« PreviousContinue »
most eloquent writers of the present age has given a fine metaphorical picture of Buonaparte's attack on Egypt; describing him as a vulture pouncing upon an inferior bird, which in vain struggled, flapped its wings, and rent the air with its shrieks.' Thus, a poet, or an orator, by means of his metaphorical representative, relates or depicts the action of the real object he is describing: and, in a similar. manner it is, that a mathematician, by means of an alge braical representative, portrays the action or operation of the different subjects of his investigation, and that with greater or less minuteness as the case may require. The essential difference is, that by the one process we illustrate the nature of the object of the metaphor; by the other we ascertain the. nature of the object of investigation, so far as it was the subject of inquiry. The invention of mathematicians is em ployed to discover truth: that of poets to embellish or enforce it. But the aid derived from imagination, as to the original creation' of the metaphor or of the form of equa tion, is alike in both: and both, the structure of a metaphor as well as the management of an equation, are referable to rules, a deviation from which usually occasions the loss of the object for which either was employed. They are, in fact, both metaphors, though differently applied: and hence algebra may be justly regarded as universally conversant in metaphors, and truly termed a figurative language.
If those who argue that mathematical speculations are unfavourable to imagination, would analyse their own sentiments, they would find their notion to be simply this; that the imagination of a poet and the imagination of a mathematician are directed in different channels. We admit it; and so were the imaginations of Gray and of Cowper, of Milton and of Waller. And we do not hesitate to assert that the author of Hudibras would have been as unlikely to write the Ode on the Passions, as to anticipate Cavallerius in his docrine of Indivisibles, We will also admit, farther, that the mathematicians never attribute intellect or feeling to their subjects; and that, in one remarkable instance, a Professor of the abstruse sciences has been heard to exclaim, after reading Paradise Lost, What does it prove?-but all this is quite consistent with the opinion we defend, and plainly results from the distinctness of the subjects, and the designs, of poetry and mathematics respectively. It may be added, that some of the ablest mathematicians of the present day are distinguished, not only by an elegant taste and extensive knowledge in works of fancy, but by a truly brilliant ima
gination, both on serious and humorous subjects; and that if one writer may be deemed to surpass all his contemporaries in the profusion, splendour, and propriety of his imagery, it is a writer in whose metaphors we continually find the very processes and the very language of mathematics.
As guardians of the interests of literature, we are alike friendly to the exertions of ingenious men in every profession, so long as we see that they have a tendency to increase the stock of human information, or to preserve unimpaired the various sources of happiness; and we cannot permit that any one branch of knowledge, or any one source of mental delight, should be unduly depreciated or exalted in comparison with another. Mathematical knowledge in particular, we are convinced, and we hope have satisfied our readers, so far from being hostile, is even favourable, nay stimulative, to the exercise of the imagination: and that it strengthens and improves the other intellectual powers, is universally allowed. We shall conclude with recommending it to general pursuit, in the words of the illustrious Bacon: "Mathematics do remedy and cure many defects in the wit and faculties intellectual, For if the wit be dull they sharpen it; if too wandering, they fix it; if too inherent in the sense, they abstract it. So that, as tennis is a game of no use in itself, but of great use in respect it maketh a quick eye, and a body ready to put itself into all positions; so in the mathematics, that use which is collateral and intervenient, is no less worthy, than that which is principal and intended."
Ait, IX. Jarrold's Anthropologia; or, Dissertations on the Form and Colour of Man.
(Concluded from p. 81.)
IN the eighth section of this singular volume, Dr. Jarrold advances a doctrine on the origin of bone, liable at least to much opposition. Observing that lime is the basis of bone, and that lime has been supposed to be formed chiefly by the secretions and the decay of marine animals, he is of opinion that salt, not the simple muriat of soda, but the mixed mass, affords the principal supply of osseous matter to the animal economy. Granivorous, and especially gallinaceous animals, having strong powers of digestion, use chalk, he thinks, as a substitute for salt. He attributes the superior vigour of Arabian horses, and the greater specific gravity of their bones, to the abundance of chalk and marble in that part of the world. He ascribes the brittleness of the bones of old persons, and the falling out of the teeth, to a deficiency of osseous matter. It must be remarked, however,
that preternatural ossifications are most frequent in advanced age; and Blumenbach, an author whom Dr. J. frequently quotes, expressly states that, Maxima hujus (terreæ partis calcarea indolis acido phosphorco nuptæ) portio in ossibus præsertim provectiore etate; cum contra tenelle ætatule corpusculum gelatinosa materia abundat. Blumenb. Inst. Physiol. § 18. Other sources of osseous matter, our author seeks, in different articles of diet, more particularly in oat bread.
The Form of the Head' is considered in the next section, as occasioned by the expansion of the brain; and the influence of its position, upon the form and carriage of the body, is discussed. But Dr. J. does not gain much in regard to his main object, by supposing the enlargement of the posterior part of the cranium to be owing to the fulcrum, (which he assumes to be situated in a line between the orifices of the ears), being placed farther forwards, in Negroes than in Europeans; for this situation of the orifice of the ear must be of the same value, for specific distinction, as the form of the head which he supposes it to occasion.
