A Vi ta l Se l e cte d Ge o r g .


R a ti o n a l i st Wr i ti n g s yn g u i l h e m f rom

Edit cd Tr anslat cd

b, v Fr ango is l) e lapo r t e bv Ar t hur G oldham nr er

l vit h an int r oduct icr n a c r it ical

bv Paul R. r binor v and Lim oge s

bib li ogr aphv bv Cam ille



N E\v


O 1 9 9 4L I r T o n e ,In c. Z O N EB O O K S 6 r r B r o a d r v r y ,S u itc 6 0 8 N e * Y o r k , N Y to o tz A l l r i g h t s r c s c rve d .




,^t \



N o p a r t o l t h i s b o o k m a y b e r e p r o d u ce d , sto r e d in a r e t r i c v a l s y s t e m ,o r tr a n sm itte d in a n y lb r m o r b y a ny m e r n s , i n c l u d in g e lcctr o n ic, m e ch a n ica l,p h o to co pl i n g , m i c r o l i l m in g , r cco r d in g , o r o th e r u ' ise ( e xce p t f o r t h a t c o p y i ng p e r m ittcd b y Se ctio n s r o 7 a n d r o 8 of t h e U . S . C o p y r ig h t L a t| a n d e xce p t b y r e vie we r slo r t h e p u b l i c p r e ss) with o u t wr itte n p e r m issio n fio m the Publisher. S o u r c e sf o r t h e cxce r p ts a r e liste d o n p p . 4 8 0 - 8 1 .

Delaporte e Editor's Notc b.vFranqois Rat ionalist lnt r oduct ion: A Vit al by PaulRabinow 1r P,qnr ONr M Er oDor ocY lhe Hr st or r ol 5cr ( n( e 25

P r i n t e d i n t h e U n ite d Sta te so fAm e r ica . D i s t r i b u t e d b y l h e M l l- Pr e ss, C a m b r i d g c , M assa ch u se tts, n d L o n d o n . En g la n d a Da L i b r a r y o f C o n g r e ssCa ta lo g in g - in - Pu b lica tio n ta C a n g u i l h e m . Ge o r g e s,r e o a A v i t a l r a t io n a list: se le cte dr vr itin g s lio m Ge o r ges C a n g u i l h e m . r ed ite d b v F r a n q o isDe la p o n e ; tr a n sla ted b v A r t h u r C o l dh a m r n e r with a n in tr o d u ctio n b r : Pa ul R a b i n o s a n d r cr itica l b ib lio g r a p h vb y Cim illc L im o gcs. p cm. I n c l u d e s b i b lio g r a p h ica lr e fe r e n ce s. r s B No - 9 4 )?9 9 - 7 2 - 8 r . S c i e n c e - l Iisto r v. z. Scie n ce - Ph ilo so p h y. t . D e l a p o r t e , f ra n q o is, r 9 .1 r Qr) t.cl4 '991 9 l- 86rI lr . T itlc.


The VariousModels ar The Historl of the Histor,vof Science Epr s:l, t t o I o<; v Epistemologyof Biologv A BoroguePhvsiolog.t' er An ErperimentalSciencc 7o3 'fhe oJ Molor Problents Nincteenth-Centur.r' Ph.vsiolog.t' tts oz

Epistemologvof Phvsiologv


Ilpistemologvol N{cclicine The Linits of Healinll ns 13: 7hc Nev,Situation lletlicinc ol A lledical Revolution ras

P aer llr t r er VII V lll lX
P,\RT FouR

H ts ro n Y C el l fh c o ry re r

T h e C o n ce p t o f R c fl e x 179 B i o J o g i c aOb j ec ts 2 0 3 l
IN I F RF RET A r r o NS

X XI X ll P,url Frvr XIII

Ren6 Descartes zrg AugusteComte 237 C l a u d eBe rn a rc l z o r P n o n r r l rs Knorvledgeand the Living and Science LiJe zet The ConccptoJ l.iJe zoz The Norm.rl .rnd the Pathological lnrrodttctionto theProhlcm szr The ldcntitv ol the Two Statcs tzt I mpI ications antl Counterposi ns t io

Translotor's Note Thc texts collected here are translatedfrorn thc French fbr thc from first tirne, but for trvo exceptions:I haveincluded passages ml translationofGcorges Canguilhem'sIdeoloo.v Rationality and (Cambrirlge,N{Ar NllT Press,1988) and from Carolvn Farvcett's (Ncu York: Zonc transfationof The Normo]on<l the Pathological B ooks, 1989 . )



Normalitv and Normativitv


Critical Bibfiographt b.yCanille Linoges 3 A s
N( ) tcs t5 5

Editor's Frangois

Note Dclaporte

The texts collccted in this volumc introduce English-language difficult and complex dimcnsionofGeorge readers an especiallv to Canguilhem'srvork, namcly his philosophv of biology and merlicine. Its primary purpose, then, is to chart the main themes of Canguilhem'sthought, l\hich is distinguishedby minute attention to developmentsin biology and medicinc over the past fifty vears.To achievethis end, importance lvasgivcn to questionsof methodology in the historv of science.This in itself u'as necesis of sarybecause ob.tect historicalcliscourse not scicntific disthe course as such but the historicitv of scientific discourseinsofar as it represents the implementation of an epistemologicalproje.ct(prcjetde savoir\.If the historv of science is the history of a discourscsubiect to the norm ofcritical rectification, thcn it is clearlv a branch of epistemologv. Canguilhcmrecogniresthat thc of disciplinesrvhosehistorv he rvritcsgive the appearancc a genthe variousfbrms opposedto the divcrsityof esis,that is, a process This, in f)ct, is the sourcc of his interest in of pseudo-sciencc. cpi stcmol ogical eaks.St udvingt he hist or v of an act ivit v it self br valueforces defined by its ref'erence truth asan cpistcmological to of one to focus attention on both thc failurcs and successes that vic* ol t he hist or v ol science, acti vi ty. fa king a m acr oscopicr

u Cangr - r ilhemn d c rto o k to s tu d v th e e m c rgenceofthrcc rl i sci on plines:biologv. physiologvanrl medicinc. l)epencling the subjec t ol s t udr . C a rrg ri l h c m rl i l l s o me ti m e sp l ovi de a hi storl of theorv. s()mctimcsa history ofconcepts antl sometimcsa historv thc same; to r r l biologic al o b j e c ts . Bu t th c o b j e c ti v e i s a l vravs describeho* ideologv and scicnce Jre at once internvincd and Furthcr, his studicsof Ren(: I)escartes, separatc. AugusteComte l and Claude B e rn a rcc l e a rl v r< te a l rv h y ,a s L t rui sA l thusseronce put it, Canguilhemis considered onc ofthe bcst "tcachersofho*. to rer(l *'orks ol phi)osr4rhr' scit nce." The readcr.x e assunre, .rnd * ill not be surprisedthat the prcsent rvork cnds * ith a sericsof general questiolls conccrning the relation ol knowledgc to Jife and ol the normal to the pathologic.rl.Canguilhem bcgan r. ith error aDdon that basisposed the philosophic.rlproblcm ol tr.uth and lii! . F or Nl i c h e l F o u c a u l t,th i s a p p ro a c h " c()nsri ruted onc of the crucial eventsin thc historv of modern philosophv."


A Vital




GeorgesCaDguilhem$'is bor n in Cast eln. r udarin sout hr vcst v ern Fran ceon Junc 4, 1t ) 0, 1. hough his f at her r , vasr t ailor , Alt . C angui l hem likes t o r ef er t o hir nsr : lf , not r vit hout a cer t ain trvi nkl e in his eve, as bcing of pcasantst ir ck, r oot cd in t hc har moni ous ,cvclical lif 'eof t he soil and t he seasons, scnsibilit ics his I6nrrcd bl the I'tarlr rorintl ol the lruit trecs.The storv ol his sentinrental erlucationis a classic one. High rnarkson nationalcxami nati onss ent him on a iour nev t o Par ist o st udv; once t her er hc , lvasa grearsuccess. Aftcr complcting his studiesat the prestigious lrc6e Henri IV he cntered thc most elitc educationalinstitution i n France,t he Ecole Nor m ale Super ieut e,in 1924.Anr ong his promotion, cohort, rvcrelean-PaulSartrc,R.almondAron and his ('nteredthc [:co]ea vcrr larcr. Paul Nizan; l\{auriceN{erlcau-PoDt\r Alr.eady this tin1c, Canguilhem $as interestc(lin thenrcsthat at hc rroul d r ct ur n r o and de*elop r hr oughouthis int ellcct uallif e: i n parti cular ,a p. r peron August eCom t e's t hcor r of or der and progrcss , hich Canguilhemst r bm it t edf br a diplom a, displavs u ( rhc begi n nings ) l t his per sist cntint er estin t he r elat ion ol r eason and socict \ ' * an int er cst he shar cd wit h his ot her dist ingui shtd c lassm at es \ i hich Canguilhcnr but devel, r ped a highlr in originalmanner.The philosopher Alain'sjudgmenroi Canguilhem

in 1924as " liv e l v , re s o l u tca n d c o n te n t" s ti l l capturesthe man' s of spirit almost three-quarters a century Iatt'r.l O nc e he b e c a n rea g ri g d i n p h i l o s o p h v i n 1927, the young Canguilhem beganhis tenching tour crfprovincial lyc6es,as wirt requircd ofall Ecole Normalegraduates rcpaymentto the stare in t br t heir c dqc a ti o n , l l i s i n i ti a l p e re g ri n a tions ended i n 1935 i n T oulous e, wh e rc h e ta u g h t a t th e l y c 6 e , r vhi l e begi nni ng hi s m edic al t r ain i n g . In 1 9 + 0 ,h e rc s i g n e dfro m hi s teachi ngpost, because.as ht' rvrotc thc Rector of the Acad6mie de Tirulouse, he hadn't becomc an agregd philosophy in ordet to preachthe in doc t r ine of t h c Vi c h v re g i m e .2H e to o k a d vantage hi s new l v of lbund fiee time to complete his medical studies, prophcticallv, in both a philosophic and political sense,C.rnguilhemreplacerl .feanCavaillis, the philosopher of mathematics - he had been callerl to the Sorbonne- at the [.lniversityol Strasbourg, rvhich relocated to Clernront-Ferrand in 1941, when Strasbourgrl,as annex edbl t h e R e i c h . H e p a rti c i p a te d i n r he fi rrmati r_rn ofan rmportant resistance group to rl hich he made available skills. his A ll in all, a life i n th c c c n tu rv , a s th e F re nchsay:l i ke so manl of his compatriots,Canguilhem's lifc vvas shaped the conjuncby ture of France'senduring institutions and the contingent evenrs ol his t im e. In 1943,Cangrrilhem defendedhis rledical rhesis,,,Essais sur <luelques probldmcs concernanr lc normal et le pathologique.,' The continued timeliness and exceptionaldurabilitl.ofthis u<rrli is attcsted to by the lact that he updated it t\!,entv years later rlith significant ncrv rc{lcctions, and that ir rvasrranslatedint<r English clecarleslater as lie Normal and the patholog;cal,t After thc rvar,he resumedhis posr lt rhe Llniversityof Strasbourg (in Strasbourg), hc remained until 1948. After lirst refusing 'r,herc the inlpoltrnt admini51r.11lys of inipccteur gdneral de phiport los ophieat t he L i b e ra ti o n , h e fi n a l l y a c c e p tcdi t i n 194g,and

servedunt il 1955, *'hen he accept edt hc Chair of Hist or v and P hi l osophyof Sciences t he Sor bonneand succeeded ast on at G Bachelard director of the Institut d'histoirc des sciences des as ct techni ques.I I is r eput at ion as a f er ociousexam iner livt 's on in Paristoday, as docs a deep rvell of affection for thc intellectual and institutional support he providcd over the decrdes.a History ond Philosophy of Science Louis Althusser paid Canguilhem a complinrent rvhen he comparcd him ( as r vell as Cavaillt s, 'Bachelar d, Julcs Vuillem in and ,\'lichel Fouc.rult)to an anthropologist who !oes jnto the field armed lvith "a scrupulousrespectfor the realitv ofrcal science."5 The compar ison r e"ealing if not r ; uit e an accur at c is descr ipt ion of Canguilhem'snlethod, More strictlv ethnographicstudies of l aborato r y lif e, like t hosc of Br uno Lat our , u'ould com e lat er and rvould aim not merely at corrccting a positivist and idealist underst anding scienceas a singJe of unif lcd act ivit r achievinga cumulative understanding nature, but also at dismantling the of verf idea ofscience - a position as far liom Canguilhcm'sas one could imagine. Nonetheless,Althusscr'sstatcment capturesthe mole, first initiatcd by' Bache]ard, anay from the static universal i sm th at t he Fr ench univer sit y svst emhad enshr ined in it s rationalistand idealistapproachcs science.For Bachclard, to phi, losophy'sne\4,role was to analyzethe historical developmentof trtrth-pr oducingpr acr iccs.The philosophv of science bccam e the study of regionalepistemologies, historical reflection on the the elaborati<rn oftheories and conceptsbv practicingscientisrs, chemists,pathologists, physicists, anatomists and so on. Thc aim \r'asnot to.rttack sciencc but to shor,tit in action in irs speciflcity and plrrralitv. Canguilhemis clear an<l aclrmantthat evcn though philosopirv had lost its sovcreigntvand its autonr)my,it still had important rl

th \ 1or k t o ac c o rrl p l i s hL tn l i l < e e ta s ko l th c sci cnti st,thc cpi ste. "the ordcr of conceptualprogmologist'sproblem is t() esrablish onlv rlitr thc fact and of rvhich thc prcscnt 'isible point of crrlmination."6 notion ofscicntjJic truth is thc provisional Truths arc fbund in the practiccsofscience; philosophyanalvzes ressthat is t he plur alit y o f th e s c tru th s , th e i r h i s to ri ci ty,and consequentl y u their provisionalitv, hile aflirming - not legislating, the oldcr as Frcnch philosophv of sciencesought to clo - their normativit)r. Epistcmology is a rigorous description of the proccssby which t r ut h is elabo ra te d ,n o t a l i s t o f fi n a l re s ul ts.A l thusser' s encomium takesfor granted ttrit sciencccxists and holds a privileged status,but Canguilhem,like FoucaultanclPicrre Bourdieu, never doubted this: "To take as onr"s object of inquirv norhing other than sources, invcntions,inlluenccs,priorities,sintultaneities, and successions at bottcrm ro fail to distinquish betu'cen sciencc is and ot her as p c c tso l c u l tu re ." l T h i s a s s u nrpti on Latour has c alled it t hc k e v s l mb o l o f F re n c hp h i l o s o phy and hi storv of sci t nc e - is t ht ' c o rn e rs t()n (o l th e rv h o l c a rc hi recturc ofthe house of r c as oninha b j te db r C a n g u i l h e m.iSc i c n c e,l or C angtri l hem,s i v " a dis c our s e e ri fj t' rli n .r d e l i m i te d s e c to r o f experi encc." e ci S ence is an explor.rtiorr norm ofrationality at uork. But just oftlre as lir m as r he b c l i e l i D s c i c n c ei s rh e b e l i e f i n i ts hi stori ci tv and its pluralitv. There arc only divt'rsescienccsat rvork at particular historica]moments:phvsics not biology; eighteenth-centurv is natural historv is not trventieth-centur.tgenetics. 'fhus, fbr Canguilhem, "thc historv of scicnceis the historv of an object - discourse that l'' a history and las a historv,rvhereas s c ienc cis t he s c i e n c eo Ia n o b .j c c tth a t i s n ota hi storv,that has no historv."lilSciencc,thrcrughits usc ofmethod, divirlcs nature int o objec t s . T h e s c o b j e c ts .rre s e c c tn d a rv, a sensc,but not in derivative;one coul<lsa\ that thel.arc both constructed and discovcred. The historr <rfscience pcrlbrnrs a similar sct of opera-

is ti ons on scient if ic olr jcct s.Thc obj( ct of hist or icaldiscour se " thc hist or icit v of scient if ic discour sc,in so m uch ns t hat history effectuatesa projcct guided bv its orvn intcrnal norms but travcrsedby accident s int er r upt ed bv cr iscs, t hat is t o sa1b1 moments ofjudgmcnt and truth."ll These trtrths are alwavscontestableand in proccss,as it were, but no less"real" on account of thei r cont ingencl. The hist or v of scit 'nceis not nat ur al history: it docs not identify the sciencewith thc scicntist, the scir enti stswit h t heir biogr aphies, sciences vit h t heir r esult r , nor or use. fhe epistemologthe resultsrvith their currcnt pedagogical bv ical and historical claims assumecl this notion of thc historv of sciencearc magisterialand run countcr to t'nuchol contemporarv doro in the social studics o[ 5cien(e. The texts gathcred i n thi s v olum e pr or ide t he cvidcnce f or Cr nguilhem 'sposit ion. and FrangoisDclaportc hasarrangedthem in a conccPttl,11 pedaand gogi c.rlf ashionu- it h such clar it - , t hat ic t ould bc lr t r ir less lni nappropr iar e o bur dcn t hem r vit h ext endedcont nr cnt ar v. t deed, thev pr ovide a kind of coht - r ent"boo) . , " r lhich, cxccpt l l br hi s seconddoct or al disser t at ion, rCanguilhemhim sell'never lor w rote; he pr eler r ed,af t er 1t ) 4l, t ht ' ess. r r m cr am m cd r vit h ! prcci se, alm ost aphor ist ic, sent eDcer ,t 'Danv r 'it h t he clensit v of krypt onit e. The Normal ond the Pathologicol a A l though Canguilhempublishedin t he lat e 1930s philosophiet caf treatise on ethics and epistemologv, froitd de lol1ique de lvc6e intcndedasan unconventional textbook fbr advanced morale, studcnts, thc *'ork fbr rvhich he is hest Lnotvn starts vvith lris medical thesisivhere he invcstigatcsthc verv tlefinition of thc a normal and t he pat hological. This nor k signalc<l nr aiorr ever sal t i n thi nk ing about hcalt h, Pr cviouslr ,m eclical r . r iningin Fr anct : ( lisease m alt unct ion \ 1t s under h.rd privilcged t he nor m al; or r5


stood as the dcviation from a fixed norm, which rvastaken to be clirectedtorvardestablishing scia constant.Medical practicc rvas entifically thesc norms and, practice fbllorving theory, torvard the norm l rom r et ur ning t he p a ti e n t to h e a l th , re e s ta b l i s hi ng rvhich the patient had strayed. As FrangoisDagognet,the philosopherof biologr',hascrisplv observed,Canguilhemlauncheda f'rontalattack on "that edifice to of normalization"so essential thc procedures a positivistsciof ence anrl medicine.1l He did so bv re-posingthe question of the organismas a Iiving being that is in no prcestablishe(l harmony with its environment.It is suffering,not normativemeasurements and standard deviations,that establishes stateoI disease. the Normativitv beginswith the living being, and with that being comes diversitv.Each patient rvhom a doctor treats presentsa different caseieachcasedisplavs or"n particularity. its One of Canguilhem's famousaphorismsdrives this point home: "An anomaly is not an abnor r nalit y .D i v e rs i tv d o e s n o t s i g n i fy s i c k ncss."W i th l i vi ng bc inqs ,nor nr al i tyi s a n a c ti v i tv .n o t a s te a < l s tate,The resul t, i f v one lbllor v sCa n g u i l h e m' s a s o n i n g , s th a t " a nunrbrr, even a re i constantnumber, translates stvle, habits,a civjlization, cven the a under ly ingv it a l i ty o f l i l ' e ." 1 1 h e re c e n t d i s coven rhat huntan T bodv tempcraturehasa much rvider rangeof normalitl than rras previouslyassumed demonstrates this point. Normalitv - and this is one of Canguilhem'sconstant themes - means the abilitr to adapt to changing circumstances,to variableand varying environments. Illness is a reduction to constants,the yerv norms bv rvhich we measureourselves normal, Normality equalsacti\'as ity and flexibility. Hence thcrc is no purely oblective pathology; rather, the basic unit is a living being that exists in shifting relations with a changingenvironment.Arguing for a clramatic reversal, Canguilhemmaintained that illnessultimatcly is defined bv the vcrv terms that had defincd health, namely stable norms,

unchang ing values. l5 e is not st asis, f ixed sct of nat ur alJau, s, Lif a set in advance and the samefbr all, to rvhich onc must adherein order to survive. Rather, life is action, mobility and pathos,the constantbut only partiallysucccssfirl effort to resistdeath, to use B i chat' sf am ousdef init ion: "Lif e is t hc collect ion of f inct ions th.rt resistdeath." Canguilhem's*-ork hasbeen a consistentand disciplined historical demonstration,a laving-outof the consequences, these of pri nci pl cs. Lil! has it s specif icit v:"Lif e, what evcrf br m it m ay rake,involves seltlpreservation meansof sclf-regulation."l6 by This specilicitv can - in lict, must- be elaboratcdperpetuallv,but it can never be evadcd.C. r nguilhem 's punct uat e,hist or ical essays are not a philosophvot lit e, like t hose of HansJonas M aur ice or i\lerleau-Pontv, rvhich scck to fix an understanding li[e rvith of a si ngl e s et of concept s. Rat her , C. r nquilhem 's ight ly r vr it t en t di d.rcti cl b r avs displavhor v t ht 'lif e sciences, includinq t he t hcr apeuti ci )ne1, havesir nult aneouslv elabor at ed concept s lile and of the waystheseconceptsmust be seenasan integratedpart o[the phenome non under st udv: lif e and it s nor m sl ''l Although he has been carelll ncit to turn these cxplorations i nto a pan cgvr icof vit alism ,Canguilhemdem onst r at eshc cont stant presenceof evaluative notions like "prescrvation,""regulation," "adaptation" and"normality," in both everydav scientific and approacheso liI e. "lt is lif e it sclf , and not m edical judgm ent , t that makesthe biological normala concept of valueand not a concepr ofsrarisricalreality."lt Humanity'sspecilicitv lies not in the fact that it is separate from thc rest of naturc but, rather, in the licr that it hascrcated svstematicknou,ledgeand tools to help it cope. This testing, parrying rvith pathologr., rhis active relation to the enyironment, this normative mobilitv and projective abilit!, humanitv'sconceptualcareer,is central to its health. "Bcing healthymeansbeing not onlv normal in a given situation but also

normativc in this and othcr evcntual situations.What characteriz es hc alt h is th c p o s s i b i l i ty o f tra n s c e n d i ngthe norm, rvhi ch dellnes the momentarv normal, thc possibility of tolerating infractionsof the habitual norm and instituting ncw norms in nerv t siruations."r8 ifc is an activitv that fbllorvsa norm. But hcalth is not heing nor m.rl ;h e a l th i s b e i n g n ,' rm a ti re betteen concepts In gcneral, reflectionson the relationships and Iif'e require clarification ofthe fact that at least trvo distinct First, there is life as fbrm, life as orders are bcing investigated. tlre "univcrsal organization of mattcr" (le vivantl, and second, tlrere is life as the experienceof a singular living being rvho is consciousof his or her lifc (1evLu). By "life" - in French - one could mcan either 1evivant,the presentparticiPleof the verb "to or livd' (r,n're), thc past participle ./erecu.Canguilhcmis unequivocal on this point: the first level o{ life, form, controls thc second, cxpcrience.Although it is only the first level, the powcr ancl dimensions life, rvhich constitutesthe explicit subof for-rn-giving ject mattcr of his u'ork, the presenceof the sccontl is fiequentlv For filt nonetheless.re all its declarativeclaritv, the claim of priof ority only thinly masksthe kecn a*areness suffcringand searchrvhich is the expericntial double, the ing - in a rvord, pathos i c ons t antc om p a n i o n , o f C a n g u i l h e m' s n s i stentconceP tual i sm. is alrva,rs close at hand for this phvsician Thc pathosof cxistence cum philosophercum pedagogue. In fact, a not-so-latentexistcntialism,albeit ol a distinctive conccption ofmedand idiosvncraticsort, shadows Canguilhem's earlv icine. ( )ne easilvhearsechocsof Sartreand Merleau-Pontv's themes,transposedto a diffcrcnt registerand played rvith a distincti'e llair. Canguilhem'svariantsof "to freedom condemncrl" in and "thc structurc ofcomportment" arc composecl a diflerent kev. His individual is condemnedto adaptto an environmcnt and affinto act using conccptsand tools that haveno preestablishec] r8

ities r" ith his surrotrndingu,orld. "Lif'e becomesa rvilv, supple intelligence of the rvorld, v'hile reason,for its part, cmergcsas somethingmorc vital: it finally develops logic that is more than a a mere logic ol identity."20Reason and life are intcrtu,incd, not opposed,but neither legislatcs thc othcr, A New U nderstonding of Life: Error

It hasbecome a commonplaceto saythat Canguilhem'srecognition bv an English-speak public, bcvond a fcrv specialistsin ing the history of thc lifc sciences,fbllorvs in the q'ake of the successofo ne of his f avor it est udent s and f iiends,M ichcl Foucault . While not exactlv false,such an appreciationremainsinsuflicient unless rve also ask rvhat it rvas in Canguilhem'slvork u'hich so intercstcd Foucault. And, even further, are these problems the panguilhem'srvork, it most pertinent lor an American auclience? is rvorth underlining, is relevantfirr diversert'asols.The qucstion to be askedthen is, Why read him todav?Thc ansrverlics partiallv in anothcr frequent commonplace.Canguilhem's predecessor, Bachelard,inventeda method fbr a ne*.historv of the "hard sci ences"of chem ist r v, phvsicsand m at hem at ics;his st udent , Foucault,worked on the "dubious sciences" Man; Canguilhem ol hi msel f h asspcnt his lif c t r acing t he linim ent sof a hist or y of t he conceptsofthe sciences life. l-et us suggest of that today it is thc biosciences- rvith a rencrvcd claboration of such conccpts of norms and life, dcath and information - that hold center stage in the scientific and social arena;hcncc the rencrvctirclcvance ol GeorgesCanguilhem. In his 1966essay "Le Concept et la vie," Canguilhemanalvzecl the contemporaryrevolution under rvavin geneticsanclmolecular biologv. The essay, historical tour de lbrce, traces the cona cept of lilc as form (and cxperience)as rvell as knorvleclge that of [or-n, fiom Aristotle to thc present. Canguilhemdemonstrates the

and the discontinuitv of ansllcrs continuitv of problematiTation in t he his t or y o fth c c o n c e p t o fl i fe . T h i s h i stori calreconstrucofour contemporary tion providesthe groundrvorkfor an analvsis conceptualizationof life, Canguilhem framcsJamesD, Watson and FrancisCrick's discovervof the structureof the double helix as an information svstemrone in which the codc and the (cellular) milir:u arc in constant interaction. There is no simple, unidirectional causalrelation between genetic infbrmation and its oflifc Iies not in the structuring The ne* understanding ef'fccts. of matter and the regulation of functions, but in a shift of scale and location - fiom mechanicsto infbrmation and communicaoflife In the tion theory.2r an important sense, new understanding as information rejoins Aristotle insofaras it posits life as a logos "inscribed, converted and transmitted" u,ithin living matter.22 Hou,evcr,rve havecome a long way since Aristotle. Thc telos of lifc most commonly proposedtoday is more an ethological one, s eeing behav i o r a s d e te rm i n e d a n d h u mans more as ani mal s, a than a contemplative one that assigns special place to reflecof tion and uncertainty.From sociobiologiststo manv advocates the Human Genomc Project, the code is the central dogma. is Canguilhemrejectsthis telos.lf homosapiens as tightll pro(or many molecularbiologists)think, grammedasthe ethologists then hot', Canguilhcm asks,can rve explain error, the history of errors and thr: history of our victories over error? Genetic crrors are nou'understood as informational errors. Among such errors, hou'ever,a large number arise from a maladaption to a milieu. Oncc again hc rcintroduces the theme of normality as situated ac t ion, not a s a p rc g i v c n c o n d i ti o n . Ma n ki nd makes mi stakes uhen it placesitself in the rvrong place, in the rvrong relationship rvith the environment, in the vvrong place to receive the infbrmationneededto survive,to act, to flourish,We must move, crr, adapt to sunive. This condition of "crring or drifting" is not

merely accidental or external to life but its Iundamentallorm. of Knou.ledge,following this understanding life, is "an anxious r;uest" (une recherche inquiite) fcrr thc right infbrmation. That information is only partially to be fbund in the genes.Whv and how the genetic code is activated and functions, and what the resultsare,are questions that can bc adequatcly posedor anslvered onlv in the context ol life, le vivant,andcx perience,1eldcu, Conclusion dedicated to Canguilhem,"La Vic, Michel Foucault, in an essay a I' exp6ri enceet la science, " char act er ized division in Fr cnch u'hich emphasize thought betu.eensubject-oriented approaches, meaning and experience,and those philosophiesllhich take as their object knorvledge,rationality and concepts.2lThe rhetoriWhile everyonehad heardof Sartreand cal efl'ect*,as marvelous. had Merleau-Ponty, f'ewpeople bevonda small circle of spccialists on actuallv read the u,ork of Cavaillds the philosophyof set thcorv in mathematicsor Canguilhem on the historv of the reflex arc.li The irony rvasmade more tantalizing by al)usionsto the unflinching and high-stakes activitiesin thc resistance one side of of the pair (Cavailldswas killcd by the Nazis after forming the rcsi stance wor k t hat Canguilhem. joined) ,while t he ot her s net livecl in Paris, n'riting pamphlets. Foucault u'as rcvealing to us a hi dden r elat ionshipof t r ut h and polit ics, indicat ing anot hcr type of intellectual, one lbr whom totality and authenticitv bore different forms and norms. Hou,ever,there is a ccrtain insi(ler's humor involved;twenty vearsearlier,Canguilhemhad employcd the samcdistinctions,applvingthem to Cavaillisduring the 1930s lhile mocking thosc who deduced that a philosophv u'ithout a subject must lead to passivityand inaction. Cavaillis, u'ho had madc thc philosophicjour ncv t o G cr m anydur ing t he 1930s and *.arnedearlvon ofthe dangers brervingthcrc, did not, Canguilhem

tells us, hesitateu-hen the rvar finallv camc.2tRather than lr.riting a nroral trcarisc to ground his actions, he .joincd thc rcsistance \vhile finishing his rvork on logic as best he could_ Truth and polit ic s w c re d i s ti n c t d o m a i n sfb r th e sethi nkersofthc conc c pt ; or ) c $ a s e th i c a l l r o b l i q e d ro n c t i n br)th dorraj ns u,hj l c ncver losing sight of rhe specificity of cach. Cavaillds's examplc of rigorousthought and principlcd action, while still compclling todav (espccirllygiventhc misunderstanding moralizingabout and French thought rampant acrossthe Rhine, thc Channel and the A t lant ic ) , r i o u l d s e e mro d e n ra n da re n ervcd conceptual i zati on. The riseand cphenreral glory of structuralism and Althusserianism havesho'r'n rhat rcnror.ing th< humanisrsubject in rhc social sci, cncesby itself guaranteos ncithcr an epistemoJogical jump from ideologv to sciencenor more elfictive political action (anv more t hnn r eins e rti n g q u a s i -tra n s c e n d c n ta l bj ectrvi l l provi de such a su guarantees). While Canguilhem'svrork enablesone to think and r f t hink s uc h p ro b l e ms , i t o b v i o u s l y d o cs not ofl i ,r an,-readr_ madeans.wers the ftrture.Dcplovingreadvmade lbr solutionsfronr the past, r,hen historl hasnrovcdon, conceptschanged,milieus alt c r ed, r v o u l d , C a n g u i l h e m h a s ta u g h t u s, c()nstj tutea mai or crror - an crror nratchecl its gral ity onlv bv thosc sceking to in annul his t or v .b l u r c o n c c p tsa n d h o mo g e ni ze envi ronmenrs, v_ Li ing beingsarc capablcof correctingrheir errors,and Canguilhem.s u ork oflirs us tools to begin, once agar'n, process the ofdoing so.



M e th o d o l o g y

CHapr r n The Hist or y

C) Ne of Science

The Object of Historical


of [1 ] W he n one speaks t he "science of cr vst als, "t he r elat ion bctwccn scienceand crystals not a genitive,asvvhen one speaks is is of the "mother of a kitten." The scienceof cr,vstals a discourse on the nature ofcrystal, the nature ofcrvstal being nothing other than its identity: a mincral asopposcdto an animal or vegetable, and independcntof an,r'use u,hich one may put it. When crvsto talJography, crystaloptics and inorganicchemistrvare constituted as sciences,the "nature of crvstal" just is thc contcnt of the scienceofcrystals,bv which I meanan objectivediscourse consisting ofcertain propositionsthat ariseout ofa particularLind oIrvork. That w or k, t he r vor k of science,includes t he f br m ulat ion and testing ofhypotheses,which, once tested, are forgotten in favor of their rcsults. When H6ldne Metzger wrote Ld Genisc la scicnce ctistaux, des de she composeda discourscabout discourscs thc nature of crvson tal.l But thesediscourses u.crc not originallv the sameas rvhat u,e nou'takc to bc the correct discourse about crystals, thc discourse that defines rvhat "crvstals" are as an object of science. Thus, the historv of sciencc is the history of an object - discourscthat ir a historv and fiosa historv, rlhereasscienceis the science 2t

hisrorv,that hasno historv' ol'an objecr rhit is rt()t.r " c rv s ta l " i s a g i v e n . Ev c n i f th e s ci enceofcrystal s T he objc c t must take the historr',r1the earth and the historv of mincrals into " ac c ount ,t hat his to n ' s ti n re i s i ts e l fa g i v e n . Becausecrvstal " i s of in somc scnseindcpenrJcnt thc scientific discourscthat seeks to obtain knou ledge atrout it, we call it a "natural" object.2 Of course, this natural object, cxternal to discourse,is not a sciento tilic oblcct. Naturc is not t1iven us asa set ofdiscrcte scientific constitutcsits obiects bv inventobjccts and phcnomena.l.Science i ng a m et hod of fo rm u l a ti n g , th ro u g h p ro p o s i ti onscapabl eof being combined intcgrallv.i theory controlled by a concern rvith \'\,as constitutcd as soon as proving itself * rong, Crystallography the crystallinespeciescould I'e defined in tcrms of constancyof fice anglcs,srstemsol symmetrr. and regular truncation ofvcrti c es . " T he es s rn ti a lp o i n t," R e n (' J u s tH a i i v \\,ri tcs," i s that the theon and cnstalliTationrrltinratclrcome togetherand find coml m on gr or r nd. " T hc objc c t of th e h i s to rv o f s c i c n c c h a sn o thi ng i n contmon $it h t he objec t o fs c i c n c r.' [h e s c i e n ti fi co b j cct, consti tutedbv is from, mcthodicalrliscourse. secondaqto, althoughnot clerived the init ial nat ur a lo b j e c t, rv h i c h mi g h t rv e l l b e cal l ed(i n a dcl i bcratc plal on lr.or<ls) pre-text. The historr,ofscicnce applies tlre itself to these sec.rndary. nonnatural, cultural objectsl but it is not derived liom them dny more than thcv are derived fiom natural objects. The object oI historical discourscis, in ef]ect, the historicitv ol scientific cliscourse. "historicitv ofscientiflc disBv course" I mean the progress ofthe discursive project asmeasurcd againstits orvn intcrnal norm. 'lhis progrcss ma\i moreover,meet rvith accidents,be delavedor diverted bv obstacles, be intcror rupt ed by c r is c s ,th a t i s , l n o mc n tso fj trd g mc n t and truth. T he his t or v o l s c i c n c c w .ts b o rn a s a l i tc r art' genre i n the eight c c nt h c ent u rv . I l i n d th a t i n s u ffi c i e n t a t tenti on has bcen

pai<J a significant f;ct about tht' crnt'rgcnceol this genre: it to re<luired ferverthan two scientific.rnd trvo philosophicalrevno ol uti onsas it s pr ccondit ions. ncscient ilic r evolut ionc. r ccur r ed C) in mathematics,in rvhich Descartes's analltic geornetrvrvaslollorved bv the infinitesimal calculusof Leibniz an(l Ne\vton; the secondrevolution, in mechanics and cosmology,is svmbolizedby Descartes'sPrinciples Philosoplr.y Newton's Principia- ln phiol and losophy,and, more precisely,in the theorv of knovr'ledge, that is, the foundationsofscience, Cartesianinnatism was one revolution and Lockeian sensualismthe other. Without Descartes, rvithout a rending oftradition, there $,ould be no history ofscience. IEtudes, pp. 16-17] [2] W as Ber nar d I - e Bouvicr f ont encllt m ist akt 'n uhcn hc looked to Descartesfbr justification of a cerrain philosophv of the hi story of science? om t he denial t hat aut hor it v holds anv Fr val i di tl i n s ciencc,Font encller casoncr l, lbllons t hat t hc conir di ti or.,,ftl u t h , r r esubjectt o hist or ic. r ch, r ngr .But d, , e, ir r h"l l , make sens ct o pr oposea hist or icist r e. r dinq a t ir ndam ent ally of antihistoricistphilosophy?lf rve hold that rruth cornesonlv liom the evi den ceand t he I ight of nat ur e,t hen t r ut h, it u'cr uld seem , hasno historical dimcnsion, and scitncc cxists rub spccre oercrnr(hcncc t hc Car t esian fdfi .r . philosophyis. r nr ihist or icist ) Bur per haps Fontcnelle deser ves edit f or not icing nn im por t ant but cr negl ectedaspect of t he Car t t 'sianr cvolut ion: Car t csiandoubt refused to comment on prior claims to knowlcdgc. lt not only rejected the legacvofancient and medicval physicsbut erected nclv norms of truth in place of the old. Hence, it renclered all previotrsscicncc obsoleteanclconsignedit to the surpassed past ddpass{. Fontenellethus rcalizcdthat rvhcn Cartesian phi, lle passd losophv killed tradition - that is, the unrellective continuitv of past and present- it provided at the sametime r rational lbund.rtion fbr a possiblehistorv, fbr an emergentconsciousness that

the cvolution ol humankindhasmeaning lfthe past$.ls no longer judgc of t he p re s c n t.i t u a s , i n th e fu l l s e nseof thc I' ord, rvi rit, nessto a movelncnt tnar rranscended that dethroned the past in favor of the prescnt.As Fontcnelle rvaswell aware,before the Moderns could speakabout thc Ancients, even to praise thcm, p. thev had to take their distance.IEtudcs, 55] however,knowlcdge hasno hisAccording to Desc.rrtes, [3] torv. It took Newton, and the refutation ofCartesiancosmology, fdr histon - that is, the ingratitudeinherent in the claim to begin as anervin repudiation of all orlgins - to aPPear a dimension of s.i"ncei Th" historv of scienceis the explicit, theoretical recogdisnition ofthe fact that the scicncesare critical, progressive of fbr courses determiningwhat aspects cxperienccmust be taken as r c al. T he o b j c c t o fth c h i s to tt o fs c i e n ce i s thereforea nonis given,an object wlrosc incomplcteness tssential.ln no rvaycan t he his t or v o l s c i e n c e b e th e n a tu ra lh i s to rv ofa cul tural obj ect. it All too oftcn. horvever, is practiccclas though it uerc a lbrm and scicntists of naturalhistorl',contlatingscienccrvith scientists or bicrgraphics, else conflating sciu'ith their civil and ac.rdentic encc rvith its results.rndrcsultsu ith the fbrm in *'hich they hapat fbr pcn to be expressed pcdagogical PurPoses a particularpoint p in t im e. I E t u d e r, p . l 7 -1 8 ] The Constitution of Historical Discourse [ 4] T he his to ri a n o f s c i e n c e h a s n o c h oi ce but to defi ne hi s object. lt is his decision alone that determines thc interest and importance of his subject mrtter. This is essentiallvalrvavsthe case,evcn rvhen the historian'sdecision rcflccts nothing more t han an unc ri ti c a l rc s p e c tfo r tta d i ti o n . T ak e, f o r e x a m p l e , th c a p p l j c n ti o n of probabi l i tv to ni neThe subj ect does t c ent h- c en tu rv b i o )o g y a n d s o c i a l s c i e n ce.a o not f all *it hi n th e b o u n d a ri e s fa n l r-' fth e ni D etccnthcentur)' s

t nraturesciencest cor r espondso no nat ur alobject , hence it s it study cannot fall back on rrrercdcscription or reproduction. 1'he historianhimself nrust createhis subject mattcr, startingfrom the at current stateof the biologic.rl.rndsocialsciences a given point nor t he i n ti me , a st at e t hat is neit her t he logical con5cquence historicalculmination of any prior stnteof a dcvelopedsciencenot o[ thc mathematicso[ Pierre-SimonLaplaceor the biologv ofCharles Darwin, the psychophvsics GustavFechner,the cthof nologv of Frederick Taylor or the sociologvof Emile Durkheim. Note, moreover,that Adolphe Qu!teJet, FrancisGalton,.lames Sir McKeon Catell and Alfred Binct coul(l develop biometrics and onlv after variousnonscientiflc practiceshad propsvchometrics vided raw materialsuitablefbr mathem.rtical treatment.Qu!telet, fbr example,studieddataabout hrrmansize;the collection ofsuch a data presupposes certain tvpc ol institution, namelv,a national armv whose r anks ar c t o be lilled bv conscr ipt ion. hence an f i D tcrc stin t he st andar dsor select ilg r ccr uit s. llinet 's st uclyof i ntel l ect ual apt it udes pr esupposcs anot her t ) pe of inst it ut ion, compulsor v pr im ar v educat ior r ,an( l a concom it nnt int er est in Thus,lin order to study the particular measuringbackwardness. aspectof the history of scienccdeflneclabove,one must look not only at a number of differcnt scicncesbearingno intrinsic rclati on to one anot herbut alsoat "nonscience, "t hat is, at ideologv and political and social praxisJOur subject, then, hasno natural theoreticallocus in one or anotherofthe sciences, more than any it hasa natural locus in politics or pedagogv. thcorctical locus lts must be soughtin t he hist or yof science it self anclnowher eelse, fbr it is this historv and onlv this histor\,that constitutesthe spccific domain in w-hichthc thcoretical issues posed by the rlevelopment of scient if ic pr act icc f lnd t heir r esolut ion. 5Q udt elet , (i regor M endel, Binet and Th6odor t 'Sim onest al>lished and neu, unfore seenr clat ions bet ween m at henr at icsand pr act ices t hat

\\.ereoriginall! nonscicntilic, such asselection,hvbridizationand tcr or ient at ion . T h e i r d i s c o v e ri c sw e re a n s \1crs questi onsthev they had to fbrge for thcmselres. askedthcnrsel'esin a language is and thosc ansrvers thc proper studv of those <luestions , Critical I object of thc historv of science.Should anvonevvishto suggest t hat t he c on c c p t o [ h i s to rv p ro p o s e dh e rc i s " external i st," the shoultl suffice to disposeoIthc objection. firregoingtliscussion l-hc history of science can of course accommodate various kinds of objects rvithin the specific theoretical domain that it documents to bc classilied,instru' constitutes:tlrerc are alrvavs ments and techniquesto be dcscribed,methods and questionsto and criticized. Only be interprcted, and conccpts to be analvzed t he las t of t h e s e ta s k sc o n l e rs th e d i g n i ty of hi storv of sci enct' upon t he oth e rs . It i s e a s vto b e i ro n i c a bout thc i mportanc< : at t ac hed t o c o n c e p ts , b u t m o re d i ffi c u l t to understand rvhv, u it hout c on c e p ts ,th e rc i s n o s c i e n c e .T h e hi storv of sci encei s ' int er es r ed , s a r,th e h i s to rvo l i n s tm m e n tsor ol ' academi es r in onl ins of ar as t h c y a re re l a te d , i r b o th th e i r uscsanclthei r i ntcntions, to theories. Descartes needed David Ferrier to grind optical glass,but it rvashe rvho provided the theorv of the curvesto be obtained lrr srinding. A his t or y o l re s u l tsc a n n e re r L re n y th i ngmore than a chron' a iclc. The historv of scienceconcernsan ariological activin'. the scarchfor truth. This axiologicalactivity appears only at the Ievel of ques t ions , m e th o d sa n d c o n c e p ts ,b u t norvhereel se. H cnce, t im e in t he h i s to rv o fs c i e n c t' i s n o t th e ti me o[cvcryday l i fe. A chronicle of inventionsor discovcrics can be peliodizcd in the lame wiv as ordinary historv.The datesoI birrh and death listcd in scicntific biographics datesfiom thc ordinarv calendar, are but the aclvent truth fbllowsa dif]irent timetablein eachdiscipline; of t he c hr onol u q r o l rtri l i ,..rti o tr l ra r i ts o ,tn \i \(oj i t\, i ncompJtible rvith onlinarv historv.Dmitrv Mendelevev's pcriodic tablc of

the clt'ments acceleratecl pacc ol progress chcnristrv,antl the in u'hile ot hcr scieventually led t o an upheaval at or nic physics, in enccsm aint ained a m or e m easur edpace. Thus, t he hist or v of science,a historv of the rclation of intelligence to ttuth, gcneratcs its own senseof time. Just how it does this dcpcn<ls horv on tht' progressof scicnce permits this history to reconstitute thc theoretic.rldiscotrrseoI the past. A ne.r c]iscovcrlnrar rrakc it possibleto unclerstand discoursethat waj not untlerstoodrvhen a it was first enunciated,such as Mcndel's thcory of hereditv, or i t may dem olish t hcor ies once consider edaut hor it at ivc. ( Jnlv contnc t wit h r ecent scicncccan give t he hist or iana sense hisof tori cal r upt ur e and cont inuit r . Such cont act is t : st ablished, as Gaston Bachelar dt aught , t hr ough cpist em ology,so long as it remai nsvigilant . Thc history of scicncc is therefbreahavs in flux. It must corrcct itself constanth.'Ihe relation betrveenAichimcrles'method ol erhaust ion and m oder n calculus is not t he sam e lbl t odav's m.lthcmatician it u as for JeanEtienneMontucl.r,the firit great .rs hi storianof m at hem at ics.I - hisis lr ecausc def init ion ol m at hno ematicswas possible belore thcre rvasmathematics, that is, belorc mathematicshad b,.-en constituted through a serieso1 rliscoveries antl decisions. "Nlatht'maticsis a devclopmental proct,ss lun do'cnir]," saidJeanC.rvaillis. lhe historianoI mathem.rtics rnu\t take his provisional dcfinition of$'hat m.lthematics fiom contempois rarv mathematicjans.Manv rvorksonce releyantto nlathematics in an earlicr pcriod Draytherefbrecraseto be relcvantin historical pfrsp('ctive;fiom a ne$lv rigorousstandpoint,previouslr important works nr.rr'lrecomctrivi.rl .rpplications.IFruJcr,pp. I8-20] Rccursion ond R uptu res such a closc connect ionbct u, eer r epist em ol[5] In est ablishing ,rgv and t hc hist or r ol'scit 'nce I am , of cour se,clr r r vingon t hc


6 inspirational teachingso[ Gaston Bachelard The fundamental epistcmologvarc bv no\4'*'ell knort n' so conceptsof Bachclard's and diswell knou'n, perhaps,that thev havebeen disseminated sanioutside France,in a vulgarized,not to saY especially cussed, fbrct'ol the original- Among tized, lbmr, devoid of the pc-,lemical t hem a re th e n o ti o n s o f n e w s c i e nti fi c spi ri t, epi stemol ogi cal obstac)e,epistemologicalbrcak lrupture),and obsolete or "oflic ial" s c i e n c e . ' . To my mind, the best summarv of Bachelard'sresearchand of teachingcan be lirund in the concluding pages his last episterationnel.l I{erc the notion ot mologicaf work, Le Mati alisme is discontittuity in scientific pro-qress supported epistemologica) the history and teaching of science in by argumcnts based on concludcs with this statement: the twentieth century. Bachelard scienceis basedtrn the searchfor true lviritablel "Contemporarr facts and the synthesisoftruthful lvd digue) larvs'" Bv "truthd lul" B a c h e l a rd o c s n o t me a n th a t sci enti fi c l arvssi mpl v tel l a tiuth pcnnanently inscribed in objects or intcllect. Truth is simHorv,then, do rve recognizethat a statepl} \\'hat sciencespeaks, nrent is scientific? By the fact that scicntiIic truth neversPrings fully blorvn from the head ofits creator' A scicncc is a discourse qoue rn e db y c ri ti c a l c o rre c ti o n . If thi s di scoursehasa hi storv *hose course the historian believeshe can reconstruct, it is bemust reacmeaningthe cPistemologist causcit i.ra historr r,rhose a tivate. "Everv historianof scicncc is necessarily historiograPher of truth, The eventsof sciencc arc linked togethcr in a steadilv truth. . . . At variousmoments in the historv of thought, gr<-,rving thc past of thought and expcriencecan be scen in a neu' light'"8 Guided br this ne\1light, thc historianshould not make tlre error of thinking that persistcntuse o[ a particular term indicatesan al ir v ari a n ru n d c rl y i n gc o n c e P t,o r that persi stent l usi onto si mi c lar cx p c ri m c n ta l o b s e rv a ti o n s o n notesai l i ni ti es ofnl ethod or t?

approach,Br-observingthcsc rules hc rvill avoid the error of, fbr instance, seeingPierreLouis Moreaude Maupertuisasa prcm;rture transfornristor geneticist,"[/dcologrond Rationalit.r, l0-12] pp. When Bachelard speaks ofa nom or value,it is bccausc in [6] thi nkj ng ol his f ) vor it e science, at hem at ical m phvsics, ider t ihe fies theorv with mathemati< I Iis rationalismis built on a lrames. rvork of m at hem at ism . I n nr at hem at icsone speaksnot ol t hc " normal " but ol r hc "nor m ed. " ln cont r asrt o or t hodox logical posi ti vi st s,Bachelar d holds t hat m at hem at ics hasepist em ologica] content , nhet her act ual or pot ent ill. and t hat plogr essin mathematicsadds to that content. On this point he agrccsrvith r",hosc critique of logical positjvismltJs lost norhJeanCavaiJlts. ing ofits vigor or rigor. Cav.rillis refutesRudolph Carnapbv shorvi ng that "m at hem at icalr easoning int er nallvcoher entin a lav is that cannot be rushecl.lr is by nature progt'ess ivc." r) As to thc natureoft his pr ogr ess, concludcs, he (Jneof rlrc lundamental problems ith the docrrincol scicnccis r,r prcciscllthat proglcss in no waycomparablc increasinggivcn is to a lolumc br adding smaliaddition.ri I .rmounr whari\ nlrea(lr rrr rhere, the old subsisting rvith tlre nerr'. Rather, ir perpetual it revision, in u hichsonre rhings eliminrtetl others ar.e rnd chboratrd. \\rhar corrrcs rlrer is greatcr thanr,r'hat r,r,cnt bclbrc,nor bccause prescnr the containsor supcrsedcs pastIrut bccausc onc ncccss.rrily thc thc cmcrges liom the otherandin its c()ntent cnrries nrrrk o1its suprri()rity, the rvhi ch in cach is case uniqut . ll Ncvcrtheless, the use of cpistemologicairecursionas a historical method i s not univer sallv valid. I t best f it s t he disciplincsf ir r t hc study ol rvhich it r vasor iginallvdcvcloped:m at hcm at icalphvs_ ics and nuclcar chemistr\'.C)fcourse.therc is no reasonrvhv onc r ann,,l rrr r dr a p, r r t icr r l, r r lrr dr an<. . ,.1 , ,i. r lt r anr l t lt . 1r < tl . r hst . r .t r



rules for the production ofknowledge l'hich may, with caution, be extrapolatedto other disciplines. In this scnse,the method so Yet it cancannot be generalized much as it can be broadened. not bc extended to other areas the history of sciencewithout of a good deal of reflection about the specific nature of the areato be studied. Considcr, fbr cxample, eighteenth-century natural history. Before applving Bachelardian norms and proceduresto the study of this subject, one must ask when a conceptualcleavage12 occurrcd whose effectswere asrevolutionaryas were those of t he int r o d u c ti o n o f re l a ti v i ty a n d q u antum mechani csi nto physics. Such a cleavage barelvperceptiblein the early Danvinis ian vears,ll and, to the extent that it is visible at all, it is only as a r es ult o f s u b s e q u e n tc a ta c l y s ms :th e ri se ofgeneti cs and molccu lar biology Hence, the recurrenccmcthod must be usedjudiciously,and u,e must learn more about the nature of epistemologicalbreaks. Ofien, the historian in searchof a major watershedis tempted to follorv Kant in assumingthat science begins w,ith a flash of insight, a rvork ofgenius. Frequently the effectsofthat flash are saidto be all-embracing, aflectingthe whole of a scientist's *.ork. But the reality is different. Evenwithin one man'su'ork $'e often fincla sericsof fundamental partial insightsrather than a single or dramatic break. A theory is r.r'oven many strands,some of which of mav be quite new rvhile others are borrorvedfiom older fabrics. The Copernicanand Galileanrevolutionsdid not sweepawaytradition in one fell srvoop.Alexandre Koyre has located what he considersto bc the decisive"mutation" in Galileo's work, the dec is iv e c ha n g e i n th i n k i n g th a t ma d e h i m unabl e ro accept medieval mechanicsand astronomy.raFor Koyr6, the elevation of mathematics- arithmetic and geometry - to the statusof key t o int elligib i l i tv i n p h y s i c si n d i c a te d a re jecti on of A ri stotl e i n favor of Plato. Koyr6'sargument is sufliciently r+ell knorvn that I

it need not discuss in detail. But in painting a quite accuratepicture of Galileo as an Archimcdeanas much as a Platonist, is not Koyr6 abusingthe fieedom of the recurrencemethod?rsAnd is he not somewhat overstatingthe casein sayingthat the change in Galileo's thinking marked a total repudiation of Aristotelianism? Is not Ludovico Geymonat right to point out that Koyr6's from Aristoteinterpretation neglectsall that Galileo preserued lian tradition even ashe was proposingthat mathematicsbe used Thus, Koyr6 is him self challengedon the very to bolster logic?16 poi nt on which he challengedPier r e l) uhem when he wr ot e, "The apparentcontinuity in the developmentoIphysics fiom the Caverni Middle Ages to the prescnt [a continuitv that Jean-Paul is have so assiduously stressed] illuand Pierre Maurice Duhem sory.... No matter how well the groundrvorkhasbeen laid, a rcvpp. l3-15] ond Rationalitr, olution is still a revolution."rT lldeologr Science ond Scientific Ideologies Whot is scientificideology? [7] Scientific ideology, unlikc a political classideology, is not Nor is it falsc science.l-he essenccof filse lalse consciousness. neverrenounces anYlalsehood, scienceis that it neverencounters thing, and never has to change its languagc,For a lhlse sciencc there is no prescientific state. The asscrtionsof a falsc science can ncve r be f alsif ied. Hence, f alse sciencehas no hist or v. Bv contrast,a scientific ideologydoeshavea historv.A scicntific ideologv comes to an end when thc place that it occupied in the encyclopedia knou4edge taken over by a disciplinethat operof is ationallv demonstrates the validitv of its own claim to scientific status,its ou'n "norms of scientificity." At that point, a ccrtain lorm ofnonscience is cxcluded fiom the domain ofscience. I sa! "nonscience" rathcr than use BogdanSuchodolski'sterm "anti-

It \

scicnce" simplv in ordcr to take note of the fact that,\n a scicnt if ic idc olo g y , th e rc i s a n e x p l i c i t a m b iti on to be sci ence. i n c im it at ion o f s o m r a l re a c l v o n s ti tu te drrodel ofu,hat sci encei s.l T hjs is a c ru c i a l p o i n t. T h e e x i s te n c eol sci enti fi c i deo)ogi es implics the par.rlleland prior existenceoI scientillc discourses. th Henc c , it a l s o p te s u p p o s e s a t a d i s ti n cri on has al rcadl bccn s m ade bc t v v e c n c i e n c e n d rc l i g i o n . a Cons ide r th c c a s c o f a to mi s m. D e m ocri tus, E pi curus and Lucrctius claimerl scientific statusfor thcir physicsand psychologv.To the anriscience ofreligion they oppost'dthe antireligionof science.Scierrtificideologvneglectsthe nrethodoiogicai requirem c nt s and o p e ra ti o n a lp o s s i b i l i ti e so f s ci encei n thar real m of cxperienceit chooses cxplorc; btrt it is not therebv ignorance, to and it cloes not scorn or repudiatcthe firnction ofscience. Hence, scicntiflc idcologr is by no meansthe samething assupcrsrition, fbr ideologvhasits place,possiblyusurperl, the realm ol knorvlin t ' r lgc .not in th e re a l m o l ' re l i g i o u sb e l i c l . N or i s i t supersri ti on in t he s t r ic t e t1 ' mo l o g i c as e n s c .A s u p c rsti ti oni s a bel i ef from l an olc l r eligi o n th a t p c rs i s ts e s p i tei ts p rohi bi ti on by a ncu rcl i d gion. Scientific ideologvdocs indccd standover fsuperrtorel sitc a t hat u' ill ev e n tu a l l vb e o c c u p i c d b ,vs c i c nce.B ut sci encei s not merelv ovcrlain;it is pushedasidefdcporrore] idcology.Therebv lc,re,lr.hensciencecrt'ntuallv supplanrsideologv, it is not in the sitc expecte<1. and Rationalit.r, 32-31) pp. lldeolog.v Ilow scientiJic idcologies disappearand appear [8] For another, I hope convincing,exampleof the u'av in ll.hich scientific ideologies supplanted science, are bv consicler thc Nlcndc lian t heory o f h c rc d i tv .Mo s r h i s ro ri rn so f bi ol ogv bel i everhat Nlnupertuis lvasrhe folerunnerol modcrn gcneticsbecause his in Vdnus phvsique considercd thc mcchanismsbv r,,,hichnormal he and abnormal traits are transmittecl.l-{calso uscd thc calculusof 36

probabilit ies t o decide u'het hcr t he lr equencv ol a par t icular abnormalitv rvithin a particular lamilv rva,i $as not fbrtuitous, or t and exp laincdhvbr idizat ionbl assum ing hc cxist enceof scm inal atoms. her eclit ar v clcm ent s t hat com bined dur ing copulaand tion. But it is enough to conlparc the writin(s crfl\'laupertuis It4endelto see thc magnitudc oI the gap betu'ccn a scienccand the ideologv that it replaccs. fhe f:actsthat Mcnclel studics are not thoscglcanedbv a casual thcv are obl ained through obsen,er; (lictatedby thc nature of Mendcl's systematic research rescarch problcm, lbr *"hich thcre is no precedcnt in the pre-trlendelian iiteraturc. lUcndel invented the icleaof a ch.tructet, rvhich he bv me.rnt not thc clementar\'.r!lcnt of hereditarl transmissionbut thc element ofhcrcditv itself. A Mcndelianchar.rcccr coulclenter into cornbination rvith n other characters,anclone could measure thc licquencv of it s appear ance successive in gencr at ions. Mcnrlel rras not intcreste(lin stmcturc, fertilization or (levelopment. For hinr . hvbr idizat ion\ r 'asnot a wal ol cst ablishing hr t constancv inconst ancv a glcr bal vpe; it u'ls a *ay of dccom ol t or analysis, tool fbr separating a charposing.rtvpe, an instrumcntr-rt Hencc, actersthat madc it necessarl'towork \\'ith largesamples. Mcndcl rvasinterestcdin hvbridsdespitchis repudi.rtion an ageol ol d trad it ion ol hybr id r csear ch. $as not int er est ed scxualHe in itv or in thc controversv ovcr innate versus acquiredtraits or ovcr prtfirrmation versuscpigenelis. He rvasinrerestedonlr in verihi ng fi i s h r pot hesisvia t he calculat ionol com bin. r t ions. rM enclel 8 ncglectecl eventhing that interested thosc *ho in rtalitv rverenot his predecessors all. The seventeenth-centurv idcologvofheredat itarv transmission repleteu ith obscn'ations animal and plant is of hl bri ds and m onst cr s.Suchcur iosit v scr vcdsever nl poses. t I pur supported one side or thc other in the dcbatcsl.lt'trveen prcfirr nrari on ir t s and epigenesist s, ovist sanr lanim alculist s. a r esult , As it rr,asusefil in rcsolving lc-gal questionsconccrning the suborl7


dination ofthe sc.\-es, paternitv, the puritl ofbloodlines and the legitimacy ofthe aristocracy. fhese concernswere not unrelated to thc controversvbetween innatism and sensualism. The techperfected by agronomistsin search nology of hvbridization r,vas varieties, well as by botanistsinterestedin the as of advantageous relations betrveenspecies.On)y by isolating Maupertuis's [dnus lrom its context can that work be compared with the phvsique Versuche iber Pllanzenhvbriden. Mendel's science is not the end point ofa trail that can be tracedback to the ideologyit replaced, for the simpie reason that that ideologvfollowed not one but seleral trails, and none r\.as course set by scienceitself. All were, a rather, legaciesofvarious traditions, some old, others more recent. Orism and animalculisnru,ere not of the sameagc as the empirical and mythological .rrguments advancedin favor ofaristocracy. Thc ideology of hercditvre u,'as excessively and naively ambitious. It sought to reso]vea number of important theoretical and practr'cal legal problems rvithout having examined their fbundations. llt're the ideology simply rvithered au,ayby attrition, But the elimination of its scientific underpinningsbrought it into focus as an ideologv.The characterization ofa ccrtain set ofobservationsand deductionsasan ideology came alter the disqualification ofits claim to be a science.This was accomplishcd by t he de v e l o p mc n t o f a n e w d i s c o u rse,w hi ch ci rcrrmscri bed its field of validity and proved itself through the consistencyof it s r c s ult s . l9l Instructiveasit is to study the wav in which scicntific ideologies disappear, is even more instructive to studv how they it appear,Consider brieflv the genesisof a niDeteenth-century scient if ic id e o l o g v , e v o l u ti o n i s m. T h e * ork of H erbert S pencer makesan intercsting casestudv. Spencerbelievedthat he could ralid larv ofprogrcssin terms ofevolution from statea universally the simpie tcr tht'conrplex thrriugh successive diff!rentiations. l8

Everything, in other u,ords,evolvesfiom more to lesshomogeneity and from lesserto greater individuation: the solar svstem, the aninral organisnr,living specitrs, man, society,and tht'products ofhuman thought and activity, including language. Spencer explicitly statesthat he derived this law of evolution by gcneralizing the principlcs of enrbryologr; contained in Karl-Ernst 'on Bacr's Ubcr Entwickelungsgeschichte Thiere(1828). The publicader tion of the Origin of Species 185 confirmcd Spencer's in 9 conviction that his generalized theory of evolution sharedthc scientific validity o[ Darwin's biol<.rg1'. he also claimed for his larv of But evolution the support of a sciencemore finnlv established than the new biology: hc claimed to have deduced the phenomenon of evolution from the lau' of conservationol energy,which he maintainedcould be used to prove that honrogeneous st.rtcsare unstable. If one follons the development of Spencer'swork, it seemsclear that he used von Baer'sand, later, Darrvin'sbiology to l end scient if ic suppor t t o his vier vson socialengineer ing in ni nete ent h- cen r y Englishindust r ialsocict \ ',in par t icular ,his tu advocacy offree enterprise,political individualismand competition. From the larv ol differentiation, he deduccd that the indivi dual m ust be suppor t ed against t he st at e. But per haps t his "deduction" was containcd in the principles of the Spcncerian svstemfiom the very bcginning. Thc lar r 'sof m echanics,em br r ologv and evolut ion cannot validly bc extended berond thc <lomainproper to each of these -fo sciences. $'hat end are specificthcoreticalconclusions sevcred fiom their premisesand applied out ofcontext to human expcrience i n gener al, par t icular ly social exper ience? a pr act ical To end. E volut ionistideology u, asused t o just it v indust r ialsociet v as againsttraditional societv,on the one hand, and the demands of workcrs, on the other. It $,asin part antith eological, in part aD ti socialistThus, elolut ionist idcology r vas ideo] ouyin t he . an


Nlarxist scnse:a rcpresentationof nature or society lvhosc truth lay not in rvhat it saidbut in n'hat it hid. Ofcoursc, cvolutionism views had idcologv. But Spenccr's rvaslir broadcr than Spencer's I a lastinginfluence on linguistsand anthropologists. lis ideology gavemeaning to the t'tord P mitive and salvedthe conscienceof c olonialis ts .A rc m n a n t o f i ts l c g a c y c an sti l l be found i n the so-calledunderdeveloped societiestor",ard lrchaviorof advanced countrics, even though anthropologv has long sincc recognized maki ng i t i l l egi ti matc for t hc plur al i tv o f c u l tu re s , p re s u m a b l y any one culture to set itself up as the vardstickbv which all others are mcasured.In freeing themselveslrom their evolutionist origins, contemporarv linguistics, ethnology and sociology have rv s hown t ha t a n i d e o l o g t d i s a p p e a rs h en hi stori cal condi ti ons ceaseto be compatible u.ith its existencc,The theorv of evolution haschangedsince Danvin, but l)arrvinism is an intcgral part ofthe historl ofthe scicnccofevolution. Bv contrast,cvolutionist idcology is merelv an inopcrative residuein the historv of the and pp.31-111 human scicnces.lldcolog.v Rationalit.r,

CHapr r n The Var ious

lt vo M odels

T h e Posi t i vi st Trad i ti on and logic, por t r avcd com plct elv ext r insict o science 110] Event s historiesofscientitlc rescarch, conventionall)il at all in standarcl to vield an account that claims, if onlv in r-itualf.rshion, tracc the logical development of a scientific idca. This l'ould bc surPrising onlv if there rvcreno distinction benveenscicnceand thc history of scicncc. I n t hat casc,a biologist coul<lwr it e a hist or l ol his rvork in exactly thc samc \\'av as he vloulcl rvrite a scicntific paper,relving on exactlv the samccriteria he rvould use in evaluor ating the truth of a hvpothesis thc Potcntial ol a particularIint: and of rcscarch.But to procecd in this rvavis to treat h,vpothcses but as obiects. When a scienrescarchprogramsnot as projects ti l i c p r oposit ion is judged t o be t r ue, it t akeson a r et r oact ivc validitv. It ceasesto be part ofthe endlessstrcam ol lbrgottcn and erroneouscondreams,discardedprojects,failcd procedures clusions- things, in short, fbr u hich somconemust shoultlcrthe respo nsibilit v. Thc clim inat ion of t he f ilsc bv t he t r uc - t hat is, t the ver illed - appear s, oncc it is accom plished, o be t he quasiImporting mechanical eff'ectof ineluctablc,impersonalnecessity. such norms ofjuclgment into the historical domain is, thercfbre, The retroactiveefl'ect an inevitablc sourcc of misundcrstancling.



of t he t r u th i n fl u e n c e sc v e n o n e ' s a s s essnl cnt ofthe respecti ve contributions of variousinvestigators a scientific discovery(an to as s es s m c n t a t o n l v a s p e c i a l i s i s c o mpetent to make),because t th thc tcndencv is to see the historv of thc subject in the light of today'struth, n,hich is easilyconfuscd \a'ith eternal truth. But if truth is eternal, il it nevel changes, then there is no history: the historical content ofscience is reduced ro zero. It should come asno surprisethat it $'aspositivism,a philosophyofhistory brsed on a gencralization ol'the notion that theor) inelrrctably succceds theory as the true supplantsthe false,that led to science's contempt lbr historv.Over rime, a research laboratory's librarv tcnds to divide into two parts:.tmuscunlanda uorking reference library. The museumscctioncontainsbooks rvhosepages one turns asone might examinea llint ax, rvhereas the referencesection contains book s t ha t o n e e x p l o re si n mi n u tc d e ta i l , as w i th a mi crotome. du pp. lFormotion rdJlexe, 155-56] Ifl ] Eduard Jan Dijkstcrhuis, thc author of Die ,llechonisi.run61 Weltbildes, des thinki that thc historv of science is not only science's memory but also cpistcmology's Iaboratory. This phrase has been quored flerluently.The idea, u,hich has been accepted bv numerousspecialists, a lesswell knor+nantecedent.pierre has Flourcns,refi:rringin his eulogv of Georges Cuvier to the Hisroire dessLienccs naturalles published by Nlagdelaine<ieSaint-Agy,states that the history of science"subjects the human mind to experiment . , , makesnn experinrental thcory of thc human spirit." Such a conception is tantanlountto nrodelingthc rclation bctrveenthe history of scienceand the science of which it is the history on the relation betr"een the sciences and the objects of rvhich thev are scirnccs.But cxperimentation onlv one ofthe rvays rvhich is in science relates to objects, and it is not self-evidentthat rhis is the relevantanalogvfor understanding historv'srelation to its ob, jcct. Furthcrmorc,in drc handsof its recent champion,the meth1!

odological statement has an epistemologicalcorollary, namelv, that there exists an eternal scientiflc method. ln some periods this method remainsdormant, r+hilc in others it is vigorousand active.Gerd Buchdahlhascharacterized this corollary as naive,z0 and onc would be inclined to agree if he u.erc rvilling to apply the sam edescr ipt iont o t he em pir icism or posit ivismunder lving his own vierv.It is no accidentthat I attackpositivismar this point in the argument:for after Flourensbut before Dijksterhuis,Picrre Lafitte, a confirmcd disciple ot Auguste Comre, compared the history of science to a "mental microscope."ll The use of such an instrument, Lafitte suggests. reveals hidden truths: thc understandingof science is decpt'nedthrough cliscussion the difflol cultiesscientists facedin making thcir discoveries propngaring and their results.-fhe imagc of the microscope defincs the contcxt as the laboratorv, and there is, I think, a positivisrbiasin the idea that historv is simply an injection of duration into the exposition of sci ent ilic r esult s.A m icr oscopcm er eJvm agniliesor her wise invisible objccts; the objects exist w'hetheror not one usesthe instrument to look fbr them. l'he implicit assumptionis that the historian'sobjcct is ll ing thcrc u'aiting fbr him. All hc hasto do is look lbr it, just as a scientistmight look fbr something rvith a mi croscopc.[ f t udes,pp. l2- 1] ] Hi storical Epi stcmol oBy -fo undcrstandthe function and nrcaningof thc historv of [12] sci ence,one can cont r astt hc im ageof t hc labor at or yu'it h t har of a school or t r ibunal, t hat is, an inst it ut ion nher e judgm ent is passed either the p.rstof kno','ledge or knorvledgeof the past. on B ut i fiudgnr cnt is t o be passcd, juclgeis essenr ial. a Epist em ol-' ogy pr ovides a pr inciple on r vhich jur lgm ent can be based:ir i tt'achesthe historian the lantuage spolien at sonre point in thc evolution of a particularscientilic discipline, sav,chcmistry.-l he



backl rarrli n his t or ian t h e n ta k e s th a t k n o u J t' d g ea n d searchcs to t im e unt il t h c l a te r rtc .rb u l a rvc e a s e s b e i ntcl l i gi bi e, or unti i into the lessrigorous lt'xicon oIan it c.rn no longer bc transl.rtt'd ear li. : r pc r io d . A n to i n c -l -a u re n t L a v o i s i e r,fbr cxanrpl e,i ntrorluced a nelr. nomcnclature inlo chemistry. Ilcnce, the language s pok c n bl c h e m i s tsa ftc r L a v o i s i e rp o i n t s up semanti (: gaps i n o t he ) anguag e l e a rl i e rp ra c ti ti o n c rs .l t h a snot been suffi ci entl y notice(l or admirc(l that Lavoisier, the "Discours preliminaire" in full responsibiJitrlbr tohis frotti ilimentairede chimie,rssunrecl t r v o dc c is io n sth a t l e tt h i m o p e n to c ri ti c i sm: " revi si ng the l angu.rqc spokenby our teachers"and failing to provide ".rnv histori-, cal .r,.:count It ofthe opinions ofmy predcccssors." r"as,rsthough he understood the lesson of l]escartes,that to institute a ne\r' branch of knorvledgeis in efli'ct to severone's ties to $'hatever had plesumptivelvusurpcd its place. Thcrc are in fact trvo versions ofthe histon ofscicnce: thc hist or l o1' obso l e te n o u l c d g ea n d th c h i s to r v ofsancti onedknou l k edge, bv which I mcan knon le<lge that plavsan rctive Idtirrdnr] role in its o\1.ntime. Without epistemologvit is intpossibleto distinguish betrveenthe two. Gaston Bachclarriwas the first to make this distinction.22 dccisionto recount the historv ofsciHis ent if ic ex pe ri me n ts n d c o n c e p tsi n th e l i g ht ofthe l atestsci ena tilic plinciples haslong sincedenonstrated its u.orth. A I e> , anc l re v re ' si d e a o fth e h i s to ry o fsci encc rvasbasi cal l v Ko simil.rr to Bachelard's. True, Kol re's epistemologvrr'ascloser to Emile Meverson's than to Bachclard's, and morc kecnlr attunecl to the continuitv ofthe raticrnalfunction than to rhe dialcctics of rationalist activitv. Yet it uas becausehe recognizedthe role of epistemologvin doing historv ofscicncc that he casthis Etuder ancl in 5lalildennes TheAstronomicalRcvolution the lbrm that he did. ls t ht ' dati n g 3 l ,a n " e p i s re m o J o g i c ab reak" a conti ngent or l s ubjec t iv e d g mc n t?T o s e eth .rt th e a n s u eri s no, one l eed onl v ju

rvereintcrcstedin diflcrent periods note that Krrrr!and Bachelard Fur t hcr m or e,t hese pcr i( ) ( ls i n tht' hist on ot t lr e e\ act scicnct 's. rvith the probrverenor cquallv equippcd to deal ntathcmaticallv lems ol physics.Kovre began rvith Copernicusand ended 11ith Nervton, u here Bachelard began.Kcrvri:'s cpistemologicalobservieu, that a "continuist" hisvationstcnd to confirm Bachelard's torv of scienct 'ist he hist or l of a young science.Kovr c believer l. for i nst ance, hat scienceis t heor v and t hat t heor l is f ir nclam ent is tal l v mat hcnr , r t iz. ion. ( G alileo, lbr exanr pJe, m or e Ar clt itr m(' (l ean han Plat onist . )He alsc'helclt hat cr r or is inelit ablc in t the pur suit of scient if lc t r ut h. To sr ud\ t he hist or v of a t heor v is to studv the historv of thc theorist'sdoubts. "Copernicus. . . ttas not a Copernican," The hist or v of sciencet hus claim s t hc r ight t o m akc judgI mcnts ol'scientific value.Bv ".iudgmcnt,"horvcvcr, do not mcan purgc o r execut ion.I list or v is not an in'er t ed im agcof scient if ic progrc ss,lt is not . r por t r ait in per spect ive.t vit h t r anscended doctrines in the lc,reground lntl todav'struth u,avolfar thc "vanand expl. r in t o i shi ng p oint . " I t is, r at her ,an ef t ir r t t o cliscovcr 'w'hatextent discrcdited notions, attitudes or mcthods rvere, in their day,uscd to discredit othcr notions, attitudesor method5in the and therclbrean ef-fort discover \\'hatrcspects discredited to pastrcmainsthe past(]1an activitr that still desenesto be callcd uhat t he past t aught sci entilic. lt is as im por t ant t o under st aD( l as it is to fin<lout rr h\' \r'eno longerbelielc in its )essons. IFru,/cr,

P P .ll-l + l
Empiricist Logicism calls"nor bet [13] It is easrt' o dist inguish wcen \ lhat Bachelar cl lhc mal i tv"] l and r vhatThom as Kuhn calls "nor m al scicnce. "r a tvro epist r r r r olulit . , 1. ,. har , r r r t ain l'r iint . in . om m on: in lir ti cul ar, t ht ' ot r scr r at ion hat scicnt if ic t er t books over em phasiue t 4t

the continuit\ of scientific research.Both stressthe discontinuous naturc of progress. Nevertheless, while the fundamentalconcepts sharea l.rmily resenrblance, they do not really belong to the samebranch. This has been notcd by Father FranqoisRusso, who, despitereservations about the claimsofsuperiority to which epistemological historians somerimes are pronc. argues that Kuhn is m is t ak e na b o u t th e n a tu re o fs c i e n ti fic rari onal i tvas such.25 Though ostensiblvconccrned to preserveKarl Popper'semphasis on the necessityof theory and its prioritv over experiment, Kuhn is unablt' to shakeoff the legacv of logical positivism and join the rationalist camp, w-here kev concepts of"paradigm" his and "normal science"rvould seem to place him. Theseconcepts intentionality and regulation,and assuch they imply Presuppose t he pos s ib i i i tyo fa b re a k w i th e s ta b l i s hed es and procedures. rul Kuhn *'ould havethem play this role r".ithoutgranting them thc meansto do so, fbr he regardsthem as simple cultural f)cts. For hinr, a paradignris thc result of a choice bI its users.Nornral sciencc is dcfincd by the practice in a given petiod of a group of' specialists a universityresearch in setting. Insteadofconccpts of' philos ophi c a c ri ti q u c , rrt' a re d e a l i n grv i th mere soci alpsvchol l ogv. This accountsfor the embarrassment evident in the appendix to the secondedition ofthe Srrucrure Scientilic of Revolutions when it comes to answeringthe question of hou' the truth of a tlreory is to br undcrstocrd. ond Rotionality, pp. l2-l3l lldeolog.r Internalism ond Externolism [ ] 41 How d o e s o n e rl o th c h i s to rv o l s c i ence.and how shoul d one do it? This question raises anorher: wlat is the histon of sci, nc c a, his t .ryo f r" ,\n y a rrth o na p p a rc n r l lrakc rhe answ er rhi s ro s ec ondquc rti o n l o r' g ra n trd , to j u d g e h v r he fact Ihar ther rrever c x plic it ly a s k i t. T a k e , fb r e x a m p l c , th e debatesbetrveenw hat English-spcaking u,riterscall internalists and extemalists.26 Exter4{'

nalism is a rvav of writing the historv of sciencebv describinga set of events, which are called"scientific" fbr reasons havingmore to do u,ith tradition than with critical analysis, terms of their in relation to econolnic and socialinterests. technologicalncedsand practices,and religious or political idcologies. In short, this is an attenuatedor, rather, impoverishedversion of l\'larxism,one rather conrmoDtoda) in the ruorld'smore plosperoussocietit's.17 fint"r.rulism (rvhich extcrnalists characterize "i<Jealism") the as is vier.l' that there is no history of scicnceunlessonc placesoncsclf w i thi n t he scient if ic endeavor self in or der t o analvze he pr oit t ceduresby rvhich it seeksto satisfly specific norms that allou, the it to be defined as sciencerather than as technologt or ideologv. In thi s per spect ive.he hist or ianof scienccis supposed o adopt t t a theor et icdlat t it ude t owar d his specim ent heor ies;he t her elbr c hasas much right to formulate modcls and hvpothcses scicnas tists thcmselves. Clearlv,both the internalistand erternalist posirionsconflate the object of t hc hist or v of sciencen'it h t he object oI a scien( e. The extemalistsees the historvofsciencc asa mattcr of explaining cul tura l phenom ena t er m sof t he cult ur al m ilieu; he t hcr elor e confus es he hist or l 'n sciencer vit h t he nat ur alistsociologt of t of institutions and f;ils to intcrpret the truth claims intrinsic to scienti fi c discour se, The int er nalistseest hc f act sof t hc hist or v of sci ence, such as inst anccs sinr ult ancous of discovcr l ( ol'm odcr n calculus, lbr examplc, or the law ofconservation oIenergv), as facts rvhose historv cannot be urittcn without a theorv. -fhus, a fi ct in t he hist or r of science is t r cat ed as a f ict of scicnce, a procedureperf'ectlvcompatible with an epistcmologyaccording to r" hich t heor y r ight f ullv t akes pr ior it v over cnpir ical dat a. pp. IE rudc s, l4- 15]


C n r pr l n - f u n r r The Hist or y of t he Hist or y of Science

A History of Precursors [15] Every theorv is rightlv expected to providc proofi ol practical cfficacv.What, then, is thc practical eflect lbr thc historian ofsci cnce of a t heor v whosc cf ' ct is t ( ) m ake hisdisciplinc t he place u.hcrc the theoretical qucstions raist'd bv scientilic pracmannt'r? C)neimporautonomous tice are studiedin an cssentiallv tant practicalelfect is the climinati()nof \\'hatJ.T.Clark hascalle'd cxist ed, " the precur sorvir us. "r sSt r jct ly speaking,il pr ecur sor s the historv ol sciencervould losc all meaning,sincc scicncc itsclf uoul d m cr elv appear o havea hist or icalclim ension. t


Consi<icr the u'ork of AlexarrdrcKovre. Kovre contrasted,on epistemological grounds,thc "closed world" ofantiquitv u ith the "infinite universe"of modcrn times. ll it h.rd bccn possiblelbr some ancient pr ecur sort o haveconceivedof "t hc inlinit e univcrse" before its timc, then Kovr6's r't'holcapproachto the historv ofscience anrl idcas rroulclmake no scnsc.t') A precursor,rvc arc told, is a thinker or rcscarcheruho proceeded some distancealong a path later crplortd all the \\'av to its cnd br someoneelse. To lotrk lbr, find and cclebrate precursors i s a sign of cor nplacencv slm and an unm ist ak. r blc pt om of

incompctcncc fbr epistemological criticism. Trvo itinerariescannot be comparedunlessthe paths lolloned are truly the same. In a coherent sYstcmof thought, ever) concept is related to everyother conccpt. Just because Aristarchus Samos ol aduanced the hypothesisol a heliocentric universe,it does not follow that he rvasa precursorof Copernicus,even ifCopernicus invokcd his authoritl'. To changethe center of reterenceof celesti.rlnrotions is to relativizehigh and lo*r',to changethe dinensions of the universe- in short, to constitutc a system,But Copernicuscriticized all astrononrical thr:orics prior to his ou'n on rhe groundsthat thev wer e not ia ti o n a l s y s tc m s .l 0 p rc c u rs o r,i t i s sai d, bel ongsto A more than one age: he is, of course, a man of his own time, but he is simult.rneously contemporarY a of'later in!estigators credited rvith conrpietinghis unfinishedproject. A precursor, theretbre,is a thinker \1hom thc historian belicvcscan be extracted liom his c ult ur al m ili e u a n d i n s e rte di n to o th e rs .1 'hi sprocedureassumcs t hat c onc ep ts ,d i s c o u rs c ss p c c u l a ti o rrs n d e\peri ments can be . a shiftedfioru one intellectualenvironmcntto another.Suchadaptability, of course, is odhned at the cost of ncglccting the ,,hist or ic it v " ol th e o b j e c t u n d e r s tu d v . H o rv manv hi stori ans,fbr example, have looked lirr precursorsof D,rrrviniantransfbrmism amongeighteenth-cenrury naturalists, philosophers anrlevtn journalis t s ?lr he l i s t i s l o n g . T Louis Dutens's Rcchcrches I'orinine dicouvertes sur rjes attribudes (1176) nr.rybe taken asan (admirtedlvextreme)case ou\ modernes in point. When Dutens \r'ritesthat Hippocratesknerv about the circulation of the Lrlood, and that thc Ancients possessed systhe tem of Copcrnicus, rvc smiler he has lbrgotten all that Wiilia[r Harveyorvcd to Rcnaissance anatomvand mechanical models,and he fails to credit Copcrnicus's originality in exploring the mathematical possibility of the earth'smovemenr.We ought to srrile iust as much at the nlorc rcccnt lvriters who hail Ren6 Ancoine

Ferchault de R6aumurand Maupertuis as precursorsof Mendel rvithout noticing that the prob)em that Mendel set himself rvas ofhis or.r.n devising.or that he solvedit bv inventingan unprc'cedented concept, the independcnthereditarvcharacter.ll So long as texts and other *'orks yoked rogether by the heuristic compression of time have not been subjected ro critical anal ys isf or t he pur pose of explicit ly dem onst r at ing t har r $'o resear cher s sought t o answ'er ident ical quest ionsf or ident ical reasons, using ident ical guiding concept s,def ined b, r ident ical sl stems,t hen, insolaras an aut hcnt ic hisr or y of science is concerned, it is completelv artificial, arbitrary and unsatisfactorv ro say that one man finished what the other started or anricipated rvhat the other achieved. subsritutingthe Jogicaltime oftruth Bv relationsfor thc historicaltime of these relations'invention, one trcats the history of scienceas rhough it wcre a copy ol science and its object a copv of the object of science.The resuit is the creation o[an artif;ct, a countcrfeit historical objrct - the precursor. In Koyr!'srvtrrdsr Thc notion ol a "lirrerunncr" is.r.r'ery dangerous for thc histoonc rian. lt is no doubt frue thar idcas havc.r gucriindependcnt dcvel opmenl,that is to say, theyarebornin onc mind,andreach maturity to bearliuit in anothcr; consequentlvt historyol prolrlems the and their solut ions bc t r aced. is cqual) v r ue t har t hc hisr or icnl can lt r importance doctrine measurcd its lruitfulness, chat ofa is by and later gcncrations not concerned are rvith those that prcccdc themexcept in so far ls thevseein thcm their "ancestors" "forerunners." is or It quite obvious shouldbe) that ncr-one cvcrregarded has himsell 1or asthe "firrerunner" ofsomeone clse,nor beenablcto do so.Conscqucntlv.to regard anyone this light is the bestwavof prcventing in oneself from undcrstanding Ji him.

A precursoris a man of sciencervho, one linorvsonlv much later, ran aheacl ofall his contemporariesbut before the person \{hom one takesto bc the winner ol the race.To ignore the lict that he is the creaturcol a certain historv ofscience, and not an agentof is scientiflc progress, to accept asreal the condition ofhis possibilitv, namcly,the imaginarvsimultaneityof "belbre" an<i"afier" in a sort of logical spacc. I n m ak i n g th i s c ri ti q u e o f a fa l s e h i stori cal obj ect, I have sought to justifv by countcrcxamplcthc conccpt I havcproposed accorclingto rvhich thc historl of sciencedcflncs its object in it s o$n int ri n s i c te rm s . T h c h i s to rv o l s ci cncci s not a sci cncc, anr l it r c , bi c c ti s n o r a .c i l q i l i r ,' h i e c t. To Jo hi storv oIsci encc ( in t h. m , r rt u p rrrri v e s e n i F ,' f rh . v rrb " to rJo" 1i s one ol ' rhe lLnc t ions ( a n d n o t th c e a s i e s t) f p h i l o s ophi calepi stemol ogv. o pp. 20-2 3] [Etudes, A History in the Service ol Politics [ 16] I t r v a si n 1 8 5 8 th a t a n e u p o l e m i c, i ni ti ated thi s ti me by Ceorge Prochaska's grovling rcnoun, resulte<J l)escartes's in namc being brought into the history of thc reflex fbr the first time. Thc occasionrvasan article bv A.L. Jcittr:lcs,a prof'essor medicine of at Olmiitz, cntitled l4lhols the Fountlerol the Theorr ol Rellet ,Movement?)a Marshalltlall's first paper,said leittclcs summarized a flrv uorcls about Hall's prioritv ovcr Johannes Mrillcr, ackno$ledgc<lthc grcat value of both men's nork, vct claimed that the im pet us f or re s e a rc hi n to re fl e x a c ti o n came l rom el se.rvhcrc, liom an carlicr timc, and fiom anothersource."lt uas none other than our cminent, and todav insullicientlv honorcd, compatriot, Georgc Prochaska,lho richlv deservesto be prcscrvcd in the eternally gratcfLl mcmory of our Czcchfatherlancl, rich in supcso rior men of cvcry kind." feittelesasserted that Prochaska rvasthc true lbunclerof thc thcor_v ofreflex movemcnt, quoted excerpts

lrom De functionibus s,ystematis ne.vo.ri, and concltrdcd that thc cntirc theory of thc reflex action inherent in the spinalcord rr.as there "prefbnlred and preestablished"(pniforn;rt und pnisLab;lirt ). Although not interestedin investig.iting hether Hall and Mrillcr, u rvho may not have kno$,n Prochaska's rvork dircctlv, might havc been inlluenccd bv rvorclof it filterecl through "the scientific milieu ofhis contcmporarics and cpigoncs"(rn diegleichzeitige und l\blt epillonische wissenschaJtliche trcnspitittc),leitteles askshorv this lork could have been ignorcd for so long. [{is ansrver,u.hich j seems u dicious t o m c, is t hat Albr echt von Haller 'saut hor it v is a sufficient explanation.Thc theory of irritabilit), of a strcngth inherentin the muscle,divertedattention from the intrinsic functions ofthe spinalcord.'l-his onlv makesf'rochaska's merit a]l the more apparent:rather than rchcarscthe ideasof thc pcriod, his rvork cont r adict ed t hem . The f inal lincs of t hc ar t iclc ar c an appeal to some generoushistorian to revive the great Prochaska as a model for firture generations. Jeittelesthought that the man to do this $as the current occupant of Prochaska's cllajr at thc vcncra blcand celebr at cdUnivcr sit v of Pr aguc,t hc "i] lust r ious forerunnerofall German universities." That man \l'asthe distingui shecl physiologist Pur kinje( 1787- 1869) . Jan The im pct uosit yof t his plca, r vhich nat ur ally and pat hct icallv combincs a claim for thc originalitv of a scholaru.ith an afllrmation of the cultural valuesol an oppressed nationality,is equaled only bv the brutalitv anclinsolence ofthe replv it received fl.oman ollicial representative, not to savhigh priest, ol German phvsiol( , ogy. E m ile Du Bois- Revm ond 1818- 1896)N{r iller 's udentand st successor t hc chair of phvsiologvat t he Univer sit vof Bcr lin in u,ho becamea member ofthe Berlin Academyol Sciences 1851 in anclrvho rvasalreadycclcbratcd not onlv lbr his work in neuromuscularelectrophysiology also lbr his numerousprofessions but of phi l osophical liit h in t hc univcr salvalidit l of m cchanist ic tl

determinism and the inanity ofmetaphysicalquestionsls- summarilv disrnissedProchaskaand gave l)escartescredit fbr har'ing had the qenius to anticipate both thc ovordand the idea of d " r ef lex . " I n a c o m m e m o ra ti v ea d d re s s el i ueredat thc ti me of M iillc r ' s de a th i n 1 8 5 8 , fi B o l s -R e y m o n < J statcd that he had roughly a century {bun<f(wie ich gelunden fiabe) that Descartes, had correctly descritred ref]ex rtoveand a hal[befbre Prochaska, vbllig beschrieb... Descartes... Rcllexbc$,egungcn dic meDt (er.rfcnr fichtig\: he had used thc same analogr'(u ith reflection) to decredit {br thc Iaw scribe the phenomenon;and he also deserved l6 of periphera)manifestationof senseimpressions. The passages that precedeand follow theselines on Descartes give a clear indiintention. It lvas,first ofall, to procation of Du Bois-Reymond's tect Miiller's "copvright," as it n'ere: Mriller mav not havcknow'n rvasanother matter. If Prochaska about Desclrtes,but Prochaska lr,'as not thc t)ther of the notion of rcflex, then he himself f'ell under the shadorvof rhc judgment proposed in his name.rgainst Furthermore,Descartes \1ns, his successors. accordingto Du BoisRevnrond,a selllconscious mechanist phvsiol,rgist, theorist of a the aninr.rl-machineand therefbre deserring ol the sameadmi, ration erten(lcd to Julien Offrav de La Mr:ttrie, the theorist of the man-machine,lT contrast,Prochaska a vagueand inconBy lvas sistentthinkcr in whose mind the notion ofrellex rvasassociated rvith that crf consensus nervorum, anatomical myth of animist an ins pir at ion .ri In d e e d ,i f Pro c h a s k a a d fbrmul atcdthe pri nci pl e h of the reflection of scnseimpressionsin 1784,he f)iled to mention it in his Phrsiolo<tic Lehrevonder Natur des,ltenschen oder in l820, t t F in a l l y ,Pro c h a s k a i d n o t k n o u w hat hc rvasdoi ng the d first tinre he had the opportunity to descrilre corrcctly thc reflect ion of s en s ei mp re s s i o n sAs fo r M i ]l e r's contcmporari es, . the overMrillcr onlv author rvho might justly bc creditedu'ith prir.rritv rvasHall, and that $.asa prioritv of tu'o months.r0lt mav be that

Du in diminishing Prochaska, Bois-Revmondlr'asreallv trving to discredit a group ofbiologists manifcstlyguilty in his eyesofthc school. sin of metaphysics, n.rmelv, the Na turphilosophie Du Bois-Reymond's1858 text rvaspublished in 1887 in thc along with explanatory notes. The sccond volume of his Rerlen of on notcs concerning tlre passages Descartes u,hich Du BoisReymond basedhis comments are particularlv r';luable lbr our are purposes;al sonrc ol the relevant passages fronr Arriclt 1J of rvhere thc palpebralreflex is described. The Possions the Soul, ol I must point out t hat Du Bois- Reym ondm akesno dist inct ion between a description and a definition, and that it is rather disingenuousof him to reproachProchaska, he does in one note, as It for havingused the sameexampleas Descartes. would be laughnot harrc able to maintain that CharlesScott Sherringtonsh,.ruld studied the "scratch reller" becauseit meant borrorving from r Thoma s Willis. I n anv c. r se,Pr ochaska vasan opht halm ologist and, str ict lv speaking.had no nccd oI Dcscar t es o knor v t hat t there is such. r t hing as involunt ar y occlusion ol t hc cyc) ids. al is cited bv Du Bois-Revrnond ArThe secondtext of Descartes's ol Although it does contain the ticfe 16 of lle Possions the Sou1. (reflcctcd spirits), this expression, expression"espri* riJly'chis" of work, is used to explainthe mechanism a unique in Descartes's form ofbehavior that is not a reflex in the strict sense the word. of lf, in fhct, Du Bois-Revmondis right to contend that Prochaska did not knorv rvhat hc rvas doing whcn he devotedpagt'.rtter page ofhis Comnrcntdfion 178-lto thc "rcflcction" ofsensorv into o1 motor impressions,rvhatare Ke to say,applying thc sanl('ciiterion of judgnr('r')t, about an author who usesa pair of rvordsonly once?lFormation ftllcxc, pp. 138-a0] du at [17 ] We t her elbr c im put e t o Du Bois- Revm oncl, his r equest, f ull r esponsil>ilit v or his hist or ical discovely. ll- I have f du,elt on the details of this controversv,it is becauseit enables t5


us at last to establishthe prccise origin of the rvidelv acceptecl vicrv that paternitv ol-both the rvorcl"reflcx" and some rudimena tarv vcrsion ol thc idea can bc traced back to Derscartes, vierv that Franklin Fearing,as we haveseen,rrpcats scveraltimes, but Along rvith thc origin of the u.hosr'origins hc neverexamines.+l h as s er t ion,r,r' c a v ed i s c o v e re di ts m e a n i ng.A s fbr the ci rcumaddress was mcant as a rebuke to a stanccs.I)u Bois-Revmond's Cz ec h pr ofc s s o ri n s u fl i c i e n tl y p e rs u a ded the supcri ori tv of o1 ( ic r m an c iv i l i z a ti o n . Bu t a s fa r a s i ts s c ienti {i c i mpl i cati onsarc concerned, this address can bc attributcd to a concern - a concern, that is, on the part of a phvsiologistfbr rvhom "scicntism" did dutv lbr philosophy- to discover, Descartes's in allcgul anticipation ol a discovcrvthat u'asbeginning to justify a mcchanistic intcrpretation of a u hole rangc o{ psvchophvsiological phenomena, a guarantccand, in a sense, authcnticationol the use that an people nou proposcd to make ofit. lt was not so much for reasonsof purc phvsiologv for reasons philosophvthat Descartcs as of rvasanointed a grcat phvsiologistand illustrious precursor.IIormationdu iflc\e, pp. l,+1-42] [ 18] I n th e h i s to rv o f th e c o n c c p t o f the rel l ex, verv di ffr:rent circumstanccs and moti\.ationsaccount fbr the appearancc of I)cscartes, Willis, JeanAstruc and Prochaska, rvith JohannAugust Unzer gcncrallybeing left shroudcdin shadou.I'rochaska's namt: came up in the course of a polemic bctu'een Marshall I lall and c c r t ain of h i s c o n te m p o ra ri c s , p o l e mi c that gradual l vturned a into rvhat is conrmonlv called a settling ofscores. The storv bcI ongs ,alon g w i th c o u n tl e s s th e r ta l e so fri val ry betrveensci cno t if ic c ot er i e s , to th e a n e c d o ta lh i s to ry o fsci encc. D escartes' s nam c c am e u p i n th e c o u rs eo f a d i a tri b c agai nst one dcad man lor the apparcnt purpose ofhonoring anothcr. In fact, it u.asa m at t er of li q u i d a ti n ga n o p p o s i ti o n ,o r e v en- rl ,henone l ooks at it c los elv- tu o o p p o s i ti o n s . e c u l tu re , speaki ng On rhrough the

dcfentledits political voice ofone of its official representativcs, anot hercult ur e. O nc philososupcrior it yof t he m om ent against phy ol lif e, const r aincd r vit hin t he t r am cr vor kof a biological metho(1, treatedanothcrphilosophvasa mvthologl allcgresearch edly incapable of fbstering ef'fectivescientiflc rcsearch. It was mechanismagainstvitalism. llormation du rdflerc,p. 155] A Cononical History insti[19] An cmpcror's rvish to glorifv and justilv nervacaclernic tuti ons lcd t o a new depar t ur ein t hc hist or v of science.ln 1807 that had becn madc Napoleon I ordered a report on the progress in sciencesince 1789.GcorgesCuvier, as permancntsccrctarvol since 1801, Phvsiques Nat ur clles ct the Ins t it ut pour les Sciences event uallv w as assigncdr csponsibilit v lbr t he Acpor rt hat r r . as Baptiste publishedin 1810,r,v'hile.lcan JosephDelambrc\l'asmade Thc scienccs. rcsponsible a similar report on thc mathematical lbr havingfbund a nerv Bemard on authoritiescoulclpride themselvcs the a of Le Bouvicr Fontenelle, man capable strpplcmcnting vearlv analvses the rvork of thc aca(lemv\rith eulogies of<lcccased of acade m icians. But ant onc *ho *oulcl exam inet hc hist or v of a conmust considerothcr, similar research lif'edevotedto research tcmporary rvith, or prior to, that of his subject. Ancl rvhen onc has receiveda Germanic c(luc.-rtion an education that rvas,in wor ( ls,"encyclopedicand philoFl enryl) ucr ot ay de Blainvillc's logical"rl - one could conceiveofgiving a "course in the history of natur al sciencc. " And u. hcn one had chosen,as Cuvier had toward the end of his studiesat thc C.rroline-'\cademvin Stuttor gart, to st udr -"cam er alist ics, " t he scienceof adm inist r at ion and economics,45 rvasonlv natural to dcvotc spaceto technolit ogy in onc's rcport to thc empcror and to adumbratea thtorv cll the social statusofmodcrn scicncc in tlrc l8l6 R/f.le.rions /a rrr morcheactuelletlest.ien(c\ et r leursropportsavecla sociiti, as ucll

accroisse' Jur as in thc Discouru l'(itat de I'histoite naturellect sur ses mentsdepuisle retour de la pdix maitime (1824). The reader of noturelles not surprised, is volume three of the Histoiredessciences t hen, t o f in d th a t th c fi rs t l e c tu re i s d evoted to a remi nder, of inspired by the Marquis de Condorcet in the Esgursse 1794,of the debt that modern scicncc owes to the technologicalinnovat ions of t he fb u rte e n th a n d fi fte e n th c e nturi es: al cohol , cl ear glass,papcr,artillery, printing, the compass.In the samelecture, Cuvier, a Protestantand the official within the ministry of the interior responsiblefor overseeingnon-Catholic religious wors hip, c ould n o t h e l p n o ti c i n g th c c n c o u ragement and support that men of learning had fbund in the Relbrnationr freedom of thought and the gradual emancipation of philosophy from subservienceto theologicaldoctrine, Blainvillc and Franqoisl-ouis Michel Maupied's Histoircdes sciences I'organisationet de leurcprogris, conme basede Ia philode sophie constructed on the basisof diametrically opposedjudgis ments. To bc sure, thc chaptcr dcvotcd to Conrad Gesnerrecalls the positive contributions of technology to Renaissance science (vol. 2, pp. 134-35),but immediatelythereafterthe Reformation is denouncedlbr "reviving the unfortunatereactionsthat we have seenarisingout ofvariousstruggles previously ofthe human spirit, applyingmethod rvithout authority to the explication ofdogma" (p. 136). Because ofthe friendshipbetu'eenthe principal author and those trvo cultural agitators, Biainvillcand Maupied,the work contains numerous passagcs conccrning thc rclation o[ the sciencesand their teachingto the ne\v social needsof an emcrging industrialsocietv, almostalways but theseexcurses end in sermons.

living things, and to appreciatingthe cflects of seventeenth-century ph ilosophieson t he developm entof t hat science.Cuvier minds the if thinks that philosophyencourages scienccs it disposes toward observation but discouragesthe sciencesif it disposcs WhereverAristotle's method, based minds toward speculation.16 was adopted, the sciencesprogressed,rvhereas on experience, Descarteschose the opposite path, and the regrettable consequencesof that choice lasteduntil the middle of thc eighteenth were countered by "another philosocenturv, *'hen the sciences phy that was a copv of the true Peripateticismand that hasbeen called the philosophl'ol the eighteenthcentqv <tr of the slepdcr." A rather sweepingjudgment, it might seem,although it wascurrent at the time in one form or another. Blainvilleand Maupied's judgment is equally broad, as well as considerablymore prolix: Descartes,Bacon and all the others (src), they say,are merelv the elaboration,of Aristotleia?Bacon's the logical consequence, Descartcsrvorked in an philosophy is nothing but Aristotle's;a8 built on the u.ork of the great Aristoteliandirection;ae Descartes Stagirite;t0and so on. What is the significanceof our tu-o historians' fiscination n ith Aristotle? The ansrverto this question, I think, determines what view thc history of science ought tcr take of Blainville and Maupied's project. The first step to\4ard answeringit, moreover,must come from a final comparisonrvith Cuvier's Histoire. to The third lecture in Cuvier'sthird volume is clevoted Leibniz, and Cuvier drvells at length on thc grcat chain of being and theme.Cuvier on Charles Bonnet'sdevelopment this [.eibnizian of states that "physiologvdoes not fbllovumathematicsin admitting unlimited combinations,"and that, in ordcr to accept the notion that there existsa continuouschain of beings,as Bonnet and others do, or that beingscan be arrangcd alonga singleline, one must havea very incomplete view ofnature's organization,5l hope," "l

Blainville anclMaupied's Histoireis also different from, even cliametricallvopposedto, that of Cuvier llhen it comes both to cletermining the method, or ways and means,of the scienceof 58

"to have provcn that this ststcm is false,"tr alluding Cuvicr says, through comparative anatto rvhat hc knou'shc hasclemonstrated omv and paleontologv,namclv, that thcre is no unitv of organic n gr ac lat ion, () u n i tv o fs tru c tu ra l p l a n , n o uni ty of composi ti on and no unitv o f tv p e , Norv,if Blainville,fbr his part, acknolr,ledges distinct tvpes five of c r c at ion , h e n e v e rth c l c s s rg u e sth a t thcv are arrangecln a a i one trcing the distinct exprcssionof a general plan scrics, r.:ach u,hoscprogressive regressivc or order, il one Iooks at the level of thc specicsfor graclations and degradations that ought to applv only t o gc nc ra ,d o e sn o t p ro c c c d $ ' i rh o u t apparenr atus.Ifthe hi numerouspapers, rcportsand dissertations publishedbl Blainville can bc seen as the a postcriori his zoological system,then thc of a prioi is described in his Hisroirc des sciences l'organisationas de an a ptioti not of rational intuition but ofdivine rcvclation.This afflrmation can bc read in the Introduction, signedbv Blainville himselfi "l conccivedand carricd out m\ llistoircde I'otganisation as a possiblc founclationlbr philosophv,whilc at the same timc clcmonstrating that philosophv is one and the same thing as the Christian religion, rvhich is so to speakonlv an a prtori, rcvcaled to man bv God himself rvhcn the state of socictv required it."eJ And flrther: "Scicncc in general is knorlledge a posteriori the of existcnceol God through his,w,orks."5q llorv, then, does kno*lcdge proceed?Through readtng,The preliminary analysis ofzoological notions at thc bcginning ofvolume thrce conflrms this unambiguously:"C)ne does not crcate in scicnce,one readsllhat is created.Thc pretensionto createis abs ur d,ev en i n th c g re a te s t e n i u s c s ." ;5 vi rtuc of thi s heuri sg In tic imperative,thc scicnccsoforganizationshoulclbe atrlc to discover - that is, to read in thc structuresand functions of living beings- onlv u hat the Book of Genesis allirms about the orclcr of t hos e bei n g s ' c rc a ti o n ,i n th c \\' a te rs i n the ai r and on earth, , ending finally rvith man, proclaimedto be the "master" of all that $.ent befbre. Norv, it so happensthat therc is a Wcstern philosopher ofGreek antiquity rvho rvasable to rcaclthat orcler,r'hich was unknown to EasternmvthoJogvrthat philosophcr u'asAristotl e, "u. ho under st oodt hat t hcr c is in nat ur e a collect ion of rvhose degrees groups,anrl that eachgroup fbrmsa veritableseries passimperceptiblv fiom onc to thc other, fiom the most imperfi:ct to thc ont: in rvhich life achievedits highest perfection.";6

1 clearlr',rvasto achioe Inorvlrdgr,,f man r.ganlAf!:tqtl-C_i-S9S!, ].uz i ng al l thosc aspcct st hat m ake him super ior t o t he anim als,a I a bei ng possessingt ouch of t he divine. t l This kev to readingthc forms of lifi: givesus the kev to rea<Jing tslainville and Maupied'sHistoirc. That kcv is thc notion of "mcasurc," an absolutc tcrm of rcferenceand comparison."l\'leasure" is a rvord that rccurs ficqucntly in the Ilisroirc.The measureof organi z ed beingsin t heir ser ialclisposit ion m an. 58 is Anr l it *as Ar of bccausc ist ot lt 'm adr m an t he m easur e anim alit v t hat Ar istotle himself is thc mcasureof truth fbr thc scriesof investigati ons that t ook anim alsas t heir object . Thr ough t hc ccnt r r r ics A ri stotle is t he m easur e t lr e sciences or ganizat ion.. . . ] of of [ de Norv that we possess thc kcv to the Histoire desstienccs wc I'orSTonisation, can un(lcrstan(l*hv ccrtain authors were inUnlike eclcccl uded in t he book r vhile ot her s ner e excludecl. ti cs such as Cuvier ( r vho u. asf r er ; uent lvchar act er ized such, as his both sc icnt if icallyand polit icallv5e)Blainvillebasecl choices , on an explicit critcrionr "ln this historva numbcr of cminent men stand as landmarksol scientific progrcss.I chosc them because thci r or vn nor k and t he u. or k of t hcir legit im at e pr edecessor s ptrshed scienccin the right direction and rvith an impctus appropri ateto t he age" ( voi. 1, pp. viii- ix) . C on se<1uent lv, hist or v of t hc scicnceol or ganizat ionis t hc governcdbv the firndamental,rvhich is to sav,divine, larr o{ the




organizationof organisms- the ascendingseries.Blainville, bv alwaystaking thc idea of the animal series(u'hich fbr him was mcrcly thc readingof an ontological fact) as the measureof the importance of men and their u'orks, composed his Hrsroirein t he im age o f Go d c re a ti n g th e s e ri e s .[" D e B l ai nvi l l e," R erue d'h;*oire, pp.15-821 [20] All history ofsciencc that is not strictly descriptivemav be said to be implicitly normative insofaras its author, owing to his culture at that moment, can do nothing to prevent himsclf fiom reacting,as would a chemical reagent, with the meanings he thinks he sees emergingon their own from the past.But Blainville and Maupied's H8foir!is more than normative in this strong sense: it is a canonicalhistory in thc strict senseofthe word. How else can one characterize work in rvhich a man ofscience, such as a B lainv ille,c o u l d l v ri te i n h i s s i g n e d In tr oducti on that he took account"only of thosestepsthat fell on the straightline between the startingpoint and the end or goal," and thar he neglected "the rvorksol individualsrvho, voluntarily or involuntarilv,veered,as it \a'ere, the leftrr60 a \r.ork,moreover,in u,hich Jean-Baptiste to Lamarckand LorenzOken are called"errant naturalists,"6l *'ork a that claims to professthe viervsof the "Christian Aristotlc"?62 In virtue ofthis, the authorsrl.rite, "As for those lost children nho appearin nearly every era ofscience, .rvhohavestruck a bold but misplaced blorv,or u ho fired befbrebcing orderedto do so, their cfforts havealmost alwaysbeen r," ithout effcct when not positivcly harmful.We must not speakof them."6l lf the expression "canonical history" seemstoo severefor characterizinga work u,ritten joint ly by a s c h o l a r* h o u ' a sa l e g i ti mi s t in pol i ti cs and a pri est rlho *,ould one day serveas a consultant to thc Inder, one can neverthelcss havingnoticed that thc authorstook sevcral say, quotations from Franqois-Ren6 Vicomtc dc Chateaubriand's Erudes historiques,6l their Histoireis, in its orvn way and for the natthat

uraf sciences,a complement to that author's Gdniedu christianisme. d'histoire, 90-91] pp. ["De Blainville," Revue


Pn n r Trvo

Ep i ste m o l o g y


Crt,rrrr.n Foun Epistemology of Biology

Origi ns of the Concept dclinit ion of lif i: t f 21] Ar isr ot ler vas he f ir st t o at t em pt a gener al "Of natural bodies Ithat is, thosc not f)bricatcd by man], some vitalitv'that vitalit\.,othersdo not. We morn try'possessing posseis Larer he savs that .r thing can nourish itselfand gro" and clecav."1 But the trodvfiom the inaninrate. life is u hat distinguishes aninrate in s<r the term "lif e, " likc "soul, " can bc under st oo<l sever al nses. It i s enought hat one of t hcm should accor dr l ir h sonr eobject of our ex per ience br us t o af lir m t hat [ t hat object ] ir alive. "rThe "f vegetal of statcis the minimal cxpression the soul'sfirnctions.Lcss than this and t her e is no lilc; r nv r ichcr f ir r m of liit 'lr esupposcs i l t l castt his m t r ch. r Lif 'e,idcnt iliecl r vit h anim at ion,t hur dif ler s l rom m at t cr ; t he lif 'e- soul t he f br r r , or act , of u'hich t he living is natura lbody is t he cont ent : : uch r vasAr ist ot lc'sconccpt ion of ' life, anrl it remainedasvigorousthroughout the ctnturies asArist totel i a n philosophvit sclf di<1. All t he m edical philosophies hat held, dou n tofe beginning of thc nineteenth ccnturv, that lif'e u'aseitlrt'ra unique principle or somchorv u associated ith the soul, essen t iallIdif lcr cnt f iom m at t er , r nd nn cxccpt ioD t o it s laws, rveredirectlv or indirccrlr inrlelrtedto that part ol'Aristot)e'ssr,stcnr u hich can e<luallv rrell lre called biologv ,rt psvchol<-rgv. 67

But rhrough the end of thc cightccnth ccnturri Aristotle'sphilosoph'r' rr'.rs also responsiblcfirr a mcthod of studling the nature an<lproperries living things,especialllanimals.lLife of forms rvere c las s ilied .rc < o rrl i nto s i m i l a ri ti c sa n d d i fl crenccsi n thei r parts g (or organs),rctions, Ilnctions anclmodcs of lifi:J Aristotle gave naturalistsrcasonto look at lifc fbrms in a particular rvav.The method sidestcppedthc question of life as such. Its aim was to exhibit, rvithout gapsor reclundancies, obscrvablcproducts thc of what A r i s to tl c h a d n o d i ffi c u l tv i m a g i ni ngas a pl asti cporvcr. llenc e eig h tc c n th -c c n tu ry a tu ra l i s ts uch as C omte B ufl bn and n s Car olusLin n a e u sc o u l d rl c s c ri trc n d c l a ssi fv i fe forms ui thout a l c v cr r ielini n g l h a t th e v m e a n tb y " a l i v e . " In thc scvcnteenth and i: ight ec nt h c c n tu rj e \. th e s tu d v o l ' l i f' e a s such rvaspursucd bv phv s ic ian s th c r th a Dn n tu rn l i s tsa n d i t \1.as rJ , naturalfbr thcm to as s oc iat e fr: rr i th i ts n o rm a l n ro rJ c" h c a l th." From the mi d sev li , c nt c ent hce D tu r' \o n rr.rrc lth e n , th c s tu dvofl i fc becamethe srrl > , ol'phrsiologr (narroxll construed). Thc pLrrpose this sturlr ol Icct r v ast o det e rm i n e th r' < l i s ti n < v c fe a tu resof the l i vi ng. nor ro ti d ir ine t ht <s rc n c co f th i s re m a rk a b l e o u cr of nature,[. . . ] p I t r r as a (i < :rm a np h rs i c i a n ,C e o rg Ernst S tahl (1660-l 7l .t), r v ho nt or o th a n a n l rrn <c l s c i n s i s te d th at a thecl rvof l i fe u.as.r . necess.lrv prcrcquisiteol medical thought and practice. No phvs ic i. r nus ec lth ( t(:rm " l i fi " ' m o re o fte n . l f a doctor has no i cl ea u,h.rt the purpose of thc vital lunctions is, horv can he explain *.hv hc d,rcs uhat he does?Novr',uhat confers lil'e * Jif'ebeing the directed, purposefi.rl movcmcnr without \ihich thc corporeal m ac hineuo u l d d c c o m p o s e i s th e s o u l . Li vi ng bodi esare com, positc sulrstances u'ith the lacultv to impcde or resist thc cvcrpr c s c nt t hl c a t o f d i s s o i u ti o na n d c o rru pti on. Thi s pri nci pl e of consrirvation. the autocracl of living nature,cannot bc passive, of henc c it m u s t n o t b c n a te ri a l . T h e fa c u lty ol sel fl prcservati on is the l>asis Stlhl's Ilcoriri mctlicalcra (170t1). of Certaincarelirlread68

ers * h o r vould lat er clenvhis ident ilicat ir r noi lile r t ir h t he sr r t r l sti l l nevcr f br got his f br ccf ir ldef init ior rof lif c as t he Po\ r cr t em of l poraril) t o suspcn(a clest inv cor r upt ibilit v. Xavicr Bichat b<gan In rerms lessfreightcd rvith metaphvsics, sur iologiqucs lo vic ct /o mort (1800) rvith this his Rcc,hercfics ph-r's ccl cbr at edm axim : "Lif e is t hc collect ion o1linct ions lhr t r esist dcath." In defining lif'ein tcrms of a conflict bet*'een, on the onc of pr hancl , bodv com posedof t issues spccif icst t . uct ur e, r nd oJr a crti es ( elast icit \ ,cont r act ilit v,sensit ivit v)and, on t he ot her , an envi ro nm ent ,or m ilicu, as August c Com t e r vould lat el call it , bv governed lau.sincliffcrcntto the intrintic needsol living things, B i cha tcasthim sclf asa St ahlpur gedof t hcologt . 1.. ] In the ver y vcar of Bichat 'sdcat h, 1802,t he t er m "Lr iologr " rr',rs used fbr the first timc in (lermanr' l.l'-Clottfiit rl Reinholtl Lrnr.rrck in lier ir;nus and simultancouslv France[>r' Jean-Baptiste thev \h Hr<lroolologlie); therebr stiked a claim trr indtpcnrlence Lam ar ckhad long plannedt o gir < on beh alf ol t he lil'e scicnccs. h. tt r thc ti tle lliolo{i t ( ) one of his r T'or ks, r ving r , r poser J.heor \ 'of lt d'l life rcrv carly in his tcaching.rt thc r\1usa'um listoirt Nattrrelle lr i n P ar is. Bv st udving t he sim plest or qanisnl, i, e . r r gued,<t ne clet er m inr r vhat uas "csscnt ialt ( ) r he c\ ist ence ( ) [ lile it r : c,rul <l a bodv. "[ .. . ] st Lamar ckconceivcdol lif i'as a cont inu( , us, ci( |1'nccum Lllainit ol'lluids bv solicls, iallr in t he f br m ol a ti on an classim ilat ion "t ccl l ul a r t isst r e, he m at r ix of all or ganizat ion. "I ile or iginat es por i n matt er and m ot ion, but it s uni<1ue vcr is evidct r t onlv in the ordcrly pattel+?ofit5 cfli:cts, the seriesof lile fbrms, u hich qradualll increascin complexity anclacquirc nerv liculties.+ [-ife beginsrvith an "act of vitalization," an effect of heat, "that matclndivicluals ust ( lie, vct lile, Par t icm ri al soul of living bodies. "5 ularly in its most advanccrl.rnimal lbrms, comes, ovcl time, to bear e vcr - lcr sr cscm blancct o t hc iner t passivit vol inanim at c

objccts, To call I amarck's theorv of life "marerialist" is to lbrget that lbr hinr "all the crLrde or inorganic.ompo.rfucmrtter rhat one ob scrvcs in nJ t ur e" is t hc r c s idue of or ga n i c <l e c o m p o s i t i o n . f o r on lv Iiving t hings ar c c apablc of c hem ic a l s v n t h e s i s . Ce org es Cuv ier ' s c onc c pt ion r v as v e r v d i f f e r e n t . Unlike l-a marck, Bic hat and St ahl, Cuv ier s ar v l i l e a n d d e a t h n o t a s o p p osir<s bu t as elenr ent s o{ r v hat ht ' c allc d " m o d e s o f I i f e . " T h i s concepr \r,as intended to capturc the wav in uhich highlv specialized internal organizations could entertain compatible relations rvith the "general conditions of existcncc." "Life," Cuvjer argucd, is a con t inual t ur bulen< r , . r f lo* whos e d i r c c t i o n , t h o u g h c o m p l r x , remainsconstant.This fiux is composetloi molcculcs,rvhich ch.rnge individuallvvtr remain al|\,tvsthe sametvpe. IndecrJ, aciual mit, the tcr thit constitutesa living bodv rvill soon hare clispersed, that yct mitte r sc nc s . r s t hc r c pos it r ) r \ of a f br c e t h a t $ i l l c o m p c l l u t u l c mart(r t( ) m ov e in t hc s am c dir c c t ion. T h u s , t h c f b r m o 1 a l i r . i n g body is rnore essent'.rl than its mattcr, since rhe lattcr changcsconstantlv rvhilc the lormcr is preserved.6 I.ifc th us bc ar s a c lear r elat ion t o deat h. It is a nristnketo look upon lifc] as a mcrc bond holding togrrhcr thc various elements of a living bodv, rvhen it is actuallv a spring that keepsthore clemcnts in constantmotion rnd shilts them aborrt. 'I'hc rclationsanclconnections trmongthc clcrnents;rrenot thc sanc lrot}r onc m()mrnt tcr fhc na\f; in other thc statc or compo_ ';rrrrrlr, sition rr1 the living bodv changesfrom m(,m(nt to momcnt. Thc morc active its lile is, the more its cxchangesand metamorphores arc ncvcr-encling. And thc iDstant ofabsolute rest, u,hich ir called to ral d c at h, is but t he pr c c ur s or of lur t h c r m o r r c n t s o f p u t r e f a c -

scnse. to thcrefbre, lrscthe term tion. Fromtlris point on it makcs "vital fbrcrs."7 Thus, death is presentin lif-e,as both universalarmaturc and inelrrctable[atc of individual components organizedinto compatible vct fiagile svstcnrs. ol nr t ur alist slike Lanr ar cknnd Cuvier led, albeit The 'r 'or k to in different \r'ays, a conceptualan(l methodologicnlrcvolution 'fheories ol in the representationol the $,orld of living things. firund a Iogical place in the teachingsof phvsilile subsequently believcdthat thcir cxperimentalmethologistsrvho, neverthelcss, c,dshad exorciscdthe specterof mttaphrsics.Thus, fbl example, of M "lif Iohannes iiller discussed c" and t hc "vit al or ganizat ion" Ph.vsiologie tlre organismin the introduction to his llandbuclr<1,:r (1833-34). And Claude Bernard,rvho rccorcledhis tles Menschens intellectual progrcssduring thc most fertile period ol his carcer (1850-60)in hi\ Cohis (lenotet,alrvalsregarded the n.rttrre lif! ol .rsthe fundamentalqucstion ofgent'ral biologv. The carc[ul consur phinominerde Io <lusionshc reachedare set lbrth in I cgons les the first vic communs dnimau\ et aux iplitaux (1878,espccially du\ than thcv arein lntroduction d three lcctures)morc systematicallv (1t365). course,thc Bernarrlian tlreorl la ntirlecine f)l expitimearolc opposc<i of l i [e involvedr el. r t <rexplan. r t ions t uo r Jcliber at clr d of lif nraxi ms:lif 'eis cr eat ion( 1865)an<l e is dcat h ( 1875) . H aving gained cm incnt ly scient if lc st at usin t he ninct eent h ccnturv, the question"What is lifc?" becamcone that evenphvsicists did not disrLf to ask: Eru,in Schrr;dinger publisht'da book bcaringthat title in I947.At lcastone biochenristlirund chequestion meaningfcss. hcrwever Ernest Kahane,La I'ic n'e.riste pas, 1962.1n ,ntr histolical r6sum6of hou the conccpt of lifc hasbeen uscd in variousdonrainsofscicncc, I orvea great deal to the rvork ol i\lichel Foucault.$["Vie," Enrlclopricdio, 764a-66.r] pp.


Obstqcles to Scientific Knowledge of Life [22] Contemporarvfrench cpistcmologyis indebted to thc $'ork 6f G as t on B ac h .' l a rdfi rr i ts i n te re s t i n u .h a t m av be descri bed, in gencral tcrms, as obstaclcsto knon,ledgc. In sketching out a o ps v c hoanalr s isf o b j e c ti v ek n o u .l e d g e ,Il a c h cl ard,i l he hi mscl f' at clid not Propose, Ieasrhinted at the idca that obiccts crtknorvlc e dge ar e not int ri n s i c .rL l v o n rp l e x b u t ra th c r arr ennreshe< n il ps v c holo{ ic alc o mp l e x e s .T h c q u e s ti o n o l c p i stemol ogi calob( not a ri s c l b r e i th e r c l a s s i c ae n rp i ri ci smor cl assi cal s t ac les J oc s l F ra t ionalis m . or e m p i ri c i s ts ,th e s e n s c s re s i r D pl c a receptors; thc l ac t t hat qualit ie sa rc a s s o c i a te d i th s c n s a t i onss i gnored. For rv i rationalists, knol'ledge pennancntlvdevalucs senses; intelthe thc lcct, its purity rcstored,must ncver againbe sullied. But contcminfbr-med psvchoanalvsis ethnographv, porarvanthropologv, bv and takr.:s vcrv different vierv:primitive psvchicmechanisnsimpose a cer t ain ot r r es t io n a c o n s tra i n tso n th e c u ri o u s yet (l oci l e mi nd, l thereb\ crcdting certain gencralize<i priori olrstaclesto untJer o st . r nc ling.n t he l i l e s c i c n c e s ,th e n , u h .rt u e hope ro cl i scovcr I i s t hc obs es s iv c rc s e n c eo f c c rta i n u n s c i e nti fi c val ut s at the p very inccption ol scientific inrluirv. Even ifobjcctire knowlcdgc, bcing a human eDrerprisci in the cn<lthe u.ork of living human is beings,the postulatethat srrchknorvledgcexists - rvhich is the first condition of its possibility- lics in the systematicncgation, i n anv objr : c t t o rrh i c h i t ma v b c a p p l i e d , o f the re,rl i tvof the q ualit ies r v hic h h u n ta n s ,k n o u i n g u .h a t l i v i n g mcanr to them, i dc nt if v r v it h lif c . T tr l i v e i s to a tta c hv a l u e to li fc' s purposes anrl cx per ienc es it i s to p rt' l tr c e rta i n n rc th o c l s ci rcuntstances ; , .rnd d ir ec t ionst o ot h e fs . I i l c i s rh e o p p o s i teo l i n di ffercnccto oD e' s sur r ounr lings . ..] f S c ic nc c ,hou e v c r, d e n i e sth e v a l u e sth a t l i l i i nrputcsto di fl l ir c nt objec t s ,lt d e l i n e so b j e c ts i n re l a ti o n to oD e anr)rher i n other \ords, it l'ucnsurcs u'ithout ascribingvalue. lts lirst major

basedon t he pr inciple ol incr wasnr echanics, hi stori calsucccss ti a, a concept t hat com cs int o being $hen onc consider st lr e f movement o f m at t er it self abst r act ed iom t he abilit v ol living things to impart movem('nr.Incrti.r is inactivitv and indiIference. It shoul d co m c as no sur pr ise,t hen, t hat cf 'f br t st o ext cn( l t hc becn nt ct nrethodsof m at cr ialistsciencct o lif i'havc r epeat eclll !ri rh rcsi sta nct .t ight uP t o t ht pr t st 'nt dr r ' l1 slr ch r r sist nllcc l oftcn rcfl ec t s enr ot ioD. t host ilit v, it m av also st enl lr onr , l r eat() tlrat it mav be paradoxic.rl attcmPt soncd judgment: n.rrnelr', a pou,ersuch ls lilc in termsofconccpts anclIaus l>aserl to cxplain on thc nega t ionof t hat ; >or vcr . 1. . . 1 t P ersi stcnt quest ions. r bout hc or igins ol lile anclt heor icsof spontaneous gencration nlav \\'ell Point to another latent overdetcrmination. Norvadalsit sccnrsto be taken fbr-grantc(lthit soci' r our fasci nat ion vit h r epr oduct ionis all t he gr eat crbc( . r u5c about thtr subject.Chilshunsand indccd <t nsorsout-cLlr-iositv ctv dren' s bcl i e llr at ) out sexu. r lir vr cf lecr bot lr t he im Por t ancc. r n( l ol oln)vstcri ousness biI t h. Whilt m anr hist or ians bit 'logr ', r scr il>e t bc)i efi n spont aneous gcDcr at iono t he lack of evidcnt t 'or unPer t suasi venes s ar gunr ent s o lhe cont r ar Y,t he t heor Y t r at r vt ll of gr:ncration n D)\'th,in dcsilt' lirr spontaneotrs point to a nostalgic short. Freud'sdissidcntdisciple Otto Rank argutrl in The Trouma of Birth 11929)that thc <hild's sucldenseparationfi-om thc placental environmentis the sourceol, or ntorlcl fbr, all subse<lucnt anxicty.eHis ,Mythol thc Birrhol the Hero,rvhich dealsrvith nrcrr \\'assupposecl Iend strppcrrr to rvho somchorv avcricl fearlst.l1lc, the ro thi s vi c* b, r <lem onst r $r l r he pr evalcnccr , 1 t r ir t h- clenving ol' D rvrhs.l 0 i t hout going so lir a\ t o cliir n t ir . r t. ill Pr oPoncDt s \\' rl hat has been r , r llLr l "L'r luivoca) gcncr at ion" or "hct er og, r nl, " u'hethermaterialists crt'atiolrists, havcdone nothing molf thnl) or uncoDscinus, give shapeto a lantasloriginrting in the traumatized one can sti ll ar guc t hat t hc t hcor v of spont . lncous gener , ) t ion 73

s t em s f iom a D o v e re s ti m a ti o n l th e v al ue of l i fe. Thc i dea of o a pr oc r eati o n .rn d i rth i s i n o n e s e n s e n i deaofsequenccand pri b ority, and avcrsionto thar icleamust be seenas a consequcnce of the prestigeattached to uhat is original or primordial. lf cvcrv liv ing t hin g mu s t b e b o rn , a n d i f i t c a n be born onl v to another liv ing t hin { , th e n l i fc i s .r fb rm o fs e rv i tude. tsut i f the l i vi ng c.rn riseto perfectionthroughan ascendantlcss ascension, is a form life ol domination. l"Yie," Entvclopaedia, pp.7 66a-66t>l Li[e as Animotion [23] We conrplctcly forget that r.hen rve speakof animals,animalitv or inanimate bodies, the terms \1e use are vcstigcsof thc nDc ic ntm e ta p h l s i c a li d e n ti fi c a ti o n .,fl i l e u' i rh the soul and of the soul rn'ithbreath(dnrmd= anernos). Thus whcrr man, the onlv living creaturecapablcof <liscourse lile, discussed orvn life on his in terms of rcspiration (\. ithout rvhich there is not only no lif'e but no s p e e c h ),h e th o u g h t h e * ' a s d i s cussi ngi l i i n general .l l ' l Creek philosophers prior to Aristode, cspcciallyPlato,spcculatcd about the essence and clestinyofthe soul, it rvasAristotle's De onima that first proposedrhe rraditionaldistinction between the vegetative nutritive soul, the facultl of gro\a'thand rcproducor t ion; t he J n i m a l o r s e n s i ti v e o u l , th e facul ty to feel , desi reand s move; and the reasonable thinking soul, the facultv ofhumanor itv. In this contexr, ir maters little r"hether Aristotle thought of t hes t ' t hr e es o u l sa s d i s ti n c t e n ti ri e so r a s mere)yhi erarchi calevl els, the lesserof rvhich could exist u ithout the greater,where.rs the greater crruld neither exist nor function lvithout the lesser. 'Ihc important thing is to rememberthat lbr the Grecksthe u'ord plche meant cool breath. The Jels, moreover,had ideasof life and t he s o u l q u i te s i m i l a r to th o s e o f rh e C reeks:' A nd the Lord Ciodformed man of the dust of the ground and breathcd into his nostrilsthe breathoflife; and the man becamca living soul" (Gen. 71

2r7). This is not t he placet o r et r acct hc hist or vof t he schoolsolA l cxan dr ia- t hc. ler vishschool r vit h Philo, t he Plat onjcschool *,ith Plotinus - rvhoscteachings, coupled rvith the preachingot P aul(l Cor . 15) , inspir edt hc f ir ndam ent alhem esof ear ly Chr ist ti an doct r ine concer ning] if 'e,deat h, salr at ionanr l r esur r ect ion. Indeed, the cultural cclecticism of Nlediterrane.rn civilizationsis even responsiblefor thc polvsemicconnotations(another u a,v ol' saying"ambiguitv") ofthe term "spirit," liom .rpirdre an ambiguitv that pennitted it to sene cquallr rlell in tht'ologv,to dt'nott' the thir d per r on ol t he Tr init v, and in m edicine, r l'hcr c. in t lr c "vit an phrases al spir it " and "anim al spit it , " it bccanr e ant icipr tory trope lir the so-callednervousinllux. A fter 1600,t he conccpt ion of li{i' , r san anim at ionof m at t er conccpt ionsol l ost ground t o m at er ialistor m er el\ m echanist ic thc intrinsic lifc firnctions, and it uas no longer acceptcd as an objectivc ans\l,erto the cluestion"What is lile?" \ct it survivcrl rvcl l i n t o t he ninet eent hcent ur v in t he lbr m ci{a nr edical- philosophi calideologv.[ : or evidenccol t his, onc hasonlv t o glance at a l i t t le- kno$'n t ext , t he pr cf ; ce t o t hc t hir t eent lr edit ion o1' ( the D i ct ionndir e m idccine 187i) , publishedbv Jean- Bapt ist c de B ai l l i d r cr r nr lert he edit , r r ship lm r posit ivistphvsirir ns, Em ilc ol t.i ttr6, t hc aut hor ol . r cclt : br at ed dict ionar v ol t he Fr t 'nch l. r nand CharlesRobi;;g profbssor histologvat I'aris's ol [:acult! guage, dc N l tdccine.f . . . 1 'l'he Dictionnoire miLlccine qucstion \\'asa r( cJstingof thc dc in 1855rer.isecl (l8l{), edition of PierreHubcrr N\sten'sDicrionnorrc i tscl f the r evisedand cr panded successor Joseph Capur on's of Dictionnairc mddecinc (1806), I'he cditors $'crc keen to point cle out the diller ence l) ct \ vccn t he m at er ialistidcas t hcr . *er e accusedof cham pioning. r nclhe posit ivistdoct r ine t hev pr olessed t to tcach.-lcr that encl,thev commented on thc varioLls dcfinitions of the t er m s "soul, " "spir it , " "m an" an<l"cleat h" r hat Capur on


had pr opos e rln 1 8 0 6a n d th e v (l -i ttre a n d R obi n)had themsel ves i pur f br u ar d i n 1 8 5 5 . I n 180 6 ," s o u l " rv a s< l e fi n e da s th e " i nterD rl pri nci pl e ofal l operati.ns t,l lir ing bodies;more particularlv, the principle of lifc in t he r egc ta li l ,r(li n th e a n i m a l .T h e s o u l i s si rrpl r \egetati vei n i b p) ant sanr l s c n s i ti v e n L re a s ts ;u t i t i s s i m pl e and acti re, reasoninrm o rta l i n m rn ." . r blcan< l ln 1855 ,o n c fi ru n da d i fl c rc n t d c l i n i ricrn: Tcrnrs hich,in biologv, cxprcsscs, consiclcrcd analornically, colthc lcction of [unctions rhe brain and spinalcord and,consiclcrcd ol phvsiologicalll, collcctionof firrctionsof rhe cnccphalic the scnsibilit y ,t h i t i s , th c p c rc c p ti o n Ib o th e x ternal ects i nternal o ,rbj and objccts;thc sum total ol the neetls antlpenchants serve the in that pre\en.iti{)n the individual spccics in rt l.rtions irlr other ol anrl anrl s beingsrlh c a p ti tu rl erh a tc o n s ti tu te e imngi nnri r)n. s rh l anguage and t \ pr c \ s i ()nIb c l .rc u l ti cth a t fo rm th c u n rl crst,rndi ng: s i l l , and : s thc linall! t h e l )(' \\' (r s e t th e rn u s c u l .rr tcm i n ntol i on.tn(l act t(r s \j co
t h r , r u g h it o n th c cxtt r n a l n o r kl.

(cornpleted in l6ll 'l'lan \ 1662- 64) ,l) cscar t es\ 'r ( ) t c: not pub lishcdunt il

Life os Mechanisnt on [2,1] At thc cnd ol thc Trcatise


|, t likc \ ou t o coDsider t hesclt r nct ionr llor r lr r r nr hc t hat I should r or mcr ear r angcm cnt t hc nr ar binc's ginsc\ r r r !bit ; s n. r t ur allrs ol I tl re I n. ) r 'cm cnt,\r i . r clocl r ) r {) t ht r aut ( ) n) lt {r nt llor t lr r 'nr t hc ol and r rrrangcnr r nc it r count ( r - \ \ ( 'ight s s ht . ls. ln r r r dcr o <r plain ol hinc thcn, it i:i not neccssarv concaivt' this mac t() thcscfirncrions. <rl ashaving r,cqctiti\(()r scnsitive or othcr principle rnovc anv 'ioul r mcnt and liic, ap. r r t om ir s blood and it \ sPir ir s, r hich. r r eagilr tatedbl the be;rtol thc lire burningcontinuou\ll in ils he.rrt- a in nat s l i re nhich hast hc sam o ur e. r all t hc lir cst h. r t( ) acur in. r ni mat cbodies. ll ident ilic. r t ionol t he . r niIt i s fa ir lv nell knolr n t hat Dcscar t cs's . nr mai (i n cludingphvsical r phvsiological an)r r ir lr a nr cchanizct l of or mec hanic. raut onr at on r ht , r bver sc [ xr t h his it lcnt if icat icr n l is of thc s oul n'it h r hought ( "For .t hcr c is r lit lr in t r s hut onc soul, ol and this soul h.rsrvithin it no <livcrsitv parts"rl) an<lhis substansoulandext endt d m at t er . t ti al di st inct ionbet r Teenhc indivisible ll the Treatise ,tr|.rn on surpastlcvcn the summaryof its contents on as given in the fifth part of the 1631 Discourse ,,l,Iethorl a manifisto supporting an animal phvsiologvpurifiul of all lef'erenccs \ to a principle of aninr r t ion of anv kind, it r 'as bccat r seVillian't llarvev'sdiscovrrvol thr circulation of thc blorxl and Ptrl'lication in onLlto i.o (lc notu cot(litet sontluinit dDitnctlihut ol thc Ercrritatro ex; (i 628) had, in t lr e nr cant inr e, esent c<l hr dr odr r r . t nr ic r laa pr nati on of . r lif e t ir nct ion - an explanat iont h. r t t ] t inv phr sicianr , parti cular lyin lt alv and Cer m anl, had t r ied t o im it at e, ot t cr ing as a vari et v of ar t ilici. r l m oclels o cxplain such ot hcr t r r nct ions t muscu lar cont r act ionor t hc equilibr ium of lish in uat er . I n f ict ,

I n 1861,t h i s d e l i n i ti o n * a s s u b j c c te dt() \' chcmcntcri ti ci sm bv Anatolc l\t.rlic Emile Chaullard,.rvho attackcrlnot onlv Littra and Robin but afso l.uclrvigBiichncr (( ralt untl StolJ,1855 ), the high pricst of Cerman materialismar rhc timc. ln Dc la Ph;losoph;e d;te dans scs rdpports.ryec midccinc,Chaull;rrl cclcbratcd "thc I.t Positive indis s olub l r: ra rri a g c f mc d i c i n e a n d p hi l osophv"anclyearned n o ldund "thc notion of thc rcal and living being" on "human reato s on a\ \ ar e o l i ts e ]l -,rs a u s ea n d { i rrc e ." li vo vcarsl ater, C l aude c Eern.rr(l !\'r-ote, "For the experimental phvsiologist,thcre can bc no s uc h t hin g a i i p i ri tu .rl i s mo r ma tc ri .rl isnr... Thc physi ol ogi st . .rnd the phlsici.rn shoulclnot think that their role is to discover the causeo ile or the t'sscnce ofcliseases."rL ["Vie," Lnc,vclopaedia, 1tp.167 a-67b1

G alileo' ss tu d c n tsa n d d i s c i p l e sa t th e A ccademi adel C i mento, Giovanni Af fbnso Borclli (De motu dnimalium, 1680-81), Franc es c o Rc d i a n d Ma rc c l l o M a l p i g h i , h a d actual l v tri ed to appl v G alileo' s t e a c h i n g i n m e c h a n i c sa n d h ydraul i csto phvsi ol ogv; though, rvassatisfiedto set forth a heuristic program Descartes, that wasmorc intentional than operational. C)ne uav of explaining ho*' organslikc thc cvc or organ syswork is to build what rvc l'ould tcms like the heart and vessels nou call "mcchanical modcls." This is preciselyr'"hat the iatrom ec hanic s (o r i a tro m a th c ma ti c i a n s ) of the seventeenthand c ight eent h c e n tu ri e s tri e d to d o i n o rd er to expl ai n muscul ar contraction, digestion and glandular secretion. Yet the Iaws of Calilean o r C a rte s i a n c h a n i c sc a n n ot by thcmscl vcscxpl ai n me thc origin of coordinatcd organ systcms,and such coordinatcd svstems are preciselvv',hatone meansby "life." ln other rvords, mechanismis a theorv that tells us hou machines(living or not) rvork once thev are built, but it tells us nothing about how to build t hem . In practice, mechanismcontributed Iittle to subjectssuch as embrvologv.The useof the microscope,rvhich bccamecommon in the seconclhalf of the scventecnthccnturv, made it possiblc to obscrvcthc "sccds" of living things, living things in the earlicst stages rlcvclopmcnt. But Jan Swammerdam's of observations of insect metamorphoses and Anthonic van l-ccurvcnhock's discovervof the spermatazoid u'ere initiallv understoocl confirm a to speculative conception of plant or animal generation,according to which the seed or cgg or spcrmatic animalculecontains, prefbrmed in a miniature that optical magnilication reveals, being a u.hoseevolution rvill proceeduntil it attainsits adult dimensions. The microscopic observationthat did most to validate this theor y was un d o u b te d l y Ma l p i g h i ' s e x a mi nati on of thc _vcl i ow of' a c hic k c n' s e g g fa l s e l ya s s u me dn o t to have been i ncubated.ra

There is r easont o t hink t hat M alpighi's belief in m cchanism structured his perccption of phenomena. unconsciously Intentionallyor not, behind evervmachineIoomeda mechanic or, to u sc t he languagcof t he dav, a builder . Living m achines i mpl i ed a m echanicof t hcir ou'n, and t hat im plicat ion Point ed It opilex,Go<1. rvasthcrefbre logical to assumtr toward a Summu.r that all living machincs had been constructed in a single initial operation, and thencc that all the gcrms of all thc prcfbrmed living things - past, prescnt or luturc - u'ere, from the moment of creat ion,cont ainedone inside t he ot her . Under t heseconr lito of tions, the succession living thingr onlv appears be a histor,v, a because birth is in reality onlv an unpacking.When lcssbiased led t o t hc r evival,in a r evised or more ingcniousobser vat ions lbrm, of the old vieu that the embrvo grorvsthrough epigencsis ol (thc successive appcarance anatomicalformationsnot geomctrically derivablefrom anteccdcnt lbrmationsl;), modcrn embrvofencouraging phvsiologl capable institutcd asa science ologv rvas to frec itselffrom its f;scination \\'ith mechanism Mea nr r hil, , gt or r ing nt t m l', r . ol oh. ( r \ ali. lns br m icr , t . cohelPeJ ur 1,i .r.,na r ali"r . .phur i. ion'il?. , h. r t . ur ioLrr lr out n. r t t t r c The hidden dillirent but Parallelu'ar'. mechanismin a to cliscrcdit inncr structure ofplant and animal partsgraduallvcame to sccm n'ith thc macroscopicstrucprodigiouslvcomplicated comparecl tures visible t hr ough disscct ion.The discovcr l of anim alcules, hencefbr t h called Pr ot ist a, opcncd up pr eviouslvunsusPcct e( l rl cpthsin t he em pir e of t hc living. Wher cassevent ecnt h- cent ur v mechanics u'asa theorv ofmovcmcnts and impulses,that is, a scit ence ba sedon dat a accessible o sight and t ouch, m icr oscopic anatom v$as concer nedwit h object s bevond t he m anif cst ancl tangi blc. Availing onesel{ of t hat st r uct ur al m icr ocosm , t hat "other rvorlcl" rvithin, one could conceile of evcr more minute mi croc osm scm bcddcd onc w. it hin t he ot her . Thc m icr oscopt :

c nabledth e i m.rg i n a ti o n c o n c e i v co f structuralcompl cxi tv on to a scaleneverbefbrt'inragincd, much asmodern calculusextcnded thc porver of Descartes's analyticalgcomerr\'.As a result, pascal and I cibniz, unbeknonnst to each othcr, both fbund mechanism uanting. But I.cil'niz'scritique, unlike Pascal's, prorided the fbunc lat ion li rr J D c w c o n c c p ti o n o l i i v i n g rhi ngs - l ri oJogvrvoul d hc nc c lo rrhp i c tu re l i fi .i n te rn tso fo rg ani snr and organi zati on: Thuseach<rrganic boclv ofa living cre.rrurc a kind o1divinema, is chincor nntural automaton surpassing inlinitclvevcrv kind ol artiflcial.rLltorn.rton. a machinc For made hunr.rn is not a machine bv art in cvcrv partol it... . lSut Nature's machines, livingbcxlier, machines arc cveniD thcir minutcstparts ancl inlinitv. fhis is r!hat constittrtcs to thc riilli renccbct.neen naturt'andart, l>enrcen rlivineart and the or r rhu m,rn rt.l 6 a l"Vie," fncr c/rpocrlro, 7671>-68a] pp. Lifc as Orgo n ization [25] C)nceagain, it \1asAristotlc .who coincd the term ,,organized brrrlr'." bo<lvis organizedif it providt,rthe soul $.irh instruA ments or organsinclispcnsable tlre exercise its pou.ers. to ol Until the scvcnteenth cerrtury, then, thc paradigm thc organizcd ol boclv r v ast hc a n i ma l (b c c a u s et p o s s e s s ca s oul ).()fcourse, A ri stotl c i d s aidt hat p l a n tsto o h a v eo rg a n s , l th o ughol an cxtremcl vsi mpl c a k ind, anrl p c o p l e d i rl rv o n c l e lrb o u t rh c organi zati on ofthe pl ant k ingdom . ,\l i c ro s c o p i cc x a m i n a ri o no l pl art prcparati onsed to l gerrer.rlizations ofrhe concept ol org.rnitation, an<lir eveninspired i.rnt.rstic analogies bctv|eenplant.rnd anint.rlstructuresanclfLnct ions - Ro b e rt l l o o k e (.4 l i c ro g ra p h i a , ,6i ), N l arcel l o Mal pi ghi l( ( A nat ontt l a n ta ru m,f6 7 5 )a n d N c h c m i .rhC rc; (l ' he A natoml ,oJ p Plants,1682)discoveredthc structurc of b.rrk, rvood and cortcx, 8o

di sti nguishedt ubulcs, vcsscls and liber s, and com par ct l r oot s, tv' ,i gs ,leavcsand f iuit s in t er m s of t hc m cm br anesor t issucs thcv co nt ained. The Greek u'ord or.Tonon relerred to both a musician'sinstrument and an ar t isit n'r ool. The hum an bodv n'ascom pr r er l t o a t in t c\ musi calr ) r gan nr or et han onc scvcnt eent h- cent ulv t . iDclu( l ing rtorks br Dcsc.rrtes, Pascal, ucs-Bin i{tnc lJossuel {Irdils J.rcq <tc roi-mdme) and Lcibniz. "()rganizaelcla connoisrancc Dieu ct <!e ti on," "or ganic". r nd"or onnize"st ill car r icd bcr t hbiologicaland musi ca lconnot . r t ions r ecent lvas t hc ninet eent hcent ur v ( scc as l-<rr Emile Littr6's Dictionnaire la languet'ranqoise). [)escartes, tlc the organic "organ" lirs an instrument th.rt nccdcd tro organist, or but Ieibniz believeil, hat vr , it hout . r n ganistt her c c'uld bc no structural or lunction;rl rnit\ of the "organ" it-rstrument. \\rithout an or ganizcr , h, r t is, r vit hout a soul, not hing is ot g. r nizecl t or "[W le rr ould nevcrreach.rnvthing about rt hiclr ''*r'c,l:ld org.rnic: sav,he r e is t r r r lv a lr cing. lr nlcss\ ! e f ir Lr nd anim at ,r l nr r chint s rvhoscsoul or strtrstantial lbrnr producrl .r suhstanti.rl unin in<]cLi pcndcn t of t he e\ t er n. r lunion ar isingliom c( ) l1t . t ct . 'rLesscclcurote: blated but more of a tcaclrcr,the phvsician Danicl L)rrncan " l he soul is a skilled or g. r nist ,r vhich f br m s it s or q. r nrbcf or t : p].ryi n gt hcm . . . . lt is a r em ar . kablehing t hat in inanim at c or t gans,th c or ganistis dif ler ent f r om t hc air t hat he causeso f lou, t * hereas in anim at e or ganst hc or ganistanclt lr e air t hr t causes them t o plav ar e onc and t hc s. r m et hing, bv lhich I nr cr n t hat the sou l is ext r em el\ sim ilar t o t hc. r ir or t o br ear h. "lr 'Ihc concept ol organisnr rleveloped thc cighteerrth in c('ntur\'. as natur alist s, phvsicianr soughtsr niant ic suban<lphil<- r sopher s ('(luivllcntskrr th< rvord"soul" in ordcr to cxplain h<"t stitutesor svstems com pose( l dist inct com ponent snevcr t helessr r r r k in r ol a uni fi eclm anner t o per lbr m a linct ion. The par t soi sr r cha svstenr mutuallv influence onc another in (lirect or nrt'<li.rted lisha



ion. The rvord "part" secmed ill-suited to dcnote the "organs" of r v hic h t h c o rg a n i s mc o u l d b e s e e n a s thc " total i ty" but not the "sum." ReadingLeibniz inspireclCharlesBonnct, rvhosehostilitr to mechanism had been confirmed by Abraham Trembley'sobservationson the reproduction of polyps by propagation,and bv his on of clrvnobscrvations the parthcnogenesis plant Iice. it I am not i-ct makingthe difliculty plainenough: lics not only in an of how to form mechonicall.v organthat is itscl{ composed so manr by of dilfcrcntpicces primariiyin explaining, thc Iaws mechanbut ics alone,thc host ol various reldfioDr that so closelvbind all the torn,ard the orgaoicparts,and in virtuc of which thev all conspire samc gcncral goal- bv which I mean,thel form that unity vr,hich feels, wholc lvhichlives, grorvs, onecallsan animal,that organizcd moves, presc'rves rcproduccs and itsel[.le In Gcrmanv the text that dicl most to place"organism" at the t op ol t he la te e i g h te t' n thc c n tu ry ' s l i s t o f bi oJogi calconcepts $,asKant's Critiquc of Judgnent (1790). Kant analvzedthe concept ofan organized being rvithout using the rvords"lif'e" or "living thing." An organizedbeing is in onr: sensca machine, but a machine that rcquircs a fbrmativc cncrgy, something more than mere motor cncrgyand capable organizing of otherwise inert mattcr. lhe organic bodv is not only organized,it is self:organizing: "ln such a natural product as this every part is thought as owirfrf its presenceto the ogenclof all the rcmaining parts, and also as and ofthe wholc, that is, as an cxisting for the sahe the others of ins t r um ento r o rg a n .Bu t th i s i s n o t c n o u gh..,. On the contrary the part must be an organproducingthc other parts - each, consecluently, reciprocallv producing thc others. No instrument of art can ans\r,erto this description, but onlv the instrumcnt of u2

that nat ur e f can] . , , , ": t . tI n t he sam eper iod, t he physicianCar l Cuvicr had mct asa felFriedrich von Kiclmcver, rvhom Georges l ow studcnt at t he Car oline Academ l in St ut t gar t , dcliver ed a celebratedlecture on thc main ideasof an influential approach to zoology and botanv, the Rappott deslorces organiquesdans Io (179 sirie desdilldrentes organisations )). The organism is delincd as a syst cmof or gans in a r clat ion of cir cular r ccipr ocit v. 'f hese organsare determinglbv thcir actions in such a wav that thc organism is a svst cm of f br ces r at her t han a svst emol or gans. Kiclmcycr scemsto bc copving Kant rvhen he savs, "Each of th<: organs,in the modifications that it undcrgocsat caclr moment, is to such a degreea function of those that its neighborsundergo that it seemsto be both a causeand an ef'lect." It is easvto sec among u'hv imagesof thc circle and sphereenjovedsuch prestiger r ecipr ocit v ol R oma nt ic nat ur alist srt he cir cle r cpr cscnt st he the totalmeansand endsat the organlevel,thc sphcrcrcprcsents oforganic forms and fbrccs. itv, individual or universal, In Fr anceat t hc beginningol t he ninet eent hcent ur v it was A ugus t eCom t e's biological philosophy,dist inct f r om but not


unrelated to Cuvier's biology, that sct fbrth in svstematicf;shArguing that ion the elementsofa thcorv of living organization.lr " the i dea of lif e is r ealll insepar abler om t hat of or ganizat ion, " f of Comtc dcfined the organismasa consensus functions "in reguu. l ar anc lper m anentassociat ion it h a collect ion of ot her f unctions." Consensus a Latin translation ol the Greek s.vmPatheia. is S vmpat hv,r vher ein t he st at esand act ions of t he var ious par t s determine one anot her t hr ough sensit ivecom m unicit ion, is a notion that Comtc borrorvcd, along rvith that of svncrg\',from PaulJosephBarthez,* ho * rote: ' [' hepr eser vat ion lile wit o1 of is ; r sr ociat er l h t he svm pat hics t hc organs, *ell ar lvith thc organism their lirnctions....Br the as ol

oi rrr \\'()r(l'rlncr!\,'i I mun .r <oncotttsc simultaneous str<.<cssilt h rhir beingrLrt .l(ti(r)s,)t rhe lirrrcr oi rlirrrsr rrrg,rDs. corlcoursc s ol b t hnt t hr \ c , r c t i ()nc ()n s ti tu tr, r th c i r o rd c ro l harnl on\ sua(:c\ s jr r n.t hr ' int r i n s i cl b rrn o i a l rrn c ti o no l h c , rl thor ol a tenus trl

tabl v turned at t ent ion t owar d t he pr oblcnr ol int t 'gr at ing ( l( and par r i. t llile lir r m s int o t he t ot alizing mcntarv i nd ividualit ies i ndi vi cl ual it y an or ganismin it s gt - ncr ll lile lor m . ol clainr Such problerrs ofgeneral phvsiologrrlould increasinglv l the attenti o n ol- ClaudeBer nar rover t he cour seof his car eerasa researcher nclpr of essor .For pr oof one need onlv consult t hc a

i C om t c , of c our s c , i m p o r-te dth e c o n c c p t o l consensusnto the thcorr oi rhe socialorganism,an(l he l.rtcrrcviscdand generlli,/e(l then bccamt svnoni t in his *' r r r k on s o c i a ls ta ti c s . C o n s e n s u s " " and svstems, Conrtc skctchedout \lllou' u ith solidarityin orgaDic llhose efli:cts lrccome a s( riL's()l (legreesol organic (onsensDs, i n c r eas ir gll s t r i n g e n t a s o n e ri s e s l i o m p l a nts to ani nral sand is one no l()nger man,2)Oncc conscnsus identifled rr ith solidaritv, knorvsr* hich of thc trvo, organisntor society,is thc model or, at anv rat{, rhc metaphor lbr the othcr. I c nv , r r r l< lc a mi s ta k eto a s c ri b t'rh c .rm b i gui tvofthe r<l ati on [. orq.rnisnr soci< solclv to the la\ity of philosophical and [rct.r'ccn tv languagc. the background,onc cnn seethe pcrsistence techlr of noiogical imagerv,r'ividlv present liom Aristotle's dar onrvarrl. At thc bcginning ol thc nineteenth centurv, a concept imlx)rted from polit ic al ec o n o m v ,th c d i v i s i o n o l ' l a b o r, cnri ched the concept of organism. The first accountof this metaphorical transcripti on is < luct o t he c o m p a t' a ti vp h rs i o l o g i s t c n ri Mi l ne-l :< l nrds, e Il l who \r'r'otcrhe articfe on "Organization"Ior the Dictionnareclasti(iuc dcs rircra.,-r naturcllcr(1827). Since the organirm rv.rs concc ir er l as l s r r r t 6 f 1 1 .6 1 1 5 1 e p l ,rc to rr, i t * as onl r l ogi cr) to or measurethc pcrfection of livin{I Lreings tcrms of the incrcasin ing structuraldifferentiationand firnctionalspecialization rheir ol p ar t s , anr l t hus i n te l ms o f rr:l a ti v cc o m p l e x itv. B ut that comp lex it v r t quir ec l , i n tu rn , a n a s s u rJ n c e f u n i tv and i ttdi vi dual i o z. . t t ion. ht ' int r o c l u c ti o n o f c e l l rh c o rv i n the bi ol ogv fi rst of T p lant s ( ar oun< l1 8 2 5 ) a n d l .rfc r o [.rn i m a l s (a round 1ti 40) i ncvi -

sur phinomincttle Ia vi,:communt du\ animdu\ ninth ofhis Legont les The et aux v,lp1ttour. organism is a societl ol cclls nr clemcntnrv The anclsu[ , ot - dinat e. specializaorgani sms, t once. lut onom ous a ri on of thc conr ponr nt s is a f int t ion ol r hc com plexit v , r l t he is rvhol c. Thc cllt 'ct ol t his coor dinat edspecializat ion t he cr er ' int ti on, at the le'el oI t he elem ent s,ol a liqLr icl er st it ialm i] icu B ..nur, l dubbed t he "int cr nal cnvir onm cnt , " $'hich is t hc \ut sum of the phvsicaland chem ical conr lit ionsof all cellular lif e. "Onc might dcscribc this condition o{ org.rnicperfection bv sar' in ol i ng that i t con5isr s an cvcr - m or cnot iccat r lr '<lif lir cnt iat ion t he const it ut ion oI t he int t 'r na]envir on the l abor of pr epar ing mcnt," As is r.ell knoun, Bernarduirs one ol the lirst to cliscover r, thc constan croJ t his int cr nal envir oDnr eDt , . r longvit ha m echani sm, rvhi c h he called "int er nal sccr t : t ion, " lir r r cgulat ingand controlling that constancv,u.hich hasbccn knou'n cvcr sincc .rs homcostasis. This rvasthc original, anclc.rpital,contribution ol Brrnardianphvsiologvto the moclernc.,nceptionol living organizati on: thc c\ iSt cnceof ln int cr nal cnvir ( ) nnt cnrof a const anc! . obtai nedhv colr pcnsat ingf or t lo iat jonslnt l pt r t ur blt ions, pr r > vides regulrterlorganisms rvith an assuranct rclativc indcpcnrlol encc fi om v ar int ions em m ing liom t ht 'ext cr nal condit ions olst their cxistence. Bernardwaslirnd ofusing the tenn "elasticitv" to convev his idea c,forganic Iifc. Pcrhaps had fbrgottcn th.1tthc he paratligmatic machinc of his era, the stearnengine,wasequipped rvith a rcgulator rlhen he rvrotr:


C)ne treats thc organism as a machine, and this is correct, but one conridcrs it as a lired, immutrble, mcthanirol moc/lnr, confined rrith in r hr linr it s c r l m at hc m at ic al pr ec i s i o n . a n d t h i r i s a s e r i o u s nristakc. The organism is ar otBdnic moclrine,that is, a machine equipped rvith a llcxible, elaslic mcchanisnr,ou.ing to thc special o rgn nic pr oc c s \ c s it c m plor s , \ et wit ho u t v i o l a t i n g t h e g e n e r a i l;rls of mechanics,physicsor chcmistrv.2{

and counteractperturbations.Sucha svstemis capableofaltering its rclation to the en\ironment ll'om which it drarvsits cnergv in order to maintain thc lcvcl of some paranreter to perlbrm or Somcactivity. C l aude Shannon's vor k on com m unicat ion and inf or m at ion r theor v and it s r elat ion t o t her m od\ nam ics( l9. 1li) appealedt o offer a partial ans\1erto an age-oldquestion .rbout lif'e. The second la*' of thermodvnamics, which statesthat translbrmations of an isolated systemare irreversible,owing to rhe degradationof energv in the systemor, put another u?\', to tlre increaseol thc system's r opy,appliest o object s indif ler ent t o r he qualir v of ent their statc, that is, to objccts that are either inert or deaclYet an

p. lYie," F,ncvclopacd;o,768a-69a] Life as I nfornation sms, that [26] Cvbcrneticsis thc gcneral theon- of servomechani is , ol m ac h i n e sc o n s tru c te (ls o n s to m a i ntni n certai n outputs ( pr o< luc t s r e fl e c ts ) rv i th i n fl x c < l o r v ari abl cl i mi ts. S Lrch o machines form the heart of selflregulatingsvstems, and it is hardlv s ur pr is ingt h a t s e l f-re g u l a ti n g rg a n i c s vstems, o especi al l v those mediated bv the nerrous system,became models fbr thc t,ntirc ()fcourse, the analogl betrveen class. scrvomcchanisms organand isms runs both *avs, In a regulatedsvstem,not onlv do the parts interact u'ith one another but a feedbackloop connects one or m or e m onito re d o u tp u ts to ()n er)r mo rc r cgul atorl ,i nprrts. Thus c y ber net ic m a c h i n c s ,rv h e th e r n a tu ra l or man-made,are oftcn describedin terms of communications or information theory. A sensor nronitorsan output fbr (lcviations fronr a fixed or optimum lev el. W hc n s u c h .r d c v i a ti o n i s d e te c re d ,the fecdbackl oop si gnals the control input so as to convevan instruction from sensor t o ef lec t or. It i s th e i n fb rm a ti o n c o n te nt of thi s si gnaJ that i s im por t ant , n o t i rs i n tri n s i c fo rc e o r ma gni tude. l ' hc {ccdback inf or nr . r t io n mb o d i e sa n o rd e r i n trv o d i sti nct senses: cohcre a ent structure as.rvcllasa command. An organism caD thus be understood as a biological svstem, an open c lr n a mi c a s y s tc mfh a r s e c k sto prcsrrvt' i ts crl ui l Jbri rrm l 86


organism,rvhich feeds,grows,regcDeratcs mutilatcd parts,rcacts to aggr cssion, spont aneously healscer t ain diseases is not such an organismengaged a struggleagainstthe lite ofuniversaldisin organ izat ionpr oclained by Car not 's pr inciplc? I s or ganizat ion order amidst disordcri Is it the maintenance ol'a quantirv of iDfbrmation proportionalto the conrplexityol the structure? Doesnot information theory havemore to say,in its orvn algorithmic language ,about living t hings t han llcnr i Bcr gsondid in t be t hir d r olume ol'his Ivo./otion udott;cc(1907)? In fact , t her e is a gr eat gull. an ir r educible dif f er ence, between currcnt theories of organir.ation through inlbrmation and Bernard'sideasabour indilidual developmentor Bergson's irlcas about the evolution ofspecies and the e/an litol. Bcrnardhad no cxpl an at ion f or t he evolut ion of species,and Bcr gsonhad no cxplanationfbr the stability or rcliabiliry of living structurcs.But the com binat ionof m olecularbiologv u it h g( 'net ics hasI ed r o a unified theory of biochcmistry,phvsiological regulation.rndheritabilitv oI specific variationsthrough natural selection,ro which information theorv has addcd a rigor comparableto thar of rhe phvsi cal scicnces.

O nc qu c s ti o n re m a i n s ,h o s c v c r, rv i thi n thc thcorv i tscJf,to r v hic h no a n s rv e i s y c t i n s i g h t: Wh e re doesbi ol ogi cal i nfbrmar An orcl crcan t ion or igin a te ? d rt I.rv o fl ma i n ta i n sthat bi oJogi cal o rd e r, a fb rmuJati oncontemporary ar is eonll o u t o f b i o l o g i c a l rvith tlre aphcrrisrns omne vivum cx vivo, omniJcelluloet cellulo. llor v did t h c l i rs t s c l f-o rg a n i z a ti o n o mc about i f communi cac tion dependson a prior sourceof information?One philosopher, llav m ond R u y e r, p u ts th e p ro b l e m th i s rvav: " C hance cannot account fbr antichancc. Thc mcchanicalcommunication of information bt a machinc cannot account fbr infbrmation itself, since the machine can onlv dcgradcor, at bcst, prcscrvcinfbrmation." B iologis t sd o n o t re g a rdth i s c l u e s ti o n s meani ngl ess: a contempor ar v t hc o ri c s o [ th e o ri g i n s o f l i fe o n earth l ook to a pri or chcmical cvoltrtion to cstablishthe conditions necessarv biofbr logic al ev o l u ti o n .Wi th i n th e s tri c t c o n fi ncsof i nfbrmati on theor\, one young biophvsicist,Llenri Atlan, hasrcccntlv proposed an ingenio u sa n d c o m p l i c a tc < lrc s p o n s cto thc questi on i n the fbrm of u hat hc calls a "noisc-based principle oforder," according to u.hich self:organizing svstemsevolvc bv taking advantage ol " nois e, " o r ra n d o m p c rtu rb a ti o n si n the envi ronmcnt.,\l i ght t he m eanin go f o rg a n i z a ti o ni c i n th e a b i l i t) to rnakeuseof di sl organization? But rvhv alrvays two opposite tcrms? ["Vie," Encr,clopaedia, 769a-69b] pp. Life and Dcath li 127] P ar a d o x i c a l l l ,* .h a i c h a ra c tc ri z e s l e i s not so much thc cxistcnccofthe life functions tlremselves thcir gradualdctcrias or at ion and u l ti m a te c e s s a ti o n l )e a th i s rvhat di sti ngui shesi v. l ing individualsin the rvorlcl,and thc inevitability of death points up thc apparcntexception to the larvsof thermodvnamics rvhich living things constitute.Thus, the searchlor signsofdeath is firndamcntally.rscarchfbr an irrefutablc sign of lifc,

A ug ust Weism nnn'sheor y of t he cont inuit v of t hc gcr m inat ti ve pl a sm aas opposed t o t he m or t alit y of it s som at ic suppor t (1885 Alexis Car r el'st echniclucsbr cult ur ing em br vonict issuc f ), (1912), and thc do'elopment ofpure bactcrialculturesestablished the potential immortalitv of thc singlc-cellorganism,rvhich .rvas | l rr.rl onlv br . r ctidr nt . . r n, l t h, . r l, nt t r t d. nce t o r hc i, lc, rr har .! thi pht nom , na , , 1. r ging. r n,n. r t ur ll t l, at h af ier . r , er t , lin . f r , r n, , 1 l vearsar e conscqucnces t he com plexit v of highlv int egr at ed of organi sm s. n such or ganism s,he pot cnt ialit iesof each com poI t nent are limited by thc lact that other componcntsperfbnn independent fhnctions. Dying is the privilegc,or rhe ransorn- in anv case,the <Jestinv of the most highlv regul.rtcd, mosr homcosraric natura lm achines. From t hc st andpointol t he cvolut ion of species, cleat h ar ks m an end to the reprievethat thc pressure naturalsclcctiongrants of to mutantstemporarilvmorc llt than their compctitors to occupv a certain ecological context. Death opens up avcnues,lrees up spaces and clcarsthe rvavlbr novt'l life forms - but this opening is illusorv,for one dav the bcll * ill toll lbr todar''s sur.r'ivors rvell. as From t he st andpointof t hc individual,r he genet ichcr it ageis l i ke a l o an, and deat h is t he t luc dat c uhen t hat loan m ust bc rep:ri d . t is as if , af t cr a cer t aint im e, it ner c t hc dut v ol'individI uals to disappear, rcvcrt to the statusol incrt matter. to W hv , t hen, did I r r cud'st heor "-of t he "dcat h inst inct , " pr esentcd in Be,yond Plcasure (1920), mect u.ith so much fhe Prineiple rcsistance? Freucl's In mind this iclearvasassociatcd uith encrgcti ci st concept sof lif c and ol't he psvchicpr ocesses,f a living I thing i! an unstablc svstem constantly lblced to borrorv energv from the external environment in ordcr to survive,anclif lil'e is i n tcns ion r vit h it s nonliving en. r 'ir onm cnt uhat is so st r ange , .rbouthvpot hesizing he exist cnceol in inst inct t o r educe t hat t tensi ont o zcr o, or , put dilf 'er ent lv, st r iving t or var ddeat h?"lf a
l{ ',1

on \\'egrant that the existenceofa living thing dcpencls the prior it objects h'oln rvhich it arises. tbllows t'xistenceof the inanimate that the death instinct is in accord rvith thc fbrmula statcd earlier ac c or d i n g to rv h i c h e v e rYi n s ti n c t tends to restore a pri or state." PerhapsFrcud's theory u'ill nou'bc reexaminerlin light of t he c onc l u s i o n so f A tl a n ' s rv o rk : " l n fact, the onl v i denti l i is ablc project in living organisms death. But o\r'ing to the initial capableot disruptorganisms. complexity of those Perturbations (o s ti l l g re atercompl exi tv i n rht: g ing t heir t ' < l u i l i b ri u m i v e ri s e \ er v pr oc eso fre s to ri n g e q ui l i b ri u m ." z l J F inally , o n e mi g h t a l s o rl i s h to u n d erstandthe reasonfbr, anclmeaningo1, the reactionaldesire for immortalit\', the dream ol survival - uhich Bcrgsoncalls a "useful theme ol mvthificat ion" - f bu n d i n c e rta i n c u l tu re s . A d e ad tree, a dead bi rd, a of c ar c as s in d i v i d u a l Ii v e s a b o l i s h e d w i thout consci ousness t heir des t i n y i n d e a th . l s n o t th e v a l u e ofl i fe, al ong rvi th the ot ac k nolv led g n re no f l i fe a s a v a l u e . to o t ed i n kncrn' l edqe i ts t csrentialprecariousness/ men precious rnri pathetic l)eath(or thc illusionof dclth) makes -fheirghostlv conditionis noving. llvervact mavbe thcir last.Not likc a faccin a a {accthel makc is not on rhe point of vanishing thc value *hat is irrerrievable of in dream.Evcrvthing mortalsh.rs antlunprcc!ictable.26 pp. l"\' ie," F,nc.vclopaedro, 769b-69c]





of Physiology


A B. r r ocl Lr c Phvsiologv \

Objectives ond Methods Jeanlr er ncl( 1. 197- 1558) col[28] In 155a,when t he celebr at ed lccted his previouslvpublished treatisesunder the titlc Univcrsa medicino, providcd a prcfacedetailing his conception of me<lhc i ci ne' sconst ir ucntelem ent sand it s r el. r t iont o ot her disciplines. an<l Thc first ofthose elementshe called Pllrinlo11io, unclerthat head lre placed his 1542 treatiseDc noturaliparte medicinioe,fhe object ol phvsiologv*,as describedas "the nature of the healthv man, of all his f br cesand all his f inct ions. " lt scar celym at t er s than here that Fernel'sidea of human nature is more metaphvsical *as bor n in posi ti v e.The point t o be not ed is t hat physic'logy u 1542asa studr distinct fiom, and prior to, pathoJogv, hich itsell u aspri o r t o t he . r r t sof pr ognosis, hvgieneand t her apeut ics. acqtrircdits current Sincethen the tenr "phvsiologv"grarluallv meani n g:t he scicncc of t he lir nct ionsand lunct ional const aDt s the of living organisms. The seventeenth centurv sa\4, appearJDce (Bascl,l6l0)bv Thcorlor of, amongother works, Ph.vsiologia metlico (Amstcrdam, 165)) Zu.inger (1553-1588\, Medicinophvsiolollica ( bv J.A. Vander-Linden 1609-1664) and Er erci tiones to ph.vsi icoa olo11 (Lei pzig. 1668) bv lohannes ln Bohn ( 16. +0- 1718) . t he cight eenr h centur\, if Fre(lcri(k I bf-fmann( 1660-17+2) publishedhis Fundtr-


as ment.rPh)'siologiae earl\ as 1718,it *as undeniablv Albrecht an von Hallr:r(t708-1777) uho made phvsiologv indcpcndcntdisa c ipline of r e s c a rc h n d s p c c i a l i z e dte a c hi ng.Il i s ci ght-vol ume (1757-66\ remaineda classicfbr half .r cenl:lemento ph.rsiologiac that von Ilallcr, afier havtur\'. But it *as evcn car]ier, in 17'17, lnstitutiones medicinae in ing used his teacherIlerman Boerhaave's his coursesfbr nearly twenty years.dccidcd to publish his tirst in phvsiologioc, the introduction to rvhich textbook, Primaclineoe the spi ri t and th he dc f inc c l p h y s i o l o g vi n a rT ' a v a t c s t abl i shecl method of the clisciplinefbr a long timc to come: "Someonemay bLrti s not phvsi ol ogl objec t t hat th i s rv o rk i s p u rc l v a n a to m i cal , anatomyin motion?" lF.tutles, pp.226-21) whv anatomy took prioritv over 129] It is easvto unclerstand thc studv ol organ functions. In manv cascspcople felt that the best wav to undcrstand thc functionsof the organswas to inspcct t heir s hap c sa n d s tru c tu re s .Stru c tu re su ere macroscopi c,and llnc t ions , n o m a tte r h o rv c o m p l e x th e underl vi ng processes, rv c oulc l be u n d e rs to o db ,va n a l o g i e s i th man-madei nstruments suggcstc<l superficial structural similarities. From thc strucbl ture ol the eve,lbr example,it l.as possiblcto dcducea feu'crude notions about the phvsiologv ofvision basecl knon ledgeol'the on construction and usc of optical instruments.But the structure of the brain asrevealed clissection bv implied nothing about its ftrnction, because there wasno man-made technologyor instrumcntto uiich it could bc compared.When von Haller clescribecl panthe creasas "the largestsalivar,v gland," its sccretoryfunction coulcl perhaps comparedto that ofthe parotid, but it $'asimpossiblc bc to go further. In his Elogcol'the surgeonJean M6rv (d. 1722\, Fontcnclle rcmcmbcreclone of N{6rv'slrequentlv quotcd statcments: "\Ve anatomistsare like thc dclivcrvmcn of ['aris, r\'ho knorv cvcn the smallest,most out-of-thc-rvav strcetsbut haveno icleau hat goeson inside people'shomcs."

To find out u.hat llcnt on insidc, scvcraloptions rvere availablc: one could monitor comingsand goings,introrluccspiesintcr the household,or sm asht hc r vallspar . t lv t ot allv in or clert o or catch a glimpse ofthe interior. l\16rv's statementnot* ithstanding, hacllong used such procerlurcsto find out rvhat uas physicians goi ng on inside t he anim al or g. r nism . Expcr im cnt at iont hr ough organablationrvas naturalextension rurgicalcxcision.Andreas a ol (151,{-1564), founder ol modern anatomv,concludcd Vcsalius the his ccfcbratedHumani corporis labrico (15.13)rvithrcm.rrkson the uscfirlncss ofvivisection and a discussion its tcchniqucs,in thc of courseof u,hich he rcported on experimentsu ith ablation of thc spleenand kidnev in dogs. In thc sevcntcenth centur\',the mechani st concept ionol or ganicst r uct ur cscncour agcd his pr act ice, t at oncc premeclitatecl ancl blind. If thc bo<lv is a machine, one shoul clb e able t o cliscovcr hc f ir nct ionsol par t icular par t s, of t the mechanism's cogsand springs,bv destrovingpartsanclobservi ng thc dist ur banccor br eakdor vnol't he m achinc'sopcr at ion. pp. f"Phvsiologie," Enc.vlopaedia, 1075b-c] Il)' 1780,phvsiologyhad finallv outgrown iatromechani []01 cal theoriesthanks to thc rvork ol Antoine-LaurentLavoisierancl l-uigi Galvani.Chemistrvand phvsics rvould supplvthe nerv models. Laws,in the Neu,toniansense, rvoulclreplaccmcch.rnical thcorems.' l he Nc* t onian spir it , u hich had br eat hecl neu lif e int o eighteenth-ccnturv scicnce,transformedphvsiologvbv supplving i t not so m uch lvit h ner t concept sas uit h ncu m ct hods. l'ir cd ofrhetorical conf lict , phvsiologist socusedon specif ic ploper f ti es ol thc vit al f lnct ions. But t he ver v inllr r enceol'Ne\ r t oniin sci enccs t ill f bst er eddogm . r t icat t it udcsin lnanvm in( lsof philosophi cal bcnt . V i tal ism r vasone r eact iont o t his dogm at ism .Far t oo m uch i l ] has been spokcn ol vit alism . I t ( lid nor hindcr expcr im cnt ati on or th e f or m ulat ionof neu conccpt sin neur ophvsiologv; on

p r he c ont r a n , i t e n c rru ra g c d ro g rc s s .Vi tal i sts, emtrl ati ng thc Nervtonian stvle, fbcusedon thc details of biological flnctions Thc so-calledMontpellicr \1,ithoutspcculatingas to their causes. Schoof o[vitalists was led bv Theophile dt' Bordeu (1722-1116) Barrhez(1734-1806).Thele \r'asno more mctaand P.lrl-Joseph the "vital printhev called "vital moventcnt" c-rr phvsicsin 'vhat u.asin what Haller called"irritabilitv." Barthez's ciple" than therc de Nouveaux dlimentsde la science I'homme(l77tl)r,r'as in many tays " a s v s t c mo f e m p i ri c a l p h v s i o l o g v : T h e ri tal pri nci pl e i n man," B ar t hezar g u e d ," s h o u l d b e c o n c c i v e di n trrms of i deasdi sti nct lnr m our id c a so l ' th e a ttri b u te so fb o d y a nd soul ." Antoine Augustin (lournot seemsto havegraspedthc origithat nalirv of vitalist phvsiologv: "Vitalism bringsout thc analogies vari cty,and all m anif e s ta ti o n o f l i fc e x h i b i t i n s u c h astoni shi ng s takes them fbr its guide, but does not prctend that it can pener r ar c t he e s s e n c c f l i fe ." 2 7T o s tu d y th is " astoni shi ngvari cty," o phrsioJogists looked at thc uhole animallingcighteenth-centurv donr, lrom polyp to nran, from thc lrog to thc orangutan- that strangemissing Iink that cighteenth-centurvlvritcrs referred lo as"jungle man," and * hoseIinguisticabilitv and intelligencethev s t udic dbv c o m p a ri s o n i th th c h u ma n . u Il'cl.rssicism biologl meansrigorousclassification in combined rvith mathcmatical!cr<'ralization. thcn the term does not apply * to eightccnth-centuwphvsiologv, hich tcrokall living rnatter fbr as its subject. It tolerated"in-betrveen"catcgories, Lcibniz called t hem , and i f i t g e n c ra l i z e d t a l l , i t $ a s i n i mi tati on ofl i fe i tsel f, a uor k ing en d l c s s a ri a ti o n s n a s ma l l n u mber ofthemes. It uas a v o picturesr;uescicnce,curior:s about minutiae .rnd about nature's ln r nc at e w a )s . standspoiscdbetrveenthe docEighteenth-centunphvsiologv u'hich trinaire dignity of the prcviouscentury'smedical svstems, bore the rvcight ofear)icr dogmas,anclthc rather frenetic cxper-

inrcntalismofthe nineteenth ccntury. lt rvasa fiuitful pericrd,as old ideas were explodt'd by nerv experierrce.Bold speculrtion $'asthe order ofthe day,and traditionalmethodsgavel\'ayto intuition. It would not bc long before new techniques,many discovcred trv chance,revealed hich innovativeintuitions u'erc sound u and rvhich lvere not. The per iod'sphvsiologynas as vit al as lit e it self , as m en like LazzaroSpallanzani and Armand S6guinexperimentcd on themselves, while Robert Whvtt, Ren6Antoine Ferchaultde R6aumur and StephenI lalesper{bnned similar testson fiogs, buzzards and horses.It rvas,in cvcrv senseofthe \r'ord, a bdrogue phvsiologr. vol. ["Phvsiologieanirnale." Hstoiregdnerctlc, 2, pp. 618-19] The eighteenthcentur,v wasan agenot onlv ofenlighrcn[31] ment but also ofprogress,and ol technologicalprogress first.rnd foremost, . .] Inventiveness applications and werc the watchwords [. govern ingcxper im ent at ionin physicsand chcm ist r v especiallr . Researchers investigatcd heat,electricitv,changes physical of state, chenticalallinities, the dccompositionol matter,combustionan<l oxidation,and their resultsoften spilled ovcr into phvsiologv, raising ncu problemsfor further investigation. Flectriciryjoined light and hea t in suggest ing analogies hat coulr l be used t o exp) ain t " vi tal l br ces. "The analvsis dif f er ent kinds of "air s, " or gascs, of gavepositivecontent to the idea ofexchanges bctlreen or-qanisms .rnd their envir onm ent . This "pneur nat ic" chcm ist r y r esolved the once purely speculativcrivalry betu.eeniatromechanists and iatrochcmistsin fivor of the latter. New instrumentssuch as rhe themrometerand calorinreter made it possibleto measure important bi o logicalpar am et er s.t wasin 171. t hat Daniel Fahr cnhejt I 5 solved the technical problenrsthat ha<l delared the consrruction of sensitivc,reliablt'thcrmometers, and R!aumurfollowt'd r,r'ith l urther im pr ovem ent s in l7lJ. I n 1780, I . avoisierand Picr r cSimon Laplacebuilt a device fbr mcasuringquantities of heat, 9t

T hus , a p rrt l ro m re s e a tc ho n th e n ervous svsteD r, most of' t he m ajor d i s c o v e ri e i n c i g h tc e n th -c e ntunphvsi ol ogruere thc s rtork, if not of amateurs,thcn of men uhose primary specialtv $ns not m e d j c i n e .Amo n g th c m v v e re u ch namcsas H al es,John s B()\nton Prie\tle\, Lavoisicr,R6aumurand Spallanzani. . .] Conl. tcmporarv te\ts therelble givc a misleading,altogcthcr too ac.rdem ic pic tu re o f th c s ta teo [th e d i s c i p li nc. It i s odd that rvhcn ['ierrc JeanGeorgeCabanis publishedhis survcyof the nerv phvsiologv in 1804,hr'mentioned only u,orksand experimentsbv ph,-sicians,even though he rtas rvell arvarcthat one of the rcasons I ir r t he s up c ri o ri tvo f th e n e rv m c d i c i n e w ' as the contri buti on of "thc collateral scicnccs,rvhich are constantlvproviding us vvith nt ' u ins igh tsa n d i n s tru m c n ts ." [...] The sevenrccnth eighteenthcenrurici are alike in that both and rterc <lominatecl a singlcgrcat discovery. by But Willi.rm Harvev's rrork nearly inauguratedhis century, w'hereas Lavoisier'snearlv c lt ' s ed his . l l a rre v i n l e n tc d a m e c h a n i c l l nrodel i n ordcr to (l e s c r ibconc p h i rn ()me n o nL a v o i s i c ri n tro d ucecl chemi calmodt' l ; a t o ex pf ain a n o th c r, [" Ph v s i o l o g i e a n i rnal c," H i stortegi ni ral e, v ol. 2, pp. 59 3 -9 .1 1 Ci rcu Iati o n [ 32] T hc r v o rk o f th o s e re f' e rre dto a s " i atromcchani cs" (or, r guallv ap p ro p ri a te l y ," i a tro m a th c ma ti ci ans" ) rvasconstantl y nr ot ilat ed b ! a n a m b i ti o n to d e te rm i n e, through mrasurcment an<lcalculatirtn,the larvsof phvsiologicalphenomena.This was the least contcstableof their postulates,morcovcr. 'l he circulation of the blood and the contraction of the musclcshad alr',,avs been objec tso fp rc d i l c c ti o n i b r th e p h v si ci ans thi s school . of ln Dc motLt Willi.rrn Harvcysuntmarized conclusions cordis his .rsan anatomistand his observations a vivisectionist.He calcuas latcd thc rvcight of the blood displacedbv the hcart simply in

order to show th.rt so large a quantitv ol blood could not possiblv bc produced continuouslv by any organ or be dissipatcdbv the organism,Ciovanni Alfonso Borelli uas the first to view the circulatory function, bv then well established, an ideal probas l enr to w h ich t o applv t he laus of hvdr aulics. He at t cnr pt edt o calculatethe fbrce of the svstoliccontr.rction.Assumingthat thc contractive force of a muscle is proportional to its volume and that the vo lum e of t he hum an hear t is equal t o t hc com bincd vol ume of t he nr asset er and t em por al m uscJes, dct er r nined he that the contractive forcc ol the heart is equal to three thousancl Roman pounds(l Roman pound = l1llu ounces).As for the pressure thc heart communicatesto the blood, an elaboratcseriesof deducti on s led hinr t o t he ligur e of 135, 000pounds! de"ot ed t br et cssavs his of In 1718, r r cs Keill ( 1673- 1719) Jar Tentaminamedico-phvsico the problcms of detcrmining thc tcr quantitv of blood, its vclocitv and the fbrce of the heart. I le estimated that t he blood account sf br 100poundsof t he ucight of a 160-poundman; the blood in the aorta iravels at a rate of fivc fect, three inches per hour; and the forcc of the hcart is nvelvt: ounces.(The modern figures arc that the rvcight of the blood is r)ne thi rd o l bodv r veight ; t he velocit v of t he blood is t wcnt v inches per second;and the rvork ofthc contraction rvaveofthe left ventricle is three and a halfounces.) A skilled experimentalist and a religiouszealot,StephenI Iales made an i mpor t ant cont r ibut ion t o cir culat or vm echaDics when he published his Staticol Esscrrr, ctc. ContainingHaemastoti.s (l7J3l. Hc had already written important v',orkson mathematical bot(1'721\containedillustrationsof instruanv.I Iis [egetob.lc Statichs ments he had built to measure variationsin sappressurcin roots and branches.From there it was but a short step to measurinll the pressure blood in the vessels of using a manometerconsisting of a long glasstube attached by a cannulato the jugular vein or

carotid or crural arterv of a horse, dog or shcep. Hales rvasablc to establishthat the blood pressureis lorvcr in the veins than it is in t hc arte ri c s(i n th e h o rs e ,th e b l o o d roseto a hei ght of ni ne feet lvhen thc cannularvasinsertedinto the crural artery but to onlv fifteen inches u.hcn inserted into the jugular vein); that it fluctuates rvith the svstolcand the diastolc; that it is characteristic of a given animal species;and that it is a test of the state of the hcart. Apart from thc tentative work of Borelli and Kcill, the next rvork of cqtralll great importance uas JeanPoiscuille'sAecierches sur la lorce du coeuraortique(1828). Haller kncrv and spoke of the r',,orkof tlalcs but treated it as a development of ideas of Borclli's, ftiling to apprcciatethe novcltv of the concept of arterial pressure. should not, rcscarch Thc importanceand originality of Hales's horvever,cletract from the merits ofthosc uho, follorving him and building on his results, madc progresstorvard solving some Daniel and hemodvnamics. of thc major problemsof hcmostatics u' o B c r noulli, p ro fe s s o r fa n a to mv a t B a s elfrom l Tl l to 1751, as the first to cxplain correctlv horv to calculatethe rvork done by the heart asthc product of the rvcightof blood expelledtimcs the svstolic displaccmcnt. He also made comparativestudies of tht' ( llorv ofliquids in rigid pipesand in living vcssels l/rdrodvnamica, (De usedHalcs's 1738).His pupil, I)aniel Passavant vi cordis,lT'18), work of the ligures to arriveat a motc accurateevaluationof the heart, onc close to presentlyacceptedvalues. 'lb*ard the end of the seventeenth began centurv, researchers of to invcstigatethe causes the movement of blood in the veins, rvhich are not clirectlyconnecteclto the arteries.Borelli, though admitting the forcc of the heart, dcnicd that it \r'assuflicicnt to dr iv e t he b l o o d i n th c v c i n s . H e n c e , thc mi croscopi cexami na(1561)andAntonie van Lecuwcnhoek tions bv Marcello 1\'lalpighi 98

and (1590) ol the capillarv circulation in the mcscnter) of fi-ogs a of tadpolcs assumecl verl grcat importancc, and so clid the tail ol of investigations the mesenterv a cat (1697).Albrccht Corvper's that the hcart'spulse 1752)shou'ed von Haffer(De morusanguinh, in simultaneously both artcriesanclcapillaries, could bc observed heart extcndcd to the capillaries. proving that the powcr ol the H i s theo r y of ir r it abilit y t hen enablcd him - as t he t hcor y of tonicity enabledGcorg Ernst Stahl - to argue that thc shcath o1' thc capillarycan contract independcntll,imparting an additional also circulatorv impctus to the blood. SpaJlanzani contributed ttr the solution of this problem in a sericsof papers, Surla circulal-es vasculoire, Phenomines dans 1'universalitidu s,vstime tion observie I du tle la circulotion languissante, es.llouvements sang indipendants des de I'actiondu coeurand La Pulsat;on artires 1171)). ["Physiologie vol. 2, pp. 601-601] .rnimale,"Hxtolrc gindrale, Respiration de physiomcchanica [33] From Robert Boylcs'sNovoetperimenta (16691,)ohn Mavorv concluclecl, eJJectibus ti otris clasticoet ejusdem .rbout l 6?. 1, t hat anim al r espir at ion involvest he f ixat ion ol . r dcplct ion of t his " spi ri t" cont ainedin t he air . I t is t he event ual spirit from the air in a confined spacethat rendersit unlit to suson tain life. ln his Experiments ancl Observtttions DiJlcrcnt Kinds oJ Air 11774-17),John Bo-vntonPricstley reportcd that a sprig ol air mint *,ill rclease enoughdephlogisticatecl (oxvgen)to suPPort combustionin an invertedbcll jar. In I775, hc infbrmed the Rolal Society that clephlogisticatcd obtained b-vthe samc mcthocl air coul d sust ain hc r cspir at ion a m ouse. t ol Lavoisier's first invcstigations tht' "principlcs" u ith n hich of mctal s c om bine dur ing calcinat ionhad m uch t he sam c aim s as Priestlcv's dctcction and idcntiflcationof varsturlies: thc analvsis, i ous ki nds of gascs. on Thc inf lucncc of t hcscgases anim al r cspi

ration $'as initially conceivedas a kind ofchemical test to study of separation the hypotheticalelcmentsofatmothe experimental had been do*ngraded lrom its ancientstatusas 'ihich studiesofthe respiration more systematic an element. Lavoisier's hi of bir ds ( 17 7 5 -7 6 )a n d g u i n e ap i g s(1 7 7 7)enab)ed m to present sphericair, a in to the Acad!miedesSciences de{initive paperon changt's the blood dtrring respiration(M!moitesur leschaneemcnts le sang que Io rcspiration,1777), tprouvedans lespoumonset su le micdnkme de o Us ing c o mp a ra ti v em e a s u re mc n ts f the vol ume of gas absorbed.rnd thc quantity of heat relcascdbv guinea pigs placed in a calorimcter, Lavoisierand Pierre-SimonLaplace werc able to and to state,in 1780, that respigeneralize theseobservations all ration is nothing other than a slorv form of combustion identical to the combustion ofcarbon. They rlcre rvrong, however,in asscrtingthat respiration is the combustion of r:arbonalone, as l avoisierrr.rsobliged to admit in his 1785 palter Sur lcsalty'rations l'oir in qu'dprouve rcrpird, rrhich it wasshorvnthat respirntionproduced not only carbon dioxide from the combustion o[ carbon but also rvaterfrom the combustion of hvdrogen.They u,erealso \{,rongto dcrcribe the lung as the locus and seatof combustion, thc hcat from u'hich thev believedrvas distributedthroughoutthe organismby the blood. Finallv, aftcr mcasuring, in collaboration rvith Sdguin, who volunteere(l serveasan experimental to subjcct.energ,r exchanges in human beings,Lavoisiersummed up his vierrs in t$'o papers, Sur lo rcspirotiondes animaux (1798) and Sw lo trontpirdtion des aninaux ( 1 7 9 0 1 . l i s d e c l a ra ti o n l p ri n c i p)ei s often ci tedl o I rsith earlier ones :,horvs thc animalComparison thcscresults oI that nr . r c hi n er c o n tro l l e db v th rc c p ri n c i pal governors: respi rati on, i rvhichconsumes hydrogen carbonand rvhichsupplies ancl caloric; transpiration, rvhichlluctuates rvith the requiremcnts ofcaloric;

which rcstores the blood n hat to digcstion, and,lastbut not leasr, i t ha.lor t br r espir ar ion t r , r nspir at ion. and vol. gdndrc.le, 2, pp. 595-96] ["Physiologieanimale," Histoirc ofanimal heat cojn[34] The end ofthe debateover the causes cided with the beginningsof a dcbate over the jeat ol the phein nomenon. L.rvoisicrhad proposed that carbon and hvrJrogen of the blood are oridiztd in the vessels the lung bv the action of oxvgenon a hvdrocatbonicfluid secretedtherein. Objections to thi s vi e w vver eput f br war d in l79l by Jcan- t lenr \ Hr ssenf r at z, ol a former assistant Lavoisierand later a disciple of the mathcmati ci an l- agr ange, who descr ves edit f or having f ir st r aised cr in them, Ifall the heat in thc organismis first relcased the lungs, asked,u,hv don't the lungs drv out? Or, in anv case, Hassenfi'atz vvhvaren't they rvarmerthan thc other organsof the bodvi Isn't in i t theref or e m or e liLelv t h. r t heat is r eleased al) par t s ol t he pulm onar r bodv supplied wit h blood? Accor ding t o I agr ange, * bl ood, in cont act u it h inhaledair , becom essar ur at e<l it h dissolvedoxygcn, u'hich then reactswith the carbon and hydrogen rvhich.rrercleased in the blood to vield carbondioxide and \",ater, u ith the exhaledair. This cxplanationis roughly corrcct (except fbr the fact that oxidation takesplace not in the blood but in thc cells themselves), but it wasnot conflrmed experimentallyuntil 18f7, rvhen Gustav )\'hgnusused a mcrcury pump to detcct the prescnccoffree gases venousand arterial bloocj. in Furthermore,the posthumouspublication of Jean Senebier's (1803)revealed sur that Spallanzari dt-roted 'l'l6moires Io rcspiration thc l .rs rr car sof hi, I ile r ( ) \ \ : \ t cnlat i( er pcr im . nt at i, , r ron r <spiration in vertebrates and invcrtcbrates, fiom $ hich he. tc,o, concluded, afier thousands ofexperiments, that oxyqen is absorbed and carbon dioxide releasedby all tissuesand org.rns,and that amphibians and reptiles may absorb morc oxygen through the

s k in t han rh ro u g h th c l u n g s . In o th cr \\' ords,i n ani mal s * i th lungs, thc lungs arc the organ of cxpressionbut not the organ of exerciscol r function coextensivcu.ith the entirc organism. Bv per f or mi n g c x p c ri me n ts to d i s s o c i a tethe respi rati onfuncti on evennrole than Lavoisier, organ,Spallanzani, from the pulnronar-v laid tht'{Iroundbtrt using his mcthodsofcomparativcphysiolog\', f or a g e n e ra lp h rs i o l o g v .[" Ph v s i ol ogi cani mal e," H i stoi re ' r ' or k yllniralc.tol.2, pp. 597-981 An Expe r im t 'nt al Science

New Styles in the Age of Lahoratories exper im cnt al [35] l L clat ionsbet $, ccn t hc f ir st syst em at icallv and t hc t hcor et icallv,t hat is, m at hem at ically, or e m phl si o logv advancc<l phvsicaland chemical scicnccsfbllorveddillelent pattems in france anclCenranr'.Thc flrst vcarof the nineteenthccnturv nitnesserl the pubJicationol Recherthes ph.rsiolooiqucs lo rur ,tieet la nort br' \ar i<r Bichat. n ho stroveto prescn'ctht ciistincti veness biologr ''ssubjeccm at t cr and m et hods in t he lacc of ol efforts bv ph1'sicistand chcm ist s t o annex phlsiologv t o t hcir s ou.n disciplincs.Bichat,thc brilliant lbunder ol gcneralanatomy, or tl re st udv ol or ganict issues, and a t cnacious chanr pionof t he conccpt of t he "vit al pr opcr t ies"of such t issue,had a pr of bund i nfl uencc on t he f ir st Fr enchphlsiologist s o em br acem et hodit cal exp cr im ent ar ion.Alt hough Fr anqoisM agcndie and Claude B ernar d,unlike Bichat , ncvcr doubt ed t he need r o usc phlsical anrl ch em ical m ct hor lst o ir r vcst igat c r phvsiological nechnnir nr s. thel ncverceascr) Lrr:licvc the uniqueness orqanicphenontto ol in ena, Th ir r v. r st he dist inct ir c f i'at ur c, oDc nt ight elen say t hc nati on al t r . xlcnr ar k,of Fr ench physiology, a r inr e r vhen phvat si ol ogv in G er nr anr r . as alr eadr being done, like phvsicsand chemistry,in laboratoriesequippcd with steadilvirrproving, inrol

dustriallv manufacrurede<luipment,rvhile Frcnch physiologists soldiered on u'ith nothing more than the rudimentary facilities availableto university professors and hospital physicians peras quisitesof thcir positions.This accountsfor the undeniabiediff er enc cin o ri e n ta ti o na n d s ty l e o f rc s e arch ei ther si de of the on Rhine. \\rhcn Bernardcompared himself to Hermann von llt.lmholtz and remarkcd in his notebook that his German colleague lbund only rvhat hc uas looking fbr, he u'asremarking not only on a diflerence in spirit but also on a disproportion of available means.For, bv this time. nerv discoveries physiologyu'ere not in to be had on the cheap. This u,asone re.rsonu'hy doctors rvho carne from the Llnitcd Statesto studv in Europe generallv preferrcd to studv u.ith Germanphpiologists,especially Karl Luclwig (1816-1895), ratherthan rvith their Frenchcounterparts. The first phvsiologvlaboratorieswere established rhe United Statesin in t he 1870 s ,a n d th e y s o o n c o u l d b o a s t offaci l i ti es and equi pment superior to the flnest Europeanlaboraton'es. physioJogv As laboratoriesgren larger and their equipment more complex, it bccame common lbr rcsearchto be conducted bv tcams rather than individuals.Researchers were more anonymous, but the discip)ine as a u,hole u'as less dependent on individual strokes of genirrs.["Physiologic," Encvclopaedia, 1076a-b] pp. l6] I l p h y s i c s n d c h e n ri s trl c x c rte dgrorvi ng i nl l uenct' on a research phvsiologv, was mainll,bt'causcphvsiologists in it found the cechniques ofthose sciencesindispensable research as roolsl though not necessarilv theoretical models. While Claude Beras nard's oftcn-repeated claim that physiologv became scientific when it becameexperimeDtal need not be taken strictly lirerallv, it is certainly true that thc radical difference betrvccn thc phlsiological expcrimentation of the nineteenth century and that of thc eighteenthcentun lay in thc systematic use ofmeasuringand detcction instrumcntsand equipment borrorvedor adaptcdfrom,
I O,l

and chem ir t r v' ol or i nspir edby, t he llour ishingsciences phvsics crcdit tor deserve To be sure, Ludrvig and his school in Gernran-v methods,as n'ell and chemical interestin physical their persistent as their ingenuity in thc constrtlctionand usc of new instruments. lt bv seemsrelativelvartisanal comParison. uas rcsearch Bernarcl's al so mor e nar r or vlvbiological, vivisecr ionbeing it s <hiel t , . 'chthat therc was.r [unniclue.But it rvould be misleadingto suggest damental difference of national inte]ligencc or genius bet$een the two countries. Indeed, thc historv of physiologv(not t'r be s conlirscd\r.ith the historv of phvsiologist) shous that researchers in both countries leanred from each otht'r nnd exchangedideas .rhout how to inrproveexPerimcntalmcthods by borron'ing from Ludwig becam cf am ous.lor exam ple,not only other d isciplines. but blood gases even lbr building the mercun pump ftrr separating more for the construction of the celcbratedkymograph (18'16). ofthis instruthc In ternrsoftechnologicalphvlogencsis, ancestor ofJtan Poiscuille.LudmcDt \1assurelythe "hcmodvnamometer" u ig's genius u.asto couple Poiseuill."sartcrial manomet('r to a out ,\ graph icr ecor dcr .Whcn Et ienne- Julcs lar ev( 1830- 1904) sct to develop and perf'ect the graphic method in France, he rvas and dircctlv to [.udrvig. therefbreindebtedindirectlv to Poiseuille

pp. IErudcs, 231-32]
lr bor r or ved om phr sl )7 1 Event hough anallt ical t echniques they could not ics and chcmistry pro'ed fiuitful in Phvsiology, m et hod t hat Claudc Ber nar d called di scredit or supplant t hc "operative physiology,"in rvhich vivisection, resectionand ablaofothenvise intact organisms, tion are usedto disturb the balance 'fhis traditional method $.asuscd bv Julien Jcan Ctsar Lr:gallois ninct cent h cenr ur v and br and Fr anqoisl\ 't aqendie lv in t he ear P i errc Flour ens lat er on. G ust av Theodor c Fr it sch and Julius E dw a r d Hit zig used galvanicst im ulat ion of t he cor t ex t o distinguish betwecn motor and scnsory functions in the ccrebral
to t


lobes( J 870) . F ri c d ri c hGo l tz re fu s c dto a c l m itthe val i di tv of any ot her m et hod. l\4ostof thc t'arlv rvork on glandsrelied on ablation. Charlesu E douar d B r ou. n -S6 q u a rd s e d i t to s tu d y th e adrenalfuncti on ( 18. 56) , Nlor it z Sc h i fl to s tu d v th e th v ro i d functi on (1859 and 1883) ,and I : m i l e Gl c v to s tu c l yth c p a ra rh v r oi d functi on (1891). Beforc the active principlcs of the variousendocrine sccretions coulcl be identified (aclrenalin Takaminein 1901,thvroxin bv bv E dr v ar dCalum Ke n d a l l i n 1 9 1 4 ),p h v s i o l o g i sts ed to ri cmon, tri s t r at e t he c hemi c a l a c ti o n s o fg l a n d s trv me ansof organ transplants. In 1849, fbr examplc, Arnold Adolphe Bcrthold rcvcrsed the ellects of castrationin a roosterbv transplanting testiclesinto its peritoncal caviry. In 1884,Schiff transplanted thvroid lrom a o nc dog t o anoth e r, th e fi rs t i n s ta n c co fa n opcrati on that had bec om cc om m o n p l a c cb v th c c n d o f th c c e n turv. The techniquesof operati.r'e phvsiologvu ere used in conjunction rvith the ne.rr.mcthods (tec rrophvsiology map thc funcof to ti ons ol nc r v c bu n d l c si n th e s p i n a lc o r< la n d t o producean atl as .rvcre of cercbr.rllLnctions.Charles Scott Sherrington's discoveries based very preciseoperativctechniquesinvolving difTcrentia) on "prcparations" (decorticated,riccerebratcdand dccapitatcdanim als ) . I n s t udy i n gth e fu n c ti o n so fth e s v m p a theti c nervoussvstc m , phv s iologi s ts l i e d o n v i v i s c c ti o n l o n g bel brc turni ng to re chemicalmethods u ith .lohn Novport l-anglev. wasvivisection It th at enabled CI a u d e B e rn a rdi n 1 8 5 .1 d e m onstratethc rol e to pJayed thc svmpathericsvstemin calorification(regulatingthe by cir c ulat or vf low i n th e c a p i l l a ri c s ), [...] Despite the f;ct that some of its grcatesrrcpresentatives _ Bernard,lbr instance- insistedthat phvsiologvl,as an independent discipline rvith methodsof its orvn, l.lrilc othersstressed its subordinationto physicsand chemistrv (Karl Ludu,ig) or mathematics (Hcrmann von Helmholtz), ninetecnth-centunphvsiologv ro 6

\\as not altogether dcvoid of unitv of insPirationor Purpose lt \4asthc 5cienceof functional constantsin organisms One sign that it was an authentic scicnce is that from l\{agendieto Sherstudiesand rington anclPavlovu'e find a grcat manYovcrlaPPing clisand simultaneous and cliscoverics a large numbcr of seParate over prioritv, somctimesnot )' (sometimesrvith disputtrs coveries The historv of physiologvcnjovcrl a relative inrlependenccliom I thr: hi storv o f Phvsiologist s.t m at t er slit t lc r vhet herit r vasSir rvho "rc.rlly" discovcrcdthc firnction of CharlesBell or Nlagcndie Jlliiller the spinalnerveroots, rvhether MarshallHall or lolrannes or reflcx actions, Emile Du Bois-Revnloncl llerfirst discoverccl or David Ferrieror Ilermann i\'lunkthe cormann motor currents, tical centcr of vision. As soon as mcthods and Problemsbecome to adjuste<J each other, as soon as instrtlmentsbecome so highlv ol that their verv use imPliesthc acccPtnnce comnlon specializcd scicn it is t r ue t o sav t hat scienccshaPcs uorki ng hv pot hescs, ti sts j ust as m uch as scient ist sshapescience.[ "I 'hvsiologic en vol. ), pp. +lt2-8'11 gindrale, Alfemagne," ITistotrc Physiology ls Not an Empirical Sciencc solelvon the instrumcntalsidc of cxperimtrn[38] b concentrate of tati on \\!ul d be t o give a m isleadingidea ol t he clevclopm cnt phlsiology, though. Some historical skctches nineteenth-centurv and methodologicalmanifistousgire thc irnpressionthat instnrmcnts and the tcchniques that useclthem rvere someho\\ idellt' 'ib be sure, tlsing an instrument obligcs thc user to subscribeto about the firnction under studv. For cxample, Emile a hvpothesis inductive slide phvsicallrembodicsa certnin Du Bois-Reymontl's idca of the linctions of ncrve anrl muscle, but it is hardlv a substi tute fbr that idca: an inst r um ent is an aicl t o explor at ionbut ol'no use in fiaming qucstions. l-hus,I cannot agrce\\'ith thos( as hi stori ansof phvsiologr , , Pr of cssional ut 'll as am at cur , \ nho
t0 7

would outdo even Claudc Bernard'sopen hostility to theorv by ascribingall progress nineteeDth-century in physiologyto exper_ inrenration.The theories that flernardconclemnedwere systenls such asanimism and vitalism, that is, doctrinesthat ansiver ques_ t ions bv in c o rp o ra ti n gth e m , F o r B e rn a rd,dara col l ccti on and researchwere to be distinguished from fruitpicking and stone quarrving: "To [re surc," he rlrotc, "many rvorkersare useful to sciencerhough their activitiesbe limited to supplyingit with rarl, or empirical data. Nevertheless, true scientistis the one who the takesthe rarv materialand usesit to build sciencebr, litting each fact into place and indicating its significancewithin the scien_ tific edifice asa u'hole."28 Furthermore, the Intrcduction litude A clela midecine expirinentale (18651is a long pJeaon behalfofthe ralue oficleasin research, with the understanding, ofcourse, thar in s c ic nc ea n i d e a i s a g u i d c , n o t a s tra i tj a cket. W hile i t i s tru e th a t e m p i ri c a l e x p cri mentati on enabl ed M agendiet o e s ta b l i s hth e d i fl i :rc n c e i n functr.onbetu.eenthe ant er ior anc lp o s tc ri o r ro o ts o f th e s p i n alcord i n 1g22. i t must be grantcd that Sir CharlesBell had not found it unhelpful eleven vearsearlier to rely on an "idea," namely,his ldea oJa Nev Anot_ om y oJ t hc B ra i n(l 8 tl ): i ftrv o n e n e s i n n crvatethc samepart of the body, their efli'cts must be differcnr. The spinal nervcshave both motor and scnsory f'unctions,hence different anatomical structures.Given that the spinal cord has r$.o roots, each must be a firnctionallr differcnt nerve. A lt houg h th e e a rl i c s t re s u l t: i n th e p hrsi ol ogv of nutri ti on came from.lustus von Licbig's chemical analyses and Magendie's investigatjons the el}'ectsof dilicrcnt diets on dogs, rhe rvork of of W illiam P ro u t (1 7 8 5 -1 8 5 0 ) n s a c c h a ri des, and al bumi ns o fats in the human diet crnnot be said to havesufferedfiom thc fact that his rvork wasguided by an "idea," namelv,that what humans eat , r v hc t he r i n tra d i ti o n a l d i e ts o r c a rc f ul l vcompost,dnenus,
r o8

reflects an instinctive need to re(:onstitutethat PrototYPeof all di ets, milk. If the wor k of Her m ann von elm holt z dom inat edr he physiol ogy of t he sensor vor gansin t he ninet eent h cent ur y, it was he, justly renorvnedas an inventor of instrumcnts (such because exPer im ent alin as thc opht halm oscope 1850) .r vasan ingenious ist rl'ith a broad mathematical background that he orved to his training asa phvsicist.When a mathematicalmind turns to natural sciencc,it cannot do r vit hout ideas.A st udent of Joh. r nnes M0ller. rvhoselarv of the spccific energv ol the ncrves.rnd sensory organsguided all the period's thinking about psychophvsiol ogy, Hclm holt z *as able t o com binc his o$'n insist enceon and quantificationu ith a philosophicalundcrstandmeasurement ing of the unity of nature that he took fi"om his teacher,whose influence is apparcntin all of Hclmholtz'su'ork on muscular*ork paperon the principal sourccofheat in the anclheat. lfthe 18,18 $orking nruscJe rcpotts dataqathcred u,ith temPeraturt-Dreas(lrdesigned Helmholtz himsell, his 1847 by speciallv ing instruments rvork on the conserv,ltion of forcc, Uber die Erhohung der Krot't, rvasinspired by a certain idea of the unity ofphenomena and the inteliigence thereof. In his flnal lectures at the l\{usdum, published by Dastre as aur animou\ et au\ Leqons lesphinominesde la vic communs sur vdgdtoux (1878-79\, Claude Bernald discussed, along with other key ideas,the unity of the vital lunctions:"There is onh one rvav of life, one physiology,lbr all living things." Bv then, this idea epitomizcd his life's u'ork; carlier, hou'ever,it had sureh guidcd him t o challenge hi s rescar ch. n t he l8. l0s, it had encour aged I the conclusions reachedbv Jean-Baptistc Dunlasand JeanBaptiste Boussaingault their Stotique in chiniguc (1841),much asvon Liebig wasdoing at the sametime in Gennanv.Dumasand Boussaingault had arguedtlrat animalsmerclv break dorvn organic compounds,


uhich onlv plants could svnthesize. Bcrnard,horvevcr. described ali his rvork on rhc glvcoqenicfunction ,rf rhe liver,fiom thc lg.lll paper reaclto the Acadimie des Scicnccsto the doctoral thesis ol l85l, as a c o n s e q u c n c c f rh e .rs s u m p ti on o that therc i s no di F fcrencebetu,eenplantsarrdanimalsrvith rcspectto their capacitv t o s v nr hes iz ei n tt' rmc d i a re ri n c i p l c s _ " d eed,tht,rc i s no hi er_ " p In arch,v plant and animal kingdoms; still more radically,I3crnard of clairred that fiorn rhe standpointofphrsiologl there are no king_ c lom s . He r c ftrs e dto b e l i e v c th a t th e re w as somethi ng pl .rnts c or r ld do t hat a n i n ra l s o u l d n o t. l n a n s l re ri nghi s cri ti cs bv rc_ c a certain conception of the division of labor anrongorgan_ Jectlng isms, Bernardmar havercvcaledthe (not vcrt,ntvsterious) secret ol his s uc c es sT o b e s u re , B e rn a rd ' s c l i e f u,.rs . b a,.fccl i ng,,.not an "argument," as he stated in the lcqons de phvsioloqie expdri_ mcntaleoppliguie d lo nidccinc (1855-56;. It rlas not cven a *.ork_ ing hypothcsisconcerningthe functions of some organ. But even if it u' asnot s tri c rh D e c e s s a r,v h o l d th i s b cl i cf.i n orrl er ro to di s_ covcr the liver's glycogenic firncrion, the facr that Uernard dirl hold it hc lpc d h i n r to t-m b ra c ea n i n rc rp retrri on ol .hj s resul ts t har m os t of his c o n te mp r.rra ri cb u n d < l i s c oncerti ng. ls These eramplcs. dra* n {iom variousflclds of research, shorv t h, r r . pc r im e n ta l i rts c e d n o t p rc tc n d to b e pure empi ri ci !ts, ex n lvorking *,ithout icleasof anv kind, in order to makc progress. llt'rnardobservcd that the expu-inrentalist.r,ho dcresn,t knorv rvhat he is look ing f b r w o n ' t u n d e rs ta n d .h a t h e fi nds. The u acqui si tion ol scierrtillc lnow.leclgercquires a ccrtain kind of luci<iitr. Scientific discovcrvis more than indiviclual good fbrtune or accl_ dent algood luc k : h e n c e ,th c h i s ro r.,r.o lc i e nccshoul d s l > t, hi s_ a torl of the formation, delormation and rcctification of scientific c onc c pt s .S inc es c i e n c ci s ; b ra n c ho fc u l trrrc , educati on i s a prt,_ r e< luis it e s c ie n ti fi c d i s c o v e rr., h a t th e i n di ri dual of W sci cnti sri s c apablcof dc pe n d s o n rv h rt i n fi -,rma ti o ns avai l abl e; i i frvc fi rr-

r get that, i t is easvt o conf useexper im ent at ion vit h em pir icism . pp. IEru</es, 232-35] Accidents, the CIinic ond Sociolizotion [39] It i s im possiblet o u'r it e t he hist or l ol r andom evcnt s,and i fsci encc \ er e pur ely cnr pir icalit r vould be im possiblct o r vr it e the histor) of sciencc.One must havea rough scnseof periodizaon tion to benefit lrom anecdotalcviclence.Research digestion ofl ers a g ood exam ple oI t his. A gr ear deal r vaslear nccl. r bout digestivephvsiologr in thc secondhalfol the ninetecnth century, horv tcrusegastricfistul.rs perlirrnr .rfier rcse.rrchers disco"ere,J to of the experimentson rvhich todav'sunclerstanding digcstion is bascrl.After 1890, in particular. Iran ['a' lov nradcgood use ol a techni quet hat he him self had lr clped t o per f cct . But t hat t cchni r;trc had bcen pioneer cr l,sim ult anr ouslvbut quit r : indr penderrtl v,by VassiliBassov 1842 and Nicolas Blondlot in Tr oir l in (lnalt,tique,1cIo ditlestion,considtrdc potticuliircnent dans I'honnte ( ct l cs ani ndu\ ver t dbr di18, t ] ) . r e Near ly t r vo cent ur . ics ear . licr , Rcgnerdc Graafhad sucrt'ssfullr produced a pancreaticllstula in a dog (Dirpulrrriomediccr natLtro utu suc(ipdncra(lttci, 1661), dc ct but no one everattempteclthc sameoperation rvith othcr organs. R cnc A ntoinc Fer chault<lc Ri. r um ur 'sexper inr cnt s 1752anci in l-azzaro Spallanzani's 1770,both ofrvhich haclbcen perfirrmed in in orclerto <lecidrbetrlcclr van I lclmr>nt's chcnrical.rnd Borclli's mechani calcxpl. r nat ionol digest ivephcnonr cna,involved t lr e col l ccti on of gast lic juiccs lr om t he csophagus ingenious ut hr lr roundaboutm eans;neit hcr m an secm sr o havct hought of int r oduci ng an ar t if icial f ist ulaint o t he st om r ch. f be invent ionol t he arti fi ci algast r ict ist ulali'llo*cr l t lr e Am er icanphysician William B eaumonl's hunt er , pubJicat ion his obser vat ions . r Canadian of of A l exi s S aint - M ar t in,*'ho, alier bcing shot in t he sr om ach,pr c, sentcd w i th a st om ach list ula r vhoseedgcsadhcr ecl o t he abt

dominal rvalls.Beaunronr, havingtaken the man into his cmplov, reported his observations contractions and gastric secretions of in a paper entitlcd "Experimcnrs and C)bser\ations thr: Gason t r ic J uic e a n d th c Ph v s i o l o g y f D i g e s ti on' ,(1g33). The hi storv o of surgcryollers ferv other cases spontaneous of stomachfistulas, and none u.asobscrvedin any rvay comparable to Beaumont's. Thus, an accident suggested mcthod of experinrent_ one that a Bassov and Blondlot rvould later make systematicuse of. It was no accident,hou-cver, rhat this originalaccidcntlvasfirst patiendy ex ploit c d a n d l a te r i n tc n ti o n a l l y re p roduced,The chemi stsof t he per iod w e re i n te n s e l vi n te re s tc di n the chemi cal composi _ tion of fbodstuffs,and this had led to interest in the chemistry of digestive sccrerions. The flrst chemicalana)rses ofgasric juices uerc undertakcnbv Prout (1824). Hou.evcr, because ph,,siologists neededto obtain thesejuices, uncontaminatcdby foo<lparticlcs, in consiclcrable quantities,they had to figure out ho\a,to retricve t he juic es i t rh e m o m e n t o fs e c re ti o n . fhey al sohad ro l l nd the right anim.rl to stud), (,nc rvith an appropriateanatomical ltructurc and digcstivepatterns. Thus, accidentsand unfbresceneventssornetimes give rise to Deu t ec hD i q u e so f o b s e rv a ti o na n d n re rhodsofresearch. One thing le.rdsto anothcr. Similarlv,scientiflc problems sornerimes ar is e in on e d o m a i n o r fi e l d o f s c i e n c eonl v to be resol vedi n another.For c'xample, history ol phvsiolr_rgv the cannot be entirelv div or c ed f i o m th e p a ra l l e lh i s to ri c so fth e cl i ni c anrl ot.rnedi cal pathologv. And it w.as not alrvays phvsiologythat instructcd pathologv : r ela ti o n sa mo n g th e d i s c i p l i n e srv erecompl ex. C onsi der [i-rr nroment the historv ol nervousand endocrine phvsiology a in rhe ninetccnth century. Clinical obsenation revealedfunctional disordersand disturbances rhat physiologists first foun,Jdiffi_ nr cult to explain,fbr they couJdnor ideDtifi u.hat repularon nrech_ anism had gone a\r-ry,Without the history of clinical rvork on

Addison'sdisease surgervon goiters, it is impossibleto make or senseof progressin unrlerstanding the physiologvof the adrenal and thvroid glands.The u ork of rhe phvsiologistBrorvn-sequard often beg. r nwit h som e m edical linding; and in t his r espect it diflered sharplyfrom the work ofcertain othcr phvsiologists, such asClaude Bernard.IErr.rrles, 2 36-38] pp. \.\,rs not thc phvsiologisr's rrnlv source ot scien[40] Dise.rse tific challenges. Healthv individualsare neither idle nor inert and cannot be maintained artificiallv at the beck and call of ingen'li ous or rcst less exper im ent alist s. he healt hv per son t oo is, by definition, capabJe carryingout tasksset by naturean(l culture. of In the ni net eent hcenr ur y,t he dcvelopm cntof indust r ialsocieti es i n E urope and Nor t h Am er ica led r o r he socializar ioD. and thereforepoliticizatitrn,of qucstions<rfsubsistence, diet, hvgiene .rnd u'orkerproductivitv.It is no acci(lentthat problemsoI energy utilization arosearouncl this time, especially Germanl,in rcgarrl in to both th e st enm engin( 'and t ht 'hum an r ) r ganism The sam e . doctor, Julius Robert von Maver, rvho proveclthat energy could Dot be destroyedbut onlv convr:rtcdfiom one fbrm to another (J842) - Ir om wor k r o heat , or vice ver sa- also publisbedt he rcsul ts ol his r csear ch diet ar v ener get icsin 1845. His wor k on confirmcd that of von l-icbig, n'hose research organic chemon i stry as app lied t o phvsiology lli42) r clat ed r hc calor if ic values ( of vari ousnut r ient s such as f ir s, sugar s and pr ot eins lo var ious organic phenomenainvolving expendituresol energv; thesc rcsults rverefLrther elaboratecl and refined bv Marcellin Bcrthelot ( l E 79) and l\ 1axRubner and Wilbur O lin A r war er( t 904 ) . S i mi l arly,t echnologicalpr ogr . ess econom ic changehad and subjectedhuman beingsto extreme conclitions.Peoplehad bccn l brced, i n \ {ar and peace,t o cndur c cxt r cm gs of t em per at ur e, to uork ar high altitudes, to dive ro grear depths; orhers chorc to subj ect t hem selvesvolunt ar ilv t o ext r em c condit ions, as
rl l

on in s por t . - lir c i te j u s t o n c c x a mp l e ,Pa u l Bert' sresearch anoxc nr ia at high a l ti tu d e (1 8 7 8 ) p a v c d th c w av for l ater studi esof that had to be understood bcfbre intercontinental plrenonrena pascoulcl become routine. ["Physiologie," Enc.vclopaesengerl-Jight dia, p. 1076c-11a)



Pr oble

m s of [ 'h v s io log r

N in e t e e n t h - C e n t u r v

Bioenergetics [-11]The r esolut ion,t hr ough chem ist r v,r r f an age<r ldpr r r blt nr ol ' phvsi ologv f or ced phvsiologist s o conf r ont a pr . r blenr t hat t yet to resolve:Hor,, can energv exist in a v.rrietyol phvsicshad ( l i rrnrsT n Car r csian echanics, 5t at icsl( pcn( l on f hc conser v. ll m ti on of uor k, and clvnanr ics t he conser \ r t ion of nr ( ) r nent um oD (mr' , massr im es velocit v) . Leibniz. in his clit ique ol C. r r t esir n mcchanics, considcrcdthe quantit\ nir'l (masstirres the sguareof \el oci t\, \ ahich he called t he "live f br ce") t o be a subst ar . r cc. t hat i \, nn i nva r iant , but hc f ailcd t o not c t hat in anv r cal nr echanical sYstem inr,olvingf;iction, this quantitv does not J'enr.rin cor)stanl, due to thc gcncr at ionand loss of heat . The eight eent hcent ur r Iiilcd to formulate thc notion of conscrvationof cn,.'rgv. tht: At beginning of the nineteenth ccnturv, tl\'o firrms of energr nere rccognizcd:the energvof motion (kinctic or potential) and heat. But observations made bv techniciansand engineersconcerning the operation of thc steam engine, the boring ofcannon Lt.rrrels and so on lcd to studv ofthe rclationsbctrvcenrvork an<lhe.rt. ' fhe fi r st per son t o asser tt hc indest r ucr ibilit v and, const , qucntlv, the conservationof energv through varioustransfornr.rtions rvasthc German plrvsician von Maycr, rvho basecl r lairns his
I Ir l


made in Indonesiain 1840 havingto do on medical obscrvations rvith the influcnce ofheat on the oxidation ofblood ln 1842,von Licbig published a theoretical papcr by Maver, entitlcd "Bemerder kungen tibcr die Krafte der unbelebtcnNatur," in the ,4nnalen initiallY. but it attracted little attention Chemieund Pharmocie, I n 1843,J a me sPrc s c o tt l o u l e u n d e rtook to determi nc cxperi ofthe calorie, and in an 1849 eqtrivalent mentalll thc mechanical paperread before the Roval Societl he claimed rcsponsibilitvfor then f'elt compellcd to dispute his claim a discoveri- and J\{ayer ofprioritl. In 1847,rncanrvhile,von Helmholtz also published a paper entitled "Uber die Erhaltungder Krafi." Maver'srvork actuallylvasmore oriented tolvard biology than Joule'sand rlas therefbremore significantfor thc history of physiology. In 1845, Maver published the results of his researchon dietarv energcticsunder the title "Die organischeBewcgungin ihren Zusammcnhangmit dem Stoffivechsel."Earlier, in 1842, und ihte Anwendung e von Liebig had published his Organisci Chemie in aul Ph,ysiologie Pathologie, which he demonstrated, through und investigationof the caloric content of variousnutrients, that all vital phenomenadcrive their energyfrom nutrition. T he uo rk o f Ma y c r a n d v o n L i e b i g actual l y cl aborated on i s t udies de s c ri b e de v e n c a rl i e r b y T h 6 o dore de S aussurcn hi s sur Recherches chimiques la vigdtotion(1804). Henri Dutrochet, aftcr establishingthe lau,s of osmosis(1826), shou'edthat residentical in plants and animals(1837). piratorl phcnomenav"'ere Sciences sponsored competition on the a When the Acad6miccles origins of animal heat in 1822, nvo Frenchmen,C6sarMausuite Despretz, a physicist,and Pierre Louis Dulong, a physician,atDulong found that experiments. tempted to reproduceLavoisicr's the eflects of respiration*'cre not enough to account fbr the full quantity of heat produced.This fbnned the startingpoint for further rvork to determine the amount of energy contributed by
t l6

nutrition: IIenri Victor Regnaultand JulesReisetpublishedtheir Recherches chimiques la respirationdesanimoux de diverses sur closses i n 1849 , and t heir r esult s wer e lat cr cor r obor at ed by Eduar d Pfliiger's researchon thc contribution of each nutrienr to the total input of nutritional energv,that contribution being meain surecl each caseby the so-calledrespiratoryquotient. In 1879, Berthelot systematizcdthese results in his Essaide mdcanique thimique,andhe also formulatedthe lavv,s animal energetics of for organisms doing external work and fbr those simply maintaining thcmsclves, Finallv,Rubner, through cxperimenrswith dogs carried out benveen 1881 and 1904, and At\r'ater, through experiments u 'it h hum an bcings conduct ed bet wecn 1891and 1904, rvere Ied to generalizethe resultsofearlicr wrrrk on the conscrvati on of ener gv in living or ganism s. A s fo r t he second law of t hcr m odynam ics,conccr ning t he riegraclation ofcncrgv, it rvas ofcoursc first fbrmulatecl Nicolas by S adiC ar not in 182. 1 but lit t le not iced at t he t im c. Benoit Pier r e [mi l e Clapeyr ont ook it up againin 183. 1, h just as lit t lc sucwit cess;then at mid-century,fbllorvingfurther research, was redisit covcrr:dby both Rudolph.fuliusEmmanuellClausius and William ' I' homs on( l, ot d Kelvin) . O r ganism s, like ot her phvsicochem ical systcms, confirm the valiclityof thc sccond lar,',u'hich statcsthar transformations energv- fbr our purposes,those taking place of rvithin living cells - are irreversib)e, due to an increase entropv. in Organisms, though,arc mechanisms capablcof reproducingthemselvcs.Like all mechanisms,thev arc capableof doing rvork, of accomplishingtransfbrmations that are structuredand, thcrcfore, lessprobablethan disorganized molecularagitation,or hcat, into u hi ch a ll ot her f or m s of ener gvdegr adcr vit hout possibilit yof revcrsal.While it is no longer possibleto accept Bichat'sfbrmulation that "lif'e is thc collection of functions that resist death," one can still saythat living rhings are systcmsu.hoseimprobable

organizationslous a universalprocessofevolution torvardthermal ccluilibrium - that is, tor,'artla more probablestate,dcath' To surn up, then, the studYof the organism'stransformations from the environtncnt \ras the \\'ork of of the energv it borr<trvs L)ur underas as chemisrs mr.tch ofphlsiologistsin th( strict sense. i \ t anding o l th e l .ru s o f c e l l u l a r mc ta b o l i smprogressedn paral studr ol the compoundsofcarbon, *hich lcl u ith thc svstem,rtic ler l t o t hc u n i l l c a ti o no fo rg a n i c c h e mi s trl rvi th i norgani cchemo is t r r ' .F r ie rl ri c hW o h l c r' ss y n th e s i s f u re ai n 1828l cnt ne\l rP rcstige to the central idcasand methodsof rrrn I iebig and his school. in But von Liebig'sthcorv ol' lermcntation, lvhich rvasassociated ofanimal heat his mind rvith the studv ofthc biochemicalsources P asteur,* ho uas ( 1840) , u rru l d l a te r b c c h a l l e n g e db y Loui s rightlv loath to believc that fermentation phenomena\r'creinorb,r ganic pro<essc'r, nature akin to death, and thcrcfbre unrelatc<l pp. 250-62] of to the specific.rcrivities microorganisms. IErurlei, Endoc ri nology [ a2] T he te rm " e n d o c ri n o l o g y ," d u c to N i chol as P cncl c,rvas c oiner J l y i n 1 9 0 9 ,y e t n o o n c h e s i ti testo use i t to rcl er, reton relntcd to internal secreroacti\elv, to anl discovcrvor research tions. \\brk on thcse secretionsin thc ninetecnth centurv was not as far-rcachingas nork on the nervous system,vet the verY as be original nature ofthat u'ork can nevertheless sccn toda,v the causeand ctlect ofa veritablc mutation in phrsiologicalthought. -I'hat is pref'erablc the succinct term "endocrinologl-"se('rns 'r,hv ir cu m l o c tl ti o n , t o anv c thinlis to tht uork ofClaude Bernarrl,the phvst'aradoxically, ioJoeical problcm posedby the existenct'olglandsrvithout excrcglands," originallv knou'n as "blood-r'esscl ton ducts - ()rgans, n o t b c d e d u c e dl i onr anaromi cali nspecr v hos r f n c ti o n s c o u l d : ol t ion - $n \ s o l v e db l u s i n g th c s a m es tri ct D )ethods chemi cal r r8

i nvesti gat ionhat had been applied t o t he phcnom cnaof nut r it tion, assimilationthrough svnthcsisof specific compouncls,disi ntegra t ionand clim inat ion.[ . . . ] At the beginningof tht'ninctccnth centur!',nothing \1ir kno$'n about the f unct ionsof t he spleen,t hym us,adr cnalglandsor t hr roi d. Th e f ir st glim m cr of liqht c. r m eat m i( l- ccnt ur \ in connecti on u i t h Ber nar r l'st sear chint o t he digest ionanr labsor pr ion r ol sugari n t he int est ine,r uhichr cvcaled he hit her t o- inconceivable t function ofa glanrl r. hoseafllnitv vvith thosejust n'rcntioned \4as unsuspcctcd. Moritz Schifl wasalso lr-orkingon hepaticglvcogcnesisand fermentation in Bcrne in 1859 rvhen hc rliscoveredthe latal eff'ects ofdestroving the thvroicl,a result for rvhich he could I provi de no explan. r r ion. t r vasm uch lat cr , in G enevain 188J, lr ir car lierexper im ent s t h<.light of Em il that S chif f ,r evisit ing in Thi rodor e Kocher ar r r lJa<ques Louis Rever din'r r r or k on t he goit cr s( m vxedem at ous sccl uel lac sur gical cachexi. r , of excisionol m t postoper at ive vr cdcnr a) ,had t he ider of t r ansplant inghe t hr roi d i n or der t o conlir r n or r elut e t he hypot hcsis hat t hc glancl t somchor v ed chenr icallv hr ough t he blood. \ r ict or Alcxander act t llaclen Horsclv successlirlly perfbrmetl thc same erperiment on ()dilon Nlarc [-annelongue an apc in 188.1; repeatecl ldr thcrait peutic purposes a n.ran 1890.In 1896,EugenBaumann on in identi fi cd an or ganic cnnr pound of iodine in t he t hlr oid. I n 191, 1, Eduard Calum Kend:rll isolatcd the active principle in thc fbrm ol crysta llizablehyr or in. Thus, alt houghr esear ch o t he lLnct int tion ol thc thyroid beganin thc phvsiologist's laboratorl,the solu fi on i nvolved t hc clinician'ser . r nr iningr oom and t he sur geon's operatingroonr. l n th e cast ol t he aclr enal gland, t he point ol- depar t ur ef ir r rcsearch in clinical obscr-vations lav made bctuccn l8-lt) rnd 1855 by Thomas Addison and r epor t cd iD a paper ent ir led "f ) n t hc C onsti tut ional and Local Ef f ect s of l) iscascof t he Supr a- r enal

read to the Brorvn-Sequard Capsules." 1856,Charles-Edouard In on a Acad6mic des Sciences seriesof three PaPers "Recherches c x p6r im t n trl c s s u r l a p b v s i o l o g i ee t l a pathol ogi e des gl andes in surr6nales," rvhich he reported on thc lethal ellects of rcmovI'ith blood as ing the capsuJes r"ell asofinjecting normal aninrals t ak en lio m a n i n ra l su h o s e " c a p s u l e s "had been rcnroved.A s a result, Brorvn-stquardhvpothesizcdthat thc capsulessomehou produced a chcmical antitoxic ef'f?cton the comPosition of the blootl. That sameyear,Alfred Vulpian reported his obsenations in a papercntitled "Sur quelqucsr6actionspropresi la substancc The des capsules su116nales." cortical cclls reacteddif'ferentlvto various dves than the medullarv cells did, from rvhich Vulpian concluded that the latter, which turned gret'n rvhen cxposedto Thi ir on c hlo ri d e , s e c re te da c h ro mo g e n i csubstance. s rvasthe first hint of thc cxistenceof rvhat rvould one dav be calledadrenA aline. ln l i i 9 3 . J e a n -Emi l e b e l o u sa n d P au)Langl oi sconfl rmed Brorvn-Sd<1uard's experimcntal results. ln 1894, GeorgesOliver to .rnd E<lrvard Albcrt Sharpey-Schifer.reptrrted the London Physof effects iologic.rlSocietvon their obsen'ations thc hypertensive Abel isoof injt'cting agueous adrenalextract. In 1897. John-lacob fi'om thc atlrenalmcdulla, u'hich substance latcd a hypertensive Tikamine obtainedu'hat hc called he calledepinephrinc.In 1901, Aldrich in that form, and Thomas-Bell adrcnalinein crystallizable samcvearprovidcd the formula.Adrenalincuas thus the flrst horThe history ofthe hormonesofthe atlremone to be rliscovercd. nal corter does not begin until after 1900. From this brit'l sutnmaryofearly expcrinrentaluork in endow c r inolo{ } , i t i s c l e a rth a t th e c o n c e p to I i ntcrnalsecreti on, hi ch Bern.rrd formulatedin 1855,djd not nt first plav thc heuristicrole the that one might be tempted to ascribeto it. This nas because concept. which *as first applied to the llvcogenic function of the liver, initially plaveda discriminatory role in anatomyrather

than an explanatorvrole in physiology:it distinguishedthe concept ofa gland from that ofan excretory organ, But a hormone is a more generalconcept than an internal secretion:a hormone is rvhereas internal secretionis simply a an a chcmical messenger, distribution or dilhrsion. Furthermore,the hepatic flnction, the it fi rst-kn owncxam pleof an int er nalsccr et ion,is specialr plact 's a procc ssednut r im ent , a m et abolit e, int o cir culat ion, I n t his sense,theie is a dit'ferenccbetween the endocrine secretion of the liver and that ofthe pancreas: the function ofone is supplr, of the ot her , consum pt ion. lnsulin, like t hvr oxin. is t hc st im ulant and regulatorof a global mechanism;it is not, strictlv spcaking, an intermediar.v, energ,v-laden compound. Thus, to credit Bernard as the author of the fundamental concept of modern is erndocrinology not false,but it is misleading.The concept that proved fruitful lr'asthat of the internal environmcnt, u hich, unlike the concept ol intern.rlsecretion,was not closelr.rssociated rvith a specific function; rather, fiom the flrst ir was idcntilic'tl rvi th anot herconcept , t hat ot 'a phlsiologicalconsr ant .! \ 'hen it turned out t hat living cells depend on a st ablcor ganic envir onmcnt, which \Valter Bradfcrrd Cannon named "homeostasis" in 1929,the logical possibilityaroseof transfbrmingthe t:onceptof' internal sccrction into one ofchemical regulation.Once the fundamental idea rvasclear, researchon variousglantlsquickly led to the i c lent if icat ion. r ndat least )qualit at ive ( descr ipt ionof t heir firnctionaleflects. It i s not sur pr ising, t hen, t hat f iom 1888 on, t he of 'r 'or k Moritz Schif] and Bro$ n-S6quard attracted man)-emulators anri sti mul at ed r r scar ch in c'ndocr inologr ,usuallv in conjunct ion rvith a desire to correct unsubstantiated etiologies. p.r(hological It rvasthe studv oI diabetes,for example, rvhich Bernarcl's work had al readvclar if icd, t hat led joseph von M cr ing and Eugene Minkowski to discover the role of thc pancreas the metaboin

lis m of glu c i d s (1 8 8 9 ),a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y the i denti fi cati ontrv to F r eder ic kC ra n t B a n ti n ga n d C h a rl e sH erbert B cst 11922) ofthc substance that Sharpey-Schifer named insulin in 1916.lr rvas had the studv oI acromegalv l'ierre Marie ( 1886) that led, evcntuby allv, to cxperiments in hypophvsectomybv Gcorgcs Marincscu ( 1892) anrlC i u l i o Va s s a l a n d Erc o l e Sacchi(1892),and l arer ro e u orl that dis< inatcdbcr$ ccn the llnctions ol the anterioranci rinr pos t er iorl o b c s o fth c p i tu i ta ry (5 i r IIe n ry D al c i n 1909, Il arvcv Cushing in 1910,and Herbert McLean EvansanclCrarvlbrclWilliamson Lolg in l92l). Bror"n-Sequard's experiments alsospurred rvork on sex hormones,despite the ironic slepticism of many in t hc f ic ld. T h c ro l c o f th e p a ra th v ro i d s , hosc,' rnatomi cal su' dj tinctivcn(sr \\'cnt unnoticed until lvar Victor San<lstrrjm's $ork of 1880,uas elucidatedin I89? through the research Emile Glev. of Thus, the phvsiological concept ofa chemical regulator,in its current scnse,u.asclaboratcdin the late ninctecnth century, but an ex pr es s i v e rm fb r r' t h a d v e t to b e c o i ned. In 1905,W i l l i anr te B ay lis sanc l Ern e s t Sta rl i n g , a fte r c o n s u l ti ng a phi l ol ogi st col feague,proposecl thc tcrm "hormonc." [Etudes. pp.262-651 Neurophysiology * [ . + 3] O l a)l th e s v s te m s h o s r' l i rn c ti o n s arc dctermi ned bv rhe need t o pre s e rv eth e i n re { ri tv c rf c e l l u l ar Ii fl , thc onc rvhorc mechanicalnature al\iavs arousedthe lervesrobjcctions rvasrhc neur om us c u l a r.Me c h a n i s ti c th c o ri e s fl rst.l rose not from thc studv of plant growth or from viscousanclvisceral palpation of t he m ollus k b u t l ro m o b s e rrrti o n o f th e di sti ncti ve,sequenri rl locomotion ol r<rtcbr.ltcs.rvhos< ccntr.rl ncnous svstcnts control and coorrlinatc a scriesof srtgmentary movcmcnts that onc can s im ulat eby m e c h a n i c a me a n s .' A n a m o eba,"A l ex von U exki i l l l m aint ainec l",i s Ie s so fa ma c h i n eth a n a h orse."B ecause somc of t he ear lies tc o n c e p tso f n e rro u s p h y s i o l ogv afl ercnt and cl l i r-

r:nt p;t hw'ays,r eller cs, localizat ion and cent r alizat ir ) n \ r er e b.rsedin part on analogiesu'itir opcr.rtionsor objectl that rvcrt: finriliar bv dint ofthc constructionand/or usc ofmachines, progress in this branch of phvsiologv, r'hosc discoveries\,verealso incorporated by psvchology,earned it widespreacl recognition. A l thoug h t cr m s such as"hor m one" and "conr plcx" har , e er ed ent contmon parlance,they surelv rentain morc csoteric than a rrrrd l i ke " ref lex, " r vhoseuse in conncct icr nr vit h spor t shas m adc it enti rcl y r out ine. lf the motor elfectsofthc dccapitationofbatrachians and repti l es had led eight eont h- ccnt ur y ese. r r cherts suspcctt hc r ole r o ol the spirral conl in the nruscular linctiorr, and il the erperinrents of R obcr t Wh, r t r ( 1768) and Julien JcanC6sarLeg. r llois 1812) ( alreadv had a positive character,it rvasncvertheless impossible to explain u,hat Thomas Willis in 1570 called "rcflt'cted movements" in terms of thc rcflcx arc untii the Bell-Magcnrlic larvhacl trccn l dnnulat edand r er ilicd ( l8ll- 22) . l\ 'lar shall Hall'sdiscover v of the "<liastaltic"(reflex) function ol thc spinalcorcl.simultancouslr glimpsed bv Johannes Miiller, rlas a ncccssary consequence of differcntiating the variousfunctions of thc spinal nerve. That dilh'rcntiation also lecl inevitablv to idcntillcation ol lirnctional l r spe cialized bundles conduct or suit hin t he spinalcor d - bv of K arl Friedr ichBur d. r ch 1826,JacobAugust us in Lockhar tClar ke in 1850,Brorvn-Sirquard 1850an(l FriedrichGoll in I860. Uasecl in initiallv on experimentsinvolving scction and excitation of ncrve fibels, this work precededFrieclrich\4ralter's discovcrvofspinal degenc r , t t ion l8 5l) . in ()ncc t he du. r l signif icance conduct ion along t he ner r ous of fl ber ha <l . : n t 'r m incd,t he cxcit abilit v anclconduct ivit v of be, der ncrvoLrs tissue vverestucliedsystcmatically, along lvith the contra(tilc propertiesof muscle. l his r"ork uas the positivt'or cmpiri cal port ion of a lar gc volum e ol r eser r ch.som e of ir nt agicalin

character,spurred by the discovcry of "animal elcctricity." The lield of electrophvsiology beganwith Luigi Galvani's obsen'ations and experimcnts,his polemics w.ith Alessandro Volta (1794), and A lex ande r o n I l u mb o l d t' s c o rro b o ra tionofGal vani ' sresul ts.l n v 1827,Leo p o l d o N o b i l i b u i l t a n a s ta ti cgal vanometcrsensi ti ve enoughto detect very rveakcurrents.Carlo Matcucci established, in 18.11, correlationbetween muscularcontraction and the proa duction of electricity. Du Bois-Reymondvirtually inventcd the cntire apparatus and techniquc of electrophysiologyin order to subject Mateucci'srvork to stringentcriticism. He demonstrated the cxistence of u'h.rt he called "negative variation," an action por ent ialth a t g e n e ra te d c u rre n t i n c o nj uncti on w i th the sti ma ulat ion of a n e n e : h e a l s o s tu d i e d p h rsi ol ogi caltetanus,U si ng s im ilar t ec h n i q u e s , o n Il c l mh o l tz i n 1 850 measured v the speed ol propagationalong the nerve. Although this cxperiment failed to shed the expectedlight on the naturc ofthe mcssage transmitt ed, it did a t l e a s t re fu re a l l th e o ri e sh ol di ng that thi s m< ssaqe involved the transportof somc substance. After Whvtt and GeorgeProchaska identified the spinalcord's s ens or im o to r c o o rd i n a ti o n fu n c ti o n b ut be[ore Marshal l H al l explained its mechanism, t-egalloisand Pierre Flourens located t he c ent e r o fre fl e x mo v e m e n t i n th e medul l a obl ongata. A t ar ound t he s a meti m e , th t' a n c i e n t c o n cept ofa seatofthe soul r>rorganofcomnron sense, whose possiblelocation had been thc subject of much speculationin thc seventeenth and eighteenrh Albrecht von Haller had providcd a negative centuries,collapsed, answer to the question, "Do different functions stem from dif] lerent souls (An diversae diversarum oninde functionum prcrinciac)?"r{r 1808,horvtver,the father ofphrenologv, FranzJoseph In Ga)1,argued that "the brain is composed of as many distinctive systems it performsdistinct functions," and that it is therelore as not an organ but a composite of organs,each correspondingto a
| 24

facultv or appctite - and, furthermore, thnt thosc organsare to rvhich be found in the convolutions of the brain's hemispheres, were reflected in the con[iguration oIthe cranial she]1. This is not the place to deal with the allegationthat Call was a charlatan.It is more imPort.rnt to undcrstands'hv he enioyed as nruch inlluence as he did, and f br so ) ong. lle pr ovided t he phl si ol o gist sand clinicians of t he f ir st t wo t hir ds of t he nineteenth century u,ith a furrdamentalidea that one of his critics, t-elut, callcd "the polysectionof the encephalon." Louis Franqois moreover,that Gall claimed to have <onre upon his theRecall, of orv through obser vat ion t he skullsof ccr t ain of his colleagues rr ith a particularlykeen memory for u'ords;hc located the organ of thnt memory in the lower Posterior portion of the antcrior lobe. Now, it happensthar the first idcntjfication of an anatomimade by of cal lesion responsiblefor.r clinical diagnosis aphasia, Bouillaud in 1825,confirmed Call's obsen'ation.In JeanB.rptiste f 1827,B ouillaudpublishedt he f ir st exPer im r r r r al indingson t he of regionsof the cerebralcortcx in nrammalsand birds ab)ation r on Fronr then on, exper int ent s anim alsconr l>ined vit h clinical and pathologicalobservationof humans to producc a functional Paul Erocaidentified the mappingofthe cerebralcortex. In 1861, in seato[aticulate language the third fiontal convolution, which of l ed hi nr t o nr aket his decl. r r at ion f ait h: "t lr elievein t he pr inciple of localizationslI cannot believe that the complexitv ol the cercbralhemisphcresis a mere capriceofnature." In 1870,G ust avThcodor e Fr it sch and Julius Ed*ar d llit zig bl providedexperimental proofof cerebrallocalization emploving a rcvolutionarynerv technique,electrical stimtrlationol the cortcx. P reviously, due t cr t he t ailur e of at t em pt s t o sr im ulat ( t he brai n dir ect ly dur ing t r cpanat ion,dir cct t t im ulat ion had becn declarcd impossible. From experiments with dogs, Fritsch and tlitzig concludeclthat the anterior and posterior regions of the

br.rinvvercnot e(lui!?lent;the anterior region w.as rvith associarcd t he m ot o r fu n c ti o n , th e p o s te ri o r rv i th the sensorvfuncti on. B ec aus eH i tz i g c o u l d n o t a p p l y e l e c tri cal sti mul i to a human brrin, in 1874 hc insteadmapped the motor region in an apt'; in 1876.Dav i d F c rri c rc o n l i rmc d Il i tz i g ' s r esul ts. ami ng Fl ourcns N bLrtairrringhis criticism nr Friedrich Goltz, Ferricr ryrotc, "Tlre soul is not, as Flourensand many rvho came after him belietecl, sonrekind ol synthetic firnction of the entire brain, rvhosemanifcst,rtions be suppressed totobut not in part; on the contrary, can in it is c c r t a i n th a t s o m e , a n d p ro b a b l eth at al l , psvchi cfundi ons derire lrom rvcll-dcflned centersin the cen ical cortex," Similarl\, F c r r ier ' s i s c o v e rv f th e ro l < r f th c c rc ci pi tal obe i n vi si on l cd d o o l Hcrmann N'lunkin l8?8 to givc the first preciselocalizationoI a sen!'ory ccntcr, A grou ing number of expcrime nts, confir-mecl by clinical obscrvations, provided Carl Wernickc rvith the marerial t o ent it le h i s 1 8 9 7trc a ti s eo n th e a n a toml and physi ol ogv the ol f>rainthc ,.1rlos Gehirns. des But it rvasnol until the earlv ruentiet h c ent uryth a t A l ti c d C a mp b e l l(1 9 0 5 ) an<K orbi ni anB rodmann l ( 1908) ,dr a rv i n go n a (l v n n c c i n h i s to l o gvl i om C ami l l o C ol gi to s SantiagoRamon v Cajal, were ablc to lav the founclationsfbr a cvt()Jrchitectonics rhe cortcx. of ln Lc7ons lcslocolisorlons sur (1876),Jean-,\lartin Charcorrvrote, "The brain is not a honrogcreous,unitarv organ but nn associat ion. " lhe tc rm " l o c .rl i z a ti o n "rv a sta k cn l i teral l v at thc ti l l l e: i t uirs assumedthat thc trnfolded surfac.' ,rI thc cortex could be div ided in to d i s ti n c t z o n e s ,a n d th a t l c s i onsor abl ati onscoul d cxplain sensorimotordisturbances describedasdcflcits (a-phrsia, aaraphia,a-praxia and so orr). Yct Jules(iabrit'l l-ranq:ois Baillalqer had point e < o u r i n I3 6 5 rh a t a p h a s i as not a l ossof rhe memon i i , , 1r r , r r r lr .b ( ( J U :\c l l te .rp h .r.i c rt.t.ri rr rei r voc.rl ,ul .rrr l ,r.,e \o r rl hut the ability to usc *,ords properly - and in anvthing but an .rutnm at jc m an n e r.Ov e r th e n e x t tu .o d c c a dcs,Fl ughl i ngs Jackson,
t2 6

in evolui nrerpret ingsim ilar obser vat ions t cr m s oI Spencer ian tionism, introduced the conccpt of a conservativc integratirrnof neurological structurcs and lunctions, accorclingto rvhich less complex structurcsand functions are dominated and controlled ones, at a higher Jevelbv more complex and highll dil'ferentiated states rvhich appearlater in rht phvlogeneticcrrd< Pathological r. : arc not decom posit ionscr rdim inut ions ol phvsiological it at es; rather, thev involve a dissolut ionor loss of cont r ol, t he liber ati on of a dom inat ed lunct ion, t hc r et ur n t o a m or c r cf lexive, .rlthorr[h in itsell positivc,rtatc. A n i Dr por t ant event in t hc hist or v of t he localizat ion concept \!?s the I nt er nat ionalCongr ess l\ 1t 't licine d in Lon<lonin of he[ l i J81.at which Sher r ingt on,t hen aged t r vent y- lbur ,hear d r hc llomeric debatcbctueen Ferrierand FrierL'ich Goltz. I.ater,when in CharlesScott Sherringtonvisitcd Goltz in Strasbourg l8[i.1-1.l5, he lcarnt'd the techniquc lor taking progrcssive sections ol thc spi nal cor d, His u'or k on t he r igidit v causedLr r decer cbr at ion (ll{97) and rcscarchon subiectsranging liom reciprocal innervatioD to the concept ol .rn intcgrativeaction oI rhe ncrvouss|stem (1906) enabled him to corroborate and correct .lackson's fln<lamcntal ideasr vit hout vent ur ingout sidet he r ealm of phvsiologv. B ctl c cn M ar shallHall and Sher r ingt on, he st udy of t he la\ \ s t of rcllex nradc litt)e prog:'ess fiom Eduald Pl1iiq,:r's earapart l i er, rathercr ude st . r t elr cntin 1853of r he r ulcs of ir r adi. r t ion, a concept that impliod thc existenceof an clcmentarv reflcx .rrc. Shcrringtonshou.ed,to the contrarv,that even in the cascof thc si mpl estr cf lcx, t hc spinalcor d int egr at cs he lim b's ent ir c bunt tlli: ol-nencs. Brain lirnctionsmerelv expandupon this capacitvof the spi nalcor d t o int cgr at ev. r r i( , us . t s t hc or ganism . Folloupnr of ing lackson, Shcrringronthus cstablishedthat thc animal organi sm, seenin t er m s of it s sensor im ot or unct ions,is not a nt osaic f but a structure. 1'he great phvsiologist's most original contrihut) 7

tion, however,was to explain, rvith the concept of thc cortex, the differencebet$een nenr'ous mechanisms integraring for immediate and defbrrcd movements. At around the same time, Ivan Pavlovstudied anorher cortic al inte g ra ti n gl u n c ti o n , w h i c h h e c al l ed" condi ti oni ng" (1897). Pavlovshorvedhow the cortical functions could be analyzedby modifying techniquesborrowed from reflexology.When an animal (in this case, dog) wascondirionedthrough the simultaneous a application of different stimuli, ablation ol more or lessextensive regionsof the cortex allowed one to m!asurethe degreeto u.hich the sensorimotorreflex dependedon the integrity of tht: cortical intermediary,This technique, which Pavlov re[ined as results accumulatcd, rvastaught to large numbers of the great Rus s i a n h y s i o l o g i s t'd i s c i p l e s [...] . p s I u'ill cnd with a I'ew words about what John Newport Langley, 1898,calledthe "autonomic" nervoussystem, in whosefunctions, because thev involve u,hat Bichat called "vegetative"asopposed t o " an i m a l " l i [e , w e re l e s ss u s c c p ti bl eol ' mechani cali nterpretations than those of the central nervous svstem. It was _facob Winslow rl ho in 1732 coined the erpression"great svmpathetic" nervoussvstemto refer to rhe ganglionicchain. ln 1851,Bernard discovcred the effect of the symparheticsystemon scnsitivityand body temperature;in 1852-54, Bro*'n-sdquardcontributed new techniques fbr exploring the firnctions of the sympathetic ner, vous systembv sectioningnen'esand applying electrical stimuli. Langleyu'asa pioneer in the use ofchemical techniqucs,includinq thc block.rgeof synapses nicotine ( 1889) and the sympabv thicomimetic propertv of adrenaline( t 901). lEtudes, pp. 266-7 ll

CsrPren Epistemology The lirrrits of

Stx Medicine

oI llcaling

accomPanies of [44] Awareness the limits of medicine's Po\!er body which attributes to it a sPonany conception of the living its tanrous caPacit!, in nhattvcr fbrm' to preserve siructurc and lf the organism hasits oun powersofderegulateits functions. at fense,thcn to trust in thosePowers, leasttemporarilv,is a hvpoat once Prudentand shrcwd. A dvnamic bodv thetical imperative, an deserves expectant medicine. Medical genius may be a form Ofcourse, the Patientmust agreeto suffer.Th6oPhile ol patience. sur de Bordeu, well anare of this. u-rote in his Acchercfies I'histoire method of expectation hassomcthing cold or de nitlecine: "The austereabout it, which is difficult fbr the keen sensibilitiesof patients and onlookers to bcar. Thus, Ierv lew phvsicianshave peopie ar c nat ur a) lv practi cedit , p. r r t icular l\ in nat ions r uhr . r se ardent, impatient, and f'earftr]." Not all patients respondto treatmenti some recoverwithotlt in i t. l l i pp ocr at es,sho r ecor dt d t heseobser vat ions his t r eat ise On theArt, rnasalso, according to legr:nd,responsiblefor - or, i f you r vill, cr edit ed r vit h - int r oducing t he concePtot nJt ur e he of i nt,r met lical t hinking: "Nat ur es ar e t he healer s discases''' rvrotc in Book Six of Eprdernics. Here, "healer" relt'rsto an intrinlbr si c activit y of t he or ganismt hat com Pcnsat cs def iciencies,
t 29

r es t or es dis ru p te d e q u i l i b ri u m o r q u i c k l r correctsa detccred a dc v iar ion. - f h i s a c ti v i rv , h o rv e v e r, s n o t thc product of i nn.rte i knou.ledge:"Naturc fincls its orvn w-ays and means,but not bv intelligence: blinking is one such,thc various oflices ofthe tongue and so arc other actionsof this sort. Naturc doesI,hat are aDother, is appropriaterr ithout instruction and r,,,ithout knorvledgc.', T hc analo q l ' b e trn e c nn a tu rc a s h e a l e r and the nrcdi cal art t hr o\ r ' st h( li u h t o fn a tu re o n th e a rt, b u t nor vi ce versa.The medical art nrust observe,must listen to naturc; to obscrveand t o lis t c n in th i s c o n re x t i s to o b e v . Ga l e n, w ho attri buted to Hippocrates conceptsthat one can only call Hippocratic, adopted t hc m in his o* n l i g h t a n d ta u g h t th a t n a tu r ei s the pri nran,conservatoro1'healthbecause is the principal sh.rper the org.rnit of ism. I lorvever, Hippocratic text goesso far as to portray nature no asinfallible or omnipotent. The meclical originatcd,devcloped art and rvasperfected as a gaugc of the porverof naturc. Depcnding on rvhether nalure as healer is stronger or $,eakcr.the phvsician must either allorv nature to tnke its course, intcrvene to support it or help it ou t. o r re fl s e to i n te rv e n co n thc groundsthat there are diseases rvhich nature is no match. Whcre nature givcsin, for ,,To m edic inem us t g i v c u p .' l ' h u s , H i p p o c ra te s vrote, v askart fbr \ \ hat ar t c ann o t p ro v i c l ca n d to a s k n a tu rc f br uhat nature can_ not provide is to tulfer from an ignorance th.rt is more akin to madness than ro lack ofeducation," [,.ld6e de rnttre," ,Mddecine,

presumedpo\{er to corrcct disordcrson its or,'n. Nature naturL"s of r cspect cd b1 a t hcr apet r t ics r lar chlulness rhe physi ci a n 'r 'as and support. Bv contrast,modern medicinc \\'rsactivist in its orit cntati on. B acon expr essed he hope t hat it u'ould lcar n lr om Yet that it u'ould learn fiom mechanics. chemistrv.and Descartes bcnvcen the Greeksand the Moderns,for all that thcy {'erc sePararcd br,thc Copernicanrevolution and its critical consequfDces, $'it the di ffercncer em ainedphilosophical, hout per cept ibleim pict on rhc health of mankind. The sharedproiect ol llacon and [)escartcs,to prcservehca]th and to avoitl or at least dclav the decline of old age- in short, to prolong lifi - resultedin r)o notr Alt abl e achi evr nr t 'nt s. hough Nicolas dc l\ lalelr r anchend lat cr E dmc N l ari or t c spoke ol "exper im ent al m eclicine, "t he phr a: c Eight eent h- ccnt ur l remai neda s ignif ier in sear chof a signiliecl. that is, a sysand nosolog,v, me<licine remaineda symptomatology er tr:m of cl ass if icat ion plicit ly bascdon t hat of t hc nat ur alist s. in it l \' l crJi cal ologv squander ed s ener gies t he cr cct ion ol slseti tcms, revi vingt he ancient doct r inesof solidism and hunlr r r ism by introducing nerv physicalconceptssuch asmagnetismin(l galvanism or bv raising mctaphysicalobjections to thc Procedures 'l'herapcumedicine to mechanics. of thosc s ho l,ould assimilate ti cs, gui ri ed bv pur e em pir icism , alt er nr t ed bct r veenskept ic. r l medicint could cclccticism anclobstinatedogmatisrn.Tragicallv, about not accomp lishit s goals.lt r em aincdan cm pt v discour se practicesoficn not verv diflerent from magic. Freud said of ancient medicine that psychic thcrapy was the onl v trci tnre nt it hat l t o oller , an( l m uch t he sam et hing could lr.rve been saidabout nreriicinc in the eighteenthanclnrost ol th< lnt ni neteenthc cnt ur ics. Bv t his I m ean t hat t hc pr escnce l per sonalitvof thc phvsician rrere the primarv remcdiesin manv afllicti ons ol rvhich anxiet y was a m ajor com ponelnt ,Udeololltond R ati onol i tr, p. 52- 5 l] p
rl l

PP.6- 71
[a5] h simplifl (probably to excess)thedillerencc bet.rvcen anc ient ( pr im a ri l v Grc e k ) m e d i c i n c a n d th e mocl ernme< l i ci ne irrauguratcdbv AncircasVcsaiiusancl Willianr Harvcy and celebr at r r l hr I ( , , { .r Brc ,rn 1 6 6 1 (,n eD c rc a rrr\ , r,," R rh" r the lbrmcr.rvas contemplati.r,e the latter operation;I. -i ghr..,, , A;cient mcclicinervasfbundcdupon a strpposcd isomorphismbetrveen the c os m ic or dc r a n d th c e q u i l i b ri u m o f th e o rgani sm. refl ectcd i n
r lo


Ner v

Sit uat ion


M edicine

A Shilt o{ [46] The gradualclimination from medical understan<iing anv refercnceto thc patient'sliving conditions u.as.in part, an ellect of thc c olonizat ionof m edicine by basicand applied scicncein the earlv nineteenth ccntury; but it *as also a consequenceof i ndrrstrialsociet y'sint er est ( in cver y senseof t he uor d) in t he hcal th o f it s wor king populat ions( or , as som e r vould pur it , in the human component of thc productive fbrces). The political authorit ies,at t he bchest ol, . r nd *it h advice f ionr , hygienist s, took stepst o m onit or and im pr ove living condit ions. M edicine and politics joined forces in a neu approachto illness,cxemplilied br changes hospitalstmcturesand practices. eightcenthin In ccnturv Fr ance,par t icular lv t he t im c of t he Revolut ion,st eps at \{'eretaken to replace hospices,which had provided shelter and care to sick patients, many of lvhom had nowhcre else to turn, uith hospitals designedto lacilitatc patienr suneillance and classificati<-rn. design, thc ncrv hospitals operated as, to borro$ By lacques Ren6 Tenon'sphrasc,"healing machines."Treating diseases n hospit als,in a r egiDt eDt ed i social envir onnt cnt ,helped strip them oftheir individuality.Meanuhile, thc conditionsundcr rvhich diseases developedrveresubjectedto incre.rsinglv abstract r ll

anal\sisand, .rsa result, thc gap u idened betrvccn thc rcalitv of pat ic nt s 'l i v c sa n d th c c l i n i c a l re p re s e ntati on that rcal i ty.[...] of Thc statisticalstudy ol the frequencv,social contcxt and spread of dis ea s e o i n c i d e de x a c tl v\,v i thth e a natomi cal -cl i ni cal c revol ution in the hospitalsofAustria, Englancl and l]rancc in the earlv nineteenth century. f"Maladies," Univers, 1235a] p. ' fh re e p h e n o m c n a a l tc re d t he si tuati on ol E uropcan [ 47] medicine.'l'he first rvasthe institutional anclcultural changethat i\ , lic hc l F o u c a u l t h a s b a p ti z e d " th c b i rth of the cl i ni c," l r.hi cl r combined hospital relbrms in Vicnna and Parisr'r'ithincrcasingly 'widcsprca<l ofsuch exploratorvpracticcs percussion use (Joseph as LeopolclAuenbriiggcr,.fcan-Nicholas Corvisart)and mediateausc ult at io n (R e n 6 .l ' h !o p h i l c l l v a c i n th e Ladnnec),and rvi th svstcmatic effbrts to relate obscrvcd symptoms to anatomical and pathologicaldata.Sccond,a rationalattitudc of therapeuticskepticism was fbsteredand developedin both Austria and France,as Edu'in Heinz Ackerknecht has shorvn.rrThird, physiologygraduallv liberated itsclf from its subserviencc classicalanatomy to and becamr:an independent medical discipline, rvhich at first fircuscrlon disease the tissuelevel, asyet unawarethat cventuat ally it uould come to fbcus evcn more sharplvon the ccll. And physiologists looked to physics and chemistrvfor examples rvell as astools. Ilcncc, a nervmoclelof mcdicine uas elaborated. Nerv diseases u.ereidentified and distinguished, most notably in pulmonarvand cardiac pathologv (pulmonarv edcma, bronchial dilation, cndocarditis).Old medications,w,hose numbers had proliferatedn,ith no discernible cflict, wcre discounted. And rival medical theories cast discreclit on onc another. Thc nelr- model rvasone of knou.ltrJgewithout systcm,basedon the collection of facts and, i1 possible,the elaborationoflavvsconllnlred bv cxpcrimcnt. This knowlcdge, it rvashoped, rvould be capableofconversion into
I 14

cflcctive therapics,rvhoseustrcould be guidcd bv critical arvarencssof t heir lim it at ions. In Fr ance,elabor at ion of t hc ncu' m edical m odel t 'as pur then bv liranqois stredfirst by frangois-loscphVictor Broussais, Bcrnard.Despite the traditional and finallv by Claudc Nlagendie, claims of medical historians,however,it can bc shorvn that the model remainedan ideologv.If the goal of thc prophvsiological gram \\'asevcntualll achicvcd,it rvasreachcdb-vroutesquitc dil: authors. [,ldeologr fercnt lrom those envisioncrlbv the progr.am's pp. ond Rationalit.v, 5a-551 The Physiological Point o[ View is I :ra nqoi*l osephVictor Brousso demolishingthe period'smost majesticand imposingsvs[.]8] By clear cd t hc r vay f br t hc tem, th at ol'Philippc [ 'inel, Br oussais opinion advcnt of a ncw spir it in m t r licine. "lt u'as Br oussais's that pa t hologv was not hing but physiologv,since hc called it 'phvsiologicalmedicinc.' Therein lav thc rvhole progrcssin his "svstemol irriuav ol looking at things."ll To bc sure, Broussais's and unnecessarilv, he discrtritation" hincleredhis understanding on itt'd hinrselfbv overreliance leechcsand bleeding.Yct it should dc not bc fbrgotten that thc publication ofhis Examen la docttine nidicale giniralementadoptie rvas,in the rvordsol l-ouis Pcisst', "a medicalfequivalentofl 1789."rrln order to refute Pincl's"philfcvers,"Broussais osophical nosographv" and cloctrincof "essential borrou,edlrom Bichat's gcncralanatomvthc notion that eacht,vpe of tissue,orving to its specific tcxture, exhibits certain charactcri sti c alt er at ions.I I c idcnt if ied lever u. it h inf lanm at ion, disti ngui shed<lif li: r r : nt iginal sit esand pat hs of pr opagat ionf or or cach type of tissue,anclthus erplaincd thc svmptomatic(liversitv ol di fl c r m t t ever s. le cxplainedinf lam m at ionas t he r csult ol an I

excessive irritation. rr hich interlered rvith the ntovcmentofa tissue and could in the long run disturb its organization.Ile stood on its head the basicprinciple of pathologicalanatomvbv teaching that thc dysfi-rncrion precedesthe lesion. Ilc bascdmedicine on phv s i o l c rgra th e r th a n a n a to m t.A l l crlthi s i s summcd up i n a v rvcll-knonn passage oIthe preface to thc Eramenof l8l5r .,The c har ac t c ri s ti c i ts o fd i s e a s e s s t b e sought i n phvsi ol ogy.... tra mu Enlightcn me with a scientific analysls the often confusedcries of of the suff-ering organs.... Tcachme about their reciprocalin0u, ences."Discussing the new ageof medicine in his Essai philosode phie mddicale, Jean Baptiste Bouillaud wrote, "ls not the fall of the systcm of Nosogroph;e phtlosophique one of the culminating ev ent sol o u r m e d i c a l c ra , a n d i s n o t the overthrorvofa svsrcm that had governed thc medical rvorld a revolution ro,hosc mcmory will not fade?"ra a more lapidaryflashion, ln ]\,lichelFoucault put it this u'ay in lhc Birth ol the C,/inic: "Since 1815,the doct or ' s ev e h a s b e e n a b l e to c o n fro n t a si ck organi sm." l 5E mi )e I it t r i' , a m a n { a rn i l i a rw i th th c c o n c e pt of " di sti ngui shi ng"di f' ferent tvpcs ofexplanation (he ref'ers "Bichat's great distinc, to tion" betrveenoccult and irrcducible gualities), rvasthus able to observein 1865that "s hile theory in medicine once \4ras suspect and serred onh as a target, so to speak,fbr the facts that demolished it, today,orving ro its subordinationto phvsiologicallans, it has become an effective instrument of research and a faithful rule of conduct."l6No doubt Claudc Bernardu,asright to saythat Broussais's phvsio)oqical medicine "rvas in realitv bascdonlv on phvsiologicalicleas and not on the essentialprinciple of phvsiologv."l7 Yct Broussais's idea was rvell suited to become a progrcm and to justifv a medical technique quitc different from the one or iginalll a s s o c i a tc d i th i t. F ra n q o i s , \l agendir()ol B roussai s' s $ e doctrine and transfbnned into a method. That is rvhy Brouss.ris's it svstem brought about a different kind of revolution fi.om other rl 6

medicinc, even if it mimickcd the tbrm of Physiological svstems, a svstem,markcd a decisiveshift fiom the era ol systemsto the ige ofrescarch. from the ageof revolution to the epoch ofprogn Br idca looked t o t echniques it hir r each ress,bccause oussais's ol conte m por ar y possibilit ies.f t udes,pp. 136- 38] I l:rongois trlagendie promiscd, someonr clse had alreadvbegun l+t)l What Broussais to dcl i v er .Thir m an, t oo, had declar edt h. r t "m cclicine is not hi ng but t he physiologvof t he sick m an. "l'r Just onc year af t er (1808), this man had publishcd Htstoire phlellmosies Broussais's dc his fromen dc ]'oction de quclquesvigdtaut sur la noille dpiniirc, |lc lounde<l t\e Journal de phvsiolollieetpirimcntol a vear beforc foun<le<f the ,4nnal.'s la nidetine phvsiololyiquc de and in Brc.'ussais t i t i n 1822 conllr m eclChar lcsBell'sdiscovt r v ( 1811) hr ough his " E xp6riences les f bnct ionsdcs r acinesdcs ner ls r achidiens " sur I:ronr thc t it ies of t hese r vor ls alone we gat lr er t h( : diller eD( e work and that ol this other bctrr,ecn the oricntation of Broussais's ha<] phvsicianr Frangois Magendic(1783-1855). WhercaslJroussais r.orkcd f ir st in m ilit ar y and lnt cr in civilian hospit als, agendic M \\' asn man ol t he labor at or v. r su'cll as a hospit alphvsician. For rvasthc study of rhe ph'-sics ital him, experinrcrrtal of phvsiolcr{Iv phenomenasuch as absorption.He conducted svstematic experiments rvith animals to test the pharmacodvnamic propcrties of ne* l v i solat edclasscs chem ical com pounr Js such as t he alkaof l ,ri < i s. s ear lvas i821, Nlagendie'r m r lor y r iedt he subt it le A For car "For the Use an<lPreparation Variousl\{e<.lications Suchas Nux of V rmi ca, M or phine, Pr ussicAcid, St r vchnine, Ver at r ine,I odine, and the Alkaljs of Q uinquinas"( t hat is, t he quinine of Pellct ier anrlCaventou ). l n shor t , l\ lagcndie'scxpcr im ent al m c<licinedif f cr ed f iom llroussais's physiologicalmcdicine in three lvays:it wascentered
tl 7

in t hc l a b o ra to rvra th e r th a n rh e h o s pi tal ; t expcri mentedon i of lnim alsra th e r th a n o n mc n ; a n d i n s tc ad C al eni c pri nci pl esi t extractsisolatecl pharmaceutical bv cht'nristrv, examplc, 15cd for o r epl. r ci n g p i u m rv i th m o rp h i n e a n d qui nqui nr rvi th qui ni nc, , O l r hes (th re c d i ffe re n c e sth c s e c o n duar i ni ti al l r grccted * ,i th t h. t r ( a te s ti n c o n rp re hc n s i o na n d c ri ti ci snt. ,rgendi e' s vi sccIl vi h r ilr r nro L l s e d o s ti l e p ro te l t .rn d d e monrtrati ons, doubt l br no rris()nsmore profound than conrpassion animal suff'ering. fbr (o rcason lrom anintalsto man $ils r,t abolish the clistance For brr\\ecn the t\vo.'fhe practicc was held ro stcm fiom a materiand u.ould rcsultin thc tempration to alistphilr-rsophv, success errendthe expcrimentsto man. When accused experimenting of en hum a n s .M a g c n d i ed e n i c d th e c h a rgr.B ut i f admi ni steri ng dnrgsis experimentation Claude (as unpro!en Bernarri himself rvas ol t h e l l rs t to a d mi tl e ), th e n Ma gcndi e rlexperi mcnt on ont rJi p hlr nJ ns , ,rti c n tsi n h o s p i ta l s ,u h i c h h e.r)nsi (l erc(j vast l aboa rvhcre pitieDts corrl(l bc qrouped rrrd stricliedcompara...r141r' onrl tir.h'. [/rlcolo1ir Rdtiona]it.v, 58-59 ppCluJe Bernord u'riting the intro[5t)l A vcaf befbrc his death, Claude Bern.rrd, drction lbr a planncd Traiti de I'expiricncetlans sciences les miLlicales, litcrallv a u'c]l-kno*n quip of Magcndie's. took Bcrnarcl repcated sclf-characterization: uas the ragpickerof hii pred('cessor's "lle Ilc merclv the initiator of erpcrinren phrsiologr. rv.rs tation. Todav that hasto be crcated,a mrrhorl."{)ForBernard, ir i\,rdiscipliDe a ragpiclcl r,trsno <loubtsupcriorto a dognrati(. 5111-snlecl svstemburl,ltrrl h,r did not r:vcnrealize th.rt he s.rsbuilding a systcm, But lil,, Brouss.ris. n'hat are we to nt.rkeitf Bernard'srepeatcd that onlv he apprcciates in\i\tence thc trur requiremcntsof tie er pr r ime n tam c th o d ? l I ns u ffi c i e na te n ti o n h a sb e e n p a i d, I rhi nk,to tw o conceprs t
r l8

in Bern:C's mcthodological writings that $'erc fbr him inscparablc: tl orv and progrt'ss. Experimentalmulicine is progressive, he argu, , because elaborates it theorics and bccausethosc theori cs arr - hcm selles ogr essive, r t hat is, open. Benr ar d's ieu is pr summcc in tu,o obitr'rr/icto: 'An cxPerimentalistneler otrtup l i veshi , vor k. I le is alr r ar : st t he levcl of pn>gr r ss, " nd "\ \ 'it h r r theoric lrerc are no nror( scientitic rct'olttiont.Sciencegrorrs graduall st A<ldt o t his t he t wo ( oncePt sof ( l( t er 1111 e. r dilr '. "{l minism,rd action - kno\1le(lge thc one being cssentirlli)r itrc ol ccssof t ,: other - an(l vou havcthe lbur componentsol a medical ideolog that clearh' mirrored the progressivc idcologl'of midni netec'h- ccnt ur v Eur opcanindust r ialsociet v.I n light of m or c recent r ncepts, such as Bachclard's ePistcmologicalbreak and K uhn' s, r uct ur eof sci( nt ilic r evolut ions,Bcr nar cl's cpt ol' colt theory r t hout r evolut ion hasdr ar vnunder st anclab] e l lcgit iant in mate cr cistn. ln Bcrnard's still IoLrnrl Ne\r'ton dar'.physicists rncl P i t : - Sim onLaplace casonso bclievein Pr inciples conol t r sew ati r Ru<lolPh r lius lim m anucll Clausius ha<l vet t o at t r act lt the attc'l6n 11f 1.119. ol the scicntilic comntunitv to Carnot's 2 part princip , of u'hich philosophers*erc a t'ortioric\'(n lessa\\'arc. Nlichae:aradav's txpcriments, Andr6-Maric i\mpi'rc's larrs and calculat ionshad vet t o r evealclcct r ical l ames[ 1li M axr , vell's currentr a possiblesubstitutelor coal asthe nrotor of thc industri al m; r ine. I n 18?2,t he G er nr anphvsiologist ile l) u BoisEm Rcvmo-r rvhom Bernardhad on sevcraloccasion\exprcssecJ (of a rathe " em l) t ur >r r s c, sulTicicnt r nlidcnce ont opinion) displaved i n Iapl ian det er m inisnrt o pr e( ] ict r vhcn Englant llloulr l bur n her last,ieceol ctr.rl({/6cr dic (lrcnzenr/ci Norurcrlrnrtcnr Birt ). in that me ye.lr,rhc Actr(l6miedes Scicnccsin P.rris. consulted {br thc'cond t ir ne . r bout t hc invent ion of an clect r ic. r lr 't or kcr named .:nobcGranune. finallv acknorvleclgecl practice hacl that racecl a<lof thcorl and autlrcnticatc(l.1rcvolution in ttchnola
I l')


ogy . I n s h o rt, th e c o n c e p to fa th e o rv rvi thout revol uti on,u.hi ch Bcrnardtook to be the solid basisof his methodology, \4,as pr:rhapsno m o re th a n a s i g no fi n te rn a l l i mi tati ons i n hi s ou.n medi cal theor"-: e:,perinrental medicine, rctive and triumphant, rvhich Bernardproposed as .r definitive model of what medicine in an industrialsocietyought to be. He contrastedhis model rvith that ol contemplative, rl,atchlirl mcdiciDe.a model appropriare agrito cultural societicsin rvhich time wasgovernedby q uasi-b iological rather than industrialnorms. The son ofa vine grorverlvho maintaineda deep attachmentto his nativcsoil, Berrrard u,asneverable to apprcci.rtefullv that science requiresnor only th.rr the scientist abandonidcasinvalidatedbl facts but also that hc givc up a personalizerl stlle ofrcscarch,rvhich rvasthe hallmark of his ou,n uork. In sr:ience,it rras thc same as in agriculture, rvhere economic progress had uprooted manv from tht soil. Paradoxicallv, the internal limitations of Bcrnard'stheorv of ( r lis c ar c rti o l o g r a n ,l p a th o g e n ) rre rer l ut r,, thr i ni ri l l * ,,.." ...., r of his researchas Magendie'ssLrccessor. he had discovered For the inf'luenceof thc svmpatheticnervoussystemon animal heat ( 1852) ;h a d g e n e ra te di,n th e c o u rs eo f researchon gl vcogcnesi s, a cascofdiabetes by a lesion o{ the pneunrogastric neive at the level ol the fburth vcntricle (1849-5t ); and had demonstrated the selective action of curarcon the motor nerves. a result,Bemard As concejvedan idea rhat hc neverrepudiated.nanrcJ1,, all morrhat bid clisordcrs controlled by the nenous svstem,+2 diseases arc th.rt are poisonings,and th,rt inf'ectiotrs virusers agentsof fermenare t at ion t ha t a l ttr th e i n te rn a l e n v i ro n m enri n r,,.hi ch l s l i ve.al cel Although rh(.scpropositions$ere lareradapte(lto quite different experimcntal situations,none can be said to havc been directly r es ponsi b )e r a p o s i ti rc th c ra p c u ti ca ppl i cari on. hat i s more, fo W lJernard's srubborn vicrvson the subiect o1'pathogenv prevente(l him from seeing the practical implications of the .w,ork ccrof

tai n co nt em por ar icswhonr hc held in cont em pt bccauset hcv Convinced of the identity oI the normal rvcre not physiologists. and the pathological, Bernard \!'asnever able to rake a sincere ond interest in cellular pathologv or gernl patholog,i.Lldeolo11.v pp. Rdtionality, 60-63] The Stotisticol Point of View Rend lophi I e H yacinthe Latn nec -Th Franqois Magendiemocked him asa mere [51] ConsidcrLaEnnec. and it s use annora t orof signs.The in\ ent ion of t he st et hoscope in auscultation as codified in thc De .l'auscu./ta mtdiote of 1819 tion l ed to t he eclipsc of t he sym pt om by t he sign. A sym pt om is somerhingprcsentfil ol oflered by the paticnt;a sign,on the othcr hancl,is somcthing sought and obtained u,ith the aid of meclical instruments. The patient,asthe bearerand often commentatoron s!mpto r ns,u'as"p) acedin par ent heses. " signcould som et im es A revealan illnessbe[bre a symptom led to its being suspected.ln Section 86, I.adnnecgivesthe example of a pectoriloquv as the sign of a svmptomlesspulmonarv phthisis,4a This rv.rs the beginning of the use of man-m.rdeinstrunrentl to detect alterationi. accidentsand anomalies,a practice that would grarluallyexpand n ith the addition of ne*, testing and measuringequipment and the claborationof subtle tcst protoco)s. Fronr the ancient stethoscopc to the most modern magnetic rcsonanceimaging equipmcnt, f)'om the X-ray to the computcrized tomographic scanner and ul t r asoundinst nr m ent , t he scient ilic side of nt cdical pr acticc is most strikingly svmbolizcd by the shift ficrnrthe medical officc to the testing laboratory.At the same time, the scaleon rvhich pathologicalphenomen.r rcpresented l>een are has reduced lrom the crrgan the celi and from rht'ceil to tlrc nrolecuL:to Thc task of the physician, lrowever, to inrcrpret informatirrn is

. der iv edf r o n r.r n ru l ti p l i c i ty o fs o u rc L ' s-[ houghmedi ci nc may set as idet he i n d i v i d u a l i tl o f th e p a ti c n t, i t s go.rl remai nsthe con. ques t of < l i s e ,rs cW i th o u t d i a g n o s i s ,p rognosi sand trcatnl cnt, there is no medicine. Here we finrl an object suitable for stu(ly in tcrms o{ logical and epistcmologicalanalysis thc construcof We tion and testingof hvpotheses. also find ourselves the dau n at f)occorsu'erejust bt.ginningto become ol me<licrinr.rthenratics. of arvarc an epistemologic.rl irr limitation alreadl recognizr:d cos m ology an d p h v s i c s :n o s e ri o u sp re d i c ti on i : possi bl ervi thout quantificationofdata. But rvhatkind ofmeasurcmentcould there be in mcdicint'?One possibilitr $,asto m('a\urcvariationsin the phlsiologicallunctions.This uas thc purposeol instruments such asJ ean[ ' oi s e u i l l e ' s c mo < l y n a mo me te r 828 and K arl [-u< l rr.i g' s h (1 ) kvmograph. Anothcr possi[rility \1asto tabulate thc occurrence ofcontagiousdiseases chart thcir propagation;in the absence and ofconflrmed etiologies,thescdatacould be correlatedrvith orher nat ur al an rl s o c i a l p h e n o m e n a .l t rv a si n thi s seconcl brm th.rt l quant if ic a ti ()n rs t e s ta b l i s h e d fb o th o l d i n mcdi ci ne. [" S tatut fi a 6pist6.mof ogique," Histoirc,pp. 19-20) PhilippeP;nel [ 52] T he s tn l i s ti c a lm e th o d o fc v a l u a ti n g cti ol ogi cal di agnoses and therapr.utic choices bcgan rvith Pierre Louis's ,lfimoirc on pht his is( 18 25 ), rv h i c ha p p e a re db u r v e a rs brethe ptrbl i cari ,rn l bel in London rrl Francis Bisset I larvkins'sElements ,l,ledicalStatistrc:s ol (r'hose outlook uas.rs social .rsit lvasmedical), Those rvho celebr at er he Ii rs t rrs co fs ta ti s ti c si n m e c l i ci nctcnd to l brget [' i nel , horvever. 1802,in his .llidacine In hr clinique, u5(\l :taristicalmerhoclsto studr the relation betueen certain dircascsand changes in t hr : wc a th c r.l l t: a l s o i n tro d u c e d s ta ti sti cal consi dcrati onsn i the revised edition ofhis ftaiti mid;co-philosophique I'aliination sur mcntalc. Fdu in lleinz Ackurknt'cht savs that Pinel rvas"the verit1 2

tablr' l.rther of the runrcrical mcthori." It mav berof sonreintcr(.st to rc call a lit r lc- Lnor \ n judgm cnt conccr ning hint . I lenr v des I)Lrcrotn vde Blainvill<:said t his in his Hi. st oir c t t r cnccsde ol 1815: I'orylanisation \ Pinelbegan applringmathcm.rti{ to .rnimal bv A nr.rthcmatician. he mt-cJr;rnics: a phiLrsrphcr, crrricd on u ith an in rlepthsturirol' in a h< n)entrlillness; nituralistandobservcr, madeprogrcss appllmerhodto medicinr:r torvard enrlhc l.rpsecl and the ing the natural bv thc icica backinto his carlypreclilcctions cnrbracing chimerical or stato ol ,rpplving calcrrlus probabilitics nrcdicinc, nrcdical thc ol r oLr alli'ctt ht inlinit c vr r iar ti sti cs . s if t lr e nLr t nbtol discascs ld r rr and ri()ns tcmper.rlncr, rlict, Iocale soon. rvhichinllrrtnccthcir oI lr to i n< .i d cnce m akcr hemsodiver se om inr lividual inr lividual. and li)r on This jutlgment is \r.orthrcmL'mbering the light it shcrls the srrrrnrv lat ionsbenvccn Blainvilleand August eCr lm t e and on re to rhc hostility of the prrsitivist phikrsoqrhcrs the calculusoI prob(ours tle Philosophtc abilitir:s.The Forticth Lessonof the positive states are that mc(lical staristics "absoluteempiricism in fiivolous mathematicalguist"'and that therc is no morr: irration;rl procerl rrrci n ther apvt han t o r elv on "t he illusor l t hcor r ol'ch. r nce. " ()nc ti n<ls he s. r nr c r st ilit yin CI audeBcr nar d, hr dcspit ehis skcpt ti (i sm ab out Com t e's philosophv.[ "St at ut i'pist 6nr r r logi<1ue, " Hiroirc, pp. 20-2ll Pi crrc ha rles- er o ntlrc Lou -C Al is in 15 3] I ou is uscdsr at i. t ics a dillcr <nr spir it lr om Pinel.l lir nr ain go.rls \\cre to substitutea qu.tntitativc indcx firr the clinician'spersonJlj udgm ent , t o count t hc num bel of r vcll- t lef incd signspr esent or atrscnt t hc t r am inat ion ol a pat icnt nnd t o coDpar c t he in rcsul tsof onc pe'r iodu it h t lr oseobt aintr l bv ot hcr phvsicians in

ot her pe ri o d su s i n g th e s n m eme th o ds.E xpcri encei n mcdi ci ne is ins t r u c ti \e , h c i n s i s te d ,o n l y i f n u mcri cai rccordr are mai nt ained. B u t, o th c rs a rg u c d , ta b l e s a n d charts destroy memorv, judgm en t a n d j n tu i ti o n . T h a t i s rv h y E mi l e t-i ttrt and C harl es Robin, both positivists,declaredthcir hostility to "numcrics" in the articlc thev publishe(lundcr that rubric in the thirteenth edi. tion of their Dictionnairede mdtlecine, chiuryie et phornacie (1873). In their vieu', calculationscould never replacc "anatomical and phvsiological krou'lcdgc, .'r'hichalone rrakesit possibleto weigh t he v alu e o f rv mp to n rs ," F u rth e rn ro re,the efl ect crI usi ng the numerical method is that "patients are obseruedin a sensepassively,"As wirh the caseof Laennec,this rvasa method that set as ide t he d i s ti n c ti v e fe a ru re so f th e pati ent seeki ng i ndi vi dual at t c nt ion l o r h i s o r h e r p .rth o l o g i c as i r uati on. l It u'ould be more than a ccntury before "the illusorv theory ofchance," as Comte called it, u'ould be fullv incorporated into di. r gnos i s n d th e ra p yth ro u g h me th o dsel aborared mi ni mi zc a to er r or s ol j u c l g m e n ta n d ri s k s o f tre .rtrnent,i ncl u< l i ngthc computerizedprocessing biomedical and clinical dat.r.One recent of consecluencc this technologicaland epistcmological of evolution hasbeen the constructiol of "expert svstems"capableof applying various rules ol infert:nceto data gleaned f}om examination and then rccommending possiblecour5csof treatment. [,,Statut epistemologique,"H istoirc,pp. 2l-221 Bocteriology

A M edical

Revolut ion

Hcnnrnn Robert Koch and of [5.1] The discoverjes Louis Pasteur, r led t o a pr of bund epist cm ological evoluthei r stud ent squickly had enough,thcseresearchers tion in medicine, so that, strangelv a grcaterimpact on clinical medicine than did contemporan clint i cal pract it ioner s,Past eur a chem ist wit hout m edic; r Jr aining, , i naugura t ed new cr a in m c<licine,I le f ieed m edical pr act icc a liom its traditional anthropocentrism:his approachhad as much to do rvith silkrvorms,sheepand chicken aswith human patients. Pnstcurdiscover!'(lan etiologv unru,lated organ functions. By to revealingthe rolc ofbactcria and viruses in disease, changc<l h<r not onl v the lbcus of m edicine but t hc locat ion ol it s pr act ice. Traditionally,patientshad been care<l at home or in hospitals, lbr but raccinationscould now be administeredin dispcnsaries, barracksand schoolhouses. 1he object of m cdicine r vasno longer so much disease hcalth. This gave ne\r, impetus to a medical as discipline that had cnjoyed prominencc in Englandand France si D cethe cnd of t he eight eent hccnt ur \ ' - public healr h or hygi ene.Thr ough public hcalt h,r vhich. r cquir ed st inst it ur ional at us i tr E urope in t hc f inal t hir d ol t hc ninet eent hcent un, epidcm idogy took medicinc into the realm of the socialsciences and eco-

t 44

t4 5

nom ic s . lt b c c a n rei mp o s s i b l eto l o o k upon mcdi ci ne sol el vas a s c ienc e o f o rg .rn i ca n o m a l i e so r c h a ngcs.' I' hc efl ects of the pat ient ' ss o (i a l i n d e c o n o mi c s i tu a ti o non thc condi ti ons of hi s or her lifi'nrxv Dunrbcrc(lamong the l.rctors that the phrsici.rn stenrmi ngfrom hac lt o t ak e i n to d c c o u n t. l ' h e p o l i ti c a l p rci Jures <licine's in public hcalth concerns graduallvresultedin changes nr< objectivesand practices.The accenr \aasshifted from health to pr c v ent io nto p ro tc c ti o n .' fh e s e ma rti c shi ft poi nts to a change in t hc m c d i c a l a c t i ts e l f. W h c rc mc tl i c i ne had once respondc< l t o an app e a l , i t v ra sn o l v o b e d i rn t to I rl emand. H eal rh i s the ro cnp<rcitv resist diseasc;yet thos( uho enjor goc,d hc.rlth arr: nev er t he l e sc < rn s < i o uo f th e p o s s i b i l i tyof i l l ncss.P rorecti crns s s i t he negat i o no l < l i s e a s e ,n i n s i s te n c e n ncvcr havi ng to thi nk a o about it. In rcsp()nse political pressurcs, to medicine has had to t ak c on t h e a p p e a ra n c c f a b i o l o g i c a l technol ogv.H crt , fbr a o t hir d t im e , th e i n d i v i d u a l p a ti c n t, \\h o seeksthe attcnti ()nofa c linic ian,b a sl > t,e n e t a s i d c ,B rrtp e rh rp si nrJi vi cl ual i rv sti l l recs is ognizcd in tbe notion ol resist.rnce, the f)ct th.rr sonreorganin ismsare mort'sus(:(.ptiblc than othets to, sav,the cholerabacillus. Is thc conccpr of resistance artificirl, serving to cover a gap in t hc gc r m t h e o rr' s d e te rm i n i s m? i s i t a hi nt of somemore i l l uOr minating conccpt yct to conrc, fbr u hich microbiologv haspaved the u,ay/ if r nc r l i c i rr< h a sa tta i n e d rh e s t.rru s ofn sci cn((, i t di < l so i n . t hc er a ol b .rc re ri o l o g vA p ra c ti c t i s sci enti l l c i f i r provi < l es a modcl firr the solution of problems and if that moclel givesrise to ellictive tht.rapics.Such u'as the caservith thc dcvelopment A of s c r um sa n d r' .rc c i n c s . s c c o n dc ri te ri on ofsci cnti fi ci tv i s the abilit v of o n r th c o rv to g i v e ri s e to .rn othercapabl eol expl ai ning $. hv it s p rc rJ e c c s s ,rr s s e s s eo n l r li nri tcd val i di tv.[" S t.rtut po d epis t 6m ol o g i q c ," H i s to i rep p . ))-)1 1 u ,

The German School f f55] Yet it was an ext ensior ol m icr oscopict echDiqucs br t he and t hc use ol- svnt hct icaniline st ains studv r ) l cell pr epar at ions in G er m anyalier 1870)t hat led, lir r t he f ir st t im e l manu lict ur ed i n rhe hist or y of m edicine, t o a t her apeut ict echni( luet hat ua\ lroth effcctive and unrelaterlto anv medical theorv: chcmotherFr apv, i nvent ed by I 'aul Ehr lich ( 185. 1- 1915) . om Wilhelm von Ehrlich had lcarnecl hou'to usc stainsto Waldevcrin Strasbourg, cxami n e nor m al and pat hologicalt issue,and at Br eslauhe ha<l anat om vgivenbr JuliusCohnattend t 'dlect ur cson pat hological , hei m (t 83t ) - 188- 1)a st udent of I {udolph Lur lr vig[ r ar l \ ii[ chor r ', rvh,r *ould later shorv that inflammation wrs causedbv tht passageof lcucocvt est hr ough t he capillar y r vall. Vir chou's icleas if rcachedEhrlich through JuliusCohnhcim. Neverthelcss, cellul .rr pat hologvplavedan indir ect par t in t hc invcnt ion of chcm othcrapv,the rolc of bacteriologvand the discovirl of immunitv \\a\ mr)redirect. Thc prob)en that Ehrlich sratrd anrl solvedcan be for- m ulat ecl f ollor vs: lhr ough r vhar cher nicalcom poun( ls as u i th sp ecif icaf linit v lbr cer t . r ininf ect iousagcnt sor cells coulr l one act dircctlv on the causcrather than on thc st nrptoms of <liscasc,i n im it at ion of t he ant it oxinspr escntin var iousser unr s? This is not the placc to delr.einto thc circumstamccs surroundi ng thc discovcr r ol im m unit r or t o r evivea dispr r t eover pr ior in', an exerciscuscfi.rl ldr rerninding us th.rt the constitution o1 scit nrific knorvledgcd()csnot necessaril,v r.'rluire rh( simultarreous erisienceof all u. ho cl. r im t o bc it s aut hor s. r 5 is of lit t le lt i mportancct hat t ht 'Ber lin Schoolpr eccdcdt he Par isSchool by scverrlmonths, or that I lcrnrannRobert Koch'spupil Emil Adolf von Behring conclu(le(ll>eloreI'asteur's pupil Pierre Paul Emile R oux t hat dipht her iacannor be t r eat cd \ \ 'ir h a \ accine but cin < tnl vbc pr cvcnt cdbv inject ion oI senr m t nkr n lr om a convales cent pn t ient - pr ovidcd onr . hasa convalesccnt ient , t hat is, a llat


Roux wasablc to preparethe toxin in vifro. sun,ivorol the disease. Von Bchring managed attenu.rteits virulence with trichloride to ofiodine. Roux rvasmore successful than von Behringin increasing t he ac t iv i t) o fth c s e ru m. Nevertheless, Ehrlich, rvhom Koch put in contact n,ith von Behring,dreamedthat chemistrv could one day endorvman with ponr er sf . r r bc v o n c lth o s e o f n .rtu rc .{ { ' H e h i t upon the i dea of rvith specificaflinities fbr certain parasites looking for sub!tances and their toxins on the model ofstains with electivc histological afTinities.For rvhat is a stain but a vector aimerl at a particular lbrmation in a healthy or infccte-<l organism?Whcn a chemical cnnrpound dircctc(l at a particular cell penetrates that ccll, rvbat is analogous the $' , in $,hich a kev fits into a lock. happens to Ehrlich's first success came in 190,1, u,hen in collaboration r.r'ith Kiyoshi Shigahe discoveredthat Trvpan red destroysthe trypanos om e t hat ca u s e s l c c p i n g s i c L n e s s . a te r came the di scoverv s L in 1910of S al v a rs a no r " 6 0 6 ." a n d N t' o -Sal varsan, ch proved , uhi les sef f ec r iv ei n c o m b a tti n g s v p h i l i s th a n *r.rs[rel i eved fi rst. at But Ehrlich's real success lay not so much in thc products that he ident if ied h i m s e l l a s i n th o s e th a t u ,o u l d ul ti matel y be di scoveredin pursuit ofhis fundamentalhypothesis:that the affinit ic s of c hem i c .rls ta i n sc o u l d b c u s e d a s a s vstemnti c techni que for dcvelopingartificial anrigcns. Using the samemethod, in l9]5 Gerhardt Domag discoveredprontosil red, the first ofa glorious s er iesof s ulfa mi d e s .Its d e c l i n i n g e ffi c a cy l ed to the greatest of triumphs to this dav, the chemical synthcsisof penicillin bv Horvard Walter Florev and Ernst Chain. fhis is not to say rhar t her apeut ic ss i n c e th e d i s c o v e ryo I c h e motherapyhas been rcduc ed t o t he a u to ma ti c a n d i n fl e x i b l c a p pl i cati onof chemi c:rl ant it ox ins or a n ti b i o ti c s , a s i f i t rv e re e n ough to admi ni ster a remcdv and lct it do its rvork. Gradually,phvsicians learnedthar inf ec t ious ag e n tsd e v e l o p re s i s ta n c e th e drugs used agai nsr to

them, and that organisms sometimesdefendthcmseJves, p.rr.rrloxi c.rl l v enough, againstt heir chem ic. r l guar dians.Hence it r vas necessarv develop combined treatment regimcns.aT to [3ut such flexibilitv, tvpical of modern therapies,was made possibleonlv bv the rationalistsim plif icat ion inher ent in Ehr lich's pr ogr am : si nce cel l s choosebet r vcenst ains,let us ir r ventst ainst hat will i nl al l i bl v choosep. r r t icular cells. B ut $ha t does it m ean t o invent a st ain?I t m eansr o change the posi ti o nsof t hc at om s in a m olecule, t o alt er it s chcm ical structurc in such a rvav that its color can be read out, as it $,ere, from its fbrmula. Ehrlich's project rvasnot simplv impossil>le; it u,asi nconc eivable t hc t im c of M agendie. r vas in lt nor unr il 1856 that W i l l i am Per kin, Sr . , obt aincd a nr auvedye f r om . r niline as the outcom e of r esear chdir ect ed t or ", ar d cnt ir ely dif f er ent an goal . It * as not unt il 1865 t hat F. A.K6ku16publishedhis paper "The Composition ol Aromatic Comporrnrls." Alter confirming that the cartronatom is tetrar';lcnt, Kekul!determined thc stntcture ol benrene and {.rve the name "aromatic" to its (leiivatives to distinguish them ficrm compounds involving thc fittv acids, rvhich, along rvith the alcohols,rverethc primarv fbcusofchcmical intt'rest in the daysof Magenclie and Bernard. l'he theoreticalcreation of new chemical substanccs con\\'as limrcd on a vastscalebl the chemical industry.Alizarin. thc principal component of nr.r<Jder, rvhich Perkin in Englandand Karl lames Peter Graebc and Edme Caro in Cermanl separatelyand si mul taneouslv svnt hcsized 1858, uas r vit hin t en year s't im c in being prodrrced thc rate ol'9,500 tons annuall,v. at Finallyin lt)04, ani l i ne, thc m ost ( 'labor at e t he dve com pounds,best ou'cd s of it prestiAious name on tlre German flrms Baclische Anilin und Soda Fahri k1B A5l lr nd Anilin Konzer n. Thus. trvo of thc preconditionsnecessary the devclopment lor of chemoth er apvas a r epJacem ent r he t hcr apiesassoci. r t ed lbr
| 4<)

\\'ith thc old medical thcorics \\'ere a new symbolic represcntaand tion firr chemical substanccs a ne$ technologvfo producing the org.rniccompounds,u,hich supplantecl old extractiveproccsdates;their place These \\'erecvcnt! rvith fixcd, ascertainable ses. in in historv coulci not lravcbeen cleclucecl advance.Hencc, chcrvithout a certain level of scimothcrapv could not havc cxistcd cntillc and industrialsociety.Betu'eenEduard Jcnncrand Ehrlich o c c am e t he indi s p c n s a b l d i s c o v e rv fa n i l i n e , n,hi ch no onc coul d a hav clbr es een t th e b e g i n n i n go fth e c c n turv. In hi s studr ofthe o fc o l o r," Ga s to n Ba c h e l a rdr vrotc, " thc chcmi st " r at ionalis m t hink s of c olo r i n te rm so f th e v e rv b l u c p ri n t that gui deshi s creat ion. T her ei n l i c s a c o mmu n i c a trl eo b j e c t i vereal i ty and a mar, k et ables oc ia l rc a ]i tv .A n v o n e n h o ma n u f)cturesani l i ne know s thc rcalitv and thr.:rationalitv ofcolor."a8 lldeolollvand Rationalit r ' ,pp. 65- 68 1 The French School [ 56] I n c ons i d e ri n gth e p re c u rs o rso fth e i mmuni zati on tcchniqucspcrfcctcd at thc cn(l of drc nineteenthcenturv,I shalllook .rt the u.ork of Pasteur rather than at that oI Koch, partly becausc it cam<'firstchronologically I'asteur's uork u.as and partly because of morc gcncralimport, fbr "it not onlv modified the relationship betrvccn biologv.rnd chemistrv but changcrlthc rcpresentation ol t he uor ld o f l i v i n g th i n g s g e n e ra l l y ,th e rel ati ons betrvr:cn bcings,and the lunctions ascribedto chemical rcactions."4'l Frang.ois Dagognetargues, contrary to a u'idclv hcld vicrv,that it \r'asn()t trccausc tcchnical problcms raisc<l industrialists, of b,r ("malaclies" beer, * ine, silklvorms artisans and aninralbreeders ol and s heep)t h a t P a s tc u rto o k s o Io n g to d cvcl op " l ' asteuri sm." Rathcr, Pasteurcncountcrcd technical problems trecause, Iiom his flrst encounter vvith theoretical chemistrv,he sau.thc <rxperimental mrxlification of natural pnrducts as a theoreticaltool for
I5 ( )

rcalitv.for him, thc laboraton n'as.rplacefbr renorking analvzing given bv nature or art and a placc for ficcing dormant subst.rnces mcchanisms in short,a placefbr revealing real or blockedcausal itv. Hcnce, laboratorv rvork *.as dircctlv aflcctcrl bv what rv.rs going on in thc uorld of tcchnologv. 'I-hc rcvolution in mcdical thinking bcgan rvith the developstermcnt of t\\'o methods fbr studying the propertiesol crystals: rvith EibhardMitscherlich's comctry and polarimetrv.l)issatisflcd ofthe elfect of polarizcrllight on tartratesand paracxplanations discoveredthe clill'erentorientatiolt of the hctartrates,Pasteur crvstals. Aftcr isolatingthc nno clifferentkinds ets of paratartraie ol crvstal s,hc obscr vc<l hat a solut ion m ade r vit h one kincl o1 t crl stal rota t cd polar ized light t o t he r ight , r vher eas solut ion a matlc n ith the other rotatcclit to thc lcfi. Whcn the r\\'o cr!stal s w ere com bined in solut ion in cqual par t s,t he opt ic. r lef 'lect ruasnullifierd. When a solution ol'calcium paratartratcwas fcrmentcd bv thc eflcct ofa mold, Pasteur noted that onlv the rightpolarizinglbrm of thc crystalwasaltcrcd, I Ic thcrefbre inferred a connectionbetrveenthe properticsof microorganisms molecand ular asvmmctrics,Dagognethassholvn horv microbiologv began u ith this ingeniousreversal a result in bioclrr:mistrv. microof A scopic org.rnism,a rnold or a ycast,\\'Assho*n to bc capableof di sti ngui sh ingbet r vccn opt ical isom er s. Past eur ism conver t ed chcmical scparationby bacteriainto bactcriologicalisolation bv clremical isomcrs.50 Thus conllrmed in lris br:lief th.rt thcre is..r structuralcontrastbetweenthc asvmmctricalliving organismand the mi neral, and hence just if icd in r eject ing anv explanar ion receptivcto the notion ofspontaneous linked gencration,Pastcur gcrm, fermcnt at ion ancldiscase a unif ied t hcor et ical f r am ein rvork. Since my purpose here is simplv to reflect on mattcrs of hi storv and epist em ologv, her e is no neeclt o r ecall t hc sr r bsct cl uent progr css,doubt s, r ct r cat s or cvcn t cm por ar y er r ( ) r st hat

antl RatlonalPasteurnradc in elaboratingthis theorv. llLleolollr rr r ' ,pp. 68- 70] An Applied Science o f i ts rn i l i t ant sci enti [i ci ty by p [ 57] B ac t er iol o g v ro v i d c d p ro o f g iv ing r is e t o t h c s c i e n c eo f i mrn u n o l o q v , nhi ch not onl v exmedical practices but dcvcloped tcndccl anclrefined Pastcurian into an autonomousbiologicalscience.lnrmunologvreplacedthe organismlvith the more rclation of virus to vaccinatc(l Pasteurian The antigen is a generaligencral relation ofantigen to antibody. microbe. The histc,ryof immunology has zation ol the aggrcssor becn a searchfbr the true meaning of the prcfix antr'-.Semantic allr . it m c ans " a g a i n s t," b u t d o e s n ' t i t a l s o mean " before" ? l' er hapst her e i s a rc l a ti o n , a s o f k e v a n d l o cL, tretw een these t\x) DrenDiDgs. becameawarcol its scir:ntificvocation,it con;\s irnllrr:nologv s f ir nr ed it s r c ic n ti fi c s t..rtuth r.ru g h i ts .rb i l i t ) to nrakeunantj cipat ed dis c or c ri e sa n d to i n c o rp o r.rten e u concepts, one very striking examplebcing Karl I-andsteiner's discoverv 1907of the in fin<lingsis another human blood tvpcs. Consistencyof rese.rrch criterion of scientillc status.Immunologicalfinclings rvereso consistcnt, in fact, that immunologv's object ol research came to be knorvn as the "immune s'stem," where the rvord "system" connotes a coherent structure ol positive and negativeresponses at the cellularand molecularlevel.The immrrnesystemconcept \4as more eff-ectivc "prescrving appearances" at than the earlier conc t pt of " t er r ain ," In a s v s te mi cs tru c tu re , cvcl i cal efl ' ectscan appearto impede a causality construedto bc ljnt'ar.'fhe immune s\stenr.morcover,hasthe remarkable propertvlnot*n asidiotvpy: an antibodv is specilic ncrtonll to a p.rrticularantigcn but also to a par t ic ular i n d i v i d u a l . T h e i d i o ty p e i s thc capaci tv ol thc im m une s y s t emto e n c o d ea n o rq .rn i ci n d i v i (l u al i ty.

Ilowever tempting, it would be a nristaketo vierv this pheof nomenon as bctokening a rediscoverv the concrctc individual rr evenpaticnt set asideby the ven medicalscierrce hoseprogress t tual l y reveal ed hc cxist enceol t he idiot vpe, AJt houghim m une identity is sometimesporrravcd, through abuseof ternrinology, as i nvol vi ngan opposit ionof "sell" and "nonself , " it is a st r ict lv objcctive phenomenon. N4cdicinenlay sometimesappear to be thc application ofbiological linon l..dgeto concrete individuals, is but that appearance deceiving.The time hasnorv come to constatusol medicine as such, leavinghissider thc epistemological torical matters aside. Given u,hat u,e know about immunologv, genetics and molecular biology, or, looking backrvardin time, about X-raysand cellular staining techniqucs, in nhat sensecan w e savthat me dicinc is an appliedscienceor an evolvingsynt hesi sofappl i ed s ciencr : s?. . ] [. to It is appropriate describemedicine asan "cvolving synthesis ol'applied sciences," insolir asthc rt'alizationof its goalsrequires har the use oI sci ent if ic <liscover ies ing not hing t o do wit h ir s i ntri nsi c purpo ses.. . . ] ln usingt he t er m "applied sciencc, "t hc [ accent, I thi nk, should f all on "scicnce. " I n sayingt his, I disagree u'ith those rvho see the application of knowlcdge as involving a lossof theoretical dignitl', .rsrvell as those who think they are deftnding thc uniquenessof medicine bv calling it a "hcaling art." The medical application of scientiflc knowledge, converttd into remedies(that is, into ntcansofrestoring a clisturbed organi c equi l ibr ium ) , is in no senseinf cr ior in epist em ological clignityto the disciplinesfrom rvhich that knou'leclge borrowed. is The application ofkno*'ledge is alsoan authentic form of experinrentation, a critical scarchfor eflectivc thcrapiesbasedon imported unders t anr Jings.edicine is t he scienceol t he lim it s of M the porversthat the other sciences iaim to conf'erupc.,n i. . . ] it. < If the progress ofa sciencetan be measured the dcgrcc to bv rtl

which its bcginningsare forgotten, then it is worth noting that u'hcn doctors today need to do a blood transfusion, they verilv thc c blood- t v p r: o rrp a ti b i l i tv o fd o n o r a n d reci pi ent rvi thout Inorving thar the tests th('t arc ordcring are the product ol a historl' that can be traced back through immunologv and bacteriologv to Ladv i\lontagu and EdrvardJenner,incleedto a typc of medical practice that doctrinaire phvsiciansoncc consideredheretical, That practice startedmedicinc dou n a road that brought it int o c ont a c t w i th a p a rti c u l a rb ra n c ho f mathcmati cs, rhe mathem at ic sol u n c c rta i D ty C a l c L tl a re u n c ertai nty,i t turned out, i s . d not incomp.rtible n ith ctiologic.rl hypcrtheses r.rrion.rl an<l diagnosisbast'don datagatheredrvith rhc aid ofsuitable insrrumcnts, What cxl)(.rt is qualified to decidc thc epistemologicrl status of meclicine?Philosopherscannot bestorvupon themselvesthc por v c rt o ju d g e n o n p h i l o s o p h i c ad i s c i p l i nes.' l ' hctcrm " epi stel mologv" rclers to the legacv, not to snl the relics,of thc branchof philosophvtraditionalh knorvnas"rheorv of kno* lcrJgc." Because t hc r elat io n ,rf k n o r,' l e d g e i rs o b j e c ts has bccn progressi vel y ro r eue. . r led s c i c n ri fl c m e th o d s , c p i s tc mol ogv has broken w i th by philos ophi c .rl s s u m p ti o n s g i v e i ts c l fa neu.del l ni ti on. R athcr J to than dcduce critcria of scientificity fiom o prion categoriesof understanding. wasdone in thc past.it haschoscnto take those as criteria Irom thc historv of triumpharrtrationality.Whv shotrldn't m c dic ine th r' rc fi rrc b e b o rh .j u d g c ;rn d p artv i n the cascj W hv s hould it f c c l th c n e e d fb r a c o n s e c ra ti o n i ts statusu i thi n thc ol s c ic nt if ic c o rn m u n i tv ?M i g h t i t l re th a t m crl i ci nc has preserved f r om it s or i g i n s a s c n s eo f th e u n i < l u e n e ss i ts purpose,so that of it is a mattcr of some interest to detcrmine rvhether that senseis a tenuoussun ivnl or an essential vocation? put it in somervhat To different ternrs, arc rvhat used to I)e d.fr ofdiagnosis, dr'cision and treatment abotrt to bccorne ro,/cr rncilhr.y t.) somc c!)nrputc r iz ed nr ed i c a l p ro g ra m?If m e d i ri n e c annot sl ri rk the duty to

assistindividual human beingsuhose livcs are in dangcr,cven il' that meansr iolating thc requiremrntsof the rational,critic;l pursui t ofknor vlcgr : , can it claim t o l. lecalleda science? A c l t' veran<iI ear ncdhist r t t i. r n m cdicine, K. r r l Rot hschuh, of hasexanrinc<l this issuein tcrnrs l)orrow(l fiom Thorn.rsKuhn's epistemologv.In 197?.he askcd*hether Kuhn's conhistorical ccpts of " nor m al scicncc, " "par adigm " and "scient if ic gr oup" in could be applied to conceptualadvances clinical mcrlicine; he concluded that Kuhn's lramerrc'rli,rvhile uselul fbr rrnrl<'rstandin i ng medi c ine'sincor por at ion of ar lr ances t hc basicsciences t lor si nce the e ar ly ninet cent hcent ur v,il inadequat e o. r c<. <r r r nt the cliflicultiesencountcrcdbl clinical medicine,due to thc complcxitv and variabilitv of its object. He concludeclhis papcr * ith a quotation from Lcibniz: "l rvish that medical kno* ledge rere asccrtai n a sm edical pr oblem sar c r lif licult . " I n t hc cour seof his m Rot anal vsi s, hschuhr epor t st hat Kuhn oncc char act er izcd ccli' ci ne asa " plot osciencc, "r uher eas Rot hschLr h, cli r s t o call hc, pr 'fhese tuo llitsenschaIt\. it arr rrperaticrnal 5cicnce (i?.r.-lriond!e appellationsare worth pausingovcr. "[)rotoscicncc" is ingenious bccauscit is ambiguous. Proto-is polvscnric:it suggcsrr"prior" as rrel l as "r udim ent ar v, " but it m av also r cf cr t o hier ar chical prioritv. "Protoscicnce" is a term that might u.cll be applicd tcr an carl i er peliod in t he hist or l ol nr cr licine,but it scenr s som ehorl i roni c t o use it \ 1hensom c physiciar s bclievet hat t he t inr e hascorne t o allor v com put cr s t o guide t r cat m ent s'lr ilc cr t her s arguc th.rr pa(ientsought to be allorvedto consult thc machincs di rectl v. )ct "opcr at ional science" sccm s no m or c appr opr iat c a tcrm than "applied science, "uhich som e ninet r cnth- cen u r y t phvsicians themselves applied ro their discipline as thc! beganto treat pati e nt son t he basis t heir unt ler st anding phvsical ol ol and chtnri calm<chanir m r xplc'r t t l t r v phvsiolr r gistFor c r nr plt ', t he t s. rvork ol C a r lo M at cucci, Er r r ilcDu Bois- Rcvm on<l Her r r r ann and






v on Helm holt z o n a n i ma l e l e c tri c i ty l e d Gu i l l aume-B enj ami n of Duchennc de Boulogneto discovernew w-avs treating muscullis lar diseascs. major works, publishedbet$'een 1855 and 1867, bear titlcs incorporatingthe u'ord "application." It that mediAn instructivcexampleis electrotherapy. suggests to become an applied scienceby the need to cine was impelled treatments,as if in obedienceto its origdiscovermorc ef'fective Later, ofcourse, the "scienceofelectricity" led inal imperativc. to the devclopment not of therapeutic but of diagnosticdevices (invented by Willcm Einthoven such as the electrocardiograph (Johanncs Berger,192'l)and in 1903),the electroencephalograph cndoscopy.By treating the patient as an abstractobject oftherapy,it rvaspossibleto transformmedicine into an appliedscience, with the accent now on science.Like any science,medicinc had ofprovisionally climinating its concrete to evolvethrough a stage init ial objec t . of Earlier,I called medicine an "evolving synthesis appliedscithe scnsein rvhich medicine cnccs." Norv that I have discussed is an appliedscience,I haveonly to justily the choice of the words "evolving" and "synthesis."Surely the reader will grant that any science,w'hether its stapure or applied,validates epistemological tus bv developingnew methods and achievingnew results.A science evolvesbecauseof its interest in new methods fbr dealing with its problems.For example,the existence ofchemical neurotransmitters u'as acknowledgcd(not without reservations, particularly in France) u'hen the work of Sir Flenry Dalc and Otto Loewi filled in blanks in the resultsobtained bv electrical methods a centurv carlier. So much for "cvolving" - but what about "synthesis?" synA thesis is not a mere addition; it is an operational unity. Physics and chemistry are not syntheses, but medicine ir, insofar as its object, whoseinterrogativc prcsence suspended methodologis by

'fhat object hasa human rcmainspresent. ical choice, nevertheless form, that ofa living individual rvho is neither the author nor the masterof his own life and who must, in order to live, sometimes rcly on a mediator. I lorvevercomplex or artificial contcmporary mslicine's mediationmay be - rvhethertechnical,scientific,economic or social - and however long the dialogue betteen doctor and patient is suspcnded,the resolve to provide effective treatment, which lcgitimatesmedical practice, is basedon a parricular modalitv of life, namely,human individualitv. In the physubconscious, medicine is truly a synthcsis sician's epistemological degree, it applies science to the because,to an evcr-increasing task of preservingthe fragile unity of the living human individstatusof mcdicine becomesa matual. When the epistemological ter of consci ousqucst ioning, t he sear chf br an answerclcar ly raisesquestionsthat fall outside the purvie$' of medical epistcnrofr:rgv. ["Statut 6pist6mologique,"Histoire,pp. 2 ] -291




P,cRt THnrr,

H i sto r y

Cs r pt t , n Sr vr N



Theories Never Proceedfront Facts [5S ] Is bi ologv . r t heor et ical or . r n e\ per im cnt al scienccl'Ccll onlv rt ith rcathcorl is an irlcal tcst case.\{i: can seelight u.avcs son'seves,but u-c appearto viervthc cells in a plant section \4itlr objects. ls ccll rheorv thc sanreeves\ve usc t() look at evt'ry<lat With th< aid .rnvthingnlorc th.rn.r set of observational protocols? ,' l ,r nri cr,'scoPr '.r { c. t n \ r e t hat m . r cr "r , ', I ic or ! : nt ) i\ Dtrs 'n\ i. t \ , ol cells,just as\rc can seervith thc nakedevethat the sanre organi sms.rreeicm cnt sof t hc biospher e. Yct t hc m icr oscopccxt cnds the po\\ers ofintellig<,ncemore than it does the polters crfsight. Furthernrolc,t he f ir ! t llr enr iscof cell t heor v is not t h. r r living thi ngs arr com post d of cells but t hr t o, / .living t hings consistof 1 totfiind bul ce]ls; everv ccll, morcovcri is assumed col't)elrom to a prccxi sting cell, Such an asser t ioncilnnot be pr ovcn wit h a mi cr()scopc. bcst , t he m icr oscope( in ser veas a t ool in t he At taskol rtrilicat ion. Bur r vher edid t he i<lca r f t he cell conr c t ; om t i n thc l i rst place?l Robert Hookc is gcner.rllvgiven to() nruch crc(lit fbr the fbrmulation ofcell theorv.Truc, he *.asthe llrst to discoverthe ccll, somc.rvhat accidcnt , r s hc pur . _uecl cur iosit v ar vakcned bv a bv mi croscoPr 's liesrI cr <l. r t ions. car Alier r nakir r g t hin slic. ' in. r a
t ()t

its structure.] piecc oIcork, I k-,<-,ke observecl compartmentalized He .rlsocoined the nord "cell" n hile under the spell ofan imager the section of cork remindeclhim of a honeycomb, the rvork of . r n. r ni n ra l , rh i c h th e n fu rth e r re mi n ded hi m of a u' ork of man, l thc honevcomb being like a building macleup of manv ce.//s, or lmall rooms. But Hooke'sdiscoverv norvhere: failed to open led it up a new avenueof research. The lvord disappeared, only to be rcdiscovcrcda ccntrrrvlatcr. The discovcrvof thc ccll concept and the coining of the vvord nre \\'orth drvellingon lbr a moment. As a biological conccpt, the cell is surclv ort'rdctcrminc<lto a considcrabledcgree.The psychoanalrsis knorvledgehas been sufficiently successful the ol in pas tr h n t i t n o \l c o n s ti tu te sa d i s ti n c t genre,to $ hi ch addi ti onal contril>utir>ns mar bc ,rrlrledas thcy arisc, cvcn u'ithout systemrtic intention. BiologvcJasscs havefimiliarizcd all ofus u'ith rvhat is norr a lairl,, st.rnd.rrd inr.rgeof the cell: schematically, epitheIial tissuen'scnrblcs honc)'conrb,j i Thc w-ord"cell" callsto mind not thc prisoner()r thc monk but the bce. Ernst Heinrich Haeckel pointcd out that cells ofrvax filled with honey are in t'r'err, rvav analog < ru s .r c l l s o f p l a n ts fi l l e d u i th sap.a do not thi nk that t< c I this analogvexplainr the appcalof the notion ofthe cell. Yet rrho can s.rvu herher or not the human mind, in consciouslyborrouing lrom the bechivethis term lbr a part ofan organism,did nor uncon5ciou!lvborrorv as uell the notion ofthe cooperative labor t h. r t pro d u c e s th e h o n e v c o m b ?J u s t as thc al vcol a i s part of a structure, becs arc, in Maeterlinck's phrase,inclividualswholly absorbcdbv the republic. In lact, the cell is both an anatomical and a functional notion, refarring both to a fundamcntalbuilding block and to an individual labor subsumed and contributby, ing to. a largerprocess. What is certain is that affectiveand social valuts of cooperationand association lurk more or lessdiscreetly in t hc b a c k g ro u n d [th e d e v e l o p i n g el l thcorv. o c

A feu' vear s af t er llooke, in 1571, M ar cello lUalpi{hi and N ehi :rn iahG r eu' sim ult aneouslvbut indepcn<lcnt lv PUblishcd their *,ork on the microscoPicanatomvof plants. Althcrughthev was thc sanrething clid not mention llooke, u'hat thcy discovered evenif the rvord las diflbrent. Both nrcn found Irc had discovered, that l i ving t hings cont ain r vhat we nor v call cells' but neit her cl ai med t hat I iving t hings ar e not hing but cells. Accor ding t o to l\larc Klcin, moreovcr, Greu'subscribecl the thcor,vthat cells arc precededby and groru out ofa so-calledrital lluid. l-he historv of this biological theorv is u'orth exploring in greatt'rdetail in lbr u hat it can teach us about scientiflc reasoning gcncral. As long as people havcbeen interestcdin biological nrlrrphologv, thcir t hinking has been dom inat ed bv t \ r r ) cont r ndict or l discontinuitv.Some rhinkcrs inragine inrnges continuity Ycrsus t l i vi nn thingsgr ou, ingout of a pr im ar v subst ancehar is cont inuas ot ous and pl. r st ic; her s t hink r il or ganism s com posit esol dis' ( rctf pnrts,of 'brganic atoms" rtr "seeds lilc." Continuit\' \'('lsus r.,l cont inuunt ver susP. r lt iclc:r he nr ind im posesit s < l i scont inuit v, 1,,.611nI 'i, r logrju\ t . r \ it ( loe\ ir r nI t ir '. Thc tcrm "protoplasm" now rcfirs to n constituenrofthc c<ll ( or c,rnsi de r ed an at om ic elem entof a conr posit e ganism . ) r igas inally, horvever, to thc rvord ref'erred the vital fluid out ol n'hich aJl lifi' presumablvarosc. l-he botanist Ilug<r von l\lohl, <rneof thc fi rst t o obser vct he bir t h of neu cells bv dif ision ol exist ing ones,proposed the tenn in l8,ll: in his mind, it rcferredto a fluid of P rcsentpr ior t o t he em er gencc anl solid cclls. I n 1315,l- clix I)ujardin had suggcstcdthc term "sarcode" fbr the ,iamcthing, namel v,a living jelly capableof subsequcnt ganizar ion. or Even Thcodor Schrvann, the man regardedas the fbunder of cell theorr', rvas inlluenced bv both imagcs:he belieled that a structurel esssub st ancct he cvt oblast em e) givesisc t o t hc nuclei . r r ound ( r uhi ch cells f br m . I n t issues, cells I br m u'her evcrt hc nut r ient

liquid penctriltes. This theoreticalambivalcnce thc prrt of thc on aut hor s1 r' h o< l i dmo s t to e s ra b l i s h e ll rhcorv l ed Marc K It' i n t< r c make.r remark that has considerablebc.rringon uhat I rvirh to argue hcrc: "What rve fincl, then, is thar a small numbcr of basic idcas rt'cur insistentlv in the rvork of authors concerncd rvith a rvidc varir'tvofobjects fronr a number of dif-terent points of vit'\1. 'fhe,- cerr.rinlydid not t.rkc thesc idt'.rsliorn one.rnorher. These f ir ndar n e n tah v p o th e s c sa p p c a r to rc prescnt pcrsi stcnrmocl cs l im plic it i n th c n a tu rc o l s c i e n ti fi ce x p l anati on." tansl ati ng thi s cpistcmologicalotrscrvation into philosophicalterms, it f'ollou's that tlr.orics netcrprocecd Jrontfo.tr, a finding that conflicrs rvith t he er np i ri c i s tp o i n t o f l i e n rh a t s c i enri i rsofi cn adopt uncri ri callv when thev trr to philosophizc about thcir cxpcrimenr.rl findings.Theoriesariseonlv out of carlicr thcorics,in somc cascs vcrv nld oncs. l'he ficts are merelv the path - anclit is rarell a strnighr path - br rvhich one theorr' leaclsto another. Auguste Contte shrt'rltllvc.tllcrlittention to this relationof therrrr to theory \\'hen he rerrrlrkcd that sincf .rn cmpirical obscrvation prcsul)posc5 a t heor v t (J l o c u s th e a tte n ti o n , i t i s l o g i cal l r i nevi tabl ethat fal se t lr c or ie sp re c e d etru e o n e s .[...] T hus , i l rv c * i s h to l i n d th c tru c ori gi ns ofccl l thcorv. .,r,e nr lr s tno t Io o l to th e (l i s c r)\c l .\ f c e rtai nmi croscopi cstructures o in liv ing th i n g s .l C o n n a tts o n cp p .4 7 -5tl ] c, Comte Buffon, or the Discontinuous ImoBinqtion rvho, asN4arc Klein points out, nrade [59] In thc rvork of BufILrn, lit t le us e o f th e m i c ro s c o l > eu e fi n c l r theorv of the composi , t ion ol li v i n g th i n g s- i n < l r,c < 1s v s te nr,n rhe ei ghreenrh-ccntury i a . s c ns cof th c tc rm. B u tT i rn ro p o s e ca seri es -rxi oms to crpl ai n p l ol certain f.rctshaving to do chiellv rvith rcpro<luctionand hereclitv. In Chiptcr Trvo ol thc Ilistoirenaturellcdcsonimour (t;^-18), he set forth his "thcorv of orqanicmolecults." In Bul'lon's rvords,
1 6 .1

" ,rni rralsand plant s t hat can m ult iplr an<lr t pr ocluct jn , r ll t heir ,rl ln,lies compctscd other, sinrilarrrtganicltorj.lre I).u-ts organiTed quantitv rre can disccrn rvith rhc cvc but ies, rvhoseaccuntulated onlv rvith thc aitl of reason." * hoseprimitive parr! \\'c can perccive this, Bufion deducedthat there arc infinitelv manv org.rnic Fron <rf as l)art\, cach conrposecl thc samesubstancc "organizcdbcings." a, or ganic par t s, com nr on t o aninr als r d l) lnnt s,ar e pr im iThcse ri !' ( .rn( lincor r upt iblc. What is called "gener at ion"in biologv is nrtrel v t he conjun<: r ionof som e num t r cr ol pr im it ivc or ganic deat h is m er elvt he disper sion t hosc par t s. of parrs;s ir nilar lv, r bcingsconsistof pr im it ive or Thc hvpot lr esishnt or ganiTed ol 1.rnicprrts is thc onh onc. Buflirn nrgucs.c(rpable arrridin{ the rl i fl i cu lt ics encount er edbv t r vo car lier t heor icst har claim ed t o nam el\ ', ovi5m and aniof cxpl ai n t he plr enom ena r cpr ocluct ion, t mal culism .Bot h ol t hesc t heor iesassum cclhat her cdit l is unil areral:ovist s, f bll, r ', r 'ing Regncr dc Cr aal, claim cr l t h. r t it was anirralctrlists, follorring Anthonie ratrLrcu* enmatcrn,rl, hercas u hoecl ,11gu, , ,t1 it r r aspat cr nal. But lbn,alcr t t o phcnonr r na ol hat hvbri clizat ion, believcdt hat her edit vm ust be bilat er . r l. , r is clear s fron Chapt crf ivc of his *or k. l'hc lact sr cinf br cedt his bclicf : a chi l d could r cscm l) l( 'r : it her his f it hcr or his nr ot lr i r . Thus, hc rvritcsin ChapterTcn, "Thc fbrmatiorrof the letus occrrrs through crtmbi n. r t ion or llanic m olcculesin r hc m ixt u|c com poscdol' ol rht sem inallluids <r fcllo individuals. "[. . ] In Buf lbn'svie\ \ ',Ne$t onian m cchanicsexplicit lv had jur is cl i cti onover t he or g. r nizat ion living t hings: of It i s obrioust h. r r neit her hc c ir cLr lat ion t hc t 'Lxxlnor r hr m or coi t l ncnt ol t hc m usck. 'nor r hc anint . ll unct ionr canbc cxpl. r inecl in [ tt:rms im pulse anr ol t he lar vs or r iinr r v cchanics. is just ol or oI m It rs obvious that nutrition,(lcvelopmcnt rt productir:,n othcr .rnrl otrev la\s. Whv not .tcLno(lerlge, thfn, tltrt therc arc lirrccspcnetralr 6t

ing andactingupon the masles bodics, ol sincerre have examples oI lb rc c si n th c s u b s ta n co f b o d i e si n magncti c e attracti ons and chcmical .rffinitics?5 C)rganicmoleculesattract one another in obedienceto a lar; of morphological constnncy,constituting an aggregatc that Buf'fbn called the "internal mold." Without thc hypothesesof intcrnal mold and organic molecule, nutrition, development and rcproduc t ion rv o u l d b e u n i n te l l i g i b l e .[...] Thcrc can be no doubt that Buffon hopcd to be the Nervton of the organic lorld, much as David Humc at around the samc time hoped to bccome the Newton of psvchology.Ne*,ton had demonstratedthat the forcesthat movc the starsare thc sameas thosc that move objccts on the surfaccofthe earth. Gravitational attrnction explained horv simple masses could fbrm more complex svstemsof matter. Without such a forcc ofattraction, realit v uou l d b e n o t a u n i v e rs c u t j u s t s o much dust, b [:or Buffon, the hvpothesis that "mattcr lost its forcc ofattract ion" u ' a se < l u i v a l c n to th e h y p o th esi sthat " obj ccts l ost thei r t cohcrcnce."6A good Newtonian, Buffon believed that light i{as a corpuscularsubstancc: 'I hc smallest moleculcs ofmatter,thc smallest atomsrveknolr,, are those light... . t.ight,thoughscemingly ol blessed rvith a qualitvthe cxactopposite weightiness,irh a volatilitv of n tlratmightbe thought essential its nature, ncvertheless hcavy anvother matter, 1{) is as as since bends it rrhcnit passes orherbodies lindsirscllrvithin ncar and rcachof their sphere attraction... And just asanvform of matol . t c r c a n c o n v e rti ts c l f i n to l i g h t rh rough extreme and subdi vi si on clispcrsion through impactof its infinitesimal parts, too, canlight so, be converted into anyother firrm ol ntattcril, throughthe attraction ofother bodies, component its parts madeto coalesce.T arc

I ight, heat and fire are diflircnt modes of existenceol the same common material.To do sciencewasto try to {ind out ho$',"rvith this singlc source ofenergy and single subject, nature can varv that living its rvorks ad infinitum."s If, moreover, one assumes mattcr i s not hing but or dinar y m at t er plus heat , a cor Puscular conccption of m at t er and light inevit ablvleadst o a cor PUscular conceptionof living t hings: alone, All the cflicts of crudemattcrc.rnbe relatedto attraction to oi all ol the phenomena living martcrcan bc rt'lated that same rvith the lirrceol heat.By lit'ingm.rttcr l;rcc ofattrnctioncouplerl but thingsthat livc or vegctatc all livingorganic not I orcan onl'r'all ol' aboutin thc dctritusor residuc disperscd spread and rnolccules t organized bodies.LI nder hc headol livingm at t erI also includc to light. lirc and heat,in a nord, all marterthat aPpcars trt to be rctivetrr itscll.e Thi s, I believe,is t hc logic behinclt hc t hcor y of or ganicm olecul es,a biological t heor l t hat owed it s exist encet o t he pr estigc ol a phvsicaltheory. The theorv of organic molccules is an exampl eof t he analvt icm et hod in conjunct ion r vit h t hc cliscontinuous imagination,that is, a penchantfbr imagining objects bv analogv ith discreterather than continuousmodels,Thc disconu ti nuous im aginat ionr educest he diver sit vof nat ur e t o ur lif or m it1,,to "a singlc sourcc of energyand a singlc subject." That one elcment, the basisof all things,thcn fbrms compoundsu.ith itself' that produce the appearance rliversitv:nature variesits norks of .rcli nfi nit um . - f hc lif e of an indiviclual, u'het hcr . r n anim al or a plant, is therefore an efl'ectrather than a causc,.rproduct rather than an essencc. organismis a mechanismrvhoseglobal cllect An is the nccessarl conscqucncc thc arrangcmcnt of ofits parts,Truc, l i vi ng i n dividualit vis m olecular ,m onadic.

'l h c lili oi an . n, nr "t . r . pt . - "r , r 1 s c c m s . i s m e r e l , -r h c rcsujt of all th e n c t ion\ , of all t he lit t le. indiv idua l) i v e r ( j f I nra\ plrr it thar rra.! ) ol each ol irs .rctivcmcrle< uics, ,r.hose Iilc is pt inririvc and rpparently (nnnor [)c drstrovtd. \,\,r have firund there living molecules in afl li! ing ()r vcgcraring things: rvc are certain that all thcsc organic rnol_ cculcs lre equalll.cssential ro thc nutrjrjon ancl thercl.irrr to the .cproducrion ol animals and pl.rnrs. It is not difl.icult to inraginc, rhert'lbr'c, rhat n.hen a ccrtain number oi.thcscnrolccules are joinerl togcther, rhe\ ti.rnna living thing: sincc thcre is lil.e in each ofirs parts. lile can also bc lbund io the r,rholc. that is, in anv rssemblagc ol tbose p.rrts. . fCo n na is s anc cpp. 52- S6l Lorenz Oken, or the Continuous

I l er e , th e i d ta Ih a t o r g a n i sm s <) r eco m p ( ) \i tL ,s 1 ) f.e l e m cn ta r l lili' li-rrrnsis merclv a Iogic.rl crrnseclutnce ot a rrl()re b.rjic lrotion, l h i c h i s th a t tl te e l e r n cn ts o l l i fc a r e r cl e a se cJ h cn th e w larger b e l o n g ( l i si n tcg r a t( ,. Th c u .h o l e to k", p r "_ c c d ( n ( e ( ) \'e r th c p a r t5 . K l e i n sta tcs r h i s cxp l i ci tl \.; r h tl t h<, .rssociation primitirc anirnals the grriscot lir ing llcsh oi in shorrlcl nor br' thought ol rs a rrechanjcalcoupling ol orrc rnim.rl to rn.rhcr, rs in a pilc ol srnd rr.hr.rc onh rcl.rtirrn tbc rmong thcgr;insol.rvlrjch it i\ c{).npo\ed is onc ol p;e*1n,1,r.. ar orr{cn anrl hvdrogcnrlis_ Just . t p p c,1 r n \\'r tcf, j u \r a s m ( r cu r \ .r n d su l l i l d i ;.r p p e a r f i n ci n n a b a r , s hat rrkt.splacc hr:r(.is a truc in l o r m s to u h i ch

Jn,l bi oi ogl \t. n.,,n,r," ,, l rh rri r ol I r ( t ( r .. T h ,.r,.i r n o ru p ru rc o l (o l r(i ul ri L\ hetrr..n r)k,.n.rn,l the firsr biolo{ri\tsthat u.ould offer deliberate emplrical sufport tbr ccll thcorv. j\,lathias Schleiclen,rlho f;rst t;._rt"," Jacob l ,rr p l ,rn r.i t l ti s fl a 1 1 7 4 ,1 a ,u 7pfrr.roycnc,rs .t8;,rarrghr ( t8 : : t lhr lln . r , 1, ' t.: l. i i \e r.i r\ o l J rl l a . rrh e rc me m,r (,\ ()Lcn,. teJch:ng ol \\'erestill fresh.Theodor Schrvann, rvho bctu.een lgig an,l lg,li gener aliz e d e l l th e o rv to i l l l i v i n g th i ngs, c had seena good dcal of Schleiden and his tcacher, ,\liiiicr, ,, h., hud be"n a Joharrnes nat ur eph i l o s o p h e ri n h i s r..ru th .rr i n g er S i s rhus l i rl l v j usti fi cd i n remarking that Okcn .,in a senscsou,erl the irjeasof the authors r eg. r r dedn h i s s tc a da s th c i o fc e l l thcorr.,,f...] fo r.rn d c ri r()t{

Romnnric school narure ol philosophcrs fbuna",l 5i;"11;n". ru by Thc spcculations rhisschtnl harlasnruch of inttu.,n." on ""iiy nin( t ( , . n l h -(c n rU r\ C trm .rn ians

Imagination [60] Charles Singcr and N,larc Klein, asircil as Ernile Gur(rnor, tlrou gh to a les s el dc gr c c , t jid not f ail to norc rhc.."al, au",u Okcn fbr rhe fbrmulation of cell theorv. Oken bclonged to the

n,'lr l. , r l r l, , . jr , r r r r .lll. r r , 1, lr , , . , lr rr lr , \ , r r i, ( , , j r l, ilh, . r , , r l. r , , irnrandrrorLrrrvarrl uniqrrr cornmon .r aorl l.Llncti()n. orperh)rm rhrr l i rnct ion pur suinghcir or vnt ndr . ller e,no in t inr lili<lLris spar ocl; ,rl nl l n r c r r cr ilicc( I llut t hc l. r nguagt .rislislt , r cling. . r |r r r hc com hina_ jr l ti oo ol inr lir lr nlir jes r nt s jnt lir jr lr r . r lir._r . lir r r nt 'r iir lnor hcr he ar t , tkrtr'orctl, tbc lattcr.rpprars .r,.rll.sultr,l rnd <rnh thar<i(.\tfu( ri(Jn.rl

rrniric,,ri'n'1 ;r,h" ",.,",.,."r"::''i":l;';]H,:i:l::l'l;:li:l:l

\\rc.rrc , a long uar lr onr Bt r llir n. The or ganism not a st r ntol. elc_ is rncntar vbir , logicalcnt it ics: it is. r at hcr , a hi- qht rent it r . r r hose cl cmi n f s ar c subsunr ed.\ r jt b t , xcm pJan. \ pr ecision,O Len anr ici_ patcd t hc t her . r r ol clcgr <. cs indir i( llr alir \ .-.lhis r ol *as nr or e t han Justi ' ll )r clcnt im cnt , t hou{h it di( l aDt icipat ($ lr at t cchniqucs , ol ccl l an clt issut .cul r ur cs, r , oulr l t cach cont cm por ilr . . lr iol<, . 11ist s abor:td if f i'r . enccs ucc. nr lhr t bcr Hat s pct er scncllled t hc , . inr li_ l i rJLraIlili ", r r r r l t hc. ', pt olcssional iit e', ol. ct lis. O ken r hought of thc org anism . r sa kin<l of societ v, Dut t hat s( ) clct \ .\ 1. as not an .r' .,' ri ,rr i, r noi r r r , lir i, lr r . r l. . r . , , , r r r r ir e, l h. , .r 1, , . , , liii,r l 1, f r i1, , , , , 1, phr' .oft hc Enlight enm cnt , but r at hcr ,i conr m lr nJt r . r s conc. cilt , r l I' r tIr, I', , I ir jr . r I 1, lr il, , . o1, Jr r f t , , nr , r r r r i, r n. . . ., f i.

Comparisotris inc!itnl)le betr'een Okcn's biological thcories rvhonr o and t he po l i ti c a l p h i l o s c ,p h v f th e Gc rm an R omanti cs der und I iebe: Kdnig Glaube Novalisinfluenccd so dceply.Novalis's his Europoodet dic Christenheit die Kdnil]inappearcd in 1798; un<l canteout in 1805'The Die rvaspublislretlin f800; C)kcn's Zeugunll first t\r'o rvorksarc vt hementlv criticai of levolutionarr thinking' pulvt'rizcdthe popular rvill allegedthat univcrsalsLrffrage Nov.rlis and tailed to give due w-cightto social, or, more preciselr' commun.rl,contitruitv. AnticiPating tlegel, Novalis(like Adam Heinlich MLiller a ieu yearslater) consideredthe state to be a reality individual rtason to .-hich the l illed bv Crxl, a fict surpassing h indi, nir luam u s t s .rc ri Ii c c i ms e l l Ifth c re i s an anal ogvbctueen l sociologicalviervsand bioloqical thcorY. it is' as has often these thc RomanticsinterPrctedpolitical cxpebeen remarkcd,because r ienc c in t e n n s o l a " v i ta l i s t" c o n c c P ti ol lofl i l e' E venas French p,-rliticalthinkers rvcrc offering thc idcasof the social contract mind, thc l italist school and universalsufliage to rhe F.uroPean of Frenchmctlicine rvasproposingan imageof lifc as 11115csnding coul d . anaht ic al u n d e rs ta n d i n gV i ta l i s ts c l e n i cdthat organi sms bc under s to o rla s me c h a n i s n l sl;i l e , th e v argued,i s a fbrnr that c annot be re tl u c c dto i ts ma tc ri a l c o mP oncnts'V i tal i st bi ol ogy to provideda totalitarianpolitical philosophyl ith the means Propos ec er t a i n th c o ri e so fb i o l o g i c a l i n d i v i dual i tv'though P hi l osophy $, asun d c r n o c o m p u l s i o n to d o s o . Il orv true i t i s that the rr pp problem of indiiiduality is indivisiblc fConnainoncc, 58-63] End uring Thcmes that i nspi redthesespec[ 61] l) id t h c c o n c e p tso l i n d i v i d u a l i tv altogethcr disappeal ulationsabout thc comPositionoI organisrns APPar;rmongbiologistt tntlv sorthv of llcing calleclscientists? c nt l] not . Claude Bcrnard,in his lcqonrsur /esphinominesde Ia vie com'

his deat h bv et (tu\ onilt t ou\ our ligdr our ' publishcdat t er n)Ltns "an J! t 'r t Pat -"f ' lc. t h'' "r {Jniim J\ ,tr' ,r. ," ttt U- t o. r le'cr ibcd Pr ln( ll'l( 'r I l n(nrJr\ (i ll\ or or gani: 'm : . ''lher cbt 'lllir m ingt hr const ir uent s' This is t ant aDloulltt o Jutonomy f br anat om ical bcha't in iust asrheuI'ould itt", a.tt' behave association for them ".r..,itg \lere lhr s^me as that crcated ,,r ,r"f"it"" if the rnilicu rvorcls' .*.,,it" *" organismbl thc action of nealbt cells ln other though' Notc' os th?' do in societ)" ..1f. ,,rrl,J li"e in libertvetoct\' that control the lilL' srrbstanccs ,; O"rr;"*, that it the regulaiive and inhibit ion at e t he slm e ln n ,,t th" ." l t t hr ough st im ulat ion int cr nal envir onm entof t he or gan.,,t,ur" nl t ; . ". "il' o' in t hc cclls I ive in liber t v' Never t hcless' ,r-,' ,,n" .. nn, r , saYt hat t he bv meansof a colllPalison' his n".n.rd, L.,ping to clarif,v meaning r lr inq "'r t J- (r t \ \ \ ilh il' '^r n .r.k. u. t" c onr ir letJ ( om l) lc\ lir ing r t ni''r I h( \ Jm ( r ( lent ( Jr \l ( r i al \l Jm l) , " r r rr r hit h int li' i'lr r 'r l'; r ll sociill life vet contributc.to innd nn,l th.i rorrr"generalcaplcitics labor and skills' specialized t,,-atti " * ., uaYst h; oush t hcir ur ot c"'Thc cells ar c t r ulv In 1899,Em st Heinr ich Hacckel com poseot r r l) odv' t he cit i ndependr . : nt izens,billions o[ 'r '] r ich <rt the "assemtrlv indcpcnctllular state"{1 Pcrhrpstnrrgessuclrls more than iust mct'1a <knt citizens" cotrstitLlting "statc" r{erc (lominatebiological theorv' phors. Political philosophvsccmsto he tepublic'rnbecause bclieled in What man could sal that he rvas rrasa rel>ublicatl? he ccll tlteorv or a bclie"er in ccll thelrrvl>ccausc -f,, fr" sure' Bernardan<lllaeckel rtere not altogetherimmune philosophicalsin' to phi l osophicalt em Pt at ion or {xcm Pt t iom Bouin and fhl s"..,nd chapttr of l\Iarcttl Prenant' I'aul Andrd lhich Nlar c l .crui sC a m illc Nlaillar d's 1901 lt Lt it ; d'hist olollic' sur I o I 'clluie K l ei n crc<iit s,alr r ngr vit h Felix llennegr r v's egons uork to inrroducecell theorv (1896),$'ith being thc tirst cLrssi<'rl bv Pr enant ' r of i n thi : tc . r ching hist ologv in Fr ance'15vasr T'r it t cn him t o lact \ lbr svm p. r t hies ccll t heor v dit l not blind The auth or 's

:i iiiz = = = ii,- '1:27+ii +i::2::,i :,t:=1 i==1=:=TZt Z Z i+ = i i i ;2;;, : i

; iiii:ii liEi: Ej;t=1ii1:,ii zi:i =;
zil::iil, ;::=rti::i: =+ii,1:=,;1j =
=;7 r ; :, i i :, i * ; i, _i| 2 1=: =, 7 i = - , i l= 1 I 1 = 7i

i : =: ai: . += iirzz;;=_ 2 i;= : il ?ii:==, t? ?-=-j .j, t E=i r=l= 7 = : : =? : s ; : ' r : = = r 1 ,


=ia = 21,==2{==; ; l t: : i :i; ii = i :i'i: :i j

i ;=i Z :i = i ::: 1 ;t1i i 1 =, +i 2! ; i: i ;
2 = 1 = :1 , =: i:= - : = +i ::1t1 =:= = i 1i= 1 . =: 1i, 7 :i=: j. i ; z i;i ,t t i z ' ,' ziii :Ii ii: "=i i +i :,= : 1i= :- =,;, : + : = : ! = Z : := z ti = : ii : z = ; z i: = l = i : = = :i = Zi t; ! i Z

u ilZ=.i iz:iii i:ii1=11;, :j1t=

=i:! i = 7 =r = i==i= -,i;;: i 7 i ==:i :; = i :

. is t he m u s c u l ,l rs \' s tc n to r o f s u c h l o rnrati onsas pl asnrodi aor s v nc it iac o n s i s ti n g l c o n ti n u o u srn a s ses topl asm u.i th sc.rto ofcl t er ec lnu c l e i . In th e h u ma n b rx i v , o n l v the epi thel i a are cl earl v cellularized.Betweena ficc ct'll such asa leucocyte and a svncvt ir im \ uc h a s th e c a rd i a c rn u s c l c o r t he surl i ce ofthe chori al v illos it i e s o f th e fe t.rl p l a c e n ta ,th e r e arc i ntermedi ate fbrms, s uc h as th c g i a n t m u l ti n u c l e a r c c l l s ( pol vcarvocvtcs), ancli t i s dillicult to savu,hether syncitia dcvelop through firsionofonce_ indc pc n d e n tc e l l s o r v i c e re rs a . Bo th ntechani sms can. i n fact, bc obs crv e < I. v e ni n th e d e v e l o p n re nofan egg. i t i s not certai n E c that cvcry cell comesfiom the divisiono[a preexisting ccll. Emilc Rhoc lev v a s b l e to s h o u i n 1 9 2 3 th a t i ndi vi dual cel l s, i n pl anrs a as r v ell a s rn i ma l s , fre q u e n tl v rc s L rl rl i om thr subdi ri si on ofa pr im ir iv e p l a s mo d i u rn n ru l ti n u c l e a re ass). ( m B ut t h c a n a ro mi c a l.1 n do n to g e n c t i caspects thc probl em ol are not thc rvhole stor.v. Even authors u,ho, like llans petersen, ac k nonl c d q eth a t th r rta l b a s i s f c e l l theorv i s thc devel opment o < r l m e r . rz o a , n d * h o s e e th e p ro d u cti on of chi rl eras - Ii vi ng a things crcatcd by artificiallv combining cgg cells fiom different spccies assupportingrhc "additive" compositionof living things arc obliged to admjt rh.rr the explanotion the of of Junctions these oqdnisnlstontrudicts e\pldnatlonol thcir genuir.If the bodv is thc r c allva co l l e c ti o no fi n d c p c n d e n tc e l l s ,hou,doesonc cxpl ai nthc harmoniousflnctioning of the largerrrnit? If the cells arc closed svstems, h(^! can thc organismlive arrd.rct as a $,holei One wav t c r r c s olv e th e d i fl i c u l tv i s to l o o k l i rr a coordi nati ng mechanism: thc ncrvous system,say,or hctrntonalsecretions.But the connection ol most cclls to the ncrv()ussl,stemis unilateral and nonr ec ip ro c a l a n d ma n \ r i ta l p h e n o 6 q pl , especi al l v ; thoseassoc iat ec lr v i th re g L n e r,rri o n ,r( ra rh e rd i f fl cul t to erpl ai n i n terms a of hormonal regulation,no matter ho\l. complcx. petersentherefbre remarkcd:
t 71

in r one P crh aps cansarinagcnelal l. r t t hr t . r ll t he pr c, cesscswhich t as thc bodl'par t icipat cs a whole ( andin pat hologvher car c le*' in aru whercthis is not the case) dillicult to understand processcs oroanol or terms of tic ccllular state the thcor.v cellsas inclcpcndent ( Jir cnt he wav i, r shich r he ccllularor qanism, eh; r ves, [ i vnr. [ - . . 1 of itscll against attacks irs cnvironment the maintains livcs,\1orks, o{ a unil;rm brxlr. its the anrlrcgains equilibrium, cclk arcorgans Il crc tbe pr oblem of individualit v com t s up a{ain: a t ot nlit v, initi al l y resist antt o division of any kind. t akes pr ior it v over t hc aromistic vicrl dcrived fiom an attcmPt to subdividc the u'hole. P (tcrse nquit e per t inent l) quot esa r em . r r km aclebv JuliusSachs i n 1887conct r ning m u) t icellularplanr s:"Whct her cclls seemt , r or be cl cment . r r rindcpendcntcr r ganisnr s sim plv par t sol a * hole tlcpentlsentirelv on hov se look.rt thingt." In rc ccnt vcar s,incr ( asing<loubt sanclcr it icism s havebccn {br roi ccd a boutcell t hcor ! in it s classical r r , t hat is, in t he f lr cd, rl ogmat iclbr m in r vhich it ir pr esent r 'tin t t xt bookr , evcn t hose l studcnts.rT Tlrcre is f;r lessobicction todaY intendcdfbr aclvancccl bv to nonc ellularcom poncnt sof or ganism s anclt o m echanism s ol rrhi ch c clls c, r n be f br m eclout ol cont inuous m asscs pr ot ocr pl asrnth an t her e *as n'hcn Rudolph Vir chon, in Cer m anv, it ici zcd Theodor Schuann's icleaof , r cr t oblast em c and Char les Robin, in Frincc, rvaslookcd upon .rs.r cantankerous, old-laslriont'<licoroclast, In 1941, itr Tivid.ir Huztll.r shorved his luischcn Zcl [enO r 11ont sat ion int er cellularr elar ionsanr l e\ t r r cellul. r r t har i ubstan ces such as t hc int cr st it ial lvnr ph and noncellular ele( nl ents ol'conncct ivet issue)ar c jr lst as im por t ant biologicallr . r s thc cel ls t hcnr selves. The int er cellularr oid t hat or r c can scc iD thosc pr epar at ions at le t o be vicr r cr l t hr ough. r nlicr oscopcis m bv no meansdevoid ol hist ologic. r f t r nct ion, I n l9- 16,I '. Busse l (i raui tz concluded on t hc basisol his r cscar cht hat cells can t 7t


A appearin b a s i c a l l la c e l l u l a rs u b s ta n ces.l sccordi ng to cel l thccollagenofthe tendons) (srrchasthe substances orr, lunclamcntal by the cclls, evcn if it is not possibleto savpren'lustbe secrcted cisell horv the sccretion takesplace. Ilcre, ho*ever, the ordcr is rcverscd.Of cout sc, the cxPerimcntnlargument in such a theorY trusts that sulficient Precauis ncgativcin naturc: thc researcher havc been taken to Prevcnt the migration of cells into thtr tions in lcellular substance rvhich cclls arc seento cmerge' In Francc, in Nageottc had observecl, the dcvelopment of a rabbit cmJean to bryo, that thc corneaof thc eve first appears bc a homogcneous substancccontaining no cells during thc first three davsof grorvth - vet, in light ol Virchou"s larv, he bclieved that those must havcarrivcd there through subscquentlv cells that appearcd migration. Yet no such migration rvasever observed.IConnoiss anc e, p .7 1 -7 6 1 1> i s procecdi ng f 6ll It i s n o t a b s u rdto c o n c l u d c t hat bi ol ogY a torvar<t svnthetic |icrv of organic structure not unlike the sYnthesis that uave mechanicsbr-oughtabout betn'een concepts as sceminglv contradictorv as \\'aveand particle. Ccll anclplasmoclium are among the last incarnationsof the contradictorv demandsol'discontinuity and continuitY u'hich theoristshavefaccd i $c r s in c c h u m a n b c i n g s b c g a n to th i nk. P crhaps t i s true that scientiflc theorics attach their fundamentalconcePtsto ancient images- I rvould even bc temPted to savmyths, if the rvord had obvi ousl v b not bee n s o d e v a l u e d .r' i tsrc c e n t u s c i n phi l osophi es and nrystification.Folw'hat, createdfor purpoies of propaganda in t he e n d , i s th i s c o n ti n u o u s i n i ti a l pl asma,thi s pl asma that biologists havc used in one fbrm or another ever since thc problem of identifvinga structurccommon to all living thingsrvasiirst of pos c d in o r< l e rto d e a l rv i th th c Pe rcei vcdi narJequaci es the Was it anvthingother than a logical avacxplanation? corpuscular tar of thc mythological fluid fr.om 'vhich all life is supposedto
t 76

ari sc, ofth e t r ot hv uave t hat bor e \ t nus ot t it s f ir am ?Char les N aucl i n,a Fr ench biologist r vho canlc close t o discover ingt he marhcma t icallaws of her edit v bcf br e G r cgor Nlendcl,t hought that thc p r ir nor dial blast cm c was t he "cla\ " m cnt ioned in t hc Biblc. r')This is u,hr' I haveargutrdthat thcorics clo not .rriseli om thc licts thcv order - or, to Put it more preciselv,f)cts r/o act t as a sti mulus t o t heor v,bt r t t her neit hcr cngenclcrhe conccPt s that provide t hcor ics r vit h t hcir int er nal coher encenor init iat e thc i ntcl l ect ualam bit ions t hat t heor ics pt t t . sueSucham bit ions come to u s f r om long ago,and t he num bt r ol unif i ing concePt s i s smal l .That is uhy t hcor t 't icalt hcm cssur vivcevt n alt er cr it ics u are pleascdto think that the thcories associatcd ith thcm have p, becn refirterl.lConnoissonce, 791


C rr a p r r tt E I c H r The Concept of Ref lex

Epi st emol og i co I Prej u d i ces the [6'1] Broadlyspeaking, varioushistoricsofresearchinto rellex nrovrmcnt havefiiled ro discrirninatcsuflicientlv anrongdescripti on of aut om at ic nr ur onr uscular esponscsj r expcr im ent alst uclv ol .rnatomical structurc! and their lunctional interactirrns, fbrand mtrl ati onol't he r ef lcx cl. r r r r . cpt it s gener alizat ion t hc f br m jn and of a theorr. l'his f)ilure accountsfbr thc surprisingcliscrepancics, * hen i t com cs 1o ; r var r lingcr . edit lbr an or iginal ( lisco\ er v . , r anti ci pat iont o a par t icularindividual,am ong hist or ians r vell as as bi ol o gist scngagedin lr ackingt hc claim s of cer t r in of r hcil col l eag ues. Fl ereI pr oposer o dist inguishpoint s o1 r . ier vt hat ar c all t oo olien confbundcd. ,\1r'purposeis not to right u,rongs,lil<esonrc scholarlvavengcr,but to clrarvconclusionsof potential v.rluc to epistemologv and thc hisrorvoi'science.Indccrl,the ultim.rte rcason l br thc exist enceof diler gent hist or icshas t o do u, it h t r vo rathcr $.idespread prejutJices. One of these involvesall thc sci, encesr pcop]c are disposr:d heljevethaf a conccpt caDoriSiDate to onlv n ithin the franrervork a thcorv - or, at anv ratc, a heurisol ti( - honpgeneousrr ith the theorv 1)rheuristicin tcrms of rr hicir the obscrvcd ficts \\'ill latcr be intcrpretecl.The other involvt,s

biologr i n p a rti c u l .rr: t i s rv i d e l v b c l i cvcd that, i n thi s i rci ence, tlrc only thcories rhat have led to fnrjtful appJicatiorrs and p<.rsi_ t ir . cadv a n r.t'is k n o rv l e d g e a v eb e e n mcchani sri c ;n stvl e.l ...l n h In rhc rineteenth century, the mechanisttheorv, based on the g<ncralization a concrpt rvhoseb.rsic ol outlirre x.asclcar bv 1g50, pnrduccrla rcrr.)actire ellbct on the rva,!in which its originsrvsye c onc eiv e ri ,It s c c m c d o n l 1 ,l q g 1 q 1 1 a t a phenomi ,non th u,hi ch, along r v ith m a n y o l h e rs , p ro v i d e dj u s tifi cati on fi rr a mechani cal c x planat i o no f a n i ma l l i fc c o u l < lh a v ebcen di scoveretl and stud_ ier l only b v a m c c h a n i 5 tb i o l o g i s t. tfth c l ogi c of.hi story thus pointcrl trlvarrl o nrcchanist,thc history of phrsiologv proli<le<l a name - I)escartes.-fhjs coincidenceseemedto fbrec]ose funher discussion,though no one knerv or cared to knou.rvhether the iogic confirmed rhc hisrorvor the historr inspired the logic. From the incontcstable lact thar l)e\carrcs had proposecl a ntechani_ cal theorv rrf-involuntarr. movemcnr an(l cven provided al excellent description of certain instanccsof rvhat s,ould jater. in the ninc t c ( . n thc c n tu rv Jb c c a l l c d ,.re fl e x e s,'i . u.as t dgduqed,1n5uyreptitious irnticipariono1-$.har $.asto come. that ljescarteshacl described,named and {brmulaterlthe concel)t of the rellex bec aus ct hc g e n e ra lth e o rl o l th e re l l e x vvasel aborated i n order t o ex plain rh e c l a s so f p h e n o m (,n a a t hc had cxpl ai nerl th i n hi s o*' n las hi o n . L\4,v own vierl is that, in the historr,of scicnce, )ogic pcr se ought to takc preccdcncc over the logic of historr-. B"f*" lu" relnte theories in terms o1 logical content an<l origin, rve must ask hor1'contenrpordrics intcrpretc(l the concepts ofrvhich those th(\)rics i{ere conrposed lirr ifrve do not inrist on internai con_ sjstcnc\'. risk falling into rhc parador rhar logjc is \\'c ubiquitous except in scicntjfic thought. There n-rav a logic, more.)ver,in be t h( s uc c c s s i o n fd o c tri n e s i n th e ms e l .r,es ogi cal . E vcn i fone o ill hol<ls that thc principic of noncontr.rcliction ob;olctc, alrl even ir
l8 o

if one substitutcsfbr logic somecurrentlv more prestigioustem, of the essence the caserernainsunchanged.Inclcccl, cv<,n tlreo_ if one anot hcr <lialcceic. r llv, n6r nr sol scient if ic ri t:seng t 'n<lt r t he theorl r r c not t hose of nr yt h. clr eamor f ajr l t ale. Evenif yir t u_ al l v non e o1 t he pr inciplcsof a t hcor r r cm ain jnt act , t he t heor v c.rn b, c. r ll, . , llr ls, , , nlr in r . r m \ r , l a jr r , lgm cnrh. r r - , 1 , n r ho. e , pri nci plcsand t heir cons( . qucncc\'f hus, t he elem ent sof a doc_ . trin< arc supposc<l lit together in a rvar th.rt is not haph.rzarcl; to i ts conc cpt s ar e sr r pposcrtlo conr bine in sont e $. lv t hat is not m( r ,. j u \ I Jp, , \ iri, , n or . r , lir ion. L \Ve ntust, acco1dingl1,, in somc ncu.direction lbr concep_ lrxrk tual l i l i at ions.R. r t her - t han l. ho r hr auf lr orot . r t hcon. of . invol_ ask untarvtnov( 'nt ent hr t pr eligur edt he ninet eent h- cent un.heor v t t ol thc reflex rvas.rvr.ask lvhat a thc6rr.6f muscular1n,rr,,rr-r.,na rlr'rve ,ln<l action must inc()rporatc ordi,r firr a notion like ref.lt,x in mo\'(m( nt, involving as ir does a comparis.rnbetln.een biologi_ a ca) pJrenomenon and an oPtical one {ref)ection), to makc sense (u hcrc "rnaking scnsr"'mcansthat th(, D()ti()n rcflcx 6l nr.,"r.ntcnt must bc I ogicallv consist cr )wit h 5om ( , sctof conccpt s) .I f . acon_ t cept outlined or iomulllqd in srrcha contert is subsequentlv cap_ tur< ti br.. r r heor \ t hnt ust . sit in a r lif t lr cnt c( ) nr ext or wit h. l di fl i ' rcnt m er ninq, it ( locsnot lir llo*, t hlt t hc conccpt as ur ed in the ori!]iDaltbt'orv is nothing but a nrcaninglcss rvorrl.Somc con, cept\i srrchas the reflection and rcfiaction of.light, are tlreoretical l v poi r valt 'nt ,r hat is, capable being incor por at ed oi inr o bor h l).lrticlctheorr antl rrare theorl..Furthcrmole,the iict that a conctrpt pl al s a st r ong r olc in a cer t ain t heor et icaldont ajn is bv no \ mr' ,t| r\ f li( i, n1t 1nLln1l.or lr r ir ing r cs( , ll. i t lt inlo r lt e or igin. , , l that conc ept io sir nilar lv( . onsr it ur ed dom ains. R r adhcr ingt o t hcscm e( hodologic. r l pr <r <. eptIs, canl( , nl) tt o . rl i scover Thonr asWillis - I ; r s( ) m oninr . t cent h- cenr un, physioJo gi \ts a\\' ar e t hc hist or v of t hc r cf lcx of conc( , pt6. r d n- , "n, ; , r n", l

his nanr e- b u t to c o n fi rm h i s l e g i ti matc ri ght to a ti tl e that had previouslybeen opcn to doubt or challcnge.lFormotion r,lflexe, du P P . l- 6l Rend Dcscartes Did Not Formulote the Reflex Concept p [ 65] W he n D e s c a rtc s ro p o s e dh i s g e neral thcorv ofi nvol untary movemcnt,he, like many others befbrc him, associated such movemrnts with phenomcna that we todav refer to as reflexes. Does it lbllou, then, that he belongsamong the naturalistsand phvsiciansrvho helped to dclineare and dcfine the conceptof rcflex? l he anslvcr to this historical and epistemologicalquest ion m u5 t, I th i n k . b e d e fe rre c l n ti l detai l ed,cri ti cal study of u the Cartesian.rnatomy physiologv and ofthe nerveand muscleenables us to rlecidervhethcror not Descartcs could havcanticipated, horvcvcrconlusedlr', rhe essential elementsofthe concept. Dcscartes. course. lrelievcdthat aJlphysiologicalfi_rnctions of c ould be e x p l .ri n e di n p u rc l l me c h a n i calterms. H encc, he saw onlr a linri te d n u m b e r o l p o s s i b l ei n tc r acti onsanroD g organan is nr ' spar t s :c o n ta c t! i mp u l s e , p re s s u re nd tracti on. The i mpora t.rnceol t]ris lict cannot be overemphasized. rvhole Dcscartes's conception of animal movement deriveslrom this principle togt ' t hc r uit h rv h a t h e c o n s i d c re da s u fll ci cnt set ofanatomi cal observations. du p, lFormation rit'lexe, 3Ol ofdc Sou./, Dcscartes claims l66l ID Article l0 ol The Possions t hat t he a n i ma l s p i ri ts , b o rn i n th e h e art20 and i ni ti al l y carri ed by t he blo o d , b u i l d u p i n th e b ra i n a s pressure l ds i n an ai r bui chamber. Whcn released thc brain, thesespirits are transmitbv t c d t hr oug h th e n e rv e sto th e m u s c l e s(other than the heart), 'w'herethcv determine the animal's movements. Descartessays t hat m us c l e s re b a l l o o n sfi l l e d w i th s p i ri ts,rvhi ch,asa rcsul t of l their transvers.rl expansion,contract longitudinally,thus moving thc articulatedlronestructurcsor organssuch asthc cye in $'hich r8 2

t his rht' y are inser t ed. r rNlor phologicalJv, t t 'lls r : s lit t lt ', but t hat physiologv ofmorerneDt. Everynene little sufficcsfor Descartes's is a bundle offibers containedrvithin a tube, a marro\1con\isting of fine thrcads extending from the cerebral marro\\ an(l rather in looscly sheathecl an artervlike tubular skin.l2 One rnight sav, borrorving an image fiom moclern technologv, that l)escartcs envi si onedt he ner ve as a sor t of elect r ical cable r un t hr ough a conduit . As a bundle of llir es, t he ner ve ser ved. r sJ sensor y as organ,l l r lhile as a conduit it ser vecl a m ot or or gan. ll'[ 'hus st'nunlike Galenand his lollowers,did not <listinguish Descartcs, in(l s()rvnervesfrom motor nerves.Evervnerve was both serlsory motor, but bv vir t ue of dillir ent aspcct soI it s st r uct ur c. r ndlr v t rl av of d if llr ent m echanism s. r The cent r ipr t al scnsor yc\ cir . r along t he ner ve l) ut , ri on $.a snot som et hing t hat pr opagat ecl r.rthcr,.1nim m ediat eand int egr al t r act ion of t he ner vouslil) er . \l hcn thc. r nim al sccs,f ccls. t ou<hcs,hcar , or t nst cs, hc sr . r r f r ce j t ol i ts bo dr shakes he hr ain bv ur v ol t ht ' ner , , elibcr '. l he ct : nt a tri fugal nr ot or r eact ion, on t he ot hel hand, is a pr op, r gat ion, tran\port . The spir it s f lor v out t hr or r gh t he por esol t he br ain, optned u p in r esponseo t he pulling on t he libcr s. r nr l int o t hc t empt) spacebet ueen t hc f lbcr s and t hc conduit t hr ough uhich tht:y run . I f pr esser l,hcv pr css;if pushed,t hev push, llence t lr e t muscl esr vells, hat is, cont r act s. 16 t lnvolunt ar vm ovem entis t hus difli'rent from action in all of its elements and ph.rses, lFornration tlu rillexc, pp. 3+-l5 ] of [67] Basical$ the concept of rcflcx consists more than just a rucl i m ent ar v echanical m cxplanat ion m uscularm ovenent . I t of al socont ainst he iclea hat som ekinr l of st im ulusst em m ingliom t the peripher vof t he or ganismis t r ansm it t edt o t he cent er and thcn rcf lect cd back t o t he per iphcr v.What dist inguishes ellex r moti on is t hc f act t hat it <loes not pr occcd dir ect lv liom . r center or central repositorvol immatcrialporverof an.r' kind. fhetein
r f'J

lies , u it h i n th e g rn u s " m o \e D re n t," thc spcci fi c di fferencebea t \ \ ' c c n inv o l L l n t.rrv n tl ro l trn ta rr,.N o u , accordi ngto C .l rtesi an i t hc or y , m o v e m e n r th a t n r.rn i fe s tsts e lI at thc peri pherv,i n the musclesor visc('ra, ofigiutrs in.r ccntcr, thc center ol all organic centers, namcl\', the c.rrdi.rcvessel.This is a material center of thcorv is thus action, to bc surc, not a spiritualone. The Cartesian b c c r t ainlr m e c h a n i c a l , u r i t i 5 n o t th e t heorv of the refl ex. The vcrv image that suggested thc u'ord "rcflex," that of a light ray's rellection bv a mirror, rcquires homogeneity betlveen the inciclentmovement and thc rcllcctecl movement. In Descartes's theory, though, thc opposite is tlue: the excitation of the senses and t hc c ont ra c ti o no f th e mu s c l e sn rc n o t at al l si mi l ar movements 'rvith respectto either thc nnturc ol the thing moved or thc mode ol motion. What docs pulling on.r [rel]cord havein common with' of blorving .rir into the pi1>e arr org.rni Both arc mcchanicalphenomcna. fF.)rDtdtiDn iJlttc. p.11) tlu nork conTo s u m trp , rv h i l c i t i s tru e th.rt D cscartes' s [ 68] t ains t lr c th to rt ri c ,rl t< l u i rrl e n t o l c e r tai n ni netecnth-ccnturv attcmpts to lbrnrullte.r generalreflcxolog),r-igorous examination t ur ns up n c i th c r th r' tc rm n o r th e c o n c ept ofrefl ex, Thc dorvnfill ofCartcsianphvsiologr', lay on( cannot overemphasize, in the explanation the movenrcnts rhc hcart. I)escartes of liiled to see of W illiam H a rre l ' s th e o r' \'.r\ a n i n d i v i s i b l c u hol e. To be sure,he was, rT'cllarlarc that thc cxplanationofthe he.rrt's rvas l-novcments centur-\'t kev to the problem ol'movement fbr thc scvcr-rtccnth the gencrallr'.lt-fhisrvoulclcontinue to bc thc cascin the eighteenth centurv. One f)ct turncd out to be crucinl in the Baconiansense and causes for anv theon purportingto crl>lainthe neuromtrscular r t ' gulat io n so f m. e mc n t - i rJ D )e l \'L he movcmcnt of exci sed , th e h e a rt, l l th t' l > r' ai n d not causesP i ri tsto di or gans , s p c c i ,rl l \ c llou into thesc organs,rrh.rt c.rused th('D)to contract?Dcscartes from thc body' did not ha v cto c o n l i o n t th i s rl te s ti o rt,R cntovecl
In .1

it rhc heart r et ainecl s heat , anr l t r aceslr f blor r t l r et r ainit lg in it it uut coul (l vap or ir er nd c. r usc t o er par r r J. lN f ol t hosc *ho held dif h ear t wasa r nusclc.it bec. r m c f ic( r lt t o. r r g( r ct hat t he that thc m()vcmcnts. centr.ll controller ol .rll crrgan brain was the cssential necessarv look to pl.rccrother than thc brain, to l-hus, it became i 1 not l or t he causet hen at lcast lir r lact or s go! er ning cer t ain du rnovements. lFormation rillctc, p.5)l Thomos Willis DeservesCredit for the Reflex Concept \ [69] W hat dist inguishedWillis f iom [ ) escar t es \ 'er e his conm ot ion of t he hcar t an( l t he cir culat ion of t he ccpti ons of t he blood, rvhich hc took *'holesalc fiom \\iilliam Ilarvev; namelv, l ri s conce pt ionsol t he nat ur c of anim al spir it s and t heir m ov( of ment through t he ner ves; t hc st r uct ur eol ner 'es; anclof m usru l ar con t r act lon. ;\ccor ding t o Willis ( and Har vcr ') ,t hc hear t is a nr uscleind it r D ()thi D g r or c.I f ir is t hc pr im um m ovcl-ol t he ot her t nusclcs, r) it rc i s srronl v bv vir t ue ol t he r hvt hm of it s lut r cli<r n; s st r r . t ct r . t is i rk.nti cal."lt is not a noble of g. r n, f ir st in t he hicr ar chy,but a of mere muscle."l')Thc onlv possiblcc.rusc the circulatorv movemcnt of t he blood u, ast he act ion of t he spir it s on t hc hear t , as on anv ot her m usclc:t hat act ion nr adcr he hear t int o a hvdr aulic machi ne. l0Willis dist inguishcd r r '. en t hr cir culat ior rof t he bet blood, a mechanicalphenomenon,an(l it5 fcrmentation,a chemical onc. Fermentationhcatcd thc bloorl, u hich then impartcd its heat to the hear t* not vice ver sa, Jln Willis's m ind, t his clist incI ti on r,r' as shar p:cir culat ioncxist sin al] anim als,r vher eascr m enf tati on, he believed,is lbund onh in t he highcr anim als. r rWillis descrvcs edit llr st of all lbr nor f ecling obliged, as Dcscar t es cr di<1, correct Ilarvcv on.r fundamentallx)iDt ol'cardiacanatomy to and phvsiologv, u'cll as lirr not granting the heart a privilcged as l ol e and p r cem inentnnt nr ein com pnr isoDo, r t her m r r sclcs.r or I t

Willis as lor Haney, thc hcart uas simplv a hollow muscle. As fbr the animal spirits, Willis looked upon them asdistilled, purificd, sublimated, spiritualized blood. All fbur terms, listed in ordcr ofincreasingdignity, are fbund in his rvriting. The brain and cercbellum functioned as stills to separate the animal spirits fiom the blood, a separationthat occurred now-here elsc in the body.ll Functionally, the spirits florved along nervcs and flbers from the brain to thc periphery - membranes,muscles,parenchyma - and fiom the pcriphervback to the brain. On the u,hole, horvevcr,ifthc flow olblood rvasa circulation, the flow ofanimal spirits\r'as more in the natureofan irrigation:emanatinglrorn the brain, thev w-ercdispersedat the peripherv. In this respect, therc rvas no differcnce between Willis and Descartes.Willis, horvever, distinguishedbetrvccn the causeof the blood's circulat ion and t h a t o f th e fl o u ' o fa n i ma l s p i r i ts,and he acknou,l edged that the spiritsflorvedthrough thc nervein both directions.Above all, he sau,the animalspiritsquite differentlyfiom Descartes. [...] According to Willis, the animal spirit rvasa potcntiality in necd of actualization,Ir u,asfull ofsurprises. 1'hough it seemed t o be m ere l v a ra y o f l i g h t, i t c o u l d b e expl osi ve,and w hcn i t cxplodcd its eflects rvcremagnified in accordance u,ith rules that rr.erc not those of either arithmetic or geometry.ll Descartcs held that the spirits u,erccxpelled from the heart and sped torvardthe m us c lesin th e m a n n e r o f a c u rre n t o f ai r or stream of w ater, rvhereas Willis arguedthat they u'ere propagared from the brain to the muscle in much the samc u,ayasheat or light. Slowedand transportedby a Iiquid juicc filling thc intersricesof the nervous structure, the spirits, upon reachingthe peripheral organs,drew encrgy and heightcncd motor potential from the arterial blood bathing them. This energv camc liom thc addition of nitrosulIurousparticlesto thcir o$ n salt spirits, igniting the mixture and setting offan cxplosion, asofgunporvder in a cannon.This intrar 86

nuscular cxplosion causedthe musclc to contract and thus Produ pp.60-63] rluccd movement.rt lFormotion rdJlexe, What distinguishesWillis fiom Dcscartes,horvever,is f70] or nor simply his greaterfidclitv to Hanev'sphvsiologv his notjon, chem ical t han m echanical,of t hc anim al spir it s. Unlike more that thc structureol the nerves Willis does not assume l)cscartes, them to play dif'ferentroles in thc scnroryanclmotor funcallor,vs tions. Thc nerves,he argues,havc a single structure, fibrous and nor solid porous.Thcv are neither conduits enclosingthin strands into w hich animal spirits rods. Thcy contain gaps,cmptl spaces entcr. 'fhey are prolongedby libcrs, rvhich are not their onlv may som e of t heseor iginat c out si( le,and indecapi l l ar r ext cnsions; of, the nervcs,through epigenesis. pendcnt Just asanimal spirits so flou through,or residein, the ner',es, too do thcy florv through, or residc in, the flbers. Thel mav flou in cithcr direction, ancl in uavelike motions. Thev florv llrst one \r'a\',then the othcr, in pathsradiat ingf iom a ccnt cr , t he br ain. 16 Thcse anatomicaland physiologicalconccpts \1'crenecessarv u,asprccluded from conrlitions for Willis to do u'hat Descartcs Though neccsdoing as regardsthe problcm rvc are acldressing. sarv, however ,t hev $er e not yet suf f icicnt . Willis's or iginalit v is more ap par entin t he por ver s im aginat iont hat causedhim t o of pursuethe ultimatc consequences the explanatorv of comparisons ht'cmplovecl. Because conceivedol thc anatomicalstructurc lre of the ncrvous systcm as radiant rathcr than ramified, $,ith the brai n emit t ing ncnes as t hc sun cm it s r avs,Willis t hought of t he propag.rtion ol ofspirits in terms of radiation.ll Norv, thc cssence thc ani malspir it it self could not be explained ir elyin t er m sof ent anv knorvn chemical substancc. Sincc it originatedin the "flamc" ol thc bloocl, it rvascomparablc to a rav ol light.ls I'his analogv is pursueclto thc cndi thc ncrvousdischarge\\'asinstantancous, j ust l i ke t hc t r ansm ission light . Evcn t hc f inal st ageof t r ansof

the m is s ion,t hc ex c i ta ri o no f th e m u s c l eb v th e n erve,srrpported as light corpusclesproclucedlight onlv if thev comparison.Just i enc ount er ede th c rc a l p a rti c l e sd i s s e mi n a te dn the ai r, thc ani rcleasetl the pou.erin them onlv ifthc! nrqt sulfurous mal spirits i or nir r ous par ti c l c sd i s s e m i n a te d n th e i n t ersti ti al bl ood. The intranruscular cxplosion causcdthc nruscle rcsulting sp,rsmrxlic r ( ) c ont r ac t .T h u s , th e a n i rra ls p i ri t u a s l i g h r onl r unti l i t l )rcame analogous illunlination, *,hercarits ct-fect to fire. Its transportrvas \ \ ' as t logousto .rn e x p l o s i v e e to n a ti o n .In thi s phrsi ol ogythe in. d nerves arc not stfings.rr conduits but fuses(Junit ignarius).t9 fFornation <luriJlexc,pp.65-56] [71] \\rc knou that rve have encountercd a conccpt bccause lc hav c hit up o n i rs d e l i n i ti o n - a d c fi n i ti on at oD cc nomi nal and rca]. The tcrm ,rotu.trcJlexus applicd to a certlin classof is m ov em ent s ,ol n h i c h a fa m i l i a r e x a mp l e i s provi ded: rhe autom at ic r eac t io n o l s c ra tc h i n g .In a d d i ti o n r o rhe obi ecr bei ng def lned. t r e hr re a d e fi n i n g p ro p o s i ti o n , rv hi ch fi rr:s i ts mt-aning. \\t have .r rvor'dthat establishes thc a<lcquacv thc definoI ing proposititrn to th( objcct defined (sci.lircr). The definition itself requiresfbrv rvorcll:it is not a firll-blou.ntheon bLrta pr6cis, It is a definition th.rt rvorksbv division, fbr it is asrociatcdrvith t he pr ior dc f in i ti o n o f d i re c t mo v e tre n t, th e tuo togethercovcring the entire rangt'of possiblccauses movement. Civen the of clcarlv statedprincipJe(guoadm otus otigincm seu prin.ipium), the div is ion is ex h a u s ti | c :c v c ry m o v e me n t o ri g i natesei ther at the c c nt er or at t h e p e ri p h c rv .T h i s b i o l o g i c a ld el i ni ti on rcl i es on a phls ic alanr i, in d e c d ,a g e o m e tri co n e - In \u m. w c fl nd i n \\ri l l i s t hc t hing, t hc r to rd a n d th e n .,ti o n .' l ' h e th i n {, i n the form crfan or iginal obs er v a ti o na c u ta n e o u s fl e x o f th r' ccrcbrospi nal , re svstem, the scratch reflex; the rvord, rcflcx, lvhich hls improperly entercd the languageboth as an adjcctivc and a noun;1(landthe not ior r ,t hat is , th e p o s s i b i l i tv fa j u d g me n t,i ni ti al l v i n the form o

in and ofan i denti fi cat ionor classif icat ion subseguent lv t he br m a principle of empirical intcrpretation. lFormationdu ille:.e, of

P P . 6 U-5 9 1
The Logical ond Experintentol Consequences ' l homasWillis asst r nr ed r tall m uscular ot ir ) ns e cnused t h. m ar 172] llur of alim al spir it sf iom t he br ain, but hc r lisl n a centri fi rgal bcrrvccnrrrluntarvmotionsgovernc(lhv the cetcbrum, tinguished nr or suchas l ocomo t ion.and t r at ur al involunt ar v ot ionl q( ivcr nc( l bv the cercbcllum anrl rnt.dullaoblongata,such asrespiration.rncl l bet l rcartbcat.l en ce, he alsodist inguished r "eennvo souls- onc and re asonablc,ir und in m an alone,t hc ( ) t hcr s(nsit ive f sensi ti ve anim als. +l and vi tal , l bun d in bot h nr anancl In rnan both souls \\'ere situateclrvithin the striated lrodics, soul. I his rr.as tontntune thc rcasonable of tlrr: seatofthc sensorium uls m ade bet r lr cn t hosc scn' the stagcat n h ich a cliscr ininat ion sorr inrpressions that \v('rc rr'llt'cteclinto m()tion\ \\ ithr)ut rel: ( r(' nceto consciousr lcss t hc, se an<l explicit lv pcr ccivcd. r s suchbr the soul .[...] It shoul d c om r ns no sur pr isc, t hcr cf ir le, t h. r t Jc. r nAt f r uc (1684-1766)o f M ont pelliel locat cdt hc seatol com m on scnscin tl re u hi te mat t er of t hc br ain. I his localizat ioncnabledAst r uc t() proposean cxplanat ionof svm pat het ic phcnom enat hJt containcd, fbr the flrst timc sincc Willis, the notion of reller nrotion (,7n s_t mp.tthid pdrtitm d L.rlo D.rvorumpositurdin intcrno \rntorio?, 1736). tl orv \1 asit t hit . r st ir r ulus or injur v t o onc pnr t ( ) l an otqani snr e r ise t o a r c. r ct ionin anot hcr pir t : 'Asr r u( r cject cd gal l he cxpl anati on, conlnr on. lt t h( t inr c, t hat cer t . r int ibcr sol cor nmunication connectedthe nelves.He arguedthat .rll nerlc fitrers arc separate anclindept 'ndentf iom t he br ain t o t hc pcr ipher vof thc organi snr .Ast r uc cr plaincd svm pat hct ic r cilct ion in t er m s ol a phl si cal r cllect ion of im pr essionst hat he lr cliclcr l t ook r 89

place in thc medulla, When animal spirits, stirred bv some stimuJus,rverc carricd to the brain by the nervc, they encountered fibcrs in thc tcxturc of the meclulla, so that, "being reflected r v it h an a n g l c o f rc fl c c ti o n e q u a l to thc angl e of i nci dencc," thqy might enter thc orifice of a motor ncrve siruated at that pr c c is cI oc a ti o n .[...] Like Astruc, Robert Whytt of Edinburgh rejected the explanation of svmpathiesin tcrms of extracerebralcommunication bctwccn nerves, vet he could not accept Astruc's mechanistic ideas ,nor c o trl d h e e n v i s i o n ,a s Il a l l e r d i d, a muscul ari rri tabi l ity distinct from sensibility.ile u'astherelbre fbrced to propose a truly novel conception of the functions of the spinal cord. In his Essa.y the Vitdl and Other Involuntary llotions of Animals on (1751),Whf,tt attemptcd to prove bv observation and experiment that all motions are causedby the soul, in responscsometimes to an explicit perception, sometimesto a confusedscnsationof a stimulus applied to the organism.The central idea of his theorv of involuntary motion is that every involuntarv motion hasa manifestpurposc,namell, to eliminate the causes disagreeable of impressions.For example, u.hen thc pupil of the e,ve contracts in r es pon s e l i g h t, i t i s n o t th e e f]e c t o f a di rect acti on ofthe to Iight on the iris but rather ofan importunate bedazzlement transmitted to the retina and the optic nen'e. "The gcncral and wise intention of all involuntarv motions is the removalof everything that irritatcs, disturbsor hurts the bodv." It is this vital senseof all m ot ion s (rl ' h i c h W h y tt d o e s n o t h c s i tate to compare to an immediate, prclogicalmoral scnsc)that precludesunderstanding them in tcrms of purelv mcchanical causes. Whytt nevertheless deniest ha t h e i s a " S ta h l i a n ,"o n e o f th o se " w ho hol d that one cannot explainthcsemotions in terms of the soul $ ithout accepting the u,holc of the Stahlianvicw." The "sensitiveprinciple" is not the "rational and calculating" soul. (lr, rathcr, it is the same

calculation soul - fbr there is onlv one - insofar as it esche$,s and reasoningand conf incs it sclf t o im m ediat e hcnce uncon, this rneansthat musclesconscious,sensibilitv.Phvsiologicallv, tract onlv if innervatcdand scnsoriallvstimulated, which mcans


that they must be connected to the seat of the soul. Of course not unmindful ofthe argumentsthat Haller, rvith the Whytt vvas ofmuscularmotions aid ofhis theories,drerv from the observation in decapitatedanimalsand scparatcd organs.This led him to suscauseof m ot ion, pect thc r ole o[ t he spinalcolum n as a sensor y " becauset he spinal colum n does not appcar t o bc exclusivelv an cxtension of thc brain and cercbellum. It is probable that it preparesa nervous fluid of its ou,n, and this is the reasonrvhv vital and other movementspersistlirr several months in a tortoisc rr.hosc headhasbeen severed."[...] Johann August Unzer (1127-17991wascritical of Whytt on the groundsthat nervoussensation distinct from sensibilitv pcr sc is .rndthat movementin living thingsis not necessarily caused the bv soul, cvcn if it cannot be explainedin terms of a mechanicalphenomenon.Thc animalorganism indeeda svstem is ofmachines,but those machinesare natural or organic, that is, they are machines cvenin theirverv tiniest parts,asLeibniz had cxplaincd.An animalmachinenced not havca brain and a soul. It doesnot follow lrom this that the ncrvous fbrce in a brainlessorganism is merelv a nrcchanicalaction. l he ncrvous fbrcc is a fbrcc ofcoordination and subordination oforganic machines.For this firnction to operate, i t i s e nough f br ganglia,plcxi or junct ions of ot her sor t s t o make it possiblefor a nervousimpressionliom an externalsource to bc refl ect edin t he f or m of an int er nallyor iginat edexcit at ion destined fbr one organ or another. l'hc movementsof thc brainl esspol vp , f br inst ance, can bc cxplaincdin t his wav.The explanation also explainsmovcmcnt in a clecapitatcd vcrtcbrate."Such a nenous act ion,due t o. r n int er nalscnscim pr ession, accom not

panicd hv a rcpresentation,stemming ti.om thc rcflection of an cxtcrnal scnseimpression,is what takcsplace,lbr example,when a dec apit at e dfro g j u m p s i n re s p o n s e a pi nch of i ts di gi t." 12 to originality shr.'uldnou be apparcnt: he relirrcd to idenllnzcr's u r ilv . lnt im c c h a n i s m i rl r a n i mi s m,l n d h e decentral i zed phethe nom enon of re fl e c ti o n o I s ti mu l i , \4 ,h i c hW i l l i s and A struc had bec n ab] c t o c o n c c i v co D l y i n te rms o f a c erebralseat. Ccorge Prochaska, prolissor of anaromvand ophthalmologv .rndVicnna.r11rulcl at Prague succeedin combininll Wh\ tt's observations on rlre functions crfthe spinal cord u.ith Unzer's hvpothcsesabout cxtcnding the refler function outsidc the brain. In De lunctionibtr y,stematisncnosi commentoth(178,+),Prochaskaargued that the 1>hlsiologv thc n<n ous slst<,nr ol harlconfined itsclf too narro*lv ro thc brain, ignored comp.rrative anatoln\',and therefbrc, until Unz:r, l)iled to recognizcthat thc r,lsreriord, or nerv ous lor c e (n o mo rc ta l k o f a n i ma l s p i ri ts), requi red onl v one thing: an intact connrction ol the nerle fiber to the scnsorium comm une,r t is r in c tl i o m th e b ra i n , E v e nrv i th o ut a connecti onto the brain, a scnsory ncnc can link up, through the.rensonum commune, t o a m ot or n e rv e i n s e rte d i n to m u s c l e , a nd thus transfbrm an im pr es s ioni n to a mr)\' e r)re n r. v e n i l P ro chaska d nor defi ni E di tivelv rejecr th(.opinion that the spinalcorclis a bundle of nenes. he m.rclethe rarlicalasscrrionthat it, rogether l'ith the medulla oblongata, is the seat of thc sensoriuncommunc,the necessary and s ullic ic n t c o n < l i ti o n th e n e rv efu n c t i on.In di vi di ng,more,rl orer, one dividcrl thc ncnous lbrce rlirhout abo)ishing therebl, it, c x plaining t h c p c rs i s re n c c f c x c i ta b i l i tv and movemcnt i n the o liog uhose mrrlulla harl bcen sectioned.It wasat thc levelofthc m edulla, P r o c h a s k a rg u c rl ,th a t i n rp re s s i on a uas rcl l ected i nto (l r ) r ov c m c nt . l D l i k c A \trL r(. Pro c h a s k a i d not bel i t' ve that thi s t rcflcction \\.asa purell, phrsical phcnomcnon governecl a larv by s im il. r r t o t h e l a v v o l o p ti c a l re fl e c ti o n ; i n thc samc spi ri t as
r 9l

W h\tt, rather , he ar gucd t hat m edLr llar rr t f lect icr n of ncr \ 1) t r s \\'asgoverncdbv a biological larv of the co[servation impressions werc thc same of living things. l'he cxamplcscitcrl bv Prochaska occlt t sionol t he r nd ones that L)e scar r es Ast r uc had descr ibcd: t evel i dsand snee/ ing. Pr ochaska leI ined t hc r elat ion ol r t 'f lex he bet moti on to co nsciousness t er t han anYof his pr cdecessor s: the cxplicitlv distingrrishcd aspecto{ obligatoryautomatismfrom iou ofo thc aspect pt ional, int er m it t cnt u nconsc \ ncss,and he supanat f clist inct ionr . r it hat {t r t t r cnt s iom conr par at ivc ported thi s a brain is ad'lecl tiom louel to higheranimals. omy. As one ascends ln to the rn.roriumcommunc man, soul and bodv havebcen jointtl absolut clyno act i( ) n t bv C od. N ever t heless.hc soul "pt o<lucus ar that depcndst 'holh and uniquely or r it All ir s act i( ) ns e Pr o" ner r ot t ssvst ent of rl ucctl , rathcr , t hr ough t he inst r r . t m cnt t hc 'fhus Prochaska began:in the caseol involend5whcre l)escartcs t untarr moti ons, t hc soul uscsan apPar at ushat cln alsof unct ion nnd pt r m ission.But r hc r t lat om r r pllvsioi ts co oper at ion rr i thout is logic.rl((,ntcxt of thir asscrtion (luitc diflll-ent' since l'roch'rska svst cmnot "in gcner al'''like l) escar t er , the ner vous of concei ves but as an incrtasinglv comPlic.ltedhierarchical serics,ot rvhich thorrghnot thc ch'rrthe hunranbrain is the highcst rJcvelopmcnt Hrtoirt llinirale. vctl 2' .rcteri\tic tvpe. ["Phvsiologit .rninralc"'

pp.6l l-161
usc( lt he not ion of a Ast 173] In th c eight eent hccnt ur - v, r uc on refl ccti on of t hc ncr vou5 inf lux, l>ascd t hc phvsicallar v of rel l ecti on ol light , ir r . t m c( haDist i( t hcor | of sr r t Pat hiest hr t assunrcrl br ain r o bc t hc uniqt t e cent cr of le[ lect ion \ \ 'hvt the descti bcrl the r ef lcx phcnom cn( ) n\ \ 'it hout using t he r vor clor noti r)D .but t hc lau s govcr ningt hat phenom cnon\ ! - er eassum cd r n()t t() bf pur elv Pl) \ 'sical,luc t o t h, . 'connect ion bct wcet ) t hc rellcr leaction an<lthe instinct <ll sellprcscrrirtion.\Vhvtr at'11rte<l and nlot or f inct ions \ \ Js that thc rel at ion bet r veent he s, . nsor v

'9 t

not c ent r aliz e db u t d i l l u s e a n d n o t mc c h a ni calbut psvchi c,and he thercfbre saw no reison to ascribeit to any specific anatornical structure. Unzer alsobclievedthat the l.rw governingthe phebut he svstematically nonlenon rvasnot strictlv mechanical, ust'd the ternr and the notion of reflection in r decentralizcdtheorv of t he s ens o ri mo to rre l a ti o n s h i p ,$ h i c h h e ascri bedto a numbcr of anatomical structurcs (the nervousganglia and plexus as rvell as thc brain). Prochaska,finally, retained both the rvord and the notion of reflection but treated its physicalmechanism as suborclinate the organic entitv's senst'crf self-preservation, to <lcccntr.r lizeclthe rcflex function bv locating its explicit anatonricil support in the rnedulla oblongata and spinal cord (and also, pr obably , in t h e s y mp a th e ti cg a n g l i a ),a n d w as apparentl ythe first to note that not all automatic reactions$'ere unconscious. Legalloisthen \r,enton to provc something that Prochaska never did, namtly, that thc spin.rlcolumn does not havethe structureof a nenc. \\rithout using the term reflex or thc notion, hc located thr.'reflex function in the medulla, n hosc metameric division he c s t ablis hc d p e ri m e n t.rl l y . ex T hus , bv 1 8 0 0 th e d e fi n i ti o n o f th e ref' l exconcept w as i n place,a definition ideal when considercdas a rvhole but historical in each o[its parts. It c.rnbe summarizecl follorvs(with the as namesof thc authors u'ho first formulated or incorporated certain basic notions iDdicatcdin parentheses): reflex movemeDt a (\\'il)is) is one \1hoseinrmediatecauseis an anrccedentsensation (Willis), the effect of t'hich is detcrminedbv phvsical la*-s(Willis, A s t r uc , Unz e r, Pro c h a s k a - i n c o n j u n c ti o n w i th thc i nsti ncts ) (Whytt, Prochaska) bv rcflection (Willis, ,\struc, Unzer, Prochaska)in rhe spinalcortl lWhvtt, Prochask.r, Legallois),u'ith or nithout concomitant c()nsciousness (Prochaska).{l du lFormation re//r'rc, pp. 130-311

Corrections 74 l aki ng rhir Jclinit ion as, , ur \ lar ling point . r r e cr n \ ee Pr eciselvrvhatelementsstood in need ol correction. One of the best des rcl'crcnccterts is JohannesMtillet's Handbuchder Phrsiolollie his comPares rvherethc illustriousGcrman phvsiologi5t .Ilcnschcn, ideason rcllex movement rvith thosc of Marshall I lall.{4 Miille r makcsi t cl ear t hat in 1813,'r hen bot h Hall's paperand t he f ir st cdition of the Handbuchwcrc publishcd, thc rcflcx conccpt was a principle ofexplanation, a thcoretical instrument tor interprctThe follor"'ingsens.rtions." defined as"moventents ing phcnomena of thcoreti calcont cnt o[ t his conccpt consist ccl lu'o elem ent t . ncgativelY, corccPt rcjccted thc onc positire, the other negati\'('i sensorv and motor fibers;posibetrT'een thc theon ol anastomoses tivelv, the concept rcquircd a ccntral interme(liarr between the scnsorvimpressionand the dctcrmination of thc motor reaction. It rvasfbr th! expresspurpose ol denoting the true ltrnction of the mc<lua spintlis,or spinal nrcdulla (rathcr than spinal cord ). llall coined t bc t er m "diast alt ic" t o indicat e t hat that N l arsh.r ll senthe medullr could providc a linctional connection [.letrveen sory and motor nerves only if situatedbetrveenthem asan authcnti c anatomi calst r uct ur e r list inct lr om t he br ain. The cliast alt ic (rel)ex) function of the spinal nrcdulladeterinined its relation to the esodi c.o r anast alt ic, unct ion of r he lcnsor v ner veand t he [ cxo(l i c,or ca t ast alt ic,unct ior rol't he m ot or nene. f On this fundamental point ,\lLillerand Hall agrcr:d.In Mtiller's words, "thr phenomcna I have described thus far on the basis first of my o*,n observationsand thcn thosc of lr'larshallHall's have one thi ng in com m on, nam elv,t hat t he spinal r nedullais the i ntermed iar vbct r veent he st 'nsor vand t he m ot r r r . lct ion of thc nervousp r inciple. " Beal in nr ind t hat t he t \ \ 'o phvsiologist s' agrecmcntabout t he specif iccent r al lunct ion oi t hc spinalcor d uas the result of tlventv ycarsof researchand controversvconr 9t

r 94

c c er ningt he v a l i d i ty .rn di n te rp re ta ti o no ft he B el l -N l agenclliarv

( 1811- 22). [...1
lau' ingrcdicnt fbr the forThc t3ell-Magendie rvasa necessary mulation of the reflcx concept, insofar as that concept incJudes t hc s pec if ic l h n c ti o n o f th e s p i n a l c o rc l . W hat l l al l cal l ed the diastaltic (or cliacentric)function rvasconccivablc onh in conjunction rvith t\l.o mutually indepenclent properticsof thc nen'e. existeduas a nenous center rcqtrired Onlv if thosc two properties t o div c r t t h c n c rv o u s i mp u l s e to a n e u , desti nati on.[...] The coursethat Mriller fbllorvcdfrom 182.1 1833shorvs to that it rook Bcll's idca and Magcndie'sexperiments to relate the rcflcx conccpt to the phvsiological function ofthe spinalcord. The seconcl respectin rvhich thc nincteenth centurv rectified the eightt'cnth-ccnturvconcept hacl to do w-ith thc rclation of reflex movcmcnt to consciousness, that is, rvith ps]chological matters.It wasexpressly this point that Miiller clisagreed ith on u Hall. In dcscribing a reflex as a movement that fbllorvs a sensation, Mriller, likc Willis, Whvtt, Unzer and Prochaska bcfore him, $'asin a senseobliging himsclf to unravela mvstery:ho$. could a movcmcnt depend on a sensationrvhen the ncrvous circuit had trcen broken bv decapitation,thus rcmoving the interconnecting sensory organ,the brain?Although Miiller disagreed rvith Whytt, r r ho believe d th a t re fl c x mo v c me n tsi n vol veclboth consci ous sensations and spontaneousreactions, and although he praised Prochaska havingpointed out that a ref'lexmight or might not fbr be accompanicdby a conscioussensation, rcgardcdthc rcflex he asthe effect of a centripetal action propagatedtou.arcl the spinal cord bv the sensorvnerve, rvhich thcn might or might not conrinuc on to the common sensorium and, thus, might or might not become conscious.Rcflcx movement \ras therefbre one species r v it hin a gc n u s c o mp ri s i n g a l l m o v e me ntscondi ti oncd on the ac t ion of t he s e n s o ryn e N c s . Il a l l , o n th c other hancl ,fcl t that

onc ought t o consider t hc cent r ipet al ( anast alt ic)im pr cssion and rvithout relerencc to the brain or to consciousDcss, that the and cvcn sensiti!itv ought not to enter into of sensation conccpts the conccpt of a reflcx. l he reflex function dicl not evcn dcPend or on scnsorv motor nen'esbut, rather,on sPccificnervousfibcrs that Hall called"cxcitorrtotor" an(l"rellecto-motor" llbers. Ilall's on l8I I RovalSocictvPaPer "Thc Rellex Function of the N'ledulla reflcx exPlicitlYdistinguishes Spinalis" and the N'tedulla Oblong.rta not onlv fi'ornvoluntarvmovementdirectlt controlled movement movcment controllcd bv the brain but also from the resPiratorY by the mcdulla oblongata,asrvcll as fiom involuntarv movement i ni ti ated t r r clir ect st im ulus of ner vc or m uscle f iber . A r ef lex direct rcsPonse emanatinglrom movcment is not a spontancous, a a centrals our ceiit pf esum es st im ulusappliedat som c dist ance fiom the reacting muscle being transmitted to thc sPinal cord and fiom thcrc rellected back to the periphcry.Ilall orienteclthtr conand cxplicitll mechanistic reflcx concept to\4arda scgmental ccpti on of t he f unct ionsof t he ner voussyst em . Thi s rvasdif f icult f br M iiller t o acccpt . To be sur c, he uas u.ith Prochaska, anrl he ascribedall open about his clisagreement rellex movemcntsto a teleologicalprjnciple ofinstinctivc organic sell:prescnation. But as Fearinghaspointcd out, Nliillcr's interest in the phcnomcnaof associated movements and radiantsensations and his elaborate atternptsto explainthc latter in terms of a rellex lirnction ofthe brain and spinalcord show that hc *as a Iong rvav from conceivingofreflexcs assegmcntal In and local mcchanisms. lact, Miiller's obscrvations associated movemcntsin narcotized of ani mal sand gener alr ef lex convulsions led him t o t uo sim ult aneousconclusions:reflcx movcmcntscan involve the entire bodv in response the most insignificantlocal sensation, to and thc nrorc extensi ve r ef lcx nt ovem entis, t he lessit is slnchr onized. a Mi i l l er's concept ol'r ef lex, u. hich m aint aincda connect ion

$'ith sensation- that is, with the brain - as rvell as the possibilmight produce reflectedeffectsthroughity that a local sensation out t he o rg a n i s m,s i d c s tc p p e dm o s t o f the obj ecti ons that had many physibeen raisedagainstI lall's ideas.Ha]l had scandalized ologists by attributing to the spinal cord a power to regulate movement still rvidcly bclieved to be an exclusive province of t he br ain .[...] I t u. asi n 1 8 5 J , fb u r Ie a rs b e fo re H al l ' s death, that E duard Pllilger pubfishedDie scnsorischen Functionen Rtjckenmarks des der llirhcltiere.The rvell-knou'nlarvsof reflcx activity (homolateral conduction, symmetry,medullarv and ccrebral irradiation, genre more experi menta) er nliz at io n )c s s c n ti a l l y c a s t,i n a p p a r entl v of lbrnr. l\liillcr's notion of the association movementsand the radiation ol sensations. lict, Pflnger follou'ed Mriller in using In t he r ef lex c o n c rp t to c x p l a i n s o -c a l l e d sympatheti cor conscnu divided prosu.rlphenomcna, hoseirtcrprctation had previous)v ol ponent so l th e p ri n c i p l e o fa n a s to m o s i s rhc pcri pheralnervcs ( - [ hom asWi l l i s , R a v mo n dV i e u s s e n sP aul -Joscph arthcz)fi onr , B i bc liev c r r i n th c p ri n c i p l e o l a c o n fl u e n ceol i mpressi onsn the \.nsoriunl.ommunc(.leanAstruc, Robert Whvtt, Joh.rnnAugust Unzer, George Prochaska).According to Prochaska,the rellex conccpr prcscrvedthc cxplanationof svmpathiesin terms of the tcnsorium munebut located the latter outside the brain in thc co dismeclullaoblongataand spinalcord. Unlike Wh,vtt, Prochaska tinguished thc Jensorium communefrom the soul but continued to credit it n ith a teleological function, according to $'hich the reflcx action rvasa fbrm of self-preservinginstinct (no.tffironsery at io) . S o i t i s h a rd l v s u rp ri s i n gth a t Pfl ti ger i n 1851 fel t that Prochaskahad had a better understandingof the nature of the in in rcf)ex process 1784than Hall had managed 1832-33.For the Prochaska hold on to the conto samcrcasons that had persuaded communc Pfliiger believed in the existcnceol ccpt of a sensorium

rvhich enabledhim to cxplain soul (Rtckenmarhsseelel, a nrcclrrllary actions. Hall, on the othcr hand, drer" a the purpose of reflex sharp dist inct ion bet u'een adapt ivcor int ent ional m ovem cnt , deliberateand stemming fiom thtr brain, and reflcx movement' as rvhich hc characterized "aimless."Lessmechanisticthan I lall, had raised the rigidity causcd bv certain generalizedre,\4n1lcr view, though it is true llcxcs as an objection againstProchaska's occurred onl,v"in a suitthat N4iillcrn ascareful to notc that this ably prepared animal." Pfliigcr's concept of the reflcx must be it regarde das a m isleadingdialect icalsvnt hesisi s cxper im ent al as basisrvas old as Marshall Ilall, whereasthe philosophicalconrvould havc tc\t that made it meaningfulrvasas old as Prochaska been.ha d hc not died in 1820. In l a ct , Pf higerdid not succecdin 1851 in f inding a st r ict lr phrsi ol ogicalsolut ion t o a pr oblcm t hat Hall, r at hcr t han r eall'b, l aci nu, h at l sidest eppcd r at t r ibut ing r vhat hc called "er <cit omotol po\1ers" ncne fibers.The problcm lav in the rerms"scnto "lensit)ilitv" as ther rvercust<lin the earliestdcflnition. sation"or ,rf the re llex. Willis had said t hat "r ellex m ot ions inr nle( liat eh est lbllow sensation"(notus rellexus qui d ttn\ioncPrueviaimme diotus dependens, illico retorqueturl,whereasProchaskahad said that " one of t he com m on scnsor vf unct ions is t o r cllect senst impressionsas motor imptrlscs" (prcecipua comJunctio scnsoril munisconsistatin reJlcxione in impressionum scnsoriorum mototid\). Nliiller beganhis chapteron rcflex movcmcntsbv saying,"l\1orentents that fbllow scnsations havc alvvavs bcen knorln." As long as pcople continued to speakof "sensation," thev remaineclon thc terrain ol psvchologv.It rr.as logical to look fbr a seatof thc psvche,and r vhv not suspectt he spinal cor d? I n 1817,Richar cl DugardCraingcrcorrectlv noted that contcmporarvphvsiologists appearc dt o bclieve in t hc cxist cnccof t uo kinds of scnsat ion, onc con scious,t he ot hcr unconscious.Eclr var cl eor gc Tandr G

LiddeJpoints out that \1henCharlesTodclcoined the term "affercnt" in 1839, .r major step rvastaken touard distinguishingbet $een t he tw o k i n d s o fs e n s a ti o n . Ye t it mav be that the trul v major step came only later, when the subjectiveconcept ofsensibilitv (/e senrdc /iqf./ur) rvasreplacedbv a purelv objective one defined in tcrms of the histology of receptors. What is interesting about thc history of thc rcflcx concept rvork and CharlesScott Sherrington's first pubbetween Pfltiger's lications is its importation fiom physiologv into clinical rvork, rvhich bcgan rvith Ilall. Thc lattcr was thc first to use the disruption or disappearance svmpofcertain reflexesas cliagnostic toms. The concept of the reflex arc gradualll took on meaning beyond that associatcd ith the schcmatic structure introduced u bv Rudolph Wagncr in 184'1;incorporatcd thus into svmptomatologv and clinical examination,it inlluenced therapeuticdecision-making. But as the reflex concept passed lionl the laboratory int o t he h o s ;ri ta l , i t d i d n o t g o u n c h a n ged.W hi l e most physiologiststcnded to look upon reflcxcsas ftrndamcntal, unvarying mechanisms, ferv clinicians,among them Emil .lendrassik, a who lbllo*cd up thc uork o[Wilhelm Heinrich Erb and Carl Friedrich O t t o W es tp h a l(1 8 7 5 )b v l o o k i n g s y s tc mati cal l v tendon refor f'lexes, llere surprisecl cliscover to that such reflexesrvereneither constantnor unifbrm, and that thcir abscnct'rvasnot necessarily a pathological symptom. It rvould not be long bcfcrrcphysiologis t s uou l d b e o b l i g e d to a b a n d o n the i de.r of a refl cx as a s im plc ar c c s ta b l i s h i n g o n c -to -o n crc l ati onshi pbctw cen sti ma ulus and muscularresponse. T he ge n e ra l i z a ti o n f c e l l th e o rv , th e i denti fi cati on of neuo in rons untler the microscopeand technologicaladvances histo]ogv dcmonstratcd,o1-coursc,that ncrvescould be decomposed The analvticallv into smallcr- in somc scnscatomic - structures. concept ofa scgrncntalref'lex ruastherebv corroboratcd. New

t t cl i ni cal obscr vat ions hus f br ce( l phvsiologist s o considcr scgasa lvholc. mcnts i n t hc cont cxt of t he or ganism that the scratchreflex nas not When Shcrringtondiscovcrc<l zone, r i nertri ca blvassociat cdvit h a st r ict lv def lned r ef lcxogenic hc laid thc groundrvork fbr a ncu' rtctification of the conccpt. 'fhe rcllcx \\'a! no\\' seen not so much .rs the reaction of a sPccoor dinat ed t ci fi c organ in r esponse o a st im ulus as an alr eadY movcmcnt dctennincd in p.rrt bv stimuli in a certain part of thc global state.Reflex movtrorganismand in part [r1 thc organism's a mcnt, ev cn in it s sim plest ,m ost . r nalvt ic. rflbr m , r Tas f ir t m ol bchavior,thc rcaction of an organic v' hole to a changcin its rclati on to the envlr onm ent . Although thc *rrrd "integration" did not aPPcarin Sherrington' s vocabular l unt il af t er t hc ninet eent hcent ur - vhad endcd, of the conccpt ol integrationw.1!thc cro$ ning achieventcnt nincrvork on rigidity neurophvsiologr.Sherrington's tecnth-c{.'Dturv (1898), rt'ciprocal innervationand svnapses duc to <lcccrcbration converged a tlemonstration thc lict that a basicreflcx inrclvcs on of mcdul l a n'int cgr at ionof a nr usclcbundle int o an ent ir c m cnr bcr through conver gence af f er ent inf luxcs and com binat ion of ol antagonistic renctions.'l-he lirnctionsof thr: brain Arcan cxtension ol the medullar vint cgr at i( ) n t he par t s t o t he cnt ir r or ganism . nf In adaptingHughlingsJackson's concept ol integr.rtion,Sherrington \\' asint cr cst ednot in it s evolut ionar vinr plicat ionsbut onlv i n i ts str- uct ur al oncs, It sc cm sr casonableo sav t hat Slr cr r ingt on. r clr ieved, t hc in t fi el clofphvsiologv, he dialect ical t svnr hesis t hc r cf lex concept of ui th thc conccpt ol- or ganic ot alit v t lt at I ir st Pr - ochaska. r nd t t hen l\'ltillcr had sorrghtanclthat I'lliiger.hacl br misle.rdinglv achicvecl i ntcrprc t ingt he r esult sof his phvsiological cxpcr im cnt sin m et aphvsi cal er m s, t B l th c enclof t hc ninct eent lrcent r r r \ ,t hc r elJcxconct : pth. r cl

thus been purged of anv teleological implications, u'hile it had alsoceascd be seen- asHall had sccn it - asnothing more than to a simple mcchanical reaction. Through a scrics of corrections, it had become an authentically phvsiologicalconcept. IEtuder,

Cuapr r n

Nr n r


Ob jects


A Principle ol Thematic Conserv.ttion [75] The historv ofa sciencervoulclsurelv fail ofits goal ifit did the succcssion attempts, impasses of not succeedin representing and repetitions that resultcd in thc constitution of rvhat the scicnce todav takesto be its object of interest.Unlike geometrvand astronomy,terms that are more than trvo thousandvcarsold, the term biologv is not yet nvo hundred vcarsold. When it u'aslirst proposcd,gcometrv had long since ccasecl be the science of to figurcsthat can be drav'.nn,ith a straightedge while and compass, astronomv had onlv recentlvexpancled scopeofinterest bevond its the sol arsyst em .I n bot h cases,he signif ierof t he scient if icdist ci pl i ne r cm ained t hc sam c, but t he discipline in quest ion had broken r vit h it s past . Bl cont r asr , t he concept of biologr , was inventedto characterizc,in retrospecr,a disciplinc that haclnot yet broken with its past. The *.ord "biology" occurs fbr thc flrst time in .Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's Hvdrogdolollie (1802). When he mentioned the rvord again,in the prefaceto his Philosoph;c (1809), it $,asin rcologiguc allusion to a treatiscro be entitled Ito./ogic, $'hich he neveractuallv rvrote. Strikingly,this prefaceis concernedrvith generalproblems of animal organization"as one travcrscs their entire series

liom rhe most per{act to the most imperfcct." fhe idea of a hierar c hic al sc ri e so f a n i m a l s ,a c h a i n o f b ci ng, i ndi catesthat the objec t of th e n c rv b i o l o g v \\' a sth e s a m c as that of A ri stotl e' s llence, Lamarck's Ilistorid onim(rliumanclDe partihusanima,lium. through force ofhabit ou,n invention- modiflcation in the organs and under th c i n fl u e n c eo [c h a n g i n ge n ri ronmcntalcondi ti ons"thc verv ordcr of nature" rvasexplicitlv intendcd to reestablish bev ondt he l a c u n a ca n d d i s c o n ti n u i ti c si n the svstemof cl assi fi c at ion pr o p o s e db l n a tu ra l i s ts- i n o ther w ords, to cstabl i sha that could not be in anclgraclation organization clear progression ov er look e d c s p i tca n v " a n o ma l i c s ." d As fbr the other invcntor of the term and concept of biology, Gottfiied Reinhold Trcviranus,the verv tidc ol the book he pubNotur lir der lished in 1802, Biolollieoder Philosophie l.ebenclcn (r'olumc 2 in a six-volumc scries,the last Nctturlorscher unrl,'lrztc of q, hic h \ 1 a sp u b l i s h e di n 1 8 2 2 ),i n d i catesthat he had no w i sh to separatcor distinguish thc naturalist from thc phvsicianas to o[ t heir philo s o p h i c a lo r g e n e ra lc o n c c p tion of the phenomena lif c . I hus , a t th e trl rn o f th e n i n e te e n thccnturv, a new w aY of a looking at tho studv of Jir.ingthings, which r.:ntailecl ncw logic, ofthc standPoint rvasin fact limitcd by the tradition.rlassociation that of the i nvesti gaol t hc nat u ra l i s trv i th th a t o f th e p h v s i ci an, t or wit h t h a t o fth c h c a l c r.[...] S inc e t h e tu rn o f th c n i n e te e n th c c ntury, horvevcr,defi ni tions ol biologv'sspecificobjcct havebeen purgcd of valueJaden conceptssuch as pt'rfiction or impcrlcction, normalitv or abnormalitv. l'herapeutic intcntions, tvhich once informccl or, more deformed,thc biologist'svieu of laboratoryuork, have accuratclv, sincc trct'n lirnitetl to tht applicationsol biological knorvledge. of"normalitv" in the hisllence, it rvould sccm that the clucstion as torv of biologv ought to be classcd a mattcr of historicalrather Is h a l l a tte mp t to P rovethc contrarv.To t han c ur r e n t i n trrc s t.

at rhat cnd , I dir ect t he r eaclcr 's t cnt ion t o t he cnd of t he hisFor cont em por ar ! biochem ist s, he lir nct ionsof t tori cal pr ocess. self'-reprocJuction sclf:rcgulationarc char.rnrJ sclflpreservation, actcri stic pr oper t ies of m icr oor ganism ssuch as bact cr ia. l- he and not just bv modt' l of ien pr oposedby scicnt ist st hcnt sclvcs of t heir r vor k is t hat of t h( "f t r lll aut om at edchcm ipopul arizcr s cal l act or v. "ai The or ganic f ir nct ions ar c acknor vlcdgedt o be count t 'r par t s r ciiabilit v, if not in supcri ort o t heir t echnological ol s i nl al l i bilit y,and in t he exist ence m echanism f br dct cct ingand correcting reproductiveerrors or l'lals. Thcse facts make it rcason.rbleto ask rvhether there is not some principle ol thcrn.rtic at consen'ation *.ork in thc historicalconstitution of biologv.On uit cl. bv thi s vi c*, which cont r ast s h an idca of - scicncc r bor at ecl hi stori a ns. r nd philosophcr sin t hc cr a u'hcn phvsics dcalt u'it h macroscopic objects, biologv is diflerent liorn the other sciences, anclthe historv of biologv ought to rellect that tict in thc tlur:stions it asks anclthe rvayin rvhich it answers thcm. Iror thc allcgcd pri nci pleof t hcm at icconscnat ionin t hc hist or vol biologvis per hapsonlv a r cf lect ion of t he biologist 's accept ance one r vavor in anothero1 t hc indisput ablef act t hat lile, u hat everlbr m it m ay takc, involvc:s sclf:prcscrvation meansof self:regul.rtion. bv l/r/coloq) ontl Rationalftr', 125-28] pp. Various Monilestotions of the Biologicol Object In anLiquit.t' concept sin Ar ist ot lc's dcf init ion of lif c [76] l hc f unclam cnt al are thosc of soul .rndorgan.A living btxJvis an animatcand organi zed bodv. I t is anim at ebecausc is or ganized. t s soul is in f ; ct it I act, lbrm and cn<l."Supposcthat the eve .rverc .rnimal - sight an rvoul <l r ave bcen it s soul. . . . Wc m ust no. r rcxt cnd our consicler . ati on fro m t he'par t s't o t hc uhole living bor lv; f br u'hat t hc 2{] t

departmentalscnscis to the bodily part rvhich is its organ, that the rvhole facultv ofsenseis to the rvholc sensitive bodv assuch."a6 'fhe organsarc the instrumentsof thc soul'senrJs. "The bod,r too must somcho* or other be madc fbr thc soul. and each part ofit f'or some sul,ordinate function, to n'hich it is rdapted."a?It is im pos s ib l e to o v e rs tn teth e i n fl u e n c e ol A ri stotl e' s use of the tcfm o.rtdnon designatca lirnctional part (nrorion)oIan animal to or vegetal body such as a hand, bcak. u'ing, root or vvhathave vou, LIntil at least the encl ofthe eighteenth centurv, anatomy and phv s i < rl < rg y s e rv e d , i th a l l i ts ambi gui ti es,a term that rv p re Aristotle borrorr.edfrom the lexicon ofartisans and musicians, $,hoseuse indicatesimplicit or cxplicit acccptanceof some sort ofanalogv bctwccn naturc and art. life and technics. As is rvt'll knou.n, Aristode conceivedolnature and life asthe ar t of ar t s , b v * h i c h h e m e a n t a p ro c csstel eoJogi cal i ts very bv nature, immnnent, unpremeditatcd and undcliberatcd- a process t hat ev er! te c h rri q u ete n d s to i mi ta te , a nd that the art of medi c ine appro a c h e s o s t c l o s e l yrv h e n i t h eal sby appl yi ngto i tsel f m r ult s ins p i rc d b y th e i d c a o f h c a l th , thc rcl os and form ofthe living orgrnism. Aristotle, a phvsician's son. thus subscribedto a biologic a l n a tu ra l i s m th a t h a d a l fi n i ti es rvi th the natural i sm of llippoc ra te s . Lifc's tclcological proccssis not pcrfcctlv cflicicnt and infallible, houer'gr.'l-heexistenceofmonsters shorvs that nature does m ak e m is ta k e s ,a 8 h i c h c a n b e e x p l a ined i n terms of matter' s rv r es is t anc e l o n n . F o rmso r e n d sa re n ot necessari land uni verto y s a) lyex c n rp l a rv a c c rta i n c l c v i a ti o n s tol eratecl The l brm ofan ; i . org.rnisntis expressed through a rouglr constancy;it is \ahat the orq.rnisnt appears bc most of the time. Hence, *,e can consider to fbrnr to bc a norm, compared to u,hich the exct:ptionalcan be a characrcrizcd abnormal. ldeologv antl Rationalitv, as pp. 128-29)

and In thc scventeenth eighteenthcentuties cont r adict cd Ar ist ot le's pr oposit ionsPoint by [77] D escar t es poi nt. Fo r him , nat ur e was ident ical u'it h t he laws o{ m ot ion and conservation.Every .rrt, including meclicine, r'as a kind of the prcservecl anatomicalanclPhvsmachinc-building.Descartcs i o)ogi cal concept ol an or gan but elim inat ed any dist inct ion A and f . r br ic, r t ion. living bodv could ser ve betl l eeDor gani, / at ion as the model fbr an automaton or vice versa. \'et therc was an ambiguity in this reversibility.fhe intention behind the construc-

i, t, j'

nature,but in the C.rrtt'sian thetion ofan automaton tvasto coPy ol orv of fife the automaton servesas an intelligible equivolcnt fbr an ontological nature. There is no rcrom in Cartesianphysics diflerence betwcen nature and art. "[S]o it is no Iessnatural lbr a clock constructcd!vith this or that sct of rvheelsto tell thc time than it is lbr a tree wh:ch grcw from this or that sced to produce liuit . "a'q[ . . . ] the appropr iat e ' tb be gin uit h, t ht C. r r t esian1at ch is no lesssubjer : tt o t he \ it l l vs of nr cchanics it t ells r he t im c incor r ect lv t h. r n if it t ells the ti me cor r ect lt . s(5im ilar ly, it is no lessnat ur al f cr ri m an t o l bc si ck than t o be healt hr , anclsicknessis not a cor r upt ion of ' nature.5 l Yet t hc t hir st t hat dr ivest he vict im of dr opsy t o dr ink is a "\'eritable error of nature," evcn though it is an eflcct of the substantialunion of soul and bodv, r vhosescnsat ions, such as thi rst or pain, ar e st at ist icallv valid indicat or sof t hings or sit uations favorablc hamrful "to thc consenationofthe human bodv or rvhcn i t is f ullv healt hv. "; :This idea is conf ir m ed at r he end of the "Conversations rvith Burnran"(1648), in rvhich thc metlicirrc ol the ph ysicians, not basecl sound Car t esiarr ncchanics,is on dcni gratcd. r ncl idiculed in lavor of a coulse oI conduct am enr abl e, as a nim alsar e, t o t hc silcnt lcssons nat ur e concer ning of " sel f-res t it ut ion. " er y m an is capableof being his or vn physi"Et cian."5l Evenfbr Descartes, sellpreservation rcmainsthe primary




c dis t inc t i v ec h a ra r:tc ri s tio f th e l i v i n g bodv.l .l Gcorg Ernst Stahl t ho most stubbornly Llndoubtedly it vr,as (l?06), tht er orqdnisnli nrc.drlrtn?i delcnded, inhis De divct.ritote irreducibilitv ofthe organism,that is, thc idea that a ccrtain ordcr to o i ol> t ainsn th c te l a ti o n s fth e p a rtso 1 ' amechani sm the rl hol e' A living bodr is both instrumentcdarld instrumcntal.lts t'fficient ordinotio,disttibutioare all used constructio, structure lstructurLt, in paragraph19) revealscoopcration on thc part of mediate or im nc dia tc rg c n ts ,-fh e n ra tc ri rl c o trs ti tuti onof the borl v i s subhorvever, that discaseis jecr to rapid corruptior, Stahl observcs, an r x c e p ti o n a l c o n c l i ti o n .I Ie n c c , th r' re must bc some pol er ol conservation,some immaterial pou'er ollering active resistance t o dc c o m p o s i ti o n ,p e rD ra n e n tl la t u ork i n the bodi cs of l i vi ng n things. Sclf:prescrvatio of the organism is achicvedas a result .] l not of s o n re n re c h rn i c a b u t o fD a tu ra l" autocracr." 9a[.. that bcgins of anatontv and physiologv It is not onlv the histon l ong cal l ed " nat' uas i n c l u d i n g th e c l a s s i l i c ati on l i vi ng thi ngs, thci r of ur al his to rv ," or c ler lva rra n g t' n re n itn a ta b l c o f s i m i l ari ti cs and cl i fl i rences. u it h A r i s to tl c b u t a l s oth e h i s to rv o l * ' hat s t udv of th e i r k i n s h i p th ro u g h mo rp hol ogi calcompari sonand, llnallv, studv of thc compatibilitv ol diflereDtmo(lesof e\istcncc. ol Nat ur al h i s to ry s o u g h rto c x p l a i n th c cl i vcrsi tv l i fc fi rrmsabl e Li C t o c oex i s t i n a g i v e n e n v i ro n n rc n t.In 17' 19 arol rrs nnaeusrendturdc.l...f fer-red this coexistenccas the occonomia to w ln t h e c i g h te c n thc e n tu r\, th e s tatusol speci es as l he l bremclst problem oI the naturalists,as can be leen most clearly of all in the r'ork ol Conrte Btrffonand I innaeus.fhc latter did not ex per ir:n c e s rn u c h d i i c u l tv a s th e tbrnrcr i n hol di ng that the a specicsucrr: fixc(l at creatjon and pcrpctuntc(l from gencration to gcnerrtion. Buflbn .rttemptcd to resolvethe problenr rr itlr his Organicmoltheorv of "intemll molds" and "organic molecules." rl c c ulc s , h c ma i rrta i n c d ,rv e re i n c l c s t ructi bl e;tl rev sur-r' i vctl re


e.r unr J.r,,, r, l r cpr odurlir , n lr "nr qt 'n,r Jt ion 1, , ! r nr 'r ', r li^n. . r cr ui n t he bodies ol living t hings in specif ic lbr m s shapcr lbv l .rti ng internal nolds. Thc latter, (letermined bv the firrrn ol thc org.rni sm, dj ct at eclt hc uar in u'hich t he par t s had t o be ar r angedin ,rrdr:rto lorm a rvholc. Considerfor a moment the intelnal mold metaphor.l\'loldsarc i t rrsLcln s m elt ing and nr asonr v o inr posc. r ccr r ain t hr cc- dim cnsionalshapc.Etvmologicalh,the qrrrd is rclated to "modulus" ancl "rrodel." In con'rmonusage, indicatc! a structural norm. ln livit ing organisms,horvever,the structural Dorm cin nccommoddte t i rregul ar it ies,o nhich Bulf ir n r eler son nr or e t h, r nonc occasion (ltresonomaur).An organic.rnomaly n()t thc satne asanonralies is rs .r phvsicalilr egular it v, hr lvevcr . I nit iallv, Buf lbn conct 'ivcd of gencrat ionas analogous o cr vst Jllir at ion,bLr tult inr at ell hc t c.rmcto think of crystallization a lbrm of organization. Ic was as I unabl eto avoid associat ing. r nom alies h degener at ion, r vit hcnce u i th the pr oblem ol t hc m Lr t abilit vof specics.O n t his point , B Lrffbn a sncr er ablc t o achicve r f ainn. I le did not r egar dt ht : rr cr i rl caofdc r ivat ilc species absur cl it s lict , br r t hc believcr lor . as on prol esscd o believet h. r t olr scnat ionconlir m cr l t hc t cachings t ol t5 thc B i bl e. l'ierre [-ouis ]Vloreau l\4aupertuis rvar bold<r in thcorizing, clt pcrhapsbecausehe possessetl lcss extcnsivecmpirical infbrrn.rti on. For him , it r uct r lr al v. lr iat ion\ \ 'asr he r ule ol or ganic pr c gtessi on. par agr aph 1 of t he Sr sr dm r / c/ o nalur e( 1751) . sct ln ] hc c lcrrtha theor\'()l genrration bascdon thc existencr ol'elcment.rrr u lhrticlcs of mnttcr t'nclolr,crl ith appetitc and memorv, \\,hose " arrangc m ent "r cplocluccs he posr iblr m ir aculoussr r uct ur c ol t


thc fi rst individuals.The phcnom en. r r escnr blance, isccgeof m nati on nn d nr onst r osit v coul<lbc cxplain<<1, , r r gueci, r cr m s hr in ol thc compatibilitv or incoDrpatibilitv "ar.rangemcnfs" seeds of in nri ngkti thr oughcopular ion.I hus, I : r t cr , lt ar r {r aph- 15,he. r sks, in
2 ().)

sc L--an not explainin this llay how liom just trvo individuals the specics nrostdissimilar could have multiplied? Originallv the; may lrom lbrtuitous havc srcmmcd productions rvhichthe elcmentary in parts not retainthe orderthevoccupied the lither andmother did in liachdegrec oferror could havcprorluced nrw specicsl animals. a crrorscould havc andreprated givcnriseto thc infinitecliversity of that aninrals rvesectodav. It is tcmpting to read this text \'\,ithspcctacles provided by contemporary biochemical and genetic theorv. Orderand errorocctJr both here and in contemporaryaccountsofhereclitary biochemical defects .rsground and cause o[ both normality and abnorm alit y . B u t to d a y b i o c h e mi s trv a n d g e n eti csoffer us a rvay of interprcting org.rnicabnormalitiesthat was rvorkedout in coopc r at ion l{ , i tl r tl re D a rrv i n i a nc rp l a n a ti o nofthe ori gi n ofspeci es and t he a( l a p t.rri o n f o rg a n i s ms .H e n c e Maupertui s' sproposi o tions should be legardcd more as Iictions than as anticipations of s c ient if i c fh e o r-i e s c o rrrr. H e rv a sunabl e to ol crcome the to rlifficultr poscd bv rhe naturalmechanismfbr nor-malizing differeDces.Both he and Bullon believed that human intervention t hlough t e c h n i rl u c so f h L rs b a n d rv r a g ronomv- r' as the onl v o !r'a} to stnbilire rariations * ithin species.lldeolog.v Rotionoland it r . pp. 129 -3 5 ] ln thc ninctccnthcentury b.v ol [78] Thc pubf ication of On the Origin of Species .l,leans Natural Selection;or the Prescrvation FavouredRaces the Struggle oJ in doubts in the minds of somc carlyreadfor Ltlein l8 59 occasioned crs because the traditional mcaning of certain concepts menof tioncd in the titlc and frequentlv alluded to in the bodv of the work, The thtory ofnatural selection statcsthat ccrtain deviations liom the norm can be seena porfcriolito provide a tenuous

fbr aclvantage survivalin novcl ecologicalsituations [)arrvin thus substit ut eda r andom f it f or a pr cor dainedadaPt . lt ion'Nat ur al die; the sun'iorganisnrs sclcction is eliminative. Disadvantaged Thc reader u'ho vors arc all different in one degrcc or another. terms as"selection," "advantage," takeslitcrallv such DarrT'inian "adaptation," "favor" and "disfavor" may Partially overlook the fict that telcologv hasbeen excludedlrom Darrvin'stheory Does terms havebecn excluded fiom tht' this mcan that all value-laden or i dea oflif e? l. if e and deat h, success lailur c in t he st r ugglelbr js survi val- ar e t hese value- neut r alconccpt s' even it st lccess t reducc<l o not hing m or e t han cont inued exist encel'l) oes[ ) 'r r or r cv, rri n' . l angr r . r ge al hir r hc, ught does it \ ( r gg( \ t t hr t ( \ ( n lof of I)anvi n a causalexplanat ion adapt at ioncould not abolisht he "r ital nreaning"ofadaptation, a meaningdetermined trv conrPlr\'ilri'rtionr ison of thc living rvith the dead?As [)aru'in otrserved. i n nat ur t r t r ul<l have r cm ained nit hout cllect hat l it not lr t 'en l tbr rrat ur . r \ elect ion. Wh. r t could lim it t he . r bilit \ of t his la'r ', r r)pera t ing x, era long pet iod r ll t in] c lnr l r igor ouslr s(r t t t iniTing anr thc \tr uct ur e, ovcr all or ganizat ioll l habit s ol ever l cr eat ur ( ] r to promote good and rcject evil?;'' A n d l) ar r vin's\ \ 'or k ends \ \ 'it h a coDt r ilst :"uhilc t his planet hasgone circling on according to thc fixed larv ol gr;vitl, lrom lbrms most beautifuland most \\1)nso simplc a beginningendlcss derlul havebeen arrdarc bcing evolvcd." deviationsiD \tructure In suggesting that individual variations, in adr or i nst inct , ar c usclul because hcv vield a sur vival . r nr agc a t $orld in rvhich rclations of organism to organismarc the most i mpor t ant of all causcs changein living beings,l) ar r vin int r oof duced a nervcriterion ol'normalitv into biologv, a criteritln bascd on thc living creaturc'srclation to lil'e and dcath. Bv no means did he eliminatc moralitv fi"omconsiderationin dctelmining thc object ofbiologv. Beloret)aru in, dcath u.asccrnsiclerecl lre thc to


l. it

regulatorof the quantitv of lifii (Buflbn) or the sanctionimposed lbr infiactions of nature's ordcr, thc instrument of her cquilibr ium ( l- inn a e u s ). c o rrJ i n g D a r$ ,i n ,death i s a bJi ndscul ptor Ac to ol living lbrms, lbrms elaboratcdwithout preconceivcdidta, as tleviationsfkrm normalitv are convcrtcd into chancesfbr sun ival in a changedenvironmcnt. Danvin purged lrom thc concept of adaptation anv rcfcrenceto a preordaincd purpose,but he did not separatc complctelv from the concept of nomalitv. In thc spirit it of Danvinism, horvcvcr,a nonn is not a flxcd rule but a transit iv e c apac i ty -fh c n o rm a l i ty o fa Ii v i n g thi ng i s that cl ual i tvofi ts . rclation to the environmcnt $hich enablt'sit to gcnerateclescendant s ex hi b i ti n g a ra n g eo fv a ri a ti o n sa n d standi ngi n a nerv rel ation to their rcspcctive environments, and so on. Normalitv is not a qualit v o fth c l i v i n g th i n g i ts e l l b u t a n aspectol ' the al l -encompas s ing c l a ti o n b e tn e c n l i fc a n d d e a th as i t afl ccts the i ndi vi dr ual lifi firrm at a given point in rime. T hus , t h e e n v i ro n mc n t d e c i c l e s ,i n a nontel eol ogi cal u.ay, rvhich variationsrvill sun i,r'e, but this docs not necessarily mean that evo]ution does not tenrl to create an org.rnicorder firm in it s or ient a ti o n i l p re c a r-i o u is i ts i n c a rnati ons.Il crcdi tv i s an n uninterruptecl dclcgationol'orclinalpou.er.What diflcrcncc does it makc if, in Salvaclor Luria's rvorcls, "evolution operatesrvith t hr eat s ,no t p ro n l i s e s " ? 5 7 f. . .] The plrvsiologists took thcir inspirationliom a distinction flrst m adc br Xa v i e rB i c h a t: Therearc tno kindsoi lili phcnomcna: (l)the st.rtc hcalth,and ol (2) tht statc ofsickness. Ilence,thcrcarctrvodistinctscicnces: phvsiologv , i c h i s c o n c e rn c d i th p h c n o mtna the l i rst state, rrh rv and of pathologv, lrichis conccrncd ith thoscoi the scconci. history s u l'he ol phcnomcna w hich thc vital lbrces in havcthcir natural typc Ieads us to that ol phcnomcn,r * hich thosclorccsaredistortecl. in Norv,

is t onh cxist s; hc second scicncr : s, t hc lir st hist or v i n thc phvsical Phvsiologv to thc motion of living bodics is lbun<|. to norvherr: be and hvllraulics, hvdrottatics sttfbrth. . . drnanlics, astronomv, \r'h.tt no The l:rttcrh.rvc scicnccthat to .1re the motionsof incrt bodies. corrcsPontlr thc Ibrmer.l8 to to corrcsponds thcm ls Pathologl s B ut not a ll phvsiologist agr eed it h Bichatt hat t her e exist vit al Here I must citc Claude fbrcesnot subjcct to thc lan'sof Phvsics. his posit ion is so up t o r Jat e.He oncc m or c, l) ecause B ernarcl ar admi tted, lir st ol'all, dr at vit al Phenom ena e sub, cct onlY t o but hc alsoheld t hat t hc or ganism and chem icalcauses, phvsi cal accor dingt o an im m ancnt design,a plan, cl oel ops f iom t hc egg for lbr u'hich is responsible its ultimatc otganiz.rtion, a rcgul.rritv, an(I,il neetl be, rcstoration. pcrsistencc its h.rrmonv, What Bcrnard dcscribed in imagcs is todat cxplained bv the Like thc mct.rphoro1' theoremsol macromolcculat-biochcmistrv. the " i ntcr nal m old, " t hc im agesof "dcsign, " "plan, " "guiding "or<ter"are gircn rctroactivelcgitimacv bv the trrnccpt idoa" an<l l: of ofa prog r amcn( o( le( lin sequcnccs nucleot idcs. ; 'r or t he lir - st ol ti me i n t he hist or vof biologv, . r llt he pr oper t ics living t hingsgro\\' th,or ganiz. r t ion,epr oduct ion,her edit ar ycont inuit ! - can r bc cxpl . r ined t er m sol m olecularst m ct ur e,clr em icalr cact ions, in enzymcsand genes .lltlcoloo.v aru1Rationalit.v, lj6-)91 1>p. ln lhe t*enticth ccntur.t [79] l hc level ol'object ivit \ nt $hich t he opposit ion bet uccn normal .rndabnormaluas lcgitinrrtc uas shilied lionr the surf.rce to the dcpths, lrom thc <lcvelopcrJ organisnr its germ, from thc to macroscopic o t he ult r am icr oscopic. t Nou it is t hc t r . r nsm ission of thc htreditarv mcssage, procluctionof thc gcnetic progranr, thc . hat is nor m al an<lr lhat is a dcviat ionlr om t hc that (l et er m incs w norntal.Somehum.rnchromosornal anomalit:s suclras mongolism

c an be obs e n e dd i rc c tl v i n th e c l i n i c . Others,suchas K l i nefcl tcr' s s r ndr om e , a re to l e ra trd rv i th o u t a p p a renti l l efl cct and mani onh in spccial ecological circumstances.As for lest rhemselves gcnetic anomalies,I shall mention only "innate errors of metabolism" - to usc the phrasethat Archibald Edward G.rrrodcoincd in 1909 - that is, specific biochemical lesions that result from thr presenceof a mutant gene, which is called "abnormal" not ro much becauseof its statistical rarity as becauseof its pathologic al or e v e n fa ta l e l fe c ts (fo r e x a m p le.hemophi l i a, H unri ngt on' s c hor e a a n d s o o n ). A n e w n o m e n c l atureol di sease s thus i established, referring disease not to the individual consideredin its totality but to its morphological and functional constituents: diseascs the hcmoglobin, hormonal diseases ol (such as hypcrthvroidism), musclediseases so forth. Gene murationsthat block and chcmical svntheses altcring their cnzymecatalysts no Ionger by are intcrpreted as deviations irr l\,laupertuis's senscbut as crrors in r c . r dingt hc g e n e ti c " me s s a g e ,"c rro rs i n the reproducti on crr c opy ing of a te x t. The term "crror" docs not implv that scicncehas rcturned to the Aristotclian and mediet'alnotion that monstersare errors of nature, fbr the failure here is not somc lack of skill on the part of the artisanor architect bur a mere copvist'sslip. Still, the nerv s c ienc eof l i v i n g th i n g s h a sn o t o n l v n o t el i mi nated thc contrast beoveen normal and abnormal but it hasactuallv groundt'd that c()ntrastin the structure ol livinq things themselvcs.no [/deolog,r, ctndRotionality, pp. 140-4l] A New Historical Crux the epistemologistmav norv be allo*'ed to remain [80] Perhaps skepticalabout dogmatic rcductionist viervs,given nvhatcan be lear nedif r v c l o o k a t th e h i s to rv o f b i o l ogv, w i thout any si mplif y in{ a p ri o l i a s s u mp ti o n s , n l i g h t o f the vari ousm.rni festai
2 r4

c: ti ons of r r h. r t I h, r vepr oposecl r lling t he pr inciplc of t hcm at ic conser\'(rtion. object ion, hor veverI' n looking lbr a I anticipat cone possible of normalit) in biology, have I not confuserl clistinctiveconcept the i ssu cby consider ingdif f er ent or der s of biological object si fiom Sir William Herschelto EclrvinHubble rcvoltrr\stronomers t ti oni zedt heir disciplinebv m agnif ying heir object t o an unim agi nabl e degr t c, r evealinggalaxiesbevond r lr c solar svst eman<l , lr mct.rga laxies cvond t he galaxies.Bv cor '\ t r dstbioloSist sha\ c nat ur eo[ lif e b1'r r . r kinqt hcir object ssm al] ( 'r , t n( l t di scorer ed he , smal l cr :l>act cr iumgene, enr vm e. I n t he pr ecedingdiscussion, rvith observations one level and explanations.rt at am I dcaling another ?Nor m alit v appcar st o bc a pr opcr t v of t he or ganism , s btrt i t c lisappcarr vhen *e look at t he elem ent st h. lt m ake uP that organisnr. biologistsh:rveidenrifiedordcring 5trucAt nll lcv(ls, horrever, (ur(s th . r t ,r vhilc gcnr 'r alh r eliahle,sot r r et inr es il. The conccpt l) to ofnornralitr is irrrcD<lcd rctrr to th,.'stortlcring structures.No of Bv suchconcept is neededin t he epist er nologv phvsics, int r orJrrcing as I havedone here, I in no \1ir! intend to dcnv that biolit ogv is bascdon phvsicsand chemistry. I do intend to Preventthe t coal csc ing $r 'o pr opcr lvdist inct appr oacheso hist or r '.I n t he ol history o{ biologr',the pseuclotheoretic.rl content of prescientific concep t u<r liz. r r ions st r uct ur al and t unct ional nor m alit \ ' \ t '45 of abanclc'ncd, the conccptualizatiorrs lrate heen prethcnrst'lves but senerl, in "displaced"fonr, as inclices the objectivcuiriquencss ol ofthc l iving or ganism .Dm it r v N{endclevev's ior iict able docs per not j ustilv l) cm ocr it us'sint uit ions . 1 posleot i, bt r t t he decoding of the gcnetic program cloesproviclea portcriorijustiflcation of C l audcBer nar d's et aphor s. m Evenuit hin t he t er r nsof a m onist i ndeeda nr at cr ialist epist cm olog\ ', sicsr em . r ins adicallv r clif phr fcrent fr om biolo{v, Phvsics "aspr or lucet l,som et im cs r isk oI r at

lile and li mb , b y Ii v i n g th i n g s s u b j e c tto si ckness and death, but sicknessand dt'ath are not problems of phvsics.Thev are problem so1b i o l o g v . Betseen the bactc'ria a laboratorvculture and the biologists in rr.ho obscn'e them, thcrc is a rvhole rangc of living things perm it t ed t o e x i s t b v th e fi l te r o f n a tu ra lscl ecti on. I' hei r l i vesare b gov er nec l v c c rta i n n o rm s o f b e h a v i or and adaptati on.(Juestions about the vital meaningof thosenorms, though not directly m at t er s o f c h e mi s trv a n d p h v s i c s ,a rc questi onsof bi ol ogv. A s Nt ar jor ie C re c n c p o i n ts o u t, a l o n g s i dethe bi ochemi sts therc is room in biologv fbr a FreclerikJacobusBuvtcndijk or a Kurt Goldstein.6r Historv sh<r.rvs she is right. lldeolog.v that and Rationalit.v, pp. 14)-141

Pa nr F oun

In te r p r e ta ti o n s


2 t6

Crr,qprrn TrN



Relotions between Theory and Technology knor v about t echnologv, and uhat did [81] W hat r lid Descar t es r nit hc l rop e t o lear n liom it ? I I is cor r espondence,er eacl h t his qucstion in mind, givcsa strong imprcssionof a man r",ith a u'ide curiositv al>outpractical techniques and keen to discover principles or larvsthat might account fbr thcir cflicacv. The subjects that rccur m ost f r equcnt lvin his m cdit at ionsar e, ol cour se,t he gri nrl i ng ol lcnsesf br opt ical inst r um cnt s,t he const r uct ion of machi n esand t he ar t of m edicine, Yct he also f bund in t hc r outincs of peasants and solcliersand the lore of travelersmaterial lirr comparisonanclopportunities to put his theoriesto the test. The influence ol the soil on thc gro\\'dr ol transplantedplants, thc m.rturation of fiuits, the separationof materi.rlso[ diffi'rcnt dcnsi tv in t he m anuf act ur e but t er , t he r vaya chilcl'slcgs f lail of rvhi l e m ount ing a hor sc, t hc r inging of bells in or dcr t o cause thuncl c rclouds t o bur st - t hcsc com m onplaccs r ur al lif e pr oof vi cl cd l ) escar t es vit h occasions br r ellect ion. As a soldier , he r f rubbed t he t ip of his pike r vit h oil and not iccd spar ks. And. r s a rcsi(lentof Amstcrdam, he rvasauarc ofall that a great port had to offer in the rvavofpractical and luxurv goods,and ofall that a popu)ation that each day u clcomecltravclcrsfiom the antipodes

and admicould tca(h .rbout hum.tndivcrsitv.With astonishment a r at ion \ 11 \1 a tc h D e s c a rtc s p p l y h i s ! crupul ousl v methodi cal int c lligen c c ' to th e m o s t d i v c rs ca n d s pcci al i zrdtechni calprobmcdilerns:smoking chimncvs,watcr pumps and marshdrainagc, dnrgs,allcgcrllvmiraculouslountains,automata, thc cal diagnosis, , t r ajc c t or yo l c a n n o n b a l l sth e v e l o c i tv ofbul l cts, thc strcngthof interest in artila srtord thrust, thc sound of bells. l)escartes's bv lerv, mtrlicinc anrl automata lvas, of course, sharc'rl many of his c ont em p o ra ri e sn F ra n c ea n d l ta l t; b ut underl vi nghi s atteni t ion t ( ) t he m o s t n ri n u te d e ta i l sa n c lp robl emsu,asa comprehcns iv e c loc t ri n ei n c o rp o ra ti n gth e s ma l l estdetai l sand di ffi cul ti cs of phvsicsand mctaphvsics. Yct his ambition to achi<:r'e mastery ofthc natural rvorld scemsalm()stm(xlestin comparisonrvith his dreams:to rL'store sight to the blind, to vie\i the animalson the m oon ( i1 a n t), to ma k c me n rri s e a n d happy through medi ci ne, to llv like a bircl. Nledicalobserv.rtions scatteredthroughout are his *or k . H e c o n l e s s e d th e Ma rq u ess N eucastl e that the to of hacl been to presenehealth,l primarvpurposeol his stuclies alrvays and hc probabll bclir:r'cd, Constantijn I luvgcnsrcportcd, that as (l " t hat v t ' x i n gc u s to m ,d e a th ,* i l l o n c d a v di sappcar" l , 550). I{i s t ec hnic alp re o c c u p a ti o n s i th o p ti c s c a n be l i rund i n hi s corresw rvel las i n the Opti cs. pondc nc crv i th D a v i d F e rri e r(1 5 2 9 -1 6 3 8)as As fbr his rcscarchand cxpcrimcnts rvith mar:hincrv,apart fiom the f:rrit'ltrt'atiscon lifiing cngincsrvrittcn fbr Iluvgcns in 1637, *c havconlt Adricn Baillet'saccountof t)escartes's relationsw.ith V illebr ess i e uth e k i n g ' s e n g i n e e r(1 , 2 0 9, 214, 218). B .ri l l etl i sts , t hos c of V i l l c b rc s s i c u ' si n v c n ti o n sa l l e g cdl y< l ucto suggesti ons fiom Dcscartes: \latcr llump, a * hcr:lcdbridgc fbr usc in attacka ing f br t r c s s c s a p o rta b l c fb l d i n g b o a t f i rr crossi ngri versand a , $agon c ha i r fi rr th c tra n s p o rt o f rv o u n decl di ers.Thi s bri cf sol risumi of l)cscartes's tc'chnological interests, insignificantthough it mav sct:m, is nt'vertheless \\,orth remcmbcring bccauseit uas
7 zc)

r l )cscartc s'slillingnesst o "lo*cr his t hought t o t he leastol t he ( him t ( ) ( ( ) ncr ivc of ' mechanics'invent ions"1, 185) t hat enablecl the rel at ionbr : t r , ecnt heor l and pr act icein. r t av t hat is im por his t tant not o nly lbr under st anding t hought but f ir r gr asping he r ef of natLrre phil( ) s( ) Phical lect ion in gcncr al. conceiveof t hc r clat ion bet t een t heor y Il orl did l) cscar t es this questi()n,lct us turn to the texts. .rnrltechnologv?lb ans\r.er he t to In anv nu nr berol passages clepJor edhc f iilt r r c ol ar t is. r Ds It'arn fi-om rvhat rvasknou n about thc matrria]s anclphenomena act thcv ust' din daill'pr act icc.All pur posive ion, he m aint aincd, t scir I shoul dbc subor dinat eo it s associat ed : ncc. I c h. r dcont em pt ( 1, r lit hout under st anding 195)and invent or s ''it h r l br technique out meth od ( X, 180) anr l r vascxt r em elv r var v ol ar t isansu'h<r to ( rcfi rsed t ake his clir ect ions 1, 501,506) . f hc m ost signif icant in passages this regardare to be fbund in thc Ru/crfor thc Dircc(t tfu tllind. [:rom thc outsct, I)cscartes tion contrasts the diversit\ of tcchnologicalskills uit h t he unit v of t hcor ct ic: al undcr st anding and proposes usingtheorv t() achicvctotal knou lcdge.As each acqui si ti ono1 t r r r t h bccom csa r ule of m et hocl,t hought nr r xt s lnrm truth to truth, :ln(l it therebvacquiresthe abilitv to act rt liabl v and c f licient lv. . l his abilit v is t hc r csult of a susr ainecl t enar ti vL' ncsshat t hc speci. r lized t isan,I im it cd nnd pnr t inl in his t ar vi cl s, set 'ks r t r in t o achicvc.I n Rule Five,l) escar t es cnt ions in m nm()ngthe illt r sionst hat his r llet hod t enclst o clim inat e t hat ol peoyrlervho "stu<lv nrcclranics apart fr()m phvsic.s an<l,r,r,ithout anv propcr plan, constructn( w instruDteDts. ."1Counteringsuch .. prcsumption is tlris a<lmirablc affirmation <tt Principlcs Philosool phr' : " i \l l t he r t r lesol N4echanics belong t o Phvsics, t hat . r ll so



thi ngs tha t ar e ar t ilicial ar c also nar ur al" ( lX, l2l) . Th. r t is uhv "onc must lirst cxplain tr'hatthe la.rr.s natureart .rnrlh()u nrtturc ol ttsuallvbehaves bcfirreonc can leach lrorv those laus can be madc to pr(xl uceunusual f cct s"( ll, 50) . - li, <louit hout r r n<lcr st . r nr ling cf

the rvhv of w hat he is dc'ing is the lot of the mere technician.To promise rvithout pcrfbrming is the definition of the charlatan. 'Ib obtain effectsat rvill through understancling oftheir causes is We learn what is technologicallvposthe ambition of I)escartes. Thus fhr, there sible bv studving rvhat is theoretically necessary. is nothing in Descartes's philosophy conccrning technology that does not seem obvious, if bv obvious ue mean something that hasbecome familiar ovling to modern philosophy's long-standing intcrcst in a themc that, from da Vinci to the Encyclopedists on to AugustcComtc and Karl Marx, becamea standardtopos. In [)escartes's thinking, howevcr,thcre rvcreimportant restrictions on the conversionofknou.ledge into action. I)escartcs saw obvious "difficulties" in moving from theorv to practice rvhich not cvcn pcrfcct intelligence could resolvebv itself. Evengiven perfectknowledge,the technological embodimcnt of that knowledge would in some cases contain inevitable imperfections, No Archimedeanmirror, even one polishcd by an angel, could burn an object a leagueaw,ay unlcss it rvere made extremelv large (1, 109). Evcn ifan angel were to give instructions,basedon theory, for building a stcclyardbalancecapableof rveighingobjects up to two hundred pounds,"it is almost impossibleto be so precise in all as pc c tso f c o n s tru c ti o n th a t th e re shoul d be no fi ul t i n t he s c ale,a n c lth u s p ra c ti c c rv i l l d i s c re d i ttheory" (11,.{59). The instrument must thcrcforc be calibrated empirically, Descartes rccommends. Five vearsafter formulating a theorv of lenses,he $,rote Marin Mersennethat in lensmakingthe gap between theorv and practicc was so grcat that thcoretical perfection could nev c r bc a c h i e v e d(l l l , 5 8 5 ). N o tc th a t thc threc cxampl esdi scusscdthus far - mirrors, lcnsesand scales- involve the theories ol optics and levers,u'hich were among thc earliestsuccesses held that if ol Cartesian science.Evenmore explicitly, Descartes men could not fly, the problem was not theoretical but practi-

it cal : " One can indeed m akc a m achinet hat sust ains self in t he loquendo, birds themselvcs,in mv for like a bird, metaphtisice air or opinion at any rate, are such machincs, but not ph.vsice moraliter becauscit would require springsso light yet so pou'crlogucndo, t l i rl that hum anscould not m anuf act ur c hem " ( lll, 163) . Descartesnever explained his thinking about the diflerence tretueen scienceand construction, two human activities that his not philosophvseemsto suggest only stem liom a common source can be converted but arc convertiblc,in thc scnscthat knorvledge into construction. Hence, it is up to us to clari[v his meaningb,v l ooki ng at t he t ext s and com par ingvar iousst r andsof his t hinki ng. D c scar t esm aint ained t hat onc should bc able t o deduce empirical rcsults from intuitive principles that he callcd "sceds absolute]natures." effect An of truth" or "simplc [or occasionally, harl not been explaincd,hc hcld, unt il one could sayhor v bv an act of God it m ight havebeen m ade dif f er ent br lt no lt : ssint t : lliof on gible. The celebratedpassage Part Six of thc Discourse the .l4ethor1 u'hich thc impossibilityof completelvdeducingelfects in liom causes leadsto acknorvledgment the need to "jtrdgc thc of causes terms of their ef]ects" clearly inrlicatesthat technologiin callv usefirl "forms or tvpes of bodies" mav bc impcdiments tcr rnal vti c dcduct ion. Fr om f ir st causcs, hc scient istcan deduce t "the heavens, the stars,an earth, and even, on earth, \\'atcr, air, l i re and m iner als, " t hat is, "or dinar v ef 'f ect s, ""com m on and simplc things." But rvhcrcasscicncc trcats matter as homogeneous and r vit hout dist inct iveident it y, t he t echnician,r r . hor elat es mattcr to "ot r r use of it , " t r eat s it as par t icular and divcr sc hence thc need lbr experimcntal trial and crror. I'he passage in thc l)iscourse rvhich Descartes in from theorv to techprocee'cls nologv is greatly elucidatcd, I thinL, L)vanother passage, onc rlris from the Prncrplesot' Pbilotoph.r, u.hich proceeds in the other di recti o n, f r om t echnologvt o t he( ) r \ ':

\lcch.rnics in gt ner.rl, thc artsin w hich knrnr an<1. l\lerlir:inc, all ltdge rnal rrf physics bc usclulfrave onegoal:to applvscnsitive but tndics in 1) onc .rn()thcr suchJ \'iv that,o\\ ing to natrrral causes, \cntible In ciii crsar. ploduced. tlrisue do just as\vcll il rhc scrir\ ol ca(ses a r husinag i n c di s f,rl s e si fi t .l 1 e rc c ,s i n ccthr scri ess supposcd tru i t o bc s im i l a r n s o l a a si ts s c n s i b l e l l i c tsa reconccrncd X . 122). i r (l I1, in manv ca\es,practice "discredits thcory," it is bccause "any applicationof sensitive bodiesto one anothcr,"or. in other n'ords, anv t ec hnica ls y n th e s i srv i J ln o rm a l l y i n c l ude unprecl i ctabl and r e un.rnti(ipatc(l .'tfects,given that ue are norkirrg .rvithsubstanccs about r v hic h n o t c v c rrth i n gc a n b e d e d u c e d. Descartes alsobclievcdthat knorvledge and construction were r c lar qi in an ()th e rra \i h o w e rc n th i n g s cotrl < l bui l r rvi thout bc knolr'leclge the theorv ofhorv thcr rvorkcd, anclrhis in turn of c ould pr ov id c th c o rc ti c a lr)p p o rru n i ri e sThi s, I thi nk, i s the l es. son ol the Oprrcr'"hen reread in tht' light of thc problcm that concernsus herc. Optical thcory bcganu'ith thc invention ofthe m agnit v ingg l a s s ,w h i c h i n i ti a l l y u a s th e f i ui t of tri al and error, and luc k . l' h a r i n i ri a l s u c c e s s a s l a tc r b li ndl r copi cd. Y ct the w nt's inventionstill sufleredliom manv deflciencics,.rnd Dcscartes belic v c d in t h c n e t' d fb r s c i e n ti l l c s ru d v o l rvhat consri tureda good lens. I le proposedto (leducethe propershape lenses of from t hc lar r so1' l i q h t.T h u s , a p L rl c l l fo rru i ro u stcchnol ogi cal scovdi er v lr r ov idc d th < :o c c a s i o nfb r " ma n t g o o d mi n< l sto fi nd out a num ber of d ri n g s a b o u t o p ti c s " (V II, 8 2 ) . In parti cul ar,i t prov ided Des c a rre s i th th e " o p p o rtu D i t! to uri te thi s treati se" $ ( v ll. f t 2, 159 ). According to the Optr..r, knorvlcdge naturcdcpcncls techof on nologt in t \ \' o \v J v s .F i rs r, te c h n o l o g r p ro vi desi D stt-uments. in t his c as et he n ra g n i fl i n gg l a s s , a t l e a d to thc di scoverv new th ol phen( ) m c n,(rV l l ,8 1 ,2 2 6 ). Sc c o n <a n d morc i mportant, thc i ml

"the occasion"fbr thr'orctical Pt rfections crftechnoio{v provide researchai med at r csolving "dif licult ies. " Science,t her ef or e, grows out of technology,not in thc scnsethat the true is a codibut, r,rthtr, in the sense lication ofthe useful,a rccorrl ofsuccess, sctbacksand failures lead to qucsthat technologicalobst.rclcs, encountered by human tions about the nature ol thc resistance t ar arr. Obstacl c s o pr ogr ess e sc( n t ( ) I >eindependent ht r m an ol fbr-trueknorvlcdgc.Scicncemav desirts,anclthis leadsto a search l rter cl ai m to im posc discipline on t echnologiesbor n r vit hout permi ssi onl rom any t heor ist . But \ r 'her cdo such t echnologies ori{inateTNot in the l.rculty of un<lerstandinq, although that faculft might cnable learned mcn to surpass "the ordinarv artisan" (V l l , 227), but , r at her ,in t he exigenr : ics / / c. Thus Descnr t es, of sho had l onl dr e. r m ed an inlallible nr edicalscjence,lelt an ol urgentnced l br it r vhenhis hair beg. r n o t ur n r vhit c ( 1, 43 5 ) and t sensed hc that deathmight deprivehirn ofthc "more than cenrur\'old hope" that justilied his concernrvith his bodv (1, 507). Befbre he coulcl u rite the Oprics, moreover.his failin11 cycs rvhich rvere easilvdeceivedhad intcrferr,'d rvith his abilitv to pcrceive uselul rhi n{s. S i nce"le cannotnr akeour selves neu body" ( VI I , 148) , a \1'eInust au{n1entour internal orq.rnsrvith cxternai orgnns(Vil, 148; and supp lcm entout nat ur alones wit h ar t if icial ones ( Vll, 165). 1'he impetus to creire new technologicsstcms fiom man's neecls, appetitesand wi)l 1lX, Principles Philovpfir., 3). In his of 12 theorv of tht' union of sor.rl and brxlv, l)escar-res rvascareful to cmP hasi ze ir r educibilit r of t he em ot ions,and in his t heor v of the crror he stressed primal importanceofthe u ill. 1'hese the emphascssuggest t he believcdt hat lif e. uhosc philosophvconsist s tha in the desireto live rvell, cannot be apprehendc<l lqnns ofpur. jn understandi n g alone, t har is, r vit hin a slst em ol pur elv int eJlectual j udgnr(nr s. Thus, t he convict ion t hat r echr , iogv cannot be reducedto scienceand constructioncannot bc rtrluccd to trnclcr-


bcl s t andin g ,to g e th c r \1 i th th e c o n v e rs e i efthat thc uhol e edi f ic c of s c i e n c cc a n n o t s i mp l t b e c o n vertedi nto acti on, comcs do$n t o a b c l i e l i n th e e x i s te n c eo f a uni quc " porvcr." l .i bcrtl and n il l a re n o t s u b j e c t to th e s a m el i mi tati ons as i ntcJl i gcncc, technot onlr,in thc human mind but alsoin God, For l)cscartcs, nologv $as alwaysto some degreen svnthetic and, as such, unlbrm of action, but I do not bclicvc that he viervedit analvzable as c()nsequentlv unimportant; rathcr, hc sarvit asa lirtm of crcat ion, t h o u g h a d mi ttc d l v a n i n fi ri o r o ne. is If the fbregoinganal,vsis correct, one (luestion remainsunno ansrvcrt:d: Why is thcrr.: theory ofcreation in Descartes's philos ophrl C )r, to p u t i t a n o th e r u ' a v ,r vhv i s therc no acstheti cs? ()l course,it is difllcult to dra* anv conclusion rvhatsocvcr liom an absence but there arc groundsfbr askinglr.hethcr l)(:scartcs nr ight n r)t h a rc l e l t a n o b s c u res e n s e hat admi rri ng the possi bi )t it r ol a g e n c ra l J e s th e ti c smi g h t h a vecontradi cted hi s general [o . t he< , , r\. r l )r' s c a rte sth e i n te l l i g i b il i tv ol real i tr deri l ed from Irrrrhi nr, movenrent, ong al m c c han i c s n < l a th c mn ti c a lp h v s i c s. a m s it h ex te n s i c rn n c ln u mb e r, u a s a l u ndarnental , nrui ti vc cona i c ept of n h i c h i r rrts s a l eto n c g l c c t a l l qual i tati vcanrl svnrheti c Anrl althoughhc sa\l.movement thc sourceol all nrateaspccts. as rial varietr', simultaneouslrprecludedhimself from nising tlre he ol issueofdiversiflcation,u'hich is one aspcctof thc pr-oblcm creation. As wc knorl from the Discoursc thc .Itethod, candidlv on he h a cli ts l i mi ts, but he mav not adm it t c d th a t g .o m c tri c a n a l v s i s havcrvishcdto ackno* lcrlgc,or admit to himsell, that the imposs ibilit v o f a " d e fi n i ti v e " n ro ra l i ty(s i n ceacti on normal ]vi nvol ves des ir ea n c lri s k ) a l s o i mp l i e d th e i m p ossi bi l i tvof a " del l ni ti ve" analvtic science(as he * ished lris ou n to bc). ["])escartes," Irar aur , pp . 7 9 -8 5 ]

The Theory of the Animal-Machine li"om is thcory of the anintal-m.rchine instTarablt' Ill2] t)escartes's his lamoustlicttrm, "l think, therefbrc I am." The radicaldistincbodv, t hought and cxt cnsion,im plics t lr e ri on bct \ acensot r lan<l its unitl ol matter, \'\'hatcvcr lbrm, anrl thought, uhatsubstantial cver i ts f unct ion. l Sincc judgm ent is t hc soul's onlv f unct ion, there is no reasonto bclieve in the cxistcnccof an "animal soul," since animals,berefi ol languagcand invention, shor, no sign ol of bci ng c apable judgm ent . a souls ( or t he f icult v of r ea The denial t hat anim alsposscss war m t h in son) doesnot im plv t hev ar c dcvoid ol lif e ( def inc<l. 1s ( insof ir as t he scnsor vf ict r lt ies depenr J rhe hca r t ) or sensibilit v ,rn the disposit ionof t he or gans) . 5 lcttcr I citecl abovc rtvcals one ol tht mor,ll underTht s.rnre lor Dcscar t s t lr r es t ol;ri nni ngs t he t heor v of t he anim al- m achine. r lt v, r luist hem in or der lr r ,rni nra ls. lr lt Ar ist ot lc r li<llbr slaves: e t{) i ustil\ using t hcnr , ls inst r um cnr s."l\ 1r opinion is t r o m or e t cruel to anim alst han it is ovcr lv piot r st ot r . r r cl lt n, f r cccllr om it t henr lr r th< sup < st icionscr l t he Pvt hagor eans, ec. r use alr sr t lves " r vhenever hcv cat r r r l. ill . r nit n. r ls.St r r pr ist of chc h inr of <r 'im c inglr',*e finclthc samcrrgument stood on its hcltl in .r lettcr ti<rnr Lei bni z t o Conr ing: if r vc m ust look upon anim alsls sonr t t hing morc th an m achines,t hen wc shoulclbecom e Pvt hagor e. r ns. r n, l gi l e up our dom inion over t he be. r st s. 6'l- his t it ude is r vpic. r l, r i at \\t ster n nr an. The t hcor ct ical m cchanizat ion lile is inst par ol abl c l i om t he t echnologicalut ilizat ion ol t he aninr al.N4an r n c. cl ai m p ossession and m ast er vover nat ur c onlr bv denling t hat ol naturehasanv pur posein it st : lf ,anclt hen onlv bv r cgar ding ol all naturc ot her t han him self - even t hat u hich appcar st o be animatc - asa meansto an (:n(1. S uc h an at t it ude just ilied t he const r uct ion ol a m echanical mo< l elof t hc living bodv, incluclingt he hunr anbodr ' - lir r Dcs-



ca rtes, thc hum an bodv , if not m an h i m s e l f , r v a s a m a c h i n e . Dcscartes fbund the mechanical model he rl'as looking fbr in au toma ta, or m ov ing m ac hines . T ln order to bring out the fLll significance of Descartes's theorv, Iet us turn now to the bcginning ofthe Ireotise on Man, a rvork first published in I.cydcn in 1652 in the fbrm ofa Latin co pv a nd only lat c r publis hed in t he o r i g i n a l F r e n c h , i n 1 6 5 4 . He rvrote therc: Thcsc men rvill be composed, as we are, o1 a soui and a body. First I must describethe bodv on its orvn, then the soul, againon its own; and linallv I must shorr how these two naturcs woulcl have to be joined and united in ordcr to constitute men who rcscmble us. I supposethe body to bc nothing but a statueor machine made ol earth, u'hich God lbrms rvith the explicit intention ofmaking it as much as possiblelikc us. Thus God not onlv gives it externally the colors and shapcs ofall the partsofour bodies,but also placcsinsirle it all the parts requiretl to make it walk, eat, breathe,cnabling it to imitatc all those lunctions rrhich seem to procced from matter and to clependsolely on the intcracting movementsofthe organs. We sec clocks,artificial fbuntains,mills and other such machines rvhich, although man-rna<le, seem to movc of their orvn accord in various rvars;but I anr supposing this machine to bc made by the handsofGod, and so I think vou may reasonablv rhink it capableof a greater variety ol movcments than I couid possibly imagine in it, and of exhibiting more artistrv than I could possiblyascribeto it.8 Re ad ing t his t c x t as naiv elv as I pos s i b l y c a n , I c o m e t o t h e conclusion that thc theorv of the animal-machinc makes sense only by virtuc of trvo hypotheses that oftcn receive less emphasis than they are clue. The first is that God the fabricator exists, and the second is that the existence ofliving things must precede the

construction of the animal-machinethat models their behavior. one In other rvords,in order to undcrstandthe animal-machine, in t he logicalas\ 4ellast he chr onomust th ink of it aspr cceded, logical scnse,by God, as efficient cause,and bv a preexistingliving thing, as formal and flnal cause.In short, I propose to read rvhich is gcneralll interPrctcd the theorr of thc animal-machine, as asinvolving a brcak u,ith the Aristotelian conccPt trl causalitY, one in \\'hich all the types ofcausality that Aristotle invokescan but not simultaneoushand not rvhcreAristotle u'ould be foun<|, haveplacedt hem . -fhc text cxplicitly statesthat thc construction ol the living machinc is to mimic that of a preexistingorganism.The mechana ical modcl assumes livc original. Hence, Dcscartesin this text mav be closert o Ar ist ot le t han t o Plat o.The Plat onicdcm iur ge copies Ideas.The Idea is a modcl of rvhich the nattrralobject is trics to equal the livGod, ArtiJexmatimus, a copt.'l'he Cartesian ing thing itself.The living machineis modcled on the living thing. of Thi nk of appr oxim at inga cir cle by m eansof a ser ies inscr ibed one: in with one morc vcrtex than the prccc<ling polvgons,each order to conccive of the passage fiom polygon to circle, onc has to imagine extending this seriesto inflnitv. Mcchanical artiflce is inscribed in life in thc same\\'ay: in order to imagine the passagefiom one to the other, onc has to imagine an cxtrapolation to infiniti-, that is, to God. This is rr,hatDcscartes appears mean to bv the final remarksof the above quotation. Hence, the theorv of the animal-machineis to life asa sct of postulatcsis to geometrv, that is, a mere rational reconstructionthat onl,vpretendsto ignore thc existenceof lvhat it is supposedto representand the prioritv of production over rational justification. This featureof Descartes's moretheorv was clearlvperceived, over,b\ a contemporarv anatomist, thc celebratcdNicolausSteno, 'who dclivere<f a Dissettationon the Anatom.yoJ the Brain in Paris

2 2tt

z= t= i ; n it . .++zi= i1 at=:i i =':i =i 1= ' =: =i;i-i;tii,:i, ; i i 2 = i - t ::1 2 : : : ; i ; ia 7
2 ; =,
+ ii : i = : , 7 r=u= ==_:72: a 2 1 1r', ii i-:= i j i 2 ,;,: i : ; = ,i, zi i : == ii i i? 1 =i ii i == 7 ='z = it E; t 5t ; =i : "i t=;:i tif ii : ; :

e';:i : =1 :'.i:i= = tii : :1 +; i . =, =?:ii i :it1 i E? , : Z= : t 1': 7;.';1!':a * 1=:,ii1 ::=l :: : v : 1 i lr= -+i ! , : = i= z' i

= ii ; z i z z :t+ i1:z 1; ='i!i ? = := :=;i i i = = i

i i t E: e: E |. .,:

+i :a,- i a =,1; =iiii= ;t ;:-=,i =, rz=:ti :: i ;=,1z ,at1z =a==:,i 2 ,i ; z

==ii=rZ :



i== t =i


ii?ffiZii; i:i ci;'iis itii i: i ii?
, liirt

;!'+Z :i ::y1:7i:iiliiz; i ;!=,i=ii

=:i7+!zit+:i: ii2 ?i ,:!=1,1;!ii:zi:ii1!i

=Ei,EE: i;i

: *ii i?'iii rTt r' 2+i+Ai; =Z:= I i ?!:,s ;

It is undeniablvtrue that certain biological mechanisms serve certain purposes. take an example rhat mechanisticbio)ogists To often cite, corrsicler broarleningof thc fi,male pelvis prior to the birth. Given that the fetus is l-1.5 centimeters largerthan the pellic opening,birth would be impossible relaxationof the pubic il'a symphvses a po51s .. m,rvementofthc sacrococc;gian anrJ bone clid not increase thc diameter of thc apertur.e. 6ivcn a phenomenon r v bos eh i o l o q i c a l p u rp o s ei s s o c l e ar, one can Jr:gi ti matel y refuseto believc that the mechanismthat makcs it possible(and that is essential it to occur) hasno biologicalpurpose. mechfor A anism is a nccessarl sequcnce of operations, and to verifi, the prescnceofa mechanism,one must detcrmine u,hat ellcct those opcrationsproducc. In other words, one must find out what the intended purposeof the mechanismis. The shapcand structure of a machine tell us about its use only if we alreadv knou, how ntachint's similar shapcand structureilrc used.Hence, we must ol find out horv a machinc rvorks in ordt,r to deduce its function liom its strucrure. lConnaissance, llsl pThe Distinctiveness of the Animo!-Machine began bv attempting to forrnulateu,hat he him[84] Descartes s ell c alled a " th c o rl o l n re d i c i n e ," I th a t i s, a purel y \pccul ati ve anat om ic . aa n d p h v s i o l o g i c a ls c i c n c e a s ri gorous and exact as l mathem.rtical physics and.justasreccptiveto conversioi into practical rpplicarions,or therapies.Bur rvhat rvasto be deducedliom the phvsicsof the humarrbodv, namely,a determination of,.vital utility," lvasin fhct present from the beginning in the subjcct's principfes.ll:ormationdu riflete, p. 531 , [ 85] A c c o rd i n g ro D e s c a rte s th c d i stri buti on of rhe spi ri ts upon leaving the brain depen<is severallactors. First are thc on ctlects ofobjects that stimulate the senses, excitations,which or Descartes compares thc fingersof an organisttouching the keys to

ol the i n st r um cnr . r l Secondis t he posit ion of t he pineal glan<l i n tcl ,rtion t o t he br ain, t ogct her r i. ir h r h( st ar eof t hc glan( l's dcvotcda greatdcal of tjme to thc rlfects ourcr surfaceiDescartes of thc rvill, m cm or v, im aginat ion and cont m on senseon t hcse vari .rbl c 5. r The inst inct s ar c t he r hir d and last lict or allcct a ing the animal spirits. To understanriu.hat Descartcsmeant bv i n.ti rt, t., r cr all hir r jist intt i, - r n r r eenr xr t r nt l m ovem ( n( \ an( l bct j nternal nr ovem cnt s, passions- IEr t er nal m ovcm ent scan be or t lirrther brokcn dorvn: rbey arc either expressivc (laughingor crv, i ng, for cxanr ple) ,and t hus pur elv cir cunr st ant ial, adalt t ive, or that i s, " u sef ir lf or pur st r inp icsir able hinqsor , r r oiding har nr f l) r t on(.s,"1r, which is to lbllou"'thc iD.rrrn.f.r our nature."tr Thus, of krl l )estar t es, hc phvsiological cchilnismt hat dct cr m ir ecl t he t m di srri burion aninr alspir it scm an, r t in{f iom t he br ajn dt pcnded ol on rl hat can only be callcd a biologicalt clcologr ( t he pur suit of desi rabl tt hingsan<l lr e avoidancc har m lul ones) .This r r asnot t of a l a;rse. t hcr . sim ilar exam plcscan l>elbr ind clser vher e t hc O in Tteetise on,{|on. ln the P m.tecogitdtiones circallcncrctionem onirnalium, I)escartes invokes the connodo and incomrll,o<!o nltLtrdc ascauscs f var iousaninlalm ovcm ent s, he m cchanisnt t vhjch o t of i s crpl ai n cd in t cr m s of anim alspir it s. r rM ar t ial G ucr oult , m or eort r, has poir r t edout t he r em ar kabJc signilicanceol t h<,. lir r h l,lcditotion. To sum up. l)cscarres distinguishcd thrce rvpesof fictors influencing thc flou of aninralrpirits: erterDnlan<lcontingent lictors lscttsoryexcirations),acquirtrl and individual factors (menrorv) and naturalanclspecil) c lict or s ( inst inct s) .ln t his he shor r eda remarkablealer t ness o t he biological phenom enon, r f int er act tion betlvccn organism and environm(,nt. lf:ormotion<lurdflcrc,

l P P . r-l2 l

[86] A vit alist pr inciple of sor t s r hus r em air cd par t of t he explanation of movcmcnrs thar, according to thc original proj1l )

cct, lvere to bc cxplained exclusivelvin tcrrns of material la,,vs. Gucroult is correct, then, rvhenhe says that l)escartcs beganlvith a conceptioDof medicinc as purc phvsics rvhich he later rejected, and, firrthcr, that "one ol his chief rcasons confessing lbr the hilur t ' ol his n e d i c a l p ro j e c t rv a sh i s g rrt rr ng convi cti on that mei c h,rnicalconcepts rlonr: r,r'ould ncvcr suffice to cre.rter mcdical s c ic nc cbe c a u s e h eh u m a ni ro < l v s n rrt p urr c\ten!i on but i n part c i . r ps r c hop h v s i c as u b s ta n c c ." r' )o l l rx v i ngC ueroul t, perhaps, l F but r m or c hol< l l r'I, u o u l d a s k .rv h e th eth e J ttcnrpt to rcducc ani mal biologr tt.rmechanicsdid not revealthe resistance vital pheof nomena to lirll cxprcssionin mechanicaltt'rms. I carlier alluded to thc passagcin the Prrntaeco{lit.rtiones \\ hich comrnodaand in incommodo rdtllr.rc\rere secn to influence the movementsoforganic par ts a n d e v e n e n ti re o rg a n i s m s .ro Truc. D escartes, ho * pr ided hi n rs e l l o n t' x p l a i n i n g * h a t rre rroul tl crl l rhc narural o nppet ir es r i n c l i n a ti o n so f a n i m a l s" s ol el r i n tt-rnrs thc rul es of of m ec han i c s p o i n fe d o u r th a t " brutt' s haveno knou,l " ;,rn ,," l l edgeof rl hacis a<lvant.rgeous harmful" - nrcaningthat they are or nor consc ilrLrs such thingsor ablc to .rrticultrte o1 such knou.lcdge, so thit !r hat r,tcobserveis sintpl\ an associ.rtion betrveencertain rnovements ccrtaincventsthnt enablcanimdlsto grolr'.21 and Here, horvever, rouch on vvhatis probablv the limit of mechanistic r,r'c ex planat i o n ,fb r. th e th re e a s p c c tso f a ni mrl l i l e and dcvcl opment - consenation,individuationand rcproductionl) - point to a distinctire dif'ference bctrvccnanimal-machint's mcchanical and onts. To be surc, l)cscartes continuallv insistcdon the identit,vof t he t \ \ o t v p (' so f ma c h i n e :" Si n c c a rt c o pi cs nature. and peop)e c an nr ak e v a ri o u sa u trrma to n s i c h m ol e rri thout thrrught, i t rth seenrs r<asonable that nature shou]<l cvcn pr-crduce own automirs atons,rlhich arc much more splendidth.rn,tttilici.rl ,rncs- namelr,, the animal5."ll Another passage expresses sameirlca:"lt is no the lessnatural 16ra clock constnrctcdrvith this or that set of rvhcels

to tell the time than it is firr a trcc rvhich grerv from this or that But mav \\'e not reverse sccd to procluccthe ipProPriatc lrrrit-"15 is t and savt hat \ \ 'hat ever n. r t t t r , r l.hat is, the ord cr of t his r elat it >n in i nech.r nic. r l, t hc anim al or ganismis also ar t ilici, ll, given t hat itrtontittonsconstnlcted,asit lrerc, br (lod? anim.rl-machincs,'tre r\nd i n const r uct ing t hcse m achines,cliclCiod not lllor iclc f ir r llr indilir iLr at iorr nt lr epr r xlr t ct ion t nct hlnical , th(i r conscr \ ', r t ion, cnds incor ln mcans? ot her \ vof ds,\ vct c not ccr t ain t elcological Sincethoseencls parts? of poratedinto the assemblage nlechanical our undcrstanding,holr'cvcr,cannot ancl:houlcl not the surpass in of sci cnc r . ' living t hings leavet hem out ol it s acc<lt t nt l'Tht t s, banlbr l posi ti n gm echanic. rcquivalcnt s living t hings, Descar t es liorn the rcalm ol human lino* ledgc onl\' to rcintcleologv ishc<l r statei t in t hc ( im m t r lir t elv f ir r got t cn) ealmo1divinr 'lno'vlcdge. rnorcovcr,a p.rorlv madc clock obcls thc samel,l\!s ()1nlc11, chani csas r r lcll- m at le one, so t hat t he onlr r val t o dist inguish bcnvecn t ht t \ \ 'o is t o in\ lr le "t hc m aker 'sr lcsir e"r nt l "t ht 't t se t h. his ir l br rvhich t lr . 'nr . r ker lt endc( l"lq cr t . r t ionr ,it loll<r r vs r t , r nr nrblagcol partscttrbodling i P(trll()se. uorking m.rchincis .rn asst t is W hat d cf inest he t n, r chine not t hc laus of m r 'ch. r nicshat <lic tatc ho r l it wor ls but t he pur Posef ir r r r hich it u'r s bLr ilt .I f an ani mal t hat livt 'sin t his *or ld is alsoa nr achinc,it nlust [ r t 't hc embod im ent ol sonr cpur pose.Thc t act t hr t t hc pur poseclucles does not both tl r e anim al'sn\ r ar eness hum an unclcr st ancling and al ter rhis st at c ol all. r ilsin anv lindam ent . r l \ \ 'a\ , lr ) r r ) t her \ \ 'ise l thcre v voulr l>cno dilli'r cnct 'bct uccr - r he living aninr . r anr l t he t l <lcacl rircnrium antl tJactclio ortuorunl. animaf, bcrrlrt'n orrrctfur olganC uerc,ulr ,I t hinL. r r . r s cle. r r lr. r lat e t h. lr il. ir ) ct . , nsit lcling i sms,rv eabsr r ltt t r om all t elcological r consir ltr . r t ions, r r ganisnr s (ci sc to b( int livisibleent it icsr "lf \ \ 'c r cm ole onc hoof lr om a horse, doesit bccom c l, . r ss'hor selikc't h. r n 'r lt ot ser l"l'ot ht Anr l il, i n the spt cial caseof nr an.t her c is no r r ir v t o avoi<l cc( ) ur se ( ) t r r lt

purpose,namely,that the lau'sofmechanism "God's transcendent alone should sufficc to engenderand preservemachines whose parts are arrangedso as to firlfill the requisite conditions for a union of bodv and soul, that is, a relation of meansto end"18that if rve assume does this not implv, then, asGueroult suggests, rhat machineslack this "same organizationand interdependence diviof partsand whole,"zewe must acceptan "incomprehcnsible sion" betu.eenmen and animals?Indeed, without such interdepcndence,u hich allorvsa mechanicalrelation ofstructure to be into a teleologicalrelation of fitnessfor purpose,the transformed indivisible functional unitl' of thc organismbecomesinconceivable. Thc inc om prehensibledivision is tolerable only when preman in relation sente(lasan "unf;thomable mystery"that situates to Godrs\i,isdom.lo In short, onlv a metaphvsician could have set fbrth the princi p l e sof a m ec hanis ti c i o l o g v rv i th o u t fa l l i n g a t once i nto conb tradiction (contradictionthat must in any caseemergein the end). Fervhistorians biologv havenoticcd this, and eren fewerhistoriol cally minded biologists. It is more regrettablc that philosophers havemaric the samemistake. lFormation rdflere,pp. 54-56] du

C g ,q l r r n




The Montpellier School [87] Afier being banishcdto Nlontpellier fbr his role in the closat AugusteComte took courscs the ing ofthe EcolePolvtechnique, Barthezhad taught until of Facr,rlt,v Medicine, u'here Paul-joseph his death ten years prior to Comte'sarrival.Thc man r" ho actually introducedthe fathcro1positivismto biology uas Henry DucrotaY at de Blainville,a former professor the Musdumand the Sorbonne. Com t c at I l avi ng mct hi m at Claude Hcnr i de Saint - Sim on's, tended Blainville'scoursc in generaland comparativephvsiology encvclopcdicknor"lfiom 1829to 1832.He admiredhis teacher's edge and svstematic mind. The Cours de philosophicpositive \\'as in fact dedicatedto Blainville and Charlcs Fourier, and its fbrtieth l esson s fi rl l of pr aisc f br Com t e'ser st r vhilet eacher[ . . . ] . i In portravingthe erasthat prececled adventof the positivt: the spirit in philosophv,Comte Iikecl to sketch thc historv of biologv in broad strokes,dralr,ingon a keen awarcness the intcrol relatedness biological discovcrics of that hc took from Blainville's lecturcs. A striking example can be found in the fifty-sixth lesson of the Cours, rvhich concernsthe naturalists oIthe eighteenth century.l lC omt e excelledat giving sum m ar vdcscr ipt ions t he of contributions ofvarious scicntistsand at rveighingtheir relative



of im por t ance .An ro n g th o s c n h o m h e s i n gl edout as prccursors positivism rlcrc Hippocrates,Barthez,Bich.rt,Johann Friedrich N'lcckel,Lamarck and, of course, Claude Bernard. Ihc range of the citations provcsthat Comte uas genuinclv learncdin the subliom ject, rvhencethc cascvvith rvhich he attaincd.rloftl rtrntage of rvhich he uas able to concciv(: the history ofsciencc a\ a crfticd.l the is, a historv not onlv oricntcd torvarcl presentbut historv,that juclgedagainstthc norms ol'the present.Thtrs, in the fortv-third lcssonComte's account of the controversvbetrveenmechanists . r nd v it alis ts u a s p l a n n e d to rc v c a l th e "obvi ousl v progressi ve vitalists,especialllBarthezand Bichat, intent" ol'the N'lontpellicr rr.hosc uork llas so unjustlv clecriedat the timc in Paris.Ifrudes,

"r'ital th.rt Barthez's meintainecl stateof PhvsiologY"' metaphvsical st pri nci plc" point cd t o "a n. r ct aphlsical at eof Ph) siolog\ lar t hcr remoreclfiom the thcological state tlran the lbrmulation uscd bv and Unlike so manl ol his ou n contcmporarir:s scr Stahlassume<|." Comte rcfuscd to bc misleclbv a mere change manl ol Barthcz's, had m er clv subHc did not believet hat Bar t hez of tcrminologv. sritutcd a ne\\' namc fbr l hat Stahl had called "thc soul." On this a point, hc nracle prolbund anclPerrincnt remark: "For so chimerincliical an ortlcr of idcas,such a chanqc in terminologv alrvavs cntcsan aut hent icm odif icat ion ol dr e cent r al idea. " Lordat, points historian,his fiienclJacqut:s invaluable Barthez's Albr echt von Hallclr vas pr im ar ilv r csponsiblef ir r t he out that mi si ntc r pr et at ion t hat Com t c avoided. I t r las von I laller r vho librart'that Barthez in \\'r-otc the secondrolunrc ol'his.4ncrtonrico/ that rvhathe callcd the "r'ital PrinciPlt" r.asthc ultim.rtc bclieve<l sourc,' o f t hc lil'e f br ct : . JrBut in t hanking Bar t hczlbl sendinga r to aclclr ess t he Nlont pcllier . Facult ot copr ol f r is 1772 inaugur al i \l cdi ci ne, "Dc I 'r incipio vit ali hom inis, " von Haller indicat cd that he himsclf rvasnot so bold.rs to "accePt,lprinciplc ol a novcl and unk nol'n nat ur e. " r N ote , m or eoler ! t hat r vhilc Bar t lr ez'slor k uas ccr t ainlt one it sourceol Comte'sphilosophr', is rt le.rstplausiblcthat Barthez's F.\positi r:lcla tloctrinc mdtlicrlc, u h ich Lord.rt publishcd in 1ll l 8, on inlluenccrl Comte's judgmcnt of that rvork. lacqucsl-orclatuas a profcssor anatomvand phvsiologv Nlontpcllicr r''lren Comte' at ol 'rvhonas banishcdto Nlontpellier.in1816, attendtrl courscstherc. "vital principle" Whcn Comte characterized Barthcz's cxpression as a mt: r c "f br m ula, " hc r Tas r r allvusing t he sam et er m t hat act l -orcl at ad used in cr it icizing von lllllcr 's l. r ilur c t o undcr st and h that thc phr aseim plieclno belicf in r spccialsubst ancc ent it r or rlistinct f}om bodv and soul. Comte encountcrcdthe teachings ol' tht N ' l o nt pellier in Scl. xr ol i\ lont pcllier it sell, anclt hat , couplcd
I l9

pp.62- 631
Comte [88] In a note in the nventv-cighthlcssonof the Cburr, haileclthe illustrious Barthezas "a f)r more influential philosopher" than Condillac, and in his prefice to the Nourcouri/dmcnrs clela scicnce I'hommche praiscdit as a tcxt "ol eminent philotle sophical pouer" .rnd an "cxccllcnt logical theorv," lir superior the to thc "mctaphvsicirn"Condillac'sTraiti dcss_t;stimes.ln fbrty"the essenthircl lesson,Barthezis praiscdfbr havingcstablished t ial c har ac te ri s ti c o l ' s o u n tl p h i l o s o p h i calnrcthod, aftcr havi ng s th s o t r ium pha n tl r d e n ro n s tra te d e i n a n i tl ofanv attcmpt to di sa c ov c r t hc p ri m o rd i a l c a u s e s n d i n ti ma te nature of phcnomena o1anv orrler,as rrell as havingrcduccd all truc scicnccto the discoven of the actual lau.sgovcrning plrenclmenr."There can be no cloubt rlrat it \\'asfrom a nrcdical treatise published in 1778 t hat Com t c to o k th c fl n d a rn e n ta lte n e tsof hi s posi ti vcphi l osoLaplacc's phr',rlhich hc bclicvcclrvereconllnned by Picrrc-Simon 1796 E\positiondu slstdmedu mondeancl Fouricr's l8)2 Thiorie onalvtique de la chaleur. Gcorg It should norv bc clcar rvhv Comte, * ho characterized t:rnst Stahl'sdoctrinc .rs"thc most scientific firrmulation of the
2 J6

rl irh his outspokcn animosiry toward certain lcadinq ligures of t he P ar i sSc h o o l ,n ra v h a ' c h a d s o me thi ngto do rvi th the admi r at ion t h a t e n a b l e dh i m to fo rm a c l e a r pi cturc of Montpel l i er' s rfoctrine. lEtudes, pp. 7 5-71) [89] Comte rvasable to pcrceivethe clirect,authentic insight into biological realitics that lay hidden bchind the abstractconc ept of t h e v i ta l p ri n c i p l e . F ro m B a r thezas r" el l as B i chat, he Ieatncdof the intimate relationsamong the conceptsoforganization, lile and conscnsus. This debt to Barthez may explainComte's tcndencr to prescnthim asthe sole rcpresent.rtive thc Montpelof licr School. He overlooked,or pretendcdto overlook, Thcophile de B or d c u .T h e i d e a th a t th c l i fe o fa n organi smi s.r synthesi s o[ elementarr lives, an idea that delighted l)iderot in D'Alembert's t)rearn,rvould no doubt havesccmed as unsatisfictory to Comtc asdid the theorv of organicmolecules- and he rvould lraveraised againstit the same objections that he lcveled, in the fortv-first lc s s onof th e C o u rs , r th r l i rs t l i rrmul ati onscrfccl l theorv. l f a B ic hat d i s s u a d c d o m te l i o m l b l l o rv ing Lorenz Oken, B arthez C overshadorved Bor<leuin his mind. fhc concept ol complex de living things composedof organic moleculesor animalculessuggt:steda misleadinganalogvbctrvcenchemistry and biologv. t-ife is necessarily propcrtv of the whole organism:"'fhe clementary a anim alc u l c srv o u l c lo b v i o u s l v b e e v e n more i ncomprehensi bl c t han t he c o mp o s i tea n i m a l . e v e na p a r t fi om the i nsol ubl t' di ffi c ulr v t h.rt o n e r' to u l dth e re b l g ra tu i tc r uslcreate< oncerni ngthe t el'Gctivemode of so nronstrous association," an \'ery much in the spirit of Barthez,Comte held that "evcry organismis by its very nit ur e an i n d i v i s i b l e rv h o l e , n ' h i c h w e di vi de i nto component par t s by m e re i n te l l e c tu a l a rti fi c c o n ly i n order to l earn more ahout it and al*avs rvith the intention of subscquentlvreconstitLrtinqthe v'holc." The statementrevcals manv taboosasit docs as scruples. IEtudcs, pp. 78-79]
2+ O

Biologicol PhilosoPhY of t he t er m "bio) r 'gr " r t ilect ed a gr ou ing [90] The invent ion that their anrl phvsiologists on a\l,arcness the Part of phvsicians difli'rcnt from that ofthc phrssubject matt('r was fundamcntallv ofthe an The coining ofthe \4ord suggests assertion ical sciences. autonomv,ifnot ofits indepcndenceComte'sbiologidiscipline's justilic'rtion firr that assertion: cal philosophyProvidedsystematic of i t connote d f ull accept ancc , as uell as a need t o consolidat e, I " the greatscient ilic r evolut ionr vhich,under Bichat 's eader ship, overall prioritv in natural philosophv{rom astronomv transfcrred to bi ol ogr. "lr Com t e was not ent ir elv \ { r ong t o see t he disaPof pointments he had suflered in his careeras consequcnces the up cudgelson behalfol had t aken fact that he, a m at hcm at ician, biologicalschool in the struggleto nraintain,"againstthc irrathe of tional ascendancv thc mathematicalschool, the indcpendencc and di gni t v of or ganicst udies. "ll his C omt('s conccpt ionof t he m ilieu iusr iliecl belief t hat biolsciencc And his conception ol the ogv coulcl Dot be a seParatc just ilied his bclicf t hat biologr m ust be an aut onom ous organi sm sci cnce.The or iginalit v and f br ce of his posit ion lies in t he cor 'dialccticalrclation - bctrveenthcse relation- or, somewould sav, t\ro conccPts. Comte took the Aristotelianterm "nrilieu" fiom Lamarck via and B l ai nvi l l e .Alt hoLr ghit nas in com m on use in sevcnt eent hei ghteent h- cent ur .rv echanicsant l t hi phr sics o1 {'luids'it 'r as r transldrned Comte rrho. b! reverring the nord's primarvscnse, to prove ustit into a conrprthensive, syntheticconct'Pl that rT'ould in lil to later biologists and philosophers When he suggested, the fbrtv-third lessonof his Coursin 1817,that the first duty of biologv is to providea generaltheorv oI rnilieus,Comte, u ho mav ( 1824) or [ t ienne not haveknown t he u. or k of William E<lr r '. r r t ls Geofl i < x Sainr - llilair c ( 1831) in t his ar e. r ,t hot r ght he r "'aspr <, r 141

fbr superioritv ovcr Bichat. Bichat'sclistaste cl.riming Lam.rrck's had the mcthods of the eightccnth-ccntu rv iatromathematicians led hinr to insist not onlv that thc distinction betrveenliving and incrt \\'as legitimatc but also that the living and the inert rverc flndamentalll antagonistic.Against this, Comte argueclthat "if' all t hat s u rro u n d sl i v i n g b o d i e s rc a l l ,vtcndcd to destroy them, rv uni t hc ir c x is te n c e o u l db e l i rn c l a me n ta l lv ntel l i gi bl e." r; of holvComte's successive .judgments Lamarck are revealing, ever,ol' the deeper meaningof his biological viel s. l. . . ] Bevond the first conscquenccof the Lamarckiantheorv of the milicu n.rmelv, variabilitvofspeciesand the gradualinccption ofnerv the v ar iet ies- C o m te p e rc e i v e ca p o s s i b l vmoni st, and ul ti matel v l mechanist,tenclencv. the organismis conceivecl Il ofas being pass iv c lv s ha p c db l th c p rc s s u rco f th c c nvi ronmcnt, i f thc l i yi ng t hing is < l e n i c da l l i n tri n s i c s p o n ta n c i t) ,thcn therc i s no rcason not to hope that the organicmight somedav explainedin tems be of thc incrt. But hcrc thc spirit of Bichatrosc up in Comte against thc thrcat of "cosmological usurpation,"16 against thc shouldering asideof Larmarck'sinsightsin lavor ol'an uncompromisingmathcmatical approach. Similarlv,Comtc held, like Bichat and follorving his lead, that t hc t is s ue u a s th e l o rv e s tp o s s i b l el e v e l ol anatomi calanal vsi s; he therefbre denieclthat the cell, rvhich he calleclthe "organic monad," could bc thc basiccomponcnt ofall complex organisms. I t \ 1asnot s i m p l v th a t h c u a s s u s p i c i ous mi croscopv,u.hose of t ec hni< 1u e se rc s ti l l rc l a ti v c l vp ri mi ti v r ' ;C omte' sopposi ti onto w cell theorl *.as primarilv logical. For him, an organism rvasan indivis;ble structure ofinrlilr.lua./parts. Actual living things rvcre not " indiv i d u a l s " i n a n v s i mp l e s e n s e .N ei ther hi s superfi ci al knorvlcdgcof Gcrman naturc philosophv,especiallv that ol Oken, nor his reariingof Henri Dutrochct (at around the time lle was prt'paringthc Cours), nor cvcn his readingol Thcodor Schrvann,

enablcdhim t o see,in t he car licstf br m ulato * hom h e . r lludes, ti ons ofccll t heor v,t hc lir st glim m er ingsof a t heor l of "cJcgr ccs ol ' i ndi vi d ualit v. For Com t e, t hc vcr v concePtof t hc ccll ir nplied " analogvbctrvccn organic bodiesanclinorganiccoma nrislcading 17 pp. 6 3-65] composedof indivisiblc molecules. lEtudes, pouncls [91] Clear lv,t he icleaundcr lvingall ol Com t e's posit ionsor t dualit v of lif c and m at t er . I n biologibi ol ogv rvast he neccssar v l t cal phi l osophv, he eight ccnt hcent ur v bequcat hc( t \ \ 'o t em Pt ato the ninet ccnt h: m at er ialismant l lr vlozoism ,t hat is, t hc ti ons (loctrine that rnatter is animate(lor that mattcr an(l lile are inscpbat arabl c.C om t e, likc l) cscar t es, t lcd on t r vo lr ont s, and his t actics \vcre, if nothing else,Cartcsian.I'he matterrlifc dualism uas clualismot' mctaPhv:iical the positivistecluilalentof thc Cartesian o1' t an<l hought . For Com t e, dualismu'asa pr er equisit e extcnsi on r pr ogr css, vhich t o him m c. r nt not hing ot hcr t han t he rrni vcrsal of subjugationand control ol'inert mattcr bv the universe the livt i ng un< l e r he guidanceof hum ankind."Wc ar e,at bot t om , t : r 'en I ol l csscapab lc conceivingof all bodies. r s iving, " r vr ot eCom t c, oi th.rn incr t .bccause m cr cn( ) t ion lilc ir nplits t hc cxist cncr as t he can livingbeings c\ isr ol thi n gs endo*cclr it h it . . . . Lllt inr at clr , nor r and onlv irr inerrmilicus,\l hich prori<Je rbcnr\\ ith both .rsubstr;rtc r :r di rcct or indir ectsour cc nour jshm ent . . .I.t evcr r t hing r cr c ol t al i ve,no nr t ur al lau sould bc possiblc, t he var i; r bilin h. r tis ibr rlNa\sinherent vital sp()ntrDcit\ rcallvlinritedonlr bv the prcin is l8 ponrl c r ancc t he iner tnr ilieu. of [:r' eni n bcingsr vher t 't ht onll m anif i'st at ion lif c is vcget at ivc, ol one [i nds a "r aclic. rcont r astbet \ \ 'eenliie'and deat h. " Bet ueen l pl antsanc lanim alst hcr c is sim plv . r "r eal dist inct ion, " *her eas betrvcenplant s anclincr t subst anccshcr c is a "r a<licalsepar at ti on." The t r adit ional clivisionol nnt ur c int o t hr ec kingdom s

( anim al, mi n c ra l , r' e g e ta b l e ) l l o u ,e done to i magi ne a gradual a transition fiom one speciesto another along a chain of being; Comte therefbre proposedreplacingthat tripartite schemewith a ncw one consistingof tu,o "empires" (living and inert). He was convinced that "vital sciencecannot exist u ithout this irreducible dua l i s m." re In essence, Comte sau',betu'een Lamarck and Descartes,a parallcl that no onc rvould think of disputing today. Perhaps more u,ith respectto the future than accuratein his perperspicacious ception ol the present,Comte anticipated the conse<luences of the idea that animalscan be conditioned bv their environmcntsthat is, he fbresarv possibilitvoIbchaviorism.Thc assumption thc of a dircct muscular reaction to external impressionsis incompat ible, C o mte a rg u e d , v ' ,i th th e i d e a of" ani mal spontanei ty, which at the verv leastimplies that inner motives are decisive."a0 This rvould lead to a "rcstorationofCartesianautomatism,which, though incompatible rvith the ficts, continues in one fbrm or another to mar our leadingzoologicaltheories."al Norv rve can sce rvhv Comte ascribedsuch importance to the theories of Franz foseph Gall, u'ho argucd that the fundamental inclinations and drivesof human and animal behaviorarc innate. His cranioscopicmethod, so easv- all too easy- to celebrateor ridicule, actuallv stemmed fiom his principled hostilitv to sensualism.If it could be shorvnthat certain areasofthc brain were bv their verv nature asrociatcd \a'ith certain psychic faculties, then one must ascribeprimordial existenceto those faculties.Hence, nothing could havebeen more alien to Call's (or Comte's) thinking than thc l.amarckian idca that thc biological functions are independent the organs of that embody them (and may eveninfluence the developmentof those organs).True, Gall did map cerebral topographvby studving the mental functions of his patients, but in doing so his intention lvas to rcfutc, not to corroborate,

doct r inc. G all pr ovided Com t e u it h an ar gum entin l -amarck 's favor of innat e apt it udes and, m or e gener alll, of innat c f t r ncinto a guaranteeof tions - an argument that Comte elaboratecl continued progressthrough developmentof a preexistingorder. critical inComtc claimed to have achievedcomprehensive, si ght i nto t he biologv of his t im e. lf I havecor r ect lv ident if ied it the grounds of his self-confldence, should novvbe possibleto in fashion.First, statehis most important conclusions a svstematic Cuvier,had eliminated Comte believedthat he, follorvingGeorges ti:leologv from biologv: thc "conditions of existcnce" replaced and the onlv relation assumed exist to thc dogma of final causes, bctu ecn an organismand its environment, or betlveenan organ and i ts fi r nct ions,r vasone of com pat ibilit y or f it ness,im plying norhingmore than viability."Within certain limits," Comtc statcs arranged such a way that in in the Cours, "everythingis necessarily is harmonvbetu'eenfLnction and organ existencc possible."lr'I'he "does not go bevond what actuallilb requires."al Since,moreover, organisms depend on their environmcnts, living things arc subjr.:ctto cosmic influcnces.Biologv is thcrefbre relatcd to cosmologv; lrence, the principle that nature's lalvs are invariable,first formulateclin astronomyand eventuallyextendeclto chemistry, could norv bc cxtcndcd to biologv, thcrcbv invalidating the beliel' that variability and instabilitv arc essentialto organic proccsscs. Finallv,generalizinga principle borrouecl from FranqoisJoseph V i ctor B r oussais, Com t e held t hat all pat hologicalphcnom cna could be explainedbv the laus of phvsiologv. Thus, he argucdthat the dillerence betu.ecnhealth and disease was a matter of degree rathcr than of kind - hcncc mcdicine should bascits actions on the analvticlarvsof anatomophvsiologv. Yet, as even thc Coursmade clear, the verv organic structure of l i vi ng t hings consr it ut ed an obst acle t o f ur t her pr ogr essin Positive,experimental phvsiologv.An organism,Comte argued,

o is a c ons e n s u lfo rg a n s a n d l u n c ti o n s . The harmonv th.rt eri sts am ong t h e l i n c ti o n s o l th e o rg a n i s mi s " i nti mart' i n a verv cl i flerent scnsefrom tht'hartnonv that existsbcnvccn the crrganism and t he m i l i c u ." l l An o rg a n i s m , C o m te mai nt.l i ned, i s a uni f lc d who l e ; to d i s s c c ti t, to d i v i d e i r i n to componcnt parts,rvas " m er e in te l l c c tu a l a rti fi c e ." + 5 h e b i ol ogi st, then, must rvork T llom t he g e n e ra lto th e s p e c i fi c , fi o m the uhol e to the parts: "Ilou can anvoneconceireofthe rvholc in terms ol its partsonce c ooper a ti o na tta i n sth c p o i n t o f s tri c t i ndi vi si bi l i trl " ' 16 etueen B I r nm anu e l Ka n t.rn c l C l a u d < Be rn a rd ,C omte onct.agai n made linalit y , i n th e g u i s eo f to ta l i t), a n e s senti al ement ol the defi el nit ion of a n o rg a n i s m. This u'asnot the onlv place rvhere the positivist method violateclthe principle of rvorking fiom the simple to the complex .rrrdthe knorvn to thc unknorr.n.In celebratingthe promotion of nnnt { ) my th e rl u a s i -p h i l o s o p h i c a li gni tv of comparari l canatto d onr . n s \ ' s te m a t p ro v i d c d a b a s i sl b r cl assi l vi n! nrul ti tude rh the ol sprcif ic fbrm,i, Conrtc was lcd to reject Cur iet's fbnd notion that thc animal kingdonrccrnsists number ofdistinct branchcs ofa rncl to acceptinsteadLamarck's and Blainvillc's th('or\ ofa unique series.Once again,his grourrdsfor making this choice involveda s ubor c lin a ti o n f th e s i m p l e to th e c o m pl ex, ofthc bcgi nni ngto o t ht end: " l h e s tu d v o l m,rnm u s t a l rv a vs domi natethc compl ete s \ s t eDro f b i o l o g i c a l s c i c n c c , c i th c r a s poi nt ,rl rl el > rrturc as or Th i s i s b c ta u s t th c g r.' n c ran o ti on of man i s " the onl y l . qoal, " r ; immediate" datum uc hi\'(.rf Comtc thus clainredto be keeping laith rvith his gcncral program,"uhich consisrsin al\1ays rcasoning fiom thc bettcr knorvn to the lesserknolvn," even though he cominsistcdon arranging lninral series ordcr of <lecreasing th< in plexitr - this in order to rca(l thc seriesas "revcaling a devolutjon liom man rathcr than r perf'ection fiom the spongc."lt rvould slrin creclulitvto clrarv parlllel betrveen a Comtc's ipproach here
I4 ( )

and thnt ol Kult ( lolr jst ein,t o lind in r ht kr r ncr a phcnom cnoin lecte<l logic.rlbioloqv ovantIo lcttrean<l thc lltt< r a h itherto-neg posi ti vi srinspir at ion.I n lict , Com t e had an idea, albcit a cc'ngoing. f he int cllcct ualf lnct ion *as fi se< lone , ol r r her e he , "Tas f all thc di sti nguishing eat ur eof anim al lif e. To int er pr . et lif i'as a sericsdcvolving from man, the perlect emboclimentof that firncto fbr tion, \\'asto treat biologv assubordinate sociologr', thc truc thcorv ol inr elligence\ \ 'ast o bc f br r nd,Conr t c bclicvcd,in sociol ogv and nr ) t in ps\ chologv.I Er ur icrpp. 67- 71] , Conr t e's biological philosophr , t hat <dif icr . : cr u<lioI [!)]] im ti on and lcar ning,hid an inr uit iveconvi( t ion r vhosc plicar ions l verefi r-r eaching.I he im pet usbehind t hat convict ionno doubr lionr thc fict that a uto;rianspirit breathedlif'enot onlv stemmccl ol i nto the b old Jsser t ions a br ancl- nelscienccbut also int o t hc alm ostasold as lif c it 5elf .Sim ri me-tcst c(tlr ut hs oI a philosophv pl v put, t his \ \ 'ns hr convict iont hat I if i't akcs placebut doesr r ot t ori gi narein t ] r t 'r r r r r lr l of t he iner t . r r hcr e it . r l. anclonso r lcat h t i n(l i vi (l u. rot ganism s hat st enrllor n elser r c. "Thc collcct ion l t hcr ol natura llr odiesdoesnot lbr m an . r [ 's<r luru holc. " l- hisbclicl, c combi ntd r vit h t hc idc. r of a cont inuous,linear ser iesof living thi ngsculm inar ing,logicallvas vvcllast elcologicallv, m an, uir s in evcrrtuallv translbrmedinto the iclcaol lliocracv asthc necessarv condition ol Sociocracv. This uirs the positivistcquir'.rlent thc of

ti i;

ol d mctaphvsicr l idca ol a Realnrol l nt ls. f lr udcr , p. 73] Positivc Poli tics [9]] The super ior it vol posit ivepolit ir : s"r t sult s lionr t he l. r ct that it dr.r(or"rJ uhat others lnrcnt."Thc ditcovcrv tlrat the inrentor ol positivr.poJiricsclaintcd as his orr n \\,asthat "thc natural la*.s that govcn the m.rrch of civilization" are deriveclfrom thc laus ofhuman organization. the t'rtt'rrt that "thc statcol soci,tl Tb organi zar ion esscnt iallv is dcper r clent t hc st . t t col cir ilizat ior r , " on
! +'l




fl D (

s oc ial org n n i z a ti o ni s n o th i n g o th e r or morc than an aspectof human organization"not subject to major t hange" (so far as we moreover,is the can see).What ne knou.of human organization, result of a Dethodological decision "to cnvi5lgs rn11 as a term in r hc an i m a l s e ri e s ,i n d e e d , fro m a s t i l l more generalpoi nt of bodi cs or substances." v iew, as o n e o l a c o l l e c ti o n o f o rg a n i zed terminologl., S('eminglvfiithful to Claude Henri dc Saint-5inron's Comte gave thc name "phvsiologv" to thc "general science of organizc<l bodies." But a diffcrcncc betrveenhis use of thc term and Saint-Simon's alreadvevidcnt. For Crrmte, phvsiologywas is not just a discipline recentlv institutecl lbr the study of man as living being, onc w.hose method could scrvc as a model for the s t udv of m a n i n s o c i e tv ;m o re th a n th at, thc content ofphysi ol ogy wast() b('comethe nucleusofa ncw scicnce.Physiologv owed it s c onr e n t to n re d i c i n c ,a n c lme d i c i n e taught thi s Icsson: [-ong " havinghoped that hc might learn to repair anr disturbanceto his or-qanization eveDto rcsistanv destructive nnd lbrce, lman] finally rcalized that his efforts rverc firtilc as lonq as they did not cooper.rtc u'ith thorc of his organization,rnd still more fi-rtilewhen thc nro rverec.'pposed." further: "Thc fict that many illnesses And u'erecurcd in spite ofdefictivc treatmentstaught physicians that everv living bodv sp,rntaneously takes porverful steps to repair ac c idc nta ld i s tu rb a n c e s i ts o rg a n i z ati on."H ence, pol i ti cs i s to lik c m ed i c i n e i n th a t b o th a rc d i s c i p li ncs i n rvhi ch perfccti on reguircsobservation. And just as there rvert tr*o schoolso[medical thoLrght, too, werc therc t$o schoo)s political thought: so, of thc "po)itics of imagination" involvcd "strenuous t'lJbrtsto disc ov er r em c < l i c s i th o u t s u ffi c i e n tc o n si dcrati on w ofthc natureof t he dis c .rs c " ; c " p o l i ti c s o f o b s c rv ati on,"on thc other hand, th vi k nor r ing " th a t th e p ri n c i p a l c a u s e fh e al i ng i s the pati ent' s tal o strcngth [/orce vita]e]," is content, "through observation,to removc the obstacles that empirical metho(ls place in the rvayof a

n.ltural rcsolution o[ the crisis." The linking of the terms "vital lbrce" and "crisis" alcrts us to what is going on here: this was Il i ppocra t ic m ediciner eint cr pr et edin t he light of t he M ont peldoct r ine. l i er S chool's and l n C omt e'st ext , t hc t r r n "cr isis" t ook on a pat hological I therapeu t icsignif icancet hat it lacked in Saint - Sim on. t uas a tcrnr frei g ht edwit h all t hc *eight and deckcd out wit h ail t he maj estyo f . r r nedic. r lt r aclit ion.Thus, "nat ur e" r r as cont inuallv invoked as the ultimat(: reasonwhv unfivorable political circumfailed to prevent "the advanccof civilization," u hich in stancc,i rathcr than being <lelayed profits fiom mistakes f)ct "ncarlv alwavs to Comte bv them." This recourse natureis so basicthat it enables to naturalize,as it rvere, the most distinctive f'eaturcol human historv,namely,the labor or industrl rvhcrcbysocietv pursuesits cnds: this Comte describt'rlas"action on nature to modifv it fbr man' sbenef lt . " This t eleologicalcnd uas "det er m incd bv nr an's rank i n the nat ur alsvst emas indicat ed by t hr lict s, som et hing of not susce pt it r le er planat ion. "[ . .. ] '[ his limitation of man'sporverto kno* ledge ol nature'slarvs and prcdiction of their effects,hcnce to harnessing natural lorces to human designs,has m or e in com m on u'it h t he pr udcnce of Hippocratic diagnosticsthan n ith the demiurgic dream of <lcnaturing nature through historv. But readingbetueen the lines ofthe text is not cnough. What ol the sourcesthat CoDrtedreu on? fhe text quote(l ab,l'e containssuch phrases "thc political impetus peculiarto the hunran as race" and "t hc pr ogr css civilizr t ion, " lvhich "does not nr ar ch of i n one str aight I ine" but , r at her , pr oceedsbl "a ser iesol oscill ati ons not unlike t he cr scillat ions see in t hc nt t 'chanismoI *e locomotion." And Comte rcrlcrs "one ol the essenti.rl s of to la* organi ze dbodies, " r vhich can be applied "cquallv r vcll t o t he human racc act ing collcct ivclv or t o an isolat edindividual" - a





ot to thc P rcscnce t lan' t hat l i n k e d th c c J c l e l o p me no f s tr!' ngth rtcll lrefbre he that rcsistance.Flom this I venturc ttl conclude and dc ph.vsiologic Barthez's Elinents addcd Anthelnrc Richerancl's to thc annalsof positlc ,\burtaur dlimcntrrlc la science I'homme to sal 'rbout anitivism, Comtc haclreatl rr'hat troth authorshad movemcnt i n the m al m ov e mc n f. R i c h e ra n d l v ro tc o f " z i gzag in his Nouvelle spaccbcttleen two Parallcl lines " And Barthcz' ct de mrtuvemcnts I'homnre desonimou\' discussed micaniquecles Comtc also usetlthe rvord oscilmotions' .r'o"", ond reciltrocating n h c n h t' s p o k e o f th e p e ctrl i ari mpetus l eadi ng to lr t ion. An d to Barthez' improvemcnts in the social ordcr, hc again ref'erred to rclute the tricrJ nttcanique' tc, thc Uarthezrvho' in his Nouvclle no other reason(han that the ground irlca that animalsnovt {br Chaprepels their ftet And again. it rvasBarthez- specificallv' [rorrou'cdthe ur t", F.ru. .rf Nour.n Uiments {iom rvhom Comte lau r elati n gs tre n g tht() rc l l s ta n c e and purtht:n, Comte left thc Ecolc Polvtechnique Tu r.,. r.,p, the preflce to thc suc(l the studv ol biologv' as he indicatcs in <lc Potirife At that sixth and final volumc ofthe Cours philosophie i<lcr o( the organism and made his orvn an time, he rllscoverecl organi zati on' t hat bc c a m cth c k c Yc o n c e P to fh i s th eorv ofsoci al appliquied I'aniDc When Saint-Simor pub)ishecl la phvsiolollic attemP t tr) t lior . t t io nd c s i n s ti l u ti o n -i o c ,d l eirn 1 8 1 3,he di d D ot of flis concerption imposc a triologicalmodel on socialstructure' and his conception bodv" requircd no suchanalogv' an:',:,.gonir",l to Pathology Comte' .rf "..ir"r" in.rpliedno ntccssarv relation torm' jn on tlre other hantl, fbund Barthez'still in a metaphvsical at-e svstems to somc crtent self-rcgulating the icleathat organizcrl a l e c tu re t hat B arthezgave i n l 80l ' or aut on o mo u s .An rl fi o m dreu the c nt it lc ( l " l )i s c o u rs s u r l e g [:n i c d ' l l i p pocratc" ' C omrt asComte (or .rll HipPocri(ic conclttsionr orgatrisms orqaniTations' capaci tvto preserl cand lik c r l t o c a l l th e m )h a v e a s P o n ta n e o us
I to

as cJPacit Y an jllher cnt Bv ocrfect thcm sclvcs. int er pr ct ing t his 'ir,rp"r,y ot,tt. notr.,..: t"gani''trion' hc rvasable to kccp l'rith ut of ' \\'ith the PreccPts Positivism Fann'Conlt e wr ot t J'r cr lues- Pier r e 25, 132'+, On D e ccm ber srrcietv ttxla,r is a long rrlv \ialat: "The state in rT'hichrvc {ind statcol crisis" Bcc:ttlsc fiom nom.rl,... Jt is. rather,.rvt'rv violent of organisms'he hc vic*ed organizationas a normative propcrtl ch'rractcrize llrojccts 1>olirical .,,,,1d,r,r three diflerent occasions anclon firur tlcc'r()r ptacticts as"monstrositicS"or "monstrotts" or c<-rn<luct behalior as"delective" Thcsc terms sionscharacterize intimatelv-associatcd r.erc borrorved lrotn tcratology,a science Ceollior 5rintu ith the emcrging lielrl oI enrbrvologti Eticnn' h'rd b<cn published humaincs I lilairc's treatiscon l 6 llonstrLtositis a concept ol nor m al i n 1822.Com t t ''sphilosophl clcar lv im plics I n lact ' il Conr t e' in t hc t l asopposet t o pat hologicallt velopm ent ' of things as lre, Piun r/r'stlrlour scicntjfiguc invokcs the n'lture he m eanslif cand bv bt as < l uentl v he dt "t ' it i' bccause "t hings" lircc' ,ilil'",,h" n.""n, a distincrtcapacitvto persistin a ",t,tt,n;11" bv Fr angois ti on.' Io bor r ou aD c\ Pr essionf icqucnt lr em ploler l nor m lt ive. ''Bv is P errour,Com t e'sc( r ncePt ualiza( ion"im Plicit lv organil' the historYof man into rcintc{rating the human into thc ol ncccsslt \ a the hi sto ll of t hings, Com t c best o\ \ 'cd guar Jnt ec to rlo s<r on tht moral rlcstjnatirltl o{'tlrc sptcies He rv'rs'rble the positivc under cover of \\'ith()ut contr.rdictirlnrlnlv becattsc, an orclcrof meaningon an ordcr term "nature," hc supcrimposecl pp pfi;L'sophigrcr' 29a-91] ol larv.i'A. Comte," EtrrrJcs The Positi vist DisciPles (1851)'Comte rl$cribed tle ,positrIc f9't] ln the S.vstinrc polirttlue tr.o voune phrsicirns, I)t. L,rttis-lugusteScgond;rndl)r' CharLcs thc Societi' In Robin. ashis <lisciples. lil'18, the t'r'o men fbun<lcd jot lr n'r ls e t hc gir whcJscePor t sand r cl c B i ologie,an or yaniTJt ion
l (l

rve and most comprehensive vivid im.rge haveofbiological research in Franceover the p.st centurv or more. The Soci6t6'sfirst govcrning boald rv;s chaired by Dr. Raver, u,ho later becamedean of the Facultv of ll'ledicinel Claude Bernard and Charles Robin Brown-S6quard servedasvicc chairmcnl and Charles-Edouard and The group's first charter rvasdrafted Robin u'ere the secretafies. by Robin, and its flrst article statedthat "the Soci6t6de Biologie is instituted fbr the studv ol the scienceoforganized beings in the normal state and in the pathological state," The spirit that animated the fbundersofthe group rlas that ofpositive philosophy. On June 7, 1848,Robin reada paper"On the Direction That to Answer to the Title the Founding Membersof thc Soci6t6de Biologie HaveProposed 'fhev llave Chosen." In it, he discussed

Comteantl Positit'ist l.rtertranslate John StuarcMill's book ,'1u1;ustc P hi l osophint o Fr ench. subsequcnt lvachjeveda lim e t hat has v his rcnded to overshadow earlv interest in biologv. His nnme was CeorgcsCl!menccau. R obi n u'asalso, along u'it h Enr ile [ . ir t 16, r he aut hor of t he de uhich in l87l supplantedthe seriesof' Dictionnaire m'ldecine, revi sed edit ions of Pier r e lluber t N\ 'st en'sDict ionnair e.This reminds us that Comtc's biological philorophl, also left its mark on the developmcnt of lexicographyin Franccas rvell as on the producti on of cr it ical edit ions of m edical t ext s and on t hc hispp. torv ofmed ical scicnce.I Er udes, 7l- 1) l [95] With an author as careful about tlre meaning of r+ords as rvasLittr6, one must take literally rvhat he said about his per' hc sonalrel ationslvit h Com t c. O n at lcastt wo occasions st at cd, "l srrbscribe the positivcphilosophv."sr e alsosai<i that hc had to "There, hapchosenComte's great book as a "model," ..rdding, r pi l r' , I tccl t hat I am a disciple. "t r He descr ibedhis allegiance o posi ti vi sm as a kind of conver sion:"H. 1\ 'ingbeen a m er e I r eethi nker, I b ecam ea posit ivistphilosopher . "; lWhen Lit t r e cliecl, his journal, La Philosophie sought to counter rumors that pos;tilc, l re had con ver t edr o Cat holicismbt publishingit s lat e edit or - inchi ef' s fi nal edit or ial undcr t he t it lc "For t hc Last Tim c": "Tht : positivcphilosophvthat kept me fiom being a mere negatorcontinues to accompanvme through this final ordeal.";a ll there u,asonc principlc of thc positivc philosophyset fbrth in the Cburs the about which Littre neverexpressed slightestrcservation, and l'hich he tirelesslvdelended, it was the hierarchv ofthe six fundamental thc sciences, expressing historicalprogressi on of hum an knon ledge. What int cr est cd him , of cour se,n'as the rel ati o n of biologv t o it s pr edeccssor s. phvsics and aboveall chernistry but he mav havebeen even morc intcrestcdin the relati on of soc iologvt o biologr . This uas t he sour ccof his r lis. r gr cc25]

Com t e' s c l a s s i fi c a ti o n f th e s c i c n c e s , o cxami ned bi ol ogv' smi ssion in much thc rame spirit as Comte had done in the Coursde philosophie poritirc, and noted th.rt one ol the most urgent tasks f ac ing t hc d i s c i p l i n erv a sto i n v e s ti g a te nri l i eusi n rvhi ch l i fe the cxistt'd. Robin evenhad a narnelbr this proposerJ subdiscipllne "mesologv."When the Soci6t6cclebratedits filtieth anniversarr in 1899,t h e p h v s i o l o g i s E m i l e Gl e y rcad a report on the evol ut tion of the biological sciencesin France,in which the impetus that positivismgaveto thc subject is frequentlyalluded to. Gley's rcport still makesinterestingreading.ae In 1862, Charles Robin became the first person to hold the chair in histologvat thc FacLrlty o[Medicine in Paris.l0 From that position he remained faithful to one tenet of Comte's biological philos op h v i n h i s re fu s a lto tc a c h c e l l theory i n the dogmati c fcrrmin rvhich it had been expressed Rudolph Virchor.. Robin b,v taught insteadthat thc ccll rrirsonc ofmany anatomicalcomponents rathcr than the fundamentalcomponent of living organis m s . I n 1 8 5 5 ,a s tu d c n t i n R o b i n ' ss c h ool defendeda thesi son "The Gcncrationof Anatomic.rlElemcnrs." author, q'ho rvould Its
2t 2

of mcnt \\'ith Herbcrt Spencer,'r'ho arguedin the "Classification thr: Sciences"th.rrhierarchvought to be replacedbv interdependcnce. Littr! held that no changein the relatire rankingol the scih p c nc es \ 4, a s o s s i b l e ,5 ;1 n d g l a s a b l e to pt' tsuadeMi l l on thi s principle of point.5.'An immediateconsequencc the hir:rarchical was that importing a mcthod lalid fbr the stu(lYof a lorver level into a disciplinc at a highcr level $as "the or stageof phenotmcna greatestthc()reticalmist.rle one could nrake"!? Littr6's philosophl of bio l o g y , b e n c eo f m c rl i c i n ea s rvel l ,can br: summcd up i n "Biological facts must first obev the larvsof one briel passagc: chcmistry.Anv correct interPretationmust respcctthis principle' But the rcvcrseis not true: chcmical facts nced not obcv the laws ol biologr, lirr rthich ther lack one thing, nanrelt' the char''rcteris-fhat "one thing" rvould tic of life."5"' Pcrsistto thc cnd of Littr6's lifc: fbr him it \\'asan incontrovertible obstaclc,"the crucial dif: ferencc bct* een mcchanismantt organism."l''Littri * as, to use a modern tcrn, .rn implacableentnlv of "reductionism " In 1846, Miiller's Hondbuclrder Phvsilbr examplc. in a studv ol Johannes l-ittre cnnlc to the dcfcnse of thc "irreduc,l'lcnschcn, ologie des of ible": "lt is imPortant to dcterminc thc irreduciblc ProPertics t hings . . .. Irrc d u c i b l e m c a n s th a t $ h i ch one cannot el l ecti vel y r educ c . I n c h c trl i s trv .{ o r i n \t.rn c e .e f fecti tel r i ndecomposabl e n a c om poun c l s re c a l l e d i rre d trc i b l e ." 6l0 1856,i n a maj or al ti cl e on F r an q o i sl \{ rg e n c l i e ,L i ttre l o u n d that N l agendi ehad been m or e an o PP o n e n tth a n a d i s c i p l e o l ' X avi cr B i chat l n essence' Nlagenclie had lailed to distinguish bctrveen rhc occult and thc ir r edLr c i b l eth c i n l ma n c n t l l ro p e rti e sof l i vi ng matter' rvhere' rs , the tlichat harlrecognizecl irrcdrrciblervhile crorcisingthe occult' h N{ agend i e a d b e e n u n a b l eo r u n r,i l l i n g to stntca cl ear P osi ti on ofPhYson thc reclucibilitv olbiological phcnomenaro the la\a's ic s and c h e m i s trv o r o n th c i rre d u c i bi l i tv of vi tal organi zati trn' Lim r i ua s a l s oc ri ti c a l o f l .((tn R o l ta n . thc author ol the medi 25.+

cal thcorv knon n as "organicisnr,"firr ncglecting thc irretlucibilol t i tl ol the pr oper t ies living m at t ef . Not c, bv t he r , 'av, hat bot h and his Dittionnaire dc Litrrc's Dicriorrxrircde lo longut fron6oire contain artic]eson thc rvord irr1ducti6lc. ittrc,",4crcr rnr'r/ccine ["] Em;lel.ittri, I 80 1- l,\ El, pp. 27 l-7 )l du Colloque ln rvhatrt'spccts did Xavicr Bichatinflucnce Emile Littri' [c)6] such as Char lesRoLr in( not onlr .rndother posit ivistphysicians b ut also t hr ough August eConr t c) ?To bcgin u it h, t hcr c rJi l ectl l .' .rlas celebratccl his distinction betr,.eentu<r fbrms ol lif c, vegetari vc ancls ensit ivc( or anim al) , t he lat t cr being subor dinat et o the l ,rrme r . Lit t r c alluded t ( ) t his dii: inct ion in his. r r t icle on r T'her e cr it icizt d his subjcct lir r nor having N{agenclie, he Fl anqoi s t ought t o be st udicd: rcspccterl hc or clerin r vhich t he luDct ior ) s N'lagenrlic taken up thc sensor\llnctions bciirrc had in Phsiolollie, consi deringnut r it ior r . 6rllut t hc m ain t hing t hat t he posit ivist s rrcrc the ulti tqrk trom Bichatuas his contcntion that thc tissues m.rreel enr ent s anat onr ical r lr sis, vicu' t hat t cn<lertlo push oI an. a thc nervscicnceofhistol,rgv irr ont- rJircctionratherthan Jnother. l 3i chl t' svien s, r epent ed Com t c ir r t he li) r t \ - f ir st lesson t he bv of C oars, cxplain t hc pcr sist entskcpt icismol I : r cnch phvsicians in the l i rst ha lf of t he nir r ct cent h cent ur '\ '\ ! it h r espcct o cell t hcor v t rncl mi cro sclr pict echni<1ucs, *hich r r cr c dispar ag<<l lir or <r l in ruch hi rtologicalnt et hodsas r iisscct ion, lcsiccat ion, accr at ion r m and treatm entr vit h acicls.liuc, t he m icr r scopesavailablc t he at ti mr * cre m cr liocr e,an<lLouis Ranvicrnot er i in his 1876 inau gural l cctur c at t hc Colldgedc Fr ancet hat Bichathad been r ight to be rr' .rr v t hcm . Never t hclcss. of t posir ivistpht sicians lisplavcd host ilit v t o m icr oscopr ,par t lr in olt cdicnt c t o I I enr l P ersi sl ent l)ucrotar rle Blainvillr's authoritativ('Cous de ph.vsioktgie ctinenlc (lll29). Rcn6-1 hi:ophile llyacinrhc I-ainnecalsonumbert'cl among thc instrument'scletrectors. Th.rnksto N,larc Klcin's rrrrrk on thc hi st,rrvofc cll t heor r . r helc is n<rnec<lr o ht l. r t r <rfr c, bin's t oPpol5t

sition t() anv lorm of researchthat claimed to go beyond * hat he took to be the basicconstituent ofthe anatomv(tissue).Evenas late as 1869,ten yearsafter the publication ofRudolph Virchow's cefebrated $'ork, Robin n,rote in la Philotophiepositive that the ccll r*ar a metaphysicalconstruct and conmented ironically on "thc allcgcdlv tl pical or primordial organic ct'll."6l When Littr6 reviewe<fRobin's .lnatomie ct physioloqie in cellulaites rhe s,lne journal in 1874,he acceptedhis lriend'sdoubts as facr. Yet in an l8?0 articlc on the "()rigine de I'id6.e justicc," Littre had discussed de trl'o kinds of brain cells, affectiveanclintcllcctualr Wasthis a theoretical conccssionor a merc stylistic convenience?61 In u hat respects, moreover,did Frangois-loseph-Victor Broussaisinfluence Littra (either directlv or through Comte)? Surely, s [ . it t r i' in h e ri te d Bro u s s a i s 's tu b b o rn nessn defendi ngthe theoi ries of physicrlogical medicinc, l'hich were b.rsedon a bclief in the identitv ol thc normal anclthc pathological.as rvell as on a refilral tcr vierv diseaseas introducing lnl nerv lunctional processin tltt organism (a casemade even beforc Broussais _lohn by Hunter). Litt16 thus acceptedand championedwhat Comte called Principlc." In the prelace to the second edition of "Broussais's llddecineet midecins,Littrd stressedthe nccd for medicine to r ev is e it s th c o ri e s i n l i g h t o f p h y s i o l ogy' shavi ng attai ned the positivestageof development.Pathologvhad thus become "physiologv o f th e d i s tu rb e d s ta te ," a n d thi s, I i ttre argued, w as an "essentialnotion." This Broussaisist dogma would later prove to be onc of the obstaclesto undcrstandingnricrolriology.But for the moment, let us ask ourselves rvhat thc practicaleffectso[this revolution r1'crc.lD an 1846article containing a nevr translation of Cels u s , I i ttre u a s n o t a fi a i d ro \i l i t e that " so l ong as physi ol ogv lrns r)ot fullv constituted as a scietrce,there remained gaps in which hypothescs could emcrge.But no'r, rhat it hasbecome, almost bt'fore our eves,a science, cvcry nredical system is dis2t 6



credited in advance."6il"Littre,"

Actes Colloque du Enilc Iixri,

t 8 0 l-1 88 p p . 2 7 1 - 7 5 1 1,
[97] L it t r 6 set f ir r t h his vier vson hvgienein a com ncnt ar ! <tn the Traitd <l'h.v11iine puhliclueet privdc b.t l\4icheI Livv, the lbrmer chi ef phvsicianof r hc Alm 6es <l'C) r ier r t ( lir cct or of t he and V al -de-G r icehospit al, *'honr Lit r 6 descr ibcd as r n "r nr incnr (luarrliasa* him rs nrcrre a rher author," althoughJcan-Nlichel r.'l ori ci an than a scholar . Public hcalt h had been a lir elr m er licll subspecialt v Fr ancc sinct t he vvor k of Jcan- Not l llalld and in Franqoi sEm m anuel Fodi'r d ear lv in t hc ninet eent h ccDr ur v; it ha<lprolitcd from the cxpcrience ol such militarv phv5icians as \iillerm6, rvho had servedas surgeon-majorin Napoleon'sarmr'. Thi s medical subsp{ci. r lt vhad no doubt lent cr cdence t o r hc noti on ofmilieu, f ir st put f br u. ar din t lr e r vor ksof Blain. '. ille and Iamarck. I I vgiene,accor <lingo Lit t r i, is t he science<r f '. r t t ions t and react ions r veennr ili, : us. r ncl ganism s, bet or hum anr includer l. ,\s fi rr mi lieu, Lit t r ( i nor cd in lii58 t hat t he t er nr har ln r r clr nicr l rncani nga nd hc gavca det ailcdr lcllnit ion in nr anvr r specr s cm i, r ni scentof t hc t able ol phvsicalagent st har Blainr ille h, r r lt allcd " rxternal m odif ier s. " l'hr : scient il'ic clabor at ion ol t ht r vor r i " mi l i cu" in t hc ninet et 'nt hcent ur v r equir ccl he par t ici; >at ion t of a number of scienccst hat had achievecl he st ageof "1>osit ivt i t\" ' - phv sics,chem isr r v and biologv. Thc t er r n also scr vcd in for suLrstitute thc notion ol "climat(," !1.hich Partasan ideological h.rdbeen used extensivelvbr c,ighteenth-centurv authors, p.rfricul arl v Mont esquieu.Accor ding t o I it t r e, hou'ever t he st ut lt ol , ntan' sorvn m ilieu uas r he pt ovir r ceol sociolcr gr m u<lr . r sof as pl l si cs or biologr , so t hat r hc pr escr ipt ions "pr ivat ehr gienc" ol coul d cl aim onlv r hjst or ical r r r cm pir ical r at hcr t haD , r t her ) rcti cal b1s i5. c5 r vingr lr it t t n sevcr al t icleson t he clr oler aol H, ar l l l 32, the cont agiousDess equincglanclcr and t he t r ansm ission ,)i s of thc pl a gue, Lit t r i' c, r uld har dlv liil r o com m cnt on L6r 'r 's
2 tl

N obs c r v .rti o no n c n d c m i c i n (l e p i d c mi c di seases. ot a w ord \vas s n \i c ro org.rni snrs, thoughthe ars ai<a[ x ru tc ri o l o g i c ! i n v o l v i n g l al rJc reported on ticlc on "l cptothrix" in the Dicfionnairc' rnldeclne Olive Raver's rcscarch the on Casimir l)avaineand Picne Frangois anthrax bacillus, and Littrd surelv knc\4 about this vvork orving t o his r e l a ti o n srv i th R a v e r.It $ ,a sn ot unti l 1880,i n an arti cl e ent it led " T l a n s ra ti o n a l i s n re ," a t L i ttri nrcnti oned" the ci rcuth lat ion o l i n l l n i tc s i ma l l r s ma l l [c re a turcs]that causci nl ecti ous dir"ur".",unbut bv then it uas no longcr possibleto ignort' l-ouis *ork, Nevertheless, Pasteur's Littre's rcmlrks on public hvuiene in the third articlc are g'orthy ol attention. l:or Littr6, historv.rnd s oc iolog t s e rv ea s i n s tru mc n tso f a n al \si s.I i ttri sccmsto harc been particrrlarllalert to sociomedicalissues associatcd rlith the r is e ol in tl u s tri a s o c i e tl . l l c s tri k e so f f a fi l e phrase, l rcmi ni scent of S aint -S i mo n" C i v i l i z e d m a n ... h a sassunrcrJ : rcsponsi bi l i tvfbr. adm inis te ri n gth e e a rth , a n d a s c i v i l i zati on rdvances, that arduous administrationdeman<ls cver more inge'nuitl and industr\."6? I lur r r n l i l i , tl ro u g h , s u ffc rs fro m th e unanti ci patcd vet i nevi tablc efti'cts of thc conllict bctrveen rvork and nature. "ll.rving bccome so complex, industrics cannot do rvithout thc oversight of a higheragcncvthat appr-eciates dangers, thc prescr'r'es envithe r onm c n t. a n d d o e s n o r l e a v es u c h i mportanr i ssues thc scl fl to interest ()l l)rivnteirrdiriduals."r'3 Thus, I ittri' had some pcrtincnt remarkst() offer on thc subject of ccologr, rcars before the word rvascoinerl."')And no one can deny the claritv or couragc rlith \\'hich he cxpressed astcrnishment his that no civilizcd nation had .r v et s eenfi t to e s ta b l i s h mi n i s trv o f publ i c hcal th.70 Li tt16." [" .4(?sdu Colltrquc Entlc Littti, lll0l-l8E/, pp. )16-i1) of f 98] We c a n n o l o n g e ra v o i d a b ri e Isunc] of the re.rcti ons Littr6's contemporarics rhis biological philosophv.I ittle attento tion ncc<lbe pai<ito the inevitablv biascdjuclgmentsof ofllcial spiritu.rli\tssuch as Paul lant't .rnd Fdme Caro; horvever, gre.rter
2 tlJ

must bc .rtt.rchtrlto varitrtts.rrticlesthJt .rPPeiredi n i m p()rt.rDce the Clrrrles Renouvit'r'sjournal, Io Critiquepbi.lostT,irigue vcrr ' \ 1asar r t iPosit ivistln l8?8, t he iour nal pr r blished . ti tl t ofu 'hich sct positivism,two ol rT'hich articlesbv Pillc,non biologv an<l thrL'c Bcrnartlup trr Comtc's judge. In thc samclear Renouvier Cl.rr,rde "ls poserl,and answeredin the ncgativc,rhis qucstiot't: the Cours $as J" \rill abrcalt of st icrrce Clltrde Ber.D,lr.d positirc lc phlotophic ant proposcdas an ir lc, r logical idot c lo Ciom t e.No I t r iel account (lo iusticc to tht rt'lationsbetrveenl.ittr6's biological positivc.ln guiding philosophv.On the onc h.rnti,Bcrnartl isnr and Bcrnard's fi r undcrof anclpar t icipantin t he Soci6t 6de Biologiealong ' r' a,.r ancl Scgoncl CharlcsRotrin' r.'hodr.rltetl rvith R.rler,Loui:-Atrgustc t i ts ch.r r t crin a lianklv Posit ivistspir it at r <l onc. I it t r 6's jour nal sho\r'e(l great interest in Bern.rtd'srlork, po.rJtivc Lo Philosophic in t ht 'r 'ear ol his deat h, a ver r 'lr alanccdar t iclc bv publ i sh ing, l) N l arhi as ur al ancl. r n ar t iclc br ' [ . it r e on dt 't cr m inisnr . f hese r l actsrn. r l m u<ldrt hc ! r 'nt ( s, b( t t t her t lo not just ilv anr '[ r llt r r inq alr of rhc I ines,lir r , r sr t t ent ive r eat ler s, r lBer nar cl cat lr knolr ',hc dogmatisrl. That hosconcealedhis hostilitv to Corr)te's sc.r'celv most tritlelv read tilitl is cxprcsscd opcnlv at thc cnclol Bern.rrcl's \,,ork, thc lntroductioni I'iludc de lo ni<lccinectpirimentcrlc:"Positi \i snr, \ \ 'hich in r he nr nr e ol- sciencer eject sphilosophit al svsl cl l rs. er r t ils t he\ ( lo br being suclr a sr st cm . " l) cslt it e t hese reser\at ions, \ 1. hi( hLit t r ir r v. r s icct lv $c] lauar c. he sever al of pcr times praisedBornarcl's methods an(l the principlcs that inspirecl them. llis 1855 ar t iclc on Nlagcndiccn<ls vit h . r n acknor r 'lct Jgr mcnt ol Bcrn.rrd's \ul)criority orcr his rcachcr.l lrc thirteenth cditiol rrf thc I)i(ienndirc tlc nitlrin,: corrtnirrs nuntl)(r ()l ,trticles, n obl i ,ru slv ur it t en ll I it t r c, \ r 'hich r el; r im plicit l\ or ( xplicit lt ' to B ern ar r l.While t hc ar t icle on "( ) bser vat ion" seem sr at hcr to sum m ar izet hc r icr r s ol Conr t t . t hosc on "Expeliencc" and " E rpcrinr ent at i<r n" u- ccond. ns, 'r t i( ) ns t lr t ' r 'ier rs ol ller nar d. . of
l 5e

"Experimentation" ends rvith the sanre conrparisonthat Bcrnard borrorved from GcorqcsCuviel the observer)istens,tht'cxpcrim c nt c r q u c s ti o n s T h c a rti c l e o n " M e d i ci ne" menti onsB ernard' s , nam c in th c ri i s c trs s i o n f e x p e ri m e n talmedi ci ne. In B crnard' s o tcaching and conc('ption ol lifc, Lirtr6 no doubt saw argumcnts c apablco fs u p p o rti n g h i s o rv n p e rs o n al convi cti on that bi ol ogi cal phenomenacould not bc rcduced to physicsand chemistry. EmileLittti, ]801-1881, pp. 279-80] du ["Littr6," ,4ctes Colloque

CH, r t 'r r x Claude

Twt t ! 'F Ber nar d

A Philosoph ical Physiologist in arr.rnsed that order, thc t\ao [99] A philosophicalphvsiologist: her t r * .ords cr y out f br an im m cdiat c cor r ect ion. Philosophical Bernardnevcr Clatt<le not meaninclined torvardmetaphvsics. does and in t hc nam e ol phvsicr logY t o cl ai med - as a phvsiologist q.r bclontl expericncc.He h.rdno Patiencewirh thc itleao{ rrletamcaningthe clainr to kno* nor jttst tht lar,s,or invariphrsiologv, ol ants,of t hc or ganiclunct ions[ ) ut t he ver v cssence t hat plast ic l brce * h ich r vc r cf i'r t o as lif e. But neit her did hc cvcr int end t o l i mi t biological sciencct o t he nr er c r cPor t ing of expcr im ent al resul ts.Rat her , bv "philosophicalphr siologist "I m ean a phvsiologist rvho, at a given stagcin the e"olution of a rvell-established science,cxplicitJv rccognizesthe fact that sciencc is aboveall .r method ofstudy and research, and w.hosets himsclf the exprcss t task, thc per sonalr esponsibilit vt hat can be assignedo no onc cl se,ofpr oviding t hat m et hod r ', it h r f bundat ion.I n t his sense, thc philosophical rvork ol the phvsiologistClaude Bernard provi dcd t hc f bundat ionlir r his sci< if ic r vor k. lust as ninet ecnt hnt centurv m at hem at icians t hem r clv( st he t . r skof explor ing t he s<. loundations mathematics, too did a phvsicrlo{ist take it upon ol r<-r hi mself t o est ablir h t hc lir undar ions, r f his disciplinc. ln bot h

rcsPonsibilitvlbr u'h.rt h'rd prcviouslvscicntistsassumed cases, as in the tinre of Descartcs rvell as of Plato antl ''\risrotle- been l Btrt th e fb u n c l a ti o n au ' o t k of tht' matheth e t as kof philos o p h v . \\brk on the nrari(irns rvasvetl difli:rent from that of Bcrnarcl. oi l i runr lat ions m ath c m a ti c sh a sc ,rn ti n u c d tv e r si ncei i t hasbecomc an integral part ofmathenraticsitseJf By contrast,the trail blazcrl bv ClauclcBernardhas been ncgJcctr:dbv latcr phvsiolotodav feel gisrs - so ncglectcd, in fact, that rvhcn phvsiologists o rhc r r t ed t o jus t ilv d i s ti n c ti v e a s Pe c ts f th c i r rvork, thel fi ca n a c h ro n i s ti c a l l l ,ro l v on the l ' ork of q l rent l) , and s om e ti mc s pp. 556-57] Bcrnardhimsclf. ["Claude t3ernard,"Diologue, feu lines that ClaucleBcrnardclevotcdto Francis [100] In the Bacon(laudaton bv conventjonand critical bv conviction' though lessso rhan Bcrnard'scontemPorarYvon Liebi{)' he noted that befolc thefe lvasa doctrine "there itcrc great exPerimentalists fh e re c a n tre n o d o tttrt th r t he mcant thi s <rler pc r im ent . r lis m." max im t o applv t .r h i ms e l f. An e x p l a n a ti o ntrn he l bund i n hi s nc'tebools:"Lrervonc follou s his ou n prth. Somcundergolengthy anrl preparatir,,n lbllou'thc path Jaidout for them. I took a tu'istin{ r()ute t() science.rnd,abandoningthc l)eatcnPath, exemPted nrvselllromall thc rulcs."What rulcsdid this rran rvho had learned th e ex per im ent alm e th o d i n th e s h a d o u o l F rr ngoi s N l agendi c 'l-heans\lcr can be gleaned think hc had cxcmptcd himself from? fiom thc namcsof trvo phlsiologists u hom llc quotes on scveral rrhom hc rvasalu'ays Ilemann von Helmholtz, torvarcl occ.tsions: respectfirl,and Emile Du Bois-Reymond,krr u hom his admiration rlrs lessunalloled. Thc rules Bernaldhad in nrind rvercthose of m.rthenr.rtical phtsics: l I t h. r s c n s r ic lth .rt l l i rtrn < l* h a t I" a s n ' t l o rr ki ng i r' . rvhercrs bc but l i rr. Ihi s i s crrrrcct. llc lm holt r liunr l o n l v * h .rr b c l ,ro k i n u ' .,rs i' \\'har is phrsiologr Phvst'xr'lusionarr ;rrc prcscript;ons h,rlnrlirl.

Ic Who knorrs? is [x ttcr t(l tlo anatonlr. icsJChcmistrvl fiohannes] Eschr icht Ticdcm ann an<l l) : r oielFr ier lr ichl trl nl l er,IFri edr ich] I turnc(lto anitorn\. r(rre disgustcd.rnd rvantedtas a rvav,rftl,ring researclr rvhat Bcrnarcl tn orher u'c-,rds, principlcsstcmming from bascdon assutrrptions.rn<l in phvsiologv i phrsi oJogvtscl f, f iom t he lir ing or qanist r ,r at hcr t han on Pr in as ci pl cs, vi ervsanc lm ent al habit s im l) or t f ( l lr om scicnces pr es, to ti gi ous,and as i nd ispensable t he r lor king phvsiologistasevcn and chem ist r v. phvsi cs l here i s a chr onological {ict $ hosc im por t ancc cannot be C over-stated: Iau dc Bcr nar dalludeclr o r hc dist inct ivc char a( t cr expcr im cnt at ionin public f ir r t hc f ir st t inlc or r of phvsi ol ogi cal in L)(cembcr 10, 1 85'+, t he t hir d l( ct t r r . cr ) f . l cour seon exper iat applied to ntedicinc,rvhich he cleliverecl thc nrent.rlphysiologv therc as l\lagcndic'rsubColli{e de Francein his la.f.rppearance t sti tutc. l n rh.rtl t' c t ur e.he r et ier r ecl ht 't r pcr im er r t slr t <lt he con( lusir)ns porte(l in the doctolal thcsishe harl delendedthe vear r( l>elirre a ner,vlv on discovere<l iLnction ol thc liver in humans.rnd rni mal s - thc ab ilit v t o synt hesir eglucose. "lt is sur pr ising, " Brrnard noted, "that an organic lunction ol such impor-tancc.rn(l The reason this for so rt:adilvobsen'ed uas not discovcrcrl socrner." f.ri l urc,hc shoued,las t hat ncar l- v pr cviot t sphvsiologist har l s all attempted to studv dvn. r nr icf t r nct ionslvit h m ct ho<ls r or led bor fiom anatomv, anclchemistrv:suchmctlrotls,though, rverc phvsics i ncapabl cof l i el d ing ner r knouleclgca[ , out phvsiological phctromena. The onlv $av to cxplain an,rrganichtnction is to obsen'e i r i n.rcti on i n the onlr plac<'uhcr <it nr cr ninglullvexist s,t o uit , rl i thi n the orgarr ism Fr om t his, Bcr n. r r <llt 'r ir t r l . r pr - inciplrol r . . rl l ri cl r tht' l ntroduct ion, , publishc<lleven r car s Lat cr nr ight f . r ir lv t l re cal l edthc el ab or at ion:

26 ]

can a question phvsiology. Neitheranatomy chemistrv ans\,\'cr nor of What is crucialis experimentation animals, on rvhichmakes posit ofa in sibleto obsenethe mechanics function .rlivingcreature, thus ler din gto th e c l i s c o v e ryf p h c n o mcna o rhat coul d not havebeen xhich cannot studicdin anr other\\nv. be Prcclictcd. Thc lccturesat the Colldgede Fr.rnce firllo*'ed Bernard's complc t ion o 1 * ,o rk o n h i s d o c to ra tc , s o t h! asserti onthat " there rveregreat experimentalists bcfbrc thcre rvas doctrine ofexpera im ent alis m "a n d th c i n s i s te n c e n h a v i ng l el t " the beatenpath" o \\'ere more than literarv flourishes;thev rveregeneralizations of the lessonsBernardhad drawn from his orvn intellectual adventurc. Nothing else is worthv of the namc "nrcthod." As Gaston Bachelardhasrvrittcn in I6e,\ter Srientrfc.Splrrt, "Concepts and m et hods a l i k c d c p e n d o n e m p i ri c a l re sul ts.A ne$' experi ment m av I c ad to a l u n d a rn e n tac h a n g ei n s c i enti fi c thi nki ng. In sci l enc e. aDy ' d i s c o u rs c n n c th o (l ' c a n o nh l te provi si onal ;i t can o nev erhop c to < l c s c ri b c e d e fi n i ti v e compl exi on of the sci enth spirit."rr NcrtnithstandingBachelrrd's tific dialectic,llinsistcnce, it is bv no me a n sc l e a r th a t B c rn a rdh i n l s(' 11(l i d succumbto not t he bc lief th a t h c rv a sd e s c ri b i n gth e " d efi ni ti ve consti tuti on of the scientific spirit" in phvsiologv. he clearlv undcrstood,and Yet taught, thnt physiologyvvouldhaveto changcbccause had seen it somethingDe\\r, somethingso ncrv that it lbrc,.'dBernarcl agree to rvith thc jurlgnrentthat somehad uttered in cliticism of his rvork: that he had forrnd he $'asnot looking l'or.Indeed.one might 'r'hat evengo so fir asto savthat hc had lbund thc opposite ofrvhat he rvaslooking tbr. IFtucJci, pp. 1-+a-a6] The lmplicqtions of a Porodoxicol Discovery su l et phd[ 101] 1h( i m p o rta n c e ,th e n a n d n o rv ,ol the l eqons nominestlc la vic communsou\ dnimau\ cl dur r'1gy'f.?u.,r stcms first

svst em ' of al l l i om t he f act t hat , behind t his plain t it lc, Ber n. r r d of iltically pursued the consc<luences a discoverYthat rvasa surThat discoverv l)riscto him and a paradoxto his contemPorarics. r uas sct f br t h in t he doct or al t hesis hc dcf 'encledr n, \ 1, r lch 17, sur une nouvclle lbnct ion dt t loie consid( 'r d 185l : "Recher chcs ' commc or gaD( Pr oduct et t rdc m at iir e sucr i t chez I 'hom nr c ct accor r ling chcz l e s anim aur . "'f his t hcsisr let hr onedt he do- qm a of to uhi ct r . r nim als,being incapable sr nt ht 'sizingt hc nut r i( nt s ingestvegctable matter in orclcrto obtain them. tht:v nced, must showedthat that thc liver can in Bcrn.rrd, his uork on glvcogenesis, sl nthcsir e glucoseand, t hcr cf br e, t hat anim alsneed not obt ain fiom plants. IPrcfice, 1.cqons, 9l p. thjs substance it f102] For our pur poses, is not im por t ant t hat Ber nar dobtai ncd his r esult bv dint of f lar vsin his chem ical analvt ict cchin Tlni qucsand r ough apploxim at ions his m casur em enr s, r cf ict in that he dct ect ed t r o glr r cose t hc por t al vein bt t t r lir l r let ect it r ein led hinr t o conclude- an( l t hen t o ! er sr r per hepat i< i n thc t i l v - that r hc livcr not . , nlv ! c( r ( t es bile but also pt oduccr she living t issueand cnabling t gl ucos et hat is t 'ssent ial o 5ust aining variouspnrts of .rnimal organisms,in particul.rr th(' muscles,to cl o thcir r vor k. \ et Ber nar <l's h in his ver ilicat ion pr ocedur e, liir thc fimous "clean liver" cxpcriment, rvas.rlsogreatcr than the rvasto accur.rcv his methods \\'arrantcd.His genius, horvever, of Itavegraspedat on( c t hc signif icancc,im plicat ions and conscquencc s his disco't 'r r . of Fi rst , he ur r r Jr : r st oor l lr e had t aken t he lir st st ep t ouar d t hat thc solut ion ol r 1>r o[ r lenrhat dat ed back t o t he t 'ight eent h r <enrurr: \\'h.rt \1'.rs firrlctiori ,rf the so-ca)lcdductlcssgland-. th{ (or.bl ood lesselgl. r nds) such as t hc t hvr oid?Bcr nlr d solvcdt his probl cm t hr , r ugh. r ser iesol exper im cnt s int ende( l t o det r r onstrate the ne\ \ 'concept of "int er nal secr et ion"11855) ,a phr ase that onlv a 1c\\'vcitrs trrlir:r'rvould havclrccn takenas.rcontradic265

t ion in t er m s , a n i mp o s s i b i l i tya s u n th i nkabl eas n squareci rcl e. Second,and morc important, Uernardunderstoodthat he had lrit upon an argumcnt c.rpable exploding a theorv flrmlv estabof lishcd in the minds of contemporarvchemists.Whatevermisgiv( .r ingr or r e ma r h a r, ,rl ' ,.ttti l l u s tr.rti v c o m pJri \on:\, comprri ron her e is ir r e s i s ti b l e , c n Ga l i l c o o b s c rv cdspotson the sun, he Wh blorv to the old Aristotelian distinction bedclivcrt'cla clecisive susceptible generation to twccn the sublunarvrvorld, supposeril,rvorld, supposedlv and corruption, and thc supralunarv cternaland incorruptible. Hc taught mankind to scc analogous things in analogous uays. Similarlv, rvhcn Claude Bcrnanl discovcrerlthc glycogenic lirnction of the liver, he deliverecl clecisive a blorv to thc old dis t inc ti o n b e tl e e n th e p l a n t a n c la n i mal ki ngrl oms,according t o u' hi c h p l a rrtsc a n a n d a n i ma l sc annot synthesi ze mpl e si or ganic c om p o u n rJ si,n p a rti c u l a rh y d ro carbons.l c taught thc l human t'vr.: scc lifc in a nc\\ rvav,rvithout rlistinction betrvccn to plant and a n i m a l . In thc fbrtieth fessonof the Courstlephilosophie Auguste positivc, Com t e had \\' ri tte n i n 1 8 1 8 th a t rv h i l e t he:rt'ncrc hun< l rcds of *av s t o liv c , th e re \\' a sp ro b a b l v o n l v o ne \1i v to cl i e a natural dcath. In 1851,Cl:rudcBernardproved tlrat there rvasno clivision ol labor am o n gl i v i n g th i n g s :p l a n ts rv c rc not csscnti al suppl i as c r s of t hc g l u c o s en i th o u t rv h i c h a n i mal scannot l i ve. l he trvo kingdoms do not lbrm a hierarchl, and there is no teleological subordinationol one to the other. l his discovcrvpavcdthc rvay fbr a gcncral phvsiologv, scicncc of the lif'e lunctions, and this a clisciplineimmecliatelygained a place in thc academvalongside comparative From Bernarcl's doctoral thcsisto the last phvsiology. courses gaveas prolessorol generalphvsiologvat the illusa'um he (published in 187ti as Leqons lesphinomincsde la vie communs sur du\ onineux ct ou\ villdtdu\\, his *ork rvasall aimed at proving rvhi ch rni ght be cal l ed t he v alidit v o l a s i n g l eg u i d i n g p r.i n c i p l c,

suspcctto thc scientillc mind, or, philosophical, to usc a term Jess up logical.That ideacan bc summecl in a scntcnccfirst n.rctaphvsio \\' ri ttcn i n 1878:"Thcr c is but one uav ol lif e, one phlsiologv, pp. 560-621 fbr all living things." ["Claude Bcrnar<l,"Diologuc, 1103] I n t he eight ccnt hcent ur v,I m m anuel K. r ntar guedt hat $cr thc condit ions undcr *hich phvsicalscicncc \ \ 'asPossible c condit ionsol knowlcdgc in gcner al.Lat er ,in the trrnscendent al entitled "The Criticlue Part Irlcr o{ thc Critiquc oJ PracticalRcoson, ol -l el col o gicalJudgm ent , " he m odif lcd t his vieu, acknouledgr i ng that or ganism s ver et ot alit ics lvhoseanalvt icdccom posit iot t to explanationrveresubordinatt' an ideaol'finalitv, thc and causal According to Kant, rcscarch. governingprinciplc of all bioJogical thcre coul<lbe no "Ncrvton o1 a blac]eofgrass." ln other rvords, the scientific statusof biologv in thc cncvclopediaof knou ledgc could nevercompare*ith that ofphvsics. BelbreClaudc Bcrnar<|, bi ol ogi st s uer e f br ct 'd t o choose bet ueen idcnt if ving biologv anclm echanist s, ui th phl s ics, in t hc m annerol t he m at cr ialist s benvcen thc tuo, in the manncr ol the or raclicallv distinguishing (lerman naturc philosoplrers. Thc Nervttln frcnch naturalists and of the l i ving or ganismr vasClaucleBcr nar r l,in t he senset hat it llas he rvho realized that living things providc the kt:v to deciphcring their o* n structurcsanrl firnctions.Rcjcctingboth mechani sm .rn cl alism , Ber nar duas ablc t o clevelop cchniquesol' t vit bi ol ogi cal cxpcr im cnt at ionsuit t 'd t o t lr c specilic nat ur e of t hc obj cct ol st udv.I t is im possible not t o be st r uck b! t hc t or t r ast , In pr.obablv unrvitting,br.:tuccn the lblloll ing two p.rssagcs. 1c(on.t yie(l-csronsof Dcccmber 28 and sur lcsphinomincs dc ph.rsique; la 10, l 8l 6), I - r anc; ois, \ lagendie ot e,"l set t he lung r s a bellous, r vr the trache. r an air t ubc, and t hc glot t is as a vibr at ing r ecd.. . . as We h.rvean optical .rpparatus orrr eyes,.r musical instruncnt firr fbr our voiccs,a living r et or t lbr our st om aclr s. Bcr nar d,on t hc " othcr han d,in his Colr icr / cnot c. rwr ot ct "The lar vnx is. r lar lnx, t !

and rhc lcns of the eve is the lcns of thr cvc: in othcr rvtrrds,the mcchanicaland physicalconditions ncc('ssary thcir existence for arc satisfled onlv rvithin thc living organism." Thus, rvhile Bemard took {rom Lavoisier and l-aplacc bv u'ay of l\lagendic *'hat he hims elf c alled th c i d c a o l " d e tc rm i n i s m," hc * as the sol e i nventor ol the lriologicalconcept ol the "internaI cnvironrrrent,"the tonc c pt t hat fi n a l l v e n a b l e dp h y s i o l o g vto become a determi ni sti c s c ienc eon a p a r w i th p h v s i c s u t w i th out succumbi ngto fasci b nation with the phvsicalmodel. [Erudes, 148-49] The Theorcticol Foundotions of the Method rn , of11hat [ 104] lhe u n u s u a l , d a t th e ti m e p a r adoxi cal natr.rrc Bernarcl had "inadvertently"discoveredvvas n,hat enabledhinr to conceptualizehis earlv resultsin such a way as to cleterminethe courseofall his fLture rcscarch. Without the concept ofthe inner environnrent, it is impossible to undcrstaDdBernard'sstubbon adv oc ac v t a tc c h n i q u c th a t h e d i d n o r i nvent but to rvhi ch he o lc nr nc v r 'i m p e tu s r rh e te c h n i q u e o fv i v isecti on, rvhi ch he w as obliged to del'endagainstboth emotional outragc and the protcsts of Romantic philosophv."Ancient sciencervasable to conc eiv c only o f th c c x te rn a l e n v i ro n m e n t, but i n order to pl ace biologicalscienceon an experimental fboting one must alsoimaginc an interndlenvircnmcnt.I believethat I rvasthc first ro express this idca clearlv and ro stress importancc in understanding its the need lbr experimentationon living things." Note that the concept of the intcmal cnvironm('ntis given here as the theoreticalunderpinning ofthe technigue ofphvsiologicalexperimentation. 1857, In Bernard$ rote, "The blood is made lbr the organs.That much is true. But it cannot be repeatedtoo olten that it is also madc by the organs."What alloued Bernard to propose this radical revision ol hematologvu'asthe concept of internal secrctions, wlrich he had fbrmulated trvo vearscarlier. Aficr all, there is a consid-

cr.rblectlerence bcnveen the blood's rclation to the lun(s .rnd its relatrn to the liver. In thc ltrngs,the organismintcracts \\ ith thc inorlanicworld through the blood, rl hereasin the liver thc organisn intcractsrvith itself. Thc point is important cnough that it bcarsepeating:rlithout the idea of intcrnal secretions,rherc coulrl bt no ideaol an internalenvironment.,rnds ithout thc idca ot an i n: r nal cnvir onm ent ,t her e could bc no aut ononr ous science of:hvsiologv.Iftudcs, pp. 1,17-,18] [l05 The concept of the intcrnal envinrnmentthus dependul on the I ior fbrmulation of thc concept ol internal sccretions;it a)sodep : ndcd cell t heor v,whose cssent ial on cont r ibut ion Ber n.rrdacc:ptedcvcn as he greu' incre.rsingiv skepticalof the thcorv oItl , : lbr m at ivebl. r st cm e. Cell t heor v'scr ucial cont r ihut ion wasils irsistcnce the Jutonomv of the anatomicalcomponents on and t heir f unct ionalsubor dinat ion o r he of comJex or ganism s t morpho ogicalr vholc, Bcr nar cl squar elvcnr br acccl cell t heon: "This ct I thcorv is more than just a word," he \1rote in his lcqors sur ltr piinomines alt I(1| ie communsau.\ (1nimau.\ aut riqitoux. et Bv so dtrng, he rr,as abl<r portrav phvsiologvas an experimento tal sci en er vit h it s o* n dist inct ivem et hods.I n lict , cell t heor v made it rossiblcto undcrstandthe relation betrveenthe part and the uhr e, t he com posit e. r ndt hc sim ple, in a r vayt hat dilleled sharplr:-om tlre nr.rtlrenratical nrechanicalmodel: the cell rcor vealed a.vpc ofmorphological structurequite diflirent liorn that of carlie "artifacts" and "machines."It becamepossibleto irnagol dissect ing i ne rvay, analvzing, and alt er ingliving t hings using mechnn or t -'al,phvsical chcm ical t echniques o int er vencin t he econom ol an or ganjt u holc *. it hout int er liling *'it h it s esscnti.rl orgaricnature.The fifth of thc I4ons de ph.rsiologic opiratoire a contai nr num bcr ol cr ucial passagcs t his ne$ conc( 'pt ion on of the rilation betrlccn the parts and the ruhole. First, Uernard that "all or gansand t issues e not hing but a com binaexpl ai nr ar

tion of anatomicalelements,and the life of thc organ is thc sum inhcrent in eachtvpc of element."Sccond, ofthe vital phcnomena hc points out that thc converseof this proposition is filsc: "ln attempting to analvzclifc bv studying the partial lives of thc various kinds ofanatomical elements,wc must avoid an error that is all too casy to make, rvhich is to assumethat the nature, form of and neecls thc total lif'e of thc individual are the samcas those of the anatomical clements." In othcr uords, Bernard'sgcncral grervout of a comtrinationof the concept of the interphvsiologv nal c nv ir on me n trv i th th e th c o rv o f th e c el l , rvhi ch cnabl edhi m not to dcvelop a clistinctivccxpcrimental method, onc that vvas Cartesianin stvlc yct conceded nothing to vitalism or Romanticism. In this rcspect, Bernard rvasradicallv dillerent fiom both GcorgcsCuvicr, the author of the lctter to Nlertrud that sen'erias conrpar&,and Auguste Comte, d'anatornie pref)ce to Cuvier's I elons positive the author of thc fbrtieth lesson of thc Coursde philosophie de and a fiithful disciplc ofBlainville's introduction to thc Cours ph.veiololTie ginircle et comparie. For all three of thcse authors Cuvicr, Comtc and Blainville - comparativcanatomv $'asa subs t it ut e f or e x p e ri me n ta ti o n ,rv h i c h th e v hel d to be i mpossi bl e llecause arralvtic the scarchfbr the simple phenomenonino itablv, of or s o t hc y b c l i c v e d ,d i s to rts th e e s s e n cc thc organi sm,rvhi ch lir nc t ionsh o l i s ti c a l l v .N a ttrrc ,b v c x h i b i ti ng (i n C uvi er' srvords) of " near lv all p o s s i b l ec o m b i n a ti o n so f o rg ansi n al l the cl asses " vcry pl ausi bl econcl uanim als , "a l l o rv e dth e s c i e n ti s tto d ra r, sionsconcerning the naturc and use ofeach organ." Bv contrast, Bcrnard sarvcomparativeanatom! as a prerequisitefor developing a gencral phlsiologv on the basisof cxPerimentsin comParativc phvsiologv.Comparativcanatomy taught physiologiststhat nature laid the groundrvork lbr phvsiologvbv proclucinga variParadoxicallv, wasthe incrcasing it ctv ol structureslbr analvsis. inc liv idua ti o no f o rg a n i s m si n th e a n i mal seri esthat macl ethe
) 70

de analvticalstudv of firnctionspossiblc.In the Principes mitlecine nrote, "For analvzinglilc phcnomcna, is c\peimcntdle,Bcrnar<J The cluestion hasbcen it bettcr to studv higher or lo\\ er animals? e\anrincdfiequentlv.Somc savthat the lor,er animalsare simplcr. one animal is ascomplcte asthc I do not think so, and, in anvcase, ncxt. I think, r at her ,t hat t hc highcr anim r ls ar c sinr plerbecause rhcy are morc lirllv differentiated." Similarlv, in Notcsdiroclies he obscr vedt hat "an anim al higher up t he scaleexhibit s m or c highlv difli:rcntiateclvital phenomena,rvhich in somc wavs arr an sinrplcrin naturc,\4hereas animal loller dou'n thc organicsc.rlt: cxhibits plrcnomennthat are more confiscd, IcssfLllv cxprcssed, an< lmore dilllcult t o dist inguish. " ln ot her r vor ds, t he m or e phecompl cx t lr e or ganism ,t hc m or ( 'dist inct t he phvsiological r norncnon.I n phvsiologv, list inct m eansdiller ent iat ed,and t hc distinct must be studicd in thc morphologicalllcomfirnctionallv because plex. In thc clementarvorganism,evcn'thing is cor-rfirseri m cchanics e ar e' ervthi n g is conf bunded.ll t he I awsof Car t csian ol best stud icd in sim plc m lchincs, t he lavvs Ber nar dian phvsiologv are b est st uclied com plcx or ganism s. Fr ur lcr pp. l4c) - 51] in I , Life, Deoth and Creotion that \r'cr1t lork bearstracesol thc stru.qglr ll06] All of llernarcl's on in his mind benr,een profbundbut not unconditionaladmihis rati on fi ) r Xavicr Bichat and his sinccr cgr at it ude lbr t he lessons hc hacllcarnedfronr Frangois Nlagenclie. Bcrnardlbttnd a rvav llt to reconcile t he t r vo m cn's conf lict ing philosophies biologv of u ithout compromisingcither. Ilc did this trl pcrsistentlv cxploiting his ou n firndamcntalexperinrentsand the ncrv concepts he hatl been obliged t o lir r nr ulat cin or dcr t o int cr pr ct his r esult s. -l ' ht: upshot r las a "f undam t 'nr al conccpt ion of Jile" incor por at i ng tuo lapidar vpr oposit ions: i is cr cat ion" ( I t t 65) and "lif i' "lif i s < l eath" 1875 . ( )

Lile is dcath. Ily this Bernard meant th.rt a rvorkin{ organism of is an organismengagcd the process dcstrovingitself, and that in it s f unc ti o n s i n v o l v ep h v s i c a la n d c h e mi cal phenomcni that can be unde rs to o di n te rmso fth e l a w so f(nonl i vi ng) matter. Absolutclynot. Norv that chcmWasthis a mechanistpositionT istrv rvas.rpositivesticnce, the variousfornrsofenergr had been a unif ied b v a l a n ' o l c o n s e n a ti o n , n d thc erpl anati onofel ectri cal had nccessitated formulation of the new concept the phenomena of a " f iel d " - i t u a s n o l o n g e r p o s s i bl eto be a stri ct nrechani st. l\lore than th.rt, Bernardfbund in his concept of the internal environment vet another rcason not to be a mechanist. lrlechanisrn implied a geometrjc representation things: the mcchanistphvof siciansof the eighteenth ccnturv had rcpresentedthe organism asa machinecomposedof interkrcking parts.But Bcrnarddid not think of organisms machines,althoughhc continued to use the as phrasem.rciine rivonte(n'ithout in any rvar being bound bv the nr et aph o r). fh e i n tc rn a l e n v i ro n n re n trvel dsthe parts together in a who l c i m m e d i a tc l va c c e s s i b l e e achonc. The organi smi s to not rooted, as $.c representit, in metric space.lndecd, the existence ol thc internalenvironmentnssurcs "highcr" organismthe s o- c allc c b c c a u s ei t p o s s e s s ern i n ternal envi ronment - of an l s " " " obv ious i n d e p c n d e n c e ," a p ro te c ti v emcchani sm," .rn el asti citv."72Thus, the relation of the organismto the environment is nDt one of passive depenrJcnce. What is morc, it u'asbecausr Bernardrvasnot a mcchanistand knerv that he was not seen as one - that hc alrvavs insisted t hat s c ie D c ei n g e n e ra l ,a n d h i s p h v si ol ogvi n parti cul ar, w .erc detcrntinistic,and firrther,that he rvas thc [irst (asindeed he was) to introduce thc tcrm "determinism" into the language ofscienorganism's relativeindetists and philosophers. Thc macroscopic pcndence of thc enr ironmr'nt was cnsured by the determinatc <lependence its microscopic elcmentson the intctn:rl environof

nrcnt. Bcrnard thus rtjected any attcmPt to Portravhis doctrine im as.r ki nd of vit alism or as som ehor v plving t hat I if e'is exem pt l r' ,,mtht la'r r ol'physir . anr lchent ist r v. Lilc is crcation.I{ Bernard 1lnsnot a nrcch.rnist,rvashe not a of materialistinsofarashc attemptedto basethc lar"'s living things he those of inert mattcr? Thc ansu'eris no, l.lecaust' insisted crn that " l i l e is cr cat ion. "What dir l he m can bv t his? the porverof phvsiThe phrase"life is death" acknorvledgetl cal .rnclchemical laws over what is org.rrrcin living organisms. The phrase"lif'e is creation" ackno" ledgcd thc distincti'enesso1 Vital crcation, organizingst'nthesis organi/qtion. thc organism's also callecl of theseterms referredto that asPect lif'e that Bernar<l "cvolution," though not in the Darrviniansensc,sincc it reti'rrccl <le. elopnr entI.t was t he onc l) henonr enon onl v to cr n( ogcnet ic "lt of life u'ith no nonorganicanaloguc: is uniquc, peculiarto livi ng thi ngs. 'I his cvolut ionar ysvnt hesisis nhat is t r ul\ vit al in Ber nar r applicd t hc t er nr "or ganic cr e. r t ion"t L) l l i ' i ng things, "Tr or l roth chc r nicalsvnt hesis, t hc const it ut iot rol pr ot oplasm ,and demorphological svnthesis, the rcconstitution of substanccs or or . stroved v t he f ir nct ioning t ht or ganism C: r cat ion . \ olut ion b of r,ras living cxplessiono1'tlrcorganism's c<lto strttcturenlatnt the ter. ["Clau<lcBernard," Dtdlofu,r,pp. 566-68] most carefullv 'ritten tcxts - thc Introdttc[107] ln Bernard's tion. the RdppottanclL,r Scienrc etpirimcntolc- he distingLrishcd bet* cen / . r r , s, hich ar e gener aland applicable o all r hings,anr l t u -l.hisspccilicitv rvhich are spccilic to organisms. lormsor proccsses, is somctimcstermerl "nrorphological,"sometinrcs "evolutionarv." In fact, i n Ber nar cl's devellcxi<on,er olut ion r ef cr st . r t he r cgul. r r opment ol an inclividu.rl inception to nraturity.Tlrc mature liorn lorm is the sccret imperativcol the evolutiorr.In thc /ntroduction ht states hat "ep(cilic, er olut ion, r n,phlsiological r ar conr lit ions e rhc qukl prop um ol [riologicalsci(nc(i,"and rhc Aapporr confirnrs ) 7)

t his r iel: " l t i s o b v i o u sth a t )i ri n g th i n gs, br.narureevol uri on.rrv and regenerative, diffel raciicailvfiom inorq.rnicsubst.rnces, r n( l t he v ita l i s ts .l re o rre c t to s a vs o ." 7 1Ihc di fl crcncc betrveen c biologv an d th c o th c r s c i e n c e s s th a t bi oJogvtakcsaccount of i the guiding principle of vital evolution,of thc "idca that expresscs thc naturc of the living being and the vcry clscnce ollife.",-t The notion ofan organicguiding principle mav vlell havcbeen t he guidin g p ri n c i p l c o l C l a u d eBe rn a rd' s l osophyof bi ol ogy. phi Th,rt nrar be uhv it renraincd sonrervhat vague, maskedbv the 1'cryteflns it used to e\pfcs5 thc idca of organiz.rtion vital idea, v it al < lc s i g n ,p h e n o me n .rlo rc l e r,d i rc c t cd order, arrangemcnt, orclering, r'ital prcordering,plan, blueprint, anclfbrntation,among others. Is it too audaciousto suggestthat with thcsc concepts, cquivalentin Bernard's mind. hc intuitivelv sensed rvhat rvc might nor r adav s a l l th c a n ti ra n d o mc h a ra c tcrof l i fc - anti rancl om n c i t he s ens cn o t o l i n d c tc rmi n .rteb u t o f n cgati vcentropri A notc in t hc f iop p o rr c c msl o s u p l )o rtth i s i n tc rpretati on: s Il spccial marerial conditions nccr'ssarv crclte spccilicphcilrf to n()mcn.t nutrition or er()lritiou, ot that docsnot meanthat thc Iarv ol ordcr andsLlccessi()n givcsmcaning ()r crcatr!,rel.rtions th.rt t(), lmong phcnomen,r contes lrom mattcritscll. lb argucthc contrarv u ouic l c to l a l l i n to th t c ru d cc rro ro l th e rnateri al i srs. b In anv case,therc cnn bc lo doubt that Bcrrr.rrd, thc lnlrorlucin tl<rn, identificd phvsical nature l ith disor<lcr, .rnd rhar he rcgarded rhc properties of lifc as irrprobable relative to thore of martcr: "l Iere asalrvavs, evcrythjngcomcs from the idea that createsand guidesall t h i n g s . A l l n a tu ra l p h e n o m e n aexpress themsel vcs by phr s ic oc he m i c a m e a n s ,b u t th o s e m e a n sof cxJl ressi on di sl arc rritrutedhaphazardlv charactcrs likc ofthc alphabctin a bor, lrom r r hic h a lir rc c e x tra c tsth e rn i n o rd e r to e xpress rhe most di vcrse

6 thought or t nechanism s. "tRecall,t oo, t hat her edit v,uhich u, r s still ln obscureconccpt an(l ber'ondntan'sreachin 187(r,neltrol scentecl Bernarrl essenti.rl to an clcmcnt of thc lar,'s nrttrtheless phology,of ontogeneticcvolution.tt Am I stretchingu'ortls,then, m t ordi stor t ing Ber nar d's caning,il l suggesthat , in his onn r T'ar of and i n delianceof t he r cigning supr . em acv phvsicalconcept s a i n bi ol ogr , he uas f br m t r lat ing con( . ( pt sim ilar t o r vhat t odar 's c, bi ol ogist s,educat cdlr v cyber net ics, ] ll t he genet ic cot lci'Tht ' \\'ord "co(le," after all, hasmultiplc mcanings,anclrvhcn Bernarcl \rrore that the vital fi)rcc haslegislati|el)(,rers, his mrtaplror nr.r\ onlv a bcen a har bingcrof t hings t o com e. [ 3uthc glim psr : <l l rave that evcn part ofthe tirture, for he docs not seem to haveguessed i nfi rrmat ion( or , t o usc his t cr m , legislat ion)r er luir esa ccr t ain quanti tv ol ener gv.Alt hough he called his ( loct r ine "phvsic; r l vi tal i sm, "ls it is lcgit im at e t o ask r vhet her ,givcn his not ion ol phvsi calI or ce anr i his f iilur e t r i gr ant t he "vit al idca" t he st at us rl ol a l brce, he r eallr uent ber ond t hc nr ct Jt ) hvsic.vit alism t hat he con<lcnt ned Bichat .I f r ulir . pp. 158- 6{] l in The l deo ol f t pcr im ent ol M edicinc

belie'c in an et cr nal phjlor o[108] Just is cer t ain philosophcr s phv, many phvsicians cven today Lrclic'r'in an etcrnal anclprimorcl i .rlmedicine. t hat of llippocr at es, - f o\ om e, t hcn, it m r y seem rlclibrratclr pr)\'()cative that I datc the I'eginningol modcrn mcrl i ci ne fr om t he I r r onr cntr r hcn cxper im r nt ll nr edicinc r lcclar er l \\' ar (JDt hc Hillpocr at ic t r ar lit ion. lb do s<-is not t o ( lir ip. r r . r ge r l l i ppocr ar cs.I n f ict , Claude Ber n. r r dm . r cle r ee ust 'ol Conr r c's f larvof tlrree stages ol'lruman clcvcloprncnt. acknonledgcd rhat He " thc stageol exper im ent al eclicine m dcpent ledon a pr ior evoluti on." ' - ') Yet , while hist or t showsllippocr . r t c! t . ) havebccn t he founder ol olrscnation.rlmt:tlicint.,cor-rct tirr the firturc is lblcrn i ng mer licir r e not t ( ) r cnounc( llilt pot r . r t cs it but t o <livest scll ol

m his m et h ,6 1 j . T h e tl i p p o c r' rti c e th o d rl as to rel v on nature; contemplative and descrip,,rb...r'", ion, lnedicine ua: Passive, is aggressive science'"With the aid tive. Ex[)cril-.,ntal medicin, ,rf th. .ri ,i r" . 'rrr^"ntol uir 's' man bccomes an inventor of phe-a of the fa.lory creation and there is no limit nomena, 1 man in to the p\ow( h.rt hc may t'ltain ovcr naturc "8L BY contrast' an obs er v at j .rn rc i e n c e " p re i i c ts ' rv a tc hcs'a\oi ds, [rut acti vel Y "observational medicine examahorg.r rr.r,- rg."8lln Ptrt).trlar' but does not touch riiscase " explains iliresscs ines, obs."r.r,. 'nd to a b a n dx e dPu re e xP (' ctati on admi ni ster . W hen I l; l i p ..ra te s ] o u ra g (n J turt' \ .' \tn tcndenci cs. ttr to ( r em r . die .- i .r. " l * to u .' rh ro u g l ri ts r.: rl a r P h a s e' " ' ^'[r' rnard appl i ed the t r o. , " n . t i i ." ,.. r' , l. , . ig. r " 1 .1 o n fi p P o c ra ti c " 'a n y .mo dcrndoctor uho fai l ed to h i s :' Pp ri o ri ty , and rvho $as concerned . u, ,.i n ,.,, Pa ti e n t - ok . ancl above all 1 al',rincand .1.rr'.'diseascs rvho chosediagnosis ( l te n" rsol ol i ' ts: Thomas ' (\' \\e rc nr oqn( , \ j i - d l r< J l l n e n l . rl S 1d. . nho ,r,.,,'rn q o i s B o i ' s i d e Sa u v a ger c l a C r' ri r' P hi l i ppe '. P i, r t . l. . , * .r-.n r.." -fh tro p h i l ,l ta c i n tl rr laFnnl c' anrlal l rhe oth.xrc that manifestedthemers u h() hellhat (liseases essences selves mraortrilcn tlran not imPure fbrnr' In;ddition, Bernard including Rudolph brancle.l , asoft naturalistsrthc phvsicians, Vircho*...7, uiusince the 5;r' ofGiovanni BattistaMorgagni and lical relations bctn'een changesin Bichat, . pai,nked fcrr e116 s an anat om ir i o a l ,c .rtc tu rc s d .:l e c ta b l e y nl P tomsi n thc hope of rhe basisof a scicnce of dismokin. f,[,gic.rl anator .nerr l d r < rd u case. F q , - 7 f " " ara 1 ' , l rr)rl i , ' t h c l i e v e i n the eri ' rencc ofdi s,/ medi ci ne t inc t di-..za ti ri rr, rh e u tr-rteg o a l o f cxperi nrcnt.rl li. . ;4 q s a n d rl ' r .rrr,rrrr i th parh,,l ogi cal n i )\' ,1 r. \ ^J \ lo L ,f!' tl " tt i ,,1,l i s 'a ' :h e r" ' rreonI r' rg' rni sm' n normal r n. r ( onr \ . /f' a ,l J i s e a sic j ust I di stLrrbancc the s in l ' n d i ti o rrs ' 1 1 or abnor,/ )\i.,logicJllirr.:: )ns. Experimentalmedicinc is the or ganis n rl [l,yri.rltll ,,f-. m.,.bid. "PhvsiologicalIa'r's mancxpcri r.ttr1, )7 6

"Whatcvcr cxists in ilcst themselves pathologicalPhenomena."85 m ust pr esentand explain it sclf phvsiologically. "86 pathol o gically fhus, it follou's that "the experimental phvsicianshall bring his once he knorvsits cx.rct dctelrninin[]ucnce to bear on a clisease I Irm, tha t is, it s pr oxint at e cause. "87t uas indecd t im e t o sal Pierre lean (ieorge C.rbrnishad fireu,ell to expect.rnrnrt'dicine. the Ancicnts' art oI obsen'ation.rnd lretrveen c;rrlierdistinguishctl the lVloderns'artof exPerimentation.Bernardsarvthe historl' of sci cnti fic m er licine in sim ilar t er m s: "Ant iquit r does not seem of to havec onceivecl t he idea o[ exper im cnt al scicnccor , at anv of But insteacl linking in r.ate,to have believecl its possibilitv."stl did, Bernard to the Ancients,asCabanis mcdicine and obscrvation tou'ard medicine to set out on the Pathof experimetrration urgc<l a l i rture of dom inat ion and por ver ."To dom inat c living nat ur e sci enti ficalh, t o conquer it f or t he bencf it <, fm an: t hat is t he The idca of ' idea of t hc cxpcr im ent alph\ sician. "8'r fi rndament al crpcri m cot al m eclicine,t he dom inat iou of living nat ur e, s'as in the opp osit cof t hc llippocr at ic icleaas expr essed t hc t it le o1' ( Toussaint luindanr 's 1768 t r eat ise,"l- a Nat ur e oppr im ee par la p. m6decinemoderne."eo [Etudes, l3l] Magendienot onlv thc namc [109] Bernardtook from Frangois of the ne* discipline he r vasabout t o cr eat c but also a cer t ain that the subject maticlea u'hat its content should be: namel-v, of ter and m et hod of phvsiologvshould bc t he s. m e as t hosc of dc pathologv.ln one ol his legont sur lesphinomincsphrsiques lo vi c(l )ec em ber28, l8l6) , Nlagendie at eclhat "pat hologl is. r lso st t For nr e, pat ho) ogicalphenonr cnaar e not hing but P hvsi ologr ', modified phvsiological proposition, As phenomena." a thr.'t'retical this rvasnot a nerv idear in the earlv part of thc nineteenth century, even a modestIycultivateclphvsicianrvoulclhaveassociated the idea that pathologvis a subsetol physiology rvith the still presti gi ous n am e of Albr echt von Llallcr .I n t hc pr cf act 't o his 1755



f:rcnch transfation of von Haller's De pdrtibut corporishumani (1152), l\'1. sentientib$ itritabil;bus ct Tissot rvlote, "lf pathologv's dcpenclence phvsiologv\\'ere better knortn. there ll'ould be on no need to lre]aborthe influence that the rre\l discoveryought t o ha\ e or) th e a rt o f h c a l i n g . B u t u n l b r runatel yue l ack a u' ork '[hcory entitled ./hc,lpplicotionol to Procticc, I have ventured so to c\pfes\ a feu thorrghts conccrningrlrc prncticalbcncfits ofirrit abilit v . " ' l h i s i ta t(m c n t i s l i rl l o rv c db v .r scri es obscnati ons of on t he adnr in i s tra ti o n f o p i u m , to n i c s , p u rgati ves o and so forth. To be sure, this \\'asa mere "system," rvhereas l\lagendicclaimcd to bc able to rcad, and to te.rchothers to reacl,the nntural identity of phv s io l o g va n d p a th o l o g v i n th c fa c ts thcmsel ves,i ndepenc lentol an r i n te rp re ta ti o n .Ye t i t to o k a mtrl i r.alsvstem,i ndeed the last ol'the medical svstemsaccordingtr) B('r|-|ard,el reveal to t hc ir lc aol c rp tri me n ta l me d i c i n c ,th a r i s, the i denthat the methorls of thc lal'rrr,rtrrry and thc methods ol thc clinic are one and \ alr lr ' . Bu i l t o n th c ru i n s o f rh e g re l t D osol ogi es, s i dea t b( thi t t t r r t ,d r r t ,,l i , i n r' l ro n r .r .p e c u l .rri v es r i rrnr i nr,r a prrrgrqrsi ve s c ienc e. ' lh e s v s te mBc rn a r(lh a d i n mi n d. rhat w hi ch pavedthe uav for a medicine \\'ithout svstems,v'as Franqois-Joseph Victor Broussais's. [ftudcs, p. 135] ln re c o g n i z i n gth a t Bro u s s a i h ad demol i shedthe i dca s [ 110] of pat holo g va s a s c i e n c eo l ' c l i s e a s d i s t i nct l i om thc sci cnceof e phv s iolog i c a lp h e n o me n a ,Be rn a rc d i d nor r(' l i ncl ui shhj s o\\' n l c laim st o o l i g i n rl i tv , * h i c h l a v i n h i s h a l i ng been the fi rst to propos t bas in g s c i e n tj fi cm c d i c i n e o n a n experi nrentrJ a physi ol ogy, lJ ur r v hat rl i d h e n rrl e o l ' M a g e n d i e l ' In 185-1, hen he Il l l ed i n r' I dr . Nl. r ge n d ia t th c C o l l r)g e J c[i r;rn c t' h i s fi rst * ords rrere that e c , " t he s c ien ti l i c m e c l i c i n e a m s u p p o s e d o teachdoesnot cxi st." I r I n 1865. h c n o te d tl ra t " e x p e ri me n ta lor sci cnti fi c mcdi ci ne i s nou' c onr i n g to g e th e ro n th e b a s i so f p h vsi ol ogv, . thi s cl evel op. mcnt is no\1 certain."')lIn the Princrpcs, sutnmecl the tlvent) he up )7 8

since his f ir st cour se. ') lHe r vassur c t hat vcari th at had passcd had been ma<le: anr the lbunclerof cxperinrcntalmed"l progress had blazeda t r ail, accor dingt o Ber nat d,but he i ci nc." Nlagcndic a nor tlcvelopecl mcthod. Nor coulcl had neithcr set a clestination hc hrve, bccausche l. r cled t he m canst o build a br idge bct uccn the l abo r at or t anr l t he clinic, t ( ) pr ovc t hJt r llect ivc t r cnt nr ent \ lt Whlt sust ainr 'r l coul d be d<r lucet l onr t he r csult sol 1- lbr r iologr . t < of B crnardin his pat h- br eaking nt cr pr ise\ \ 'as he ar lar cnt - ss just of such a possibilit r ', just r uch. r r calit \ : "1 t hink t h. r t r her c ar c cleJrlr that phvsiologvis rhc baris ol' no\l cnough facrs to pr<rur in t mccl i ci nc, t he sense hat . r ccr t ain num ber ol pat holot icalphcb.rckto phvsiological phenonrena,.rnd nomenacan nou be tracecl it can be shovvn,mr)reovertthat the salrlc lar,s govt:rn both."'r1 a Statedmorc clearlr, Bcrnard'scl,rim to havefounrlcd tlisciplinc, o.cn though hc cretlirsothcrs u ith h.rring thc idca lirst anrl,rl,tainof i ng thc e ar liestr r sult \ . r cr t s ( ) n t he phvsiop. r t holoql <lialr t 't t 's, that i \, ult im at el! , or r t hc di\ ( ( ) \ ( r l ol t he glr cogcnic lir nr t iolr n ol thc livcr-f...1 For [Jernard, expcrir.rrct.rl crpl.rn.rtion thc thc ol validir r oi t hc pr inciplcs mechanism di. r bct es ol <lcm , r nst r at ecl t he sct fbrth in t hc / nr r r r iluct ion 1865:t he pr inciple ( r f r hc iclent it v o1 o1 thc l ans ol hcalt h and disease;hc pr inciple of t hc <let er r r int i sm o1biologicalphenom cn. rand t hc pr incipleol t he specilicit v ; ol bi ol ogicalf unct ior r s,h. t t is, t hc dist inct ionbet *een t he int er t nal .rn(lc xt em al en\ ir onnr cnt s.I o f 6und exper im cnt , rnr eclicine l \ras to dem onst r at et he consist o) cvanr i com pr t ibilit t ol t hese pri nci ples.Jhat r lonc. Ber n. r r d venton t o r c5cLr t he r r eu t lis<: ir e pl i nc fro m it \ ( l( t r act ( ) r s, he olr l- f ashioned\ '\ t em at ist s \ incr it r it <.rbl! rrerltledt'irhcr t,t onroi<rg)r,r to vit.rlisnr,bt slrrlrving thern that thc ses. r nr e in<. ipl<cr r ulr lcr plain t he r er \ , phenonr ena pr s on rvhi ch t hcv bascd t hcir object ions. 1\ lagcnt lie'sr \ l( \ \ as ver \ ! dillcrcnt fiom Bcrnarrl'r:l\'lagcndie h.rd asscrtcdrrurhs, rcllrte(l crrors, pr onouncet ljudgm ent s- lir r him , ] if e uas r nr <, chanical

phcnomenon and vitalism an aberration.The discovervof internal secretions, fbrmulationofthe conccpt ofthe internalenvithe ronment, the demonstration ofcertain regulatorv mechanisms and stabilizedparameters the composition of that environment in thcse things enabled Bernardto be a detcrminist rvithout being a mechanist,and to understandvitalism as an error rather than a fbllv. In othcr rr.ords, found a u,ay to change perspectives he in the cliscussion phvsiological of theory.When Bernardproclaimecl, wit h a s e l f-c o n fi d e n c e a t c o u l d e a s il ybe mi staken fbr smugth nes s ,t hat th c re r+ ,o u l d e n o m o re re v ol uti onsi n medi ci ne, i t b r v asbec a u s eh e l a c k e d th e m c a n s to d escri be phi l osophi cal l y what he r+'as conscious ofhaving achieved.He did not know rvhat to call his idea of expcrimental mcdicine; he did not knorv how to savthat he had brorrghtabout a Copernicanrevolution. Once it could be shou'n that the internal environment aflbrdcd the organisma ccrtain autonomvrvith respectto changingconditions in the external environment, it also becamepossiblenot only to refirtethe misconceptions ofvitalism but to explain horv they had come about in thc first place. And once it could be shown that the proccsses responsiblefbr thc svmptoms ofa disease such as diabetescxist in thc normal as well as the pathologicalstate, it bccame legitimate to claim that the proper approachto understandingdisease was to understandhealth. At that moment, the culture'sattittrdc tolvarddiseasc changed.When peoplc belicved that diseases \i,ereessenccs with a natureall their orvn, their only thought r+,as, Bernard said, "to be warv of them," that is, to as strike a compromise rvith thcm, But rvhcn experimental medic ine c laim c d th e a b i l i tv to d e te rm i n e t he condi ti ons of heal th and def in e d d i s e a s e s a d c v i a ti o n fi o m those condi ti ons, atti a tudcs torvarddisease changed:mankind no.rv rcjccted illnessand s ought t o s ta mp i t o u t. T h u s , c x p e ri mental nrcdi ci ne w as but one f or m o f th e d e m i u rg i c d rc a m th a t al fl i cted al l the i ndus28o

of ccnt ur y, when science, tri al i zedsociet ies t he m id- ninet cr : nt h its applications,becamea social fbrce. That is rvhv Berrhrough nrrd rvasimmediately recognizedby his contcmporariesas one of those *,ho symbolized thc agc: "ile \r'asnot lmerelv] a great Dumas told Vicphvsiologist,he was Physiologv,"Jean-Baptistc ror L)uruv on the day of Bernard'sftrneral,thcrcby transfbrming thc man i nt o an inst it ut ion. It may even be that Bernard,in all modestv,identified himsi:lf u ith phvsiologv.When he stakedhis claim as the firunder of his cxperi me nt alm edicine, hc sim ply clem onst r at ed alvar eness rvhich had cnabledhim to refute the that it was his own research objcctions raisedagainstthe nerv disciplinc. vari()rls Bcrnardkneu'that he had invented neither the term nor the medicine but, by reinvcntingthe content, project of experimental "Modern scirntiflc medicine is he had made the idea his or+,n: thcrefbre basedon kno* lcdge of the lile of the elements in an Thus, it relies on a diflerent conception of internalenvironment. tht: human body. These ideasar e m ine, and t his vier vpoint is llowcver , no doubt essenti allvhat of exper im ent alm edicine. "et t remcmbcring that he had written in the Intrcduction that "art is 1,scienccis rve,"he addcd: "Thesc neu'icleas and this nelv point of vi crv d id not spr ing lull- blown f r om m , vim aginat ion. l'hey camc to me, as I hope to shorv,purelv because thc cvolution of ofsci encc. M y ideasar e t her ef or ef ir m or c solid t han if t hev had bcen mv or vn per sonal viewsand not hing m or e. "[ . . . ] At several points in thc forcgoingaccount, I haveu rittcn that "Claude Bernard did not know how to say" this or that. Someonc might object that I am substituting for.r,r'hat actuallv said hc rvhat I th ink he should havesaicl. am per f 'ect lv I uilling t o concede that I do not shar et he adm ir at ion of som c com m ent at or s lor Bernardas a \\,riter; pcrhapsmy critics u.ill concedc that, in attempting to situate Bernard'slntroduction historically and con,

c ept unliz e i t e p i s te m o l o g i c a l l vI, h a v cgi vcrr hi m prcci sel vthe credit he dcscn'cs,sincc cvcrvthing I say is lrorrorvc<] liom him. As Victor (-ousin,a philosopherI do not customarilvquotc, onct: put it , " l- a n rc i t n e v e r u ro n g . T h c o n l v pnrbJcnri s fi ndi ng out uhat c ons ti tu te s c l a i m u p o n i t." [[ru d cs,pp. ]l E -.+ l ] a The Limits of Bernardian Theorv ofknorvl cdge I lll] T hc re c a n b e n o d o u b t th a t th e a ccunrul ati on in s uc h ba s i cd i s c i p l i n c sa s p a th o l o g i (al.rn.rtom\, srol ogvand hi his t opat h o l < rg v ,h v s i o l o g va n d o rg a n i c chemi stry nccessi tatcd p painlir l r e v i s i o no f m a n v o f th e a tti tu d estotl ar(l di seasc that thc cightccnth cr:nturl bcquc.rthcdto the niDeteenth.Olall the disc iplinc s , i t rv a sp h v s i o l o g v a t mo s t d i rcctl v chal l enged th the naturalisticpalarligm,rvhich rightly or rvronglvclaintedrhe authority of a llipPoclatic tradition revampecl sUit contemporarytastes. to W hilr ins i s ti n go n th c fu n d a m e n ta li d enri tr ol -the normal and r he par ho l o g i c a l;> h v s i o l o gp ro m i s e dro ri etl ucemodt' sof.trcat, v Dren(fronr knorr ledgeof their pracricalt'flc<ts. Being an cxperim ent al s c i c n c r:,l i k e p h v s i c sa n d c h e n ti st , rvhoseresul tsand techniques it usecl,physiologv rvasnor onll not antagonisticto t hc idc a o f a s c i e n ti l i c a l l y b a s e dm e d i ci nc but actual l y cal l ed f br t he r ati o n a l i z a ti o n fm c d i c a l p ra c t i ce.The term " rati onal o is m " las i n l a c t rv i d e l vu s e c to c h a ra c tcri zc medi ci neofthe l thc future; one of the flrst to usc the term in this $av was Charles Schiltzcnberger Strasbourg, u'ho in 184.1 in .rdlocatcdthe applic at ion t o n te d i c i D e f* h a t h e c a l l e d" e rperi rl ent.rlr.rti onal i sm," o u hic h as l .rtec s l E 7 9 h c s ti l l p rc fi ' rre dt o B ern.rrd' " erpcri mens j rkob H enl e publ i sheda t al nt c < lic i n c ." ' r(' 1 8 .1 6th c Gc rm a rr In , I lan<lhuch ratrcncllen Ar dcr PotholoSlie. thc time, Claude Bernard r T as r ill . r rrru n g d o c to r, a n d i t rv a sn o t unti l thc l U 60sthat he s took up thc ternr "r.rtionalism," fbr cxarnPlein his Pincipet de midecinccrpirimentoic(1irst published in 1947) anclin his notcs

work on problems raisedbv the practice of mcdifirr a proposcrJ at cine (preserved the Colltlgedc France)."Scientific cmpiricism dif'ferentll.om sciencc, i5 the oppositeof rationrlismand radicall_v of sciS ci enccis baset lon t hc r . 'r t ionalism t he f act s. . , . N4cr Jical rnce i s thc sciencein uhich u'c r at ionally anclexper im ent allv in cxpl ai n <liseases or cler t o pr cdict or alt er t heir pr ogr css. "qt is r\norhcr lbrmularion is cr'('ncl('irer: "J\'ledicine the art ol heali ng, but it nr usrbecor net hc scicnccof healing.The ar t ol he. r ling ln ol i s empi ricism ,Tlr c science healingis r at ionalisnr . "J8 a r vor k (l evotedt o cpist t nt olcr gv,he aut hor uill pcr hapslr c lllor led t o t a cxprcss prefercncelirr thr: ternr "rationalitv" ovcr "rationalism," rvhich is out of place bcvond the historv of philosophv. In .rnv case,Emile l-ittri and Charlcs Robin's Dictionndirctlc rnidecine contai nsan ar t icl( '( ) n "r at ionalism " t hat is r callv a r lclinit ion o1' t t " rati ona l, " r vhcr t it is st at ecl hat a r . r t ion. r l r cat m ( nt ol an illon nessi s o ne l>. r sed plinciples of physiologyand r nar ont r '. . r nr l not on mer e cm pir i<isnr . l his del'init ionol a r ar ionalt hcr apr is rcpeatedlertratint in the lUTtl [)icLionndirc ltt lttnqutJranqoisc Jt undcr " ra t ionalil'. "[ . . . ] There is no er enr pl. r r v igur c, no classicr lper iod, in r hc hisf torv of rat ionalit v.Thc ninct ct 'nt hcent ur v t aught t he t \ \ cnt iet h that everv problenr requiresan appropriatc mcthod lilr its soluti on. In mcdicinc as in ot hcr f iclds, r at ionalit vr . evealssclf af icr it thc l act; it is not gilt 'lr in advancc but r ellect edin t hc m ir r or ol succesr Bcr nar dsom et iDt es . lbund it dif ljcult t o acccpt t hnt not evervrationalm et hod lr Jd t , r r csem blehis, r vhich ht : consir ler cd paradi g m at ic.His cf it i( i\ nr s of lt udolph Vir chor r anr l cellul. r r of P athol o {\ 'r t er t h. r r sh.Alt h, r ugh lr . a1>plr r r t r l Louir P. r sr er . r r 's rclitation of rhe rhettrl oI spontaneous hc r gener.rrion, nr.r'( imlg intd hovv fiuitlirl gernr rhcorv .rvoulcl provc in rrr.rring <liscase. i \n obsc ssion vit h t ht <lognr lt hat all discascs e no- vr r r r in or i r ar s gi n proved t o bt 'an obst aclet o r at ional unr Jcr st ; t nt ling inlt 'c ol

t ion. r nd c o n ta g i o n .Wh i l e i t i s c o rre c t, as B ernardcl ai med,that it thc ncrvesexert an influcncc on infectiousclisease, would have can becn bcttr:r if he had ncvcr '*'ritten that "a nervousparalvsis tvpe of produce .r septic discasc."eelere the physiopathological I rationalitv leadsto an explanation symptoms,but it wasPasteur of and Heinrich FlermannRobert Koch rvho developeda different t v pc of r a ti o n a l i tv c a p a b l eo f a n s rv e r i ng questi onsof eti ol ogy. E x t r em e p h v s i o l o g i s mh a d i ts l i mi ts r for proof one nccd onl y considert he rear-guard action u,agedbv Elie de Cyon againstthe triumphalt P.rsteurians his study of Eticnnc-JulesMarev, the in author ol a fittle-known rvork entitled Essai thiorie phsiologique de du choldru(18651.t00 Marey rvas perf'ectlyrvell an'are that "the searchlbr an absolutelr ef'fectivemedication or certain prophylax is " llou l d re g u i re th e i d c n ti fi c a ti o n of rvhat hc sti l l ca]l ed a microscopic pnrasitc.r{)r Thc advcrb "absolutell" and thc arJject iv e " c c r ta i n " rc fl c c t th e Be rn a rd i a n o ncepti on of rati onal i tyr c the vcner.rtion <lcterminisnr to outrigbt rcjcction anrlscom of lcd [br .rttempts to introduce concepts of probabilitr' .rnd sraristics into nredicine.But at leastMarel nas fullv arvare that knou.ledge of the role of rhe vasomotornervous svstem in circulation and c.rlcrritication uas not enough to suggest anticholera therap)' an " ut i o n a l " th a n th e m a n y me d i c ati onsal readytestedemm or e piricallv on the intestinaland pulmonary lorms ofthe disease, The publication of Marey'sarticle may be taken asa recognit ion ol t h e l i m i ts o f Be rn a rd i a n ti o n a l i ty.Meanrvhi l e, ra the man * ho boastcdof its univcrsal validity could rvrite, "l do not believe that medicine can change the lar'r's human mortality or even of of the mortalitv of a nation,"l0.lanclelservhere, "Mcdicine must ac t on inr l i v i d u a l s . t i s n o t d e s ti n e dto act on col l ccti vi ti esor l pc oplr s . "r0 r[E tu d e sp . 3 9 3 -9 6 ] ,

PRRr Flvr

Pr o b l e m s


C u a Pr r tr


l tl r l N

\ cir nt r '

. r n, l



The Vitolist I mperqtive N{ont pellier Il l 2] V i talismasdcf incr l by t hc eight ccnt h'cent ur v Paul-Joseph Barthez ex1>)icith clrimtrl to lrc r continu.rphvsician ti on o1 tlr e Hippocr . r t ict r adit ion. This llippocr , r t icancc5t r y as u, morc important than thc rloctlirc's other ibrebear,r\ris ;>rob.rblv totel j nnism ,lbr uhile vit a] ism bor r or r cr lnr uch ol it s t cr nt inologt from Ar ist ot le, it s spit it \ r 'r s. r l\ r '. 1\ '\ llippocr at i<. Bar t hczput it this rvavin his r\rour'caur 1[lnurts dc Ia :cicnce I'homne(1778): dc "r B v nran's 'it al pr inciple"l nr can hc causc, r all t he phenl) m {na t l ol lile in the hunran bodr'. Tht n.rnrc co is 11ivr.n rhat cause ol rel.rti veN lit t le im por t ancc nr avbc choscn will. I pr cli: r"r it : l and at principlc" becausc suggcstsless this I citcumscribed notionthanthe rcrm iLnpctum (ro svopuov) I lil)pocr:rtes or th.rnanv that uscd ldcicns ol thc other tcrmsthat havcbeenusr,l i() (lenl)tcth(' cause thr o1 l i l i ' l i ncr ions. \ri tal ismr vasin one r cspcct . rbiologr lor phvsicians skept ical of thc he aling pouer s of m t r licar ion. ; \ ccor djng t o t he llippocrati c theor v of ndt ur c m e( lt Lot nrt,he dclensivcr enct ionof t he organi sm m or e im l) or r nntr har rdiagnosinghc c; r usc t f t hc disis t t

though dependenton di aqeas e.B \ th e s a meto k c n , p ro g n o s i s , nos is . is rh t rl o mi n a n t a rt. l t i s a s i mportaD t to ar)ti (i patethe nature i s c our s eo l a d i s c a rca s to (l (tc rmi n c i t s causc.B ecause thc first phvsician,therapv is as much a nt,ittcr ofPrudence asof boldnes s Vi ta l i s m a n d n a tu ra l i s mw erc thus i nextri cabl yassoci . of atcd. Me(lical vit.rlism rcllcctcd an alnrostinstinctivervariness o\ei lil;. There is 4n analogvto be drau n the hc.rling.rrr'spo\\'ers her ei t h c c o n tra s tb e trte e n n a tu rea n d art i s rcmi ni sccntofA ri st ot lc ' s c ()n tra s tb c trv e c n n a tu ra l mo vement and vi ol ent movement. Vitalism lvas.rn expressionof the confldencc among the <-rf c.rpacitr', living consciousness li[e, as living in lry', of thc nrin<l's t o identi l \' rv i th th e l i v i n g a s l i k e rv i th l i ke. T hes e re m a rk s s u g g e s tth e fb l l o n i ng obscrvati on:r' i tl l i sm in of r ef lc c t c d a n e n d u ri n gl i [e -i mp e ra ti v e thc consci ousness l i vand ing hum a n b e i n g s .-fh i s w a s o n e re asontbr the vagueness nebulou s n e s th a t m c c h a n i s tb i o l o g i stsand rati onal i stphi l osos < o pher ss a ' r' a s l c fe c ts f i t.rl i s rd o c tri ne. l Ir' i tal i sm u' asabove.rl l an im pt ' ra ti v t, i t rra so n l l n a tu ra l th r t i t shoul d havesorre di fficuftv expressingitself in determinate formulations. fConnaisronce, 86] p. I J l3l In d c c d , E m a n u e lR a d l rc c o g ni zedthat vi tal i sm \r' rsan impcrarile r.rther than a nrcthctdand more ol an ethical slstem, pc r haps .th a n a th e o rv .l M a n , h e a rgued,can l ook at nature i n t\\'o uays. lle feclsthat he is a child of n.tture and has a senseof belongi n g to s o m e th i n gl a rg e r th a n hi mscl f; hc sceshi msel f i n nature and nature in himself. But he also standsbelorenature as bc f br e. rn u n d e fi n a b l ea l i c n o b j c c t, A sci enti stu' ho fecl r fi l i al , naturalphes\mpatheticsentin]cnts to\\'nrdnature rvill not regarrl nomen.iasstrange and alien; rathcr, hc n ill lind in them lil-e,soul a and m c a l i n g , Su c ha ma n i s b a s i c a l l y vi tal i st. P l ato,A ri stotl e, scholarsrvere in this Calen, all medieval and nlost Rcnaissancc scnsc vit.rlists.Thev rcgarrledthe univ<rscas an organism, that

obetlient to cert.rin larvsand dcclicatecl is, J harntoniouss,-stenr l ,) | rrl Ji n. r ds. Tht ", r . nccir cr l , 'l t ht ln* lr c' a' ln or glni, 'r r lpar t 1 ui l l )i \ u ni\ ef \ ( . a r , 'r t , 'l , , ll in llt l unir er . r i or g. r r r i'm .r ll ol I I l h,rst' cells u, cr c unilicd bv . r n int cr nal sym Pat hv. t t ht r cf ir r c Daturalto thcm that the fate of the Partial organ should scenre(l ol bt: t,ound up vvith rhe Irtovements the heavens. rT bc l<-'drlrt the ;rsvchoanallbl Such an inrerprct.trionmat cll bv rsi s ol knoulcdgc. l- hat it m av havt 'som cr ncr it is st r ggcst cd contmcnts on C()nstantin its convcrgenceu'ith Walthcr Ricsc's biological theories: "ln von Monakort''sncurovon N1rrnakovr"s bi ol o{r' . r nan is a chil<l of nat ur c lh<t nevcr lcavcsit r nr ot her 's hrt,rsr."l fhere can [.c Iro doubr that, fcrrthc vitalists. the lundau nrentalbiologicalphenom enon\ {asgener at ion, hich conjur ed up ( rrtain imagcsanrl poscdccrtain problemsthat, to onc rJcgrcc of or anoth cr ,inf lucnced t hc r cPr cscnt at ion ot her phcnom cna. is A \i ral i s t , I r voulclv. 'nt ur e t o suggest . a per son \ vho is m or e cqg rhan likcll ro pondcr thc problcntsol lifc trv conrcnrplatinq.rn br trrrninga udncJr opcrating tlrt bcllrurof a fdrgc. or V i tal ist suer e conliclentof t hc spont aneit l of lif i: and r eluctant - i n som c cascs r if icd - t o t hink of it . r s spr ingingf iom a hor t hus, natureco nccivcdof as. r ser ies m ech. r nical ocesses, r nd, of pr ol pararl or icalllr cduced t o . r conger ies devicessim ilal t o t hose rr hi ch hunr anbcingshad cr eat ecl t hcir ( luestt o r ler conr e t he in obstacles that naturt-had placecl theil uav. Tvpicalol thcscattiin tudcsua s a m an like JeanBapt ist e van I lclm ont . f . . . 1 ( \i an l lclm ont t lcnied l) cscar t cs's ont ent ion t hat t he lbr ces ol narurcar c unif ied. Fver vbeing, he. r r - qucd, r sb, r r h ir s or , , n h. i ndi vi du allbr ce anclt he f ir r ccol it s specit s.Nat ur c is an t 'ndlcss hi crarchvof f ir r ces. r nd f ir r m s.This hier ar chvcom pr iscssccds, l cavens, inciples. r nd it icas.The lir ing boclvis or ganizedas a pr hierrrchv of orcliCr.'l tcrm rir<hc, fiom hc Iirsr principlc, borrorr.cd f'aracclsus, describ,..<l organizing,corrrmancling an powef, some,
2l l 9

thing rather nrore akin to the generalol an army than to a workman. lt marks a return to the Aristotelianconccption ofthe lrody assubordinateto the soul in the samesenscas the soldier is subordinateto his captainor rhe slave his master.lViralismattacked to the technologicalversion of mechanismat least as much as, and perhapseven more than, it did the theoretical version. IConnaissance, pp. 88-89] Ill4l It may scem absurd to argue that vitalism rvasin fact a lertile doctrine, particularlv given the fact that ir al\1a.is portrayed it s elf asa re tu rn to a n c i rn t b e l i e fs- a tendencyqui te evi dcnr i n the naive penchant of nrany vitalists to borrorv Greek terms for the rather obscureentities thev felt nbliged to invoke. The vitalisrr of the Rcnaissance in one sense retum to Plato intended wns a to counter the ovcrly logicized medievalversionof Aristotle. But thc vitalism of van Helrnont, Georg firnst Stahl and paul-.loseph Barthezhasbeen calleda return beyondDescartes the Aristotle to t>fDe anima, For HansI)riesch, the caseis patenr. But ho*, is this return to rhe Ancients to bc interpreted? Was it a revivalof older and consequentlytimeworn concepts, or rvasit a caseof nostalgia for ontoJogicallyprior intuitions, for a more direct relation bct{'een inrention and objr'ct?Archaeologvstemsis nruch from a nostalgiafbr original sourcesas fiom a love ofancient things. We are more apt to graspthe biological and human significance ofa sharpened flint or adzc than ofan electric timer or a camera. In the realm oftheory, one must be sureofa theorv'sbackground and developmentto interprct rcversionas rctreat or reiection as reaction or betraval.Wasn'tAristotle'svitalism alreadya reaction againstthc ntechanismof l)emocritus, and rvasn'rplato's finalism in thc PrSoddo a reactioD against nt('chanism the ofAnaxagorasi, In anv case,there can be no doubt that vitalists rvt'rcafter a certain pretech nological,prelogicalnaivetdofvision, a vision oflil; as it uas befbrc man created tools and languageto extend his

rcach.Thar is rvhat Th6ophile de Bordt'u, the firsr grt'at theorist of thc Nlont pcllier School,m cant u hen he called van Helnr ont t " onc o f t hose ent husiast s hat ever y cent ur v needsin or der t o thc scholastics."i pp. irsround lConnaissance, 91-921 The Technological Model ] [115 The r r or d "m echanism "com es f iom t he Cr cck unxqvn,or ofruse (or stratagem) and device,rvhich combinesthe trvo senses are nrachint'.Ptrhapsthe trvo meanings actuallvone, Is not man's his and useof m achines, t echnological ivit y in genact i nl cntion eral, rvhat l{egel calls the "rq5q of reason"in Section 209 ofhis -fhis ruse consi!ts in accomplishing one's or",n cnds bv I-ogic? mcansof int er m ediat cobjcct s act ing upon one anot her in conThe essence . r m achineis t o ol tormi t v uit h t heir o$n nat ur es, bc a mediation or, as mechanicssay,a Iink. A mechanismcreates nothing, and therein lies its inertia (trc..r),vct it is a ruse u hosc construct ionnecessar ilr involves r . As a scient if icDt et hodand ar phi l os ophv, echanismis t her ef or ean im plicit post ulat ein. r nv m useofmachines.The success t his hum an r usedcpcndson t hc of Iack of any similar rusein Nature. Natlrrecan be conquercdbv art onl y i f sheher selfis nor ar t : only a m an nam cd U) r 'r sesNo- M an) ( is capableoI devising .r schemeto get the uoodcn horse insidc the gatcsol Trov, and he succeeds only becausehis cnemies are forcesof nature rathcr than clcver engineers. he rusesbr rvhich l ani malsavoid t r aps ar e olien adducedas objecr ionst o t he Car tesiantheoty ofthe animal-machine.In the lbrervorcl the N.'$, to Essa,vs, Leibniz oflers thc easelvith \a,hichanimalsare trappcd as evidencelor Descartes's contention tbat thev are capablconly ol' responding o im m ediat esensat ions\ 1hat we would t odal call t ( " condit ionecl r cf lexes") . Convcr selr ', ) escar t es's I hypot het ic. r l description in the Mcditations a deceptive Goci or evil gcnitrr of eff'ectivelv translbrmsman into an aninralsurroundecl traps. If by

(iod rrscs liom the humankind,man descends hunranruses,rgainst of s r . r t us liv i n g c re a tu rero th .rt o f me re i n ert obi ect. Is the the( ) f \ ' of t hc liv i n g ma c h i n ci u s t s u c ha h u m a nruse,rvhi ch.i f taken liter.rlh, rvould prove that there is no such thing as lili ? But rvhy t hen, if anim a l sa re m c rc ma c h i n c s ,i fn a tu rc i s mercl v one vast machine,does thc domination of animalsand nature cost human p. beingsso much et'fort? [Connairsoncc, 87] took machi nes as t d lllt ' ] Nlc c h a n i sp h i l o s o p h e rs ,rnb i o l o gi sts machi ne-l > Lri l di ng at a or . i I th e ,vs tu d i e d rh c p l o l ' l c n r o f - 11iv en, l all, s , r lv e<it b v i n v o k i n g h u n ra nc a l c u l a t i on.Thev rel i ecluP on t he enginee ro r, u l ti m a te l r' ,a s i t s e e m c dt o them, the sci cnti st. Mislcd bv thc ambiguit,vof the tcrm "mechanical," thcv looked theorems,theorems upon machincsasnothing more than Jeifi-ed made concrete bv thc relativelvtrivial opcration of construction, nhich. thel bclioecl, involvcdnothing more than the application o of k no*ledqe i n fi .rl lc o n s c i o u s n e s sfi ts l i mi ts and l i -rl lcertai ntv m l v i e rv ,h o u e re r, th c b i ol ogi calprob)err ofthc of it s ellec t s .l n ll-om tlrc technoor-q.rnism-machinc cannot bc tr(ate(l separatelv namcl y,the probl em logic alpr ob l e m rv h o s cs o l u ti o n i t a s s u mes, The usualsol uof t he r c lat i o n b e tw c e n te c h n o l o g ya n d s c i ence. k n o w l e d g t i s p ri o r to i ts appl i cati onsboth t ion is t o s a y th a t logicallvand chronologically, but I shall try to show that the conbi s t r uc t ioDof m a c h i n e si n v o l v i trqa u th e n ti c al l v ol ogi calnoti ons ru c annot bt ' un c l e rs to o d i th o u t re ri s i n g th i s vi c$ ofthe rcl ati on bet r r . een c ie n c t a n d te c h n c ,i o g r. ...] s 1 T , r a s c r u p u l o u so b s e rv e r,l i v i n g c re a t urcsother than vertcbr . r t esr ar c lv e x h i b i t s tru c tu re s l i k c l y to suggcstthe i dca of a m ec hanis m( i n th e te c h n i c a l s e n s e ). o b e surc, l ul i en P acottt: T and the movcnotes that thc arrangemcntof the parts of the c,r'c u mrnt of thc eveballcorrespond rvhatmathcmaticians ould call to A a m ec hanis m.5 rh a p s l ' e * d e l i n i ti o n s a r c i n orcl er. nrrchi ne Pe a is a r lan' nr a d eo b j c c t th a t d c p c n d s .l b r i ts esserti alfi rncti on(s).

is A on one or m ot e m cchanism s. m echanisnr r conf igur at ionol so lidsr Thoseconf lgt t r at ionis nr aint aincrtl hr ot t qhoutit s nol i ng ntovemenr;or, to put it anothcr rvar',.rmcchanismis an assenrover timc btrt blv of parts rvhoscrelation to one anothcr changcs Thc assem blv i s peri odicallrr est or cdt o an init ial conf igt r r at ion. consistsin a svstem ol linkagcs uith fixed dcgreesof fict'dom: hasonc dcgr eeol or fbr examp le,a penduJum a cam - dr ivon "alvc a \r'ornl gear shaft has llr>. Thc nraterialcmboclimcnt ficedom; in t of ofthcse dcgr ees lr eedom consist s gui<les,hat is, st r t r ct t t r cs of of l i mi ri ng th e nlovem ent solit lsin. ont nct . The m ovcnt ent nnY rrachi ne is t hus a f lnct ion of it s st r uct ur c,and t hc m cchanisnr pr i s a funct ion of it s conf igur at ion. f he t ir ndam ent al inciplesol a gencral thcory of mcchanisms(as detinecl herc) can be fbuntl vvork, lbr example Franz Rculeaux'sKinemutics, in anv stantlarcl (u' hi ch rv as r . r nslat edr om G er m anint t ' Fr enclrin 1877) . . . . ] t f [ ol Tht po int ol t his br ief r evie$ of t hc lunr lam ent als kincm , r t i cs i s that it allor vsnr t t o point up t he par ar lr xicalsignilicance ol ' the foll, r n'ingpr ', r t r lemWhr ( li( l scienf ist s usem achinesan<l : ( nnd st mcchani s m s m odcls lbr undcr st anding ) r ganic nr ct r lr es as functions? On< problem lvith anv mcchanicalmodel is its source of cnergr'.A machine, as dcfined abovc, is not sclflcontaincd:it must take enclgt fiom somclhcre and translbrm it. We alvlavs thi nk of moving m achines. r sconnect cd r r it h som c sour cc ol' cnergv.? [:or a Ionp t inr e, t hc cncr gr r hat \ et kiDenr at icm achinesin ln moti ()n c.lnr ef r cr mt hc m uscularellbr t of hLr m ans aninr als. or that stage,ir r|ar,:rbviouslv tautologicalt<,r cxplain the movcntent of a l i vi ng t hing bv com par ingit t o t hc m ovenr ent ol'a nt achin" cl ependent m uscularef br t f br it s sour cc of encr gv. Hist or ion cal l v, the r elbr c, as has lr equent ll bct n shou'n, t her c could bc no mcchanicalesplanat ionof lif e I unr : t i<>ns il m cn had con' unt structednut oDr nt nlhc vcr v uor t l suggest s ot h t hc m ir acul, , t r s t lr


of quality of the object and its appearance being a self-contained m ec han i s mrv h o s ec n e rg v d o e s n o t c omei i mmedi atel y at any the muscularel'fort oI a human or animal. IConnoisrate, fi<-rm pp. .sonce, 102-10,11 [ 117] A ri s to tl e , I th i n k , to o k a c u s toD al y w av o[ l ooki ng at animal organisms, sort ofcultural a p oti, and raisedit to the a )evelofa conccpt oflife in general, The vocabulanofanimal anatomv is fLll of terms for organ5,parts and regions of organisms based technological on metaphors analogies.8 dcvelopment or The of the anatornicalvocabularyin Greek, Hebrew, l-atin and Arabic shorvs that the perceptionoforganic lorms rvasshaped part in bv technological norms.eThis cxplains whv phvslologvwas traditionallv rcgardedas subordinateto anatomy. For follorversof Galcn, phvsiologvu'asthe scienceof the use of thc parts, dc usu portium-Frcm William I larvevto Albrecht voDllaller and beyond, moreover,the scienceof organic functions !r'ascalled anotomia onimora.Claude Bernardwas ; Iorceful critic of this way of looking at things. though ofien rvith more rhetoricalenergythan practical consequences. long as technologvservedasthe sourceof As models fbr explaining organic functions, the parts of the organis m were l i k e n e d to to o l s o r ma c h i ne parts.l 0The parts w cre r at ionall y c o n c e i v e d a s me a n s to th e organi sm' send, and the organism itself wasconceivedof asa static structure, the sum of it s par t s . The standardhistories m;v rvell overemphasize the contrast between Aristotelianismand Cartesianism, leastas far as their at theoriesol lili are concerned.To be sure, thrrc is an irreducible differenccbetrveen explaininganimalmovcntentasa consequcnce ofdesire and giving a mechanistexplanationof desire itself. The pr inc iple o f i n e rti a a n d th e c o n s e rv ati on momentum l ed to of an ir r ev e rs i b l c re v o l u ti o n i n n a tu ra l s ci ence: $,i th the theory ofstored energv and delcrrc<l(rtilii.ation, l)cscartesrvasab)t-to

rrfute the Aristotclian conception of the relation benveennature and art. AII that notwithstanding, it remainstrue that the use of m im nrecha nical odeis t cr r epr esentliving or ganisnr s plied t hat were conccivedas necessarv invariantstrucand thosc organisms turcs of their component parts. The implicit idca of order was ctn th.rt ofthe u'orkshop. In part fivc ofthe Dtucourrc thc f,|ethod a l )cscar t csdiscusses wor k t hat he nevcr published, Le llondc about nran):"Ishorved tht'te World," though it was.rctually 1"1-hc of u'hat kind of u'orkshopthe ncn'esanclmuscles the human bodl' must constitute in order that the animal spirits havethe strength thc behaviorof animals, ro move the limbs." Later, in discussing u it hin t hem , accor dingt o t he dish< 'sars, is nat ur et hat act s "lt Workshop,disposition:tlrescrveretechof p<rsition their organs." nological concepts before thcy became anatomical ones, Fron't Vesalius, [)escartes borrowec] conccpt that wasactually a Andreas in iairlv rvide use iD thc sixteenthand seventeenth centuries,that of thc t'abricacorpo s humani.ln a ]etter to Marin i\lersenne,a rc[erence o Vcsalius t lbllowed t his st at em enr pr inciplc: " f he of numbcr and the orclerlvarrangementof the nerves,veins,bones and other partsof an animaldo not show that natrrreis insufficcnt to fo6 11"-, providcd vou suppose natureacts that in evervthing e\actl r in accor dance h t he laus of m echanics,and t hat t hese uit l.rvvs havebeen intposcd on it LryCcrd."lL This inrocation of Cod the mcchanic,apparentlvintended onlv to rule out anv vital tclcologv,fi-rllv merits RavmondRuver'sacerbicrcmark thar thc more pcoplc thought of organisms automata,thc more thev thought as ofGod asan lt alian engineer . 1. . . ] In short, both Aristotle and Descartcsbased thc clistincrion betu' c en t he or ganismand it s par t s on t cchnologicallvconditioned perceptionsof macroscopicanimal structrtres. Thc technol ogi cal m odel r educeclphvsio) ogvt o a m at r er of deduct ion fiotn aDatoml:an organ's funcrion coulrl be deducerlllorn thc vr.ar

lit \\'asput togcthcr. Although the parts \!ere seen, in dynamic to terms, assuborriinate the rvhole,.justas the partsofa machine uere subordinateto the uhole machine, that functional suborclination led to a vie\\' of the static structure of the machine as m c r c lv t he s u m o fi ts p a rts .IE tu d e sp p . 323-25] , The Social Model [ 118] T hc fb rc g o i n g c o n c e p ti o n l a s n ot scri ousl y chal l enged until thc first half of the nineteenth century, u,hen two things happcncd. Iiirst, trvo basic riiscip)ines,embrvologv and phvsiologv , uhic h h a d b e e n s tru g g l i n gto d e fine thei r o\i n di sti ncti ve methods and concepts, achievedthe statusofcxperimental scicnces. Sccond,thcrc w'as changc in thc scalc ofthe str-uctures a studicd bv morphologists;or, to put it anothcr rvav,ccll theory l asintroduceclinto generalanatomv. Lealing asidethe regenerationand reproduction ofAbraham temblev's fimous plant-animalsand Charles Bonnet's observation of parthelogenesis plant lice, no biological phenomenon in \l-as morc difficult fbr eighteenth-century theoriststo interpret in tenns ol technological modcls than that of morphological dcvclopm ent , or th e g ro w th fi o m s e e dto a d u l t fbrnr. l l i stori ansof bi ol ogy ficqucndy associatc epigeneticvierv of rlevelopment the u'ith mechanistbiologv; in so doing, thcl ncglcct the closeand all but obligatorvassociation mechanismrvith prcfonrationism. Since of m ac hinesd o n o t a s s e m b l eth e m s e l v e s, anclsi nce there arc no m ac hines b r c re a ti n g(i n th e a b s o l u te e nse)other f s machi nes, the liv ing m ac h i n c m u s t i n o n c rv a vo r a n o thcr bc associ ated i th u' rvhat cighteenth-century thinkcrs liked to call a machiniste, an inv c nt or o r b u i l d c r o f m a c h i n c s .If n o such bui l der uas perccptible in the present,then there must havebeen one at thc incept ion: t hc t h c o rv o f a s c e drv i th i n a s e e dand so on, ad i nfi ni tum, \\'asthus a logical responseto the problem that gave rise to the

a thcorv of prefbnr.rtion. Dcvclopmentthen bec.rme simplt'matbiologv becam ca kincl of geom et r v,as sizc,ancl tcr of incr easing Il enri G ouhieronce r cm ar kcdabout t he conceptof cont ainm ent in Nicolas dc l\4alcbranche. (in Whcn CasparFriedrich Wolfl shorvecl 1759and 1768)that thc cl c vclopm entof an or ganism involveclt he em er gt ncc ol a seriesol nonprefbrmcd stnrctures,honever, it becamencccssarl or to res t or er esponsibilit vf br t he or ganism 's ganizat iont o t he organisnritself. That organismuas not random or idios-vncratic, were unclerstood liilurt's to dcvclop or to Proas antl .rnoma]ics stagc.I lcnce therc must be gressbevonda normallv intermecliate rvhat Wolfl'called a nr.rus and some firrmativetcndcncy', formolivus ln Blumenbach callcd a 8i/.luntltl.i.b. otlrer rvords, JohanFrie<lrich an immanent plan of organogt'ncsis. necessarv assumc to it \\11s ' I-h eselact s unr ler lie Kant 's t heor v of or ganic linalit v and totalitv as set lorth in tht'.Critiqueof Judgmcrr.A machine, Kant savs,s a $ hole r vhosc i par t sexist f br onc anot hcrbut not bv one .rnother.No part is madc fiom anv other; in lict, nothing is m.rde its ol things of the sametvpe as itsclf. No machinc possesses o\\'n formativeenergv. devclA little more Lhana hundr.cd vcar,jago, ClaucleBern.rrcl opcd an iclenticaltheorv in his Introduction I'ltudc dc la mdtlccinc i expirime nnle ; "Wh.rt characterizes living mlchine is not the the natureof it s physicochem ical opcr t ies,com plex t hough t hcl pr mav bc, but rhe creation ol that maclrine,u hich dcvclopsbelore our evcsunder condit iot r speculiar t o it sclf and in accor dance rvith a definite iclea, hich cxprcsscs naturcof tlre living thing * rhc and the essence lift itsclf."rr Like Kant, Benrarcl of gavt'the name "iclca" tcr the morphological (i ptioi, a\ it \\'ere,that dctcrmines the formation ancl shapcof cach p.rrt in relation to all thc rcst througha sort ol rt'ciprocal causation. An<lagainlikc Kant, Bernard taught t hat nat ur alor ganizar ion cannorbc t hought o{ as being in


any \r'ayakin to human agency,Strangerstill, after ruling out, on explicit grounds,any possibilitv of a technologicalmodel of ororganic unity asa possible ganic unity, Kant hastenedto suggest model for social organization.llBernardused the converse the of sameanalogywhen hc compared the unity of the multicellular organismto that of a human society.ffrudes, pp. 325-27] cell theory, as he had to in order fl19l Claude Bemard accepted to make experimentation in phvsiology possible. He elaboroted the conccpt of the internal environment, and that, too, r,vas necesa sary condition for experimental physiology.The physiology of r egulat ion (o r h o m c o s ta s i s a s i t h a s b e en cal l ed si nce W al ter , BradfordCannon), together u-ith cytologic-morphology enabled Bernardto treat the organismas a rvhole anclto develop an analytic scienceoforganic functions u,ithout brushingasidethe f)ct that a living thing is, in the truc senscof the rvord, a synthesis. Bernard'smost important remarkson the subjcct that concerns us here can be found in his Ieqons sur les phdnomines la vie de communs oux animaut et aut vigdtaux,basedon lectures he gave at the Mus6um in the final vearsof his lifc. Thc structure of the organismreflects the exigcncics oflife on a more basiclevel, that of t he c ell. T h e c e l l i ts e l f i s a n o rg a n i s m ,ei ther a di sti nct i ndi vidual or a constituent of a larger "societv" of cclls forming an animalor plant. The term "sociery,"which Rudolph Ludwig Karl Virchou and Ernst llcinrich I laeckel also seizedupon at around the sametime as Bernard,suggested model for the organicfunca t ions v er y d i ffe re n t l ro m th e te c h n o l o gi cal model - namel y, an cconomic and political one. Complex organisms\r'ere now thought of as totalities comprising virtuallv autonomoussubordinat e eleme n ts ." L i k e s o c i e ty ,th e o rg ani smi s constructedi n such a wav that thc conditions of clcmentary or individual life arc respected."ll Division oflabor llas the lar" for organismsas rvell asfbr societies. model, Conceivedin terms of a technological

conan organism rvasa set of strictly rclated basicmechanisms; ccivcd in terms ofan economic and political model' though, an organismwas a set of structuresthat grew increasinglvcomplex and diverseas thev assumedspccializedrcsponsibility fbr origifunctions.Betweenthe levcl of the elcmennallv undifferentiated tarv ce ll and t hat of m an, Ber nar d explained, one f inds euer y degrec of complerity as organ combines with organ. The most multiPlc systems:circulatory, highlv developedanimals posscss nervousand so on. respiratory, Phvsiologv$'as thus the kcy to organic totalization, the key that anatomyhad failed to provide. The organsanclsystemsof a highlv diff'ercntiated organism exist not lor themselvesor fbr other organsand systemsbut for cells, the countlessanatomical radicals, lor u,hich thcy create an internal environment whose composition is maintainedin a stcadystateby a kind of feedback and inst it ut ing a kind of ' mccha nism .Bv joining in associat ion elemcnts obtain the collective means to live society, the basic live': "1[ one could at ever r m om cnt cr e. r l(an envirhei r se par at c ronment identical to that u,hich the actions of nearbyparts constantly creatc fbr a given clementarv organism, that organism l'ould live in ficcdom exactly as it lives in societv."rsThe Part dependson a u.holc that existssolelv in order to maintain it. Bv refcrring all functions to the cell lcvel, general phvsiologv provided an explanationlbr the fact that the structure of the rvhole organism is subordinatr to the functions of each part. Made of cclls, the organismis also madefor cells, fbr partsthat are themsclveslesscomplicated rvholes. The use of an econom ic and polit ical m odcl enablednineteenth-centurybiologists to understandrvhat the use ofa technologicalmodcl had preventedtheir predccessors from grasping. 'fhe rclation of the parts to the n,hole is one of irretrdtio, (a conccpt that latcr met r',.ithsuccess neurophvsiologv), ith thc r'i in

survivalofthe P.rrtsl)eing the ultimatc cnd: thc parts \\'erescen o ns n9 lqr nger i n s tru n re n ts t' p i c c c s b u t a s i t.,i rj dudl J A r a ti me * hcn u hat rvould later become ccll thcorv rvasstill at the stage and prclintinarv microscopic exploof philosophicalspecul.rtion ration, the tcrm "monad" lvasoficn used fbr the atonlic componcnt of an organism; it rvasonlY latel that "monad" lost out to C " c ell. " A ugu s re o m te , i tt fa t t, re j tc te d rvhathe cal l ed tl re " theThe i ndi rect but or v of m ona d s "a n d rv c n o u ' c a l l c e l l th e o rv.16 and real influcncc of Lt'ibniz on the earlv Romantic philos<-rphcrs theorr allolvstrs to sal ol the celi up bioiogistsu ho drcanrerl cell rvhat Lcibniz said of the monad, namely,that it is a Parstotalis' in It is not an instrumentor a tool but an in(lividuill''l .sublcd relation to its lunctions. Bernardficquentll usesthe term "harmonr" bv to convev rvh.rthc mc.rns "organic totalitY." lt is not too diffith c ult t o dc t r .' c t e te i n a l i i n t e c h o o f L ti b ni z' s phi )osophl 'A nd so, .r'ith the recognition of the cell as thc baric morphological th s c lc m r nt of a l l o rg a n i z e d u b s t.rn c e s , e m eani n{ ofthc concept no ,r'hole rn;ls longer a stl'uctureof oforganization changed:the S int er r elat e d o rg a n s b u t a to tn l i z a ti o rr o f i ndi vi < l ual s.17 i mul the tl -' l di ti onal rl trc )o p mtn t rrl s e t th e o rr c hanged t t aneous l\ , h c m at lr em at i c a lmc a n i l tgo f th c tc rm " p a rt," j ust as the cl evel opm ent of c el l th e o rv c h rn g c d i ts tra d i ri o n alanatomi calmeani ng' pp. lE r r r r lc s , 3 2 9 -3 1 ] The Orgonisnt Is lts Own /llodcl ol ' expl anted ccl l s' [ 120] Did th c tc c h n i q u e o { i n v i tto c u l tu re r " hic h p e rfe c te d b v A l c x i s C a rrc l i n l 9l 0 but i nnentedbl ' r as that thc structure J . , \ 1. JJ olll i n 1 9 0 1 ,o l T e re rp e ri me n ta lprool . of the organismis an rnalogueof liberal socictv?Claude flernard, such 'rn anals ho died thirn vearse.rrlicr,h.rd indee(l suggerted ogr, using the societt of his orvn timc asa model The organist't't to ensuredthat the conditions nccessarY maint.rinthc lile ofindiloo

that those viclualcells n'ere satisfled;l]crnard had hlpothesizcd uhcn cells wcr e t nkr ll ot t t ol coD di tionscoult l also bc sat isf ied t hat an aPPr oPr i'lt c wit thri r as sociat ion h ot her cclJs,pr ovided r vhatdid it act uallt 'm ean cr .rrti fi cialenvir onm entr vas elt ed. Bt r t to livc in freedom, that is, libcr'rted frorr the inhibilirl the cell int o t hc ti ons a nd st im ulat ionsst em m ing lr onl it s int egr at i( r n in societ v I or{nni s m ? n or dcr f ir r lif i ir lr cedon r o r cplic'}t elif c u ith an cnvironmtnt th" ccll nould havcto be provided ".r.rctlr', ir r thl r agcdas it did. t lut t hcn t he lif e 'r f t hc cell nould llr oceed it \ \ 'ould r ir ) t in paral l c lr ', it h changes t ht '. r r t if it : ialcnvir onm ent ; a Iiurthermorc, living in fieeclomrcn<lcrecl cell be inclcpendent. lost it s if r evoc'r blY uni i r to r ct ur n t o: ociet v: t hc liber 'r t edPilr t chrracter of bcing part ofa u holc. I-tienne \\blfl renrarks:
ctl o N o nttfm Pt r o a fr r tc a n ;r sso ci a ti o n l p r cti 'r u sl r ti i 'i s'r ci a tcd l t hrs Analvsis nevcrbccn hasbet'n ablc to teconstitutcstrttcturalunin' onc oltcn bv succectlctl sr nthesis.Rv rn illogic'rl ebur( "l langtrage' i t) a r cl l i c p r o l i l i r 'l ti o n s o i ct l l s . r p pl i csr h e tcr n r "ti ssu c cu l tu r c" t( ' that do not rcllecl cithel thc \truclure or cohcsionol the tissucliom r r h i cb th ,r va r , tr l cn .r r Jn In other wot-<ls, otganic elcmcnt can be c'rllcd 'rn clcnlcnt onll i n i t s un <l i sso ci a te dsta te . Th c si tu .r r i o n r ccl l l s Il cg tl 's o l r scl l a ti<rn in his lo,gic thrt it is thc rvhole I't'hich creatcs the relatjorr lntong its pJrls, \o thilt rr ithoLrt thc rr holt thcrc are tro parts' E x pcr i m e n ta l e m b r vo l o g v a n d cvto l o g r th u s co r r e ctctl th e coDcept o{ organic structurc. Bcrnald hatl .rllo*ecl himsell trt lx: u n d u l v i n l l u e n ce tl l ) \- a so ci a l m o d cl ' r vh i ch a l l i n r l l a m o tr n tcd t o l i t t l e m o r c th a n a m cta Pl l o r . In r e a cti o n a g a i n st th c u se o f m e t h a n i ca l n l o d e l s i tl p h vsi o l o q v' Be r n 'r r d r 'r r r tr .': "Th e l a r r n r i s t h e l a rvn x. a n cl th e l e n s o f th e e vc i s th c l cn s o f th e e ve : i n o th cr rrrrql5, 1l-r"mcchanical and ph1'sicalconditirlns necess.rrvfirr their

I 1,


l ol

to assert .lrbitrar.y an prcdicateofa given objcct. The flxitv,rfrepctition ol bt'ing constrain\ thought to i(lentirv ot .rssertion. The natural hicrarchv of cosmic forms rcquires the hierarchvol definitions in the realm ollogic. The conclusionofa svllogismis neces s an bv v i rtu e o l rh e h i c r:rrc h va c c o rdi ng to xhi ch a spr:ci es dom inat edb y i ts g e n u sb e c o m e sa d o mi nati nggcnus i n rel ati on t o an inf eri o r s p e c i c s .Kn o \l l e d g e i s th e refbrethe rvorl d marl e int o t houg h t i n th < ' s o u l , n < l o t d re s o u l thi nki ng up the rvorl d. a n lf t hc es s e n c c fa l i v i n g th j n g i s i ts n a tu ralfornr. i t fol l ous rhat, o things being as they arc, ther' are knon'n as thcy ire and for u.hat thev arc. The int,:llect is identical rvith thosethinqs that are intelligible. l' h e rv o r' l ri s i n te l l i s i b l e a n d , i n parti cul ar,l i vi ng thi ngs i ar c int eJ lig i b l e b e c a u s e c i n te l J i g i b l e s i n the rvorl d. , i th A f ir s t ma j o r d i l ti c u l tv i n A ri s to tl e ' sphi l osophv concernsthe r c lat ion be tn c c rr k n o u .l e d g ea n d b e i n g , i n parti cul ar betw een intelligcnceand life. lf one treatsintelligcnceasa function ofconr em plat ion a n d re p ro d u c ti o n ,i f o n e g i v esi t a pl acc among the lctrms,howevcrenrinrnt, on( therebr sjtuates (thlt is, lintits) the thought of order at a particular place in the univcrsalorder. But hou can knou leclgcbe at once mirror and object, reflector and r ellec t ioni l I th e d e l i n i ti o n o f m a n .rsi r,rov,\oyrxov, reasoni ng or animal, is a naturalist's <lcfinition (in thc samcsensethar Carolus Linnaeusr l e fi n e s tl re rv o l fa s c a n i sl u p us or thc mari ti me pi ne a\ pinut no r ti n td \,th c n s c i c D c e a n d i n p arti cul arthe sci cnceof , lif e, is al a c ti v i tr o f l i fe i ts e l f. On e i s then fbrccd to ask w hat t he or gan o fth a t a c ti v i tl i s . A n d i t l b l l o $ s that thc A ri stcrtel i an r hc or r of t h e a c tj \e i n tc l l e c t, a p u re fb rm rvi thout organi cbasi s, has the r'l}ect of sep.rr.rting intclligencc from lili:; it lcts something fronr outside(BupaBev, Aristotlc'sterms)enter the human in eBrbrv(),,I\through a tlorrrwat, nlntelv, thc e)itranatural tr.rnor s c c ndentp o rv e rto m a k c s e n s eo l th e c ssenti al brms that i ndi l v idual bein g se m b c ' d v T h c th e o rv th u s m akcsthe concepti onof .

conceprseit her som et hingr nor c t han hum an or elsesom ct hing life ( tuPravitole\. rransccnding of A scc onddilTicult v,$hich is in l, lct an inst . r nce t hc f ir st , knovvlconcernsthe impossibilitl of accountingfor mathematical ol in Pnss'lgc ,.:dgc terms crl a biological function. A celehr'rtecl sics the .ll,:toplr,t statesthat mathematics has nothing to do rvith rvhich is cqtrivalentto iaving that thore ar( intelfinal causes,l0 of in not f cr r nls t hc Pr oPersense t he u'or d' l i gi bl e rhingst hat . r r . e and th,rt knou ledqeol thost-things hasnothing to do rvith knorvledge ol lif c. Hence, t hcr e is no m ; t hem at ical r nodcl of t he livcreatit'cand Aristode desoibesnature.rsingcniotrs, ing. Althc,Lrgh i nventi \c, it should not t hen be conllat ed r vit h t he clenr it r r ggof the linraeus.C)ne of the most astonishingpropositions of Arisrotl c' s philosophvol'biologv is t bat ir m akesnot lhe ar t is'r nbut What cur cs t he I ) nt ient the art rcsponsiblt f or r vhr t is pr ocluced. t but ht 'alt h.I t is becausehc f br m "healt h" is i s not th e phvsician of is, in f . r ct ,t he c'r t r se prcscntin m edic. r lact ivit l t hat m e( licine thc cure. Bv art,,'\ristotleneans thc unretlectivepurposcol a nat- I ural logos.Nieditatingon the exnmPleofthc phvsicianvvholreals and hc but becat t sc is inhabit e<l anihe not because is a phvsician ol t hr t t he pr esencc mated bl t he lbr r n "healt h"'one m ighr s'r ) ' the conccpt in t hought , in t hc f br m ol an encl r cPr cscnt cdas Ar a mo< l c l.is an e piPhcnom et t on- . ist ot le's anr i- Plat onism\ \ 'as was rctl ectcr lin his depr eciat ionol m at hem at ics:r llat hen) at ics ol lile, $hich is ( ; od's cl eni edaccess o t hc im m ancnt act i\ it v t (r essenti al t r ibut c, and it ll'. r s only t hr ough kn<r r vledge hat is' at llan coul(l hope to lornr imitation) oi that immanent .rctivit\ thtt an i deao f G od. I I r u. 7cs, ] i6- ] 8] pp. N omi no lisnt concer nst he ont o[122] A f ir r t herdif ] icult v of Ar ist ot elianism logicaland gnoseological of starus individualitv in a scienceof life

bascdon conccpts. lf the individual is an ontological reality and Dot simplv an imperfection in thc realizationofa concept, what is tht' significanceof the order of beingsrepresentedin the clasIf sification bv genus and species? the concePt ol a living being over its concePtion, what mode ofknowlontologicallv presides edge is thc individual capable ofl2A system of living fbrms, if grounded in being, has the ineffable individual as its correlate; but an onlological plurality ofindividuals, ifsuch a thing exists, hasa concept, a fiction, as its correlate.There are trvo possibilities. Is it thc universalthat makesthe individual o living thing as u,ell as tfrispotticular living thing? Ifso, singularity is to life as thc cxception is tcr the rule. The exception confirms the rule, in ofrcvcaling its existenceand content, fbr the rule, thg the sense v iolat ion o I rh c ru l e , i s l v h a t ma k e s th e si ngul ari ty aP P arent, indeedglaring. Or is it the individual that lends its color, weight Without such and flcsh to that ghosrlvabstraction,the universal? uould have no me.rningin "life," and u'ould a gift, "universal" be an enrptl rrord. The conllict between thc individual and the claims on "being" bearson lif'e in universalas to their rcsPective as all its fornrs:the vegetab)e well as the animal, function asrvell to as fonr. illnessas rvell as "temperament." All approaches litb must be homogeneous.ll living specicsexist, then the diseases ol J i' ing t hi n g s m u s t a l s o fo rm s p c c i e s .l f onl y i ndi vi dual sexi st' then there ,rrc no speciesofdisease,only sick individuals. Ifli[e hasan inrmanent logic, then anv scienceof lif'e and its manifestations, $hether normal ot Pathological,must set itselfthe task of discoveringthat logic. Nature then becomesan enduring set of latent relationsthat must be brought to light. Once uncovered' guaranteeof validity ho*.ever,those relations offer a reassuring efforts ef'fortsto classifvand to thc physician's to the natur.rlist's fhe Hktorv oJ Madnessand Birth oJ the Cltnic, Michel to heal. In F ouc ault b ri l l i a n tl v d e mo n s tra te dh o rv t he methods of botany

as in st'rvccl a model fbr nineteenth-ccnturvphvsicians developnosologies. r at ionalit yof u, hat t hr t 'at r nslile, " he "The i ng thei r ll ! lr

\\'rote, "is identical to thc rationalitv of lif'e itsell-."But there is rationalitv and rationalitv. l -he mat t er of univer salsu'as,of cour se, an im por t ant issue in medieval philosophy,thcologl and politics. Here, horvever,I ofa few briel shallapproachthis questiononly indirectly, bv r",ay and remarkson nominalism in the philosophyof the seventeenth eightccnth centuries.Nominalists ovcr the ageshave relied on a varicd but unchangingarsenalofarguments. Becauscthey n'ere engagedin the samestruggle, horvcver,diflerent nonrinot alrvays fiom that arsenal. all,rl tht'nr. Yet nalistschosedifferent \r'eapons fiom Ockham to Htrmc bv uay of Duns Scotus,Hobbcs, Locke anrl Condillac, sharedone common purpo5c- to show tlr.rt unir'.'rsals merely a u,ay of using singular things and not in the are n.rrure t hings t hcm selves. ckham callecluniver sals oI O "suppositi ons" (rlr at is, posit ions ol subst it ut ion) ; Hoblr escaller i t hem "arbitrarvimpositions"; LocLe called them "rcprcseDt.rtions instiruted assigns."Yet all agreedthat concepts*crc a hunt.rn.rvhich is to sar', factitiousand tendcntious,processing oferperience. We sar "human" becauscwe do not knou, if we havethe right to say "intellectual."Ilolding that the mind is a tabularasa docs not give one thc right to saythat a tabula rasais a mind. Nominalists look upon sharcdproperticsof individual things asan authenricequivalent to universals, but isn't doing so tantamount to dor)ning a mask of falsesimplicity? A trap arvaitsthose u'ho take this path, the trap ol similarity,A generalidea, Lockc says, a gcneralnamc is signifving a similar quality perceivedunder a varictv of circumstances; that guality is rveighedbv abstraction,that is, bv "considerationof the common asdistinct from the particular." lt can thcn scne asa valid representation all particularideasbelongfor ing to the same tvpe. Unlike Locke, l-lume ascribesto thc f.rc-



ultl of generaliz.rtion not onlv n porvcr to rcproducc sensations itt nremor! but .llso to transposcthe order in u.hich inrpressions are reccived;this porverbelongs to the imagination. rvhich may be Lrnfaithfirl the lessons to ofexperience.Nevcrthelcss, argues he that sinrilaritvof ideasguidesthe imaginationto\lard certain habits, or unifirrmitics, in dcaling l ith the t'nvironmenr.I labit telescopes r{)gerhcr rt'lrolehost of indivirlualcxperieDccs. a lfan1,one o[ t hes c e x p e ri c n c e ss e v o k c db v a n a m e, thc i ndi vi duali dea of i that cxJ)eri(.nce conjures up others,.rnd rve vield to the illusion ofgcneralitv. (t is easvto sec rhat thcre can bt'no comlbrtablc norlinalist pos it ion o n th c r-e l a ti o n fc o n c e p ts to l i l e. For tht' nomi nal i st, o div er s et h i n g s n ru s t e x h i b i t s o me m i n i nral dcgree of si mi l ari ty bef or e on e c a n c o n \tru c t th e c o n c c p t of that si mi l ar propcrty rvhich is supposed take the pl.rccol univcrsalesscnces. to Ilence! $.hat those eightt'entfi-ccnttrr.t authors rr'ho ncre empiricists as to the cont(nt of tht'ir knou ledge anclsensurlistsas to the origin ol its fbrms rcallv give us is a mirror image of Aristotelianism, I b".uur" thev sought to find the knorving[/e connaitrelamong the kn()$,n,to lcarn about lii! n'irhin the order of lifb. Hunranbeings, thcr sar,, arc endou.edu ith a porver (r'hich might cquallr. rvell be t ak c n f b r a m l ' a s u re fi mp o tc n c e ) to i nvent cl asses o and, thus, to arrangeother living beings in an orderlv flshion, but onlv on condition that those beingsexhihit certaincommon characters or repeatedtfaits. llor! can a nonrinalistspcakofnaturc or naturcr? Llc can do vvhatFIunredid and invokc a lruman nrturr,, *.hich is to conct'de at lcast that thert'is uniformitl among humans,cven though llurne held that human nature u.asinventive and. more s pec if ic al l v , a p a b l t'o f a d o p ti n g d e l i b c rateconventi ons.W hat c does tlris accomplish?lt inrroducesa clcavagein thc st,stemof living bcints, bccarrse narurcofonc ol those being: is defined thc bv an artilicc, bv the possibilitvofcstablishing conventionrathcr a
3t r 8

rhan cx pr cs! ingt he or cleroi nat ur e.I lcnce, in Locke and I lum e as i n A rist ot le, t he pr oblenr of hou conccpt s ar e conceived is sol rcd in a $'ar t har disr upt st h<,pr ojccr of nat ur . alizing knou, l_ edgeof nature. lfrudes, pp. 339-42] Tronscendental LoBic is [12]] Philosophl. better rhan thc historv ol scienct, rcvcaling at the si gn if icance t hc dispar it iesbet u. c, t , nhe scient jf i< of t t er li o1 ni qr:es nat ur alist s r heir im pJicitor cxplicit Lr nder lving and phi_ l osophv .This can be sccn ir a m ast er lul t ext bv K. r nt on. it hc reguLrtilcuseol thc idcasofpure reas()n.t.] Ilerc Kant introduccd rhc imnqcof a "Jogicalhorizon" to accourrtlbr the regtrlatirc, but

gcncra).A logical hr r r izon,accolding t o Kanr , is a concept ual ri e\r' poi nt t hnt enconr passcs cer t ain r egion; a r vit hin t hat hor r ron, thrrc arc multiple viervpoints, eachdetemriningfirr.thtrhori_ zonsol s m alleram bit . A hor i/ on can bc, lecom po. set l onlv int o oth(r hor ir ons,just , t s a concept can be analvzcrnnlv in t "r m s l ol other conccpts.Td savthat a horizon can be decomioscclcrnlv into other horizorrs an<lnot into discretepoinrs i, r,, ,ov tirat ,p"ci escaDb c cJccom poscd o subspecr es int Dut n( ver int o individu, al s.Thi s is bccause o knol, som et hing t is t o knor l, it in t er m s of conccpts, and thc understanding kno$,snothing bI intuirion alonc. Kant's intageol a logicai horizon ancl his dellnition of a con_ cePt ns a Yiervpointcnconrplssing a rcgion do nor marL a return l ' , n,,mi n alijr n.n, , r r l, , lh, . \ r . on( t it ut ( . dn , r lt lnr pt t o jr r st il_r con. ( e11\on.the b. r sir I r hr ir |r r Jlm Jr ic v, r in . r rh ir r ing o luc r conom r R, . r s, r n , pl1 ( . \ ,r ihc\ \ u( lr ( . (onom \ . iq. t lr . r rt or , lin! r o i l ' .' ]],' :* ,i , : in. so, l. , ing r . I r , , , , r il, esr h, . r , lt . . , , 1n. r r ur ,n. ', , , r dingr , , ." i .l t, l ,],, ir n,, such r hirr g ar . im iJ, rir r . t , , r jn r rh. r rr Jst I h( . l, g_ ) ar ,,i l n. : ". l) r , ,, :,' l r\\ ,, 1 ir . \ J\ r r , . lj a. r h, . r r n, l, . r , r an, lint . r . ll r r . , , r r j, j ir I,e

j;ilil;::::,il:i; ;:i;l:;:::xT ;::i;l'i1;::i::i:::1

the rol e of . s im ult ane o u s l \a b o l i s h e d[.,.] R e a s o nthus assumes in o[ interpreting the rcquirenrents the un<]erstanding that realm uhcre the sciencc of life pursuesthc heuristic task ofidentifyspecies. Those requirementsdcfine a transcening and classifving dt ' nt al s t ru c ru rt' o f k n o w l c d g e . It mi g ht thercl i rre appearthat finally rnanages break out of the circle within to Kant's analvsis rr'hichall prcviousnaturalisttheoricsol knoulcdge had remained conflned. The conceptionof conceptscannot bc merely onc concept amongothers,Thr: dichotomv that neither Aristotlt' nor the empiricist nominalistshad been able to avoid w,as groundcd,jusrified and exaltedbv Kant. we If, hou'ever, havegained the legitimation ofa possibilitvthat of knorvlr'rlgethrough concepts - ha'e we not pelhapslost the certaintv that, among the objccts oI knowlt'dge, there arc manifestation the some,at least,rvhoseexistence a necessary is of PLrtdiflerently,havcrve not realitv of concretelvactiveconcepts? los t t hc c c rta i n tv th a t l i v i n g b e i n g sd o i D l i ct number nmongthe In objec t sof k n o w l e d g e ? Ari s to te l i a nl o gi c, the l brms ofreasonmimic the hierarchyof living lbrms, hcnce there is a guaraning betut'en logic and life. tanscendental logic, teed correspondence u hich constitutesnaturc d priori asa svstemofphvsical latvs,does not in f ac t s u c c e c di n c o n s ti tu ti n g n a ture as the theaterof l i vWe gain a bctter understanding the naturalist's ing organisms. of rt'search,but rve do not arrive at an understandingof nature's r{avs;rvc gain n better understanding the concept oIcausality, of but we do not understandthe causalitl ofthe conccpt, The Critique ot'Judgmentattempts to give meaning to this limitation, * hich the understanding experiences n fact. An organized as being is one that is both its own causcand its orvn eflcct; it organizes itsclf and reproducesits organization;it forms itst'lfand creates its orvn rcplica in accordance with a tvpe. lts teleological structurc, in vuhich the interrclation of the parts is regulatcd bv the
I lo

eremplifiesa nonmechanical causalitv ol'the conccpt. We 'r'hole, havc no a priorl knor+.ledqe this tvpe of causalitv.Forcesthat of are also forms and fbrms that arc also forces are indccd part of natureand in nature,but u'e do not know this through the underst.rnding;we perceive it. rathcr. in experience.That is rvhv rhe i cl eaof a "nat ur al end, " u'hich is essent ially he idca of a self l t constructingorganism,is not a categorvin Kant but a regulative ide.r, u'hich can be applied onlv in tht' fbrm of max ims. To be sure, art providcs an analogl vrherebv nature'smode ol producti on can bc judged. But wc cannot hope t o adopt t he vieu- point ofan archctypalintellect lbr u'hich concept and intuition u,ould be identical, an intellect crpable of cre.rtingits own objects, for *hich concel>ts rvould bt' not onJyob)ectsofknowledge but a)ser, frr useLeibniz'sterm, original roots of being. Kant holds that the line arts arc arts ofgenius, and he regards geniusas nature dictating its larv to art. Yet hc rcfirsesto permit himself to assume,in rl ognrat ic ashion, sim ilar vicr vpoinr .t hat of genius.ir r or der r o f a graspthe secrctofnature'sopercrl. Kant, in other rvords,reflscs ro identifv the logical horizon ofthe naturalisrs rvith rvhatone might call the poctic horit.on ol natura notDtans. pp. lEtu<les, 3.+3-.+5] The Berna rdian Conception [12.1]C laude Ber nar d descr ibedhis r cllect ions as a scient if ic thcorl, of generalphvsiologv. They are interesting,h,rr"cver,preciseh bccausc Bernarddid not d:vorcethe study ol finctions fiom that ofstructures. In Bcrnard'sdav,moreever,the only structurc kno$ n to bc common to tnth animalsand plants,hencethe structure on which the studv ol life must hcnceforth fbc.us,r,,,as thc cell. Bcrnardalso did nor di.orce the stu<lr' ofstructurcs fiom rjre rtudy of the or igin of t hose5t r uct ur es. Thus, his gencr alphvsiolt-tgy full of rcferences (:mbrvologv, is to which eversincethc rvork t,l f K arl Er nst von Baer ha, l ser "e, l as a bcacon f br ninet eent hll I

use by centurv biologists, a source of concePtsand methods fbr rr t herdis c i p l i n c s [...1 . gcnera)phvsioloqt rvas,iirst o[ al), a theort of the Bern,rrrl's u'ould clevclopmcntof org;rns,and his basic conccPtion of Iifc terms' a probresolve,or ,lt anv ratc recast in more nreaningfill Icm that positivist lriologv h.rd avoidedand that mechanistbiolresolvedthrough conllation ofconccpts: to rvit, in what ogl ha<J The naturalistsofthe cightt'cnth organizcd? senscis an ot-qanism uith the qrrcstion lndccd, it tvasnot centurv h.rdbccn obsessed solution in terms ofmeclranical a (luestionrhat lent itsclf to easY models.Pretormationism,the theorv that the grorrth ofthe adult organismh om the original secd is simpl;-a matter of cnlargemcnt of structuresalrcadvcontained in miniattlrc in the seed- along r it h t he l o g i c a l l r d e ri v a ti v cth e o r' , t hat seedscontai n smal l er s eedsc o n ta i n i n g s ti l l s ma l l e r s c e d sa nd so on. ad i nfi ni tum rt,fcrred the u'holc issueoforganizaticln back to Creation The rise of embr,,rrlotr .rsa trasicsciencc in the ninerccnth centurv nrade it possibleto rcfbrmul;rte thc questiott For Bernard,the quc s t io n o fo rg a n i z a ti o na n d th c o b s tacl ei t poscd to expl ai ni ng lile ir phisical antl chcnrical terrns was rvlratmad'' gcnerrl physiologv a d i s ti n c t s c i e n c c . [...] bv Bernard$'as possessed one idea: that the organizedliving jddcc'lirertricc,guida thing is rhc tcmPorarv manjlcstation of an ing idea. The lan s ol physicsand chcmistrv clo not in thensclves explainhort thcy arc hrought to trearon the compositionol a parr ic ular o rg n n i s m , fh i s a rg u n rc n ti s d erei oped at l ength i n the sur Lc1ons lesphinontines de Ia vie:
1\'1 er pt r ic nc e h. : s I c d nlc t r ) a c c r t . l j l r c o t l c t - P t i o n o l t h i n g s . ' ' r livTherc are, I belicr'c, oi ncccssitv,t\\'o {)rderso1 phenomcn;rin o1 inil things:phen<rmcna *ital crcrtion or olaanic !r nthesis'and phethese Onlr the lirst nomcna ol death ur organic dfitruction 'rl

clservherc; it of is trro classes phcnornen;r without dircct analoguc livingthings. Thisevolutive nthtsisis rvhat sr specilic, to is peculiar. i \ rrulr vilal. l l ence, lbr Bcr nar d, a f unct ioning or ganism r vasan or ganism rngrged in dest r ovingit scll. The f unct ioning ol an or gan uas a phenomcnon, that is, de,rth.Wc can graspsuclr phvsicochcmical char . r ct er izchem , an<lscr t phenomena,t le can under st and. r ncl t rvc rrc inclincr i, m isieadinglv,o t ppl\ t he nam c "lif e" t o uhat organiccreationand organiis in lact a lbrm ofdcath. Convcrsely, zationarc plasticacts ol-svnthcticreconstitutionof tlre substances - f his or gnDiccr cat ion, that th e f unr t ioning or ganismr ecluir cs, thi s const it ut ion of pr ot oplasm ,is a f br m of chem ical s- vnt hesis, an< li t is also . r f br m of r nor phologicalr vnt hesis,\ 1'hichbr in{s the " i mm ecliar t 'pr inciples"ol living nr at r er t ogct her in a 1) ar ti cul ar kind ol'm ol<1.The exist cnce of an "int er nal m olcl" ( / c moul ci nt ir ieur l r vasin l. r ct Bt r llbn'sr "av of cxplaining ho*'an t i nv;ri ant lbr r n per sist s t hc m idst of t hat inccssant ur bulcnce in w hi ch is lif c. A t fir st sight , one nr ight t hink t hnt Ber n. r r d her r 'scpar at ing is nvo l or nr s oi r lnt hesis t hat m or lcr n biochenr ist r v has r r unit ecl, and that he h.rsfiilql to rccognize the fact that the cytoplasm i tsr.' 11st r uct ur cd.I n<lccd, is no longer possible o agr ccsit h is it t Bcrnardthat "at its sinrplestlcvel, shorn ol all the ancillarv phenomcnat hat m ask it in m ost beings,lif e. cont r ar v t o lr - hatAr istotl e bc licved.is indr penr lontof anv specif ic f or m . lt r csidcsin a subst ancc ine<lbv it s com posit ionand not bv it s conligur adc[ ti on: prot oplasm . " a)n t he ( ont r ar \ , nt r r r lcr n biochcm ist r r is l) ascdon t hc pr inci P l e th at conligur at iolr and st r uct ur c ar t 'r clcvant cvcn. r t r hc most basiclevelof chemicalcomposition.I,erhaps Bcrnard's crror, thr)ugh,r,,irs astotnl asit nravseem,lbrht savs Dot latcr rhat ";rro

l rz



.':t a purelYchemical substance' ; toplasm, howeverb"rt., ', It has an origin that a si-pl" im-ediute principle of chemistrv' protoplasm of an ances.,lud". ur. It is the continuation of the and that structor." In other words, protoplasm has a structure' We "Protoplasm itself is an atavisticsubstancc' ture is heredit.rry. Now' recall that by do not see its birth, only its continuation'" meansthe law that determinesthe lixed direcevolution Bcrnarcl manifestationsof tion o[ constant changeithis law governsthe For Bernard' life both in its inception and in its PerPettration in this sense' morcover. nutrition was idcntical with evolution absolute the Thus, it can be argued that Bernard did not make and mordistinction bct$'eenmatter and fbrm, bctrveenchemical that the chcmical He phologicalsynthesis. had at leastan inkling protoplasm obeYa structural ,n,"ri"ng", occurring within the assonreimperative. He also sa*'the structure ol the protoplasm the knorvn thing *,hose reprt duction requiredsomethingbeyond ofhercditYrvhich lartiof phv.i., und chemistrv' It rvasa product In his orvn words' this coul<inot be duplicated in thc laboratory' herc and notn of a primitive structurc rr'as"the nranil-estation n'hich nature repeats messocc, impulse. a prirnitive actioil and accordingto.r Patterndetermined in advance'" heredCleariy, Bemard seemsto have sensedthat biological *e norv think of ity consistsin the transmissiorr something that speaking'not is, "N{essage" scmantically infcrrmatiotr. of u, c<,,lcd to conclude it lf,r trom "code." Ncvertheless, rvould be incorrect conceptual kinthat this semantic analogy points to a genuine discorery'ln 1865' hast,r do with a simultaneous ship. The reason de Ia midecine the same,-earthar Bcrnard'slnftodu'tion d l'itude *'ho appeared'Gregor Mendel' an obscur!monk crpdrimentale like the celebrvould nevcr in his liletime expericnce anvthinq his Vercuche, ritv that rvaslavishcdon Claude Bcrnard' publlshed associated No Pflottzenhvbri,len conccpt analogottsto those trbier I r4

rlith toclav'stheorv of hereditv can be imputed to Bernard,becauscthe concept of hereditv itsclf u'as totally nern'and unlikc anv idcas Bernard miqht havc had about generatiolt antl evoluin be tion, We n-tust carelirl,therefbre,not to seeanalogies ternl! onc can st ill ar gue t hat t he rakenou t of cont cxt . Never t heless, qenetic has "message" a fLnctionalallinitv with today's Bernardian on code, That aflinity is based their common relation to the conrePeateduse of cerlain cept ol'information. ConsiclerBernarcl's guiding idea' vit.rl design.\'ital Preormessage, rermsand phrases: dainment, r'ital plan, directeclprocess.If genetic intormation is a coded program for protein synthesis,then Bernard'srcpeated rust,rf such conr cr git t g m ct aPhor sr vould appcar t o r cf lect an .rttcnrpt to pinpoint a biological rcality fbr rvhich no ade<luate concept had vet becn formulated. To put it in slightlJ different terms, Bernard used concePts concept of informarionto account r', associateclith a ps;-choloeical lor phenomenath.rt we now interPret in terms of a phvsicalconccpt of inf br m at ion.[ . . . ] Const r uct ion,gr owt h' r est or at ionand of the selfregeneration the living machine- it is no accidentthat rhesc terms occur in combination' Evolution in the Bcrnarrlian oflife. is the inverseof cvosensc, the fundamentalcharacteristic assun'ted of lution in the phvsicist's sense, namely,the series states by an isolated systemgoverncd bv the second larv of thermodvor nami cs.Biochem ist s odat savt hat or ganic iDdividualit Y, t hc t constancy ofa svstemin dvnamic cquilibrium, retlects lifi"s general tendencyto slou'the increase ofentropv, to resistcvolution toward the more probablestatt of unilbrmitv in disorder. that bestowsnleaning lnd " fhc Ialr of ordtr anrl succcssi()n order on phenomena": the lormulation is rather surprisingtor a biologist rvhom no one rvould accuscof indulgencetolvard the rsc of m.rthematical conceptsand models in biology.Thc lbrmula i s actua llyquit e close t o Leibniz'sdelinit ion of inr lividualsr r blr t

the oPerutionum, lan ofthe sericsin the stance:/..! serieisuarrlm of oI mathcmnticalsense thc tenn, a scries operations This almost o f (b i o l o g i cal ) heredi t\ can norv be f ir r m al ( lo g i c a l ) d e fi n i ti o n discovt'rvof molccuinterprete<lin thc light of the fun<lanrental lar biolog v , th e s ttu c tu re o f D N A, rh e kcr cotrstj tuentof chromosomes,the caricrs of hcredity, t{hose vcrY number is itself a specific hereditarvcharacteristic.[!rudcs, pp 354-60] lnforntotion T heorv rn d Franci sC ri ck' rvho ei ght , [ 125] I n 1 9 5 ' 1 J a mc sl ). W a ts o n yearslater rcceivedthe Nobcl Priztrfbr their rvork, shorvedthat it w,as the ortlcring of .r finite nrtmber of basesalong a dotrble ''r the genetic of helix joined by phospharcs strgar hich constittrtcs infornration or Progr.rmcode dctermining holv tht: cell syntheblocks ofprotein fbr nervcclls' lt hassincebeen sizcsthe btrilcling takcsplaceon demand.that is, asa funcshoun thrt this synthesis t ion < r lin to rm a ti o ns tc m n ri n gfrc ,mrh c envi ronnrent meani ng' of c our s e ,rh c c e l l u l a rtn v i ro n m c n t. In 1 965,anothcrN obcl P ri ze for rvasarv;rrded this furdrer discovtrl ln changingthc scaleon the phenomcnaol lifc - rvhich is to sar', rr.hichthe characteristic stnrcturationof mattcr and the regulrtion of [unctions, includir'g bio)ogv the stnrcturation lunction - are stttdicd, contr.'nrporarv :has als,raclopteda neu' language.lt has droppcd thc vocabularl l and c onc e p tso f c l a s s i c am e c h a n i c s ,phvsi csand chcmi stry' al l lessdirectlv basedon geomctricalmodels. in favorofthe . more or ' ol 1,6(.r[ls)arv linguistics anclconlnrunicationstheort illessages' decoding:thcscare the codc, instrut:tions, inlbmration, Progrants, . . new c onc c Ptso fth c l i f' es c i c n c e s[...1 '' $ e s a yth a t b i o l o g i c a l h c rc d i tv i s thc communi cati on W h" , t to of a ctrrain kin(l ()1intormation. t','eh.rrk back in a \1'aY the A r is t ot e l i a n p h i l o s o p h r l i th w h i th u e bcgan' 1" ' ] Ib savthat her c dit v i s th c c o mn l u n i c a ti o no f i n l brnl ati on i s, i n a scnse'to
] l( )

inscribcd. preserredanrl trans;rcknoulcdgethat there is a /ogos clone- r vit hout u r it ing, nri ttcd i n living t hings. l- ile hasalr vavs to llng belbrc * riting cvcn existed - n hat humanshavc sor.tght to <lorvith cngraving,rvriting and plinting, namt'lr', trrnsmit nlcs:J-hescicnce of lifi no longer rcscnr[.les portrait of life, a sirgrs. jn asi t cou ld r vhcn it consist ed t he dcscr iplionand classif icat ion architectureor mechanics, .rnd it no longer resembles <,fspecies; macroscopicplrvsi.rsit could rr hen it uas simplv anatomv .rrr<1 and ol' ologv. But it r|r,csrcstmtr)cgrn)rmar, s(n'r,rntics thc thcor,,' life, its messagc must be (lc(odcd If s.r'ntax. rve.rre to unclerstand belirreit can be read. doubt have a num ber ol t evolut ionar v conscThi s r r 'ill nr - r t it r vr >r r ldake m anr ch. r pt er s o er plain not r vhat t and cl uences, tlrev arr:but \t hat thcv are in the proccssol becoming. To define d-rt: cxislile asa meaning inscribcrl in matter is to acknorvledge tt'ncc ofan a prlori objcctivc rhat is inhcrcntlv material .rrrdnot mcrclv fbr-mal. this conncction.it seemstcrme that thq rrudv of In instinct in the nranncrofNiLolaasTinbergenanrl Konrad Lorentz, that is, through the demonstrationol the er,istcnce innatc patof ternsol b ehavi<r r , a vav of <lcm onst r at inghc r calit v of such o is t priorls.To dcfine lifc as me.rnin!is to {irrce onesclf to look lbr ner.r' i scover ies. e, t hc er per ir ncnt alinr 'ent ionconsjsr s rl ller onlv in thc scarchlbr a kcv, but or-rcc that kev is rliscoverecl, mcanthe ing is lound, not constnlcted.fhe modelsuscd in seekingorganic meanings re<lrrirt'.r mathemaci<s differtnt fiorn that kno\\n to thc C recks. ln r r r der t o undcr st andlir . ing t hinq\ onr needs, t non, ' nerri c thcor v ol space, . r scienceof or cler ,r t opologv;onr needs a nonnum cr icalcalculus,a com binat or ics,a st at ist icalm achiDcrt. In this reipcct to() thert h.rsbeen, in a scnsc,.r return to Aristotl e. l l c bclit : vet l r hat m nt hr . m . r t ics . r s l no use in hiologv n, cr bccause r ecognized t hcor r of spact 'ot hr r t han t he geom cit no trr to rvhich Euclid gavc his nam e.A biologicallir r nr , Alist ot lt :
l t7

argued,is not a pattern, not a geometrical form. He *as correct. Within an organism there are no distances:the rvhole is immeThc essence the livof diatelv prcsent to all the (pseudo-)parts. ing thing is tlr.rt, insolar as it is Iiving, it is immediatelv present to itself. Its "parts" (cheverv term is misleading)are immediately its prcsent to one another. Its regulatory mechanisms, "internal whole immediately Plescnt to each of environment," makc the t t s P ar t s . llence, in a certain senscAristotle rvasnot \\'rong to saythat a c er t a i n k i n d o f ma th e ma ti c s ,th e onl v mathemati cshe knew about, r'as of no use in understandingbiological fbrms, fonns lorms determined bv a final causeor totality, nondccomposable in r v hic h b e g i n n i n g a n c ie n d c o i n c i dc and actual i ty outrvei ghs pot enr i a l i ty [...] . and reception o[infbrIf life is the production, transmission mation, then clearlv thc histon ol-life involvesboth conservation and inn o v a ti o n . F l o u i s e v o l u ti o n to be expl ai ned i n terms of of The ansrver, course,intolvesthe mechanism mutaof genetics? tiors, One objcction that has ofien been raisedagainstthis theand orv is that manv mutationsare sutrpathological, a fair number To lc t hal, s o th e mu ta D ti s Ie s sv i a b l e th an the ori gi nal organi sm. be sure, many mutations are "mg65119115" but from rhe stand_ point of life as a rvhole, rvhat does "monstroulj" mean?Manv of today'slife forms arc nothing other than "normalized monsters," to borrow an expressionfrom the French biologist Louis Roule' T hus , if l j fe h a sm c a n i n g ,\v e mu s t a c c eptthc possi bi l i tvofa l oss of t hat m e a n i D g ,o f d i s to rti o n , o f mi sconstructi on. Li fe overcolnes crror through further trials (and b,v"error" l mean simply a deade n d ). What, thcn, is knou,ledgci'lf life is concept, does recognizto ing t ha t l a c t g i l e th e i n te l l i g c n c ea c cess l i l e? W hat, then, i s knowledge? life is mcaningand concept,hon do rvc conceivcol If
lr n

thc activitv of knorving? Earlier, I alluded ro thc studv of instinctive behavior,of behavior structurcd by innate patterns.An aninral is fbrmed bv hereditv so as to receiveancl transmit certain ki nds of inf t r r m at ion. I nlbr nr at ion t h. r t an aninr a]is not st r ucturally equipped to receivemight as well not cxist as lar as that animal is concerncd.In u,hat we take to be thc universal environtnent, each species'structure determinesits o*,n particularenvias Alex von UcxkLill h. r sshoun. lf nr an is alsr .lbr nt ed ronment , , l rr he r edit y, how <iocsqnc cxplain t he hist or , r.' f knor vlcdge, n hich is the lristorv of error and of triumph over error?l\,lustwe conc]ude that man trccamcu,hat he is by mutation, bv an error ol her cdit r i'ln t hat case,lif e. nould by cr r cr rhave pr oduced a l i vi ng t hing capabieol'm aking er r or s. ln f act , hum ar rer r or is probablyone with human errancy.Man nrakesmistakesbecause hc does not knou, rvherc to settle. He makesmistakesr,,.hen he choosesthe \{ rong spor lbr rccciving the Iir)d of infirrmation he is .rfter. But hc also gathers inlbrmation bl ntor.ingaround, and bv moving objects around, rvith the aiclol variouskinds of techn,rl,,gv.-Mo.tscientific tcchniques, it can be argucd,are in factn()thingmorc than methods lbr moving thinqs around and changi tU ri rr r elat i'r r s. r m ong, , l'1, ilf f nor t lr dge. r hen, i5 r n r n\ iou\ tr quesr lor t ht , gr eJt estpossiblcquant ir \ '. r nclvar iet yol inlor m ati orL-llft hc d pt ior i is in t hings, if t he concept is in lile, t hen t o bc a subjcct c'f knou.ledgeis simplv to bc dissatisfied\,\,iththe nreaningonc llnds readvar hand, Subjectivitv is thcrcfbrc noth_ i ng othcr r han dissat isl) cr ion. haps h. r t is *. hat I ili, i\ . I nt er Per r P reted in a cr r r t ainr vav,cont em por ar v biologv is, sonr ehor v, a philosophvof life. [Erudes, pp. ]60-6,+l


TC'HAPTr r r l'<. r uH r r r r


l n tr o d u cti o n




to the Problem

I v [126] Ir r ct . i( is necessarat k astt r >localize. or er anr plt , hou an rlo uc take action .rgainst carthqu.r[eor hurricanel Thc impeundottbtt'rllv dcriles evervontologicalthcon ofdisease tus behin<i lrom thcrapcutic necd. When ue sec in cvcrv sick man someonc ue rvhrrstbcing hasbccn .ruqmented <linrinishcd, are some* hat or ( nn be r est or edt o hinr . and lbr rcassur r '<|, uhat . r nr an has lost uhat hascntered hinr can also lcavr'.We can hopt't,r conqucr diseas(' cv en il'doing so is t he r esult ol r spcll, or m agic. or possession; rvc have only t{) rcnlember that discaschappcnsto man in order no t t o losc all hopc. , \ 4agic ingst o dr ugsan<lin( . r nt at ion br ritcs innumerabl<: rcsour-ces stemrninglionr a pro[oun<lltintcnsc dt'sirefirr curc. Henrv Frnst Sigerist hasnotcd that Eurptian mcdi ci ne probablyunit er salizcdt he East cr ncxpcr ienceol par asit ic di s.' as es com bining it r , vit ht hc idr : a of clisease- possession: by throrvi n g up wor m i m eansbcing r est ( ) r ed o hcalt h. " l) isc. r se t enrersa nd lcaves an. ls t hr ougha ( lo( ) r . m A vulgar hielanhr r ) l ( liscases ill f xist s t odn\ . basc( lr ) n t hc sr trtent to r vhich sr nt pt om s can - or cannot - be r e. r dilylocali zed, he nce Par kinson's discase m or c ol a discasehan t hor acic is t shi ngl es, vhich is, in t ur n, m or e so t h( r nboils. Wit hout r vishing r to detrlct fiom thc gran<lcur l or.ris of lt,rsa'ur's tr:n(.tr,\\.ecnn sav
l 2l

has \f ithoDt hesitntionthat the gcnn theorv ofcontagiousdisease to much of its success the fact that it enrbodies certainlv o$,ed an ontological tepresentationoIsickness. After all, a germ can be s een , e v c n i f th i s re q rri rc sth e c o m P l i cated medi ati on ofa microscopc, stainsand cultures, while lve lvould nevcr be able to seea miasmaor an influencc.To seean entit)/ is alreadyto fbreseean action. No one rvill object to the optimistic charactcrof the theories of in[ection insofar as their therapeutic application is c onc e rn e d . Bu t th e d i s c o v e ryo f toxi ns and the recogni ti on of the specific and individual pathogenic role of ferrainshavc destroyedthe beautiftrlsinrpJicitvofa doctrine uhose scientific ofa reaction to disveneer fot a long time hid the Persistence easeasold asman himself. lf rve feel thc need to reassurcourselvcs,it is bccauseone anguishconstantly haunts our thoughts; if rve delegatethc tasl orqanismto thc tlesirednorm to tcchniof restoringthe diseased it or cai means,either nragical nratter of [.rct lPo.titirc], is because nothing llood from nacureitsel[. we cxpect Bv contr.rst,Crcek rnedicine,in thc Hippocratic u'ritings and which is no longcr ontopractices,oflers a conception ol disease logic al, b u t d y n a mi c , n o l o n g e r l o c a l i zati oni st,but total i zi ng' rvithin nran as well as without, is harmony and Nature (pfir'sis), ofthis equilibrium, ofthis harmonv, equilibrium. The disturbancc in In is is called "disease." this case,disease not someu'here man, circumit is evervrvherein him; it is the whole man. Extcrnal stanccsare the occasionbut not thc causes.Man's equilibrium of consists lbur humors, u hose fluidit,v is perfectlYsuited to sustain variationsand oscillatiottsand rvhoscqualities are paired by ofthese humors (h oppos ite s o t/c o l d , rv e t' d 1 1 );th e d i sturbance But disease not sirrrplydisequilibrium or discoris causes disease. c lanc eii t i s , p e rh a p smo s t i tl p o rta n t, .rn r:ffort on the part ol naturc to effect a ne* equilibritrnt in nran l)iseascis a gencral) 22

jzed rcaction designedto bring about a cure; thc organismdevelin ops a disease order to qet nell. Thcr.rpvnrust llrst tolerateand, rcinfbrce thesehedonic and spontaneously therapcuif ncccssarv, Medical techniqueimitntesnaturalmcdicinal action ric reactions. To naturae). imitate is not merely to copv an appcar(ris medicatrix ance but, also, to mimic a tentlencv and to extend an intimatc movem ent .O f cour se,such a concept ion is also opt im ist ic, but hrre the optimism concernsthe lvav o[ nature and not thc cf]cct of human t cchnique. \4edical thought hasneverstopped alternatingbetween these of betrvt'r'nthese tllo kinds of optit\\'o representations diseasc, finding some goo<ireasonlbr one or the other attimism, alu'avs Deficiencv diseases and tude in a nervly explained pathogenesis. f)vor the ontological theory, all infectious or parasitic diseases and all discascs rvhi l c cnclocr inedist ur bances beginning u, it h ,/rs-su ppor t t he dynam ic or f uncr ional t hcor v. llouever , t hese t\!o (oncept ions do haveone point in com m on: in r Jiscase, or of bettcr ,in t he cr pr : r ience being sick, bot h envision polem ical a \ituation - either a b.rrtlebenve..nth<:organism and a tbreignsubstance,or an intcrnal strugglebetrvt.enoppcrsing forces. Disease diffirs fiom a state of health, the pathologicalfiom the normal, as one qualit v dif f er s f r om anot lr er , cit hcr by t he pr esenceor abscnceof a definite principle, or bv an alteration of the total organism.This heterogcneity of normal and pathological states persiststoday in the naturalistconception, rvhich expects littlc from human cfforts to restorethe norm, and in rvhich nature will find the wavsto\1,ard cure, But it proveddifflcult to maintain the qualitati\.emodification separaring thc normal fiom the pathological in a conception that allorvs. indeed expects, man to be able to compel natureanrlbt,nd ir rr-, nonlrtive desires. his Wasn't it said repeatedlyaficr Bacon's time that ()rc govrrns naturc only l rr obeving it ?'I b govcr n disease <'anso becom e acquaint ed nr t lr l

\r.irh its relationsrvith thc normal state, \\ hich the li!ing man loving lif'e- wantsto regain.Hence, thc theorcticalneed,dclayed a l,r' an abserceof tcchnologv,to establish scientific pathologybv ( thought linking ir trr phvsiologr.Thomas Sydenhanr 162,1-1689; had to be del i mi ted t hat in or(l e r to h c l p a s i c k m a n , h i s s i ckness just as there are animal species and determined.Therc are diseasc According ro Svdenham. there iJ an order among or plant species, dis eas es i mi l a r to th e re g u l a ri tv Is i d o re C eoffroy S ai nt-[]i l ai re s found amonganomalies. Philippe Pinel justified all theseattempts (n o at c las s i fi c a ti o n l d i s e .rs c o s o l o g v )by perfccti ngthe genre i n (1797), rvhich CharlesVictor l)aremhis Nosographie philosophique as bcrg clescribed morc the rvork of a naturalist than a clinician. (1682-1771) Mean*'hile, Giovanni Battista,\'lorgagni's creation c r la s v s t c mo f p a th o i o g i c a a n a to mvm a dc i t possi bl cto Ii nk the l organsto groups of stablesvmptoms,such that lesionsof certain nos ogr a p h i c a c l a s s i l i c a ti o nfb u n d a substratum i n anatomi cal l But analvsis, iust asthe lbllouers of William Harvcyand Albrccht von Hallcr "breathcd life" into anatomvbv turning ir into phvsiology, so pathology became a natural extension of physiologv. (Sigeristprovidesa mastcrful sunrmarvofthii r:volution of mediJ) ofthis cvolutionarvprocessis the fbrcal cle.rs,'l l he end r<:sult mation of a theory of the rclations betrvcen the normal and the pathological, according to rvhich thc pathological phenomcna lbund in )iving or-qanisnrs nothing more than quantitatile variarc ations, grcater or lesrcr according to corrcspondingphysiologic al phen o me n a .S e m a n ti c a l l v th e p a thol ogi cali s desi gnatcd , as departing liom the normal not so much br o- or dls- asbv l,1peror 14po-.\\rhile ret.riningthe ontological rhcory'ssoothing conthi f idenc e in th e p o s s i b i l i tyo f te c h n i c a lconquestof di scase, s approachis lar from considcring health and sickncssas qualitat ir elr opp o s c rl , o r n s l i rrc e s i o i n e d i n battl e. Thc need to rtcstablishcontinuity in orcler to gain more knorvledgefor more
I 2. 1

cfl cct ivc act ion is such t hat r he conccpr of disease r ould f inallr r vani s h.The convict ion t hat one c. t n scient i[ icallv r cst or c t he norm is such t hat , in t he end, ir annulst hc pat hologicr l.Disease is n,r krngcr the ot)ject ol anguishfbr th.'healthv m.rn; ir has[rcconrc inst eadt hc objcct of st uclv f or t he r hcor istof hcalt h. I t is i n pathologr ',*r it lar ge, t hat r ve can unr avcl t hc t , . 'achings of heal th, r '. r t hcras Plat o sought in t he inst it ut ions ol t hc St at e equiralent of tlrc .r,irtues thc Iargerand more easilvrea<lable and sotrl. II6e Nbrmo./ and the Pathological (NP\, vicesol tlrc in<lividual

lt PP. ]]l


1- ht

lr l ent it y


t hc

Tu, o

St at es

Auguste Comte and the "Broussois Principle" Frangois[127] It u asin 1828that AugusteComte took notice of Broussais'streatise Dc I'ltritation et de la Jolie .di|cl Joseph Victor n adopted the principle fbr his o\r\, usc. Comte credits Broussais. Xavier Bichat ,and bef or ehim , Philippe Pinel, r "'it h t rathq: r han as ackno*'ledgcd such ar e onlY havi ngdeclar edt hat all diseases Ol and s\r'r'lpt()nrs that disturbances rital ftrnctionscoultl not take But aboveall, or pl accr 'r 'it houtlcsionsin or gans, r at her ,t issues. addsConrte, "never before had anrone conceivedthe fundamental relation bet'veen pathology and phvsiologv in so direct and as describedall diseases consisting satisfving manncr." Broussais a t "in essent ially t he excess lack oI cr cit at ion in t he var i<r usisor as suesaboveor belor',,thedegreeestablished the norm." Thus, in di seascs. r rnr er elyt he ellict s of sir nplechar r ges int ensit \ in e lir the act ion ol t hc st im ulant s*hich ar e indispensablc t t n. r intaining he.rlth.f NP, pp. a7-a8] de [128] The lbrticth lecture of rhc Cours philosophie Potititcphi l osophicalr cf lcct ions on t he whole of biology - cont ains Comte's most complcte text on tlre problem norv bcfbre us. It is conce r nedu'it h shou'ingt he clillicult it 'sinher ent in t hc sim plc cxten sion of cxpcr im ent al m et h( ) ( l\ , r vhich havc pr oveclt hcir

spherc,to the particularcharusel lnessin the plrysicochcmic'al o ac t er is t ic s l th e l i v i n g : thc by to whatevcr alt!rysdesigncrl uncover lalvs is Any cxperimcnt or which eachdctermining modilvinginflucnceol a phenomcnon in a and nflcctsits pcrfbrmance, it gcnerall)consists introducing condition in ordcr to meainto eachdesignatecl change clear-cut itself.la variation ofthe phcnorrenon thc surerlirectlv corresponding N<xr', biologv thc variationimposcd on one or scvcralof a Phein n( ) m enon ' s o n d i ti o n s o f e x i s tc n c ec n n not bc random but must c be containc'dvr.ithinccrtain Iimits compatible w ith the phcnomenon's cxistence. Furthermore, the fict of functional consen.tu.t pr()perto the organismprecludesmonitoring the rclation, n hich exclusive ef'fects, to links a detcrminedclisturbancc its supposrrll,r r 1' it hs r r f fi c i r.:na n a l v ti c a lp rc c i s i o n . But, thi nks C omte, i f rvc t o r eac lilv m i t th a t th e e s s e n c c fe x p e ri mentati onl i es not i n the ad researcher's artiflcial intervention in the svstem of a phenomenon u, hic h h e i n tc n ti o n a l l v te n d s to d isturb, but rathcr i n the comparisonbct*ttn a control phcnomcnonand one altcred rvith respect to an\' one ol its conditions of existence,it fbllorvs that must be ablc to function lor thc scicntistsas sPontanediscases ()usexperimcnts rvhich allou a comparisonto be madr:betvvecn vari()us abnonral statcsand its normal state. an organism's w philosophical principle hich w ill scne to According thc cmincntlv and lirr lronr no'n on asa dircct, gcncnl basis positivcpathologv \r'e rvhose dcfinitive cstablishmcnt o$c to thc bold.rndpcrscvering sta(c thc citizcn,Brorrssais, pathological ol gcniLrs our limouslelLrrv statc,si th v is not . rt a l l ra d i c .rl l d i l l c re n t i ro m the phvsi ol ogi cal
r e g a r c l to r r h ich n o m a ttcr h o n o n t' looks at i t - i t ci tn ()nl Y c()ns t i l u t c a sim p lc cxtcn sio n g o in g m o r e or l css bevond thc hi ghcr or

ol proPcr elch Phenonlcnon thc norlnal to Ior.crlimits ofvari.rti()n rc.rllvncrvPhcnom_ rvithoutcvcrbeingablc to Pr(xlucc organisnr, dcgrccanv ptrrclr phrsiologito cn||1hich \loulcl haYe a cert.r;n calanalogucs. l5 cverv concePtion of pathologv must be bnsc(lon Consccluently pri or k nor vledgcoi t he cor r cspondingnor m al st at c, but conan cascs ttecomes indisvcrselvthe scientiflcstudv of pathological pensablephasein the overal] searchfirr the la*'s of thc normal genc.rses of]ers numerous, of st.rtc. flrc obsen'ation pathological -l he tranlbr uinc advantages actual cxpcrimental investigation. antl more natural sition fiom thc normal to thc abnormalis slorver i n thc caseof illness,an( l t he r et ur n t o nor m al, r vhen it t akr . : s flrnishes a vcrifving countcrproo{ ln a<ldiplacc, spontancouslv is investigation more tion, astir asman is concerncd,Pathological exploration.Thtr limitctl experimcntal fruitlirl than the ncccssarilv ( ssent iallY valid lbr . all or gansci entillc st ut lv of m or bid st at csis i sms,e venplant lif e, and is par t icular lvsuit ed t o t he m ost c( ) m ulrich most dclicateand fiagile plrenomt'na plcr an<ltherelorcthr.: uould r being t ( x) br usqu( a clist ur bance, cl i rectexper im cnt at ion, tcnd to dist or t . I ler e Com t r ' \ \ 'nst hinking ol vit al Phenom cna related to the higher animals and m;rn, ol thc n(rvous and Ps\and m onst r osit ics chi c fi r nct ions.Finally,t he st ur il ol anom alit : s t concr: ivcd. r bot h older and lesscur ableillncsses han t he luncs ti onal dist ur banccs vaf ious plant or neur om ot or aPPar at uses of (the completesthc studv ofcliscascs: "teratological.rpproach" the stu(lvol monstcrs)is aclded thc "pathologicalapproach"in bioto Iogi calinvest igat ion. l6 clualitv It is appropriateto note, lirst, thc particularlvabstr.rct ol thi s t hesisand t ht 'absence hr ouglr outol anv pr ccisecxam ple t ol a m cdical nat ur ( :t ( ) suit abll illust r at c his lit t r al exposit ion. Sinceue cannot rclat( th('s('gt'neral to.rnv examPlt', propositions
I2' l


lrc do Dot knorv from rvhat vantagcpoint Conlte stltes that the pat holog i c a l p h e n o m e n o na l u ' a v sh a s i ts anal oguei n a physi oHorv logical phenomenon, anclthat it is nothing radicallv nerv' to is .r sclcrotic artery analog<lus a normal one, or an isYstolic heart identical to that ol an athlcte at the hcight ofhis porvers? vital Undoubtedlv, wc are meant to understandthat thc laws of health' 8ut then and phenomenaare the same for both disease And even thcn, does this not and givc cxamples? so why not sa1-. effectsare determincd in health and disease imply that analogous We mechanisms? should think about this cxample bv an.rlogous given bl Sigeristr"During digcstion the number of rvhite blood The same is true at thc onset ofinfcction Concclls increases. s equent l vth i s Ph e n o mc n o ni s s o mc timesphvsi ol ogi cal 'someit.''ll times patholoqical,depcndingon 'vhat cattses Sccond, it should be Pointcd out that dcspite the reciprocal of natureof the clari[icationachicvedthrough the comparison the and the assimiliarionof thc patho' normal with the path<rlogical logical and the normal, Comte iDsistsrepeatedlyon the necessit.r of determining the normal and its truc limits o[ variation casesStrict)y pathological first, belorc methodicallvinvestigating knorvledgcof normal phcnomena,basedsoleJyon obspea)<ing, without knorvledgeof scr,ration,is both possibleand necessarY <lisease, particularlv basedon experimentation But wc are Prescnteclu'ith a seriousg;rp in that Comtc provides no criterion u'hich would allo*'us to knorv rvhat a normal phenomenon is that on this point he is rcferring to the We.rre left to conclud<r us ual c o rre s p o n (l i n gc o n c e P t, g i re n the fact tbat he usesthe not ions o f n o rma l s ta te , p h y s i o l rl g icalstatt' and natural state 2 int c r c ha n g e a b l Y s B e tte r s ti l l , rv h e n i t comes to defi ni ng the linrits of pathological ot. cxpcrimenta! disturbanccs(omP'rtible , \ \ it h t he e x i s tc n c eo f o rg a n i s m s C o m tc i denti fi cs these l i mi ts u' it h t ho s e o f a " h a rmo n v o f d i s ti n c t i nfl uences,those cxteri or
I lo

as r.el l as int er ior "lq - r vit h t he r esult t lr at t he concept of t he nonna) or phvsiological,linallv clarified by this concept ol haramountsto a qualitativeand polvvalcntconcePt,still more mor_r, .rr' ' rhe t i.and m , 'r . r lr h. r n: t icnt ilic As lir as the assertionof identity of the nornral phenontenon and the correspondingpathological phenomenon is conccrned, clear t hat Com t e's int ent ion is t o denv t hc qualit ai t i s c<lually by tive dillercncc between thesctwo adnrittecl the vitalists.l-ogical l v to denv a qualit at ive dif f er ence m ust lead t o asser t inga in homogcneitycaplble of expression quantitativcterms. Comtc is undoubtcdly heading to'r'arrlthis rrhen he dellnes pathologv as a "simple extensiongoing more or lessbcvond the higher or lou.cr limits ofvariation proper to each phenomenonofthe normal organism . "Bur in t he cnd it m usr be r t 'cognizedt har t he terms urcd hcre, although only vaguelvand looselv quantitativc, r sti l l hale a qualit at ive ing t o t hem . f NP, pp. 19- 21] Claude Bernord and Experimental Pathology wor k, t he r cal ident it v - should one sav in [129] I n Ber nar d's mechanisms symptomsor lroth?- anrlcontinuitt'of path<-rlcrgior cal phr:nomcna and the correspondingphysiologicalphcnornena are more a m onot onousr epet it ion t han a t hem e. This. r sser t ion is to bc fbund in thc legonr de ph.vsiololTic expirimentaleappliqude a la n(decine(1855), cspeciallyin the secondand trvcntv-sccond fecturesof \bfume Two, antl in the leqonssur la chaleuranimale (1876). We prefirr to choose the lcgonssurle dialtite et la glrcogeni se nim alc( 1877) as t he basic t , . 'r r , r vhich, of ail Bcr nar r l's o $'orks,can be consideredthe one espcciallvdevotcd to illustrating thc theory, thc one n'hcre clinical and expcrimental facts.rre prcsentedat least as mu<h for thc "mor.al" ol a methodological anrl philosophicalorder which can be dran'n lrorn it as for rheir i ntri ns icphvsiological caning. m

phJ' smc B c r nar cc o n s i d e re d d i c i n e a sth c ' jci cnce ofdi scascs, l rvhi ch i iologv as t h e s c i e n c eo f l i l c . In th e s c i ences t i s thcorv can be practice. Rational therapctttics illuminatesanclclominatr:s sustainedonlv bv a scicntific pathologv,and a scientific patholon ogv must bc basecl phvsiologicalscitnce. Diabcttrsis one cliscaservhich posesproblems rvhosesolution Provesthe preccding acquainted sholts that if rveare thoroughJv thcsis."Common scnse u ith a phvsiologicalphcnomenon, rvc should be in a position to i to , r c c ountf b r a l l th e d i s tu rb a n c c s w h i ch i t i s suscepti bl en the statc:ph\siologyand pathologvarc intcrmingled and patho)ogical that one are essenti,rlly and thc samcthing."r0Diabctcsis a clisease fLncti on. s c ons is t s o ]e l va n d e n ti re l v i n th e d i s o rderol ' a normal "Fr'<'rl cliserse has a correspondingnormal lirnction ol u'hich it (l i s tu rl )e (Je x a g g c ra tc d , l i mi ni shcd or ol > l i teratecl . c is onlv t h c ol l er pr t ' s s io n . f rre .rre u n a b l c to e x p l a i na l l mani l i ' stati ons di sis phvsioJogv not vct sulllcientlv adt'anccd trsc torl.rr,it is bccausc anc lt hc r c a r< s ti l l rn a n r n o rm .l l fu n c ti o nsunknou' n t() us." tl In of t his , B ( r r ra r(ltv a so p p o rc < lto ma n v p h ysi ol ogi sts hi s day,.rcentitv. supcrrvas to crrrcling * hom <lisr:asc an extraphysiokrgic,rl r ol diabetes lorrge .rllorved no Thc studv imposcdon the organism. s r . r c r n oP i n i o n . h svnrP tonrs: d I n c f li' c t, d i a b rte si s c h a ra c tc ri z cb v the l i rl l o' r' i ng Strictly autophagia.rnd glvcosuria. polvplragia, polvtrria. polldipsia, nerv rc s peak i n g ,o n co l th e s e m p to m s p rcscnts.r phcnomenon, n rv to unkn()\r'n thc normalstate,nor is anYil sPolltJne{}us Production ()n savc tht'ir intenlor all ol naturc. thc cl)ntfar\', of them preexist, statell and in sitr, *hich varies thc normalst.rte in rhc discisc(l genius lics in the fact that he Bricfll, rvt'knou that Bernarcl's shoueclthat thc rugarlbund in an animal otganismis a Product of this sameorganisnrand not just something introduccd liom the:

t pl arrt r vor ld t hr ough it s f eecling; hat blood nor m allv cont ains sugar,anclthat urinarv sugaris a product gcncrallvelimin.rtcd bv reaches ccrtain thresh' a thc kjdncvs *lrcn the rate of glvcer-nja ol d. In ot her r vor ds,glvcem ia is J c( ) nst antplr enom t 'nonindeof o1' pencl c nt f bod int ake t o suchan cxt ent t hat it is t hc absence is bl oo<lsugart hat is abnor m al,and glvcosur ia t hr consequence a of gl vc em iau hich hasr isenabovt : ccr t . iinquant it v,scr vingasa threshold.In a diabetic,glvcemiais not in itsell a pathological phcnomeDon- it is so onll in terms ol'its quantitv; in itsclf, glvcemia is a "norrnal and constantphenomcnon in a healthyor-gani-sm."Il Ther eis onlvoneglvccm ia, i\ c( ) Ds1. r pcr m nnenr , hr lr r r ing it nt , bor ,l j .r bt t es lout si<lchat m or bir lst at c. nl. ' it hasr lc3r ccs: c, anr t O glr mir lrcl,u 3 to 4 pcrccntclocs lc.rdtoglr'cosuril; abi>rc not lrrrr t[rr ghcosur iacsult s. . lt is ir npossible) pcr ccivr o. 1r ) ! ir ir ) n l r.' r cl r .. t( lhc lr,irnthc nrrrrr.rl the p.rthologic.rl , .rn(l pr,)blcrn ti' st.rt( nr) sh'r$ lx r \ tcr t h. r ') Lliil) et r t hc int im alclir sion r l phvsiologr nrp, r t h, r logr . Jr s r ,r l

pp. INP, ](J-l2l
' unlikc Br oussais lCor r r r e, anr suppot t ed Il 3t] ] Clau<ltBcr nar d, hi r gencr al pr inciplc of pat hologv u it h ver ili. r hlt 'ilr gunr ent s! protrrc olsol cxper ir nr nt sand, aboveall, m ct hods ldr r lt r . r nt if r i ng phv siological gllcosut ia. concept s.G lvcogenesis, glvccnr ia, combustion of firod, heat liom v.rsoclilatation not qu.rlit.rtir< arc conccpt sbut r hc sum m ar ics r esult sobt aincr lin t er m s oI nr t aol surement . om her c on \ \ 'ekn( ) \ \ 'cxact lv v] r atis m cant whcn it Fr r is claimcclthat disc.rsc the exaggeratecl rliminislrcclexpresis or si(nrol .r normal finction. Or:rt leastuc havcthe rneans knorr, to i t, fbr in spit e of Ber nar d's undcniablepr ogr css logical pr eci in si on, his t hought is not ent ir clv lr et f r - omam bigt r it v. First of all, r,r,ithBcrnardas u ith Bichat, Broussais.rnd Conrte, thcrc i s a dccept ivcm ingling ol quant it at ivcand clualit at ive conlll

S c ept s in t h e q i v c n d e fi n i ti o n o f p a th o l ogi calP hcnomcna. onl es ta te i s " th e d i sturbancc ol a normal t im es t he p a th o l o g i c a l vnri ati on, an cxaggeram ec hani s mc o n s i s ti n gi D .r q u a rrti ta ti ve t ion or a tte n u a ti o n o f n o rm a l p h e n o mena," l 5somcti mes the diseasedstate is made up of "the exaggcration,disproportion, Who doesn't see that the discordanccof normal phenomena."16 has term "ex.rqqer-,rtion" a distincrly quantitativcscnscin thc first definition and a ratherqualitativeonc in tht' second.I)id llernard believe that he u'ascradic'rtingthe qualitativevalue of the term "pathological" bl substituting for it the terms disturbance,dispr opor t io n .d i s c o rd a n c e l that rhe This ambiguity is ccrrainll instructivcin that it rcvcals problem itself persistsat the heart of thc sr.'lutionpresuntably givcn to it. And the problem is the fbllor"'ing: Is the concept of to disease concept ofan objective reality accessible quantitative a Is scientific knorvledge? the differencein value.*'hich thc lit'ing life. betweenhis normal life and his pathological being establishcs th.lt the scientisthrs the )egitimateobJigaan illusorr appearance ofa qualitativecontrast is theoretition to deny?Ifthis annulJing i c ally pos s i b l e , t i s c l e a r th a t i t i s l e g i ti mate:i f i t i s not possi bl e, t hc questi o no f i ts l c g i ti ma c v i s s u p e rfl uous. P , pp ]5-36] IN B-vrvavof summarv,in the medical dornain,Claude []er[l3l] nard, u ith thc authoritYof-evtry innovator* ho provesmovenlent by marching,fbrmulatedthc profound necd ofan era that believed in t he om n i p o te n c e o f a te c h n o l o g y f ounded on sci ence,and rvhich f'elt comfbrtable in lif'e in spite, or perhapsbccauscol, An art of living - as nledicine is in th! romantic l.rmentations. full senseof the word - inrplies a scienceof lil'e. Elficient thera$ experimenlalPathology, hich in turn cannot be peutics.rssumes scparatcdfiom physiology."Phvsiology and pathologv are idenfiom this, tical, onr and thc samcthing." But must it be declucecl r lit h br ut a l s i m p l i c i tv ,th a t l i l e i s th e s a mei n heal thand di sease, I t4

and through it? The scienceof that it learns nothing in disease Arisrotle' Nlrrstit be concludtd lionr this oppositesis one, said That the scienceol lif'e should th,rt opPositesare not opposites? and so-calledpathological phenomcna as talc so-callednormal objects of the same thcorctical importance,susccptibleof reciProc.rlclarification in ordcr to make itself fit to mcet the totalitv of the vicissitudesof litc in all its rsPects,is more urgent than l cgi ti mat e.This does not m ean t hat pat hologvis not hing ot hcr as and still lessthat diseasc, it relatesto the northrn phvsiology, only an incrcaseor a reduction. It is undcrmal state,represents sroo(l that medicinc needsan objectivc Pathology,but research it rvhi ch c auses s object t o vanishis nor objcct i"e. O ne can denv and considerit is thrr rl i seasc a kind of violat ion ol't he or ganism createsthrough some trick of its as Jn event that tht' organism permancnt functions, $'ithout denving that the trick is nelv. An bchaviorc.rnbe in continuitv lvith prcviousbehaviors organism's oIan .rdvent and still be another bchavior. The progressiveness does not exclude tht originality of .rn evtnt. The lact that a patht bv ol ogi cal sym pt om . consicler ed it sell, expr esseshe hYper acof a function *'hosc product is exactly identical rvith thc tivitv nonnal conditirlns,cloes oIthe samefinction in so-called prodLrct as conceived anothcrasPect disturbancc, not nrcanthat an org.rnic mpol-thc u hole ol-lunctionaltotalit t anrl not asa suntntaryol s,r tonrs. is not a nerv modc ofbehavior'lor the organismrelative to i ts cnvir onm ent . In thc final analysis, *,ould it not be appropriatc to sa) that the p.rt hological bc'dist inguir hed such,t hat ir , . ls an alt er as can atir-rn thc nornralstatt, onlv at thc lcvcl ol organictotalitv, and ol t hen i t concer nst r nn, at t he level ol conscious individualt ot ali t1, uher e disease com cs a kind oI evil? To be sick m canst hat bt a man r eallvI ivcsanot herlif c, cvcn in t he biologicalr cnseol t he uord. [ NP, pp. 86- 88]


= 1 i=+-i: +=?

? z:;i = = zi : i :;ti ::z t ai =: i : =
; zii=i--=

, i =i,= z =



:rii l ; Z ? i = = : 2 '; =; : t : i
i zi+ ^; t i Z a= ?, I -o-| > z=:
5 :.::Ll+:;:'-!

;+ 1 i = ti = :i , . ? i =11 =*i =ri t+1-= i =,:7 ,i :

- t i = ! ; ,= i | i=+:;:t: i ::::=: t:i i : i :=

i ; ; : z ;i;?=i


; ii=:i :;1

az:-=:=i i;:Zi:;l E=i!

:: : t ?i-i :i=,'-' ;j :-i z ::+




salvation sickness rrith sin;andin hisaccount Ii eorja and of mctlita reroStahl himsclf, dcspite intellectual his vigor, availcrJ himself more t hanhc n c c d e d o fth e b e l i e fi n o ri g i n asi nandthe fi l l o[man.]7 to l M or c t han h e n c c d e d to ! s a y sth c a u th o r, qui te thc admi rer of Broussais, sworn enemy at the da$.n of the ninetecnth century ofall meclicalontologv. The denial o[an ontological conception of disease, negativccorollary of thc assertionof a quantitative a idcntitv betrveenthc normal and thc pathological,is first, perhaps, the deeper reflsal to confirm evil, It certainly cannot be denied that a scientific therapeuticsis superior to a magical or mysticalone. It is ccrtain that knou'ledgeis better than ignorance rvhen action is rcquired, and in this sensethe value ofthe philosophvof the Enlightcnmentand of positivism,even scienristic, is indisputable.It would not be a question of exempting doctors from the study ofphysiology and pharrnacology, is very imporlt tant not to identify discase rvith either sin or the devil. But it does not fbllou' from the fict that evil is not a being that it is a concept devoid ofmeaning; it does not follo*,that there are no negativc values,even among vital valucs;it does not fbllou'that the pathological statc is essentiallvnothing othcr than the normal state.l,\?, pp. 103-1041 [133] It is true that in medicine the normal stateofthe human body is the state one \\.antsto recstablish. But is it because therapeuticsaims at this stateasa good goal to obtain that it is called normal, or is it because the interestedparty,that is, the sick man, considersit normal that thcrapeuticsaims at it? We hold the sccond statement to be truc. We think that mcdicine exists as the art of life becausethe living human being himself calls ccrtain dreadedstatesor behaviorspathological(hence requiring avoi<iance or correction) relativeto the dvnamic polaritv ofli[e, in thc fbrm of a negativevalue. We think that in doing this the living

human being, in a more or lesslucid wayrextcndsa spontaneous eflbrt, peculiar to lif'e, to struggle againstthat which obstructs i ts preser vat ion and developm entt akcn as nor m s. 'f he ent r v in rh. Iorabulair e philot ophiquc cm \ t o r \ \ um e r h. r t . alr r , , c. r nh. 5r attri but ed t o a biological f ict onlv bv, , him *. ho speaks, " obviouslv a man, We, on the other hancl,think thar thc fact that a l i vi ng m an r eact st o a I esion, inf ect ion, I unct ional anar chvbv meansofa disease expresses lundamcntal f;ct th.rt lile is nor the indif'ferentto the condirions in \r,hich it is possible,rhar life is pol ari t v and t her eby even an unconsciousposit ion of value; in short, life is in fact a normative activity. Nb/mdtir", in philoso, phl, meansevcrvjudgment u'hich evaluates qualifiesa fict in or rel ati ont o a nor m , but t his m ode of judgm ent is essent iallv sub_ ordinatcto that which establishes norms. Normarive,in the fLllest senseof t he wor d, is t hat * hich cst ablishes m s. And it is in nor this sensethat rve plan to talk about biological normarivitv. \A/c think that wc are as carefirl as anyone as f)r as the tcndencv to fill into anthropomorphism is concerned. We do not ascribea human content to vital norms but rve do ask ourselves holv nor_ mati vi tv essent ial o hum an consciousncss t r vouldbe cxplainedif it dicl not in somc n,aycxist in embrvo in lifi. Wc ask ourselvcs hou a h um an nccd f br t her apeut icsr vould havc engcnder eda meri i ci n e r vhich is incr easingly clair vovantn, it h r egar d t o t he condi ti ons of disease lif e's st r ugglc againstt hc innum cr ablc il dangersthreatening it wcre not a permanent and cssentialvital necd. From the sociologicalpoint of viel., it can bc shou.n that therapeutics.w,as first a religious, magical activitv, but this does not negatethe fact that therapeutic neeclis a vital nccd, u,hich, cven in lo.rver living organisms (rvith respectto vertcbratestructurc) arouses eact ionsof hcdonic value or self '- hcaling r or self : restorjngbehaviors. pp. 126_27] INP,


PotholoBy os the Bdsis ol Phyiology c()nvevs the httnr.rni st [ 134] Co n v e rs c h ,th e th e o rv i n q u e s ti crn c onv ic t i()nrh a t m a n ' sa c ti o n o n h i s e n vi ronntentand on hi mscl f ol can and must becomc completcll one rvith his knorvlc<lge thc env ir onn o n t a n c lm a n ; i t mu s t b e n o rm al l r onl v thc appl i cati on r r f a pr ev i < u s l vi n s ti tu tc (l s c i e n c c . I o ol i ng,rt the Lcqons;url c /i,70&c it is obvious th.rt ifone asseltsthe real homogeneirl an<l c ont inuit\ o l th e n o rm.rl a n d th e p a th ol ogi cali t i s i n order t< r es t ablis h p h v s i o l o g i c as c i e n c eth a t r voul d govcrn therapcuti c a l activitv b\ meansoftlre intt'rmediaryof pathologv.tlere thc f,rct experienccsoccasionsol nerv grorrth that human consciousncss i l an< lt lr c c rrc ti c ap ro g re s s n i ts rl o m .ri nof nontheorcti cal .pr.rgTo m at ic an( l te c h n i c a la c ti r i ti i s n o t a p p r eci .rtcd. denv technol i ogv a v al u e a l l i ts o w n o u rs i d c o f th e k norrl edge i t succeedsn thc i rrcgul aru,ayof the inc or por a ti n gi s to re n d c r u n i n te l l i g i b le ptogressof knowledge and to miss that ovcrtaking of scicncc bv t he po\ \ ' c r th a t th e p o s i ti v i s ts h a v e s o ofi cn st.rtedw hi l c thev dc plor t ' d i t. Il te c h n o l trg v ' s s h n c s s , nnri ndtulofthe obst.rcl es ra u (l i (l n o t c o n s ta n tl vanri ci patethe prutl ence t o be en< o u n te re d , of c or lilie d k n o * l c d g e , tl re n u mb e r o f sci cnti l ' i c probl cms to rl r es olv e,rrl ri c h a rc s u rp ri s r,; fte r h a v i ng l rct' n setbacks, oul d a be lir li' u tr. l l e re i s th e tru th th a t rc nrri ns i n empi ri ci sm, the philos op h r o f i n tc l l c c tu .rl n d \c n tu re , $' hi ch rn experi nrcntal rati m et ho< 1ra th e r to o tc m l l te d (b v re a c t i on) t< -r onal i zei tsel f, , f iilec l t o r c c o g n i z e [...] . I lcrc again,$'c owe to rhc chanceof bibliographicalrcsearch t lr e int c ll c c tu .rl p l e a s u reo f s ta ti n g o nce nror(' that the most appar entl Y a ra d o x i c arh c re sa l s oh a v cthci t tradi ti on $' hi ch unp l thcir permancnt)ogical necessitv. doubtedll cxpresses Just u hen B r ous s a i s a sl e n d i n g h i s a u th o ri ty to tl re thcory uhi ch cstabrv theon rvasprovokingthe lishecl medicine, this,i.rme phvsi,rlogical o objec t ion so l a n o b s c rrrr: h rs i c i a n , n e D r. V i ctor P rus,u ho srs p l.+o

rovarrlt'd bv the Socii'ti' de Nl6decine du Gar<l in l82l lbl a report e n f e r e d i n a co n r p .tti ti o n !r 'h o sc o b j e ct u a s th e Pr cci s<.<l ( fi n i t i o n o f th c tcr m s "p h l e g m a si a " a n d "i r r i ta ti o n " a n cl th ci r i m p o r , tancc lor practical nrcciicinc. Aftcr having challcngt'<lthe idca that phvsiologv bv itscll lorms tlre natural firundation of medicine; that it rlonr.' can cver cstablish the kno* )erlgc of svmptoms. their rt,la t i o n s h i p s a n d th ci r va l u e ; r h a r p .r r h o l o g i ( a l a n a r o n l ,ca n e ve r b < t l r d u c ed l i o m th c kn o r vl e d g e o f n o r m a l p h cn o m e n .r ; r h a t th e plognosis of cliseascsderivcs fiom the knorvlcdgc ot phvsiologi c . r l l a r vs, th e a u th o r a d d s: l l r lc * a n t r o r \h n ( st th r r l r r e sti o n<l ta l t si th i n r h i :i a r ti cl r : w .e ,rould h.rveto shc,s th.rt phlsio/o11r. fron bctnotht lounlation ol f<tr nukl onlr driscin opposition il. lr is thr()ugh rhc ch.rngcs pathologr, rlr l hich the rlisease an org.rnand somctimes rhc completc suspcnol s i D no l i ts.r cti r i l \ t,r D sm i t t( ) i r s l u n cti o n s th a t * c Icl r n th c o r g a n 's j u . e ;r n r J m p r r r r r n cc.... l l cn cc.r n t r o sto sj ,;, r co n r p n 'r si n g n r l p ;r r b a . r h z i n g th e o p r i c n cr r c, th c b r a ch i .r l n r .r vt's, n r i th c sp i n .r lco r r 1 , a (lcstination.Ilroussonnct rhorrs us thr'ir ustr.rl Lrst his mr'morr.of sub, s t a nti l c so r d s; a t h i s d ca th a n a b <.r :ss r l i r u n d i n th c.r n tcr i o r p a r t sa o l h i s b r a i n .r n cl,r n c w a s Ie r l r o l r cl i o c th a t th a r i s th c ce n tt,r i o r th e t n c n r o r t o l n a m e ,,.... l h u s p .r r h o l o q r '..r i cl ccl ;r .r r h o l ,r g i r alln a t ll o n r r , h a scr e a te tlp h r r i o l o g r : cvcr r tl .n p a r h o l o sl t l ,,r r s r r p p h r si o l , c,rlv's lirrrnererrols and airlsitr progrcrr.l8

INP.PP.10.+-t07] 'l hcrcaresonr( thinkers uhosr horrorol linalisnt illi] lc.rds
t h c n r t o r e j e ct cvcr r th e [) l r w i n i i n i cl e ao l se l t,cti o n L r t th c tn vi r ( J r r m c n t a n d str u g g l e l b r c\i ste n ce [r e ca tr seo f b o tl l th e te r D t " s e l e c t i o n ," o b vi o u sl r o f h u m a n .r n cl tcch n o l o g i ca l j r ) r p o r t, in(l t h e j <l e ao fa cl va n ta g e , u h i ch co m e s j n to tl r e e xl tl ,tn a ti o n o f th e m c c h . r Di sm o f n a tu r a l sr 'l cc.ti o n . l h t r p o i n t ( ) l r th n r n r ( ) st l i \j n {

I '1r

bcingsarc killed bv thc enrironnrent Iong before the inequalities ther can produceevenhavea chanceto be ol useto tlrem because it kills aboveall sprouts, embrvos or thc young. Bttt as Gcorges 'leissier has observed,the fact that many organismsdie bcfbre their inequalitiesservethem does not mean that the Presentation ol' incqualities is biologicallv indifferent.le This is preciselythe one fact rve ask to be grantt'd.There is no biological indiflerence, and conscquentlvruc can spcal of biological normativitY There are hcalthy biological nonrrs .rnd there are pathological norms, and rhe secondare not the sameas the first. We did not refer to the theory of natural selection unintentionallv. We want to dra$'attcntion to the fact that \rhat is true of the expression "natural sclcction" is also tnte of the old cxpresnsturoe.Selectionand medicine are biological sion vis medicdtrix tcchniques practiced de)iberatelyand more or lessrationally by nran. \\rhen ue speak of natural se]ection or natural medicinal . r c t iv it v w e a re v i c ti ttts o f rv h a t l l e n ri B ergsoncal l s the " i l l rrsion oI retroactivity" if rve imaginc that vital prehuman activitY pur s uesg o a l s a n d u ti l i z e s m c a n sc o mparabl e(o rhose of mcn. B ut it is o n e th i n g to th i n k th a t n a tu ralsel ecti onrvoul d uti l i ze and vis medicorrir, cupping anvthing that resemblespedigrees, and another to think that human technique extendsvital glasses c inr puls es ,a t rv h o s es e rv i c e i t tri e s to P l ace svsten' tati know l edgc rvhich rvould deliver thenr from much of life's costly trial and error. " T he e x p re s s i o n s n a tu ra l s e l e c ti o n" and " natutal medi ci nal activity" have one dra*track in that the-\ seem to sct vital techof niquesrvithin the framer.r'ork human tcchniqueswhen it is the opposite that seemstrue. All human technique, including that of li[ e, is s e t w i th i n l i fe , th a t i s , w i th i n an acti vi ty ol i nformati on humrn tcchni que o and as s imi l a ti o n f m a te ri a l ,It i s n o t because is nornrativethat vital technique is judged such by comparison.
t 42

I B ecauseif e is acr ivir v of inlbr m at ion and assinr ilat ion. is t ht ' it ot. ro< -,t r ll t cchnicalact ivit y.I n shor t , r ve speakof nat ur al r nediand, in on<- cnsc, m ist akcnr vav,but ci ne i n quit e a r et r oact ive r q'e were to assumethat rve h.rveno right to speakof it, even if \rc arc still free to think that no living being would have cvrr doel oped m edical t echniqueif t he lil'e r vit hin him - as r vit hin evcrvliving thing - were indiflerentro thc conditionsit met rvirh. if Iife were not a form of reactivity poJarizcdto the variationsol' the en\ ir onnr eDtin uhich ir develops. This uas seenvcr v r l. cll bv E rnile C Lr y!not : It is r 1.rcr that the organism an .rggrcgatc propcrties has of rrhich bcl o ng o it alone, hanks o which it wir hsr ands t t t r nult iplc dcst r uctivc forcf\. Without thercdelcnsive rrncrions, rvouldbe rapidlr life r:xtinguishcd. Thc livingbeingis r blc t o I ind inst ant aneouslr , . .. t hl rt,,rct ion shjch is usef ul vis- i- r 'is lr t anccs h r r hich neit hcrit sul. wit nor it s I ind haser erh. r d r nt actThc r r r ganisnran inconr par abh c, . is chcnrirr- ir thc firstamong lt phlsici.rnr. 1]uctuations thc cnvi, [-hc ol ronnrcnt almostalrravs mcntce to its existencc. . .] The liv<rrc a [. i ng beinqcot r ldnot sur vive it di( l nor posscss t ainessenr it l il ccr propcrties. livcn injury rvouldbe lital il tissucs rvcrcincapaLrlc ol lbrmingsc.rrs blo<xl and incapable cLrtting.r0 ol B r rvav, r l sunr m ar v, t hink ir r er t inst r r r ct ive o consider we t the mtaning t hat t he r vor d"nor m al" assr r nr es m cdicinc.and t hc in lacr th.rt th< conceptrsambiguirr. pointed out bv Andre Lrl.rnde, i s grea t lr clar if ied by t his, \ \ 'it h a <1uir e lor gencr alsignif icance the pro blcnt of t hc nor m al. I t is lilc ir sclf and not m edical judq, ment that n)akcsthe biological normal a conccpt ofvaluc and not i l conccpt of st at ist ical r ealit v. For r hc phvsician,lif i'is not an obi ect b ut , r , t t her ,n polar ize(act ivit \ t vhosespont ant , ous llr t l ef of clck nsr:anclstnrggleagainstall tlrat is oi ncgativevalue is rx,
i+ I

t endr d b v n rc d i c i n eb v b ri n g i n gto b c ar the rel ati vcbut i ndi spcns r ble ligh t o l h trn rrns c i tn c e . IN P , p p . 129-31] Nature ls the End Point of o Teleologicol Process cxpiriIl]61 ln u'riting tlre,lttro./ucrionA I'itude de la midecine ClaurlcBernardset out to asscrtnot onlY that eflicacious mcntclc, that sciaction is thc sarneas rcicnce, but also,and analogously, of ence is idcntical lr ith the cliscovcry the laws of phenomena. On this point his agrccment u'ith Comte is total. What Comtc b in his ph i l o s o p h i c a l i o l o g v c a l l s th e doctri nc of the condi ti ons of c x is t e n c e , B e rn a rtlc .rl l s" d c tc rmi n i sm." IIc fl atters hi mscl f r v it h hav i n gb e e n th t fi rs t to i n tro d u cc that term i nto sci enti fi c French."l beliere I rrn rhc Iirst to havc introduced this rvord to scicnct', but it has bc.'n used bl philosophersin another sense. rhc It rvill be use[ulto <leternrine meaningofthis u'orclin a book Thir rvill rvhich I plan to r\rite: I)u tlitcrninismctlanslesrcicnccs. i amount to a secondttlition ol nN Introduction la midecinccxjs lrith in tht univcrsallaliditv of thc detenninVirinttntolc.")tlt b is t pos r u l a te.' h i c h i s a s s c rtc rl v th e pri nci pl c " physi ol ogvantJ pat ho) o g v l re o n c a n rl th e s a n )eth i ng." A t the vcrv ti me thJt pat holo g t u a s s a d d l c rlu i th p re s c i e nti fi cconceP ts,there rvasa ofscientiflc chenric,rJ phvsiologrrvhich met thc dcnrands phvsical knorr'lcdgc,that is, a physiologvofquantitativc lau'sverified by carlY-nincteenth-centurv expcrimentation. Llndtrstandably, Phvsicians,iustifiably ca!erlbr an cflcctive, rational Patholog), saw in phvsiologvthe prospectivemodel rvhich came closcstto their and icfeal."scicnce rcjccts the indctermindte, in meclicine,rvhen opinions arc bascdon medical palpation, insPiration,or a more are or lesslague intuition about things,r','e outsidc of scienceanrl capablcol premedicinc of fantasy, arc givcn the exampleof this as senting the gravcrt pr,-tils ir dcliversthe hcalth and Iivesof sick m en t o th ( rTh i m s o f .rn i n s p i re di q n o ramus." l lB ut j ust becaus< , 1.1+

and pat hoJogr onlv t he lir st involr ecl ol the n vo - physiologv t ol l au' sand post ulat cd he det er nr inisnr it s object , it \ \ as not nccto essarv concludet hat , givcDt hc legit im ar edcsir c lbr a r at ional of pathologv,thc larvsand cleterminisnr pathologicalfactsarc thc samelarvsand determinism ol physiologital lacts. \Vc knou' the rnteccdentsofthis point of doctrine liorn llcrnardhirnself.In the N'lagendie the at lccture devotedto the lifb anclu.orksof Fr,rngois ct to\iques m;dicamentcuscs bt'ginning of the legonssur 1crsubstances (l l i 57), Ber nar dt ells us t hat t hc t cachcru hosechair hc occupies anci r'hosc tcaching he continues "(lrc\\ (he feeling of rc.rl scicncc" lrom thc illustrious ['ierrc-Simon Laplace.Wc knou tlrat had been Antoine-l-aurcntLavoisio-'s I-aplace collltrorator in the r researc h anim aJ espir at ion on anclanim al hcat , r hc f ir st br illiant in on success research the larvsol bi<-rlogical phenonrtna lbllou,ing the cxpcrimental anclmeasuringmethods endorsedlrv physicr arrl chemistrv. As a rcsult ot this rvork, l .rpl.rcc had ret.rinetl a cl i sri nct t . r st elbr phvsi<r lo{:and he suppor t r r l 1\ lagcnr lit .ll v Lapl acrncvcrusedt he t em r "r lct er nr injsn. " he is onc ol it s spir i tual l .rther s and, at leastin Fr ancc, , t D lior ilr t i\ e and aut hor aut i zcd l athcr of t he doct r inc dcsi[ nat ecl t hr t cr m . I - r r rLaplace, br detcnninism is not a m et hodologicalr t 'cluir t m cnt ,n nor m at ive research postulatesuflicicntly llexiblc t,' prcjudice in.rnv rvavth(: Iorm oft hc r esult sr o r , r 'hich lr : ads: is r e, r lir vit sell, conr plct c, it it cast nc r dr ief ur in t he lr ant cwor k of Ne\ r t ( ) Dianand Laplacian mechanics. Determinism can bc conceivecl being opento inccsas sant cor r cct ionsol t hc f br m ulac of laus an<it hc concept st hcv l i nk toget hcr , or as being clor cr on it s ou n . r ssum ed / dclinit ive content . I - aplace const r uct t d t he t heor v <r ft kr secl er m inisnr . det C l rrrd* B, r nr r r l di, l nor , onr , iv. ol ir in r n\ or hr . r r r , r r .. r n, lr lr i* i s un< l oubt edlv uhv hc clid not believc f h. r rt he coll. r bor at ion o1' pathologvand phvsiologvcould lead t<)n pro{rc\\ivc lectilication ofphvsi oJogical conccpr s.I t i5 appr ( , pr int e . r c r o t r c. r ll {lliecl hr llt

North Whitehcad's dictumi "Every special sciencc has to assume results from other sciences. For examplc, biology presupposes physics. lt will usually be the case that these loans really belong to thc state of science thirty or forty years earlier. The presuppositions of the physics of my boyhood are today pctwerful in{luen ccs in th e m ent alit v of phy s iologis t s . 4 r l N P , P P . 1 0 7 - 1 0 9 1 it ex11 3? ] The dy nam ic polar it v of lif e a n d t h e n o r m a t i v i t Y presses account lor an epistemological lict of whose important significance Xavier Bichat rvas fully aware. Biological Pathology exists but rherc is no physical or chcmica) or mechanical pathologyr things in thc phcnomenaol lile: (l)the stateofhealth; 'vc, d and liom t hc s e t w o d i s t i n c t s c i e n c c s t r i v e : (2) th c s t it c ol dis eas e, physiologv,which conccrns itself with the phcnomena of thc lirst Thcrc are t statc, prrhology, with thosc of the second.The historr ol Phenomen a in r v hic h r it . r l lir c es hav e t heir na t u r a l l i r m l t a d s u s , c o n s c quently,to rhe historyof phenomtn.rrvhert'thtst lirrccsart changerl. onlr rhe firsr historv exists, ntver the in Ncrrv, thc phvsicalsciences is sccond. Phvsiologv ro thc movernentol living bodies rr hat .rsrron_ omv, dv n. r m ic s ,hr dr aulic s , hy dr os t at i c sa n d s o f b r r h a r e t o i n e r r ()nes:thcsr l.rst h.rvcno sciencc at all rhat corrcspondsto thtm as to parhologv corrcsponrls thc [irsr. For thc s:rnlereason,rhe tt'holc to idea oI nrcdic.rtionis dist.rsrelul thc PhYlicalscicnces.Anr mtdi_ ca tion aim s . r r r ( s t or ing c er t ain pr opc r t i e r r o t h c i r n i r u r a l t ! P c : . r s ph vsic al pr opc r t ies nev er los e t his t v p c , t h e v d o n o t n e t d t o b c corrcspondsro what sciences restorcd to it. Norhing in the physic.rl is therapeuticsin the phlsiological scitnces-rr It is clear fiom this text that natural tvPe rrrtrst be takcn in the sense of normal type. For Bichat, the natural is not the et'f(ct o[ a d ete rminis m , but t he t er m of a f ina l i t y . A n d r v e k n o r v *e l l everything that can be lound r.r'rongin such a tcxt liom the vierv-

point of a nrcclranjstor materialist biologv. One might sav that l ong agoAr ist ot le believcdin a pat hological cchanics, m sincehc admi tte d t r . o kinds of m or em ent s: nat ur alm ovem ent s, hr ough t rvhich .r bodv legains its proper place u'hcre it thrivesat rest, as J stone goes dor vn t o t he gr ound. and f ir e, up t o t hc sky; and m ovem cnt s,bv uhich a bodv is pushedlr om it s pr oper ' i ol ent a st one is t hr oun in t lt c air . I r can bc said t har , pl ace, a s 'r 'hen rlith G.rlileo and I)escartcs, progressin Inorvledge of the phvsical t,torldconsistedin consideling all rnovenlents natural,that as is, as conforming to thc laws of narure. rnd that likerviseprogin rL'ss triologicalknoru]edge consistedin unilving the larvsofnatrrnl l i l e and pat holoqic. l lif e. lt is pr ccisclvt his unillcat ion t hat Augustt'Comte dreanredol and Cl.rudeBernald llattcrr:d hinrsell rvith havingacconrpJishcd. wasseenal)ore.To tlre reserrations as that I l e lt obliged t o sct f or t h at r hr t t inr c, Jr : rm e add t his. ln cstabl i shinghe science m ovcm enton t he pr inciplc of iner t ia, t ol nrodernnr echanics ef f ect m ar let hc dist inct ion bet uet 'n nat uin r.rl.rndv iolent nlovenr cnt s. r bsur d, iner t ia is pr eciselv inr lif as an l erencc r vir h r espectt o dir ect ionsanclvar iat ions nr or em ent . in L.i fci s far r em ovcd f r om such an indif ler encet o t he condit ions rvhi ch a r e m ade lbr it ; lif c i5 polar it v. The sim plcsr biological nutri ti ve syst emcr I assim ilat ion and excr et ioncxpr esses polar , a itv. When the rvastes digestion are n<rlonger excreted bv the <-rI organi rman<l congestor poi5( ) n he int er nalenvir onm cnt .chisis t al l i ndee <l accor dingt o law ( phvsical, chem ical and so on) , but none o1t his f ollor vst he nor m , u'hich is r he act ir it v o1t hc or gani sm i tse lf . This is t he sim ple f act t hat I u'ant t o point out whcn rvespeakof biological nor m at ivit r . I NP, pp. 127- 28] The Normal ond the Pothologicol os Quolitotive Contrqst Finally,as a r esult of t he det er m inist posr ulnt e,it is t he Il j 8l reducti onoI qualit v t o quant it v r vhich is im plied bv t hc essent ial 147





ident it r o l p h rs i o l o g l a n d p l th o l o g l . l i r redutc the di fl t' rencc to betlvcenr hc.rlthvman .rnda <liabetic a quantitativedillcr.encc rri th i n th e bodr, to dcl egatcthc task of t he an ro u n to fg l u c o s e of distinguishingone * ho is diabetic frorn onc rvho is not to a rcnal thrcshold conceivedsimplv as a (luanlitativediflcrcnce of rvhi ch, i n lev c l,m e a n so b e v i n gth e s p i l i t,rfth e p h rsi calsci cnces u ith laus, can erpl.rin theni onlt' in temrs iruttrcssing phcn,rmen.r of thcir recluctionto a conlmon mcasure.ln order to introduce thc of terms into rhe relationship:, compositiottand depcndence, hom ogen e i tvo f th e s c te rms s h o u l d b e obtai ned fi rst. A s E nti l c Meyerson l-rrsshorvn, the human spirit attained knou'ledgc bl ident it iin g rc a l i tl a n d q u .rn ti t\. B u t i t shou]d be remcmbered qual i ti es,u hi ch i t t hat , t hou g h rc i c n ti fi c k n o rrl e d g c i n v a l i datcs makesappcarillusorv, fbr all that, it does not annul thcm. QuanThe t it v is qua l i tv d e n i c d ,b u t n o t q u a l i ty s uppressed. qual i tati ve as varietv of simplc lights, perccivecl colors br the human cvc, is reducedbv scieDcc the qunntitatire dilli'rence ofrvavelengths, tr) v i but t he q u a l i ta ti v e a ri c tvs ti l l p c rs i s tsn thc form ofquanti tati ve calculationoflavelcngths. cgcl maintainsthat diflcrences the in bv its gros th or diminution, quantitv changcsinto rluality. This rvould bc pert'ectll inconceivablcif a relation to qualit\, did Dot s t ill pc r s i s ri n th c n e g a re d u a l i tv rv h i c h i s cal l edcl uanti ty.r5 q F r om rh i s p o i n t o f v i c rr' ,i t i s c o m p l etel vi l l egi ti mateto mai ntain that thc pathological state is rcallv and simplv a grear('ror lesscrvariation of the phvsiologicalstatc. I:ither this phvsiological state is conceivcdas haring one qualitv and value lor the living man, and so it is absurdto e)itcndthat ralue. identicalro itsell' in it s v r r i a ti o n s ,to a s tn tc c a l l e d p a th ol ogi calrvhoscval ue and contr.rsted quantitv are to bc diflertntiated fiom and essentiallv statei s r v it h t he l i rs t. Or u h a t i s u n d e rs to o d sthe phvsi ol ogi cal a a s im ple s u n ma rv o fq u a n ti ti e s , rv i th o ut bi ol ogi calval uc,a si mbut asthi s state o a p] e f : c t o r s v s te m fp h v s i c .rl n d c h c mi cal f.rcts,
I '+d

hrs no r it al qualit v,ir cannotbc calledhe. r lt hv nor m al or phvsor i ol ogi ca l. Nolnr al an<lpat hologic. rhaveno m eaningon a scale l l r here th e biologic. r object is r cducedt o colloidalequilibr iaand l i oni zcd solut ions.I n st udvinga st at c t hat he descr ibes. r phvsio, s l ogi c.rl ,t he physiologist lualilicsit as such,cvenunconsciouslv; r hc consider st his sr at eis posit ivelvqualif icd bv and lor t hr : livi ng bei ng. Nor r .r his qualil- ied phlsiologicalst at c is nr r t . ar such, * ' har i s ext ended,idcnt icallv t o it sclf , r o anot hcr sr . r t ecapable ol assuming, inexplicablv, he qualit v of m or bidit v. t ()f cot r r se,t his is not t o savt hat an analvsis t hc condit ions ol or produ ct sof pat hological lunct ions uill not givc r he cher nist or phrsiologist numeric.rl resultsconrparablcto those obt.rincd in a rv.trconsistentrrith thc tcrms ol'the samcanalvscs concerni ng the c or r esponding, called sophvsiological ir nct i<r ns. f But it is arguable rvhethcrthc terms "morc" and ,,less," oncc thcv enter rl r, rhl j nit ion ol t hr P, r r h, , lt r Air..r r r r lu, r nLir . r r ir r r . r r i. lion, ,rl lr , rl normrl , havca pur cll quant it at ivrm eaning.Also ar gLr able t hc is l oqi c.rlcoher encct r f Ber nar d's int . iple: , , Thedist ur bance a pr ol ( nortnl l mech. r nism .r 'n\ i\ r inll in a r lr r . r r r r ir . r r irJr iJt ion,, r n r . \ J! rc gcrati on, or an at t enuat ion,const it ut est hc pat hologicalst at t , . " ,\s has be, . : n point e( l ( ) ut in connect ion u. it h Fr angois, Joscph V i ctor Br oussais's leas,in t he or r lcr ol phvsiologica] unct jons ir I antl nee<ls, r espcakrof m or e an<l or lcssin r elat iont r ) a nor m . For exanrpl c,t hc hYdr at ion t issues t f act t hat can be exlt r essed of is, i n ttrms ol m or c anclless;so is t he pcr ccnt agcof calciunr in blorxl. Thcse quantirarivelv rliflerent rcsults*,oulcl hare no <1uali tv, l o valuein a lal>r r r ot on, t hc labor at or . had nr >r . clat ionship il v rri th a ho spit alor clini< uher e t hc r t sult s t akc on r ht r . . r lue or not oI ur cm ia, t hc valuc or not ol t ct Jnus. Bccause phvsiologv stancl s t he cr ossr oads t hr . ,labor at or l , r nd t he clinic, at of t r vo lloints of vie* about l)iologicalphenorncna.rre n(loptcdther(,,l)ut thi s doesnot m ean t hnt t hev can be int cr clr angt , rThc l. sr r l>r t it Lr _

for tion of quantitativeprogression qualitativecontrast in no way annulsthis opposition. It alwaysremainsat the back ofthe mind of thosc u'ho have chosen to adoPt the theoretical and metric are point of vieu..When rve savthat health and disease linked by and *'hen this continuity is convertedinto all thc intcrmediaries, homogeneity, we forget that the difference continues to manicould fest itsclfat the extremc, rvithout which thc intermcdiaries but in no wa,vplay their mediating role; no doubt unconsciously, u,rongly,w'econfusethe abstractcalculationof idcntities and the concrete appreciationofdiffercnces. [NP, pp. 110-12]

lI I
Nor m alit y

Cuepr t n and

Fr l .tl r n -


The Value of Norms Il ]9] The st at eof an) living t hing in a given sir uat ionis, in gcncral, alu,avs normal. flenri Bergsonsavsthere is no such thing as disordcr;rather,there are tlvo orders,one of v,,hich substituted is lor the other without our knorvledgcand to our clismav. Similarlv, rve ought to saythat there is no such thing as abnormal,ifbv thc term we mean merely the abscnceofa previouspositive condition or state.From the biological, socialand psychological points ofvicrv, a pathologicalstateis nevera state without norms - such a thing is impossible.Whcrever there is //e there are norms. Life i s a pol a r izedact ivit y, a dvnam ic polar it v, and t hat in it self is cnough to establishnorms. The normal is therefbre a universal catcgorvof life. l lence, it is by no meansnonsensical call the to pathological"normal." But that is not grounds fbr denving the distinctiveness ofthe pathological,or fbr arguingthat in biologv the normal and the pathoJogical are, but fbr minor quantitative diflerences,identical. The normal should not be opposecl the to pathol og ical,becaust unclcr cer t ain condit ions ar r d in it s own ' rra1.th(, par hologicalis n, , r m r l. I hcr , . ir . r ni. ( . r , sj\ ar \ont r J\ t ( I' etrrecn h, alt h . r nr l, lise; r , . .I lr . alr h i. m or ( . r hJn n. , r m alir r ; in ' i mpl e ter m s, ir is nor r nar ivir r .Behjn, l . r ll apf Jr cnt n. , r m Jlir v.
l tl


rffL t l' i



3 to


ili {l


onc m us t l o o k to s c e i { i t i s c a p a b l eo f t ol erati ng i nfracti onsof t he nor m , o f o v e rc o mi n gc o n tra (l i c ti o ns,of dcal i ng w i th conflicts. Any normalitr opcn to possiblefuture corrcction is authent ic nor m ati v i tv ,o r h e a l th .A n v n o rm a l i t v l i mi ted to mai ntai ni ng itscll, hostile to anv variation in the thcmes that bxpressit, and incapableol adapting to ncw situationsis a normalitY devoid of normative intcntion. When confronted rvith any apparcntlynormal situation, it is thercfbreimPortant to ask vvhctherthe norns creativenorms, norms with a for\\'ardthrust, that it embodiesar-e norms, norms rvhosc thrust is or, on the contrary, conservative torvarrlthe past. IMS Normalitict normativ l, 1. lr] Normality and Species normal and [140] In the biologv ol species,the problem of the thc pathologicalarisesin connection rvith thc problem of variai t ions . ls a n a n o m a l o u s n d i v i d u a l ,th a t is, an i ndi vi dual i n some respectat variancervith a dcfined statisticaltvpe, a sick individual or a biological innovation?Is a fiuit {lv vu'ithno n'ings,or vestigial rvings,sick? Biologistshostilc to evolution or skepticalof often insist that mutationsare rccessive, mutationist explanations lcthal. If, houever,one holds that ancl subpathological, sometimes b bio) ogic a ln o rma l i tl i s c l e te rmi n e d ] t he i ntcracti on betw een structurcs and bchaviors, on the one hand, ancl environmental ofdi sti ngui shi ng(i f not c ondit ion s ,o n th c o th e r, th e re a rc rv a ys at instantaneouslv least retroactivelv)betrveenthe pathological nomal and the normativcnormal. Phillipe ['H6ritier and Georges fbr drosophila, examplc,provcd on Ti:issier's experiments $ ingless thc superiority of that varietv in a draftv environment. IMS Nornaliti et normativiti,l. 2rl l i fe, pcrrc [ 141] Ie i s s i e r p o rtsa n o th e rf)c t u h i ch shous that hapsrvithout looking lbr it, bv using the variationofliving forms, without sPecialization cxcessivc against obtainsa kind ol insurance

hencc u,ithout flexibilitr,, rvhich is cssentiallv suc_ rr:vcrsibiJitv, a ccssfuladaptation.ln cerrain industrial districts in Gcrmanyancl Englandthe gradualriisappearance ofgrav buttcrflies and the apof pearance black oncs ofthc samcspecieshasbccn obscrved.It to r',, possible establish as that in thesebutterfliesthe black coloraaccompanied an unusualvigor. In captivitv the blacks tion \4.as by cl i mi nate t hc gr ays.Why isn't t hc sam et r ue in nat ur e?Becausc tht'ir color stands more against bark of the trcesandattracts out thc rhe attention of bir ds. When t he num ber of bir ds dim inishesin i ndustri alr egions, t cr f liescan be black r vit h im punit v. l6 but In short, this butterflv specics,in the fbrnr ofvaricties, ollirs t$o comb inat ionsof opposingchar act er ist ics, t hc1,balance and eachother: more vigor is balanced lesssccuritv and vicc versa. by In cach of thc variations,an obstaclehasbcen circumvented, to usea Bergsonian cxpression, po.werlessness been overcomc. a has To the extent that circumstanccs allorv one such morphological 5olution to operate in preferenceto another, the number of rcprcsentatives cach varietv varies,and a varietv tends morc and of morr tona r d a species.. . . ] [ llcnce, flnallv, rvc see how an anomalv,particularlv a mutati on, that is, a dir ect lv her cdit ar v anom aly,is not pdt hologicdl bccause is an anomaly, it that is, a divergcnce fi-oma spccific tvpe, * hi ch i s de{inedas a gr oup of t hc m ost f icquent char act er ist ics

$ ,fr


i n thei r av er age ension.O t her r vise,it u, ould havet o be said dim that a mutant individual, as thc point of departurelbr a nelv specit's, is both pathological,bccause is a divcrgencc, it and normal, becauseit maintains itself anclrcprocluces, biologv, the norIn mal is not so much the old as the neu,fbrm, il it finds conditions ofexi stenc ein vvhichit *ill appear nor m at ive, hat is, <lisplacing t all rvithercd, obsoletc and pcrhapssoon to bc extinct fbrms.


No fact termcd normal, becausc expressed such, can usurp as the prcsti ge of t hc nor m of u hich it is t hc cxpr cssion,st ar t l tl

ing f r onr th e m o m e D t \ah e n th e c o n d i t i onsi n rvhi ch i t hasbeen qivetr. fhere i" no fact that is to ret<'rrecl the nornr arc n.l lcrng.'r or nor m al or p a th o l o g i c a il n i ts c l f An a n o mal Y a mutati on i s not norms of oth(r Po\siLrlc Thesc tl'o exPress in itsclfpatholo-tgical. e.l rl i ernorms i n terms lile. I f t he :e n o tn tsa re i n l e ri o r to s p c c i l i c , ol s t abil i tv , f' e c u n c l i tvo r v .rri a b i l i tl o f l i fe, they w i l l be cal l ed pnthological.lfthcse nortns in the slmc enl irrttrmentshould turn out to bc equivalcnt,or in another environment, superior, rhey *ill be ca l l c d n o rm a l . T h e i r n o rma l i t' r' rvi l lcome to them l rom their normativity. The pathological is nor the abscnceof .r biological normi it is another norm, btlt onc that is, comparativelv s peak ing p u s h e da s i d cb l l i l !. fN P, p p . 8l -8l l . is as it ma] An Ila2] No enviionment is normo.l. environment b('. No structurc is rormal in itsell. It is thc relation betrveenthe cnvironmcnt and the living thing that detcrmineswhat is normdl \\'hcn it rellects in both. A living thing is normal in the true sense an ef f ir r ro l r th c p a rt o fl i l e to m a i n ta i ni tscl Ii n fbrms and rvi thi n norms th.lt allorv lor a m.rrgin ol variation, a latitudc o{ dclviat ion, s uc h th a t a s e n v i ro n n l e n ta lc o n di ti ont varY ,one of those In hence rlore viohle. llrms rrr.l proveto be ntorc aclvantagccttts, it allou'sa sPecicsto multipll and cnvironmcnt is normal rvhen changcs dirersifi in it in such a \!av as to tolcrate, il nccess,lrY, in t he en v i ro n me n t. I1 the relation bctrvccn the environment and the living thing the i: r uc h t h a t n e i rh e rc a n l a f\ \v i th o u t c ol nP r,trni si ng vi abi l i tv the JPParcntnormalitv of ad.rptaof the living thing irreparably, t ion is in l i c t p a th o l o g i c a l .' fob e s i c k i s to I' e unabl c to tol erate changc.INlS Nontalitdct normatititi,l. 2l Normality ond I ndividusls thc probofthc biologv oi individuals, f1,13] From thc stanclpoint dou'n to what K urt c,.rmes lem of the nonnal rnd the pathological )t1

Goldstein calls "pllcrrcd bchavior" and "cat.rstrophic reaction," ln responding stimuli liom tlre environment,an organisnr to rirres n()t us e ever v f or m of bchavior it is capableol using but onlv certiin prelcrrcd Lrchaviors prelelrcd bccausethc_rmost lillv e\l)rcss the nature of thc rrrganisrn anclallorrl it the maxirrrum possibleor der and st abilir \ '.A sicl inr lividual is an indivir lr r al in. r l ockc cl r st r uggle vit h it s envir onnr ento es( abiish.neu. or dcr t r or stabilitr. Recovcryestablishes ne\\'norn.t,diflcrcnt fiom the a ol d, Dur ing t he cour se of r he illnr : ss,t hc sick individual r locs er'< rvthing possibleto avoidcatastro;thic reactions. catastrophic A reJction is one t hat pr event s apid adapt at ion o changingenvir t rr,nnrenr al condjt ions. f he concer n r r it h avoidine( . . t t ajt r ophic reJctionsthereforc rcflccts thc organism's instinct of selflprcscrvati on.Sclf - pr eser v. r t ionnot t hc nt ost gcn( r al char act er ist ic is ol' l i l e; i t i5, r at her ,r char acr er ist ic a r e<lucc<I , inishedlif e. of dinr A hcalt hvper sonis a per soncapable conf iont ing r isks.I lcalt h ol i s cl cnt ive- call it nor m at ive- ir ) t hat it is r , r pablcol st r r vir ing (ntast r ophc and est ablishinll nc\ \ , or ( lcr . a Goldstein'sviews overlapncatlv rvith flen6 Lericlre'svicvvs of' conce pt i( ) n. lcalt h beconr es celt t ibiconl, r in r clat ion t o disI per case,* hich rcveals csscnccbv suggesting possiblctransition its a to D e$ 'nor nt s. A per son \ \ 'ho cat r not sur r ir e at high alt it ur lcs l tt' cau se hvpot cnsionm al bc ablc t o live nor m allvat alt it u<] cs of up to l if t een hunclr ed lcct . No one is obligcclt o livc at alt it udes abo,c thrq thousandleet, but anr<rnc nrrr.somcrlrr be ldrce<lto d,r ro. t n t h. r r( a\ r . .Jr \ 1, n1r r lr o t . r nnol i. iinlr r i, , r . "l\ 1r ni. . r cr e. r ture ca pableol'changingol adapt ingt o am bjenr condir ions in orclcrto survivc. ct Il\lS r\rornrolrty'n ormutiviti,l. 2r, )r] l ' 14] I lcalt h is a m ar ginof t olcr ancelbr t he inconst ancies f of the cnvir onnr cnt .But isn't it lt r sur r lt o spcr l of t hc inLonst ancr ol thc enr'ironfftenr7 This is truc cnough of thc hum.rnsocialenviroD tne nt ,r vhcr e inst it ut ionsar c f undam cnt allv pr eclr ious,con_ I t5

ventions revocableand fashionsas fleeting as lightning, But isn't t he c os m i c e n v i ro n me n t,th e a n i ma l envi ronment i n general ,a systemof mechanical,phvsicaland chemical constants,made of invariants? Certainly this environment, w-hichsciq.rce deflnes,is The lir lnade oflans, but rhescla*s arc theoreticalabstractions. ing creature does not live among laws but among creaturcsand eventsthat varv thesc larvs.What holds up thc bird is the branch and not the l.ru,s ofelasticity. lf u'e reducethc branch to the la*s of elas t i c i tv ,w e mu s t n o l o n g e r s p e a kof a bi rd, but ofcol l oi dal soiutions,At such a Ieveiol-analvtical abstraction,it is no longer a question ofenvironmcnt for a living being, nor ofhealth nor of discase. Similarlv,l'hat the fox eats is the hen'segg and not tbc chemistry of albuminoidsor rhe laws of embryology.Because the qualified living being livesin a world ofqualified objccts, he lives in. r r v or l d o f p o s s i b l ca c c i d e n ts .N o th i ng happensbv chance, everythinghappensin the form of evrnts. Here is hou' the envir onm ent i s i n c o n s ta n t.l ts i n c o n s ta n cr i s si mpl v i ts becomi ng, it s his t or y . F or t h e l i r i n g b e i n g , l i fe i s n o t a monotoD ousdeducti on, a recrilinearmovement;it ignoresgeometricalrigidit\. it is discussion crr explanation (r,hat Goldstcin calls Auseinandersehung) with an environment rvhere there are leaks,holes, escapes and une\Let us sav it once more. We do not profess pected resistanccs. indcterminisnr, a position verv rvell supported todav. We maintain that the life of the living being, rvere it that of an amoeba, recognizesthe categories health and disease of only on thc level ol erpcrience, rvhich is primadlv a test in thc aff'ecrivc senseof t he x or d, a n d n o t o n th e l e v e lo fs c i e n ce.S ci ence expl ai ns exper ienc ebu t i t d o e sn o t fo r a l l th a t a n n u l i t. llealth is a set of sccuriticsanclassurances (u'hat the Gerntans call S;crlerunlTen), securities in the present, assurances the for lLt ur e. As th e re i s r p s rc h o l o g i c a la s s urance h;ch i s not prew )t6

sumption, thcre is a biol(,gicalassurancc which is not excess, and uhi ch is healt h. Healt h is a r egulat or yllvr vheelof t hc possibiliri esofr cact ion. t - if eof ien f allsshor t of it s possibilit ies, when but can necessary surpass expcctations.[NP, pp. 197-98] The Problem of Psychologicol Norms fhe Child and the adult fl ,t5] Childhood is a t r ansit ionalsr at e.I t is nor m al f or hum an bei ng st o leavct he st ar eof childhood and abnor m alt o f all back inro it. In childhood there is an intrinsic forrvarddrivc, a capaci rv l br scll- t r anscendencc, f lour ishes r he child is phvsicalh t hat if robust,intcllectuallvperspicacious allorveda certain fieedom and ro pur suer vor t hu- hilc goals.A child t hinks const ant lv im it at ol i ng or r ivaling r vhat he seesadult s doing: cver y day he t hinks, "Tomorrou l rvill be a grown-up." Aristotle makesthis magnificent obserr.ationr onthropos onthrupontem{1, man cDgcn(lers man. Thi s i s t r uc in t er m s of t he m at er ial causc:it is m an who suppJies the seedfionr rvhich the child is borD, It is alsotrue in terms ol -the f or m al caur c: t hc cm br r r , t he child and t he adolescent (icveloptoward adult htrman fbrm. And it is true in terms of the fi nal cause, ideal of m an and ol t hc adult vir r uesr hat educaan ti on i n st illsin t hc child's m ind. This lastpr oposit ionshould not bc intcrpretcd in too modern a sense, hovtever. For thc Ancients, and fb r Ar ist ot le in par t icular ,r he essencc a t hing w. as of iclent ical rvith its final fbrm; the potential pointcd torvardthe act, and movement ended r'n rest. fhc thcorr of lbrms telescoped rhe \rhole processof becoming into a typical privilegetl state. Ho$, a Potentialbecomesan act, how a lirrmal indeternrinate l)ecomes a form, rrould bc unintclligible if lbrm rverc rlor in cvcrv sense pri or to por ''nr ialand m an, . r .Thu. . hum ar r ir ti\ t r , r nsm ilr r dl; om ' D an to Dan, just as knor r ledgeis t r ansm it t edliom int elligence 1\ 7

t o int elli g e n c e .C h i l d h o o d , b c i n g a s t ate of transi ti on,i s n,i thout human value. Grcek pe<Jagogy w.ts thercfore bascdon the idcntiflt ation of man rvith his tvpical finished fbrm, his ocrne. In t he c hilc l ,th c C re e k ss a * ,o n l v th e fu ture sol di erand fi rtureci ti zen, Plato shorvs inclulgcncefor the tvpical predilcctions and no t endc nc i e s f c h i l d h o o d . N o th i n g rv a smore al i cn to thc anci ent o m ind t ha n th c i d c a th a t c h i l d h o o d i s , i n cach i nstance,a new beginningltrr rnankind,a beginningrvhoscinnocenccand enthu s ins mar e $ ,o rth vo fre s p e c t b c c a u s e fthc i mpl i ci t possi bi l i tvof o going furthcr than man has evcr gone bcfbre. Furthermorc, the ancient f.rmilv rvasbasedoD strong paternalauthoritv, and there *'as ofit'n violent contlict bet.rvecn fathersand sonsorving to the f it hc r ' s d o m i n rti o n o f u i fe a n d c h i l d ren. l ' h6odorc rl e S aussure attachedgrcat importance to rhis f;ct tn I.e illiraclegrec-ailt can be ar qut ' rl ,m o rc o v e r, th a t th e l o n g e r one rcmai ns i gnorant o1' hou c hilc l re nd rc m a d c , th e l o n g c r o n e rcmai nsa chi l d; and one r em ainsi g n o ra n ta s Io n g a s o n e { i i l s to contrastone' si deasr" i th actualcxperiencc.At the root oIthc chilcl'smcntalitv is anxietv at not k no\ \' i n gu h v o n c i s a c h i l d , th rt i s, rveak,pouerl r' ss, depcndent anrl attachcd to one's mother as a plarrt is attached to the nur t ur ing s o i l . T o rc n re rl vth i s a n r;e tl the chi l d dreamsof vast m agic al p o * e rs , o f a c o mp e n s a tr)ry n ni potencc. B ut contact o n it h r eal i tr' ,u h i c h ta k e sth c fi rrn r o f c onfl i ct, crur' l )y demons t r at c st h a t s u c h d re a msa re v a i n i l l u s i ons. In other l r,ords,l br political, phi)osophicaland, in a nr)re prolbuntl sensc,rcligious r eas onst,h e A n c i e n tsd c v a l u e dc h i l d h ood i n a.rvav that onl v acc ent uar e dth o s e c h n ra c te ri s ti co fc h i l d hood apr to pror.,ke the s c ont em pt o fa d u l ts . F o r th c A n c i e n ts , thc normal man ,w as the nor r nnt iv cn ra n ,a n d th a r me .1 n r l u i n te sscnti al lthe arl ul t. Thi s < r is , m or eo v e r,a c h a ra c tc ri s ti c fa l l c l a s si cal o pr:ri ods. Thc sevent eent h- c c n tu rl F rc n c h h .rd b a s i c a l l vrhc same i dca. D escarres s pok c ol c h i l d i s h c re d u l i t' - a n d n u rs e r l ral cs i n much the same
I tfi

manncras Plato. Jcande la Fontaineis fimous fbr havingsaicl that he took pleasure f)irv taics.but his fibles are harclon childrcn, in A certainvalucartached the childish tastcfbr the man,elous to rnd it wasa r elar ivcvaluc; jur lgecl logical nor m s, l br tl ct ion, but hv such things w,crcconsiclered absurd. Paradoxicallr', u.asthe ninetecnth ccntulr,, rvhich is olien it u ronglv maligned fbr its allegedblind faith in scicncc,thar once vnluenot onl\ t o poct r y bur r o childhood f ant dsy agai na scr it r ed assr'll: rvitness Victor Ilugo and Ch.trlcsBruclelaire. (Evervchild i s a ge niusin it s uay, and evcr vgeniusis a child. [ . . . ] G eniusis a delil>eratc reversionto childhood.) lr uas poets, long before psrchologists,rvho proposedlooking at thc child's rnentalirvas normal l n cl valid, hor vever dist inct liom t he yr osit ivr , ut ilit ar . ian and mentalitv of the bourgeoisadult (as tlaurlelaire remarked,.,Tirbc rrc/u/ hasllwavs sccm cr lt o nr c a m osr hir leousr hing") , Char lcs I)i ckensdid in Englandnhat Hugo and Baur lclair dicl in Fr ance, c csl rl ciaf lr in Har d Tim es. t ist s.u hoselunct jou is t o dr cam lir r Ar mankind bevoncllvhat is knorvn, to lcorn the real, to make tht: nct rl firr ch,rngcinrperati.r'e. Ibund a trcasurctrovc in the thouuht of chi lclr en.When EugdneDelacr oix s. r id,, , What is m ost r eal l or mc ar e t he il] r r sjonsI cr cat c, " hc lr ; r s ibr m ul. r t il4 t hc ir lea of a ch ild. I hcn, r vit h r ( : spect o t he r ehalr ilit at ion childhoor ] r of and rnlnl ()ther rhingsarirlell. contcnrporlrr psrr:hologv and lthil osoph l cam e t o t he r escue:t hev pr ovidc<l l) oct ic int uit ion \ \ it h a di sco ur se. The st udv of t hc m r : nt alit vof childr en beganar r oughlv t he samctim c as t hc st t iclr . ol init ir c r ner r r r lit r . . Fr ench_speaking pr ln countrits, rhe fbrmcr disciplineis epitomizccJ thc namt,ofJean bl I' i a.qe tt,he int t er l) v I r r cicn lcvl, Bnr hl. lhr : r c <. r nbc no r Jr lut r t that th e m et hodologicalim plic. r t ionsol piager 's r esear . ch r e r vr i ni ti al ll r hc sanleas r holc of l. dvr , - lJr uhlr piaget cor np. r r c<J t hc though t of t he child t o t lr ar ol a conr em l) or ar v c ult ivat ecl aclult , I t9

an adult whosc culrurc \\'asof thc sort thar piagct rcgardedas normative for his time, that is, for \a,hichscientific and rationalist valucsstoo(l at rhe top ofthe hierarchv.Conrparcd wirh rhc rational mentality, children's thinking could be charactcrized bv adjec r ive s e g i n n i n gu i th th e p re fi x o -, i ndi cati ngsomc sort of' b lack or absence. Note, horvever, that Piagct'sadult is rvhat Nlax Webcr and KarJ.faspers an "ideal tvpe." To be sure. it can be call argucd that this normal type is not onlv normative but average and characteristicof the majority, But the,,mentality" ofan age is a social fact. dctermincd by t,ducariorr,If, in fact, in surveys, the ideal type turns out to reficct thc.rverage, is because it com_ pulsory' cducatronhasestablished certain norms. Here again,man engenders man, and if the norms imposed on many generation5 ol c hilr lr e n i n c l u d c d a s y s te mn ti cd e v al uati onof chi l cl hood,i t should come as no surprise rhrt, in c()mparingtodat,'schildren to todav'sadulrs,it turns out rhat children lack many of the traits inc ulc at e di n a d u l ts .T h e p ro b l t' m o l n rcntal i rj ess j nextri cabl r i t nt c r u' ine ds i th rh .rr,rl e rl u c .rti ,,n . n d r h. pr,rbl emol educar, rn a i is inextricably intcrt.w,ined rvith that ol generations. anv given At point iir time, rhoseu,ho happcnto be aduits.rrefbrnrerchilclren who were raisedby other adults. lt takcsa generationto test the r alidit v ofe d u c a ti o n a li d e a s . d i t ta k esfi ftr ro si xtv vears o An (rw gener.rtions) lbr philosophical valuesto become rooted as hab_ it s . P iage t' sa d u l ts mo re o r l c s s u n u ,i tti ngl v hetray superfi ci al tokens of respcctfor rhe positivist vaiuesof thc pcriod lg60_9f), which gained favor u'ith the educational reformers of the late Dinet eeD tha n d e a rl l r\l c n ti c rl t c c n ru ri es. IMS Lc N ormd ct l e probldmcdesmentolrrls, II, f. lr, 2r, 3r] gap [146] Therc is a characteristr'c betv,.een child's dcsires a and his m e a n s fre a l i z i n g th o s ed e s i re s.fhc chi l d thereforecrco atesa uorld of representations rvhich desireshave the abilitv in im m er lilt c l r l u { re rtc o b j rc rs p re s u n r erl cap.rbl e,,1 rati rl vi ng
l6 o

rhem . The child can exper ienccplcasur r only u, it h per m ission : or bv deJegat ion. is st r ict lv dependenton adult s r o t ncct ir s llc ri tal n ecds.Thus, t o obev is r ( Jlive. At I ir st , t hcr e is no diller , ence bet $, eensocial obligat ion and phvsicalnecessit r '. Adult s. rhen, arc both compensatioD and incscapablc lirr rcmjnd,.,ri ol'tbe Freudianpsvchologyhad thc grcat merit of chilcl'shelplessness. rc' ea lingt he t r ue esscncc t he child's t hought . 1'hc child lives of i n i l l u sion bccausc livesin desir e,anclbecause f eelsdesir c hc he Iong belor e gr at if icat ir - r n phr sicallv possible-So long as it is is inrpossiblcto act on the norl<l in certain rva1.s, desire.rndrealin. 1..ri l coincidc, And so long asdesir esees possibilit vof sat is to no l i cti on, t her e is alsono possibilit vof cxpr essir : ln. child can, The not adm it t hat he r vant st o gr o$. Lr pin or dcr t o subjcct his f at hcr to pater nallau'and t hc r r . or lr t o t he lau'of t he r lor ld, t hat is, r o l < l omin. r r e en and donr est icat ehings. He cannot adr r it r his as m t long as he does not knorv, bevond u.hat hc is told and rvhat he is not to ld ( \ 1hich com cs r o t ht sanr e hing) , hor v r o acr on t hinps t ,l nd men. f he cont cnt of t he child's t hought is his ignor anccol the biologicalr eair t vol childhood. That ignor ancelar t s as long ns the chil( l r cnr ain5 unauar c ol copulat ion as his incept ion and tite, and so long as he is fbrbidden, u,hcthcr bv organic immaturi tl or sr ) ci. il aboo, t o !ng1ge copulat ionhim sclf . t in In I air v t alcs and lant asies, he child seekst o sat isf va ncc<l r l or pl easur eand r o asser ta poucr lbr uhich he st ill lacks t he mcans.l- he u, calt hol ir naginar ion conr pensat es t he pover n lbr ol rcalizat ion. \\'h.rt nc ,\lodcrnscall "adult" in m.rn is his arvareness the of gap betrveentlesire and realitv.Thc adtrlt docs not rclv on myth br the gr ar if icat ionol clt 'sir c, n t hc adult , r . csponsibilirl'ort he I l gratific.ltionof <lcsires that prcscnt-dav rcalitl. placesout of reach can bc delegatcdinsteadto pl(ly or drt, that is, to illusions consci ourol t ir eir pr act ical\ aluc as r vellas t heir t ht , or ct ical ir lcalir r . .


believein thc inevitabilitvofprogThe adult docs not neccssarilv Adults knot that there are episknorvledgcand industrY. ress,of and areasrlver lvhich thcorv is temologicatobstaclesto Progrcss \et porverless, thcy do not feel compclled on that accountto seek compensationbr h,rrkingback to a mode ol thotrght that bclieves o t ot allv in rh c re n l i ,,.l ti o rrfd e s i re i t' ta n ormati \c re.rl i t\" othcr thari I t is nr rrma lto b e l i c ' e th a r th e rc a r e possi bi l i ti es t lr os ec on ta i n e <iln s c i e n c ea n d te c h n ,ll ogvat a P arti cul ar oi nt P to in t ir r lc . l t i s n o rma l fb r.th e c h i l d ' s g etrcrcrsi tv P ersi sti nto to regressi ve, hi adult hoo d . Bu t i t i s a b n o rm a l ,b e c a u s e srori cal l Y th.rt the pucrilitv of mvth is supcrior to scienceancltechsuggcst nologv.The modern adult haslimits that must be ovcrcome' but thev .dnnot bc overcomeb.vretutnin2l to d mo(le oJ thought which obstacles illnores prccisclr thdt theteorc limits to desiein realitt'ancl to rolucin $ittanac. ' lo bc s u re , c h i l d h o o d d e s e n c s to bc tteatt' d as a norm b,v .rdults - or, rnthcr, not a5 a norm. preciseh, lrut ls a nornlative -l-hisnormativesuperrcquiremr:nt, somethingto trc transcctrtled. $ hum . r nirl o I c h i l d h o o d i s n o t to b e c o n ftrsed i th thc responscs t hat a c h i l d i ts e l f m a v a d o p t to h i s t( ' rnP orar\ pow ' crl essness, r c s pons e s a t th c c h i l d w i s h e s rv i th al l hi s mi ght to repl ace th r , v it lrt r ue s o l u ti o n s , th a t i s , s o l u ti o n s that arc both vcri fi abl c and c f iec ri v e .f...] the child is not a con)Pl(tc being, he exhibIn short. trecausc fbr its a generositr thit compensatcs his avitlitr': this gcnerositY it as can l>epr,rp,rsed nomal lrecause is norDdri|c.that is, an allirm at ion of v a l r:c . c B c c au s e c c h i l c l i s a h e l p l c s s re a r urc,how cvcr,he i s credurh it is Ious. Cr.'ululirl not nolmal in humansbt'cause ii not normativu; it consistsin taking lor granted rvhat hasvet to be constructed. I n t ht . c n c l ,th e m o s t p c rc e P ti v cre habi l i tati onof chi l dhood is t hat ol th e p o c t.' fh e p o c t i s a v i s i onarl , a seer,but hc sees t6 2

* hat docs not exist. \\'c scc llhat is. The poct dot's not so much dcscr iber uhatexisr sas point t o values,l- hcpoeli.conscioulnct s but ofthe scientificconlciousness, also its inverse. is a correlative lr r r r r lion. nol J oclir on( . P ,,cr r \ i\ J poet ir 'lo hold out childhood as an idcal t o adult hum ankind is t o anclnot a lact, i\lln nust demonstratt that childhood is a promise t a renr.rin child in r he : ensc t hat h<'deser r eso bccot Dct hc conr pl cte m an ol'r lhiclr childr cn dr eam . I M S Lc Nor nul t t I cpr oblim c mentolitis,II, l. 5r. 6r] tlcs hi itivc mentdlit) fl ,t7l Theodule Ar m and Ribot , f bllor vingAugust eCom t c, cr it i-

cizcrl introspectivc psvchologvas the psvchologvol the civilirctl, contempt firr moclesof adult, heolth.vvhitc male, Ps,vchologr''s cult thoug lr t diller cnr lit , nr t hat of t hc r espect able, ivat cr lm ale r t sl>ect r blc.cult ivat cd r.cfl c ct eda hiddcn assur r pt iont hat t he mal r' s m ode ol'r hought t *assor nehou valjr l and nor m al, Nlot 't rrf vvon<leled rvhatbasir rvejudgeclthc narivcs the counon tai.qnc tri cs r, r 'e colonizc<l o be savages, his skept icismu, r s r Tidelv but t clisnrisscd. nrcrLeIn Proise Foll.r, but it rrirsregardecl as Erasntus of no l es slant ast ict han t he plavsof Shakespear c r vhich m adm cn in werr portraved as rvisc. Ancl Rousseau tatrght in /:rni1e that thc chi l d is a com plct c hr r m anbeing, dif li'r cnt liom t he adult not onlv in possessing knorvledgcand cxperienccbut also in har'Iess i ng an ent ir clr dif lt 'r ent at t it udc t onar d lif e. But sinceRousseau rl as accuscrof haring al'an<loncd ou n chilr lr cn,his t er ching l his rvas deemtd urol>i.rn. J he scvcnt eent hcent ur r idenr ilie<lm . r n r vit h his a. nr c, or matur it r ',an<ll) cscar t cs hcld t hat "t hc pr cjut liccsol oul chil<lhooclar e t hc f ir st anclpr incipal causeol oul er r or s. " Sincc . r vc vtere "childrcn bt.lirre becorring adults," our rc.lson\r';tsnot (ls purc as if rle had nevcr mad<'usr:ol our scnscs.Ilclirrc trhilippc


P inel and J e a n E ti e n n e D o n ri n i q u e Es r; ui rol ,the i nsanc rvere subjectedto punishmentin lieu oftreatrnent. Asylums were still more terrifying than prisons.To be sure, the eighteenth century witnessed the f irst glimmeringsof relativisnt. When Montesquieu aslied"llorv caD nnlone bc a Persian?"he encouragecJ conhis temporaricsto recognizethat such a thing rvasindecd perfectly porsible. It became possible to submit Wcstern society to the judgment ofan Oriental and human psychologvto the judgment of .r nrvthicaf supennan. But ,\lontesquieu's Pe ion Lettersan(l Voltaire's,l'lcromigaswere nlerc philosophical enterrainments. i Strangeas it may seem, the prejudice that establishedthe civilized u'hitc man as the standard rcferencefor all mankind grcw of out of a phi l o s o p h y fa m o u sl b r c o n d c mni ng aJl prej udi ce. B ut Enlightenmentphilosophvlbund fault nrore rvith thc pre-of prejudice than with the illusory certaintv of irs ludtmenf: a prejudice rlas the judgmcnt of a previous age. Yestcrdav's judgnrent rlas declaredto be error because survivedonlv asa .n'eapon it ofcombat againstthe nen. Diderot's purposein rehabilitatingthe primitive, in the Supplement Bougainville's to Voy,oge, essentially was to discredit Christianity.The Christianreligion rvashoist on its own pelard: whateverpreccdedthe adventof tnrth rvasdoomed to dis.rppear. IIistorical precedence established logical perspective. Tolcranceraisesa similar problem: tolerance is the recognition ofa plurality ofvalues, the refusalto erect anv valueasa norm; intoler anc eis norm a tj re i mp e ri a l i s n t,Bu t trv a s one rvi l l , a pl rrral i tv oI normsis comprehcnsible only asa hier.rrchy. Norms can coexist on a fboting ol equalitv onlv if drained of the normative intention that callcd them into existcnccascodified, normative dccis ionsenr bod i e di n i n s ti tD ti o n s c u s to m s ,dogmas, tes and l aw s. . ri A nor m c an n o t b e n o rma ti re w i th o u t b ei ng mi l i tant, that i s, intolcrant. In intolerancc, in aggressive rrormJtivit), there is of c our s ehat r e d ,b u t i n to l e ra n c eth e re i s c o ntempt. V al uestol crl6,t

The rclativism anrl tolerance ate u.hat thel deem to bc valueless. ol the eightcenth century were inscparablefrorn the esscntiallv normative idea of progrcss.[3ut progresswas not conceived in terms ofa relntion ofvalues; it was identified rvith the final valuc i n r scr ies,t he one f hat t r anscendedhe ot hcr s and in t er m s of t nvhichthev u'ere judgcd. That is *'hv tolerancc !1asthe value in the nameof which one becameintolerant,and relativitr the valut: in the name of v"hich one becamc absolute.f MS lc Norma,l ie et prohlimedesmentoftir, I, l. 1r] Il4t]] Positivismtook the thcorics of BaronTurgot and lVlarquis de Condorcet on the progrcssof the human spirit and recast them in the fbrm of a las, the law of three stagcs(theological. nretaphvsical posit ivr ) . I n ot ber r r or ds, it t r icd t o lbr ce psyand chol ogicalspeculat ionint o t he Pr ocr ust ean bcd oI nat ur al scicnce. In formulating a ./owof progrcss, Comte u,astreating min(l as il it u'ere a natural object. At thc sametime he rr.as declaring that sociologr'(or,ashe sa* it, the scicnccof mind) rvasindepenrlcnt o1 biologv in terms of object and method. The positivespirit rvasdeclarcdto bc the ultimate fbrm of the human spirit; thcologv and mctaphvsics rveredevalued,the first asa primitivc fbrm ol spirit. the secondasa transitionallbmr. These fornrsimpeded thc dcvel,rpment spirit't firll potential, so spirit rcjccted thern. of D i ssat isf icd vit h f lct ions, spir it cr eat edscience.Hence, scicnr tific thought wasthc normal (that is, the normativeor icleal)statc of thought . Posit ivism t r n\ cd it scll'ast he nor m al culm inat ior r por ol an cver closer and nrore f:aithful.rpproximationto the intcllcctual nomr. For Comtc, thcologicalthinking rvaslikc the thinki ng of c hildr cn. Wit h t his sim ile, Com t e ascr iberposit ivcvalue l to D ratur it \ ':t hat ol t hc individualas l1ell as t hat oI r hc hum an race.And thc maturationofrhe race,he implied, !1ns just asineritable and necessary the maturation of thc child. as Meanuhiie, in Gennanr,HegeJ's dialecticcncouragcd studenrs I ( ''

of philos op h vto s e e Il e g e l i a n p h i l o s o p h vas the cul mi nati on of thc arduousadvent of the ldea and the German bourgcois state evoas the normal fbrm ol all societv,And in England,Spenccr's lut ionis m , ta k i n g u p rv h c re M i l l ' s p o s i ti vi snr l eft ofl , Irrrther th l ac c ent uate d e p h i )o s o p h i c a b c l i e f th a t superi ori tvand posteriority are onc and thc samc.Anterior, Iesscomplcx and inferior s bec am e vn o n v m o u s . l.ittle bv littlc a diffirse dogma took shapc:namelv,that thc int ellec t u a l l y p ri m i ti v c rn d th e i n te l l ectual l y pucri l e are trvo lbrms of a single infirmitv. At around the s.rmetimc, moreover' in research cmbryologvshou'cdthat certain anatomicalanomalies lvcre the rcsult ofarrestcd development.A club fbot, a harelip, a t c s t ic ulare c to p i a- e a c ho f th e s cc o n d i t i onsi s the P erP etuati on after birth o[ a state through u'hich evcrv f'etusor embryo passcs rvhile still in the utcrus. What is abnormalis the halting ol development at an intermediatestage.What is normal at one moment in time becomesabnormal later. dansIes mentales \Vhen Lucien Livr-Bruhl publishcd l:onclions in 1910,his initial usc of the tcrm "plclogical" infirieurcs sociitis an t o c har ac te ri z cth e " p ri m i ti v e " m o d c ol thought suggested l im plic it de p rc c i a ti o n .Ph i l o s o p h i c a o p ini on rvasdi vi ded. S omc to philosophersrverc clelightccl discoverthat thc theorv of mcnargumentsto justifi a normative concePtion of rol;tds provided the history of thought. At last, there tvcre criteria fbr choosing betu'cenfruitful sidcsin philosophicalcombat, lor distinguishing the backrvardof nerv ideasand survivals thc past, for separating f i o m th c l b rn a rd -l o o k i n g . L 6 on B runschvi cg,for exlook ing ample, uscd both Lcvv-Bruhl and Piaget to argue in favor of his orvn doctrine conccrningthc Agesof lntelligcnceand to disparage Aristotlc's philosophvon the grounclsthat it rcmaineclconfintrl o r l it hin t he me n ta l fi a me rv o rk f a p ri m i ti ve or a ch i l d of si x' that u hat I iv.r'-Bruhl sensing hile, other philosophcrs, l\'leanu
lh 6

u as reallv arguing rvasthat primitivc thought rvasnot prelogical and scnsing, too, that championsrvould soon but heterogencous, comc fbrrvard to defend the merits of fbrms of thought "clillirent" lrom modern sciencc,soughtto rcstorecontinuitv: the primi ti l e, t hey ar gued,wasnot as alicn t o our logic as som eclaim ed, nor *,as modern thought as ftrllv logical as somc believed. The transition from one fbrm of mentality to another involveda certai n l ossof cont cnt ( m oder n t hought is not as r ich as pr im it ivc thought ) as r vcll as t hc consolidat ion ol a cer t ain clisposit ion (moclcrnthought is more methodical). Wc can easilvundcrstan<l thc rvh.rtthe primitivc is: it is rvhat ue becomeu'hen rve abandon vulncrableconqucst critical spirit, thc preciousprize ofan allvals discussion t he Sociat c Fr anq: aisc at (thesisof Bclot and Par ocli, books). de Philosophieafier publication of L(:vy-BruhJ's tlre prcservecl essenNocrtheless,both groupsof philosophcrs ti ,rl r. r t i, , n. r list . r nr l posit ivir t nor nl\ : r |a\ on i. \ ulcr i. lr t o m \ slir i \m; n', n( "nlr J( lict ion i. . u|er i0r 1, , I r Jr t i(ip, r t ion: . r i, nr r is supcriort o m vt ll; indust r yis super iort o m agic; f ait h in pr ogr css is superior to the progrcssof faith. IMS Le Normalct le problintc de; mentolitis,I, f. 2r, 3r] l l 49l llat jonalismand posit ivismt hus depr eciat ul m vt hical thinking. Despite the rationalistattitudesinrplicit in Christianitv, moreo vcr tt hc t hcologiansr ccognizcr it hat t his depr eciat ionof mr-th\\'asall-cncompassing. theologians therePhcnomcnological fort: decir lcdt hat onlr one r eact ionwas possiblc: m vt hologiall c.rland rcligious systcmsrvould haveto be rescuedcn bloc. N l o dcr n m vt hologv por t r avsit scl[ . r s r cst or ing t he value of ' m\th in the lice of rationalistcleprcciation. grant rccognition Tb to othcr valuc syst ent s t ant . lm ountt o r cst r ict ingt hc I alue of is ration.rlism. tht'cnd, normativetoler.rnce In to pro.r'es be a depre ci ati on ol t he posit ivistdcpr cciat ionof m vt h. lt is im possiblet o save c cont ent of anv r eligion r vit hout s, r vinghc cont ent ol all th t

religions.,., In order to sarea religion that ha<J, aclmitted)y, abandoncd the Inquisitionand thc srake,it w,as neccssary save to othcr r eligio n srv i th th e i r n .h i rl i n g d e rv i s hes and human sacri fi ces: fbr if it is true rhat primirir'(, mentality is a totalizing structure, tlre r c habi l i ta ti o no f th e rn v th i c me n ta l i tv i s al so the rehabi l i tati on ofsavagerv all its fbrms. The fricnd of primitive mentality rvill in objc c r th a t th c m o d c rn m c n ta l i ty i s not hosti l e to the bombi ng of civilian populations.But no one is savingthat the modem men_ tality or, fbr that mattcr, any constitutcd norm must be prefi:rred over primitive mentality. Themodernmentality is not a ,tructwe but a tcndency, prcfer it is simplv to prefer a tendcncy, a norma_ To t iv c inte n ti o n .[...] The primitive and modem mentalitiesare not coexistingabso_ Iutesbut successile latives,Technologyis clearly progress rt *-hen it demonstratesthe failure of magic; sciencc is ciearlv progrcss rvhen it grou'sour ofthe inarlt,quacloftechnologv. The modern mentalit_v certain adrant.rges has over previousnorms. advantages f r onr u,h i c h i t d e ri v e src l a ti v cb u t n o t absol utcval ue. M od r:rn i tt i s n o t n o rm a l i n th c s enseof havi ng achi eved.r definitivesuperiorstatc. lt ir normatitc, horvcver, bccausc strives it c ons t an tl yto o u rd o i ts e l l . H e n ri Be rgson got at l eastone thi ng right: a true mechanicsmn) not exist, but a true mysticism is a contradiction in terms. l)espitc Bergson's objective sympathvfbr t he pr im i ti v e m c n ta l i tl , h i s p h i J o s o p hys i n no scnse reacti oni a ar y 'r ev a l u a ti o n f i rra ti o n a l i tv , . .] o [. Modern man is experiencinga crisis in the sensethat r]omination and masteryof rhc enyironmcnt elude his grasp. But the r es olut i o no f th a t c ri s i sd o e sn o t l i e i n thc past. It cl oes not exi st in reaclv-madc form but renrainsto be invcnted, The modern is modern onlv bccause hasfound solutions to it pr oblem sth a t th e p ri m i ri v e s e l d o n rp osed.Mo< l erni tvposcsri i f_ lc r ent pro b l e m s ,l l l o tl c rn ra l u e sa re p r ovi si onal .B ut the changcs t6 8

are and to that havebrought thosc values consciousncss tormotive, a normative dircction is norm.rllv \1orth pursuing. Il\15 /.c ,\brmal et le problime desmentaliri\, l, t. 6r, 7r] Normotiveinvention [150] In t he evolut ion of t he individual,t hc m cnt alit y of adult hood co m es af icr t he m ent alit y of childhoodi in t he evolut ion of mankind, t he m oder n m ent alit y t bllowst he pr im it ive m cnt alitv. But whcn we refer to adulthood or modernitv as normal, we ofcxistence. do not mean simply that they succeedearlier stages is that it cflectivelydevalEachof thesestates normal in the sense desireand uesanotherstatehobbled bi internalconllict: betrveen realitv, or betrvecn porver and scicncc. To be sure, just because thc moder n r ccognizest hese conllict s and t o a lim it ed degr ee resol vc s hem , it does not t her eby const it ut <'t he [ inal st ageof t u, el ol uti o n. The expect at iont hat t odar ''sunder st r ndings ill bc is transcendcd a nor m al f eat ur eol t ht 'Dodr r D m cnt Jlit v. Hencc there is no rcmedv lbr modernin''s ills in merelv rcturning to old norms.The onlv truc rcnledv lies in the invention of new norms. C enero sit vof spir it is t o be im it ar cd, but belief in t hc ef licacv of i mmediat e solut ionsm ust bc r eiect ed.Nor m at ivit v is inher ent in the kinds of changcthat brought modcrnity to consciousness.It is t his nor m at ivit l t hat m Llst in t he nor m al cour se of things be perpetuated. 'lo sum up, all normalitv must be judged lith the only method fbr detecting m.vstilicdtion. P ath ology is can som ct im csm im ic he. r lt h,lf sickness of t en a rcl ugc for an individual in conllict uit h him sclf , ot her s or t hc cnvironment, revolution is olicn a nr('ansof avoiding nccessarv i nnovat ionan( l r ef or m . Tim e cannot sct t lc t he ( luest ionof what n pcrson's a societ v's nor Dr s ought t o be: ncit hcr vest er dav nor or


Ther ein lics the pos sibilit vof devaluat ion a nor m at ivescnse. in


tomorrow is an infallible oracle. Norms and valuesare tested br situationscalling lor normative invention One can respondto a challengccither bv seekingrefugc or exercisingcrcative ingcnuseem deceptivelvsimilar. Yet there itv; oftcn the t\4.oresponses to is one surecritcrion for identifring creativitv:a \4'illingness Put their Ialue fairly and u'ithout trving norms to the test, to asccrtain to make thcm seemartiflcially normal. lhe normal is that \'vhich is normativc unclergiven conditions, but not cvcrvthing that is bc normal under givcn conditions is normativc. It must .rlrvays to permissible tcst the normal bv varl ing the ambient conditions of It is in this sensethat the history the vo d is thejudgmentof the et world.[MS Normalitd normativitt,l. 1r] The Problem of Social Norms speaki ng, [ 151] f he L a ti n rv o rd n o rm a ,rv h i c h , e tvmol ogi cal l v bear st hc w e i g h t o f th e i n i ti a l me a n i n g of the terms " norms" and "normal," is the equivalentof the Crerckdl8oc.Orthographv ortholFrench, othographc, but long ago ortbographiel,orthodoxv, n o rm a ti v e c o n c c PtsPrc m a turel v l f the concept of pedic s , a re to orthologr is lcss lamiliar, at least it is not altogether useless it+Eand the rvord is found, rvithout knou. that Plato guaranteecl a reftrcnce citation, in Emile Littri"s Dictionndirede la langue givcn it bY l-atin and Orthology is grammar in the sense franqaisc. mcrlievallvritcrs, that is, the regulationoflanguageusage. I f it is tru e th a t th e e x p e ri c n c eo fn ormal i zati on i s a spcci fi callv anthropologicalor cultural expericnce,it can scem normal has that language proposedone of its Prime fields fbr this experi(irammar furnishes prime matcrial lbr rcflcction on norms. encc. When Francis I in the edict of Vi llcrs-Cotter0t ordains that all judic ial a c tso l th e k i n g d o m b c d ra rv nu p i n French,rveare deal ing rvith an irnpcratile.l') But a norm is not an imPerativeto (lo Whcn the grammariundtr pain ol jrrridicalsanctions. somcthirrg
] 7o

ol ansof thc sameera undertook to llx thc usage the Frcnch lannorms. of cleterminingthe ref'erence, guage,it lvasa qucstion of diftercncc.'l'ht: anclof defining mistakesin terms of <iivcrgence, I n t he m iddlc of t he sevenf tcl erence is bor r or , , cc]iom usage. thesis:"Usagc is tccnrh centurv this is Claude Favrcde Vaugelas's entirelvin our languagc.";r) that to lr.hich$e must subjcctourst'lves rvorks turn up in the *ake of rvorks of thc Academie Vaugclas's rvhich u,asfbundcrlprcciselyto embellishthe language. fianqaise, centurl the grammaticalnornr rvasthe In fict in the scvcnteenth so usagcofcultured, bourgeoisParisians, that this norm rcflccts cent r alizat ion ir r t hc benef it olf a pol i tical nor m : adm inist r at ive roval p ower . I n t er m s of nor m alizat ion t her e is no dif ler encc betwcen the birth of grammar in Francein the sevcntccnthccnof turv and t he est ablishm ent t he m et r ic syst emat t hc end ol' of Car dinalRichelicu,t he nr cm ber s t he Nat ional thc ei g ht eent h. successive r uinst ar C onvent ionand Napoleon Bonapar t e c t he nrentsof the samccollcctive clemand.It bcgan*.ith grammatical fbr anclhorses normsand ended nith morphologicalnonns o1-mcn nationaldcfcnse,tlpassing through inrlustrialanclsanitarvnorms. a l )efining indust r ialnor m s assum es unit v of plan, <lir cct ion of uorl, stated purposc of m.rterialconstructed. 'I-hearticle on "Gun-carriagc" in the F.nc.vclopidie Diderot and d'Alembcrt, of revi scd bt t he Roval Ar t illcn'Cor ps, aclm ir ablvsct s f ir r t h t he moti f.s t he nor m alizat ion r r or k in ar senals.n it r ve seehol I of of the conf'trsion eflbrts, the cletailof proportions, the diflicultl ol and slorvness rcpla(cmcnts,useless expense, rcmt'died.The arc of standar dizat ion dcsignsof pieccs and clim ensiont ablcs, t he of i mpos it ionof pat t cr nsand m odelshaveast hcir consequencehc t 'l he precisionol'separate pro(luctsan(l thc regrrlaritlof assemblv. " (i un-c ar r iagc"ar t icle cont ainsalm ostall t he conccpt suscdin a moder n t r eat ise nor m alizat ion on cxccpt t he t cr m "nor m . " llcr e ' rrchavet he t hing u it hout t he *or cl.


lthrt, liom thr: politThe definiticrnofsanitary norms assunlcs ical point of vicw, attention is paid to populations' health cono s , s ider ed t a ti s ti c a l l vto th e h e a l th i n e s s f condi ti ons ofexi stence and t o t he u n i fo rn r d i s s e n ri n a ti o no f preventi ve and curati ve trcarmcntsperfectedby rrredicine.In Austria Maria Thercsaand JosephII conferred legal statuson public health institutions by crcatingan Impcrirl Health Commission(Sdnitdts-Hot'deputdtion, Ordnung,replaced 1753 and bv promulgatinga Haupt ,Vcdizinal ) in 1770 by the Sonifits-notmati% act u'ith fbrty regulations an the relatedto mediciDc,\,eteriDarv pharmac,v, training of surart, gc ons , dem o g ra p h i c a la n d me d i c a l s ta ri sti cs.W i th respect to norm and normalizationhere, ll'e havethe rvord rvith the thing. In both of these examples,the norm is what determines the normalstartinAfiom a nornativc decision,As rvearc going to scc, such a decision rcgarding this or that norm is understood only rvithin the context ofother norms. At a given moment, thc experienceol normalizationcannot be broken dorl n, nt Icastnot into projccts.PierreGuiraudclearlyperceived this in the caseofgrammar u hen hc *'roter "Richelieu's founding of thc Acad6mie[ranqais e 16 3 5 fi t i n to a g e n e ra lp o l i c y o f central i z,rti on -uhi ch in ol t he Rev olu ti o n .th e E m p i re , a n d th e R epubl i care the hci rs.... It rvould not be absurdto think that the bourgeoisie annexedthe language the sametimc that it scizedthe instnrments of proat duc t ion. " t2It c o u l d b e s .ri di n a n o th e r wav bv tryi ng to substi tutc an equivalcntfbr the Marxist corcept ofthe ascending class. l3etrvcen1759, rvhen the u'ord "normal" appeared,and l8]4, when the lvord "normalized"appearcd, nonnativeciasshad won a thc povverto identify - a beautiful cxample of ideological illusion- the lunction ofsocial norms, rvhosccontent it determined, u'itlr thc use rh.lt that classmadc of thern. ' [ h, r t t he n o rm a ti v ci n t(.n ti o ni n .r g i v ensori ctr i n a gi rcn era cannot bc broken dou'n is apparentrvhen vveexamine the rcla) 72

ti ons bet r veen echnological t and jr r r idicalnor m s, I n t he r i- qor ous prcs ent m eaning of t he t er m , t echnologicalnor m alizar ion and consistsin the choice and dctcrmination of material, the lorm and dimcnsionsof an object u hose char.rcteristics lrom thcn on become necessar y conr ist cnt m anuf act ur e.The division of lor labor constrainsbusinessmen a homogeneitv of norms at the to heart of a t echnical- econom ic com pler u, hosedim ensions. r r e constantlvevolvingon a nationalor irrternational scale.But techrologv developswithin a societv'seconomy.A demand to simplify can appearurgent fiom tht'technological poinr of vicw, but it can seem premnture frorn the industrial and cconomic point of vierv asf)r as the possibilitiesof the nroment and the i,rmediate futurr are concerned.The logic oftechnologv and the inrercsts ol'the economv must conlc to terms. Nloreoter. in another respect,technologicalnormalizationmust bewareoIan excess of rigiditv. What is manufacturerlmust finallv be consumed.Ccrtai nl r, th e logic of lor m alizar ion can be pushedas lar as t he nor malizationofneeds bv mcansof the persuasion ofadvertising.For al l that, s hould t he quest ionhe set t ledas t o r vhet herneed is an


obj cct ofpossiblenor m alizat ioror t he subjectobliged t o invent r norms? Assum ingt hat t he f ir st of t hescr wo pr oposit ions r r ue, is normalizationmust provide lor needs,as it does fbr objccts characteri zedby nor m s, m ar gins lor diver gence,but her e r vit hout guanti l i c at ion. The r elat ionof t echnology t o consum pt ioD r oinr cl uces nt o t he unilicat ion of m et hods,m odels,pr ocedur es i and prools ol qualificarion, a rclative llexibi)ity, evoked furthermr>rt: br the ternr "normaiization," u,hich n.rs preferred in Fr.rnccin l9l0 to "stanclardization," designate to rhc administrativcorganism responsiblefirr cntcrpriseon a national scale.I The concept ol normaliz.rtion excludes thal of immutabilit\,,inclucles anticthe ipation of a possible flexibilitr'. So rve see horv a tcchnological nornl graduallvrcflccts an iclea ofsociety and its hicrarchvofval17t

ol the ues, ho\1 a (lecisionto normalizc assumcs rePrcsentation a possiblc whole of correlativc, comPlementarr or comPensatory flnished ifnot I clecisions. his rvholc must bc llnished in advancc, closcd. Thc repltscntation of this totalitv of reciprocallvrclative th nor m s is p l a n n i n g .S tri c tl v s p e a k i n g , e uni tv of a P l an u' oul cl and technocratic bc the unin of .r unic;uethought. A bureaucratic mvth, the Plan is the modern dresscttthe ide.rol Providcnce.As it is v er y c l c a r th a t a m c c ti n g o f d t' l e grtesand a gathcri ng of machincsare hard put to achicvc a unifi'clf thought, it must bc to admitted that ue rvouldhesitatc sa)ofthc PlanrvhatLa Fontaine said of Providencc,that it kno\as rvhat rvc need bctter than wc do.5aNeverthcless and without ignoring the fict that it hasbeen pos s iblet o p re s e n tn o rma l i z a ti o na n d pl anni ng as cl osel vconnectedto a \\nr economyor thc cconomYol totalitarianregimesthe \\remu\t see.rbove in planningendeavors attemPtsto conall loresccand stitute organs throuth u hich a socictvcould estinrate, .rssurrcits needsinsteadof bcing redrrccdto recordirg anclstatsheets.So that lvhat is ing thenr in tcrms oIJccounts and lral.rncc denounc c d ,u n c l e rth e n a me o fra ti o n a l i z rti on - thc bogevcomplac ent lv r v a v c dl rl th e c h a m p i o n so f l i b cral i sm, the cconomi c of varietyof the cult of nature- asa mechaniz.rtion sociallile perhapsexpresses, thc contrary,thc need, obscurelvf'elt bv socion etv, to become the organic subjcct ol needsrccognizedas such. horv technologicalJctivitl and its norIt is easvto understand are maliration. in terms ofthcir relation to the ecoDotrly, related jur id i c a l ,rrrl e r. l a w o fi n d u s tri a l propertr,j rrri di calproA t o t he p t ec r ion ol p a te n tso r rt' g i s te re d a tte rns,e\i sts. l i r norntal i zea to i n tl u s rri .rl cxprcrpri ati on.-l ' he r egis t er e< l a tte rni s to p ro c e e d p requirencnt of national dcfinse is tht reasoninvoked bv many s t at c s t o i n tro d u c e s u c h p ro v i s i o n s i n ro l cgi sl .rti on.' l -heuni n v er s eof t t ' c h n o l o g i c a l o rm s o p c n s o n to thc uni verscofj uri di norms.An cxpropriationis carriedout accordingto tlre norms cal 171

s of l au. The m agist r at r : uho cleci<Je, bailillisr esponsible t he lbr carryingout the sentence, arc personsidentified u'ith thcir ftrncti on bv vir t ue ol nor nr s,inst alledin t heir lunct ion * it h t he clelegationofcompetence. Here, the normal dcscends fionr a higher norm through hierarchized delegation.In his Aeincn Rcchrr/cbrc.r5 m Jl ansK e lsen aint ainsh, r tt he r r lidit y o1a jur ir licalnor m r k'pt - nr Js t ()n i ts i n ser t ion in a ccr hcr cnts. t st eDtar ) or der ol hier ar chizecl , norms,d r a*'ing t heit bincling po'ler lr om t heir dir ect or indir ect to rel'erence a fund.rnrental norm, But thcre arc <litlcrentjuridical there lle several orders because firndamental, irreduci[rlenorms. l l i t hasb ecn possiblet o cont r astt his philosophvof l. r r l r vit h it s to pow erl c ssness absor b polit ical f act int o jur iclical f act , as it cl ai msto do, at leastit s m er it in havingbr ought t o light t he r el ati vi tv of iur idical nr ) r Dr s hier ar chizecl a coher ent or der has in beengener ally ccognizcr l. t hat one o1 Kclscn's osr r csolt r t e r m So cri ti cscan *r it c: "Tht 'lau is t he svst em convr nt ions ol Anr lnor nt s cl esti ne d o or ient all beh. r r iorinsidc a gr oup in a r vell<leljncr l t manner."56 Ererrs hilt' recognizingthat the l.rrr,, plirirte as rvell .rs public, hasn.l sourccothel than a political onc, tl'c (an a<lmitchat the oppor t unit \ t o legislat e given t o t he legislat ive is pouer [ , v. r mul ti pl i c it v of cust or n5 vhich m ust be inst it ut ionalir e<l y t hat r lr pouer i n t o a vir t ual jur idical vvholc.Evcn in t hc abr cnceof t he conceptof jur idical or der ,dcar t o Kclscn,t hc r clat ivit v ol jur idi cal norms can be just if ied. 'l- his r elat ivit v can be m or e or less stri ct. Th cr c cxist sa t oler ancef or nonr elat ivit vr vhiclrdocs not meana gap in r r lat ivit . r .I n I act t he nor m ol nor m \ r em ainsconvergencc. llou coulr l it lr e ot her r viseif lau "is onlr t he r cgul, r , ti on ol roci. r lact ivin"?'it [ . . . I ' fhe c or r el. r t ivin of social n( ) r m s- t cchnologic. r l, cconom ic, j uri di cal * t cn<is o nr aket heir vir t ual unit v an or ganizat ion. c is r I not easvt o savu'h. r tt ht , conccpt of or ganizat ionis in r {'l. r t ion o t that ol or ganism ,u. lr ct herr ve . r r e dealing *it h. r m ole gener al t 7t

s t r uc t ur e th a n th e o rg a n i s m ,b o th m o re fbrmal and ri cher; or rvhethcr r',,earc rlealing rvith a model nvhich, relative to the organbv ism hcld as a basic typc of structure. hasbecn singularized so conditionsthat it could havt'no more consistencr mrny resrrictive t han a m e ta P n ()r. L.et us st.rte first that in a social organization, the rules for adjusting the parts into a collective u'hich is more or lessclcar as to its o\1.nfinal purpose- be the parts individuals,groups or \\ entcrprises ith a limited objective- are externalto the adjusted , m ult iple. R u l c s mu s t b c re p re s e n te dlerrned, rcmembercd,apth plied, r v h i l c i n a l i v i n g o rg a n i s n r e rul es fbr adj usti nqthc parts u'ithout being repreamongthemsetvcrare immancnt, presented s ent c d, a c ti n g n v i th n e i th c r d e l i b e ra ti on nor cal cul ati on.Fl crc thcre is no divcrgence,no distance. no delav bct*'een rule and regulation.The social order is a set of rulcs with u'hich the sermust be concenred. in rants or beneficiarics, any casc,the leaders, T he or dc r o l l i l e i s ma d e o f a s c t o f rul es l i ved rvi thout protrlem s . ; 8[ N P. p p . 2 .+ l i -5 0 ] [ 152] We s h a l l s a vo th e r* i s e - c e rt ai nl ynot bettcr, probabl v I es sr v ell - n a me l y th a t a s o c i e ty i s both machi ne and organism. It rvould be onlv a machineif the collectivc'sendscould not onlv be strictlv planned but also executcd in conformithr ith a rvi soci eti es th a pr ogr am .l n th i s re s p e c t,c e rta i n c ()D tcntP orarv an.rLltonratic mode socialisr fbrnr r,feconomytend perlraps tc-,r.ard thi s ten(l encv of f unc t io n i n q . B u t i t mu s t b e a c k n o uledgedthat still encountersobstaclesin facts, and not just in the ill-rvill of to skepticalperfirrmers,u'hich obligc the organizers summon up their resourcei lbr improvisation. lt can cven be askcd r'thether in anv s oc ie tr w h a ts o e v e ri s c a p a b l eo l both cl earsi ghtedness In i c let c r m in i n g ts p u rp o s c s n d e fl i c i c n c v i n uti l i zi ng i ts nte.rns. a soci.rlorgananv case,thc fict that one ofthe t.rsks the entirc of ization consistsin its infbrming itiell asto its possiblepurposes

u' i th the except ion of ar chaicand so- callcdpr im it ive societ ies n,herepurposeis furnishedin rite and tradition just as the behavior of the animal organismis providcdby an innarcnrodel- seems to shor vclear lvt hat , st r ict lv speaking, hasno int r insic f inalit y. it In the caseoIsociety, regulation is a nced in sc.rrchof its organ and i ts n or m sof exer cise. On the other hand,in the caseofthe organismthe fact ol need 'fhc necd fbr expresses the existenceofa regulatory apparatus. fbod, energy,movement and rest requires,as a condition of its appear ance t he f br m ol aD\ iet v and t he act olsear ching,t he in relerenceol the organism,in a stateofgiven lacr, to an optimum state ol [unctioning, determine(l in the fbrm of a con51ar1. 4. organic regulation or a homeostasis assurcs first of all the return to the constant when, because variationsin its relation to the of environntent, the organismdivergesfrom it..lusr ,ts need has as its center the organismtaken in its entirety, even though it mani l csrsi rself and is sat isf ied m eansof one appar at us, it s r egbv so ulariorrexprcsses inte{r.ltion oIparts within tht rvholethough the it operatesby meansof one nervousand endocrine svstem.This is the rt.ason rvhv,strictlv speaking, there is no distancebetrveen organsrvithin the organism,no externalitv of parts.The knorvledgethe anat om istgainsf iom an or ganismis a kind of displav in cxtensiveness. t hc or ganisnt self doesnor live in t he spat ial But it tnode hr nhich it is per ceivecl. The lif b ol r living bcing is, 16r each ol it s elem ent s, t he im m ediacv of t he copr esenceof all.

]l INP, 2s2-s Pp.
[153] Social regulation tcnds tou,ard organic regulation and mimics it u'ithout ceasinglirr all that to be corrposed mechanical l r. In older t o ident ili t hc socialcom posit ionu ir h t he social orgar)i sr rin t hc st r ict senscol t he t er m , $e shoulr l llc able t cr speakoI a society'sneerlslnd norms as onc spc.rks an organof i sm' s vi t al needsand nor m s, t hat is, unam biguouslv. The vit al

in needs an(lnorm\ ofa lizardor.r stir:kleback thcil naturalhabitat arc cxpressctlin thc verv l.rct that these animalsare verYnatural living beings in rhis hrbit.rt. But it is enough that one individual in anv society qucstion tlre necds and norms of this society and challengethem - a sign that rhcseneedr and norms arc not those of t he r v ho l e s o c i c ty - i n o rd c r fo r u s to understandto * hat extent social need is not inlmanent, to \\'hat extcnt the social norm is not intcrnal, and, finally, to rvhat cxtent the society,seat is ofrestraincddissentor latent antagonisms, far fiom settingitsell up asa rvhole. If thc individu.rlposesa question about the finalit y ol t he s o c i e tv ,i s th i s n o t l h c s i g n th a t thc soci etvi s a poorl y l unif ied s et o f m e a n s ,p rc c i s e J r'a c k i n g an end u' i th rvhi ch the c ollec t iv c a c ti v i ty p e rmi tte .l b v th e s tru cture u' oul d i denti fv? ofcthnographcrs T o s uppor t th i s u c c o u l d i n ro k e th t' a n a l yses to r v bo ar e s e n s i ti v e th e d i v e rs i tr o f s rs t rms of cul tural norms. " Claude Li' v i -Stra u s s a v s : W e th e n d i s c orer that no soci ety i s qotxl, but rh.rtnone is.rlrso]utt'l) l-ad; thev all oller hrndament.rllv rv t hc ir m enr b e rsc c rta i n a d ri rtrta g c r, i th the P rovi sothat thcre is invariablva lesiduc of t'vil, the Jmount ol lr,hich scemsto reto main more or lessconstantand pcrhapscorresponds a specific incrtia in social life fesist.rntto all attempts at organization."5e

Wisdom is the useof principlesofapprcciation provided rvhereas bv sci encef br t he pur posct r f br inging hunr anlile int o n st at ( 'ol practicaland aflcctive pertection, or happiness. W i sdo m is t her elor e t lr t 'r ealizat ionof a st at eof hum an f ir lfillment and cxcellence,a re.rlizationinrmediatelydcrived from knorvl edgeof an or der of per f cct ion. Wisdom is t hus clear ly a practical fbrm of consciousncss. l N ou l e t us com par et hc ct vm ologic. r dcf init ion and ancient image.In comconception of philosophyrvith our conlrnonscnsc mon parlance, philosophyis a certain dispositionto acceptcvcnts and deemcd necessarv incvitable,to subject prejudicesand phantoms of thc imaginationto cold scrutinvrnd criticism, anclto regulate one's conduct in accordanccrvith firrr personalprinciples m ofj udgme nt and evaluat ion.lt seem s1>r ob, r bJe,or eovcr ,t hat insofir as those principlcs are lemotc lionr e'errdav life, pcople as are i ncl i ned t o t hink ol philosr , 'phv ut opian and ir lle speculati on ol n o im m ediar c r r seant l t her elir r c ol nt t r alue. Cont m on y t scnrc, the n, seenr s o lcar l t o t r lo cont r a<] ict r r rjudgm cnt r conccrning philosophy.C)nthe one h.rnd.it seesphilosophr asa rare t if and thcrcf t r r e est igiousliscipline. r nd, it liuesu[ ) t o it s pr om pr i ses,as an im por t ant spir it u. r l t 'r cr cise. O n t hc ot her hand, it deducesfr om t hc var iet v of com pt t ing philosophicalcloct r ines that phi l osophv is inconsist entand t ickle. hence a m er e int elIectualga m e.Yet t his judgm cnt , * hich t endst o discr editphilo' sophicalspeculation, contra(licted thc lact that philosophers bv is throughout historv havc bcen the objt'ct of hostilitl and cven persecut ion,som et im esbv polit ical lcar ler sanclsom ct im esbv thc mass eshem selves.f t he t eachings t I of and exam plcs t he phil osophersar e so r viclelvlear ed, r hen t ht act ivit y m ust not be enti rel v l u t ile. Norv lct us trringthcscscatt(rc(l observations toqcthcr. Io clenv that phi l o sophvhasanr "ut ilin" is t o r ccognizet hnt it r cf lcct s a I7.)

pp.2s s-5 6 ] IN P,
On the Normative Character of Philosophicol Thought 1154] P hilo s o p h vi s th e l c x e o f Wi s d o m. C )neseesi mmcdi atel v that rvisdom is fbr philosophv an Ideal, since love is dcsire fbr Thus, at thc origin ofthe to somethingthat it is possil>le posscss. o philos ophi c a lq u e s t i s th e c o n l e s s j o n f a l ack, thc recogni ti on of a gap betrveenan cxistenceand a ncccl. Wisdom is more than scit'ncein the strict and contenrporarv ol s ens eof t hc rto rrl , l o r s c i c n c c i s ,r c o n templ ati vcpossessi on r c alit v t hr o L rg hc x c l u s i o n trf rl l i l l u s i o n , error and i gnorancc,

concem wirh the ultimate meaningof life rathcr than rvith immediate expedients, with lif'e'scnds rather than its means..Just as \\'e cannot focussimultaneously ob.jects on closc to us and objects far arvay, alsocannot interestourselves rvr simultaneously ends in and means.Norv, it is usual - not to saynormal - for people to intcrcst thentselves primarily in means,or vvhatthev take to be means,u,ithout noticing that nleansexisr only in relation to ends .rnd that, in acceptingcertain me.rns, thev unconsciously accept the ends that make them so- In other v.ortls, the,y accept whatevel philosoph.y happensto be embodiedin the taluet and institutionsoJ a patticulat civiliTatior.To accept, for example, that savingis a means to a better life is implicitly to accept a bourgeoissystemo[values,a valuesystcmtotally diflerent from that offeudal times.This perversionof our attention is what causedBlaise Pascalto say, "lt is a dcpJorable thing to seemen deliberatingalwayson means and neveron ends,"and further, "Man's scnsitlvitr to small things and ins c l s i ti v i ty to l a rg eo n e s [a re ] s i gnsof a pecul i ari nversi on o[ r ' aluc s ." h i l o s o p h y s a c o rre c ri v eto thi s i nv!rsi on, P i and i fthe comrnonsensc criticism that philosophy is not usefirl, which is strictlv.rccurate,is intended to suggestthat it is therefbrc absolutely v.rlueless, errs only in its identilication ofvalue with utilit itv. It is truc that philosophy is justificd only ifit hasvalue or is a value, but it is not true that utilitv is thc only value: utility is valuableonly in somethingthat is a meansto an end. Insofarasphilosophyis the searchfor a meaningof li[e (a just illc at ion o f l i fe th a t i s n e i th e r p u re l ivi ng nor even rhe w i l l to live but rtryoir-r'ilre, knowledgeofu,hat it is to live), it cntersinto competition and occasionally into conflict rvith political and religious ins ti tu ti o n s , w h i c h a re c o l l e c ti vc srstemsfor organi zi ng human interests. Everysocialinstitution cmbodiesa human intercst; an institution is the codification o{ a value,the embodiment ofvalue asa sct ofrules. Thc militarv, fbr cxample,is a socialinstilAo

tution that [ulfil]s a collective need fbr securitv or aggrcssi()n. Philosophy is an individual quest, horvevcr.ln the Historyof Hegel says, "PhiJosophy bcginsonly rvherethc individPhilosophy as ual know s it self as individual,f br it self ,as univer sal, essent inl, as havi ng i nf init e value qua individual. "The individualcan par ti ci pate di rect ly in t he ldea ( or , as we uould sav,in valuc) r vit hout the me diar ion olan\ inst it ut ion. Philosophv is an asocial arc activity.Thcrc are no philosophicalinstitutions.Sclrools associ ati ons,not societ ies. Philosophicaljudgment thercfbre cannot avoid casringitself as a compet it or of bot h polit ical judgm ent and r eligious judgment, w hi c h in any casear e closelv r elat cd. lt is not unusual, moreover,for com pet it ion t o t ur n int o r ivalr v.Eit her philosophy reinforcescommunal beliefs, in llhich caseit is poiltlt'ss, or else it is at odds with thosc beliefs, in u,hich caseit is dangerous, " P hi l o sophv, "Ar ist ot lc said,"m ust not t ake or ( ler s,it lr ust give them." of The ups hot of t his <liscussion t hat t he essence philois sophicalspeculationis to applv a normativecorrective to human nor cxpcri ence- but t hat is not all. Any t echniqueis basicallv mative, becauseit scts fbrth or applies rules in the fbrrrr of fbrmotlelsand so on. But this normativccharacter mulas,procedures, becauseit has of technique is secondarv and abstractisecontlar,v to do with means,and abstractbecauseit is limited to searchi ng for one kind of sat islict ion.The m ult iplicit y of t cchniques is assumes pluralitv of distinct needs. If phil<.rsophy a nornraa and concrctcll so. The tive discipline.moreover,it is prinrordially best-knovvn definitions ol phil<.'sophy tend tcrstressone of thcse aspectsover thc othet: either normative or concrete. Neverthel ess, both a dject ivesf igur e in all t hc def init ions. Thc St oics emphasize norm.ltive:in defining philosophvasrpiritudl mc./ithe cine,thev assumethat passionand disease one and tht'same. are

Novalis sayssomething slightll diffcrcnt *'hen he calls philosophv a " hig h e r p a th o l c ,g ,v ." [...] thc A lt hou g h i t i s tru e th a t a n c i e n t p h i l osopht P ostul ates (i o e ss o , I th i n k , i n a n ontol ogi calsensc, the fbr unit y of v a l u c ,i t Ancicnts also held that the value of action is inf'erior to that of knou.ledge.Ancicnt philosophy u,asintcllectualist. Knowlcdgt: of the universalorder is enough to cstablishit. Virgil's linc "Felir (flappy is the man rvho knorvs causas" qui potuit rerumcognoscere the causcs things)might servcasan epigraphto all ancient phiof losophics.No anti-intellcctualisthas been as clcar on this point therei n o as Niet z s c h e :' A me ta mo rp h o s i s f b e i ng by knorvl cdge: of rationalists,Socratesforemost among lies the common crror the "father of he them."60In The B;rth oJ Tragcdv, calls Socrates for and holds him responsible the illusorv theoreticaloptimism" bclief that "thought, follorving the Ariadne'sthrcad ol causalitv, ofbeing, that it hasthe Po$'er can penetratethe decpcst abvsses (Notc, in passing, not onll to knorv but to rcfbrm existence."6l shorvedNietzsche thc u'ay to the Pascal and Schopenhaucr that path of theoretical pcssimism. ) Givcn that modern philosoph! cannot useancient u'isdom as a nodel, can it perhapsbetter serve thc infention that animated thc ancient loversof wisdom? The connection bctrvcen ancient and modern philosophy is deeper than a sharedidcal; it is a shared need. Thc nccd that gave rise to ancicnt philosophy was for a mcntal organizingstructure, a structure at once normative and concrctc and thus capableof dc{ining r" hat the "normal" form q.as.This need manifested itself in the trouof consciousness bling, unstable,painful and therelbreabnormalcharactcrof ordinar y c x pe ri e n c e[...] . lacked the notion of a.tPi.rtThe ancient mind nevertheless ual sublect,that is, an infinitely generous and crcative pou'er. Ancient philosophy trcated the soul as subordinateto the idca
I t i2

and crc at ion as subor dinat ct o cont cm plat ion. I t com pr ised a a Ancient thought rvas physics, logic, an ethics,but no aesthetics. sponta neousll ur alist ic. t had no not ion of valuest hat m ight nat I not exi s t or t hat ought not t o cxir t . I t soughtvalucin being, vir tuc in strength, soul in breath. Modern philosophv is conscious of thc po*ers of mind. Even the knorvledgeof impotence has, sincc Kant, oftcn bccn intcrprctcd as a po\!.erof mind. Hence, tlrcre ii no obstaclc to modcrn philosophl's bcing a searchfor a concretc unit y of valucs. St r m m ar izingt he f br egoing analvsis, thcn, Iof f er t his def init ion: m oder n philosophvis pr im or dial, concrctc, normativcjudgmcnt. What is true of norms in generalis tlrerefbretrue of philosophv. The abnormal,being the a-normal,logicallv fbllous thc dc{inition ofthc normal. It is a logicalncgation.But it is the priority of the abnormalthat attractsthc attcntion of the normative,that calls {brth a normative clecisionand provicles opportunitv to an cstablishnormality through the application of a norm. A nornr that hasnothing to regulatc is nothing bccauscit regulatesnothing. The esscncc a norm is its rolc. Thtrs practicallyand funcof ti onal l v t hc nor m al is t lr e oper at ionalnegat ionof a st at e which therctrybecomesthe logical negationof that statt';the atrnormal, though logicallv post er ior t o t hc nor m al, is f unct ionally f ir st . I lencc philosophvis incvitablr a sccondstage moment. It does or not creat e valucsbecause is called int o being by diller enccs it among values. tlistoricallv, philosophv can be seen as an effbrt ol mincl to give valueto human experience through critical exami, nation and slstematic apprcciation of the valuesspontaneouslv embodiedin civilizations and cultures,The sciences little bv little creatc tr ut h f br hum ankind. Polit ical anclr eJigious inst it ut ions l i ttl e l rv lit t le t ur n hum an act ionsint o good r vor ks,The ar t s,bv represe nt ing an'sdr eam s,lit t le bv lit t lc r cvcalt he ext ent nf his m ambi ti o ns.I n t hc pr im it ivc m ind t hescf Lnct ions e int er t wined, ar

s o t ha t m!th i m p e ri o L rs J ve fi n e s$ h at i s real , * ' hat porvers d mcn havc,and horv they relatc to one another,.rndthat is rvhv philosophv takesmvth as its first object ofreflection, In the past, philos op h vg re g ,ru t o fc o n l l i c t a m o n gmyths; today i t grogs out of thc conflict among thc variousfunctions of mind. Philosophycan succeedin its intention - to recoverthe unity ol effort behind disparateacts ol spontaneous creation - only b) relating rhe variouselcments ofculture and civilization; sciencc, ethics, religion, tcchnologv,fine arts. To cstablishsuch relations is to choose.tmongralues. Criticism and hit'rarchvart'thcrefbre c!5cntial.Philo5ophy cannot adopt anythingbut a critical attitude to$ard thc varioushuman f'unctions that it proposcs judge. Its to goal is to discoverthe meaning of those functions br determining lro* thel fit togcther',bt' rcstoring thc unity ofconsciousness. The business philosophvis thercforenot so much to solve ol problems as to create them. In L6on Brunschvicg's rvords,philosophvis thc "scienceofsolved ploblems." that is, rhe questioning of received solutions.Norv ne can underrtandwhl philosophy hasattracted hostilc reactionsthrough the ages:philosophy is a qucstioning of Iifc and therefbre a threat ro rhe idea that everything necessar!to Iife is alrca<lrin our posrcssion. 1-hegoal ol philosophy is to searchfbr reasons live by seekingthc end for to u hich life is supposed be the mcans.Bur to pursuesuch a goal to is also to discover r(asonsnot to Iive. Nothing is mrrre at odds r v it h li fc th a n th e i d e a th a t a n e n d to l i fe mal be i val ue and not s im p l y a n a c c i d e n t.T h e rc i n l i e s one s()urccof phi l osophy' s trnpopularitv. [r\tS Du Coractcrcnornrctil de lo pcnsiephilosophiquc. l. lr , 2 r, l r,4 r, 5 r,6 r] This bibliographvis dividcd into t$-o parts.PartCJncinclurlcsthe ti tl es of G eor gesCanguilhem 's published r vor ks. I 'ar t 'livo is a selection of the nrost significant published reviervs and conr, ol mcnt.lrieson these u.orks,This bibliography is intcndcd primari l v as a r vor kingt ool. I t includesa subst ant ial r m berof t it les, nt pul>)isherl mainlv befbre 194J,thar are nor fbrnd in the on)r,orher availablc bibliography(seebelolr',PartTrvo,the penultimateentry undcr 1985 ) . S u ccinctbiogr aphical and cont ext ualinf or m at ion,r vhcncvcr reltv.rntand available, givcn undcr an cntrt. Fach entry appears is under t he vearof it s publicat ion,in m any cases vit h t he cir cum r stances r ounr lir gt he or igin of t he t ext - f br er am ple. a pubsur l i c l ec t ur e or paper pr csent edat a scholar lvc. r nler ence. Those books consist ingof a collect ion of lect ur es and, / orpr eviously publ i shedpaper sar e idcnt ilied as such. When applicablc,var ious erlit ionsnr e not e( l ar t he f ir st m ent ion ol . r t it le. ( ) nlv ne* cdi ti ons involving a dif lir ent publishcr or t r anslat ion,and, / or revi si onsor addit ions t o t hc t ext s, ar e cit ed under t hc vcar of the neu publication. No <loubt,had Georgcs Canguilhembeen askecl provi<lchis to orvn bibliographv,he.rrrrulcl not havcincludecla goorJnuml.er of
ld 4

Cam ille

Linr oges


of thc titles givcn here - not Lrecnusc a rvish to conceal anv oJ t hc m , b(t b < :c a u sC a n g u i l h e rnh a sa l n.rvsmai ntai ned.r stri ct e and thc distinction betrveenthc rvorks of the author (1'oeurre) carccr. "traces" oI the inte]lcctual and profcssorial rvho is alsoa researcher intL'rested Frcnch in As a bibliographcr contemporar\ intellectual history,it hasbeen mv contention th.rt an ac c ( ) u n ta s c o m p l e te .rs p o s s i b l eo l ' thc pri nted " rr.rccs" rrt lvorth I Cangui hcm's remarkalrleintel lcctual trajectory was \,\,ell ml pursuing.I am confident th.rt many readcrsr+ill share opinion.

i ns(. \\'i th thc ri s e ol ri ri onJ l s oc i rl i s m, C nngui l hc m i n l 9l 4 hi \ pol i(i c s ol p.(i ti \nr, rnd l rrer bec anrLrn:(ti \(

)5 rrnre to (ri c c t

rc s i s rnn(Lmc ml ' r.r. l )c s pi rt

th, <ha ngei n bi s pol i ti c s . C angui l hem\ c l os t a(.rc hm.nt n) A hi rr nev c r ruv errrl ; hc r'.rsat A Iai n' s beds i dc rrpi ,n hi s death, atter s rrl l eri ngthrough r l ong i l l nc s s , rrr func 2, l 95l (s ee J ei n' Fran(oi sS i ri nel l i , C l ni rotnn nrc l l eLruc l /c : rj anc ur c t {i nornoli c ntdans I' c nrrc,/.ur' .ruuro IP ari s : I aranl , l 9i ]l tl . pp. J l r)l l . .i nd ,16411. ). (:rn gui l h(nr' \ c h* ot 192.1 thc Fc i ,l ,: N ,rrmal t S uP c ri c ure rar p.:rti c rrar

N l .an' P rul S artrt..rnd P .1ul i ?an, ^n,n. i 'nong othc r l umi ni ri c s . The pbi l os ophc ran< lmathc mati c i anJ c rn C aui l l es had cntered thc ' Lc ol t thc prc v i ous v ear, rnd hc and C .rngui l hen c ommnc ul 'rrong l i i c nds hi p rhrt s ,r,l d c onti nue l i ,r rrrnr v ears . a

R l rrl v,l i s ti ngui drc d: i r i n< .l url c d av mond

Ita r t

On e 192 6

W( ) RKs r JyCr ( ) r r ( ;l s CAN crrn rr i l l "l ,r I hc ori c de l brrl n' rr ( i c o r l r s ( a n g u ;lh e m r cccr ' ,,1 h ;s Nr h td u c.lii rrn rt thc rl cmenrar$r'hrx'l sul : i ri rures , S ,,rhnnr. thrt ti mc , rhe ' \t D i pl nnrc d' atuder \upi ri eun s w as punuc rl upon c ompl eri on ol unrl c rgradui tc s n,di c s (i ,.c n..), i nd bc l i ,rc the ' i rgri i Tarton"c x ami ni ri (,n, $ hi .h s tu' dcn ts prc patrl rr rhe Fc ol c \orm.rl c S rrpi ri c uru..S omr l i l i r C .n gui l hem $ n,r. i t \l ),,( c ommc nr,rrr i ,' , ,,1l ),,ugl i (19?l lI. v ears l rtt.r \\ri tten rrnrl rr th( s uP erv i i i ,rn,,l (l (l c \ti n l J ougl e. du prc gl i s c htz l ugurtc C < ,mtc ," l )i pl ,l nre di r(u(l c s

a n d t h t n t h " h ig h sch o o l o l h is n a tive to u n . C .rrrrl nau<l ar1,n southsestcrn i F r a n c e .I n l 9 l l. it th e a g e o 1 scr r n te e n . h r : e n tered thc l ,/rri qnc sl x{ri al (l l i cs t h a t p r c p a r tr l stu d cn ts kr r th e h ig h lv co m p e titi ve en{rancc rxrmi nal i ons n) t h . E c o l e N o n n a le Su p a r icu r . o i th e lvcic Hcnri l \' i n l 'ari s. C angui l hrrr

. r t t e n d e dr h r I r e cc lio m l9 2 l r ,) I9 1 .1 .tiu g h ( b r rht phi l ,x,,phcr E rni l t C harti cr ( b e t t c r L n r n r n u n d e r th e p ,,n n r n ) ( " Aliin ") . AlJi n raurht thr phi l ov,ph! (our s( t r o m l 9 0 l to lL lll, in te r r u p r .( l ,,n 1 1 b y wo r ld $trr I, r'hen he vol untrri l r c n l i s t e d ( h e r va st< x, o ld to b c d r a itcd ) a n d scned i n the arti l l cry. In hi s readi n g s ( ) 1t h . g r e r t p h ilo wr p h ica l .r n d lite r a r r tcxts. Al ,ri n l tcl hi s studcnts t,>.rna l v z e t i t i r r l lr r n r l to r csp r ct r h .\c $ r itjn g !, whi l . cmphasi /i ng d neo-Ki ntj rn p e r s p t . l i \ t . a r r cll a s h is o sn { tiu n ( h p tr cilism rn rthi rs bascdon.r l unda-


C angri lhc m pl i v rd i mri or rol c th.rt l rrr i ,r rhr i c onoc trs ti c r.\uc thar l i c ol f N ,'rmale s tuc l t' nts,,rg.rnrz e,l rnd s t,rgerl rhr. c nd < n c ac h rc rrtc nri r rear. l l c ar ras onc ,,f thr 1!ri te' r .,1 (h( pl .rv .l e I)era;tre rtc t..rngv ,n.. i pun i nl ol v i ng th( nnm e ol rhc di r.c t,)r,,1 the E L{ ,l c N < ,rnral r,c us tav c Ianrrn. anrl t.ang S on i n Indoc hi na, trherr r barl l c trc trv c en thc Fr.nth an< lthc C hi n.n.hi (t l c (t ro thc di sn i s s rl ol thc J ul ,s I:c n\ { ()\1.rnm.nr j n t885. 1e() anti nri l i ri ri \r s ones $tr( c{ ' rs i dc rr(l p,rni fi rl .rrJ r ourragc o,!\ -,:,,r I ' LI I i I i s.r( i , , |) rt,.s ;nrc l l ec ruc l s

m e n t a l d i s r r u st o l p o r rcr l" le cio r < n L o n tr cle rp oututr') .tnd ol rcpubl i can genr : n r s i t y . . l a in d ce p h in llu r n .cd Ca n g u ilh e m \ in tr'l l cctuall i fc duri ng thesc ytars. A I n 1 9 2 4 , ( ' a n g u ilh cm e n te r u r i tb e Eco le No rmal c Supi ri cure, rherc,;rs:n L r n a p o l , , g r tirJn r im ilit.r r ist n n ,l p r cilr sr . h e r e m.ri ncrll ai tbl i rl to r\l .ri n'\ rf.'ch

I 11b

td 7

e n t e m p i Jd f g u cr r f!' a n d "Co r n p la in tc d u ca p ita inc C ambusat" (C ambu,;atuas a n o l l i c e r n s p o n sib lc ti,r th c m ilita r y in str u ctio n oi tho E col e N ormal e stud e n t s ) . C r n g u ilh cm *a s a u th o r o fth c fir st a n d co author ofthe second, rvi th a g r o u p o l i i l l o r v stu d e n tsin clu d in g Sa r tr c.Sir in d li ha\ repri nted the text ol both !'ngs (scc Clrdr.,,to, intellcctuellc, pp. 326-28) and provides substantial mater i a l a b o u t t h c co n te xt o f th csc cvcn ts. I a n vr n b cl d C angui l hern and others r c s p o n s i b l ef o r th e * a ctio n s,a n d th e in scr ip tio n "P R " (l i l r "revol uti onar,v prop. r g a n d a " )w r s re co r d e d in th e m ilita r y d o ssie r so f thc cul pri ts - rvho rvere supp o r e d t o b e c o m e o llice r s a t th e e n d o f th e ir "m ilitr ry prcparati on"at the Ec<,l e N o r m a l e ( s i r i nclli, p . 3 3 9 ) . Ca n g u iJh e mp u r p o se ly l ai l ed the exami nl ti on con' c l u < l i n g t h i s p r e p itr a tio n in Sp r in g 1 9 2 7 b 1 -a llo wing thc basc oftht machi ne

i i n N i mr.s . l \l i c hel A l ex andre(1888-1952),then a l v c i c profes s or n th' t c i t!, as mos t ofthc edi tori al burtl c n ol rv hat rv asthc n rvi th hi s * i l i J eannt:, s umed a w ee k l ,vpubl i c ati on. W hen A l ex andrc Il rs t met A l ai n hc w as tl v t.ntv y ears di ol tl ; he rc mai ned a dev ()ted s c i pl e thri )ughout hi \ l i i t /,brc r P rofor c l ui c k l v

.rttra c te,lc nough att(:nti on i mong Frc nc h i ntel l ec n,al s that Gal l i mard dc ci ded to publ i s h i t under i ts P res ti gi ous"N R F" i mpri nt i n 1922 23.rnd 192.1 l v hc n the j ournal c eas edprtbl i c ati on A s ec ond s c ri esol l i bres prtrpos . sas p ubl i s hed as a montbl y from N l arc h 192? to S eptc mbc r 1935r s rc llichel AIcrcntlrc: Lelons' tcr-rsl, /.trr.r Jeanne Alcxandre, ed., En Souvcnir tie (Paris : Merc uft. df Franc e, 1956), pp 499-51' 1. In l 9l l -12, C angui l hem assumed thc mai n edi tori i l l i rnc ti ,,ns ol l i 6res proP dr (s c e bel os . entrv unrl tr l 9 3l ). C .ti . l l en urd fps eud.l , "La N l obi l i s ati on de! i ntel l c c tuel s - P rotes tatrond c (u{l i trntr." l i l rc r p/opoi (A pri l 20. 1927), pp. s l -52. Fol l ' rv c d on pp. 5} -i ' l I'r r t err s i tnc d ' C . C angui l hem." P,i ntd on t2{ c r + 6-' l U , undc r tht ti tl c "l a l l ac l i r.rti on (i ' l .urc pc no. s ,l tr 15 rrri l ." i i thr rt\r ,)i thc P rot !s t, l i rs t prrbl i s hedj n / ur.T,.' . i gnfd l ,! 160 i nrfl l rc tui l ! i n,l l .rdemi c s , i nc l rrdi ngA l .ri n. anrl l i ' J l o"ed bv tht ri gn.t trrrcsr,l hl i r-l i ,untudc nts l i orr the E c ol e N orm,:l c i nc l udi ng C .rnqui l ht' rrr. R armond A rc ,n.J eanC av ai l l & , C harl esFhrc s m,rnn, eanl l )P P ol i tf. l l eD ri ' l J N l arr r,u and J e.rn-l ' aulS artn. Thc ' Loi P aul -B onc our, aborrt thc "gc nc ral mobil i z ari on ol c he n.rti on i n w arti mc ." had been v otc d bv the A ' s rnrbl i r nati onal e on l \l arc h 7. 1927.The l a* * rs denounc c d fi ,r s ti l l i ng i nttl l c t tual i ndc pendenc eand l i ec dorn ofopi ni on i n w arti mc .

the exami ni ng oi l i cer { u n h e s ' . r ss up p o se dto d isr n o u n t to fill o n th c li,ot <,1 ( i b i d . , p . - 1 6 5 ). A t t h i r t i m e . h e wa s a ctive lv cir cu la tin g a p cti ti on agai nst thr Ioi P i ul S o n c o u r , $ h i ch h ,ll ju r t h r .n p a sscd y th e Asse mbl 6enrti onal e, on thc nrobl b l i l . r t i o n d l t h c .,,!r n tr ! li,r s.a r r im t' ( se eb e lo w, fir st !ntn undrr 1927). N o n c , ' 1 r hi\ p .cclu ( l( !l in tclle ctu .r l so r k, th o u gh: C angui l hcm rankc<l r* i r n r l t h ; r r t r r i n r h . h ig h lv co m p e tir ilr e r a m in tr tion l or ttu ol l ri ,totn n tc phr / o r d f f i , c . P r D l Vig n r u r . r r h o r r lr ld b e co m e a n e mi nenr schol ;r i n rncrl i c'al

p b i l , x , > p h 1 ,r a n L e d lir st,,r n d Ca n g u ilh e m i fr icn d lc rn C avai l l i r rrnl cd l ourrh. C a n g u i l h tm th e n d id h is m ilita r ) scr vicc lo r ei ghteen months, bet\rrcr) N o r t m b c r l 9 27 r n d Ap r il 1 9 2 9 - n ,) t a s a n o lllcer but fi rst as.r pri vrte and, l r t e r , i n p r e p , r a tio n lo r n o n co r n m issio n e do fllce r sl b B ddi u). C . a j . l l e r n a r d l p scu ll.l, " l a Ph ilo so p h ie d ' l te r m a nn Kcyserl i ng," 1i bf.i p.opor ( l \ 4 i r c h 2 0 , 1 9 2 7 ) , p p . l8 - 2 1 . Revierv of N4aurne Boucher, I-a Philosophte tl'Htrnann Kclrer/rng (Paris:

A c c onl i ng to S i ri nel l i (pp. l ,+ l -a2). C angui l hem i ni ti at.d the peti ti on at thc hc ol e N (J rmal .. 'A nni vers ai rc s . I" j ui l l et n:i s s :nc c dc tc i bni z ," I.i brc s propos(l rl .t 20. 1921), p. 18 5. I:x trac tsl rorn I c ' i bni z ' s ork s , l i ;l l os ed bv the menti < ,n' !,mmuni c ated s br (i .C ." "l )e l a V ul gi ri s i on phi l ov ,phi quc . U nc E di ti on du t)i s c ours dc I.r rnethode," /.tbre r pfopd' (J ul l l e, I927), pp.200-201.

R i e d e r . 1 9 3 9 ) . Bc' n r cr :n 1 9 2 7 a n d 1 9 2 9 , Ca n gui l hcm somcti mes usql tht p e n n t r n r c" C.( ;. Be r n a r d " to sig n a r ticle s in L i brcspropos.l t i s nos qui te ( f i l l i c u l t t o lin d issu e so f r ;b r cs p r o p o s. /o u r n o l d'.1l ai nt i n fi ct. a compl etc s e r i e sc : n on lr b t fi,r r n d in I lls F r e n ch lib r a r i es. rhc i i rst i ssuc rpptart'rl

o n A p r i l 9 , 1 9 2 1 ,p r in te d b v th c "lm p r im cr i. co,)parati ve'l .r l abori ruse',"

It l


R c vie * o l De sca r tcis "m u tila t{ a l ttxt" c tl i terl bv P :ul I tmai re (P ari s: l l i t i c r , 19 2 7 ) . C l . G . B c r n a lr l Ip scu d .], " L a L o g iclu t d cr ju g cments dc vrl cur," l i brcr propor ( A r g . 2 0 , 1 9 2 7 ) , p p . 2 ' 1 il- 5 1 . R c r i e r v o l [. Go b lo t, tr citi l. lo t]ig u . lPati \t C ol l i n, 1927). " E s s a i r A l a l\' la n ' i' r ed e ...." t ih r cs r a p o slt) ct. 20. 1927). pp. l '11 -+s. p A p astich c o i th t r vo r k o l \t,ltr ir c, r vh osr n,rmc i s l aceti ousl v used to s i g n t h f tr xt. An :p p cn d cd n o tc r o ca ls th r real authors to be C angui l hcm r a n d S v l va in Br < ,u ssa u < lie r ,lcllo r stu d cn t it the Lcol e N ormal e. N {ost ol t h e t c x t is p u b lish cdin Sir in e lli. p p . 3 2 .{ - 2 5 .Thc parti chc mocks thr Frl l r s d i r c c t o r, ( lu sta vc L .r n so n ,a n d h is r ca ctio n s t o the anti mi l i hri ri t contcnt o1

C .C . Bc rn:rrl l ps eud.l , "C ommc ntai rts et doc uments

A dres rt ; l r I i grc dc s

rl roi ts de l ' hommc ," l ,l ,rc r propo' (F.b. 20, 1929).pp 7l t-7e. C .G. B trn:rrl l ps eud.l , "r* ai s . E qui s s e d\rnt pol i ti j uc de t' ai x . I' rt' ambul e," l ,bf c ' f.opo' (Marc h 20. 1929),pp. l i 5 lu

"l e Souri rc dc t' l aton." Lurry c 20 (1929), pp. 129-)u s R c v i ew oi ;\l ai n, Onur rhdpi ttc s u P l on' n 11928 l hr: ti tl e ofthc rt' ' i er ) i s tak t:n l rom ,\l ai n s S ouv tni rss ur l ul esIo11ntar,"here hc had w ri ttt:n, "te l i rrgtt the s ni l c ol P l :to." J ul es I agnc au,w ho rernai nsa s v mbol ol the s el l : dorrti on to phi l omphy rnd hi gh moral rtan,l anl srnri ot:i ned br abnegati on, ' Ihi rc l R epubl i c , hrd bt' c n A l ai n' s phi l ov rphv v,nre prc l i s s ors of thc earl r te.r c hc rrt the l y c i ' e. Ihat s amt rtar, C :ngui l hc m rtv i etrrl thc pos thumous l pub l i t rti on ol v ,mc of t-agneau' sec turc s (s c e bel or' , tu! c ntri t' s tl o* n ).

" 1 \ { o n t a g n e s t lr o n tie r cs." /tn r .' p r u p ,' ( N( ) v. 2 0, 1927), pp. 4{)l '+02. e F . m i l c B o u t ro u x, D6 l&it& itcr r ) t' | lcs ct Dcscartcs.lhese l ati ne tradui te par th N l . G e o rg csCa n g u ilh r m , ilive d c I' F co lt Normal r strpi 'ri crrrc.Prafa.. (l c i U . L i o n Br u n sch ticg , d e l' ln stin r t ( t' a r is:I ibrai ri c Fal i \ Al can, 1927). A 1 - r e n chtr a n sh tio n o fL m ile Bo u tr o u x' s 187'1Iati n doctoral tl i sscrtat i o n . A n c$ ctlir io n la s p u b lish e d in 1 9 8 5. l he 1927 edi ti on i ncl udes a s t u d v b v Ii< ,n Bn r n sch vicg < in B< iu tr r u x' s phi l <,soph1,"t.a P hi l osophi c d ' E m i L : Bo u tr o u r ," *h ich is n o t in clu d cd in rhe l 9u5 cdi ti on; i t c.rn.ho" (P.rri s: l rrcsses c v c r . b e ln u n d in L io n Ilr u n sch ' icg , E.r its phi l osaphi ques , U n i v e r sitilir e !d e lr ln ce , 1 9 5 .1 ) vo l. l, p p . z l l -l l .

"i \1i \i mc I.()\, Revie\!.

Ic au D c s c ortc s phi l as Ly tu tnas quc ."Iunpt 2t (1929),P P 152 56.

"C al abrc s l eqons (l c J ul es t.agneru. N hc s . (l pri l 20. 1929), pp. 190 9). Ittv i c s .

La L.abori tuv . l e2l l . ' I i brc spro2or

"t a I i n i l ' unc par:de phi l os ophi qtrt. t (' l l c rgs oni s mc , w ,us l e ps tudonv mt l ran roi s ,^rouc t. I' ]ari s ,E d. ' l -es Il fv ufs ' ." i tl ,..r frofor i A pri l 2{ ). 1929), pp. 191-95. R ev i es . Ihe rc .rl name ol thr nuthof ol thi s i tta(k on l l c nri l l erg!,,n *ar C c orgs I' ol i trc r,.t c ommuni \t phi l ov ,phc r * ho bec ami .r s ol di er i n the r.!i s ti nc c rnd \rrs ex c c ul rd bv the N a?i si n 19,12.

192 8

"l 'ri 'j tgi !

e1j us c nrc nt," / i brus propos(j unc 20. 1929), p.2tr1.

"C i rcul ai rc :drc .,s r:c aur mc mbres dc l ' A s s oc i ati on l < l c s c c orn i ux i \nc i ens C a n g u i l h c m sp cn t th ir r n tir e vca r in th c a r m v as p.rrt oi hi r ci ghtccn month m i l i t a r r s c r vicc. I le is n o t kn o t n t< ,h a r c p u b lishcdanr thi ng tl uri ng thi s prri rxl . Fl t\es dc 1' Fc < ,l enorm.rl e s upi ri c urel ," pp. 126 10. C rngui l hc m i s onc ol thc nrtl x 1929 s i { nat< ,ri c ol thi s c i rc ul ar (i nr:l ud I i hrc spnpat (j ul y 20, l el 9),

C a n g u i l h r m co n r p L tc< lh is n r ilita r - rxn icc

in Ap r il 1929;{sumi rg hi s usc o{ the

rnrl I-i l i c i c n 'ng C brl hv e, r ho s r,emrtr) hi v . l ).c n rh. w ri ro ) pror{ .s ri ng.rg:i ns t thr prc s i dcnt ol the A s !oc i ari on, rhc m.rthc mati c i .r i :mi l c t,i c arrl . \r rht annual mc eti ng oi thc r\\r.)c i .rri on, i n J anurf\, h. hrd c ondc nrnc d rhc c i ghtr

r\l ri n, Ii omai n I{ ol l rnd, (;eorgc s Il i ni ' z c , R rl mond.\rrn

" p * u d < , n 1 n r C.( ;. B.r n r n l," h c stir ti:< l to p u b lish ag,ri nbcl i rc bei ng rel ersc<1.

1 9 ()

l 9l


-; :; !i

i l:=

:;i i :

, : = iilj

vt ii :

: : ;?i it : {: ii = :i i 1 ,.;i = i zi ai izj,;,-: ii t== i;v:ji ! . i : ; : i , i:i i :


:7: i , ; i i i . _= :i ji ;:,.iz = 112 ai ; i::Ei=i, l ; :i

- .: i j : - 1 . ' t

'i ::
Zt,;S: i

i r: -' =
' : ; : j

=+jzii ;i1;=t



+ ,I ' i:::ii,,t,rii::ii ;r:it:ii:i ij i
. ia

=,=i; 1 i = , , 2,:==E, i : : , i i j= ! =: a1: ZZ1

i E i I i; : i; , : ! ; i: *lr z ':,

i =! ii? ; iiii;
i=4:;ii: i I : i.

=: ; i i; j 1

tl :?

: +iri:i:; i; ii t ii -ii!1 i:i i l ) -:'r z:+ 3 1 r *i !;E lg ;; , :tl=F=ii I i i; i; .:zi) , =;::-2 : : E: ; = "= i: ' -::= ; , -! io" =:'-= : ; ii Zz1'--: n =e ''. :t;:;!i; j; : i=z:ti Z i ;- ,:i i : t + i r : i i i
: i '= i ; ! i\ i= e


?: : = ; : ?+ ? 2,1 i

:E- --t;;i;

i=47=++=z: ?7


ig'+:: F :

;: ' -E l;;; i ' : = = i: i t;' ;Z i i i it =f:l=z.i

;: ;j =
:.;:. *:, i?= | j: ;


:1t :

:--'rr';: o.!
4:?ol! i-:i-.::





; . a --r=
-:: i:i=!:-/f
| :!

;:: -: i : !
= l al l ::


,:::t rr>-. : ,
- - .' 1 :

+ ;..

rt : Q ! :
: *- Y= 'r - ) >e:9-:

-!-; !


.:i + = ;=

I --',i .=;a

; a=
j: i I

'. + :


E ==..-

*: ", =
.t r I ;t- /:- r = =;.:'c ' =: -l -c? c . 7 a. :La

=:,; \;-r-

c : - - ' . Li

z = 1. 1tr-x'



ra 1
^;e.- ::/ ';^- :;:r a = I r r ;t 1 i

-' =


f:a ' :: aaa

1 ':.1

a " i+
::r ai 7;
F I;

= -;::; i ^i i
:i az !


.-+: ,,4 -i.a i77 .sj,iie !=i=l =

+: I5 i :i i i j iil: a iEi E a : i
= r-: i r.!:1:-,",1 : :=, :t

::i:r:==i!!:tii'; , = . = i ;::;:==:ii=ii irj::* i.'-=i;i:=E

" .;j

-=, t i= E;i == + l; ! -;a ;:-! :;::t : ;: -.'.:::a-'=ii i = i=it:1t: : j = =:t ; ; : , : i ri








-: -Jl ; i i z t i:;;;:1i'E; i=-,

, i i i ;: ; i= ii: : : :!:::: ia:ii= : i:!
i; r 4i; =

! ! =; 2. : ' i






;: ]: ;i! - : i

=1=; r: ! : =:

:= '; i: =; : .:= i ::= i ::= ,_-, i: ri

j:i:i2a ==:i;1,i;.

i- -. =; i"-i1 i!!= +ii:

ii ii; =i :1 =j: ::=7 :::;,i i :,:i : . : : is '
i 3 ti = i .? E : .! i . a



D r t' r llr e t Ia tr o iliim r

r i' p r r b liq u t p ar C . C hrrensol ." Li brespnpas

"fr.rrcc A meri (tuc- S l r l c V ov age Lav al ,"I i br.{ propoJ N < ,!. 19I l ), pp. 519-20. de { S i gned"C .C ." "S oci ologi c - | c l C aus $ du s ui c i de," ti l ' r,' r p.,poJ (N ov . l 9l l ). pp. 525-10. ,/u R ev i ew ol l \l auri c c fl al brv ac hr,l c s C ous es rut.nl e(P ari s :A l c i n, l 9l 0). "l )i fcnsc rl rr < i toy en - I a P res s e,l e di s armc ment c t l r .onfl i t \i no-j aponi i s ," i '1... pnfo' { D ,.. l (r 1l ). tp.567-72. S i gnerl ' (i .(-." "C ri ti que et phi l ow phi t: S ur l e P robl i rre dc l : c r6rti on." /,l trc r f.oP or (l )tc

( A p r i l I C/ 1) , p . 1 9 7 . 3 A b ricf n o r e o n th e b o o k, sig n e d " C.C.," publ i shed under thi s ti tl t ( P r r i s : Kr a , l9 ll) . dcs i ntel l ectuel s- Ll ne P ro" D o c u m e n ( s r t ju g e m e n ts.Co n tr < la ca p o r a lisa ti on ( t c s t r t i o n d e No r m a lie n s," / tb f., Pr o Po r Ju ll l el l ) N c . v r cg u la lio n sh llb ccn P p. 124 2s

e n icr e d a t th c Lcol e N ormal t suP(ri (u( \Pfpri or auth,rri za-

c i l l c a l l v li,r b id d in g co lle cr ir c n ctio n b 1 stu denrs *i thout

t i o n b y i ts clir e cto r ,a n d th r e a te n in gd iscip linarvacti on agi i nst l tudcnt\ *h.) r c l l s e d to co m p ly lir lly with th e m a n d a to r v mi l i t:ri v trai ni ng. T*'ent! t$o a l u m n i oI th c' Eco le ( in clu d in g Ca n g u ilh e m, N i z.rn, R omai n R ol l and ,tn<l S a r t r c )ha r l sig n td th ir ;xo tcst, .r sh a d tb u r studentssri l l ,]t the [( ol c. i nrong t h e r n S jn !,n . We il, a lso r r litip lc o fAl:in fhi s rr:rr u:s al so publ i shed i n

l 93 l) ,pp.s83 8E.
R c v i c x ofP i c rrc A brahan, C ri otw c t thu B al n (P rri s : (i al l i mard, l 9l l ).

"l c|tun r. D i c adc nc c de l a nati on l i anqai s t - Lc C i nc c r amrri .ai n, par A ron

sr L ' l J n i v ctsiti n d icd lin cin Ju n e 1 9 3 1 . ' A o r h r 1 9 1 4.lo d t du 1 9 1 1 .Rive r ie s tr e ' Po sitiv{ ,s ci t<'venmobi l i srbl c," Ii l 'rcs

I9l ct l)trndi c u (R i c dc r, l 9II)," l ,l ,r.j prop.\' (.J an. 2), pp.42 ' 14. Itf! i es . "t .r IJ,1i \rn\ r(\( r!{ ? ( )tri ," l i l rc s frofo! ( I.c b. l 9l .l ). P P . e9-l (} 4. r In N (^tml ,(r l 9l l . the pac i l i s r l -i l i c i c n C hal l av (.h;rrl prrl ,l i s hedan ar-

p r o p o r( Au g . l9 1 l) , p p . 3 5 7 - 5 1 1 . " L ' l n r c r n a r to n tlt n n llla n r c d ( i d fn r c,tr .n ir .p r r ( ) . Ithnr.:nn R Li i \l )ul (l (l Fql ant i n e . B n' xe lle s. l9 l0 ) ," /iAr .' JPr o Po i( Se Pt l9]l ). P P . 415-16 R r : rjcr v, liilL r we d b v a n c\r r a ct lr o m th c bo{,k, P . 417 w i t h I l i c h e l Ale xa n d r e ," ' D6 sa r m e m tn t,' se r iede textessur l e'probl i me nrval l i a n c o a lltn a n d ' ," t,6 r e r p r o t( r JlOct. 1 9 3 1 ) ,p.'f62. o A p ar .r g r a p h l in tr x[,c( i{ ' n b ! Cr n g u ilhcm an(l [l i chcl A l cxi n(l r. t().1 c o l l r c t j o n ,> fr lo ctm cn t5 o D F r cn ch - ( ;cr m a nrur')l ri val r),Pp 462 67 "l c Coin dcs ruadcs." 1tbrespnryot lt)ct. 19) I ), p. 48 3 A b r ie l !tn te m e n t b l Ca n g r ilh e m , in r e lP onte tr' (;rcrges D tmrrti nl 's c r i t i < 1 uco fCa n g u ilh cm i p f o f o r , 5( p t. l( ) l l) . " E l e c t i o n s a n g lr ise s,"lib r e s lr o p o s ( No t l9 3 l) ,p p S i g ne d" { i.C." " l n r : c r t i t r r d $ a llcm r n ilcs,p a r Picr r c Vii' n o t l ib r ai ri c \ri l oi s, l 9l l ." I i brerP r.?o' ( N o v . l s l l) , p p . 5 l,t- 1 6 . R c vics. 5l 0-l l . r cvic| ! o fO. L e h rnann R i i ssbul d's book (l i bl cr

ti clc r:nti tl c d "La P ri x s ansr6s c nc " i n thr i ourni l Ld P dtrpdr i c dro,r, w hi c h /i 6rc s propoi s rrmrrari z edi n J anuary 1912 (pp. 36-37). -l h6odore R ul s s en, though hi ms c l l a pc i l i s t. had publ i s hc d.r c ri ti quc ofC hal l av e under thc ti rl c "L.r P ai \ \i nr ri rc ^1 1 N on." t{ uy s s en' s rl i s s umm.l ' i 7.(l i n rhi \ i s \ue tc dn pagc s93 e1. l n hi s rrti c l c , C rngrri l hem s i des qi th C h,rl l av e,as doc s a l bl L rri ng arti c l c s i { nc d J ean I c N 4atai (pp. 104-109).(for l unhc r c v c nts i n thi s (ontrov ers \, \ee bel ou, nro entri es do* n.) "[)ocum c n(s . Franc c- Lc s l ntel l ec tuc l sc t l c < l i rarmement,"Irl nJ l ropdr (A pri l l 9l . l ), pp.20t 201. l )i s c us s i oD n Irrl rr o{ l c :rn t;rrehenno publ i s hc < lrrnderthe s ame ti tl r ,)l i n lurap., Marc h t!, 1932. S i gned,,(;.(-." "S ansp l us dc rts erv c qLr' auparav ant,"i 6rc sprdpo' (A pri l l 9l 2), pp. 210-13. l C angui l hc m' san,rer to R uy -s s c n. ' l l ov i ng thc rc pl v oi the Iattc r (pp. f< 2(l l I0 ol 1hi ! i \\u(,.nri tl c d "t a I,,ri x ,dui . Il i i s par Ic dr,,i r")r,, C i nS ui l



h . n r \ r , t ic le " L r l' a i\ \.r n \ r ( \L i !r 7 ( ) u i" { se c rbovc, ( $o tn tri e! trI i . \ \ : , r h N l i . h f l r \lcxa n d n . " \lr n r ,r litc Pr im ir i\c," l l 'rci frol os (N l at l 91l ;, pp 2 S6 - ; 8 . ' ' F l , c r i o o s l9 1 2 ," /ib r e ' p r o p o ' ( Ili\ S i g ne d" C.C." " t A g r i g d t i on d r p h ilo vr p h ie ," tl.jth o r lr .Rctu t ( N ' l i ! 1 91 2 ) , p p . l7 - 2 1 . l f i d o r le h r < l r c( n tlv b ccn liu n r lcd b r CeorgesB i 'nrl z!l 3tl ti -l q7l l ), an l I I'ensci gncncnr hi l osaPhi quc P l9 l2 ) , Pp . 259 61.

A c c orJ i ng to S i ri nel l i ((;(;n(i d!i or nt.l l t.tutl b,

p. 596 n.l l ), rhi s r.\r

i nr I urk s C angui l hem' sc onrri l .uti on ro I hr c onr,^ rrs v pol ,l i \hr(l i n / /br.:! prop l i n Ftbnrrry l 9l l , l ,,nrl e' ,rr ments rl rr retus de toute guerrc nrti onJ l ." { \c r i b(r!(, s ec ri rrdentrv undc r l 9l 2). i nd.1c onc hrs i on, "Ii nal c en s c pt poi nts ." R av nrond A ron publ i s hc d r c omm< nt .,ri ti fal rl 1 thi ' book l et i n / /hr.' v prop a (Ftb. 1933, pp.96-99), rl i s s c nri n{ l rom C .rngui l hc m' s i fw poi nt (,,n i hi s. !e{ .\ron\ l l i nroi rc sIP :ri s : l rl l i ](1. l el l I l . pp. 56-5l t). l or C angui l hc nr' s r( i c(i on.i to i rdn' r rri ti qu,:, s et t' el o", l our rh ..ri ! L,n(l .r l () I L r A rl n. s h,>hrrl l ,c rn i ntrori rrc t t,' .\l ri n br C angrri l hc m hc n th, r * err: d l i 'l i ,u s tudents .l t the tc ol e N om.rl r:. l ,ubl i s hc d v \1r;l arti fl er i r) i /bar undc r thc D r$ ti rl r "S tc onrl c ri pos tc .

, , l d e r < l iscip lco { AL r in . Ih e jo u m .r l r Jisa p p u rcdi nl unel e}}..rl i cri t:rri rth i * u e . C a n g u ilh cn r ' s!r jr n d s JfJn llfPp o lite and R .:rmonrl A ron rl to si gntd ri ) n i c l c s th cr e . C,r n g u ilh e m ;r r i( ' lc, a cr itiq L ,cof thc .,gri t1o i 'n program and 5 o o i t h c < ,m issio n l l) cscJr tc( . K,) n t. Ilcg e l, C omte and N i etusche l rom the r e q u i r c d r u th o r s, cr cm p lilics th c co n ccr n s of the i ournal 's col l aboratri r\. C . r n g u i lh cm p u b lish td th r te tim e s in .llltio d c. " A l . r r n . P r q ,o sr u r /itlu c.r r r o r ( l' a r i\:Ritd e r ,1 9 3 2 ) , "i ;uropcII(l eJ2),PP I(l (l J0l .

and. l at.r. C prop os . angui l hem anc lA ron rc rt ti ' hr c ol l c aguc si n ToLrl ous e rr rhc S r)rbonnc .C rngui l hc rr w ns pres rnt nt r\r()n' sobs equi esJ n(l gr!. i n .rrl d res rl etc hi ng hi s c areer(s r:el r.l n,rr,/., { )c t. 21, l 9l J l ). s

l 9l l " A u t o u r ( l c Lu cie n 1l( r r , / tb r c' fft) fo ' ( Se p t. l9 l2 ), pp. 416-79. \ 'rtl !. (P ,r,i \: R j (,i fr, l 9l l ). i nd (hnsui l hc m r,rr ,rppoi ntc dto the l )c (i ( ,' i | ),r,ri I' x the ac ademi crc ar l ' ) ]l - I I, k)l l o$i ng rhr pfri { rl ol l rl l c he had t.rl en t ) m,)nagr /.i br.r profdr. l n thr l .rl l (rl I9]1, hf $rs s c nl to \i rl c nc i c nnl s , rv herc hc remai nrd { br the nc rt nr,> ,rc : drni c vc rrs .

R r ! i cw o i L u cicn ilcr r , ( i) o ir d ' io t' .2

, C h r r l e s An < l1 e r ftt tlc I u L ,., /r ./ ( P.\r is:Rie dcr, l 9l 2). Lu(i rn l l crr (186'l l e 2 7 ) h a d lo r d e ctr d tsb e e n r h c lib r ir i.m o l the Lcol e N ornrl e Sup6ri eure a n d a n in llu cn tia l in ttlle cr u a l a d r ise r to its studr:nts.as tel l as an unsucr c s s l i r l p n 4 x,n cn t < ,1f{ cg cl in F r a n cc. Cr n gui l hcm publ i s}rctla bri c{ pt'r n " r r l a c co u o t o l L u cicn I I( r r in 1 q 7 7 . " L I n l i ! r c \ c o l Jir c...e n Allcr n .r g n c.' 1 il' r .tp ..,p o r ( oct. l 9l 2),pp. si 3 l e.

fC onmc nts onl \nd i ngthi r.rrri rl e, pl . l O-l l .

l /,j rhoJ r.A dru../. i .nrc tqtmr:

"l J ,,u' s .1i n, ' rns c i s ' renrc nt rl c l .r w x i ol ogi c ." l < ,l l < rrj ). fti l os ophi qu. (l .rn. l el

R c r i ts o l a r t r < ltr ,r l A h in : str kr r r r n slatcdi nto ( l crmrn: i rnr l urn,i l r r r r rr r r r c n l' lir lr cnzu r Ijn l[]h r u ,, n W i \ t ( r mr n , 1 9 l2 ) . 1 o P o t t s o n so u cu n cr iscr vc,T h t* ,lt F ili.icn Chal l a\c. sui \i e (l i i nf (l i sfussi (,n ' cin l) e r r l crr. ed. Jul ;r'' S chmi dr (B crl i n:

"R . l c S(nn(, l r /)rrar (A l c .rn, l 9l ()). l t.i i r,/r' . R c rrrci /c /' c ns c ,gn,.nr,.nr,"i rl ," mfh rv ud (l rl ,. l 9l ]). pp. 2 5-27. l l o i c r. ''S urLrnc Int.rpri ' ti ri ,)n de I' hi s roi rc ." / tbrc r frol o! (11i (h ol N< rernhtr 1912. C ,rnr.hrL,(l \ rrpl \ i ptx r,.(l f.ol ,.r, t,p. l l 9-10. t9l l ), pp. I55;6.

c n t r e T h tr xL ,r c liu r sscn , F a licicn Ch a ll.tr c , {;corgcs C .togui l htm ct j can I c \ 4 a t .r l, e t d cs tc\te s ( lc llo ' lfr n d Ru sscll et d'A l ai n sur "Lr !rai c ct l i l i , l l r R t lsist:n cc." I) o i:u n l,n t' r lcr ' l ib r cs I'ropoi C rhi cr no. 1 (N i mcs: l r r p r i n r er ic l- a L a b o r icu s( , l9 ll ) .

A c ri ti quc ol nn ,rrti c l e bl j ac ques{ ,.rnuc hrrrl prrl ,l ;s hc di n ! tbrc spa' p,t i n rhc nrrt i s s Lrr.,rt r..r /r/'




" F s s a i s .P a c ilisr n ce t r i' vo lu tio n ," lib r e r p r o p o r ( March l 9l I)'

PP l 57-59

t 935
I)uri ng tht- ac atl c mi c y c ar! l el ]-15, C i ngui l hem taught at the hc .c oi l hl en ci (nnes. L{ r ' v as appoi ntl rl toB i z i ers l or the ac ademi c y ear 1935 } 6.

A r cp lv r c Ra vm o n d Ar ;n ' s cr iciq u e ' p u bl i sherl i n the prcvi ous i ssueo1 r ; 6 r e r p ro p o s( se ea b o ve ,lin a l cn tr y u n d e r 1 9321 " N t o . t e ! t . l le r r ;o r vu p a r lu i- m tm e ( e t co m m e n tc)," l rhr.s l roPor (A pri l I9l l )' p p . l l ? - 19 . S i g n cd "( ;.C. ' A cr ir iq u t o fa n a r ticle p ubl i shed l >v Edoual rl Il erri ot i n o r h c n e s r p a p e r It Din r o cr o r c f t.vo n o n APr il l 5' l 9l l . ' Li brespropos " t ) ( l ' O h j . ( ti.,n < lt co n scie n cc i ta co n sci< n cc de l i rbj ecti on ( l \ l . r v l s ) 1 ) . p p .2 7 2 - 7 5 . A c r i( iq u c o f th e a ( lm in istr a tive cir cu lar si gncd bv N ti ni sttr C ami l l e C h a u t c n r p sa g a in stth c cm e r g e n ceo 1 th e co nsci cnti ousobi tctor m'rvement' nn Ini " S u r l a P h i l ,xo p h ie c!n te m p o r a in e - H. Se r o r t.v^. ti ati on .i 10 P hi l ost)Phl ' ct icmporaiD. (L.r Rrnaissancc du Liwc). J. tsenrubi, lir Sources /cr .ourd'tr dc I ' r p h i l Dn t) h ft n tu ln p o r o mcn fr a zc ( Alca n )"'[rl rt;f. ]l (l 9l l )' .o c pP '151 5l ' ':{l ai n. /es /)rc ur (N rl , l 9} 1).' turopc R c ri trr. Frtr.rtr -17(19} 5), pp..+ 4s 18. * ere rrpri nrrrl i n rhr i j u.i i c rrnr1i ll.

{ .,,nr thi ! foi es

I'.1'\odatnn J t\ dni \ I.1/orn 20(f)rc . 196.{ ),pp. II

C onri ti dc V i gi l anc c tl c r Intc l l ec trrc l s A nti ,fi s c i rtes , l .c Los tts nt tr l c t patnnt (Pari s, 1935). C angui l hc m w as the anonv mous urhor ol thi s s i x tv trv o pagc(l oc umc nr, i pri nttd i n C ahors .The C omi te de V i gi l anc e des l ntel l c c tuc l s A nti -l as c i * es *'as created i n res pons eto the l i ebrurr) l 9l ' 1 ri < ,tsi n P ari sand the threat o1 frsci s m, and i t rc mi j D c ,l i n ex i s tenc eup to the rv ar. Irs l t.rdc rr ut' rc thc rthnol ogi s t P aul R i v et, c hai red the c ommi rree. rhc pl rrri c i s t t)rul ' rho l .angcv i n rnd A l .ri n. D u,i ng th.\( v ears ,A l ai n w as ol i en i l l and Lrn.rbl c ro I9 3 4 atti nrl v mt meeri ngs : C rngui l herr s l i i end Mi c hc l A l tx .rn,l n r,> L,l ,l s rrb,

sti totr. l o. hi nr ,)n rhe\e o((i ' \i on\ (5re J eannr A l ti .rndr,:. t< 1..l n S ouv rnrr "D.u\ n o u tclu \ Iir r e s fr a n r a issu r le s { ' r ig ir e s rl r l ,rguerre (Jan' ti brcs propos dt .l ti c helA l ts nJ tt: /f{ on' , r.\rc r, /c trc s l P ari s : Merc rrt tl r t rrnc c , t.r56l ,

1 9 1 + ) . pp . 4 0 - .1 ,1 . r l R t v ie r o f Ca m ille Blo ch , lcr Co u se s./eo.qucrrcmondtdl . (P .rri s:t{art' n r a n n , lg ll) , a m l lu le s lsa r c, I9 t1 - L c Probl i ntcder ori l l i nu dc kt oLteruc / ibr.:r

p.520). Thus , C .rngui l hem hi ms c l l s as qui te c l os r: ti ) rh( i r(ri ,)n ot the comnl ittee. l hc b()ol l c t has thru: parts : "P rc pos al s l or an ,.\gri c ul tur.rl I'ol i cy-," a hv o-part apprndi x c on' i s ti ng oi the res ul ts ol I s urv rr on rhc "agri cul tural c ri ri s ," i nd "N otes on many," rv hi c h dc rl r \i th (;c F i n frs c i s t Ittrl v ' \gri c ul ture ' n(l the rons equenc es oi l .rs c i rr rotal i rnri nni s m i n

( P a r i s :Ir icd r r , l9 ll) . "fcan Richrrrl t]loch, Oft'ronded la polit,gu. (Coll. Furopc Rieder. lell)"' p n , p o ' l ) r n . Ie l4 ) , F p . s 2 - s l. R n ie u . s;g n cd"G.C." " l l l r o i s m e u n ilcr sitn i,c. lifr e r p r o p o r( Ib r ch )911),pp l -l l 15


l h ir is th c la r t ,r n icle Cr n g u ilh e m s r ote krr l ri 'rcr 2ropos.Though hc C * r u l d rtm a in p e n o o a ll) clo sc to Ala in L n til rht htter'r <l eath, angui l hcm as b t g a n :r t th is tim c to d ista n cc h im se ll lio n 1 A l .ri n: pa<:i l i sm, he real i zed t h a r ' . . ,n c co u ld n o t n e g o tia te with Ilitlti' ( rcc / c r t u c i l r ,p p . 5 9 7 - 9 8 ) . S i ri ncl l i , Gi nl ror,on tntef C angri l hem rr.rs .rpp< ,i nl .rlr(, l i ,ul ous e,rs prol i ' s w rr ol th( ./r,J J f d. ti < i tl ,c , begi nni ng in Oc rober l 916. Il ( k c pt thi \ re.i c hi ngpos i ri on unri l rh. l \.gi nni ng ol the \"i chy regi me, .r' x l l )c gi n hi s m( rl i c ,rls l udi c s s hi l c tc ac hi n{ .








Jc la ' ' P . l \ 1 . S < h u hl. I:sa i sL tr fttr n < xio n /a p cn ca r c rguc(Al can' l 9)'1)"Iuropc

s(i r then pr( ol rhc phi l < .' r,rphv progrrn, ol thc Iv c i e - rhi c h s ere "l < ,r' theom i rrg," rr' Lrcn,:rc r publ i s hr,l .

. { 0( 1916 p P . :6 -2 . 8 ), +
R c ! i e \v. (Al ri n' o ' ' R . r 1 m o n <.l 4 n r n , Ia So cn tlo g icltcn td n d e ' o ' r cn ]f' rr'i i 'c . 1 ( ) 1 9 1 6 ). ( PP 5 7 l- 7 a . R c v i es. l 9l s)" 1ur?l


1n rhe l a l l of 19.10.C .rngui l hem tool l c av c i i om hi s t.rc hi ng at thf l v .ac (i i l i rul "Lnc , refi rs i ng 1d t(!x h i n the reac ti on.rrt c { )nrc x t i ' npos ed br (hc V i c h!


rrgi nrr. l 1c s rotc rD thc n, t,,r ol the A c arl enri cdc i ,,ul our: "l h.r' c n"t l x comt i al i gi de phi l omphi r to teac h' l -.rb,,r,Fami l v . 1.,)thc rl and"' (rhc nn)tto then dedi c at.rl hi ns el t t,' hi \ medi c .rl s todi r\. i n T,nrl oU ru ,)i i h(. ri n)(. rrote ,,1 C angui l henr

"Dercartcs ct la tccbniquc," in lro'our t/u L{' Contlrisintcrndlnndldc Phih\oPhic 19l l ) pp l l 35 l C o r t r , r J l ) cr cd r r .r ) ,r o m ( ll ( Pir i\: lltn r ' r n n , '5A - 7 (l 9U i )' C r n g u ilh e m \ Iir st co n le r cn cc p a p tr , r cPr intcd i n '('A i "r l p p . 8 7 - 9 ); in clu < lc<in th is r ' i( lcr '

ol thc vic hl gov ernmenl ). l k I{rrrnon rl A ron, s ho.rl s o.as

rhrn: "Some, l i Lc ml l i i c nd C .rngui l h|m, s ere gc tti ng rtad\ to tak r a modc s l p.rn - s hi c h rv asgl ori < ,ur- i n thc rc s i s t.rx rr' (,i /l nroi z ' rl l hri s : J ul l i aal , l 9fl l l , p. l a'a).

193 8

In Ftbnrarl l 9a), J (' J nC l \,ri l l i s . r' ho ras ttac hi ng phi L,w ,phr at rht' tl ni -

'':\rti\it( 1 t (h n i( lu ( tr tr ,lr tio n .' in Co m m u ' r i"rrl onr cl rl rturri otrt S dci 'tc s le i7 a n r l le i 8)' 2nd w ri cs' PP sl -i l 6 il' t < , u l o L r sa ind c p h ilo s< ' | h ic ( \.: |

vrni t'

ol S tr.rs b< ,r|l (then at ( l .rmi ,nt-l :rrrand i n A u\ergnt). r' r' tal l ttl to g t,r rc 1rl a," hi m i n C l c nnonc

thc S,rrt ,rrnncn P .rri .: he c ,rn' i nc rtl (l nqri l h,:m i

I crr.rnrl. angui l hc nrw i s l ppornrc d i n A pri l l 9' l l . \\' i th (-i \l i l l es and Lnrmrnuc l C

26' l 9l l t A r \ f a Pcr g n cn r t th c m r r tin g o i th c S"ci i ti on Fcbruarv (l i scussi ()n rrfthc "i ntnrs l i r , ' t n < , r ctr Cr n g tr ilh tr r ( J,. it6 ) in d icr tt\ th it i n g i l r r P o r ta n ( . ,,fb io l"g " r n ' l ' so cn lo g tt whnotogi '1tr" l i rr phi l ovrphv" b1 a tl i xussi on tn h a s b e t n t,r n ir te < lfr o m th i5 Pr in le d ve r sio n l i rl l orvtrl p.rgesIt6-S9

It I

<l 'Asti rr dc l .r V i geri e, C angui l hem $i ! a \ri tc r

ol the ti rs t 1r.rc t,)l thr rc s i :

r ri nc( rrwrnrc nt, Irh.t(,rft,n, n l q+ l (s c c S i ri nc l l i , (,l at:r< rtrvrrtr//c ttuc //t. 599: p. i (i i l l es I i v r rnd l -rrn(oi s C or(l . r. .1 naus , uw l Fc ! .l Io l !:rna J rrri .r r.,,ndn.c ftt

..tuvcrgne 1910-t91.1l P ari s : P rs s es dc l .r c i ti , I9901, p. l l ).

191? 1939 "C eni fi c ar de phi Lrrrphi c gi nc ral . .t de l ori { tuc . Indi c i (n,n{ bi bl i orr.rfhi qurs ,' i l l c: ImP ri D l cri e F \ V i t h C . r D i l lt I' la n r :t. /r o r tl r /c /,,i? ,( tu c.rd d r r r dl r (J\'l i l rn I t , , b e r t e t 1 lls, l9 le ) thc l l i bl n'thi quf I h i s te xtb r Dk h .r ' b ccr r r n r tr tr cm clr d itli (ul t 1" ti nrl i l v(t' ol '\l ar{ i l l e rhc n a t i , J r a lf in Pr r i\ h r \ o n t co P! l' h n tt $ is r ' r c bi ng l!( ' c o l - li' r r l ('use l \ro 'rIher textbrtoL; br x h i l c C a n g u ilh tr r tva ! ir th e (rrhcr subi (( t\ thi t t h c s . r n( .r u r h o r s,,,n p ir ch "l" 1 1 r a n ( l ir \( h r tic\ - th( C Bul l utn < I Ia l ,(rl dri l .c rrrrrr/c-\rrorl ' rrfrr20. I (l 9.l 2), pp. I l 0 I l . pi rt oi thc i r

A bi bl i ogrrphy (l ;r s n,1l fnl s pri ' pari ng tht (c rrl )rrr.rs t r<.n Lt l c phtl oi + hi 4

rhi ( c (' nrpl c m(nt\ the bi bl i < ' { ,i phv pul ,l i s hc i l bv

.ri l l i s i n rhc /j ui /drrr th( ptu\rors l rnr.

"C onrme nt.ri rc troi s i i mc c hapi trcde l ' hv ol nti on.r[!tri (c ," B ul ].tn l c h l .aLuhi au dt:1turc t de S ta^houra2l (l ().12),pp. l 2rr 1t rn< l l ee-1,1.


,lo I

i t Z i l:= ii-=1 , i1:
l ; .

it =:i :1 2 i , =; = + z : =;7| z:"'ii :t= ;- r l
;1 :

i i = : =: ; ;i

z; :

': :i i :=

r t ": ?

; E i Siarj+1 : : =:j"i=,_==i

Z a ,=4 '!az r.i =

=:: a ," =tii = -,2i:

:i7 =

, ---i

;:;l.ij:"=ii =r)=r=:?i::i i+. =:i.
: ! 5" . o d i f i.! ;zit=;:i?-!i:1iai

: : :


:2 : : r :

i= :: ;i


; 2 ' i l =-ii=7:zZ 1--: ' : I it : := :; Zl :; l::: ::l'

; E tl E Er i l E;i t:1 r+=j F_i T ::j := E=
ii, ;,) r===:!;i:= i = 1i =,;:=. a =ii
: i=: : ': ir ti i + i - = - ,_ !i rii- :i ,_ j . :

: ;

I :: i
.ij ::

: : t ; ; =z? :7i z i: i7: t iii, 1: , =j
- ,;i i 1 1 =r ;i i i :' i :r z i ': i :

ii-= zz,1

i =: : i : =; i i i z


-6+i 4i
4a i:


, ,-'== i;,;1z ra ;1; i ';; +'+: :;i"1 E 1 :::i - ::t= ;
t =,=;-i1


gF: d : =

; i: t t ; 1 :
iir+ ; i= S i :

? ;,i j


: : ! ii, --* e i. = : = | +7': I




$ ;i i ;::

lli= liali; i?




' , iii;

i . Eta- = != a = i : , :izl , i;"2:::i=: u t=?=ilZti;11:

;=i :-1 i: j

i=zji::; ;,2i1:;Zii. i::ia+
'i -ti i = :- i i :t- = :f:ir=:ziift


i: ii: = iz ' i: i = 2-r:.:v:';';:i


l 9'16)' l,r { l e s L r t t ! cs d e Str a sb o r - r r g . scicu lc lt) 7 ( Pa r i r: I ts l l tl l es Lertr(s pp. 1'll-75. r l n c l r r< lccl. ( ith r cvi\io n r . in I o Co n a a ixanccd' /'r rr'(1952)r '\trrcts l i o m t h i s r n ir :lc;r r c in clu d td in th is r c.r d tr ' " C c o r g r s F r i ed n ' a n n , f.ib i/ t SPin o /' \l' a tis: Ca l l i rnarl , 1916)"' Bul l tti n tI 1a r


"l 'ri l acc, " i n Inl m.l nu.l K rnt, I' s uttpour i nrro< l w n n phi l ot,phtt l c ,oruty .rfti r(i .fi D i !/dtrc (P rri s : V ri n. 19.19). l rans l ati on, i nl rodu(ti on anrl norc s br l toger K c mp1. "P ri \cni rti on,"i n"N l i thi mal i (l uc \(t1,)rmnl i s nl ((l ni di tpra\ntap.rr(;.(.rngui l h .ri )," l )! J ei o C r\ri l l i \, p. 158. R rf(i c ,ntrrnorrir,rl r ,l r pl i i ' s ./* i i


,g f o c u l t l t ] ts L cttr s,lc Str a sb o r r r2 5 ( 1 9 a 6 ) . p p 4]-'17' Rer ir:s

].l t(l Q4q).

t9 4 ' l

Pos thumous publ i c ati on ol )o rrti c l f C angui l hc m l i rund among thc prpc rr l .ft trv C .rv ri l l e' (pp. l ;9 6+ ).


( o h i!^ e t n or n ,cs d t I' h o n r n r r a u tr a va il."

i rl l crnol i ondu\tt

''l l egcl r:n l r:oc t," 'D ci ol otl i e pp. l l l 2-97.

l B r' tn .l ' hi s k rft'tt l t phi bophi t n' )i gttus cri 29(l 9.1l l -1e).

2 3 ( 1 9 , f 7 ) , p p . l2 { ) l6 A n t ssa r ,r n ( ico r yts I r icd m r n n s lr o l' lin cs hunutns du Inoch'n'\mt nt, / r r r , c /( P i, j' : ( ;a llim a r d . 1 9 1 6 ) " J ( r n C i v i i l l a s ( 1 9 0 1 - 1 9 1 4 ) ." n t 4 1 6 n n r tu td ts o n ni cs 19j 9-t915' < l c l a F a c u ltt d e s I cttts I r t l n \ . l e li) , t']u['l i c'rti on\

frtrac ts l rom rhi r arti (l c $(r. (N ,^. l 99l ), pp. l 6-2().

rc publ i ' he,l i t.l l taaz nc

l i tt[tdi r. )< r\

tlc Str .r sb o r r r g fa sci cul e l 0l (Pari s: t.t' Il cl l ts .

K urt (j oll s tc i n. "R em.rrquc ss ur l e 1:rrbl i mc i pi s ttrmol ogi quc rl e h bi ol ogi t, ' i n (orrrar t' r.r' dr.n.rl l c phi l ory hi t rtui rri rrr,c r.Lr' \ l tl q. \ol . I (l ' i ri ' l IILrrnrnn. l e5l ). ptr. l l l -.1l . Irns l atc d l i om the tnul i s h l ,r { i c orges t-rngui l henr.rD (l S i ntonf (l J ogui l hrm.

p p . 1 .tl- ;t{ .

5rrr /n \ \ i r h C . F h r.sr n in n . " Avr r ti\\ctn cn l d e ' ' ld itcu rs," i n i ean C avri l l cs' dr Fri ncc' t a 1 1 r 1 uct lo th io r tt le l< t icicn .. ( Pir i\: Pr cssestl ni tcfsi tai res c l q + 7 ) , p |.,\- \iii. ! S e c o n ( l.( litio n , Pr css( tln i\l r sit,r ir cs( lt Frant ' , 1960; thi ni r(l i ti ('n' 1 9 7 6 ; lir u r th cd itio n , Vr in l9 u T ' P a r i s .V r i n . anni ts 19l q 1915' " I ' l . r r r r i t r :I I alb r ' .r ch s,l' h o r n m e ct l' o e u vr e ' in t/l nrori <r/rl ts Fr<i cul t l t)3 (P ari s: t , r b l i c , r r io n r r lr la F a cu lt d cs I Ittr e s r lr Strasb,,uru. 4l B , l l ' ' l, r ' r , ' . 1 " 1 7 t. tt") o l) itc cn F r a n r t i la p h ilo sophi c t'i ol ogi quc " R cvur t/c " N o t c s u r l a situ ltio n |, ' n , i r p r t , r tg u c,:r d ,:n r o < r lr5 1 1 1 9 4 7 i. p p lll 12

199r ,
"Fss.ri s rr sL quc l guer prohl i nrt; c onc c rnrnt l r n,,nn,rl c t l c pathol ,rqi (trrc ," ul J I' l i .rri ,,r)\.1. l aI.rc ul r,l rl c s Ltrrrrs rl rS tns b,,urg.fa!c i rul rl r)o(2n(l Pari r : Lc s U el l esl .c ttres , l 95t)). \\' i th a nc $ "P rrhc c (l ( l .r deux i i .nrc i di ri ,,n." f(1..

tq5 1948 ''t-t nornrrl c t l . pal hol ,' { i quc ," i n l { .na I fri c h,. c rl ., t,rt. -\rr' nt r/i ne< l c c i nt unti l L J | r g u i l h c m h r ( l r r tu r n e d t( ' tfich in g in Str a sbourgi n 1944r fi onr l 'i )+l t 1 e ; 5 h c $ a s in sPtctr u r g tln ir a l d e p h iltxo p h ic' r.r,/,,,rdi n.(P .l ri ' i Lc s Frl i ti onsnrc rl rc rl c s e l .r l )i rne l ra|\J i v ,, l ,)51).\(,1. l , rl

pP .27- ll.







c l n | l r r d c d , * ir h r e visio n s,in Io Co n n o ir so n r t/r /.]l ;r (1952 )

cel l ul ai rc" (pp. 2l l

l 5),

N ote s ur l c s rapports dc l a theori e c c l l ul ai rt et

de Ia phi l ov ,phi e de Lei bni /" (pp. 2l s -17) and "E x trai ts rl u l )nrou^ rur

, B c s o i n c t t c n d o n < ,:r Ie \i( \ .h o isiE e t p r i' se n te sp a r ( ie,,rgesC rngtri l h.m ( Pari s: s I l a c h c t t L . 1 95 2 ) . A r c r d c r . ( d it.' ,1 h r C.r n g u ilh e n r .o f c\tr a ( ts ttrkcn l ronr thc srtrkr.t i h ich r va sp u b lish crJ D rhL cr)l l fcti on "Tcxtcs " u n d e r h is d ir cctio D l hi s .ol l .fti t)n i ncl odes c t d o c u m e n ts p h il,A,,Ph iq u e s" b i o l o g i s r s; n d p h ilxo p h e r s, o t h e r t i t l o cd ir cd b y Gille s I) e lt,u zc, lca n Br u n , l r.:nri s C ounds, R obert Pagt\ and Jacqur t;uillerme. as well as r ovo rclulr.e lnro,lution d l'histoirc

l 'onatani c du rery edu(.no par S tenon en 1665 i mes s i eurs e Ir\s s embl a. rl de chez mons i eur' l hc v c not, ,i P ari s "(pp. 2l 7-18 ). The scc ond edi ti on, ri ri s i e et rugmenrae," $as puhl i s hed br. \1ri n i n

1965,and has s i nc c bc en rc pri nred nunl ti nes i ex trrc \ from th. l i trh edi ti on (1989 )i .e i nc l udc < li n thi s re,rdc r. Thr brx ,k s rs trrn,,l al c (lj nr, l ri l i .rl and Spani s hj n 1976. "l a C r6ati on arti s ti gue s c l ,)n A l ,l i n," A c fr. d. l mi tuph\i gut c r J ,t norol c \1 (1e52), pp . l 7l -i J 6.

r / c r r o c n c c s , p u b lish u l in 1 9 7 0 7 1 . e d itcd b l Cangui l hcn l vi th studcnts i t t c n d i n g h i s scm in n r sr t th e In stitu t d ' h isto ir e d .s sci t'nccsat the ti me (scc b e l o s , 1 9 7 0 r n r l le ll) . Nlo st !o lu m cs in clu d e : li ve-page"Prcscntrti on de l a c o l l c c t i < , n sig n cd tr 1Ca n g u ilh cm . I o C o n n a t s o r u cdc l< tt,. ( l' .r r i\: l{ a ch e ttc, 1 9 5 2 )

t 953
"l a Si gni ti c:ti on dc I' ens ei gnc mc ntde l a phi l o5ophi c ," i n t t D ' ti anl n. dc I.t

P hi l osoph i c . nenqutre nk tndtnndl e dc I' l i N L:S C O ,rri s ,ttN IS C (), teS t), IJ (P P P . t'7_26 . P rccc< k .d, pp. l l 15. b! .r " l ),l c h.rri on c ommunt rk s trptrrr," ri gned hv (i ui do C ,rl ,,ger,. Georgc sC rngui l l rtm, Fugc n l i nl .

i ncl ' l \ ! c r t i r { m r n t." r n o n r io n in gth r t so m c o l th c r:ss.r1s rrrl crlha*c Lecn r e v i s c r ls r n c c r h cir lin r p u b lica tio n o r o r .r l Pr e \tn rati ,,n(Pp 5 6)i l n"l ntri ' .r d u c r i o n : L n l ' !Dsa c lt viva n r ." p u b lish e dh e r . lor th( l i r\r ti me (PP . 7-12)r e " L ' E x p 6 r i n r e n t.r ti,) n n b io lo g ic a n im a le ." a le cn tr t gi vcD,)t rhe C entre i nt( r n r t i i ) n a l p . r l tr g o g iq u t d e Sivr cs in 1 9 5 l ( p p . l5 - 4 5 ); " l a T h i or i( ce llu la ir r " ( p p .' 1 9 9 8 ) , lir st publ i sh.d i n l e4r, i n the

I),,nJ l (i Il ,rc l i nn,,n,

Ibr:hi m l \l adk our, (;rrs r,r|t I4.,n,!1, N l erri tr N l < r,re,N .r\. N i l rD r ,!n,l I tum berto Pi nera Ll c ra. C angui l hrm s t{ ,\r i r rhc grnerJ l pre!enrrti on (' f rhe * 1)rk (1,)n. br rhe

. 4 ' l i h n 5 1 c1 9 1 > ,' l r h ,: F a cu lt6d cs L e ttr e s d e Str a sh,urg; s " ; \ s p c c $ r lu r it,r lisn r e "( p p . l0 l- 2 1 ) , "lUich in e et orgrni sm'' (PP . I2'1 5 9 ) a n d " l e Vir r n r tt r o n m ilie u " { p p . 1 6 0 - 9 1 ) , thr(t l c.l urcs gi !en .rt th. C , , l l i g c p h i l o :o p h iq u c in Pa r isin 1 9 4 6 - a 7 , lo llo \ri ni l rn i nti trti o'\ l ro'D i t\ \VJltl: " r ! r r r r , , r . r h, ; lr r l' + ,' p h r r l, r n " t r n r r n n .r lcr lf P,r r li,lo g iq u c" ( p P. l9 ' 1 2 1 :), pnri orrrI


l .rngui l hcm suc c c ededC .r:t< ,nU .rc hrl aali n the f.rl l ol l e 5 5 ds pr.,t(rn). ot fhrl o,rphl at the S r,rtx rnne.i n I)2ri \. as s .c l l as < l i rec rrrr thc Ins ti rut rl ' hi s r,ri re ol (1,\ !ci cncts rt drs trL-hni quLrol rhe Ll ni v c rs i tv oi pi ri \. l l r r !nri i i nc (l rh,r..

prLl i shcd' i n

unti l hi s reti f.ment i n l e7l .

1 9 5 1 ,i n t h ( lin r \,,lu m c o f th e So m n c ,lr n id cLi n,t (orr{r'l ordtrc, rdi tcd b v t h e s u r g co n Rr n e L cr ich e . th e n p r o lt sv,r a t thc C ol l i gc de I rancc and t h r r L r p p c n d icc.i " No r c su r le p a ssr g cd c h th iori c l i bri l l ai rr: i l a thi 'ori e td l :D tmdti on u onc + t .!( tuJ h\c du\ Il tl " c t X t Itt" <l k.rsi tai resd. Ii r)nc c , l 95t). ' i i c t.r (pari \: I)n,,\.s U nj -


Ltrtres' PrcP arcduncl er 's cdi ti on sa" prrttl i thcd bv Vri n t h t , l i r cctio n .,1C.r ' tr tn l]lch cla r d . ' \ r tco n d C a n g u ilh cm ' s Jir sr r ta tio n ftr th e Do cto rJ( i n l ' r ? 7 . I.h c b o o l s* tr r n sh tcd in r o Sp a n ishi n 1975 and Jrpancsci n l 9EE '

ol thr: l i i storr ol S c i rnc r i n l 95l J , and ht bc c ;rme.r i ul l 'cnrd as 'icc

' n(nrl l r prrs i dc nt,,l tht rc adc mv i rrm l 9' /l to 191i .

i n 1960. l l c

F . x tr a cts o m th t st,co n dcd ir n x o fth ls bool <are i ncl url ql i n thi s rtader' lr de d " t . e P r r b l i me d e s r { g tr la ti< ,n s :n s lo r g a n ism c ct di ns l '1 \oci 'nr,' C 'ri rr'c'r l . l / l r a n . . kr < r ilir cu n ,r r n r i/,:9 2 ( Scp t.- Oct. 1 955).pP 64-81' I h c le ctu r c, p p . tl4 7 3 ,islir ll,xr cd b ya d iscrrssi on'P P '7l 8l '

"Lr P hysi ol ogi eani mal r au X V l l l ' s i i r l e," i n R c ni -l aton, ,tl ., I l ts toi rcoLtni rul t t/crrcic nc c r.ol . 2 { P ari s :P r.\,i ts U ni v ( r\i t.ri rc \(l c franc e, 1958). pp. 59 J -619. v Llnthrngrd i n thr' ' rri orrs rc pl i nt' ol rl rc rv orl : i nc l url rd i n thi : rc rrl c r. ''La P hi l os ,phi e bi ol ogi c l oe,l ' ,\ugus tcC < ,mteet s on i nl l Lro)c een Fri rnc e:ur 1X ' X si i cl t," B ui l c th r./c 5o< ti rtl runl ai s e dt phi l a' ol ,i tc 5l (l 95tl ), pp. I l -26. /o R cpri nrc J i n E tu< l cri ni ttoi rc r phl l 6ophi (./., nLn(,ri (l 9ar8)r { \rr.rc rs

" O r g t r n i s m cse t m o d a l( ,sm ica n iq u o : Rillcxio n s strr l a bi ol ogi e t:arti si enne''' l' R c " r r c h tlo n p h i< 1 u t 1 5 ( 1 9 5 5 ) p p 2 8 l 9 9 . p N , , t a r .:r ic., b u r ,r n a n r lr \is o l l) csca r tes "Si rth \l c(l i l 'i l i or)," tl i th i ' d i s c u s r io n o l N4 r r r ia lGu e r o u lt s in tcr p r e ta tiorl ')i i t i n the second vol unx AuLri er'195l )' /b r o f h i s Dcsco r r cssci,n r r Jr c< /cs< r ir o n s{ Pa r is : 1956 h " l a P ( ' r s i e d c lte n e | . r ich e .' JRcvr c,"ilo so p h iqu"l '+6 ( 1956)' pp l l i -17 A { ,m m r r \ r r :r its o l I cr ich .' s in te llcctu.rl tontri huri crns. tbl l ow i ng Lcri che i n Ic N or i n a book c<l i tc<lbv

l rom thi s rni c l c rre i nr l udc rl i n thi ' ,c .rrl c r. "Qu'est-ce quc h ps y c hol ogi c ?"A c v ucJ c ,rri rdp} rri .iu. .r ,/f ,n,rdi c 6l .l (19;8 ), pp. I2- 2 5. t.e rturc gi !en.rt (h( (,,l l i gr phi l ow rl ,hi qu( .,n l ){ ,(mhef l N . 1< )56.

I:ol l orc i l l ,r "R emrntuf\ \ur' Qu c rt ,, quc l .r prrc hol rgi e?"' br R . I' ages (pp. 128-14). and.r c < ,nc l udi ng"N otc " bv C .rngui l htrn. l \rbl i s hc ,l agi n i n thr: C o hi c rrl our /' ona/rrc i n 1966 (rrpri rrl d i n 1967).rnrli n l :rul c s < l hnoi rc rt tl c p l rl t rop,brr c s J (196S ). ' i r,' r..r l r,rns l atc di nto E ngl i rh i n 1980. l nc l uded i n thi s ,rader.

t h . h n r ( ,u s su r g fo n \ ( lfilth t- ,r n g u ilh e m h ad ri i tu*tl n , t l c r l c p a th o lo yq u c r n < l h a d p u b lir h tr l ao rrti cl t t('i.hc in l9 5 l.

1959 l9 5 ; ( ;. l l otrl i gand et.rl . //onnorti <i " S u r u n . F p isti' m o lo g ic co n co r d .r tr ir c," in J'r r"cn"r (Prri': Irre$cs ct ./ frr Gavarr Bochci rd: ! tu,|.\ ttu Philon|hk 'r.r'f . U D i \ f r sitr ir ts ( if F tJn ( r :, 1 9 5 7 - )PP. l- 1 2 " F i , n t c n c l l c, p h ilo v) Ph c tt h isto r icn d e s scie n ccr,".l nno/cir/i I'l Jntcrsi tldc l \tri ' 2 l ( 1 e 57 ) , p p . ) 8 + 0 0 . , )' R , :p r in t| r l in I r u ,1 r J h ,Jr .,Icd r r i. Pi' l r ol tr. th\ !.i t'(.r 1196$ "Pl l hol ogi e (' r phv s i ol ogi cdr l a thrroi rl c aL,X IX ' s i i c l r," I/r.r/i tr l or I952 58 9 (l trs9) . pp. l 7-92. 1l,rs c ,l .r l c l turc B i \.n .1t thc i .rrrrl re de Il c rl c r i ne, Ll ni ' c ri i r\ on ,rl

Strrsb< ,urg. l anuary l { ). I95u. R rpnnred h E rul tt J hi s toi rttt dc phi l os o on phi . .i . ! r(k n. c ' (196u). /ho/i : hr,l as i ts rrl rti rl c ' R c < rrri l r|l ,sti Iaux (l ( l l n\i i tut .l ' hi i r(,i i .,l (\ sci enr :es r rl es tc c hni ,l ur s rl e l ' ti ni reni rt rl c l rari .;."J h, l i rs l ol um c appcaredi n l 915. publ i s he(lb\ thc "Li l )ri i fi c fi l i \ (193.1)

t9 5 8
t . r n g u i l h t n r s a ' e lcce r l a co n .l,,r r r lin g n u r r h r In th! l rri t rnrri ({1rl l crd!mr

A 1(rn," tht mrj or I renc h

publ i shc r t,rr phi l ov ,ph\ i n P rri s .l r thc ti rne, undc r tht trl i t< i rs hi p rrl { bc l R $, thc i ounrl tr ol rhr l nrl i ri r,l ' hi rr,' i r, rl c s s ri rnLt,i rrri rs l frhD i rl r).\.

. lr o

+l r



( ) t h e r v o lu m e s t' cr c p u b lish cd lo r th c ye a n 1935 1935 and l 9 ]?-18' thcn i n 1949 (vol ume 5' p u b l i c a ( io n wa s in tcr r tr p tfil b y th c wa r ' lt r cappe'rrcd tl c tranct l hrce orhcr < l a t c d 1 9 4 3 ) .p u b tish e db ) th e Pr ( r r cs lln n e r si tai res (i aston Bachel ar<l rvas I v o l u m c a te r e p u b lish . tl' r e la te < lto r h e ,vcars hen l 95l (1951)and 1955 t l i r e c t o r o fth e In stittr t: in 1 9 5 1 ( ( lr te d 1 9 49-50)' vol ( 1 9 5 2 ) . l' h e la st vo lu m e r .r p p e a r e du n d e r th c cdi torshi pofC angLri l hem: vol unr l l {1960) i 'r u m e e (1 9 5 2 - 5 8 ) in lt) 5 9 , to lu m c l0 ( 1 9 5 9)i D l q60' 14 (1970 ?l )' (hc l ast 1 9 6 2 ,v o lu m c l2 ( 1 9 6 6 ) in 1 9 6 8 i vo lu n le t I I (1969)i nd another dci t o a p p c a r .d ir l so a s sp ccia l issu cso fth e Rr vued i i {di 'c "k'n'cr' ( h c Pr c\\c' sL In n ,t' fr ir iires<l c Lrante i n l e70 and 1972' i o u r n a l p o lr lish e r lh r J'\ et lc PhilosoPhrc J'ie"'J (1968)i extr:cts d Reprintcd in I1tu../{r fi 'srotc a r e in clu d e d in th is r e a d e r ' 1 r ( , mt his ir ticte ' ' A r e r t i s s e m tn t." /h a lisg to r 1 9 5 2 - 5 tl( 1 9 5 9 ) ' p l ' a hi rtus L l nsig n cr l.An n o u n ce m e n t o f r h e jo u r nrl ': rraP pcaran!( 'rfter o l s e v r :r r l ye a r s. suP i ' rl R " l h e r a p c L r tiq u ee xPa r im (n ta ti.r n ' r e sPo n sa b il i t(r," cvrtc c /'cnsci gn'm.nt , r i e u r I ( 1 9 s9 ) . PP l3 0 - 1 5 . J'r e i 1968)' R r p r in te d in ltu Je s< !' h n tr tr c r d c p b ilo sopfr;i rci cnccr e t ( le's6l ecti on nrturel l e " en l 85tt: " L e ' C o n c e Pts ( lc' lu tte Pr ) u r le xistcn cd et Altrtd Russcl wall'rc e ," Confifttu\ du Polorstlt h l)dtou Charle r nar* 'n v r . r c ( P.r i* 1 9 5 9 ) , { r ic D' n o . 6 1 . on JanuarY P ub lic ltctu r e g ivcn a t th e Pa la isd e Ii D'couvertc' i n P ari s' e r <L Phi l dr.'P'1i c rc/cn'6 (1968)' d 1 0 , 1 95 9 . Rcp r in te d in f.tu d e s ' h sa tr c '/?J 1951)' e o l i\la u r r ce D.r u m .r s, d ., ,,r ' r ,) r ? iif ld r'n'..r tP ari s: C rl l i mrrd' Rt!icu l sc' cn tcs2 (19;9)' P p 75-82' e A r c h i w \ n ttu n a tio n o ll ,:l' h tsta u d e s

"L'H omme et l ' :ni mal ;,r poi nt de ruc ps y c hol ogi que s c l on I)anr i n," R c v uc .l 'hi sto i dc ss .i enc es .l (1960), pp. 8l 9' 1. 1l Reprinted in I.udcr d irkbn( d h fiilosaphic ,/,:t trirnccr ( l!)68 ). Review of / l'c .4urobiorray>hr Charlx ltortin (N($ )brl: l)ovcr, le58), .'1r.hr'vt' ol i ntunauonal es hi rtorrct?es ri c rrc r l 3 (1960). p. l 5?. d' s R cvi cu of ttentl ey C l a* . Ow s ei Temk i n, w i l l i am L. S trau,' .J r.. eds .. Ii nrunn!t' of D rrrv i n l 7J ;-1E ;9 (B ,r)ti nrorr' :j ohns l l opl i ns tl D j trr\i ty P re\\.

.16 ni rn.rr l l (1960), pp. I57-59. 19591,.1rc hi v cis ntern.l ttanol eslhi s rc n,: < D R evi e* otAl v ar E l l egarc l , arw n and ttu Gtnc rol R c o/c r (C otc borg: A l m(l v i \t & Wi cksc l l s , 19513). k hi ' /t ,l p. 159. and S tl R cvi ex ol C onrv avZi rk l e, E v ol ur;on. orti an B i ol o11.v thc S oc ra/ tene(I' hi l adel ph i .r: U ni v c rs i tl ' ol P enns y l "ani aP res s , 1959). l rLhi v es i nrc rnatnnLtl c t I'ht'bi r . des s c i .n(s I ] (1960), pp. 159-60. !nt.tnati otk tl tr dfi ,1to,rc ,/c i r.i c n(.! l l (19(,()).

l 96l

''l 'fcol e

dc Montpel l i er j ugtre par A ugus te C onrti ." l c S rd/pc i l l ' + .I (1961).

pP.68 -71. Papc r pr|s ented rt rhc "X \rl ' C ongri s i ntLrnari onal rl hi i rr> i re dc l a

mi dcci ne" (,\l ontpel l i c r, S eptc mbc r 22-28, l rl 58). R c pri nted i n E turl ,:r d'hi sroi rc tl c phtl os ophi r: rs c i c nc c(1968); i nc l uc l edi n thi s rc a< kr. tt r/c s "l r P hvsi ol ogi ctn A l l rm.rgoc ." "J rr' ft\ i c t)l c s rI l r rc .ondt peri rrl c ," ' hrhni qurs rt probl i mc s ,l t l a phl s i ol ogi e au X IX ' s j tc l c .' i n R eD i l ;ton, c d.. t()me l l l : 1., S o?nc . c antc npotui n., \\)1. l . It ' .,er.c r, I1l 'n(;./. (P i ri \: P rrs rL\ U ni v ers i (ri rc \ (l c Fr.rnc e,l e6l ), pp. a75 7l l ,.t7l J 80. 180 81. l l tttoi r c gi ntrol e d.'


d'6pi st6mol o C a n g u i l h cmb e ca m cr m cr r b e r o fth e Co m m iss i onde phi l osophi c' nati onal dc g i r c t d ' h i sr o in d cs scie n ccso l th c Ccr m ite n ati onal of rhc C entrt ot rht c"n' l a r e c h c r c h r ,scicn tilir lu c ( CNRS) tlu r \ca r ' llc remaj ncd a m(nrl )cr to l 97l m i r s i o n u ntil h is r ctir e m r n t in 1 9 7 1 'ch a ir in g it fron) 1967

LInc h;nged i n the v rri (N s edi ti ons ol the bool ; i nc l uded i n thi s rearl er. "N i cessi te rl r 1a' di l l i rs i on x i enti fi qrrr' ' ," R ev ut & Itns c i gnc ntnt (l q6l ). pp. 5-{ 5. "t fC ommcnts l ol l ow i ng th| l c c rurc r{ t)l i ri er C (x ri df l } c ao(.gi r(1. I l )i l enl mr ' upi ri c ur l

4 ll








D h j e c tn itr lsu b ie cti!it6 d c la m cca o iq u c stati sti (tocet I'cqunal ('ncc c.'brrn i t i q r r c cn r | t in k) r m r tio r r r t < n tr o p i,:.' Bul l ctn p p l i l o J op h ,?s I 1 1 9 6 1 ) , p . 2 0 3 - 1 0 in ( l ,1 6 . f C l a u d c B on n e ln r . "Ricn n e la i\sr it vo ir q u e Sartrc do i endrni r 'S artrr,' " ,,l rrJ, / c t r r c r, Sj,,,t,,r /,r , llu Jtg r /.,lin . ll- 1 7 ,8 0 a ( ]()61).pp. l l l 4.l l a -\.r.,i .i l r.l ,,(dtrc J,j

P aptr prrs entc d;t thr:5v ntpos i um,,Drhc IIi n(r.\ .,l S r.j (nc e,ar tl )(,ti D i , vers i trof()x i ord,htl d(,nJ ,,h9-l j . 1961. un(l c f rhe.rus pi c c s thrt)i !i \i on ol

,,f Hi rton ol S c i c nc c ol the Intc rnati on.rl Ltni on ot rhr I Ii s tor! .rn(l p|i l oi ophv of \r:i enc e. R c pri rt.(l i n I:ruttestl ' hi :toi rcc t tl c phtotophi c l c s s c i c nc c s (196 8). uD dfr rhc ti rl f "l \l orl i l c s c t rnrl rgi L,srl ansl a rhr our c ne c n bi ol rg;r,... "l ntro<l uc ti on. La C ()n\ri ruri on dt l a phrs i r,L;gi cc omrrrt ri c nc e." i n (.h.rrl i ,r

I n clu d cs se g m cn tso l .r n in t( r vi( a ! r ith C angui l hcm concerni ng S,rrtrt a t t h e tim r th c\ \e r e b o th stu d e n ts a t th c Fcol e N ormal r:.

K av s c r,c rl ., t6rs i o/ogr (P ari s :Ldi l i on\ nr(!l i c atesFl ,rmnr.rri on.e6t), v ,)t. l t. pp. I l -4It. R rpri nrrd i D [tD J r\ J h' noj t. t! J r fti h)s ophn,J .\ !.,fr.r, (l 9r,l t), i n,l i n th c s c c onrl edi ri orr rrl K av s er' sf/rr!o/rar (P rri s : t trnrmi l ri on, l qTo), pp. l l -50; ex rrac ts l i { ,m thi s arti c l c rr.e i nc l uded i n thi s re.rder. "l 'hi sto i re dos s c i eni :c sdanr l i reuv n,i pi s tc nol ogi tl uc .{nnot.l & ntni rc rs i i tl . n/r,1 j t l 96I ). pf. t1_ t9. dr,(j ;rs ron l ].rc hc l arrl .,.

| 96-

w i t h ( 1 . I ap a s$ d e ,J. liq u cm a l, J. L llm a n n . "t)tr D i vel oppcmcnt .i l '6vol uti on i o X I X ' siicl.." L la lis l1 lir le 6 0 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , pp. l -6s. C an - q u ilh ln rc,' n d u cr td a r r tklv scm inar rt thc Insri rut ri 'hi stoi rc des

mi s c i e n ctr e t < lc tcch n iq u cs< lu r in gth e a ca < k c )ears I958-59 .rn(l1959-oO, t r i m a lk th r ce n ttn n a r y o l th c p u l) licitio n ot D arw i rs O.+tn d/ Spfti .r (rs c x p l a i ne d b r Cr n { u ilh cn t in th . !' Ava n tp r op,)s,'ip. l ). l hr i rti cl ., i (,i ntl v ; i g n c d l' 1 th c liu r .r r r th o n , r ,r s r r :p r in tr ,r a r ,r srr.rl l booL, /)u D ,i ,/op2crncnt l r l i l r o l u r n n a u l/1 ' r iicic ( l) .r r ir :l' ]r e sr e s lni rcrsi tai resdr Francc, l 985). L " l a I , l o n s tr u o sita.t 1 ( .m o n str u e u \," Dtr a lir c.l0 (1962), pp. 29-.+1. U a scr lr > n ,r lcctu r e g ivcn r t th c ln stitu t ,i cs hrutcs i 'tude' dt B cl gi que. i n t l , u $.1 \.,r n l:r :b r tr .r r r9 . Ie 6 2 . ttcp r in r t\l i o thc seconrl ,rl 'ti on,, C o , n d ,$ d ,.r ./. /d fi. ( 1 9 6 5 ) . , I C , , n r m e n ts in ] lg r ig o tto n . Ph il' ,so p h iet9 6 2 : R appon l c .tl . Iti cnnc S ouri au. p r i s i d en t h iu r v ( Pa r isr Nlin i\tir c d e I' id u rrti on nati onJl e, l n!ri tL,t P6dr g , , g r ( l u cNilio n a l, l9 6 l) , p p . i- .1 . i \ ' l in r co g .r p h cd . i r)

Repri ntrrl i n E tudtsJ hi s totre t,]a pfri toropi ri der nrfn..j (1968). tr.rns d l .rredi n1., Ital i an i n 1969,and C enn:n i n 1979. "l )i .1l ect i qu. c r phi l ov ,phi e rl tr non c her Gas r,rnB :c hrtar< 1." c v uehttrnori onol c R t. ph i l o' oph 66 l t96\ ). pp. 11i -5t. ^. R epri n(c d i n 1:.uJ c J h i s k )i t.t .tc i t< .aphx , ,rri ,i nc c r. ti ans l :tett i rrt,, r ./i th It.rl i in i n 1969. "(;aston ll a.h(l i rd et l es phi l ,x ,,phts ." 5c i c nrr,l .+ { rl arc h-A pri l l 96l ), pp. 7 t0. RepriD&11in Irurl.r {/hnare ct }L phto;qhr,/rr ItJl i rn i n 1969. l r'cirici. {r.rnslrtcrl into


"l Ii \t.,i ft. des r(l i gi ons et hi ,u,' i r( dr! s c i enc c \rtms l .r thi ori c < l u l i ti c hi s me c hc z Augu(e C ,,mte." i n l l i l onoc s ..tl c ton< trc ,(i ,rri rot. 2: L' l v enturc.t. I,c \pri l j. 196 3 (l ']aris : i rmann. l 196.r).pp. 6.1-s 7.

' ' l h c R o l e o 1 An a lo g ics a n d 1 1 < xlclsin llio li) si cal I)i sc(,vcri r5," i n A l i sl ai ' C a m c ro n Cn ) m b ic, c( 1 .. 5 ., r r it. a h d r 9 . (London: l {ei ncm,rnn. 1963), PP.507-21).

C onl nl ,uri oD r(, rh. t(\1!c hri l r i n honor ol rht. hi s t,,ri .rn oi s ci c nc t Al exa nrl reK oy ri : ( l i t92,l q6.l ). R epri D r.(t i a t trx tc s .hnare rl et phi l oty hi c (i .! i .i c n..\ i 1968). ''I c C onc ept dr rrl l ex e au X l \, ,i ec l e," i n K .t . Il orhs c hrh, c rl .. tbn /nrA oorr.

4 t4

in b t : B cr 1 lu : Dte En o icklu n g lcr h o n r in cn tokn P hrsi oh!1i c


unl l 9

(1968i ; c x trac ts from (hi s arti c l e are i nc l uc l edi n thi s reader. "Gottl i j ed K ol l er, D as Lc bendc t B nl ogenJ ohannes .tl nl l c f/d0/-/85,l i ." /rr 56

F isr h cr , 1 9 6 ' t) ' PP l57-67' / o l ' ! u n d tr r ( Stu n g r r r : on S eptcm' I n F r n ch . Pa p crp r e r cn ( d a l a sr m Po si um hcl d i n Mri nster tt\ \'i rntt\ I' b c r l 8 2 0 . 1 9 6 2 . RfPr in tcd in Etttd e s h ttotre u 'l e fti l osoP hrc

(196s) , 110. p.
Itev i eu. " fh6ophile Cahn, 1a Vieet I'oeuwed'Etienne Gcoffro.v SaintHilatre," Isr 56 ( 1965),

(re6lr ).
u r r c ct l' } le ron dc I'h('nrnrt''' '4r'hncs tnr" ' ' C a l i l c t : I a Sig ' ) i{ icitiDn d t l 'x ' d6 n d t i o n .,lcs.!' h isto ir c r .icn .cr I7 ( 1 9 { ,' + ) PP 209 22 L ectu r e g ive n a t th c tn slitu t lta li' n . in Prri r, on June I l 96f i )n thc R cpri nted i n o c c a sio n o fth c fo u r h u n d r e ,lth a n n ivcn r r y ol Gal i l eo's bi rth (19681' EtuJes <1'hrnirc a <tt philosoPhicdc' \.rcn1s vu e p h ito wr p h itlu c s ur I'i nadaptati on tl ans l c monde i C o n r m e nts in l ' Po in r d c l 3'+-l e c o n t e m p c,r a in ."Rcr h e r r icro Jib o r r ( l\' la r ch 1964)' pp l 09-58 and on C a n g u ilh e m \ t o r n m cn r s a r e p a r t o l th e rl i scussi on a paper prescnrcd ti L ' v P i e r r e Co lin b ca r in g th e .1 b o ve - m e n tioncd tl e'

Revier'. lgrdgation de phtlosophi.. I96i: R,rppon <lc tl. GcorgesConguilhen, prisidcnt

du j un l P ati s t Mi ni s trrre de Ic duc ati on nati onal e, l ns ti tut P i dagogi quc N ati onal , I965 ). Mi meographed. ''Philovrphie et Sciencc," Rcvu? l'lnscignentcnt dc philoirphiqu. 15.2 (Dec. 1964Jan. l 96s ), pp. l 0-17. A n ex c hangew i th A l ai n B adi ou, broadc as ton Frenc h educ ati onal tc l evi si on, J anurrr 2 ), 1965.


"P hi l oso phi e et V i ri te ," R tv ucde I' tns c i 6l nc ntnt k rophi gue15.4 (A pri l 1965phi l \1rv 1965), pp. l l -l l .

d L a C o n n oissa n cec ]a vir ( 2 n d e d ' I' a r is:Vr in ' 1965)' R cp r in t o l th e lih t r llr tir ) n . p u b lish e d bv l Lrchettc i n l 952 rri th a nerr strrtl l ' ! \ v e rtisse m e n t," vr m c a tld ir io n a l r e le r e n cesantl tht''rddi ti on ol the ( " L r N{ o n 5 tn r o ' iita r lc m { ' n r tr u e L r x" fir st prrt'l i sh"1 i n l 962 b r s b e e n r .p r in te d m a n Y tim e s. in Extr a cls lio m th e stco n d tr liti' r n o f thi s book ( 1939) arc publ i shed l l ) i q r e a d cr . " L ' l l c r m me d c \' a sa tr :< la n sIe m o n d e d + Co Perni ': l s'+]"' i n C ontntntoroti on obrc lt)61 r1u uncnne)lc quantnc c.ntcnd|" d. h rr'ort<l \ndri Vtso 19-11 a ( l t r u sscls:Pa la isd cs Aca d tm ie s, l9 6 q ) ' Pp ' l 4s 5't' R r p r in ttr l in tr u ,lr s d h ,r l,,tc cr Jf PiilrxnP l )i r'l cr r'i 'l ]'c' (l ()68)' "L'lrlie rle m{rlccint, r'rptrimentale selon Claudc Bcrn:rcl" Collrences 'lu ( c / r b Diir ,r /r ' ,:a cPr r is: Un iw' r r itr ' r lc lJr r is' 1965). s6ri e D ' no l i l l Palats l hi s edi ti ('n

s An ex c hangc ,i n the rv ak eol tbe di s c us s i on i th A l ai n B adk ,u i n J anuarv * 1965 (s ee abov e entry ). on Frenc h educ .ti onal teLev i s i on, ' i th A . B adi ou, D . D rev fus , J l l . Fouc aul t,J . H v ppol i te, P . R i c oeur, broadc as ton Marc h 27, l 9(,5 .



l e N ornal c t h pothol og,gu.(P ari s :P res s es ni v ers i tai res Franc e, I966). de U R epri nt ol the s ec ood edi ti on, w i th i rs prel ;c e, publ i s hed by Les B el l es Lcttres i n 1950, and i nc l udi ng a new s ec ond part: "N ouv el l es r!fl ex i ons .onrerndnt l e normal er l c pathol ogi que (1961-66)," pp. 169-222, and a bri el ' A v erti s s tment" (p. i ). The "N otrv el l es r6fl ex i ons " c orres pondi n part to a c ours e gi v en br C angui l hem .r( the S orbonne the prrc edi ng y e.l r (M. Fi cha nt, "GeorgesC angui l hem et I' i d!e de l a phi l os ophi c " 119931, 38). p. t h;s edi ti on appeared n thr "C ol l ec ti on Oal i en." edi ted bv C angui l hem, i

P u b li( . lcctu r c g ivcn a t th e Pa l;r ird t l a l )'couverte, i n Prri s' on Ii ebl ts sci cncts n r i r v 6 , lq r ' i. RcPr in t( ' .l in I' tu d ., .1 ' h i\t.i r( tt dc phi l otophrc



a n d w h i ( h in clu d e d sto d ;cs in th r h ir to ^ a rd phi l 'rr,rphr '.,fbi ol ogl - and ol in m e d i c i n e . Am o n g th e tille s a PPca r in g th is seri esuere rtrks bv several hjs \tud!nt\, Ylett! Conry, lrrnqois Dagognet, Nlichcl Foucault ant-lCanillt t . i n r o g e s./- e No r m a / cr te p o th o lo g iq u ewa sr tp ri nl ed i n that col l ecti on (the id ( Diicn l to r hi s ont) !nti l 19l J'l .shtn tht "tr c unrevi sed,i n " C o l i e d i on Ga lie n " ce a se dto e xist. l h c tcxt th{j n aPpear !d, f o u r t h a n,t iilth e d itio n s t h e n t w co lle ctio r ) " ( lu r d r iSc" ( Pn ' ists tln iversi tJi rci rl ( F'rncc) in T h e b o o k u ' a str a n sla te din io SPa n ish 1971,Gc.man i n 1974, Ital i an in i n 1 9 7 5 , En g lisb a n d Po Ytu g u csc l9 1 8 a n d lapantsc i n 198l ' n E " L e T o u t e t l a p a r .ie d a n s la p e n stc b io lo g iq u e ," Les tu.l ?s hi l osoPhi ques,s ' P 2 l . 1 ( 1 9 6 5 ) . p p . l- 1 6 . Reprinted in EtuJesdl isbne et de Ph o\oPhieder scie'.er (1968)i c{tracts f r o m t h i \ a r ticle r r c io c\r ltd in th is r e .r d cr ' olx

rorrr c r dc phi l orophr de: s .,fn!.' (1958). l h t Ghn\

pour / dndtrr,' , qhi c h

l i rst appearc d i n mi meograph i brm, w ere publ i s hed by the C erc l e d' 6pi s ti rnol ogi c dc I' E c ol t N on} al t Loui s A l thus s er. P ubl i s hed i n Fngti s h i n 1980;i nc l udc rl i n thi s n.rder. R evi ew of "l \' 1.D . Grmek , ed., C l audc B ernard, C ahrr de notes(1E 50-l l l 60) (l ar i s r (;al l i nrard, 1965)," R c v uc hrs rt c /c , d rrc l 9 (1966), pp. 405-406. ' c i !r.f! S i ngul i c r et de l a s i ngul ari t6 en i pi s t6nrol ogi e bi ol ogi que," R oue i nterf"D u ( nttnnal c dc phi l os ophi el e66), f. l l 5.l The s urnmarl ofa l ec ture C .angui l hemgav e to the S oc i 6t6 bel ge dc phi l os ,,phi eon Frhruarv 10, 1c 61. S upi :ri rurc . a grorp ol s tu,l t' nts c l o\e ro

l 96t

"Pr6facc," in Claude Btrnard, / eqonssur /cs phtnonines de Ia vi': .onnunt d r i ' n ? r u r.t,r !r i vig cr d u t ( Pa tisl Vr in . 1 9 6 6 ) . Pp. l -14. I n c l ud cd in th is r e a d e r .

"-l hao.i. er tec hni g(redc I' ex pari menr,rti on(he/ C l i (rde B { rnrd,"

i n E ti c nnr

Wolf, cd.. Pnrlosopi;c ct ndtho<!aloqicscienrifiquesrlc Claude Bernorrl (Paris: N 1i \\on, I-ondati onS i ngtr-P ol i gn.rc ,1967), pp. 2 l -l ). P aperprc s entedat an i ntc rnati onal c ol l oqui un organi red l br the c el et,rati on of thc c entenary of thc p!bl i c ati on oi C l aude E c rn.rrd' s/ntrodurtnn i |' l tul c < l el a ni dui ne e^pi ti nent.tl c , i n 19t,5. R epri nted i n E ruder (1963). ti ans l ared i nto C erman i n <i 'htrtoi re r tu phtl o:ophuJ ts s c rc ntts c 1979. E x trac ts frorn thi s arti c l e art i nc l udc d i n thi s rc ader. "Ll n P hv s i ol ogi s to l < x ophe: l rudc B emard, D rrri oaur (196?).pp. 555-72. phi C 5.4 l -ec ture gi v en at the D i partenrent de phi l os ophi r, Ll ni v c rs i tede Montri .rl , j n thc 1;l l .,t l e66: i nc l uded i n thj 5 rrn(l c r. "Mort d e I' honme ou 6pui s ernent du C ogi tor" C ti ti qu? 212 (l ul y 1967), pp. 599-6t8. Lssavrrevi$v of l\lichcl Foucault, lcr ,tlors cr /cs.fiordr (Paris: Gallirnard, 1966).A l $ publ i s hed i n l tal i an (s c e bel orv . rl v o c ntri c s dow n). "D u C .,nc c prs c i enri l i quei l a rel )c x i on phi l os ophi que, i n C ah,ers phrl os ophre, dc pub l i s hed bv the C roupc rl ' i tudo dc phi l a$Fhi e d. I' U ni rers i ti de P ari r. U N [F-]i (i [.1. no. l (J an. l e67), pp. 39-69.

' ' L e C o n c c l t e t l,r vie ," Rtvu . p lilo r o p liq u c < it l ouvon 6a (i \1ar 1966)' P t''

8 . r s cdo n tso p u b lic lcctu r e s g ive n a t th c Fc<rl edes sci enccsphi l ovrp h i q u e s e t r e lig ie u se so l th e t- a cu lti' u n ive r s i tai reSai ntl oui s i n B russei s, re o n F e b r u a r r l2 a n d .1 1 , 1 9 6 6 . Rcp r in te d in futdcs <1'hrstoict dc phi Lmphi c d e r J c t c ' .$ ( 1 9 6 8 ) . Extr a cts lr o m th is a r ticle are i ncl uded i n tbi s reader. .lgrlgatnn dt phitosophrc, 1966: Roppon & M. Ceorlles Cangutlhcn' prisident

d u i r r ) , ( Pa r is: M in istir c d c l' 6 d u ca tio n n a ti onal e, l nsti tut P6<l agogi que N a t i o n a l, 1 9 6 6 ) . Mimeographed. l l l -26' " Q u ' c s c - c e qu e la p svch o lo g ie ? "Co h ie tsp ,.u r I' a n<r/!',r2(N l rfch196{r).pP . sur'Qutsc M i me o g r a p h e dr e p r in t o fth c a r ticle , lb llo l ed bv "R emarques c e q u e l r p svch o lo g ie ? " ' ( p p . 1 2 8 - la ) b r R . Pagts, and thc concl udi ng "Note" b,v Canguilhem, all rlready Publishcd in thc Rcvuede nitaph.rsiquc t t d c n o ra lt in 1 9 5 3 . Re p r in tcd in r h e l9 6 i cdi ti on ol thc C ahi .tt Pour / ' o n o i y s eth e n p u b l;sh e d b y th c E( litio n s d u Seui l , and agai n i n E ruJerr/ti r ,

,1 1 6


A l e c tu r e b y Ca n g u ilh e m ( p p . 3 9 - s2 ) . fo llow ed bv a di scussi on. " M o r t e d e l l ' u o m o o e stin zio n e d e l co g ito ? " in M ichel Foucaul t, Ie Ponl e e l e ( c o s e M i l a n : Rizzo li, 1 9 6 7 ) , p p . 4 1 2 - 3 1 . I t a l i a n tr a n sl.r tio no fth e te xt fir st p u b lish ed i n French. 1968 "Claude Bernard et Xavier Bichat,",4dcr /u XI' Congris intemational d htstorre det s.ien.es ( 1965 ) 5 \1968), pp. 287-92. Published in Erudesd Iistoirc et de philosophE.!esrciences(1968). Etudesd'histoire er de philosophiedesscicn.cs lParis: Vrin. 1968). Includes: ' A v a n t- p r o p o s" ( p . 7 ) j " L ' O b ie t d e I' h isto ir e d e s scie n ce s"( p p . 9 - 23). previ ousl yunpubl i shed, b a s e do n a le ctu r e g ive n a t th e in vita tio n o f the C .nadi an Soci etv l br the H i s t o r y a n d Ph ilo so p h y o f Scie n ce , in M o n teal , on ()ctober 28, 1966; r e p u b l i s h e d iD Ita lia Da n d Ce r m a n in 1 9 7 9 i Cangui l he'n had gi ven a seri es o f l c c t u r e r o n " L a fo n ctio n e t I' o b ie t d e I' h isto i re des sci ences"at thc Ecol c N o r m a l e Su p 6 r i!u r ein I9 8 4 i " L ' H o mm e d e V6 sa led a n s le m o n d e < le C ope.ni c" (pp. 27-3s), pub l i s h e d ; n 1 9 6 4 ,r e p r in te d a s a p a m p h le t in l9 9 l; " C a l i l !e : la sig n ilica tio n d e I' o e u vr e e t la lcqon de I'homme" (pp. 37s 0 ) , p u b l ish e d in 1 9 6 4 ; " F o n t c n e lle , p h ilo so p h e e t h isto r ie n d e s sci en(es" (pp. 51-58), publ i s h e d i n I9 5 7 : "La Philosophie biologiqu! d'Augustc Comtc et son inllucnce en France a u X l X c s iicle " ( p p . 6 1 - 7 4 ) , p u b lish e d in 1 9 5 8i " L ' E c o le d e tlo n tp cllicr ju g ie p a r Au BUstcC .,rntc" (pp. 75-80), publ i s h e d i n l9 6 l; " H i s t . ,ir e d e s r !lig io n s e t h isto ir e d e s sciencesdans l a chi ori e du f!ti c h i s n r ec h e z Au g u steCo m te " ( p p . 8 l- 9 8 ) , p u b li shcd i n 1964; " L t ' s C o n ce p ts d e ' lu tte p o u t I' cxiste n ce ' er de's !l ecti on naturel l e' cn 1 8 5 8 : C h a r le s Da r win e t Alfr e d Ru sse l wa lla ce" (pp.98-l l l ), publ i shed i n 1959; "L'H omme et l ' ani mal du poi nt de v uc ps y c hol ogi r;ucs el on C harl es D arw i n" (pp . l l 2-2s ), publ i s hed i n 1960i "L'l d6c de m6dec i neex penmc ntal es el on C l aode B emard" (P P . 127-42), publ i shed i n I965; "Th6ori e c r tec hni quc de I' ex p[ri nrentati on c hez C l aude B ernard' (pp. l 4l -55) , prev i ous \ unpubl i s hc d; "C l audc B ernard et B i c hat" (pp. 156-62), bas edon a prper publ i s he< l ofthc X l th Internati onalC ongrc s sfor the H i s rt,n ofS c i i n the proceedi ngs ence, i n Wars awand C rac orv ,on A ugus t 28, 1965; "fEvolution du conccpt de rnethode de Claude Bernard i Gaston Eachc-

1ard" (pp. 1 61-71), pre' i ous l v unpubl i s hed,bas edon a l ec ture gi v en at the i nvi tati on o fthe S oc i 6t!de phi l os ophi e de D i i on, onJ anuary 24, 1966: "L'llistoire des sciencesdans I'oeuvre 6pirt6mologique de Caston Bachel ard" (pp. 1 73 86), publ i s hc d i n 1963i er "Gaston B ac hel ard l es phi l os ophei ' (pp. 187-95), publ i s hed i n 1e6]; "D i al ecti quc c t phi l os ophi c du non c hez (l as ton B ac hel ard"(pp. 196207), publ i s hed i n l e61; "D u Si ngul i c r c t de l a s i ngul ari t!en epi s ti mol ogi e bi ol (' 8i q' re" (pP . 2l l -25), pre v i oudy unpuhl i s hed,bas edon a paper pres entc dto rhe S oc i etc bel ge de ph i ]os ophi e, i n B rus s c l s ,on February 10, 1962, trans l rted i nto C erman i n 1 979i "La C ons ti tuti on de l a phy s i ol ogi ec omme s c i enc c " (P P 226-71), P U b' l i shed i n 19 53r de "Pathologi eet phy s i ol og' e l a thy roi de au X IX " s i dc l e" (pp. 2?4-30' 1), publ i shed i n 1959r "Modi l es et rnal ogi es dans l a,l 6c ouv erte c n bi ol ogi e" (P P 105 l 8),


publ i shed i n E ngl i s h i n 1963; "LeTout ei l n prr(i c (l ansl a pen:ee bi ol ogi que" (P p. i l 9-l l ), i n 1966i "Le C onc ept et l a v i e" (pp. 315-5' + ), publ i s hed i n 1966 l thi s arti c l c de i s !ometi mc s c rroneous l r c i tc d as "t a N ouv el l t' c onnai s s anc c l a v i e." publ i s h.d










w h i c h i s a c( ,a lly th c titlc o ith e su b se ctio nofthe book to w hi ch thi s ar' t i c l e b e l on g sl; " Q u ' e st- ce q u e la p svch o lo g ie ? "( p p . 3 6 5-81), fi nt publ i shcd i n 1956; r e p r i n t e d h cr c \ ir h o u t th e co m m e n t b y R. Pagi sand rhe fol l ow i ng "N ote" bv Canguilhcm. both of rvhich can be found in thc R.vuc d( nitaphvsiqk et


on An c x c hangt $ i th Franeoi sD agognet,broadc as t I-rc nc heduc ati onal tel ev i s i on, Febru.rry20, 1968. "U n l \{od i .l e n' es t ri err d' autre que s a l onc ti on," i n \4i ni s ta' c dc I' E duc ati on

d e n o r o l c ;n 1 9 5 6 , a n tf in th e r e p r in ts o fth e C ohnc pour I onol vsei n 1966 and 1967i " T h a.a p cu ti( tu c, cxp 6 r im cn ta tio n , r csp onsatri l i ti " (pp. l 8l -91), publ i s h e d i n 1 9 5 c. This trooL has becn reprinted many times. lt rvastranslatcrl into Japancse i n 1 9 9 1 .Extn cts fr o m th e fifth e d itio n ( 1 9 8 9)ofthi s book are i ncl uded i n t h i s r e a de r . " B i o l o g i e e t p h ilo so p h ie : Pu b lica tio n s e u r o p e e nnes,"i n R aymond Kl i bansky, ed., I o Phila'oph'! .ontenporoine, Chtoniqucs, vol. 2: Phtosophie <lessciences ( F l o r c n . c: l, Nu i) ta lta lia Ed itfice , 1 9 6 8 ) ,p p. 38?-9a. A r e vie w o l *o r ks p u b ljsh cd b e tr ve e n l9 s 6 and l 9{,(, i n bi ol oty and on t h e h i s t o r r o l b io lo g y. l C o m m e n t s in l " Ob je ctivite r t h isto r icit ! d e li penseesci enri l i que,'l qdr'ror p / r ? r ' c 8 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , p p .2 4 - 5 4 . C a n gu ilh e n is co m m e n t ca n b e fo u n d o n pagc' l 9-41, 46-47 and 5l -5 2. R e p r i n t ed in l.- M . Au zia s e t a l., Str u ctu r a h sneet nd.rnml ] (Pari s: l 0/18, 1 9 7 0 ) , p p . 2 0 5 - 6 5 ; Ca n g u ilh e m ' sco m m e n ts there are on pages235-39 and 260-62. "R6gulation (epistemo|tgie)" Lncvclopaediauntvrrrd/r I4 (Pitris: Encyclopaedia


Nationale, En,r?tic,r phtlosophiques:A I uso# de\ pnJ?'stu'l (le philasophte de I'e ns dgn?n.nt r..rrJ di re (P .rri s : Ins ti tut pi dagogi que n.rtj onal , 1968),

pp.1 33- 16.

"lean Hyppolite (1901-1968)," Rcvue/e mitaphrrigue er dc rr.rfdlc 7.{ (April-June


1969), pp. 129-l (). Tri bute to J eanl l y ppol i te, the res pec ted c hol araod trans l atorofH egc l , s at tbc E c ol e N ormal e S uperi eure on J anuary l 9, 1969. C angui l hc i n trnd H vpp ol i te had been s tudents at the E c ol e N ormal c and bc c amc c ol l eagues rt the Ll ni v er\i Ir ol S tras bourg and, l ater, thc S orbonne. "A!anr pr opo\." i n D omj ni qu( I ec oun,l ' Ipi 1' ti nD l ogi c htx ornl uc r1eGas ton ,d..4. l drd(P J ri s , \' ri n. l 96e). p. 7. Thi s brnL i r I.:c ourt\ mas tc r\ rhes i s ,prep.rredrndtr tht s uptrv rs i on ofC angui l hem. L'Eprstenoldqiu<li Gaston Bacheldrcl:Scritti di Congutlhm c Leroun, trans. R i ccardo Lanz aand ,\{ agni(Mi l an: J ac aB ook , 1969). It al i an l rans hti on of D omi ni quc Lec ourt' s I' E pi s ti nol ogi ehi s tori qu? dc GostonB ac hel aftl $ i th C angui l hem\ " P remes s a" p. I I ), to u hi c h a s c c on l ond p art i s added c ompri s c d ofthree arti c l es bv C angui l hen on B ac hel ard: "l a stori a dc l l e rc i enz e nel ' opera epi s temol ogi c a rl i Gas ton B ac hel ard," pp.87-9l l r "C as ton B ac hel arrlc fi l os ofi ," pp. 99-l 0S r "L,: di al etti c a e l a /i l oso ti a del ' non' i n C .rs tun B ac ht' l arrl ."pp. l 0?-16. l hts c rhrc c arti c l es l i rst :rppe.rredn Frc nc h i n t96l . i

L l n i v e r s a lis r a n ce , 1 9 5 8 ) , p p . I 3 . F R c p rin tcd in lir llo sin u t' d itio n s. " L a R e c h e r ch ee r p!r im e n ta le ," Rcvu et/e /' cn r r g n mtnt phl ottphque tE-2 (D rc. 1 9 6 ? - J . rn .1 9 6 8 ) .p p . 5 8 6 4 . A n c \cb a n { c wi( h Ch a r lcs M a ziir e s o n experi nrentalresearch,broadc a s t o n F re n ch e d u c:tio n a l te le visio n , F e b r u trr)6, 1967. " L c V i v a n r , " Re vu c< /e/' e n \ci| n e n e n tp h ilo sa p h ig ue 18.2 (D ec. 1967-Jan.1968),

1970 With S. Bachclard, J.-C. Cadieur, Y. Conry.{). Ducrcr, .J.Guilterme.p.G.

pp. 6s 72 .


H a r n a m d jia n ,R. Ra r h td , C. S.r lo m o n ' Ba vet,.lS ebesri k,Inttudu.ti .no I'hk. r o r r r ia r r r r a n r ci, e l: tle n te n ts t in sttn cntr. Ir.\r.'r.,l i oi r;r(Prri srH arhette. ' o l.

(Parisr Fl.lmmirion. /,, !a tlvnomqu.i'r f.nJ.. vdruc "C. Koncze.rsLi. Psvcholozlie i6l (1971). ll9-20 iel0). ' Rd uap,rrr/oroph,,luc PP.
R r! i c t!. 7l "Logi qu e dL: v i rant et hi s toi re de l a bi ohgi c ," S c i c nc es (Marc h-A P ri l l 9?l )'

r 970 ).
' Ava n t' p r o p o l' ( p p . iii- v) b v Ge o r g e s angui l hem.Publ i shcdi n C angui l C h e m \ co llcctio n "T e xte s e r d o cu m cn ts p hi l osophi que," i r i s ai med mai nl y a t s t ud e n ts in th e lin a l ye a n o fth e lvc6 e s.A t the ti mc ofpubl i cati on, thc a u t h or s we r c a ll p a r ticip a ti g in Ca n g u ilh em'srveekl vsemi narsat the Insti d h i\r .ir c d ( \ \ ie n ,.r , r d e ' r c, h n iq u e'. 'ur ' ' Q u ' e s t - ceq u ' u n c i< li< .' lo g ie scie n tifi< lr r ? " Or gonon7 ( 1970). pp. l -1.3. B a se do n a n in vitc< J cr u r e g ive n a r r he l nstj rute for rhe H i story ol Sci le e n c e a n d T cch n o lo g r o l th e Po lisb Aca d emy ofSci enccs, i n Warsaw and Cracow, in October 1969. Itcprinted in Id;ologic ct ratipndl'ti tlans I'hinoirc d e ss cie n cetle la vr ' e( 1 9 7 7 ) Extr a cts fr o m thi s arri cl e are i ncl uded i n thi s s

P P. 20- 25.
A n rs s ay rev i ew oi rranqoi s J ac ob' sIa l ogtquc du v ,v .,nr(P ari s : (;al l i mard, l 9?0). "C rbani\. P i r.rc -J c an Georges ," i n C harl c s C . (;i l l i s pi e, ed., D i c ti onorv ol S u' cn.l,( B t.ar.rpfrt(N es Y ork : S c ri bner, Iq?l ), ro1. I, P P . l -i . er "D c l a 5 L-i c nc e de l . c ontrts c j c D c e." i n S . B ac hel arl et al .' H omnr,tgr,i/ran U H r p 2oi rt.'(P ari s :P res s es ni v er' i tai rc s dc frrnc e, l 97l ), pp. l 7l -l t{ ) A c ontri bui i on to a book publ i s hc rl i n honor ol J ean l l )P P ol i tc th :(: vearsafrc r hi s death. Wi th S . B ac hel ard,Y . C onry , l . C ui l l erme, P .G II' mamdj i an' R . R as hc rl .C '

" B i c h a t , Ma r ie , F r a n g o is- Xa vie r ," Ch a r le sC. C i l l i spi c, cd., D i cti onarvoJ Str in . n t i f k Bio q n p h v ( Nc\| Y< - r r k: ih n e r , 1 9 70),vol .2.pp. l 22-l I. Scr " P r!s t ' n t atio n ," in Cr sto n Ba ch t.l,r r dfa r ,/.r ( Pari s:V ri n, 1970). pp. t- 10. . C a n g u ilh e me d ite d th is co lle cr n o f a rti cl cs,\hi ch B.rchel ard puhl i 5hed b e t w ee n l9 ll a n d l9 l.l. "iudith Swazev,Re/leresond )toor IntefFotion: Sherrington\ Comcpr of Integrativc .4rrton, I Iarvarrl University Press," C/to .4led,rd 5 (1970), pp. 364-65. Revicw. ! n t r o d u c tio n l " Ge o r g e s Cu ' icr : fo u r n 6 e s d 'i tudes organi s !er par I'l nsri rut

Sal('mon B)r'et, J. Sebe\tik, lntfodu.rion ri / fi,rroire d.' ntc'.cJ' !ol. 1: Obi':t' ni tl oi /c , trurrp/c r. Ic rrc r.i otrl s (P .rri s :I l .i .herte, I97I) S ec on,land l l nal rol ume. fol l ol i ng rhc ooc put' l i s hedth. p.^ t,,ttsrc rr, \i th r n( w A !ant-propos " (pp. r-+ ). I o nono l t h patol ogi to(Mex i c o: S i gl (,rti D ti uno edi tores . l 97l ). Ias madc l r' > rn A s ec ond< l i ti on * as publ i s hed i n l 9?l l ; thi s tr.rns l ati on the |renc h edi ti on of 196r,,i nc l udi ng i rs nes s c c i ,nd part.

197 2

d ' h i s t o ir e d cs scie n ce sd e I Un ir e r sit6 d e Pari s,l et l 0 er l l mai 1969 pour l e b i c e n r e n a ir e d e la n r issa n ced c C. Cu vi er," R cyucd'hi 't\ne des s|,trcct 2 3 . 1 ( 1 9 ? 0 ) , p p .7 - 6 . "P ri f.rc e.' i n Ini l i r tu L,tnortk , P r6:tnti : par U r\ l ' l l .)l .pp. l -,1. \tc hon. C j l l < x n.Lru' \' I nr * us { P ari \: V r.' "n.

"P 16l i c t," i rr Gas ton B ac hel ard,L' E ngogc nttntr.rrr' dr.ri ,rre' ari s : P res s rsIIni (l 1971 vers i tai rc rde Franc e, 1972), pp. 5-6. ''Phvri ol ogi r: mal e: H i * oi re," I:norl o2oec l i a ruk uni ani C a n g u i l h e r nr e tir e d th a t ye a r ir o m h is p r o fe ss orshi p the S orbonne,and from at t h e d i r e c tio n o fth e In sr itu t d ' h iJto ir e d e s sciences rl es techni ques. ct di a U ni v c rs al i sl rranc e, 1912). pp. 10' t5-i 1. R c pri nted i n the ne$ edi ti on ol 1939 unrl er a s l i ghtl v di l l i rent ti rl t; i ncl Lrded n thi s rc ader. i 's l 2 (P ari s rLnc y c l oP i tf-



''l klie <k, nrturc dans lit thi!rie . 1 ] ( N l.r r .h 1 9 7 2 ) , p p .6 - 1 2 .

et la pr:riquc mi:dicales." rUAicctri, Jc / /romn,c

pl i g uer (J ul )-S epr. 1974),pp. 293-97. B as c don : paper gi v en at a c ol l oqui um hr:k l at the hous e ol dugu;tc Grnte, i n P ari s ,on l unc 27, 1972ri nc l udc d i n thi s reader. "La {l ues ti on dc I' dc ol ogi e: La Tec hni que ou l a !i e?" D tdbguc (B ru\el l e\) 2l (N 'l nrc h1974). pp. l 7 ' 1' + . B as c don a l ec nrrt: gi v en at the "l ournats (l u protes tanti s mel i ba,.1l ,"i n S i \te,on N ol c mber 11, 1971. (orremP or.,rd, l i l an: \4on< l l ori , (N "(i asto n B ac hel ard," i n S c i enti dtic tec nol ogi v 197.1), ol . l . pp.65-6?.

A n cxt.a ct il in .lu d e d in th is r e tr d e r . It lrornal ct le pothologrguc(2nd rev. ed., Paris: Prcssc! Unnersitaires dc lir.rncr:, tt)1)1. R c p r in t o l th e 1 9 6 6e d itio n , r ith so n :c "recti l i cati onsdc dat:i l s (t quel q u e s no tcs co m p lim r n ta ir e i' ( a d d e n d u m to thc 'A vcrti ssement" fhi s cdi ). t i o n h a s sin ce g o n c th r o u g h se ve r a p r in tin gs. Extracs l rom thi s edi ri on arc l i n c l u d r d in th is r e a d cr . lo ,tlothindtisotion des doct.ines infom6: nrenrt' lc l Llnivcrsiti d! Pa s, I l r r D a n r . Ie 7 2 ) . ' : q \,) n r p r - r ) p ( ^ ( p p . 7 - 9 ) a n d co m m cn ts<,npages 67,68, 69, trnd l l l -14 l : v C a n g u ilh e n r . i h is c,) ll( ,!u iu m wa \ h e ld J unc 2'+-26. 1970. 'oD' Colloque tcnu d I'lnttitut (1'hktairc .les

D as N onnal cund rl asP arhol otrrhr.trans . Moni l a N ol l and R ol fS c hubc n (l r.rnk l url , ts erl j n,V i enna: U l l nei n, 197' + ). Trans l ati onol thc l 9l 2 s c c ond. rev i s c dFrc nc h c di tron fhi \ Iran\l i ri ,)n $as rc P ri nted i n 1977. 197 5

Ia dircction <leGnretes Cangutlhcnt (paris:

'l {ugLrs re ,' D rrc ,"i n S dc i dti c teool og' tLl L orl Ti nio/ I97j (]\ti l an: Mondad,> ri . C ''Iic. 1 n L r c/,1 < r c< /,an ,,./r ./,, l6 ( l,ir ii: t' r cl cl ,,t,l c(l i , u l 9 l I ) . PP. 7 6 .1 6 9 . R c tr in ti.( l in th r jtco n clcd itio n o f 1 9 8 9ri ncl uded i n thi s rcarl er. 197 4 ' ' S u r I l l i s t <r in .ilr s r cie n ce sd c la vic ( lcp u is [) a nri n," .l i rcs Ju t///" C onU ri s nl .ri n<tional <1'htstoirc scienccs 197t ), Confircnccs tlcs | 1 9 7 4 ) , p p .4 l r ,l. T r an sla te din to Cicr m a nin 1 9 7 9 . ' ' 1 , ' h n B r u { n ( 1 7 1 5 l7 tllJ) . L i T h 6 o r ie d e I' in ci tabi l i t[ rl e l 'organi smc ct son i m p o r ra n ( e h isto r iq u e ." AL t.s.h Xlll" 0 o nyl ri sl nttnoti onal d'hi sroi rcdt iniircs \Nroscrx: Nauk,r, tl ni rcrsal i s Francr, IeT t).,o1. l .l p. 125 28.

IC omm c nts i nl .l c tc ' d.l oi oi ..t,' .tl ,ru.' J ttti t(P .rri s :\' ri n, l e75J .P P . l s o i i l . ()n A nnc Fagor." Le ' Trans l i rrmi s nrt'de 11atrp.,rui s ."pp. l 6l -r-s . I hes ew erc the pn,c t' c di ngsol a c ol l oqui um hc ' l d i n C rtrti l i n I)c c c rn l ,er 1971. "P our la phi l os ophi e," l d N duv c //c fi ttqu. (N l ay 1975). p. 2e. c A s hort l etter by C angoi l ht' m ans $eri ng ques ti on\ rc { .rrdi ng oppo:i ' ti on to rc l i )rm ofthc nati onal progr.rmsofthe l v c r:rs , * hi c h x oul d al l Ltt the te:c hi ng oi phi l os ophy at that l t:v c l . l -hc ti tl e i s not C an{ ui l hc rn s ; al l anrw ers gi v en bv !' renc h phi l os ophers $ hom thc j oumrl c ont.rc t* l * c r: pub l i s hrrl under thi s namc . Itnorno l e e t potol ogi c o i mi ni : Gurral di , l 97i ). (R T.ans l ati onol the 1972 s ec ond,rev i v rl Frc nc h c di ti on. La Jbmocidn .l.l n)ncet>ro rcfltio n hs silllor I f1l.r' .Y[/// (\hlencia, Brrr elona: rfc l ua n I l i teras , 1975). Trans l ati onofthe 1955 fi rs t Frc nc h c di ri on.

r . i c r . . r ( 1 9 7 l/ ( iUo sco r v:Na u ka , 1 9 7 .1 )Se cti on IX , pp. I4l -.16. , R cp r in te d , x ir h m o d ilica tio n s, a n d u n der a <l i fk.rcnt ti tl e, i n Itl l ol ogre cr rorionaltti dLtns1'histoirc des scienccs lo vic 11971). h " l l i \ t ( , j r c d c l' h o m m e e t n a tr n .d cs ch o sts sclon Argusrc C omte dans l c P /aa Jcs tnrou\ s.!.ntifiques pout tiotqonNr ld socitti, t82)," L?:;t:tu.l.\ ftilaso-






t9 7 t
An I t e t n o r t <lc Jco n Co vo r l/tr(s r b ia le t lT a r n l: Pierre Lal eure, t976). T h e t e xts in clu d e d h a < ln o t b e cn p r cvio u s) ypubl i shed: " A va n .p r o p ( ,s" ( p p . 7 - 8 ) i " l n au g u r a tio n d e I' An r p h ith 6 ;r r e Je a nCavai l l i s i l a nouvel l e Facul t6des ( l . r t t r e s d e Str a sb o u r g 9 m a i 1 9 6 7 ) " ( p p . 9 - 34); " C o m m!m o r a tio n i l( ) .R.T .F ., F r a n cc'C ul ture (28 octobre 1969)"

medi c al s c hool rv htre C angui l hc m hac lc ompl ete< lhi \ (l .grc e i n nredi c i nc . K l c i n c onti nued to teac h at th ! uni \ers i l y w hen i t w as mov ed ro C l c rmont Ferrandduri ng tl re Gern)anorrup.)l i on l n 1944, thc (;c s ri po arres tedand dep orted hi m to the c onc (ntrrti oD c amps ol A urc hw i t?, (;ros s ros enand B uc henw al d, from w here ht' r' as l i berated i n l 945 H e publ i s hed w i tl c l v on hi s tol ogy , endoc ri nol ogy an(l on hi s rory ol bi omedi c al s c i c nc c s l n thi s bc tbrr K l ti n' s hi s tori c al P aP ers c ol l ec ted obituar), C angui l hem s ugges ted i and publ i s hed as a book ; the book rv .rs n l i c t publ i s hc d i n 1980, and C angui l hem w rote the i ntroduc tbn (s eebc l or' , s ec ond entrv undc r 1980) della vita ( Bologna: ll l\lulino, 1976) I o conoscenza I:1':onocinicnto de Ia vida (Barcelona: Editori.tl Anagrama' 1976) t977 Lltulogic et ratiandlite dans I lrirrorredcr rcrcn<.'r,/c ld ttr: No'veller itul6 des ct d. phi l os ophi e s .i tn(c r (P .ri s : v ri n, 197?). tnc l udes : "A v anc propoi (pp 9-10)r "Le R 6l e de l ' !pi s ri mo)ogi r bi ol tgi que dans I' hi * r' ri oA rrP bi e s c i enti fi que c ontemporai ne" (pp. Il -29). publ i s hed i n l t.rl i an i n 1976i "Qu' es t-c e qu' une i d6ol ogi e s c i enti l i quc :"' (pp l l -45)' 1970; de "U ne Id6ol ogi em6di c al eex enphi re. l e s v s teme B nmn" (pp.4?-5' + )' basc don the paper publ i s hed i n 197' 1under a di l l erent ti tl e i n the P roc eqf i ng ' .i rh, X l l l rh Inr, rnrri ,' nal C ongres ' l orrhel l i ' r,rr,' l S , ren(c i n Mu* publ i s hc d i n d'histoite

( pp.3s 3 9 );
" C o m m e m o r a tio n i Ia So r b o n n e , Sa lle C avai l l ds (19 j anvi er 1974)" ( p p . 4 t - 5.1 ) i " B i b lio g r a p h ie : Pu b lica tio n sd e je a n Ca v ai l l i i ' (pp. 57-61). A ncw c( litio n wa s p u b lir h e ( l in 1 9 8 4 . " Q u a l i t 6 d e la vie , d ig n it6 d c l.r m o r t," ltte s du ol l oque non.l i dl B i ol ogi eet d e v . n i t d c I' h o m n ., Un ive r r ir e d e Pa r is. le l 6 (N ew Y ork: McGraw IIi l l , 1 9 7 6 ) , pp . 5 2 1 - ) 1 . F i n a l r e p o n o fa co m m issio n p r e s!n tcdat ao i ntrrnati onal col l oqui um h e l d r t th e So r b o n n e in Pir is, Se p ie m b e r l9-24, 1974 (i t i s fol l ow ed by an E n g l i s h tr a n sla tio n o l th e te xr , p p . 5 3 2 - ) ? ) . C angui l hem w as a member of t h e F r e n ch o r g .r n jzin g ,,Ddr e .cp tio n co m m ittec ol thc col l oqui um. " N a t u r e d dn a tu r 6 e ct Nr tu r c n a r u r a n tr ( i p r opos de I'oeuvre de Franqoi s D a g o g nct) ," in Sd vd ' .,tsp ir v, b s lm ir e s d e Io rori on(B russel s: Facul t6 U ni v e r s i t a ir cSa in t' L o u is, 1 9 7 6 ) , p p . 7 l- 8 8 . " l l r u o l o d e ll' e p istcm o lo g ia n r lli sto r io g r a { ia sci enti fi ca contemporanea," S.i.n/a &Tccnica '7 6: .4nnuano della Enciclopedi.,.le d Scicnta c de o lacnko ( M i l a n : M o n d a d o r i. 1 9 7 6 ) , p p . 4 2 ' / 3 6 . Rcprinted in ldioloBie d rauonalitd tlans l'histoirc des sticnos de 1o vic ( 1 9 7 7 ) . T r a n sla te d in to Ce r r n n n in 1 9 7 9 . Extrtrcts from thi s arti cl c arc i n c l u d e d in th is r e a d e r . " l \ ' l a r c K l e i n, 1 9 0 5 - 1 9 7 5 ,' + ch n .' (1976),pp. 161-6a. K I c in h .r d sp e n t h ir ca r e r r r s i p r o F sso r .r thc Ll ni l ersi ty ofS trasbourgJ in e n d u o n a les d'hktone des sci ences 26.98

, os . A uE ,rs rl 8-24. l aTl : "l ' E i l et XIX' s i ec l e" de Ia bac t6ri ol ogi e dans l .r fi n dc s Thi ori es medi c al er' au (pp. 55-77). bas c d on a l ec ture pres entc d i n B arc el ona i n

Apri l 1975, trans l ak ali nto (;c rmrn i n l 9l s i "t-a t.ormati on du c onc c pt dc ri gul ari on bi ol ogi que aux X V l l l ' ' et X IX ' si ec l ei ' (pp. Il l -99), an ex (en(l (d v c rs i on ol thc papc r publ i s hed, al s o i n 19 77,i n thc prreedi ngs ol a c onterrn<e hel d i n l 9?+ ; "S ur I' tl i s (oi re des s c i enc e: de l a 'ie depui s Ihr$' i n" (pn. l 0l -l l 9).










p o b l i s h e d in I9 7 ' 1 in th e p r o ce e d in g so fth c X Il l th Internati onal C ongress f , ' r r h " lli' to r r " l \.icn ce in llo - o t. " L i Qu e !tio n d c la n o r m a lit6 d a n s I' h istoi re dt l a pensi t bi ol ogi que" ( p p . 1 2 1 - 1 9 ) ,b a scdo n a p a p e r p r cscn tcd a t a col l oqui um organi zcd by-the i I n t e r n a tio n a lL In io n o l th e I listo t) a n d I' h ilosophvo1 Sci encr., n JYs;sk)l :i . I . i n l a n d , in .lu n e - ju l1 le 7 3 . T h e b o o k r va s tr a n sla tcd in to Ce r m a n i n 1979, P ortuguese i n 1981, F n g l i s h in l9 li8 a n d Ita lir n in 1 9 9 2 . A s c c o n d cd itio n a p p e r r e d in l9 ltl. Extr a cts lr om the l 98l t tr:rnsl ati onl r1 the f i r s r e ditio n a r e in clu d e tl in th is r e a d e r . " l a F o r m a tio n d u co n ce p t d c r a g u la tio nb io lo g ique aux X V l l 'ct XV l l l 'si i cl es."

(N Supi ri c urcl 319 l arc h 1977). pp. l 2 l l . On thc oc c as i on ol the l i l i i eth anni l c rs trfy ol l l err' s death. l n 1912, C angui l hem had publ i s hc rla ro i ov ol a c ol l rc ti on ol H err' s rv ri ti ngs:s * el l as o l hi s bi ography bl C h.rrl c sA ndl er. " Lfs mac hi nesi go(:ri r," I e i tl ondc\A pri l 6, 19' 71). R c v i e* ,ol l \,l i c hel Fouc aul t, B l andi ne l l arrr:t K ri egel , r\nne Thal amy , Fran(oi r B c S ui n and Il runo forti er, I.c s),l oc hi nc td gui ri t (z ,d\ ori gi nc ' dc I'hi ptral notl trne1 (P )ri s : l ns ti tut de I' env i ronnrmc nt, I976). C angui l henr i s i nc orrec tl v i dc nti l i ed at the bottom ol thc rc v i ov rs "P rol c s c urau C ol hgc

i n A n d r i L ich n e r o r vicz,Ja cq u i,' t io n s, F r a n(oi s P erroux, (i i l bcrt Gadol l i e, e d s . , / ' //lc pP. 25 19. at P a p e r p r e se n ttr l a t th e Co llig e d e F r a ncc i n D cccmber 197'1, a col l o q u i u m o r g r n ize d b v th e e d ito r s o fth c p r occedi ngs.on the i dr:ao1 n'gul a lion in scirnce. {n cxtcndr:rlversion was publishtrl tht samc vc.rr in /diologic er fttranaliti don\ I'ht'toft .l,Jsvicnres de Ia vie. I o I'onotion du .on.epr dc ri/1ete out xt ll' et I l/i/'riir/er t9J"/ |. U l h e lir st e d itio n h a d b r tn p u b lish cd bv the P resses ni vcfsi tai rcs dc F r a n c cin 1 9 5 5 . I h is n e N e d itio n , "r a :visic c t augmcnt6e," i ncl udes a 5h(,.t " A v . r t i sscm cn t d e Ia d e u xiir n e a { iitio n ," ci )rrecti ons ol mi spri nts and a " C o m p l6 m e n t b ib lio g r a p h iq u c" ( p . 2 0 2 ) . l x t r a ts lio m th is:r ticle .r r e in clu d e d in thi s rcadcr. Tlopocdia u w:-!alts ( 2nd ed., Paris, Vrin. d e 1 6 llu la tio nd o n s /e r r tr n r r s (Pari s: N l al oi ne-I)oi n, I977),


''U ne I' i dagogi r:dc l .rgueri s on es t-el l e pos s i bl e?"N ouv c //z r,:rrc /e ps rc honal ts t l 7 (19i 8), pp. I l -26. ''Le C onc ept d' i di ol ,,gi c \c i c nti l i que: Lntreti tn rl ec ti eorgc s C angti l hc m." R ai s on s c ntc+ t' (19 t 8 ). pp. s 5-68. pri Fol l orv i ng the prev i ous v ear' spubl i c ati on ol hl i ol t)gi t!.t k rtj andl i ti ddns /cr rri c nres /o ri c , * hi c h i nc l udc s the ani c l c "tl u' ts t c t qu' unr: i di ol ogi c dc ()n p;rgc s55-5U . C abri c l C ohau c omments on that a.ti c l c )nd sci c nti l i qrre?" rri sc s l i v e ques ti ons .rhi c h C angui l hem ans rv rr\(pp. 58-6(l ). "C rl l f\ti n B ougl a," l nnuoi rc i e l ' ,l s s oc i oti on ani tns i l i rc s < l e1' Lc ol cN ortnal c dts i upi ri c urc (1978), pp.29-12. C angrri l hem had w ri tten hi s "t)i pk l me d' i tudes s upi ri trrrc s " undc r the s uperri s i on of C i l es ti n l l ougl i i n 1926 (s ee abov e, l i rs t c ntrv un< l t' r

"Jacques Rufii6, De la Btolo5lic h culture (Paris: 1976)," tn a

( P a r i s :En cvclo p a cd iaUn ive r sa lisF r a n cr .:, 977), pp. 378 ?9. 1 Rlviov. ) des " J . S c h i l l e r ct T . Sch illtr , He n i Du r r o ch e r ," r chj v.\ i nt.rnatnndl s .l 'hi stoi rc r r i c n r cr2 T ( 1 9 7 7 ) , p . 3 .+ 0 . R cvis. " S o u v c n i r d c t.u cie n lle r r ," Bu llctin d e la So .ti ri 'Jcr dm,r dc I'l .col t N orntal c

te 2 ) . 6
On thc N orn,tl antl rht Il tthol o.j i @|,trans . C arrl v n B . Fnw (c tt, \!i th rhc c di r() ri :l c ol l abor:ti on ol R obrrt S . C ohen. Introdrrc ti on bv l \l i c hc l Iouc aul t (l l ordrec ht: R ei rJ el .l 97rl ). Ii i ns l ati on o1 thc 1972 s rc < ,nrl ,rev i rtd frenc h r:di ti on. R c pri nred br Zon e B ooLs j n t989r ex tr.rc tsi nc l u< tc di n rhi \ re,rder.


4] r







1978). O n o r n a l c o pa r o lo lyo ( Rio d e Ja n e ir o :F o r e n sc' U ni versi tari a. P o r r ug u tsetr ,r n slr tio n o fth e l9 7 l sr :co n d.revi scd French edi ti r)rr.

"l )i e I l eraus bi l dungdc s K onz eptesder bi ol ogi s c hen l l .egul ati oni m 18. und 19. J ahrhunrl c n" (pp. 89-l D 9 ), l i rs t publ i s hed i n Fn nr h i n 1977r "l )er S ei trng dc r B ak teri ol o!i t /um U ntc rgrnS dc r ' medi z i ni ,rc hc n


l he ori en' i m ;n 191' J i

l q. Iahrhundert" (pp. l i 9-109), l i rs t publ i s he(l i n l -rrnc h

" L l l i s t o i r e d e s \cicn fcs d e lb r g a n is:rio n d e Bla in vi l l eet 1'AbbdMauPi cd," R rvu. r . l ' h i s t o i r .dc\ \.icn cc' ]2 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , p p . 7 l 9 ) . I n c l u d e d in th is r e a d e r . <le "Pr6face," in Othnrar Kccl, La GdndaLtSTe I'hisrapdrtologt. (Paris: Vrin, 1979), pp. i-;i. ''Prilacc," in fran(ois llclaporte, Ic Scronr/regncde /d r.rrr. 1 9 7 9 ) , p p .1 tO. T r a n s la tcdin tr : En g lishin l' ) 8 1 a n r lCcr m :n i n l 91l l . "l-'ogg.tto della stori.l (lcllc scienze." in GasparePoli//i,.d., l o g i a i n Fr u n .io ( t9 0 0 Scicnto ?.1cpirtco]^(Paris: Flammarion,

"Zur Ges c hi c hteder W i s s c ns c h.rl ten om Leben s ei t l )i r$ i n' (pp. l l .{ v i i 3). l i rs t publ i rhc rl i n F-rc nc h n 197.1.


''l I C cr v eauet l a pc ns c e," l ros pc c ti v c t S onrd1.1 ummc r l 9l to). pp. l l l -911. c (S B as c d on a l c c turc del i v c rtrl on l -c hruar1 20. 198(),at r c (,,rl i rc nc r organi z c db1 tht "l U { ,uv emc nt uni rrrs el de 1are' pons i bi l i t( s c i c nti l i quc .' i n Pari s .R epri nre(l $ i th ()mc c orrc c ti ons i n 199l . "l \1rrc K l ei n, hi s tori c n dc Ia bi ol ogi e," i n Marc K l ei n, R c l l onfs un hnl ol ptt: d f.votution<feI oppn,tu sc'cnrifique.l'1 nrion.ntnt l i .n nann, 1980). pp. \ j i -r i i . nidicol \troshourqeos\l' i\:

1 9 7 0 ) ( T u tiit L o e sch cr Ecl i tore. 1979). pp. 200-16.

T r a n s la tio no l " t.' Ob jct d e I' h ist,r ;r ed cs sci ences."publ i shed i n J:turJtr ,l ht:t,;trt u lc phtla:ophic d.s \L).nr.' (1968). ttt's?nschoftsg$.hi.htc und Epis'rn@l.tqK:{'csannttu .1ul:iitte, Wolf Lepenies.

S rc C rngui l hem s obi tuarv ,,1 K l c i n abol e, 11l th.n(r\ un(l c r 1976. "l 'ri 'l ace ." i n A ndri P i c ht)r, E l i rnc nts (P pout un?thi orrcJ c /o bro/o< 7rcari s :N l al oi ne, l 9U 0), p.7-l (1. ''C ,)n(l iti ons(l c l bbj c c r i v i re s c i enti l i qrrc .' R oi ' onpi ' entc 5 5 (l 9l to), pp. l l l 81. ''\\ hat is P s v c hofogri ' IJ r:ohtot ond C onx i ourn.IrT (198f)),pp. j 7-50. frrns l ati on h\ l { ,trv l ftl l )a!i c s 0l rh(,rc x r fi rs r puhl i rhed i n l 95l i .

e d . , t r r n s . M ich a e l Bisch o ffa n d\\h lte r Se ittcr( Frankl i rn am Mai n: S urkhanp V c r h g , 1 97 9 ) . A r e ad e ro l Cr n g u ilh e m \ r r r r ls. in clu d in g: "Di. (;cschichte dc. \l'i\scDs.h.ikcn im cpisremd,,gi5chco \\/erk Ci\t,,n B a c h e l a (1 "( p p .7 - 2 1 ) , fir st p u b lish e d in F r cn c h i n l e6l : (pp. 22-17), l i rtt puh " D c r Ge g e n sta n < l Wisse n ,!( h a ftsg e schi chte" tlcr l i s h c d i n Fr e n e h in 1 9 6 8 r " D i e Ro lle d cr Ep iste m o lo g ie ;n d e r h e u ti gen H i stori ograhi e der Wi s s e n s c h a ltt' n "1 p p . l8 - 5 8 ) , fir \r p u b li:h e d in Iti l i .l n i n 1976 anJ i n Irrench in )9'7'7. " D i e Ep istcm o lo g isch e u n ktio n d e s ' Iin zigarti gcn' i n der Wi sscnschi l t F v o m I c b c n " ( p p .5 9 - 7 ' 1 ) , lir st p u b lish c( i in fr ench i n l 9f,8r " l - h e o r ir r r n r l lcch n ik d cs F r p cr im e n titr cns bci C l aurl c B crnarrl " (pp. 7 5 - 8 8 ) , l i r \t p u b li!h e ( l in fr e n ch in 1 9 6 7 ;


ttt.rl oqr o. nei onLl oh nas ti i nnr

h t

t (Li s bon: Frl i l r' ,r. J 0. l 98l ).

Itans l ati on ol the l i rs t Irrenc hc (l i ti ,rn (1977). Uiolo c rt totion.tliti dans /cr rc,cnccsJ,: /rr ric: Nourcl/cs car<lesd'hirltirc a Llc

phj l onphi . des l .i ",L!' 12ndrs . c rl ., r i rh c orrec ri ons , P ,rri s : ri n, I981). V A n Itnl i an rr.rns l rri on ol thi s .(l i ti on I:ng l i rh rrrn\l i i ri (,n i D l ei J 8 rras publ i s |c rl i n 1992, and rn


, +tJ




" P 1 6 t a c c . "i n lltn r i Pcq u ig n o l, l].t/r ' .r

itr . ,n u \ (f',rri sr\i i n, l 9i l 1), pp. i r.

t t uJu l ' h tttotu et dc pl i l ov ,ti rf J c r' .i c nr.( ( 5th td, P ari s ;\ ri n. l 9fi ) ) Inc l udes ;rl l thc l c x tr publ i \ht(l i n th( l e66 (di 1i on, P l rr: "P ui s :anc l rt l i miter dc h rati onrl i ra c n mc dtc i nt.".rl s c r publ i s hetl i n rhe prx c c di ngs ,,i r,"n[ren..i n l qS l rpp. ]l l -"1 ).

T h i s tcr t r r .r s.r lso clu tltr l in th e scccr n d ti on, ntr l r enti tl e<ll i r,/i rmr in cdi d c d e n t a in :liu lh L r itr . r ,.!\ ( \' r in . I9 tl6 , p p . i \, w i th a "C ompl i ment potrr u n t : n o u v clle 6 d ititr n ," p . v i) . ,t'l " G u s t a r c i \ ' l i,n o d , p b ilo vr p h e . p id a g o g u e ." in I o ui s C rcs, ed., Gusravc ona<l : lln Pionnicr .n iducdtion. ld ( /arscsnourc//cr dc /d lii,lrdttor u n i r c r s i t a ir e d ' in lo r m a tio n p .a l.r g o g iq u c, 8 l), pp. l 5-19. l9 "whrt i s r S cicn tiiic Id co lo g v? " R.r r ' lr co l iio r p lr '29 (1981),pp. 20-2s. Pn l i a n sla tio n a n d a n in tr xlu ctio n b r M iL c Shortl and,pp. 19-20. (Paris: Conlita

F\trrc l s i nc l udr(l i n rhi s rc i ,l ri . "Vorw o rl ," i n Franqoi s D el i tportc , D ,,r z rt& rc N rrtrrrc l c l , nhc r.l i ( I:rul en .l c \ in l 'ey l etabi l i :;c hen l t l ahrhundc n (Fr.rn(turt: Ll l l s tti n i U dtc ri al en, I98l ), P P .7-9 Trans l ati onofthc tc x r l i rs t publ i s hc d i n l :renc h i n 1979.

w i t h C . L . r ptr ssa d c. Piq u e m a l. I. tllm a n n . Du t)tvtl oppencnt d l '[vol utnn au J. l / , ( ' s ; A r / e ( f' a r is: I' r tsr e s tln ir e r sita ire s ,lc F r r ncc, 1982). R e p r in r i) l th c str r lv in /h o i,r ( le ( ' { ) ) . p u bl i shed i n 1962; w i th a "Pres c n t r t i o n " b \ F licn n c Bilib ) r . ) d Do ' n iDiq ue LecoU rt, pp. v-vi . A n.\,

198 a

"P ri 'cnt rti on de l ' A natomi e," i n (i . C rngrri l hc m. C l )tbru, G. Fs c at,I-lGuerv . J. L ambc rt. Y . Mi c hau< l ,A . M. N l D U l i n..l r.rr.rrtf,t un tprtl ntL oouc :Franqoi s n./l i ..g r { P rri ' : \i i n. l c R 4 l . pp ?-l (). A n i ntroduoi on to rhe proc c r< l i rrgrol r c ,,nI r,:nc ,:,orgrni z c d trl C angui lhem. and hc l d on \' 1ar l ' 1, 1981, rr rht l \l us i t C l .rrl i e B rrn.rrd i n S ai nc Jul ien rn B eauj ohi ' , r,r tl i s c us srht $t,rL\,' l I-r.1n!oi \Ihg< ,gnet l ).rg< gnc t hnd \ri ttc ' n hi s di s l ertrri on, Lr R .rk o, !./c r rc ma,l .i (P rri i : P res \estl ni v c r si tai resde Franc c , 1964). un< l tr C anqri l hem \ \uP c rfi s i ,rn. "P ui ssJ nc c c t l i mi tes rl c 1a rrti on.rl i re.n .tli.lcdn., mc deti nc . i n C harl es N l arx . ed..

i d t n t i c . r l e d itio n a p p c;r k( l in l9 ti5 . " l i o r e s o r d , " in l:r a n lo is l) tl.r p o r r e . No r u r ci 5 cto nJ (,ngdr,'r (C ambri dgc. N 1A: ! 1 l T P r c ss, 1 e ti.1 )p p . i\ \ii. . I i a n sla tio n o l r h t b o o k lir \( p u tr liih e d in French i n 1979. " E m i l e L i t ( r e , p h ilo so p h e d e li b io l.) e i( e t d e la mi deci ne," C r:ntre i nk,rna' ti,,nal dc svnthi:sc, lircs lu anlbqu. l:mib Lnt.i l80l-1881. Paris.T 9 octLlve / 9 , 9 i ( P r ris: Alb in Nlich cl, 1 9 3 2 ) ,p p .2 7 l 8 1 . ' I h c s c p r o cce d in g s lso c( r n slitu tca sp e ciali ssueof the R evue srnti i se r Je 1 0 6 - l 0 l i (Ap r il- De c. I9 8 2 ) i in clu d e ( l in th is r {,adcf.

et rcchniqv: Rccutil ,l'itl..lct rilqics i I'ocLosnn<lu ctntcnarc '':ienc. <h l a non de C l autl eB c rnonl(l i i l l /S ;,\l (P ari s :E di ti ons du C c ntrt nati onal dc 1 .r c hc rc he s c i c nti i l quc , l L)8' t).pp. l (J 9-10. rc R c pri ntc d i n the l l fth edi ti on ol Lrudesd' hi s tai n c t de phi bs oP hi cde\ ., r,.c . ( l q8 r): i rr. l rr,l ,,l rn r hi . rc rder

198 3
C a n g u i l h e m qa s a u a r lcr l in l9 lll, in r h sL n tja , thc S arton \4trl al , thc hi ghest h o n o r o f t h c Histo r ,r o l Sr itn t:t So cift\ ( scc b clo*. i n Part l i vo, cntrv under l 9 i l . 1 , f o r t h t n :lr n n cl r ) th r cititj,) n ) .


dtrns Il ( i te s .i enti fi quc T" l l P ntol l an 21.5 l l .rc hc l ard.ps y c hanal y s tt:

(Ja n. lesa) . le- 26. pp. Junc
P ubl i s hc d i n rn i s s ue ol the j ,,unr,rl rl trotrd to "(hs ton l hc hc l :rrd U i l a nc i (,c ri ti c o di una c pi s rc nro)dgi .r." "E ntrct i .n av ec (i c orgc s (i rngui l hc m" (ri th J trn' P i errc C hrc ri rn-(;oni rnd l .+ .

C hfi s ti ,rn t-a7l rri ). i n /n' nrrp/rnrt: C anrtv r5.7.5. I (l es .l ). pp. l l


. '] t

t9 8 5
l c o m m e n t s i n l Co m it! co n su lta tif n a tio n a l d ' 6 th iquc porr l es sci encesde l a 1985), l i c c t d e I n sn n ti, Ro p p o r t I9 t.1 ( Pa r is,L r Do .u ment.]ti on tranqai se,

"l -ccturc et s ouv eni rdc J .an B nrn." i n Ftanqoi sD agognetet al ., Il ne phi l < x ophi t B du s eui l :H onnage < i J d.rn .u, (l l i j on: E di ti ons U ni v c rs i i ai res (l ! D i j on, 198 7), pp. l -7. P ubl i s hc d i n a Fc s ts c hri l tpres rnrerlto J eanB run, a Frtnc h phi l os opher w ho had bc c n a * url tnt of C angui l hc m at thr I v c i ! Ferm.rt. i n Torrl ous e, i n 1 917. "D i scou rs dc Mons i c ur C c orpes C angui l hem prononc 6 l e 1" d6c enrbn' 1987 ,; I'occasion de la rcmist' ,lt' lr Midaille d'or du CN RS." .rr'ldoillc rJbr du CNR.\ /9t7 (P ari s :C c ntre N ati onal de l a R ec herc hcS c i enti fi que, 1987). A nv o-page pri nted tc x t of C angui l hc m' s ac c c ptanc e s peec h ol the C N R S ' s gol d mc dal for s c i c nti tl c ac hi ev ements . "A verti ss ement c l es6di teurr i Ia premi ere 6di ti on," i n J c an C rv ai l l as , .l ur /o (' I.ogi que Ia thtori ede Io rc ,err.,r tth ed., P ari s :V ri n, 1987), pp. i x -x i i i . et T he l l ts t three edi ti ,rns , begi nni ng i n 1947,had been publ i s hc d b' thc

pp.132- 8 4 .
C o m me n ts o n th r e e p a p e r s p r e se n te r lb v F Q'rar6, M. Gl orvi nski and M . P e l i c i e r a t a r o u n d ta b lc o n th e "Pr o b lim e s d'i thi ques posi s par l a rec h e r c h e s ur le systim c n e r vcu x h u m a in ," o r g a ni zedby the French N ati onal a C o m m i t t e c o n Eth ics in th e L ife Scie n ce s n d Medi ci ne, D ecembcr 6, 1984. Thdse latine traduitc Par N{. Emile Boutroux, Des Vditds itenelles chez Descarrcs, Gcorgcs Canguilhem, 6live de I'Ecole Normale Sup6rieure (Paris: Vrin, l9us). R e p r i nt o fth c 1 9 2 7 e d itio n , th e n p u b lished by F6l i x A Ican, l acki ng by .Jean-luc

the preficc by t-6on Brunschvicg; r'ith a shor( "Av.ln.Propoi'

,le " t r r i g m e n t r , " in lq e vu e n ita p h vsiq u ct d e m o r cic90.I ( 19115 pp. 93-98 ), " S t r i k i ng lia g m e n ts" sclcctcd fr o m th e wo rl s ol C .rngui l hem,b,v D i na Srl l l r t ' v l l s , Cla ir e S.r lo m o n - 8 a vea n d Je r n - Ja cq u ts omon. t " D c \ c r r r e s c t l a te ch n iq u e ," Ca h r cr s5 .7 .5 .7( l9 ti5 ) , P P .87-91. R e p r i nt o fth e p a p e r fir st p u b lish cd in 1 9 1 7.

P .cs s c s ni v er\i tai r(' r d(, Frnnc e. U J-etout'oB y ouri( l bk l o: H .rs c i Ll ni v c r\i ry P ,c r(, 1987). Japanesrtranslation. bl llrkehiu.lilizanr,r, ol ltliorn,i ':t L Potholoatquc.

"P rel i ce," /Irtt' rr und l rrhnol og_r' 4 (198?I, pp. 7-10. T hi s tc x t $a\ C angrri l hem\ c onrri buti on to "S c i enc e: l a rc n,ri x ,rnc c d'un e hi s toi re," a c ol l ,x gui um hc l d i n memory ol A l ex andre K oy re i n P ari .


on Junc l 0-14, l 9tl 6. l t i > pri nted here i s the i ntroduc ti on to a s pec i alj our n:l i s s ueofthe proc eedi ngsol that c ol l oqui um.

"Sur l"llistoire

d e la fb lie ' e n ta n t q u ' a :vin e m .r nt Ic D dbat 11(Scpt,/N ov. ," 1988

l 9 { 3 6 ) ,p p . l7 - 4 { } . N o t e on th e cir cu m sla n ce ssu r r o u n d in g Cangui l hem\ report on Fouc r u t C s d o cto r a l d isscr ta tio n . Did ie r Er ib o n p ubl i sl red the report (st b e l o r l , fir st e n tr y u n d e r 1 9 9 1 ) . 'n 1991

IdcoloSl.v ond Rdtiondlitt n ttu Histor.r ol rhe LtJi Srienccs,trans. Arthur (iold ham mer { C ambri dge. MA : N l l -r P n' s r. l 98l t). Trans l ati < ' nof the s ec c rnrl rc ri s c < l Frtnc h edi ti on (1981); ex trrc ts i n' .

l9 E7

cl uded i n thi : readrr. "P rascn tati on," i n )res S c h* anz . Fy i nel l .t n onnok ' onc e < l u rnttti l (P dr;s :

" 1 , l ) c c r ( l c n cc d e I' id 6 e d e p r o g r is, ( 1 9 8 7 ) . p p .4 l? - 5 4 .

Bo u c d c mi tophtri quc ct d. no.dl .92

E (l i t i ons S oc i al!s .1988), pp. l 9-22. "l c S tnt ut c pi s ti mol ogi rl ue rl c l a mi dc c i nc ," l l nni ),.rntl P hi b' opht of th. l 4i








l0 S c i r n c e s ( su p p l., 1 9 8 8 ) ,p p . l5 - .1 9 . l n c l u ( lcd in th is r e r d e r . l l a n s h o o o i n cn o r cktsh( lb lyo : tio * i L ln n e r sitv Prcs\, l 9i Jft). n r lapancse translrtion. bv (\amu Kananrori, ot I o lorntotion tlu nnept rlt

"Pr!sc nc .rti on," i n Franqoi r D el aportc , H ,rroi rc r/r i o /i :r,rc l ouni { Ir.rri s :I} rv ot, l eS q), pp. l t l l . l i ans l ared i nro S pani s hi n I989. F.ngl i s h n l 99l rtul J ap:n$( (i n prfs !). i "Pr61 i c c ," i n A nne Iragoc l .argeaul t,Lts C ous c s l d noft: U i s toi rcnantrc l l c .t & l octeurr d. ri s qu' : (P i ri !: V ri n / Lv (,ni Ins l i rur i nt.,(l i s c i pl i ni i rL (l ' atudes

" t r \ r n t i , . o n cr p t ! u lS,r ir ct q L r e stjo np h ilo v,phi que," C

i ts Ju ti ni noi rt

cpi s ti nrol ogi quc s . l 9R 9), p. x i i i . "Pr6sc ntrIi on," i n,l .l i Lhtl FouLouh os ophc : R c nc ontrentc n.tti onnl 4 P dri s9, i phl 10, tt j dnrter /988 (P ari s :S c ui l , l 9l l 9), pp. I l -12. B l td on a l rrr thr c ol l ol ui Lrnr or!.ani z erl the l w rc i .rti on pour hr ' pec (h l e C c nrre Mi c hel I ouerul t. "P rrl i c i o," i n Ffi i nqoi s l )el aportt , H i s rori o < l cl u frc hre anortl l o (C emc a: 1tl I

t u p h n u op h te 8 : l( r J.r r ti ( Str a sto u r g : Ed itio ns C (:ntrr de D ocrmcntati on e n I I i s t o i ( d e 1 aPh ilo so p h ic, l9 lltl) , p p . ll9 3 3.

I h c te xt o la le cn r r e g ivcn r t th r tln ive r si (v oi Strasbourg n l l av l 9l i 8. i a P L r b l i s h cd s a L ,r ,tltt in l9 9 tl.,r n r l ig a in , in pnrt, rr thc i ntroducti on to r

b o o l i n 19 9 2 , u n d r r th e litle " t a \a n t6 . ve r ite du corps."

U Nn$1. 1989), pp. l 1-1.1. 198 9 S p,!ni s htri n\l i i i .,n rhr(c rntri c s up). " l e s N l a l a d ie s," in An d 1 6 J;co b , td ., F n cyclo pi di cphi l osophi queuni R B .11.: vo I ' t l n t r . t s p h ilo so p h tq u .. l. J ( Pa r is:P( :sse sUnnersi tai ft r de Fri n.r. l 9i J9), p p . l l l ] -1 6 . l n c l u ( l.d in th is r r a d cr . " P h v s i o l o g i e , I' Ph lsio L ,g ie a n im a le - t) b jcctil! et meth(xl r," fnctcl apaedrt r l n , ' r . ' d l iJ l8 ( 2 n d cr l.. Pa r is: In c!clo p a cd ir pp.:44-46. J t e p r in t lr o m th t lir st e d itio n . " R a S u l a ( i o n( e p istcn n ilo g ie ) ,"fr .!.lo p d c./id u n ivcrsal rr (znrl ed.. P ari s:Fnc\2j c l o p . t c < l irUn ive n .r lis F .n n ce , 1 9 8 9 ) . p p . 7 l l- l l . l { c p r in t lr o m th e lir st e d iti0 r . "\ie," L n c . r tlo p o e d to n ir tso lx 2 ) ( 2 Dd cd ., Pa r i r: Lncycl opacdi a Ll ni versal i s u ''R app< ,n dc l \{ . U angui l hc n s ur l f di rti teur dr: l l ns ti tut drpo,J r p,rr l \1. N ti c hc t fouc rutr, ' n.rnu\c ri t l ran(.ri s rl t l l ambours . L,n ruc de l ' oLti .nri on rtrr l 9 9l tl ni versrl i s France, 1989), "P hi l ov rphi e d' unc ev i c ti on: I' obj c t c orl rc l a rhos c ,' A c y uc r/c rni ,tophv s npt et dc mor.,/c 95.1(1e90). pp. 125 29. t{ t!i c $ ol I:r.Ir!oi \ t)ag,,gne(,I /,)4,j /i )r/.. ( P .),\: \rri n, 198.) d. i ). Id Santi . ,ont"pr w l ttntrt c r querti on auphni ur (P i r-B J l mai S abl .\. t990). phl A thi rtv { i x pi tgebook l et rc pri nri ng th. rert Ii rs r publ i rhc d i rr l L)tl i J . 1990 D l rhe rc x r publ i ,h(d l i nr i n 1,ft.n( (s ef abol r, h

F r r n t e . 19 8 9 ) , p p . 5 1 6 - 5 3 . R c p rin t lio m r h r iir st r r litii) n i txce r p ts fr,'nr thr l i r:t cdi ri ,rn are i nc l u d t d i n th is r ta r lcr . T t u N o r n t o l an d th t Pa tn o lo ticd( Nr w x,r k: Z o n e Bool s, l 98e). l r\tri (rs i nci uded t l e p r in t ( ,fth ( tr ln sh tio n p u L li.h r d b v Re i dtl i n 1971]; i n t h i s r e a d cr .

pfrD j \ d' i nrpri nl c r (,,mrnf rhi s c prj n.' pal e dc ,l (,(rori t a' l e n.\." C .ngui l hem' s rrp,rrt (i pri l 19. tt)60) on Fouc aul t' sdoc t< i raidi s s trt.r-

l i on t' l l bl i s hed under rhc ri tl e tol rc t < l i nts on: tl ts totrcrtu to l l l tL d t' nat .l d $i q.r. (P ari s :pl (,n, l q6t), i n t)i < ti tr F-ri hon..l t,(fr./ /du.dul r(2n(l c (t., t,i ri s : Fl .rmnrari on,l 99l ). j ,p. l 5 U -6l .



"Qu'est cc quirn philosophe !n Francc aujout<l'hril" Connentdt. I 9 9 l ) , p p . IttT - l2 .

l.+.sl (Spring

P :rti al repri nt of the rex t publ i s hed ov i c e before, under the ti tl e "L' 1 santa.c onc c P t v ul E ri rc c t .l uc s ti (,n P hi l os oP hi que' ' ' i n 1988 and 1990 di notio e l<l.ologia 4 zion.tlitd nclla ttotia d.11. \.i'n/' dcllo vito: Nuovi studi filosoficd.lle scicnrc(Florence: La Nuova Italia Editricc' 1992 )' (:ee bek rw ' P a*

( ) cca sio n e d b v th e a s' a r d in g o i th c JeanC rvai l l cr Pri ze ro I(an-P i crre Saris for his book ,tlocfiin( ct tonnmicdtion N o r m n le 5 u p ir ie u r c, M r r ch 1 0 . 1 9 9 0 " l l e g e l en F r a n ce ,",lfa q o lin elittlr cn c 2 9 3 lNov. I99l ), pp.26-29. f.xtr a cts fr o m r h c a ( icle p u b lish e d in 1949. I 'Honnc de ltdsohdansh non.I d? Coptnic (Pitis: Lahorat<rires Dcl.lgrangt. I991 ). A r e p r in t, ls a b o o kle r , o fth e a r ticle fi rst publ i shed i n 1965. " T i m o i gn n q e ." in So citlti d cr ( D e c. l9 9 l ) . p p . 2 0 - 2 3 . C) :rJe a nHr p p o lir e . "Prelice," in Fr.rnsois Delaporte, The Historv oJ Ycllow /:.rer (Cambridge, N4A: m is < leI' Eco le n,rror.rl c B ul /rri n 186 'upl ri eurc, lPari;: Vrin, 1987), ar the Ecole

Trnns l nti on,$ i rh .n i ntroduc ti on bl l ac quts C ui l l c mt Tw o). by P aol aJ c ni s ol the 1988 Frenc h rev i s ededi ti on'


<lcr hi C "Lc C er v eau er l n pens ee," i n Geory J .r dr)rui /hetn: P tul as oP ht' s torrn (6 A sci c n.es . c tesdu c otl o< 1ue 7-t < l i c enbrc 1990)l P ari s : A l bi n N 4i c hel ' 199 3), pp. I l -l l . R .p.i nt ol rhe n(i c l e ori gi nal l y publ i s hed i n 191t0;the s ubti tl es that harl bc en arl l ed br the j ournal ;rc omi ttc d, and s onrc oi thc ori gi D al P ar' )(tec p. 1l n l )' qrap hi ng has heen rt' es tabl i rhed lo et "l 'rei i ce," i n fac quesP i quemal , fs s ai ser /el ons' l ' hi s tune' J c10 ni dec i nc ' l c bi ojori . (P arj \: P rc l s c \ Ll ni l trs i tai rts d( Fri nc c , l 9q3)' P P 7-8 ''P rcl :ce." i n Frangoi s D c hportc , (tuntts u no t& nhi (fok v o: l U i s uru S hobo' I9rl I ). l l rs t P ubl i s hedi n Frenc h i n 198' r' J i panes r trans l i ti on ofthe te' (t

M I T I' r e ss, l9 9 l) , p p . ix- r i. En q lish r r a n sla tio no f r h e t( .xt fir st p ubl i shed i n Irt'nch i n 1989. K o l l o k ush Ko g a lu tcxu r a lu Kcn lr l ( T o kvo : Hosei U ni ver\i ty Press,l 99l ). Japanc:etr.rnslarion. bv Os:mu Kan.rnrori, Shunsrrkcfvlatsuura,Shoujift,rr Koga, Muncvoshi Hvoudou, li*rko Moriwakiand Kiiko Hiranatsu, oi Erudcr l htstotc ct dc ph onphic d.\ scitntcs.

"l'ostlice." in Jcan Ga,\on, t<l.. BuJfon E8: Actcs du Colloquc inrernotional Parx-

Pa r t

Tw o

. t l o ml,u J- Dt1 o n\Pa r is: L ib r a ir ic Ph ilo scrphi qrre n ' l yon: In5ri tur i ntcr, Vri d i s c ip lin a ir e d ' 6 tu d e sip isr 6 m o lo g iq u e s, 1992). pp. 745 .19. " O u v e r tu r e ," in Elisib cth Ro u d in csco , d ., / o u ca u lr ( Pa r is:Ga lil6 e , 1 9 9 2 ) , p p . le - .+ 2. Op e n in g a d d r e ssg ive n a t th c co llo q ui um on the "l l i sroi r! de l a fol i e t r e n tr .,.r n s:p r t\s,"h e ltl b ,r th e So ci6 t!d 'hi st.i re dt l a psr<hi arri r tr ,l r l .r p s y c h n n a l\se in Pa r is,o n No vcm b cr 2 1 , 1991. , " L J s i n t6 , v6 r iti d u co r p s," in l\' l;r r icAg n is Bi j rn.rftl i s, ed., L'hontneer Ia nntt ( P r r i s: Se u il. 1 9 9 2 ) .p p .9 - ls. l rrrmon rl .\ron. " R i fl trn rrs s ur l c ' prc i l i rmc i nti grrl ' ." I i l ' ' ' ! P k ' i "J r( Fth l 9II)' pp. 96 99. On "l r I' ai x \i n!.es enc " (l el 2). P ens.'ro fol i c: l :sats sur l i ctu]
l SEL Fc TI o N { rr R Fv rL w s C { J MME N Ts o : l ^ND C^Ncull lII 11's WoRKs

193 3










GcorgesC angL.ri l hem"' D a n i e l t a g a.h c, " L e No r m a l e t le p a r h o lo g iq r r ed'aprts (19'+(')'pP l l T- i {)' B u l l t t u t tle1 o ta cttti < te slcxr cd e Stt' r r b o u r tl4 r>fthe earl r w as A r e vie \vo l Ca n g u ilh e m \ le ' l1 !tu d ) la gachc' 'vho '>nt the E col c N ormal e p r o p o n cn ts o l p sych o r n a lvsisin F r a n cc, h ad entcrccl rt the Ll ni S u p i ' r i cu r r in 1 9 l' t, th e r .r n r c' ca r ' r sCa n tr r il hcrn l l e 'rl st'tl rqht l :s:l so ptrbv r r s i t v oi Str a r h r u r g r vh e n h t !vr d e th is a r ti cl c l hi s revi et in th e Rcruede ni rcP hv'i qu< ct dc norol t l i s l r t d , in a slig h tly sh o r ttr fo r m , 5 l ( 1 9 a6 ) , p p . 3 5 5 - 7 0

c t d, Jean t he orl ori di r, R ev i eu ol "l r:r C onc c pts c l e ' l uttc p,rrrr I' ex i s tc nc e' \el ec ti on natu.el l e' (1959)," A tuhi v .t i ntunol i ondl e' .1' hN oi rcdes ' i i ,r' c ' l l ) (195e), pp. l l -31.


P i rrre Mac hc rc ), "1.r thi l os ophi . (l { ,l i i c i enc e de ti c trgc s C ;ngui l hc n. Ii pi s ti mol ogi e c t hi s toi re des s c j c nc ts ," I(7 P c nrL l I I (196' { ), P P . 5(l 7a W i th a l i rre* ord bv Loui s A l thu\1er. pP 5(l -5' 1.

t9 s 6
1967 P . D e l r u n n v, Rcvics o f Io Io tn .ttio n Ju co n a l le l l c" (Pari s: Presses ni U "Le N ormal rtIepathol ogi rl trr' ,"1c )l onde,l an.l l -9(19b1),P Jfi n Li croi 11, that !i t l c Rc v i ov ol the 1966 c (l i ti ,)n ol the booL puhl i s htd Lrnder ll. d'J J"'n(r! e v e , \ i t a ir cs d ! Iir r n ce , 1 9 5 5 ) ' ,lr ch vcs in tcr nati onal esti rroj rf 'l ( 1 e 9 6 ). p p . l6 l- 6 2 . F.ll., Rcvict ol t,r fonnorn n Ju conc':y tlc rll"rr au I l // 't x l'/t'" Iiicl'r i Prr i\: 1968 56 (1956)' t ' r e ' s . s L ln ivr r sita ir cs d t F r a n ce , 1 9 5 5 ) , I' tl nni e P stchobtl i '|@ P ile' ( ) nly th c iu th o r ' s in itia ls a r c g ite n

dt Frederi c L Il ol mes , R c v i t' rvol C l aude B trnar(i , l .(o,r J U f l rr P hdnotni nc s Io (P ri c c.mol un\.rur rrni m.ruy .r,i u\ v i < r,rrdur (1968), pp. 149-50. t i . Itudo l ph. R t' r' i r.* ol C l .rudt s c rnard, l c qonss ur i l phi nonti nc s< l ek nrc Lont,l rurr dl l \ dntn.,u\ .t du i l /i r.ru\ (P i ri s : V ri n, 1966), i n.l r.hr,.(,nr./l l .r i \: V ri tt, Lq66). i n l i r 5e.l

t{ e !i.s o f t,i F o r n o tto ntlu < o n tt1'tdc 'LJl f\' du\ '\ | //' et Il '///'

t \ n , , n \ ' r ' r u sl.

tl c rni rttphvuque tln r t , c / c r(Pa r i!: Pr csse s ivcr sita ir e stJeF r a n ce' 1955)' kvuc . r < i ! r ro r d l.6 l ( 1 95 7 ) Pf.9 9 - l{ ) 1 .

ti o.d l c s.1' hi s toi rc 16 2l .82-i J I (196E), pp. 196-97. < ' c i .rc c J

l9 5 E


dc ri fl ^c dr^ 'tt/i " cr i \ l v i n P l )o b stva g e , Rcvir :r ' o l /- o to r n a tio n rl u conLC P t 1955) PhtosLph and ( { l / / / ' !ta .1 c\ Pir is: tr r r \\c\ Un ive r sita ir csJt Francc' 56s 69' l f i i n o n cr o i ,q ico / Rcr ca r .} lil ( sfPt' 1 9 5 7 - Junc 1953)' PP

\l,ruro Di (;iandomcnicr,, d'hittorc er dc phlotophicdrr r.r'..r Revirs of I.rur/es .1 (Paris: in, 1968 /:ptrrcmr (1970). pp. I I l-1.1. \i ), ln Itrli.rn. .1 4 l


.-. RIT]CA



Pts Y

A n n e t t e La vcr r . " ljo r a ' Co m n r itte d ' Histr r r r of.S ci encc," H t:torr o] Sti enct9 ( 1 9 7 0) . p p . 1 0 1 - 1 0 S. Revicw ol Erutlcsd h,rrone et .le philotuphic .lessc;tnces (paris: Vtin, l96ti).

hi stoi re dc r rc i enc es ; Ie rari onal i s nreappti qu6 dts s c i enc esbi ol ogi ques ,,. di sc us s es nngui l hem' s epi s tc rrol ogi c al v i ew s . C A s ec ond edi ri on w i e publ i shed i n 1979.

19? l 1974 F. Courtis. Review of/nttuduljon i) I'htsto;rcdesr.iercc!, vol. I (paris: Hachcttc, Ylon Gauthier, Revierv ol Io ,,nollirna tudtjon d.s doctines ;nformcJ (par,s: Vrin, 1963), k r 65 ( t974), pp. 5 27_28. I r.:nqojs Russ.,, "Epist!mologic er hisroire dcr sciences,,,.tf. hnes tfcphtlosaphic 37 (19' 74),pp.6t7-57. A rev i c s es s .ry rhat c ommenrs on man! ofC angui l hc m,s w ork s . G. Quan ,r. "C . C angui l hc n:. s tori c o dc l a :c ;c nz d,,, prorc goro It tl l t971l ,

t 9 7 1 ) , Etu d $ p h ilo so p h ;g u cs6 ( t9 7 t ) , p p . 12.+-25. 2

t97 2
D o m i n i q ue L e co u r r , Po u u n c ( r itiq u c d . 1 ' q 1 s l A ',o/orrc (pari \: Mrspero, 1972). C h a p te r 3 : "L ' Histo ir e 6 p isr a m o lo g iquede C eorgcs C angui l hem,,'pp. 64-97. l i r a n e o i s R o sso , "Ch r o n iq u c d e s scie n ce sd e la \ j e." ,.1rc}r,ej phtosophi c)\ de (1972), pp. a69-508. A n e ssa v svir s, in clu d in Sc,,m m e n r so n numeruus*.orl s ofC angui thcm. r Jean Srarobinski, Revieu of Itudes r/lrstoi,c et dc phitosophie.]er r.ren.er (paris: v r i n , r9 6 8 ) , Bu fe !in o l' th . H$ to t,t o f ,| .d io n..+6 (re72 pp. s8-89. ),

pp.9s- 96.

J.A . Schu s ter,R ev i ew of l o .U athtnoti s ati ond$ do,:tt,nc snfome\ (pari \: i |i e. tn.\i u , t9' 7)), A nnal soJ .tri e,c el 4 (1977), pp. 78,8t.


197 3
Jamcs L tarson, Revie* of Erurjcsdhistoire et.lc phitosophie der rcieD(.J (piris: V r i n , 19 6 8 ) , Ir s 6 4 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . p p . ll5 - 1 6 l \ ' t . E c k , " f c No r m a l e t le p a tb o lo g i< 1 u c," a Noutel l c prcsst dkal c 2.t ()an. L ni l 9 ? 3 ) , p p .5 l- 5 6 . A <lcfcn :e o f Ca n g u iib cm s r ie n p o in t agai nst att.rcks made t,r F. ,\{i chel Fouc aul t, "tnrroduc rj on," i n C eorges C anS ui l hem. On thc N ornot and Lhe athol ogrot(D ordrec ht: R ei del , 1978), P pp. i x _rx . For a s )i ghtl _y i l l erent traos l ati on ()1 the rl s amc rex r, 5!e l ec on(i enrrv under 1980. trerctt N lc nrl el s ohn,.,E di rori alN ore,,' i n C ;c orges angui l hc m, On the N trnnl C and rhc P othol ogi ot l D ordrec ht: R ei det, l 97B ). pp. rx i i j -rs i r: ci useppe Q uarta, "tdeol ogi a e s tori a del tc s c renTe n (;. C angui l hc nl ,,,B ol /ef,ro i .1i della fttost{k) 6 (r978), pp. 219_5r. 'totia 1979 Wi 'l l I epc ni c s .,.V orl ,emel k ung rl es l tc raus gebc rs ,,,j n eorgrs C angui thc nr, C ,ri J _

D u y c l a cr ts in h is b o o k Io No t' r .n.le n o m ol cn pychol ogi cc/,nni (pari s: ue Vrin, 1954). M i . h c l F i .h a r !. "L ' 6 p i\r im o lo g jc e n fr a n ce ," i n F-raneoi s hatt.L,t, cd., Za C p h i l o s op h ito u 2 tl siicle Pitr is:H,ch e tte , l9 ? I ), pp. 129-?t. ( F r rt !- o u r o l th i\ e ssa ! ( p p . l6 l- 7 0 ) , u ndcr rhe ti tl e..E pi stemol ogi (,cr









u n .l Ep n kn n lo Bje : Gc' d n n.h. A uhntu, w ol i Lepeni cs. ' . n s c h a fttg e s.h r h te c d . ( l ' r a n klu r t a m i\' la in :Su r kh a m p \e r lilg , l97e). l n t rr r d u ctio n to th is r e a d e r . S . , \ l . r r c u L c i, Rcr jo v o f la co n a sr o tvt ,fcllo tir r (tl ol oS ni : l l l \l ul i no, 1976), RNntu c tt.d .lt \toti.t tltlh llksolia l4 ( I') 7r)). pp. 2 26- I l. 1980 Onrella Costa. Revieu ol idiolo17icct rationnltl .l<tn' l8 s(icnus Je 1o vic (Paris: \ r r i n . l 9 l7 ) , - S.;cn r nlls ( 1 9 8 0 ) , p p . 2 2 ? - 3 5 . N l i c h e l F o u ca u lt, "Cco r g cs Ca n g u ilh e m : Ph ilo s opher ol Irror." tdcol ol y and C o n s c i ou sn css1 9 8 0 ) , p p . 5 1 - 6 2 . ?{ l i a nsla tio n b v Gr a h a m Bu r ch e ll b a r e d o n tbr: samt Frcoch ori gi nal uscd b r C a r o lyn R. F a sce tt in 1 9 7 8 fi,r th c in tr rrl ucti on to hcr transl ati on of I h c N r rn a l a n d ttu Pa th o lo g ir d l.lh e fr e n ch tert used bv the tso transl ar o r s d i t l cr s in m a n y wa vs lio m r h r t p u b lir h c rl i n Fn,nr h i n l 9i l 5 unrl rr thc r j t l e " L i t Vie , I' e \p e r ie n ce e t la scie n ce " ( se c bfl '^\. un(l (r Iq85). : C , ' l i n ( ; ( , ( l o n , " T h c No r m a l .r n d th c P.r th o lo g ic al A N ote on C eorgesC angui l h L r n , l <lu n o g ro n d Co n r .,d ,r r r .i j ( 1 9 8 0 ) . p p. l l 16.

198? N l . S h o r t l a n d ,"l l i sta se r ( i $ h !o l L j l c."i ( /cd l o g r d n d C ,n r .i o u r n .$ 9 ( t9 tr r - 8 2 ) , p p . l l i- 2 2 .



A rer i.$ ol On rhc Ntnro/ ,rnrtrhr.foriolooroi {l)onlrccht, l97n). 'lamavo, Rul P6rez, tifr..r (rU(\i.o: Ft Colcgji, Naci.,nal, 1982).
A c ri ti c al ev al uari on C angui l hc m\ rv ork , i n p.rrti c ul ar/hc ,\brn,a/.rnJ ol th? Pathol oU !rc |. ?p. tS + 1. on

198 3
C hri stophc r Larrrenc e, R ev i e$ ol (;(orges C angui l hc m, On the N omot anrt thc Potholol l i Lal ordrec hr: R c i drt. te78), anrl ofl : K r;upt Tarl or, /i c (D C on oJ IIlness,Dkeoscond )1thus (Canbridge: Cambridgc Universitv t,rcr(, ':epts 1919). B ri hh l ourntt b h. rk ,,f -\.k ' ,n. j 6 (1981), pp.9t_96. 1984

R L r r s t l l N l a u litz, Rcvics o l On ttu No r n to l .tn d th. P .tthol ogi ftl (l )ordrccht: Reidel, 19711), /si,l1 ( l9 liO) , p . 6 7 ,+ . 198. \ \ i A . A l b u r y , Rcvicr v o l On tlc No r m a l a n < lth e kt hol ognal (D ordrecht: R ci del , 1 9 7 8 ) , C lio .a h d ico 1 5 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ,p p . Il5 - 1 6 . l \ l i l c S h o r t l a n d ," ln tr o d u ctio n to Ce o r g e sCa n gui l hem." R oJrco/P i i l osopl r'29

$/i l l i ,rm C ol eman, [Lx trac ts rrorn rhc c i rati on rv ri ttc n and rei (t b! $,i

i .rnr C ol ema n, on rhe oc c as i dr oi rhe a* anl ol thc S arton l \{ edalol .the l l i s ton ol Sci e nc e S oc i r:ty to (i rc rgrs C angui l hrm, on 28 Oc t< ,ber l r)ul l ,,.pri l e i nnouncc menrs ,' /' i r 75.2 (198.1), 157 p.

,.Gtl rgts Jcan P i errr:C hri ti en (;oni , C angui l hc rn. 190.1_,'i , Il eni s I tuy s mnns , n etl ., D ttti onnoi rc < l c tphi l L,hph$,2 v ol s . (tl ari s : prrs s es U ni v ers i tri res dc France, 1984).v ol . I, pp. 16r)-65. An a n:l v s i sol C angui thc rr' snri r rork s .

( r e8r )P P. 9 -2 0 . . l
, \ n o te o n Ca n g u ilh e m ,in tr o d r r cin ga n F ngl i sh tr,rn\l i ti ,'n ol "Qu'cst'ce q u ' u n c id e o k,g ie r citn tiliq u t? " 1 4 i r t i n 5 t n u m , Rcvicr vo fOn r ic \,r m o ln J 1 9 ' 7 , \ 1l,o u n o l a f th e ttsto r v o l tltJu n t u8-ll9. r h t Pathol a4KolL)ordrecht:R ei del , ( d n .l .A l hc.lS .i enct:'36 (1981), pp.

t985 I hc Ibl l orvi n garti c l * ,,r,. pubti ,he(l i n i s p(r i .rti s s ur ot B c y rer/cni r,tphrs ry ut ct dc norc l e 90.1(l 9U t ) d.!o((< i (. C ani tui l henr:



l r r n q o i r D ag o g n e t," tln l. o e u \r e e n r r o is tcDr Ps "'pp 29-l U ' suP crvi sor' C a ng u ilh e m h a r l b e e n Dn g o g n e t' sd isse rttrti on N l i c h e l F o u ca u lt, " L a Vic, l' cxp!r ie n cee t la scicnce"'pp. l -14' 'I o f F o u ca u lt' s in tr o ducti on to thc E ngl i sh trnn\l a' h e F r e n ch ' cr sio n r i o n o f l e No r m o /ct /c p tth o lo tliq u .. l l e n r i P i q u i g n o t, "( ;( i,r g cs Ca n g u ilh e m ct h m ideci nt"'pp )9-;{)'

on "l e N ormal c t l e pathol ogi que en ques ti on" i n honor ofC angui l hc m: Franqoi sD agogn* , "Le N ormal et l e pathol ogi que." pp. 7-10; B Je an-C l audc eaul ne,"C anqui l hem, Fouc aul t rt l c s autres ," pp. Jl -20r C h ri s ti ane S i ndi ng, "R el i re C angui l hem. l )c l a N onl )ti v i 16 i l a norm.rl i tc," pp. 2l - 2 5; tl e nri P i qui gnot, "La C l i ni que fac c au del i tec hni qrre." pp. 2?-1l r Anne Fagot Largc aul t."l ' c rs un nouv eaunatur;rl i s me,"pp. 13-38;

C a n g u ilh e m h a d wr itte n a p r e fa ce to I' equi gnoC sbook' l i {t//tr cr i rrc r,cur, in 1981. Tcrmi nal e (1937-1938): U n J a c q u e sP i qu e m a l, "C. Ca n g u ilh e m , p r o fe sse u rde E s r i d c t6 m o ig n a g e ." p P 6 3 - 8 3 Inrl l a c r lu cs Piq u e n r a l h a d h ccn a stu d e n t ol C rngui l hem i n Toul otrs< l a t e r i n Pa r is. j c r n J a c q u e s lo m o n ,"Cco r g e s Ca n g u ilh cn l o u l r moderni ta," PP . s2 62 Sa S a l o m o n h a d b e e n a stu d cn t o fCr n g u ilh cm i n P ari s i , B e r t r a n dS a in t- Se r n in " Ce o r g cs Ca n g u iJh e r n ln Sorbonne"'Pp. 84-92. S a i n t- se r n inh a d b ce n a stu d e n t o fCa n g ui l htm at the S orbonnc [ ; \ n o n v n r r ' !s]. "Eib lio g r ip h ic ( lcs tr tr viu x d e Ce orgts C angui l hem," pp 9s-105


D eni s V ers ant,"E pi s temol ogi e de I' i nc c rtai n," pp. l 9-46r H c rv 6 Le ts ras , a ' nomrc ' di mographi quc : P ol i ti quc et i i l 6rl l ogi c dan\ "l l es sci enc ess oc i al es ,"pp.47-50; C i l tes E rri eau, "(l n P r.rti c i rn (i re aux c ,> nc eprs :' N ornr.l ' er' pIth,' Iogi qu e' pour l e g6n6ral i s rc ."pp. 5l -5 2; S i uart F. S pi c k er,"L' U n et l e mul ti pl c : L' E pi s ti mol ogi e m6di c al e l i anqai scvue des L|S A ," pp.53-59; "P Irra n{ oi sR av eau, our un di al (} gue na(urc /c ul tLrre: V uesde I' anthr< r Les p<,l oq i eD r6di c al e."pp. 6l -6)i ( h i rl es E ri s \c t, "La' l )ouN e' rhi ,rtric ...." pp. (tl -66; Mi rc el C ol i n trn(lThi errr Gui c hard, "D 6v i anrL' . ps !c hi atri c et s oc i etc : Lcs Imp ui s s anc es c orps v rc i al ," pp.67-69; du l \l i rei l l e D el mas l \' l arty ."N ornrc s et droi t: R c pi re5 pour unc ' mi 5e en <rrmpati bi l i t6."' pp. 7l -76r I'r,l nqoi s eC ai l l , "Fx empl ai n, oc i rnographi e...Le N ornral ' en 16,ol u, hi s roi rc rk l a l ol j e: A ranr et apri s l a ps v ,

T h i s b ib lio g r r p h r Pir tia lly co ve r sCiin g ui l htm s Iri ti ngs and gnes a l i 'r o f C a n g u ilh e m ' s co u r se s a t th e F a cu lt[ r lrr l cttres of the U ni \crti rc de S t r a d n u r g , a t th e So r b o n n ea n d a t th e In stirut d'hi stoi rc dcs sci ences. G.fl. Brieger, Review ol On the Nornol ond th. fddolotirdl (Dordrecht: Reidel'

1 9 1 8 ) , Bu llctino l th t Ht' to r r o f M e d icin c5 9 | 1935 )' pp l 32-33 l9 E6 C.M.P.Nl. I Iertogh, Btthelard en CanBuilh.n: tP'\tenolo{lische Discontttu'Ictt en h e t n c d *h n a r n b u o r ip ( Am ste r d a m : VU Ui l geveri j ' 1986). i D . C h c v r o to n , Re vie r r .r iDu Dd vclo p p cn e n t I'i vol uti on (P ari s: Pre:res U ni 86 v e r s i t air cs e F r n n ce . l' 1 8 5 ) , /:' ln n lc Pr - r cloi oi Trgur (1986)' pp.2?5-76' d

ri on pe rmanente," pp. 77-79. Sl La( f. S pi c k er,' A n Introduti ,)n to thc Medi c al E pi s remol ogy of (;eorges ' ttedi c i ne

C anguil hem: l \' l ov i ng bc rond N 4i c hc l Fouc aul t." The J ourndl ol ontl P hi l os op l 2 (l 9l l 7), pp. l e7-411. An .rnalvsisofOr rrSc ,\'ornol antl rhc Patholollical.

\l i s<1utz(i rrc i a, "La c ri ti (J rl r l a hi s tori r rl ogmi ti ta rl e l as c i t:nc i .rsen l ,r epj srrmol D gi adc (;eorgesC angui l hc m," i n A ngfl l U . L.,rc n,o, J os e L. h* set itnd Francisc(' V;squtt, l.stuitos lc historiatb los rrn'trr,vol. 1: Lockc, IIunte, C drgdtl nen (t.os P al ac i os , i l l afranc a:A .M. Lorrnz o, 1987),pp.95-126. V

1987 (Winter 1986-87) issuc'+0 a tt publishcd special lhe journal rrorp.dirc Sanrd



P i c h o t , A n dr i. Rcvi$ v o l Du Divclo p p tn tcn rA f i nl utj on (I'.l ri s: P re\sesU ni v c r s i t a i r csd c tr r a n ce ,1 9 85 ) , fr u d cJ p l5 iio r o p.rri gucs { 19i 37 pp. 3 29- 30. '12 ),

tnn of l rc nc c l c ambti dgc , l \' l A : Itarv ard Ltni v ers i o t,res s , l 9B 8),,r|.,.i ,.d/ H ,r.orf 14 (1990), pp. l l l 1.1.

Rogct Smith, Rev'ew of/rlcoloor: and Rationdhtv in th. Itktorl ol the Ltfc Sticnccs 1988 (C rmb .i dge, J \' l A :Ml t P rc s , l 9l l l l ) and ol l hc N rrma1 dn.t th. P dthoh\fdl (N .w York : Zone B o(,k s , l 9l J 9), /nn.rt ol S .,c n...17.2(1990). pp. 199-201. F r a n q o i s z o u vi, " Ca r g u ilh cm , Cco r g e s," lc Dii,.,r 50 (i U a\-A ug. 1988).p. 216. A A s ho r t b io g r a p h ica ln o tice . t99l

198 9

ond R dti onol i t).n thc tti s to ol the Li /. S .k nc c s i Jo) l l )^cv, R ev i eu of /r/c o/ogr (C rnbri (l gc . MA : N l l l P res s .l el ti l ), /' i ,82 (1991).p.610.

C a r ) ( ; u t t i ng , .tlich cl lo u co u lt s Ar L h a ca b C a m b r i dg t' Un i' ,:r sit1 Pr t' ss.1 9 8 9 ) .

o J S.i cnti l i . R coron (C ambrr,l ge,

firll j,rrion. Rttn'u <tf I<liololltctt rortordlirl (P,rris: Vrin, \97'7), Revuc l'lnnitut de J. i t.,.r/.,4r. I I(l e9l ).tp. 167 70.

pp. i 2 5a. "ork, K e n n e t h A . l r r n g , Rcvie w o f ld .o lo g .ra n .f fictr onoi n thc Il stan ol thc I i l t rtl S t i c n t c s( Ca m b r id g c, l\1 A: NllT Pr cs. le tilJ) , C 1,ol l l ..l ( l 9l J9). p. .107.

I n c lu d e s: d iscu ssio no l Ca n g u ilh t' m s

(;. K.irn1. Relict! oi tladoqy and Rationaltt! in th. Histar). ol th. I +; Scjcn..\ (C anrbri dge.IU A : N l l T P ft\{ , l q88), Iry i ronm.nt dnd P l dn i ! D -S D .i ,!t< tn< l Jf.r.r q (l 9et). P P . l 7I i -1. 11. N i c(rl i n. "Th( S d(i .rl .rnrlthc (ogni ti v r: R c s ,rurc c si ,r thc S oc i c ,l .,[r ol S ( i l rnri l i c K nD t!l rdgc ," /l i ,tD \ ont P hi l o\npht S .r.D ..22 (1991).pp. 117-69. ol


An e\s i ! rel i .w (,1 Ih. \,,rn)d/ ond th? P dthol ogi rc (X ew Y ()rL, 7(,nf l B ooLs , I989).

t ) r r i r l l l r a i n . "F r o m th e Hjsto r r o 1 Scje n tc to t he S ,xj ol ('r!,,1 th! N ornri l .' C o n t c n p o r a r .v tr clo g .r ( 1 9 9 0 ) , p p . 9 0 :- e 06. So l9 I r cvie r v o t Ih c No r n n l a n < l r ,6 c/.r r h o lori .d/ {N c$ l orl ' Zone l l ool s,

R . ()l b!. Rev i c $ ol l dc ol ol y onl R attonol i tv i n thc H [tot! of th. Ii l c S c i ut.r\ (C l mbr i dgc , .MA : MIT I' rc s s , l 98tl ), B ri ri J } /otrnal l or ttu Its tor.vol S c i c nc c 21 (r99 1), P P .494 96. D . Ir,rtcr. R tv i erv ot Itu N ornal onJ rhc P adol r9rol l N eu Y orL: Zont 8rx ,k s , te!,9), J orrnal of ttu H i s tor.r l tnl ogv 21(1991),pp. 542-' 15. ol

1 9 8 9 ) i s se ll a s o l th o se r vo r ls o l 1 4 ich e l l' oucaul t tr.rnsl atcLJ i nto Engl i sh. \'1. Ercshchkl., Rcvicrr of/Jcolooy ond Rdtionalttv in th. llisrr ol rhc Iift Sctcncs

( C a m b r id g c, l\' 1 A:M I I Pr e ss,1 9 8 8 ) , Q:o r tir lr, Acrrcl f rl Bi ol orr 65 {l q9{)). p p . 5 8 59 . S. Cilmu, lte vie u o l T h c No r n a l o n < tth c Pa r lo lottr.r/(N c\ Y ork: Zont' B ool s.

1992 P.rfr Osrlvald, Rerirw of i hc Norntol dntl rh. ldrioli,a/r..r1 (Ncw york: Zonc U(xrks. l9tt9)./orrrr.//.tth.lliston ol ttu B.ho'ior.r/ J-.icn.c' (Ocr. 1992), 2lt p ? . 1 ) 2- ) 1 . "Pn.senrrzionc iacquc;Cuillerme, dcll'edirionc iralirnn: ceorgcs Canguilhem, un en,e modcrno?," C.rnguilhem, in I.tutogioe t<uin".tlitd ncltostoritt c rtc

r 9 i r e ) , i r ir 8 l ( 1 9 9 0 ) , p p .7 .1 6 ,4 8 . I l o s a r d l . K a r r . Re vie w o l Ih c No r ,r o l u n < lr h t P othol agntl l N cl v )'ork: Zone B o i ) k s , l 9 lt9 ) ,/o u r n d lo / ln t.tu liscip lin o t.r Ilktor.r 2l (t990), pp. l ,+r-,+1. C. I ax n nce, lteviex ol /r/eolo17r' onrl Rorronalirr in thc Histor) ol th? I if. S.i.n.cs ( C r m b r i d g c, NlA, l\1 lT P.t.ss, l9 illt) , a n d o l l l run<, I atour, l hc P art,:uri n-


l' ,.n/,| del\.1 vit.Jj Nuav, rru<1,<lt storia e flosofia,r'ciic scrcnzt (t;lorence: La N u o l i lL a lir Ed ir r ice , 1 9 9 2) . p p . vii- x!i. Gu J a cq u e s ille n lc h .r d b e e n a r r u d e n t ofC angui l henr i n P ari s

Ger ard I ehrun. "D e Ia s up(;ri ori te dtr fi l ant humi i n dans l ' I rol ur,on rri otrrrc . pp. 20l l -22; I-ra ni ;,,i s D el rporte. "l a P robl !nati rl ur hi s tori que dc Ir v i (," pp.


A l fo nv r M. Iac ono, "C c orges C i ngui l hc m tt I' hi s toi re du c onc ept df 16ti chi s mc ,"pp. 2 33-42;

Acres du colloquc (6 7 E {'torges Cangutlhen: Philosoph<,hirroricn dcs scicnces. dxmbre 1 9 9 0 ) lPa r ;" ,:Alb in Nlich !1 ,l9 9 l) .

Jan S c bc rti k . "l -e R 6l e de Ia tec hni quc rl ;ns l beuv re de tl eorges C angui l hem , ' pp. 2+ 1-50r "S Mar c .J ei nndri !1, ur l e C c ,nc c ptde morrv c rnc nt (nrtai rc ." fp. 2 5l -6l i !ol D onri D j quc Lc c ,,urt, "La Quts ti (,n de I' i ndi v i dr d' apri s Georgc sC angui l hem , ' pp. 262-70;

o E d ite d b y th c < ,r g a n iu e n t th c cr n lo q ui um: Eti enne tsal i har,l \l i rei l l e C a r d o r, F r a n q o isc r o u r . l\tich cl F ich .in t,Don)i ni quc L(court rnd i rcques Du

l n c lu d e s: M i c h e l F ich a n t, "Ge o r g e s Ca n g u ilh e m et I'l da'e de l a phi l osophi c," pp.37-48; F r a n co iscDu ( ,u x, "L ' lm tr g in a ir e b io lo gi que du pol i ti qr.re,"pp. 49-57; E t i e n n e Ba lib a r . " Scicn cc ct t6 r itt d ins l a phi l osophi t'(l c Gcorgts C r n g u ilh e m ," p p . 5 8 - 7 6 : H r l lin e Vir in , " G' :r ' r r L s Cr n g u ilh e m e t l e geni c," pp. 77-89i J e an Pie r r e 5 6 r is, "L llist.) ir r ct la vic," pp. 90-l 0l : F r a n q o isC( ) s, "tjo m m ,r g e i Ca n Su ilh enl ,"pp. 10,+-l t)9; Claude Debru, "Georges Canguilhem et la normativiti du Pathologiciuc: D i m e n sio n s ip ist6 m o lo g iq u ( \ ct a th iq u cs." pp. I l 0-20i Anne Marie i\{oulin, "La l\4trdecincmodcrnr sclon Gcorgc' Crnguilhem. ' C o n c ep ts e n a tte n te ' , p p . l.ll J4 ; E l i r b cth Ro u d in cs( o . " Situ a tio n d ' u n &,\te: Qu'est-cc que h ps,!chol o g i c - r "p p . 1 3 5 - 4 4 r Y ve ttc Co n r y, "L a F r > r m a r io nd u co n cept dr: mi tanrrphose, tl n Essai d ' a p p l ica tio nd c la p r o b llm a tiq u e ca n g u ilh 6mi ennedu normal c du pathol o g i q u e," p p . 1 4 5 - 5 7 i C 6 r a r d l\lo lin a , " ' D,r n ' in c' t \Va lla cc...', trentc ans trpras,"pP. l 5l t-74; P a sca llissy, "De ve lo p p cllr ( ' n t ct tcm p s gan[al ogi quc," pp. 175-93; j e . r r rNta th io t. "Gcn cliq u t ct co n n a issancc e l a vi c, pp. 194 2{J7; rl

Al ai n P roc hi antr,"Lc Mat6ri al i s me (;u,rges C angui l hem,"pp. 271-781 dc Franc i s c o.JV arel a,"' l e C erv eauet l a pens ee' ,"pp. 279-l .i 5i . Pi erre Mac herev , "D e C .rngui l hen.i C angui l hem en pas s antpar FoLr, ci ul t," p p.286-94; Al rin B adi ou. ' Y a-t-i l une thi (,ri e dr| s |j c t c hez C angui l hc mr" pp.

)ves S c hrv artr."Ll ne R c mont6e en rroj r r.mpr: Georgc sC angrri l hem, l i vi c, Ic tri t!ri l ," pp. 105-2l r and Mi c hel D egu_,", Il oc uti on de c l dturc ," pp. 12.1 i 0. "A l nch' des a l ettc r rc c c i v ed from C angui l hem, on p. l 2' + . Franqoi sA?ouv i , "LIn N l ai tre i nl l uc nr et di s c rer, ' l c ,tfonde, l av 27, 1991. N Rcvir\ ol C!d.q.J Cdnlluilhen: Philosopht, h'\r[rin d.' rcicnrcs.A<t.',1u

.o//oqu.1I,rri 1:A l bi n \l i c hel , l 99l ). D i di cr Frj boD . "C rngui J hem l c prt(D ." l 99l ), p. 56. Rcvies ol Ccorgcr Canouilhot: Philosopht. htttoicn <les \.i.n.e'. coi l or7rcP ari s :A l bi n M i c hel , 199I ). ( Marc R egon , "K i ng C ang," Lhi fdrk , (Feb..1, l egl ), pp. l 9 21. on rht: oc c as i onol the pub tlctesJu l . N c l l r./ { )bny r,,rc ur(l ur(h IR -14.

Inkr rmati on on C angui l hem\ l i l i ' :nd rorl .

l i crti on ol G..orqc rC ongui l hen: P hi l o:ophc ,hts t,' rrc n i s ri c rrc r. :1c rc i < /o dc .o//.,9u.(P ari s iA l hi n N l i c hel , l 99l ).


4t )

Ackn o u ' le d g e m e n ts

l rom the tcncr T h e c o m p i l i r i,) n o f th is b ib lio g r r p h v b e n e lltcd subsrrnti al l v ard vtrY S rrteo u s i s s i s t a n c. o f m a n y p co p te to "h o m I a m g r eatl v i ndebk\l D rri d-N {'nrrd' fr l i r l . T h c s c i n t lL r tlc: a n e o is De h Po .tc, Cla u d ' ' iu i'na(l N toni qui r ( ;u ille r m c a n d Iur P i e t r o C o r : i , lld lin e \tr in , ir cq ( r c\ S chsartz' w ho prrvi <l cd (i ':'rrgesC ':nuui l hem p h o t o c o p i c s,r n d r tk r cn ccs( ) l t' tlcs d illic' r it tL .l(x 'tc '!r)d s h o g a v e n r , c,,p ie so ir a r c itcm s lr lso r vish to thant t$o01m) reserrch'r\si s i wh t a n t s . S t i p h a n e Ca sto n g u a y o r o n d u cttr l th o rough scarches n bi bl i ographi of c a l d a t a b a nks, a n d Vin ce n t Pa q u ctte ( h o tr a nscri bc<ldi fl erent versi on' Pi erre t h . b i b l i o g r :lp h y, a s we ll a s th e d o cu m cn r a lists ol our researchcent'r' *crc D i C a m p o a n d ivla r ic Pi!r r c IPPe r sie l, r vh o d edj c'ttrl rrnrth ri me rn(i r c ' m a r k a b l yin g e n u o u s in p r o cu r in g te xts I r lso si nt r(' thanl the authLrr'ri f\ 01 o f t h e B i b l i o th d q u e n a tio n n le in Pa r is' x' h o p r ovi ded mc !'i th a mi crofi l nr com d p t h e c t m p l e t e L ib r e s r o p o s n io in . t' in a lll, I { a n t to strcssthe exccPti onal p r t c n c e , r h .,( ,u g h n e ssa n d d e d ica tio n o tth e e d itors at '1'rne Books' pani cul 'rrl 1 m 'rn'l \ ' t c i g h a nC rlc, r ' ith o u t wh o m I ,vo u l< th .r ve a r ic numerri ur i nconsi stcnci cs m i s t a k e s .( )fco r r r sc. a n y r e m a iDin gd e llcicn cv is tul l v mi ttc'


L j fi n- Fri nroi s

S i ri r)fl l i , (;i rl rdrnD i nrc l l nutl l c : { l .i gnrui

c r l ormo/rc ns

dansI'nrrc dtu:11uc rrc(P i ,ri \: I:.rv ard. eui J ), p. + 65. ' l 2. Ibi d., p. 599. l . {i co rges C angui l hc nt, 1r \brnrdl tr k pathal ogk l uc(P ari s : t' rrs rs tl ni rcrsi ti ri rts rl t F-rrnc ., l (r6(r)i l \orntul and ttu l \nl ol ,,rrnal , tran;. (.rni l l n R .

Fi scrrr (Nor Y ork : Z,)nf l l tok s , l t)81)). +. Je.l nJ ac quc sS :l onr,n, "{ i eorges C rngrri l hc m ou l .r m< ,tl c rni ta," i { c v uc d( nl toph'i quc c t < !cn)or.r/.l (l 9i J 5). 5. touis A l thu5s er. "P rtl rtnt.rti ,)n," i n I' i errc l \1:c hc rv ."1 rl ' hi l onl phi c dc h r i tncc d c Gt' < ,rgc C rngui l htnr," to P c n,r l l l (1961),p.;1. s {'. C angui l hem, "l ntrr> rl rrc ri ,,n: l he R ,' l r,,1 Fpi \rrnol og\ rar\ l fi \tor\ ol S c i c nc c .' i n l dc ol o i n C ,' nnmp(f

ond R ornnal n i n rhc Il i nart oJ thc Ii l c

.\.i .D .rr (C l m bri dge, N l A : l \11 P rc s s .l 9l tl l ), p. i ). I 7. l bi d., p. l . i l . H run o L:tourrn< l C c ol l l l nv L.r, ' A H ,x ,' ni fi g l )i s .i pl i nc S hort ol t)i \c i t,l i ,rc: {S ,,.ial )S rudi .r,)l S .i .nc ri nFran(.. I71l 9l t?). -\d.j rriS ruJ rc rry ' Itrc nri 9. C anS ui l bc m,"l Ohj c t dc I' hi s t< i i rtdc s s r:i c nc r:s (l 96l t), i n l rr,i . J hi r " phi c < l c rr.k r..r(5th ed.. P rri s : \' ri n. I98I).p. IL

toi ft.|de l h i b

10. l bi d ., p. 16 a,rd Ie Ip.25,26 ol thi s n..r< 1,:r. l t. ,id.. p. Iu.


lt t

1 2 . C a n g u ilh e n rs Do cto r a t d ' ftr i,

Ia !:a rrl 'l tton du contcpt <l erl fl ':rc aut

ncti vi (y of the quarry mrn or mi ner, l rom w ork i n a qui rrv or mi ne. To drv el l on thi s commonpl ac e here w oul d tak e us too f;r afi c l d. p. l . Quotcd i n MetTger,l a Gc ni s e, 195. 4. Thi s i s, j n part. the s ubj c c t ofa s tudy by J ac quesP i quemi tl . l 5. "Theote ti c al prac ti c e dl s s i thi n the g!nei al deti ni ti on < .' fpr,rc ti c e. t Korks on a ras materi al (repres ent:ti ons ! c onc epts , fac ts ) w hi c h i s gi v en by orher practi ces. w hether ' empi ri c al ,' ' tec hni c al ,' or ' i deol ogi c dl .' .. . Th( theoreti cal practi ce ofa s c i enc e i s al * ay s c r:mpl etc l r di s ti nc t from the i deol ogi c rl thcor!ti cal pra c ti c e ofi ts prc hi s torl " (Loui l A I(hus rer, for ,/drr. trnns . B en Brew ster fN c'v Y ork : V i ntage, I9701, p. 167).

1977)' I l , l i r r , { / / /lr ;ir /cr ( Pr r is:Pr ( sse sUn ive r sita ir e sdcFrance'1955;V ri n tcnps.'' R .'uc de ar':roptl rr4ut l l . I : r in q o is Dr g ( ,g n ct, ' Un e Otu vr e cn tr oi s c t d ( m o r dlc I ( 1 9 u 5 ) P 3 0 1 4 . l b id ,P 3 l.

1 5 . I tli( j .P ll i n thc H i stort ot Bi 'togi ci l 1 6 . C .r n g u ilh e n r ," I h c Qu e stio n ' r i No r m il i ty l 2u and see p 205 ofthi s rudcr' ' f h o u g h t " ( 1 e 7 3 ) , in /d e o lo fl.t n ( l R' ) tio n a lir y' P d p l S l and scc p 34l ol 1 7 . Ca n g u ilh e m , ttu No r n a t ' tn tl th c Pa thol ogrc'tl I t t . l b i< I.,PP. 1 9 6 - 9 7 . et d'htstotrc Ll ephi l osophrc 1 9 . Ca n g u ilh e m ' "L e Co n c' P( | t ln vie " ' in ErLtdes p d l r r i e n c cr , i3 5 . 2 0 . D ig o g n tt, " Oe u vr ( "' P l2 ' ll. t c Co n ce Pt," P. l6 { )

6. See my "Caston Bachelard," Strcntia, c tecnologi.ontcnryokrnci 1,pP.6567. IB achel ard' s* ,ork i n thc hi s tory ol s c i enc eand epi * emol ogy i s muc h bet' rer knorrn i n E uropc than i n rht U ni te< l S tatc s ,* here hi s reputati on i r pri ma ri l y as a Ii terarv c ri ti c . l nteres te< readersrv i thout Frenc h may !v i s h to.on\ul t l my tranrl ati on of Il c N c v S c renti fi cS pi rt (A os ton: B c nc on, 1985), u hi c h rontai ns bi ographi c aland other i nformati on. - TR A N s .] ?. Gast<,nBacbclard. I? llatdriahen. kttionnrl {P:rir: Prcssts Unjvcrsitiiirc\ de France, 195 3). 8. l bnl .. p. 86.

2 2 . tb id ., P 1 6 2 . cr In sci cncc.'' l l cvrrcdc ni t'r' 2 J . \lich e l F o u ca u lt. ' L a \/ic. ) cxp ir ie nce a s th c l ntr('ducti on to Il e N nrmal ond I p h t s i . t u .e t.le r r ,a r cttc( 1 9 8 5 ) , tr a n sla tcd ith o tl' o u o n d tiq u e c t fontol i snc: E s\oiru l e Ptobt'm' /d l or' m u r .tr j.' a a r r q u( P' r r is:Ile l]nl nn' l ql 8)' R fm'rrgl rcj 'u' es

2 ' + . J ca n Ca va illis, l u l o n < t tn cn t r ? .t

9. S ee Annc FagoC spaper, "Le' l rans fi rrrni s mc ' de

l \taupertui s ," and mv

rcmarks i n tht' ens ui ng di s c rs s i on i n .l ttes tl c Io J ourni t,l l au2c rui r, C retei l , dc V D eccmber I, 1973 (P .rri s : ri n, I975). E mi l e C uy dnot i n L' E v ol uti on l d pc ns i e l sci cml \oe. h*crc nt' :\ tl e 1o v i c out.Ll i i ' c t .Y i //' ri i t i c ' (t' ari s :A . 14i c hc l . l 9' 11) "a gocs so far as to c al l l v taupertui s genc ti c i 5t" (p. J 89 ). 1rr. Jean C ] .l v ai l l c s S ur l o l ogtqu , V ri n, 1976), p.7 0. ll. Ibi d., p.78. l a thi oti . dt 1o v i c nc c (3rd c rl .. t' ari s :

H ermann' 1939);C angui l hem' t' ( l n d t i o n 1.lo r h io r l( d b stn n e d e se n scm b lr(s a ri s: (Ambi;let: Pitrc Laleure' I'raa )lon t)t Jun Gvaillis' in Lct C'trncs lc Bourleror

te'7 61.
cri \e (l u P rotcstanti 5me ? 5 . Cr r a ille s, " Pr o r e \r in tism c ct Ilitlr r isme: La a l l e m a n d ." Er Pr it( Ni,\' . l9 ]l)

l . l n r ( ) Nr r NIEI tIo D( ) l ( ,cY (P 'rri s:Al can' l 9l 8)' d l . l lilr :n c M ctzg e r , 1 o Ccn ice t: Ia vt' :nccdc\ 'ri rf'rur but ratl x r the obj cct 2 . No < lo u b t,a "n :tu r a l o b jccC is n o t n atural l vnatural For cxrmPl c' the ('bj cct o t l o m mo n txPcr ie n ct a n ( ' Pcr ccPtr o nr lir h in n cul ture apart i i orn the h ' ' n l i n c r a l" r n ( l th e i,b ' e ct' .l:r 1 - sta l" a vc n o si gni l i crnt eri rtcnce

12. [l n rre nc h: l i ' oc turc .Thc rv or< l ,l v hi c h i s to br c ompared * i th the no' ti ons ol rn epi stc mol otl i c al al (rupl urc )or "tc ar" (r/i r,l i rurc ) l rl by B ac hc l ar< |, us bl ts l rorrrvcd l ro m e J c an C av ai l l i r: ". . .. er l i ac runx d' i n< l c pen< l ancs uc c $s i v ts qu' chi qL,. l i ,i ! di tac h( nt s ur l ' anti ri eur l e prol i l i mpi ' ri eLrx c c c qui v i ent apri \ rl 'xi c.\.di , ci n.nt c r porrr Ie d6pas s c i ' ( \ur /rr i o tl tga.c t Lt thi otj (. p. 28).)

4t 6

1t 7

h a sb ce n studi ((l l rom the standpoi nt 1 3 . T h c r esp o n * t.r Da r r vin in F r a n cc u ( ir n r ,r ' I ' ln r a xlucoon<i Jarr I ni trr,'ut l k'n( lr , ) l c r i r r c a l ( P i sifn r ( ' 1 .) g v r Yr tttt n , r I / I ' 5 t 4 . / d ( P.r r i\:vr in ' 1 9 7 ' 1 ) ' i :i udc' J l tstui rc d' 1')P'n\tc 1 4 . S e e A lcxa n ttr e Ko lr i' "Ga Jili' e ct Pla to n " ' (P l6 6 - 9 s' and EruJesi Tal i i i cnncs ari s: r . k r r , r . t u c ( Pa r is: tia llim :r < J, l9 7 l) , p p Koyri statts that ht la tte r Iork t t . r m a n n , t 9 ' + a l) .Ar th c b e g in n in g o t th c lr is i rut th'!l i n tc N l uvcl crpri t b o n o r r c d t h c tcr m r n u lir r r o ' fr o n Ba ch tl' r r r l epi *trro|rgi cal di sconti nuJtt n r c n . t i g u c ( l 9l+ ) a n il Io Ph ilo so p tu n o n\1 9 4 0 )' biolog,v l his crrl'v Bachelardiitn itr is rlescriberl using mctaphors borro$cd 1r{'m bre'rk" i n Ic R ori onal narc l o c r b u l a r y w as clin lin a tt< l in la vo r o f" c' p istcm o lo gi cal d p p l i q u i \ t 9 4 <) \. Arm'rnd C (ni n' n r 5 . N l a ur iceClir ve lin 'I o Ph lo so p h lc o tu r d lt ' lc C 'rl i i i ' l Prri \: modrl rnd chrl l cnges thr l 9 6 l l ) , c o n f i r n s th c va lid it\ o l th c ' \r ch im td ca n o u s c l u l n c s s 1 th c t' la to n ist a flilia tio n ' ( T u r in: l i naudi ' 1957)' 1 6 . L u r l o r ico ( icym o n a t, G' r l' /coC' r /i/" p 1 7 . K o y r c, ttr r L x.g a li/te n n e s, p llt- 1 ) ' (l : j \l rndel "' l cctrrtc del ncrcrl 1 8 . i r c q u.s f i.lu cn r a l' ' AsPccts r lt h P' r n sce r r t h c P a l a i sd .li D.lco u vCr tc'Pa r is, l9 6 s' ho' to thc 1 9 . I n t his ca sc' th c n a m c l]1 ih c scicn ce r vastrrnsl erred P (xt tay arornd' o i d t o l o g v ; i n th e c.r se fa to m ism . it ' v' r sth e o th cr ()f tIi 5rori '1ns S ci cnct i n ol 2 0 . ( l c r d Bu ch d a h l. "On th e Pr e s( r Pp o sitions i 'n"r! /t S ct'ntf I (1967)' A l i s t a i r C a n rtr o n Cr o r n b it r n r l l\lich r e t llo slin s' erl s pp.61 11. hi storl ol xri encc' 2 1 . S e t th e in r u g u r r l le ctu r e in a co u r se o n the gcncral in Rcvreoctl enrol c' l \4ar 1' l i l 9l ' C o l l i g e < l c lr a n cc 1 \4 a r ch2 6 , lltg 2 ) Pr in te ( l p. l'1 td'r")Pordr'f (P ari s: 2 2 . B a c h tl.r r ,l. I' .1 .r ivr r i r d r i' ' r ' i' !r c d c la pi rs;'1uc rl so "l 'Acnral i te dc I'hi \t()i re cle P r c s s e rU n i ve r sir .r ir cs F r r n ce . 1 9 5 1 ) 'p 2 5 ' See < lc l a fti couvcrte' Pari s' d e s s c i e n c e s."lcctu r c ( le livcr cd a t th c P' r la ir R atbn')l i sn1c 'tP P ti ttut' 2 1 . l l a ch cla r r l' l' Actjvjti r d tio n < th tt'p S Seeal sol c corrccr'' It /cI]u/'rftl 'r' l t ( l( r ( s n o t' b e q in ' lt l l 2 : " R i ti( ,n .r li\t th in kin g f.


l .l . Thri mas K rrhn, l heS truc turc ofS c i nti l i rl tc v o/uri onrl J nded.,C hi c ago: tl rri !e^itv ofC hi c trgo P ft' :i 1.1970)i Ttu C aptrni tan r\c < ,/utmn(N c s Y orl : V i nr;l gc, 19 59) dc 25. I:rangoi r R L,\s o,"Fpi s tanl ol ogi t et hi \toi rr dc s s c i enc es ."i l rr,i r,v c s i J 1-1 11911).Fathrr R us s < l i equentl y rc l c rs t{ } the i mP ortant rv ork thi l osry hi c A (ntl .i sn and thcC rc * h o/K nortJ c dgcc dl terl by l mre Lak atos .rrrrl l an N l us graw , LIK (C ,rnrl \ri dge, : C al rrh.i (l g. LIni \eni tv I)rc s , 1970), rn s ' hnrh K Lrhn' \i dtl i r{

(i i r(r'5st< l atl ength i ni l at ti mes s ev erel rc ri ti c i z ed by t-al atos . K arl P oppc r;ul j 'aul I-e y erabt:nd 26. S c e B uc hdahl , ' On the P R ,s uP l o' i ti (,nso1 l l i s tori rni of S c i enc e" ofc 17. for a c ri ti < 1uc x tc rnrl i s m, s c c K ov ri i . "l )c rs P c c ti !.\ \ur I' hi l toi rt (l c \ sr:i tnti . ," i l frurl c r rl hi rroni dc i rr pi ns .i i r,rrrrrl i gut l hi s tuti i .It,)mmt' t()n r prpcr by I l enri C uc rl rc , "S ome I ti s tori c al A s s umpti ons.l tht I l i s torv ol S Li cncc." in.\.C .C ronbi t, (Londonr l l tj remann. l 96l ). trl ., S c i c ntry ' thanS Tc r

28. J .T. C l ark . "Thr: P hi L,s ophv r.,lS c i enc e l nd l l i s t,,rv o1 S c i enc e," i n 1\l rrJr.rl C l .rgc t.c d., C ri i nl l tl ni rcri t r c ol P robl ens tht H Lrtorr S ri c nt,:12n,1tl ., N l adi s ,,n: h

oi W i rons i D t' rc \\, l 96l ). p. i 0l .

29. K ov ri ., l rnn, tht C Ios c l ttbrl J t' , rhc Infi ni tc Itnttc rs cl B rl ti more: J ohn* Il opki n s Ll ni v c rs i tv P rc !s , 1957). 10. Str: Kovri, thc lsrrononjcal Rcvohrton: Coperni&', (tp/i'r, Borc//i. tr:ns. R .F.W l U a(l di !onl l th.rc r: C ornel l tl ni v c .i i t! P fts t, l 97l ), p. + l ). ll. Foratri ti quc .s tl r1i c hel Fouta,,l t, Ih.Onl c rol Ihtnqs :1n,1rc hoc ,,1L..1t

ol th! IIw nan S (i .nc c s ll 9r,6l (N c * r(,rl : V i nragf, l 97l ), pp. 115-65. 32. S c c I)i quc mal , ' A s pec ts dc l .r pc ns i ' ede \4endc l ." ll. K ov re, ftc .,l nrononi c alR ev ol uti l n. p.11.

un3enl " !,c rtc /l ohrrrl ti l i 1

l +. A .L. l c i ttrl es , "$/c . i d der S egri i nderder Lehrc dt' n R el )c x bc * ' c g ' on .1rc prc k tts c hc l c i i l undc (P rague, l 8s 8), v ol ..l , l

15. D u B oi s -R c \m(,n(li s k no* n l i ,r rhc c o,c l udi ng rorrl , "l gn< ,rrbi nrus l ." ol hi s 0 hc r ,l i c Grc n/!t/c r N orurc rl c nnc nr 1874). { 16. D u I]oi \-l t(!nr,' nd, "(i rdj < htni s rtdt aul J ohrnrr$ Il Lrl l L.r," i n R c J c n {l t i p,i g. 1887), \ol . ), p.20' + . Thc terl rl rl )i s ad(l ' ' (' s \rrs l i rs r publ i rhc rl



(Bcrlin' I85 91' in thc ,lbhandlungen tler Aka<lcnie'\er l4lrssansdofien (Lei pzi g l 886)' i n R edea 1 7 . S e e Du Bo is- Re r m o n d \ lcctu r e o n t- a M e ttri e *a s n o t unaw are that La Mettri e had v o l . I , p . 1 7 8. D! Bo is- Re vm o n d su r e l- v Il i n l l 48 s o u g h t a n d l b u n d a sylu m n t d r e co u r t D{ F i' d r :r ick cl car to K onrarl E cl hard' l E . D t ' Bo is- Re lm o n d n e g lccte d r p o in t th a t Ias and that ofrel l !xcs' t n a m e l r , , h e r ela tio n b e t*e e n th e p r o b le m o Isym pathi es noted [ear' I haveal read;3 9 . I h a vcn o t b e e n a b le to co n su lt r h is wo r l' but uscd that P rochaska l i e r i n t h e r v o r k lr o m *h ich th is cxce r p t is ta kcn - Tn'rN s ] r h c c o n c e p t ofr cfle ctio o in h i! Pfr fr tu l' g i' o { 1 7 9 7' - 1 0 . R c d e r , 2 n d se r ie s,r o l 2 ' p al. l b i d , P. 3 1 7 . Gcschi'hte du tl'dnin \194))' 2 O5 '

54. l bi d., P . x v i . 5 5. l bi rl .,rol .3' P la

56. l bi d , v ol . I' P ' 246' 5?. tbi d.' P . 284. ' fhe c onc eP t o{ mc as urc i n c omP ' } rnti v e rn' rtomy aP P eari i n C taude 58. ln rhe prel;ce to 'UilDDirtsPtur rervrr d l'h"td'rc Perrault, architcct and anatonrist a hc w rote,' ' l t has been nec ts s aryto agre !on des naturcl l e ani nau!l 671-76), one s av s 'l or does i n arc hi tec ture- 5o that' w hen as Measureor a Modr-rl e, one htad atmal l v enrri c l e' and an unc ompl i crampl e , thatadoghas an el ongatc d the parts o1 the thes e P arts s ' i th ol cJred l e g, i t i s onl ,\ b) !omP ari s on ' rl l 'll Dagogn(t' Pour unc thiarie giftrob du formts hunr;n body." Quoted in !rd'rqoi' and l "l aupi c d' rhc mtn-mta5 rt i s (l 'ari ';:Vri n, l 9l 5). p. l ?8 B rrt l or B l ai rv i l l e s c ri es i s the c ri teri on ol perfec ti on i n thc thr: morc -than' rni nal ' man: that pP l 5' nd l l ?i v H rs roi re' ol l ' 59. S eees pec i al l vB tai nv i l l e and Maupi ed' s 431: "M C u!i er' i n my v i ew ' i s onc ol p' and {us i er c r Geoffrov S ai nt-H i l atu' ol pol i ti c al phi l os oP h) i n ac ti on-" the o s t emi n(nt ex ampl es 60. l bi d., rot l ' P 61 . l bi d., v ol l ' P 62. l bi d., P .529. 61. Ibi d. 64 . Ibk l . v ol .2, P .58' 'ii 16'

42. According to F,itz Lei..tnc' Lei4Adcn M

oPernti onsm removc p . 1 2 1 , P r o ch a skap e r fo r m e d m o r c th a n th r cc thous'rnd is n o t m c nti oned i n Feari ngs te'<t or ' 1 1 . D u 8 tli:- Rcym o n d ' s le ctu r c b i b l i o g r a p h y. (t'ari s: Li brari e J B Bai l l i i rc' 4 4 . t s i r in r ilfe , L u vit a Gco flr o v So ;n r - Hr la rrc sut hs oural l es tt l o vi c tl e 1 8 9 0 ) , p . , + l6 i co m Pa r e Du vcr n o ) , No ticch isto t t'l ue r 1 1 . c B ' o n Cu vie ( Pa r is:f.G. L cvr a u lt' l8 3 j) L T h e "sci enceoffi nanc !"'i n$hi ch economi c theor! and C u ' i e r t o o k .{ ,u r se s n t r h e Ca r o lin c Aca d e m v, incl udcd p r a c t i c e , " p olic\ scie n cc" r n d tcch n o lo g r ' 45. Blainvillc' Cuvrer ct Gcofftnv Sdin''Hi|'tnt' PP '{8-'19 (P ')ri s: Forti D ' N 1a'son' 4 6 . G e o r g e sCu r ie r , H) std i' c Jd r { ' "n ' c' ' ' r tu'fi l rr l 8 ' 1 1 - . + 5 )v o l. l, PP. l4 - 1 5 , kuts et d? I'oryani sal i on 4 7 . t s l a in r ille a n d Nla u p ie d , Hr r o tr e d e r r ciences 'l e l- e c offrc' 1847)' vol 2' p 65' d p r o 1 l r i sc o nn t b a se c ld Piilo r o Plt' ( Pa r is:J . 4 8 . I b i d., vo l. 2 ' PP. 2 5 3 1 7 ) . 2 8 { ) ' -19. Ibid.

P A Rt Tw o: E P l s i !MoL()c Y

S i h es ter I l umphri e: ( N c \r l . A ri s totl t' D . oni n.r, trans K c nel m Forter i nd 2l 7-19' P l 6l ' H rvcn, C T: Y al e U nners i tv I' rc s s , l 95l )' )l l ' i rt art.25a' P l 84' 2. Ibi d., 11.2, l . l bi d., 11.3,P P . 196-203' '1. Jean-BaptistcI amnrck. Rcrirruiti fayard. 1986). t)' ntu et L' A (t!or' 1809)' c S. Lamarc f, P hi l os ophl nol ogtqv (P rri s ; C htz !o1.2, p.6. d':s s'ien':csndttttttct 6. Ceorgcs Cuvicr, Roppoa llistoriqut \t)t h' Ptogtis vivd sur /'or174nis'nion 'las 'orPt lParisl

s0 . ib id. , P. 295 Hn'ire, vol. 3. pp 55-5{t' 51. Cuvier, s2 . Ib id. ,P. 61. vol' N{aupied,l/isroirc. I pP xiii-xiv 51. Blainrillcand



cc J t p i i s t 7 t 9 j u s' 1 u ' d i.,u r ( P.r is: De L ' im p r im e r it i mpi ri al e, l l i l 0). 7. Ibid. of f l . N l i c h r :l F o u ca u lt, fh e On le r o f T h in g s: .ln 4rrhacol o11.v the ttunrcn S r , . n . . r f l 9 6 6 l( Ne u Yo r k: \r in t.r g c, l9 7 l) , ch . il. 9 . ( ) 1 1 o R ,) n l. In c lr ,r r r D.:o / Br r tfi( Ne ' r Yt' r l, l l arcourt, Bnrr', l el e). l { ) . R a n L , Ilcn lr r r 5 o /th c Bn h o J th c He r o .tr ,rns l : R obbi nsandSmi th I:I J e l l i f l e ( N e w Yo r k: R. Br ( n n cr , le 5 2 ) . I l. Claude Bernarrl, Intnduction d 1/tu.l. d. 10 ni.lc(inc .xPirin.ntolc \ltatis a n < lN e r v Y < , r k:I.ib .a ir i. 1 .8 . Ba illia r c. I8 6 s) , v,,1 .l. p. l . l . l . R c o i ' t) csc.r r tcs," lic) tise o n ,\' la n " ( Al XI.)t)1 202). i n l )cscartcr: 5 . 1 . . r , , , ,P f i i h ro l/r n d i lli;r r n 9 r , r r .r n s.lo h n C.,1 r jn !l ),)nr,R oben S toothol l and D u g r l d M u n l och ( C,:n l> r ir lg r , UK: Ca m tr r ir ltt Uni !.rsi tv v , , 1 .I , p . l 0 l l . l]. D c s c ar t( :s,"Pr ssio n r ,) l th c So o l" ( AT XLl 6'1 65), i n i bi d., vol . I, P rcss l el i '1-91)'

:.'. t ' aul -j ri s c phB arthez . N ouc c ourdi i mentsel ch ti tnc (;ouj on c t B runot. 1806), rol .9. 21. Comte, C oursdc phi l o,j ofi i c pos i ti v e,\ol .4, l (\s (' n' t8

dc l ' ho' rl nc (l ' rri ' :

2+. Srrnard, P orLr, notc rJ .t,r.l i c r (P ari s :l i l ,rri ri tj .S . B ai l l i i re, l 9l T). cr Jr 15. t { rnri A tl an. "N l ,,rt ,,rr ri tl " i n I' Or5l onts ornnhr,t/ogl ,1rrLl ,r t,rr,1' rrL / trl '"),rrr,,n (P ari !: H e rm,rnn. I972). rl .l o. Jorge I ui s B orgc s ."Thl A l eph" (1962), i n .l P c rs ono/ nthol o51(N e* York: (l rov c , 1967), pp. l l 8-54 27. A ntoi nc A ugus ti n C ,,u.not, C on\i .l i rati ontw l a morc hcdc s i di es c r < i c t

(l v i 'i ncntns ,l onsbs tc npr m(,c /c rnfJl uc nos A i rc s , F.lA tc nc (' . 1e6' 1), ol . I, P . I 16. 1S. Brrnarrl , A apporrrv 6 t prr11n\ )t nonhc J c 1.,p,bl ra/ogi c nri rul cc n ai

/rr:nrc (l ' .rri r: L' l mpri meri ( InrP eri )l e, 1867), p 2l 1 n 209 .l q. Bl ondl ot, torn i n l 8l t). rv asa profi ' s s orol c htmi s try at the l ac ul ty 0l N ancv. l li s l l s tul ati on rc c hni qtrL i s di s urs rc d by l l c marl i n l c s s on 26 of l .c qonr dc phn.l oti t opi rdtoi rc(P ari s :Li brai ri e J .l i . uai l l i i rc . l 819).

i r l . . 1 7 , p . J 4 6. l a . N ' l a r ce lloM a lp ig h i, Dt lb r n ta r io n c u lh in ora (Londi ni : A pud Jornnenr p N l . r r t ! r ) , 1 6 1 I ll6 6 q l) . l s . C a s p a r F r icr lr ich Wo llT , Ilto r ia g ' n ,:kr tn n,r {}l rl ac ad S rl arr: Li rtcri \ l i r n d e l i a n i s . 1 7 5 9 ) , a n d Dc lo r n a r io n c in te *in o r u n t11168-69). al 1 6 . C o t t l i icd Wilh clm l cib n iz, Ih c,llo n o d o lttg.v Iti b'tr, tri ns. H crbcrt W i l d o n C r r ( l .r x An g i,lcs:tln ivcr sitv o f So r tth cr n( ' .rl i l i ,rni aP rers,l 9 30), p. 1I 2. Lei l ? . I e i b ni, " L e tte r to ;\n r .r u ld ,No r ' . 2 8 , 1 6 8 6.' i n G.l 'J4 bnj .: P hi l a$P hl r u l I r u l r . e d . .r n d tr .r n s. Ro g e r Ar ie s ;r n d ll.r n jtl C rrber (hrdi anapol i s. !N : H r c L f t r , 1 9 U 9 ) ,p . Ito . 1 8 . D a n i c l Du n ca n , Iltsto n t tu I' a n in a l, o u h ronnai ssancdu corp: nmi par la nitanique ct la poft .hin'( (t686). 1 9 . C h a r l ts Bo n n e t. ".lib le a u d e s co n sid cr a ti onr sur dcs corps orgrni si s," inIdn i n g i n isiep h ilo r o p h ig r . ( Ce n c\a : C. Ph ilib crt)r'd B C hi rol , I769).

(,1. 4, p. 26 ( i rt. Al brec ht v on l l al l et, E l c :|.rttlpht s i ol o|i < rc 176.1). ll. 5 .. Fr\!i n l l ti nu A i l rrk nec ht, J h..of,.l S tutrs arr: FnLc , l 9l 0):"1)i (

thcraprc i r Fc gel i uc r rv ahrl nrl rl c ' I9.j arhun< l c ns . Ortmc trhts thc l rtttttttunLl 2.+(N l ,rrc h 1969); ' A s pc c ts ol rl )r l { i s l orv ol l hc rapc D ti Ls ,"B ul l c ti n.l ttu l l tr tor.tol mc di dn? 16.5l t96)). l .l . Bernr(l , P ti n.i pc s !c ni k (i N erpti ,,enr.r/c((i ( rv a: A l l i anc e C ul turel l c < du Ii rrc. re(rt), P .2l l . Jl . ( oui \ Fri \.i r. I,; l l ,i l ,rrtL,t 1857),!., 1. l , p.401. l +. ic an B apti \te l l oui l l :u,1, l ,rai rur /o 2hi l os ophi c dtrc l c c r s ur l esoi ni nti (l i nrqucni < /t.dh (I,i ri s :.J . R ouv i er er t. Lr uouri er, l ti ]6), p.7s . rcl ttt\ <1,: lo 15. f ouc aul t. Ttu B tth of rh,:C l tni c .trrns . A .i !1. S hoi dan S mi th (N er' \' ri rk : Vi ntagc, 1975),p. 192. 16. I i rtr; i s .l ur)t((i i n P ri s r' , j d.!' ..,/c ti i x r.rJ . nnr/.' i nr, r,,1. 2. p. t6J . }7. l n rnar(|, P rn.rr\,1. ni d(n. 18. Ci t({ l bv B oui l l tru(l i nIs ai tt. td cltnittu. n[dicolc ( l8 36), p. 69. rpi ti nc nk l c . p.1+ 2. l Lr n/J c rrn, (l ' ,rri s ,I i l ,rri ri c J .B . l tai l l i c rr' ,

tr,)t)t. Irrri s C rctrl Il ertrl i th l r ) . l n r r a n u e l K,r n r . Cr r r r g n ' o l Ju J,q r ) cr r r , ( ( ) \ l ; , n 1 , U K : Cla r e n d o n Pr e ss.1 9 5 2 ) , a r t.6 5 , p p . 2(f22. (P 2 1 . l u g u ste Co m tc, ( o u r r d c p h ilo so p h ie o strtv': rri s: S chl ci chcr l ri res, p 1 9 0 7 2 . 1 ) ,v o l . l. lL r sr n s' 1 0 - 4 4 .

s url a phi l onphn ni di c ol e c r s ur l c s ,ti ni ntn[s



expirinentale, vol.2, ch.2, 19. Bernarrl. i nrradurrion d l'itudc de lo n6<lecine s!c . - l : ' V i v i \e ctio n ." a0. tsernard, Pr,rc?er de nddecint expirinentoh, p. 44O. . r l . l b i d., p p . l? 9 - 8 0 . 42. In his way, Bernard rernained faithful to Cuvier's vie\'! that the nervous s v s t e mi s t h e a n im a l a n d csse n tia llyth c o n ly o r g ani c regul ator. roxi41. See Mirko Drazen Crrnek, Ratsonnemcntcxpirinentalet rccherches r c o l o B i q u 6. h u CL Be r n u d ( Ge n e va ,Pa r is:Dr o z, 1973), esp. pp. 408-16. 4,+. Rcn!-Theophile Llyacinthe Laennec, De I'Auscultotion mldtdrc (Paris, : 8 1 9 ) . p . 5 ?. 4 5 . F r r nq o is D.r g o g n e t," L ' lm m u n it6 , h isto ri que et m!thode," l ecnrresat t h c P a l a i s c la Dico u vcr t !, Pa r is,Ja n u a r y4 , 1 9 64. d 46. On Ehrlich ,rnd his rvork, see Hans Loewe, P.rul Ehtli.h, Schtipjir del ( Stu ttg a n : \\' isse n sch a ftVe r la g sgese)l schal1950); Fel i x Marti i, C f i c m o r h!. d p ,a ( l b a n e z . I l . ' . l /in r l u n d th c ttb r ld o f Pa u l F .h n tcfi N e$ Y ork: pp. 2s7-69i '958), t !o n \ t r g c l , " Pa u l Eh r lich ," tu vu ,l' h r to ir c d e Ia ni dc.i ne hi brci .l u.84-85 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ; a n d Pa u lin e 1 \1 .1 1 . .r zu n d .r r . h e An tigen-Anti body R !r(ti on and the "T l\{ P h y s i c sa n d Ch e m istr y o f L ife ," Bu lle n n o f r h e Hstory of p p . l - . 2L 47. OD Ihcsc mattcrs, sec Dagognct, ld Rdiror d ier rclrad.r ( Paris: Presscs Llnivcrsitaircs de Frrncc, l96a), and Sutrlalin. thirupeuti.l!. et Jornation d?s t.ti ci nc 18 \19t4).

2. Robert llooke, ,llicrogrcphia. or Sont PhvsioL,arcol D$ri/'o^ Bodks Madc bv don, 16 67). 3



ognifvintt Glass.with Observarions and lnqurn'r lhocupon (l_on,

See, fbr ex ampl e, P . B oui n, A ugus tc P rc nant and L. N l ai l l ard, If,rrrl

.t fi rro/og' ( (P ari s :S c hl ei c her, 1904-l l ),v ol . 1, p.95, fi g.84; orMax A ronand Pi erre C ras s e, ri c ,sdc bi ol ogi c na l e l P at;s tMas s on, I939). p.525, fi g.245. P oni 4. Erns t H ei nri c h l { ac c k el , C emei nv c rs tri ndl ,rhc l /er} e (Lei pri g: K rrtner. 1924),v ol .4, p. 174. 5. C omte B ul l bn, H ,rron( noturc l l e desoni no,I (1748). c h. 10. 6. Buffon, D es1:i l ms nrr, n i bi d., pr. l : on l i ght, heat rnd fi re. i 7. I bi d. 8. t bi d. 9. t bi d. 10. On Oken as a nature philosopher, scc Jcan 5tr<,h1.torcnz {)lrn urJ 6cor.g B url nrr l Zuri c h: V erl agder C orona, l 9l 6). l l . ()n S c h$:rnnand c c l l thc orr, rte tht tundamc nti l w ork ot N l .rrc tl Fl ori n. N arrron rcrr rl i ti ati on < l el a thi orrc c c l l uhi rc tl onsI' oc ov rcl c l frti r,/orc .S rA ronn (P rri r: tl rrmrnn, 1960). l-1. l\'larc Klein, Hiidirc dct origincs dc la thionc Lcllolotrc. y;. t9. ll. On the ori gi ns ol c el l theorv , rr: l . W al ter \\i l * ,n. "C c l l ul ar fi s s ue and

th. D as n o{ thc C c l 1 Theory ," tur 100 (A ugus t 194.1), t6l { , and "D utroc her p. and thi :C el l Theorv ," l s n 107-108(N 1at 1947), p. l .{ . l.+. llieckcl, D,? W'.|fit/.l. in Gcntinftr(d'dlr.hc ryerl.', \ll1. l. p. ll.

(P Ll c o n c c p t s t i Jtco u x,;n h o m a g e to Ca sto n Ba ch e Jard ari s:Presses ni versi tai res n rle Francc, 1957). 4 8 . B a ch e la r r l,lc lla titio lisn c r o r io "r / l r a n c e . ] 9 5 ]) , p .2 0 2 . . + 9 . D a go g n ct,,i/ltlo d e \.t d o cttin e d a n s l\teuvrc dc P d'.rr (P afi s: P resscs ( Pari s: P ressesU ni versi tai res de

15. K Ic i n ofl i rs addi ti onal i ni ;rmari on on thi r poi nt i n hi s "s ur l rr rl :buts de h thi ' ori e c c l l ul ai re en Franc e," Ii ral o 6 (1951),pp. 2s - i 6. 16. J ern R os tand."l .es V i rus Irn,tc i nes ," i n B ml ogi cc r ml deri nc (prri r: Gal l i mi ftl . 1919). Ii or a s unrmtrrv< ,1tater q,ork , s er: I{ os tand' s ..t a C onc epti on

U n i v e r s i t a i r ts d e F r a n ce , 1 9 6 7 ) . 5 0 . l b i d ., p .6 7 .

parti culai .r dc Ia c (.l l ol e." i n I c r GftrnJ ri .ouranr d. i ./ 6n /W tc (t' i ri s r (;j l l i ma(t. l 95l ).

P.\k r TrFr!:

ll r s r o RY

L N l y un d e n r .r n d in go fce ll th co r yo *e sa g r catdeal to Marc K l ei n, H ,i roi .e ( desongines dt la thiurc cc?/u/aire Paris: I lermann, l9 36 ).

17. l he l i nes that l bl Lrv w ere rd< 1c dro an nrri c l e ti rs r w ri rr(n i n 19.15. I hc arl di ti < ,ns r.emc rlnatur:1. t < l o not s av thi i i n orrk .r to c l ai nr .rnr pr< rphtri c gi l i but, rathrr. to r.rl l at(.nti on to rhr i .1c l rhar (c rtai rr i nn< rrti on:.rrr rr..rl l r



s o m e w h a t o l d e r th in a d r o ca tts r n o r e e a g cr to u st thnn to undtrst.rn{lthem are $ i l l i n g t o t r dm it. l l t . t ' ] a ulBu $ c Cr a $ itz' ' l' tp d n cn tcllc Gm < l l ogcn ru ti nu noderncnP arho Ioqi( VonCelluhr r .tlohtulorpathologre (Rdsel: Schsrbc. 19'+6)is thc C;trmin

i n i bi d., pp.99 108. C l c nc l i c r i s undi ,ubrc dl \ .i ght on thi s p(' i nt. 2?. "l t i s i mportant to k no* the true c aus coi thr hc art\ morc ment rhat s i thout s uc h k norv l c dgc i t i s i mpo* i bl c to k n< Iv anv thi ng w hi c h rel atesto thc rbcorv c l l mrdi c i ne. for.rl l the othc r l unc ti ons ol thc ani mal arc rl c pc ndc nt on thi s, rs rv i l l bc c l c arl v s c c n i n * hat l i l l o* r' ("1)c rri pti on o1 the I l uman B ody "

v e r s i o n o l a rvo r l lir st p u b lish cd in Sp a n i\h 1 9 . C h ar le sNa u d in , "t L s Esp ice sa llin cs ct la thi ori t <l c I'i 'vol uti on''' R evuc F \ ( i e n t i f k t u et u 1 ' 1 r d n r ce t tu l' ltr u n t]cr ,stt. 2 , vo l. 8 ( Irl T5 ) 2 0 . A r t i clt l0 o l " T h c Pr ssio n so fth c So u l" i 5 cnti tl cd "l l orv rhc Ani mal S p i r i t s A r e Pr o d u cfd in th c Br a in ," b u t in lict Dcscrrl es sho\vshos the sPi ri ts c o m e l i o m t h e h e a r t in th e lb r m o f"vcr v iin e p a r ts ofthe bl oul ." Thcy-undergtr " n o c h a n g c i n th c b r a in " o th e r th in to b e se Pn r itcdl rom "othcr, l css fi ne Pnrts o t t h e b l r x x l" ( AI Xl.ll5 ) in Dcsca r r cr :ScltctcdP htl onphi cal tt'rtti 'gJ' tr:ns


IAT X I.2a5l , i n i bi d., p. l l 9). 28. P oi s s ontook thi s argumc nl l i om I)c s c rrtc s hi m\( 11 1. " l b t' l enpi us , (c .l I illarch 1618" iAl ll.6?1. ii Thc Philosophn.,l llrttiryls ol Dcscortes.rc!. ),

p.93), to del end the C nrtes i an !i e\i agai ns t l :athc r Fabri ' s obi c c ti (,ns : \rc 1 R cnanl u c s s ur l a ni tho< !c dc .l l ons i c ur D c rrarrc s ,part 5, y :c < ,n< obs c rv ;rti on. p. 293 o 1 the s ec ond v ol ume ol the l ?24 edi ti on. thr c x ampl c ol thr' l i rx r w horr ht:art i s c x c i s trl or hc a< ls c rc rc d c l c l l v ernbarms s edD r:s c artesrrhtn

il n
fi fl


j o h n C o t t i n gh a n , Ro b e r t Sto o th o ll a n r l l) u g a ld l \'l urtl och (C ambri dgc, LIK : C a m b r i d g c Lln n e r sir v Pr css, l9 8 ll) , vo l. I, p i3l . Thus i 1 i s not i ncorrect to \ a v t h r t t h e hc.r r t is th e " so u r q " ( ,f th e sPir itsin " l i eati se on l \{trn"(AI X l l 66)' i n i b i d . . v o l . I, p . l( ) ' + . 2 1 . l ) c sca r te \. " T r cJtise o n ]\ta n " ( AI Xl.l3 2 ), i n i bi d., p. l 0l n.l . 2 2 . D e sca r tr s. l) isco u r s( . F ( ) u r in " OPtir s " (Al Vl l 09-14)' i n 'bi d.'

thr qucsti oo $as put to hi m b1 a c orrc s pondrnt. l { r.c s raperl the di i } i c ul o bv argui ng that l i l i i s dc fi nc rl not bv mus c ul ar nn)v c mc nt but bv c ardi ac hc at. Srr "t-rt ters to B os w el l (?), 1646 (?f' (A T M686 and 695), i n C harl es A danr

(t' .rnd I'aul Tannery , eds ., Oc uy rc s< /eD c s c orrc s ari s : V ri n. 1974), v ol . .t. pp. 686.695. 29. \C or) c ni m non v i s c r-rs nobi [: et pri n(.ps r\t ut us quc ;rd|o rrti pc r-

pp. 16.+-66. 21. t bid .
2 . 1 . D c s ca r te s, r r r tisc o n ,M a n " ( AT XI l2 9-31), i n i bi d., p 100. "T 2 5 . D e rca r tcs, Disco u r sc F o u r in " Op tics"

hi bcttr s Lrl mc rus mus c ul us , c nrne tantum et tendi ni bus more c ortrrorl rm connrns. c t s i ngui ni c i rc umprl l c ndo i ns eni eni ' (W i l l i s . P i ornrdc eut;c c s ordi rs roti fl 67l l ,pr . l ,s c c .6,r:h. l ).S c c A ppc ndi x ,p. l 74. S tr: al s o I)c s .i n< l ui ni i\n:].,l es -

(AI VI.l 09-1'1)' i n i bi d.'

..frt., (1 670), i n Op.n otrtni d.v ol . l . p. 661 (' i ' \ .l ,ri , l i .l uc t and D c nerv orun d.s oi pti o.t r/l ,r (16{ ,.+ ).n i bi d., rol . l . p. 36t} i 'nuscul um") c ri t quod i ps i us c ordi s c ompagc s , c .rmr: v al dc l i bros r c ons tans . i "D i crnd um pol i u\ nl us c ul u! qu.rn parc nc hv mr apprl l ari < l el ,c t"). 10. "l n c :orde, i c ut i n toto praeterea s mus c ul os o genere.s pi ri tuum i ns i torunl pi rti cul i s s pi ri tuos al i ni sc opul a s ul phurc a a s rngi nc s uS g.s rar(l j ungi rur; quac matcri es , dum s pi ri rus ngi ri nrur, dc nuo c l i s a, ac v tl ut c x pl os a (non s ec us a mrrs c ul um,s ne c or i p P h,!eri s py ri i pi rti c ul )e a.c rn!ae rc r.rrel ac rae) ni xu moti ro tffi c i c ndo i ntl ant ac i ntumi l ac i unt" ($' ;l l i s , D e nnrtun m, pr.) .k \c ti pti a

p p . 1 6 , 1 - 6 6 .Ra b cla ir s liie n d tiu illa u m e Ro n d tltt (1s07-1566) (,fMontP el l i er a p p e a r s o h a vc b e e n th e lir st tu h yPo th e si,cth a t nervesconsi st ol i nde$ndrnt t b u n d l c s o f ce n tr ip e ta l r n d ce n tr ilir g a l co n d u cto rs. " 2 6 . l n th c 1 6 6 ,tp r | licc 1 o De sca r te r ' s l;e trti seon \4ao." C l crsel i erpoi nts o u t t h a t t h c n e r vc' sin scr tio n in to th c n r u scle .a n d the(:l bre the muscl t s cxpans i o n b v t h e an im itl sp ir its, ccr e p o o r ll r cp r e se ntedb1 l oui s dt l -a Forgr:'rvho b e l i r v c r l t h a t th e n e r vts co n d u cte d th e flo v o ispi ri ts i nto thc muscl es,rvhL:rt'as I ) c s c a r t e s a u g h t th a t "th e n e n r fib cr s a n d b r a n chcr rarni I i n thc muscl esthent t s e l r c r , a n d .r sth o se lltr r sr vcll o r co lla p sc, th e i r nrrangcmcntraus(]sthc mu!

.r uJt's). On rhe c onrpari r(,nol rhc hc rrr r(, i hv rl raul i c mac hi ne: "C i rc a nr< ,trrm s:ngui ni s natural em, non hi . i ngui ri mus dc c i rc ul ati onc c j us , s (.1 qual i .oftl i s

p c l e s t o s r v e l lo r co lla p sc:cco r r Jin g lv, r o d u cin g vari ousel l ecs" (Al X l .l l 9-2{)2)'






con5tarttiri tu ci rcumgvrctur" h vd r a u lictr 1 t y a s o r u m s t r u ctu r r ve lu t in m r ch in a in OPcr oo n ,n r o ,vo l l' p ' ? l) I r D e / & b r ; b u r l { ' 5 9 ], mutuatui ' e l l . " C a l d cm ta m e n co r o m n in o t sa n g u in e t non s'ngui sa corde in in ca .le sccn r io , ib id ., vo l l. p 66l )' , Wi l l i s , D e s on g u in r s 3 2 . C f . i bid ., vo ) . I, P 6 6 1 . ll. w i l l i \, Ccr ch ti a n a to m . ( 1 6 6 1 ) .ch t 9 , l 0anrl l -f i nOper<t onni o' a sti l l , o l . 1 , p p . 2 8o 1 1 ..i) 0 .ln De l' ]r ,cn ta tia n c( ib id .) . p +. Wi l l i s descri bts terms 'l l i sti l l l ol , n d e x p l a i n s ho s it wo r ks. T h c h ie r a r ch ica la r r a n gemcD t thc provi des remarkabl y i o n , " " p u r i { i ca tio n ," "su b lim a tio n " a n d "sp ir itu a l i zati on" "l magi nati on necess'rr) r e c i s ec o r r o b o r r tio n o fa n id e a o fCa sto n Ba ch cl ard\: i s to l v a s c r i b e s va lu c.... Co n sid cr th e r lch e m ir ts For them to transmute . . f o r .r n a lch cm ist, ;: r tjstilla tio n is : p u r i fi cati on thrt tnnobl es a sub 'ertect. J C orti ' l 9'+])' . t a n c e b y r e mo lin g itsim p u r itics"Se e l' 4 ;r clle r so tq"r(Pari s: ,p.296,298. in 1 4 . W i l t i s. De r /,o tulr ' u ' cu la tilL o n d in i: Ap u d JacobtrmN l art,vn' 1670) ) p c r do m n i d , vo l. I, PP.6 8 0 - i3 ' + . ill 3 5 . D c f cr n tn ta o o r c co n t.]iDs r h e p h ysica)'rnd chemi cai prcl i mi n'rri es de th e o r ie sr \cc csp . ch . 1 0 , "D e r)aturai gni s et o Wi l l i s \ p h t\io lo g ica l "bi ter n : o l o r e e t l u c e : Ex Pr e n m issis o n d ifficile cr it p u lv eri spvri i i n rormcnl i s bel l i ci s " r s i t a t i n a t u r ao e xPlic.r r e 1 6 . O n th e a n a to m y a n tl p h vsio lo g v o fth e nerrc' sce C cf'6ri dnd'onr'' h. 1e. 1 7 . " Q u ip p e sp ir itu s r n in r n lc\ I Ce r e b r o ct C erebtl l o, cum mcdul l ari r t r i u s ( l u e a pp e n d icc, ve lu t r Scn ir ) o lu m in a r i al l l uentcs' S ystcma nervosttm d a d i a n t " ( Cc' .b r t d "d to m c, r cl. l, p . I3 6 ) " c l ua p n r p icr lo n g e m cliu s iu \ta h !p o th esi m nortrnm' hos spi ri tu\ ' , 3 n g u i n i sl l a m m l e m isio s, lu cis r r Jiis. s.r lle mii5 aur'rt 'l eri qLrci nterte\ti ! si nrl c s r l i c a m u r , lDt o n im a b r u kr u n , in OPcr c o nni a. vol 2' p 3l ) "Spi ti tus r n i m a l e s .v e lu t lu cis r a d io s,Pcr to tu m svstcm an enuurn di l l undi supponi nus' j8. p C c r c b r io n a to r n c. . 3 l8 ) . 19. "Pari li'tc mode rc si quisquinr pulveris PYrii 'rc(n''r' Per lunem ignari'r'n ntz'ra r r d d i s t r n c c acce n r lr r ct" lPh o r n o ccu n tcsa tio n o ln pt 2 P . 1-19)Sc! al so D c

rnurruturi .i n v ol . 2, p.6rl l . 4fJ. "W e c al l ' rc fl ex mov ementi mov emc nt\ duc to a ni mul o-motor nerl rous tbrc e produc ed by the unc ons c i ous i rnc ti onalac ti v i tv ol the s ens or!nc n' es . It soul d be more c orrc d to c al l them mov emenl sproduc ed bv a erv ous rel l c x trcti on, lbr i t i s not (h( nrov ement w hos c < l i rec ti on c hangesbLrt the nerv ous l orce. *h i c h rl e rc gartl.Is hari ng been s omc hos rel l ec ted i ns i dc rhe organi s m so rhar n c!ntri pc tal mdti on bec omes ,r c c D tri l ugal one. ts ut thc l i rs t ex pres si on i s co nv eni ent,and j ts us c i s s anc ti onedb! c us tom" (H enri N l i l nc ' E duards , Ieqons sur la phlsiologi. conpoic v,l . Il , p . l l 2). +1. SeeW i l l i i s D c anna brutorun (16' 7)J . 42. J.A. Un/er, l:rstc Crnnde einer PhtFlogic.lcr cigenlichn throrrricn Notur th rLh? n K 6ry t l tJ l l ). s c c .49S . dc I'honnt t dcs oninour IParis, ll]7ii-791,

43. l t i s c heati ngr l i nl e to i nc l ude thc n:mc i ,f Iegal l oi s , r' hos c l i rs t paper on hi s ex peri ments $ i (h c utti ng the s pi nal c ord datesl mm l l J 09. i l s l br W hv tt, I mcnti on hi m onl v i ns ol .rr.rshi s c onc epti ons (oi nc i de at v trri ou\ poi nts w i th th,,seol ,ruthors mrrl e ex pl i c i t us e oIrhc noti on oIrc l ]ec ti on. "ho 44. J ohannes N l 0l l .r, t/dndbuc h der l hv uol ol l i c dc , c ns c bc n(C obl enz : J.l l ol "h,r . rdi t-t?).b|. I.th. l ..et. r.

-15. Franeoi sJ ac ob. l a Logi qu.du i v ant(P ari s : Gal l i mard, 1970),p. 102. {t. A ri s rorl e, D c < r.J rnr.r, trans . J .A . S mi rh (O\l brd, U K : C l aren< l onP res s ,

r901i -9 2)..r . lr
4?. Ari s totl e, D c ponbu: oni mal i un, rrrD \. W i l l i am Ogl e (London: K . P .aul , ti rcnch, l l t8 2 ), I.5 . '+8. A ri s tode, D . g.nc ruti one.tni ndl i dnr,rrans . D av i d B al mc (()x tbrd. U K : C l .r'cnd( ' n P res s ,1972). IV .l 0. +e. D c s c artc s . ri nc i ptc . ofP hi Los oph\" (A T v l l l A .l 26). "P i .ol hi i ti ngs of D es .,trtc r, . l . p. 2l tl t. rol 50. D es c artes"Mc rl i tati ons on Fi rs t P hj l .,s ophy "(A l V l l .85), i n i bi d., v ol . , 2. art.6, p. 58. 5r. I bi d. in l^ P hi l as oph-

s2. r bid.


(Pari s:P resses ni verri tai rc' tl L , 5 L S e c F. Auiu r Sh u sr e r L c tl,td e cin lcso i' n tn rc d c F r . r n c r : ,1 9 7 2 ) , ch 1 . 5 . t . G c r r g F r n sr Sr ,r h l,D( ,tr to &:r tio n o tL r .r \1 696)' 5 5 . S e e , fo r e xa m p le , Bu ilo ' r ' s a r ticle o n " T h e Ass" i n /l i rl oi re 'drur"' st'. Scc On thc Ori4n oli.hc jPc.ier, ch. r+. 5 ? . S a l v r d tr r F d .v:r r < lI u r i.r . life : Itu ltn fin ishtt /:rpcrrment(N cw Y orkr Scribner, I97l). 53. Xavir.r Bichat. lnatontic g[nirolc oppliqu& i lo phvsiolollicct la nidctinc ( 1 8 ( ) l ) ,v o l . I . p p .2 0 - ll. i9. rur S c c m) p r cfa ce t< , tb c m o d cr n cd itio n o i C l audc B emard s l -efons '/'!

rel :ti on b l rrv ec n s rns i bi l i tr ,rnrl the rl i s pos i ri on o1 thc rrrgans , ec l )es c al rrs ' s s theory ol the "dc grets ol the s c ns es "i n' A urhorr R c pl i es to rhc S i rth S c r o1

( )bj ccri on! (41 \:11.,136- ). i n i bi tl ., rol . 2. n.(. 9. pp. 294-96. )v 6. "l .c tter of l 9 ,\{ arc h l 67l l , to C < i nri ng," i n Got4i i e.l l l ' i l hc l nt Lc i L,nr: l s,i nl nh. S .hti ftenun,l B ri + ( ui nn\ti rd(: R c i < l e. 1916 2nrl s c r..v ol . l , pp. )91). (i .101. ,mp are Lc i bni z s c ri teri a for di s ti ngui s hi ngani mal s l rom aur()mata$ i rh I)c\crrtc\' \ nrgum(ors as w c l l ;s w i th F< l garA l l an P oc r profi runtl rc l l c c ri ons ,,n thc srD ,' ques ti on i n "l \1ael z rl ' sC hc x s pl ay er." On Lc i bni r s di s ri nc ti on l !r{rcn ma(hi ne an(l organi rm, s c c "A N erv S y s trm ol N aturc and thr: C omP hi l os ophrol Ic rtLrs onLl P o2c rs .trl ns .

nruni ctrl i of),' l s ubs rrnc ts ," i o l .c i bnr

.rnd ed. I.c r,l Loemk c r (C hi .ago: U ni l trs i tv ol C hi ri go P rc s s , 1956). s c c . l (), .rnrl "N l <'nr< l ol ogv ."i n thnorl o/,rgr onJ Othc r l htl os aphr,rl E s ,orr, rrrn.. P rrrl s, bncker and A nnc N l a.ti n S c hrec k fr (N e\ 6l -66. 7. Lr i bni T too $as i ntc i s ted i n l hr l rbri c i l ti on ol mathi nc s and.rutom at.r.S cc,l orc x ampl c .hi s c orrc s pondc neerri ththrI)uk (i )fIl anov .r(1676 7q) Y orL: Mac rni l l an, l 9l i 5). s (fs .

l c s p f i . r n o m i n csJclo ' ir .lr n r m u n r { r u \d n r m o u \.' td u \f4l i tdu\(Pnri s:Vri n'1966) ( Zone B ool s' 1989)' t 0 . S e enr y Itu No r n a l o n t r h ePo th o lo g ica lNov Y<rrk: pp.2?5-iJ9. Bi to 6 1 . [ r a r i o r ic Cr ct' r c, . lp p r o .td te s tt Ph tlo so phnal ol o1|i N ew )ork: Ihsi ( B o o k s . 1 9 6 5) .

i n \.tmrl rc hr \c hri l t.n un.l B rl al . \l )arms rrrl t: R c i rl c l . l 9l ?), l s r \|r.. t(,1. l . In P A R T l t o t r R : INT I RI' I{ l IAllo Ns L R c n i t) e ltr r tt\, lV.t9), ' T " [T h t l\l,tr q r r tsr ' ;{ Ne \\c.}s(l tl . Ocrober 16+5" (A I Ptdenkcnvon .4ulrrhrun11eint llolenit otfo So.irttit nt D.ut'.hldn.l /u .ltlnehnltn art, r/cr (r'i nrt c unrl l { ,' s .n(fi dItc r, l ti bni z pr.ri s l rhc w P erj ori rr- r,l (i fmrn

in Ihr Philos.Phtcolliitttnlls of Dcstarter'traos John C()ttingham' Robrrt

x hi ch ha d ,rl w av s c n i ntc res tc d i n thr hbri c .rti on ol mo!i ng mi c hi n.s (mon, bc str:ts,cl oc k r. hrdraul i c marhi nc rr i n(l w ) on), (nc r l ri tl i i n i rr, $hi .h c onc c ntrrted al m os t ex c l us j r' c l yon l rr.rk i ngs tari c , l i l el r:s sobj ec rs to be c onrempl arc (l

S t , x , t h o l l a n < l Dtr q a ld l\lu r lo ch lCa m b r i( lg ( . L IK: C ambri dge tl ni veni tv Prerr' l 9 U . l - 9 1 ) , v o l . i, p . 2 7 5 2 . " R u l e r lb r th e Dir e ctio o o l th e Nlin d " ( A l - X l 80). i n i bi d., rol pp. .l{F21. l . D c s c ar tcswr o tc, "F o r th cr c is { ith in u s brrt oot sorrl .and thi ' soul has r i t h i n i t n o r livtr sitr o fp a r ts: it is r t o n tt r tn litir c,rni l rati onal ,an(l 'rl l i ts rppt' o t i t e ' a r e v o l i tio n s" ( "T h e Pa ssio n s 1 th e So u l" lA f X l l 64l ' i n i bi d ' 'ol art.4?, p. 1.16). + . P a r t 5 .Jt "l) isc.u r sc.r n th c M e th ( xl" ( AT VI 40-t'0)' i n i bi rl . !ol l' l' l'

from w i th.,ut. S c c i ti d., p. 5.t.1.Ihj s prrs rgc q.r c i trd br J ac qu(5\{ i ri rri n i n .l 'r.r r.o/d ,J U .{ l ,.ri \: l _i hai rre rl e l ,rrr (' i rhol i quc , 1920). p. t2l . 8. " l reati s e ()n N l an" (,{ T X Ll l g-2{ )), h .(r!.{, v{,1.l . tt. 9e. 9. W h,rt i s morc , D erc artesc annor rx pl ai n (;rx l ' s c (' r\truc i on ol l ni mnl m.r(hi ncs t! i rhout i n!ok i ng r ' rh( Il r.r( ne (,1thc hum.]' l hi trurtx )s e:' ( ons i < l eri n!i hrl v rs h.rv ;ngbec n l i rrnc d hr (;rx l i n orrl er to h.rv ci n i rs el t al l rhe D nl v fnl c nrs utual l l m.l ni l i s rrd rhc rr" (,.S i \rh N t(.l i ti l i i )n, i n Iht thi L\ophrc tt nl ort::I D rsrorter , tarnr. F.S . l l al < hnc .rnd (i .ri . L R os s IC i mb,,(l 8t, l rK : C .rrnbri rt{ c l h. fhi to' o i ft| l l ri ri ngs ol D Lr

p p . 11l - ' 1 1 " To th t M r r q u is til Ne r vca stlc ) S No veober l 6'{6" (AT l V 570-76) ; i n i b i d . , v o l . l, p P l0 l- 1 0 ' t 5 . " T o Mo r c, 5 F e b r u a r ;-l6 a s" ( AT Vl6 ? - 7 0 ) i n i tri d., P P 160-67 On thc

Ll ni !crsi tv [,rc \s , l 9l tl , v ot. t. p. 195).



1 0 . " D e scr ip tio n o l th e Hu m a n Bo d y a n d All o1 Its Functi ons" 1 (A T II 225)' in The Philosophical l'ltt.irgr o/ Der.drfer, vol. I'p Il ll5.

v [(Al -x1.520], i n Oeurrer& D l rJ .drter, ol . l l , p. 520). 21 . ' A c c reti o dupl ex es t:.rl i .r mortuorum c t quac non nutri untur, l i tr;ue si pcr si rnpl i c c m parti um opp< rs i ti r-rnem,ne ul l a earunr i mnrut.rti one,v tl s al l em si ne n,rgna. . . A l l i a ac c reti o c |r \ i v c nti um, s i l c (' orum quae nurri untut. rt l i t n'D rpc rc um al i qua parti um i mmutal i one. .. P erl ec tanutrj l i o s i v eac c reti o s i mul gencr. ti onem s i v e s emi ni s produc ti onem c onti net" ("L\c .rP ttr.rnatomi c r: de accreti on !et nutri ti one" IA T X I.596], i n i bi d., v ol . !1, p. 596). D es c aneshere w ni contr$ts the grow th ofan aggregate hos e parts remai n Lrnc hanged th that ,,f an i ndi v i dual through trans form,rti onof i ts parts . 24 . "' l b l { ore, 5 Fc bruarv l 6-|)" (A T V 277-7u). i n Ihc l htl as ophi c altti i r !ol i nq' ol D es c orrc s , . 1. p. \66. 25 . "P ri nc i pl es o1 P hi l os ophr" (A f V l l l A .326), i n i bi tl ., v ol . l . p. 21l l t. 26 . "Medi tati ons on Fi rs t P hi l os ophy " (A t V l l .8' + ), i n i bi d , v .,1.2, rrt.6.

See Ra1mond Ruver, E/lrncnrs dc pr1.ltl-6id/orir (Paris: Pressts tlnivcr'

s i t a i r e sd e F ra n ce , 1 9 4 ? ) , p p . { 6 - 4 7 . 1 2 . " l t i s so jn ) p o r ta n t to kn o w th e tr u c ca u seol the heart'smovenent that w i t h o u t s u c h kn o *le d g e it is im p o ssib leto kn o w anythi ng shi ch rel atesto the t h e o r y o f m e d icin e . F o r a ll th e o th e r fu n ctio n s ol the ani mal are deP enl l cnt on t h i i ' ( " D c s cr ip tio n o fth c Hu m a n Bo d y a n d All o l Its Functi ons" 2 IA T X I 245]' in The Philosophircl llhtings of Descartes,rcI. l. p. I 19). ll. "Treatisc on l\14n" (AT Xl.l65), in lhe Phlo\oPhicdl Wntingr ol D$&n's'

v o l . I , p . 1 04 . 1 4 . " T r a ite d e I' h o m m c" ( AT XI.l7 .]- 9 0 ) , in C harl es A dam and l 'aul TanPa d n e r y , e d s . , Oe u vr e r e De sco r r e(s r is: Vr in , 1 9 7 4), vol . l l , P P 17l -90ral soi n A n d r 6 B r i d ou x, d ., i ( Oe u we s t le ttr e s Pa r is:Ga lli mard, 19s3). [.Ihi s passages e

p. 5tt.
ftk 27 . C uc roul t, D es .att?s ,n l .drc .l er rdtronr,p. l 8l . 28. l bi d, p. 193. l e. Ibi d.

o m i t t e d f r o m th e En g lish tr a n sla tio n o l " T ft.ttisc on N 4an"i n the Phtl ost'phi cal Witings ol Dcscartcs.l 1 5 . " T r aitl d r l' h o m m e " { AT XI lg l) . iD ibi d., vol . l l , p. 193: B ri ri rur' p.867.

)0. l hi d., p. 194. ll. A ugus te C omte, C oursl c phi l os ophi c por' ri v d(l ' .rri s :S c hl ei c her, 1908),

r 6. r bi d .
l ? . " T r a it6 d c I' h o m m e " ( AT XI.l9 2 ) , in ibi d., vol . l l ' p 192; Bri doux' p.866. I U . " P r im a e co g ir itio n cs cir ca g e n!r r tio n e nl ani mrl i um" (A T X LS I9). i n ibid., vol. ll, p. 519. 19. ,\lartial Cuerc,ult, Descotes rclon Iordrc lts rorsons,vol l: I 1n'' d Ie c o r p s ( P a r i sAn b icr , 1 9 5 3 ) , p 2 4 ll. : 2 0 . S e ese ctio n U5 o fth is vo lu m e , a b o r e . 2 1 . D c s ca n e s,"T o M e r je n n c, 2 8 Octo b e r 1640" {A T Il l .2l 3)' i n Ihc Phi l o' vo s o p h i c a lW i tin T s o l D.sr a r r e s, l. l, p . 1 5 5 : tlr id oux,p. 1088. 2 2 . " B r u ta n u lla m h .r h e n tn o titia m co m m o di \,el i ncommodi ' sed qtrat<l am i p l i \ i n u t c r o e \iste n r ib u s o b via lu tr u n t. q u o r u m oPe crcv!tunt et a qui bus ad c e r t o s m o t u s ir n p u lsasu n t: u n d e , q u o tits illis p o sreasi mi l c qui d occuri r, scmPer e o s d e m m otu s e d u n C' ( "Pr im a e c.r g ita tio De \ci rca gcnernti onem ani mal i um" tl

vol .6. pp. 150-51. 12 . A l brec ht v on H al l tr. B thl t' thi qut onatoni guc . v ol . 2. p. 58 3. I l. Au8lstc Comte, S'5tinrc Jt: plitiquc positire (t'aris: I'rtsses tlniversitaircs dc Fra nc e. l q?5). v ol . I. p. 584. ]4. C omtc , C ours ,v ol .6. P rel ,]c e.p. x v u. 15 . C omte, C ours ,l brti!rh l c \\on, l ol . I, p. I5l . 15 . C omte, 5rrt,.a?? pol i ti qucpos i ti v e,v ol . I, pp. 57.1,592. 650. ./. 17 . C omte, C ours ,l orty l i r;t l es s on,v ol . 3, p. 280. 18 . C omtc , S frfi mc d. pohti qft p.\i ti v t, v ol . |, p.410. 19 . Ibi d., v ol . I, pp. 518-80. a0. l bi d., v ol . I, p.602. 41. l bi d. -1. 2.C omte, C our, l i ,rti eth l es s on.!ol . ], p.2.l l n.




vo + 1 . C i ) m t c . 5 ,r n a m . z/rPo ltr &u cPo s,r r v.' l. l, p .661' . { 1 C o m t e , ( ou n . iir r icth le sv- ' n .*r l. } . p . l7 l. 4 5 . I b i d . , l b r tl' lir st lr xo n , vo l. 3 ,2 izltl d 4 6 . C o n r t e , Svstin r e e Po lititlu e tin t( ' \o l. I' P.6 11' Po ' 1 7 . C o m t e , Co u r , ft,n ie th le sso n ,r r r l. 3 ' p 1 6 3 . -18. Ibid. Bio d { 9 . S e t t h r Co m p t| sr ,:n ,lu r c lo Sn cr d r " r r lc lo g rc4{}(l 8s9) Thereponi : e r , p r i n r e d i n E m i lc til.1 , Exa ts d c p h ;h tso p h ;c r d ' h is toi r. J. i r) bto/orre(P ari s: Il,rsson. l9{X)). 5 0 . t l c o r g c s Po u ch e t Pu b lish cd a n in r e r e stin g b iographi cal notc and bi bl i o g r . r p h r o l R o b in : u ' t' r k in th e /o u r n o l t lsl{6. t 5 1 . L m i l e I i ttr ' ,l..tlir Je .n rrc n r 1 d r .,' t ( 2 n d e d ., Pari r: D i ri i cr. 1872).p '+31: lf' r n d L o S c i . n c . . 1 up o in ttc vu c p h ilo so p h iq u t a r is: Did icr' l 87l )' P i i i . 5). Littrt.,llidrnt s l . l b i d . , p . 41 1 7 . p 5 4 . J o t b i f t , s,p ,r r ;co iir ir c, .ln tl scr ' .r t,l 2 i.Ju l.l) cc . l E31' et miJccrrx, p '1l3tr. i I' a n ' lto nti cet cl el o phvsi al ogi en i i ph 66. " l rans rati on.tl\nrt," l o P htos o rc S ' otfut 1 ( l l l i l 0), p. l 5 l l . 6?. Li ttre,4fi dc tnrc .t rn(i l ..i r' , t)p. 269 l (1. 68. l bi d ., pp. 27{ ,-77. 69. In German i n 1866, i n Frt nc .hi n l 87a Il -he Orl .,rrl l nql ts h D Ltnnar.v gi vcs l 89f,.r s the datc otrhe { i rs t trs col "c c ,rl < ,gv "i n Fngl i s h - TR ^\s l 7(1. l bi d ., p. 284. 7l . (l ,r* on s achr Lrrrl . I/rL N r* 5r ,c nol rr S prrr. rrarrs A rthrrr C otdhammer p. (B D sr.r):Beac on, 198.1). l l 6. /d 72. l he i i rs t trv o tbrmul ati onsare to br: l oun(l i n B ernard' s S ri c nr..rl i ri m.nk,/c (P ari s :L' brai ri e l .l l . l l ai l l i i re. 1878). P ' + 5,i nrl thc thi rrl i n hi s P errl c r: r/.radr l es , ed. L. Lrel horme (l ' ari s : Li br.ri ri c ' i .B . B :i l l i i rc . l ' l l 7). p. J 6. nrrrcs rur dc r'1. Brr n;rrd, / 11r:nr )c sphi nonti nc s 1at rt'r,' rrrr/rr .,r/r dn,mr,r/\.r .,r/r rl a.j rour (Pari s :I i brai ri t J .B . B ri l l i are, 1879).v ol l , p.' 10 gtnintlc cn 7a. Bcrnard, Rdpporl nr lcspngrit et la narthc Llelo ph.rsiologic /ran<r(Paris : Impri meri ( Imperi :l c , 1867). rr. 2l l . 75. tlernrrd, /ntrodurrion i I'ltu<le<lclo n<l<lttt f c\PlrtD.nrd/i (Prrii: t-ibrairie J.tt. Bi i l l i ,rrc , 1865). p. l l 2. 76. l bi d., p. I4l . h 77. B ernard,l c qons s urbs phi nonti nc s h v ri ' .rol 7s. l bi d., v ol . 2, p. 5).{ . ?'1. B .r n:rr(I,P rn(i p.' , f.71. ttO. l bi d., p.5:. Sl . Bc rnard. Intral uc ri "n, p.' 70. E2. B c rnard, l ' j ri nri pc sp. 26. . 8l . l bi d., p. l s 2 n.2. l , p i ' 11

5 5 . L i t t r i , l .r s.k' n .. ,r u Po ' n t .I vK l,h ilo so Ph iq ot' . \i i P 5 4 , . J o h n S t u a r t Nli1 l. .' lu g u r r cCo n t. in .l Po siivi 'nt' i n J N l R obson' ed ' L , , l l | . t e d W r k s l lo h n Sr u .r /.r tiil ( T ( ' n ) n t.' : Un ive r sitYof To(,l )1o Press' 1969)' v o l . 1 0 ,p p . 2 t t ' 1 - 9 2 . 5 ? . L i t t r e , i u - Si,r n r e P. 2 3 0 . , 5ll. Ibid., p. 231. 59. lbid., p. 260. t'0. tbid., p.261. t l . L i t t r i , , ' UA/c( ]t..I n r lr lcr r n i,p . 1 7 0 . i,l) ict e t s oDbur. se\ rtl i ti ons '1\cr ')n a p I t s a r r t r c ss c i c n c cs, /.r t Ph ilo so p h ic o sitt,c ( ,\4 a y Ju nt l 869),P l l l . t i 2 . C h a r l c s R o l' jn , ' l) c h b io lo g ic, 5 1 . I i t t r a , 1 d Siicn r c, p . 3 ' 1 0 ;th is te r t o r ig in a llv apperrcd as an arti cl c i n r h L , f r n u a r y l l l 7 0 isr u c r r fla Ph ilr ,r o p h tu ' tL itc. Po 6 - 1 . L i t l r i , . l/( ilc( in ..r r n id ..,n ' . p . l+ x. 6i. l L i d . , p . J- lt.

81. l hi d., p. 156. i i 5. B c rn.rrd,/ntrorl ui ti or). 165. p. i i 6. l l cr ni trd, P r.4' (r, p. l 7l . 87. U ernard,/nrroduc tr' on. p.,t0l . 8N . & :r n.rrd, P ri nri ptt. p. 119. It9. l bi tl ., p. 165. 9tl . Thc ful l ri tl i r ol rhc s orl i s "l ,r N rtrn oppri nc L p.rr l l mi dc c i nc

171 17t

m ( , d c r n f . o u la n ice ssit6 d e r e co u r ir i la m e r h o de ancj enne ct hi ppocrati quc d a n s l L .t r . r i t c me n t d e s m a la d ie i' ( Pa r is: Dtb u r e , 1768). 91. Bcrnard, lrincipes <lenidccine ctpirimcntolc (G!ne\a: Alliance Colturcllc d L rl i r r e , ) 9 6 . )) , p . l3 ln . 9 2 . B e r n a r d ,In tr o d u cr io np . ) 5 1 . , 9 3 . B e r n a r d ,Pr in cr p e s, p . 5 1 fl. p 9 4 . I b i d . , p .5 3 . 95. Ibid., p. 392. 96. See the paper bl Marc Klcin and Mmc Sificrlen in the Conptcs rcndus o l t h e C o n g r ds Na tio n a l d cs So ciit6 s Sa va n te s, Strasbourgand C ol mar, 196?, S c * i o n d e s S c ie n ccs,vo l. I, p p . lll- 2 1 . 9 7 . B e r n ar d , Pr in r ip e s, p .9 5 a n d 1 2 5 . p 9 8 . N ' l i r ko Dr a ze n Cr m e k, " R6 lle xio n s in e d ites de C l aude Bernard sur l a m i ( l c c i n f p r a r iq u c," ,td d e cin e c lia n ce 1 5 0 ( 1 9 6 4), p. 7. d e 9 . B c r n ar d . Ca h ie r d c n o te s.e d . M ir lL o Dr ve n C rnrel (P ;rri s:Gal l i mard, It)65). p. 126. 1 0 0 . P u b lish cd in Pa r is l) y \r . l\{ a s,io n n d So n. Thc nork l i nt rppcarcd as a an arciclc in thc Gazcrtchibdonadoirt ,lt .lllJ,ntu l0l. l b i d ., p . I1 7 . .t l. Chiruryi(.

5. .J ul i enP ac orre,l d P .ni i c rc ri nl guc (P ari s :A l c an, l 9l l ). 6. Franz R eul eaur, Thtorc ti s rhc K i nerl ,dti h:Grunbtj .l t: c i nc r theor)c dt (B .tl osc,l i nrv c s en rauns c hu' ei g, i c u rg. I l l 75 ). \' 7. Ac c ordi ng to trl ari , tool s arc nrov c d br human s trc ngth, rrherc ar m,rchi nes a re nov ed bv n.rtrrrall i rrc t:; s ee hi s C .rprtol ,trrnr- S amrrel,\l tr> rc anrl Edsard Av el i ng (N erv l i rrk : Inttrnrti onal P ubl i rhers , 1967),v ol . I, pp. l ?.1-?.). 8. F or c x ampl c . troc hl c r (from thc C reek for a bl oc k ofpul l c l r), thrmi (l

(f;om thc Greek l br s h;el (l ), \c aphoi (l (l x ,ats hapc rl ),hammc r (i n thr c i r). $c , (the frenc h for l )l l opi an tube, s o c al l ed bec aus e i ts res embl ,rrrc c duct, tronrpc ol to r horn ), thorax (from the C fc ek fbr c hc s t), ti bi a (ori gi nal l r, a k i nd ol l l utc ).

9. Seemv "Modi l es et anal ogi es dans l .r dec ouv erteen bi ol ogi e." i n I-rudc r l 'hi stotrcet dc phi l os oph,. rrt.' .fi dc (P ari \: V ri n, l 96tt), p. 306.

10. A ri i totl e (\pl ai nc ,l rhc l )c ri ng an< lertens i on ol the l i mbs bv ,rnal ogv rri th : c:tapul t: s ee D e nr,,rrr onrrn.r/i rrrr. tr.rns .N { arrha ra' en N us s baum(P nrc c C ton, N j : P ri nc c ton Ll ni v eni tr P rc s s ,1978),701 b9. li. D c \c a(r\. "Io l l ers rnnc . l o Ffbn,rfr I6]9"i n(tl l ).525), i r. P brd-

\ophi cal l hi ti ngs of D c s tortts ,trans . J ohn C otti ngham, I{ oberr S r.rrthotl anrl l l ugal d i\l urdoc h (C .rmhri dge. U K : C ambri dge Ll ni !rrs i rv P res s . l .l 8-+ -el ), vol . 1, p. I34. 12. CIaude l l ernard, /nr..,.l u(.r(,n (186s ). pt. 2, c h. 2. s ec . l . ll. K ant, C ' ttguc ol J uU mnt, rrans . J .11. B c rnrr(l (N c \ Y ork : l l al nc r,

1 0 2 . B c r n a r d , Pr in r ip cs, . 1 1 7 . p l0l. Bernard, Pcnsic's; nores<litachics, p.16.

P , r n r I t r v r : P R o a L Ir !s L Emanuel Radl, Gesci;chteder b;oloyllschen Thcortenin der Neurcir {2nd ed., L r i p r i g : W . E n g clm a n n , 1 9 ll) , vo l. ch a p .4 , \cc. L ', 2. \\hlther Riese, I'ldic <lcI'honne <lans neurobiologi.contenpot.lhte(Patis: Io

l 95l ), sc c . 65. 1.1. Eernard,/ntroduc aon, pp. 356-57. 15. lbi d., pp. 159-60. 16. Aogus teC omrr. C aurs c phrl ot,ph|. J (l pos tti v . l ari s :S c hl ri c h.r, 1907-24), tol . I, l i r rtv -l i rs t Its s on. l ?. See mr Ia C onnots s oncdc /ri ri c (P .rri s :V ri n. l t)(,5). on c el l rhc ory . c .\ppcodi r l l trl th.rt rrorl , rftr' \ rh( ,,l nri { )n! bo"ten l osophv o l Lc ' i hni ;. 18. [ti ennc \\i rl l i , "tts C ul turc s rl i ' rg,rnesembnonnai res ' i n ri trr' . " R rrar r.,c,rl ,qu. (l uav -J une l .)511,f. t8e. c el l rhenrr' .rnd rhr phi

A l c a n , 1 9 3 8 ) , p . 8 ; se c a lso p . 9 . L A r j r t o t l c. Po litiL s, T h t Ba ( Wo tI\ o l Anstatk, \.d. R j chard McK con in 1 \ , . s Y , , r l : R an .l,' m H,' ,,\' . le + 7 ) . L .ll. . { . T h e o p h ile d e Bo r d e u , n cd tr .l.r a n .' r d n iq u.' su l cspo'i ti onsdesgl andu

H l P r r i s , ( ; . E Q u jlla u , I7 5 l) , scc.6 .+ ,q u o ( d in Ch n r lc ! Vi l i or D aremberS , r'ro,r! J c r r c i c n r c s i dir a lcs ( Pa r is:L ib r a ir ie J.ll. E.r ;llie ., 1870), vol . 2, p. l l 57 n.2. m r


1 9 . B e rn r r d , Cd h ict Jc n o te s. . Ntir ko Dr .v en Grmck (pari s: Gal ti martl , cd 1 e 6 5 ) .p . l 7 l. . 2 0 . A r i s to tlc,,t/cr d p ,4 r .e cs, L h c Bo r ic ltb r [\ ol A n\totl e, an.966a, p.718. in J 1 . S c e Ka n t\ Ap p r n ,lir to th e lia n sccn r lcnri l D j al ecti c i n the C rn,ru. ol r D . / t . d ' o r ( Ne $ Y( ,r [, Di) u b l( d i) . t9 6 6 ) , p . a 2 5fl . 2 2 . l l e n r l- E. Sig tr ist, tta n a n d ,ttc,licin c:.tn tnoo.l ui j on to,l tctl i rst Kno\l c d 1 7 c r a n s . Ma r g a r e t Ga lt u o is( .( Ne s Yo r k: No r r on, 19t2), p. 102. t, 2 3 . I b i d., p p . ll7 .t2 . l . { . C o mtc, ' Co n sid ir ,r r io n s p h ilo so p h iq u cs srrr l ,cnscmbtc de l a sci encc b i , , l o 8 i q u e " ( 1 8 1 8 ) . lL r r ie th lcctu r e o f th e Co u n rtc yhi l osophi tpo,,rr,c(ti ri s; - r c h l c i r h e r , I9 0 8 ) , r ,,) . ]. p . I{ ,t) . 2 s . I b i d ., p . 1 7 5 .


j c an R os rand, l l ont r\.l e i ri ti :

patteur.B [nonL

tonttnettc , I.o R t.hc

(P 1,,tl .du/d .,ri r:S toc k . l e' + 2), p.96. 42. Ilr:rnard, lnrrorludbn Li I'ttu<tcdc ltt nirtccir. fr/,i|rnrrr.,/. (t,aris: Librrj_ ri , f.B. B,ri l l i i rt. I865),rran\. l .\ l tr.nrvC opl :v (Jrc enr ,r tntro.l urtbn s ta th \ruJ l nl I\Fti n c ntol .tl & l rnc l N c r),> rt:rrl ,rc ni l trn, I.!7;C ol l j rr. l 96l ).p.96. +1. A l f;ed N orth w hi rrl ,c a(t. \t,!u...rnd t,/. ((.amt,ri dgc , U K : Lrni r(,ai r! P rc!\. 1 93' + ), p.5. { l uoted hr al ex andre K oy ri i n.r rc port i n R c rhc rc hc s phto roph,9 .+( l 9 l 4- I s ), p. 198. ucr 44. Xavicr Bichat, l".rtonit gininjl. dppligu'c ri to phrsiotogit a t) Lt nilcttnc (l )ari ! ts ros s on and C hl l rrl a, t60t): nes rd. bv B ec l arrt. tS J l . Ii i l n!. b\ (;.i ,,B f lLrr r.rrd as Gcncral lnatontt tpphcLtn f\nrtnqt ,t tt ,u*ti.in(, ) rols. (tj,l\rl,n: R i t hrrl rrn and I ord, I812). < rt. l , pp. 20-21. +! B c s i des , l c gel undc ntrx x l rhi s l rrl ec rl v K . , s c e w ,i s ,c ns c hr/t Ir,tA , .tu

26. r bi(t., . I7 9 . P
2 7 . S i g cr ist,.llo n d r r d V&lid n e , p . t0 9 . 1 8 . C o mte , Co u r j, p p . 1 7 5 , l? 6 . 2 9 . I b i d ., P. 1 6 9 . I t l . C h u dr Btr n a r d . lcq o n | u . L i l ) r a i r i ( J . B . Ila illit:r ' . l3 ? 7 ) . p . 5 6 . ll. rbid. tc d n th tl .t to rl corcn.i rf dni nri rl c(f,.l ri \:

chs. I an d l . 46. If i !s i (' r,"l ntc rl enri on.' a?. I hi orl orede S aus :trc . h,v roc tc gret l t' ari s : t)f n().,1, gl e). l 18. l l l atu. f,4r S .fi rJ r. I j 9b. i tntr,. A .t thc S ,tphrv dn,/.i c s r.,.c ,n.,r. l rrn\. i n(l ondon: N el s on, t,16t).

Tarl or, c < 1. . K l i l ,anrIr and F. A ns c onrtr, R

1 2 . l b i d ., p p .6 5 - 6 6 . 3 3 . I b i r l ., p . llil. 1 . 1 . I b i d ., p . l l2 . 1 5 . l b i ( i .. p . 1 6 0 . 1 6 . B c r na r d , L cq a n tn r lo .h .r /( ,u r d ,,n r d i.. 1 p.rri s,I j brai ri e J.B. B i i l ti erc, l8l(, ), p. l9l. 17. f.M. (iuardia, Hisrorc dc l<t nidtLinc tl,Hjppottot. d Brcusl,dir.t sc, srrc . c j n u r J ( P i t r i s :Do in , lU8 4 ) , p . lll. Iti. \'jctor Prus, Dc l'|nit,1t,,n dc ld phL,gnallc. ou nouvc c tloctritu nittiLot.

fOrrh,,l o gv : the an of us i ng ,,orrl s c orrtc tl v (tr,c l l w a! N L,rr Intc moti onttl D r.tfunorr, 2nd r:d., 1958) TR ^N s .] 4'). See P i errc C ui rruri , i rr C ranrrnrri rr(P ari s r pn,s !c \ Ll ni !c rs i r.l i rc l t(. fri D .f, l9-58),p. I09. R c norguts ;ur tn k tnauc l ' onc .ti \t (t6+ i t. i (r. C l .ru(l ( l rv rc < l e \i rgrtar.

51. I:s trbl i s hmenr ol .ooj c ri pti on.n(l the mc l l i .rt errnri nrti on ol c on_ s.ri pt\i cs ttrbl i rhrnc nr nati onal s tLrdl arnrs ol ana rrox )unt depot\. 52. (l ui raud, ta Grc nnoi .,p. 109. N o,,d/,.!d.ron(pari s : t)un,x l . t9.16), pp. l s 7t,. 1r hri cl r c c < ,untol n< )nrrrl i /,r(i ,,n (r\es muc h to rhi s rv ork , l r hi c h i s us el ul l i ,r i ts chri tv ol an.rl v s i s l hi s torrrrl rrx i nti )rmrl ron.rs s 1 .l \ br i ts rel i ,rc ni :r..tr,.r studv ol D r. I l c l l mi c h, Lbrrrfi c r rtu N o' :rl tun.t Oa2j ). s1. Jc .1n c l a Fontai ne. rotl er, 6.,r, ..J upi tc r (l ft l e j uar.r\c r,,0upi rc r rn,j 51. S c r J i c ques MJ i l \, l

( P r r i s : P a n c k ou clc. llll5 ) , L . i 9 . ( ; c o r ge s Ii:is\i( ,. " ln r r r vcn tio n ." IJn e Ctntovcrsc sLtr'l val urr.,r. fi o(. l rn ntstr i clle dt l' f nt.vc ol'e.:I l rc l.d n e i sc ).2 lt9 18). + 0 . F l n i l e Gu \a n ,) t, L o lo r io tto n e t f ivo lu tio D,I rcl !. (pari s: I)oi n, l 9l 0).



thc Sharc Crr-rpper). Accir s/.,fr r( le ip zig r [. D cuti ckc, 19]4;2n<l ed.. e 5 5 . l l a n ; Ke lsr :n ,,Rcin e n ) 9 5 0 ) , t r a n r . a s Pu r c T h a ,r v o l lo w ( Be r kclcy: Uni verri tr ol C al i l brni a P rcss.

"L'tl i s toi rc dc s s c i enc e5 I' organi s ati on B l ai nv i l l e de de c t I,A bb6 Maupi ei J ,,. R evued'hrtot. des\.i c nc c s| (1979), pp.7 S _82 and 90_91. "Vie," Encrclapo.dia unive6rlis t6 lts.jt), pp.762r,6(,b, J6h_(,9c. "P hy s i ol ogi e ani mal e: H i s toi re," fn4,r/opoe.ti .t uni v .ts dtk t2 l l 9t2), t01S-'77 . d

r96 7). 50. JulicnFreund, tssentc poltiquclParis: I du Sirey, 1965), 332. p. 5 7. lb ;d,,p. 293. 58. SeeI lenri Bergson,fhc TwoSourc*of llorollT and Acligion:"Whether .r human animal, socic(y aDorganization; implies coordination or is it a an(lgenerallyalsoa nrbordination elcmcnts; thercfore of it cxhibits,whethermerelv embodicd life or, in addition,specifically in formulated, collcctionof rules a and laws"(trans.R. Aslrlev Aduraand Cloudeslev Bretonlc.rrdcnCil. NY: 19541, )1 ). Doubledar. p. lrtstesTrcpiques, 59. Claudet-6vi-Srrauss, trans.John and Doreen Weigh. ma ntNe " )i'r k : Ar h' r r . um , lq8lt . p 18i 60 . Fried r ic hNiet z s c he. et t er of f ebr uar y l 8 ? 0 t o P a u l D e u s s c ni.n I Nictzsche Bricfwcchscl(Bcrlin: Walterde Gruyter,1977), 100. p. 61. Nie(,sche,fht Brth of f Vintagt,1967). qcdv,trnnr. \!hltcr Kauihan (Ne$ lbrk:


"ta P hv ri ol ogi e ani mal e aLrX V I. s i c c l c ,' , i n R c D e Taton, & ., H noi n gi ni rcl e des s c i enR ' , v ol . 2 (pari s , pres s esU ni v ers i rai res dc Franc e. l 95l i ). pp. 591-98, 601-601, 618-t9. l i j ti nb J c ,c )c nc c s . rome III: l o S ri enc c ntc hporc i ne,\ol . l , te Ii X . s j i r/e ( pari s : prc s s c s ro U ni v erri _ tai resde F ranc e, l 96l ), pt. 482-84. "L'1d ac .l c narure dans l a th6ori e et l ,r prati .l ue mc rl i c al c s ,,, J l etl ec j nt dc l'l'"mmc .+3 (,March 1912J, pp. 6-1. "Lcs M al a(l i es ," i n A n< l 16 J ac ob, d., E nc .v tl opi di e phtorophtqueuni v ers c l l c : L t-tni vcnphi l os ophi que, ol . I { prri s : pres s e5U ni v ers i rri res v .l e Franc c . l 9l r9), p. l 2I5.r. "Lc S r)tur api s ramoi ogi quede l a medec i ne," H ntotr dnd phtos oftr oJ the / i /i J, rcr,c , l 0ts uptt., l qx x r,pp tS -l a. ji La Gn nats s anc < l cl a v r. (pari r: V ri n, 1989),pp.47_50,52 e s 6,s 8_61,69-71, 76, 79 , t)6-u7,83_89, 9 i _92. I02 l o+ , l r(,_r5. "La P hy s i ol ogi cc n A l l c maS ne,' ,j n TanrD ,ed., H i \toi rc

So u r ce s

T h e l i r l l o r v i n g p u b lir h e r s h a ve g r a n te d p e n n issio n to usc exccrpts from copy righted works: E t u c l e s lh isto itc e t d e p h ilr so p h tud e s r r ,e n ce s 5th (d., Pari s: Vri n, 1989), < ( p p . i 1 - 2 1 , 5 5, 6 l- 7 3 , 7 5 - ' 7 9 , I ll, I l5 - 4 1 . i4 .{ - 46, I47-51. 153-60, 226-27,

"l l crc; rrtes et l a tec hni que," Iral out du !.\" C onorc i ntendti ondl < tc phi i ,s o_ s phrcC ong i s D c s c .i ttc ' , tome tl (pari s : H ermann, l 9l ?), pp. 79_1j 5. "H nroire de I' horl nrc c t nature der c hos es s el on;\ugus te C omtc drns l t Plandes trcvaut sctenifiqu.J'nicessdnes pout tiorqanncr k) n(iiti. t,q,!2,.,i cr frUJ.J ph i losophryucs (197 4J, pp. 291-9't. "Emi l e Li t.ri , phi l os oph!d! l a bnrl ogi c et de l a medec i ne,,,C enrre i nrc r nati onal i i e l y ni hi s c , ,i tes rl u C o oque E ni tc I nrrl /f0i _i J J /. pori s j.,q o.bbrt /e6i (P ari s :A l bi n Mi c hc t, 1982), pp.27t-7? anrl 279_ttO. "LIn P hy ri ol ogi s reptri l G< ,phe:C hude uc l nar< t.,. D i dto|ut 5.4 (te(J ?). pp. i 56-57, s60_62, 566_6tt. "P rel i ce," i n C l aude B ernarrl . ter:ons ur s tesphi noni n.s .tc Io v i c :ontnruns ou\ ti \'nou| .t ou! v i { l .ru\ (p.rri \: V ri n, I96tr). p. v .

2 I l - l l i , 2 6 0 - 7 1 , 2 9 6 - 1 0 4 . tzl- 2 7 , t2 9 - l t. 3 1 6 - .15. I<lxlao.r and Rat'dt)dlit.vin the Htstotr Df thc Iik S.icnccr (c)mbridge. MA:

N l l T P r . s s , I e 8 8 ) . p p . l0 - 1 7 , 5 2 - 5 9 , 5 6 - 6 1 , 6 5 - 7 0, 125-4,1. I a F o r n a tio n d u o n cp t d c r tlb \c o u \ XVll" e t Xyl l l , si i (h.s \2nd ed., Pari s: 5 2 - s6 ,6 0 61,65-66,68-69, ll0 L

v r i n , 1 9 7 7 ) , p p . 3 - 6 , j0 - 3 2 , ]4 ,1 5 ,4 r , I t6--t2. t55-56.



= : =,..
!aox 3


i>- - !

'a ^.

ic 12;
.==t- cF

-6=. +

'=.2 = r a: 2

+. 4 . =