Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T12:44:43.947Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wonders, Logic, and Microscopy in the Eighteenth Century: A History of the Rotifer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2009

M. J. Ratcliff
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contrary to the dominant historiography of microscopy, which tends to maintain that there was no microscopical program in the Enlightenment, this paper argues that there was such a program and attempts to illustrate one aspect of its dynamic character. The experiments, observations, and interpretations on rotifers and their management by scholars of that period show that there did exist a precise axis of research that can be followed historically. Indeed, the various controversies these scholars engaged in imply that they performed accurate microscopical experiments and observations and also carefully interpreted their visual data. Furthermore, the kinds of phenomena presented by the rotifer and other microscopic entities, such as their morphology or their revival from desiccation, helped to improve methodology on the use of the microscope. The paper also argues that this sort of inquiry is not fundamentally different from other research in the natural sciences of the eighteenth century.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , Spring 2000 , pp. 93 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

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

Anderson, L. 1984. Charles Bonnet and the Order of the Known. Boston, Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Bachelard, G. [1938] 1972. La formation de l'esprit scientifique. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Baker, Henry. [1742] 1754. The Microscope Made Easy, 4th ed. London: Dodsley.Google Scholar
Baker, Henry. 1753. Employment for the Microscope. London: Dodsley.Google Scholar
Baker, J. R. 1952. Abraham Trembley of Geneva Scientist and Philosopher 1710–1784. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Barsanti, G. 1997. “Les phénomènes ‘étranges’ et ‘paradoxaux’ aux origines de la première révolution biologique (1740–1810).” In Vitalism from Haller to the Cell Theory, edited by Cimino, Guido and Duchesneau, François, 67–82. Firenze: Olschki.Google Scholar
Bennet, J. 1998. “Malpighi and the microscope” In Marcello Malpighi Anatomist and Physician, edited by Bertoloni Meli, Domenico, 63–72. Firenze: Olschki.Google Scholar
Bernardi, W. 1986. Le metafisiche dell'embrione, scienza della vita e filosofia da Malpighi a Spallanzani, 1672–1793. Firenze: Olschki.Google Scholar
Bernardi, W. 1995. “Modelli di visibilità, immagini della natura e teorie della vita nella rivoluzione scientifica.” In Teorie della visione e problemi di percezione visiva nell'età moderna, edited by Monti, Maria-Teresa, 99–120. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Bonnet, Charles. [1745] 1779a. Traité d'insectologie ou observations sur les pucerons, in Oeuvres complètes, t. 1. Neuchâtel: Fauche.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnet, Charles. [1762] 1779b. Considérations sur les corps organisés, in Oeuvres complètes, t. 5, 6. Neuchâtel: Fauche.Google Scholar
Bonnet, Charles. [1764] 1781. La contemplation de la nature, in Oeuvres complètes, t. 7, 8, 9. Neuchâtel: Fauche.Google Scholar
Bonnet, Charles. [1769] 1783. La Palingénésie Philosophique, in Oeuvres complètes, t. 15, 16. Neuchâtel: Fauche.Google Scholar
Brykman, G. 1995. “Vision, connaissance et ontologie chez Berkeley.” In Teorie della visione e problemi di percezione visiva nell'età moderna, edited by Monti, Maria-Teresa, 121–137. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Buscaglia, M. 1985. “The Rhetoric of Proof and Persuasion Utilized by Abraham Trembley.” In From Trembley's Polyps to New Directions in Research on Hydra, edited by Lenhoff, H. W. and Tardent, P.. Archs Sci. Genéve 38/3:305–19.Google Scholar
Castellani, C. 1971. “Introduction.” In Lettre à l'abbé Spallanzani de Charles Bonnet.” Milano: Episteme.Google Scholar
Cuvier, Georges. 1817. Le règne animal distribué d'après son organisation. Paris: Deterville.Google Scholar
Dawson, V. P. 1990. “The limits of Observation and the Hypotheses of George Louis-Buffon and Charles Bonnet.” In Beyond History of Science. Essays in Honor of R. E. Schofield, edited by Garber, Elizabeth, 107–125. Bethlehem, Pa: Lehigh University Press.Google Scholar
Delaporte, F. 1977. “Des organismes problématiques.” Dix-Huitième siècle IX:49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutrochet, Henri. 1812. “Recherches sur les rotifères.” Ann. Mus. d'Hist. Nat. Paris XIX:357.Google Scholar
Dutrochet, Henri. 1837. “Observations sur la structure de l'organe rotatoire des rotifères.” C. R. de l'Acad. des Sciences de Paris 4:634–37.Google Scholar
Fontana, Felice. [1767] 1781. Traité sur le venin de la vipère. Florence.Google Scholar
Ford, B. J. 1982. “The rotifera of Antony van Leeuwenhoek.” Microscopy 34(5):362–73.Google Scholar
Ford, B. J. 1985. Single lens, The Story of the Simple Microscope. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Fournier, M. 1996. The Fabric of Life: Microscopy in the 17th Century. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Gori, G. 1972. La fondazione dell'esperienza in s'Gravesandes. Firenze: Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
Grober, M. C. 1990. Charles Bonnet of Geneva: from Natural History to Metaphysical Romance. Berkeley CA: UMI Press.Google Scholar
Grober, M. C. 1993. “The Natural History of Heaven and the Historical Proofs of Christianity: ‘La Palingénesie philosophique” of Charles Bonnet.” Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteeenth Century 308:233–55.Google Scholar
Guanzati, Luigi. 1796. “Osservazioni e sperienze intorno ad un prodigioso animaluccio delle infusioni.” Opuscoli scelti sulle scienze e sulle arti 19:3–21.Google Scholar
Hartley, David. [1749] 1755. Explication physique des sens, des idées et des mouvements tant volontaires qu'involontaires. Reims.Google Scholar
Hill, John. 1752. The History of Animals, London: Osborne.Google Scholar
Joblot, Louis. 1718. Descriptions et usages de plusieurs nouveaux microscopes, tant simples que composez. Paris: Collombat.Google Scholar
Knoefel, P. 1984. Felice Fontana Life and Works. Trento: Società di studi trentini di scienze storiche.Google Scholar
Leeuwenhoek, Antoni van. 1703. “Part of a Letter Concerning Green Weeds Growing in Water, and Some Animalcula Found about Them.” Philosophical Transactions 283:1304–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeuwenhoek, Antoni van. 1705. “Letter Concerning Animalcula on the Roots of Duck-Weed.” Philosophical Transactions 295:1784–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linnaeus, Carl, and Joan, Carl Ross. 1767. Mundus invisibilis breviter delineatus. Upsaliae: n. p.Google Scholar
Manzini, P. 1988. “Carteggio tra Bonaventura Corti e Charles Bonnet.” Contributi XII(23–24):5–71.Google Scholar
Manzini, P. 1982. “Un manoscritto di Lazzaro Spallanzani: ‘Riflessioni critiche sull'operetta del lettor Corti intorno alia tremella e alla cara’.” Bollettino storico reggiano.Google Scholar
Maupas, E. 1899. “La mue et l'enkystement chez les Nématodes.” Arch. Zool. Exp. Gén. 3èeme série 7:563–627.Google Scholar
Mazzolini, R., and Roe, S.. 1984. Science against the Unbelievers: The Correspondence of Charles Bonnet and John Turberville Needham. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation.Google Scholar
Mazzolini, R. 1997. “L'illusione incomunicabile. Il declino della microscopia tra sei e settecento 1670–1710.” In Phantastische Lebensräume Phantome und Phantasmen, edited by Schmunte, H. K., 197–219. Marburg: Basilisken Presse.Google Scholar
Needham, John Turberville. 1745. An Account of Some New Microscopical Discoveries Founded on an Examination of the Calamary and Its Wonderful Milt-Vessels. London: F. Needham.Google Scholar
Nicholson, M. 1935. “The Microscope and English Imagination.” Smith College Studies in Modern Languages 16(4): 1–92.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, M. J. 1997. “Le concept d'intensité dans la psychologie de Charles Bonnet.” Revue d'histoire des sciences 50(4):421–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rey, R. 1985. “'espèce entre science et philosophie chez Charles Bonnet.” In Histoire du concept d'espèce dans les sciences de la vie, 79–99. Paris: Fondation Singer-Polignac.Google Scholar
Roe, S. A. 1982. “Needham's Controversy with Spallanzani: Can Animals Be Produced from Plants.” In Lazzaro Spallanzani e la biologia del Settecento: teorie, esperimenti, istituzioni scientifiche, edited by Montalenti, Giuseppe e Rossi, Paolo, 295–303. Firenze: Olschki.Google Scholar
von Rösenhoe, Rösel, Johann, August. 1755. “Die Historie der Polypen der sussen Wasser und anderer kleiner Wasserinsecten hieriges Landes.” In Der monatlichherausgegeben Insecten Belustigung, 433–624. Nuremberg: Fleischmann.Google Scholar
Ruestow, E. G. 1996. The Microscope in the Dutch Republic The Shaping of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Savioz, R. 1948. Mémoires autobiographiques de Charles Bonnet de Genève. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Schiller, J., and Schiller, T.. 1975. Henri Dutrochet Le matérialisme mécaniste et la physiologie générale. Paris: Blanchard.Google Scholar
Sloan, P. 1992. “Organic Molecules Revisited.” In Buffon 88, edited by Gayon, Jean, 415–438. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Sonntag, O. 1983. The Correspondence between Albrecht von Haller and Charles Bonnet. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
Spallanzani, Lazzaro. 1765. Saggio di Osservazioni microscopiche sul sistema della generazione. Modena.Google Scholar
Spallanazaro, Lazzaro. 1776. Opuscoli difisica animate, e vegetabile. Modena.Google Scholar
Spallanazaro, Lazzaro. 1799. Tracts on the nature of animals and vegetables. London. [Abbreviated translation of Spallanzani 1765 and 1776].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, B. M. 1997. “Images of Ambiguity: Eighteenth-Century Microscopy and the Neither/Nor.” In Visions of Empire Voyages, Botany, and Representations of Nature, edited by Miller, D. P. and Reill, P. H., 230–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tétry, A. 1963. “Généralités.” In Zoologie, edited by Grassé, P. P. and Tétry, A., Vol. 1, 691–92. Paris: Pléiade .Google Scholar
Trembley, Abraham. 1744. Mémoires pour servir à I'histoire d'un genre de polype d'eau douce à bras en forme de cornes. Leyde: Verbeek.Google Scholar
Trembley, Abraham. 1747. “Observations upon Several Species of Water Insects of the Polypus Kind.” Philosophical Transactions 44(484):627–55.Google Scholar
Trembley, M., and Guyenot, E.. 1943. Correspondance inédite entre Réaumur et Abraham Trembley. Genève: Georg.Google Scholar
Turner, G. l'E. 1974. “Henry Baker, FRS, Founder of the Bakerian Lecture.” Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 29:53–79.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. 1995. The Invisible World: Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrisberg, August Heinrich. 1765. Observationum de animalculis infusoriis satura, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar