תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

A universal genius!" No, truly. Gall seems to have possessed a power of observation, and nothing more. Every one knows the story of the soldier described by Sallust in the Jugurthine war, who was led, in gathering snails, to the knowledge of a secret pass, which had escaped the vigilance of Marius, and by means of which a citadel, which was almost deemed impregnable, was rendered an easy conquest. It was in a way somewhat similar that the German physician stumbled upon his discovery; which, however, he did not possess the capacity of turning to any great account. But, as we before observed, the disparagement of the man constitutes the recommendation of the system. Here we have the discoverer of the facts incapable of hitting upon the true theory, by which these facts are best explained, while the inventor of the theory has had no in the discovery of the facts. It is scarcely possible that any system could come before the public less liable to suspicion on account of the bias of those by whom it was advanced. Gall observed, Spurzheim philosophised. And as without the observation of the first, we should not have the philosophy of the second; so without the philosophy of the second, the observation of the first would have been perfectly useless.

concern

Gall," proceeds the memoir, "continued to lecture in his own house until the government of Austria, in 1802, thought proper to interdict his lectures. He lingered however for three years in that city, but at length, on the 6th of March, 1805, he and his fellow-labourer took their departure together, with the intention however of returning to this their home, if a more liberal spirit should arise; but this spirit has not yet arisen in Aus tria. They first visited the parents of Gall, who resided at Tiefenburn, near Pforsheim, in Swabia; and various invitations from the northern universities of Germany, induced them to go from place to place, disseminating their doctrines, making new observations, collecting facts in every region they visited, satisfying public curiosity, and establishing a renown which may bid defiance to every

assailant."

Of the renown we at present say nothing. We do not think the science, (if such it may be called) at present in that state which would justify us in VOL. I.

unhesitatingly pronouncing in its favour. But this we positively assert, that the reproach of quackery or insincerity does not lie against the amiable and enterprising individuals, whose lives were devoted to its advancement. Nothing could be more rash or unjust than the charge of "mala fides" which was brought against them by the Edinburgh Review. To this we shall advert by and bye more particularly. The memoir proceeds

"Their first scientific visit was to Berlin which they entered on the 17th of April, 1805. There they pursued their phrenological investigations in the priories and hospitals, and repeated their anatomical demonstrations in the presence of the medical professors and numerous auditors. Outlines of their lec

tures were published by Professor Bischoff. From Berlin they went to Potsdam, thence to Leipzic, Dresden, At Hulle their lectures and and Hulle. demonstrations were attended by the very reil, from whom they were charged with pillaging the self-same discoveries in the structure of the brain, which, on that occasion, they taught him, both in public and private dissections. His own acknowledgments were, I have seen more in the anatomical demonstrations of the brain, by Gall, than I conceived a man could discover in the course of a long life.' In the same year they visited Wiemar, Zena, Gottingen, Brunswick, Hamburgh, Kiel, and Copenhagen. In 1806, they visited Phemen, Munster, Amsterdam, Leyden, Frankfort, Heidelberg, Manheim, Stratgard, and Freburg. In 1807, they visited Marbourgh, Wurtzbourg, Munich, Augsbourg, Ulm, Zurick, Berne, Bale. They either lectured on, or demonstrated the brain in each of these cities; and Doctor Knoblanck, of Leipzic, Doctor Blood, of Dresden, and many other scientific men, followed the example of Professor Bischeff, in publishing outlines of their anatomical and phrenological views, and other works connected with the subject."

As yet their success was by no means answerable to their expectations. They had to encounter a priori objections to matters of fact; and their doctrines were judged with reference to consequences, for which they were by no means answerable, and condemned, in a manner, by anticipation. In the Autumn of 1807, they arrived at Paris, where Mr. Carmichael tells

us

4 H

"They dissected the brain, and repeated their demonstrations before many learned societies. Here at length they became tired of wandering, and determined on remaining a few years. In this city they continued their investigations and lectures. The objections made to their doctrines, on the ground of the intellectual powers evinced by hydrocephalic patients, induced them to renew their anatomical studies with still greater ardour; and they were at length enabled to demonstrate, that the convolutions of the brain consist of a double pellicle, and that the water insinuating itself between the parts unfolds and distends them into the form of a thin and expanded vesicle; and which they argued might retain, to a considerable extent, the original powers of the brain. They also entered into the minutest examination of every part of the brain and nervous system, and presented a memoir on the subject in the year 1808, to the French Institute. It was referred to a committee of five, amongst whom was the celebrated Cuvier. Their report was favourable to Gall and Spurzheim in some things they differed from them in others; and as to some of their discoveries, they gave the merit to other anatomists. But little pleased with this report, Gall and Spurzheim vindicated their claims to originality in their answer, and maintained the utility of their discoveries and the truth of their demonstrations with so much vigour and perspicuity, that there was never any reply on the part of the Institute."

[ocr errors]

The silence of the Institute might have proceeded from contempt; but to what cause soever it was owing, the new system made but little progress, There is no adversary to truth so powerful," observes Mr. Carmichael, "as the force of ridicule; and, with the French, it seems to have double power." Revolutionists as they are, they were certainly not disposed at this period to suffer the whole system of the received philosophy of mind to be revolutionized by a brace of heavy Germans. Spurzheim, therefore, "got tired of teaching those who were ashamed to learn, and hoped that England would prove a more practicable field." His separation from Gall took place about 1813; he first however returned to Vienna, to take his degree of M. D., leaving Gall in Paris, where he was desirous of esta blishing himself as a physician."

He arrived in London in 1814, and

delivered a course of lectures which were well attended. In 1815 he published his work entitled, "The Physiognominical System of Drs. Gall and Spurzheim, founded on an Anatomical and Physiological Examination of the Nervous System, in General, and the Brain in Particular, and indicating the Disposition and Manifestations of the Mind." This was but the signal, as it were, for a flight of poisoned arrows from almost every quarter, against which the German must have possessed extraordinary firmness to have enabled him to stand his ground. Every pe riodical in the empire was opened against him, and nothing which could be effected by argument, invective, or ridicule, was left untried to cover him self with contempt, and to throw dis credit upon his system. But Spurz heim lived to witness a reaction in his favour, which has very nearly turned the tables against his adversaries; and, in one remarkable instance, had an opportunity of demonstrating the ignorance and the malignity with which he was assailed, in a manner so gratify. ing as almost to be sufficient to reconcile him to the calumnies and misre presentations, of which he was wellnigh the victim.

The case, to which we allude, is that of Doctor Gordon, who is the writer of a paper in the Edinburgh Review upon the subject of phrenology, with which, we believe, most of our readers are acquainted. Not content with disparaging and ridiculing, as far as in him lay, the new system, he brought a charge of "mala fides" against its authors, grounded, chiefly, upon their assertions respecting the physiology of the brain, which he affirmed to be downright falsehoods. «The writings," he says, "of Drs. Gall and Spurzheim have not added one fact to the stock of our knowledge respecting the structure or the functions of man, but consist of such a mixture of gross errors, extravagant absurdities, downright misstatements, and unmeaning quotations from Scripture, as can leave no doubt, we apprehend, in the minds of honest and intelligent men as to the real igno rance, the real hypocrisy, and the real empyricism of the authors."

The Edinburgh Review was, at the period of which we speak, one of the most popular periodicals in the empire, and accordingly exercised a powerful

influence over public opinion. Of this power Spurzheim was soon made sensible, from the almost universal ridicule with which his doctrines were regarded. "I did not myself," writes Mr. Carmichael, escape the infection. It was with difficulty I was prevailed on to enter his lecture-room; but having then an abundance of leisure, I thought a few hours would not be much mispent in indulging an idle curiosity, and reaping some little amusement where I could hope for little information. I attended his first lecture, expecting it to breathe nothing but ignorance, hypocrisy, deceit, and empyricism; I found it fraught with learning and inspired by truth; and in place of a hypocrite and an empiric, I found a man deeply and earneslty imbued with an unshaken belief in the importance, and the value of the doctrines which he communicated."

In Mr. Carmichael he had an apt disciple; one, whose natural love of truth, and freedom from prejudice rendered it no difficult matter to remove from his mind the unfavourable impression which had been made by the reviewer. He very soon adopted the system with ardour, and continues to this hour one of its most able and indefatigable promoters. Indeed, the very suddenness of his conversion, and the ardour with which he began to preach the doctrine which he was upon the point of persecuting, may, in some degree, subtract from the value of his testimony, which would, undoubtedly, have been stronger had his adhesion to the cause for which Spurzheim contended been signified after a a somewhat more reluctant incredulity. It was in the November of 1815 that he first arrived in Dublin, where Mr. Carmichael's acquaintance with him commenced. His lectures, on the whole, were well attended, and a very considerable impression was made upon many, by whom, after mature consideration, his leading doctrines were received. The very ablest of our medical men were among the first, and continue amongst the steadiest of his

converts.

Having visited Cork he returned to Dublin in February, and delivered two concurrent courses, "repeating in the evening the same lecture which he had given in the morning. Many attended both, and though the topics were the

same, his language, manner, and illustrations, varied so much, that his auditors felt unabated gratification whenever they heard him."

In March he passed over to Liverpool, where he did not meet with much encouragement. In May he visited Manchester and Lancaster, and felt great delight in viewing the lakes of Lancashire, Westmorland, and Cumberland. In June he made an extensive tour in Scotland; and on the 24th of that month arrived in Edinburgh, bringing with him many letters of introduction, and amongst them one addressed to Doctor Gordon, the head of the party against him, and the writer of the article in the Edinburgh Review, in which he was so roughly handled.

In a letter to Mr. Carmichael, written at this period, he says, "Generally speaking, I am very politely received by every one to whom I am introduced. There are parties, but I shall not interfere with any one; I wish to know them all, and shall make it a peculiar business to study their individual characters. I was naturally anxious to face my conscientious reviewer. The first day I presented myself at his door he was out; the servant advised me to come back on the next morning between ten and eleven o'clock. He was out again. On the third day, at nine o'clock in the morning, I found him. In reading the letter of introduction he kept good countenance; then he feigned not to know me at all, supposed me to be quite a stranger in Edinburgh, and asked whether I had never before been in this town. He could not bear my facing him, and was evidently em. barrassed. I put him at his ease as much as I could-spoke of the institutions-the university-the plan of teaching, &c. &c. &c."

"The next morning I breakfasted at Dr. Thompson's, whose partner he is. He came there, but more embarrassed than when I saw him at his house. He feels a bad conscience. I shall see how far he will mend. I shall never know the reviewer; but keep every where the same free and open language, and provoke him to appear if he like truth.

"I had also an interview with Jeffry the editor. I was introduced to him at the hall of the courts; he asked me whether I was a stranger in Edin

burgh? Whether I had come from London? And whether I intended to make a long stay here? Yes! to give the Edinburghers an opportunity to learn what I maintain. He replied, to instruct them! I merely say, to show what I maintain. He: We are infidel incredulous. I IN NATURAL HISTORY THERE IS NO BELIEF; WE MUST SEE THINGS. Then he was called off to plead; hence our conversation was short, but long enough to see that he is a rogue with self-conceit. He has a fine forehead, combativeness, covetiveness, secretiveness, self-esteem; not much cautiousness, and less approbation, firmness, and ideality. I shall see more of him. The melo-drame has only begun. The evolution requires time; at the end I shall give you a description of the scenes.'

This he does in a subsequent letter, in which he describes his triumph over Doctor Gordon. The Doctor had, in no measured terms, denied the truth of his statements, respecting the structure of the brain; and Spurzheim's defence consisted in exhibiting to the bodily senses of the Doctor and his class, the very appearances which it had been asserted were not to be found in nature.

"From the beginning," says Spurzheim, "I requested these gentlemen not to lose an opportunity of getting a brain. The partner of the reviewer, Surgeon of the military hospital, furnished me with arms to combat them in their own lecture-room. Indeed, I could never have expected such a gratification. The whole happened accidentally, but I could not wish it more favourably. I gave notice to a few of my friends, that the opposite party might not be alone. The reviewer was to lecture at two to his class. I intended to cease and continue after; but he was so kind as to yield his hour to me; so that I had the pleasure of demonstrating the brain to his own class, at his own lecture-table in the presence of himself, Drs. Thompson, Barclay, Duncan, Jun., Irvinė, Emery, and many others. There could not have been a better brain; every thing was clear and satisfactory. The poor reviewer was in the most disagreeable predicament; however, as I was at

his table I did not wish to appear inpolite. I did not mention him; and it was not necessary as he was known to the audience. I only stated, this is denied, and then made the preparation. We are accused of such a thing, or blamed for showing such, or such a structure; and then I presented the structure in nature. At the same time I had our plates at hand, and asked the audience whether they represented the preparations as I had made them ? The answer was always affirmative.

"The reviewer avoids me entirely. After lecture he went immediately to his little room. His partner spoke to me, and mentioned that he will now study our plates."

But Doctor Gordon was too deeply committed to an opposite view, to be convinced, even by an anatomical demonstration; he still affected to make battle, as though he were right and Spurzheim wrong; and the contest assumed something like the appearance of a dispute about words and definitions. Those who were present represent Spurzheim as singularly clear, calm, and self-possessed, while his adversary lost his temper, and ascribed to him things which he never maintained. "I was twice obliged," says Spurzheim, “to provoke him to show where he read his proposition; he looked for the meaning in my book, and instead of finding it, found its opposite."

On the whole, he had every reason to be gratified with his success. Many were convinced-still more were set upon enquiring into the new doctrine, and few, indeed, retained the scornful prejudices which obstructed his success at the outset, and rendered phrenology synonymous with absurdity and imposture. It was during this visit Mr. Combe became convinced of the justness of Spurzheim's views, a gentleman who has since done so much to render the science popular, and who, now that its founders have been removed, must be regarded as the ablest of its defenders.

"He was the first," says Mr. Carmichael," to establish a Phrenological Society in his native city, and to contribute to the establishment of similar societies elsewhere. They have been numer

* In Spurzheim's language this merely means an adept in the savoir faire. ·

ous in the British Empire, on the Continent, and in America, and have even reached Van Dieman's Land, almost our antipodes."

In 1818, Spurzheim married Madamoiselle Perrier, and settled, as he thought, permanently, in Paris. His wife was a most accomplished and amiable woman; and he had the gratification for some time of delivering his lectures to a large and attentive lass. But the French Government, which began to experience considerable inconvenience from the licentiousness of the press, resolved to restrict public discussion of every kind; and public lectures were forbidden without a state license. As the law then stood, Spurzheim might have lectured to a class of twenty individuals; but he was refused a license to instruct a larger number. This necessarily defeated his plan of a permanent residence in France, and greatly interfered with his domestic happiness and tranquillity. For some time he lived the life of a bird of passage between France and England. His active mind, still intent upon the promotion of his favourite science, the knowledge of which, from time to time, he contrived to extend, by his writings in Paris, and by his lectures in London.

In 1827 he lectured in Cambridge, the use of the public lecture-room having been granted to him by the ViceChancellor. He also lectured, with much success, at Bath, Bristol, and Hull, from which last town he continued his journey to Edinburgh, where he arrived by invitation, in the first week in January, 1828.

His reception on this occasion was of the most gratifying nature. He found many steadfast disciples, many ardent admirers, and many candid enquirers into the nature and the progress of the new doctrines; and had the satisfaction of witnessing such a degree of ardour in the reception of his peculiar opinions, as furnished a well-grounded hope of the permanency of phrenology, as a science, in that part of the United Empire.

Before his departure from Edinburgh he was complimented with a public dinner by the Phrenological Society, which was attended by individuals of rank and intelligence, of whose presence he might well feel proud. His health was proposed by Mr. Combe in terms of warm eulogy, which were re

sponded to by the sympathising plaudits of the company. It was a proud day to Spurzheim thus to be hailed as a promoter of Science, and a benefactor to his species in the very city which was the strongest hold of the prejudices that prevailed against him.

The Dublin Phrenological Society, before whom Mr. Carmichael's memoir was read, was founded in 1829, and owes its existence chiefly to the exertions of Mr. Combe, who visited Dublin in the April of that year, and delivered a course of lectures, which materially aided the impression that had been already made by Spurzheim. "At his departure, he earnestly requested that Dr. Spurzheim should be invited to give his powerful assistance to the complete establishment of the science in this city. He accepted the invitation; but in consequence of the lamented death of his wife, he did not arrive until March, 1830. His friends found him much changed in appearance; his equanimity was the same, but his recent loss had made considerable inroads upon his health and strength." He however lectured with considerable effect, and added many to the already numrous crowd of his disciples and admirers. The Royal Irish Academy on this occasion elected him an honorary member.

In June, 1830, he returned to London. From thence he travelled to Paris, and was a witness of the events that seated Louis Philip on the throne of the French. In November he returned to England, and delivered a course of Lectures in Liverpool. there was then all the turmoil of a contested election in that town, and people were too busy with politics to attend with much interest to phrenology.

But

His last visit to this city was in the April of 1831, when he repeated his lectures to an audience more select than numerous, and by whom they were listened to with profound attention. He was himself fully sensible that as an itinerant lecturer he never could do full justice to his subject. "His course, like those on chemistry, natural philosophy, medicine, and moral philosophy, ought to have embraced a period of months, instead of being contracted to the narrow space of two or three weeks." He was, therefore, very desirous of being appointed Professor of Anthropology to one of the Universi

« הקודםהמשך »