Disputations touching the generation of animals

points of similarity as difficulty of the problem, method of investigation and proof, style of organization, and writing techniques are highlighted in each work. Finally, in her conclusion, the author contends that the greatest similarities between the scientific and poetic works of Haller are in their subject matter, but that philosophical and religious themes are common to both as well. This study unfortunately has many weaknesses, the most serious of which is its simplistic level of analysis. The author does not really go beyond the obvious comparisons, such as listing words used to describe natural objects that are common to the early poems and the botanical works, or pointing out that Haller discusses the sensory and reasoning processes in both 'Gedanken Ober Vernunft, Aberglauben und Unglauben' and in the Elementa physiologiae. Analogies are often forced, for example when, in the last chapter, the experimental method in Haller's investigation of irritability and sensibility is likened to the detailed enumeration of events and the repetition of key ideas in the poem 'Ueber den Ursprung des Uebels'. There is no attempt to venture beyond the realm of similarities between the two classes of works to analyse causal influences or even common roots. Furthermore, the portrait painted of Haller as scientist is equally simplistic, which is difficult to understand with such studies as those of Hintzsche, Sonntag, and Toellner at hand. Haller's scientific method is presented quite naively, for example, in the first chapter, where we are told that Haller's scientific world view was based on compiling, naming, experimenting, organizing, and theorizing. This is not necessarily wrong, but the author simply presents these concepts with no attempt to analyse their meaning or function. Finally, it is surprising that the author makes no mention of a long-standing debate in Haller scholarship, brought to a head with Toellner's monograph of 1971, over whether there is unity or disharmony between Haller's scientific and poetic writings. (One has only to recall the title of Hochdoerfer's 1932 work, The conflict between the religious and scientific views of Albrecht von Haller.) Nor is there any discussion of the fact that the poetic works are all early writings, ending in 1736, whereas the scientific works cited are principally from the 1 750s and 1 760s. This does not necessarily mean that a discontinuity between the two classes of works exists. But to use, for example, a discussion of perception and sensation …