« 前へ次へ »
After some further remarks illustrative of the necessity of this common centre of communication with all parts of the brain, Mr. A. proceeds:
Of the unity of that which perceives, attends, thinks, decides, and wills, nature has given us a consciousness which no argument can annul, and which inquiry only strengthens. I wish to avoid metaphysical discussions in this place; but it seemed necessary to shew, that the consideration of the phenomena of mind, as well as that of the phenomena of life, equally enforces the opinion of their distinct and independent nature; thus confirming the notions that it is natural man should égtertain relative to his own being, and which are necessary to his proper conduct in life. Uneducated reason, and the utmost scientific research, equally induce us to believe, that we are composed of an assemblage of organs formed of common inert matter, such as may be seen after death; a principle of life and action; and a sentient and rational faculty, all intimately connected, yet each distinct from the other.'
Viewing, then, the protuberances of the Craniologist simply in the light of physiognomical indications, to which certain internal organs are supposed to correspond, the chief objection to the hypothesis is not that it necessarily tends to Materialism, but that, as a system, it wants probability, consistency, and evidence. It is a mere hypothesis, that different departments of the brain are appropriated to particular functions of thought. There is nothing irrational, indeed, in the supposition, that different pairs or sets of nerves may have an office as separate and peculiar, as those which transmit the mysteriously modified sensations of sight, hearing, and touch. In which case, although the faculties may not be local, any more than sight can be said to reside in the eye, yet, the mechanism adapted to those faculties, and instrumentally necessary to certain evolutions of thought, may be local, and its healthful action be de pendent on the structure. Since, however, the anatomist has never been able to detect in the brain itself, any exuberances of shape or size answering to the protuberances detected in the cranium, it is incredible that the external marks should be caused by imperceptible and undiscovered modifications of the internal organs. That they even indicate their local situation, would be a most singular fact, could it be established. But this would not prove a necessary correspondence between the size of the bump or knob, and the development of the internal organ; any more than a large nose or full eyes infallibly indicate nicety of smell or strong sight. In fact, could the physiognomical truth of the system be established, were the knobs an infallible index to the innate propensities,--the brain might have, after all, nothing to do with them. Like other physiognomical appearances indicative of varieties of terapera*ment or of intellectual character, they might be known as rules of observation, while the coincidence should remain wholly'únaccounted for. The shape of the skull, confessedly, does not answer to the external figure of the brain : it cannot, therefore, be determined by it These convex knobs are not concavities designed to make room for its action. They can only be considered as hieroglyphic sculptures on the case which encloses the machinery; and if Dr. Spurzheim can decipher them, well and good. But he must not call them organs, or take it for granted that there are local organs answering to every knob.
Of the existence of strong intellectual predispositions and animal propensities in mankind, we entertain no doubt. We are also tempted to believe that there is some correctness in Dr. Spurzheim's craniological observations with regard to the signs of many of those propensities; that they have some foundation in fact. For otherwise, we should find it impossible to account for the vast number of instances in which his craniological rules have led to the detection of individual characteristics. The coincidences have been too numerous and striking to admit of being slightly disposed of. Because they have been employed to prove too much, it does not follow that they prove nothing. What we chiefly dislike in the System is, the mixing up of intellectual with moral predispositions, and connecting the latter also with the brain. The classification is unnatural, and, we think, unsound. An organization adapted to the faculty of constructiveness, or to that of calculation, or to that of imaginative combination, we can understand. But organs of benevolence, of veneration, or of other moral qualities, appear to us terms without meaning. So far as the predisposition to good or evil qualities has any existence in the physical constitution of man, and since it exists in the brute animal, we see no room for denying that it may have a physical origin,) such predisposition must be regarded as having a connexion with the temperament, not with the cerebral structure. On this point, we are sorry to be at issue with Mr. Abernethy, who expresses his satisfaction with Gall and Spurzheim's arrangement, because itplaces the sentiments and dispositions in their real
situation—the head.' And he expresses his surprise that an anatomist so eminent as Bichat, should represent the heart to be the seat of feeling, the head of thought. We will not contend about the exact seat of feeling ; but of this we are well persuaded, that what Bichat calls the organic life, is chiefly implicated, as a system of functions, in those predispositions to certain passions or tempers which frequently discover themselves before thought could possibly give birth to them. And we entertain no doubt that the simple circumstance of health in the
very earliest stages of life, by which we mean, the vigorous and harmonious play of all the animal functions,-has much . more to do with the future disposition, than is generally suspected.
That the intelligence which produces emotion is received by the brain, and that it secondarily affects the heart, we admit. But then, the brain, not being the seat of emotion, cannot be the seat of those dispositions and feelings which determine the degree and character of emotion. The organs of such dispositions are not, therefore, to be sought for in the brain.
There seems nothing incredible in the notion, that the head would prove to be, could we but make it out, the physiognomical index to the whole organization. We see in the amplitude of the forehead the marks of intellectual capacity ; in the development of the lips, the signs of a sanguine or of a phlegmatic temperament; in the lower parts of the face, the strength of the animal propensities. Why should the knobs on the surface of the head, any more than the features of the face, be considered as indications relating only to the brain? As physiognomical signs, they might be found to relate equally to the functions of the organic system,---to the size of the liver, the force of the heart, or the texture and action of the bowels. These are the real organs of jealousy, benevolence, decision, and heroism ; and we see no reason why they should not have their representative knobs, as well as the intellectual or'gans of the brain. It appears to us a great mistake to hunt in the medullary membrane for the organs of emotion, which lie much lower down in the system. These discover themselves in the configuration of the face ; why may not the stomach and the liver
have their share in determining also the shape of the cranium ?
The signs, then, even of moral qualities, or dispositions, may occupy the situation assigned them on the surface of the brain-box, though we cannot tell how they got there. The strange and revolting juxta-position, however, of some of these -knobs, makes much against the correctness of the arrange· ment. The nomenclature of the system, too, is, in reference · to the indications of moral organs, both offensively injudicious
and liable to perversion. This remark applies more especially to the organ of veneration. The notion of an organization exciting in us reverence for the Deity, strikes us as grossly improper. Reverence for the Deity has assuredly not its place in the brain ; and although certain natural turns of mind must be allowed to be more favourable than others to the cultivation of piety, we cannot believe that these are indicated by any knob on the top of the head.
On the whole, the system of Gall and Spurzheim, considered as an organological system, we consider as having no better foundation than imperfect induction and gratuitous supposition. But it has been charged with consequences which do not attach to it, supposing it to be true, and has given rise to un founded alarms and unjust aspersions. As a physiognomical system, we think it imbodies a number of curious façts, mixed up with much that is uncertain, and with not a little that is, in terms, absurd. Let it be pursued, however, as a branch of physiognomy, and we see no objection to the study, although whether it will ever assume the true character of a science, seems very questionable.
Art. ix. A Brief Memoir of the late Thomas Bateman, M.D. Third
Edition. pp. 24. London. 1822. THIS
HIS brief Memoir of the last days of a man as eminent in his
profession as he was estimable in private life, but who, up to within a few months of his death, was an infidel,--presents exactly one of those signs' which the world are continually asking for, and which the half-believer requires to satisfy him of the truth and power of Christianity. We have seldom perused an obituary more striking in its nature, or more judiciously drawn up. The conversion of Dr. Bateman, (for, if his was not a conversion, then the word is wholly misapplied to the change wrought upon Saul of Tarsus, was of the most unequivocal, decided, and satisfactory kind. Here is nothing at which the philosopher can sneer, or the scoffer cavil. The tract is an argument addressed at once to the understanding and the heart; and we have no doubt that it will be extensively useful.
Scott's Essays was the work which, after Dr. Bateman's mind became alive to the subject of religion, was the chief means of producing a total change in his views and feelings. He died exactly one week before his revered but unknown instruetor. .." He never ceased to remember, with the deepest gratitude, his obligations to that excellent man. It was only the evening before his death that he was recommending with great fervency to a young friend, whose mother, under affliction, was first beginning to inquire after religious truth, to engage her to read “Scott's Essays," acknowledging, with fervent gratitude, the benefit he had himself received from that work, and concluding an animated eulogium, by saying, “ How have ! prayed for that man !". What a blessed meeting may we not suppose they have had in the world of glory!
• The medical friend before alluded to has most justly remarked, that 66 the entire simplicity and sincerity of Dr. Bateman's natural character give additional value to all that fell from him. He never used a language
that was at all at variance with his real feelings, and was in no 'degree given to vain imaginations." This testimony is very true, and this nei markable simplicity and sobriety of his natural character remained unaltered in the great revolution which took place in his principles and dispositions : he went into no exaggerations of feelings, or excesses of enthasiasm. And surely the merciful Providence which preserved his sound understanding, in all its integrity, to the last moment of his life, must si Jence the gainsayer and "the disputer of this world," who might strive to attribute the sacred influence of religion on his mind to the errors of an intellect impaired by long disease and suffering.'
Art. X. 1. A Dialogue between a Minister of the Church and his
Parishioner, concerning the Christian's Liberty of Choosing his Teacher. By the Rev. Thomas Sikes, M. A. Vicar of Guilsborough.
Oth Edition. 12mo. pp. 32. London. 1820. 2. A Second Dialogue between a. Minister of the Church and his Pa
rishioner, concerning Christian Edification. By the Rev. Thomas
Sikes, M. A. 5th Edition. 12mu. pp. 48. London, 1815. 3. A Third Dialogue between a Minister of the Church and his
Pariskioner, concerning those who are called Gospel Preachers or
Edition. 12mo. pp. 78. London. 1819. 1. An Address to the Separatists from the Established Church. In a
Dialogue between the Minister and his Parishioner. 12mo. pp. 16.
Worcester. 1822. 5. A Letter to the Rev. Jeremiah Jackson, M. A. Vicar of Swaffham
Bulbeck, occasioned by his Sermon preached at Wisbech, on July 31, 1821, at the third quadrennial Visitation of Bowyer Edward, Lord Bishop of Ely. By J. Jarrom. 8vo. pp. 58. Price Is. 60.
E like these village dialogues extremely. They come to
the point at once and exhibit the controversy in its true light as a practical question. There is an honesty, an explicítness, and an appearance of earnestness about Mr. Sikes, that we commend." He tells us that 'he feels a respect for the • honest Dissenter;' and we can return the compliment by professing with equal sincerity our respect for the honest Churchman,
The Christian's Liberty of choosing his own Teacher, Mr. Sikes very properly considers as the cardinal article, the hinging point of the Dissenting controversy. Every other question compared with this, sinks almost into insignificance. The question respecting liturgies and free prayer, that which relates to the three orders of Episcopacy, or the three times three orders of the hierarchy, nay, the matter of rites and ceremonies, are all, VOL. XVII. N.S.