Page images

ourselves no space for extracting any of the numerous and highly interesting cases and dissectious detailed in the works before us, especially in Dr. Campbell's publication, which contains the histories of no less than forty-eight cases, with many dissections. We never remember to bave seen such a strict coincidence of opinion and practice between any two cotemporary medical writers, as Drs. Campbell and Mackintosh have liere evinced-a circumstance that not a little increases our confidence in the accuracy and fidelity of both writers, and in the truth of the doctrines and practices they embrace. It cannot be necessary to inform our readers, that we are attached to the views which are here advocated; not from theory, but from observation of facts, and from a pretty extensive field of pathological investigation. We cannot, therefore, but view with concern, an attempt in the northern metropolis to revive exploded notions and antiqnated pathology, with all the departed ghosts of debility and putrescency, which we had hoped were laid in the tomb of the Capuleis. The publications under review, are well calculated to counteract these anile superstitions, so long and so often stained with the blood of their victims; and, therefore, we have been anxious to give as much scope and publicity as possible to the contents of the volumes before us. The only objections we have to urge, have already been hinted at in the course of this article-namely, the non-admission, on the part of our authors, of the modifying influence of epidemic constitutions. Dr. Mackintosh does not even allude to this subject, and Dr. Campbell concludes that the epidemic puerperal fever only differs from the sporadic, in requiring more decided measures of depletion. We are quite ready to admit that the symptoms and dissections of the late epidemic of Edinburgh sanction this conclusion, as far as that epidemic was concerned, and that the authors in question were perfectly justifiable in the depletive measures they so ably put in force. But still we are unwilling to admit the general principle, that all epidemic fevers are of the same character, and require the same treatment. There is another point in which we do not quite coincide with our authors-their denial of contagion in puerperal fever under certain circumstances. We think there is good proof on record that a contagious character is occasionally added to its other bad properties ; and as this belief is not calculated to do any harm ibat we know of, but some good, in as much as it will lessen the number of intrusive visitors, we think too much scepticism is rather reprehensible.

In fine, we are compelled, by our duty to the public, to state our preference of Dr. Campbell's work, as containing more dense practical matter, and less speculation, than the

work of Dr. Mackintosh. The latter work, at the same time, we have no hesitation in denominating a very able production, and that it only suflers by comparison with a cotemporary which appears to be crected on a more extensive expe rience of the epidemic in question, and to be constructed with more care and less precipitation. We infer, that it was constructed with less haste, because it is far more systematic, and far more clearly arranged. On this, and many other accounts, it is better adapted for the end which it is designed to attain, than the work of Dr. Mackintosh. We are sorry, indeed that these two deserving practitioners, who were frequently in attendance on the same patients, and whose views of the complaint so nearly harmonized, should not have coalescod in one work, as is often done on the Continent, and thus saved the public the purchase of two instead of one publication. We trust that the public will award to us the merit of having candidly and impartially analysed the productions before 118; and to them we appeal, also, for the justice of the decision we have ventured to pronounce on their comparative merits.

P.S. Just as the last sheet of this article was going to press, we received a pamphlet, entitled “ Notes on Dr. Mackintosh's Treatise on Puerperal Fever, by James Moir, Surgeon." It appears to be a tissue of the most slanderous abuse and libellous defamation of Drs. Mackintosh and Campbell, that we ever had the misery of perusing! We cannot sully our pages with any notice of so malevolent and scandalous a production. As a great portion of it is taken up with the defence of Professor Hamilton, and as several of that gentleman's communications to the author are therein printed, we have little doubt in our own minds, of the real source whence the pamphlet issucs. It requires, and deserves no other argument than the argumentum baculinum, which it would, long ere this, have received, bad it been put forth in “Paddy's land" instead of "Auld Reekie.” Ifihe gentlemen thus traduced can tamely put up with such insults, it must be for the porpose, we should imagine, of prosecuting the infatuated and enfuriated author for a libel. We had hardly supposed that such rancorous personalities would, at this time of day, have issued from the medical press; but Edinburgh is fainous for these productions and the more shame for ber!

XII. Observations on Phrenology, as affording a systematic View

of Human Nature. Edinburgh, Waugh & Innes—Ogle,

Duncan, & Co. London; 1822. PARENOLOGY, from oppy mind, and Loyos, is the term used by Dr. Spurzheim to denote a peculiar systein of doctrines concerning the mind, founded on certain views of the physiology of the brain. The propriety of the term will become apparent, when we recollect, that the brain is the organ upon which the manifestations of the different mental powers depend; and that for every mental act, there must be a corresponding cerebral affection; and, therefore, that a correct exposition of the functions of this organ will necessarily imply a true theory of mind.

Thesc doctrines have been taught for more than 20 years, at Vienna and Paris; but, it was not till 1816, when Dr. Spurzheim visited England, that general attention was attracted to them in this country. He delivered lectures upon the philosophy of his system, and gave demonstrations of the anatomy of the brain, by which, public curiosity was excited in an extraordinary degree, and much angry disputation occasioned. Established opinions received a shock, and all the partialities which accompany them were called into play to decry the merits of the new doctrines, on the one hand; while their novelty, and a certain degree of enthusiasm which inspired their advocates, shed a dazzling lustre around them on the other. Cool deliberation, always essential in forming a correct judgment of a new discovery, was thus excluded; and, after many pamphlets had been published and answered on the one side and the other, the subject appeared to fall into neglect, with its merits as undecided as when first introduced to the notice of the public.

After a silence of two or three years, however, the advocates of phrenology appeared again upon the field, and shewed, if possible, a stronger conviction of the truth of their opinions, and a more complete acquaintance with the doctrines themselves, as well as with the merits of the objections which had been stated against them. Mr. Combe’s Essays on Phrenology led the way;-they appeared in November 1819, and their author testified strongly in favour of the truth of the new doctrines, and strenuously insisted on the necessity of enquiry into a subject which, in his opinion, so nearly affects the best interests of the human race. To this work, soon after succeeded the “Illastrations of Phrenology, by Sir G. S. M‘Kenzie," in which the author gave portraits of remarkable characters, and compares their mental manifestations with the development of their brains. He contends, also, for the accuracy of the principles of phrenology. Several able criticisms next appeared in the pages of the New Edinburgh Review, in which the editor pledges himself that the doctrines are founded in nature. In 1820, Dr. Elliotson, in notes to the third edition of his Translation of Blumenbach's Physiology, gave a decided testimony to the truth and importance of the science.

In February 1820, a society was established in Edinburgh for cultivating and diffusing a knowledge of phrenology. A collection of skulls, casts, and busts, intended to exemplify the several organs and their combinations, was formed, and is every day receiving additions. This collection is open weekly to the inspection of the public. Meetings are held during the session, for discussing all subjects connected with phrenology, such as its application to elucidate the philoso. phy of mind, to education, legislation, medicine, and medical jurisprudence. The list of members includes gentlemen of talent and respectability of the three learned professions, besides artists and literary characters, and the numbers are on the increase. In 1821, Mr. Abernethy published “Reflections on Phrenology, addressed to the Court of Assistants of the College of Surgeons, London," in which be treated it as the true system of the philosophy of mind, and recommended it to the special consideration and candid examination of medical men. About the same time, appeared Dr. Spurzheim's book on the Application of Phrenology to the Improvement of Education. In spring 1822, a society similar to that of Edinburgh, was instituted at Philadelphia, of which Dr. Physick is president, a gentleman who is well known to our readers. Among its members are to be found some of the most eminent men in law, medicine, and divinity, in that city. They bave procured copies of all the casts in this country, and of the books in use among the phrenologists. Mr. Combe's Essays were reprinted under the direction of the society, and enriched with the anatomy which he had omitted. And, lastly, have appeared the “Observations on Phrenology,” by the anonymous author, now before us, who considers it “as affording a systematic view of human nature.”

When we find a rooted conviction of the truth of the new views, and a deep sense of their importance arising at this distance of time, in the minds of cool and able men, this circumstance itself affords a presumption, that there is something substantial at the bottom, whatever may have been added by fancy. The glare of fashion and novelty, which at first placed the structure in too dazzling a light to be clearly contemplated, has at last passed away, and it is perhaps only now that the subject comes properly under the candid and dispassionate consideration of the man of science, because now it comes before bim stript of all foreign support, and resting entirely on the basis of its merits. The partialities and prejudices with which even the most vigorous minds are at times assailed, bave had time, in a great measure, to disappear. The present moment is, therefore, particularly favourable for an examination of this long agitated question. Impelled by these considerations, and aware of the extreme importance to medicine and to philosophy, of the discovery of the functions of the brain, we have ventured to notice the publication at the head of this article, more with the view of seriously recommending a liberal and candid discussion of the merits of both sides of the question, as the most pbilosophical and sure way of ultimately arriving at the truth, than of attempting to deliver any decisive opinion of our own upon the subject.

We are led to desire tbis calm consideration the more, because bitherto, we conceive the weight of fact and argument and philosophy, to preponderate rather on the side of the phrenologists, than on that of their adversaries; not because we mean to assert that the opposite views are incapable of support, bnt that the opposition has been conducted in a way altogether unphilosophical; ridicule and vague assertion baving been too unsparingly employed on the one side, wbile vigorous reasoning, and an appeal to Nature, have been constantly held out upon the other. The consequence has been, that although thousands boldly assert the whole of the doctrines to be imaginary, no person is to be met with, who is able to shew a clear and philosophical reason, why these ought to be disregarded; and it is a curious fact, well worthy of observation, that, except the late Dr. Gordon of Edinburgh, who fell, as it were, into a serious discussion inadvertently, and unintentionally, by his intemperate article in the Edinburgh Review, no author of note, either medical or metaphy. sical, has chosen fairly to grapple with the subject, and expose its errors; and of those, who have written, we do not know one, who has made good his objections in the judgment of impartial men, and replied satisfactorily to the answers given by the disciples of the new school. Dr. Roget, indeed, is another author of consideration, who has delivered an adverse opinion on their merits; but he appears rather as a bistorian of the doctrines, who sums up his account by delivering an opinion against them, than as a regular enemy who comes into the field to oppose and destroy them. On this account, we do not hold this gentleman as pledged even on the side which he has espoused, so as to stake his reputation on their

« PreviousContinue »