Species

56 Species

Ramus seems to think that the general term (genus) is an answer to a given ques-
tion of the constitution (species) of a particular thing. He has no notion of descend-
ing genera and species, nor that one genus (e.g., dialectician) might be a subaltern
species in another (man). Either he misunderstood the scholastic tradition, which is
Ong’s interpretation, or he was redening the logical enterprise. Ramus’ ideas were
inuential in setting the education curriculum for the Trivium for much of the fol-
lowing century, and inuenced the Port Royal Logic.^34 However, he seems to have
had little direct effect upon biological classication as it developed, apart from the
fact that many of the early modern naturalists would have been taught his views.

Noah’s Ark and the Creation of the Species Rank

At this point in our narrative, we still have neither a uniquely biological notion of
species nor of a xed rank in logic. As species concepts evolved, at some point
both of these must arise. The origin of species the rank, is, ironically, in the chang-
ing interpretation of the book of Genesis, especially the creation story of chapter 1,
verses 21, 24 to 26 (Table 3.1), and the Flood narrative of chapter 6, verse 9 to chapter 9,
verse 17 (Table 3.2).
The shift from rationalism to empiricism in theology is driven by the Reformation
insistence on the plain meaning of the scriptures. However, the shift to rational-
ism in theology occurred much earlier, in the twelfth century.^35 Then, the issue was
between reason and revelation. In the post-Reformation age, it is between observa-
tional evidence and revelation. Allen notes that Abelard was the rst “to completely
surrender to the charms of reason,” but that it was the inuence of Avicenna, in the
Islamic tradition (then recently translated into Latin) who started the issue of faith
versus reason in the West.^36
In the period leading up to the modern era, the interpretation of the Bible was a
mixture of literal readings, allegory, mystical meanings, analogy, and metaphor. In
the twelfth century, for example, Hugh of St. Victor (d. 1141), wrote De arca Noe
morali,^37 in which he allegorized the Ark as the Church, stating that

... this spiritual building ... is Noah’s Ark. ... this Ark denotes the Church, and the

Church is the body of Christ ...^38

However, by the fteenth century, in the wake of the Reformation, biblical texts

were more literally interpreted and treated as factual, historical accounts.^39 Spanish

bishop Alonso [or Alfonso] de Madrigal, known as Tostado (c. 1400–1455), wrote, in

his commentary on Genesis:

(^33) Freedman 1993.
(^34) Ramus 1756, Hotson 2007, 39.
(^35) Allen 1949, chapter 1.
(^36) Allen 2003, 6–7.
(^37) Hugh of Saint Victor 1962.
(^38) Op cit. I.7.
(^39) For a compelling account of this shift and the contribution of Protestant theology to empirical natural
philosophy, see Harrison 2015.