Development.
Amativeness, very large. Philo-progenitiveness, full. Concentrativeness, deficient. Adhesiveness, full. Combativeness, large. Destructiveness, very large. Constructiveness, moderate. Acquisitiveness, large. Secretiveness, large. Self-esteem, rather large. Love of approbation, rather large. Cautiousness, rather large. Benevolence, large. Veneration, large. Hope, small. Ideality, small. Conscientiousness, rather large. Firmness, large. Individuality, upper, moderate. Do. lower, full. Form, full. Size, do. Weight, do. Colour, do. Locality, do. Order, do. Time, deficient. Number, full. Tune, moderate. Language, full. Comparison, full. Casualty, rather large. Wit, deficient. Imitation, full.
The above report, it may be necessary to observe, was taken a few hours after the execution. In consequence of the body having been thrown on its back, the integuments not only at the back of the head and neck, but at the posterior lateral parts of the head were at the time extremely congested; for in all cases of death by hanging, the blood remaining uncoagulated, invariably gravitates to those parts which are in the most depending position. Hence, there was a distension in this case over many of the most important organs which gave, for example Amativeness, Combativeness, Destructiveness, &c. an appearance of size which never existed during life, and, on the other hand, made many of the moral and intellectual organs seem in contrast relatively less than they would otherwise have appeared. In this state, a cast of the head was taken by Mr. Joseph; but although for Phrenological purposes it may do very well, yet no measurement either from the head itself in that condition, or a cast taken from it, can afford us any fair criterion of the development of the brain itself. We know that this objection applies to the busts of all the murderers which adorn the chief pillars of the Phrenological system, and in no case is it more obvious than in the present.
Our able Professor, Dr. Monro, gave a demonstration of the brain to a crowded audience on Thursday morning, and we have, from the best authority, been given to understand, that it presented nothing unusual in its appearance. We have heard it asserted, that the lateral lobes were enormously developed, but having made inquiry on this subject, we do not find they were more developed than is usual. As no measurement of the brain itself was taken, all reports on this subject must be unsatisfactory; nor could the evidence of an eye-witness in such a matter prove sufficient to be admitted as proof either in favour of or against Phrenology.
The question which naturally arises is, whether the above developments correspond with the character of Burke? It is not our intention to enter into any controversy on this subject; yet we cannot help remarking, that it may be interpreted, like all developments of a similar kind, either favourably or unfavourably for Phrenology, as the ingenuity or prejudices of any individual may influence him. We have the moral organs more developed certainly than they ought to have been; but to this it is replied, that Burke, under the benign influence of these better faculties, lived upwards of thirty years, without committing any of those tremendous atrocities which have so paralysed the public mind. He is neither so deficient in Benevolence nor Conscientiousness as he ought to have been, phrenologically speaking, and these organs, which modified and gave respectability to his character for as many as thirty years, all of a sudden cease to exercise any influence, and Acquisitiveness and Destructiveness, arising like two archfiends on both sides, leave the state of inactivity in which they had reposed for so long a period, and gain a most unaccountable control over the physical powers under which they had reposed for so many years succumbed. But, is the size of the organ of Destructiveness in Burke larger than it is found in the generality of heads?—and are his organs of Benevolence and Conscientiousness less developed than usual?—We hope to have it in our power, at an early period, to adduce sufficient evidence to determine these questions; and in the mean time, leave our readers, who have the inclination and leisure, to amuse themselves, like the astrologers of old, with the above phrenological horoscope of this atrocious criminal.
It is an old saying that Doctors differ; nor has our recent experience tended, in any degree, to abate our confidence in this maxim. As it is desirable, however, to show both sides of a question at once, we insert the following “Observations on the Head of William Burke,” from the pen of a distinguished Phrenologist:—
Public attention has been so strongly attracted by the atrocious crimes of Burke, that the other incidents of his life, and his general character as a man, are liable to be altogether overlooked. In viewing his character, however, with a philosophic eye, the whole mental qualities manifested by him in the different situations in which he was placed, must be taken into account.
Burke was born in the parish of Orrey, county of Tyrone, in Ireland, in the spring of 1792. When at school, he was distinguished as an apt scholar—a cleanly, active, good-looking boy; and though his parents were strict Catholics, he was taken into the service of a Presbyterian clergyman, in whose house he resided for a considerable time. He was recommended by the minister to a gentleman in Straban, in whose employment he remained for several years.
He subsequently tried the trade of a baker, at which he continued only for five months. He thereafter became a linen-weaver, but soon got disgusted with the close application that was essential to earn a livelihood at that poorly-paid, irksome employment, and he enlisted in the Donegal militia. He was selected by an officer as his servant, and we are told that he demeaned himself with fidelity and propriety. While in the army, he married a woman in Ballinha, in the county of Mayo, and after seven years’ service, the regiment was disbanded, and he went home to his wife. He shortly afterwards obtained the situation of groom and body-servant to a gentleman in that vicinity, with whom he remained three years.
He subsequently came to work at the Union Canal in Scotland, and there formed an acquaintance with the woman M‘Dougal, who became remarkably fond of him, deserted her paternal roof for his society, and attached herself to him, partaking of his various fortunes during the last ten years of his life. It is mentioned that Burke treated her with kindness, and acknowledged her as his wife; and that she was passionately fond of him in return.
Being reduced to much wretchedness and poverty, Burke and M‘Dougal lodged for a few nights in Hare’s house, and during his stay, a fellow-lodger died, whose body was sold by Hare and Burke for dissection. At this point, his career of villany commenced. The price of the body being expended, Burke decoyed a woman into Hare’s den and murdered her, and sold her body. He and Hare repeated similar tragedies twelve or thirteen times during the course of a year, till at last they were detected.
Nothing can exceed the intense selfishness, cold-blooded cruelty, and calculating villany of these transactions; and if the organs of Selfishness and Destructiveness be not found in Burke, it would be as anomalous as if no organs were found for the better qualities which he had previously displayed.
Phrenology is the only science of mind which contains elements and principles capable of accounting for such a character as that before us; and it does so in a striking manner. We have seen a measurement and development of the head of Burke, taken by an experienced Phrenologist from the living head; also a very accurate cast of the head with the hair shaven, taken by Mr. Joseph after the execution; and we have conversed with a medical gentleman who saw the brain dissected. The head was rather above than below the middle size. The middle lobe of the brain, in which are situated the organs of Destructiveness, Secretiveness and Acqusitiveness, was very large; at Destructiveness, in particular, the skull presented a distinct swell, and the bone was remarkably thin. The cerebellum, or organ of Amativeness, was large, and Burke stated that, in some respects, his ruin was to be attributed to the abuses of this propensity, because it had led him into habits which terminated in his greatest crimes. The organs of Self-esteem and Firmness were also largely developed. It is mentioned in all the Phrenological works, that Self-Esteem and Acqusitiveness are the grand elements of Selfishness. The anterior lobe, or that in which the intellect is placed, although small in proportion to the middle lobe, was still fairly developed, especially in the lower region, which is connected with the perceptive faculties. In accordance with this fact, Burke displayed acuteness and readiness of understanding. He could read and write with facility, and his conversation was pertinent and ready. The upper part of the forehead, connected with the reflecting organs, was deficient. The organ of Ideality, which gives refinement and elevation, was exceedingly small; that of Wonder, which prompts to admiration, is also deficient; and the organ of Wit is small.
Here we find the organs, which, when abused, lead to selfishness, cruelty, cunning, and determination, all large; but we have still to account for the faculties which enabled him to act a better part in life. Accordingly, Combativeness is considerably inferior to Destructiveness in size, and Cautiousness is large. These, acting in combination with great Firmness and Secretiveness, would give him command of temper; and, accordingly, it is mentioned that he was by no means of a quarrelsome disposition, but when once roused into a passion, he became altogether ungovernable; deaf to reason and utterly reckless, he raged like a fury, and to tame him was no easy task; that is to say, when his large Destructiveness was excited to such an extent that it broke through the restraints of his other faculties, his passion was elevated into perfect madness. Farther, looking at the coronal surface of the brain—the seat of the moral sentiments—we find it narrow in the anterior portion, but tolerably well elevated; that is to say, the organ of Benevolence, although not at all equal in size to the organs of the animal propensities before mentioned, is fairly developed. Veneration and Hope are also full; while Conscientiousness is, in Phrenological language, “rather full,” or, in common speech, not remarkably deficient. Love of Approbation also is full. In these faculties, we find the elements of the morality which he manifested in the early part of his life; and also an explanation of the fact, remarked by all who saw him, that he possessed a mildness of aspect and suavity of manner, which seemed in inexplicable contradiction with his cold-blooded ferocity. If there had been no kindness at all in Burke’s nature, this expression would have been an effect without a cause.
The organ of Imitation is well developed; and it is mentioned in the Phrenological works that Secretiveness (which in him is likewise large,) in combination with Imitation, produces the power of acting, or simulation. It is curious to observe that Burke possessed this talent to a considerable extent. He stated that he was fond of the theatre, and occasionally represented again the acting which he had seen. He also, and not Hare, was the decoyer, who, by pretended kindness, fawning, and flattery, or by acting the semblance of a friend, inveigled the victims into the den. This quality enabled him also to act a part in his interviews with the various individuals who visited him in jail. He showed considerable tact in adapting himself to the person who addressed him; and from the same cause it was sometimes difficult to discover when he was serious and when only feigning. His great Self-Esteem, Firmness, Cautiousness, and Secretiveness, produced that self-command and unshaken composure which never forsook him during his trial and execution.
One of the most striking tests of the degree in which the moral sentiments are possessed by a criminal, is the impression which his crimes make upon his own conscience when the deeds have been committed. In John Bellingham, who murdered Mr. Percival, the organ of Destructiveness is very large, while that of Benevolence is exceedingly deficient; and Bellingham could never be brought to perceive the cruelty and atrocity of the murder. Burke, in whom Benevolence is better developed, stated, that “for a long time after he had murdered his first victim, he found it utterly impossible to banish for a single hour the recollection of the fatal struggle—the screams of distress and despair—the agonizing groans—and all the realities of the dreadful deed. At night, the bloody tragedy, accompanied by frightful visions of supernatural beings, tormented him in his dreams. For a long time he shuddered at the thought of being alone in the dark, and during the night he kept a light constantly burning by his bed-side.” Even to the last, he could not entirely overcome the repugnance of his moral nature to murder, but mentioned that he found it necessary to deaden his sensibilities with whisky, leaving only so great a glimmering of sense as to be conscious of what he was doing. He positively asserted that he could not have committed murder when perfectly sober.
Burke was considerably muscular, and in the cast with the hair shaven, taken after death, the measurement of destructiveness is two-eighths of an inch larger than the measurement taken during life, which must be abated in the estimate of the organ.
We confess that we do not possess enough of science to enable us either to vindicate or refute the reasoning contained in the above developments. It is understood that a gentleman who has already distinguished himself as an opponent of Phrenology, is to appear again as an impugner of the doctrine given forth in the above description, and questionless he will be replied to by the amateurs of the science. One thing must be apparent in the above account, that while Phrenology is pompously announced as “the only science of mind which contains elements and principles capable of accounting for such a character as that before us,” the utmost that is attempted is to give a Phrenological description of the head, and to explain some traits of the character of Burke, and to endeavour to reconcile some discrepancies in the development, which seem not only inconsistent with each other, but which, taken in connection with his character and actions, would appear to any one but a Phrenologist to be positive contradictions.
It does not appear in this instance at least, that Phrenology possesses any peculiar aptitude in accounting for such a character; as the knowledge that a man may commit atrocious crimes and bear a different semblance to the world; that he may be actuated by a powerful motive at one time which gives place to another at a different season, and that again yielding to a third, is a fact that was sufficiently known before the science was promulgated, and would have been as intelligible as Phrenology has made it though we had never heard of the science, and merely telling us that such and such protuberances on the skull denote such and such faculties, does not at all account for the character. Many ignorant people also who cannot “view his character with a philosophic eye,” might inform us, that frequently a man does not get desperately wicked all at once, and that there is nothing very uncommon in a person behaving tolerably well for a length of time, and afterwards abandoning himself to the most profligate courses, neither is it unusual with an ignorant man, when once roused into a passion, to become “altogether ungovernable.” We have seen such a thing occur where “large destructiveness” was never exhibited nor suspected.
