laying down of these as perfectly established science. Speculation does not hurt science but when it is of a dogmatic character.

If we review the history of any department of science, which is, at present, brought to a high degree of excellence, we shall find that, in its advancement to this condition, it has been helped on fully as much by the imagination, as by the understanding. How many of its important truths does chemistry owe to alchemy! And astronomy owes not a little of her wonderful progress to the pursuit of judicial astrology. We laugh at Descartes' vortices; but these lent their aid to that glorious theory which was conceived and propounded by Copernicus, and verified by Newton.

The philosophical Emerson remarks of English works on science, "that all imagination is driven out of them," and "that they are as dry and uninteresting as treatises on conveyancing." This is rather severe, but not without some truth. Our works on science, doubtless, adhere too rigidly to facts; our scientific men strongly discountenance all play of fancy; and this is most assuredly detrimental to the advancement of knowledge. That it may prevent the multiplication of error is pretty certain; but better have a rich soil though it should be troubled with rank weeds, than a poor one even were it entirely free from them. This rigid exclusiveness with respect to theory has, probably, driven many minds into the region of fiction, that would have been fully more usefully employed in extending the bounds of philosophy by bold and original inquiry.

In no department of intellectual pursuit is the exercise of imagination so important, or so much required, as in those sciences which are yet in their infancy; such as ethnology, archæology, philology, and mythonomy. These are all new sciences whose striking and wonderful facts have excited a most vivid interest in the philosophical world. They are all most intimately connected with man's welfare and highest interests. They are, in fact, so many sciences converging towards one point,-man, so many sciences which, when they have been sufficiently developed in the course of time, will, ultimately, become one. It is highly important, therefore, that the cultivators of these separate, but kindred departments of scientific pursuit should hold this common point of union in view, and mutually cooperate. By doing so their respective labours will, unquestionably, lead to much greater results than can possibly be attained by their individual and independent action. The development of ethnology, undoubtedly, depends on that of the forementioned kindred sciences, and any step of advancement these make will, also, to a certainty, favour its progress.

Before we had hardly any facts to form a basis for this science, voluminous works were written setting down its laws as if it had been as well established as geometry or arithmetic. These books could hardly be said to display much imaginative power, unless prejudice, partiality, dogmatism, and vituperation, can be called the product of imagination. These works, however, have been read, believed, and received as science by great numbers; and, in fact, are not, yet, without a considerable hold on the minds of many superior and enlightened people. This may account for the antipathy which studious ethnologists have to any speculation beyond a rigid induction from ascertained facts. But although some theorists are shallow, prejudiced, strongly whimsical, and weakly imaginative, it does not follow that all are so. On the contrary, an able theory, propounded by a man of clear intellect and vivid imagination, is sure to be eminently suggestive; and, in this respect, cannot but be highly useful to the ardent and assiduous observer. Such a theory supplies the practical ethnologist with important hints calculated to be of great service to him in his endeavours to unravel many of the intricacies which observation presents to him.

It may give him light on many obscure points, and help him to see his way clearly where he saw but dimly before. If he does not adopt the theory entirely, it may lead him, and, also, aid him, to form a theory of his own, more perhaps, in accordance with the result of his inquiries and observations. Again, it may fire his flagging enthusiasm, stimulate him to further exertion; and, although there is no royal road to ethnology any more than to geometry, it may smooth the rugged path a little, soothe and refresh the weary traveller, and so send him on his way rejoicing.'

A good theoretical book, therefore, on a department of science that is but imperfectly known, is by no means to be disapproved of; but, rather, to be hailed as highly serviceable to the prosecution of inquiry. On this account, it is exceedingly pleasing to fall in with a work of this class,-a work written in a charming style, brimful of poetic allusions, and largely abounding in important and instructive suggestions. The work is entitled "Ethnology and Phrenology." The author is Mr. J. W. Jackson, a writer well known already to the scientific world by his able articles in the "Future," as well as by several interesting and important works on scientific subjects. Mr. Jackson is one of those who impart a peculiar fascination to whatever they write, and the present work has all the power of exciting curiosity and enchaining attention, which well written novels possess. When

the book is taken up it can hardly be laid aside till the whole is read through, and when read through the charm is by no means dissolved. Such a train of delightful meditation has been aroused in the mind; such a wide coup d'œil has been presented to it; such emotions have been awakened, that the reader feels a kind of regret in laying the book aside; nay, feels inclined to re-read it, and, in doing so, experiences more pleasure, and finds that the intellectual delights of the work are by no means exhausted. The truth is, it may be read over several times with increased pleasure and benefit.

Phrenology, as a scientific theory, has, for a long time, been before the world, and it may be said, with certainty, that no philosophical theory has ever been more severely tested. It has all along met with most stringent opposition, and its advocates may be said to have fairly answered, in a reasonable manner, most of the objections made to it. The fundamental principles of the science may, therefore, be said to be fairly established; although it is but yet in its infancy. It would, consequently, be extremely injudicious in the ethnologist to deny himself any aid which he might derive from it; in fact, were he to do so he would be denying himself the use of one of the most powerful instruments for throwing light on the most obscure portions of the science. Mr. Jackson has, accordingly, employed phrenology to great advantage in his interesting work, and, by its valuable aid, has given very clear and rational explanations of intricate and profound ethnological questions. The book is remarkable for a wonderful power of concentration; of very few books can multum in parvo be more truly predicated. The arrangement is beautifully methodical, and all the nations of past and modern times are presented to our view with such vividness as would do credit to the pencil of an artist.

Here we have a fine ethnological portraiture of Caucasian, Mongol, and Negro; of Copt, Jew, Egyptian, and Syrian; of Greek, Roman, Celt, Teuton, and Sclavonian. The characteristics of these, both physical and mental, are nicely discriminated and delineated; their respective missions are suggested; and their ethnic relations to one another are pointed out. Although such terms as Caucasian, Negro, and Mongol, are now being disputed, and in a manner thrown aside, from its being shown that they do not truly designate single races; still the terms apply very well to groups of races that are more closely allied to one another; and, on this account, Mr. Jackson is fully justified in having adhered to them. The Negro is, doubtless, a distinct race from the Caffre, the Chinese from the Fin, and the Celt

from the Teuton; but the Caffre is, certainly, nearer the Negro than he is to the Chinese or Celt. Indeed, our present recognised races may yet be found out to be groups of very closely allied ones, as nebulæ are discovered to be clusters of stars by Lord Rosse's telescope.

Mr. Jackson is in favour of the theory that places man in a natural kingdom of his own, and there is very great reason to think that his intellectual and moral nature point him out as an order of being fully distinct from the animal creation. On this point Mr. Jackson (p. 15), remarks;" In all the earlier works on natural history, man was simply regarded as the genus homo, and, in fact, was generally described as a distinct species. This error, for such it undoubtedly was, arose from an overweening estimate of the importance of the ruder portions of the corporeal structure, to the neglect of the nervous system and its higher product, as manifested in mental capacity. Resemblances and diversities in the locomotive, respiratory, and alimentary functions were forcibly dwelt upon, while the immense difference phrenologically observable in the cerebral was practically ignored. This was, perhaps, almost unavoidable previous to the discoveries of Gall; and was, moreover, in strict accordance with the grossly materialistic spirit of the eighteenth century, which loved to dethrone the superior and enthrone the inferior. Gradually, however, have these mistakes in arrangement been corrected. Cuvier placed man in a distinct order-the Bimana; and, as we have said, Professor Owen accords him his rightful supremacy in the Archencephala, on the strength of his cerebral development alone-a most important movement in the right direction. But we may still ask, is this sufficient? Does man differ from the ape and the lion only as the latter differ from the sloth and the bat? We may go still further, and ask, does he differ from the quadrumanous and quadrupedal mammalia only as the latter differ from the reptilia? Is it sufficient to make him simply a distinct class? If we regard only his anatomical proclivities of structure, as at present taught authoritatively in the schools, we shall, of course, say yes. But if we contemplate him morally and phrenologically, we shall answer no. The difference is greater than can be signified by mere diversity of class. When we see the entire animal kingdom living on the plane of unassisted nature unclothed and, save in a few exceptional instances, unhoused, both herbivora and carnivora taking their food quite unprepared; when we see them the creatures of instinct and impulse, utterly devoid of moral sentiment, and, consequently, of conscious responsibility, altogether incapable of rising to the level of abstract thought, and, therefore, on

the plane of simple fact and limited personal experience, ignorant of first principles, and wholly deficient in imagination, in very truth, merely organic and sentient machines; when we compare such beings with man, who has subdued the earth to his purposes; who has covered the land with his cities, and bridged the sea with his ships; who lives under an abiding sense of moral responsibility, and in the resplendent hope of an endless immortality; who ascends as by a law of his higher nature from fact to principle, and has thus grandly interpreted the sublimer verities of that universe amidst which he is physically so insignificant a dweller, and who, despite his magnificent realizations in the religious, social, literary, and artistic spheres, has, nevertheless, an ideal of unattainable excellence within, at once the guide and the prophecy of never ending progress hereafter, both individually and collectively; when we compare these two radically distinct, and we might say contrasted, orders of being, it becomes at once obvious that we must separate man from the inferior creatures by something wider than the demarcation of a class, we must boldly advance to the grander lines of a kingdom, and fearlessly assert that man is separated from the animals, as they from the vegetables, and the latter from the minerals. This is at present rank scientific heterodoxy. We know it, and are quite contented to wait till it becomes respectable scientific orthodoxy."

Here we have the grand distinctive characteristics of man pointed out with trenchant discrimination, and with graphic vividness of delineation. However difficult it may be to discover in man's anatomical structure the gulf between himself and the animal creation, there are very strong probabilities in favour of the opinion that this discovery is but a question of time; that further inquiries will discover something in the human structure separating him as fully from the animal creation as his mental nature does. Mr. Jackson points to phrenology as a theory fully capable of accounting for the difference; and the reader of this able and interesting book will find his views, on this important question, beautifully illustrated in the comparison of man with the gorilla.

The confounding of races, nations, and peoples, has greatly retarded the progress of ethnology, darkened the path of the science, and obstructed it with innumerable errors. It is very much to be regretted that the names of nations and peoples have been adopted for those of races which formed principal elements in them. On this topic Mr. Jackson makes the following judicious observations :

"Do we yet really know what is meant by a race or a nation; or