« PreviousContinue »
fome external token of such development by a constant pressure against those particular portions of the cranium under which they are immediately seated, and which, by uninterrupted perseverance, and especially in infancy and adolescence, when the bones of the cranium are more easily moulded into a particular shape, become elevated and rendered protuberant. And having advanced thus far, they conceived, thirdly, that, as every man has some faculty or other more energetic and manifest than the rest, from which indeed his peculiar disposition, or propensity, takes its cast, he must necessarily also have some peculiar protuberance, or protuberances, some characteristic bumps, or embossments, by which his head is distinguishable from all other heads, or at least from all others of a different temper, or attracted by different objects of pursuit; and that thus, when the different stations of the different faculties which belong to the brain, are ascertained, it becomes easy, from the external bump, or protuberance, to as' certain their presence and predominance. win...
These premises being satisfactorily established in the minds of our author and his celebrated colleague, their next business was to determine the relative parts, or organs of the brain, to which the different faculties were to be consigned: and having settled this important point to their own thorough conviction, they immediately made a map of the outside of the head, divided it into corresponding regions, and adjudged themselves qualified to decide upon character with mechanical ease and expedition, and, we presume atso, to promulge a body of rules, or criteria, calculated to render every man his own physiognomist. “In order to distinguish the developement of the organs,” observes our author, “it is not always necessary to touch the head; in many cases the eye is sufficient. It is even more easy to distinguish the size of the organs situated in the forehead by sight than by touch. It is only necessary to touch the organs which are covered with hair." (P. 261.)
This geographical description of the cranium, which puts us somewhat in mind of the map of the moon, depending upon the agency of the interior substance which it encloses, and in which Dr. Spurzheim has found particular stations for the particular organs of affection, or intelligence, must needs have been the result of great patience and investigation. In the first place, it is admitted that these different parts cannot, by the eye of the anatomist, be distinguished from each other either as to structure or function.
“It is true," says Dr. Spurzheim," the limits or lines of separation cannot be exactly determined between the different organs." ofP. 222.).
“ There are very few cases where the structure of any part indicates its function; and such opinions are never more than conjectural. It is the same with the brain. Let the directions of its fibres be known ; let anatomists distinguish their greater or less consistence, their more or less white colour, their different size, length, &c. what conclusion can they draw from these circumstances in respect to the functions ? None. Thus it is certain, that the anatomical knowledge of any part does not indicate its function." (P. 233.)
Secondly, our author admits that zootomy, or comparative anatomy, of which, we freely confess, we expected some advan, a tage might haye been taken, is, of as little avail.
“Let us now," says he," examine whether comparative anatomy has determined the functions of the brain. At the first view, it seems that comparative anatomy ought to afford important results ; but there are, in this respect, obstacles which it is impossible to overcome. First, I have just said that it is impossible to determine the functions according to the structure of any part. Moreover, there is a great number of animals whose automátic life presents several organs of which man is entirely destitute. We may conjecture that it is the same with animal life ; but how can we conceive any function if we are not endowed with a similar faculty? Although it is of the highest importance to know the gradation observed by nature in perfecting the brains of animals in order to multiply and ennoble their functions, we must allow that, botwithstanding the most assidubus labours relative to this end, comparative anatomy has only shown the mechanical form of different brains, but that these anatomical notions do not at all deter mine the functions of the cerebral parts.
“ There was not any principle to enable us to determine whether the same parts exist in different animals or not. Different parts were denied or admitted according to their similar or dissimilar form. The nerves of insects, crustaceous animals, and mollusca, are derived partly from ganglia, partly from the brain; but, according to our anatomical principles, no nerve can either be derived from another derve nor from the brain. Every nerve las its own origin, and we call brain the nervoys mass, which is joined to the nerves of motion and the five ex. ternal senses, and which manifests the moral sentiments and intellectual faculties." (P. 235, 236.Y*00353
Our craniologists bext, attempted to determine the particular 5* faculties of the mind allotted to particular parts of the brain, by *** mutilating the brain of various animals in different ways. But such kinds of experiments; it is also admitted, afforded as little ?" inforniation as anatomical researches. These means," we are told, “were" not only entirely useless, but could never serve to use? determine the functions of the brain; for the organs are not consis fined to the surface, consequently every organ ought to be cut, de away, on
h sides, from the surface to the medulla oblongata, si, But
nd would kill any perfect animal. Let us even
a. . . . . + } }",
BUỘpose that the animal could survive such mutilations, how should it manifest a sensation of which it has been deprived ? and how should it indicate the want of this sensation ? More. over, such operations are too violent, and the animals might res com tain several "faculties without manifesting them. A bird whose brain is violently injured, will not sing or build a nest, &c. Hence it is impossible to determine the functions of the cerebral parts by their mutilation." (P. 240.) The next section, therefore, proceeds to informs us of
the manner actually pursued to determine the
point in Upon this subject our authors are not very clear, but the only method which appears to have remained to them was the external process of examining the peculiar marks, or protuberànces, in the craniums of persons of peculiar characters. *****
" Gall,” says Dr. Spurzheim, " compared all energetic actions with the greatest development of any part of the brain; and if hens found that a greater developement of any cerebral part corres 2016 sponded with any given energetic action, he supposed that this 3:14 part of the brain might be the respective organ. The probability then' increased in the same proportion as the number of observa--..177 tions was multiplied. Moreover, if any individual presented !ond his bead ảny protaberance, which evidently was the result of the developement of some cerebral part, Gall endeavoured to be aco's quainted with the talents or the dominant character of this person., If it were an organ which he had determined according to the actions, and if the actions or inclinations of this persun were concordant, ther probability increased. If it was a new organ, he compared in other individuals similar actions or inclinations with the developement of the respective part of the brain. In these two ways he determined all the organs he discovered; for instance, he pointed out the organs as they were ealled by him, of propagation, of murder, of theft, of mechanical vi arts, of music, of mathematics, and of metaphysics, by determining the organs according to energetic actions ; and he discovered the organs of philoprogeny, circumspection, and religion, by determining the actions according to the protuberances.
“On the other hand, if energetic actions are attached to large organs, and if large organs produce energetic actions, it unavoidably follows that weak actions are indicated by small-organs, and that small organs produce weak actions. On this account, Gall compared the weak'...' functions of individuals who were almost destitute of a particular faculty !! with the determinate organ, and a determinate organ with the respect,
and if weak actions were corresponding to small organs, ! or small organs to weak actions, these proofa in a negative way con!! : firmed the first conclusion. A great number of circumstances have contributed to multiply these positive and negative observations. To this end it is necessary to live in large towns, and to frequent all classes of society. Gall was professionally acquainted with many families; he was physician to the director of the schools, and could examine every child who excelled. He had himself no children, and
tive actions ;
was not obliged to spare expense for their sake. He was also bold enough to speak to every person in whose head be observed any dis. tinct protuberance. In our travels, we have been able to obtain much information ; to observe a great number of distinguished persons, and to compare their organization; in one word, to collect innumerable facts in our visits to establishments for education, in hospitals for idiots and madmen; in the houses of correction, in prisons, and in our intercourse with different nations and with all classes of society." (P. 281 -283.) · Now, it must be admitted, that this is a very loose and limited source of information, though it appears to be the chief, if not the only one, to which the authors of this hypothesis could directly apply. After all they give us no account of the history of their visits to the different schools, hospitals, and houses of correction, which were open to their inspection, and of which they surely might have made a very interesting narrative. We shall presently endeavour to supply this omission from M. Böttiger's work, to which we have already referred, and from which it will, we think, appear, that even this only mode of acquiring definite information, and drawing legitimate results, was not attended with much success. We cannot, however, avoid remarking, in the present place, that, from the view of the subject thus offered us in Dr. Spurzheim's own pages, the anatomy and speculations upon the structure of the brain and nerves which occupy the first part of the volume, though highly ingenious and interesting, have but little bearing upon his physiognomical doctrines, for either of them may be separately true or separately false; and upon this point, therefore, we fully agree with the members of the French National Institute. The study, to say the most of it, is but at present in its infancy, and we have no reason to believe it will ever advance to manhood. Its basis, even upon the present writer's own showing, is empirical or experimental, rather than methodical or inductive; and we cannot, therefore, but be surprised at the frequent and triumphant use, by the author, of the terms, science, system, certainty, proof, demonstration; upon some of which we shall find it expedient to make a remark or two before we conclude. The following is a singular passage, but in close connexion with our present estimate of the subject; and were it allowable to draw a general inference from a single paragraph, it could only be that our author's feeling at the moment was not essentially different from our own. “ It is known," says he, “ that, in general, physical truths improve in proportion as observations are repeated. We continue, therefore, to multiply our observations, and in respect to several organs, the number of these observations is immense; and we consider the respective organs as determinate. We shall insist on our opinion 'as long as we are not convinced, by experience, of the contrary, Several organs, however, are still conjeetural, and require a greater number of observations, in order to be determined with the same degree of certitude as the others, which are supported by the most satisfactory proofs." (P. 283.)
Putting together matter of conjecture, and what, in their opinion, is matter of proof, our craniologists have thought themselves justified in representing the brain as consisting of, from twenty-seven to thirty-three internal parts, organs, or chambers; and consequently, in dividing the cranium into as many sections, from the lowest part of the back of the head, over the crown, to the orbits of the eyes. According to Professor Böttiger, the original number of manifestations was twenty-seven, certain parts of the cranium being left at his time of writing as a kind of terra incognita for the discoveries of future circumnavigators. The head, however, has been since so well travelled over, that four other regions were explored and named at the date of Dr. Bojames's publication; since which Dr. Sporzheim has detected and denominated two additional tracts: so that the map seems now to be complete, and the skull, with all its districts, divisions, and intersections, wild and cultivated spots, seats of arts and philosophy, and love and war, presents man in all his forms and varieties to the contemplation of man. . The following are the names assigned to these various protuberances and the faculties they manifest, in the language of Dr. Spurzheim: 1. Organ of amativeness ; 2. of philoprogeni, tiveness; 3. inhabitiveness; 4. adhesiveness; 5. combativeness ; 6. destructiveness; 7. constructiveness; 8. covetiveness; 9. secretiveness; 10. self-love; 11. approbation ; 12. cautiousness; 13. benevolence; 14. veneration; 15. hope and faith ; 16, ideality; 17. righteousness, or conscientiousness; 18, firmness; 19. individuality. 20. forin; 21. size; 22. weight; 23. colour: 24. space; 25. order; 26. time; 27 number; 28. tune; 29. language; 30. comparison; 31. causality: 32. wit: 33. imitation. The arrangement of all these into orders, genera, species, and varieties, we shall give in the words of the author.
“ The expression Mind designates the class of faculties. I divide it into two orders: into feelings (gemueth, in German) and intellect.
The feelings are subdivided into two genera: into propensities and sentiments. The propensities begin with that of eating and drinking: Many instincts of animals belong to this genus, while other instincts of apimals, as those of singing and migrating, belong to the knowing faculties. The second genus of feelings consists in sentiments, some of which are common to man and animals, and others proper to man. The second order of mental faculties and intellect is subdivided also into two genera, into knowing and into reflecting faculties. Moreover, there are different species of propensities, of sentiments, of knowing,