[40] Haller, Biblio Botanica, i. 284. Methodi Botanicæ rationem primus pervidit;—dari nempe et genera quæ plures species comprehenderent et classes quæ multa genera. Varias etiam classes naturales expressit. Characterem in flore inque semine posuit, &c.—Rauwolfio Socio Epist. Wolf, p. 39.
Linnæus, Genera Plantarum, Pref. xiii. “A fructificatione plantas distinguere in genera, infinitæ sapientiæ placuisse, detexit posterior ætas, et quidem primus, sæculi sui ornamentum, Conradus Gessnerus, uti patet ex Epistolis ejus postremis, et Tabulis per Carmerarium editis.”
Cuvier says (Hist. des Sc. Nat. 2e pe, p. 193), after speaking to the same effect, “Il fit voir encore que toutes les plantes qui ont des fleurs et des fruits semblables se ressemblent par leurs propriétés, et que quand on rapproche ces plantes on obtient ainsi une classification naturelle.” I do not know if he here refers to any particular passages of Gessner’s work.
[373] The labors of Gessner in botany, both on account of the unfinished state in which he left the application of his principles, and on account of the absence of any principles manifestly applicable to the whole extent of the vegetable kingdom, can only be considered as a prelude to the epoch in which those defects were supplied. To that epoch we now proceed.
Sect. 2.—Epoch of Cæsalpinus.—Formation of a System of Arrangement.
If any one were disposed to question whether Natural History truly belongs to the domain of Inductive Science;—whether it is to be prosecuted by the same methods, and requires the same endowments of mind as those which lead to the successful cultivation of the Physical Sciences,—the circumstances under which Botany has made its advance appear fitted to remove such doubts. The first decided step in this study was merely the construction of a classification of its subjects. We shall, I trust, be able to show that such a classification includes, in reality, the establishment of one general principle, and leads to more. But without here dwelling on this point, it is worth notice that the person to whom we owe this classification, Andreas Cæsalpinus of Arezzo, was one of the most philosophical men of his time, profoundly skilled in the Aristotelian lore which was then esteemed, yet gifted with courage and sagacity which enabled him to weigh the value of the Peripatetic doctrines, to reject what seemed error, and to look onwards to a better philosophy. “How are we to understand,” he inquires, “that we must proceed from universals to particulars (as Aristotle directs), when particulars are better known?”[41] Yet he treats the Master with deference, and, as has been observed,[42] we see in his great botanical work deep traces of the best features of the Aristotelian school, logic and method; and, indeed, in this work he frequently refers to his Quæstiones Peripateticæ. His book, entitled De Plantis libri xvi. appeared at Florence in 1583. The aspect under which his task presented itself to his mind appears to me to possess so much interest, that I will transcribe a few of his reflections. After speaking of the splendid multiplicity of the productions of nature, and the confusion which has hitherto prevailed among writers on plants, [374] the growing treasures of the botanical world; he adds,[43] “In this immense multitude of plants, I see that want which is most felt in any other unordered crowd: if such an assemblage be not arranged into brigades like an army, all must be tumult and fluctuation. And this accordingly happens in the treatment of plants: for the mind is overwhelmed by the confused accumulation of things, and thus arise endless mistake and angry altercation.” He then states his general view, which, as we shall see, was adopted by his successors. “Since all science consists in the collection of similar, and the distinction of dissimilar things, and since the consequence of this is a distribution into genera and species, which are to be natural classes governed by real differences, I have attempted to execute this task in the whole range of plants;—ut si quid pro ingenii mei tenuitate in hujusmodi studio profecerim, ad communem utilitatem proferam.” We see here how clearly he claims for himself the credit of being the first to execute this task of arrangement.
[41] Quæstiones Peripateticæ, (1569,) lib. i. quæst. i.
[42] Cuvier, p. 198.
[43] Dedicatio, a 2.
After certain preparatory speculations, he says,[44] “Let us now endeavor to mark the kinds of plants by essential circumstances in the fructification.” He then observes, “In the constitution of organs three things are mainly important—the number, the position, the figure.” And he then proceeds to exemplify this: “Some have under one flower, one seed, as Amygdala, or one seed-receptacle, as Rosa; or two seeds, as Ferularia, or two seed-receptacles, as Nasturtium; or three, as the Tithymalum kind have three seeds, the Bulbaceæ three receptacles; or four, as Marrubium, four seeds, Siler four receptacles; or more, as Cicoraceæ, and Acanaceæ have more seeds, Pinus, more receptacles.”
[44] Lib. i. c. 13, 14.
It will be observed that we have here ten classes made out by means of number alone, added to the consideration of whether the seed is alone in its covering, as in a cherry, or contained in a receptacle with several others, as in a berry, pod, or capsule. Several of these divisions are, however, further subdivided according to other circumstances, and especially according as the vital part of the seed, which he called the heart (cor[45]), is situated in the upper or lower part of the seed. As our object here is only to indicate the principle of the method of Cæsalpinus, I need not further dwell on the details, and still less on the defects by which it is disfigured, as, for instance, the retention of the old distinction of Trees, Shrubs, and Herbs.