Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

tation to be repelled, that state of mind has never been such, as to render me forgetful of my solemn obligation on no account intentionally to violate or neglect truth toward science, nor justice toward man. To the strictest scrutiny, therefore, I cheerfully submit the essay I have written, and hold myself responsible for all it contains.

APPENDIX.

REESE'S Humbug.

It was my intention before I had seen the work, to give, in this "Vindication," a brief analysis accompanied by an argumentative refutation, of an attack on Phrenology, in the "Humbugs of New-York," by "David Meredith Reese, M. D.," of that city. A glance at the production however has dissuaded me from my purpose. I cannot descend to the level of such a publication, and reply to it with argument, or in any other way that might imply toward it the slightest degree of respect; or which might give it even imaginary weight. The only sentiments it can awaken in my mind are pity for its weakness and puerility, contempt for its conceitedness, and abhorrence for its mendacity. It is throughout a feeble, but coarse and malicious pasquinade, and attempt at ridicule, instead of a fair and manly discussion. Though its author cants about morality and religion, it breathes, from beginning to end, a spirit as immoral and unchristian, because mendacious and abusive, as it is insolent and discourteous. And in neither of these qualities is it surpassed by the vilest political tirades of the day.

If the author of the "New-York Humbugs" either possesses now, or aims at possessing hereafter, the slightest standing in science and letters, it is surprising that even folly itself, however rank and wanton, should have permitted in him an act so irrevocably suc

cedal to his reputation, as that he has perpetrated by his attack on Phrenology. Should he even in time to come compose something true in science, and not entirely discreditable in literature, still will "Chapter III. " of his "New-York Humbugs" cling to his escutcheon, a mark for the curling lip, and "slow, unmoving finger of scorn to point and mock at, and for detestation to knit his withering brow at, which neither time nor change can ever efface. Nor is our author's emptying out of abuse and misrepresentation condemnable only, on account of its violation of truth and decorum. It is but the dregs, feculent, time-worn and stale, of what scores of his predecessors had poured out before him. It contains not a single thought, nor even perhaps a form of expression, which does not disgrace the pages of many antecedent attacks on Phrenology. It possesses not therefore even the humble merit of originality in calumny, or novelty in falsehood. Though, as already stated, I cannot condescend to reply by argument to such an imbecile, crude, and virulent article, it is due perhaps to the reader, as well as to myself, that I should illustrate and confirm the foregoing strictures, by a few quotations from it.

66

Our author commences Chapter III." with an untruth, in asserting that Phrenology and Animal Magnetism are similar in character; that the same forms of mind are particularly prone to a belief in both; and that these forms are necessarily imaginative, fanatical, and inclined to the marvellous. The following are his words.

This "science, falsely so called, (Phrenology) is a among the prevalent and prevailing humbugs of the day,

and it is placed next to animal magnetism, in the present volume, because of its claiming to be of similar antiquity, and of kindred character too; since both profess to be eminently philosophical. The same individuals who embrace the one, very frequently become the willing disciples of the other."

This I say is untrue. living who seriously profess the "philosophy" of Animal Magnetism. The number of those who even practise the art of it is very small; and respecting the philosophy or reason of it, nearly all, I believe, are silent; or, stronger still, acknowledge their ignorance. Assuredly I have never heard an individual attempting to explain it, except by attributing it to action on the imagination; which comes much nearer to a confession of ignorance, than to a profession of philosophy. Nor do I know of any respectable publication on the subject. No one, as far as I am informed, has ever pretended to say, either verbally or in print, why, or how any magnetic or galvanic influence is excited by the process pursued; or why or how, if it even were excited, it could produce the effects ascribed to the art. And, that the same individuals who embrace Phrenology are more prone than others to a belief in Animal Magnetism," is a position as unfounded as imagination can conceive. It is an empty and groundless assertion of our author, made for the purpose of carrying a point, under a recklessness whether it be true or false.

There are few, if any persons

As far as my information extends, Spurzheim was the only distinguished Phrenologist, who has expressed a belief in Animal Magnetism. And his belief in it was exceedingly limited. It was a good-natured friendli

66

ness toward it, and nothing more. To employ a common form of expression, he fancied that there was something of truth in it ;" but he did not push his views to a fourth part of the extent with many others. Nor did he ever, I believe, attempt to practise the art.

Gall, on the contrary, was no Animal Magnetist. Nor was he in any degree an imaginative man. On the contrary, he was more sternly a votary of facts and fair inferences, than almost any other man I have ever known. In stores of analogy also he was peculiarly opulent. His conversation was enriched by them to a degree that rendered it as delightful as it was instructive. But they were never visionary, far-fetched, or laboured analogies. They came to him unsought for, and were straight to the point - led directly from the known to the unknown from the simple to the complex from the certain to the probable. over in the cloister or the closet. wide and open field of nature. nothing. He observed accurately, reflected profoundly, made correct deductions, and thus studied, learnt, and represented things as they were.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

or

He did nothing more

His sphere was the And there he imagined

The two Combes again, Elliotson, Connolly, Broussais, Otto of Copenhagen, and scores of other able Phrenologists I could name, are no believers in Animal Magnetism. They have no fanaticism, I mean, on the subject. Nor are they indeed fanatics in any thing; but men of keen and practised observation, cool deliberation, sound judgment, and untiring perseverance. And such are the men best fitted to make discoveries, improve science, and benefit their race.

Were it admissible in me to speak of myself, I might

« AnkstesnisTęsti »