The birth of the cell

Harris offers a solid description of microscopic anatomy chiefly for the nineteenth century, with forays especially before. Readers will quickly discover Harris's passion for the topic, its workers, and the art of observing things microscopic. The author is a highly experienced microscopist who here is tracing the historical origins of his practice in search of the process of assembly: how did evidence for cell theory come to be collected? Who was responsible for discovering what? Harris's goal is to look past "many standard accounts ... in particular the perfunctory versions given in general textbooks" (p. xi) and describe a far more complex network of research in which internal tensions and competing projects are brought to the foreground. Who really discovered the cell doctrine, and what else was discovered in the process? Harris deserves much praise. The examined range of primary published sources is impressive. So too is the provision of quotes, with English translations accompanied by an appendix of original language texts. Harris's coverage is broadly European, and his awareness of intra-European rivalries makes him sensitive to looking past favouritism grounded in nationalism. This sensitivity brings Harris to offer valuable descriptions of early nineteenth-century French research, including that by Henri Dutrochet and Francois Raspail, in an effort to prove not everything new came from a small set of German hands. Others, too, are saved from similar "historiographical injustices" (p. 64) as Harris builds a diverse and talented community around-plus a populous intellectual parentage for-well-known cell theorists such as Matthias Schleiden, Theodor Schwann, and Rudolf Virchow. They certainly were not alone. This book provides superb coverage of relevant researchers and texts. Harris's expertise with the craft of microscopy combines with his scholarly eye for detail in the literature. This is a work of immense patience and care. As epilogue, short chapters also consider late nineteenthcentury investigations of chromosomes and determinants of heredity. Yet, historians will be disappointed. Harris forces his historical actors to see through his eyes and not their own. This presentism is explicit (pp. 24-5) and defended on realist grounds-Harris is too experienced a microscopist to let nature count for nothing in the construction of facts. But here he goes too far. By reducing research to a primitive form of discovery (where either we see it properly or we don't), Harris fails to value the distinction between seeing and seeing as. The complex interpretative matrix filtering observation as each microscopist peered through their lenses goes unexamined. How can cell thinking be sensitively described while complex debates about the origin of life and the nature of animation are excluded? Nature underdetermines understanding. Whether they include natural theology, animalicular theory, Naturphilosophie, or harsh materialism, these matrices shape the ways researchers