sign in sign up
<<
Home , Plant morphology

JIDRJournalofInterdisciplinaryResearch

Goethe’s : The of

TANYA KELLEY

It has long been debated whether botanist Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778), and the scientific writing of Johann the continuous view of nature, as Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) exemplified in the work of the English provided the seeds for the theory of naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882). evolution. Scholars have argued both Although best known for his sides with equal passion. German literary works, such as Faust, Die Leiden biologist and philosopher, Ernst Haeckel des jungen Werther, and Wilhelm (1834-1919) wrote, “Jean and Lamarck Meister, Goethe was also deeply and Wolfgang Goethe stand at the head involved with the sciences. Some of his of all the great philosophers of nature biographers lament that Goethe’s literary who first established a theory of organic productivity was impeded by all the time development, and who are the illustrious he spent pursuing his interests in fellow workers of Darwin.”1 Taking the comparative , metallurgy, opposite stance was Chancellor of Berlin meteorology, color theory and .3 University, Emil du Bois Reymond Goethe himself said that he valued his (1818-1896). Du Bois was embarrassed work as a scientist more than his poetic by Goethe’s forays into science. He work.4 He pursued a wide range of wrote, “Beside the poet, the scientist interests over the course of his 83 years Goethe fades into the background. Let of life. Until the very end of his life he us at long last put him to rest.”2 I argue was vitally interested in science. In his that Goethe’s scientific writings carry in last letter, Goethe wrote about the them the seeds of the theory of evolution. debates on fixity of species taking place Goethe’s works on plant morphology in the French Royal Academy of reflects the conflicting ideas of his era on Science. Goethe’s thoughts on science the discreteness and on the stability of are both original but also reflect the spirit species. Goethe’s theory of plant of the times. morphology provides a link between the Goethe is described sometimes as discontinuous view of nature, as an Enlightenment and sometimes as a exemplified in works of the Swedish Romantic thinker, for indeed his life spans both of these periods. In many 1 Goethe, Wolfgang Johann von. Goethe’s Botanical respects, Goethe’s approach to science Writings, translated by Bertha Mueller. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, 1952. 15. 2 Magnus, Rudolf. Goethe as a Scientist. translated by 3 Goethe’s Botanical Writings, 6. Heinz Norden. Leipzig: Henry Schuman, 1947. xi. 4 Magnus, 42.

1 Goethe’sPlantMorphology:TheSeedsofEvolution reflects those typical of eighteenth more accurate and suitable for science by century Europe. Goethe, as were most of adopting universal languages either, as in his contemporaries, was swept up in the case of Linnaeus, by using Latin in a geometrical spirit ushered in by the systematic way, or, as in the case of German mathematician Gottfried György Kalmár, by using calculus as a Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646-1716) who is basis for an invented universal language. credited with the dissemination of Goethe was also interested in the debates calculus.5 Scientists of the eighteenth about accuracy in scientific language. century embraced mathematical method, On his journey to Italy from 1786-1788, exact definition, and proof of Goethe wrote about the arbitrariness of propositions, and applied these rigorous nomenclature and played with the methods of analysis to the development descriptive and labeling functions they of systematic. The Enlightenment fulfill.7 Goethe is often described as an ushered in an era wherein people turned Enlightenment thinker who was fully away from religion to explain the natural immersed in the age of quantifications world, and sought explanation instead and, as we shall see, his work in the through the search for the laws of nature. sciences reflects much of the geometrical These effects could be felt not just in the spirit of that era. sciences but also in the daily lives of the Goethe’s work in the sciences, eighteenth century Europeans. People however, also reflects the subsequent were witnessing the rapid dissection and Zeitgeist or spirit of the times. Although classification of the world around them. he partook in the spirit of quantification Since 1673 the measure of time had of the Enlightenment, the following era become more accurate through the of Romanticism equally influenced him. invention of Christian Huygens’ “Goethe’s Faust spurns knowledge pendulum clock. ‘extorted with levers and screws’, Goethe was also affected by the longing instead for a grasp of Nature’s controversies surrounding the adoption secret elements, her hidden active forces, of a more accurate and uniform system the harmony of the whole of her parts.”8 of measure, the decimal system. In Instead of the geometrical spirit, which Faust Goethe has the witches toy with strove to dissect, systematize and find alternate numbering systems not based the mechanisms of nature, the guiding on ten.6 Even people’s vernacular spirit of the Romantic era became known language was slated for improvement in the German-speaking world as during the age of quantification. There Naturphilosophie or natural philosophy. were several proposals to make language The Romantic scientists revolted against the analytical methods of their

5 Leibnitz vies with English physicist Isaac Newton (1642- predecessors and sought to apply more 1727) for credit for the invention of calculus. It is Leibnitz’ synthetic methods; instead of looking for system of notation, however, that came into widespread use. 6 “Desired Reconciliations: On Language as Experiment,” 7 “Italienische Reise” Werke, 11: 461. MLN, Vol. 103, No. 5. Comparative Literature. (Dec., 8 Andrew Cunningham and Nicholas Jardine in their 1988) 1056-1071. Preface to Romanticism and the Sciences, xix.

2 JIDRJournalofInterdisciplinaryResearch fine differences Romantic scientists the bean counters and aggregators, we looked for similarities. The German will take as our example the field of biologist Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus botany. Goethe devoted many years to (1776-1837) wrote that in the new the study of and in his voluminous science of life “the observations of the writings on the topic, we will see, vital phenomena of animals and plants portrayed the struggle to come to terms … receive their proper place and unite with perhaps the most pregnant question themselves into a whole…”9 The French of his generation, namely the anatomist Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire discontinuity or continuity of nature. (1772-1844) believed that nature made Some botanists believed species to be all living beings with one unique plan. discrete and stable, whereas others Immanuel Kant (1723-1804) emphasized believed that species blended from one to that scientists should examine the idea of the next with difficult-to-discern a whole in its natural context. Kant’s boundaries and that species also changed thought guided the German explorer and over time. Goethe’s work on plant naturalist Alexander von Humboldt morphology reflects the conflicting ideas (1769-1859) to describe the vegetation of of his era. After a brief look at the new world in its native geography contemporary ideas on fixity of species instead of merely bringing back plant held by prominent Enlightenment and specimens in order to classify their parts. Romantic natural scientists, we will Just as he had been intimately immersed place Goethe’s botanical work in context in scientific developments of the by examining primarily the botanical Enlightenment, Goethe was involved systems and of Carl Linnaeus. with the scientific enterprises of Goethe’s contemporaries all came Romantic thinkers, and is credited by from a tradition of natural history that some as one of the leading figures in the placed high value on accurately passing promotion of synthetic method. on information collected by ancient At the heart of the difference authorities, whether Biblical or between the Enlightenment and Christianized knowledge of the ancient Romantic worldview lies the question of Greeks. Over the centuries ancient how much of the world is knowable to authority was passed down through man. Many scientists of the manuscripts, which were repeatedly Enlightenment believed that it was just a copied by hand. Such manual copying matter of time until every last word, led to the perpetuation and accumulation mollusc, tuber, and compound was of mistakes. Scientists of the cataloged whereas many scientists of the Renaissance paved the way for Romantic era doubted that this feat could Enlightenment science in that they began ever be achieved. Although there are to look for answers in nature instead of many fascinating studies in in written documents. By turning to the encyclopedism and the backlash against natural world with a fresh eye, scientists found that neither the Bible nor the 9 My translation from Biologie, oder Philosophie der ancients had fully accounted for all of lebenden Naturfür Naturforscher und Aertzte, 7-8.

3 Goethe’sPlantMorphology:TheSeedsofEvolution nature. In the Renaissance science specialization, natural selection and became the hobby and occupation of evolution of species are accepted and are numerous upper class men. Much of the seemingly obvious, but in Goethe’s era scientific work these people did had to creationists and transmutationalists were be done in secret because new on more equal footing. Enlightenment discoveries and interpretations could scientists who placed great store in the propose a threat to church order. One past, generally held views of natural famous example of such a case is that of history based on religion and Galileo, who was tried for heresy Aristotelianism. There were those who because of his views. By the eighteenth believed in remnants of the ancient century the belief in the absolute authorities and the creation story, others authority of the Bible and of the ancients who were, with varying degrees of had begun to wane, and it had become vociferousness, secular possible for men of varied classes to transmutationalists, and a whole range in engage in science without the fear of between. Religion and fixity of species punishment from the church. Those who was being hotly debated in scientific found themselves with leisure time could circles. On the conservative end of the engage in scientific experiments, or the spectrum, Goethe was familiar with the building of cabinets of curiosities, or great English botanist John Ray (1627- collecting specimens. With the 1705). Ray believed that in a single act accumulation of new data, of creation all species were designed in Enlightenment scientists felt the need their perfect states. In 1686 in Historia understand the laws behind nature’s plantarm Ray wrote, “the number of systems. This is the era into which species in nature is certain and Goethe was born and, like many of the determined: God rested on the sixth day, men of his class, he took up the sciences. interrupting his great work – that is the The leisure class often employed guides creation of new species.”10 Ray believed from the lower classes to show them the that species were defined by essences ropes. The lower classes typically lived that stemmed from an exemplar or idea in closer contact to nature and possessed in the Divine Mind. However these folk-biological wisdom. Thus the “essences of things are wholly unknown interest in science spread through many to us. Since all our knowledge derives levels of society to further undermine the form sensation, we know nothing of the absolute authority of religion and things that are outside us except through scholasticism. the power they have to affect our Goethe encountered natural senses.”11 Ray believed that species were scientists of many persuasions, some of fixed and had essences but that whose views were backward looking and individuals of a species varied in their some were forward looking. Opinions diverged about natural history diverged 10 Ray as quoted in Scott Atran. Cognitive Foundations of greatly in the eighteenth and nineteenth Natural History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, centuries. Today Darwin’s theories of 1990: 162 11 Ray as quoted in Atran: 163.

4 JIDRJournalofInterdisciplinaryResearch outward manifestations. These outward Perhaps the least radical proposal manifestations were all naturalists had at put forth by one of Goethe’s their disposal in making classificatory contemporaries was that of French systems. Even after Ray’s death, many naturalist Léopold-Chrétien-Frédéric- scientists of Goethe’s time embraced Dagobert (George) Cuvier (1769-1832), Ray’s views concerning fixity of species. who is best known for his skill in The notion that organisms were . He came to created and then replicated copies of theorize that the creator began with basic themselves – like nested Russian dolls – forms. In the animal kingdom, for was quickly losing currency as the example, these forms could be divided eighteenth century progressed. Three into several contemporary , or major discoveries called fixity of species enbranchements as he calls them. into question: the fossil record, an Animals could change in outward increasing awareness of hybridization appearance within each . Due to and European voyages of discovery. functionally driven pressures to adapt to First, naturalists had at their disposal a the environment, Cuvier believed there growing number of fossils, some of could be gradual transitions between which did not seem to represent any organisms with the same basic plan. living species. The fossil record However, as he writes in 1805 in Leçons indicated that species change over time d’anatomie comparée: and even become extinct. Second, [T]hese smooth and invisible nuances are observed only so long as one remains within naturalists were becoming more and the same combination of principal organs, as more aware of fertile hybrids; new long as the major provinces remain the species could emerge through same…but as soon as one passes to those experiments and in the wild through which have other principal combinations, there is no more resemblance in anything, and interbreeding between species. Third, one cannot mistake the interval or marked previously unknown species were being leap.12 discovered by Europeans in the For Cuvier distinct branches each began Americas, Asia and in the Indies. These with typical principal organs. Over time, new specimens stretched the limits of change could occur within these Enlightenment systems. All new branches through modification of the theories had to address the historical principal organs but the branches always aspect of change, the stability and the remained divisible by a “marked leap.” diversity of species or, in other words, French naturalist Jean-Baptiste- new theories of natural order had to Pierre-Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de account for the temporality and Lamarck (1744-1829) represented a morphology of organisms. Thus began more radical adaptive and phylogenetic the questioning of the strictly analytical viewpoint. Lamarck is perhaps best systems of the Enlightenment and the formulation of the more synthetic 12 Cuvier as quoted in Peter Stevens. The development of systems typical of the Romantic era. biological systematics: Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu, nature, and the natural system. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994: 70.

5 Goethe’sPlantMorphology:TheSeedsofEvolution known for his notion that fossil records had a transcendental flavor. Like many could be explained through the naturalists in Germany, Geoffroy inheritance of acquired characteristic. believed in the underlying unity of Starting from the simplest of organisms, organismal design; Geoffroy believed he believed one could trace a continuous that all animals are formed of the same development into the more complex. elements, in the same number; and with Although, analysis was for Lamarck a the same connections. However these convenient way to identify and classify homologous parts differ in form and size, organisms and provided an artificial and they must remain associated in the same arbitrary tool for naturalists, he invariable order. Geoffroy also believed nevertheless placed more store in the in the possibility of the transmutation of synthetic method to discover nature in its species over time. Much like Goethe, as undivided entirety. In 1778 in Flore we will see, Geoffroy amassed evidence françoise, Lamarck wrote, “The order for his claims through research in that is being discussed here, instead of comparative anatomy, paleontology, and being a confusing mass of names and embryology. It is telling that in the ranks thrown together at random, will on debates between Cuvier and Geoffroy, the contrary form a whole subject to Goethe sides with the more radical fixed rules, which, however, do not transmutational theories of Geoffroy. divide it, and do nothing except to Goethe’s last writings, in fact, were in determine the place which each species support of Geoffroy and his theories. much occupy in the general series.”13 Uncertainty about the stability of Lamarck differs from Cuvier in that he species during the late eighteenth and in believed that all species could be traced the nineteenth century caused to one common origin. His views were philosophical debates. In the field of more radically transformational than botany ideas about the fixity of species Cuvier and they provided a basis for the also rankled. From the Enlightenment to work of other naturalists who wanted to the Romantic period, the changes in extend the theories of spatio-temporal botanical science mirrored the greater morphology. debates on species. Systems devised by French naturalist Étienne botanists in the era of quantification Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844) came under fire once the fossil records, established the principle of "unity of hybridization and new specimens tested composition". Geoffroy came to argue their comprehensiveness. Botanists of that all animals were fundamentally the Romantic era devised more synthetic similar. He was a colleague of Lamarck methods with which to classify the plant and he expanded and defended kingdom. Lamarck's evolutionary theories. An analogy might be useful to Whereas Lamarck’s views were better understand the task faced by materialistic in flavor, those of Geoffroy botanists as they entered a world in which fixity of species was cast into doubt. To borrow an example from C. 13 Lamarck as quoted in Stevens, 15.

6 JIDRJournalofInterdisciplinaryResearch

Jeffrey in An Introduction to Plant teacher. Since Linnaeus loathed travel, , imagine being faced with a his students fanned out across the globe heap of coals and rocks to sort out. The and sent specimens back to him. His result would probably consist of two personal popularity was only surpassed piles, one of coal and one of rocks. But by the rapid popularization of his now, imagine being told to sort out a botanical systematics. heap of coals alone. Most likely the The predecessors of Linnaeus, result would be a progression of the such as Otto Brunfel (1448-1534) with biggest chunks down to the finest coal Herbarum vivae eicones, Andreas dust. Conceivable, each pile could even Cesalpino (1519-1603) with De plantis, consist of one piece of coal.14 Within and John Ray with Historia plantarum, Goethe’s lifetime, the view of the plant had already done much to systematize kingdom as consisting of “coals and botany. Their systems relied on varied rocks” gave way to the view that the principles of organization but had in plant kingdom consists of only “coals.” common the assumption that species Goethe carried around with him were stable through space and time. for several years bound into one slim Linnaeus shared this assumption. He volume Linnaeus’ Terminolgy, wrote in (1736) Fundamentals, and Johann Gessner’s “We count today as many species as Dissertationes in explanation of were created in the beginning.”15 Linnaean Elements. These works Linnaeus imagined that the world began accompanied him on the highways and as an Eden or paradise containing all byways around Weimar and on his species and that it was just a matter of Italian journey. What was Germany’s time until enough discoveries were made most celebrated poet doing with these to complete the taxonomic record. As works on taxonomy? Goethe, as many the son of a Lutheran minister, Linnaeus others, were swept up by Linnean believed that God, in all his perfection, method. One typical portrait of Linnaeus would not have left any gaps. He wrote depicts him seated outdoors surrounded in (1751), “The by his attentive male and female students absence of things not yet discovered has while giving a lecture. Linnaeus was acted as a cause of the deficiencies of the known as a popular and beloved teacher natural method; but the acquisition of at the University of Uppsala in Sweden. knowledge of more things will make it Some of his male students traveled to perfect; for nature does not make New Zealand, Japan, North and South leaps.”16 It therefore seemed to him that America, China, Africa and Arabia to the world could be fully comprehended collect specimens for classification. Part taxonomically. Because of the of the reason Linnaeus attracted so many underlying assumption that species were “disciples” as they were sometimes 15 called, was because of his charm as a Linnaeus as quoted by Gunnar Brober in “Broken Circle,” in Tore Frängsmyr. Heilbron and Robin E. Rider. The Quantifying Spirit in the 18th Century. Berkely: University of California Press, 1990: 54. 14 Jeffrey, 8. 16 Linnaeus, 49.

7 Goethe’sPlantMorphology:TheSeedsofEvolution discrete and stable, Linnaeus persisted in The Linnaean system is abstract in that it classifying all of the new specimens proceeded by setting aside as irrelevant being sent to him by his pupils and other all but a few select qualities of the plant. botanists. Linnaeus believed that he, or It is numerical in that it is “a basically future botanists, would one day classify simple but ingenious arithmetical the entire plant kingdom. system, whereby the genera are grouped To better understand the system into twenty-four classes according to the Linnaeus proposed to achieve the number of (together with their classification of all plants, we might call relative lengths, their distinctness or to mind the heap of coals analogy once fusion, their occurrence in the same again. Linnaeus and his predecessors , or their apparent absence), while can be said to have approached plant division into orders within each class is taxonomy as if it were a mix of coals and determined by number of pistils.”19 The rocks that could be easily sorted out. In artificiality of the Linnaean system lies his efforts to classify the plant kingdom in the privileging of sharply defined over in its entirety, Linnaeus became known the simultaneous consideration of for codifying “the rational principles of multiple characteristics. These features natural history by naming species of made for a taxonomic system that was plants and animals according to their clear, logical, and easy to use; plants genus, arranging genera according to were either coals or they were rocks. their family and ordering families by The ease of quantification the Linnaean their class.”17 He developed a system of system provided appealed to binomial nomenclature to make the Enlightenment thinkers such as Goethe. language of botany universal. His Goethe began his botanical system represents “perhaps the last and studies in Weimar where, as part of his certainly one of the most successful official activities as Privy Councilor, he attempts to articulate nature on the basis was drawn into . At this time of a single relation, the relation of the Goethe lived in the ducal Gartenhaus, part to the whole."18 Linnaeus classified given to him by the Duke of Saxe- plants according to a sexual system. Weimar surrounded by the forests of the Instead of all the other variables one duchy and the ducal gardens. Goethe might choose, or instead of a more was also named director of mines in comprehensive system using several Ilmenau and this took him on frequent variables, Linnaeus chose the sexual trips to the country. During these years organs of plants. Goethe devoted much of his time to the The fundamental features of the sciences. In botany his early interests sexual system of classification are were in , fungi, and and abstraction, numeration and artificiality.

19 John Lesch. “Systematics and the Geometrical Spirit” in 17 in Tore Frängsmyr. Heilbron and Robin E. Rider. The Atran, 273. th 18 Larsen, James L. “Goethe and Linnaeus.” Journal of the Quantifying Spirit in the 18 Century. Berkely: University History of Ideas, Vol. 28, No. 4. (Oct.-Dec., 1967), pp. of California Press, 1990: 76. 590-596.

8 JIDRJournalofInterdisciplinaryResearch

bundles of plants and designating them by later in the of seeds and 21 flowering plants. As he was becoming names of Greek, Latin and barbaric origin.” Like many others, Goethe helped involved with botany, Goethe began to to popularize the Linnaean system. read the works of Linnaeus: Under the circumstances I, too, was obliged Counting pistils and stamens proved to more and more to seek illumination in matters be not only easy for amateur botanists, botanical. Linné’s Terminology, his but also provided relatively useful Fundamentals upon which the structure was to rest, Johann Gessner’s Dissertation in groupings. In making botany more Explanation of Linnaean Elements all bound scientific, it actually drew more people in a single slender volume, accompanied me into the enterprise; amateur and on the highways and byways, and today that professional botanists alike could same volume reminds me of the active, happy days when those precious pages opened up a contribute to the goal of classifying the new world for me. Linné’s Philosophy of entire plant kingdom. These attributes Botany I studied daily, thus advancing farther account for the quick spread of the and farther in ordered knowledge, attempting to acquire as far as possible all that might Linnaean system and also for Goethe’s procure for me a more general view of this initial enthusiasm, but Linnaeus also had broad realm.20 his critics and rivals. Goethe became quite proficient at using Critics of the Linnaean system the Linnaean system and continued to faulted him for the artificiality and expand his knowledge as well as his simplicity of his system. German circle of other enthusiastic botanists. philosophers Immanuel Kant addressed During the 1780’s Goethe befriended Friedrich Gottlieb Dietrich (1768-1850), who the incompatibility of artificial versus was a few years his junior. Dietrich was a natural categories in systems of descendant of the Ziegenhain family. They classification.22 By not taking into were known as authorities on local due consideration changes in time and space, to having supplied the apothecaries with medicinal plants and having maintained the Linnaean system assumed species herbaria for generations. Although young, were fixed and that each group had a Dietrich was an expert in identifying plants in constant similar to an Aristotelian the region and knew all their names in the vernacular and in the Linnaean system of essence, a Platonic form or one of God’s binomial nomenclature. Goethe took many perfect creations. This perception of botanizing walks with Dietrich and the two nature came to be hindrance as more data became so close that in 1785 Goethe invited Dietrich along for a visit to a spa in Karlsbad. was accumulated that indicated that Here they inspired other spa visitors to join in spatio-temporal changes were a on plant collecting walks and afternoons at the significant factor in plant types. spa were spent by many in deciphering the Even at the height of his delight correct Linnaean classification of the plants they had collected. “The hotel guests all with the Linnaean system of botanizing participated, especially those who themselves on his trip to Karlsbad with Dietrich, pursued this beautiful science. They found Goethe was exposed to opponents of the their minds stimulated in the most charming way by the sight of a handsome jerkin-clad Linnaean system: country boy, running about, exhibiting great Our busy endeavors also had several opponents among the distinguished visitors.

21 Goethe’s Botanical Writings, 154. 20 Goethe’s Botanical Writing, 153. 22 See Kant’s Critique of Judgment.

9 Goethe’sPlantMorphology:TheSeedsofEvolution

We repeatedly heard it said that this science of the semblance of a picture; and so in this botany which we were so assiduously sense I always found the demand to some pursuing was by and large only a extent repugnant.25 nomenclature, a system based on counting – and not very accurate counting at that; that it could satisfy neither reason not the He was put off, as were an increasing imagination, and that it could achieve no number of naturalists by the scholastic satisfactory results. In spite of this objection nature of the Linnaean system. Goethe we confidently pursued our way, which also complained that Linnaeus and his indeed promised to take us far enough into the science of plants.23 successors cared less for what is than for what should be. Like many other But these objections did plant a of naturalists who were being practically doubt in Goethe’s mind. In addition, overwhelmed with new materials from Goethe had been reading Rousseau’s fossil records, from hybrids, from Botany. Franco-Swiss philosopher Jean voyages of discovery, Goethe also began Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) had also to question the ability of the Linnaean been a follower of the Linnaean system system to accurately portray nature. but slowly began to doubt it Linnaeus’ presumption of the fixity of comprehensiveness. Rousseau wrote, species and the artificiality of the system “Yet I confess that the difficulties I came to seem an impediment to encountered in my study of plants caused understanding the natural world. Even me to arrive at several methods whereby as Goethe became dissatisfied with the the study might be made easier and Linnaean system, Goethe felt great beneficial to others, by following the reverence for Linnaeus, praising him for thread of a plant system by a method the “panoramic view” his system more progressive and less removed from provided. the senses than the one pursued by […] Overcome by restlessness, Goethe Linné.” 24 Goethe began to formulate his took these misgivings about botanical own doubts about the coherence of the systematics with him on a trip to Italy. Linnaean system: This journey proved to be a turning point If I am to become consciously articulate about in his studies of plants, but Goethe also these circumstances, let the reader think of me wrote about cloud formations, as a born poet who is ordered to do justice to his subjects, always seeks to derive his meteorology, mineralogy, and conceived expressions immediately from the objects his ideas for several literary works, themselves, each time anew. Imagine that including Die Römischen Eligien. The such a man is now expected to commit to memory a ready-made terminology, a certain Italian journey was to be a time of number and variety of words with which to tremendous creativity for Goethe. He classify any given form, and by a happy wrote, “The chief reason for my journey choice to give it a characteristic name. A was to heal myself from the physical- procedure of that sort always seemed to me to result in a kind mosaic, in which one piece is moral illness... which made me useless… placed next to another, in order to finally to Here, however, another nature, a wider produce out of a thousand individual pieces

23 Goethe’s Botanical Writings, 155. 24 Rousseau as quoted in Goethe’s Botanical Writings 25 Goethe as quoted in Larson, 593.

10 JIDRJournalofInterdisciplinaryResearch field of art opened itself to me.”26 upon the idea that the common part to all Goethe crossed the Alps at the Brenner plants is the . Admittedly the leaf Pass on the ninth of September 1786. can take many forms, yet it is the part of From here he continued on to Verona the plant that Goethe viewed as the and Venice. He remained in Venice for essential characteristic that gave a plant two weeks before moving on to its “plantness.” Goethe’s quote “All is Florence. His destination was Rome, the leaf” is perhaps the most famous line eternal city. Goethe reached Rome on from his botanical writings. What the first of November 1786 and stayed exactly did he mean by this? there for four months. He moved on to To argue his case that all is leaf, Naples and then Palermo. He traveled to Goethe assumed that other botanists and Messina then returned to Rome on the plant enthusiasts had observed some fourteenth of May and lived there for degree of similarity in plant parts. almost a year. On the eighteenth of June “Anyone who devotes the least attention 1788 Goethe reluctantly returned to to the growth of plants can easily note Weimar. that certain of their external parts are He returned convinced that botany often transformed, assuming, either could be approached in a different completely or to some lesser degree, the manner; “I felt that for myself there form of neighboring parts.”29 From this might exist another way, analogous to point of consensus, Goethe began to my own way of life in general.”27 During make his case, piece by piece, that all his trip to Italy, Goethe began to parts of the plant are merely variations formulate a synthetic approach to botany. on one part. He made the case that the As he traveled further south he was seed, when dissected, appears to be damp struck by the luxuriance of the and tightly compact . The first vegetation. Goethe tried to orient sprout out of the ground emerges with himself within this new variety of plant two . These tiny oval-shaped life. Having abandoned the counting of pieces are not similar to the plants stamens and pistils as his primary means mature leaves, (but tend to look the same of classification, Goethe sought another from plant to plant, as will later be means to orient himself. As he had so important for the development of successfully done in his studies of Goethe’s theory.) Goethe made the case osteology,28 Goethe looked for that the cotyledons are a form of leaf. homologies and the common threads that Goethe argued that the of link all plants together. Goethe came flowering plants are leaves of another color. Proceeding to the next plant part, 26 Goethe as quoted in Richards, Robert J. The Romantic Goethe desired to convince his readers Conception of Life. Chicago: The Chicago University Press, 2002. that they should also view the as 27Goethe’s Botanical Writings, 166. a variation of the (which, of course, 28 On 27 March 1784 Goethe discovered the intermaxillary is a variation of the leaf). bone in humans through comparing skulls of a variety of . The lack of an intermaxillary bone had previously been thought to be one of the distinguishing characteristics between humans and other mammals. 29 Goethe’s Botanical Writings, 31.

11 Goethe’sPlantMorphology:TheSeedsofEvolution

All this appears even more credible when we Having always been a visual thinker, consider the close relationship of petals and staminal organs. If the kinship of all other Goethe found it difficult to admit that his parts to each other were equally obvious, so search for the actual plant with the universally observed and settled beyond primal leaf form might be in vain. dispute, the present essay might be considered Eventually, however, Goethe did just superfluous. 30 Thus the argument was developed for all this; he developed a theory based on the parts of the plant. Case by case he notion that a primal leaf form did once exist, and that all plants now have this related all parts back to the leaf. Having 34 made his case that “all is leaf”, Goethe primal information encoded in them. then asked, “What effect does a general Goethe believed that this prototype element in its various modifications have would disclose all the possible types of upon one and the same form?”31 Goethe plants there ever have been and will ever expanded his theory from one in which be. He called this plant prototype the all parts within a plant were related, to “Urpflanze.” Goethe wrote in a letter to one in which all plants were related to German poet Johann Gottfried Herder one another. In other words, all parts of (1844-1803) in 1787, that with the a plant are leaf, and all plants are Urpflanze “one will be able to invent variations of leaf. plants without limit to conform, that is to say, plants even if they do not actually With the thought that the leaf not 35 only comprised all parts of an individual exist nevertheless might exist.” Goethe plant, but that the leaf was a unifying pictured a blueprint or Bauplan for part among all plants, Goethe became “plantness” that would run like a convinced that there must exist an common thread through all plants; no elemental leaf form. Goethe sought to matter how they were transformed over find this actual physical plant from time and space all plants would be recognizable as plants through an which all other plants were but 36 permutations. He planned to search for it underlying code. He writes that nature in Italy and drew sketches of what he “pours her creations forth from the void, thought he would find. He shared his telling them neither whence they have come nor whither they are bound. Each ideas with others, including his friend 37 and fellow poet, Friedrich Schiller must simply run its course.” Goethe (1759-1805). Schiller reacted with called these limitless variations on a skepticism saying, “That is not an simple plan the metamorphosis of plants. empiric experience, it is an idea.”32 In 1790 Goethe published his Goethe was incensed. “Controlling theories on the transmutations of the leaf, myself, I replied. ‘How splendid that I and the metamorphosis of plants in a have ideas without knowing it, and can work entitled Ein Versuch die see them before my very eyes.’”33 34 This line of thinking is similar to what we now term “genotype” and phenotype.” 30 Goethe’s Botanical Writings, 47. 35 Goethe’s Botanical Writings, 14. 31 Goethe’s Botanical Writings, 84. 36 Goethe’s imagined “underlying code” which makes a 32 Goethe’s Botanical Writings, 217. plant a plant is something geneticists are studying today. 33 Goethe’s Botanical Writings, 217. 37 Goethe’s Botanical Writings, 243.

12 JIDRJournalofInterdisciplinaryResearch

Metamorphose der Pflanzen zu Erklären, Erasmus Darwins’s Zoonomia, the or An Attempt to Explain the translator and commentator remarked in Metamorphosis of Plants. Initially this a footnote: work was largely ignored by the public. It is noteworthy, that one of our best German poets Mr. Gehiemerath Göthe presented very Nevertheless, Goethe continued to write similar ideas about the individuality of every about botany. He kept many notes for single in Germany as here portrayed by future works and completed a work on our English singer of the “Botanic Garden.” the spiral tendency of plant growth. All the analogies presented here and from our Mr. Geimerath Göthe (about plant Botany remained for Goethe a strong morphology) give these ideas the ring of interest until his final days. truth.39 As the debate about fixity of Even Erasmus Darwin’s (1701- species grew, Goethe became bolder in 1802) controversial poem about his support of unchecked metamorphoses evolution was given the stamp of of plants, animals, and of nature in respectability in Germany, because the general. He began to view systems, such beloved Goethe had previously written as those of Linnaeus, as simply along the same lines. convenient tools to impose upon nature, Goethe was both a product of his but he believed these systems did not times and an original thinker. He reflect nature. Goethe wrote, “Nature worked systematically as was typical of has no system; she has, she is life and its an Enlightenment thinker, and he progress from an unknown center toward synthesized his work into holistic an unknowable goal.”38 In his later years, theories of nature, as was typical of a Goethe’s thinking was that the evolution Romantic thinker. Goethe approached of nature was limitless. Unlike Darwin, nature with respect, awe and curiosity. Goethe did not identify a mechanism by Goethe wrote, “I feel I know you, nature which metamorphosis occurred; he and so I must grasp you.”40 In his simply stated that variations on basic attempts to grasp nature, Goethe’s primordial forms occurred due to thoughts made their way into the general environmental factors. debate and influenced opinions. He Public interest in Goethe’s views advocated the thought that nature exists on metamorphosis increased as the in a continuous stream, which could only debate about fixity of species became be divided for artificial convenience. one of general concern. There was a Goethe’s theory of the metamorphosis of steady stream of devoted Goethe plants contained the seeds of followers, who pointed out the evolutionary thought. importance of Goethe’s ideas to the debate. As more support formed for the idea of evolution, Goethe seemed to many German scholars a leading thinker 39 in this area. In a German translation of J. D. Brandis as quated in Günther Schmid. Goethe und die Naturwissenschaft: Eine Bibliographie. Halle: Emil Abderhalden, 1940. 244. 40 From “Lied des Physiognomichen Zeichners” Werke, 38 Magnus, . 16:128.

13 Goethe’sPlantMorphology:TheSeedsofEvolution

REFERENCES

Adler, Jeremy. Eine fast magische Anziehungskraft: Goethe’s “Wahlverwndtschaften und die Chemie seiner Zeit. München: C.H. Beck, 1987. Allen, N.J. Categories and classifications: Maussian reflections on the social. New York: Berghahn Books, 2000. Amrine, Frederick, Francis Zucker and Harvey Wheeler, editors. Goethe and the Sciences: A Reappraisal. Dordrecht: D Reidel Publishing Company, 1987. Arber, Agnes. Goethe’s Botany,” Chronica Botanica, X 2. (Whaltham, Mass., 1946). Atran, Scott. Cognitive Foundations of Natural History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Ellen, Roy F. and David Reason, eds. Classifications in their social context. London; New York : Academic Press, 1979. Dawson, Virginia Parker. Nature’s Enigma: The Problem of the Polyp in the Letters of Bonnet, Trembley and Réaumur. Philadelphia: American Philosophical society, 1987. Engard, Charles J. “Poetic Scientist.” The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 68, No. 5. (May 1949), pp. 305-309. Engstrand, Iris H. W. Spanish Scientists in the New World. Seatle: University of Washington Press, 1981. Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York: Pantheon Books, 1972 Frank, Otto. Handbuch der Klassifikation. Berlin: Beuth-Vertrieb, 1941. Furth, Hans G. and Norman A. Milgram. The influence of language on classification; a theoretical model applied to normal, retarded, and deaf children. Provincetown, Massechusettes, 1965. Frängsmyr, Tore, J.L. Heilbron and Robin E. Rider. The Quantifying Spirit in the 18th Century. Berkely: University of California Press, 1990. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Goethe’s Botanical Writings. translated by Bertha Mueller. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1952. ------Versuch der Metamorphose der Pflanzen zu erklären. Gotha: CarlWilhelm Ettinger, 1790. ------Werke. Sachsen: Weimer: Böhlaus Nachf., 1999. Iyer, Hemalata. Classificatory structures: concepts, relations and representation. Frankfurt am Main : Indeks Verlag, 1995. Jeffrey, C. An Introduction to . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Kelley, Donald and Richard H. Popkin, eds. The Shapes of knowledge from the Renaissance to Enlightenment. Dordrecht ; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991. Klein, Ursula. “Context and Limits of Lavosier’s Analytical Plant Chemistry: Plant Materials and their classifications.” Ambix. Volume 52 Number 2 July 2005. Krätz, Otto. Goethe und die Naturwissenschaft. München: Verlag Georg D. Callwey, 1992.

14 JIDRJournalofInterdisciplinaryResearch

Lane, Charles. A classification of sciences and arts, or, A map of human knowledge. London : Effingham Wilson, 1826. Larsen, James L. “Goethe and Linnaeus.” Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 28, No.4. (Oct.-Dec., 1967), pp. 590-596. Linnaeus, Carl von. per regna tria naturæ: secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. 1789-96. Linda Hall Library - Special Collections. ------Philosophia Botanica, translated by Stephen Freer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Lovejoy, Arthur Oncken. The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. Camdridge: Harvard Universit Press, 1953. Magnus, Rudolf. Goethe as a Scientist. translated by Heinz Norden. Leipzig: Henry Schuman1949. McKeon, Richard. The Basic Works of Aristotle Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1941. Parker, Sybil, ed. Synopsis and classification of living organisms. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982. Richards, Robert J. The Romantic Conception of Life. Chicago: The Chicago University Press, 2002. Schmid, Günther. Goethe und die Naturwissenschaft: Eine Bibliographie. Halle: Emil Abderhalden, 1940. Slaughter, M.M. Universal Languages and Scientific Taxonomy in the Seventeenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Solbrig, Otto T. Principles and Methods of Plant Biosystematics. Toronto: The Macmillan Company, 1970. Stamos, David N. The species problem: biological species, ontology, and the metaphysics of . Lanham : Lexington Books, 2003. Stevens, Peter Francis. The development of biological systematics: Antoine- Laurent de Jussieu, Nature, and the Natural system. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. Szostak, Rick . Classifying science: phenomena, data, theory, method, practice. Dordrecht: Springer; Norwell, Mass.: Distributed in North, Central and South American by Springer, 2004. Wells, George A. “Goethe and Evolution.” Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 28, No. 4. (Oct.-Dec., 1967), pp.537-550. Weissberg. Liliane. “Desired Reconciliations: On Language as Experiment.” MLN, Vol. 103, No. 5, Comparative Literature. (Dec., 1988), pp. 1056

15