Form as Movement in Goethe's 'The Metamorphosis of Plants

Zemplén Gábor
PhD Student

Techincal University of Budapest

"Genoß ich die schönsten Augenblicke meines Lebens zu gleicher Zeit, als ich der Metamorphose der Pflanzen nachforschte, als mir die Stufenfolge derselben klar geworden, begeistete mir diese Vorstellung den Aufenthalt von Neapel und Sizilien, gewann ich diese Art des Pflanzenreich zu betrachten immer mehr und mehr lieb, übte ich mich unausgesetzt daran auf Wegen und Stegen…." J. W. Goethe[[1]]

The aim of the paper is to introduce and interpret a little booklet, written by J. W. Goethe and containing not more than 123 paragraphs: The Metamorphosis of Plants [[2]](1789). It is considered to be one of the best examples of Goethe's method of science, by no means a 'mere side glance of the poet into a strange field' as Augustine Pyrame de Candolle (1778-1841) stated [[3]]; its investigation can yield to a better understanding of Goethe's conception of Science. It undoubtedly became the best known and probably most famous of Goethe's scientific endeavours [[4]].

The Metamorphosis of Plants
Die Urpflanze
Goethe's essay is the result of a thorough, laborious study of a topic that had intrigued him well before his famous Italian journey in 1786-1788[†]. By that time, his knowledge of plants and contemporary botany was anything, but negligible. It was here, that he realized the effect of the climate on certain plant species (see entry on the 8th of October 1786, Venice), and started to develop the concept of his archetypal plant, Die Urpflanze. The concept gradually developed and was modified during his journey, as is clear from his diary entries [[5]]: "Here where I am confounded with a great variety of plants, my hypothesis that it might be possible to derive all plant forms from one original plant becomes clear to me and more exciting. Only when we have accepted this idea will it be possible to determine genera and species exactly. So far this has, I believe, been done in a very arbitrary way. At this state of my botanical philosophy, I have reached an impasse, and I do not see how to get out of it. The whole subject seems to me to be profound and of far-reaching consequence." (Padua Botanical Gardens, September 27, 1786) "…Seeing such a variety of new and renewed forms, my old fancy suddenly came back to mind: among this multitude might I not discover the Primal Plant [Urpflanze]? There certainly must be one. Otherwise, how could I recognize that this or that form was a plant if all were not built on the same basic model?" (Botanical Gardens, Palermo, Sicily, April 17, 1797) "… The Primal Plant is going to be the strangest creature in the world, which Nature herself shall envy me. With this model and the key to it, it will be possible to go on forever inventing plants and know that their existence is logical; that is to say, if

for they are not the shadow phantoms of vain imagination. is typical for 18th century scientific discourse and was probably the best theory available [[6]]. we shall therefore consider the plant only insofar as it is an annual. the style and finally the fruit. The most common is to compare with one another all the individual plants making up the entire world of vegetation. mode of life. July 31. irregular." (§ 84) He does not claim "to be revealing the origin and mainsprings of Nature's processes". advancing continuously from seed to fructification. starting from seed leaves. which is so inseparable from the future germ that one cannot think of one without the other. May 17. wants no causal explanations. but to give a tool. This metamorphosis may be of three different types: regular. By transmutation of one form into another.they do not actually exist. It studies the course of development. The second method acquaints us with the organs of the plant. to the formation of calyx." (Rome. the plant is nothing but leaf. and accidental. these rules must apply to the extraordinary rules as well (§102-103). 1787) The Urpflanze was a historical ancestor first. 1787) "While walking in the Public Gardens of Palermo. for it is this type that may be observed at work step by step from the first seed leaves to the final development of the fruit. but is explained when we read what he writes about Linneaus and his theory of anticipation (§109-110). Here. only phenomenological ones. Many of his contemporaries (like Humboldt) stress the importance of the first one. from its development out of the seed to re-formation of the seed. while there is a general 'rectification of sap' [§]. grows. He believed that these 'exceptions' are only exceptional insofar as they are unusual. which is born. and did not even attempt to encompass the whole of the Plant Kingdom? This is one of the 'mysteries' of the Metamorphosis of Plants. it came to me in a flash that in the organ of the plant which we are accustomed to call the leaf lies the true Proteus who can hide or reveal himself in vegetal forms. it ascends as though on the rungs of an imaginary ladder to that climax of Nature. The other method compares the various organs comprising the individual plant and searches there for the characteristic symbol of plant life. It is this type of metamorphosis which I have been studying attentively for several years and now undertake to explain in this essay. Why did Goethe choose simple. but possess an inner necessity and truth. annual. the history of the plant" [3] Goethe is mainly concerned with the second approach. 6. In the first few chapters Goethe sets up his task. reproduction through two sexes. using the changing quality of the 'sap'. the other. accompanying the plant through all its outward transformations. His Italian wanderings and observations are the bases of the essay on The Metamorphosis of Plants. One of the most ground-breaking aspects of Goethe's attitude to botany is that. In brief: the one method is the history of the plants. the 'plantness' of a plant. Regular metamorphosis we might also call progressive. contrary to the fragments of his diary. contrary to the general view. the staminal organs. Instead. Frédéric de Gingins-Lassaraz we read: "There are two very different methods of studying plants. with which the reader can carry out similar investigations. through stem leaves. And the easiest way to teach this method is by reducing the notion . and dies. he did not condemn malformations as 'freaks of nature'. 'determines his area of research' within the broader meaning of metamorphosis (the numbers refer to the paragraphs): 5. He considers the refinement of the sap as a process that is partly dependent on the surroundings (§30). flowering plants. His aim was not to explain the secrets of the plant world. and uses." (Naples. it allows us to see the plant as an organism. corolla. they could. and of their environment. The first of these two methods of study leads us to knowledge of the plants that exist throughout the world. An Essay on Plants In the foreword of the 1829 French translation of The Metamorphosis of Plants by M. This explanation. but if there is a rule governing the formation of ordinary forms. there is no mentioning of the Urpflanze. rather. he collected them and used them to 'test his hypothesis'. From first to last. reproduces. He explains the change in form of the different organs with 'expansion' and 'contraction'. later an underlying scheme. In the following demonstration. discarding them as useless for scientific studies. His aim is "to follow as circumspectly as possible in the steps of Nature. After the straightforward introduction Goethe sets out to describe the different 'leaves' of the plant. a different approach is used. with their physiological functions and the roles that they must play in the plant economy. the metamorphoses to which the individual parts must adjust themselves. The style of the essay is somewhat unusual[‡].

This would be the 'weak' interpretation of Goethe's morphology. in recent years answers have begun to emerge from genetic studies of mutant flowers similar to those which exercised Goethe's mind. "The discovery is part of a wider series of breakthroughs in the study of flower development which have confirmed the theory.'plant' to 'annual. originally put forward by the poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe more than 200 years ago. Wolff (1768).mistaken notion leads to the 'weak' interpretations of Goethe's ideas. C. sepals. Many have mistaken his concept of the Leaf ('Blatt') for a simple leaf (i. as Darwin later expressed it. and believes this to be teachable and applicable to the rest of the plant kingdom. It accommodates the Goethean way of thinking to the later emerging evolutionary paradigm. flowering dicotyledoneus plant'. However. or his vision is not the foretelling of recent results concerning the flo gene in flowering plants.e. then his idea carries nothing new in itself. (The corruption of meaning is not Darwin's fault. that his ideas have been incorporated into the mainstream of science. paving the way for the 'strong' interpretation [see e. This . He claims to have found a new way of seeing in Italy (to have seen the Urpflanze).) . the mysterious archetypal plant.of expansion and contraction. compression and anastomosis . Carus. 1682). he only used concepts and interpretations of Owen. and styles) have a common origin. and by saying "Blatt". But Goethe explicitly states that "we might equally well say that a stamen is a contracted petal. [7]. After understanding the method "the conceptions established above . an organ that is still visible on most plants as vegetative leaf). Goethe becomes one of the many scientists preparing the final triumph of 19th century biology: the theory of evolution. are intelligible in the view that they consist of metamorphosed leaves.would have to be manipulated as expertly as algebraic formulae. are all variations on a single theme. Besides. Malphigi (1671).g. Goethe means nothing more than a vegetative leaf. and pistils. or that a sepal is a contracted stem leaf" (§120) and that the transformations must be run in both directions. Fr. that the different organs in a flower. This would be the safer route. see [[12]." [[10]. something that has no scientific significance. and it seems that a single gene triggers the growth of flowers in plants. later Nehemiah Grew (1672. the scientifically educated minds about Goethe's concept of the Metamorphosis of Plants. Some modern theories give even more justice to Goethe by openly or implicitly accepting the correctness of his theory. as well as their intimate structure. By the middle of the 19th century the concept that 'all the organs of the higher flowering plants can be derived from a simple leaf' had been accepted. [8]]. stamens. that in a flower the relative position of the sepals. petals. While this reduction helped him to tackle a problem in its own right very well. and Oken. There is a reference to Goethe's botanical studies even in Darwin's Origin of Species: "It is familiar to almost every one. If this is true. 8]. Walter Zimmermann's theory about the evolution of plant organs from primitive ferns (Psilopsida) stresses that the vegetative and generative functions of the 'leaf' were not always separated. as that a petal is a stamen in a state of expansion. and would have to be applied in the right places" (§102). [13]]. which sets off the cascade of changes needed to produce a flower. a leaf-progenitor that had both vegetative and generative functions. stamens. and. such as petals and stamens. he becomes just one of the many before and after him. that all organs of the plant can be derived from the 'leaf'.and in my opinion more faithful . unless it be meant as a vague term for "the ancient progenitor. I will argue that both the Darwinian and the more modern theories are incorrect interpretations of the Metamorphosis of Plants. is thus to be discarded as the product of Romantic imagination. and Augustine Pyrame de Candolle all treated the leaf as a universal organ [6. petals. another reduction brought about the serious misunderstanding of his endeavour. 'Weak' Interpretations The essay itself became a part of the scientific canon. see also [11]] It is very tempting to stop here. and claim that Goethe was a respectable though undervalued member of the scientific community.interpretation of Goethe's morphological ideas. Goethe's Urpflanze. I will attempt to sketch the 'strong' . First Theophrastos. the archetype as it may be called"[9]. This will prove to be a very significant difference when interpreting Goethe's views. arranged in a spire" [[9]] This notion of Darwin can be taken as the received opinion of most of his contemporaries. and that all the different types of leaves (vegetative leaves. I believe that Goethe's concept is not that of an evolutionary precursor. According to this view. in my belief .

But many critics agree. The search for these forms have begun well before the time of Darwin[††]. "Bauplan" of a taxon. … But this view was not Goethe's. The known forms are now interpreted by the hypothetical."[7] But Goethe did not even attempt to find such a progenitor and was strongly against mixing facts with theory. the topography is not determining (tulips. is according to only a few general characters. however. Identification of these general characters implies the rest as a context. To solve the problem. Does this mean that there are many progenitors? How many. For this the problem of homology has to be tackled first. This proves the multivalency and thus the underlying identity. the 'real' one? The case is the same with the hypothetical ancestor as with the intermediary form. (c) by repetitive transformation of the underlying organ a generalized plan of the whole shoot can be built. This has been the accepted method since the time of Owen (separation of birds and reptiles based on minor osteological differences). generative and empirical. This dubious practice compares empirical and hypothetical forms. I will attempt to make the 'strong case' approachable[**]. as I will try to show. Goethe's concept of 'genesis' is dynamic. The identification of plant parts is based on common recognition and there is no valid strict positional schema. Taking an example: the limbs of fish and tetrapods have supposedly the same origin. the "theory of metamorphosis has nothing to do with this question of the historic sequence of the appearance of life." It would be such a deformation if we were to confound Goethe's biological idea of knowledge with that of Darwin or Haeckel. the stamen 'stamen'). but even for him one of the questions to be answered by his evolutionary theory was the existence and emergence of these progenitors. but dynamically throughout. the other plausible assumption is to treat it together with Romantic notions about a blueprint. The first step is done without any possibility of 'proving' whether it is a correct step or not. The theory of the particular homology is therefore tested (and found true) using artefacts of that same theory in its hypothesis-form. biologists assume a common plan underlying certain taxa. Against the background of Naturphilosophie. which alone can discover it to us. It must be remembered. that Goethe's concept of type is different from most of his contemporaries. it is unlikely to find two forms that are the same. but the "procedure treats the invention as if it were an empirical discovery. This can be summarized as follows: (a) there is a general homology of all organs of the shoot. then Goethe's attitude to the 'weak' interpretations. that establishes a connection between the two forms. He did not think geometrically or statically. "when their boundaries are allowed to run together. not historical."[[14]] If Goethe's ideas are incommensurable with a search for a historical (evolutionary) progenitor. have no sepals. In modern taxonomy. But we can invent an infinite number of intermediaries and they may all be nonexistent. foliage leaves instead of the corolla (Goethe clearly noted this). As Cassirer states. we have to see the 'missing link'. (b) the leaf is a generalized plan for the underlying organ. Instead. Whether an animal belongs to one taxon or another depends on the existence or lack of these few (not necessarily macroscopic) 'distinguishing' features. It is quite separate from every 'theory of descent' not only in its content but in the posing of the question and method. Although we can usually guess right as to what comes next. but he recognized no other kind than that which displays itself in the midst of change. It assumes the common plan.'Strong' Interpretations Homologies In the following. and not yet specialized. Thus the "mediating form was created because the data in itself was inconclusive without it. but this is not how the process of classification is carried out. and monocots in general. . sometimes we see double flowers. or an Archetype."[7] Obviously. plant nodal points are multivalent. not speculative. usually something simple. His solution is radically different. an idealization is homologized with actual features or forms through abstract transformations. Goethe could have provided a form that is the common schema (much like Owen's archetypal vertebra) but he deliberately did not. "It is not a broadening but a deformation of the sciences."[14]. his concept of form was dynamic. As Cassirer writes: "To Cuvier or Candolle 'type' was an expression of definite and basic constant relationships in the structure of living things that are fixed and unalterable and upon which all knowledge of them depends. but the existence of the plan is an object of speculation. This latter might also be called a progenitor. as yet. then? Of course we all agree that (if our hypothesis about the common origin is right) there should be only one. however. and this is followed by the search for a 'missing link'. The relationship between forms is established first. Goethe's notion seems to stem from the same source as Owen's general homology of the vertebrates. on which both can be mapped. but. How are we to choose or recognize from this multitude of hypothetical forms the one. and the outcome depends on several factors." said Kant. and results in the determinations that would follow from such a discovery. He did not reject permanence. yet this does not deter us from calling the petals 'petals'. that in these cases evidence is mixed with theory. we can either imagine an intermediary. there is no good (meaning close) series of transitional forms between the two. which infers the grouping. and the question is how one can find an 'underlying' element that is not a mere reduction of the visible forms to the simplest possible structure. The actual classification. the devised intermediary forms (or hypothetical progenitors) will differ from scientist to scientist. To find our hypothesis well grounded. The strategy of finding speculative progenitors and homologizing dissimilar organs is used even today when there is not enough evidence for seeing the connection between forms. or find a generalized schema.

existing rules of the world. it is a manifestation of something objective. the worthy man nevertheless failed to realize that there is a difference between seeing and seeing. clearly talks of finding an underlying schema that is not hypothetical. In the 'movement'. Goethe. and however much he may have accomplished with it. they become manifestations of something that is not visible. conjectures about the form of the plants. An infinite number of logically possible leaves could be inserted. By starting with any one of the forms the 'movement' cannot be detected. however. This something is. for a trained botanist. To understand this it is probably the easiest to start from the simplest case. Seeing only the pictures the intellect can not arrive at the movement. and phenomena of the world.By subscribing to the view that 'everything is leaf' means a simple foliage leaf we misinterpret Goethe's views." [3] He clearly distinguishes between his theory and Wolff's. [17]] By taking the Goethean step. There is no reason why we should take one leaf and not the other as the basis. Goethe's Urpflanze. similarity and difference. in itself. however. that can be used to generate new forms that follow it. The only hypothetical step is accepting that the series 'makes sense'. 6. Individual pieces do not show the movement by themselves. [see for details [15]. Any scheme seems painfully arbitrary. never visible. but the order is not changed by this). where the oldest ones (near the base) are on the left. Taking this route the forms of a graded series appear to be arrested stages. the mathematical capacities we develop have no connection to the realm of the phenomena outside. it is not hard to reshuffle them and find their correct order (he might begin with the end. But this intellect. [16]. The more 'missing pictures' we have. that is. In the Romantic Naturphilosophie it was generally accepted that though forms are 'on the surface' different. that there is a general Bauplan or blueprint on which the forms are variations. but are governed by it. In either case the obvious progression is lost. Each individual form thus turns out to be an arrested stage of the transformation. Their structure follows certain rules. This view stresses the importance of similarity. For someone. they really aren't. we might understand his puzzling statement better[‡‡]. stating that something has to appear in front of the 'intellectual eye' when seeing with the 'bodily eye' . I will only venture to arrive at a better understanding of the Urorgan. No particular scheme is present. who has never seen these leaves before. If we arrange the separated leaves of a flowering plant in a semicircle. By not taking the step we remain in the realm of isolated signs. It is perfectly continuous. most of the species can be identified by a single leaf. on the other hand. we attribute the same lawfulness to the outer world as to our intellect. this invisible form unites all pictures. In this sense the movement works as a law. 8) theory: "… Excellent as this [Wolff's] method is. and not even attempt to find the underlying schema of the whole plant world. which cannot be proven to be real. By taking one of the complex ones we only reach the others through deletion. just as making the important. he failed to realize that the intellectual eye must work in constant and spirited harmony with the bodily eye.a statement just as mysterious as the original notion of the Urpflanze. and the viewer is not forced to make any unfounded steps to acquire it. but traceable. Picking one and 'explaining' the others using it does not allow us to grasp the underlying unity. 'snapshots' of a continuous movement. while in Goethe's method the difference is just as crucial. By making this Goethean leap of faith. aspects. The mobile governs the static. yet unperceivable by the senses. They are logical. the more continuous the movement is. just like an infinite number of pictures can be the intermediaries of two pictures of a running athlete. and the two. That we are able to find a 'theme' behind the 'variations' (and say that a leaf is the leaf of a beech tree. hypotheses. that by using mathematics we can explain some parts. phenomena. exactly for this. it is easy to conclude that they resemble each other. regardless of the leaf's origin. They might seem logical according to our intellect. right under the flower) are on the right. specifying forms by generating them. as. But how can we find the 'theme'? By taking the simplest forms on either end of the series we see that it gives us no information about the complex ones. ever-searching intellect. crucial step. This implies the existence of general homology among leaves. Another way of tackling the problem is starting from the progression itself. For modern theory of science this can only be hypothetical. he criticizes Wolff's (seemingly very similar see 3. though it cannot be drawn or sketched. Owen and many others thought that similarity makes the series. as the connections themselves are transformed. but these rules are that of our reason or intellect. Form as Movement The leaves of a plant usually resemble each other. In fact. Looking at the leaf-series. a new level of investigation is opened. and the youngest ones (near the top of the plant. have the same importance in understanding the movement. the independence of forms are cancelled. The movement enables us to include or exclude potential new members. all the forms are given. for otherwise the scholar might run the risk of looking and yet overlooking. the 'Leaf' here. We can still . for example) is the result of our working. That there is positional information within the series can be seen if we mix up the leaves.

these faculties can be trained. Carus. The apprehension of movement here depicted about one single plant can be extended over several plants in a species. The consequences are far-reaching: "If we take this approach. as expressed by one of the leading biologists working with the Goethean approach: "The leaves are like footprints of a plant which develops in the realm of the invisible" [16].e. In his Farbenlehre he will talk of a 'strengthening' (Steigerung). and that. in principio. and he was intrigued to find out the validity of the descriptions in the book. he requested all sorts of mosses from Frau von Stein. [*] I would like to thank Jochen Bockemühl. and that this is why they are not treated in his botanical writings. lichens. called Russwurm". containing 365 aphorisms. Oken. [‡] Closely resembling Linneaus' Fundamenta Botanica. [‡‡] Several plants are suitable for this. This mode of explanation reappears in Goethe's later writings. an 'enhancement'. it has no form at all: it is the movement itself. that he ignored that plants have less aesthetically pleasing aspects under the ground – namely roots. as we have seen. when spring arrives. is not a productive power but a specification of relations. and. [§] Goethe's explanation is doubly polar. Goethe's interest in mosses. His 'Leaf' is not any sort of simplification. mostly ones where leaf-shapes vary significantly. over related species. After all. as knowing the movement can be used to generate new forms. Goethe chooses to investigate movements rather than forms. Jochen Bockemühl. it is arbitrary which form is picked as the scheme). Ernst Cassirer. of the two basic colours (polarity again). expressions. . [††] Robinet and Diderot wanted to find a prototype for all natural forms. and microscopic structures seems to contradict the generally accepted view. Márta Fehér. This knowledge might be called generative. whose classification of plants he found invaluable. like thistles. We dealt exclusively with spatial movement. He read Russwurm's Special Microscopic Discoveries about Plants. but. in the outcome his approach is similar to the 'schematic one': simple difference of forms is reduced to intelligible difference. gradual development. It contains a polar element."[7] Or. in that it specifies all forms potential to the series. a book that Goethe was well acquainted with. there would seem less reason to suppose it causal. It is in 1782. It shows us how the finished product is structured. when we first hear about his studies of Linneaus. (as in botany the number of organs can change.misunderstand these laws. and others have made efforts to find the common progenitor of one taxon. Owen. i. but opposed to this polarity is a one-way. [†] In 1777 October 31. that are clearly visible on the plant. a significant minority still (to name a few: Rudolf Steiner. to reobserve and verify the experiments of von Gleichen. but not how it was caused. and a gradual correction of the mistakes is possible here. etc. His method was justifiable in his time. György Kampis and the Invisible College for their help and support. using descriptive concepts. Ronald H. but this interest is not yet that of a professional scientist. just as the faculty of mathematical understanding. however predictive of future forms. it is not less grounded than other approaches to make plant form intelligible. Agnes Arber. a mathematical differential. [**] Here I try to support and possibly further elaborate one view of Goethe's morphological works shared by numerous scholars. The organs are the same but not because of positional or compositional identity. according to Goethe. too. and should we choose to call it generative. the dynamic aspect of the forms becomes little more than an artefact of perception. In 1785 he wrote to his friend Friedrich Jacobi (1743-1819). buttercups. but the same laws apply for the study of temporal movement. the 'contraction' and 'expansion'. the later president of the Academy of Sciences in Munich: "A microscope is set up in order. and it is not a schematic archetype as it can't take on any form. and the plant kingdom in general. poppies. Brady). as the generally accepted notions of homology in Goethe's time were unable to give a more correct answer as to how the morphe of plants can be grasped. The above example tried to show the basis of Goethe's method.

Boston (In: Goethe an the Sciences BSPS 97) [16] BOCKEMÜHL. William.1941 [13] RUPKE. 180 [4] WENZEL. The Wholeness of Nature: Goethe’s Way of Science. contrary to the Hungarian translation. [7] BRADYrady. Yale Univ. W. Versuch die Metamorphose der Pflanzen zu erklären Gotha: Carl Wilhelm Ettinger [3] Goethe’s Botanical Writings. Frederick. Reidel Publishing Comp. Jochen. Yale Univ. Charles. Vol. 1987. Reidel Publishing Comp. New York. Rosemary. 1994. Press. Richard Owen. Tiere und der Landschaft Manuscript for a lecture for „Phänomenologie der Natur – ein Projekt“ by Gernot Böhme. 25 April 1992. 1996. [6] PORTMANN. J. Ox Bow Press. Goethe and the Concept of Metamorphosis. Goethe und Darwin (Goethes Morphologische Schriften in ihrem naturwissenschafthistorischen Kontext). 1950.1776 [12] WEBSTER Stephen. 3 September 1994. Naturwissenschaftliche Sektion. Ernst. Vierzig Bände. Boston (in: Goethe an the Sciences BSPS 97) [8] BORTOFT. [17] BOCKEMÜHL. [10] COEN.. J. 165 fn. Nicolas A. 133-145. Dornach/Schweiz . 208. New Haven and London [14] CASSIRER. Ch. von . 1. 1992 ‘The power behind the flower: What makes a plant flower?’ in: New Scientist. J. Gesteine. Deutsche Klassiker Verlag. 1994 ‘Review: The truth about Darwin's old foe’ in: New Scientist. Form and Cause in Goethe’s Morphology. Jochen. Italian Journey.134 No. ‘Flowers start from a single gene’ in: New Scientist. 1992.131 No.143 No.1818 [11] BOWN. Briefe. Henri. Connecticut (trans: Bertha Mueller) p. Victorian Naturalist. Tagebücher und Gespräche. New Haven [15] AMRINE. Adolf. W. 1987. in Johann Wolfgang Goethe Sämtliche Werke. Reidel Publishing Comp. Penguin [1981] Introduction. p. There is a currently available (and. Aspekte der Selbsterfahrung im phänomenologischen Zugang zur natur der Pflanzen. Goethean method in the work of Jochen Bockemühl. Ruhr-Univesitat Bochum..[1] GOETHE. Floris Books [9] DARWIN. The Problem of Knowledge. Frankfurt am Main 24:434 [2] GOETHE. full) version of the diary published by Penguin Books. 1991. 1997. 1958. 13. W. Vol. 1989. 1987. Manfred. Glückliches Ereignis. Enrico. 1982. von 1969. Press. Schocken. von 1790. Vol. Boston (in: Goethe and the Sciences BSPS 97) pp.71 [5] GOETHE. 06 July 1991. Awakening to Landscape. The Origin of Species. CARPENTER. Ronald H. Goetheanum.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful