126 Harrison
was the premise of the Physiologus and the bestiaries, of medieval alle-
gorical readings of scripture, and of the emblematic components of Re-
naissance natural histories. Bacon insisted that the book of nature could
not be read in this fashion and articulated the modern view that alle-
gories are not about eternal ontological relations but linguistic conven-
tions.^36 This new view of the natural world is evident in the things that
seventeenth- century natural histories begin to exclude.^37 Nehemiah Grew,
for example, declared that his descriptions of objects in the natural his-
tory collection of the Royal Society would be innocent of the traditional
emblematic associations: “After the Descriptions; instead of medling with
Mystick, Mythologick, or Hieroglyphick matter; or relating Stories of Men
who were great Riders, or Women that were bold and feared not horses;
as some others have done: I thought it much more proper, To remarque
some of the Uses and Reasons of Things.”^38 These omissions represent
a monumental change in the way in which nature was conceived. The
creatures have not been placed in the world to represent or communicate
divine truths. They are there to be used. The Baconian ideal is thus real-
ized in Grew’s focus on a rational knowledge of natural objects that will
facilitate their material exploitation.^39THE JUSTIFICATIONS AND USES OF NATURAL HISTORY
Early- modern works of natural history were often prefaced by lengthy
claims about the dignity and worth of the discipline. It was frequently
claimed that in antiquity natural history had been practiced or sponsored
by individuals of the highest standing. These included the biblical patri-
archs, the wise King Solomon, and Alexander the Great. No doubt much
of this had to do with attracting wealthy or highly placed patrons, the
support of whom was necessary for any large- scale project. In his Herball
or Generall Historie of Plantes (1597), a work thoughtfully dedicated to Sir
William Cecil, Lord High Treasurer of England, John Gerard (1545–1612)
thought it worth informing his Lordship that the study of plants in the
past had enjoyed the support of “noble Princes” such as Solomon and
Alexander the Great, who had “joyned this study with their most impor-
tant matters of state.”^40 In Italy, the Medici popes and princes had self-
consciously modeled themselves on the classical rulers, enthusiastically
sponsoring collections of natural objects and facts about nature, and the
related activity of the translation of ancient Greek texts.^41 With a slight
tone of reproach, one English promoter of natural history pointed to
the generous support for the study of nature in other countries: “I see