exposition, and recommendation of its doctrines, to his class". In 1834, Dr. John D. Godman, professor of anatomy at Rutgers Medical College, emphatically defended phrenology when he wrote:It is, however, allowable to take as a principle, that there will be a relation betwixt vigour of intellect and perfection of form; and that, therefore, history will direct us to the original and chief family of mankind. We therefore ask, which are the nations that have excelled and figured in history, not only as conquerors, but as forwarding, by their improvements in arts and sciences, the progress of human knowledge?Phrenological teachings had become a widespread popular movement by 1834, when Combe came to lecture in the United States. Sensing commercial possibilities men like the Fowlers became phrenologists and sought additional ways to bring phrenology to the masses. Though a popular movement, the intellectual elite of the United States found phrenology attractive because it provided a biological explanation of mental processes based on observation, yet it was not accepted uncritically. Some intellectuals accepted organology while questioning cranioscopy. Gradually the popular success of phrenology undermined its scientific merits in the United States and elsewhere, along with its materialistic underpinnings, fostering radical religious views. There was increasing evidence to refute phrenological claims, and by the 1840s it had largely lost its credibility. In the United States, especially in the South, phrenology faced an additional obstacle in the antislavery movement. While phrenologists usually claimed the superiority of the European race, they were often sympathetic to liberal causes including the antislavery movement; this sowed skepticism about phrenology among those who were pro-slavery. The rise and surge in popularity in mesmerism, phrenomesmerism, also had a hand in the loss of interest in phrenology among intellectuals and the general public. Specific phrenological modules From Combe: Propensities Propensities do not form ideas; they solely produce propensities common to animals and man. Adhesiveness Alimentiveness Amativeness Acquisitiveness Causality Cautiousness Combativeness Concentrativeness Constructiveness Destructiveness Ideality Love of life Philoprogenitiveness Secretiveness Sentiments Lower sentiments These are common to man and animal. Cautiousness Love of approbation Self-esteem Truthfulness Superior sentiments These produce emotion or feeling lacking in animals. Benevolence Conscientiousness Firmness Hope Ideality Imitation Veneration Wit or Mirthfulness Wonder Intellectual faculties These are to know the external world and physical qualities Coloring Eventuality Form Hearing Individuality Language Locality Number Order Sight Size Smell Taste Time Touch Tune Weight Reflecting faculties These produce ideas of relation