PHRENOLOGY. This name was given by Forster in 1815 to the empirical system of psychology formulated by Gall and developed by his followers, especially by Spurzheim and Combe. At first it was named “cranioscopy,” “craniology,” “physiognomy,” or “zoonomy,” but Forster’s name was early adopted by Spurzheim, and became that whereby the system is now known. The principles upon which it is based are four: (1) the brain is the organ of the mind; (2) the mental powers of man can be analysed into a definite number of independent faculties; (3) these faculties are innate, and each has its seat in a definite region of the brain; (4) the size of each of these regions is the measure of the power of manifesting the faculty associated with it. - While phrenology is thus, on the one hand, a system of mental philosophy, it has a second and more popular aspect as a method whereby the disposition and character of the individual may be ascertained. These two sides of the subject are distinct from each other, for, while it can only serve as a reliable guide for reading character on the assumption of its truth as a philosophic system, yet the possibility of its practical application does not necessarily follow from the establishment of the truth of its theoretic side.
History.— That the phenomena of mind are in some measure connected with the action of the brain has been recognized from a very early age of philosophy. It is true that Aristotle describes the brain as the coldest and most bloodless of bodily organs, of the nature of water and earth, whose chief purpose is to temper the excessive heat of the heart, as the cooler regions of the firmament condense the vapours rising from the earth. In his view, as in that of most of the earlier writers of other nations of antiquity, the heart is the seat of life; to it, not to the brain, the Hebrew writers refer thoughts and affections, while they considered judgment as seated sometimes in the head, sometimes in the kidneys. This was, likewise, the teaching of the ancient Egyptian philosophy; and hence, while many rites were practised and many prayers offered for the preservation of the heart of the deceased, the brains were passed over with very little precaution for their preservation. The influence of the Aristotelian teaching is traceable in that of some of the earlier classic writings on philosophy, as is that of the Hebrews in our own colloquial language; but we learn from Diogenes Laertius that much more accurate physiological views were held by Pythagoras, who believed the mind and the intellect to have their seat in the brain. The theory of Hippocrates was Pythagorean rather than Aristotelian, for, although in one passage in his work De Corde he expresses himself rather doubtfully, yet elsewhere he clearly states that he considers the brain to be the index and messenger of the intellect. The cerebral seat of sense-perception is also taught by Plato, who puts into the mouth of Socrates the theory that the brain is the organ affected by the senses, whereby memory and opinion arise, and from whence knowledge springs. The classic poets also notice this dependence of mind on brain; for example, in the Clouds (v. 1276) Strepsiades accuses Amynias of not being in his right mind, and, on being asked why, responds, “You seem to me as if you had had a concussion of the brain.”
The two founders of anatomical science, Erasistratus and Herophilus, who lived in the days of Ptolemy Soter, taught not only that the brain was the seat of sensation and of intellect, but also that there was therein a certain degree of localization of function. Erasistratus believed that the sensory nerves arose from the brain-membranes, the motor from the cerebral substance. Herophilus was apparently the first who held that the vital forces resided in and circulated from the ventricles of the brain, at least so we gather from Celsus and the other authors who have preserved his views. By the influence of the writings of Galen, which directly teach that the brain is the seat of soul and intellect, the Pythagorean doctrine became universally received among philosophers. According to the Galenical theory of life, the animal spirits arising from the brain are conveyed thence by the arteries through the body. These animal spirits have their origin in the ventricles of the brain, and pass thence to the heart. It is true that in one place (viii. 159) he refers their origin to the cerebral substance, but the ventricular theory was that adopted by his followers. This view is held by the Greek physicians, some of whom even speculated on the relation of the intellect to the shape and size of the head. The Arabians adopted the same hypothesis, so we find Averrhoes correcting Aristotle’s notion of cerebral physiology in favour of Galen’s view. Rhazes also extended this by giving a sketch of a scheme of psychic localization; and Avicenna added to the regions recognized by previous authors by interpolating one of his own. Such of the early Christian authors as had occasion to refer in their writings to the relation of soul to body naturally adopted the teaching of Galen, and suited it to their theology, thereby conferring on it an importance which rendered correction difficult. Thomas Aquinas thus expresses his acquiescence in the theory of localization, as also in a sense does Tertullian.
Early in the 13th century Albertus Magnus gave a detailed description of the distribution of mental and psychical faculties in the head. The anterior region he assigned to judgment, the middle to imagination, and the posterior to memory. A somewhat similar allocation was made by Gordon, professor of medicine in Montpellier (1296), who assigned common sensation and the reception of impressions to the anterior cornua of the lateral ventricles, phantasia to the posterior, this power being twofold (imαginαtiva and cogitativa), judgment or sεstimαtivα to the third ventricle, and memory to the fourth. Figures of a similar division were given by Petrus Montagnana ° and Lodovico Dolce, still later by Ghiradelli of Bologna and by Theodore Gall of Antwerp. That the “vital spirits” resided in the ventricles was doubted by many, and refuted by a few of the anatomists of the 17th century. Bauhin in 1621 attacked the old view, and Hoffmann of Altorf showed that, as the ventricles were closed cavities, they could not transmit any material fluid. That these spirits existed at all was doubted by Alexander Benedictus, Plater, and a few others; but they were believed in by the great majority of 17th and even of 18th century medical writers, many of whom conceived that the ventricles were “semper pleni spiritibus animalibus flammulis similibus, quorum beneficiis intelligimus, sentimus,et movemus,” and the opponents of this view were strongly assailed by Riolan and others as revolutionary. The grey matter of the surface of the cerebrum was first recognized as the true dynamic element by Malpighi and Willis. The latter regarded the convoluted surface of the cerebrum as the seat of the memory and the will, the convolutions being intended to retain the animal spirits for the various acts of imagination and memory. Imagination he described as seated in the corpus callosum, sense-perception in the corpus striatum, and impetus et perturbatio in the basal parts of the cerebrum above the crura. The thalami he regarded as the centres of sight and the cerebellum of involuntary acts. Columbus ridiculed the idea that the convoluted surface can have anything to do with intellect, as the ass, a proverbially stupid animal, has a convoluted cerebrum. According to his view, the convolutions are for the purpose of lightening the brain and facilitating its movements. Succeeding anatomists simply varied these localizations according to their respective fancies. Lancisi placed sense-perception in the corpus callosum, Vieussens in the centrum ovale majus. Descartes supposed the soul to be seated in the pineal gland, Lotze in the pons Varolii. Meyer considered abstract ideas to arise in the cerebellum, and memory to have its seat at the roots of the nerves.
Of later writers three deserve special notice as having largely prepared the way for the more modern school of phrenology. Unzer of Halle in his work on physiology extended the pre-existing theories of localization. Metzger, twenty years before the publication of Prochaska’s work, had proposed to make a series of observations on the anatomical characters of the brains of persons of marked intellectual peculiarity; but it is not known to the present writer whether he ever carried this into effect. In a more special manner Prochaska of Vienna may be looked upon as the father of phrenology, as in his work on the nervous system, published in Vienna in 1784, are to be found the germs of the later views which were propounded in that city twelve years later.
The system formulated by Gall is thus a modern expansion of an old empirical philosophy, and its immediate parentage is easily traced, although, according to Gall’s account, it arose with him as the result of independent observations. These, he tells us, he began to make at an early age, by learning to correlate the outward appearances and mental qualities of his schoolfellows. Gall’s first published paper was a letter in the Deutscher Merkur of December 1798, but his principal expositions were oral, and attracted much popular attention, which largely increased when, in 1802, he was commanded by the Austrian Government, at the instance of the ecclesiastical authorities, to discontinue his public lectures. In 1804 he obtained the co-operation of Spurzheim (1776-1832), a native of Long-wich near Treves, who became his pupil in 1800, and proved a powerful ally in promulgating the system. Master and pupil at first taught in harmony, but they found it advisable to separate in 1813; and we find Spurzheim, several years after their parting, declaring that Gall had not introduced any new improvements into his system since their separation (notes to Chenevix, p. 99). “My philosophical views,” he also says, “widely differ from those of Gall.”
In Paris, where he settled in 1807, Gall made many influential converts to his system. Broussais, Blainville, Cloquet, Andral, Geoffroy St-Hilaire, Vimont, and others warmly attached themselves to it, and countenanced its progress. Gall visited Great Britain, but the diffusion of phrenology there was chiefly due to Spurzheim, who lectured through the country and through America, and, with the aid of his pupil George Combe, soon attracted a large popular following. His most influential disciples were Elliotson, Andrew Combe, Mackenzie, Macnish, Laycock, and Archbishop Whately, and in America Caldwell and Godman. On the opposite side many influential men took up a strongly antagonistic position, prominent among whom were Barclay the anatomist, Roget, Sir Charles Bell, Sir W. Hamilton, Jeffrey, Brougham, T. Brown, and Sir B. Brodie. The nature of the system rendered it eminently fitted to catch public attention, and it rapidly attained to so great a degree of popularity that in 1832 there were twenty-nine phrenological societies in Great Britain, and several journals devoted to phrenology in Britain and America; of these the Phrenological Journal, a quarterly edited chiefly by George Combe with aid from others of the Edinburgh confraternity, notably Sir George Mackenzie and Macnish, “the modern Pythagorean,” lived from 1823 to 1847, through twenty volumes. The controversy in many places was heated and often personal, and this largely increased the popular interest. In the Edinburgh Review the theory was severely criticized by Thomas Brown, and afterwards in a still more trenchant manner by Jeffrey. In Blackwood it was ridiculed by Professor Wilson. Being a subject which lent itself easily to burlesque, it was parodied cleverly in a long rhyme by two authors, “The Craniad,” 87 pages long, published in 1817, while, on the other hand, verse was pressed into its service in the rhyme “Phrenology in Edinburgh” in 1824. The best defence of the system was that by Chenevix in the third number of the Foreign Quarterly, afterwards reprinted with notes by Spurzheim.
The popularity of phrenology has waned, and few of the phrenological societies now survive; the cultivation of the system is confined to a few enthusiasts such as will be found attached to any cause, and some professional teachers who follow phrenology as a vocation. Like many similar systems, it has a much larger following in America than in Europe. Based, like many other artificial philosophies, on an admixture of assumption and truth, certain parts will survive and become incorporated into scientific psychology, while the rest will in due course come to be relegated to the limbo of effete heresies.
The Faculties and their Localities.— The system of Gall was constructed by a method of pure empiricism, and his so-called organs were for the most part identified on slender grounds. Having selected the place of a faculty, he examined the heads of his friends and casts of persons with that peculiarity in common, and in them he sought for the distinctive feature of their characteristic trait. Some of his earlier studies were made among low associates, in jails, and in lunatic asylums, and some of the qualities 1ocated by him were such as tend to become perverted to crime. These he named after their excessive manifestations, mapping out organs of murder, theft, &c.; but as this cast some discredit on the system the names were changed by Spurzheim, who claimed as his the moral and religious considerations associated with it. Gall marked out on his model of the head the places of twenty-six organs as round enclosures with vacant interspaces. Spurzheim and Combe divided the whole scalp into oblong and conterminous patches (see the accompanying figures). Other methods of division and other names have been suggested by succeeding authors, especially by Cox, Sidney Smith (not Sydney), Toulmin Smith, Carus of Dresden, Don Mariano Cubi i Solar, Powell of Kentucky, Buchanan of Cincinnati, Hittel of New York. Some, like the brothers Fowler, raise the number of organs to forty-three; but the system of Spurzheim and Combe is that which has always been most popular in Britain.
Spurzheim separated the component faculties of the human mind into two great groups and subdivided these as follows.
I. Feelings, divided into—
1. Propensities, internal impulses inviting only to certain actions.
2. Sentiments, impulses λvhich prompt to emotion as well as to action.
A. Lower,—those common to man and the lower animals. B. Higher,—those proper to man.
II. Intellectual faculties.
1. Perceptive faculties.
2. Reflective faculties.
In the following list the locality and the circumstances of the first recognition of the organ are appended to the names, which are mostly the inventions of Spurzheim. Gall’s names are placed in brackets. Propensities.
(1) Amativeness {Instinct de la génération), median, below the inion; first determined by Gall from its heat in an hysterical widow, supposed to be confirmed by many observations, and referred to the cerebellum.
(2) Philoprogenitiveness {Amour de la progéniture), median, on the squama occipitis, and selected as the organ for the love of children because this part of the skull is usually more prominent in apes and in women, in whom the love of children is supposed to be stronger than in men.
(3) Concentrativeness, below the obelion and over the lambda. This is a region of uncertain function, unnoticed by Gall, but described as Inhabitiveness by Spurzheim, because he found it large in cats and in a clergyman fond of his home. It has since been considered by Combe to be the seat of the power of concentration, whereof he believed Inhabitiveness to be a special case.
(4) Adhesiveness {Amitié), over the lateral convoluted area of the lambdoidal suture. This region was prominent in a lady introduced to Gall as a model of friendship, and is said by him to be the region where persons who are closely attached put their heads together.
(5) Combativeness {Instinct de la défense), above the asterion; it was found by Gall by examining the heads of the most quarrelsome of his low companions whom he had beforehand stimulated by alcohol. It was verified by comparing this region with the same part of the head of a quarrelsome young lady.
(6) Destructiveness {Instinct carnassier), above the ear meatus. This is the widest part of the skulls of carnivorous animals, and was found large in the head of a student so fond of torturing animals that he became a surgeon, also large in the head of an apothecary who became an executioner.
(6α) Alimentiveness, over the temporal muscle and above the ear. Hoppe describes it as being large in a gourmand acquaintance, and he therefore supposes it to be the organ of selecting food.
(7) Secretiveness (Ruse, Finesse), the posterior part of the squamous suture.
(8) Acquisitiveness (Sentiment de la propriété), on the upper edge of the front half of the squamous suture. This part of the head Gall noticed to be prominent in the pickpockets of his acquaintance.
(9) Constructiveness (Sens de méchanique), on the stephanion; detected by its prominence on the heads of persons of mechanical genius. It was found large on the head of a milliner of uncommon taste and on a skull reputed to be that of Raphael.
The organ of Vitativeness, or love of life, is supposed by Combe to be seated at the base of the skull. To this locality Herophilus referred most of the intellectual powers.
Lower Sentiments.
(10) Self-esteem (Orgueil, Fierté), at and immediately over the obelion; found by Gall in a beggar who excused his poverty on account of his pride. This was confirmed by the observation that proud persons held their heads backwards in the line of the organ.
(11) Love of Approbation (Vanité), outside the obelion; the region in which Gall saw a protuberance on the head of a lunatic who fancied herself queen of France.
(12) Cautiousness (Circonspection), on the parietal eminence; placed here because an ecclesiastic of hesitating disposition and a vacillating councillor of state had both large parietal eminences.
Superior Sentiments.
(13) Benevolence (Bonté), on the middle of the frontal bone in front of the coronal suture; here Gall noticed a rising on the head of the highly-commended servant of a friend, as well as on a benevolent schoolmate who nursed his brothers and sisters when they were ill. To this spot Xenocrates referred the intellectual powers.
(14) Veneration (Sentiment réligieux), median at the bregma. Gall noted when visiting churches that those who prayed with the greatest fervour were prominent in this region, and it was also prominent in a pious brother.
(15) Conscientiousness, unknown to Gall; recognized by Spurzheim usually from its deficiency, and placed between the last and the parietal eminence.
(16) Firmness (Fermeté), median, on the sagittal suture from behind the bregma to the front of the obelion. Lavater first pointed out that persons of determination« had lofty heads.
(17) Hope, not regarded as primary by Gall, who believed hope to be akin to desire and a function of every faculty which desires, and left this territory unallocated.
(18) Wonder, said to be large in vision-seers and many psychic researchers. A second similar organ placed between this and the next is called Mysterizingness by Forster, and is said to preside over belief in ghosts and the supernatural.
(19) Ideality (Poésie), noted by Gall from its prominence in the busts of poets; said to be the part touched by the hand when composing poetry.
(20) Wit (Esprit caustique), the frontal eminence, the organ of the sense of the ludicrous, prominent in Rabelais and Swift.
(21) Imitation (Faculté d’imiter), disposition to mimicry, placed between Benevolence and Wonder.
Perceptive Faculties.
(22) Individuality, over the frontal sinus in the middle line; the capacity of recognizing external objects and forming ideas therefrom; said to have been large in Michelangelo, and small in the Scots.
(23) Form (Mémoire des personnes), capacity of recognizing faces; gives a wide interval between the eyes; found by Gall in a squinting girl with a good memory for faces.
(24) Size, over the trochlea at the orbital edge; described by Spurzheim and Vimont as the capacity of estimating space and distance.
(25) Weight, outside the last on the orbital edge and, like it, over the frontal sinus. The prominence of ridge here is due to large sinus or a projecting bone. Certain old writers, such as Strato Physicus, located the whole intellect in this ridge.
(26) Colour, also on the orbital edge external to the last.
(27) Locality (Sens de localité), placed above Individuality on each side, and corresponding to the upper part of the frontal sinus and to the region immediately above it.
(28) Number, on the external angular process of the frontal bone, large in a calculating boy in Vienna.
(29) Order, internal to the last, first noted by Spurzheim in an orderly idiot.
(30) Eventuality (Mémoire des choses), the median projection above the glabella, supposed to be the seat of the memory of events.
(31) Time, below the frontal eminence and a little in front of the temporal crest.
(32) Tune (Sens des rapports des tons), on the foremost part of the temporal muscle, where Gall noticed a bulge on the head of a musical prodigy of five.
