The dispute on the movement of skeletal muscles in 1667 between Giovanni Alfonso Borelli, who maintained the ancient movement caused by inflation theory, and Niels Stensen (Nicolaus Steno), who proposed the first recorded theory of fibre contraction, had far reaching implications for understanding the relation between muscle morphology and function. A dialogue is reconstructed from citations from the two authors’ main works. They had a similar dispute on the movement of the heart along the lines of the debate in the 1630s between William Harvey favouring contraction and Rene Descartes favouring swelling. Evidence is provided for the delayed general acceptance of fibre contraction in both heart and skeletal muscles. It is shown that the inflation interpretation of muscular mechanics elaborated by Borelli, Johann Bernoulli, his son Daniel, and by others, was maintained from ancient authors and Descartes in part due to a conceptual block resulting from the mechanical philosophy that denied any force of attraction in nature. The alternative theory, that of fibre contraction, was thought of as self-motion, which violated an accepted mechanical principle and therefore was rejected. In the mid-18th century, Albrecht von Haller recorded no microscopic structures in support of inflation. He adopted the view that contraction in fibres of muscles is generated through an ‘irritability’. Research on this entity has taken place ever since with a clear preponderance of studies on single fibre properties and subcellular structures. Haller did not, however, refer to the original contribution of Stensen on fibre contraction. Haller even rejected Stensen’s functional architecture of skeletal muscle. This structure, now called the unipennate, or semipennate, actuator, was overlooked and had to await confirmation by anatomical rediscovery and pragmatic demonstration through successful applications in computer models of muscular contraction in the 1980s.

Keywords:
Muscle contraction, Muscle models, History of medicine, Early modern biology
This content is only available via PDF.
© 1997 S. Karger AG, Basel
1997
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.