My life has been devoted to the study of man, his destiny and his happiness. Uncontrolled in education, I learned to endure no mental restraint, and, thrown upon my own resources in boyhood, difficulties but strengthened the passion for philosophical knowledge. Yet more formidable difficulties were found in the limited condition of human science, alike in libraries and colleges.
Anthropology, my favorite study, had no systematic development, and the very word was unfamiliar, because there was really nothing to which it could justly be applied. Its elementary sciences were in an undeveloped state, and some of them not yet in existence. Mental philosophy was very limited in its scope, and had little or nothing of a practical and scientific nature. The soul was not recognised as a subject for science. The body was studied apart from the soul, and the brain, the home of the soul, was enveloped in mystery—so as to leave even physiological science shrouded in darkness, as the central and controlling organ of life was considered an inaccessible mystery. In studying medicine, it seemed that I wandered through a wilderness without a compass and with no cardinal points.
Phrenology promised much, and I examined it cautiously. It struck me at first as an unsatisfactory system of mental philosophy, and I stated my objections before its most celebrated and venerable champion, in public, who assured me that I would be satisfied by further investigation. As it seemed a very interesting department of natural science, I began by comparing the heads of my acquaintances with the phrenological map, and discovering so many striking coincidences that I was gradually satisfied as to its substantial truth, and I do not believe that any one has ever thus tested the discoveries of Gall and Spurzheim, without perceiving their general correctness, while many, with less critical observation, have accepted them as absolutely true.
My interest increased with the extent of my observations, until, for several years, I abandoned practical medicine for the exclusive study of the science of the brain in the great volume of nature, with the doctrines of Gall as the basis of the investigation. As it was my purpose to seek the deficiencies as well as the merits of the new science, I tested its accuracy by the careful examination of living heads and skulls in comparison with ascertained character, and with the anatomy of the brain, not forgetting the self-evident principles of mental philosophy. Many thousand critical examinations were made between the years 1834 and 1841, leading to many positive conclusions. The first year’s observations made me distinctly aware and certain of several defects in the doctrines, as to the functions ascribed to certain localities of the brain to which were ascribed, Mirthfulness, Acquisitiveness, Adhesiveness, Constructiveness, Tune, Ideality, Combativeness, Destructiveness, and Cautiousness. The functions of these localities were evidently misunderstood, and the faculties erroneously located.
The external senses were omitted from the catalogue of cerebral organs, though evidently entitled to recognition, and the physiological powers of the brain, the prime mover and most important part of the constitution, were almost totally ignored.
Following the old route of exploration by cranioscopy, I sought to supply these defects. I found the supposed Mirthfulness to be a planning and reasoning organ, and the true Mirthfulness to be located more interiorly. Acquisitiveness was evidently located farther back. The so-called organ of Adhesiveness appeared to be incapable of manifesting true friendship, and its absence was frequently accompanied by strong capacities for friendship, of a disinterested character. Constructiveness appeared to be located too low, and too far back, running into the middle lobe, which is not the place for intellect. Tune did not appear to correspond regularly to musical talent. Many of the higher functions ascribed to Ideality were conspicuous in heads which had that organ small, with a large development just above it. Combativeness had evidently less influence upon physical courage than was supposed, for it was sometimes well developed in cowards, and rather small in brave men. Cautiousness was evidently not the organ of fear, for the bravest men, of whom I met many in the southwest, sometimes had it in predominant development, and in the timid it was sometimes moderate, or small. Destructiveness was frequently a characteristic of narrow heads (indeed this is the case with the Thugs of India), and a broad development above the ears was sometimes accompanied by a mild disposition. The height of the head above the ears did not prove a correct criterion of moral character, nor did the breadth indicate correctly the amount of the selfish and violent passions.
I observed that the violent and selfish elements of character were connected with occipital depth, and elongation; that the affections were connected with the coronal region, that the sense of vision was located in the brow, and the sense of feeling in the temples, near the cheekbone, that the upper occipital region was the seat of energetic powers, and the lower, of violent or criminal impulses, and that the whole cerebrum was an apparatus of mingling convolutions, in which the functions, gradually changing from point to point, presented throughout a beautiful blending and connection.
Observing daily the comparative development of brain and body, with their reciprocal influence, I traced the outlines of cerebral physiology, and the laws of sympathetic connection or correspondence between the body and the encephalon, by which, in a given constitution, I would determine from the head the development of the whole body, the peculiar distributions of the circulation, with the consequent morbid tendencies, the relative perfection of the different senses and different organs of the body, and the character of the temperament.
Seeking continually for the fundamental laws of Anthropology, criticising and rejecting all that appeared objectionable or inconsistent, I acquired possession of numerous sound and comprehensive principles concerning the fundamental laws of cerebral science, which were at once touchstones for truth and efficient instruments for further research.
These fundamental laws, though very obvious and easily perceived when pointed out, had been overlooked by my predecessors, but are always accepted readily by my auditors, when fully explained. As new facts and principles led to the discovery of other facts and principles, a system of philosophy (not speculative, but scientific) was thus evolved, and a number of geometrical principles were established as the basis of the science of the brain, so evidently true, though so long overlooked, as to command the unanimous assent of all to whom they have been presented; and, as the acceptance of these principles involves the general acceptance of cerebral science, my labors as a teacher have ever been singularly harmonious, and free from doubt, antagonism, and contention.