NERVES. ;* 465 



credit is given him for having made discoveries, some of which belong to others, 

 and some of which are no discoveries at all, but fancies ; and when so much 

 that to me is unintelligible, so much error, so much want of extensive knowledge, 

 pervade his writings, I cannot refrain from smiling at the expressions splendid, 

 brilliant, profound, luminous, and I know not what others, applied to his opinions 

 by persons who cannot have considered the subjects laboriously, and only imi- 

 tate one another in their belief and their language. The most ludicrous eulogy 

 is in the Report of the Third Meeting of the British Association. Dr. W. C. Henry 

 says, " The honour of this discovery" (that there are distinct nerves of sensation 

 and motion), doubtless, the most important since the time of Harvey, belongs ex- 

 clusively to Sir C. Bell." (p. 62.) Now no new principle was discovered. We 

 knew before that some nerves, as the optic and olfactory, were for sensation only, 

 and some, as the common motor, the external motor, and the internal motor of 

 the eye, and the lingual, for motion only. The only discovery was that two 

 individual nerves were, one for the first function and the other for the second. 

 That no one nerve could be for both sensation and motion had always been 

 evident to reflecting minds. Galen taught his cotemporaries that one set of 

 nerves went to the skin for sensation, and another to the muscles for motion. 

 That Sir C. Bell had no idea that the anterior spinal roots were for motion only 

 and the posterior for sensation only, is evident from the fact that above ten 

 years after he had found motion to depend upon the anterior roots only, his able 

 nephew, the late Mr. John Shaw, who lived with him and acted under him, 

 published a paper * in which he says that his uncle is of the same opinion as 

 Galen, and mentions the experiments of his uncle showing the connection of 

 the anterior roots with motion, but has no idea that they are for motion only 

 and not for sensation also, nor that the posterior are for sensation. His words are, 

 " These experiments we have often repeated, and always with the same re- 

 sults; but from the violence necessarily used in making them, it has been dif- 

 ficult to ascertain which of the filaments bestows sensibility on the part. It was 

 easily shown that if only the posterior set was destroyed, the voluntary power 

 over the muscles continued unimpaired, but the pain necessarily attendant upon 

 the performance of the experiment prevented us from judging of the degree of 

 sensibility remaining in the part." (p. 148. sq.) Now this paper was read on the 

 last day of April, and printed in July, 1822, and Dr. Magendie's discoveries of 

 the distinct functions of the two roots appeared in August (Journ. de PhysioL); 

 so that, though Sir C. Bell refers to it in triumph (Nervous System, Preface, xxii.) 

 as a proof that he had made the discoveries before Dr. Magendie, it proves 

 precisely the reverse, and exhibits the imperfect state of his views up to the very 

 time of Dr. Magendie's discoveries. Numerous as have been Dr. Magendie's 

 physiological errors, humbly as I estimate his knowledge and reasoning 

 powers, and much as I abhor his cruelty to brutes, I have never known him 

 dishonourable ; and I am satisfied that he knew nothing of Sir C. Bell's original 

 discovery respecting the anterior nerves, for it was communicated in a pamphlet 

 privately distributed : and as to the discovery of the office of the posterior roots, it, 

 and thus the exact division of office between the two, is certainly Dr. Magendie's. 



Med. Chir. Trans, vol. xii. 1822. 

 II 2 



