200

nization of the newly deposited substancepermanently destroy or impair vision.

[Mr. Lawrence mentioned a case of

iritis, which he treated several years agcwithout the use of mercury, and in Whichthe inflammatory symptoms were not

violent. They yielded rather slowly to

the means employed, a partial opaicity ofthe capsule remained, much injuringvision.

Patients are daily presenting themseives at this Infirmary, who have beentteated hy common means, and in whoxi

general disorganization of the iris, con-tracted, closeci, or partially adherent

pupil, obstruction of that ape) tore by ad-ventitious organisations, opacity of thecrystalline capsule, and loss or serious in-jury of sight have resulted from inflam-mations that might have bt-en checked bymercury, Without leaving any permanentill consequence. Let me observe to yonthat iritis is a very manageable affection ;that it rarely faiih to yield to proper treat-ment, even when the case has been origi-nally neglected ; and that the serious

effects just detailed are chargeable to iu-Judicious management only.The good effects of the mercnrial treat-

ment appear most obvious when it hasbeen resorted to afte-r the failure of othermeans. [The lecturer here gave an ex-ample in point ; that of a genlleman, whohad undergone for three weeks very ac-tive depletion, so as to become pallid andvery enfeebled, without any good effecton the local complaint. His eight, on thecontrary, had grown more and more dim.The pupil had an hour-glass shape fromtwo adhesions of its edge, the red zone,and the nocturnal pain were unabated,and sight was nearly extinguished. Theuse of mercury and the belladonna, withtnorè generous diet and wine, very spee-dily stopped the disease ; the adhesionsgave way, and the natural figure of thepupil was restored, with perfect vision.He had three relapses in the course oftwelve months ; the last being the worst ;the organ was ultimately uninjured, andremains so at the end of three or fouryears.]

In conclusion, I recommend to you thefree use of mercury in iritis, from theFnHest confidence in its efficacy and safety,founded on the very ample experienceafforded by this Institution, as well asextensive trials in private practice. Iknow no treatment that can be moi-esafelydepended on for producing the deiredeffect in any disease, and 1 am convincedthat no remedy nor combination ofreme.dies Will supply its place. At this Infir-

mary it was first employed in syphiliticiritis. Its beneficial effects in that formof the disease uatnrally led to the exten-sion of its use to other modifications ofthe disorder. Its beneficial agency, andthe particular mode of its action have notescaped the notice of attentive observersin other quarters. [The lecturer hereread some quotations from Beer’s Reper-torium, published at the very end of thelast century, in which thevirtnes of theremedy, in preventing lymphatic exnda-tions, and internal suppurations are verywarmly and pointedly extolled.]

REVIEW.

The Anatomy of the Brain, with a generalView of the Nervous System. ByG. SPURZHEIM, M. D. of the Univer-sities of Vienna and Paris, Licentiate

of the Royal College of Physicians ofLondon. Translated, at the reqnest,and under the immediate superinten-dance of the Author, from the unpub.lished French M.S., by R. WILLIS,Member of the Royal College of Snr-geons. With Eleven 1’lates. Svo.

pp. 234. London, 1826. S. Highley.FEW men can bring with them sufficientenergy of mind, patient industry, and

freedom from the trammels of their pre-

decessors, to investigate, with much pros-pect of success, so vast and intricate a

subject as the structure and fimctions ofthe nervous system. Dr. Spurzheim,however, like his predecessor Gall, (who,as our readers know, is the author of a

new physiological doctrine of the brain,)possesses no ordinary share of these rarcand inestimable qualities. By the laboursof these and other eminent anatomists,much light has been thrown on the struc.ture of the brain and nerves, and on

many of their functions. Towards the

conclusion of the last century, Gall dig-

covered -the ground-work of his system,ind bad done much tc raise the sitper-

201

structure before 1804, when our author,who had long devoted his attention to

the subject, became his associate. -

since the year 1513, each has pro-iecuted the subject by himself, but it

wonld ’appear that Dr. Spurzheim has

latterly outstripped his preceptor, at

least he is better known in Englandthan Gall. We consider the labours ofthese anatomists as the germ of a!1 theadditions which have been made to our

knowledge of the nervous system, andslsall therefore be particular in markingthe commencement of their inquiries.-Forthis’purpose we quote the followingnarrative from Dr. Spurzheim’s Pretace :

It was in the year 1800 that I at-

tended for the first time the privatecourse of lectures which Dr. Gall hadbeen in the habit of delivering cccasion-ally at his house for four year s. At thistime he spoke of the necessity of thebrain to the manifestations of mind, ofthe plurality of the mind’s organs, and ofthe possibility of discovering the deve-

lopment of the brain by the configurationof the head. He pointed out sevet al par-ticular organs of different memories, andof several sentiments, but he had not yetbegun to examine the strnctme of thebrain.* Between 1800 and 1804, he mo-dified his physiological ideas, and broughtthem to the state in which he professedthem at the commencement of our

travels.Dr. Gall having met with a woman,

6fty-fonr years of age, who from herinfancy had labossred under dropsv of thebrain, and who, nevertheless, was as ac-tive and intelligent as the gener ality offemales in her own rank uf lire. and beingconvinced that the brain was the indis-

pensable organ of the soul, expressedhimself in terms similar to those whichTulpins had used before him, on observ-ing a person afflicted with hydrocephalus,who exhibited good intellectual faculties,riz., the structure uf the brain must be

* Exposition de la Doctrine de M.Gall, par Froniep, 3me edit. 1802.

t Biecooff Exposition de la Doctrinede M. Gall, snr le. Cerveau et le Crane,Berlin, 1805 ; et -Blœde, la Doctrine deGall sur les Fonctions du cerveau, Dres-dtn, 1805.

different from what it is commonly sup-posed to be.* He now felt the neces-sity of examining the mind’s organ ana-tomically. As his medical practice occu-pied his time, he employed M. Niclac, astudent, to dissect for him ; but the spiritotthis gentleman’s researches was merelymechanical, as is allowed in our jointwork, entitled, ’ Anatomie et PHysiologiedu Systeme nerveux en général, ct dnCerveau ell particular.’ t

Having completed my studies in 1804,I was associated with Dr. Gall, and de-voted my’elf especially to anatomical in-quiries. At this period, Dr. Gall, in theAnatomy, spoke of the decussation of thepyramidal bodies, of theirpassag? throughthe polis vmoiii, of eleven layers of lon-gitudinal and transvcrse fibres in thepons, of the continuation of the opticnerve to the anterior pair of the quadri-

geminal bodies, of the extetior bundlesof the crura of the brain diverging be-neatlr the optic nerves in tile directionwhich Vicussens, Mouro, Vicq d’Azyr,and Reil had followed, the first, bymeans of scraping, the others, by cuttingmeans of scraping, the ot!:ers, by cnttingthe substance of the brain. Dr. Gallshowed further, the continuation of theanterior commissure across the sttiatedbodies ; he also spoke of the unfoldingof the brain that happens in hydrocepha-lus. The notion he had conceived of this,how ever, was not correct, for lie thoughtthat the convolutions resulted from the

duplicature of a membrane, believingthat the cerebral crura entered the he-

mispheres on one side, expanded there,and then folded back on themselves bythe juxtaposition ot the convolutions. Thetrue structure of the convolutions, andtheir connexion with the rest of the cere-bral mass, were not described until onrjoint Memoir was uresented to the FrenchInstitnte in 1808.’ The mechanical direction which theanatomical investigations had taken didnot appear to me satisfactory. Guidingmyself in my inquiries by physiologicalviews, always comparing structure withfunction, I discovered the law of the suc-cessive additions to the cerebral parts ;the divergence in every direction of thecrural bundles towards the convolutions;the difference between the divergingtibresand those of union ; the generality of

commissures ; the tine connexion of theconvolutions with the test of the cerebralmass, and the peculiar structure which

* Lib. 1, cap. xxiv.

t Preface to the first vol. p. 16.

t Gren’s Journal, 1705, i. p. 102.

202

admitg of the convolutions being unfold-ed (an event that occurs in hydrocepha-lus of the cavities), whilst the mass lyingat their bottoms, and belonging, for themost part, to the apparatus of union, orof the commissures, is pushed by thewater between the two layers composingthem ; lastly, I demonstrated the struc-ture of the nervous mass of the spine,and I flatter myself with having arrivedat the best method of dissecting the brainand exposing its parts."

Since Dr. Gall and the author publishedtheir system, they, as well as other

physiologists, have ardently prosecutedthe study. Dr. S. himself has made

many discoveties, which are emhodied

with the present work, as are much of

the matter and many of the plates of itspredecessor.This work is equally adapted to thestudent and the anatomist; but before

we proceed to analyse its contents, we

may observe, that Drs. Gall and Spurz-heim have not always received that cour-teous treatment which, from their inde-

fatigable exertions to unfold the arcana

of the nervous system, and the successwhich has followed their inquiries, theyso richly deserved. But if justice be tardy,Dr. Spnrzheim possesses too philosophicala mind to despond, to be diverted from

hia purpose by the taunts of the igno-rant, or to relax his energies, althoughneglected by those who pretend to be

the patrons of science. Ignorance maytrinmph and prejudice blind for a while.but truth must ultimately prevail. The

consummation is inevitable.

Here is no metaphysical uncertainty,but palpable and living proof of theanatomist’s accuracy, and if not of

the entire doctrine of phrenology, at

least of the principles upon which it is

founded ; those persons, therefore, who

range themselves as its adversaries,have no occasion, we should rather sayexcuse, for carping at what may onlyhave been rendered probable, or requiretime to elucidate while they coolly appro-

priate to themselves what haa been

proved. Dr. Spurzheim, one of the mostliberal and candid of writers and of men,justly complains of this paltry conduct;but his language forcibly pictures the

serenity, which a mind studiotisly de.

voted to philosophical pursuits must

ever enjoy.He says :-

The influence our labours have hadon the study of the nervous system is in.contestable. To be convinced of this, itis enough to examine the state of know.ledge in regard to the anatomy, physio-logy and pathology of the bram and spi.nal marrow, when Ur. Gall and I de-veloped our ideas on these matters,whether it was by teaching orally, by dis.secting publicly, or by means of onrwritings. I confess there is great satis.faction in the consciousness of havingcontributed to the important reform thathas been effected in regard to thenervonssystem. 1 am only sorry to observe, thatmany of our ideas are appropriated by theauthors of recent publications, without

any mention of the source whence theywere derived, or of the individuals whofirst struck them out, or rednced themto certainty by direct proofs. We are

commonly enough mentioned, it is true,when such of our assertions as appearweak, are the subjects of criticism, bnt

our names are kept in the back-ground’ when points of importance become the, matter ot discussion. The public, for

instance, by referring to the properplace, may judge whether M. J. Cloqnet,

in liis Anatomy of Man,’ has been suHi-cieiitly explicit in stating, that he has

copied every one of the plates of thehuman brain contained in our large work.M. Serres, whose memoir was deemed

wortliy ot’ its prize by the Academy ofSciences of Paris, in the first volume ofhis work, uses our names no fewer thanfifteen times, in connexion with a singleidea, which he fancies he can refute; andgenerally along with every fact that looks

f’ unfavourahle to our opinion, he names us,but he always forgets to cite us in rela-tion to very many fundamental concep.

tions which we had announced at the, same time. They who have written tothe following effect-’ M. Serres has

’ proved clearly the erroneousness of M.Gall’s observations, and replaced themby others,’ may undeceive themselves byattending to the remark I have juat

’ made.

.! RI. Serres’s publication forces me like-

203

wise to request the reader to distinguishbetween a mnltitude of words and factson the one hand, and the corollarieswhich resnlt on the other. I agree withthose who, in works of science, pay es-pecial regard to truths demonstrable to

others, to ideas available in prilctical lite,and to clearness and simplicity of sty le.What purpose can the following passageserve, which occurs in the pretiminarydiscourse of M. Serres, when after

having said, that a monster may be a

vegetation of its like, that it may havetwo head", two tails, and six or eightextremities, but that it would remain

strictly confined to the limits of its class,he exclaims:-, This wotiderful pheno-menon is undoubtedly connected with thegeneral harmony of creation. What maybe its cause? We know it not, and in alllikelihood we shall remain ignorant of ittbrever. It is one of the mysteries ofcreation, whose surface is meted by man,but whose depths are sounded, and know nto God alone. *"This phenomenon does not appear to

me more extraordinary than that a kittenis not a poppy, or that the crab tree doesnot produce pears. If the egg of a birdin its ordinary state cannot produce a

mammiferons annimal, why should the

germ of this same egg, if it chance tobe imperfectly developed, produce a

deformity like to one of the mammalia?Were the case thus, there would be somecause for an amazement, but the universalfact of every animal producing its kind,is not, in my eyes, more astonishing thanany other natural event.Further, the mass of facts cited, the

number of dissections made, ought neverto impose on ns, nor be made a means ofconcealing the truth. Many of the anatomists who had lived before ns, dissect-ed some hundreds of brains, and theymade a boast of their doings in this way ;but they did not perceive titat which I

pledged myself to have discovered beforeI had dissected a dozen ; for instance,the successive additions to the cerebralparts, and the two kinds of fibres, to wit,the diverging, and the fibres of union.Anatomists and physiologists had cer-

tainlylooked upon heads without number;

*’Cet étonnant phénomène est sansdonte lié a l’harmonie générale de la cré-ation. Qtielle pent en tre la cause ?Nons l’ignorons et vraisemblernent nonsl’ignorerouns toujours. C’est nn desmysteres de la creation, dont l’hommemesnre la surface, mais dont Dieu seulsonde et connait la profondeur.’

but before Dr. Gall’s appearance, hadfailed to discover the seat of a singlecerebral organ. A solitary individual, abeggar, enabled him to detect the organof self-esteem, precisely as the fall of asingle apple revealed the law of gravita-tion to Newton. Anatomists had seen

many human brains, without reniatkingany differences among them ; these, how-ever, are, to say the least, as constant assimilarities. The point that essensuallyinterests science is, the discovery of thetruth, and this is then confirmed and es-tablished by all ulterior ob:<ervations."

The work is divided into nrne sections ;in the first of which the author makes

some general remarks on the nervous

system in the second, speaks of the

division of the nervous apparatus ; in the

third, of the nerves of voluntary motionand of the external senses ; in the fourth,of the best method of examining the struc-ture of the brain ; in the fifth, he parti-cularly describes the cerebellum, and inthe sixth, the brain ; in the seventh,the commissures; in the eighth, the

communication of the nervous parts witheach other; and, lastly, he remarks onthe " anatomico-physiological relations

of the nervous apparatuses." Of these

we shall endeavour to furnish our readers

with something of an outline, as a sort ofintroduction to a work which we are per-suaded will be generally perused and

studied.

The nervous system comprises a pulpy(cineritious) and gelatinous (medullary)substance, the one of a greyish or brown-ish hue, the other fibrous and more or

less pert’ectly white. The intimate struc-

ture of the first substance is unknown.

Ruysch, Vieussens, and almost all the

contemporaries of Haller, regarded it as

a tissue of very fine blood-vessels. Ac-

kerman of Heidelberg, and Walter uf

Berlin, suppose it to consist of an ex-

tremely attennated prolongation of ves-

sels, becoming more and more minute,so as ultimately to compose the white

or fibrous substance. This idea may be

204

traced as far back as the age of Praxa-

goras, who fancied that where arteries

terminate nerves commence. Albinns

and S&oelig;mmerring. have proved, by their

injections, that besides very minute bloodvessels, there is also a peculiar substance

in this nervous mass ; it is therefore onlypermeated by innumerable blood ves-

sels. Vicq d’Azyr thought he could tracefibres in the pulpy substance, but whatlie saw, says Dr. Sputzheim, ‘ was thewhite or truly fibrous substance inter-

mingled or united with the gray."Anatomists have differed much in opi-

nion respecting the intimate nature of

the white nervous snbstance. Some main- !

taining that it is tubular, and otherssolid ; some that it possesses no bloodvessels, and others that it is entirelycomposed of them.

According to Lewenhoeck, Vieussens,and Steno, the white nervous substanceis fibrous, and this opinion Drs. Gall

and Spurzheim have espoused." By scraping it in the brain," says

the latter author, " according to thedirection of its fibres, these may be seenwith the naked eye, and if the scrap-ing motion be oblique or transverse totheir course, they will be seen to be

. drawn from their natural direction, or tobe torn. If the brain be boiled in oil, ormacerated in diluted nittic or muriaticacid, or in vinegar, or alcohol, or if it befrozen, the fibrous structure of its whitesubstance will be rendered extremely ap-parent. Some, however, say, that thefibrousness is then the consequence ofa chemical change. As the same result,however, is constantly obtained, and asthe fibres, whichever of the processes beemployed, are regularly disposed, in cor-responding situations in a similar manner,the fibrous structure must of necessitybe recognised as natural and inherent.A few authors have attributed the

fibrous appearance of the white substanceto the impressions of blood vessels. Thismistake may be detected at once by com-paring the course of the blood vesselswith that of the cerebral fibres.The reality of the fibrousness of the

white substance is further opposed, bysaying that when the brain is cut, it does

not appear, and that it is produced by

the force employed to tear the toughercerebral masses asunder.To this I reply, that it is impossible, by

means ot’a clean and smooth cut, to dis.cover the structure of any extremely de-licate and soft part whatsoever. Such amethod is not even available in thosecerebtat parts that are incontestablyfibrous, as the pyramidal bodies, the annu-lar protuberance, the pedunetes of thebrain. &c.M. Bogros, of Paris, read a paper to

the Academy of Sciences, on the 25th ofMay 1825, in which he maintained that

every nervous fibre is perforated by a ca-nal from its origin to its extreme t-rmi-nation. The accuracy of t is statementi far from being ascertained.The white nervous substance is sene-

rally called medullary. This name, how-

ever, ought to be discontinued for two rea-sons: in the first ptace, the idea we formof marrow excludes the conception of

fibrousness ; and again, the tunctions ofthe nervous fibres are so sstperior to thoseof the marrow, that it is a pity to desig-nate both by the same word. The nameis evidence of the er ror that was an-ciently committed, when every thing con-tained in an osseous cavity was cotisi-dered as marrow.."

Ever since the times of Vesaliiis andPiccoluomini, very different opinions haveprevailed respecting the use ot the pnlpyor grey substance. Some have regardedit at a secreting organ, either of vital

spirits or a nervous fluid. Upon this

point, says Dr. Spurzheim, it is probablethat unity of sentiment will not be rea-

dily obtained." but seeing that the rudi-

ments of each new shoot in trees are de.veloped in a deposition of macilaginous-fooking matter; that the castilages inanim bodies are successively liqllid,gelatinous, and cartilaginous, and thatseveral turn into firsn irnne ; that anato-mists, in many instances, have agreedin deriving the nerves front ganglions ;that the brain, too, is at first fluid, then

gelatinous, and ultimately fibrous ; in fine,that the pulpy nervous bubstance is al.

ways found where the white fibres becomemore numerous ; that these are implant-ed, so to say, into it, and that a greatquantity of blood vessels are expandedon it ; Dr. Gall and I have said, that tons it appears to be the source or nonrisherof the white fibres. Let ns, howeverdistinguish in this, as in every other place,

205

between facts and inferencef. Snpposingthat our ideas concerning the inferencewere really inexact, the pecaliarities I

have mentioned, and the essential im-

poi,tance of the pulpy substance to thenervons functions must ever be admit-ted: ’-p. 7.

The gray cnlonr,according to Dr. Spurz- (heim, not being essential to the pulpysubstance, no objection to this notion of

its uses can be derived from the fact of

its absence in the ganglia of the asteri&oelig;,which some comparative anatomists haveasserted. &deg; A gelatinous, or pnlly mat-ter," says Dr. S., " does certainly enterinto their constitution, and that is suffi-cient." He continues,&mdash;" The white substance is also sail to

be present in thp brain and spinal chordbefore the pulpy or gray appears. If bythis the exiateuce ot the nervotis massesthat become white prior to an evidentseparaiion into two substances, and to

the development o( convotntions, be nn-derstood, I agree ; but if the rudimentsof the brain, cerebellum, and spinal chordbe said to be white, and not gray in thefirst instance, I positively deny the asser-tion. The nervous masses of the headand spine are pulpy or gelatinous, anddecidedly grayish in colonr hetore theyare white. Neither Dr. Gall nor I haveever thought of saying, that the portionof the completely-developed nervous sys- ’’

tem, which is putpy and grity, gives bit thto that which is white and fibrous. Wedui but inteud to announce the fact of agelatinnns and grayish state of the brainpreceding its fibrous and white condition,precisely as we should say of its entiremass, that it is liquid before it becomesgelatinous.Our idea or the formation of the ner-vous system seems more especially plan-sible, when it appears to be perfectlyanalogous to what takes place in theosseous. Bone begins by being gelati-nous, it is then cartilaginous, and nlti-mately solid and earthy. I repeat, how-ever, that no one can be more impressedthan myself with the difficulty of drawinggeneral conclusion ; I am, therefore,very far from anxious to impose sncir asI do infer upon others. I only insist onthe necessity of exactness in regard tothe facts related. Putting our tlreory ofthe formation out of the question entirely,then Dr. Gall and I still assert our titleto be considered as the first who discover-ed and made known the general relation

that prevails, in man and the mammaliabetween the pulpy and fibrous substancesof the brain and its several parts.

Messrs. Foville and Pinel Grandchamphave of late inferred, from patllotogicalobservations, that the superficial cineri-tious substance of the brain presides overintellectual functions, and its white anddeep-seated gray mass over locomotion.

I am disposed to set much store bypathological observations, yet I do notsee that we dare place unlimited confi-

’

dence in them alone. Truth is, I con-

ceive, universally harmonious; truth con-

sequently cannot have been attained inany case until anatomy and physiologyand pathology accord exactly. Now,who will maintain that the locomotivepowers of animals are great in propor-tion as their brains contain more of thewhite nervous substance, and as thestriated bodies and the supposed originsof the optic nerves (thalami) are large ?Or who will say that the locomotive ca-

pracities of interior tribes, in whose brainsthe gray substance predominates, are lessremarkable than their intell!:ctual endow-ments ? Thc.e positions ale alike unte-

nable. Dr. Gall and I suppose that each

nervous apparatus is composed of the twopeculiar substances, the pulpy and the

fibrous, and that both are necessary toproduce an instrument adequate to per-form a particular function."

Of the origin of the Nervous System.-Itis not necessary to recapitulate the errorsof the older anatomists, who supposed thebrain to he the origin of all the nerves.In their eyes the spinal chord was a

prolongation of the cerebral mass and the

great sympathetic, and nerves of the abdomen and thorax continuations of th

encephalon and spinal chord. Their opi-

nions, however, were soon questioned." Winslow separated the great sympa-

thetic from the spinal chord and brain ;he regarded the bundles which ruu be-tween its ganglions or masses as simplebranches of’ communication, and said,that all the ganglions ought to be con-sidoed as peculiar origins of nervea, andconseqnently as so many little brains.

S&oelig;mmerring also observes, that thesympatlietic, having an independent ex-

istence, may rather be said to go to thanto come from the spinal chord. He adds,that it never forms a tluuk in any wayproportionate to the number and size ot

its communicating branches, and that it

206

never loses itself Mnong muscles, butfollows the course of the blood vessels."&mdash;(Hirnund Nerven.)

Bichat has expressed his opinion in themost positive manner on this subject.

" The ideas of anatomists," says he," upon this important nerve, seem to me

very little accordant with what nature

proclaims to be just. All agree in re-

presenting it as a medullary chord, extend-ing from the head to the os sacrnm, send-ing various branches, in its course, to

the neck, the chest, and the abdomen ;having, in short, a distribution analogousto the spinal nerve, from which, or fromthose of the neck, it is said by some toderive its origin. Whatever the namechosen to designate it may chance to he,sympathetic, intercostal, trisplanchnic, themode of considering it will still be foundto remain unchanged.

This mode I regard as altogether erro-neons. In fact there exists no such nerveas these names are used to signify. Thatwhich is taken for a nerve is, in truth,but a suite of communications bet-veendifferent nervous centres, situated at va-rions distances from each other.These centres are the ganglions, scat-

tered through the different regions of thebody. They have all an independent andisolatetl action. Each is a particularmagazine, sending a multitude of rami-fications, to carry into the respective or-gans the irradiations of the centre whencethey proceed.

’ What anatomist,’ he continues, ’ hasnot been struck by differences among the

. nerves ? Those of the brain are larger,whiter, more dense, less numerous, and

offering few varieties; whiist extreme

tenuity, gr eat number, especially aroundthe plexuses, grayish colour, peculiarsofiness of tissue, frequently occurringvarieties, are, on the other hand, the

distinguishing characters of the nervesthat issiie from the ganglions, Theonly ex.ceptions in either case are in the branchesof communication between the cerebralnerves, and in a few of the twigs thatunite the little nervous centres:’

The brain cannot be the origin of theentire nervous system, for many of the

inferior animals have nerves, althoughthey possess nothing that bears the sem-blance of a brain. There are also many

descriptions of human acephali on record

who had very perfect nervous systems

Some writers, however, relying on the

authority of Morgagni, Haller, and San-

difort, have maintained that the brains of

acephali exist in the first instance, but

that, together with the membranes andbony coverings, they have been destroyedby dropsy of the cavities.

" But no one," says Dr. Spurzheim,ever saw an acephalic child whose brainand skull exhibited traces of such de-struction. The integuments of the upperpart of the head, where the destructiveprocess is principally supposed, are com.monly entire and healthy. Neither has

anv one in these cases discovered the ci-catrices of ulcers, nor of traces of erosion,nor ot simple absorption. The boties thatcompose the basis of the skull, when theyexist in acephali, are smooth and ronnd atthe edges. The whole inferior part of theenceptralic mass. too, and the optic.auditory, olfactory, and other nerves,occasionally occur in a perfectly soundand natural state. How did these nervesand tendercei-ebral parts resist the actionof a fluid that dissolved or caused the ah.sorption of membranes and firm bone?It must be allowed then, that the brainmay be primitively wanting, just as maythe legs or arms, and that the nervous

apparatus of the body does not derivefrom the brain.The first anatomical principle in regard

to the nervous system therefore is, thatit is not an unit, but consists of many es-sentially different parts, which have theirown individual orig ins, and are mutually incommunication."

This principle Dr. Gall and our author

regard as essential to their phy siologicairesearches and deductions, and they con-ceive that they have proved it as satis.

factorily with regard to the brain as Bichat

had done before them to the nerves of

the chest and belly. Besides this first

anatomical principle, three other subjectsare separately considered. These are-

1st, the mode in which the individiial

parts of the nervous system are formed;2nd, the order in which they are de-

veloped ; and 3rd, their reciprocal rela-tions.

Drs. Gall and Spurzheim have alwaysspoken in a general way of the mode and

207

order in which the cerebral parts arc

formed and developed ; but their at-

teotiot) has been more especially directedto the plurality of the nervons ap-

paratuses, of their communications andmutual relations. M. Tiedemann, andafter him M. Serres, has written par-

tienlarly on the formation and progressivedevelopment of the several parts which

compose the nervous system. Accordingto the latter, the spinal chord, the cere-bellnm and the brain, are developed fromthe circumference towards the certre,

and not, as anatomists suppose, from thecentre to the circumference. He saysthere are many centres of formation, andthat each apparatus is composed of severalparts which arejoiued together, the ex-tremities commencing, the middles termi-nating the union. According to this au-thor, the arteries exert a directing influ-

ence over the development of the nervous

system. He thinks the spinal chord is

formed under the guidance of the inter-costal, the cerebellum under that of the

vertebral, and the brain under that of thecarotid arteries. He says that the vessels

of the spinal chord appear first, and thatthe ontline of this part is first apparent,the common carotids next, and that their

internal branches, which are distributed

to the crnra of the brain and to the qua-

drigemina, are then evolved. The vertebralarteries reach the cranium last, and the ce-

rebelhtm is formed. He says, the brain is

developed from before backwards, and thecerebellum from behind forwards, accord-

ing to the direction of the blood vessels.

From this it comes that the callous body isevolved from behind forwards as thearteria callosa gradllal1y appears. M.

Serres differs from Tiedemann upon a veryimportant point, for while the former statesthat the brain is developed from the cir-cntmference towards the centre, the latter

reverses the order, and Dr. Spurzheim in-clines to his opinion. Against a part of

this doctrine it may be observed hat Dr.

!iaron lately showed the body of an hy-drocephalic child to the Academy ofSciences at Paris, and proved, that al-

though the carotid arteries existed, theanterior cerebral lobes were wanting.*

After describing the structure of gang-tions, Dr. Spnrzheim makes the follow-

ing observations on their uses." Anatomists,’* says he, " have always

entertained very difterent opinions uponthe oses of the ganglions. Some, withWillis, have ascribed to them the secre-tion of what they style vital spirits ; others,with Vieussens, conceive them destinedto separate and to strengthen the nervousfibres ; many of the moderns again, Bichat,tieil, and others, think with Johnstone,that they serve to isolate fiom the influ-ence of the brain the parts which receivetheir nerves from them. The latterauthors divide the nervous systems intotwo parts ; a cerebral and a ganglionary."" The opinion in regard to the use of

the ganglions, which Johnstone, Bichat,and Reil entertained, and which othershave adopted from them, is by no meansexact. They do not interrupt the reci-prol’al influence of the brain and nervesof the spinal chord, nor of the brain andviscera of the chest and belly, either inthe healthy or pathological state of thebody. They most certainly do not pre-vent impressions made on parts suppliedwith neves from thun, or disea-ed sensa-tions of the viscera from being telt. Onthe contrary, the ganglions wotild appearessential to thf structure of nerves of en-sation. They, however, abstract the partsthey furnish with nervous energy, fromthe influence of the will. They also origi-nate nervous fibres ; and serve, farther, aspoints of communication between diffe-rent nerves Lastly, as the existence ofa nervous fluid is not impossible, nay, asin all likelihood such a fluid does exist,the ganglions may probably aid in its-se-

cretion or evolution, and modify its circu-

lation or distribution."

Having established his first principle,viz. that " the nervous system is not a

simple unit, but composed of many parts,’’Dr. Spurzheim proceeds in the next sec

* Bulletin des Sciences Medicales,Jnin 1825.

208

tlon to the special consideration of these Iparts, as they perform particular func- tions, and these he divides into two great)classes, vegetative or organic, and phrenicor mental. To the first class belong the

great sympathetic nerve, and the gan-glions and plexuses of the thorax and

abdomen ; to the second, the brain, cere-

bellum, medulla 6blongata, and spinalchord, together with the nerves of these

parts. In Dr. Spurzheim’s apprehension,this arrangement is founded in nature.

He regard. the nervous masses of organicas independent of those of phreniclife, and allots a speeifac kind of nerve

Ito each organic function. These nerves

communicate with each other, and with Ithose of the second class called phreaie Ior mental.

The nervous masses of vegetativelife," he says, " are very simple in thelower tribes of beings ; they are more

numerous as we moullt in the scale, andas the functions of vegetative life becomecomplicated. ’I laeir general arrangement,as was to be expected, varies accordingto the form and disposition of the viscerain species and snelavicluals. Tf viscera)

functions, locomoti;:n, and manifestationof sensibility be united, it is also conceiv-able, that to separate the peculiar nervesof these dissimilar operations from eachother, wonld be next to impossible. Thisconsideration shows why some anatomistshave compared the nerves of the ater-

pillar and worm to the great sympathe-tic ; whilst others have likened them to’the intervertebral ganglions, or to the

spinal chord itself.In the vertebral classes of anianals, and

e-pecially in the mammalia, the nervousmasses are distinctly separated, first, intothose of vegetative tife, and, second, intothose of phrenic functions. Each of these

may farther be subdivided into two parts:the first into nerves of viscera, or, as M.de Blamvide expresses himself, into a vis-ceral portion, and into nerves ot commu-iiicatioii ; that in, an apparatus whichestablishes sympathy among the viscerainene- mutualy, and between these andthe nervous masses of the cxterna! senses,and of tkte affective and intellectual tuase-tions."

M. de Blainville divides the nervous

masses of phrenic life into central and

ganglionary:The first, or central,’ says he, is sus-

ceptible of three degrees of development ;is always situated above the intestinalcanal, begins with the oesophagus, or pha-rynx, and Is prolonged, more or less,backwardly, so as to correspond to a

greater or smaller number of rings of thebody when they exist.

, The second, or gatiglionary, consistsof a very variable number of pairs ofgang:ions, disposed in a slightly differentmanner on each side of the first.

’ The central portion is always com-posed of two similar halves, situated, theone to the right, the other to the left, andmore or less intimateiy united, or drawntogether by means of the peculiar appa.tns, styled commissure. It is dividedinto two rigorously similar portions: a

vertebral and a cephalic, inclfnied, as theirtitles imply, the one in the vertebral

Icanal, the other in the cranium. Both

contain gray ani white substance, andlongitudinal and transverse commissures.

. The cephalie portion consists, 1st, ofan inferior bundle c,tlled pyramidal, whichparses under the annntar protnirerattce,continnes long distinct from the cerebral

pedonctes, and runs to terminate in theanterior, or olfactory lobe, ot the brain.2d. Of a superior bundle, wliielt conti-nues, in the first place, under the nameof prolongation of the quad rigeminal ho-dies, to the cerebellum, and running onthe outer hides of the internat genicnlatedbodies, is lost on the hemispheres; and,in the second, of a deep bundle, whichmay be followed to the mammillary bodies,and from thence into the optic thalami.The bundles named peduncles of’ the

pineal gland, which are expended on theoptic tlialaiiiiis, are also to he regardedas belonging to this cephalic portion."

This author subdivides his second, or

ganglionary portion, into ganglions with-out, and ganglions with, external appara-tus. Amoitg the iormpi’, he reckons the

olfactory masses, the hemispheres, pro-

perly so called, the quadrigeminal bodies,and the cerebellum. According to him,the olfactory nerve is a cerebral mass, inwhich the inferior centr.sl bundle te-

natfs. The hemispheres he conceives

form another ganglion, having no exter-nal apparatus but one transverse, (thecorpus callosum, and two longit&ugrave;dinal

209

! commissures (crura cerebri et fornicis.)Itis to this ganglion that the convolutionsbelong. He regards the corpora striataas appertaining to the convolutions, but

: remarks that, for certain, their fibres donot originate there, to go to the hemi-

spheres. The quadrigemina and the ce-

rebellum form the third and fomth gan-

glia, without external apparatus. Uponthisauthor’s views, Dr. Spurzheim makesthe following observations :

‘ The title, visceral part of the nervoussystem, appears to me well chosen, but Ido not think that the division into centraland ganglionary parts, or the other sub-divisions proposed, deserve the same ap-proval.In the first place, I cannot see that they

are based on anatomical observation: Ido not believe, for instance, that M. deBlainville can demonstrate the continua-tion of the inferior bundle, or pyramidalbody, into the olfactory nerve, nor that hecan trace what he calls the deep bundle(faisceau profond) of his central portioninto ihemammillary bodies. Neither doI think that his divisions and subdivisions.of the nervous mass pertaining to phreniclife, are consistent with physiologicalfacts; but this, in anatomical cla-sifinl-

tion, is quite essential: it is even acknow-ledged by M. de Blainville himself as itsbasis. ’We ought,’ says he, &deg; to considerthe nervous system as subdivided into as

many parts as there are grand functionsperformed by the animal body.’

"

According to M. Desmoulins, the

complete cerebro-spina) system of mam-malia, consists, 1st, of the i-pinal chord ;2d,thecerebellum, which is itselfcomposedof three parts; 3d, the optic lobes, orqnadrigemina ; 4th, the lobes of the brain ;5t)), the olfactory lobes. He admits, however, that these five parts are not alwayscomplete in the other classes of vertebralanimals, and that one of them may Le

wanting without detriment to the rest.The sturgeon, lamprey, frog, and someothei-creattires, have, he says, no cere- (bellum; the skate and shark no cerebral,and many bony fishes no olfactory lobes.In short, he considers the notion of an

unity of the nervous system a chimera.

Dr. Spurzheim thus recapitulates theopinions he has advanced :" In my apprehension, the cerebro-

spinal system is not a simple unit, buta compound of many distinct alrpara-tuses, each of which has particularfunctions, which, being taken togetherconstitute phrenic life. The several in.struments are formed after a general plan,but the physical qualitit’s, as the density,form, size, and colour, of all, individually,differ not only in the classes and in the

species, but also in the members composingeach kind ; the number of particular or-gans is likewise greater or smaller in theclasses and specie’-, according to tite amountof the primary functions, or faculties ;lastly, each of the apparatuses is simple,or it is compound.No one, however, can be said to be

perfectly simple ; each is, at least, double,or one ot’ a pair. The organs of motionand of touch are evidently multiplied.

It is essential, in dividing and sub-

dividing the patts of which the cerebro-spinal system is composed, to keep inharmony with physiology and pathology,and to distinguish between what is com-mon to all, and what is peculiar to eachof them. The first grand division mustembrace the instruments of motion, andof the five external senses ; the secondcomprise the organs of the affective andintellectual functions.

I think they do wrong who confoundthe spinal chord with the cerebral masses,and designate both by a common title,such as encephalon or brain. It is longsince Dr. Gall and I pointed out thiserror,but it is still very generally sanctioned bythe French Academy of Sciences, for in-stance, so late as 1820, its prize havingbeen accorded to the memoir ot M. Serresupon the following title.- Donner unedescription compaiee du cerveau dans lesquatre classes des animaux vertebl &eacute;s, etparticuli&egrave;rement dans ceux des reptileset des poissons, cherchant a determinerl’analogie des diff&eacute;rentes parties de cetorgane, ou marquant soigneusement leschanges des formes et des proportions&eacute;prouv&eacute;es, et snivant aussi profondementqne possible les racines des ner fs cere-

breaux." Here the brain and its nerves

only are evidently spoken of. M. Serres,however, deemed it proper to considerthe nervous mass of the t’pinc as well asof the cranium, and he has designatedthese two systems by the same name.without any objection being made by theAcademy to this arrangement.

Let us tnrn to the facts that prove thebrain and the spinal chord to be perfectlydistinct and independent of each other.

210

These facts are anatomical, physiological,and pathological. I here assume, as anestablished point, that the functions ofthe spinet chord differ entirely from thoseof the brain. The development and de-monstration of this truth belong to phy-siology. I have, accordingly, examinedit particularly in my work on Phrenology.Physiological experiments and patholo-gical facts tend equally to show that thebrain and spinal chord are masses possess-ed of distinct functions that cannot beconfounded. This volume being destinedsolely to the discussion of anatomicalviews, I shall,. at present, confine myselfto such evidence as anatomy affords ofthe mntnal independence of each of thenervous masses mentioned.

And first&mdash;all that has been said, in ageneral way, upon the origin of thenerves, and their existence, indepen-dettity of the brain, applies particularlyin the case of the spinal chord. The spinalchord sometimes exists in part, sometimesentirely, when the brain is altogetherwanting. If, to this, it be objected thatthe brain had been removed by absorp-tion, the answer I have given to the sameproposition, in reference to the nerves ingeneral, must be repeated here. Thereis also one, and but one, case on record,in which the brain existed without thespinal chord.* It occurred in a child,whose head or heads are preserved in theHunterian Museum, in London ; this childwas born with one skull placed verticallyupon another. Each of these containeda brain invested with its usual membrane ;the dura mater of each brain adheredclosely to that of the other, and both weresupplied by blood vessels issuing fromcommon trunks. Parts, consequently, asthe brain and spinal chord, that exist, ornot, independently of each other, cannotconstitute one and the same apparatus.

2. The nervous masses of the spinalcanal and cranium bear no regular pro-portion to each other. Man, with hisvoluninons brain, has a smaller spinalchord than the ox or horse, whose brain isso much less. Bartholin in former times,and Soemmerring in our own days, madethis remark ; nevertheless, they bothcontinued to speak of the spinal chord asa process or continuation of the brain.

3. The spinal chord is well known notto decrease in size as it descends in thevertebral canal, and as it sends off nerves.Itqs volume is even augmented, where itsnerves are largest and most numerous;

* See Philosophical Trans. for 1790,March 25th, and for 1798, Dec. 13th.

this is obvious, especial1y towards itssacral end, as may be seen by turning toplate i. fig. 2, where this part of the spi.nal chord of a fowl is represented; and

yet the spinal chord is commonly consider.ed as a prolongation of the white sub.stance of the brain and cerebellum !

4. The direction of its nerves, espe.cially in the mammalia, proves to a cer.

tainty, that the spinal chord is not a con-tinuation of the nervous mass of the cra.nium. Every pair of spinal nerves is madeup by several bundles (this is shown by a

plate of the spinal chord of a calf); some ofthese issue from below and run upwardly;others come from above and proceeddown and outwardly. Now it would beabsurd to suppose that these bundles

were continued, or detived either fromthe lower or upper extremity of the spi.nal chord. They undonbtedly originateat the place whence they issue indivi.

dually.In regard to the fifth, sixth, seventh,

and other pairs of nerves, styled cerebral(pl. vi. fig. 1), their direction also showsthat they do not come either from thebrain or cerebellum. Santorini, when

i speaking of the course of the fifth pair,remarks, that after descending from thebrain, it turns back and runs upwards;and he adds-’ if it do not probably come

from below, entirely like the accessorynerve.’

The proofs, confirmatory of the mutualindependence of the spinal chord and he.mispheres of the brain and cerebellum,serve also to demonstrate the proprietyof separating the nerves, styled cerebral,from the brain itself. The evidence inthis, as in the other case, is anatomical,physiological, and pathological. For thereasons already given, I here rest on ana-tomical testimonies alone ; for informa-tion on the others, I refer to my physio-logical and pathological treatises.*

To proceed, then, we see monstera,occasionaily, born without any of theproper cerebral masses, but with olfac-

tory, optic, and acoustic nerves, eitherseverally or altogether perfect ; and onthe contrary, these nerves, individuallyor generally, have been found in a stateof atrophy, whilst the brain was soundand well developed in all its parts. Thereis no proportiun, whatever, between thecranial nerves and the true cerebral mass.Many animals have them much larger inproportion to their brain than man.* Phrenology; or, The Doctrine of the

Mind; Lond. 1825. Observations on In.sanity ; Load, 1819.

21

frepeat, therefore, that I divide andsubdivide the nervous masses accordingto their offices : first, into nerves of ve-getative functions; secondly, of externalsense, and locomotion; lastly, of affec-tive andinteltectual operations : these

last inhere in parts, which I style trulycerebral, superadded to the nerves of thesenses.

We shall, afterwards, see that themasses belonging to the last-named classof functions require subdividing into in-struments of particular functions, afterthe manner of the external senseg.

This principle of the plurality of thepervous apparatuses is the basis of these

, anatomical considerations, and is indis-pensable to the physiological researchesin which Dr. Gall and I have so long beenengaged. It has been, and is still con-tested, and at the same time it is broughtforward as new. A reference, however,to the date and matter of our publications,willassigi) it to those who can claim it byright. The general idea of a plurality oforgans, indeed, must be allowed to bevery ancient, and not the aiscovery of anymodern author; before Dr. Gall appeared,bowever, none of the cerebral functionshad been specified, and before our com-bined investigations were made publicthe structure of no special apparatus hadbeen demonstrated ; for the parts of theencephalon that bear distinguishing titles,do not, by any means, constitute particu-lar organs. The special determination,as well anatomical as physiological, con-4equently belongs to Dr. Gall and myself." IThus far we have endeavoured to lay

before the reader the groundwork of Dr.

Spurzheim’s views of the nervous system,

and as far as possible in his own words.

In our next number we shall hastily passover what remains of the volume, since

weshould occupy our paper to little pur-

pose were we minutely to analyse what

will be generally read and studied, valued

and admired as a whole.

FOREIGN DEPARTMENT.

ARCHIVES GENERALES DE MEDECINE.

Case of Anastomosis of the General VenousSystem with the Venous System of theAbdomen.

ON opening the body of a man, 45 yearsof age, who had died from a chronic in-flammation of the membranes of the brain,the following anatomical peculiarity wasobserved :At the place where the external iliac

vein of the right side passed under thecrnral arch, there was a trunk, as largeas the fore finger, sent off at a right anglefrom its inner side, which, following the di-rection of the superior edge of the os pubixto the symphysis, there changing its courseand mounting between the abdominalmuscles and peritoneum along the lineaalba as far as the umbilicus, entered the

posterior edge of the triangntar ligamentof the liver, and terminated in the sinusof the vena portae.

: From its lower origin to the level ofthe nmbilicus, this venous canal main-i tained its first magnitude, and thus farwas furnished with several valves, the

situations of which were marked exter-

nally by opaque whitish transverse bands.The coats of this portion of the vesselwere very thin and even transparent.’) From the umbilicus, however, to the ter-mination of the vessel, its anatomicalcharacters were very different; its calibre

first diminished by a half, but then in-

creasing gradually in diameter, it as-

sumed the form of a lengthened cone, thebasis of which terminated in the venaport&aelig;; the coats of the vessel too, inthis part of its course, were thick, opaque,of a yellowish hue, very compact, andwithout any of the transverse bands whichin the lower portion indicated the seats ofthe valves, for of these the superior orsupra-umbilical part was entirely de-

prived. A semi-lunar valve situated di-

rectly behind the umbilicus, marked thelimits between these two very dissimilar,though continuous vessels. This valvewas capable of closing about two-thirdsof the diameter of the venous canal; theclot of blood, with which it was com-

pletely filled, extended without anyinterruption from its origin to its termi.nation.The vena cavae, the iliacs, and the

trunk of the vena portee, were all foundin their natural state, as were aho the