chapter 6 Insects in ’s and

Brian W. Ogilvie

Introduction

Early modern physico-theology has a strong panglossian streak.1 Theodicy was a serious problem for many seventeenth-century theologians and philoso- phers, but physico-theological treatises at best gave it the slightest of nods.2 Reading John Ray’s The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of Creation, William Derham’s Physico-Theology, or Friedrich Christian Lesser’s Insecto- Theologia, it is indeed difficult to avoid the impression that, for their authors, all was for the best in this best of all possible worlds. Not only was ‘each partial evil, universal good’; there was little evil at all in their pages.3 Some of the panglossian overtones in such works was due to the fact that they were not solely apologetic texts; rather, they also served to encourage Christian devotion. Though Ray insisted that his Wisdom of God would prove God’s existence beyond the ability of ‘atheistical persons’ to doubt, and that it would reveal the Creator’s ‘infinite power and wisdom’, he also emphasized that his examples would ‘stir up and increase in us the affections and habits of admiration, humility and gratitude,’ just as the Psalmist had done.4 Even William Derham, at the end of his Physico-Theology, turned to the devotional import of his lengthy catalogue of God’s marvelous contrivances.5 As Sara

1 Research for this paper was supported by the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the Institut d’études avancées—Paris. 2 For an introduction to the vast literature on early modern theodicy, see Nadler S.M., The best of all possible worlds: A story of philosophers, God, and evil (New York: 2008). 3 See Knight D.M., “Science and beliefs”, in Knight D.M. – Eddy M.D. (eds.), Science and beliefs: From to natural science, 1700–1900 (Aldershot, Hants, England, and Burlington, VT: 2005) 6. 4 Ray John, The wisdom of God manifested in the works of the creation, 3rd ed. (London, Samuel Smith and Benjamin Walford: 1701) fol. [A7]r–[A8]r. In quotations from early modern English sources I have modernized capitalization but retained contemporary spellings. 5 Derham William, Physico-theology: or, a Demonstration of the being and attributes of God, from his works of creation: Being the substance of sixteen sermons preached in St. Mary le

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004279179_�08 236 Ogilvie

Stebbins showed long ago, the devotional content increased and the argu- mentative content decreased in German Protestant physico-theology over the course of the eighteenth century.6 It is a mistake to consider physico-theology strictly as a branch of apologetics and to overlook its intended use for stirring Christian piety. However, physico-theologians did make empirical claims in support of their devotional and apologetic ends. This paper examines a specific aspect of those empirical claims: whether they changed in response to new empirical dis- coveries in natural history. In other words, did physico-theologians take their empiricism seriously? Was their panglossianism up to date? I approach this question through the works of John Ray, focusing on Ray’s treatment of insects. Ray’s Wisdom of God appeared in 1691, just before Ray resumed the study of insects that he had set aside over a decade earlier.7 He produced three revised, expanded editions over the next decade and a half, as he was compiling mate- rial for his History of Insects, which appeared posthumously in 1710. Hence, Ray provides an interesting test case for assessing the response of physico-theology to empirical research. By examining what he added and changed between edi- tions of The Wisdom of God, we can see how, and to what extent, his investiga- tions into insects shaped his theological interpretation of them. Ray’s changes to successive editions of The Wisdom of God have received little systematic attention. Richard Yeo has noted that Ray’s original subtitle referred to the theological lectures he had delivered at Cambridge on which the book was based, but that that reference was dropped in the second ­edition.8 Neal Gillespie has argued that Ray’s readers encountered no new arguments in his book; rather, his contribution to physico-theology was to support the argu- ments with his ‘extensive knowledge and field experience’ and present them in a form that was amenable to ‘the common reader’.9 And while Gillespie noted that subsequent editions of the Wisdom of God added material, making it increasingly a textbook of ‘natural history and natural theology,’ he did not examine what Ray added and why.10

Bow-Church, London, at the Hon.ble Mr. Boyle’s Lectures, in the years 1711 and 1712: With large notes, and many curious observations, 2nd ed. (London, William Innys: 1714) 436 ff. 6 Stebbins S., Maxima in minimis: Zum Empirie- und Autoritätsverständnis in der physikotheologischen Literatur der Frühaufklärung (Frankfurt a.M.: 1980). 7 Raven C.E., John Ray, naturalist: His life and works (Cambridge: 1950) 389. 8 Yeo R., “Between memory and paperbooks: Baconianism and natural history in seventeenth-century England”, History of Science 45 (2007) 32 n. 7. 9 Gillespie N.C., “Natural history, natural theology, and social order: John Ray and the ‘Newtonian ideology’ ”, Journal of the History of Biology 20 (1987) 39. 10 Gillespie, “Natural history” 46.