GHL to Robert Lytton, London, 25 May 1869
Title
GHL to Robert Lytton, London, 25 May 1869
Title
GHL to Robert Lytton, London, 25 May 1869
Sender
George Henry Lewes
Recipient
Robert Lyt
Date(s)
- 1869-05-25
Place
London
Letter Content
GHL to Robert Lytton, London, 25 May 1869
MS: Lady Hermione Cobbold.
The Priory 21 North Bank N.W. | 25 May 1869.
My dear Lytton
I should have replied at once to the long and very interesting letter you took the trouble of writing, but alas! my time has been occupied in a melancholy manner. My second son has just returned from Africa with a disease of the spinal cord, and although we are not without hopes of a recovery, since he is young and vigorous, yet under the most favorable circumstances it will be a long time before he will get about. Paget thought very seriously of the case at first; but the rapid improvement which has followed complete rest and careful treatment has given more hope. It has been a serious affliction to us to witness his pain -- when the attacks come on he yells with agony. Mrs. Lewes, always of an apprehensive and easily agitated nature, is of course much tried by this; and our time is mainly devoted to amusing and watching him.
You will see from this that there is no chance of our invading you at Vienna this year; though some time or other I certainly mean my wife to get a fuller knowledge of that attractive city. I was there 30 years ago for some months, and we were both there for a few days in 1859, leaving it with the intention of speedily revisiting it! The presence of you and your wife will be an extra attraction, but you must not think us too [sauvage] if we go to an hotel in lieu of accepting your most friendly invitation. The fact is we resist all such friendly attentions whenever it can be done without offence, and I am sure you won't be offended. The more we can see of you the pleasanter, but let the hedgehogs roll themselves up in their own nests!
Apropos of Meynert, 855 I should indeed be glad to see him and discuss many points with him. Respecting the functions of nerve cells however I cannot help the conviction that he is altogether on a wrong tack. Ever since Owjanniskow 856 and Jacubowitch 857 started the idea of motory and sensory cells, I have seen both anatomical and physiological grounds for discrediting the notion. Anatomical, because cells answering to these types are found in places where they should not be -- e.g. in the retina or posterior cornea -- and because it is very far from clear that the specified differences always relate to nerve cells; and finally because in the invertebrate I find the cells of the ventral ganglia of all sizes and shapes. But the main objection is physiological. Functions do not depend on nerve cells but on the organs innervated -- the motor function (contraction) depends on the muscle, the secretory function on the gland, the sensory function on the ganglion. The property of the nerve cell is the same throughout; and although differences in form and size may, and most probably do, imply differences in the modality of this property -- as a hempen twist may be a strong cable or a slight string -- whenever the cell is a nerve cell it will have the common property of nerve cells. I have argued this point at some length both in papers read before the British Association and in the 2nd volume of the [Physiology of Common Life] (which has been translated into German by Carus, 858 if Meynert cares to look at it). That is a very interesting fact about the frontal region of the brain losing more weight in paralysis. It is to be observed however that paralysis is almost always a sensory not a motor affection; and it is the posterior columns of the cord which usually degenerate in ataxy and paralysis. When a limb has been amputated, the post. cols. show a slight decrease in size after some years; the anterior cols. remaining unaffected.
About the olfactorius what you say is well known. By the way Schiff 859 made a curious observation on this point. He destroyed the lobe in a puppy -- and found that with the absence of smell there was an entire absence of attachment to one person more than another. The dog would follow and play with any one quite as readily as with Schiff, who had always fed him and petted him. I remember some physiologist had a theory that the sexual instinct was wholly prompted by smell -- so I suppose the reason we like some women (and men) and dislike others is that they are "in good odour." (You remember the Frenchman's surprise at finding the Bishop of Oxford 860 "in a verry bad smell"?)
My paper is run out and perhaps your patience. Kindest regards to your wife from
Yours truly
G. H. L.
MS: Lady Hermione Cobbold.
The Priory 21 North Bank N.W. | 25 May 1869.
My dear Lytton
I should have replied at once to the long and very interesting letter you took the trouble of writing, but alas! my time has been occupied in a melancholy manner. My second son has just returned from Africa with a disease of the spinal cord, and although we are not without hopes of a recovery, since he is young and vigorous, yet under the most favorable circumstances it will be a long time before he will get about. Paget thought very seriously of the case at first; but the rapid improvement which has followed complete rest and careful treatment has given more hope. It has been a serious affliction to us to witness his pain -- when the attacks come on he yells with agony. Mrs. Lewes, always of an apprehensive and easily agitated nature, is of course much tried by this; and our time is mainly devoted to amusing and watching him.
You will see from this that there is no chance of our invading you at Vienna this year; though some time or other I certainly mean my wife to get a fuller knowledge of that attractive city. I was there 30 years ago for some months, and we were both there for a few days in 1859, leaving it with the intention of speedily revisiting it! The presence of you and your wife will be an extra attraction, but you must not think us too [sauvage] if we go to an hotel in lieu of accepting your most friendly invitation. The fact is we resist all such friendly attentions whenever it can be done without offence, and I am sure you won't be offended. The more we can see of you the pleasanter, but let the hedgehogs roll themselves up in their own nests!
Apropos of Meynert, 855 I should indeed be glad to see him and discuss many points with him. Respecting the functions of nerve cells however I cannot help the conviction that he is altogether on a wrong tack. Ever since Owjanniskow 856 and Jacubowitch 857 started the idea of motory and sensory cells, I have seen both anatomical and physiological grounds for discrediting the notion. Anatomical, because cells answering to these types are found in places where they should not be -- e.g. in the retina or posterior cornea -- and because it is very far from clear that the specified differences always relate to nerve cells; and finally because in the invertebrate I find the cells of the ventral ganglia of all sizes and shapes. But the main objection is physiological. Functions do not depend on nerve cells but on the organs innervated -- the motor function (contraction) depends on the muscle, the secretory function on the gland, the sensory function on the ganglion. The property of the nerve cell is the same throughout; and although differences in form and size may, and most probably do, imply differences in the modality of this property -- as a hempen twist may be a strong cable or a slight string -- whenever the cell is a nerve cell it will have the common property of nerve cells. I have argued this point at some length both in papers read before the British Association and in the 2nd volume of the [Physiology of Common Life] (which has been translated into German by Carus, 858 if Meynert cares to look at it). That is a very interesting fact about the frontal region of the brain losing more weight in paralysis. It is to be observed however that paralysis is almost always a sensory not a motor affection; and it is the posterior columns of the cord which usually degenerate in ataxy and paralysis. When a limb has been amputated, the post. cols. show a slight decrease in size after some years; the anterior cols. remaining unaffected.
About the olfactorius what you say is well known. By the way Schiff 859 made a curious observation on this point. He destroyed the lobe in a puppy -- and found that with the absence of smell there was an entire absence of attachment to one person more than another. The dog would follow and play with any one quite as readily as with Schiff, who had always fed him and petted him. I remember some physiologist had a theory that the sexual instinct was wholly prompted by smell -- so I suppose the reason we like some women (and men) and dislike others is that they are "in good odour." (You remember the Frenchman's surprise at finding the Bishop of Oxford 860 "in a verry bad smell"?)
My paper is run out and perhaps your patience. Kindest regards to your wife from
Yours truly
G. H. L.
Signature
G. H. L.
Citation
George Henry Lewes, GHL to Robert Lytton, London, 25 May 1869, Complete George Eliot Letters(2026), George Eliot Archive, edited by Beverley Park Rilett. https://GeorgeEliotArchive.org, Accessed September 7, 2026. https://georgeeliotarchive.org/items/show/95005