Paris academy dispute

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The so-called Paris Academy dispute of 1830 was a scientific dispute between the two French naturalists Georges Cuvier and Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire before the Paris Académie des Sciences .

The dispute began at the academy meeting on February 15, 1830, when Saint-Hilaire praised the work of two young researchers comparing the anatomy of vertebrates with that of molluscs . Cuvier protested and started one of the most famous debates in the history of biology . It dragged on in eight public disputes until April 15, 1830, with Cuvier being considered the winner of the dispute.

prehistory

Image of development and man around 1830

By 1830, Charles Darwin had not yet developed his theory of evolution, and naturalists were busy describing, ordering, and explaining the diversity of nature. Important pioneers of today's taxonomy were Carl von Linné , who published a first classification of living beings with his work Systema Naturae in 1735 , and Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon , who gained important knowledge about the determination and delimitation of species .

The researchers also looked at the origin and diversity of life. They assumed that all living beings were created by God and therefore perfect and have not changed since creation ( species constancy ). Thus fossil finds had to be reconciled with the Christian creation myth for a long time . In the flood theory, for example, fossils were interpreted as antediluvian creatures that drowned during the 40-day flood and petrified after its decline.

Charles Bonnet (1720–1793) was an early proponent of the theory of evolution . He assumed that nature always produced new designs, starting with the simplest forms of life up to the most complex design, humans.

Even Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) did not believe in the fixity of species and assumed that each organism reacts to changing environmental conditions. According to Lamarck, organs were strengthened when they were used frequently and weakened when not used. He also believed that the newly acquired traits were inheritable.

A significant difference between Darwin's and Lamarck's theory of evolution was Lamarck's teleology : The inner drive for perfection, which, according to Lamarck, is inherent in every organism, allows it to develop into ever more complex and better forms. Lamarck was the first to realize that the timeline needed to be lengthened because evolution had to be slow and gradual. The biblical timeline had been used for a long time and therefore it was believed that only 6000 years had passed since creation.

Cuvier's and Geoffroy's positions

Georges Cuvier
Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire

Georges Cuvier is considered the founder of modern paleontology . He didn't believe in evolution. Studies of mummified cats from Egypt confirmed his assumption of a constancy of the species , since these did not differ from Egyptian cats of his time.

During excavations in the Paris Basin , he interpreted the many layers of the earth with their fossils as earlier creations that were destroyed again by catastrophes. He is considered to be the most important proponent of the cataclysm theory . Cuvier classified all living things into four "branches" or " embranchments ": Vertebrata , Articulata , Mollusca and Radiata . These " embranchements " were fundamentally different for him and he considered a relationship or connection among them to be impossible. According to Cuvier, similarities between animals were due to the same functions, but not to kinship or ancestry.

He believed that each part of the body was perfectly coordinated with the others in form and function. Organisms were functional units and the slightest change in one part would destroy the whole balance. It is also said that Cuvier was an excellent anatomist and was able to reconstruct the entire animal from a single bone.

In contrast to Cuvier, Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire believed in an evolution and, above all, in a relationship of all living things, a relationship which, however, was probably not yet understood as "ancestral relationship", but as a consistent morphological similarity. He called the common, anticipated basic building plan , plan d'organization of all organisms “Unité de composition” (unit of composition) or “Unité de plan” (unit of construction plan). Unlike Cuvier, he did not try to distinguish and classify living beings, but instead sought similarities that testified to the unity of the plan.

He called such similarities analogies . For Geoffroy, form (and not, as with Cuvier, function) was decisive. This provided the abilities and possibilities of living beings. Geoffroy was very close to the German natural philosophers - including Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - although they did not have a high reputation in France.

Course of the academy dispute (using a few examples)

The argument began with the work of two young and unknown scientists, Meyranx and Laurencet. In October 1829 they sent a treatise on mollusks (molluscs) to the Académie des Sciences. Using the octopus , they tried to prove that the internal organs of a vertebrate animal are arranged in a manner similar to that of the mollusks when it is bent back so that the neck touches the buttocks. On February 8, 1830, Pierre André Latreille and Geoffroy were commissioned at the weekly meeting of the Académie to prepare a report on them.

Geoffroy, who was enthusiastic about the work because it supported his thesis of the "unity of composition", applauded the two young scholars on February 15 at the meeting of the Académie a week later. He saw in this work the proof that the four "embranchements" Cuviers can be united.

Geoffroy went on to say that focusing on the differences between animals was a method of the past. Instead, the object of the zoology of the time was the knowledge of the philosophical similarities in life. As an example of an old-fashioned view of the molluscs, he quoted from Cuvier's "Mémoire sur les céphalopodes et sur leur anatomie" (treatise on the cephalopods and their anatomy) without naming the title or author. Geoffroy ended his report with a recommendation to publish the paper in the journal of the Académie for non-members.

So provoked, Cuvier took the floor, claimed that the authors of the article were completely wrong with their alleged homology and promised to explain his criticism in a future article.

A week later, on February 22nd, Cuvier came prepared for the Académie session. Using a sketch of a cephalopod and a bent-back vertebrate , namely a duck, he tried to show that these animal phyla have many organs in common (such as the brain, eyes, ears, salivary gland, etc.), but none There is reason to believe that they have a common blueprint. What is more, with his great knowledge of the anatomy of the cephalopods , he pointed out gross errors in the evidence to Meyranx and Laurencet and thus smashed their thesis. He then criticized Geoffroy's terminology and questioned it. In his opinion, it lacks the necessary clarity and precision, the expressions “unity of the composition” and “unity of the construction plan” suggest that the organs in living beings are arranged in the same way and are equally present. Rather, the word “unity” should be replaced by “ analogy ”. Finally, Cuvier turned to Laurencet's and Meyranx's treatise and showed with the help of diagrams that organs in molluscs and vertebrates are often arranged differently, despite the backward bending, and that organs of vertebrates are often not present in molluscs and vice versa.

Geoffroy then improvised a short answer and promised to give a longer answer at the next meeting.

Hyoid bone (Os Hyoideum) consisting of a body and two pairs of lateral processes (horns)
Stylus-shaped process: styloid process

On March 1, Geoffroy delivered his answer, taking the controversy beyond the anatomy of molluscs to a philosophical level. Geoffroy claimed that he never intended to define the term “unity of composition” precisely because this was not possible. By similarities, he means philosophical similarities rather than obvious ones.

To clarify his theory of analogies, Geoffroy turned to the example of the hyoid bone . This consists of five parts in humans and nine in cats. In order to check their homology, it was not necessary to consider the functions (these are the same in both: the support of the larynx), instead Geoffroy looked for rudiments of the four missing parts in humans. He finally found this in the handle-shaped appendages (Singl .: Processus styloideus ossis temporalis ) on the temporal bone of the human skull, which in turn are connected to the hyoid bone by the ligamentum stylohyoid, a ligament. The Embryology confirmed his thesis: Geoffroy observed in the human fetus, the styloid process was not originally attached to the skull and therefore a rudiment was the hyoid bone.

This was followed by a two-week break. On March 22nd, Cuvier continued by referring to the hyoid bone as an example. He found that the large, drum-like hyoid bone of the howler monkey had no traces of the previous horns (see fig.Hylous bone), the stylohyoid ligament or the styloid process and could therefore not be a modification of the hyoid bones of other mammals. He admitted that these may have a certain similarity in higher vertebrates, but that they result from their similar functions. In conclusion, Cuvier addressed the religious question. He indicated that the "unity of composition" meant unnecessary restrictions for the creator and that this thought was more of a hindrance to the progress of science:

But if one disregards all these considerations in order to see only the supposed likenesses and analogies which, if they had the slightest degree of reality, would reduce nature to a kind of slavery, which luckily does not force its author into, then it becomes nobody know anything about life in itself or their relationships. The world itself would become an unreadable riddle. (free translation)

Geoffroy, to whom the Académie did not allow him to answer directly, was only able to present the article he had prepared for the session on analogies in fish. In doing so, he responded to Cuvier's allegation that he had given up the actual point of contention, the molluscs. Geoffroy justifies his detour via the hyoid bone and the fish with the fact that the study of homologies between molluscs and vertebrates was not sufficiently advanced at that time to allow a fruitful discussion. However, before one can consider the molluscs, the structure of the fish must first be understood, which occupies a place between the higher vertebrates and the non-vertebrates.

Human sternum with ribs

The Académie meeting on March 29 began with a dispute between the adversaries over who should start. Geoffroy was of the opinion that he had the right to go into Cuvier's reflections on the hyoid bone, whereas Cuvier said that since Geoffroy had presented last in the last session, it was his turn again. Geoffroy was eventually given the floor, claiming that it was not a disagreement about facts but a question of philosophy that separated them. Cuvier would not have understood his concern, the importance of looking for similarities that are disguised as apparent dissimilarities. The value of the theory of analogies is that it offers an explanation for different structures.

The meeting on April 5th was supposed to be the last for the time being. Cuvier now examined the breastbone in mammals, birds and reptiles and came to the conclusion that there could be no uniformity here, since the breastbones differ both in the number of their parts and in the connection between the individual parts. He found animals with sternum and ribs, animals with ribs without sternum (snakes), and also animals with sternum and without ribs (frogs).

The meetings had now received such attention that the public seats were overcrowded every week. The scientific dispute threatened to degenerate into a drama due to the large and loud audience. So Geoffroy announced that he would not reply to Cuvier's lecture. Instead, he tried to get the controversy public. On April 15 he sent the document to press, which, under the name Principes de philosophie zoologique, contained an introduction, the report on Meyranx and Laurencet's treatise, and the annotated treatises of Cuvier and Geoffroy which were presented at the meetings.

Effect on contemporaries

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832)

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe at the age of 79

The German poet, scientist and statesman Johann Wolfgang von Goethe took a large part in the debate when he was 81. He was a follower of Geoffroy and brought the subject closer to a German audience by discussing it in two articles in the yearbooks for scientific criticism September 1830 and March 1832 .

Goethe began his discussion by introducing the conflict and its adversaries. He described Cuvier as a “tireless discriminator” and Geoffroy as “concerned about the analogies of the creatures and their mysterious relationships” and indicated that the conflict was actually a dispute between the principles of deduction and induction .

In the second section he described his own research on the intermaxillary bone . Goethe believed that humans, like other mammals, have an intermaxillary bone. In 1784 he was able to prove that in humans ( embryo ) this grows together with the rest of the upper jaw before birth. Goethe saw in the presence of the intermaxillary bone in humans no indication of the phylogenetic relationship between humans and animals. Rather, he saw the existence of the intermaxillary bone in humans and vertebrates as a confirmation of his image of nature, which produces its "creatures" according to uniform laws that can be observed in all animals and also in humans. Goethe sent copies of his work on the "inter-bone" to the Dutch physician Peter Camper and the German anatomist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach , who ignored Goethe's work. His method of comparative anatomy, which he used for this proof, he found again many years later with Geoffroy.

“I've struggled on this great matter for fifty years; initially lonely, then supported and finally, to my great joy, surmounted by kindred spirits. When I sent my first aperçu from the interbone to Peter Camper, I was completely ignored, to my deepest sadness. I did not feel better with Blumenbach, although he stepped on my side after personal intercourse. But then I won over like-minded people in Sömmering, Oken, D'Alton, Carus and other equally excellent men. Now Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire is definitely on our side, and with him all of his important students and followers of France. This event is of unbelievable value to me, and I justifiably rejoice over the general victory that I have finally experienced in a cause to which I have dedicated my life and which is especially mine. "

- Goethe zu Eckermann, August 2, 1830.

And the “thing” to which Goethe “dedicated his life” and in which he now saw himself confirmed by Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire, was this realization: Even “nature” is not unlimitedly free; In its “instinct for education” it is subject to the law of “budget”, which is the household rule, which is valid everywhere. Freedom on one side is compensated for by "conditionality" on another.

Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859)

The academy dispute between the two zoologists, Georges Cuvier and Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire was ultimately the public climax of a dispute that began in 1820. This now public discussion of the academy dispute in the plenum of the Académie des Sciences took place in the year of the July Revolution of 1830 , more precisely between February and October. The immediate trigger of the July Revolution were the "July ordinances" of July 26, 1830. King Charles X (1757–1836) from the house of the restituted Bourbons had the freedom rights enshrined in the constitution imposed in 1814 severely restricted in several ordinances on July 25, 1830; the Chamber of Deputies, elected in June 1830, was dissolved, freedom of the press curtailed, and the right to vote was restricted.

Alexander von Humboldt knew the two disputants personally and had the opportunity to follow the dispute, in some cases directly on site, in Paris. Between 1830 and 1831 he also attended Cuvier's lectures at the Collège de France . Humboldt is said to have tended more towards Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire's position. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire had formulated the hypothesis of the unity of the building plan: He extended the basic anatomical structure of all vertebrates to other animal phyla. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire thus contradicted Cuvier's division of the animal kingdom into four separate groups (vertebrates, molluscs, articulated animals and radiant animals). The central topic of the dispute was the question of whether analog forms could be detected in vertebrates and invertebrates or whether Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire's idea of ​​the Unité de composition organique was not fundamentally an empirically unfounded speculation. Against the background of the political conflict during the July Revolution, Cuvier's position was associated with the Restoration regime, as he held numerous political and scientific administrative offices. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, on the other hand, appeared to be a more progressive, liberal scholar. Humboldt saw a mixture of politics and science, a flattening of scientific argumentation. Furthermore, he avoided making a clear statement in favor of one of the disputants in his scientific publications and letters.

Dispute at the Académie des Beaux-Arts

Shell of a nautilus (tribe: Mollusca )

At the same time as the academy dispute, a dispute at the Académie des Beaux-Arts between Quatremère de Quincy and Henri Labrouste sparked . Triggered the dispute after Labrouste the "Prix de Rome" won coveted, a design competition in which the winner after Italy was sent to the there architecture of the ancient study. Labrouste sent drawings to Paris in which he depicted and reconstructed the famous temple ruins in Paestum , which was quite common at the time. However, with this reconstruction he did not provide the expected neoclassical answer, but interpreted architecture as changeable and adapting to local conditions, existing materials and practical concerns of the builder. Quatremère, secretary at the Académie des Beaux-Arts, found Labroustes' drawings offensive, since for him the Greek temple represented a perfect and eternal form. This trigger led to a discussion that has many parallels and links with the Paris academy dispute.

Quatremère, for example, a figure of authority similar to Cuvier, believed in three “types” of architecture ( cave , temple , tent ) to which every form of building can be traced. These three "types" were independent and a mixture unthinkable. Quatremère's “types” are strongly reminiscent of Cuvier's “ embranchements ” in their formal purity and rigidity and, in their immutability, to Cuvier's belief in the constancy of species . Labrouste and his followers, on the other hand, believed in the changeability of architecture, which went hand in hand with the socio-historical and cultural changes in the environment of their residents. The architect Léonce Reynaud (1803–1880), who, like his brother, the philosopher and editor Jean Reynaud , was a member of Labroustes, developed the metaphor of the mollusk for this avant-garde architectural concept . He understood architecture as the shell of human society in the process of evolution (evolution in the Lamarckian sense ). The Reynaud brothers were also friends and supporters of Geoffroy.

The political mood in France in 1830 is also important in this context. The July Revolution of 1830 represents the climax of the conflict between autocratic monarchists and the bourgeoisie, consisting of constitutional monarchists and republicans . The academy dispute and the dispute at the Académie des Beaux-Arts also served to further polarize the reactionary and the liberal or radical Camp. The former were more likely to support Cuvier and Quatremère and the latter to support the new ideas of Geoffroy, Labrouste and his followers. The metaphor of the mollusk also took on a new meaning here. The elastic shell of the mollusks became the model for social reformation.

As a last parallel, the borrowed vocabulary should be noted. Reynaud found his metaphor for a new concept of architecture in zoology , whereas Geoffroy and Cuvier took terms such as “ composition ”, “plan” or “building plan”, “embranchement” (branching), “material” from (urban) architecture.

Others

  • The French writer Honoré de Balzac sent Geoffroy a copy of his novel Louis Lambert in 1835 , in which a “Dr. Meyraux ”occurs. That this was the "Meyranx" of the academy dispute becomes clear in A great man from the provinces in Paris (in Lost Illusions , 1837–1843):
First, Meyraux, who died after stirring up the famous quarrel between Cuvier and Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, the great question that the scientific world should divide between these two equal opponents. He died a few months earlier than the man who advocated a limited and analytical science against the pantheist who is still alive and whom Germany worships.
  • On August 2, 1830, the following misunderstanding arose between Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Frédéric Soret :
    The news of the beginning of the July Revolution reached Weimar today and put everyone in a state of excitement. In the course of the afternoon I went to see Goethe. “Well,” he called out to me, “what do you think of this great incident? The volcano has erupted; everything is on fire and it is no longer a closed-door negotiation! ”
    “ A terrible story! ”I replied. “But what else could be expected with the known conditions and with such a ministry than that one would end with the expulsion of the previous royal family?” “We don't seem to get along
    , my very best,” replied Goethe. “I'm not talking about those people at all; I am dealing with completely different things. I am talking about the dispute between Cuvier and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire, which broke out publicly in the academy and is so extremely important for science! "

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Rupert Riedl: Riedls Kulturgeschichte der Evolutionstheorie. Berlin et al. 2003, p. 39.
  2. ^ TA Appel: The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate. French Biology in the Decades Before Darwin. Oxford 1987, p. 164.
  3. ^ TA Appel: The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate. French Biology in the Decades Before Darwin. Oxford 1987, pp. 143-174.
  4. ^ TA Appel: The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate. French Biology in the Decades Before Darwin. Oxford 1987, pp. 148f.
  5. ^ TA Appel: The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate. French Biology in the Decades Before Darwin. Oxford 1987, p. 151.
  6. ↑ See below: Web links, Goethe's discussion of the academy dispute
  7. ↑ JWv Goethe: Principes de philosophie zoologique. In: The writings on natural science. tenth volume, Weimar 1964, p. 373f.
  8. ↑ Hans J. Becker et al. (Hrsg.): Johann Wolfgang Goethe: Complete works according to epochs of his work. Munich edition, volume 12: On natural science in general ... Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich 1990. Here, among other things, editor's comment, p. 980.
  9. ^ A b Johann Peter Eckerman: Conversations with Goethe in the last years of his life in the Gutenberg-DE project
  10. ↑ Compare e.g. For example: "Educational drive" or "Metamorphosis of the animals" (!) In: Hans J. Becker et al. (Ed.): Johann Wolfgang Goethe: All works based on the epochs of his work. Munich edition, Volume 12: On natural science in general ... Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich 1990, pp. 100–102 and 153–154
  11. ↑ Ilse Jahn: Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire to Alexander von Humboldt about Goethe's position on the Paris academy dispute. In: NTM. Journal of the history of science, technology and medicine. J. 10 (1973), H. 2, Leipzig 1973, pp. 59-67.
  12. ↑ http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/romanistik/humboldt/hin/hin17/inh_paessler_4.htm#_ftn3
  13. ↑ April 19, 1830 in a letter to Achille Valenciennes (1794–1865) about Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire dont les discussions ennuyeuses infectent les journaux politiques . (Jean Théodoridès, Une amitié de savants au siècle dernier: Alexander von Humboldt et Achille Valenciennes (Correspondance inédite), in: Biologie médicale - numéro hors-série (1965), p. XIV).
  14. ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20160528211955/https://historiaehistoria.com.br/arquivos/figura_4-web_Labrouste.jpg
  15. ^ A b P. Y. Lee: The meaning of molluscs: Léonce Reynaud and the Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate of 1830, Paris. In: The Journal of Architecture. Vol. 3, Fall 1998, p. 228.
  16. ^ PY Lee: The meaning of molluscs: Léonce Reynaud and the Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate of 1830, Paris. In: The Journal of Architecture. Vol. 3, Fall 1998, p. 225.
  17. ^ A b P. Y. Lee: The meaning of molluscs: Léonce Reynaud and the Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate of 1830, Paris. In: The Journal of Architecture. Vol. 3, Fall 1998, p. 231.
  18. ^ PY Lee: The meaning of molluscs: Léonce Reynaud and the Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate of 1830, Paris. In: The Journal of Architecture. Vol. 3, Fall 1998, p. 211.
  19. ^ Honoré de Balzac: Lost Illusions in the Gutenberg-DE project

literature

  • Toby A. Appel: The Cuvier-Geoffroy debate. French biology in the decades before Darwin . OUP, Oxford 1987, ISBN 0-19-504138-0 .
  • Stephen T. Asma: Following form and function. A philosophical archeology of life science . Northwestern University Press, Chicago, Ill. 1996, ISBN 0-8101-1397-X .
  • Johann W. von Goethe: Principes de philosophie zoologique . In: Ders .: The writings on natural science . Vol. 10, Weimar 1964.
  • Paula Y. Lee: The meaning of molluscs. Léonce Reynaud and the Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate of 1830, Paris. In: The Journal of Architecture. Vol. 3, Fall 1998, pp. 211-240.
  • Walter May: The academy dispute between Geoffroy St. Hilaire and Cuvier in 1830 and his guiding thoughts . In: Natural Sciences. 7th vol. (1919) of July 28, pp. 497-499.
  • Rupert Riedl: Riedl's cultural history of evolution theory. The heroes, their errors and insights . Springer, Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-540-43668-5 .
  • Edward S. Russell: Form and function A contribution to the history of animal morphology . University Press, Chicago, Ill. 1982, ISBN 0-226-73173-1 . (Repr. Of the London 1916 edition)
    also as an e-book in Project Gutenberg ( [1] )
  • Ilse Jahn: Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire to Alexander von Humboldt about Goethe's position on the Paris academy dispute. In: NTM. Journal of the history of science, technology and medicine. J. 10 (1973), H. 2, Leipzig 1973, pp. 59-67.

Web links