Examination of the objections made in Britain against the doctrines of Gall and Spurzheim / by J.G. Spurzheim.

  • Spurzheim, Johann Gaspard, 1776-1832.
Date:
1817
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Examination of the objections made in Britain against the doctrines of Gall and Spurzheim / by J.G. Spurzheim. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    13/90 (page 11)
    SECTION II. In our anatomical views, which are always connected with physiology, pathology, and philosophy, the first point to be considered is, that there is no common origin of the nerves ; that all descriptions of the spinal cord as a prolongation of the brain, are incorrect; that no nerve, and no cerebral part, owes its origin to any other; but that all of them, on account of their mutual influence, are in communication. (Vide Memoir to the French Institute, sect. 1.; Dictionnaire des Sciences Medicates, Art. Cerveau, § 3. NO. 1, 2, 3, and 4.; Physiogno- mical System, p. 13—18.) Such considerations have entirely escaped the con- scientious Reviewer, and mechanical Dissector. ,»% ,i.i SECTION III. The second point to be considered is, that the general form and arrangement of the nervous system are modi- fied in different beings. In the superior animals, it is divided into the nerves of the abdomen and thorax, the spinal cord, the supposed cerebral nerves, and the cerebellum and brain. The spinal cord is composed of a series of swellings between two undulatory lines. These swellings are proportionate to the nerves, which go off. The conscientious Reviewer is satisfied with stating, that our descriptions of the spinal cord “ abound in con- jectures, and assumptions, and inaccuracies,” p. 267.— The mechanical Dissector has not attended to compara- tive anatomy, and does not mention any thing of that hind. The Historian is in unison with the Reviewer, and merely declares, that our statements are unfounded.