Lamarck, Evolution, and the Politics of Science

Transcription

Lamarck, Evolution, and the Politics of Science
Author(s): Richard W. Burkhardt, Jr.
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Autumn, 1970), pp. 275-298
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4330543 .
Accessed: 01/01/2013 22:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the History of
Biology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:02:05 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Lamarck,Evolution, and the Politics of Science
RICHARD W. BURKHARDT, JR.
Department of the History of Science
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Lamarck's evolutionary theory, briefly mentioned in a lecture in
1800 and further developed in later writings, seems to have made
little impression upon Lamarck's contemporaries. Several explanations for this lack of response, in addition to the usual unhelpful statements about the time not being "ripe,"have been offered.
Logically enough, these explanations for the most part have
ascribed the poor reception of Lamarck's evolutionary theory to
either the existence of hostile views dominating the science of the
time or the insufficiency of Lamarck's own arguments and
examples-or to a combination of the two. Certainly both of
these factors played fundamental roles in the response to
Lamarck's evolutionary theory. What has not been commented
upon in any detail is the way in which Lamarck's highly personal
thoughts about science and about the scientific community of
his day were crucial for the way in which he presented his evolutionary views and thus, presumably, for the way in which these
views were received. Lamarck looked upon the needs of science
somewhat differently than did most of his younger contemporaries. Moreover, in a curious way, he displayed simultaneously
an insensitivity to the difficulties others might have in accepting
his novel views and a conviction that these views would indeed
be poorly received. For these reasons, and possibly also because
he doubted that his strength would last through all of his projected works, it appears that he did not really take great pains to
present his theory in such a fashion as to compel his contemporaries to treat it seriously. He seems to have thus assured his
theory of the very fate that he feared it would have.
Only brief remarks on the development and structure of
Lamarck's evolutionary theory will be made here. Primary attenJournal of the History of Biology, vol. 3, no. 2 (Fall 1970), pp. 275-298.
275
RICHARD W. BURKHARDT,
JR.
tion will be devoted instead to Lamarck's conception of his own
role as scientist, to his perception of his relations with the rest
of the French scientific community, and to the effect that these
views seem to have had on the way in which he presented his
evolutionary ideas. In light of these considerations certain aspects
of the reception of Lamarck's theory will be examined. Clearly
these are not the only problems of interest in regard to the immediate fate of Lamarck's evolutionary hypothesis. Crucial to the
whole question, obviously, is the problem of the strengths and the
weaknesses of Lamarck's hypothesis relative to the scientific
evidence available in his time. But this problem, which needs to
be treated at length, will not be elaborated upon here. The scientific enterprise is a complex, multidimensional, human activityas one writer has stated, "Science stands in the region where the
intellectual, the psychological and the sociological coordinate
axes intersect." IThe focus of the present essay will be limited
to several largely unexplored psychological and social factors
relevant to the presentation and reception of Lamarck's evolutionary ideas.2
LAMARCK AND THE FRENCH SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
The most familiar image of Lamarck is probably that of the
aged, poor, and blind scientist in the last years of his life, forgotten by the vast majority of the scientists of his day and comforted
only by a devoted daughter's assurances that posterity would
grant him the recognition that he had not received from his
contemporaries. This image is based largely upon comments
made by :tienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire.3
Upon Lamarck's death, the sharpest critique of the scientific
community that had neglected Lamarck came from the pen of
Frangois-Vincent Raspail.4 Not an unbiased observer, Raspail
1. J. M. Ziman, Public Knowledge: An Essay Concerning the Social
Dimension of Science (Cambridge, 1968), p. 11.
2. The author is currently completing a doctoral dissertation at Harvard
University on Lamarck's evolutionary theory and its reception.
3. See especially Fragments biographiques, pr9ce'd6s d',tudes SUT la
vie, les ouvrages et les doctrines de Buffon (Paris, 1838), pp. 81-82.
4. "MNcrologie; parallle," Annales des sciences d'observation, 3 (1830):
159-160. This article is not mentioned by Marcel Landrieu in Lamarck:
le fondateur du transformisme (Paris, 1909), a biography which, if somewhat lacking in critical analysis, is nevertheless generally an excellent
source of information. Part of the article was reproduced but unidentified
as to authorship by A. Giard in his preface to "Discours d'ouverture des
cours de zoologie . . . par J.-B. Lamarck," Bulletin Scientiflque de la
France et de la Belgique, 40 (1907): 449. Giard, citing the original source
276
Lamarck and the Politics of Science
displayed a disdain for established authority (scientific as well as
political) which led (or perhaps allowed) him to make observations that other men would have hesitated to put into print.
Raspail's little-known article concerning Lamarck appeared in
the short-lived journal that Raspail co-edited with Jacques Frederic Saigey.5 In the article Raspail contrasted the works and
successes of two recently deceased scientists-Lamarck and the
eminent chemist Nicolas-Louis Vauquelin. Vauquelin, like
Lamarck, had been a member of the First Class of the Institut
and a professor at the Museum d'Histoire naturelle. There, in
Raspail's view, was where the similarities between the two men
ended. Vauquelin, said Raspail, was a man who "cultivated
science and fortune at the same time," while Lamarck, up every
morning at five o'clock for science, "forgot fortune, and lived
forgotten by power":
Little suited to intrigue and to the cares [menagemens] of
ambition, [Lamarck] expressed his large views boldly, without
accommodating them to the tastes of the various powers that
passed successively before him. He struggled against adversaries who, in becoming more powerful than he, seemed to eclipse
him with the renown bestowed upon them by journalism
and ministerial favors .. . Vauquelin, surrounded by flatterers
and disciples, died in opulence. His fortune would have satisfied the cupidity of twenty heirs. His positions have swelled
the cumuls of seven to eight scientists who divided up the
spoils. Lamarck, blind and paralyzed, at his last breath felt
of the passage as Lyc6e, IV, 1829, takes the passage directly from F.
Picavet, Les Iciologues (Paris, 1891), p. 599. Picavet seems also to have
been unaware of the identity of the author of the article.
On Raspail see Dora B. Weiner, Raspail: Scientist and Reformer (New
York and London, 1968).
5. Four volumes of the Annales des sciences d'observation appeared: two
in 1829 and two in 1830. On the Annales see Weiner, Raspail, p. 76.
Weiner notes that Raspail was "excessively prone to feeling slighted by
professors and academicians" (p. 74), but she does not indicate the extent
to which the Annales served as an outlet for Raspail's and Saigey's feelings
about certain aspects of contemporary French science. At one point,
venting their distress over the "coteries" dominating French science, they
wrote: "Oh! que cette science qui a tant de charmes aux yeux de la
jeunesse et des amateurs devient affligeante quand on penetre plus avant
dans son sanctuaire! Vous qui la cultivez dans la retraite, croyez-nous, conservez bien toute la puret6 de vos illusions; n'approchez pas." Annales, 3
(1830), 158. De Blainvifle, Cuvier, Chevreul, and numerous other prominent scientists of the day were roughly treated in the Annales, which
prove to be an interesting source for comments on the internal politics
of French science in this period.
277
only a few tears flow, but these were sincere and unselfish. His
death is, for his two daughters, not only a sorrowful loss, but
a calamity besides. He was of no use to the powers that be
[le pouvoir]; how will the powers that be think of being useful
to his family? Will the scientists, too busy soliciting for themselves, have enough time to awaken compassion for it? Vauquelin was replaced by M. Serullas at the Institut, and at the
Museum by M. Chevreul. The first nomination honors the
Institut, the second has added one sinecure more to the
sinecures already in existence. The two places of M. Lamarck
were solicited for while he was alive; the intrigue will not be
inactive after his death.6
The above images of Lamarck and the French scientific
community in 1829 are not without foundation.7 One must
assume on the basis of the scientific positions that Lamarck
attained during his career, however, that he had not always been
divorced from the power structure of the French scientific community. Though perhaps not as adept at pursuing his own selfinterests as were certain other notable scientific figures, he was
not negligent in seeking for himself a position in the official
scientific structure when that structure was being reorganized
during the Revolution.8 Nor did he fail in the course of his career
to take an interest in various priority concerns. He displayed, as
will be shown, a keen and perhaps even exaggerated sense of
scientific rivalry.
In 1777 Lamarck received for a proposed work on the plants of
France virtually the strongest official support available-Buffon,
apparently impressed by the non-Linnaean aspects of Lamarck's
approach, arranged to have the work published at government
expense.9 Buffon's relationships with government ministers, one
6. Annales 3, pp. 159-160. The translations from the French are the
author's own.
7. For more details on the "intrigue" concerning the positions left open
by Lamarck's death consult Pol Nicard, etude sur la vie et les travaux de
M. Ducrotay de Blainville (Paris, 1890), pp. 105-111, and the Annales des
sciences d'observation, 2 (1829), 152; 3 (1830), 305, 310-312, 469-470, 474475.
8. See Lamarck's M6moire sur les cabinets d'histoire naturelle et particuliWrement sur celui du jardin des plantes (n.d., 1790?), reproduced in
Landrieu, Lamarck, pp. 42-51.
9. Correspondance relating to this matter may be found in Oeuvres
complRtes de Buffon, nouvelle 6dition . . . par J.-L. Lanessan . . suivie de
la correspondance . . . recueillie et annot6e par J. Nadault de Buffon
(Paris, 1884-1885), 14, 356-360. Landrieu seems to have been unaware
of the existence of these materials.
278
may note, tended to be excellent.") Lamarck's Flore frangoise
was published in 1778."1 Shortly thereafter Lamarck was chosen
(again, evidently, with Buffon's support) to fill a vacant spot in
the botanical section of the Academy of Sciences. Under the
circumstances this was quite extraordinary, for Lamarck had
been presented by the Academy en seconde ligne behind Jean
Descemet. the candidate en premiere ligne. By the decision of
the king, Lamarck received the position.1"
In 1781 Buffon entrusted his son to Lamarck's care and sent
the two of them on an extended tour, securing for Lamarck for
the purpose the title of Correspondant du Jardin et du Cabinet du
Roi and giving him several scientific missions to fulfill in that
capacity. Upon his return to Paris Lamarck apparently devoted
most of his energies to work on the botanical section of the
Encyclopedie methodique. Buffon died in 1788, but in the following year La Billarderie, the new Intendant of the Jardin du Roi,
created for Lamarck the position of Gardes des Herbiers du
Cabinet du Roi. The science of pre-Revolutionary France was
evidently not without its politics, and these politics apparently
proved on several occasions to be to Lamarck's advantage.
In 1789 the Committee of Finances, named by the National
Assembly, suggested for reasons of economy that the position of
Garde des Herbiers at the Jardin du Roi be suppressed, and
Lamarck was thus in danger of losing the place that he had only
just received. In arguing that the position should not be suppressed, Lamarck maintained that it was not "one of those useless positions, created under the ancien regime for the well-being
of certain favored individuals." 13 In speaking of his own qualifications as a botanist, he commented that the prospect of having
to meet with the obstacles of "envy" and the "preferences" in10. See Condorcet's "tloge de M. le Comte de Buffon," Oeuvres de
Condorcet (Paris, 1847), 3, 360-361.
11. Flore franmoise, 3 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1778). Though the
title page reads 1778, the work apparently did not appear until 1779, as
evidenced by the report of 1779 by Duhamel and Guettard included in the
work.
12. Cuvier, who mentioned this incident in his gloge of Lamarck, remarked that Descemet "was never able to recover the place that this sort
of unjust favor [passe-droit] made him miss." "tloge de M. Lamarck,"
Mnzoires de l'Academie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France, 13
(1835), viii. Landrieu, Lamarck, p. 38, has published the note from the
minister to the permanent secretary of the Academy (then Condorcet)
announcing the king's decision.
13. MWnzoiresur le projet du Comite' des Finances, relatif a la suppression
de la place de Botaniste attach. au Cabinet d'Histoire naturelle (Paris,
n.d. [1789]). In Landrieu, Lamarck, p. 36.
279
JR.
volved in "intrigue" had been unable to diminish his ardor and
keep him from planning a general botanical work.14 By the
beginning of the Revolution, evidently, Lamarck's experience
within the scientific community had given him a strong feeling
that, in the midst of the pursuit of science, personal interests
were frequently pursued as well. Unfortunately very little is
known about Lamarck's activities during the early years of the
Revolution.'5 He emerged from the tumultuous first half of the
1790s occupying a place in the First Class of the Institut and a
chair at the Museum d'Histoire naturelle.
The 1790s were critical years for Lamarck's professional
career and for the development of his evolutionary thought. Early
in the decade he considered species to be immutable. By 1800,
however, he had changed his mind. During the decade, he undertook in the capacity of Professor at the Museum d'Histoire naturelle the study and teaching of a field virtually new to him-"the
zoology of the insects, worms, and microscopic animals" (in
short, to use Lamarck's term, the "invertebrates"). By no means,
though, did he confine himself to this task. Among his other
activities at this time was a long and ineffective battle that he
waged against the new chemistry of Lavoisier. It was particularly
in the course of this last-mentioned undertaking that he came to
view the science of his time as being dominated by unphilosophical views and selfish personal interests.'6
Lamarck's confrontation with the newly formed chemical
orthodoxy of his day began publicly in 1794 with the appearance
14. Considerations en faveur du chevalier de Lamarck, ancien officier
au Regiment de Beaujolais, de l'Acad6mie Royale des Sciences, Botaniste
du Roi, attache au Cabinet d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris, 1789). In Landrieu,
Lamarck, p. 35. The projected work to which Lamarck referred was apparently the Thedtre Universel de Botanique mentioned in the Flore
frangoise, I, cxviii.
15. Lamarck's connections during the most difficult days of this period
were presumably rather good. By a countermanding order made on his
behalf by the Comiie de Salut public (April 17, 1794) he was exempted
from the act of the previous day by which he (as a member of the nobility)
would have had to leave Paris. See F.-A. Aulard, Recueil des Actes du
Comite de Salut public (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1899), XII, 640.
16. Slightly earlier, in the years that he was supposed to be Garde des
Herbiers at the Jardin du Roi (1789-1793), Lamarck presumably found
evidence for the view that personal interests stood in the way of his own
attempts to advance the science of botany. It seems that he was not
allowed by the botanists at the Jardin (Ren6 Louiche Desfontaines and
Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu) to work with some of the collections there. On
this subject see Edmond Perrier, "Lamarck et le transformisme actuel,"
Centenaire de la Fondation du Mus&um d'Histoire naturelle (Paris, 1893),
pp. 479-480, or Landrieu, Lamarck, p. 52 (fn. 2).
280
of his Recherches sur les causes des principaux faits physiques.17
This work, according to Lamarck, had actually been composed
some eighteen years earlier and had been presented to the Academy of Sciences in 1780.18 Busy in 1780 with botanical works,
he was unable to publish his physical "researches" just then, but
he took care to have the permanent secretary of the Academy affix
his paraph to the manuscript in order to assure for Lamarck a date
for his ideas should any problems of priority arise.9 When the
work was finally published, however, no one but Lamarck seems
to have felt that the ideas in question were worthy of this precaution.
An explication of Lamarck's physico-chemical views cannot be
undertaken here, nor is it necessary for this discussion. What is
important for the present purposes is Lamarck's attitude toward
the lack of response that his physico-chemical writings received.
He continued the argument of the Recherches in his Refutation
de la theorie pneumatique (1796), contrasting his own "pyrotic"
theory of chemistry with the views of Fourcroy and the other
"pneumatic" chemists. His observations on the little attention
that the earlier work had received were the following:
Certainly when in the important search for the laws of
nature and the phenomena resulting from them a new consideration is presented to the public, reason and an interest in
the truth require that it be examined and submitted to the
light of discussion, in order to better appreciate its worth. But,
one well suspects, the particular interest of the authors whose
view this consideration contradicts can lead them to neglect
the examination of it, and even to neglect as long as possible
all discussion regarding it. It seems that this is what has
happened since the publication of my Recherches, and it is
17. 2 vols. (Paris, Maradan).
18. Ibid., I, vii.
19. Ibid., I, viii. This was not the only time that Lamarck displayed an
interest in matters of priority. On one occasion he communicated a
meteorological observation to the First Class of the Institut and had the
observation inserted in the proc8s verbal "pour prendre date d ce sujet."
Institut de France. Acad&mie des Sciences. Proc?s verbaux des stances de
l'Acad6mie. 1 (An IV-VIII, 1795-1799; published in 1910), 63. A much
more significant example of a priority concern on Lamarck's part is
revealed in the friction with Cuvier over who was the first to think of
certain changes in the classification of the invertebrates (the most notable
being the placement of the molluscs above the insects in a serial arrangement of the invertebrates). Both men made a number of comments about
this dispute. See, for example, Cuvier's "Ploge de M. Lamarck," p. xxv,
fn. 1, and Lamarck's Philosophie zoologique (Paris, 1809), I, 122-123.
281
probable that it will always happen in similar circumstances.
It is well enough known that the interest of scientists is not
always in accord with the interest of the sciences.20
Like the Recherches, Lamarck's Refutation de la theorie
pneumatique seemed to fall upon deaf ears. Therefore in 1796
Lamarck began presenting his physico-chemical views to the
First Class of the Institut in a series of memoirs, hoping thereby
to elicit a detailed discussion of his arguments. His desires were
not realized. Eventually he chose not to finish the reading of the
memoirs, for they seemed, he said, "to weary several of my
colleagues and to be disagreeable to them." 21 He published the
memoirs in 1797 under the title of Me'moires de physique et
d'histoire naturelle.22
The objections that Lamarck offered to the new chemistry of
Lavoisier, however misguided these objections may have seemed
to Lamarck's contemporaries, had seemed to Lamarck to be the
consequences of right thinking about the fundamentals on
which the science of chemistry ought to be founded. Convinced
of the merits of his arguments, he believed when his arguments
were neglected that this neglect was the result of a conspiracy
against him engineered by persons who feared that their theories
(and hence their reputations) would be destroyed by his observations.23 It seems that by the early 1800's, when Lamarck
20. RWfutation de la thgorie pneumatique (Paris, 1796), pp. 2-3.
21. M,6moires de Physique d'histoire naturelle (see fn. 22), p. 410.
22. Lamarck, intending to publish these memoirs successively, as he
read them to the Institut, first entitled the proposed collection M*6moires
presentant les bases d'une nouvelle thgorie, physique et chimique, fond6e
sur la consideration des molecules essentielles des composes, et sur celle
des trois #tats principaux du feu dans la nature; servant en outre de developpement a l'ouvrage intituLW:Rgfutation de la Th.6orie pneumatique.
(Paris, An V [1797]). This title page apparently appeared when the first
memoir was published. The full title which Lamarck later substituted for
it, and by which the collection of memoirs is generally known, is MWmoires
de Physique et d'Histoire naturelle, .6tablis sur des bases de raisonnement
indapendantes de toute th,eorie; avec l'exposition de nouvelles considerations sur la cause generale des dissolutions; sur la mati&re du feu; sur la
couleur des corps; sur la formation des composes; sur l'origine des
min,6raux; et sur l'organisation des corps vivans (Paris, An V [1797]).
23. In addition to the example cited on pp. 281-282, see Lamarck's
Mtmoires de Physique et d'Histoire naturelle, p. 409 (fn.) and his Hydrog6ologie, pp. 103, 122, 159 (fn.), and 164. For comments regarding the
neglect of his meteorological work, which he viewed in similar terms,
consult his "Sur les variations de l'etat du ciel . . ." Journal de physique,
56 (1802), 138, his Annuaires m9t6orologiques (especially no. 9, for 1808),
and his "Met6orologie," Nouveau Dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, 20 (ParisD1terville, 1818), 474-477.
282
first began to make his evolutionary ideas known, he had come to
expect little favorable reaction, indeed little reaction at all, to the
various ideas he was expressing.24 In his Recherches sur l'organisation des corps vivans, from which his better known Philosophie
zoologique developed, he wrote:
I am well aware that now few people will take interest in
what I am going to set forth, and that among those who may
peruse this book, the majority will claim to find here only
systems, only vague opinions, by no means founded upon
exact knowledge. They will say it; they will not write it.25
One can safely doubt that the major French chemists at the
end of the eighteenth century felt threatened by Lamarck's
ideas and thus actively conspired against him. Busy with their
own researches, which were proving to be quite profitable, they
had little reason to display any sort of intellectual sympathy
for the framework Lamarck was proposing, which, despite
Lamarck's claims for its significance and novelty, must have
struck them as inappropriate and outmoded. One wonders, however, how they did respond, or managed not to respond, to the
