Page:Mind (Old Series) Volume 12.djvu/444

 EECENT DISCUSSION ON THE MUSCULAR SENSE. 431 application. The result was the same as before, a little more accentuated perhaps, but always more from the point of view of sweetness of quality than of accuracy in pitch. M. Beaunis then made his subject go through some vocal exer- cises sustaining a long note and trilling. The subject was able to sustain a note for twenty seconds, just as in his normal condi- tion, and his trilling after the first effort was good. Laryngoscopic examination at this stage showed the edges of the glottis pale, the rest of the mucous membrane a little red. The glottis and the posterior surface of the epiglottis were not sensitive to contact. Finally, on testing with the tuning-fork, M. Beaunis found that the voice had remained true all through the experiment. From this series of experiments M. Beaunis infers that there is a true sensibility of muscle, independent of skin and surrounding tissues. One possible error he points out, namely, that the phy- sical change produced in the mucous membrane by the cocain may act mechanically on the muscles, and in a certain measure give rise to contractions in them. This experiment, provided it be repeated and corroborated, should go far to settle the specific sensibility of muscle. The larynx for delicacy of indication one may compare to the myographs of the physiological laboratories. Nowhere else among voluntary muscles can one isolate so readily the muscular and cutaneous, resistance and pressure. If the experiments of M. Beaunis should be confirmed, there is no further need to speak of muscular sense " so-called " ; we may regard the specific sensibility of muscle as demonstrated. (2) The Nervous Mechanism involved, and its relation to Conscious- ness. This was the chief dividing question at the meeting of the Neurological Society, December, 1886, so fully reported in Brain, March, 1887. One cannot say that the discussion, headed by Dr. Bastian's long and carefully elaborated paper, has forwarded much our knowledge either of fact or of theory. There is too much misunderstanding as to the precise point in dispute, and there is too little separating of questions. Surely there is a lack of thoroughness somewhere when Dr. Hughlings Jackson can complain that cases hitherto regarded as obviously on one side are now quoted on the other. Such misunderstanding ought not to be possible among scientific men. The misunderstanding arises chiefly on the interpretation of cases, the distinction of sensory and motor, and the implication of consciousness and of will. (a) Dr. Bastian's cases. The case recorded by Demeaux (Brain, p. 11) shows the loss of muscular sense, of deep and superficial sensibility, and the consequent ignorance of movement and posi- tion. The power of voluntary movement remains. One is surprised that Dr. Bastian emphasises the ignorance of movement and passes over without remark the fact of voluntary power and its cerebral concomitant. Yet if we wanted a case that should separate afferent from efferent in muscle, this is one : there is no sensibility, no sense of pressure or of resistance ; when directed