School of Arts Submission Coversheet (All Programmes)

Student Identification  

Student Name or Number (in case of anonymous submission please write student number only)

Rebecka Berndtson Klette

Programme Title  MA Victorian Studies

Module Title Progress and Anxiety, 1789-1859

Module Code (listed on student timetables)

 HICL025S7-AAA Group A

Module Tutor Nicola Bown

Coursework Title  Homicidal Humbug: Contemporary responses to the science of Phrenology in Punch 1841-1849

Word Count 3706 Date Submitted January 3, 2015

Late Submission: If you submit late work that is to be considered for assessment then you should provide written documentation, medical or otherwise, to explain why the work was submitted late (we do not give extensions). You will need to complete a standard pro-forma [obtainable from http://www.bbk.ac.uk/mybirkbeck/services/administration/assessment/exams/mitigating-circumstances ] and submit it, with documentary evidence as appropriate, to the Chair of the Examination sub-Board responsible for the module concerned. The case will then be considered by the appropriate sub-board or delegated panel. If no case is made then a penalty mark will be given. If a case is made and accepted then the examination board may allow the "real" mark to stand.

Marking: Your mark is described as provisional as it is subject to change at the discretion of the final Board of Examiners. Please see your handbook or the MyBirkbeck Helpdesk for more information, or contact your module convenor for more information regarding marking timetables. Marking criteria are given in your programme handbook.

Academic Declaration: Students are reminded that the electronic copy of their essay may be checked, at any point during their degree, with JISC or other plagiarism detection software for plagiarised material.

"I certify that this piece of work in entirely my own and that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of others is duly acknowledged."

Student Signature (or re-enter your student number) 12942575

Homicidal Humbug: Contemporary responses to the science of Phrenology in Punch 1841-1849

Rebecka Berndtson Klette Core Course 1: Progress and Anxiety

In recent years, many researchers studying Victorian periodicals have come to the conclusion that

“periodicals rather than books provided the main means of dissemination” of scientific ideas, disco-

veries and innovations within technology and medicine during the nineteenth century, increasingly 1

shaping public perceptions of science and scientific controversies. The periodical possessed certain 2

advantages over the book: with publications released daily, weekly or monthly, the periodical could

keep up with current scientific debate and successfully convey new ideas and theories (or, as in the 3

case of Punch, reject and ridicule said ideas and theories). Another advantage was the periodical’s

capability to reach a wider readership, as “Readers outside the relatively small and elite intellectual

community depended largely on magazines, periodicals, and newspapers for their understanding of

contemporary cultural issues”. 4

Culture and Science in the Nineteenth-Century Media, ed. by Geoffrey Cantor and others (Hants & 1

Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2004), p. xviii.

Gowan Dawson, Richard Noakes, and Jonathan R. Topham, 'Introduction', in Science in the nineteenth-cen2 -tury periodical , ed. by Geoffrey Cantor and others (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 1-36, p 17.

Dawson, Noakes & Topham, p. 8.3

Culture and Science in the Nineteenth-Century Media, ed. by Geoffrey Cantor and others (Hants & 4

Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2004), p. xvii.

Permeating the majority of Victorian periodicals, science was one of the most prevalent topics in the

satirical magazine Punch, founded in London in 1841, with a circulation of between 30 000 and 40

000 copies a week during the 1840s. Sold at the cheap cost of a threepence (3d), Punch was dee5 -

med by contemporaries to play a vital role in conveying philosophical and scientific ideas as well as

current scientific debates to the “masses”, successfully combining sometimes low-brow humour

with high-brow intellectual debate. Punch helped popularise and shape the perception of science in 6

the public mind, mirroring as well as influencing the scientific discourses of the era, and this es7 -

say’s aim is study the representation of phrenology in Punch, conceiving of Punch as an active pro-

ducer of the perception of phrenology in the reading public, rather than a passive mediator of know-

ledge. How was phrenology received in Punch during the 1840s? What kind of criticism did the 8

theory receive, and in what manner did the periodical utilise satire to form earnest arguments attac-

king phrenology? I will limit myself to studying the time-span between 1841 - the year Punch was

founded - up until the early 1850s, during which phrenology was almost completely discredited as a

science in most medical circles: during this period, numerous articles were published on the sub9 -

ject, openly mocking the phrenological movement, of which I have selected ten that, I maintain,

best represent the critique of phrenology (or “Bumpology” as it was often jokingly called during the

era) in Punch. 10

R. Altick, Punch: The Lively Youth of a British Institution (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1997) 5

from <http://www.punch.co.uk/about/> [accessed 24 December 2014].

Richard Noakes, 'Punch and comic journalism in mid-Victorian Britain', in Science in the nineteenth-centu6 -ry periodical, ed. by Geoffrey Cantor and others (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 91-122, p. 91.

Noakes, p. 122.7

Noakes, p. 93.8

John van Wyhe, The History of Phrenology on the Web (1999-2011) <http://www.historyofphrenolo9 -gy.org.uk/overview.htm> [accessed 24 December 2014].

Wyhe, The History of Phrenology on the Web10

The science of phrenology (phren: “mind” and logos: “study, or discourse”) was first conceived of 11

by Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1828), a physician from Vienna, who initially referred to his theory as

organology. Gall’s theory encompassed the following assumptions: that the brain is the organ in

which the mind is located; that the mind is composed of multiple distinct and independent faculties,

each faculty located in a separate part of the brain; that the size of the brain indicates its power; that

the shape of the brain is determined by the development of these faculties; that the physiological

characteristics of the cranium corresponds with certain mental characteristics of the mind; and that

the surface of the cranium can be read as an accurate index of psychological aptitudes and tendenci-

es, mirroring the inner brain. Thus, by examining the shape and bumps of a head, one could di12 -

scern certain character traits: a large bump in the section of the cranium responsible for Benevo-

lence would indicate a benevolent temperament, while a less pronounced bump would indicate a

selfish nature. Gall’s theory was spread to England and Scotland by his assistant and disciple, Jo13 -

hann Gaspar Spurzheim (1776-1832), responsible for popularising the term phrenology, who in turn

influenced Edinburgh lawyer and writer George Combe (1778-1858). Combe helped popularise ph-

renology in England and the United States, even enabled the founding the Phrenological Society of

Edinburgh in 1820, with the 1928 publication of The Constitution of Man; one of the most contro14 -

versial and best-selling books of the early nineteenth century. Its diffusion was remarkable: it had 15

sold 21 000 copies by the end of 1835, 55 000 copies by 1836, 72 000 copies by 1838, 80 000 copi-

Wyhe, The History of Phrenology on the Web11

Wyhe, The History of Phrenology on the Web12

Wyhe, The History of Phrenology on the Web13

Curators of the University of Missouri, The Phenomenon of Phrenology (2010) <https://library.missouri.e14 -du/exhibits/anatomy/phrenology.htm> [accessed 24 December 2014].

John Van Wyhe, Phrenology and the Origins of Victorian Scientific Naturalism (Burlington: Ashgate Pub15 -lishing Company, 2004), p. 127.

es by 1848, and 85 000 copies by 1850. The immense success of Constitution was, apart from 16 17

the appeal of its content, enabled by the release of the cheap, double-columned People’s Editions,

recent developments in steam-powered printing technology, and an increasingly literate public

(between 70 % and 75 % of the population by the 1830s). 18

The cheap publication appealed to all levels of society, widely read by the working classes, middle-

class evangelicals, nobility, and reformist atheists alike, and was as criticised as it was praised: 19

books, pamphlets, reviews and sermons were written, attacking the book, while journals and socie-

ties were founded with the sole purpose of spreading the practice of phrenology. To evangelicals,

the book posed a great threat to the very foundations of Christianity, while reformers deemed it the

solution to how secular, practical science could enable social progress. The key argument of Con20 -

stitution is that Man (and the mind of Man) is subjected to the same natural laws as the rest of natu-

re, directly contrary to what Christian doctrine proposed, and that progress can only be achieved 21

by acting in accordance with these natural laws. As Wyhe suggests, the book “provided an alterna-

tive narrative to the world”, suggesting that even morality - the very pillar of Christianity, namely 22

God’s word - was directly determined by the natural laws, and that these laws could be decoded and

obeyed through the practice of phrenology. Phrenology relied heavily on the concept of self-help,

James A. Secord, Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of 16

Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), p. 73.

