27. Cap 23. CORSI, WEINDLING. Darwin in Germany, France, and Italy. pp 683-730.

Princeton University Press
Chapter Title: Darwinism in Germany, France, and Italy
Chapter Author(s): Pietro Corsi and Paul J. Weindling
Book Title: The Darwinian Heritage
Book Editor(s): DAVID KOHN
Published by: Princeton University Press. (1985)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7ztrtb.27
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Princeton University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Darwinian Heritage
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
23
DARWIMSM IN GERMANY,
FRANCE, AND ITALY
Pietro Corsi and Paul J. Weindling
Introduction
T
he eleven-year interval since the conference on the reception of
Darwinism organized by Thomas F. Glick (1974) has witnessed
important changes in research on evolutionary ideas in Europe. More
case studies on Germany have appeared; Professor Yvette Conry has published
her large volume on French non-reactions to Darwin; and a new generation
of Italian historians of science has undertaken to explore the immense and
immensely under-researched territory of Italian reactions to Darwin. Yet
at present, as in 1972, the task of offering a balanced comparative assessment
of Darwinian debates within the major European countries proves daunting.
For the most part, the historical literature concerning the three cultures
is still fragmentary. Most studies completed in recent years have emphasized
the complexity of the problem and the need for further systematic
investigation.
There is a rapidly growing literature on many aspects of biology in
nineteenth-century German culture, but no immediate prospect of a
comprehensive synthesis of German Darwinism. Although German scientists
are seen as having made fundamental discoveries on development and heredity,
the effect of Darwin's writings remains controversial. From a- series of
excellent case studies by such authors as G. Allen, Churchill, Coleman,
Hoppe, Mann, Mocek, Querner, and Uschmann, it has emerged that the
Weltanschauung guiding the work of German biologists was complex and
highly individuated in its intellectual ingredients. Views for and against
Darwin represented only one element of their scientific concerns. Extrascientific considerations often influenced opinions on evolutionary theories.
The wealth of information available is still largely unexplored from
the point of view of the social history of scientific culture. Contradictory
theses have been supported by appropriately selected material. In a stimulating
study on the teaching of natural history in schools, Scheele (1981) has reached
the conclusion that the introduction of Darwinian biology into the school
curricula was delayed for many decades. Yet studies of the development
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
of Gennan nationalism show student demands for lectures on Darwin, and
they provide suggestive but impressionistic evidence for the popularity of
the new evolutionary Weltanschauung.
Certain key areas like anthropology remain virtually unresearched.
Proliferation of case studies, changing historiographical perspectives, and
the many controversies in need of assessment, make it inappropriate to offer
here a comprehensive analysis of German Darwinism. Montgomery (1974)
has succinctly summarized some of the major contemporary writings. Instead
the focus is on the formation of Haeckel's Darwinism and on the influence
of Spencer, since they are often regarded as the twin pillars of evolutionary
ethics and Social Darwinism. Concentration on Haeckel permits analysis
of key factors in the transformation of Darwin's views in German culture.
Historians of Darwinism in France and Italy are becoming increasingly
aware of the considerable influence exercised by Haeckel's philosophy and
science in these countries. Indeed, the defense of Darwinism and evolutionism
was often carried on in Haeckelian terms. To those who regarded evolutionary
thought as a powerful weapon against Catholic and other Christian views
of nature and society, the works of Haeckel provided convincing answers
to problems Darwin was rather reluctant to tackle. It could indeed be argued
that the powerful rhetoric of Haeckel's writings, which to certain more
pragmatic Darwinists appeared mystical, did in fact contribute to their
diffusion throughout Europe and the world.
As far as France and Italy are concerned, the small number of studies
published on national reactions to Darwinism has made it possible to approach
the topic through the format of the essay-review. Areas of research that
promise to improve understanding of the complex dynamic of continuity
and change within French natural history disciplines have been indicated.
Conry's work undoubtedly represents the major single effort as yet undertaken
to offer a comprehensive picture of debates on the scientific dimension of
Darwinism, and it provides precious bibliographical information on the French
literature of the period. R. E. Stebbins's 1965 thesis, abstracted in his
contribution to the Glick conference (1974), is still useful. In the last few
years, the Revue de Sytitkese has published several papers dealing with French
neo-Lamarckism. Among young historians of science, there appears to be
a growing concern for French debates over transformism before and after
the French translation of the Origin in 1862. A dissertation recently written
by Claude Blanckaert (1981), dealing with the controversy over polygenism
and monogenism, as well as work in progress by Ruth Harris, highlight
new dimensions of the relationship between physical and social anthropology,
and of the discussion of the concept of species and species degeneration
amongst anthropologists and political thinkers before and after 1859.
There is no study of Italian reactions to Darwin comparable to Conry's
book. Moreover, with the exception of a few paragraphs on Catholic attitudes
toward evolutionism, the Glick volume failed to account for the variety
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
and extent of Italian debates on Darwin as well as on Spencer and Haeckel.
This gap in the coverage of European diffusion of Darwinism reflected
the state of Italian studies on the subject. In recent years, a group of young
Italian historians of science has contributed several case studies of selected
features of the controversies over evolutionism. Research is hampered by
a deplorable lack of basic bibliographical information, and of appropriate
financing of projects on the scale required by the task.
It has been decided to offer a panorama of studies on Italian Darwinism,
and to provide a case study of the close links between some of the major
supporters of Darwin and leading representatives of Italian Lamarckism active
during the early decades of the nineteenth century. Italian natural history
of the time had lost the high status it had achieved in previous centuries,
and was heavily reliant on research undertaken in France, Germany, and
to a lesser extent in England. Even though little original research was
completed by Italian evolutionary biologists, it is of considerable interest
to explore the way in which scientific and broadly philosophical problems
discussed within the European context found original recombinations in Italy.
In view of the lack of bibliographical aids on the subject of Italian
Darwinism, a sample of the range of topics touched upon by participants
in the evolutionary controversies has been offered. The major focus of the
review is the scientific reactions, although appropriate mention is made
of religious and ideological dimensions of the debate. As in the cases of
France and Germany, research on the impact in Italy of biological categories
on anthropology, and on the work of Cesare Lombroso in particular, will
contribute to an appreciation of the interpenetration between broad
ideological commitments and scientific research.
I. Darwinism in Germany
P. J. Weindling
Charles Darwin was astonished at the divergences from his views and at
the ferocity of German debates on Darwinismus. He remarked that nationality
had a curious effect on scientific opinion, as German supporters often put
an exaggerated value on his work, whereas the French appeared uninterested
(LL 3: 68-69, 118). But it is misleading to dismiss as simply exaggeration
the scientific originality and the widespread acclaim for a new
Weltanschauung, characterizing Darwinismus. It is more appropriate to discuss
the response in terms of differences between the English and German scientific
traditions (Mullen 1964, p. 3), although this approach neglects the distinctive
social and cultural circumstances of the 1860s and 1870s.
A dominant concern among German scientists was the laws of
organization, particularly of animal morphology. This was the theme of
a treatise published in 1858 by the paleontologist Heinrich Georg Bronn
(1800-1862). His belief in an immanent developmental force accounted for
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
the bowdlerization of his prompt translations of the second and third editions
of the Origin (1860, 1863). Until Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) launched his
enthusiastic campaign for Darwin's natural selection, along with a host of
other adaptive mechanisms, the response to the Origin had been cautious.
Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) remarked that "Germany took time to consider"
(1887b, 2: 186), because there were a number of divergent classificatory
and developmental theories, which were not immediately reconcilable with
Darwin's views. Huxley's own differences with Darwin were influenced
by Von Baer's morphology (Querner 1978). How it came about that prior
German debates on morphology and development became subsumed under
the banner of Darwinism will be examined here.
Since Germany was politically fragmented and culturally diversified,
there are difficulties in generalizing about the impact of Darwinism. Even
after unification in 1870, the exclusion of Austria and the continuing control
of universities and schools by the constituent states ensured variations in
the arts and sciences. It was at the University of Jena, which was administered
by four Saxon Grand Duchies, that Darwinism initially found a niche in
the 1860s. Heterogeneity in science was offset by virtue of certain common
areas of research, and indeed science could be used for assertion of nationalist
ideals.
Darwin admired German superiority in cytology and embryology.
Johannes Miiller (1808-1858) harnessed the rapid advances being made in
cytology and embryology to explain the mysteries of animal organization.
His comparative anatomy was a major influence in the 1840s and 1850s.
That Haeckel was a pupil of Miiller, who was renowned as "the German
Cuvier", and that Haeckel was to achieve distinction as "the German Darwin"
suggest that a necessary preliminary was reinterpretation of cell theory and
embryology in terms of Darwinism. Haeckel combined his adoption of
transformism with growing nationalist and anti-clerical convictions. These
resulted in the distinctive character of his influential formulation of
Darwinism.
Particularly important for Haeckel's transformation of Darwinism was
the reform of the Staatsgrundsgesetz of the cell initiated by the protoplasmic
theory of Max Schultze (1825-1874) (1861). Mechanisms of development
were investigated in cytological terms, and embryological researches were
used by comparative anatomists to reconstruct the genealogy of life. Concerns
with the history and organization of life were related to intensified political
aspirations for national unity. Many Darwinists considered that they were
bringing biology into line with the standards of the historical — rather
than physical — sciences, and could thereby prescribe laws for national
development.
Haeckel's role in the transformation and dissemination of Darwinism
was substantial, but subject to unceasing controversy. After a cautious mention
of Darwin in his monograph on Radiolaria (1862), he lectured in Jena on
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
Darwinii theoriam de organismorum affinitate. In 1863 he began to publicly discuss
Darwin's theories as the basis for reinterpretation of biological classification
and of ethical and social thought. He relentlessly constructed ever more
comprehensive evolutionary syntheses, and popularized a monist creed of
the unity of man and nature. Huxley's verdict was that Haeckel was overzealous and provocative in his scientific procedures and polemics. It meant
that whereas Haeckel became the target for bigoted prejudices against
evolution, Darwin was regarded as the epitome of "forethought and
moderation" (LL 3: 68). Haeckel's evolutionary syntheses combined beguiling
titles like The Riddle of the Universe (Weltrathsel) with vibrant imagery. Their
presentation of the facts of evolution of organic, mental, and social life
provided a compelling picture of universal progress. Haeckel's influence
was acknowledged by revolutionary thinkers like Freud (1856-1939) (Sulloway
1979a, pp. 258-263) and Lenin (1870-1924), who applauded the effect of
Haeckel's writings as undermining professorial philosophy and theology (Lenin
1948, p. 362). They were avidly read throughout the world, far exceeding
the Origin in numbers of cheap editions (McCabe in Boelsche 1906,
pp. 294-324).
The immense variety of German responses to Darwin makes it appropriate
to focus on the development of Haeckel's views in order to evaluate factors
in the transformation of Darwinism in German culture. Because "Darwinism"
and "Germany" are problematic categories, the existing literature has many
flaws. Historians of science have appreciated the multiplicity of reactions
to Darwinism, which was not directly dependent on any one physiological
or anatomical approach; but they have often neglected the implications of
political fragmentation, university expansion, and ideological issues. By way
of contrast, general historians are prone to see Darwinism as a monolithic
unity (D. Thomson 1977, pp. 101-109). So distinct have the two veins of
literature been that Altner begins his anthology with the paradox Darwinismus
und DaruHnismus (1981, p. 1).
Although commentators often plead that the complexity of evolutionary
writings extenuates their fragmentary analyses, they have not hesitated to
deliver definitive verdicts on the life and death of Darwinism. Gregory
has argued that the battle for Darwinism was won before 1859 since the
temper of German materialism had already been established (1977b, p. 175).
In the Glick volume, which pays scant attention to the implications of nations
as emergent categories, Montgomery suggests that a younger generation
of German Darwinists forged historical modes of explanation in the 1860s
and 1870s (1974a, pp. 80-116). Kelly's innovative study of The Popularization
of Darwinism in Germany observes, "by 1875 Darwinism had carried the day
at least among the scientific community" (1981, p. 21). Coleman, with an
eye on Germany, contends that "by 1900 biological Darwinism had prevailed"
(1971a, p. 84). The discrepancies between these dates of clear-cut victory
can be matched by dates marking the defeat of Darwinism, in an older
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
generation of histories of biology, which were critical of Darwinism (Radl
1930, p. 42, and Nordenskiold 1928, pp. 478, 528), and in more recent
interpretations, as G. Allen's view of a "revolt from morphology" in the
1880s (1979, p. 21).
The discrepancies need to be resolved by more precise definition as
to whether "Darwinism" meant such criteria as transmutation of species
(accepted by many prior to 1859), descent from a common ancestor (much
contested by polyphyletic opponents of Haeckel's monophyletic genealogical
tree), or natural selection, in which even staunch Darwinians like Haeckel
placed only limited faith. Mullen sees Darwin's theories as mechanistic and
utilitarian, whereas Haeckel may be seen as employing a differing historical
interpretation of the concept of a causal mechanism (Mullen 1964, p. 96).
Analysis of the contemporary meaning of Darwinism has yet to be undertaken,
despite a case study of the popular Catholic press (Dorpinghaus 1969), and
of research on the records of particular institutions at Jena (Uschmann 1959),
Munich (Hoppe 1972), and Berlin (Weindling 1981). There has also been
philological analysis of the range of meanings of the term "evolution" from
military maneuvers to biological preformationism (Briegel 1963). But there
is no comprehensive bibliography of Darwinismus, despite early attempts
(Seidlitz 1871; Spengel 1872) and May's survey of the 1909 anniversary
literature (Altner 1981, pp. 454-471).
The importance of achieving a balanced interpretation of Haeckel is
that this enables reconciliation of studies concerned with ideological and
scientific aspects of Darwinismus. Coleman's study of Haeckel's fellow
Darwinian, Carl Gegenbaur (1826-1903) at Jena, traces the transition in
comparative anatomy from type concept to descent theory. In contrast to
Haeckel, Gegenbaur shrank from the problem of the forces determining
the changes in organisms (Coleman 1976, p. 172). Not only were there
important conceptual differences between Haeckel and Gegenbaur over cell
theory; Haeckel set himself the task of unravelling the causal factors in
descent. Another leading Darwinian, Fritz Miiller (1822-1897), examined
the relations between descent theory and embryology. His Fur Darwin paid
special attention to adaptation, but did not offer a causal theory of
recapitulation (1864; D. Peters 1980, p. 61). The services of Victor Carus
(1823-1903) as a translator of all Darwin's publications from 1866 meant
minor adaptations to Darwin's concepts, such as Bronn's Zuchtung becoming
Carus's Zuchtwahl (Darwin 1860; 1863; 1867; Zirnstein 1977).
Although Darwin drew on anthropological writings of Haeckel and
of German materialists like Carl Vogt (1817-1895) for his Descent, there
were significant differences between Haeckel and the materialists (Gregory
1977b, pp. x, 76, 180). Indeed the Origin did not mark a fundamental turning
point for the materialists, as it did for Haeckel and Gegenbaur. Haeckel's
monism differed from materialist reductionism of life to physics and chemistry,
and it resulted in bitter scientific disputes, as with the embryologist Wilhelm
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
His (1831-1904) over the application of physics to embryology. Major scientific
and philosophical differences between Vogt and Haeckel make Kelly's view
— that the two men were allies in the campaign to popularize materialism
— questionable. Regarding monism's social impact, Lenin observed in 1908
the irony of how Haeckel furthered the materialism to which he was opposed
(1948, p. 363).
Controversies over Darwinism are reflected in conflicting views of
Haeckel. His scientific work has often been dismissed as speculative. For
example, Oppenheimer has viewed Haeckel's biogenetic law of recapitulation
and his theory of the germ layers as primitive organs, as obstructing advances
in embryology (1940). Biographers have also concentrated on philosophical
aspects of Haeckel's writings, particularly his monism (Boelsche 1906; H.
Schmidt 1926). The 1920s editions of Haeckel's travel descriptions (1923),
and his letters to his parents (1921a), to his betrothed (1921b), and to
philosophers Qodl 1922) and admirers concentrated on Haeckel's spiritual
struggles and naturalistic ethics. With the exception of the love letters(Werner
1930) to Franziska von Altenhausen (the disguised name for Frieda von Uslar
Gleichen, the 335 letters now being located in the StaatsbibUothek Preussischer
Kulturbesitz, West Berlin), these drew on the archive of Haeckel's Villa Medusa,
a remarkable fin de Steele villa, which Haeckel ensured would enshrine his
achievements for posterity.
Although publication of Haeckel's correspondence continued during the
Third Reich with letters to the poet Hermann Allmers (1821-1902) (Koop
1941), and to his outstanding students Oscar Hertwig (1849-1922) and Richard
Hertwig (1850-1937) (Franz 1941, pp. 9-72), an Emst-Haeckel-Gesellschaft was
established to replace the then discredited Monist League (Franz 1941,
pp. 157-159; Franz 1944, pp. 205-206). A number of post-War studies gave
a hostile twist to the view of Haeckel as a key figure in the romantic
and authoritarian "volkish tradition" (Gasman 1971, p. xi). The case rests
on many distortions and disregard for discontinuities, such as the strong
connections between monism and workers' free-thinking organizations, and
between monism and free-masonry (Breitenbach 1913; Bolle 1981). Greater
historical sensitivity has been shown in a variety of other approaches to
Haeckel. Among Uschmann's many outstanding books and articles are an
edition of Haeckel's letters and travel diaries (1954), and a masterly study
of zoology at Jena, using institutional archives to assess Haeckel's relations
with colleagues in the "citadel of Darwinism" (1959). Work also emanating
from the German Democratic Republic has highlighted Haeckel's impact
on popular materialism (Dorber and Plesse 1968) and the persistence of
Lamarckism (Mocek 1982); G. Schmidt (1974) has assessed Haeckel's role
in the literary reception of Darwinism. Kelly (1981) has also emphasized
the materialism and radicalism of popular Darwinism, whereas others have
emphasized Haeckel's idealistic commitments and pantheistic religion
(DeGrood 1965; Holt 1971). In the Federal Republic of Germany the
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
symposium on Biologismus (Mann 1973a), resurrecting a term from 1911,
of the philosopher Heinrich Rickert (1863-1936), marked a broadening of
interest by historians of biology and medicine in cultural and social issues.
It has furthered understanding of Haeckel's historical and ideological concerns
(Mann 1980; Winau 1981). From this overview it can be seen that apart
from Uschmann's balance between scientific and biographical issues, there
has been a tendency to stress social and cultural aspects of Haeckel's
contribution to Darwimsmus. It is the purpose of the rest of this paper to
assess Haeckel's role in the dissemination of Darwinism with special regard
to scientific premises.
Darwin had a modest reputation in Germany prior to 1860. His Journal
of Researches had been translated (1844), and his studies on barnacles had
received critical attention (Gegenbaur 1912, pp. 425-426). On 1 October
1857 he was elected to the Leopoldina academy of naturalists (Leopoldina
1982). The initial response to the Origin was sluggish. Haeckel read it during
May 1860 in Berlin, but he could discuss it only with a still skeptical Alexander
von Braun (1805-1877) (Hoppe 1971), owing to the hostility of other Berlin
naturalists. He subsequently came to regard Berlin as a center of hostility
to Darwinism (Franz 1941, p. 54). Like Bronn, whose translation of the
Origin reached a second edition in 1863, Braun saw evolution in terms of
an inner formative force or Bildungstrieb. Only when Haeckel visited the
comparative anatomist and marine zoologist Gegenbaur in Jena in June 1860
did Haeckel become convinced of the truth of Darwinism and transformism
(Boelsche 1906, p. 133). In this early phase he was still cautious about Darwin's
theory when constructing a genealogy of the Radiolaria (Boelsche 1906,
pp. 140-143; Haeckel 1862, pp. 231-232).
Temkin — echoing Braun in 1862 — has observed that "the theory
of descent did not reach an unprepared science" (1959, p. 324). For example,
the Vestiges of Creation of Robert Chambers (1802-1871) was translated in
1851 and achieved considerable influence, although its translator, Vogt,
opposed transmutation of species (Gregory 1977b, p. 176). Temkin has
suggested that German biology during 1848-1858 was dominated by materialist
and mechanistic approaches reacting against a Naturphilosophie tainted with
transformist speculation (1959, pp. 336-337). But neither the materialism
of Vogt and Ludwig Biichner (1824-1899) nor the "1847 biophysics program"
formulated by the physiologists Ernst Briicke (1819-1892), Emil Du Bois
Reymond (1818-1896), and Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-1894), nurtured
Haeckel's views. On reading Vogt in 1853, Haeckel admired his comparative
zoology as reminiscent of Miiller, but he deplored Vogt's radicalism and
attack on Christianity (Haeckel 1921a, pp. 52-53).
The major influence on Haeckel — and a critic of materialism and
naive physiological experimentalism — was the comparative anatomist
Johannes Miiller. His interest in animal organization led to appreciation
of how certain organisms were fundamental to particular phyla, like the
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
Amphioxus for the vertebrates. Haeckel's deduction of primitive ancestors,
whose forms were recapitulated in developmental processes, shows traces
of Miiller's influence. Miiller had encouraged Haeckel's interest in the simple
forms, which could be observed on marine zoological expeditions. Haeckel
accompanied Miiller on an expedition to Heligoland in 1854, and, meeting
again at Nice in 1858, Miiller urged Haeckel to work on Radwlaria (Haeckel
1862, pp. 231-232; Boelsche 1906, pp. 69, 97). It was to Miiller's memory
that Haeckel's monograph on Radiolaria of1862 was dedicated. Miiller, although
resolutely opposed to transformism until his death in 1858, inspired a generation
of Darwinists like Haeckel, Max Schultze, and Gegenbaur.
Haeckel was also influenced by another Miiller protege, Rudolf Virchow
(1821-1902), who advocated cell division and the theory of the organism
as a cell state. Haeckel was at Wiirzburg in 1852-1854 and 1855-1856, when
Virchow's views were moving away from physiological reductionism in
the direction of Miiller's conviction of the distinctiveness of vital organization
(Rather 1959). Boelsche justifiably stressed how the theory of the cell state
motivated Haeckel to search for the origins of social organization. In 1859
at Messina, Haeckel became enraptured by the beauty of the social Radiolaria,
united into colonies by a network of protoplasm (1862, pp. 116-127). He
hoped that study of their radially symmetrical forms, which were reminiscent
of crystals, would offer insight into the elemental forms of life.
Haeckel's studies on Radiolaria coincided not only with his reading of
Darwin's Origin, but also with a growing debate on the material basis of
life, unleashed by Max Schultze's reform of the constitutional theory of
the cell. In 1860 Schultze redefined the cell as nucleated protoplasm. He
thereby shifted attention away from the membrane to the cellular protoplasm,
which, being common to all plants and animals, could suggest descent from
a common ancestor (Lticker 1977). Protoplasm exhibited the basic properties
of life: of contractility and movement for Schultze, and of reproduction,
motility, and irritability for Haeckel (1862, pp. 92-106; Weindling 1982,
pp. 39-44). Haeckel elaborated a cellular hierarchy from a non-nucleated
plasmatic Moner (the elemental form of life) to nucleated multi-cellular
organisms (1866, pp. 269-326).
In the transition from Miiller's static comparative anatomy to strictly
historical criteria of descent, evolutionary understanding of the cell was
a prerequisite for establishing the genealogy of life. Histological research
was undertaken by Gegenbaur, Haeckel, and Schultze, so that understanding
of the cellular processes of development could yield insight into the causal
mechanisms of evolution. Haeckel's first published mention of Darwin was
in his monograph on radiolarians of 1862, an extended version of his 1861
Habilitatwn qualifying him to teach at Jena. He stressed the importance of
Darwin's theories — even naming a species Coccodiscus darwinii (1862,
pp. 482-488) — and highlighted the importance of transitional species. But
he pointed out that the chief defect of the Darwinian theory was that
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
it threw no light on the origin of the earliest organism, which was probably
a simple cell (1862, pp. 231-232).
Darwin's Origin provided scant guidance in the reformulation of
comparative anatomy. Nowhere did cell theory figure in the Origin (Hughes
1959, p. 77; Oppenheimer 1967, p. 216). When privately musing on natural
selection in 1856-1857 Darwin recognized that common cellular structure
indicated "by analogy that all living beings descended not from 4 or 5
animal types, but from one single created protoplasm" (Ospovat 1980,
p. 174). He failed to develop this line of reasoning, in contrast to the keen
German interest in histology, which ultimately revealed the cellular
mechanisms of reproduction and heredity.
Schultze and Haeckel were among the first to consider the implications
of the Origin for cell theory. They have been seen as distant in their personal
relations, the speculative temperament of Haeckel contrasting with the
cautious skepticism of Schultze, who far outshone Haeckel as an innovator
in histological techniques (Geison 1975). Hitherto unnoticed among the
approximately 36,000 letters in the Haeckel-Haus are fifty-two letters between
Schultze and Haeckel (Best. A-/Abt. 1 No. 1006). In response to Haeckel's
preliminary communication on Rhizopoda, Schultze explained why the term
sarcode (introduced by Felix Dujardin (1801-1860), and referring to animal
ground substance) should be replaced by Protoplasma, as the substance
accounting for all organic tissue formation (17 June 1860; 10 December
1860). Although Haeckel continued to speak of sarcode, a substantial section
of his Radiolarian monograph was devoted to proof that sarcode and
protoplasm were equivalent (1862, p. 96). Adopting Schultze's criterion of
a nucleus, Haeckel recognized that protoplasm that was undivided into cells
gave the Radblaria their unicellular characteristic. Schultze was pleased that
Haeckel endorsed his views on the organization of Protozoa, on which their
great mentor Milller had worked (21 October 1862; 14 January 1863). Schultze
was well aware of Darwinism, having visited England in 1862, and he
encouraged Haeckel's Darwin studies, exclaiming, "Die Sache muss fleissig
erhalten werden" (29 January 1865; 11 March 1865). He regarded Darwin
as of major importance to his research on the retina (7 June 1866), and
he commended Haeckel's Darwinian treatise, Generelle Morphologie, as a major
foundation upon which to establish Darwinism (5 October 1867; 9 May
1868).
The attack on protoplasmic theory and Darwinism by the Berlin anatomist
Carl Reichert (1811-1883) meant that Haeckel and Schultze had common
foes in Berlin. Schultze also deplored Du Bois Reymond's opposition to
Darwinism (9 May 1868). There resulted a major rift among the disciples
of Miiller. Schultze was among those who, because of dislike of Prussian
illiberalism, did not wish to take up Muller's mantle in Berlin, and Du
Bois Reymond and Reichert had been appointed. Reichert excluded Schultze
from the major journal Mullers Arcliiv, so that Schultze established the Archiv
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GHRMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
fur mikroskopische Anatomie in 1865 as the organ for Darwinian histology.
Its opening article commended Haeckel's researches on protoplasm (M.
Schultze 1865a; 1865b, p. 17). Haeckel and Schultze had both become
vehemently anticlerical, a further indication, of their common outlook.
Haeckel scrawled emotive annotations over Schultze's final letter of
16 December 1871. Although Schultze supported Haeckel's theory of a primal
Gastraea form, accounting for fundamental differences between Protozoa and
Metazoa, he criticized Haeckel's concept of the cell — part of a hierarchy
of elemental forms — as too uniform. Haeckel established that the sponges
were the lowest tissue-forming animals. Drawing on earlier work on germ
layers, as by Aleksandr Kovalevski (1840-1901) on invertebrate germ layers,
Haeckel suggested that they were to be regarded as identical throughout
the animal kingdom. Important in the Gastraea theory was the historical
approach to the causes of morphology. He emphasized that the methods
of embryology — Entwicklungsgeschichte — were those of the archeologist
or cultural historian (1877, p. 16). Phylogeny was the historical cause of
ontogeny. Growth occurred by division of cellular labor, being "dependent
on the physiological functions of inheritance and adaptability"(1874; Lankester
1876, p. 145).
Haeckel's synthesis of comparative anatomy, cytology, and embryology
provided a powerful conceptual framework for further research in the 1860s
and 1870s. Major discoveries by Oscar and Richard Hertwig on fertilization
and development exemplify how Haeckel was able to inspire students to
research on the cellular mechanisms of growth and inheritance. Although
they learned advanced cytological techniques from Max Schultze, it was
Haeckel who initiated the Hertwigs into Darwinism. Haeckel encouraged
their nationalist enthusiasms, as when on a marine biological expedition
to Dalmatia their evenings were spent in discussion of Darwinism and politics
(Uschmann 1954, p. 84). Much of the embryological work of the Hertwigs
related to their aim of providing an explanation of the growth of the middle
germ layers, and producing a Coelom theory to complement Haeckel's Gastraea
theory. Serious differences of opinion quickly became apparent in the 1870s
among Darwinians, however. Some interpreted fertilization in terms of the
formative powers of protoplasm, which produced the nucleus in the fertilized
egg as a new formation. In contrast, Oscar Hertwig (1875-1877) deduced
the morphological continuity of sperm and egg nuclei in a process of cellular
fusion. This refuted Haeckel's theory that fertilization had to recapitulate
the primal Monera form of life, passing through a non-nucleated stage
(Weindling 1982, pp. 71-108). These differences of opinion came at a time
when Haeckel's views on Darwinism were subjected to a major attack
by Virchow.
The keen attention paid to these debates resulted from the expectation
that Darwinism was to solve a range of social and metaphysical questions.
Darwin and Huxley were dismayed at how Haeckel mixed religion and
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
politics with science. Huxley advised Haeckel that one "public war-dance
against all sorts of humbug and imposture" was enough, and that any
translation of the Generelle Morphologie ought to exclude "the aggressions"
(Uschmann and Jahn 1959-1960, pp. 13, 19). Particularly important for the
development of Haeckel's convictions on the social significance of Darwinism
was that while he was in Italy in 1859 researching on the "social Radiolaria",
he experienced a new patriotic ardor for freedom and fatherland (Koop
1941, pp. 38-40, 46-47, 52-54). These events preceded his reading of the
Origin and stimulated his interest in the origins of social and mental life.