(33) Language (Sens des mots), behind the eye. This was the first organ noticed by Gall, as a clever schoolfellow, quick at languages, had prominent eyes. Old authors have noted the connexion between prominent eyeballs and mental development; thus Gazzali and Syenensis Medicus Cyprius place the intellect and soul in and behind the eyeballs.
Reflective Faculties.
(34) Comparison (Sagacité comparative), median, at the top of the bare region of the forehead, where a savant friend of Gall’s, fond of analogies, had a prominent boss.
(35) Causality (Esprit métaphysique), the eminence on each side of Comparison, noticed on the head of Fichte and on a bust of Kant; the seat of the faculty of correlating causes and effects.
The first identification of each organ was made by an induction from very limited data, but the founders and exponents of the system have collected all available instances wherein enlargements of each of these regions coexisted with increased powers of the faculty supposed to reside therein, and in some cases they have discovered coincidences of a surprising nature. When, however, such do not exist, a convenient excuse is found by reference to the indefinite article of temperament, or by a supposed explanation of the faculty in question as not simple but produced by the co-operation of other influences. Thus, as Sheridan’s bump of wit was small, he is said not to have been truly witty, but to have had comparison and memory strongly developed. The girl Labrosse (described in Férussac’s Bulletin for October 1831 ), who exhibited strong amativeness but had a rudimentary cerebellum, is said to have obliterated it by over-use. Thurtell, a cold-blooded murderer whose organ of benevolence was large, is said to have been generous, as he once gave half a guinea to a friend, &c.
The method whereby the sizes of organs are estimated is arbitrary and the boundaries of the regions indefinite. The attempts of Nicol, Straton, and Wight to devise mechanical and accurate modes of measurement have not been very successful and have not found favour with the professional phrenologist.
Anatomical Aspect of Phrenology.— The phrenological controversy served the useful purpose of stimulating research into the anatomy of the brain; but we owe very little of solid progress to the advocates of the system. Gall is the oιdy writer of his creed in whose works original observations of value are to be found. Although the study of the surface of the cerebrum is of the essence of phrenology, yet nowhere in the circle of phrenological literature are the convolutions of the brain accurately described; our knowledge of their order and disposition comes from the morphologist, not from the phrenologist. The first real step towards their systematic description was made by Rolando, who in 1830 described the fissure to which his name is attached, and very little advance was made until the publication in 1856 of Gratiolet’s and Huschke ’ s memoirs. These works for the first time placed the description of the surface of the brain, imperfectly attempted by Desmoulins in 1825, on a satisfactory basis. Most of the anatomical details contained in the works on phrenology relate to controversial matters of secondary importance, and presuppose the truth of the theory; but even in connexion with these they give us no statistical details of any value. It would be important, for instance, to have tabulated a sufficiently large number of measurements of the relative thicknesses of scalp and skull in different regions, of the variations in development of the diploe, of the varying range of the frontal sinus; but of these we find no sufficient nor definite researches in the whole circle of books cited below.
As under Anatomy (vol. i. p. 874) a careful description of the brain has been given, we need only allude to such anatomical points involved in the examination of phrenology as are not included in that account.
1. Any psychological theory which correlates brain-action and mental phenomena requires a correspondence between brain-size and mental power; and, speaking generally, we find that the brains of those whose capacities are above the average are larger than those of the general run of their fellow-men. The details of brain-weights will be found at pp. 879, 880 of the article cited.
2. Direct measurements of the relative developments of different portions of brains are difficult and troublesome to make; but their importance to phrenologists is so great that it is remarkable that no attempts to obtain any such were made by them. The series given by Wagner of the relative sizes of the cerebral lobes of four brains is almost the only record of importance in this direction, and is appended. [table]
From this it appears that the woman exceeded Gauss in perceptive and reflective organs, exceeded Fuchs in sentiment, and fell be low the workmay in propensities. It must be said, however, that the phrenological divisions do not accurately coincide with the anatomical. Other series constructed along these lines are very much wanted, and it would furnish important physiological data if the brains of men distinguished for special qualities were examined in this or some comparable way.
3. It is important in relation to phrenology to ascertain the constancy of the convolutions. Many varieties in the detail of the surface-patterns have been recorded by Tenehini, Poggi, Giacomini, Rüdinger, and Sernow, but the general plan is fairly uniform. A still more important question has been recently raised by Langley, viz., how far identical spots on identical convolutions in different brains consist of nerve-cells with precisely the same connexions. The convoluted arrangement results from growth of brain-surface under constraint, hence as the different tracts of surface undergo proportional overgrowth they fold along different lines. The occurrence of small differences in the rate of overgrowth, testified to by the varieties of the resulting pattern, will cause considerable alteration in the place of definite territories of grey cells. Some method for the determination of the limits of these shiftings of place is much required.
4. The comparison of the rate of growth of brain with the development of mental faculties is important not only to the phrenologist but to the psychologist. No observations on this point were made by phrenological writers, and they simply refer to the first and rather crude observations of the earlier anatomists. We have, however, recently learned from the researches of Bischoff, Tuczec, and Exner many particulars as to the rate and progress of brain-growth. At birth the brain weighs one-tenth of the weight of the body, and averages about 11 ounces. For the first year brain-growth and consequently expansion of the skull proceed with great rapidity, the growth during a large part of this period averaging one cubic centimetre daily. This enormous increase is chiefly due to the rapid development of medullated nerve-fibres, which are deficient in the foetal brain. During the second and third years growth takes place more slowly, the occipital and parietal lobes increasing more than the frontal or temporo-sphenoidal. During these and the four succeeding years the base elongates commensurately with the increasing depth of the face. In the sixth and seventh years the frontal lobes grow faster than the parietals, and at seven the average brain has attained the weight of 1340 grammes, being to the weight of the body as 1: 20. In the period between seven years and puberty growth is slight, but at puberty the whole brain grows actively, especially the frontal lobes. This activity lasts until about eighteen years of age, then diminishes; but the average brain does not reach its maximum size until about thirty, from a little after which period the brain tends to diminish towards senility. These measurements illustrate the relation between brain-growth and mental development, but are as easily explicable on any psychological theory of brain-action as on the phrenological. The relation supposed by Davaine to subsist between development of the brain and stature is not borne out by statistics.
5. The estimation of the relative development of grey and white matter in the several lobes is important to any theory of cerebral dynamics which allocates functions specifically diverse to each separate part of the brain-surface; but no attempt has been made by the phrenologist to obtain precise results in this direction, nor even to determine the physical constants of the two forms of brain-matter. The recently - introduced method of Bourgoin and Danilewski, based upon the differing specific gravities of grey and white matter, promises to give definite information as to the relative amounts of these forms of brain-matter; but further experiments are needed to perfect the method.
6. The relations, if any, between the alterations which take place in the shape and position of the head and alterations in brain-surface have been speculated on by the phrenologist. Broussais is reported to have said that his organ of causality had enlarged with increasing use, and a list of cases of similar alterations of head-shape is given by Deville (Phrén. Jοur., xiv. 32), most of which are simply age-changes, of the kind described by Professor Cleland (Phil. Trans., 1870). There are no exact measurements recorded which indicate the occurrence of topical increases of a normal brain in special directions coincident with the cultivation of definite faculties. All the so-called cases are given vaguely, with no measurements, and the careful measurements of George Combe in such cases as were available to him showed no appreciable alterations in adult heads even at long intervals of time (see also Andrew Combe, Phren. Jοurn. X. 414).
7. The phrenological want of knowledge of the topography of the brain-surface was necessarily correlated with ignorance of the exact relations of the convolutions to the interior of the cranial bones; these have been carefully worked out by Huschke, Heffler, Turner, and Reid. Some latitude, however, must be allowed in topography, as the exact relation of convolution to skull varies with the shape of the skull. Giacomini showed that the fissure of Rolando is perceptibly farther back from the coronal suture in dolichocephalic than in brachycephalic skulls, and it is still farther back in the extreme boat-shaped form of long-headedness. Passet shows that there is a slight topographical difference in the two sexes {Arch, f Anthrop., 1882, xiv. 89), and in the heads of those with un symmetrically-shaped skulls there is often a want of lateral symmetry of convolution. Artificial deformations likewise alter the topographical relations of convolutions, and have served not a little to puzzle the phrenologist. Thus, the artificial dolichocephaly of the Caribs having bulged the squama occipitis, they decided that these people must be amiable lovers of children, &c.
8. The existence of structural differences between different areas of cerebral surface is important to any theory of cerebral localization, but no phrenologist has given us any original information on this point. Since the investigation of Baillarger, it has been shown that some local differentiations of structure do really exist. Thus in the convolutions around the fissure of Rolando the. ganglion-cells of the fourth layer are of large size (giant-cells of Betz), and in the convolutions of the temporo-sphenoidal lobe a layer of small angular cells (granule-cells) is interposed between the larger pyramidal and the ganglion-cells, so that, while in the parts of the brain above the fissure of Sylvius the grey cortex is for the most part five-layered, below and behind that fissure it is six-layered. There is no abrupt passage from the one to the other, the only sudden transition of structure of the grey cortex being at the hippocampal sulcus; and giant-cells, although of smaller size, and less like those of the anterior cornu of the spinal cord, are scattered over other parts of the cerebral grey matter. In fig. 71, vol. i. p. 874, the relations of the convolutions to the internal surface of the skull are represented, and their want of accurate correlation to the phrenological areas can be seen by comparing that figure with the foregoing series.
