I9i THE HISTORY OF BIOLOGY 



takes his stand by the old point of view; he begins each description with a list 

 of names in different languages, followed by an account of what ancient 

 authors have said of the plant in question; finally he gives his own "judg- 

 ment" on the plant and ends with a statement as to its "powers." Compared 

 with Gesner's exposition of the individual forms of animals (Part I, p. 93), 

 this is certainly clumsy, but as being the first of its kind the work at any 

 rate deserves respect. There is no system in it whatever; the book begins 

 with Plantago, plantain, "because it is common and because more than any 

 other plant it bears witness to God's omnipotence." 



Thus it was at all events the medicinal powers of plants which most in- 

 terested Brunfels, and the same is true of his numerous successors in the six- 

 teenth century. The most interesting of these is Leonard Fuchs (1501-66), 

 who after working at humanistic studies under Catholic guidance went over 

 to Protestantism, devoted himself to medicine, and finally became professor 

 at Tubingen. His important botanical work Historia Stirpum, profusely and 

 beautifully illustrated, was published in 1541. Its chief interest lies in the 

 fact that he gives a list of all the terms he uses: an enumeration followed by 

 short descriptions of the names of the different parts of plants. Curiously 

 enough, the word "flower" is entirely absent. His description of individual 

 plants, as compared with Brunfels's, indicates an important advance; of 

 every plant an account is given of the (i) form, (2.) habitat, (3) season 

 (when it should be collected), (4) "temperament," (5) powers. It is only 

 under the last heading that the views of the ancient authorities are referred 

 to. Occasionally also the author, after the fashion of Aristotle, differen- 

 tiates to some extent between species and genus. 



Cesalpino's -plant-system 

 The first to deal with botany as a truly independent science, however, was 

 Andrea Cesalpino (15 19-1603). His life was described in the first section 

 (Part I, p. 113), as also his general scientific point of view — strict Aristo- 

 teleanism. His great work on botany, De Plantis, is based on the same sys- 

 tem. Not only the fundamental ideas, but even the actual formal treatment 

 of the subject is entirely on the Aristotelean model: exhaustive comparative 

 analysis of the forms, concisely worded theoretical definitions, and, based 

 on these, abstract conclusions, without any idea of such practical utility as 

 was the main point with the old herbalists of the type of Brunfels. He begins 

 a definition of the difference between plants and animals in the true Aris- 

 totelean style: plants feed, grow, and produce offspring, but lack the sensi- 

 bility and motion of animals and therefore also need smaller organs than 

 animals. Then follows a comparison between vegetable and animal organs, 

 which, owing to its abstract one-sidedness, leads to curious results: the 

 alimental organs of plants are the roots; thus these correspond to the stomach 

 and intestinal canal in animals. Stalk and stem produce the fruit; thus they 



