Brain
REVIEWS. a Journal of Neurology. Edited by Drs. Bucknill, Criciiton Browne, Ferrier, and Hugiilings-Jackson. London : Macmillan & Co., 1878.
Since the publication of the last number of the Journal of Psychological Medicine, two parts of our new contemporary, Brain, have appeared. With such contiibutors as Crichton Browne, Lockhart Clarke, Kesteven, Moxon, &c., the journal cannot fail to secure the support of the profession. With the exception of one or two articles, those which have already ap- peared are of an essentially practical and valuable character.
We are sorry to find that Dr Bucknill, in his review of Dr. Bateman’s ” Darwinism tested by Language,” in the first number of Brain, has allowed his odium anti-theologicum to bias his judgment. It is an unpardonable offence to him that the book should be ushered in with a preface by Dr Goulburn, the Dean of Norwich. If Dr Bateman’s views are sound, as we hope to prove them to be, surely it cannot matter whether the preface be written by Dean Goulburn, Mr. Gladstone, or the Pope of Eome; and we are at a loss to understand how the cor- roborative testimony of a distinguished theologian can in any way detract from the merits of Dr Bateman’s researches. The chief editor has thereby thrown down the gauntlet of defiance to the theologians, and proclaimed to the world that psychology will have no connection with her sister science, theology. Why should he fear the theologian ? Let Truth be welcomed from whatever quarter she comes. Dr Bucknill seems to have for- gotten the long roll of distinguished scientific men connected with the clerical profession who are some of our greatest dis- coverers, such as Seth Ward, Bishop of Exeter, and afterwards of Salisbury, author of” Astronomie Geometrica Roger Bacon; Wallis, a celebrated mathematician, second only to Sir Isaac Newton; Bradley, discoverer of aberration and nutation ; Pascal; Barron ; Brinkley, the astronomer; Dean Buckland; Canon Sedgwick ; Conybeare ; Gilbert White; Peacock, distinguished for his original views on algebra; Whewell ; Mosely, known for his valuable contributions to engineering science ; and Zecclii, the astronomer.
Dr Bucknill, with questionable taste, calls Dr Bateman’s book “a bolus of incongruities.” This is not just towards one who, as a cerebral pathologist, ranks equal to Dr Bucknill himself, and who is looked up to as an authority on aphasia in England, and still more on the Continent. In Ziemssen’s ” Cyclopaedia of the Practice of Medicine,” Dr Bateman is referred to six times in the volumes on ” Diseases of the Brain and its Membranes,” and on the ” Diseases of the Nervous ?System.” In the latter, Kussmaul speaks in the following complimentary terms of Dr Bateman’s monograph on aphasia:
He (Dr Bateman) ” shows in an astounding manner how badly the materials bearing upon disturbances of speech had been dealt with up to that time [1869] from an anatomical and, un- fortunately, also from a clinical point of view.” With this impartial testimony we cannot refrain from observing incident- ally that it does appear somewhat invidious that neither Drs. Ferrier nor Althaus have made the slightest allusion to Dr. bateman’s researches in their recent works on the ” Diseases of the Brain and Nervous System.” Dr W. A. F. Browne, however, did not omit to mention him as an authority in his interesting article on the ” Impairment of Language,” published in the second volume of the ” West Eiding Lunatic Asylum Medical Iveports.” It would almost appear as if the materialistic psychologists could not forgive Dr Bateman for the active part he has taken in demolishing their pet theory and last strong- hold?the localisation of language in the third left frontal convolution of the brain. Alas ! their hypothesis has met with the same fate as Gull and Sperzheim’s, and the independence of the human mind stands out in as bold relief as ever.
The dictatorial and off-hand manner in which Dr Bucknill has attempted to confute Dr Bateman’s arguments, is so un- fair, that those readers of Brain who have not read his work themselves, but rely on the infallibility of Dr Bucknill, would rise from the perusal of his criticism with the notion that Dr. Bateman’s opinions are altogether ridiculous and untrustworthy. We will now proceed to consider the propositions of Dr Bate- man?that articulate speech is a distinctive attribute of man, and that the faculty of speech is immaterial. If these two points can be fully established, they offer, as Dr Bateman contends, a strong argument against the theory of evolution.
Dr Bucknill remarks that articulate speech is not an at- tribute confined to man, because a parrot can speak?yes, and so can a phonograph repeat sentences without intelligence ; but no one for a moment supposes that Dr Bateman speaks of language in that sense. Every schoolboy knows that words are articulate sounds, formed by the organs of speech, and used as signs of our ideas. Dr Bucknill refers to deaf mutes, as a proof that speech is not essentially an attribute of man. But they talk with their fingers (as it is commonly expressed), and their digital language interprets their ideas as clearly as speech does, and separates them equally far from the brute creation. This fact cannot he denied, and proves that Darwinism cannot stand the test of language. Milton must have felt the force of its truth when he wrote:?
The first at least of these I thought deny’d To boasts, whom God in their creation day, Created mute to all articulate sounds.
