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.

    26/90 (page 24)
    We have never thought of being the first who maintain that the brain is fibrous, though we know also that the most erroneous opinions have been entertained with res- pect to its structure. Our principal ideas are the sue-: cessive additions, and the aggregation of various parts; the two great sets of fibres, and the unfolding of the con- volutions, as I propose to detail in the sequel. I have already mentioned, that we do not limit our proceeding to the handle of the scalpel, as the conscien- tious Reviewer, p. 256. and Dissector, p. 150. insinu- ated. When the Dissector wrote his book, the fibrous appearance could never be displayed by dividing the cerebral mass with a sharp scalpel, p. 126.; as Historian, however, he proves, that many authors, who have only sliced the brain, were acquainted with its fibrous struc- ture. As Author, he speaks of nervous cords, p. 128.; nervous threads, p. 132.; nervous fibriles, p. 123.; ner- vous fibres as fine as hairs, p. 137.; nervous fibres tra- versing, p. 128.; innumerable fine fibres diverging, p. 138.; and what is more, “ when a portion of brown nervous matter, which forms a covering to the convolu- tions, is exposed to the action of alcohol, or acids, or boiling oil, and is then torn asunder, it exhibits a fibrous appearance,” p. 127.—As Historian he equally states, that “ the apparent fibrousness of the white substance, both in the recent state, and after coagulation with boil- ing oil, alcohol, acids, &c. has been long known, and no opinion has been more prevalent than that this substance is really fibrous,” p. 16. Now, after that language as Author and Historian, what shall I think of such a man, who, in my second demonstration, before a numerous and respectable audi- ence, came forward and protested against my using the name of fibres, and diverging fibres? who asked me,