Dr. Dalton, in giving the result of experiments he performed in removing the cerebrum of a fowl, says:― It was not accompanied with the loss of sight, of hearing, or of ordinary sensibility. All of these functions remained, as well as voluntary motion.* This is a mere allusion to the mass of evidence observed and collected by different anatomists, all going to prove that the brain is not the exclusive seat of sensation and consciousness. I advise my readers to consult the book from which these examples are taken, as well as the later work by the same author, entitled "The Physical Basis of Mind." Let every fair-minded, unprejudiced person ask himself this question: For what purpose are the nerves and ganglia connected with the several visceral organs?-what is their use? Why, says popular opinion, to carry to the brain the knowledge of the condition of those organs. Is that all their office?-is there no power evolved from these organs?-do they not sustain or create and nourish certain so-called "mental faculties"? Whence, then, is derived the sentiment of Love, for example?-is it manufactured in the brain and exhibited only by the voice, by sentiment? If this were the case, then it would result in words only. This sentiment of Love is derived,.in my opinion, from a physical basefrom the functional action of the reproductive system-and results, in most cases, in functional activity of this system by reproduction. I think the most superficial reasoner will not dispute this. Now, if sentiment is derived in one instance from the functional action of one visceral organ and its ganglion or plexus, would it not be corroborative evidence as to the ability of all the other viscera to produce or create other kinds of sentiment, such, for example, as Friendship, Conscientiousness, Love of Young, Benevolence, or Cheerfulness?-which last many of the most ignorant, even, understand is in some way connected with a healthy condition of the liver; for when they observe one who is "blue," as they express a despondent state of mind, they invariably ascribe it to a disordered condition of the liver, and correctly so; for Hope, which creates a cheerful disposition, is directly related to the liver; and if the sentiment of Hope depends upon the normal action of that organ, how can it be said that Hope is a purely mental attribute, and created in the brain? I grant that the liver must be connected with the brain, as we know it is, by the great sympathetic or nervus vagus; but I deny that Hope is manufactured there. Its seat and source is in the liver, and depends upon, first, its natural construc The Physiology of Common Life, George H. Lewes, pp. 76, 77. tion, or size and quality; and, second, upon its normal condition. These two requisites being had, we find a cheerful, hopeful individual, with a clear, fertile, suggestive mind-so clear, indeed, as to make him highly analytical in everything which he observes or does. I know all this is antagonistic to the popular idea of mind, of sentiment and emotion; but whence, I ask again, does Mind derive its power? Not from the brain alone, because I have given you the evidence collected by such eminent students as Lewes and Dalton, and the opinions of others as learned will follow this. I have shown that, in the case of the newly-born child, movement, respiration, and vocal exercise were possible without any brain whatever. Now, if this be possible without brain, then the power was derived from some other source. I claim that it came from the plexuses of the several visceral structures; and the face, which is an exact register of the size and power of the various organs in the body, will prove to any good observer, who cares to investigate the science with a dispassionate mind, that where the signs for size of certain visceral organs are found in the face, the mental characteristics, which I claim are related to these organs, will be exhibited in every instance. Is this fancy or imagination, fact or fiction? The proof is within reach of every reader; let him justify my theories, or disprove them by evidence as conclusive. The more advanced of writers on mind at the present time are a unit in their understanding of the oneness of body and mind, and of the intimate connection of the organs of the body with the functional action of the brain. Of these writers, none have advanced opinions that have commanded more attention and respect than Dr. Henry Maudsley, author of "Physiology and Pathology of Mind," "Body and Mind," etc. Of the unity of body and mind, he observes: So intimate and essential is the sympathy between all the organic functions of which mind is the crown and consummation that we may justly say of it that it sums up and comprehends the bodily life,—that everything which is displayed outwardly is contained secretly in the innermost. We cannot truly understand mind functions without embracing in our inquiry all the bodily functions, and I might, perhaps without exaggeration, say, all the bodily features.* One of the most mischievous ideas prevalent is that the moral sense is not created by the bodily organization, but that it, in some mysterious and unknown manner, is connected with a "soul" or spirit "that is external or superior to the body, and cannot be improved or injured by the inherited or varying conditions of the bodily organs. It is popularly believed that a religious or moral 66 * Body and Mind, p. 29. training alone imparts the power for effective morality, and that a certain degree of the "grace of God" (which can be had only by complying with certain religious rites and ceremonies and by believing certain sectarian dogmas) is the most essential condition toward moral life and action. Those who have studied the pathological changes of the human mind and body, as well as those who have learned the meanings which Nature reveals in certain forms, colors, and qualities exhibited by the human face and body, have become thereby convinced that there are more potent and certain causes for the presence or absence of the moral sense in man than those. Perhaps the most efficient cause is found in inherited tendencies either for or conducive to moral power. On this subject let me again quote Dr. Maudsley. He writes thus: When we come to deal with examples of moral degeneracy, whether among the insane or among criminals, we must perceive at once that it is not sufficient to ascribe immorality to the devil; that we must, if we would not leave the matter a mystery, go on to discover the cause of it in the individual. The effect defective comes by cause, we are constrained to believe. What is the cause and what are the laws of moral degeneracy? As society is constituted, certain forms of evil-doing are certainly not profitable in the long run. How comes it, then, that an individual capable of looking before and after, remembering the retribution of past sin and foreseeing the Nemesis that awaits on wrong-doing, is so forgetful of true self-interest as to yield to evil impulses? And whence do these impulses come? One thing is certain, that moral philosophy cannot penetrate the hidden springs of feeling and impulse; they lie deeper than it can reach, for they lie in the physical constitution of the individual, and, going still farther back, perhaps in his organic antecedents. Assuredly, of some criminals, as of some insane persons, it may be truly said that they are born, not made. They go crimi nal as the insane go mad-because they cannot help it. A stronger power than they can counteract has given the bias of their being.