Advertisement

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Diverging views of epigenesis: the Wolff–Blumenbach debate

  • Andrea Gambarotto
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Sketches of a Conceptual History of Epigenesis

Abstract

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840) is widely known as the father of German vitalism and his notion of Bildungstrieb, or nisus formativus, has been recognized as playing a key role in the debates about generation in German-speaking countries around 1800. On the other hand, Caspar Friedrich Wolff (1734–1794) was the first to employ a vitalist notion, namely that of vis essentialis, in the explanatory framework of epigenetic development. Is there a difference between Wolff’s vis essentialis and Blumenbach’s nisus formativus? How does this difference influence their overall understanding of the epigenetic process? The paper aims to provide an answer to these questions through the analysis of a little-known document, which contributes to shed light on a crucial chapter of the German life sciences in the late eighteenth-century, namely the decisive phase of the process that led to the formalization of biology as a unified field of inquiry at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

Keywords

Caspar Friedrich Wolff Epigenesis Johann Friedrich Blumenbach Teleology 

References

  1. Blumenbach, J. F. (1781). Über den bildungstrieb und das zeugungsgeschäfte. Göttingen: Dieterich.Google Scholar
  2. Blumenbach, J.F. (1789). Erste abhandlung über die nutritionskraft. In Royal Academy of Science (Ed.), Zwo abhandlungen über die nutritionskraft. Saint Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
  3. Blumenbach, J. F. (1789b). Über den Bildugstrieb. Göttingen: Dieterich.Google Scholar
  4. Blumenbach, J. F. (1791). Über den bildugstrieb. Göttingen: Dieterich.Google Scholar
  5. Bonnet, C. (1985). Considérations sur les corps organisés, ou l’on traite de leur origine, de leur développement, de leur reproduction. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  6. Canguilhem, G. (1962). Du développement à l’évolution au XIXe siècle. Paris: Puf.Google Scholar
  7. Canguilhem, G. (2008). La connaissance de la vie, eng. tr. Knowledge of life. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Duchesneau, F. (1982). La physiologie des lumières. empirisme, modèles et théories. La Hague: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  9. Duchesneau, F. (1985). Vitalism in late eighteenth-century physiology: The cases of Blumenbach, Barthez and John Hunter. In W. F. Bynum & R. Porter (Eds.), John Hunter and the eighteenth-century medical world (pp. 259–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dupont, J. C. (2007). Pre-kantian revival of epigenesis: Caspar Friedrich Wolff’s de formatione intestinorum (1768–69). In P. Huneman (Ed.), Understanding purpose. Kant and the philosophy of biology, North American Kant society studies in philosophy (Vol. 8, pp. 37–50). Rochester: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dupont, J. C., & Perrin, M. (Eds.). (2003). Caspar Friedrich Wolff. De formatione intestinorum. La formation des intestins (1768–1769). Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
  12. Fabbri-Bertoletti, S. (1990). Impulso, formazione e organismo. Per una storia del concetto di bildungstrieb nella cultura tedesca. Olschki: Firenze.Google Scholar
  13. Haller, A. (1752). Preface to allgemeine historie der natur. New York: Arno Press (Reprinted by S. Roe, 1981, The natural philosophy of Albrecht von Haller).Google Scholar
  14. Huneman, P. (2007). Reflexive judgment and wolffian embriology: Kant’s shift between the first and the third critique. In P. Huneman (Ed.), Understanding purpose. Kant and the philosophy of biology. North American Kant society studies in philosophy (Vol. 8, pp. 75–100). Rochester: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lenoir, T. (1982). The strategy of life: Teleology and mechanics in nineteenth-century German biology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  16. McLaughlin, P. (1982). Blumenbach und der Bldungstrieb. Zum Verhältnis von epigenetischer Embryologie und typologischen Artbegriff. Medizinhistorisches Journal, 17(4), 35–72.Google Scholar
  17. McLaughlin, P. (1990). Kant’s critique of teleology in biological explanation: Antinomy and teleology. New York: Mellem Lewinston.Google Scholar
  18. Newton, I. (1713/1999). General Scholium. In I. B. Cohen & A. Whitman’s (Eds.), Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Richards, R. J. (2000). Kant and Blumenbach on the Bildungstrieb: A historical misunderstanding. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 31(1), 11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roe, S. A. (1981). Matter, life generation. Eighteenth-century embryology and the Haller–Wolff Debate. Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Witt, E. (2008). Form—A matter of generation: The relation of generation, form, and function in the epigenetic theory of Caspar F. Wolff. Science in Context, 21(4), 649–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wolfe, C. T. (2014). On newtonian analogies in eighteenth-century life science: Vitalism and provisionally inexplicable explicative devices. Newton and empiricism (pp. 223–261). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wolff, C. F. (1759). Theoria generationis. Halle: Hendel.Google Scholar
  24. Wolff, C. F. (1764). Theorie von der generation. Berlin: Birnstiel.Google Scholar
  25. Wolff, C.F. (1789). Von der eigentümlichen und wesentlichen Kraft der vegetablischen sowohl als auch der animalischen Substanz. In Royal Academy of Science (Ed.),Zwo Abhandlungen über die Nutritionskraft. Saint Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
  26. Wolff, C. F. (1793/1973). Objecta meditationum pro theoria monstrorum (trans: I. C. Kopelevic & T. A. Lukina, edited by T. A. Lukina). Leningrad: Nauk.Google Scholar
  27. Zammito, J. (2003). This inscrutable principle of an original organization: Epigenesis and loosness of fit in Kant’s philosophy of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 34(1), 73–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zammito, J. (2006). Teleology then and now: The question of Kant’s relevance for contemporary controversies over functions in biology. Studies in History of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 37(4), 748–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zammito, J. (2012). The lonoir thesis revisited: Blumenbach and Kant. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(1), 120–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zumbach, C. (1984). The transcendent science. Kant’s conception of biological methodology. The Hague: Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fonds National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité Catholique de LouvainLouvain-La-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations