Natural history and temporalization: reflections on Buffons Natural History

Mara Vernica Galfione Professor in the Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales and the Facultad de Lenguas/Universidad Nacional de Crdoba. 5 ! Crdoba ! "rgentina veronicagalfione#yahoo.co$.ar %eceived for &ublication in 'arch ( )(. "&&roved for &ublication in 'ay ( )(. *ranslated by Catherine +agoe. ,"LF-.N/0 'ar1a 2ernica. Natural history and te$&orali3ation4 reflections on 5uffon6s Natural History. Histria, Cincias, Sade Manguinhos0 %io de +aneiro0 v.( 0 n.70 8ul.9set. ( )70 &.:::9yyy. Abstract Presents a rereading of 5uffon6s Natural History in the light of the conce&ts of te$&oral reversibility and irreversibility. *he goal is to deter$ine to ;hat e:tent 5uffon introduces a transfor$ationist conce&t of natural for$s in this ;or<. *o that effect0 the $ain &oints of classical natural history and the doctrine of &refor$ed ger$s are analy3ed. Subse=uently0 5uffon6s use of the te$&oral variable is considered. *his e:a$ination sho;s that des&ite his re8ection of the theory of &refor$ationis$ and the scholastic classification syste$0 5uffon continued to use categories based on a reversible te$&oral $atri:. Keywords: natural history> te$&orality> organis$> ,eorges9Louis Leclerc0 count de 5uffon ?)@ @9)@AAB.

-n Vitalizing nature in the nlighten!ent 0 Peter %eill ?(

50 &.77 s.B0 &resents a vitalist

reading of 5uffon6s ;or< that see<s to highlight the role allotted by this author to historical
1

change in natural for$s. *his reconstruction is inscribed ;ithin the broader fra$e;or< of a &ro8ect ai$ed at deconstructing nineteenth9century inter&retations0 still in force0 ;hich deny or $ini$i3e the historical nature of enlighten$ent thought. "ccording to this author0 ;e need to abandon any unifor$ conce&t of this &eriod and recogni3e that it harbored tendencies o&&osed to the $echanical and $athe$atical &hiloso&hy that ;as do$inant at the ti$e. *hese &ers&ectives0 shared by 5uffon and ,er$an intellectuals li<e ,eorg Forster or the Cu$boldt brothers0 ;ere characteri3ed by the search for a theory to $ediate bet;een s&iritualis$ and $echanical $aterialis$. *hus0 in their atte$&t to e:&lain the co$&le: &heno$enon of life0 these &ers&ectives gave rise to a &hiloso&hy of dyna$ic nature and revealed the field of historicity. "lthough %eill6s reading ?( 50 &.5AB is co$$endable for =uestioning the tendency to

&ro8ect onto the eighteenth century Dilthey6s distinction bet;een no$othetic sciences and sciences of the s&irit0 it also $a<es the unfounded clai$ that 5uffon6s use of the te$&oral register attributes to ti$e a creative role in the &roduction of organic for$s. .n this &oint0 the author ignores 5uffon6s fervent efforts to avoid a transfor$ationist conce&t of nature. Ce does so0 in our o&inion0 because to the e:tent that he inter&rets &ree:isting &ers&ectives in the field of natural sciences as $ere conce&tual strategies ai$ed at shoring u& a &articular social and religious order. -n this article ;e ;ill atte$&t to sho;0 firstly0 so$e of the scientific achieve$ents of &refor$ationist &ers&ectives and the scholastic classification syste$ in order to elucidate ;hy 5uffon0 des&ite his a$biguities0 ;as eventually reluctant to ad$it the &ossible e$ergence of ne; natural for$s during te$&oral develo&$ent. "s ;e shall atte$&t to de$onstrate0 5uffon sa; ti$e as an interesting resource for dealing ;ith the e:cess of infor$ation available in the $id9 eighteenth century ?Le&enies0 )D@EB. Co;ever0 he hi$self believed te$&orality &layed only a negative role in the &rocess of configuring natural beings. Fro$ our &ers&ective0 this decision ;as a res&onse to the fact that0 in the absence of an alternative e:&lanatory $odel to $echanical causation0 the introduction of the te$&oral variable in the onto9 and &hylogenetic field ;ould have $ade the final dis&osition of natural beings ine:&licable. Natural history and natural theology

During the seventeenth century0 a $ove$ent <no;n as &hysical theology e$erged in /ngland ?Polians<i0 ( F0 &.(@97(> "rana0 )DDD0 &.(@9F7B. -ts for$ulations &layed a vital role in the &rocess of creating and consolidating $odern natural history as a scientific enter&rise and a cultural institution. *he $ain goal of this tendency ;as to counteract the s<e&tical0 &antheist0 deist and atheist &ers&ectives that had arisen in /uro&e since the end of the si:teenth century in reaction to the develo&$ent of the e:&lanatory $odel of $echanical causation. 5ased on the idea that G,od ;or<eth nothing in nature but by second causesH ?5acon0 )DAA0 &.(5B)0 natural theology sought to de$onstrate by scientific investigation0 that is0 by e$&irical study of the Gsecond causesH0 the ;orld6s de&endence on god as su&re$e cause. "ccording to natural theologists0 each creature ;as an illustration of the creator6s love0 and nature as a ;hole ;as a docu$ent of divine nature. *hus0 its e:egesis yielded not only &leasure> it also constituted a duty for $an<ind0 since it de$onstrated the syste$atic0 &erfect and beautiful nature of the ;orld0 fro$ ;hich one could deduce the e:istence of god. -n this sense0 science ;as beco$ing the bul;ar< of religious &ers&ectives because0 as faith ;ea<ened0 it allo;ed &eo&le to a&&roach the creator6s greatness in different ;ays. -n this conte:t0 investigations into natural history had0 incidentally0 to $eet the challenge of e:&laining the e:istence of evil and 8ustifying the a&&arent senselessness of so$e natural for$s. Co;ever0 it ;ould be a $ista<e to su&&ose that natural history6s ada&tation to religious guidelines ;ould have led it to abandon secular goals co$&letely. "s a $atter of fact0 the o&&osite ;as true0 since the alliance bet;een science and religion allo;ed nature a functional role. *hus0 carrying out one6s religious duty to conte$&late the &erfection of creation could be co$&atible ;ith dee&ening and broadening one6s scientific <no;ledge. Further$ore0 verifying the functional nature of creation &rovided an accessory 8ustification for scientific activity0 since it contributed to do$inating and &eo&ling the earth0 as the creator had ordered ?,enesis )4(AB. Ihat clearly differentiated $odern natural history fro$ earlier studies0 fro$ the ,ree<s on0 ;as its syste$ati3ing intent. *hus0 the ancient &ractice of describing and ordering nature began to as&ire to co$&leteness and syste$aticity0 reflected in the construction of a figure0 the scala naturae ?Frigo0 ( )B0 ;hich $ade &ossible a concentrated vision of the ;hole of creation. "$ong the assu$&tions that led to the construction of this chain of being0 according to "rthur Love8oy ?)DA70 &.)A)9)A7B0 ;ere the &lenitude0 continuity and hierarchical gradation of nature.
3

*he first of these assu$&tions eli$inated the e:istence of e$&ty s&aces in nature and thus $ade the &ossibility of change less li<ely. *he second0 $ean;hile0 denied the e:istence of lea&s in the order of different natural beings0 ;hile the third &rinci&le0 lastly0 affir$ed the e:istence of a hierarchical organi3ation of natural beings based on their level of co$&le:ity and &erfection and lin<ed to their usefulness to one another. .n the basis of the first t;o &rinci&les0 ;hich guaranteed the stability and continuity of nature0 it ;as &ossible to divide all e:isting for$s into s&ecies0 genera0 fa$ilies0 orders and classes. *he third &rinci&le0 $ean;hile0 allo;ed the assu$&tion of a ladder of increasing &erfection0 &ro8ected fro$ the ato$ u& to the cherubi$ ?5onnet0 )@@ 0 &.7A7B. *his last series0 as ;e $entioned0 is lin<ed to the functional character of nature as divine creation and ;as therefore re&resented as a chain0 referring to the usefulness of the lo;er lin<s to higher for$s. *hus0 &lants0 for e:a$&le0 e:isted because they ;ere useful to ani$als0 ;hile ani$als6 e:istence and design ;ere useful to $an0 the &innacle of creation. For this sa$e reason0 it ;as also &ossible to assu$e that divine ;isdo$ had &laced each of the natural for$s on the earth in such a ;ay that distances ;ould not end u& neutrali3ing god6s intentions. *his assu$&tion ;as reflected clearly in the e:&lanation Linnaeus offered of ho;0 over ti$e0 vegetation had s&read fro$ the e=uator to;ards the &oles. -n his o&inion0 this &rocess ;as not in the least ha&ha3ard but rather the gradual e:&ansion0 caused by cli$ate factors0 of an original divine &lan. -n other ;ords0 in the &eriod i$$ediately after creation0 all for$s of vegetation ;ere located on the surface of an island that &ossessed a great $ountain. *he current distribution of vegetation thus corres&onds to the gradual0 &ro&ortional s&read of that original design across the entire face of the earth0 caused by the descent of the ;aters that originally covered the surface of the earth ?Polias<i0 ( &.)7EB. "lthough this i$age a&&arently fits the biblical creation narrative0 it is not su&erfluous to e:&lore to ;hat e:tent $odern assu$&tions underlying its construction constituted a li$it in ter$s of theological clai$s or0 in other ;ords0 introduced $odifications to the $edieval ontological and e&iste$ological order. -n this conte:t0 it is necessary to refer to the figure of the Tableau, since to the extent that this classification method, which was paradigmatic in the classical period, rested on a series of assumptions that seriously undermined medieval confidence in the possibility of god intervening in earthly affairs !n this sense, it is
4

F0

necessary to remember that the analytical procedure used by early modern natural history was based on the premise that time was not a constitutive element of the physical universe but rather the result of the limitations of our own cognitive abilities "his understanding of the concept of temporality, which #l$as %alti ?( F0 &.EDB refers to as reversibility (0 e:cluded on &rinci&le any &ossible asy$$etry bet;een &ast and future and therefore eli$inated the &ossibility of eventual divine intervention in the conte:t of creation. -ndeed0 seventeenth9 and eighteenth9century naturalists6 analyses ;ere based on co$&arison and differentiation of the visible features of natural beings and thus de&ended on the &ossibility of referring these features to an original scene or $o$ent in ;hich the different organis$s &resented the$selves0 as Foucault says ?)DAF0 &.)7)B0 Gone beside another0 their surfaces visible0 JandK grou&ed according to their co$$on features.H7 -n this conte:t0 ti$e beca$e a =uality that could only refer to nature if the latter ;ere considered an ob8ect of our faulty &erce&tion or seen in the state of disorder and confusion to ;hich later historical vicissitudes had brought it. *i$e0 as Foucault indicates0 ;ould have been a catastro&he or a cataclys$0 al;ays e:ternal in ter$s of the s&ace of original arrange$ents in ;hich it ;as &ossible to reconstruct a co$&lete0 si$ultaneous i$age of the ;hole of creation. "s sho;n by the incor&oration of natural history into the field of &hysics0 &ro&osed by "delungF0 organi3ing or classifying the various &arts of the natural ;orld $eant translating into s&atial ter$s those for$s that see$ed to hu$an eyes to have a te$&oral e:istence. 5 *he naturalist6s tas< ;as reduced0 in this sense0 to e:tracting the different natural beings fro$ their natural habitat and &lacing the$ on a ho$ogenous s&atial bac<ground that &rovided the coordinates fro$ ;hich their essence could be deter$ined. -n this ;ay0 the naturalist could reconstruct0 based on dis&arate ele$ents &rovided by nature itself in its current guise0 a continuous0 unifor$ ladder u&on ;hose rungs all the e:isting s&ecies could be outlined. -n this ;ay0 the stability of the s&ecies ;as &resented as a necessary &resu$&tion for the &rocess of classification to function. *he outline of divine faculties0 ;hich ;as introduced by this conce&t of reversible te$&orality0 could be seen $ore clearly in the theory of &refor$ation. *his theory a&&eared to;ards the $iddle of the seventeenth century and0 since it guaranteed the genetic stability of the s&ecies0 beca$e the true foundation of eighteenth9century ta:ono$ies. *he first for$ulations of
5

the &refor$ationist &ers&ective ca$e fro$ researchers li<e 'al&ighia or S;a$$erda$ ?5ierbrodt0 ( 0 &.)A@B0 ;ho argued that all the develo&$ental stages of a living being ;ere &refigured in ger$inal for$.E 5riefly0 biological &refor$ationis$ denied the &ossibility that any $or&hological changes too< &lace in the ti$e ela&sed bet;een fertili3ation and the definitive for$ation of the organis$. Fro$ this &ers&ective0 the develo&$ent of natural beings consisted of a $echanical &rocess of $aturation of a series of =ualities $atured that had been in &lace before fertili3ation in the ovu$ ! according to the ovulists ! or in the s&er$ato3oid ! ani!aculis!us" -n either case0 evolutionary develo&$ent did not involve the creation of ne; &arts but rather the $echanical unfolded0 than<s to heat and the absor&tion of s&ecific hu$ors @0 of those organs that had been e$bedded fro$ the beginning. -n this sense0 in &refor$ationis$0 the conce&t of Levolution6A $eant the o&&osite of ;hat it ;ould co$e to $ean in the nineteenth century. "s Leibni3 argued ?)AF 0 &.@)5B0 &roving the fi:ist nature of biological &refor$ationis$4
Plants and ani$als do not co$e fro$ &utrefaction and chaos0 as the ancients believed0 but fro$ L&refor$ed6 seeds0 and therefore fro$ the transfor$ation of living beings e:isting &rior to the$. *here are little ani$als in the seeds of larger ani$als0 ;hich assu$e a ne; guise in conce&tion0 ;hich they a&&ro&riate and ;hich &rovides the$ ;ith a $ethod of nourish$ent and gro;th0 so that they e$erge into a greater stage and &ro&agate the large ani$al.D

.n the &hylogenetic level0 &refor$ationis$ correlated to the theory of $ulti&le enca&sulation. -f every living being ;as &refigured in the seeds de&osited by its &rogenitors0 then its o;n seeds should also contain0 folded on an even s$aller si3e0 the co$&lete organis$s of all its descendants. Ulti$ately0 there $ust have been an original ovu$ or a s&er$ato3oid in ;hich every single future generation ;as enca&sulated0 one ;ithin another. -n accordance ;ith the conce&t of te$&orality $entioned earlier0 biological &refor$ationis$ did not see< to investigate the conditions that deter$ined the creation of that original e$bryo. -nde&endently of ;hether it ca$e fro$ god or arose fro$ an arbitrary con8unction of ato$s0 this &ostulate allo;ed0 firstly0 all &heno$ena that too< &lace Lin ti$e6 to be sub8ect to e:&lanations of $echanical causation and thus0 associated biological e:&lanations ;ith the scientific theory &ar e:cellence0 na$ely0 Ne;tonian $echanics. Secondly0 &refor$ationis$ guaranteed the stability of the descendants of that original seed and thus ensured the fi:ity of natural s&ecies. *i$e could not introduce une:&ected $odifications in the descendants of different s&ecies0 since it ;as $erely the s&ace ;here ;hatever ;as &refigured since the original $o$ent unfolded.
6

-n this sense0 &refor$ationis$ &rovided an e:&lanation that accounted for the ;or<ings of the natural ;orld ;ithout needing to resort to a hy&othesis of divine intervention. "s La&lace ironically noted0 if li<e could only engender li<e0 and gro;th and &rocreation ;ere identified ;ith the $ere &rocess of evolution0 then god ;as a dis&ensable hy&othesis ?Palti0 ( )0 &.77B. .r0 $ore &recisely0 a hy&othesis it ;as Lnecessary6 to dis&ense ;ith0 since any divine intervention in nature ;ould &ut at ris< the coherence of a $achinery that0 on &rinci&le0 e:cluded any lea&s or &ossible innovations.) *hus0 &ostulating the stability of the s&ecies and the e:&lanatory &rinci&le of evolution involved a significant reduction of god6s &o;er.)) For0 ;hereas the ontology of the 'iddle "ges had al;ays contained a s&ace for the active intervention of god0 in $odern thought any &ossible hiatus bet;een re&roducer?sB and descendants ;as inter&reted as a danger for the rationality of the natural ;orld. Co;ever0 $odern thought could not do a;ay ;ith divine &resence altogether.)( /ven though god could no longer divert the course of creation0 he had to be endo;ed ;ith the &o;er to set u& the original grou& of beings that $ade u& the natural ;orld. -n this sense0 it is &ossible to argue that the &refor$ationist co$bination of &refigured seeds and e#olutio $ust have been attractive to religious thought0 because it ;as a co$bination that 8oined the i$$anent do$inion of natural events ;ith the transcendental <ingdo$ of endings or0 in other ;ords0 the legality and necessity of natural sciences and the &reservation of order and the sense of authority. 5ut0 des&ite its a&&arent solidity0 the &refor$ationist syste$ ;as basically a giant ;ith feet of clay0 since its internal consistency rested on strictly renouncing the e:&loration of its o;n original vacuu$. *hat is0 this syste$ could only guarantee the &erfect intelligibility of the natural course of events by denying the origin of those for$s that then develo&ed out of strict necessity. *he &rofoundly contradictory nature of this construct e:&lains the incredible s&eed ;ith ;hich it lost scientific credibility0 after the first e&igenetic criti=ues0 as ;ell as the strong resistance encountered by the various atte$&ts to re&lace it ;ith an alternative $odel. Mi$$er$an6s ;ords on the sub8ect are elo=uent ?)@550 &.7A7B0 defending the &refor$ationist &ers&ective fro$ e&igenetic attac<s4 G-f order is su&&ressed in the &hysical ;orld0 the sa$e ha&&ens in the $oral ;orld and ulti$ately to religion as a ;holeH. "he crisis of classical natural history &igns of crisis 'aten()o diagrama()o: subt$tulo n$vel *+
7

5ut &refor$ationis$6s difficulty e:&laining the bases of the generative &rocess ;as not the only thing endangering the continuity of early $odern naturalist conce&ts0 since the ta:ono$ic &ro8ect ;as also &lagued by &rofound contradictions. -ndeed0 the idea of the great chain of being set in $otion a research &rogra$ to construct a syste$ ;ithin ;hich it ;as &ossible to $a<e ever subtler distinctions so that every single individual on earth ;ould fit. *he li$it of each division ;as0 in this sense0 the starting &oint for ne; differentiations that could al;ays be refined0 and ulti$ately0 in the case of infinite division0 ;ould converge in a continuu!. *he basis for this &rocedure ;as the idea that creation harbored all the divine &ossibilities0 in such a ;ay that different individuals ;ere continually being outlined ?'et3ger0 ( (0 &.7 9F B. Co;ever0 this assu$&tion threatened the integrity of classical natural history for three reasons0 ;hich ;e shall e:&lore as follo;s. *he continuity of nature brought into &lay0 firstly0 a re&resentation relative to the &lenitude of nature fro$ ;hich it ;as &erfectly &ossible to infer the su&erficial character of the entire syste$ of classification. Secondly0 this assu$&tion oriented effort to;ards the e:tre$e cases0 in order to establish subtler distinctions0 and therefore it highlighted beings at transition &oints0 li<e the &oly&0 or beings that ;ere identified as $onstrous or defor$ed. Such cases could be considered inter$ediate &heno$ena that confir$ed the idea of nature6s essential continuity0 but it ;as also &ossible to inter&ret the$ as signs of the arbitrary nature of the classification syste$. *his i$&ression ;as su&&orted by the &rogress of e$&irical investigations0 since in their haste to co$&lete the $issing lin<s these ;ere generating a $ass of infor$ation that did not fit the narro; fra$e;or< of classical natural history. *his is referred to in Le&enies6 thesis on the infor$ation &rocessing crisis that gri&&ed classical natural history fro$ the $id9eighteenth century on;ard and that concluded ;ith its do;nfall. -n Le&enies6 vie; ?)D@E0 &.E(B0 seventeenth9 and eighteenth9century naturalists concentrated &ri$arily on broadening their <no;ledge only to reali3e that their learning investigation $ethods could not ade=uately handle the huge a$ount of data syste$atically. *o docu$ent this &rocess0 Le&enies ?)D@E0 &.)AB &oints out that around )@F 0 3oology had docu$ented si: hundred ty&es of ani$als0 a nu$ber ;hich had =uadru&led by )AF . *here ;as a si$ilar e:&losion of infor$ation seen in the records of Linnaeus0 since the first edition of his

Syste!a naturae, in ,-./, included /01 types, whereas thirty years later it had reached seven thousand 2p /03 4owever, this extraordinary growth of experience was not accompanied by an immediate crumbling of the classical system, nor did it lead to a rapid temporalization of experience, as 5epenies suggests 6n the contrary, young naturalists were particularly reluctant to develop a radical transformationist approach and, despite their lac7 of faith in preformationism and the scholarly classification system, they continued using categories based on a reversible temporal matrix As shown by the case of Buffon, to which we will turn shortly, new naturalist research tended to admit the possibility of unloading on history a mass of experiences that were impossible to organize on a merely spatial level 4owever, these experiences gave the action of time an exclusively negative character and they therefore eliminated the possibility of mutations producing novel natural forms As we shall see, this attitude did not necessarily derive from religious pre8udices, but rather from the fact that conceptual tools simultaneously allowing a dynamic, ordered perspective of natural phenomena did not yet exist

Buffon and classical taxonomy 'aten()o diagrama()o: subt1tulo n1vel *+ 5uffon6s critical attitude to classical natural history ;as obvious fro$ the o&ening &ages of his Natural history !n this text, which established the broad outlines of his future wor7, Buffon 9uestioned the rather orderly, functional representation of nature held in previous years Buffon ?)@FDc0 &.DB ad$itted the &ossibility that nature $ight at first glance see$ li<e the result of a &lan4 GIe are naturally inclined to i$agine a <ind of order and unifor$ity0 and ;hen ;e loo< su&erficially0 the ;or<s of Nature see$0 at first glance0 as if she al;ays ;or<ed on the sa$e &lanH. Co;ever0 the French naturalist ?)@FDc0 &.D9) B ;as liable to attribute this re&resentation of nature to the deficiencies of our understanding of natural &rocesses4
Since ;e <no; only one ;ay to reach a goal0 ;e &ersuade ourselves that Nature ;or<s and o&erates by the sa$e $eans and by si$ilar o&erations> this $anner of thin<ing has caused us to i$agine infinite false connections a$ong natural &roductions> &lants have been co$&ared to ani$als0 &eo&le have believed they sa; $inerals vegetating> their organi3ations0 ;hich so different0 and their $echanis$s0 ;hich are so dissi$ilar0 have often been reduced to the sa$e for$. *he co$$on $old of all these things so dissi$ilar

a$ong the$selves0 is less in Nature than in the narro; s&irit of those ;ho have ill understood her0 and ;ho <no; as little ho; to 8udge the force of a truth as about the 8ust li$its of co$&arative analogy.

"ccording to 5uffon ?)@FDc0 &.))B0 a $ore attentive analysis of natural for$s ;ould a$a3e us ;ith the diversity of intentions and the $ulti&licity of $eans nature uses to carry things out4 G-t see$s as though everything that could be0 is> the Creator6s hand see$s not to have o&ened to give life to a certain deter$inate nu$ber of s&ecies> but it see$s his hand thre; out all at once a ;orld of relative and non9relative beings0 an infinity of har$onious and contrary co$binations0 and a ceaseless nu$ber of destructions and rene;alsH. "s can be observed in the above &assage0 5uffon6s argu$ent sought to =uestion Leibni36 for$ula0 according to ;hich god created on the basis of a choice bet;een the orders that ;ere effectively &ossible. -n his o&inion0 ;hile the &ossibility that nature had even created contradictory things could not be e:cluded0 the classification $ethod used by classical natural history ;as not valid either. For this $ethod6s habit of classifying natural for$s in ascending orders of generality based on arbitrarily chosen features rested on the assu$&tion that our logical categories $atched the arrange$ent of natural for$s. Fro$ 5uffon6s &ers&ective ?)@FDc0 &.DB0 it ;as necessary to ignore this tendency to G8udge the ;hole by a single &artH and to underta<e a co$&lete observation of &articular natural beings. *he true $ethod0 5uffon argued ?)@FDc0 &.5B0 Gis related to birth0 &roduction0 organi3ation0 in a ;ord0 the history of each &articular thingH. *his change of $ethod $eant it ;as indis&ensable to ta<e the &articular ob8ect of study and investigate both the legality of the internal constitution of its &arts and its relation to its natural habitat ?Dougherty0 )DD 0 &.((EB. 5ut if this tendency to;ards e:tre$e no$inalis$ called into =uestion the &rinci&les on ;hich classical natural history6s scientific clai$s had rested u& to that &oint )70 5uffon6s criti=ue ;as not ai$ed at dis$issing all ty&es of general <no;ledge. .n the contrary0 his ob8ective ;as to re&lace scholastic classifications0 ;hich involved &rogressive subordination of individuals to ever larger classes0 ;ith a sche$e that differentiated s&ecies by virtue of the real relationshi&s that could be established bet;een different s&eci$ens. -n this sense the distinction 5uffon ;as establishing ?)@FDc0 &.5795FB ;as bet;een $athe$atical truths and &hysical truths0 and it ;as ai$ed at sho;ing the confusion of levels in Linnaeus6 artificial syste$ )F and suggesting a ne; ;ay of ordering natural beings that ;as based on so$ething real.

10

-ndeed0 Linnaeus6 syste$ see$ed0 to 5uffon0 an artificial construction0 based on &rinci&les that ;ere arbitrarily established by hu$an understanding0 ;hereas a scientific a&&roach to natural history should use a classification &rinci&le based on observation and co$&arison of Gan uninterru&ted succession of eventsH. )5 5uffon found this criterion in the &rinci&le of re&roduction and thus established a &rocedure ai$ed at &roving0 e:&eri$entally0 that t;o e:isting e:a$&les belonged to one and the sa$e s&ecies. "ccording to 5uffon ?)@FDb0 &.) 9 ))B0 ;hat deter$ined $e$bershi& of the sa$e s&ecies ;as the ability to &rocreate fertile offs&ring4 Gone $ust regard as the sa$e s&ecies those that0 by $eans of co&ulation0 &er&etuate and &reserve the si$ilarity of the s&ecies0 and as different s&ecies those that0 by the sa$e $eans0 cannot &roduce anything togetherH. Put in these ter$s0 5uffon6s conce&t of s&ecies strongly relativi3ed the analysis of visible features. *his $ade it a good tool for reconstructing natural fa$ilies ;hose $e$bers had been dis&ersed s&atially for historical reasons0 and had ac=uired for$s that $ade the$ unrecogni3able side by side. 5ut if the criterion of fertile re&roduction $ade it &ossible to differentiate the s&ecies reliably0 it did not deter$ine ;hy nature guaranteed the re&roduction of different s&ecies or ;hat ty&e of relationshi& there ;as bet;een the ability to generate fertile offs&ring and the e:tre$e $or&hological si$ilarity that could be detected bet;een $e$bers of the sa$e s&ecies. .n this &oint0 5uffon could not resort to &refigured for$s0 not 8ust because of their clear $eta&hysical connotations but also because this ;ould have $eant renouncing the &ossibility offered by the fertile offs&ring criterion of reconstructing natural fa$ilies in &laces ;here there ;as no strict for$al rese$blance. Faced ;ith this situation0 5uffon o&ted for the hy&othesis of the interior $old0 ;hich ;e ;ill discuss later. Co;ever0 before doing so0 he develo&ed an argu$ent to 8ustify the use of hy&othesis in the field of natural history0 ;hich ;ould brea< the classic &aradig$6s tendency to &rivilege the evidence of direct observation. -n the conte:t of the discussion about the hidden $eans used by nature to &roduce generation0 5uffon ?)@FDb0 &.7(977B clai$ed it ;as G&er$issible to for$ hy&otheses and to choose that ;hich see$s to be $ost closely analogous ;ith other natural &heno$enaH to establish0 as a re=uire$ent0 the e:clusion of e:&lanations that assu$ed Gthe thing done0 for e:a$&le0 the hy&othesis that in the first ger$ all ger$s of the sa$e s&ecies ;ere containedH and of theories based on &rinci&les of a teleological nature.)E
11

"he generative theory 'aten()o diagrama()o: subt1tulo n$vel *+ 5uffon develo&ed a ne; conce&t of generation <no;n as e&igenetics0 according to ;hich nature ;as co$&osed of Lorganic $olecules6 that co$bined in different ;ays to give rise to different living beings. 5uffon clai$ed ?)@FDb0 &.FFB Gthat there e:ists in Nature an infinite nu$ber of living organic &articles0 that organi3ed beings are co$&osed of these organic &articles0 JandK that their &roduction costs Nature nothing0 since their e:istence is constant and invariableH. *o the e:tent that 5uffon believed these organic $olecules to be &rinci&les ;hose nature ;as incorru&tible0 it is &ossible to e:&lain both the death and birth of natural organis$s in ter$s of the dissolution and reorgani3ation of the relationshi&s a$ong the$. *his gave the e&igenetic conce&t a level of dyna$is$ not &ossessed by the theory of &refor$ation0 since it ;as al;ays &ossible to i$agine the e:istence of other $olecular co$binations ;hich e:&lained the e$ergence of ne; natural for$s.)@ Co;ever0 re8ecting the &re$ise of &refor$ed ger$s $eant that 5uffon ;as obliged to confront a series of difficulties about ho; to account for the stable arrange$ent0 Lconsistent to the end60 of the a&&arently fortuitous 8u:ta&osition of organic $olecules. *his difficulty ;as stressed by 5onnet0 ;ho clai$ed that 5uffon 5uffet6s e&igenetics had to &resu$e a certain level of &refor$ation in order not to end u& attributing organic configuration to $ere chance. *his ;as 8ust ;hat ha&&ened in the case of 'au&ertuis ?Coffhei$er0 )DA(0 &.))D9)FFB0 ;ho in his eagerness to be rid of &refor$ationist assu$&tions0 had gone so far as to assert that the earliest for$s of life had a&&eared by s&ontaneous generation based on ha&ha3ard co$binations of inert $olecules0 and that s&ecies diversity had arisen a $osteriori0 by chance $utations. Understandably0 'au&ertuis6 &osition ;as &roble$atic not only fro$ the religious &oint of vie; but also in scientific ter$s0 since it failed to e:&lain the con8unction of organic $olecules in a &articular organic for$. *his difficulty0 li<e the afore$entioned need to find a basis for the uninterru&ted succession of individuals0 e:&lains ;hy 5uffon ;as obliged to &resu$e the e:istence of an internal organic basis. 5uffon ?)@FDb0 &.7FB called this organic basis an Ginterior $oldH and theori3ed that it held a force of attraction ?intussusce$tionB that allo;ed the absor&tion of organic $olecules and the regular confor$ation of the various organis$s. *his &rocess of absor&tion
12

occurred0 according to 5uffon0 both in the area of nutrition and gro;th of e:isting beings and also during the course of &rocreation. -n the for$er0 the hy&othesis of the interior $old e:&lained ;hy living beings incor&orated organic $atter0 increasing in $ass and volu$e0 ;ithout $odifying the arrange$ent of their organs or the =uality of the $atter of ;hich they ;ere $ade. " si$ilar although slightly $ore co$&le: and &roble$atic &rocess occurred ;hen ne; individuals of the sa$e s&ecies ;ere generated. *he si$ilarity bet;een &rogenitor and offs&ring ;as due to the fact that ne; organis$s ;ere $ade fro$ the e:cess organic $aterial that adult $e$bers of a &articular s&ecies ;ere able to accu$ulate. Ihile the ne; individual develo&ed fro$ the re$nants of already $odeled organic $atter0 ;hich the living adult being re8ected because it ;as unnecessary to its o;n nutrition and develo&$ent0 the offs&ring had to re&roduce the $old of the organis$ that had sha&ed the e:cess $olecules ?5uffon0 )@5E0 &.@DB. 5efore &roceeding0 it should be &ointed out that although to a certain e:tent the interior $old restricted 5uffon6s no$inalis$0 $entioned earlier0 this did not strictly $ean that he fell bac< on &refor$ationist &re$ises.)A Unli<e &refor$ed ger$s0 this ;as a hy&othesis involving a force ;hose e:istence0 ;hile it could not be observed directly0 ;as corroborated by the effects it &roduced in the e:&eriential field. .n this &oint0 5uffon continued to refer to Ne;ton6s theory of gravity0 since0 as ;ith the attraction bet;een bodies0 it re$ained in the field of Leffects60 ;hile their Lcause6 re$ained out of reach of our &erce&tion ?Lenoir0 )DA)0 &.)(7B.
*hese forces . . . are relative to the interior of $atter0 and have no relationshi& to the e:terior =ualities of bodies0 but act on the $ost inti$ate &articles and &enetrate the$ on all fronts> these forces0 as ;e have &roved0 could never reach our senses0 because their action occurs on the interior of bodies0 and our senses can only re&resent ;hat occurs on the e:terior0 they are not the <ind of thing that ;e can &erceive ?5uffon0 )@FDb0 &.F5B.

5ut this ;as not the only e:a$&le to the Ne;ton $odel continuing to o&erate in 5uffon6s theory. -ts &ersistence can also be seen in the fact that he thought the interior $old could only &roduce regular effects ?Cune$an0 ( @0 &.A59D B0 co$&letely e:cluding0 as ;e shall see0 the &ossibility that such a $old could give rise to differentiated for$s $ade out of a stable $aterial. "he theory of degeneration 'aten()o diagrama()o: subt$tulo n$vel *+ "s ;e have de$onstrated so far0 ;ith the hy&othesis of the interior $old0 5uffon6s $odel ensured the unity of the s&ecies and laid the ground;or< for building a ta:ono$ic syste$ based on the criterion of <inshi&. 5uffon $anaged to lin< the $a<eu& of living beings to internal
13

organic conditions and avoid the danger of see$ing to be the result of the ha&ha3ard con8unction of organic $olecules. -ndeed0 this &rinci&le0 ;hich ;e are unable to observe0 i$&osed a legality that $ade the fortuitous asse$bling of ele$ental $olecules a regulated &rocess and thus ensured the integrity of the organis$ throughout its various a&&earances. *hus0 in the si:th volu$e of his Natural history0 5uffon ?)@5E0 &.AEB atte$&ted to de$onstrate the fi:ed nature of biological s&ecies0 arguing that G;hat is $ost constant0 $ost unalterable in Nature0 is the $old of each s&ecies0 both in ani$als and in vegetablesH. 5ut if 5uffon $anaged in this ;ay to guarantee the stability of s&ecies and thereby restore the syste$atic character of natural history ;ithout needing to a&&eal to &refor$ed ger$s0 he did so at the e:&ense of blurring the transfor$ationist &ossibilities that ;ere originally inscribed in the Le&igenetic6 &ers&ective. %eaffir$ing $atter6s inability to &revail over for$0 5uffon ?)@5E0 &.A@B &ointed out that organic $olecules Gsee$ to be indifferent to receiving this or that for$0 and ca&able of bearing all &ossible i$&rints4 the organic $olecules0 in other ;ords0 the living &arts of this $atter0 &ass fro$ vegetables to ani$als0 ;ithout destruction and ;ithout alteration0 and for$ e=ually the living substance of grass0 ;ood0 flesh and boneH. *he &roble$atic nature of this state$ent ;as &articularly evident in the case of s&ecies0 li<e $an0 that included varieties ;hose features ;ere necessarily inherited. For0 if interior $olds introduced regular la;s0 then it ;as only &ossible to e:&lain the e:istence of stable varieties ! or races ! by attributing to each one of the$ a different organic origin. Co;ever0 5uffon re8ected the validity of &olygenic hy&otheses0 not only because of their unreliability0 but also because they based $or&hological variations on an instance that lay outside the field accessible to scientific investigations ?Dougherty0 )DD 0 &.((AB. For if the basis of race lay ;ithin the fra$e;or< of the generative &rocess0 then it had to coincide ;ith the influence of cli$ate conditions on the &rototy&e of each of the s&ecies. *his hy&othesis see$ed to be confir$ed by e:&erience0 ;hich sho;ed an arrange$ent of features in cases of geogra&hical vicinity0 and ca$e to be vie;ed favorably by 5uffon. *hus0 around )@570 5uffon agreed it ;as &ossible to a&&ly this hy&othesis not 8ust to the different hu$an races but to the natural ;orld in general. *hus0 5uffon clai$ed ?)@570 &.7A(B0 it ;as &ossible that Geach fa$ily0 ;hether ani$al or vegetable0 has but a single source0 and even that all ani$als ca$e

14

fro$ a single ani$al0 ;hich0 over ti$e0 has &roduced0 by &erfecting itself and degenerating0 all the races of other ani$alsH ?cf. %oger0 )DA70 &.)FD9)@(B. Co;ever0 the cli$ate hy&othesis could only be saved fro$ the sus&icion of reintroducing contingency and fate if the action of environ$ental factors ;as understood in strictly negative ter$s ?Ca&oni0 ( D0 &.ED)9ED7B. *his assu$ed that these0 rather than &roducing ne; for$s0 should be li$ited to o&&osing &articular resistance to the lines i$&osed by the interior $old0 so that it could only carry out its tas< &artially0 thus giving rise to a degraded version of the original for$. "t this &oint0 5uffon0 argued that organic $atter assi$ilated by living creatures during the nutrition &rocess could only be co$&letely $olded if the cli$ate held stable. Under such conditions0 5uffon believed0 the action of the interior $old tended to re&roduce si$ilar individuals and &revail over the assi$ilated $atter. 5ut if there ;ere large fluctuations in the environ$ent0 the organic $atter6s for$ changed0 hindering the &rocess of absor&tion carried about by the interior $old. *hus variations ;ere &roduced that0 ;hile i$&erce&tible at first0 ;ould eventually give rise to a true degeneration of the s&ecies ?5uffon0 )@570 &.(DD97 )B. )D *hat is0 after a considerable ti$e la&se0 the ty&e of &articles incor&orated ;ould start to &revail over the internal for$ and sho; u& in the si3e0 color and other &eculiar features ado&ted by the &rocreated beings. :inal considerations "s ;e can infer fro$ all this0 the inter&retational sche$e ado&ted by 5uffon did not &resu$e the e$ergence of ne; s&ecies0 but only the corru&tion of the original for$s due to environ$ental factors. -n this sense0 his theory cannot be seen as transfor$ationist0 since he did not see ti$e as ca&able of &roducing $or&hological innovations4 never0 according to Ca&oni ?( D0 &.EDAB0 Gcan ;e conceive of those &rocesses affecting the funda$ental structure of an organis$0 even in its inci&ient for$. *hese changes affect &ree:isting structures> but they do not create even the rudi$ents of ne; structuresH. .n this &oint0 5uffon6s theory of degeneration re&roduced the sa$e fi:ist tendency seen in his conce&t of generation. For0 according to that theory0 an organis$6s gro;th did not involve the e$ergence of ne; for$s either0 but ;as derived fro$ $erely incor&orating &ree:isting organic $olecules. Co;ever0 re8ecting a transfor$ationist inter&retation of 5uffon6s ;or< does not $ean denying its critical effect on classical natural history. *his ;as achieved0 firstly0 by the fact that
15

5uffon6s e&igenetics abandoned the &refor$ationist &re$ise of original ger$s0 created directly by god0 and re&laced it ;ith the $echanical action of the interior $old. *his re&resented a significant de&arture fro$ classical natural history6s vie;&oint0 seen in the for$ula of the scala naturae0 ;hich co$bined order0 beauty and utility. -n this sense0 ;idening the field of the $echanical9causal e:&lanation used by 5uffon &resented an unavoidable obstacle to vie;&oints that sought to lin< the arrange$ent of natural for$s ;ith the infinite goodness of the creator. For this &redis&osition ;as no; inter&reted as a reflection of $echanical forces that0 even ;hen they $anaged to $aintain the natural order0 ;ere not ca&able of granting it esthetic =ualities or intrinsic usefulness. 5ut the order established bet;een natural beings by e&igenetics ;as not co$&lete either. .n the contrary0 5uffon6s goal of designing a syste$atic i$age of nature based on $ere causal $echanics ;as only &ossible by introducing a radical distinction bet;een GnaturalH ti$e and G historicH ti$e. "s the theory of degeneration sho;s0 5uffon only $anaged to establish that the $eans and ob8ectives of his enter&rise coincided in the first of these $o$ents0 that is0 ;hen the interior $old0 &ro$&ted by a favorable cli$ate0 could re&roduce si$ilar individuals and &revail u&on the $atter ingested as food. 5eyond those li$its0 there ;as a degenerative &rocess characteri3ed by the fact that0 ;hile it ;as &erfectly e:&licable in causal ter$s0 it could no longer be inter&reted syste$atically. *his $eant that0 even ;hen current organic for$s could be traced bac< to a &resu$ed original stoc<0 their effective configuration and the $eaning of the &rocess that had led the$ to the &resent could only be e:&lained by fate. *his ;ould $a<e 5uffon6s theory unacce&table in the eyes of -$$anuel Nant0 ;ho0 though he ad$ired the fertile offs&ring criterion0 ;as shar&ly critical of 5uffon6s theory of degeneration ?Nant0 ( FB. Ihat ;as at sta<e in this criti=ue ;as the fact that0 if the effect of cli$ate ;as assu$ed to contribute to the degeneration of natural for$s0 their develo&$ent fro$ &resu$ed original for$s beca$e =uestionable. Ihat ;as at sta<e in this criti=ue ;as the fact that0 if the effect of cli$ate ;as assu$ed to contribute the degeneration of natural for$0 also turned itself =uestionable Ofinal dis&ositionO of the alleged original for$s. -n this sense0 it can be stated that the disconcerting as&ect of 5uffon6s theory ;as its radical affir$ation of the $echanical9causal e:&lanation rather than its substitution ;ith a vitalist $odel0 as %eill argues. For0 once the &refor$ationist hy&othesis is abandoned0 this $odel left us0 as Nant &ut it ?)DD(0

16

&.7FAB0 ;ithout any tools for deter$ining ;hether G$any constituents of the for$ at &resent found in a s&ecies $ay not be of e=ually contingent and &ur&oseless originH.(

17

N6"#&

-n this and other literal =uotations of te:ts fro$ non9/nglish languages0 a free translation has been &rovided.
2

"n irreversible conce&t of te$&orality ;ould be one that ad$itted the e:istence of transfor$ations that constituted natural for$s.
3

For an e:a$ination of the bases of Foucault6s $ethod in his analysis of classical natural history0 cf. Foucault ( (. " criti=ue of this $ethod0 ;hich e$&hasi3es its inability to sho; historical continuity0 is found in 'et3ger0 ( (0 &.F)9F(.
4

Natural history is &resented as the sub8ect of Lvarious te:tboo<s6 that deal ;ith history0 in other ;ords0 ;ith the list or descri&tion of natural bodies belonging to the three natural <ingdo$s ?"delung0 )@DA0 &.FF5B.
5

GNatural history traverses an area of visible0 si$ultaneous0 conco$itant variables0 ;ithout any internal relation of subordination or organi3ationH ?Foucault0 )DAF0 &.)7@B. G*he classification of natural history is deter$ined s&atially0 the varieties of living beings are &resented in the for$ of a %a&leau. *he &rinci&les of organi3ation. . . are ta<en fro$ intuition and daily e:&erience. *he &oints of vie; belonging to a history of develo&$ent are re8ectedH ?Le&enies0 )D@E &.5AB. *he %a&leau ;as a &resentation for$ often used by the syste$ati3ers to illustrate for$s. *here certain co$binations of features ;ere &laced together to allo; a &articular for$ to be &ositioned on the table. -n this ;ay0 it ;as identified and the &lace it occu&ied in the syste$atic order ;as fi:ed ?5reidbach0 ,hiselin0 ( E0 &.)97 B. *o allo; to &osition a &articular for$ in this table.
6

Previously0 the "ristotelian theory of Iillia$ Carvey ?)5@A9)E5@B had been acce&ted0 ;hich &osited the e:istence of a 8oint action bet;een $atter0 &resent in the ovu$0 and the #is $lastica that &rovided the for$. ,eneration occurred suddenly0 by $eta$or&hosis0 or gradually0 by the gradual differentiation of undifferentiated $atter. Carvey called this latter $ethod e&igenesis ?Carvey0 )E5)0 &.)()B. See 'et3ger0 ( (0 &.77.
7

Leibni3 ?)DD 0 &.) )B declared that Gthe $ove$ent of celestial bodies0 even the for$ation of &lants and ani$als0 contains nothing beyond a&art fro$ their beginning that a&&ears $iraculous. *he organis$ of ani$als is a $echanis$ that &resu&&oses divine &refor$ation4 ;hat arises out of it is &urely natural and co$&letely $echanicalH.
8

Leibni3 ;ould use the conce&t of e#olution in o&&osition to that of fulguratio" Ihile fulguratio refers to divine creation by ;hich ne; beings are created0 e#olutio does so by unfolding later ?Palti0 ( )0 &.7597EB.
9

Self and su&stance in 'ei&niz0 'arc /lliott 5obro0 Dordrecht0 Nlu;er "cade$ic Publishers0 &.)E0 (

F.

10

-n this sense Leibni3 ?)DD 0 &.) 9))B &ointed out that4 Gif god &erfor$s $iracles0 this occurs0 - believe0 not because nature de$ands it0 but rather out of &ity4 to 8udge other;ise ;ould involve a truly lo; esti$ation of the strength and ;isdo$ of godH.
11

5onnet ?)@@ 0 &.7A7B ac<no;ledges the advanced nature of this theory in the follo;ing ter$s4 Gat one ti$e0 ;hen true natural history ;as yet in its infancy0 and heads ;ere not yet accusto$ed to strict logic0 &eo&le resorted to occult forces0 for$ative natures0 souls ;ith gro;th &o;ers0 in order to e:&lain the &roduction and re&roduction of the ani$al and vegetable <ingdo$s. *hese natures or these souls ;ere entrusted ;ith the tas< of organi3ing bodies0 and it ;as believed that they ;ere the architects of the buildings in ;hich they lived0 and that they <ne; ho; to $aintain and i$&rove the$H.
12

"ccording to 5lu$enberg6s inter&retation ?)D@E0 &.)7@9)FEB0 it ;ould be &ossible to include &refor$ed ger$s a$ong the &rinci&les through ;hich $odernity sought to res&ond to the &roble$ of the ;orld6s contingency ;hich follo;ed fro$ late $edieval no$inalis$. Li<e S&ino3a6s conatus and the &rinci&le of inertia0 ger$s guaranteed the conservation of the ;orld by secular $eans and thus $ade god6s conserving activity unnecessary. Co;ever0 these &ers&ectives ;ere unable to account for the origin of the ;orld and ;ould therefore continue to assu$e the e:istence of a divine creator.
13

"s 5uffon re$ar<ed ?)@FDc0 &.7AB0 Gthe greater the nu$ber of divisions of natural &roductions0 the closer ;e get to the truth0 since in nature only individuals really e:ist. "nd the genera0 orders and classes only e:ist in our i$aginationH.
14

*his distinction does not0 as Sloan &oints out0 i$&ly that &hysical truths are te$&oral in character ?Sloan0 )D@D0 &.))@9 ))A> %eill0 )DD(0 &.F759F7EB.

15

5uffon ?)@FDc0 &.5F955B re&roaches Linnaeus here for having confused $athe$atical truths0 based on definitions and lac<ing any real content0 ;ith &hysical truths0 ;hich are real and based on an uninterru&ted succession of events. G'athe$atical truths are $erely truths of definition and0 if you &refer0 different e:&ressions of the sa$e things *hese definitions are based on si$&le assu$&tions0 but abstract and all the truths of this <ind are 8ust conse=uences co$&osed0 but abstract0 of such definitions PPhysical truths0 ho;ever0 are not arbitrary and do not de&end on us> instead of being based on assu$&tions ;e $a<e0 they are su&&orted by events> a series of si$ilar events or0 if you ;ish0 a fre=uent re&etition and an uninterru&ted succession of the sa$e events0 constitutes the essence of &hysical truthH.
16

*he reasoning for arriving at the interior $old is as follo;s4 G-n the sa$e ;ay that ;e can $a<e $olds to give the e:terior of bodies ;hatever sha&e ;e &lease0 let us su&&ose that Nature could $a<e $olds by ;hich she gives not 8ust the out;ard sha&e0 but also the inner one> could this not be a $eans ;hereby re&roduction could functionQH ?5uffon0 )@FDb0 &.7FB.
17

Co;ever0 there ;as already an obvious tendency to;ards a static conce&t of nature0 in that the &heno$enic level of change and $ulti&licity continued to be reduced to stable &rinci&les that co$bined in variable ;ays. -n this sense0 generation ;as still0 for 5uffon0 a &rocess that too< &lace in ti$e but not0 effectively0 across it.
18

5uffon does not introduce a develo&$ent &rinci&le but re$ains tied to the idea that the co$&lete structure of organis$s is given beforehand. Co;ever0 this for$ is not thought of in $aterial ter$s but as an ideal $odel of a co$bination of organic $atter ?Dougherty0 )DDE0 &.(7D9(5 B.
19

5uffon ?)@FDa0 &.57 B a&&lied this hy&othesis also to $an and derived fro$ it the ;hite $an6s original nature. Criti(ue of )udge!ent0 translated by +a$es Creed 'eredith0 .:ford0 .:ford University Press0 &.(FD0 ( D.

20

;#:#;#N<#&