Page:EB1911 - Volume 04.djvu/421

 being termed arcs. Each neurone is an elongated cell which transmits nerve-impulses from its one end to its other, without so far as is known modifying the impulses in transit, unless in that part of the nerve-cell where the nucleus lies. That part of the neurone or nerve-cell is called the perikaryon or cell-body, and from that part usually many branches of the cell (each branch being a nerve-fibre) ramify. There is no evidence that impulses are modified in transit along a branch of a nerve-cell, but there is clear evidence of manifold modification of nerve-impulses in transit along the nerve-arcs of the nervous system. These nerve-arcs are neurone-chains. In them one neurone continues the line of conduction where the immediately foregoing neurone left it. That is, the neurones are laid in conductive series, the far end of one apposed to the near end of its precursor. The place of juxtaposition of the end of one neurone against the beginning of another is called the synapse. At it the conduction which has so far been wholly intra-neuronic is replaced by an inter-neuronic process, in which the nerve impulse passes from one neurone to the next. The process there, it is natural to think, must be physiologically different from that conductive process that serves for transmission merely within the neurone itself. It may be that to this inter-neuronic conduction are due the differences between conduction in nerve-arcs and nerve-trunks (nerve-fibres) respectively. Significant of the former are changes in rhythm, intensity, excitability and modifications by summation and inhibition; in fact a number of the main features of nervous reaction. These characters impressed upon conduction in nerve arcs (neurone-chains) would therefore be traceable to the intercalation of perikarya and synapses, for both these structures are absent from nerve-trunks. It is therefore probably to perikarya and synapses that the greater part of the co-ordination, elaboration and differentiation of nervous reactions is due. Now, perikarya and synapses are not present in the white matter of the central nervous organ, any more than they are in nerve-trunks. They are confined exclusively to those portions of the central organ which consist of grey matter (so called from its naked-eye appearance). Hence it is to the great sheet of grey matter which enfolds the cerebrum that the physiologist turns, as to a field where he would expect to find evidences of the processes of cerebral co-ordination at work. It is therefore to items regarding the functions of the great sheet of cerebral cortex that we may now pass.

The Cerebral Cortex and its Functions.—The main question which vexed the study of the physiology of the cerebral hemispheres in the 19th century was whether differences of function are detectible in the different regions of the hemisphere and especially in those of its cortex. One camp of experimenters and observers held that the cortex was identical in function throughout its extent. These authorities taught that the various faculties and senses suffer damage in proportion to the amount of cortex removed or injured, and that it is a matter of indifference what may be the particular region wherein the destruction takes place. Against this an opposed set of observers held that different regions perform different functions, and this latter “differential” view was raised in two wholly dissimilar forms in the first and last quarters of the 19th century respectively. In the first quarter of the century, a school, with which the name of Gall is prominently associated, held that each faculty of a set of particular so-called “faculties,” which it assumed constituted intelligence, has in the brain a spatially separate organ proper to itself. Gall’s doctrine had two fundamental propositions. The first was that intelligence resides exclusively in the brain: the second, that intelligence consists of twenty-seven “faculties,” each with a separate local seat in the brain. The first proposition was not new. It is met with in Hippocrates, and it had been elaborated by Descartes and others. But Bichat in his Anatomie generale had partly wandered from the gradually established truth and referred the emotions to the visceral organs, returning to a naive view popularly prevalent. Gall’s first proposition was probably raised especially in reaction against Bichat. But Gall’s proposition was retrograde from the true position of the science of his time. Flourens and others of his contemporaries had already shown not only that intelligence was resident exclusively in the brain, but that it was resident exclusively in that part of the brain which is the fore-brain. Now Gall placed certain of his twenty-seven intellectual faculties in the cerebellum, which is part of the hind-brain.

Phrenology.—As to Gall’s second proposition, the set of faculties into which he analysed intelligence shows his power of psychological analysis to have been so weak that it is matter of surprise his doctrine could obtain even the ephemeral vogue it actually did. Among his twenty-seven faculties are, for instance, “l’amour de la progéniture, l’instinct carnassier, l’amitié, la ruse, la sagacité comparative, l’esprit métaphysique, le talent poétique, la mimique,” &c. Such crudity of speculation is remarkable in one who had undoubtedly considerable insight into human character. Each of the twenty-seven faculties had its seat in a part of the brain, and that part of the brain was called its “organ.” The mere spatial juxtaposition or remoteness of these organs one from another in the brain had, according to Gall, an influence on the constitution of the mind. “Comme l’organe des arts est placé loin de l’organe du sens des couleurs, cette circonstance explique pourquoi les peintres d’histoire ont été rarement coloristes.” All these “faculty-organs” were placed by Gall at the surface of the brain. “This explains the correspondence which exists between craniology and the doctrine of the functions of the brain (cerebral physiology), the single aim of my researches.” Gall wrote that he found the bump of pride (la bosse de l’orgueil) as far down in the animal series as the goat. Broussais traced the “organ” of veneration as far down as the sheep. Gall found the bump of murder (bosse du meurtre) in the carnivora. Later it was traced also in herbivora. Broussais added apologetically that “the herbivora cause a real destruction of plants.”

Gall’s doctrine enjoyed enormous vogue. He himself had the gifts and the demerits of quackery. His doctrine possessed, apart from its falsity, certain other mischievous qualities. “Que ces hommes si glorieux, qui font égorger les nations par millions, sachent qu’ils n’agissent point de leur propre chef, que c’est la nature qui a placé dans leur coeur la rage de la destruction.” One of his scientific opponents rejoined, “Nay, it is not that which they should know. What they should know is that if providence has allowed to man the possibility of doing evil, it has also endowed him with the power to do good.” The main cause of the success of (q.v.) has been no doubt the common desire of men to read the characters and hidden thoughts of others by external signs. Each bump or “bosse” on the cranium was supposed to indicate the existence and degree of development of one or other of the twenty-seven “faculties.” One such “bosse” showed the development of the organ of “goodness,” and another the development of the organ of “murder.” Such an easy means to arrive at information so curious delighted many persons, and they were not willingly undeceived.

Modern Localization Doctrines.—The crude localization of the phrenologists is therefore too clumsy to possess an interest it might otherwise have had as an early expression of belief in cerebral localization, a belief which other labours have subsequently justified, although on facts and lines quite different from these imagined by Gall and his followers. Patient scientific toil by the hands of E. Hitzig and D. Ferrier and their followers has slowly succeeded in obtaining certain facts about the cortex cerebri which not only show that different regions of it are concerned with different functions, but, for some regions at least, outline to some extent the kind of function exercised. It is true that the greater part of the cortex remains still terra incognita unless we are content with mere descriptive features concerning its coarse anatomy. For several scattered regions some knowledge of their function has been gained by physiological investigation. These scattered regions are the visual, the auditory, the olfactory and the precentral.

The grey matter of the cerebral cortex is broadly characterized histologically by the perikarya (nerve-cells bodies) which lie in it