its development was inconsistent with the mani- “ festations.—It had, indeed, been contrasted, and held to be “ equally good, with the skull of a Bali murderer, which Mr “ Combe now saw for the first time, and which had been sent in “ by Sir William Hamilton after the lecture had begun. A “ friend sitting behind him (Mr C.) had looked at it since it “ was handed in, and written the comments, which he would “ now read:—‘ The Bali murderer is old, as is seen by the ab- “ ‘ sence of the teeth, and alveolar processes. It is therefore not “ ‘ within the conditions required by Phrenology. The skull is un-
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3