chemical and physical memoirs that Lamarck read at the meetings of the Institut. Lamarck's published comments alluding to
the repression of his ideas are for the most part not very specific.
In a remarkable unpublished sketch, however, he not only displayed the rancor that his unsuccessful struggles had left with
him, but he also gave a fairly explicit description of the methods
by which he believed the neglect of his ideas was being brought
about:
il s'agit dis-je de verser dans les societes particuli'eres
en profitant des occasions que l'on fait naltre, le ridicule et
le mepris sur l'individu qui a l'audace de ne pas croire ce qu'on
fait accroire si facilement a tout le monde. Il y a pour cela un
art qui est fort perfectionne dans les grandes villes. On n'a point
la maladresse de declamer longuement et avec chaleur contre
l'individu; on se feroit soupgonner de prevention, de jalousie,
24. After 1802, in fact, Lamarck did not deliver any memoirs of his own
at the Institut. The reason for this is not altogether clear, but may in
part have been due to the fact that the last memoir he delivered at the
Institut was not only commented upon but in fact severely criticized (by
Laplace). The memoir was Lamarck's "Memoire sur les variations de l1'tat
du ciel," published in the Journal de physique, 56 (1802), 114-138. The
incident is referred to in a letter from Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire to
Cuvier, Institut de France (Fonds Cuvier), MS 3225 (12).
25. (Paris, 1802), p. 69.
283
&c. &c. Mais avec quelques monosyllabes employes a propos,
un sourir meme et un clein d'oeil, un air de dedain, passant
promptement a autre chose, on produit tout l'effet desire. Et
si paraventure quelque question par un homme sans finesse
etoit faite a cet egard; deux mots suffisent en reponse: celui
dont on parle c'est un homme qui ne sgait rien, qui ne connois
pas les faits; qui n'a jamais fait d'experience. Ainsi un certain
nombre de suppots du grande oeuvre, repandus dans tous
les coins de la societe n'attaquant jamais ouvertement l'ennemi
commun, mais le ruinant partout dans l'obscurite, ne lui
laissent aucun moyen de deffense. De cette maniere ils
previennent tout ebranlemant du bel edifice qu'ils concourent
a maintenir.26
One suspects that although there is probably considerable
distortion in Lamarck's view of the personal motives involved in
the neglect of his physico-chemical ideas, there is probably still
a good deal of truth in the general picture presented above.
Potential contributions to science may be judged tacitly and may
never receive a public hearing.27 A scientist and his work may be
discredited by means of innuendo rather than through open
confrontation. Such mechanisms seem to have been operating in
respect to Lamarck's evolutionary ideas. Before examining some
aspects of the reception of Lamarck's evolutionary ideas, some
elaboration upon Lamarck's conception of his role as scientist is
in order.
LAMARCKAS NATURALISTE PHILOSOPHE
From Lamarck's writings one can get a fairly good sense of
what he considered his role as scientist to be-that of a man
with the powers of meditation and the breadth of vision neces26. Mus6um national d'Histoire naturelle, MS 756, ler cahier, p. 11. The
passage is from a discourse apparently originally intended as an introduction to Lamarck's Hydrog6ologie, the manuscript of which bears the
title Physique terrestre. The discourse is entitled "Discours contenant une
discussion critique sur les th6ories physiques en general, sur celles
maintenant etablies, sur les moyens pris pour les maintenir, enfin sur
les difficultes d'operer des rectifications dans les 6carts otd l'on s'est jette."
The manuscript of the discourse is incomplete. For the passage cited here,
minor abbreviations in the manuscript have been replaced by the full
words. Lamarck's spellings have been preserved. In the manuscript
Lamarck wrote "proneurs" above "supp6ts" and "6difice" above "oeuvre"
(line 15 of the above passage).
27. See the interesting observations by Michael Polanyi, "The Growth
of Science in Society," Minerva, 5 (1967), 533-545.
284
sary to give to science the rational foundations and the direction
that it needed. The role seems to have become clarified in his
mind in the 1790s as he criticized at length the new chemistry
of Lavoisier and as he struggled against what he considered to
be an over-emphasis in contemporary science upon the importance of facts and facts alone. By 1800 he had a name for
the performer of this role-the Naturaliste philosophe.28 It was
in the spirit of the Naturaliste philosophe, the naturalistphilosopher, that Lamarck attacked the chemistry of Lavoisier,
projected the broad undertaking that was to be his "terrestrial
physics," and conceived his theory of evolution.
The manuscript version of the introduction to Lamarck's
Hydrogeologie is instructive in presenting Lamarck's view of the
progress of scientific methodology up to the beginning of the
nineteenth century:
Dans les sciences physiques, on s'est d'abord trop presse
d'etablir des theories sur chacune des parties de ces sciences;
en sorte qu'on a ete contraint de se passer de la connoissance
d'une multitude de faits dont la consideration neanmoins est
essentielle pour decouvrir les veritables loix de la nature. Ce
tort, contre lequel des personnes sages se sont elevees avec
beaucoup de raison, a ete a la fin remplace par un autre, qui est
tout aussi nuisible 'al'avancement de nos connoissances physiques que le premier, et qui lui est entirerement oppose. II
semble qu'un penchant naturel, entraine toujours l'homme
vers un exces quelconque, et l'empeche, dans tout, de saisir le
seul point convenable a l'objet.
En effet, c'est a present un merite fort estime que de ne
s'occuper qu'a recueillir des faits. On doit en rechercher de
toutes parts; on doit les considerer tous isolement; enfin on
doit se circonscrira partout dans les plus petits details; cette
marche seule, dit-on, est estimable.
Pour moi je pense qu'il peut etre maintenant utile de
rassembler les faits recueillis, et de s'efforcer 'a les considerer
28. The phrase was used by Lamarck in the introductory lecture to his
course at the Museum in 1800 and appeared in print in his SystWme des
animaux sans vertebres (Paris, 1801), p. 11. Lamarck does not define the
phrase, nor does he use it to the exclusion of similar phrases. The phrase
does seem to be especially useful in describing him, however, for it suggests
the important meditative element involved in his approach to the study
of nature. One may note an interesting connection between Lamarck's ideas
about the importance of the habit of meditation and his notion of the
effects of use and disuse: he observes that of all the organs of man's body,
the brain-the
"organ of thought"-is
most affected by exercise (Rech.
org. corps vivans, p. 126).
285
JR.
dans leur ensemble, afin d'en obtenir les resultats genenraux
les plus probables. Celui qui conclueroit que dans l'etude de la
nature, nous devons toujours nous borner a amasser des faits;
ressembleroit 'a un architecte qui conseilleroit toujours de
tailler des pierres, de preparer des mortiers, des bois, des
ferrures, &c. et qui n'oseroit jamais employer ces materiaux
pour construire un edifice.29
Lamarck was not afraid to build an edifice. As Naturaliste
philosophe he aspired to see things whole, and he refused to
restrict his science to problems that he considered to be of
secondary interest and importance. He did not deny the importance of facts, nor did he fail to agree that "system-building"
in science tended only to be wasted effort. But, as he asked
rhetorically in his Hydrogeologie, what must one then do with
such questions as whether or not the beds of the oceans had
changed in the course of the earth's history?
. . . are we reduced to being able to form only arbitrary
hypotheses, only gratuitous assumptions on these basic subjects, and, as many now think, must we avoid, under the
pretext of this danger, envisaging the most important questions, only to occupy ourselves with the consideration of those
of an inferior order, only to gather without end all the small
facts that appear, and only to study them in isolation down to
the most minute details without ever trying to discover the
general facts or those of the first order, of which the others
are only the last results?30
Lamarck was interested in "facts", but his facts were what he
called grands faits, not petits faits; facts of the first order of
imnportance,not of the second order of importance.3' As he posed
the above question he was in the midst of working on his
29. Museum national d'Histoire naturelle, MS 756, ier cahier, p. 3.
30. Hydroge'ologie (Paris, An X [18021), pp. 5-6. Three years later
Lamarck introduced his hypothesis of geological change in the following
terms: "Perhaps it will be said that it would be wiser to be silent tin
regard to a number of geological facts] than to offer some supposition that
one would not know how to prove, even if it had some likelihood. I do not
think so, and I believe that the course of silence is good for nothing. Every
effort to lift the veil which hides nature's operations from us is useful; a
mediocre idea often gives birth to a better one, and by force of trying one
will perhaps obtain some successes. All that is important in such circumstances is to give as certain only that which is clearly demonstrated."
"Considerations sur quelques faits applicables A la theorie du globe."
Annales du Mus6um d'Histoire naturelle, 6 (1805), 38-39.
31. Hydrog6ologie, p. 7.
286
Physique terrestre, which was to encompass "considerations of
the first order" relative to the earth's atmosphere (meteorology),
to the earth's crust (hydrogeology), and to living organisms
(biology).32
LAMARCK'SPRESENTATION OF HIS
EVOLUTIONARYIDEAS
Lamarck's appraisal of the way his ideas would be treated by
his contemporaries, his desire to deal with problems of the first
magnitude, and his fear that failing health would prevent him
from completing all of his projected researches combined to
influence the way in which he presented his evolutionary theory.
These factors display themselves in the section entitled "motives
for this work" introducing his Recherches sur l'organisation des
corps vivans.
The Recherches originated, Lamarck said, when he decided
to publish the opening discourse of his course for 1802 so that
the ideas expressed in it would not be misrepresented. Having
intended at first to publish just the discourse, he "soon felt the
necessity of adding some developments to it in order to be better
understood." The book was written rapidly.33 Materials that
Lamarck had intended to use in his Biologie were employed, for
he feared that his health might not permit him to finish the
Biologie after he finished his Meteorologie, which he planned to
publish first.34 Lamarck's comments on the reception that he
expected for his ideas are extremely interesting:
I am well aware that the novelty of the considerations
exposed in this work and especially their extreme dissimilarity
with what is commonly thought in these matters call for a
more extensive treatment in order that the base of the
considerations in question be better founded and more easily
perceived. Despite that, I have said enough about them so
that the small number of those to whom I address these Recherches may be in a position to understand me and to recognize what is justified. There is, indeed, enough knowledge
32. Ibid., p. 8.
33. Lamarck says he wrote the book rapidly but does not indicate just
how much time the writing took. The time from the delivery of the discourse
(27 floreal an 10) to when he delivered a copy of the published book to
the Institut (9 thermidor an 10) was slightly less than two and a half
months. It is not entirely clear from what Lamarck says, however, whether
he began work on the book before or after he delivered the discourse.
34. Pages v-vi.
287
spread among the men who have seriously occupied themselves
with the observation of nature, so that each of them can easily
supply the details and all the applications that are missing
here.
I am furthermore aware that even if I were to give to this
writing the dimensions that its object calls for, there are,
considering the present state of science, many reasons standing in the way of my principles being or rather appearing
to be appreciated by those who ought to be the natural judges
of them.
I have acquired much experience in this regard, so that I
know almost in advance what for the present must result
from my efforts to make known some important truths that I
have succeeded in discovering. My goal, nevertheless, will be
completely fulfilled as soon as I have recorded them.35
Lamarck's feelings about personal motives influencing the
response to his ideas have been seen in some of his earlier
writings. What is particularly striking about the above passage
is Lamarck's apparent lack of concern relative to convincing
the prominent scientists of his day of the validity of his views.
He seems to have been interested in making known his ideas,
but rather less inclined to worry about trying to prove them to
those disinclined to appreciate them in the first place.36 Those
who were sympathetic with his observations were to be left with
the task of verifying them. This, one must suppose, was a
highly inopportune moment in Lamarck's career for him to adopt
such a posture. Undoubtedly somewhat discredited in the eyes
of his contemporaries by his physico-chemical speculations and,
it seems, by his meteorological researches as well, Lamarck was
in no position to tackle the fundamental problems of biology in
an apparently speculative fashion and hope that his thoughts
would be considered attentively.
It should be remarked at this point that beyond his oftenverbalized awareness that new ideas tend to catch on slowly,
Lamarck seems to have been singularly insensitive to the specific
difficulties others might have in accepting his views. Though
35. Ibid., pp. vi-viii.
36. This approach seems to have been fully as characteristic of
Lamarck's actual behavior as the other approach that he suggested (see
below, p. 297). Lamarck's ambivalence on this matter, indicated by his
numerous attempts to promulgate his views, suggests how much he cared
about his ideas but how incapable he was of advancing them in a way that
would impress his contemporaries and how frustrated he was from his
earlier unsuccessful intellectual ventures.
288
Ducrotay de Blainville's Histoire des sciences de l'organisation is
not uniformly reliable, the following comment made there about
the difficulty of impressing Lamarck with a criticism is probably
an apt one:
. . . it must be admitted that it was scarcely with the
intention of enlightening himself that [Lamarck] entertained
discussion. Indeed he listened very little, and instead of responding to objections, he would enter again into the exposition of his doctrines. IR e'tait lui-meme et ne pouvait rien
recevoir d'ailleurs.37
Indeed, neither criticism, ridicule, nor neglect could shake
Lamarck's confidence in the merits of his own ideas. In the
Philosophie zoologique he wrote "the facts I am stating are very
numerous and positive, and the consequences I have deduced
from them have appeared to me to be just and necessary, so that
I am persuaded that only with difficulty will they be replaced by
better ones." 38 On a more modest note, on the basis of an argument that only observed facts and not the consequences drawn
from them, could be counted on as true, he provided the following statement concerning what he was presenting:
. . . the thoughts, the reasoning, and the explanations set
forth in this work ought to be considered as mere opinions
which I am proposing for the purpose of indicating what seems
to me to be, and what may actually take place.39
That was not to say, however, that he had given up hope of
influencing the science of his time:
In publishing these observations, with the results that I have
deduced from them, my purpose is to invite enlightened men
who love the study of nature to follow them and to verify them,
and to draw from them on their own part the consequences
that they consider appropriate.40
A similar expression of intent may be found in the avertissement to the Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertebres
(1815). There Lamarck also added the plea that his work be
examined in the same spirit in which it was written, 'because
37. Henri-Marie Ducrotay de Blainville, Histoire des sciences de l'oTganisation et de leurs progrTs comme base de la philosophie, redigee etc. par.
F.-L. M. Maupied (Paris, 1845), III, 358.
38. Philosophie zoologique (Paris, 1809), I, xviii.
39. Ibid., I, xxiii.
40. Ibid.
289
JR.
in examining it with an opposite or prejudiced frame of mind,
the best established considerations, even the clearest truths, will
only seem to be errors."41' By 1815, however, this plea was
probably too late.
Lamarck's various presentations of his evolutionary theorythe most notable being in several introductory lectures for his
course at the Museum, in the Recherches sur l'organisation des
corps vivans, in the Philosophie zoologique, and in the introduction to the Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertebresdisplay successive refinements in the interrelation of their parts.
In the earliest presentation (1800), an introductory lecture on
the importance of the study of the invetebrates, Lamarck stated
that beginning with the simplest animals, and through time and
favorable circumstances, nature had brought all her productions
into existence.42 Changes in an animal's way of life, Lamarck
said, affect the animal's structure, and the structural changes
thus acquired are passed on to succeeding generations. In this
presentation Lamarck already had some examples of such
changes to offer: the web-footing of water birds, the claws of
perching birds, and the elongated legs of wading birds were
presented as the results of the accumulated effects of the influence of habit upon structure. Denying the existence of a
linear series of species or genera, Lamarck maintained that a
series of graduated complexity did exist between the "principal
masses, such as the large families" of animals. Species and
genera were to be looked upon as lateral ramifications from the
general series.
Lamarck gradually assembled his ideas of 1800 into a coherent theory. By 1809 in his Philosophie zoologique the theory
had taken on a rather definite framework based on two factors:
the inheritance of acquired characteristics, used to explain the
lateral ramifications from the general series; and "the cause
which continually tends to make organization more complex,"
responsible for the general series itself. By 1815 in his Histoire
naturelle des animaux sans vertebres Lamarck felt able to say
that "on the source of existence, of the manner of being, of the
faculties, of the variations, and of the phenomena of organization of the different animals" he had presented "a truly general
theory, linked everywhere in its parts, always consistent in its
principles, and applicable to all the known data." 43
41. Pages iii-iv.
42. "Discours d'ouverture, prononce le 21 floreal an 8 [May 11, 1800],"
Systeme des animaux sans vertebres (Paris: Deterville, 1801), pp. 1-48.
43. Pages iii-iv. Lamarck's preference for presenting theories in a
290
Lamarck also suggested in the Histoire naturelle that in presenting the essential facts relative to the organization and the
resultant faculties of the various invertebrates he would be
providing the pie'ces justificatives of the ideas published in the
Philosophie zoologique and further developed in the Histoire
naturelle. Despite this insistence on the factual basis of his
theory, however, he never carefully showed the way in which
his facts and his theory were related. The successive presentations of his theory were not so much attempts to persuade
readers of the theory's validity as they were simple expositions
of the theory itself. Lamarck, it seems, was not especially concerned about the details. It does not appear that he worried over
his examples of evolutionary change, and he may well have been
surprised, despite his claims of awareness of his contemporaries'
interest in facts, to find that his examples of evolutionary change
attracted more attention than did the general arguments of his
work.44 Perhaps because of the unfavorable response to these
examples he omitted them from the final presentation of his
evolutionary views. His theory continued to be associated, much
to his disadvantage, with such examples as that of the giraffe
gaining its long neck and forelegs through the efforts of successive generations of giraffes stretching to reach the leaves above
them.
THE RECEPTION OF LAMARCK'SEVOLUTIONARYIDEAS:
THE ROLE OF CUVIER
With the exception of a few brief and scattered comments
Lamarck's evolutionary ideas were publicly received in silence.
deductive form is explicitly stated in a manuscript entitled "La Biologie",
which has been published by Pierre-P. Grass6, Rev. Sci., 5 (1944), 267-276
(see p. 271). Despite this preference, Lamarck indicates in the manuscript (believed to have been written between 1809 and 1815) his intention
to write a major work (La Biologie) which would begin with an exposition
of facts rather than general principles for the very purpose of convincing
his contemporaries of the validity of his views. The work was never
executed, and the form of the introduction to the Histoire naturelle of 1815
was not appreciably different from Lamarck's earlier writings.
44. There is a strong parallel here between Lamarck's biological writings
and his meteorological writings. Looking back in his eleventh and final
Annuaire meteorologique (pour I'an 1810) on the Annuaires he had published for more than a decade, Lamarck admitted a strategic error on his
part in not treating the probabilities given in the Annuaires seriously
enough: "I perhaps greatly wronged the study that I wanted to encourage,
supposing incorrectly that more attention would be paid to the observations
recorded in the different numbers of the Annuaire than to the probabilities
presented there" (p. 167).
291
JR.
Attention will be paid here to the posture toward Lamarck's ideas
adopted by the dominant figure of French natural science at the
time: Georges Cuvier.
Georges Cuvier's magisterial and disapproving presence has
long been recognized as a factor in the poor reception of
Lamarck's evolutionary theory by his contemporaries. Cuvier's
reasons for opposing the hypothesis of species mutability have
been dealt with at length elsewhere and do not need to be repeated here.45 Primary concern here will be with the way in
which he treated Lamarck's views.
It is not likely that Lamarck's physico-chemical views were
neglected for reasons of jealousy, as Lamarck had assumed,
and the same can be said of the treatment of his evolutionary
views. This does not mean, however, that these views were not
methodically neglected. Consider the following statement written
by Cuvier in 1806, setting forth his view of what scientific
bodies had to do to assure for the science of geology the growth
of which that science was capable:
[Scientific bodies] must maintain in [geology's] regard the
conduct that they have maintained since their establishment in
regard to all the other sciences:
To encourage with their eulogies those who report positive
facts, and to retain an absolute silence over the systems which
succeed to one another.46
One may well presume that the "absolute silence" recommended for "systems" was the very antidote that had first been
applied to Lamarck's chemical theories and was later applied to
his zoological theories. To Cuvier, evidently, Lamarck's chemical
and zoological theories both appeared as "vast edifices [constructed] on imaginery bases," and thus both deserved the same
treatment. In his Eloge of Lamarck Cuvier wrote:
. . .whatever interest [Lamarck's zoological works] may have
excited by their positive parts, no one believed their systematic
part dangerous enough to merit being attacked; it was left in
the same peace as the chemical theory.47
One may suppose that Cuvier's use of the words "dangerous
45. William Coleman, Georges Cuvier, Zoologist: A Study in the History
of Evolution Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964).
46. "Rapport de l'Institut national . . . sur un ouvrage de M. Andr,
ayant pour titre: Theorie de la surface actuelle de la terre," Journal des
mines, 21 (1807), 421.
47. "tloge de Lamarck," (see fn. 12 above), p. ii.
292
enough to merit being attacked" instead of some equivalent of
"reasonable enough to merit being considered" is not without
significance. One may also remark that, in the statement that
Lamarck's zoological speculations were "left in the same peace
as the chemical theory," the word "peace" should probably be
interpreted strictly as the public silence that Cuvier recommended for all "systems." Certainly the picture that ?tienne
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire painted of the last years of Lamarck's life
was not one of peaceful neglect. In Geoffroy's words, "attacked on
all sides, insulted even by odious jests, Lamarck, too indignant
to respond to such cutting epigrams, submitted to the insult
from them with a sorrowful patience." 48
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire was a friend of Lamarck, and he himself adopted the general theory that modern species have descended from primitive forms, but these are not reasons to doubt
the validity of his statement. In an unpublished manuscript one
finds Cuvier writing about Lamarck: "In truth his explanations
are sometimes very amusing despite the admiration that some
naturalists pretend to show for them."49 In another work, published posthumously, Cuvier's comment on authors who had
favored the idea of species transformation was: "From the
moment that these authors wished to enter into detail they fell
into ridicule." 60 Frederic Cuvier said of his brother Georges that
he put ideas of species transformation
. . . in the rank of those frivolous games of the imagination
with which the truth has nothing in common; with which one
may amuse oneself when they are skillfully and gracefully
presented, but which lose all their charm when taken seriously.5'
It requires no great feat of the imagination to suppose that
Cuvier at times made light of the ideas of Lamarck-one is
simply left wondering what specific plaisanteries he conceived.
If most of these productions are lost forever to the historian,
owing to Cuvier's program of public silence in such matters, a
48. Fragments biographiques, (see fn. 3 above), p. 81.
49. Institut de France (Fonds Cuvier), MS 3065, p. 122. The manuscript,
entitled "Sur la variet6 de composition des animaux," had only been just
begun when Cuvier died in 1832. The original French of the passage cited
is: "en verite ses explications sont quelquefois bien plaisantes malgr6
l'admiration que quelques naturalistes affectent de montrer pour elles."
50. Legons d'anatomie comparFe, 2nd ed. (1835), I, 101.
51. "Observations preliminaires," Recherches sur les Ossemens fossiles,
4th ed., 1 (1834), viii.
293
few examples still remain.52 Perhaps the best example comes
from the manuscript of the first edition of Cuvier's Recherches
sur les Ossemens fossiles, now considered at the Museum
national d'Histoire naturelle in Paris. In the introductory discourse to the published version of this work there is a lengthy
paragraph presenting ideas which are attributed somewhat
vaguely in a footnote to De Maillet, Rodig, and Lamarck.53 An
examination of the published passage indicates that the ideas
referred to are for the most part Lamarck's. The passage, which
follows a brief discussion of the theories of the earth of Leibniz,
De Maillet, and Buffon begins:
In our times, some freer minds than ever have also wanted
to exercise themselves on [the subject of the origin of the
earth]. Some writers have reproduced and prodigiously extended the ideas of De Maillet. They say that all was fluid in
the origin; that the fluid engendered at first some very simple
animals such as the monads or other infusorial and microscopical species, that, through time and in taking up diverse
habits, the races of these animals became more complex and
diversified themselves to the point where we see them today.54
At this point in the published work Cuvier continues with a
reference to ideas which can be found in Lamarck's Hydrogeologie. At this point in the manuscript, however, Cuvier continues with the following caricature of evolutionary thought,
which never appeared in print:
. . .that the habit of chewing, for example, resulted at
the end of a few centuries in giving them teeth; that the
52. See in the published works Cuvier's Histoire des sciences naturelles
. complet6e etc. par Magdeleine de Saint-Agy, III (1841), 85-88; Legons
d'anatomie compar6e, 2nd ed., I (1835), 99-102 (esp. p. 101); and for
general comments upon Lamarck's work, Cuvier, "Ploge de Lamarck."
53. Recherches sur les Ossemens fossiles (Paris, 1812), I: 28. The
footnote reads: "Voyez la Physique de Rodig, p. 106. Leipsig, 1801; et la
p. 169 du 2e tome de Telliamed. M. de Lamarck est celui qui a developpe
dans ces derniers temps ce systeme avec le plus de suite et la sagacite
la plus soutenue dans son Hydrog6ologie et dans sa Philosophie Zoologique."
In the 1830 edition of the Discours sur les Revolutions . . . du Globe . . .
and in the fourth edition of the Ossements fossiles the phrase "et la
sagacit6 la plus soutenue" is dropped from the footnote. Cuvier's reference
to Telliamed is apparently to the 1749 edition of that work, where beginning
on page 169, volume 2, the idea that flying fish may be transformed into
birds is presented. The Rodig work referred to is apparently the work
entitled Lebende Natur. Page 106 of this work also has a discussion of
the transformation of flying fish into birds.
54. Recherches sur les Ossemens fossiles, I, 28.
294
habit of walking gave them legs; ducks by dint of diving
became pikes; pikes by dint of happening upon dry land
changed into ducks; hens searching for their food at the
water's edge, and striving not to get their thighs wet, succeeded so well in elongating their legs that they became herons
or storks. Thus took form by degrees those hundred thousand
diverse races, the classification of which so cruelly embarrasses the unfortunate race that habit has changed into
naturalists.55
The above passage provides an excellent example not only of
Cuvier's incisive rhetoric but also of his general inclination to
confront Lamarck's theory, when he mentioned it at all, on the
level of the examples offered in its support, and not in its general
aspects. One should also remark that the discussion of the hen
changed by habit into a heron or stork, exaggerated though it
may be, does have a counterpart in Lamarck's writings; the
example of the fish being changed into a duck and vice versa,
however, may be traced perhaps to DeMaillet or Rodig but not
to Lamarck. In discussing Lamarck, Cuvier characteristically
lumped him together with scientifically disreputable popularizers
such as De Maillet, Rodig, and Robinet.56 Lamarck's cause cannot have been helped by the association.
Even a sympathetic observer such as ttienne Geoffroy SaintHilaire had to admit that Lamarck's presentation suffered from
some "great flaws in execution." These flaws, said Geoffroy
Saint-Hilaire, were what Lamarck's adversaries used to Lamarck's
disadvantage:
In order to arrive at the demonstration of the true principle
of the variability of forms in organized beings, Lamarck too
often produced profuse, exaggerated, and for the most part
55. Musdum national d'Histoire naturelle, MS 631, pp. 35-36. The
original is as follows: "que l'habitude de macher par exemple, finit au bout
de quelques si6cles par leur donner des dents; l'habitude de
marche, leur
donna des jambes; les canards a force de plonger devinrent des
brochets;
les brochets a force de se trouver a sec se chang6rent en canards; les
poules en cherchant leur pature au bord des eaux, et en
s'efforqant de ne
pas se mouiller les cuisses, r6ussirent si bien a s'alonger les jambes qu'elles
devinrent des herons ou des cigognes. Ainsi se formerent par degres ces
cent mille races diverses, dont la classification embarrasse si cruellement
la race malheureuse que l'habitude a changee en naturalistes." It may
be
noted, as Coleman, in Georges Cuvier (p. 191), has already done, that the
manuscripts of Cuvier's published works almost invariably correspond
precisely to the published works themselves. An omission of the sort
represented by this passage is quite rare.
56. See the first two items cited in fn. 52 above and Cuvier's
article
"Nature," Dictionnaire des sciences naturelles, 34 (1825), 261-268.
295
JR.
erroneous proofs, which his adversaries, adept at seizing the
weak side of his talent, hastened to pick up and bring to light.57
It is difficult to estimate just how much the posture of Cuvier
toward Lamarck's evolutionary ideas may have influenced contemporaries who might otherwise have been disposed to give
Lamarck's ideas some serious attention. Presumably Cuvier's
influence in this regard was considerable. The combination of
public neglect and private ridicule seems to have been devastating
for Lamarck's evolutionary theory. To criticize Cuvier's antievolutionary role in the history of science, however, without at
the same time being critical of Lamarck's own responsibility for
the fate of his own ideas, is to present a very one-sided analysis.
Lamarck was unquestionably well aware that Cuvier claimed
never to go any farther than the facts would allow him. Lamarck
was similarly well aware that Cuvier's example was a weighty
one in the eyes of the vast majority of the naturalists of the day.
There is a strong likelihood that one reason Lamarck did not tie
at least the early presentations of his evolutionary theory to
factual evidence was that his theory did not initially arise in response to specific facts, or at least not to specific facts that directly
suggested the process of evolution, so much as it arose as the
result of considerations of certain broad problems such as
the origin of life and the possible extinction of species. But it
seems that after Lamarck conceived of his evolutionary theory,
for a number of reasons which have been suggested here, he
proceeded to present it in a highly speculative fashion, paying
little attention to factual evidence that might have been summoned in its support. Almost flamboyant,-considering
the
circumstances-in
his inattention to the sort of details needed
to give his theory some semblance of legitimacy in the eyes of
most of his contemporaries, he left his work open to ridicule.
As Raspail, the sharp-tongued observer of the French scientific
scene, remarked in the year after Lamarck's death: "Among us
ridicule is a deadly weapon; all its blows are mortal." 58
In the course of his writings Lamarck made a number of
statements of considerable wisdom concerning scientific methodology and the intellectual and psychological problems of the
individual scientist. Some of these, it must be admitted, contrast
57. Fragments biographiques, p. 81.
58. Annales des sciences d'observation, 3 (1830), 277. The comment
comes from an article on teratological studies entitled "Monstruosites
remarquables" in which Raspail defends the researches of ttienne
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire.
296
rather strikingly with certain aspects of his own scientific work.
It is especially interesting to note that he once observed: "Men
who strive in their works to push back the limits of human
knowledge know well that it is not enough to discover and prove
a useful truth that was previously unknown, but that it is
necessary also to be able to propagate it and get it recognized." 59
Lamarck was capable of prescribing the appropriate course of
action but he was incapable of executing it.
EPILOGUE
Lamarck viewed man as a part of nature. Though he hedged
somewhat in his comments about man's animal origins, his
thoughts on this subject were clear enough. For him to say that
man was a part and a product of nature was not the same,
however, as to say that man was an unreservedly admirable
product of nature or nature's ultimate product (despite what
one might be led to suppose on the basis of some of his comments about the "plan" of nature). Lamarck viewed man as "the
most surprising and admirable" being on the earth, but also as
combining in himself the worst sorts of qualities as well as the
best.60 Self-concern, an excess of which results in egoism, and
a desire to dominate were seen by Lamarck as integral parts of
human nature.6' The mention of these views is not meant to
suggest that the pessimistic side of Lamarck's thoughts on human
nature was a derivative of his own experiences within the
French scientific community. Conversely, though, it seems that
his thoughts on the way individual scientists at times behaved
would not have brightened his outlook on human nature.
On the broadest scale, Lamarck's view of man could be extremely grim. Man, as Lamarck saw him, was not simply a part
of nature, but a disruptive part. It is significant that the only
extinctions of species that Lamarck could imagine were extinctions caused by man. While others were writing on the great
progress man would experience in the future, Lamarck, though
not denying man's potential, expressed serious reservations. The
following passage is offered in closing as Lamarck's most disconcerting comment on man and as surely one of the very
earliest prophecies of global ecological disaster as the result of
human action:
By his egoism too short-sighted for his own good, by his
59. Philosophie zoologique, II, 450.
60. "Homme," Nouveau Dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, 15
(1817), 270.
61. Ibid., p. 273.
297
tendency to revel in all that is at his disposal, in short, by
his lack of concern for the future and for his fellow man, man
seems to work for the annihilation of his means of conservation and for the destruction of his own species. In
destroying everywhere the large plants that protect the soil in
order to secure things to satisfy his greediness of the moment,
man rapidly brings about the sterility of the ground on which
he lives, dries up the springs, and chases away the animals
that once found their subsistence there. He causes large parts
of the globe that were once very fertile and well populated in
all respects to become dead, sterile, uninhabitable, and deserted. Neglecting always the words of experience, abandoning
himself to his passions, he is perpetuually at war with his own
kind, destroying them everywhere and under all pretexts, so
that one sees formerly great populations become more and
more diminished. One could say that he is destined to exterminate himself, after having rendered the globe uninhabitable.62
Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges the permission of the
Museum d'Histoire naturelle and the Institut de France to consult
the manuscript sources cited in this paper. The research for this
paper was supported in part by a National Science Foundation
travel grant.
62. Ibid., pp. 270-271 n.
298

Lamarck, Evolution, and the Politics of Science

Transcription

Similar documents

Winkles, whelks and warreners: a year of shelling at Taroona

Place des Arts

three nomenclatural notes on panamic bivalves

Westney Heights Plaza Ajax - December 10, 2015

From the HOTEL DES LICES (Lices square) to the Bus lines at

Lecture 3 The Darwinian Revolution

Since its completion in 2003….

The Crêtes Itinerary

Lamarck: The Birth of Biology

Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative

Spring Programming - Cornwall Public Library