Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the History of
Biology.
http://www.jstor.org
291
As Germany'smost famous poet and culturalrepresentative,Goethe's activities have attractedconsiderableinterest.But since he was alreadya cultural
icon duringhis own lifetime, interpretingGoethe's work is problematic.His
status as a poet and the abundanceof his achievementscan color views of
his contributionsin particularareas. Goethe wrote on a vast range of topics,
and it seems problematicto sever his achievementsin one areafrom the rest,
yet the currentstate of scholarshipis such that it is virtually impossible to
masterthe whole. Nicholas Boyle's biographyof Goethe, which attemptsto
understandthe poet in the context of his age, has alreadyreachedover 1700
292
JOAN STEIGERWALD
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
293
294
JOAN STEIGERWALD
A Science of Morphology
Goethe's interestin science developed throughhis work as an administrator
in the small Duchy of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach.In the early 1770s, prior to
his move to Weimar,Goethe's poetryand early majorwork, TheSufferingof
YoungWerther,made vivid the innerworkingsof the humanheartand spirit
throughimages of the creativeenergy of nature.3In these years Goethe also
experimentedwith alchemy, and sharedthe genteel fascinationwith natural
history.4But upon entering the services of the young Duke Carl August in
1775, his responsibilitiesfor first mining and then the ducal forests led him
to a systematic study of science. One of his first tasks in Weimarwas to
reopen the copper-silvermine at Ilmenau, which broughthim into contact
with a groupof mineralogistsassociatedwith the prestigiousFreiburgMining
Academy, such as JohannCarl Wilhelm Voigt, and led him to take up the
study of mineralogy and to establish his own collection of minerals.5He
also began to study anatomywith the young professorof medicine in Jena,
JustusChristianLoder;it was throughhis workwith LoderthatGoethemade
his discovery of the intermaxillarybone in humanbeings in 1784. After the
publicationof his study of the intermaxillarybone, and its rathercool reception by the scientificcommunity,Goethebecameincreasinglyconcernedwith
the study of botany;he studiedthe pharmacologicaluses of plants, pursued
the naturalhistory of plants under the guidance of a local youth, Friedrich
GottliebDietrich,diligently studiedthe worksof CarlLinnaeus,took instruction from the botanistAugust JohannGeorg KarlBatsch at the Universityof
Jena, and began his own botany collections.6 Goethe's numerousadministrativeduties requireddiscipline and organization,and broughtstructureinto
his life.7 They also changed his attitudeto nature.In contrastto his earlier
poetic vision of nature,in which he viewed naturalphenomenaprimarilyas
a mediumfor the depictionof humanfeeling, Goethe now studiedminerals,
mammalianskeletonsand plantswith a view to findinga principleof order,a
guiding thread[Leitfaden]throughdiverse appearances.Goethe becamecritical of speculativeapproachesto the study of naturethat appealedto hidden
forces on the basis of subjectivejudgment ratherthan empirical study. But
he also grew increasinglydissatisfiedwith the system used by the Linnaeans,
3 Lange, 1982, pp. 71-76; Boyle, 1991-2000, 1: 152-178.
4 See Boyle, 1991-2000, 1: 75-76; Goethe, "Geschichtemeines botanischenStudiums,"
in Goethe, 1948-1963, hereaftercited as GA, 17: 64-83; Koerner,1993.
S Hamm,2001.
6 On Goethe's scientificstudieswhilst in Weimar,see Goethe, 1947-, hereaftercited as LA.
The morphologicalwritingsare found in LA 1 9 and I 10, and 119A, II 9B, and II IOA.Also
see Boyle, 1991-2000, 1: 336-337, 346-357; Koemer, 1993; Hamm,2001; Jackson, 1994.
7 Boyle, 1991-2000, 1: 240f; Reed, 1980, pp. 56-57.
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
295
misleading. For a discussion of the shifting senses of naturalhistory in the late eighteenth
century,see Jardine,2000, pp. 11-55.
9 Konig, 1984. On the developing conception of science at the turn of the nineteenth
century,see Cunninghamand Jardine,1990; Cunningham,1988.
296
JOAN STEIGERWALD
GOETHE'S MORPHOLOGY
297
298
JOAN STEIGERWALD
In TheMetamorphosisof Plants Goethedid not makereferenceto contemporary theories of generation. Parts of his account are, however, actually
similar to that of CasparFriedrichWolff, who describedthe motion of the
nutritivejuices under control of a generative force, and how their action
transformedthe structureof the organs of the plant. Goethe did not discuss
Wolff's work on generation directly until a brief essay, "Discovery of an
Excellent Predecessor"writtenbetween 1816 and 1817, buthe hadlearnedof
Wolff's theory throughJohannGottfriedHerderin the mid-1780s." Goethe
had also met JohannFriedrichBlumenbachin 1783, correspondedwith him,
and was familiarwith his publications(LAII 9A: 281). Indeed,the numerous
notes and outlines for works on botanyGoethe madepriorand subsequentto
writing TheMetamorphosisof Plants reveala generalknowledgeof contemporary debates regardinggeneration. But he discussed the weaknesses of
the explanationsof generationoffered by the system of preformationand
the system of epigenesis, and distinguishedhis work from both approaches,
claiming that these "hypotheseshave [had] no influenceon [his] exposition"
(GA 17: 129).12
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
299
14 See GA 17:200, 204, 287. TimothyLenoirmakesa similarpoint Lenoir, 1987, pp. 17-28.
300
JOAN STEIGERWALD
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
301
302
JOAN STEIGERWALD
animal,and in the separationor adhesionof parts.Goethe repeatedlyemphasized the importanceof having the guidance of a primordialform or type.
It was the concept of a vertebratetype which, Goethe claimed, made sense
of his discovery of the intermaxillarybone in humanbeings and led him to
representthe skull as well as the spinal column as modificationsof a primordial vertebra.23
Physiologicalconsiderationsdid enterinto Goethe'sstudiesof
anatomy.He argued,for example, that a bone like the intermaxillary,which,
as well as being present in most vertebrates,serves an importantfeeding
function, is likely to belong to a primordialform. He also stated that "one
has to look not merely into the relativejuxtapositionsof parts,but into their
living, reciprocal dependence, influence and effect" (GA 17: 278). But in
practiceGoethe's work was dedicatedto using comparativeanatomy"to fill
in the holes of physiology"(GA 17: 272).24In contrastto the growinginterest
in the complex alterationswithin organicbodies underlyingthe activities of
generation,irritabilityand sensibility in the work of Blumenbach,Alexander
von Humboldtand others duringthe 1790s, Goethe's study of living beings
concentratedon theirperceptibleforms.
The emphasisGoetheplaceduponthe perceptibleformalaspectsof generation becomes explicit in his discussions of the similarities between the
metamorphosisof plantsand thatof insects. The metamorphosisthatGoethe
representedin plants as a series of stages in which one and the same organ
takes different forms is even more conspicuous with insects in which the
partsare manifestlyconnected,orderedanddevelopedin a certainseries.The
example Goethe gave of the caterpillar,in which each form taken duringits
radicaltransformationis completelydifferentfrom the precedingone, particularlyencouragesan understandingof metamorphosisin termsof the evident
formal qualities of its distinct stages rather than a continuous formative
activity (GA 17: 199, 282-284).
In writing an introductionfor the publication of the collection of his
morphologicalfragments in 1817, Goethe did caution that attentionsolely
upon the structuredform of an actual being, the Gestalt, what is fixed and
defined, excludes what is changeable.He emphasizedthat in organicforms
nothing is at rest or defined. Rather,everything is in a flux of continual
motion. "Thatis why [the German]language quite properlyis accustomed
to using the word formation[Bildung]for the productas well as the process
of production.Thus if we intend to introducea morphology,we should not
speak of form, or if we use the term we should only mean by it the idea, the
concept or to what is held fast in experienceonly for a moment.The formed
is immediatelyagain transformed(GA 17: 13-14)."
23 See Brauning-Oktavio,1956, pp. 4-144; Lenoir, 1987; Jardine,2000, pp. 37-43.
24 See also GA, 17: 231-267, 269-288, 371-380.
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
303
HA 13: 25-31.
304
JOAN STEIGERWALD
Goethe explicitly wrote aesthetics into his study of naturein his account
of his Italianjourneyfrom September1786 to June 1788. His ItalianJourney
is his reconstructionof his travelsin Italy from letters,diaries and memories
some twenty-five years later, and since he subsequentlydestroyed most of
the documentshe used in its writing,it cannotbe known to what extent it is
a reliable account of his actual experiences and thoughtsat the time. Yet it
is clear from the documentsthat do remainthat Goethe was deeply engaged
with the studyof both organicforms andart,andbeganto develop interesting
connections between the two pursuits.Freed from the social and emotional
constraintsof the Weimarcourt, Goethe found himself stimulatedby the
lush landscape,antiqueartefactsand free lifestyle of the artists'colonies he
found in Italy, and rediscoveredhimself "[a]s an artist!"- as he enthusedin
a letter to Duke Carl August shortly before his returnto Weimar.26Goethe
was not simply referringto himself as a writerwith these words,for although
he completed several unfinishedworks whilst in Italy, it was not a particularly productiveor creativeperiod for his writing. Indeed,he spent much of
his time in Italy studying the visual arts, throughhis efforts to cultivatehis
perceptionof classical artefactsand his attemptto learn to draw and paint.
Rather,Goethe was referringto a new sense of his vocation as an artistand
a new sense of the significanceof artisticsensibility.He was encouragedin
these views by his conversationswith Moritzin Rome, whose essay "Onthe
Plastic Imitationof the Beautiful,"reflectingthose conversations,privileged
artisticcreativityand elevatedartistslike Goethe to the statusof a demi-god.
Every beautifulwhole thatproceedsfrom the handsof such an artist,Moritz
argued, bears the imprintof the supreme beauty of the great whole that is
nature.27
It was Goethe's study of the visual arts that became significantfor his
study of morphology,as he drew direct analogies between his quest for the
laws of art and the laws of plant form. Visual images were importantfor
Goethe throughouthis life. "I should like to lose the habitof conversation,"
he remarkedin 1809, "and,like nature,expressmyself entirelyin drawings"28
- a remarkablecommentfor a poet. Goethe had some instructionin drawing
and artfrom his early childhoodand studies at the Universityof Leipzig, and
had been concernedwith the correctmethod for drawinganatomicalforms
in the years priorto his trip to Italy, taking drawingclasses at the Drawing
Academyin Weimarand adoptingthe methodof PetrusCamperfor the illus-
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
305
31 See GA, 11: 63, 241-243, 291-292, 385. In his retrospectiveaccounts of his Italian
journey, Goethe would attributeto this time his first ideas on the metamorphosisof plants
and the Urblatt.See GA 17: 58-62, and 11: 412-420, 442-452.
32 Letterto FrauStein, 8 June 1787, in GA 19: 84-85, and includedin ItalienischeReise as
a letter to Herder,GA I 1: 351-353.
306
JOAN STEIGERWALD
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
307
308
JOAN STEIGERWALD
nature,and the methodsfor the studyof both, thathe had begun to explore in
Italy.
