Obrázky na stránke

combat in favour of truth with all the energy of a powerful mind. What is this but OPPOSIVENESS ?*

Mr Scott." True Combativeness shews itself in prompting to strike, whether there be occasion or no.”—Obs. If Mr Scott mean that this organ is the direct prompter of blows, I cannot assent to his opinion. It appears to me, that without Destructiveness neither blows nor wounds can be given, for the mere pleasure of doing so. The latter propensity urges to the infliction of injury-physical or moral, mortal or trivial,—on the persons or property of ourselves or others, or on the reputation of those whom we dislike; and from it originates every action which has for its object the production of pain, uneasiness, destruction, mutilation, or defacement. The name of this faculty, as well as of that more particularly under consideration, is therefore by no means sufficiently comprehensive; for it incites men not merely to destroy, but to torment, disable, punish, hate, annoy, slander, and take revenge. In fighting, both Combativeness and Destructiveness come into operation; and the latter seems to me quite as indispensable in the character of a pugnacious man as the former. It is Destructiveness alone, I repeat, which is gratified by the infliction of a blow. When Combativeness is deficient, or is overborne by Cautiousness, blows are directed against some defenceless object, and the wellknown phenomenon of a ferocious coward appears. When Combativeness is large, and Destructiveness moderate, fighting is resorted to for the purpose of gratifying the love of opposition and contention; and the blow is inflicted by Destructiveness rather with the view of raising up an antagonist, than for the pleasure of causing pain. Wrestling is a species of contest where Combativeness acts with little, if any, Destructiveness. When a man boldly walks up to, and attempts to disarm, a highwayman whom he sees awaiting his approach, he acts under the impulse of Combativeness alone: when blows are added, Destructiveness also comes into play; he not only acts in opposition to the highwayman, but also inflicts injury upon him. In such a case, he whose Combativeness is large, and Destructiveness small, will probably desist as soon as the highwayman is in his power; he in whom both are large, will continue still to belabour him; while he who has Destructiveness and Cautiousness large, with Combativeness deficient, will decline the conflict altogether, and at once take to his heels-or, if a companion should fight with the highwayman, will keep out of the fray till the enemy is overcome; upon which he will suddenly acquire magnanimity, and apply himself with vigour to the duty of chastisement and

See an allusion to a similar trait in the character of the poet Burns, in the 41st No. of this Journal, p. 62.

revenge. It is to be observed, however, that a remarkable sympathy exists between the two organs in question, probably from their juxta-position in the brain. When one of them is highly excited, the other seldom remains quiescent. It is with great difficulty that persons who engage in contention avoid becoming angry and ill-natured; while, on the other hand-as Dr Thomas Brown has remarked, though in too unqualified terms"when anger arises, fear is gone ;-there is no coward, for all are brave."* This simultaneousness of action appears to be the principal cause why the functions of Combativeness and Destructiveness have hitherto been so much confounded.

[ocr errors]

The skulls and dispositions of the Peruvian Indians afford a strong confirmation of the views now proposed. The Phrenological Society possesses several of these, closely resembling each other. Combativeness is in them very little developed, while Destructiveness and Cautiousness are quite enormous. In accordance with this, we are told in the Edinburgh Review, (vol. ix. p. 437), that the Peruvian Indians are “dastardly in moments of danger, savage and cruel after victory, and severe and inexorable in the exercise of authority." Equally striking are the following remarks of that most sagacious observer of human character, Montaigne. "I have often heard it said, that cowardice is the mother of cruelty; and I have found by experience, that malicious and inhuman animosity and fierceness is usually accompanied with feminine faintness. . . . . Valour, whose effect is only to be exercised against resistance, stops when it sees the enemy at its mercy; but Pusillanimity, not having dared to meddle in the first act of danger, rushes into the second of blood and massacre: . . . . like cowardly house-curs, that in the house worry and tear the skins of wild beasts they durst not come near in the field."†

Combativeness, then, is a chief element in the propensity to fight; but Destructiveness is not less indispensable. When the latter is deficient, or when Cautiousness is very large, Combativeness will incline to seek gratification in some of the bloodless and blowless fields above adverted to-in moral rather than physical contention-and in wrestling rather than fighting. If Language be greatly developed, a love of verbal disputation will be the probable result.

If man be destined-as there is good reason to believe that he is-to reach that point in the scale of civilization where the propensities will act under the guidance of the higher sentiments and intellect, physical contention will altogether cease, except in

Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind, iii. 24.

+ Essays, vol. ii. ch. 27.

those countries where fierce and ravenous animals remain. When this period shall arrive, what sphere of activity will there be for Dr Spurzheim's "propensity to fight?" The only field which will then exist, is that of mental opposition and discussion.

