Graduate studies at Western
Journal of the History of Biology 4 (2):221 - 244 (1971)
|Abstract||It is beyond the scope of this paper to describe in detail the rise to popularity of the emboîtement theories during the last decades of the seventeenth century.51 Eventually the theories did gain great influence, but some points emerging from the above discussion indicate that the rise to popularity was not, perhaps, quite as rapid as has sometimes been assumed.52 Although the earlier preformation theories were sometimes regarded as the ancestors of the later ideas,53 there was little intellectual continuity between the two movements, based as they were upon such divergent motivations. Nor can the preformation theories be regarded as the origin of the belief that a miniature can actually be seen within the egg, since the existence of metamorphosis as a perfectly valid alternative to epigenesis meant that the work of Malpighi and others, usually described as “preformationist,” was not always taken in this latter sense at the time it was published. The pre-existence theories developed in response to particular philosophical problems, and were themselves responsible for the reinterpretation of the observations. In France, the thoughts of Malebranche and Perrault were probably already exerting influence before their written support for pre-existence appeared, but elsewhere the idea was not taken up so rapidly, and ovism, for instance, could develop without associating itself with emboîtement. Malpighi always seems to have remained opposed to pre-existence,54 but by the last decade of the century, the idea had become sufficiently powerful to influence Ray and Garden in Britain, and was receiving support from as influential a thinker as Leibniz.55 But Garden and Hartsoeker were responsible for dividing emboîtement between two schools, just as the concept itself was becoming popular. The work of both Malpighi and Leeuwenhoek served as the basis of the animalculist version, illustrating how the microscopic discoveries served as much to disrupt the intellectual development of the emboîtement concept as they did to promote it. *** DIRECT SUPPORT *** A8402051 00002|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
T. Sorell (1993). Seventeenth-Century Materialism. In G. H. R. Parkinson (ed.), The Renaissance and Seventeenth-Century Rationalism. Routledge.
Samuel Leslie Bethell (1951). The Cultural Revolution of the Seventeenth Century. London, D. Dobson.
Luciano Boschiero (2012). Spotting the Sun: A Translation and Analysis of Three Early Seventeenth-Century Works on Sunspots. [REVIEW] Metascience 21 (3):667-672.
Craig Martin (2010). The Ends of Weather: Teleology in Renaissance Meteorology. Journal of the History of Philosophy 48 (3):259-282.
Jiang Wu (2003). Buddhist Logic and Apologetics in 17th Century China: An Analysis of the Use of Buddhist Syllogisms in an Anti-Christian Polemic. Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 2 (2):273-289.
Michael J. Katz & William Goffman (1981). Preformation of Ontogenetic Patterns. Philosophy of Science 48 (3):438-453.
Helen M. Smith (1936). Pre-Existence and Freewill. Analysis 3 (3):40 - 43.
Wiep van Bunge (2001). From Stevin to Spinoza: An Essay on Philosophy in the Seventeenth-Century Dutch Republic. Brill.
Nathan Alexander (2007). The Visibilité of the Hidden God. Philosophy and Theology 19 (1/2):151-170.
Geoffrey Gorham (2009). God and the Natural World in the Seventeenth Century: Space, Time, and Causality. Philosophy Compass 4 (5):859-872.
Paolo Mancosu (1996). Philosophy of Mathematics and Mathematical Practice in the Seventeenth Century. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads9 ( #122,437 of 739,303 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,303 )
How can I increase my downloads?