Marked Phrenological Heads
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of the History of Collections 9 no 1 (1997) pp 139-159 MARKED PHRENOLOGICAL HEADS Their evolution, with particular reference to the influence of George Combe and the Phrenological Society of Edinburgh M. H. KAUFMAN AND N. BASDEN Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article/9/1/139/767414 by guest on 28 September 2021 Franz Joseph Gall created the science oforganology on which phrenology was based; the latter being promulgated by Johann Gaspar Spurzhetm. In the British Isles phrenology was championed by George Combe who co-founded the Phrenological Society in Edinburgh m 1820. Phrenological or marked busts were produced as one of the keys to understanding phrenology, and were useful m identifying the relative positions of the phrenological 'organs'. Because the evidences of phrenology were gained by subjective and personal observation, a great number of conflicting or conjectural views arose. The busts at any one time or from any one individual clearly exhibit such changes m phrenological optmon. Here we shall consider the influences acting upon the phrenological bust with especial reference to George Combe and the Phrenological Society. More precisely we will illustrate these changes by examining examples surviving from the Phrenological Society's museum — now part of the William Ramsay Henderson Trust collection, supplemented by illustrations of several important items from other collections. The museum collection of the Edinburgh Miscellany (later the Phrenological Journal and Maga- Phrenological Society zine of Moral Science). The latter ran from 1838 to 1847 and was established, with financial support from THE collection of marked phrenological heads dis- the Henderson Trust, to stimulate debate, publicize played in the museum of the Department of Ana- the activities of the membership and to provide a tomy, University of Edinburgh, is of particular forum to propagate the gospel of Phrenology. interest, as the busts in it follow exclusively the As a consequence of the enthusiasm of its founder nomenclature adopted by the Edinburgh School of members, the museum collection of the Society Phrenology, being based on the early schemes pub- eventually contained more than 2,500 items, many lished by Gall and Spurzheim. They, with about 300 of which are of the greatest interest in relation to the life and death masks of famous and infamous indi- emergence and early history of phrenology. The viduals, and other items of phrenological interest, are present Henderson Trust collection still contains the property of the William Ramsay Henderson the 300 life and death masks indicated above, repre- Trust. These items formerly belonged to the Edin- senting about one-third of the original number burgh Phrenological Society and had been exhibited formerly displayed in the museum of the Phrenolo- in their museum. gical Society, about 250 casts of skulls (mostly copies Founded in 1820, this was the first phrenological of items in the Musee de l'Homme in Paris), society to be established in the United Kingdom, and hundreds of human crania, now incorporated into by 1823, the Society had already amassed sufficient the Department's mainly anthropological collection, items relating to phrenology to justify the establish- as well as the crania of numerous non-human species, ment of a museum for their display. The principal also now incorporated into the department's com- parative collection. functions of the museum were to facilitate teaching and research, and both a lending and a reference library were available for the benefit of the members. Early representations: Gall and Spurzheim The Transactions of the Edinburgh Phrenological Society were published in 1823. This was followed The earliest record of any representation of the in 1824 (until 1837) by the Phrenological Journal and phrenological organs is provided by Franz Joseph © Oxford University Press 1997 0954-6650 97 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article/9/1/139/767414 by guest on 28 September 2021 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article/9/1/139/767414 by guest on 28 September 2021 142 M. H. KAUFMAN AND N. BASDEN System adopted by Names 'New' numbers 'Old' numbers Gall & Spurzheim I Propensities Amativeness i 1 1 Philoprogenitiveness 2 2 2 Inhabitiveness 3 3 Adhesiveness 4 4 3 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article/9/1/139/767414 by guest on 28 September 2021 Combativeness 5 5 4 Destructiveness 6 6 5 Alimentiveness unnumbered, + or 6a Secretiveness 7 9 6 Acquisitiveness 8 8 7 Constructiveness 9 7 19 II Sentiments Self-Esteem 10 10 8 Love of Approbation II 11 9 Cautiousness 12 12 10 Benevolence 13 13 24 l Veneration 4 14 26 Firmness 15 18 27 Conscientiousness 16 17 Hope 17 15 Marvellousness 18 Ideality 19 16 23 Gaiety or Mirthfulness 20 32 22 (Wit) Imitation 21 33 25 Intellectual faculties I Perceptive Individuality 22 19 11 Configuration 23 20 13 (Form) Size 24 21 Weight and Resistance 25 22 Colouring 26 23 16 Locality 27 24 12 Calculation 28 27 18 (Number) Order 29 25 Eventuality 3° 11 Time 31 26 Melody 32 28 17 (Tune) Language 33 29 H, 15 II Reflective Comparison 34 3° 20 Causality 35 3i 21 TABLE I A companson between the 1824 'new' version of the numbering of the phrenological organs and the 1815 'old' version, both nomenclatures as recommended by Dr Spurzheim with the earlier version of Gall & Spurzheim (1810), with English version of contemporary terminology in parentheses. The English names were given by Dr Spurzheim Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article/9/1/139/767414 by guest on 28 September 2021 144 M. H. KAUFMAN AND N. BASDEN primary use of these busts was as a teaching or Conviction is greatly strengthened by observing the same learning aid for ardent students of phrenology or forms in nature that appear on the casts, and this cannot those curious to test its claims. Hewett C. Watson in happen to those who use M. De Ville's busts, as the forms his Statistics of Phrenology12 exhorted: 'let the student in these are entirely artificial. keep a marked bust frequently before his eyes, so as to And the coup de grace: become quite familiar with the relevant position ... of each organ', and James DeVille advised those begin- We repeat, that we have a sincere respect for M. De Ville, ning in the science to 'get a mapped phrenological and entertain a high sense of the services rendered by him bust with a good manual or elementary work as a key to Phrenology. Let him, however, not pass beyond his 13 sphere, and forbear diminishing with one hand the good he to the science'. After the positions of the organs had Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article/9/1/139/767414 by guest on 28 September 2021 been consigned to memory, collections of casts of is doing with the other. This admonition is offered in perfect respect and kindness, and we know his good sense different individuals could be obtained as an aid to so well, that we do not doubt that it will be taken in equal being able to discern the organs in a living head. good part on his side.16 In view of the fact that the London phrenologists Edinburgh's authority and influence all but ignored the Phrenological Journal, it is doubt- In the early years the Edinburgh phrenologists ful whether this outburst had any effect on DeVille's assumed a position of authority stemming from standing in London. This fact may have been made their own head-start in the science and their apparent to Combe when, in 1837, a Mr E. J Hytch undoubted diligence. They duly set themselves up, wrote from London complaining of the 'variety of therefore, 'to watch over all phrenological doctrine, busts which constantly meet the observer's eye - all H of which agree in one quality alone, and that is to and to maintain its philosophical purity' 17 However, on this issue, it is apparent that Edin- differ from one another'. Amidst this confusion, burgh's authority was more locally circumscribed however, he admits that, 'it is true that if the bust is purchased of Mr Deville, there is some probability than Combe or his supporters desired. The London ls phrenologists in particular, although showing respect that it will be correct . .' Hytch received a reply through correspondence and exchange of casts, from Combe himself who although agreeing with tended to exist in isolation and practically ignored him that such a problem existed, was somewhat the Edinburgh-based Phrenological Journal, writing indignant that he may have overlooked the 'demerits' for journals published in the capital instead. of DeVille's bust and that he took 'no notice of the existence of the Edinburgh bust'19 Although Combe The relationship between Edinburgh and London grudgingly includes DeVille's bust alongside that was never more than cordial. As early as 1824, both from Edinburgh as being traceable to an 'authentic James DeVille and his phrenological bust had come source' there is little doubt that, even at this late under severe criticism from Edinburgh. Reviewing stage, he had not changed his low opinion of DeVille his Outlines of Phrenology the editors of the Phreno- or his handiwork. logical Journal whilst 'embracing this opportunity of expressing our high opinion of M. DeVille's Phreno- The London and Edinburgh societies came into logy', regretted that they could not 'extend this full-blown conflict in the 1830s. The London Socie- commendation to the little work . published by ty's founder Dr John Elliotson had quarrelled first him as an accompaniment to his busts'.15 Having with DeVille and then openly with Spurzheim and condemned the book, the author of the review then Combe.