System-Building in the Eighteenth Century
Introduction. - How is the system-building of 18th-century thinkers like Linnaeus to be understood in a way that does justice to the central importance they attached to it?
Was system-building a “preparatory” exercise? - The suggestion that this was to be expected as a response to the discovery of an enormous number of new types of animals and plants is not quite satisfactory.
It has been suggested further that system-building is to be seen as preparatory in character, as proposed for natural history generally by Bacon.
System-building and the Scholastic background. - But system-building cannot be fitted into the Baconian tradition at all easily. It seems in fact to have just as much in common with the Scholastic approach Bacon was trying to reform.
The distinctive objective: articulating the order of nature. - System-building was however neither Scholastic nor Baconian.
Its distinctive objective was to articulate the order of nature. Its interest was first in the structure of the system to which individual plants and animals belonged and only second in plants and animals.
Articulating the order of nature and the divorce of language from the world. - Foucault argues interestingly that it was the divorce of language from the world (marking the end of the medieval period) which made possible the articulation of this order, though it has to be conceded that an order, of much less complexity, was articulated in the medieval scheme.
Articulating the order of nature and the project of modern biology. - The order that the “classical” age sought was an order of visual form. This is not the order we think important today, but what makes modern biology different from system-building as an enterprise is that articulating the order of nature is not the modern concern.
Moral. - In general, it is a mistake to see the interest shown in animals and plants in the past as necessarily belonging to the same project as engages us today.
KeywordsNatural History Eighteenth Century Distinctive Objective Medieval Period Modern Biology
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- D. E. Allen. The Naturalist In Britain. London. Allen Lane. I9T6.Google Scholar
- L. Anderson. Charta Bonnet and the Order of the Known, Dordrecht. Holland. Reidel. 1982.Google Scholar
- F. Bacon: see I.M. Robertson, td.. The Philosophical Works of Franca Bacon.Google Scholar
- L. Barber. The Heyday of Natural History, London. Cape, 1980.Google Scholar
- Buffon, various works: see I. Lyon and P R. Sloan, eds.. From Natural History to the History of Nature.Google Scholar
- A. C. Crombie. Augustine to Galileo. Im ed., 1952; 2nd ed. London. Heinemann. 1959. M. Foucault, The Order of Things. Eng. trans., London. Tavistock, 1970.Google Scholar
- M. Foucault, The Order of Things, Eng. trans., London, Tavistock, 1970.Google Scholar
- N.W. Gilbert. Renaissance Concepts of Method. New York. I960.Google Scholar
- L. Jardine. Francis Bacon. Cambridge. Cambridge University Prsi, 1974.Google Scholar
- W. and M. Kneale, The Development of Logic. Oxford. Clarendon. 1962.Google Scholar
- J. Lyon and P.R. Sloan. eds.. From Natural History to the History of Nature. Notre Dame. Indiana. Univ. of Noire Dame Press. 1981.Google Scholar
- I. Maclean, “The interpretation of naiural signs: Car da no’s De SubrtUute versus Scalinger’s Exer- cilaliones”. in Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance, ed. B. Vickers.Google Scholar
- E. Mayr. The Growth of Biological Thought, Cambridge. Mass.. Belknap, 1982.Google Scholar
- V. Prait, “Aristotle and ihe Essence of Natural History”, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences. 1992. 4. pp. 203 - 223.Google Scholar
- V. Pratt. “The Essence of Aristotle’s Zoology”, Phronesis, 1984. 29.Google Scholar
- C.E. Raven. John Ray. Naturalist. Cambridge University Press. 1942.Google Scholar
- J. M. Robertson, ed.. The Philosophical Works of Francis Bacon. London. Routledge, 1905Google Scholar
- P.R. Sloan. “John Locke. John Ray and Ihe Problem oilhe Natural System”. Journal of the History of Biology, 1972. 5, no. I. pp. 1–53.Google Scholar
- B. Vickers, Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- K.S. Westfall, The Construction of Modern Science. Eng. ed.. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 1977.Google Scholar
- F. Yates. The Art of Memory, Peregrine Books. Penguin. 1969.Google Scholar