528 
scope.”* Previous to him no author appears 
to have examined them. But Leeuwenhoek,+ 
his friend and correspondent, makes continual 
mention of his examinations of the muscular 
fibre of various animals. This acute and en- 
thusiastic observer clearly recognized the im- 
portant fact, that each elementary fibre is a 
and separate organ in itself; he was 
astonished to find that in all animals, the 
largest as well as the smallest, these fibres are 
excessively minute; he discovered the manner 
in which they are aggregated, and invested by 
areolar tissue; and by boiling and drying a 
muscle and then making tranverse sections of 
it, he ascertained those of voluntary muscle to 
be polygonal and solid. He described the cross 
lines, which he conceived to be on the surface 
only and to be the coils of a spiral thread. 
To this structure he attributed the active power 
of the fibre, comparing it to an elastic coil of 
wire. Ie further saw the longitudinal lines 
visible on the elementary fibre, and considered 
them to be an evidence of a still minuter com- 
position by fibrille. All these points are well 
illustrated by figures, which leave no doubt of 
his meaning; but, as his results are scattered 
through a great number of letters, much of 
what he accomplished seems to have been over- 
looked by later writers. Leeuwenhoek con- 
cluded that in contraction the cross markings 
approximate, but I cannot discover that he 
speaks of having seen this. He confounded 
the cross markings seen on tendon with those 
of muscle, and fell into the prevalent error of 
attributing contractility to the tendons. Mal- 
pighi incidentally mentions the minute structure 
of muscle in only one passage of his works.t He 
appears to have seen the transverse stripes of the 
elementary fibre,and tohave alsolikened them to 
those of tendon. Contemporary with Leeuwen- 
hoek was de Heide,§ who, in 1698, published 
some observations on muscular fibre, describ- 
ing and figuring the transverse markings. In 
1741, Muys,|| in a voluminous work, with 
good plates, gave all that was previously known, 
and added many observations of hisown. His 
book, however, is learned rather than profound. 
He separates the elementary fibres into the 
simple and reticulated, and seems to have con- 
sidered the stripes to be the effect either of mi- 
nute zigzags during contraction or of a spiral 
form of the fibrille. 
Prochaska§[ next produced an excellent trea- 
tise on muscle, in which he explained, with 
great clearness, the figure, size,and solidity of 
the elementary fibre, and the appearances of 
the fibrille into which it divides. He fell into 
the error, however, of confounding the trans- 
verse markings in the intervals of the discs, 
with other creasings or flexuosities which never 
* Posthumous Works by Waller, 1707,—Life, 
p- XX. 6 : 
+ Epist. Physiologice, passim. 
t De enslbyah, p- 9, 10, written before the 
year 1687. : Peas 
§ Experimenta circa conguims missionem, fibras 
motrices, &c. Amstel. 1698. 
Investigatio fabrice, &c, Lugd, Bat. 1741, 
De carne musculari. Vienne, 1778. 
MUSCULAR MOTION. r 
4 
exist in the living body, but continually pre- 
sent themselves, in ao dead fibre, ra eee 
chanical causes. All these he attributed to — 
lateral pressure made on the fibre and fibrille 
by vessels, nerves, and areolar tissue, which 
he erroneously imagined to penetrate the inte- 
rior of the fibre. Prochaska injected muscle 
with great success,* and found the vessels so _ 
numerous that he was induced to believe con-— 
traction to depend on distension of the vessels, 
throwing the fibrille into zigzags. a 
Fontana,t a few years afte gave a 
ape more accurate meyer of the fibre than 
ad previously appeared, one remark: 
for its sim licity.. According to him the ele- 
mentary fibre cousists of fibrille, marked at 
equal distances by dark lines, which by their 
lateral apposition occasion the ance — 
of cross strie. Hence he styled the fibre a — 
primitive fasciculus. By this term, which has 
been generally adopted, undue importance is 
attributed to the longitudinal cleavage, for the — 
elementary fibre may as justly be called a pi 
as a bundle. It is not, however, in strictnes: 
either one or the other. , 
In the period that has elapsed since For 
tana’s description was published, up to the 
last few years, no real addition has been made 
to our knowledge, and so discredited or for- 
gotten, at least in this country, were the labours 
of the authors already enumerated, that th 
anatomy of the muscular fibre was taken u 
as a new inquiry in 1818 by Sir Everard He 
and Mr. Bauer.} The latter very exceller 
observer must have been deceived by the im 
—, of his glasses, which do not see 
ave been adapted to so minute a structur 
for his results, as published by Sir E. Home 
have had the effect of retarding rather than 
advancing our knowledge, by raising doubts a: 
to the credibility of any conclusions found 
on microscopical research. In 1832, LE 
Hodgkin and Mr. Lister§ re-discovered the 
transverse markings on the elementary fibre: 
voluntary muscle and of the heart, and point 
out, as Muys and Fontana had done, th 
their presence was a character by which th 
could be distinguished from the fibre of 1 
uterus, bladder, &c., which latter they o 
sequently denied to be muscular. Since the 
many inquirers, both in this country a 
abroad, have taken up the subject with ii 
proved instruments. oy 
Among those who have arrived at cone 
sions similar to those of Fontana may be m 
tioned the names of Lauth, Miiller, Schwa 
and Henle. Others, however, have entertai 
very opposite and, as I believe, erroneous ¥ 
of the composition of the fibre. Mandl e 
ceives the cross markings to be produced — 
Lh ak 
“J 
» OP 
- 
me by Baron Larrey, to whom they were pr 
wy Prochaska himself, during the occupation 
ienna by the French. ~s 
+ Sur le Venin de la Vipére, &. 1781. 
¢ Phil. Trans. 1818 & 1826. one 
$ Appendix to Translation of Dr. Edwards’s we 
Ne l’Influence des Agens Physiques sur la Vie. 
TF ecaoa pratique du Microscope, p. 7: L 
* Some of these preparations were y s 
. 
