Examination of the objections made in Britain against the doctrines of Gall and Spurzheim

Front matter

o x

'o v

A

Introduction

Discussions, properly conducted, are of great utility. For that reason, I am always ready to examine every objection against our doctrines. But I am sorry to observe, that scientific pursuits are so often degraded by selfish passions and the spirit of party ; that literary publications are employed for the purposes of calumny and detraction ; that invectives are used instead of arguments ; and that, by praising friends and blaming rivals, the progress of the arts and sciences, and the improvement of men, are mightily retarded.

Such behavior I will never imitate ; nay, the illiberal and uncandid manner in which some British Reviews have taken up our investigations, has hitherto prevented me from attempting justification. As, however, many persons have no inclination, and a greater number no time for comparing the original works with the reports of the critics ; and as in science the majority of readers believe, without examining for them- 2 selves, I cannot entirely avoid controversy. We have never published a separate answer to single pamphlets, but merely considered the objections in our lectures or in our works, when treating of the respective objects. Our maxim is, never to fight with darkness, but to endeavor to bring light.

I am now to submit to the public some observations on the objections of our principal antagonists in Great Britain, confining myself to the points in question, and depending on the moral sense, the judgment and observation, of my readers. In short and concise expressions I will state the real object of cur inquiries, and the true import of our propositions, and then compare the interpretations of the chief Reviews, especially of the literary gospel of Edinburgh. At the same time I will mention an antagonist, who was at first anonymous, but did not long conceal himself; who then appeared as an author on the structure of the brain, and at last as a historian of the anatomy of that organ.

The Edinburgh Reviewer speaks (No. 49. p. 229.) of ' a conscientious discharge of duty on this occasion ; ' it therefore is right to name him accordingly. The author of the Treatise on the Brain, in a pamphlet, asserts, that the anatomy of the brain is imperfectly known, even to the distinguished teachers of the medical art in Edinburgh ; that the persons I have addressed, never perhaps have completed their studies in this department, (p. 4. ) that 1 have shown the corpus dentatum to spectators, most of whom had never seen it before, and not one of whom had rendered himself familiar with its appearance by dissection,' p. 73.* Hence, if there be only one person in Edinburgh who can judge of the appearances of brown and white, he deserves the name of anatomist par excellence. As in his Treatise on the Brain he states (Pref. ix.) that he has scrupulously avoided the intro-

* As the reader may wish to know who my auditors were, I will mention the names of some gentlemen. At the first demonstration were present, Dr. John Thomson, Prof. Regius of Military Surgery ; Dr. Barclay, Lecturer on Anatomy and Surgery; Dr. Duncan, junior, Prof, of Medical Jurisprudence ; Drs. Emery and Irvin, of the Military Staff. At the second, were Dr. Rutherford, Prof, of Botany ; Dr. Home, Prof, of Materia Medica; Dr. Thomas Brown, Prof, of Moral Philosophy ; Prof. Jamieson; Drs. Farquharson, Dewar, Sanders, Anderson, and a great number of professional gentlemen. At the Physical Society I gave the demonstration in presence of Dr. Monro, junior, Prof, of Anatomy and Surgery ; Drs. Rutherford, Barclay, and Sanders ; Mr. Bryce, President of the College of Surgeons; Mr. George Bell, and a numerous audience of medical gentlemen. Since that time, I have often repeated these demonstrations in private parties, and always to the satisfaction of the spectators. It is icorthy of notice, that the essential point alluded to, was, whether there is brown matter in the corpus dentatum ? This had been denied by the Edinburgh Review, p. 264.

duction of any physiological matter ; and as in the pamphlet he maintains, that the anatomy of the brain, in a physiological point of vieiv, is fortunately not of essential consequence in the practice of medicine, (p. 3.) I will style him a mechanical dissector. Another name which he merits, is that of historian, because he has compiled facts, excellent indeed, — concerning the history of the anatomy of the brain.

The profession of a critical reviewer is acknowledged to be very extensive ; his infallibility is understood : hence, without any previous study, he can decide all questions on anatomy, physiology, pathology, philosophy, the arts, ard, in short, on all the branches of knowledge ; na y, he can criticise books without reading them. He is never at a loss, and arrogates at least the the appearance of talents. If his own authority is not sufficient to impose on the public, a sacred band of literary oligarchs answer for his correctness, and, for that reason, he assumes the mighty ive of sovereignty.

Every one will perceive, that our adversaries are very witty men. They deal extensively in the ridiculous ; and when they have leisure to become serious, they speak of the motives and dangerous consequences of our inquiries ; but their generous minds need not be apprehensive, since they declare our doctrines c incredible and disgraceful nonsense, absurd theories, trash, and despicable trumpery.' If that is the case, while, as they admit, we make proselytes, they have, indeed, very little confidence in the discernment of their countrymen. Why do they not rather listen to our constant declaration, that one fact, well observed, is more decisive to us than a thousand opinions, and all the metaphysical reasoning of the schools ; and that facts alone can expel such intruders as our doctrines ? These observations will be divided into three Chapters. The first will contain Anatomical, the second Physiological, and the third Philosophical considerations.

2*

J

OBSERVATIONS, &c.

CHAPTER I. ANATOMY.— section i

We have examined the anatomy of the nervous system in general, and of the brain in particular, in strict relation to physiology and pathology. This we have repeated in our demonstrations and in our works. When we delivered the Memoir on our Anatomical Inquiries to the French Institute in 1S08, we mentioned in a letter to that learned Society, that we present ' Une Description du Systeme Nerveux, moins d'apres sa structure physique, et ses formes mecaniques que d'apres des Vues Philosophiques et Physiologiques que des hommes habitues a des considerations superieures ne refuseront point d'accueillir." The same idea is expressed in my work on Physiognomy, p. 13. and in the article Cervemj for the Dictionnaire [des Sciences Medicates, vol. iv. Paris, 1813, § 1. and 2. In our works we have positively stated, that physiological and pathological facts have induced us to examine the structure of the brain.

The conscientious critic, however, instead of examining our views, and of judging accordingly, thought it his duty only to abuse our propositions, (or, in their polite phraseology, to cut them down,) and to declare that " in this department we have displayed more quackery than in any other ; and that our bad faith is here the more unpardonable, that it was so much more likely to escape detection,' p. 254. The anatomist par excellence, has scrupulously avoided the introduction of any physiological matter. He confines himself to descriptions of mere mechanical forms, measurements, and shades of color of individual and isolated parts. *

* There are, however, many discoveries of that kind in his book, which ought not to be overlooked. He, for instance, has discovered, that the dura mater must be excluded from the membranes of the brain ; because l it seems more natural to regard it as forming a part of the sides or walls of the cranium,' p. 150. while other anatomists speak of two lamellae of the dura mater ; one of which belongs to the internal sides of the skull, and the other to the brain.

Another great discovery of the mechanical dissector is the number of cul-de-sacs in the encephalon. A small one is mentioned, p. 84. shaped like a point of a writing pen ; another, in p. 98. about a sixth of an inch deep ; a third, in p. 99. of a conical shape ; a fourth, p. 104. ; and two more, p. 112. A deep triangular pit is mentioned, p. 180.

Other anatomists speak merely of two sorts of substance in the brain, of a grey or cineritious, and of a white. The mechanical dissector has first described a variety of colors, such as a brown, a wood-brown nearly the same as a nut-brown, a dark-brown, a greyish-brown, a reddishbrown, a wine-yellow; a white, an orange-white, a yellow-white, a reddish-white, and a bright white.

Important discoveries with respect to the supposed cerebral nerves will be mentioned afterwards. Here I will only notice his discoveries concerning the brain. He imagines, that, in the natural ' situation of parts, the anterior commissure is seldom more than a tenth of an inch in length,' while it is continued to the middle lobes ; and ' he imagines also, that it is placed anterior to the pillars of the fornix, and seems to unite them together,' p, 100. while it is quite detached from them. He

Willis, Vieussens, Haller, Vicq d'Azyr, Prochaska, Soemmerring, Reil, Bicbat, Cuvier, Portal, Sabatier, and all living anatomists of distinction, examine conjointly the structure and functions of the parts, and even intersperse pathological remarks. Every practical man of the profession will agree with Mr. Lawrence, (Two Introductory Lectures, p. 116.) when he speaks of separating anatomy and physiology from one another ; and says, ' What would you think of a person who should describe to you a watch or a steam-engine in this way? who would exhibit to you all the parts, and show their position, without any explanation of their uses ; witho I any reference to that nice adjustment and mutual action, which render the one subservient to the important purpose of marking the division of time, and enable us by the other to execute the most stupendous movements of human labor, and to produce the most striking results of human ingenuity ? As I cannot for my own part discern, what purpose of utility, much less what end of interest or amusement, could be answered by a merely anatomical detail ; and as the separation of the science of organization from that of life, seems to us most

has discovered, that the appearances which may be seen without actual dissection, or with very little dissection, or by removing the cerebellum, may be called external, p. 95.

An important discovery consists in the invention and application of new names. By this discovery, every thing appears new in the description, at least so far as the names are concerned; and that you may not suspect that you are reading about things which you knew before, the old synonymes are suppressed. This is particularly the case with the description of the ventricles, p. 104. Indeed, such discoveries as the preceding cannot fail to amuse the man of mechanical genius.

violent and unnatural, I shall not disjoin anatomy and physiology.'

Our ingenious mechanician affords novel information, when he tells his readers, that anatomical knowledge of the brain, in a physiological point of view, is fortunately not of essential consequence in the practice of medicine ; and that skilful and eminent practitioners are satisfied, and justly so, with a general view of this organ, p. 3. ; and that anatomy of the brain may be studied less with a view to refined physiological research, than to the practice of physic, p. 183. All other physicians, however, of sound judgment, at all times have admitted as a ^principle, that pathology is to be founded on physiology, and that without understanding the functions in the state of health, it is impossible to judge of their derangements. Who believes, that in the practice of medicine it is of no importance to know the anatomy and physiology of the heart, of the lungs, liver, stomach, &;c ? Are the structure and functions of the five senses not of equal importance ? And will those of the brain and its parts be deemed less worthy of consideration ? Shall the most delicate or most complex organization be declared useless ? If, on the contrary, the brain alone explains the various instincts of animals, and all the modified manifestations of the human mind ; if it alone accounts for the innateness of genius ; if it is certain, that each species of manifestation of the mind has its appropriate part in the brain ; if all manifestations of the mind, in the state of health and disease, find their explanation only in the cerebral organization ; if the influence of the affections and passions on the bodily constitution is indubitable, and vice versa ; how is it then possible, that a lecturer on the institutions of medicine can separate the structure and functions of the organization ? can maintain, that a skilful physician does not need accurate knowledge of anatomy and physiology? is justly indifferent with respect to the structure and functions of the brain, as well as to the connexions of its parts with each other, and with the w T hole body ?

Such notions will not, I trust, induce those of the medical profession to neglect the most interesting study of all, viz. that of man. Indeed, the examination of the nervous system is not only important, because all functions of the body, such as digestion, circulation, respiration, nutrition, secretion, and excretion, depend on it, but also because the five senses, all inclinations and sentiments, all moral and intellectual faculties, and all the characteristics of humanity, are evinced by means of the nervous system alone. Thus, the medical profession is not only interested in studying the human mind with respect to bodily health, and particularly with respect to insanity ; but it is their province to improve the knowledge of the mental powers, since these can be discovered only by the study of the brain and its parts. No profession is better prepared than that of the physician by accessory knowledge, and by the study of nature in general ; nor is any one so frequently and so seriously admonished to revise opinions, and to forsake hypothetical reasoning, in order to follow the simple method of experience. No philosopher is more intimately convinced, that all our knowledge ought to be reduced to a rational mode of judging from experiment and observation ; while a speculative philosopher thinks, that ' the labors of metaphysicians can only be rewarded by attentive and patient reflection on the subjects of their own consciousness.' — (Dugald Stewart's Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind. 5th edit. p. 8.) According to such a precept, every one has a right to take himself as a standard for the rest of mankind : A Caraib metaphysician may find, that destruction is the first moral principle.

The physician, besides, is placed in circumstances the most conducive to a profound and certain knowledge of man. No one has such opportunities of observing men at all times, and in all situations. He alone is present during the night and the day, to witness the most intimate concerns, and the most secret events of domestic life. Good and bad men, when sick, with difficulty conceal from him their true sentiments. Who desires not the friendship of the man, whom he trusts with his own life, or with that of his wife and of his children ? To such a man, as knowing all that belongs to our nature, we unfold the most secret thoughts, and we acknowledge our frailties and our errors, in order that he may judge truly concerning our situations. There is consequently no man more called upon, no man more necessitated to study mankind, than the physician. I leave it now to the reader, and to those who practise the healing art, to decide, whether a person contributes to the celebrity of his profession by inculcating such doctrines ?

Thus, only according to a philosophy, which slates that every one may take his own consciousness as the measurement of that of all men, are our British antagonists excusable — according to such a philosophy alone, is it unnecessary for them to study the spirit of our inquiries. As they cannot raise their minds above mechanical forms and shades of color ; as they do not even feel the necessity of considering the parts of the nervous system in connexion ; as they even invent artificial divisions ; how could their judgment of our investigations be sound, equitable, and just ?

Section II

In our anatomical views, which are always connected with physiology, pathology, and philosophy, the first point to be considered is, that there is no common origin of the nerves ; that all descriptions of the spinal cord as a prolongation of the brain are incorrect; that no nerve, and no cerebral part, owes its origin to any other ; but that all of them, on account of their mutual influence, are in communication. (Vide Memoir to the French Institute, sect. 1. ; Diciionnaire des Sciences Medicates, Art. Cerveau, § 3. No. 1, 2, 3 and 4. ; Physiognomical System, p. 13 -18.)

Such considerations have entirely escaped the conscientious Reviewer and mechanical Dissector.

Section III

The second point to be considered is, that the general form and arrangement of the nervous system are modified in different beings. In the superior animals, it is divided into the nerves of the abdomen and thorax, the spinal cord, the supposed cerebral nerves, and the cerebellum and brain.

The spinal cord is composed of a series of swellings between two undulatory lines. These swellings are proportionate to the nerves, which go off.

The conscientious Reviewer is satisfied with stating, that our descriptions of the spinal cord 'abound in conjectures, and assumptions, and inaccuracies,' p. 267. The mechanical Dissector has not attended to comparative anatomy, and does not mention any thing of that kind. The Historian is in unison with the Reviewer, and merely declares, that our statements are unfounded, p. 179. Comparative anatomy, however, shows great modifications in the general form and arrangement of the nervous system, as in the caterpillar, lobster, frog, fish, bird, or quadruped. At the Physical Society, and in Dr. Barclay's lecture-room, I have shown to my auditors the swellings of the spinal cord of a calf. As our statements are not attacked in detail, I do not repeat what is mentioned in our works.

Section IV

The next points to be examined concern the medulla oblongata, and the supposed cerebral nerves. The medulla oblongata does not belong to the spinal cord, and the supposed cerebral nerves have different origins from what anatomists generally believe.

The literary gospel does not embrace these points ; I have only to consider the respective discoveries of the mechanical Dissector. He believes, that the medulla oblongata, though situate in the head, belongs to the spine ; he calls it the cranial portion of the spinal cord, and fixes its termination to the lower edge of the pons Varolii, p. 175.

In our views, a great portion of the medulla oblongata belongs to the greatest number of the supposed cerebral nerves ; the rest to the cerebellum and brain. In my second demonstration in Edinburgh, before a numerous and respectable audience, the mechanical Dissector repeatedly protested against my stating, that the medulla oblongata is not interrupted, but continued to the cerebellum and brain, or rather that both, by means of the medulla oblongata, are in communication with the nervous mass of the rest of the body. The gentlemen who were present will recollect, that I twice asked the Dissector, whether he could show the interruption of the pyramids, since he protested against their continuation ? Now, as a historian, four months later, he tells us, that the idea of that very communication of the pyramids with the crura cerebri has been known a century and a half. The man of duty either was or was not acquainted with the fact. In the first case, why did he protest against it ? and why did he not state it in his book, professedly written on the brain ? There he terminates the brain at the upper edge of the pons, ascribes the mass of the pons to the cerebellum, and the medulla oblongata to the spinal cord. In the second case, he has learned it since, though he might have found in our works the same authors quoted, whom he, as historian, now appeals to, to prove that the idea is not original. More of this tergiversation afterwards.

This discoverer calls the abductor, trigeminal, facial, and auditory nerves, cerebellar, p. 202. and places their origins in the peduncles of the cerebellum, p. 207 — 210. viz. in the lateral portion of the annular protuberance, p. 112.

Comparative, as well as human anatomy, however, shows the contrary. These nerves exist in fishes and birds, though these animals have no annular protuberance, and in the greater number of quadrupeds these nerves go off behind the pons ; how then can they originate from the pons ? Even in the human brain, we can trace the fifth pair through the pons to the corpora restiformia of the medulla oblongata. I have done it in presence of many in Edinburgh, as well as in other places.

He has further discovered that the facial and acoustic nerves originate from the same spot, p. 209, 210. while they go off at quite different places, the facial nerve at the external edge of the corpus olivare, and the auditory nerve behind the medulla oblongata in the fourth ventricle. He has also discovered, that the optic nerve arises from the anterior corner of the commissure of the tractus optici, p. 205. viz. c from the part situate before the pituitary gland and infundibulum,' p. 83. while even in the infancy of anatomy, the optic nerve has been traced farther back. Comparative and morbid anatomy amply elucidate this point. In many fishes, the optic nerves are placed only over each other without adhesion ; and in quadrupeds and man, when one of the optic nerves is injured and diminished in size, the diminution is not only visible as far as their union or partial decussation, but passes across to the opposite side, backward, and proceeds to the anterior pair of the corpora quadrigemina.

By comparative views we have proved, that the optic thalami in birds and quadrupeds have been confounded, and the same name given to quite different parts of the brain ; and that the optic thalami in quadrupeds do not belong to the optic nerves, but to the brain proper.

section v

The fourth consideration is with respect to the communication of the cerebellum and brain with the rest of the nervous system.

The conscientious Reviewer, and Anatomist par excellence, had nothing to say in this respect; but the Historian, ' after a painful research y of four months, (p. 3.) has contrived to find matter for opposition. He maintains, ' that it is impossible to trace any fibres, either from the corpus restiforme or from any other part of the medulla oblongata, into the corpus dentatum,' p. 3.

The Historian is wrong in ascribing to us the discovery of the communication between the cerebellum and the corpus restiforme. During his ' painful research,' he might have found the history of this communication, as well as that of the brain with the medulla oblongata. This very name oblongata, is only explained by the medulla of the brain and cerebellum having been considered as continued to the spine. A great number of anatomists speak of prolongations, or crura, or processus cerebelli ad medullum oblongatam, and distinguish them from the crura or processus or pedunculi cerebelli ad pontem. We consider this ancient view of communication as correct; the ancients only erred in imagining that one part gave origin to another. In fact, the connexion between one bundle of the corpus restiforme and the corpus dentatum of the cerebellum, is easily shown in 3* scraping off the auditory nerve from the external surface of the corpus restiforme, and following the direction of the bundles. I have shown it in Dr. Barclay's lecture-room, and I am ready to do so to every one who procures a fresh brain.

The communication of the brain with the rest of the nervous system, requires more full exposition. Here the Dissector appears in his proper light and colors. He himself calls the attention of the public to the second demonstration. I therefore must be excused for speaking of it. When I demonstrated the decussation of the pyramids, he began the controversy with the question, Whether we maintain to have first discovered the decussation ? As Historian, he tells us, that he thought it his duty, in justice to preceding anatomists, to make their claims known to my audience, p. 74. My answer was, that our works show the contrary, and that we have given the history of the decussation. I then remarked, that before us, many anatomists have spoken of a decussation of the nerves, because injuries affecting the brain are often propagated on the opposite side of the body ; that, however, there are other observations on record, where injuries of the brain are visible on the same side with the injury ; that we have first discovered, that only a part of the brain is in communication with the opposite side of the nervous system, and the other part with the nerves of the same side. He was obliged to allow that this distinction is new.

I beg leave to make a few observations on this occasion. The man of duty, when he wrote professedly on the brain, did not mention a single author who had spoken of the decussation. He himself speaks of ' two or three ridges, which would hardly have been worthy of particular notice, were it not for absurd theories with which they have often been connected in physiological writings, 5 p. 177. On the other hand, in our works, the names of all the authors, whom he, as historian, quotes, are given, and many more. He speaks of Mistichelli as the first, while in our Memoir we have stated, that the decussation has been described by the most ancient anatomists, such as Aretaeus and Cassius ; that afterwards it had been neglected ; but that pathological facts called again the attention of Fabricius de Hilden to it in the year 1581. We have quoted Mistichelli, in 1709, Petit, Lieutand, Santorini, Winslow, Soemmerring, and Portal. Has now the man of duty, as historian, a right to accuse us Q of neglect and ignorance against every preceding inquirer? p. 2. while he, on this occasion, as author, does not quote one, and we have quoted them all, and a greater number than he as historian ?' Is it not rather our duty to mention the preceding authors when we write a book, than when we give outlines of a demonstration, and in an oral communication ?

This is not yet the whole. The Historian says, p. 69. 1 The structure in question (decussation of the pyramids) has been taken notice of, ever since its discovery, in elementary works of the highest reputation, and such as anatomists still daily consult ; and it has been particularly mentioned in the best and most generally known treatises on the brain, so that there is as little room for maintaining that it has been overlooked by modern anatomists, as that the description of the corpora pyramidalia themselves has been forgotten*

Does the man of duty not accuse himself by this passage i Let us admit the case to be as he says ; I then reply, that he had no reason to put his question. If the decussation is so generally known, no one could be mistaken. In that case, he could have asked me with the same propriety, whether w T e maintain to be the first who have described the pyramidal bundles, since, according to his own words, c the decussation is as little overlooked as the description of the pyramids ?'

But the reader would be mistaken, did he think the decussation as generally known as the Historian alleges. To prove that this anatomical point was not sufficiently understood, nor completely ascertained by the modern anatomists, I shall examine a few works of those authors whom the Historian has quoted. Vicq d'Azyr, for instance, did not know the true decussation, nor did he represent it. He speaks of such a thing, and points out a place where he looked for it ; but there it does not exist. This is evident from comparing his own passages with nature. In explaining the 22d plate, he says, ' Lorsqu'on ecarte le sillon 12, 15, entre les corps pyramidaux, on apercoit de petits cordons blanchatres et medullaires qui se portent d'un cote a l'autre comme autant de petites commissures dont la direction varie.' In explaining the 23d plate, he marks the same place by b. b. b. b. and says, that these are transverse fibres. Plate 17. fig. 1. 57, and 58, he says of the pyramidal bundles, 6 Elles sont separees de la portuberance annulaire par un petit enforcement 82, 82, et entre ces corps se trouve une fente ou division longitudinale 59, 59, au fond de laquelle on voit, lorsqu'on ecarte les bords, plusieurs cordons blancs qui se dirigent d'un cote a l'autre en maniere de commissures, les uns transversalement, les autres obliquement.'

Dumas and Boyer maintain that palsy of the opposite side in injuries of the head is not at all explained by the anatomy, because the decussation of the medulla oblongata can by no means be proved, c qu'il n'est rien moins que prouve par 1' anatomic'