Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

FRAUD.

"None of the above medicaments shall be genuine that shall be not signed with the Sieur Donnerblitzenhausen's initials, H. F. A. D. B. and sealed with his seal, which have its motto-Toнu vau Вонu, and his crest-A THUNDERBOLT.

"The Sieur shall live in his lodgement at the summit of the three pair of step of stairs, round about the right through the lane which lead after the corner out of the passage to the left as you come away with the Fife's Court of Rose Street. Nevertheless, the Sieur shall continue always to be hear of at Number ten-seven, Prince Street."

END OF NUMBER FIRST.

OLIVER & BOYD, PRINTERS.

THE

PHRENOLOGICAL JOURNAL.

No II.

ARTICLE I.

CRANIOSCOPY, by DR ROGET.-Supplement to the Encyclopædia Britannica.

"Io domando ciò che tutti desiderano e pochi ottengono, di esser giu"dicato dalla ragione, non dalla opinione. Non facciamo un dogma "della stima di alcun autore. Vediamo co' nostri occhi. Gl' inconve"nienti che possono nascere da questo liberissimo metodo non saranno “mai tanti quanti sono quelli che derivano dal guidicare colla fama e "colle prevenzioni.”—VERRI.

THE phrenologists have been often blamed for attributing too little weight to the numerous attempts which have been made to sap the foundations of their science. But where, in the whole course of phrenological warfare, is even an opponent to be found who has declared himself satisfied with the refutations and arguments of his coadjutors in the field? In what page of the grand attack in the 49th Number of the Edinburgh Review (1815), does the anti-phrenological champion of that day refer to, or quote the facts or arguments of the anti-phrenological champion of 1803? In what page of the "able and elegant article" of Dr Roget does he refer to any of the numerous death-blows given to our science before his time? In what page of "Life and Organization" can we gather any thing as to the existence of a VOL. I.-No II.

M

refutation of phrenology, prior to Dr Barclay's own? In what page of Anti-phrenologia does its illustrious author refer to those of Dr Barclay, or any other of his predecessors ? Where, in short, is the magazine, journal, or review, which has not, by some strange mistake, deemed it necessary to be original in this particular alone, and to avoid scrupulously any reference to the assistance of predecessors or contemporaries? And yet our opponents ask us to swallow what they themselves cannot, and even to own ourselves vanquished, when they see us standing before them vigorous and unscathed.

But to satisfy those who may differ from us in opinion, and also to redeem the pledge given in our 1st Number, when we stated our readiness to meet any opponent whose object seemed to be truth, although he should not have displayed much philosophy in his mode of attack, we now take up Dr Roget's article,-CRANIOSCOPY, which is still regarded in the south as the most formidable attack phreno logy ever had to sustain; and our doing so will afford us a good opportunity of undeceiving the public on the supposed credit due to the opinions of the members of the medical profession above that due to the opinions of other men.

Phrenology being a system of philosophy founded on the discovery of the functions of the different parts of the brain, there are only two circumstances which can entitle a professional man to dispense with the preliminary step of examining the nature and evidence of the doctrines, before giving an opinion for or against them. He must have previously ascertained, either that there is another function which is inconsistent with the phrenological one, or that the latter is incompatible with the anatomical structure. Now, even Dr Roget himself expressly declares, that "the brain " is still as incomprehensible in its functions as it is subtile "and complex in its anatomy;" and that "its structure is "so void of apparent adaptation to any purpose we can un"derstand, that it will suit any physiological system equally "well," thus leaving the educated part of the public on a perfect footing of equality with himself as to the possession

[ocr errors]

of knowledge on those points. We state this explicitly, because, to use the words of our motto, we wish to be "judged by reason, and not by opinion;" and while, on the one hand, we are disposed to listen attentively to the opinions of those medical men who have really examined the evidence, and who know what phrenology is, we cannot, on the other hand, regard the decision of any one of them, who has not informed himself, as entitled to more consideration as evidence, than the opinion of an ignorant fisherman regarding the theory of the tide when placed in opposition to that of Sir Isaac Newton.

" he

In entering upon his refutation, Dr Roget takes credit to himself for some very slender virtues. After representing phrenology as "admitting so easily of being held up to ri"dicule by PARTIAL OF EXAGGERATED statements," claims merit" for refraining from employing the weapons "of ridicule" against it, and for contenting himself "with "the simple exposition of the sandy foundation" on which, and the "flimsy materials" of which the new system is constructed. We willingly leave to him all the praise of which forbearance from ridicule founded on "partial or exaggerated statement" is worthy.

The first, and what Dr Roget calls the most important of all his objections, is, that injuries of different parts of the brain have occurred without corresponding derangement of the function assigned to them; and Haller and Dr Ferrier are referred to as authorities. These cases, our readers are aware, have been already amply discussed in the Transactions of the Phrenological Society, and shewn to be not only perfectly consistent with and explicable by the phrenological view of a plurality of organs, but also to be at utter variance with Dr Roget's idea of unity of mental organ. We therefore pass on to what he denominates Gall and Spurzheim's "analogical arguments;" in the attempted refutation of which he displays much of that inconsistency into which a man unavoidably falls when writing on a subject with which he is unacquainted.

Dr Roget very judiciously objects to any theory of the functions of the brain founded on analogy alone, and stigmatizes," as a gross violation of logic," the assumption "of

66

any such analogy as equivalent to positive proof, which "can only result," he adds, "from the evidence of direct "observation." Drs G. and S. take the same view of the matter, and, therefore, wherever they lay down any point as established, proceed solely upon the positive proof resulting from direct observation, and never upon analogy alone, which, like Dr R., they think calculated to afford “in"dications of what may possibly happen, and thus to direct "and stimulate our inquiries to the discovery of truth by "the legitimate road of observation and experiment." They therefore earnestly beg of their readers not to judge from analogy, and, to use Dr R.'s own words, they constantly "appeal to the evidence of induction, as the supreme au"thority in the court of philosophy." Can we admire, then, Dr R.'s consistency, when he turns round and says,' Although I am ignorant of the structure and functions of the brain, and have said that the former will suit G. and S.'s physiological views as well as any others, and although I object to the evidence of analogy, as proving any thing at all, yet by analogy alone I will refute Drs G. and S.'s statements, which they allege to be founded, not on analogy, but on positive proofs and observations ?” and to shew that "these gentlemen have ventured to found "all the leading propositions of their doctrines" " upon analogical assumptions and preposterous imaginations,” quite forgetting what he has said elsewhere about the court of philosophy, and about G. and S. "making their last and "most resolute stand in experience, as in an impregnable "fortress," and about the mode of obtaining "the facts upon which so much is made to depend." If the phrenologists displayed half as much inconsistency, they would deservedly be laughed at as sorely deficient in "logical ❝ acumen."

[ocr errors]

66

Even granting Dr Roget the privilege of refuting direct

« AnteriorContinuar »