Natural History 131of insects was again a popular topic. Friedrich Lesser, the Lutheran pastor
of Nordhausen, Thuringia, produced a complete treatise on the subject
entitled Théologie des Insectes, ou Demonstration des Perfections de Dieu dans
tout ce qui concerne les Insectes (1742).^69 Swedish taxomonist Carl Linnaeus
announced that the world was like “a museum” in which God had ar-
ranged all the living creatures as “admirable proofs of his wisdom and
power.”^70 For many in the early- modern period, the pursuit of natural
history was an intrinsically theological activity.
HISTORY, NATURAL HISTORY, AND NATURAL PHILOSOPHY
“As all things have their revolutions, so hath naturall History the same
chance. It was held for a goddess... but now a dayes it is so despised,
that it is of no esteem at all; this matter needs no proving.”^71 John John-
ston’s pessimistic assessment of the status of natural history, issued in
1631, was in some respects not far from the mark. In spite of the lofty
rhetoric stressing its manifold uses, natural history never received the
kind of recognition reserved for its more highly regarded relation, natural
philosophy. William Wallace has observed of the Renaissance curriculum
that “little or no attention” was paid to Aristotle’s natural history.^72 Ac-
cording to Gilbert Jacchaeus, professor of philosophy and medicine at Le-
iden, natural history was not taught in the universities because it did not
involve demonstrative science, it was not diffi cult enough to require the
assistance of a teacher, and there was insuffi cient time to include it in the
two- or three- year philosophy course.^73 The situation improved little dur-
ing the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In his Herbal,
John Gerard rued the fact that “that which sometime was the study of
great Phylosophers and mightie Princes, is now neglected.”^74 Histories of
animals, too, were “in a great measure neglected by English men,” ac-
cording to John Ray.^75 The modest status of the discipline was refl ected in
the number of university chairs devoted to its profession. John Johnston
expressed doubts about whether natural history was “entirely professed in
any University or School (except Bolognia where Aldrovandus was).”^76 In
spite of its much- vaunted theological usefulness and its popular appeal,
natural history was slow to make inroads into the traditional university
curriculum.
The fortunes of natural history in this respect were very much deter-
mined by its relationship with bordering disciplines. On the one hand,
as natural history, it was one of the historical disciplines.^77 On the other
hand, as natural history, its subject matter was nature. The hybrid charac-