What are the greatest discoveries in physiology? Common opinion would mention as the foremost the action of the heart in circulating the blood,—a discovery not originated but consummated by Harvey; and yet the discovery is of so simple and obvious a nature that we wonder now, not so much at the ability manifested in the discovery, as at the stupidity which permitted it to remain so long unknown, and even to be denied and ridiculed when published. Harvey’s work on the generation of animals entitled him to a higher rank as a pioneer in science than his theory of the circulation.
A far greater discovery was that of Dr. Gall, which embraced not only the anatomy but the functions of the brain as a mental organ—a discovery twenty times as great, whether we consider the superior importance of the brain, or the greater investigating genius necessary to the discovery. It easily ranks at the head of the physiological discoveries of the past centuries.
Next comes the discovery of the motor and sensory roots of the spinal nerves by Majendie and Bell, which did not, as commonly supposed, include the motor and sensory of the spinal cord. This was a small discovery compared to Gall’s, but not inferior to Harvey’s discovery of the cardiac function.
A fourth discovery, perhaps of equal rank, was the discovery by Harvey’s contemporary, Aselli, of the lacteals that absorb the chyle.
A fifth discovery or discoveries of importance was that of the corpuscles of the blood, and the Malpighian bodies of the kidneys, by Malpighi.
A sixth discovery, considered more important and occupying a larger space in medical literature, is the cell doctrine of Schwann, a doctrine still under discussion and by no means a finality.
Anatomical science has few first class discoveries. Anatomy has been a growth of observation and description—not discovery. Vesalius and Eustachius may be considered the fathers of modern anatomy, and the name of the latter is immortalized by the Eustachian tube, which he first recognized and described. But the Fallopian tubes, named after Fallopius, were not his discovery. They had been described long before by Herophilus and others. Eustachius was nearly two centuries ahead of his age in anatomy, and should be gratefully remembered as a struggling scientist. His valuable anatomical works, which he was too poor to publish, were published one hundred and forty years after his death, by Lancisi.
From this brief glance at the discoveries of Eustachius, Harvey, Aselli, Malpighi, Gall, Majendie, and Schwann, it is apparent that but one physiological discovery on record is sufficiently important in its nature and scope to be compared with sarcognomy, which comprehends the relations of soul, brain, and body. What is their relative value? Gall’s discovery embraced about one half of the psychic functions of the brain, with nothing of its physiological functions. Sarcognomy, on the contrary, embraces the entire mass of cerebral functions to connect them with corresponding functions in the body. It presents in one complete view the psychic powers in the soul operating in the brain, and extending their influence into the body; and on the other hand, the physiological powers of the body, operating through the brain, and by definite, intelligible laws acting upon the soul—a vast system of science, based on anatomical facts, but evolved by experiment, to which no single volume could do justice. Its medical applications alone, concisely presented in thirty lectures, would make a volume of four hundred pages.
It is not, like the phrenological system of Gall, a mental doctrine only, but, combining psychology, physiology, and pathology, goes to the foundations of medical science, of health, disease, and cure, as well as the foundations of all spiritual science, and originates new systems of magnetic and electric practice. It is manifest, therefore, that no biological discovery now on record occupies more than a fraction of the vast area occupied by Sarcognomy, and being a demonstrated science, in the opinion of all who are acquainted with it, it needs only sufficient time to circulate the works upon the subject now in preparation (the first edition of “Therapeutic Sarcognomy” having been speedily exhausted), and sufficient time to overcome the mental inertia and moral torpor that hinder all progress, and even war against the million times repeated facts of spiritual science. The warfare against all new truth will be continued until the people demand that our colleges, the castles of antiquated error, shall conform to the spirit of progressive science.