Historical sketch on Immunity 523 



work, vigorously attacked the theory of phagocytosis. As it was 

 precisely from this treatise that I had acquired my knowledge of the 

 large number of facts that had accumulated in pathological litera- 

 ture on the part played by leucocytes in resorption, I was persuaded 

 that Ziegler, who had collected these statements, would be one of the 

 first to recognise the importance of phagocytosis in inflammation, 

 healing, and immunity. But this distinguished pathologist, in 

 several of his publications 1 , expressed himself very vigorously 

 against the phagocytic theory. The intervention of these cells, 

 according to him, must be purely accidental and their r61e in the 

 defence of the body against the micro-organisms very insignificant. 

 The better to demonstrate this thesis he caused his pupils to under- 

 take investigations on several infective diseases, and these young 

 observers all arrived at the same result, that phagocytosis has 

 nothing to do with the struggle of the animal against the anthrax 

 bacillus or against the bacillus of symptomatic anthrax. It is the 

 less necessary to enter into these details now because I have, in the 

 preceding chapters, given sufficient proofs of the incorrectness of the 

 objections advanced by Ziegler's school. It has been demonstrated 

 most conclusively (by Lubarsch's researches, as well as by many 

 other works) that in anthrax in man phagocytosis, denied by one 

 of Ziegler's pupils, is most marked. It is likewise well known from 

 the researches of RufFer, Leclainche and Valle*e, as well as from my 

 own observations, that in symptomatic anthrax, in which the phago- 

 cytic reaction is denied by another of Ziegler's pupils, it is a very 

 important and highly developed feature. 



The opposition emanating from another eminent pathologist, 

 Weigert 2 , particularly impressed me, because this investigator is 

 known not only to be an observer of great accuracy but to possess 

 a mind of great imagination and generalising power. In several t 54 ?] 

 papers he put forward his utmost ingenuity to demolish the phago- 

 cytic theory root and branch. He would recognise neither the 

 importance of phagocytosis in healing and immunity, nor the defen- 

 sive function of the giant cells. Weigert, however, contented himself 

 with formulating theoretical objections, and no works directed specially 

 against the doctrine of phagocytosis have issued from his laboratory. 

 It must be stated, however, that although there has been such oppo- 



1 "Lehrb. d. pathol. Anat.," Jena, 3 te Aufl.; Beitr. z. path. Anat., Jena, 1889, 

 Bd. v, S. 419. 



2 Fortschr. d. Med., Berlin, 1887, Bd. v, S. 732; Ibid., 1888, Bd. vi, SS. 83, 809. 



