Sir,

In 1926 you published an article of mine in which I endeavoured to draw the attention of the medical profession to the new vista which had been opened to the science and art of medicine by the work and writings of F. Matthias Alexander in the hope that persons better qualified than I might be incited to investigate them.

I vaguely indicated the experimental research by which Alexander established the generalizations he had then reached through experiments as subtle as have ever been devised by any scientist in any field. I pointed out that of his conclusions was that "Man is a psycho-physical whole and does not consist of mind and body, or of head and trunk and legs and lungs and heart and liver," but is an organism which thinks and moves, and functions as a whole ­ or rather, moves and functions and thinks for motion is primary. I did not then point out that Alexander had established that there is a primary centre of control of functioning, probably because I did not at that time recognize this. Alexander established that this control was connected with the relationship between the head and the neck and between the head and neck and the torso ­ a discovery which was independently rediscovered by Professor Magnus of Utrecht.

The effect on the profession in this country has been small. Greater attention has been attracted to Alexander's work in America, which is manifested, however, mainly in the lay press; but recently Professor G E. Coghill, formerly professor of comparative anatomy in Philadelphia, has published some of the results of his researches on the "problem of behaviour," and he confirms Alexander's work almost in detail, though his work was entirely independent of Alexander.

In his studies on the Amblystoma he finds, for instance, that "behaviour develops by the expansion of a primarily integrated total pattern of action and the individuation of partial patterns within the total pattern. . . . This is a matter of fact; whether or not behaviour in other vertebrates follows this plan of development has become a question of leading interest in the study of behavior." Again, "The nervous system concerns itself first with the integrity of the individual and only later makes provision for local reflexes."

Exigencies of space prevent me from quoting further, but the following is an extract from a letter from Coghill which I am permitted to use: "He [Alexander] has grasped the same scientific principles through practical work with human beings that I have found through my investigation of detailed anatomy in the lower forms."

These as well as other passages from his published works confirm me in the view I placed before you in 1926 of the first-rate importance of Alexander's work. It seems to me that he has anticipated much of the work done by Coghill, as he anticipated that done by Magnus, through his observations of and experiments with the highest of the vertebrates ­ man himself. He has devised a technique by which he is able to teach others an improved use of their psycho-physical mechanism. During the past few years he has trained a number of teachers in this technique; he has also set up a small school in which he has children educated with this technique basic to all their education. Unfortunately the demand for the school has come as yet mainly from parents of children who suffer from obvious defects; but his success in dealing with these defects is striking.

Permit me to repeat that Alexander's methods are worth the study of the medical profession; but time is passing and the study should not be delayed.

I am, etc.,
Peter Macdonald
York, June 5

Sir,

Dr. Peter Macdonald's letter in your issue of June 17 (p. 1259) on the discoveries of F. Matthias Alexander is a very important one. It is so because it makes known that the independent work of Professor G. E. Coghill, which, in his own words, covered "over forty years of neurological study which has been directed consciously towards the problem of psychology," led him to the discovery of "the same scientific principles" in working "on lower forms" which Alexander discovered "through practical work with human beings." This substantiation of the reality of principles of living processes discovered by Alexander removes Alexander's discoveries from the sphere of personal quality he may possess, or be charged with possessing, to the extra-personal sphere of scientific law. It appears now to be the responsibility of scientific medicine to trace within the fabric of its accumulated knowledge wherein that knowledge is an expression of these principles, and to reject all other conceptions which do not bear that stamp. This may seem a large claim, but it is not too large when Alexander's discoveries are envisaged. Although readily accessible, the number of both medical men and laymen who are familiar with his work is extremely small, and it is necessary to cite briefly what these discoveries are.

The first is the principle of primary control of the living mechanism, a relation of the head to the neck in use. This is a means whereby integration and co-ordination of the whole creature are secured and whereby all uses of all parts become an expression of the use of the whole. Primary control is also a kinaesthetic experience whereby a reliable kinaesthesia is established within the creature with all that that connotes. The principle of primary control is the principle of normality because it is the principle of living processes common to all men and to all animals. Flowing from the discovery of primary control are the subordinate discoveries of the physiology of respiration, the physiology of locomotion, and the physiology of the hand.

His second great discovery is the principle of the subordination of ends to means, which is a principle whose application in all spheres of human activity knows no bounds.

I am, etc.,
Mungo Douglas, M.B.
Bolton, Lancs, June 19.

Sir, The apparent confirmation of F M. Alexander's discovery of an integrating mechanism (primary control) in man's use of his psychophysical self by the work of Professor Coghill on the Amblystoma is something of the first importance and should surely induce our physiologists and anatomists as well as neurologists and psychologists to correlate or to disprove the relationship of the one to the other. If they are related and corroborative then everything that is fundamental and vital is absent from our teaching methods and our systems of physical culture; in fact they are fundamentally wrong, no matter what apparently immediate marvellous results are obtained. It should be remembered that "all that glitters is not gold."

Alexander's discovery of the primary control did not require this latest biological proof, as the empirical and physiological proofs have been in existence for years; but since no one except Alexander has ever dreamt of a mechanism which controls the functioning of the entire psychophysical organism, with all its constituent organs (and which must control it if it is to function as an undivided totality) it is scarcely surprising that these proofs have been ignored. This mechanism of primary control is comparable in every respect to that which Coghill has discovered in the Amblystoma and described as the mechanism which maintains the integrity of "the total pattern of behaviour." If by "behaviour" is understood the "behaviour" of every cell in every structure and its accompanying function, it becomes apparent how vital it is to be able to direct and use the primary control by the mechanism Nature has provided and in the way that Nature intends. It is obvious on every hand that man's present direction of his primary control is resulting in a wrong use of his psychophysical self, interfering with his "total pattern of behaviour," the effects and symptoms of which may appear anywhere in the organism; such are the defects and disabilities and the many so-called diseases from which man is suffering now. These can only be removed by the redirection and conscious use of the primary control to restore the integrity of the "total pattern," and by no other means.

It would appear that until the profession realizes the necessity for and becomes interested in what is meant by integration" and "primary control" it is useless to attempt to describe the mechanism by which it is exercised; but this much can be said: when certain muscles are cut experimentally or when the "total pattern of behaviour" becomes dominated by partial patterns all co-ordinated control is.
I am, etc.

Bexhill-on-Sea, June 30