'..      I.
EXPERIMENTAL  RESEARCHES,

             ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE
   FUNCTIONAL ONENESS,  UNITY, AND DIFFUSION,

              OF  NERVOUS ACTION;

                      IN OPPOSITION TO THE

       ANATOMICAL  ASSUMPTION,

OF FOUR SETS OF  NERVES, AND A FOURFOLD SET OF

    FUNCTIONS, AND TRANSMITTED  IMPRESSIONS;
              WITH A  BRIEF  EXPOSITION OF THE


   PHILOSOPHY  OF  VIVISECTION,  AND OF  SENSATION.



                            BY  ^

           BENNET  DOWLER,  Irl.  ]>.,

                      OF NEW-ORLEANS,

Corresponding Member of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia;
    Member of the American Medical Association, and  its  Chairman
      of the Committee of the Medical Sciences for 1850-1; Member
        of the Medico-Chirurgical College of Philadelphia  6cc
  "What truth so ever is necessary, and of universal
extent, is derived to the mind from its own opera-
tion," [as the infinity of space, and of duration] "and
does not rest on observation and experience; as,
conversely, what truth or perception is  present to
the mind, with a consciousness, not of its necessity,
but of its contingency, is ascribable not to the origi-
nal agency of the mind itself, but derives its origin
from observation and experience."
Kant's Metaphysic. (Trans, by Mr. Semple, Edin.)
                  NEW-ORLEANS.            A 7 H w

PRINTED BY JOSEPH COHN, No. 31, POYDRAS  STREET. 
 
  EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCHES, ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE FUNC-
TIONAL ONENESS, UNITY, AND DIFFUSION, OF NERVOUS ACTION;
IN OPPOSITION TO THE ANATOMICAL  ASSUMPTION,  OF FOUR
SETS OF NERVES, AND  A FOURFOLD SET  OF FUNCTIONS, AND
TRANSMITTED IMPRESSIONS : WITH A BRIEF  EXPOSITION OF
    THE PHILOSOPHY OF VIVISECTION, AND OF SENSATION.
               BY BENNET DOWLER, M. D., OF NEW ORLEANS,
Corresponding Member  of  the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia;
Member of the American Medical Association, and  its Chairman of the Committee
of the Medical Sciences for  1850-1; Member of the Medico-Chirurgical  Col-
                       lege of Philadephia ;  etc.
  The Reflex Theory of the Spinal  Cord,  implied  in the title of this
essay, will not now be  scrutinized; nor will  many  new experiments,
recently  made, in this department of Physiology, be detailed in this pa-
per.   The  reader is referred to former publications, in which, for nearly
ten years, I have been occasionally engaged in the examination of this
theory.
  Before proceeding to the main objects of the present investigation, it
is necessary to glance at existing doctrines in this department of Physi-
ology.
  Dr. Dunglison, in the  last edition of his very valuable work on Physi-
ology, (I, 100,) sums up the anatomy of the nervous system by virtually
asserting, that there are  four distinct  sets of nerves—namely:  1st, the
sensory;  2d, motory, connected with the brain by tracts ; 3d, the excitor,
and 4th,  the motor of the spinal marrow.  Although this is a fair enu-
meration of the existing doctrines of those called "distinguished physi-
ologists," yet this enumeration is  entirely hypothetical.   In what code
of morality do "distinguished physiologists" get a warrant to assert, as
physical or anatomical facts, that which no one has ever seen—no one has
ever demonstrated ?  Have "the most distinguished" any better right than
other people, to assert that man has four heads, hearts or noses ?  If, for
instance, there be two  distinct  sets  of nerves for  the  excito-motory
function of the spinal cord, wholly independent of the brain, why not
show them to the sceptical ?  Is there no difference between a name,
and a thing ?  Is ^a  mere  opinion, the  same  as material anatomy 1
Can any amount of theoretical lore  be received as valid  proof,  that
there are four railways at this moment between Maine and California ?
  The only anatomical  proof yet offered, is this—namely—the nerves
have double roots; and, hence, it is  said, must have double offices!
Here, the facts and the conclusions have no known connection.  The
Biceps muscle has two heads—some teeth have two  roots ;  must these,
therefore, have, of neccessity, two distinct functions ? 
G
  The double sets of nerves constituting  the excito-motory system,—
which are said to  be physical in their nature—reflex in their action—
the one set to conduct impressions down into the "true cord," the other
to reflect these outwardly upon the muscles—all being independent of
the brain, sensation,  and volition,—are wholly hypothetical, and without
anatomical reality.  This piece of anatomy rests wholly on the solemn
and persevering  declarations of its advocates,  whose language, in 1846,
I characterized as jargon, and which, now, in 1851, might justly be re-
garded as bordering  on insanity.   Is it not strange, that writers spend
months and years in  teaching and writing  on  this  branch  of anatomy,
when, in five minutes, with a knife, they might demonstrate the four
separate and distinct sets  of nerves, instead of making so many books
filled with words of the most unintelligible coinage, as the nerves termed
"diastaltic, esodic, exodic, anodic, cathodic, paltodic, panthodic, anastal-
tic, catastaltic, peristaltic," ad infinitum—all having originated within one
year.   Nothing  provokes the ire of certain  critics in this country, so des-
perately, as to question this  sort of anatomy.  Their invariable answer
to all  dissenters  is not that  of experiment  and demonstration, but that
of certain "distinguished physiologists" in some distant land, whom they
follow.
  The  largest liberty of thought and opinion is allowable in the theo-
ries of the nervous functions ; but in anatomy, as well as in geography
facts alone must constitute the basis of  description.   Sensation and
motion are as devoid of anatomical structure, as virtue and vice, gravita-
tion and cohesion.  Anatomy  is concrete, not abstract;  physical, not
functional.   The white,  fibrous and  the grey vesicular matter of the
nervous  system, are physical facts,  be  their  functions what they may.
Weight is a function or  property of matter.   What would be  thought
of an engineer  who would attempt to give topographical descriptions,
diagrams, and maps  of ponderosity?  It is  a fundamental error in physi.
ology, as well as in  anatomy, to ascribe  a function to  an unknown or-
gan, in order to prove, by this assumption, the anatomy of the  organ
itself.   Beautiful are the engravings in books of physiology, illustrating
this kind of anatomy, taken from nature!
  Were four sets of nerves demonstrated, even  microscopically,*  as
anatomical facts, still it  would not follow  that they  must  necessarily
  *Professor R. B. Todd, in his late work on  the brain, cord, and ganglions,
admits, that the microscropical appearances of the nerves, "afford no  certain
indication of the  course and direction of the nerve-fibres, nor of the situation
of the finer elements of the vesicular matter.   Microscopic investigation has,
as yet, thrown no light on the direction and  connections of the  fibres of the
cerebrum and  cerebellum."—270, 274. 
7
have an equal  number  of separate and  independent  functions ; for, it
might happen, that their functions would be identical, that is, all might
be (probably are) sensory—not  two of them  motory, as they are as-
sumed to be,)  seeing that the muscles possess, beyond question, an in-
herent force, and consequently motion, peculiar to  themselves.
  These topics will  be resumed after having given the experimental
portion of this investigation.
  Alligators A and B,  with several others confined  in the same  enclo-
sure, had, for  several  months, lived together in the utmost  harmony.
When they  basked in the sun, or slept, they placed  their bodies, limbs,
and heads so as to touch or rest on one another.  Under circumstances
calculated to produce angry feelings among animals, as when they en-
tered the  water where  they were much crowded, and when they were
fed, fighting never took  place, until the 2d of August,  1850 ;  at  which
time,  while  feeding them, I discovered that  A, the  largest  of the four,
and B, the next in size,  were no  longer friends.  The  former  exceeded
five feet in length, and was very  stout and strong; the latter was  nearly
as long, but less muscular.   A,  C, and  D  ate chicken and fresh beef
voraciously, without  contention, while B stood off  for some  time, but
ventured at  length into  the water, where  the bait was thrown, and, hav.
ing seized a portion, ran  quickly into a corner to  swallow  his food.
Soon after he  returned, whereupon  A jumped at him  with  expanded
jaws, and bit him across the middle of the body and tail.   A fight en-
sued.   I interfered, and beat  A with a pole,  so that he  was obliged to
quit the combat.  Having concealed myself, I watched A through an
opening in the wall of the den,  whereupon  he renewed the  fight.   I
again interfered, but he renewed the [attack repeatedly,  and as soon as
I concealed  myself.  Finally, B ceased to resist.  His whole attention,
and apparently, his last hopes, centred upon making good his escape
from the pen.   He forthwith  attempted to climb a perpendicular brick
wall,  but instantly fell back.   He then appeared to survey the den, and,
having selected with the greatest judgement the only portion of it  where
an escape was  possible, he pressed his body  between  a  post and the
brick wall,  fixing his  claws in the crevices  of the plank  fence, he
mounted to the top and was about to throw himself on the outside of it,
when I gave him a blow that caused him to  fall back  again.   As if in
utter  despair,  he stretched himself out,  and howled most pitiously— a
peculiar, but expressive and indescribable wail.   The day was far ad-
vanced, and business interfered, yet I was  obliged to vivisect him, in
order to save him from  a  more cruel death by  his enraged  and more
powerful associate.   His defeat by  the  latter,  and  his  struggles with 
8
myself in capturing  him, together with  a high  temperature of the
weather, doubtlessly modified the results of the vivisection that followed.
  The copious hemorrhage which succeeded decapitation, was not ar-
rested  by ligature, or by other means.  Life was extinguished in a
much shorter time than usual.   The  persistence of life in this animal,
after decapitation, is  almost  in an  inverse ratio to the heat of the
weather;  at  least it  is  so to a considerable extent, being dissipated
much more rapidly in the summer than in the spring or winter.   The
head died first—that is to say,  sensational,  volitional, and motory phe-
nomena disappeared from the head in five minutes;  while in the trunk,
these were manifested, when tests were  used, during an hour, not to
mention minor vestiges of vitality which continued as long as the ex-
periments—a period of five hours, spent in extensive  dissections, and
progressive mutilations.
  The first division of the animal, that is, decapitation, took place near
the shoulders, after which, for several minutes, the mouth gasped, and
attempted to bite ; the eyes soon closed, and with increased force when
the lids were touched.  The headless trunk (as upon many former oc-
casions)  performed numerous  actions indicative of sensation, intelli-
gence, and volition.  Resting perfectly quiet, deprived of all the special
senses, it  possessed only the general sense  of touch, which responded
in an  accurate manner to all tactual impressions, even the simplest.
No active agent, no pricking, no fire, was  required to elicit definite and
combined motions.  The  slightest touch of the finger seemed to be
perceived by the whole trunk—the tail and limbs, as proved  by  their
motions.  The animal seemed to be aware of the  nature of the touch-
ing body, which,  if free from a pain-giving property, was borne  with-
out any violent efforts to escape from it; but fire, punctures, and  skin-
ing,  called into agonized action, the  body, limbs, and tail.  The body
curved in  a manner so as to recede from the offending agent; the limbs
were directed so  as to remove it, and even the short  stump of the head-
less  neck was  turned in the proper direction as if to bite, as if forget-
ful that it had lost its  head.  The organs of smelling, tasting, hearing,
and  seeing  having been  completely lost, and  its  locomotive power
greatly impaired,  it appeared to  concentrate its  attention on  the only
remaining sense—touch ;  and, from its action, far more impressive than
words, it was evident  that it judged accurately as to the nature, degree,
duration, and place of painful, or painless  impressions.
   Hitherto,  from  reading, as  well as from my own numerous experi-
ments, I  had drawn  the conclusion, that  a decapitated animal was in-
capable of forward, linear motion.  This I found to be quite erroneous. 
u
I had, as far as I can recollect, always applied the irritant to the limbs,
or to the sides, but not exactly perpendicularly  over the spine.  The
animals, as I now believe, had always perceived this, since they had
always acted accordingly—as they had always curved their  bodies lat-
erally, sometimes they had rolled  quite  over,  always from, never to-
wards, the  pain-producing  agent.   I  found,  on applying  a lighted
match perpendicularly over the spine, that the animal went straight for-
ward.   It would have crawled off the table had I not prevented it, by
returning it to its original position.  This experiment was several times
repeated,  and always  with the  same  results ; which seem quite suffi-
cient to establish the  principle of possible forward voluntary motion
after  decapitation—being so  simple and satisfactory as not  to allow of
mistake, while they show,  at  the same time, the accuracy with which
the  headless  animal perceives and judges of the exact  locality  of an
irritant.   All of which may be  inferred from the intelligent motions
described.
   The next step of the vivisection, following decapitation, consisted in
the division of the spine,  including many muscles, at a point about one
fourth of the distance from the hips  to the shoulders.  This  diminished
the activity of the trunk, but did not wholly prevent the  mutual and
simultaneous  actions of the two  divisions, in warding off  injuries  of
either; thus,  when a bit  of burning paper was applied to  the flanks,
the fore legs were  directed  strongly to the seat of the  pain, and in a
straight line (that is, in the utmost degree of extension,) along the sides of
the body, without any lateral  flexure common to the trunk and tail, as
seen before the second division, though the tail,  hind legs, and body, as
far as the  division of the spine,  continued to  act  in concert with  the
fore-legs.   The division of the spine, together with the dorsal and cer-
vical muscles, accounts for the absence of motion in the anterior half
 of the trunk.   After  decapitation, and even subsequent  to  the second
division, the animal  several  times  uttered a kind of guttural sounds,
 which were, at the time,  attributed to  the  mere mechanical effects of
the experiments, causing the expulsion of the air from the lungs, through
the divided trachea.   But it was soon ascertained, that several irregular
respirations took place—irregular as to the times.  Breathing, however,
actually continued thirty minutes, by estimation.
   For about one hour, both divisions of the body gave proof of sensi-
 bility and voluntary motion ;  that is to say, the fore-legs, the hind-legs,
 and the tail, were directed forwards, backwards, and upwards, and lat-
erally, so as to avoid or remove (as it sometimes did,) an irritant.  As
the pain-giving agent was varied in  its degree,  and  in  place, so were
                                 6 
10
the animal's actions  directed  understanding^, and  with a  violence
responding to the intensity of the pain or irritation—actions in no de-
gree assimilating the involuntary, automatical, and mechanical.
  The course of the next experiment was directed to the left hind-leg.
The sciatic nerve was exposed as near its origins as possible.  At first,
the animal manifested considerable resistance.   It attempted to with-
draw its limb.   In the  meantime, the opposite limb and the tail  moved
in a lively yet  consentaneous manner,  as if conscious  of suffering.
The nerve was firmly tied.   This caused the  limb to  twitch.   These
twitchings were renewed at pleasure, by pinching the nerve on the dis-
tal side of the  ligature.  The nerve was divided, but pinching produced
identical results.  Sometimes the motion was in  the flexor, sometimes
in the extensor direction.   At first this appeared  unaccountable,  but on
prosecuting  the dissection  towards the  peripheral distribution  of the
nerves, the sciatic was found to consist of two principal trunks, which,
in the  popliteal  region, diverged—the  one to the extensor, and the
other to the flexor sides of the leg.  When separately pinched, these
cords produced twitching  oscillations,  approximating  extension and
flexion, giving the  feet and toes a motion of one or two inches, in the
direction accordant  to their  ultimate distribution in the muscles.   When
these two cords were experimented on in the thigh, (where they lie to-
gether,)  it is   supposed that the  forceps sometimes  compressed one
more than the other, thereby causing corresponding flexor, or  extensor
twitchings—a supposition  which  was  confirmed by  separating these
nerves, and compressing each one by itself.   The  motions increased,
on following the  nerve towards its distribution.  One  or two  twitches
were elicited once or twice in a second, the limb always returning to its
original position or equilibrium.
   A violent or disorganizing crush did not often produce a greater mo-
tion than  a moderate compression, but prevented all subsequent motions
when the same part was pinched  again in the same  place, though the
part adjoining on the distal  side, retained its motory function unimpaired.
A moderate,  continuous  compression produced  many motions, which,
after a time, ceased, but which, after an interval of rest, were generally
renewable.
   The limb was skinned, the principal nerves were removed, and  the
muscles insulated from each other, though  they  were  still attached to
their origins and insertions.  It was found that compression of  the lat-
ter, produced   twitchings  similar or rather identical  with those from
pinching  the nerves.   The removal of every visible nervous  twig, did
not influence these muscular motions. 
11
  Two hours after decapitation, and nearly an hour after the second divi-
sion, the  spinal canal was longitudinally opened, from the transverse divi-
sion, to a point of the caudal spine, beyond that which gives off the nerves
to the  hind legs.  Upon touching the posterior and anterior roots of the
nerves belonging to the dissected limb, tbe gluteii muscles and the ad-
ductors of the thigh twitched, but the limb and the more distant muscles
were motionless, while the opposite unmutilated leg twitched every-
where, without, however, any motion  of the entire limb, except near
its  extremity, chiefly  in  the ankle and toes.  Touching the cord,  or
either root of the nerves,  produced only three or  four feeble motions.
But as the dissection progressed from the centre to the circumference,
these  motions augmented in number,  duration and extent, even after
amputation and the isolation of the nerves, and after extensive  destruc-
tion  of  their proximal  portions.  The muscles  separated from  the
nerves, and from contact  with each other, contracted  from puncture  or
compression, just as in the case of the nerves themselves.
   The next experiment, (more than three hours after decapitation,) con-
sisted in passing a rod into the cervical portion of the spinal canal, so
as  to destroy the cord two or three inches below the part giving off the
axillary  plexus.  This produced only two or  three faint twitchings in
both of  the fore-legs.   One leg was amputated, the other remained at-
tached—both were dissected with  results identical with those obtained
 in  the hind-legs.
    1850, July 31st; 8 a. m. #Air of the room  80* ; open air  81£° ;
 gullet of the alligator, 81 £°.   The spine and adjacent muscles were di-
 vided between the shoulders and hips.   The animal's actions, both above
 and below the division, were vigorous, and were, in both parts, sometimes
 mutually directed to a common end;  as in the avoidance or removal of
 a lighted match, and the like. After the division,  it was found  neces-
 sary to  tie the animal for twenty or thirty minutes.   The  hemorrhage
 was great: probably the great abdominal artery had been divided, as
 the cavity of the chest had been  opened in cutting through the spine
 and soft parts ; for, on immersing the animal in a  tub of water, with a
 view of washing the skin, which was muddy, the water filled the cavity.
 This appeared to cause the animal's death in a very few minutes;  that
 is, all voluntary motion, and sensation, as tested by fire,  punctures, &c,
 &c, ceased.
    The dissection, which was confimed  for the  most part to the nerves of
 the limbs, lasted five hours ; during  which time, the same motory phe-
 nomena were elicited as in the preceding experiments.
    4 ligature was firmly tied around the sciatic nerve,  which  caused a 
12
twitch ; pinching on the proximal 6ide, produced no effect, below motion.
Another ligature  placed half an inch from the first, on its distal side,
caused a movement as did the  first.  Pinching between the ligatures
produced no apparent effect; while below, it caused motion, as usual.
In the popliteal region, as already described, the nerve is double—one
stran passing directly on, but soon dividing into two trunks on the lower
side  of the leg;  the other goes  to the opposite  side, dividing in like
manner.   On  pinching both of these  cords on one  side,  all the toes
twitched in one direction ;  on pinching one cord  only, two toes moved,
and on pinching the other cord, the remaining two did  the same.   On
the opposite side of the limb similar phenomena occurred, but the mo-
tions were in a contrary direction.   In both cases the  momenta  aug-
mented, (at least in the toes,) as the  irritant  approached them.   The
muscles, deprived  of such nerves as were visible, twitched  as in  the
former case, with  undiminished force.   The  sciatic  nerve and its
branches in the left leg, were successively crushed or cut away,  down
to the instep and sole ; each new part that was crushed, produced one
motion, which never could be renewed by pressure in the  same place.
This dissection of the left leg, lasted an hour and a half.
   The  spinal canal, corresponding to the  lumbar  and  sacral por-
tions in the human subject, was opened.  On pinching the posterior or
anterior roots of the nerves passing to the right, or unmutilated leg,
three or four slight twitchings took  place in the muscles, ceasing al-
most immediately,  nor could they be reproduced by even dissection and
removal of the cord.   The'limb was  amputated at the hip; the skin
removed ; the  nerves and muscles dissected in the downward direction.
The motory phenomena from the compression of the nerves and mus-
cles, appeared more distinct than those previously manifested in the left
limb.
   1851, Jan. 27th; 10 a. m.  Air, 64£°; pharynx of the alligator (chosen
for the following experiments,) 65° ; air of the room, 68°.   Length of
the animal, nearly three feet; circumference, about  fifteen  inches.  It
had  been several times,  during  the  coldest days  of winter, nearly tor-
pid,  but was,  at the time of the  vivisection, active.   It  was  firmlv
bandaged to a narrow plank, with the  exception of that  part of the lum-
bar and caudal spine which was the site of the first  experiment.   The
dissecting required deep cuttings to reach the spine.   It  was found
necessary to make vertical sections on both sides of the spinous proces-
ses  of the  vertebrae,  in order to remove the skin and muscles, and
thereby to open a deep furrow for the  double purpose of making room
for the saw, and for the sight.  The bleeding was profuse and prolonged. 
13
The indications of pain were very marked, particularly in dividing the
skin, and in operations on the spinal marrow.   The dissections at these
points gave rise to violent struggles, and plaintive sounds, which were
not elicited by cutting the intervening tissues.  Before the canal was
opened, the muscles of the hind-legs appeared considerably paralysed,
flaccid,  and altered, having  assumed a different position, causing the
thigh to appear flattened, though a few irregular and violent motions of
both limbs took place on irritation of the nerve-roots.  After much dif-
ficult and careful manipulation, the spina]  theca (which is black,) was
exposed, apparently uninjured.  The hind-legs were motionless.  Touch-
ing the  cord,  or either  spinal root, caused the  animal to moan,  and
struggle a  few times.  On tracing and touching the spinal roots, after
the cord was  removed, extremely slight  twitchings were  produced,
which almost  immediately ceased.   The  consistence  of the cord is
extremely  soft.  A slight pressure disorganizes the cord and spinal roots
completely, though the nerves, beyond the limits of the spinal canal,
possess considerable firmness and strength.
   After the cord had been removed,  some  of the roots were traced
still further in  their passage  outwards ; these, on being pinched, pro-
duced a few slight twitchings in the muscles of the corresponding limb.
For a considerable period, the dissection was confined to one leg, which
was skinned,  and its  nerves and  muscles traced.  The results were
precisely such  as have been already detailed.   The twitchings increased
on following the nerves towards the periphery ; crushing produced one
or two movements only; these, however, were sometimes greater than
those from slighter compressions.   By seizing the two principal trunks
on the upper,  or the two on the lower side of  the limb, the foot and toes
could be made to oscillate to and fro, according as the one or the other
set were manipulated; or, by using only one  stran  out  of the two on
 each 6ide, two toes  only were set in motion.  The destruction of the
nerves did not impair the force of the muscular twitchings from  punc-
ture and pressure, as already described.  In the meanwhile the indicants
of a double life,  a double  sensation, and  a double  volition, continued
in the tail below, and in the body above, that portion of the cord that
had been  removed—the one  independent of the  other.  The pupil
of the eyes had dilated slightly, though they responded to the degree of
light.   The superior plate  of the skull was removed,  together  with
the cerebellum.  After the division of the olfactory and  optic nerves,
the pupil expanded  permanently ;  yet, the eyelids  continued to  wink.
The removal of the brain did not appear to cause pain, so far as motion
is an indication of pain, until tho operation approached the cerebellum. 
II
The cutting of nerves at their origin, and the removal of the cerebel-
lum and oblongata,  appeared to  cause  great agony.  The  struggles
were violent, but transient.   The caudal  portion  of the animal re-
mained unaffected by the operations  upon  the  head.   As tho animal
was now unable to escape,  the bandages were removed ; the tail, the
body, and the fore-legs, tested by irritants, appeared to manifest feeling
and volition,  both above and  below the division, though not in unison.
The legs and tail showed contrivance and  design,  in the removal  or
avoidance of fire, &c.  The animal was placed on its back ; a portion
of the sympathetic nerve was dissected, and the viscera, examined in
situ.  The lungs were several times artificially  inflated.   After the re-
moval of the brain, and the medulla oblongata, the power  of directing
the fore-legs in a voluntary manner, gradually declined, and at the end
of two hours, ceased  altogether.  A probe was passed from the original
opening in the spine, two or three inches down the caudal canal, with-
out producing any motion.   But the lower half of the tail was still direc-
ted in an intelligential manner.  Thus, if a  piece of ignited paper ap-
proached its right side, it swayed itself to the left, and so of the contrary.
The dissection now  returned to one of the  hind-legs that had  not yet
been mutilated.  The motory phenomena continued as before described.
At the end of the seventh  hour, when  the  experiments  ended  for  the
day, the tail alone indicated voluntary motion,  in  the last  five or six
terminal inches.  The  tip  swept  to and fro, so as  to avoid fire, &c.
The heart was still beating.
  Jan. 28th ; 10 a. m.   Same animal.—The hind-legs  and the entire
tail were  still flexible.  The  neck, body, and fore-legs, together with
both ventricles of the heart, were  rigid.  The right auricle still con-
tracted—sometimes spontaneously—always when touched.  In the hind-
legs, the motory phenomena,  in such parts as had not been  completely
disorganized, were active ;  sometimes, more so than at the close of the
previous day.  Muscles  that  had been  apparently exhausted, and de-
prived of their nerves, twitched on being punctured with a pointed probe;
or,  when  pressed between the thumb and fingers,  assumed a lumpy,
hard form, moving the entire limb.
  The fore-legs, (rigid, as above mentioned,) were, by means of repeated
forcible flexions, and  extensions, made quite supple—and were after-
wards dissected :—motory phenomena  were observed in these limbs, as
well as  in those that  had not been yet  invaded by the rigor mortis,  but
in a diminished degree.  These experiments  lasted seven hours.
  Jan. 29th ; 10 a. m.  Same animal.—Rigidity had reappeared in the
fore-legs, and had, for the first time, invaded the hind-legs, and the tail, 
                                 15

excepting two or three inches at its termination.   The tail,  (except it«
tip,) had, in becoming rigid, assumed a curved form;  owing, it is sup-
posed, to a partial dissection of its muscles on one side, made on the
preceding day, whereby the muscular equilibrium had been  destroyed.
The convexity, accordingly, presented itself on the side that had under-
gone mutilation.   The  site of the spinal vivisection had assumed an in-
jected, vividly red appearance.  The gall-bladder, which had been from
the first, distended to its  utmost  capacity, remained  unchanged—not
having lost any of its bile by exosmosis, or transudation.  The intes-
tines were removed, opened, and examined.  Their cut edges  assumed
irregular forms, and even retracted, so that  their margins almost met;
causing  the mucous membrane to appear, in a great degree, as the ex-
ternal surface.   The arteries were empty—the  cavas distended with
dark  blood, none of which had yet  transuded.   The limbs were made
supple artificially, (as had been done formerly,) but on being left undis-
turbed for one  or two hours, they became rigid again.   The experi-
ments lasted seven hours, at the end of which time, no indications of
vitality were apparent.
   Decapitation has great advantages over the usual method of stunning
an animal by a blow on the occiput, preparatory  to vivisection—an ad-
vantage  which seems to have  been overlooked in solving the problem,
whether the  brain be the  exclusive seat of sensational cognition.  A
stunning blow, to  destroy  sensibility,  is but an  equivocal  proof of
the destruction of the cerebral  influence, (a destruction not compatible
with sensational purposes,) since it is not possible to determine  its ef-
fects ; whereas, in decapitation, the circumstances are easily enumera-
ted and made known : that is, one decapitation is like another; but the
force of  a blow, the cranial resistance, and the effect, may  differ, and
give rise to complex, artificial conditions.  The stunning of an animal,
and its effects on the results  of vivisection,  cannot therefore, be appro-
ciated with any  certainty.  No  artificial  perturbation,  that  can be
avoided,  ought to be introduced, especially such as are wholly  inappre-
ciable, not to say unnecessary and deceptive.
   In  ascertaining the functions of an  organ, either by the method of
vivisection, or by that of morbid action, it must  not be forgotten, that
the process, though the  best the nature of the case admits of, is, never-
theless, to a  certain extent,  anti-physiological.   Hence,  the elements
introduced by either method must not be fundamentally  incompatible
with the  function sought; their  influences and biases must he estimated,
and, if it be possible, separated from the resultants properly functional.
   If th«  result sought for be purely normal, or  purely pathological, the 
10
artificial condition induced, contributes towards the defeat or the modify
cation of the finality.  Many morbid conditions cannot be produced by
art.   Experiments which sacrifice numerous organs, with the view of
ascertaining the  function  of a given one, may have only an equivocal
result; and the more so, if the associate organs  destroyed, furnish the
conditions essential to the natural manifestations of the organic function
which is the object of investigation.  A celebrated physiologist says :
"We know the peculiar office of the brain, by observing what functions
are lost by its removal—the sensorial functions."*   Even if it be con-
ceded, that decapitation removes every vestige  of sensation and volun-
tary motion, this would not  prove that  both these functions  belonged
exclusively to the brain; for the removal of the heart, or of the  lungs,
or the inhalation of ether, would equally remove the sensorial functions.
On the contrary, however,  if these functions can be identified  in the
smallest degree, in the headless  trunk, the experiment is of the most
convincing kind, considering the enormous hemorrhage, and the violent,
disorganizing character of the operation, incidental  to the  removal of
large masses of bones, muscles, special senses, organs,  blood  vessels,
&c.
  If in the progress of discovery, it shall be ascertaind, that the scnso-
rium is diffused throughout the  whole  nervous system;  that it is most
active in its peripheral expansions ; nevertheless, it  must happen, that
decapitation and the destruction of the spinal cord, will  speedily,  or at
least ultimately, destroy this peripheral action, by destroying incidentally
numerous associated organs, functions, and conditions, essential to life.
Physiologists who reduce the nerves to the condition  of  mere conduct-
ors to and from a  central, yet unknown, unconscious spot, called tho
sensorium,  in some unrevealed part of the  brain, ought  not to regard
themselves as honoring the nervous system, any  more than those who
are willing to allow these supposed  conductors  a share  of sensational
cognition: seeing how experimenters of their own school, cut out this
centre—the brain, including the cerebellum—and push stylets through
the centre of the spinal marrow, without, as they say, a  loss  of  sensi-
bility, &c.   Add to these facts, the numerous examples of children born
without brains,  and also, sometimes, with spinal cords disorganized by
disease, while the living functions, including sensation and motion, strug-
gled  on, in at least some cases, for long periods.   The cause of science ;
the advance of psychology, physiology,  and pathology, will not be, in
the least, promoted by the exaltation of the centre, and the  depression
of the circumference.  For my own part, judging  from experiments
  *A. P. W. Philip, M. D., Inquiry,  104, Lond., 1817. 
17
ranging  from the cold-blooded to the hottest-blooded animals—from the
alligator to the common fowl—I am constrained to say, that after deca-
pitation, the sensational phenomena and voluntary motion are far more
strongly indicated in the headless body,  than in the separated head.
In the fowl, the head dies, or seems to die almost instantly ;  while the
body gives  the most violent indications of pain, which, after a time,
cease, but may be revived by the application of fire to the feet, &c, as
I have proved recently.
   The vivisection of the spinal cord, with the view of ascertaining the
functions  of its roots, is, from its disorganizing nature as a physiological
process, alike difficult in execution, and, as the  standard for determining
the theory  of the  double functions of the nerves, doubtful in import.
The operation is tedious, deep,  bloody, painful, protracted, modifying,
paramount.   Skin, muscles, tendons, cartilages, bones, and other tissues,
must  not  only be divided, but, to some extent, removed.  The cord, and
roots  of the nerves planted in  it, must suffer violent and repeated  con-
cussions, from the sawing, chiseling, and  removing  of portions of the
vertebrae, little short of disorganization.  The spinal dura mater, which
attaches  itself laterally to the long canal, at  the  emergence of the
nerves, must be divided and drawn  aside, to  expose the doable roots.
These operations, together with  the  opening of the theca; the dis-
charge of its serosity;  and exposure to  the  air, must  modify the  final
result.  It  is, moreover, difficult to experiment on the anterior roots,
without having first destroyed the  posterior.  If the posterior roots do
not generally give equal indications  of voluntary motion, or, as physiolo-
gists  call it, sensation, noticed  in experiments on the anterior,  may
not the reason be sought among these modifying circumstances 1
   The modifying influence of the disorganizing and paralyzing process
necessary to lay  bare the posterior  roots  of the spinal nerves,  is illus-
trated by recent occurrences.   From the researches of M. Magendie,
made  but a few years ago, physiologists  concluded,  that  the cerebro-
spinal fluid  was necessary to sustain the equilibrium and energy of the
muscular system ;  because the subtraction of that fluid  destroyed,  as it
was assumed, the power of locomotion.   But M. Longet has more re-
cently proved, that these effects were due to the section of the  muscles
themselves,  in the methods adopted by experimenters.   M. L-----found,
on making  an opening in the dorsal spine of horses, dogs, cats, and rab-
bits, without dividing the muscles  extensively, that this liquid might be
removed, without producing such muscular disturbances and  functional
losses as had been attributed to its removal.  (Compt Rendu, 1845.)
   The vivisection of the spinal cord of living animals,  is thus spoken of
                                  3 
IS
by M. Magendie, in the Journal de Physiologie, etc.: (see "Documents
and Dates.")*   "I had long been desirous  of making the experiment
of dividing, in an animal, the posterior roots of the nerves'which arise
from the spinal marrow.   I had several  times made the  attempt, with-
out being able to succeed, on account of the difficulty  of opening  the
vertebral canal without  injuring the  spinal marrow, and, consequently,
without destroying, or, at least,  seriously injuring the animal." * * *
  "It naturally occurred to the mind, to cut the anterior  roots,  leaving
the posterior untouched ;  but such  an enterprise was more easily con-
ceived than executed ;  how expose the anterior parts of the spinal mar-
row, without interfering with the  posterior roots ?   I confess, that the
thing appeared to me to be impossible." * *  *
   "I, at first, wished to ascertain if it might not be possible to cut  the
anterior and posterior roots of the spinal nerves without opening the
great canal of the vertebral dura mater."
  * * *  "The  experiment is  much  longer and more laborious than the
preceding one, in which the  great  canal of  the spinal dura mater  is
opened.  I do not think that this mode of making the experiment should
be followed in preference to  the first." *  * *
  The  following summary of M. Magendie's experiments and  conclu-
sions, is taken from the work already cited.   "The following are the
results of my  observations:  in  pinching, pulling,  and pricking these
[the posterior] roots, the animal gives signs  of pain ;  but it is not to be
compared in intensity, with that which occurs if the  spinal marrow be
only slightly touched at the part where these roots arise.  Nearly every
time that these posterior roots are  thus  excited, contractions are pro-
duced in the muscles to which  the nerves are distributed;  these con-
tractions, however, are but slightly marked,  and infinitely weaker than
if the spinal marrow itself be touched.  If one of the posterior bundles
of roots be cut at once, a general  movement  is produced in the mem-
ber to which the bundle goes.   I have repeated the same experiments
on the anterior bundles, and I have  obtained analogous results in an
inverse  sense; for the contractions excited by pinching,  pricking, dec.
are extremely strong, and even convulsive, whilst the signs of sensibilty
are scarcely  visible.   These facts are confirmative of those  already
announced; only, they seem to establish, that sensation does  belong
exclusively to the posterior roots, any more  than motion to  the ante-
rior. * * *  I  had still  to make  another kind of experiment  on  the
spinal roots—that of galvanism.  By its means, I accordingly excited
"London: 1839. p. 87, et seq.  Translated by the Editor. 
19
these parts, first leaving them in their ordinary state, and afterwards
cutting them at their spinal extremities, to place them upon an isolating
body.   In these various cases, I obtained contractions from each sort
of roots ; but those which followed the excitation of the anterior roots,
were, in general, much stronger and more complete than those which
took place when the electric current operated upon the posterior." * * *
   "I repeated the experiments, after having separated  the roots from
the spinal marrow; and I ought to say,  that, with the exception of two
animals, in which I saw contractions upon pinching and pulling the an-
terior and posterior bundles, in all the rest I did not observe any  sen-
sible effect  from the irritation  of the anterior or posterior roots  thus
separated from the spinal  marrow." * * *
   "The central parts of the spinal marrow may be touched, torn, even,
we may say, with impunity, always taking the  precaution necessary to
avoid touching the surrounding  medullary substance.   I  have several
times plunged stylets  through  almost  the whole length of the spinal
marrow, without either the motions or the sensibility of the animal ap-
pearing to  be diminished. * *  *  Lesions of the cerebellum, do  not
cause loss  of sensibility.   The subtraction of the hemispheres does
not necessarily cause the loss of motion.  * * *  Total ablations of the
cerebellum do not cause a loss of sensibility.  The cerebellum appears
necessary to the integrity of movements forward."
   Sir Charles Bell, to whom the  discovery of the double  functions of
the nerves has been attributed, (though  unjustly,*) thus speaksf of thr
vivisection of their spinal  roots:  "To expose these  nerves near their
origin,  requires the operator to cut deep,  to break up the bones, and to
divide the bloodvessels. All such experiments are much better omitted ;
they never  can lead to satisfactory conclusions." * * *   "I have found
it difficult  to make the  experiment  without injuring  both." *  *  *
When the anterior roots singly, or the whole spinal nerve was pinched
by the forceps, or pricked by the scissors, an evident motion was pro-
duced on the muscles, not only perceptible to the eye, but when the third
or fourth  dorsal nerve was touched, the whole  scapula moved in  the
hands of  the assistant." ******   "Anatomy is," as  Bell affirms,
"better adapted for discovery than experiment." Although  it is, to me,
inconceivable how Sir Charles Bell's discovery could have been made
  *I have already proved that Mr. Alex. Walker preceded Bell, in the so called
discovery of the double function of the nerves;  the unanimity of the British
and American writers to the contrary notwithstanding.  If any more  evidence
be wanted to establish this, my protest, against  one of the greatest historical
falsehoods of the century, I am prepared to give it, without delay.
  f Bell's Nerv. Syst.: passim. 
20
 without experiment, yet he holds the following language*:  "experiments
 have never been the means of discovery; and a survey of what has been
 attempted of late years in physiology will prove,  that the  opening of
 living animals  has done more to perpetuate  error than to confirm the
 just views taken from the  study of anatomy and natural motions."  * * *
 In a review of my former papers, the results have been considered as a
 further proof in favor of experiments.  They are,  on the contrary, de-
 ductions from anatomy; and I have had recourse to experiments, not to
 form my own opinions, but to impress them upon others.  It must be my
 apology, that my utmost efforts of persuasion were  lost, while I urged
 my statements  on  the grounds  of  anatomy alone.   I  have made few
 experiments ;  they have been simple, and easily performed;  and  I  hope
 are decisive." * *  *  "In the demonstration of the nerves I had re-
 course to their origins to  find out their uses.   I found that injury done
 to the anterior portion of the spinal  marrow convulsed the animal more
 certainly than injury to the posterior portion ; but I found it difficult to
 make the experiment without injuring both portions."
   "The motions," says Dr. Carpenter, "excited by irritating the  pos-
 terior root, are entirely dependent upon its connection with the  spinal
 cord, and upon the integrity of the anterior roots, and of the trunks into
 which they enter.   It is evident, therefore, that excitation of the poste-
 rior roots does not act immediately  upon the muscles, through the trunk
 of the nerve, which they contribute  to form; but that it excites a motor
 impulse in the spinal cord, which is propagated through the  anterior
 roots to the periphery of the system."  (Phys.)
   Had Messrs.  Magendie, Bell,  and other vivisectors, extended their
 experiments from  the roots of the  nerves towards their  distributions,
 with, or without having first separated them from the spinal cord,  they
 would have found, not a total loss of muscular motion from the division
of the anterior roots, but a marked increase of twitching, etc., on com-
 pressing the more distal portions of the nerves.  The roots being very
 soft, a pressure, unless extremely delicate, will, perhaps,  give only one,
or, at least, a very few twitchings, which never  can be renewed, with-
out selecting a new distal  part.  Hence, Mr.  Magendie never saw, but
 in two animals, motions excited, after the roots had been separated  from
their implantations in the cord.   Sir Charles Bell refers to Mr. C. Haw-
kins, to  prove that the pinching  of  the spinal nerves, at their origins,
caused "an evident motion, perceptible to the eye, etc."  This is true;
but not the whole truth.
   Messrs. Kirke and Paget say that, "where the end of the distal por-
tion of the divided nerve is irritated, no effect appears."   (Phys. 289.) 
21
Is this an error of the press ?  When a nerve is divided, as above men-
tioned, I have invariably found that no effect follows pinching or punc-
ture on the proximal  side, even though the nerve  may be  connected
with the spinal marrow—with,  and without that connection, the distal
end will respond to an irritant, properly applied, for several days, in the
alligator.
  The motions which  may be elicited after the destruction of the brain,
spinal marrow, and the sympathetic, and, even in amputated limbs, are
more or less suggestive of the theory of galvanic action.  But they are
neither homological, nor analogical.  It is true, that a certain degree of
compression, whether  by a  good or bad electrical conductor, causes a
quick motion,  or twitch, like that  from  a  weak galvanic shock.   But
here  all analogy ceases.  There  is no galvanic battery by which to
generate this force ;  which is, indeed, altogether physiological. Besides,
there is not one shock, and one contraction, but many, of an intermit-
ting kind.   These approximate the slighter kinds of convulsive move-
ments in chorea, fits,  cramps, subsultus, delirium tremens, and  in some
forms of death, but most of all,  certain motions, which, sometimes, take
place in sleep, and after death from cholera, with, and  without,  an irri-
tant.   Very recently,  while  making  vivisections of  several different
kinds of animals, and  while my mind  was strongly directed to this sub-
ject, the following circumstances were observed:  a man was asleep in
a hotel—an individual  who was present, wishing to amuse  himself,
applied a  feather to  different  parts of the body of the sleeping  man,
which,  in  several instances,  produced motions similar to those above
described.   In February, 1851, by the merest accident, I observed in a
person  in  profound sleep, that pressure in the course of the  muscle
which extends the four outer toes, caused slight twitchings, exactly sim-
ilar to those I had observed in the separated limbs of  the alligator.  The
pressure, and the twitchings, were repeated from time  to time,  without
awaking the individual.
   But the most perfect type of these very peculiar  and  very limited
sorts of contraction, originating spontaneously, and continuing, some-
times, for hours, is that which I have seen in  private practice,  as well
as  in the hospital, in  the fingers and toes of the human subject, after
death from cholera.  In one case, witnessed  by several physicians, as
well as by myself, the contractions were quite different, having assumed
the appearance of voluntary actions, as manifested in flexing, and ex-
 tending the limbs,  and forcibly clenching the fists.   I first observed
these slighter, muscular, to and fro oscillations, in 1833.
    During  eleven years, ending in 1851, many  hundred  experiments 
22
have been made on the human subject, and recorded in numerous manu-
script volumes, clearly proving that functional contractions, as flexion of
the arm, can  be exited by slight blows over the biceps—after, as well
as before, amputation—after,  as well as  before, the division of every
nerve—after,  as well as before, the division  of every muscle, except
those  immediately appropriated to the particular action sought for—after,
as well as before, temporary exhaustions from  repeated flexions,  by
which, in many cases, weights  in the palm had been raised from the
floor through the vertical,  and  thence carried to the  breast—after, as
well as before, the rigor mortis*—provided, however, the muscular or-
gans be not contused  or disorganized.
   This force resides alike  in every part of the  muscle.  Take a piece
of thin plank, one inch wide—strike the biceps, at  intervals, exactly in
the same place,  in a transverse manner; the forearm will be raised, (if
contractility be present,) from one to fifty times, but will at length be
exhausted,  at least for a time—instead  of waiting for the regeneration
of the force, strike with a piece of plank, twice as wide as the first, and
contractions will follow, as  before, and so proceed, until the whole length
of the muscle has been percussed, and temporarily,  or  permanently,
exhausted.
   These motions from the  direct percussion of  the human muscles are
as perfect,  so far as simple  flexion is concerned, as the voluntary motions
themselves, though, of course,  the latter may be combined,  varied, re-
tarded, accelerated, and perpetuated  in a  thousand different ways, un-
known in the former.
   The twitching motions  from pinching the  nerves,  described in the
above mentioned vivisections, are almost infinitely  removed  from those
following  percussion of the  muscles, even though deprived of all the
visible nervous trunks, and  all connections with the nervous  centres.
Nevertheless, it must be conceded, that these twitchings, as far as they
go, in the absence of all experiments directly on the muscles themselves,
seem to  favor the views of those physiologists who ascribe motion as
well as sensation to the nerves.  The truth appears to be this:—there are
several ways or causes, by which the  muscles may be excited.  Thus
compression of the nerve produces the minimum—the percussion of the
muscles, the maximum of motion.  The latter is not  only incomparably
greater, but approximates the natural functions, while the other does not.
 In the recently dead human subject, the removal of the nerves, it may be

   *The only opinion concerning contractility that I have found it necessary to
 modify, is this: the rigor mortis is not incompatible with the contractile force,
 though the former diminishes or prevents the full action of the latter. 
23
repeated, does not diminish the  muscular contraction, in degree, or in
duration.   The twitching of the  muscle from compression of the nerve,
is a curious, and an unexplained fact, which, however, does not disprove
the doctrine that the muscles have a force inherent in themselves.  That
the nerves, in addition to their great sensational functions, may generate
a force auxiliary  to the muscular force,  is not improbable :—the  blood
may contribute in like manner, since its own motions, particularly in the
capillary system,  seem  to indicate an  inherent force, which may  be
 called vital, as it rises above any known mechanical force.
   The nerves are supposed to be  the cause, and not simply the essen-
tial condition of motion, because their division prevents it.*  By parallel
arguments the blood can be proved to be the cause,  and not  sinjply an
essential condition of muscular motion, because its arrestation is followed
by an instantaneous,  general, and complete loss of  motion and sensa-
tion.  Dr. Carpenter says : "The contractility of the muscle is impaired
or altogether extinguished, when the flow of the blood into it is arrested."
*  * *  "If the circulation  through the brain be suspended  but for an
 instant,  insensibility  and  loss of voluntary power supervene,  and con-
tinue until it is restored.   This was  shown by  the following experiment
of Sir A.  Cooper's.  After having tied both carotid arteries  in a dog,
 he compressed the vertebral trunks, and immediate insensibility came
 on, the animal at the same'time falling powerless.   As soon as the blood
 was re-admitted to the brain, the animal recovered its consciousness and
 voluntary power, and stood on its legs  again.   In syncope, the circula-
tion  through the spinal  cord  is weakened, a general cessation—not
 merely of muscular movement—but of all power of exciting it, is the
 immediate  result.  No sooner, however,  is  the  circulation fully re-
 established, than the  power of the nervous centres is restored.   Dimin-

   *i low much vain theory has been suggested, from  the simple experiment of
 loss of power in consequence of tying a nerve; and yet it was not the com-
 pression of the  tubes of the nerve, but the obstruction of blood-vessels, which
 produced the effect.   (Bell's Anat.  and Phys.  Edit. 1834. i. 54.)   Such is Sir
 Charles Bell's latest opinion.
   When the very seat of perception is found  not to be  sensible, it leads  us to
 consider on what the varieties of sensation depend.  We  see that sensibility, is
 not an accidental, nor a necessary consequence of the structure of a nerve, or
 the presence of the nervous matter, nor even the communication of that nerve
 with the brain.  It is obvious, that the sensibility  results from the particular
 part  of the brain which  is  affected by the nerve.  (Bell's Anat.  and Phys.
 Edit. 1834. i. 55.)   Reader, read, and re-read this statement of Sir Charles
 Bell.  Anatomy,  the nervous matter—the functional intuitions of sense—all
 subjectivity or individual consciousness, and even all the brain, except the un-
 known "particular  part," are, like poor  Cordelia's portion of King Lear's
 dominions, "Nothing!"
   "Lear.   Nothing can come of nothing;  speak again." 
24
ished circulation at the origins of the afferent nerves is shown in the
deficient impressibility of the  nerves of the part affected.  A complete
stagnation, (of the capillaries,) produced complete insensibility." (Phys.)
  Now these facts, (and every practical physician must have seen many
equally striking,) show, that the non-circulation of the blood, produces
a loss of motion and sensation, rivalling in instantaneousness and com-
pleteness the division of the nerves, which latter operation constitutes
the experimcntum crucis of neurological dynamists.   Another method
of suspending, temporarily, or of destroying even permanently, sensa-
tion and motion, is that  of anaesthesia, or  the  inhalation of ether  and
chloroform.   Local anaesthesia, as that of  a  finger, is more  explicable
by the* assumption of a local sensory and motory function  in the part
affected, than by referring the  whole to the posterior and anterior roots
exclusively.   In truth, as already stated, there are various methods both
of exciting, and suspending muscular motions without any known causa-
tive relation to the nerves.
   The nerve, the blood,  respiration, oxygen, and the  like, furnish the
conditions essential to the voluntary action of the muscles—as tempera-
ture,  moisture, and earth, furnish the essential  conditions by which the
acorn becomes an oak.   On the contrary, the loss of motion and  sen-
sation in many, if not most cases, is not preceded  by any known  lesion
whatever, in either the motiferous or sensiferous  nerves.  Indeed, the
pathological method of investigating the double functions of the nerves,
is unfavorable to the latter hypothesis.   Of the vast catalogue of nervous
diseases  affecting motion and sensation,  each of which would  be an
illustrative experiment  by the hand of nature,  not  one is founded on
pathological  anatomy, conformably to this hypothesis;  that is to say,
not one has  been proved  to have been  invariably preceded by  well
marked lesions of either the  posterior or anterior roots, or the sensiferous,
or motiferous portions of the nervous system.  For  example, Tetanus,
Hydrophobia, Epilepsy, Convulsions, Spasms, Palsy, etc.,  cannot be
satisfactorily referred to lesions of either portion of this system, to which
they are  supposed to belong; for example, in a  Palsy, with  a loss  of
motion and sensation, neither the motiferous nor the  sensiferous  roots
present well marked alterations :  again, in Tetanus, a disease which is
taken as a type of motiferous diseases, no constant,  or even frequent,
morbid change has been found in the nerves called  motiferous, to the
 exclusion of the other nerves.
    Dr. Carpenter, in his exposition of the  functions of the spinal  cord
 by means of what  he terms "pathological  applications," says: "The
 power of the whole spinal  system is capable of being morbidly dimin- 
25
ished or increased"—"increased in Tetanus, Epilepsy, Hysteria, Hydro-
phobia, (which, by the way, he calls a disease of the blood,) by Strych-
nine, by  Aloes, and by Cantharides."  (Phys.  H  400, 401.)   How
true soever this assertion  may be, it does not  prove that this increase
or diminution can be ascribed with  absolute certainty to either class of
roots.   To say, that because the power of the  muscles (in Tetanus) is
morbidly increased,  therefore  the power of the anterior roots is mor-
bidly increased, is a non sequitur.   If strychnine, cantharides, and aloes,
act  specifically on the cord,  or the anterior or posterior roots—if the
numerous diseases which  are  said to have their seat in these structures,
produce, or result from morbid alterations analogous to other maladies—
alterations, such  as  redness, vascularity, hypertrophy, atrophy,  indura-
tion, softening, and  ulceration, anatomists have not  been able to find
them, after innumerable examinations  of dead bodies, nor have descrip-
tions of them appeared in books of pathological anatomy, so as to con-
nect diseases of sensation and motion with  any recognized lesions in
the sensiferous and motiferous nerves, roots, tracts, or central sensorium.
   If there be  no anatomical proof, (as is admitted by all,) showing that
the sensiferous and motiferous nerves can be distinguished from each
other only at  their  spinal origins*—if the  numerous  diseases which
have been ascribed to each class  of nerves, produce no lesions  of their
roots discoverable by the morbid  anatomist;  then no proof remains but
that derived from experiments on the roots.   Passing by the destructive
nature of experiments  upon the  spinal centre—saying  nothing of the
induced,  unnatural condition at the very moment that the operator is in-

   *"Wi*.h this difference in the  functions  of the nerves, there is no apparent
difference in the structure of the nerve-fibres by which it might be explained.
__Of the  laws of action peculiar to"herves of sensation and motion respectively,
many can be ascertained only by experiments on the  roots of the nerves.   For
it is only at their origin that the  nerves of sensation and motion are distinct.—
No nerve-fibre  can convey more than one  kind of impression.—All  nerve-
fibres are  mere conductors of impressions.—Impressions are  only conducted—
in the brain alone  may be perceived."  (Messrs.  Kirke  and Paget. Phys. 286,
289, 288, 294.)  If there be no  anatomical distinction between the motiferous
and' sensiferous nerves,  what becomes of  Sir Charles Bell's discovery, which
he himself declares is based wholly on anatomy ?
   The doctrine of an exclusive sensorium—one restricted wholly  to  a  spot
 in the brain, contradicts not only the universal intuition  or experience of
mankind, but is self-contradictory;  for sensation can  have  no  exietence in
time and space, only so far as  it is fell;  it  exists only at  the time when,
and the place where, it is cognized.  At all other times and places, it has
no existence whatever.  The pain  of a  whitlow in the finger  is felt there,
and not in the  optic  thalami, or crus cerebri.  The  very essence  of a  sen-
sation consists in  the feeling of it, and when it is not felt,  it is not. ^ The
only method by which sensation is  known, is that of consciousness,  which is
(stronger than any other evidence. 
26
tent upon seeking just the contrary, that is, the pure, natural function, it
is sufficient to consider that there is no standard  or criterion by which
the phenomena in question can be  interpreted, so  as to mean nothing
more—nothing less than the  laws which  have been drawn  from  them
by the advocates  of the double, or the four-fold functions of the nerves.
Waiving the question whether both of these functions belong exclusively
to one, two, or four different kinds of nerves, the true question is this :
do the experiments prove the  theory ?  Is not the  fundamental principle
of interpretation,  an  assumption ? erroneous ?  By what analogy—by
what natural  language of animals, can  it be proved, that the motions
excited by irritating the anterior roots are not really  sensiferous ?  As a
dumb beast has no other means of making known its  sufferings, (whether
in the posterior or  anterior roots,)  except by signs, that is,  motions,
such as  the  experimenters  describe as convulsive, etc. ; the latter,
therefore, so far from excluding sensation, indicate its presence.  How
true soever the motiferous  theory of the  anterior roots may be, these
experiments do not  clearly prove  it.  They do not show motion in the
abstract—motion in the concrete ; they do not demonstrate that  these
roots originate or convey all the forces to the exclusion of the muscular
system, and the posterior roots.   They do not prove that  in the living
animal, the anterior, do not partake with  the  posterior roots in sensa-
tionalism.
   The almost uniform prelude  to  a vivisection,  has been, (to use the
language of the experimenters,)  a blow upon  the occiput, so  as to de-
prive the animal  of sensibility.  The motive that  impels the vivisector
to his repulsive task,  is, or ought to be, as praiseworthy as any that
can  sway the human  mind, namely, the  ohtainment of knowledge for
the purpose of lessening the ills of humanity.  But, an occipital coup
de grace, depriving an animal of sensibility, in whole or in  part, in order
to experiment on  its sensiferous nerves, is as bad  in logic, as it is in true
benevolence,  since it defeats the legitimate  end,  which is  the  only
justification of the  means.   Physiology cannot  be promoted by pirn
fraudes.
   The high, paramount, sensory function of the nervous system, renders
its claim to exclusive motiferous  jurisdiction,  even over  the  muscular
system, a somewhat doubtful duality, and little in accordance with phi-
losophical  analogy.   The dynamical adaptions for flexion, extension, as
cord, levers, joints, and the like, so evident in the muscular and osseous
systems, nowhere appear in the  nervous.
   Leibnitz, "whose mind  was cast in a gigantic  mould,"  based his
whole philosophy upon this single axiom, namely,  "that one substance 
27
 cannot receive from any other the power of acting, but the whole force
 is pre-existent in itself."
   The principle,  says  Mr. Morrell, has  long been acknowledged by
 philosophers, that "two substances entirely differing from each  other
 can have no mutual influence whatever."
   This view may be too strongly stated, to apply invariably in dynamical
 physiology, but not more so than that presented in Condillac's philosophy,
 where the entire nature of  man is supposed to be but a mass of nerves:
 "Les nerfs voila tout rhomme."
   In animal dynamics, as in every other department of physiology, the
 luminous principle of adaptation is of the  highest value,  and must not
 be forsaken for experiments, which, as experiments, create, or influence
 results.   Nothing of dynamical adaptation—everything like inadapta-
 tion, is evident in the nervous tissues, viewed as the organs of contract-
 ility or motion.*
   Broussais contends,  (Path. 64, 104,)  "that  contractility is  the sole
 inherent property of the fibre," and that "sensibility is,only one of the
 results of contractility.  On the other hand, Dr. Carpenter maintains,
 that even "the will cannot exert any direct or immediate power over the
 muscles."  (Phys. IT  495.)  That the  will can exert an immediate
 control over the motory organs, appears, to me, a truth of which  every
 healthy human being,  unbiassed by theories, is, or  ought to be as con-
 scious as he is of his own existence, whether he be acquainted with the
 exact anatomy of these organs, or not.  It is this consciousness of the
 possession of an immediate, inherent, inward force, which is  the fun-
 damental type under which all voluntary forces are viewed, and  with-
 out it there is little doubt  that we should have been unable to form any
 notion of the involuntary and physical forces,  which give to the whole
 universe a near approximation to vitality.
   The doctrine  of a  diffused sensorium, is an  intuitive conviction;
 based on consciousness,  at least it is such, with all not  educated in a
 different belief.   No one  can appeal to consciousness for the proof that
 a certain unknown spot in the brain possesses the faculty  of feeling by
 means of one particular sort of nerves,  which serve  as the mere con ■
ductors of material,  or immaterial impressions, to be felt only in the
centre, but in no degree in the trunks, nor in the peripheral expansion,

  *Touch, in the  headless  alligator, responds in a normal manner, that is,
according to all that is  known  of that fundamental sense, under excitation.
Like the  deaf, dumb and blind, it reads, (so to speak,) only  by mechanical
contact.  It  cannot know, will,  or act,  in advance of an impression, any
more  than it  can smell, taste, see, or hear, without the special organ devoted
to the function. 
29
of the nerves, themselves.  The  rejection of a diffused sensorium, and
the general admission of one exclusively central, are, probably, in a.con-
siderable degree  owing to the psychological, or rather the theoretical
difficulties with which  education  has environed these  views, in assum-
ing them to be incompatible with the supposed oneness of life, personal
identity, the union of volition and sensation.   A duality or a triplicity
in any of these would seem to conflict with long  cherished theories.
Well established  facts, cannot be invalidated by any  difficulties what-
ever.  Physiology, resting as it does  in a great degree on vivisection
of the inferior animals41 (none having been made on man,)  can have no
existence, as an experimental science, without the evidence of analogy,
which is, indeed, the  point of departure for the  systematic writers on
this science as it now stands.  "In fact it may be said almost without
qualification, that "Wisdom consists in the ready and  accurate percep-

tion of analogies."!
  That  an alligator  can be divided into at least  three parts, each pos-
sessing  for a  time  an  independent  sensation and  volition,  is a truth
based  on experiment made in a  class of animals  (the cold blooded)
much  used in  vivisection—a truth  confirmed  analogically, by  natural
history: the late H. Milne Edwards, Prof, of Natural History, Paris, says,
"If an earth worm be cut  transversely into two,  three, ten or twenty
pieces, each of its fragments may continue  to  live as  a whole, and to
constitute a new individual."   (Anat. and  Phys.)

  *It is remarkable that the celebrated Dr. Carpenter, of England, in his
Physiology on  Man,  (1T875.)  advances the following proposition,  namely,
"Experiments on the  nature of this (the nervous)  function, are best made
upon the cold-blooded animals; as their general functions  are  less disturbed
by the  effects of severe injuries of the nervous system than  those of birds
and mammals."
  Certain critics, who offer no arguments, much less  experiments to prove
the four-fold anatomy and the four-fold functions of the nervous system, seem
most happy-most fully  protected against error, so long as their faith conforms
to that of "distinguished  European physiologists."  As the latter, however,
are beginning to see and to abandon  their errors, the former ought not to delay
their conversions too long.  Dr. Carpenter, in the last edition of his elaborate
work on physiology, says "it has been maintained by Dr. Marshall Hall, to
whom  physiologists are indebted for having  recalled their  attention to the re-
flex function of the spinal cord which had been previously  described by Unzer
and Prochaska, that the fibres  which minister to this function  are 'physiolo-
gically distinct*  from those which are the channels of sensation and of volun-
tary movements; the former being regarded by him, as having  their centre  in
the Hrue spinal cord?  and the latter in the brain.  But it  is open to so many
objections, that it has not been generally received by those physiologists who
have most carefully studied the nervous system ; and it now seems possible to
give an explanation of the phenomena, which is at the same time more simple
and more conformable to analogy."
   tArch. Bp. Whately, Rhet.  104 
29
   Cuvier asserts, (D'Anat. Compar.)that there are among invertebrated
animals, some  which after division  into two or more parts,  constitute
immediately two or more individuals, each of which possesses indepen-
dent sensation and volition.  II y a des animaux invertebres qui, etant
coupes en deux ou plusieurs morceaux, forment a l'instant  meme deux
ou plusieurs  individu? qui ont chacun leur systeme de sensation et leur
volonte  propre :  These animals  may be divided ad infinitum, and yet
each fragment will possess a distinct personal identity—tho  subjective
element—The  Me :—peuvent etre  divises, pour ainsi dire, a l'infini,
et chacun de leurs fragments  devient un individu doue de son moi par-
ticulier.
   The  unity or  indivisibility of sensation  is  not  inferable from  the
smallness of the  sensorium,  as  the  smallest part of the brain is as di-
visible,  as the entire nervous mass.
   The history of science shows but too clearly, that, while  nature has
always been  teaching truths only,  prejudices of education have biased
the minds of individuals, nay of entire nations,—so that the reality  of
matter itself has been called in question, and great errors have received
a sanction almost unanimous and universal.   It is sufficient to mention
in this place, the long reign of the representational or ideal  system, in
opposition to that of the  immediacy of knowledge.  In the mental and
speculative sciences, ideas are  no longer regarded as entities, at once
the only intermedia, and the  sole  objects of cognition, so that accord-
ing to this theory, things are not  themselves objects of sensation, but
their representational impressions only !  In physiology the representa-
tional system still prevails,—the word  idea being replaced by the  word
impression.   Sensational cognition,  instead  of being regarded as  intui-
tive, direct,  and immediate,  is assumed to be wholly intermediate, by
means of coducting tracts, transmitted  impressions, and a central  sen-
sorium.    That  these transmitted  impressions are entities, is virtually
asserted in assigning to them a special, material nerve, along  which
they travel to the centre where they imprint themselves.
   "Dr. Robert Hook makes ideas to  be material substances.  The soul,
he thinks, may fabricate some hundreds in  a day, and that as they are
framed, they are pushed farther off from the centre of the brain, where
the soul  resides.  By this  means they make a continued  chain  coiled
up in the brain, the first end of which is farthest removed from the cen-
tre or seat of the soul; and the other end is  always at the centre, being
the last  idea  formed, which is always  present the moment when consi-
dered: and therefore, according as there is a greater number of ideas
between the  present sensation or thought in tho centre and  any other, 
30
 the soul is apprehensive of a larger portion of time interposed." (Reid's
 Essays.)  Is there any important part of this statement, which is not
 expressed or implied by the prevailing doctrine of transmission, which
 assumes, that there is  independent of the external impression, a mate-
 rial, travelling  impression (not a  metaphor) which pursues a  definite
 material  route  or  structure, to make a material imprint on a  material
 sensorium.
   Dr.  Hartley, in his work "On  Man,"  (London,  1748,) speaks of
 both sensory and motory nerves.
   "Those sensory  vibrations which are excited in the external organs
 and ascend  towards the brain, when they arrive in their  ascent at the
 origin of the motory nerves, descend from the brain into the whole  sys-
 tem of the motory nerves."
   He  attemps to account for the inferiority of  the  intellectual faculties
 of brutes  compared with man, by the fact that "their brain is proportion-
 ally smaller, and hence cannot contain so many nor so great a variety
 of miniature  impressions,—miniatures  of external impressions."  He
 maintains that the nervous system  of brutes "has more  callosity  and
 fixedness in  its  dispositions to vibrate,  than in  man."   "The brains of
 young brute  animals  will  therefore  be sooner  able  to  retain  minia-
 tures than those of children."
   Sensation  is not  produced by the intermediary  agents called trans
 mitted  impressions or  ideas,  but is an intuitively felt relation, between
 the Me* and the not Me.—the subjective and  the  objective, founded on

  *Before preceding further, the following  definitions may be necessary:—
 Definitions of Subjectivity  and objectivity:—These terms,  from their perspi-
 cuity, precision, and comprehensiveness, are daily growing into favor in scien-
 tific researches,  particularly among  German  writers.   As some  individuals
 may object to  them, as I once did, and as others may not understand them, it  may
 be proper to define them.  These definitions are not taken from dictionaries, but
 are, in  a great degree, results produced in my own mind, from the perusal of
 the French and English translations of German authors who excell in specula-
 tive science.  Kant, in my humble opinion, has had no superior from  Aristotle
 to the present time.
   Subjective and  objective.—Sensation, is, in its own  nature, subjective; but it
 may originate either subjectively, that is, in the mind, or  objectively, that is
 from impressions  derived from the outward world.  The one is psychical; the
other is physical  or sensuous in  origin, but  the effect is  the same  in both,
 namely, a state of feeling or conscious excitation being induced.
  Whatsoever constitutes self or the Me, the knowing, willing, feeling, cons-
cious entity or condition,  is the subjective.  All the residue of nature, all  that
is not the Me, is  objective.  In a certain sense,  however, the  mind,  when di-
rected to itself and its conscious faculties and conditions,  becomes objective
to itself—a peculiar prerogative—a combination of subject,  and object.
  The  subjectivity or subjective symptoms of a patient, consist in whatsoever
 is proper to his consciousness, or feelings—the residue of his symptoms, observed
 by the physician,  are objective.
  Whenever a conscious  relation is established between the subjective and th? 
31
immediacy  and intuition, and not on  representationalism, being like
every  other ultimate  and  self  evident  fact, incapable  of any proof
stronger than that which is inherent in itself.  All attempts to explain
this felt relation,  tend but to make it  more  obscure.   That  change or
sensational relation that takes place  between the object seen, and the
subject that sees,  cannot be defined, although the phenomema,  the con-
ditions, and laws  according to which  the latter conform, contribute to
illustrate  or rather constitute the  science of optics.   When an object
is touched, the result is a felt relation  directly between the subject and
object, not between the subject and a mere representation of the object.
If the mind cannot know  things, but their representations  or impres-
sions only, Berkley, was  right in  affirming, that  as the mind could
know these alone, there could be no valid proof of the reality of a ma-
terial world.
   The present  representational system  of physiology, besides subject,
object, nerve and  impression, expresses or implies, four kinds of nerves,
four kinds of locomotive impressions, an encephalic  sensorial spot, an
excito-motory  centre, not  to name  a  ganglionic  one-complications
found in books, not in nature—in maps, not in intuition.
   The present system of representationalism  in  physiology,  is infi-
nitely more  complex and  obscure than the ancient  system of ideas or.
phantasms, advocated by Aristotle and his followers.
   Fearing that the above  experiments and  speculations,  may seem in-
accordant with received views in psychology, as well as  in physiology,
it may be proper to add a few words concerning  their fundamental
relations, differences and  tendencies.
   Psychology, in  its highest functional  modality, unity, and  inherent
ontological qualities and relations (substantia  et accidens) is but little
amenable to the  materializing process  of physiology.   Whether psy-
chological life  is  from its  inherent constitution capable  of  a  separate
and  perpetual  existence,  independently  of the  sensuous life, is a pro-
blem which mere science is unable to  solve.  The  dissection of the
inferior animals can neither prove, nor  disprove it.  Psychology  does
not rest wholly upon the sensuous, nor  upon  the  transcendental.  It
derives many  of  its  fundamental truths  from  its own proper nature;
its inward reality, its subjective element, or consciousness.   In its sub-
■---------------------------*-------------:-------:—-—:----r.—
objective, this fell relation, is,  properly, a  sensation—an intuition, immediate,
not by means of strolling, representational, transmitted impressions, but by one
or more direct impressions on the organ or tissue that is excited or impressed.
The science of sensation has nothing to do in explaining the sensational intui-
tion itself.   The circumstances, conditions, and laws under which sensation
takes place, are susceptible of explanation, as in optics, accoustics, &c. 
                                32

jectivity it finds  its validity, rather than in the objective  processes, as
those of vivisection, pathological alterations, and outward nature.  The
one  science  is essentially subjective;  the other  is chiefly  objective;
though the latter, in  some  of  its  highest  generalizations, derives its
fundamental types from the former—The Mb.
   The common  axiom, namely, that there is nothing in the mind which
was  not first in  the senses, is an error due to the biases  which  exist
jn favor of an entirely objective philosophy.  The mind itself  did not
thus  pass through the senses—the  understanding or cognizing  faculty
existed prior  to sensuous transmission and empirical cognition; it existed
for itself and in  itself, even  before its  own  subjective activity.  The
psychological entity, and its primary  faculties, are not created,  but de-
veloped by objective nature.  The sensuous is the  occasion, condition,
means, not the cause,  much less the essence of the mind.   The mind
is not a blank leaf, (tabula rasa) upon which anything may be  written
without limit, in the absence of innate  faculties, by all possible chan-
ces,  and contingencies.  The mind derives from  itself,  and  not  from
experimental science, not  a few truths which the latter never could dis-
cover : such as the intuitions of eternal duration, the  infinity of space,
&c.   The negation or non existence of these, are, also, intuitions, not
derived from  experience.   Psychology  and physiology differ almost as
much as  the  subjective,  and the objective. Their nearest  points of
contact, and  their greatest convergency appear in their  dynamical re-
lations and  in  whatsoever relates  to  the scientia  scientiarum.
   As mental  ontology does not  come within the pale of physiology—as
the mind is regarded as immaterial, having laws peculiar to itself, it is
evident that nothing in the experiments, as above  reported can, conflict
with laws purely psychological.
   The following  cases, not less than vivisection,  will illustrate many
of the fore-going principles.
   The case of P. P. Gage,  a rock  blaster,  reported at great length
by Dr. Harlow,  and attested by many numerous professional and non.
professional   witnesses, may be thus summed  up:  by the  accidental
explosion  of  a quantity of gun-powder intended  to blast a rock, an
iron  crow bar weighing 134; lbs., was driven under the zygomatic arch
of the left side or cheek,  upwards, diagonally through the brain,  mak-
ing a hole at its emergence into the «ir, three  and  a half inches in
diameter at  the junction  of the  coronal and  saggital  sutures.  The
man fell;  but soon got up quite rational and self possessed; mounted a
cart; sat erect unassisted;  reached  his  hotel;  mounted the stairs;
sat down in the piazza, and was under the doctor's hands in  twenty- 
33
five  minutes after  the  accident.   Except the loss of sight in the left
eye, and an attack  of fever, coma,  &c, which occured  some time after
the injury which happened  in 1848; this man has  enjoyed  health of
body and mind, up to the time of the report, in the midsummer of 1850.
  A case more  recently  reported  in the  Western Medico-Chirurgical
Journal, is still more extraordinary, since it shows as proved  by a post
mortem examination, that a large charge of  buck-shot accidentally dis-
charged, entered the  skull  above the ear,  traversed  the brain, and
lodged  against the skull and in the tissue of dura mater of the opposite
side, causing extensive fractures and injuries extending to the cerebellum,
with the loss of an ordinary tea-cup full  of brain.  The man lived
several days in the perfect  enjoyment of all his  senses  and  faculties,
until just before his death.
   If such  injuries  can be borne  for days, and  even years, without
impairing  sensation, voluntary  motion,  and conciousness,  surely, vi-
visectors  speak hypothetically, when they  assert that a blow on the
back of the head,  will keep all these  functions  in abeyance while they
are performing  tedious operations  on an  animal  having,  for aught that
can be known to the contrary, the whole, or but five,  ten, or fifty per
cent, of life ; or perhaps, none at  all.
   In both of these  cases the  fundamental principle of Phrenology  is
invalidated, namely, "that   not a single instance  (of  injury of the
brain) is recorded in which this  destruction  of both  organs has  occur-
red, while the alledged manifestations existed".*   In the crow-bar case,
a hole  of nearly one foot in circumference, in the median line of the
cranial summit,  must have destroyed several  organs  for which there
are no  duplicates, as Benevolence, Veneration and Comparison.  In
the  gun-shot case, the  destruction was  far more extensive.   These
facts bear  equally  against the doctrine of an exclusively  central  senso
rium.
   If vivisections, and traumatic lesions of the brain were insufficient
to disprove the doctrine that the  brain is  the sole  seat of  all sensation;
the fact  that brainless monsters have enjoyed the nutrition,  secretory,
calorific, respiratory, circulatory, and sensational functions, is altogether
couclusive.   In  the New York  Journal  of  Medecine,  for July,  1850,
the  Editor, Dr.  S. S. Purple, has described "a very perfect  speci-
men of brainless child which enjoyed the full  amount of sensibility,"
together with the functions  above mentioned, for two  days and a half
after its birth ;  when irritated, it  uttered imperfect cries, and  would
♦■Combe, Phrenology, 99, 609
             5 
34
"have lived longer but for a circumstance  over which the.  writer h«d
no control".   * * *  From this, and many similar  cases,  Dr. Purplo
concludes that, "There is a point in physiology upon which they throw
no  small degree  of light,  viz:  that of the independent action  of the
great vital functions, from the large nervous centres."
  Experiments, facts, arguments,  illustrations, and  propositions* have
been dispersed through these pages regardless  of syllogistic  formalities
—a method adapted to promote investigation, and prevent, in some de-
gree, foregone conclusions.
  Unlike a prisoner at the  bar, an  innovator has  this consolation,
namely, that if the  present jury shall  condemn  him, unjustly, he can
look with confidence to a future one, which soon,  or lato, will do him,
and itself, justice, by embracing the truth; although, probably, for a
time,
              "It  will be found upon examination,
              That  Satan has the largest congregation."
+        *******
          "A hundred cities claimed a Homer dead,
          Through which a living Homer begged his  bread."
  An elegant writer, however, takes a view somewhat different: "An
author,"  says D'Israeli, "must consider himself as an arrow shot into
the world; his impulse must be stronger than  the  current of air that
carries him on—else he falls."  The plenitude of an author's complaints
must appear, to such as will not accept his  contributions, as the veriest
of all platitudes.   A medical critic, in  a  foreign Review, says, upon
this  topic, "that it is the  invariable rule,  to  invoke the over-worked
shades of Harvey and Galileo as illustrations."
                                   New-Orleans, June,  1851.

  •The present investigation necessarily excludes all examination of the ganglionic
nervous system of organic  life, because it has been assumeS, that this system is
independent of the cerebro-spinal, in function, as well as in anatomy.  Bichat de-
clares, that even "each ganglion is a distinct centre, independent of the others in its
action;" and most authors allow but little, if any sensibility and voluntary motion to
this portion of the nervous system.