Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

conscious of a lively train of ideas; shall determine to keep them in memory when awake or till awake; and yet, at the very instant of acquiring so much power of voluntary motion as to open his eyes, the whole train of ideas shall vanish, nothing of them remaining except the consciousness of their loss. All this is the event, probably, of a moment of time, if not less.

III.

Case of Spectral Illusion. - Communicated in a Letter to the EDITOR.

SIR,I take the liberty of sending the following case of Spectral Illusion, as it affords an additional illustration of the truth of the phrenological views on this subject.

A gentleman with whom I am acquainted, of rather full habit, and somewhat indulgent in the pleasures of the table, retired one day, after dinner, to take his customary dose in the afternoon. Before lying down he was suddenly seized with a sense of faintness, staggered, and would have fallen had he not laid hold on the bed-post, which supported him. At the same moment he felt uneasiness and pain in the head. On a sudden he perceived, as it were, a number of faces looking over his right shoulder, of various forms and sizes, with large staring eyes and hideously contorted features which moved without ceasing. After a few moments the pain of head subsided, the spectres vanished, and he regained the power of standing erect. When relating the occurrence, I requested him to point out the precise situation of the pain he experienced, and he immediately referred to the lower part of the forehead and the eyebrows, including particularly the regions of Form, Individuality, Size, and Weight. This gentleman was, at the time, wholly unacquainted with Phrenology, and desired me to tell him my reason for enquiring the situation of the pain. He had never before experienced illusions, nor has he suffered any return of them. It is interesting to observe, that in this case the organs of the perceptive faculties are largely developed. I remain, &c. W. U. WHITNEY.

3. North Street, Westminster.

IV. Case of Monomania, apparently induced by great and unusual Stimulus to the Organ of Tune.-Extracted from the ATHENÆUM, for August, 1837.

[ocr errors]

"Sensibility to Music. The published fact of the female who died from hearing too much music, we do not imagine to be

well known in this country; we therefore give a sketch of it taken from the Surgical Repertory of Turin. A woman, twentyeight years of age, who had never left her village, or heard a concert, was present at a three days' fête in 1834, and dancing was carried on to the sounds of a brilliant orchestra. She entered into the amusement with ardour, and was delighted; but the fête once finished she could not get rid of the impression which the music had made upon her. Whether she ate, drank, walked, sat still, lay down, was occupied or unoccupied, the different airs which she had heard were always present, succeeding each other in the same order as that in which they were executed. Sleep was out of the question; and the whole body being deranged in consequence of this, medical art was called in, but nothing availed, and in six months the person died without having for one moment lost the strange sensation; even in her last moments she heard the first violin give some discordant notes, when, holding her head with both hands, she cried, Oh! what a false note, it tears my head. We have heard of another instance of this in an aged person, who, from the year 1829, has the greatest difficulty in going to sleep, because he every evening feels an irresistible desire to hear an air which belongs to the mountains of Auvergne. He has tried reading aloud, thinking deeply, and several other means to get rid of it, but it is of no use; he is invariably forced, mechanically, to utter the words in the idiom of Auvergne. We ourselves have seen the most alarming effects produced upon children by music to which they were unaccustomed, and fevers ensue in consequence."

V.

References to other Cases mentioned in the present No. For Dr. Elliotson's account of the development of Greenacre, see our Notice of the Lancet. For Mr. Levison's observations on the Philoprogenitiveness of the Cuckoo, see the Notice of the Analyst. For a case of morbid manifestation of Amativeness, see NOTES ON OPINIONS. For an instance of double consciousness during sleep, see SHORT COMMUNICATIONS. And for Tiedemann's facts proving (though not intended to prove) the inferiority of the Negro to the European head, see Dr. Combe': admirable critique, pages 13 to 22.

III. NOTICES OF BOOKS.

I. The Philosophy of Instinct and Reason. By J. STEVENSON BUSHNAN, M. D. &c. Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1837. Small 8vo. Pages 316.

ANNO DOMINI, 1837!-Here we have a treatise on the philosophy of instinct and reason, written by a physician of good ability, and young in years, wherein the author avowedly neglects the lights which Phrenology would have thrown upon his subject! We had always supposed that Phrenology was only another name for the philosophy of instinct and reason; but Dr. Bushnan appears to think otherwise. We phrenologists are apt to look upon our science as being the philosophy of mind; and how the philosophy of instinct and reason can differ from the philosophy of mind, we must confess ourselves wholly unable to point out, even after attentive perusal of Dr. Bushnan's work. Judging by the book, however, we may venture a supposition, that the philosophy of instinct and reason differs from the philosophy of mind, or Phrenology, much in the same way that a field of wheat in early spring, yet young and unproductive, differs from a field of wheat in summer, when its bending ears give promise of a weighty harvest. But whilst the author neglects to avail himself of that aid which our science might have yielded in his investigations, he by no means overlooks its claims to notice. On the contrary, he discusses them with more justice and judgment than has been usually manifested by those who withhold their assent to its peculiar doctrines or principles; while some of his criticisms are not undeserving of the attention of phrenologists. This advance towards discussing the subject in a fair and philosophical manner, with the general merit of the work, will induce us to give a somewhat lengthened notice to that portion of it more directly bearing on Phrenology.

The gradual change of public opinion, touching this science, is strikingly shown by the very different terms in which it formerly was, and now is, spoken of by non-phrenological writers. Some twenty years ago there was no neutral ground. They who spoke of Phrenology at all, if not explicitly adopting its doctrines, almost invariably represented it as being either a tissue of deception or an egregious folly. By slow degrees the tone of hostility and contempt has softened down and dissipated, until now-a-days the old pass the subject by unattacked if not

[blocks in formation]

unnoticed, and the younger writers speak of it with forbearance and respect. In writing on the Moral and Intellectual Powers, as if no such science as Phrenology were in existence, Dr. Abercrombie lately afforded an example of the former of these two classes, and we shall presently adduce another. Our author above named is an instance of the latter, in expressing his belief that "a chapter devoted to the opinions of philosophers as to the nature of thought, would be incomplete without some notice of the modern doctrine of Phrenology." Accordingly, he proceeds to institute a comparison between Phrenology and Physiology, for the purpose of explaining how far the former is supported by the latter. To facilitate such a comparison, he gives his own definition of the two branches of science; certainly much too limited, but which, with a slight qualification, imme diately to be mentioned, may be temporarily received. He says, "that the conclusions of physiology are founded on the anatomical scrutiny of the nervous organs, and on the results of experiments made by cutting or removing certain parts in living animals,; and no special function has been assigned to a part unless it possesses distinct boundaries discoverable by inspection, or rendered sensible by anatomical manipulation." In contradistinction to these methods of observation, he writes, "the phrenologist looks to evidence of a very opposite [different] kind; he regards the surface of the brain in contact with the skull as developed in the ratio in which the aggregate of the organs conceived to make up the encephalon [cerebrum] is developed, and determines the place of each organ, when, on examining the external surface of the head in the living body, he discovers, or thinks he discovers, an unusual extension of the skull peculiar to those individuals who are observed to excel their fellow-men in the exercise of some particular mental faculty." Now, in truth, neither phrenologists nor physiologists do respectively limit themselves to these methods of discovering and proving function; and we can assent to the definitions, only in so far as they are indicative of the methods chiefly resorted to by the respective parties. It is well known, for instance, that phrenologists derive assistance from anatomical observations on the brain, and from noting the concomitance of its local lesions with aberration of function. It is equally true, that states of disease have often first suggested the functions of parts, and that experiments have then been resorted to only for confirmation of inferences already made. Indeed, some of the most valuable discoveries of experimental physiology have been attained in this way; and may we not add, also, that comparatively little advantage has been gained by experiments made without some such guiding clue? And further, physiologists do assign "special" functions to

parts having no distinct boundaries, as our author may see by reference to Mr. Carpenter's essay on "unity of function," in the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, No. 45.

As a physician and physiologist, Dr. Bushnan of course acquiesces in the first general principle or postulate of Phrenology, that the brain is the organ of the mind; or, as he would express the fact, in more general terms, " that all the phenomena in the animal kingdom that can be termed mental, are manifested through the nervous centre. On this point," he continues, "there is no room for controversy, and those who have denied or disputed it, have only shewn how ill prepared they are with the information requisite for the proper investigation of the functions of the mind." (We recommend this statement-and it is one that no medical physiologist will venture to contradict

to be contrasted with Lord Jeffrey's dogmas, in the Edinburgh Review, No. 88.) The general principle of a subdivision of functions in the nervous system is also held out, by our author, as established physiology; but he adds, that physiology has not yet shewn such a localisation of functions in the several parts of the brain itself, as is maintained by phrenologists. Certainly it has not done so, taking our author's own definition of physiology: wilful mutilation of the brain has hitherto proved little or nothing, excepting its own uselessness, or the unskilfulness and cruelty of the experimentalists; and structure alone does not reveal function. But we need not remind Dr. Bushnan that the failure of experimental physiology is no valid argument against the success of phrenological methods of solving the question at issue. Indeed, he freely allows that physiology, at present, leaves the whole brain to the phrenologists, "since it appropriates to that part of the encephalon no function but such as the faculties enumerated by him affords a substitute for." And two pages before this, he had also written, "neither can any logical objection be brought to bear against the plan on which the phrenologist proceeds in determining the seat of the organ. Under such circumstances, it would be unwise to refuse assent to discoveries made by one method, against which no logical objection can be brought, merely because the same discoveries have not been also made by another method, the very failure of which must tend to prove its insufficiency. Had experimental physiology here proved something adverse to phrenological doctrines, there would have been just ground for doubt or denial. But whilst it is allowed to have established no adverse fact, and the little which it has tended to establish is allowed to be so far confirmatory of phrenological views, it would be quite illogical to attach much importance to the mere blank. Our present author looks at the matter in this

[ocr errors]
« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »