Perspective
in Biology and Medicine
Robert J. Richards, The Romantic
Conception of Life: Science and Philosophy in the Age of Goethe. Chicago
and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2002. xix
+ 587. $35.00.
Romantic science has traditionally
been held in very low esteem by scientists and historians
of science alike. The heavy emphasis on philosophical reasoning (especially of
an idealist sort) as the route to scientific knowledge along with the central
role given to invisible, interchangeable, and ill-defined forces of nature,
and, conversely, the de-emphasis on empirical research and the associated lack
of a dialectical relationship between theory and empirical practice–these and
other supposed attributes of romantic science have led scholars to discount the
value of much science practiced by romantic natural philosophers in the
late-eighteenth, early nineteenth centuries. Indeed, many scholars consider at
least some of that “science” to be no science at all.
Recent scholarship has, however,
begun to reassess this negative view of Romantic science. Robert J. Richards’s
impressive study of science and philosophy in the age of Goethe (1770-1830) is
sure to force still greater reconsideration of Romantic science, at least
insofar as concerns the study of the organic world. Indeed, it will (or should)
become one of the premier interpretations of the positive contributions made by
a group of closely knit German Romantic philosophers, scientists, and poets who
sought to comprehend the origins and development of organic life.
Richards offers a deeply contextualized
study, both in the sense that he recounts in considerable detail the romantic
lives of several of his key figures and in the sense that he sees science in
the German-speaking world of this era as interwoven with philosophy and poetry.
He portrays the philosophers, scientists, and artists who stand at the heart of
his study–Friedrich von Hardenberg (Novalis), Johann Gottfried Herder, Johann Christian Reil, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Friedrich
Schiller, the brothers Wilhelm and Friedrich Schlegel, and, above all, the
central figure of the book and the age, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe–not only in
terms of their intellectual positions and systems but also of the lives they
led. While the book is in good measure about the thought of these and other men,
Richards leavens his intellectual analysis with enticing portrayals of their
various involvements with one another and, especially, with women. More
particularly, he presents a fascinating account of the strong intellectual,
personal, and, at points, even sexual relationships that these men (and
associated others) developed in Jena and Weimar. These
portrayals are not meant, however, as some sort of relief from the
intellectually demanding portions of the study–and trying to follow the systems
of Fichte and Schelling, for example, does indeed require a break every
so often. Rather, Richards argues that there was an seamless web of interwoven
relationships amongst the intellectual, social, and general cultural worlds of
these individuals in Jena and Weimar, and that we cannot fully appreciate the
origin and meaning of their intellectual outlooks without simultaneously also
grasping (insofar as possible) the psychological and personal realms of their
lives. In short, Richards creates a narrative in which individual selves and
the concepts of self, along with their moral and aesthetic outlooks, are
inextricably interwoven with philosophical and scientific ideas and with
literary achievements, and he shows how this conglomerate eventuated in a
biological interpretation of nature.
Richards’s well-structured book has
an elegant architecture. Part One is devoted to the
early Romantic movement in literature, philosophy, and science. It sets the
background for the remainder of the book by recounting the work and lives of
the Schlegel brothers (including their personal involvement with women), Novalis, Fichte and his philosophy of freedom, the literary
salons of Berlin, the religious views and poetics of Friedrich Schleiermacher, and, above all, Schelling’s philosophy (and
poetry) of nature (Naturphilosophie). Among
other things, Richards shows that Schelling had a greater appreciation of the
role of observation and experiment in science than most scholars have
previously understood.
Part Two focuses on the
philosophical and scientific foundations of the romantic conception of life.
Here Richards takes up various early modern theories of development, above all that
of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and his Bildungsbetrieb
(a formative, developmental force responsible for nourishment, reproduction,
and restoration in plants and animals), along with Kant’s philosophical views
on biological explanation. He also analyzes Carl Friedrich Kielmeyer’s
understanding of the interaction of organic forces, including his primitive
notions of the origin and transformation of species; Reil’s
romantic theories of life and the mind (especially concerning mental illness);
and Schelling’s dynamic evolutionism. Here and elsewhere in the book Richards
argues that several of the Romantic figures adopted and adapted the work of
Baruch de Spinoza as well as of such Enlightenment figures as Immanuel Kant and
Johann Gottlieb Fichte. He stresses that, at least for several of the key
figures in his study, they by no means rejected the rationalistic outlook of
the Enlightenment; rather, they sought to expand upon it, even as, to be sure,
they rejected mechanism and the associated Newtonian world view and replaced it
with an organic interpretation of nature. We learn how these thinkers learned
from one another, how they borrowed and often enough criticized all or parts of
the philosophical outlooks and scientific results that were of potential use in
their own creative work.
Richards devotes Part Three of his
book, the centerpiece, to Goethe as a scientist. He shows in great detail the
many linkages amongst Goethe’s attitudes towards and views of women,
morphology, and poetry, just as he shows the intellectual stimulation that
Goethe received from his readings of Spinoza, Kant, Schelling, Schiller, and
others, as well as from his travels to Italy. We are here reminded not simply
of Goethe’s well-known discovery of the intermaxillary
bone in humans and of his theory of the metamorphosis of plants. We also see
the evolution of the poet’s own life and personality, including his involvement
with (or sexual longing for) various women and how this contributed not only to
his poetry–something that is easy enough to appreciate–but also to his general
erotic view of nature. Richards argues convincingly that Goethe helped create
the foundations of morphology; that he helped lay (especially through his
archetypal theory and his morphological analysis) the roots of what would later
become Charles Darwin’s evolutionary outlook; and that his work in osteology, comparative anatomy, botany, and his theoretical
call to clarify and search for the archetypes of the organic world amounted to
a veritable scientific revolution. Pace numerous scientists and
historians of science, from Goethe’s day to our own, Richards maintains quite
rightly that Goethe’s science must be judged in terms of his own times, and not
in terms of the standards and results of later eras. (Richards restricts his
defense of Goethe to the biologist, not to the latter’s far more controversial
and dubious views on optics and the methodology of physical science in
general.) We see Goethe’s Gesamtwerk: his
ideas and work in biology, epistemology, and aesthetics were all of a piece,
and how they were motivated and driven on by personal friendships and sexual
desire. We see, in other words, how he became and embodied the Romantic
biologist.
Part Four, an extended epilogue, is
not only the book’s denouement but in truth une
conclusion qui s’ouvre: Richards adumbrates a
much larger historiographical argument about the
nature of biology during the entire nineteenth century. He sketches Darwin’s
romantic view of nature, showing how he derived much of his general outlook
from figures like Goethe and Alexander von Humboldt–i.e., from the German
Romantic movement. He develops a line of analysis that he had already in part
taken up in a much shorter, yet equally penetrating book, The Meaning of
Evolution: The Morphological Construction and
Ideological Reconstruction of Darwin’s Theory (Chicago, 1992). There he
argued for the especial importance of the embryological writings of Lorenz Oken
and Karl Ernst von Baer for the young Darwin. Here, in the epilogue to The
Romantic Conception of Life, he argues above all for the importance to the
young Darwin of his study of Humboldt, who had close ties to the German
romantics, especially to Goethe, but also to others in Jena, Weimar, and
Berlin. He shows that Humboldt’s general romantic (i.e., non-mechanistic)
outlook on life and the portrait of nature that he painted–in particular, that
of the Americas as given in his Personal Narrative and more generally
and later in his Cosmos–profoundly affected the young Darwin, so much so
that when he came to write up his own diaries from his voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle
(1831-36), he himself painted a portrait of the natural and social worlds of
South America that was entirely in the spirit of Humboldt’s own portrait of
some thirty years earlier. In short, Richards shows that Darwin greatly admired
and, to a certain extent, imitated Humboldt. Yet equally important, if only by
implication, Richards suggests that the Romantic conception of life that he has
brought out in full detail for German natural philosophers and others is but
the beginnings of a story that reaches well beyond the age of Goethe and the
German plains. For he suggests that down to the end of the century, in England
as well as in Germany, there was a strong romantic conception of life that
shaped biologists’ understanding of the nature, origins, and development of the
organic world.
Despite the engaging tales of social
webs and the cultural-cum-personal portraits that Richards paints, his study is
an intellectually demanding one. In part this is due to the inherently complex
and convoluted philosophical positions on the foundations of biological
explanation that he recounts–especially those of Kant, Fichte, Reil, and Schelling–and in part to the variegated
interrelationships that he characterizes among men, women, nature, art, and
science. Yet in part, too, the book’s intellectual challenge stems from the
adjustment that open-minded readers must make as they try to appreciate his
argument that nineteenth-century biology, including that of and following
Darwin, was in no small measure teleological in nature and imbued with
aesthetic and moral values.
For Richards’s argument that there
was a deep romantic streak in nineteenth-century biology that had its roots in
German Romanticism and that continued on throughout the century and into the
English-speaking cultural world is a large-scale, historiographically
revolutionary interpretation. For it seems fair to say that virtually all of
us, scholars and non-scholars alike, think of nineteenth-century evolutionary
theory as an English science with English cultural and political economic
roots. The standard historiographical interpretation
argues, generally speaking, that Darwin was not only the discoverer of the idea
of evolution by means of natural selection but that he drew on a wellspring of
English culture and political economics (with a dose of Lamarck and perhaps
another non-Englishmen or two thrown in) in formulating his theory. Working as
he did under the general effects of the Industrial Revolution and of the
political Reform movement in mid-Victorian Britain, the young Darwin was primed
to see and explain change. Moreover, his journey on the Beagle, a
geographical and hydrographic survey expedition in the service of British imperialism;
his reading of such English writers as Thomas R. Malthus on demography and
Charles Lyell on geological time; the groundwork to
evolution laid out before Darwin by Robert Chambers in his Vestiges of the
Natural History of Creation (1844), which helped prepare an otherwise
potentially hostile public; and the simultaneous, independent, and virtually
identical analysis of Alfred Russel Wallace that
forced Darwin to publish so as to secure priority–these and other well-known
points constitute the elements of the standard historiographical
view that the sources of Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) lay in the
common context of a set of intellectual and social values and political
economic interests. In short, the standard historiographical
interpretation argues that the theory of evolution as propounded by him was a
thoroughgoing English piece of work, one that, like Newton’s Principia
and the machinery that drove much of contemporary British political economy,
was mechanistic, and one that in its broad philosophical outlook was
non-teleological and without recourse to moral or aesthetic values whatsoever.
It is this standard interpretation that Richards rejects. Instead, he argues
that Darwin was enamored of Humboldt’s organic, non-mechanistic view of nature,
of a cosmos bubbling over with life; that he favored the theory of archetypes
so dear to German romantics; that he endowed nature with teleological
structure; and that he considered aesthetic and moral values as inherent to
organic nature.
This learned,
well-written, and well-illustrated analysis of the romantic conception of life
weaves together philosophy, science, and art in the age of Goethe. It presents
a penetrating account of German Romantic science and of its implications for
Darwin and other naturalists later in the century. It is an intellectual tour
de force that all serious scholars of the history of biology and of
nineteenth-century culture in general will want to avail themselves of.
David
Cahan
Department
of History
University
of Nebraska
dcahan@unlnotes.unl.edu