FUNCTIONS OF MOTOR AND SENSORY NERVES 105 



papers contains anything fresh bearing upon the functions of 

 the roots or of the nerves of the face. They all contain repeti- 

 tions of his claims as the Discoverer of the Nervous System — 

 natural enough on the part of a man of his age and standing but 

 without any other reason or excuse. Thus in 1840, an otherwise 

 insignificant paper by Sir Charles Bell in the Philosophical 

 Transactions entitled " On the Nervous System," serves merely 

 as the vehicle for the following careful and misleading passage 

 in which Bell reiterates once more his now fully expanded 

 claim : 



" The Spinal Nerves 



" In the earliest part of my investigations I performed experi- 

 ments on the roots of these nerves. I exposed the spinal 

 marrow, separated the distinct roots and found that the anterior 

 root, on being irritated, excited motion, while the posterior root 

 did not excite the muscles. By inference, and by comparing the 

 spinal nerves with those of the encephalon, I was at length led 

 to conclude that the anterior root is provided for motion, and 

 the posterior for sensation ; and that the spinal nerves instead 

 of being common nerves, are in truth combined of roots, one 

 of which gives motion and the other sensation." — Phil. Trans. 

 R.S. 1840, p. 245." 



To recapitulate — Bell's title as a physiologist rests entirely 

 upon the six papers published in the Philosophical Transactions 

 of the Royal Society horn 1821 to 1829, which may be succinctly 

 indicated as follows : 



1. On the Nerves of the Face 



2. On the Nerves of Respiration 



3. On the Motions of the Eye 



4. On the Nerves of the Orbit 



5. On the Nervous Circle 



July 12, 1821, p. 398. 

 May 2, 1822, p. 284. 

 March 20, 1823, p. 166. 

 June 19, 1823, p. 289. 

 February 16, 1826, p. 163. 



6. On the Nerves of the Face (2nd paper) May 28, 1829, p. 317 



Before 1821 and after 1829 there is no valid document in 

 support of Bell's claim to the discovery of the separation be- 

 tween motor and sensory nerves. His booklet of 18 n, so far 

 from containing evidence in support of his claim, conclusively 

 proves that his ideas at that time were entirely beside the 

 mark. His papers of the period 1832-44 are not worth 

 quoting. 



Of the six papers which we have carefully examined in the 

 preceding pages it is evident that the first and the sixth are the 



