ArgumentDrawing and writing number among the most widespread scientific practices of representation. Neither photography, graphic recording apparatuses, typewriters, nor digital word- and image-processing ever completely replaced drawing and writing by hand. The interaction of hand, paper, and pen indeed involves much more than simply recording or visualizing what was previously thought, observed, or imagined. Both writing and drawing have the power to translate concepts and observations into two-dimensional, manageable, reproducible objects. They help to develop research questions and they open up (...) an interaction between the gathering of phenomena and the formation of theses. Related to the manifold studies of representational activities in the sciences and the humanities, this topical issue tries to refine our understanding of the capacities of drawing and writing as research techniques; i.e. as productive epistemic practices. In particular the contributions address three aspects: the material conditions and configurations of the “scene of drawing and writing,” the involved procedures of production, and the languages of inscription. (shrink)

What was classification as it first took modern form in the eighteenth century, how did it work, and how did it relate to earlier describing and ordering? We offer new answers to these questions by considering an example less well known than that of botany or zoology, namely medicine, and by reconstructing practice on paper. The first and best-known disease classification is the “nosology” of the Montpellier physician François Boissier de Sauvages de Lacroix. Its several editions, we show, were less (...) products than process: published tools for building a classification system. The disorder of a hitherto unstudied notebook that Boissier de Sauvages kept throughout this process provided a way of breaking with the topical order of earlier physicians’ humanistic commonplace books of disease observation while sustaining the paper practices those earlier physicians—and Sauvages himself as a student—had used to order disease. This suggests a different picture of historical change than that of a scholarly world of ordered words giving way to a scientific one of ordered things. Classification, in the case of Sauvages’ nosology, arose through an incomplete break with, and intensified practice of, a past way of ordering the described world. The humanist paper practice that had made observationes, differently applied, now made species. Classification into genera and species by similarity and difference, which Sauvages’ nosology shared with botany, was an algorithm of paper and ink practice—in its operation more machine-like than humanist textual practice yet in its effects more creative and re-creative of categories and questions of relationship. Thus a new empiricism of generalizations arose out of the older, Renaissance empiricism of particulars. (shrink)

This article introduces to a wider public a hitherto unknown report written by the “Romantic” natural philosopher and mineralogist Henrik Steffens (1773–1845). In the 1811 report Ideas on Medical Meteorology, commissioned by the Prussian Ministry of the Interior via the physician Johann Christian Reil (1759–1813), Steffens argued for a new, “organic” perspective on meteorology focusing on interrelations between the atmosphere and diseases among humans and animals. This new outlook, he argued, was to be realized via a series of observations directed (...) by the state administration. Excerpts from the report are translated and commented upon in order to illuminate their context. These show the report to be part of a significantly older European tradition of inquiry into the connection between changes in the atmosphere and health. A speculative variation of this tradition, for which the general term “Organic Meteorology” is introduced here, was ignited in German-speaking regions through Schelling’s natural philosophy. The report and its context show that the Prussian state was willing to engage with “Romantic” natural philosophy, that Steffens gladly provided expertise for this purpose, and that this was part of a more general effort to professionalize medicine. (shrink)

The development of paper-based information technologies in the early modern period is a field of enquiry that has lately benefited from extensive studies by intellectual historians and historians o...

This article introduces to a wider public a hitherto unknown report written by the “Romantic” natural philosopher and mineralogist Henrik Steffens (1773–1845). In the 1811 report Ideas on Medical Meteorology, commissioned by the Prussian Ministry of the Interior via the physician Johann Christian Reil (1759–1813), Steffens argued for a new, “organic” perspective on meteorology focusing on interrelations between the atmosphere and diseases among humans and animals. This new outlook, he argued, was to be realized via a series of observations directed (...) by the state administration. Excerpts from the report are translated and commented upon in order to illuminate their context. These show the report to be part of a significantly older European tradition of inquiry into the connection between changes in the atmosphere and health. A speculative variation of this tradition, for which the general term “Organic Meteorology” is introduced here, was ignited in German-speaking regions through Schelling’s natural philosophy. The report and its context show that the Prussian state was willing to engage with “Romantic” natural philosophy, that Steffens gladly provided expertise for this purpose, and that this was part of a more general effort to professionalize medicine. (shrink)