PHRENOLOGY FOR THE MILLION, may be conceived that no exercise of a faculty No. XLVII.-PHYSIOLOGY OF THE BRAIN. is possible without an organ, but that the organ BY F. J. GALL, M.D. (Continued from Page 106.) may exist without the faculty to which it belongs, being put in exercise. Professor Ackermann will have it, that men cannot refrain from doing things, for which they LET US NOW PROCEED with another branch of have received material conditions or organs. our interesting Inquiry: ARE OUR ACTIONS UNCONTROLLABLE BY REASON What I have now said on moral liberty, proves how far I am from maintaining the uncontrolable character of our actions. It is not because those who accuse me of this absurdity do not understand my principles; neither will I say that it is through ignorance, or through piety, that they have assumed so bitterly the character of censors of my doctrine. No; let us leave it to posterity to do justice to their motives and intentions, and let us pursue our own task of rectifying erroneous ideas. my Professor Ackermann of Heidelburg, whom adversaries in Germany have adopted as their leader, and whom my adversaries in France have faithfully copied, has directed himself with a suspicious animosity against the innateness of the moral qualities and intellectual faculties. If these dispositions are innate, said he,we have done with moral liberty; our actions are inevitable, and malefactors of all kinds have gained their cause. Observe to what means he has recourse to prove this consequence. OBJECTION. "An organ is the real representation of the faculty itself. The organ being given, its action is so likewise. A muscle which contracts is a different muscle from one which is extended. This is the true definition of an organ; but it cannot be adapted to the trash of Dr. Gall, since he would be obliged to say, that the organs being given, their peculiar action is so likewise, which annihilates the liberty of man." REPLY. All the objections of Ackermann turn upon the same false definition of organ, and I should be almost ashamed to regard them as worthy of the least attention, if they had not found so many partisans. He does not perceive that he contradicts himself. 877. "When the organ becomes atrophous, the faculty of the aptitude which has existed by this organ, immediately ceases. This, experience teaches us. A musician of the greatest powers, if he does not cultivate music, loses the faculty of perceiving and producing tones; the painter loses his talent when he no longer exercises it. This is what will hold true of all the organs of the animal body. The muscles of an individual, obliged by disease to remain a long time stretched on the bed, become atrophous, and the faculty of motion diminishes in the same proportion. The eye becomes atrophous in the darkness of the prison, and the faculty of seeing is proportionally diminished. What need we more to prove, that without a manifestation of the faculty, no new organ is produced or exists, and that the diminution and cessation of activity, involve the wasting and gradual disappearance of the organ ?" ANSWER. I have several times repeated my confession of faith; it is, that the want of exercise may retard the activity and the development of an organ. It is on this that I found the advice to control as If the organ and the manifestation of its much as possible, in children, the exercise of functions are the same thing, the organ cannot organs which may become dangerous; to prevent, exist, unless its function takes place, and the by this means, the facility of action which would agent must disappear every time the function be the consequence, and to favor, on the contrary, ceases; consequences which Professor Acker- the action of organs whose tendency is advanta mann himself derives immediately from his defi-geous; but I have never inferred from this, that nition. Thus, not to lose an organ, we must keep them all in eternal activity, together; we must always, and at the same time, taste, smell, hear, look, touch, run, sing, dance, speak, eat, think, learn by heart, judge, will, &c. In sleep, all the organs of animal life would disappear. Who does not see the absurdity of Ackermann's definition, and, consequently, the absurdity of his whole argument? I call an organ, the material condition which renders possible the exercise or the manifestation of a faculty. According to this definition, it without some manifestation of the faculty, any organ can be produced, or can exist. Men and animals bring with them, in coming into the world, all the organs of the functions of the senses, and even the internal organs which Ackermann supposes, such as the organ of will, of comparison, of abstraction. It would be difficult for him to call in question that we are born with eyes and their nerves, with the tongue, nose, ears, hands, and with the nerves of all these parts, with the great cerebral ganglion, heretofore called the thalami; in fine, with the two hemis laws of a blind necessity, and not by those of reason. But, fortunately, Dr. Gall's doctrine of organs is worth no more than his logic, and his observations of nature taken in a mass. It is evident, that there are not, and cannot be any organs like those which Dr. Gall has invented." ANSWER. pheres of the brain. These parts, therefore, exist, and are born previous to all exercise, before any manifestation of faculty; and though so many animals remain deaf and blind for several days, and new-born infants can neither compare nor abstract, yet all their parts tend, by degrees, to their perfection, and become successively capable of exercising their functions. For the rest, one hardly knows how to answer the metaphysics of Professor Ackermann. It would follow, by taking his opinions literally, that the atrophy of organs is impossible; for if it be true, as he often repeats, that the existence of the organ coincides necessarily with the manifestation of the faculty, it ought to result that the organs, so long as they are not violently destroyed by death, are continually exercised, and thus preserve their exis-immediately to homicide, but simply the natural tence and integrity. OBJECTION. 2 78. "The beautiful hypothesis by which Dr. Gall, in the exposition of his doctrine, thinks to secure the freedom of man, falls of itself; for, as soon as he shows an organ of theft, the being in whom he observes it, must be a robber; and not only has an assassin the organ of murder, but whosoever has on his cranium the organ of murder, must be an assassin. If he says that one may have the organ of murder without being an assassin, I deny this proposition, because no organ can exist without its faculty being manifested; if he objects that the manifestation of the faculty may be arrested by other organs and other actions, I say that in this case the organ ought also to waste, and that, consequently, the organ of murder should be wanting in him who in fact is no assassin." 279. "It must be confessed that the idea of admitting organs without the presence of the faculties which they ought to represent, is an excellent subterfuge, to escape and to answer all the reproaches and all the objections which can be made to organology. For, if any one whose skull is examined, has the organ of theft, and yet is not a robber, it will be said that the organ only indicates the disposition, and that the man, in not robbing, proves that he has had a good education, which has given him the means of resisting a violent propensity. If an arrant knave has not the organ of theft, the difficulty will be got rid of by showing, that respect for another's property has been somewhat set aside by the preponderating action of the other organs, but that one cannot impute this act to the organ of theft, which is entirely wanting." 2 80. "Dr. Gall has a vast field open before him; he may traverse it with short-sighted people, and set aside their objections with extreme facility. But he is overpowered in presence of the true observer of nature, whom he resembles only by his mask. He must of necessity confess that, if there were organs such as he imagines, these organs could not exist without a manifestation of the faculties; and that whoever has the organ of murder must be an assassin, in the same way as whoever never has committed murder, cannot have this organ. He must confess, that such a doctrine, if it could subsist, annihilates the freedom of man, and that then human society could only be governed by the I have combined these three paragraphs, in order to comprehend them in a single answer. Why do my adversaries, when they pretend that I teach the uncontrollable character of actions, always speak of the propensity to theft and the propensity to murder? They know, in the first place, that by the expression, propensity to murder, I by no means design an organ which leads propensity to killing other animals, a propensity which belongs to every carnivorous animal, and, consequently, to man; they know that it is only the degeneration and abuse of this propensity which lead to homicide; they know, also, that we admit organs of goodness, as well as moral and religious sentiments; why, then, do they not say that men are irresistibly led to commit good, moral, and religious acts? Professor Ackermann cannot admit what I have always publicly professed, and what I have now established in this treatise, on the free use of innate qualities, because then, his objections would reduce themselves to nothing. I am, therefore, going to prove to him, by arguments drawn from his own principles of physiology, the truth of what I have advanced above. Though the will has no immediate influence on the vege table or automatic life, or on the organs of this life, such as the heart, liver, kidneys-still Professor Ackermann acknowledges, with all physiologists, that animal life, and the action of its organs in a state of health, are almost entirely subject to the will. Now, as he establishes the principle, that there exists an organ of will in the brain, it would result from his own avowal, not only that all the actions of animal life ought to take place necessarily and always, but also, that by a singular contradiction, will and irresistibility would exist together! As Professor Ackermann always continues to repeat these same objections, I am obliged to hold to the same answers. All his arguments have no other basis than this false definition: the organ is the true representative of the faculty. If the organ and the manifestation of its faculty were the same thing, and their co-existence were necessary, all the organs of animals and of man, those of automatic as well as those of animal life, would have to be continually and simultaneously in action, or an instant of cessation of the action would cause them to disappear. Where do we see any example of this in nature? Does a muscle disappear because it is inactive? Ackermann answers, that a muscle in motion is quite another muscle from that at rest. It would result from this reasoning that the same foot, according as it walks or remains immoveable, would be quite a different foot. Let us again reason on the other avowals which Ackermann makes. He admits the brain as the organ of the soul in general; he establishes, besides this, some peculiar organs in the brain, for comparison, judgment, and will; he regards the combination of solid and liquid parts, the nervous plexuses and the ganglions of the chest and abdomen, as being the organs of the affections and passions. Now, if the objections which he makes to me had any foundation, would not these objections be common to his system with mine? Would it not follow, from his own confessions, that man ought without ceasing to compare and judge, to wish, without cessation, good and evil, truth and falsehood; to be unceasingly a prey to all affections, and to all passions; and that, when in sleep, in fainting, in apparent death, these organs cease to act, all should immediately disappear? The idea which Ackermann conceives of an organ, is so contrary to good sense, that he has not been able to keep himself invariably to the same language. He says expressly, in parag. 77: "The organ and the manifestation of the faculty belonging to it, are the same thing; without exercise, no organ can exist, or be produced; the cessation of action of an organ involves its diminution, and finally its disappearance." He also says, in parag. 78, that no organ can exist without manifesting its faculty; that the man who has the organ of murder must be a murderer, as he who has never killed cannot have this organ. Now, what I am going to cite, is in direct contradiction with what precedes. Professor Ackermann says, in parag. 73: "The manifestation of the faculties depends solely, or in a great degree, on perfectly developed organs: when the manifestation of the faculties does not take place for a long time, the organs or the dispositions must successively diminish, and in fine, disappear altogether." He admits then here, that the birth of organs, their existence, and their perfection, are anterior to the manifestation of their faculties. He does not, then, regard the organ and the manifestation of the faculty as being the same thing. It is no longer on single organs that he makes the faculties to depend-he makes them thus dependent only in a great degree; and in order that the action may be effected, he admits likewise, other conditions. In fine, he confesses that the organs diminish gradually, only when they have been a long time inactive. Ackermann does not content himself with confounding every moment, the total disappearance of organs with this diminution; he also regards simple alterations and maladies of organs, such as hardening, and paralysis, as being the same thing with the complete annihilation of an organ, and takes the effect for the cause; for in these cases the cessation of the functions is a consequence, and not the cause of the malady. In fine, all the statements given by Ackermann are false. Without exercise, says he, no organ could exist or be produced; although just before, he had said, that they are produced and exist a long time without exercise. Are not all animals and all children born with several organs and senses, though they may not have been able to exercise them in the womb of the mother. At all periods of life, the organs are perfected before they can fulfil their functions or be exercised. They exist, then, very well, without any exercise, and without fulfilling any of the functions which are proper to them. The muscles of the external ear are found in almost all men; but since the creation, there have been but a small number of individuals in whom they have been exercised. It is commonly by chance, and after having lived thirty or forty years, without using this faculty, that one finds that he can move the muscles of the external ear, or the skin on the top of the head. Thus, there is nothing but error and contradiction in all the objections of Professor Ackermann and his partisans, M. Moreau de la Sarthe, M. Tupper, &c. M. Kurt Sprengel, eminent for the services which he has rendered to science, has addressed some objections to us on the irresistibility of actions. I sincerely wish, for the honor of German literature, that so distinguished a scholar had not spoken of my doctrine, till after he had been led to understand its spirit and purThat has natuport, otherwise than by rumors. rally happened to M. Sprengel, which happens to every learned man, who wishes to attack a doctrine before understanding it in its whole extent. thinks must flow from this doctrine, he cannot reEven while urging the consequences which he frain from rendering homage to the truths which form its basis. M. Sprengel makes the faculties of the soul and mind depend in part on the brain, in part on the temperament. He extols the advantages of the mind, when it inhabits a healthy body. He acknowledges, as we all do, that health is necessary, in order that the functions of the mind may be duly performed. Too great irritability, he says, has for its consequences erroneous judgments, an ardent imagination, a faithful memory, a refining spirit, irresolution, inconstancy, profound sadness, and inordinate gaiety. The voluptuous character of the fair sex depends on the delicacy of their physical constitution: the soft temperament produces a feeble but sure memory, an indolent conception for love and hatred; a dry temperament gives, on the contrary, many errors, a durable memory, attention to a single object, an imagination often overflowing, and very lively affections of the soul. This last and ancient error has maintained itself till now, among all the physiologists: all continue to speak of the different qualities of the mind and soul which must result from such or such a temperament. The most recent physiologists have no scruples in advancing that the man endowed with a sanguine temperament may in vain wish to renounce the pleasures of the senses, to have fixed and durable tastes, to obtain by profound meditation the most abstract truths: controlled by his physical propensities, he will incessantly be brought back to the pleasures he avoids, and the inconstancy to which he is destined. These assertions are repeated from one age to another, without ever asking or examining whether they are proved by constant experience. What is certain, is, that this doctrine establishes at once the innateness of the faculties of the soul and mind, and the dependence of their exercise on material conditions. Whether these conditions all reside in the brain, or whether they are dispersed through the whole body, in the viscera, in the nervous plexuses, in the blood, or in a nervous fluid,-they are, nevertheless, material conditions, which hold the manifestation of the moral qua lities and intellectual faculties in their dependence. Yet, though M. Sprengel regards the properties of the soul and mind, as consequences of the harmony of the solids, and the combination of the fluids, he nevertheless accords to man a free will, and says expressly that one need only blame himself, if he be led away by his temperament. Why, then, not be satisfied with my asserting also, that man has only himself to blame if he follows the impulse of his organs; and that I believe with St. Augustin, that God, in giving the power, does not impose any necessity.* It is a scriptural as well as a philosophical doctrine, that man possesses no power of his own creation; that he is dependent for all power upon the Deity. If man received from the Deity only the power to act, and not the power to will, the power of divine origin is made subservient to the human power. Infinite wisdom and power are absolute causes; and we can as readily conceive of an effect without a cause, as we can understand a cause as not necessarily producing its legitimate effect.-ED. K. J. TO MY SOUL'S IDOL. I need not token-flowers to tell And pensive shut of night. And gleams the snowy moor. The clouds of doubt between us rolled, My spirit with its ray; For through the tempest and the night To cherish with its steadfast light Oh! hallowed, Heavenly to my view Where thy fair foot hath brushed the dew Oh! may the sorrows of our lot And these dried flowers, which, given to me, Q. AUTO-BIOGRAPHY OF A DOG.-No. XVII. WRITTEN BY HIMSELF. (Continued from Page 109.) you don't, LET me begin to-day, my good friend, by asking you, confidentially-"Do you love roast pork? [Alas, no! or rather, good Fino, it liketh not us. We never eat it.] If don't I! "I believe you, my boy! It is a delicious luxury either for dog or man. A boiled leg of pork and pease-pudding, too-that is not to be sneezed at, at least not by me. But I am not at all particular; and as for vegetables, I like them passingly well. I should not object to dine any day upon a neat little bit of streaky bacon and some tender Windsor beans; nor have I any disrelish for a little morceau of fat, more or less. Indeed, I think every part of the flesh of that very improperly despised animal -a pig, is delicious. In my country, Mr. Editor, we call this animal a Cayon;" and what better sport than hunting a pig? especially if you meet with a long, lanky animal that can run well. How many have I chased in my time! Sometimes I have really mistaken them for a gazelle; so sleek and graceful are they! We do not, in my country, admire the fat, round, plump, comfortable-looking Chinese breed, but we prize those most which nearest approach the tournure of a greyhound (mind, I speak generally, Mr. Editor). I grant the Chinese breed is occasionally met with, and that it is also much valued by its owner; but our bon paysan prefers his "Cayon" of the lanky breed. I don't refuse a bit of pork, even though it has never been cooked at all. I think it excellent when raw. It was my greedy brother Carlo who first gave me this taste. He had a wonderful fancy for uncooked pork, and he did not care how he got it. Entre nous, he was a sad thief; and at the risk of my life I was obliged to accompany him on his foraging expeditions. I blush to say it, but having once yielded to temptation, I soon became as great an adept as himself! But these are sins of my youth, Mr. Editor; and therefore must not be handled with too much severity especially as I am now an old dog, and could look at a leg of pork with the greatest complacency. It would be unwise, however, to tempt any other dog but myself too much. But now to my story. I forget now what brought it back to my memory; but it made me laugh so much, that I determined to brush up my memory and send it to OUR JOURNAL. You must know that my brother was never happy unless he was in mischief. The scrapes he sometimes got me into are quite shameful to think of. I have often thought, if it had not been for his bad example, and his irresistible comic ways in persuading me to join him in all his mad pranks (to say nothing of his catching me by the ear, and making his teeth gradually meet, in case I took too long a time to deliberate before deciding), that I should have been a perfect model of politesse and elegance. However, I am again digressing; and that will not do. It so chanced that there was a worthy "Vaudois " wine-merchant, by name G. His vaults and offices were on the Place St. François. He had travelled a great deal over Europe; and he had also visited Egypt, Syria, &c. He had been at Jerusalem as well as London. He was also a very kind-hearted, liberal man; indeed such a man as you seldom meet with. He was, however, rather too fond of testing the quality of his own merchandise. He was married to an English lady, now living; and having amassed a considerable property (more than he required in his business), he purchased, many years ago, an extensive country-house and farm at "Cour," close by where my old master lived. This he named after his "little wife,' as he used (and certainly very correctly) to call her. She was indeed a little body! There were extensive fields, vineyard, gardens, farm-yard, every description of stabling and outhouses, greenhouse, &c. Also two large dwellinghouses, one of which he occupied himself, and the other he used to let furnished, whenever he had the opportunity. Among the sundry appurtenances to this estate, was a capital range of pigsties, occupied by sundry fine porkers. I should say that, properly managed, the farming would have been as profitable as the wine department; but my friend was too liberal, and perhaps the wine trade was too alluring. He also had it all his own way; there being no rival nearer than Geneva, where resided a certain Mr. A. Now there was a certain tacit understanding between them that they should not poach upon each other's grounds. Moreover, Mr. G. could "spek won leetle bit Anglish;" and his favorite expression was "Hang it, Sare!" Indeed he could scarcely utter a dozen words in English without the favorite "Hang it, Sare!" At his well-stocked cellar at St. François, you might procure every sort of wine; including some capital port, sherry, and Madeira (at least, so I have heard old Bombyx say); also Barclay's and Guinness's stout, Scotch ale, &c. &c. Many a time I have been up into the little bureau at St. François, with my master, to order some stout and wine; but Mr. G. would never let you go till you had taken two or three glasses of sherry, or else a refreshing glass of porter, which, to an Englishman abroad, is really a treat. He had also a supply of Cheshire and North Wiltshire cheeses; and in the winter, once a week, he received a supply of soles and oysters. So you may imagine he was greatly patronised by the English. If you said to this worthy on leaving his bureau, "Don't forget my stout, G.," he would reply, "No, Sare! Hang me, Sare, you shan't have any, Sare. Hang it, Sare,—you shan't have it, Sare, before you get home. I shan't send it, Sare, directly. No, Sare." "Bon jour, G." "Bon jour, Sare. Let me give you one, two glass more ale, Sare; this warm weather, Sare. Hang me, Sare,-it do you very much good, Sare!" However, it was at his country-house that I was most familiar, and, as G. had a beautiful little spaniel, called "Jack," given to him by an English nobleman who once occupied his country house (Lord D., now no more), and a large sporting dog, named "Nero," I and my brother were excellent friends there. Besides, the farmyard and out-buildings were excellent places for sport, and we were there quite "at home." Moreover, do what we would there was never a cross word; it was only :-"Hang me, Sare! if you are not the funniest dog I ever saw, Sare!" Sometimes we invited ourselves to breakfast with him and his two dogs, and about fifteen cats. "Yes, Sare. Hang me, Sare! I am very fond of cats, Sare!" One cat would jump on his shoulder, another on his knee, and another on the table, with her pretty head in the milk-pot. Presently Mrs. G. would come in, with a nice little bit of cold pork; and while G. was playing with the cats, and his card sposa was gone to fetch the mustard, "Carlo" slipped off with the pork, and we would quietly enjoy it under a fine pomegranate tree in the garden. On Mrs. G.'s return--" Well, where's the pork ?" "I have no seen no pork, my dear ;" and then, suspecting all was not right, he would look about, and find myself and my brother, with scarcely anything but the bone remaining. Instead of a good sound thrashing, it was only, Hang me, Sare, you are two impudent dogs. What you mean, Sare, to come and eat my déjeuné? I shan't stand it, Sare." 66 Another bit of pork was produced, and G. went back to his breakfast, as usual, full of good humor. One day we played him a shameful trick; but nothing put him out of his way. He had just been killing a couple of fine porkers, and “Carlo" had seen them-so plump, and white, and tempting, there was no resisting it; and so we determined to have our share. Now this was an abominable shame on our part; for G. was a most excellent neighbor, and never killed a pig without bringing a small joint as a present to Bombyx, and some sausages that Mrs. G. had made herself. But "Carlo" had resolved to have a bit of this pork, and that coûte qu'il coûte. I demurred, and refused to join in such a rascally adventure, whereupon he gave me a savage gripe on the hind leg; but I was as quick as he was, and catching him by his stump (I can scarcely call it his tail, for from his battles and squabbles with other dogs, his caudal appendage was anything but a gentlemanly one, and I should have been ashamed to own such a thing) I soon made him loose his hold. After having allowed myself to be persuaded to "let go," off we sallied; and having inspected the pork, decided upon a prime side which was evidently intended to appear at G.'s breakfast-table, (during the winter) in the shape of nice grilled bacon. So Carlo, seizing it by one corner, and I by the other, we watched our opportunity; and dragging it unnoticed through the farm-yard, got safely into the field. Here we rested awhile, and seeing the coast clear, we started again and got it safely across two large fields, close up to the road. Here a very high close-set hedge stopped our further progress. "Bother it!" said Carlo, "I think we must take it through Père H.'s field. His gate is usually open, and then we can get out. This was luckily accomplished without a very great loss of time, and we now had only to drag it along the side of the hedge till we got opposite Bombyx's residence. Here we also arrived safe and sound. Now came the difficult part-to land it safely inside. To ring at the bell and get the gate opened, we dare not. "I have it!" said Carlo. "We can't leap up the wall with it, but I see how it is to be done.' |