Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

the injured person to the precepts and example of the Saviour, would present still higher and more powerful motives, and therefore more effectual; yet it is evident that the will is, in either method, moved and directed by motives of some kind presented to the understanding. This is the sum of all we know on this subject, and the warm disputations of philosophers and theologians cannot advance our knowledge to any practical advantage.

Men have been influenced on this point by their feelings, rather than by their reason; and it is not wonderful that contention respecting free-will, grace, predestination, and kindred topics, should have been more ardent than their real importance warrants. We aim at keeping this article free from any taint of sectarianism, and therefore shall enter no further into the controversy; but be content with observing that, although we may believe, as phrenologists, in the freedom of the mind in moral subjects, yet there may be a question whether this freedom extends to spiritual and holy things. This distinction, perhaps, has not been sufficiently attended to by those who have contended either for or against free agency. Practically, phrenology teaches us to give our moral power the ascendency, and to subdue and regulate our lower propensities. It is useless to deny that we possess inclinations which sometimes entice us to evil, as all experience proves their existence. Phrenology professes to be established on facts, and boldly asks her opponents to refute her positions by showing that what she thus claims as facts are not facts, or to nullify her arguments by proving that she draws illogical inferences from those facts. This is surely not an unreasonable demand.

Are we to be told, at this period in the history of physiology, that there is no dependence of mind on matter? A single example will suffice to illustrate a principle, and we select one from M. Richerand, who, by-the-by, is not favourable to our science. "A woman, about fifty years of age, had an extensive carious affection of the skull; the left parietal bone was destroyed, in the greatest part of its extent, and left uncovered a pretty considerable portion of the dura-mater, or membrane covering the brain. Nothing was easier than to ascertain the existence of a complete correspondence between the motions of the brain and the beats of the pulse. I wiped off the sanious matter which covered the dura-mater, and I at the same time questioned the patient on her situation; as she felt no pain from the compression of the cerebral mass, I pressed down lightly the pledget of lint, and on a sudden the patient, who was answering my questions rationally, stopped in the midst of a sentence; but she went on breathing, and her pulse continued to beat. I withdrew the pledget, she said nothing; I asked her if she remembered my question? she said not.

Seeing the experiment was without pain or danger, I repeated it three times, and thrice I suspended all feeling and all intellect." So much for Richerand. The brain presides over the animal motions so far as those motions depend on volition, and is also essential in its integrity to the regular activity of the intellectual and moral faculties, while the mind and body form one person. We see no danger in this admission to the interests of morality or religion, but think that phrenology harmonises in many respects with the precepts of Christianity, in inculcating forbearance, justice, kindness, charity, and other virtues. Let us endeavour to discover and to cultivate truth of every kind, and we need not fear that there will result any conflict between natural knowledge and Divine Revelation.

In order to show that our views are not singular, and unsupported by the authority of other phrenologists, as well as for the justice and truth of the observations, we extract a few paragraphs from the "Constitution of Man." "The relation between Scripture and phrenology," says Mr. Combe," appears to me to be the following:

"The communications of the Bible may be divided into two great classes the one relating to matter which the human intellect could never by its own powers have discovered, and the other consisting of descriptions of beings existing in this world, and of rules of duty to be observed by those beings, which appear to me to be subjected to the examination of every ordinary understanding. To the former class belong the character and offices of Jesus Christ; while in the latter are comprehended human nature itself, such as it now exists, and all moral and religious duties which bear relation to human happiness in this world."

"The Calvinist, Arminian, and Unitarian, entertain views widely different regarding the character and offices of Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the natural law and phrenology can throw no light whatever on the subject, and therefore it would be a mere waste of words to mix up a discussion of the one with a treatise of the other; and this observation is equally applicable to every announcement in the Bible regarding matters which are not permanent portions of ordinary nature."

"The Bible, however, contains numerous descriptions of human character, and numerous rules for the guidance of human conduct; all of which may be compared with the constitution of the mind as it is revealed to us by observation, and with the inference which may be drawn from that constitution concerning its most becoming and most advantageous mode of action. The result of this comparison appears to me to establish the harmony between phrenology and Scripture.'

ARTICLE III.

PHRENOLOGY SUPPORTED BY SCIENTIFIC MEN.

It is very evident, from many notices of phrenology in books and periodicals, as well as from frequent observations made both publicly and privately, that there are large numbers in the community who are entirely unacquainted with the present state of the science, and the character of its advocates. And this remark includes not only the ignorant and unlettered, but applies with equal force to many who are deservedly distinguished for their talents and attainments in the higher walks of life. In most cases, there may be some reasonable apology for want of knowledge on this subject, but there can be no valid reason for exposing this ignorance in a manner which neither real self-respect or regard to truth can approve, nor true wisdom and philosophy sanction. We hope the time is nearly past in our country, when this science is to be condemned, without the least show of argument or knowledge on the subject; or when its advocates are to be branded as quacks and unscientific men. Such unqualified assertions, and groundless charges, reflect no credit on the integrity or intelligence of their authors.

That our readers may know something about the standing and character of the advocates of phrenology in Great Britain, we are induced to present the following facts. At the meeting of the British Association, last year, for the advancement of science, large numbers of phrenologists were present, as members of that body. This association meets annually, and comprises the most scientific men in England, Scotland, and Ireland. It is divided into several sections, in each of which committees are appointed to make reports on the state and prospects of the various departments of science. During the sitting of this society at Newcastle, 1838, a public meeting was called by the phrenologists present, and arrangements were made for forming a phrenological association, which should meet at the same time and place with the British Association. These explanations are deemed necessary, in order that the reader may understand some statements and allusions made in the following extract from the 58th number of the British Phrenological Journal.

The claims of phrenology to be ranked amongst the sciences were discussed in a notice of Mr. Noble's work, in the last volume of this journal, and were shown to be valid. The proposal to form an association exclusively for the advancement of this science, has induced us now to give a finishing blow to an old objection, still frequently

brought against phrenology, but which it would be well for the opponents of the system to cease adducing in the present day; because, being no longer true, it must often recoil upon him who urges it against the phrenologists. This is the false assertion, that few or no persons of ability, or of any scientific reputation, lend countenance to the phrenological doctrines. There was a time when the assertion might have been made with truth in this country. Twenty years ago, scarcely a dozen names of passable repute could have been drawn from the list of British phrenologists. Perhaps Leach and Parry were amongst those best known at that time; but even then several other persons had commenced their phrenological studies, who have since risen to eminence. The objection has now quite ceased to be true, and never was a valid reason for rejection. But ideas will still linger among the less informed, (both the novices and those whose increasing age causes them to drop into arrear in their knowledge,) long after they have been given up by more intelligent persons; and accordingly, scores, perhaps hundreds, still successfully reiterate this assertion as the readiest means of getting the subject dismissed in contempt from the minds of others, whose want of correct information upon it thus renders them the blind dupes of confident defamers.

Phrenologists may now boldly meet the objection by a counter statement; and if the contempt of phrenology, formerly shown by scientific men, deterred other persons from attending to the subject, the respect evinced by several of them at the present day should have the effect of recommending it to attention. In a recent number of this journal, we quoted the Monthly Magazine, which roundly asserted, that "not a single man of sterling genius, not a single literary or scientific person of real eminence, has deigned to become a promoter of phrenology; nay, amongst the thousands of so-called phrenologists, scarcely a dozen of them could cut a respectable figure in any assembly of third-rate talent." In the present number we have quoted the admission of an opponent (Dr. Roget), probably more competent to speak on this matter than is an anonymous tale-writer in a magazine, to the effect that "many men of eminent talents and extensive knowledge" have avowed their belief in phrenology. These must have place amongst the "so-called phrenologists ;" and to admit or to deny the fact of men of talent being found amongst phrenologists, would thus seem to depend pretty much upon the information and veracity of the writer. But what is to be the test of "real eminence" in science or literature? Or of respectability of figure, sufficient for an "assembly of third-rate talent?" Before proceeding to suggest some tests applicable to Englishmen, amongst whom we do not altogether

relish the invidious duty of choosing a jury of respectables, we shall copy a dozen names from the list of members of the Phrenological Society of Paris, as published on its institution, in the year 1831:

ANDRAL, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine of Paris.
BLONDEAU, Dean of the Faculty of Law of Paris.

BROUSSAIS, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, and First Physician of the Val-de-Grace.

CLOQUET, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine of Paris, Surgeon to the Hospital of Saint Louis.

COMTE, Professor of Philosophy in the Athenæum.

DAVID, Sculptor, Member of the Institute.

JULLIEN, Editor of the Revue Encyclopédique.

LACOSTE, King's Counsel.

LENOBLE, Head of the department of Public Instruction.
PONCELET, Professor in the Faculty of Law of Paris.
ROYER, First Secretary at the Jardin des Plantes.
SANSON, Surgeon to the Hôtel Dieu.

Here, in one phrenological society, during its first year, were the full dozen of persons surely respectable enough for "an assembly of third-rate talent;" and we have some notion that amongst these twelve there are included more than "a single literary or scientific person of real eminence." If not, we must enquire what test our magazinewriter would apply by way of discovering the presence of "real eminence" or "third-rate talent?" And now for the tests at home. Are the professorships in British Universities to be esteemed as any evidence of ability or knowledge, in the persons filling them? The following names may be adduced as examples made apparent by this test:

DR. ELLIOTSON, Professor of Medicine, London.
DR. GREGORY, Professor of Chemistry, Glasgow.
DR. HUNTER, Professor of Anatomy, Glasgow.
DR. NICHOL, Professor of Astronomy, Glasgow.

REV. DAVID WELSH, Professor of Divinity, Edinburgh.

MR. WHEATSTONE, Professor of Natural Philosophy, London.

Is the holding of similar appointments in Ireland to be taken as a test? The following names may then be added :

DR. EVANSON, Professor of Medicine, R. College of Surgeons.
DR. JACOB, Professor of Anatomy, R. College of Surgeons.
MR. LLOYD, Professor of Natural Philosophy, Dublin.
MR. LONGFIELD, Professor of Political Economy, Dublin.
DR. MAUNSELL, Professor of Midwifery, R. College of Surgeons.
DR. MONTGOMERY, Professor of Midwifery, College of Physicians.

Are we to seek amongst the Fellows of the Royal Societies of London or Edinburgh, for persons supposed to be competent to pass muster with other scientific men? We again name half a dozen in example of this test:

« PředchozíPokračovat »