Dr Bucknill dismisses in a very summary manner the troublesome facts which militate against the materialisation of the facidty of speech, and its localisation in the third left frontal convolution of the brain He selects only one of the three cases adduced by Dr Bateman, that recorded by Velpeau. He is evidently imperfectly acquainted with the celebrated discussion on aphasia at the Academie de Medecine of Paris, in which the most distinguished men in Paris admitted this case of Velpeau’s to be a crucial test, and he claimed the prize of 500 francs, offered by Bouillaud, for his well-authenticated case, in which the two anterior lobes were destroyed without speech being affected. (See Gazette des Ilopitaux, from April 6 to June 8, 1865.) The patient exhibited unusual loquacity up to the time of his death. On opening the cranium, a cancerous tumour was found, which had taken the place of the two anterior lobes of the brain. Nothing can be more con- clusive ; yet Dr Bucknill, being unable to dispute the fact, takes refuge in ridicule, and says: ” These are the kind of facts which are expected to refute Broca and Ferrier.” Most decidedly they are ! Facts are stubborn things; and neither Broca, nor Ferrier, nor Bucknill, nor the greatest authorities that ever lived, can upset them. Dr Bucknill, in the worst possible taste, goes on to say, ” The missing link himself” … “could not have been expected to use worse arguments” than Dr Bateman. This is one of tlie most curious and novel specimens of criticism we ever met with. It is neither logical nor courteous, and we expected better things from an alienist holding a high place in his pro- fession. There are two other cases which Dr Bucknill has thought fit to ignore, which must not be lost sight of in a question of such vital importance. One, recorded by M. Peter, was that ” of a man who fractured his skull by a fall from a horse ; after recovering from the initial stupor, there succeeded a remarkable loquacity, although after death it was found that the two frontal lobes of the brain were reduced to a pulp (reduits en bouillie).” The other case is related by Professor Trousseau : ” Two officers, quartered at Tours, quarrelled, and satisfied their honour by a duel, as a result of which one of them received a ball, which entered at one temple and made its exit at the other. The patient survived six months without any sign of lesion of articulation, nor was there the least hesitation in the expression of his thoughts till the supervension of inflammation of the central substance, which occurred shortly before his death, when it was ascertained that the ball had traversed the two anterior lobes at their centre.” * In addition to these instances we may refer to another to which we drew attention in an article on ” Ma- terialistic Psychology,” published in the Journal of Psycho- logical Medicine. The case occurred at St. Mary’s Hospital, and was one of softening of the brain, induced by syphilitic disease of the frontal bones. During the week the patient was in the hospital his mental faculties were not impaired ; after death hoth the anterior lobes were found to be entirely disorganised. Dr Bateman has justly observed that “if Professor Broca’s theory could be proved to be correct?that the third frontal convolution is the seat of human speech?a strong argument could be adduced in favour of Darwinism. It might be said that the ape possessed the rudiments of speech in an undeveloped form, and that in subsequent generations, by the process of evolution, this fold could become more developed, and the ape would speak; in fact would become a man! As, however, this fold has not been found to be the seat of speech in man, the Darwinian argument from analogy of structure falls to the ground, and speech remains a barrier the brute is not destined to pass.”
Dr Bucknill, whose odium anti-tlieologicum has so warped his judgment that he cannot see the slightest merit in Dr. Bateman’s work, has not deigned to notice a valuable chapter on the popular belief that there are tribes of savages who do not possess the faculty of speech. This assumption has been quoted as an argument against the proposition, that language is an attribute universally belonging to mankind. Since the days of Herodotus travellers have told strange stories about speechless races. Dr Bateman has been at great pains to investigate the subject, and has instituted inquiries which have set the matter at rest. Dr Moffat, Sir Samuel Baker, and Sir Bartle Frere?all competent judges, who have had intercourse with some of the most savage tribes?have severally informed him they never met with any race who had not sufficient power of speech to communicate their ideas.
The air of superior intelligence assumed by some of the evo- lutionists would scarcely be credited by those who are un- acquainted with the contempt with which they speak of those who differ from them in opinion. Dr Bucknill, from the lofty pedestal on which he has placed himself, says that for the probability of evolution, ” Darwin has collected an amount of evidence which must be quite immeasurable, inconceivable, and incomprehensible to any mind capable of compounding the incongruous bolus of theology, metaphysics, and science, which is presented to us in this book (’ Darwinism tested by Lan- guage As we, in our ignorance, think that Dr Eateman has given an extremely lucid exposition of the Darwinian hypothesis in the first chapter of his book, we are necessarily in the same category with him. We, too, are so benighted as to believe that science, metaphysics, and theology are compatible, and that scientific theology is quite as much in accord with reason as evolution and scientific materialism.