PoHtical considerations were prominent in debates on Darwinism at the
Gesellschaft Deutscher Natutforscher und Aerzte. Since its foundation by the radical
Naturphilosoph Lorenz Oken (1779-1851) in 1822, its discussions show how
nationalist aspirations were channelled into science. In 1860 the Origin was
commended in teleological terms by the Bonn philosopher Jiirgen Meyer
(1829-1897). On 19 September 1863 at Stettin (Sczezin) Haeckel sparked
off major discussion by introducing Darwin's Origin as a history of creation,
which modified "personal, scientific and social views". Darwinism
represented "development and progress" as opposed to "creation and species"
(1863, p. 18; Querner 1975, p. 440). The laws of progress were to be understood
by examination of the simplest stages of organization, and by resolution
of the question of whether life had originated in the form of a simple
cell of plasma particle. Progress resulted from struggle and selection in nature
as in society, but also from cooperative interaction between organisms. Priests
and despots blocked progress to national unification (Haeckel 1862, pp. 2326). Virchow spoke of organisms as federal unities (Virchow 1864, p. 41).
Virchow's liberal principles meant that he was opposed to any concept
of centralization, and Haeckel therefore had to look elsewhere for integrating
principles.
Haeckel's Generelle Morphologie particularly drew on the theories of Bronn
(1858) to explain the formative laws of organization. Divergence and progress
were not always identical. Higher forms of organization were achieved
by reduction of numbers of organs, the concentration of functions and their
respective organs leading to centralization under a Central-Organe. This process
was accompanied by increasing internalization of physiological powers
(Haeckel 1866, 2: 251, 258). In a discussion of the relations between
individuality and the cell state, Haeckel suggested that higher individuals
were composed of a community of lower individuals, just as cells composed
human organisms, who in turn could unite in the higher organism of the
state (1866, 1: 269-372).
It was at this point in Haeckel's intellectual development that he
encountered the evolutionary laws of progress of Herbert Spencer (18201903). While on Tenerife in the Winter of 1866-1867, Haeckel became
interested in the Staatsqualle or social medusa, the Siphonophora. Soon after
he returned from Tenerife he received Spencer's First Principles and Principles
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
of Biology. Spencer's article "The Social Organism" described the processes
of mutual dependence and organic integration by the nervous system,
analogous to the coordinating function of the telegraph in the modern state
(1860, pp. 399, 427-428). These principles of mutual dependence and of
physiological integration resulting from specialization of functions were
substituted by Haeckel for Bronn's principles of centralization and
internalization (Spencer 1864-1867, 2: 372-376). The principles were used
to interpret how the Siphonophora could form colonies based on the principle
of division of labor. Haeckel traced how this medusa developed from the
ovum and then budded to form a community (1869a; Boelsche 1906, pp.
246-249). In popular lectures Haeckel used Siphonophora to exemplify the
state-forming instinct, and stressed how the brain and nervous system —
analogous to the telegraph — achieved organic integration in higher organisms
(1896b; 1923).
Haeckel's incorporation of Spencerian concepts coincided with
intensification of debates on the political constitution of Prussia, and
particularly with the war of 1866 between Prussia and the Hapsburg lands.
The Generelk Morphologie contrasted progressive and conservative inheritance,
accounting for the degenerative tendencies in the Prussian aristocracy
(Haeckel 1866, 2: 170-190). Haeckel debated the role of Prussia in German
nationalism with August Weismann (1834-1914), who favored Prussian
expansion as furthering national unity (Churchill 1968; Montgomery 1974b.
pp. 201-202; Uschmann and Hassenstein 1965, p. 18). There were similar
concerns in Austria with the question of the reconstitution of the Empire
after the defeat by Prussia. The pathologist Carl Rokitansky (1804-1878)
began a preliminary debate on this question by raising the issue "whether
Charles Darwin is right or no" (Geikie 1924, p. 129). Rokitansky (1869)
believed that although aggression was rooted in protoplasmic hunger, this
was offset by integrating mechanisms in higher organisms.
Offers of chairs in Vienna in 1872 and at the reconstituted university
of Strassburg (Strasbourg), where there was a deliberate policy to promote
German cultural values, show how Haeckel's reputation was rising in the
years around the unification of Germany. Haeckel's admiration for Otto
von Bismarck (1815-1898) steadily grew, culminating in Haeckel proclaiming
him doctor of phylogeny (Franz 1941, pp. 82-86; Franz 1944, p. 119). But
the division that occurred between Virchow's Progressive Liberal Party and
the pro-Bismarck National Liberals was reflected in controversies between
Virchow and Haeckel. At the 1877 Naturforscher-Versammlmg these differences
erupted in a dispute over whether Darwinism was proven law or only
a hypothesis, and over the suitability of teaching Darwinism in schools.
Haeckel and Virchow argued in terms of contrasting theories of the cell
state. Haeckel's speech exemplifies how his Darwinism was based on
embryology, as providing proof of the history of descent and cell theory,
each cell being the active citizen of an organism (1877, p. 17). Unicellular
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
organisms showed that the cell was the unit of mental life, and could be
termed a Seelenzelle. As protoplasm was composed of molecules, termed by
Haeckel "plastids", so the lowest psychological unit was the Plastidulseele,
which itself was a unity of inorganic substances. The evolution of social
instinct made it possible for individuals to cooperate in forming higher
organisms. Examples drawn from animal societies proved the existence of
a natural religion based on duty, division of labor and the subordination
of egoism to the good of the society. Haeckel therefore argued that
evolutionary theory should be the basis of education in the new nation
(1877, pp. 17-20).
Virchow refuted Haeckel by taking his hierarchical principles to absurd
extremes. Whereas discoveries like cell division were incontrovertible facts,
Virchow ridiculed cosmologies seeking to explain laws of atoms and
astronomy. If the theory of descent were made the basis of social and religious
principles, this would be a dangerous distortion based on ignorance. The
theory of the plastidule soul was a possibility, but it could not be proved
as fact, and as such it was inappropriate to teach it in schools. Such dangerous
distortions bred from half knowledge opened the way for socialism (Virchow
1877, pp. 68-69). Haeekel denied this charge by invoking the principle of
organic integration: as greater centralization was the result of evolution,
it could not lead to the disappearance of the state demanded by socialists
(Haeckel 1878).
The debate marked a waning of Haeckel's academic reputation. Although
he continued research on Protozoa from the Challenger expedition, Haeckel's
credibility was further weakened by his inability to keep up with advances
in histology, leading to discoveries of the chromosomal mechanisms of
reproduction, and to the cytological and embryological experimentation of
the 1880s pioneered by his pupils the Hertwigs, Hans Driesch (1867-1941)
and Wilhelm Roux (1850-1924) (Churchill 1970; Coleman 1965; Mocek 1974;
Weindling 1982). Controversies over fraudulent illustrations of recapitulation
— with the use of the same illustration for a number of species — also
tarnished his reputation (Gursch 1980). Haeckel's social evolutionism increased
in influence, however, as its emphasis on corporate integration was better
suited to prevailing social problems than Virchow's individualism. Haeckel
can be seen as blending the social views of two staunch individualists by
fusing Virchow's concept of the cell state with Spencer's principle of organic
integration. Despite fundamental differences between Haeckel and Spencer
over state centralization, they recognized common classificatory aims, with
Haeckel's account of the progress of life from the crystal forms of Radiolaria
to man, and Spencer's attempt to classify human social formations. Spencer's
individualism came into conflict with the corporatism and belief in state
intervention of Patrick Geddes (1845-1932), the Edinburgh botanist, but
Geddes and Haeckel corresponded on the unity of the biological and social
sciences (Haeckel-Haus Best. A — Nr. 1461/1—11).
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
Haeckel emphasized that his philosophical approach continued Jena
traditions of Goethe's morphology, of the developmental Naturphilosophie of
Oken, Friedrich Sehelling (1775-1854), and of Sehleiden's cell theory.
Schleiden had formulated the theory of the cell as an elementary individual,
and although critical of materialism and Darwinism, he admired Haeckel's
writings on the SeeknzeUen (Haeckel-Haus. Best. A-Abt. 1 Nr. n006, 5 July
1878). Haeckel's indebtedness to these intellectual traditions at Jena also
points to the differences between his monist pantheism and materialist
reductionism (1866, 2: 448-452). The four Saxon duchies that administered
the university were enlightened patrons of the arts and sciences. Saxe-Weimar
aspired to be a center of German culture. Its Grand Duke was a benign
protector of Haeckel; he ensured that monuments like the Kyffhauser and
Wartburg should be used for festivals symbolizing national unity. It was
a deliberate policy to appoint adventurous young scientists like Gegenbaur,
Haeckel, and Thierry William Preyer (1841-1897) in the 1860s, because
pioneering of Darwinism enhanced the university's reputation. Students,
renowned for their nationalist enthusiasms, petitioned for lectures on
Darwinism (Museum of the Emst-Haeckel-Haus Jena).
After his dispute with Virchow, Haeckel's position at the university
weakened. The town was undergoing rapid industrialization, particularly
due to the improvement of precision optics by the physicist Ernst Abbe
(1840-1905), and the establishment of the Zeiss-Stiftung, which considerably
benefited the university. Haeckel lamented that he understood little of the
new Jena, although admirers of his work like the merchants Paul von Ritter
and Albert von Samson provided funds making it possible to further Darwinian
zoology and research on the natural basis of ethics. Haeckel was not the
only Jena academic to recast his scientific discipline for popularization. The
Jena philosopher Rudolf Eucken (1846-1926) promulgated idealist
Lebensphibsophie, and the historian Dietrich Schafer (until 1885 at Jena) was
prominent in the ultra-nationalist Alldeutsche Verband. He was succeeded by
a disciple of the Aryan ideologue of Gobineau, Alexander Cartelleri (18671955). A setback came when the Jena publisher Gustav Fischer (1845-1910)
refused to publish Haeckel's Weltrathsel·, although Fischer recognized it would
be a bestseller, he considered it to be unscientific. Rational and empirical
features in evolutionary theory as in the historical sciences gave way to
irrationalist mysticism and nationalism.
These developments provide insight into the scientific, philosophical,
and social reasons as to why Haeckel's Darwinism diverged from Darwin's
own views. Kelly has concluded that the Weltfathsel has little trace of social
Darwinism, "so Haeckel exerted no mass influence as a social Darwinian"
(1981, p. 120). This is an important charge, as I have endeavored to show
social factors in the propagation of Darwinism. Holt has observed that the
Weltrathsel, an exposition of the evolutionary foundations of monist ethics,
belongs to a later phase of Haeckel's intellectual development, coinciding
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
with an era of disenchantment with Darwinism, and — one might add
— hostility to Weismann's neo-Darwinism. That Darwin tried to excise
political passages from the planned translation of the Generelle Moqihologie
suggests discontinuities between Haeckel and Darwin. Despite such
differences of opinion Haeckel's indebtedness to Darwin in the formulation
of his views in the 1860s was immense. Darwin's Origin was a major stimulus
in the establishing of an evolutionary understanding of embryology — about
which Darwin was enthusiastic — and cytology — on which Darwin was
silent. It is important not to judge Haeckel only in the light of later work,
but to recognize the effect of the reading of the Origin in the context of
Haeckel's researches on Radiolaria.
Similarly, it is important to realize how reading of Spencer in 1867
came at a critical stage in the researches on the social medusae. Like Spencer,
Haeckel made only limited use of natural selection. Bannister has suggested
that the epithet "Social Darwinism" in Spencer's case is misleading in that
Spencer drew on earlier evolutionary writings of such people as Chambers
and developmental theories of Carl Ernst von Baer (1792-1876) (1973,
p. 43). Unlike the case of Spencer, it was in the wake of the Origin that
Haeckel provided an evolutionary interpretation of comparative anatomy
and cell theory. Darwin's Origin was thus important as a catalyst.
It is artificial to separate biological from social concepts, as some
commentators have done (Montgomery 1974b, p. 214). Historical concerns
intensified by nationalism were applied to biology, from which social laws
were derived. This suggests that the success of Darwinism in Germany
was due to the Sehnsucht for liberty enjoyed by a constitutional nation.
Darwin's Origin not only indicated a number of important directions for
systematic investigation and raised fundamental questions; it also had a
symbolic value. After unification, critics of Darwinism attacked the theory
of natural selection as deriving from inhumane Manchestertum (O. Hertwig
1916, pp. 634-640). Attention to the formulation of Haeckel's Darwinism
reveals the importance of a wide range of concerns, as with the origins
of vital organization, sensibility, and the evolution of coordinating organs
in higher organisms. Darwin's Origin inspired Haeckel to fundamentally
reinterpret comparative anatomy in the evolutionary terms of the genealogy
of organisms. Haeckel's evolutionary comparative anatomy established a
predominant trend in Darwinismus with its attempt to demonstrate the descent
of species by cytological and embryological investigations, and it thereby
made a substantial contribution to biological, ethical, and social thought.
II. Recent Studies on French Reactions to Darwin
P, Corsi
Even though German Darwinismus was bound to displease Darwin in the
course of the 1860s, he had no reason to complain about the circulation
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
of his book, his name, and his ideas in the German states. With all the
spade work yet to be done in order to gain a fairly accurate picture of
the German debates on Darwin and on evolution theories, it is nonetheless
clear that the publication of the Origin produced significant and lasting
controversy in that country. In February 1863, three years after the publication
of his book, and one year after the first translation of the Origin in French,
Darwin wrote to Camille Dareste: "as far as I know, my book has produced
no effect whatever in France" (LL (NY) 2: 192).
Early attempts to arrange for a translation had produced no result. Major
publishers, such as Bailliere, Masson, and Hachette, turned the book down
(LL (NY) 2: pp. 30-31). In September 1861 arrangements were finally made
with the publisher Guillaumin, and a copy of the third English edition of
the Origin was sent to Clemence-Auguste Royer (1830-1902), a woman who
had been teaching philosophically refurbished Lamarckism in Lausanne a
few years previously. When the translation appeared in 1862, it was clear
that Mile Royer had strong views on the significance of Darwin's work
for contemporary culture. The title of the work, with no authorization
from Darwin, read De I'origine des especes ou des Iois du progres chez Ies etres
organises. Moreover, a fifty-page-long
preface contained repeated and
unequivocal declarations of faith in progress and a secular picture of nature:
Yes, I believe in revelation, but in a personal revelation of man to himself
by himself, in a revelation which is only the result of the progress of
science. . . The doctrine of M. Darwin is the rational revelation of
progress, putting itself in its logical antagonism with the irrational
revelation of the fall. (Darwin 1866, p. xx)
Disagreement with Mile Royer over the criteria of translation finally
convinced Darwin to look for alternatives, and in 1873 a new translation
by Jean-Jacques Moulinie (1830-1873) appeared (R. Stebbins 1965, p. 45,
chap. 3, "The Translation of Darwin"; Farley 1974, pp. 286-287; Conry
1974, pp. 19, 262-266).
As Robert Stebbins has pointed out, it would be wrong to make Mile
Royer responsible for what Huxley called "the conspiracy of silence" that
surrounded the publication of De I'origine des especes. Indeed, no major French
naturalist spoke on Darwin's side; his theories were consistently
misrepresented, reduced to a re-enactment of older transformist credos, or
rejected on a priori epistemological assumptions, especially by supporters
of positivism. Between 1870 and 1878 Darwin's name was placed six times
in the nomination list for the zoological section of the Academie des Sciences.
When he was finally elected, in August 1878, it was to the botanical section
— a result not taken by Darwin as a compliment (Camerano 1896, pp.
331-332; R. Stebbins 1965, pp. 215-331).
The sparse and unfavorable reaction to Darwin in the years following
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
the French edition of his work has been echoed by the lack of historiographical
enthusiasm for, or even interest in, the issue. French historians of transformisme
of the past and the present century have shown little concern for the actual
state of affairs of debates on Darwin in the decades following the publication
of the Origin. Indeed, the few major systematic studies of French reactions
to Darwin were not produced until the 1970s, 1972 being the date of
publication of Professor Conry's important preface to her edition of the
correspondence between Gaston de Saporta (1823-1895) and Charles Darwin,
and 1974 the date of publication of The Comparative Reception of Darwinism,
edited by Thomas F. Glick. In the Comparative Reception, Robert Stebbins
devoted approximately fifty pages to France, and concluded: "there was
discussion of transformism, and there were many transformists in France
from 1859 to 1882, but little Darwinism and fewer Darwinists" (1974a,
p. 117). Harry Paul (1974) contributed to the same volume a paper on
"Religion and Darwinism", devoted mainly to reactions of French Catholics
to the diffusion of broadly evolutionary theories. I shall consider this topic
when discussing the much improved version of Professor Paul's paper,
published in 1979 as the first part of a volume devoted to French Catholic
reactions to science in the last decades of the nineteenth century.
Stebbins's compact essay does not constitute a completely fair
representation of the work he had done on French reactions to Darwin.
Indeed, Stebbins's 1965 dissertation, "French reactions to Darwin, 1859—
1882", did contain an attempt at applying the methodology elaborated by
Alvar Ellegird (1958) in his famous study on the reception of the Origin
by the British press. The attempt proved unrewarding, even though of
considerable interest. The patient perusal of several contemporary French
periodicals produced the meager and frustrating result of thirty-four papers
published between 1859 and 1862 relating to broadly transformist issues.
Of these, only ten touched directly on Darwin's work. The five reviews
of the Origin that the author was able to trace set the tone for all future
reactions to Darwin (Stebbins 1965, chap. 2, pp. 23-38).
With the exception of Edouard Claparede (1832-1871), a Swiss naturalist
who wrote a favorable account in the Revue Germanique (Claparede 1861),
friends and foes alike showed limited awareness of the originality of Darwin's
theory, and of the specific problems and topics he touched upon. All appeared
convinced that the cause of transformism was the issue at stake, and that
the theory of natural selection represented only one of the possible solutions.
In December 1860, Jean-Louis-Armand de Breau De Quatrefages (1810—
1892), the life-long but just critic of Darwin, took notice of the theory
put forward by the English naturalist in the "Histoire naturelle de 1Tiomme",
a series of lectures given in 1856, and revised for publication in the prestigious
Revue des deux mottdes. As Stebbins has noted,
The Darwin publication was not sufficient to suggest a radically new
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
and forceful approach. For De Quatrefages, and probably for his readers,
Darwin did not represent something totally new or intrinsically important,
but instead represented another chapter in a question which had been
debated before 1859 and would have continued to be a matter for
consideration after that date, even without the stimulus of the Origin
of Species. (1965, p. 36; cf. Sillard 1979)
To many contemporary French naturalists, Darwin's book was nothing more
than yet another attempt to reformulate theories put forward by Jean-Baptiste
Lamarck (1744-1829) and Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844). In
1864, Pierre-Jean-Marie Flourens (1794-1867) published his Examen du Uvre
de M. Darwin sur I'origine des especes. Flourens, a pupil of Geoffroy SaintHilaire, went over to Cuvier, and was nominated by the dying baron to
be his successor as Perpetual Secretary of the Academie des Sciences. Flourens
distrusted theories and generalizations in science, and he found Darwin
deficient in the basic requirements of his discipline. Darwin had not offered
a definition of species, and yet he claimed it was variable; he was clearly
unaware of the limits of variability; his language was far from clear and
not up to scientific standards. The arguments used against Lamarck proved
immediately applicable to Darwin (Flourens 1864, pp. 1-2).
The polemical issues that most concerned French naturalists around 1860
were the debate between Pasteur and Pouchet over spontaneous generation,
and the discussions among anthropologists concerning a polygenist or a
monogenist theory of the origin of the human races (Farley 1974, Farley
and Geison 1974; Farley 1977). Significandy, Flourens himself devoted part
of his book on Darwin to refuting the doctrine of spontaneous generation,
and favored a strict creationist approach to the origin of life. As might
be expected, polygenist anthropologists were attracted by Darwin's theory,
and there was no lack of discussion on transformism within the
Anthropological Society of Paris, established in 1859 by Paul Broca (18241880). As Stebbins has shown, during the 1860s the Bulletin published by
the Society devoted more and more space to papers discussing transformism.
In 1870, a peak of 350 pages devoted to transformism was reached, in a
volume of less than twice that length. Yet even a supporter of transformism
like Eugene Dally (1833-1887), the translator of Huxley's Man's Place in
Nature, made it clear that
it is important to separate the cause of transformism from that of
Darwinism. . . . His [Darwin's] views are only one of the explanations
that can support the undeniable fact of variation. (Stebbins 1965, p. 192; Dally
1868, p. 710; Conry 1974, p. 68; Schiller 1979)
Paul Broca was equally convinced of the need to separate the "fact" of
transformism from the "hypothesis" put forward by Darwin (Conry 1974,
pp. 51-64). In 1871 Darwin was duly elected Foreign Associate of the
Anthropological Society, an honor that could hardly have consoled him
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
for his second defeat, that same year, at the Academie des Sciences. From
1871 to 1882, the Society seemed to lose interest in discussing transformism;
only six papers on the issue appeared in the Bulletin. Thus, even for the
society in which polygenists and transformists came to dominate, Darwinism
was hardly a crucial issue, a problem, or a conviction:
The discussion was virtually never for or against Darwin, but always
for or against transformism. Favor of transformism was ultimately
preponderant. None claimed to be a Darwinist, most were transformists.
(Stebbins 1965, pp. 202-203)
If this was the reaction of the Anthropological Society, it is not surprising
to note that more conservative societies, from the Academie des Sciences
to the geological and botanical ones, or the Association Frangaise pour
l'Avancement des Sciences established in 1871, took little or no notice of
Darwin (cf. F. Burkhardt 1974 for English scientific societies). What was
known of the debates over Darwin's nomination to the Academie revealed
that opponents had obviously strong views against Darwin, but that his
supporters were not converted either. De Quatrefages and Henri MilneEdwards (1800-1885), who were prominent amongst Darwin's friends,
emphasized that their votes in no way implied approval of the "theoretical"
aspects of his work (Camerano 1896, p. 332; Stebbins 1965, pp. 215-231).
Stebbins also noted the silence of Claude Bernard (1813-1878) and Louis
Pasteur (1822-1895), the cool skepticism of Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire
(1805-1861), and the opposition of positivist philosophers to Darwin's
speculations. Even the naturalists who in the last three decades of the century
favored a broadly evolutionary interpretation of the history of life — as
didJean-Octave-Edmond Perrier (1844-1921), who in 1879 publicly announced
his conversion to transformism; Jean-Albert Gaudry (1827-1908); or AlfredMathieu Giard (1840-1944) — were clearly defending a view of nature
different, to say the least, from the one put forward by Darwin. During
the 1880s and the 1890s, when supporters of transformism gained prestigious
academic positions, broadly Lamarckian allegiances prevailed over Darwinism
(Stebbins 1965, pp. 113-226, 147-152, 157-165; Tetry 1974; Blanckaert 1979;
Vire 1979; Gohau 1979; Laurent 1980).
Stebbins attempted an explanation for the reasons behind the opposition
to, or non-communication with, Darwin's theory in French naturalist circles.
The weight of the anti-transformist Cuvierian tradition, the antiuniformitarianism and anti-gradualism of the majority of French geologists
and paleontologists, the religious convictions deeply embedded in the basic
teleological approach shared by a considerable majority of contemporary
naturalists — these are regarded by Stebbins as the main factors responsible
for the unsympathetic French reaction to Darwin. Toward the end of the
century, nationalism, Roman-Catholic spiritualism, and a variety of vitalistic
interpretations of organic evolution favored conciliatory moves between
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
opponents and supporters of transformism, who were united in denying
the validity of Darwin's solution to the problem of species variability. Even
hard-line supporters of evolution tended, not surprisingly, to find Herbert
Spencer (1820-1903) and Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) philosophically and
cosmologically more acceptable than Darwin (Stebbins 1965, chap. 8, pp.
266-312; Dougherty 1979; Roger 1982).
Yvette Conry, the major historian of French reactions to Darwin —
or rather non-reactions — published in 1972 the correspondence between
Gaston de Saporta and Charles Darwin. In a long and dense preface devoted
to reconstructing the conceptual foundation and development of modern
paleobotany, she poses a direct and crucial question: "was de Saporta the
Darwinist he claimed to be?" (Conry 1972a, p. 9). If Stebbins notes the
discrepancy between French transformist thought and the Darwinian view
of evolution, Conry questions the existence of any significant impact of
the theory of natural selection even upon naturalists who openly sided with
Darwin. De Saporta was certainly convinced by Darwin of the truth of
transformism, but sought to explain its mechanism in non-Darwinian terms.
He found "the process of differentiation which led organic beings from
simplicity to complexity, from homogeneity to heterogeneity", as described
by Karl Ernst von Baer (1792-1876) and Wilhelm Friedrich Hofmeister (18241877), a better explanatory tool than the principle of natural selection: "it
was not phylogeny which provided the key to understanding ontogeny,
but the opposite" (Conry 1972a, pp. 61, 57). Thus, even though Darwin's
theory represented a "radical turning point" in the transformist tradition,
"it is equally true that after Darwin, pre-Darwinism did not disappear.
Indeed, even though Darwin's successors could not ignore him. . . ,
nevertheless they took their explanatory models from a tradition which
preceded the Origin of Species" (Conry 1972a, p. 81).
In her lengthy book L'introduction du Darwinisme en France au XIXe siecle
(1974), which constitutes the first major study published on the topic, Conry
pursues her analysis of the scientific and epistemological doctrines dominating
contemporary natural sciences, both within and outside the transformist camp.
The theme underlying and guiding her sophisticated reconstruction of concepts
relevant to the debate on Darwin is a strict definition of the terms
"introduction" and "influence". Professor Conry stresses the need for
carefully defining such historiographic tools. According to her definition,
it is possible to speak of the "introduction" of a theory only when its concepts
and assumptions become integrated parts of the relevant disciplines and are
capable of reshaping their boundaries, objects, and goals. The actual priorities
and research traditions within the French scientific community prevented
any significant communication with Darwin's theoretical proposals and shaped
even the answers of authors who were prepared to view the history of
life in evolutionary terms (Conry 1974, pp. 15-28).
Critics have pointed out that Conry's definition of "introduction" would
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
lead to the conclusion that Darwin's theory was not accepted, or introduced,
anywhere in Europe or the United States, and possibly found no supporters
even in Britain. Indeed, the standpoints defended by Spencer or Haeckel
cannot be equated with the logic and contents of the explanatory strategy
developed by Darwin. H. Paul, who is one of the most outspoken critics
of Conry's thesis, argues that
since scientific groups do not convert to new paradigms quickly, and
it is usually the new generation that embraces the new paradigm, a time
lag of twenty years or more for the general acceptance of Darwinism
was normal for the French situation. (H. Paul 1979, pp. 22-23)
He does not, however, enter into any detailed definition of the "Darwinian
paradigm", and he avoids naming the naturalists who accepted it (H. Paul
1979; Moore 1977a; Roger 1976. Cf. Guilhot 1976; Marquez-Breton 1977).
After Conry's analysis of the interpretation of evolution by De Saporta,
Gaudry, and Giard, or the qualified approval of transformism by Broca
and other representatives of the Anthropological Society, it would be difficult
to argue that Darwin's key doctrine, the theory of natural selection, found
supporters in France. Authors maintaining this would be forced to agree
with those nineteenth-century French commentators who, having reduced
Darwin's theory to a "long argument" in favor of evolution, claimed that
there was nothing new in the Origin. To many contemporary naturalists,
the theory of natural selection was unacceptable on many different grounds,
and the "facts" quoted by Darwin proved only that life had evolved according
to some natural law, either supernaturally preordained or hidden amongst
the properties of matter. It was thus possible to search for alternative models
purporting to explain those problems and phenomena — such as the cause
of individual variation, the origin of life, or the philosophical interpretation
of the evolutionary pattern — for which Darwin had no solution to offer,
or which were excluded from or by his theory.
In the chapter devoted to examining the epistemological and research
priorities within paleontology, Conry argues that naturalists active within
the discipline — those who attacked as well as those who approved of
Darwin's theory — "read it as a doctrine of progress" (1974, pp. 195—
227). Gaudry, the son-in-law of the arch-Cuvierian and strict creationist
Alcide Dessalines d'Orbigny (1802-1857), became the earliest paleontologist
to be "converted" to a transformist interpretation of the fossil record: the
first, of course, in the "reaction" period. Yet, in Conry's words, "to the
Darwinian theme of specific differentiation through ecological struggle,
Gaudry opposed a philosophy of diversity" (1974, pp. 222, 221-227). Darwin
rejected the concept of progress, of plan, of necessary development toward
"higher" forms of life — whatever the meaning of "high" and "low" as
applied to organisms. On the contrary, Gaudry, like De Saporta, found
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
inspiration in the embryological doctrines put forward by Von Baer, even
though he also consistently applied the concept of division of physiological
labor restated by Milne-Edwards in 1867 (cf. Ospovat 1981). The development
of life on earth, to Gaudry, revealed the unfolding of the divine plan for
the living creation (De Stefano 1907). As will be noted below, if he accepted
a "paradigm" or followed an approach in preference to others, it was not
Darwin's theory of natural selection, but the creationist evolutionism defended
since the early 1830s by the Belgian geologist Jean-Baptiste-Julien D'Omalius
D'Halloy (1783-1875). Analogous considerations apply to Alfred Giard, a
paleontologist placed by his birthdate (1840) into the "new" generation of
French naturalists. He had no a priori objection to transformism or Darwinism,
but regarded his version of Lamarckism as the best explanatory model available
(Vire 1979; Roger 1982).
The implicit corollary of Conry's remark on the concept of introduction
is the warning that the historian must not reduce the issue of Darwinism
in France to a listing of naturalists favoring or opposing transformism. The
close examination of the theses put forward by authors who were regarded
or who regarded themselves as Darwinists or transformists, reveals the
complex articulation of French concepts about nature and its operations,
and a variety of standpoints on the goals and priorities of the natural sciences.
The second part of L'introduction du Darwinisme en France is thus devoted to
reconstructing the "conditions of impossibility" that prevented the
"translation" of Darwin's explanatory strategy and its presuppositions into
French naturalistic thought. Indeed, as in the case of crucial terms such
as "natural" and "artificial" selection, the actual translation by Royer helped
to create the impression that Darwin personalized nature, a misunderstanding
common among readers of the Origin and not only in France (Conry 1974,
pp. 263-269, 290; Claparede 1861, p. 531).
More basic obstacles did, however, prevent the acceptance of concepts
that played a crucial role in Darwin's work and understanding of nature.
Thus, for instance, biogeographical considerations were at the foundation
— both historically and conceptually — of Darwin's theory. Yet French
biogeography stressed the physical side of geographical investigation. "The
historical exegesis of the distribution of organic forms" became dominated
by studies on climate, and tended to join forces with neo-Lamarckism (Conry
1974, p. 293). Moreover, organic beings were regarded as strictly dependent
upon their "locality", "endemic" within their region. The model of a static
and providential "economy of nature" underlined biogeographical research.
Equally static was the concept of organic economy prevailing within
physiological and anatomical disciplines, through the permanence of Cuvierian
"conditions of existence", the application of Milne-Edwards's division of
physiological labor, or Claude Bernard's formulation of the concept of
"internal milieu". Thus the study of debates on Darwin or evolution in
general cannot dispense with carefully evaluating the actual concepts and
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
traditions that organized scientific disciplines and research within each
naturalist culture, in France or elsewhere.
Before turning to a consideration of the major religious and ideological
features of French reactions to Darwin, it is appropriate to consider briefly
the suggestions for further research that emerged from the studies here
reviewed. Stebbins's contribution has provided ample evidence of the nonreaction to Darwin by French naturalists. His assessment of publications
relating to evolutionary and Darwinian topics requires improvement and
further research. Conry's conceptually challenging book has investigated
the reasons why French science proved epistemologically and theoretically
unreceptive to the methodology of, and the conclusions put forward in,
the Origin. She argued that the weight of the naturalistic tradition of the
country played a crucial role in the rejection, or the particular interpretations,
of Darwin's work. This same conclusion was reached by John Farley who
stated that "in many ways the Darwinian debate was a reenactment of
the Cuvier-Lamarck debate of earlier years" (Farley 1974, p. 275).
Several trends of evidence support the conclusions of Conry and Farley.
It is therefore appropriate to suggest further inquiries into the French natural
history debates of the period 1830-1860. Supporters of various brands of
transformism were certainly isolated, but they kept alive a tradition of broad
transformist thought, which stood in opposition to the fixity of species
defended by Cuvier and Flourens. Thus, for instance, it would be of some
interest to assess the influence of theories by Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire
on the interpretation of paleontological findings, and to determine whether
his model of transformation of organic beings through viable monstrosities
was discussed by contemporaries. It is indeed possible to establish a connection
between Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire's doctrines and the early formulation of
a transformist model for the interpretation of the paleontological record
by D'Omalius D'Halloy. Of equal interest would be whether there was
any reaction to the synthesis of Lamarckism and the principle of embryological
recapitulation put forward by Bory de Saint-Vincent in his Dictionnaire Classique
d'Histoire Naturelle. Bory's dictionary was published between 1822 and 1831,
and was reissued in Belgium in 1853 (Drapiez 1853). The work was translated
into Italian, and it was well known in Britain too. The articles on geographical
distribution and on "Creation" were of particular interest; they have never
been systematically studied. Julien Joseph Virey (1775-1846), whose Nouveau
Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle (1803-1804) enjoyed European circulation early
in the century, put forward a synthesis of embryological and transformist
thought, probably the earliest attempted in France. Virey's doctrine was
creationist and anti-Lamarckian; it was indeed an answer to the publication
in 1802 of Lamarck's Recherehes sur I'organisation des eorps vivans. According
to Virey, each step in the process of unfolding of higher forms of life was
achieved through an act of creative intervention.
Virey's dictionary went through a second edition between 1816 and
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
%
1819. His theories on the history of life, and on the physical history of
man — Virey was a convinced polygenist — were discussed in works published
during the period 1820-1850. His treatises included discussions on the
relationship between animal and human societies. His impact was probably
slight on professional naturalists, but considerable among amateur naturalists,
doctors in particular. I should like to suggest that an investigation of the
cultural background of the doctors taking part in the establishment of the
Societe d'Anthropologie, who were ready to accept transformism, though
not Darwinism, would reveal interesting continuities within a little known
and less studied sector of the community of naturalists. To quote a further
instance of the relevance of debates between 1830 and 1860 to the
understanding of French reactions to Darwin, it is appropriate to mention
that since 1831 D'Omalius D'Halloy defended a broad transformist inter­
pretation of the fossil record and had no difficulty in keeping his Catholic
faith (Omalius D'Halloy 1831). He certainly played a significant role in
alerting colleagues to the problem of transformism. As Albert Gaudry himself
acknowledged in a letter to D'Omalius, "the chapter on the appearance
and succession of living beings in your Abrege of geology, has contributed
to inclining me towards transformism" (Omalius D'Halloy 1868).
The four volumes of Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire's Histoire naturelle
generak Jes fegnes organiques (1854-1862) contributed powerfully to reminding
colleagues and the public of the state of affairs in the controversy over
the definition of species. Chapter 6 of volume 2 (1859) was devoted to
discussing the history of the debate on species and on transformism in French
naturalist circles. Isidore did not accept transformism, but he severely
criticized the concept of the fixity and creation of species. He defended
the theory of the limited variability of organic forms, and the "simple and
rational" doctrine of "paleontological filiation" (2: 365-446,434). Dominique
Alexandre Godron (1807-1880) published in 1859 his book De I'espece et des
races dans Ies etres organises, et specialement de l'unite de I'espece humaine. He too
rejected transformism, although his summary of ideas by Bory de SaintVincent, Lamarck, and Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire was fair and respectful.
The question of the limits of specific variability was a perfectly legitimate
issue in natural sciences (1859, p. 13).
As is shown by the recurrent Lamarckism and temptations to ontogeny
of several representatives of nineteenth-century French and European
evolutionism, the understanding of the reception of Darwin's ideas cannot
dispense with thoroughly investigating alternative naturalistic traditions and
interpretations of the history of life. The debate on evolutionism — to
use the word in its wider connotation — did not start in 1859, and the
controversy over the Darwinian theories was deeply influenced by the
discussion of theories put forward during the previous decades (Fischer 1981;
Blanckaert 1981).
As far as the broad cultural dimensions of French reactions to Darwin
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
*
are concerned, it should be pointed out, with Conry, that Social Darwinism,
usually regarded as an important feature of the impact of the Origin on
western culture, was never dominant or popular in France. Due to the
obvious and well-known associations with Germany, Social Darwinism was
not appealing to French intellectuals, who felt that in the struggle among
nations their country had been on the losing side. There were of course
attempts to apply biological models to the interpretation of colonial expansion,
class division, and class struggle, especially toward the end of the century.
Linda Loeb Clark (1968) has written an interesting dissertation discussing
some of these attempts and the debates over the relationship between
contemporary society and the development of natural sciences (see Lagarde
1979). It should be pointed out that in France, Germany, and Italy, as well
as in many other countries, the phenomenon of Social Darwinism was complex
and diffuse. In Conry's words, Darwinism "was only an excuse, as is shown,
for instance, by the various interpretations of the same element taken from
the theory by representatives of diverging systems" of Social Darwinism
(1974, pp. 397-406, 404).
All the studies of French reactions to Darwin reviewed here examined
the religious dimension of the debate. Stebbins argued that the period 1859—
1880 was characterized by the silence of the Roman Catholic hierarchy,
and by individual attempts to refute Darwinian and transformist theories.
French Roman Catholics were clearly more worried by debates on the age
of the earth, than by Darwinism. Indeed, if Clemence Royer stressed the
rationalist import of Darwin's work, and other supporters of transformism
stated the utter incompatibility of transformism and religion, the
contemptuous silence of the official scientific bodies, the outspoken criticism
by Flourens, or the calm but severe refutations by De Quatrefages provided
religious critics of evolution with all the ammunition they needed. In a
famous letter to Constantin James (1813-1898), author of a violent and
inelegant attack Du Darwinisme ou I'homme-singe (1877), Pope Pius IX attacked
Darwinism as an absurd, dangerous corruption of morality (James 1882,
pp. 84-85; Conry 1974, p. 230). But he too appeared convinced that the
scientific opposition to the theory was sufficient to curb the heresy. The
Pontificate of Pius IX (1792-1878) ended in 1878, and Leo XIII (1810-1903)
was the head of the Church from 1878 to 1903. The period was characterized
by enormous political and ideological difficulties for the Church. The reaction
to pressure, initially at least, was harsh and deeply reactionary. In September
1870 the Papacy lost its millennial temporal power. Toward the end of
the century, liberal movements within the Church sought ways to find a
conciliation with moderate and conservative sectors of the socialist
interpretation of the Christian message.
Theoretical difficulties, debates over the mechanism of heredity, and
a variety of evolutionary models made it possible to find basically nonDarwinian formulations of the theory of evolution. Thus, even though the
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
diffusion and popularity of evolutionary interpretations of the history of
life on earth in the last two decades of the century made it difficult for
Catholics to maintain that the theory had no followers, the philosophical
and cosmological implications drawn from it offered ample possibility of
conciliation.
Conry touched upon the issue of French Roman Catholic reactions to
Darwin when discussing the work of Nicolas Boulay (1837-1905), a botanist
who taught at the University of Lille. The different ideological, political,
and broadly cultural commitments of Pius IX and Leo XIII were reflected
in the reactions to Darwin and evolution by Catholics active in Lille. The
rejection of compromise that characterized the period 1860-1880, .was
followed by a period of conciliatory effort. This was partly due to pressure
concerning the updating of the curriculum of Catholic schools and institutes
for higher education. The Abbe Boulay took an active part in the Congresses
of Catholic Scientists, which held their first session in Paris in 1888. He
accepted the evolutionary interpretation of the history of life, but he rejected
the mechanism of natural selection offered by Darwin. The opposition to
the concept of natural selection, and of struggle, was also linked to the
effort of social reconciliation made by Pope Leo XIII in the Encyclical
Return Novarum (15 May 1891). The worker had to obey the master; those
who claimed the right to freedom of expression and of organization, let
alone the socialists, were condemned to eternal death. The masters were
firmly invited to exercise paternal care over their dependents, however.
The ideal Pax Christiana was based on a society free from struggle, organized
according to traditional ideologies of benevolent paternalism. In this context,
reconciliation with the scientific community, possibly led by Catholic
scientists, appeared as a reasonable project, but the theory of natural selection
proved impossible to integrate (Conry 1974, pp. 228-237).
More moderate — and more willing to compromise — were the
representatives of the minority Protestant community. Stebbins examined
contributions to the Revue Germanique, which was published under changing
titles from 1859 to 1869, and to the Revue Chretienne (1859-1882). He found
no trace of full support for Darwin, but he did find a growing sympathy
for him, because of the moderation of his position, as opposed to the more
radical views of some of his English and German supporters. Conry evaluated
the response to Darwin by Armand Sabatier (1834-1910), professor of anatomy
at Montpellier, who was noted for his Protestant zeal. Sabatier had no
difficulty in accepting evolutionism, but he viewed it as a process pre­
ordained by a powerful Creator, the true organizer of the succession of
organic beings throughout the history of the earth (Stebbins 1965, pp. SOSSIS; Conry 1974, p. 246).
The major study of French Catholic reaction to Darwin and to
evolutionism in general was published by H. Paul in 1979. The thesis Paul
sets out to prove is that "Catholicism cannot be automatically equated with
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
hostility towards evolution or even Darwinism". The first phase of Catholic
reaction to Darwinism, up to the early 1880s, was characterized by a strong
defensive stand, provoked by the rationalist if not openly atheistic overtones
of some supporters of evolution, and reinforced by the unfavorable reaction
of the French scientific community (H. Paul 1979, pp. 24, 53, 64; Farley
1974). Toward the 1880s, however,
Catholics opposed to evolution had . . . to face the fact that most of
the scientific community and an increasing number of intellectuals were
accepting evolution, in spite of the so-called irrefutable case against it.
(H. Paul 1974, p. 78)
Paul closely scrutinizes the debate over transformism and Darwinism at
the five congresses of the Catholic scientists held between 1888 and 1900,
two in France, one in Brussels (1894), one in Freiburg (1897), and the last
one in Munich (1900). The discussion showed a certain degree of acceptance
of evolutionism, appropriately purged of obnoxious overtones: "a small if
vocal and persuasive minority of voices was raised in defence of a restricted
type of evolution, including some scientific aspects of Darwinism" (H. Paul
1974, p. 87). Paul's work does undoubtedly represent a firm starting point
for further research on Roman Catholic reactions to Darwinism and
evolutionism in France. Yet the reader is left with the impression that the
author has tried to revise Whiggish views on the relationship between science
and religion in the nineteenth century, but could prove only that few Catholic
scientists and fewer Catholic theologians showed a sincere desire to come
to terms with contemporary developments in biology, and with Darwin's
ideas in particular. Not surprisingly, therefore, the opening statement that
Catholicism cannot be equated with opposition to Darwinism and
evolutionism is followed by repeated and significant qualifications. Thus
Paul acknowledges that "Catholic journals opposed nearly all forms of
evolution from the appearance of the Origin of Species well into the first
decade of the twentieth century" (1979, p. 40). Moreover, "the hard line
defence of the fixity of species remained an obsession of a substantial part
of the Catholic community" (1979, p. 78). Finally, the listing of Catholic
authors who suitably revised various evolutionary models discussed at the
end of the century — the theory of the natural selection of chance variations
being rigorously excluded — in order to preserve plan, finality, and
providence in nature, cannot avoid the fact that the Catholic Church was
a theocratic power, and the ultimate word rested with the hierarchy. As
Paul acknowledges,
The integrists seem to have been powerful enough to keep Rome on
the side hostile to evolution .... Unable to find enough support from
the hierarchy, French Catholic scientists organized themselves to fight
the evil effects of the integrists on Vatican opinion in scientific matters.
(1979, p. 104; cf. pp. 40 and 78)
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
The interpretation implicit in the sentence quoted above suggests that the
Roman Catholic hierarchy opposed evolution because it was under the devious
influence of French reactionary integrists. It could indeed be argued that
Paul's attempt at revisionist historiography fell victim to "justificationist"
temptations.
The reconstruction of French Catholic reactions to Darwinism and
evolutionism provided by Stebbins and by Paul contains significant reference
to a variety of standpoints within the Catholic community, and to serious
and at times dramatic infighting between Jesuits, secular clergy, laymen
and scientists. Yet there is no study available relating political, ideological,
and theological differences in attitudes toward the variety of evolutionary
models available toward the end of the nineteenth century, and in the first
two decades of the twentieth century.
Notwithstanding clear differences of emphasis, of historiographical,
epistemological, and theological orientation, the available studies of French
reactions to Darwin do contribute to widening the scope of the history
of science. Indeed, it could be argued that the general conclusion to be
reached is that the focus of attention is narrowed by the concentration
on French Darwinism, or the lack of it; that this has tended to preclude
a deeper understanding of scientific debates at the time, and of their impact
upon, or integration with, broader dimensions of French intellectual and
social life. Thcfe was undoubtedly a great debate over French traditional
transformism, over European evolutionism in general, and the theory of
Charles Darwin in particular — a debate that often ended with the acceptance
of a broad evolutionary model for the interpretation of the history of life
on earth, and the rejection of the specific evolutionary mechanism put forward
by Darwin. Thus representatives of the French scientific, philosophical, and
theological communities undoubtedly felt the weight of Darwin's "long
argument" in favor of a naturalistic interpretation of the succession of
organisms on the surface of the earth and during its history, but found
alternative explanations philosophically, cosmologically, and theologically
more rewarding. As far as the broader social, political, and theological
implications and dimensions of the debate were concerned, it is clear that
only the application of strict historical methodologies, helped by the specific
epistemological tools required by the topic, will contribute to clarify this
crucial and — with the few exceptions here discussed — rather neglected
episode of modern French culture.
III. Recent Studies on Italian Reactions
to Darwin
P. Corsi
The volume on the comparative reception of Darwinism edited by Glick
(1974) was characterized by a revealing gap: no chapter was devoted to
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
Italy, even though H. Paul briefly mentioned Italian debates on evolution,
with particular references to their religious dimension (1974, pp. 408-413).
The omission of Italy reflected the state of studies on nineteenth-century
natural sciences in general. Indeed, naturalist-historians such as Lorenzo
Camerano (1856-1917), Carlo Fenizia, Giovanni Canestrini (1835-1900), or
Michele Lessona (1834-1894), who at the end of the nineteenth century
assessed the Italian reaction to Darwinism, left no significant legacy to Italian
historiography of the twentieth century. The idealistic and spiritualistic
philosophies prevailing in the early decades of the twentieth century, coupled
with exacerbated nationalism and political despotism, created a climate
unfavorable to the development of an independent scientific culture, and
little concerned with the history of science (Camerano 1902, 1904, 19051909; Canestrini 1894; Lessona 1883, 1884; Fenizia 1901).
The philosophy of Benedetto Croce (1866-1952) and Giovanni Gentile
(1875-1944) did not acknowledge the speculative and cognitive value of
science, which they regarded as merely an efficient and useful technique.
The history of science suffered from this lack of appreciation of the role
of scientific theories and methods in modern culture.
The history of philosophy, of idealistic inspiration became, and to some
extent still is today, the predominant trend in Italian intellectual history.
Aldo Mieli (1879-1950), the founder of Arckeion, and Federigo Enriques (1871—
1946), the well-known mathematician and historian of scienle who opposed
the idealistic ascendancy, were forced to leave Italy well before the racial
laws forced more intellectuals of Jewish origin to emigrate. The initiatives
of Mieli and Enriques were defeated at the end of the 1920s, despite the
sporadic interest of the fascist regime in celebrating the scientific glories
of the country.
Diverse developments within intellectual circles of the opposition favored
the preservation of a fringe group of scholars sensitive to the history of
science. Moreover, after World War II, representative historians of philosophy
made significant concessions to the role of science in the making of modern
culture. The main concern, in Italy as well as elsewhere, was with the
history of mathematical and physical sciences. Studies on such figures as
Galileo Galilei by Ludovico Geymonat (1957), or on Francis Bacon by Paolo
Rossi (1957), exemplified the growing attention toward the history of science.
The physical sciences of the Renaissance period attracted the largest share
of contributions to the field. A pioneering attempt by Pietro Omodeo to
call attention to an important collection of manuscript notes taken by Giosue
Sangiovanni (1775-1849) at courses given by Lamarck, and probably used
by Lamarck himself in the writing of the Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans
Vertebres, failed to alert colleagues to the importance of Italian sources for
the history of nineteenth-century evolutionary ideas. For many years,
Omodeo, a zoologist, and Giuseppe Montalenti, the distinguished Italian
biologist, were among the few Italian contributors to the history of the
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
biological sciences (Omodeo 1949a, 1949b, 1959,1969; MontaIenti 1958).
The translation into Italian of works by Alexandre Koyre, a historian
of science particularly sympathetic to the philosophical approach to the field;
the diffusion of ideas put forward by Gaston Bachelard and Michael Foucault;
and the translation of Bernal's works, should be mentioned as further evidence
of the concern for the history of science in various quarters, and particularly
among philosophers. The creation of the first six university chairs in Italy
for the history of science in 1981, has provided official acknowledgement
for a discipline that for a long time occupied a peripheral position in university
teaching and curricula.
It was probably the growing popularity of the history of biology in
France, Britain, and the United States, as well as the shift from the study
of seventeenth-century science to the investigation of scientific debates of
the nineteenth century, that produced in the early 1970s a noticeable impact
upon the younger generation of Italian historians of science. It is significant
that five of the eleven studies on Italian reactions to Darwin here reviewed
were published in the years 1976 and 1977.
In 1977 Giovanni Landucci produced the first monograph on the impact
of Darwinism on the culture of Florence, a town, needless to say, of particular
importance for the intellectual life of the country. In the previous year
Gian Battista Benasso completed the first part of a study on the history
of Italian evolutionism, devoted to assessing the shortcomings and leading
features of Italian zoological investigations in the first part of the nineteenth
century. In 1977 Rossi published a preface to the Ascent of Man by Antonio
Fogazzaro (1849-1911), an Italian novelist who attempted a compromise
between Roman Catholic theology and his own spiritualistic interpretation
of evolution. The book Charles Darwin. 'Economy' and 'History' of Nature by
Giuliano Pancaldi, which also appeared in 1977, contained a dense fortypage chapter on "Darwinism in Italy, 1860-1900". The physical anthropologist
Giacomo Giacobini published a short paper on the debates in Turin from
1864 to 1900 on the origin of man (1977).
All the authors listed above expressed full awareness of the difficulty
of the task they undertook and noted the almost total neglect of the topic
in histories of Italian philosophy and science of the period. The sources
for the history of evolutionary debates in Italy are numerous and are printed
in all the provincial centers of the time, from Milan, Venice, and Turin
to Naples, Messina, and Palermo. It is important to emphasize that there
is no single library in the country containing a comprehensive selection
of such literature. A very conservative estimate of printed sources for the
period 1860-1920, listed in an avowedly incomplete and often unreliable
bibliography of Italian books, amounted to about 450 pamphlets and books
directly relating to evolutionary debates (Pagliaini 1903-1928). A summary
survey of the daily and periodical press reveals hundreds of contributions
on the variety of topics — scientific, philosophical, and political — that
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
were seen as relevant to the debate on evolution. In Italy, as in France
and England, journals of scientific societies or local scientific academies proved
reluctant to embark upon a scientific discussion of the doctrines put forward
by Darwin. Literary, philosophical, and religious journals, on the other hand,
were prominent participants in the debate.
Pancaldi attempted a broad survey of the major trends of the Italian
debate on Darwinism and evolutionism. The earliest reviews of the Origin,
which appeared in the Civilta Cattolica, the intellectual quarterly of the Jesuits,
and in Il Politecnico, failed to notice the novelty of the approach and the
solutions put forward by Darwin. Giovan Battista Pianciani (1784-1862),
who was inspired by a review of Darwin's work by the Swiss naturalist
Fra^ois-Jules Pictet (1809-1872), wrote in the Civilta Cattolica that the new
theory was nothing but a restatement of old transformist hypotheses (Pianciani
1860b, 1862; Pictet 1860). The Italian public and Italian naturalists initially
appeared little responsive to the Origin. The excitement caused by the War
of Independence of 1859, and the successful operations conducted by Garibaldi
in the south during the year 1860, crowned fo.ur decades of social, political,
and intellectual agitation. The temporal power of the Church retreated
within the Roman Walls, surrounded by a state professing scarce sympathy
for, if not open hostility against, the Papacy. Rome was regarded as the
natural capital of Italy, as the scientists convened for one of the congresses
of Italian naturalists strongly indicated.
As in France, naturalists and intellectuals attentive to developments within
natural sciences were more concerned with debating the issues of spontaneous
generation and the physical history of man, than the many questions Darwin
touched upon in his book. Not surprisingly, therefore, the official starting
point of the controversy over evolutionism was a lecture given by the zoologist
Filippo de Filippi (1814-1867) in Turin on 11 January 1864, on the subject
of "L'uomo e Ie scimie", ("Man and the monkeys"). In view of Darwin's
restraint on the subject of man, De Filippi found in Huxley's Man's Plaee
in Nature and in the controversy between Huxley and Richard Owen over
the anatomical differences between human and ape brains, the basic material
for his approach to the subject. De Filippi was a respected naturalist, of
known Catholic sentiments. He had fought a long personal battle over the
problem of reconciling the antiquity of man with his own religious beliefs.
De Filippi accepted all the basic arguments put forward by Huxley and
Darwin, but maintained that moral evolution was not comparable with
physical evolution. The kingdom of man — characterized by such exclusive
prerogatives as philosophic doubt, or moral and religious sentiments — could
not be equated with the animal kingdom (Pancaldi 1977, pp. 167-168; Benasso
1976, pp. 59-64; Giacobini 1977; Lessona 1883, pp. 161-206, 194-196).
De Filippi's proposed reconciliation between evolutionism and traditional
religious beliefs did not please those who saw scientific naturalism as the
final stage of a long struggle against religious superstition, nor those who
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
looked with horror at the progress of materialism. Michele Lessona, who
translated many of Darwin's works, and who divided his allegiances between
Darwin and Lamarck, was a close friend of De Filippi, to whom he was
related by marriage. He told the story that when De Filippi died in 1867,
two preachers in Turin pointed out from the pulpit that on the brink of
death the impious naturalist had asked for religious consolation, whereas
a rationalist magazine reported that the story was a fabrication of the clergy
(Lessona 1883, p. 196; Fenizia 1901, pp. 325-327).
The first phase of the debate on evolutionism was thus concerned mainly
with anthropological, philosophical, and theological issues. Indeed, the first
complete Italian edition of the Origin appeared only in 1865 and was translated
by Giovanni Canestrini, at the time teaching in Modena, and by Luigi
Salimbeni. It has, however, escaped the attention of students of Italian
Darwinism that the first partial translation of Darwin's work was completed
and published in 1864 (R. Freeman 1977). The publisher Zanichelli issued
the first part of the Sull'origine delle specie containing the translation of Chapters
1-3 as a publicity installment. The pamphlet was sent to readers — and
it would be interesting to know who were the chosen ones — with the
invitation to subscribe to the entire work, or to return it to the publisher.
Italian translations of Darwin, a list of which was compiled by Conry in
an appendix to her book, were usually late, even though the circulation
was satisfactory (Conry 1974, p. 438; R. Freeman 1977). The harsh polemics
of the years 1864-1865, which I shall discuss in some detail below when
reviewing Landucci's book on Darwinism in Florence, were followed during
the 1870s by a different kind of reaction. In Pancaldi's words, there was
"a subtle work of assimilation of evolutionary problematics within various
intellectual trends of contemporary Italian culture" (Pancaldi 1977, p. 177).
If French positivists opposed Darwin, Italian positivists eagerly sought to
appropriate suitably adapted features of evolutionary doctrines, and they
soon found the cosmic systems of Spencer and Haeckel more rewarding
and consoling. Even a few representatives of the Neapolitan Hegelian tradition
accepted a philosophic, strongly finalistic interpretation of evolutionary
processes. This was the standpoint defended by Pietro Siciliani (1830-1885),
whereas the idealist physiologist Angelo Camillo de Meis (1817-1891) proposed
to view evolution as guided by the unfolding of a logical process (Oldrini
1973; Benasso 1978, pp. 110-111; Pancaldi 1977, pp. 179-182).
As in France, but on a much larger scale, evolution was kept distinct
from Darwinism, and preference was accorded to Spencerism, Haeckelism,
and variously refurbished versions of Lamarckism (Morselli 1887; Salvadori
1900; Bulgarini 1887-1888). In Italy the debate over evolution was general;
it concerned a variety of social, political, philosophical, and theological topics,
plus a few specifically related to natural sciences. As a consequence, what
was gained in breadth was clearly lost in depth. In Pancaldi's words, "the
distance between the philosophical reflection and the limited biological
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
research, tended to produce arbitrary generalizations of the evolutionary
model, which increasingly became an abstract methodological canon,
incapable of providing guidelines to research" (Pancaldi 1977, pp. 191-192).
The serious discussions of Darwin's theories by Giovanni Canestrini,
the psychologist Francesco de Sarlo (1864-1937), and the philosopher Enrico
Morselli (1852-1919), the editor of the influential pro-Darwinian and proHaeckelian Rivista di Filosofia Scientifica (1881-1891), failed to reach a public
captured by the political and philosophical generalities of the debate over
evolutionism. As far as the social uses of Darwinism and evolutionism in
general were concerned, Pancaldi noted that the broad interpretations of
the evolutionary model allowed opportunistic borrowing and interpretations
by representatives of various and at times opposite political standpoints.
In Italy, however, socialist or radical political philosophers tended to see
the concept of evolution through fierce competition as the guarantee of
a felicitous outcome of class struggle (Ferri 1894). It should also be pointed
out that in the political as well as in the philosophical debate over evolution,
from being generic, the discussion turned trivial; toward the end of the
century the crisis of positivistic and fideistic evolutionism was well under
way, and all too apparent. In a famous essay on socialism, and in letters
to Engels, the Italian marxist philosopher Antonio Labriola (1843-1904) spoke
of the sterile faith in "Madonna Evolution" and pointed out the barrenness,
rhetoric, and triviality of much philosophic and sociologic evolutionism.
The "Great Eunuch Spencer" could not be regarded as a reliable interpreter
of Darwin's scientific ideas (Pancaldi 1977, pp. 200-201; Labriola 1949, p.
149; Labriola 1898).
The lack of a consistent group of naturalists engaged in translating the
articulated Darwinian approach for the benefit of their own fields of research,
and a certain leaning towards Lamarckism, prevented the professional
scientists devoted to the cause of evolution from transmitting a significant
legacy to the future. At the twelfth Congress of the Italian Society for
Scientific Progress, Lorenzo Camerano, the veteran of Darwinian battles,
made a major speech on Italian zoology in the nineteenth century, and
concluded that the majority of Italian naturalists embraced Darwinism and
evolutionism. Camerano also attacked the so-called reconciliations between
Roman Catholic theology, spiritualistic philosophy, and generic evolutionism
put forward by the liberal Catholic novelist Antonio Fogazzaro, the Jesuit
Heinrich Wasmann (1859-1931), and Father Agostino Gemelli, the founder
of the Catholic University of Milan (Camerano 1912, pp. 483-484). His
contention that everyone was Darwinian, and that natural science had nothing
to do with spiritualism or vitalism, was immediately and authoritatively
rebuked by two senior colleagues, Giuseppe Cuboni (1852-1920) and Luigi
Luciani (1840-1919), who argued that neo-vitalism was rampant and that
every serious naturalist accepted that Darwinism had been superseded by
neo-Lamarckism, which in its turn had been substantially revised in a vitalistic
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDIIING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
direction by Carl Wilhelm von Nageli (1817-1891) (Camerano 1912,
pp. 492-495). Indeed, even such an early supporter of Darwin as Federico
Delpino (1833-1905), the botanist pupil of Filippo Parlatore (1816-1877),
could not refrain from stressing teleology and providential supervision in
nature. He firmly opposed materialism, Haeckelian monism, and socialist
interpretations of evolutionism (Delpino 1867, 1868, 1895). Canestrini, who
praised Delpino as "a Darwinian fully displayed", was rather embarrassed
to account for the faith in vital principles displayed by his colleague in
the very works in which he professed approval of crucial features of the
Darwinian theory (Canestrini 1894, pp. 191-192).
Gian Battista Benasso published in 1978 the second part of his "Materials
for the History of Italian Evolutionism". The first part assessed the influence
of Lamarck on Italian natural sciences. He also commented upon the famous
lecture delivered by De Filippi and the debate that followed. In this first
part Professor Benasso appeared largely indebted to a series of important
contributions to the history of Italian zoology and Lamarckism produced
by Lorenzo Camerano between the late 1890s and the 1910s. Unfortunately,
this important line of research opened by Camerano has not been pursued
by historians of science, with the noted exception of essays by Pietro Omodeo.
The second contribution by Benasso contained a far larger amount of
first-hand information and a series of portraits of naturalists who took part
in the various phases of the debate over evolution from 1864 to 1900. He
emphasized, as did Pancaldi, that the vehemence of the ideological and political
overtones made the generic pro- or anti-evolutionist dimension of the debate
prevail over the properly scientific one. Moreover, discussions and divisions
within the evolutionist camp concerning Weismann's theory of heredity
(rejected by many Italian evolutionists, who retained their basic Lamarckian
allegiances), the significance of the paleontological record, or diverging
hypotheses on the moving force of evolutionary processes, favored the
penetration of neo-vitalism in Italy and the works of Hans Drieseh (18671941) in particular (Driesch 1911).
As far as the actual impact of Darwin's theory, or of evolution in general,
upon Italian naturalistic disciplines was concerned, Benasso concluded that
it was minimal:
naturalists followed a professional practice still largely empirical, and at
times unconsciously linked to the fixist tradition, on which they
superimposed a scaffolding of more or less advanced scientific information.
Developments in modern biology were never deeply assimilated, nor did
these become an integral part of the professional skill of the naturalist.
(1978, p. 84)
The more biology moved toward laboratories, the more a tradition of
taxonomic work in the field, or at the desk of a museum, was bound to
lose touch with the major trends of European natural history.
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
Benasso made passing and tantalizing reference to the plurality of
influences that shaped the thought of Italian naturalists who claimed to
be Darwinians, or evolutionists. Thus he mentioned the impact of Oken
on Paolo Mantegazza (1831-1910), the celebrated Florentine anthropologist,
and the sophisticated exegesis of the Origin by Achille Quadri, a paleontologist
who well understood Darwin's ideas but sought to improve them with the
help of Gaudry, Haeckel, and a broad chain-of-being approach to taxonomic
work (Benasso 1978, pp. 86-90; Canestrini 1894, pp. 179-180; Quadri 1869).
In the first part of his study on Italian evolutionism, when analyzing the
debate over the origin of man, Benasso reproduced without further comment
the suggestion by Camerano that De Filippi had probably been exposed
to Lamarckian ideas early in hs career. Unfortunately, mention and suggestion
are no substitute for thorough investigation and full theoretical assessment.
It will be the task of historians of science concerned with Darwinism and
evolutionism in Italy to pursue the line of research opened up by past and
recent commentators.
The situation is already improving. Pancaldi has completed a volume
collecting case studies of Italian naturalists active in the second half of the
nineteenth century. Particular emphasis is placed on the activities and ideas
of Giovanni Canestrini, the first translator of the Origin and one of the
first historians of Italian evolutionism (Pancaldi 1983). Professor Giacobini,
who in 1977 published a short case studf of the reactions to Darwin by
naturalists active in Turin, has prepared an anthology of texts relating to
the evolutionary debate from 1864 to 1900, and has written a long introduction
on general features of Italian reactions to Darwin (1983).
It is appropriate to point out that the task of surveying Italian debates
over evolutionism and Darwin is made particularly difficult by the remarkable
polycentric nature of Italian culture. The existence, for periods of centuries,
of small states and town-states, dominated by local or foreign aristocracy,
and exposed to a variety of local and international cultural traditions, was
responsible for many singular features of Italian social and intellectual life.
The unification of Italy in 1859-1860 did not mean the end of local culture.
The fragmentation of economic and political life in a plurality of centers
and regional spheres of influence was also reflected in the variety of scientific
traditions and institutions. Many towns of the center-north, and a few of
the major towns of the south, were characterized by the presence of local
natural history societies; literary, medical and scientific academies and societies
informally organised by groups of amateurs and numerous universities. During
the early nineteenth century, medical faculties widened the scope of their
teaching in natural history. Towns like Milan, Pavia, and Turin expanded
or established natural history museums, often on the Parisian model. During
the second half of the century, the French model was slowly replaced by
the German one. The foundation of the Zoological Station in Naples by
Felix Anton Dohrn (1840-1909), officially inaugurated by the Italian Minister
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
of Education on 11 April 1875, established lasting links between European
and Italian naturalists working on marine biology (Groeben 1975; Heuss
1940).
In many cases, however, the founding of an institution did not necessarily
imply commitment, and teaching rarely required research. Nevertheless,
a survey of library holdings in a town like Florence reveals the sustained
effort to keep pace with international developments in natural sciences during
the early decades of the century. French books, dictionaries, and periodicals
on natural history are particularly well represented, whereas German works
are scarce. Gaps in the catalogues tended to widen with the 1840s, even
though the teaching of scientific disciplines at Florence remained adequate.
Landucci has written the only case study available on the impact of Darwinism
and evolutionism on the culture of one provincial capital, Florence, which
for a few years was the capital of the new Italian Kingdom. Although
Landucci's monograph focussed on Paolo Mantegazza, the first Italian
professor of anthropology at the Institute for Higher Studies, the first three
chapters of the book were devoted to assessing the initial impact of
evolutionary anthropology on the local scientific and philosophical
community, and the appropriation of evolutionary conclusions by intellectuals
engaged in the debate over the origin of language.
According to Landucci, the Florentine debate over evolutionism was
concerned only indirectly with the specific proposals put forward by Darwin.
A broad evolutionist interpretation of organic, human, and social life was
valued by supporters of a secular view of nature. The debate on the origin
of language, for instance, was more a discussion of the limits of naturalistic
explanations of cultural phenomena than a specific attempt at applying
Darwinian concepts and categories to linguistics (Landucci 1977, pp. 5178; cf. Conry 1974, pp. 91-107). It was the debate over the origin of man
that provoked the greatest amount of controversy in Florence, and in Italy,
during the 1860s. De Filippi's 1864 lecture had already caused considerable
alarm and a violent reaction from a variety of religiously oriented or
philosophically more conservative sectors of contemporary culture.
De Filippi's arguments favoring descent from a common ancestor for
man and monkeys were answered by, among others, the geologist,
paleontologist, and botanist Giovanni Giuseppe Bianconi (1809-1878), the
Director of the Natural History Museum of Bologna. Bianconi drew his
counterarguments from Cuvier and Richard Owen. He maintained that the
unity of plan within large groups of organic forms did not authorize
phylogenetic conclusions, and he stated his belief in independent creation.
Bianconi's answer to De Filippi was almost universally acknowledged by
supporters of Darwin and of evolution to be moderate, civil, and technically
well argued (Bianconi 1864, 1874; Canestrini 1894, pp. 196-199; Benasso
1976, pp. 92-98 finds Bianconi's answer unnecessarily technical; Martinucci
1978). In Florence the debate over the origin of mankind had a late start;
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
it was opened by Father Giovanni Antonelli (1818-1872), a member of the
religious educational order of the Scolopi. Discussing the importance and
shortcomings of the study of natural history, Father Antonelli violently
attacked the doctrine of the animal origin of man, and those countrymen
who were not ashamed to follow the theories of "some imbecile foreigner"
(Landucci 1977, p. 83).
A later refutation of common descent by Terenzio Mamiani (1799-1885),
former Minister of Education and a close friend of De Filippi, as well as
the counterarguments put forward by Paolo Mantegazza, who defended
evolutionary anthropology, represented the last attempt to keep the debate
within the boundaries of scientific polemic. Mamiani, a spiritualist philosopher,
calmly defended teleology, progressionism, and creationism. He also pointed
out that Darwin himself did not appear to share the enthusiasm of his followers
for the doctrine of the animal origin of man. Equally moderate was the
counterattack by Mantegazza, who stressed the inductive and empirical
character of science and its neutrality with respect to metaphysical and
religious issues. Yet, in Landucci's words, to debate over evolutionary
anthropology was already taken to imply much more than a controversy
over comparative anatomy and paleontology: "Many viewed evolutionism
as the faith in progress, the dismantling of prejudices, and fixism as reaction,
immobility, a turning towards the past" (Landucci 1977, p. 88). As a
consequence, it is difficult to find even a plain account of Darwin's works
and theories in the publications relating to the contemporary Florentine
debate. The consideration of the consequence of admitting evolutionism of
one kind or another prevailed over the discussion of the actual articulation
of Darwin's theory.
A lecture by the Russian physiologist Aleksandr Herzen (1839-1906),
professor at the Florentine Institute for Higher Studies since 1867, published
under the title "On the relationship between men and monkeys", created
an enormous uproar. The author defended the doctrine of common descent
by appealing to the views of Lamarck and Darwin. Herzen was the
representative of a group of foreign naturalists invited to teach in Italian
universities, in a short-lived attempt to improve the scientific culture of
the country. The materialist philosopher Jacob Moleschott (1822-1893), called
to Turin in 1861, and the brothers Moritz (1823-1896) and Hugo Schiff
(1834-1919), invited to Florence with Herzen, were others of this group.
To many Florentine intellectuals, afraid of dangerous "imbecile foreigners",
the presence of three distinguished naturalists of international standing
represented a threat, and Herzen's lecture in favor of evolutionary
anthropology a provocation.
Locally and nationally well known intellectuals such as the pedagogist
Raffaello Lambruschini (1788-1873) and the linguist and philosopher Niccolo
Tommaseo (1802-1874) denounced the attempt made by materialist
physiologists to undermine morality and social stability. The anti-evolutionary
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
lecture by Bianconi and works by De Quatrefages were cavalierly quoted
by supporters of the higher dignity of man, whereas Herzen and his allies
denounced the perverse wish of the clergy to keep the masses in a state
of permanent ignorance. There was indeed little common ground between
the contenders, and, as Landucci concludes, the polemic was never a discussion,
but a confrontation of monologues (Landucci 1977, pp. 92-102).
Generational factors and the wish to avoid further controversy
extinguished the debate. Landucci agrees with Pancaldi's evaluation of the
debates that characterized the 1870s. After the struggle of the 1860s, the
diffusion of a broadly evolutionary view of nature and culture was paralleled
by a process of revision and reinterpretation of Darwin's work, and of
the available evolutionary mechanisms. The teaching and activities of Paolo
Mantegazza, who taught at Florence from 1869 until his death in 1910,
epitomized the development of evolutionary debates in Florence. A line
of moderation with respect to religious and metaphysical issues was coupled
with the critical evaluation of relevant features of Darwinism, Spencerism,
and Haeckelism. Mantegazza attacked Haeckel and Canestrini for their ultraDarwinism, was skeptical of the explanatory power of natural selection,
and rejected sexual selection. With other Italian naturalists, he accepted
Darwin's theory of pangenesis. He also put forward his doctrine of variation
by saltation, which he called neogenesis, in order to explain gaps in the
paleontological record, and to speed up the rate of evolutionary processes
(Delpino 1868; Mantegazza 1871; Danielli 1885; Benasso 1978, pp. 92-97;
Canestrini 1877, p. 131). Paolo Mantegazza was very active in promoting
the study of physical and cultural anthropology. He founded the National
Anthropological Museum of Florence, the Italian Society of Anthropology
and Ethnology, and established the Archivi di Antropologia ed Etnologia.
In a recent study of "Science, Religion and Educational Publishing",
Landucci touched upon the broader cultural dimensions of debates over
evolution in Florence during the second half of the nineteenth century.
Florence had traditionally been a leading center of Italian quality publishing.
Various firms of the town, noted for their publication of literary, philosophical,
and politico-economic writings, played an important role in nineteenthcentury Italian intellectual life. Yet Florentine publishers distinctly failed
to provide a platform for the vital and vocal scientific community of their
town. The vast literary and educational production for numerous private
religious schools and the city educational system was singularly deficient
in the scientific sector. Landucci has rightly suggested that the study of
textbooks of natural history disciplines, produced by several Italian publishers,
especially in Rome, Turin, and Milan, would provide useful insights into
the actual state of affairs in contemporary science education. Of particular
relevance to the understanding of Italian natural sciences of the time is
the study of curricula and courses in various Italian universities. Landucci
has undertaken to publish the manuscript text of a course by the botanist
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
Filippo Parlatore, who discussed Darwinian and broadly evolutionary
doctrines in lectures devoted to the "philosophy of botany" (Landucci 1982).
The few recent and past contributions to the history of Italian reaction
to Darwin and of Italian evolutionism have not failed to mention the
theological overtones of the debate — indeed, the centrality, for several
commentators, of religious considerations — in the assessment of evolutionary
doctrines. Yet there is no systematic study of Italian Catholic reactions to
Darwin, nor case studies centered on such well-known Jesuit periodicals
as the Civilta Cattolica. Moreover, philosophical, theological, political, and
social dimensions of the evolutionary debate were thoroughly investigated
by contributors to the numerous periodicals published in Italy during the
second half of the nineteenth century. In a long paper devoted to discussing
"Darwinism and Nationalism", Landucci (1981) has listed a considerable
number of journals active in the debate. He also pointed out that during
the 1880s and the 1890s there was a proliferation of journals that had the
word "evolution" in their title and enjoyed wide circulation. Thus, even
though we still lack a thorough assessment of this interesting feature of
Italian debates on evolution, scholars and students of the period have been
alerted to the relevance of a systematic inquiry into the contemporary
periodical press.
With respect to the specific Roman Catholic reaction to evolutionism,
it could be argued that the debate over evolutionary anthropology, evolution
in general, and Darwinism in particular, did in fact put a halt to attempts
by Catholic naturalists such as the geologist Antonio Stoppani (1824-1891),
or Giovan Battista Pianciani, the reviewer of the Origin in the Civilta Cattolica,
to come to terms with developments within geology, astronomy, or natural
history disciplines in general. Thus Father Stoppani, who from 1871 to 1882
was at the Institute for Higher Studies of Florence, was prepared to support
many of Charles Lyell's ideas, but he found evolutionism morally repulsive
and socially dangerous. The view of Stoppani on the role of the clergy
in directing, supervising, and sanitizing scientific development closely
resembled the stand taken by such Anglican dons as Edward Copleston
and Richard Whately at Oxford, who saw the establishment of scientific
chairs, the geology chair in particular, as a brilliant move toward achieving
control over the debates on the age of the earth, or the deluge. In terms
Copleston and Whately would have subscribed to, Stoppani advocated the
expansion of the scientific curriculum of the Catholic seminaries, in order
to "create an army of apologists" capable of preserving the natural sciences
from irresponsible deviations (Stoppani 1886, p. 219).
The spread of evolutionary ideas represented a concrete and dramatic
instance of such deviations. The practitioners of natural sciences "were
materialists, atheists, who conceal truth"; "socialism and nihilism are the
formidable products of naturalism" (Stoppani 1886, pp. 67,69). The opposition
of so famous a geologist, and a liberal, or rather, "conservative reformer",
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
as Stoppani caused serious worries to supporters of evolutionism and
Darwinism. Camerano, in his commemoration of Michele Lessona,
acknowledged that the opposition of Stoppani was much more effective
than the hysteric denunciations of Niccolo Tommaseo. According to
Camerano, the infighting between the followers of Antonio RosminiSerbati (1797-1855) — Stoppani was a leading representative of the
movement — and the Church hierarchy prevented the clergy from
fully appreciating the value of the suggestions put forward by the
geologist. It could be added that it was only in the early decades of the
twentieth century that the Church took an active role in forwarding Catholic
scientific institutions and schools, or in favoring Catholic involvement in
promoting sanitized interpretations of formerly "dangerous" scientific
doctrines.
As far as evolutionism was concerned, the spiritualistic interpretations
of evolutionary, non-Darwinian models under discussion in the last decades
of the nineteenth century, and the early decades of the twentieth, favored
several conciliatory attempts. It is of interest that the Church hierarchy
made clear distinction among those who were active in promoting a
rapprochement between evolutionism and Catholic thought, based on political
and ideological grounds. Compromises put forward by Rosminians or other
reformers were opposed, whereas those defended by clergymen faithful to
the hierarchy, and ready to comply with dogmatic pronouncements, were
tolerated and silently approved. In 1977 Rossi discussed the conciliatory model
put forward by Antonio Fogazzaro, a novelist and conservative-reformer
Catholic who in 1898 published a highly controversial book, Human Ascent.
Fogazzaro, like Stoppani, was a follower of Antonio Rosmini. He embraced
spiritualistic philosophy and wanted to see the Church more active in
contemporary scientific, philosophic, and social debates. Defensive stands,
and the stream of denunciations against every social and intellectual
development of the century, tended to isolate Catholic intellectuals from
the national life.
In Human Ascent, which collected a series of public lectures and articles,
Fogazzaro tackled the issue of evolutionism. It was his view that Darwin
and Haeckel were not to be regarded as the only representatives of
evolutionism. Together with French and English scientists and apologists,
Fogazzaro was convinced that evolution was a fact, but that the model
put forward by Darwin did not represent the best explanation of it. Fogazzaro
insisted on a vitalistic interpretation of evolution, teleologically oriented
and supernaturally supervised. As Rossi rightly stressed, commentators have
tended to judge Human Ascent as the idiosyncratic lucubrations of a man
with no understanding of contemporary science. On the contrary, Fogazzaro
was well aware of the apologetic possibilities offered by the variety of
evolutionary models currently under discussion. Ifhe misunderstood Darwin,
he did it in good company. The conciliatory attempt by the novelist was
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
bound to fail. The condemnation of modernism and of Catholic liberalism
included Fogazzaro's essays on evolution.
More successful was the attempt by Father Agostino Gemelli, who in
1906 translated Heinrich Wasmann's work on modern biology, wrote a long
preface to it, and published a long article on evolution. Gemelli carefully
worded his approval of spiritualistic interpretations of evolution. He
capitalized on the official silence of the Church on the subject. There was
no encyclical or pastoral letter explicitly denouncing evolutionism. Thus
Gemelli argued that a Catholic was free to embrace whatever hypothesis
he liked, provided he declared his readiness to give it up as soon as the
ecclesiastical authority pronounced otherwise. Gemelli was no sympathizer
of Rosmini, and he firmly declared his readiness to obey his superiors. His
compromise was implicitly accepted, though not without difficulty. The
favor of the Church hierarchy toward Father Gemelli was shown in later
years, when under his guidance the Catholic University of Milan was
established.
As far as earlier reactions of Italian Catholics to evolutionism were
concerned, there was, as already mentioned in the section on France, the
letter to the anti-evolutionist Constantin James written by Pius IX. Yet
this was probably the only official reaction of the Church authority to
the new doctrines. It is appropriate to point out that the letter did not
have the character of an ex-cathedra pronouncement, even though it well
expressed the sentiments of the Pope. Vociferous anti-evolutionary Catholics,
opposition by the intellectual fringe of the clergy (the Jesuits in particular),
and denunciation of materialist science from the pulpit of parish churches,
did not convince Church hierarchies to attack evolutionism authoritatively.
A reading of the various and frequent encyclicals and pastoral letters
written by the Popes and the Church hierarchy during the nineteenth century
reveals that the Catholic Church was far more concerned about the political
situation in Europe, and in Italy in particular, than about evolutionism.
In Italy, as well as in other European or South American countries, liberal,
radical, and anti-clerical governments caused the Church to lose a considerable
amount of wealth and power. Socialism, liberalism, and democracy were
regarded as the greatest impending dangers. It is significant that the Syllabus
appended to the encyclical Quanta Cura (8 December 1864) did not single
out any scientific doctrine for particular condemnation. Science was not
dangerous per se: any doctrine was condemned that was made to support
materialistic philosophies, or was used to impinge upon the credibility of
the Holy Scriptures. The fact that many contemporaries enthusiastically
upheld a broadly evolutionary interpretation of the solar system, or of the
history of life on earth, was regarded as a consequence of moral corruption,
the influence of atheistic propaganda and social subversion, rather than the
consequence of changing scientific, social, and philosophical values, or of
the social structure of many European countries.
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
Natural sciences could never achieve reliable conclusions and acquire ι
solid epistemological bases. Those who took the conclusions of scientific
speculations as refutations of traditional beliefs and revealed truths, were
obviously motivated by ideological or political reasons as the agents of darker
forces. In Italy as well as in France, moreover, the early opponents of
Darwinism and evolutionism provided the Church with ample evidence of
the "unreliability" of evolutionary conclusions. During the last decades of
the century, in Italy as well as in France, the spread of broad evolutionary
convictions forced the Church to revise earlier hopes and standpoints, but
never to change the basic claim that the final word on scientific as well
as social or philosophical matters rested with the Church. When concessions
to science were made, these tended to reinforce the claim that theologically
oriented neo-Thomism represented the philosophical framework capable of
accounting for and supervising any new development in science and
philosophy. In the encyclical Humani Generis (12 August 1950), issued by
Pope Pius XII (1876-1958), Catholic scientists were acknowledged to have
the right to full freedom of research: but they were reminded that only
the Church had the final word in judging whether a theory could or could
not be accepted by Catholics, scientists included.
Thus, just as it would be misleading to assess the "influence" of Darwin
without taking into account the actual complex articulation of national natural
history traditions, it would be equally misleading to approach the issue of
Roman Cathohc reactions to Darwin's theory without full awareness of
the philosophical, theological, and political dimensions of Roman Catholic
culture at the time. Recent historiography has rightly stressed the impossibility
of equating Roman Catholicism with anti-evolutionism, in the nineteenth
century as well as in the twentieth (H. Paul 1979; Landucci 1982). There
appears to be a risk, however, of limiting research to a listing of individual
cases opposing the dated conclusions of Whiggish historiography. Moreover,
it is rarely pointed out that the issue of the relationship between Roman
Catholic theology, or Christian theology in general, and science or
evolutionism, is marred by the essentialistic and ahistorical assumption that
there is one theology and one science. As far as the debate over evolutionism
was concerned, it is by now clear that there were many evolutionisms,
some of which were incompatible with Darwinism, and with each other.
Yet historians concerned with the relationship between science and religion
seldom mention that there were as many Christian theologies, even within
the same Church and sect. Because of the theocratic structure of the Roman
Catholic Church, the essentialist fallacy could claim support from the absolute
dogmatic authority of the Pope and of the Church. It would be wrong,
however, to consider Roman Catholic theology a monolithic structure of
doctrines and beliefs, free from conflicts and tensions. In Italy as well as
in France, the official voice of the Church — or its silence — did not
prevent individual Catholics or groups of Catholic intellectuals from holding
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
strong views that differed from those of the keepers of the dogma: views
against or in favor of evolution. But it is true that fanatical anti-evolutionists
tended to be tolerated, whereas supporters of evolution, such as St. George
Mivart or Fogazzaro, two sincere and devout Catholics, paid a high price
for their conciliatory attempts.
The use of repressive measures, from warning to excommunication and
the placing of books on the Index, were rarely the result of a careful evaluation
of the theological implication of the challenge, but implied subtle consideration
of wider ideological and political factors. The Church was fully aware of
the problem it was confronted with. Phases of severity and impatience were
followed by phases of tolerance and seeming indifference. Thus the search
for evidence of obstinate Catholic opposition to science and evolutionism
(or Whiggish historiography), as well as the search for favorable Catholic
responses to Darwinism and evolutionism (revisionist and "justificationist"
historiography), appear to be dominated by an inner tendency to misrepresent
the actual historical dimension of the encounter.
In Italy as well as in Germany, the closing decades of the nineteenth
century, and the early decades of the twentieth century, saw a proliferation
of political and social philosophies known by the collective and rather
improper label "Social Darwinism". Several commentators have touched
upon this feature of the various political and philosophical movements in
contemporary Italy, and have mentioned the "influence" of Darwinism and
evolutionism on leading intellectuals and the public in general. There is
no sympathetic study available on this subject. A broad survey of the
relationship between Darwinism and nationalism in Italy recently published
by Landucci has shown the pervasive use of biological metaphors in a variety
of works by representatives of the most diverse political and philosophical
standpoints. As Landucci has rightly stressed, opportunistic borrowing
prevailed over first-hand knowledge of biological doctrines (Landucci 1981).
It is important, however, to stress that the variety of evolutionary and
pre-evolutionary contacts between natural and social sciences or political
ideologies still requires systematic investigation. As with the other dimensions
of Italian reactions to Darwinism and evolutionism reviewed here, selected
case studies will help clarify this important chapter of Italian intellectual
and social life.
It is appropriate to consider briefly a further important feature of Italian
reactions to Darwin, to which several commentators have alluded but which
has never been systematically approached. In his contribution to the history
of natural sciences in Italy during the early decades of the nineteenth century,
Lorenzo Camerano hinted at the persistence of Lamarckian and broadly
transformist views among Italian naturalists. Giuseppe Gautieri (1769-1833),
a doctor living in Pavia, published in 1805 his Slancio sulla genealogia della
tena, in which he advocated evolutionary cosmological ideas. Gautieri's
mechanism of the transformation of organisms relied on the capability of
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
animals to acquire new habits when subjected to changing environmental
conditions. The new way of life caused minor as well as major changes
of anatomical and organic structure. Gautieri was familiar with analogous
ideas put forward by Erasmus Darwin, but was clearly unaware of Lamarck's
Recherches sur I'organisation des coups vivans and the Discours d'ouverture to the
1800 course at the Museum. Gautieri quoted ornithological examples of
transformist adaptation, which were also used by Lamarck and Erasmus
Darwin, and by William Paley in his critique of the Zoonomia.
Unlike Gautieri, Michele Fodera (1793-1848) was familiar with Lamarck's
ideas and published several memoirs in French during a long period of residence
in Paris (Fodera 1826). In 1844 Francesco Constantino Marmocchi (18051858) published a Prodromo della storia naturale . . . d'ltalia, in which he defended
Lamarck's transformism (Omodeo 1969, Preface). Omodeo has called attention
to the important collection of manuscript notes taken by Giosue Sangiovanni
at the Museum courses given by Lamarck (Omodeo 1949a, b).
The works, ideas, and intellectual milieu of the authors mentioned above
certainly deserve further investigation, in spite of the occasional nature of
their contribution to natural history debates, and their isolation from the
mainstream anti-speculative tradition of Italian natural sciences in the early
decades of the nineteenth century. Yet it is important to stress that the
study of the followers of Lamarck and of Lamarckism during the early
and middle decades of the century will provide an essential contribution
to the understanding of crucial features of the reaction to Darwin, Huxley,
Haeckel, and Spencer by a significant section of Italian naturalists.
Michele Lessona and Lorenzo Camerano, two of the most prolific
contributors to evolutionary debates, were pupils and relatives of Turin
naturalists who frequently engaged in private discussion of Lamarck's views.
Franco Andrea Bonelli (1784-1830) had been a pupil of Lamarck and Etienne
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. Although he was a friend of Cuvier and Dumeril,
he was converted to transformism. Political caution restrained him from
publishing his views in the unfavorable intellectual climate of the Restoration;
an early death in 1830 prevented Bonelli from exerting a lasting influence
through his writings. His efforts in the organization of the Natural History
Museum of Turin, and his dedication to students and junior colleagues, did,
however, produce lasting effects. During the years 1811-1830, Carlo Lessona
(1784-1858), father of Michele, attended lectures given by Bonelli. He became
a convinced Lamarckian, and he was keen to introduce his son to the higher
theoretical dimension of zoological investigation.
Another convinced Lamarckian was Vittore Ghiliani (1812-1878), a pupil
of Bonelli and teacher of Michele Lessona and Lorenzo Camerano. Ghiliani
studied the entomology of Piedmont and Sardinia. He thought that the
concept of adaptation through transformation of structures and habits was
the key to explain the geographical distribution of animals and plants (Lessona
1884, pp. 139-258). When De Filippi, the naturalist who started the debate
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DARWINIAN HERITAGE
on Darwin in 1864, moved to Turin in 1848, he found himself surrounded
by colleagues and pupils who did not make a mystery of their beliefs. Political
opportunity clearly inhibited open profession of transformism, but could
not prevent the young Lessona from discussing with De Filippi the ideas
of Lamarck. Even though acceptance of evolutionary ideas came only in
the early 1860s, De Filippi "was constantly studying the question of species",
Lessona wrote when remembering the discussions he had had with his friend
(Lessona 1884, pp. 193, 191-194).
De Filippi, Lessona, and Camerano read the Origin as the most powerful,
and the best documented, advocacy of evolutionism since the days of Lamarck.
Yet each of them read Darwin's work in a different way, largely determined
by generational, religious, and scientific factors. The Catholic De Filippi
had already revolved in his mind the question of the place of man in the
evolutionary scheme. He was pleased to see that Darwin avoided the issue,
but he immediately reacted against Huxley's attempt fully to include the
evolution of man in the theory. The Lamarckian Lessona was prepared
to go a long way with Darwin, but in later years he found Haeckel and
Giard nearer to his Lamarckian upbringing and philosophical aspirations
(Camerano 18%, p. 382). Camerano was taught by Lessona and Ghiliani
to pay close attention to biogeography. During the 1870s and the 1880s
he devoted less time to evolutionary propaganda and more to intense scientific
investigation. His papers ranged from the study of insect taxonomy and
the geographical distribution of insects, to the study of sexual dimorphism,
polymorphism, neoteny, and mimicry. It is to be regretted that there is
no study available of Camerano's career as one of the leading Italian
evolutionary biologists and historians of Italian natural sciences of the
nineteenth century. Thus two leading representatives of the hard core of
Italian supporters of Darwin became committed to the evolutionary cause
well before 1859. Their acceptance of Darwin was deeply influenced by
their exposure to alternative evolutionary doctrines; as was their
interpretation of the doctrines put forward in the Origin (Corsi 1983).
In conclusion, it is clear that in Italy as well as in France, the question
of the reactions to Darwin cannot be studied as an issue in itself. If there
is little doubt that the publication of, the Origin acted as a catalyst with
respect to a variety of trends in natural history and philosophic disciplines,
and powerfully contributed to the reorientation of their priorities, it is equally
true that close attention has to be paid to the intellectual traditions that
found, in the debate on evolution and Darwinism, a new channel of expression.
I have underlined the importance of the study of Lamarckism and transformism
in France as well as in Italy. Attention should also be paid to the diffusion
of the doctrines put forward by Lorenz Oken or Hans Christian Oersted
(1777-1851), and to pre-1859 debates on idealistic philosophies of nature.
It could indeed be argued that the variety of reactions to Darwin in France
and Italy, as well as in Germany and elsewhere, is better understood by
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CORSI AND WEINDLING/GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ITALY
considering 1859 as one date — a crucial one indeed — among many in
a debate that was not started by Darwin's work, and was destined to continue
to the present day.
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.132 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:57:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms