Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: On inflammation / by G. Thin. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.
80/88 (page 78)
![(I may say shed) by spindle cells. These cells, according to this view, nianntacturc the tissue out of their own substance, which is renewed by a process of nutrition as fast as it gives off the new tissue. Others attribute the fibrillation to an influence exerted by the cells on the amorphous material around them. Others again believe that the tissue is formed by lymph cells which become transformed into the new substance. None of these theories have passed from the region of hypothesis into that of fact. They are unproved. I may illustrate the insecurity of the foundations on which prevailing doctrines regarding the growth of tissues rest, by referring to Max Schultze's theory of the formative activity of the cell, and the kind of evidence which has been considered satis- factory in histological questions. Schultze, observing that in em- bryonic muscle cells are prominent objects, and that in fully-formed muscle, nuclei are to be found in the substance of the muscular fibre, and around the nuclei a scant amount of granular substance, came to the conclusion that the large volume of muscle substance is a product of the cell, the nucleus and a small amount of the cellular protoplasm persisting. The amount of muscle substance formed being out of proportion to the number of nuclei observed, he framed the theory of the formative activity of the cell. Mr Fitzjames Stephen, in his book on Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, accounts for the complacency with which erroneous doctrines are accepted in ethical science, by a passion in human nature to theorize, and to cling with faithful devotion to any theory which gratifies the love of order inherent in the mind. Some such love of order has prompted the readiness with which Schultze's theory has been embraaed by histologists. Dr Beale had previously announced a theory which was perfectly identical, but unfortunately condescended to give a reason. Max Schultze's arguments Avere simply statements of belief, and criticism was disarmed. Dr Beale disturbed the composure of unreasoning faith by his carmine. Schultze's cell is Beale's germinal matter, the muscle substance produced by the formative activity of the cell is the formed matter. What is stained by carmine, forms; what does not stain, is formed. Even its simplicity could not secure acceptance of such a reason. Schultze, as it seems to me, has been awarded too exclusively whatever merit may belong to the theory, which, to say the least of it, is as much Beale's as Schultze's. ISTeither of these able histologists adduced a single observation i]i support of it, and it might just as well have been imagined by a](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b22292743_0082.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
