« VorigeDoorgaan »
measures as attended to allay the increased action, and soon after the young lady regained her ordinary state, and has not since had any return of these extraordinary symptoms.
In this case, the order in which the phenomena occurred, put leading queries on my part, or exaggeration or deception on the part of the patient, alike out of the question. The pain in the organ was distinctly and repeatedly complained of for many hours (at least thirty-six) BEFORE the first night of dreaming, and for no less than three days before the irresistible waking inspiration was felt. When my attention was first drawn to the existence of the pain, I imagined it to arise from an affection of the membranes covering that part of the brain, and had no conception that it was to terminate in any such musical exhibition as afterwards took place; and, in fact, although the young lady had mentioned her previous melodious dreams, my surprise was quite equal to, although, thanks to pbrenology, my aların was not so great as that of ber relations, when, on entering the house on the morning of Tuesday, the 25th, I heard the sound of the guitar mingling with the full and harmonious swell of her own voice, such as it might show itself when in the enjoy. ment of the highest health and vigour.
Education. The July number of the British and Foreign Medical Review, in noticing a small work on education, based on phrenological principles, remarks as follows:-"For some years, enlightened teachers have considered it necessary to give their pupils due insight into the general laws governing their own organic structure, and the period is pot far distant when another advance will be made, and the grand doctrine will be universally taught, that man's moral, intellectual, and animal faculties are solely dependent upon a portion of his organic structure. When the plain and the simple truths of physiology are made to sweep away the present system, the result of metaphysical speculation; when the ieacher is enabled to apply certain general and immutable laws in his course of education, instead of depending upon opinions and dogmas resulting from imperfect views of human nature; when, in fact, pbilosophy is advanced to the post hitherto occupied by empiricism, then, and not till then, will our youth be educated with, and not in opposition to, pature's commands.""
In the same number of this review, which may now be considered the first medical periodical in Great Britain-we find a very favourable potice of Dr. Andrew Combe's new work on Infancy. “After a careful perusal," says the reviewer, “of this little volume, from beginning to end, we do not hesitate to pronounce it to be one of the most valuable and most important works that has issued from the medical press for years. The last chapter, 'On the Moral Management of Infancy, humble as are its pretensions, we venture to recommend to the notice of the instructors of youth of every degree, to our moral teachers, however elevated, and to our metaphysicians, however learned, as fraught with truths of the most momentous kind, which will probably be new to many of them, and which cannot fail, if candidly considered and honestly acted on, to lead to practical results of the highest import to human happiness. In it the author touches lightly, but with a masterly hand, on that chain, mostly overlooked by our philosophers, which uniles so harmoniously the intellectual and moral with the physical nature of man, and the due recognition and just appreciation of which are indispensable to our progress in real metaphysics, and to the establishment of all rational instruction."
Brain of Cuvier.— The fame of Baron Cuvier is immortal. It is probable that the name of no other individual can be found in the annals of history who became more profound in every department of science. It might be expected, according to the principles of phrenology, that the head of such an individual would possess some remarkable features. In the fifth number of the French Phrenological Journal, we find the following notice of Cuvier's brain, a critical examination of which was made after his death .—“The weight of the brain was found to be four pounds eleven ounces four drams and thirty grains-exceeding by nearly a third that of ordinary brains. It was ascertained that this enormous superiority applied almost exclusively to the developement of the cerebral lobes, particularly their anterior and superior parts. None of the gentlemen present, says M. Bérard, from whom Dr. Foissac obtained his information, remembered to have seen so complicated a brain possessing convolutions so numerous and compact, and with such deep anfractuosities. Every one, says Dr. Foissac, who knew Cuvier when alive, is aware of the enormous developement of the frontal region in comparison with the three others. We rarely meet with so great a developement of the organs of Language, Individuality, Locality, Form, Order, Colour, and Constructiveness. Hence Cuvier was able to read at an age when other children can hardly speak; drawing was one of his favourite occupations; in every respect his memory was prodigious, and he was deeply versed in literature and foreign languages. These faculties, common, though in an inferior degree, to all naturalists, would have given to the forehead of Cuvier a sloping appearance, had not the prodigious developement of the organs of Comparison, Causality, and Ideality elevated and expanded the anterior and superior region of his forehead, in which reflective intellect resides. Hence those profound investigations—those precise and exact descriptions—those skilful classifications-those philosophical, clear, and prolific principles, and the inimitable spirit of generalisation which shine in his works, particularly his Lectures on Comparative Anatomy, and Researches on Fossil Bones.”
New York Phrenological Society.—The following gentlemen have been appointed officers of this society for the ensuing year:-Professor B. F. Joslin, A. M., M. D., President; Rev. T. J. Sawyer, Vice-Presidept; G. C. Shaeffer, Esq., Corresponding Secretary ; A. Boardman, M. D., Recording Secretary; F. Fawcett, Esq., Treasurer; E. Newberry, Esq., Warden.
Among all the cavils and objections that have been brought against phrenology, few have ever ventured to call in question its fundamental principles. These have their foundation too deeply laid in anatomy and physiology, and are too well fortified by facts and arguments, deduced from the great laws of physical organisation, to be easily refuted or overthrown. As but little was known respecting the true structure and functions of the brain previous to the discovery of phrenology, the great majority of the medical profession (who might naturally be supposed to understand the subject) were unpre. pared to decide on its claims to credence and support. Some members of this profession, however, before condemning or rejecting phrenology, wisely set themselves to work in examining into its merits, as well as the nature and amount of evidence upon which its principles professed to be based; such have invariably become believers in the science. At the same time, there have been others, (but, be it said in honour of the profession, the number has been very small,) who have, either through ignorance, prejudice, or preconceived opinions, most violently opposed phrenology, and have brought to bear against it all the weapons that could possibly be manufactured by means of ridicule, misrepresentation, and sophistry. With what success this opposition has now been carried on for more than forty years, may be learned from the constantly increasing advancement and general popularity of the science, in the most intellectual and enlightened portions of Europe and America.
Some have pretended to base their objections to phrenology on anatomy and physiology. Arguments and statements drawn from this source have the appearance of much plausibility, and are very
effective in operating upon, and forming the opinions of, the great mass of the public. That our readers may know the precise nature of such objections, and hare in their possession the means of fully answering them, we are induced to present the following article-an article which has never been copied into, or noticed in, any phrenological work, though it contains, perhaps, a clearer and more satis. factory answer to the leading anatomical and physiological objections to the science, than can any where else be found within the same compass. This article is a review of Dr. Sewall's lectures against phrenology, and appeared in the Eclectic Journal of Medicine, for August, 1837, edited by Dr. John Bell, of this city. The manner in which these objections are here critically examined, and ably answered, needs no comments. The reader, after perusing the article, we are sure, will not hesitate to decide that the work of the reviewer was well done. After a few introductory remarks, Dr. Bell proceeds as follows:
His first count, in the impeachment of phrenology, is, that it is not sustained by the structure and organisation of the brain. This allegation must be advanced merely ad captandum, and to influence the general reader and the tyro in physiology. Where, we would
. ask the lecturer, is our belief of the function of any part of the nervous system, or of any of the external senses, sustained or confirmed by structure and organisation ? There is, indeed, an obvious mechanism in the eye and ear for the transmission of light, and of the vibrations of the air; but who, after the most careful inspection and longest study of the retina, could have declared, à priori, that it was excitable by the stimulus of light, and of light alone, as far as regards impression on it, being followed by the sensation of colours, form, &c.? Who could have declared, from the most minute exami. nation of the portio mollis, and its branches separated from the labyrinth, that it, and it alone, conveyed the impressions which give rise, on reaching the brain, to the sensation of sounds? Even now that we are assured of this correspondence between these nervous expansions and their specific exciters, can we yet detect or explain the fact, by any peculiarity of structure or organisation, indicative of primary intention on the part of the great Architect.
If our knowledge of function depended on an evident relation between it and organisation, why was physiology not enriched, long before the present age, by a knowledge of the fact of the double property of the spinal nerves ? That each one of those has a double root, and that the posterior is longer, and marked by an enlargement or ganglion, has long been known. Monro described this arrangement, and depicted it in his plates of the nervous system now before
But neither he, nor any other anatomist conversant with the fact, was led to infer, from structure and organisation, a twofold property in the double root, nor the possession of sensibility by the posterior or ganglionic, and of motility by the anterior. Do we derive any support from the structure and organisation of the portio dura and of the fifth nerve, in elucidation of the different functions performed by them? Or could all the aids in the use of the scalpel, the microscope, and chemical reagents, teach us, à priori, the differ. ence in function between the larger and chief, or ganglionic portion of the fifth, or that for common sensation to all parts of the face, and the smaller muscular branch which goes to the lower jaw. Yet more: Wherein were we guided to the discovery, and now that the discovery is made, wherein are our convictions a whit strengthened, by any peculiarity of structure and organisation in the gustatory branch of the fifth nerve, or that of special sensation, different from the other branches, or those of general sensation ?
Dr. Sewall, in continuation of this part of his argument, repeais the often alleged objection to the existence of the phrenological organs, in their not being distinctly marked, nor indeed separated by any visible boundary. On the same ground, he ought to deny the existence of the two tracts on each side of the spinal marrow, which possess each a different property, because it is impossible to see or to draw any evident line of demarcation between the anterior or motor and the posterior or sensitive tract. These two portions of spinal marrow are as continuous, and blended with each other, as are the phrenological organs in the cerebrum; and yet the properties or functions of the former are not more diverse than those of any two contiguous ones of the latter. And again: there is uninterrupted continuity of white nervous fibres from the medulla spinalis, through the medulla oblongata, on to the cerebellum and cerebrum. But no anatomist or physiologist will be found to contend for similarity of function in all these divisions of the cerebro-spinal axis, or to deny a marked difference of function, because there is not corresponding difference of structure.
It would puzzle, we believe, the most skilful anatomist and accu. rate microscopical observer to point out any line or boundary between that portion of the Schneiderian membrane, which is sup. plied by a branch of the fifth nerve, and is the recipient of stimulants provoking common sensation, and that other and upper portion, which derives its sensibility from the olfactory nerves, and is in consequence the seat of special sensation. Neither the eye alone, nor the eye aided by the microscope, can enable us to indicate where the surface of the mucous membrane, lining the mouth and digestive