Ubirajara Rancan de Azevedo Marques (Marı́lia, SP, Brazil)

On Epigenesis: Historical and

Philological Remarks
The remarks set out below focus on the concept of epigenesis, and fall within the
scope of newly initiated research, which aims to examine the concepts of generic
preformation, original acquisition, and transcendental schema.

Remark 1
Regarding the term ‹epigenesis›, its coinage, introduction or first use in modern
times is very often attributed to William Harvey,1 who, in 1651, in his work,
Exercitationes de generatione animalium, defined it as «addition of the parts
that successively arise» (partium superexorientium additamentum).2 However,
the same term had already been used in 1620 by the Gascon physician Guillau-
me Ader,3 by the Portuguese physician of Hebrew ancestry Estevão Rodrigues
de Castro, who employed it in 1627,4 and also by the Provençal physician David
L’Agneau, who employed it before 1650.5 In these three cases, however, and
presumably in others, around the same time, the context of use of the term is
specifically etiological (using Galen as a direct reference), and not, therefore,

1 Cf. Wolfe, Ch. T.: «Why Was there no Controversy over Life in the Scientific Revolution?» In:
Controversies Within the Scientific Revolution. Ed. by M. Dascal and V. D. Boantza. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2011, 208. Smith, J. E. H. (ed.): The Problem of Animal Gen-
eration in Early Modern Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 236; Mazzo-
lini, R. G.: «Epigenesis and Preformation». In: The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern
Science. Ed. by J. L. Heilbron. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, 271. See also Pagel, W.:
William Harvey’s Biological Ideas: Selected Aspects and Historical Background. Basel: Karger,
1967, 233.
2 Harvey, W.: «Anatomical Exercises on the Generation of the Animals». In: The Works of Wil-
liam Harvey. Translated from the latin by R. Willis. London, 1847. Printed for the Sydenham So-
ciety, 372; Harveo, G.: Exercitationes de generatione animalium. Amstelodami: Apud Joannem
Janssonium, 1651, 198.
3 Cf. Ader, G.: Enarrationes, de ægrotis, et morbis in Euangelio. Tolosae: Typis Raymvndi Colo-
merii, Typographi Regij, & Vniversitatis Tolosanæ, 1620, 347.
4 Cf. Castrensis Lvsitani: Qvae ex qvibvs. Opusculum Medicum. Florentiæ: Apud Petrum Cec-
concellium. Ad Medicæa Sydera, 1627; for example: 7–11; 14f.; 18–20; 27–34; 48f.; 77f.
5 Cf. L’Aigneav, D.: Traicté povr la conservation de la santé, et svr la saignee de ce temps. Tro-
isieme Edition, fort augmentée, vires acquirit eundo. A Paris: Chez Mathvrin Henavlt, 1650, 89.

Authenticated | ubirajara.rancan@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 8/9/15 3:20 PM
262 | Ubirajara Rancan de Azevedo Marques

embryological. The ultimate source for the latter approach is not Harvey but
Aristotle.6

Remark 2

Concerning the applications that Kant makes of the term ‹epigenesis›, they are
relatively small in number, and their reliability and chronology are problematic,7
since most of them occur in his Reflexionen (Refl) and Vorlesungsnachschriften
(Vorl). However, Kant does occasionally use the term in major works such as the
second edition of the Kritik der reinen Vernunft (KrV), the Kritik der Urteilskraft
(KU) and the Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft. Additionally,
the term is also found in minor works such as the Recensionen zu J. G. Herders
Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit (RezHerder; 1785), but only
in a citation from the work being reviewed.8 There is no use of the term in the
Briefwechsel by Kant or his correspondents, but, as noted earlier, it does reappear
in the Handschriftlicher Nachlaß. For instance, in the Reflexionen the employment
of epigenesis, using Adickes’s dating, is located in the period 1769–89, approxi-
mately. In the remaining Nachlaß, another citation of the term is in the Vorarbeit
(1796) to Aus Sömmering: Über das Organ der Seele, though in Kant’s final version
of this work the term no longer appears. In the Opus postumum, the term is not
used. But within Vorl, epigenesis occurs in the so-called Metaphysik K2, Meta-
physik Dohna and Metaphysik K 3 – students’ notes on Kant’s metaphysics lec-
tures from approximately 1790 to 1795.9 For the entire Kantian corpus, in short,
the use of epigenesis, although exemplified in a relatively small number of cases,
occurred between 1769–96, or for almost three decades.10