The teachings of anatomy with regard to phrenology may be summarized thus: (1) the rate of growth of brain is concurrent with the rate of development of mental faculty; (2) there is some degree of structural differentiation as there are varying rates of development of different parts of the cerebral surface; (3) there is no accordance between the regions of Gall and Spurzheim and definite areas of cerebral surface.
Physiological Aspect.— The theory of some of the older metaphysicians, that the mind, in feeling and reflexion, makes use of no material instrument is not now accepted by psychologists. It was advanced by Brougham and Jeffrey as against the theory of phrenology; but the doctrine that the brain is the organ of the mind is now universally received. While it is probable that certain molecular changes in the grey matter are antecedents or concomitants of mental phenomena, the precise nature of these processes, to what extent they take place, or how they vary among themselves have not as yet been determined experimentally; the occurrence of the change can only be demonstrated by some such coarse method as the altered pulsation of the carotid arteries, the increase of the temperature of the head, the abstraction, during brainaction, of blood from other organs as shown by the plethys-mograph, or the formation of lecithin and other products of metabolism in brain-substance. As yet not a single step has been made towards the understanding of the connexion between the molecular changes in the nerve-cell and the phenomena of thought and feeling. While our knowledge of the anatomy of the brain, especially of the grey nuclei and of the white bands uniting them, has within the last few years become much more accurate, brain-function has not as yet been so definitely determined; indeed, much of nerve-physiology, especially that part which relates to the division of labour in the nerve-centres, is largely hypothetical and based on anatomical structure. Certain masses of grey nerve-matter situated in the spinal cord and medulla oblongata are so linked by nerve-cords to organs outside the nervous system which are set apart for the discharge of separate functions that they obviously form parts of the mechanism for the fulfilment of such functions. In the cases where these can be subjected to experiment we learn that they are nervous centres presiding over the discharge of such functions; and it has been determined by experiment, or else deduced from anatomical structure, that in those lower parts of the nervous centres which are more directly connected with the segmental elements of the body there is a certain localization of function; hence the centres of pelvic actions, of respiration, cardiac action, and inhibition of vaso-motor influence, deglutition, secretions, &c., can be mapped out in ascending series. As certain of these centres are united by bands of fibres to the larger and higher-lying grey portions of the nervous centres there is an a priori presumption in favour of the extension of this principle of localization. This has been premised on metaphysical as well as on anatomical grounds. Bonnet believed each portion of the brain to have a specifically separate function, and Herbert Spencer has said that “no physiologist can long resist the conviction that different parts of the cerebrum subserve different kinds of mental action. Localization of function is the law of all organization whatever; separateness of duty is universally accompanied with separateness of structure, and it would be marvellous were an exception to exist in the cerebral hemispheres. Let it be granted that the cerebral hemispheres are the seats of the higher psychical activities; let it be granted that among these higher psychical activities there are distinctions of kind which, though not definite, are yet practically recognizable, and it cannot be denied, without going in direct opposition to established physiological principles, that these more or less distinct kinds of psychical activity must be carried on in more or less distinct parts of the cerebral hemisphere.”
For the results of experiment on the brain, see Physiology, section “Nervous System.”
There is a large weight of evidence, which cannot be explained away, in favour of the existence of some form of localization of function. So little is known of the physical changes which underlie psychical phenomena, or indeed of the succession of the psychical processes themselves, that we cannot as yet judge as to the nature of the mechanism of these centres. So much of the psychic work of the individual life consists in the interpretation of sensations and the translation of these into motions that there are strong a priori grounds for expecting to find much of the material of the nerve-centres occupied with this kind of work, but in the present conflict of experimental evidence it is safer to suspend judgment. That these local areas are not centres in the sense of being indispensable parts of their respective motor apparatuses is clear, as the function abolished by ablation of a part returns, though tardily, so that whatever superintendence the removed region exercised apparently becomes assumed by another part of the brain. Experimental physiology and pathology, by suggesting other functions for much of the brain-surface, are thus directly subversive of much of the phrenology of Gall and Spurzheim.
Psychological Aspect.— The fundamental hypothesis which underlies phrenology as a system of mental science is that mental phenomena are resolvable into the manifestations of a group of separate faculties. A faculty is defined as “a convenient expression for the particular states into which the mind enters when influenced by particular organs; it is applied to the feelings as well as to the intellect, thus the faculty of benevolence means every mode of benevolence induced by the organ of benevolence” (Combe). In another work the same author says it is “used to denote a particular power of feeling, thinking, perceiving, connected with a particular part of the brain.” The assumption is contained in the definition that the exercise of a faculty is the physical outcome of the activity of the organ, and in several of the standard works this is illustrated by analogies between these and other organs; thus the organs of benevolence and of firmness are said to be as distinct as the liver and pancreas. The mind, according to another author, consists of the sum of all the faculties. In this view the unity of consciousness is somewhat difficult to explain, and consequently there is assumed by others a single unifying substratum, and on this the organs are supposed to act; thus thoughts are defined as “relations of the simple substance, mind, to certain portions of the encephalon” (Welsh, Plιrcn. Journ., i. 206). Gall himself believed that there was but a single principle which saw, felt, tasted, heard, touched, thought, and willed (Fonctions du Cerveau, i. 243); and the American exponent of phrenology, Caldwell, says “the mind is as single in its power as it is in its substance; it is a quickening and operating principle, essential to all the mental faculties, but does not, by any means, possess them itself” (Elements, p. 16). It is not easy to understand the supposed relation of this hypothetical substratum to the separate faculties acting on it. It must be both immaterial and unconnected with the brain, as the whole two thousand million cells supposed to exist in the cerebral hemispheres are all parcelled out among the faculties, and none are left for the unifying nous.
Each organ is considered as engaged, either independently in bringing forth its own product, or collectively with others in elaborating compound mental states, and according to their several degrees of development and activity they are considered capable of perceiving, conceiving, recollecting, judging, or imagining each its own subject. This mechanical conception of the division of labour in the production of the phenomena of mind has the charm of simplicity, but is attended with the difficulty that arises in discriminating the operations of the different organs one from the other. Phrenologists are apt to be vague respecting the limits of the several faculties, as about the boundaries of the separate organs. It was pointed out by Jeffrey that the lines of demarcation between benevolence, adhesiveness, and philoprogenitiveness were indeterminate, although the organs are not very close, and the same applies to other organs.
It is unfortunate for the clearness of the definition that, although historically the faculties were the first phenomena noted, independent of and previous to their localization, yet in the definition the faculties are defined in terms of their localities.'
The following arguments are adduced in favour of the fundamental separateness of the faculties; (1) analogy,— elsewhere in the animal economy division of labour is the rule; (2) the variety of mental endowment observed among children before they are influenced by education, and the inequalities in the mental endowments of individuals; (3) the phenomena of insanity, especially of monomania; (4) the varying periods at which individual faculties attain their maximum development; (5) the phenomena of dreams, and the awakening of a limited number of faculties during them; (6) pain being felt in an organ when it is overtaxed.
Such faculties are supposed to be primary—(1) as exist in some animals and not in others, (2) as vary in their development in the sexes, (3) as are developed in varying proportions with regard to other faculties, (4) as may act separately from other faculties, (5) as are not necessarily simultaneous with other faculties in action, (6) as are hereditary, and (7) as may be singly diseased.
According to the development of their powers mankind may be divided into six classes: (1) those in whom the highest qualities are largely developed and the animal qualities feeble; (2) those with the reversed conditions developed, with large animal and feeble intellectual and moral faculties; (3) those in whom good and evil are in constant war, with active animal and strong intellectual faculties and sentiments; (4) those partial geniuses in whom a few qualities are unusually developed, while the rest are at or below the mediocre standard; (5) those men of moderate endowment in whom some faculties are nearly or quite deficient; (6) those with an unvarying standard of undistinguished mediocrity in all their faculties.
It is perhaps unfortunate that the word “faculty” has been used in this sense of original power by phrenologists. It would have been better to employ, as Mr Lewes suggests, the term “function” for the native activity of an organ, and to leave “faculty” for the expression of an acquired activity. “Faculty is properly limited to active power, and therefore is abusively applied to the mere passive affections of the mind” (Hamilton, Lectures, i. 177).
Practical Application.— “Die Schädellehre ist allerdings nicht so sehr Irrthum in der Idee als Charlatanerie in der Ausführung,” says one of its most acute critics. Even though no fault could be found with the physiology and psychology of phrenology, it would not necessarily follow that the theory could be utilized as a practical method of reading character; for, although the inner surface of the skull is moulded on the brain, and the outer surface approximates to parallelism thereto, yet the correspondence is sufficiently variable to render conclusions therefrom uncertain. The spongy layer or diploe which separates the two compact tables may vary conspicuously in amount in different parts of the same skull, as in the cases described by Professor Humphry (Journ. of Anat., vol. viii. p. 137). The frontal sinus, that opprobrium ρhrenologicum, is a reality, not unfrequently of large size, and may wholly occupy the regions of five organs. The centres of ossification of the frontal and parietal bones, the muscular crests of these and of the occipital bones also, differ in their prominence in different skulls. Premature synostoses of sutures mould the brain without doing much injury to its parts. Artificial malformations alter the apparent skullshape considerably and affect the relative development of the brain but little. All these and other cogent reasons of a like kind, whose force can be estimated by those accustomed to deal with the component soft parts of the head, should lead phrenologists to be careful in predicating relative brain-development from skull-shape. Psychology, physiology, and experience alike contribute to discredit the system and to show how worthless the so-called diagnoses of character really are. Its application by those who are its votaries is seldom worse than amusing, but it is capable of doing positive social harm, as in its proposed application to the discrimination or selection of servants and other subordinate officials. It has even been proposed to use it for the purposes of the guarantee society and for the selection of parliamentary representatives. The sarcastic suggestion which originated with Christopher North of moulding children’s heads so as to suppress the evil and foster the good was actually repeated in good faith by a writer on phrenology, but experience of the effects of malformation leads one to be sceptical as to the feasibility of this mode of producing a social Utopia. The application of phrenology to the art of painting and sculpture has been suggested, but a careful examination of some of the best pictures of the best masters, who were close observers of nature, shows that no phrenological principles were accepted by them in their works. An application to ethnology has also been proposed; but, although there are in most cases well-marked racial characters presented by the skull, yet all attempts at correlating national characteristics therewith have been groundless and worthless. For further particulars on allied subjects, see Physiognomy. Literature. —Prochaska, Functions of the Nervous System (tr. by Laycock, in Sydenham Society’s series, 1851); Gall, Recherches sur le Système Nerveux, &c. (Paris, 1809), Anatomie et Physiologie du Système Nerveux, &c. (Paris, 1810-19), Traité des Dispositions innées de VAme et de ΓEsprit (Paris, 1811), and Sur les Fonctions du Cerveau (6 vols., 1825); Beryk, Bemerkungen u. Zweifel über die Schädellehre des Dr Gall’s (Leipsic, W03); Marton, Leicht-fassliche Darstellung der Gehim-u. Schädellehre (Leipsic, 1803); Metzger, Ueber den menschlichen Kopf (Königsberg, 1803); Walther, Neue Untersuchungen der Gall'schen Gehirn-und Schädellehre (Munich, 1804); Kessler, Prüfung des Gall’schen Systems (Jena, 1805); Bischoff, Darstellung des Gälischen Gehirn-und Schädellehre, &c. (Berlin, 1805); Ackermann, Die Gälische Gehirnlehre widerlegt (Heidelberg, 1806); Himly, Erörterung der Gälischen Lehre (Halle, 1806); Forster, “Sketch of the New Anatomy and Physiology of the Brain,” in Pamphleteer (1815, No. ix., reprinted with additions 1817); Spurzheim, The Physiognomical System of Gall and Spurzheim (London, 1815), Phrenology, or the Doctrine of the Mind (1825), and The Anatomy of the Human Brain (1826); Gordon, Observations on the Structure of the Brain, comprising an estimate of the claims of Gall and Spurzheim, &c. (1817); G. Combe, Essays on Phrenology (Edinburgh, 1819), Elements of Phrenology (1824), System of Phrenology (1825), Constitution of Man (1827), Lectures on Phrenology by Boardman (1839), and Outlines of Phrenology (1847); Dewhurst, Guide to Human and Comparative Phrenology (London, 1831); Otto, Phraenclogien eller Galls og Spurzheims Hjaerne-og Organlaere (Copenhagen, 1825); Broussais, Cours de Phrenologie (Paris, 1836); Vimont, Traite de Phrénologie humaine et comparée (1836); Noel, Grundzüge der Phrenologie (Leipsic, 1836), and Die materielle Grundlage des Seelenlebens (Leipsic, 1874); Macnish, Introduction to Phrenology (Glasgow, 1836); Capen, Phrenological Library (Boston, 1836); Ferrarese, Memorie risguardanti la Dottrina Frenologica (1836-38); Watson, Statistics of Phrenology (1836); Azais, Traité de la Phrenologie (Paris, 1839); Sidney Smith, Principles of Phrenology (Edinburgh, 1838); Joshua T. Smith, Synopsis of Phrenology ; Forichon, Le Matérialisme et la Phrénologie combattu (Paris, 1840); K. G. Carus, Grundzüge einer neuen und wissenschaftlich begründeten Kranioskopie (Stuttgart, 1841); Castle, Die Phrenologie (Stuttgart, 1845); Struve, Geschichte der Phrenologie (Heidelberg, 1843); Idjiez, Cours de Phrénologie (Paris, 1847); Flourens, Examen de la Phrénologie (Paris, 1842); Serrurier, Phrénologie Morale (Paris, 1840); Mariano Cubi i Solar, Leçons de Phrénologie (Paris, 1857); Morgan, Phrenology ; Donovan, Phrenology ; Struve and Hirschfeld, Zeitschrift für Phrenologie (Heidelberg, 1843-45); Phrenological Journal (20 vols., 1823-47); Lelut, Qu’est ce que la Phrénologie l (1836), and Rejet de l’Organologie phrénologique (1843); Tupper, Enquiry into Dr Gall’s System (1819); Wayte, Antiphrenology (1829); Stone, Observations on the Phrenological Development of Murderers (Edinburgh, 1829); Epps, Horae Phrenologicae (1829); Crock, Compendium of Phrenology (1878); Aken, Phrenological Bijou (1839); Hall, Phreno-Magnet (1843). (A. MA.)
ì PHRYGIA was the name of a large country in Asia
Minor, inhabited by a race which the Greeks called Φρύγε?, Freemen. Roughly speaking, Phrygia comprised the western part of the great central plateau of Anatolia, extending as far east as the river Halys; but its boundaries were vague, and varied so much at different periods that a sketch of its history must precede any account of the geography. According to unvarying Greek tradition the Phrygians were most closely akin to certain tribes of Macedonia and Thrace; and their near relationship to the Hellenic stock is proved by all that is known of their language and art, and is accepted by almost every modern authority. The country named Phrygia in the better known period of history lies inland, separated from the sea by Paphlagonia, Bithynia, Mysia, and Lydia. Yet we hear of a Phrygian “thalassocracy” at the beginning of the 9th century b.c. The Troad and the district round Mount Sipylus are frequently called Phrygian, as also is the seaport Sinope; and a district on the coast between Sestus and the river Cius was regularly named Little Phrygia. Again, Abel has pointed to the wide currency of names like Mygdones, Doliones, and Phryges or Briges both in Asia Minor and in Europe, and many other examples might be added. The inference has been generally drawn that the Phrygians were a stock widespread in the countries which lie round the Aegean Sea. There is, however, no decisive evidence, and no agreement among modern scholars, as to whether this stock came from the East over Armenia, or whether it was European in origin and crossed the Hellespont into Asia Minor.
According to Greek tradition there existed in early time a Phrygian kingdom in the Sangarius valley, ruled by kings among whom the names Gordius and Midas were common. It was known to the ancient Greeks of Ionia and the Troad as something great and half-divine. When the goddess appeared to her favourite Anchises she represented herself as daughter of the king of Phrygia; the Phrygians were said to be the oldest people, and their language the original speech of mankind ∙, i the Phrygian kings were familiar associates of the gods, and the heroes of the land tried their skill against the gods themselves; we hear of the well-walled cities of Phrygia and of the riches of its kings. Tradition is completely corroborated by archaeological evidence. In the mountainous region on the upper waters of the Sangarius, between Kutayah and Afium Kara Hissar, there exist numerous monuments of great antiquity, showing a style of marked individuality, and implying a high degree of artistic skill among the people who produced them. On two of these monuments are engraved the names of “Midas the King” and of the goddess “Kybile the Mother.” Even the title “king”(ava£) appears to have been borrowed by Greek from Phrygian.
It is impossible to fix a date for the beginning of the Phrygian kingdom. It appears to have arisen on the ruins of an older civilization, whose existence is revealed to us only by the few monuments which it has left. These monuments, which are found in Lydia, Phrygia, Cappadocia, and Lycaonia, point to the existence of a homogeneous civilization over those countries; they show a singularly marked style of art, and are frequently inscribed with a peculiar kind of hieroglyphics, engraved boustroph,edon, which have not as yet been deciphered. There can be traced in Asia Minor an ancient road-system, to which belongs the “royal road” from Sardis to the Persian capital, Susa (Herod., v. 55). The royal road followed a route so difficult and circuitous that it is quite unintelligible as the direct path from any centre in Persia, Assyria, or Syria to the west of Asia Minor. It can be understood only by reference to an imperial centre far in the north. The old trade-route from Cappadocia to Sinope, which had passed out of use centuries before the time of Strabo (pp. 540, 546), fixes this centre with precision. It must be far enough west to explain why trade tended to the distant Sinope, hardly accessible behind lofty and rugged mountains, and not to Amisus by the short and easy route which was used in the Graeco-Roman period. This roadsystem, then, points distinctly to a centre in northern Cappadocia near the Halys. Here must have stood the capital of some great empire connected with its extremities, Sardis or Ephesus on the west, Sinope on the north, the Cilician Gates on the south, by roads so well made as to continue in use for a long time after the centre of power had changed to Assyria, and the old road-system had become circuitous and unsuitable. The precise spot on which the city stood is marked by the great ruins of Boghaz Keui, probably the ancient Pteria, of which the wide circuit, powerful walls, and wonderful rock-sculptures make the site indisputably the most remarkable in Asia Minor.
The ancient road from Pteria to Sardis crossed the upper Sangarius valley, and its course may be traced by the monuments of this early period. Close to its track, on a lofty plateau which overhangs the Phrygian monument inscribed with the name of “Midas the King,” is a great city, inferior indeed to Pteria in extent, but surrounded by rock-sculptures quite as remarkable as those of the Cappadocian city. The plateau is between 2 and 3 miles in circumference, and presents on all sides a perpendicular face of rock 50 to 200 feet in height. In part, at least, this natural defence was crowned by a wall built of large squared stones. This city was evidently the centre of the old Phrygian kingdom of the Sangarius valley, but at least one of the monuments in it seems to belong to the older period of Cappadocian supremacy, and to prove that the city already existed in that earlier time. The Phrygian kingdom and art therefore took the place of an older civilization. It is as yet impossible to determine the relation in which the Phrygians stood to the ruling race of that older period, whether they came in from the north-west, or whether they were a primitive people taught, and for a time ruled, by foreigners from Cappadocia, but at last expelling their teachers. It is probable that the tradition of battles between the Phrygians and the Amazons on the banks of the Sangarius preserves the memory of a struggle between the two races.
Of the monuments that exist around this city two classes may be confidently referred to the period of Phrygian greatness. That which is inscribed with the name of “Midas the King” is the most remarkable example of one class, in which a large perpendicular surface of rock is covered with a geometrical pattern of squares, crosses, and maeanders, surmounted by a pediment supported in the centre by a pilaster in low relief. In some cases a floral pattern occupies part of the surface, and in one case the two sides of the pediment are filled by two sphinxes of extremely archaic type. In some of these monuments a doorway is carved in the lower part; the door is usually closed, but in one case, viz., the sphinx monument just alluded to, the valves of the door are thrown wide open and give access to a little chamber, on the back of which is sculptured in relief a rude image of the Mother-goddess Cybele, having on each side of her a lion which rests its forepaws on her shoulder and places its head against hers. Sometimes a grave has been found hidden behind the carved front; in other cases no grave can be detected, but it is probable that they are all sepulchral. The imitation of wood-work is obvious on several monuments of this kind. The second class is marked by the heraldic type of two animals, usually lions rampant, facing one another, but divided by a pillar or some other device. This type is occasionally found conjoined with the preceding; and various details common to both classes show that there was no great difference in time between them. The heraldic type is used on the monuments which appear to be the older, and the geometrical pattern is often employed on the inscribed monuments, which are obviously later than the uninscribed. Monuments of this class are carved on the front of a sepulchral chamber, the entrance to which is a small doorway placed high and inaccessible in the rocks.
Early Phrygian art stands in close relationship with the art of Cappadocia, but has such individuality, such freedom from conventionality, such power of varying and combining types learned from other peoples, as to show that the Phrygians possessed high artistic faculty very similar in character to the Greek. The monuments of the type of the Midas tomb are obviously imitated from patterns employed in cloth and carpets. Such patterns were used in Cappadocia, and the priest in the rocksculpture at Ibriz wears an embroidered robe strikingly similar in style to the pattern on the Midas tomb; but the idea of using the pattern as the Phrygians did seems peculiar to themselves. The heraldic type of the second class is found also in the art of Assyria, and was undoubtedly adopted by the Phrygians from earlier art; but it is used so frequently in Phrygia as to be specially characteristic of that country. While Phrygian art is distinctly non-Oriental in spirit, its resemblance to archaic Greek art is a fact of the greatest importance. It is not merely that certain types are employed both in Phrygia and in Greece, but most of the favourite types in early Greek art can be traced in Phrygia, employed in similar spirit and for similar purposes. The heraldic type of the two lions is the device over the principal gateway of Mycenae, and stamps this, the oldest great monument on Greek soil, with a distinctly Phrygian character. Mycenae was the city of the Pelopidae, whom Greek tradition unhesitatingly declares to be Phrygian immigrants. A study of the topography of the Argive plain leads to the conclusion that Mycenae, Midea, and Tiryns form a group of cities founded by an immigrant people in opposition to Argos, the natural capital of the plain and the stronghold of the native race. Midea appears to be the city of Midas, and the name is one more link in the chain that binds Mycenae to Phrygia. This connexion, whatever may have been its character, belongs to the remote period when the Phrygians inhabited the Aegean coasts. In the 8th and probably in the 9th century b.c. communication with Phrygia seems to have been maintained especially by the Greeks of Cyme, Phocaea, and Smyrna. About the end of the 8th century Midas king of Phrygia married Damodice, daughter of Agamemnon, the last king of Cyme. Gyges, the first Mermnad king of Lydia (687-653), had a Phrygian mother. The worship of Cybele spread over Phocaea to the west as far as Massilia: rock monuments in the Phrygian style and votive reliefs of an Anatolian type are found near Phocaea. Smyrna was devoted to the Phrygian Meter Sipylene. It is then natural that the lays of the Homeridae refer to Phrygia in the terms above described, and make Priam’s wife a Phrygian woman. After the foundation of the Greek colony at Sinope in 751 there can be no doubt that it formed the link of connexion between Greece and Phrygia. Phrygian and Cappadocian traders brought their goods, no doubt on camels, to Sinope, and the Greek sailors, the dεινaυτaι of Miletus, carried home the works of Oriental and Phrygian artisans. The Greek alphabet was carried back to Phrygia and Pteria, either from Sinope or more probably from Cyme, in the latter part of the 8th century. The immense importance of Sinope in early times is abundantly attested, and we need not doubt that very intimate relations existed at this port between the Ionic colonists and the natives. The effects of this commerce on the development of Greece were very great. It affected Ionia in the first place, and the mainland of Greece indirectly; the art of Ionia at this period is almost unknown, but it was probably most closely allied to that of Phrygia. A striking fact in this connexion is the frequent use of a very simple kind of Ionic capital on the early Phrygian monuments, making it practically certain that the “protoIonic” column came to Greece over Phrygia. It is obvious that the revolution which took place in the relations between Phrygians and Greeks must be due to some great movement of races which disturbed the old paths of communication. Abel is probably correct in placing the inroads of the barbarous European tribes, Bithynians, Thyni, Mariandyni, &c., into Asia Minor about the beginning of the 9th century b.c. The Phrygian element on the coast was weakened and in many places annihilated; that in the interior was strengthened; and we may suppose that the kingdom of the Sangarius valley now sprang into greatness. The kingdom of Lydia appears to have become important about the end of the 8th century, and to have completely barred the path between Phrygia and Cyme or Smyrna. Ionian maritime enterprise opened a new way over Sinope., proves that a trade-route from Phrygia down the Maeander to Miletus was used in the 6th century. ]
The downfall of the Phrygian monarchy can be dated with comparative accuracy. Between 680 and 670 the Cimmerians in their destructive progress over Asia Minor overran Phrygia; the king Midas in despair put an end to his own life; and from henceforth the history of Phrygia is a story of slavery, degradation, and decay, which contrasts strangely with the earlier legends. The catastrophe seems to have deeply impressed the Greek mind, and the memory of it was preserved. The date of the Cimmerian invasion is fixed by the concurrent testimony of the contemporary poets Archilochus and Callinus, of the late chronologers Eusebius, &c., and of the inscriptions of the Assyrian king Essar-haddon. The Cimmerians were finally expelled from Asia Minor by Alyattes before his war with the Medes under Cyaxares (590-585 b.c.). The Cimmerians, therefore, were ravaging Asia Minor, and presumably held possession of Phrygia, the only country where they achieved complete success, till some time between 610 and 590. Phrygia then fell under the Lydian power, and by the treaty of 585 the Halys was definitely fixed as the boundary between Lydia and Media. The period from 675 to 585 must therefore be considered as one of great disturbance and probably of complete paralysis in Phrygia. After 585 the country was ruled again by its own princes, under subjection to Lydian supremacy. To judge from the monuments, it appears to have recovered some of its old prosperity, but the art of this later period has to a great extent lost the strongly-marked individuality of its earlier bloom. The later sepulchral monuments belong to a class which is widely spread over Asia Minor, from Lycia to Pontus. The graves are made inside a chamber excavated in the rock, and the front of the chamber imitates a house or temple. No attempt is made to conceal the entrance or render it inaccessible. The architectural details are in some cases unmistakably copied without ntentional modification from the architecture of Greek temples, others point perhaps to Persian influence, while several—which are perhaps among the early works of this period—show the old freedom and power of employing in new and original ways details partly learned from abroad. This style continued in use under the Persians, under whose rule the Phrygians passed when Cyrus defeated Croesus in 546, and probably lasted till the 3d century b.c. One monument appears to presuppose a development of Greek plastic art later than the time of Alexander. It would, however, be quite wrong to suppose that the influence of truly Hellenic art on Phrygia began with the conquest of Alexander. Under the later Mermnad kings the Lydian empire was penetrated with Greek influence, and Xanthus, the early Lydian historian, wrote his history in Greek. Under the Persian rule perhaps it was more difficult for Greek manners to spread far east; but we need not think that European influence was absolutely unfelt even in Phrygia. The probability is that Alexander found in all the large cities a party favourable to Greek manners and trade. Very little is to be learned from the ancient writers with regard to the state of Phrygia from 585 to 300. The slave-trade flourished: Phrygian slaves were common in the Greek market, and the Phrygian names Midas and Manes were stock-names for slaves. Herodotus (i. 14) records that a king Midas of Phrygia dedicated his own chair at Delphi; the chair stood in the treasury of Cypselus, and cannot have been deposited there before 680 to 660 b.c. It is not improbable that the event belongs to the time of Alyattes or Craesus, when Greek influence was favoured throughout the Lydian empire; and it is easy to understand how the offering of a king Midas should be considered, in the time of Herodotus, as the earliest made by a foreign prince to a Greek god. The Phrygian troops in the army of Xerxes were armed like the Armenians and led by the same commander.
It is to be presumed that the cities of the Sangarius valley gradually lost importance in the Persian period. Formerly the great line of communication across Anatolia traversed the Sangarius valley, but a better and shorter path south of the Salt Desert came into use in this period, from which these cities were far distant. The final catastrophe was the invasion of the Gauls about 270 to 250; and, though the circumstances of this invasion are almost unknown, yet we may safely reckon among them the complete devastation of northern Phrygia. At last Attalus I. settled the Gauls permanently in eastern Phrygia, and a large part of the country was henceforth known as Galatia. Strabo mentions that the great cities of ancient Phrygia were in his time either deserted or marked by mere villages. The great city over the tomb of Midas has remained uninhabited down to the present day. About 5 miles west of it, near the modern Kumbet, stood Merus, a bishopric in the Byzantine time, but never mentioned under the Roman empire.
Alexander the Great placed Phrygia under the command of Antigonus, who retained it when the empire was broken up. When Antigonus was defeated and slain at the decisive battle of Ipsus, Phrygia came under the sway of Seleucus. As the Pergamenian kings grew powerful, and at last confined the Gauls in eastern Phrygia, the western half of the country was incorporated in the kingdom of Pergamum. Under the Roman empire Phrygia had no political existence under a separate government, but formed part of the vast province of Asia. In autumn 85 b.c. the pacification of the province was completed by Sulla, and throughout the imperial time it was common for the Phrygians to date from this era. The imperial rule was highly favourable to the spread of Hellenistic civilization, which under the Greek kings had affected only a few of the great cities, leaving the mass of the country purely Phrygian. A good deal of local self-government was permitted: the cities struck their own bronze coins, inscribed on them the names of their own magistrates, and probably administered their own laws in matters purely local. The western part of the country was pervaded by Graeco-Roman civilization very much sooner than the central, and in the country districts the Phrygian language continued in common use at least as late as the 3d century after Christ.
When the Roman empire was reorganized by Diocletian at the end of the 3d century Phrygia was divided into two provinces, distinguished at first as Prima and Secunda, or Great and Little, for which the names Pacatiana and Salutaris soon came into general use. Pacatiana comprised the western half, which had long been completely pervaded by Graeco-Roman manners, and Salutaris the eastern, in which the native manners and language were still not extinct. Each province was governed by a “praeses” or ηytpMν about 412 a.d., but shortly after this date an officer of consular rank was sent to each province (Hierocles, Synecdf About 535 Justinian made some changes in the provincial administration: the governor of Pacatiana was henceforth a “comes,” while Salutaris was still ruled by a “consularis.” When the provinces of the Eastern empire were reorganized and divided into “themata” the two Phrygias were broken up between the Anatolic, Opsician, and Thracesian themes, and the name Phrygia finally disappeared. Almost the whole of the Byzantine Phrygias is now included in the vilayet of Broussa or Khodavendikya, with the exception of a small part of Parorius and the district about Themisonium (Karayuk Bazar) and Ceretapa (Kayadibi), which belong to the vilayet of Koniyeh, and the district of Laodicea and Hierapolis, which belongs to Aidin. The principal modern cities are Kutayah (Cotyaeum), Eski Sheher (Dorylaeum), Afium Kara Hissar (near Prymnessus), and Ushak (near Trajanopolis).
It is impossible to say anything definite about the boundaries of Phrygia before the 5th century. Under the Persians Great Phrygia extended on the east to the Halys and the Salt Desert; Xenophon {Anab., i. 2, 19) includes Iconium on the south-east within the province, whereas Strabo makes Tyriaeum the boundary in this direction. The southern frontier is unknown: the language of Livy (xxxviii. 15) implies that Metropolis (in the Tchul Ova) belonged to Pisidia; but Strabo (p. 629) includes it in Phrygia. Celaenae, beside the later city of Apamea (Dineir), and the entire valley of the Lycus were Phrygian. The Maeander above its junction with the Lycus formed for a little way the boundary between Phrygia and Lydia. The great plateau now called the Banaz Ova was entirely or in great part Phrygian. Mount Dindymus (Murad Dagh) marked the frontier of Mysia, and the entire valley of the Tembrogius or Tembris (Porsuk Su) was certainly included in Phrygia. The boundaries of the two Byzantine Phrygias were not always the same. Taking Hierocles as authority, the extent of the two provinces at the beginning of the 6th century will be readily gathered from the accompanying list, in which those towns which coined money under the Roman empire are italicized and the nearest modern village is appended.
I. Pacatiana. —1. Lαodiceα (Eski Hissar); 2. Hierapolis (Pambuk Kalessi); 3. Mosyna (Geveze); [4. Metellopolis, only in Notitiae Episcop. (Geuzlar)]; 5. Athιdda (Assar, south-west from Serai Keui); 6. Trapezopolis (perhaps between Davas Ova and Karayuk Ova); 7. Colossae (near Chonas); 8. Ceretapa Diocaesarea (Kayadibi); 9. Themisonium (Karayuk Bazar); 10. Tacina (Yarishli); 11. Sanaus (Sari Kavak, in Daz Kiri); 12. Dionysopolis (Orta Keui); 13. Anastasiopolis, originally a village of the Hyrgalis (Utch Kuyular); 14. Attanassus (Eski Aidan); 15. Lunda (Eski Seid); 16. Peltae (Karayashlar); 17. Eumenea (Ishekly); 18. Siblia (Homa); 19. Pepuza (Yannik Euren); 20. Bria (Garbasan or Suretly); 21. Sebaste (Sivasly); 22. Eluza or Aludda (Hadjimlar); 23. Acmonia (Ahat Keui); 24. Alia (Kirka); 25. Hierocharax (Otourak); 26. Dioclea (Dola); 27. Aristium (Karaj Euren, in Sitchanly Ova); 28. Cidyessus (Cutch Eyuk); 29. Apia (Abia); 30. Cotyaeum (Kutayah); 31. Aezani (Tchavdir Hissar); 32. Tiberiopolis (Altyntash); 33. Cadae (Gediz); 34. Ancyra (Kilisse Keui); 35. Synaus (Simav); 36. Flaviopolis Temenothyrae ^Kara Tash); 37. Trajanopolis Grimeno-thyrae (Giaour Euren, near Orta Keui); 38. Blaundus (Suleimanly). δ
II. Salutaris. —1. Eucarpia (near Mentesh); 2. Hierapolis {Kotch Hissar); 3. Otrous (Tchor Hissar); 4. Stectorium (Emir Assar); 5. Bruzus (Kara Sandykly); 6. Beudus{λfiYi ∖ Kara); 7. Augustopolis, formerly Anabura (Surmeneh); 8. Sibidunda (perhaps Yeni Keui); 9. Lysias (perhaps Bazar Agatch); 10. Synnada (Tchifut Cassaba); 11. Prymncssus (Seulun); 12. Ipsus, formerly Julia (near Sakly); 13. Polybotus (Bolawadun); 14. Docimium (Istcha Kara Hissar); 15. Metropolis, including Conni (B. Tchorgia) and Ambasus (Ambanaz); 16. Merus (Kumbet); 17. Nacolca (Seidi Ghazi); 18. Dorylaeum (Eski Sheher); 19. Midaeum (Kara Eyuk); 20. Lycaones (Kalejik); 21. Aulocra (in Dombai Ova); 22 and 23. Amadassus and Prae-’ penissus (unknown). In later times the important fortress (and bishopric) of Acroenus was founded on the site of the present Afium Kara Hissar.
Besides these, certain cities beyond the bounds of the Byzantine Phrygias belonged under the Roman empire to the province of Asia and are usually considered Phrygian—(1) in Byzantine Pisidia, Philomelium (Ak Sheher), Hadrianopolis (Ark ,, t Khan); (2) in Byzantine Galatia, Amorium (Assar near Hamza Hadji), Orcistus (Alikel or Alekian), Tricornia or Trocmada or Trocnada (Kaimaz); (3) in Byzantine Lycia, Cibyra (Horzum).
Phrygia contains several well-marked geographical districts. (1) Parorius, the narrow, flat, elevated valley stretching north-west to south-east between the Sultan Dagh and the Emir Dagh from Holmi (about Tchai) to Tyriaeum (Ilghin); its waters collect within the valley, in three lakes, which probably supply the great fountains in the Axylum, and through them the Sangarius. (2) Axylum, the vast treeless plains on the upper Sangarius; there burst forth at various points great perennial springs, the Sakaria fountains (Strabo, p. 543), Ilije Bashi, Bunar Bashi, Geuk Bunar, Uzuk Bashi, which feed the Sangarius. G rea.. part of the Axylum was assigned to Galatia. (3) The rest of Phrygia is mountainous (except the great plateau, Banaz Ova), consisting of hill-country intersected by rivers, each of which flows through a fertile valley of varying breadth. The northern half is drained by rivers which run to the Black Sea; of these the eastern ones, Porsuk Su (Tembris or Tembrogius), Seidi Su (Parthenius), Bardakchi Tchai (Xerabates), and Bayat Tchai (Alandrus), join the Sangarius, while the western, Taushanly Tchai (Rhyndacus) and Simav Tchai (Macestus), meet and flow into the Propontis. The Hermus drains a small district included in the Byzantine Phrygia, but in earlier times assigned to Lydia and Mysia. Great part of southern and western Phrygia is drained by the Maeander with its tributaries, Sandykly Tchai (Glaucus), Banaz Tchai, Kopli Su (Hippurius), and Tchuruk Su (Lycus); moreover, some upland plains on the south, especially the Dombai Ova (Aulocra), communicate by underground channels with the Maeander. Finally, the Karayuk Ova in the extreme south-west drains through the Kazanes, a tributary of the Indus, to the Lycîan Sea. Phrygia Parorius and all the river-valleys are exceedingly fertile, and agriculture was the chief occupation of the ancient inhabitants; according to the myth, Gordius was called from the plough to the throne. The high-lying plains and the vast Axylum furnish excellent pasturage, which formerly nourished countless flocks of sheep. The Romans also obtained fine horses from Phrygia. Grapes, which still grow abundantly in various parts, were much cultivated in ancient times. Other fruits are rare, except in a few small districts. Figs cannot be grown in the country, and the ancient references to Phrygian figs are either erroneous or due to a loose use of the term Phrygia. Trees are exceedingly scarce in the country; the pine-woods on the western tributaries of the Sangarius and the valonia oaks in parts of the Banaz Ova, and a few other districts, form exceptions. The underground wealth is not known to be great. Iron was worked in the district of Cibyra, and the marble of Synnada, or more correctly of Docimium, was largely used by the Romans. The scenery is generally monotonous; even the mountainous districts rarely show striking features or boldness of character; where the landscape has beauty, it is of a subdued melancholy character. The water-supply is rarely abundant, and agriculture is more or less dependent on an uncertain rainfall. The circumstances of the country are well calculated to impress the inhabitants with a sense of the overwhelming power of nature and of their complete dependence on it. Their mythology, so far as we know it, has a melancholy and mystic tone, and their religion partakes of the same character. The two chief deities were Cybele, the Mother, the reproductive and nourishing power of Earth, and Sabazius, the Son, the life of nature, dying and reviving every year. The annual vicissitudes of the life of Sabazius, the Greek Dionysus, were accompanied by the mimic rites of his worshippers, who mourned with his sufferings and rejoiced with his joy. They enacted the story of his birth and life and death; the Earth, the Mother, is fertilized only by an act of violence by her own child; the representative of the god was probably slain each year by a cruel death, just as the god himself died. The rites were characterized by a frenzy of devotion, unrestrained enthusiasm, wild orgiastic dances, and wanderings in the forests, and were accompanied by the music of the flute, cymbal, and tambourine. At an early time this worship was affected by Oriental influence, coming over Syria from Babylonia. Sabazius was identified with Adonis or Atys, Cybele with the Syrian goddess; and many of the coarsest rites of the Phrygian worship, the mutilation of the priests, the prostitution at the shrine, came from the hot countries of the south-east. But one curious point of Semitic religion never penetrated west of the Halys: the pig was always unclean and abhorred among the Semites, whereas it was the animal regularly used in purification by the Phrygians, Lydians, Lycians, and Greeks. The Phrygian religion exercised a very strong influence on Greece. In the archaic period the Dionysiae rites and orgies spread from Thrace into Greece, in spite of opposition which has left many traces in tradition, and the worship of Demeter at Eleusis was modified by Cretan influence ultimately traceable to Asia Minor. Pindar erected a shrine of the Mother of the gods beside his house, and the Athenians were directed by the Delphic oracle to atone for the execution of a priest of Cybele during the Peloponnesian War by building the Metroon. In these and other cases the Phrygian character was more or less Hellenized; but wave after wave of religious influence from Asia. Minor introduced into Greece the unmodified “barbarian” ritual of Phrygia. The rites spread first among the common people and those engaged in foreign trade. The comic poets satirized them, and Plato and Demosthenes inveighed against them; but they continued to spread, with all their fervid enthusiasm, their superstition, and their obscene practices, wide among the people, whose religious cravings were not satisfied with the purely external religions of Hellenism. The orgies or mysteries were open to all, freemen or slaves, who had duly performed the preliminary purifications, and secured to the participants salvation and remission of sins. Under Mysteries {q.v.) a distinction of character has been pointed out between the true Hellenic mysteries, such as the Eleusinian, and the Phrygian; but there certainly existed much similarity between the two rituals. In the first centuries after Christ only the Phrygian and the Egyptian rites retained much real hold on the Graeco-Roman world. Phrygia itself, however, was very early converted to Christianity. Christian inscriptions in the country begin in the 2d and are abundant in the 3d century. There is every appearance that the great mass of the people were Christians before 300, and Eusebius {H. E., v. 16) is probably correct in his statement that in the time of Diocletian there was a Phrygian city in which every living soul was Christian. The great Phrygian saint of the 2d century was named Abercius; the mass of legends and miracles in the late biography of him long brought his very existence into dispute, but a recently-discovered fragment of his gravestone has proved that he was a real person, and makes it probable that the wide-reaching conversion of the people attributed to him did actually take place. The strange enthusiastic character of the old Phrygian religion was not wholly lost when the country became Christian, but is clearly traced in the various heresies that arose in central Anatolia. Especially the wild ecstatic character and the prophecies of the Montanists recall the old type of religion. Montanus (see Montanism, vol. xvi. p. 775) was born on the borders of Phrygia and Mysia (doubtless in the Murad Dagh), and was vehemently opposed by Abercius.
Of the old Phrygian language very little is known; a few words are preserved in Hesychius and other writers. Plato mentions that the Phrygian words for “dog,” “fire,” &c., were the same as the Greek; and to these we may add from inscriptions the words for “mother” and “king.” A few inscriptions of the ancient period are known, and a somewhat larger number of the Roman period have been found, but not yet published.
Owing to the scantiness of published material about Phrygia frequent reference has been made in this article to unpublished monuments, and historical views are stated which have only quite recently been published by the writer. Besides the works already quoted of Abel and Perrot, see Ritter’s “Kleinasien,” in his Erdkunde von Asien ; Leake’s Asia Minor ; Kiepert’s appendix to Franz, Fünf Inschr. u. fünf Städte Kleinasiens ; Haase, in Erseh and Gruber’s Encyklnp.; Hamilton’s Travels in Asia Minor ; Hirschfeld’s “Reisebericht,” in the Berl. Monatsber. (1879); Texier, Asie Mineure ; Steuart, Ancient Monuments ; besides the special chapters in the geographical treatises of Cramer, Vivien St Martin, Forbiger, &c.; Ramsay, in Mittheil. Instit. Athen. (1882), Bulletin de Corresp. Hellén. (1882-83), and Journal of Hellenic Studies (1882 sq.). (W. Μ. RA.)
