The Cell and Protoplasm as Container, Object, and Substance, 1835–1861

Abstract

This article revisits the development of the protoplasm concept as it originally arose from critiques of the cell theory, and examines how the term “protoplasm” transformed from a botanical term of art in the 1840s to the so-called “living substance” and “the physical basis of life” two decades later. I show that there were two major shifts in biological materialism that needed to occur before protoplasm theory could be elevated to have equal status with cell theory in the nineteenth century. First, I argue that biologists had to accept that life could inhere in matter alone, regardless of form. Second, I argue that in the 1840s, ideas of what formless, biological matter was capable of dramatically changed: going from a “coagulation paradigm” (Pickstone, 1973) that had existed since Theophrastus, to a more robust conception of matter that was itself capable of movement and self-maintenance. In addition to revisiting Schleiden and Schwann’s original writings on cell theory, this article looks especially closely at Hugo von Mohl’s definition of the protoplasm concept in 1846, how it differed from his primordial utricle theory of cell structure two years earlier. This article draws on Lakoff and Johnson’s theory of “ontological metaphors” to show that the cell, primordial utricle, and protoplasm can be understood as material container, object, and substance, and that these overlapping distinctions help explain the chaotic and confusing early history of cell theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baker, John R. 1949. “The Cell-Theory: A Restatement, History, and Critique, Part II.” Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science 90(9): 87–108

  2. Baker, John R. 1952. “The Cell-Theory: A Restatement, History, and Critique Part III. The Cell as a Morphological Unit .” Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science 93(22): 157–190

  3. Brain, Robert. 2015. The Pulse of Modernism: Physiological Aesthetics in Fin-de-Siècle Europe. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Churchill, Frederick B. 1989. “The Guts of the Matter: Infusoria from Ehrenberg to Bütschli, 1838–1876.” Journal of the History of Biology 22(2): 189–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohn, Ferdinand. 1850. “Nachträge zur Naturgeschichte des Protococcus Pluvialis Kützing.” Novorum Actorum Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae Naturae Curiosorum 22: 605–764.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cohn, Ferdinand. 1853. “On the Natural History of Protococcus Pluvialis.” Translated by George Busk. Botanical and Physiological Memoirs of the Ray Society 10(2): 517–564.

  7. Conklin, Edwin G. 1939. “Predecessors of Schleiden and Schwann.” The American Naturalist 73(749): 538–546. doi:10.2307/2457600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Conklin, Edwin G. 1940. “Cell and Protoplasm Concepts: Historical Account.” Forest Ray Moulton (ed.). The Cell and Protoplasm. Washington, D.C.: The Science Press, pp. 6–19.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dietrich, Michael R. 2015. “Explaining the ‘Pulse of Protoplasm’: The Search for Molecular Mechanisms of Protoplasmic Streaming.” Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 57(1): 14–22. doi:10.1111/jipb.12317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Duchesneau, François. 1987. Genèse de la théorie cellulaire. Montréal: Bellarmin.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dujardin, Félix 1835. “Recherches sur les organismes inférieurs.” Annales des sciences naturelles, zoologie, 2e série, tome 4ème: 343–377.

  12. Ecker, Alexander. 1846. Zur Lehre vom Bau und Leben der contractilen Substanz der niedersten Thiere. Basel: Schweighauser’schen Univeritaets-Buchdruckerei.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Emerton, Norma E. 1984. The Scientific Reinterpretation of Form. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Farley, John. 1977. The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fauré-Fremiet, E. 1935. “L’Oeuvre de Félix Dujardin et la notion de protoplasma”. Protoplasma23: 250–269. doi:10.1007/BF01603393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Geison, Gerald L. 1969. “The Protoplasmic Theory of Life and the Vitalist-Mechanist Debate.” Isis 60(3): 273–292. doi:10.2307/229483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hall, Thomas Steele. 1969. Ideas of Life and Matter: Studies in the History of General Physiology, 600 B.C.1900 A.D. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Harris, Henry. 1999. The Birth of the Cell. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hartig, Theodor. 1843. Beiträge zur Entwickelungsgeschichte der Pflanzen. Berlin: Albert Förstner.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Heidenhain, Rudolf 1888. “Purkinje, Johannes Evangelista.” Allgemeine deutsche Biographie. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.

