ARTICLE VI.

CAN THE FUNCTIONS OF ORGANIC MATTER BE ASCERTAINED FROM ITS STRUCTURE?

Sir,

To the Editor of the American Phrenological Journal.

Though, since Jeffrey surrendered up his pen, and retired from the field, under the mortification and despair of a vanquished chieftain, but little of talent, argument, or any other form of intellectual resource, has been brought by anti-phrenologists against our science, there has been manifested by them no lack of cunning, stratagem, and delusive expedient. And to operate on the "million" toward whom their efforts are directed, the latter instruments are far the most powerful, efficient, and dangerous. The reason is plain. By the discerning and intellectual, trickery can be detected, exposed, and rendered harmless; but it seduces the uninformed into all kinds of delusion.

One of the most common, plausible, and disgraceful expedients to deceive, as respects phrenology, is made up of anatomical and physiological pretension. Plausible, however, as it is, and often effectual in its action on the minds of the multitude, in the view of those who are competently informed, it is a fallacy as shallow, and as easily unmasked and overthrown, as any that can be imagined. It is the pretence avowed by many anti-phrenologists of being able to disclose physiology by anatomy-of being able, I mean, to detect the function of a portion of organised matter, by its anatomical structure. The following extract from Dr. Sewall's "Lectures," will exemplify my meaning:

"In pursuing the investigation," says he, "I shall enquire,

66

“1, How far phrenology is sustained by the structure and organisation of the brain."

In this sentence, the purport of the writer evidently is, to palm on those who know no better, the belief that he can detect and communicate to others the functions or modes of action of the living brain, by an examination of its organic "structure" when dead. And Professor M'Dowell, of Cincinnati, makes the same pretension in his verbal attacks on phrenology. He has not yet ventured to commit his discourses on the subject to the press, though publicly challenged to do Other anti-phrenological combatants have attempted to sustain themselves by the same stratagem.

So.

Is this pretension of Dr. Sewall, Dr. M'Dowell, and others, true? Can either, or all of them-can the united intellect and exertion of all the anatomists and physiologists now living, or that have ever lived,

discover and announce the function of the brain, by any examination of its organic structure they can possibly make? No, they cannotthey know that they cannot; else is their ignorance of anatomy and physiology consummate, as far as the point in question is concernedor they are enthralled by a delusion that might well be called madness. Though this topic has already, on sundry occasions, been noticed in a manner sufficiently satisfactory to qualified judges, it has not yet, as far as I am informed, been fully discussed as an isolated question. It has been considered only in the light of an appendage to some other more prominent subject. The consequence is, that it has not been brought out in full relief, and has therefore failed to make on the public mind the impression it might have made, if treated by itself. Instead of thorough conviction, it has probably produced nothing beyond supposition. It is under such view of the matter that I purpose making it the subject of a few remarks in this communication.

The function of the brain, like the function of every other form of living organised matter, can be ascertained only in one of two ways; by observation, or by learning from its structure its modus agendi. For the attainment of such knowledge, no third channel is open to us. Nor does any difficulty exist in determining which of these two modes is preferable—I should rather say, alone practicable.

All enlightened and substantial physiologists (and they constitute the only competent judges) prefer the former mode, convinced of the utter impracticability of the latter, which they therefore leave to the adoption of the uninformed, the misinformed, and the visionary-to such anti-phrenologists as Dr. Sewall and Dr. M'Dowell-perfectly satisfied that by men of that caste alone will it ever be adopted. And by those gentlemen it is adopted, and constitutes one of their main arguments (I beg pardon of all enlightened physiologists for applying so solid and respectable a term to so flimsy an expedient)—it constitutes, I say, one of those gentlemen's main arguments against phrenology. They assert that they can disclose the function of the brain (in other words, its modus agendi) from its "structure and organisation." I, on the contrary, in concurrence with all anatomists and physiologists of any distinction, assert that they cannot. And thus the question between us is at issue. Nor does the matter end here.

I further pronounce Drs. Sewall and M'Dowell so ignorant of the works of nature, that they cannot tell, from its structure and organisation, the function or modus agendi of the simplest form of living matter. Let them try their skill on a seed or a nut, to which they are strangers-respecting which they have previously learned nothing from observation, reading, or report. Will they be able to tell, from

an examination of its organic structure, how it will grow, and what sort of vegetable it will produce? Boundless as is their confidence in their penetration and sagacity, they will not so far expose their conceit and folly, as to hazard to this question an affirmative answer. Or, from an anatomical or physiological examination of a strange plant, can they predict what kind of blossom and, fruit it will bear? No, they cannot; nor will they pretend to such foresight. To make a trial of their skill on the animal kingdom:

Can they tell us, from its structure and organisation, why a polypus feeds and acts in all respects like a polypus, a star-fish like a star-fish, a crab like a crab, a booby like a booby, or even a goose like a goose? They will not pretend to such profundity of insight. To come up to the system of man, with which they ought to be better acquainted:

Can they predict, from its organic structure, why one human nerve subserves sensation, and another, motion? or why one sensitive nerve is tributary alone to vision, another to hearing, a third to taste, a fourth to smell, and a fifth to touch? To no knowledge of the kind will they pretend. Can they tell, from their organic structure, why a muscle only contracts and relaxes, a gland secretes, or the lungs arterialise and vitalise the blood? why, from the same kind of blood, one gland secretes saliva, another, urine, a third, pancreatic juice? why the liver alone secretes bile from venous blood? and why the stomach alone can convert food into chyme? Nothing of all this can they do; nor do they pretend to it. Yet do they affect to discover, from its "structure and organisation," whether the brain, the most delicate and complicated portion of the system, can subserve the purposes of phrenology. Whether one compartment of it be the seat of animality, a second, of the moral and religious sentiments, and a third, of the operation and display of the intellect. After a grave and affectedly wise examination of its structure, they proclaim one portion of brain unfit to be the organ of Benevolence, another, of Veneration, a third, of Conscientiousness, a fourth, of Firmness, a fifth, of Hope, a sixth and a seventh, of Wonder and Ideality; and in the same spirit do they deny the functions of all the merely because their structure does not please them. presumptuously attempt to decide on that which is Deity alone. For as he alone is the Creator of living organised matter, to him alone are the forms of action, from an acquaintance with their structure, of the different kinds of organisation known.

other organs, Thus do they known to the

Drs. Sewall and M'Dowell are understood to admit the brain, as an integral mass, to be the organ of the mind-the whole brain of the whole mind-but deny its different portions to be the special organs of the different faculties of the mind.

For this admission, as intelligent men, they must have a reasoncertainly they ought to have one. What is that reason, and whence is it derived? Have they discovered the entire brain to be the organ of the entire mind, from an examination of its structure? or are they indebted for the discovery to observation alone? To the latter source unquestionably do they owe their information. In truth, to the former they have never applied, nor even dreamt of seriously applying for the discovery alluded to. Stronger still. They are utterly unprepared for an investigation so delicate and intrinsic, and involving such a thorough knowledge of anatomy and physiology. Of such want of preparedness, moreover, they are themselves conscious. They know, and if interrogated by an individual sufficiently enlightened in medica! science, will not deny, that they are destitute of every element of fitness for an enquiry demanding such an amount of science-an amount to which neither Bichat, Cuvier, nor any other human being, ever made pretence-conceited and boastful anti-phrenologists excepted. And to whom do they make their boast? To the high-gifted and enlightened of the land, who are competently informed in anatomy and physiology? Far from it. With that class of individuals they have neither intercourse nor companionship. Their boast is intended only for those individuals who have no knowledge of the subject boasted of, and whose ignorance of it they are anxious to perpetuate. For their object is, not to spread abroad the light, and freedom, and vigour of knowledge, but the darkness, debility, and thraldom of the uncultivated and deluded mind-uncultivated, I mean, as relates to the true principles of mental philosophy. Into their reasons for the pursuit of a course so exceptionable, I shall not enquire. For that they must account before a higher and more unerring tribunal than any to which I can to summon them.

In conclusion for Drs. Sewall and M'Dowell, or any other vain and boastful anti-phrenologist, to assert that they can tell, by an examination of the structure of the brain, whether it is fitted for the purposes of phrenology, is an arrogant and presumptuous assumption of knowledge, which, in the present state of science, no mortal is privileged to claim. It is a daring invasion of the province of the MOST HIGH, who alone, as already stated, is the author of living organised matter, and who alone knows, from its structure, the peculiar suitability of given forms of it for the performance of given kinds of action. Unite the entire wisdom and sagacity of all the antiphrenologists on earth, and they will not, in the lump, be able to decide, on the ground of mere organic structure, whether muscle, gland, membrane, or brain, is best fitted to serve as the organ of the mind-or whether either of them is suited to so important a purpose.

The design and modes of action of all living organised matter, we learn, I repeat, from observation alone. Through that channel only we learn that the eye and its appendages are intended and organised for the purpose of vision, the ear for hearing, the tongue and nostrils for tasting and smelling, the stomach for digesting food, the lungs for arterialising the blood, and the heart and blood-vessels for the circulation of that fluid throughout the body. To such an extent is this true, that, without observation, the vital economy of our own systems would be as utterly unknown to us, as is that of the beings who inhabit the sun, or any other orb within the scope of the universe.

If the sentiments contained in this article are true-and the entire clan of anti-phrenologists is challenged to refute or even to question them-how indignant and blighting is the sentiment of reprobation that should be directed against those writers and declaimers, who falsely profess to disclose the functions of the brain, by an examination and analysis of its organic structure! Amidst all the charlatanical pretensions and quackery of the age, no form of imposture is more flagrant than this, or should more certainly cover its professors wi irretrievable disgrace!

Louisville, Ky., August 10th, 1839.

Respectfully yours,

CHARLES CALDWELL.

MISCELLANY.

Mr. Webster in London.-Extract from a letter to the editor of the New York Mirror, from a London correspondent.-"Were you to ask me who was the greatest lion now in London, I should say, unhesitatingly, Daniel Webster. He is fêted and dined without intermission. Artists are besetting him to sit for his picture, and phrenologists are crowding to get a sight of his wonderful cerebral developments. Webster is one of those men who carry the stamp of greatness unequivocally upon their brows. No one can see him and doubt his intellectual preeminence."

Letter to Dr. Sewall on the Merits of Phrenology.-The following amusing and singular letter, which purports to come from the Emperor of China, appeared in the New York Evening Post, September 6th. It requires no comments on our part to explain its design and application. Those of our readers who have seen the second edition of Dr. Sewall's Lectures, and the commendatory letters attached to it, or have read the review of the same in the preceding number of the Phrenological Journal, cannot misunderstand the meaning of this letter. We copy it entire, with a few prefatory remarks, which accompanied it in the Post.

"Since the second edition of Dr. Sewall's work, 'Errors of Phrenology Exposed,' was published, the following letter has been received. It came too late to be printed along with the letters of Mr. John Quincy Adams,