Joining Lapland and the Topinambes in Flourishing Holland: Center and Periphery in Linnaean Botany

Abstract

During the early modern period, European naturalists were confronted with a rapidly growing body of new objects due to the recent geographic discoveries. According to Bruno Latour's model of "action at a distance" naturalists managed this situation by mobilizing and stabilizing specimens and inscriptions at the periphery of the known world, as well as accumulating, reshuffling, and processing that material in "centers of calculation." This paper tries to resolve an ambiguity that lies in this model: While the work of naturalists was clearly dependent on local institutions, collections, and botanical gardens in particular, they nevertheless claimed universality for the interpretations of the natural world they propounded. Analysis will be based on a case study: In the 1730s Carl Linnaeus produced a series of manuscripts and printed books that allow us to reconstruct the sequence of translations which led from the first encounter with a "new" plant at the periphery of the known world (in the case of Linnaeus, Lapland, which he visited in 1732) to a major botanical center (the botanical garden of George Clifford, former director of the Dutch East India Company, who employed Linnaeus in 1736 and 1737 to catalog his collection). I will argue generally that the abstraction process that was constitutive of Linnaeus' universal plant taxonomy-the separation of "constant" species and genera from local "varieties"-did not take place exclusively in the centers of knowledge production. This abstraction process was rather coextensive with the global network of translation and exchange that connected such centers with each other and with their peripheries. The "map" of the plant world outlined by Linnaeus did not represent "things drawn together," but rather "things being exchanged," and the global circulation of specimens and inscriptions was the foundation on which its claim to universality rested. Many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall be increased (Daniel 12:4). Motto of Hans Sloane, Voyage to the Islands Madera, Barbados, Nieves, S. Christophers and Jamaica, 1707 The rapid expansion, if not explosion, of natural history during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries may be (and countless times has been) explained by the simple fact that, due to colonial expansion, a "New World" was opened for European naturalists full of equally "new" objects hitherto unknown to them. In this respect,

Linnaeus, the essentialism story, and the question of types

“…For instance, in the Flora Lapponica he asserted that while he was unsure whether Andromeda and Erica were distinct genera, this could be found out by collating more species from both genera (Linnaeus, 1737: 126; cf. Müller‐Wille, 2003: 475). In addition, a letter from the younger Linnaeus has been frequently cited as evidence that Linnaeus departed from the strictures of collation in practice (Cain, 1958: 159; Larson, 1971: 74; Stafleu, 1971: 71).…”

Observation and Observing in Economics

“…When physicians in the early modern period began to write observationes on their patients, these observations were collected and collated in compendia that trained the individual physician in turn to recognize specific diseases to which he could add observations from his own patient histories (Pomata 2010(Pomata , 2011 on the notion of historia, see Pomata and Siraisi 2005). Natural historians formed corresponding networks, of which that of Carolus Linnaeus perhaps is the most famous, in which observations (with or without the specimen observed) circulated with extensive descriptions and drawings of the place where the specimen was found (Bleichmar 2011;Müller-Wille 2003;Roberts 2009).…”

Lists as Research Technologies

“…There is evidence that Linnaeus used a similar method when preparing Flora lapponica (1737) from material contained in the journal from his trip to Lapland. 22…”