English. The French, on the contrary, is poor in expressions of reflection and of sentiment; moreover, it has few that are figurative; while the German is rich in all of these, and has also many more signs of disjunction. Frenchmen have the organs of individuality and eventuality very much developed, and are therefore fond of facts; but their faculties of comparison and causality are commonly smaller. In consequence of this, the French Institute does not admit analogies as proofs; these consist according to it only in facts. The Germans, on the other hand, are fond of analogies, perhaps too much so, for they compare and wish to explain every thing. French expressions are individual, without any comparison; therefore, similar sounds denote many different objects. From this it appears that the discriminating faculties are not very active in Frenchmen. The same deficiency is evident in the very different names they give to very similar objects. The German and English tongues are more systematic than the French. The common language of Germany is even conformable to the system of Linnæus. Whilst the French say, bouvreuil, chardonneret, pincon, &c, the Germans and English preserve the generic name fink, or finch, and join to it a sign of distinction. In the same way, while the French say, rasoir, couteau, canif, serpette, &c ; in German and English the generic name messer or knife is retained, and a sign of particular destination affixed, as feder-messer, or pen-knife; tafel-messer, or table-knife; &c. For this reason also, the number of roots of the French language is much more considerable, though that of its words be much smaller than those of the German. Another proof that the French language is very unsystematic, lies in the fact of its very often having a substantive without its derivative adjective, or the contrary, to designate the same idea. These illustrations show the evident influence of the faculties generally, in establishing languages. Thus the number and nature of signs is in relation to the special powers of the mind which invent them. The faculties of individuality and eventuality being the first active in children, we may understand why nouns and verbs are soonest employed, and constitute almost the whole

artificial language of infancy; and why all words may be reduced etymologically to these signs. By degrees, as other faculties become active, other significations of signs are discovered, even though their roots remain the same.

The construction of languages proves also the modified manners of thinking of different nations. The French like facts, and direct their attention to them, without first considering causes. It is natural, indeed, to begin with the subject, then to join the action of the subject, and after this to express other circumstances. This the French do regularly. If cause and effect be considered, they always begin with the effect, and relate the cause afterwards. The Germans proceed in a very different manner, and their tongue in this respect requires much more attention than the French. It also ordinarily begins with the subject; then follow expressions of the relation between subject and object, both of which are mentioned; and lastly, the action of the subject upon the object is considered. If an effect and its cause, again, are spoken of, the cause is commonly denoted first and the effect after it. Certain languages are known to admit of a great number of inversions, others of very few. The former appear to me the more logical; for it seems natural that attention should be given first to the most important object. The French language begins almost always with the fact: hence French understandings consider the fact as the most important.

From these observations upon language, we may conceive that the spirit of no one language can become general. I am of opinion that the spirit of the French will never please Germans; and that Frenchmen, on the other hand, will always dislike that of the German; because the manner of thinking, and the enchainment of ideas, are quite dissimilar in the two nations.

I am farther convinced that different philosophical systems have resulted from various combinations of faculties in their authors. He who has much of the faculty of eventuality will never neglect facts. He who possesses less of it, and a great deal of the faculties of comparison and causality, will begin to philosophize with causes,

and construct the world, instead of observing its existence. He, on the contrary, in whom the faculty of causality is less active, will reject this mode of consideration, and may think it unphilosophical to admit a primitive cause. Another who has individuality very small may doubt of external existence. The philosopher in whom the superior sentiments are very energetic, directs his mind principally to moral principles, and then we have various systems of virtue and morality, according to the predominance of one or other of these. One makes virtue consist in prudence, another in benevolence. One considers all actions as done from love of praise or from vanity; another from self-esteem, from love of self-preservation, self-interest and so on. Philosophers as well as other men think differently, and each is also apt to consider his own manner of thinking and feeling as the best; his consciousness tells him it is so; but every one errs who assumes himself as a measure of the absolute nature of man. In examining human nature, we ought to make abstraction of ourselves entirely; we ought never to admit in man a feeling as the strongest, and a manner of thinking as the best, solely because they are conformable to our own; nor ought we ever to deny in others what we ourselves do not possess. should observe mental phenomena in the conviction that all the essential kinds or particular faculties inhere in human nature; and we should observe how and under what circumstances each faculty can and does act. In this way I think it possible to determine the absolute nature of man, and to become acquainted with the infinity of modifications occurring in individuals.

