Preformation and pre-existence in the seventeenth century: A brief analysis

Journal of the History of Biology 4 (2):221-244 (1971)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It is beyond the scope of this paper to describe in detail the rise to popularity of the emboîtement theories during the last decades of the seventeenth century.51 Eventually the theories did gain great influence, but some points emerging from the above discussion indicate that the rise to popularity was not, perhaps, quite as rapid as has sometimes been assumed.52 Although the earlier preformation theories were sometimes regarded as the ancestors of the later ideas,53 there was little intellectual continuity between the two movements, based as they were upon such divergent motivations. Nor can the preformation theories be regarded as the origin of the belief that a miniature can actually be seen within the egg, since the existence of metamorphosis as a perfectly valid alternative to epigenesis meant that the work of Malpighi and others, usually described as “preformationist,” was not always taken in this latter sense at the time it was published. The pre-existence theories developed in response to particular philosophical problems, and were themselves responsible for the reinterpretation of the observations. In France, the thoughts of Malebranche and Perrault were probably already exerting influence before their written support for pre-existence appeared, but elsewhere the idea was not taken up so rapidly, and ovism, for instance, could develop without associating itself with emboîtement. Malpighi always seems to have remained opposed to pre-existence,54 but by the last decade of the century, the idea had become sufficiently powerful to influence Ray and Garden in Britain, and was receiving support from as influential a thinker as Leibniz.55 But Garden and Hartsoeker were responsible for dividing emboîtement between two schools, just as the concept itself was becoming popular. The work of both Malpighi and Leeuwenhoek served as the basis of the animalculist version, illustrating how the microscopic discoveries served as much to disrupt the intellectual development of the emboîtement concept as they did to promote it. *** DIRECT SUPPORT *** A8402051 00002

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,891

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Leibniz, the microscope and the concept of preformation.Alessandro Becchi - 2017 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 39 (1):4.
Biology and Theology in Malebranche's Theory of Organic Generation.Karen Detlefsen - 2014 - In Ohad Nachtomy & Justin E. H. Smith (eds.), The Life Sciences in Early Modern Philosophy. New York, NY: Oup Usa. pp. 137-156.
Was Aristotle the ‘Father’ of the Epigenesis Doctrine?Ina Goy - 2018 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 40 (2):28.
Biology, atheism, and politics in eighteenth-century France.Shirley A. Roe - 2010 - In Denis Alexander & Ronald L. Numbers (eds.), Biology and Ideology From Descartes to Dawkins. London: University of Chicago Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-05-29

Downloads
43 (#360,144)

6 months
7 (#592,600)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The Evolution Concept: The Concept Evolution.Agustin Ostachuk - 2018 - Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy 14 (3):354-378.
The organism as reality or as fiction: Buffon and beyond.Boris Demarest & Charles T. Wolfe - 2016 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 39 (1):3.
The Ecology of Form.Devin Griffiths - 2021 - Critical Inquiry 48 (1):68-93.
Forging heredity: From metaphor to cause, a reification story.Carlos López-Beltrán - 1994 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 25 (2):211-235.

View all 24 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references