Theophrastea, Studien zur botanischen Begriffsbildung by Reinhold StrömbergReview by: Ludwig EdelsteinIsis, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Nov., 1939), pp. 83-85Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/226022 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 19:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.30 on Fri, 9 May 2014 19:36:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews

Reinhold Str6mberg.-Theophrastea, Studien zur botanischen Begriffs- bildung, G6teborgs Kungl. Vetenskaps- och Vitterhets-Samhailles Handlingar, Femte Foljden. Ser. A. Band 6. No: 4., G6teborg, 1937, Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag. Pp. 234.

These studies, as is stated in the beginning (p. 5), are intended to show how Greek botany originated from Peripatetic philosophy, how THEOPHRASTUS established the system of a comparative morphology of plants, or rather laid the foundations of botany as a science, and finally how he formulated the results of his inquiries. The last task is later on (p. 41) restricted to the interpretation of some Theophrastean terms such as roots, stems, bark, core, sap, veins.

STROMBERG first comments upon the history of Greek botany up to ARISTOTLE and THEOPHRASTUS (I, Ch. i) and upon natural sciences in the Peripatos, especially ARISTOTLE'S and THEOPHRASTUS' methodical principles (I, Ch. 2). What he says is such a short survey of these complicated problems (pp. 17-37) and so much a summary of earlier opinions that it can be regarded only as an introduction to the following study of the morphological terms previously mentioned. Their discussion is certainly the most important part of the book as it is the most extensive one [(pp. 38-179). Pp. I83-195 give additional semasiological material; pp. 199-234 contain a very detailed bibliography and helpful indices].

STROMBERG consciously approaches his subject from the point of view of a botanist as well as from the philological and historical point of view (p. 41). Extensive travels have made him familiar with the Mediterranean flora (p. 6); and his interpretation of the single terms by far surpasses that of his predecessors, even that of HINDENLANG (I). Whereas parallels are given by HINDENLANG only with the names of the authors, they are quoted by STR6MBERG with exact references to the passage and careful analysis of the content. The literature before THEOPHRASTUS is fully reviewed; later literature is also dealt with (cf. pp. 6i, 3; 89). Analogies from other sciences are extensively cited

(I) L. HINDENLANG, Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu THEOPHRASTS botanischen Schriften, Diss. Strassburg, XIV, 191 0. Cf. STR6MBERG'S general criticism of this dissertation, p. 39, 4.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.30 on Fri, 9 May 2014 19:36:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

84 ISIS, XXXI, I

and modern scientific writings concerning the subject are taken into consideration.

It is impossible to survey here the interesting details set forth by STR6MBERG in his interpretation of the various concepts; I must limit myself to the discussion of a few more general questions. THEOPHRASTUS'

significance as the creator of new terms is very cautiously estimated by STR6MBERG (pp. i 6 i ff., esp. I 64 ff.; 179); he is, quite rightly, I think, much more reserved in his judgment than HINDENLANG. It is especially the morphological terminology in which THEOPHRASTUS is recognized as original (pp. 89; 92 ff. ; cf. 104-105 ; I II ; I 13).

STR6MBERG'S rejection of the Theophrastean origin of terms is in most cases convincing; but his claims for Theophrastean coinages may sometimes be contested. One can, for instance, hardly conclude from the use of (CYrTEp that the following metaphor was first used by THEOPHRASTUS (pp. I 3 2 ff.; 74, i). Nor is it probable to assume that

ftovoppLdo0 is a Theophrastean word on the ground that plants with one root are rare and the occurrence of such a term before THEOPHRASTUS is therefore unlikely (pp. 63; 92). In general the problem is a very difficult one. Hardly any earlier botanical material has survived (p. 25). All conclusions have to be based mainly on THEOPHRASTUS' own works. Under these circumstances negative statements will always be more certain than positive conclusions.

STR6MBERG characterizes the Theophrastean terms in general as types which he takes to be " relative concepts with solid center without sharp limits " (" relative Begriffe mit einem festen Kern ohne scharfe Grenzen," p. I5i). THEOPHRASTUS more than anybody else favors such typological procedure (Js -r - i E'T EZv pp. 3I ; 154; 152) on account of his cautiousness as an investigator (2) (p. 8o) and because of his belief that in botany exact knowledge cannot be attained, for natural objects, and especially plants, are too manifold and divergent (pp. 3I ; I5'). With these assumptions I cannot agree. STR6MBERG'S definition of types is not very clear; he seems to mean, and this would be correct, that the ITrtoL give a kind of generalizing characterization of the data (cf. p. 3I). Yet such an outline description is to be found not only in THEOPHRASTUS,

(2) Ci. aisO G. SENN, Die Entwicklung der biologischen Forschungsmethode in der Antike und ihre grundsitzliche Forderung durch THEOPHRAST von Eresos (Veroffentlichungen der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft ftir Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften, VIII, I933, p. II5): " So gibt THEOPHRAST zwar wohldefinierte Einteilungen, schwacht aber das Starr-Systematische, das er verwirft, durch die Erklirung ab, dass seine Definitionen nur im Grossen und Ganzen gelten, und dass man sie nicht allzustreng anwenden durfe. Das erm6g- licht ihm, den vielen tYbergangen Rechnung zu tragen, welche in der Welt der Organismen nun einmal bestehen."

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.30 on Fri, 9 May 2014 19:36:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS 85

but also in ARISTOTLE, who, contrary to STROMBERG'S opinion (l.c.), employs it to the exclusion of any other in the Topis (ioi a i8 ff.), the Ethics (I094 b ii ff. ; cf. IO98 a 27; II79 a 33), and the Politics (I34I b 31).

The procedure therefore is independent of the subject matter, it is not true that its adoption indicates the impossibility of gaining more exact information. In his Politics ARISTOTLE leaves the details to those con- cerned with them and is satisfied with some general remarks (I34i b 31);

in his Zoology, after having discussed the subject according to types (487 a I2), he later treats it in more detail (cf. also 49I a 7). The typological procedure then means only that in the present inquiry the subject is to be studied under one of its possible aspects, namely that of its general characteristics; individual features are not sought for, regardless of the question whether the data allow logical or mathematical accuracy or exactness.

As far as the content is concerned STROMBERG describes the Theophrastean types as morphological, biological, and oecological, concrete groupings based on logically established similarities (p. 43). He -ates the importance of THEOPHRASTUS' geographical interests lower than is usually done in accordance with BRETzL's results (3). How far this is justified I cannot decide. Whereas BRZL bases his argument mostly on the content of the fourth book of THEOPHRASTUS' Historia Plantarum (4), STROMBERG founds his view chiefly on the first three books of THEOPHRASTUS. He himself admits, however, that THEOPHRASTUS was equally far removed from deductive and inductive philosophy (p. i io); and the natural system of plants which he ascribes to THEOPHRASTUS (5) also indicates that THEOPHRASTUS' studies are not motivated only by logical principles. Yet this important question can be answered not by an analysis of words or of parts of the Theophrastean work, but only by a careful and unbiased interpretation of the book as a whole.

The Johns Hopkins University. LUDWIG EDELSTEIN.

(3) Cf. H. BRMEzL, Botanische Forschungen des Alexanderzuges, Leipzig, 1903. Cf. 0. REGENBOGEN, Hermes, 69, 1934, p. 88, I: " Das moderne Miss- verstindnis BR1izIs, THEOPHRAST wolle Pflanzengeographie geben..."

(4) So much seems certain although BRETZL goes so far as to call THEoPHRASTUIS' whole book a " Pflanzengeographie " (cf. p. 42). This exaggeration of BRETZL'S is criticized by STROMBERG with good reasons (1. c.).

(5) Such a natural system of plants has also been acknowledged by B1wrzL (p. 9) and has not been overlooked as STR6MBERG says (p. 33). About the concurrence of THEOPHRASTUS and ARISTOTLE in establishing such natural systems cf. STROMBERG, P. 29, I; the Theophrastean is discussed more in detail, pp. 155 ff.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.30 on Fri, 9 May 2014 19:36:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions