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.

    66/90 (page 64)
    ing brain between the third ventricle and sella turcica, that the pia mater, viz. the blood-vessels of the brain, existed On the right side, while on that side there were no remains of medullary or cortical substance; that the corpus callosum was lifted up, the fornix and septum lucidum split into two, and therefore the communication between the third and lateral ventricles established; that six pints and a half of water were contained in the two lateral and third ventricles ; that the cerebrum formed a thin case of medullary substance surrounding this cavity; that the substance of the brain surrounding those cavities, as well as the pia mater covering it, had no convolutions; that there was a continued smooth surface; that the lin- ing of the ventricles was tough ;—while at the same time there were no remains of medullary or cortical substance on the right side;—that the corpus callosum, the fornix, and the commissures existed without brain on the right side ? He who believes in such assertions, places credit in them in the direct ratio of their impossibility; because the existence of lateral ventricles, a thin case of brain, brain half an inch thick, and no brain, are employed to designate the same observation. If the Edinburgh Reviewer can praise a paper which contains such things, I am proud that our works merited none of his approbation. At all events, “ Judex damna- tur cum nocens absolvitur.” To support my judgment, I say, that the article gives a very imperfect idea of Sir Everard’s paper. Every reader of the article thinks, that the original essay contains the adduced facts, while Sir Everard has not quoted a single author, as if he were the first who had begun to make observations of that kind. It is true, no other can make such observations as the above; but many authors were attentive to the results of injuries of the brain. The Reviewer himself states.