« السابقةمتابعة »
and I, as merely " probable ;" so that the point we arrive at is, that the faculty is not at all ascertained, just because our observations do not coincide. What are we to think, then, of your fairness as a critical judge, when you select this faculty as the only one which you venture to describe, at length, in our own words, and represent it as a specimen of the accordance and consistency of our views upon other faculties, regarding which we are all agreed ? Nothing but the spirit of partizanship, the feeling that in this contest you are a party at the bar of public opinion, struggling to maintain a position fast giving way beneath you, could have induced you to resort to such a shift.
You are particularly eloquent also on the supposed discrepancies of doctrine between Dr Gall, Dr Spurzheim, and me, about the functions of Individuality. A brief explanation will serve to place this matter in its proper light. Before a phrenological faculty and organ are regarded as finally settled, there are three points to be determined ; first, the situation of the organ; secondly, the kind of mental manifestations that accompany its development; and, thirdly, the metaphysical analysis of the manifestations. In several instances, that of Wit,* for example, the first and second points are completely ascertained, while the third, being attended with greater difficulty, is open to considerable difference of opinion. Individuality stands at present in a similar situation. Phrenologists are agreed on the kind of manifestations that accompany the organs when large, and on the mental deficiencies that result from their being small; but they are not at one on the ultimate principle involved in them
In connexion with Concentrativeness, you become witty
• It is worth noticing in passing, how very little you are acquainted with the contents of the work you are refuting. In a note, p. 313 of the Review, you say, “It farther appears from the same valuable document, (Dr Spurzheim's last work " on Anatomy,) that a new organ, entitled Mirthfulness, has been discovered “ since Mr Combe's book was written though we cannot exactly ascertain " which of the old ones has been suppressed to make room for it.” On p. 364 of the System, in treating of the organ of Wit, Dr Spurzheim's own words are quoted : “ I propose the name Mirthfulness, or Gayness, to indicate the pecuá liar feeling of wit.”
on the “natural language of the faculties." That doctrine is correctly announced by you, when you say, in derision of course, “ The great practical truth is, that when any faculty " is in a state of activity, the head, at least, if not the whole “ body, is moved in the direction of the external organ of that “ faculty.” You ridicule the statement, “that when those per
sons who really possess the power of Concentration, while “preparing to make a powerful and combined exertion of all “their powers, naturally draw the head and body backwards “ in the line of this organ.” On the assertion, that " preachers " and advocates in whom it is large, while speaking with ani“mation, move the head in the line of Concentrativeness and “Individuality, or straight backwards and forwards,” you remark, “this, we should humbly conceive, they must necessarily "do, if they move them oftener than once in either of the op“ posed directions.” This at first sight appears not only witty, but conclusive ; but it is really at variance with fact. If you will observe more narrowly than you appear to have done, you will find that there are preachers and advocates who, although they very frequently move their heads backwards and forwards, scarcely ever, by any chance, do so “ in the straight “ line.” Those in whom Secretiveness predominates, in bringing the head forward, present the face at an angle to the audience, and look to the side from the corners of their eyes; they draw back the head in a sidelong direction also; those again, in whom Combativeness predominates, move the head backwards and forwards in the line of that organ ; and those in whom Love of Approbation predominates, carry their heads backwards with a swinging motion, also in the line of the organ; Concentrativeness in all these cases being deficient. Such statements, I am aware, must appear to you absurd, because you have never taken the pains to observe their truth; but this is accounted for by the quotation from Dr Brown, p. 10.
You ask, “ When a man seeks the applause of assembled "multitudes in the senate, on the battle-field, on the stage, “ is he irresistibly moved to go to the left about, and ad“ vance the posterior curves of his cranium ?" I answer no it is only Mr Jeffrey, and not the Phrenologists, who have said so.
You proceed, -" Has a proud man a natural ten
“dency to move backwards ?” I have not said that he has; my statement is, that he has a natural tendency. “ to carry “ his head high and reclining backwards."* To designate unwarrantable assumption of consequence in any individual, is it not common to say that “ that man carries his head too « high ?" and do not very proud men, in point of fact, walk erectly, and carry their heads high? You next ask, “ Are constant friends and lovers generally to be found drift“ing down, stern foremost, on the objects of their affections?" Certainly not; but this again is your witticism, and it is really a good one. Look at the pictures of Castor and Pollux, in which the one stands with his arm passed over the shoulder of the other, the two heads touching at a point a little behind and above the ear; or place any two persons, no matter although of the same sex, in both of whom the
organs of Adhesiveness are large, in this position, and you will soon discover whether or not this is the natural attitude of attachment. It is unnecessary to proceed farther on this topic. Artists, who make it their study to observe nature, have recognised the correctness of the doctrine about natural language ; and the whole ridicule with which it is invested in your pages arises absolutely from your passing off gross absurdities of your own invention for statements of mine.
On the subject of Fear and Hope, you enter into a long dissertation, chiefly a paraphrase of a passage from Hume's Essays, quoted in the “ System,” and arrive at the conclusion, that “the truth is, that the two principles are substan“tially one and the same, and necessarily imply euch other, as much
as heat and cold do. The increment of the one is necessarily the “decrement of the other. If, in the contemplation of danger, a “ man fears much, he, by necessary consequence, hopes little " if he hopes much, he fears little: It is no matter which form “ of expression is used, since they both obviously mean the same “ thing, and indicate exactly the same state of mind or feeling. “ They are the two buckets in the well, and it is not less' ab“surd to ascribe them to different principles, than it would be “ to maintain that the descent of the one bucket depends on
System, p. 161.
“ causes quite separate from that which occasions the ascent of “ the other :-and the superfluity of the Phrenologists in these “ instances, is but faintly typified by that of the wiseacre who " made two holes in his barn-door, one to let his cat in to kill “ the mice, and the other to let her out.” The common edition of the story is, that the wiseacre made a large hole for the cat, and a small one for the kitten; but let that påss, as you are not very particular in your quotations. The question is, whether Hope and Fear are one feeling or two?
There is a maxim in philosophy, ex nihilo nihil fit, which, in plain English, means, that something never arises out of nothing. Cold then is not a positive substance, but the mere negative of heat; silence is the negative of noise; and rest the negative of motion : accordingly, cold, silence, and rest, not being entities, cannot become agents, or exhibit active qualities; for this would infringe on the above maxim, which in philosophy is absolutely indisputable. If Fear then be the mere negation of Hope, it cannot be a positive feeling; it can produce no effects, and excite to no actions; or if you reverse the case, and say that Hope is the negation of Fear, then it is the mere zero of that emotion; it is nothing in itself, and can produce no consequences. But this is altogether at variance with the real phenomena of life. Fear, when violently excited, is an overwhelming passion; Hope, when high upon the tiptoe, is a prodigiously strong positive emotion ; and both give rise to the most extensive consequences in human affairs.' Your theory is the same as that which maintains Fear to be the negative of Courage, and Courage the negative of Fear; or that the mere absence of terror was all that constituted the heroic bravery of Nelson; and that a man in the ecstacies of a panic experiencesno posi ive emotion, but is only negatively brave.
With your permission I shall borrow from you the simile of the two buckets, and endeavour to apply it to better purpose
you do. I place Fear in the one bucket and Hope in the other. In the medium condition of ordinary life they hang in equilibrio; when an object pregnant with
danger presents itself, Fear mounts up, and Hope sinks down; when an agreeable prospect appears, Fear descends, and Hope rises. You should have had only one bucket in your well, and called it Fear when at the bottom, and Hope when at the top. On page 309, you say,
On page 309, you say, “ What is Cau“ tiousness, but a quick sense of danger, a most prompt and vi. "gilant circumspection for security ?" This is an excellent definition ; but does it designate, as appropriately, the simple negation of Hope ?
Let us next proceed to your commentary on the phrenological doctrine of the perception of Colour. In the System of Phrenology, p. 273, under the head of “ Sight," the question is asked, “ What, then, are the true functions of the eye? “ No organ of sense forms ideas. The eye, therefore, only' re
ceives, modifies, and transmits the impressions of light; and “ here its functions cease. Internal faculties form conceptions “ of the figure, colour, distance, and other attributes of the ob“jects making the impressions, and the power of forming these “conceptions is in proportion to the perfection of the eyes and “ the internal
faculties jointly, and not in proportion to the per“ fection of the eyes alone. Hence the lower animals, although " they have eyes equal in perfection to those of man, are not “ able to form the ideas of the qualities of bodies, which he “ forms by means of his internal faculties through the instru" mentality of the eye, because in then the internal faculties are “ wanting.”
Again, in treating of the organ of Colouring, it is said, that “Although the eyes are affected agreeably or dis“ agreeably by the different modifications of the beams of light, “ or by colours, yet they do not conceive the relations of differ“ent colours, their harmony or discord, and they have no “ memory of them. Certain individuals are almost destitute of " the power of perceiving colours, who yet have the sense of “ vision acute, and readily perceive other qualities in external “ bodies, as their size and form."-System of Phrenology, p. 296.
To this you object, that, “ So far is it from being true " that we do not perceive colour by the eye, that in reality it “is colour, and colour. alone, that is the primary object of its "perceptions. What we see indeed is only light; but light is “always coloured (if we include white as a colour), and the “ different colours are in reality but so many kinds of light."P. 287. “ Colour, in short, is the only quality of light by “ which we are ever made aware of its existence; and to say " that we do not see colour by the eye, is in reality to say that “ we do not see at all; for the strict and ultimate fact is, that we