The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Scientific revolution in focus of gender researches: review of works on feministic history of science



auchny revolution in focus of gender researches: review of works on feministic history of science

Konstantin Ivanov

I will tell nothing about Fantine - it is the dreamer, thoughtful, scattered, sensitive; it is the ghost which accepted an image of the nymph and clothed in chastity of the nun who went astray and conducts the grisette's life, but looks for shelters in illusions which sings, prays and beholds an azure, without being aware of what she sees or does; it is the ghost which turned an eye in heaven and wanders about a garden where so many birds how many you will not count in all visible world fly!

Victor Hugo. Outcast

What it is more important in science — ability to feel or ability to understand? In what measure can the imagination participate in designing of true idea of the world? How this representation — passive reflection or reactive capture is created? What relations between a utopia and positive knowledge? And what role of unpredictability in commission of discoveries? Whether such, at first sight, ordinary things how love, care, the sexual relations, pleasure, suffering are significant for growth and distribution of scientific knowledge? Here only the few questions which became relevant in alternative history of the science developed by representatives of gender researches.

In this short review I will focus mainly on the period of early Modern times — first because, according to many female authors, then in life of Western and Northern Europe there were changes which excluded women from authoritative types of activity, including science and philosophy; and secondly, because representatives of radical feminism consider falsification the majority of conclusions traditsionnykh1 the academic works devoted to history of science of this time. Besides I am intrigued by exploring the possibility of logical coordination of two above-mentioned statements which difficult neighbourhood initially imposes a hard mission of studying the historical choice of Europe made not in favor of women on feminists; that is, in fact, dooms them to analysis of the reasons of own fiasco. (Perhaps, therefore in works on gender history psychoanalysis concepts are so often used. But we will leave this remark in brackets.)

If to speak about sources, then in 1977 Joan Kelly in the known and often quoted article "Whether Women Had a Renaissance?" (Sh1u 1977) claimed: "One of problems of history of women — to call into question the accepted schemes of a periodization. From positions of women's emancipation, the events which caused istori-

Konstantin Vladimirovich Ivanov. Department of the general and theoretical physics of the Tula state pedagogical university of L.N. Tolstoy. 300026, Tula, Lenin Ave., 125. konstantine@yandex.ru.

1 The term "traditional" is used in this case only as an antonym to concepts "alternative" or "the innovator -

skiya".

ЬаЬога^гшт. 2009. N0. 1: 229-241

chesky development of men, their release from natural, social and ideological restrictions, possessed very excellent, even opposite impact on women".

This thesis was adapted to science history in the book by Caroline Mertchant "Nature death: Women, ecology and scientific revolution" (Merchant 1989)2. Mertchant (Merchant 2008) tried to track in more detail processes as a result of which women appeared playing a supporting role in life of the European society. In the book it connects these changes with emergence of the new scientific and commercial values authorizing operation of the nature which till this time was personified in terms and images of femininity. Having acquired the tool and consumer attitude towards reality, male researchers could not be exempted from the mental installations which are bringing together the nature with the woman. It, on the one hand, placed women among the dominated objects, with another — led to an unconscious erotization of process of knowledge which in radical interpretations can be read as sublimated violence (Carrol 1989).

Sandra Harding who wrote a series of books on feministic history of science is even more categorical in the nearly public prosecutor's formulations: "Scientific question in feminism" (1986); "Whose science? Whose knowledge?" (1991) and recently appeared book "Science and Social Inequality" (2006). Considering the relation of feminists to science in connection with inclusiveness of the last in modern culture, Harding claims that the sexism — structural and intellectual — was historically strongly introduced in the theory and practice of the western science. Male superiority, racism, class operation and also colonial and imperialistic conquest instrumentally promoted formation of scientific logic and scientific practice, and therefore modern scientific knowledge is fundamentally unauthorized.

What revealed the critical revision of men's history undertaken within "a big narrative" of gender researches? Whether it opened the new contexts of formation of basic concepts of science of early Modern times which are not captured by male researchers? To understand it, we need to characterize in general a contour of semantic opposition of traditional and gender authors and to compare it with social arrangements in the professional field of history of science.

One of standard subjects, implicitly or obviously present at any feministic research (and gender history of science in this case did not become an exception) — criticism of the learning subject. From the point of view of feminists, the positivistic men's epistemologiya mistakenly attributes him qualities of the detached and uninterested observer whose sex (and also nationality, skin color and so on) does not matter. Challenging this thesis, feminists consider that in this case it is necessary to understand the white man taking prepotent positions in social hierarchy, who is obviously interested in an objectivization of an order which allocates it with the power and recognition as "the uninterested observer". Therefore in a number of feministic works it is possible to distinguish the gestures aimed at exposure of estimated "bespolost" of a traditional subject of knowledge.

One of the ways allowing to make it — identification of the erotic connotations which are contained in works of scientists of early Modern times. Insisting on the unconditional importance of a floor (and the sexuality) in experience of development of the natural world, some female authors offer the texts entering the relations if it is possible so to speak, "the academic flirtation" with a traditional wing of historical scientific research. As a result declared "bespolost" of traditional male historians is substituted (at the level of hidden, but from that not less fervent message) for a hint for inability to sexual self-identification.

One of the most striking examples of works such is the book by Mary Campbell "Surprising science: The imagined worlds in science of early Modern times" (1999). Offering, among other things, the about -

2 See also recent discussion concerning this book in the heading "Focus" of the ISIS magazine (Getting Back to The Death of Nature: Rereading Carolyn Merchant. ISIS. 2006 97(3): 485-533.

reading the text of the famous work of Galilei "The star bulletin", Campbell comes to a conclusion that Galilei was not the impartial observer at all; on the contrary, its feelings were involved in the made observations, and it was aimed at deriving from them pleasure. The undertaken Campbell the uncommon lexical analysis allows to distinguish in the text of "The star bulletin" a number of associations erotic (if not pornographic) character, usually ignored by male researchers. For example, in Galilei's text of a star "offer" themselves to a look (page 128); in the book characteristic turns of courtois literature are used: "I looked forward to the next night, but was disappointed in the hopes" (in the same place) and also courtois statement of scenes: "in the spring forest", "in the country" (in the same place); the word "beautiful" is used how often the repeating epithet; it is told about pleasure from looking at a body of the Moon.

According to Campbell, Galilei's text invites worrying, but not just to imagine the feelings arising at the observer at looking at the sky in the telescope. The revealed erotic metaphorics gives to the author the chance to attribute phallic functions and to telescopes of Galilei — the tools allowing to derive pleasure from penetration into novel depths of the Universe and also as such penetration is possible only for a look, to see shades of a skopofiliya (page 127) in the first emotional responses to experience of use of the optical equipment.

Exempting Galilei from gloomy academic concentration and sexual indifference, Campbell places his work not in the long-term scientific prospect of improvement of the observation equipment and according to growth of knowledge of heavenly objects (as it usually becomes in traditional history of science), and among modern to Galilei of fascinating literary genres from which the closest, according to her, are a utopia and "emotional geography" (page 135) (the expressive description of far and hard-hitting territories means). It finds functional justification in it to use of erotizirovanny vocabulary as erotic material gives more opportunities for search of metaphors of presence and washes away border between states "to be there" and "to see it" (page 130).

Besides (and here the reasoning Campbell is almost closed with gender researches in the field of history of a pornography (Falk 1993), the erotic discourse is much stronger fixed on meant and therefore with its help it is easier to create presence illusion. For example, according to Campbell, light in the work by Galilei represents fertile substance — similarity of a seed, and its mediation in creation of astronomical images (sunshine "wash" the Moon, the Moon "washes" beams Earth, Earth in reply "washes" the Moon the beams) konnotativno designates symbolics of corporal contact. The lack of canons and openness of literary opportunities which Galilei faced when writing "The star bulletin" put it in a choice situation; and for the most full-fledged transfer of an impression of experience of examining of "the unfamiliar place" (taking into account tastes and literary education of public which Galilei addressed — it was a courtois palace environment) it was more convenient to use the receptions developed within courtois, utopian and geographical (in the sense of emotional geography) genres.

The approach used by Mary Campbell closes the analysis of scientific ideas with the analysis of the speech uses and creates conditions for identification of the cultural, social, symbolical and semantic transformations which led to emergence of language of science. In particular, considering features of production of scientific images of that time, she finds obvious overlapping between development of concepts of "exact language" and "a graphic detail". Mentioning graphic works of other scientist of the 17th century (Robert Hooke), Campbell traces the changes in conditions of graphic representation happening in the scientific organizations. According to it, Hooke was frightened most of all by not "repellent" appearance of objects which he represented (as, for example, a flea under a microscope), but irregularity of a visual impression. The non-reproducible heap of details caused it more troubles, than the reproduced monstrosity: the possibility of graphic reading is the only criterion which it

really concerned (page 196). Here again, as in a case with "a skopofiliya of glasses" at Galilei, Campbell plentifully uses late psychoanalytic concepts, interpreting evolution of language of science (verbal and graphic) as its "fetishization" (page 187). According to Campbell, by means of it high extent of focusing of values is reached and additional chains meant, "not scientifically" coding objects of scientific consideration are rejected (The moon as "the planet of madness", others worlds as "wild animals").

In general the book Campbell quite corresponds to all program provisions of a feministic epistemologiya. In the center of its attention there are eroticism, questions of visual culture, interest in utopias which, according to many female authors, became an alarm element in self-determination of feminist movement as quite relevantly reflected the imagined aspirations of women in sexist society with the tough distribution of gender roles (Багд^ээоп 1996) which is not suiting them (whether is explained by it including existence of a genre of "the ladies' novel" — a utopia substitute? — again we will note in brackets); at last, the profound psychologism opposed to the impartial, positivistically focused subject of knowledge of men's science.

The genre of reading of scientific works taking into account a complex of the psychological experiences motivating including the direction of scientific activity of male researchers, is rather widespread in gender researches. However "Esmeralda's dance" (I consciously choose such definition of a genre in which Mary Campbell works to balance chances and to check whether on the business the imagination is capable to render service to research search?), not only of all possible arrangements. It would be possible to call the following method of opposition of traditional history of science which I wanted to present here "care of a hlopotunya". Due to the stability of a maskulinnost in our culture it is difficult to find the bright literary image corresponding to this name. (How actually to make recognizable imperceptible? Some Ms. Vayandott in "Thieves of flesh" of Jack Finney? Or Volfert's wife in Irving's "Groom ghost" who and has no name?) This approach focuses attention on personal experiences of the researcher, on subtleties of his sincere organization. Actually, it too one of the declared provisions of a feministic epistemologiya which can be designated by more general category "cares".

I will give Emma Speri's work as an example "Codes of passion" (1999). If attention objects Campbell are Galilei, Kepler, Hooke and authors of utopias, then Speri tries to find traces of the sincere drama in activity of other representative of science of Modern times — Georges Louis Leklerk Byuffon. The interest of the last in taxidermy, according to Speri, was provoked by a mental trauma which he had after the death of the wife. But before passing to statement of contents of article, I would like to make several remarks.

Names of gender articles on science stories in general abound with oxymorons. However (and it is one more feature of gender history), as a rule, it concerns not only names. There is almost always a cross arrangement of accents stratifying an overall picture of historical changes on ranks konfliktno of the nyuansirovka located the friend in relation to the friend. For example, at Speri the position of care shown at the level of epistemological requirements regenerates in the course of reconstruction of research activity of Byuffon in criticism modern to him a social order (one of creators of which he, actually, also was), and the sympathetic attention shown to it (Byuffon) — in negative assessment of social and semantic transformations of times of the French absolutism. Nevertheless Speri really reveals in a complex of the images which are symbolically connected with femininity "elegant and carefree" ptichku3. "Floor paradox — Speri writes — the red line passes through everything

3 It, by the way, is confirmed in work Krauter-Heyk where she pays attention to emergence in pictures of the 18th age of an image of an open bird's cage as an erotic symbol. The same value, according to her, was denotirovat by a vessel for cooling of wine (Сгом^Иег-Неуск 2003).

works of the naturalists writing about collections of birds and experimenting with birds. Live birds were associated with femininity and, maybe, even symbolized femininity; Leppert showed that birds in cages designated the woman pining in a house imprisonment in pictures XVIII of century. Dead birds were a subject of men's interest which purpose was desire to recover them the manipulations developed in the course of experimental work; it was work on symbolical revival" (page 124).

Developing a thesis of psychoanalysis about fear of the man of excited female emotionality, Speri interprets production of bird's scarecrows (a lot of time and forces was spent for creation of the closest similarity to a live individual, and Speri in detail considers the taksidermichesky practicians applied at that time) as the transgressive gesture allowing to overcome symbolically this complex and to convince itself of controllability of the gender relations. However Speri is not limited to this rather trivial interpretation. As well as Campbell, it enters the thesis in wider plan which structure covers both erotic, and political allegories.

"Freedom and work — Speri writes — were in the center of the natural relations, including strong moral foundations of marriage and house life. In the natural history Byuffona the shown birds possessed a double-meaning. As well as collection copies of scarecrows of birds, live birds in cages were only nature simulacra, expressing to the immorality domestication consequences. The morbidity, idleness and adultery were destiny living in luxury, regardless of whether there were it birds or the French noblemen. Thus, the classification issue of birds merged with a classification issue of society. The peace had to be made in category of a certain system; according to a concept of this system had to set borders of the possible world. In practice similar movement from one register of perception to another organized a play of values between two meant" (page 132).

Speri does not ignore also a problem of formation of language of science, accompanying the research with semiotics studies with frequent references to Rolan Bart's works. "To... early Modern times — she writes — collections [offices of rarities] were distinctly polisemichna; they could maintain different values and konnotirovat various meanings" (page 118). However in process of emergence of disagreements concerning the epistemological status visual concerning taksidermichesky the practician (Speri considers as an example a long discussion between Byuffon and Reaumur; and here again, as at Campbell, questions of history of visual culture receive a special aktsentation) at researchers the projective imagination which carries out a reduction of eclectic filling of offices and builds the new symbolical order stretching the authoritative influence on the world of both the natural, and social relations develops: "In the movement between the text, image and a copy of a look, the cognitive shift between memory and imagination was involved. The imagination became & #34; internal глазом" and the measure of imagination began to regulate a measure of a look" (page 122).

"the image of freedom, independence associated with birds almost bible, carefree flying, in everything the satisfied life living without thoughts about daily bread and flitting from one pleasure to another" (page 133) symbolically brought together them with social elite: "The affective female nature is very close to what was shown by offices of natural history (whims and inconstancy), and, in turn, rich people were close to having these female qualities" (in the same place) too. It, according to Speri, made studying birds especially popular in the 18th century: "Bird's scarecrows reflected in the glazed panels of the French offices of rarities of the end of the XVIII century emotions, experiences and impressions of the observers looking at these lungs, extremely sexual, dressed in bright colors copies equally deserving both study, and admiring" (in the same place).

Women were involved in these shifts, however according to the part assigned to them the field of their activity, including women of quality too, there was not an office, but a farm: "Poultry farming at the end of the XVIII century was typically women's occupation. Women held parrots, canaries, decorative economic

birds. In practice decorative bird's farms were a female equivalent of offices where idle ladies excitedly monitored vain works and customs of the elegant wards" (page 126).

In works of above-mentioned authors and in many other gender works on stories of science it is much told about imagination. Actually, in science it was told about importance of imagination long ago including in traditional history, it is enough to remember the known mental experiments of Galilei. And still, judging by reviews, close attention to an imagination subject in works on gender history irritates some experts. To understand features of the use of the concept "imagination" of gender history, I suggest to consider the book by Ladina Bezzola Lambert "Imagining unimaginable: Poetics of astronomy of early Modern times" (2002).

Lambert is in the center of attention already mentioned in this review "Star bulletin" of Galilei which she analyzes, building stylistic parallels between Galilei's text and works modern to it not only scientific, but also literary authors. "I consider — Lambert writes — that the images used by Galilei in & #34; Star вестнике" are essential not only in the sense that they illustrate the description, but that is more important, they give the chance to a reasoning to leave to the sphere of literary metaphorics. In many respects thanks to figurativeness, but not the rational argument, to Galilei it is possible to disprove dogmatic provisions of supporters of philosophy of Aristotle and to make the theory attractive to audience" (page 34).

The aggression with which the expert in the field of scientific rhetoric Alan Gross fell upon this book is not really clear to me. What is costed by one beginning of its review: "The heading and a subtitle of this monograph enter into cardinal error. The book devoted to imagination of unimaginable has to concern the essence of this oxymoron: though the imagination is based only on basic impressions, it, nevertheless, is capable to make something unique, namely new knowledge. However not it is Ladina Lambert's subject. She considers how she itself admits, only ability of imagination to change an order of a visual cogitative context: to create satir from images of people and goats, or that more corresponds to our subject, to create craters from lunar shadows. Whether but the book about astronomy of early Modern times has to be such?" (Gross 2002: 695).

Possibly, not so much the correctness of the argument challenged by Gross Lambert how many its attempt to slightly displace disciplinary borders — to analyze the "scientific" work by Galilei, proceeding from not only scientific, but also literary classifications is the reason of such irritation. "In the book — Gross writes — Galilei, Kepler and Huygens. names & #34 really meet; Star вестник" and & #34; Dialogue about two systems мира" Galilee — it is valid two main astronomical compositions of astronomy of early Modern times, and they quite here are appropriate. However as for the choice of compositions of two other authors — Kepler and Huygens, this choice is quite excentric: as a subject of consideration are taken & #34; Сон" Kepler and & #34; Космотерос" Huygens. It is very strange that in the book stated as scientific very many place is given to Ariosto's compositions and Sirano de Bergerac and Italo Calvino's short stories" (in the same place).

It is possible to put forward a set of arguments in protection Lambert (respectively against Gross). Professionalizing of science was carried out only at a turn of the XVIII—XIX centuries, and therefore to consider Galilei's text as "scientific" at least it is incorrect. Belief models which were developed by Galilei were directed to audience of a palace environment which had the idea of education and special literary sensitivity (see the detailed analysis of this question in (BiagioLi 1993) and also in other articles of this author (BiagioLi, Mario. 1992; 1996). Unique optical experience of Galilei really difficult gave in to an articulation, and identification of similarity between details of lunar and terrestrial surfaces was nearly only way of assimilation of this new knowledge which does not have analogs neither in a narrative of Aristotelean scholasticism nor in empirically focused practicians (see, e.g. Helden 1992; 1994; HeLden, Gent 1999).

In my opinion, Gross's review shows not so much "objective criticism", how many incomparability of starting positions of "men's" and "female" ways of how ways of development of science of early Modern times and by that confirms rather are reconstructed, than disproves the claims stated by feminists to masculine interpretations of scientific revolution. But we will track further logic of reasonings Lambert.

Use of imagination in "The star bulletin", Lambert considers, it is directed to three basic purposes: "1) to create communication between physical the world and its visual projections; 2) to establish essential similarity between the Moon and Earth; and 3) to transfer the optical incentives deprived of value to the images familiar to the reader. At the same time there is a certain epistemological problem which is that that category of visual certificates which provides the telescope, first, is exclusively visual, secondly, is not obvious and, thirdly at least is not literal" (in the same place). As well as Campbell, Lambert interprets experience of looking at the Moon by Galilei as new type of interaction with the world: not so much intellectual (in the spirit of Aristotelean scholasticism), how many physiological (though, unlike Campbell, Lambert almost completely cuts erotic connotations). The act of regard gains independent value and begins to perform function of intermediate operation between process of sensory perception and intellectual study. Reconstruction of visible is made in such a way that visual experience, in any case at the time of the beginning of observation, is considered as not separated from rational interpretation (page 33).

Lambert shows that for achievement of the purpose (as it was spoken above — "to make the theory attractive to audience") Galilei equally uses both logical arguments, and rhetorical receptions, playing on polysemy, including mythological characteristics. For example, the designation "face of the Moon" (facies Lunae) which is often used by it could mean also "surface", "form", "visibility". Besides, the book contains nearly the most successful explanation of the known paradox of the "Star bulletin" occupying many researchers — obviously exaggerated crater sizes on one of the engraving images placed in the treatise.

The previous explanations obviously do not exhaust a contradiction. For example, it was claimed that owing to bad quality of the telescope Galilei could see only this crater and did not see others, smaller. He drew it such big as that made an indelible impression on it. Also observations were made that the engraver mistake could become a cause of infringement of scale; however the top part of the same image is transferred with high precision that forces to doubt incompetence of the manufacturer of an engraving. Lambert comes to a conclusion that most likely Galilei increased the crater sizes intentionally. But what could be the reason for this purpose?

"Galilei — Lambert writes — anywhere does not use the term & #34; кратер"". And this great observation! Attributing to Galilei the schemes of perception which developed in later time historians of science sometimes with neglect treat the original terminology used by researchers of early Modern times. Lambert, owing to initial "literary" orientation of its research, places scientific terminology in the center of attention. The paradox solves a discrepancy of mental installations. For Galilei it was much more important to point not distinctions of lunar and terrestrial surfaces, and to them skhodstvo4. The imagined similarity of terrestrial and lunar landscapes (which actually are not similar at each other at all) becomes for it one of conditions of an articulation of new visual experience and at the same time way of a denial of Aristotelean ideas of incomparability of the nadlunny and sublunary worlds.

Describing the surface of the Moon, Galilei uses quite terrestrial concepts — "valleys" and "very high mountains". He as if is not confused that features of a lunar surface are not similar to a terrestrial landscape at all. According to Lambert, it deserves special attention. Galilei ignores these distinctions, on -

4 The concept "crater" arose not in XVII, and in the 18th century when the return problem — determination of the features of a surface of the Moon distinguishing it from the earth's surface was solved.

to a skolk they "do not find room in its program at all, that is do not suit for underlining of similarity of the Moon to Earth (cognatio atquesimilitude interLunam atque Tellurem). Instead it allocates one crater, increases it and compares to unique, however topography of Bohemia, well familiar on literary works, emphasizing in such a way that even the fact that it seems to us on the Moon unfamiliar, exists also on Earth. He not just claims that the crater reminds Bohemia, he insists that thus Bohemia if we look at it from the outside has to look. Therefore the increased crater is Bohemia" (page 49).

Work Lambert is good also the fact that it creates one of the few precedents of conceptual coherence of "men's" and "women's" researches in the field of science history. Similar approaches are practiced also by some male authors (also, by the way, the charges of perfidy attracting on themselves from representatives of a traditional wing). Among the brightest of them it is possible to call Mario Bidzholi who wrote the book "Court Galileo". Taking into account the classification entered above we will call this type of interactions of "men's" and "female" stories of science "partnership with presence demonstration". Or, if to follow the stylistics offered earlier (and here I get to difficulty again, but not because of a lack of artistic images any more, and because of their surplus), I would risk to use the name "the agency & #34; Lunar свет"".

Here it is possible to carry researches in which authors try to connect changes in ways of an explanation of the natural phenomena with the transformations happening in the craft and artist's environment. Perhaps, the most authoritative female authors in this area are Paula Findlen (FindLen 1994; 2001), Pamela Smith (Smith 2004) and Pamela Long (Long 2000). Summarizing a thesis of the project in one of articles, Smith writes: "Since about 1400 the artists of Northern Europe unexpectedly began to represent the human world in & #34; реалистической" or & #34; натуралистической" to a manner. Approximately in the same time the researchers studying the natural world had new ideas about how the nature can be described is realistic. Within the next two centuries this new approach (which eventually became known as & #34; наука") and belief that it is capable to provide us with the realistic description of the nature transformed the relation of the person to a material world. Artists and handicraftsmen were in the center of this transformation and therefore their role in elaboration of the new research approaches characterized by the term & #34; scientific революция" is much more powerful, than it is accepted to think of it" (Smith 2000: 13).

As well as in the previous case, it is difficult to call this direction absolutely gender. Placement of scientific ideas in wider context revealing communication of the first scientists, on the one hand, with handicraftsmen, engravers and commercially focused distributors of printed materials, and with another — with a palace environment, was a subject of interest of authors, different in a floor (though with small overweight in favor of women) (see, e.g.: (Jackson 2000). The same can be told about the history of visual culture, especially in the questions concerning gradual change of the status of visual representations (see, e.g.: (Parshall 2005). (In general the female authors working in the field of gender history are usually less radical, than epistemolog of a philosophical wing of feminism.)

As we already noticed above, the listed areas of scientific interest represent zones of mutual rapprochement between gender researches and other alternative currents in the history of science. Therefore male researchers also participate in the collections devoted to contextual history of science though, as a rule, in much smaller number, than the women representing the gender direction. It is confirmed by rather recent book "Dealers and funny things: Commerce and representation of the nature in Europe of early Modern times" (Smith, FindLen 2001).

The collection contains fifteen articles devoted to a subject of the interactions arising between visual culture, science and trade during the period which is chronologically coinciding with scientific revolution. In Larry Silver and Pamela Smith's article the production of images of animals in the period of northern Re-is discussed

a nessansa (starting with Duerer). Authors pay attention that the alchemical allegories used both artists, and scientists, brought the sacral shades equally significant for both groups in perception of the nature; therefore knowledge which was formed in these areas at first sight far from each other had a large number of crossings.

Pamela Long's research based on a large number of sources is devoted to an interesting question of how at the beginning of the 16th century palace culture and humanity created the soil in order that visual representation received the legitimate status of "scientific" knowledge. To this change, Long considers, the commercialization of products which caused revision of Aristotelean provision on difference between practical knowledge and a speculative reasoning promoted.

In the essay Alison Sandman is considered the conflict which arose between the Spanish pilots and kosmograf concerning cartography. The author shows how growth of the Spanish empire and territorial disputes of Spain with Portugal gave political importance to theoretical justification of accuracy of the produced cards and created conditions for transformation of exact astronomical cartography into independent scientific discipline.

Paula Findlen in the work devoted to offices of rarities shows how the owners of collections who were originally adhering to humanistic ideals were gradually involved in the market relations: at first as suppliers, and then as active distributors of collection copies which often were also made by them.

Benjamin Schmidt pays attention to a role of Denmark in distribution of geographical literature at the end of the 17th century. He claims, in particular, that exoticism of contents of geographical books was a condition of demand for this type of products.

Besides the listed above works enter the collection Claudia Swan's article about how the practical botany was gradually transformed to comparative morphology; Antonio Barrera's work about rhetorical aspects of empirical determination of properties of the Spanish balm; Deborah Harknes's article about scientific contacts between naturalists in London of the period of government of Elizabeth; the essay by Mark Midov about a role of rich bankers — people with money, education and palace communications — in formation of the first offices of rarities; Tara Nummedal's work about growth of tension in the relations between practical and philosophical alchemy in the Sacred Roman Empire; Harold Cook's article about unexpected finds during scientific experiments; Klaas Van Berkel's work about Cornelius Meyer — the master from Amsterdam who tried to promote the scientist and the artist in Rome; article Anne Goldgar about art forms of commercial realization; James Bennet's work about the market to a na?

Hermans
Other scientific works: