Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:25:46.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Form – A Matter of Generation: The Relation of Generation, Form, and Function in the Epigenetic Theory of Caspar F. Wolff

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2008

Elke Witt
Elke Witt*
Affiliation:
Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

The question, how organisms obtain their specific complex and functional forms, was widely discussed during the eighteenth century. The theory of preformation, which was the dominant theory of generation, was challenged by different alternative epigenetic theories. By the end of the century it was the vitalist approach most famously advocated by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach that prevailed. Yet the alternative theory of generation brought forward by Caspar Friedrich Wolff was an important contribution to the treatment of this question. He turned his attention from the properties of matter and the forces acting on it towards the level of the processes of generation in order to explain the constitution of organismic forms. By regarding organic structures and forms to be the result of the lawfulness of ongoing processes, he opened up the possibility of a functional but non-teleological explanation of generation, and thereby provided an important complement to materialist and vitalist approaches.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 649 - 664
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Belloni, Luigi and Schullian, Dorothy M.. 1971. “Embryological Drawings concerning his Theorie von der Generation Sent by Caspar Friedrich Wolff to Albrecht von Haller in 1764.” Journal of the History of Medicine and the Allied Sciences 26:205–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich. 1791. Über den Bildungstrieb. Göttingen: Johann Christian Dieterich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Peter. 1971. “Preformation and Pre-existence in the Seventeenth Century: A brief analysis.” Journal of the History of Biology 43:221–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buffon, George Louis Leclerc de. 1749. Histoire naturelle génerale et particulière avec la description du Cabinet du Roi. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.Google Scholar
Canguilhem, Georges, Lapassade, Georges, Piquemal, Jacques, and Ulmann, Jacques. 2003. Du développement à l'évolution au XIXe siècle. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. 1692. Tractatus De Homine, et De Formatione Foetus. Frankfurt am Main: Sumptibus Friderici Knochii.Google Scholar
Duchesneau, François. 1982. La Physiologie des Lumières. The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
Farley, John. 1974. The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin. Baltimore/London: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. [1788–1794] 1987. Schriften zur Morphologie. Frankfurt am Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag.Google Scholar
Hoffheimer, Michael H. 1982. “Maupertuis and the Eighteenth Century Critique of Pre-existence.” Journal of the History of Biology 15:119–144.Google Scholar
Huneman, Philippe. 2007. “Reflexive Judgment and Wolffian Embryology: Kant's Shift between the First and the Third Critique.” In Understanding Purpose, edited by Huneman, Philippe, 75–100. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahn, Ilse. 2000. “Naturphilosophie und Empirie in der Frühaufklärung (17. Jh.).” In Geschichte der Biologie, edited by Jahn, Ilse, 196–230. Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Jahn, Ilse. 2001. “Caspar Friedrich Wolff (1734–1794).” In Darwin & Co., edited by Jahn, Ilse and Schmitt, Michael, 95–116. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. [1790] 1997. Kritik der Urteilskraft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 2002. Making Sense of Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köchy, Kristian. 1997. Ganzheit und Wissenschaft. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
Lenoir, Timothy. 1980. “Kant, Blumenbach, and Vital Materialism in German Biology.” Isis 71:77–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malebranche, Nicolas. [1688] 1965. Entretiens sur la métaphysique et sur la religion. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Morange, Michel. 2005. Les secrets du vivant. Paris: Éditions de La Découverte.Google Scholar
Muzrukova, Elena. 2001. “Karl Ernst von Baer.” In Darwins Erben, edited by Jahn, Ilse, 299–310. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Petersburg, Kayserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, ed. 1789. Zwo Abhandlungen über die Nutritionskraft. Saint Petersburg.Google Scholar
Pinto-Correia, Clara. 1997. The Ovary of Eve: Egg and Sperm and Preformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajkov, Boris E. 1964. “Caspar Friedrich Wolff.” Zoologisches Jahrbuch für Systematik 91:555–626.Google Scholar
Roe, Shirley A. 1979. “Rationalism and Embryology: Caspar Friedrich Wolff's Theory of Epigenesis.” Journal of the History of Biology 12:1–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roe, Shirley A. 1981. Matter, Life, and Generation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roger, Jacques. 1962. “Ursprung der Formen und Entstehung der Lebewesen.” Marburger Sitzungsberichte 84:5–125.Google Scholar
Roger, Jacques. 1971. Les sciences de la vie dans la pensée française du XVIIIe siècle. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Roux, Wilhelm. 1881. Der Kampf der Theile im Organismus. Ein Beitrag zur Vervollständigung der mechanischen Zweckmässigkeitslehre. Leipzig: Engelmann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Dietmar. 2004. “Vom Neptunismus zum ‘schaffenden Gewebe’.” Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 49:173–196.Google Scholar
Speybroek, Linda van, deWaele, Dani, and Vijver, Gertrudis vande. 2002. “Theories in Early Embryology.” In From Epigenesis to Epigenetics, edited by Speybroek, Linda van, van de Vijver, Gertrudis, and Waele, Dani de, 7–49. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Uschmann, Georg. 1955. Caspar Friedrich Wolff. Leipzig/Jena: Urania Verlag.Google Scholar
Wellmann, Janina. 2003. “Wie das Formlose Formen schafft. Bilder in der Haller-Wolff-Debatte und die Anfänge der Embryologie um 1800.” Bildwelten des Wissens 1 (2):105–115.Google Scholar
Wolff, Caspar Friedrich. 1789. “Von der eigenthümlichen und wesentlichen Kraft der vegetabilischen als auch der animalischen Substanz.” In Zwo Abhandlungen über die Nutritionskraft, Petersburg, K. A. d. W. S., Saint Petersburg.Google Scholar
Wolff, Caspar Friedrich. [1759] 1896a. Theoria Generationis. Erster Theil. Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann.Google Scholar
Wolff, Caspar Friedrich. [1759] 1896b. Theoria Generationis. Zweiter Theil. Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann.Google Scholar
Wolff, Caspar Friedrich. [1764] 1966. Theorie von der Generation; Theoria generationis. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Wolff, Christian. 1730. Philosophia Prima Sive Ontologia. Frankfurt am Main: Renger.Google Scholar