BOOK REVIEW

It seems curious that those few detailed histories of phrenology available to the twenty-first century reader tend to concentrate upon the more technical discussions of the pseudoscience associated with specialist publications written specifically for the practitioner and the partisan, . . . [whereas] considerably less has been said . . . regarding the knowledge of phrenology enjoyed by those who were neither practitioners nor partisans to one side or the other of the debate.

In the preamble to The Dome of Thought, William Hughes writes, It seems curious that those few detailed histories of phrenology available to the twenty-first century reader tend to concentrate upon the more technical discussions of the pseudoscience associated with specialist publications written specifically for the practitioner and the partisan, . . . [whereas] considerably less has been said . . . regarding the knowledge of phrenology enjoyed by those who were neither practitioners nor partisans to one side or the other of the debate.
Hughes is an academic. He is professor of literature in English at the University of Macau, China, far from his native England, where he had studied and taught. Consequently, the present work bridges the fields of literary criticism and medical history.
Best known for his scholarly studies of Victorian Gothic fiction, most notably Bram Stoker (1847-1912) (author of Dracula), and now the author or editor of more than 20 books, Hughes ventured into the history of science and medicine in 2015 with That Devil's Trick: Hypnotism and the Victorian Popular Imagination. Going from mesmerism to phrenology might be expected from an author as prolific and inquisitive as Hughes. The two popular fads had been entertained and debated by scientists and practicing physicians in Britain, and both captured the public's imagination. Moreover, as revealed in the present volume, some imaginative individuals promoted a "strange amalgam of the two sciences" called "phreno-magnetism," with some presenting it as therapeutic and others as a way to entertain paying audiences.
Much has already been written about the introduction, mixed acceptance, and eventual fall of phrenology in Britain. Some earlier books and articles focused on landmark events in this history, such as the Edinburgh debates; others on the major British players, most notably founder Franz Joseph Gall's (1858-1928) (wayward) assistant, Johann Gaspar Spurzheim (1776-1832), and Spurzheim's Scottish disciple, George Combe (1788-1858); and still others on how phrenology impacted medical practices, especially psychiatry. Ranging from traditional academic treatises to social interpretations of the ups and downs of phrenology, what has been missing is a treatise on how local and regional newspaper reporters presented the pseudoscience, its promoters, and its lesser-known practitioners-one showing how published news reports and opinion pieces might have affected the laity.
Hughes shows what reporters presented to the British public in relatively objective or decidedly biased ways. Every section of his book contains thoughtful commentary about the periodicals, the reporters, the targeted audience, and, most importantly, the impact of these written pieces. He makes a reader feel as if he or she is "in the moment," not an outsider peeking in through a halfopened window or a cracked-open door. There are enough new bits of information, insights, and different ways to think about phrenology and some of its promoters and detractors to draw the admiration of even those scholars who have delved into this fascinating history.
For example, citing an account in the Norfolk Chronicle and Norwich Gazette, Hughes suggests that Spurzheim's 1816 encounter with John Gordon (1786-1818), his adversary in Edinburgh, "was most likely moderated by customary professional courtesies" and not quite as hostile and blustery as some primary and secondary sources have made their meetings out to be. Some of Hughes's other examples will also cause readers familiar with standard presentations of phrenology's history to consider new interpretations of the people and events.
Hughes's book has just four chapters following its rather lengthy preamble. They are chronologically organized and cover (1) Gall and early reports in English about his controversial ideas, (2) Spurzheim's crusade to create greater awareness of phrenology in Britain. (3) George Combe's use and popularization of the doctrine, and (4) the coming together of phrenology and mesmerism. These four chapters are followed by a six-page "Conclusion." Rather than summarizing and analyzing phrenology's impact on British culture and its positives and negatives, his coda is more like an epilogue-one bringing up how phrenology, albeit now on life support, was still alive into the twentieth century (with the British Phrenological Society lasting until 1967 and some more feeble attempts to promote the pseudoscience still appearing in newspapers after this date).
One feature deserving of more attention is how religious beliefs about an immaterial and indivisible human soul might have influenced and guided some of the negative and even caustic early reviews of the doctrine in Britain. Hughes discusses how some speakers and reporters attacked phrenology as a materialistic and fatalistic doctrine in later parts of his book. But more might have been written about religious sentiments when discussing, for example, antiphrenological biases in Edinburgh before, during, and shortly after 1816, when Spurzheim first visited the Scottish city and debated the subject with anatomist John Gordon, who considered phrenology nonsense.
The Dome of Thought is laced with helpful footnotes and contains more than 300 references. The writing is engaging and the book is easy to read, despite there being much to digest. There are 10 illustrations, yet only two show the men and women featured in the book, both as sketches. Although Hughes can bring characters to life with words, more visual images of the men and women he wrote about would have nicely augmented his presentation.
People interested in phrenology, the history of the neurosciences, or the history of science and medicine should read this book. It will make a worthy addition to a personal library. It is the sort of book that can and should trigger new research projects on people and events in the checkered history of phrenology, along with new perspectives. It will also draw attention to how much more could be learned by examining newspapers and nonspecialist periodicals of earlier eras. The popular press is the unique thread running through this volume on phrenology in Britain, and comparable analyses could be productively applied to understand phrenology's impact in other parts of the world and to shed additional light on other developments in the history of the neurosciences.

Stanley Finger
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA sfinger@wustl.edu