210

PHYSIOLOGICAL BOTANY.

poison our whole existence. We might with more truthaccuse social life altogether, which no doubt frequentlyrenders dissimulation necessary to prevent one beingthrown upon the street (obliged to beg).

The author, whilst combating dogmatism in his ‘ Me-thodological Elements’ (p. 23), passes the following incor-rect judgment upon Endlicher and Unger’s ‘ Principles ofBotany’ (Vienna, 1843). “This false plan is carried outto its utmost extent in the recent work of Endlicher andUnger, and its appearance under the protection of suchnames can only be seriously regretted. It appears to methat independently of many of the details being objec-tionable, to which we shall allude hereafter, the authorsin writing their book in a rigidly scholastic style, at thepresent day, have committed a great mistake. Frombeginning to end, it contains mere explanations of namesarranged systematically, and what renders them especiallyuseless, is that the authors have rarely taken the troubleto name examples. Anatomy, physiology, and the historyof development, which alone should constitute the peculiarvalue and true foundation of the details, are very meagreand unimportant, the figures, which are appended at theend, are neither formally nor essentially brought intoconnexion with the details which are deducible from themonly.” All knowledge in the natural sciences dependsupon definitions, for every fact is comprehended as adefinite conception. Merely because the perception of anobject or occurrence is repeated, does it become absorbedas manifold, in the unity of the idea, and in this form, webecome acquainted with it. In all sciences, and espe-cially in natural history, we must commence with defini-tions. We must first obtain a definite idea of a part ofan organic body; the external form and the connexionwith other parts are the first and the most importantpoints to be regarded, for by them we recognise the part;the internal structure, the anatomy, certainly must beknown, but it is entirely a subordinate matter. Thenfollows the doctrine of development, for I must first know