« VorigeDoorgaan »
partial insanity,-monomania,-dreaming, and partial injuries of the brain, indicate that it is a congeries of organs manifesting a plurality of faculties; we have seen also, that, in the case of the bones, muscles, nerves of motion, nerves of sensation, and nerves of the five senses, size has an influence on vigour of function; and from the analogy of these organs, and also from direct facts and physiological authorities, we have come to the same conclusion regarding the brain, that vigour of function bears a relation, other circumstances being equal, to size in the organ. From these premises, it follows as a necessary conclusion, that, in the manifestation of the mental faculties, it will not be indifferent in what direction the brain is most or least developed; for example, if different parts of the brain possess different functions, and if the strength of function be in proportion to the size of the part, the vigour of the faculties connected with a brain in which the frontal region predominates in size, must necessarily be different from that which would proceed from a brain in which the predominance of size was in the posterior portion; and a difference would hold also in cases of preponderance in the superior or inferior portions.
Here we have a representation of the skull of RAPHAEL, and of the skull of a native of New Holland; both taken from casts in the collection of the Phrenological Society. The difference in the forehead is very conspicuous. If the part of the brain lying in that region have any function connected with intellect, and if size be a measure
of power, the two beings should form a strong contrast of power and weakness in that department. And, accordingly, the case is so. RAPHAEL died at thirty-three years of age, and has left an imperishable memory on account of his genius in art. Sir Walter Scott describes the other as follows:-" The natives of New Holland are, even at present, in the very lowest scale of humanity, and ignorant of every art which can add comfort or decency to human life. These unfortunate savages use no clothes, construct no cabins or huts, and are ignorant even of the manner of chasing animals, or catching fish, unless such of the latter as are left by the tide, or which are found on the rocks; they feed upon the most disgusting substances, snakes, worms, maggots, and whatever trash falls in their way. They know, indeed, how to kindle a fire; in that respect only they have stepped beyond the deepest ignorance to which man can be subjected; but they have not learned how to boil water; and when they see Europeans perform this ordinary operation, they have been known to run away in great terror."
We have now arrived, by a fair and legitimate induction, at strong presumptive proof in favour of the grand principles of Phrenology, viz. that the brain is the organ of the mind, that different parts of it are connected with different faculties, and that the size of the organ, other conditions being equal, exerts an influence on the power of manifestation. Here, then, the inquiry presents itself, What faculties and what parts of the brain are mutually connected? This is the grand question remaining to be solved, in order to render our knowledge of the functions of the brain and the organs of the mind precise and practically useful. Let us inquire what progress the metaphysician and anatomist have made in elucidating this point. It is of importance to take a view of the past efforts of philosophers in the science of mind on this subject, that we may be able correctly to appreciate both what remains to be accom
plished, and how far Phrenology presents means capable of attaining it.
The mind has been studied, by one set of philosophers, with too little reference to the body; and the laws of thought have been expounded with as much neglect of organization as if we had already "shuffled off this mortal coil." From this erroneous practice of many distinguished authors, such as LOCKE, HUME, REID, STEWART and BROWN, a prejudice has arisen against the physiology of man, as if the mind were degraded by contemplating it in connexion with matter; but man is the work of the CREATOR of the world, and no part of his constitution can be unworthy of regard and admiration. The whole phenomena of life are the result of mind and body joined, each modifying each; and how can we explain a result, without attending to all the causes which combine towards its production?
Another set of philosophers, in avoiding Scylla, have thought it necessary to dash into Charybdis, and have taught, that the mind is nought but a combination of matter; and have endeavoured to explain its functions by supposed mechanical motions in its parts; but, as we shall hereafter see, this course of proceeding is equally erroneous as the other.
In surveying the phenomena of mind, we are struck with the variety of faculties with which it appears to be endowed. Philosophers and the vulgar equally admit it to be possessed of different powers. Thus it is by one faculty that it reasons; by another that it imagines, and, by a third, that it discriminates between right and wrong.
If, however, we inquire what progress has hitherto been made by metaphysicians in ascertaining the primitive mental powers, and rendering the philosophy of man interesting and practically useful to persons of ordinary understanding, we shall find a lamentable deficiency indeed. From the days of ARISTOTLE to the present time, the most powerful intellects
have been directed, with the most persevering industry, to this department of science,-and system after system has flourished, fallen, and been forgotten, in rapid and melancholy succession. To confine our attention to modern times, Dr REID overturned the philosophy of LOCKE and HUME; Mr STEWART, while he illustrated REID, yet differed from him in many important particulars; and, recently, Dr THOMAS BROWN has attacked, with powerful eloquence and philosophical profundity, the fabric of STEWART, and it already totters to its fall. The very existence of even the most common and familiar faculties of the mind is still in debate among these philosophers. Mr STEWART maintains Attention to be a faculty, which these other philo sophers deny. They, again, state Imagination to be a primitive power of the mind, while Mr STEWART informs us, that "what we call the power of Imagination, is not the gift of nature, but the result of acquired habits, aided by favourable circumstances." (Elements, Chap. 7. § 1.) Common observation informs us, that a taste for music, and a genius for poetry and painting, are gifts of nature, bestowed only on a few; but Mr STEWART, by dint of his philosophy, has discovered that these powers, and also a genius for mathematics, "are gradually formed by particular habits of study, or of business." (Outlines, p. 16.) On the other hand, he treats of Perception, Conception, and Memory, as original powers; while Dr THOMAS BROWN denies them to be entitled to that appellation. REid, StewART, and BROWN, admit the existence of moral emotions; but HOBBES, MANDEVILLE, Dr PALEY, and many others, resolve the sentiment of Right and Wrong into a regard to our own good, into perceptions of utility, obedience to the laws, or to the Divine command. Thus, after the lapse and labour of more than two thousand years, philosophers are not yet agreed concerning the existence of many of the most important principles of action, and intellectual powers of man. While the philosophy of mind shall remain in this
uncertain condition, it will be impossible to give to morals and natural religion a scientific foundation; and until these shall assume the stableness and precision of sciences, education, political economy and legislation, must continue empirical in their principles and application. If, therefore, Phrenology could introduce into the philosophy of mind even a portion of the certainty and precision which attend physical investigations, it would confer no small benefit on this interesting department of science; and that it is fully competent to do so, shall be shewn after we have attended to a few preliminary points requiring consideration.
In the next place, supposing the number and nature of the primitive faculties to be ascertained, it is to be remarked, that, in actual life, they are successively developed. The infant feels fear, love, attachment, before it is alive to the sublime or the beautiful; and it observes occurrences long before it reasons. A correct theory of mind ought to unfold principles to which these facts also may be referred.
Farther, even after the full maturity of age is attained, how different the degrees in which we are endowed with the various mental powers. Admitting each individual to possess all the faculties, the assemblage of which constitutes the human mind, in what a variety of degrees of relative strength do they appear in different persons? In one, the love of glory is the feeling which surpasses all; another is deaf to the voice of censure, and callous to the accents of applause. The soul of one melts with softest pity at a tale of woe; while the eye of another never shed a sympathetic tear. One individual spends his life in an ardent chace of wealth, which he stops not to enjoy; another scatters in wasteful prodigality the substance of his sires, and perishes for want from a mere incapacity to retain. One vast intellect, like NEWTON's, fathoms the profundities of science; while another feeble mind scarcely gropes its way through the daily occurrences of life. The towering imagination a SHAKSPEARE, or a MILTON, soars beyond the boundaries