De receptie van de hersen-schedelleer van Franz Joseph Gall in Holland kort na 1800

Abstract

The reception of Franz Joseph Gall's doctrine on phrenology in Holland shortly after 1800 Between 1800 and 1810 Gall's 'Hersen-Schedelleer' [= doctrine on phrenology] received increasing attention in Holland, just as it did in Germany and France. Gall had tried to connect visible human skull marks with brain anatomy, brain functioning and behaviour, a relationship in which he also compared man and animal. Scientists as well as people in non-scientific circles tried to find an answer to the question to what extent Gall's ideas on human brain anatomy and the development of the skull in relation to behaviour were acceptable. Besides there was a growing interest in the possible consequences of Gall's theory for moral life. However, Gall's doctrine was largely based on unproved and unprovable assumptions. Gall's visit to Holland, in the early spring of 1806, had a polarizing effect on supporters and adversaries, as it had had in Germany. In Holland Gerard Vrolik, professor at the Amsterdam Athenaeum Illustre, published the first treatise on this subject, in which he revealed himself to be a hesitant and prudent supporter of Gall's theories. From early 1804 Jacob Eliza Doornik, physician and scientist, and Martinus Stuart, theologist and historian, played a leading part in the discussion on this subject. The former opposed all aspects of Gall's theory. The latter - contrary to what one would expect - supported Gall in every way, with both regard to his explanation of brain anatomy and physiology and to his views on the relationship between the shape of the brain and the development of the skull. Remarkably he accepted Gall's materialism and rejected his fatalism. We can only explain Stuart's defence of Gall's moral views supposing he considered these in a religious framework. In Stuart's conviction God had given man a certain tendency to evil which man has to accept as a necessity in the fight against evil and the search for good. After Gall's visit to Holland in 1806, Stuart as well as Doornik wrote a second treatise on Gall's theory. Stuart's turned out to be a summary account of the lessons Gall gave at Amsterdam. Stuart also, although carefully, tried to reveal his own opinion which proved to be practically in complete accordance with Gall's views. In this treatise he not only showed his erudition but also his ingenuity. Doornik, however, persisted in his complete refusal and even gained in harshness.