Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-26pbs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-27T02:06:09.290Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

What Ever Happened to Francis Glisson? Albrecht Haller and the Fate of Eighteenth-Century Irritability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2008

Guido Giglioni*
Affiliation:
The Warburg Institute, London

Argument

This article investigates the reasons behind the disappearance of Francis Glisson's theory of irritability during the eighteenth century. At a time when natural investigations were becoming increasingly polarized between mind and matter in the attempt to save both man's consciousness and the inert nature of the res extensa, Glisson's notion of a natural perception embedded in matter did not satisfy the new science's basic injunction not to superimpose perceptions and appetites on nature. Knowledge of nature could not be based on knowledge within nature, i.e., on the very knowledge that nature has of itself; or – to look at the same question from the point of view of the human mind – man's consciousness could not be seen as participating in forms of natural selfhood. Albrecht Haller played a key role in this story. Through his experiments, Haller thought he had conclusively demonstrated that the response given by nature when irritated did not betray any natural perceptivity, any inner life, any sentiment interiéur. In doing so, he provided a less bewildering theory of irritability for the rising communities of experimental physiology.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boerhaave, Herman. 1740. Institutions de medicine. Translated by de la Mettrie, Julian Offray. Paris: Huart and Briasson.Google Scholar
Bordeu, Théophile de. 1818. Œuvres complètes. Paris: Caille et Ravier.Google Scholar
Boury, Dominique. 2004. La philosophie médicale de Théophile de Bordeu. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Bouveresse, Renée. 1992. L'idée d'animisme universel chez Spinoza et Leibniz. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Campanella, Tommaso. 1620. De sensu rerum et magia. Edited by Adami, Tobias. Frankfurt: Egenolph Emmel and Gottfried Tampach.Google Scholar
Canguilhem, Georges. 1977. La formation du concept de reflexe aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Cardoso, Adelino. 2008. Vida e Percepção de Si: Figuras da Subjectividade do Século XVII. Lisboa: Edições Colibri.Google Scholar
Cook, Harold. 2000. “Boerhaave and the Flight from Reason in Medicine.Bulletin of the History of Medicine 74:221240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cudworth, Ralph. [1845] 1995. The True Intellectual System of the Universe. London: Tegg (reprint: Bristol: Thoemmes).Google Scholar
Cunningham, Andrew. 1990. “Medicine to Calm the Mind: Boerhaave's Medical System and Why It Was Adopted in Edinburgh.” In The Medical Enlightenment of the Eighteenth Century, edited by Cunningham, Andrew and French, Roger, 4066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Des Chene, Dennis. 2001. Spirits and Clocks: Machine and Organism in Descartes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, Aileen. 1995. Uneasy Sensations: Smollett and the Body. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Duchesneau, François. 1982. La Physiologie des Lumières: Empirisme, modèles, et théories. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Duchesneau, François. 1998. Les modèles du vivant de Descartes à Leibniz. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
French, Roger Kenneth. 1969. Robert Whytt, the Soul, and Medicine. London: Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine.Google Scholar
French, Roger Kenneth. 1994. William Harvey's Natural Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frixione, Eugenio. 2007. “Irritable Glue: The Haller-Whytt Controversy on the Mechanism of Muscle Contraction.” In Brain, Mind and Medicine: Essays on Eighteenth-Century Medicine, edited by Whitaker, Harry, Smith, Christopher Upham Murray and Finger, Stanley, 115124. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Giglioni, Guido. 1995a. “Automata Compared: Boyle, Leibniz and the Debate on the Notion of Life and Mind.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 3:249278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giglioni, Guido. 1995b. “Panpsychism versus Hylozoism: An Interpretation of Some Seventeenth-Century Doctrines of Universal Animation.” Acta Comeniana 11:2545.Google Scholar
Giglioni, Guido. 1996a. “Anatomist Atheist? The ‘Hylozoistic’ Foundations of Francis Glisson's Anatomical Research.” In Religio Medici: Medicine and Religion in Seventeenth-Century England, edited by Peter Grell, Ole and Cunningham, Andrew, 115135. Aldershot: Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Giglioni, Guido. 1996b. “Campanella e Glisson. Motivi ilozoistici nella medicina inglese della seconda metà del Seicento.Bruniana & Campanelliana 2:237245.Google Scholar
Giglioni, Guido. 2000a. Immaginazione e malattia. Saggio su Jan Baptiste van Helmont. Milan: Angeli.Google Scholar
Giglioni, Guido. 2000b. “The Language of Imagination in Jan Baptiste van Helmont and Francis Glisson.” In Medical Latin: From the Late Middle Ages to the Eighteenth Century, edited by Bracke, Wouter and Deumens, Herwig, 175196. Brussels: Koninklijke Academie voor Geneeskunde van België.Google Scholar
Giglioni, Guido. 2002a. The Genesis of Francis Glisson's Philosophy of Life. Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Giglioni, Guido. 2002b. “Francis Glisson's Notion of Confoederatio Naturae in the Context of Hylozoistic Corpuscularianism.Revue d'Histoire des Sciences 55:239262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glisson, Francis. [1650] 1682. De rachitide . . . Editio postrema. Den Haag: Arnold Leer.Google Scholar
Glisson, Francis. 1672. De natura substantiae energetica. London: Flesher.Google Scholar
Glisson, Francis. 1677. Tractatus de ventriculo et intestinis. Amsterdam: Jacobus Junior.Google Scholar
Glisson, Francis. 1996. De inadaequatis rerum conceptibus. In Latin Manuscripts of Francis Glisson (1). Philosophical Papers, edited by Giglioni, Guido. Cambridge: Cambridge Wellcome Unit.Google Scholar
Gueroult, Martial. 1968. Spinoza. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Guerrini, Anita. 2003. Experimenting with Humans and Animals: From Galen to Animal Rights. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Haller, Albrecht von. [1755] 1936. A Dissertation on the Sensible and Irritable Parts of Animals, introduction by Owsei Temkin. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Haller, Albrecht von. 1757–1766. Elementa physiologiae corporis humani, 8 vols. Bern and Lausanne: Bousquet, D'Arnay, Grasset.Google Scholar
Haller, Albrecht von. 1776–1777a. “Irritabilité.” In Supplément à l'Encyclopédie, III. Amsterdam: Rey.Google Scholar
Haller, Albrecht von. 1776–1777b. “Sensibilité.” In Supplément à l'Encyclopédie, IV. Amsterdam: Rey.Google Scholar
Haller, Albrecht von. [1786] 1966. First Lines of Physiology. New York: Johnson Reprint.Google Scholar
Hartbecke, Karin. 2005. “Natur und Selbstbewegung. Die Umdeutung des galenistischen Naturbegriffs durch den Anatomen Francis Glisson.” In Der Naturbegriff in der Frühen Neuzeit. Semantischen Perspektiven zwischen 1500 und 1700, edited by Leinkauf, Thomas and Hartbecke, Karin, 283298. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Hartbecke, Karin. 2006. Metaphysik und Naturphilosophie im 17. Jahrhundert. Francis Glissons Substanztheorie in ihrem ideengeschichtlichen Kontext. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller-Roazen, Daniel. 2007. The Inner Touch: Archaeology of a Sensation. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Henry, John. 1987. “Medicine and Pneumatology: Henry More, Richard Baxter, and Francis Glisson's Treatise On the Energetic Nature of Substance.” Medical History 31:1540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, Jonathan. 2007. “Enlightenment, Radical Enlightenment and the ‘Medical Revolution’ of the Late Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.” In Medicine and Religion in Enlightenment Europe, edited by Grell, Ole Peter and Cunningham, Andrew, 528. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Knoeff, Rina. 2002. Herman Boerhaave (1668–1738): Calvinist Chemist and Physician. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.Google Scholar
Koeler, Peter. 2007. “Neuroscience in the Work of Boerhaave and Haller.” In Brain, Mind and Medicine: Essays on Eighteenth-Century Medicine, edited by Whitaker, Harry, Smith, Christopher Upham Murray and Finger, Stanley, 213232. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. [1875–1899] 1960–1961. Philosophischen Schriften, edited by Gerhardt, C. I.. Berlin: Weidmann (reprint: Hildesheim: Olms).Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 1923-. Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe. Darmstadt, Leipzig and Berlin.Google Scholar
Lesky, Erna. 1959. “Albrecht von Haller und Anton de Haen im Streit um die Lehre von der Sensibilität.” Gesnerus 16:1646.Google Scholar
Lindeboom, Gerrit Arie. 1968. Herman Boerhaave: The Man and His Work. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Möller, Hans-Jurgen. 1975. Die Begriffe “Reizbarkeit” und “Reiz”: Konstanz und Wandel ihres Bedeutungsgehaltes sowie Problematik ihrer exakten Definition. Stuttgart: Fischer.Google Scholar
Monti, Maria Teresa. 1990. Congettura ed esperienza nella fisiologia di Haller. La riforma dell'anatomia animata e il sistema della generazione. Florence: Olschki.Google Scholar
Monti, Maria Teresa. 1997. “Les dynamismes du corps et les forces du vivant dans la physiologie de Haller.” In Vitalisms from Haller to the Cell Theory, edited by Cimino, Guido and Duchesneau, François, 4166. Florence: Olschki.Google Scholar
More, Henry. 1679. Ad V. C. epistola altera. In Opera omnia, II, i, 608609. London: Maycock.Google Scholar
Pacchi, Arrigo. 1973. Cartesio in Inghilterra. Rome and Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Pagel, Walter. 1967. “Harvey and Glisson on Irritability, with a Note on Van Helmont.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 41:497514.Google ScholarPubMed
Rees, Graham. 1984. “Francis Bacon and spiritus vitalis.” In Spiritus: IV Colloquio Internazionale del Lessico Intellettuale Europeo, edited by Fattori, Marta and Bianchi, Massimo, 265281. Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo.Google Scholar
Rees, Graham. 1996. “Introduction.” In Francis Bacon, Philosophical Studies c. 1611–c. 1619, edited with introduction, notes, and commentaries by Graham Rees, translated by Rees, Graham and Edwards, Michael, xxxvi-lxix. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rey, Roselyne. 2000. Naissance et développement du vitalisme en France de la deuxième moitié du 18e siècle à la fin du Premier Empire. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation.Google Scholar
Roe, Shirley A. 1981. Matter, Life, and Generation: Eighteenth-Century Embryology and the Haller-Wolff Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roe, Shirley A. 1984. “Anatomia animata. The Newtonian Physiology of Albrecht von Haller.” In Transformation and Tradition in the Sciences. Essays in Honor of I. Bernard Cohen, edited by Mendelsohn, Everett, 273300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rudolph, Gerhard. 1964. “Hallers Lehre von der Irritabilität und Sensibilität.” In Von Boerhaave bis Berger, edited by Rothschuh, Karl E., 1434. Stuttgart: Fischer.Google Scholar
Schofield, Robert E. 1970. Mechanism and Materialism. British Natural Philosophy in an Age of Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sonntag, Otto. 1974. “The Motivations of the Scientist: The Self-Image of Albrecht von Haller.” Isis 65:336351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sonntag, Otto. 1983. Correspondence between Haller and Bonnet. Bern, Stuttgart and Vienna: Huber.Google Scholar
Starobinski, Jean. 2003. Action and Reaction: The Life and Adventures of a Couple. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Steinke, Hubert. 2005. Irritating Experiments: Haller's Concept and the European Controversy on Irritability and Sensibility, 1750–90. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google ScholarPubMed
Temkin, Owsei. 1964. “The Classical Roots of Glisson's Doctrine of Irritation.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 38:297328.Google ScholarPubMed
Thomson, Ann. 1991. “La Mettrie, lecteur et traducteur de Boerhaave.” In Dix-huitième Siècle, special issue: Physiologie et médecine, edited by Grmek, Mirko D. and Rey, Roselyne, 2329. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Toellner, Richard. 1967. “Anima et Irritabilitas. Hallers Abwehr von Animismus und Materialismus.Sudhoffs Archiv 51:130144.Google Scholar
Toellner, Richard. 1973. “Haller und Leibniz. Zwei Universalgelehrte der Aufklärung.” In Akten des II. Internationalen Leibniz-Kongresses (Studia Leibnitiana Supplementa), I, 249260. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Toellner, Richard. 1997. “Principles and Forces of Life in Haller.” In Vitalisms from Haller to the Cell Theory, edited by Cimino, Guido and Duchesneau, François, 3139. Florence: Olschki.Google Scholar
Walker, Daniel Pickering. 1972. “Francis Bacon and Spiritus .” In Science, Medicine and Society in the Renaissance: Essays to Honor Walter Pagel, edited by Debus, Allen G., II, 121130. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Wellman, Kathleen. 1992. La Mettrie: Medicine, Philosophy, and Enlightenment. Durham and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Yolton, John W. 1984. Thinking Matter: Materialism in Eighteenth-Century Britain. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Yolton, John W. 1991. Locke and French Materialism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zac, Sylvain. 1963. L'idée de vie dans la philosophie de Spinoza. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar