surface, which was supposed to shrink or withdraw'from the matter
excreted. For, it has been asked, ‘ If the unvascular dentine be
the effect of conversion of the vascular pulp, by what process is
Then again, when Schwann admits the validity of an objection to the theory of the
ossification of the pulp, which I have proved to have no real weight, Mr. Nasmyth likewise,
admits its force in the words of his Author:—
Schwamm, l. c.p. 126.
“ Gegen die ansicht, dass die Zahnsubstanz
der verknöcherte Theil der
Pulpa ist, hat man die leichte Trennbarkeit
beider von einander eingeworfen,
und ich erkenne das Gewicht dieses
Einwurfs wohl an.”
Literary Gazette, l. c. p. 598.
“ Against the theory that the dental
substance is the ossified portion of the
pulp, the facility with which the one is
separated from the other has been adduced
; and he (Mr. N.) allowed the
force of that objection.”
But the influence of the old doctrine of the discontinuity of the pulp with the calcified
layers of the ivory, was then dominant in the mind of the plagiarist of Schwann: he says in
the original part of the R e p o r t “ Schwann regards the dental substance as the ossified pulp,
whilst Mr. N.’s observations lead him to conclude that the cells of the ivory, are altogether a
distinct formation.” Literary Gazette, p. 598. Mr. N., in fact, exaggerated at Birmingham
every statement of Schwann which led towards the doctrine of ossification of the pulp in order
that he might refute him. Thus, according to the £ Literary Gazette,’ he makes Schwann
“ regard the dental pulp as a simple cartilage;” he drags the dubious expression of his
inclination towards the ancient doctrine of the tooth being the ossified pulp, from a remote
part of Schwann’s treatise, converts it into a positive affirmation, and places it in juxta-position
with the statement of Schwann’s ideas of the relation between the dental pulp and cartilage,
in order to formally contradict the conclusions of the original German observer, who, Mr.
Nasmyth says : “ starts with a ready-made hypothesis, and founds his opinion rather on the observations
of others, and on the inferences he draws from them, than on his own actual
research.”—Literary Gazette, loc. cit. p. 598.
Thus, whatever influence the observations of Dr. Schwann might have had in drawing
Physiologists back towards the old doctrine expressed by Raw and Blake, must have been
greatly deteriorated by those who might place any confidence in the labours of Mr. Nasmyth,
on which his communication to the British Association, in August 1839 was based. The
right interpretation of Schwann’s observations, required, in fact, a new series of researches, and
that interpretation only became obvious to Mr. Nasmyth, after the publication of my
“ New Theory of Dental Development,” in the ‘ Compte Rendu’ of December, 1839.
all trace of the vascular ramifications obliterated, since none can
be detected in such dentine?’ The same question is equally applicable
to the nerves of the pulp. In the explanation of this
New Reports of the ‘ Communication to the British Association,' in August, 1839, were
then inserted in the Medical Gazette and Lancet for 1840, with various modifications, to make
the Birmingham Memoir of August, 1839, accord with the ‘New Theory' of December, 1839.
These interpolations may be judged of by the following paragraphs touching the ossification of
the pulp :—
“ Schwann regards the Rental
substance as the ossified
pulp, whilst Mr. N.'s observations
lead him to conclude that
the cells of the ivory are altogether
a distinct formation.”
—Literary Gazette, September,
1840, p. 598.
“ He concluded, therefore,
that the ivory is neither more
nor less than the ossified pulp,
and that it can in nowise he considered
as an unorganized body.”
—Lancet, June, 1840.
“ L'ivoire n'est donc pour
moi qu'une portion de la
pulpe ossifiée.''
Comptes Rendus de VAcadémie
des Sciences, Octobre 2.
1842, p. 680:—
and by many others which I pointed out in an exposure of Mr. Nasmyth's attempt to
appropriate to himself my discovery of the true ‘ Theory of Dental Development.'
When the inconsistencies between the reports of Mr. Nasmyth's Papers read before the
British Association at Birmingham, in August 1839, as published in the Literary Gazette and
Athenæum of September, 1839, and the Reports of the same Papers communicated by Mr. N.
to the Lancet and Medical Gazette of June, 1840, were demonstrated : Mr. Nasmyth replied :—
“ My answer to this is, that I did not furnish the Report to the Literary Gazette, and that the
notice of my Papers which I sent to the Athenæum, was so abbreviated and cut to pieces that
I cannot be responsible for it.”—Medical Gazette, June 26th, 1840, p. 545. If this assertion
is to be credited, the Report in the Literary Gazette must be regarded, however marvellous the
fact, as the work of a bond fide Reporter taking down the communication of an English soi-
disant discoverer, and publishing it in the form of a literal translation of a German Work :
or, that the Reporter mistook a quotation by Mr. Nasmyth from Dr. Schwann’s work for the
terms in which Mr. N. was narrating his own observations.
But Mr. Nasmyth, in his Communication to the “ Académie des Sciences,” Oct. 3, 1842,
in reference to Schwann’s work, from which a literal translation of the observations on the
Teeth is given in the Literary Gazette of Sept. 1831, as a Report of part of Mr. N’s Paper read
in the preceding month at Birmingham, states “ Son ouvrage ayant été publié à l'époque