FOOTNOTES:
[41] It is unfortunate that Bichat makes use of the word density, as he seems to be ignorant of its true signification.
The resistance, which the womb offers to the fœtus that strikes against it, is wholly independent of density, and results only from the greater or less flexibility of its parietes. Cork is much less dense than mercury, and yet it offers to the finger, when pressed against it, a much greater resistance.
[42] Of these four sources of sensation, the first, whatever Bichat may say, exists in the fœtus before birth, and the other three, do not exist some hours after; the eye is insensible to light, the ear to sound, and the taste is not really in exercise when the first food creates in the organ an unaccustomed sensation.
[43] Philosophers and physiologists accord to the touch a great preeminence over the other senses. The senses of seeing, smelling and hearing are, say they, the sources of a thousand illusions. The touch alone is exempt from them, and even rectifies the errors which come from elsewhere; the touch is the sense of reason. It is undoubtedly a delightful prerogative; but let us see if it is incontestable. And first does the touch never deceive us? All children know an experiment which proves the contrary. If we cross two fingers of the same hand, and place in the angular space between their extremities a small body which touches both of them, the touch will give the sensation of two distinct bodies. It is then true that the touch may become a cause of errors; it no doubt serves to rectify those of the other senses, but do not these in their turn often defend us from the errors of the touch? If the sight were not almost constantly in exercise, the errors of touch would be much more numerous; we can judge of them by what we experience when we are in the dark. If we were to take from one man the use of his eyes, and from another that of his hands and the exercise of touch as much as possible, we should see which would be the most embarrassed, which would make the most false judgments.
[44] This assertion is not correct, and the voice, at the earliest age, has consonances peculiar, not only to the species, but even to the individual. The man accustomed to the very striking differences of the articulate sounds of speech or the distinct sounds of music, distinguishes with difficulty the differences in cries; but the animals to whom the cry is the habitual medium of expression are not deceived in the same way; the ewe, in the midst of a whole flock, distinguishes the voice of her lamb, and this soon learns to recognize the voice of its mother.
[45] The locomotive organs do not require a long education; as we see in animals whose organization, at the moment of birth, is no obstacle to motion. A young kid in an hour after, will stand on its legs, and before the end of the day we often see it skipping. The partridge runs as it comes out of the shell.
[46] The idea of classifying human occupations, according as they bring in play the organs of the senses, the intellect or locomotion, is a wild and useless one. This division besides is made in a way altogether defective, since in the first class it is the result of the occupations which put in play the organs, whatever may be the means of execution; in the second it is the occupation itself, whatever may be the results, and in the third, it is at the same time the execution and the result.
[47] We know that at a certain period of digestion the pulse rises and respiration is accelerated; we know it, I say, but we do not know the immediate causes of the phenomenon. Is it a reason, in fact, because a little chyle enters the lacteal vessels that the heart should accelerate the course of the blood in a system of vessels entirely distinct from these? Because afterwards this chyle, mixed in a small proportion with the venous blood, goes with it through the lungs, is it a reason that the motions of the lungs should be accelerated? Undoubtedly not; besides, the acceleration is not successive in these two functions, as Bichat seems to imply. The one is the necessary and immediate consequence of the other. But why does the action of the heart increase in this second period of digestion? We cannot tell; nor do we know why it diminishes in the first; for to think of explaining it by saying that the vital forces are then concentrated at the epigastric region, is a mere illusion; it is only changing the expression of the phenomenon, and clothing it in a hypothetical form.