In Sections 10 and 11, under the title, On the Influence of the Brain on the Character,' our author treats of the distinction of the mind, or intellectual faculty, from animal life, in which he includes the appetites and passions; and of the influence which the latter has on the former, and the consequent necessity of attention properly to modify its reaction; drawing some of his principal arguments from idiocy and mad ness. The expression,-- Animals are never mad, their diseases bear no analogy to insanity. A human being, labouring under canine madness, does not lose his reason,' p. 108,--might be interpreted as rather Hibernian.
The observations on the Forehead, in the 12th section, introduce a chapter on Physiognomy; in which, as well as several of the succeeding ones, the author combats Lavater's hypothesis, that this science is founded on the form of the bone. The existence of the science, he thinks proved, by its being generally exercised as an art; and he makes it the parent of affection and love (of which consequently the blind must be incapable.) But he asserts, in contradiction to Lavater, that
Every passion, every sentiment, has its own appropriate expression, and every set of features is capable of conveying them; and that therefore the hard and immoveable parts of the face cannot be the chief study of the physiognomist. The forehead, which is Lavater's leading feature, may be covered, without the expression of the countenance being lost.' p. 123.
In the view I take of the subject, every human countenance is capable of expressing every human feeling. The face of man is alike an index
of the mind and of the passions; but the countenance of a wise man is not always expressive of wisdom: his thoughts may be occupied on trifles, or he may be sorrowful, or some passion may ruffle his mind, and as is the state of the mind so will be the expression of the countenance. Wisdom has its own proper character; it is independent of any set of features; it does not court beauty or shun its opposite. Expression is the proper study of the physiognomist; it is the science of physiognomy. The beauty, the honor, and the excellency of the human countenance, consist in its being an index of the heart and of the understanding.' p. 124.
Dr. Jarrold seems to us not to discriminate sufficiently between the momentary expression, and the permanent character, of the countenance. It cannot be supposed that the bone should indicate the sudden emotions of the mind; but if it be susceptible of impression from a vein that passes over it, from the pressure of a tumor, or the gravitation of the fluid which it contains, how can we assert that it is incapable of alteration from the exertions of those softer parts which more immediately express the feelings, or of those organs of the brain, in which, according to Dr. Gall's theory, those feelings primarily express themselves? We are rather led to suppose, that whatever expression is most frequently made use of, or in other words is characteristic of any person, will in time produce a definite effect upon the skull, and thus imprint a physiognomical character upon it. A transient emotion will certainly not be expressed by a corresponding change in the form of the bone; but a transient emotion is very different from a settled character. The Negro skull is not necessarily incapable of bearing these physiognomical symbols; though it may be of a form less advantageous for exhibiting them, than the European.
We also think our author incorrect, in confounding 'beauty' and 'agreeable expression,' as synonymous terms; when he accounts for the superior excellence of shape among the Greeks, by some very extravagant encomiums on their superior knowledge and virtue.
They surpassed us in personal beauty because they surpassed us in knowledge, our vices are concealed, but their virtues were public; they were superstitious, but we are bigoted; they enquired for some new thing, some addition to the general stock of knowledge; we enquire after that which is old. Beauty or ugliness of the person resides essentially in the character; exalt the one, and it beautifies the other.' p. 127.
Beauty of the figure and face, however impossible it may be to determine upon an Ideal (for this we apprehend Dr. J. means by imaginary ideas of beauty'), implies something very distinct from the expression of candour of soul, which may beam in the countenance wherever it exists in the cha
The rounder orbit of the Negro eye, our author explains in the 14th section, on the same principle as the form of the occiput:
The upper part of the eye-socket supports the brain; in infancy it is soft and pliant similar to the other bones of the system, and yields on pressure, and thus their form is accounted for. Where the pressure is small, the roundness which is common at birth to both Europeans and Africans, and I might add, to the whole animal creation, is but little interrupted, and continues through life. It is unnecessary to inquire which shape is most desirable.' p. 133.
The form of the nose is accounted for, at least in part, in a similar manner :
The African face being an inclined plane, the nose lodges on this plane, and presses with its whole weight on the bones below. On the European face the nose does not press, it does not incline towards the face, but in a different direction; were it to fall as it gravitates, it would fall in a right line to the earth: the nose of an African is supported by the face, and would fall obliquely.' p. 142.
The size of the cheek bones, in which all nations surpass our own, he attributes to the greater exercise of the muscles attached to them; and contends for their equal value, in physiognomy, with the forehead.
There is great beauty, perhaps there is also no small degree of truth, in the following remarks, which arise out of: a consideration of the jaw and its muscles.
'Illegitimate children,' he says, are their mother's shame; she feels them as such; and this feeling is, in some instances, at the moment of the child's existence the cause of its destruction. But if it be once placed to her breast, passion flows with her milk, and the infant is secure from injury; she can bear the shame, she can endure reproach, she can suffer want-but she cannot wish her child were dead; much less can she be its murdeier. 1 have always pitied the mother who suffered death for the murder of her infant; she sought to conceal her shame, and she was not checked by natural affection, for it was not yet in existence; it is unlike in its nature every other kind of murder.' p. 166.
He concludes his consideration of the Form of the Body, with the Hair, its distinction from Wool, and the varieties to which it is liable.
The Colour of the Skin forms the second part of the work; at least so we infer from an introductory section, and the numbers of the divisions recommencing. The objections, already stated with respect to the whole work, apply more particularly to this part. The length to which it is extended is indeed excused by the author; yet the results of his disquisitions are scarcely valuable enough to reward the labour of following him through upwards of eighty tedious pages; and