58 



THE NERVOUS SYSTEM 



the test of experiment, and of proving at the same 

 time that nerves of different endowments were in the 

 same cord (nerve-trunk) and held together by the 

 same sheath. 



"On laying bare the roots of the spinal nerves, 

 I found that I could cut across the posterior 

 fasciculus of nerves, which took its origin from 

 the posterior portion of the spinal marrow, without 

 convulsing the muscles of the back ; but that on 

 touching the anterior fasciculus with the point of 

 the knife, the muscles of the back were immediately 

 convulsed. 



" Such were my reasons for concluding that the 

 cerebrum and cerebellum were parts distinct in 

 function, and that every nerve possessing a double 

 function obtained that by having a double root. / 

 now saw the meaning of the double connection of 

 the nerves with the spinal marrow ; and also the 

 cause of that seeming intricacy in the connections 

 of nerves throughout their course, which were not 

 double at their origins." 



It is impossible to reconcile the 1830 sentences 

 with this vivid personal account of himself ; / had 

 an opportunity of putting my opinion to the test of 

 experiment . . . an opportunity of proving. . . . 

 Sttch were my reasons for conchiding. . . . I now 

 saw. ... It is just what all men of science say of 

 their experiments : the very phrase of Archimedes, 

 and Asellius, and de Graaf. If Sir Charles Bell 

 had been working at the facts of chemistry or of 

 botany, who would have doubted the meaning of 

 these words ? 



This same inconsistency of sentences occurs 

 elsewhere in his Nervous System of the Human 



