Men with Green Pens. Lives of the Great Writers on Plants in Early Times by Louise Bush-BrownReview by: Jerry StannardIsis, Vol. 58, No. 2 (Summer, 1967), pp. 260-261Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/228247 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 10:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.253 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:54:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS- ISIS, 58 2 * 192 (1967) BOOK REVIEWS- ISIS, 58 2 * 192 (1967)

energy in separate chapters with these titles. They are excellent summaries, but one wonders for whom they are in- tended. The presentation is not ele- mentary, so these chapters will not do as introductions to these subjects. For scientists who possess the technical equipment that Dr. Theobald assumes, much of what he says will be old hat, although there are occasional and im- portant warnings against taking some of the older concepts (like force) for granted. Some scientists who read these chapters attentively may be led to ex- amine some of the philosophical under- pinnings of their science.

The philosophical introduction and conclusion are not very impressive. Theobald's philosophical orientation is toward the school of linguistic analysis. Whether this philosophical school pro- vides any real insights into the nature of science in general and the concept of energy in particular will depend largely on the philosophical tastes of the reader. I, for one, did not find much enlightenment in the author's discus- sion. I do think that a linguistic phi- losopher owes it to his reader to write a clear, simple prose. This Theobald does not do. Some of his arguments (e.g., p. 14 on the difference between obser- vations and theories) are unnecessarily complicated and muddled. One ex- ample of style will provide a taste of Theobald's own linguistic usage. "No one," he writes on page 5, "invents concepts for fun, they invent them be- cause they need them, because without them some facet of experience would go uncharted."

The weakest part of the volume is that devoted to the history of the con- cept of energy. Here the author is guided by the requirements of his phys- ical argument, rather than by those of historical analysis. On page 31, for example, he writes: "Huygens explicitly stated that no heavy body can rise by itself, a statement equivalent to that of the impossibility of perpetual motion, or the conservation of energy." Why, the scientific reader may well ask, did it then take 150 years for the principle of the conservation of energy to emerge?

energy in separate chapters with these titles. They are excellent summaries, but one wonders for whom they are in- tended. The presentation is not ele- mentary, so these chapters will not do as introductions to these subjects. For scientists who possess the technical equipment that Dr. Theobald assumes, much of what he says will be old hat, although there are occasional and im- portant warnings against taking some of the older concepts (like force) for granted. Some scientists who read these chapters attentively may be led to ex- amine some of the philosophical under- pinnings of their science.

The philosophical introduction and conclusion are not very impressive. Theobald's philosophical orientation is toward the school of linguistic analysis. Whether this philosophical school pro- vides any real insights into the nature of science in general and the concept of energy in particular will depend largely on the philosophical tastes of the reader. I, for one, did not find much enlightenment in the author's discus- sion. I do think that a linguistic phi- losopher owes it to his reader to write a clear, simple prose. This Theobald does not do. Some of his arguments (e.g., p. 14 on the difference between obser- vations and theories) are unnecessarily complicated and muddled. One ex- ample of style will provide a taste of Theobald's own linguistic usage. "No one," he writes on page 5, "invents concepts for fun, they invent them be- cause they need them, because without them some facet of experience would go uncharted."

The weakest part of the volume is that devoted to the history of the con- cept of energy. Here the author is guided by the requirements of his phys- ical argument, rather than by those of historical analysis. On page 31, for example, he writes: "Huygens explicitly stated that no heavy body can rise by itself, a statement equivalent to that of the impossibility of perpetual motion, or the conservation of energy." Why, the scientific reader may well ask, did it then take 150 years for the principle of the conservation of energy to emerge?

Similarly, why did it take 50 years for Davy's and Rumford's demonstration of the inadequacy of the caloric theory (as described on p. 56) to be accepted as such? Historians of science are aware of the complexities of these two cases, but the scientific reader of this volume will have to puzzle out the problem by himself.

The volume is clearly printed, well documented, and with an adequate index.

L. PEARCE WILLIAMS

Cornell University

Similarly, why did it take 50 years for Davy's and Rumford's demonstration of the inadequacy of the caloric theory (as described on p. 56) to be accepted as such? Historians of science are aware of the complexities of these two cases, but the scientific reader of this volume will have to puzzle out the problem by himself.

The volume is clearly printed, well documented, and with an adequate index.

L. PEARCE WILLIAMS

Cornell University

I BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES I BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

Louise Bush-Brown. Men with Green Pens. Lives of the Great Writers on Plants in Early Times. x + 161 pp., illus. Philadelphia: Dorrance, 1964. $5.00.

From the title, one is led to expect biographies of some early botanists. Pursuing, for a moment, what this en- tails, one might expect a critical study of the contributions made to botany by each of the biographees, perhaps with selected, accurately translated excerpts accompanied by proper documenta- tion. These expectations, however, will quickly be dashed by the most cursory examination of the book. No one will quarrel with Mrs. Bush-Brown's choice of subjects: Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Albertus Magnus, Brunfels, Fuchs, Mo- nardes, et alios. But, as a serious con- tribution to the history of botany, it must be viewed as a companion piece to the authoress' earlier Young Amer- ica's Garden Book.

It would be as uncharitable as it would be otiose to append a list of factual errors, mistranslations, misspell- ings, and editorial irresponsibilities. I confine myself, therefore, to two re- marks. First, I wish to register a long- suppressed criticism of those who cite Dioscorides in John Goodyer's seven- teenth-century English translation or, for that matter, who quote Monardes in the even earlier translation of John

Louise Bush-Brown. Men with Green Pens. Lives of the Great Writers on Plants in Early Times. x + 161 pp., illus. Philadelphia: Dorrance, 1964. $5.00.

From the title, one is led to expect biographies of some early botanists. Pursuing, for a moment, what this en- tails, one might expect a critical study of the contributions made to botany by each of the biographees, perhaps with selected, accurately translated excerpts accompanied by proper documenta- tion. These expectations, however, will quickly be dashed by the most cursory examination of the book. No one will quarrel with Mrs. Bush-Brown's choice of subjects: Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Albertus Magnus, Brunfels, Fuchs, Mo- nardes, et alios. But, as a serious con- tribution to the history of botany, it must be viewed as a companion piece to the authoress' earlier Young Amer- ica's Garden Book.

It would be as uncharitable as it would be otiose to append a list of factual errors, mistranslations, misspell- ings, and editorial irresponsibilities. I confine myself, therefore, to two re- marks. First, I wish to register a long- suppressed criticism of those who cite Dioscorides in John Goodyer's seven- teenth-century English translation or, for that matter, who quote Monardes in the even earlier translation of John

260 260

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.253 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:54:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS - ISIS, 58 * 2 * 192 (1967) BOOK REVIEWS - ISIS, 58 * 2 * 192 (1967)

Frampton (1577). Second, in the chapter on Albertus Magnus (pp. 52-70) only one paragraph is devoted to plants (p. 66), and this contains neither quota- tions nor references. It may be sus- pected that the authoress is innocent of Latin, and there is no indication that a copy of Albertus' De vegetabilibus, available in two modern editions, was even consulted.

Mrs. Bush-Brown's smooth, flowing prose is pleasant reading. It is thus a great pity that she has ventured into an area where more is required than literary talent.

Frampton (1577). Second, in the chapter on Albertus Magnus (pp. 52-70) only one paragraph is devoted to plants (p. 66), and this contains neither quota- tions nor references. It may be sus- pected that the authoress is innocent of Latin, and there is no indication that a copy of Albertus' De vegetabilibus, available in two modern editions, was even consulted.

Mrs. Bush-Brown's smooth, flowing prose is pleasant reading. It is thus a great pity that she has ventured into an area where more is required than literary talent.

University of Kansas University of Kansas JERRY STANNARD JERRY STANNARD

Elof Axel Carlson. The Gene. A Critical History. xii - 301 pp., dwgs., index, bibl. Philadelphia/London: W. B. Saunders, 1966. $8.00.

In the best sense this book falls in the genre of review paper. Matters of current genetic concern receive illumi- nation from their ancestry, and empha- sis necessarily falls upon those aspects of the past which best contribute addi- tional insight into difficulties of the present. Profusion of evidence and in- tricacy of argument and technical mat- ters partially conceal the unavoidable Whiggish tendencies in a book of this nature. Less obscure is Carlson's strong bias toward the ultimate correctness of the particulate or material theory of heredity.

No doubt most of us share this bias. But it should not prevent us from pos- ing the embarrassing question, Can one fairly write a history of the gene? The dilemma lies in the object itself, if ob- ject indeed it is. We have no firm defini- tion of the gene. Its qualities remain concealed. Its behavior, that is, its re- sponse to experimental operations, alone is said to provide terms for our discourse. Theories of the gene (there is no Theory of the Gene) form a splen- did testimonial to the rise of operation- alist methodology, and were we always so consistent and judicious our under- standing of this fundamental concept

Elof Axel Carlson. The Gene. A Critical History. xii - 301 pp., dwgs., index, bibl. Philadelphia/London: W. B. Saunders, 1966. $8.00.

In the best sense this book falls in the genre of review paper. Matters of current genetic concern receive illumi- nation from their ancestry, and empha- sis necessarily falls upon those aspects of the past which best contribute addi- tional insight into difficulties of the present. Profusion of evidence and in- tricacy of argument and technical mat- ters partially conceal the unavoidable Whiggish tendencies in a book of this nature. Less obscure is Carlson's strong bias toward the ultimate correctness of the particulate or material theory of heredity.

No doubt most of us share this bias. But it should not prevent us from pos- ing the embarrassing question, Can one fairly write a history of the gene? The dilemma lies in the object itself, if ob- ject indeed it is. We have no firm defini- tion of the gene. Its qualities remain concealed. Its behavior, that is, its re- sponse to experimental operations, alone is said to provide terms for our discourse. Theories of the gene (there is no Theory of the Gene) form a splen- did testimonial to the rise of operation- alist methodology, and were we always so consistent and judicious our under- standing of this fundamental concept

in modern biology would be notably less deficient. But geneticists no less than others of the eager among us are prey to unrepentant materialism. We want to seize that something, preferably a very physical something made up of concrete atoms and molecules, which literally is the object of our concern, in this case, the gene. In writing a history of the gene, therefore, the au- thor may well praise the methodologi- cal elegance and seeming neutrality of the personalities moving before him. He is also obliged to grasp and then to emphasize the very real ontological commitments formed, perhaps prior to experimental analysis, by these same investigators.

The reader may extract these consid- erations from Carlson's book. He will not find them at the focus of the argu- ment nor will he locate any explicit examination of their bearings on the study of the gene. Carlson, like so many of the authors whom he discusses, vir- tually assumes a material basis for in- heritance and then gets on with the business of tracing diverse modes of gaining an estimate of the special char- acter of this substance. A great gap in our understanding therefore remains open. We are no closer than before to appreciating in just what lies the per- suasion of the notion that heredity, too, has its physical causes. Of course, alter- native conceptions, usually of bizarre character, are not examined.

The story so fully told here is a reas- onably familiar one. It opens with the rediscovery of the Mendelian breeding ratios and Bateson's and Castle's roles as advocates for the new science called genetics. Confusion introduced by the expression "unit-character" is discussed, and then come great events in chromo- some genetics, including crossing over, mapping, and position effect. Muller's 1921 lecture on the individuality of the gene is taken for the manifesto it was, and the remainder of the book presses deeply into subsequent remarkably var- ied essays at determining the nature of the gene. Attention to radiation and mutation, physiological genetics, cyto- plasmic inheritance, and pseudoallelism

in modern biology would be notably less deficient. But geneticists no less than others of the eager among us are prey to unrepentant materialism. We want to seize that something, preferably a very physical something made up of concrete atoms and molecules, which literally is the object of our concern, in this case, the gene. In writing a history of the gene, therefore, the au- thor may well praise the methodologi- cal elegance and seeming neutrality of the personalities moving before him. He is also obliged to grasp and then to emphasize the very real ontological commitments formed, perhaps prior to experimental analysis, by these same investigators.

The reader may extract these consid- erations from Carlson's book. He will not find them at the focus of the argu- ment nor will he locate any explicit examination of their bearings on the study of the gene. Carlson, like so many of the authors whom he discusses, vir- tually assumes a material basis for in- heritance and then gets on with the business of tracing diverse modes of gaining an estimate of the special char- acter of this substance. A great gap in our understanding therefore remains open. We are no closer than before to appreciating in just what lies the per- suasion of the notion that heredity, too, has its physical causes. Of course, alter- native conceptions, usually of bizarre character, are not examined.

The story so fully told here is a reas- onably familiar one. It opens with the rediscovery of the Mendelian breeding ratios and Bateson's and Castle's roles as advocates for the new science called genetics. Confusion introduced by the expression "unit-character" is discussed, and then come great events in chromo- some genetics, including crossing over, mapping, and position effect. Muller's 1921 lecture on the individuality of the gene is taken for the manifesto it was, and the remainder of the book presses deeply into subsequent remarkably var- ied essays at determining the nature of the gene. Attention to radiation and mutation, physiological genetics, cyto- plasmic inheritance, and pseudoallelism

261 261

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.253 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:54:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions