Abstract
In this paper, I examine Boyle’s views on generation and his appeal to plastic powers as an explanatory agent following a brief overview of the secondary literature. Further, I also look at the relationship between Boyle and the Italian anatomist Marcello Malpighi, who was one of the most prolific medical writers in the second half of the seventeenth century. This paper looks at their correspondence, which included not only ideas about experiments and the mechanical philosophy, but mineral samples as well. I argue that Malpighi appropriated Boyle’s notion of plastic powers in his own writings as part of a mechanical account of generation. Thus, Boyle’s description of a plastic power was perceived as being mechanical by one of his own contemporaries similarly committed to the mechanical philosophy. In both Boyle and Malpighi, moreover, we see a shared philosophy regarding mechanical explanation. For each of them, mechanical explanations involve physical agents acting on matter. Their shared view implies an important shift in which the power of an explanatory agent like a plastic power is in its mechanical mode of operation.
I would like to thank Domenico Bertoloni Meli, William Newman, the editors of this volume, and two anonymous reviewers for many helpful suggestions and constructive criticisms on earlier drafts of this paper. Parts of this paper were presented at both the Early Modern Medicine and Natural Philosophy workshop held at the University of Pittsburgh and the 2012 Workshop on the History of Biology in Honor of Fred Churchill held at Indiana University. I wish to thank the audience members at each for insightful questions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
For an explanation of this spelling, see Newman and Principe 1998.
- 2.
See Hirai 2005, 24 ff. and Preus 2002, 46 ff. for excellent discussions on the λόγοι σπερματικοὶ. For more on the formative faculties of Aristotle and Galen, see Aristotle 2008, GA, 730 b: 10 ff. and Galen 1916, II: 5 respectively. In the case of Aristotle, this formative power is linked to the formal and efficient cause contributed by the male semen. Epicurean atomism does provide an alternative explanation for generation . However, this view is characterized by its lack of such organizing principles, appealing instead to the random collision of atoms. This random chance made the view (in conjunction with its association with atheism ) unappealing to many seventeenth-century authors.
- 3.
- 4.
Cf. Hall 1958.
- 5.
Cf. Newman 2006, 9.
- 6.
Clericuzio 1990.
- 7.
Chalmers 2002.
- 8.
Ibid.
- 9.
Anstey’s and Pyle’s responses originated from a 1997 symposium on Chalmers’s work, “What is this thing called Science?”
- 10.
Pyle 2002, 176.
- 11.
Ibid. 189.
- 12.
Anstey 2002c, 164.
- 13.
Anstey 2002a.
- 14.
Anstey 2002b, 358–377.
- 15.
- 16.
Anstey (2002b), 362.
- 17.
Ibid. 359–362.
- 18.
Walmsley 2002, 378–397.
- 19.
Ibid. 394.
- 20.
Ibid. 393.
- 21.
Newman 2006, 178.
- 22.
Ibid. 182.
- 23.
Adelmann 1966, vol. II: 866, n. 12.
- 24.
Wilson 1995, 128.
- 25.
Bertoloni Meli 2011, 232–3.
- 26.
For a list of Boyle’s use of the term ‘plastic’, see Table 13.1.
- 27.
It is in this more restricted sense that Peter Anstey is right to say that Boyle, “uses the term ‘plastick power’ to describe the ability of seminal principles to generate bodies.” See Anstey (2002a), 602.
- 28.
Oddly, Harvey doesn’t seem to hold the latter view. Cf. Harvey 1965, 307.
- 29.
Boyle et al. 2000, vol. V: 382, Origin of Forms and Qualities.
- 30.
Harvey also describes the chick’s formation this way. Cf. Harvey 1965, 370.
- 31.
Boyle et al. 2000, vol. V: 383, Origin of Forms and Qualities.
- 32.
Ibid. 389.
- 33.
Boyle’s comments here are in reference to van Helmont’s experiments, which involve a tree which grew over several years with soil and water. Because the amount of the soil weighed the same, van Helmont concluded that the tree’s additional mass was derived from the addition of water. Thus, water was the element from which a number of living beings were produced, and that process reflected a divine, formative power. For more on this, see Pagel 1982, 56; and Newman and Principe 2002, 77–80.
- 34.
Boyle et al. 2000, vol. V: 433 Origin of Forms and Qualities.
- 35.
Ibid. 436.
- 36.
This spirit could take the form of vapor, steam, or a liquor. See Boyle et al. 2000, vol. XII: 371.
- 37.
This essay was later published along with several others in 1661 as part of Boyle’s Certain Physiological Essays.
- 38.
Boyle et al. 2000, vol. II: 187, Certain Physiological Essays.
- 39.
This treatise was published along with several other unpublished treatises of Boyle’s as part of the collection of Michael Hunter and E.B. Davis. For the remainder of the paper, its title will be abbreviated as “Generation of Minerals.”
- 40.
Boyle et al. 2000, vol. XIII: 366, Generation of Minerals.
- 41.
Ibid. 372, Of the petrific spirit.
- 42.
His apprehension likely stems from the fact that the petrifick spirit might have, “sunder ways operating unknown.” Boyle et al. 2000, vol. XIII: 372, Generations of Minerals.
- 43.
The “difficulty” he mentions here is that of explaining how the petrifick spirit works.
- 44.
Ibid. 373.
- 45.
Ibid. 25 ff.
- 46.
Ibid. 45.
- 47.
Boyle et al. 2000, vol. VIII: 109.
- 48.
Ibid.
- 49.
Ibid.
- 50.
Des Chene 2005, 245.
- 51.
Newman 2006, 178.
- 52.
In a previous work, Boyle claims that Harvey made evident both that the cicatricula is the source of the chick, and that it belongs to neither the white nor the yolk. See Boyle et al. 2000, vol. VI: 511.
- 53.
Boyle et al. 2000, vol. V: 383–384.
- 54.
Ibid. 384.
- 55.
Ibid. 384.
- 56.
Ibid. 389.
- 57.
Boyle et al. 2000, vol. VII: 28–29, Origins and Virtues of Gems.
- 58.
Boyle does not restrict that line of reasoning to agents of generation . He gives a similar response when addressing Aristotelian claims of the supposed gravity and levity of the elements, as well as the possibility of incorporeal agents such as angels. See Boyle et al. 2000, vol. X: 205, Notion of Nature and Principe and Boyle 1998, 208 respectively.
- 59.
Oldenburg et al. 1969, IX: 229–230.
- 60.
I have changed the translation slightly. Cf. Adelmann 1966, vol II: 957, Pulli in Ovo.
- 61.
- 62.
- 63.
Adelmann 1966, vol. II: p. 885.
- 64.
It might be easy to confuse Malpighi’s views with those of Harvey ’s metamorphosis. There are some similarities, as each consists of parts which form simultaneously and exist before the generation of the animal. It would be a mistake, however, to do so. First, Harvey’s conception of metamorphosis is related to his ideas about spontaneous generation. (Cf. Harvey 1965, 335.) Malpighi rejected Harvey’s views on spontaneous generation. More importantly, however, Malpighi does not deny that growth and gradual development occur within the egg. Metamorphosis entails the breaking-up of homogenized material into different parts. Malpighi’s view, however, simply entails the enlargement of parts which were produced simultaneously.
- 65.
February 6th 1686, NS; January 26th, OS. Boyle’s Memoirs for the Natural History of Human Blood was published in English shortly before this correspondence in 1684. See Boyle 2000, V. 10:3 ff.
- 66.
- 67.
Malpighi and Adelmann 1975, 1156. The sentiments described by Ronchi on behalf of Boyle were likely sincere too, as evident by Boyle’s later requesting Malpighi to host his nephew. Cf. Ibid. 1258.
- 68.
Ibid. 1212.
- 69.
Ibid. 1250, 1258.
- 70.
Aston replaced Oldenburg as the Royal Society’s secretary after the latter’s death in 1677.
- 71.
Malpighi and Adelmann 1975, 910–911.
- 72.
Boyle, Robert 2014, BP 17, fol. 116v–125v.
- 73.
The first mention of plastic virtues can be found in the very first sentence of the second half of the epistle to Spon. Malpighi refers to it in passing in the context of the uterus, which he calls the “workshop” or “office” of the plastic virtue. “…plasticae virtutis officinam contemplemur exarando ea…” See Malpighi 1684, 630.
- 74.
- 75.
Malpighi presents the same view as in his embryological treatises, but he is much more explicit about it.
