The brain, considered anatomically, physiologically and philosophically

Front matter

THE BRAIN

THE BRAIN

BY

Preface

as the universal physical and mechanical attraction of life into the body. It involves the motion of the highest substances, the cortical substances, according to the life of the highest faculties of the man. It therefore involves the determinate and most orderly motion of all the fluids in the brain from the principles of motion to the very ends of the same. His work is, according to the anatomy of the brain, a geography of the rivers of bodily and embodied life, a definite geography. So much for a brief word on his theory. It is embodied, embrained motion; and brain spirits and nerve juices moved, moved into the body, and constituting its momentaneous life ” (p. 20).

But seizing the very inmost feature by which Swedenborg’s theory of the brain is able not only to survive the changes of time, but also to borrow additional lustre from the modern facts respecting it, our friend continues : “ Doctrine is the ever-potent father of Swedenborg’s theory. The doctrine, namely, that there is a God, who is a Creator; and that God is the Author of the human soul. And that He made the living soul to be creative in its own finite sphere. And further, that the soul, in order to embody itself, under God immanent made the brain, which is thus the anthropoplasm of the human frame upon qarth. The brain, from its first principles, conceived, through the Divine wisdom by the soul in it, all the details of its own form, fitting it to be the abode of the mind in all its faculties. The jDrinciples are the engineers of the causes, and the causes are the engineers of the effects or realized ends. So that in brain substance you have the body given, just as in a Stephenson you have the steam-engine given. But all is from the soul ; because not protoplasm, but anthropoplasm, are being pleaded here. The soul also, which makes the brain mechanic, inventive, contriving for itself, imprints upon it with the form of motion also the power ; and in an order and determination stupendous like the galaxies of heaven, it commands a universal motion as the pulse and radiance of a universal life. And as there can be no motion without a corresponding and adequate something moved, there are fluids which are so eminent and so ordinate that they can be embrained and ensouled, and give life to the avenues of the brain, to the body and the blood ” (p. 20).

This then is the hidden power, the mainspring of Swedenborg’s theory of the brain, which imparts the quality of perennial youth to all its parts, and enables it to live and thrive, and to rule and govern the stubborn and perplexing facts of modern science, after so long a sleep.

What then, let us ask, was the method which Swedenborg employed to establish his unique theory of the brain ? His method was essentially analytic ; that is, from the circumference

PREFACE.

IX of the facts of nature— in the present case of the facts concerning the brain— he strove to reach its central court, whence

these facts are ruled and governed.

In analyzing the facts of nature we may, however, endeavour to reach an unknown centre; or we may, on the other hand, be guided by some previous knowledge in relation to the centre.

& Swedenborg’s analysis is of the latter kind. Thus in investigating the functions of the brain, and of the nervous system in general, his mind is illuminated by certain new doctrines whereby he is safely led from the circumference of the facts to their very centre. Concerning these doctrines he expresses himself as follows : “ Since it is impossible to climb or leap from the organic, physical, and material world I mean the bodyimmediately to the soul, of which neither matter, nor any of the adjuncts of matter are predicable (for spirit is above the comprehensible modes of nature, and in that region where the significations of physical things perish) ; hence it was necessary to lay down new ways by which I might be led to her, and thus gain access to her palace : in other words, it was incumbent on me to discover, disengage, and bring forth, by the most intense application, and study, certain new doctrines for my guidance, which are the doctrines of forms, of order and degrees, of series and society, of communication and influx, of correspondence and representation, and of modification ’ ( Hegnuvi Animcdc, i. no. 17).

The truth of these doctrines is confirmed by the wonderful system into which he was able by their means to weave all the facts in relation to the brain and the nervous system known at his own time, and we may also say, for they all harmonize, those which have since come to our knowledge.

It appears that Swedenborg in drawing his conclusions spread out before his rational gaze all the facts set forth in the writings of the great masters of anatomy and physiology of his time, superadding the rational quantity of those doctrines which he himself had discovered and brought forth “ by the most intense application and study.” Modern science, on the other hand, as represented by Dr. Ferrier, one of its acknowledged leaders in all matters concerning the brain and its functions, declares that “ experiments on animals, under conditions selected and varied at the will of the experimenter, are alone capable of furnishing precise data for sound inductions as to the functions of the brain and its various parts” (Functions of the Brain, London, 1876, p. xiv). Ferrier here not only declares in the most direct terms that experiments which strike the natural senses are the only means by which we are able to obtain trustworthy information in relation to those functions which include the highest intellectual operations of the mind ; but he also asserts

X

PREFACE.

that vivisection alone is able to furnish us with precise data for sound inductions as to the functions of the brain, excluding thereby, as of minor importance, all collateral facts concerning these functions which are supplied by anatomy and histology, as well as by pathology.

One of the injurious effects which vivisection in our estimation exercises on the minds of those who indulge in its practice is to contract and limit their intellectual vision to such a point that finally they become blind to all the other facts of science, and seem able to recognise only those obtained by vivisection. A glaring instance of this contraction of vision is pointed out in our Note iv. (vol. i. p. 774 et seq.), where it is shown how Ferrier himself in his induction of the functions of the corpora striata and optic thalami totally ignores the anatomical relations which exist between these bodies, and is wholly oblivious of the results at which the anatomists of all times have arrived respecting the origin in these centres of the olfactory and optic nerves.

On the whole, we may say that the experience . gained in editing this work has not tended to raise Vivisection in our eyes as a method of Scientific Research. And we. cannot ignore the fact that there is another side to the question, one that will naturally be present to the minds of many of our readers. Vivisection is objected to on humane and religious grounds by an increasing class of the community, and also of the medical profession. What, however, is Swedenborg s position in regard to this aspect of vivisection ? In his collection of facts he cites the experiments of the vivisectors without condemnation. But we think he simply took the entire range of the anatomical and physiological knowledge of his time and set the facts of the case forth ; and, forming his Induction, said, This is the intelligent result, the rationale, of these multitudinous experiences. But in deducting the causes of his facts, we do not discover that Swedenborg gained any rational truth from the vivisections which he cites. His induction would have been the same without them. Aay, knowing the specious and persuasive character of facts obtained by vivisection, while quoting the experiments of vivisectors he seems especially careful not to be drawn away by the. inferences which they drew from their experiments. Thus while quoting (p. 27 ct seq.) a marked case of vivisection from Ridley, he is very careful not to adopt the result at which Ridley arrived , namely, that the motion of the brain is synchronous with the pulsation of the heart. On p. 225 he quotes another case of vivisection from Vieussens, which he introduces again at full leno-th in vol. ii. in the chapter on the Olfactory Nerves.. By that experiment Vieussens sought to prove that there is no

PREFACE.

xi communication between the subdural space and the nares through the lamina cribrosa. But Swedenborg by his induction arrived, as will be shown hereafter, at the opposite conclusion.

According to Swedenborg the only satisfactory way of arriving at a knowledge of the functions of the brain is by instituting a rational induction on the basis of ALL the facts known in relation to the brain. Thus on rational grounds he positively declined to appeal to vivisection in order to settle the debated question of the Motion of the Brain. On this subject he says, “ But perhaps you will say, Why all this circuitous and operose deduction when a single living example would settle the matter ? Be it so ; yet the subject upon which we enlarge is well worthy of our pains ; for it is only by the course we adopt that we can scrutinize and evolve the causes of the wonderful influx of motions established by the mutual connections of the nerves and vessels. . . . For to speak from a cause is to speak to innumerable effects ; but to speak from an effect [and thus from a fact of vivisection] is to speak to only a few causes ” (i. p. 140 et scq.).

We see then the attitude which Swedenborg occupies in relation to vivisection : he quotes its experiments, but distrusts the inferences which the operators drew from them ; therefore he repudiates the doctrine laid down by Ferrier that vivisection alone is “ capable of furnishing precise data for sound inductions as to the functions of the brain and its various parts.” We see also that the whole stream of Swedenborg’s works, which are in strict accordance with his principles, carry heart and mind away from the method of dissecting living creatures as a means of obtaining genuine principles of scientific truth.

Further, vivisection at Swedenborg’s time was not carried to the fearful extent that it is now, when rational principles are at a discount, and when all questions pertaining to what is true and false in physiology are as it were by common consent handed over for settlement to vivisection, which appeals only to the lowest faculty in man, the bodily senses. Such was not the case at Swedenborg’s time, and therefore from the attitude which he then occupied in relation to vivisection, we are not justified in declaring what his attitude would be now. For now vivisection is arraigned before the bar of the conscience of the Christian world ; and in this country, as leading confessedly to cruelty in many hands, it has been checked and limited by Parliament. On grounds of humanity, therefore, as well as for the sake of saving science from the tyranny of the senses, we may safely affirm that were Swedenborg living now he would not be found among the vivisectors, or in the so-called experimental school of physiology.

PREFACE.

xii

From this brief comparison of Swedenborg’s method with that of vivisection it appears that the excellency of his method consists first of all in this, that he consults ALL the facts of science accessible to him, and that he does not pick out a limited few in order to make them the basis of his induction.

That he was anxious to have all the facts of science at his disposal appears plainly from the following statement which he made in his first work on the Brain — for he wrote more than one : “ In quoting so many facts of importance from those authors who have written on the blood in the brain, it may seem to some that I have given too many extracts. Yet would there had been a hundred times more facts to quote, I would have cited them all, and filled sheets with them ; for these facts are just so many truths and lights ; and under no other guides and leaders can the causes of things, and those of science be brought out of darkness into light ” (De Cerebro, Photolithographed MSS., iv. p. 109).

Again in order to keep his mind free from bias, and not to lean in his inductions towards any particular fact of his own discovery, Swedenborg resolutely refrained from entering the lists with those who make it the business of their lives to enrich science by the accumulation of facts. His words on this subject are well worth considering : —

“ Here and there I have taken the liberty to throw in the results of my own experience, but this only sparingly ; for on deeply considering the matter, I deemed it best to make use of the facts supplied by others. Indeed there are some that seem born for experimental observation, and endowed with a sharper insight than others, as if they possessed naturally a finer acumen; such are Eustachius, Ruysch, Leeuwenhoek, Lancisi, etc. There are others again who enjoy a natural faculty for contemplating facts already discovered, and eliciting their causes. Both are peculiar gifts, and are seldom united in the same person. Besides I have found when intently occupied in exploring the secrets of the human body, that as soon as I discovered anything that had not been observed before, I began (seduced probably by self-love) to grow blind to the most acute lucubrations and researches of others, and to originate the whole series of inductive arguments from my particular discovery alone ; and consequently to be incapacitated to view and comprehend, as accurately as the subject required, the idea of universals in individuals, and ol individuals under universals. Nay, when I essayed to form principles from my discoveries, I thought I could detect in various other phenomena much to confirm their truth, although in reality they were fairly susceptible of no construction of the kind. I therefore laid aside my instruments, and restraining

PREFACE.

xiii

my desire for making observations, determined rather to rely on the researches of others than to trust to my own ” ((Economic, Reqni Animcdis, i. no. 18).

It may he objected that the anatomical facts of such men as Willis, Yieussens, Ridley, Heister, Winslow, Boerhaave, Malpighi, Lancisi, Morgagni, Wepfer, Leeuwenhoek, Swammerdam, and others, on which Swedenborg based himself in his inductions, have long been superseded by other more trustworthy facts ; but after a careful comparison of the facts taught by these men with those contained in the most approved text-books of modern times, we have come to the conclusion that Swedenborg in the estimation of his authorities was quite correct, where he says, “ The discoveries of these men, far from consisting of fallacious, vague, and empty speculations, will for ever continue to be ol practical use to posterity” ( (Economia , etc., i. no. 17).

But these authorities in the following pages speak for themselves ; for they appear not in the quaint Latin of the last century, but in a modern English dress, great care having been taken to exchange their antiquated terminology for that at present in use. So presented these ancient authors will be found to describe the various organs of the brain as precisely and accurately as the most exact scholars of our own day.

The great advance made in modern times in relation to the brain and the nervous system in general is in microscopy, and hence in histology ; for by the introduction of new methods of hardening the soft substances of the brain and of the nerves, modern observers have been enabled to represent the grey and white substances of the nervous centres, and the tissues of the nerves, in a manner greatly superior to anything attempted in the last century. Besides, the microscope in modern times has reached a state of perfection undreamed of a hundred years ago. And yet there were wonderful microscopical observers even in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, such as Malpighi, Leeuwenhoek, Ruysch, Swammerdam ; and the faithfulness of Leeuwenhoek’s representations of the tissues of the brain, and of the nerves and fibres of the body, could only in modern times be tested and verified. Compare Leeuwenhoek’s sketch of the horizontal section of a nerve in vol. iv. of his “ Arcana Naturae,” p. 312, with Key and Retzius’ magnificent representations of the horizontal sections of the optic and other nerves (“ Studien in der Anatomie des Nervensystems,” Stockholm, 1875 and 1876).

On comparing the descriptions which Swedenborg collected from the works of the anatomists of the last century with those which we have quoted from modern works on anatomy, and by which we have considered it useful to supplement his collection

XIV

PREFACE.

of facts, it will be found that these descriptions agree in all essential particulars. The modern works on the whole abound more in subdivisions, new names being given to many of these subdivisions. So the medulla oblongata in modern text-books is represented as not extending beyond the pons Yarolii ; the medulla of the cerebrum beyond that part now passing under the name of the crura cerebri or the peduncles of the cerebrum. These crura or peduncles in the ancient text-books are treated as prolongations of the corpora striata and the optic thalami ; while these ganglia themselves are styled the upper and lower beginnings of the medulla oblongata; so that the medulla oblongata by the older anatomists was regarded as extending into these central ganglia. With this exception the divisions of the encephalon and the spinal cord have remained the same.

That Swedenborg’s theory of the brain, however, is not contradicted by any new fact discovered since his time is shown at great length in the Notes appended to each of the four volumes of this work. And again, where modern physiology professes doctrines different from those of Swedenborg, it is proved in these notes that Swedenborg, and not modern physiology, is in agreement with the real facts of the case. Often, however, in order to demonstrate the agreement of Swedenborg’s theory with the facts of modern science, have we been obliged to go outside the general text-books, and to pick up facts which had been left unnoticed by the authors of these text-books. Not unfrequently also has it happened that facts confirmatory of Swedenborg’s positions have turned up only within the last seven or eight years. A fruitful source of such discoveries has been the elaborate work of Swedenborg’s countrymen, Key and ftetzius, on the anatomy of the nervous system and the connective tissues, published in 1875 and 187G. To those familiar with the literature on the brain the list of authorities quoted at the end of this preface, and at the close of Note i., will be an evidence that in our attempt to supplement Swedenborg s facts from modern sources no work of any consequence on the subjects treated in volume i. has been left unnoticed.

In order to economize our space, in making these additions from modem authors, we have confined ourselves to the most approved text-books on anatomy in use in England and on the Continent, namely, to those of Quain, Todd, and Ellis in England, of Cruveilhier in F ranee, and of Luschka and Henle in Gei many. From these authors we selected Avhat appeared to us the best presentation of any of the parts connected with the bram, and these authoritative statements we supplemented from monographs and special treatises on parts of the brain. The authors

PREFACE.

xv on whose works we have drawn most extensively are Key and Retzius and Meynert. Other authors quoted in the text of vol. i. are Monro, Reil, Burdach, Arnold, Solly, Jung, Luschka, Hirschfeld, Gerlach, Heubner, Duret, Mierzejewsky, Ferrier, Pitres, Be van Lewis. In the Editorial Notes appended to Yol.

I. we have studied the bearing which the facts quoted from these authors have upon the various parts of Swedenborg’s theory of the brain, strengthening these facts, when necessary, by references to other writers, and refuting the theories set up by other authors.

In Note i., “on the Motion of the Brain,” which deals with the fundamental principle of Swedenborg’s theory, we have referred to the works of upwards of a hundred authors, and with the aid of the modern school of physiologists representing the “ Graphic Method ” introduced by Professor Marey in Paris, we believe that every one of the positions laid down by Swedenborgin reference to the motion of the brain is now definitely and satisfactorily established.

The following are some of the principles and scientific facts in relation to the brain and the nervous system which Swedenborg set forth in his manuscript treatise on the Brain, written between 1741 and 1744 ; in his “ GUconomia Regni Animalis,” published in 1740 and 1741, and in his “Regnum Animale,” published in 1744 and 1745; which principles and facts have since been discovered by other observers, and are attributed to them.

1. The coincidence of the motion of the brain with respiration, which was first publicly set forth by Swedenborg in his “ CEconomia,” etc., Yol. II., published in Amsterdam in 1741, pp. 1-34, 4to. The discovery of this fact is now universally attributed to J. Daniel Schlichting, a physician of Amsterdam, whose observations on the motion of the brain were published in 1750 in the “Memoires de mathematique et physique prdsentes a l’Academie Royale des Sciences. Savants etrangers,” tom. i. p. 113. See Note i., on the Motion of the Brain, j;>. 666.

2. The extension of the respiratory motion of the brain and lungs to the extremities of the body, which Swedenborg distinctly announces in his “ Regnum Animale,” vol. ii., published at the Hague in 1744, pp. 116-121. The discovery of the respiratory motion in the extremities is attributed to Dr. Piegu, who published in 1846 a “ Note on the Double Movements observed in the Limbs,” etc. (Comptes Rendus, Acaddmie des Sciences, 1846, tom. xxii. p. 682.) See Note i. p. 669 et seq.

3. The independence of the animatory motion of the brain of the respiration of the lungs, which is declared by Swedenborg m his “ Regnum Animale,” vol. ii. pp. 122, 123, and which has xvi

PREFACE.

been experimentally established by Mosso in his “ Kreislauf des Blutes,” Leipzig, 1881, p. 71, fig. 20. See on this subject Note i. no. 20, p. 671 et scq., and ibid., no. 12, p. 659.

4. The reality and existence of the cerebro-spinal fluid, which Swedenborg discovered as early as 1736 or 1737, a whole chapter of his first work on the brain (Photolithographed MSS., vol. iv. pp. 193-203) being devoted to this subject. See Part II. of the present work, chap. iv. The same subject he further treats in Part I. chap, xxiv., on the fourth ventricle, and in Part II. chap. iii. on the arachnoid membrane. The discovery of this liquid is ascribed to Cotugno, whose treatise, entitled “ De ischiade nervosa commentarius,” was published in Naples in 1764. See on this subject our note on the Cerebro-spinal Liquid in vol. ii.

5. The circulation of the cerebro-spinal liquid through the interstices between the fibres of the nerves of the body, which Swedenborg describes most minutely in Part II. of the present work, in nos. 493, 503, 509, 511, 512, and 529-531. See our note on the Cerebro-spinal Liquid in vol. ii. This fact, which has not yet been adopted by the compilers of our text-books in anatomy and physiology, is confirmed in all its particulars by Key and Retzius in their “ Studien ,” etc., vol. ii. pp. 1-125 ; and their results are confirmed by Quincke and Schwalbe ; by the latter so far as the optic nerve is concerned.

6. According to Swedenborg, the fibres of the cerebrum tend towards the anterior parts of the spinal cord, but the fibres of the cerebellum, i.e. of its third or restiform process, seek the posterior parts. See Part I. chap, xxxii. on the Spinal Cord and the Production of its Nervous Roots, no. 805. Meynert, the most recent, and one of the most successful investigators of the course of the fibres in the brain and the medulla oblongata, declares that “ the cerebellum sends no fibres directly to the antero-lateral columns of the spinal cord, but on the other hand gives rise to a great part of its posterior columns ” (Brain of Mammals, in Strieker’s “Manual,” etc., American edition, pp. 714, 716, 717); while he shows, on the other hand, that “ the anterior pyramids of the medulla oblongata pass into the lateral columns of the spinal cord (ibid., p. 686) ; and again, that “ all the spinal cord fibres belonging to the basis cruris cerebri take part in the decussation of the anterior pyramids ” (ibid., pp. 707, 709); and further, that “groups of fibres of the tegmentum cruris cerebri are destined to form the anterior spinal columns” (ibid., p. 719).

7. Swedenborg teaches plainly that the fibres of the cerebrum and cerebellum run through the longitudinal dimension of the spinal cord, while those fibres which the spinal cord generates

PREFACE.

xvii from its own grey substance intersect the former transversely and obliquely. See Part I. chap, xxxii. nos. 804, 805. Solly 1 says that “ Bellingeri was the first who in 1823 demonstrated the double origin of the spinal nerves from the grey as well as the white matter of the cord ; that this fact, however, was not established, or generally believed in England, till 1837, when Mr. Grainger published his treatise entitled 1 Observations on the Structure and Functions of the Spinal Cord, in which he distinctly enunciates this important truth.

8. The anterior province of the cerebrum, according to Swedenborg, is the seat of the intellect ; thence also the voluntary efforts proceed. “ If this portion of the cerebrum is wounded,” says he, “then the internal senses — imagination, memory, thought— suffer ; the very will is weakened, and the power of determination is blunted. This is not the case if the injury is in the back part of the cerebrum. See Part I. p. 73. Dr. Althaus in summing up the results obtained by Fritsche and Hitzig in 1870, and Ferrier a short time afterwards, says, “ The anterior or frontal lobes, corresponding to the forehead, are the actual seat of the intellect. . . . Patients have now and then recovered from the most fearful injuries to the anterior lobes ; . . . but it has always been shown on close examination that there had been a profound change in the character and behaviour of such persons, and that their temper and their moral faculties had become deteriorated ” ( Nineteenth Century , 1879, p. 1031).

9. Swedenborg’s division of the brain into lobes differs from . that in use at the present day. His division is that which is

presented by the median aspect of the hemispheres. His highest lobe is bounded by the marginal convolution and the quadrate lobule ; his middle lobe by the lower part of the marginal convolution and the gyrus fornicatus ; and his third lobe is identical with the temporo-sphenoidal lobe. On the basis of this division he says, “ The muscles and actions which are in the ultimate parts of the body, and thus in the soles of the feet, depend more immediately upon the highest portions of the cerebrum ; upon the middle lobe the muscles belonging to the abdomen and thorax ; and upon the third lobe those which belong to the face and head ; for they seem to correspond to one another in an inverse ratio.” See Part I. no. 68. As shown in Note i. in vol. iv., this is a general statement of the I'esults at which Ferrier arrived by an electrization of the cerebral hemispheres of living animals. See Ferrier’s “Functions of the Brain,” pp. 141-157.

10. Swedenborg says, “The corpora striata are vicarious

1 “The Human Brain,” etc., second edition, London, 1847, p. 202 et scq.

b xviii PREFA CE.

cerebra, and they succeed in the place of the cerebrum whenever it is deprived of its power of acting ” (i. no. 939). Again he says, “ The corpora striata initiate motions which at first originated with the cerebrum and were voluntary ; for it is a well-known fact that voluntary acts by daily habit become spontaneous, or that habit is like second nature” (i. no. 941). This is exactly what Ferrier and his school have established by experimenting on the corpora striata. Dr. Althaus in summing up their experiments says, “ The central ganglia ( i.e . the corpora striata and the optic thalami) have the function to render certain complex movements which are intimately connected with sensations, and which are, in the first instance, only excited by volition and consciousness, gradually, as it were, mechanical and automatic” {Nineteenth Century for 1879, p. 1026). For further particulars see Note iv. in the present volume, on the Functions of the Corpora Striata and Optic Thalami, p. 770.

11. Swedenborg established the connection of the corpora quadrigemina with the sense of sight. He says, “ These fibres [i.e. those of the corpora quadrigemina] tend upwards into the surface of the optic thalami, and at the same time penetrate more deeply into them ; and thence in conjunction with the fibres of the cerebrum they direct their way towards the bulb, the coatings, the humours, the iris, and the pupil of the eye, that is, chiefly towards those parts of the eye which are being adjusted to the objects at the time, and indeed spontaneously” (i. no. 531). Ferrier says, “ Flourens [in 1842] first experimentally demonstrated that the optic lobes [i.e. corpora quadrigemina] were the centres of co-ordination between retinal impressions and movements of the iris” (“Functions of the Brain,” p. 71). And again he says, “ The facts of anatomy and those of physiological experiment mutually support the view that the corpora quadrigemina, though not the centres of conscious vision, are centres of co-ordination of retinal impressions with special motor reactions” {ibid.). See Note iii. Sub-section E, on the Functions •of the Corpora Quadrigemina, p. 7 64 et seq.