1815.] Intellectual Functions of Man and Animals. 33 
reducing it to a mere assertion. The conclusion, however, is in- 
accurate ; for even if palsy were just a loss of volition, it would be 
by no means wonderful if the functions of the cerebellum were de- 
ranged by an injury of the cerebrum, since two immediately con- 
tiguous and intimately connected organs must powerfully influence 
each other. Dr. Cross must be aware that even remote organs 
evidence this sympathy ; and it may even to himself have happened, 
that a deranged state, for instance, of the Doctor’s bowels may have 
caused an affection of his head; but surely the Doctor would not 
therefore conclude that the cause of the derangement was in his 
head, Just so it is, that no derangement of volition caused by © 
injury of the cerebrum is any proof that the cerebrum is the seat 
of volition. So much for one half of the Doctor’s proof. In the 
other, he humbly submits that palsy is just a loss of volition. I 
reply that palsy is no such thing ; and as the Doctor is fond of logic, 
I shall give him my proof in a logical form.—We cannot be con- 
scious of any mental act unless that act exist; but volition is a 
mental act of which the patient is conscious in palsy ; therefore 
palsy is not just a loss of volition ! 
Having thus, I believe satisfactorily, replied to the Doctor’s 
argument against me, I must notice the claim which he sets up for 
himself. He has discovered, he says, that “ the cerebellum sup- 
plies the face with nervous energy ;” and of me he asserts “ that 
there is not even the smallest hint, from the Leginning to the end of 
his tract, that could a¢ ail lead in the smallest degree towards this 
discovery.”” Now as that and the succeeding tract show, in great 
latitude and detail, that all muscular parts are supplied with nerves 
from the cerebellum or the posterior columns of the spinal marrow, 
and more especially that all those encephalic nerves which supply 
muscles of the face have at least one origin directly from the cere 
bellum, it is difficult to conceive how any Gentleman could venture 
to make so anxiously tautologous and obviously untrue an assertion 
as the preceding. In these tracts, I have said, “‘ Like these (the 
spinal nerves), all the encephalic nerves have two portions—a cere- 
bral and a cerelellic, except the first, second,” &c.—p. 175; and 
* The transverse bands (these are the pons varolii, the narrower and 
flatter band of Spurzheim immediately below it, and the much 
broader and radiating but perfectly flat band below that, which was 
first pointed out by myself ) seem uniformly to serve the purpose of 
conducting the cerelellic origins of the nerves;”—p. 179. With 
regard to that encephalic nerve in particular which is by way of pre- 
eminence named facial, Ihave demonstrated the remarkable course 
of its two portions, cerebral and cerebellic, overlooked by all other 
anatomists—p. 148; and I have done the same with regard to seve- 
ral other nerves. These I think are proofs sufficiently ample to 
show how far the face (though opposed, in the sense above ex- 
plained, to the cerebellum, that is in so far as it contains the organs 
of sense, and not as it is furnished with muscles) is yet dependent 
on the cerebellum for the supply of its muscular parts. These proots 
Vox, VI, N° I, ' ° Cc 