We

It would be easy to quote examples in the case of every faculty, to prove the mutual influence of the whole; but I shall only dwell on this principle, in reference to abuses of the faculties, for the sake of showing how peculiarities may be explained which seem inconceivable to those who know nothing of Phrenology.

Suppose, for instance, we are told that of two inveterate thieves presented to us, one has never scrupled to rob churches whilst the other has, the robber of the church may be distinguished from the other: he who has the smallest organ of veneration is the thief of

the holy articles. Suppose we see two women in confinement, and are told that one has stolen, and that the other has concealed the stolen things; the former will have the organ of acquisitiveness larger, and that of the propensity to conceal less, while the second will have the organ of secretiveness much developed. If we would detect the chief of a robber band, we examine the organs of selfesteem and determinateness. We may distinguish an habitual vagabond thief from a coiner of false money by his having, besides the organ of acquisitiveness, the organ of locality larger, and smaller organs of cautiousness and of constructiveness. We may also distinguish dangerous and incorrigible criminals from the less desperate and more easily amended. They who have the organs of the sentiments proper to man and of intellect very small, but those of the propensities to fight, to destroy, to conceal, and to acquire, very much developed, will be corrected with far more difficulty than such as have the organ of acquisitiveness very much developed, but at the same time the organs of the human faculties and of intellect large, who, in short, are susceptible of moral will.

CHAPTER II.

On the difficulty of judging others.

Having examined the modified manifestations of the faculties of the mind, natural order leads me to consider the difficulty of judging, and of determining the motives and actions of others. From the preceding views it follows, first, that the judgment of every one as well as all his other functions must be modified. If we but attend to the judgments of different individuals upon the same object, if we note their reflections, and consider what each praises or blames, we may speedily be convinced by experience of the truth of this. It may, indeed, be admitted as a principle, that every one judges according to the natural modifications and the mutual influence of

his faculties; that all judge others by their own nature, or take themselves as the measure of good and evil. Therefore it is that God has at all times been anthropomorphosed; every one has modified the Divinity, and conceived a Creator conformable to his own manner of judging and feeling. And when philosophers, moralists, and the virtuous, regard conscience as the severest judge of malefactors generally, they suppose in these degenerate beings the sentiment they feel themselves;-they judge themselves in the actions of others. In the same way, whatever is conformable to our manner of feeling and thinking is apt to be approved, and the contrary to be disapproved of. To judge well, therefore, we must first distinguish the common nature of man from the modifications every individual; and then we must know our own nature and the modifications of our faculties to avoid censuring or lauding others according to our own favorite sentiments or ideas. We must, in fact, judge others and ourselves by one and the same standard-absolute good and evil.

of

It is also difficult to judge of the actions of others, and to determine their real motives, because the motives of the same action may be quite different. Appearances are proverbially deceitful. I shall quote but a few examples in illustration; a very superficial glance, however, will, at all times, show us many motives for the same act done by different individuals. One gives to the poor from ostentation, another from duty, a third from the hope of gaining heaven, and others again from real charity. One wishes to know the history and situation of the unfortunate,—if he be of his sect or party, &c, before he does good; another relieves as soon as he sees misery, every one is his neighbor, his left hand knows not what his right hand does. One goes to church because it is usual; another to see or to be seen; another to obtain the good opinion of the pious; and another from feelings of sincere veneration. One is neat and clean only when he goes into society, while another is so at all times, even in solitude. One cultivates an art or science from vanity; another because he is charmed with it; and a third because he finds it advantageous, &c.