Changes

Furthermore, Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, published in 1830, argued that the formation of the earth’s crust took place by minuscule, incremental changes over extremely long periods of time – Lyell’s book was actually a crucial influence to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, and the two gentlemen corresponded in great length. Darwin, in proposing that humans were not the most special creatures, created by God in his image, was essentially calling into question centuries-old theological doctrines. He and other “gentlemen scientists” were forced to reconcile their religious beliefs with their scientific discoveries, and this was not often an easy task.<ref> A gentleman scientist was a person who pursued scientific ventures with his own money – these men (and they were exclusively men) were often members of the landed and upper classes, and thus had certain reputations to uphold.</ref> Many scientific discoveries during this time were met with opposition from the more “respectable” ranks of society simply because they challenged religious principles.

Yet, phrenology enjoyed widespread popularity among Britain’s middle classes despite its somewhat glaring allusions to materialism. Some of its upper-class followers felt compelled to reconcile phrenology’s doctrines with religion. The British physician Charles Cowan published his treatise, Phrenology Consistent with Science and Revelation, in 1841 – in it he argued that since the same God rules nature and revelation, science and religion must ultimately be in harmony.<ref> Cowan, Charles. <i>Phrenology Consistent with Science and Revelation</i>. London: Sherwood & Co, 1841.</ref> If one examined phrenological beliefs in depth, one would find that different regions of the brain were responsible for various mental attitudes, and thus, the phrenologist was essentially claiming that these relationships made up the human soul/spirit. As David de Giustino states in his book <i>Conquest of Mind: Phrenology and Victorian Social Thought</i>: “If the mind could not exist without the brain, then the mind was dependent on matter, therefore phrenology led to materialism”.<ref>De Giustino, David. <i>Conquest of Mind Phrenology and Victorian Social Thought</i>. Routledge, 2016.</ref> The fight for phrenology’s virtue (or lack thereof) was very publicly waged in both newspapers and book-length treatises. And as we shall see, the abundance of primary-source publications on the subject pay testament to the ambiguous social position of not only phrenology, but also of Victorian anthropological and scientific discoveries in general.