Page images

servations can be introduced here. First, Although the objection were literally true, it is not relevant; because it is an admitted principle of physiology, that the form and structure of an organ are not sufficient to convey an idea of its functions; no man who saw an eye, an ear, or a nostril, for the first time (supposing it were possible for a man to be so situated), could, merely by looking at it, infer its uses. The most expert anatomist had looked frequently and long upon a bundle of nervous fibres, enclosed in a common sheath, without discovering that one set of them was the organ of voluntary motion, and another that of feeling; on the contrary, from their similarity of appearance, these nerves had, for ages, been regarded as possessing similar functions. Nevertheless, Mr C. Bell and MA GENDIE have demonstrated, by experiment, that they possess the distinct functions of feeling and motion. Mr BELL has, more recently, proved, that another nerve, the use of wbich nobody had conjectured from its structure, serves to convey to the brain intimation of the state of the muscles, so that there is now evidence of the muscular system being supplied with three distinct sets of nerves, having separate functions, which was never conjectured from appearances. These discoveries are discussed on p. 56. It may therefore competently be proved, by observation, that different parts of the brain have distinct functions, although it were true that no difference of structure could be perceived.

But, 2dly, it is not the fact that difference of appearance is not discoverable. It is easy to distinguish the anterior, the middle, and posterior lobes of the human brain from each other; and, were they shewn separately to a skilful phrenological anatomist, he would never take one for the other. The mental manifestations are so different, according as one or other of these lobes predominate in size, that there is even in this case ample room for establishing the fundamental proposition, that different faculties are connected with different parts of the brain. Farther, many of the organs differ so decidedly in appearance, that they


[merged small][ocr errors]

could be pointed out by it alone. Dr SPURZHEIM says, that he 6 should never confound the organ of Amativeness with that of Philoprogenitiveness ; or Philoprogenitiveness with that of Secretiveness ; or the organ of the desire to acquire with that of Benevolence or Veneration;" and, after having seen Dr SPURZHEIM's dissections of the brain, I bear my humble testimony to the truth of this assertion. Even an ordinary observer, who takes a few good casts of the brain in his hand, may satisfy himself that the anterior lobe, for example, uniformly presents convolutions different in appearance, direction, and size from those of the middle lobe ; while the latter, towards the coronal surface, uniformly presents convolutions differing in appearance and direction from those of the posterior lobe ; and, above all, the cerebellum, or organ of Amativeness, is not only widely different in structure, but is separated by a strong membrane from all other organs, and can never be mistaken for any of them. Difference of appearance, therefore, being absolutely demonstrable, there is much better reason on the side of the phrenologists for presuming difference of function, than on that of the opponents for maintaining unity,

3dly, It is admitted that the organs are not perceived to be separated in the brain by strong lines of demarcation; but those persons who have either seen Dr SPURZHEIM dissect the brain, or have attended minutely to its impressions on the skull, will support me in testifying, that the forms of the organs are distinguishable, and that the mapping out is founded in nature. To bring this to the test, the student has only to observe the appearance of any particular organ in a state of large development, the surrounding organs being small; the form will then be distinctly visible. This subject is discussed at more length on p. 93.

Objection.--All parts of the brain have been injured or destroyed without the mental faculties being affected.

Answer.—The assertion is denied : There is no philosophical evidence for it. The subject is discussed at length

by Dr A. COMBE, in the Phrenological Transactions, and in a subsequent part of this work. The objection is now generally abandoned by persons who have considered the cases, with the answers to them.

Objection.—The world has gone on well enough with the philosophy of mind it already possesses, which, besides, is consecrated by great and venerable names, while Phrenology has neither symmetry of structure, beauty of arrangement, nor the suffrages of the learned to recommend it. Its votaries are all third-rate men-persons without scientific or philosophical reputations. They are not entitled therefore, to challenge the regard of those who have higher studies to occupy their attention. They complain that only ridicule and abuse are directed against them, and that no one ventures to challenge their principles or refute their facts; but they do not yet stand high enough in public esteem to give them a right to expect any other treatment.

Answer.-Phrenology being a new science, it follows that men who possess reputation in physiology or mental philosophy would appear to lose rather than gain renown, were they to confess their present ignorance of the functions of the brain and the philosophy of mind, which is a necessary prelude to their adoption of Phrenology; and the subject does not lie directly in the department of other scientific men. In this manner it happens, oddly enough, that those who are most directly called upon by their situation to examine the science, are precisely those to whom its triumph would prove most humiliating. Locke humorously observes on a similar occasion, “ Would it not be an insufferable thing for a learned professor, and that which his scarlet would blush at, to have his authority of forty years standing, wrought out of hard rock, Greek and Latin, with no small expense of time and candle, and confirmed by general tradition, and a reverend beard, in an instant overturned by an upstart novelist? Can any one expect that he should be made to confess, that what he

taught his scholars thirty years ago was all error and mistake, and that he sold them hard words at a very dear rate? What probabilities, I say, are sufficient to prevail in such a case? And who ever, by the most cogent arguments, will be prevailed with to disrobe himself at once of all his old opinions and pretences to knowledge and learning, which with hard study he hath all his time been labouring for, and turn himself out stark-naked in quest of fresh notions ? All the arguments that can be used will be as little able to prevail as the wind did with the traveller to part with his cloak, which he held only the faster *.” Human nature is the same now as in the days of LOCKE.

There is, however, another answer to the present objection. Some individuals are born princes, dukes, or even field-marshals; but I am not aware that it has yet been announced, that any lady was delivered of a child of genius, or an infant of established reputation. These titles must be gained by the display of qualities which merit them; but if an individual quit the beaten track pursued by the philosophers of the day, and introduce any discovery, although equally stupendous and new, his reputation is necessarily involved in its merits. HARVEY was not a great man before he discovered the circulation of the blood, but became such in consequence of having done so. What was SHAKSPEARE before the magnificence of his genius was justly appreciated ? The author of Kenilworth represents him attending as an humble and comparatively obscure suitor at the court of Queen ELIZABETH, and receiving a mark of favour in an “ Ah ! WILL SHAKSPEARE, are you there?” And he most appropriately remarks, that here the immortal paid homage to the mortal. Who would now exchange the greatness of SHAKSPEARE for the splendour of the proudest lord that bowed before the Maiden Queen ? Or let us imagine Galileo, such as he was in reality, a feeble old man, humble in rank, destitute of political influence, unprotected by the countenance or alliance of the

• Book iv. c. 20, sect. ll.

great, poor, in short, in every thing except the splendid gifts of a profound, original, and comprehensive genius and conceive him placed at the bar of the Roman pontif and the seven cardinals, men terrible in power, invested with authority to torture and kill in this world, and, as was then believed, to damn through eternity; men magnificent in state, and arrogant in the imaginary possession of all the wisdom of their age--and let us say who was then great in reputation-Galileo or his judges ? But who is now the idol of posterity—the old man or his persecutors? The case will be the same with Gall. If his discoveries of the functions of the brain, and of the philosophy of the mind, stand the test of examination, and prove to be a correct interpretation of nature, they will surpass, in substantial importance to mankind, the discoveries even of HarVEY, NEWTON, and GALILEO ; and this age will in consequence be rendered more illustrious by the introduction of Phrenology, than by the victories of BUONAPARTE, or of Wellington. Finally, the assertion, that no men of note have embraced Phrenology, is not supported by fact. In the New Monthly Magazine for January 1823, it is said, “ There are many men here (Paris) amongst the most eminent for their medical and physiological knowledge, who, though differing widely upon other scientific topics, yet agree in saying, that there is much not only of probability, but of truth, in the system of GALL.” Professor Ucelli of Florence has recently sacrificed his academical chair for Phrenology. Besides, the writings of the phrenologists will bear a comparison in point of skill, extent of information, correctness of logic, and profundity of thought, with those of the most eminent of their opponents.

Objection.—All the disciples of Pbrenology are persons ignorant of anatomy and physiology. They delude lawyers, divines, and merchants, who know nothing about the brain ; but all medical men, and especially teachers of ana

« PreviousContinue »