We now kick off a new section focusing on the base of the brain.

Shape of Brain– As so graphically delineated in this beautiful as well as natural illustration of the human brain, we glean a knowledge of the origin and source of its blood supply; the arteries are observed to distribute numerous branches in very us directions along and over its surface, many of which penetrate its substance. As noticed, the brain presents an ovoid or egg shaped appearance, divided into two equal, lateral halves — hemispheres as they are called — thus virtually giving us two brains, the same as we have two eyes, two arms and two legs. With this surplus of brains, as it were, at our command, we are naturally lead to ask the question, who can define the metes and bounds of the mind? or described the limits of our intellectual capacity? Who can fathom the depths of thought? Or circumscribe our mental, educational or scientifical acquirements, when health grounds the human temple with its rubicund mantle? Echo answers who?

Now I love it when the authors of this book go into weird speculative diatribes. In this section we are given one of those strange diatribes. The author starts to provide a description of the diagram of the brain and then launches into hypothetical questions that have no answer.

It strikes me that based on the extra spectacular use of profound words, that the author is almost writing in a way to prove their knowledge and authority and their own deep thoughts only possible due to the extraordinary brain that they possess as they described the brain in general. I think it’s important to mention that this book is destined for housewives in an era hundred years ago where any child that grew up to be lucky to possess and elementary education. The use of words such as ‘rubicund’ and ‘circumscribe’ strike me as words that probably weren’t understood at that time. However it’s possible that these were everyday words in an era when language was different than it is today. Circumscribe is not a particularly odd word today however rubicund is.

So as the author left off with many hypothetical questions, I will do the same.

Did the author intend to impress turn-of-the-century housewives with his fancy talk? Did the female editor of this work change the words to something fancier than what the original author had written? Was the author attempting to fill the book with more words, using 20 where one might do? Was language such as this used more commonly a hundred years ago? Is there something biblical sounding about these words or do they commit a type of philosophical sentiment?

I’m sure there are dozens of other questions that can be emitted about this, but it’s these types of phrases and perspectives that make this study of the book interesting.