action of mind with human rights, duties, obligations, and responsibilities. It is the common ground where the intellectual, affective, moral, and religious natures of man all meet, modify, and correct each other. It constitutes (and so it will continue to do through all the modifications of its whole existence) that same inscrutable I that thinks and feels, and wills and acts with entire freedom, subject only to the conditions imposed by its Creator, and to the great laws and governing principles that preside over and regulate the functional action of all its elementary faculties. A. D. ALBANY, NEW YORK, U. S. A. ARTICLE II. DR VIMONT ON THE ORGAN OF ATTACHMENT FOR LIFE OR MARRIAGE. In our last number we gave a translation of the seventh section of the second volume of Dr Vimont's Traité de Phrenologie. We now proceed to section VIII., entitled “Organe de l'attachement à vie, ou mariage." "Is there," asks Dr Vimont, "a special faculty for attachment for life, or marriage? Is it only the result of the action of several faculties, or the modification of one only-that of Adhesiveness for example-of which I shall speak hereafter? A more profound study of the organisation of the nervous system of animals and of their habits, can alone throw light on this question. If we watch closely the conduct of wild animals, we shall find that amongst some species, the males after having satisfied the desire for sexual intercourse, separate themselves from their females, either to go to impregnate others,-to live in a state of solitude, or to unite themselves to several individuals of the same species and of the same sex. Such we see is the case among wild boars, wolves, and stags. Other species again live constantly with their females (dans l'état de mariage)-for instance the fox, the marten, the roebuck, amongst quadrupeds; and the raven, the jay, the magpie, the swallow, the sparrow, amongst birds. Gall, though seemingly disposed to believe that attachment for life depended on a particular organisation, has not cleared up the subject by instances drawn from comparative anatomy. Nor has he been more explicit with regard to man. Spurzheim thinks that marriage is but a modification of the faculty of Adhesiveness; that the instinct of living in society, and that of living in family, are only particular modifications peculiar in their nature,-just as the taste for vegetable or animal food is a modification of smell and of taste in herbivorous and carnivorous animals. These observations of Spurzheim are but specious, and are overturned by studying the habits of certain species. I do not think that union for life is merely a modification of Adhesiveness-it appears to me to possess all the characters of a fundamental faculty. To me it is sufficiently proved that an animal may have great Adhesiveness and yet not live in com pany with its female. The dog is a striking instance in support of my assertion. Wolves live often in large bodies, but do not remain in a state of union with their females. Stags act in a similar manner. The fox, though brought up very young, does not attach himself to any one, but unites himelf to his female for life. It is not then true that where this union for life exists, we find adhesiveness; which, however, ought to be the case if it were, as Spurzheim affirms, only a modifica tion of that faculty. Gall has not, in my opinion, given a more satisfactory solution of this question, when he says, "If I could place full confidence in my knowledge of natural history, I would offer an opinion of my own. It appears to me that in all those species where the male and female mutually assist in taking care of the young, there is union for life; but in those species, on the contrary, in which the male contents himself with procreating young without assisting in any way in bringing them up, that the first female met with serves to satisfy his desires, and that the main design of nature is accomplished without the bond of union for life." This observation of Gall in nowise settles the question. At the very outset, it is not the fact, as he states, that in those spe cies where the female gives her attention to the young conjointly with the male, there is constantly union for life. The roebuck, which is attached to its female for life, does not in any way occupy itself in the care of the young. Gall says that this ani mal defends its family against their enemies. I do not deny the fact, but I do not think that we must necessarily attribute this conduct to the faculty of attachment to its young. Sup! posing even,-which however is not proved, that in certain species where this union for life exists, the male and female give themselves by turns to the care of their young,-that does not by any means prove that the two faculties are not distinct : the one appears to me totally different from the other, since its action continues long after the young are separated from their parents. The explanation of Gall, then, is none at all. Spurz heim believes that it is attachment and friendship which the male and female feel for each other which determines them not to separate after the instinct of propagation is satisfied, and to remain united even beyond the season of desire. Is this not in other words saying that there exists in certain species a sort of attachment which induces them to remain united for life, and after the observations which have been made, are we not compelled to admit that it is not to adhesiveness, properly speaking, that we ought to attribute such conduct? maldorli ton to Gall does not appear disposed to consider as a faculty belonging to man, that of union for life; or at least he seems to view it as a modification of the organ of Adhesiveness, and not as a special fundamental faculty. There are, says he, men and women who, without any outward adventitious cause, have an aversion for marriage. If we could read the bottom of their hearts, we might there find the solution of the enigma. Are such persons incapable of attachment or friendship? Do they dread the charge which a family imposes? It will be seen that this language of Gall is exceedingly vague, and that it is only presented to us under the form of a doubt. The more I have studied the conduct of men and the habits of many species of animals, the more satisfied have I remained that the feeling which leads to attachment to one companion for life, is the result of a fundamental faculty. Some observations which I have made on the human species, and many more which I have collected amongst animals, have enabled me to fix the situation of the organ in man and animals. Before pointing out upon the brain and skull the place where it is to be found, I must enter into some anatomical details. -The region of Philoprogenitiveness (de l'attachement pour les petits) as laid down in the works or on the bust, which phrenologists have in their hands, occupies too extended a space, and comprehends two distinct portions of the brain, the one placed at the middle part (No. 11, Pl. LXXXVIII, Fig. 2), the 36 36 13 33 83 13 20 10 The first appears other (No. 8.) more laterally and outwards. to me to be the seat of the organ of Philoprogenitiveness, the other that of attachment for life or marriage. I have already found this latter region well developed in two persons who had very early manifested the desire of being united to each other, and without being induced to do so by other motives than such as lead to four-fifths of marriages. I have found on the other hand the same region but little developed in persons who had naturally a repugnance for marriage. As a few observations will not suffice to establish a certainty, I would entreat phre nologists who have opportunities of making numerous ob servations to ascertain if new and carefully noted facts might be found to confirm my remarks. Except in quadrumanous animals, it is not in the region of the occipital bone that we ought to look for the seat of the organ which leads animals to become united for life. It must be recollected that I maintained this point of anatomy while describing the occipital region of quadrupeds and birds in the former it is entirely filled by the cerebellum; in the latter it contains the cerebellum, and a great part of the acoustic ap paratus. f It is then in the posterior parietal region that we should look in these two classes for the seat of the organ in question. I have compared with care the skull and the brain of a species of birds, well known to live in a state of union, as well as those of species which live separated from their female after impreg nation. There is a remarkable difference which I have ob served between them. The portion of the skull corresponding to the middle part of the posterior border of the cerebral hemisphere (No. 8, Pl. XCIII. Fig. 3) is very prominent in all birds which live in a state of union. Such are the following skulls and brains which have presented to me this form of organiza tion very apparent. The buzzard (PL. LXIX, Fig. 2), the great raven (Pl. LIX, Fig. 1), the great screech Owl (Pl. Lxt, Fig. 2), the hooded crow (Pl. XLIV, Fig. 3), the magpie (id. pl. fig. 4), the jackdaw (id. pl. fig. 5.) The brain of the hooded crow, of the great screech owl, and of the buzzard, will be found represented in Pl. LXXIII, Fig. 1, id. pl. Fig. 5, and Pl. LXX, Fig. 4. We should remark, that in these three species which live in a state of union, the cerebral hemisphere is not only much raised and well rounded towards its posterior edge, but that it is prolonged, even in a perceptible manner, over t the tubercula quadrigemina, b Another fact which I should point out is, that, if we remark the extent of the posterior part of the cerebral hemisphere from the point where it touches the other, to the exterior side, this part is found much more developed in the cases just mentioned than in those species which are not united for life, we may compare in this respect the brain of the domestic goose (Pl. LXX, Fig. 2), with that of the buzzard (id. pl. Fig. 4); and again we may compare this region (8) in the raven (Pl. xc, Fig. 3) with the same region in the turkey-hen (Pl. LVII, Fig. 4), and in the common hen (id. pl. Fig. 1.) With a little attention it will be found that the difference is very striking. I beg those who possess a collection of skulls of animals, to place the skull of a turkey-hen and that of a hooded crow near each other; they will be at once struck with the difference which I have just now pointed out; in the turkey-hen all that portion is depressed; in the hooded crow, on the contrary, it is full and rounded. The portion of the brain which manifests attachment for life in quadrupeds is that which is found situated backwards and outwards from No 11. (Fig. 7, Pl. LXXV.) Let any one compare two brains having very nearly the same volume and of the same class, the one, for instance, which I have now pointed out, being that of an animal which lives in the state of union; the marten, with that of the cat, which lives in the opposite state (id. pl. fig. 2,), and he will see that, in the former, the convolution 10 is not prolonged so much backwards, and covers much less of the cerebellum. The convolution 10 in the cat is that which gives rise to Philoprogenitiveness. In all the animals which live in a state of union this convolution is extended more backwards. I have found these relative positions well expressed in the brain of the badger, the fox, the polecat, the marten, and the weasel, all animals living in a state of union. We may compare with this view the brain of the badger with that of the dog. (Pl. 1.xxx.) The same part seems to me but little developed in the rabbit, the hare, and the guinea pig. Again, to shew the difference of development of the organ in question, we may compare the brain of the weasel, which lives in a state of union, with that of the guinea pig which feels no lasting attachment to its female. (Pl. LXXIV, Fig. 5, and Fig. 1.) ,, Before closing the account of the faculty which leads man and animals to become united for life, I cannot pass over in silence certain remarks which might seem to militate against the opinion which I have now offered. We are told, and Gall himself relates the fact, that wild cats and wolves had lived together in a state of union. Even supposing this observation to be true, I do not think that it can overthrow the opinion that attachment for life is the characteristic of some species only, and consequently a fundamental faculty. Because, one may have seen a wolf and a cat, animals which do not live habitually in a state of union, to be always together, we are not obliged, as it seems to me, therefore to conclude that such is the ordinary state of those animals. It is not surprising that living isolated, two animals of the same species become attached so far as to remain together, but in order to make the observation conclusive, it would be necessary that the wolf and wild cat had lived in a state of union, though surrounded by several animals of the same species. PIPIT |