82 Germany. 
His ignorance is characterized by his reference to the 
“sulphurous and nitric elements of the soil” as cause 
of spontaneous forest fires. 
Opinionated and one-sided, like many so-called prac- 
tical men, he came into polemic controversies with other 
practitioners, not less opinionated, among them J. G. 
Beckmann, who worked in another part of Saxony, 
where, having to deal with coniferous woods, he had 
gathered different experiences from those of Doebel. 
Although he was himself poorly educated, especially in 
natural sciences, he complained of the ignorance of the 
foresters, and in his book (Anweisung zu einer pfleg- 
lichen Forstwirthschaft, 1759), used for the first time 
the word Forstwissenschaft (forest science), and insisted 
upon the necessity of studying nature. 
He may be credited with having really advanced for- 
est organization by devising the first good volume 
division method and silviculture by advocating the 
method of clearing with sowing. 
The first practical forester with a university education 
was J. J. Biichting, who worked in the Harz mountains. 
His main interest lay in the direction of survey, division 
and orderly utilization. He did not, however, make any 
striking advance, except that he gave equal standing to 
both planting and sowing. 
The two most eminent practitioners of the period, 
however, active during the middle of the century, 
were Johann Georg von Langen and his pupil, Hans 
Dietrich von Zanthier, both of noble family, and better 
educated than most of their contemporaries and both en- 
gaged in the organization and management of Harz 
mountain forests, namely, those of the Duke of Bruns- 
wick and of the Count of Stolberg-Wernigerode.' 
