Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

fection of human character. By them, man loves his wife, his child, his friend; by them, he is rescued from that state of idiocy which solitude engenders, or of savage life which is a condition of imperfect social relation. But for their power, society, with its paramount causes of elevation, would not have existed; and all that is tender, and kind, and affectionate, and endearing, would have been absent from the characteristics of humanity. Destitute, or deficient, or even moderately endowed with them, the most singularly gifted person, in other respects, is a poor, cold, unfeeling, unimpassioned machine, who, even although he should reason, cannot, divested of such elements of judgment, think aright. Be not deceived by the ordinary method of attributing crime to what is called an abuse of the Propensities. Where Adhesiveness is occupied in ardent and elevated constancy, through weal and through wo, to a husband, or a wife, or a friend, it is pursuing its natural course; and to however great an extent it runs in this direction, the faculty is not in a state of abuse, because it is only exercising its function. When this organ is said to produce infatuation, the blame should be attached to imperfect reason, which does not instruct it, and sluggish moral sentiments, which do not regulate it. That the faculty never can itself be in abuse, is plain, from the fact, that when exercised to the most intense extent, we often admire it as an instance of sublimity of character, while the direction which it receives from the intellect and conscience, is the sole test of the moral denomination of the action-clearly showing, that whenever affection is misapplied, it is as much affection as ever, but is made, by an abuse of intellect, and not of itself, an instrument of vice and misery. We endeavour to enforce the doctrine of the natural innocency of the Propensities upon the mind, for the purpose of impressing upon it the absolute imperfection of any human character that is poorly endowed with them, and to show, that although persons so destitute, may escape vice and crime, from the very absence of all temptation, they never can aspire to that warmth, and sincerity, and intensity of impulse, which form the ornament, charm, and very life, of what can alone properly be called virtue. Let it not, then, be supposed, that it is a misfortune to be largely endowed with these feelings; it is only a fault to neglect using reason and sentiment in giving them their direction and regulation. The truly miserable man, is he who never felt their warmth-who never enjoyed their sweet influence-who never experienced their genial and kindly fervour and innocency. Virtue itself is not virtue, that is not tempted; and temptation without passions, is impossible.

Let it not, too, be imagined, that the general sentiments of justice, and benevolence, and reason, can supersede these special affections. It is written, " He that provideth not for his own, especially those of his own household, is worse than an infidel;" and our religion itself, therefore, forbids us to embrace, in our heart of hearts, all society equally with the circle of our own roof-tree. If, indeed, such a cosmopolitan principle were reduced to practice, the very extension of the field of our regards, would reduce the efficacy, or rather destroy the sphere of individual usefulness. The happiness of society is surely not best to be secured by breaking each man loose from his own little home, and by emancipating him from those intense attachments which there alone work with the best applied concentration. The true wellbeing of social life arises from the summation of particular utilities which each man, under the impulse of his own peculiar affections, contributes to the general good. There is, indeed, the utmost difference betwixt that devoted and sustained habit of well-directed exertion, whereby these Propensities prompt us to supply the wants, multiply the enjoyments, and cherish the affections each of our own particular household, and that general principle of philanthropy whereby we are compelled to consult the happiness of the entire surface of society. The former supplies the defects of our own ignorance of the means of securing the efficacy of the machinery by which each particular felicity is made productive of aggregate enjoyment, and leads us to do that by an instinctive affection, which reason would never have been enabled to discover, however much she may admire; as the bee furnishes the best model of a commonwealth, while he is only busy in extracting the honey from his own particular flower, and has regard solely to the individual burden of his own gathered wax, which forms a unit in the strength and commodiousness of the general hive. Let us not be misunderstood in this, to maintain that a universal and diffusive benevolence is to be thus superseded or depreciated. Special affection is not to overwhelm a generalised philanthropy, but only to take its own place in the dignity of

human character. We only here vindicate the special affections from the degraded character which has been attributed to them, and to show that Benevolence itself is subsidiary to, and a superstructure upon, them. In truth, Benevolence is not an affection at all, and never makes the bosom cling to another's heart. It relieves want; it is compassionate; it is kind, gentle, distributive, averse from cruelty, desirous of diffusing happiness. But it is not loving, affectionate, or possessed of that free-masonry of soul, which, in the special affections, searches through every corner of kindred hearts, and clips them to its own embraces. Special affection here would mar the very universality of the philanthropy, the keenness of individual warmth only checking the diffusion of the genial principle. The special affections are like the intense, concentrated, and lurid glare of the burning furnace or the boiling volcano. Benevolence, like the sun, less ardent and more wide extending, is niggard of its heat to each particular continent, that it may give light and life to the entire universe.

CHAPTER VIII.

FEELINGS WHICH CONDUCE TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

SECTION I.-Organ V. Combativeness.

IN Phrenological researches, the student has this difficulty to obviate, that he may very often mistake the action of one faculty for that of another, and may be misled by the observations of others, liable, as they are, to the same cause of fallibility. Thus, for example, when it is said that Adhesiveness produces extreme constancy of attachment and selectness of acquaintanceship, the proof upon which this statement rests, is, that where this mental manifestation has been experienced, a great developement of Adhesiveness is seen. But unless it be proved, that these coincidences appear with all varieties of developement of the other organs, it is clear that they are not conclusive of the fact. It may so happen, that large Concentrativeness has occurred in all these cases, and so may have been the cause of that constancy and circumscription of the regards which was traced to Adhesiveness, solely because that quadrated better with some favourite theory of the observer. From this circumstance, numerous mistakes have occurred, which are peculiarly illustrated in the history of the organs which we now proceed to consider.

"In

At, or rather immediately below, the posterior inferior angle of the parietal bone, is situated the next organ, called Combativeness. Its size is indicated by the protrusion of the brain immediately behind, and rather above what is termed the mastoid process, those two bones whose edges are so prominent behind each ear. man," says Gall, "the organ is situated nearly an inch behind the ear, and on a level with its superior margin. When no such protuberance is found in people of this disposition, we shall find instead thereof, the distance betwixt the corresponding organs much greater than in timid people."

This organ has been called Combativeness, from its being observed to be large in the heads of all persons who are fond of fighting. But Mr. Robert Cox has observed, that its primitive tendency is simply to oppose, and may exist in great activity in self-defence. He has christened it, Opposiveness. Like the other propensities, it is a desire of pleasure, and seems to resolve simply into the love of resistance or the desire of repulsion. In the head of Charles James Fox it is of enormous size, and it is quite certain, that his fame rested entirely in his talents for opposition, for confessedly he did not appear to half so much advantage when he was on the Treasury benches, as when he headed the party out of power.

The function of this organ is described in its name.

Some men question nothing. When attacked, they retreat; when opposed, they give up the contest. An arduous duty paralyses them, they lose heart, or it sinks within them. They say at the very first, before making even an attempt, “ I cannot do it." "A soft answer turneth away wrath." If they are to open a case, they

P

do well, but they cannot make a reply. They sit down in despair, with their hands across, in a storm at sea; and it needs the Parrys, the Rosses, and the Franklins, with enormous Combativeness, to go through, undaunted, such a scene. In religion, they hate polemics, and eschew controversy, endeavouring to convert mankind by example and by "sound practical moral discourses," rather than by clearing up points of doctrine.

There are other men who, in an occasional address, utterly fail, but who are famous debaters, and happy in a reply. From such are always selected the champions of parties. Dr. Andrew Thomson, who so long distinguished himself in the Church of Scotland for his controversial talents, possessed this organ in large endowment. These persons are imbued with the spirit of contradiction. They will not agree with you on any account, and may even regret that you agree with them. They never know when they are beaten. Others manifest this organ by the spirit of litigation. They contest every claim, and question every right; they hate to settle any thing"Let the law decide it," is their motto. How many have exhausted a splendid fortune in contesting mere trifles! The fact, astonishing as it may seem, that the expenses of litigation in this country, exceed the sums in dispute, is conclusive of this point. An agent of this kind at last had no business, except cases in which he himself was litigant; and, upon opening his will after death, his executors discovered that they were taken bound to carry every action in which he was unsuccessful, to the House of Lords. The passion for boxing, and for all matters of what are called the "fancy," seems to arise from this organ. The love of "fair play," upon which Englishmen pride themselves, is just a desire that the battle shall not be soon ended by too easy a victory. Neck-and-neck races, or those which are most severely contested, are those which are most liked. Sir Walter Scott's works give ample manifestation of the very large developement of this organ, so conspicuous in his head. Pitched battles, either in single combat, or in armies, are his forte; and he is so extremely minute, particular, and scientific, in describing exactly every "round," as it may be called, in the struggle, that no one can doubt the unction with which he treats the subject. His setting himself down, at an advanced period of life, to begin the world again, and to write himself out of £100,000 of debt, is an indication of the undaunted spirit of Combativeness, of which there are few parallel cases. The massacres of Glencoe and Saint Bartholomew, were the result of pure Destructiveness. The motto, on the contrary, of great generals who love war, and hate cruelty, is suggested by Combativeness:

"Parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos."

The different combinations in which this organ is found, lead to apparently very opposite results. Where there is large Cautiousness, good Reflective Faculties, and large Language, Combativeness exhausts itself in argumentation of all kinds. Personal collision is avoided, and the war relates to mere abstract speculations. If a person so endowed, be a general, and possess good Firmness and Secretiveness, he will manœuvre; he will be cool, unimpetuous, the reverse of rash. He will stand upon the defensive till he catches his opportunity, and gain the day more securely. Such a man was Fabius. If he have deficient Cautiousness, he will rush at once into action, like that consul's colleague. Robert the Bruce was a contrast to his brother Edward, in this respect. In him, Combativeness was supported by large Cautiousness and Firmness. If to these be added large Secretiveness, Language, and Reflective Faculties, the individual will become an anonymous polemic or politician, engaged in a continual paper war. It is necessary to the party man, and produces esprit de corps, when coupled with Self-Esteem, or Love of Approbation. The American Indians, who never fight until the odds be greatly in their favour, have not much Combativeness.

The faculty has been called that of courage, by a mistake of its function, which is that of the mere desire of opposition, and does not of itself constitute intrepidity. Persons of a testy, fretting, fuming, quarrelsome disposition, are often very deficient in courage; and those who spend their whole lives in one continued debate, often manifest very little real spirit or intrepidity. Bullies, too, possess this organ large, and yet carry little constancy of soul with them. It is, indeed, not only common, but the more general case, that men, who are of a quiet, peaceable temper, bear themselves through a quarrel with a far more undaunted front, than he who is never out of a dispute. The truth is, courage is not a single faculty, but results from a

combination of organs. In some, it is the absence of fear; in others, the resistance of fear; and, in many, the love of danger or of glory. In the struggle of contending faculties, the most predominant will take the lead. It will absorb all the activity of the mind, and for the time banish the solicitations of the rest. Where Cautiousness is small, there is an insensibility to danger, which presents all the characteristics of Courage. Persons not combative, and at the same time cautious, if they possess large Firmness, Self-Esteem, or Love of Approbation, often manifest considerable courage from their great self-command, and the fear of a charge of cowardice. Such are those who stake their lives in a duel from fear of being posted. These persons do not court danger, but meet it when it comes. The effect of Combativeness on the manifestation of courage, is in the desire, love, or rather impulse, to oppose. When that absorbs the mind, Cautiousness, unless it be also large, is, for the time, rendered inactive by the superior energy of a more powerful organ. If Cautiousness be larger, and Firmness be small, then fear will lead the way, and Combativeness be overpowered. The bully will sink into the poltroon. If Destructiveness be large, the love of carnage will bear the palm from weaker Cautiousness; and if Firmness, Combativeness, and Destructiveness be all large, while Cautiousness, Vitativeness, or, as M. Vimont would term it, the love of Self-Conservation are weak, there will be fool-hardiness, and a love of danger, because an uncontrollable desire for opposition and aggression. All of courage which is produced by Combativeness, is the desire for a state of struggle, contest, resistance; which, when large, absorbs weaker organs which might otherwise keep it in check. To produce an undaunted man, there is required very large Firmness, to give what, in the flash circles, is called game or bottom. The former continues the struggle; the latter endures the punishment, and dies hard. Lord Falkland and Hampden, who, on opposite sides in the civil war, were for ever calling for peace, and yet were full of calm courage, seem to have been inspired only by Firmness, Self-Esteem, Conscientiousness, and, perhaps, Veneration. They are well contrasted with the Reformers, John Calvin and John Knox; whose punctilious pugnacity, and fastidious opposiveness, demonstrated the hearty goodwill with which they grumbled, found fault, and carped at every thing that was done, complaining of all measures adopted by all parties. The Combativeness of Melancthon, who endeavoured strenuously to defend Calvin for having burned Servetus over a slow fire, appears also to have been large.

The Irish, with small Cautiousness, large Hope, and powerful Combativeness, take the primitive way of gratifying it by the onset of the shillelah; armed with which, they

"Meet with a friend, and for love knock him down."

The Scotch, with as large Combativeness, have less Hope, and more Cautiousness. Avoiding fisty-cuffs, they take to a war of words, become the most vehement schismatics, and fight behind the stockade of mere opinion. The true Irish all concur in religious opinion, are Catholics, and evaporate all Combativeness in a row. The descendants of the Scotch in the North of Ireland, have a different sect for every hundred of the inhabitants, and they never fight.

