The soul and the brain between anatomy and naturphilo sophie in the early nineteenth century

Medical History

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 1992, Pages 1-33

  Hagner, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRAIN; GERMANY; HISTOLOGY; HISTORY; HISTORY OF MEDICINE; HUMAN; METAPHYSICS; NEUROANATOMY; PHILOSOPHY; RESEARCH;

BRAIN; GERMANY; HISTORY OF MEDICINE, 19TH CENT.; HUMAN; METAPHYSICS; NEUROANATOMY; PHILOSOPHY; RESEARCH; SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T;

EID: 0026479415     PISSN: 00257273     EISSN: 20488343     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0025727300054600     Document Type: Article

References (175)

1. Samuel Thomas Sömmerring, Über das Organ der Seele, Königsberg, Nicolovius, 1796; repr. Amsterdam, Bonset, 1966.
2. Franz Joseph Gall, ‘Des Herrn Dr. F. J. Gall Schreiben über seinen geendigten Prodromus über die Verrichtungen des Gehirns der Menschen und der Thiere, an Herrn Jos. Fr. von Retzer’, Neuer Teutscher Merkur, 1798, 12: 311–32.
3. Franz Joseph Gall: Naturforscher und Anthropologe, ed. Erna Lesky, Bern, Hans Huber, 1979, pp. 47–59.
4. See Max Neuburger, Die historische Entwicklung der experimentellen Gehirnund Rücken-marksphysiologie vor Flourens, Stuttgart, Enke, 1897, p. 125;
5. Walther Riese, ‘The 150th anniversary of S. T. Soemmerring's Organ of the Soul: the reaction of his contemporaries and its significance today'. Bull. Hist. Med., 1946, 20: 310–21, p. 311;
6. Heinz Schott, ‘Das Gehirn als “Organ der Seele”: Anatomische und physiologische Vorstellungen im 19. Jahrhundert. Ein Überblick’, Phil. Nat., 1987, 24: 3–14, p. 4;
7. Claudio Pogliano, ‘Between form and function:a new science of man’, in Pietro Corsi (ed.), The mill of thought: from the art of memory to the neurosciences, Milan, Electa, 1989, pp. 144–57, on p. 147.
8. Helmke Schierhorn, ‘Samuel Thomas Soemmerring (1755–1830) als Neuroanatom’, Z. mikrosk. -anat. Forsch., 1980, 94: 1051–76.
9. A more discriminating view is expressed in the various contributions to the volume Gehirn, Nerven, Seele: Anatomie und Physiologie im Umfeld S. Th. Soemmerrings, Soemmerring-Forschungen 3, ed. Gunter Mann and Franz Dumont, Stuttgart and New York, Gustav Fischer, 1988.
10. Neuburger, for example, regarded Gall as the founder of localization theory. Cf. Max Neuburger, ‘Briefe Galls an Andreas und Nannette Streicher’, Sudhoffs Arch., 1916–17, 10: 3–70, p. 3.
11. Erwin H. Ackerknecht and Henri Vallois, Franz Joseph Gall: inventor of phrenology and his collection, Madison, University of Wisconsin Medical School, 1956, p. 13.
12. Other important studies on Gall are Owsei Temkin, ‘Gall and the phrenological movement’, Bull. Hist. Med., 1947, 21: 275-321;
13. Ema Lesky, ‘Gall und Herder’, Clio Medica, 1967, 2: 85-96;
14. idem, ‘Structure and function in Gall’, Bull. Hist. Med., 1970, 44: 297–314.
15. Walther Riese and Ebbe C. Hoff, ‘A history of the doctrine of cerebral localization: sources, anticipations, and basic reasoning’, J. Hist. Med., 1950, 5: 51–71, p. 60.
16. Ministry of Health.; Judith P. Swazey, ‘Action propre and action commune: the localization of cerebral function’, J. Hist. Biol., 1970, 3: 213-234;
17. Edwin Clarke and L. Steven Jacyna, Nineteenth-century origins of neuroscientific concepts, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1987, pp. 241–244.
18. Anne Harrington, ‘Beyond phrenology: localization theory in the modern era’, in Corsi, University of Cambridge, note 3 above, pp. 206–14, on p. 206. Harrington focuses on the discussion from the mid-century onward, but the same is true for the earlier period.
19. This problem was analysed by William F. Bynum, ‘The anatomical method, natural theology, and the functions of the brain’, Isis, 1973, 64: 445–468;
20. idem, ‘Varieties of Cartesian experience in early nineteenth century neurophysiology’, in S. F. Spicker and H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. (eds), Philosophical dimensions of the neuro-medical sciences, Dordrecht and Boston, Reidel, 1976, pp. 15–33.
21. Useful studies on Rudolphi's life and works are Johannes Müller, ‘Gedächtnisrede auf Carl Asmund Rudolphi’, in Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Aus dem Jahre 1835, Berlin 1837, pp. xviii-xxxviii; Mauritz Dittrich, ‘Die Bedeutung von Karl Asmund Rudolphi (1771–1832) für die Entwicklung der Medizin und Naturwissenschaften in Berlin im 19. Jahrhundert’, Wiss. Z. Univ. Greifswald, math.-naturwiss. Reihe, 1967, 16: 249–77. On Meckel's biography see Rudolf Beneke, Johann Friedrich Meckel der Jüngere, Halle, Niemeyer, 1934.
22. Cf. Werner Krauss, Zur Anthropologie des 18. Jahrhunderts. Die Frühgeschichte der Menschheit im Blickpunkt der Aufklärung, Ullstein Materialien 35248, Frankfurt a. M. and Berlin, Ullstein, 1987, p. 11.
23. On Herder's philosophy and anthropology see H. B. Nisbet, Herder and the philosophy and history of science, Cambridge, Modern Humanities Research Association, 1970; Manfred Wenzel, ‘Die Anthropologie Johann Gottfried Herders und das klassische Humanitätsideal’, in Gunter Mann and Franz Dumont (eds), Die Natur des Menschen: Probleme der Physischen Anthropologie und Rassenkunde (1750–1850), Soemmerring-Forschungen 6, Stuttgart and New York, Gustav Fischer, 1990, pp. 137–67.
24. Johann Gottfried Herder, Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit, in Werke, ed. Heinrich Kurz, Leipzig, Bibliographisches Institut, 1884, vol. 3, pp. 93–94.
25. Ministry of Health., p. 99–100.
26. Ministry of Health., p. 98.
27. For Burdach's life see his autobiography: Karl Friedrich Burdach, Rückblick auf mein Leben: Selbstbiographie, Leipzig, Leopold Voss, 1848; on Carus see Wolfgang Genschorek, Carl Gustav Carus. Arzt, Künstler, Naturforscher, 2nd ed., Leipzig, Hirzel, 1980.
28. Albrecht Von Haller, Element a physiologicae corporis humani, vol. 4, Cerebrum, Nervi, Musculi, Lausanne, Bousquet, 1762, pp. 39–43.
29. Soemmerring was harshly criticized in an anonymous review of his book for this negligence: ‘Ueber Sömmerrings Entdeckungen das Organ der Seele betreffend’, Journal der Erfindungen, Theorien und Widersprüche in der Natur und Arzneiwissenschaft, 1796, 5 (18): 3–55, on p. 30.
30. Soemmerring, University of Cambridge, note 1 above, pp. 10–12.
31. Idem, Vom Baue des menschlichen Körpers, Frankfurt, Varrentrapp & Wenner, 5 vols, 1791–96, vol. 5, pt. 1, 1791, pp. 48–9, 87.
32. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 1 above, pp. 17–18.
33. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 1 above, pp. 30.
34. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 1 above, pp. 23.
35. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 1 above, pp. 51.
36. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 1 above, pp. 52.
37. For details see Paul Julius Möbius, Franz Joseph Gall, in Ausgewählte Werke, 7 vols, Leipzig, Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1903–05, vol. 7, pp. 59-63; Bynum, ‘Varieties’, University of Cambridge, note 9 above, p. 29.
38. Soemmerring, University of Cambridge, note 1 above, p. 37.
39. Cf. Timothy Lenoir, ‘Kant, Blumenbach, and vital materialism in German biology’, Isis, 1980, 71: 77–108.
40. Immanuel Kant: Kritik der Urteilskraft, (§ 65). in Werke, 4th ed., 10 vols, ed. Wilhelm Weischedel, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975, vol. 8, pp. 483–8.
41. For details see Lenoir, University of Cambridge, note 23 above; idem, The strategy of life: teleology and mechanics in nineteenth-century German biology, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, 1989, pp. 24–30.
42. Soemmerring, University of Cambridge, note 1 above, p. 41.
43. Ministry of Health., pp. 58–60.
44. Cf. Werner Friedrich Kümmel, ‘Alexander von Humboldt und Soemmerring: das galvanische Phänomen und das Problem des Lebendigen’, in Gunter Mann and Franz Dumont (eds), Samuel Thomas Soemmerring und die Gelehrten der Goethezeit, Soemmerring-Forschungen 1, Stuttgart and New York, Gustav Fischer, 1985, pp. 73–87.
45. Samuel Thomas Soemmerring, Über die Körperliche Verschiedenheit des Mohren vom Europäer, Mainz, 1784, pp. 16–20.
46. Samuel Thomas Soemmerring, Über die Körperliche Verschiedenheit des Mohren vom Europäer, Mainz, 1784, pp. 24.
47. For a full account of Soemmerring's anthropology cf. Georg Lilienthal, ‘Samuel Thomas Soemmerring und seine Vorstellungen über Rassenunterschiede’, in Mann and Dumont, University of Cambridge, note 12 above, pp. 31–55.
48. Cf. Goethe und Soemmerring. Briefwechsel 1784–1828, ed. Manfred Wenzel, Soemmerring-Forschungen 5, Stuttgart and New York, Gustav Fischer, 1988, pp. 106–7.
49. For an analysis of Kant's epilogue see Riese, University of Cambridge, note 3 above, pp. 315-17; Riese and Hoff, University of Cambridge, note 6 above, pp. 59-61;
50. Peter McLaughlin, ‘Soemmerring und Kant: Über das Organ der Seele und den Streit der Fakultäten’, in Mann and Dumont, University of Cambridge, note 32 above, pp. 191–201.
51. Soemmerring, University of Cambridge, note 1 above, pp. 81–2. In this context Kant's notion of the “battle of the faculties” does not have the political implications that it had for his book with the same title, published two years later: Der Streit der Fakultäten, Königsberg, Nicolovius, 1798.
52. Soemmerring, University of Cambridge, note 1 above, p. 82.
53. Ministry of Health., p. 86: “Nun kann die Seele sich nur durch den inneren Sinn, den Körper aber (es sey inwendig oder äuβerlich) nur durch äuβere Sinne wahrnehmen, mithin sich selbst keinen Ort bestimmen, weil sie sich zu diesem Behuf zum Gegenstand ihrer äuβeren Anschauung machen und sich auβer sich selbst versetzen müβte; welches sich widerspricht.”
54. Ministry of Health., p. 84: “Flüssig ist eine stetige Materie, deren jeder Theil innerhalb dem Raum, den diese einnimmt, durch die kleinste Kraft aus ihrer Stelle bewegt werden kann. Diese Eigenschaft scheint aber dem Begriff einer organisirten Materie zu widersprechen, welche man sich als Maschine, mithin als starre, dem Verrücken ihrer Theile (mithin auch der Änderung ihrer inneren Configuration) mit einer gewissen Kraft widerstehende Materie denkt.”
55. Ministry of Health., pp. 84–5.
56. Kritik der reinen Vernunft, in Werke, University of Cambridge, note 29 above, vol. 3, p. 64.
57. On this point cf. McLaughlin, University of Cambridge, note 37 above, pp. 198–200.
58. Cf. Erich Ebstein, ‘Franz Joseph Gall im Kampf um seine Lehre auf Grund unbekannter Briefe an Bertuch usw. sowie im Urteile seiner Zeitgenossen’, in Charles Singer and Henry E. Sigerist (eds), Essays on the history of medicine: presented to Karl Sudhoff on the occasion of his seventieth birthday November 26th 1923, London and Zurich, Oxford University Press and Seldwyla, 1924, pp. 269-322;
59. Gunter Mann, ‘Franz Joseph Galls kranioskopische Reise durch Europa (1805–1807): Fundierung und Rechtfertigung neuer Wissenschaft’, Nachrichtenbl. dt. Ges. Gesch. Med., Naturwiss. Tech., 1985, 34: 86–114.
60. On the metaphysical and cultural background of Flourens’ criticism see Clarke and Jacyna, University of Cambridge, note 7 above, pp. 267–85.
61. The agreements between Gall and Flourens were pointed out by Bynum, ‘Varieties’, University of Cambridge, note 9 above, pp. 27–30.
62. On Gall's scientific reception in Germany see Martin Blankenburg, ‘Seelengespenster. Zur deutschen Rezeption von Physiognomik und Phrenologie im 19. Jahrhundert. Versuch einer historischen Sondierung’, in Mann and Dumont, University of Cambridge, note 4 above, pp. 211–37, on pp. 215–20.
63. Besides the authors mentioned in note 5 above see Robert M. Young, Mind, brain and adaptation in the nineteenth century: cerebral localization and its biological context from Gall to Ferrier, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1970, pp. 9–53.
64. Cited from Lesky, University of Cambridge, note 2 above, p. 50.
65. Cited from Lesky, University of Cambridge, note 2 above, p. 53.
66. Franz Joseph Gall and Johann Caspar Spurzheim, Untersuchungen über die Anatomie des Nervensystems überhaupt, und des Gehirns insbesondere. Ein dem französischen Institut überreichtes Mémoire, Paris and Strassburg, Treuttel & Würtz, 1809, p. 421.
67. Lesky, University of Cambridge, note 2 above, p. 155.
68. Ministry of Health., pp. 55–6.
69. Karl Asmund Rudolphi, Bemerkungen aus dem Gebiet der Naturgeschichte, Medicin und Thierarzneykunde, auf einer Reise durch einen Theil von Deutschland, Holland und Frankreich gesammelt, 2 op. vols, Berlin, Realschulbuchhandlung, 1804–5, vol. 2, p. 151. Fifteen years later Gall repeated similar statements in a letter (15 August 1820) to the anatomist Justus Christian Loder (1753–1832). See Ebstein, cit., note 35 above, p. 315.
70. Cited from Lesky, University of Cambridge, note 2 above, p. 51.
71. Cited from Lesky, University of Cambridge, note 2 above, p. 52.
72. Gall to Andreas and Nannette Streicher, 19 October 1824. In Neuburger, University of Cambridge, note 5 above, p. 35.
73. Cited from Lesky, University of Cambridge, note 2 above, p. 73. Although I argue that Gall was a materialist, I agree with Riese and Hoff that cerebral localization is not necessarily connected to materialism, because the former “is not concerned with the problem of the nature of this mutual relationship”. Cf. Riese and Hoff, University of Cambridge, note 6 above, p. 62.
74. Albrecht Von Haller, ‘Vorrede zum 1. Theile der allgemeinen Historic der Natur’, in Sammlung kleiner Hallerischer Schriften, 2nd ed., 3 vols, Bern, Emmanuel Haller, 1772, vol. 1, pp. 47–77.
