Garibaldi's head.

The Siècle of February 4 contains a letter from Dr. Riboli, who went to Caprera to examine Garibaldi's head from a phrenological standpoint. It is not our intention to assess the doctor's judgment, and still less the political figure; but reading the letter furnished us with some reflections that, naturally, have their place here.

Dr. Riboli finds that Garibaldi's cerebral organization corresponds perfectly to all the eminent intellectual and moral faculties that distinguish him, and he adds:

“You may smile at my fanaticism, but I can assure you that the moment I spent examining that remarkable head was the happiest of my life. I saw, my dear friend, that great man lend himself like a child to all I asked of him; this head, which contains a world, I held between my hands for more than twenty minutes, feeling at every instant the inequalities and contrasts of his genius distinguish themselves beneath my fingers…

“Garibaldi is 1 meter and 64 centimeters tall. I measured all the proportions, the breadth of the shoulders, the length of the arms and the legs, the waist; he is a well-proportioned man, strong and of a nervous, sanguine temperament.

“The volume of the head is remarkable. The principal phenomenality is the height of the skull, measured from the ear to the top of the head, which is 20 centimeters. This particular predominance of the entire upper part of the head denotes, at first sight and without prior examination, an exceptional organization; the development of the skull in its upper part, the seat of the sentiments, indicates the preponderance of all the noble faculties over the instincts. In short, the craniology of Garibaldi's head, after examination, presents an original phenomenality of the rarest, one may say without precedent; the harmony of all the organs is perfect, and the mathematical resultant of their ensemble presents in a high degree: abnegation before all and in all; prudence and coolness; the natural austerity of habits; almost perpetual meditation; grave and exact eloquence; dominant loyalty; an incredible deference toward friends to the point of suffering for it; his perceptiveness with respect to the men who surround him is, above all, dominant. “In a word, my dear fellow, without boring you with all the comparisons, with all the contrasts of causality, of habitativeness, of constructiveness, of destructiveness, n it is a marvelous head, organic, without weaknesses, which Science will study and you will take as a model, etc.”

The letter is written entirely with an enthusiasm that denotes the most profound and sincere admiration for the Italian hero. Nevertheless, we are inclined to believe that the author's observations were not influenced by any preconceived idea; but that is not what is at issue: we accept his phrenological data as exact and, were they not so, Garibaldi would be neither more nor less than he is. It is known that the disciples of Gall form two schools: that of the materialists and that of the spiritualists. The former attribute the faculties to the organs; for them the organs are the cause, the faculties are the product, whence it follows that apart from the organs there are no faculties; in other words, when man dies, all is dead. The latter admit the independence of the faculties; the faculties are the cause; the development of the organs, the effect. Whence it follows that the destruction of the organs does not bring about the annihilation of the faculties. We do not know to which of the two schools the author of the letter belongs, for his opinion is revealed by no word. However, supposing that the above observations were made by a materialist phrenologist, we ask what impression he ought to feel at the idea that this head, which contains a world, owes its genius only to chance or to the caprice of Nature, which would have given it a greater cerebral mass at one point than at another. Now, since chance is blind and has no premeditated design, it could perfectly well have increased the volume of another convolution of the brain and thus give, without intending it, a wholly different course to his inclinations. Such reasoning necessarily applies to all transcendent men, on whatever account. Where would their merit lie, if it depended on nothing but the displacement of a small portion of cerebral substance? If a mere caprice of Nature can, instead of a great man, make a common man? Instead of a man of good, a scoundrel? But that is not all. Considering today that powerful head, will there not be something terrible in the thought that perhaps tomorrow nothing more will remain of that genius, absolutely nothing, but inert matter, which will be food for worms? Without speaking of the dire consequences of such a system, were it plausible, we shall say that it is replete with inexplicable contradictions, which the facts demonstrate at every step. On the contrary, everything is explained by the spiritualist system: the faculties are not the product of the organs, but attributes of the soul, whose organs are merely instruments at the service of its manifestation. The faculty being independent, its activity stimulates the development of the organ, as the exercise of a muscle increases its volume. The thinking being is the principal being, whose body is only a destructible accessory. Talent, then, is a real merit, because it is the fruit of labor, and not the result of a more or less abundant matter. With the materialist system, the labor by whose aid talent is acquired is entirely lost at death, which often leaves no time to enjoy it. With the soul, labor has its reason for being, because all that the soul acquires serves its development; one labors for an immortal being, and not for a body that perhaps has only a few hours of life. They will say, however, that genius is not acquired: it is innate. Certainly. But, then, why are two men, born in the same conditions, so different from the intellectual point of view? Why would God have favored one more than the other? Why would He have given one the means to progress, refusing them to the other? What philosophical system has resolved this problem? Only the doctrine of the preexistence of the soul can explain it: the man of genius has already lived, has acquisition, experience, and therefore more right to our respect, than if he owed his superiority to an unjustified favor of Providence, or to a caprice of Nature. We prefer to believe that Dr. Riboli saw, in the head of him whom, so to speak, he touched only with a respectful awe, something more worthy of his veneration than a mere mass of flesh, and that he did not lower it to the role of an organized mechanism. One recalls that rag-picker who, looking at a dead dog in an abandoned corner, said to himself: Behold what will become of us! Well then! All you who deny the future existence, see to what point you reduce the greatest geniuses! For more details on the question of phrenology and physiognomy, we refer the reader to the article published in the Spiritist Review of the month of July 1860.

[1] [Although his biography says that Giuseppe Garibaldi died at Caprera, on June 2, 1882, two decades after this article, the fact that Dr. Riboli went to Caprera to examine Garibaldi's head, and, it being a matter of an Italian hero, leads us to think that he examined the head of a living person.]

[2] Here are some neologisms which, however, are no more barbarisms than Spiritism and perispirit. [Note of the author of the article, Dr. Ripoli.]