* Later, he remarks :— I do not dispute that much may sometimes be done by education and training to counteract in this respect the ills of a bad inheritance, but it is still true that the foundations upon which the acquisition of education must rest are inherited, and that in many instances they are too weak to bear a good moral superstructure. Dr. Maudsley and all other writers on the origin of mental and moral states will grope in darkness on many points, unless they study the human face as shown by the light of scientific physiognomy. This will reveal many obscure and hazy phenomena connected with mental and moral manifestations. This knowledge is at this juncture very much needed. The following observations from Dr. Maudsley reveal to us that he sees the probability of physiognomical knowledge, and of its use in the treatment of the insane and morally weak, for he observes: * Body and Mind, pp. 108, 109. To me it seems not unreasonable to suppose that the mind may stamp its tone, if not its very features, on the individual elements of the body, inspiring them with hope and energy or infecting them with despair and feebleness. A separated portion of the body, so little that our naked eye can make nothing of it, the spermatozoon of the male and the ovum of the female, does, at any rate, contain in a latent state the essential characters of the mind and body of the individual from whom it has proceeded, and, as we are utterly ignorant how this mysterious effect is accomplished, we are certainly not in a position to deny that what is true of the spermatozoon and ovum may be true of other organic elements; and, if this be so, then those who profess to discover the character of the individual in the character of the nose, and hand, and features, or other part of the body, may have a foundation of truth.* Many of the greatest pathological mysteries will be unveiled by a knowledge of the human face. Much of the ignorance in the treatment of the insane, idiotic, and morally weak will be removed when our medical practitioners study this science as a part of their college course. And not until this is done shall we have true physicians, for to ignore the human face and all that it reveals of existing states, temporary, permanent, and ancestral, is to ignore the most important part of human knowledge. Consider the value of being able to locate the signs for all the visceral organs in the face. This has never appeared in any medical work in the world, yet it is properly a part of medical knowledge. Observe the immense power a knowledge of this, together with the mental signs, would give to those who have charge of the insane and imbecile. A true moral and mental philosophy is impossible without scientific knowledge of the human physiognomy. A vast and weighty amount of evidence as to the locale of the mind is slowly yet surely being adduced from the greatest experimental anatomists of the age. The following extract from a work of Dr. David Ferrier is quoted in support of my position on the contributory power of the viscera to mental manifestations. He observes: Whether the various viscera are represented in the cerebral hemispheres has not been experimentally ascertained. It is not, however, improbable, and the ancient localization of certain emotions in certain viscera, though crude, is not without some foundation in positive physio-psychological fact. Morbid states of the viscera or of the centres of organic sensation in reciprocal action and reaction may give rise to hypochondriasis. or melancholia.† Again, he remarks: We have every reason for believing that there is in company with all our mental processes an unbroken material succession from the ingress of a sensation to the outgoing responses in action. The mental succession is *Body and Mind, p. 39. [Italics the author's.] Function of the Brain, David Ferrier, M.D., p. 26. not for an instant dissevered from a physical succession. The only supposition is that mental and physical proceed together as undivided twins.* Other eminent observers, as Sir Charles Bell expressed it, are beginning to have "a firm yet dim conviction that the mind is not confined either to the brain or nervous system." Mr. George Henry Lewes' remarks on this point are not without interest. He observes: I feel myself justified, therefore, in considering that ideation is the form of cerebral sensibility which is determined by connection with the ganglia of visceral sensation. It was formerly believed that the heart, the liver, and the spleen were seats of the passions. Popular language still preserves this notion, but Bichat was the last great anatomist who countenanced the doctrine. Since that doctrine has fallen into discredit there has been an undue neglect of the important fact which it endeavored to explain, viz., the immediate influence exercised over the emotions by the condition of the viscera, and the influence exercised over the viscera by the state of the emotions; both the ancient and modern are reconciled in the view I have put forth, which makes the viscera the main source of emotions, just as the organs of sense are the main source of ideas.† I shall bring forward, as I proceed, the strongest proof of my position, that mind is to be found in the action of the organs of the several viscera and other functions, as well as in the nervous ganglia of the entire organism. It is true that no scientist has, so far as I am aware, brought forward the main principles which I here present. It remains for me to elaborate and carry to a finality my theories in my own particular branch of science. At the same time, it is a very great recommendation to my theories that they receive the support (in any degree, however remote) of the best and most advanced thinkers. Although the task of connecting the proof has fallen to me, it is both a task and a pleasure. It is made the easier, for the reason that I have the whole world of living animal and human organisms from which to derive my proofs. We will now commence our investigations in the chemical or primitive system of the body and analyze the signs in the chin. THE KIDNEY SYSTEM. Analysis of Conscientiousness.-The kidney system creates or evolves Conscientiousness, Integrity, Morality. The width of the chin, caused by width of its bony structure, denotes Conscientiousness, as well as the strength and action of the kidney system. A narrow, retreating chin shows that the kidneys are narrow and small; a broad, bony chin (if the eyes are well colored) announces * Function of the Brain, David Ferrier, M.D., p. 256. [Italics the author's.] |