« ZurückWeiter »
Section I.--Relevancy of Medical Objections,
III.-Plurality of Organs and Faculties,
CHAPTER IV. (Part 1.) Size the Measure of Power.
Section 1.-General Size of Brain the measure of General Power of Mind, 38
11.–The Doctrine of the Temperaments.- Are they a condition of
CHAPTER IV. (Part 2.)– The Properties of the Brain.
Section 1.--The Duality of the Organs,
II.—The Anatomical Appearances of the Brain and Skull,
III. The amount of Volume of Brain a condition of Intellectual
IV.-Lesions of the Encephalon, and the Results,
CHAPTER V.-The Organs of the Brain.
Section 1.-Size of each Organ the Measure of its Power,
III.-The great Divisions of the Organs into Animal, Moral, and
Rules for estimating Power of Organs,
Sympathetic Stimulus of contiguous Organs,
CHAPTER VI.- Propensities. Do they possess Memory?
Emotions dependent on the presence of related objects,
CHAPTER VII._Domestic Group of Feelings.
Section 1.-Organ 1. Amativeness,
II.-Organ 2. Philoprogenitiveness,
III.--Organ 3. Concentrativeness,
V.-General Observations on the Domestic Group of Feelings, 103
CHAPTER VIII.-Feelings which conduce to the Preservation of the Indi-
Section 1.-Organ 5. Combativeness,
II.--Organ 6. Destructiveness,
VII.-Organ 9. Constructiveness,
X.-Organ 11. Love of Approbation,
CHAPTER IX.-General Observations on the Moral Sentiments,
Section 1.--Organ 13. Benevolence,
IV.-Organ 16. Conscientiousness,
VIII.- Organ 20. Wit or Mirthfulness,
CHAPTER X.-ORDER II.-Intellectual Faculties.
Preliminary Observations upon the Organs and Faculties situated in the
CHAPTER XI.-Perceptive Faculties,
Section 1.-Organ 22. Individuality,
CHAPTER XII.-On the Theory of Beauty,
CHAPTER XIII.-Faculties of Relative Perception.
Section 1.--Organ 27. Locality,
CHAPTER XIV.-Reflecting Faculties,
Section J.--Organ 34. Comparison,
PRINCIPLES OF PHRENOLOGY.
In the past history of the world, it is remarkable that theology has always overborne philosophy in political influence, and the power which is derived from conciliating the popular regards. Physicians and meta-physicians, the expounders of the laws of matter and of mind, have paled their ineffectual fire before the universal dominion of priests. The authority which “sweet religion” bas failed to assert over the human mind, has been ceded to that science which has so often made it a " rhapsody of words;" and the rightful social ascendancy which sincere piety and fervent devotion in vain struggled to vindicate, has been usurped by the professors of that political theosophy which may everywhere be detected in the width of its lawn sleeves, and the ample latitude of its phylacteries. Why is this? Because worship has hitherto been a trade, and religion a state engine; because the love of truth has been less than the love of prejudice; because the courage of philosophers has been more evanescent than the bold arrogance which has maintained the supremacy of hierarchs. Mankind, in general, have in divinity done what the Chinese have instituted in medicine-made the clergyman alone responsible for the cure of their souls, as the latter make their bodies stand solely at the risk of the physician; seldom presuming, and never with success, even in their own personal case, to interfere with the practice of the privileged corporation of spiritual surgeons. They have looked upon the husbandry of their own immortal destiny, as a matter with which they would as soon have thought it incumbent on them to have any individual interest or concern, as the supercargo who had taken the precaution to get his life insured with a respectable company, would have felt himself called upon to intermeddle with the captain's management of his ship in a perilous gale; and so jealous have the people been of the encroachments of philosophical poachers upon clerical hunting-ground, that they have seconded the efforts of chartered priestcraft, to keep all men in the same state of theological dependence with themselves. Men of the most extensive acquirements and almost universal erudition, are, upon the subject of religion, even more ignorant than the great mass of the common inhabitants of every country; and neither the historian; the statesman, nor the patriot, are conversant, except in the most superficial degree, with the theory of popular theology, or the religious profession and general principles of belief which either prevail in the Church, or justify the various orders of Dissent. The gross ignorance of men of literature on all subjects of this nature is not less unpardonable than deplorable. By universal consent philosophers consider the topic as tabooed; and the enlightened and liberal conductors of the public press, from sheer unacquaintance with the Bible, and incompetency to approach the subject, fearless and honest on all other occasions, become timid and time-serving on this. Such is the evil resulting from the erection of religion into a profession: Were each man to make it the concern of personal investigation and individual inquiry, he would no longer be dependent for his views upon the dictum of others, or leave with them his proxy of political and social influence. Were he to feel called upon as a responsible creature to frame his own religious belief, and form, as well as investigate, his own theological opinions, instead of inheriting faith as an heir of a spiritual entail, he would be without prejudices to rouse into intolerance—he would be above the domination of men, whom he was no longer necessitated to entrust with the formation of articles of belief for his guidance and acceptance; and finding from personal experience, the difficulty in which the question was involved, he would have a full measure of charity for whatever conclusions might be the result of the investigations of others, who were discharging conscientiously the duty of examining for themselves. Religion, instead of obstructing, would take rank among the sciences—be studied in the same spirit, and by minds which, in things sacred as well as civil, would be equally open to conviction. By each man being called upon to think for himself, he would infallibly think differently from his neighbour; and the political conspiracy against individuality of opinion, and independence of thought, which is produced by banding theologians into one class of common professional interests, would speedily be crushed with the dispersion of the conspirators who planned it.
Free inquiry has always been obstructed by the priests of prevailing creeds, and ever will be, where it can be done by the exertion of influence. Power is always sweet. Wherever it triumphs, it will be exercised; wherever it is feared, it will domineer. Bigotry and intolerance owe their victory over truth, altogether to the cowardice and dishonesty of philosophers. It has been considered the height of wisdom to be calm and dispassionate. Enthusiasm and intrepidity have been hitherto reckoned as heavy deductions from the sum of sagacity. A bigot has been looked upon as a wild beast, that was to be sopped into slumber, rather than subdued by energy and boldness. Popular superstition it has been thought proper to propitiate by acquiescence, rather than confront by opposition. Error was too formidable to be corrected, intolerance too awful to be bearded; and men at this hour do not scruple to admire and praise the moderation of ancient philosophers, who suppressed the expression of what was unpopular, bowed their heads to the storm of the prevailing prejudices, and pretended to acquiesce in false--so long as they were fashionable-doctrines, trusting, forsooth, to time and change for the success of those views which it was inexpedient at that crisis to maintain or promulgate. Yes, such is the state of modern philosophical morality! Men who pretend to love truth, admire the equanimity of those who concealed it when it was unpalatable, and disclaimed it when it was rejected. And Christ, and Paul, and John, because they loved truth rather than a little life, and preferred sincerity and enlightened religion, to safety and the encouragement of superstition, are pronounced crazy enthusiasts by men who deem themselves philosophers, and are even mistaken for refined and profound thinkers!
Phrenologists are not exempt from a charge, which, without them, already included too many. They have met bigotry by conciliation, not by the assertion of independence; and have been more anxious to disclaim the imputations cast on them by ignorant superstition, than to justify the opinions they have been supposed to entertain by proving their truth. The authority of priestcraft has been strengthened by pleading to its jurisdiction, rather than attacked by denying the competency of the tribunal; and the hierarchy have been encouraged to interfere with the speculations of philosophy, and to raise the hue and cry of heresy, by the supporters of the science pleading the general issue of obedience to orthodoxy, rather than objecting to the relevancy of the accusation of rebellion against established theology, They have satisfied their scruples, by the reflection, that it is needless to offend popus lar prejudices by an assertion of independence, which the exigencies of the case do not require; and that if clerical mugitations can be silenced, and the ululations of Pharisees prevented, without disputing their right to raise the question, or the accuracy of the standard whereby they propose to measure the opinions on which their demurrage is charged, a great advance without risk is made in the promoti of truth! This is singular language for an honest man, and a strange resource the hands of a brave one. A tyrant accuses a patriot of endeavouring to compa
his freedom, and his answer is, not that he is entitled to liberty, but that he has done nothing which is incompatible with the position that he is still a slave. Popular prejudice! What is it? Simply, error, ignorance, falsehood. To offend this prejudice, what is the process ? Only the proclamation of truth, knowledge, and honesty. In acquiescing in, or yielding to it, what is implied? To aid, abet, and encourage . deception,“ omninescience,” and cowardly dishonesty. Such a stratagem is unworthy
of a philosopher, and incompatible with the far higher character of an honest man. Above all, it offends every principle of philanthropy, because it conceals from the eyes of blind ignorance, that truth and knowledge, which are the only sources of virtue and happiness; nay, makes philosophy a party to the imposture, by flattering superstition into the assurance of the truth of its absurdities.
There are many men who discover that error needs no recommendation, but that truth is a medicine which must be concealed in honey before the public will swallow it. They inform the philanthropist, that if he tell mankind what it really is that he is teaching, they will spurn it; and that, as he is doing the cause of truth a service, by expounding his doctrines, he is quite justified in concealing their real nature, and what he believes to be their practical deductions. They will placidly state, that Phrenology, for example, has enough of prejudice to overcome, without its expounder increasing its force by openly disregarding the religious objections which it encounters, and that, for the very sake of the progress of truth, prejudice ought not to be subverted, if, by any other process, he can procure audience to his principles. This is, soften it as we may, moral swindling, and is directly calculated to retard, instead of assisting, the progress of knowledge. The opponents of Pbrenology have not, as in the case of a candid and honest teacher, to attempt its refutation by the standard of truth, but simply to discuss the question of its conformity with received doctrines. The temporising philosopher has, to avoid offending public prejudice, yielded the palm of authority to the dicta of the bigot, and confined himself to an assertion of the harmony of his discoveries with the regnant creed; and the fanatic, in turn, lets the truth or falsehood of his antagonist's theory alone, and tries it by the standard to which he himself has referred the issue of the controversy. Thus, mankind, who are not accustomed to analysis, are convinced that the philosopher's doctrines are not sound, while all the time they are simply not common. All truth is mutually dependent; it is consistent, harmonious, relative. To suppress, or constructively distort one branch of it, is to cripple the stalwart march of the rest. So long as it is inconsistent with popular theology, it must be impeded by assuming or implying that the latter bas a solid foundation. If, therefore, it be desired that truth should progress, its disingenuous defender must at last openly disavow what he constructively professed, and the unpalatable nature of his principles must labour under the additional disadvantage of the insincerity of their professor.
It is indeed perfectly true, that resistance to prejudice, and the assertion of liberty of conscience, in speech and action, must produce temporary disadvantages; and it has been correctly asserted, although in very vague and general terms, that entire sincerity must do harm, and that the premature (as it has been called) disclosure of strange doctrines to the public, has retarded, rather than accelerated, the progress of knowledge. But the harm here spoken of, is, in sober fact, a mere flourish of rhetoric, to conceal by a generalised mode of expression, the distinction betwixt an injury to truth, and a blow struck at its professor; and the progress thus noticed, is not that of information itself, but of the personal prospects of the expounder of the new philosophy. It is the man, not his principles, which suffer by his honesty and courage; and this is what every lover of truth and of his kind, must expect to encounter and resolve to brave. Let the first discoverer of a new series of moral principles, consider himself as the individual whose lot it is to become the victim of superstition; and let him feel that after deducting all the obloquy, and scorn, and poverty, which will be the consequence of his sincere intrepidity, from the accountcurrent of his life, he has to strike a mighty balance in his favour, of truth discovered, good done, and mankind made better, and to board a treasure of satisfaction in his bosom, more precious than the “lust of the flesh and the pride of life." Let him feel that in the army of truth, the lot has fallen on him to lead the forlorn hope, the stprming party, which is to encounter the dubious siege of the bristling fortress of superstition; and when he is to be offered up on the altar of bigotry, let him think of the chaplet which crowns his brow, not of the chains which bind his struggles