KANT’S VIEWS ON PREFORMATION AND EPIGENESIS

: How does Kant repsond to the early modern preformation-epigenesis controversy? In part 1 of the paper, I will introduce the historical context: I provide an overview of important systematic characteristics of ovistic and animalculist preformationist (1.1) and mechanical and vitalistic epigenetic (1.2) early modern accounts of reproduction and heredity. In part 2 of the paper, I will introduce the scholarly debate (2.1) about Kant’s reception of the early modern controversy: while no one considers Kant a radical defender of preformation, some scholars consider him a more or less radical defender of epigenesis. A greater number of scholars read Kant’s position as a combination of preformationist and epigenetic elements. Others ignore or even deny any influence of the preformation-epigenesis controversy on Kant. Based on an analysis of preformationist (2.2) and epigenetic elements (2.3) in Kant’s relevant writings , I will support scholars (2.4) who claim that Kant’s position contains both, preformationist and epigenetic elements, but will do so on a far more comprehensive analysis of criteria. I will also go beyond existing discussions deciding whether Kant’s account was closer to ovistic or animalculist variants of preformation, and mechanical or vitalistic variants of epigenesis.

Resumo: Como Kant responde à controvérsia pré-formação-epigênese do início da era moderna? Na parte 1 do artigo, apresentarei o contexto histórico: forneço uma visão geral das características sistemáticas importantes dos relatos pré-formacionistas ovísticos e animalculistas (1.1) e epigenéticos mecânicos e vitalísticos (1.2) da reprodução e hereditariedade do início da modernidade. Na parte 2 do artigo, por sua vez, apresentarei o debate acadêmico (2.1) acerca da recepção de Kant da controvérsia do início da era moderna: embora ninguém considere Kant um defensor radical da préformação, alguns estudiosos o consideram um defensor mais ou menos radical da epigênese. Um número maior de estudiosos lê a posição de Kant como uma combinação de elementos préformacionistas e epigenéticos. Outros ignoram ou mesmo negam qualquer influência da controvérsia pré-formação-epigênese sobre Kant. Com base em uma análise dos elementos pré-formacionistas (2.2) e epigenéticos (2.3) nos escritos relevantes de Kant, apoiarei os estudiosos (2.4) que afirmam que a posição de Kant contém elementos pré-formacionistas e epigenéticos, mas o farei em uma análise mais abrangente de critérios. Também irei além das discussões existentes, decidindo se a descrição de Kant estava mais próxima de variantes ovísticas ou animalculistas de pré-formação, e variantes mecânicas ou vitalísticas de epigênese. Palavras-chave: Biologia de Kant; epigênese; pré-formação. In this paper, I would like to answer the question if and how Immanuel Kant's accounts of reproduction and heredity relate to one of the most important debates of the early modern life sciences: the preformation-epigenesis controversy. I will argue that in his account Kant combines strengths of both, preformationist and epigenetic models of reproduction and heredity, and at the same time tries to avoid some of their flaws and radical epigenetic interpretation of Kant's account of reproduction and heredity. I will also go beyond the existing scholarly debate when I will not only say whether Kant's account was preformationist or epigenetic or both or neither-nor, but will also say whether it was closer to ovistic or animalculist variants of preformation, or closer to mechanical or vitalistic variants of epigenesis.

Characteristics of preformation
Despite a wide variety of preformationist accounts, which often were not as clearly distinct from their alternatives and opposites as one would want them to be, I would like to suggest that there is a set of characteristics that preformationist models of reproduction and heredity tend to share. Though scholars have often pointed out some of these criteria, 7 so 5 William Harvey's De generatione animalium (1651) can be considered the beginning of early modern preformation-epigenesis controversy, which came to an end with Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's Über den Bildungstrieb und das Zeugungsgeschäfte (1781), in Immanuel Kant's writings on races (1775,1778,1785), Kant's third Critique (1790), and Johann Wolfgang Goethe's biological writings, especially Goethe's Metamorphose der Pflanzen (1790). 6 For valuable historical work, which helped to shape this classification, see Shirley Roe (1981), Ilse Jahn (1982, pp. 226-65), Jörg Jantzen (1994, pp. 375-668), Clara Pinto- Correira (1997), Phillip Sloan (2002, pp. 232-34), Philippe Huneman (2007), Jennifer Mensch (2013), and Ina Goy (2017, pp. 284-344). 7 Philipp Sloan (2002), for instance, focuses mostly on germs and dispositions. far no one has tried to give a detailed and comprehensive account of the most important of these characteristics. Preformationist theories share -the assumption of divine creation and a divine creator, and the denial of the autonomy of nature, -the assumption of a God who preforms the germs out of which the generation and development of living beings takes place, -the assumption of preformed germs which contain in small all characteristics of the future living being, so that the development of a living being appears as an unfolding, unwrapping, and enlargement of characteristics, which are already present in the germ, 8 -the assumption of the simultaneous generation of all characteristics of an offspring, -the interpretation of the germ as either the female egg (ovistic preformation) or the male sperm (animalculist preformation), and -the assumption of unisexual inheritance, that is of the view, that either the male or the female parent's properties get transferred to the offspring, and that the offspring either inherits the properties of the mother through the female egg (ovistic preformation) or inherits the properties of the father through the male sperm (animalculist preformation).
In order to provide evidence for these characteristics, I would now like to illustrate some of them with a few historical examples. 8 Jacques Roger (1963) and Peter J. Bowler (1971) try to claim that there is a difference between the notions of preformation and pre-existence in the characterization of preformationist theories, which has been taken up (often reluctently) by later historians of science. Bowler (1971, p. 222) formualtes the distinction as follows: "All theories based upon the belief that organisms have been in existence in the form of miniatures since the creation of the universe will be called pre-existence theories". "The term "preformation" will be retained only for the belief that the miniature which grows into the full organism is actually within the body of the parent." Shirley Roe (1981, p. 174) rephrases Roger's and Bowler's distinction such that preformation designates "early seventeenth-century theories that held that the embryo is preformed in the parent before conception", whereas pre-existence meant "eighteenth-century beliefs that all embryos have existed from the Creation". Roe nevertheless decides to use both terms interchangeably. Clara Pinto- Correira (1997, p. xxi) describes the same debate on a conceptual distinction such that preformation is "the assumption that the primordial organism already contains inside itself all other organisms of the same species, perfectly preformed, minuscle though they might be", whereas pre-existence means that "the primordial organism contains only the basic blueprints of all related organisms to come". Pinto-Correira opts to not "dwell upon th[is] distinction". Phillip Sloan (2002) mentions the distinction and names Charles Perrault as an example of a pre-existence theory of germs, according to which germs are divinely created and are "generally dispersed in nature at creation". They "are taken in by organisms with their food", and unfold under proper conditions "in the parental organism" (Sloan, 2002, p. 233). As is visible, Bowler, Roe, Pinto-Correira, and Sloan have similar, but slightly different approaches of both terms. I do not want to discuss this distinction further here, since it never spoke to me, but would like to mention it for those who are aware of these subtleties. is the actual plant in all its parts, with leaves, mostly two, a stalk or stem, and a bud (Malpighi, 1675/9, p. 9). 9 Similarly, in another passage of the Anatome, Malphigi writes that the seedling, which is enclosed in the semen, already represents the entire plant with all its essential parts: roots and a stem that will elongate, and two leaves that will enfold as cotyledons during the germination. Since the semen of larger animals that can observed more easily consists in eggs, Malphigi conjectures that the semen of plants that can be observed less easily consists in eggs as well. Malphigi claims that the foetus and its essential parts enfold when outer moisture penetrates the semen and causes pressure to the foetus (Malpighi, 1675/9, pp. 80-81). 10 A second example of ovistic preformation is Jan Swammerdam's (1637Swammerdam's ( -1680 analysis of the reproduction and heredity of insects, above all of bees, as described in his Biblia naturae (1737/8). In this book, Swammerdam mentions a similar ovistic preformationist view as Malphigi. Swammerdam writes that the smallest animals (such as mites) emerge out of an egg which is nearly invisible, and that the origin of the largest animals is no other (Swammerdam, 1737/8, p. 2a). 11 In a reflection on butterflies Swammerdam remarks that nothing is more astonishing among all natural things than a caterpillar that develops into a winged animal (a butterfly). Swammerdam thinks that this astonishment is caused by the nature of the puppet, in which the entire animal is concealed, as an entire flower is concealed in a bud (Swammerdam 1737/8, p. 5a). 12 The puppet not only contains all parts of the future 9 "Tantus partium apparatus in gratiam conditi seminis à Natura fabrefactus est. Hoc autem est foetus, vera scil. planta, suis integrè conformata partibus, foliis videlicet, utplurimùm binis, caudice seu caule & gemmâ" (Malpighi, 1675/9, p. 9). 10 "Contentus foetus, seu plantula, suis integrata partibus, taliter custodita in longum etiam servatur tempus. In hac itaq; plantae vera species compendio elucescit, & viri emancipati filii status innuitur; conicum enim, quandoq; oblongum, & interdum breve, occurit corpus, quod vegetando radiculas promit, unde radicum truncus erit: Caulis autem, & Caudicis major portio sub specie adhuc gemmae latitare videtur, à cujus principio & exortu gemina pendere vidimus seminalia folia, suis ligneis fistulis, tracheis, & utriculis constantia, quae diu servatum succum iterum plantulae reaffundunt, ut auctior redditus truncus, gemmâ scilicet & elongatis radiculis, sensim adolescat. In Vegetantibus, quorum seminales plantulae laxatis foliis privantur (ut in alliis deprehendinus) multiplices utriculorum ordines, in plantulam inclinati, auctivum succum praebent, qui in iisdem primò maceratur, & postremò effluit" (Malpighi, 1675/9, pp. 80-81). 11 "Accedit, quod, uti minima Animantium, Acari v. g. ex ovuloprae tenuitate vix conspicuo nascuntur; sic& maxima Animantium haud insigniores, vel magis manifestos, ne dicam obscuriores potius, magisque a visu remotos ortus obtineant" (Swammerdam, 1737/8, p. 2a animal, but is the future animal itself (Swammerdam, 1737/8, p. 9a). 13 Swammerdam also mentions a divine creator and claims that it is the will and wisdom of God that fashions the eggs of animals in specific ways, so that the egg of one species is different from that of another (Swammerdam, 1737/8, p. 15ab). 14 A third example of ovistic preformation can be found in Charles Bonnet's (1720Bonnet's ( -1793 Considérations sur les corps organisés (1762). In this book, Bonnet assumes the preformationist principle of development and presupposes that every organized body preexists before fecundation, while the fecundation does nothing else than developing an organized whole which had been looming before in little in the semen or egg. Bonnet believes that in the closer future the preexistence of the germ in the female will be proven, while it will become obvious that the male semen generates nothing (Bonnet, 1762, p. VI). 15 Also another passage of the Considérations confirms this view. There Bonnet claims that every organized body grows through development: when it becomes visible one can see in it in very small the same essential parts that one will see later in it in large. This leads Bonnet to the conclusion that the organized bodies were present already in the germs before their development into larger bodies (Bonnet, 1762, pp. 14-15). 16 Bonnet thinks that the germ is the foundation and model of the organized body and that it contains in little all essential parts of the plant or the animal that it represents (Bonnet, 1762, p. 20). 17 And Bonnet also points explicitely to a divine creator. He states that when the supreme architect arranged the fons in sola consistat ignoratione indolis & naturae Nymphae aut Chrysallidis, utpote in quibus Animalculum ipsum, ceu flos in suo folliculo, absconditum haeret. Bina autem isthaec Nymphae & Chryssalidis vocabula non duntaxat unum idemque significant" (Swammerdam, 1737/8, p. 5a). 13 "[H]aec, inquam, Chrysallis haud secus, ac modo de Nymphis prioribus adferuimus, non solum omnes in se partes futuri Animalculi continet, sed etiam ipsum illud futurum Animalculum jam revera est" (Swammerdam, 1737/8, p. 9a). 14 "Huic equidem respondeo, vix ac ne vix quidem ist-haec posse explicari; quum eorum rationes in arcana Summi Conditoris, qui alio alia Animantia vestitu donavit, sapientia atque arbitrio occlusae lateant" (Swammerdam, 1737/8, p. 15ab). 15 "J'avois admis l' Evolution, comme le principe le plus conforme aux Faits & à la saine Philosophie. Je supposois que tout Corps Organisé préexistoit à la Fécondation, & que celle-ci ne faisoit que procurer le Développement du Tout organique dessiné auparavant en miniature dans la Graîne ou dans l'Oeuf. J'essayois d'expliquer comment la Fécondation opéroit cet effet, & à mesure que j'analysois, je me persuadois de plus en plus qu'on démontreroit un jour la préexistence du Germe dans la Femelle, & que l'Esprit séminal n'engendroit rien" (Bonnet, 1762, p. VI). 16 "Tout Corps organisé croît par Développement. Au moment, où il commence d'être visible, on lui voit, très en petit, les mêmes Parties essentielles qu'il offrira plus en grand dans la suite. . . . Nous sommes donc conduits à penser, que les Corps Organisés qui existent aujourdhui, existoient avant leur naîssance, dans des Germes, ou Corpuscules Organiques" (Bonnet, 1762, pp. 14-15). 17 "ON dit que le Germe est une ébauche ou une esquisse du Corps Organisé. . . . Ou il faut admettre que le Germe contient actuellement en raccourci toutes les Parties essentielles à la Plante ou à l'Animal qu'il représente" (Bonnet, 1762, p. 20 generation and development of plants and animals in this way he completed his work to the highest degree of perfection (Bonnet, 1762, p. 112 Leeuwenhoek's (1632Leeuwenhoek's ( -1723 detection of a homunculus in the male sperm as described in his letters to the Royal Society in 1677 and subsequent years. In his first report of his detection, Leuwenhoek notes that when a Mr. Ham visited him, he brought with him in a small glass phial, the spontaneously discharged semen of a man who was suffering from gonorrhoea; saying that, after very few minutes, he had seen living animalcules in it. These animalcules possessed tails, and did not remain alive above twenty-four hours. Leeuwenhoek then confesses that he himself has divers times examined the same matter (human semen) from a healthy man, and that he has seen so great a number of living animalcules in it, that sometimes more than a thousand were moving in an amount of material the size of a grain of sand. Their bodies which were round, were blunt in front and ran to a point behind. They were furnished with a thin tail, about five or six times as long as the body, and very transparent (Leeuwenhoek, 1677. 19 Based on these observations, Leuwenhoek notes, that he now is more certain than before that human beings originate not from an egg but from an animalcule that is found in male sperm (Leeuwenhoek 1677in 1939. He insists that it is exclusively the male semen that forms the foetus, and that everything a female can contribute only serves to receive the semen and feed it (Leeuwenhoek, 1677in 1939 A second example of animalculist preformation appears in a passage of Nicolaas Hartsoeker's (1656Hartsoeker's ( -1725 Essay de dioptrique (1694, p. 320) in which Hartsoeker says that he 18 "C'est ainsi que le SUPREME ARCHITECTE a porté son Ouvrage au plus grand dégré de perfection qu'il pouvoit recevoir. SA SAGESSE a révêtu la Matière d'un nombre presque infini de modificat ions, dont le Monde physique est la somme" (Bonnet, 1762, p. 112). 19 "Toen deze heer Ham voor de tweede maal bij mij kwam, bracht hij met zich mee, in een glazen fleschje, het van zelf ontloopen teelzaad van een man, die aan gonorrhoea leed, zeggende dat hij na zeer weinige minuten, . . . levende dietrtjes had gezien, waarvan hij oordeelde, dat zij staartjes hadden en niet langer dan 24 uur leefden. . . . Dezelfde materie (mannelijk teelzaad) heb ik verscheidene malen geobserveerd, . . . maar van een gezond mensch, terstond na de ejyculatije, zoodat zelfs geen zes polsslagen zijn verlopen, en ik heb daarin een zoo groote menigte levende diertjes gezien, dat soms meer dan 1000 van die diertjes zich in de grootte van een zandkorrel bewogen . . . . Hun lichamen, die ron waren, hadden een voorste deel dat stomp was, en een achterste deel dat spits toeliep; zij waren voorzien van een dunnnen staart, die in lengte 5 a 6 maal het lichaam overtrof en zeer doorschijnendwas . . . ." (Leeuwenhoek 1677. 20 "Soo stel ik nu veel sekerder als voor deesen, dat een Mensch niet uijt een eij, maer uijt een Dierken, dat int mannelijk saat is voort komt" (Leeuwenhoek 1677. "[H]et saet vanden man, alleen de vrugt formeert, en al wat de vrouw soude mogen toe brengen, alleen is, omme het mannelijck saet te ontfangen, off de voeden" (Leeuwenhoek 1677 has detected a little homunculus in male semen. A related illustration can be found at the end of the Essay de dioptrique (1694, p. 320). It shows a cowering homunculus who is wrapping his arms around his legs and is sitting in the head of a male sperm. Hartsoeker emphasizes in the Essay (1694, p. 227) that he had published on his (!) detection of animalcules already in August 1678, in the Journal des Sçavans 30. 21 Said journal indeed contains a small note in which Hartsoeker states that he has found tiny animals in the shape of little eels or frogs in the urine and semen of a cock. 22 A third example of animalculist preformation can be found in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's (1646Leibniz's ( -1716 writings. In his Monadology (1714) Leibniz writes that as natural scientists once recognized that natural organic bodies always origin out of semen in which a kind of preformation took place, they came to the conclusion that not only has the organic body been in the semen before generation, but that a soul also has been in this body, and, in a word, the animal itself. They assumed that such an animal is furnished with a disposition for transformation into an animal of another kind. Something similar, they thought, appears even in other processes than reproductive ones when, for instance, a worm becomes a fly or a caterpillar a butterfly (Leibniz,Monadologie §74). 23

Characteristics of epigenesis
As in the case of preformation there also existed a wide variety of epigenetic accounts. 25 In order to complete the classification of histroical accounts in part 1.1 of my paper, I will now present the corresponding set of characteristics of epigenetic models of reproduction and heredity. Also with regard to epigenetic models, so far scholars have pointed out some of the criteria, but no one has provided a more detailed and comprehensive, systematic list of epigenetic features. 26  -the assumption of the successive development of the characteristics and parts of the living being, and d'Elûs, qui passe à un plus grand theatre" (Leibniz, Monadologie §75). 25 Epigenetic theories began to replace preformationist theories in the middle of the eigtheenth cerntury. For reasons that led to this transition, see Ilse Jahn (1982, pp. 226-65), Peter McLaughlin (1989, and Ina Goy (2017, pp. 308-15). McLaughlin argues, first, that a scientific reinterpretation of geological and cosmological theories replaced theological explanations of the macrocosmos, second, that the emergence of a specific biological species criterion helped to consider belonging to the same kind to be no longer based on the similarity of the form but on the common descent and reproductive ability, third, that the enforcement of philosophical atomism in natural and social theory was incompatible with preformation, and, fourth, that the origin of a general concept of the reproduction of an organic system replaced divine interventions in nature.-Goy names three reasons: first, that preformation theories faced the problem of an infinite regress of germs, second, that Abraham Trembley's polyp experiments gave proof of the self-regenration of organized beings, and third, that bastards showed clearly that offspring is generated by both parents and not only the mother (ovism) or the father (animalculism). Also monstrosities posed a challenge to preformationists, since their 'reproductive failures' would have been intentionally created by God. 26 John Zammito (2003, p. 87 and2007, pp. 54-55) discusses the three criteria of epigenetic accounts that Arthur Genova (1974) mentions: "autonomy, community, and reflexivity". Zammito comments on these criteria: "In my terms, I would stress the radicality of emergence by replacing autonomy with spontaneity. By community Genova signifies the mutuality of cause and effect and of parts and whole which is central to the notion of organic form, especially as Kant articulated it. Reflexivity, finally, has to do with the self-regulating, self-forming dimension as a persistent feature of life-forms, over and above the question of their emergence de novo". I share with Genova und Zammito the criterium of the autonomy of nature (as opposed to nature's dependence on the divine), and the emphasis on natural forces and laws, which are responsible for the generation and growth of an organism. However, as mentioned in my list, one can provide further criteria, especially in direct contrast with and comparison to characteristics of preformation. 27 For a variety of historical uses of the term 'epigenesis' apart from the early modern period, see the special collection on the history of the notion by Charles Wolfe and Antonine Nicoglou (2018).  (1651) is no unambiguous example of epigenesis, since Harvey's account contains characteristics of ovistic preformation as well, he is the first, or one of the first, early modern thinkers who coined the term 'epigenesis'. The chick, Harvey notes, is produced by epigenesis, or by an addition of the parts that successively arise (Harvey, 1651(Harvey, engl. 1965. 28 In another passage of The Generation of Animals he notes: "Now it appears clear . . . that the generation of the chick from the egg is the result of epigenesis . . ., and that all its parts . . . emerge in their due succession and order . . .; also that the generation of some parts supervenes on others previously existing, from which they become distinct; lastly, that its origin, growth, and consummation are brought about by the method of nutrition; and that at length the foetus is thus produced. For the formative faculty of the chick rather acquires and prepares its own material for itself than only finds it when prepared, and the chick seems to be found and to receive its growth from no other than itself. . . . [T]he same efficient and conservative faculty is found in the egg as in the chick; and of the same material of which it constitutes the first particle of the chick, out of the very same does it nourish, increase, and superadd all the other parts. Lastly, in generation . . . by epigenesis the whole is put together out of parts in a certain order, and constituted from them" (Harvey, 1651(Harvey, engl. 1965). 29 28 "[P]er epigenesin, sive partium superexorientium additamentum, pullum fabricari certum est" (Harvey, 1651, p. 189). 29 "Liquidò itaque ex historia nostra constat, pulli generationem ex ovo, fieri potiùs per epigenesin quàm per metamorphôsin; neque omnes ejus partes simul fabricari, sed successivè, atque ordine emergere, eundémque simul, dum augetur, formari; & augeri, dum formatur; partésque alias aliis prioribus supergenerari, & distingui; principiùmque, augmentum & perfectionem procedere per modumcrescendi, tandèmque exoriri foetum. Facultas enim pulli formatrix, materiam potiùs sibi acquirit, & parat, quàm paratam invenit: videtúrque pullus haud ab alio fieri, vel augeri, quàm à se ipso. Et quemadmodum omnia, ex quo fiunt, ab eodem augentur: ità similiter, à quo pullus conservatur, & augentur ab initio (sive id anima, sive facultas animae fuerit) ab eodem quoque (ut suprà diximus) eum fieri credibile est. Idem enim reperitur tum in ovo, tum in pullo, efficiens, ac conservans; ex qua materia primam pulli particulam constituit, ex eadem nutrit, auget, & superaddit reliquas omnes. Denique, in generatione per metamorphôsin, totum in partes distribuitur & discernitur; per epigenesin verò, totum es partibus certo ordine componitur, ac constutuitur" (Harvey, 1651, pp. 155-56) ( 2 1745). In this book Maupertuis writes mysteriously that when silver and the spirit of salpeter are mingled with mercury and water, the parts of these matters merge into something that equals an arbor so much that one actually must call it an arbor-arbor Diane (Maupertuis, 2 1745(Maupertuis, 2 / 7 1777. 30 And though it seems that these generations are less organic than the bodies of most animals they seem to be dependent, Maupertuis writes, upon the same mechanical orders and laws, and seem to require the same laws of motion and powers (Maupertuis, 2 1745/ 7 1777, pp. 132-33), namely those powers that others call 'attraction' (and repulsion) (Maupertuis, 2 1745/ 7 1777, p. 134). 31 About bisexual reproduction of inherited resemblances, Maupertuis remarks that if two parts that are supposed to connect, are connected, a third part which could have filled the same place, finds no place in such a composite, and remains without a purpose. Consequently, offspring is formed from parts of the father and the mother, and often has visible characteristics of both (Maupertuis,2 1745/ 7 1777, pp. 136-37). 32 A third example of mechanical epigenesis can be found Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon's (1707Buffon's ( -1788 account of reproduction and heredity in the second volume of his Histoire naturelle générale et particulière (1749). According to Buffon the body of an animal or plant has an inner form (moule intérieur) the shape of which cannot change, but whose mass and size can properly expand. The growth or unwrapping of an animal or plant takes place when the inner form expands in all its inner and outer measures. This expansion takes place due to additional outer matter, which ingresses the plant or animal and gets assimilated to the form and shape and the already existing matter (Buffon, 1749, pp. 42-43). 33 In another 30 "Lorsque l'on mêle de l'argent & de l'esprit de nitre avec du mercure & de l'eau, les parties de ces matieres viennent d'ellesmêmes s'arranger pour former une végétation si semblable à un arbre, qu'on n'a pu lui en refuser le nom.*", "Arbre de Diane" (Maupertuis, 2 1745/ 7 1777, p. 130). 31 "Et quoique celles-ci paroissent moins organisées que les corps de la plupart des animaux, ne pourroientelles pas dépendre d'une même méchanique & de quelques loix pareilles ? Les loix ordinaires du mouvement y suffiroient-elles, ou faudroit-il 133 appeller au secours des forces nouvelles?" (Maupertuis, 2 1745/ 7 1777, pp. 132-33). "Je ne puis m'empêcher d'avertir ici, que ces forces & ces rapports ne sont autre chose que ce que d'autres Philosophes plus hardis appellent Attraction" (Maupertuis, 2 1745/ 7 1777, p. 134). 32 "Mais les deux parties qui doivent se toucher, étant une fcis unies, une troisieme qui auroit pu faire la même union, ne trouve plus sa place, & demeure inut ile. C'est ainsi, c'est par ces opérations répétées, que l'enfant est formé des parties du pere & de la mere, & porte souvent des marques visibles qu'il participe de l'un & de l'autre" (Maupertuis, 2 1745/ 7 1777, pp. 136-37). 33 "Il nous paroît donc certain que le corps de l'animal ou du végétal est un moule intérieur qui a une forme constante, mais dont la masse & le volume peuvent augmenter proportionellement, & que l'accroissement, ou, si l'on veut, le développement de l'animal ou 43 du végétal, ne se fait que par l'extension de ce moule dans toutes ses dimensions extérieurs & intérieurs, que cette extension se fait par l'intussusception d'une matière accesoire & étrangère qui pénètre dans l'intérieur, qui devient semblable à la forme identique avec la matière du passage of the Histoire naturelle Buffon writes that it is impossible to sufficiently explain the reproduction and development of organisms by something other than penetrating (mechanical) forces and affinities, or by (the mechanical force of) attraction, forces that Buffon himself uses in order to mechanically explain the similarities of the formation of smaller organisms to that of larger ones (Buffon, 1749, p. 66). 34 Buffon writes that all animals, males as much as females, all who have both genders or neither of both, all plants of whatever kind, and all bodies living or growing, consist in living organic particles ("parties organiques vivantes") that can be observed. These organic particles can be found in larger amounts in the semen of animals, in the germs of fruits, and in the essential parts of plants and animals. When they are sent out by essential parts of growing animal's bodies their unification causes the reproduction and generation of a body that equals the plant or animal, in which this emission of organic particles takes place. The reason for this is that the unification of organic particles takes place due to an inner form, and thus cannot take place in another order than the form of the plant or animal which reproduces it. And in this consists the nature of the unity and continuous reproduction of the species, which can never come to an end and will endure as long as its creator wants it to endure (Buffon, 1749, p. 258 (1759). In this writing Wolff notes that there must be a force in plants by means of which liquids get collected from the surrounding earth, get forced to penetrate the roots, get distributed through the entire plant, and get partly stored at various places, and partly moule" (Buffon, 1749, pp. 42-43). 34 "La première se tire de l'analogie qu'il y a entre le développement & la reproduction, l'on ne peut pas expliquer le développement d'une manière satisfaisante, sans employer les forces pénétrantes & les affinités ou attractions que nous avons employées pour expliquer la formation des petits êtres organisez semblables aux grands" (Buffon, 1749, p. 66). 35 "Tous les animaux, mâles ou femelles, tous ceux qui sont pourvûs des deux sèxes ou qui en sont privez, tous les végétaux, de quelques espèces qu'ils soient, tous les corps en un mot, vivans ou végétans, sont donc composez de parties organiques vivantes qu'on peut démontrer aux yeux de tout le monde: ces parties organiques sont en plus grande quantité dans les liqueurs séminales des animaux, dans les germes des amandes des fruits, dans les graines, dans les parties les plus substantielles de l'animal ou du végétal, & c'est de la réunion de ces parties organiques, renvoyées de toutes les parties du corps de l'animal ou du végétal, que se fait la reproduction, toûjours semblable à l'animal ou au végétal dans lequel elle s'opère, parce que la réunion de ces parties organiques ne peut se faire qu'au moyen du moule intérieur, c'est-à-dire, dans l'ordre que produit la forme du corps de l'animal ou du végétal, & c'est en quoi consiste l'essence de l'unité & de la continuité des espèces qui dèslors ne doivent jamais s'épuiser, & qui d'elles-mêmes dureront autant qu'il plaira à celui qui les a créées de les laisser subsister" (Buffon, 1749, p. 258). Ina goy Kant e-Prints, Campinas, série 2, v. 17, n. 3, pp. 142-172, set.-dez. 2022 excreted again (Wolff, 1759, p. 1). 36 Wolff adds that this force cannot be a mere attractive force, as the plant's transpiration shows (Wolff, 1759, p. 1); 37 and continues that whatever the character of this force might be--be it an attractive or a driving force, be it that it exists as a consequence of the expanded air, or that it is composed out of all these and other factors--this force is capable of all the effects mentioned, and one has to presuppose this force. Wolff calls it an 'essential force' (vis essentialis) (Wolff, 1759, p. 1). 38 Wolff discusses the same matters in his Theorie der Generation (1764Generation ( in 1966. In §67 of this book Wolff gives an account of the epigenetic successive formation of organic bodies.

Kant's views on preformation and epigenesis
Wolff claims that the different parts of organic bodies all arise one after another. They emerge in such a way that one part is always either excreted from another if it is a free and self-sufficient part, that is dependent only upon the one whom it owes its production, or is deposited after another if it is enclosed within it; as has been shown by plants and animals.
It follows that every part is, in the first place, an effect of another preceding part, and then in turn becomes the cause of other succeeding parts. Each part is in the beginning, when it is excreted or deposited, inorganic, and it is only organized when it has already excreted other parts. That excretion of one part by the other, thus goes on for some time, but ceases at last.
And those parts which have finally been excreted remain the last, and do not excrete other parts. These last parts are thus for example the fingers of the animals, or their toes; in the plants, the small spaces between the last and smallest ribs in the leaves, when they are fully grown (Wolff, 1764(Wolff, in 1966 , série 2, v. 17, n. 3, pp. 142-172, set.-dez. 2022 formativus)' in order to distinguish it from other natural powers (Blumenbach, 1781, pp. 12-13). 39 Blumenbach emphasizes that this drive is neither similar to a vis plastica nor to Wolff's vis essentialis nor does it equal forces of chemical fermentation nor that of blind expansion nor other mere mechanical forces that others assumed in order to explain the reproduction of organisms (Blumenbach, 1781, pp. 13-14). 40 Blumenbach also develops a typical epigenetic notion of successively emerging embryonic parts. He notes that scholars widely agree that offspring (of humans or animals) does not appear immediately after impregnation and that human embryos cannot be seen prior to the third week of pregnancy. He explains this on the basis of male and female seminal juices that mingle in the process of impregnation, and need some time to achieve an inner connection or to ripen before the formative drive can be activated in them and can begin the formation of the so far unformed matter (Blumenbach, 1781, pp. 40-42). 41
Among the defenders of epigenetic claims in Kant is Clark Zumbach (1984). In one of the now classical interpretations of Kant's philosophy of biology, he negates traditional variants of vitalism but defends a new version of vitalist epigenesis in Kant. As traditional vitalists Zumbach considers people who claim that "a living thing is not only made up of physical inanimate parts, but also consists of a non-material entity which brings with it the activities characteristic of living organisms. This vital entity, in animating the organism, distinguishes the organic from the inorganic" (Zumbach, 1984, p. 83). Zumbach negates that Kant holds a vitalism of this kind. Nevertheless he thinks that Kant holds on to a different type of anti-mechanism or -reductionism when he assumes forces in organisms which are analogous to the causality of human freedom and are operative besides mechanical causation.
In some passages Zumbach even identifies these forces with freedom itself. Even so, this seemed to postulate the objective actuality of these forces for natural science.

Another defender of epigenetic claims in Kant is
Hence Kant faced the ultimate need for a second step: to transpose the whole matter from the constitutive to the regulative order". Zammito (2006, p. 317) discusses the relationship between Pierre Louis Maupertuis and Kant and states: "I suspect that Kant was never comfortable with epigenesis, that it was a strain for his critical philosophy even when he explicitly invoked it", and claims that Kant remained committed to both, preformation and epigenesis. And Zammito (2007, p. 51)  Joan Steigerwald (2006), Siegfried Roth (2008), Marjorie Grene andDavid Depew (2004), andMark Fisher (2014) hold synthetic views as well, but based on much narrower textual evidence. Steigerwald (2006, p. 716) writes on §81 of the KU: "In accounting for the development of an individual organized being, Kant now favored epigenesis over preformation as it minimizes the appeal to the supernatural", the preformationist element in Kant's account. Similar to Steigerwald, Roth (2008, pp. 284-85) notes on §81 of the KU that In a paper on Kant and Maupertuis, Mark Fisher (2014, pp. 25-41)

writes in view of
Kant's §81 of the KU: "According to Kant, the physiologist is warranted in providing an epigenetic account of generation, but is also constrained by the need to appeal to the vital functioning of organic bodies in such an account. The metaphysician or the transcendental philosopher is warranted in appealing to immaterial principles as grounds of this possibility, but is also constrained by the requirement to do so in a way that will not undermine a naturalcausal account of the production of these bodies from other bodies of the same kind.
Malebranche and other adherents to preexistence fail to recognize this latter constraint, and Kant agrees with Maupertuis that this failure provides us with non-empirical reasons for rejecting preexistence. The commitment to a fundamental generative or formative power, by contrast, allows Kant to offer a model of organic generation that recognizes both of these constraints. That model involves adherence to a version of epigenesis that can also be described as generic preformation".
In a certain way one could quote Mark Fisher also for a reading that even denies an influence of the preformation-epigenesis debate on the development of Kant's account, since  , série 2, v. 17, n. 3, pp. 142-172, set.-dez. 2022 As is visible, the debate is in a developed state, but can still be improved in some regards. I have addressed the lacking comprehensive analysis of preformationist and epigenetic early modern models of reproduction and heredity in part 1 of the paper, and have suggested a set of systematic preformationist and epigenetic characteristics, which will, as I hope, help to determine Kant's philosophical relationship to his predecessors. I will now search for the selected characteristics in different periods of Kant's thoughts, in

Is Kant a defender of preformation?-Characteristics of preformation. A reminder
As mentioned in part 1.1, preformationist models of reproduction and heredity shared the assumption of divine creation and a creator and the negation of the autonomy of nature; the assumption that this God preforms germs out of which the generation and development of living beings takes place; the assumption that these preformed germs contain in small all characteristics of the future living being, so that the development of a living being appears as an enfolding, unwrapping, and enlargement of the characteristics that are already contained in the germ; and the assumption of the simultaneous generation of these characteristics. Two main directions of preformationist interpretations of reproduction and heredity developed, since its defenders either held that the germ is the female egg (ovistic preformation) or is the male sperm (animalculist preformation); connected to the views that either the female or the male parent alone transfers properties to the offspring by means of 43 Detailed historical discussions of preformationist and epigenetic biological models can be found in Philippe Huneman's (2008) book Métaphysique and biologie. Kant et la constitution du concept d'organisme, a book written in French, and in Jennifer Mensch (2013). But both books do not develop a clear set of systematic criteria which are present in preformationist and epigenetic accounts. Tobias Cheung's (2008) book Res vivens covers closely related historical materials but is not primarily concerned with the preformation-epigensis controversy.  (1788). There is more relevant material, for instance in Kant's review of Herder's Ideen, but the limited space of this paper disallows its inclusion here. Ina goy unisexual inheritance. In the first case the offspring obtains the properties of the mother through the female egg (ovistic preformation), in the second the properties of the father through the male sperm (animalculist preformation).-I would like to consider now whether Kant adopts any of the characteristics of preformationist models of reproduction and heredity in his Ground of Proof essay, his three writings on races, and in his third Critique.

Preformationist characteristics in Kant's Ground of Proof essay
In 1763 Kant is a strong defender of the preformationist element of creation. He claims a constitutive notion of God as the creator of even the matter, that is, the possibility of nature, and argues against weaker accounts that consider God only a 'moral' cause or an architect of nature, that is, an organizer of nature's form through his will (BDG, 2: 100.20-32, BDG, 2: 110.24-26). Kant's idea seems to be that God's will is required in order to give nature that already exists its particular purposive and beautiful form, but more than God's will is required to bring about nature at all, to make nature possible. Thus, Kant considers  , série 2, v. 17, n. 3, pp. 142-172, set.-dez. 2022

Preformationist characteristics in Kant's writings on races
In Kant's writings on races a first preformationist feature, again, is the strong constitutive concept of creation. But Kant is far more adapted to the terminology of the preformation-epigenesis debate. Kant talks about the nature of "created germs [anerschaffene Keime]" (BBMR, 8: 103.2) and "created predispositions [anerschaffene Anlagen]" (BBMR,8: 96.35) or about the fact that the germs and natural predispositions of organized beings have been "preformed [vorgebildet]" (VvRM, 2: 435.3), whereby the terms "created" and "preformed" contain apparent references to a creator as a 'preformer'.
A second preformationist feature is Kant's adoption of the notion of preformed germs and preformed natural predispositions. Kant mentions such germs and predispositions at several places, above all in his writing ÜGTP (ÜGTP,8: 169.12,14;(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13), 46 48 In a reflection on metaphysics (Refl, from the year 1769 Kant raises the question whether everything in the character of a child is dependent upon the man or the woman, and considers answers from perspectives of both kinds of preformation. The "system of eggs [System der ovulorum]", he thinks, presupposes that a woman would have the same children with another man; the system of "sperms [animalculorum]" that a man would have the same children with another woman. Kant comments ironically on the embarrassing results of both theories: parents who are preformationists enjoy the practical advantage that in view of their reproductive success they need to consider the race and constitution of one of both parents only. In ovism the male parent has to consider the constitution and race only of the prospective mother, in animalculism the female parent the constitution and race only of the prospective father (Refl,. In another reflection on anthropology (Refl, 15/2: 554.1-5) from the mid 1760s to the mid 1770s, Kant notes: "If everything were laying in the egg the male would have no reasons for jealousy; if everything in the sperm, the female not. In the first case children would not belong to the father, in the second not to the mother. Him or her would provide the primal nutrition only, or the primal warmth, as if the child were a frozen man [Wenn alles in den ovulis wäre, so hätte der Mann nicht Ursache ialoux zu seyn; oder wenn in den animalculis: die Frau nicht. Im ersten Falle gehoreten die Kinder nicht dem Vater, im zweyten nicht der Mutter; sondern es wäre nur die erste Ernahrung, die er ihnen gäbe, oder erste Erwärmung, wie bey einem erfrohrenen Menschen]". Ina goy Kant e-Prints, Campinas, série 2, v. 17, n. 3, pp. 142-172, set.-dez. 2022

Preformationist characteristics in Kant's KU
In the KU Kant is still close to preformationist views when he uses a now weaker, regulativ concept of creation. Though he describes the preformation of natural objects by God, he emphasizes that this concept of God is no empirical, constitutive, but a hypothetical, regulative concept. Other than in his writings on races, in which Kant focuses on aspects that interpret God as the 'preformer' of germs and natural predispositions, a designer who acts at the beginning of creation, Kant' A new aspect in the KU is that Kant includes among man's original predispositions a moral predisposition, which is a predisposition that directs man to the ultimate purpose of humanity, the moral good (KU,(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17). This moral teleological perspective hardly plays any role in Kant's writings on races and is nothing that Kant adopted from his predecessors, but is decisive in Kant's KU. One could say that at this point Kant invents a new preformationist characteristic that he had not found in the traditional literature on the subject written before his KU.
In §81, Kant distinguishes between generic and individual preformation, a terminology that was not popular among defenders of preformation before Kant. Kant describes advantages of the assumption of the preformation of the genus (generic preformation) over the assumption of the preformation of the individual (individual preformation). The typical feature of generic preformation is that the "specific form  , série 2, v. 17, n. 3, pp. 142-172, set.-dez. 2022 appreciates the reduction of the strong preformationist characteristic of the creation of each individual to a weaker notion of the creation of the species, but he clearly appreciates a weaker preformationist notion of creation.

Is Kant a defender of epigenesis?-Characteristics of epigenesis. A reminder
As mentioned in part 1.2 of the paper, epigenetic models of reproduction and heredity shared the assumption of the autonomy of nature (and a decreasing importance of  , série 2, v. 17, n. 3, pp. 142-172 Besides more or less weakened preformationist elements such as a constitutive assumption of God in the writings on races or the regulative idea of God in the KU, Kant accepts weakened epigenetic elements, when he adopts the existence of mechanical and vitalistic powers and laws of nature as secondary causes of the generation of living beings. In Kant's writings on races, the creative aspect of these natural powers and laws lies in the generative power; in the KU in the formative power and in physical teleological laws of nature. With epigenetic accounts Kant also shares the bisexual explanation of heredity. In general, Kant remains closer to vitalistic than mechanical variants of the epigenesis.
In his synthesis of epigenetic and preformationist elements, Kant liberates nature to some extent epigenetically when he attributs to nature creative generative and formative powers and physical teleological laws, but at the same time restricts them as final causes through preformationist elements: through the idea of God at the beginning and at end of the creation. The most creative moment of nature, the intentionality of natural purposes in physical teleological powers and laws, remains dependent upon intentions that are not natural, but divine.
Based on these results, my responses to the debate are the following. Clark Zumbach (1984, pp. 79-113) who admits that Kant is a vitalist with regard to something in organisms, which is analogous to human freedom, is right if these vitalist epigenetic elements in Kant's account are the generative or the formative power and physical teleological laws of nature, but there is no freedom and volition in nature, and even in men the formative power is a force besides freedom. Hans Peter Reill's (2005, p. 246) and Philippe Huneman's (2006, pp. 651-54;2007, p. 12) assumption that Kant partakes in the program of 'enlightenment vitalism' is justified. However, Reill and Huneman underestimate or even ignore the preformationist elements in Kant's approach. Boris Demarest (2017) is right to point out epigenetic features in Kant's account, however, his attempts to assimilate preformationist to epigenetic features is historically troubling. Demarest (2017, p. 3) argues that Kant is leaning towards classical epigenetic models-to Harvey and Aristotle, the "major fixist epigenesits"-and claims that these traditional epigenetic models already contain preformationist elements, and then tries to show that the preformationist features in Kant's account do not contradict an overall traditional epigenetic tendency. But Aristotle developed his theory of reproduction at a time in which the preformation-epigensis controversy did not exist yet, at least not in a literal sense, and never called or even considered himself a defender of epigenesis. Aristotle is not, what Demarest calls a 'fixist epigenesist', as Goy (2018)  and 'epigenesis' from one or two particular thinkers who use these terms in certain ways (or even, did not use them) in their accounts, as Demarest does, I suggest to rather see preformation and epigenesis as abstract explanatory models (similar to the rationalismemiricism constellation) that represent opposing features of reproduction theories of a certain epoche, and then to say how the characteristics of theories of particular historical thinkers relate to the characteristics of these models.
Marjorie Grene, David Depew (2004, p. 95), and Siegfried Roth (2008, p. 284 Kant's changing views throughout the years are well captured in Phillip Sloan's (2002) carefully researched paper, a paper, which at the same time follows Kant's changing views through the years, but also manages to focus on the notion of germs and predispositions that, as Sloan thinks, change significantly when placed in either preformationist or epigenetic accounts, and, can therefore serve as indicators of Kant's changing views. However this focus is also to some extent limitating, since it does, for instance, not so well capture insights into Kant's accounts of unisexual preformationist or bisexual epigenetic hereditary patterns. John Zammito (2003Zammito ( , 2006Zammito ( , 2007Zammito ( , and 2016 points out that Kant holds ambivalent views with regard to preformationist and epigenetic accounts of reproduction and heredity in different periods of his thought and that Kant was never entirely comfortable with epigenesis. Zammito bases his arguments often on detailed and learned reconstructions of Kant's relations to thinkers who held preformationist or epigenetic views, and investigates their mutual influences. But Zammito rarely attempts to develop a systematic set of criteria of preformationist and epigenetic models, and if so, these attempts are not entirely original (see Zammito, 2003, p. 87;2007, pp. 54-55).