Wyhe, Phrenology and the Origins of Victorian Scientific Naturalism, pp. 128, 134.17

Wyhe, Phrenology and the Origins of Victorian Scientific Naturalism, p. 134.18

Wyhe, Phrenology and the Origins of Victorian Scientific Naturalism, p. 128.19

Wyhe, Phrenology and the Origins of Victorian Scientific Naturalism, p. 130.20

John van Wyhe, George Combe's The Constitution of Man in Relation to External Objects (1999-2011) 21

< http://www.historyofphrenology.org.uk/constindex.html> [accessed 24 December 2014].

Wyhe, Phrenology and the Origins of Victorian Scientific Naturalism, p. 127.22

rather than salvation, as human behaviour should be explained in neurological rather than religi23 -

ous terms. Thus, Combe maintained that human nature could only be grasped by studying the natu-

ral laws (meaning, studied by scientists), not by studying the bible. Here lies the conflict; the 24

source of controversy over Combe’s publication was not primarily located in the practice of phreno-

logy, but in the implication that science should be secularised. This may explain why phrenology

lost popularity and began to be seen as completely discredited as a science in the early 1850s, when

the controversial statements of phrenology became absorbed into secular naturalism. One of the 25

criticisms aimed directly at the underlying assumptions of phrenology was Francis Jeffrey’s 1826

review of Combe’s “System of Phrenology” in the Edinburgh Review, in which Jeffrey rejected the

primary premise of phrenology: that the mind was divided into distinct faculties. Instead, Jeffrey

maintained that the human mind was one unity, indivisible, and immaterial, thus not capable of de-

pending on the material brain. Jeffrey also pinpointed phrenology’s biggest flaw: the blatant dis26 -

regard for findings inconsistent with, or contradicting, the theory, and utter disinterest in scientific

evidence, conceiving of the theory as pure knowledge, rather than a verifiable scientific method. 27

Phrenology was pure secular and naturalistic reductionism, reducing every psychological phenome-

non to a mere symptom of an underlying neurological faculty.

Much of the criticism directed at the theory concerned the propensity of the phrenologists to confu-

se correlation with causality, what is known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc: just because a subject had

Wyhe, Phrenology and the Origins of Victorian Scientific Naturalism, p. 129.23

Wyhe, Phrenology and the Origins of Victorian Scientific Naturalism, p. 206.24

Wyhe, The History of Phrenology on the Web 25

John van Wyhe, A System of Phrenology (1999-2011) <http://www.historyofphrenology.org.uk/constin26 -dex.html> [accessed 24 December 2014].

Wyhe, Phrenology and the Origins of Victorian Scientific Naturalism, p. 204.27

a bump on the section of the cranium that supposedly covers a certain faculty in the brain (such as

the faculty of Benevolence), that does not imply that any benevolent actions performed by the sub-

ject are performed because of the size and influence of this faculty. This quite apparent flaw did not

go unnoticed by satirical periodicals such as Punch: phrenology was one of the magazine’s major

targets well into the 1870s. The first mention of phrenology occurs in the 1841 article “Public Af-

fairs on Phrenological Principles” in direct response to George Combe, proposing how the science

of phrenology ought to be applied: ministers of state should be “chosen according to their bumps”,

for example advising that no legal functionary displaying the bump of benevolence should be ap-

pointing, as well as warning that the science could “be abused by parties bumping their own heads,

and raising tumours for the sake of obtaining credit for different qualities.” The article on the one 28

hand points to the ridiculousness of phrenology put into practice in the public domain, as well as

casts light on the absurd correlation between character and cranial bumps, caused by head trauma

rather than determined by the shape of the skull and any imagined faculties of the mind.

The second article, also published in 1841, is entitled “Punch’s Stomachology”, proposing a science

studying the different faculties - and consequent bumps - of the stomach (because “if it be possible

(…) to divide the brain into distinct faculties, why may not the stomach (…) also possess several

faculties?”, such as “the faculty of roast beef, another for that of devilled kidney, and so forth?”) 29

By positing stomachology as logically following the basic assumptions of phrenology, Punch shows

the inherent absurdness of the theory, implicitly claiming that the mind is as indivisible as the sto-

mach, that one should not divide “that which is indivisible”. The writer also pokes fun at the purely

incidental method of achieving scientific findings used by phrenologists, by claiming that the scien-

tist in question discovered the divided nature of the stomach by noticing that he and his wife have

