give him great force of character, and a disposition to indulge his appetite and desires—to acquire property and exercise cunning, tact, and management, with a peculiar ability to take the advantage of circumstances—to deal successfully with men, and keep perfect command of his own feelings. The crown of his head is very high, giving independence and determination of mind, joined with smaller Approbativeness and Conscientiousness, almost a total disregard for public opinion, and a strong desire to act on his own responsibility. His moral sentiments are mostly weak, except Hope and Benevolence, giving enterprise, anticipation, kindness, and general benevolence of feeling. But there is a great want of consistency, balancing power, circumspection, credulity, spirituality of mind, and devotional feeling. His imagination is rather strong, and his powers of description great. He is fond of the sublime and extravagant, has great powers of imitation and mimicry; more than a common degree of ingenuity and versatility of talent in planning and constructing, joined with an uncontrollable disposition to joke and make fun. His intellect is well developed, particularly the perceptive faculties, giving superior powers of observation, knowledge of men, things, and circumstances. He has a first rate memory of whatever he sees and hears, also of events, dates, names, history, and anecdotes. His powers of conversation are very great. He cannot be idle or silent; can render him. self truly agreeable in company; has superior talents to tell a story, and can act it out to the life. In conclusion, his strongest traits of character are a passionate fondness for the other sex; his cunning and forethought; an ability to assume any character he chooses, and conceal his own; great self-possession and good humour; much versatility of talent and generosity of feeling, as well as a superior ability to communicate his ideag.

For the above statements and remarks, we are indebted to the Phrenological Almanac for 1841. Since they came into our possession, we have oblained the memoirs of the notorious Stephen Bur. roughs, for the purpose of making a comparison between his real character and his phrenological developements, as here given. This biography is written by himself, and may therefore be presumed to be correct, especially as to all the leading facts and incidents in bis life. There is also satisfactory evidence 10 believe that the above cuts present correct outlines of his head. As the history of Burroughs is so well known to the public, we deem it unnecessary here to make out a long article, either by quoting from his biography or by remarks of our own, to show the actual harmony between his life and cerebral organisation. From a critical examina:ion of the memoirs of Burroughs, we are ready to affirm that nearly every observation of Mr. Fowler, in the above description, is perfectly correct, and did room permit, the truth of this statement could easily be proved. Nothing could possibly enable one to sketch, in so brief a space, the portrait of an individual, possessing traits of character so various, complex, and contradictory, but a thorough knowledge of phrenology-a strong fact, both in proof of the truth as well as of the utility of the science. To all who are interested in the study of human nature, or are desirous to test the correctness of phrenology in the delineation of character, we recommend them to compare for themselves the above remarks on the phrenological developements of Burroughs with his real history and character.


Outlines of Disordered Mental Action.

This is the title of a work which has now been before the public some months, and constitutes the one hundredth volume in the series of the Family Library, published by the Messrs. Harpers, of New York. It is from the pen of Mr. Upham, Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy in Bowdoin College, Me. This gentleman has gained considerable distinction as a popular writer, and more especially as the author of several volumes on mental science. His works have had an extensive circulation in some parts of the United States, and are used as text-books on this science in many of our institutions and seminaries of learning.

The writings of Mr. Upham on the philosophy of mind may be considered as belonging to the metaphysical school. His views do not differ materially from those of Stewart and Brown, though his classification and manner of treating the subject are somewhat different, and, as we think, an improvement on their works. Still, no person who has ever given any attention to the principles of mental science, as based on the discoveries of phrenology, can be at all satisfied with Mr. Upham's works on this subject. He leaves out of view entirely the very fundamental principles of the science, and discourses of the faculties of the mind as abstract and independent entities, and as though they had no connection whatever with the body. Perhaps we should except from his works, the one before us on “ Disordered Mental Action;" in which he has considered, to some extent, the influence of the brain and various states of the body on mental manifestations. In fact, no person could possibly, with any consistency or correctness, discuss the subject of disordered mental action, without taking some cognisance of the connection between mind and physical organisation ; and our author himself acknowledges that this portion of mental philosophy has been almost totally neglected by all writers on the science, except by a few members of the medical profession. At the same time, he attempts to explain many disordered mental phenomena, without any regard to the most important, and we may say, the only possible means of so doing—that is, by considering the structure and functions of the brain. And what renders the results of bis investigations still more unsatisfactory, is that, in explaining disordered states of mind, he makes use of a classification of faculties which have no existence or foundation in nature. In all his divisions of mental phenomena, he confounds the term faculty with the mere modes of the mind's activity. The terms Sensation, Perception, Conception, Attention, Abstraction, Imagination, &c. which Professor Upham and other metaphysical writers constantly use, cannot consistently, according to the principles of inductive philosophy, be considered as primitive faculties of mind; they are only modes of its activity. For a full discussion and elucidation of these points, we refer the reader to standard works on phrenology. A correct classification of the faculties of mind, is of the highest importance; and we may be perınitted to state that the nomenclature introduced by phrenology has been pronounced by the highest authority in Great Britain, viz. Archbishop Whately, as being far more logical and accurate than that of any other now in existence.

Notwithstanding the present work of Professor Upham is based, to a great extent, on a false and erroneous foundation, (and out of which its principal defects grow,) it has still many redeeming qualities. It is decidedly in advance of his other volumes, and approximates nearer to correct principles of mental science. In his previous works on the Elements of Mental Philosophy, and on the Will, he has treated the mind as an abstract entity-as being entirely independent of a material instrument in all its operations. But in his outlines of Disordered Mental Action, he has made frequent reference to the brain, as well as to the influence of various states of the body over the mind. The following sentences, quoted from the second chapter of the work before us, will express, perhaps, the substance of Professor Upham's views on this point:—“We take this opportunity to say, that the origin, as we apprehend, of no small portion of mental disorder, is to be found in the connection existing between the mind and the body." “We do not agree with some

[ocr errors]

respectable writers in considering insanity as being, in its basis, exclusively a physical disorder.” “Without admitting the doctrine that the mind is identical with the brain, or even that the mind finds in the brain a congeries of organs specifically suited to the develope. ment of each of its separate faculties, we nevertheless hold it to be certain, not only that there is a reciprocal connection and influence between the two, but that such connection and influence exist in a remarkably high degree; so much so, that it is absolutely necessary to advert to it in any attempt to explain mental action, especially disordered mental action.” This is the general ground which Mr. Upham has taken throughout his work. He has given us, in a 'small compass, a great variety and amount of facts on what are called diseases of the mind, though we consider it far more rational and philosophical to call them affections of the brain and nervous system.

Professor Upham bas gleaned very few facts from metaphysical writers, such as Locke, Reid, Stewart, and Brown, for the very obvious reason that their works contain scarce any facts on the subject. At the same time, Professor Upham very justly remarks, that the philosophy of disordered mental action must be predicated on a correct knowledge and classification of the mental faculties in a sane or healthy state. This observation is no less philosophical than true. But it is abundantly evident, that the majority of writers belonging to the metaphysical school have been profoundly ignorant of the philosophy of insanity, or of disordered mental phenomena. And just in proportion as the causes, features, and remedies of insanity have been correctly understood, in the same proportion has there been made an approximation in knowledge to the true philosophy of mind. Accordingly, Professor Upham has been compelled to consult those writers chiefly who have treated of mental phenomena in connection with the brain and the body, and we are happy to state that he has here made free use of phrenological works. Many of his best facts are collected from the writings of Drs. Gall, Spurzheim, Macnish, Conolly, and Combe; and if our author had had free access to the writings of the French phrenologists, as well as to the entire series of the Edinburgh Phrenological Journal, the number and variety of facts on disordered mental action might have been greatly enlarged. On the whole, we consider the present work of Professor Upham as a valuable contribution to mental philosophy, and we hope the day is not far distant when all works on the philosophy of mind will be based on the true principles of the science,




Perhaps no tendency of the human mind can be calculated upon with more certainty, or has shown itself more uniformly, than that of opposition to new things. Innovations are ever regarded with distrust. New improvements in the world of art, new systems of philosophy, new developements of science, are cried down, scouted, ridiculed, and opposed by every means which ingenuity and prejudice can invent. When Franklin had drawn the lightning from the clouds, and explained the cause of the various electrical phenomena which we see, he was laughed at by his cotemporaries in science, and his opinions treated with contempt. When Harvey discovered the circulation of the blood, and thus lighted the great lamp of medical science, he was treated with contumely and scorn by the faculty; denounced as a scheming, ambitious enthusiast, patronage was withheld from him, and his private interests had well nigh been sacrificed on the altar of his fame. When the mind of Galileo had crossed the threshold of nature's mighty temple, and he revealed the secret of the magnificent machinery of the heavens, he was told by the arrogant church and the proud philosophers of his age, that his doctrines were “false in philosophy, heretical in religion, and contrary to the testimony of Scripture," and he was threatened with torture if he persisted in teaching them. The reputation of either of these great students of nature suffers no diminution now from the opposition with which their discoveries were met then. The dis. coverer of the composition of light shared the same treatment. Hosts of enemies swarmed around him, “each eager,” says Professor Playfair, " to obtain the unfortunate pre-eminence of being the first to attack conclusions which the unanimous voice of posterity was to confirm.” These were discoveries in physical nature, the evidence of wbich is invariable, and can never be gainsayed by human opposition. The names of these men will live while a star twinkles in the firmament, a pulsation moves the human heart, or a gleam of lightning threads the stormy sky. Time asks in vain, who

* This vindication we copy from the Peora Register, published in the state of Illinois, and are assured that it comes from the pen of a lady. It is truly gratify. ing to witness so much talent, good taste, and common sense, enlisted in behalf of phrenology by one of the female sex in the far west.-ED.

« VorigeDoorgaan »