Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

Petruchio.
Katharinc.

"How bright and goodly shines the moon!"

"The moon! the sun; it is not moonlight now."

Pet. 66
Kath. "I know it is the sun that shines so bright."

I say it is the moon that shines so bright."

Pet.

66

"Now, by my mother's son, and that's myself, It shall be moon or stars or what I list,

Evermore crossed and crossed, nothing but crossed.
I say it is the moon."

Kath. "I know it is the moon."

Pet. "Nay, then, you lie, it is the blessed sun."
Kath. Then God be blessed, it is the blessed sun,

66

But sun it is not, when you say it is not,

And the moon changes even as your mind,
What you will have it named, even that it is.'

Act IV., Scene V.

That Professor Smith is disposed here and elsewhere to act the part of Petruchio to the phrenologists, is clear enough; that the phrenologists will submit to be to him a Katharine, and echo all his expositions of their doctrines, is not quite so evident.

The professor represents the doctrine of the phrenologists correctly, when he says they maintain that to the surface of the brain the skull is secondarily moulded. This fact is, indeed, indisputable, and he does not attempt to dispute it. But when he talks of depressions and elevations here, and of minute superficial inequalities elsewhere, he conveys to the reader false impressions of phrenology by inducing him to suppose that these are all of which phrenology treats. That the extent of his error may be clearly seen, we refer to page 122, in which he maintains, by implication, that the differences on which phrenologists rely, are really so very small as to be almost inappreciable. "Let me recal to your recollection," says he, "what you must all have observed. In bald persons the general contour of the head is ordinarily so uniform that no eye or finger can detect any sudden or considerable inequality. This evenness of outline is so perfect that the cranium admits of a polish like marble, and skull caps have heretofore been converted into drinking cups. Yet under this almost unvarying surface lie the organs of the phrenologist, inducing, as he contends, by their greater or less projection, all the infinite and striking diversities observable among men."

Dr. Smith has evidently picked up the erroneous notion about "bumps" and cavities, against which from Gall downwards, phrenologists have guarded their readers. For minute superficial inequalities they do not. look. They maintain that size, cæteris paribus, is the measure of power

and size, can be ascertained where no sudden inequalities, unevenness or projections exist. Under an "almost unvarying surface" it may be readily ascertained. Let the reader follow the advice of the doctor, and call to mind the heads, either bald or otherwise, that he has noticed, or if he has not attended to the subject, let him commence and observe all that he can for a few weeks, and he will be convinced that an even and almost unvarying surface, is compatible with great difference of size and form. He will find the sloping forehead in connection with a predominance of the perceptive faculties, the forehead fully developed in its upper region, in unison with comparatively strong reflective faculties. He will find the contracted and low coronal region, in connection with weak moral forces; and the broad and well arched coronal region, corresponding with high moral endowments. He will find the small basilar and posterior regions in unison with moderate or deficient strength of the propensities, and the wide basilar region and large posterior lobe existing with strong animal feelings. If he extend the range of his observations and bring in review casts as well as living heads, he will find differences still more striking, ranging from the lower idiots to the Websters: from the head of eleven inches in circumference, to that of twenty-five, and corresponding differences in the size and developement of the several regions. Of course there is nothing very minute in differences of fourteen inches. But what is more to the purpose, he will, in the heads of the same general size, find differences in width or height at particular regions, amounting to an inch or more. Surely an inch of cerebral matter is not very minute. And all this may be observed without the skull being studded with bumps or indented with cavities, but under an almost even surface. Sometimes, indeed, a single organ is very much or very little developed in comparison with the other organs, then there is an ele vation or depression sufficiently obvious. Such instances form the extreme cases, the experimenta crusis by which phrenology is severely tested, and which furnish demonstration after demonstration of its truth. Considering the above error of Professor Smith, we wonder not at his want of success in recognizing the correspondence of cerebral organization with mental manifestation. Nay, allowing for the extent to which it must have vitiated his conclusions, his testimony to the truth of phrenology, is very strong. "That my observations," says he, "have occas sionally corresponded with the phrenological theory, is very true, but à want of conformity, if not more common, has been so frequent as to render me an absolute disbeliever." (pp. 110.) It seems that he is doubtful whether his inquiries have shown instances of a conformity or non-conformity to have been most common; so that about one half of

all his observations have been confirmatory of the phrenological doctrines, a proportion far greater than under the circumstances, we should have considered possible.

The professor states as the doctrine of the phrenologists, that the skull, "being osseous, is durable," and in this statement and reason he seems to acquiesce. The precise fact is, however, that the skull, like every other part of the body, is continually undergoing decay and renovation, and being secondary, subservient or protective, it changes to accommodate itself to that which is primary. It is originally moulded on the brain and afterwards expands as it expands, and shrinks as it shrinks, so as always to keep the inner table in apposition with the cerebral membranes. When the skull remains permanent, therefore, in size and form, it is not, as the professor intimates, on account of its "osseous" nature, but from the permanency of the organs which it protects. In extreme old age, indeed, changes occasionally take place in the skull irrespective. to some extent, of alterations in the brain. These are generally irregular depositions of bony matter along the inner and sometimes the outer surface, appearing as though nature had laid on the new materials with a dimmed eye and a faltering hand. But phrenologists expressly state that they do not found their conclusions on the organisation as it exists in the decrepitude of age.

Perhaps the assertion the most injurious to phrenology of any which Professor Smith could advance, is contained in the third proposition. He there makes the phrenologist say that, by the inequalities of the skull, he “can determine the talents and character of any individual living or dead whose head may be subjected to his examination." On page 123, he advances still stronger pretensions for the phrenologist. "Upon simply observing," says he, "the exterior of a skull accidentally taken from a museum or a charnal house, the phrenologists will undertake to delineate as minutely and as positively the peculiarities of him to whom that relic of mortality formerly belonged, as if the easel of Raphael had furnished his portrait, or the pen of Tacitus had painted the man!" Both these extracts are disfigured by exaggerations and misrepresentations. No phrenologist has pretended to such power, and Professer Smith cannot point, in any phrenological publication ever issued, to an assumption as broad as the foregoing. The professor either knew that no such pretensions were ever made, or he did not; we leave him to draw the conclusion resulting from either horn of the dilemma.

نگل

But let us see what the phrenological doctrine is upon this subject, that such implied charges as the foregoing may be neutralized, and the inquirer be informed of the reasonableness of all for which the phrenologists contend. To present the matter clearly, we must keep distinct

VOL. III.-20

two questions which may readily be confounded. The one is, Can the distinct organs of the brain be ascertained by cerebral developements? The other is, To what extent from such developements can the character of any given individual be determined? The one question relates, it will be seen, to the truth of phrenology; the other to its application. The former the phrenologist answers unqualifiedly in the affirmative. To the latter, his answer is conditional and guarded. He shows, in relation to the first inquiry, that in extreme cases, differences of mental manifestations are very striking, and that, if all the elements of uncertainty were combined to vitiate his conclusion, their influence would be slight when compared with the influence of the difference between the size of a very large organ and a very small one; and, in proving a proposition, he is not only at liberty to produce, but is bound to produce, the strongest evidence. Contrast Dr. Chalmers and Joseph Hume, M. P., in the region of Ideality; the general size of the head is the same in both, yet Chalmer's head is in this particular region an inch and a quarter wider than Hume's. Contrast Hadyn and Ormerod in the region of Tune; Audubon and Milne in that of Color; Eustache and Gottfried in that of Benevolence; Haggart and Gibson in that of Firmness; Voltaire and Canova in that of Language, and such differences will be seen as the phrenologist relies on to establish his doctrine, while he maintains that all heads, to a greater or less extent, confirm and corroborate those doctrines, and that not one incompatible fact can be adduced. That the true functions of the brain, and the organs of those functions, can be, and that many of them have been, fully ascertained, we consider to be as conclusively proved as any proposition of natural philosophy.

In reply to the second question, being that to which Professor Smith's assertions more particularly apply, we answer, that phrenologists never have claimed the power of determining, from organization alone, with minuteness and invariable correctness, "the character of any individual living or dead." What they do say is to the following effect: The word character does not represent a homogenious idea, but may be used in at least three significations.

1. To represent the notions of a man's qualities which exist in the mind of another. This may be called his ascribed character.

2. To represent the constitutional dispositions, the moral and intellectual capacity of a man. This may be called his natural character.

3. To represent the general mental condition of a man, and his usual mode of mental manifestation within a given period and under given circumstances. This may be called his actual character.

It is sufficiently obvious that of the ascribed character of a man, we can have no uniform organic indications, for, as no two minds are pre

cisely alike, have precisely the same means of judging, or bear precisely the same relation to the mind observed, it follows that no two would form precisely the same estimate of an individual's mental qualities.

This diversity of opinion does not prove, however, that ascribed character cannot be relied on for correctness in any case, but merely that we are to take into consideration not only the observed but the observers. There is, indeed, general unanimity of opinion as to the mental characteristics of distinguished individuals. Thus, though some would form a much more just conception of Paganini's talents than others, all agree in calling him an extraordinary musician. The same is true of Raphael in painting, of Mathews in mimicry, of Colburn in arithmetic. All agree that Wurmser was daring; Hare, avaricious and bloodthirsty; Eustache benevolent. But about less strikingly marked characters, there is less agreement. As to these, however, impartial and discriminating men, of good moral endowments, can form correct opinions. The opinions of such men, with adequate opportunities of observation, on all mental qualities, and the general agreement of these and others, on the more strikingly marked qualities, may be relied upon with safety. They form the standard of comparison to which the phrenologist appeals, as that by which the correctness of his own decisions must be determined. Of the natural character of man, the phrenologist can judge, in almost every healthy subject, of proper age, with closely approximating accuracy, from organization alone. There are, indeed, a few elements of uncertainty which phrenologists themselves were the first to point out, and which are fully stated in their works, but it could rarely happen that an able phrenologist would commit a considerable error from the operation of any of these obstacles, or even from all combined. But then the actual character may differ widely in two persons whose natural character is about the same.

It must ever be remembered that the brain is a part of the living, organized body, and that, like all other parts, it is nourished, grows, decays and perishes; like them, too, it may be rendered feeble and irregular in its action by disease or insufficient nourishment or exercise, may be stimulated to unwonted energy, or by judicious exercise be increased in aptitude, vigor and certainty of action. What is true of the brain as a whole, is true of its several parts. By means of its structure and vitality, each one is endowed with a certain function, the gratification of which it craves with an importunity proportionate to its size. But it may be adequately too feebly or too highly stimulated, and the results will vary accordingly. If an organ be kept, as far as possible, in a state of quiescence, it loses in strength, ease and efficiency of

« VorigeDoorgaan »