Singidunum University
Faculty of Media and Communications
WHAT THE HISTORIANS SAY
—Final exam—
Course: Biopolitics (Foucault)
Professor: Gil Anidjar
Student: Pavle Trajkovski
Index number: 5023/13
The task that we will try to accomplish in this paper is to
describe, in excruciating details, a passage from a book
written by Michel Foucault. It is our intention not to
interpret the single, intended meaning of the text, but to try
to identify all the possible meanings. The purpose is to show
that, by understanding reading as an intensely attention-
demanding endeavor, we can discover a proliferation of meaning
that flourishes beneath what seems obvious.
THE ORDER OF THINGS
The
The title of the book in which we find the passage that is the
object of our attention is “The order of things”. Let us start
there, at the title.
The first thing that demands our attention is the use of the
definite article – the. The definitive article produces a
specifying, particularizing effect. We are certain that the
order is a particular order. The particularizing effect would,
however, have been achieved even if the indefinite article an
was used. Had the title been “An order of things”, we would
have still had the idea that the subject matter is one
particular order. But the indefinite article would not have
excluded the possible existence of other orders of things. The
definite article stresses the singularity of the order. This
is also achieved by the omission of any adjectives before the
noun. This is not the new, old, big or small order. This is
the one and only order. Or is it? The definitive article is
often used to refer to something well-known, although not
necessarily unique. This effect is, of course, only achieved
among a certain population. By saying that the president gave a
press conference, one assumes that their audience has the same
notion of who the president is – most likely the president of
the country they live in. The same goes for referring to the
moon. As inhabitants of Earth, we all assume that the moon is
the one orbiting around our planet, although most of us know
that other planets also have moons. So the order need not
necessarily be the one and only order, but may also just be
the most well-known, most common or dominant one.
Order
The word order can be read and understood in many ways. In the
mathematical jargon, order means scale, degree or magnitude. The
order of things is then referring to the scope and size of
things. This implies that the subject matter is some form of
measuring. Still in connection to the language of numbers,
order can be read as succession, or sequence. In this sense, the
order of things is the disposition of things that follow one
after the other in time or in space. Order is achieved by
labeling things with a number. What comes first has priority
over whatever comes as second. This priority of the first can
be understood not only as a mark of its position before the
second on a time scale or in a spatial sequence, but also as a
quality that makes it more important. The latter understanding
of priority transforms the succession (or order) into a rank –
one defined by hierarchy. In a less specific sense, order can
refer to any particular arrangement, provided that it is
characterized by a certain regularity or orderliness. In such
an arrangement, the things which are in order are relating to
one another according to a certain pattern, a structure. Each
element (everything) is related to every other (provided that
even a non-relation is a specific form of relation) and this
relation is defined by a certain rule or governed by a certain
law. The common usage of the word order in this sense evokes
the notion of governance and, even, authority. Following this
notion of authority, order can be read as command. In this
sense, an order is something that is issued by a source of
authority and is to be followed by all who are under the
authority of said source. Such a reading then brings forward
the question of the source of the order, or the command. By
taking an approach that some may consider naïve, we could
argue that the answer is in the title itself. It is the order
of things. In the Middle Ages, for example, a man could have been
beheaded by order of the King. By the same token, something
could be happening by order of things. In other words, things
are no longer the objects of a certain order (an arrangement,
structure or pattern), but rather a subject that is issuing an
order (a command) by which some other things could be
happening. In this cyclical movement, things give the order by
which things happen. The implications of reading order as
command depend greatly on our understanding of the word things.
Things
One way of reading the word things is as material, inanimate
objects, or what would be referred to as stuff in more informal
speech. However, even after a quick examination, we are faced
with the fact that understanding things or stuff only as objects
is too narrow. People say that they have stuff on their minds,
which elevates the term into the realm of the abstract. In the
same way, thinking about things means a lot more than thinking
about objects. The word things is used to refer to actions and
deeds (a busy person has a lot of things to do), matters or
affairs (things are discussed at a meeting; things are going
well) or any entity or manifestation that cannot be precisely
identified or described (the teenage girl had a thing growing
on her nose; the boy had a thing for the girl; but the girl
had a thing with another boy). In its widest sense, anything
and everything that is, or can become, an object of thought is
called a thing. This gives an idea about the ambitiousness at
play. The title suggests that the book is, in fact, about (the
order of) everything.
Let us, for a moment, go back to order as command. If the
entity that issues this order are things (everything that can
be an object of thought), then it can only be assumed that the
order will be carried out by things, and that will then have
things as consequences. This means that everything is governed
by everything: everything is self-regulated. But if we
understand order in any other of its possible meanings (scale,
degree, magnitude, succession, sequence, rank, hierarchy,
arrangement, pattern, structure, rule, law), then there is no
justification within the title itself to see things as the
source of the order. Things (even in the widest sense) are
objects within the order. In the mind of the curious reader,
the title provokes the question of the origin of the order of
(all) things.
CLASSIFYING
5
We have looked at the title of the book in which we find our
chosen passage. But before we start reading the passage
itself, let us look at a few more things that require our
attention. At about one third down from the top of the page
there is a big number – 5. This is most probably not just a
cardinal number. It seems self-evident that this is the number
of the chapter, the fifth one. The number five in this case
serves as an ordinal number. It is referring to the order of
things i.e. the order of chapters within the book. The size of
the font used to print this number is larger than all other
characters on the page, thus implying the importance of the
division of chapters and especially their particular order.
Classifying
Just underneath the number of the chapter, we find the word
classifying. It is positioned at the center of the width of the
page. The size of the font is larger than all of the rest of
the text on the page, except for the number five above it.
Following the logic that we used for determining the function
of the number five, we can assume that this is the title of
the chapter. This assumption is supported by the position of
the word and the size of the font used. The physical
properties of the title are stressing its importance. It seems
very important to acknowledge that everything that is written
in this new, fifth chapter has to do with classifying. The
title is, just like the number before it, referring to the
order of things – the internal structure and division of the
content of the book. The presence of the order of things is
felt even stronger once we move past the visual
characteristics of the title and start thinking about the
possible meanings of the word classifying. It is a verb that
refers to the act of classification, and it means to arrange,
organize, order things according to classes.
What is, then, a class? The word class can be read in several
ways. It can refer to a certain number of things forming a
group based on common properties or shared qualities.
Classifying is what we call the act of dividing and ordering
things into such classes. It is worth noting that the common
properties of things, which serve as the parameters for
determining their belonging to a certain class, may have a
natural source – the innate qualities of things. In this case,
classifying is nothing more than identifying these qualities
and assigning a name to the naturally existing class. Fish
live in the water and cats live on land, so it is relatively
safe to conclude that they belong to different classes of
animals. It also seems safe to assume that fish and cats would
classify themselves into different classes, provided that they
have a consciousness and awareness of each other’s existence.
At the same time, the parameters for dividing things into
classes, although still stemming from the innate qualities of
things, can also be much more arbitrary. In this case, the
class is created by the entity doing the classifying.
Classifying then becomes the act of creating classes, based on
certain arbitrary parameters, and assigning things to them.
For example, a cook can classify fish based on their taste.
Even though taste is a natural quality of fish, the class
defined by it is superimposed on the fish by the figure of the
cook, and since the experience of taste varies greatly between
different people, this classification seems purely arbitrary.
It can also be the case that fish are classified according to
their price on the market, which is often derived from their
taste. Such a classification would certainly be alien to the
fish, in our hypothetical world where fish are self-conscious.
Classifying is then an unnatural process, one that imposes an
artificial order onto things. In a narrower context, class is
used to describe a social stratum: a group of people that
share certain economic, political or cultural traits, which
relate to their position in society. Classifying would then
equate to the act of dividing people based on their economic,
political and cultural traits, thus determining their position
in society. More often than not, the social order achieved by
such class divisions is hierarchical. Classifying, whether
done from within our outside of the class, thus becomes a very
political act. The word class can also be used to describe a
group of students. With this sense of the root word in mind,
classifying (dividing students in different classes) can again
occur in more and less natural ways. Students can either
classify themselves or be classified by an authority figure in
the educational institution, and the parameters can vary
greatly. In educational practice students have been, and still
are, classified based on interest in a certain subject, age
group, academic performance, spoken language, ethnicity, race,
gender, etc. Without going into further discussion about the
validity, fairness or sense of all of the possible ways to
classify students, we can agree that some of the ways are
comparable to classifying fish according to price. The word
class can also refer to a period of time during a group of
students meet for discussion. It is, however, hard to imagine
how the word classifying could be used with this meaning of the
root word in mind. It is worth noting that in many of the
cases discussed, classifying can be substituted by the word
discriminating and the meaning would remain unaffected. In current
usage, the word discriminating unmistakably invokes negative
political overtones. It is associated with acts of aggression
and injustice. Having this in mind, it can be assumed by
reading the title that the chapter “Classifying” will have to
do with a certain kind of politics. Finally, classifying can be
used to describe the act of limiting the availability of
information to authorized persons. Classified things are
considered a secret and only a selected few have access to
them. This is the sense in which the word is used in the
military, police forces, government and certain corporate
settings. Such an understanding of the title would summon a
more sinister presence of authority over the whole chapter.
WHAT THE HISTORIANS SAY
I
Before the beginning of the paragraph which we will analyze,
we find another artifact that points to the underlying order
of things. It is the inscription “What the historians say”,
preceded by the letter “I”. The font used here is different
and larger than the one used in the main text (even though it
is smaller than the one in the title of the chapter) and all
the letters are capital. The letter I cannot be interpreted as
being a part of the same sentence with the rest of the words.
The sentence “I what the historians say” wouldn’t make any
sense. Furthermore, the absence of a full stop at the end of
the inscription suggests that this is not an actual sentence.
Based on all of this, it can be assumed with relative
certainty that the letter I is, in fact, a Roman numeral, and
that the inscription following it is a title. The numeral I is
marking the first section of the fifth chapter, and the title
of the section is “What the historians say”. Just like in the
case of the title of the chapter, the visual properties of the
title of the section are calling our attention to the title’s
importance: it is important to acknowledge that everything
that follows in this section has to do with what the
historians say. The importance of (writing about) what the
historians say is further stressed by the primacy of this
topic – it is first in order. Since it seems so important, let
us take a closer look at the title of this section.
What
The title of the section is “what the historians say”, not how
or why they say it. The title is announcing that what follows
will be concerned with the content of the historians’ say, and
not with the description of its manifestations or with the
reasons for its coming into being. The historians’ say is
there and the text that follows is only dealing with what it
is.
The historians
Having in mind our previous discussion about the possible
implications of the use of the definitive article, let us
notice that the historians can mean more than one thing. The
historians can mean all of the historians, but following the
examples of the president and the moon, we can argue that the
historians are just the most well-known or dominant ones within a
certain population. In either case, it is this particular
group of people called the historians that are saying something.
So who are the historians? It should be clear by now that we
will be looking at more than one meaning. A historian is what
we call an expert in history. It is referring to a person who
has been recognized as an authority in the scientific filed of
history. The title of this section could then mean “What the
authorities on history say”. It is not unreasonable to assume
that what the experts and authorities on history say is the
most valid, most relevant and accurate account about what
actually happened. However, this is not necessarily the case.
History is a continuous, systematic, chronological narrative or
story about past events. The word story is derived from the same
Latin root as history. Therefore, it is also not unreasonable to
believe that there are discrepancies between what actually
happened and what is portrayed in the historical narrative.
History is no more than a story about past events. Historians
are then expert storytellers, who hold great authority. But
there is also another way to understand the word historian, and
that is chronicler, or a writer of history. The historians are then
no longer mere expert storytellers, but expert storywriters. Such an
understanding has two effects: a further elevation of the
authority of the historians (since they are the ones who
decide what is and what is not history), and a further
increase of the probability of discrepancy between history as it
happened and history as it was written. Interestingly, and some may
say counterintuitively, the increase of authority opens the
space for increased mistrust in it.
Say
The historians say. The verb say is used here in its bare
infinitive form, in the simple present tense. This tense can
be used to describe a repeated action, something that is
usual. The historians say something often, always, sometimes,
every year or every day. But we don’t know which of the
adverbs of frequency apply. All we know is that the historians
say something, repeatedly. This use of the simple present
tense leaves open the possibility that there are times when
the historians don’t say anything. Another way in which the
simple present tense can be used is to express a generalization –
a belief that a fact was true before, is true now, and will be
true in the future. Birds fly, fish swim, historians say. It
is a permanent situation, one that happens continuously. In
this case, the historians always say something. The supposed
permanence of the historians’ act of saying gives rise to the
question of the permanence of what they say. If what the
historians say (in intervals or continuously) stays unchanged,
this could be the basis of a brand new explanation of the
phenomenon of historic recurrence. Since the historians are
both the tellers and writers of history, the reason why history
repeats itself may well be because historians repeat themselves. If, on
the other hand, what the historians say does, in fact, change,
this would mean that history changes. Time passes, things
happen, historians say – history is made. And all of this
happens either every so often or continuously.
THE FIRST SENTENCE
Histories of ideas or of the sciences – by which is meant here an average
cross-section of them –credit the seventeenth century, and especially the
eighteenth, with a new curiosity: the curiosity that caused them, if not to
discover the sciences of life, at least to give them a hitherto unsuspected
scope and precision.
Histories
History is what we call the cumulative sum or the aggregate of
past events. This is history as it happened. Since the passage of
time is a singular linear movement (at least in the minds of
most laypeople), there is only one past and, therefore, one
history. The fact that the word is used here in its plural
form can indicate a few things. This could mean that time has
properties much different to those imagined by the common
human. If there are multiple histories, this means that there are
multiple pasts and, consequently, multiple realities. The use of
the plural form could also mean that the text refers to
history as it is told or as it is written. Histories are then just stories or
narratives about the past. There can be as many stories as there
are storytellers. But relating back to the title of the
section, we can assume that those are not just any
(hi)stories, but the ones told or written by the historians – the
experts on history. This clarification does not in any way
exclude the possibility of the existence of multiple histories
about the same past. Rather, it merely points to the
authoritative nature of the source. Another reason for the use
of the plural histories could be the relation to ideas or sciences.
Since there is more than one idea and more than one science,
there will be more than one history of them. This shift of
focus avoids the dilemma between understanding history as what
happened or what was written. Whichever the case, there will
always be multiple histories of ideas or of the sciences.
Or
It is interesting to notice the conjunction or between ideas and
sciences. This conjunction has both a differentiating and a
somewhat equating function. The histories of ideas and the
histories of the sciences are differentiated and separated by
the conjunction or. At the same time, the function of or is to
show that whatever follows remains true, regardless of which
histories we concentrate on. In other words, we would find the
same things happening, whether we look at the histories of
ideas or those of the sciences. In this case, the histories of
ideas or those of the sciences, even though not necessarily
the same, share some similar features. Let us now look at the
two fields whose histories are the subject matter.
Ideas
The word idea is used to refer to a certain opinion, belief,
conviction or principle. One’s political ideas may help them
become the president, and one’s ideas on the Trinity may leave
them anathematized. With this sense of the word in mind, the
histories of ideas can be understood as the histories of
viewpoints or paradigms. The historians are the ones who have
been appointed (or have taken upon themselves) the task of
writing the history of ideas. It is only based on what they
say that we can relate to the ideas that humanity produced in
the past. But idea can also have another, far more general
meaning. It can designate a notion, concept, thought or any
other thing existing in the conscious mind as a result of
mental activity. In this case, the histories of ideas are the
histories of human consciousness. Such an understanding of the
word idea gives the historians even more power. This gives them
domain over the contents of the human mind. The histories of
conscious life are limited to what the historians say.
The sciences
A very common way of using the word science, especially in the
West, is to refer only to natural science or, even more
specifically, physical science. In this sense, science is the
knowledge of the physical or material world, acquired through
observation and experimentation. The use of the definitive
article supports the intuitive drive to understand sciences in
such a way. The sciences are those well-known, dominant sciences,
the ones whose scientific status is non-contestable. In a
somewhat broader sense, science can incorporate in its meaning
any system of knowledge that has been acquired through the
usage of the scientific method. This understanding of the word
incorporates more of the branches of science into its scope,
including social science, formal science and the sciences of
Earth and Space. In an even broader sense, science is used to
designate any body of knowledge that is systematically
organized according to certain rules and laws. Such an
understanding includes, for example, the study of computers or
sports under the umbrella of science. In all of those cases, one
thing is very evident. That is the presence of the order of
things. The sciences, no matter how we understand them, are
subject to certain rules, laws, methods, systems; they are a
part of a certain order and can be classified in a certain
way. And it is only through what the historians say that we
can come to know the history of the sciences.
—The cut—
Moving further into the sentence, we witness a very
interesting intervention. Namely, the sentence is interrupted
by two spaced en-dashes (often used in contemporary typography
in a way that substitutes the use of an en-dash) between which
we read “by which is meant here an average cross-section of
them”. By means of this interruption, the text transcends
itself and becomes a sort of metatext, referring back to
itself. The use of the passive voice in the construction is
meant is interesting to note. The author of the text tried to
stay invisible by not saying “I mean”. Furthermore, the author
did not point out by whom it is meant. Leaving out the subject
gives the impression that the text itself is the subject
having the intention of meaning, or at least that the
intention of meaning has no source – it has always been there.
So we are presented with this untraceable statement of
intended meaning – that of an average cross-section. Of what,
though? Looking at the beginning of the sentence, it remains
unclear whether by which and subsequently them refer to histories
or the sciences. In the former case, by histories of ideas or of the
sciences, it is meant here an average cross-section of them.
This means that we will not be looking at all of the
histories, but just some of them. In other words, we are not
interested in what all of the historians say, but rather a
portion of them – the average cross-section of them. In the
latter case, by the sciences, it is meant here an average cross-
section of them. This means that we will not be looking at the
histories of all the sciences, but just some sciences. In
other words, we are not interested in what the historians say
about all the sciences, but rather a portion of them – an
average cross-section of them. Keeping both of these possible
interpretations in mind, let us look at the paradox of the
text’s intervention. The text tries to focus our attention to
one intended meaning, yet, by doing so, it opens the space for
a further proliferation of meaning, as the average cross-section
can be understood in more than one way.
The word cross-section is made by liking, through hyphenation, the
words cross and section, and the influences of both words can be
seen in the possible meanings. It can refer to the act of
cutting something across. The word section is hereby understood as
cut or incision. This means cutting something along a line that
forms a cross with (is perpendicular to) its longest axis. It
seems then that the intended meaning of the text is the
perpendicular cutting of the line of histories (of ideas or of
the sciences) or the line of the sciences. Associations to the
act of cutting are included even in the visual properties of
the word cross-section, with the use of the hyphen. An even more
potent association to the act of cutting are the two dashes
that are used to position the explanation of the intended
meaning. It is through the act of typographic cutting that the
text reveals that what is meant is the act of cutting. During the
act of reading, upon encountering a text positioned between
two dashes one changes their intonation and rhythm. This is
another way in which the text uses a cut (in tone and rhythm)
to tell us that it is about a cut. Another meaning of the word
cross-section is the section made by the cut previously described.
In this case, section is understood as part, piece or division. So
cross-section is no longer referring to the act of cutting across,
but rather to the results of such a cutting. When a cross-
section (as cutting) is performed on three-dimensional
objects, the resulting cross-section (as piece) reveals
something previously hidden. A cross-section shows the
internal contents of the object. Provided that the outer
surface of the object is not transparent, the only way to
examine the internal properties of the object is by looking at
its cross-section. Following along those lines, the intended
meaning of the text is to provide insight into the internal,
previously hidden, features of the histories (of ideas or of
the sciences) or of the sciences. There is also another, more
specific way of using the word cross-section. It is used in the
life sciences (mostly biology and medicine) to refer to a
sample of biological material, acquired by performing a cross-
section (as cutting), which is used for further examination,
most notably with a microscope. If we adopt this
understanding, the intended meaning of the text becomes to
focus on a sample – a piece of the whole that retains all of
the characteristics of the whole. Therefore, what is meant is a
limited number of histories (of ideas or of the sciences) or
of the sciences, which can be used to make generalizations and
conclusions about all of them. By understanding cross-section as
sample we witness an allusion to life sciences which
foreshadows their appearance later in the text. This
foreshadowing functions almost as a literary device, which
makes it worth noticing.
Regardless of how we choose to understand the word cross-section,
one thing is certain about it: it is average. Used as an
adjective, average can mean something that relates to the
arithmetic mean. The arithmetic mean, as defined in mathematics,
is the sum of all the elements of a collection, divided by the
number of elements in the collection. In order to calculate
the arithmetic mean, one must know the number of elements and
their values. When applied to the text, this meaning of average
would have an interesting implication. In order to talk about
the average cross-section of histories, one would have to be
able to count the histories. And since histories are what the
historians say, one would have to count the historians. By the
same token, in order to talk about the average cross-section of
the sciences, one would have to count the sciences. Here it is
important to remind ourselves that the historians and the sciences
does not necessarily mean all of them, but may also mean just
the most well-known or dominant ones. This brings to the other
possible meaning of the word average. It can be used to refer
to something typical, ordinary or common. So an average cross-
section of histories is a cross-section of what the historians
typically say. This invokes a sense of tradition, which is another
foreshadowing of what the text talks about later. Similarly,
an average cross-section of the sciences is a cross-section of
those fields of knowledge that are traditionally referred to as the
sciences.
Credit
Moving past the intervention that the text made with the
interruption, the sentence continues with the verb that
designates the action – credit. If were to leave out parts of the
sentence, in order to simplify it, the first part would read
“Histories…credit the seventeenth century, and especially the
eighteenth, with a new curiosity”. The word credit, used as a
verb, means to acknowledge or commend. The acknowledgement that
comes with being credited is usually due to some kind of
achievement. In the context of the text, the achievement that
merited the seventeenth and eighteenth century the credit is a
new curiosity. So one important aspect of the implications of the
use of the word credit is that of achievement. This means that
there was an ongoing endeavor during these two centuries, one
that culminated with an event worthy of acknowledgement.
Another important aspect becomes evident when the verb credit is
understood as to put confidence in, or to trust, or to believe in, or to
have faith in. This implies that histories trust that the
seventeenth and eighteenth century did something. In other
words, the historians say that they believe that the seventeenth
and eighteenth century brought a new curiosity. This way of
understanding the verb credit introduces an opening for doubt in
what the historians say. If they merely credit the two centuries
with something, it is not necessary to accept their belief as
fact.
Seventeenth and eighteenth century
The mentioning of the seventeenth and eighteenth century has
an effect on our effort to identify histories and the historians. As
history deals with the past, we can be sure that there were no
histories prior to the seventeenth century that credited it
with anything. Predicting the future is not in the domain of
history. This also gives a partial answer to the question of
who the historians are (or rather, who they aren’t). We now
know that the historians are surely not historians who lived and
worked prior to the seventeenth century. The use of ordinal
numbers to describe centuries also brings back the notions of
order and classifying. It is evident that time is not only
counted, but ordered and classified in sections. What is not
evident from the text is the specific system used to count and
classify time. There is no reference to the starting point
used to count the centuries. However, the text seems to belong
to the same order as the historians, since its mentioning of the
seventeenth and the eighteenth century assumes a well-known and
commonly accepted way of counting and ordering time. Another
evidence of belonging to the common order is the use of the
word century. Coming from the Latin centum, which means one
hundred, it is used to define a period of one hundred years.
Although this way of classifying years is not peculiar to one
particular system of measuring time, it is not universally
accepted. For example, the Tamil calendar organizes time in
cycles of sixty years. There may be other systems of time
reckoning that do not use the one hundred years cycle. All we
know is that the historians use the measure of centuries to count
years, and that they share a common reference point according
to which they order their count.
Especially
It is interesting to note that the achievement with which
histories credit the seventeenth century were especially
manifested in the eighteenth. This means that there was a
process that lasted for two centuries, and that there was a
gradation to it. The process started in the seventeenth century,
but was particularly evident in the eighteenth. At least that is
what the historians say.
New curiosity
Whatever the historians say happened in the seventeenth and
eighteenth century, one thing is clear – it was a new thing.
This can mean that it did not exist prior to that time. But it
can also mean that it did exist, but its origins were still
considered recent. The adjective new can also be used to
describe something unfamiliar or strange. This is related to one
of the ways in which we can understand the word curiosity. It can
mean something abnormal or atypical, something out of the ordinary – a
grotesque. This extraordinary rarity was not fitting the established
order of things. On the other hand, the word curiosity can be
used to describe the desire to learn and know things, an interest, an
inquisitiveness. This inquisitiveness was new, and in that sense
unusual and unprecedented.
The curiosity
Immediately after mentioning it for the first time, the text
goes on to explain this new curiosity, and it does so by using
a colon – a punctuation mark that directly announces a
description or explanation. And the explanation reads: “the
curiosity that caused them, if not to discover the sciences of
life, at least to give them a hitherto unsuspected scope and
precision.”
It is worth noting again that this new desire to learn and
know things marked a whole era, since it lasted for two
centuries. It is not surprising then that the text,
immediately after the colon, refers to it as the curiosity.
Considering everything that we have said so far about the
possible usages of the definitive article, it seems that at
the time of the text’s coming into being this curiosity was
already a well-known event.
Caused
A possible reason why the curiosity seems well-known is
because it caused something. In other words, it initiated, it
provoked, it led to something. In this sense, the curiosity was
a cause or a source, an agent of something significant enough to
give it historical recognition.
Them
But the curiosity in and of itself did not do anything.
Rather, it caused someone to do something. The text says that
the curiosity caused them to do something, and the structure of
the sentence implies that them refers to the seventeenth
century, and especially the eighteenth. How can centuries,
which are nothing but classes of a hundred years, be the
subject in the sentence? This question demands our attention.
It would seem much more reasonable to say that the people
living and working in those centuries did something. A
possible reason why the individual agents are left out, and
the action is attributed to the time periods, could be the
sheer multitude of agents. It could be the case that so many
people were involved that the historians decided to attribute
the action to the centuries instead. It is like saying that
the twentieth century was very violent, simply because there
were so many individual agents of violence and violent events.
But another reason could be that, from the historical
perspective, the individual agents did not seem important. It
could be the case that the historians simply did not find it
significant to point out the human agents, and rather chose to
attribute all the action caused by the new curiosity to the
times.
If not…at least
So what did the new curiosity caused the seventeenth century,
and especially the eighteenth, to do? It caused them, “if not
to discover the sciences of life, at least to give them a
hitherto unsuspected scope and precision.” The construct if not…
at least demands our attention. In order to simplify our task to
analyze the next segment, let us focus on the verbs and
neglect all other elements of the sentence. It caused them if
not to discover, at least to give. The if not…at least construct is
ambiguous, since it can be understood in two very different
ways.
Let us further simplify things by using the example of the
following sentence: “Mark was, if not a great musician, at
least a good one”. One way of understanding this is that Mark
was a good musician, and maybe even a great one. In other
words, we can almost say he was a great musician. This
understanding of the sentence leaves us with the impression
that Mark was successful as a musician. Another way of
understanding this sentence is that Mark was a good musician,
although never a great one. In other words, we cannot say he was
a great musician. This understanding of the sentence leaves us
with the impression that Mark was more of a failure as a
musician.
Following this example, we can read the text in two ways. The
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries certainly gave something,
and we can almost say that they discovered something. This way
of reading the sentence leaves us with the impression that
what the seventeenth and eighteenth century gave was just short
of a discovery. On the other hand, we can read that the
seventeenth and eighteenth century did not quite discover
anything, but at least they gave something. In both cases, one
thing is certain: a discovery did not happen. It may have been
attempted, and perhaps almost achieved, but it did not take
place.
Discover
Since the curiosity caused the seventeenth and eighteenth
century to come close to discovering something, let us look at
the possible meanings of this word. The verb discover can mean
find out, or gain knowledge of. The object of the discovery was
there, but it was unseen or unknown. The two centuries
therefore almost noticed or realized the existence of the sciences
of life. But since the discovery did not happen, we can
conclude that the sciences of life were, in fact, known, seen
and noticed before. However, a more archaic, yet equally valid
meaning of discover is reveal or disclose. With this meaning in
mind, we can read that the sciences of life existed before,
but were somehow veiled or hidden. The two centuries then almost
revealed them. This way of reading discovery gives more
significance to the act and tells us that the seventeenth and
eighteenth century came close to doing something a lot more
engaging than simply noticing.
The sciences of life
Let us look at the possible meanings of the word life. The word
life is used to refer to the condition that distinguishes animate
organisms from inorganic, inanimate objects. Life is also used to
refer to the sum of phenomena that distinguish organisms from
inanimate objects, such as metabolism, growth, reproduction
and adaptation to the surroundings. The word life can also be
used to define the period of animate existence of an organism.
When used in this sense, life refers to the period of animate or
active existence of things other than organisms, like a soul
or a machine. Finally, life can refer to the general or
universal condition of human existence.
We have previously looked at the possible meanings of the word
science and saw that, in its broadest sense, it is used to
designate any body of knowledge that is systematically
organized according to certain rules and laws. The sciences of life,
in this broadest sense, are then any systematically organized
bodies of knowledge about life, in any of its aforementioned
senses. However, the sciences of life can be read in a much more
specific way. Namely, it can refer to those sciences commonly
known as life sciences. Those are the fields of scientific inquiry
that involve the study of living organism, most notably biology and
medicine. Considering what we previously discussed, on more than
one occasion, about the possible meanings of the usage of the
definitive article, it seems reasonable to assume that the
sciences of life are, in fact, those well-known or dominant
fields of scientific study revolving around biology and
medicine.
Give them
We have seen so far that the seventeenth century, and
especially the eighteenth, may have come close to finding out
or noticing the existence of biology and medicine, or perhaps
just fallen short of revealing the existence of systematically
organized knowledge about the living organisms or the human
condition. Be it as it may, the discovery did not happen. What
did happen, according to the historians, is that the
seventeenth and eighteenth century gave them (the sciences of
life)a hitherto unsuspected scope and precision. The verb give
means to present, or to bestow. It can also mean to place in
someone’s care, or even to grant something to someone. In all of
those cases, we can read that the sciences of life benefited
from what the seventeenth and eighteenth century gave them.
Hitherto unsuspected
The verb suspect means to believe, to be guilty, or to doubt or mistrust.
In a less suspicious way, suspect can also mean to believe to be the
case, or to have foreknowledge, or a hint of some sort. The noun
suspicion can refer to the act of suspecting, in any of its
meanings. But it can also be used to describe a vague notion of
something, a trace or a suggestion of something. Following along
those lines, the adjective unsuspected tells us that the scope
and precision were hitherto not believed to be guilty of anything, or
that there wasn’t even the slightest hint or notion of them. The word
hitherto simply means previously or up to this point. The seventeenth
century, and especially the eighteenth, gave the sciences of
life a scope and precision that was until then unimagined.
Scope and precision
The word scope has several meanings, all of which are associated
with space. It means length, breadth, extent, capacity, reach, space for
movement, etc. It can also mean outlook, or range of view. Finally, it
can mean range of operation or range of application. With this in mind,
we can read from the text that a certain, previously
unimagined change happened to the range of operation or domain of
the sciences of life. A change happened to the space they
occupy. But nothing is said about the direction of this
change. We do not know if the scope enlarged or diminished.
However, when placed next to the word precision, the word scope
can be seen with a clearer scope. Precision means accuracy, exactness,
particularity, meticulousness, fidelity, or correctness. All of these words
revolve around the notion of operating within a very narrow,
precise space. In its juxtaposition with precision, the word scope
sparks associations with broad spaces or wide ranges. We read
that the seventeenth century, and especially the eighteenth,
in a single movement expanded the field of study of the
sciences of life, but also particularized their areas of research
or made their findings more accurate. To use the language of
photography, the lenses of the sciences of life went through a
simultaneous zoom-out and zoom-in. So the historians say that
in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, more areas of life
became subject to scientific classifying and ordering, both on
a macro and micro scale.
THE SECOND SENTENCE
A certain number of causes and several essential manifestations are
traditionally attributed to this phenomenon.
This phenomenon
It is evident from the structure of the two sentences that the
pronoun this refers to curiosity. The text says that the curiosity
is a phenomenon. The word phenomenon can be used to refer to an
observed (or observable) fact or occurrence. But more often than not,
phenomenon is used to describe something exceptional or remarkable
– a sensation. The curiosity was, if you will, extraordinary, or out
of the ordinary. This means that it expanded out of order of
things. Yet, this rupture was only temporary. As we have seen
previously, by widening the scope and refining the precision
of the scientific endeavor to classify no less than life
itself, the curiosity caused the order of things to extend
wider and deeper. In quite a phenomenal way, the curiosity
expanded out of the order, only to expand the order itself.
Several essential manifestations
What is even more phenomenal about the phenomenon is that it
had several essential manifestations. Several means that there were a few
essential demonstrations, or ways in which the phenomenon revealed,
or materialized itself. Now, a few can be understood as only a few,
meaning a little, but also as quite a few, meaning a lot. Several can
mean anything from hardly any to numerous. But regardless of the
way we read several, it is the word essential that gives us the
perspective on the number of incarnations of the curious
curiosity phenomenon. Essential means fundamental, constitutive, crucial,
elemental, something that is very important or necessary. This means
that there were other manifestations as well, but perhaps less
important. So by selecting several essential, it is strongly implied
that there were, in fact, many manifestations. Let us note
that the act of distinguishing or discriminating the
manifestations of the curiosity phenomenon according to a
certain criteria (in this case importance), is an act of
classifying.
Certain number of causes
We have seen what the new curiosity caused – an unimagined
expansion of the scope and increase of precision of the
sciences of life. But what caused it? The text does not speak
about the causes, but it does speak about their number. And it
says that the number of causes is certain. This means that the
number of causes is fixed, agreed upon, established, unquestionable,
indisputable. This means that the number of causes is known. At
the same time, certain can mean definite but not specified. An example
of such usage would be the sentence: “A certain person sent a
postcard”. This would mean that the number of causes is fixed
but unknown. Finally, the phrase certain number, can have the
same meaning as several. We have seen previously how several can
be read as a handful, but also as a considerable amount, and
anything in-between. It is quite interesting to notice how an
elaboration of the possible ways of reading the word certain
showed a degradation of the certainty of its meaning: from utter
sureness to complete uncertainty.
Traditionally attributed
The verb attribute means to associate, ascribe, assign to a source,
connect or credit. In its usage in the second sentence of the
paragraph, the word attribute mirrors the way in which the word
credit was used in the first sentence. The causes and
manifestations of the curiosity do not stem from the
phenomenon itself. Rather, they are attributed to it. This means
that they are associated with it (by an external entity), but
does not necessarily testify to the validity of the
association. There is an aura of uncertainty around the causes
and manifestations of the curiosity phenomenon. It is induced
with the uncertain reference to their number (certain number,
several), supported by the notion of attribution from outside, and
emphasized by the use of the word traditionally. Tradition is an
established practice, custom, culture, heritage. It is a belief or practice
handed down through generations. It is an inherited way of thinking
or acting. Something done traditionally is done routinely, or
according to a certain norm. Since traditional beliefs are
inherited, they are rarely questioned, which leaves a certain
space for doubt in their certainty. But as uncertain as it may
be, tradition is a strong reference to the order of things.
Tradition is a part of the order and the two are complexly
intertwined. Tradition is what the historians say.
Instead of a conclusion
In an attempt to summarize all that was said about the
possible meanings of the text we read, let us look at a
graphical representation of the words used in this paper. The
size of each word corresponds to its frequency in the text.
The proliferation of possible conclusions that each reader may
draw, amplified by the number of future readers, is in
accordance with the tone and direction of this whole paper.
Top Related