^] Albertus Magnus 5 



Albertus seems to have had a fine scorn for that branch 

 of the science now known as Systematic Botany. He 

 considered that to catalogue all the species was too vast 

 and detailed a task, and one altogether unsuited to the 

 philosopher. ^ However, in his Sixth Book he so far un- 

 bends as to give descriptions of a number of plants. 



As regards abstract problems, the views of Albertus 

 on plant life may be summed up as follows. The plant 

 is a living being, and its life principle is the vegetable 

 soul, whose function is limited to nourishment, growth and 

 reproduction — feeling, desire, sleep, and sexuality, properly 

 so called, being unknown in the plant world. 



Albertus was troubled by many subtle problems con- 

 nected with the souls of plants, such questions, for instance, 

 as whether in the case of the material union of two indi- 

 viduals, such as the ivy and its supporting tree, their souls 

 also united. Like Theophrastus, and other early writers, 

 Albertus held the theory that species were mutable, and 

 illustrated this view by pointing out that cultivated plants 

 might run wild and become degenerate, while wild plants 

 might be domesticated. Some of his ideas, however, on 

 the possibility of changes from one species to another, were 

 quite baseless. He stated, for instance, that, if a wood of 

 oak or beech were razed to the ground, an actual transfor- 

 mation took place, aspens and poplars springing up in place 

 of the previously existing trees. 



The temperate tone of the remarks made by Albertus 

 on the medical virtues of plants contrasts favourably with 

 the puerilities of many later writers. Much of the criticism 

 from which he has suffered at various times has been, in 

 reality, directed against a book called ' De virtutibus her- 

 barum,' the authorship of which was quite erroneously 

 attributed to him. We shall refer to this work again in 

 Chapter VHI. 



After the time of Albertus, no great student of Aristo- 

 telian botany arose before Andrea Cesalpino, whose writings, 

 which belong to the end of the sixteenth century, will be 

 considered in a later chapter. The work of Cesalpino had 

 great qualities, but, curiously enough, it had little influence 

 on the science of his time. He may be regarded as perhaps 

 the last important representative of Aristotelian botany. 



