that first revealed the error of
Mr. Combe.

In such cases of animal predominance we find that the moral region
does not rise above the forehead, but runs back flat without
elevation, while the depth of the ear below the level of the brain and
the massiveness of the base of the brain running into a large neck
show plainly that the animal organs rule.

In the more noble characters, the rounded elevation of the coronal
region, combined with the moderate depth and thickness of the base of
the brain, make it easy to see that their vertical measurement is due
to height and not to depth. The great error of the phrenological
school has been in estimating moral development by the total vertical
measurement, and estimating animal development without regard to
depth, which is its chief indication.

[Illustration]

In a profile view, a line drawn from the middle of the forehead
backward, horizontally, is sufficiently near the line of the lateral
ventricles to enable us to compare the upward and downward development
of the brain. In the two profiles here presented we see a marked
difference of character illustrated by drawing a line back
horizontally from the brow. The head in front, which is that of a
private citizen of excellent character, named Smith, I obtained in
Florida nearly fifty years ago. At the same time I obtained the other,
which is that of a French count who lost his life on the coast of
Florida by wreck when engaged in a contraband slave trade with Cuba.
In the count we observe much less elevation and much greater depth. He
is especially deficient in Benevolence.

In proportion as men or animals rise in the scale of virtue the brain
is developed above the level of the face, and in proportion as they
incline to gross brutality the development falls behind the face; and
there is no exception to this law, either in quadrupeds, birds, or
reptiles. Indeed, notwithstanding the smallness of the brains of
fishes, their portraits show that this law applies also to them--as if
nature had determined to warn mankind of the character of every
animal. Alas for the dulness of human observers! Our naturalists and
anatomists have said not one word of the most conspicuous fact that
may be seen in the general survey of the animal kingdom.[3]

[3] The reader may naturally ask why have I not demonstrated
this assertion before the scientific world. The reason is,
that dogmatism rules in the sphere of natural science,