Electronic edition published by Cultural Heritage Langauge Technologies (with permission from Charles Scribners and Sons) and funded by the National Science Foundation International Digital Libraries Program. This text has been proofread to a low degree of accuracy. It was converted to electronic form using data entry.
STENSEN, NIELS, also known as Nicolaus Steno
(b. Copenhagen, Denmark, 1%6111 January 1638; d.
Schwerin, Germany, 25 November/5 December
1686), anatomy, geology, mineralogy.
the eyelids on the same principle that applied to
the saliva and the mucous membrane of the intestinal
canals. He grouped the afferent and efferent
lachrymal ducts around the tear gland proper and
what was then called glandula lacrimalis, in the
inner eye corner. The moisture of the nose led him,
in this connection, to the discovery of the nasal
glands. Stensen considered the possibility that the
moisture necessary for the nose could come from
the ears through the eustachian tubes, and from the
eyes through the nasal duct, but decided that the
principal source was the nasal glands. He assumed
that this fluid disappeared again through the nostrils
and also through an opening to the gullet, the
ductus nasopalatini, also called ductus Stenoniani.
In his survey De musculis et glandulis (1664)
Stensen enumerated all his new observations and
individual discoveries, especially those he had
made during the first half of his stay in Leiden:
earwax duct, ducts of the cheek glands, the smaller
gland ducts under the tongue, the glandular ducts
of the palate, the glandular ducts of the epiglottis,
the nasal gland, the nasal gland peculiar to sheep,
the passage from the eyelids to the nose, the lachrymal
ducts, and the gland ducts that lubricate the
exterior surface of the ray. In 1673 Stensen found,
independently of Peyer, the accumulations of
lymph follicles in the small intestine (named for
Peyer), but published his findings four years later.
The second period of research began with a
challenge to the traditional overestimation of the
heart: “One has glorified the heart as the sun, even
as the king while upon closer examination, one
finds nothing but a muscle,” which was directed
not only against Aristotle, who saw the heart as
the seat of the soul, the source of life, and the central
organ of all sensation and motion, but also
against Galen, who, following the authority of Plato,
assigned the life forces of blood motion and
heat distribution to the left ventricle. Even Harvey,
who first recognized the purely muscle activity
of the heart in maintaining the circulation of the
blood, did not abandon the idea of a vital warmth
within the heart, or did so only very late.
In a letter of 26 August 1662, Stensen told
Thomas Bartholin how fascinated he was by the independent
motions of the vena cava, which continued
even after the stopping of the heartbeat; this
stimulated Stensen to make many investigations of
the heart and respiratory organs. On 5 March he
had spoken of a careful investigation of the heart
musculature, and on 30 April he had stated: “As to
the substance of the heart, I think I am able to
prove that there exists nothing in the heart that is
not found also in a muscle, and that there is nothing
missing in the heart which one finds in a muscle.”
De musculis et glandis (1664) shows an abundance
of new observations and discoveries concerning
the anatomy and physiology of individual
muscle, and the triangularis, which leads from
function of the intercostal muscles, the sacrolumbar
muscle, and the triangulararis, which leads from
the bony end of the true ribs to the central line of
the sternum. He described the role of the diaphragm
and several other muscles during respiration;
classified the tongue as a muscle; and also
described the temporal muscle, and the muscle
layer of the esophagus, which has its fibers arranged
spirally.
From this research Stensen drew comprehensive
conclusions concerning the structure of the muscles:
that in each muscle there are arteries, veins,
fibers and fibrils, nerves, and membranes; that
each muscle fiber ends in a tendon on both sides;
that no muscle tissue is a parenchyma (caro) but
consists instead of closely woven fibers; and that
the contractility lies in the muscle substance proper.
He then applied all his finding to the heart and
proved its muscle structure from both positive and
negative evidence. He stated that the heart possesses
all the characteristics of a muscle structure
and that it is neither the seat of joy nor the source
of the blood or of the spiritus vitales. The automatic
movement, independent of the will, is shared
by the heart with other muscles. The findings were
new, and even ten years later Bartholin, in a new
edition of his Institutiones anatomicae (1611), did
not accept them. Croone revised his De ratione
motus musculorum (1664) according to Stensen's
findings in the second edition (1670).
The controversy over his views caused Stensen,
during his first year in Italy (1666%611667) to publish
his Elementorum myologiae specimen, which
dealt chiefly with the questions: Does the muscle
increase in size during contraction? Are hardness
and swelling of the muscle signs of an increase in
volume? These were acute questions at the time,
when even Borelli, one of the leading members of
the Accademia del Cimento, still believed that
swelling was caused by the influx of nerve fluid.
Stensen first provided clear concepts and a clear-cut
terminology of the parts of the muscle. Then he
characterized the individual muscle fiber and the
muscle itself as a parallepiped bordered by six parallelograms.
In the second part of the Elementorum
he dealt with objections against the new knowledge
about muscles, and lamented the insufficient knowledge