Imágenes de página

voking invitation to ridicule which is offered by its numerous absurdities. For what shall be thought of a system which would prove Horace a Spartan, and Mr. Irving the preacher a Carthaginian; Anacreon an Englishman, and Mr. Rogers a Greek; Cervantes an Irishman, and Solon a Scotchman; Homer, Virgil, and Byron to be Germans, and Shakspeare, Hume, and Mr. Moore all Egyptians; Cromwell and Gibbon-' Arcades ambo'-Arcadians; Dr. Johnson a Frenchman; Hogarth a Spaniard; and, finally, the Devil and Cain 'favourable specimens' of the Irish disposition? Or how shall we seriously incline our attention to a metaphysical work, which with becoming solemnity proposes the different species of the animal kingdom for natural types' of the varieties of human character? For here we discover that the stag, the humming-bird, and the puma or American tiger, are all types of the Carthaginian or Irish character; the wild boar of the Scotch; the hippopotamos of the Greek; the rhinoceros, the owl, the ostrich, and the ape, of the French; the bear, the ram, and the Bengal tiger, of the German; the elephant and the hare of the Etruscan ; the ox of the Roman; and the ass of the Egyptian. 'The Celt' (under which division our philosopher has principally the Scotch character in contemplation) is like the wild boar, snuffing over the worldly objects which are presented to his senses, and asking what is the use of them, or whether they can be eaten, or drunk, or slept upon, or in any way made to become a part of the consumer.' In another point of view, by the way, our author, who would appear from the birth-place of his lucubrations to be himself a Scot, gives rather an alarming picture of the characteristic tendencies and domestic condition of his unhappy race. such a system, hen-pecked or governed husbands are frequent. The women grow robust, and are strongly marked in their features; their voice falls with ease into the tenor pitch; they reason on every subject with dry good sense, and can scarcely refrain from using interjectional oaths in conversation. They begin to wear hats of the same form as those worn by the men.' An awful approximation! in which we marvel that the philosopher has not discovered a natural type' of their disposition to appropriate unto themselves another article of masculine attire. We Englishmen live in a dangerous propinquity. Henceforth let no man marry beyond the border; and still less let him venture among our western neighbours, after he has learnt the following propensity of the Hibernian or Carthaginian character:

[ocr errors]


'One uniform characteristic of the Carthaginian nature is the desire to stand in new and different relations to the same object which we have already known in other circumstances. Thus the African may be gratified with the speedy change from pursuing the living animal to possessing its dead carcass; and from seeing the carcass whole to cutting it into parts. Such treatment is the most opposite to what the animal would willingly have endured while yet alive; but a few moments are sufficient to



make the difference. Perhaps some intellectual motive of this sort may be involved in cannibalism, which is known to be not always practised for want of provisions, nor, as some have supposed, for the superiority of human flesh. The savage who eats the same person with whom a short time before he had been accustomed to meet in battle, and to exchange blows, becomes acquainted with his man under entirely different circumstances, or perhaps enjoys the pleasure of experiencing, that the activity which once existed in him is entirely extinguished and overcome.

It is suspected that cannibalism still exists among the African nations; and by some travellers it was formerly asserted, that, in certain towns, the flesh of men was publicly sold in the shambles, with that of other animals. Cannibalism, so far from giving men a gloomy and ferocious aspect, may rather communicate a peculiar mildness to the countenance, accompanied with that luscious sort of smile often found among savages.' -p. 39.

And why was Daniel De Foe an Irishman? He betrays himself (p. 76) by the interest which he takes in cannibalism;' and the author of Robinson Crusoe had doubtless the peculiar mildness of aspect and the true 'luscious smile' of anthropophagi," whose heads do grow beneath their shoulders."