The statues of gladiators, and of Hercules, manifest a large endowment of this organ; and from that it may be inferred, that sculptors have observed this protuberance to be a characteristic of pugnacity. In the heads of their female figures, this organ is represented as deficient, in strict accordance with the mental manifestations. But Christina, queen of Sweden, the only child of the famous Gustavus Adolphus, who was born when her father had been for some time in the very midst of his wars, resigned her throne that she might adopt the manners and dress of a man, and she accordingly fought duels, and murdered her secretary. So of Verulana Gracilia, mentioned by Tacitus, and many others.

Great liability to anger seems to arise from the combination of this organ with Destructiveness. When the latter only prevails, there is not so great a susceptibility of wrath, although it will be as violent when it occurs. A habitual scold pos

sesses a considerable share of this desire. Coexisting with powerful Benevolence, the individual is liable to be excited upon the least appearance of cruelty; to be the champion of the oppressed; a universal undertaker of the cause of the weak against the strong. Wanting this organ, Benevolence would pity, but could not relieve; and Justice might be grieved with the wrong, but would not step forward to redress it.

In the lower animals, the contrast in breadth of head above the ears, betwixt the hare and game-cock, the greyhound and bull-dog, is very apparent. The horse likes to follow the hounds, only if he be running against others. He only races with spirit when he has a competitor; he is fond of war; the bugle makes him prance and shed his crest.

A reference to the heads exhibited under Amativeness, will show the contrast of this organ in large and small endowment. The extension backward from the tip of the ear in each is very different.

The organ is established.

ear.

SECTION II.-Organ VI. Destructiveness.

THE organ of Destructiveness is situated immediately above the orifice of each The upper part of the flap or outer fringe of the ear covers a portion of the organ, which runs a little backwards and forwards from this fringe horizontally. It rises a very little way above this appendage, and is situated immediately below the organ of Secretiveness. The breadth of the head betwixt the two hemispheres of this organ, at each side of the head, extending outward, as taken by the callipers, is a good test of its size. If, in a head of 22 inches in circumference, it measure six inches at this part, straight through the head, the organ is in considerable endowment. It is also to be observed, that the extension of the organ downward, is another index of size. If the hole of the ear be considerably below a line drawn horizontally from the external angle of the eyebrow backward, then is the organ to be considered proportionally larger.

This is one of those organs, the ultimate function of which has not even been approached, and about which Phrenologists entertain all varieties of opinion.

While Dr. Gall termed it the carnivorous instinct, he granted that one of its manifestations was that of anger and fury; and we have but to turn to the bull, the stallion, the wild boar, the elephant, or the rhinoceros, to see that creatures which never taste animal food, can be dreadfully angry and ferocious. He also called it the organ of murder, or of killing, and that, too, in the very same dissertation in which he remarks, that it is large in all incendiaries, who often never kill at all. Dr. Spurzheim remarked, that Gall had named the organ by the abuse of its function, and that the proper office of the faculty was to produce the desire of destroying. But one may be extremely enraged without wishing to destroy-nay, much angered when it is discovered that something is injured. Drs. Vimont and Broussais seem to be of opinion, that the granivorous or herbivorous taste exists with a low endowment of Alimentiveness, and the carnivorous with a high developement of that organ, which being contiguous to Destructiveness, may have misled Dr. Gall to suppose the latter to be the carnivorous instinct. They hold that the organ of Destructiveness has for its function the desire of detaching, dismembering, taking to pieces, manifested in herbivori, by disengaging the grass from the ground; and that in carnivori, the desire for flesh is created by higher Alimentiveness, the act of killing, or torturing, being only a different mode of dismembering, and evidence of no higher Destructiveness. Mr. Robert Cox, in several very interesting and ingenious papers in the Phrenological Journal, has endeavoured to show that Destructiveness is the effect of a disagreeable affection of all the faculties, while Benevolence is their agreeable state; or, in other words, that the former is roused whenever any organs are disappointed, and the latter, when they are gratified.

The real difficulty presented by Destructiveness, is not the nature of its phenomena, for about that all are agreed, but its ultimate function. The endeavour of the metaphysician ought, in the first place, to be, to discover such a definition of the faculty as will embrace all its modes of activity, and from this general term to proceed to simplify still further. No one doubts, that anger, malice, and all uncharitableness, are, somehow or other, connected with this organ; but the proper question for solution is, truly, in what particular do all the phenomena agree?

Phrenologists have, in their love of hypothesis on the one hand, and of empiricism on the other, forgotten to settle steadily in their minds some leading doctrines of the science, which are fatal to the validity of many of their opinions, even where no further advance is made in the investigation of their analyses. If Mr. Combe be

« ZurückWeiter »