I'm reading "John Quincy Adams: Militant Spirit" by James Traub (page 320)(commission earned).
I see (with the help of Grok) that John Quincy Adams wrote this in his diary for June 8, 1825:After dinner I heard Dr. Caldwell’s Lecture upon the organ of amativeness, which I thought more indelicate than philosophical. The weather was intensely warm, and I had no temptation to learn more either of phrenology or of Craniology. Dr. Caldwell paid me some time after the Lecture an Evening visit.Are we sure the "organ of amativeness" is the penis and not the brain? Why does Adams say "more either of phrenology or Craniology" — that sounds like it's about the head not the genitals!
I ask Grok, which, rightly or wrongly, takes my cue:
The "organ of amativeness" in the context of the lecture Adams attended is not the penis but a specific region of the brain, according to the pseudoscience of phrenology. In phrenology, developed by Franz Joseph Gall and popularized by Johann Gaspar Spurzheim and lecturers like Charles Caldwell, the brain was divided into distinct "organs" (regions), each responsible for a specific mental faculty or propensity. The organ of amativeness was believed to be located in the cerebellum (the lower back part of the brain, near the base of the skull) and was associated with:
- Sexual attraction and physical love (the instinct for reproduction).
- Conjugal affection (romantic or marital bonding).
- Behaviors ranging from ardent passion to licentiousness (if overdeveloped) or indifference (if underdeveloped).
The confusion likely arises from Adams' reaction, calling the lecture "more indelicate than philosophical," which might suggest a discussion of the penis or sexuality in a way that felt crude to his sensibilities....
Hmm. I just thought it was interesting that John Quincy Adams, lonely and bored, attended a lecture about the penis. I wanted to share that with you and just needed a bit more info about the lecture. The first thing I found was the diary entry, a major source for the biography I'm reading. I hate to think the author misread the diary. The reference to phrenology and "Craniology" jumped out at me. I wasn't looking for errors in this book!
Posts
32 comments:
Are we sure the "organ of amativeness" is the penis and not the brain?
For men, what's the difference?
Someone must say it: "I'm all for affirmative action now."
Is Craniology an error? The rules of capitalization were looser in J.Q. Adams' time then now, though I think they're loosing up considerably now compared to 30 years ago, considering the propensity of Gen Z writers to capitalize prepositions and internal articles within titles and headings.
I had no temptation to learn more either of phrenology or of Craniology.
Even after reading that sentence and having all of human knowledge at my fingertips, I'm not tempted to learn more about phrenology or Craniology.
I am a little tempted to ascertain why one field of study is capitalized, and the other is not.
Triggered a 60-year-old memory of first year Latin when we conjugated “to love”: Amo, Amas, Amat, Amamus, Amatis, Amant. Amativeness—a good word that we should insert in sentences more often.
It's interesting that phrenologists located amativeness in the cerebellum rather than the cerebrum. They were mistaken, but getting warmer.
I wonder what they thought of the limbic system. Did they consider it significant at all? Was it merely structure?
"Yes, miss," you've a very remarkable head, very!"
https://lostmuseum.cuny.edu/archive/the-traveling-phrenologist-in-the-white
Ok, I didn't even finish the post before I felt moved to come here and applaud the term "organ of amativeness." People used to have such a way with words!
GenZ is ee comeuppance?
Shades of Naomi Wolf.
First,
we eat the intellectual class.
/s
Jamie said...
Ok, I didn't even finish the post before I felt moved to come here and applaud the term "organ of amativeness." People used to have such a way with words!
---------------
Some still do.
and we don't have to spice up our works using terms out of context...
Once you settle down from your initial excitement, at least try to make time to "skim-read" ann's post? You can learn a lot from reading widely. Good luck.
'the organ of amativeness'
Q: 'the organ of amativeness' or 'l'organ d'' amativite'
No is a powerful word, someone once said…
I abandoned a Ken Burns documentary about Jefferson when I realized he didn't know Tristam Shandy (which he read aloud to his ill wife) was a humorous book.
How does the author get from "The organ of amativeness was the phrenological term for the part of the brain believed to govern sexual love and desire" to "Penis" is beyond me.
People in the 19th century may have been as crude and raunchy as we are, but maybe they weren't. It could be what shocked Adams, wasn't what shocks us.
There's always this weird instinct in the 21st USA MSM and culture to portray people in the past as either inferior to us, or just like us. The key desire seems to be: "Dont think those people in the past were better than us. No siree bob."
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
I thought it might be the pineal gland
Is this some kind of code for 19th century trans culture?
Imagine Adams disappointment when he thought he was going for a talk by a Pick-Up Artist on how to get chicks, and instead got bored to death with some stupid speech about the brain.
Phrenology is pseudo-science. You can't tell anything about character from the bumps on the head. But now scientists are mapping the brain's inside and associating regions with functions and emotions. Lately, phrenology has come to be associated with racism. Is that fair, or is it being scapegoated for what almost everyone at the time believed?
Stephen said...
Triggered a 60-year-old memory of first year Latin when we conjugated “to love”: Amo, Amas, Amat, Amamus, Amatis, Amant. Amativeness—a good word that we should insert in sentences more often.
**************
I remember us tittering at the word "conjugation" itself. "Conjugating" the verb meaning "to love" had half the class snorting into their palms.
I
I've never read a biography
I haven't read a biography of JQA, but from the thumbnails I have read, it sounds like he was a real dweeb IRL. Maybe that's why he only got one term in office? I like his foreign policy remarks about USA non-intervention in the affairs of other nations though, assuming JQA really said them.
Maybe Paul Giamatti could bring some life if he plays him in the biopic. Paul Giamatti is the go to guy to bring colorless historical figures to life. His life was not without drama, and he was a participant in the first rigged election.....I think historians used to favor Jackson, but Jackson was a slave dealer and Adams was very much against slavery, so no more kind words for Jackson. Maybe they can do for Adams what they did for Hamilton.
It's a waste of time to read modern authors writing about the 18th and 19th centuries. They are so far away from that time and experience they blunder all the time. Just read the originals. Far more interesting/
My recollection from McCullough's "John Adams" is that JQA was a phenom who was sent away, unaccompanied, for a year at the age of 15 or so to be the personal secretary to some very important Russian. As my eldest was a couple of years older at the time, it brought home to me that we live in very different times.
So when I've been told to think with my big brain, I could and should have continued thinking the same things I was thinking all along? Now you tell me.
Thing I remember reading about JQA is that a few years after he was President he ran for Congress and served for almost 20 years until he died in office.
Taft became a Supreme Court Justice after he was President.
Some people fucking love DC.
boatbuilder's memory is a bit garbled. I haven't read the McCullough bio, but IIRC the young Adams was sent to Russia to be secretary to the American emissary Francis Dana, not to a Russian bigwig.
Thanks! I’m reading the same book, promoted by your previous post on it, and I found this section strange.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.