594 DIGESTION 



on carefully repeating the experiments announced, that, after this ope- 

 ration, the digestive process was entirely suspended. 1 The result of these 

 experiments was, however, contested by several physiologists of eminence, 

 who affirmed, that, after the division of the eighth pair, digestion continued 

 nearly in the natural state, or, at most, was only slightly impeded. Mr. 

 Broughton 2 asserted, that he had made the section on eleven rabbits? 

 one dog, and two horses ; and that digestion was not destroyed. M, 

 Magendie 3 expresses his belief, that the arrest of chymification, where it 

 was observed, was owing to the disturbance of respiration caused by 

 the division of the nerves ; and he states that digestion continued when 

 care was taken to cut the nerve within the thorax, lower down than 

 the part which furnishes the pulmonary branch. MM. Leuret and 

 Lassaigne assert, 4 that they found chymification continue, notwith- 

 standing the division of these nerves ; and Dr. G. C. Holland 5 thinks 

 he has proved, that the suspension of the digestive function is not pro- 

 duced by the influence of the nerves being withdrawn from the stomach, 

 but by the disturbance of the circulatory system ; for when the natural 

 conditions of this system were maintained, after the division of the 

 nerves, the function of digestion still continued to be properly per- 

 formed ; showing that the nervous connexion between the brain and 

 stomach is not essential to the process of digestion, the secretion of the 

 gastric solvent, or the possession of contractility by the muscular fibres 

 of the stomach. 



In opposition to these experiments, those of M. Dupuytren may be 

 adduced. He divided, separately, the portions of the eighth distri- 

 buted to the pulmonary, circulatory, and digestive apparatuses, and 

 always found, when the section was made below the pulmonary plexus, 

 that chymification was suspended. But how are we to explain the dis- 

 crepancy between these results, and those of Messrs. Broughton and 

 Magendie ? M. Adelon 6 has supposed, that as the eighth pair is not the 

 only nerve distributed to the stomach, the great sympathetic sending 

 numerous filaments to it, these filaments, in the experiments of Messrs, 

 Broughton and Magendie, might have been sufficient to keep up for 

 some time the chymifying action of the stomach ; and, again, he sug- 

 gests, whether the nervous influence may not have still persisted for a 

 time after the section of the nerve, like other nervous influences, which, 

 he conceives, continue for some time even after death ; and lastly, he 

 thinks it probable, that, in the cases in which chymification continued, 

 the experiment was badly performed. Most of these reasons, however, 

 would apply with as much force to the experiments on the other side of 

 the question. Why were not the agency of the great sympathetic, and 

 the continuance of the nervous influence for some time after the section 

 of the nerve, evidenced in the experiments of Dupuytren, Wilson Philip, 

 Hastings, and others ? 



1 Ley, in App. to Laryngismus Stridulus, p. 447, Lond., 1836. 



2 Ibid., x. 292. 3 Precis, &c., ii. 102. 



4 Edinburgh Med. and Surg. Journal, xciii. 365 ; and Recherches sur la Digestion, Paris, 

 1825. 



5 Inquiry into the Principles, &c., of Medicine, i. 444, Lond., 1834. 



6 Physiologic de 1'Homme, &c., 2de edit., vol. ii. Paris, 1829. 



