Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic][merged small]

No. 16. VOL. 1.] LONDON, Friday, April 18, 1828. [PRICE 6d.

PHRENOLOGY.

WE like all those sciences, or every system that bears the name of science, and that is available wherewith to attack the current superstition. But there are some, who have such a high loathing of the vice of superstition, that they turn round upon us, and say, your phrenology is a superstition. We fell in love with the theory of Sir Richard Phillips, more from its general character, being a system of matter and motion that excluded every kind of spiritual superstition, than from any close examination of the details, and an assurance of their correctness. Our war is with superstition, and, without going into details, we think it enough, if we can grasp at any system as a weapon wherewith to strike at it. We know, positively, that superstition is an evil, and therefore any weapon is a good one that can be brought to act against it. But we confess, that, we are somewhat confused, now and then, when the more severe and more critical critic turns us round, looking bluntly in our faces, and exclaims, your system of matter and motion is a superstition. The only plausible answer that we have been able to make to such an imputation, is, that we want the superstition of matter and motion, of phrenology, and so forth, wherewith to overthrow the superstition of spiritualism. We care not, to the value of five farthings, for the setting up of any new kind of superstition: we will give up matter, motion, phrenology and all, as soon as it is shown to be conducive to that common evil, of which we so ardently desire to be ridded. To bait a mouse-trap with cheese, a fish-hook with the worm, or to prepare a sweet drowning liquid for a fly, are acts not to be considered as a coun tenance of encouragement to the mouse, the fish, or the fly;

Printed and Published by R. CARLILE, 62. Fleet Street. No. 16, Vol. I. 2 I

though there be something captivating in the lure thrown out as a stratagem; so we, morally speaking, hold on to the claptrap of matter, the sweets of motion, and the worm of phrenology, that we may the more easily be quit of the nuisance of the greater superstition of spiritualism. As matter and motion cannot be associated with spiritualism, so neither can phrenology endure for a moment the doctrine of soul. If they be superstitious, we feel our justification in the use of them, for the overthrow of spiritualism and soul; but not any justification for holding to them as a system of faith, when other, newer discoveries may impugn them, and prove them to be superstitious. It appears to us, from all the observations we can make on historical readings, that all old superstitions have been removed by new ones. This use of superstition is not so much a fault, as the abuse of it, when it is no longer required to throw down others. The phenomena of existence may ever remain a matter of superstitious speculation with mankind; and there may be no other medium of acquiring knowledge, than through the metaphysical medium of superstition. The degree of error will be in the degree of superstition used or adopted. Honesty, in the case, is relative, and is to be decided upon by the rejection or non-rejection of superstition, as fast as it be discovered to be superstition. This is our only ground of boasting for our honesty or our knowledge; that we have never used an error, after we have known it to be an error; that we have never proclaimed a known error to be true.

In the present number of "THE LION," there are several papers, which impugn the superstitions of those who would be thought to be free from superstition. They have not reached us in a shape and at a convenient time to make notes upon them; but we shall examine them in print, and, if we see aught that can be impugned, we shall do it at a future opportunity. We like this sort of criticism-it offends no one's prejudices, and conveys useful instruction on most important moral matters. We allude to the papers signed "T. Turton." One only of these was sent for insertion; but we thought the other two too good to be wasted. This article is meant to be an introduction to those papers, and to the one which impugns the astronomical theory of Sir Richard Phillips. We shall not fail to send Sir Richard a copy; and are quite assured, that he is not so far enamoured with superstition, as knowingly to defend it at any point.

To the Editor of " The Lion."

SIR, I Congratulate you on your commencement of another periodical. Its title is of no signification. Whether a Lion or an Ass, when conducted upon principles, such as the "THE LION" sets out with, is of no import.

In the second number, page 35, you say, "To manage and educate a child well, the science of Phrenology must be applied, a science, that promises to produce more substantial reforms in education, than all the changes that have been made, or than all the knowledge that has preceded it. That it is a regular and systematic science, is now placed beyond the doubt of those who will fairly examine it. Indeed, to describe it briefly, all the variance in the human figure and character bespeaks its good foundation." In my view of the subject, whether phrenology be the science, that we must apply to education or not, we must take a cursory view of CIRCUMSTANCES, and apply them to education, as more calculated to produce lasting good in its system. It is circumstance, that is the cause of the interior workings of the brain, which produces the exterior appearances on the skull called organs or developments, and not the organs or developments that are the cause of man's actions.

To say, that, because any individual is possessed of, or deficient in, a certain organ, he is to be denounced or neglected, would be against past experience, and injurious to society. As correct would it be, to despise a man, merely, because of his low birth. Dr. Spurzheim, when at Edinburgh, in 1817, visited the workshop of Mr. Milner, a brass-founder, of an inventive genius in his trade, at which, he made remarks of the probable genius of the boys in the workshop. And Mr. Milner was so struck with the Doctor's observations, that, when workmen, or boys to serve as apprentices, apply to him, he gives preference to those possessing a large constructiveness. Thus, it is, that phrenology, instead of producing a general and substantial good, with respect to science and education, is only partially good and very injurious to others, if acted upon. For the individuals, whether men or boys, would not possess the organ or organs, in question, without being previously excited to acts, scientific or in

genious.

The organ of constructiveness is large in children, who are fond of clipping and drawing figures. Dr. Coombe says, he is informed, that this organ is fully developed in the Italian's head, and the same holds good in a less degree in the French. Both these nations possess this organ in an higher degree, than the English. If this organ were not an effect of education and circumstances, why do not the English possess it equal to the other two nations? The cause is obvious; the image makers in Italy, and the fancy craftsmen of France, being so popular or general, is the cause of the organ. By this, it appears, that education makes or operates on the organ, and not the organ on education. Even the rabbit that burroughs, has the development, it is said, more than the hare, and the same with birds, that build nests, and those which do not.

It is the passion for action, with the action itself, that produces the developments. As well might a schoolmaster expell some of the youths entrusted to his care and instruction, because they possessed some development or practised some objectional propensity; or on possessing no aptitude for learning. But every day's experience proves the folly of such conduct; and, I hope and think, there are fewer in this age deemed incapable of receiving instruction than formerly. Even the testimony of Mr. Edgeworth is against phrenological denunciation, and the system of superior organization by nature. "You have (says he) often heard that there are boys in every school, who cannot learn their lessons distinctly and accurately. Examine every class in this school, and show me a boy of this description. Lay your hand upon any class; let him say how far he has advanced; open his book at any place, and examine throughout

the course of his past studies." On another occasion, Dr. C. observes, that individuals, in whom the organ of amativeness is very large, ought not to be dedicated to the profession of religion. Dr. Gall, who was physician to the deaf and dumb institution, where pupils were received from six to 14 years of age, thus writes :-"Some (says he) had a decided propensity to steal, and others no inclination to it. The severest punishments were inflicted on one of them, but to no effect. He felt himself incapable of resisting temptation, and on examining their heads, he found the region developed in proportion to the propensity. Even the article from "The Farrier and Naturalist" holds out the principle, that there is superiorily and inferiorily organized beings by nature. Speaking of the importance and usefulness of "phrenology in animals," in judging of the characters, habits and capacities of different animals; but more particularly with a view of improvement in breeding, whether it be horses for the turf, hunting, or general use; dogs for the chase, shooting, fight. ing, or for their sagacity. The writer does not include man among his animals, or by the observing of this science, kings, and particularly premiers, statesmen, and commanders would be reduced to something certain, or by the science, wisdom, virtue, courage, &c. may be pronounced hereditary. He sets aside the national and individual changes of character, if the system of phrenology is observed. Only consider the character of the Hottentot and Caffre, whether such conduct and capacities depend entirely upon the brain or the development of an organ-or whether, the national character of the Spaniard, the Frenchman, and the Englishman, is to be attributed to the same cause, or to the government and society, in which they live. The people called Quakers are a striking example, when compared with the Irish: in this country, what changes may be wrought on the character of men; but not by the science of phrenology, but education. The breeding of animals, upon the strength of the existence of certain organs or developments, would not be proof against the degeneracy of the animals, under circumstances of abuse, neglect, &c. What utility to society and education can be produced by the preaching of such doctrines as this, promulgated under the system of phrenology? The doctrine, that there is no help in us, would be as little mischievous, in my opinion, if known as little. This organ or propensity to stealing, is found to be little developed in the skulls of the Caribs: and, travellers say, they are little prone to theft. Phrenologists, speaking of secretiveness among thieves, say, IT prompts to this crime, probably, by the feeling of secrecy, which it generates in the mind. It produces also, that capacity for sly cunning. The organ of destructiveness is small in Hindoo people, and they are remarkable, not only for great tenderness of animal life; but for deficiency in energy of character. Where is the merit of a system, that holds out, that man may be so organized, that he cannot resist his propensities? Why punish such individuals? Or under what pretext punish any individuals? If there is proof, that one individual is so controlled and captivated by his natural propensities, why not all? And of what service can punishments be in the way of deterring others, that feel not the infliction, if, to the individual receivers of the punishment it is of no avail! Of what use are either moral discourses, or good examples? The deficiency of the organ or propensity to thieving in Caribs, and of the organ of destructiveness in the Hindoo people, is evidence, that these organs, like conscience, are created by government, habits, and education, and that the passions produce the organs or bumps, and not the latter the former. And we may presume, that Mr. Bellingham, whose prominency for destructiveness was very large, if he had not suffered, might never have repeated the like deed.

Yet, if we are to judge, because of the existence of one kind of organ, or the non-existence of others, the system of phrenology would have set their mark upon him, and banished him as an outcast. The same with respect to the celebrated Eugene Aram, who, after the murder of a Daniel Clark, lived undetected about thirteen years, was a school-master, and very highly respected, moving in the highest literary circles, viewed as a man of usefulness, and of a character unimpeached. Yet, Dr. Gall, in his observations on his brothers, sisters, and school-mates, concludes, that he NEVER observed, that the individual, who, in one year displayed selfish or knavish disposition, became, in the next, a faithful friend. Let us pass over these remarks of Dr. Gall, and hope, that some system may be, and is acted upon, that will counteract and lessen these phrenologically irresistible propensities, that will ultimately cause murder in England to be less heard of than among the Hindoos, and theft among the Caribs, without decreasing that energy of mind in a virtuous and thinking people; that will operate on a people, that they shall not desire unjustly the property and life of others. Rather let us point out such regulations, for man, in his way of living, to keep within compass; then no more will be heard of the lavish expenditure of any system, whether phrenology, or any other, that has for its object, the removal of causes, instead of studying the means of torture for the effects, as is the well known practice in this country, which operates to the increase of the causes of criminals and crimes, both real and imaginary, not forgetting the imaginary crime of the nineteenth century, of Mr. Taylor and others, conspiring against OMNIPOTENCE! What a propensity in the metropolis of England! Wishing you success in your new publication,

Sheffield, Feb. 2nd.

Your's, &c.

For "The Lion."

TO MR. CARLILE.

THOMAS TURTON.

SIR, The unqualified approbation, which you seem to give, to the theories of Sir Richard Phillips, whenever you have occasion to name them, induces me to mention a strange misconception of that gentleman, in regard to the diurnal revolution of the earth; wherein we discover such a glaring misapplication of his principles, as must tend to throw a very strong doubt over his whole hypothesis of planetary motion.

He says, see page 143 of his work, "The current of the medium of space, which carries forward a planet, would turn it at the same time on its axis; for the projections on its surface would be like cogs on a wheel, and the action would of course be greater on the side of the near hemisphere, than on the side of the remote hemisphere." Now, on the supposition that there was no misconception in the case—and that there is a very great one, I will presently prove-let us calculate fairly, what would be the number of these revolutions made by the earth in a given time, round its axis. To take this gentleman's own statement, it appears, that the difference between the forces of the remote and the near radius of his revolving medium, which he says carries round the earth, are as 5938 to 5937, (see page 454), that is to say, the circle of his revolving medium, which infringes on or touches the inner hemisphere, or that nearest the sun, gains every revolution it makes nearly a six-thousand part on the circle which bounds the outer hemisphere, or, in other words, the inner

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »