MIND AND BRAIN.

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY.

ERHAPS there is no subject in all the wide domain of psychology which is more abstruse and perplexing than the one we are about to consider. It has engaged the attention of scholars in all ages, but all their endeavours to show the connection betwixt mind and matter have proved abortive. The brightest luminaries that ever adorned the firmament of Grecian or Roman learning have wrestled mightily to solve this scientific and most difficult problem, but they were unable. Men of science have conjectured in vain, and the dreams of the savans of our own day-for dreams they are-are as unsatisfactory as those of the early Greek sages, and man is now almost as ignorant of the connection of soul and body, mind and brain, as ever he was. The subject

seems too vast and too intricate for "human ken." Chemistry, which deals in intricacies, is unable to throw any light upon this dark enigma. Physiology has but contradictory and false theories to offer. Anatomy is in a like sad condition; and psychology-which is the science to help us in our investigations of this troubled theme-has itself been left unstudied, if not altogether neglected. And although we do not adopt the theories of our fathers regarding this subject, yet their phraseology is still popular with us. Do we

not still speak of "lily-livered boys," "splenetic fellows," "fellows of the same kidney," "warm-hearted, clear-headed men"? And what are these terms but the expression or perpetuation of our fathers' theories, which placed these affections in those parts of the body? And though they are but theories, it would be difficult to disprove them. And what are many of the "ologies" of our own day but our fathers' theories in another garb? Take phrenology: it confines to the head of man what our Father located throughout the body and head. Then we have the phreno-mesmerist, who is not content with the knowledge of the locality of our faculties, sentiments, &c., but must, by his magic touch, cause the musician to sing, the risible to laugh, the religionist to pray, the swimmer to swim, &c. We have then the physiognomist, who finds in the countenance what the phrenologist finds in the head. We have another physiognomy, called "Symbols of the Human Form," which lays down as its fundamental

principle the arrogant assumption that the Almighty fashioned the human body on purpose to represent the various passions and emotions of the soul, with her intellectual endowments; and hence these men, from the various lines on our skin, presume to tell us of our spiritual and mental nature. And the philosopher of the boudoir descries the soul of her correspondent "oozing out of the tips of her thumbs and two digits, thus giving evidence under her own hand of her virtues and her vices."* We have those also who-tampering with man's credulity-tell us his character from the formation of his nose. The "snub," say they, indicates meanness of intellect; a large "snub" nose, sensuousness; a large "snub," with wide nostrils, evinces an empty and inflated mind; a Roman nose, strength of will; a Greek, straight one, a taste for the fine arts; a Jewish, or hawk-like nose, cunning and shrewdness, &c. We have men, too, who find a man's moral and intellectual power peering through his eyes. These men assert that a large eye-ball indicates brute force; a small one, meanness and feebleness, and so on. They derive like knowledge from the colour of the eye. A pure, white eye, it seems, argues purity of mind; a dirty yellowish, impurity; dark-blue eyes, effeminacy; light-blue, grey, and green, hardiness and activity; hazel eye, masculine vigour. They have a mental quality for almost every possible colour. We have those who have studied the human hand, and

from it they profess to discern our mental and moral condition. They divide the hand into four groups, viz., 1. The elemental hand, which indicates a rough, unfinished mind; 2. The motor hand, strong, largejointed, and broad tipped, symbolises resolution and strength of will; 3. The sensitive, or proper female hand, indicates in man feeling, fancy, and wit; 4. The psychical hand indicates a rare mind, with peculiar purity and grandeur of feeling. We have men, also, who profess to find the like knowledge in their observations of the "foot," the "ear," the "hair," and other portions of the body; so that, according to these various theorists, the human head, face, trunk, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, feet, and hair -all and each of them-have the impress of man's moral, spiritual, and intellectual nature. Now it cannot be said that these psychometries are taught by men of no standing-for the reverse is the fact. Their expounders have been men well known in the scientific and literary world. But whether their teachings are false or otherwise is quite another question; for it may indeed be asked, does the mind influence those parts to such an extent as to enable man to describe the state and condition of the influencing mind? and, if so, how does it so affect those parts of the body? We may ask these questions, but we need hardly expect a satisfactory answer to them. It may further be asked, have these men more abundant proofs of their theories than our fathers had of theirs?

Had our early philosophers any ground for associating cowardice with a pale liver-irritability with the spleen-sourness of temper with the gall-love, its associates and opposites, with the heart, and intellectual endowment with the head? I confess my inability to answer this question. I am satisfied, however, of the possibility of there being "stammerings of truth" in all such theories, and our duty as psychologists is to study every subject that will throw any light upon our science. We ought to study, in some degree at least, the various modern psychometries, as well as phrenology, mesmerism, animal magnetism, and spiritualism. I would give a very prominent place to the latter subject, which is likely to upset some of the hasty conclusions of psychologists, and equally hasty and false theories of physiologists. As the various psychometries profess to be able to aid us in our investigations, let us see whether they are equal to their profession or not; for I take it that psychological science is not yet in a position to cast aside any assistance that other branches of study can afford it. Physiology cannot, in its present state, speak authoritatively on the question of the truth or falsehood of these psychometries. It cannot tell us, for instance, whether the brain is the organ of the mind, or only one of these organs; for the most important branch of the science, viz., cerebral physiology, is, as yet, in the womb of Nature. There is not less than three fundamentally distinct theories regarding that subject.