Garibaldi’s HeadThe Siècle edition of February 4th contains a letter from Dr. Riboli
who went to Caprera to examine Garibaldi’s head, from a phrenological
perspective. Our intention is not to assess the doctor’s opinion and
even less the politician. Nevertheless, by reading the letter we were led to
some reflections that are naturally in order here. Dr. Riboli believes that
Garibaldi’s cranial structure corresponds perfectly well to his distinguishing
intellectual and moral faculties, adding:
“You may laugh at my fanaticism but I can assure you that the time
I spent examining that remarkable head was the happiest of my life. I
saw, my dear friend, I saw that great man and he gave me everything
that he was asked. I held that head that is the size of the whole world
in my own hands, and for more than twenty minutes, feeling the
inequalities and contrasts of his genius sticking out under my fingers
everywhere. Garibaldi is 5’4” ft. tall. I measured all proportions: the
width of the shoulders, the length of the arms and legs, the body circumference.
In short, he is a well-proportioned man, strong body and
of an uneasy temperament. The volume of his head is remarkable.
The main aspect is the height of the skull, measured from the ear to
the top of the head, yielding 20 cm (approx. 8 in). Such particular
dominance of the whole upper part of the head indicates, at first sight
and without a more thorough examination, an exceptional structure. The development of the skull on the top, the seat of feelings, indicates
a balance of all the noble faculties against basic instincts. After
examination, the craniology of Garibaldi immediately shows an extremely
rare structure and I can even say that it is unprecedented.
The harmony of all organs is perfect and the mathematical resultant
of the whole thing shows: abnegation before anything else; prudence
and cold blood; austerity; almost continual meditation; serious and
precise eloquence; prevalent loyalty; an incredible deference to his
friends to the point of suffering with it; his perceptibility in regard
to everyone around him was especially dominant. To summarize, my
dear friend, and without boring you with every comparison, causality,
habitability, constructivism and destructivity *, it is a wonderful,
organic, flawless head that science will use as a model, etc.
The whole letter is written with such an enthusiasm that clearly indicates
the most profound and sincere admiration for the Italian hero. However,
we would like to believe that the author’s observations were not influenced
by any preconceived idea. But that is not the point. We accept his
phrenological data as accurate but even if they were not, Garibaldi would
not be more or less than he actually is. Everyone knows that the disciples
of Gall form two schools: the materialists and the spiritualists. The first
ones attribute the faculties to the organs. For them the organs are the
cause, the faculties the product, and hence there is no faculty unless there
is an organ, or put differently, when a person dies everything else is dead.
The second group admits the independence of the faculties. The faculties
are the cause; the development of the organs is the effect, and hence the
annihilation of the organs does not imply the destruction of the faculties.
We don’t know anything about the author’s affiliation to either school
since he does not reveal it in his words.
Nonetheless, let us admit for a moment that the observations above
were made by a materialist Phrenologist. We then ask what his reaction
would be to the idea that this head encompasses a whole world, that it owes its genius to chance or to the caprice of nature that would have given
him more cerebral mass on a given point of the brain than on another.
Well, since chance is blind and has no previous design, it could also have
enlarged a given part of the brain thus and unwilling yielding a completely
different result to his personality. Such logic necessarily applies
to any transcendent person, regardless of how it may be defined. Where
would any merit reside if it were due to the displacement of a little piece of
cerebral substance? If a simple caprice of nature could produce a common
rather than a great man? Instead of a righteous man, an outcast?
That is not all. Taking into account such a great mind, isn’t that horrible
to think that there will perhaps be nothing left of him tomorrow, absolutely
nothing but the inert matter to be devoured by the worms? Not to
speak of the dismal consequences of such a system in case it was accepted,
with a multitude of inexplicable contradictions, daily demonstrated by the
facts. Instead, everything is explained by the spiritualist system: the faculties
are not a product of the organs, but attributes of the soul whose organs
are nothing more than instruments to serve their manifestation. Since the
faculty is independent, its activity excites the development of the organ,
like exercise stimulates the growth of a muscle. The being that thinks is
the main thing, and the body is nothing more than an accessory. Thus,
talent is a real merit because it results from work and not from a more or
less abundant matter. In the materialistic system, work that supports the
acquisition of talent is totally lost with death which often does not allow
enough time to enjoy that talent. With the soul, work has a meaning since
everything that has been acquired is useful to its development; one works
for an immortal creature and not for a body that only has some hours of
existence.
People will say that the genius is not acquired, but it is innate. That
is true. However, why then are two men that are born in the same conditions
so very different from an intellectual point of view? Why would
God have favored one more than the other? Why would one have been
given the means of advancing while the other had that denied? Which
philosophical system has solved this issue? It is only the doctrine of preexistence of the soul that can explain it: the genius has lived before,
he has pre-acquired knowledge and experience and thus he deserves
our respect more than if the superiority were an unjustified favor of
Providence or a whim of nature. We want to believe that Dr. Riboli
might have seen on the head of that man that he barely touched, out of
respect, something more worthy of his veneration than a simple mass of
flesh, not reducing it to the role of an organized mechanism. We recall
that philosophical ragman that saw a dead dog by the side of the road
and said to himself: That is what expects us! Well, then! All of you who
deny a future life that is what you make of the greatest geniuses! For
more details about Phrenology and Physiognomy, we recommend the
article in The Spiritist Review, July 1860.
__________________________________
* There we go with neologisms that are not more barbaric than Spiritism and perispirit