Anon, 'Public Affairs on Phrenological Priniciples', Punch, 1 (1841), p. 57.28

Anon, 'Punch's Stomachology', Punch, 1 (1841), p. 232.29

different taste when it comes to food, concluding that there must be a certain predominance of a cer-

tain organ, indicating “the gastronomic character of the individual.” The proneness of phrenologists

to explain away any contradicting evidence (say, a prominent bump in the area of Benevolence that

does not lead to benevolent behaviour) by maintaining that some other organ may influencing the

organ in question (“thus the faculty of ham may be modified by that of roast veal”). The fictional

scientists claims the existence of four classes of faculties (obviously mocking the ridiculous amount

of faculties defined in the theory of phrenology): “sustaining faculties” (including bread, water,

beef, mutton, veal, and bacon), “sentiments or affections” (such as fowl, fish, soup, and plum-pud-

ding), “superior sentiments” (sauces and fruit), and “intellectual tastes” (olives, caviar, turtle, curri-

es, french wines, and Italian salads, among others). The scientist concludes that Stomachology will

completely replace the study of autonomy, taking one last poke at the hubris of phrenology in main-

taining that all features of human behaviour could be reduced to the study of phrenology.

A second article on “Punch’s Stomachology” returns in 1842, claiming that “ the prominences on

the surface of the stomach indicate the existence of certain mental qualities”, and that the method of

stomachology is such a “valuable indication of the human character” that it can be used to choose

wives, servants, and even members of Parliament. The article is accompanied with a drawing of a 30

corpulent man whose stomach is divided into distinct sections, each representing a certain faculty.

Much like phrenology often assigned certain dominant faculties to certain social classes, the fictio-

nal author asserts that the Sustaining Faculties are “particularly active amongst lower classes of the

community”, most likely implying that the Intellectual Taste (or the faculty of reasoning and re-

flecting upon the abstract qualities of olives) are reserved for the intellectual upper classes. By spe-

aking of silly things like the “metaphysics of the stomach” and the threat of “the activity of the beef

Anon, 'Punch's Stomachology', Punch, 2 (1842), p. 50.30

and mutton faculties of the people”, the Punch writer implicitly emphasises how unreasonable it

would be to let a pseudo-science like phrenology to govern society: for as silly as stomachology

appears to be, it displayed the same propensity for logical fallacies as phrenology did, just substitu-

ting the cranium with the stomach.

Phrenology was not merely mocked as a science, but was also used to mock certain groups of socie-

ty, in a jokingly fashion that would not be deemed too offensive. In the 1843 article “Punch’s Phre-

nology”, the writer links certain phrenological faculties with members of different professions and 31

social groups; for example, the faculty of Time was supposedly very prominent in gentleman’s ste-

wards and tax collectors, while the faculty of Tune was acutely underdeveloped in “gentlemen who

join chorus at various harmonic societies”.

Punch’s opinion on phrenology is perhaps best conveyed in “Punch’s Labours of Hercules” (1843),

in which Hercules is shown fighting off the menace of medical quackery, encompassing homeopat-

hists, hydropathists, mesmerists and phrenologists, all falling under the term “pseudosopher”. Her-

cules uses the “light of reason” to extinguish the quacks merely inventing ineffective medicines to

supposedly cure different diseases, instead of “directing their patients what to eat and drink” in a

constructive manner. Hercules asserts that “You could not take up a newspaper or magazine that

was not crammed with their falsehoods”, thus emphasising the diffusion of pseudo-sciences such as

Anon, 'Punch's Phrenology', Punch, 4 (1843), p. 160.31

!

phrenology into all aspects of nineteenth-century media, not only found in the medical journals

supporting this “homicidal humbug”. Hercules first disarms the “unprincipled Legislature” which 32

enabled the Quacks to continue his “monopoly of (his) poisonous rubbish”. He gets rid of the diffe-

rent elixirs and tinctures used by the Quacks, even turning some of it into manure, and extinguishes

the profession of the Quack, with the only side effect being a slight increase in population, resolved

by emigration to Australia. Hercules had earlier slain the Centaur, half man and half horse, and had

now overthrown the pseudosopher; the “half-rational creature and half-jackass”. The image accom-

panying the article depicts Hercules slaying elixirs, ointments, pills, salts and even a bucket of cold

“Anon, 'Punch's Labours of Hercules: Chapter 4—Labour Fourth—How Hercules Destroyed a Great 32

Boar', Punch, 4 (1843), pp. 240–41.

water (representing hydrotherapy), using a wooden club decorated with the well-known Punch jo-

ker, thus positing Punch as the champion of reason in the crusade against Quackery. The association

between quackery and phrenology, even comparing phrenology with mesmerists, supports the ar-

gument that phrenology never gained the status as a completely respectable science, at least not

among the writers and readership of Punch and similar periodicals. The association with mesme-

rism is mentioned again in the article “A new Musical Instrument” (1843), in which a man is 33

shown to play a mesmerised woman like an instrument by touching certain sections of her head,

forcing her to act in accordance with the different faculties affected: the article stresses the absurdi-

ty of the cerebral determinism phrenology presupposes, leaving no room for free will. Phrenology

appears in another short article the following year, “A Hint to Phrenologists”, in which the writer 34

implies that the recent expensive order of jewellery made by the Russian tsar Nicholas I from a

London jewellers had led to the increasingly developed faculty of “snuff-box-ativeness” discernible

in the aristocracy.

In 1848, Punch even publishes “The Phrenological Almanack” , in which each month is paired 35

with a distinct phrenological faculty (February and Valentine’s Day is associated with Amativeness,

May and the Opera season with the Faculty of Tune, etc), thus awarding phrenology the same

nonexistent scientific status as astrology and horoscopes. Punch’s aversion to phrenology is conti-

nuously expressed in the form of fictional pseudo-sciences, based on similar logical fallacies as ph-

renology, but concerning other parts of the body: apart from stomachology, the science of “Handy

Phrenology” appears in 1848, arguing that character can be discerned by studying the fingers, while

Anon, 'A New Musical Instrument', Punch, 5 (1843), p. 168.33

Anon, 'A Hint to Phrenologists', Punch, 6 (1844), p. 252.34

Anon, ‘The Phrenological Almanack', Punch, 16 (1848), p. xviii.35

the 1849 “Telling the Character to a Hair” argues that a lock of hair is indicative of character (of 36

course, drawing the conclusion that bald men does not possess any character).

37

Anon, 'Telling the Character to a Hair', Punch, 16 (1849), p. 205.36

Anon, 'Handy Phrenology', Punch, 15 (1848), p. 104.37

CONCLUSION

The cheap cost of Combe’s Constitution enabled a popularisation of phrenology, which in turn

enabled Punch to mock it, assured that the readership would understand and enjoy that mockery:

the goal of Punch was, of course, to print content that would appeal to what Noakes refers to as “a

respectable male and metropolitan readership.” That a satirical periodical could make sober argu38 -

ments regarding the scientific credibility of phrenology suggests the wide diffusion of the theory to

all levels of society, enabling the likes of Punch to undertake a form of critique that had earlier been

reserved for scientific journals. Science permeated all aspects of the periodical, feeding off of what

Noakes calls the “tension between admiration and anxiety”: Punch displays an ambivalent stance 39

towards science, simultaneously expressing respect for scientific progress, and fear that this pro-

gress would succumb to abuse and hubris. One of the worrisome aspects of contemporary science

concerning the writers of Punch is clearly its propensity for excessive specialisation: the constant

creation of new sciences seemed to cause an ontological inflation of scientific truth, in which “true”

scientific discoveries were overshadowed by medical quackery, the invention of useless tinctures

and remedies, and petty debates between, and within, established scientific societies and schools.

Nonetheless, however much Punch overtly despised phrenology, it is clear that the theory had be-

come integrated within the contemporary scientific discourse: Punch uses the theory for satirical

purposes in poems, songs, fake pharmaceutical advertisements, mockery of members of parliament,

artists and learned men within the scientific community alike, as well as to comment on the lack of

scientific proof or credibility of other scientific discoveries by comparing them with phrenology. It

is worth noting that the critique against phrenology was presented as lectures, articles and scientific

manifestos, rather than mocked in larger drawings, implying that the response to phrenology was

Noakes, p. 105.38

Noakes, p .119.39

meant to be construed as more serious in nature, pointing to the overt flaws of the theory rather than

just chasing cheap laughs. To the educated middle-class to whom Punch was primarily directed, ph-

renology embodied medical quackery, tightly interlinked with the commercialisation of self-help

guides and immoderate optimism regarding the ability of Science to solve every thinkable problem.

I argue that it is, however, interesting how both the phrenologists and the writers and artists behind

Punch all relied on one shared theoretical basis, that of physiognomy (the idea that the body - often

primarily the face and head - mirrored the soul, and that mental qualities, character traits and moral

disposition could be inferred from the study of physical features). Popularised by the Swiss priest 40

Johann Caspar Lavater (1775-1778) during the eighteenth century, physiognomy greatly influenced

Gall’s phrenology, as well as became the primary tool of the nineteenth century caricaturist to 41

convey the inner character of the drawn subject, by assigning him or her certain physical features

corresponding to inner mental qualities; the greedy capitalist possesses a fleshy physique (implying

excess), while depictions of the Irish paddy with simian features implies that he is of an unruly, bar-

baric and innately dangerous nature. Thus, I argue that phrenology as well as the art of caricature

relies on a common scientific assumption often found within scientific naturalism, that of physi-

ognomy: that external physical features correspond with internal mental features. This supports the

theory expressed earlier by Noakes, namely that phrenology as well as the satire in Punch ought to

be conceived of as elements of the same scientific discourse: a discourse admiring, but at the same

time questioning, the idea of infinite progress. Would secular scientific naturalism lead to endless

discoveries in the fields of natural sciences, technology and medicine, or would it lead to a divided

scientific community, too busy bickering amongst themselves to achieve anything even resembling

objective scientific Truth?

Umberto Eco, Om fulhet (original title Storia della Bruttezza), trans. by Barbro Andersson, Pia Lundgren 40

(Stockholm: Brombergs Bokförlag, 2007), p. 257.

Eco, p. 259.41

Bibliography

All Punch articles have been retrieved from http://www.sciper.org/ and https://sites.google.com/site/punchvolumes/

• Anon, “Public Affairs on Phrenological Principles”, Punch, 1 (1841), p. 57. • Anon, “Punch's Stomachology”, Punch, 1 (1841), p. 232. • Anon, “Punch's Stomachology”, Punch, 2 (1842), p. 50. • Anon, “Punch's Phrenology”, Punch, 4 (1843), p. 160. • Anon, “Punch's Labours of Hercules: Chapter 4—Labour Fourth—How Hercules Destroyed a

Great Boar”, Punch, 4 (1843), pp. 240–41. • Anon, “A New Musical Instrument”, Punch, 5 (1843), p. 168. • Anon, “A Hint to Phrenologists”, Punch, 6 (1844), p. 252. • Anon, “The Phrenological Almanack”, Punch, 16 (1848), p. xviii. • Anon, “Telling the Character to a Hair”, Punch, 16 (1849), p. 205. • Anon, 'Handy Phrenology', Punch, 15 (1848), p. 104.

• Geoffrey Cantor and others, eds, Culture and Science in the Nineteenth-Century Media, (Hants & Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2004)

• Dawson, Gowan., Noakes, Richard., and Topham, Jonathan R., 'Introduction', in Science in the nineteenth-century periodical , ed. by Geoffrey Cantor and others (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 2004), pp. 1-36.

• Eco, Umberto, Om fulhet (original title Storia della Bruttezza), trans. by Barbro Andersson, Pia Lundgren (Stockholm: Brombergs Bokförlag, 2007)

• Richard Noakes, 'Punch and comic journalism in mid-Victorian Britain', in Science in the ninete-enth-century periodical, ed. by Geoffrey Cantor and others (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 91-122.

• Secord, James A., Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 2000)

• University of Missouri, The Phenomenon of Phrenology (2010) <https://library.missouri.edu/ex-hibits/anatomy/phrenology.htm> [accessed 24 December 2014].

• Wyhe, John van, Phrenology and the Origins of Victorian Scientific Naturalism (Burlington: Ash-gate Publishing Company, 2004)

• Wyhe, John van, The History of Phrenology on the Web (1999-2011) <http://www.historyofphre-nology.org.uk/overview.htm> [accessed 24 December 2014].

• Wyhe, John van, George Combe's The Constitution of Man in Relation to External Objects (1999-2011) < http://www.historyofphrenology.org.uk/constindex.html> [accessed 24 December 2014].

• Wyhe, John van, A System of Phrenology (1999-2011) <http://www.historyofphrenology.org.uk/constindex.html> [accessed 24 December 2014].