Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

" fascinating sprightliness and buoyancy, the very opposite of " the qualities expressed by the epithets dryness and dulness.

This sentiment tends also to refinement and elevation in manners, and in this respect is favourable to morality. The organ is generally found small in the most depraved individuals, whosè occupation is crime. The following measurements of the breadth across the head, from Ideality to Ideality, will give an idea of the comparative size of the organ in several individuals, some of whom eminently display the faculty. The measurements do not denote the absolute size of Ideality in each, and are not given as such ; for the absolute size of an organ is ascertained by measurement from the medulla oblongata, to obtain the length, and the breadth is judged of by the expansion at the peripheral surface.

MASKS OR BUSTS FROM NATURE,

*

From Ideality to Ideality.

Inches.

:. 63

6 53 6

In Mr Joseph Hume,

Rev. Dr Chalmers,
François, Cordonnier, Poet,
Mr Haydon, Historical Painter,
Mr Joseph, Sculptor,
Mr Wordsworth, Poet,
Mr David Wilkie, R. A.,
Henri Quatre, of France,
David Haggart,
Mary M·Innes,
Scott, executed at Jedburgh for Murder,

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

41

48 37 3 4% 41

Inches. New-Hollander, No 17

3 Ditto, No 18

3 Ditto, No

3 Hindoo;

No 62 Ditto,

No 63 Ditto,

No 70 Negro,

No 21 Ditto,

No 22 European, No 4+ Ditto,

No 46 Raphael, Painter,

55 La Fontaine, of France,

48 The plate prefixed to this Number contains portraitsof Locke, Cobbett, Chaucer, Shakspeare, and Rousseau, in illustration of Ideality. The situation of the organ is indicated on each head, and a single glance will be sufficient to discover that in Locke and Cobbett it is comparatively small, and in Chaucer and Rousseau decidedly large. Every reader who is familiar with the styles of these authors will at once recognise how truly the --manifestations correspond in each with the development of brain.

The portrait of LOCKE indicates a large organ of language, denoted by the eyes being pressed outwards and downwards, and also a high expansion of the organs of Comparison and Causality, situated immediately below the hair, which give metaphysical acumen and deep reflecting power. Ideality, on the other hand, placed at the upper and exterior angles of the forehead, decidedly slopes away, indicating deficiency. The phrenologist would infer from this combination, a profound and comprehensive, but plain and sober understanding, accompanied with command of expression in style, but with the absence of ornament, enthusiasm, flights of imagination, and every quality connected with Ideality.

It is said in No 79 of the Edinburgh Review, that “ Mr Landor cries up Mr Locke as' the most elegant of English “ prose writers, for no other reason, (as we apprehend,) than " that he has often been considered as the least so."

It is Lord Chatham who is made to pronounce the panegyric upon Locke, as the most elegant of English prose writers, “ which, if our author (Landor) were not a deliberate paradox

monger, might seem an uncivil irony. His eulogist does not “ mend the matter much by his definition of elegance,* which

we would think intended as a test of Lord Chesterfield's

politeness. He makes it to consist in a mean between too “ much prolixity and too much conciseness. Now, (supposing “ this to be intended seriously,) Mr Locke was certainly one of " the most circuitous and diffuse of all writers. This dis

tinguished person neither excelled in the graces of style, accord

ing to our author's singular assertion, nor was he (according to the common opinion) the founder of the modern system of

metaphysical philosophy. The credit of having completed “ the great outline of the plan is beyond all question due to the “ philosopher of Malmesbury. Mr Locke's real forte was great

practical good sense, (the result of a favourable development " of the organs of Propensity, Sentiment, and Intellect,) a de“ termination to look at every question free from prejudice, “ and according to the evidence suggested to him, (the effect of • large Conscientiousness and Firmness,) and a patient and per“ severing doggedness of understanding in contending with dif“ ficulties, and finding out and weighing arguments of opposite tendency," (produced by great Firmness, Conscientiousness, Comparison and Causality, with little Ideality.) The most valuable parts of his " celebrated essay are those which relate not to the nature, but to the conduct of the understanding; and

on that subject he often proves himself a most sage and judi. « cious adviser," (great reflecting power and good sentiments.)