But to proceed with our philosopher's types. The ram is a symbol of German character, because it expresses the sense of fluxions in taking a long run to accumulate momentum, for the purpose of giving a more powerful stroke. To the German intellect may ... be ascribed the sense of accumulation, &c. . . . . . ... In the course of the ram accumulation is expressed, not in its motion through a certain distance, but in the forces successively acquired from the new strokes of its feet on the ground at each step. also the great striped tiger of Bengal is a type of the German character, because this animal, by the suddenness of its leaps, and its wild and haggard appearance, seems to express the arbitrary power of selection, circulation, distribution, or collocation, which, leaving out what is intermediate, brings remote parts together! For the French character, we have some very appropriate symbols: the ostrich-for it has extraordinary powers of digestion and the Frenchman, as all the world knows, is par excellence a cooking animal; and the ape, because 'living among all the trees of the forest, it partakes of synthetical transition, and in transferring itself from bough to bough it may be considered as pursuing new combinations. It appears as if chased by the mys terious and solemn nature of morality.' A goodly race, in which the motto of the Frenchman is still sauve qui peut. But the climax of the ridiculous is to be found in the following passage, which is quite characteristic of the author's mind, and of the style of his book.

[ocr errors]

If among the animals we look for a type of courage, we shall proba, bly for some time wander about perplexed, till we fix on the humming, bird. Its characteristic is to suspend itself in the air, and remain in one

place, by the continued action of its wings; so that it does not flit about like other birds, but remains stationary, producing a humming sound. This corresponds with the nature of courage and systematic will, since, in strokes of its wings, physical exertion must be regulated according to exact proportion, to enable it to retain its position in the air unchanged. The nicest degrees of force must be observed. Covered with the brilliant hues of praise, this minute and exquisite bird seems to rejoice in maintaining itself in the post of honour. A recent traveller has estimated the varieties of the humming-bird species at about an hundred; in which there are to be found all intermediate grades of size; the largest kind, which is called the blue-throated Mexican, being about five times as big as the smallest, which is less than a bee. The humming sound belongs to its wings; the note which it utters from its pipe is simple, small, and delicate, An accurate survey and estimate of characteristic qualities and powers, however, will teach us to associate this animal with the gigantic moosedeer and the powerful vulture.'—pp. 53, 54.

[ocr errors]

The author declares his purpose in the outset, to show that there is not room in rerum natura for more than twelve generic characters, essentially different from each other; and that to some one or other of the twelve departments every nation and every individual must be capable of being referred, in the same manner that in natural history each animal can be traced to some known order, in the destructive qualities of which it participates.' He therefore proceeds to account for and to arrange all the varieties of human intellect, disposition, and tastes, under twelve classes, to which he assigns the names of the following nations:

I. The Carthaginian or Irish-II. The Celtic, or Scotch, or ScythianIII. The Egyptian, Chinese, or Swiss-IV. The English or CorinthianV. The Greek or Venetian-VI. The German or Hindoo-VII. The Roman or Italian-VIII. The Arcadian, or Persian, or Scotch LowlandIX. The Etruscan-X. The Spanish or Arabian-XI. The French or Athenian-XII. The Spartan, or Russian, or Swedish.'

Having confined all the compounded modifications of human nature within these twelve classes, our author proceeds in like manner to limit the elements of character in each class to twelve qualities or properties. That is, he considers that each generic character can only be viewed in relation to three primary faculties, INTELLECT, WILL or DISPOSITION, and TASTE; and that each of these again operates under four different forms. Thus,

́ 1st. INTELLECT has application to the Sciences, to Observation, to System, and to Sensuality, or the desire of gratifying sensation. 2dly. WILL, OF DISPOSITION, appears in Love, Industry, Courage, and Morality. 3dly. TASTE, or the sense of beauty, is shown in relation to Religion, Social Life, Ambition, and Poetical Genius.

Having laid down these land-marks for the physiology of character, our author, who is himself evidently a phrenologist, discovers that the systems of Gall and Spurzheim, after a little straining and enlarging, may be made to fit exactly, and to harmonize

[ocr errors]

admirably, with his own. The systems of Drs. Gall and Spurżheim,' he observes, 'have frequently been ridiculed, as extending the number of mental powers beyond all rational bounds, and splitting human nature as it were into a motley assemblage of incongruous parts, amounting to no less than thirty-three.' But our author undertakes to show, that this multiplicity is not nearly so great as it appears, nor verily quite so great as it ought to be, for that the system would, if completed, comprehend thirty-six faculties, which would be resolvable into twelve triads, each consisting of-I. an intellectual power; II. a sentiment; III. an instinct; the three faculties in each kind being supposed to spring from one root, and to be connected with each other by the closest analogy or similarity of nature. Now in each national character or separate kind of men, some one of these triads is supposed to predominate, and to have the ascendancy over all the other faculties, so as to give a tone to the whole mind, and produce a decided bias in the character and talents.'

Thus we find that, as there are just twelve, and no more, diversities of human character, so there are just twelve, neither less nor more, triads of faculties developed in the configuration of the human skull; and that, as there are three primary divisions in each character, viz. intellect, will, and taste, so also there are three responding organs developed in each triad, viz. an intellectual power, a sentiment, and an instinct. Here, then, triumphantly exclaims our philosopher, we are enabled to free Gall and Spurzheim from the reproach of having multiplied the original faculties of human nature beyond all reasonable limits. Their number is at least thirty-six, and Messrs. Gall and Spurzheim may deem themselves henceforth proportionately indebted to this new discovery for the preservation of their fame. Whether, indeed, each of these thirty-six organs is not again subdivided into four, like the primary qualities of character, our author omits to tell us: but a topographical map of the skull might have shown them all in due allocation, like the townships, sections, and quarter sections, into which American surveyors are wont to distribute the uncleared wilderness. And thus our lover of order might have found reason to divide his head, like his physiological system and his book, into one hundred and forty-four compartments, the only difficulty being in the law required by his plan, that no compartment should be left void.'

[ocr errors]

This precious framework of a system for determining the physiology of human character having been thus laid out, our author betakes himself to the filling up of its compartments. He examines each of his twelve generic characters in relation to each of his twelve all-comprehensive qualities; and it is by these combinations that the compartments of his treatise reach the maximum of the multiplication table; being in number twelve times twelve, or one hundred and forty-four. Thus, to select one character,

the Irish, for example, which stands first on his list: he commences a short introductory chapter with the remark that, 'The study either of the real world, or of ideal possibilities, will teach us that there exists a certain adventurous character,' &c., which he then distinguishes as belonging to the Carthaginians and the Irish, and refers to its natural type in the animal kingdom. Having defined the character, he proceeds to try it in its relation: firstly, to INTELLECT, and under this head to Science, Observation, System, and Sensuality; secondly, to DISPOSITION, and under this head to Love, Industry, Courage, and Morality; and thirdly, to TASTE, and under this head to Religion, Social Life, Ambition, and Poetical Genius. These inquiries occupy three chapters with each of its subdivisions of four sections; and under every head it would appear that the author (though his object is not very clear) designs to discover and to exhibit the different phases under which the fixed qualities display themselves in each variety of generic character. The investigation of every character is closed by a general estimate or recapitulation of its peculiarities; and at the end of the volume itself we have an inversion of such inquiries, or rules for ascertaining the national character of any individual by the criterion of his qualities.

Of our author's plan it is only necessary to observe further, that it professes to work by historical and biographical illustration and proof, and that several celebrated individuals are selected as examples of each character. But our philosopher, in desiring to illustrate any generic character, is by no means particular, as we have already shown, in what quarter to seek his examples. He calls Mahomet and Milton equally Arcadians, or equally Irishmen, as it suits him to class them under the same head; and he declares that it is quite an error' to suppose that the distinguished men born in a country are uniformly of the nature which is most common in that country. On the contrary they often appear to have been dropt by chance upon a soil foreign to themselves.' In this manner it is wonderfully shown that almost all the celebrated men which each country has produced do not belong to the character of their nation, but ought to have been born elsewhere, and should be classed under some other head.

Such then are the outlines of our philosopher's system; and our brief analysis may convey to the reader a sufficient idea of the general contents of his volume. In forming an estimate of their value, it is, in the first place, obvious to common sense, that his classification of the diversities of human character is altogether arbitrary and fanciful. Why are the varieties exactly twelve, and upon what principles has he arranged them under the distinctions which he has given? All this he has entirely avoided to explain. He has in the outset, indeed, dogmatically asserted, that 'there is not room in rerum natura for more than twelve generic characters essentially different from each other;' and to show this supposed

« AnteriorContinuar »