- 76.
Malpighi, Opera Posthuma, Vita. Translated in Adelmann 1966, vol. II: 866.
- 77.
Ibid. 866.
- 78.
Malpighi 1696, 90; “In lapidum quoq; concretione non rarò consimilia succedunt phænomena. Constat enim in gagate ovum ex fluida materia fieri, in qua cum adsint diversæ tincturæ, & particulæ fossilium et mineralium ex varietate gravitatis earundem, & resistentia ambientis fit ovum multiplicibus distinctum fluoribus, in quibus succedunt tandem concretione, quasi tot involucra sese contingentia ceparum instar manifestantur; quin immo & speciem simile exhibent, qualem in incubato ovo intuemur, in quo ex fermentatione circuli circa carinam velut aggeres cum interfluentibus liquoribus dilatantur, & multiplicantur.”
- 79.
Ibid. 91.
- 80.
- 81.
Cf. Boyle et al. 2000, VII: 5–7.
- 82.
Boyle’s work was published in 1671, whereas Steno’s Prodromus had already been published in 1668.
- 83.
Just how Steno was made aware of Boyle’s views remains unclear. Toshihiro Yamanda has recently argued that Steno became aware of and was consequently influenced by Boyle’s thesis of mineral formation through Steno’s mentor, Ole Borch. Borch met Boyle in 1663 while touring Europe and thus likely transmitted Boyle’s ideas later to Steno. If that it is the case, it speaks even more to the magnitude of Boyle’s influence, as Steno’s work on the matter is generally considered to be foundational in geomorphology (Yamanda 2009).
- 84.
Interestingly, Steno also wrote a dissertation on the development of the chick-egg, De vitelli in intestina pulli transit. See Steno 1950. That Steno wrote a dissertation on the formation of minerals so shortly after his excursus on the chick suggests that the interest in the generation of both animals and minerals was not an anomaly in the seventeenth century. Steno’s work on the chick makes no reference to a plastic power or seminal principle. That he refrains from such reference might well be because his dissertation on the chick was written in 1664, approximately eight years prior to Boyle’s publication of the Origin of Gems and Virtues.
- 85.
Roger 1997, 51.
- 86.
- 87.
- 88.
Highmore 1651. For a more comprehensive discussion on this topic, see Ekholm 2011.
- 89.
Oldenburg et al. 1969, 454–457.
References
Adelmann, Howard B. 1966. Marcello Malpighi and the evolution of embryology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Anstey, P. 2002a. Boyle on seminal principles. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 33(1): 597–630.
Anstey, P. 2002b. Robert Boyle and Locke's "Morbus" entry: a reply to J.C. Walmsley. Early Science and Medicine 7(4): 358–377.
Anstey, P. 2002c. Robert Boyle and the heuristic value of mechanism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33: 161–173.
Aristotle, and Arthur Platt. 2008. On the generation of animals. Whitefish: Kessinger Publications.
Bertoloni Meli, Domenico. 2011. Mechanism, experiment, disease: Marcello Malpighi and Seventeenth-century anatomy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
Boyle, Robert. 1665. Origo Formarum Et Qualitatum. Trans. Henry Oldenburg. Lichfield, England: Oxonia Press.
Boyle, Robert. 1673. Exercitatio De Origine Et Viribus Gemmarum. Comp. Moses Pitt. London: Little Britain.
Boyle, Robert. 2014. The Boyle Papers. Comp. The Royal Society. London: The Boyle Project. http://www.bbk.ac.uk/boyle/boyle_papers/bp17_docs/bp17_115v-116r.htm.
Boyle, Robert, Michael Cyril William Hunter, and Edward Bradford Davis. 2000. The works of Robert Boyle. London: Pickering & Chatto.
Chalmers, A. 2002. Experiment versus mechanical philosophy in the work of Robert Boyle: a reply to Anstey and Pyle. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33(1): 187–193.
Chisolm, Hugh. 1911. The Encyclopedia Britannica: A dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information, vol. 23, 11th ed, 433. New York: Encylopedia Britannica.
Clericuzio, Antonio. 1990. A redefinition of Boyle's chemistry and Corpuscular philosophy. Annals of Science 47(6): 561–589.
Clericuzio, Antonio. 2000. Elements, principles, and corpuscles: a study of atomism and chemistry in the seventeenth century. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
Des Chene, Dennis. 2005. Mechanisms of life: Borelli, Perrault, Régis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36: 245–260.
Ekholm, Karin Jori. 2011. Generation and its problems: Harvey, Highmore and their contemporaries. Ph.D., History and Philosophy of Science, Indiana University.
Galen, and Arthur John Brock. 1916. On the natural faculties. London: W. Heinemann.
Hall, Marie Boas. 1958. Robert Boyle and seventeenth-century chemistry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harvey, William. 1965. The works of William Harvey. New York/London: Johnson Reprint Corporation.
Hirai, Hiro. 2005. Le concept de semence. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers.
Hirai, Hiro. 2007. The invisible hand of God in seeds: Jacob Schegk’s theory of plastic faculty. Early Science and Medicine 12(4): 377–404.
Hunter, William B. 1950. The seventeenth century doctrine of plastic nature. Harvard Theological Review 43(3): 197–213.
Malpighi, Marcello. 1696. Opera Posthuma. London: Royal Society.
Malpighi, Marcello, and Howard B. Adelmann. 1975. The correspondence of Marcello Malpighi. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Malpighi, Marcello. 1684. Praeclarissimo Et Eruditissimo Viro D. Jacobo Sponio Medicinae Doctori, Et Lugdunensi Anatomico Accuratissimo. Marcellus Malpighius S. P. Philosophical Transactions 14.155–166: 630–46.
Newman, William Royall. 2006. Atoms and alchemy: Chymistry and the experimental origins of the scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Newman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. 1998. Alchemy vs. chemistry: The etymological origins of a historiographical mistake. Early Science and Medicine 3: 32–65.
Newman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. 2002. Alchemy tried in the fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the fate of Helmontian Chymistry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Oldenburg, Henry, A. Rupert Hall, Marie Boas Hall, and Eberhard Reichmann. 1969. The correspondence of Henry Oldenburg. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Pagel, Walter. 1982. Joan Baptista Van Helmont: Reformer of science and medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Preus, Anthony. 2002. Plotinus and biology. In Neoplatonism and nature: Studies in Plotinus’ Enneads, Studies in Neoplatonism, vol. 8, ed. Michael F. Wagner. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Principe, Lawrence, and Robert Boyle. 1998. The aspiring adept: Robert Boyle and his alchemical quest: Including Boyle’s “lost” dialogue on the transmutation of metals. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pyle, A. 2002. Boyle on science and the mechanical philosophy: a reply to Chalmers. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33(1): 171–186.
Roe, Shirley A. 1981. Matter, life, and generation: Eighteenth-century embryology and the Haller-Wolff debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roger, Jacques. 1997. The life sciences in eighteenth-century French thought, ed. Kieth R. Benson. Trans. Robert Ellrich. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Sbaraglia, Giovanni Girolamo. 1704. Oculorum et Mentis Vigilæ. Bologna: Pietro-Maria Monti.
Steno, Nicolaus. 1671. The Prodromus to a dissertation concerning solids naturally contained within solids. Trans. Henry Oldenburg. Comp. Moles Pitt. London: J. Winter Press.
Steno, Nicolaus. 1950. On the passage of yolk into the intestines of the chick (De Vitelli in Intestina Pulli Transitu). Trans. Margaret T. May. J Hist Med Allied Sci Spring V: 119–143, With Introduction and Commentary.
Walmsley, Jonathan. 2000. Morbus– Locke's early essay on disease. Early Science and Medicine 5(4): 367–393.
Walmsley, Jonathan. 2002. “Morbus,” Locke and Boyle – A response to Peter Anstey. Early Science and Medicine 7(4): 378–397.
Wilson, Catherine. 1995. The invisible world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Yamanda, Toshihiro. 2009. Hooke-Steno relations reconsidered: Reassessing the roles of Ole Borch and Robert Boyle. In The revolution in geology from the renaissance to the enlightenment, ed. Gary D. Rosenberg. Boulder: Geological Society of America.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Inglehart, A.J. (2016). Boyle, Malpighi, and the Problem of Plastic Powers. In: Distelzweig, P., Goldberg, B., Ragland, E. (eds) Early Modern Medicine and Natural Philosophy. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7353-9_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7353-9_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-7352-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-7353-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)