1726 



HANDBOOK (If PHYSIOLOGY 



NEUROPHYSIOLOGY III 



supposed, l>y way of the vagus. This led Winslow, a 

 few years later, to give the new name "great sympa- 

 thetics' to the large system of nerves connected with 

 the thoracic and abdominal viscera and to suggest 

 that their ganglia might he looked upon as "so many 

 little brains."' 



Obviously influenced by Window's suggestion, 

 Bichat also referred to the ganglia as little brains. He 

 emphasized that functions relating the organism to the 

 external world (animal life) were dependent on the 

 brain and spinal cord, whereas the organs serving 

 internal functions (organic life) derived nerves from 

 ganglions "and with them the principle of their 

 action." Accordingly, he explained, "I shall hence- 

 forward in my descriptions divide the nerves into two 

 great systems, one emanating from the brain, the 

 other from ganglions; the first a single center, the 

 second a very great number." He referred to the 

 latter as the ganglionic nervous system. He developed 

 the argument that everything that pertains to the 

 passions (emotions) pertained to the organic life. He 

 cited how anger affects the heart and circulation, 

 grief the respiration, resentment the stomach and so 

 forth. It therefore followed that the emotions were 

 generated in the internal organs and the 'little brains' 

 controlling them. Consequently, they were beyond the 

 control of the voluntary nervous system. 



The first major break with the doctrine of Bichat 

 came near the end of the nineteenth century, with the 

 demonstration by Gaskell in anatomy and Langley in 

 physiology, that the ganglionic nervous system of 

 Bichat (then more generally referred to as the 'vegeta- 

 tive' or 'involuntary 1 nervous system) was innervated 

 by the cerebrospinal nervous system (61). Their work, 

 however, brought the representation of visceral func- 

 tions no closer than the midbrain to the supposed 

 level of volition and consciousness in the cerebral 

 cortex. It can be argued that the development of 

 psychosomatic medicine v\ as contingent on the demon- 

 tion liv subsequent workers that there was a still 

 higher representation of autonomic function in the 

 hv pothalamic portion oi the diencephalon whose close 

 inatomical relationship with the cortex was well 

 know 11. 



In K|-'i| in the second edition of his book called 

 Bodily Changes m Pain, Hunger, Feat <ni<l Rage, Cannon 

 mm incorporated some of the new findings in regard 

 to the hypothalamus in his well-known emergency 

 theory. Basing his arguments largely on the work of 

 himself, Britton and Bard, he concluded that the 



M11-. -Ii, ni's /' Ihe Autonomii Nervous s 61 



hypothalamus, in conjunction with other parts of the 

 diencephalon, served as a center for the elaboration 

 of the experience and expression of emotion. He 

 believed that the cerebral cortex was concerned with 

 emotion only in so far as it could inhibit the aspects 

 of emotion under voluntary control. 



Cannon saw in his explanation of central mecha- 

 nisms of emotion a number of practical suggestions for 

 therapy. As "the cortex has no direct control over the 

 functions of the viscera, it is useless ... to try to check 

 a racing heart or to low : er a high blood pressure, or to 

 renew the activities of an inhibited digestive system by 

 coldly reasoned demand for different behavior." One 

 alternative was to make use of the discretionary 

 powers of the cerebral cortex. Thus an individual 

 could learn to keep away from situations that precipi- 

 tated his disturbing emotions. Citing Pavlov's work, 

 Cannon also emphasized that the cerebral cortex 

 could inhibit conditioned emotional behavior. Finally, 

 in echoing a conclusion drawn by Breuer & Freud in 

 1895 (g), he noted, "It is an interesting fact that a 

 full explanation of the way in which a trouble has 

 been caused will not infrequently suffice to remove 

 the trouble, promptly and completely." 



In a summing up, Cannon said: 



. . .1 have purposely emphasized the physiological mecha- 

 nisms of emotional disturbances, and for two main reasons. 

 First, I wished to show that these remarkable perturbations 

 could be described in terms of neurone processes. And again, 

 I wished to show that these interesting phenomena need 

 not be set aside as mystical events occurring in the realm of 

 the psyche.' It seemed possible that by emphasis on physio- 

 logical features attention could be drawn to two important 

 reasons for the slighting of emotional troubles, especially 

 by physicians. ... A too common unwillingness among 

 physicians to regard seriously the emotional elements in dis- 

 ease is due perhaps 10 the subtle influence ol two extreme 

 attitudes and disciplines. On the one hand is the powerful 

 impress of morphological pathology, the study of diseased 

 organs as seen alter death. So triumphantly and so generally 

 have the structural alterations which accompany altered 

 functions been demonstrated under the microscope, that 

 any state which has no distinct 'pathology 3 appears to be 

 unreal 01 ol minor significance. Fears, worries and states of 

 rage and resentment leave no clear traces in the brain 

 What linn, have physicians to do with them? On the other 

 hand, these mysterious and dominant feelings which surge 

 up within us from unknown sources are they not pure 

 perturbations of the 'psyche'? In that ease, what again, have 



physicians to do with them?. An escape from the in- 

 sistent demands of the pathologist for structural evidence of 



disease, and also from the vagueness and mysticism of psy- 

 1 hologil al healers, e.m be found in an understanding of the 





