Other Callings: Philosophers

Specimen of Rosa eglanteria from a herbarium made for Mademoiselle Julie Boy-de-la-Tour by Jean-Jacque Rousseau, Zurich Central Library.

In the last post, I discussed members of the clergy who were also avid plant collectors and in many cases made substantial contributions to botany.  Now I want to deal with another group, much smaller in number, but interesting nonetheless:  philosophers who liked plants.  I am hardly the first to consider this connection.  Michael Marder, himself a philosopher, wrote The Philosopher’s Plant: An Intellectual Herbarium (2014), in which he discussed how thinkers from Plato to Hegel used plant metaphors in exploring deep questions of existence.  It is a fascinating approach, yet none of the philosophers I want to write about here, all of whom kept herbaria, are given more than a mention.  Marder’s thinkers seem to have been more involved with conceptual rather than real plants, though some of their work is definitely based on close observation of nature.

I’ll begin my survey with John Locke (1632-1704) who maintained correspondence with several botanist/gardeners, including Jacob Bobart the Younger, who had succeeded his father as head gardener at the Oxford University Botanic Garden and also taught there.  Bobart assisted Locke in identifying plants, and Locke, while in France, served as a go-between with Pierre Magnol at the Montpelier botanical garden, which had long been a center for botanical research in France.  Among the items passed among these men were seed lists:  what would be available for sharing.  Locke was particularly interested in fruit trees and vines.  He had number of botanical reference works, and kept specimens for reference (Harris, 2009).

As the years went by, Locke’s interest in botany dwindled, but the opposite was true for Jean-Jacques Rousseau.  While exiled in Switzerland in the early 1760s, he was tutored by the physician and botanist Abraham Gagnebin who joined him on plant collecting trips.  Rousseau was focused on the plants he found around him rather than on exotics and horticultural “monstrosities.”  Botany became an important manifestation of his interest in nature, and he considered studying plants a way to calm the emotions by focusing the mind on something outside itself.   He was drawn to meditating on plant form and became absorbed in learning about plant structures, comparing one species with another.  Carl Linnaeus’s books were among his guides.  As with many others, Linnaean classification made plant identification accessible to him.  He even learned to press plants and began an herbarium, guided by Gagnebin who had a massive collection (Cook, 2012).

Since Rousseau had spent his life writing, it’s not surprising that he began to write about botany.  Madeleine Delessert, the wife of a French financier, sought his advice on teaching her daughter about plants.  In response, he sent her eight letters focusing on the art of observation and how to compare plant forms, then ending with a letter on creating a herbarium; these were later published.  Rousseau came to appreciate a plant collection as a way to reinforce information about a plant.  By this time, Rousseau was creating beautiful specimens, including ones mounted on pages framed with red ink borders (see image above).  He gave some to his patrons, to Delessert and also to the Duchess of Portland for whom he made two portable collections.

Among those influenced by Rousseau’s botanical work was the German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.  He became involved with plants as an administrator in Weimar with responsibility for agriculture and forestry management.  Then, as happened with so many others, he grew fascinated by plants for their own sake.  Goethe read Carl Linnaeus’s works and, like Rousseau, tried to puzzle out the similarities and differences among species.  He started a herbarium and also began sketching plants and plant structures.  The turning point in Goethe’s interest came when he traveled south to Italy and was struck by the new and intriguing species he encountered (Arber, 1946).  They had some similarities with those in Germany, but there were also significant differences, especially greater variety, a diversity of variations on botanical forms.  When he visited the botanical garden in Padua, one of the oldest in Europe, he had an epiphany that somehow leaf forms were related to each other, and all leaves to a basic form.

This unity in diversity led Goethe still further to posit a fundamental plant form, based on the leaf, to which all plant structures were related.  This might seem to have evolutionary implications, but not for Goethe.  He considered the relationship purely conceptual and finally came to accept that this idea could not be visualized and had to remain a mental construct.  Goethe worked on his botanical ideas referencing the drawings he made or had made for him as well as his herbarium specimens.  These included plants he collected and other herbaria he purchased in order to broaden his study material.  His The Metamorphosis of Plants (Goethe & Miller, 2009) presents his argument on form, and while some see him as influential in the history of plant morphology, others consider him an amateur who added little to the field.

Probably the most long-term collector among philosophers was John Stuart Mill, who was interested in botany throughout his life in part because he saw the hierarchical classification of living things as a model for ordering many aspects of human affairs such as law.  Mill collected mainly in the British Isles and had such an extensive herbarium that his daughter-in-law outfitted a room for his specimens (Curtis, 1988).  His collecting broadened after his wife’s death when he moved to Provence and befriended the French naturalist Henri Fabre.  They often botanized together.  Mill also went on collecting trips through Eastern Europe and Greece.  Numbering in the many thousands, his specimens are in several collections in both Europe and the United States (Pearce, 2006).


Arber, A. R. (1946). Goethe’s botany: The Metamorphosis of plants, 1790, and Tobler’s ode to nature, 1782. Waltham, MA: Chronica Botanica.

Cook, A. (2012). Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Botany: The Salutary Science. London: Voltaire Foundation.

Curtis, S. (1988). The philosopher’s flowers: John Stuart Mill as botanist. Encounter, 80(2), 26–33.

Goethe, J. W., & Miller, G. L. (2009). The Metamorphosis of Plants. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Harris, S., & Anstey, P. (2009). John Locke’s seed lists: A case study in botanical exchange. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 40, 256–264.

Marder, M. (2014). The Philosopher’s Plant: An Intellectual Herbarium. New York: Columbia University Press.

Pearce, N. R. (2006). John Stuart Mill’s botanical collections from Greece (a private passion). Phytologia Balcanica, 12(2), 149–164.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s