title: Insanity
Creators: name: Epps, John
name: Epps, Joannes
Publisher: name: The University of Edinburgh
Year: 1827
Subjects: subject: Mind
subject: Brain
subject: Sympathy
subject: Phrenology
subject: Experiments

description: RES, quae medendi in scientia continentur, tam multae, tamque magni momenti sunt, ut de his animadverti possit, quod aptissime ad opiniones philosophorum explicandas de calore et frigore pertinet; Calorem nempe et Frigus fines esse ejusdem catenae, cujus annuli sine termino alterutra in parte protrahi possunt. Ex his unam seligere perdifficile est; nam omnes sunt maxime utiles. Nobis accidit eodem in loco esse, quo puer, cui volupta- tes permultae, ut unam seligeret, praebitae fuerunt; quarum omnium nullam excellere vidit. Non unam selegit; unam seligere nobis est necessarium. Tandem, quaedam, animum meum ad Insaniam dirigentia, scribere de hoc morboso humanae mentis statu me induxerunt. Indagationes hujusmodi sunt jucundissimae; nam est mens, qua homo ceteris animalibus praestat. Os homini sublime Deus, indicem mentis aptum, dedit. Timeo tametsi, ne, verbis non dignis, rem tam dignissimam infamem. De mente distincto in statu nihil cognoscimus. Per corpus semper elucet. Verumtamen, mens et corpus intime connectuntur; et, ut hoc, sic illa, incrementum per gradus habet. Infantiae simplicitas, puerilis aetatis hilaritas, calor juvenum infraenatus, mediae aetatis viriditas, senis vires gradatim imminutae, aetatisque provectae diminutio sunt catenae unius annuli, ejusdem hominis diversae conditiones, oculis tam saepe oblatae, ut in proverbio sint. Menti eaedem mutationes accidunt; haec suam infantiam, pueritiam, juventutem, aetatem virilem, senectutemque habet; in quibus omnibus, proprios status, vis ejus diversos gradus exhibentes, videmus. Mentis hic progressus est fixus. In mente, ut in corpore, gradus sequitur gradum; mutatio mutationis vestigia premit; et, in his progressibus, mens et corpus sunt quasi unum; mens in infantia, infantilis; puerilis in pueritia; media in aetate viribus praedita; senilisque in senectute. Corporis humani partes tam arcte connectuntur, ut una injuriam pati non possit, neque reliquae simul instanter affliguntur. Nexus est generalis, qui vocatur sympathia universa; etiamsi inter partes sunt nexus maxime consentanei, qui nomine " sympathiae peculiares" cognoscuntur. Sic, ut est consociatio inter mentem omnesque corporis partes generalis, ita particularis inter mentem et materiam in calvaria contentam. Haec materia, cerebro et cerebello constituta, emittit ramulos omnes ad corporis partes; et per hos consociatio generalis esse videtur. Etiam, putatum est, hanc esse organum mentis; opinio vera, ut probatur effectibus, qui, causis ab externis ad cerebrum applicatis, oriuntur. Si vir calvariae fractura, cerebrum premente, affligitur, mentis vires cessant; pressione remota, redeunt. Si, ut in febre synocha, sanguis quantitate majore quam naturali ad cerebrum fluit, est delirium; si quantitas est valde magna, apoplexia. Ex his aliisque rebus colligere necesse est, cujuscumque naturae mens sit, cerebrum esse organum, per quod agit, et mundo cum externo commercium habet. Consociatio inter mentem et cerebrum ita probata quaestionem ad alteram adducit; an, nempe, mens exercitationibus in suis toto cum cerebro, an partibus singulis, connectatur. Scrutatio rerum diligens experimentaque accurata solum praebent responsum. Nam anatomia cerebri est tam imperfecta, ut nihil ab ea re deduci possit, et conscii non sumus modi, quo mens per cerebrum agit; ideoque de mutua actione mentis corporisque cognitio nulla, aut ex anatomia aut ea Anglice dicta "Consciousness," a nobis est acquirenda. Sed, quod nobis non valeat difficultatem resolvere, aut actionis mutuae inter cerebrum mentemque modum explicare, rei ipsi haec impotentia non est contraria; nam, hepar, bilem; testem, semen; glandulam lachrymalem, lachrymas; ex sanguine secernere cognoscimus: sed cur, neque Anatomia, nec quae Anglice "Consciousness" dicitur, explicat. Observatio demonstrat; et forsitan, ut physiologiae scientia insequitur, ratio sit invenienda; sed sine ratione rei assentimur. Haec ratiocinatio cerebri et mentis mutuam ad actionem explicandam applicetur; ideoque paucae res ab observatione et experimentis collatae, quaestionis responsum, quae dare possint, memorentur. Ad experimenta, quae nobis auxilium praebeant, animum nunc intendamus. Opinio est generalis, mentem toto cum cerebro agere. Quidam, "phrenologi" nominati, opinionem diversam tenent. Inter physiologos, qui de hac re experimenta fecerunt, MAGENDIE, FLEURENS, et PHILIP sunt celeberrimi. Doctor PHILIP divisionem materiae cerebralis in cerebrum et cerebellum non ad voluntarios et non voluntarios musculos referre, sed ad distinctionem quandam diversas inter sensorii functiones, concludit. FLEURENS, qui nuper hujus rei indagationem fecit, cerebrum perceptionis, cerebellum volitionis esse sedem, putat. FLEURENS et ORLANDO inter se dissentiunt de functionibus partium diversarum materiae cerebralis; ille cerebello functionem ordinandi motus voluntarios dat; dum hic, causandi hos motus; discrimen vere magnum. Utcumque, ex iis quae dicta sunt, concludimus talia experimenta, in quibus materia cerebralis sine modo divisa est, commodo et certa rei ratione egere. Chirurgi celebris BELL experimenta huic rei pertinent; nam, quod JOANNES HUNTER, chirurgiae NEWTONUS, supposuit, invenit. Nervos motûs, et hos qui sensationi inserviunt, diversos esse demonstravit; quamvis in structura nervorum alterius generis dissimilitudo, quae functiones diversas explicat, non existit. Possitne simili modo partibus materiae cerebralis? Similitudines permultae huic opinioni favent. Una nobis est notanda. Sanguine ex eodem, fluente organa per diversa, generata sunt varia: per hepar, bilis; per testiculum, semen; per renes, urina; per glandulas salivae, saliva; et ita. Diversitatem inter organa huic similitudini vel analogiae quidam opponant. Sed haec diversitas a nobis non est cognita; nam in fabrica glandularum singularum nihil apparet, quod causa dissimilitudinis rerum, quae generantur, sit. Et forsitan est maxima diversitas fabricae in partibus variis cerebri; sed visui non patet. Similitudinem alteram, priore magis perfectam, offerre liceat. Membrana mucosa in variis suis partibus functiones habet diversas. In ore et naso, saporis odoratusque organa constituit; in ventriculo, digestionis; in intestinis, cibum assimilandi, et partem, nutrimentum quae praebet, parte a faeculenta separandi. Per totam superficiem membrana est mucosa, sed ad diversas ejus partes officia varia pertinent. Ita eveniatne in materia cerebrale ? Responsum ab observationibus, dum organa visus sunt tam imperfecta, obtinendum. Observationes, quae huic rei pertinent, sunt valde multae, et diversas cerebri partes functiones distinctas habere probare videntur. Hic autem his locus non est; et praecipue scientiae phrenologicae non esset aequum limitibus tam arctis multas observationes a phrenologis collocatas comprimere. Satis est opera virorum doctorum, GALL et SPURZHEIM, lectori monstrare. # ## ### #### ##### #### ### ## # [English text:] The remedies contained within the science of healing are so numerous and so significant that it can be observed they are most suitably related to the philosophers’ views on heat and cold; for Heat and Cold are the extremes of the same chain, whose links can be extended endlessly in either direction. It is extremely difficult to choose just one of these remedies, as they are all highly useful. We find ourselves in the same position as a boy who was offered many pleasures but could not find one that stood out above the others. He chose none. Yet, we must select one. Finally, certain thoughts, leading my mind toward madness, compelled me to write about this diseased state of the human mind. Such inquiries are most delightful; for the mind is what sets humans apart from other animals. God gave man a lofty mouth, suitable as a sign of the mind. Yet I fear, lest by unworthy words, I bring disgrace upon so noble a subject. We know nothing of the mind separate from its state. It always manifests through the body. Nevertheless, mind and body are closely connected; and as the body, so too the mind grows in stages. The simplicity of infancy, the cheerfulness of childhood, the warmth of youth, the vigor of middle age, the gradual decline of old age, and the diminishment of advanced years are links in a single chain—different conditions of the same person, so frequently observed that they have become proverbial. The same changes occur in the mind; it has its infancy, childhood, youth, maturity, and old age; in all of these, we see distinct states exhibiting the mind’s various degrees of strength. This progression of the mind is fixed. In the mind, as in the body, one stage follows another; change leaves the traces of change behind; and throughout these stages, mind and body are almost one: the mind is infantile in infancy, childish in childhood, vigorous in maturity, and aged in old age. The parts of the human body are so closely connected that one cannot suffer injury without the others being simultaneously and immediately affected. This general connection is called universal sympathy; moreover, there are very close bonds between certain parts, known as "particular sympathies." Just as there is a general association between the mind and all parts of the body, so there is a particular connection between the mind and the matter contained within the skull. This matter, composed of the brain and cerebellum, sends out branches to all parts of the body, which seems to constitute the general association. It has also been thought that this is the organ of the mind—a true opinion, as proven by effects arising from external causes applied to the brain. If a man suffers a fracture of the skull, compressing the brain, the powers of the mind cease; once the pressure is removed, they return. If, as in inflammatory fever, more blood than usual flows to the brain, delirium occurs; if the quantity is very great, apoplexy results. From these and other facts, it is necessary to conclude that whatever the nature of the mind may be, the brain is the organ through which it acts and has interaction with the external world. The association between the mind and the brain, once established, leads to another question: does the mind connect with the brain as a whole through its exercises, or with its individual parts? Careful investigation and precise experiments alone can provide an answer. For the anatomy of the brain is so incomplete that nothing can be deduced from it, and we are not aware of the manner in which the mind operates through the brain; therefore, knowledge about the mutual interaction of mind and body cannot be obtained either from anatomy or from what is called "consciousness" in English. However, the fact that we are unable to resolve this difficulty or explain the mode of mutual action between brain and mind is not contrary to the nature of the matter itself; for we know that the liver secretes bile, the testicle produces semen, and the lacrimal gland secretes tears from the blood—but why neither anatomy nor what is called "consciousness" explains this remains unknown. Observation demonstrates this, and perhaps, as the science of physiology advances, a reason will be found; but in the absence of such a reason, we assent to the fact. Let this reasoning be applied to explain the mutual action of brain and mind; therefore, a few things derived from observation and experiments that may provide an answer to the question will be mentioned. Let us now turn our attention to experiments that provide us with assistance. It is a common belief that the mind operates through the entire brain. Some, called "phrenologists," hold a different opinion. Among physiologists who have conducted experiments on this subject, MAGENDIE, FLEURENS, and PHILIP are the most famous. Doctor PHILIP concludes that the division of the brain tissue into cerebrum and cerebellum does not correspond to voluntary and involuntary muscles, but rather to a certain distinction between different sensory functions. FLEURENS, who has recently investigated this matter, believes that the cerebrum is the seat of perception and the cerebellum the seat of volition. FLEURENS and ORLANDO disagree among themselves about the functions of the different parts of brain tissue; the former assigns the cerebellum the function of coordinating voluntary movements, while the latter attributes it to causing these movements—a truly significant difference. From all that has been said, we conclude that such experiments, in which cerebral matter is divided without limit, were conducted with skill and a definite purpose. The famous surgeon Bell conducted experiments relevant to this matter; for he discovered what John Hunter, the Newton of surgery, had supposed. He demonstrated that motor nerves and those serving sensation are distinct, although there is no difference in the structure of the nerves of another kind that would explain their different functions. Could cerebral matter be divided into parts in a similar manner? Many similarities support this idea. One point is worth noting. Various substances are produced by organs through the flow of blood from the same source: bile by the liver, semen by the testicles, urine by the kidneys, saliva by the salivary glands, and so on. Some may argue that the diversity among organs opposes this similarity or analogy. But this diversity is not known to us; for in the structure of individual glands, nothing appears that could explain the differences in the things produced. And perhaps the greatest diversity in structure is found in the various parts of the brain; yet this is not apparent to the eye. Allow me to present another similarity, one more perfect than the previous. The mucous membrane has different functions in its various parts. In the mouth and nose, it forms the organs of taste and smell; in the stomach, it serves digestion; in the intestines, it assimilates food and separates the nutritious part from the fecal matter. The mucous membrane covers the entire surface, but its functions vary according to the different areas. Could the same be true in brain matter? The answer must be sought through observation, as the organs of vision were once so imperfectly understood. There are very many observations relevant to this matter, and they seem to prove that different parts of the brain have distinct functions. However, this is not the place to discuss them; and especially it would be unfair to the science of phrenology to restrict the numerous observations made by phrenologists within such narrow limits. It is enough to present the work of learned men, Gall and Spurzheim, to the reader.