ARTICLE III.

PHRENOLOGICAL FACTS.

Phrenology is often right when it is supposed to be wrong. In hundreds of instances, where I have been supposed to be in error, the result has gone to sustain and confirm the science. A few facts of this class, while they will doubtless prove interesting to the readers of the Journal, will also show that it is safe to rely on Phrenology, even though it contradicts the conduct of those whom it

condemns.

In 1835, at a time when Phrenology was under discussion in Baltimore, Md., one of the advocates of the science, while defending it, was requested to give off the Phrenological character of Wm. Guinn Jones, of that city, who, at that time, was President of the Young Men's Athenæum, an editor of one of their most respectable and influential papers, a member of the church, and standing first in the first circles of Baltimore, so that he was trusted to any extent, and even allowed inside the post-office during the assorting of the mail. The examiner and the person examined were well acquainted; and, in making the examination, he said to him: "Why, Jones, if I were not acquainted with you, I should at once pronounce you a down-right rascal, for you have no Conscientiousness, but prodigious Acquisitiveness and Secretiveness. You would not hesitate to appropriate to yourself what belonged to others. I could not trust you out of sight." This decision of the Phrenologist was thought really monstrous; for all in Baltimore considered Jones one of the most worthy young men in that city. But there were the organs. They stood out in bold relief. That Phrenology made him out a real rascal was perfectly apparent; but that his character was directly the opposite was equally positive. Thus the issue rested for weeks-till the last of May, 1835, -when Jones was arrested for robbing the post-office. Scarcely ever, on any occasion, has it fallen to my lot to witness as much surprise as much perfect astonishment-as was evinced on the occasion of his arrest. None dared believe it, and yet the facts were proved upon him, and he was sent to the penitentiary-thus confirming most fully the predictions of Phrenology.

I had the above from an eye witness of the examination of the Phrenologist, and, what is more, from an opponent of the science.

He prefaced the facts much as follows: "Though I have no faith in Phrenology, yet I must give it the credit of guessing right at least once ;" and then proceeded to narrate what he heard a Phrenologist say of Jones, while his character yet stood unblemished.

The supposed failure of Phrenology in regard to Rathbone, the forger, of Buffalo, was trumpeted all over the union. Scarcely a paper but copied it; it was in every body's mouth, and has been cast in my teeth a thousand times. The examination was made by Sims, in the Rochester jail. Thinking to test him, they took him to the jail, had him blind-folded, and then, instead of introducing prisoners, as was proposed, they brought forward several citizens, manacled in irons as though they had been convicts. When Rathbone was brought forward, he was pronounced a talented scoundrel, capable of forgery, counterfeiting, and swindling on the largest scale, &c. When the Phrenologist was told of his supposed error, he replied, that if that man was not in prison, he ought to be, and would be if he was not careful. Then Rathbone was the father of Buffalo; now he is in Auburn State-prison.

This is not the only warning Phrenology has given the people of Rochester. In 1840, I lectured there with marked success, and, after one of my lectures, was asked to examine the head of a fine, portly looking gentleman, whom I pronounced a splendid speaker, and an Episcopalian. I discovered an utter absence of Conscientiousness, with strong animal propensities, especially Amativeness. He stood very high as an orator-one of the first in that vicinityand, as a clergyman, universally esteemed and beloved. Few men stood as high in the estimation of any community as the Rev. Mr. Van Zandt then stood in the estimation of the citizens of Rochester. The fact that I had examined his head, spread like wildfire through the city, and scores asked me what for a head Mr. Van Zandt had. To a few of the first, I answered, that he was destitute of Conscientiousness. The marks of astonishment that followed this annunciation, were many and strong, and I was often rebuked by the declaration, that he was a clergyman of the first standing in the place, and that his character stood above even suspicion. I answered," Minister or no minister, he has no conscience." I afterwards examined his head and gave him a written description of character, in which I stated in plain terms, that he had few and feeble compunctions of conscience; that he seldom felt guilty; and that conscientious scruples seldom influenced him. I also added,

that love of the other sex was a besetting sin, and that if governed at all, it was governed with the utmost difficulty. It was really a predominant quality, and unrestrained by moral feeling. In his chart, I marked Amativeness 7, or at the very top of my scale, and Conscientiousness only 3, with a minus-too feeble to exert any restraining influence upon such powerful Amativeness.

The above occurred in January, 1841, and, in a few months afterwards, he was apprehended, tried, and convicted of seduction, and that of a most flagrant character. When news of his apprehension and probable guilt came out in the Rochester papers, a young man then in my employ, who had resided in Rochester, and knew the high moral and religious standing of Mr. Van Zandt, absolutely refused to believe a word of its truth, alledging that such an act from such a man was impossible, and maintained that some enemy had done this out of personal ill will to Mr. V. Z. or to Grace Church, of which he was rector. But the moment I heard of it, I pronounced it true, from what I knew of his developments, and then told him what I have already stated in regard to his want of Conscientiousness, and the predominance of Amativeness. Still, as he was not a full believer in Phrenology, he would not believe it possible that Van Zandt was the guilty man represented.