75. Karl Asmund Rudolphi, Beyträ ge zur Anthropologie und allgemeinen Naturgeschichte, Berlin, Haude & Spener, 1812, pp. 41–42.
76. On the Ideologues see Owsei Temkin, ‘The philosophical background of Magendie's physiology’, Bull. Hist. Med., 1946, 20: 10-35;
77. George Rosen, ‘The philosophy of ideology and the emergence of modern medicine in France’, Ministry of Health., 328-339;
78. Erwin H. Ackerknecht, ‘Elisha Bartlett and the Philosophy of the Paris Clinical School’, Bull. Hist. Med., 1950, 24: 43–60.
79. Cf. Erna Lesky, ‘Cabanis und die Gewiβheit in der Heilkunde’, Gesnerus, 1954, 11: 152–82.
80. For a more detailed analysis of the relationship between Rudolphi and Soemmerring see Michael Hagner, ‘Soemmerring, Rudolphi und die Anatomie des Seelenorgans: “Empirischer Skeptizismus” um 1800’, Medizinhist. J., 1990, 25: 211–33.
81. Karl Asmund Rudolphi, Anatomisch-physiologische Abhandlungen, Berlin, Realschulbuchhandlung, 1802, p. 181.
82. Karl Asmund Rudolphi, Anatomisch-physiologische Abhandlungen, Berlin, Realschulbuchhandlung, 1802, p. 175.
83. Karl Asmund Rudolphi, Anatomisch-physiologische Abhandlungen, Berlin, Realschulbuchhandlung, 1802, p. 163.
84. Karl Asmund Rudolphi, Anatomisch-physiologische Abhandlungen, Berlin, Realschulbuchhandlung, 1802, p. 187.
85. Karl Asmund Rudolphi, Anatomisch-physiologische Abhandlungen, Berlin, Realschulbuchhandlung, 1802, p. 189.
86. Rudolphi, University of Cambridge, note 56 above, p. 164.
87. Rudolphi, University of Cambridge, note 56 above, p. 164.
88. Rudolphi, University of Cambridge, note 56 above, p. 158.
89. Rudolphi was even cautious in comparing the brains of quadrupeds and men in relation to form and function. See Ministry of Health., pp. 158–9.
90. Rudolphi was even cautious in comparing the brains of quadrupeds and men in relation to form and function. See Ministry of Health., pp. 155.
91. On Pestalozzi see Michael Heafford, Pestalozzi: his thought and its relevance today, London, Barnes & Noble, 1967. A useful overview with extensive quotations is presented by Theodor Ballauff and Klaus
92. Schaller, Pädagogik: eine Geschichte der Bildung und Erziehung, 3 vols, Freiburg and Munich, Karl Alber, 1969–73, vol. 2, Vom 16. Jahrhundert bis zum 19. Jahrhundert, 1970. pp. 480–9.
93. Rudolphi, University of Cambridge, note 56 above, pp. 137–46.
94. Rudolphi, University of Cambridge, note 56 above, pp. 145.
95. Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, Fragment über die Grundlagen der Bildung, 1803. Cited from Ballauf and Schaller, University of Cambridge, note 77 above, p. 480.
96. Rudolphi also published a volume of poetry, in which he praised the ideals of Enlightenment: Gedichte, Berlin and Greifswald, Reimer, 1798.
97. Lavater's most influential work was Physiognomische Fragmente zur Beförderung der Menschenkenntnis und Menschenliebe, 4 vols, Leipzig and Winterthur, Weidmanns Erben & Reich and Heinrich Steiner, 1775–78.
98. Lichtenberg (1742–1799) had written a furious attack against Lavater: Über Physiognomik wider die Physiognomen zur Beförderung der Menschenliebe und Menschenkenntnis, Göttingen, Dieterich, 1778.
99. Rudolphi, University of Cambridge, note 56 above, p. 183.
100. Ministry of Health., p. 165–6.
101. Cf. Temkin, University of Cambridge, note 5 above, pp. 286-288; and Pogliano, University of Cambridge, note 3 above, p. 153.
102. Rudolphi's persisting interest in pedagogy coincides with his call to the Berlin University in 1810 through the agency of Wilhelm von Humboldt. In an unpublished letter to Humboldt, Rudolphi pointed out that he was in full agreement with the so-called Bildungsprogramm; and he was quickly engaged in its practical realization. He made suggestions for the Promotionsordnung, and, more importantly, was a member of the commission drawing up the statutes for the University together with Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), Karl Friedrich von Savigny (1779–1861), and August Boeckh (1785–1867). I am preparing a more detailed study on Rudolphi's role in the building of the University and the Anatomical Institute in particular.
103. There has been no general study on Meckel's contribution to anatomy and physiology. Some aspects are treated in Beneke, University of Cambridge, note 10 above, pp. 63-117; and Lenoir, 1989, University of Cambridge, note 29 above, pp. 56–61.
104. Archiv für die Physiologie, 1795–1811, vols 1–11. From 1807 Johann Heinrich Ferdinand Autenrieth (1772–1835) was Reil's co-editor; he also edited a final volume (12) in 1815.
105. Deutsches Archiv für die Physiologie, 1815–25, vols 1–11. In 1826 Meckel renamed it the Archiv für Anatomie und Physiologie, 1826–32, vols 1–7.
106. Reil himself did not, however, publish on animal magnetism: his attitude to it is analysed by Heinz Schott, ‘Zum Begriff des Seelenorgans bei Johann Christian Reil (1759–1813)’, in Mann and Dumont, University of Cambridge, note 4 above, pp. 183–210.
107. Deutsches Archiv für die Physiologie, 1815, 1: iv.
108. Johann Friedrich Meckel, ‘Versuch einer Entwicklungsgeschichte der Centraltheile des Nervensystems in den Säugethieren’, Ministry of Health., pp. 1–108.
109. Idem, Handbuch der menschlichen Anatomie, 4 vols, Halle and Berlin, Buchhandlung des Hallischen Waisenhauses, 1815–20.
110. Ministry of Health., vol. 3, 1819, pp. 520–35.
111. Ministry of Health., vol. 1,1815, pp. 288–9. Meckel—in agreement with Gall—speculated that it was the grey matter, but he did not insist upon this.
112. Ministry of Health., vol. 1,1815, pp. 315. Meckel—in agreement with Gall—speculated that it was the grey matter, but he did not insist upon this.
113. Ministry of Health., vol. 1,1815, pp. 327. Meckel—in agreement with Gall—speculated that it was the grey matter, but he did not insist upon this.
114. Ministry of Health., p. 328. By textura Meckel meant the smallest elements of the nerve system, the Kügelchen, which were discovered by Giovanni Maria della Torre (1713–1782).
115. Ministry of Health., p. 328. By textura Meckel meant the smallest elements of the nerve system, the Kügelchen, which were discovered by Giovanni Maria della Torre (1713–1782).
116. Concerning the complex problems of localization in the mid-nineteenth century see Anne Harrington, Medicine, mind, and the double brain: a study in nineteenth-century thought, Princeton University Press, 1984.
117. Kenneth L. Caneva, ‘Teleology with regrets’, Ann. Sci., 1990, 47: 291–300.
118. Guenter B. Risse, ‘Kant, Schelling and the early search for a philosophical “science” of medicine in Germany’, J. Hist. Med., 1972, 27: 145-158;
119. Dietrich Von Engelhardt, ‘Romantische Naturforschung’, in Historisches Bewuβtsein in der Naturwissenschaft von der Aufklärung bis zum Positivismus, Freiburg and Munich, Alber, 1979, pp. 105–57.
120. Robert S. Cohen and Marx W. Wartofsky (eds), Hegel and the sciences, Dordrecht and Boston, Reidel, 1984.
121. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Ideas for a philosophy of nature as introduction to the study of this science, 1797. Second edition 1803, transl. Erroi E. Harris and Peter Heath, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 42.
122. In this context I have to neglect various naturphilosophisch concepts of Johann Joseph Doemling (1771–1803), Jakob Fidelis Ackermann (1765–1815), and Ignaz Doellinger (1770–1841).
123. Schelling, University of Cambridge, note 107 above, p. 40.
124. Schelling, University of Cambridge, note 107 above, p. 40.
125. Idem, Von der Weltseele, eine Hypothese der höheren Physik zur Erklärung des allgemeinen Organismus, 1798, in Sämmtliche Werke, ed. K. F. A. Schelling, 1. Abth., 10 vols, Stuttgart and Augsburg, Cotta, 1856–61, vol. 2, 1857, pp. 345–583, on p. 564.
126. On Schellings's opposition to Kant and its relevance for the development of Naturphilosophie see Frederick Gregory, ‘Kant's influence on natural scientists in the German Romantic period’, in New trends in the history of science: proceedings of a conference held at the University of Utrecht, R. P. W. Visser et al. (eds), Amsterdam, Rodopi, 1989, pp. 53-66;
127. idem, ‘Kant, Schelling, and the administration of science in the Romantic era’, Osiris, 2nd ser., 1989, 6: 17–35.
128. Burdach, University of Cambridge, note 16 above, p. 363. On Burdach's contribution to brain research see Kurt Feremutsch, ‘Organ der Seele: Beitrag zur Geschichte der romantischen Medizin nach den Werken Karl Friedrich Burdachs (1776–1847)’, Mschr. Psych. Neur., 1953, 125: 371-385;
129. idem, ‘Anthropologisch-ontologische Aspekte in Karl Friedrich Burdachs Werk “ Vom Baue und Leben des Gehirns’”, Schw. med. Wschr., 1978, 108: 418-422;
130. Alfred Meyer, ‘Karl Friedrich Burdach and his place in the history of neuroanatomy’, J. Neurol., Neurosurg. Psychiat., 1966, 3: 109–16.
131. Karl Friedrich Burdach, Die Physiologie, Leipzig, Weidmannische Buchhandlung, 1810.
132. Idem, Vom Baue und Leben des Gehirns, 3 vols, Leipzig, Dyk's che Buchhandlung, 1819–26.
133. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 115 above, p. 2.
134. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 115 above, p. 7.
135. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 115 above, p. 9.
136. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 115 above, p. 17.
137. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 115 above, p. 769.
138. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 115 above, p. 774.
139. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 115 above, p. 785.
140. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 115 above, p. 786.
141. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 115 above, p. 787.
142. Burdach, University of Cambridge, note 116 above, vol. 2, 1822, pp. 191–243. On Burdach's role as a historian of neuroanatomy see Alfred Meyer, ‘Karl Friedrich Burdach on Thomas Willis’, J. neurol. Sci., 1966, 3: 109–16.
143. Burdach, University of Cambridge, note 116 above, vol. 2, 1822, p. 229.
144. Burdach, University of Cambridge, note 116 above, vol. 2, 1822, p. 208.
145. Burdach, University of Cambridge, note 116 above, vol. 2, 1822, p. 225.
146. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 116 above, vol. 3, 1826, p. 159.
147. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 116 above, vol. 3, 1826, p. 160.
148. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 116 above, vol. 3, 1826, p. 153.
149. Ministry of Health., pp. 268–9.
150. Ministry of Health., 269.
151. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 116 above, vol. 1, 1819, p. 8.
152. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 116 above, vol. 1, 1819, p. 4.
153. Idem, University of Cambridge, note 116 above, vol. 1, 1819, p. 15.
154. Cf. Carl Gustav Carus, Lebenserinnerungen und Denkwürdigkeiten. Erster Theil, Leipzig, Brockhaus, 1865, p. 24. See also the passage about Carus in Burdach's autobiography: University of Cambridge, note 16 above, pp. 334–335.
155. Carl Gustav Carus, Versuch einer Darstellung des Nervensystems und insbesondere des Gehirns nach ihrer Bedeutung, Entwicklung und Vollendung im thierischen Organismus, Leipzig, Breitkopf & Härtel, 1814. Carus's neuroanatomy is analysed by Kurt Feremutsch, ‘Die Grundzüge der Hirnanatomie bei Carl Gustav Carus (1789-1869): ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Medizin und Naturwissenschaften des beginnenden 19. Jahrhunderts’, Centaurus, 1951–1953, 2: 52–85.
156. Burdach wrote enthusiastically about Carus's work, although he admitted that he had problems with some of his ideas (see note 138 below). Cf. Burdach, University of Cambridge, note 116 above, vol. 2, 1822, pp. 235–6.
157. On the relation of Burdach's and Carus's brain theories see Stefano Poggi, ‘Mind and brain in medical thought during the Romantic period’, Hist. Phil. Life Sci., 1988, 10: suppl., 41–53.
158. Carus, University of Cambridge, note 141 above, p. iv.
159. Carus, University of Cambridge, note 141 above, p. 5.
160. Carus, University of Cambridge, note 141 above, p. 14.
161. Carus, University of Cambridge, note 141 above, p. 11.
162. Carus, University of Cambridge, note 141 above, p. 20.
163. Ministry of Health., p. 50. At the same time Carus did not hesitate to localize the visual and auditory systems in the brain.
164. Ministry of Health., p. 301. At the same time Carus did not hesitate to localize the visual and auditory systems in the brain.
165. It is not surprising that Burdach's main criticism of Carus was directed at this point: he thought that Carus should have considered the human brain more seriously. See Burdach, University of Cambridge, note 116 above, vol. 2, 1822, pp. 235–6.
166. Carus, University of Cambridge, note 141 above, p. 310.
167. Burdach, University of Cambridge, note 116 above, vol. 3, 1826, p. 153.
168. The other anatomists were Adolf Wilhelm Otto (1786–1845) in Breslau; August Franz Joseph Karl Mayer (1787–1865) in Bonn; and Friedrich Christian Rosenthal (1779–1829) in Greifswald.
169. Cf. Wolfgang Bargmann, ‘Zur Geschichte der Anatomie in Königsberg (Pr.) bis zum Jahre 1860’, Anat. Anz., 1943, 94: 161–208.
170. Burdach, University of Cambridge, note 16 above, pp. 299–300.
171. In this context it would be interesting to examine Burdach's Die Physiologie als Erfahrungswissen-schaft, 6 vols, Leipzig, L. Voss, 1826–40, in which he collaborated with younger scientists like Karl Ernst von Baer (1792–1876), Johannes Muller (1801–1858), Heinrich Rathke (1793–1860), and others.
172. I have borrowed the term from Bynum, ‘Varieties’, University of Cambridge, note 9 above, p. 29.
173. The relation of human nature and anthropology is the subject of Mann and Dumont, University of Cambridge, note 12 above. See also Pogliano, University of Cambridge, note 3 above.
174. On Gall's fatalism see Temkin, University of Cambridge, note 5 above, pp. 300–7.
175. I completely agree with Brigitte Lohff, who argues that in general naturphilosophisch physiology should be seen as a search for a new basic methodology in science, and as such was a necessary precursor of biophysical physiology: Die Suche nach der Wissenschaftlichkeit der Physiologie in der eit der Zomantik: ein Beitrag zur Erkenntnisphilosophie der Medizin, Stuttgart and New York, Gustav Fischer, 1990.