The learned Phrenologist then goes on to reconcile what has usually been accounted incompatible qualities, his “full Benevolence and large Destructiveness.” It is rather too much to assume that the existence of the affection benevolence is sufficiently proved, even for phrenological purposes, by quoting the story that Burke himself told of his horror after committing the first murder. Surely, though this tale was implicitly credited, the mere fact of a murderer’s slumbers being haunted with the image of his victim for a brief space, cannot prove the existence of benevolence; but we shrewdly surmise that the whole is a fiction of Burke’s, and that he narrated it at a time when the well developed organ of Imitation, combined with his large Secretiveness, was excited to such a degree as to produce acting or simulation, and that it furnishes an illustration of “the tact he showed in adapting himself to the person who addressed him.” We happen to know that he spoke quite freely about this as well as his other murders; that he went about it in the most cool and heartless manner; that the two monsters not only enticed the poor old woman into the house, and allured her with a show of kindness, but that they actually, in this their first essay, when they were just about to perpetrate it, jested upon the subject. Hare asking Burke “to go ben and see how his mother-in-law was this morning,” surely then was the time for benevolence to exhibit itself, but we presume that his “large Destructiveness was excited to such an extent, that it broke through the restraints of his other faculties,” and forced him to suffocate a helpless and infirm female, without even the miserable palliation of having previously intoxicated himself for the purpose, and on the next opportunity they could discover to perform the same bloody tragedy, without being ever troubled with compunction or remorse, until his organ of Imitation, in combination with Secretiveness, produced the power of acting, or simulation, in the condemned cell in the Calton-hill Jail.
We suppose that this acting or simulation, of which so much is made by the eminent Phrenologist, means neither more nor less than that he was an accomplished liar, and that faculty seems to have been in full operation when he averred, “that he could never entirely overcome the repugnance of his moral nature to murder, but that he found it necessary to deaden his sensibilities with whisky, leaving only so great a glimmering of sense as to be conscious of what he was doing.” “His moral nature” must have been of a very accommodating description, if it could without repugnance allow him to prowl about continually literally seeking whom he might devour, and “by pretended kindness, fawning and flattery, or by acting the semblance of a friend, to inveigle the victims into the den,” and when there, to entertain them with a show of kindness and hospitality, and then prompt him “to deaden his sensibilities with whisky” before it could permit him to complete the scene. But perhaps it was his benevolence that induced him to behave in this kind manner until the whisky should excite his destructiveness at the moment that the sacrifice was prepared.
But the truth is that there was neither “ungovernable fury” nor intoxication to excuse or account for his murders; they were all committed in cold blood, and without one palliating circumstance; and although he might have been drunk when some of them were concluded, he was generally sober during the preparatory process of kidnapping, and instigating them to drink.
He was continually drunk, because from his seldom working he had leisure for drinking, and an abundant supply of money, and with these he would have indulged in the same vice although there had been no reason for “deadening his sensibilities.”
The smallness of the organ of Wit is in direct opposition to the notoriety for humour and drollery he had acquired among his acquaintance.
While we allow that Burke was not such a reprobate all his life, as he was towards the close of it, we question whether he ever possessed much of “the elements of morality,” even in his youth. An account has been adopted which gives some colour to the opinion that his morality was purer than the actual fact would warrant us to allow. We have already stated in a former number, that he served only one gentleman before entering the militia. This is on his own authority, and we believe also, from the same source, he was never either a baker or a weaver, so far from being three years a groom after his discharge from the Donegal militia, he did not remain one year in Ireland, which the dates will abundantly testify. He first proved unfaithful to his wife, and as we have seen, afterwards deserted her and his children, on discovering that his father-in-law properly appreciated the selfishness and worthlessness of his character, and refused to trust him too far. His living in adultery with the woman M‘Dougal, does not display great attainments in morality, as in like manner, his unfaithfulness even to her, and frequent brutal usage of her, cannot exhibit his benevolence in a very favourable light. It is altogether too much to elevate this unnatural and anomalous monster into a being possessing some of the best and noblest attributes of humanity, merely that the dogmas of a favourite pursuit should be supported. We opine, that the lauders of the immaculate science must content themselves with the fame it has acquired from the developments of former murderers, or alter the whole systems of metaphysics heretofore received, should they not be able to discover a new designation for the bumps they may find on a murderer’s cranium.