« ПредишнаНапред »
been overturned by mere quotations from works of several years standing, in the hands of every one who has made Phrenology his study. Our virtue, therefore, was small in not being angry at the repetition of a dose which each of us had administered to himself; which, besides, had been prescribed for us by many benevolent opponents before you ; and, finally, an antidote to which we knew that we possessed.
You state, that you have adverted to two detached points in my letter, not“ on account of their bearing on the argu"ment, but because they directly impeach one of them, the integri"ty or credit of an individual, and the other, the truth or fairness
of a particular statement in the Review." Permit me to assuré you, that nothing was farther from my purpose than to impeach the integrity or credit of so highly and so justly esteemed an individual as yourself; my objections touched only the logical consistency of your arguments in the Encyclopædia, and statements in the Review. And, with the greatest deference, no circumstance connected with your attack on Phrenology is so striking to those who have observ. ed your general acuteness in reasoning, as the inconsistency in logic that pervades almost every part of it. Even in the present note, produced expressly for the
supporting your consistency, you characterize my pamphlet as “ written, not only with much acuteness, but, with the two
exceptions we have noticed, with great propriety and fair“ ness;" while, in the very same line, you add, “ we certain“ ly think it entirely sophistical and evasive." Here, then, a pamphlet designated as “ entirely sophistical" is said to be “ written with great propriety;" and, although altogether evasive,” it is still distinguished by
great fairness." What an odd notion of “ propriety” in pamphlet-writing you must entertain, if you perceive no incongruity in these criticisms. But to proceed to the proper subject of
In the System of Phrenology, p. 297, in treating of the organ of colouring, it is said, that “ the faculty gives delight
“ in contemplating colours, and a vivid feeling of their harmony “ and discord. Those in whom the organ is deficient, experience
no interest in colouring, and are almost insensible to difference of “ shade.” Several cases are then detailed in support of the last proposition. For example,-Mr Robert Tucker is referred to, “ whose eyesight was not deficient, but who was able neither to “ distinguish nor to recollect many of the primitive colours when “ shown to him.”—“ The organ is reported to be decidedly deficient " in this gentleman's head.” Mr James Milne is next mentioned as possessing acute vision, but being incapable of distinguishing some colours." As to the different colours, he knows “ blues and yellows certainly ; but he cannot distinguish browns,
greens, and reds. He never mistakes black and white objects; “ he distinguishes easily between a black and a blue, and is able even to tell whether a black be a good or a bad one.
In the “ rainbow he perceives only the yellow and the blue distinctly; he
that there are other shades or tints in it, but what they are " he cannot distinguish, and is quite unable to name them.”_"A “ mask of Mr Milne is sold in the shops, and in it the organs of “ Form, Size, and Constructiveness, are well developed ; while that “of colouring is decidedly deficient, there being a depression in the “ part corresponding to this organ, into which the point of the fin
ger falls on passing it along. As a contrast, the reader may com
pare it with the masks of Mr David Wilkie, Mr Haydon, Mr " Douglas, or Mr Williams, all eminent painters, and, as the organ “ is large in these masks, a very marked difference will be percep« tible.”
After some farther remarks to the same effect, your article on Beauty in the Encyclopædia is adverted to, and the passage is quoted in which you state, “ that colour is in all
cases absolutely indifferent to the eye,” and that "if all these co“ lours were fairly arranged on a plain board, according to the most “ rigid rules of this supposed harmony, nobody but the author of " the theory would perceive the smallest beauty in the exhibition,
or be the least offended by reversing their collocation.” The System then proceeds, “ It is a curious fact, that the organ of “ colouring in Mr Jeffrey's head is actually depressed ; and it ap
pears that, in the usual manner of metaphysical writers, he has “ conceived his own feelings to be an infallible standard of those of “ human nature in general. It is quite true that the eye is affect“ ed only by the degrees of light; but by this expression the mind is " here obviously meant. The author, when speaking in the next “ sentence of the gamut, draws no distinction between the powers “ of the mind and those of the eye. Those individuals, then, whose
cases I have cited, and who cannot distinguish dark-brown from “ scarlet, buff from orange, or violet from pink, would probably
“ subscribe to Mr Jeffrey's positions. But other individuals, such
as Wilkie and Haydon, have an intense sensibility to shades of every hue and of every degree; and some painters have assured
me, that they experience a very decided emotion on contemplate “ ing colours, independent of every association ; and declare that " they perceive harmony, congruity, and incongruity in their ar
rangements, even on a plain board, as certainly and distinctly as " they distinguish harmony and discord in sound."-P. 301.
This passage formed the whole original subject of controversy; and I beg to remark, that the organ of colouring is not stated to be absolutely wanting in your head, but merely to be “ depressed," that is to say, deficient in comparison with the development of the same organ in the heads of the painters. My whole proposition, then, was, that unless you had been deficient to a considerable extent in the organ of colouring, you could not have denied direct beauty in colours, and harmony and discord in their arrangements.
In answer to this you stated in No 88 of the Review, “ First, that he (the author of the article Beauty) has a remark“ ably fine and exact perception of colours, so as to be able to match “ them from memory with precision.”
In reply, I beg to observe, that in the System of Phrenology, p. 377, it is said, that “ PERCEPTION is the lowest degree “ of activity of the knowing and reflecting faculties; and if no idea “ is formed when the object is presented, the individual is destitute “ of the power of manifesting the faculty, whose function is to per, “ ceive objects of that kind. Thus, when tones are produced, he “ who cannot perceive the melody of them is destitute of the power “ of manifesting the faculty of tune.-When a coloured object is “ presented, and the individual cannot perceive, so as to distinguish o the shades, he is destitute of the power of manifesting the faculty « of colour." It was never asserted that you are destitute of the
power of manifesting the faculty of colouring; and it is quite consistent with the doctrine here laid down, that you should be able to perceive differences of hues although the organ be “ depressed,” the act of perception being the lowest degree of activity of the faculty. You say, however, that you “ match colours from memory with precision;" and this also is not at variance with the organ being depressed; for memory is said to “imply a new conception of impressions pre“ viously received, attended with the idea of past time, and consci
ousness of their former existence; and it follows the order of the “ events as they bappened in nature. Each organ will enable the " mind to recall the impressions which it at first received." P. 393. It is mentioned that perception is the lowest and memory a higher degree of activity of the knowing and reflecting faculties, and some cases are cited in which perception was enjoyed, but not memory. “Mr Sloane perceives the differences so of shades when they are presented to his eyes, but has so little of “ the organ of colouring that he does not recollect so as to be able to
name them separately.” I have compared the masks of Mr Sloane's forehead, of your's, and of the painters, Haydon, Douglas, and Audubon, and find the organ in Mr Sloane's mask considerably deficient, in yours also deficient, but not so much so, while in the painters it is large and elevated.
The painters, as I have said, assured me that they enjoy direct pleasure from perceiving colours, and distinguish harmony and discord in their arrangement, and I attributed this power to their large development of the organ. The real question then is,-Do you enjoy this high degree of the faculty, or do you not ?
It appeared to me that your expressions in No 88 of the Review were calculated to convey the idea, that you did possess this high endowment. You say, that the Reviewer * spends more time than most people in gazing on bright flowers “ and peacocks' necks, and wondering, he hopes innocently, what «s can be the cause of his enjoyment."
This looks very like direct pleasure, independent of association, from viewing colours; and if this were the real psychological fact, then we should be presented with a “ depressed” organ performing the high functions assigned to an elevated one, and of course Phrenology would be at fault. My object in contrasting the passage in the article Beauty with the statements in the Review was to induce you, if possible, to speak a little more explicitly on the extent of your power of perceiving colours. You have done so in the note to No 89, and, with all deference, I think that the Phrenologists have now your own authority for saying, that the dein your
gree of your mental perception is in exact accordance with the size of the organ
head. In No 89 you no longer “wonder what can be the cause “ of your enjoyment in gazing on bright flowers and pea" cocks' necks." You explicitly maintain, that the beauty of all colours “ depends entirely on the associations with “ which they are connected ; and while it is admitted that certain “ combinations will generally excite the same associations in those “ who are devoted to the same pursuits, it is denied that these are " either universal or unvarying, or that the feeling they undoubted
ly excite can ever be referred to the organic action of the coloured “ light on the sense." You add, “ that, when it was said that co“ lours were absolutely indifferent to the eye, nothing else was or “ could be meant, than that their beauty did not arise from the
physical effect of the coloured rays on the organ, but from the “ associations to which that and all the other undeniable beauty “ in the universe was then referred.” And again,
And again, “ The theory “ is, that colours are beautiful, not in consequence of the mere or“ganic operation of their physical qualities on the eye, but in con.
sequence of their habitual association with certain simple emotions " or mental qualities, of which they remind us in a great variety of
ways. Thus Blue, for example, is said to be beautiful, because it “ is the colour of the unclouded sky ;-Green, because it is that of “ vernal woods and summer meadows ;-and Red, because it rea “ minds us of the season of roses, or of the blushes of youth and in
From this statement, it obviously follows, that when you gaze on bright flowers and peacocks' necks, you are not delighted by the colours themselves of these objects, but that your mind passes away from them, and dwells on certain " simple emotions or mental qualities, of which they remind
in a great variety of ways.” Thus, the red of the rose is nothing to you as a mere colour,-it does not, for one instant, detain your mind on itself as a lovely object,-it makes no grateful 6.organic impression on your sense,"_but is pleasing merely because it reminds you of the season in which it is produced, or of the blushes of youth and innocence : the blue of the peacock's neck, again, as mere blue, has no attractions ; but is beautiful to your mind only because it excites the recollection of the unelouded sky." "The paihters already alluded to, in whom the organ is