Since the early nineteenth century, a membrane or wall has been central to the cell’s identity as the elementary unit of life. Yet the literally and metaphorically marginal status of the cell membrane made it the site of clashes over the definition of life and the proper way to study it. In this article I show how the modern cell membrane was conceived of by analogy to the first “artificial cell,” invented in 1864 by the chemist Moritz Traube (1826–1894), and reimagined by the plant physiologist Wilhelm Pfeffer (1845–1920) as a precision osmometer. Pfeffer’s artificial cell osmometer became the conceptual and empirical basis for the law of dilute solutions in physical chemistry, but his use of an artificial analogue to theorize the existence of the plasma membrane as distinct from the cell wall prompted debate over whether biology ought to be more closely unified with the physical sciences, or whether it must remain independent as the science of life. By examining how the histories of plant physiology and physical chemistry intertwined through the artificial cell, I argue that modern biology relocated vitality from protoplasmic living matter to non-living chemical substances—or, in broader cultural terms, that the disenchantment of life was accompanied by the (re)enchantment of ordinary matter.

François-Vincent Raspail (1794–1878) and Theodor Schwann (1810–1882) postulated—in 1827 and 1838, respectively—that plants and animals consist of, and originate from, cells. Whereas Raspail is mainly remembered for his involvement in the revolutions of 1830 and 1848, little is known about his scientific work. Schwann, by contrast, is regarded as one of the founders of cell theory, but historians of biology have hardly taken his philosophical, religious, and political ideas into account. Paying particular attention to Schwann’s unpublished writings, this paper reconstructs the research agendas of Raspail and Schwann, and contrasts the philosophical and political beliefs and incentives behind them. Whereas Raspail was a proponent of republicanism and materialism, Schwann opposed the modernist agenda of explaining nature and humankind without God, as well a democratic reshaping of society. Contrary to the prevailing historical narrative, this paper argues that cell theory did not emerge exclusively in conjunction with the rise of liberalism and materialism. Rather, the idea of a unifying principle of organic development encompassed different and even antagonistic visions of nature, humankind, society, and the role of religion in science. This essay is part of a special issue entitled REVOLUTIONARY POLITICS AND BIOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY FRANCE AND GERMANY edited by Lynn K. Nyhart and Florence Vienne.

In this paper, I examine the intertwined science, politics, and religion of a major figure of nineteenth-century French biology, the Parisian professor of histology Charles Robin (1821–1885). Historiography generally associates his name with France’s rejection of the cell theory formulated by Schwann and then Virchow in the 1830s–1850s. One of the main factors put forward is the influence of Comtean positivism. Here, I propose to go beyond this historiography and discuss not only convergences but also divergences between Robin’s and Comte’s visions of the organism and society. Moreover, I analyze Robin’s research agenda in light of the political ideas he defended as a republican in the context of the emergence of the Third Republic. At first sight, Robin’s political activity (marked by his late tenure as senator) may initially appear disconnected from his scientific agenda. However, I argue that Robin’s approaches to different areas of knowledge (biology, sociology, politics, and metaphysics) were mutually supportive and lent one another authority, especially through the parallel structure and shared vocabulary of their discourses. Ultimately, I demonstrate that Robin’s biological materialism, combined with his outspoken anticlericalism, constitutes a political stance, and show how the concept of “solidarity” helped him to cast a new light on the relations between the parts and the whole, both in biology and social policy. This essay is part of a special issue entitled REVOLUTIONARY POLITICS AND BIOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY FRANCE AND GERMANY edited by Lynn K. Nyhart and Florence Vienne.