KIDD'S OWN JOURNAL. 



43 



manner, and are depicted with so much simplicity 

 on the changing face of children. While the 

 feeble muscles of their arms and legs can hardly 

 execute some uncertain movements, the muscles 

 of the face already express, by distinct motions, 

 although composed of very complicated elements, 

 almost the whole succession of general affections 

 proper to human nature ; and the attentive 

 observer easily recognises in this picture the 

 characteristic traits of the future man. "Where 

 shall we seek the causes of these expressions, 

 which are composed of so many diverse elements ? 

 Where find the principle of these passions, which 

 could not have formed themselves at once ? Cer- 

 tainly not in the impressions of external objects, 

 still so new, so confused, so discordant." 



POPULAR DISCUSSIONS. 



DESTRUCTIVENESS" & " COMBATIVENESS." 



Some months since, Mr. Editor, you published 

 somo observations of mine on the subject of Phre- 

 nology. I now beg leave to offer a few remarks 

 on the organ and faculty usually called " destruc- 

 tiveness." But first, let me say a word or two on 

 that of "combativeness," as it is usually called. 



The function of this faculty appears to me, to 

 be that of removing or destroying whatever 

 causes a painful state in the other faculties, or is 

 opposed to their being in a pleasant state. It 

 may be called anger, or resentment. If we see a 

 man cruellj ill-treating another, our benevolence 

 is placed in a painful state, and our resentment 

 or anger is kindled against the wrong doer. "We 

 feel a desire to injure him. If honors are about 

 to be conferred upon us, and some one steps in 

 to prevent it, our anger is kindled again ; but if 

 we had no benevolence, and no love of honors, we 

 should not be angry. The faculty is not spon- 

 taneously active, but requires a stimulant. That 

 stimulant is an unpleasant state of any of the 

 other feelings. A spontaneously active faculty of 

 destructiveness, or combativeness, might be found 

 in the head of a fiend, but surely not in the head 

 of a human being. 



Suppose that when we were hungry, some one 

 should run away with our food ; and when we run 

 after them they out-ran us, — our alimentiveness 

 would be placed in a painful state, and our anger 

 would be kindled against the person causing that 

 state. And in this way may the anger of the 

 lion be kindled against the flying deer. The 

 lion looks on the deer as running away with his 

 food. If we had to contend with a man for our 

 food, we should get angry with him for refusing 

 to let us eat. In a similar manner does the lion 

 get angry with the bull or elephant, for refusing 

 to let him eat them. A pugilist in fighting, geta 

 angry with his opponent for refusing to let him 

 enjoy the sweets of victory, and for putting his 

 sensitiveness (caution) in a painful state. In- 

 animate objects are excitants equally with animate 

 ones ; and even laws and customs may excite our 

 anger towards them. If we see a law or custom 

 which produces misery, and thus offends our 

 benevolence, we desire the annihilation, or rather 

 abolition, of that law or custom. All this appears 

 to me so clearly the function of one faculty only, 



that I cannot believe Phrenology will long con- 

 tinue to divide what is so simple into two parts. 

 Without the possibility of clearly distinguishing 

 the separation, every phrenologist must have felt 

 the embarrassment occasioned by having two 

 fighting faculties (combativeness and destruc- 

 tiveness) ; and those who have not got used to it 

 will the more readily give up one of them, when 

 they find that other and more suitable employ- 

 ment has been found for its organ, which I will 

 now attempt to do. 



Dr. Gall was in the habit of comparing the 

 skulls of the carnivorous and the graminivorous 

 tubes of animals, and he at length came to the 

 conclusion, that the most marked difference was 

 in the region marked number six on the ordinary 

 bust (destructiveness, of Spurzheim). In this I 

 agree with him ; but I dissent entirely from the 

 theory he formed as to its function. I think that 

 we might reasonably anticipate that this would be 

 found to be the organ of that faculty, in the 

 manifestation of which these two tribes of 

 animals differed to the greatest extent. Now I 

 contend that there is not another faculty amongst 

 vertebrate animals — man included — in which 

 there is anything like such a marked difference 

 as in that of alimentiveness. The graminivorous 

 animal has merely to bend his head to the ground, 

 and eat his fill. A small and feeble propensity 

 to eat, is sufficient to induce him to do so ; whereas, 

 the carnivorous "animal has often to travel many 

 miles, through many weary days,an search of food, 

 and then perhaps to contend for it with animals 

 as large and powerful as himself — animals pos- 

 sessing formidable weapons of defence, and large 

 propensities urging them on to the deadly use of 

 those weapons. A class of animals placed under 

 such circumstances, requires, indeed, a large and 

 powerful propensity to feed ; indeed their . very 

 existence is incompatible with a small and feeble 

 one. A little mongrel dog in the manger might 

 starve an ox or a horse to death, but who shall 

 stand between the lion and his prey ? Those who 

 have witnessed the feeding of the carnivori in the 

 Zoological Gardens, will not easily forget the 

 natural language they express of the propensity 

 to feed. 



Throughout the whole range of the animal 

 kingdom, there is no natural language at all 

 to compare with it. No natural language of a 

 propensity to kill can be observed , they scarcely 

 open their drowsy eyes on the approach of a 

 human being; and should an expression of natural 

 language escape them, it is merely because they 

 see in that human being just simply so much 

 food. But just show them a shin of beef, and their 

 whole frame becomes agitated, their eyes assume 

 a terrible, sparkling, and restless activity, their 

 roar is fearful, and they seem to become possessed 

 with an all-devouring and intensely-impatient 

 desire to get at it. And when reduced to pos- 

 session, who shall dare to touch it ? It is never 

 safe to touch the food of the smallest and feeblest 

 of dogs or cats, yet you may take the hay out 

 of the mouth of an ox, or an ass, or horse, and 

 tantalise them with it as long as you please. 



The propensity of the carnivori is not to kill, 

 but to eat. In point of fact, there is no necessity 

 for such a propensity, it is not at all required ; 

 the only requisite is a strong and stimulating 



