LinnaeusandtheFourCornersoftheWorld

StaffanMüllerWille

UniversityofExeter

Lastversionofmanuscriptsubmittedbeforeproofreading.

PublishedasStaffanMüller-Wille,2015,“LinnaeusandtheFourCornersofthe

World”,inTheCulturalPoliticsofBlood,1500–1900,editedbyKimberlyAnne

Coles,RalphBauer,ZitaNunesandCarlaL.Peterson(Basingstoke:Palgrave

MacMillan),pp.191–209.

ManyaccountsofthehistoryoftheraceconceptplacethenaturalistCarl

Linnaeus(1707–1778),andhisSystemaNaturae(1735),atthebeginningof

modernconceptsofrace,incontrasttooldernotionsofracethatdidnotyet

reducetophysicaltraits,butpresenteditastheoutcomeofaninextricable

entanglementofblood,soil,andcustoms.1Intheslim,eleven-pagefolioSystema

naturae(1735)thatlaidthefoundationsforthetwenty-twoyearoldSwedish

medicalstudent’sfutureclaimtofame,“man(Homo)”waspresentedaspartof

theanimalkingdominatwo-pagetabulararrangementofclasses,orders,and

genera(fig.1).Placinghumansamongtheclassoffour-footedanimals

(Quadrupedia)–animalspossessingahairybody(corpushirsutum),fourfeet

(pedesquatuor),aswellasviviparousandbreastfeedingfemales(feminae

vivparae,lactiferae)–and,withinthatclass,amongtheorderofthe“human-

shaped”(Anthropomorpha)–alongsidetheapes(Simia),andthesloth

(Bradypus)–LinnaeuscleverlydefinedthegenusHomonotbysomepresumably

universalmorphologicalorphysiologicalfeature,butbyhiscapacityforself-

knowledge.Whatisinterestingaboutthisdefinitionisthatitaddressesthe

readerbycitingthefamousdictum“Knowthyself”(Nosceteipsum),andthen

proceedstosplitupthegenusHomointofourdistinctgroups:thewhite

European,theredAmerican,thetawnyAsian,andtheblackAfrican.2Inasingle

stroke,Linnaeusthusproducedauniversalschemeofnaturalizedhuman

differencewhileatthesametimehighlightingthatsuchaclassificationisthe

supremeproductofhumanself-reflection.“Knowthyself”,Linnaeussuggestsby

typographicalignment,translatesinto“Distinguishthyself”,and“race”–ifthatis

whathewastalkingabouthere,aquestion,aswewillsee,thatisnotsoeasyto

decide–henceturnsouttohavebeenconceivedfromitsverybeginningasa

Janus-facedconcept,facingnatureontheonehand,andfacingcultureas

reflectiononnatureontheother.

Despiteitssignificanceforthehistoryofanthropology,thereonlyexists

onedetailedandsystematicstudyofLinnaeus’soriginalwritingsonhuman

races,publishedinSwedishin1975byGunnarBrobergaspartofabookon

Linnaeus’sgeneralphilosophyofnatureandanthropologicaloutlook.3AsfarasI

know,Broberg’sexhaustiveandcarefulanalysisoftheoriginalsources

(includingmanuscripts)hashadnoreceptionintheanglophoneliteratureonthe

historyoftheraceconcept,whichthereforecontinuestoberiddledbythewide-

spreadmisconceptionthatLinnaeuswasastaunchessentialist,andpresented

humanracesasdistincttypes.Infact,aswewillsee,Linnaeusshared

contemporaryviewsthatskin-color–thechiefcriterionofdistinctionemployed

intheSystemanaturae–waslargelyaproductofclimate,andhenceasvariable

asother“accidental”bodilycharacteristicsofhumans,suchasstatureorweight.

ThesignificancethatLinnaeus’sclassificationoffourhuman“varieties”

(ashehimselfcalledthem)wouldgaincanthereforenotbereducedtothefact

thatitpre-emptedtheracialtypologiesofthenineteenthcentury.Somethingelse

musthaveattractedLinnaeushimself,andeventuallyhisreaders—amongthem

enlightenmentluminariessuchasGeorgesBuffonandImmanuelKant—tothe

seductivelysimpleschemeoffourracesdistinguishedbyskincolor.Inthis

chapter,Iamgoingtotrytoreveal,byaclosere-readingofrelevantsources,that

itwasnotthedubiousvalueofraceasarepresentationofactual,clear-cut

differencethatmadeitattractivetoeighteenth-centurynaturalists.Infact,asI

alreadyindicatedandwillshowindetailinthefirstsectionofthischapter,

Linnaeusdidnotbelievethatsuchdifferencesexisted.Andyet—asIwillarguein

thesecondsectionbyturningtosomeofthepossiblesourcesonwhichLinnaeus

relied—therewassomethinguniqueandunprecedentedaboutthewayinwhich

Linnaeuspresentedhumandiversityin1735,namelytheveryabstractwayin

whichitcorrelatedphysicalcharacteristicswithglobaldistributionoverthefour

continents.SectionthreewillplacethiswithinthecontextofLinnaeusgeneral

fascinationwiththefourcontinents,andwillarguethat,ratherthanservingasa

representationofhumandiversity,thedistinctionoffourdifferentvarietiesof

humansservedLinnaeusasatooltoorienthimselfonaglobalscale,andtoguide

himinthefurthercollectionoffactoidsabouthumans,resultinginahighly

idiosyncraticassociationofthefourraceswithmedicaltemperaments,political

inclinations,andpsychologicalandculturaldispositions.Thisexplains,asIwill

demonstrateinthefinalsectionofthischapter,whyraceplayedaveryminor

roleonlyinLinnaeus’sphysiologicalandmedicalspeculationsaboutthehuman

body.Whileanelementofstrugglecomestotheforeinthesespeculationsby

portrayingthebodyasbeingcomposedoftwofundamental,antagonistic

substances,thisstruggleisonebetweenthesexes.Eveninhisproposalsto

interpretthediversityoflifeastheoutcomeofrepeatedhybridizations,

Linnaeusdidnotbuildontheapparentlyobviousexampleofinterracialmixing

amonghumans,instarkcontrasttoBuffon.

Forthegeneralthemeofthisvolume,thismeansthat“race”inthe

eighteenthcenturywasnotstraightforwardlyconnectedwithconceptionsof

bodilyconstitution.Raceasacategorywasstillinthemaking,andmeshedwitha

varietyofmedicalandphilosophicalideaswhichuponcloserinspectionturnthe

categoryintoamuchmorefluidonethanamoresuperficialreadingwould

suggest.WhileLinnaeusbelievedthatclassificationprovidedtheroyalroad

towardstruth,hedidnotnecessarilybelievethatclassificationsshouldalways

andeverywhereresultinthedistinctionofstabletypes,northattheyshouldand

wouldalwaysrefertosomeunderlyingessence.Heredity,environment,and

cultureremainedinextricablyentangledinLinnaeus’sconceptionofhuman

variation.Andyet,thenetresultofLinnaeus’sdeploymentofthecategorywasa

setofgeopoliticalstereotypesonwhichlateranthropologicalwritersreliedasa

matterofcourse.

1.Sub-species,races,orvarieties?

Linnaeus,asfarasIamaware,neverusedthetermrace(Swedishras),neither

withreferencetohumans,norwithreferencetootherorganisms.InLatin,he

usedthewordvarietas(variety)todesignatedifferentgroupswithinoneandthe

samespecies,inSwedishthewordsslag,atermintroducedfromthelanguageof

gardenersandbreeders.4Thereasonforthisissimple.Thewordhadnot

reachedtheSwedishlanguageyet;accordingtotheSwedishAcademy’s

dictionary,itappearsfirstinprintin1765,inatranslationofHenryFielding’s

TheHistoryofTomJones,aFoundling(originallypublishedin1749).Whether

Linnaeus,whoatthispointhadpassedtheheightofhiscareer,wouldhave

acceptedthetermasanadequateneologismintohisowntaxonomiclanguageis

amatterofspeculation.

ThequestionwhetherLinnaeuswouldhavereferredtothefourgroupsof

humanshedistinguishedinSystemanaturaeas“races”isneverthelessrelevant.

IthasbecomequitecommontoreadLinnaeus’sclassificationasifit

distinguishedsubspecies,andhencestabletypes.5Thisisreflectedinmore

specialistliteraturebyrenderingthenamesofthefourgroupsthatLinnaeus

distinguished–inlinewithataxonomiccustomthatwasestablishedinthe

nineteenthcentury–astrinomials:Homosapienseuropaeus,Homosapiens

americanusetc.AparticularlyprominentexampleisPhillipR.Sloan’sessay“The

gazeofnaturalhistory,”whichcontrastsLinnaeus’santhropologywiththatofhis

contemporaryGeorgesBuffon,whofavoredaviewofhumanracesasrelatively

fluidspatio-temporalentitiesandrejectedabstractuniversalsastheones

seeminglyproposedbyLinnaeus’sclassificationofhumans.6Ontheotherhand,

however,itisawell-knownfact–whichSloanalsoacknowledges–that

Linnaeusbelievedthatallvariationwithinaspecieswascausedbylocal,

environmentalfactors.7TheSystemaNaturaeof1735,anditssubsequent

editions,donotprovideanycluetoresolvethequestionwhetherLinnaeus

thoughtofracesasstable(sub-)speciesorasenvironmentalvarieties.Inthese

works,heneveraddressedthisquestionexplicitly.Thewayinwhichhe

presentedthefourfoldclassificationofhumansintheSystemanaturaeof1735

mightsuggestastatusofdifferentspecies,butthennootheranimalgenusis

resolvedintoitsconstituentspecies.

ToclarifythetaxonomicrankofthefourhumanraceswithinLinnaeus’s

taxonomyoftheanimalkingdom,onehastoturntoanunlikelysource.In

Linnaeusbotanicalwork,thedistinctionofvarietiesfromspeciesplayedan

importantrole,sinceitwasLinnaeus’greatambitiontoreducethenumberof

species–andspeciesnames–withinbotany.8Toachievethis,Linnaeusmadea

strongdistinctionbetweentraitswhoseformationisdeterminedbyintrinsic

“lawsofgeneration”andwhichthereforeremain“constant”acrossallmembers

ofaspecies,andtraitsthatvarywithinaspeciesdueto“accidental”factorssuch

assoilorclimate.9InCriticabotanica,aworkdetailingtherulesandconventions

accordingtowhichplantnamesshouldbeformed,Linnaeusdiscussedthe

distinctionatgreatlength,andthisistheonlyoccasiononwhichheentereda

lengthydiscussiononthesignificanceofphysicaldifferencesamonghumans.

Thisdiscussionrelatestoadifficultythatthedistinctionofspeciesand

varietiesencountered,namelythefactthatcertainvarietiescontinuetotransmit

theirdistinctivecharacter,evenifexternalconditionschange.Theexample

Linnaeusadducedinthiscontext–alongsidethe“varietyofseedsthatgardeners

sell”–washumanskincolor.“WhowoulddenythattheEthiopianisofthesame

speciesasourpeople(acnoshomines),”Linnaeusasksrhethorically,onlytoadd:

“AndyettheEthiopianproducesblackchildrenonoursoil(nigrosinfantesin

nostraterra).”10Averycleardistancemakesitselffelthereintheuseofthefirst

personplural(“ourpeople”couldalsoberenderedas“ushumans”);butthe

insistencethatthisdistancedoesnotindicateaspeciesdifferenceisequally

clear,andrepeatedwithgreatforceinanotherpassagefromCriticabotanicathat

isworthquotingatlength:

Certainly,ifeachtraitwouldequallyconstituteanewspecies,therewould

benowiserandaccurateBotanistsamongmortalsthanthoseFLOWER-

LOVERS,whoeachyearpointouttothecurioussomethousandnew

[traits]intulips,primroses,anemones,daffodilsandhyacinths,asyet

unknowntotheBotanists,andhence[claimedtobe]newspecies.Butthe

OmnipotentBuilderabstainedfromtheworkofcreationontheseventh

day,sothattherearenonewcreationswitheachday,butacontinued

multiplicationofthingsalreadycreated.Hecreatedonehuman,asthe

HolyScriptureteaches;butiftheslightesttrait[difference]wassufficient,

therewouldeasilystickoutthousandsofdifferentspeciesofman:they

display,namely,white,red,blackandgreyhair;white,rosy,tawnyand

blackfaces;straight,stubby,crooked,flattened,andaquilinenoses;

amongthemwefindgiantsandpygmies,fatandskinnypeople,erect,

humpy,brittle,andlamepeopleetc.etc.Butwhowithasanemindwould

besofrivolousastocallthesedistinctspecies?Yousee,thereforewe

assumecertaincharacters,andquerydeceptiveones,whichleadastray

anddonotchangethething.11

Theinclusionofskincolorwithotherhighlyvariablephysical

characteristics,includingdeformations,leaveslittledoubtthatLinnaeusdidnot

believethatthistraitpointedtoanyessentialdifference,andthathealsodidnot

believethatitallowedfortheformationofdiscretecategories.Itmaywellbe

thataligningskincolorwithotherhighlyvariabletraitsinhumanswas

motivatedbyLinnaeus’beliefinScripture,asBroberghassurmised.12Buthe

wassurelyalsoacknowledgingthesimple,empiricalfactthatskincolorisindeed

highlyvariable.Linnaeusactuallyacknowledgedthisfactinthe1735editionof

SystemaNaturaebythechoiceofcolorterms;noneofthesetermsstatesaclear-

cutcolor,butratherahueorcoloring:Europeansaresaidtobe“whitish

(albesc[ens])”,notwhite;Americans“reddish(rubesc[ens])”,notred;Asians

“tawny”,notyellow;andAfricans“blackish(nigr[iculus])”,notblack.

Ifanything,thisletsLinnaeus’sschemeoffourhumanvarietiesappeareven

strangerthantobeginwith.Apparently,itwasnotmeanttopresentthereader

withsomekindofimage,orrepresentation,ofwhatthe(human)worldis

actuallylike.Itmusthavehadsomeadditionalfunction.Inordertoapproach

thisfunction,itisworthwhiletocontrastLinnaeus’sclassificatoryschemeswith

someofitspotentialsources,inordertoseemoreclearlywhatitis,exactly,that

marksitasthebeginningofsomethingnew.

2.Linnaeus’sSources

Linnaeuswasneverexplicitaboutthesourcesforhisanthropological

knowledge.Neitherthefirst,northetenth,northetwelftheditionofSystema

Naturae–thelattertwosubstantiallyrevisedandaugmentedversionsofthe

former–citeanyauthoritiesontheclassificationofmankind.Itratherseems

thatLinnaeusremainedexceptionallyuninformedaboutmattersofrace

throughouthislongcareer.InthetreatiseSponsaliaplantarum(1746),which

dealtwithorganicreproductioningeneral,andplantsexualityinparticular,all

thatcanbefoundonthismatter,forexample,isacitationofanaccountbythe

seventeenth-centuryDanishphysicianThomasBartholin(1616–1680)aboutan

“Ethiopian”slaveandaDanishmaidservantinCopenhagenwhohadamalechild

“whosewholebodywasduetothemother,exceptthepeniswhichbyitsblack

colorshowedhispaternalkind(paternumgenus).”13Thiswasonlythreeyears

beforeGeorge-LouisLeclerc,ComteduBuffon(1707–1788),producedhismore

thanone-hundred-fiftypagechapteron“varietieswithinthehumanspecies

(variétésdansl’espècehumaine)”whichwasbasedonanextensivereviewof

existingtravelliterature.14EvenlaterLinnaeuswouldprefertoaskhisFrench

correspondents—BernarddeJussieu(1699–1777)inparticular,whowas

servingunderBuffonasdemonstrateurdesplantes—whatBuffonwasupto,

ratherthanreadingtheFrenchoriginal.15

Itisneverthelesspossibletospeculateaboutsomeofthesourcesthat

mayhavebeenavailabletoLinnaeus,ifonlytocontrastthemwithhisown

curiousdivisionofmankindof1735.Thereisfirstofallthechapteronthe

“InhabitantsofBrazil”fromGeorgMarcgrave’sHistoriaNaturalisBrasiliae

(1648).ThebookwasinthepossessionoftheUppsalaprofessoroftheologyand

orientallanguagesOlofCelsius(1670–1756)withwhomLinnaeuslodgedasa

student,andwhoseextensivebotanicallibraryhestudiedassiduously.16

Marcgrave’saccountontheinhabitantsofBrazilisremarkableinseveral

respects;first,itnoteswithamodicumofsurprisethatthePortuguese,Dutch,

German,French,Englisharecollectivelyreferredtoas“Europeans”inBrazil;17

second,itproposesthatthe“mixtureofvariousnations(nationum)”happening

inBrazilhadledtotheemergenceof“fivedistinctkindsofpeople”.Whatfollows

isoneoftheearliestaccountsofaclassificationsystemknownaslascastas,

whichtriedtogetagriponmestizajethroughanelaborateterminology

designatingitsvariousproducts:“WhoisbornfromaEuropeanfather”,wrote

Marcgrave,“andaBrazilianmotherisnamedMameluco”;“[whois]bornfroma

EuropeanfatherandanEthiopianmotheriscalledMulatto.”18Again,skincolor

playsaroleinthissystem—Marcgravementions,forexample,thebirthoftwins

froman“Ethiopianwoman(Aethiopissa)”,oneofwhichwas“white”,theother

“black”(unumalbum,alterumnigrum).Butitisnothighlightedasauniversal

criterionofdistinction;quiteonthecontrary,astheexampleofthetwinshows,

Marcgrave’sdescriptionplacesemphasisonthesingularandlocalcharacterof

racemixture.Incontrast,Linnaeusclassificationclearlywasmeanttobeglobal

andexhaustive,effectivelycorrelatinghisfourhumanvarietieswiththefour

continentsthenknown.

AsecondlikelysourcethatLinnaeusmayhavedrawnuponisanobscure

pamphletproducedbythecomposerandmathematicianHaraldJohannson

Vallerius(1646–1716)in1705intheformofanacademicdissertationat

UppsalaUniversity,theuniversitythatLinnaeusstudiedmedicineatfrom1727–

1731.Underthetitle“Aboutthevariousexternalappearanceofmen”,it

reproducedtheargumentofFrançoisBernier’s(1625–1688)well-knownessay

“Newdivisionoftheearthaccordingtothedifferentspeciesorracesthatinhabit

it”,adaptingittothepurposesofthehome-grownideologyofGöticism

(Gothicism).19LikeBernier,Valleriusbeganwithanoverviewofthevarious

kindsofpeoplethatinhabitourplanet,onlytoembarkonalong-drawn

argumentaimingtoshowthatthemostbeautifulwomenaregötiskt,i.e.Swedish.

Thecharthepresentsofhumanvariationisratherodd:AccordingtoVallerius,

thereare“Ethiopians”whoare“black”(nigri);lappsandsamojedswhoare

“tawny”(fusci);Italians,Spaniards,andFrenchwhomValleriuscuriously

describesas“ashgrey”(cinericiocolore)”;and,finally,“WhiteEthiopians”

(Leucoaethiopes),whoagain,asthenameindicates,includesomeinhabitantsof

Africa,butmainlythoseofGermanyandits“neighboringcountries”.20Like

Linnaeusthirtyyearslateron,Valleriususedskincolorasachiefcriterion,and

therearesimilaritiesdowntothecolortermsused.Thereisastrikingdifference

also,however.UnlikeVallerius—andBernier,whomentionsthe“Lapps”

(Lappons)asaseparate“species”ofhumans21—Linnaeus’sclassificationdoes

notmakereferencetosmaller,marginalpopulations.Hisclassificationseemsto

betheproductofanurgetoestablishafour-fold,symmetricdivisionof

humankind.Thefourvarietiesarepresentedasinhabitingtheglobeinequal

parts,thusexcludingpolaritieslikemetropolitanvs.peripheral,naturalvs.

monstrous,domesticvs.exotic,or,forthatmatter,beautifulvs.ugly.

ThereisathirdlikelysourceofLinnaeus’sclassificationofmankind.In

thenotebookshekeptasstudent,thereisadrawingofabatthatclosely

resemblesaplatefromRichardBradley’s(1688–1732)APhilosophicalAccount

oftheWorksofNature(1721),ofwhichLinnaeuspossessedacopy.22Bradley’s

bookwasaremarkablymaterialisticpresentationofthe“scaleoflife”,arguing,

forexample,thatthedifferencein“capacityandunderstanding”betweenapes

andhumans“proceedsfromthevariousFramesofthosePartswhichfurnishthe

BrainwithnourishingJuices.”23AccordingtoBradley,

wefindfiveSortsofMen:theWhiteMenwhichareEuropeans,thathave

Beards;andasortofWhiteMeninAmerica(asIamtold)thatonlydiffer

fromusinhavingnoBeards.ThethirdsortaretheMolatoes,whichhave

theirSkinsalmostofaCopperColour,smallEyes,andstraitblackHair.The

fourthKindaretheBlacks,whichhavestraitblackHair:Andthefifthare

theBlacksofGuineywhoseHairiscurl’d,liketheWoolofaSheep.24

AlthoughBradelydistinguishesfive,ratherthanfour,“sortsofMen”,and

althoughheincludeshaircolorandform,aswellaseyeshape,asadditional

criteria,thesimilaritieswithLinnaeus’sschemearestriking;bothclassifications

makereferencetophysicalcharacteristics,andbothproposeaglobaland

symmetricdivisionofmankind.ItisallthemoreremarkablethatBradleyaswell

doesnotciteanysources,andalsorefusestodrawanyconclusions.Like

Linnaeusfourteenyearslater,hepresentshisclassificatoryschemeadhoc,with

noapparentcontext.25Itsfunctionmustthereforehavebeendifferentfrom

simplysynthesizingwhatwassupposedlyknownalready.Inordertoseewhat

thatfunctionmighthavebeen,IwillturntoafeatureofLinnaeus’classification

ofmanthatisoftenoverlooked:itsclosecorrelationwiththegeographicdivision

offourcontinents.

3.OrientationandAccretionofFacts

TherearemanysignsthatLinnaeuswasfascinatedfromearlyonwiththefour

continents.InacommonplacebookhekeptasastudentatLundUniversity,one

findsatablethatassociatesvariousdrinkswiththefourcontinents:Asiais

associatedwithtea(Theè),Africawithcoffee(Coffi),Americawithchocolate

(Chocolaten);andEuropewithbeer(Cerevisia).26ThejournalfromhisLapland

journeyin1732containsafamouspassageinwhichhedescribeshisfirstvisitto

thehighlandsofthisNorthernregionandhowtheabundanceofunknown

speciescausedhimtowonder“whetherIwasinAsiaorAfrica,asthesoil,the

situation,andalltheplantswereunknowntome.”27Afinalexamplemaysuffice.

OneofLinnaeusfirstbotanicalpublications—theHortusCliffortianus,afolio

volumepublishedtwoyearsaftertheSystemanaturae,andconsistinginalush

catalogueoftheexceptionallyrichbotanicalcollectionsofthemerchantbanker

andformerdirectoroftheDutchEastIndiaCompanyGeorgeClifford(1685-

1760)—containedafrontispiecewhichshowedEuropaatthecenter,

surroundedbythreefigurestotheleftimpersonatingthethreecontinentsAsia,

Africa,andAmerica,eachofthempresentingaplanttoher,andamalefigureto

therightcaughtintheactofremovingacloakfromherhead,andbearingsome

unmistakableresemblancewithLinnaeushimself(seefig.2).Theprefacetothis

volumehasalongsectionthatlistsplantspeciescharacteristicofeachcontinent,

andhighlightsLinnaeus’sowndescentfromNorthernEurope.28

Whatthesedocumentssuggestisthatthefourcontinentsserved

Linnaeusasakindofgeographicgridthathelpedhimtoorienthimselfona

globalscale(or,forthatmatter,toexpressdisorientation).Ifweapplythistohis

distinctionoffourhumanvarieties,itbecomesclearthatthisdistinctionwasnot

somuchtheresultofacarefulsynthesisofpreviouslyestablishedfacts,but

ratheradeliberateandarbitraryprojectiontosupportthefutureaccumulation

offacts.Thatthisisindeedso,becomesclearonceonefollowsLinnaeus’s

treatmentofhumandiversitythroughthevariouseditionsofSystemanaturae,

andalsoattendstothehandwrittenannotationsthatpepperedhispersonal

copiesoftheseeditions(figs.3and4).Thetenthedition,publishedin1758,saw

thefirstsubstantialexpansionoftheclassificationof1735.Again,itlistsfour

main“varieties”ofthehumanspecies,numberedconsecutivelybyGreekletters.

Skincolorremainsthefirstmarkofdistinction,althoughthecolortermshave

alteredtored(rufus),white(albus),paleyellow(luridus)andblack(niger),

indicatingbothahardeningand,inthecaseofluridus,amorejudgmental

distinction.29Inaddition,Linnaeusassociatedarangeofothercharacteristics

withhisfourhumanvarieties,arrangingtheminfivelines:Thefirstline

describesskincolor,medicaltemperament,andbodyposture;thesecondline

addsfurtherphysicalcharacteristicspertainingtohaircolorandform,eyecolor,

anddistinctivefacialtraits;thethirdlinereferstobehavior;andthefinaltwo

linestomannerofclothingandpoliticalconstitutionrespectively.30Manyof

thesecharacterizationsreliedonnascentracialstereotypes–Africans,for

example,aresaidtobegovernedbyarbitrio,whichcanbetranslatedascaprice

ordominion,i.e.masterybyothers–yetthecorrectionsandadditionsin

Linnaeus’spersonalcopiesalsomakeclearthattheclassificationwasfluid.The

notesinhispersonalcopyofthetenthedition,forexample,indicatethat

Linnaeuswantedtochangethecharacterizationof“Americans”from“cheerful”

(hilaris)to“content”(contentus),andcontemplatedmovingthemedical

temperamentstothelinededicatedtobehavioraltraits(seefig.3).31Other

annotationsinthetwelftheditionincludeashortdefinitionofthe“moral

characteroftheSwede”—“credulous,distrustful,jealous,conceited,fickle,dull,

fidgety,compliant”—andhenceanattemptatafiner-graineddifferentiation

withinthecategoryof“whiteEuropeans”(seefig.4).32

Twofeaturesofthisnewclassificationschemefathominghuman

variationdeservehighlightingandfurthercomment.First,Linnaeusrearranged

theorderofthefourvarieties.Itisnotthe“whiteEuropeans”anymorethat

occupythetopposition,asinallpreviouseditionsofSystemaNaturae,butthe

“Americans”,echoingideasofthenoblesavagethatparticularlycometothefore

inthebehavioralandpoliticaltraitsassignedtothelatter:“unyielding,content,

free”(pertinax,contentus,liber)aswellas“governedbycustomaryright”

(consuetudo),ratherthanlaws(Europeans),opinions(Asians)orcaprice

(Africans).Second,thetraitsarearrangedinfivelinesbytheirincreasing

“distance”fromthebody:traitsinthefirstlinerefertobodilyconstitutionas

gaugedbycomplexion,temperamentandcomposure;thesecondlinesinglesout

characteristicfacialfeatures;thethirdwhatwewouldcall“behavioral”traits;

thefourthtakesupapparel—withAmericans“painting[themselves]withred

streaks”andAfricans“smearing[themselves]withfat”,while“Europeans”and

“Asians”wearclothes,theformertight,thelatterwideclothes;andthefifth

spellsoutthepresumedsocialandpoliticalconstitutionofthefourvarieties.The

impressionthatthisarrangementismeanttoprogressfrominternal,andhence

moreconstant,tomorevariable,externalpropertiesisconfirmedbythefactthat

inhisannotationstothetenthedition,Linnaeusexperimentedwithadifferent

arrangementthatwouldplaceapparelbeforebehavior(fig.3).Further

confirmationisprovidedbytheadditionofafifth,“monstruous”humanvariety

(Monstrosus)whichincludesavarietyofgroupsclearlyshapedbyexternal

conditions:naturalconditionsasinthecaseoftheAlpini,i.e.humanslivingat

highaltitudes,whichLinnaeusbelievedtobe“small,agile,andtimid”(parvi,

agiles,timidi);culturalconditionsasinthecaseof“slendergirlswithconstricted

waists”tobefoundinEurope(Junceaepuellaeabdomineattentuato:Europaeae).

AsMaryFloyd-WilsonhasremarkedaboutLinnaeus’slateclassifications

ofhumankind,onecanclearlydiscerninthem“theresidualmatterofearly

moderngeohumoralism”,thatis,theideathatclimateandmedical

temperaments,externalconditionsandinnerconstitution,arecausally

contiguous,andhencemirroreachotherintheshapingofhumandifferences,

whetherphysical,behavioral,orcultural.Floyd-Wilsonalsonotes,however,that

Linnaeus,likemanyofhiscontemporariesandpredecessorsintheearlymodern

period,performsaradicalre-evaluationoftheserelationshipbetweenmedical

temperamentsandclimates.Phlegmatictemperament,mostnotably,isnow

associatedwithablackcomplexionanda“hot”climate,whereassanguine

temperamentisassociatedwithwhitenessandtheNorth,instarkcontrastto

ancientandmedievallore.JustlikeFrancisBaconandThomasBrownebefore

him,Floyd-Wilsonobserves,Linnaeusloosenedthe“tiebetweenskincolourand

humoraldisposition,”thusallowingforaradical“restructuringofgeohumoral

theory.”33Thisleadstoasurprisingconclusion,however.Theclassificationof

humandiversitybyskincolorthatLinnaeusintroducedin1735wasnotonly

usedfortheaccretionofnewfactsabout,andincreasingentrenchmentof,

presupposedracialcategories.Atthesametime,itsabstractandadhocnature

enabledfundamentalinversionsinthereceivedframeworkofassociating

constitutionsandclimes.

4.MarrowandBark:TheStruggleoftheSexes

GeohumoraltheorywasnotonlyrestructuredbyLinnaeusbecausehedecidedto

realignitwithhisfour-foldclassificationofmankind.Morefundamentally,he

embeddeditinaphysiologicaltheorywhichrelegatedthefourbodilyhumours,

andhencethefourmedicaltemperaments,tothestatusofmereepiphenomena

ofmorefundamentalsubstancesandforces.Inspeculationsthatgrewmoreand

moreelaboratetheolderhebecame,Linnaeusassumedthatallphysiological

processeswereduetotheantagonisticinteractionoftwofundamental

substances,themarrow(medulla)whichhadacapacityforuninhibitedgrowth,

andthebark(cortex)whichcontainedandstructuredthisgrowth.Inaddition,he

assumedthatthesetwosubstanceswerepassedonfromonegenerationtothe

nextalongpaternalandmaternallinesrespectively:themarrowcamefromthe

mother,andthecortexfromthefather.34Thedistinctionofthetwosubstances

clearlyreflectsLinnaeus’sideasofmaleandfemalerolesintheeconomy–he

identifiedfemalesaslargelyresponsibleforthedrainofbullionthroughthe

consumptionofluxurygoodsfromabroad35–butalsohisowngrowing

exhaustionwithtryingtotamethediversityofnaturethroughhistaxonomic

enterprise.36

Linnaeus’smedulla-cortextheorywashighlyidiosyncratic—combining

elementsofiatromechanism’sunderstandingofbodiesashydraulicmachines,

withacuriousbrandofvitalism—butisrelevantforunderstandinghisrace

conceptfortworeasons.First,itprovidesastrongindicationthatLinnaeus,in

hislatercareer,begantothinkoflivingnatureasbeingconstitutedandshaped

byanunderlyingstrugglebetweenantagonisticforces–andideasofa“struggle

forlife”wouldbecomeoneofthecentralelementsofscientificracism.37Second,

itprovidedhimwithanexplanationfortheoriginofdiversitythatwentbeyond

climaticdegenerationandthuscouldaccountfortheformationofessential,

ratherthanmerelyaccidental,difference.Assumingthatevenwidelydifferent

lifeformswereabletohybridize,Linnaeusdevelopedtheviewinlaterworks

thatGodhadonlycreatedafewformsinthebeginningandthatsubsequently

newspeciesarosethoughhybridization,andhencethroughthecombinationof

differentcorticalsubstanceswiththemedullaoftheoriginalform.In

Fundamentumfructificationis,alateessaypublishedasadissertationin1762,

LinnaeusexplaineduniquefeaturesoftheNorth–AmericanandAfricanfloraon

thisbasis,citingstrongwindsattheCapeofGodHopeasapossiblemechanism

thatmayhaveledtotheparticularlypronouncedproliferationofunusualspecies

inthisregion.38

ButdidLinnaeuseverapplythistheorytoexplainhumandiversity?

Curiously,thereisnosignthatheevertriedtodoso.Whatwedofindintermsof

explanationsofhumandiversityarehintsataccountsthatrelyonmigrationand

subsequentclimaticdegeneration.InanundatedzoologicalmanuscriptLinnaeus

jotteddown,forexample,thathumansenjoya“richandblessedimmaterialsoul”

(Animaimmaterialibeatadives),forma“singlespecies”(Speciesunica),and

“roamabout”(peregrinat),eventoplaceslikeNicobarandAmbonIsland.39In

otherwords,whatuniteshumanshasnoimmediaterelationtothebody,andall

differencesamonghumanshavethuscomeaboutaccidentally.Withthe

possessionofarationalsoul,humansessentiallyremainedpartofthedivine

orderforLinnaeus,eveniftheywerehardlydistinguishablefromtheirnextof

kinintheanimalkingdom—“Man’scousins”,astheSwedishversionofatextby

Linnauesonprimateswasentitled—andeveniftheycouldbesubjectedto

classificationjustasanyotheranimalspeciescould.40

5.Conclusion

Raceistiedupwithmetaphorsofblood;talkofbloodlines,themixingofblood,

orthe“onedropofblood”ruleprovidesabundantevidence.Theconnectiongoes

backtothelatemedievalperiod,whenancientconceptionsof“nobleblood”

wererevivedinthecontextofanimalbreedingandtransposedtodebates

aroundnobility.41Theconnectionistenuousnevertheless,astheexampleof

LinnaeusthatIhaveanalyzedinthischapaterclearlydemonstrates.Raceaswe

knowit,whileclearlyrootedintheracistpreconceptionsthatcolonial

encountersprecipitated,didnotsimplygrowoutoftheanciententwinementof

themicrocosmofbodilyhumorsandthemacrocosmofclimatesandregions.

Quiteonthecontrary.WithPaulFeyerabend,onemightwanttoclaimthat

Linnaeusengagedinanexerciseof“counter-induction”whensettinguphis

racialclassificationaccordingtoskincolorandlaterassociatingitwiththefour

medicaltemperaments,andhencethebalanceofbodyhumors.This

classificationdissociatedphysicaltraitsbothfrombodilyconstitutionand

naturalenvironment,onlytoopenanentirelynewspaceofphenomenathat

wouldformthesubjectofspeculationsaboutthecontingentrelationshipof

organicbodiesandtheir“naturalplaces”intheoriesofinheritanceand,

eventually,evolution.42ImmanuelKant,inparticular,wouldhavenoqualmsin

fillingtheexplanatorygapthatLinnaeushadleft.43

Linnaeus’scolorschemebecame,asRenatoMazzolinirecentlypointed

out,an“integralpartofallsubsequentclassificationsofthelateeighteenthand

thefirsthalfofthenineteenthcentury.”Itdidso,asMazzoliniarguesonthebasis

ofacarefulbibliometricanalyses,notbecauseskincolorwasassociatedwith

bodilyconstitution,butbecauseitquiteliterallyhadturnedouttobea

“skindeep”phenomenononly,locatedintheso-calledMalpighianlayerofthe

skin,andhencewasfreeduptodefineaEuropean“somaticidentitymainly

constructedonpolitical-socialrelationships.”44Itcannotbeemphasizedenough

howphantasticLinnaeus’scolorschemeactuallyis,ifjudgedintermsofthe

humoraldoctrine:whiteisred(sanguine),blackiswhite(phlegmatic),yellowis

black(melancholic),andredisyellow(choleric).Thefactthatitstickswithusto

thisdayonlydemonstrateshowoverwhelminglypowerfulthediscoursewas

thattookholdwithintheconceptualspacethusfreedup.

NOTES

1StephenJ.Gould,TheMismeasureofMan,2nded.(NewYork:W.W.Norton,1996),p.66;seeC.

LoringBrace,RaceIsaFour-LetterWord:TheGenesisoftheConcept(Oxford:OxfordUniversity

Press,2005),p.17–36,foramorerecentversionofthestandardaccount.

2CarlLinnaeus,SystemaNaturae(Amsterdam:Schouten,1935),unpag.[p.10].

3GunnarBroberg,HomosapiensL.:StudieriCarlvonLinnésnaturuppfattningochmänniskolära

(Uppsala:Almquist&Wiksell,1975),ch.5.

4CarlLinnaeus,‘Rönomväxtersplanteringgrundatpånaturen,’KungligaSvenskaVetenskaps-

AkademiensHandlingar1(1739),5–24.

5See,forexample,JonathanMarks,HumanBiodiversity:Genes,Race,andHistory(New

Brunswick:AldineTransaction,1995),p.50.

6PhillipR.Sloan,‘TheGazeofNaturalHistory,’inInventingHumanScience:Eighteenth-Century

Domains,editedbyChristopherFox,RoyPorter,andRobertWokler(Berkeley:Universityof

CaliforniaPress,1995),112–151,p.128.PresentingLinnaeus’sdistinctionasaseriesof

trinomialsgoesbackatleasttoStephenJayGould’sMismeasureofMan,p.66,andprobablyhas

itsorigininanEnglishtranslationofthefirstpartofthirteenth,posthumouseditionofSystema

Naturaethatwaspublishedin1792;seeCarlLinnaeus,TheAnimalKingdom,orZoological

System,editedbyJohannFriedrichGmelin,translatedbyRobertKerr(LondonandEdinburgh:A.

Strahan,T.Cadell,andW.Creech,1792),p.45.AsKerrstatedquiteopenlyinthefulltitleofthe

publication,thiseditioncontained“numerousadditionsfrommorerecentzoologicalwriters”.

7Ibid.,p.121.

8CarlLinnaeus,GeneraPlantarum(Leiden:Wishoff,1737),“Ratiooperis”,aph.8[unpag.].Fora

translationofthisimportantmethodologicaltext,seeStaffanMüller-WilleandKarenReeds,‘A

translationofCarlLinnaeus’introductiontoGeneraPlantarum(1737),’StudiesinHistoryand

PhilosophyoftheBiologicalandBiomedicalSciences,38(2007),563–572.

9Ibid.,aph.5;seeStaffanMüller-Wille,“CollectionandCollation:TheoryandPracticeofLinnaean

Botany,”StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyoftheBiologicalandBiomedicalSciences,38(2007),

541–562.

10CarlLinaneus,CriticaBotanica(Leiden:Wishoff,1737),p.255.Linnaeusknewofmanycasesof

“constantvarieties”amongplants,andseemstohavesharedthewidespreadconvictionthatthe

environmenthaseffectsonorganismsthatwillonlyrecedeaftermanygenerationsupon

transplantation;seeJohnRamsbottom,‘LinnaeusandtheSpeciesConcept,’Proceedingsofthe

LinneanSocietyLondon,150(1938),192–219.Conversely,hebelievedthatexoticplants,even

fromwarmerregionsoftheglobe,couldbeacclimatizedtoSwedishconditions;seeLisbet

Koerner,‘Linnaeus´sFloralTransplants,’Representations,47(1994),144–169.

11Linnaeus,CriticaBotanica,p.153.

12Broberg,HomosapiensL.,p.228.

13CarlLinnaeus,Sponsaliaplantarum(Stockholm:Salvius,1746),p.26.

14Georges-LouisLeclerc,ComtedeBuffon,Histoirenaturelle,généraleetparticuliére,Vol.3

(Paris:ImprimerieRoyale,1749),pp.371–530.

15CarlLinnaeustoBernarddeJussieu,25March1752,TheLinnaeancorrespondence,

URL=linnaeus.c18.net,letterL1387(consulted24January2014).

16AcatalogueofCelsius’sbotanicallibraryhasbeenpreservedwhichlistsMarcgrave’swork;see

“CatalogusBibliothecaeBotanicae[…]OlavoCelsio,BibliohtecahaecRegiasuoaeveemitd.XV.

Novemb.MDCCXXXVIII”,UppsalaUniversityLibrary,Donationskatalogerövertrycktaböcker

m.m.A-J,Bibl.ArkivK52:1.OnLinnaeusandCelsius,seeWilfridBlunt,TheCompleatNaturalist:

ALifeofLinnaeus(London:Collins,1971),pp.30–36.

17WillemPisoandGeorgMarcgrave,HistoriaNatvralisBrasiliae(Amsterdam:Elzevir,1648),p.

268:“IngenereautemvocantomnesEuropaeos”.

18Ibid.:“Deniqueobmisturamvariorumnationum,aliaequniquedistinctaehominumspecies

haecreperiuntur.”Onthecastas-system,whichwasonlyreallypopularizedinEuropethrough

thewritingsofBuffonandCornelisdePauw(1739–1799)inthe1770s,seeRenatoG.Mazzolini,

‘LasCastas:Inter-RacialCrossingandSocialStructure(1770--1835)’,inHeredityProduced.Atthe

CrossroadsofBiology,PoliticsandCulture,1500-1870,editedbyStaffanMüller-WilleandHans-

JörgRheinberger(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,2007),pp.349–373.

19HaraldVallerius,DeVariaHominumFormaExterna(Uppsala:Werner,1705);FrançoisBernier,

“Nouvelledivisiondelaterreparlesdifférentesespècesouracesd’hommesquil’habitent”,

JournaldeSçavans,24Avril1684(1684),pp.133–140.AsfarasIcansee,thereisnoevidence

thatLinnaeuseverreadBernier’sessay.

20QuotedfromBroberg,HomosapiensL.,p.221.The“whiteEthiopians”,asBrobergexplains,go

backtoPliniusaccountofblackalbinos.

21Bernier,“NouvelleDivision”,p.136.

22CarlLinnaeus,“ManuscriptaMedica,”Vol.I,LinneanSocietyLibraryandArchives,Linnaean

Collections,BoxLMGen,FolderLINNPATGEN2,f.83v.TheplatefromwhichLinnaeuscopied

thebatcanbefoundinRichardBradley,APhilosophicalAccountoftheWorksofNature(London:

Mears,1721),p.88,pl.xiii,fig.ii.ForareproductionanddiscussionofLinnaeus’sdrawing,see

IsabelleCharmantier,‘CarlLinnaeusandtheVisualRepresentationofNature’,HistoricalStudies

intheNaturalSciences41:4(2011),365–404,p.380,fig.5.

23Bradley,PhilosophicalAccount,p.95.

24Ibid.,p.169.

25Itiseasytosee,however,thatBradely’scontributionstandsinthetraditionofnaturalizing

humandiversity,andtreatingitasaquestionofnaturalhistory,ratherthantheology,which

beganinBritainwithJohnLocke;seeDavidCarey,Locke,Shaftesbury,andHutcheson:Contesting

DiversityintheEnlightenmentandBeyond(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006),pp.

15–23.

26CarlLinnaeus,“Manucriptamedica(1727–1730)”,LinneanSocietyLibraryandArchives,

LinnaeanCollection,Manuscripts,Vol.I,f.38v.

27CarlLinnaeus,Iterlapponicum,editedbyThomasM.Fries.SkrifterafCarlvonLinné,Vol.5

(Upsala:AlmqvistandWiksells,1913),p.106.

28ForadetailedanalysisofthefrontispiecetoHortuscliffortianus,seeGunnarBroberg,“Naturen

påbild:AnteckningarochLinneanskaexempel,”Lychnos1979–80(1980),231–256.

29Onthechangefromfuscustoluridus,seeMichaelKeevak,BecomingYellow:AShortHistoryof

RacialThinking(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2011),pp.51–57.

30CarlLinnaeus,SystemaNaturae,TenthEdition(Stockholm:Salvius,1758),vol.1,pp.20–22.

31CarlLinnaeus,SystemaNaturae,TenthEdition,3vols.(Stockholm:Salvius,1758),Linnean

SocietyLondon,LinnaeanCollections,Library,BL16,vol.1,pp.20–22.Thechangeinthe

characterizationof“Americans”happenedwiththetwelfthedition(seecitationinfn.33),the

medicaltemperamentsremainedinthefirstlinehowever.

32CarlLinnaeus,SystemaNaturae,TwelfthEdition,3vols.(Stockholm:Salvius,1766–1768),

LinneanSocietyLondon,LinnaeanCollections,Library,BL.21,vol.1,p.29.Theregionalfauna

thatLinnaeusproducedforSwedencontainsaclassificationofhishomecountry’spopulation

intofourvarieties,“Goths”(Gothi),“Finns”(Fennones),“Lapps”(Lappones),and“Various

mixturesofthepreceding”(Varii&mixtiexpraecedentibus);seeCarlLinnaeus,FaunaSuecica

(Stockholm:Salvius,1746),p.1.

33MaryFloyd-Wilson,EnglishEthnicityandRaceinEarlyModernDrama(Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress,2003),p.86.Inthesameway,“Creolephysiciansfoundwaystoadaptthewide

andpermissiveHippocraticlandscapetotheirNewWorldcircumstances;”CarlosLópezBeltrán,

“HippocraticBodies,TemperamentandCastasinSpanishAmerica(1570-1820)”,Journalof

SpanishCulturalStudies8(2007),253–289,pp.276–277.

34Foradetaileddiscussion,seePeterF.Stevens,andStevenP.Cullen,“Linnaeus,theCortex-

MedullaTheory,andtheKeytoHisUnderstandingofPlantFormandNaturalRelationships”,

JournaloftheArnoldArboretum71(1990),179–220.

35LisbetKoerner,Linnaeus:NatureandNation(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1999).

36OnthelateLinnaeus’sdisenchantmentwithnaturalhistory,seeElisMalmeström,Carlvon

Linnésreligiösaåskådning(Stockholm:SvenskaKyrkansDiakonistyrelseBokförlag,1926).

37MichelFoucault,“SocietyMustBeDefended”:LecturesattheCollegedeFrance,1975-1976

(London:Picador,2003).

38CarlLinnaeus,FundamentumFructificationis(Uppsala:Nopublisher,1762).Theproposition

thattheenvironmentofAfrica,inparticular,fosterstheproductionofnewspeciesechoesancient

ideas;seeHarveyM.FeinbergandJosephB.Solodow,“OutofAfrica,”JournalofAfricanHistory43

(2002),255–261.

39CarlLinnaeus,“Zoologia”,LinneanSocietyLondon,LinnaeanCollections,ManuscriptaMedicaI,

Folder“PertinetadLinnaeiManuscr.Med.”.

40OnLinnaeus’sclassificationofman,seeGunnarBroberg,“Linnaeus’sClassificationsofMan,”in:

Linnaeus:TheManandHisWork,editedbyToreFrängsmyr(Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia

Press,1983).EricVoegelinhasmadethegeneralpointthatthekindofbody-souldualismthatwe

findexemplifiedinLinnaeustendedtopreventthefullnaturalizationofhumandifference;see

EricVoegelin,DieRassenideeinderGeistesgeschichtevonRaybisCarus(Berlin:Junkerund

DünnhauptVerlag,1933).

41MaaikevanderLugtandCharlesdeMiramon,“Introduction,”inL’héréditéentreMoyenAgeet

époquemoderne,editedbyMaaikevanderLugtandCharlesdeMiramon(Florence:SISMEL—

EdizionidelGalluzzo,2008),p.3–40.

42StaffanMüller-WilleandHans-JörgRheinberger,ACulturalHistoryofHeredity(Chicago:

UniversityofChicagoPress,2012),p.59.

43OnKant’stheory,seeRaphaëlLagier,LesraceshumainesselonKant(Paris:Presses

UniversitairesdeFrance,2004).

44RenatoMazzolini,“SkinColorandtheOriginofPhysicalAnthropology,”inReproduction,Race,

andGenderinphilosophyandtheEarlyLifeSciences,editedbySusanneLettow(NewYork:SUNY

Press,2014),131–161,p.151.