JULIUS SACHS. 163 



surely think that he (Sachs) was employed by the author 

 to illustrate his work. Towards the end of his life the 

 frequent revisions needed for a text-book became a burden 

 to him : he could not make up his mind to a fifth edition 

 and wrote his Lectures in a freer style of exposition. 



The book, however, that presents the best insight into 

 Sachs' individuality is his History of Botany. Nageli had 

 originally been commissioned to undertake this work, 

 which was to form a part of The History of Science in 

 Germany issued by the Royal Academy of Bavaria, but 

 he had soon abandoned the task. It cost Sachs five years' 

 continuous toil. As with all human work it has many 

 defects and omissions, but the lucidity, the profound philo- 

 sophical bent of Sachs' mind, lend an incomparable charm 

 to the whole. An English translation of this work appeared 

 in 1890. 



If I further attempt to briefly characterise Sachs' im- 

 portance with respect to science it is with a due sense of 

 the difficulties of the case. His activity was so compre- 

 hensive, the results of his researches have become through 

 his Text-book so largely common property, that it is not 

 easy to briefly set forth what he has done for science. One 

 would have to write a history of botany from i860 onwards 

 to justly rate his services. But this is by no means the 

 place for such a work, nor do I feel equal to the task. The 

 extracts already given show that he was no one-sided 

 physiologist, and he was fully aware of the fact. "It may 

 surprise you," he writes, "that from my boyhood the 

 mysteries of relationship (systematic botany) have interested 

 me more than those of biology and physiology. I have 

 apparently specialised in the last-named branch of science, 

 because I have always been of the opinion that the ultimate 

 problems of systematic botany can only be solved by 

 physiological methods." His latest treatises most clearly 

 reveal what he meant. 



De Bary's remarks with respect to Mohl apply more 

 or less to almost all distinguished investigators (Bot. 

 Zeitung, 1872, p. 572). "As regards a number of dis- 

 coveries for which we are indebted to Mohl, his claims to 



12 



