HEROES OF SCIENCE.
HEROES OF SCIENCE.
BOTANISTS, ZOOLOGISTS, AND GEOLOGISTS.
BY
PROFESSOR P. MARTIN DUNCAN, F.R.S., F.L.S.,
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY;
HONORARY FELLOW OF KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON.
PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMITTEE
OF GENERAL LITERATURE AND EDUCATION APPOINTED BY THE
SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE.
LONDON:
SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE;
NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE, CHARING CROSS;
43, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET; 48, PICCADILLY;
AND 135, NORTH STREET, BRIGHTON.
NEW YORK: E. & J. B. YOUNG AND CO.
1882.
[Illustration]
PREFACE.
[Illustration]
There is no little difficulty in obtaining correct and reliable life
histories of most of the greatest naturalists. Many of the men to whom
natural history science owes so much, lived extremely retired and
uneventful lives; but a few, and as might have been anticipated, the
reformers and epoch makers of their respective sciences, have had their
most interesting biographies well written. Abstracts of these biographies
form a large portion of this book; and the author desires to acknowledge
the very copious extracts he has made, from sources which he has
recognized in the proper places.
[Illustration]
INTRODUCTION.
[Illustration]
Most of us, on leaving school or college, are anxious about our future
career in the world, and concerning how we are to live, and what will be
our occupations. Some young people who have finished their education,
find themselves in comfortable circumstances, and are apt to look
forward to an easy life; but the majority have a hard struggle before
them, ere they can hope to be free from cares and to be successful.
Yet it usually happens, that those youths starting with the very best
prospects, do not live so happily, usefully, and well, as those who have
to struggle with poverty, and who casting aside inglorious ease, labour
on perseveringly. It is hard to believe, until the experience of years
brings its very practical proofs that knowledge is more valuable than
money; and therefore, how to get rich, is a predominant question with the
majority of us. But the history of the struggles and successes of some
of the men who have led most useful and beautiful lives, generally shows
that industry, perseverance and contentment have served them better than
pecuniary wealth, and that this has often been a source of trouble to
them. There is no better incitement to a youth who has tried to do his
best at school, and who is thinking about leading a useful, successful
life, than to read the history of the lives of the men whose names are
household words in the branches of knowledge he has learned.
At the present time, much care is taken to instruct young people about
the nature and uses of plants, the characteristics of animals and the
ancient history of the earth. Museums are readily visited, and little
home collections of plants, insects, birds, and fossils are frequently
easily made. Natural history, in all its branches, is easily studied; and
as one becomes learned in it, the names of many men, constantly, come
before the student as the masters of their respective subjects. Who has
not heard of Linnæus, Cuvier, and Lyell? If any young naturalist will
read the history of the lives of these great men, he will find much that
is very noble in them; he will see that they made their way through great
difficulties, by constant and great intellectual labour, and that they
led very good, and useful, and happy lives.
It may happen that any one just commencing to study nature, is anxious
to make a great discovery and to obtain a great name. The history of the
lives of these and other heroes of science, will prove to him, however,
that discoveries are not sudden gains of knowledge, but are the result
of very slow and gradual accumulation of facts. If he is a real student
of nature, he will strive for truth and not for personal distinction;
and the truth, brings a better reward than the fleeting praise of man.
The true lasts. He will be able to glean that the special gifts of men,
if properly fostered and cultivated, advance knowledge in particular
directions, and that certain great changes and advances in the method
of learning, have been due to men who have begun poor, have laboured
hard, have been persecuted and vilified, and who have nevertheless lived
happily in their consciences, and have often become great men in every
respect.
The following chapters contain the history of the lives of some of the
most interesting men of ancient and modern times—of men who are the
heroes of Botany, Zoology, and Geology, and who have added methods of
study and many facts to their sciences.
[Illustration]
CONTENTS.
[Illustration]
PAGE.
CHAPTER I.
THE INFANCY OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCIENCE OF PLANTS.
Old fancies and notions about plants—Aristoteles, the first
botanist—Theophrastus—Plinius—Dioscorides—Their lives, labours,
and troubles 1
CHAPTER II.
THE RISE OF THE SCIENCE OF PLANTS.
John Ray—Joseph de Tournefort—Their lives 27
CHAPTER III.
THE LIFE OF LINNÆUS.
The science of plants begins to mature, to be reformed, and to
be made more exact 52
CHAPTER IV.
THE LIFE OF LINNÆUS (_Continued_).
The publication and reception of the artificial system of
classifying plants 81
CHAPTER V.
THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE SCIENCE OF PLANTS.
The life of De Candolle—The Natural System 98
CHAPTER VI.
HEROES OF ZOOLOGY.
The nature of the science of zoology—Great zoologists usually
botanists also—Aristoteles as a zoologist—Plinius—The long age
of no progress—The life of Conrad Gesner—The zoology of Ray and
Willughby—Swammerdam—Réaumur—The zoology of Linnæus 122
CHAPTER VII.
THE LIVES OF BUFFON, PENNANT, AND LAMARCK.
The popular writings of Buffon, and his life—Pennant’s
life—Lamarck and his life—The rise of popular natural history,
and of exact descriptions and philosophical zoology 144
CHAPTER VIII.
THE LIFE OF CUVIER.
The union of zoology and comparative anatomy, and the
examination and study of fossil remains 178
CHAPTER IX.
HEROES OF GEOLOGY.
The rise of the science which treats of the ancient history
of the earth—Students of the present changes which are
the examples by which the past may be comprehended—The
Greeks—The life of Pythagoras; a notice of the geology of
Aristoteles—Strabo’s life—The nature of fossils and the life of
Steno 209
CHAPTER X.
THE LIFE OF HUTTON.
The rise of the modern school of geology—The continuity of
the operations of nature and their sameness—The necessity of
studying the existing state of things in order to comprehend
the past—The denial of catastrophes—Hutton’s theory of the
earth the foundation of scientific geology 221
CHAPTER XI.
THE LIFE OF WILLIAM SMITH.
The succession of the strata recognized—Strata known by their
fossils, position, and mineral contents—England surveyed by
Smith and made the type of the results of the succession of
changes studied by geology 236
CHAPTER XII.
THE LIFE OF MURCHISON.
The older rocks of the globe studied accurately and
surveyed—The general similarity of the succession of strata
in many parts of the world decided—The geology of Wales and
Scotland described—The commencement of accurate geological
surveys 275
CHAPTER XIII.
THE LIFE OF LYELL.
The study of existing nature and its changes undertaken in
order to comprehend the past changes during geological ages—The
uniformity of natural operations under law—Catastrophes
abolished—The succession of life on the globe, and that of the
tertiary ages explained—The antiquity of man and of the great
ice age established 307
[Illustration]
HEROES OF SCIENCE.
[Illustration]
CHAPTER I.
THE INFANCY OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCIENCE OF PLANTS.
Old fancies and notions about plants—Aristoteles, the first
botanist—Theophrastus—Plinius—Dioscorides—Their lives, labours,
and troubles.
Everybody likes to gather flowers for the sake of their beauty and scent,
and most young people ask the names and the uses of the plants which
grow them. These appear to have been the questions that the earliest
races of men sought to answer for themselves. They gave plants names, and
ascribed some truthful and a great many very curious and false properties
to them. Many of the first races of men lived on fruits, vegetables,
and roots, and it became important to know good and nourishing plants
from those which were poisonous. The ablest men of the tribes, probably,
studied the names which had been given by custom to many plants; and the
healing power of some plants, and the poisonous nature of others began
to be known; the good and ill-disposed amongst men endeavoured to learn
all about them. Thus the first steps in the science of plants were to
name them, and to ascribe properties to them. It has often been noticed
that there is some resemblance between the history of the progress of
a science, during all the ages of civilization, and that of the rise
and progress of one in the child, youth, and man. The child receives
everything that it is told, as a truth, and loves the wonderful; the
youth likes to hear of mysteries, and his emotions and poetic feeling
lead him to desire general truths; and the man criticizes what he has
been told, tries to learn for himself, and longs for exact knowledge and
the absolute truth. So in the early days of civilization, men believed
in everything that was told them, and ascribed wonderful properties to
the nature around them which they saw was so beautiful and yet often so
terrible. As the world got older, curious legends were associated with
truths and falsities; and with the general diffusion of learning, and the
careful exercise of the reasoning powers, knowledge became more exact and
useful, and was followed for truth’s sake.
All branches of knowledge relating to nature passed through many stages,
and were influenced by the prevailing habits and methods of thought of
the age. The wonderful, the mysterious, the marvellous, the union of
poetry with true and false religion, the struggle between the desire for
truth and fear of the persecution of the ignorant, and the victory of
cultivated observation and reason, all followed, in order, during the
history of the progress of every science. A great writer states that it
cannot then surprise us that the earliest lore concerning plants, which
we discover in the records of the past, consists of mythological legends,
marvellous relations, and extraordinary medicinal qualities. To the
lively fancy of the Greeks, the narcissus, which bends its head over the
stream, was originally a youth who, in such an attitude, became enamoured
of his own beauty. The hyacinth, on whose flower certain markings are to
be traced resembling the Greek expression of grief (ΑΙΑΙ), recorded the
sorrow of the god Apollo for the death of his favourite Hyacinthus. The
beautiful lotus of India, which floats with its splendid flower on the
surface of the water, is the chosen seat of the goddess Lackshmi, the
daughter of Ocean. In Egypt, the god Osiris swam on a lotus leaf, and the
lotus-eaters of Homer lost their love of home immediately.
These legends and odd fancies, although believed in by the populace
of the Eastern nations until a late period in history, were of great
antiquity and under different names of gods and plants, heroes and
flowers had been handed down from the dawn of civilization. Yet this
was not all the knowledge about plants in those early years. The more
thoughtful amongst men began to recognize plants by name and to study
their uses. Some men were hunters and shepherds, but with them were those
who, with gentler spirit, tilled the ground and stored the fruits of the
earth. What these were, can be learned from the pictures in Egyptian
paintings. The corn of Egypt was wheat and barley, and it is interesting
to know that the wheat was of a kind that must have been produced by
skilled cultivation.
The vine comes early into notice in the Bible, and it had been studied,
for wine was made of its fruit. Solomon loved nature, because it brought
him into the presence of truth and beauty, and he “spoke of trees from
the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth
out of the wall.” This was part of his wisdom. And the great traveller,
Herodotus, shows us that a taste for natural history had, in his time,
found a place in the mind of the Greeks—a great race who followed after
the first child-like nature-studies of the Chaldeans, Assyrians, and
Babylonians had merged into real knowledge. In speaking of the luxuriant
vegetation of the plains of Babylon—now dreary wastes—he is so far from
desiring to astonish merely, that he says “the blades of wheat and barley
are full four fingers wide; but as to the size of the trees which grow
from millet and sesame, though I could mention it I will not, knowing
well that those who have not been in that country will hardly believe
what I have said already.” It is clear that when the Greeks were in the
child-like stage of plant lore, the older races had passed it, and were
successful cultivators of plants that had required much study to turn
to use. But the Greeks soon made amends, and the teacher of Alexander
the Great, Aristoteles, tried to arrange plants, and to classify them
according to their peculiarities. Plants and herbs had been long used as
medicine, and the poisonous properties of aconite had been employed to
destroy one of the noblest men of old, before this time, so that this
celebrated naturalist had the knowledge, which had been accumulating for
centuries, to put in order and to arrange.
Aristoteles was born at Stageira, in the year 384 B.C., and it is
interesting to note that his wonderful love of nature was fostered by,
and, indeed, probably arose from the profession of his father. His
father was the physician and friend of Amyntas, King of Macedonia, and
his mother was a descendant of the great physician Æsculapius. The young
Aristoteles lost both his parents at an early period of his life, but the
son of Amyntas, called Philip, was his friend, and kind people brought
the boy up. We know nothing of the boy’s habits or method of life; but
it can be readily understood by those who read these lives, and have had
a love of nature, before the experience of such a calamity as the loss
of parents, that many an hour of sorrow was shortened and solaced by
studying the graceful and blooming plants and the movements and habits
of animals. Certain it is that the boy loved study, and it soon became
evident that his loss was compensated, as it is very often in such
cases, by a spirit of self-reliance. In his eighteenth year he went to
Athens to study the healing art. When Aristoteles was about twenty-one
years of age, the philosopher Plato returned from Sicily, and the young
man then seems to have cared more for the study of the sciences which
were requisite for a polished physician, than for the art of healing.
He made his first self-sacrifice, as many a man has done since; he gave
up the uncertainties of the art of curing diseases, and learned natural
history and philosophy. His eagerness for knowledge and his extraordinary
acuteness and sagacity doubtless attracted Plato’s notice, who soon
called him “the intellect of the school,” and said his house was “the
house of the reader.” As Aristoteles grew up, his early training and his
love of the truth seen in nature, began to separate him from the common
run of men, and his self-reliance began to make him an antagonist to the
teachings even of the great Plato. But this opposition was not that of a
vain and conceited young man. Plato had noticed his ability, and he was
really a man of mark, whose opinions were valuable. Aristoteles studied
facts, and knew many truths about natural history, but his wonderful
master cared more for ideas. Such men must always clash, and Aristoteles
writes in one of his books about his opposition to the philosophy of
Plato, that it is painful to refute the doctrine of ideas, as it has
been introduced by persons who were his friends; “nevertheless it is a
duty to disregard such private feelings, for both philosophers and truth
are dear to me, but it is right to give the preference to truth.” Truth!
what is truth? said Pilate, and turned from the true. The Creator’s
light, seen with our longing eyes, precious beyond conception, the
sweetest solace of intellect; what is, what was—yet not to be defined by
finite man. The very root of science, it is that which we are to hold in
our consciences against all opposition. Appreciated by the savage, dear
to pagan, the pride of the Christian, the giver of confidence amongst all
men. Hard to get at, yet it is at the foundation of all those branches of
knowledge which relate to the study of the Creation. Aristoteles studied
natural history, that is, the plants and animals which came before him,
especially. He recorded their description, noted their reproduction, and
tried to make out their resemblances. He noticed the growth of things,
and the decay of the surface of the earth, and having the facts and
truths before him, he argued upon them. His master, Plato, was not a
naturalist, but accepting the truths handed down to him by those who
were observers of nature, he generalized about them, and got ideas by
thinking out the bearings of the truths. He loved the ideal, and wrote,
“Behold this world! You will find that its efficient cause is God, by
whom it was brought into being; its moving cause, the goodness of the
Creator.” He could no more occupy time by studying the structure of the
flowers, plants, and sea-shells, than Aristoteles could in imagining or
speculating on the causes of things. Both desired the truth, and tried to
get it in different manners; but as at the present day there are moral
philosophers and naturalists with totally different kinds of mind and
habits of thought, so in those old days the master and pupil never worked
together. The master gave way to his grand imagination, and the pupil was
strictly a matter-of-fact man.
Aristoteles remained at Athens until he was thirty-seven years of age,
when the death of Plato, in 347 B.C., happened. Before that time,
however, he had become a man of note, and the Athenians sent him on an
embassy to his friend and former patron, Philip of Macedon. It appears
that he was able to serve his adopted country; but he made a mistake
which all naturalists should avoid—he became a politician. His position
at Athens became uncomfortable, and he left the city after the death
of Plato, and, accompanied by a fellow-disciple of the great teacher,
went into Asia Minor. They were invited by the Prince of Atarneus, named
Hermeias, who had received lessons from Aristoteles. This man was once
the slave of a banker, and when at Athens received a liberal education.
Returning to his native country, he fought for Eubulus, the King of
Atarneus, successfully against the Persians. On the death of Eubulus he
was raised to the throne, and gladly welcomed one of the men who had
given him knowledge, and, therefore, power. The romance of Aristoteles’
life followed quickly, for, unfortunately, Hermeias was captured by
the Persians under a Greek general, after Aristoteles had been three
years with him. He was put to death, and Aristoteles fled to Mitylene,
the chief city of the neighbouring island of Lesbos. Hermeias had a
sister, Pythias, and Aristoteles, knowing her excellent character and
disposition, and being aware of the sad fate which she would suffer,
were she to fall into the hands of the Persians, married her, and she
accompanied him in his flight. She made him an excellent wife, and
Aristoteles had always a fervent and sincere affection for the patriotic
and philosophical prince his friend.
After two years’ residence in Mitylene, Aristoteles was invited by
Philip to return to Macedonia, to superintend the education of his son
Alexander, the future Alexander the Great, then fourteen years old. He
was with this very able prince during about four years, and instructed
him in morality, politics, and natural history. It was a strange position
for a student of nature to occupy, and that he did his duty to his pupil
is evident. It is the universal opinion that much that was admirable
in the character of Alexander the Great was due to the influence of
Aristoteles. The great conqueror was fond of literature, delighted in
physical and even medical pursuits, sought the intimacy of men who
thought, rather than that of men who had no other recommendation than
titles and riches, and was devoted to the study of nature. These were
the fruits of Aristoteles’ instruction, and it must be remembered that
Alexander differed entirely in his conduct from the brutal conquerors who
have been, over and over again, the scourge and curse of mankind.
Aristoteles lost his wife during this time, and she left him an only
daughter. Then Philip was assassinated, and his son reigned at Macedon
for two years, and then began his great expedition into Asia. Aristoteles
accompanied his pupil to Athens, and parted with him never to see him
again, but still to influence him for years. Unfortunately, however,
Aristoteles recommended a relation, named Callisthenes, to the young
king, and it was the cause of a rupture of friendship in years to come.
Left to himself, our hero resolved to open a school for the benefit of
the Athenian youth, and to teach good learning in philosophy and nature.
He chose a house near a temple of Apollo Lyceius, which was called
the “Lyceum,” and attached to it was a garden with walks, where the
instruction was given. The Greek word for the walks was _peripatua_, and
the school was called that of the peripatetics. His habit was to give
one lecture in the early part of the day, on the more difficult parts
of his teaching, to his more advanced students; and this was called the
morning walk, and lasted till the hour when people dressed and anointed
themselves. Another lecture, called the evening walk, was on more
popular subjects, and to a larger and less select class. It was during
these thirteen years of teaching that Aristoteles composed and completed
the greater part of his works which have descended to our days. Amongst
them are treatises on natural history, the result of his own observations
and of the carefully selected works of others.
His great pupil never forgot his master during his victorious career,
and Alexander is said to have sent Aristoteles the enormous sum of
eight hundred talents to prosecute his studies in natural history. He,
moreover, ordered several thousands of persons over the whole of Greece
and Asia, who lived by hunting, bird-catching, and fishing, or who
had the care of parks, herds, hives, stews, and aviaries, to furnish
Aristoteles with materials for a work on animals. Two volumes on plants
were written by Aristoteles, but they are lost to us; and he influenced
the botanists of his day by his great exactitude of description and
observation.
Aristoteles’ writings and teaching embraced a great variety of subjects,
and they were so genuine that he became the leader of one of the
principal schools of Greece; and his method of study and many of his
facts and ideas have influenced mankind down to the present day. His
works were much studied during the Middle Ages, and although his books on
botany have been lost, still he influenced the study of botany through
his pupil, Theophrastus, who became the great light of after years.
There is one point about Aristoteles’ character which everybody must
admire, and it was the gratitude he felt for the good friends of his
youth and of the days of struggling upwards in his career. It has been
noticed that he was brought up by kind people. They were not relations,
but probably were appointed his guardians by his father. They were
Proxenus and his wife, citizens of Atarneus, who had left that city and
had been long resident in Stageira. Not only were they the good friends
of the boy, but they evidently brought him in contact with Hermeias, who
subsequently became the prince of the place and Aristoteles’ fast friend
and brother-in-law. Aristoteles testified his gratitude to his friends by
directing in his will that statues of them, as well as of his parents,
should be set up at his expense. He likewise educated their son, Nicanor,
to whom he gave his daughter in marriage. Whilst growing old he wrote a
beautiful poem, which is still to be read, praising the virtues of his
friend and patron, Hermeias.
But success in life is sure to produce envy and hostility, and
Aristoteles was no exception to this rule. A charge was made against
him of impiety, and that he had made a god of his friend Hermeias. Such
charges were not uncommon in those days. Socrates, one of the greatest
and purest of men, had been accused of impiety a few years before, and
that teacher of the immortality of the soul, and the master and friend
of Plato, had been condemned and poisoned. The charges were absurd
enough, but the judges were ignorant, and sunk in paganism, and almost
invariably took the side of the accuser. Indeed, all through the history
of the progress of the rise of civilization there were men who teaching
a false religion, accused the bright lights of genius, science, and
wit, of irreligion. The false priest and the fighting class, with rare
exceptions, have always persecuted the leaders in science, and have
antagonized progress, except in their own interests.
When the charge was made against Aristoteles, Alexander the Great was
dead, and the great teacher, knowing full well what would be the result
of the trial, quitted Athens and took refuge in Chalcis, in Eubœa,
saying that he wished to prevent the Athenians _twice running against
philosophy_, alluding to the judicial murder of Socrates.
But Aristoteles’ work was nearly ended, and the slightly made, delicate,
and sensitive man sank during the first year of his exile, in the
sixty-third year of his age.
A great writer on moral philosophy, the man whose career has just been
noticed will always remain a master in natural history subjects also.
He was really a greater student of animal life than of plants; but it
appears that his method of study of botany, and much of his knowledge,
have descended to us, in consequence of his careful teaching, through his
pupil Theophrastus. A great writer remarks that “everywhere Aristoteles
observes _the facts_ with attention; he compares them with sagacity,
and endeavours to rise to the qualities they have in common.” He found
the study of plants in its very infancy and loaded with child-like and
wonderful stories, and he rejected the nonsense and studied what was
to be observed by any one in nature. In fact, he took the first step
which a well-educated boy of the present century does in trying to learn
nature unaided. He observed as correctly as possible, took notes of his
observations, compared the observations made on one plant with those
recorded about another, and tried to explain or discover the things which
were common to both. It must not be imagined that the botanical work
of Aristoteles exists as part of the systems of botany of the present
day; but he clearly gave the method of how to study, by insisting on the
superior value of observed facts, over notions and preconceived ideas
about things. The childhood of the science passed with him.
The name of Theophrastus has been noticed as that of the pupil of
Aristoteles, and it is one which will always be mentioned with respect
by students of natural history. He was born at Eresus, on the island of
Lesbos; but the date of his birth is uncertain; moreover, nothing is
known of his early youth, except that his name was Tyrtamus. His early
education must have been good, and he was sent to study at Athens by his
father, and to be a pupil of Plato. Becoming a friend of Aristoteles,
this great man, charmed with the abilities, and especially with the
beautiful pronunciation and oratory of the youth, gave him the name of
Theophrastus, or one who speaks divinely. Theophrastus studied with
Plato, and on the death of his master, left the academy and mixed with
the turbulent politics of the day, but in a truly patriotic spirit. He
was absent from Athens for many years, and the historian Plutarch writes
that Theophrastus delivered his country twice from the oppression of
tyrants. One of the defeated at the battle of Chæronæa, Theophrastus
returned to Athens, gave up the military life, and became the favourite
pupil of Aristoteles in the Lyceum.
Theophrastus became an earnest student of Aristoteles’ teaching, and his
singular grace of expression and knowledge of his mother tongue soon made
him a prominent philosopher.
When Aristoteles retired, his pupil became his successor; and as he
combined the knowledge of that teacher with the eloquence of Plato, his
success was extraordinary. The number of his pupils, on one occasion, is
said to have amounted to two thousand who flocked around him from all
parts of Greece. He soon began to feel the effects of his well-deserved
and useful success upon the envious minds of the men who had caused the
retirement of Aristoteles. And this envy and malice were rendered all the
more intense because, having been a gallant soldier, and being a great
teacher of advanced knowledge, Theophrastus became an authority on all
intellectual subjects. A man was put forward by a party in the State,
to bring the same charge of impiety against Theophrastus which had
succeeded in the instances of Socrates and Aristoteles. But Theophrastus
pleaded his own cause before the Areopagus with such convincing eloquence
that he was pronounced innocent. On the other hand, his accuser would
have fallen a victim to the false charge he had brought, had not his
noble-minded antagonist pleaded for his pardon.
After this event the teacher pursued his course of public teaching and
private research without any molestation for years. His school increased
in reputation, and the most distinguished scholars of the day were
members of it. Demetrius Phalereus, ruler of the State, was one of the
students in his youth, and he protected Theophrastus and patronized him
in every way. Botany was not the strongest subject of this great man,
and probably what he knew about it was largely derived from the teaching
of Aristoteles; but evidently his work on plants was one of the earliest
that was written with anything like scientific precision. Nevertheless,
Theophrastus added much original matter, for he had a botanic garden, and
he collected plants during his travels in Greece. His military friends
kept him supplied with specimens of Asiatic, Egyptian, and Arabian
plants, and with descriptions of their natures and peculiarities, some
of which were true and others quite imaginary. What was true and what
was not true was frequently a puzzle to this philosopher, as it is to
modern naturalists. He wrote, “The drug sellers and root cutters tell
us some things which may be true, but other things which are merely
solemn quackery. Thus they direct us to gather some plants, standing from
the wind and with our bodies anointed; some by night, some by day, some
before the sun falls on them. So far there may be something in their
rules; but others are too fantastical and far-fetched. It is, perhaps,
not absurd to use a prayer in plucking a plant; but they go further than
this. We are to draw a sword three times round the mandragora, and to
cut it looking to the west; again, to dance round it, and to use obscene
language, as those who sow cumin should utter blasphemies. Again, we
are to draw a line round the black hellebore, standing to the east, and
praying; and to avoid an eagle either on the right or on the left; for
they say if an eagle be near, the cutter will die in a year.”
This was the nonsense, out of which Theophrastus had to extricate the
true wisdom of plants, and he tried to put aside fancies, legends, and
the opinions of men, and to puzzle out the meaning of the similarities
and differences of plants, by first of all learning and describing their
construction, habits, methods of growth, and increase.
Only a fragment of the last of ten books on plants written by
Theophrastus has come down to us. The writings made such an impression
on the students that their general bearing has been transmitted, and the
main points are as follows. Theophrastus classified plants by the manner
in which they were reproduced, the localities where they were found,
their size, as trees or shrubs or herbs, and according to their uses, as
furnishing juices, pot-herbs, and seeds that may be eaten. The first book
treated of the parts of the plant—the root, stem, leaves, flower, and
seed, and the second of the manner in which plants seed, and the proper
times for sowing seeds, and how to sow. In this part he mentions that
some plants, evidently of the same kind, have seed and others not, or
that there are different sexes in plants, the female bearing the seed.
That he was a practical observer is proved by his writings on the method
of the reproduction in the great palm trees, which are such striking
features in the East. Moreover, he studied the way in which figs grew and
the seed became fertile, and he compared the reproduction of the fig with
that of the palm tree. The third, fourth, and fifth books are devoted
to a consideration of trees, their various kinds, the places they come
from, and the economical uses to which they may be applied. The sixth
book treats of winter shrubs and spring plants; the seventh of pot-herbs;
the eighth of plants yielding seeds used for food; and the ninth of those
plants that yield useful juices, gums, resins, and other exudations. The
love of the marvellous, however, creeps in here and there, and amongst
good facts there are very considerable “tough yarns;” but these come from
the old soldiers of Alexander the Great.
There is one thing most interesting in the works of this man, and it
is the desire he had to make his knowledge useful to mankind. This is
especially noticed in another work on the causes of plants, of which
six parts remain to the present day. It is really a work on gardening
and farming, with a good deal of pure and applied knowledge on botany.
It is not everybody, nowadays, that can combine what is scientific,
that is to say, exact knowledge, with useful and applied knowledge. Too
frequently the scientific botanist does not teach gardening or farming;
and certainly, as a rule, the writers on these last subjects are not
scientific botanists, and, indeed, they are often of a very different
kind of mind. It has been said of the works of Theophrastus that there is
much valuable matter in them that deserves the attention of the botanist,
and that a very little knowledge of botany will enable the reader to
separate the chaff from the wheat.
So noted was the learning of this great man on other subjects, that his
good work on plants remained the text-book of centuries; and, in fact,
little or no satisfactory knowledge about plants, beyond that given to us
by Aristoteles and Theophrastus, was discovered for many centuries.
The fall of Demetrius from power removed the protector of Theophrastus,
and the ignorant anti-educationalist party of the day revived their
persecutions. In the year 305 B.C. a political noodle managed to frame a
law, and to get it passed by the ruling body of the day, which forbade
all philosophers under pain of death to give any public instruction
without permission of the State.
This curious law was passed in order to prevent the education of the
people being advanced, and the result was that Theophrastus and several
other teachers left Athens. Good sense, however, seems to have prevailed
over ignorance and hostility to learning, and the law was abolished in
the following year. Moreover, the proposer of it was fined the great sum
of five talents for his folly. Then Theophrastus returned to Athens, and
taught there until he died. The whole population followed his body to the
grave.
It is a remarkable fact that the writings of Aristoteles and Theophrastus
on plants, were not improved upon for many hundreds of years. They were
both observers of nature, and their works contained all the knowledge on
the subject, of their time. When the Romans obtained the supremacy in
Europe, and had possessions in Asia and in Africa, men were not found
amongst them who could add to the knowledge of the Greeks about plants;
so the books of the two great men who were the fathers of botany were
simply copied by their successors, or criticized, and doubtful novelties
were added.
There were many Roman writers on agriculture, but few wrote on the nature
and structure of plants, and amongst them the most celebrated was Caius
Plinius Secundus, commonly called Pliny the Elder.
Where this great man was born is not known, but possibly it was at Como.
He was of noble family, entered the army, and became a distinguished
soldier. He was appointed Augur at Rome, and subsequently had supreme
power in Spain. These were not apparently the positions which were
likely to stimulate a young man of wealth to study natural history, and
certainly, in later days, the military man and active politician have
not proved, as a rule, enthusiastic students of plants and animals. Want
of time and inclination are, of course, the usual excuses of such men,
and the love of luxury and of intellectual idleness might be added also.
Nevertheless there is an instance in the case of the elder Plinius, where
a man, greatly and importantly occupied, spent much time in studying
nature, in compiling the observations made by his predecessors, and in
writing books which have given him a fame which will last with the world.
In summer he began his work as soon as it was light; in winter, generally
at one in the morning—never later than two, and sometimes earlier. No
man, writes his nephew, spent less time in bed, and sometimes he would,
without retiring from his books, indulge in a short sleep, and then
pursue his studies. Before daybreak he went to the Emperor Vespasian,
who chose to transact business at that hour, and when the Emperor had
finished, Plinius returned to his studies. After a slender repast at
noon, he would in the summer recline in the sun, and during the time
some book was read to him, and he made extracts from the author. He used
to say that “no book was so bad but something might be learned from
it.” After this he had a cold bath and took refreshment and rest. Thus
reinvigorated, he resumed his studies until supper, when a book was read
to him, and he made remarks on it. This, of course, must have been an
occasional method of passing the day, for no man could live without some
hours of exercise and sleep. Probably he retired to sleep at eight under
these circumstances, and had a good sleep in the hot hours of the day.
When in the country all his time was devoted to study, except when he
slept and bathed. He is said to have used a carriage instead of walking,
and, unfortunately, but naturally, he got weak lungs and became corpulent.
Plinius laboured for many years at natural history and the other
sciences, and he was a most diligent collector of information. A warrior
and a statesman, yet he contrived to write a vast number of works, his
books on natural history alone amounting to twenty-seven volumes. He
appears to have known all that it was possible to know at his age of
the world, and yet there was no great amount of new work put into his
books. It has been very properly said that the loftiness of his ideas
and the nobleness of his style enhance still more his profound learning.
Naturally, as he copied much from other writers, and especially, in
one part of botany which relates to medicine, from an author named
Dioscorides, he could not examine into the truth of every statement which
had been made. Hence Plinius retailed some curious stories now and then,
which are more amusing than true; but, on the whole, he established, on
solid grounds, the learning of his own and previous ages.
This active-minded man, who lived in luxury and had great
responsibilities, is an example to many of the same class who do not care
to enjoy the study of the beautiful nature around them. He lost his life
whilst endeavouring to sustain the courage of his friends, during the
great eruption of Vesuvius, when the cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum
were destroyed. He was on shore at the time, and probably was suffocated
by noxious fumes.
The name of Dioscorides has been mentioned as that of an author known
to Plinius; he was born in Cilicia, at Anazarbus, and flourished during
the reign of the Emperor Nero. Nothing is known about his early life,
but it appears that he was a soldier, and possibly connected with the
surgical and medical art in the army. Certain it is that he travelled
over many countries—Greece, Italy, Gaul, and Asia Minor—gathering plants
and studying, not so much their structures and mutual resemblances and
differences, as their medical or healing powers. He obtained plants from
travellers in India, and learned the merits of herbs and drugs from many
nations. He wrote on the substances used in medicine in a Materia Medica,
and named and briefly described between five and six hundred medicinal
plants. Unfortunately Dioscorides wrote in a careless manner, and there
is much nonsense mixed up with truth in his writings. But he was of use;
he was not merely a student of the beauties of nature, but of the value
of certain plants to man in his pain and trouble, and he founded the
science of medical botany.
Aristoteles, Theophrastus, Plinius, and Dioscorides are the men of mark
who raised botany and plant-learning out of their infancy and gave
them a youthful vigour. They placed the method of learning, on its
right basis. Instead of imagining what was true, and then collecting
and studying plants to prove the correctness of the imagined notion,
they began in the opposite direction. They strove to learn and discover
facts,—truths, and then reasoned upon them. Ignorant people, and those
men who have the minds of children, always like their opinions and ideas
better than facts, and especially if the facts will not fit in with their
notions. Such people do not know how hard it is to find out the truth
in nature, how difficult it is for finite man to comprehend infinite
wisdom. This was as true formerly as it is now, and hence the method of
learning, taught by the earlier of those great men, was opposed to the
understandings of the majority of their fellow men. They troubled the
complacent ignorance of the day, and were therefore persecuted. Like
brave men, they did not care for persecution, knowing that they did not
deserve the wicked charges brought against them; they persevered, and not
only enjoyed life much more than their opponents, but led good and useful
lives.
The works of these men were studied by all the learned, during fifteen
hundred years and more; they were the text-books of science during what
are called the dark or middle ages, and although now out of date, they
were the good seeds of knowledge, sown in difficulty, in those early days.
Aristoteles, Theophrastus, and Plinius were not only botanists, but
naturalists in every sense, and the first named is especially celebrated
as a student of and writer upon animals; he was a great zoologist.
Theophrastus knew much about geology, and so did Plinius.
These men, then, brought the science of botany out of its childhood, and
saw it partly on its way through its youth; they had removed it beyond
the fanciful ideas and strange notions of the earliest writers on the
subject, and had begun to classify plants, and to study the relations
of plants to surrounding nature, and to the wants of man. Chemistry and
the use of the microscope were unknown, and therefore progress in the
necessary direction could not be made at that time of the world.
It must be remembered that botany does not consist in collecting,
drying, and drawing plants alone, but it relates to everything about the
vegetable kingdom of nature. The growth of the plant from the seed; how
it lives, breathes, and its sap circulates; how starch, and sugar, and
other products are formed—have to be considered. The manner of unfolding
of the flower, the anatomy of its fruits, and of the leaves and stems
and root, and the method by which the kind reproduces, and the decay of
the plant have to be studied. Then the uses of plants, medicinal and as
food, have to be treated. How they can be best grown, and how plants are
distributed over the land at different heights, form other subjects; and
the arrangement of plants in a classification founded on the similarity
of their most important anatomical structures, and constituting what is
termed a natural system, is one of the most necessary studies.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]