Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the carnage of St Bartholomew's, or the massacres of the French Revolution, without the mind being overwhelmed by images of the most wanton and abominable cruelties. Following the steps of Caligula, we find him cutting out the tongues of his victims, delivering them to be devoured by wild beasts, forcing individuals to assist in executing their relations, torturing or putting to the rack unhappy wretches as an amusement to his own ferocious mind; and, finally, expressing a wish that the Roman people had but one head, that he might cut it off by one blow. Turning our eyes to Nero, we discover him indulging in equal atrocities, causing Britannia to be poisoned, murdering his own mother, setting fire to Rome in four quarters at once, and ascending a tower to enjoy the spectacle of the conflagration. If these acts do not indicate such a propensity as that of Destructiveness in man, we cannot imagine what deeds could do so.

But it will perhaps be said, that the devastations of war are the results of excitement of highly inflamed passion, and do not prove a cool, deliberate desire of destruction to hold a place in the human mind, when not provoked by aggression. The phrenologist asks, From what source does "highly inflamed "passion" proceed? Mere aggression cannot create a feeling in the mind; it can only rouse some propensity which previously existed. But, to proceed, we may ask, are there no instances of Destructiveness being manifested coolly and wantonly in the absence of all aggression? A gentleman (whose name and address we are ready to furnish to any reader who wishes to verify the correctness of our statement) told us, that he had two nephews, brothers, both children, brought up precisely alike, yet of very opposite dispositions: one of them used to rise early in the morning, before the family were abroad, and go to a little wooden cage, in which a breeding duck was kept, and lifting up the middle bar, allowed a young one to thrust through its head, then dropped the bar, and chopped it off, to his great entertainment and delight. He used also to seize young animals wherever he could find them, clasp his little hand round their neck, and enjoy their agonies in suffocation. His brother had dispositions completely the reverse. He could not endure the

sight of these cruelties, and used to come bathed in tears, and tell the family what he had witnessed. Delight in cruelty characterizes even whole tribes of people, just as softness and gentleness of disposition do others, such as the Hindoos. In Fraser's Tour through part of the Himalaya Mountains, it is stated, that the inhabitants of Nawur and Teekur, (valleys in the Province of Bischur)," are notorious for infamy of character, even in "this country, where all are bad. They are revengeful and "treacherous, deficient in all good qualities, abandoned in mo"rals, and vicious in their habits. As a proof of the savage indifference with which they look on the life of another, "and on the act of shedding human blood, it is said, that mere "wantonness, or a joke, will induce the crime of putting a fel"low creature to death, merely for the satisfaction of seeing the "blood flow, and of marking the last struggles of their vic"tim; and some facts that came under our observation of a "tantamount nature, give too much reason for believing the "assertion to be founded in truth. Female chastity is here

66

66

66

quite unknown; and murder, robbery, and outrage of every "kind are here regarded with indifference."-P. 267. It is curious to observe the Author of Waverley, with his characteristic sagacity, seizing upon this tendency in human nature to cruelty, and marking the different degrees of it in different nations. "Other nations," says he, "are like the tamed tiger, “which, when once its native appetite for slaughter is indulged “in one instance, rushes on in promiscuous carnage. But the English public have always rather resembled what is told of the "sleuth-dog, which, eager, fierce, and clamorous in pursuit of "his prey, desists from it as soon as blood is sprinkled upon his "path." There is poetry, no doubt, in this passage, but it is the poetry of illustration, not of fiction. Indeed, every one acquainted with history and books of travels, knows that such descriptions might be multiplied to an unlimited extent, as real and undeniable features of human character. We proceed, therefore, to exhibit "Destructiveness" operating in a less ofensive but equally characteristic form.

66

A recent Reviewer of a work on Architecture, says, not in jest, but quite seriously, and viewing the matter as a feature of national character, that "the word canaille might be most just"ly extended, as far as the present question is concerned, to "a considerable height in society; we are sorry to say, too of "ten to its very capital. It is to this division of society, high "and low, that we owe the injuries committed on our works of "art; and not only on our works of art, but on every object "of utility where destruction can be inflicted. The people

66

66

destroy our mile-posts, our bridges, our statues, and our "public buildings, whenever they can get access to them; no "object of art, or even of utility, is safe from their depreda❝tions; nor dare we admit them into our museums and col"lections without guards; though they are injuring the objects "of their own admiration as well as ours." (New Edinburgh Review, No 8, p. 556.) The Reviewer continues: "It may be, "that the spirit of pure mischief leads to this practice; that spirit which is esteemed a laudable proof of liberty; it may "be ignorance; it is probably the consequence of both united." No one will attempt to deny the practices here alluded to; and when the Reviewer speaks of " the spirit of pure mischief” as an exciting cause of them, we do not feel that he is writing nonsense: we understand him perfectly, and recognise his description, and theory of its cause, as accordant with human nature. We would ask our opponents, then, what more forcible description could be given of the nature of Destructiveness, when undirected by intelligence, than that of "the spirit of "pure mischief?" They will perhaps say, that such acts proceed from the spirit of fun; but we reply, As an individual who is destitute of "Tune" can find no amusement in a concert; or as one who is greatly deficient in Veneration, experiences small pleasure in acts of devotion; so, unless a propensity to destroy existed in human nature, it would be impossible to extract "fun" or pleasure from such irrational acts as the wanton destruction of mile-stones, road-posts, bridges, railings, and, in short, of every object that can, with impunity, be made food for such an appetite.

Dr Spurzheim, in treating of Destructiveness, observes, that in man it "presents different degrees of activity, from a mere "indifference to the pain of animals, to the pleasure of seeing "them killed." And he adds, that "some persons feel a plea"sure in tormenting animals, and in seeing them tortured;" which pleasure he refers to the propensity in question. We are able to adduce no less an authority than that of the King, Lords, and Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, in confirmation of the doctrine, that such a tendency to torment animals actually exists in human nature; for, by the statute, 3d Geo. IV. ch. 71., it is enacted and ordained, "That, if any person or persons shall "wantonly and cruelly BEAT, ABUSE, OR ILL-TREAT any horse, mare, gelding, mule, ass," &c., "he, on being convicted thereof, shall forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding L. 5, nor less "than 10s., to his Majesty, his heirs and successors ;"-a provision which would be a mere absurdity, if no propensity, "wan"tonly and cruelly" to commit such offences, lurked in the mind of man.

66

66

de

A recent author, however, is pleased to "deny that there “exists in the human mind ANY natural propensity, or any "sire, INDEPENDENT OF INTELLECT, to build, or destroy, or in"habit," &c. Pinel, then, was mistaken in supposing that the intellect of his patient was sound, in whom there was no wandering of memory, imagination, or judgment, but in whom a propensity to destroy raged with ungovernable fury; for this last, it seems, was itself an intellectual operation! Nay, the barbarities of the inhabitants of Nawur and Teekur were also manifestations of intellectual powers! The devastations, too, committed on our mile-stones, bridges, and road-posts, all proceed from exuberant activity of the intellects of the people! Of course, also, the adjectives, cruel, fierce, ferocious, savage, brutal, barbarous, atrocious, do not indicate states of mind referable to excited feelings or propensities, but designate only pure intellectual operations ! This is" argument with a vengeance."

The foregoing are a few of the facts which may be brought forward in favour of one of the thirty-three faculties admitted

by the phrenologists; and we ask every person of common sense, and common candour, if any opponent is to be listened to otherwise than with contempt, who merely laughs at the supposition of there being such a native propensity in man, connected with that portion of the brain which we have pointed out. The facts we have mentioned are not the tenth part of those we could have brought forward in support of this single propensity, and on twenty of the other powers we could lay before our readers a still more ample store of proofs and illustrations. What has been now stated, however, may serve as a specimen (though a very small specimen,) of the phrenological mode of inquiry, and of the kind of evidence on which phrenologists venture to found their opinions. All the cases we have quoted from Dr Gall, have been for years before the public in his French work; the casts to which we have referred, have long been exposed to public inspection, in the Hall of the Phrenological Society, accompanied with a Catalogue, and a Book of Reports, stating the characters of many of the individuals, and the development of their heads. It is also to be recollected, that the same pains in collecting facts and evidence has been taken in regard to the other faculties, no one of which is stated as ascertained without the sanction of thousands of observations; and, lastly, that it is open to every one to satisfy himself, and either to confirm these observations or to refute them, by appealing to nature, and observing for himself,—and that a single fact to the contrary has never been shewn. When we consider all this, shall we attribute to ignorance, presumption, or folly, what has been said by some of our opponents, namely, "that the assertions" (of the phrenologists) "are in general as purely dogmatical, as "if Drs Gall and Spurzheim were entitled to sway men's be"lief in matters of philosophy, with an authority as absolute "and universal as ever was exercised by the Pope in the affairs "of religion ?" We repeat it, that such an observation could only proceed from the grossest and most culpable ignorance of facts in these writers,-presumption in the highest degree, in writing upon a subject of which they know nothing, or such an utter want of ordinary reflection, as incapacitates them from

« AnteriorContinuar »