Dr Bucknill having inferred that he is in possession of an amount of evidence in favour of evolution so overwhelming as to be inconceivable to ordinary minds, we should be very thankful if he would tell us how he reconciles the following facts with this theory: They appear to our limited intelligence to prove most clearly that Darwinism has no claim to be considered an established law of nature. How is it that the forms and features of men and animals are the same now as they were thousands of years ago as depicted on the Egyptian monuments ? That the intellect of man has never been developed in a higher degree than it was in the days of the Hebrew Prophets and Greek poets? That the fruits and seeds discovered in ancient lake dwellings are the same as those which still exist ? That the cellular alga) preceded the vascular cryptogams ; that these were speedily followed by monocotyledons, and at a much later period by dicotyledons ? That a number of genera of the small sea shells called ” brachiopoda” have continued to be represented with the same characters during the entire sequence of geological strata ? That if that myth, the ape-like man and all the other missing links could be discovered, the period required by evolu- tionists for the development of one species into another would be infinitely longer than the time, as calculated by physicists, which has elapsed since life first appeared on the face of the earth? In addition to these scientific objections to evolution we must add the sterility of hybrids ; the fact that the fossil trilobite crops up abruptly at the close of the carboniferous epoch with the eye perfectly developed; that no breeding has been able to produce by selection two species so distinct that they can generate hybrids, and that there is a limit to the variability of species. If Dr Bucknill, Darwin, or Huxley can give satisfactory answers to these objections we will lower our colours and join the ranks of the evolutionists.
Dr Bucknill thinks that the Darwinian explanation of the creation of man ought to be accepted on account of its being more probable than any other that has been given. On this the British Quarterly pertinently observes: ” It by no means follows that an improbable hypothesis ought to be accepted because its opponents are unable or unwilling to propose a new hypothesis several degrees less improbablebut we trust that enough has been said to prove that it is impossible to find one that is less improbable.
Dr Bucknill, in his review, has not brought forward a tittle of evidence to shake Dr Bateman’s proposition. His criticism is nothing more than a tissue of abuse. Instead of being a care- ful analysis, it is only an illiberal and sweeping denunciation of all his arguments. He seems to have adopted the advice once &iven to a young barrister, ” If you have no arguments to sujiport your case, abuse your opponent.” This may do very Well for a jury, but will not satisfy the educated public, and is calculated to injure a journal whose pages should be devoted to scientific research, and which has the support of some of the most eminent neurologists of the day.
The editor of Nature, who never loses an opportunity of showing his hostility to religion, has expressed his animus by implying that Dr Bucknill, in his criticism of Dr Bateman’s work, has given him a well-merited castigation ! for daring, fts we suppose, to vindicate religion ; but we think it has been shown that there has been no chastisement at all, as only blank cartridges have been fired at him.
We think that the editors of Brain have erred in admitting into their first part a contribution by G. II. Lewes. The pro- fession do not need to be enlightened by mere theorists of the stamp of Gr. H. Lewes or Herbert Spencer, who get their know- ledge at second-hand, and who are not known as practical workers in the field of science. They have done little more than encumber the English language with a jargon of new and pedantic words. In the “Physical Basis of Mind” the author spoke of animality, vegetality, and psychoplasm; and in his article in Brain he uses an anomalous and contradictory term?motor-feelings?to express the idea of a muscular sense, which is diametrically opposed to the discoveries of Sir Charles Bell and Marshall Hall, who proved that the nerves of sensation and motion have totally different functions. Mr. Lewes believes that as the cylinder axis of the motor-nerves is of a semi-liquid character, it will as readily conduct a wave in one direction as another. But it is a petitio principii to assume that motion and sensation are caused by waves.
The promulgation of fanciful speculations is the bane of modern science, and the Press teems with crude theories, many of which are accepted as established truths. The result is, that the most extravagant notions, based on flimsy hypotheses, are exercising the public mind. Timid clergymen are endeavouring to harmonise evolution with religion and morality. The Rev. J. W. Fowle, in the Nineteenth Century for July, labours hard to find a place for conscience in evolution ! Another poor bewildered writer in the North-American Mevieiv, styling him- self an evolutionist, cries aloud for a new religion. Theories are all very well in their way, but just now we have a glut of them. In the second part of Brain, Dr Bucknill again* indidges in haphazard and uncourteous remarks. He says : ” This term [Will], which is more often used as a veil for ignorance than any other in the language, this abstruse tertium quid, this undis- covered element, this inconceivable residuum which divines use to explain sinfulness, legists to stamp the character of crime, and mental physicians to hide the insanity of their conceptions, Dr Glanville boldly declares to be desire. He would have hit the mark more in the midst if he had qualified his statement the ‘ Will is desire,’ by saying that ‘ Will is a desire strong enough to produce effort.’” But Dr Bucknill cannot by his ipse dixit destroy a faculty of the mind which has been so regarded by some of the greatest philosophers who ever lived. If man has not a will of his own, he is no longer a free agent nor responsible for his actions.
Brain has adopted the modern fashion of affixing the name of the reviewer to his criticism. The practice has its value and its disadvantages. The name of a well-known writer will give undue support to a weak article, and a good paper may be passed over without attention because the writer is unknown to fame. One advantage is that it may serve as a check to ill- natured criticism from those who are afraid to express themselves openly.
J. M. Winn. * In his review of Dr Granville’s Mind and Moods.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.