CHAPTER III.

GENERAL DIFFERENCE OF THE TWO LIVES WITH REGARD TO THE MODE OF ACTION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE ORGANS.

Harmony is to the functions of the organs, what symmetry is to their conformation; it supposes a perfect equality of force and action, between their similar parts, just as symmetry indicates an exact analogy of external form, and internal structure: indeed it is a necessary consequence of symmetry, for two parts essentially alike in structure, cannot much differ in their manner of action. Hence we should be naturally led to the following conclusion, namely, that harmony is the character of the animal, discordance that of the organic functions. But on these points we must be more particular.

I. _Of harmony of action in the animal life._

We have already observed, that the animal life arises from the successive actions of the senses, the nerves, the brain, the locomotive organs, and the voice. We shall now consider what harmony of action is, in each of these great divisions.

The precision of our sensations appears to be the more complete in proportion as there exists a resemblance between the two impressions, of which they are each of them the assemblage. We see inaccurately when one of the eyes is better formed, and stronger than the other; when it conveys to the brain a clearer image than its fellow does. It is to avoid this confusion that we shut one eye, while the action of the other is increased by the application of a lens, for at such time there can be no harmony of action in the two organs; accordingly, we make use of one of them only in order to avoid the discordance of the impression.--What a lens applied to one eye only produces artificially, is exemplified in a natural way by squinting.--We squint, says Buffon, because we turn the weaker eye from the object on which the stronger is fixed; for in so doing we avoid the confusion, which would arise from the perception of two dissimilar images.

We know that many other causes may contribute to the production of this effect, but we cannot doubt the reality of the reason assigned. We know also, that in some animals each eye may act without the assistance of the other, and that two different objects may be transmitted at the same time by the two eyes of certain other animals; but this circumstance, when the action of both the organs is united upon a single object, should by no means prevent a similarity in the two impressions. A single sensation is the consequence of the combination; but in what way can such sensation be formed with accuracy, if the same body at the same time be pictured both in strong and weak colours on the one and the other of the retinæ?

What we have said of the eye may be equally well applied to the ear. If, of the two sensations which form a sound, the one be received by a strong and well formed organ, the other by a weak one, the impressions will be unequal; the brain also, because it is differently affected by each, will be the seat of an imperfect perception. Such conformation constitutes what is called an incorrect or false ear. For what reason does it happen that one man is unpleasantly affected by a dissonance, while another does not even perceive it? The reason is this, that in the one, the two perceptions of the same sound are identical; in the other, dissimilar.[8] For the same reason a man with a correct ear will combine his dancing with the cadence of the measure given him; another without this similarity of organ will be as constantly at variance in his motions with the orchestra.

Buffon has confined his observations on harmony of action, to the organs of vision and hearing; we shall push our examination of it farther.

In the sense of smelling, as well as in the other senses, we must admit of two impressions; the one primitive, and belonging to the organ, the other consecutive, and affecting the sensorium: now the latter may vary, the former remaining unaltered. Many odours are disagreeable to some, but pleasant to others; and this, not because there is any difference in the affection of the pituitary membrane, but because in different individuals, the mind may attach a very different sentiment to the same impression.--Hence a variety of results does not in this case suppose a difference of principle.

But sometimes the impression which is made upon the pituitary membrane does really differ from that which it ought to be, for producing perfect sensation. Two dogs pursue the same game; the one never loses scent, but makes the same turnings and windings with the animal before him; the other follows his game also, but often stops and hesitates, endeavors to recover the scent, proceeds and stops again. The first of these receives a lively impression of the scented emanation; the organs of the second are only confusedly affected. Now it may be asked whether this confusion does not arise from the unequal action of the two nostrils, from the superior organization of the one, and from the imperfection of the other?--the following observations appear to decide the question.

In the coryza, which affects but one of the nostrils, if the two be suffered to remain open, the sense of smelling is confused; but let the diseased nostril be shut, and the smell shall immediately become distinct. A polypus in one of the nostrils debilitates the action of the pituitary membrane on the affected side, the other remaining in its healthy state: hence, as in the preceding case, ensues a want of harmony in the two organs, and the same confusion in the perception of odours. The greater number of the affections of a single nostril have similar effects, which may be all of them corrected by the same means. And wherefore? because in rendering one of the pituitary membranes inactive, we put a stop to the discordance which is occasioned by the deficiency of action in the other. From the above facts (since any accidental cause, which destroys the harmony of action in these organs, is capable of rendering the perception of odours inexact) we may conclude, that when the perception is naturally inaccurate, there is a natural dissimilarity in the formation of the organs, and therefore a difference of power in them.

The same reasoning may be applied to the sense of taste. It is often the case that one side of the tongue is affected by palsy or spasm, the median line dividing the insensible half from the other, which continues to preserve its sensibility. But such affection may take place in a variety of degrees, and one side of the tongue retain a power of perceiving savours though in a less perfection than the other side. In such case it is natural to suppose that the taste must be confused; because a clear perception cannot be the consequence of two unequal sensations.

The perfection of the touch as well as that of the other senses, is essentially connected with uniformity of action in the two symmetrical halves of the body, and particularly in the hands. Let us suppose, for instance, a man born blind, to have one hand well organized, the other defective in the power of moving the thumb and fingers, and forming only a stiff and immovable surface; such person would find it a very difficult thing to acquire a just notion of the size and figure of bodies, because the same sensation would not arise from the successive application of each hand to the same substance. Let both of his hands, for example, be supposed to touch a small sphere; the one by the extremities of the fingers will embrace it in all its diameters, and convey to him the idea of roundness; the other, which will be in contact with it only in a few points, will produce a very different sensation. Embarrassed between these two bases of his judgment, he will scarcely be able to decide, nay, it is even possible that he may form a double judgment from the double sensation which is presented him: his ideas would be more correct were he to use only the perfect hand, in the same manner as the person who squints, makes use of the perfect eye only. Our hands then assist each other reciprocally; the one confirms the notions which are given us by the other; hence the necessary uniformity of their conformation.

The hands are not the only instruments of the sense of touch. The axilla, the groin, the concavity of the foot and many other parts, may all of them from their application to bodies, afford us so many bases for our judgments with regard to external form. Now, if one half of the body were differently arranged from the other half, the same uncertainty in perception would infallibly be the result. From all that has been said, we may conclude, that in the external organs of sense, a harmony of action in the two symmetrical parts, or the two similar halves of the organ, is a condition essential to the perfection of sensation.

The external senses are the natural excitants of the brain. The functions of the brain succeed to theirs, and this organ would but languish, were it not to find in them the principle of its activity. From sensation follow perception, memory and imagination; from these the judgment. Now it is easy to prove, that these different functions, commonly known by the name of the internal senses,[9] are governed in their actions by the same laws, which influence the external senses; and that like them, they approach the nearer to perfection in proportion to the degree of harmony existing in the symmetrical parts, in which they have their seat.

Let us suppose for instance one hemisphere of the brain to be better organised, and therefore susceptible of livelier affections than its fellow; in such case the perception of the individual would be confused, for the brain is to the soul what the senses are to the brain; it transmits to the soul the impressions conveyed to it by the senses, as the senses convey to the brain the impressions made upon them by external objects. But, if the defect of harmony in the external senses confuse the perception of the brain, why may not the soul perceive but confusedly, when the two hemispheres of the brain are unequal in power, and incapable of blending into one the double impression, which is made upon them?

The memory is the faculty of re-producing former sensations, the imagination that of creating new ones, now in the act of remembering or imagining, each hemisphere of the brain appears to re-produce, or to create a sensation of its own. If both do not act alike, the perception of the mind, which ought to be the result of the two sensations united, will be inexact and irregular. But, it is evident, that there will be a disparity in the two sensations, if there be a disparity in the two halves of the brain, in which they have arisen, and since the general foundations of the judgment are made up of the faculties of perception, memory, and imagination, if these be confused, the judgment itself must be confused also.

We have now supposed an inequality of action in the hemispheres of the brain, and inferred, that the functions would in this supposition be imperfect; but what as yet is only supposition, in a variety of instances can be proved to be a fact; for nothing is more common than to find in consequence of compression on either hemisphere by blood, pus, or exostosis, a variety of alterations in the intellectual functions.

Even when all appearances of actual compression have vanished, if in consequence of that which has been experienced, a part of the brain remain enfeebled, the same alterations of mental power will be found to be prolonged. If both hemispheres of the brain, however, be affected equally, the judgment though weaker, will be more exact.[10] Perhaps it is thus, that we should explain those observations so frequently repeated, of an accidental stroke upon one side of the head having restored the intellectual functions, which had long remained dormant in consequence of a blow received upon the other side.

I now conceive myself to have proved, that with inequality of action in the hemispheres, there must be confusion of intellect. I have also pointed out some states of disease, in which such confusion is evidently the effect of inequality of action so occasioned; here we see the effect and its cause; but may we not from analogy, infer a similar cause where we see a like effect? when the judgment is habitually incorrect, and all the ideas wanting in precision, may we not be induced to believe, that there does exist a defect of harmony in the action of the two hemispheres of the brain? We see inaccurately if nature have not given to both eyes an equal power; we perceive and judge inaccurately in like manner, if the two sides of the brain are naturally dissimilar. The most correct mind, and the soundest judgment, pre-suppose in the hemispheres a perfect harmony of action; and what a multiplicity of shades do we not behold in the operations of the understanding? it is probable that they all of them correspond to so many varieties in the proportions of power in the hemispheres. Could we squint with the brain as we do with the eyes--that is to say, could we receive impressions on one hemisphere only, and form from thence our determinations, we might then command at will, a precision in our intellectual operations; but such a power does not exist.

To the functions of the brain succeed those of locomotion and the voice. The first of these would appear almost to form an exception to the general law. In considering the two vertical halves of the body, we shall perceive that the one is constantly more powerful than the other with respect to the strength and number of its movements. The right half is that, which from custom, is most made use of.

To comprehend the reason of this difference; we must make a difference between strength and agility; strength depends upon the perfection of the organization, on the energy of the nutritive process, on the plenitude of life in the muscular fibre; agility, on the contrary, is the result of habit and frequent exercise.[11]

At present we shall observe, that this disparity of action in the locomotive organs, does not consist in the difference of their actual strength, but in that of the agility, with which these motions are executed.--All is equal in the size, in the number of fibres, and nerves both of the one and the other of the superior, or inferior extremities; the difference of their vascular systems is scarcely any thing. From hence it follows that the discordance does not exist in nature, but that it is the effect of our social habits, which by multiplying our movements on one side of the body, increase their address without much adding to their power. Such in fact are the wants of society, as to call forth a certain number of general movements, which must be performed by all in the same direction, in order to be understood. It is generally agreed, that this direction shall be from left to right. The letters, which form the writing of most nations, are in this way directed; such circumstance occasions the necessity of our using the right hand to form them in preference to the left, the former being as much better adapted to this method, as the latter would be to the contrary one; of this we may convince ourselves by experiment.

The direction of the letters from left to right, imposes on us the necessity also of casting our eyes upon them in the same direction. From this habit acquired in reading, arises that of examining objects in the same manner.

The necessity of similar movements when men are drawn up in line of battle, has induced almost all nations to handle their weapons with their right hands; the harmony too which prevails in the dances of even the most savage people exacts an accord in the limbs, which they constantly preserve by making all their principal movements with the right. We might add to these examples a great variety of others.

The general movements agreed on by society, which, if every one were not to execute them in the same direction, would be creative of much confusion; these movements, I say, by the influence of habit, oblige us for our own particular movements to use the limbs, which they have brought into action. Hence, the members of the right side of the body are perpetually in action either for our own particular wants, or for those which we feel in conjunction with others.

Now, as the habitude of acting, continually tends to the perfection of action, we may perceive the reason, why the right side acquires a greater facility in the performance of many motions than the left. This increased facility is not original, but acquired.

So remarkable a difference then, in the two symmetrical halves of the body, is not by nature meant as an exception to the general law of harmony of action in the external functions; for those movements, which are executed by the whole of the body, are the more precise in proportion to the smallness of the difference existing in the agility of the muscles of the two sides. How happens it that certain animals leap from rock to rock with such admirable precision, where the least deviation from the intended direction, would plunge them into an abyss? how happens it that they run with such astonishing address on planes, which are scarcely equal in breadth to the extremities of their limbs? how happens it that the walk of the very heaviest of animals is never attended with those false steps so frequent in the progression of man? The reason must be, that the difference in their locomotive organs in both sides of the body is scarcely any thing, and that in consequence there must be a constant harmony of action in these organs.

He, whose general movements, or those of the whole of the body are the most perfect, has the least command in particular over those of the right side; for, as I shall prove hereafter, the perfection of a part is never acquired but at the expense of that of the whole. The child, who should be taught to make an equal use of all his limbs, would possess a precision in his general movements, which he would find extremely difficult to acquire for those of the right hand, such as writing or fencing.

I can easily suppose, that some few natural circumstances may have exercised upon us an influence in our choice with respect to the direction of those general motions, which the habits of society have established. Such may be the slight excess of diameter in the right subclavian artery, and the sensation of lassitude during digestion, which is more perceived upon the left side on account of the situation of the stomach, and may therefore have determined us to act at such time upon the opposite side in preference. Such also may be the natural instinct, by which, to express our feelings we carry the right hand to the heart; but these circumstances are trifling in comparison with the very great difference of the movements which from the state of civilization exists between the symmetrical halves of the body; and from this view of the subject, we cannot but regard this difference as the effect of social convention, and by no means the intent of nature.

The voice, together with locomotion, is the last act of the animal life in the natural order of its functions. Now the greater number of physiologists, and Haller in particular, have indicated as the causes of want of harmony in the voice, the dissimilarity of the two portions of the larynx, the inequality of force in the muscles, which move the arytenoid cartilages, the same inequality of action in the nerves, which are distributed to each half of the organ, and the different reflection of sounds in the nostrils and frontal sinuses. Without doubt a defective voice must frequently depend upon a faulty ear; when we hear incorrectly, we sing incorrectly; but when a correct ear is united with a want of precision in the voice, the cause is then in the larynx.

The most harmonious voice is that, which the two portions of the larynx produce in an equal degree; where the vibrations on one side correspond exactly in number, strength and duration with those upon the opposite side.[12] In the same manner the most perfect singing will be produced by two voices exactly similar in tone, compass, and inflection.

From the numerous considerations which I have offered, the following general conclusion may be deduced--namely, that one of the most essential characteristics of the animal life, is a harmony of action in the two analogous parts, or in the two sides of the simple organ concurring to the same end. The relation which exists between this harmony of action, which is the character of the functions, and symmetry of form, which is the attribute of the organs of the animal life, will easily be seen.

I wish to observe in finishing this section, that in pointing out the different derangements, which take place in the animal life, from the want of harmony in the organs, I have only pretended to assign a single isolated cause of such derangements; I am well aware that a thousand other causes besides dissimilarity in the hemispheres of the brain, may affect the operations of the mind.

II. _Of discordance of action in the organic life._

Along with the phenomena of the animal life, let us now consider those of the organic life, and we shall find that harmony has nothing to do with them. Of what detriment would it be to the general health of the individual, should one of his kidneys be stronger than the other, and secrete more urine; should one of his lungs be better unfolded than the other, admit more venous, and send out more arterial blood; should a less organic force be the lot of the salivary glands on one side than on the other side of his body? The simple function, to which both organs concur, would not be performed less perfectly. Whenever but a slight fulness supervenes on one side of the liver, spleen, or pancreas, the sound part makes up for the defect, and the function is little disturbed. The circulation also remains unaltered among the frequent variations in the vascular system of each side of the body, whether such variations exist naturally, or whether they arise from some artificial obliteration of the larger vessels as in aneurism.

Hence we find those numerous irregularities of structure, those malconformations, which as I have said may be remarked in the organic life, and nothing of a morbid nature in consequence arising. From hence we see that almost continual succession of modifications, which lessen or increase the circle of the organic functions. The vital powers, and their exciting causes, are continually varying, and thus occasion a constant instability in the functions of the organs, for a thousand causes may at every moment double or triple the activity of the circulation, and respiration, increase or diminish the quantity of bile, urine, or saliva, and suspend or augment the nutrition of the parts. Hunger, food, sleep, motion, rest, and the passions may all of them impress upon these functions so great a mobility, as every day to make them run through a hundred degrees of strength or weakness.

In the animal life on the contrary, every thing is uniform and constant, the powers of the senses cannot experience these alternate modifications, or at least, not in so marked a manner. Indeed they are at all times in a state of relation with the physical powers, which preside over exterior bodies; now the latter remaining unaltered, such variations would destroy all relative connexion, and thus the functions cease.

Besides, if this mobility, which characterises the organic life, were the attribute of sensation--for the same reason it would be that of all the operations of the mind. In such case of what would man consist? The perpetual sport of every thing surrounding him, he would find his existence at one time little different from that of inanimate matter, at others superior in perfection and energy to that even which he now enjoys, allied at one time to the brute, at another, to spiritual nature.

FOOTNOTES:

[8] This supposition, though no doubt ingenious, is not true. If the want of accuracy of hearing arose in fact from the inequality of the power of the two organs, this defect might be remedied by using but one ear; but experience gives a different result. We shall not discuss, in relation to the same principle of inequality of the organs, the explanation of strabismus; but at least, for every thing that relates to the just appreciation of colours, this principle is no more applicable than to the just appreciation of sounds. I know a man who has never been able to distinguish the _blue of the sky_ from _the green of the sea_, and he succeeds no better by closing one eye.

[9] We cannot, without confounding all the ideas we have formed of the senses, give this name to the memory, imagination and judgment; at the most we might give the name of internal senses to certain sensations which inform us of the particular state of some internal organ, in the same way as the external senses make us acquainted with the properties and state of external bodies.

[10] We cannot conceive how the judgment can be weak or strong, if we do not understand by it that it is habitually accurate or inaccurate. His judgment is sound who usually perceives the true relations between things; and this is independent of the number and variety of the ideas upon which he has to pronounce. The man to whose mind there is presented but a small number of relations, has but little imagination; but if these relations be true, we cannot say that his judgment is weak.

[11] Bichat, in order to retain for the organs of organic life the character of irregularity in the forms which he had assigned to them, has been compelled to avail himself of the inequality of the size of the congenerous organs. He soon repented having established an uniform principle; and in this case for example, he is near being condemned by the very sentence which he has himself pronounced. The locomotive system, in fact, the symmetry of which no person before him thought of denying, is destitute of it according to the principle he has established, since it presents in its two halves an inequality of size and action. In order to avoid this consequence, Bichat has maintained that the inequality of size arose from the inequality of action, and that this was the result, not of an original disposition, but of our social habits only. To prove this assertion, he has been compelled to heap sophism on sophism; he cannot in this case be suspected of a wish to deceive; he was convinced of the truth of the principle, and we know that to prove what is believed to be true, the weakest reasons always seem to be sufficient. But these very errors should be turned to our advantage, by showing us how dangerous is the tendency of generalizing upon every thing, since it was capable of misleading so judicious a mind.

Without stopping to refute in detail all the reasons which he has advanced to support his opinion, we cannot help saying something of them; and in the first place, the difference of size uniformly exists; it is evident that it does not arise from great exercise, since it is found in the infant at birth, and the nourishing artery of the right arm is larger than that of the left. If the right arm be not really stronger than the other, why should we always use it in preference? If we employ it in writing, should we say with Bichat, that it is only because it is better situated to move from left to right, in the order in which the characters of our writing succeed each other; might it not be said, with more reason, that our letters go from left to right, because it is the direction in which the right hand most easily traces them? All this besides relates merely to the form of our characters, since all the oriental languages are written from right to left; yet it is always done with the right hand. Is it still said that the necessity of union in battle has led to the employment of the right arm to hold the weapons, as if the Hurons or Algonquins fought in close ranks like our Grenadiers. If this use of the same arm or the same leg was only conventional, why among some people, is the left side never preferred?

[12] The theory of wind instruments is not yet sufficiently well understood, to enable us to say, what sort of influence would be exerted upon the sound by the inequality of vibrating plates.

(See the article Voice, in my Elements of Physiology, Vol. 2d.)