122 The Theories of Cell Development. 
optical instruments, or even of the dissector’s scalpel, and at an age 
of the world when philosophy was but a tangled maze of fancies ; 
when men, with curious persistency, shunned the plainest truths 
and blindly groped in darkness, even then the conviction seems to 
have forced itself upon many that, underlying the various tissues 
and organs of the body, there must be some vital element common 
to them all, and from which they were all originally differentiated. 
And this idea was not so much the product and result of close and 
vigorous analytical thought as it was the outgrowth of an inevitable 
necessity, namely, the necessity for a somewhere and a something 
which should serve as a biological starting-point. Hence we find 
Fallopius (1523-1562), Borellus (1656), Haller (1757), and others, 
constructing their rude, and to us preposterous, theories in answer 
to demands which were irresistible. But these early theories have 
for us little value or interest, save as antiquaries, since none of 
them clearly recognize the cell as the ultimate anatomical element. 
To the histologist of the present day it seems strange, and indeed 
almost incredible, that so many years should elapse between the 
real discovery of the cell and the comprehension of the one great 
fact that this little body is the starting-point of all development. 
There seems to be little doubt that Borellus actually saw the cell as 
long ago as 1656, since, as Dr. Tyson remarks, “he describes pus- 
corpuscles as animalcules, and even says he saw them delivering 
their eggs.” * In truth, it is more than probable that what Borellus 
believed to be the act of “ delivering eggs ” was really the process 
of cell development by “ budding ” or “ gemmation,” so that this 
very important discovery was made two centuries before it was 
announced. 
The first attempt at the construction of a systematic theory con- 
cerning the cell and its origin, seems to have been that of Wolf, 
about the year 1759. From this time, therefore, the cell may be 
said to have a connected history ; although it is quite common to 
regard cell history as commencing many years later, with Schleiden 
and Schwann. Although the name of Wolf was well-nigh forgotten, 
and would have so remained but for the magic touch of the brilliant 
but erratic Huxley, t his doctrines have exercised no little influence 
upon the thoughts and writings of many of his followers. We 
shall presently see that Wolf is the real, while Schleiden is only 
the putative, father of that wayward child, free or spontaneous cell 
development. 
If we carefully analyze the various cell theories which have 
appeared from the time of Wolf until the present — and which for 
convenience we may style “ modern ” theories — we shall find, first, 
* ‘ The Cell Doctrine/ p. 1 G. 
f ‘ Britiali ami Foreign Mcdico-Cliirurgical Review/ October, 1853. 
