Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

A

SYSTEM OF PHRENOLOGY.

INTRODUCTION.

PHRENOLOGY, derived from 997 mind, and loyos discourse, professes to be a system of Philosophy of the Human Mind, and, as such, it ought to throw light on the primitive powers of feeling which incite us to action, and the capacities of thinking that guide our exertions till we have attained the object of our desires. It was first presented to public consideration on the Continent of Europe in 1796, and in Britain in the year 1814. It has met with strenuous support from some individuals, and determined opposition from others, while the great body of the public remain uninstructed in its merits. On this account, it may be useful to present, in an introductory form, 1st, A short notice of the reception which other discoveries have met with on their first announcement; 2dly, A brief outline of the principles involved in Phrenology; 3dly, An inquiry into the presumptions for and against these principles, founded on the known phenomena of human nature; and, 4thly, A historical sketch of their discovery.

I shall follow this course, not with a view of convincing the reader that Phrenology is true, because nothing short of patient study and extensive personal observation can produce this conviction, but for the purpose of presenting him with motives to prosecute the investigation for his own satisfaction.

1st, Then, one great obstacle to the reception of a discovery is

the difficulty which men experience of at once parting with old no tions which have been instilled into their minds from infancy, and become the stock of their understandings. Phrenology has encountered this impediment, but not in a greater degree than other discoveries which have preceded it. Mr. Locke, in speaking of the common reception of new truths, says, "Whoever, by the most cogent arguments, will be prevailed upon to disrobe himself at once of all his old opinions and pretensions to knowledge and learning, which, with hard study, he hath all his lifetime been laboring for, and turn himself out stark naked in quest of fresh notions? All the arguments that can be used, will be as little able to prevail as the wind did with the traveller to part with his cloak, which he held only the faster." (Book iv. c. 20. § 11.)

Professor Playfair, in his historical notice of discoveries in physical science, published in the Supplement to the Encyclopædia Britannica, observes, that "in every society there are some who think themselves interested to maintain things in the condition wherein they have found them. The considerations are indeed sufficiently obvious, which, in the moral and political world, tend to produce this effect, and to give a stability to human institutions often so little proportionate to their real value, or to their general utility. Even in matters purely intellectual, and in which the abstract truths of arithmetic and geometry seem alone concerned, the prejudices, the selfishness, or the vanity of those who pursue them, not unfrequently combine to resist improvement, and often engage no inconsiderable degree of talent in drawing back, instead of pushing forward, the machine of science. The introduction of methods entirely new, must often change the relative place of the men engaged in scientific pursuits, and must oblige many, after descending from the stations they formerly occupied, to take a lower position in the scale of intellectual improvement. The enmity of such men, if they be not animated by a spirit of real candor and the love of truth, is likely to be directed against methods by which their vanity is mortified, and their importance lessened."-Dissertation, part ii. p. 27.

Every age has afforded proofs of the justness of these observations. "The disciples of the various philosophical schools of

Greece inveighed against each other, and made reciprocal accusations of impiety and perjury. The people, in their turn, detested the philosophers, and accused those who investigated the causes of things, of presumptuously invading the rights of the Divinity. Pythagoras was driven from Athens on account of his novel opinions; and for the same reason Anaxagoras was confined in prison. Democritus was treated as a fool by the Abderites for endeavoring to find out the cause of madness by dissections; and Socrates, for having demonstrated the unity of God, was forced to drink the juice of hemlock."-Dr. Spurzheim's Physiog. Syst.

But let us attend in particular to the reception of the three greatest discoveries that have adorned the annals of philosophy, and mark the spirit with which they were hailed.

Mr. Playfair, speaking of the treatment of Galileo, says: "Galileo was twice brought before the Inquisition. The first time, a council of seven cardinals pronounced a sentence which, for the sake of those disposed to believe that power can subdue truth, ought never to be forgotten; viz. That to maintain the sun to be immovable, and without local motion, in the centre of the world, is an absurd proposition, false in philosophy, heretical in religion, and contrary to the testimony of Scripture; and it is equally absurd and false in philosophy to assert, that the earth is not immovable in the centre of the world, and, considered theologically, equally erroneous and heretical."

Mr. Hume, the historian, mentions the fact that Harvey was treated with great contumely on account of his discovery of the circulation of the blood, and in consequence lost his practice. An eloquent writer, in the 94th Number of the Edinburgh Review, when adverting to the treatment of Harvey, observes, that "the discoverer of the circulation of the blood-a discovery which, if measured by its consequences on physiology and medicine, was the greatest ever made since physic was cultivated-suffers no diminution of his reputation in our day, from the incredulity with which his doctrine was received by some, the effrontery with which it was claimed by others, or the knavery with which it was attributed to former physiologists, by those who could not deny and would not

praise it. The very names of these envious and dishonest enemies of Harvey are scarcely remembered; and the honor of this great discovery now rests, beyond all dispute, with the great philosopher who made it." This shows that Harvey, in his day, was treated exactly as Dr. Gall has been in ours; and if Phrenology be true, these, or similar terms, may one day be applied by posterity to him and his present opponents.

Again, Professor Playfair, speaking of the discovery of the composition of light by Sir Isaac Newton, says, "Though the discovery now communicated had every thing to recommend it which can arise from what is great, new, and singular; though it was not a theory or system of opinions, but the generalization of facts made known by experiments, and though it was brought forward in a most simple and unpretending form, a host of enemies appeared, each eager to obtain the unfortunate pre-eminence of being the first to attack conclusions which the unanimous voice of posterity was to confirm." (P. 56.) "Among them, one of the first was Father Pardies, who wrote against the experiments, and what he was pleased to call the Hypothesis of Newton. A satisfactory and calm reply convinced him of his mistake, which he had the candor very readily to acknowledge. A countryman of his, Mariotte, was more difficult to be reconciled, and though very conversant with experiment, appears never to have succeeded in repeating the experiments of Newton."

Here, then, we see that persecution, condemnation, and ridicule, awaited Galileo, Harvey, and Newton, for announcing three great physical discoveries. In mental philosophy, the conduct of mankind has been similar.

Aristotle and Des Cartes "may be quoted as examples of the good and bad fortune of new doctrines. The ancient antagonists of Aristotle caused his books to be burned. Afterwards, these books were received with a veneration equal to that due to inspiration itself; and even so late as the time of Francis I., the writings of Ramus against Aristotle were publicly burned, his adversaries were declared heretics, and, under pain of being sent to the galleys, philosophers were prohibited from combating his opinions.

At the present time the philosophy of Aristotle is no longer spoken of. Again, Des Cartes was persecuted for teaching the doctrine of innate ideas; he was accused of Atheism, though he had written on the existence of God; and his books were burnt by order of the University of Paris. A short time after, the same University adopted the doctrine of Des Cartes in favor of innate ideas; and when Locke and Condillac attacked it, there was a general cry of materialism and fatalism. Thus, the same opinions were considered at one time as dangerous because they were new, and at another as useful because they were ancient. What is to be inferred from this, but that man deserves pity; that the opinions of contemporaries, in respect to the truth or falsehood, and the good or bad consequences of a new doctrine, are altogether suspicious; and that the only object of an author ought to be that of pointing out the truth?"-Dr. Spurzheim's Physiog. Syst. p.

488.

To these extracts many more might be added of a similar nature; but enough has been said to demonstrate, that, by the ordinary practice of mankind, great discoveries are treated with hostility by the generation to whom they are addressed.

If, therefore, Phrenology be a discovery at all, and especially if it be also important, it must of necessity come into collision, on the most weighty topics, with the opinions of men hitherto venerated as authorities in physiology and the philosophy of mind; and, according to the custom of the world, nothing except opposition, ridicule, and abuse, could be expected on its first announcement.

If we are to profit, however, by the lessons of history, we ought, after surveying these mortifying examples of human weakness and wickedness, to dismiss from our minds every prejudice against our present subject, founded on its hostile reception by men of established reputation of the present day. He who does not perceive that if Phrenology shall prove to be true, posterity will view the contumelies heaped by the philosophers of this generation on its founders as another dark speck in the history of scientific discovery, and he who does not feel anxious to avoid all participation in this ungenerous treatment, has reaped no moral im

« AnteriorContinuar »