56 TOXINES AND ANTITOXINES. 



such as we find with tetanolysine, these apparent differences of 

 affinity can be explained by the law of mass action, without 

 assuming the existence of different toxine zones. The presence 

 of one toxine and one antitoxine, which by their reciprocal 

 neutralisation produce different conditions of equilibrium, and 

 can thus account for the numerical conditions of combination, 

 are quite sufficient to explain why the quantity of antitoxine 

 does not invariably correspond with the same amount of antitoxic 

 energy. 



If these considerations applied to other poisons, as well as to 

 tetanolysine, they would modify a part, although not a very 

 weighty part, of EHRLICH'S views ; but, at the same time, they 

 would give us a further insight, based upon exact scientific 

 methods, into these extremely important processes. Almost 

 simultaneously with these attacks upon EHRLICH'S views other 

 voices were raised against practically the same parts of his theory. 



Mention must be made, in particular, of the work of BoRDET, 1 

 who, on theoretical grounds, has come to the conclusion that 

 there is a kind of equilibrium between toxine and antitoxine. 



Certainly these conclusions are not based upon exact physico- 

 chemical measurements, but are purely speculative. According 

 to them, the relations between toxine and antitoxine either pre- 

 sent certain analogies with the processes of dyeing (insorption, 

 &c.), which BORDET does not more closely characterise for 

 throughout he avoids proofs of identity or complex compounds 

 are formed containing one toxine molecule with several anti- 

 toxine molecules. The antitoxine is distributed over the whole 

 quantity of toxine in such a way that one part of each toxine 

 molecule appears to be neutralised and deprived of its toxicity. 

 Regarded as a whole these speculations, which are not based 

 upon new facts, are just as difficult, if not more so, to work 

 into a theory as EHRLICH'S " spectra," which at least explain all 

 the facts on the assumption of a single although complicated 

 hypothesis. 



Moreover, BORDET'S assumption of a "partially neutralised" 

 toxine is absolutely incapable of being put clearly without 

 falling back upon the old, now happily discarded, notion of the 

 " destruction " of the toxicity. 



Hence, BORDET'S attack is surely not capable of overthrow- 

 ing EHRLICH'S theory of a plurality of poisons. Still less 

 can EHRLICH'S position be shaken by the different attacks of 

 GRUBER, although their object was nothing less than the over- 



1 Bordet, " Sur le mode de 1'action des antitoxines sur les toxines," 

 Ann. Past., xvii., 161, 1903 (reprint). 