6 Cf. Aristotle: «On Generation of the Animals». In: The Works of Aristotle. Vol. 2: Biological
Treatises. Translated by A. Platt. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952 (253–331), 274.
7 Cf. Zöller, G.: «Kant on the Generation of Metaphysical Knowledge». In: Kant: Analysen – Pro-
bleme – Kritik. Ed. by H. Oberer and G. Seel. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 1988, 71–90.
8 Cf. Sloan, P. R.: «Preforming the Categories: Eighteenth-Century Generation Theory and the
Biological Roots of Kant’s A Priori». In: Journal of the History of Philosophy 40, 2, April 2002, 242:
«In 1785 Kant for the first time in his published writings employed the embryological term ‹epi-
genesis›.» Sloan’s observation should be qualified, because the term ‹epigenesis›, although used
by Kant, occurs only within a citation from the text of Herder’s that he is reviewing. Cf. Rez-
Herder, AA 08: 050. Herder’s Ideen was published between 1784 and 1791. Kant’s reviews, pub-
lished in 1785, refer to the first two of its four parts.
9 See Naragon, S.: «Kant in the Classroom. Materials to Aid the Study of Kant’s Lectures». Avail-
able at: www.manchester.edu/kant/Lectures/lecturesListDiscipline.htm. Accessed on 18 Jan-
uary, 2014.
10 See, e. g., BDG, AA 02; ÜGTP, AA 08; IaG, AA 08; MAM, AA 08.

Authenticated | ubirajara.rancan@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 8/9/15 3:20 PM
 On Epigenesis: Historical and Philological Remarks | 263

With respect to its presence in the Refl (which contain the largest number of
appearances and in which it is used in a mostly metaphorical way), epigenesis is
used in gnoseological,11 embryological12 and psychological13 senses. But in the
Vorl, where it is not the object of a metaphorical approach, the focus is psycho-
logical and embryological.14

Remark 3

Epigenesis does not belong to the list of the great topics within the critical phi-
losophy, nor is it even a subtheme of regular discussion in Kant’s Gesammelte
Schriften. Nevertheless, the philosopher gave it a certain subsidiary prominence,
integrating it metaphorically into the second edition of KrV in 1787, precisely at
the end of the transcendental deduction of the pure concepts of the understand-
ing, which is the first of the references within the major works where the term
appears. More than simply mentioning it in the conclusion of this crucial step of
KrV, Kant employs the term through a double indirect comparison – with the
generatio æquivoca and the Präformationssystem – in which epigenesis, as in the
Refl, emerges with an undoubted supremacy. Although the metaphorical manner
by which Kant inserts the notions of spontaneous generation, epigenesis, and
preformism into the context of the transcendental deduction makes them merely
secondary to his larger argument, the comparative articulation underlying such
metaphors has full embryological autonomy, and alludes to a controversy not
only present in his writings (since at least 1763, with Beweisgrund), but in which
he undoubtedly takes part.
On the other hand, the double comparison seems not to occur in any other
passage of the Kantian corpus, and epigenesis and preformation do not appear
anymore in the KrV,15 although the generatio æquivoca16 had already appeared

11 Cf. Refl, AA 17: 672; Refl, AA 18: 189; 423.

12 Cf. Refl, AA 17: 416; 591; Refl, AA 18: 574.
13 Cf. Refl, AA 17: 672; Refl, AA 18: 189; 423.
14 Cf. id., V-Met/Dohna, AA 28: 684; V-Met-K2/Heinze, AA 28: 760; V-Met-K 3E/Arnoldt, AA 29:
1031.
15 In the opposition between preformism and epigenesis, the categories will not be «einge-
pflanzte Anlagen zum Denken», but «selbstgedachte erste Principien a priori unserer Erkenntniß»
(KrV, AA: B 167). With this, the transcendence of an Einpflanzung is opposed to the immanence
(transcendental) of the Selbstdenken.
16 Concerning Kant’s position regarding generatio æquivoca, see KU, AA 05: 419, note;
V-Met/Dohna, AA 28: 649. The beginning of reflection 4552 seems to indicate an opposition be-

Authenticated | ubirajara.rancan@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 8/9/15 3:20 PM
264 | Ubirajara Rancan de Azevedo Marques

in the A edition of 1781, in the «Discipline» and «Architectonic of Pure Rea-

son».17
In the first of these passages, Kant refers to a Selbstgebärung.18 Literally
understood, this word can be in principle taken by the Germanization of the Latin
expression generatio spontanea. In this case, however, it may have a mystical-re-
ligious component, because the meaning of Selbstgebärung, not the word itself,
had already occurred earlier in, for example, Jakob Böhme’s Mysterium magnum:
«Er gebähret von Ewigkeit in Ewigkeit sich selber in sich».19 Given this, if the impo-
sition of Selbstgebärung may historically and philologically allude to a mystical-
religious context in order to refer to the self-generation of God himself,20 it will
indeed seem inappropriate for spontaneous generation to become a kind of
embryological correspondent for such a generation. For the same reason, the
quality of «selbst-geboren» attributed to Christ21 will not correspond to the gene-
ratio spontanea.

tween epigenesis and spontaneous generation; cf. id., Refl, AA 17: 591: «Es ist die Frage, ob es
eine organisch bildende Natur gebe (epigenesis) oder blos eine, die mechanisch und chemisch
bildet.» But both spontaneous generation and epigenesis are defined by the mechanicalness of
their respective actions. Differentiating them is the fact that, if the generatio æquivoca is «die
Erzeugung eines organisirten Wesens durch die Mechanik der rohen unorganisirten Materie» (KU,
AA 05: 419), the epigenesis is said to be «das System, wo die Eltern die hervorbringende Ursache
der Kinder sind» (id., V-Met-K2/Heinze, AA 28: 760. Cf. id., V-Met-K3E/Arnoldt, AA 29: 1031). I. e.:
on that, generator and generated are heterogeneous; on this, homogeneous.
17 Cf. id., KrV, AA: B 793 / A 765; B 863 / A 835.
18 Noted in Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm (available at: woerter-
buchnetz.de/DWB/?sigle=DWB&mode=Vernetzung&lemid=GS25991. Accessed on 12 January,
2014), this entry is there exclusively explained with the same passage of the KrV that appears to
have had this unique occurrence in Kant. Regarding Selbstgebärung (translated by the author as
«self-birth»), see Mensch, J.: Kant’s Organicism: Epigenesis and the Development of Critical Phi-
losophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2013, 212f., n. 280.
19 See Böhme, J.: Mysterium magnum. Amsterdam: s. n., 1682, 7. The source from which even-
tually will originate the religious meaning of Selbstgebärung may be found in verse 2 of psalm
90. For a remark of Kant’s on Böhm[e], see Refl, AA 15: 219; 668. In connection with the mystics
in general, cf. id., V-Th/Baumbach, AA 28: 1267 and the following.
20 Cf. Deinert, H.: «Die Entfaltung des Bösen in Böhmes Mysterium Magnum». In: Publications
of Modern Language Association 79, 4, Sept. 1964 (401–410), 402: «Dieser Prozess ist die ewige
Selbstgebärung Gottes, der ‹von Ewigkeit in Ewigkeit sich selber in sich› gebiert».
21 In works in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries which refer to the birth of
Christ, there are numerous instances of the term «selbst geboren». See, e. g., Hunnen, E.: Pos-
tilla, oder Außlegung der Episteln vnd Euangelien. Gedruckt zu Franckfurt am Mayn: 1597, III, 169;
Gründliche Ausführung. Gedruckt zu Marpurg: Durch Nicolaum Hampelium / der Universitet
Typographum, 1636, 6; Müller, H.: Apostolische Schlußkett und Krafft-Kern. Franckfurt am Mayn:
Bey Johann Benjamin Andrea und Heinrich Hort, 1734, 370.

Authenticated | ubirajara.rancan@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 8/9/15 3:20 PM
 On Epigenesis: Historical and Philological Remarks | 265

In «The Architectonic of Pure Reason», in turn, the generatio æquivoca, be-

yond the metaphor that it introduces, is surreptitiously a response in an embryo-
logically positive way, from which it may be inferred that, with respect to worms,
Kant would have had its appearance to be abiogenetic.22
In both of these passages, the elements of two metaphors, either the clearly
embryological (generatio æquivoca), or the not necessarily so and possibly mys-
tic-religious scenario (Selbstgebärung), are positively mentioned, and they are
interspersed with a preformist23 vocabulary.
Regarding the first of these passages, if the adoption of spontaneous genera-
tion to translate Selbstgebärung (as in the translation of Kemp Smith)24 would
have in its favor the supposed philological-theoretical adjustment to the original
expression and the relative proximity between this and the generatio æquivoca of
seventy pages later,25 parthenogenesis (as in Guyer’s and Wood’s translation)
would fit better, allusively, either the explanation for the immediately following
text («without impregnation by experience»),26 or the preformist vocabulary
present therein. And support for both of these aspects could be univocally reput-
ed to Charles Bonnet. But a third – more literal and less technical – option to

22 Cf. KrV, AA: B 863 / A 835: «Die Systeme scheinen wie Gewürme durch eine generatio aequi-
voca aus dem bloßen Zusammenfluß von aufgesammleten Begriffen anfangs verstümmelt, mit der
Zeit vollständig gebildet worden zu sein [.. .]» (my emphasis).
23 Namely: «diese Vermehrung der Begriffe aus sich selbst»; «de[r] ursprüngliche Keim in der sich
bloß auswickelnden Vernunft». Concerning preformist jargon in Kant, see: KrV, AA: B 91 / A 66;
Prol, AA 04: 368. Regarding the meanings of «Auswicklung» and «Entwicklung», see Moya, E.:
«Epigénesis y validez: El papel de la embriologı́a en el programa transcendental de Kant». In:
Theoria 53, 2005 (143–166), 151f.; Goy, I.: «Die Teleologie der organischen Natur (§§ 64–68)». In:
Kritik der Urteilskraft. Ed. by O. Höffe. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2008, 234. Cf. Sloan, op. cit., 236:
«[.. .] if the language of preformed Keime is widely encountered in the literature of German
embryology and philosophy in the Haller-Bonnet sense after 1760, the concept of Anlage in a
technical embryological usage is much less common. The conjunction of these two notions I sug-
gest is a clue to the novelty of Kant’s own thoughts on these matters.» Despite Sloan’s suggestion
(he has in mind the following passage: VvRM, AA 02: 434f.), it should be noted that the distinc-
tion between «germ» and «disposition» / «predisposition» was not always carefully observed by
Kant, and that it has only been scrupulously adopted by him at this step. Cf. id., Vorlesungen
über Physik (Mrongovius), AA 29: 118; V-Phil-Th/Pölitz, AA 28: 1078.
24 Cf. Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by N. Kemp Smith. London: Mac-
millan, 609. Cf. Müller-Sievers, H.: Self-Generation. Biology, Philosophy, and Literature Around
1800. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997, 182, n. 3: «The English translation has ‹sponta-
neous generation› for Selbstgebärung and thus hits precisely the wrong key in Kant’s elaborate
biological register [...].»
25 Cf. KrV, AA: B 793 / A 765; B 863 / A 835.
26 Cf. id., Critique of Pure Reason. Ed. and transl. by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1998, 656.

Authenticated | ubirajara.rancan@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 8/9/15 3:20 PM
266 | Ubirajara Rancan de Azevedo Marques

translate Selbstgebärung into English would be «self-generation» – an expres-

sion, by the way, already employed in the seventeenth century.27
In any case, if the understanding of epigenesis as self-delivery or self-birth28
is entirely correct not only with respect to the metaphoric-epistemological scope
given to this theory by Kant, but also, in KrV, according to B 793 / A 765 with the
text of B 167, then the choice of an expression that better reflects Selbstgebärung
should not be submitted to a previous identification of epigenesis with self-deliv-
ery or self-birth. If epigenesis is self-delivery or self-birth, it can only match up
with Selbstgebärung if the latter can also be said to be self-delivery or self-birth,
which is not a certainty. After all, why in «The Discipline of Pure Reason» would
Kant not have simply employed epigenesis, instead of opting for a presumed ne-
ologism that is potentially compromising (if understood as spontaneous genera-
tion) and has possible mystical-religious resonances (if understood in light of the
generation of God and the birth of Christ)?29
In fact, I believe it is problematic whether epigenesis has undoubted primacy
in Kant’s assertive adoption in 1781 (also in the readoption of the same, six years
later), of a terminology that is both preformist (B 793 / A 765; B 863 / A 835) and
abiogenetic (B 863 / A 835), and, also, possibly mystical-religious (B 793 / A 765).
This is evident from both a metaphorical-epistemological and embryological
point of view, and can be detected in the contents of numerous reflections pre-
sumably handwritten in the previous decade (in which, by the way, spontaneous
generation remains virtually absent).30

Remark 4

«Generic preformation» is a kind of concept-synthesis to overcome two mutually

opposite orientations, each taken in its whole exclusivity: (individual) prefor-
mation and epigenesis. The peculiar syntheticity of such concepts results in the
operational confluence of their constituent terms, with a view to solving prob-
lems that each of them proved unable to overcome unilaterally.31 So, instead of

27 Cf. Cudworth, R.: The True Intellectual System of The Universe. London: Printed for Richard
Royston, 1678, I, 574: «[. ..] a Being produced from the First Good or Original Deity, autogonos
Self-Begottenly, [sic] or in a way of Self-Generation».
28 Müller-Sievers and Mensch seem to agree that Selbstgebärung expresses the same idea as
epigenesis; cf. Müller-Sievers, op. cit., 48f.; Mensch, op. cit., 212, n. 280.
29 Cf. nn. 19–21, above.
30 Cf. n. 16, above.
31 In a RezHerder’s passage, Kant cites an excerpt from the book reviewed in which there is a

Authenticated | ubirajara.rancan@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 8/9/15 3:20 PM
 On Epigenesis: Historical and Philological Remarks | 267

asserting a «persistent ambivalence»32 concerning the origin and development of

organized beings, sometimes opting for epigenesis, sometimes for preformism,
Kant, when asserting that epigenesis «kann auch System der generischen Prä-
formation genannt werden» would have decided, in fact, by the valency which
overcomes the reciprocal limitations of one, either for both together or for trans-
valency.
Kant employs the term «generic preformation» only once,33 employing it

double criticism of preformation and epigenesis. See RezHerder, AA 08: 050. For Herder’s ori-
ginal text, slightly changed by Kant, see Herder, J. G.: Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der
Menschheit. Available at: www.textlog.de/5586.html, accessed on 20 December, 2013. Later, in
the same review, Kant, agreeing with that position, seems clearly to take into account Herder’s
double criticism. See RezHerder, AA 08: 062f.
32 Cf. Zammito, J. H.: «Kant’s Persistent Ambivalence toward Epigenesis, 1764–90». In: Under-
standing Purpose: Kant and the Philosophy of Biology. Ed. by Ph. Huneman. Rochester: Univer-
sity of Rochester Press, 2007, 51–74. Cf. Marques, U. R. A.: «Considerações sobre a epigênese em
Kant». In: Kant e a Biologia. Ed. by U. R. A. Marques. São Paulo: Editora Barcarolla, 2012,
331–364.
33 Cf. KU, AA 05: 423. As Siegfried Roth notes: «[m]it der Begriffsbildung ‹generische Präfor-
mation,› die m. E. bei keinem anderen der oben genannten Autoren [‹Haller, Bonnet, Wolff und
Blumenbach› [U. R.]] auftaucht, erfaßt Kant die gesamte Problematik der damaligen Diskussion
und bringt zum Ausdruck, daß weder Epigenese noch Präformation für sich betrachtet ausreichen,
um ontogenetische Prozesse zu beschreiben.» (Roth, S.: «Kant und die Biologie seiner Zeit
(§§ 79–81)». In: Kritik der Urteilskraft. Ed. by O. Höffe. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2008, 284) But
the veracity of this conjecture concerning generic preformation is at best limited to the adjective
of the expression, not the concept it expresses. For Sulzer had employed, in 1777, «préformation
générale», and, in 1781, in the German version of the same text, «allgemeine Vorherbildung», in
an embryological context. See Sulzer, J. G.: «Sur l’immortalité de l’âme considérée physique-
ment. Par M. Sulzer. Quatrième Mémoire». In: Nouveaux Mémoires de l’Academie Royale des Sci-
ences et Belles-Lettres. Année MDCCLXXVII. A Berlin: Imprimé chez George Jacques Decker, 1779,
321; Johann George Sulzers vermischte Schriften. Zweyter Theil. Leipzig: bey Weidmanns Erben
und Reich, 1781, 72. «Préformation générale» also appears in a Bonnet’s letter to Spallanzani, on
17 January, 1771; cf. Œuvres d’histoire naturelle et de philosophie de Charles Bonnet. Tome cin-
quième. Partie II. Lettres sur divers sujets d’Histoire Naturelle. A Neuchatel: De l’Imprimerie de
Samuel Fauche, Libraire du Roi, 1771, 140. Moreover, as it is known, «préformation» refers to
Leibniz; cf., for example: «Mr. Leibnitz’s Fifth Paper / Cinquiéme Ecrit de Mr. Leibnitz». In: A
Collection of Papers, Which passed between the late Learned Mr. Leibnitz, and Dr. Clarke, In the
Years 1715 and 1716. Relating to the Principles of Natural Philosophy and Religion. London: Printed
for James Knapton, at the Crown in St. Paul’s Church-Yard, 1717, 266: «Quant aux Mouvemens
des corps célestes, & plus encore quant à la formation des plantes & des animaux; il n’y a rien qui
tienne du Miracle, excepté le commencement des ces choses. L’organisme des animaux est un
mechanisme qui suppose une Préformation Divine: Ce qui en suit, est purement naturel, & tout à
fait mechanique.» (cf. Leibniz, G. W.: Essais de Théodicée. A Amsterdam: Chez François Chan-
guion, 1734, I, XXXI: «[. ..] à la verité le Mechanisme suffit pour produire les corps organiques des
animaux, sans qu’on ait besoin d’autres Natures plastiques, pourvu qu’on y ajoute la préfor-

Authenticated | ubirajara.rancan@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 8/9/15 3:20 PM
268 | Ubirajara Rancan de Azevedo Marques

through an embryological comparison.34 In this context, the grouping of the doc-

trines mentioned by him, from the concept of cause, seems to conform to the fol-
lowing divisions and subdivisions:
1. occasional character of the cause;
2. prestabilist character of the cause;
2.1 organic being as educt: system of individual preformations or theory of
evolution; system of generatings (Zeugungen) as educts; theory of invo-
lution35 or encapsulation (Einschachtelung);

mation déja toute organique dans les semences des corps qui naissent, contenues dans celles des
corps dont ils sont nés, jusqu’aux semences premieres [. . .]».)
34 In this comparison, Kant uses «Prästabilism» (cf. KU, AA 05: 422), not «Prädelineation»,
which had already been employed by Wolff in his Theory of Generation, either in the Latin ver-
sion or in the German version of this same work. If, however, in Wolff the predelineation is sub-
divided into «System der Entwicklung (Systema evolutionis)» (which, in his case, will corres-
pond to occasionalism) and «Systema præformationis» (which, regarding Kant, will correspond
to individual preformation), in Kant the prestabilism will be divided in «[System] der individu-
ellen Präformation» and «System der Epigenesis». In other words, «Prästabilism» in Kant is only
partially equivalent to «Prädelineation» in Wolff. On the other hand, the term chosen by Kant is
clearly allusive to Leibniz’s pre-established harmony. See MSI, AA 02: 409; Refl, AA 17: 272; Refl,
AA 18: 405, 415f.; Refl, AA 19: 620.
35 It seems to me inappropriate to assert, as does Moya: «Tengamos en cuenta que Kant habla de
Evolutionssystem para referirse al sistema preformista, mientras que para referirse a su doctrina
de la epigénesis llega a hablar, por contraposición, de Involutionssystem.» (Moya, op. cit., 151).
Apparently, Kant has not even employed the expression «Involutionssystem», although, yes,
«System der Involution» (see VARGV, AA 23: 106; V-Met-K 2/Heinze, AA 28: 760, 761) and «theoria
involutionis (das Einschachtelungssystem)» (see id., V-Met-K 3E/Arnoldt, AA 29: 1031; V-Met/Doh-
na, AA 28: 684). But there does not appear to be support in the texts for Moya’s statement con-
cerning involution. None of Kant’s references to Involution seems favorable to it or allows re-
placement of this term by epigenesis. Moya’s interpretation, however, reflects a similar mistake
already committed in 1794 by Beck. See Beck, J. S.: Erläuternder Auszug aus den critischen Schrif-
ten des Herrn Prof. Kant auf Anrathen desselben. Riga: bey Johann Friedrich Hartknoch, 1794,
Zweyter Band, 330 (the same inattention would still appear in a review of the KU published in
1795; cf. «Ueber die Erzeugung organisierter Wesen, nach Herrn Kants, von Friedrich Grillo». In:
Annalen der Philosophie und des philosophischen Geistes von einer Gesellschaft gelehrter Männer.
Ed. by L. H. Jakob. Erster Jahrgang, 1795. Halle: bey dem Herausgeber, 370). It is also reflected in
the translator’s note in the translation of the Beweisgrund in «The Cambridge Edition of the
Works of Immanuel Kant». In: Theoretical Philosophy. Part of The Cambridge Edition of the
Works of Immanuel Kant. Ed. by D. Walford. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, 434,
n. 60. Such inadvertence becomes even more uncomfortable because such texts wish to gloss a
passage from § 81 of KU in direct confrontation with these interpretations. See KU, AA 05:
423.02–11. Cf. V-Met-K2/Heinze, AA 28: 761. For a discussion more in keeping with the Kantian
text, see Mellin, G. S. A.: Encyclopädisches Wörterbuch der kritischen Philosophie. Jena, Leipzig:
bei Friedrich Frommann, 1799, Bd. II, Abth. I, 462f.

Authenticated | ubirajara.rancan@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 8/9/15 3:20 PM
 On Epigenesis: Historical and Philological Remarks | 269

2.2 organic being as product: system of progenitors (Zeugenden) as products;

system of epigenesis or system of generic preformation.36
According to Adickes, however, these same divisions of Kant’s imply the follow-
ing scheme:
1. theory of evolution (preformism);
1.1 occasionalistic theory of evolution;
1.2 prestabilist theory of evolution;
1.2.1 ovism;
1.2.2 animalculism;
2. theory of epigenesis.37
The table organized by Kant shows the opposition between two modes of cause
(occasional and prestabilist) and the distinction between educt and product in
the common framework of preformation (subdivided into individual and gener-
ic), while the one presented by Adickes strengthens the general opposition be-
tween preformism and epigenesis, which, however, had been nuanced by Kant.
In any case, epigenesis is a system of generic preformation. Of generic pre-
formation, because «the productive capacity of the progenitor» (das productive
Vermögen der Zeugenden; this being the physical-mechanical component) par-
takes of the same stock with «the internally purposive predispositions» (die inne-
ren zweckmäßigen Anlagen; this being the teleological component), according to
which is produced the specific form of an embryo. This means that between epi-
genesis and preformation the emphasis shifts, so to speak, from this that is
implanted (the educt) for this that is generated (the product). This is the way that
nature, in epigenesis, concerning what can only be originally represented as pos-
sible according to the causality of purposes, is considered «as itself producing
rather than merely developing» (als selbst hervorbringend, nicht bloß als entwi-
ckelnd).38
But in § 27 of KrV there is also an embryological comparison, here meta-
phorically prepared, where Kant rejects both spontaneous generation and pre-
formation, aligning himself with epigenesis. Here he refuses, respectively, either
an empiricist Erklärungsart of formation of the categories, or an innate Erklä-
rungsart of their formation. However, the three Erzeugungsarten presented in the
KrV are compared indirectly, underlying the metaphorical plan in which they
meet, and there seems to be no space for the defence of a generic preformation in
an embryological sense.39

36 Cf. KU, AA 05: 422f.

37 Cf. Adickes, E.: Kant als Naturforscher. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1925. Vol. 2, 427.
38 Kant: Critique of the Power of Judgment. Translated by P. Guyer and E. Matthews. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002 (CPJ), 292 / KU, AA 05: 424.

Authenticated | ubirajara.rancan@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 8/9/15 3:20 PM
270 | Ubirajara Rancan de Azevedo Marques

Despite this, a more appropriate embryological metaphor for the thesis of «a

necessary agreement of experience with the concepts of its objects»40 seemed to
be not exactly via epigenesis tout court,41 but via generic preformation. Actually,
if Kant rejected the instinctive mechanicalness of spontaneous generation and
the transcendent innateness of an alleged «Mittelweg»,42 there would remain the
pre-oriented mechanicalness of generic preformation.
According to the text of B 167, indeed, epigenesis will be a metaphor of «a
necessary agreement of experience with the concepts of its objects». In this
sense, it does not refer to Denkformen, originally acquired,43 but to the agreement
of concepts themselves with experience. Therefore, as portrayed in that image,
epigenesis will correspond to the progressive engendering of a critically adjusted
experience, as a connection between categorial unity and spatial-temporal multi-
plicity.
Nevertheless, it is still possible to ask why generic preformation has not been
named in the result of the transcendental deduction (and in reflections and lec-
tures, at least from the 1780s), for two other thinkers referred to by Kant had al-
ready spoken of an «Epigenesis durch Evolution» and a «préformation généra-
le» / «allgemeine Vorherbildung». In fact, besides the Philosophische Versuche of

39 When Müller-Sievers understands the generic preformation as catachresis (op. cit., 13), he
will do so by having in mind the lack of a proper term for what it means. However, bearing in
mind that catachresis is a kind of metaphor, and that generic preformation is a term used by
Kant in a nonmetaphorical sense, it will not seem appropriate to take the latter as a metaphor. In
the expression «generische Präformation», «Präformation» is a term used in the proper sense, in
attention to what it means in the embryological context. Nor could the whole expression desig-
nate a kind of metaphor, because it had already been used in the scientific field in roughly the
same sense in which Kant would employ it later (cf., here, n. 33). With this, I think it would be
more appropriate to take generic preformation as an oxymoron, in the same manner as, for ex-
ample, «ursprüngliche Erwerbung» and «ungesellige Geselligkeit».
40 Kant: Critique of Pure Reason. Ed. and transl. by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1998, 264.
41 Cf. id., BDG, AA 02: «Der Bau der Pflanzen und Thiere zeigt eine solche Anstalt, wozu die all-
gemeine und nothwendige Naturgesetze unzulänglich sind. Da es nun ungereimt sein würde die
erste Erzeugung einer Pflanze oder Thiers als eine mechanische Nebenfolge aus allgemeinen Natur-
gesetzen zu betrachten [. . .]» (114).
42 Cf. id., KrV, AA: B 167; Prol, AA 04: 319. However, generic preformation may be, from a com-
positional point of view, designated as a «Mittelweg»; cf. Prol, AA 04: 360.11–15.
43 Cf. id., ÜE, AA 08: 221.

Authenticated | ubirajara.rancan@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 8/9/15 3:20 PM
 On Epigenesis: Historical and Philological Remarks | 271

Tetens,44 a work published in 1777, the text of a «Mémoire» by Sulzer was pub-
lished in the following year.45
Similarly, notwithstanding the fact that such works are separated by nearly
three decades, the Beweisgrund and KU contain two passages that testify in more
detail regarding Kant’s consideration about rival embryological theories, both of
which can be approximated to each other, and even they amount to something
like «generic preformation» avant la lettre.46 Considering the Übernatürliche in
the Beweisgrund, Kant states: «[...] whether the supernatural generation occurs
at the moment of the creation, or whether it takes place gradually, at different
times, the degree of the supernatural is no greater in the second case than it is in
the first. [. . .]»47 In the KU, also: «The champions of the theory of evolution [. ..]
declared themselves for preformation, as if it made no difference whether they
would have these forms arise, supernaturally, at the origin or during the course
of the world.»48 In the latter work, however, after advocating the «große Vorzug»
of the «Vertheidiger der Epigenesis» over «[d]ie Verfechter der Evolutionstheo-
rie»,49 Kant asserts: «reason, [. ..] with the least possible appeal to the supernatu-
ral, leaves everything that follows from the first beginning to nature.»50 If the em-

44 It is useful here to take account of Tetens’s statement of prudence, which is also applicable to
Kant: «Ich habe die Gelegenheit nicht gehabt, in die innere Werkstatt der sich entwickelnden Natur
hineinzusehen, noch weniger Versuche zu machen und die Wirkungen derselben zu zergliedern,
sondern diese höchstens nur von der Außenseite etwas beobachten können.» (Tetens, J. N.: Phi-
losophische Versuche über die menschliche Natur und ihre Entwicklung. Hildesheim: Georg Olms,
1979, II, 449) However, unlike Tetens, who considers carefully Bonnet’s and Wolff’s theories,
Kant gives us no testimony about having had direct knowledge of either theory. However, with
respect to Wolff he had at least indirect contact, not only through Tetens, but also through Her-
der’s Ideen, and perhaps also through Haller, who refers to it in a review (see Haller, A. in: Göt-
tingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen unter der Aufsicht der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissen-
schaften 143, 29. November 1760, 1225–1231). Concerning coincidences described by Tetens
between Bonnet and Wolff regarding the meaning of «germ», and, therefore, between preform-
ism and epigenesis, see Tetens, op. cit., II, 454–460.
45 See Sulzer, op. cit., 321f.; Tetens, op. cit., II, 512. Kant cites Tetens’s work in letter in the begin-
ning of April 1778 to Marcus Herz: see Br, AA 10: 232. Cf. id., Refl, AA 18: 023. Regarding Sulzer’s
«Quatrième Mémoire», the only one of the five that is here worth remembering, though inserted
in the set of the «Nouveaux Mémoires» of the year 1777, as the constant information on its own
text, was exposed in «16 Juillet 1778» (see bibliothek.bbaw.de/bbaw/bibliothek-digital/digita-
lequellen/schriften/anzeige/index html?band=03-nouv/1777&seite:int=385. Accessed on: 02
January, 2014).
46 Cf. Mensch, op. cit., 7; 62; 144.
47 Kant: Theoretical Philosophy, ed. cit., 157.
48 Id., CPJ, 291.
49 Cf. id., KU, AA 05: 423.
50 Cf. CPJ, 292.

Authenticated | ubirajara.rancan@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 8/9/15 3:20 PM
272 | Ubirajara Rancan de Azevedo Marques

phases of the first two texts are in agreement with each other with respect to the
Übernatürliche, then the joint enhancement of both will be quite different from
the third as regards the same concept. Between themselves, the difference to reg-
ister is merely due to the when of divine interference, no matter the degree of the
same. On this point, however, it is important to highlight «de[r] kleinst-mögliche
Aufwande des Übernatürlichen», evidenced by the fact that «[die Vernunft] alles
Folgende vom ersten Anfange an der Natur überläßt».51 In the first case, Kant reg-
isters the negative character of the common recurrence to God, whether of occa-
sionalism or prestabilism; in the second, he registers the positive character by
which epigenesis qua generic preformation, though appealing to the same super-
natural, results in «the least possible appeal» to him. However, despite the atten-
tion given by the philosopher to the minimality of such appeal, the reference to
this, not rejected anymore because it is supposedly ineluctable, would lead ge-
neric preformation in principle to be equal to the Evolutionstheorie, subjecting
itself thereby to the criticism already expressed in the Beweisgrund. However,
notwithstanding an agreement at the level of the letter, the references to the
supernatural are clearly distinct in both cases. Not coincidentally,52 we should
recall, by analogy, Kant’s philological reprimand – sotto voce – to Eberhard:
«(Since Mr. Eberhard himself notes that in order to justify the use of the expres-
sion ‹divinely implanted› [anerschaffen] the demonstration of the existence of
God must already be presupposed, why does he use it rather than the old expres-
sion ‹innate› [angeborne]?)»53 If the Angeborne could be taken to be technically
neutral in relation to an anerschaffen metaphysically committed, then the Über-
natürliche of KU should be taken in the same manner, indicating no assumption
about the «existence of God».

51 Id., KU, AA 05: 424.

52 A similar scenario occurs at the speculative level, referring to the concept of «ursprüngliche
Erwerbung»; cf. Marques, U. R. A.: «‹Inné› et ‹acquis›, ‹épigénétique› et ‹préformé›: conflits anti-
nomiques et solutions réciproques.» In: Philosophical Readings. Online Yearbook of Philosophy 3,
3, 2011, 11–24. Available at: http://philosophicalreadings.org/2011/12/23/203/. Accessed on 09
January, 2014. Accordingly, «[der] kleinst-mögliche Aufwande» will be equivalent to «dieser
Grund wenigstens ist angeboren» (cf. ÜE, AA 08: 222.02). As I cannot now dwell on this subject, I
refer instead to the exciting book by Jennifer Mensch (Kant’s Organicism; cf., here, n. 18) and the
insightful analyses contained therein.
53 The Kant-Eberhard Controversy. Translated by H. E. Allison. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1973, 135.

Authenticated | ubirajara.rancan@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 8/9/15 3:20 PM