Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Cuvier’s History of the Natural Sciences

 | 
Georges Cuvier

7. Seventeenth-century Advances in Mineralogy

19. Contributions of Travelers, Advances in Mineralogy, and a Summary

Texte intégral

Coda-pana Plate from Rheede’s Hortus indicus Malabaricus (1678-1703) Cliché Bibliothèque centrale, MNHN.

1Messieurs,

  • 1 [Tournefort, see Lesson 13, note 31.]

2During our last session, we reviewed the history of botany with regard to systems and methods of classification up to the time of Tournefort.1 To complete this history, we only need to add a few words about the travelers who enriched the sciences with their discoveries.

  • 2 [Charles Plumier (born 20 April 1646, Marseille; died 20 November 1704, convent of the Minims at S (...)
  • 3 [Plumier’s L’Art de tourner, ou de faire en perfection toutes sortes d’ouvrages au tour, Lyon: Jea (...)
  • 4 [Paolo Silvio Boccone (born 24 April 1633, Palermo; died 22 December 1704, Altofonte), an Italian (...)
  • 5 [Pierre Joseph Garidel (born 1 August 1658, Manosque; died 6 June 1737, Aix-en-Provence), a French (...)
  • 6 [Hyeres Islands or Îles d’Hyères, a group of four Mediterranean islands lying off Hyères in the Va (...)
  • 7 [Louis XIV, see Lesson 8, note 86.]
  • 8 [Plumier left for the Caribbean in 1689 and went to Haiti and Martinique where, during an eighteen (...)

3At the top of the list is Charles Plumier,2 a monk of the order of the Minims who was born in Marseille in 1646. He was skilled in almost every art —he was a good painter, a good optician, and even practiced the art of turning.3 He received his instruction in botany from Boccone4 in Rome. He was a friend of Tournefort and Garidel.5 His first research was carried out in his own country, on the Hyeres Islands6 and along the coasts of Provence and Languedoc. In 1689, he was sent by Louis XIV7 to the West Indies where he remained for a few years, returning to these islands on two other occasions.8 In 1704, he was in the port of Santa Maria near Cadiz, about to go on his fourth voyage, when he fell ill with pleurisy and died from it.

  • 9 [Botanical works of Plumier: Description des plantes de l’Amérique, avec leurs figures, Paris: Imp (...)

4During his lifetime, he wrote several valuable works among which are a description of plants of America in 1693, a second book named Nova plantarum Americanarum genera, published in 1703, with supplements by Tournefort, and, finally, a superb work on the ferns of America dated 1705, the latter published after his death.9

  • 10 [Jussieu, see Lesson 7, note 156.]

5Plumier had left a very large number of manuscripts, several of which were very valuable; but his colleagues from his religious order, who included neither a botanist nor a naturalist, did not pay much attention to them. At the time of the revolution when convents were visited and libraries confiscated from the monks, stacks of his manuscripts were found being used as stools next to the fireplace. Mr. de Jussieu10 had them brought to the Garden of the King where they were kept in its library.

6Plumier’s description of arborescent ferns whose analogues, that is, those species that are closest to the ferns, are found in very old coal mines, made his research not only useful to botany but also to that part of geology that deals with fossil plants.

  • 11 [Hendrik Adriaan van Rheede tot Drakenstein (born 13 April 1636, Amsterdam; died 15 December 1691, (...)
  • 12 [Hortus Indicus Malabaricus, continens regni Malabarici apud Indos cereberrimi onmis generis plant (...)

7The traveler that we can place next to Plumier for his science, but above him for the significance of the work that he published, is Hendrik van Rheede of Drakenstein,11 a nobleman from the province of Utrecht who was governor of the Dutch establishments on the coast of Malabar. On his return from this country, he published a series of twelve volumes on plants called Hortus Indicus Malabaricus.12 During all the time he served as governor, he had plants brought to him and illustrated under his supervision. He also had received from the Brahmins everything they knew and had written about plants, and had educated interpreters translate all these documents. The information was then entrusted to botanists in Europe who wrote the descriptions and created from it a body of knowledge that is still today the most valuable work we have on the plants of India. All the monocotyledons, so numerous and important in this country, are represented in Van Rheede’s book in a very large format and often with many details; however, we do not find in it the precision that is required today.

  • 13 [Sloane, see Lesson 6, note 68.]
  • 14 [Christopher Monck, second Duke of Albemarle (born 14 August 1653, London; died 6 October 1688, Ja (...)
  • 15 [A voyage to the islands Madera, Barbados, Nieves, S. Christophers and Jamaica: with the natural h (...)

8Hans Sloane13 is the third traveler whom we will talk about. He was born in 1660 in Killileagh in the county of Down in Ireland. Physician to the Duke of Albemarle,14 governor of Jamaica, he spent a year there in 1687 and during this short period of time, he gathered several collections of plants and animals, basically everything that had to do with the natural history of this large island. After his return, he still continued to receive from his correspondents materials that he used for his work, which he published under the title of Natural History of Jamaica.15 His work includes more than three hundred plates, depicting a large quantity of trees and other plants of the torrid area.

9Hans Sloane died in 1753 at the age of ninety three. He had been a member of the Royal Society of London and its president for thirty or forty years.

  • 16 [Jacques Barrelier (born 1606, Paris; died 17 September 1673, Paris), a French biologist and Domin (...)

10The books I just mentioned are the most significant ones on the productions of foreign countries that were published during the time we are now exploring, but more were published on the various parts of Europe. Each country had, so to speak, its own botanist; thus, we saw floras published in Germany from almost every university; some very important ones were also published in France, especially one on the plants of southern France, which we owe to Barrelier,16 containing a very valuable collection of one thousand three-hundred and ninety-two illustrations. Barrelier was a physician in Paris but he had joined the Dominican order, and it is as a Dominican that he undertook many travels in southern Europe.

  • 17 [Boccone, see note 4, above.]
  • 18 [Grand Duke of Tuscany (born 12 June 1519, Florence; died 21 April 1574, Florence), the second Duk (...)

11Another Dominican whom I talked about in zoology is Paolo Sylvius Boccone from Palermo.17 He was botanist to the Grand Duke of Tuscany18 and traveled almost everywhere in Europe. He described a collection of rare plants from the southern regions of this part of the world that can be placed on a par with Barrelier’s observations. It was said that he had stolen part of the work from this botanist, which was not published until after Barrelier’s death, but I will come back to it when I cover the history of botany during the eighteenth century. We will also see again all these efforts that shaped the groundwork of the books of the next century.

12I will now tell you in a few words what was done in mineralogy and geology at the end of the seventeenth century.

  • 19 [André Césalpin, Andrea Cesalpino, or Andreas Caesalpinus) (born 1524 or 1525, died 23 February 16 (...)

13This period provided very few mineralogists per se and, to be specific, it did not produce any important one. The system of Cesalpino19 and those of a few German and Swedish mineralogists were adopted, but none other was created; therefore, knowledge about the various species of minerals increased very little during that time. But a strong interest surged in the study of graphic stones, petrifactions, and fossils.

  • 20 [Bernard Palissy (born c. 1510; died c. 1590, Paris), a French Huguenot potter, hydraulics enginee (...)
  • 21 [Agostino Scilla (born 10 August 1629, Messina; died 31 May 1700, Rome), an Italian painter, paleo (...)
  • 22 [Glossopetrae, large, triangular fossilized teeth of sharks, once believed to be petrified tongues (...)

14You remember that the first one to claim that fossil shells, fossil bones, and other terrestrial objects, whose shapes and tissues represent parts of animals that truly originated from living things, was Bernard Palissy,20 a potter who was also the first in France to write books on the natural history of minerals. His opinion was fought for a long time even during the eighteenth century, but during the seventeenth century, which is the period of our study, he was vehemently supported by Agostino Scilla,21 a Neapolitan painter who was at the same time a poet, in a book called La vana speculazione disingannata dal senso, lettera risponsiua circa i corpi marini, che petrificati si trouano in varii luoghi terrestri (useless hypotheses corrected through observation). This book, which was published in Naples in 1670, is remarkable, although it was not written by a naturalist by profession. Because the author was an artist, he represented with great accuracy the parts of the animals that he pretended were the originals, and the analogs of the fossils he studied. For example, he presented illustrations of the teeth of living sharks and of various related species; next to them, he placed figures of glossopetrae,22 those kinds of petrifactions we called snake’s tongues. Thus, he proved that the fossils were, in fact, the teeth of sharks. He did the same thing with other elements extracted from living things and as a result, his book became very important.

  • 23 [Martin Lister (born 12 April 1639, Radcliffe, Buckinghamshire; died 2 February 1712, Epsom, Surre (...)
  • 24 [Edward Lhuyde or Eduardus Luidius (born 1660, Loppington, Shropshire; died 30 June 1709, Oxford), (...)
  • 25 [Aldrovandi, see Lesson 4, note 31.]

15However, Scilla was far from convincing everybody. Lister,23 for example, although he was a great anatomist and a great naturalist—at least regarding shells, since his work is still today one of the most perfect we have on these objects— believed that petrified shells were only simple minerals. And even a fellow countryman of Lister named Edward Lhuyde24 wrote, in 1699, a treatise on petrifactions of Great Britain called Lithoplylacii Britannici ichnographia in which he claimed quite positively that seeds from living beings could be transported by water or air in humid environments in which all other circumstances favorable to their development were found, and thus produced, not absolutely perfect beings like the ones from which they emanated, but the first signs of these beings. He used this ridiculous system to try and explain the existence of fossil shells found inside the earth. But you understand that science was already far too advanced for such explanations to be generally accepted. Palissy, Aldrovandi,25 and Scilla’s research had clearly established that petrifactions represent the remains of living beings.

16Since this opinion was adopted by philosophers, it was natural that researchers would eagerly accept these hypotheses to explain how innumerable remains of living things could be found buried in the highest layers of the earth, like those of the high mountains, as well as in the greatest depths. These studies are at the origin of the science of geology.

  • 26 [Agricola, see Lesson 9, note 18.]
  • 27 [Alluvium, loose, unconsolidated soils or sediments, typically including fine particles of silt an (...)
  • 28 [Plato, see Volume 1, Lesson 5.]

17Until then, minerals had been studied individually. At most, the laws of their distribution had been researched. Thus, when I presented an analysis of Agricola’s work,26 in which he studied the minerals useful to man, you saw that among the rules he prescribes to miners, some are related to the geography of minerals. He teaches them that in some types of terrain, it is useless to search for minerals because none are there. On the contrary, experience proved that certain kinds of mountains, some kinds of disposition of layers, are an indication sufficient enough to look for minerals. It is called geognosy, the history of the relative position of minerals in the earth. But nobody had yet thought to study how these minerals had been positioned where they were found. People assumed that, somehow, the earth had been created entirely and simultaneously, and that each mineral had always been where it was placed at its origin. The notion of successive arrangement of layers of earth was still not generalized; at the most, it was applied only to the most recent layers. But in this regard, philosophers from Antiquity were ahead of us since we saw the concept of alluvium27 and other similar ideas in Plato’s work.28

18During the period that we are now reviewing, the topic became more detailed and complicated. It was no longer a question of explaining only the small changes that occurred at the surface due to rain and other causes that still occur today; it now involved going deep into the depth of the earth, to analyze the respective arrangement of the minerals, and to discover how this arrangement could have originated.

  • 29 [Thomas Burnet (born c. 1635, Croft near Darlington; died 27 September 1715, Godalming, Surrey), a (...)
  • 30 [William III, see Lesson 8, note 86.]
  • 31 [Telluris theoria sacra, originem et mutationes generales orbis nostri, quas aut jam subiit, aut o (...)
  • 32 [Great Flood, the flood myth or deluge myth, a narrative in which a great flood, usually sent by a (...)

19But already at the end of this period, we find several approaches to what we call geology in contrast to geognosy. However, geognosy, which was to be the basis for geology, was so little developed that it did not exist really, so to speak, except for what was related to the veins in the mountains. Thus, it made sense that geology would be even more basic. This is also what we find in one of the first hypotheses about the earth written by Burnet29 who was secretary and chaplain to William III.30 Burnet was born in 1635 and died in 1715. His theory on the earth, which is dated from 1681, is entirely based on the history of the first chapter of Genesis. It is called Telluris theoria sacra or Sacred Theory of the Earth.31 It focuses on the origin of the planet —the modifications it underwent in the past and those it will experience in the future. It was published in two volumes. The first volume is divided into two parts: in the first part Burnet talks about the Great Flood;32 in the second, about the future destruction of the earth. According to him, the earth was first liquid; the solid and heavy materials were thrown toward the center of the earth and formed its core. The lighter materials came to surround this inner core, and it is in the water that surrounded the whole that the various animals whose remains we find today in the layers of the earth were formed. Most of these animals are indeed aquatic animals. The water was itself surrounded by a layer of oil and as this oily layer solidified through pieces of matter that had remained in the atmosphere and then fallen back, the result became a kind of crust of an earthy nature.

20Here on this crust is where man first lived. The earth was then flat; there were neither mountains nor rocks; its oily nature made it fertile in many ways; it was the happiest place one can imagine; paradise on earth, in a way. Yet it was only a thin crust hung above the abyss; the sun split this crust; it fell into the water below and created as a result what we call the Great Flood. After this great event, the fragments of the crust of the earth ended up being placed in a very irregular way. It is the origin of the mountains that left some empty spaces and cavities in between, into which liquids drained. These cavities are what we call seas. But the sun constantly pumps the waters; it dries the earth little by little; and once all the waters will have disappeared, the central fire will occur and a general explosion will take place.

21There is no need to stop here and negate these assumptions; you see how little they are supported by facts.

  • 33 [Ray, see Lesson 3, note 94.]
  • 34 [Miscellaneous discourses concerning the dissolution and changes of the world: wherein the primiti (...)
  • 35 [Three physico-theological discourses concerning the primitive chaos and creation of the world; th (...)

22However, a man of great merit in a different way, and whom I talked about a lot when I presented the various branches of natural history, is John Ray.33 He somewhat followed similar ideas in his three physical-theological discourses on the creation of the world, on the universal flood, on the dissolution of the globe, and its future conflagration. But it is as a member of the church rather than as a naturalist that he wrote these texts. The first one was published in London in 169234 and the two others in 1697.35

  • 36 [Leibnitz, see Volume 1, Lesson 6, note 22.]
  • 37 [Newton, see Lesson 11, note 37.]
  • 38 [“Protogaea, sive de prima facie telluris et antiquissimae historiae vestigiis in ipsis naturae mo (...)
  • 39 [Actes de Leipsick, or Acta Eruditorum Lipsiensium (reports or acts of the scholars), the first sc (...)
  • 40 [Descartes, see Volume 1, Lesson 6, note 7.]
  • 41 [Buffon, see Volume 1, Lesson 7, note 39.]

23Geology so much occupied the minds of so many at that time that even Leibnitz36 —one of the great philosophers of the day, the only one that might deserve to be placed next to Newton37— also presented a theory on the earth, which he called Protogaea, which means the “primitive earth.”38 His theory formed the introduction to a history that Leibnitz was asked to present on the land of Hanover and of Brunswick where he was a librarian at that time. As you can see, he began his history very deep in time; he had to describe the changes the earth experienced before human life began. This short dissertation was printed in the Acts of Leipzig in 1683.39 It is remarkable for two reasons: first, because it derives from Descartes’s hypotheses,40 and second, because it is at the origin of Buffon’s hypotheses,41 since Buffon’s system is almost entirely founded on Leibnitz’s system.

  • 42 [Burnet, see notes 29 and 31, above.]

24As I told you, Descartes saw planets as extinct or encrusted suns. He assumed that matters that were no longer capable of combustion had accumulated at the surface of a certain number of stars, that the heat which consumed them first remained at their core and composed the central fire of the planets. We might even say, in this regard, that Descartes was the first geologist since he preceded Burnet,42 but he did not advance his hypothesis any further in terms of details.

  • 43 [Vitrify or to become vitrified, to convert into glass or a glassy substance by heat and fusion.]

25Leibnitz started from Descartes’s ideas to explain the composition of the earth’s core, which, as much as we can know from the great depth where it exists, is of a nature we qualify as vitrified.43 But this word is not correct since granite and quartz are vitrifiable but not vitrified. This error, however, remained in the literature up to the time of Buffon’s works.

26According to Leibnitz, since the earth was wrapped in matter that was no longer combustible, its surface must have gotten cold gradually as the fire of the core was not powerful enough to prevent this cooling. The steam that went up into the atmosphere, through the excessive heat of the earth when it was a sun, fell back on its surface and created the seas. The seas, as they acted upon the various parts of the vitrifiable core, successively changed nature and created the secondary mountains. It is also in these seas that lived all the animals whose remains were surrounded by the deposits I just talked about. Hypotheses like these are the best that could be imagined with the knowledge available at that time. We see the seeds of the divisions of the terrains between primitive and secondary terrains, divisions that are consequently part of the foundation of geognosy and geology.

  • 44 [William Whiston (born 9 December 1667, Leicestershire, England; died 22 August 1752, Lyndon, Rutl (...)

27William Whiston,44 a student of Newton who was not, however, endowed with a rigorous spirit and ample reasoning, wrote some time after Leibnitz another theory on the earth called A new theory of the earth. It was printed in London in 1696. Like all the theories of that time, this one pretends to provide not only an explanation of the history of the earth, but also an explanation of the phenomena that are described in Genesis. Thus, the author assumes that the chaos from which the earth originated was the atmosphere of a comet, which, navigating in a very long ellipse and exposed to extreme heat and cold, did not allow for the existence of living things. But the hand of the Almighty forced it to go into a more circular orbit and, as a result, the difference between seasons was no longer so great, thus allowing life to begin. Matter became organized as a result of gravity and the core maintained part of its heat; indeed, the idea of core heat was then so much accepted that it was a condition necessary to any system. This core was surrounded by the heaviest liquid, then water, then air. The lighter matter formed areas of elevation that led to the creation of small lakes, before the formation of the oceans, which occurred after the Great Flood.

28This theory is more reasonable than Burnet’s system, but we do not understand how he could imagine that the existence of vegetation would have been possible in the state in which he describes the earth. Whiston’s theory is a progression of events: the small lakes, the elevations, the valleys, and some movement in the waters make the existence of living things possible.

29But the happiness these beings enjoyed made them all criminals and they drowned in the Great Flood produced by the tail of a second comet.

30The abyss that was beneath the crust of the earth opened up and allowed the mountains to surge upward, especially around the equator. Through this process, the envelope expanded and eventually received the waters of the Great Flood in the cavities left behind by the departing comet.

  • 45 [In fact, the Great Comet of 1680, also called Kirch’s Comet or Newton’s Comet, had the distinctio (...)

31Comets play a large role in all the geological hypotheses of that time because the comet of 168145 had shocked everyone. It became the object of writings and speculations from astronomers and physicists who wanted to discover the effects this comet would have on the earth, should it get too close. Whiston’s system is based entirely on this astronomical phenomenon.

  • 46 [John Woodward (born 1 May 1665, Derbyshire; died 25 April 1728, London), an English naturalist, a (...)

32In 1699, almost immediately after Whiston’s publication, Woodward’s46 theory appeared, under the title An essay toward a natural history of the earth and terrestrial bodies. His intention is again to explain the current state of things according to the texts of Genesis. Thus, according to Woodward, the Great Flood resulted from the idea that the waters that were contained in the abyss were spread over the earth on God’s order. They thinned down the whole mass of the globe and the living things that existed at that time encountered the masses of the minerals that were softened like gruel, and entered this doughy mass.

33But it was natural to ask the question of how living things had not softened as well, since everything else had; how they were able to maintain their integrity while granites and other rocks had not. To this objection, Woodward answered that living things have a cohesion force different from that of inorganic things. Woodward’s hypothesis is less defensible than all the others.

34However, this geologist has the merit of giving a good explanation of the history of the layers of the earth. He establishes even better than his predecessors that petrifactions are events of nature. Yet he made several errors of facts in his hypothesis: he fails to make the distinction between primitive and secondary mountains and he believed that petrifactions existed in all mountains. It is a weak point on which he could be attacked.

35We are now, messieurs, at the very end of the time we have devoted to this course of study. If we want to look back at what we have covered since the beginning, we will now witness, in a very brief summary, the history I have had the honor to present to you for the past seven or eight months.

36You noticed that the period of time in which people studied the sciences, in a way that left traces, is only four thousand years. And out of these four thousand years, more than two thousand did not produce many positive or remarkable works —what we know from these times are only hypotheses.

37We saw that the sciences were born in India; we saw that they then spread to Egypt, Chaldea, and Persia. We saw that their practical side, which is everything that has to do with astronomy, geometry, the chemical arts, and everything that can be useful to the embellishment of houses, clothing, and to human amenities of life, had progressed very quickly. We saw that a few ideas of anatomy and natural history had been added to it; yet, the whole was bounded by a metaphysical and pantheist theory the secrets of which were known only to priests who conveyed it to people through symbols and various religions they created. This popular religion was the only one taken to the countries where they established their colonies, when they left from Egypt and other countries where a similar system of sciences existed.

  • 47 [Moses, see Volume 1, Lesson 3, notes 20 and 23.]
  • 48 [Zoroaster (died 583 B.C., Balkh, Afghanistan), also known as Zarathustra, a Persian prophet and r (...)
  • 49 [Cadmus, see Volume 1, Lesson 4, note 1.]

38But we do not know the colonies that the Indians and the Assyrians might have founded. We saw that the colonies we do know, according to the various chronologies of people, date from fifteen hundred B.C. It is the era of Moses,47 Zoroaster,48 and Cadmus,49 who came, not from Egypt, but from Phoenicia. All the men who started to bring the seeds of civilization among the savages of Greece and Italy date from that time and are, at most, only one or two centuries apart.

39They did not bring with them the philosophical systems that seem to have reigned among the hereditary cast of the priests in the countries they came from. This singularity can only be explained by assuming that in these countries, priests had the privilege, as we still see in India, to read the sacred texts, and only they passed ideas to the people through coarse and monstrous symbols in various regards. The first Egyptian colonies only took with them, as I said, the popular religion. Science appeared in these areas only when they were brought by philosophers from the countries where they were kept.

40The timeframe between the first seeds of civilization, which goes back to fifteen hundred B.C., and the birth of the true philosophy in Greece, which took place in six hundred B.C., is a time during which the spirit of the Greeks developed in a particular way that we can describe as poetic. It was not the philosophy of the sciences that preoccupied them, but the arts that contribute to the pleasures of life. The observation of the main phenomena of nature led them to write poetic works that are not less worthy of praise, and that everybody knows, thus it is not necessary to recall.

41During the last period we talked about, about six hundred years ago B.C., new revolutions in Egypt opened this country to the Greeks. The Greeks had already acquired numerous developments; they already had great poets, as well as a large agriculture and considerable trade, constituting quite a rich nation. While they had not yet studied philosophy, they traveled to countries where they thought they could acquire deeper knowledge. The reputation of the Egyptian priests was great among the Greeks and dated from the time they received their religion from them.

  • 50 [Thales, see Volume 1, Lesson 1, note 6.]
  • 51 [Pythagoras, see Volume 1, Lesson 3, note 5.]
  • 52 [Great Greece, the name given to the coastal regions of southern Italy and Sicily, where the Greek (...)

42Thales50 was the first to bring to Greece the philosophical doctrines of Egypt around six hundred B.C. It is around the same time that Pythagoras51 and several other philosophers spread their doctrines throughout Italian Greece or Great Greece.52 They were communicated to all those who wanted to learn about it, since in this country there were no hereditary casts nor a particular order of priests who would boast of great privileges, and keep the secret of knowledge to themselves. There were only a few places where, based on Egyptian ideas, a few families were specifically in charge of some cults.

43From the unrestricted propagation of this knowledge, several systems were born, which, although somewhat weird, reflected also a complete freedom in the invention and description of dogma —a freedom that would have been impossible in Egypt, as it is still the case in India where the sacerdotal order dominates with their privileges.

  • 53 [Ionic sect, a religious, political, and philosophical belief system founded, in Ionia by Thales o (...)

44You were introduced to the various philosophical sects; you saw that some were more attached to physics and others to questions of absolute metaphysics. Among those that engaged in speculations related to physics, you noticed the Ionic sect founded by Thales.53 Instead of studying nature through experimentation, and observing laws through induction, the members of this school jumped from hypotheses, which were all quite bizarre, to general principles for which they claimed deduction, through reasoning, of the first particular phenomena. One claimed that everything came from the air, another one from water, another from fire, and others from the earth.

  • 54 [Anaxagoras, see Volume 1, Lesson 4, note 44.]
  • 55 [Socrates, see Volume 1, Lesson 6.]

45A little more than forty years later, Anaxagoras54 brought the dogma of the ionic philosophy to Athens. At the same time, philosophers of Great Greece brought also to Athens the principles and opinions of the Pythagorean philosophers. From a combination of both philosophies, and new ideas that emanated from them, was born what we would incorrectly call the school of Socrates;55 incorrect because this great man did not create a philosophy but, instead, compared all systems of philosophy and gave his audience the freedom to choose among them.

  • 56 [Plato’s Timaeus, see Volume 1, Lesson 5.]

46Several new sects resulted as well from this combination. Among them is the sect of the Platonists, which combined part of the ideas of the Pythagoreans with others, but which still engaged too much in hypotheses in all branches of physics. You saw that the first system of natural history was introduced in Plato’s Timaeus.56 You saw how physiology, geology, and all branches of physics were organized methodically, but all of it was deducted from metaphysical hypotheses that cannot be supported today.

  • 57 [Aristotle, see Volume 1, Lessons 7 and 8.]

47However, the impetus brought by Timaeus was so great that immediately after this work appeared, Plato’s first student, the first philosopher who wrote after him, composed a body of work that is almost complete in all branches of the philosophical sciences—this man was Aristotle.57

48Aristotle, born in 384 and died in 322 B.C., offers, indeed, in his work, treatises on physics, astronomy, physiology, zoology, and botany, as well as several pieces about all the other physical sciences. His method is completely opposite to the one of his master since his metaphysical ideas were also completely opposite to his. Plato attributed an absolute existence to general ideas, independently from the ideas we acquire through experiment and observation, which led him almost necessarily to pantheism. Aristotle, on the contrary, derived all general ideas from the comparison of particular ideas. From these two opposite systems, completely different approaches to research were to be born.

49Aristotle is the first to introduce the method of induction, of the comparison of observations, with the goal of reaching general ideas; and the method of experimentation to multiply the facts from which general ideas can be implied. In that way he managed to study zoology on the same basis as is done today. But I must say that he was not as successful in the other sciences. It is because he was not able to perform as many experiments; however, his works were later improved by following the inductive method he was the first to introduce. Even in the sciences in which his ideas were rejected, it was through his method that they were overthrown; thus, to a certain extent, he still deserves credit for it.

  • 58 [Peripatetic philosophy, see Lesson 9, note 7.]
  • 59 [Theophrastus, see Volume 1, Lesson 9.]
  • 60 [Erasistratus, see Volume 1, Lesson 7, note 38.]
  • 61 [Herophilos, see Volume 1, Lesson 7, note 37.]

50The corpus of physical doctrine that we call Peripatetic philosophy58 was roughly completed by the direct students of Aristotle. Theophrastus59 studied botany; Erasistratus,60 who was his nephew and student, together with Herophilos,61 who was a contemporary of Erasistratus, studied anatomy.

51Following these first works, which started in such a successful way and helped the positive sciences make such a great step forward in a period of sixty or eighty years, we notice that almost nothing happened until the sixteenth century. With the exception of medicine, which always went well because of its immediate need to the human species, and anatomy, which is an essential part of medicine, all the other sciences remained exactly where Aristotle had left them, until the sixteenth century.

  • 62 [The Ptolemies, see Volume 1, Lesson 7, especially pp. 236-237.]

52The Ptolemies62 did offer these sciences some protection but we do not see how the natural sciences benefited from it other than in the anatomical research that took place immediately after Aristotle, since after Erasistratus and Herophilos, there are no more anatomists.

53Regarding the other philosophers of the school of Alexandria, except for the geometricians and the astronomers, we find only compilers, but not one observer, neither in botany nor in zoology.

  • 63 [Alexander the Great, see Volume 1, Lesson 7.]
  • 64 [Nicander, see Volume 1, Lesson 10, note 16.]

54The same happened in Greece because of the troubles that occurred during the invasion of the Macedonians. The armies that Alexander’s63 successors sent to this country made such studies, which require tranquility, impossible. Some of Alexander’s successors who were established in Asia Minor tried to protect the sciences but when we read the small book by Nicander64 and other similar books, we see that the progress of that time was very little—nothing was added to what Aristotle had done and, most of all, the rigorous method he had recommended was far from being used.

  • 65 [Galen, see Volume 1, Lesson 16.]

55After the conquest of Egypt, universal power was established in Rome. The sciences were transported there but they did not evolve much. We do not find in Rome any observer, except for a few physicians, among which I recommended Galen.65 But regarding all the other branches of the sciences, we only find compilers.

  • 66 [Cicero, see Volume 1, Lesson 10, note 44.]

56In Cicero,66 we find several passages in which he seems to allude to facts of natural history and we recognize the source of these facts.

  • 67 [Pliny the Elder, see Volume 1, Lesson 13.]
  • 68 [Aelian, see Volume 1, Lesson 15.]
  • 69 [Oppian, see Volume 1, Lesson 15.]

57Pliny67 is just a huge compilation and everything good it contains is copied from Aristotle. Aelian68 and Oppian,69 as well, only present facts provided by Aristotle, their contemporaries, or by several travelers. Nowhere in their works do we find a method.

58While this is what we have for the second century, the third century —which was the century of revolutions and anarchy throughout the entire empire— could not, with greater reason or more convincing force, produce anything better.

59Soon after, all the efforts of the men of genius were geared toward religious conversations —the great fight that took place between paganism and Christianity kept all the great minds busy.

  • 70 [Hexaëmeron of Saint Ambrose, see Volume 1, Lesson 17, notes 24 and 25.]
  • 71 [Eustathius, see Volume 1, Lesson 17, note 22.]

60Among the first fathers of the church, whose works are so remarkable in other ways, we could have found some philosophical observers, if they had focused their talent on the natural sciences. But as soon as the Christian religion was established, and the sacerdotal order became dominant, these men, as I said, were constantly occupied with theological disputes. They applied all the subtleties of the Greek spirit to rationalize on the meaning that should be given to such-and-such expression of the Holy Scriptures. The scholars and fathers of the church were not the only ones busy with these discussions, princes were also very interested in them; they used their power to alternatively support various opinions that split Christendom. Among the authors of the fifth century, if a few of them talk about natural history, it is to comment on the first chapters of Genesis; the Hexaëmeron of Saint Ambrose,70 and the one by Eustathius,71 are works of this nature. The idea of observing facts to expand knowledge in science did not come to anybody’s mind; it was a kind of extraordinary absolute blindness.

61Then came the conquests of the Barbarians. The Roman Empire, which, through the turn of events, offered, on all sides, accessible or attackable land to neighboring nations, was indeed attacked during the sixth century by the northern people, by the people from Germany who destroyed it completely and which, around the end of the sixth century, had already set up the foundation of kingdoms that still exist today.

62During the seventh century, the same empire was attacked from the south and the east; the Barbarians invaded the entire coast of Africa and went all the way to Spain. The Roman Empire was then reduced to the town of Constantinople, the provinces that constitute the European Turkey of today, and Greece. Greece was also invaded by the people of the northeast and by the Turks from the regions of the Caspian Sea.

63This period of time, between the seventh century and the renaissance of the arts, is what we call the Middle Ages. You noticed that the corpus of doctrines that went from Egypt to Greece, and from there to Rome, was a continuation from one to the next, which united to form one body, all large branches of which were connected. During the Middle Ages, this knowledge was divided into three main branches, that is, three large bodies of work. We do not have any knowledge about the state of science at that time in India and China.

64The first of these branches is the continuation of the old order of ideas that remained in the Byzantine Empire, with all the weakening it had already suffered from the events of the first four centuries of the Christian era. This order of ideas was maintained thanks to the works of the ancient Greeks and Romans that had been kept in libraries and made available to those who wanted to consult them. Although these works were not used in a meaningful manner, we can still notice in the writers of Byzantium —that is, up until the fourteenth century, around the time of the capture of Constantinople, and as a result of the tradition that still subsisted— some vestiges of old knowledge, a few facts that are related to doctrines of better times.

65The same does not apply to the two other groups of nations, the Latin and Arabic worlds. Western Europe, which was split among the various governments that the Germanic people had created, still made up a whole through its community of religion and language. The supremacy of the pope of Rome, together with the care he took to keep the use of the Latin language for liturgy, explained why, that in all the Germanic-governed areas, there were still men who had kept a few copies of the ancient Roman authors, who studied the Latin language, and who were able to communicate with each other. But the preservation of these ancient Roman texts that we owe to the western monks was rather imperfect. At a time when everything that still survived of old manuscripts was avidly searched for, only incomplete works and half-eaten books were found. It was tangible proof of the terrible negligence of the monks toward these valuable remains from Antiquity.

66During the horrible revolutions, the internal wars that shook the Germanic people, the period of their establishment —and for a long time afterward, when feudal governments had created small states that fought against each other— the only place that offered the peace and safety necessary to engage in research were cloisters. Thus, from the seventh century until the fourteenth century, scholars are almost all monks, and members of the church and bishops who used to be monks when young. The result is that all their ideas, even those related to philosophy were connected to theology. It gave birth to a particular philosophy named Scholasticism. But this kind of philosophy did not spread as fast as one might think because, for a long time, there was no philosophy at all. Scholasticism started to appear when the isolated group of the Latin Christians, whom I just talked about, started communicating with the Arabs and the Byzantines.

  • 72 [Mahomet or Muhammad, see Volume 1, Lesson 20, notes 26, 28, 30-31.]

67The Arabs, established by Mahomet72 after huge conquests in very little time, and under the influence of an extraordinary fanaticism, wanted, once they settled down, to learn about the sciences. Their caliphs went to great effort and expense to achieve this purpose and to obtain Greek works. In this regard, they were helped by the persecutions that occurred in the Byzantine Empire against the dissident sects. The Nestorians in particular were condemned to such suffering that almost all their members had to flee to countries governed by the Arabs. They brought with them part of the knowledge of the Greeks. This knowledge grew and produced research proper to the Arab nation.

68Astronomical research was huge, as were studies of botany related to medicine. We saw that the discovery of most of the remedies offered by the plant kingdom is owed to the Arabs. Chemistry was also the object of intense research, and the discoveries of the Arabs in this field are still a valuable part of our chemical science today. Finally, you saw that the art of distillation, several chemical operations on minerals, and a large number of names used in chemistry also come from the Arabs.

69However, the development of the knowledge brought by the Greeks to the Arabs was limited because of religion. We saw indeed that the religion of Mahomet made the study of zoology and especially of anatomy impossible because it stigmatized cadavers with a superstitious horror. Progress of the natural sciences among the Arabs were thus limited to botany and chemistry; but advances in these disciplines, as I just mentioned, were great —they could have been even greater if they had not been written in a mysterious language.

70Communication between the Western people and the Arabs occurred through Spain where the schools of Arabic medicine improved so much that all the Westerners went there to study this science. Additional communication took place in Sicily and the Kingdom of Naples. At the time of the crusades, communication increased again. This era also saw the renewal of the relationships that had previously existed between the Latins and the Greeks. As a result, the propagation of some knowledge related to the natural sciences was due to the great religious wars known as the crusades.

  • 73 [Tataria, land of the Tatars, the territory of the former Russian Empire ruled by Turco-Mongol eli (...)

71The crusades also had the benefit of giving something back to the East and inspiring great travels. These travels brought us the knowledge of the most remote countries of this part of the world. We saw the travels of several monks who had been sent to the countries of the Khans of Tataria73 whose power spread from the Caspian Sea to Poland and Silesia. We learned from the large area of East Asia, entirely new ideas that were completely unknown to the Greeks and the Romans. It is also said that these travelers brought from the Orient scientific processes that were unknown to the Greeks and Romans, and that they were the ones who brought to Europe gunpowder and the compass, whose effects have been so prodigious. The stimulation of the mind triggered by the crusades was what gave the most impetus to Scholastic philosophy and to the studies that were undertaken in the West in relation to the order of things that dominated at that time.

  • 74 [Mendicant orders, religious orders that depend directly on charity for their livelihood. Christia (...)
  • 75 [Vincent de Beauvais, see Volume 1, Lesson 22, note 29.]
  • 76 [Albert the Great, see Volume 1, Lesson 23.]
  • 77 [Saint Thomas Aquinas, see Volume 1, Lesson 22, note 39.]

72During the same period, universities, which were centers of instruction, were created. At the same time, were also founded the orders of the Mendicants74 that did not have, like the older religious orders of the sixth century, the wealth that would have allowed them to live without being in the public eye, but nevertheless engaged in teaching and studies that produced the most remarkable men of that time. Vincent de Beauvais,75 Albert the Great,76 Saint Thomas Aquinas,77 and several others, put back into circulation not only facts of natural science that were contained in the works of the Ancients, but they also discovered new ones. Thus, they increased the incomplete treasures that they owned; I say incomplete because they did not have the works of the Greeks in their initial state, but only bad Latin translations, and even sometimes only Arabic translations. The authors of the thirteenth century could only cite Aristotle, for example, from translations provided by the Arabs, because very few of them knew Greek well enough to read this author in his original version.

  • 78 [Roger Bacon, see Volume 1, Lesson 23.]

73There were, however, quite remarkable geniuses. The works by Roger Bacon78 gave us the telescope, gunpowder, and several other phenomena of physics and chemistry that could be used as groundwork for entire doctrines on these topics. It was a first seed that could have born its fruits earlier if terrible wars, which were more violent than all those from the Feudal times, had not shaken Europe during the fourteenth century. However, inventions that produced a definitive effect were successively discovered during the same time. We saw the history of these various inventions, some by the Europeans, and others imported by the first travelers who went inland to Asia.

74The first and most efficient invention of all is the invention of firearms, in particular of artillery, which, by concentrating power, put an end to the small internal wars that lords waged against each other. The other inventions were more directly useful to the sciences. One of the most important inventions is rag paper in the fourteenth century. Before this invention, the only practical way of writing was with parchment. But it was so expensive that very often those who wanted to write books necessary to the common use had to clean and reuse old manuscripts; it is thus possible that the most valuable works of antiquity might have disappeared through that process. As soon as rag paper was invented (and it is said that this invention was one of those brought from the Orient), it was possible to write in a cheap way everything that needed to be preserved. It was a huge advantage since the difficulty in finding appropriate material for writing had been one of the main reasons why the progress of Antiquity was hindered. The invention of parchment dates only from the time of Alexander’s successors. The invention of papyrus, the use of which was, in fact, quite impractical, was made by the Egyptians who were the only ones to use it. Other peoples only had bark, small boards, or other materials on which to write that were very impractical and difficult to transport.

75This state of affairs was, as I said, a huge impediment to the advancement of knowledge of the human spirit, and the invention of paper, which put an end to this obstacle, was truly an admirable acquisition.

76But printing, which dates from the middle of the fifteenth century, surpassed it since it offered the means to cheaply multiply copies of books. The consequences of the revolution that this invention produced are probably still not fully developed.

77An invention contemporary to printing that was an overwhelming advantage for natural history is the invention of engraving. Morphology is such an essential part of the study of natural objects that the means to preserve drawings is also of the utmost importance. The Ancients could not have many naturalists among them because they had to copy figures, to transfer them from one manuscript to another, which was even more difficult and took much longer than to copy the text. With engraving, it was easy to copy, distribute, and preserve the drawings of natural history. For us, as I said, this invention is as valuable as the one of printing.

78Next to these inventions is the invention of the compass, which opened the doors to the great geographical discoveries at the end of the fifteenth century. Without the compass, neither America, nor the Route to India, nor the coasts around Africa would have been discovered. Consequently, all these various countries would have been lost to naturalists. Thus, only one fact in physics multiplied to infinity, so to speak, the knowledge of all others.

79But all these inventions were assisted by the movement of people, which expanded the knowledge of the Greek texts that were almost unknown in the West. Then inventions contributed to more movement of people. The conquest of the Turks over the Byzantine Empire forced many men of sciences to flee to the Latin countries; they brought with them the manuscripts they owned, and they translated them. As early as the end of the fifteenth century, we see versions of Aristotle’s work more perfect than before. The Fall of Constantinople completed what the conquest of the first Turks had started. All the scholars who still remained in the Byzantine Empire had to flee to Italy and, to subsist, they taught the language and the philosophy of the Greeks. As a result, this knowledge expanded very rapidly.

80One of the first effects was the Reformation, which introduced great differences in the churches of Latin Europe, and which, as a consequence, also established a larger freedom of thought and of expression of opinions, since those who could have been persecuted in one church could find refuge in another.

81This freedom of thought, which was the direct result of the Reformation, of printing, and Greek knowledge, completely changed the progress of the human mind.

82The invention of the microscope and the construction of the telescope added more to all this progress.

83The telescope gave the means to enter, so to speak, the vastness of the skies, and you know all the great discoveries that resulted from the reflections of the astronomers on the facts they observed with this instrument.

84The microscope multiplied the world of the infinitely small and gave the means to enter inside the internal structure of living things.

85Here are, messieurs, the various events that occurred during the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, and which prepared the revolution of the minds that occurred in the sixteenth century.

86During this century, all the branches of human knowledge became the object of entirely new research. Men from all countries, eager to learn, traveled and communicated with each other. This era was perhaps more fruitful than any other, considering the starting point. Scientific discoveries multiplied in geometrical progression; thus, their number during the eighteenth century is not as astonishing as their number during the sixteenth century.

  • 79 [Galen, see Volume 1, Lesson 16.]
  • 80 [Vesalius, see Lesson 1, note 45.]
  • 81 [Eustachio, see Lesson 2, note 32; see also Volume 1, Lesson 5, note 17.]
  • 82 [Falloppio, see Lesson 1, note 13, above; and Lesson 2, notes and 6.]

87We saw what direction anatomical research took during this century. Commentaries were written on Galen,79 and all the branches of knowledge began what seemed to be natural as a first step in research, which was to try and explain the Ancients by comparing their writings to nature. Vesalius80 removed the shroud from Antiquity, observed the human body by himself, and thus contributed to the greatest progress in anatomy. Next to him, Eustachio81 and Falloppio82 worked the same way and created the core knowledge of modern anatomy, using a completely different approach from ancient anatomy, which had been based only on animals.

  • 83 [Ingrassia, see Lesson 1, note 85.]
  • 84 [Botallo, see Lesson 2, note 41.]
  • 85 [Varolio, see Lesson 2, note 44.]
  • 86 [Fabricius d’Aquapendente; see Lesson 1, note 66.]
  • 87 [Harvey, see Lesson 2.]

88However, around the middle of the sixteenth century, anatomy returned, so to speak, to its source. It focused again on animals as objects of observation; yet, it was no longer to expand knowledge on the human species, but in a much more philosophical and elevated perspective. The goal was to extract, from the comparison between the structure of man and the structure of animals, general ideas that obstruct the organization in itself, independently from the species in which this organization is different. Ingrassia,83 Botallo,84 Varolio,85 and the entire school of Italy worked toward this goal. But it was mostly Fabricius d’Aquapendente86 who gave this philosophical direction to anatomy. Thus, the most beautiful discoveries of the seventeenth century came out of his school. We can say that it was out of Fabricius’s school that Harvey’s87 two great discoveries were born, the discovery of the blood circulation, which changed the face of physiology; and the discovery of the development of the egg, or the principle that all living being come from an egg, a discovery that also had a great influence on all physiological opinions.

  • 88 [Belon, Rondelet, Salviani, and Gessner, Renaissance zoologists, see Lesson 3.]

89During the same period, the natural history of animals gained momentum. Not only did people study Aristotle and Pliny in an attempt to comment about them, but people also traveled to various countries to gather information. We talked about the travels of Belon, Rondelet, Salviani, and Conrad Gessner,88 who gathered all the zoological knowledge in admirable works of erudition.

90The determination of species that the Ancients had not been able to establish, especially because they did not know the art of engraving, was then done with descriptions and illustrations. Thanks to the use of figures, each species is now easy to identify and we can always know what each author was referring to.

  • 89 [Piso, see Lesson 6, note 21.]
  • 90 [Marcgrave, see Lesson 6, note 22.]

91Soon, newly discovered countries gave opportunities for new travels. We saw the travel reports of Piso,89 Marcgrave,90 and others. We noticed how much they enriched the natural history of animals, plants, and new species with descriptions of their structure, their uses, and their properties, in a way that the Ancients could not have imagined since the countries that produced these species were unknown to them.

92Then, research also focused on the internal parts of plants, and engravings helped once again to recognize the species.

  • 91 [Cesalpino, see note 19, above.]

93At the end of the sixteenth century, Cesalpino91 established the first methodical classification that had ever been published, not only in botany, but in all of natural history.

  • 92 [Agricola, see Lesson 9, note 18.]

94Minerals were also studied at that time. The mines of Saxony had produced many skilled men able to identify the various kinds of minerals and their ores inside the earth. We saw the findings of these men in Agricola’s works.92

  • 93 [Palissy, see note 20, above.]

95Palissy,93 during the same period of time, studied petrifactions and established the first basis of geology.

96Cesalpino, who had established the first classification in botany, was also the first to provide a method to mineralogy, which became the initial basis for all our systematic classifications of today.

97But chemistry took a different direction. This science was new; the ancients did not know about it. Born among the Arabs, it was brought to Byzantium and from there to Europe through peculiar ways. Those who studied it and spread it were not ordinary philosophers; on the contrary, chemistry was practiced by secret societies that did not communicate it or who used a mysterious, figurative, and metaphysical language to convey it. Ceremonies and sermons were necessary to be accepted in the initiation of this science.

  • 94 [Valentin, see Lesson 10, note 9.]
  • 95 [Paracelsus the Great, see Lesson 4, note 73.]
  • 96 [Van Helmont, see Lesson 10, note 66.]

98During the sixteenth century, the mystery that surrounded it was lifted, and what had remained secret in the societies of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was published in the works of Basil Valentin94 and Paracelsus.95 A theory was even established —the theory of the five elements: sulfur, salt, earth, water, and spirit, which remained for two hundred years, a rough outline of which is found in the works of Paracelsus. It took a more developed structure in Van Helmont’s96 works in which the chemistry of gases started to be developed.

  • 97 [Francis Bacon, see Lesson 11, note 19.]

99Everything that could be done by the human mind, with what Antiquity had left behind, together with the discoveries of the Middle Ages and the fifteenth century, was accomplished during the sixteenth century. But an important tool was still missing; it was true logic, the logic of induction, which is indispensable to the sciences we are studying. The scholastic philosophers had only showed interest to the part of Aristotle’s philosophy that is supported by syllogism. Their assumptions were based on authority, not on observation, and through a series of syllogisms, they intended to establish the system of their doctrine. Bacon97 came and showed them that authority is a principle completely illusory in the sciences of facts, and that it is only through induction and the comparison of particular facts and their resolution in general propositions that the sciences can progress.

  • 98 [Galileo, see Lesson 11, note 20.]
  • 99 [Copernicus, see Lesson 11, note 48.]

100While Bacon applied the work in theory, Galileo98 applied it in a practical sense, using the same method and making the most admirable discoveries in physics and astronomy. He discovered the equivalent length of the oscillations of the pendulum, the hydrostatic balance, the theory of the uniform constant acceleration, the thermometer, the telescope, the mountains on the moon, the librations of the moon, the phases of Venus, Jupiter’s satellites, and the spots and rotation of the sun. He established by analogy the motion of the earth, as already indicated by Copernicus.99

  • 100 [Kepler, see Lesson 12, note 5.]
  • 101 [Newton, see Lesson 11, note 37.]
  • 102 [Torricelli, see Lesson 11, note 41.]
  • 103 [Pascal, see Lesson 12, note 16.]

