Response to Professor Blute

Abstract

My talk had two parts. First, the extraordinary fascination on the part of many peoples, in many times and places, with trees and images of trees. I drew particular attention to their sacred character. Second, a reflection on tree-diagrams from about the 9th century to the present, with, for specificity, the Tree of Knowledge taken as my example. It begins with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and then, no later than Raymond Lull in 1295, the Tree of Knowledge becomes a device for organizing the relationships between the different “branches” of knowledge. In this talk about tree-diagrams I used the Tree of Knowledge rather than the Tree of Life because, in this Darwin year, one is a bit jaded by the latter. Professor Blute wonders if (1) “the explanation for all that tree-drawing might be because the artists were actually onto something–descent with modification in the realm of culture” (223). I probably do not understand (1). Taking it literally, it cannot possibly be true. Most of the people who drew the diagrams had no interest in or awareness of “descent with modification in the realm of culture.” On the other hand, those who have used tree-diagrams have been “on to” any number of different things. Start