In his Preface to this book (1830) he quotes the earliest of all his printed writings on the nervous system, a pamphlet, printed in 1811, under the title, An Idea of a New Anatomy of the Brain, Submitted for the Observation of the Authors Friends. We have therefore two statements of his work, one in 1811, the other in 1823 and 1830. The first of them was written when his work was still new before his eyes.
Those who say that experiments did not help Bell in his great discovery—the difference between the anterior and the posterior nerve-roots—appeal to certain passages in the 1830 volume:—
"In a foreign review of my former papers, the results have been considered as a further proof in favour of experiments. They are, on the contrary, deductions from anatomy; and I have had recourse to experiments, not to form my own opinions, but to impress them upon others. It must be my apology that my utmost efforts of persuasion were lost, while I urged my statements on the grounds of anatomy alone. I have made few experiments; they have been simple and easily performed, and I hope are decisive....
"My conceptions of this matter arose by inference from the anatomical structure; so that the few experiments which have been made were directed only to the verification of the fundamental principles on which the system is established."
If it were not for the 1811 pamphlet, the opponents of all experiments on animals might claim Sir Charles Bell on their side. But while his work was still a new thing, he spoke in another way of it:—
"I found that injury done to the anterior portion of the spinal marrow convulsed the animal more certainly than injury to the posterior portion; but I found it difficult to make the experiment without injuring both portions.
"Next, considering that the spinal nerves have a double root, and being of opinion that the properties of the nerves are derived from their connections with the parts of the brain, I thought that I had an opportunity of putting my opinion to 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. I 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; I had an opportunity of putting my opinion to the test of experiment ... an opportunity of proving ... Such were my reasons for concluding ... 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?