Читать книгу Notes on Noses онлайн

7 страница из 47

It may be prudent to observe that we utterly repudiate the doctrine of the Phrenologists, that the form of the Body affects the manifestations, and even properties, of the Mind.

We contend that the Mind forms the Nose, and not the Nose the Mind. We have carefully endeavoured to avoid phraseology which should induce a supposition that we entertain the latter absurdity; but here enter this protest once for all, lest a want of precision in our language, or the obtuseness of critics, should cause us to be charged with it.

It is in vain to require proof of a material connection between the Nose and the Mind, for it is utterly impossible to demonstrate to sense the seat of the divine particle. Material organs cannot apprehend immaterial existence: they even fail to perceive some of the more tenuous materialisms, air, light, heat, electricity, &c., which are known only by their effects. It is in vain to deny physiognomy—of which Nasology is only a department—because we cannot understand by what processes mind acts on the features; because we cannot see any material organisms which operate to contract the muscles in laughter or pain, or which impel the blood to or from the countenance when consciousness or fear affects the mind. It is in vain to deny the blush or the pallor because we know not how the pulsations of the heart and the flow of blood are affected by mental impressions. It is one of the strongest proofs of the immateriality of the soul, that while its existence cannot be denied, it cannot be anatomically demonstrated, nor rendered visible to sense. The mode in which Mind acts on Matter is one of the arcana of Nature, which, perhaps, human science will never penetrate. It is a secret reserved for that state in which the mind will act independently of material media. However numerous and plausible the theories propounded to explain the mystery, they all terminate like the Indian’s world-supports, and the chain of connection breaks at the last link. It is, therefore, in vain to deny physiognomy because we can demonstrate no material connection between the mind and the features, nor would any sane objector insist on such demonstration; yet such demonstration has been insisted on, and the absence of it adduced as a fundamental objection both to physiognomy and phrenology by critics at a loss for valid objections.