Strictures on phrenological doctrines upon the human intellect : in a letter addressed to Dr. Spurzheim / by John Manesca.

  • Manesca, John, approximately 1780-1838.
Date:
1832
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Strictures on phrenological doctrines upon the human intellect : in a letter addressed to Dr. Spurzheim / by John Manesca. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    21/36
    pleasure ; of avoiding pain ; of defending real or imaginary rights ; in short, I now really think that motives to destroy, whether good or bad, lawful or unlawful, are various and innumerable. A cook destroys, so does a conqueror. A hero, a soldier, a butcher,, a fisherman, a hunter, a rat-killer, are destroyers of one sort or another ; but every act of volition of each one of those destroyers, is the result of a different motive. Now, sir, should I be compelled to adopt your doctrines, must I believe that the various ideas which constitute those multiform motives, are grouped, united, located in the same section of the brain? Must I comprehend those myriads of hete- rogeneous, adverse mental series under the same head and the iden- tical bump which phrenologists are pleased to notice as the sign of destructiveness ? Perhaps you will say, that, by destructiveness, you merely mean the act of volition, antecedent to the act of destruction, and independent of any previous ideas ; but then, I cannot perceive in what manner such a restriction will benefit the cause of phrenology, and make its doc- trines more palatable. For, in such a case, the developement of the organ of destructiveness would not be less commensurate with the number of the acts of destruction and volition, produced by destroyers throughout their destructive career; hence, we could not doubt that the destructive propensity is as much more developed upon the heads of Messrs. Magendie, Broussais, Lawrence, &c. &c, without ex- cluding yours, sir, than it is upon the skull of a Burke, for instance, as the number of innocent living animals which each of you gentlemen have directly or indirectly destroyed, is greater than the number of human victims that have fallen by the hands of the murderer, through the course of his homicidal career. No one, I hope, will reproach me for here comparing human life with the lives of brutes. I am arguing against phrenology ; and phrenology alone is answerable for an argument, the principle of which is displayed in its own tenets. If I remember rightly, that disposition in children to break and destroy their toys, is held out by phrenologists as an indication of the presence and developement of the propensity of destructiveness : verily, men are above brutes ; but the existence of toys, is, at least, as much beneath that of animals, as the existence of man is above that of brutes. The study of the mind, I insist upon it, should lead to some practical benefit ; otherwise, it is an idle curiosity, unbecoming rational men. I conceive two highly important objects to be attained by a correct knowledge of the human mind; viz. first, the art of communicating ideas, imparting instruction, and regulating intellectual, moral and physical habits ; and, secondly, that of anticipating, counteracting and correcting such habits as may oppose the well being of man. But, sir, I cannot say that I perceive, in the whole field of phrenology, any thing which will furnish us with means to accomplish these two important ends. Here, sir, allow me to suppose a case. One of the wretched in- mates of a prison has just died ; upon which a phrenologist, followed by a train of friends, prompted by curiosity, comes forward, examines 3