Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/536

rally, and in the doctrine of nutrition particularly, in the period from 1758 to 1832, we have only to compare the contents of these two books. That this progress was a considerable one, appears plainly from a short summary at the end of the first volume of the general theory of nutrition, as De Candolle himself conceived it; this summary will show us at the same time that he aimed rather at giving a clear account of the whole of the internal economy of the plant, than at searching into the moving forces, the causes and effects. From this he was necessarily withheld by his assumption of a vital force. He distinguished four kinds of forces; the force of attraction which produces the physical, and that of elective affinity which causes the chemical phenomena; then the vital force, the original source of all physiological, and the soul-force, the cause of all psychical phenomena. Only the first three of these forces operate in the plant, and though it is necessary to find out what phenomena in vegetation are due to physical or chemical causes, yet the main task of the vegetable physiologist is to discern those which proceed from the vital force, and the chief mark of such phenomena is that they cease with the death of the plant (p. 6). Of course therefore all the peculiar phenomena of nutrition, which are manifested only in the living plant, come within the domain of the vital force. It must be allowed, however, that De Candolle has made a very moderate use of the vital force, and confines himself wherever he can to physical and chemical explanations; and when he has recourse to the vital force, it is owing less to the influence of his philosophical point of view than to the fact that his account is based rather on tradition and information at second hand than on actual research. It is true that De Candolle was perhaps better acquainted than any contemporary botanist with the physics and chemistry of his day, and it is part of his great merit that he should have acquired so much knowledge on these subjects while engrossed in his splendid labours as a systematist and morphologist; but he betrays, at least in his later years, a want of practice in the study