History of Phrenology on the Web

Organs

George Combe's A System of Phrenology, 5th edn, 2 vols. 1853.

Vol. 1: [front matter], Intro, N ervous system, Principles of Phrenology, Anatomy of the brain, Division of the faculties 1.Amativeness 2.Philoprogenitiveness 3.Concentrativeness 4.Adhesiveness 5.Combativeness 6.Destructiveness, Alimentiveness, Love of Life 7.Secretiveness 8.Acquisitiveness 9.Constructiveness 10.Self-Esteem 11.Love of Approbation 12.Cautiousness 13.Benevolence 14.Veneration 15.Firmness 16.Conscientiousness 17.Hope 18.Wonder 19.Ideality 20.Wit or Mirthfulness 21.Imitation.
Vol. 2: [front matter], external senses, 22.Individuality 23.Form 24.Size 25.Weight 26.Colouring 27.Locality 28.Number 29.Order 30.Eventuality 31.Time 32.Tune 33.Language 34.Comparison, General observations on the Perceptive Faculties, 35.Causality, Modes of actions of the faculties, National character & development of brain, On the importance of including development of brain as an element in statistical inquiries, Into the manifestations of the animal, moral, and intellectual faculties of man, Statistics of Insanity, Statistics of Crime, Comparative phrenology, Mesmeric phrenology, Objections to phrenology considered, Materialism, Effects of injuries of the brain, Conclusion, Appendices: No. I, II, III, IV, V, [Index], [Works of Combe].

( 398 )

OBJECTIONS TO PHRENOLOGY CONSIDERED.

HAVING now considered the elements of Phrenology, I shall notice briefly some objections which have been urged against it. These shall be given, as nearly as possible, in the words of actual opponents, and an answer shall be subjoined. Objection.--The idea of ascribing different faculties to different parts of the brain is not new. Many authors did so before Dr Gall ; but their systems have fallen into disrepute, which proves that the doctrine is not true. Answer.-Dr Grail himself has called attention to the fact, that the idea alluded to is very ancient : he has given a history of previous opinions concerning the functions of the brain ; and shewn that different functions have been attributed to different parts of it for centuries past, while he has assigned reasons for these ideas falling into oblivion. Dr Spurzheim in his works has done the same ; and in the Phrenological Journal, No. VII. Art. 8, "An Historical Notice of early Opinions concerning the Brain" is given, accompanied with a plate of the head, shewing it marked out into different organs in 1562 : it is copied in vol. i. p. 33 of this work. The difference, however, between the method of investigation practised by Dr Gall, and that followed by prior authors, is so great, that the differences in the results are accounted for. Former speculators assigned to certain mental faculties local situations in the brain, on account of the supposed aptitude of the place to the faculty. Common sense, for example, was placed in the forehead, because it was near the eyes and nose ; while memory was lodged in the cerebellum, because it lay like a storehouse behind, to receive and accommodate all kinds of knowledge, till required to be brought forth for use. This was not philosophy. It was the human imagination constructing man, instead of the intellect ob-

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 399

serving how the Creator had constituted him. Dr Gall acted on different principles. He did not assume any mental faculties, and neither did he assign to them habitations in the brain according to his own fancy. On the contrary, he observed, first, the manifestations of mental talents and disposition ; and, secondly, the form of brain which accompanied each of these when strong and weak. He simply reported what Nature had done. There is the same difference between his method of proceeding and that of prior authors, as between those of Des Cartes and Newton ; and hence it is equally intelligible why he should have succeeded in discovering truth, while they only invented ingenious errors.

Objection.-It is admitted by Phrenologists, that the functions of some parts of the brain are undiscovered ; when these are found out, they may give a new view of the uses of the parts to which certain functions are now ascribed, and therefore no certain conclusion can be drawn on the subject in the present state of phrenological observations, even supposing them to be all correct.

Answer.-Each organ will always manifest its own faculty, whatever discoveries may be made in regard to other organs. The direction may be modified, but the function will remain unaltered. See vol. ii. p. 295-6.

Objection-It is ridiculous to suppose that the mind has thirty-five faculties ; why not fifty-five ? or an hundred and five ? Resides, the phrenologists have been continually altering the number.

Answer.-M well may it be said to be absurd, that we should possess exactly five senses ; why not ten or fifteen ? The phrenologists deny all responsibility for the number of the faculties. They admit neither fewer nor a greater number, than they find manifested in nature. Besides, authors on mental philosophy admit as many, and some more, faculties than the phrenologists. Lord Kames, for example, admits twenty of the phrenological faculties ; while Mr

400 OBJECTIONS TO

Dugald Stewart, in his system, ascribes more faculties to the mind than are enumerated in the phrenological works.^lThe increase of the number of the phrenological faculties is easily accounted for. It has invariably been stated, that the functions of certain portions of the brain remain to be discovered ; and, in proportion as this discovery proceeds, the list of mental powers will necessarily be augmented.

Objection,-" On opening the skull and examining the brain towards the surface, where the organs are said to be situated, it seems to require no small share of creative fancy, to see any thing more than a number of almost similar convolutions, all composed of cineritious and medullary substance, very nearly in the same proportions, and all exhibiting as little difference in their form and structure, as the convolutions of the intestine." " No phrenologist has ever yet observed the supposed line of distinction between them ; and no phrenologist, therefore, has ventured, in the course of his dissections, to divide a hemisphere of the brain accurately into any such number of well-marked and specific organs.'¹

This objection was urged by the late Dr John Barclay, and is answered at full length by Dr A. Combe, in the Phrenological Transactions. A summary only of his observations can be introduced here. First, Although the objection were literally true, it is not relevant ; because it is an admitted principle of physiology, that the form and structure of an organ are not of themselves sufficient to reveal its functions ; no man who saw an eye, an ear, or a nostril, for the first time (supposing it were possible for a man to be so situated), could, merely by looking at it, infer its uses. The most expert anatomists had looked frequently and long upon a bundle of nervous fibres, enclosed in a common sheath, without discovering that one set of them was the organ of voluntary motion, and another that of feeling ; on the contrary, from their similarity of appearance, these nerves had,

¹ See answer to Mr Jeffrey in Phrenological Journal, vol. iv. p. 30.

PHRENOLOGY CONSIDERED. 401

for ages, been regarded as possessing similar functions. Nevertheless, Sir 0. Bell and Magendie have demonstrated, by experiment, that they possess the distinct functions of feeling and motion. These discoveries are discussed in vol. i. p. 91. It may therefore competently be proved, by observation, that different parts of the brain have distinct functions, although it were true that no difference of structure could be perceived. It is now generally admitted, that the anterior column of the spinal marrow subserves motion, and the posterior, feeling, although the precise line of demarcation between them has not been discovered.

But, 2dly, it is not the fact that difference of appearance is not discoverable in the convolutions. It is easy to distinguish the anterior, the middle, and posterior lobes of the human brain from each other ; and, were they shewn separately to a skilful phrenological anatomist, he would not mistake one for the other. The mental manifestations are so different, according as one or other of these lobes predominates in size, that there is, even in this case, ample room for establishing the fundamental proposition, that different faculties are connected with different parts of the brain. Farther, many of the organs differ so decidedly in appearance, that they could be pointed out by it alone. Dr Spurzheim says, that he " should never confound the organ of Amativeness with that of Philoprogenitiveness ; or Philoprogenitiveness with that of Secretiveness ; or the organ of the desire to acquire with that of Benevolence or Veneration ;" and, after having seen Dr Spurzheim's dissections of the brain, I bear my humble testimony to the truth of this assertion. Even an ordinary observer, who takes a few good casts of the brain in his hand, may satisfy himself that the anterior lobe, for example, presents convolutions different in appearance, direction, and size, from those of the middle lobe ; while the latter, towards the coronal surface, presents convolutions differing in appearance and direction from those of the posterior lobe ; and, above all, the cerebellum, or organ of Amativeness, is not only widely different in structure, but is
VOL. II. C c

402 OBJECTIONS TO

separated by a strong membrane from all the other organs, and can never be mistaken for any of them. Difference of appearance, therefore, being absolutely demonstrable, there is much more reason on the side of the phrenologists for presuming difference of function, than on that of the opponents for maintaining unity.

2dly, It is admitted that strong lines of demarcation between the organs are not perceived in the brain ; but those persons who have either seen Dr Spurzheim dissect the brain, or have attended minutely to its impressions on the skull, will support me in testifying, that the forms of the organs are distinguishable, and that the mapping out is founded in nature. To bring this to the test, the student has only to observe the appearance of any particular organ in a state of large development, the surrounding organs being small ; the form will then be distinctly visible. This subject is discussed at more length in vol. i. from p. 148 to p. 160.

Objection.-All parts of the brain have been injured or destroyed without the mental faculties being affected.

Answer.-The assertion is denied : There is no philosophical evidence for it. The .subject is discussed at length by Dr A. Combe, in the Phrenological Transactions. The objection is now generally abandoned by persons who have considered the cases, with the answers to them.

Objection.-Post-mortem examinations .do not shew diseased structure in the brain from Insanity.

Answer.-They frequently do so ; and when they do not, our ignorance of the appearances in health, and our inability to discriminate minute changes of structure, are the causes of our perceiving nothing different from the healthy state. Professor Christison observes, that " Some poisons operate by irritating, destroying, or corroding the organ ; while others neither corrode nor irritate, but make a peculiar impression on the sentient extremities of the nerves,

PHRENOLOGY CONSIDERED. 403

unaccompanied by any visible change of structure." Similar observations may be applied to the appearances of the brain in ' Insanity. If the disease has been merely functional, no structural change may be discernible. Objection.-The world has gone on well enough with the philosophy of mind it already possesses, which, besides, is consecrated by great and venerable names, while Phrenology has neither symmetry of structure, beauty of arrangement, nor the suffrages of the learned to recommend it. Its votaries are. all third-rate men-persons without scientific or philosophical reputations. They are not entitled, therefore, to challenge the regard of those who have higher studies to occupy their attention. Answer.-The world has not gone on well enough without Phrenology. A fierce and general conflict of opinions is maintained on many important subjects connected with mind, which cannot be satisfactorily settled till the true philosophy of man shall be discovered and understood.. Criminal legislation, education and social institutions, rest in many respects on imperfect foundations ; and at the present moment, mankind have great need of a sound, practical, and rational system of mental philosophy. Moreover, Phrenology being a new science it follows that men who possess reputation in physiology or mental philosophy appear to lose rather than gain renown, when they confess their ignorance of the functions of the brain and the philosophy of mind, which is a necessary prelude to their adoption of Phrenology ; and the subject does not lie directly in the department of other scientific men. In this manner it happens, oddly enough, that those who are most directly called upon by their situation to examine the science, are precisely those to whom its triumph would prove most humiliating. Locke humorously observes on a similar occasion, " Would it not be an insufferable thing for a learned professor, and that which his scarlet would blush at, to have his authority of forty years' standing, wrought out of hard rock, Greek and Latin, with no small expense

404 OBJECTIONS TO

of time and candle, and confirmed by general tradition and a reverend beard, in an instant overturned by an upstart novelist I Can any one expect that he should be made to confess, that what he taught his scholars thirty years ago was all error and mistake, and that he sold them hard words and ignorance at a very dear rate ? What probabilities, I say, are sufficient to prevail in such a case 1 And who ever, by the most cogent arguments, will be prevailed with to-disrobe himself at once of all his old opinions, and pretences to knowledge and learning, which, with hard study, he hath all his time been labouring for, and turn himself out stark-naked in quest afresh of new notions î 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."^l Human nature is the same now as in the days of Lock".

There is, however, another answer to the present objection- Some individuals are born princes, dukes, or even field-marshals ; but I am not aware that it has yet been announced that any lady was delivered of a child of genius, or an infant of established reputation. These titles must be earned by the display of mental superiority. But if an individual quit the beaten track pursued by the philosophers of his day, and introduce any discovery, although equally stupendous and new, his reputation is necessarily involved in its merits. Harvey was not a great man before he discovered the circulation of the blood, but became such in consequence of having done so. What was Shakspeare before the magnificence of his genius was justly appreciated 2 The author of Kenilworth represents him attending as an humble and comparatively obscure suitor at the court of Queen Elizabeth,, and receiving a mark of favour in an " Ah ! Will Shakspeare, are you there ?" And he most appropriately remarks, that here the immortal paid homage to the mortal. Who would now exchange the greatness of Shakspeare for the splendour of the proudest lord that bowed before the

¹ Book iv. c. 20, sect. 11.

PHRENOLOGY CONSIDERED, 405

Maiden Queen ? Or let us imagine Galileo, such as he was in reality, a feeble old man, humble in rank, destitute of political influence, unprotected by the countenance or alliance of the great, poor, in short, in every thing except the splendid gifts of a profound, original, and comprehensive genius-and conceive him placed at the bar of the Roman pontiff and the seven cardinals,-men terrible in power, invested with authority to torture and kill in this world, and, as was then believed, to damn through eternity ; men magnificent in state, and arrogant in the imaginary possession of all the wisdom of their age-and let us say who was then great in reputation-Galileo or his judges ? But who is now the idol of posterity-the old man or his persecutors I The case will be the same with Gall. If his discoveries of the functions of the brain, and of the philosophy of the mind, stand the test of examination, and prove to be a correct interpretation of nature, they will surpass, in substantial importance to mankind, the discoveries even of Harvey, Newton, and Galileo ; and this age will in consequence be rendered more illustrious by the introduction of Phrenology, than by the victories of Bonaparte or of Wellington. Finally, the assertion, that no men of note have embraced Phrenology, is not supported by fact. Professor Uccelli of Florence sacrificed his academical chair for Phrenology. In " The Statistics of Phrenology, by Hewett C. Watson,"¹ the most irresistible evidence is produced that Phrenology is now embraced " by not only a large but a highly talented and respectable body of adherents, of whom no cause need be ashamed." Phrenology has long been defended by the Medico-Chirurgical Review, and more recently by the British and Foreign Medical Review, both of London, the best medical journals of Britain. I earnestly recommend Mr Watson's work to the perusal of all persons who desire to know the real state of the science. Besides, the writing" of the phrenologists will bear a comparison in point of skill

¹ Longman & Co. London, 12mo, p. 242, 1836.

406 OBJECTIONS TO PHRENOLOGY CONSIDERED.

extent of information, correctness of logic, and profundity of thought, with those of the most eminent of their opponents. Objection,-All the disciples of Phrenology are persons ignorant of anatomy and physiology. They delude lawyers, divines, and merchants, who know nothing about the brain ; but all medical men, and especially teachers of anatomy, are so well aware of the fallacy of their doctrines, that no impression is made on them. They laugh at the discoveries as dreams. Answer.-This objection, like many others, is remarkable more for boldness than truth. For my. own part, before adopting Phrenology, I saw Dr Barclay, and other anatomical professors, dissect the brain- repeatedly, and heard them declare its functions to be an enigma, and acknowledge that their whole information concerning it consisted of " names without meaning." It is acknowledged, in an article on the Nervous System, in No. 94 of the Edinburgh Review, quoted in vol. i. p. 74, of this work, that the functions of the brain are unknown to anatomists, and that their mode of dissecting it is absurd. This circumstance, therefore, puts the whole faculty, who have not studied phrenologically, completely out of the field as authorities. The fact, however, is the very reverse of what is stated in the foregoing objection. Drs Gall and Spurzheim are now pretty generally admitted to have been admirable anatomists of the brain, even by those who disavow their physiology. Dr Vimont's Traité de Phrenologie displays great anatomical attainments ; and in Mr Watson's Statistics, ample evidence is presented that Phrenology is embraced by a large number of medical men all over the British Islands. Several other objections were replied to in the fourth edition of this work ; but these I have not considered it necessary here to repeat.

© John van Wyhe 1999-2011. Materials on this website may not be reproduced without permission except for use in teaching or non-published presentations, papers/theses.

The History of Phrenology on the Web