With the result, all are familiar. His trial, and the facts evolved, were so recently published in nearly every paper in the Union, that they need not be repeated here. Is it not high time that the citizens of Rochester were believers in Phrenology. Twice have they been warned by that science before the crimes were committed, that when they were committed they might "believe that" Phrenology "is true.".

At Dedham, Mass., at a public double-test examination, I found Color small in a man somewhat noted as a painter, and described it accordingly. My brother (L. N. Fowler) followed me before the same audience, (he not having heard or seen my description,) and he also gave the man small Color. This was considered as a great mistake, and being made by both of us, the science suffered exceedingly. Some believers in Phrenology, unwilling that the science should be so signally at fault, put several questions, with the design of palliating the supposed mistake; but this only made the matter worse and worse. After these questions had been put and answered, in order to bring the matter out plainly, and as it really was, I said to the audience, "Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to put

ter.

to this gentleman'a single question that will settle the whole matWe maintain that his talents as a painter depend on art and · practice, not on a natural, intuitive observation and recollection of colors. If this faculty be large, he can at least tell the color of his wife's eyes, but if he cannot, you will of course concede that Phrenology is right." "And now, sir, what is the color of your wife's eyes?" "I can't tell," was his answer; and yet he wanted to tell, because he felt cut by our pronouncing him deficient in a quality in which he really prided himself. Instantly the whole audience were turned in our favor as strongly as they had the moment before been against us.

At Danton, on the eastern shore of Maryland, I examined publicly the head of a man who had very small Approbativeness and Conscientiousness, and prodigious Acquisitiveness, Destructiveness, and Combativeness, with feeble Benevolence. His head was nearly round, very wide from ear to ear in proprotion to its length, short upon the top, conical, and low. The instant I touched his head, I recoiled back involuntarily as from a serpent, exclaiming, "No Conscientiousness! not a bit! No Approbativeness! No feeling of shame! Perfectly regardless of the opinions of his fellow men! Utterly regardless of moral principle; without any conscientious scruples, and cruel and selfish in the extreme!" Though respectably dressed, yet I have seldom found as bad a head without the walls of a prison. His vital temperament predominated.

The next morning, I was informed that he had been arrested, and was soon to be tried for a most inhuman manslaughter of a female slave. She was to be his slave till a certain age, when she was to be free. By threats and falsehoods, he had already kept her six years beyond that time. Of this she was conscious, and finally broke away and went to see an old woman, some fourteen miles distant, who knew when she had a right to her freedom. He followed and found her. After whipping her most inhumanly, he tied one end of a rope to her neck, and the other end to the neck of his horse; thus he drove home at full speed; sometimes dragging her by the neck, when she could not keep up with him, and every now and then beating her in a most barbarous and shocking manner; and this too when she was about to become a mother. Though in the prime of life, and possessed of a powerful constitution, yet she died of her wounds the next day. His treatment was described as most horrible. Some of his neighbors began to inquire into the

matter, and he ran away at the time into Delaware: but was soon apprehended and brought back in chains; still he exhibited no traces of either remorse or shame when surrounded by his neighbors, who knew the grounds upon which he was apprehended. When I saw him, he was bailed out, but walked erect, and put on as bold an air as if he had never done a sinful act. This female determined to leave him at the time she did that her child might not be born a slave; and it was the apprehended loss of this unborn slave that so enraged his Acquisitiveness and Destructiveness.

Not long since, at a blindfold examination, a gentleman was brought forward whose Amativeness was large, and also indicated great activity. I dwelt upon it as much as was deemed proper; . but was regarded as grossly in error; because he had not shown the ordinary attentions to ladies which men generally pay them. On account of this failure, he came up a second time, after I had examined several other heads, but the result was the same. A friend of the science then asked me if I had not made a mistake about that organ. I answered, "Not unless his bumps are wrong.' Disbelievers in the science now triumphed gloriously, while believers held down their heads, and smoothed over the alledged mistake by saying that even the best would miss it sometimes. So entirely unexceptionable had his life been in this and other respects, that no one ever suspected his possessing more than an ordinary share of this propensity. But the scales soon turned. It soon leaked out that some twenty years before, he had been obliged to pay for an illegitimate child, aud that the same was true of one or more of his brothers.

In hundreds of other similar instances, I have corrected the opinions entertained by communities in regard to particular persons, and came out right in the end, although at first apparently in error. Indeed, when I am certain as to the size of organs, I feel as sure of the accompanying characteristics as I could be of the results of a mathematical problem when the specific data are given.

in preparing this article, I hesitated as to the propriety of giving the names of persons and places, lest I should injure the feelings of those named; but these facts are facts, and it is due to Phrenology that they be recorded; and if they rested on my "ipse dixit" alone, they would carry less conviction than if they had the additional support of a reference to persons and places; which, however, I thought best to omit in the last case.