Alle de Brieven van Antoni van Leeuwenhoek: The Collected Letters of Antoni vanLeeuwenhoek by Antoni van Leeuwenhoek; L. C. PalmReview by: Marianne WinderIsis, Vol. 73, No. 2 (Jun., 1982), p. 315Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/231728 .

Accessed: 08/05/2014 23:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:23:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS-ISIS, 73: 2 : 267 (1982) BOOK REVIEWS-ISIS, 73: 2 : 267 (1982) BOOK REVIEWS-ISIS, 73: 2 : 267 (1982)

and in need of correction. Unfortunately, no new alternative overall picture of Restora- tion science and society is made available. In part this may be owing to some unusually shabby prose: the text is festooned with dan- gling participles, apparent non sequiturs, and grammatically incomplete sentences. ("In grammar are the confusions of the soul revealed.") The major fault, however, lies elsewhere. While Hunter complains, he rarely engages the existing interpretations. Several of the positions he attacks are not those of actual writers but of carelessly con- structed straw-persons. Hunter's hosts of counterinstances often fail to stick in the mind because the theory or pattern they are said to contradict is rarely clearly and pre- cisely stated. Hunter's stress upon counter- instances has undoubtedly added to our stock of knowledge about the social rela- tions of Restoration science; whether it has increased our understanding is questionable.

STEVEN SHAPIN

Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. Alle de Brieven van Antoni van Leeuwenhoek: The Collected Letters of Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. (Text in Dutch and English.) Edited by L. C. Palm. Volume X: 1694-1695. 351 pp., plates., bibl., indexes. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1979. $105; Dfl190.

This lavishly produced edition contains letters 134 to 147, that is, 14 letters covering 16 months, in the Dutch original and in English translation. Most of them are by Leeuwenhoek to naturalists in Holland and Britain and to the Royal Society. One is a reply to George Garden, whose letter is in- cluded, as is a response to Leeuwenhoek's letter by Benedictus Haan. A letter by Rich- ard Waller is mentioned on pages 86-87 but not reproduced, since it is not preserved (Leeuwenhoek's reply to it is letter 138). Leeuwenhoek's letters describe his observa- tions through the magnifying glass of ear- wax, the circulation of the blood in the leg of a crab, the muscles in the tongue of an ox, the generation of mussels, the cornea of the eye of a dragonfly, the cycle of the apple- blossom weevil and the nutmeg weevil, of the ermine moth and of the ichneumon fly, the eggs of the ray, and aphids. He tells us not only how he set up his experiments but what deliberations accompanied them. A constant refrain is the impossibility of spon- taneous generation. On the other hand, Leeuwenhoek does not believe that the fetus grows out of a fertilized egg released from

and in need of correction. Unfortunately, no new alternative overall picture of Restora- tion science and society is made available. In part this may be owing to some unusually shabby prose: the text is festooned with dan- gling participles, apparent non sequiturs, and grammatically incomplete sentences. ("In grammar are the confusions of the soul revealed.") The major fault, however, lies elsewhere. While Hunter complains, he rarely engages the existing interpretations. Several of the positions he attacks are not those of actual writers but of carelessly con- structed straw-persons. Hunter's hosts of counterinstances often fail to stick in the mind because the theory or pattern they are said to contradict is rarely clearly and pre- cisely stated. Hunter's stress upon counter- instances has undoubtedly added to our stock of knowledge about the social rela- tions of Restoration science; whether it has increased our understanding is questionable.

STEVEN SHAPIN

Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. Alle de Brieven van Antoni van Leeuwenhoek: The Collected Letters of Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. (Text in Dutch and English.) Edited by L. C. Palm. Volume X: 1694-1695. 351 pp., plates., bibl., indexes. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1979. $105; Dfl190.

This lavishly produced edition contains letters 134 to 147, that is, 14 letters covering 16 months, in the Dutch original and in English translation. Most of them are by Leeuwenhoek to naturalists in Holland and Britain and to the Royal Society. One is a reply to George Garden, whose letter is in- cluded, as is a response to Leeuwenhoek's letter by Benedictus Haan. A letter by Rich- ard Waller is mentioned on pages 86-87 but not reproduced, since it is not preserved (Leeuwenhoek's reply to it is letter 138). Leeuwenhoek's letters describe his observa- tions through the magnifying glass of ear- wax, the circulation of the blood in the leg of a crab, the muscles in the tongue of an ox, the generation of mussels, the cornea of the eye of a dragonfly, the cycle of the apple- blossom weevil and the nutmeg weevil, of the ermine moth and of the ichneumon fly, the eggs of the ray, and aphids. He tells us not only how he set up his experiments but what deliberations accompanied them. A constant refrain is the impossibility of spon- taneous generation. On the other hand, Leeuwenhoek does not believe that the fetus grows out of a fertilized egg released from

and in need of correction. Unfortunately, no new alternative overall picture of Restora- tion science and society is made available. In part this may be owing to some unusually shabby prose: the text is festooned with dan- gling participles, apparent non sequiturs, and grammatically incomplete sentences. ("In grammar are the confusions of the soul revealed.") The major fault, however, lies elsewhere. While Hunter complains, he rarely engages the existing interpretations. Several of the positions he attacks are not those of actual writers but of carelessly con- structed straw-persons. Hunter's hosts of counterinstances often fail to stick in the mind because the theory or pattern they are said to contradict is rarely clearly and pre- cisely stated. Hunter's stress upon counter- instances has undoubtedly added to our stock of knowledge about the social rela- tions of Restoration science; whether it has increased our understanding is questionable.

STEVEN SHAPIN

Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. Alle de Brieven van Antoni van Leeuwenhoek: The Collected Letters of Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. (Text in Dutch and English.) Edited by L. C. Palm. Volume X: 1694-1695. 351 pp., plates., bibl., indexes. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1979. $105; Dfl190.

This lavishly produced edition contains letters 134 to 147, that is, 14 letters covering 16 months, in the Dutch original and in English translation. Most of them are by Leeuwenhoek to naturalists in Holland and Britain and to the Royal Society. One is a reply to George Garden, whose letter is in- cluded, as is a response to Leeuwenhoek's letter by Benedictus Haan. A letter by Rich- ard Waller is mentioned on pages 86-87 but not reproduced, since it is not preserved (Leeuwenhoek's reply to it is letter 138). Leeuwenhoek's letters describe his observa- tions through the magnifying glass of ear- wax, the circulation of the blood in the leg of a crab, the muscles in the tongue of an ox, the generation of mussels, the cornea of the eye of a dragonfly, the cycle of the apple- blossom weevil and the nutmeg weevil, of the ermine moth and of the ichneumon fly, the eggs of the ray, and aphids. He tells us not only how he set up his experiments but what deliberations accompanied them. A constant refrain is the impossibility of spon- taneous generation. On the other hand, Leeuwenhoek does not believe that the fetus grows out of a fertilized egg released from

an ovary, but thinks that some of the sperma- tozoa, which he calls "dierken" (little ani- mals) or animalculi, grow in the uterus into fetuses.

The editors indicate the provenience of all extant manuscripts and identify the pub- lished sources for all printed letters. They summarize each letter and describe the ac- companying illustrations. None of the origi- nal drawings belonging to the letters in this volume has been preserved, but the editors describe the printed versions that Leeuwen- hoek commissioned. Finally, they provide a note on the form of the text chosen from among the several extant printed versions where there is no longer an original manu- script. The footnotes at the bottom of each page are by specialists who explain in mod- em terms what Leeuwenhoek saw and the present state of knowledge on the subject. The translation is good, with occasional lapses like "the drawings have not been found back," a literal rendering of Dutch "terug gevonden" meaning "found again."

The format is smaller than that of the pre- vious nine volumes, which is an advantage in itself, but makes the set look lopsided. This handsome volume should be a joy for anyone who likes to watch an early scientist trying to get an insight into the workings of nature.

MARIANNE WINDER

Shirley A. Roe. Matter, Life, and Genera- tion: Eighteenth-Century Embryology and the Haller-Wolff Debate. x + 214 pp., illus., apps., bibl., index. New York/ Cambridge/London: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1981. $32.50.

Albrecht von Haller played many roles, a number of which are reviewed here. His principal influence on the development of biology proper was in physiology, where his concept of irritability was particularly im- portant for the future of this discipline. Al- though he was deeply interested in what we now call embryology, most historians who deal with the history of the study of genera- tion have passed him by. There are two pos- sible reasons for this, both valid. In the first place, he shifted his stance twice, opting first for preformation, next for epigenesis, finally again for preformation. Secondly, the principal theories and supposed explana- tions of epigenesis and of preformation were formulated by others than Haller. Nonethe- less, Haller did attempt to make observa- tions on embryos and to think about their

an ovary, but thinks that some of the sperma- tozoa, which he calls "dierken" (little ani- mals) or animalculi, grow in the uterus into fetuses.

The editors indicate the provenience of all extant manuscripts and identify the pub- lished sources for all printed letters. They summarize each letter and describe the ac- companying illustrations. None of the origi- nal drawings belonging to the letters in this volume has been preserved, but the editors describe the printed versions that Leeuwen- hoek commissioned. Finally, they provide a note on the form of the text chosen from among the several extant printed versions where there is no longer an original manu- script. The footnotes at the bottom of each page are by specialists who explain in mod- em terms what Leeuwenhoek saw and the present state of knowledge on the subject. The translation is good, with occasional lapses like "the drawings have not been found back," a literal rendering of Dutch "terug gevonden" meaning "found again."

The format is smaller than that of the pre- vious nine volumes, which is an advantage in itself, but makes the set look lopsided. This handsome volume should be a joy for anyone who likes to watch an early scientist trying to get an insight into the workings of nature.

MARIANNE WINDER

Shirley A. Roe. Matter, Life, and Genera- tion: Eighteenth-Century Embryology and the Haller-Wolff Debate. x + 214 pp., illus., apps., bibl., index. New York/ Cambridge/London: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1981. $32.50.

Albrecht von Haller played many roles, a number of which are reviewed here. His principal influence on the development of biology proper was in physiology, where his concept of irritability was particularly im- portant for the future of this discipline. Al- though he was deeply interested in what we now call embryology, most historians who deal with the history of the study of genera- tion have passed him by. There are two pos- sible reasons for this, both valid. In the first place, he shifted his stance twice, opting first for preformation, next for epigenesis, finally again for preformation. Secondly, the principal theories and supposed explana- tions of epigenesis and of preformation were formulated by others than Haller. Nonethe- less, Haller did attempt to make observa- tions on embryos and to think about their

an ovary, but thinks that some of the sperma- tozoa, which he calls "dierken" (little ani- mals) or animalculi, grow in the uterus into fetuses.

The editors indicate the provenience of all extant manuscripts and identify the pub- lished sources for all printed letters. They summarize each letter and describe the ac- companying illustrations. None of the origi- nal drawings belonging to the letters in this volume has been preserved, but the editors describe the printed versions that Leeuwen- hoek commissioned. Finally, they provide a note on the form of the text chosen from among the several extant printed versions where there is no longer an original manu- script. The footnotes at the bottom of each page are by specialists who explain in mod- em terms what Leeuwenhoek saw and the present state of knowledge on the subject. The translation is good, with occasional lapses like "the drawings have not been found back," a literal rendering of Dutch "terug gevonden" meaning "found again."

The format is smaller than that of the pre- vious nine volumes, which is an advantage in itself, but makes the set look lopsided. This handsome volume should be a joy for anyone who likes to watch an early scientist trying to get an insight into the workings of nature.

MARIANNE WINDER

Shirley A. Roe. Matter, Life, and Genera- tion: Eighteenth-Century Embryology and the Haller-Wolff Debate. x + 214 pp., illus., apps., bibl., index. New York/ Cambridge/London: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1981. $32.50.

Albrecht von Haller played many roles, a number of which are reviewed here. His principal influence on the development of biology proper was in physiology, where his concept of irritability was particularly im- portant for the future of this discipline. Al- though he was deeply interested in what we now call embryology, most historians who deal with the history of the study of genera- tion have passed him by. There are two pos- sible reasons for this, both valid. In the first place, he shifted his stance twice, opting first for preformation, next for epigenesis, finally again for preformation. Secondly, the principal theories and supposed explana- tions of epigenesis and of preformation were formulated by others than Haller. Nonethe- less, Haller did attempt to make observa- tions on embryos and to think about their

315 315 315

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:23:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions