"Observing that there was a portion of the fifth nerve which did not enter the ganglion of that nerve, and being assured of the fact by the concurring testimony of anatomists, I conceived that the fifth nerve was in fact the uppermost nerve of the spine.... This opinion was confirmed by experiment.... (Account of an experiment on the dead body.) On dividing the root of the nerve in a living animal, the jaw fell relaxed. Thus its functions are no longer matter of doubt: it is at once a muscular nerve and a nerve of sensibility. And thus the opinion is confirmed, that the fifth nerve is to the head what the spinal nerves are to the other parts of the body, in respect to sensation and volition." The value of the experimental method could hardly be stated in more emphatic words. He supposed something, conceived it, had an opinion about it. Anatomy had suggested something to him. He put his opinion to the test of phenomena, that is to say, to the test of visible facts; and then his opinion was confirmed. As with the spinal nerve-roots, so with the fifth cranial nerve--his work was successful, because he followed the way of experiment. He was by nature of a most complex and sensitive temperament, full of contrary forces--one man in 1811, another in 1830. In 1811 he wrote, _I now saw the meaning of the double connection of the nerves_; in 1830 he had come to hate the _stupid sterile materialism_ of the French school: he beheld anatomy falling behind physiology, and his Windmill Street school perishing to make way for the Hospital schools and for the University of London. He was before everything else a great anatomist: he stood up for the honour of anatomy against the new physiology, and for the honour of the Monroes and the Hunters against Magendie: he hated the notion that any man should proceed to experiments on function till the very last secrets had been got out of structure. He died a few years afterward. The 1830 writings are his last stand for the defence of his country, his school, and his beloved anatomy, against the methods of Magendie; who said of himself, "I am a mere street scavenger, _chiffonier_, of science. With my hook in my hand and my basket on my back, I go about the streets of science, collecting what I find." This open conflict between Bell's first and last thoughts is a part of his character: he was brilliant, impulsive, changeable, inconsistent; and, what is more important, his honour kept him from trying to evade this trumpery charge of inconsistency; and he reprinted the 1811 Preface in the book that he published in 1830. Doubtless he would have picked his words more carefully if he had foreseen that one of the 1830 sentences would be wrested out of its place in his life's work, and used as false evidence against the very method that he followed. His observations on the cranial nerves brought about an immediate change in the practice of surgery:--