Abbildungen der Seite

“ function is stated as only probable, and stands open for further “ elucidation."

It appears to us, that nothing can be at once more modest, , and, in so far as the reasoning is concerned, more conclusive. We confess we long to see Dr Spurzheim's answer. He surely will retract the opinion, that “Inhabitiveness and Concentrativeness can never be identified.” This sentence we thought, even before reading Mr Combe's remarks, to be a little dogmatical; and now that Mr Combe's answer has come forth, we have no hesitation in saying, that, whatever may be the special function of No III., Concentrativeness is, in some manner or other, essentially connected with that organ.

In the other points where Mr Combe differs from Dr Spurzheim, he treats his antagonist with a degree of respect, and his subject with a degree of candour, that certainly prejudice us in his favour. But we are not disposed to enter upon these matters at present. It is comfortable to think that none of them, in the remotest degree, affects the great principles of the science.

The following morsel of criticism delighted us much. “ In composition, this faculty imparts splendour and elevation to “ the style, and it may manifest itself in prose as well as in poetry. “ The style of Lord Bacon is remarkably imbued with the splendours of Ideality, sometimes to excess, while that of Locke is as

decidedly plain; and the portraits of both shew that their heads “ correspond. Hazlitt's head, which I have seen, indicates a large

development of Ideality, and the faculty glows in all his con po“ sitions. In Mr Jeffrey's head, as it appears in the bust, it does “not predominate. The report was current at the time, that the “ review of Lord Byron's Tragedies, which appeared in No lxxii. of “ the Edinburgh Review (February 1822), was the joint produc“ tion of these two celebrated authors; and, keeping in view the

fact, that Mr Hazlitt's Ideality is larger than Mr Jeffrey's, it “ would not be difficult, by a careful analysis of the article, to as"sign to each the sentences which he wrote. Mr Jeffrey's predo"minating intellectual organs are Individuality, which treasures up “simple facts and observations ; Comparison, which glances at their “analogies and relations, with Causality, which gives bearing and “consistency to the whole. Hazlitt, on the other hand, possesses “ a large Comparison, respectable Causality, with a decidedly large “ Ideality, elevating and adorning all his intellectual conceptions. Proceeding on these views, I would attribute the following ne“tence to Jeffrey's pen, as characteristic of his manner. Speak“ing of the qualities of Shakspeare's writings, the reviewer says,

Though time may have hallowed many things that were at first “! but common, and accidental associations imparted a charm to ' much that was in itself indifferent, we cannot but believe that “ 'there was an original sanctity which time only matured and ex“'tended ; and an inherent charm, from which the association de“rived all its power. And when we look candidly and calmly to " the works of our early dramatists, it is impossible, we think, to

dispute, that, after criticism has done its worst on them; after all" deductions for impossible plots and fantastical characters, unaccountable forms of speech, and occasional extravagance,

indelicacy, and horrors; there is a facility and richness about “ them, both of thought and of diction ; a force of invention and a

depth of sagacity; an originality of conception, and a play of

fancy ; a nakedness and energy of passion; and, above all, a co“ piousness of imagery, and a sweetness and flexibility of verse, “' which is altogether unrivalled in earlier or in later times, and

places them, in our estimation, in the very highest and foremost

place among ancient or modern poets.'* In this passage, we “ have the minuteness of enumeration of Individuality, the discri“mination of Comparison and Causality, and the good taste of a “ fair, but none of the elevation and ornament of a large, Ideality. “ In another part of the same review, we find the following sen

tences : In Byron,t 'there are some sweet lines, and many of great “ weight and energy; but the general march of the verse is cum“ 'brous and unmusical. His lines do not vibrate like polished lan

ces, at once strong and light, in the hands of his persons, but are “ wielded like clumsy batons in a bloodless affray. — He has too " little sympathy with the ordinary feelings and frailties of hu

manity, to succeed well in their representation. His soul is like

a star, and dwells apart.' — It does not hold the mirror up to “nature, nor catch the hues of surrounding objects; but, like a "kindled furnace, throws out its intense glare and gloomy grandeur on the narrow scene which it irradiates.' Here we per“ceive the glow of Ideality; the simplicity of the former style is

gone, and the diction has become elevated, figurative, and orna“ mental. I am not informed regarding the particular sentences “ which each of the above gentlemen wrote in this review ; but “ these extracts will serve as brief examples of the differences pro“ duced on the style, when Ideality sheds few or many beams on “the pen of the author ; and I regard the probabilities as very “strong, that the passages are assigned to their appropriate

sources.” When we read the article referred to in the Edinburgh

[blocks in formation]

Review, we were struck, we recollect, with the idea, that it must have been the production of two authors. We never happened, however, to hear of this appropriation of parts. Nothing is more difficult than to detect an author by his style, and we will not, therefore, go so far as to say that the report alluded to must be erroneous. We will venture, however, to state, that, judging merely from internal evidence, we would have come to a somewhat different conclusion. The first of the comparisons we would have ascribed to the editor of the Review,--the last two to Hazlitt. In the first simile, Comparison, Causality, Wit, and Ideality, are all manifested in great activity, and, in what we conceive to be about equal proportions ; certainly Ideality does not preponderate. There are two points to be illustrated,—the march of the verse is cumbrous and unmusical; for this purpose we have, first, Difference,—they are not like polished lances, strong and light; then we have Comparativeness,—they are like clumsy batons in a bloodless affray. In this last member there is surely as much Wit as Ideality.

In the second comparison we have Ideality and Comparison without Causality or Wit. The point that ought to have been illustrated was, that Lord Byron's little sympathy with humanity unfitted him for succeeding in the representation of its frailties; but, instead of illustrating this point, the reviewer illustrates one of the relative ideas merely, viz., -that Lord Byron had little sympathy with humanity. The last simile might be from either author; perhaps, there is a little of each, as is the case, we suspect, with the whole paragraph of which it forms a part. Mr Combe speaks of the style being elevated, figurative, and ornamental; but merely the diction may be figurative without predominating Ideality, and ornamental too. And the beginning of the paragraph which Mr Combe himself ascribes to Mr J. shows this. T'ime is spoken of as hallowing, &c. After all, we do not speak with perfect confidence ; and yet, if we are mistaken, it will lessen our confidence in this species of criticism.

After the exceptions we have made, Mr Combe's remark seems to be just, and well deserving of attention. We were struck also with the following application of Phrenology to criticism, in a section where we very little expected to find it:“ Phrenologists are accustomed to infer the particular powers “ which are most vigorous in an author's mind, from the mani“'festations of them in his works ; and none affords better scope " for observation than the faculty of Colouring. Unless the in“pressions made on the mind of an author by Colours were very “ strong, he has no inducement to introduce them, for he can “ easily treat of a great variety of subjects, without adverting to “ their hues. When, therefore, we find him minutely describing “ shades and tints, and dwelling on colours and their effects with “evident delight, we may safely infer that the organ is large. Mr Tennant, the author of Anster Fair, frequently does so, and in “his head the organ is large. Moore has innumerable allusions to Colour in his lyrical poetry, many of them exquisitely beau“ tiful and appropriate ; and hence I infer, that in him also the

organ will be found large, although I am not informed, as matter " of fact, that it is so." It was gratifying to observe, upon Mr Moore's late visit to our metropolis, that Mr Combe's supposition as to his possessing the organ of Colour large is correct.

We could go on long enough making such quotations, and in indulging the listless humour into which we have somehow fallen in making desultory remarks ; but the book is of too serious a nature to allow of our parting with Mr Combe in a light humour. We shall, therefore, conclude our extracts with the following very admirable analysis of Hope :

“ The faculty produces the sentiment of Hope in general, or the “ tendency to believe in the possibility of what the other faculties " desire, but without giving the conviction of it, which depends on “Reflection. Thus, a person with much Hope, and much Acqui“sitiveness, will hope to become rich ; another, with much Hope, “and great Love of Approbation, will hope to rise to eminence; and “ a third, with much Hope and great Veneration, will hope to be “ saved, and to enjoy eternal felicity in heaven. It inspires with

gay, fascinating, and delightful emotions ; painting futurity fair “ and smiling as the regions of primitive bliss. It gilds and adorns

every prospect with shades of enchanting excellence, while Cau“ tiousness hangs clouds and mists over distant objects seen by the "mind's eye. Hence, he who has Hope more powerful than Cau« tiousness, lives in the enjoyment of brilliant anticipations, which

are never realized ; while he who has Cautiousness more power"ful than Hope, lives under the painful apprehension of evils

« which rarely exist but in his own internal feelings. The former “ also enjoys the present, without being disturbed by fears about the “ future, for Hope supplies his futurity with every object which his “ mind desires, however distant the prospect of attainment may be ; the latter, on the other hand, cannot enjoy the pleasures which are “ within bis reach, through fear that, in futurity, they may be lost. The life of such an individual is spent in painful apprehension of “evils, to which he is in fact very little exposed; for the dread of “ their happening excites him to ward them off by so many pre“cautions, that it is scarcely possible they can overtake him.

“ When too energetic and predominant, the faculty disposes to “ credulity, and, in mercantile men, produces rash and inconsidera “ate speculations. Persons so endowed never see their own situation “ in its true light, but are led by their extravagant Hope to magnify tenfold every advantage, while they are blind to every obstacle “and abatement. They promise largely, but rarely perform. In“tentional guile, however, is frequently not their object; they are “ deceived themselves, by their constitutional tendency to believe “every thing possible that is future, and promise in the spirit of this “ credulity. Those who perceive the disposition in them ought to “ exercise their own judgment on the possibility of performance, “and make the necessary abatement in their expectations. Expe“rience accomplishes little in correcting those who possess too large “an organ of Hope ; the tendency to expect immoderately being constitutional, they have it not in their power to see both sides of “ the prospect, and, beholding only that which is fair, they are ne

cessarily led to conclude that all is well. When the organ is very “ deficient, and that of Cautiousness large, a gloomy despondency “ is apt to invade the mind.

“ The faculty, if not combined with much Acquisitiveness, or « Love of Approbation, disposes to indolence, from the very pro“mise which it holds out of the future providing for itself. If, on “ the other hand, it be combined with these organs in a full degree, “it acts as a spur to the mind, by uniformly representing the ob"ject desired as attainable. An individual with much Acquisitive

ness, great Cautiousness, and little Hope, will save to become “rich; another with the same Acquisitiveness, little Cautiousness, “ and much Hope, will speculate to procure wealth. I have found “ Hope and Acquisitiveness large in persons addicted to gaming

“ Hope has a great effect in assuaging the fear of death. I have

seen persons in whom it was very large die by inches, and linger for months on the brink of the grave, without suspicion of the “ fate impending over them. They hoped to be well till death ex“ tinguished the last ember of the feeling. On the other hand, “ when Hope, and Combativeness, which gives courage, are small, “and Cautiousness and Conscientiousness large, the strongest as

surances of the Gospel are not always sufficient to enable the indi“ vidual to look with composure or confidence on the prospect of a “ judgment to come. Several persons in whom this combination

« ZurückWeiter »