skip to content

Whipple Library

Department of History and Philosophy of Science
 
Subscribe to Latest blog posts feed Latest blog posts
Features from our special collections
Updated: 54 min 29 sec ago

Nursing textbooks : the professionalisation of nurses

Thu, 12/05/2022 - 10:00
Early nursing

Both of the items presented today are going to be of the more modern kind – early twentieth century – which is not to say that nursing only began around then. Nursing care has probably existed for as long, if not earlier, than medicine has. However, it was formalised much later than medicine, possibly because nursing care was seen mostly as a woman’s work – and women did not, for a long time, have access to universities or formalised higher education.

Helmstadter and Godden [1] see the early revolution in nursing care as a direct result of the advances in medicine. The early nineteenth century saw revolutions in surgery, requiring more post-operative care, and in ‘supportive therapeutics’, which put more responsibility on nurses. To provide nurses with appropriate training, sisterhoods began early forms of nursing schools – such as the Diakoniewerk of Kaiserswerth, established 1836 and visited by Florence Nightingale in 1850.

It is obviously impossible to speak about nursing without mentioning ‘the lady with the lamp’. Florence Nightingale made history for reforming the profession of nurse, and establishing one of the first non-religious schools of nursing in Europe in 1860 – only pre-dated by the École de la Source in Lausanne, Switzerland (1859) [2]. It is in schools like this that you may have found The Science and Art of Nursing.

STORE 106:21

Made of four volumes enriched with many illustrations, The Science and Art of Nursing summarises everything a nurse-in-training would have needed for her studies – despite the fact that, at the time, nurses had yet to have a professional registry in the United Kingdom.

This item would not have been printed for general use, as the label at the beginning warns the reader. Published in 1909, our copy seems to have belonged to the Royal British Nurses Association. This association was founded in 1887 by Ethel Bedford-Fenwick (1857-1947) [3], who would later become the first president of the International Council of Nurses (1899-1904). The late 1890s and early 1900s proved particularly important for the nursing profession. They saw the passing of both the Cape Medical act of 1891 (see Hadfield [4]), which made mention of nurses, and the Nurses Registration Act 1901 in New Zealand. 1900 also had one of the very first studies on nurses, with Hamilton’s thesis comparing hospital and non-hospital personnel [5].

It would not be until 1919 that the United Kingdom would get its own registration act, thanks to the campaigning of both the Royal British Nurses Association and Bedford-Fenwick.

STORE 106:34

Ashdown’s Complete system of nursing was first published in 1917, however we only hold the 1923 and 1933 printings – see the two table of contents below; can you spot any differences? It was revised no less than ten times, proving fairly popular with – now professionally registered – nurses.  The last revision (in 1935) occurred shortly before the publication of Ashdown’s new book, Anatomy, physiology and hygiene : a textbook for nurses (1937).

Some records indicate that Ashdown may have based her writings on Morten’s Nurse’s Dictionary of Medical Terms and Nursing Treatment (1892). We know very little of Ashdown, however Violet Honnor Morten (1861-1913) became famous enough to gain an entry into the Oxford dictionary of National Biography [6].

Although she trained as a nurse and midwife, gaining her diploma in 1896, Morten is better remembered for her written contributions to nursing and women’s rights. She also served as member of the London school board, using her position to push for equal pay for men and women – among other causes. As Bedford-Fenwick, Morten advocated for women to have a voice in what was, for a long time, seen as ‘their’ job.

The year following the publication of our copy, Ashdown published another Complete System of Nursing, aimed at male nurses – showing yet another shift in the profession.

For more Whipple Library Special Collections books related to nurses and nursing, head over to our past exhibition The steel hand in the velvet glove: Books used for the teaching and training of nurses.

Blog post by Raphaëlle Goyeau, Library Assistant

Pictured

STORE 106:21: The science and art of nursing : a guide to the various branches of nursing, theoretical and practical, by medical and nursing authorities. London: Cassel and Co. 1909.

STORE 106:28 and 34: A. Millicent Ashdown. A complete system of nursing. London: J.M. Dent & Sons. 1917. 1924 and 1933 printings.

References and further readings

[1] Carol Helmstadter & Judith Godden. Nursing before Nightingale, 1815-1899. Farnham: Routledge. 2011.

[2] Deborah Dolan Hunt. Fast facts about the nursing profession: historical perspectives in a nutshell. New York: Springer Publishing Company. 2017.

[3] Susan McGann. “Fenwick [née Manson; known as Mrs Bedford Fenwick], Ethel Gordon (1857-1947)”, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Available online from https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/33106

[4] Leslie Anne Hadfield. A bold profession: African nurses in rural Apartheid South Africa. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 2021.

[5] Anna Hamilton. Considérations sur les infirmières des hopitaux : these présentée et publiquement soutenue à la Faculté de médecine de Montpellier le 15 juin 1900. Montpellier : Imprimerie Centrale du Midi (Hamelin Frères). 1900. Available online from https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k854187n/f1.item

[6] Ellen Ross. “Morten, (Violet) Honnor (1861-1913)”, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Available online from https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/62035

Alfred Russel Wallace and a Changing Worldview

Thu, 07/04/2022 - 14:11
Wallace’s First Voyage The Collection of Books used for Research.

Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) was a British naturalist who, like Charles Darwin, identified a system of survival of the fittest causing the evolution of organisms. In 1848 he travelled to the Amazon with fellow naturalist Henry Walter Bates, hoping to investigate the origin of species. He stayed in the Amazon for the subsequent 4 years, financially supported by the collecting and selling of specimens, investigating mostly beetles, butterflies and birds. However, on his return voyage, disaster struck as Wallace’s ship, containing thousands of specimens and notes collected over the previous 4 years, caught fire and sank. Fortunately, a passing ship rescued Wallace and his crew who arrived back to England in 1852. Wallace published his findings the following year in his book “Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro” [1].

Wallace’s Second Voyage Alfred Russel Wallace. The Wonderful Century : its successes and its failures. London : Swan Sonnenschen & Co. 1898.

Soon after his return, Wallace began to plan a second voyage, this time to the Malay Archipelago (now Indonesia and Malaysia); here he continued to collect and investigate specimens for over 8 years, accumulating over 125,000 specimens, including 5,000 species previously unknown to the west [1]. This prompted him to publish “The Malay Archipelago” in 1869 after his return to England in 1862. When living in Ternate, in the Moluccas, and ‘suffering from a rather severe attack of intermittent fever’, Wallace again considered the origin of species ([2], p. 138). Remembering Malthus’ essay on population that he had read ten years prior, Wallace contemplated the idea that “positive checks” (e.g. war, disease, famine, accidents, etc..) – as Malthus devised, could act upon animal populations akin to how they affect human populations. While ‘vaguely’ considering the effect of said checks upon any given species, an idea ‘flashed upon’ Wallace – the idea of survival of the fittest ([2], p. 139).

A New Theory

Wallace’s new theory of survival of the fittest was based upon the idea that if variation causes a trait beneficial to survival in the progressing environment that aids the individual in surviving the “positive checks”, individuals possessing this trait will be superior to those that do not possess the trait. In the same way an individual removed by these “positive checks” is inferior to those that survived.

That same evening, after thinking out the main points of the theory, Wallace sketched a draft of a paper. In the succeeding evenings, he proceeded to write out the paper and then sent it to fellow naturalist Charles Darwin, expecting the theory to be as new to Darwin as it was to himself. However, Wallace was surprised to hear that Darwin had reached the same conclusion long before he had (in 1844).  That same year, Wallace and Darwin agreed to make the theory of Natural selection by survival of the fittest known to the world by having their theories read, one after the other, at a meeting of the Linnean Society in London. The theory received little attention until the publication of Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” the subsequent year. Following the publication of said book, both support and fierce opposition to the theory was established ([2], p. 140).

The Previous Worldview

In the late 17th Century, long before the evolutionary theory was established, the common worldview of the west was built upon the doctrine of the church based upon the scriptures. As W. Whiston explained in his 1696 work “A New Theory of the Earth”:

 ‘Our understandings are finite, our capacities small, our sphere of knowledge not great. We depend upon God Almighty as to what we know, as well as what we have, or what we are. ‘Tis possible it may not yet be the proper season for unravelling the mystery’ ([3],p. 73).

W. Whiston. A New Theory of Earth. London: R. Roberts. 1696.

This encapsulates the strong religious foundation of all aspects of academia at the time. Obvious boundaries were placed upon the human capacity for knowledge as the divine was posited as the explanation for what was not yet know or discovered through scientific research. This presupposition of a divine explanation provoked fierce opposition to any challenges towards the common worldview, leading to the ‘condemnation’ of those neglecting ‘the undoubted evidence for the Divine Authority of the scriptures’ ([3],p. 79).

The Worldview Continues

This 17th Century view of the world seemingly continued into the early 19th Century. As William Kirby wrote in 1835:

‘In no part of creation are the power, wisdom and goodness of its beneficent and almighty Author more signally conspicuous than in the various animals that inhabit and enliven our globe.’ ([4], vol. 1,p. 1)

and in his second volume:

‘All these, in their several stations, and by their several operations, glorify their Almighty Author by fulfilling his will.’ ([4], vol. 2,p. 408).

William Kirby. On the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God as Manifested in the Creation of Animals and in Their History, Habits and Instincts. W. Pickering, 1835. Volumes 1,2.

The strong religious basis for academia persisted throughout the early modern period and the presupposition of a divine creator remained. The primary goal of scientific study was still to glorify God, not to expand our understanding of the universe as it is today. Science as a field has undergone a fundamental shift in its purpose and aims but can that be put down to the works of Wallace concerning evolutionary theory?

Wallace’s contribution

The birth of evolutionary theory is often considered a turning-point for the common worldview of the west transforming from a creationist to a materialist standpoint, but did Wallace play a part in provoking this change? In some of his final works, Wallace advocates the ‘absolute necessity of a creative and directive power and mind’ in the creation of the universe ([5],p. 399). He sympathises with Herbert Spencer’s conclusion ‘that the universe could not have existed without an intelligent cause’ and goes on to explain his views on how much can be known about said ‘absolute creator’ ([5],p. 392). If Wallace agreed with the need to posit a ‘creator’ to explain the origin of life, did he play any part in prompting changes to scientific study?

Alfred Russel Wallace. The World of Life : A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind, and Ultimate Purpose. London: Chapman and Hall, 1910.

Wallace recognised that by the early modern worldview ‘it is impious to seek any other reason [than] “it was Gods will”’ ([5],p. 391) and, due to his theory, there were ‘vast changes in educated public opinion which it rapidly and permanently effected’ ([2], p. 140). This illustrates how, although the need for a creating entity remained, the evolutionary mechanism used for the differentiation and speciation of living organisms could now be freely investigated without ‘condemnation’ ([3],p. 79). ‘What was a “great heresy” is now common knowledge’ as Wallace put it ([2], p. 140).

What Caused the Shift?

So, if the work of Wallace and his fellow naturalists didn’t cause the fundamental shift in worldview, what did? There are many possible answers to this question however, the main causes were likely the gradual separation of society from the church, along with further scientific research such as Watson and Crick’s discovery of the DNA structure in 1953, diminishing the desire for a creative entity to be posited into scientific theory of the origin of life. This transformation was strengthened by the New Atheists, such as Richard Dawkins etc…, releasing works such as “The Blind Watchmaker”, suggesting that the belief in a creator not only goes against common scientific understanding but is also ‘delusional’. [6] Due to the myriad of new scientific discoveries and research, a divine entity is no longer seen as necessary for the origin of life, contrary to the viewpoints of Wallace and other scientists throughout the early modern period into the early 20th century.

W. Whiston. A New Theory of Earth. London: R. Roberts. 1696. References

[1] Natural History Museum: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/who-was-alfred-russel-wallace.html

[2] Alfred Russel Wallace. The Wonderful Century : its successes and its failures. London : Swan Sonnenschen & Co. 1898.

[3] W. Whiston. A New Theory of Earth. London: R. Roberts. 1696.

[4] William Kirby. On the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God as Manifested in the Creation of Animals and in Their History, Habits and Instincts. W. Pickering, 1835.

[5] Alfred Russel Wallace. The World of Life : A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind, and Ultimate Purpose. London: Chapman and Hall, 1910. 

[6] Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion / Richard Dawkins. London: Black Swan, 2007. 

Marie-Anne Paulze, the other Lavoisier

Tue, 08/03/2022 - 09:30

When hearing Lavoisier, most people think about Antoine – the chemist – rather than Marie-Anne, his wife. Yet, almost anyone who has read a Lavoisier has also unknowingly seen her work.

Paulze was born in a relatively wealthy family, listed by some French authors as belonging to the low nobility. Although opinions differ on how close she was to her future husband prior to their engagement, her father’s surviving correspondence does indicate that their wedding – when she was only 13 and Lavoisier 28 – was a mean to avoid a marriage arranged by a maternal relative.

Title page of the Traité Élémentaire de Chimie The artist and salon-leader

Paulze’s most obvious contribution to science are the thirteen engravings adorning Lavoisier’s Traité élémentaire de Chimie, all signed ‘Paulze-Lavoisier’. Having taken classes with famous artist and art teacher Jacques-Louis David, she also produced at least two additional drawings showing the Lavoisier laboratory and experiments, with herself visible at a desk at the back. [1]

As many upper-class women of her time, Paulze held a weekly salon where various visitors could exchange on the latest inventions and discoveries. These salons were key in the spreading of scientific ideas during the Enlightenment, providing a social space for upper-class researchers to exchange on their latest experiments and discoveries [2]. Fara [3] notes: “Within a few years she was leading one of Paris’ most important scientific conversation circles, entertaining Benjamin Franklin, Joseph Priestley, James Watt and many other distinguished visitors. Lavoisier’s scientific success depended on being able to gain the backing of influential people by inviting them to these salons.” (2004, p.175). This highlights the importance Paulze had in furthering her husband’s ideas, but also her own ability to hold the attention and conversation of these ‘distinguished’ scientists.

The translator

It is known that Paulze learnt several additional languages – Latin, Italian, and English – to better communicate with foreign scientists and translates their works. As her husband did not read English, these translations were key in keeping him and his co-workers informed of the latest discoveries abroad [4].

The most important example of her contribution is, without doubt, her translation of Richard Kirwan’s Essay on Phlogiston and the Constitution of Acids (1787). Phlogiston (‘burning up’ in Ancient Greek) theory would date as far back as Aristotle, but would not be fully formulated until George Stahl’s experiments in the late 17th century. The idea was that ‘phlogiston’ would be released during any combustion of ‘phlogisticated’ elements, and then absorbed by plants. Kirwan identified ‘phlogiston’ as ‘inflammable air’, but Lavoisier did not believe in this theory. [5]

Plate 4 of the Traité Élémentaire de Chimie. The apparatus used in the experiments related to phlogiston is visible in the upper right corner. In the centre, an instrument to control the combustion of hydrogen. A gas holder, allowing Lavoisier to ‘weight’ gas

Paulze’s translation, with commentaries and further notes, was an instrumental text in the end of the phlogiston theory. Her own additions to the work were widely acknowledged at the time, however it would take modern studies to truly understand the depth of the annotations she made to the text. It was noted, for example, that the reference notes were much more precise in the translated French than they had been in English, showing her own knowledge of sciences. [6]

Lavoisier’s calorimeter, used to measure heat – for example, the heat generated by a guinea pig. Cross-section of the calorimeter. The central basket would have held the heat source, while the two compartments around it would have been filled with ice. The chemist?

From her translations, notes, and the correspondence surrounding her, it is clear that Paulze had an excellent grasp of chemistry. Ruelland [7] notes that her handwriting was easily noticeable throughout the research notes taken during Lavoisier’s experiments, and that she had likely started to take measurements for these experiments as early as 1772 – a year into their marriage.

Various chemistry apparatus – similar to the ones visible on the drawings Paulze made of her husband’s experiments, where she was visible in the background.

Had Lavoisier lived, it is very possible that she would have continued to contribute to his works. However, the Terror cut this short. In 1794, both Lavoisier and Paulze’s father were accused of having defrauded the state, arrested, and executed. Paulze herself spent over two months in prison, followed by over a year waiting for her properties to be returned to her after being confiscated – this including all of Lavoisier’s papers, their instruments, and of course their money. It would take ten years for her to finally publish her husband’s final works in the Mémoires de Chimie.

Kawashima [8] reminds us that in doing so, Paulze was not just expanding Lavoisier’s influence, but she was also raising her own status. In 18th and 19th century France, a woman’s intellectual value was based on her husband’s – or nearest male relative’s – work; they were to be diligent and dutiful assistants, not researchers in their own right. Additionally, post-Revolution France placed much more importance on the newly-created or democratised schools and universities, which were closed to women.

A short and failed marriage to American scientist Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford, did not bring her the freedom of study she had enjoyed as Lavoisier’s partner [9]. She continued to hold scientific salons until she passed away in 1836.

Paulze’s engraver signature at the bottom of her illustrations

Blog post researched, written and produced by Raphaëlle Goyeau, Library Assistant.

Pictured

STORE 123:19-20. Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, Marie-Anne Pierrette Lavoisier. Traité élémentaire de chimie : présenté dans un ordre nouveau et d’après les découvertes modernes. Paris: Chez Cuchet ; de l’Imprimerie Chardon. 1789.

References

[1] Mary Vidal. ‘The ‘Other Atelier’: Jacques-Louis David’s Female Students’. In Melissa Hyde, Jennifer Milam, Alluson M. Poska, and Abby Zanger, Women, Art and the Poltiics of Identity in Eighteenth-Century Europe. London: Routledge. 2003.

[2] Charles W.J. Withers. Placing the Enlightenment thinking geographically about the age of reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2007. – In particular pp. 76-86 ‘Talking places: coffeehouses, pubs, and salons’.

[3] Patricia Fara. Pandora’s breeches : women, science and power in the Enlightenment. London: Pimlico. 2004.

[4] Alexandre Yu Rulev and Mikhail G. Voronjov. ‘Women in chemistry: a life devoted to science’, New journal of chemistry, 37(12), 3826-3832. 

[5] Seymour Mauskop. ‘Richard Kirwan’s Phlogiston Theory: Its Success and Fate’, Ambix, 49(3), 185-205.

[6] Keiko Kawashima. ‘Madame Lavoisier et la traduction française de l’“Essay on phlogiston” de Kirwan’, Revue d’histoire des sciences, 53(2), 235-263.

[7] Jacques G. Ruelland. ‘Marie-Anne Pierrette Paulze-Lavoisier, Comtesse de Rumford (1758-1836): Lumière surgie de l’ombre’, Dix-huitième siècle, 36(1), 99-112.

[8] Keiko Kawashima. Émilie du Châtelet et Marie-Anne Lavoisier : science et genre au XVIIIe siècle. Paris : Honoré Champion Éditeur. 2013.

[9] Marelene Rayner-Canham and Geoff Rayner-Canham. ‘Sone pioneering Canadian women chemists: lives and contributions’, Canadian journal of chemistry, 99(8), 661-667.

Varenius’ Geographia Generalis

Mon, 28/02/2022 - 12:05

As is the case for several other scientists mentioned on this blog, Varenius (or Varen) did not start his studies in the field he would become most well-known for, but in medicine. His only medical publication De febri in Genere [on fever in general], submitted at the end of studies at Leiden University, came out in June 1649 mere weeks apart from his first geographical work: Descriptio Regni Japoniae [Description of the Kingdom of Japan]. The following year, he published his magnum opus Geographia Generalis before disappearing from scholarly life – and, indeed, life altogether. [1]

What is so special about the Geographia Generalis?

The Encyclopaedia Britannica summarises the importance of the Geographia Generalis as “not only a systematic geography on a scale not previously attempted but also […] a scheme for special, now know as regional, geography” [2].

These two aspects are particularly important to the field of geography. If cartography was important in Western Europe, at the time right in the middle of the ‘Contact Period’ (also called Age of European expansion, roughly 15th to 18th century), geography was hardly a codified science. Schuchard [1] names several predecessors to Varenius, such as Paul Merula, David Christiani, Bertholomäus Keckermann, or Philipp Clüver. The two latter did produce geographical textbooks, however Keckermann’s was not – as far as we are aware – re-edited, while Clüver’s remained mostly in Latin with a couple of German and French editions. This gives Varenius the important place of first ‘widely translated’ textbook in the field.

As the Encyclopedia Britannica mentions, the Geographia separates ‘general’ and ‘special’ geography – now known as ‘physical’ and ‘regional’ geography. Regional geography, as its name indicates it, focuses on a specific region, and is not explored much in the Geographia. This should not be taken as a sign of disinterest; Varenius’ first geographical work was, after all, a study of a specific country. Nonetheless, the disconnection of the two and lack of treatment of the latter in modern days has sometimes been attributed to this original separation [3]. Baker [4] attributes this to erroneous translations, and to the early passing of Varenius who may have intended to publish more works on special geography.

The organisation of the Geographia in general chapters also allowed future editions to easily expand on each aspect of the book – from dimensions and measurements of the Earth to various aspects of the Ocean, and even a section on the ‘Aether’. As this is primarily a book codifying geography, the reader should expect geometrical models of the Earth rather than maps – which might explains the editor of our copy.

Isaac Newton Isaac Newton’s name, and printer’s device of the University of Cambridge on the title page.

As a Cambridge library focusing on the history and philosophy of science, Newton tends to come up fairly regularly – including where you do not necessarily expect him. In the early days of his scientific career, the same year he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (1672 – incidentally making this year this book’s 350th publishing anniversary), Newton edited this print of the Geographia Generalis.

Warntz [5] theorises that Newton may have been introduced to the Geographia by his academic advisor, Isaac Barrow – first Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, who was also responsible for teaching geography. With the original edition being in short supply, and in need of revision, the newly appointed Newton (he held the chair from 1669 to 1702) took on the task of updating the Geographia.

Warntz [5] also quotes Dugdale’s and Shaw’s English edition (titled A Compleat System of General Geography), where they state that the figures and tables of this edition were authored by Newton himself. Beyond these tables, Newton made extensive corrections and revisions to the Geographia, sometimes rewriting entire portions of the text. He would produce one more edition, in 1681. After him, the ‘Newtonian’ Master of Trinity College Richard Bentley pushed further revisions, leading to James Jurin’s 1712 edition, which drew heavily on the geographical and mathematical advancements of other Newtonians – making the Geographia into an additional instrument of communication for Newtonian science.

The Geographia travels

Several editions followed Jurin’s, including a last Latin edition in 1715, multiple English editions and re-issues (1733, 1734, 1736, 1765), a Dutch one (1750), a French one (1755), and two Russian ones (1718, 1790).

Mayhew [6] notes that the Geographia was an excellent example of print trade networks – with the Latin editions from Cambridge University Press using Dutch typefaces, and being produced for the ‘Republic of Letters’ (p. 186), meaning that they were meant to be read by a wide range of academics from around Europe. This would explain the multiple editions in various languages, and the references to Varenius’ work by later geography scholars, such as the French Paul Vidal de la Blache (1845-1918) [7].

Although there is little to no direct mention of Varenius (contrary to the works of Blache), Rebok [8] also notes similarities in methods in the writing of the American Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and the Prussian Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859). This may confirm Martin’s [9] analysis that translations of Varenius were studied in New England well into the 18th century.

It is clear that Varenius, despite his very short career, continued to influence geography well-beyond his time. If you would like to see this book in person, feel free to get in touch with us!

Blog post researched, written and produced by Raphaëlle Goyeau, Library Assistant

Pictured

STORE 71:2. Bernhardus Varenius, Isaac Newton (ed). Bernhardi Vareni Geographia generalis, in qua affections generals telluris explicantur … aliquot quae desiderabantur aucta & illustrate. Cantabrigiae [Cambridge]: ex officina Joann. Hayes. 1672.

References

[1] Margret Schuchard (ed.). Bernard Varenius (1622-1650). Leiden: Brill. 2007.

[2] Encyclopedia Britannica. Bernhardus Varenius: German geographer. Available at https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bernhardus-Varenius 

[3] James E. Preston. ‘On the Origin and Persistence of Error in Geography’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 57(1), 1-24.

[4] J.N.L. Baker. ‘The Geography of Bernhard Varenius’, Transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers), 1955, 21. 51-60.

[5] William Warntz. ‘Newton, the Newtonians, and the Geographia Generalis Varenii’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 79(2), 165-191.

[6] Robert J. Mayhew. ‘Printing Posterity: Editing Varenius and the Construction of Geography’s History’ in Miles Ogborn and Charles W.J. Withers (eds.) Geographies of the book. London: Routledge. 2016.

[7] Paul Vidal de la Blache. ‘Le principe de la géographie générale’, Annales de Géographie 5(20), 129-142.

[8] Sandra Rebok. ‘The influence of Bernhard Varenius in the Geographical works of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander von Humboldt. In Margret Schuchard (ed.). Bernard Varenius (1622-1650). Leiden: Brill. 2007.

[9] Geoffrey J. Martin. ‘The emergence and development of geographic thought in New England’, Economic geography 74(5), 1-13.