rsons some formed the
regular phrenological class conducted there weekly by Mr. Burns. The
others were, generally speaking, of the ordinary lecture-audience type.
One stout lady occupied an easy-chair in a corner, and slept from first
to last.

The first part of the lecture was a little discursive, I fancy for my
especial benefit, and summarized Mr. Burns' system, which is to a great
extent original. Beginning by a disavowal of all dogmas, he began by
advancing what was to me the entirely novel doctrine, that the brain was
not the sole organ of the mind, but that the whole organism of man had
to be taken into account in the diagnosis of character, since the entire
body was permeated with the mind. The bones, fluids, and viscera were
all related to mental phenomena. The lecturer even questioned whether
the science he promulgated was properly termed phrenology. It certainly
did not answer to the conventional idea of that craft. Referring to a
calico diagram which was pinned to the curtains of the first-floor
front, and at which he pointed with a walking-stick, Mr. Burns notified
four divisions of the animal frame--1, the vital organs; 2, the
mechanical; 3, the nervous (which in the lower orders were ganglionic
only); 4, the cerebral apparatus. He defended the animal powers from the
debased idea usually attached to them, and pointed out their close
connexion with the spirit, nearer to which they were placed than any
portion of the economy.

He then proceeded to apply his preliminary remarks to preachers in
general. Theodore Parker, for instance, was a man of spare body and
large brain. He was surrounded by intellectual people, and his disciples
were quite sui generis. On the other hand, Spurgeon was a man of strong
animal and perceptive powers, and so able to send the Walworth
shopkeepers into ecstasies. His ganglions were big, as was the case in
all great preachers. Emotion, he said, was more a matter of bowels than
of brain. The ganglionic power carried the brain; but there were, of
course, combinations of all grades.

In the case of Henry Ward Beecher, two of whose photographs he held in
his hand, he dwelt on the disadvantage of having only the shadow instead
of the substance of his head to deal with. Here, he said, we had all the
elements on a large scale. The brain, thoracic system, osseous
structure, and abdominal development were all in excess. The face was,
as it were, the picture of all. Henry Ward Beecher was