The European Union in a Changing

World Order Antonina Bakardjieva

Engelbrekt
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-european-union-in-a-changing-world-order-antoni
na-bakardjieva-engelbrekt/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The European Union And The Technology Shift 1st Edition

Antonina Bakardjieva Engelbrekt

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-european-union-and-the-
technology-shift-1st-edition-antonina-bakardjieva-engelbrekt/

The EU between Federal Union and Flexible Integration:

Interdisciplinary European Studies Antonina Bakardjieva
Engelbrekt

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-eu-between-federal-union-and-
flexible-integration-interdisciplinary-european-studies-antonina-
bakardjieva-engelbrekt/

India and the European Union in a Turbulent World 1st

ed. Edition Rajendra K. Jain

https://ebookmass.com/product/india-and-the-european-union-in-a-
turbulent-world-1st-ed-edition-rajendra-k-jain/

Constitutional Change in the European Union: Towards a

Federal Europe Andrew Duff

https://ebookmass.com/product/constitutional-change-in-the-
european-union-towards-a-federal-europe-andrew-duff/
The European Ombudsman and Good Administration in the
European Union 1st Edition Nikos Vogiatzis (Auth.)

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-european-ombudsman-and-good-
administration-in-the-european-union-1st-edition-nikos-vogiatzis-
auth/

Feed-in tariffs in the European Union 1st ed. Edition

Béatrice Cointe

https://ebookmass.com/product/feed-in-tariffs-in-the-european-
union-1st-ed-edition-beatrice-cointe/

Coping with Stress in a Changing World, 5th Edition

https://ebookmass.com/product/coping-with-stress-in-a-changing-
world-5th-edition/

Sociology in a Changing World 9th Edition, (Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/sociology-in-a-changing-world-9th-
edition-ebook-pdf/

Nationalism in Internationalism: Ireland's Relationship

with the European Union Michael Holmes

https://ebookmass.com/product/nationalism-in-internationalism-
irelands-relationship-with-the-european-union-michael-holmes/
 THE EUROPEAN
UNION IN A CHANGING
WORLD ORDER
Interdisciplinary European Studies

EDITED BY ANTONINA BAKARDJIEVA ENGELBREKT

NIKLAS BREMBERG · ANNA MICHALSKI · LARS OXELHEIM
The European Union in a Changing World Order
 Antonina Bakardjieva Engelbrekt
Niklas Bremberg • Anna Michalski
Lars Oxelheim
Editors

The European Union

in a Changing World
Order
Interdisciplinary European Studies
Editors
Antonina Bakardjieva Engelbrekt Niklas Bremberg
Department of Law Department of Political Science
Stockholm University Stockholm University
Stockholm, Sweden Stockholm, Sweden

Anna Michalski Lars Oxelheim

Department of Government School of Business and Law
Uppsala University University of Agder (UiA)
Uppsala, Sweden Kristiansand, Norway
Research Institute of Industrial
Economics (IFN)
Stockholm, Sweden

ISBN 978-3-030-18000-3    ISBN 978-3-030-18001-0 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18001-0

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institu-
tional affiliations.

Cover illustration: Robsonphoto / Shutterstock

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Contents

1 The European Union in a Changing World Order: What

Is at Stake?  1
Antonina Bakardjieva Engelbrekt, Niklas Bremberg, Anna
Michalski, and Lars Oxelheim

2 European Autonomy in a Changing World Order 23

Björn Fägersten

3 Brexit, Trumpism and the Structure of International

Trade Regulation 47
Per Cramér

4 The Challenges to EU Trade Policy in a Changing World

Order 81
Claes G. Alvstam and Lena Lindberg

5 From “Trade and Sustainability” to “Trade for

Sustainability” in EU External Trade Policy115
Karolina Zurek

v
vi Contents

6 EU Climate Policy in a Changing World Order145

Sverker C. Jagers, Frida Nilsson, and Thomas Sterner

7 Migration and the European Welfare State in a Changing

World Order167
Johan E. Eklund and Pontus Braunerhjelm

8 EU Foreign and Security Policy in a Mediatized Age193

Douglas Brommesson and Ann-Marie Ekengren

9 Populism as a Challenge to Liberal Democracy in Europe217

Sofie Blombäck

10 Can the EU Protect Its Fundamental Values?245

Erik O. Wennerström

Index273
 Notes on Contributors

Claes G. Alvstam is Professor (Emeritus) of Economic Geography at the

Department of Business Administration, School of Business, Economics
and Law at the University of Gothenburg. His research interests include
international trade and investment, and regional economic integration,
with a special focus on Central/Eastern Europe and Asia.
Antonina Bakardjieva Engelbrekt is Professor of European Law and
Torsten och Ragnar Söderberg Professor of Legal Science (2015–2018) at
the Faculty of Law, Stockholm University. She is Chair of the Swedish
Network for European Legal Studies (SNELS). Her research interests
include Europeanization and globalization and their influence on national
law and institutions.
Sofie Blombäck is Lecturer in Political Science at the Department of
Social Sciences, Mid Sweden University. Her research interests include
political parties, populism, and multilevel elections, especially involving
the European Parliament.
Pontus Braunerhjelm is Research Director at the Swedish
Entrepreneurship Forum and Professor in Economics at the Department
of Industrial Economics and Management, Royal Institute of Technology.
His research interests include entrepreneurship, innovation and market
dynamism.
Niklas Bremberg is an associate professor at the Department of Political
Science at Stockholm University and a senior research fellow at the Swedish
Institute of International Affairs. His research interests include EU foreign

vii
viii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

and security policy, European diplomatic practices, and climate-related

security risks.
Douglas Brommesson is Associate Professor in Political Science at the
Department of Political Science, Lund University. His research interests
include Foreign Policy Analysis, religion and politics, party politics.
Per Cramér is Professor of International Law and Dean at the School of
Business, Economics and Law at the University of Gothenburg. He holds
the Jean Monnet Chair in European Integration Law at the University of
Gothenburg. His research interests include the external identity of
the EU, especially the relationship between the Common Foreign
and Security Policy and the Common Commercial Policy.
Ann-Marie Ekengren is Professor of Political Science and Deputy Head
of the Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg. Her
research interests include foreign policy decision-making, with a particular
focus on Sweden and comparative case studies.
Johan E. Eklund is CEO of the Swedish Entrepreneurship Forum and
Professor of Industrial Economics at the Department of Industrial
Economics, Blekinge Institute of Technology. His research interests
include entrepreneurship, industrial economics and regulations.
Björn Fägersten is Senior Research Fellow and Director of the Europe
Programme at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs. He holds a
Ph.D. in Political Science from Lund University. His research interests
include European security, intelligence cooperation and political risk.
Sverker C. Jagers is Professor of Political Science and Director of the
Centre for Collective Action Research (CeCAR) at the Department of
Political Science, University of Gothenburg. His research interests include
environmental politics, especially public attitudes, democracy and sustain-
able development.
Lena Lindberg is Deputy Director at the Department for Asia and the
Pacific, Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. She holds a Ph.D. in
Economics from the University of Gothenburg. Her research interests
include international trade and regulations, with a special focus on EU
trade relations with Asian countries.
Anna Michalski is Associate Professor of Political Science at the
Department of Government, Uppsala University. She is Chair for the
 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS ix

Swedish Network for European Studies in Political Science (SNES). Her

research focuses on European foreign policy, EU-China relations,
and socialization in international organizations.
Frida Nilsson is Research Assistant at the Department of Business
Administration, School of Business, Economics and Law at the University
of Gothenburg. She holds a Master’s Degree in Political Science from the
University of Gothenburg. Her research interests include environmental
politics, public trust and collective action.
Lars Oxelheim is Professor of International Business and Finance at the
University of Agder. He is the founder of the Swedish Network for
European Studies in Economics and Business (SNEE). His research inter-
ests include economic and financial integration, corporate governance,
and risk management.
Thomas Sterner is Professor of Environmental Economics at the
Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law at the
University of Gothenburg. His research interests include discounting and
instrument design for climate and environmental policy.
Erik O. Wennerström is Director General for the Swedish National
Council for Crime Prevention, Stockholm, Sweden. He holds a Ph.D. in
Law from Uppsala University. His research interests include rule of law
and human rights, particularly in relation to the development of EU law.
Karolina Zurek is Senior Advisor at the National Board of Trade in
Sweden. She holds a Ph.D. in Law from the European University Institute.
Her research interests include international trade and regulations, espe-
cially with a focus on sustainability and development.
 List of Figures

Fig. 4.1 The EU’s extra-regional trade in goods (2017) 98

Fig. 6.1 EU climate policy 153
Fig. 7.1 Number of asylum applications granted in 2016 per 10,000
inhabitants in the EU 170
Fig. 7.2 Percentage of employees in occupations with little or no
educational requirements in Europe 183
Fig. 7.3 Employment gap between native-born and foreign-born workers
in Europe 184
Fig. 9.1 Share of votes for populist parties in the 2014 European
Parliament elections 231
Fig. 9.2 Difference in vote share for populist parties between national and
European Parliament elections 2010–2014 232
Fig. 9.3 Share of votes for populist parties in national parliaments in 2018 234
Fig. 9.4 Difference in vote share for populist parties between European
Parliament elections 2014 and the latest national elections 236

xi
 List of Tables

Table 6.1 CO2 emissions 1850–1960 (megatons carbon) 148

Table 6.2 Population, GDP and CO2 emissions 1990–2015 150
Table 7.1 Public spending as a percentage of GDP distributed by
expenditure area 173
Table 9.1 Populist parties in EU Member States 2010–2018 228
Table 10.1 EU values as defined by the Treaty on European Union 249
Table 10.2 Lists of mechanisms to protect EU values 262

xiii
 CHAPTER 1

The European Union in a Changing World

Order: What Is at Stake?

Antonina Bakardjieva Engelbrekt, Niklas Bremberg,

Anna Michalski, and Lars Oxelheim

Introduction
The international system is in a state of upheaval. In the last decade, much
of public debate has been dedicated to global power shifts away from the
United States and Europe and towards countries with strong economic
growth or development potential, such as China, India, Brazil, and South

A. Bakardjieva Engelbrekt
Department of Law, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
e-mail: antonina.bakardjieva@juridicum.su.se
N. Bremberg (*)
Department of Political Science, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
e-mail: niklas.bremberg@statsvet.su.se
A. Michalski
Department of Government, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
e-mail: anna.michalski@statsvet.uu.se
L. Oxelheim
School of Business and Law, University of Agder (UiA), Kristiansand, Norway
Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN), Stockholm, Sweden
e-mail: lars.oxelheim@telia.com

© The Author(s) 2020 1

A. Bakardjieva Engelbrekt et al. (eds.), The European Union in a
Changing World Order,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18001-0_1
2 A. BAKARDJIEVA ENGELBREKT ET AL.

Africa. This trend grew stronger in the wake of the financial and economic
crisis in 2008–2010, the Eurozone crisis in 2010, and the relatively weak
economic recovery in numerous parts of the western world, which further
underlined the vulnerability of the liberal market model (see e.g. Bernitz
et al. 2018). New security threats in the form of terrorism and acts of vio-
lence by non-state actors are shaking Europe and its neighbours, while war,
instability, poor governance, and climate change have forced over 65 mil-
lion people from home (see e.g. Bakardijeva Engelbrekt et al. 2018a, b).
Meanwhile, major technological shifts in the form of digitization, robotiza-
tion, and artificial intelligence have already begun to upset traditional pat-
terns of economic and social interaction (see e.g. Teigland et al. 2018).
These developments have the effect of seriously unsettling the liberal
international order as we know it. This order was shaped in the decades
following World War II and it lead to the exponential spread of democratic
norms and values after the end of the Cold War. However, this liberal
order is now facing severe challenges, threatening ultimately to lead to its
demise. In terms of external challenges the growing influence of rising
great powers is particularly notable. Many of these great powers do not
share western values, and are openly defying established principles of
international cooperation by advocating alternative world orders. In terms
of internal challenges, equally vociferous contestation towards the liberal
world order have been coming from inside the West, where populism and
nationalism are posing a threat to the very foundations of liberal democ-
racy. As we are approaching the end of the 2010s, most European coun-
tries are wrestling with anti-democratic forces that are challenging
prevailing values and forms of government whereas the United States is
being torn apart by a growing partisanship divide while President Trump
is openly defying long-cherished rules and government practice.
In 2018 the EU celebrated the 60th anniversary of the entry into force
of the Treaty of Rome. In the course of its history, the Union has suffered
serious setbacks and navigated through a number of crises. Yet, the above
described foundering of the liberal world order arguably constitutes the
Union’s most complex challenge to date. Much of the complexity resides
in the fact that the EU is at once the product of this world order and a
guarantor of the same. The mutual dependency between the EU and the
liberal world order raises fundamental questions: How should the EU
work to maintain international free trade in a context marked by an esca-
lating trade war, and how is the new protectionist US trade policy affect-
ing the EU and the Euro? Can the strong waves of neo-mercantilism
 1 THE EUROPEAN UNION IN A CHANGING WORLD ORDER: WHAT IS… 3

triggered by a number of great powers be stopped, and what effects will

economic nationalism have on the advancement of global financial regula-
tion? Can the European-style welfare state survive in a changing world
order that is marked by uncertainty and divisiveness? How is the weaken-
ing of multilateralism and global regulation influencing EU’s capacity to
act in the rest of the world? What impact will Brexit have on European
cohesion and the future shape of the EU? What influence will right-wing
populist parties have on EU member states capacity to act in common and
pursue European policies? Can international law and the rule of law sur-
vive in an increasingly illiberal world order, and how can the consistency
of the EU legal order be ensured against nationalist forces? How will the
media image of the EU and EU communications policy be affected not
only by social media but also by disinformation and propaganda?
This is the second book in Palgrave’s Interdisciplinary European Studies
book series. The book is published at a time when the EU is facing the
most complex challenge of its existence: that is, how to stay true to the
principles of its own inception in an increasingly less liberal world order.
Considering the profound changes arising from global power shifts and
contestation towards liberal values and forms of government, the book’s
interdisciplinary, holistic approach is particularly apt. Order at the interna-
tional level, however, is a complicated concept. In various ways, therefore,
the authors of this book address how a changing world order is affecting
the EU and how the EU, in turn is trying to shape the emerging new
order by recalibrating its policies and actions in various domains, ranging
from the Union’s relations with the rest of the world, the relations among
the member states and EU institutions as well as the impact of the Union’s
current and future policies. In order to pave the way for the following
chapters in the book, this chapter, by way of introduction, aims to shed
light on how tightly the EU and the liberal international order are
entwined and discuss the likely impact on the EU of a changing and, most
likely, less liberal world order.

The EU and the Emergence of the Liberal World

Order
The founding of the European Economic Community (EEC) with the
entry into force of the Treaty of Rome in 1958 marked a key step in the
creation of what is now the EU. At the time, a customs union was created
4 A. BAKARDJIEVA ENGELBREKT ET AL.

through the EEC among the six original member states: West Germany,
France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Following the
creation of the customs union, the EEC also crafted a common external
trade policy. The customs union and the trade policy can both be regarded
as important components of the US post–World War II goal of promoting
economic exchange between the countries in the “free” (western) world.
US efforts to strengthen the liberal order, primarily through the Bretton
Woods Institutions, were further advanced by several significant free trade
talks in the 1940s, ‘50s, and ‘60s within the framework of GATT (General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), in which the EEC was able to negotiate
as a unified party. Another important dimension of the European external
trade policy was the possibilities it offered countries like France, Belgium,
and the Netherlands to maintain economic influence over the former colo-
nies in Africa and Asia as well as to uphold the responsibility for ensuring
efficient trade with these countries through the establishment of trade and
cooperation agreements with the same, from Yaoundé (1963–1975) to
Lomé (1975–2000).1
As economic integration within the European Community (EC) deep-
ened in the following decades, more western European countries joined
the organization, starting with the United Kingdom, Ireland, and
Denmark in 1973. This was soon followed by the accession to the EC by
the southern European countries, first Greece in 1981 and soon thereafter
Portugal and Spain in 1986. For these three new member states, the deci-
sion to seek and obtain membership of the EC was aimed at securing
democratic consolidation and bolstering the difficult path to socioeco-
nomic modernization (Michalski and Wallace 1993). Then, in the begin-
ning of the 1990s, the deepening of market integration and the momentous
geopolitical shift in guise of the end to the Cold War both contributed to
the creation of the European Union (EU) through the Maastricht Treaty
in 1993. The end of the Cold War also allowed for the accession in 1995
of Sweden, Finland, and Austria, whose neutrality had hitherto prevented
such a step. The swift “EFTA enlargement” that brought in the three
members of the European Free Trade Association into the EU was suc-
ceeded by a long period of adjustment to conditions of membership for
the ten formerly communist countries in Eastern and Central Europe,
along with Cyprus, and Malta, which acceded to the EU in 2004 and

1
On the development of EU trade policy and its role in the global economy, see e.g.
Tsoukalis (1997), Meunier (2005), Baldwin (2006).
 1 THE EUROPEAN UNION IN A CHANGING WORLD ORDER: WHAT IS… 5

2007. In a way, the role of the EU as a stabilizing force in Europe came to

fruition with this major eastern enlargement. That the EU had, in a sense,
found its geopolitical calling in a united continent was apparent in the
increasingly explicit conditions imposed on countries that applied for
membership, which were compelled to demonstrate a functioning market
economy, democratic government, and the effective rule of law
(Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier 2005). The European integration pro-
cess and the role of the EU in the emerging liberal order were thus
entwined from the outset, and in that sense the process of market integra-
tion in Europe and the regulation of international trade can be regarded,
from a European perspective, as two sides of the same coin.
But European integration has obviously not only served a strictly eco-
nomic purpose. The safeguarding of liberal democracy in Europe has been
equally important, partly in the attempt to prevent the return of fascism to
countries like Germany and Italy and partly as a way to counteract Soviet
influence in Europe. The refusal to allow the authoritarian regimes in
Spain, Portugal, and Greece to join the EEC before the 1980s is thought
to have helped garner support for democratization among national elites,
and EU membership has thus become strongly associated with liberal
democracy and the rule of law (Linz and Stepan 1996). US support, pri-
marily in the form of economic aid to rebuild Western Europe after World
War II and later as a guarantor of national security during the Cold War,
also strengthened the impression that European integration and liberal
democracy work hand in glove (Dinan 1994). This was further strength-
ened by the EU enlargements in 2004 and 2007, which were made pos-
sible by several years of democratic and free market reforms in Central and
Eastern European countries supported by the EU’s pre-accession policy
(Michalski 2014). In this process, the EU worked with other regional
organizations dedicated to democracy, market economy, the rule of law,
and human rights, such as the Council of Europe, the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the Organization for
Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE) (see e.g. Checkel 2007;
Sadurski 2012). The sustained focus on democracy, rule of law and human
rights in the course of this last EU enlargement contributed not least to
the stronger constitutionalisation of these values and principles within the
Union itself (De Burca 2003; Sadurski 2004).
However, the US and the EU have not always seen eye-to-eye on for-
eign and security policy, and they have tended to put economic and politi-
cal considerations above their inclination to defend human rights around
6 A. BAKARDJIEVA ENGELBREKT ET AL.

the world. Although the US and the EU have diverging views on matters
including power, global governance, and national obligations in the global
community, they have nonetheless been driving forces in the spread of
liberal democracy and free trade that the world has witnessed since the end
of the Cold War (Anderson et al. 2008). The EU and the US are thus both
essential components of the liberal world order. The question of whether
this world order is still viable is therefore crucial, as is the question of what
the EU can do to safeguard important advances on the international level.

Geopolitics and Multilateral Institutions

in a Changing World Order

Order has multiple meanings.2 In the everyday sense, “order” usually

refers to something that occurs regularly and is relatively formalized.
Regular cooperation that arises spontaneously when individuals have simi-
lar interests or shared problems constitutes a kind of order, even if it natu-
rally does not uphold the same measure of formality as the legal order
through which the rights and obligations of citizens are regulated in mod-
ern states governed by the rule of law. The term “world order” can also be
said to encompass both these aspects. First, there is the notion that a
world order is apparent in the regularity with which states and other
important actors interact with each other, which can be regarded in terms
of social practice and is manifested in, for example, the diplomatic code of
conduct (Bicchi and Bremberg 2016). Secondly, the term refers to the
structure of the international system, which in its liberal version is informed
by generally accepted norms and organizations, such as UN bodies and
the World Trade Organization (WTO). According to the realist perspec-
tive on international politics, it is problematic to imagine an international
order being anything more than a balance of power among the global
great powers that dominate geopolitics in any given epoch (see e.g. Waltz
2010 [1979]; Gilpin 1983). Accordingly, prospects for achieving a perma-
nent and peaceful international order are dim, and when such order does
arise, as in the nineteenth-century Congress System in Europe, it is subor-
dinate to great power politics. Historically speaking, international order
has ultimately been upheld by a hegemonic power, such as Spain in the
sixteenth century, Great Britain in the late nineteenth century, and the US
since 1945.
2
On the concept of order in international politics, see e.g. Bull (2012), Guzzini (2013).
 1 THE EUROPEAN UNION IN A CHANGING WORLD ORDER: WHAT IS… 7

In contrast to the realist understanding of international order, the lib-

eral perspective on international politics suggests that order is created
when states and other actors, especially economic actors, believe there are
advantages to common rules and institutions (see e.g. Moravcsik 1997;
Slaughter 2009). US hegemony was indeed essential for the emergence of
the liberal world order as it emerged after World War II but what made it
distinct from previous orders was that the interests, values, and vulnerabil-
ities (particularly the common threat from the Soviet Union) of the US
and leading western European states coincided to a large extent. After the
end of the Cold War, the liberal world order expanded through free mar-
ket and democratic reforms in many areas of the world. In connection
with this transition, Francis Fukuyama (2012 [1992]) famously expressed
the idea in The End of History and the Last Man that liberal democracy
and market economy had settled all ideological battles about which model
of society can best meet the needs of humanity. Geopolitical develop-
ments have, however, shown that liberal norms and values are not easily
transferable to countries beyond the West, and may even be perceived as
a threat to the status of national elites in many countries. In addition,
political developments in Western countries since the 2010s have laid bare
the vulnerability of pluralist political systems to domestic criticism and
populism, where citizens’ anxiety about the future must clearly be
addressed.
In contrast to realist-inspired analyses of ongoing power shifts from the
West to Asia that emphasized the increased risk for armed contestation
(e.g. Mearsheimer 2010), John Ikenberry (2011) has argued that these
risks might be overstated and the odds that the liberal international order
will survive are actually better than they might seem at first sight. While
Ikenberry does not deny the force of this power shift, he contends that the
liberal order should be able to persist even if the US loses its hegemonic
position. His argument is based on the assumption that rising great pow-
ers like China and India will ultimately benefit by preserving the order
because it provides for a range of public goods in the form of common
rules for world trade and institutions for collective action to manage
shared challenges such as security threats and climate change.
According to Ikenberry, it would be much easier (and more advanta-
geous) for the rising powers to embrace the liberal international order
than to overturn it. A prerequisite for Ikenberry’s scenario, however, is
that the US and the EU are capable of integrating the new great powers
into liberal institutions and concede that they are going to affect the
8 A. BAKARDJIEVA ENGELBREKT ET AL.

structure of these institutions, for instance, through an adjustment of the

­current rules. Even though the EU and its member states have demon-
strated a relatively high degree of flexibility on this issue, such as by sup-
porting China’s membership in the WTO and its right to vote in the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), the US has shown reluctance to give
rising powers, China in particular, a place at the table. Consequent upon
Donald Trump becoming US President, the American attitude has hard-
ened with regard to the country’s role as a world leader. Paradoxically
enough, the Trump administration’s repudiation of the liberal world order
and aversion to honouring previous agreements has considerably weak-
ened the international stature of the US and eroded trust among its allies
in the western world.
But the actions of the US President are not the only reason that faith in
the political success of the liberal world order has recently been displaced
by uncertainty and increasingly pessimistic visions of the future. The
Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 is a violation of international law
and a breach of the security order in Europe, which relies on the norm of
the inviolability of national borders. But in Russian rhetoric, its actions are
merely a response to the threat it perceives in post–Cold War EU and
NATO enlargements. In addition, the governments of several EU mem-
ber states, such as Hungary and Poland, have been actively working for
some time to undermine liberal principles and, above all, the rule of law,
in their own countries while painting the EU as a threat to their national
sovereignty. Populist politicians like Marine Le Pen in France, Geert
Wilders in the Netherlands and Matteo Salvini in Italy also depict the EU
as a threat to the sovereignty of the French, Dutch and Italian peoples.
What unites these actors is their explicit opposition to the values and prin-
ciples that are the pillars of the liberal world order.

The Role of the EU in a Changing World Order

For most of the EU’s (and its predecessors) existence, the question of its
role in the liberal world order was never made explicit. From a geopolitical
perspective, its obvious place was to implicitly facilitate peace and stability
in Europe and spread democracy and market economics as fundamental
components in the process of post-World War II modernization and devel-
opment. With the Maastricht Treaty, the Union’s foreign and security
policy role was strengthened. In the major geopolitical shift in the early
1990s caused by the fall of the Soviet Union, the EU’s role became more
 1 THE EUROPEAN UNION IN A CHANGING WORLD ORDER: WHAT IS… 9

explicitly to promote security and stability in Europe, but this time in

­relation to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The inherent
symbolism that the EU (with the accession of these countries) would unite
basically the whole of the European continent led to greater self-awareness
of the role of the EU in the global system.
What role was the EU meant to assume? In academic debates, the EU
has often been called a normative power, to use a term coined by Ian
Manners (2002). Manners argues that the power of the EU is derived
from the values and norms upon which the Union was created and that are
written into its treaties. But in many ways “normative power” is more a
description of the EU’s self-image as a foreign policy actor than an accu-
rate description of its actions. Nonetheless, the EU is something of an
anomaly in the international system: an actor that is not a state and yet
displays clearly state-like features and whose actions can in many ways be
equated with those of a state. It would therefore be more accurate to
describe the EU in terms of a post-sovereign actor called upon to uphold
aspects of the liberal system that further its interests and reflect its specific
composition and nature. The EU is therefore expected to assume special
responsibility for disseminating values such as human rights, democracy,
rule of law, and international law, as well as principles of global gover-
nance, such as multilateralism and a rules-based international system (Van
Vooren 2013). These values and principles are the framework of the EU’s
approach to international cooperation and bilateral agreements with coun-
tries and international organizations. The EU’s climate change policy,
development assistance, and neighbourhood policies are notable expres-
sions of this approach. In addition, the EU has demonstrated a predilec-
tion for multilateral negotiations and close cooperation with international
organizations, like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), the World Bank, and UN bodies that approach
global issues in a similar way.
Nevertheless, the EU’s rules-based, functionalist-oriented approach
has come under increasing pressure since 2003, when power politics and
ideologically motivated interests once again dominated the international
system, partly as a result of the US invasion of Iraq. Power politics is also
the clearest driver of Russian foreign policy and coincides well with how
international politics is understood in China and many other emerging
powers. In addition, a number of non-state actors that are propelled by
ideology with religious overtones are having profound influence on secu-
rity in Europe and surrounding regions. But power politics and
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
and disjoin the closest affinities. And if we note the differences of
leaves, or even flowers, we fall into the same difficulty; for many
plants very different in kind have leaves very similar, as Polygonum
and Hypericum, Ernea and Sesamois, Apium and Ranunculus; and
plants of the same genus have sometimes very different 376 leaves,
as the several species of Ranunculus and of Lactuca. Nor will color
or shape of the flowers help us better; for what has Vitis in common
with Œnanthe, except the resemblance of the flower?” He then goes
on to say, that if we seek a too close coincidence of all the
characters we shall have no Species; and thus shows us that he had
clearly before his view the difficulty, which he had to attack, and
which it is his glory to have overcome, that of constructing Natural
Orders.
46 Lib. vi.

47 Lib. vii.

48 Lib. x.

49 Lib. xii.

50 Lib. xi.

51 Lib. i. cap. xii. p. 25.

But as the principles of Cæsalpinus are justified, on the one hand,

by their leading to Natural Orders, they are recommended on the
other by their producing a System which applies through the whole
extent of the vegetable kingdom. The parts from which he takes his
characters must occur in all flowering-plants, for all such plants have
seeds. And these seeds, if not very numerous for each flower, will be
of a certain definite number and orderly distribution. And thus every
plant will fall into one part or other of the same system.
 It is not difficult to point out, in this induction of Cæsalpinus, the
two elements which we have so often declared must occur in all
inductive processes; the exact acquaintance with facts, and the
general and applicable ideas by which these facts are brought
together. Cæsalpinus was no mere dealer in intellectual relations or
learned traditions, but a laborious and persevering collector of plants
and of botanical knowledge. “For many years,” he says in his
Dedication, “I have been pursuing my researches in various regions,
habitually visiting the places in which grew the various kinds of
herbs, shrubs, and trees; I have been assisted by the labors of many
friends, and by gardens established for the public benefit, and
containing foreign plants collected from the most remote regions.”
He here refers to the first garden directed to the public study of
Botany, which was that of Pisa, 52 instituted in 1543, by order of the
Grand Duke Cosmo the First. The management of it was confided
first to Lucas Ghini, and afterwards to Cæsalpinus. He had collected
also a herbarium of dried plants, which he calls the rudiment of his
work. “Tibi enim,” he says, in his dedication to Francis Medici, Grand
Duke of Etruria, “apud quem extat ejus rudimentum ex plantis libro
agglutinatis a me compositum.” And, throughout, he speaks with the
most familiar and vivid acquaintance of the various vegetables which
he describes.
52 Cuv. 187.

But Cæsalpinus also possessed fixed and general views

concerning the relation and functions of the parts of plants, and
ideas of symmetry 377 and system; without which, as we see in other
botanists of his and succeeding times, the mere accumulation of a
knowledge of details does not lead to any advance in science. We
have already mentioned his reference to general philosophical
principles, both of the Peripatetics and of his own. The first twelve
chapters of his work are employed in explaining the general structure
of plants, and especially that point to which he justly attaches so
much importance, the results of the different situation of the cor or
corculum of the seed. He shows 53 that if we take the root, or stem,
or leaves, or blossom, as our guide in classification, we shall
separate plants obviously alike, and approximate those which have
merely superficial resemblances. And thus we see that he had in his
mind ideas of fixed resemblance and symmetrical distribution, which
he sedulously endeavored to apply to plants; while his acquaintance
with the vegetable kingdom enabled him to see in what manner
these ideas were not, and in what manner they were, really
applicable.
53 Lib. i. cap. xii.

The great merit and originality of Cæsalpinus have been generally

allowed, by the best of the more modern writers on Botany. Linnæus
calls him one of the founders of the science; “Primus verus
systematicus;” 54 and, as if not satisfied with the expression of his
admiration in prose, hangs a poetical garland on the tomb of his
hero. The following distich concludes his remarks on this writer:

Quisquis hic extiterit primos concedet honores

Cæsalpine tibi; primaque serta dabit:

and similar language of praise has been applied to him by the best
botanists up to Cuvier, 55 who justly terms his book “a work of
genius.”
54 Philosoph. Bot. p. 19.

55 Cuv. Hist. 193.

 Perhaps the great advance made in this science by Cæsalpinus, is
most strongly shown by this; that no one appeared, to follow the path
which he had opened to system and symmetry, for nearly a century.
Moreover, when the progress of this branch of knowledge was
resumed, his next successor, Morison, did not choose to
acknowledge that he had borrowed so much from so old a writer;
and thus, hardly mentions his name, although he takes advantage of
his labors, and even transcribes his words without
acknowledgement, as I shall show. The pause between the great
invention of Cæsalpinus, and its natural sequel, the developement
and improvement of his method, is so marked, that I 378 will, in order
to avoid too great an interruption of chronological order, record some
of its circumstances in a separate section.

Sect. 3.—Stationary Interval.

The method of Cæsalpinus was not, at first, generally adopted. It

had, indeed, some disadvantages. Employed in drawing the
boundary-lines of the larger divisions of the vegetable kingdom, he
had omitted those smaller groups, Genera, which were both most
obvious to common botanists, and most convenient in the
description and comparison of plants. He had also neglected to give
the Synonyms of other authors for the plants spoken of by him; an
appendage to botanical descriptions, which the increase of botanical
information and botanical books had now rendered indispensable.
And thus it happened, that a work, which must always be considered
as forming a great epoch in the science to which it refers, was
probably little read, and in a short time could be treated as if it were
quite forgotten.
 In the mean time, the science was gradually improved in its
details. Clusius, or Charles de l’Ecluse, first taught botanists to
describe well. “Before him,” says Mirbel, 56 “the descriptions were
diffuse, obscure, indistinct; or else concise, incomplete, vague.
Clusius introduced exactitude, precision, neatness, elegance,
method: he says nothing superfluous; he omits nothing necessary.”
He travelled over great part of Europe, and published various works
on the more rare of the plants which he had seen. Among such
plants, we may note now one well known, the potato; which he
describes as being commonly used in Italy in 1586; 57 thus throwing
doubt, at least, on the opinion which ascribes the first introduction of
it into Europe to Sir Walter Raleigh, on his return from Virginia, about
the same period. As serving to illustrate, both this point, and the
descriptive style of Clusius, I quote, in a note, his description of the
flower of this plant. 58
56 Physiol. Veg. p. 525.

57 Clusius. Exotic. iv. c. 52, p. lxxix.

58 “Papas Peruanorum. Arachidna, Theoph. forte. Flores

elegantes, uncialis amplitudinis aut majores, angulosi, singulari
folio constantes, sed ita complicato ut quinque folia discreta
videantur, coloris exterius ex purpura candicantis, interius
purpurascentis, radiis quinque herbaceis ex umbilico stellæ instar
prodeuntibus, et totidem staminibus flavis in umbonem
coeuntibus.”
He says that the Italians do not know whence they had the
plant, and that they call it Taratouffli. The name Potato was, in
England, previously applied to the Sweet Potato (Convolvulus
batatas), which was the common Potato, in distinction to the
Virginian Potato, at the time of Gerard’s Herbal. (1597?) Gerard’s
figures of both plants are copied from those of Clusius.
It may be seen by the description of Arachidna, already quoted
 from Theophrastus, (above,) that there is little plausibility in
Clusius’s conjecture of the plant being known to the ancients. I
need not inform the botanist that this opinion is untenable.

379 The addition of exotic species to the number of known plants

was indeed going on rapidly during the interval which we are now
considering. Francis Hernandez, a Spaniard, who visited America
towards the end of the sixteenth century, collected and described
many plants of that country, some of which were afterwards
published by Recchi. 59 Barnabas Cobo, who went as a missionary to
America in 1596, also described plants. 60 The Dutch, among other
exertions which they made in their struggle with the tyranny of Spain,
sent out an expedition which, for a time, conquered the Brazils; and
among other fruits of this conquest, they published an account of the
natural history of the country. 61 To avoid interrupting the connexion
of such labors, I will here carry them on a little further in the order of
time. Paul Herman, of Halle, in Saxony, went to the Cape of Good
Hope and to Ceylon; and on his return, astonished the botanists of
Europe by the vast quantity of remarkable plants which he
introduced to their knowledge. 62 Rheede, the Dutch governor of
Malabar, ordered descriptions and drawings to be made of many
curious species, which were published in a large work in twelve folio
volumes. 63 Rumphe, another Dutch consul at Amboyna, 64 labored
with zeal and success upon the plants of the Moluccas. Some
species which occur in Madagascar figured in a description of that
island composed by the French Commandant Flacourt. 65 Shortly
afterwards, Engelbert Kæmpfer, 66 a Westphalian of great
acquirements and undaunted courage, visited Persia, Arabia Felix,
the Mogul Empire, Ceylon, Bengal, Sumatra, Java, Siam, Japan;
Wheler travelled in Greece and Asia Minor; and Sherard, the English
consul, published an account of the plants of the neighborhood of
Smyrna.
59 Nova Plantarum Regni Mexicana Historia, Rom. 1651, fol.

60 Sprengel, Gesch. der Botanik, ii. 62.

61 Historia Naturalis Brasiliæ, L. B. 1648, fol. (Piso and Maregraf).

62 Museum Zeylanicum, L. B. 1726.

63 Hortus Malabaricus, 1670–1703.

64 Herbarium Amboinense, Amsterdam, 1741–51, fol.

65 Histoire de la grande Isle Madagascar, Paris, 1661.

66 Amœnitates Exoticæ, Lemgov. 1712. 4to.

380 At the same time, the New World excited also the curiosity of
botanists. Hans Sloane collected the plants of Jamaica; John
Banister those of Virginia; William Vernon, also an Englishman, and
David Kriege, a Saxon, those of Maryland; two Frenchmen, Surian
and Father Plumier, those of Saint Domingo.

We may add that public botanical gardens were about this time
established all over Europe. We have already noticed the institution
of that of Pisa in 1543; the second was that of Padua in 1545; the
next, that of Florence in 1556; the fourth, that of Bologna, 1568; that
of Rome, in the Vatican, dates also from 1568.

The first transalpine garden of this kind arose at Leyden in 1577;

that of Leipzig in 1580. Henry the Fourth of France established one
at Montpellier in 1597. Several others were instituted in Germany;
but that of Paris did not begin to exist till 1626; that of Upsal,
afterwards so celebrated, took its rise in 1657, that of Amsterdam in
1684. Morison, whom we shall soon have to mention, calls himself,
in 1680, the first Director of the Botanical Garden at Oxford.

[2nd Ed.] [To what is above said of Botanical Gardens and

Botanical Writers, between the times of Cæsalpinus and Morison, I
may add a few circumstances. The first academical garden in France
was that at Montpellier, which was established by Peter Richier de
Belleval, at the end of the sixteenth century. About the same period,
rare flowers were cultivated at Paris, and pictures of them made, in
order to supply the embroiderers of the court-robes with new
patterns. Thus figures of the most beautiful flowers in the garden of
Peter Robins were published by the court-embroiderer Peter Vallet,
in 1608, under the title of Le Jardin du Roi Henry IV. But Robins’
works were of great service to botany; and his garden assisted the
studies of Renealmus (Paul Reneaulme), whose Specimen Historiæ
Plantarum (Paris, 1611), is highly spoken of by the best botanists.
Recently, Mr. Robert Brown has named after him a new genus of
Irideæ (Renealmia); adding, “Dixi in memoriam Pauli Renealmi,
botanici sui ævi accuratissimi, atque staminum primi scrutatoris; qui
non modo eorum numerum et situm, sed etiam filamentorum
proportionem passim descripsit, et characterem tetradynamicum
siliquosarum perspexit.” (Prodromus Floræ Novæ Hollandiæ, p.
448.)

The oldest Botanical Garden in England is that at Hampton Court,

founded by Queen Elizabeth, and much enriched by Charles II. and
William III. (Sprengel, Gesch. d. Bot. vol. ii. p. 96.)]

In the mean time, although there appeared no new system which

381 commanded the attention of the botanical world, the feeling of
the importance of the affinities of plants became continually more
strong and distinct.

Lobel, who was botanist to James the First, and who published his
Stirpium Adversaria Nova in 1571, brings together the natural
families of plants more distinctly than his predecessors, and even
distinguishes (as Cuvier states, 67 ) monocotyledonous from
dicotyledonous plants; one of the most comprehensive division-lines
of botany, of which succeeding times discovered the value more
completely. Fabius Columna, 68 in 1616, gave figures of the
fructification of plants on copper, as Gessner had before done on
wood. But the elder Bauhin (John), notwithstanding all that
Cæsalpinus had done, retrograded, in a work published in 1619, into
the less precise and scientific distinctions of—trees with nuts; with
berries; with acorns; with pods; creeping plants, gourds, &c.: and no
clear progress towards a system was anywhere visible among the
authors of this period.
67 Cuv. Leçons, &c. 198.

68 Ib. 206.

While this continued to be the case, and while the materials, thus
destitute of order, went on accumulating, it was inevitable that the
evils which Cæsalpinus had endeavored to remedy, should become
more and more grievous. “The nomenclature of the subject 69 was in
such disorder, it was so impossible to determine with certainty the
plants spoken of by preceding writers, that thirty or forty different
botanists had given to the same plant almost as many different
names. Bauhin called by one appellation, a species which Lobel or
Matheoli designated by another. There was an actual chaos, a
universal confusion, in which it was impossible for men to find their
way.” We can the better understand such a state of things, from
having, in our own time, seen another classificatory science,
Mineralogy, in the very condition thus described. For such a state of
confusion there is no remedy but the establishment of a true system
of classification; which by its real foundation renders a reason for the
place of each species; and which, by the fixity of its classes, affords
a basis for a standard nomenclature, as finally took place in Botany.
But before such a remedy is obtained, men naturally try to alleviate
the evil by tabulating the synonyms of different writers, as far as they
are able to do so. The task of constructing such a Synonymy of
botany at the period of which we speak, was undertaken by Gaspard
Bauhin, the brother of John, but nineteen years younger. This work,
the Pinax Theatri Botanici, was printed 382 at Basil in 1623. It was a
useful undertaking at the time; but the want of any genuine order in
the Pinax itself, rendered it impossible that it should be of great
permanent utility.
69 Ib. 212.

After this period, the progress of almost all the sciences became
languid for a while; and one reason of this interruption was, the wars
and troubles which prevailed over almost the whole of Europe. The
quarrels of Charles the First and his parliament, the civil wars and
the usurpation, in England; in France, the war of the League, the
stormy reign of Henry the Fourth, the civil wars of the minority of
Louis the Thirteenth, the war against the Protestants and the war of
the Fronde in the minority of Louis the Fourteenth; the bloody and
destructive Thirty Years’ War in Germany; the war of Spain with the
United Provinces and with Portugal;—all these dire agitations left
men neither leisure nor disposition to direct their best thoughts to the
promotion of science. The baser spirits were brutalized; the better
were occupied by high practical aims and struggles of their moral
nature. Amid such storms, the intellectual powers of man could not
work with their due calmness, nor his intellectual objects shine with
their proper lustre.

At length a period of greater tranquillity gleamed forth, and the

sciences soon expanded in the sunshine. Botany was not inert amid
this activity, and rapidly advanced in a new direction, that of
physiology; but before we speak of this portion of our subject, we
must complete what we have to say of it as a classificatory science.

Sect. 4.—Sequel to the Epoch of Cæsalpinus. Further Formation

and Adoption of Systematic Arrangement.

Soon after the period of which we now speak, that of the restoration
of the Stuarts to the throne of England, systematic arrangements of
plants appeared in great numbers; and in a manner such as to show
that the minds of botanists had gradually been ripening for this
improvement, through the influence of preceding writers, and the
growing acquaintance with plants. The person whose name is
usually placed first on this list, Robert Morison, appears to me to be
much less meritorious than many of those who published very
shortly after him; but I will give him the precedence in my narrative.
He was a Scotchman, who was wounded fighting on the royalist side
in the civil wars of England. On the triumph of the republicans, he
withdrew to France, when he became director of the garden of
Gaston, Duke of Orléans at Blois; and there he came under the
notice of our Charles 383 the Second; who, on his restoration,
summoned Morison to England, where he became Superintendent of
the Royal Gardens, and also of the Botanic Garden at Oxford. In
1669, he published Remarks on the Mistakes of the two Bauhins, in
which he proves that many plants in the Pinax are erroneously
placed, and shows considerable talent for appreciating natural
families and genera. His great systematic work appeared from the
University press at Oxford in 1680. It contains a system, but a
system, Cuvier says, 70 which approaches rather to a natural method
than to a rigorous distribution, like that of his predecessor
Cæsalpinus, or that of his successor Ray. Thus the herbaceous
plants are divided into climbers, leguminous, siliquose, unicapsalar,
bicapsular, tricapsular, quadricapsular, quinquecapsular; this division
being combined with characters derived from the number of petals.
But along with these numerical elements, are introduced others of a
loose and heterogeneous kind, for instance, the classification of
herbs as lactescent and emollient. It is not unreasonable to say, that
such a scheme shows no talent for constructing a complete system;
and that the most distinct part of it, that dependent on the fruit, was
probably borrowed from Cæsalpinus. That this is so, we have, I
think, strong proof; for though Morison nowhere, I believe, mentions
Cæsalpinus, except in one place in a loose enumeration of botanical
writers, 71 he must have made considerable use of his work. For he
has introduced into his own preface a passage copied literally 72 from
the dedication of Cæsalpinus; which passage we have already
quoted (p. 374,) beginning, “Since all science consists in the
collection of similar, and the distinction of dissimilar things.” And that
the mention of the original is not omitted by accident, appears from
this; that Morison appropriates also the conclusion of the passage,
which has a personal reference, “Conatus sum id præstare in
universa plantarum historia, ut si quid pro ingenii mei tenuitate in
hujusmodi studio profecerim, ad communem utilitatem proferrem.”
That Morison, thus, at so long an interval after the publication of the
work of Cæsalpinus, borrowed from him without acknowledgement,
and adopted his system so as to mutilate it, proves that he had
neither the temper nor the talent of a discoverer; and justifies us
withholding from him the credit which belongs to those, who, in his
time, resumed the great undertaking of constructing a vegetable
system.
70 Cuv. Leçons, &c. p. 486.

71 Pref. p. i.

72 Ib. p. ii.

Among those whose efforts in this way had the greatest and
earliest 384 influence, was undoubtedly our countryman, John Ray,
who was Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, at the same time with
Isaac Newton. But though Cuvier states 73 that Ray was the model of
the systematists during the whole of the eighteenth century, the
Germans claim a part of his merit for one of their countrymen,
Joachim Jung, of Lubeck, professor at Hamburg. 74 Concerning the
principles of this botanist, little was known during his life. But a
manuscript of his book was communicated 75 to Ray in 1660, and
from this time forwards, says Sprengel, there might be noticed in the
writings of Englishmen, those better and clearer views to which
Jung’s principles gave birth. Five years after the death of Jung, his
Doxoscopia Physica was published, in 1662; and in 1678, his
Isagoge Phytoscopica. But neither of these works was ever much
read; and even Linnæus, whom few things escaped which
concerned botany, had, in 1771, seen none of Jung’s works.
73 Leçons Hist. Sc. p. 487.

74 Sprengel, ii. 27.

 75 Ray acknowledges this in his Index Plant. Agri Cantab. p. 87,
and quotes from it the definition of caulis.

I here pass over Jung’s improvements of botanical language, and

speak only of those which he is asserted to have suggested in the
arrangement of plants. He examines, says Sprengel, 76 the value of
characters of species, which, he holds, must not be taken from the
thorns, nor from color, taste, smell, medicinal effects, time and place
of blossoming. He shows, in numerous examples, what plants must
be separated, though called by a common name, and what most be
united, though their names are several.
76 Sprengel, ii. 29.

I do not see in this much that interferes with the originality of Ray’s
method, 77 of which, in consequence of the importance ascribed to it
by Cuvier, as we have already seen, I shall give an account,
following that great naturalist. 78 I confine myself to the ordinary
plants, and omit the more obscure vegetables, as mushrooms,
mosses, ferns, and the like.
77 Methodus Plantarum Nova, 1682. Historia Plantarum, 1686.

78 Cuv. Leçons Hist. Sc. 488.

Such plants are composite or simple. The composite flowers are

those which contain many florets in the same calyx. 79 These are
subdivided according as they are composed altogether of complete
florets, 385 or of half florets, or of a centre of complete florets,
surrounded by a circumference or ray of demi-florets. Such are the
divisions of the corymbiferæ, or compositæ.
79 Involucrum, in modern terminology.
 In the simple flowers, the seeds are naked, or in a pericarp. Those
with naked seeds are arranged according to the number of the
seeds, which may be one, two, three, four, or more. If there is only
one, no subdivision is requisite: if there are two, Ray makes a
subdivision, according as the flower has five petals, or a continuous
corolla. Here we come to several natural families. Thus, the flowers
with two seeds and five petals are the Umbelliferous plants; the
monopetalous flowers with two seeds are the Stellatæ. He founds
the division of four-seeded flowers on the circumstance of the leaves
being opposite, or alternate; and thus again, we have the natural
families of Asperifoliæ, as Echium, &c., which have the leaves
alternate, and the Verticillatæ, as Salvia, in which the leaves are
opposite. When the flower has more than four seeds, he makes no
subdivision.

So much for simple flowers with naked seeds. In those where the
seeds are surrounded by a pericarp, or fruit, this fruit is large, soft,
and fleshy, and the plants are pomiferous; or it is small and juicy, and
the fruit is a berry, as a Gooseberry.

If the fruit is not juicy, but dry, it is multiple or simple. If it be simple,

we have the leguminose plants. If it be multiple, the form of the
flower is to be attended to. The flower may be monopetalous, or
tetrapetalous, or pentapetalous, or with still more divisions. The
monopetalous may be regular or irregular; so may the tetrapetalous.
The regular tetrapetalous flowers are, for example, the Cruciferæ, as
Stock and Cauliflower; the irregular, are the papilionaceous plants,
Peas, Beans, and Vetches; and thus we again come to natural
families. The remaining plants are divided in the same way, into
those with imperfect, and those with perfect, flowers. Those with
imperfect flowers are the Grasses, the Rushes (Junci), and the like;
among those with perfect flowers, are the Palmaceæ, and the
Liliaceæ.

We see that the division of plants is complete as a system; all

flowers must belong to one or other of the divisions. Fully to explain
the characters and further subdivisions of these families, would be to
write a treatise on botany; but it is easily seen that they exhaust the
subject as far as they go.

Thus Ray constructed his system partly on the fruit and partly on
the flower; or more properly, according to the expression of Linnæus,
386 comparing his earlier with his later system, he began by being a
fructicist, and ended by being a corollist. 80 ~Additional material in the
3rd edition.~
80 Ray was a most industrious herbalizer, and I cannot
understand on what ground Mirbel asserts (Physiol. Veg., tom. ii.
p. 531,) that he was better acquainted with books than with plants.

As we have said, a number of systems of arrangement of plants

were published about this time, some founded on the fruit, some on
the corolla, some on the calyx, and these employed in various ways.
Rivinus 81 (whose real name was Bachman,) classified by the flower
alone; instead of combining it with the fruit, as Ray had done. 82 He
had the further merit of being the first who rejected the old division,
of woody and herbaceous plants; a division which, though at
variance with any system founded upon the structure of the plants
was employed even by Tournefort, and only finally expelled by
Linnæus.
81 Cuv. Leçons, 491.

82 Historia Generalis ad rem Herbariam, 1690.

 It would throw little light upon the history of botany, especially for
our purpose, to dwell on the peculiarities of these transitory systems.
Linnæus, 83 after his manner, has given a classification of them.
Rivinus, as we have just seen, was a corollist, according to the
regularity and number of the petals; Hermann was a fructicist.
Christopher Knaut 84 adopted the system of Ray, but inverted the
order of its parts; Christian Knaut did nearly the same with regard to
that of Rivinus, taking number before regularity in the flower. 85
83 Philos. Bot. p. 21.

84 Enumeratio Plantarum, &c., 1687.

85 Linn.

Of the systems which prevailed previous to that of Linnæus,

Tournefort’s was by far the most generally accepted. Joseph Pitton
de Tournefort was of a noble family in Provence, and was appointed
professor at the Jardin du Roi in 1683. His well-known travels in the
Levant are interesting on other subjects, as well as botany. His
Institutio Rei Herbariæ, published in 1700, contains his method,
which is that of a corollist. He is guided by the regularity or
irregularity of the flowers, by their form, and by the situation of the
receptacle of the seeds below the calyx, or within it. Thus his classes
are—those in which the flowers are campaniform, or bell-shaped;
those in which they are infundibuliform, or funnel-shaped, as
Tobacco; then the irregular flowers, as the Personatæ, which
resemble an ancient mask; the Labiatæ, with their two lips; the
Cruciform; the Rosaceæ, with flowers like a rose; the Umbelliferæ;
the Caryophylleæ, as the 387 Pink; the Liliaceæ, with six petals, as
the Tulip, Narcissus, Hyacinth, Lily; the Papilionaceæ, which are
leguminous plants, the flower of which resembles a butterfly, as
Peas and Beans; and finally, the Anomalous, as Violet, Nasturtium,
and others.

Though this system was found to be attractive, as depending, in

an evident way, on the most conspicuous part of the plant, the
flower, it is easy to see that it was much less definite than systems
like that of Rivinus, Hermann, and Ray, which were governed by
number. But Tournefort succeeded in giving to the characters of
genera a degree of rigor never before attained, and abstracted them
in a separate form. We have already seen that the reception of
botanical Systems has depended much on their arrangement into
Genera.

Tournefort’s success was also much promoted by the author

inserting in his work a figure of a flower and fruit belonging to each
genus; and the figures, drawn by Aubriet, were of great merit. The
study of botany was thus rendered easy, for it could be learned by
turning over the leaves of a book. In spite of various defects, these
advantages gave this writer an ascendancy which lasted, from 1700,
when his book appeared, for more than half a century. For though
Linnæus began to publish in 1735, his method and his nomenclature
were not generally adopted till 1760.
 CHAPTER IV.

The Reform of Linnæus.

Sect. 1.—Introduction of the Reform.

A LTHOUGH, perhaps, no man of science ever exercised a

greater sway than Linnæus, or had more enthusiastic admirers,
the most intelligent botanists always speak of him, not as a great
discoverer, but as a judicious and strenuous Reformer. Indeed, in his
own lists of botanical writers, he places himself among the
“Reformatores;” and it is apparent that this is the nature of his real
claim to admiration; for the doctrine of the sexes of plants, even if he
had been the first to establish it, was a point of botanical physiology,
a province of the 388 science which no one would select as the
peculiar field of Linnæus’s glory; and the formation of a system of
arrangement on the basis of this doctrine, though attended with
many advantages, was not an improvement of any higher order than
those introduced by Ray and Tournefort. But as a Reformer of the
state of Natural History in his time, Linnæus was admirable for his
skill, and unparalleled in his success. And we have already seen, in
the instance of the reform of mineralogy, as attempted by Mohs and
Berzelius, that men of great talents and knowledge may fail in such
an undertaking.

It is, however, only by means of the knowledge which he displays,

and of the beauty and convenience of the improvements which he
proposes, that any one can acquire such an influence as to procure
his suggestions to be adopted. And even if original circumstances of
birth or position could invest any one with peculiar prerogatives and
powers in the republic of science, Karl Linné began his career with
no such advantages. His father was a poor curate in Smaland, a
province of Sweden; his boyhood was spent in poverty and privation;
it was with great difficulty that, at the age of twenty-one, he contrived
to subsist at the University of Upsal, whither a strong passion for
natural history had urged him. Here, however, he was so far
fortunate, that Olaus Rudbeck, the professor of botany, committed to
him the care of the Botanic Garden. 86 The perusal of the works of
Vaillant and Patrick Blair suggested to him the idea of an
arrangement of plants, formed upon the sexual organs, the stamens
and pistils; and of such an arrangement he published a sketch in
1731, at the age of twenty-four.
86 Sprengel, ii. 232.

But we must go forwards a few years in his life, to come to the

period to which his most important works belong. University and
family quarrels induced him to travel; and, after various changes of
scene, he was settled in Holland, as the curator of the splendid
botanical garden of George Clifford, an opulent banker. Here it
was 87 that he laid the foundation of his future greatness. In the two
years of his residence at Hartecamp, he published nine works. The
first, the Systema Naturæ, which contained a comprehensive sketch
of the whole domain of Natural History, excited general
astonishment, by the acuteness of the observations, the happy talent
of combination, and the clearness of the systematic views. Such a
work could not fail to procure considerable respect for its author. His
Hortus Cliffortiana 389 and Musa Cliffortiana added to this
impression. The weight which he had thus acquired, he proceeded to
use for the improvement of botany. His Fundamenta Botanica and
Bibliotheca Botanica appeared in 1736; his Critica Botanica and