Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:50:19.373Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Julius Caesar Scaliger on Plants, Species, and the Ordained Power of God

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2012

Andreas Blank
Andreas Blank*
Affiliation:
University of Paderborn E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

The sixteenth-century physician and philosopher Julius Caesar Scaliger suggests that in particular cases plants can come into being that belong to a plant species that did not exist before. At the same time, he holds that God could not have created a more perfect world. However, does the occurrence of new species not imply that the world was not the best possible world from the beginning? In this article, I explore a set of metaphysical ideas that could provide Scaliger with the means of solving this problem: (1) His version of the notion of a plurality of substantial forms in every living being, and (2) his version of the notion of the ordained divine power. As it turns out, Scaliger analyzes the generation of new species in terms of a development of subordinate substantial forms into dominant substantial forms. Thereby, previously existing essences of plant parts become essences of plants. These plants, thus, possess essences that no previously existing plant possessed and, in this sense, belong to a new species. In this way, Scaliger avoids positing the occurrence of new essences, thus saving the best possible world thesis. Moreover, he believes that all substantial forms stand in a relationship of mutual existential dependence by means of which God safeguards the persistence and unity of the world. This is why the agency of subordinate forms turned dominant can be understood as an expression of the ordained power of God.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 503 - 523
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atran, Scott. 1987. “Origin of the Species and Genus Concepts: An Anthropological Perspective.” Journal of the History of Biology 20:195–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atran, Scott. 1990. Cognitive Foundations of Natural History. Towards an Anthropology of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Billanovich, Miriam. 1968. “Benedetto Bordone e Giulio Cesare Scaligero.” Italia medievale e umanistica 11:197–256.Google Scholar
Blank, Andreas. 2008. “Julius Caesar Scaliger on Corpuscles and the Vacuum.” Perspectives on Science 16:137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank, Andreas. 2010. “Julius Caesar Scaliger on Plant Generation and the Question of Species Constancy.” Early Science and Medicine 15:266–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardano, Girolamo. 1550. De subtilitate. Paris: Michael Fezandat & Robert Granion.Google Scholar
Courtenay, William J. 1984. “The Dialectic of Divine Omnipotence.” In Courtenay, William J., Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought, IV, 1–35. London: Variorum Reprints.Google Scholar
Emerton, Norma. 1984. The Scientific Reinterpretation of Form. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funkenstein, Amos. 1986. Theology and the Scientific Imagination from the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hull, David L. 1965. “The Effect of Essentialism on Taxonomy – Two Thousand Years of Stasis. Part I.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15:314–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labowsky, Lotte. 1961. “Aristoteles De Plantis and Bessarion.” Medieval and Renaissance Studies 5:132–154.Google Scholar
Liceti, Fortunio. 1607. De vita. Genua: Iosephus Pavonius.Google Scholar
Lüthy, Christoph. 2001. “An Aristotelian Watchdog as Avant-Garde Physicist: Julius Caesar Scaliger.” Monist 84:542–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmura, Michael. 1962. “Some Aspects of Avicenna's Theory of God's Knowledge of Particulars.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 82:299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, Emily. 1992. “Averroes and the Plurality of Forms.” Franciscan Studies 50:155–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholaus Damascenus. 1989. De plantis: Five Translations. Edited by Lulofs, Hendrik J. Drossaart and Poortman, E. L. J.. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Oakley, Francis. 1984. Omnipotence, Covenant, and Order: An Excursion in the History of Ideas from Abelard to Leibniz. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Oakley, Francis. 1998. “The Absolute and Ordained Power of God in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Theology.” Journal of the History of Ideas 59:437–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. 1954. Die Prädestinationslehre des Duns Scotus im Zusammenhang der scholastischen Lehrentwicklung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Pernoud, Mary Anne. 1972. “The Theory of the Potentia Dei According to Aquinas, Scotus, and Ockham.” Antonianum 47:69–95.Google Scholar
Plinius, Gaius. 1892–1909. Historiae naturalis libri XXXVII. 5 vols. Stuttgart: Teubner.Google Scholar
Sakamoto, Kuni. 2010. “Creation, the Trinity, and prisca theologia in Julius Caesar Scaliger.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 73:195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scaliger, Julius Caesar. 1556. In libros duos, qui inscribuntur De plantis, Aristotele autore, libri duo. Paris: Michael Vascosani.Google Scholar
Scaliger, Julius Caesar. 1557. Exotericarum exercitationum liber XV. De subtilitate, ad Hieronymum Cardanum. Paris: Michael Vascosani. [cited as EE]Google Scholar
Scaliger, Julius Caesar. 1566. Commentarii, et animadversiones, in sex libros De causis plantarum Theophrasti. [Geneva]: Johannes Crispin. [cited as CA]Google Scholar
Scaliger, Julius Caesar. 1584. Animadversiones in historias Theophrasti. Lyon: Johannes Junta.Google Scholar
Themistius. 1499. Libri paraphraseos In Posteriora Aristotelis, In Physica, In libros De anima. Translated by Barbaro, Hermolao. Venice: Octavianus Scotus.Google Scholar
Wolfson, Harry A. 1958. “The Plurality of Immovable Movers in Aristotle and Averroes.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 63:233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar