It is necessary to go over again the proof of these facts; they are given pretty copiously in the chapter on Complications; and could have been made much more numerous. But the point to which I desire to compel the reader's attention is the impossibility as it seems of me, of accounting for the variety and complexity of these phenomena, except by the supposition that there is in every case of neuralgia a central change, which is the one most important factor in the producing both of the pain and of the secondary phenomena. For the result of my experience is that neuralgia, unless very slight and brief, is never unattended by these complications and in the great majority of cases involves several different secondary alterations of function which must (so to speak) radiate from the central end of the sensory nerve, and from no other place whatever. And it must be remembered that the most elaborate "_symptome-complexe_" is found equally in cases where no suggestion of any peripheral origin of the pain can be made, and in cases where, at first sight, one might fancy there was a very obvious peripheral cause for pain. I am quite willing to admit, with Eulenburg and others, that the evidence, powerful and varied though it be of the relations of neuralgia to hereditary neuroses, to alcoholic and senile degeneration, etc., only raises a strong probability that some part of the central nervous system is the _locus in quo_ of the essential morbid processes in the majority of neuralgias. But the case stands far otherwise now that we are able to show, not merely that the majority of neuralgic patients suffer from such influences as those above mentioned, but that every variety of neuralgia is liable to be complicated with secondary affections of the most divergent nerves, the only common meeting-place of which is in the spinal centre of the painful nerve; and when we find moreover, that many of these secondary affections can equally be produced by undoubted atrophic changes (as in ataxy of those same posterior roots).