The forehead of COBBETT resembles that of Locke in its essential features : there is the great height and the full expansion of the upper portion, indicating ample organs of Causality and Comparison, with the sloping away at the superior angles, denoting a moderate or small development of Ideality. No two men could differ more than Locke and Cobbett in sentiments ; but the organs of Self-esteem, Conscientiousness, Veneration, &c. lie in the back and coronal aspects of the head, and cannot be accurately judged of from portraits. It is therefore, only in their intellectual qualities that they are here compared. The Edinburgh Review, in giving the character of Cobbett's Political Register, says, “ It is written with great freedom, and often with great force of

argument. It flatters few national prejudices, except our love

[ocr errors][merged small]

$5 of detraction and abuse; (indulgences of Self-esteem, De“ structiveness, &c.,) and has often had the merit of maintaining “ bold truths, both against the party in power, and the prevail. sing sentiments of the nation. It consists, in general, of solid

argument, (Comparison and, Causality large,) and copious de“ tail, (Individuality large,) and no attraction of playfulness,

(absence of Ideality and Wit.)-Disgusted as we have often been with his arrogance, (Self-esteem enormous,) irritated by 's his coarse and clamorous abuse, (Combativeness and Destruc" tiveness mis-applied,) and wearied with the needless vehe" mence and disproportioned fury with which he frequently « descanted on trifles, (the last-named faculties excessively 450 active,) we could still admire his intrepidity, (Combativeness,

and Firmness, legitimately employed,) and respect his force of so understanding, (Causality and Comparison large,) vol. x.p.386. This description, so far as relates to the intellect, coincides exactly with the intellectual character of Locke; just as their heads correspond in the organs of the understanding.

CHAUCER has long been regarded as the father of English poetry. Previous to his time the English language was uncultivated and rude, and little adapted to set off the elegant thoughts and high imaginings of a poet; and therefore the more merit is to be ascribed to him, who not only first contrived to avail himself of it successfully, as a vehicle of poetry of every varied kind, but who has the farther merit of polishing and refining it to a degree, that, considering the difficulties he had to contend with, is altogether marvellous. Spencer has acknowledged our obligations to him in this repect, where he mentions him as “ that renowned poet :"

ss Dan Chaucer, well of English undefyled

« On Fame's eternal bead-roll worthy to be fyled." The talents of Chaucer, when we consider at once the number and excellency of his works, and the rudeness of the age in which they were produced, appear to be more various and vast, than those of almost any English poet, Shakspeare alone excepted. Mr Godwin observes,-“ The two names “ which perhaps do the greatest honour to the annals of English “ literature are these of Chaucer and of Shakspeare. Shak

speare we have long and justly been accustomed to regard

as the first in the catalogue of poetical and creative minds; “ and after the dramas of Shakspeare, there is no production of man that displays more various and vigorous talent than

sit the Canterbury Tales. Splendour of narrative, richness of “ fancy, (indicating great Ideality, Comparison and Individua

lity,) pathetic simplicity of incident and feeling, (Benevolence “ and Conscientiousness, -and in general an excellent endow “ ment of the sentiments,) and an animated vein of comic “ humour, (Secretiveness, Imitation, and Wit,) each takes its * turn in this wonderful performance, and each in turn appears “ to be that in which the author was most qualified to excel.” ..

It indeed appears, that in Ideality,-Chaucer excels Shak, speare himself. There is more about his writings of that

feeling of exquisiteness, and of the “ love of what iš pure and perfect,” than in Shakspeare, who, when treating of sublunary subjects, generally contents himself with what is natural, and what is actually found in the world. This par ticularly appears in Chaucer's earlier works, The “ Court of Love,” produced by him at the age of eighteen, the “ Re: mains of the Rose,” the “ Flower and the Leaf,”. and some others. It is difficult now to determine how much of these productions is original, and for how much Chaucer was indebted to the French and Italian poets ; but it is evident, that the subjects and the style of writing coincided with the bent of his own mind, when he so early expended so much of his time upon them. In these he entirely quits the “ working day world,” and wanders and luxuriates in the delightful wilds of poetry and fancy, and particularly in that rich field of poetical imagery, allegory. The Canterbury Tales are the production of his maturer years; and in them, accordingly, we find more knowledge of the world, a deeper insight into human nature, and a delineation of the character and man: ners of his time, which, in accuracy and vividness of detail, are surpassed by Shakspeare alone, and in splendour of effect, and richness of colouring, are not surpassed, if they are equalled, even by him.

In the poem of Troilus and Cressida of Chaucer, and in the play upon the same subject, founded upon it, by Shakspeare, we see displayed the difference of genius of these two gifted writers. The great beauty of Shakpeare's play, says Mr Godwin," beyond all didactic morality, beyond all mere Alights “ of fancy, and in which no writer, ancient or modern, can

« AnteriorContinuar »