101Kepler100 followed the steps of Galileo and Copernicus. He discovered the laws of planetary motion that were used as the basis for all of Newton’s101 discoveries. Torricelli102 and Pascal103 discovered air pressure with the barometer.

  • 104 [Descartes, see Volume 1, Lesson 6, note 7.]

102At the same time, Descartes104 produced an admirable effect on the human mind. While he did not make any discovery as amazing as those in physics and geometry, and he introduced a spirit of hypothesis and supposition completely opposite to the true philosophy of the natural sciences, he created a great impetus in the human mind and completely destroyed the scholastic philosophy that, still in the format it was given in the thirteenth century, remained an obstacle to, rather than a support tool for, the progress of science. The human mind thus changed in many ways; scholars now wanted to base science on experiment and observation instead of on past authority.

  • 105 [Boyle, see Lesson 12, note 32.]
  • 106 [Mayow, see Lesson 12, note 68.]
  • 107 [Paracelsus, see Lesson 4, note 73.]
  • 108 [Stahl, see Lesson 9, note 90.]
  • 109 [Becker, see Lesson 9, note 89.]

103As a result, erudite societies were created in all the countries of Europe, at least those that were somewhat in a state of peace and stability. These erudite societies were composed of men of merit who combined their various means, put together their efforts and discoveries, with the common purpose of enriching the sciences with new experiments and observations. I described the history of these various societies; you saw them appear in Italy, spread to Germany, England, and France, then to all countries. As soon as they were created, they followed the steps that Bacon had established. Some of them even took his name and method as a motto, and you saw that at that time the natural sciences began to make progress very rapidly. Thus, chemistry, which seemed to be a secret from the gods, transmitted only to the most adroit, suddenly took the language of a science and was eventually reduced to general rules. Its progress was unique since the seeds of the hypotheses of the eighteenth century are found in the works of Boyle105 and Mayow.106 These ideas would have prevailed from the beginning if another system, that is, the five principles of Paracelsus,107 which were further advanced by Stahl108 and Becker,109 had not taken over all the chemists of the continent, and had reduced to silence the theory of gases born in England.

104Mineralogy continued with its classifications. Its practitioners fervently studied the rocks with illustrations, and tried their best to discover the vestiges of living things that are contained in the layers of the earth.

  • 110 [Willis, see Lesson 12, note 59.]
  • 111 [Vieussens, see Lesson 15, note 5.]
  • 112 [Malpighi, see Lesson 14, note 121.]
  • 113 [Grew, see Lesson 16, note 23.]
  • 114 [Swammerdam, see Lesson 16, note 50.]

105In contrast, anatomy, in particular, took a new direction. It did not focus only on large human body parts. Instead, with the help of the microscope, it tried to penetrate minute structure and identify the different fragments that constitute its tissue. You saw that immediately after the works of the erudite societies, the lymphatic vessels and the thoracic canal —the lacteal vessels of which, known by the Ancients, were only part of it— were discovered. Knowledge of the development of the fetus was also improved, and on the means by which the fetus communicates with the outside. Willis,110 Vieussens,111 and Malpighi112 provided details of the brain structure. Malpighi introduced us to knowledge of the minute structures of the human body thanks to his microscopic observations, and he also engaged with Grew113 in studies of the internal structure of plant tissues. They discovered the cellular tissue that wraps the woody fibers, identified the trachea, vessels similar to those that Swammerdam114 had discovered in insects. They discovered as well the primary transport vessels in vascular plants. Basically, they made as many discoveries in plant anatomy as had been made in animal anatomy. These works were surpassed only recently.

106The use of the microscope in the science of organization reached the smallest beings and we saw the anatomy of insects brought to its perfection in Swammerdam’s works.

  • 115 [Descartes, see Volume 1, Lesson 6, note 7.]
  • 116 [Willis, see Lesson 12, note 59.]
  • 117 [Mayow, see Lesson 12, note 68.]
  • 118 [Stahl, see Lesson 9, note 90.]
  • 119 [Glisson, see Lesson 16, note 71.]

107Following such progress in anatomy, progress in physiology was just as remarkable. All purely hypothetical ideas were rejected. Descartes’s115 mechanical system applied to the internal organization of the body was soon completely abandoned. The systems of coarse chemistry were also rejected. The more delicate chemistry of Willis116 and Mayow117 received much credit. Stahl,118 however, had a pernicious influence; he introduced his psychic system that states that the reasonable soul produces the movements of the human body without knowing it. This system remained for some time before it was abandoned in the eighteenth century. Yet during the same time the first ideas of vital forces were born, including irritability that Glisson119 established. Irritability can be considered as the seed of a more rational physiology that was introduced and became general during the eighteenth century.

108Natural history progressed as well. From all over travels were undertaken. Princes, aware of their usefulness, even with regard to the well-being of life, sent men abroad to gather the productions of foreign countries. These productions were kept in cabinets of curiosities and they were later reproduced or kept in gardens or menageries. Their large number led naturalists to create classifications to establish their nomenclature. Based on each of the organic parts, these methods required specific studies of these various parts, which resulted in a more perfect knowledge of living things.

109You see, messieurs, that from the introduction of the inductive method in the natural sciences —from the time it was acknowledged that the sciences could only be researched through observation and reasoning, and that all certitude comes from the generalization of the individual species— scientific progress was tremendous. It was even more so during the eighteenth century, as we will see in the history we will cover next year, because the same method was more generally adopted.

110The series of lessons I have presented is not useful for the historical facts I reported, but for the conclusions related to the methods that must be followed in the natural sciences. We have, so to speak, put the human mind in an experiment, as it put itself into it as well, in some respects for us. We saw which works have passed the test of time through three or four hundred years B.C. and those that went by without being of any use to the sciences.

  • 120 [Plato, see Volume 1, Lesson 5.]
  • 121 [Aristotle, see Volume 1, Lessons 7 and 8.]
  • 122 [Theophrastus, see Volume 1, Lesson 9.]

111Let’s find, for example, what remains of the hypotheses prior to Plato,120 and from Plato’s hypotheses in the physical sciences, of his systems that stemmed from Pythagoreanism. You also see what remains from Antiquity in the physical and natural sciences; parts of Aristotle121 and Theophrastus’s works122 are the only heritage we were able to keep. The rest is merely of interest to our curiosity. All the hypotheses, all the systematic ideas, must thus be forgotten.

  • 123 [Paracelsus, see Lesson 4, note 73.]
  • 124 [Descartes, see Volume 1, Lesson 6, note 7.]

112Regarding times closer to our own, who remembers today Paracelsus’s123 five principles, all the hypotheses of the Middle Ages, and even other hypotheses from more modern times that required considerable genius? Curiosity alone makes us interested in knowing about Descartes’s124 theory of vortices, subtle and fluted matter, his ideas on the animal spirits, on the location of the soul (which he situates in the pineal gland), on the movement of muscles, and on the mechanics of animals which, according to him, have neither soul nor reason and move like ordinary machines. All of this is not useful in any way to the progress of positive sciences and its knowledge would be no more useful than the small revolutions that occurred in small states during the most ancient times of Antiquity.

113I could remind you of all the hypotheses that were proposed in geology; and if I wanted to follow those related to physiology, you would see how each was rejected by the next. However, all these hypotheses were not without use. They led to research by those who supported these hypotheses and those who wanted to attack them; they produced emulation, momentum in the spirits, and there is always something useful coming out of this action of the mind. Even the wish to attack an extraordinary reputation can lead to positive results.

114Anyway, all the hypotheses I mentioned were abandoned and probably more will disappear one day.

115Facts, on the contrary, represent real truth, based on experimentation. They remained and will remain unchanged. Thus, among the thousands of authors I told you about, and their works I analyzed, the only ones we consult every day are the ones that contain facts. The smallest fact, a simple description of a species that nobody boasts about, requires that those men who study science consult the work in which this simple fact is recorded. I hope that I can base this conclusion in a more rigorous manner, which is that true knowledge is only achieved through facts.

  • 125 Unanimous applause followed the last words of the famous professor.

116If my health allows, it will be next year, messieurs, that I will continue this history from where I leave it today, at the beginning of the eighteenth century. The works of this century are so numerous, the authors so remarkable, and the details of their life and works so important that I will probably spend as much time as I did this year to present you the history of the prior centuries.125

Notes

1 [Tournefort, see Lesson 13, note 31.]

2 [Charles Plumier (born 20 April 1646, Marseille; died 20 November 1704, convent of the Minims at Santa Maria near Cadiz, Spain), French Minim friar, craftsman, illustrator, and engraver, but best known for his work as a botanist. He devoted the better part of his life to collecting and illustrating plants and animals; he was the first to revive the ancient Greek custom of naming plants to commemorate people.]

3 [Plumier’s L’Art de tourner, ou de faire en perfection toutes sortes d’ouvrages au tour, Lyon: Jean Certe, 1701, 187 p. + [71] leaves of pls, illus.; the first book on the use of the lathe. Subsequent French editions appeared in 1706 (Paris: Pierre Aubouin, Pierre Ribou & Claude Jombert, [28] + 187 p., illus. with 73 copper engr. pls, incl. illus., 1 fold. pl., in-folio), 1749 (Paris: Charles-Antoine Jombert, [2] + 27 + [1] + 244 p., 80 leaves of pls, in-folio), and 1976 (Paris: Lazet & Daviaud; Nogent Le Roi: Libraire des Arts et Métiers, xxvii + [1] + 244 p. + [40] leaves of pls, illus.); a German translation was published in 1776 (Leipzig: Bernhard Christoph Breitkopf & Sohn, XV + 234 p. + 83 leaves of pls, illus.)]

4 [Paolo Silvio Boccone (born 24 April 1633, Palermo; died 22 December 1704, Altofonte), an Italian botanist and monk from Sicily, whose interest in plants had been sparked at a young age; born into a rich family, he was able to dedicate most of his life to the study of natural history.]

5 [Pierre Joseph Garidel (born 1 August 1658, Manosque; died 6 June 1737, Aix-en-Provence), a French botanist, professor of botany in Aix-en-Provence, who, following Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (see Lesson 13, note 31) and Charles Plumier (see note 2, above), studied the plants of Provence; he is author of Histoire des plantes qui naissent aux environs d’Aix et dans plusieurs autres endroits de la Provence (Aix: Joseph David, 1715, xxiv + xlvii p.+ 1 leaf + 522 + [24] p., illus., 100 pls, in-folio) which provides descriptions of fourteen hundred species.]

6 [Hyeres Islands or Îles d’Hyères, a group of four Mediterranean islands lying off Hyères in the Var department of southeastern France, having a combined area of 29 square kilometers.]

7 [Louis XIV, see Lesson 8, note 86.]

8 [Plumier left for the Caribbean in 1689 and went to Haiti and Martinique where, during an eighteen-month stay, he illustrated and prepared elaborate descriptions of plants and animals. After his return to France in 1690, he was given a pension and the title Botaniste du Roy. The success of this voyage persuaded the king to send Plumier a second time to the Antilles. This new voyage, made in 1693 and lasting about six months, was also highly productive, leading to a third expedition in 1696-1697.]

9 [Botanical works of Plumier: Description des plantes de l’Amérique, avec leurs figures, Paris: Imprimerie Royale par les Soins de Jean Anisson, 1693, 94 p. + 108 pls, illus., in-folio; Nova plantarum Americanarum genera, Paris: Joannem Boudot, 1703, [8] + 52 + [4] + 21 + [1] p., leaves of pls, in-4°; Traité des fougères de l’Amérique, Paris: Imprimerie Royale par Joanne Anisson, 1705, 146 p. + 2 pls + xxvi + 5 leaves + 172 pls, in-folio.

10 [Jussieu, see Lesson 7, note 156.]

11 [Hendrik Adriaan van Rheede tot Drakenstein (born 13 April 1636, Amsterdam; died 15 December 1691, at sea off the coast of Bombay), a Dutch naturalist, soldier, and colonial administrator of the Dutch East India Company who served from 1670 to 1677 as governor of Dutch Malabar; in natural history he is best remembered for his work on the plants of the region of Malabar, which resulted in a huge compendium entitled Hortus Indicus Malabaricus (see note 12, below).]

12 [Hortus Indicus Malabaricus, continens regni Malabarici apud Indos cereberrimi onmis generis plantas rariores, Latinas, Malabaricis, Arabicis, Brachmanum charactareibus hominibusque expressas, Amsterdam: Sumptibus viduae Joannis van Someren, haeredum Joannis van Dyck, Henrici & viduae Theodori Boom, 1673-1703, twelve volumes in-folio of about 200 pages each, with 794 copper-plate engravings; a comprehensive treatise, compiled over a period of nearly thirty years, dealing with the medicinal properties of the plants of the Indian state of Kerala, the earliest comprehensive printed work on the flora of Asia and the tropics.]

13 [Sloane, see Lesson 6, note 68.]

14 [Christopher Monck, second Duke of Albemarle (born 14 August 1653, London; died 6 October 1688, Jamaica), an English soldier and politician who sat in the House of Commons from 1667 to 1670 when he inherited the Dukedom and sat in the House of Lords; in 1687, he was appointed Lieutenant Governor of Jamaica where he died shortly afterwards.]

15 [A voyage to the islands Madera, Barbados, Nieves, S. Christophers and Jamaica: with the natural history of the herbs and trees, four-footed beasts, fishes, birds, insects, reptiles, &c. of the last of those islands; to which is prefix’d an introduction, wherein is an account of the inhabitants, air, waters, diseases, trade, &c. of that place, with some relations concerning the neighbouring continent, and islands of America, London: printed by the British Museum for the author, 1707-1725, 2 vols (XI + 274 fold. pls), in-folio; the first traveler’s account to include illustrations, full Latinized names of plants and animals, and a detailed catalog of the natural history and other artifacts found.]

16 [Jacques Barrelier (born 1606, Paris; died 17 September 1673, Paris), a French biologist and Dominican monk, author of Plantae per Galliam, Hispaniam et Italiam observatae, iconibus aeneis exhibitae, Paris: Stephanum Ganeau, 1714, [2] + [12] + 8 + 140 + [2] + xxvi p., [334] leaves of pls, illus., in-folio.]

17 [Boccone, see note 4, above.]

18 [Grand Duke of Tuscany (born 12 June 1519, Florence; died 21 April 1574, Florence), the second Duke of Florence from 1537 until 1569, when he became the first Grand Duke of Tuscany; a patron of the arts, perhaps best known for his creation of the Uffizi Gallery in Florence.]

19 [André Césalpin, Andrea Cesalpino, or Andreas Caesalpinus) (born 1524 or 1525, died 23 February 1603), an Italian physician, physiologist, philosopher, and botanist who classified plants according to their fruits and seeds, rather than alphabetically or by medicinal properties. As a physiologist, he theorized a circulation of the blood; however, he envisioned a kind of “chemical circulation” consisting of repeated evaporation and condensation of blood, rather than the concept of a “physical circulation” as described later by Harvey.]

20 [Bernard Palissy (born c. 1510; died c. 1590, Paris), a French Huguenot potter, hydraulics engineer, and craftsman, famous for having struggled for sixteen years to imitate Chinese porcelain; he is remembered also for his contributions to the natural sciences, especially for discovering principles of geology, hydrology, and fossil formation.]

21 [Agostino Scilla (born 10 August 1629, Messina; died 31 May 1700, Rome), an Italian painter, paleontologist, geologist, and pioneer in the study of fossils, author of La vana speculazione disingannata dal senso, lettera risponsiua circa i corpi marini, che petrificati si trouano in varii luoghi terrestri, Naples: Andrea Colicchia, 1670, 168 p. + 29 leaves of pls, illus., in-4°.]

22 [Glossopetrae, large, triangular fossilized teeth of sharks, once believed to be petrified tongues of dragons and snakes and thus referred to as “tongue stones” or “glossopetrae”; commonly thought to be a remedy or cure for various poisons and toxins, they were used in the treatment of snake bites, and many noblemen and royalty commonly wore them as pendants or kept them in their pockets as good-luck charms.]

23 [Martin Lister (born 12 April 1639, Radcliffe, Buckinghamshire; died 2 February 1712, Epsom, Surrey), an English physician and naturalist who contributed numerous articles on natural history, medicine, and antiquities to the Philosophical Transactions (see Lesson 12, note 65). As a conchologist he was held in high esteem, but while he recognized the similarity of fossil mollusks to living forms, he regarded them as inorganic imitations produced in the rocks.]

24 [Edward Lhuyde or Eduardus Luidius (born 1660, Loppington, Shropshire; died 30 June 1709, Oxford), a Welsh botanist, linguist, geographer, and antiquary, author of Lithophylacii Britannici ichnographia, sive lapidum aliorumque fossilium Britannicorum singulari figura insignium, quotquot hactenus vel ipse invenit, vel ab amicis accepit, distributio classica: scrinii sui lapidarii repertorium cum locis singulorum natalibus exhibens. Additis rariorum aliquot figuris aere incisis; cum epistolis ad clarissimos viros de quibusdam circa marina fossilia & stirpes minerales praesertim notandis, Londini: Ex officina M. C.; Leipzig: Gleditsch & Weidmann, 1699, [16] + 145 + [7] p. + XIV + [14] + [3] fold. leaves of pls, illus., in-8°); the first illustrated catalog of a public collection of minerals and fossils to be published in England, including 1,766 specimens collected from places around England, mostly Oxford, and now held in the Ashmolean.]

25 [Aldrovandi, see Lesson 4, note 31.]

26 [Agricola, see Lesson 9, note 18.]

27 [Alluvium, loose, unconsolidated soils or sediments, typically including fine particles of silt and clay and larger particles of sand and gravel, which have been eroded, reshaped by water in some form, and re-deposited in a non-marine setting; when this loose alluvial material is deposited or cemented into a lithological unit, it is called an alluvial deposit.]

28 [Plato, see Volume 1, Lesson 5.]

29 [Thomas Burnet (born c. 1635, Croft near Darlington; died 27 September 1715, Godalming, Surrey), an English theologian and writer on cosmogony whose best known work is Telluris theoria sacra, or Sacred theory of the earth (see note 31, below).]

30 [William III, see Lesson 8, note 86.]

31 [Telluris theoria sacra, originem et mutationes generales orbis nostri, quas aut jam subiit, aut olim subiturs est complectens, London: Gualteri Kettilby, 1681-1689, 4 vols in 2, illus., fold. maps, in-4°; published in two volumes, the first appeared in 1681 in Latin, and in 1684 in English translation; the second volume was published in 1689 (1690 in English). It was a speculative cosmogony, in which Burnet suggested a hollow earth with most of the water inside until the Great Flood (see note 32, below), at which time, mountains and oceans appeared. He calculated the amount of water on Earth’s surface, stating there was not enough to account for the Flood.]

32 [Great Flood, the flood myth or deluge myth, a narrative in which a great flood, usually sent by a deity or deities, destroys civilization, often in an act of divine retribution. Parallels are often drawn between the flood waters of these myths and the primeval waters found in certain creation myths, as the flood waters are described as a measure for the cleansing of humanity, in preparation for rebirth.]

33 [Ray, see Lesson 3, note 94.]

34 [Miscellaneous discourses concerning the dissolution and changes of the world: wherein the primitive chaos and creation, the general deluge, fountains, formed stones, sea-shells found in the earth, subterraneous trees, mountains, earthquakes, volcanoes, the universal conflagration and future state, are largely discussed and examined, London: Samuel Smith, 1692, [26] + 259 + [1] p., in-8°.]

35 [Three physico-theological discourses concerning the primitive chaos and creation of the world; the general deluge, its causes and effects; the dissolution of the world and future conflagration, London: [s. n.], 1697.]

36 [Leibnitz, see Volume 1, Lesson 6, note 22.]

37 [Newton, see Lesson 11, note 37.]

38 [“Protogaea, sive de prima facie telluris et antiquissimae historiae vestigiis in ipsis naturae monumentis dissertatio,” Acta Eruditorum Lipsiensium, January 1693, pp. 40-42 (see note 39, below); an account of terrestrial history, which was central to the development of the earth sciences in the eighteenth century, providing key philosophical insights into the unity of Leibnitz’s thought and writings (see Volume 1, Lesson 6, note 22).]

39 [Actes de Leipsick, or Acta Eruditorum Lipsiensium (reports or acts of the scholars), the first scientific journal of the German lands, founded in 1682 in Leipzig and succeeded in 1732 by the Nova Acta Eruditorum; see note 38, above.]

40 [Descartes, see Volume 1, Lesson 6, note 7.]

41 [Buffon, see Volume 1, Lesson 7, note 39.]

42 [Burnet, see notes 29 and 31, above.]

43 [Vitrify or to become vitrified, to convert into glass or a glassy substance by heat and fusion.]

44 [William Whiston (born 9 December 1667, Leicestershire, England; died 22 August 1752, Lyndon, Rutland, England), an English theologian, historian, mathematician, and leading figure in the popularization of the ideas of Isaac Newton (see Lesson 11, note 37); Whiston is the author of A new theory of the earth, from its original, to the consummation of all things, where the creation of the world in six days, the universal deluge, and the general conflagration, as laid down in the holy scriptures, are shewn to be perfectly agreeable to reason and philosophy, London: Benjamin Tooke, 1696, [5] + 95 + 388 + [3] p. + [7] leaves of pls (1 fold), illus., in-4°.]

45 [In fact, the Great Comet of 1680, also called Kirch’s Comet or Newton’s Comet, had the distinction of being the first comet discovered by telescope. First detected by Gottfried Kirch (a German astronomer, born 18 December 1639, Guben, Germany; died 25 July 1710, Berlin) on 14 November 1680, it became one of the brightest comets of the seventeenth century, reputedly visible even in daytime, and noted for its spectacularly long tail; it reached its peak brightness on 29 December and was last observed on 19 March 1681.]

46 [John Woodward (born 1 May 1665, Derbyshire; died 25 April 1728, London), an English naturalist, antiquarian, and geologist, and founder by bequest of the Woodwardian Professorship of Geology at Cambridge University; although a leading supporter of the importance of observation and experiment in what we now call science, few of his ideas have survived. His explanation of how the earth came to be was first published in 1695, not in 1699 as stated by Cuvier: An essay toward a natural history of the earth: and terrestrial bodies, especially minerals: as also of the seas, rivers, and springs, with an account of the universal deluge: and the effects that it had upon the Earth, London: Richard Wilkin, 1695, [12] + 277 p., in-8°; subsequent editions appeared in 1702 and 1723.]

47 [Moses, see Volume 1, Lesson 3, notes 20 and 23.]

48 [Zoroaster (died 583 B.C., Balkh, Afghanistan), also known as Zarathustra, a Persian prophet and religious reformer who founded the first World religion, which came to be known as Zoroastrianism; though he was a native speaker of Old Avestan and lived in the eastern part of the Iranian Plateau, his birth place and date are unknown.]

49 [Cadmus, see Volume 1, Lesson 4, note 1.]

50 [Thales, see Volume 1, Lesson 1, note 6.]

51 [Pythagoras, see Volume 1, Lesson 3, note 5.]

52 [Great Greece, the name given to the coastal regions of southern Italy and Sicily, where the Greeks founded many cities in antiquity.]

53 [Ionic sect, a religious, political, and philosophical belief system founded, in Ionia by Thales of Miletus (Volume 1, Lesson 1, note 6), on the belief that water is the original principle of all things.]

54 [Anaxagoras, see Volume 1, Lesson 4, note 44.]

55 [Socrates, see Volume 1, Lesson 6.]

56 [Plato’s Timaeus, see Volume 1, Lesson 5.]

57 [Aristotle, see Volume 1, Lessons 7 and 8.]

58 [Peripatetic philosophy, see Lesson 9, note 7.]

59 [Theophrastus, see Volume 1, Lesson 9.]

60 [Erasistratus, see Volume 1, Lesson 7, note 38.]

61 [Herophilos, see Volume 1, Lesson 7, note 37.]

62 [The Ptolemies, see Volume 1, Lesson 7, especially pp. 236-237.]

63 [Alexander the Great, see Volume 1, Lesson 7.]

64 [Nicander, see Volume 1, Lesson 10, note 16.]

65 [Galen, see Volume 1, Lesson 16.]

66 [Cicero, see Volume 1, Lesson 10, note 44.]

67 [Pliny the Elder, see Volume 1, Lesson 13.]

68 [Aelian, see Volume 1, Lesson 15.]

69 [Oppian, see Volume 1, Lesson 15.]

70 [Hexaëmeron of Saint Ambrose, see Volume 1, Lesson 17, notes 24 and 25.]

71 [Eustathius, see Volume 1, Lesson 17, note 22.]

72 [Mahomet or Muhammad, see Volume 1, Lesson 20, notes 26, 28, 30-31.]

73 [Tataria, land of the Tatars, the territory of the former Russian Empire ruled by Turco-Mongol elites from the fourteenth century until the conquests of the Russian Empire in the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries.]

74 [Mendicant orders, religious orders that depend directly on charity for their livelihood. Christian mendicants, in principle, do not own property, either individually or collectively, believing that they are thereby copying the way of life followed by Jesus, and able to spend all their time and energy on religious work.]

75 [Vincent de Beauvais, see Volume 1, Lesson 22, note 29.]

76 [Albert the Great, see Volume 1, Lesson 23.]

77 [Saint Thomas Aquinas, see Volume 1, Lesson 22, note 39.]

78 [Roger Bacon, see Volume 1, Lesson 23.]

79 [Galen, see Volume 1, Lesson 16.]

80 [Vesalius, see Lesson 1, note 45.]

81 [Eustachio, see Lesson 2, note 32; see also Volume 1, Lesson 5, note 17.]

82 [Falloppio, see Lesson 1, note 13, above; and Lesson 2, notes and 6.]

83 [Ingrassia, see Lesson 1, note 85.]

84 [Botallo, see Lesson 2, note 41.]

85 [Varolio, see Lesson 2, note 44.]

86 [Fabricius d’Aquapendente; see Lesson 1, note 66.]

87 [Harvey, see Lesson 2.]

88 [Belon, Rondelet, Salviani, and Gessner, Renaissance zoologists, see Lesson 3.]

89 [Piso, see Lesson 6, note 21.]

90 [Marcgrave, see Lesson 6, note 22.]

91 [Cesalpino, see note 19, above.]

92 [Agricola, see Lesson 9, note 18.]

93 [Palissy, see note 20, above.]

94 [Valentin, see Lesson 10, note 9.]

95 [Paracelsus the Great, see Lesson 4, note 73.]

96 [Van Helmont, see Lesson 10, note 66.]

97 [Francis Bacon, see Lesson 11, note 19.]

98 [Galileo, see Lesson 11, note 20.]

99 [Copernicus, see Lesson 11, note 48.]

100 [Kepler, see Lesson 12, note 5.]

101 [Newton, see Lesson 11, note 37.]

102 [Torricelli, see Lesson 11, note 41.]

103 [Pascal, see Lesson 12, note 16.]

104 [Descartes, see Volume 1, Lesson 6, note 7.]

105 [Boyle, see Lesson 12, note 32.]

106 [Mayow, see Lesson 12, note 68.]

107 [Paracelsus, see Lesson 4, note 73.]

108 [Stahl, see Lesson 9, note 90.]

109 [Becker, see Lesson 9, note 89.]

110 [Willis, see Lesson 12, note 59.]

111 [Vieussens, see Lesson 15, note 5.]

112 [Malpighi, see Lesson 14, note 121.]

113 [Grew, see Lesson 16, note 23.]

114 [Swammerdam, see Lesson 16, note 50.]

115 [Descartes, see Volume 1, Lesson 6, note 7.]

116 [Willis, see Lesson 12, note 59.]

117 [Mayow, see Lesson 12, note 68.]

118 [Stahl, see Lesson 9, note 90.]

119 [Glisson, see Lesson 16, note 71.]

120 [Plato, see Volume 1, Lesson 5.]

121 [Aristotle, see Volume 1, Lessons 7 and 8.]

122 [Theophrastus, see Volume 1, Lesson 9.]

123 [Paracelsus, see Lesson 4, note 73.]

124 [Descartes, see Volume 1, Lesson 6, note 7.]

125 Unanimous applause followed the last words of the famous professor.

Table des illustrations

Légende Coda-pana Plate from Rheede’s Hortus indicus Malabaricus (1678-1703) Cliché Bibliothèque centrale, MNHN.
URL http://books.openedition.org/mnhn/docannexe/image/2935/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 952k

© Publications scientifiques du Muséum, 2015

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540