Part 13

In the second place, when the injurious substances have to be wholly removed, the saliva plays the _rôle_ of a washing-out fluid; otherwise the material, by clinging to the mucous membrane of the mouth, might in longer or shorter time gain entry into the blood and there develop its noxious influence. This last function of the fluid is hardly taken into account at all in physiology, and yet it is evident that the saliva, as a cleansing fluid, must have a wide importance. If you only think of how often we are impelled to expectorate, that is, to wash out the mouth with saliva after something unpleasant, this will be clear. Such a view finds additional support when we reflect that a feeling of disgust produces almost as strong a flow of saliva as the sight of a tasty meal. In both cases the secretion performs the office of forerunner: in the first it prepares for the washing out of the mouth, in the second for the requisite elaboration of the food. Think how often, when something disagreeable enters the mouth, with what rapidity the saliva is poured out, even after the unpleasant substance has been for a considerable time removed, and not a trace more is apparent to the sense of taste. Indeed, long afterwards one has only to recall the circumstances to mind in order to bring on anew the secretion of saliva. Apparently the psychic excitation of the nerves of salivary secretion also ushers in the act of vomiting, which, as is well known, can be called forth by mental influence. Further, the function of the saliva just mentioned is probably the true physiological explanation of the feeling of disgust which many persons experience at the sight of the secretion itself.

Hence I hold that substances which obtain entry to the mouth set up a secretion of saliva only because we have here the seat of a definite physiological sense, and not because the peripheral terminations of the buccal nerves are devoid of specific excitability, and capable of being thrown into action by every desired form of stimulus. In other words, the specific excitability of the peripheral endings of the salivary nerves is very comprehensive and widely extended. This is no picture of the imagination, for it can be supported by facts. To say nothing of the testimony of earlier authors, that the salivary glands have each particular exciting agencies to which they specially respond, we can demonstrate the following facts from the material collected in our laboratory.

Dr. Glinski isolated the orifices of the salivary glands in dogs with portions of the adjoining mucous membrane, brought them out of the oral cavity, and caused them to heal into the edges of the skin wounds. In his first animal the ducts of the submaxillary gland were thus led outwards. By means of a Mendeljeff’s clip, the wide end of a conical funnel of waterproof material was attached to the skin surrounding the orifice. To the narrow end a small test-tube, which served to collect the saliva, was attached by a wire. I now offer such an animal a piece of flesh, and, as you see, the tube fills up at once with saliva. I stop tempting the dog, hang on a new test-tube, and give it a few pieces of flesh to eat; once more a strong secretion of saliva results. A new tube is now attached to the funnel, the dog’s mouth is opened, and a pinch of fine sand thrown in; again there is a flow of saliva. Once more a new test-tube; and now I apply to the buccal mucous membrane, the plume of a feather dipped in acid solution, with the result that I obtain a strong flow of saliva. One may employ a number of substances in this way, when a similar effect is always produced. You see, in this, such a comprehensive excitability of the innervation apparatus of the salivary glands that you might readily interpret it as meaning the power of response to all and sundry forms of stimulation. We now proceed, however, to another dog, whose parotid duct has in a similar manner been diverted outwards. The saliva is collected in the same way. We tempt the dog with a piece of flesh, but to our astonishment no saliva flows, and yet the animal is most eager for the savoury meal offered. Now we give it some raw flesh to eat; again the secretion of saliva is as good as absent; only when I come near can I detect one or two drops of saliva running down the sides of the tube. Probably you will say there is something wrong, either with the method or with the glands of the animal. But wait a little. I now give the dog finely powdered dry flesh, and obtain at once an abundant secretion. Should any one happen to think that the variation in the result is dependent, not on a different specific activity of the glands, but on individual differences in the dogs, I respond that Dr. Glinski has had an animal with double parotid and submaxillary fistulæ, and was able to observe on one and the same dog, a like behaviour on the part of the glands to that which we have just seen in two different individuals. An analogous experiment with bread was also carried out by Dr. Glinski. The eating of fresh moist bread produced no secretion worth mentioning, while dry bread, on the other hand, caused the saliva to flow in large quantities. The results of this experiment permit us to draw extremely instructive conclusions. In the first place, the several salivary glands are, as a matter of fact, very sharply differentiated in the conditions necessary for their activity--that is to say, in respect to the agencies which excite their nervous mechanisms. Secondly, the innervation apparatus of the parotid manifests a very sharp selective power in the choice, so to speak, of an adequate stimulus. The mechanical effect of large pieces of flesh is naturally much greater than that of the finely powdered material, and yet it was precisely to the latter that the glands responded. The stimulus is, therefore, not due to the mechanical, but to some other property of the food. This other property is obviously the dryness of the material. Our example illustrates how that which we may term “purposiveness” comes into play in the working of our glands and also how erroneous is the opinion that the mechanical stimulus is all potent. Indeed, previous authors have already pointed out that dry substances cause a specially free secretion of saliva, and yet physiological opinion throughout the length and breadth of the land, as expressed in text-books, has chosen to recognise a _universal_ instead of a _specific_ excitability. Dr. Wulfson, who is at present carrying on the investigation of salivary secretion in our laboratory, has added a very interesting observation to the results of Dr. Glinski already related. The parotid gland, which is hardly, if at all, excited when one offers fresh meat to the animal, responds with a very active secretion, when dry food (bread or powdered meat) is offered. This phenomenon is all the more surprising since the desire of the animal for eating is much more strongly excited by flesh than by dry bread. I am quite convinced that an exact study of the exciting agencies of the three salivary glands will furnish a number of new data bearing upon the question in hand.

The second reagent which is poured out on the raw material in the digestive canal is the gastric juice. How, in the normal course of events, is the work of the gastric glands, which prepare this juice, called into play? With the first, and manifestly important factor, which has a relation thereto, you are already acquainted, and, indeed, have already seen. I refer to the production of gastric juice in the empty stomach, as a result merely of the swallowing of food in the so-called sham feeding of an œsophagotomised dog. When one takes into consideration the absolute independence of this factor, and the intensity of the effect, which makes itself evident in the secretion of a large quantity of juice of high digestive power, the exciting agency which brings about such secretion must be recognised as one of the most important and effective processes in gastric digestion. But in what does it consist? At first sight it appears--and when I previously drew your attention to the fact I expressed the opinion--that there is here a simple reflex effect from the cavity of the mouth upon the secretory nerves of the stomach, similar to the reflex excitation, _e.g._, of the parotid gland, by finely powdered flesh thrown into the mouth. Now, however, I assert quite emphatically that this is not the case. We have, it is true, in the activity of the salivary glands an analogous phenomenon to indicate--not, however, that of which we have just spoken. We might apply every conceivable form of stimulus which could possibly come into play in the act of eating, and yet would not obtain the slightest indication of secretory activity in the stomach. In this dog with a gastric fistula, and with also a divided œsophagus, I will try such an experiment, using the most effective chemical stimulus to the buccal mucous membrane, viz., acid solution.

The secretion of saliva begins at once, as you see; the acid is, therefore, effective. From the stomach, however, in spite of continued excitation, no secretion results, although the acid, mixed with the saliva, is swallowed and flows out again from the upper segment of the œsophagus--that is to say, passes along precisely the same path that the food takes in sham feeding.

We could experiment in the same way with a number of other substances: saline, bitters, pepper (strong local excitation), mustard, and so on, and always with the same results; a free secretion of saliva, but perfect quiescence of the gastric glands. We may even, with the same object, employ the soluble constituents of flesh in the form of a decoction, and likewise observe, in most cases at least, no sign of

## activity on the part of the gastric glands.

With the chemical we may also combine a mechanical stimulus. We can, for example, wipe out the mouth with a sponge soaked in the solution to be experimented with, but always with the same negative result. We may finally give such pieces of sponge, or even smooth stones of considerable size, to the dog to swallow, passing them back behind the anterior pillars of the fauces and allowing them to fall out again, from the upper portion of œsophagus. It may be added that a well-taught dog puts up with all these procedures without the slightest protest. You see that all the manipulations in this case are carried out with bare hands and without instrumental aid. One can easily train a dog to swallow stones which are placed in the anterior part of the buccal cavity. It simply makes a few chewing movements and swallows them down. The dog on which the acid experiment has just been made serves also for the swallowing of the stones. The attendant now places some pebbles in the front part of the mouth, when the animal rolls them round, as if chewing and gnawing them, and then swallows them. The stones fall out, as you see, from the œsophagus, and drop with an audible sound upon the table. This play with the stones has now lasted fifteen or twenty minutes (in the laboratory we have often kept it up for hours), and yet not a drop of gastric juice is to be seen.

In order to prove that the dog is perfectly healthy and normal, we lay aside the stones and proceed to our old experiment of sham feeding. As you see, the first drop of gastric juice makes its appearance precisely at the end of five minutes, and after a further five minutes we have collected more than 15 c.c. of the fluid; consequently there can be no doubt that in this dog both gastric glands and nerves are uninjured and function in normal manner. At one time we even had a dog which voluntarily took the stones out of one’s hand and swallowed them; the sagacious creature had seen our object in previous experiments and learned to perform it of its own accord! But in this case also the result was negative.

Clearly, therefore, neither chemical nor mechanical stimulation of the buccal mucous membrane is capable of reflexly exciting the nerves of the stomach. Further, it is obvious that the excitation of these nerves in sham feeding is not the result of a stimulation coincidently produced; that is to say, the excitement of the chewing and swallowing centres does not imply simultaneous action of the secretory centre of the gastric glands. In what, then, does this influence consist which is intrinsic to the sham feeding, but which we have not been able to reproduce in our analytical investigation? There is only one thing to think of, namely, the eager desire for food, and the feeling of satisfaction and contentment derived from its enjoyment.

It has, indeed, been known for forty years, thanks to the experiments of Bidder and Schmidt, that at times, the offering of food to a hungry dog, in other words, the excitement of a keen desire for it, is sufficient to cause a flow of gastric juice from the empty stomach. We shall presently have occasion to observe the force of this physiological factor. Here I bring before you another dog, likewise having a gastric fistula with divided œsophagus. The stomach has been washed out half an hour ago, and since then not a drop of gastric juice has escaped. We begin to get ready a meal of flesh and sausage before the animal as if we meant to feed it. We take the pieces of flesh from one place, chop them up, and lay them in another, passing them in front of the dog’s nose, and so on. The animal, as you see, manifests the liveliest interest in our proceedings, stretches and distends itself, endeavours to get out of its cage and come to the food, chatters its teeth together, swallows saliva, and so on. Precisely five minutes after we began to tease the animal in this way the first drops of gastric juice appear in the fistula The secretion grows ever stronger and stronger, till it flows in a considerable stream. After the lapse of a few minutes we can count the number of cubic centimetres by tens. The meaning of this experiment is so clear as to require no explanation; the passionate longing for food, and this alone, has called forth under our eyes a most intense activity of the gastric glands. If the experiment be frequently repeated, one can easily observe that the keener and more eager the desire on the part of the dog for the food, the more certain and intense is the secretory effect. In extreme cases there is even a quantitative relationship between this effect and that of the sham feeding.

Here is an experiment of Professor Ssanozki, in which the secretory effect of the mere tempting of the animal with the sight of food is compared with that of sham feeding. A few threads of alkaline mucus had just escaped from the stomach, and then the excitation of the dog with flesh was begun. After six minutes the secretion commenced and continued as follows:

Duration of the flow. Quantity of the juice. 8 minutes 10 c.c. 4 ” 10 ” 4 ” 10 ” 10 ” 10 ” 10 ” 10 ” 8 ” 10 ” 8 ” 10 ” 19 ” 10 ” 19 ” 3 ”

Then followed a sham feeding for six minutes.

Duration of the flow. Quantity of the juice. 17 minutes 10 c.c. 9 ” 10 ” 8 ” 10 ”

It is clear that in this case the tempting, instead of being less effective than the sham feeding, on the contrary excelled it.

Consequently, the observation of Bidder and Schmidt was perfectly correct. It cannot, however, be said that it received general recognition in physiology, or that it was sufficiently appreciated. There are authors who could never convince themselves of its reality, and in many physiological text-books it is not once mentioned. By way of explanation, we shall now consider how this matter must be dealt with by those who wish to observe the effect. It is only under certain conditions that it can be seen. Firstly, the animal must be healthy and vigorous; it must have a perfectly uninjured gastric mucous membrane; and this, from the description in the case of many authors who obtained a negative result, was not the case. Secondly, the success of the experiment, as stated above, is dependent upon the intensity of the desire for eating, and this, again, is dependent upon how freely and how long beforehand the dog had eaten, and also upon what it is tempted with, whether with a dish that excites its desire or leaves its interest unawakened. It is known that dogs have very different tastes, just as men have. Thirdly, one may find among the dogs positively careless, indifferent creatures, incapable of being perturbed in this way by anything which has not actually reached their mouths, and patiently waiting till the food is given them. Hence for success in the experiment, eager, impressionable, and excitable animals are necessary. Fourthly, one has to reckon with the sense and cunning of the dog, a factor which is not lightly to be disregarded. Often the animals perceive at once that they are only being teased with the food, become annoyed thereat, and turn away offended at what is being done before them. We must, therefore, so arrange matters as if the animals were not going to be disappointed but fed in reality. If attention be paid to these conditions the experiment of “psychic excitation of the gastric secretion,” as we usually term it, will be found to be as reliable as the experiment of sham feeding. When one is occupied for a length of time with the study of the gastric secretion under different conditions, one becomes convinced of what a dangerous source of error this psychic excitability may become in the different experiments. We must constantly fight, so to speak, against this factor, keep it ever in view, and guard against it. If the dog has not eaten for a long time, every movement,--the going out of the room, the appearance of the attendant who ordinarily feeds the animal--in word, every little triviality may give rise to excitation of the gastric glands. The minutest attention is necessary in order to avoid such sources of error, and we should not be far wrong if we said that much which has been ascribed in former investigations to the effect of this or that agency was in reality a result of unobserved psychic influence. Consequently, in order to verify our own conclusions concerning the effects of this or that condition, we have performed many of our experiments on sleeping animals, having beforehand convinced ourselves by frequent repetition that sleep exercises no restraining influence on the working of the gastric glands.

When we recall to mind the failure of our attempts to obtain a secretion of gastric juice by any stimulation whatever of the buccal mucous membrane, and at the same time see how constant and intense the

## action of this psychic impression is, we are forced to the inevitable

conclusion that in our sham feeding experiment the whole secretory effect is due to the psychic stimulus, that is to say, to the keen desire on the part of the animal for food and the satisfaction of enjoying it.

In view of the importance of the act of eating, which even now is apparent, but which will become still more obvious when the succeeding periods of secretion are investigated, we have spared neither time nor trouble to arrive at a correct explanation of the mechanism of this factor. We have, therefore, taken in hand a number of modifications of the sham feeding experiment, and these investigations have confirmed the opinion at which we had arrived. If, for instance, the dog has been prepared by a long fast of two to three days, a very intense secretion of gastric juice will always be obtained by the sham feeding experiment, no matter what may be given it to eat, whether boiled or raw flesh, bread or coagulated egg-white, etc. The dog, however, which has not fasted, that is to say has been fed fifteen to twenty hours before, will pick and choose amongst the different foods, eating one with great greed, tolerating another, and refusing altogether a third, and, corresponding therewith, the amount and quality of the gastric juice will manifest wide variations. The more eagerly the dog eats the more juice will be secreted and the greater the digestive power which it possesses. The majority of dogs prefer flesh to bread, and correspondingly less juice will be produced by sham feeding with bread than with flesh. Sometimes, however, we find dogs which will devour bread with greater appetite than flesh. In these cases one obtains more and stronger juice in sham feeding with bread than with flesh. Here is a case in point: a dog is given boiled meat which has been cut into pieces of definite size, and the pieces follow each other at regular intervals of time. The animal eats, but soon, from its behaviour, you see that it develops no particular greed for the meal, and this observation is confirmed by the fact that after fifteen to twenty minutes it ceases taking the flesh. The secretion of juice has meanwhile either not begun at all, or only after a longer interval than five minutes, and remains scanty to the end. Now wait till the secretion has stopped and give the same dog raw flesh, either forthwith or next day, in pieces of the same size and at the same rate as before. The raw meat tastes excellently to the dog; it eats for hours at a time; the secretion of gastric juice begins precisely after five minutes and is very active. With another dog which prefers boiled to raw meat exactly the reverse occurs. Broth, soup, milk--towards which dogs are usually more indifferent than towards solid food--often produce in sham feeding either no secretion at all or only very little, although broth, for instance has essentially the same taste as flesh.

It is therefore clear that in sham feeding the psychic effect may readily become an absolute and independent factor. All the conditions which we enumerated above, and which are necessary for the successful production of the psychic effect, hold good in combined form for the sham feeding experiment. The dog eats with greed before one’s eyes; the food which it receives is pleasant; it not only imagines food but actually eats it, and has therefore no reason to feel offended, for naturally the idea does not occur to any of the dogs that all their trouble is in vain.