# On Morphology II

[Introduction to the readings, Volume 7, pp. 227-232:]

This second volume of Morphology, the seventh of the scientific writings, serves in two ways to supplement and expand on its predecessor. Firstly, it brings together all of Goethe's works that are not yet dominated by the idea of metamorphosis, but in which a struggle for the basic principles of his views on organic nature can still be found. Secondly, it contains a collection of essays in which Goethe, from the standpoint he has gained, deals with contemporary and historical phenomena relating to the science of the organic. The first series includes Goethe's remarks summarized under the title “Preliminary Work on Morphology” (pp. 5-33). These clearly originate from a time when the idea of the identity of all plant organs had not yet taken clear shape in his mind. They are partly dictated and partly written down by his own hand (see “Manuscripts”). Closely related to them are Goethe's notes from Italy, published under the title “Paralipomena I.” In them we see the first form of many ideas that were decisive for “Morphology.” Thus they took shape in Goethe's mind before they were brought together into a systematic form. The chapter “Paralipomena I” represents the first link in an ascending development of thought that leads us via the “Preliminary Work on Morphology” to the mature formation of Goethe's views in “The Metamorphosis of Plants,” published in 1790. The works on infusoria (Paralipomena II) belong to a stage that is still quite unclear. Here, the idea of metamorphosis is not yet apparent. They show us Goethe at the very first stage of his search, where he endeavors to find maxims in which the phenomena of life can be expressed through a purely empirical compilation of phenomena and their comprehensive observation under a wide variety of circumstances. As can be seen from the dates given in them, these notes originate from the year 1786.

The second series comprises the essays on pp. 35-214. In the essay “On the Spiral Tendency of Vegetation,” Goethe seeks to reconcile his theory of metamorphosis with the views on the spiral and vertical tendency in plant growth represented by Martius in 1828 and 1829 at the meetings of German naturalists in Munich and Berlin (printed in Isis 1828, p. 522, and 1829, p. 333) on the spiral and vertical tendencies in plant growth. Goethe first published the essay at the end of the 1831 edition of “Metamorphosis” in the shorter form that we include in the Paralipomenis. In the form printed here, it first appeared in the posthumous works (volume LV, pp. 95-128). The individual parts of which it is composed are contained in three handwritten notebooks. The latter also contain preliminary work on it (see “Paralipomena”). As evidenced by the date on p. 68 and Goethe's handwritten note on the cover of the first notebook: “Spiral tendency 1829,” these parts were written between 1829 and 1832. In his diary, Goethe notes on December 26, 1829: “I had the theory of the spiral tendency of plants in mind.” Already on the 27th, he begins studying the essays in Isis and recording his thoughts on the spiral tendency. He then returns to the subject repeatedly, revisiting Martius' essays on January 14, 1831, to continue his aphoristic remarks on them. As can be seen from 68.7, the essay was completed in the fall of 1831. However, at the end of the essay, the manuscript reads: W. d. February 4, 1831. The order in which they appear in our volume is not exactly that of the manuscript, but rather that indicated by the numbers added in the margin. This order is also followed in the posthumous writings. These numbers are in Eckermann's hand. Pages 69-129 are grouped under the general title: “Essays on General Botany and Reviews,” in which Goethe: 1. seeks the relationship between his idea of metamorphosis and Blumenbach's “Bildungstrieb” (pp. 71-73); 2. discusses with the botanist Ernst Meyer the relationship of “metamorphosis” to the theory of species and to a system of natural formations and beings (pp. 74-92); 3. attempts to evaluate Humboldt's “Ideas for a Physiognomy of Plants” (pp. 93-100), Wilbrand and Ritgen's “Paintings of Organic Nature” (pp. 101-103), and Fr. S. Voigt's “System of Nature and its History” (p. 104) from his own point of view; Finally, 4. examines the relationship between his own thoughts on organic formation and those of Joachim Jungius, whom de Candolle described as a precursor. Pages 71-104 are not preserved in manuscript form. Pages 71-73 were first printed in Morphology, Volume I, Issue 2, pp. 114-116, 74-92 ibid. Volume II, Issue 1, pp. 28-45, 93-100 in the Jenaische Literaturzeitung 1806, pp. 489-492, 101-102. On Morphology Volume I, Issue 4, pp. 353-354, 103-104 ibid. Volume II. Issue 1. pp. 63-64. pp. 105-129 is preserved in manuscript form in a notebook (see Manuscripts p. 233), just like 37-68 in individual paragraphs written at different times. The order is determined by numbers written by Riemer. Guhrauer already adhered to this order in his 1850 reprint (in “Joachim Jungius und sein Zeitalter” by Guhrauer). The references 123.8 (cf. also in the readings for 119.4) and the fact that the manuscript is accompanied by a copy of the article on Jungius from Zedler's Universal Lexicon, dated March 8, 1831, prove that the work was written in 1831. However, Goethe's involvement with it must be dated earlier. De Candolle's “Organographie,” which inspired him (cf. 105.4-12), was published in 1827. Goethe read it in the summer of 1828, starting on June 13, as his diary shows. In the latter, we find the first note referring to Jungius on July 23, 1828. The preserved receipts show that on July 10, 1828, Goethe borrowed the following works by Jungius from the Jena library: Germania superior. Hamb. 1685, Mineralia. Hamburgi 1689; Logica Hamburgensis 1681. However, Goethe did not lose sight of his study of Jungius's works. On November 5, 1831, he had Logica Hamburgensis sent to him a second time (according to the diary). Following on from the more detailed parts of the essay, we also include the sketches and excerpts from Jungius' works that Goethe compiled because they illustrate the form that the latter should have taken. For the parts that were not elaborated on, these drafts must be included in the text in order to complete the picture. Pages 131-149 contain a previously unpublished essay in which Goethe attempts to illuminate Knecht's principles and rules for viticulture through the theory of metamorphosis. According to his diary, he began working on this subject on August 3, 1828. The times at which the essay was written can be seen from the references 134,4; 138.15; 147.11. 151-164 contains a previously unpublished translation of the chapter “De la symetrie vegetale” from de Candolle's “Organographie vegetale,” which shows how close the basic ideas of this French researcher are to those of Goethe. Goethe originally intended to include this translation in the 1831 edition of “Metamorphosis,” as can be seen from a sheet on which Goethe listed the contents of this edition as he first conceived it. The date of composition can be seen from the date on p. 164. According to his diary, Goethe began the translation on July 31, 1828, in Dornburg. Pages 165-214 contain Goethe's essay on the scientific dispute that broke out between Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier in March 1830. It first appeared in the Berlin “Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik” (Yearbooks for Scientific Criticism) in 1830. Volume 2, September No. 52/53 and March 1832 No. 51/52. The first indication that Goethe was interested in this dispute can be found in the diary entry for May 7, 1830, where he discusses the subject with Chancellor von Müller. His actual work on it begins (diary) on July 19, and on the 27th of the same month he already begins to dictate the essay. From September of that year, the matter was put on hold for a while; on November 12, 1831, Goethe took it up again and then worked out the second part of the essay, which he completed in March 1832 (cf. 214,23). 215-224 is a previously unpublished essay by Goethe on the natural philosophical basis of his organics. It appears here at the end of the morphology because it seeks to extend the idea of the theory of metamorphosis to that of a general theory of comparison. Although probably written at the beginning of the 1890s (it is preserved in Götze's handwriting), this treatise truly draws the final conclusion of Goethe's organic theory, which is also related to the highest realms of general natural philosophy through its discussion of the teleological worldview.

The chapter “Paralipomena III” occupies a relatively independent position, in which Goethe records the results of his experiments on the effect of light on organic bodies, mentioned in Volume 6, Part II, 17.4-9, in the form of a diary. As can be seen from the date on the cover, these experiments date from 1796. The following chapters of the Paralipomena contain other sketches, preliminary work, etc.

We considered it appropriate to include illustrations in the text and in the Paralipomena at certain points. In doing so, we followed the principle of including those of Goethe's drawings, most of which are sketches, that are closely related to the text alongside and within which they appear. Where this is not the case, where image and word do not express two sides of the same thought, so to speak, we have refrained from including images. For this reason, the drawings in the Goethe National Museum mentioned in Paralipomena IV do not appear in this volume.

The editor of this volume is Rudolf Steiner; as with the entire project, factual and philological questions were settled through discussions with the editor Bernhard Suphan, who already supported the editor with his advice during the preparatory work and who, through his super-revision, contributed to the accuracy of the printing.

[Selected texts in the readings:]

[p. 234] Evolutionists, those natural scientists who assume that all organs that become visible in a natural being over time are already present in embryonic form in a hidden state.

[Explanation of Goethe's text Preliminary Work on Morphology: WA 117, 8.15; LA 110, 55.32]

Tau in the Weimar Edition (1891-1896) Page 33 Weimar Edition II 7

[pp. 234-235] Epigenetists, those who assume that each subsequent organ always arises from the one immediately preceding it.

[Explanation of Goethe's text Preliminary Work on Morphology: WA 117, 8.16; LA 1 10, 55.33]

[p. 236] Circles of their nature, i.e., when they are caused by some influence to take on forms that they would not take on if left to themselves, but which reveal precisely those laws of formation that are decisive in normal plant life but often not visible.

[Explanation of Goethe's text Preliminary Work on Morphology: WA 117, 17.6; LAT 10, 62.17]

[p. 237] These plants have given rise to the idea that cotyledons should not be regarded as leaves and are therefore the reason why the identity of plant organs has been so long misunderstood.

[Explanation of Goethe's text Preliminary Work on Morphology: WA 117, 22.10-14; LA 110, 42.20-23]

[p. 237] Clearing. Difficult to read in [Goethe's manuscript] H because of an ink stain over the first letter, but “räumung” is clear. One might think that “räumung” is used synonymously with ‘expansion’ and that the root point finds too little moisture due to the greater expansion. However, it is also possible that it should simply be read as “germination.”

[Explanation of Goethe's text Preliminary Work on Morphology: WA 117, 26.1; LA 110, 44.37]

[p. 237] Cf. Paralipomena. A new paragraph should actually begin here, corresponding to 24.9 [in the same essay]. However, Goethe apparently did not pay attention to this when dictating. Therefore, we want to reproduce the matter here faithfully to the manuscript, as this corresponds more closely to Goethe's flow of thought, which, regardless of the transition to a new subject, was preoccupied with the essential inner core of the matter.

[Explanation of Goethe's text Preliminary Work on Morphology: WA II 7, 26.9; LA 110, 45.6]

[p. 252] On the laws of plant formation. (pp. 151-164.) This essay is a translation of the third chapter of De Candolle's Organographie végétale, Volume II, pp. 226-244. [...] In addition to the readings of the manuscripts, we also give the French texts for individual words and phrases, namely in cases where the translation is so free that it seems characteristic of Goethe's language and style of expression.

[Preliminary remark on Goethe's text: WA 11 7, 153-164; LA I 10, 241-248]

[S: 269] Attempt at a general comparative theory. (pp. 209-224.) This essay is preserved in Goethe's handwriting. Goethe does not seem to have looked at it again after it was dictated. In the very poorly written manuscript, we find only a few pencil corrections in Riemer's hand. In order to achieve a meaningful and stylistically correct sentence structure, this manuscript had to be corrected in many places. We indicate the deviations from our print in the following.

[Preliminary remark on Goethe's text: WA I1 7, 217-224; LA I 10, 118-122; GA 1e, 573-577]

[p. 271] We are reprinting this with the prefix um in the word umbilden in italics, because it indicates the contrast that is important here.

[Explanation of Goethe's text Versuch einer allgemeinen Vergleichungslehre: WA 117, 222.5-6; LA I 10, 121.14-15, GA le, 576.14-15]

[pp. 273-274] Paralipomena I. Morphological Studies in Italy. This heading covers Goethe's thoughts on plants and plant life, as he recorded them during his Italian journey. There is a colorful mixture of general ideas and remarks on individual points that became clear to Goethe under the impression of a plant world that differed so much from the German one. We see in them the emergence of the basic features of his theory of metamorphosis. He pursued the transformability of plant organs and the nature of the leaf at every opportunity that presented itself. In this way, he increasingly came to seek an ideal basic organ which, modified in various ways, manifests itself in the visible organs of the plant. Likewise, he sought to understand the force at work in plant life as a constant and infinite one, which causes the modification of the organs, but also continues beyond the individual, then appears separately and produces the sexual effect. These very pages prove that the main thrust of Goethe's thinking was not to carry out the abstract idea that every plant organ is a leaf, but rather to understand the unity of the active agent in the whole plant individual and ultimately in the whole plant world. These remarks are written on small slips of paper that were sewn together into a booklet, much like those on which Goethe recorded his ideas for Nausikaa. These papers were organized by Bernhard Suphan and compiled according to the subjects to which they belong. The section relating to botany comprises the following. The whole is written in Goethe's own hand.

[Preliminary remark on the following texts by Goethe: WA I1 7, 274-288; LA II9A 52-62 (M 39), 51-52 (M 38), 62-68 (M 40), 50 (M 36)]

[p. 342] Paralipomena IV. This chapter brings together those works that do not belong to Goethe's “System of Botany” or follow directly from it, but deal with botanical matters in a way that cannot be described as a consequence of the idea of metamorphosis. What Goethe thought was important about botany and did not connect to the theory of metamorphosis appears here. Only the first essay (A) [on the tendency toward spirals] is an exception. (See below).

[Preliminary remarks on the following texts by Goethe: (A): WA 11 7, 342346, LA I 10, 339-342; (B)-(H): WA II 7, 346-356, LA I 10, 216-218, LA 19, 328-329, LA I 10, 260, 260, 258-259, 23, 24; partly in GA la, 189-191]

[p. 363] Paralipomena VI. Goethe's individual essays on botanical subjects are accompanied by a wealth of preparatory work and explanations relating to the individual sections. It would be pointless to reproduce these in their entirety. Only those additions that truly complement the content of the ideas will be included at the end as: “Individual Remarks.” Everything else has no objective value if one is familiar with the ideas communicated in volumes 6 and 7. We include here only as much as seems necessary to understand Goethe's working method. In doing so, we have selected those pieces that are particularly characteristic of this purpose. We divide them into “Dispositions” and “Sketches for Individual Theorems.” Goethe apparently always worked in such a way that he sketched out the train of thought for a work in its entirety and then, with this disposition in hand, dictated the execution to a writer. Everything that follows is still unpublished.

A. Dispositions, WA 117, 363-368; B. Sketches of individual theorems, WA II 7, 368-370; ©. Individual remarks, WA I 7, 370-372; LA: see concordance, p. 159]