THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY 



29 



In essence, thcrcroic, Bell regarded the cerebellum, 

 posterior columns and posterior spinal roots as con- 

 cerned with unconscious impressions and involuntary 

 movements; the cerebrum, anterior columns and 

 anterior roots as conveying conscious sensation and 

 willed moxements. 



On Julv 22, 1822, Frangois Magendie, member of 

 the Academy of Sciences of Paris (and later to be 

 professor at the College de France), read a paper (151) 

 to the Academy as a result of which the following 

 entry was made: "M. Magendie reports the discovery 

 he has recently made, that if the posterior roots of the 

 spinal nerves are cut, only the sensation of those nerves 

 is abolished, and if the anterior roots arc cut, only the 

 movements they cause are lost." This report was 

 followed by a fuller account (152, 153) in the journal 

 that Magendie himself had founded. The experiments, 

 made on puppies which survi\ed the surgical pro- 

 cedures, gave Magendie the confidence to state "that 

 the anterior and posterior roots of the nerves which 

 arise from the spinal marrow, have different func- 

 tions, that the posterior appear more particularly 

 destined to sensibility, whilst the anterior seem more 

 especially allied to motion." 



In spite of his not having suggested a function of 

 conscious sensation for the posterior roots in either 

 the privately printed pamphlet or published papers 

 (147) on the fifth and seventh cranial nerves, Bell 

 with a questionable lack of scruple claimed full pri- 

 ority and engaged in a wrangle that invaded the scien- 

 tific journals for many years. This carried the un- 

 pleasant flavor of evidence twisted by hindsight. Bell's 

 "republications' in 1824 (154) of his earlier writings 

 contained .subtle changes in wording that deceived 

 his supporters into believing his claims to be better 

 founded than they were.^^ Among those hoodwinked 

 were Flourens and, at first, Magendie's pupil, Claude 

 Bernard. Posterity gives each some credit by pre- 



151. Magendie, Franqols (1783-1855). Proces-verb, 1822. 

 Acad. Sc. 7: 348, 1820-1823. 



152. Magendie, F. Experiences sur les fonctions des racines 

 des nerfs rachidicns. J. phystol. exper. et path. 2; 276, 1822. 



153. Magendie, F. Experiences sur les fonctions des racines 

 des nerfs qui naissent de la moelle epiniere. J. physiol. 

 exper. et path. 2: 366, 1822. [References 152 and 153 can 

 be read in English in Alexander Walker's translations 

 in. Documents and dales of modern discoveries in the nerv- 

 ous system (Pub. anonymously) London: Churchill, 



1 839-] 



154. Bell, C. An Exposition of the Natural System of the Nerves of 

 the Human Body with a Republication of the Papers Delivered 

 to the Royal Society, on the Subject of .Verves. London: .Spot- 

 tiswoode, 1824. 



FIG. 20. The protagonists in the Bell-Magendie controversy. 

 Bell (/f//) and Magendie Qright} as young men. The portrait 

 of Bell was painted by .Antony Stewart of Edinburgh in 1804; 

 that of Magendie (attributed to Guerin) is at the College de 

 France. 



serving the nomenclature of the Bell-Magendie Law. 

 In spite of his claims. Bell made no move to get ex- 

 perimental proof of the function of the posterior roots 

 and as late as 1832 (155) was stressing that their 

 sensory nature was only inferred. He said in his lec- 

 tures to the Royal College of Physicians, ". . .as we 

 have proved the anterior column to be the origin of 

 the motor nerves, we may infer the posterior roots are 

 those which render the entire nerve a nerve of sensa- 

 tion." In 1844 Johannes Miiller (156) confirmed the 

 law experimentally, something Bell had never done, 

 but the conclusion seems inescapable that the concept 

 in its complete form as well as its experimental proof 

 was first contributed by Magendie. 



Magendie, whose youth coincided with the French 

 Re\olution, came from surgery into physiology where 

 his urge towards experimentation could give him 

 greater satisfaction. So strongly empiricist was he that 

 he rarely made generalizations from his observations 



155. Bell, C. Lectures on the physiology of the brain and 

 nervous system. Reported in: Ryan's Med. .Surg. J. i: 

 682, 752, 1832. 



156. MtJLLER, J. Bestutigung des Bell'schen Lehrsatzes. Notiz. 

 a. d. Geb. d. natur- u. heilk. (Weimar) 30: 113, 1831; 

 this is more readily available in French in Ann. Sc. Natur. 

 23: 95, 1831, and a section is translated into English in 

 \V. Stirling. Some Apostles of Physiology. London : Waterlow, 

 1902. 



'^ For a detailed comparison of the texts see Flint, A. Con- 

 siderations historiques sur les proprietes des racines des nerfs 

 rachidiens. J. de ianat. et de physiol. 5: 520, 1868. 



