granted-and Dr. Thomas will not be likely to deny us a concession which it were absurd to refuse we ask wherein differs an arrangement from either of the preceding, which takes systems of organs for the ground-work of its divisions, in place of systems of tissues or of fluids? If the brain preponderate over the lungs and the liver, the cranial temperament is formed; if the lungs over the liver and the brain, the thoracic; and if the liver over the brain and lungs, the abdominal. All this is a matter of mere preponderancy, of simple material proportion. The parts chosen for weight and measurement, it is true, are different, just as different as systems of organs differ from systems of tissues, or classes of fluids; but the principle of all these doctrines is one and indivisible, and the only merit which M. Thomas possesses, is that of having made a new selection of parts and organs for the application of an old principle. In prosecuting this view of measuring energy of function by size of organ, the author enters upon Phrenology, and gives us a laborious inch and line description of the mental faculties, examines with great minuteness the exterior of the thorax in order to discover the volume of structure which it encloses, concludes his mensuration by giving us the admeasurement of the abdomen, and then sums up the whole with the following senti ments: "After having shewn how the cranial, thoracic, and abdominal organs, which nearly constitute the whole animal economy, form three very distinct groups, with reference to structure, situation, and function; having demonstrated, how in a state of health, the relative size of an organ is a fair index of its energy; and having, finally, examined the means of estimating, more especially in man, the development of the viscera, by an examination of the cavities within which they lie, we now pass on to consider in succession the effects of the predominance of the cranial, thoracic and abdominal organs, from which the different temperaments or constitutions arise." 130. this Before pursuing Dr. Thomas further, some critical observations upon mechanical system of metaphysics will be indispensable. And first we would congratulate the profession upon this important discovery! The mysteries of function are now no longer to be talked of, the perplexities of metaphysics are now no longer to be encountered. The carpenter's rule and the school-boy's compasses have removed every difficulty! Mind may be measured by the foot, function by the yard, and the force of passions, the most unlimited, can be subjected to Gunter's scale! It was, certainly, once thought, that man was as much a binary compound as a biped, and that his material ingredient was not only inferior, but in all things subservient to his moral principles. But now it appears, that moral principle is the product of material structure, that the size of an organ is the measure of its function, and that for every square inch of solid matter, we have a certain forthcoming of vital power! Mensuration being then the basis of metaphysics, anatomy must be studied by the Casuist, before judgment can be given upon cases of conscience; and, by reading the culprit's scull, phrenology can ascertain without the hazard of perjury, or the subtleties of law, not only whether he be a thief or a murderer, but whether he have stolen ten, or ten thousand pounds. This is, indeed, no ordinary discovery;-verily, it is an improvement of vast magnitude even upon Gall and Spurzheim! To be serious-is it actually the fact, that such as have great heads have great intellects, and that those, whose enbonpoint is considerable, have considerable appetites? Is it true that the largest liver secretes the most bile, or that the largest lungs arterialize the most blood and consume the most oxygen? To answer these questions, is to decide upon this theory. We admit, that in tracing animated beings up from the zoophite to man, the nervous system is in general on the increase as we ascend, and that the functional perfection of this system maintains some general ratio to the complexity of its mechanism. All this we are prepared to admit. But is the gradually increasing size of the instrument any proof of the gradually decreasing power of the agent; or is the mere circumstance of an organ's progressive development any argument against a corresponding progressive augmentation of its presiding and acting vitality. Let it be supposed, for the sake of illustration, that man is a compound being, that his materialism is under the superintendence of an intelligent principle, and that the functions of this materialism are the aggregate results of their co-operation, is it not reasonable to expect, is it not what would be anticipated, that the degree of organic life or presiding principle will bear some proportion to the quantity of organic matter or subordinate instrument, and that, since the presiding principle works only through the subordinate instrument, just as the instrument works only by the power of the agent, the agent's influence must generally limit the size of the instrument, and the size of the instrument must generally regulate the measure of the agent? Pure animal function never was, and never can be performed without the instrumentality of matter. It is only through such an intervening and co-operating medium that vital principle manifests itself in our present state of life, and it is neither fanciful nor fanatical to believe in the independent existence of mind, while at the same time it is maintained that, in a compound creature like man, both the energy and extent of his every function depend no less upon matter than upon mind. As the scale of organization ascends, the scale of life ascends along with it; texture becomes more minute, function more complicated, and the varying habitudes of different animals require corresponding modifications of structure. Muscular strength is required by one, acute sensibility is indispensable to another; the respiratory functions must predominate in this, the cerebral in that order of beings. Thus is it that the work to be done regulates the dimensions of the organ by whose instrumentality it is to be effected, and the size of the organ bears in general (but by no means universally) so close a proportion to its amount of vital principle, that, forgetting the agent altogether because unseen, this correspondence between size of instrument and perfection of function has induced many to ascribe all the phenomena of life to corporeal organization, because it alone is palpable to the senses. Life is thus degraded into a sophistical inference, and the æthereal chain by which man is linked to immortality is cut asunder! The brain of the horse has been estimated at the five hundredth part of its body, while that of man stands as high as the thirty-fifth; but this fact goes no further than to shew, what no spiritualist ever denied, that the vital principle requires an increase of instrument when it is loaded with an increase of work. This is a reasonable requisition on the part of Nature, and a reasonable inference on our part; but to maintain that function is the uncompounded result of material structure, that thought is as much a manufacture as urine, and that passion can be placed between the compasses, or measured by the yard-stick are most unwarranted inferences, alike hostile to the interests of medicine and morality. The liver of the fœtus is its largest viscus, yet are the hepatic functions most active during fœtal life? The nervous system of the Ourang Outang is as large in proportion as that of man, yet are his moral principles as refined, or his mental powers as developed? Is it not well known that the lean kine of Pharoah ate more than the sleek and wellfavoured; and is not the same fact as certain among ourselves? Has the Elephant, by having a much larger brain than man, any chance of outrunning him in the march of intellect? Is the muscular system of the common Maggot extraordinarily developed, yet is there an animal in being more active for its size? Are individual or national differences to be explained on such principles? Have the most gifted individuals the largest heads, or the greatest blockheads the smallest? Are the English more remarkable as a nation than the French for intellectual organs; or do the French exceed the English in that of self-esteem? Why are the Spaniards distinguished for treachery, or the Italians for love; and why are the passions of the Laplander nearly as cold as the snow he treads upon? How can external measurement of the chest ascertain whether its size depend upon hypertrophy of the heart, or of the lungs, or of both; and how can the exterior of the skull discover the peculiarities of cerebral structure, when no correspondence is preserved between its external and internal surfaces? These are merely a tithe of the interrogations we feel disposed to put to M. Thomas, and when these shall have received a satisfactory answer out of his system, our veneration for Materialism will be greater than it is. It is true that a foot note of six lines has been appended by the author, to a work of two hundred and fifty pages, with the view of rescuing his character from such a creed; but when we add that four of these lines contradict the other two, that the six together assert nothing, and that the motto of the volume is the following extract from Dupaty-" That the moral man lies hid in the physical man”—this laboured marginal commentary, we apprehend, will scarcely save the text from heterodoxy. It is certain, then, that none of the theories which have been examined, not even that of M. Thomas, will account for every temperament. In the construction of the most of them an ingredient of vital importance has been virtually excluded, and until it be introduced, unfashionable as its introduction may be, we expect no purer light to emanate from such gross materials. Some of them have certainly revealed many facts and have removed a few difficulties, and to deny or resist their application to a certain length would be to fall into the error which it is our endeavour to chastise. To say that the solids may be relaxed, or that the fluids may be disproportioned; that the nervous system prevails in this, and the sanguineous in that constitution, or that one organ acts with more energy than another, is all very just, is what the natural philosopher might anticipate from a machine so delicately adjusted, and so easily deranged. But we maintain that all this is nothing higher than Mechanics, and until it can be shown that the human body is a mere machine, given up to the sole government of mechanical laws, such principles are no purer than unmixed materialism, and are totally disqua lified to account either for the origin, or action of half the temperaments which exist. How often has one disastrous event metamorphosed the entire constitution of an individual, and reduced him who was superlatively sanguine into a melancholy recluse? How frequently are the passions, prejudices, and prepossessions which distinguished our early years, wholly altered or materially changed, when we arrive at a more advanced period of life? The enchanting and gilded thoughts of infancy vanish before the chaste and steadier light of manhood; and the sanguine anticipations of youth are obscured or buried in the clouds of age. A misty morning sinks us into melancholy, a transient sunbeam rekindles hope, and the dream of a night, or the success of a day so changes our condition as not unfrequently endangers our identity. Horace, speaking of the mutability of man, says-nil fuil unquam sic impar sibi-and Dryden's lines A man so various, that he seemed to be Was chemist, fiddler, statesman, and buffoon. Then all for women, painting, rhyming, drinking, are applicable to thousands besides the author of the Rehearsal. In all these cases and such as these, both the structure and size of organs continue very much the same; there is something prior to mere corporeal organization, there is a vital principle, a spiritual agent to which the body is subservient, and which in our view is more efficiently operative in the formation of temperament than any, or every mechanical difference. It is true that the human body is a machine; but it is a machine endowed with life and fitted for living functions. It is true that the laws of chemistry and mechanics operate within it, because it is a machine; but then they operate in a peculiar way and under the direction of peculiar principles. Life and mechanism are, therefore, in close union in our present state of being, and every function which is carried on, whether it be that of thought, or loco-motion, is conducted by a compound power, which is the result of life working upon suitable machinery. The metaphysics of this subject have been sadly excluded from its consideration, and the science of life has been conducted with the level and the plumb-line. Phenomena, which are essentially metaphysical, have been traced to material causes; chemistry has been tortured for the solution of difficulties it was never adapted to remove; astronomy has been consulted in quest of light; and man has been studied, strange as it may appear, through the science of the stars! If the habit were irritable, it was because the fluids were irritating; if passive, it was because they were mild; if the temperament were moist, it was because the solids were deficient; if dry, it was because they predominated; if the functions were languidly performed, it was because the fluids were unstimulating and unfit for circulation; but if actively, the hydraulical department of the machine was in good working order. Such clumsy physiology might have been tolerated in the days of Paracelsus, but it is inexcusable in ours; and it ought to chastise the present boast of talent to have it said, that one of the first writers of our age among the French, and a distinguished Encyclopædia-maker among ourselves, have advocated this crude philosophy without a syllable of improvement, and have sealed it with the arms of the nineteenth century. In the inferior animals there are no such varieties as in man. One class or genus, no doubt, differs in its habitudes and dispositions from another, and there may occasionally be discovered some shades of difference among individuals of the same species, but these shades are very indistinct, and do not authorise any differential arrangement. Rousseau has, indeed, said that the monkey was only a savage man, and Linnæus has classified us with Apes, Lemurs, and, what appears even a stranger association still, with Bats; but as Materialists themselves do not now seem proud of such society, it is unnecessary to remonstrate with the taste of an arrangement so incongruous. L'homme ne resemble qu'à l'homme luimême. In our species alone are recognizable such distinct varieties, and the well-known fact, that these varieties so multiply as civilization and mental refinement increase, that the same nations and individuals differ as much from themselves at different periods as they do from others, is decisive that more importance should be attached, in the investigation of this subject, to the moral system of man, than it has been hitherto fashionable to ascribe to it. The young Savage of Aveyron had not been absent many months from the mountains, before he suffered three severe attacks of disease, and had changed very materially in taste and habit. How different was Rome in the reign of Numa from what she was during that of Augustus! At first, quiet in disposition and moderate in desire, she was satisfied with limited authority and innocent enjoyment; but her passions burned as her prospects brightened, feuds became numerous, factions formidable, a spirit of immoderate ambition began to wanton in the arms of luxury, and her whole moral character was ultimately changed. And what a contrast is presented in the eventful history of Wolsey, between the contented school-boy, while conning his master's task, and the disgraced Cardinal while mourning over the disastrous career of his immoderate ambition! The problem of Condillac-" the organization of the physical man being given, his moral constitution is required"—can never receive from these principles a satisfactory solution, and the sentiment it conveys is neither safe morality nor sound metaphysics. The intimacy which subsists between mind and matter in the human system is mysteriously close, but mind can exist without matter, as well as matter without mind. Their union is conventional, not necessary. The qualities of the one are as various as those of the other and at the same time as distinct, and while there is no evidence to shew that an inherent tendency to disease or annihilation is one of the mental properties, there is, as has been already argued, convincing proof that its original constitution in different individuals may be very different, and that this difference may, from its connexion with and influence over organic function, impart a constitutional peculiarity to systems in other respects the same. It were as difficult to maintain that the minds of Shakespeare and of Chrichton differed in nothing from those of Louis the 8th or Charles the 2d, as it were to shew that Dominie Sampson and Dumbie Dykes were twin brothers. Perhaps two individuals in all respects intellectually similar never have existed, and since mind is a creature as much as matter, although different in essence and obedient to different laws, why should it not be equally subject to original differences? The talented youth may degenerate from misfortune or misconduct, and the most unpromising powers may be improved by exercise. Climate may make the courageous timid, and the mild may become ferocious through adversity. Want may palsy the hand of benevolence, and a favourable crisis may develop springs of action and lineaments of character |