such cases； so that the skull should express the meaning in the language of gesture。 Nor does this
existential form possess the value even of a symbol。 Look and gesture； tone； even a pillar or a post
stuck up on a desert island； proclaim at once that they stand for something else than what they
merely are at first sight。 They forthwith profess to be symbols； since they have in them a
characteristic which points to something else by the fact that it does not belong peculiarly to them。
Doubtless； even in the case of a skull； there is many an idea that may occur to us； like those of
Hamlet over Yorick's skull； but the skull…bone by itself is such an indifferent object； such an
innocent thing； that there is nothing else to be seen in it or to be thought about it directly as it is；
except simply the fact of its being a skull。 It no doubt reminds us of the brain and its specific
nature； and skull with other formations； but it does not recall a conscious process； since there is
impressed on it neither a look or gesture； nor anything which would show traces of derivation from
a conscious activity。 For it is that sort of reality which； in the case of individuality； is intended to
exhibit an aspect of another kind； one that would no longer be an existence reflecting itself into
itself； but bare immediate existence。
While； further； the skull does not itself feel； there seems still a possibility of providing it with a more
determinate significance in the fact that specific feelings might enable us； through their being in
proximity to it； to find out what the skull may mean to convey； and when a conscious mode of
mind has its feeling in a specific region of the skull； it may be thought perhaps that this spot of the
skull may indicate by its shape what that mode is and what its peculiar nature。 Just as； e。g。； many
people complain of feeling a painful tension somewhere in the head when thinking intensely； or
even when thinking at all； so it might be that stealing； committing murder； writing poetry； and so on；
could each be accompanied with its own proper feeling； which would over and above be bound to
have its peculiar localization。 This locality of the brain； which would in this manner be more
disturbed and exercised； would also most likely develop further the contiguous locality of the bone
of the skull； or again this latter locality would； from sympathy or conformity； not be inert； but
would enlarge or diminish or in some other way assume a corresponding form。
What； however； makes such a hypothesis improbable is this： feeling in general is something
indeterminate； and that feeling in the head as the centre might well be the general feeling that
accompanies all suffering； so that mixed up with the thief's； murderer's； poet's tickling or pain in the
head there would be other feelings too； and they would permit of being distinguished from one
another； or from those we may call merely bodily feelings； as little as an illness can be determined
from the symptom of headache； if we restrict its meaning merely to the bodily element。
In point of fact； from whatever side we look at the matter； all necessary reciprocal relation
between them comes to nothing； as well as any intimation the one might give of the other in virtue
of such a relation。 If the relation is still to hold； what is left to form a sort of necessary relation is a
pre…established harmony of the corresponding features of the two sides； a harmony which leaves
the factors in question quite detached and rests on no inherent principle； for one of the aspects has
to be a non…mental reality； a bare thing。
Thus then； on one side we have a number of passive regions of the skull； on the other a number of
mental properties； the variety and character of which will depend on the condition of psychological
investigation。 The poorer the idea we have of mind； the easier the matter becomes in this respect；
for； in part； the fewer become the mental properties； and； in part； the more detached； fixed； and
ossified； and consequently more akin to features of the bone and more comparable with them。
But； while much is doubtless made easier by this miserable representation of the mind； there still
remains a very great deal to be found on both sides： there remains for observation to deal with the
entire contingency of their relation。 When every faculty of the soul； every passion and （for this； too；
must be considered here） the various shades of characters； which the more refined psychology
and 〃knowledge of mankind〃 are accustomed to talk about； are each and all assigned their place
on the skull； and their contour on the skull…bone； the arbitrariness and artificiality of this procedure
are just as glaring as if the children of Israel； who had been likened to 〃the sand by the seashore
for multitude〃； had each assigned and taken to himself his own symbolic grain of sand！
The skull of a murderer has — not this organ or sign — but this 〃bump〃。 But this murderer has in
addition a lot of other properties； and other bumps too； and along with the bumps hollows as well。
Bumps and hollows； there is room for selection！ And again his murderous propensity can be
referred to any bump or hollow； and this in turn to any mental quality； for the murderer is neither
this abstraction of a murderer； nor does he have merely one protuberance and one depression。
The observations offered on this point must therefore sound just about as sensible as those of the
dealer about the rain at the annual fair； and of the housewife at her washing time。 （8） Dealer and
housewife might as well make the observation that it always rains when neighbour so…and…so
passes by； or when they have roast pork。 From the point of view of observation a given
characteristic of mind is just as indifferent to a given formation of the skull as rain is indifferent to
circumstances like these。 For of the two objects thus under observation； the one is a barren
isolated entity （Fürsichsein）； an ossified property of mind； the other is an equally barren
potentiality （Ansichsein）。 Such an ossified entity； as they both are； is completely indifferent to
everything else。 It is just as much a matter of indifference to a high bump whether a murderer is in
close proximity； as to the murderer whether flatness is near him。
There is； of course； no getting over the possibility that still remains； that a bump at a certain place
is connected with a certain property； passion； etc。 We can think of the murderer with a high bump
here at this place on the skull； the thief with one there。 From this point of view phrenology is
capable of much greater extension than it has yet had。 For in the first instance it seems to be
restricted merely to the connexion of a bump with a property in one and the same individual； in the
sense that this individual possesses both。 But phrenology per naturam…for there must be such a
subject as well as a physiognomy per naturam…goes a long way beyond this restriction。 It does
not merely affirm that a cunning fellow has a bump like a fist lying behind the ear； but also puts
forward the view that； not the unfaithful wife herself； but the other party to this conjugal
transaction； has a bump on the brow。
In the same way； one may too /imagine” and “conjecture” the man living under the same roof
with the murderer； or even one's neighbour； or； going still further afield； “conjecture” one's fellow
citizens； etc。； with high bumps on some part of the skull； just as well as one might picture to oneself
the flying cow that was caressed by the crab riding on a donkey； and afterwards； etc。 etc； But of
possibility is taken not in the sense of a possibility of “imagining” and “conjecturing” and
“picturing”； but in the sense of inner possibility； or possibility of conceiving； then the object is a
reality of the kind which is a mere thing and is； and should be； depived of the significance of reality；
and canthus only have the sense of it for imaginative or figurative thinking。
The observer may； in spite of the indifference of the two sides to one another； set to work to
determine correlations； supported partly by the general rational principle that the outer is the
expression of the inner； and partly by the analogy of the skulls of animals — which may doubtless
have a simpler character than men； but of which at the same time it becomes just so much the
more difficult to say what character they do have； in that it cannot be so easy for any man's
imagination to think himself really into the nature of an animal。 Should the observer do so； he will
find； in giving out for certain the laws he maintains he has discovered； a first…rate means of
assistance in a distinction which we too must necessarily take note of at this point。
The being of mind cannot be taken at any rate to be something completely rigid and immovable。
Man is free。 It will be admitted that the mind's original primordial being consists merely in
dispositions； which mind has to a large extent under its control； or which require favourable
circumstances to draw them out； i。e。 an original 〃being〃 of mind must be equally well spoken of as
what does not exist as a 〃being〃 at all。 Were observations to conflict with what strikes any one as
a warrantable law； should it happen to be fine weather at the annual fair or on the housewife's
washing day — then dealer and housewife might say that it； properly speaking； should rain； and the
conditions are really all that way。 So too in the case of observing the skull； it might be said when
those contradictory observations occur； that the given individual ought properly to be what
according to the law his skull proclaims him to be； and that he has an original disposition which；
however； has not been developed： this quality is not really present； but it should be there。 The
〃law〃 and the 〃ought…to…be〃 rest on observation of actual showers of rain； and observation of the
actual sense and meaning in the case of the given character of the skull； but if the reality is not
present； the empty possibility is supposed to do just as well。
This mere possibility； i。e。 the non…actuality of the law proposed； and hence the observations
conflicting with the law； are bound to c