For these reasons I humbly submit, 1st, That Dr Spurzheim's definition of the function of the organ No. V. is incorrect and incomplete; and, 2dly, That the word OPPOSIVENESS, as above defined, includes every form of action to which the propensity leads, expresses the fundamental or elementary function with precision and clearness, and ought therefore to be substituted for the term Combativeness, now almost universally in use. At all events, it is superior to the present name, by embracing the moral as well as physical actions to which the faculty prompts. The title Courage, originally bestowed by Gall, is objectionable as not sufficiently comprehensive, and also because it expresses a state of mind in which the tendency to oppose prevails over the dictate of Cautiousness; for it seems to me that the same development of the organ No. V. may render one man courageous, but fail to produce this effect on another in whom Cautiousness predominates. It may be said that a name is of little importance, provided the real nature of the faculty is understood. To this I reply, first, that Dr Spurzheim's definition gives an erroneous view of the real nature of the faculty; secondly, that though advanced phrenologists may, notwithstanding, have accurate notions about the faculty, students of the science are puzzled and misled; and, lastly, that people who judge of the nature of the faculties merely from their names, have their prejudices against Phrenology increased by the belief, needlessly forced upon them, that phrenologists have discovered an organ, the natural and legitimate function of which is to induce mankind to fight.

[ocr errors]

Whether the foregoing observations be well founded or not, they may at least be useful in drawing more of the attention of phrenologists than has of late been given, to the analysis of the fundamental faculties, and to the mode in which such inquiries ought to be pursued.






SIR, It is necessary to direct the attention of your readers to an article in the last number of the Medical and Surgical Journal, entitled, "Report of cases communicated to the Anatomical Society of Edinburgh;" in consequence of the palpable mistakes into which the author has fallen as to the nature and scope of certain observations published by me on "Derangement of the Faculty of Language." These errors must proceed either from ignorance of the principles which the author attempts to prove are erroneous, or from never having perused the paper in which these principles were explained and advocated. The observations in question consisted of a series of papers written expressly for the Phrenological Journal. In the first of these, and the only one it would appear that Dr Moir has examined, it is shewn that the power by which we employ signs to represent our ideas and feelings is connected, not merely, as Dr Moir states, with the anterior lobes of the brain, but with that portion of these lobes which rests on the centre of the orbital plate. It is likewise established, that when these convolutions are destroyed or seriously injured in both hemispheres, the extinction of this power invariably and inevitably follows; but that various conditions of this faculty have been noticed, such as an inability to use certain classes of words, the propensity to employ one class in place of another, &c., of the organic cause of which, if any such exist, pathologists are as yet ignorant. In the succeeding essays, a detail is given of instances of rapidity of voluntary utterance, involuntary utterance, rapidity of involuntary utterance, total loss of verbal memory, partial loss of memory of all words indiscriminately, and so forth; with the suggestion that such symptoms may, in general, be traced to cerebral excitement, inflammation, or congestion, or some other cause affecting the brain generally or locally; guarded, however, by the acknowledgement, that even this much cannot be asserted without the aid of pathology.

The object of Dr Moir is to prove, that the conclusions at

• Published in Nos. 36, 37, and 38; vol. viii. pp. 250, 308, 414.

which I have arrived are erroneous, or "do not hold good in all cases." I need not comment on the logic of holding that conclusions may be true at one time and false at another. To accomplish this object two cases are given, one of which is obviously an example of disease originating in disturbance of the cerebral functions; the other, which is so triumphantly advanced, it will astonish Dr Moir to learn, does not bear in the most remote degree on the point at issue. The first is that of a paralytic woman, who gradually "lost the power of expressing her ideas in proper language, using sometimes words conveying a meaning quite different from what she intended," but who preserved her intelligence unimpaired. After death, tumors were discovered in the middle and posterior part of the brain. I will not attempt to associate the defective power with the indirect irritation occasioned by the extensive disease under which the patient laboured, but content myself with referring to the phenomena which so frequently attend paralysis, epilepsy, and insanity, and with demanding if the symptom here particularised is not to be regarded in the same light-as an indication of the general affection of the nervous system. That the part of the brain regarded as the organ of Language is, even in such a case, implicated and specially affected, I believe: but this belief does not imply that the implication shall be organic, or at least appreciable by the senses. The optic nerve becomes insensible, although no change in its structure can be perceived. In all, or nearly all, the instances which I have adduced, no organic lesion existed, or was actually proved to exist simply because the symptoms proceeded from disorder rather than from extinction of the power. Of many, the duration was brief, and the recovery complete; of others, the continuance appeared to depend on the intensity of other maladies; and of all, with the exception of those illustrative of total destruction of the faculty, it was confessed that we knew not the organic cause a confession equivalent to saying that they depended on functional disease. Dr Moir's first case, then, appears to be precisely of this description; and if he will condescend to examine the paper which he has undertaken to criticise, he will find that many cases almost precisely similar have been there recorded, and attributed, not to ramollisement or structural alteration of the convolutions proved to be the organ of Language, but to some morbid action affecting the brain as a whole.

The second case is that of a boy who received a wound in the orbit from the birch end of a scavenger's broom; and whose brain after death presented the following, among other morbid appearances: "Adhesion of brain to the dura mater, corresponding to an opening in the left orbital plate of the frontal bone, about half an

« PredošláPokračovať »