Elsewhere he remarks:

The internal organs are plainly not the agents of their special functions only, but by reason of the intimate consent or sympathy of functions they are essential constituents of our mental life.*

In corroboration of the views of the highly respected gentlemen above quoted, I add the following from the pen of George Henry Lewes, who observes:

I do not agree in the opinion respecting the brain as the organ of the mind; one of the principal conclusions to which fact and argument will direct us in these pages will be that the brain is only one organ of the mind, and not by any means the exclusive centre of consciousness. It will be understood by the word Mind we do not designate the intellectual operations only. But the word Mind has a broader and deeper signification; it includes all sensation, all volition, and all thought. It means the whole psychical life, and this psychical life has no one special centre any more than the physical life has one special centre; it belongs to the whole and animates the whole. The brain is a part of this whole, a noble part, and its functions are noble, but it is only the organ of special mental functions. It is not the exclusive sensorium, and its absence does not imply the absence of all consciousness. It cannot, therefore, be considered as the organ, but only as one organ of the mind.†

The following from the work of Dr. J. Lauder Lindsay, entitled "Mind in the Lower Animals," will not be without interest, and is entitled to our respect in consideration of the source whence it emanates. Dr. Lindsay has been for many years at the head of an institution for the insane in Scotland, and is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of England. His investigations of diseased mental peculiarities of the insane have opened the way to an understanding of the locale of the mind, and he states his belief of its location and action thus. He remarks:

The student of comparative psychology cannot too soon divest himself of the erroneous popular idea that brain and mind are in a sense synonymous; that the brain is the sole organ of the mind; that mind cannot exist without brain; or that there is any necessary relation between the size, form, and weight of the brain and the degree of mental development. Even in man there is no necessary relation between the size, form, and weight of the brain and the degree of mental development, while the phenomena of disease in him show to what extent lesions of cerebral substance occur without affecting the mental life. Physiologists are gradually adopting or forming a more and more comprehensive conception of mind, and are coming to regard it as a function or attribute not of any particular organ or part of the body, but of the body as a whole.

Long ago the illustrious Milton, discoursing of mind and its seat, properly described the human mind as an attribute of man's body as a whole. In various forms and words this view has been expressed in recent times by Muller, Lewes, Laycock, Bashman, Bastian, Maudsley, Carpenter,

and others. According to these authors, "the seat of mind is throughout the body" (Muller); "mind pervades the body" (Laycock and Bashman); "mind comprehends the bodily life" (Maudsley); "psychical life has no one especial centre" (Lewes); "the whole nervous system is the seat or organ of the mind, the brain being only its chief seat or organ" (Bastian). The brain, then, is only one organ of mind, the organ, it may be said, only of special mental functions. The old doctrine or assumption of the phrenologists, as represented by Gall and Combe, the doctrine in which they have so greatly prided themselves and foolishly continue to do so, that, namely, which regards the brain as the sole organ of the mind, must unquestionably be given up. We must henceforth regard the true site, seat, or organ of the mind as the whole body, and this is the only sound basis on which the comparative psychologist can begin his studies. There would be the less difficulty in accepting such a basis were it only borne in view that the muscular as well as the nervous system, that muscular action has an intimate relation to mental phenomena,-to ideas as well as feelings. "Muscular action is essential in certain, if not in all, mental processes,-e.g., in feeling or emotion, outward muscular expression (i.e., facial), and inward ideas and feelings are inseparately correlated" (Maudsley).*

There are many more of our leading physicians, anatomists, and naturalists of every nationality who believe and demonstrate the theory of the physical basis of mind, but enough evidence from the writings of the most eminent has been adduced to assist the reader in gaining a knowledge of the course I propose to take in this work. Further evidence will be presented as the reader advances.

It has been reserved for me to extend their theories and observations to a finality, and to show that mental faculties are directly related to and sustained by the action of physical functions, and also to prove by the face the direct connection of physical functions with mental faculties. The diffusive locale of the mind will become more and more apparent as the rationale develops, and I believe that the proofs will not be wanting to substantiate my position.

I maintain that nearly all errors in regard to man-his life, his surroundings, his relations to them and their relations to him, his religion, his sense of right, his misconceptions of beauty, his exceedingly scant knowledge of governmental principles-proceed directly from utter ignorance of himself; and, while he has a knowledge of the planets, stars, winds, rocks, beasts, birds, snakes, and animalculæ, he does not know the laws which govern his own. body. He understands not one single sign of character as indicated by the face; he knows not the meaning of different voices; the walk of man conveys to him no meaning; the color of the eyes and hair declare nothing to his sense of sight. He is like a mole

Mind in the Lower Animals, J. Lauder Lindsay, M.D., Part II, pp. 3, 4.

groping in daylight. He plans and executes grand enterprises; he spans continents; he examines the character of the uttermost stars; calculates eclipses; traces the paths of comets to remote ages; understands to a nicety the great world and the little world as shown by the telescope and the microscope, and yet cannot sound the depths of his child's character, which appear to him unfathomable. Why is this? Is it because the science of man is more abstruse and occult than all others? Because it belongs to the unknowable? Not so. It is because he has not thought of these things, and because he has not been taught them as he has the other sciences. I regard it as the most simple of all sciences, the most easily demonstrated, the most essential to human happiness and welfare.

And until the science of physiognomy is commonly understood, government, as a science, cannot go forward. Legislating for beings of the laws of whose existence one is in utter ignorance is an absurdity and will fail. Not until the masses can put themselves in harmonious relations to their environment can government go forward, and this can result only from a complete knowledge of man, his capacities, his needs, and his possibilities. This knowledge proceeds only from a scientific study of himself. When man becomes convinced that his face registers his life, and that "he who runs may read" what he has been about, and that he cannot hide his inner self from the gaze of the world, he will endeavor to make his life so good and so noble that he will not be ashamed of the most rigid scrutiny, because it is only in thus doing that he will be enabled to have either a character or a reputation. "Experience daily declares that certain irregular and vicious propensities impress very sensible traces on the countenance. The surest method, then, to embellish our physiognomy is to adorn the mind."

Physiognomy as a science, with rules and established principles so plainly set forth as to be comprehended by the masses, had never been given to the world until my recent publication. Lavater possessed the power of reading the human face intuitively, but he has left among his writings no rules nor principles by which students can learn this science. The best book and school for students is Nature. Still, a keen observer may record such discoveries in this field as to be a benefit to coming generations. This science is gigantic in its proportions, and when we reflect that there are in the world no two organizations with exactly the same combinations of traits we see that the field is wide, with room for many observers. I leave the case in the hands of the scientific, the logical, the unprejudiced reader. My motives are based on a

love of humanity, nature, and truth, and will enable me to reject any idea, however much I may respect it, if it be found untrue and unscientific.

All true lovers of humanity must surely take as great interest in promoting the right generation of the race as in regenerating the defectively organized. A scientific knowledge of the face of man is the first step toward this great work; the next is the union of suitably adapted men and women for parentage,-those who, by the union of their traits and physiological powers, would produce a higher type of children than they could were they unsuitably united. In order to bring about this much-to-be-desired result a certain degree of positive knowledge of the human face and body is essential. This course demands that some factors other than "blind love" be brought into the marriage relation to sanctify it. In this sacred relation there should be no "blindness." Cupid should be all eyes. This course, then, presupposes a recourse to observation and reason, to love of purity, noble traits, and righteousness,—in short, to scientific religion.

The motive which attracts the majority of men and women to matrimony could be shown to be nothing higher than animal magnetism or instinct, if the truth were told. Probably most people never pause to analyze their feelings on this subject. It is upon this self-same plane that animals mate. Should not lovers of humanity and of religion act from higher motives than those which move the lowly beasts of the field? The object of this book is to afford the assistance necessary toward the right generation of mankind and the creation of the highest types of human beings possible under our present limitations. Its laws and principles, being founded on Nature, will teach how to distinguish the false from the real, for the "laws of Nature are the thoughts of God," and science, being an exposition of the laws of Nature, deals with realities and demonstrable theories.

CHAPTER II.

THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FORM.

"The philosophy of expression is based on the science of human nature. The science of human nature involves a knowledge of universal and eternal nature. The microcosmos is an epitome of the cosmos. Man when thoroughly comprehended is a key to eternal nature, but again he who fails to comprehend nature fails to comprehend himself."-J. BUCK, M.D.

"The human frame, unlike that of the animal, is co-ordinate with the whole eternal universe. It is an organization correlated and responsive to the entire series of the natural creation. The brain is a form of the elemental kingdom, the lungs of the atmospheric world, and the abdomen of the terraqueous globe."-SWEDENBORG.

T

HE basis of all form is motion. The basis of time is also motion. The basis primarily of form, motion, and time is numerical, or mathematical. These profound truths were wrought out by the Greek philosophers; for it was Plato who exclaimed: "God perpetually geometrizes." All motions, forms, distances, spaces, and chemical products are resolvable into numbers. The chemical constitution even of all matter is a question of atomic proportions or quantitative particles, and primordial chemical atoms must present specific forms, or possess weight, and are posited in space, and subject to the laws of time or duration. These chemical atoms or gaseous quantities as they rise into form (as in the motion and shape of the planets) become more and more the subjects of mathematical laws, as they become more and more complex in their structure and movements. The laws of all structures whatsoever are deducible from this single science, mathematics. In the first condition of atoms, the number of particles of which they are composed, or their weight (as in gases) is their prime factor. The next ruling principle is the form which they eventually assume. This is geometrical and numerical as well, for all lines running in any direction create shapes; more particularly is this the case when concreted with substance, as in the form of planets or of vegetable or animal cells

or structures.

Another property of an atom, a planet, a mineral, a plant, or an animal cell, is its chemical or real character-condition. Which comes first? The chemical quality of the atom, the numerical quality, or the form which is necessarily a part of these objects? It must be supposed that the elementary or primordial nebula is