Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

still urge the question-Is it organization that strikes conviction to the mind of an immoral and irreligious man, and causes him to forsake the error of his ways? What was the organization doing during the whole period of his former course? and whence the change that has now taken place? We must consider motive as independent on matter. The soul is, we allow, attached to, but assuredly it is not entombed in the bodily frame.

We now arrive at that portion of the treatise, in which the Author attempts to investigate the part of the organization on which the manifestations of life depend. After several observations to prove that these manifestations are not produced through the medium of the whole body, or any particular part or condition of it, excepting the brain, he comes to the inference, that the brain is the exclusive seat and organ of consciousness. Did consciousness, however, reside in the brain without any assistance from, and in complete independence on, the nerves and senses, an abolition of consciousness could never take place without primary and direct injury being done to the brain; death could at no time be occasioned by dislocating the neck of an animal: the head of a fowl after decapitation, would, for a long time, live in the actual agonies occasioned by the act of severing; and guillotining, as indeed it has been argued, would prove a cruel, because a lingering mode of separating the soul from the body! The brain is unquestionably the grand medium through which the animal functions are evolved; still this evolution is not effected without the assistance, if we may so say, of all the sentient organs. We must, however, do Dr. Spurzheim the justice to admit, that he makes a very important distinction between the seat and the organ of the soul; and allows that it is absurd to assign a material seat to an immaterial being.

In reply to those objections that have been made against his theory, from the circumstance of one half of the brain having been destroyed by disease, while the manifestations of the intellectual faculties remained, our Author remarks, that the duplicity of the brainular system has been overlooked by the objectors; and he further affirms that one of the hemispheres of the brain may be in a state quite different from, or even opposite to the other.

Tiedman, (he says) relates the example of one Moser, who was insane on one side, and who observed his madness with the other side. Gall attended a Minister who had a similar disease for three years. He heard constantly on his left side reproaches and injuries; he turned his head on this side and looked at the persons. With his right side he commonly judged the madness of

his left side, but sometimes in a fit of fever he could not rectify. his peculiar state. Long after being cured, if he appeared to be angry, or if he had drunk more than he was accustomed to do, he observed in his left side a tendency to his former alienation.' p. 171.

These relations certainly appear very marvellous to us, who never, we must confess, met with any thing similar; and we should be inclined to suspect that the individuals alluded to, were too partial in their own opinions of themselves; that is, that they were equally mad on both sides; but still, let the statements possess all their required force, and we would nevertheless deny that they furnish a full refutation of the alleged difficulty.

Even admitting as a fact, the duplicity in organs, and conceiving upon this principle, that a great mischief might be done on one side, without a total abolition of the faculties, the organization of which had been affected by disease, we cannot but conceive a diminution at least in the general quantum of power, and by consequence, in especial display of faculty. Suppose, for instance, that in either hemisphere of the brain, 'the organ of combativeness' had been annihilated by suppuration, we should conclude the effect of such destruction to be, at least, a subtraction from the whole quantity of propensity to fight,' and the subject of the disease would subsequently prove a comparatively peaceful and orderly

[ocr errors]

person.

Another objection has been advanced against Dr. Gall's doctrine, from the circumstance of the brain having been apparently almost destroyed, dissolved, or disorganized, by water, as in cases of hydrocephalus, without much impediment to the exercise of many of the faculties; indeed, with some of them displaying themselves in an improved degree. To this Dr. Spurzheim replies, that the supposed dissolution has been merely a greater degree of expansion, of the cerebral substance, and that the fibres of the brain have only changed their vertical into an horizontal position. In this part of the investigation, we are again compelled to admire the anatomical skill and speculative ingenuity of our theorist, but withholding at the same time our consent to his practical inferences. It appears to us, that even allowing to the full the separation of brainular fibres, for which he argues, there ought, even upon his own principles, to be a strange intermixture and jumble of organs and faculties. No single one, on account of the change of locality alone, if it were nothing else, would have the chance of being exercised in ample power

[ocr errors]

and due proportion, The same may be said in reference to ossifications of the brain, the possibility indeed of which Dr. S. finds it necessary to deny in any other way than that of bony excrescences extraneous to the actual substance of the organ. But that these last do sometimes exist, even our Author will not dispute; and they often do so, according to the evidence of pathologists, without impairing the faculties of the understanding in the way which would be expected, were the theory we are now canvassing, founded on truth.

[ocr errors]

It would be of importance to Craniologists, could they ascertain that the faculties of the mind are in some degree proportionate to the magnitude of the brain, and measurable by it; but in their attempt to do this, they prove themselves much at fault. The position is open to many and obvious objections; among others, the circumstance noticed by Haller is of some weight; namely, that while children have a larger comparative brain than adults, they have an inferior share of understanding.' To this statement, it may perhaps be permitted to our Author to reply, that the brain of children is not yet perfectly developed, and hence unfit for the manifestations of the intellectual faculties.' 'But the same physiologist, together with Cuvier and Soemmering, continues to say that it is difficult to determine the proportion of the brain to the body, because the body grows lean or fat, 'augments or diminishes half its weight, while the brain ' does not undergo any change.' This assertion is refuted by experience, adds Dr. Spurzheim.

It is true that the brain cannot grow fat, that is, no adipose substance can be deposited in the cerebral mass any more than in the substance of the lungs, but the brain participates in the nutrition of the body as well as every other part. In young and well nourished men and animals, in the flower of youth, the convolutions of the brain are more plump, and nearer one another; the whole brain is more heavy than in old lean and emaciated persons, who have died of hunger and consumption.' 'Hence the remarks made by Haller would not be sufficient to refute the opinion that the faculties of the mind may be measured according to the proportionate size of the brain.' p. 195.

We should hardly imagine that the Dr. would wish to maintain that the plump' and healthy have always the most vigorous intellect, or that the mind is not often more than ordinarily acute in an emaciated person who is dying of consumption. This last circumstance, however, could not at any time take place, were the mental faculties to depend, in a

regular proportion, upon the general state of the organization or magnitude of the encephalon.

[ocr errors]

7

[ocr errors]

In the eighth section of the chapter now under notice, the Author enters into a disquisition on the much talked of facial angle' of Camper, and satisfactorily shews the impossibility of marking accurately, by this test, the kinds and degrees of intelligence possessed by man and different animals. Although several objections lie against Camper's method of measuring intellect, considered as an exact and accurate standard, his general principles are admissible, and the whole of his investigations are conducted with a considerable degree of physiological ability,

The relative size of the face to the head, has been proposed by some as a means of indicating the proportionate share of understanding, possessed by different races of men and other animals; and an attempt has been made to shew that animals are more stupid in proportion to the largeness of the face, as compared with the cranium: hence the expression which has been made use of by an Author, who has recently excited some degree of public notice As stupid as an acre of face 'could make him.' But let not our capacious faced readers take the alarm; for besides that it is in the "World without Souls," that these visages are to be met with, we are told by Dr. Spurzheim, that

There have been great men whose faces were very large, and whose jaw bones were very prominent. Leo, Montaigne, Leibnitz, Haller, Mirabeau, &c. had large faces, and very considerable brains. On the contrary, Bossuet, Voltaire, Kant, had small faces and large brains.'

of

The above extract may afford comfort to both descriptions persons who may peruse our pages, for, so far as intellect is concerned, there are very few who would object to their names being placed on either of the above lists of celebrated characters.

That understanding is proportioned to the size of the brain, either in man or any class of animals, none but a Craniologist would be disposed to maintain. Of our Author's own powers of mind, we entertain a very high opinion; but we should be loth to venture a wager upon his being possessed of a larger brain, than would be found in the cranium of many a city epicure.

(To be concluded in our next.)

Art. II. A Sermon, preached in the Parish Church of Lancaster, on Thursday, August 25th, A. D., 1814, at the Primary Visitation of the Right Reverend George Henry, Lord Bishop of Chester, and published at the Request of his Lordship and the Clergy. By Thomas Dunham Whitaker, LL. D. F. S. A. Vicar of Whalley and Rector of Heysham, in Lancashire, 4to. pp. 20. Price 2s. 6d. Murray.

WE hail the appearance of a Visitation Sermon, discussing subjects of controversial theology in the language of a scholar and in the temper of a Christian; and having for its professed object, to recommend that candour and conciliatory spirit, of which it presents to us so happy an illustration. The real scope of the Sermon is, indeed, a learned and subtle disquisition concerning the Calvinistic system; but the discussion is conducted in a style so different from that of former assailants, and there is so much discrimination and so much seriousness, that we think it is impossible for a candid reader, holding the sentiments which Dr. Whitaker controverts, to rise from the perusal without feeling the force of his application of the words selected for his text;-" Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong "one to another."

Happy were it, indeed, for the Church of Christ, if the only points on which good men are divided, were those on which an Arminian Divine differs from the Calvinist and happy, indeed, were that portion of it, under what form soever of polity the community so distinguished might be found, the members and ministers of which should need nothing so much as clearer perceptions and more settled convictions of these controverted modifications of Scripture doctrine. We should rejoice, if it were allowed us to believe that the subject selected for the present discourse, had any pretensions even to a confined local appropriateness in this point of view. Conclusions widely different, and of a very painful nature, are suggested by the remembrance of the Primary Charge delivered in connexion with the occasion of this discourse; and these powerfully induce the wish, that a theme more awakening had been substituted for the ineffective reasonings of the logician; that instead of the hopeless attempt to settle any one of the questions which have so much agitated the Christian world, by the aid of scholastic argumentation, the Preacher had, with a bolder hand, struck the tocsin of alarm in the ears of the Watchmen in Zion, who, through criminal sloth, or moral insensibility, are betraying their posts to enemies, such as Calvin and Arminius, were they yet on earth, would unite to repel.

It is to be feared that, after all that can be said of controversial animosities, the voice which arraigns our opinions, so long as

« ForrigeFortsett »