  21. Hertwig, Richard. 1902. “Die Protozoen Und Die Zelltheorie.” Archiv für Protistenkunde 1(1): 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hertwig, Oscar 1895. The Cell: Outlines of General Anatomy and Physiology. Translated by M. Campbell. London: Swan Sonnenschein & co.

  23. Hughes, Arthur. 1959. A History of Cytology. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Klemm, Margot. 2003. Ferdinand Julius Cohn 18281898: Pflanzenphysiologe, Mikrobiologe, Begründer der Bakteriologie. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphors We Live By. 2nd ed. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lombard, Jonathan. 2014. “Once upon a Time the Cell Membranes: 175 Years of Cell Boundary Research”. Biology Direct 9(32). doi:10.1186/s13062-014-0032-7.

  27. Lorch, Jacob. 1967. “The Elusive Cambium.” Archives internationales d'histoire des sciences 20: 253–283

  28. Lorch, Jacob. 1972. “The Charisma of Crystals in Biology.” In The Interaction Between Science and Philosophy, edited by Samuel Sambursky and Yehuda Elkana, 445–461. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press

  29. Maulitz, Russell C. 1971. “Schwann’s Way: Cells and Crystals.” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 26(4): 422–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mendelsohn, Everett. 1963. “Cell Theory and the Development of General Physiology.” Archives internationales d'histoire des sciences 65: 419–429.

  31. Mendelsohn, Everett. 1965. “Physical Models and Physiological Concepts: Explanation in Nineteenth-Century Biology.” The British Journal for the History of Science 2(3): 201–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mohl, Hugo. 1837. “Ueber die Vermehrung der Pflanzen-Zellen durch Theilung.” Flora; oder allgemeine botanische Zeitung 20(1): 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mohl, Hugo. 1843. “Einige Bemerkungen über die botanische Terminologie.” Botanische Zeitung 1(1): 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  34. von Mohl, Hugo. 1844. “Einige Bemerkungen über den Bau der vegetabilischen Zelle.” Botanische Zeitung 2(15–19): 273–277, 289–294, 305–310, 321–326, 337–342.

  35. Mohl, Hugo. 1846a. Mikrographie; oder, Anleitung zur Kenntniss und zum Gebrauche des Mikroskops. L.F. Fues.

  36. von Mohl, Hugo. 1846b. “On the Structure of the Vegetable Cell.” Translated by Arthur Henfrey. Taylor’s Scientific Memoirs 4: 91–114.

    Google Scholar 

  37. von Mohl, Hugo. 1846c. “Ueber die Saftbewegung im Innern der Zellen.” Botanische Zeitung 4(5–6): 73–78, 89–94.

  38. von Mohl, Hugo. 1846d. “On the Circulation of the Sap in the Interior of Cells.” Annals and Magazine of Natural History 18(July): 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  39. von Mohl, Hugo. 1852. Principles of the Anatomy and Physiology of the Vegetable Cell. Translated by Arthur Henfrey. London: J. Van Voorst.

  40. von Mohl, Hugo. 1853. “Die vegetabilische Zelle.” In Handwörterbuch der Physiologie, mit Rücksicht auf physiologische Pathologie, edited by Rudoph Wagner, 4:167–310. Braunschweig: Friedrich, Bieweg und Sohn.

  41. von Mohl, Hugo. 1855. “Der Primordialschlauch.” Botanische Zeitung 13(40–42): 689–701, 713–725, 729–737.

  42. Müller-Wille, Staffan. 2010. “Cell Theory, Specificity, and Reproduction, 1837–1870.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41(3): 225–231. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mylott, Anne Louise 2002. “The Roots of Cell Theory in Sap, Spores, and Schleiden.” PhD Dissertation, Bloomington: Indiana University.

  44. Nägeli, Carl. 1846. “Zellenkerne, Zellenbindung und Zellenwachsthum bei den Pflanzen: Fortsetzung und Schluss.” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Botanik 3–4: 22–93.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Parnes, Ohad., 2000. “The Envisioning of Cells.” Science in Context 13(1): 71–92. doi:10.1017/S0269889700003720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Parnes, Ohad., 2003. “From Agents to Cells: Theodor Schwann’s Research Notes of the Years 1835–1838.” Frederic Lawrence Holmes, Jürgen Renn, and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger (eds.). Reworking the Bench: Notebooks in the History of Science. Secaucus: Kluwer, pp. 119–139.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pickstone, John V. 1973. “Globules and Coagula: Concepts of Tissue Formation in the Early Nineteenth Century.” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 28(4): 336–356. doi:10.1093/jhmas/XXVIII.4.336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pringsheim, Nathaniel. 1854. Untersuchungen über den Bau und die Bildung der Pflanzenzelle. Berlin: August Hirschwald.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Purkinje, Jan Evangelista. 1840. “Über die Analogieen in den Struktur-Elementen des thierischen und pflanzlichen Organismus.” Uebersicht der Arbeiten und Veränderungen der schlesischen Gesellschaft fÜr vaterländische Kultur, im Jahre 1839, 81–83.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Reynolds, Andrew. 2008. “Amoebae as Exemplary Cells: The Protean Nature of an Elementary Organism.” Journal of the History of Biology 41(2): 307–337. doi:10.2307/29737549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Reynolds, Andrew. 2010. “The Redoubtable Cell.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41(3): 194–201. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.07.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Richmond, Marsha L. 1989. “Protozoa as Precursors of Metazoa: German Cell Theory and Its Critics at the Turn of the Century.” Journal of the History of Biology 22(2): 243–276. doi:10.2307/4331094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sachs, Julius. 1890. History of Botany (15301860). Translated by Henry E. F. Garnsey. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  54. Schickore, Jutta., 2007. The Microscope and the Eye: A History of Reflections, 17401870. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Schleiden, Matthias. 1838. “Beiträge zur Phytogenesis.” Archiv für Anatomie, Physiologie, und wissenschaftliche Medecin 5: 137–176.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Schleiden, Matthias. 1841. “Contributions to Our Knowledge of Phytogenesis.” Translated by William Francis. Taylor’s Scientific Memoirs 2(6): 281–312.

  57. Schleiden, Matthias. 1842. Grundzüge der wissenschaftlichen Botanik. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Schleiden, Matthias. 1849. Principles of Scientific Botany. Translated by Edwin Lankester. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans.

  59. Schultze, Max. 1861. “Ueber Muskelkörperchen und das, was man eine Zelle zu nennen habe.” Archiv für Anatomie, Physiologie, und wissenschaftliche Medecin, 1–27.

  60. Schwann, Theodor. 1839. Mikroskopische Untersuchungen ueber die Uebereinstimmung in der Struktur und dem Wachsthum der Thiers und Pflanzen. Berlin: Sanders’chen Buchhandlung.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Schwann, Theodor. 1847. Microscopical Researches into the Accordance in the Structure and Growth of Animals and Plants. Translated by Henry Smith. London: The Sydenham Society.

  62. Sloan, Phillip R. 1986. “Darwin, Vital Matter, and the Transformism of Species.” Journal of the History of Biology 19(3): 369–445. doi:10.1007/BF00138286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Strick, James. 1999. “Darwinism and the Origin of Life: The Role of H. C. Bastian in the British Spontaneous Generation Debates, 1868–1873.” Journal of the History of Biology 32(1): 51–92. doi:10.2307/4331509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Strick, James. 2000. Sparks of Life: Darwinism and the Victorian Debates Over Spontaneous Generation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Wilson, Edmund B. 1896. The Cell in Development and Inheritance. 1st ed. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Liu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, D. The Cell and Protoplasm as Container, Object, and Substance, 1835–1861. J Hist Biol 50, 889–925 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-016-9460-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cell
  • Protoplasm
  • Cambium
  • Primordial utricle
  • Matter
  • Coagulation