When Goethe triedto explainhis views on the metamorphosisof plantsto
Schiller in 1794, he did not use the term Urpflanzebut spoke of sketching
for Schiller "a symbolic plant" (GA 16: 867). The two became engaged
in their first extended conversationafter a meeting of the Jena Scientific
Society, and Goethe was stimulatedby the younger poet's criticism of the
fragmentedtreatmentof naturein the lecture they had just heardto give an
account of his own method of inquiry.The symbolic plant was a symbol
that Goethe contended he could sketch for Schiller; that is, make it into a
concrete, perceptibleimage [Bild]. Goethe representedthe "symbolicplant"
as following directly from observation.Schiller objected: "That is not an
experience, it is an idea."Goethe's riposte at the time was that "I can only
be pleased that I have ideas withoutknowing it, and can even see them with
my own eyes" (GA 16: 867-868). To Schiller,who had been deeply engaged
with Kantianphilosophy duringthe previousthree years, Goethe's claim to
be able to see ideas was problematicat best. Goethe's reputationand talentas
a poet was also problematicfor the younger Schiller,who, despite successes
with works like The Robber, had recently become preoccupiedwith reflections upon and doubtsabouthis own creativeprocesses.37Schiller'sresponse
to his encounter with Goethe was to express the differences in their ways
of perceiving, understandingand representingnatureepistemologicallyand
artisticallyin Kantianterms.
Schiller's first attempt to articulatethese differences was in a letter to
Goethe a month after their first exchange. In his letter Schiller was also
attemptingto persuadeGoethe to become involved in a new criticaljournal
that he was founding, Horae, and so was concerned to representGoethe's
ideas in a positive light. To this end, Schiller played with the two meanings
of intuition [Anschauung]in Kantianphilosophy.He characterisedGoethe's
approachto nature as intuitive, as starting from sensory experience, and
as raising itself from material and particularthings to general laws. He
contrastedthis approachto natureto speculativeor rationalapproaches,such
as his own, which start from abstracta priori principles, and deduce laws
thatare then to be demonstratedin the particular.But Schiller also honoured
Goethe with an intellectual intuition, an inspired intuition that can see the
generalin the particular,a "geniuswhich underthe darkbutcertaininfluence
of purereasoncombines [thegiven] accordingto objectivelaws"(GA20: 13).
In an essay writtenin 1795, On Naive und SentimentalPoetry,Schillerelaboratedthis contrastbetween the intuitiveand speculativeways of thoughtinto
a distinctionbetween two types of poetic perception.The naive poet is intui37 Reed, 1980, pp. 68-69.
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
309
310
JOAN STEIGERWALD
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
311
"Thesymbolic,"Goethe wrote in a maxim on art,"transformsthe appearance into an idea, the idea into an image [BildI,and in such a way thatthe idea
in the image remainsalways endlessly effective and unreachable,and even if
expressed in every language, still remains inexpressible"(HA 12: 470). In
contrastto allegory, which speaks to the intellect alone, signifying directly
and with its perceptibleface having no reason save to transmita meaning,
a symbol speaks to both perceptionand intellect. Signifying only indirectly,
it is present first of all for itself, and only secondarilydo we discern what
it signifies. For Goethe, the symbolic is the exemplary,what allows itself to
be consideredas the manifestationof a general law.44In a true symbol "the
particularrepresentsthe general"(HA 12: 471).
Goethe's characterizationof the symbol reflects the broadertheory of art
that he articulatedat the turnof the nineteenthcentury,which he conceived
in terms of primordialimages or Urbilder.Goethe held that the ideal of art
is not to be found in any particularwork of art, yet particularworks of art
can resemble or present these archetypes, which he contended the works
of the Greeks have done most closely. These ancient artifacts,complete in
themselves and the most perfect of artistic forms, became for Goethe the
canonof art,prototypesfor contemporaryartisticproduction.Accordingly,in
44 On Goethe's conceptionof the symbol, see Todorov,1977, pp. 201-207.
312
JOAN STEIGERWALD
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
313
314
JOAN STEIGERWALD
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
315
316
JOAN STEIGERWALD
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
317
318
JOAN STEIGERWALD
are close siblings,"for him the impressionthat a region made on the mind of
the observerwas an aestheticimpression.57But KarlFriedrichBurdachwas
the firstto actuallyuse the term"morphology"in printin his 1800 Prepatory
Courseto the Studyof the EntireHealing Art, one of the numeroustextbooks
he published to help supporthimself until he was able to secure a position
as a professor of anatomy in 1811. He subsequentlyincluded morphology
as a section in the numerousphysiological textbooksand encyclopaediashe
producedin the early nineteenthcentury.These sections on morphologyin
his textbooks would include reference to standardanatomy texts, but also
to Goethe's writings. Burdach made explicit, like Goethe, morphology's
concern with the visible structuresof plants and animals, defining morphology as having form as its object, that is the way in which "thingsrepresent
In an encyclothemselves in space, and relate themselves to one another."58
paediaof medical literaturepublishedin 1810-1811, Burdachindicated,like
Goethe, the importof aesthetic sensibility to the concept of morphologyby
referenceto works by the artistsAlbrechtDurerand PeterPaul Rubens,next
to traditionalanatomicaltreatises.59This juxtapositionemphasizedthat it is
the image [Bild] of the living form that Burdach,like Goethe, understoodto
be the object of morphology.
Burdach provided a striking institutional materializationof Goethe's
conceptionof morphologyat the new KonigsburgAnatomicalInstitutewhen
he was appointedDirectorin 1817. BurdachincorporatedGoethe's method
of disciplinedperceptionand his science of morphologyinto the structureof
both the curriculumand the displays of specimens. In a lecture deliveredat
the opening of the institute,On the Taskof Morphology,Burdachexplained
how, through methodical empirical investigation,framed by the structures
of the institution,the order of the organic world would be made presentto
the studentsand the necessarybonds between individualphenomenonmade
manifest in a direct intuition. At the end of their study, as a result of the
careful arrangementof materials,the studentwould have an experience "in
which living forms and their interconnectionsbecome evident in his soul."60
Burdach'sinstituteactuallyoffered a much more vivid and directexpression
of Goethe's conception of morphology than Goethe's own publicationsof
the same year. It also highlightedthe extent to which the experienceof the
57 Humboldtto Goethe, Jan. 1810, cited in Hein, 1985, pp. 51-52. For the relationshipof
Humboldt'sphysiognomyof plantsto Goethe's morphology,see Steigerwald,2000.
58 Burdach,1809, p. 18. See also Burdach,1810-181 1, pp. 376-378; Nyhart, 1995, pp. 3548; Lichtenstern,1990.
59 Burdach,1810-181 1, pp. 376-379.
60 Burdach,1817, p. 62.
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
319
320
JOAN STEIGERWALD
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
321
322
JOAN STEIGERWALD
But the Horae adoptedsuch a high-handedand severe tone that many of its
initial contributorswithdrewtheir supportand subscriptionsdecreased,and
the journal had to cease publicationtwo short years after the appearanceof
its first issue. Goethe vented his frustrationsin a series of distichs he called
"Xenia,"arrogantsatires of the culture that had rejected his and Schiller's
culturalprogram.Afterthe failureof the Horae Goethe immediatelystarteda
new journal,Propylaea,which was intendedas a forumfor a small groupof
individualssharinghis aesthetic vision to discuss the theory and practiceof
art. But it continuedits polemical attitudeto contemporaryGermanculture,
criticallyevaluatingmodernworks of artagainstideal antiqueprototypes,as
in his essay "Laocoon."The new journal failed as well. Goethe also started
artcompetitionstogetherwith the ratherpedanticpainterand critic Heinrich
Meyer, a former studentof Winckelmann'sthat Goethe had met in Italy, in
which the principles,the laws, for an aesthetic ideal were clearly specified.
Many of the most interestingentries, such as one by Otto Philipp Runge,
were excludedbecause they did not follow the dictatedrules.67The failureof
these aestheticprojectswas in partdue to their arrogantand polemical tone,
but also in partdue to Goethe insisting on necessaryand objective ideals of
art in an age increasingly preoccupiedwith reflection upon the subjective,
imaginativeforces in artisticproduction.Indeed,he insistedon an ideal of art
modelled on classical prototypesto which his own artistic materialdid not
conform.
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
323
324
JOAN STEIGERWALD
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
325
326
JOAN STEIGERWALD
References
Amrine, F., F. J. Zucke and H. Wheeler, eds. 1987. Goethe and the Sciences. Dordrecht:D.
Reidel.
Barasch,M. 1990. Modern Theoriesof Art, 1: From Winckelmannto Baudelaire.New York:
New YorkUniversityPress.
Beiser,F. 1992. Enlightenment,Revolutionand Romanticism:TheGenesisof ModernGerman
Political Thought,1790-1800. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Benjamin,W. 1996a."TheConceptof Critiquein GermanRomanticism."In WalterBenjamin:
Selected Writings,Volume1, 1913-1926, eds. M. Bullock and M.W.Jennings(trans.by D.
Lacherman,H. Eilandand I. Balfour),pp. 116-200. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity
Press.
1996b. "Goethe'sElective Affinities."In WalterBenjamin:Selected Writings,Volume1,
1913-1926, eds. M. Bullock and M.W. Jennings (trans. by S. Corngold), pp. 297-360.
Cambridge,MA: BeknapPress.
Boyle, N. 1991-2000. Goethe: The Poet and the Age. Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Brauning-Oktavio,H. 1956. "Vom Zwischenkieferknochenzur Idee des typus. Goethe als
Naturforscherin den Jahren1780-1786." Nova Acta LeopoldinaNS 18: 4-144.
Bruford,W. H. 1975. The GermanTraditionof Self-Cultivation:"Bildung"fromHumboldtto
ThomasMann. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Burdach,K. F. 1817. Uberdie Aufgabeder Morphologie.Leipzig: Dyk'scherBuchhandlung.
1816. Enzyklopddieder Heilwissenschaft.Leipzig.
1810-1811. Die Literaturder Heilwissenschaft.Gotha:JustusPerthes.
1810. Die Physiologie. Leipzig: WeidemannischenBuchhandlung.
Cunningham,A. 1988. "Getting the Game Right: Some Plain Words on the Identity and
Inventionof Science."Studies in the Historyand Philosophyof Science 19: 365-389.
Cunningham,A. and N. Jardine.1990. "Introduction:The Age of Reflexion."In Romanticism
and the Sciences eds. A. Cunninghamand N. Jardine,pp. 1-9. Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Dettelbach, M. 1996a. "Global Physics and Empire: Humboldt's Physical Portraitof the
Tropics."In Visionsof Empire:Voyages,Botany,and Representationsof Nature,eds. D.P.
Miller and P.H.Reill, pp. 258-301. Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress.
1996b. "HumboldtianScience." In Culturesof Natural History, eds. N. Jardine,J. A.
Secord and E. C. Spary,pp. 287-304. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Goethe, J. W. von. 1980. Goethe on Art, ed. and trans.J. Gage. London:ScholarPress.
1962-1967. Goethes Briefe, ed. K. R. Mandelkow.Hamburg:ChristianWegnerVerlag.
1948-1963. Gedankausgabeder Werke,Briefe und Gesprache,ed. E. Bueutler.Zurich:
ArtemisVerlag.
1948-1960. Goethes Werke,14 vols. Hamburg:ChristianWegnerVerlag.
1947- . .. Die Schriftenzur Naturwissenschaft,herausgebenim Auftrageder Deutschen
Akademieder Naturwissenschaft(LeopoldinaAusgabe).Weimar:HermannBohlaus.
Hagner, M. 1995. "Zur Physiognomik bei Alexander von Humboldt."In Geschichte der
Physiognomik,eds. M. Schneiderand R. Campe.Freiburg.
Hamm, E. 2001. "UnpackingGoethe's Collections: The Public and the Privatein NaturalHistoricalCollecting."BritishJournalfor the Historyof Science 34: 275-300.
1997. "Colections, Publication and Legitimation: Goethe on Science and Autobiography."Paperpresentedat Historyof Science AnnualMeeting,San Diego, California,
6-9 November.
GOETHE'SMORPHOLOGY
327
328
JOAN STEIGERWALD