Aristotle versus the Mechanists: Monstrous Births (Alisha Tonsbeek) - Introduction

Student Exhibition

Aristotle versus the Mechanists: Monstrous Births (Alisha Tonsbeek)
PHIL2013: Rise of Modern Philosophy (2, 2017)

(Status : Public)

BACK TO COURSE PAGEgroup

Coordinated by Alisha Tonsbeek

BACK TO STUDENT LISTgroup

Editor's note: This digital portfolio was completed by Alisha Tonsbeek for PHIL2013 and published by Cirrus as an example of superlative student work.

Return to Best of Cirrus Special Collection: PHIL2013
(Scheme : #9166ad)

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1. Liceti, Fortunio. De monstrorum caussis, natura, et differentiis libri duo. Patavii: Apud Paulum Frambottum, 1634.

696

514

The Aristotelian distinction between art and nature framed much of early modern European thought. In Aristotle’s view, nature followed an innate order of natural change, which, when left unimpeded, produced organic matter that aspired to perfect its final form and reproduce it. In opposition to nature, art was considered an imitation of nature, since art was artificially created by the organic matter found in nature. Thus, for Aristotle, art could not generate an innate natural change or reproduce its final form (Daston and Park, 1998).

There were some who challenged the Aristotelian art-nature distinction by creating hybrids of art and nature that played with Aristotle’s ideas about matter and final form. For example, Fortunio Liceti’s Latin medical treatise De monstrorum natura, caussis et differentiis, published originally in 1616, depicted interspecies hybrids (fig.1) alongside conjoined twins. For Liceti, nature imitated art, since when confronted with an impediment to its final form, nature rose to the challenge to “create another form still more admirable” (Daston and Park, 1998, p.200). However, in the Aristotelian view, Liceti’s illustrations reflected monstrous births or mistakes in nature (Daston and Park, 1998).

In this paper, I will briefly discuss Aristotle’s account of nature and his thoughts about monstrous births. In addition, I will explain why Aristotle’s account of nature created problems for mechanical philosophy and suggest a way of understanding monstrous births from the mechanist’s point of view.
Conjoined Twins. Aristotle, pseud. Aristotle's compleat master piece, in three parts. The 29th ed. London: Printed and sold by the booksellers, 1772.

(Display Format : Landscape)

(Scheme : #9166ad)

WHAT ARE MONSTERS?

In Aristotle’s Physics, monstrous births are nature’s errors, since a living organism that deviates from the characteristics of its species has failed to naturally attain its final form (Vella, 2008).

Following the Aristotelian tradition, many Europeans in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries interpreted monsters to be human beings that were born with physical deformities, such as conjoined twins, dwarfism and infants with missing or excess limbs (Daston and Park, 1998). Surprisingly, even men of science, such as European anatomists, were convinced that monsters were “organisms that had failed to achieve their telos, their perfect form” (Daston and Park, 1998, p.202).

Figure 2. The Ravenna Monster (Daston and Park, 1998)

(Display Format : Landscape)

(Scheme : #9166ad)

MONSTERS: EVIL OMENS OR SIGHTS OF PLEASURE?

In the mid-fifteenth century, Catholic spiritual leaders in Italy believed that monstrous births were evil omens. For example, The Ravenna Monster, born in 1506 (fig.2), represented an omen for future misfortune regarding the impending Battle of Ravenna. This belief was confirmed when, one month after the birth of the Ravenna Monster, the city of Ravenna was sacked (Daston and Park, 1998). Similarly, European Christians treated monstrous births as warnings. For Christians, the birth of a monster was a result of God’s mercy, which reminded sinners to correct their moral behaviour or risk punishment (Daston and Park, 1998).

However, there were some who linked the monster’s physical deformities to collective moral errors that had brought about the divine warning (Daston and Park,19998). For example, French chronicler Johannes Multivallis wrote on the Ravenna monster:

The horn [indicates] pride; the wings, mental frivolity and inconstancy; the lack of arms, a lack of good works; the raptor’s foot, rapaciousness, usury and every sort of avarice; the eyes on the knee, a mental orientation solely toward earthy things; the double sex, sodomy (Daston and Park,1998, p.182).

By the late sixteenth century, specialised medical literature had been complied about the scientific causes of a monster’s physical deformities. For this reason, many people came to view monsters with curiosity, knowing that a simple reason could be provided without any attachment to moral errors. Thus, monsters became pleasurable sights and were often exhibited for money at fairs, in taverns and coffeehouses (Daston and Park, 1998).

You might be interested in...

AustLit

WHAT ARE MONSTERS?

MONSTERS: EVIL OMENS OR SIGHTS OF PLEASURE?

Email Alert

Alert

Information