ORIGIN OF THE THEORY OF METAMORPHOSIS
R UDOLF S TEINER
I
On August 18, 1787, Goethe wrote from Italy to Knebel: “After what I have seen of plants and fishes in the region of Naples, in Sicily, I should be sorely tempted, if I were ten years younger, to make a journey to India—not for the purpose of discovering something new, but in order to view in my way what has been discovered.”
In these words is to be found the point of view from which we have to consider Goethe's scientific work. What he was concerned with was never the discovery of new facts, but the laying open of a new point of view, a particular way of looking upon nature. It is true that Goethe made a number of great individual discoveries, such as that of the intermaxillary bone and the vertebral theory of the skull in osteology, the identification of plant organs with the leaf in botany, and the like. But we have to view as the animating soul of all these particularities a lofty view of nature upon which they rested; in the history of organisms, we have to fix our attention primarily upon a notable discovery which reduces everything else to insignificance: that of the nature of the organism itself. The principle by reason of which an organism is that which it represents itself to be, the causes which result in the phenomena of life appearing before us—indeed, everything that we have to inquire about in this regard from the point of view of principles—have been laid bare by him. From the very beginning, this was the objective of his whole endeavor in the organic sciences; while he was pursuing this objective, these particularities crowded upon him as if of themselves. He had to discover them if he wished not to be hindered in the further prosecution of his efforts.
The natural science which preceded him—which did not recognize the essential nature of life phenomena, and which investigated organisms simply with regard to the manner in which they were composed of parts, their external characteristics—often inevitably gave a false interpretation of details which it came upon on this path, often set these facts in a false light. Naturally, it is impossible to discover such an error in connection with the details. We recognize this only when we understand the organism, since the details, considered separately in themselves, do not bear within them their own interpretive principle. They are to be interpreted only through the nature of the whole, since it is the whole which gives them real being and significance. Only after Goethe had discovered, indeed, this nature of the totality did those erroneous explanations become clear to him; they could not be reconciled with his theory of the living entity, but contradicted this. If he wished to proceed further on his course, he had to get rid of such preconceptions. This was the case with the intermaxillary bone. Facts which have value and interest only when one possesses those theories, such as the vertebral character of the skull bones, were unknown to that older natural science. All these hindrances had to be removed through single discoveries. These, therefore, never appear in the case of Goethe as goals in themselves; they always have to be made in order to confirm a great idea, that central discovery.
It cannot be denied that Goethe's contemporaries came, sooner or later, to the same observations, and that all would be known today, perhaps, apart from the endeavors of Goethe. But it is still less to be denied that his great discovery, embracing the whole of nature, has never been affirmed until the present time by any second person in equally admirable manner independently of Goethe—indeed, even a reasonably satisfactory evaluation of this discovery is still lacking. Fundamentally considered, it is clearly a matter of indifference whether Goethe was the first to discover a fact, or only rediscovered it. The fact gained true significance only through the way in which he fits it into his view of nature.
R UDOLF S TEINER
I
On August 18, 1787, Goethe wrote from Italy to Knebel: “After what I have seen of plants and fishes in the region of Naples, in Sicily, I should be sorely tempted, if I were ten years younger, to make a journey to India—not for the purpose of discovering something new, but in order to view in my way what has been discovered.”
In these words is to be found the point of view from which we have to consider Goethe's scientific work. What he was concerned with was never the discovery of new facts, but the laying open of a new point of view, a particular way of looking upon nature. It is true that Goethe made a number of great individual discoveries, such as that of the intermaxillary bone and the vertebral theory of the skull in osteology, the identification of plant organs with the leaf in botany, and the like. But we have to view as the animating soul of all these particularities a lofty view of nature upon which they rested; in the history of organisms, we have to fix our attention primarily upon a notable discovery which reduces everything else to insignificance: that of the nature of the organism itself. The principle by reason of which an organism is that which it represents itself to be, the causes which result in the phenomena of life appearing before us—indeed, everything that we have to inquire about in this regard from the point of view of principles—have been laid bare by him. From the very beginning, this was the objective of his whole endeavor in the organic sciences; while he was pursuing this objective, these particularities crowded upon him as if of themselves. He had to discover them if he wished not to be hindered in the further prosecution of his efforts.
The natural science which preceded him—which did not recognize the essential nature of life phenomena, and which investigated organisms simply with regard to the manner in which they were composed of parts, their external characteristics—often inevitably gave a false interpretation of details which it came upon on this path, often set these facts in a false light. Naturally, it is impossible to discover such an error in connection with the details. We recognize this only when we understand the organism, since the details, considered separately in themselves, do not bear within them their own interpretive principle. They are to be interpreted only through the nature of the whole, since it is the whole which gives them real being and significance. Only after Goethe had discovered, indeed, this nature of the totality did those erroneous explanations become clear to him; they could not be reconciled with his theory of the living entity, but contradicted this. If he wished to proceed further on his course, he had to get rid of such preconceptions. This was the case with the intermaxillary bone. Facts which have value and interest only when one possesses those theories, such as the vertebral character of the skull bones, were unknown to that older natural science. All these hindrances had to be removed through single discoveries. These, therefore, never appear in the case of Goethe as goals in themselves; they always have to be made in order to confirm a great idea, that central discovery.
It cannot be denied that Goethe's contemporaries came, sooner or later, to the same observations, and that all would be known today, perhaps, apart from the endeavors of Goethe. But it is still less to be denied that his great discovery, embracing the whole of nature, has never been affirmed until the present time by any second person in equally admirable manner independently of Goethe—indeed, even a reasonably satisfactory evaluation of this discovery is still lacking. Fundamentally considered, it is clearly a matter of indifference whether Goethe was the first to discover a fact, or only rediscovered it. The fact gained true significance only through the way in which he fits it into his view of nature.
Similar Books
