1. Introduction
This article explores two key dimensions of Immanuel Kant’s Vererbung (inheritance): his lasting impact on philosophical thought and his theoretical contributions to the understanding of heredity. By examining these intertwined perspectives, I aim to shed light on Kant’s evolving ideas on race and inheritance, particularly as they emerged in his early lectures on physical geography. Peter McLaughlin has observed that the ‘concept of heredity seems to have entered German science in the same breath as the concept of race – in the writings of Immanuel Kant’ (McLaughlin Reference McLaughlin, Müller-Wille and Rheinberger2007: 280). Even earlier, in 1875, the German philosopher Fritz Schultze (1846–1908) remarked that Kant’s physical geography already hinted at ‘the idea of an evolutionary history, including that of organic beings, as well as the importance of selection [Zuchtwahl], adaptation [Anpassung], and inheritance [Vererbung]’ (Schultze Reference Schultze1875: 23). While Schultze’s intent was, contrary to McLaughlin’s, to present Kant as a ‘Darwinian before Darwin’ (Darwin Reference Darwin2015: 226),Footnote 1 this article takes a different path, focusing instead on how Kant’s ideas on inheritance evolved during his early lectures on physical geography.
Robert R. Clewis has previously discussed several of Kant’s early lectures, noting that ‘Kant developed a largely climatically based theory of racial differentiation before he developed a mostly hereditary (‘germs-and-endowments’) one’ (Clewis Reference Clewis and Clewis2015: 549). However, Clewis ignores the progression of Kant’s thought between 1758 and 1775. This article pays particular attention to the notes of Georg Hesse (1747–1787), a student who attended Kant’s 1770 course on physical geography. These notes report that Kant had been searching for a heredity-based theory of race before the publication of his first essay on the topic in 1775. McLaughlin, building on insights from Carlos López-Beltrán, emphasizes that before Kant examined the heredity of racial traits, discussions on heredity primarily focused on the transmission of physical defects (López-Beltrán Reference López-Beltrán, Müller-Wille and Rheinberger2007). I will show that during the 1760s and early 1770s, Kant was particularly engaged with these debates. Although he initially adhered to a climatological explanation for human differences, he later incorporated studies on physiological defects, only to revise his position again by 1774-75, shortly before publishing his essay on racial differences.
For Kant, the concept of heredity (Vererbung) evolved from a traditional focus on the mere transmission of hereditary diseases to an understanding of how organisms possess an inherent capacity to adapt to their environment, a capacity that is as well hereditary. As McLaughlin notes, ‘In the race papers Kant introduces the concept of heredity into the philosophical faculty – into biology – where he uses it with decidedly positive connotations, in connection with adaptation, and he applies it to traits that are neither species-typical nor merely individual peculiarities’ (McLaughlin Reference McLaughlin, Müller-Wille and Rheinberger2007: 281). In 1788, Kant wrote that the concept of race is ‘surely well established in the reason of every observer of nature who supposes a self-transmitting peculiar feature in different animals produced from interbreeding [einer sich vererbenden Eigenthümlichkeit verschiedener vermischt zeugenden Thiere], that is to say, a union of cause that does not lie in the concept of its species but was certainly placed originally in the lineal stem stock [Stamme] of the species itself’ (UTP, 8: 176).Footnote 2 With the recent inclusion of student notes from Kant’s physical geography courses in the Akademie Ausgabe (volume 26), we are now in a better position to understand the development of his ideas on inheritance. This article demonstrates that Kant’s early attempts to explain variations within the human species were strongly shaped by studies on physiological defects, marking an important phase in his evolving thought on heredity and race.
2. Kant’s early lectures
The influence of the French naturalist Georges Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707–1788) on Kant’s earliest courses on physical geography has already been stressed (Mensch Reference Mensch2013: 96). He relied heavily on Buffon’s climatological explanations (Clewis Reference Clewis and Clewis2015: 533),Footnote 3 as he also believed that skin colour changes gradually based on the climatic conditions of the region in which a population resides (26.1: 90-1). These aspects of Kant’s ideas seemed common knowledge, so much so that, in 1760, the German theologian Sebastian Friedrich Trescho (1733–1804) could write in one of his letters: ‘I also believe that Mr. Kant indicates the influence and the relationship of the climate on the disposition and behavior of peoples in some chapters of physical geography’ (quoted in Warda Reference Warda1909: 310; 26.1: lxi-lxii; Clewis Reference Clewis and Clewis2015: 534n). More importantly, although we read in early notes (‘Ms Holstein’) about races of chickens, horses, sheep, and dogs (26.1: 91, 103-4, 107, 122), the term ‘races’ in these notes is not used to divide the human species.Footnote 4 In ‘Ms Hesse’, however, we read: ‘It seems that there are races [racen] of humans, just as there are of other animals, for example, of horses and dogs’ (26.2.1: 107). But then again, already much earlier, namely in his Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and the Sublime (1764), Kant had written about the ‘Persian race’, albeit without specifying what he meant by race (OFBS, 2: 237).
However, we also read in ‘Ms Holstein’ that, according to Kant, while the climate is responsible for these changes, it is not an immediate transformation. Rather, he reportedly argued that such traits become hereditary (erblich) only after many generations. This highlighted a gradual process in which environmental factors play a key role in the development of hereditary traits, such as skin colour, but emphasized that this requires a long period of generational adaptation (26.1: 90-1). According to the notes, Kant asserted that dietary differences, air quality, and selective breeding can lead to changes in animals, such as how chickens can become entirely white if only the white offspring are bred together, eventually creating a white race (eine weiße race) (26.1: 90-1). Also Maupertuis believed that climate and nutrition must have played a role (Maupertuis Reference Maupertuis and Boas1966: 80). However, the little attention that Maupertuis gave to the effects of these influences mainly indicates that his focus was directed elsewhere: in order to formulate a solid theory of generation, he needed a better understanding of inheritance.
With regard to these topics, not much seemed to have changed in Kant’s thinking when, in 1763 and 1764, Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803) attended his courses on physical geography. Kant knew that breeding practices raised questions about the fixity of living forms. Maupertuis dedicated a chapter in his Venus physique to this topic, drawing a parallel between naturally occurring variations and selective breeding practices. We read in Herder’s notes: ‘Maupertuis, in Venus physique, wanted to maintain a harem [Serail] in order to discover human races [Menschenracen]. – through various breedings, people have created dogs, like pugs, for example: similarly with humans: one could observe their intellect: just as in a village with all white chickens: by removing the colored ones’ (Herder: 55).Footnote 5 After mentioning the practice of Pieter Lyonnet (1707–1789) of ‘inventing’ so-called canine ‘species’, Maupertuis indeed asked in his Venus physique why these breeding practices should remain limited to animals: ‘Why don’t the bored Sultans in their seraglios, filled with women of all known races [toutes les especes connues], have them bear new species [especes nouvelles]?’ (Maupertuis Reference Maupertuis and Boas1966: 72).Footnote 6 However, while Maupertuis referred to ‘new species’ (‘especes nouvelles’, translated into German as ‘neue Gattungen’ (Maupertuis Reference Maupertuis1747: 99)), Kant was recorded speaking about the discovery of ‘Menschenracen’ (human races), though, once again, without offering a clear definition of the term.Footnote 7
This did not solve the mystery that Kant actually wanted to unravel, though. In Herder’s notes, we read: ‘Cause of the black color: – Air and sun make [the skin] brown; black is not merely etched by the sun: – how did this become hereditary [wie wurde dies erblich]’ (Herder: 56). Thus, the question was not merely what had caused the skin to turn black, for environmental factors, particularly prolonged exposure to the sun, must have played a crucial role in skin colour transformation. Also another question seemed easy to answer: Why did the black skin colour seem to be geographically specific to Africa? Why is a deepening of skin colour to black, supposedly due to sun exposure, predominantly observed in Africa and not in other sun-exposed regions? In response, according to Herder’s notes, Kant suggested that Africa’s isolation is key to understanding the prevalence of this colour. The continent was cut off by deserts, making it isolated from the rest of the world. Similar to Johannes Lulofs (1711–1768), Kant reportedly asserted that the Romans even found parts of Africa uninhabitable due to the intense heat and the vast deserts. Additionally, the lack of maritime navigation (implying limited contact or mixing with other populations) further isolated the African continent (Lulofs Reference Lulofs1750: 589-90). However, as noted, the question left unanswered was how these naturally produced characteristics could have become hereditary.
In 1770, Kant has been noted to again explain that, as Africa is separated from Europe and Asia by large deserts, it was difficult, if not impossible, for people from these continents to settle in Africa. This isolation is seen as a primary reason why the African population did not intermingle significantly with foreign peoples. It was recorded that Kant also suggested that the physical characteristics of the African people, such as skin colour, developed gradually over time due to the nature of the land (Beschaffenheit des Bodens) and the climate (clima). These environmental factors are said to have imprinted a certain ‘Character’ on the population. This ‘Character’ could eventually become hereditary (erblich). Traits developed due to Africa’s environmental conditions were passed down from one generation to the next, becoming stable characteristics of the population. However, the student notes also tell us that Kant was still not able to answer at least one central question: ‘Yet it remains a mystery how the influence of the air and the sun should have affected the Africans in such a way’ (26.2.1: 114).
By this time, as per the records from his lectures, Kant also explicitly claimed that skin colour was permanent: ‘The facial color of the Negroes does not change even if they are transplanted somewhere else, if only they do not mix with Whites. Their children always remain black, and the albinos always white’ (26.2.1: 112). This does not only underline what puzzled Kant but also where his interest, as recorded by his students, appeared to lie: the phenomenon of inheritance. Subsequently, the notes hint at a possible path for further research: ‘Since often monstrosities [Misgeburten], which are produced by chance, can be a cause of very special races [racen], like the Bilfinger family, each of whom had 6 fingers, and like some time ago there was a man in England, who was covered with spines like a porcupine [Stacheln wie ein Stachelschwein], and begot a son with just such spines, so also a Black child may have been begotten without question, from which a special race [eine besondere race] arose, which, hated by the Whites, at first dwelt in forests, and afterwards became powerful, so that they exterminated the Whites’ (26.2.1: 114-5). Although races from other continents had long been unable to reach the regions inhabited by Blacks, Kant appeared to believe that the continent’s original inhabitants must have been white. This also seems to imply that, in his view, the White parents regarded their Black children as accidental monstrosities. Whites, repelled by their accidentally generated Black offspring, forced them into exile. This enforced isolation ultimately facilitated the formation of a distinct Black race, which eventually exterminated the White population on the continent.
But what enabled Kant to formulate such wild speculations? What sources might have inspired him to suggest that (the first members of) non-White races were regarded as akin to hereditary monstrosities? The key to answering these questions lies in Kant’s mention of ‘the Bilfinger family’ and ‘a man in England, who was covered with spines like a porcupine’. In the following sections, we will explore what Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698–1759) and Henry Baker (1698–1774) had written about these topics. More importantly, though, an overview of the context will help us understand the issues Kant grappled with and the problems his more developed racial theory sought to address.
3. Georg Bernhard Bilfinger’s family
St. Augustine (354–430) had already stated that polydactyly does not prove that God erred in His creation (Augustine Reference Zema and Walsh2008: 502–3). At the beginning of the eighteenth century, this belief set the stage for the debate between Louis Lémery (1677–1743) and Jacob Benignus Winslow (1669–1760) on the origination of so-called monsters.Footnote 8 Preformationism was the dominant theory for explaining organic forms, asserting that organisms develop from miniature, fully-formed versions of themselves, existing either in the egg or sperm, and that development is simply the growth and unfolding of these preexisting structures. The question inevitably arose: Had God created normal germs that became deformed during development, or had He created monstrous germs? Both Lémery and Winslow were proponents of preformationism, yet they diverged in their explanations of defects: Lémery argued that accidental factors could influence the development of preformed germs, resulting in monstrous forms, while Winslow believed these deformities were inherent within the germs themselves.
According to Lémery, physiological defects due to excess were caused by the accidental mechanical compression of two perfectly formed germs. Winslow, however, disagreed, pointing to cases of polydactyly and questioning how such symmetrical deformities could arise from mere accidents alone. He asked ‘what accident one could imagine by which the total destruction of a fetus, except for those four fingers so far apart from each other, could have occurred? By what accidental mechanism could these four little or fifth fingers have been transported and symmetrically applied to the sides of the fifth or little fingers of the entire foetus? And above all, how could the little toes of one have been so naturally arranged with those of the other?’ (Winslow Reference Winslow1746: 338-40). Shortly after, Jean-Jacques d’Ortous de Mairan (1678–1771), supporting Winslow’s view, calculated that the chance of a six-fingered hand forming by accident is so astronomically low that attributing such an anomaly to mere chance is nearly impossible (Mairan Reference Mairan1746: 60-4; see also Tort Reference Tort1980: 209-13).
In 1744, Maupertuis referenced this discussion in his critique of preformationism, specifically mentioning polydactyly to explain Lémery’s position (Maupertuis Reference Maupertuis1744: 99). However, the topic of heredity had not been a real issue in these discussions. This changed when the French naturalist René-Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur (1683–1757) was informed by one of his correspondents that ‘there will exist a species of men [espèces d’hommes] who ordinarily have six fingers on each hand and as many on each foot’ (Réaumur Reference Réaumur1751: 376; Terrall Reference Terrall2006: 337-8). This comment shifted the focus from individual defects to the transmission of these defects to offspring by both sexes, potentially giving rise to ‘a species of men’. Although Réaumur remained committed to the idea of preformed germs, he showed a keen interest in cases that could challenge the very foundation of his theory. However, rather than addressing instances of inherited polydactyly, Réaumur quoted a lengthy letter that described a family with supernumerary fingers, offering no further commentary. The remarks of Réaumur’s correspondent inspired Maupertuis to conduct his own research (Terrall Reference Terrall2006: 335-6). He used the opportunity to defend epigenesis, for the quoted letter in Réaumur’s book hinted at the possibility that ‘the principle of generation resides in both the one and the other sex’ (Réaumur Reference Réaumur1751: 209-13). This indeed posed a significant challenge for preformationists, for they held that all future generations were already preformed and contained within either the egg or the sperm of the parent, meaning that development was simply a matter of the preexisting forms unfolding. Biparental inheritance would, then, clearly challenge their theory and be a strong argument for epigenesis, as organisms develop gradually from the combination of material contributed by both parents. Mairan had already calculated the improbability of polydactyly arising from accidental causes, but Maupertuis went further by using empirical data and probability calculations to demonstrate that, contrary to the belief that the trait occurs by chance, it can be inherited across multiple generations from either parent (Maupertuis Reference Maupertuis1752: 138-9; Terrall Reference Terrall2006: 336-7).
This brings us back to Kant, not only because he had early on acknowledged the theoretical significance of race mixing (26.1: 88-9). He might have read the German translation of Maupertuis’ Lettres sur des sujets divers (Maupertuis Reference Maupertuis1753), for Maupertuis explicitly mentioned the Bilfinger family in an attempt to understand generation: ‘An illustrious scientist in Germany, and Minister of the Duke of Württemberg, Mr. Bilfinger was born into such a family, and born with a sixth finger that his parents had cut off like a monstrosity’ (Maupertuis Reference Maupertuis1752: 139-40). Biographical information on George Bernhard Bilfinger (1693–1750)Footnote 9 had been circulating for some time in a number of journals, and it was no secret that he had had six fingers on each hand (Brucker Reference Brucker1741: ‘George Bernhard Bilfinger’, para. 2). The occurrence of polydactyly within the family had also been documented on multiple occasions (Schmersahl Reference Schmersahl1751: 265-6). But Maupertuis went further, for, he claimed, ‘once these variations are confirmed by a sufficient number of generations in which both sexes possess them, they establish species [Espèces]. And perhaps this is how all species [Espèces] have multiplied’ (Maupertuis Reference Maupertuis1752: 137-8). However, in the text, Maupertuis had not made an analogy with the Black race, as Kant would do later. The text does, nonetheless, refer to the analysis of monstrous forms in Venus physique (1745). In another section of the latter book, Maupertuis asked why Blacks reside in hot regions, while dwarfs and giants are found near the poles. Thus, his curiosity extended to the origins of species (especes). He proposed that monsters (monstres) living ‘among us’ resulted from the accidental mingling of seeds (semences). These could become a ‘species of monsters’ if they interbred: ‘Whether Giants, Dwarfs, or Blacks were born among other men, either fear or pride aroused antagonism towards them on the part of the greater portion of the human race [genre]. The strongest and most numerous races [l’espece la plus nombreuse] then relegated these abnormal people [races disformes] to the least inhabitable zones. The Dwarfs retired towards the North Pole and the Giants went to live near the Strait of Magellan, while the Blacks settled in the Torrid Zone’ (Maupertuis Reference Maupertuis and Boas1966: 84).
Preformationists were obviously compelled to address the challenges posed by the inheritance of polydactyly. In response to Maupertuis, Charles Bonnet (1720–1793) discussed polydactyly in his Considérations sur les corps organisés (1762). Although he recognized that it appears to be transmitted through both sexes, he refused to concede that this proved the existence of a monstrous germ or even biparental inheritance. Instead, Bonnet proposed that the seminal fluid of a six-fingered male could influence the development of a germ from a normal five-fingered female without altering the germ itself. Similarly, he suggested that abnormal conditions in the womb could transform a normal germ into a polydactylous one. Thus, he concluded, monstrosities were only possible ‘by the act of generation’ (Bonnet Reference Bonnet1762: 312). This allowed Bonnet to acknowledge the possibility of polydactyly being passed on by both the father and the mother, while regarding such anomalies as accidents of nature, resulting from disruptions in the normal developmental process of the germ.
It should be noted that, according to the early student notes on physical geography, Kant showed no direct interest in debates on generation themselves. He needed a theory on inheritance, but he must have noticed how theories on the hereditary variations in the human species were linked to ideas on generation. His fascination with Maupertuis is, thus, understandable. However, in The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God (1763), Kant had already expressed discontent with Maupertuis’ understanding of epigenesis. Maupertuis suggested that both parents contribute organic particles that combine during reproduction to form the offspring. He applied this concept to account for the inheritance of traits, including deformities. Initially, Maupertuis relied on an analogy with the physical law of attraction to explain how particles come together during reproduction (Maupertuis Reference Maupertuis and Boas1966: 56). However, this approach faced significant criticism for failing to account for the emergence of complex organic forms (Mensch Reference Mensch2013: 44-5). In response, Maupertuis ascribed some degree of intelligence, desire, aversion, or memory to matter, which allowed him to assert that organic particles retain a kind of memory of their former position (Maupertuis Reference Maupertuis1754: 14, 18-9, 33-4).Footnote 10 Kant also knew that the renowned Swiss physiologist Albrecht von Haller (1708–1777) had criticized Buffon’s concept of internal moulds (moules intérieures), arguing that any such force would require foresight and intentionality to reliably produce consistent forms (Sloan Reference Sloan2002: 234-5; Mensch Reference Mensch2013: 43). Although the theories of Maupertuis and Buffon were much better equipped for explaining phenomena of biparental inheritance or those concerning the heredity of deformities (Maupertuis Reference Maupertuis1754: 34-5), Kant characterized these theories as either incomprehensible or arbitrary (OPA, 2: 115). Thus, we should not hasten to the conclusion that Kant’s fascination with Maupertuis implied an unconditional support for his ideas of epigenesis (Fisher Reference Fisher, Goy and Watkins2014: 34-5).
However, at the same time, Kant also distanced himself from the preexistence theory, which posited that every individual being was created by God at the beginning, with reproduction merely unfolding these preformed individuals according to natural laws. This theory, Kant argued, overly relied on the supernatural, leaving little room for human investigation (OPA, 2: 114-5). Although the idea of preexisting germs was challenged when dealing with deviations from the typical form, these could easily account for the maintenance of the organic form. Nonetheless, Kant suggested that ‘some individual members of the plant- and animal-kingdoms, although immediately formed by God and thus of divine origin, possess the capacity, which we cannot understand, actually to generate their own kind in accordance with a regular law of nature, and not merely to unfold them [ihres gleichen zu erzeugen und nicht blos auszuwickeln]’ (OPA, 2: 114). God had created the first members of species, but the continuation of the species line (‘ihres gleichen’) with the generation of offspring of the same kind took place according to natural laws. However, at this point, Kant lacked the conceptual tools to formulate an alternative theory (Mensch Reference Mensch2013: 63). As we will see later, his racial theory was meant to solve the issue.
4. Edward Lambert’s family
The second example from ‘Ms Hesse’ concerned the famous ‘Porcupine-Man’. Edward Lambert, an Englishman born in 1717, was known for a rare skin condition, now understood to be a form of ichthyosis, a group of genetic skin disorders characterized by dry, scaly skin. He gained notoriety when the English astronomer John Machin (1680–1751) listed characteristics of this condition after Lambert had been exhibited in 1731 before the Royal Society of London (Machin Reference Machin1732). In 1755, Lambert returned to the Society. This time, the British naturalist Henry Baker decided to publish an article, although he did not want to simply rehearse Machin’s description. Instead, he added a new observation. Baker noted that, twenty-four years after the first exhibition at the Royal Society, Lambert had had six children who suffered from the same condition. The condition was apparently hereditary. Subsequently, Baker wrote: ‘It appears therefore past all doubt, that a race of people may be propagated by this man, having such rugged coats and coverings as himself: and, if this should ever happen, and the accidental original be forgotten, ’tis not improbable they might be deemed a different species of mankind: a consideration, which would almost lead one to imagine, that if mankind were all produced from one and the same stock, the black skins of the negroes, and many other differences of the like kind, might possibly have been originally owing to some such accidental cause’ (Baker Reference Baker1756: 23).Footnote 11 The case of the skin condition in Lambert’s family demonstrated that, despite the vast differences among human beings, monogenesis could still be upheld. Baker sought to ensure that, should a new ‘species’ emerge, its origin would at least be documented.
Herder’s notes of Kant’s courses on physical geography already contain references to ‘Bilfinger’s 6th finger’ and ‘the porcupine man [Stachelmann] in London’, to which he added that the causes of these hereditary conditions were, like the black skin, unknown (Herder: 55). Summaries of Baker’s essay had reached the German public in 1757, but these mentioned neither Baker’s remarks on the possibility of Lambert’s family to propagate a race of people, nor his analogy with the black skin colour (Anonymous 1757: 596-600). In 1756, a synopsis of Baker’s text appeared in The Gentleman’s Magazine, noting that, ‘as Mr Baker remarks, … a race of people might be propagated by this man, as different from other men as an African is from an Englishman, and that if this should have happened in any former age, and the accidental original have been forgotten, there would be the same objections against their being derived from the same common stock with others: it must therefore be admitted possible that the differences now subsisting between one part of mankind and another, may have been produced by some such accidental cause long after the earth had been peopled by one common progenitor’ (Anonymous 1756: 429). A German translation of this synopsis was published not much later in the Bremisches Magazin zur Ausbreitung der Wissenschaften, Künste und Tugend (Anonymous 1758: 271-9). Kant often made use of material from this journal in that period.Footnote 12 In a footnote to his Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime (1764), he even explicitly mentioned the German translation of a text that had appeared in the journal (OFBS, 2: 209n; Anonymous 1761). Thus, we have every reason to accept this journal as Kant’s source.
The Norwegian zoologist Peter Ascanius (1723–1803) published a French article on Lambert’s condition. A German translation appeared a few years later in Sammlung auserlesener Wahrnehmungen aus Der Arzney-Wissenschaft, Der Wund-Arzney- und der Apotheker-Kunst (Ascanius Reference Ascanius1759). However, it is unlikely that Ascanius’ text was Kant’s source. For instance, according to Herder’s notes, Kant described the condition as ‘brown with a yellow tip 1 inch long’ (Herder: 5). Contrary to Baker, Ascanius had mentioned neither the brown colour nor the length of the protuberances (Baker Reference Baker1756: 22-3; Anonymous 1756: 429). More important for the purposes of this article, Ascanius did not make the analogy with (to use Baker’s phrasing) ‘the black skins of the negroes’. However, Ascanius’ text is for other reasons of interest to us. Firstly, Ascanius also noted the possibility of generating a new race or species of deformed humans: ‘It would be necessary to pair these extraordinary men with women of the same race [de même race] in order to perpetuate them; then, one might perhaps make this species constant [cette espece constante]’ (Ascanius Reference Ascanius1756: 221). Ascanius expressed concern that Edward Lambert’s son might also reproduce, fearing that more offspring would turn the majority of the English ‘to true porcupines’. Although he hoped that Lambert’s son would be the last to inherit the condition, his essay reveals a keen interest within the scientific community in the emergence of new races or species arising from hereditary deformities.
Secondly, in the same text, Ascanius also addressed the topic of polydactyly (Ascanius Reference Ascanius1756: 220-1). In fact, the above quoted passage about the creation of a constant species concerns a species of people with six fingers on each hand. Although Ascanius did not refer to polydactyly in the family of Bilfinger, Kant’s comparison of hereditary instances of polydactyly to those of ichthyosis was not a novel contribution.
Thirdly, Ascanius believed that both cases – ichthyosis and polydactyly – challenged the foundations of preformationism. In his Elementa physiologiae corporis humani (1766), Haller would also mention the transmission of ichthyosis and polydactyly to offspring as examples that complicated his preformationist theory (Haller Reference Haller1766: 97-8).Footnote 13 But while Haller remained loyal to a variation of ovism, Ascanius believed that these cases supported epigenesis. Preformationists clearly had difficulties with these cases. Much later, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840) referenced Lambert’s condition in the first edition of De generis humani varietate nativa (1775). At that time, Blumenbach still held on to Haller’s view. However, with regard to monstruous forms, his focus was more on describing physical defects than on analysing their possible causes. Lambert’s condition was merely hinted at, for a comprehensive overview of all disorders and anomalies would reduce the study of natural history to chaos: ‘Let us leave therefore unnoticed, for physiologists and pathologists, the black and horny epidermis of the Italian boy, or the Englishman, and others, and similar peculiar aberrations from the natural condition’ (Blumenbach Reference Blumenbach and Bendyshe1865: 140). A few years later, however, Blumenbach began acknowledging that ‘the contribution of the male seed to the formation of the offspring might be greater than is commonly acknowledged. The generation of hybrids, the six-fingered families of Kalleja and Bilfinger, and especially the examples of so many species of animals in which the two sexes are of completely different forms (such as scale insects and others) seem to support our supposition’ (Blumenbach Reference Blumenbach1779: 20; see also Lenoir Reference Lenoir1980: 82).
These two examples of hereditary defects were reportedly important for Kant’s attempts to link a climatological race theory to the topic of inheritance. Deviations from the norm seemed to happen naturally, and these newly acquired traits could become hereditary. However, he was still struggling with difficulties. He had not given up on climatological explanations, for these managed to deal in an efficient way with the question how members of the Black race could have descended from the White race. But, then, how could one explain unfailingly hereditary characteristics? This remained a mystery. At this point, he could only rely on theories about the accidental generation of a previously non-existent (hereditary) characteristic. The imprinting of one’s ‘character’ could only have been a matter of chance. The student notes show that he took recourse to an accidental origination of the Black race as if this race were in fact a race of monsters. The origin story of the Black race must have been, as Maupertuis and Baker hinted at, like that of a polydactylous race or a race of so-called porcupine-men (if these would have existed).
5. A new path
McLaughlin remarks that Kant’s use of the term vererben in 1788 ‘is prototypical – at least I know of no previous biological uses outside of medicine’ (McLaughlin Reference McLaughlin, Müller-Wille and Rheinberger2007: 280). Central to McLaughlin’s claim is that, in his work on races, Kant no longer limited the term to the inheritance of defects (see also Bernasconi Reference Bernasconi and Lettow2014: 239). The context outlined above provides insight into some of the motivations behind Kant’s decision to publish his first essay on human races in 1775. It is well known that this text was meant to announce his upcoming courses on physical geography (Zammito Reference Zammito, Eigen and Larrimore2006: 36). Racial differences had acquired a central role in Kant’s thinking, as he believed that racial characteristics remained constant even after migration to different climates and were invariably passed down to offspring. Rather than focusing on the broader topics he intended to cover in his lectures, Kant used this course announcement to present his newly developed ideas on inheritance. It is also important to note that while racial differences continued to be a subject in his lectures on physical geography and anthropology, Kant did not explore the concept of race and its theoretical underpinnings as thoroughly in his teaching as he did in his published work.
Kant still seemed to struggle in his 1770 lecture with the explanation of the formation of a new race. Firstly, as noted earlier, that explanation blurred the distinction between what is considered the norm and its deviation – a problem Lémery had already grappled with when differentiating the notion of ‘a monster’ from that of ‘a particular kind of human [une espèce d’Homme particulière], like Negroes in relation to Whites’ (Lémery Reference Lémery1742: 521). How could one maintain a clear distinction between monstrosity and race or species, between the irregular and a generic (specific or racial) type? The student notes seem to suggest that, according to Kant, the first members of the Black race might have been viewed as monsters. Secondly, Kant would have had to concede the possibility of the formation of even more human races. The potential for new races seemed limitless, which conflicted with his belief in the permanence of racial characteristics and the fixity of organic forms and their reproduction. Thirdly, Kant was forced to accept the role of accidental causes in the generation of these races. Although the early lecture notes emphasize that he was primarily concerned with inheritance, they also reveal that he had no clear understanding of the mechanisms behind it. How could the accidental emergence of a characteristic be reconciled with the concept of inheritance? Why were natural alterations passed on to offspring, while some artificially induced bodily modifications were not hereditary? And how was it possible that the characteristics of certain races remained unchanged even after migration to different climates? Kant lacked the conceptual tools to fully grasp the process of heredity and, in the end, was forced to acknowledge the limits of human understanding in explaining the origination of races.
When we read ‘Ms Kaehler’, which was likely written during the summer semester of 1774 (Clewis Reference Clewis and Clewis2015: 535), Kant’s ideas on race seemed to have evolved significantly. Clewis has already highlighted elements of Kant’s critical philosophy in the manuscript (Clewis Reference Clewis and Clewis2015: 536-40). The discussion on human beings reportedly started off with Buffon’s criterion for species determination: organisms that are able to have fertile offspring with each other belong to the same species. This allowed Kant to reject the notion of multiple local creations (polygenesis), allegedly asserting that it was unphilosophical given that human beings can produce fertile offspring across different races (26.2.1: 504). Additionally, he observed that certain characteristics, which appeared contingent from the perspective of natural species, were nonetheless consistently reproduced in offspring. Kant required a concept to articulate this lawfulness. Although he had likely appropriated Buffon’s term race (which was, however, applied imprecisely in his own writings and was rendered inconsistently across different German translations) (Denby Reference Denby2005: 65; Mensch Reference Mensch2024: 166), the student notes also remark that Kant’s perspective diverged notably from Buffon’s, explicitly distinguishing Kant’s concept of race (Race) from Buffon’s notion of variety (Varietaet) (26.2.1: 503-4; Clewis Reference Clewis and Clewis2015: 538). The lawlike character of the concept of race allowed for dividing the human species into a limited number of races: ‘Among the races [Racen], however, through whose intermixing others are produced, which are of a half-bred nature [halbschlachtig], we count four’ (26.2.1: 504).Footnote 14 Subsequently, he listed the ‘Whites’, the (Asian) ‘Indians’, the ‘Mongolians’, and the ‘Negroes’ (26.2.1: 505). Although racial intermixture had become a crucial element for Kant’s theory, he was on the record as arguing against the practice: ‘When it has been observed that mules are very stubborn animals, it is plausible that the intermixing of races can deteriorate the abilities and the temperament [die Fähigkeiten und GemüthsCharacter verschlechtern]. Therefore, when considering marriage, one should not only look at the equality of the races but also at whether the ancestors were of the same lineage’ (26.2.1: 507).
However, Kant did not yet appear to have a theoretical basis for the distinction between his concept of race and Buffon’s notion of variety. The question why certain characteristics were inherited unfailingly (while others were not) remained unresolved. The student notes only remark that varietal characteristics had no influence on the generative force (Zeugungskraft) (26.2.1: 503-4).Footnote 15 In the presentation of the canine species, however, we find the following remark: ‘It is also probable that all dogs, they may be so different as they want, nevertheless come only from a single phylum, because such germs [Keime] generally lie in certain products, which develop under favor of the air, nutrition of a country; in cold areas all animals of a same kind have thicker pelts than in the warm ones and birds have a layer of feathers more in the Zonis frigidis than the temperatis’ (26.2.1: 533). Buffon had already written about the thicker pelts and the extra layer of feathers (Buffon Reference Buffon1770: 43). But from the manuscript, it is not clear how the allusion to germs might have helped Kant in comprehending unfailing inheritance.
The example of the extra layer of feathers reappeared in Kant’s first essay on race (1775) to explain his use of the notion of germ (Mensch Reference Mensch2013: 103-4). As of 1775, Kant suggested that organisms possess ‘germs and natural predispositions’ that allow them to adapt to different environments: ‘In birds of the same kind which yet are supposed to live in different climates there lie germs for the unfolding of a new layer of feathers if they live in a cold climate, which, however, are held back if they should reside in a temperate one. Since in a cold country the wheat kernel must be more protected against the humid cold than in a dry or warm climate, there lies in it a previously determined capacity or a natural predisposition to gradually produce a thicker skin’ (DRH, 2: 434). These germs were initially latent within the first members of an organic species; they developed in response to external conditions, such as climate. For example, Kant suggested, birds of the same species might develop an extra layer of feathers in colder climates, while those in milder climates do not because the germ had remained undeveloped. Thus, climatic factors still played a crucial role, but instead of being productive causes of certain characteristics, Kant now believed that these factors were (merely) occasional causes (Gelegenheitsursachen) (Racen, 2: 435). While external factors may trigger the development of certain germs and predispositions, they do not create new traits but merely bring out what was already preformed within the organism.
Kant also suggested that this process of adaptation and germ-and-predisposition development explains the formation of different races within the human species, as they had spread to various climates and developed traits necessary for the survival in those specific conditions. His reliance on the concepts of germs and predispositions enabled him to maintain the notion of a single human lineage, while simultaneously accounting for certain permanent traits that, although not essential to the entire species, are consistently passed down to offspring. Once a particular race had been fully founded, Kant added, it had become resistant to further change (as long as race mixing was avoided), even if the organism would move to a completely different environment. Consequently, traits that develop in response to specific environments become fixed and hereditary, passing on to future generations. Thus, Kant attributed a kind of wisdom and care to nature when equipping organisms with the necessary potentialities to adapt and survive in various conditions.
Time and again, Kant underlined a lawfulness: racial traits are inevitably inherited by offspring and do not disappear even after a prolonged stay in a different climate. In fact, his notion of race allowed him to combine the idea of a mechanically structured nature with teleology (Bernasconi Reference Bernasconi, Eigen and Larrimore2006: 83-4). Kant’s notion of race is deeply intertwined with his teleological philosophy, where nature is seen as purposefully structured to achieve specific ends (Zammito Reference Zammito1992: 201). Kant’s claim that racial characteristics are not only heritable but also essential for survival emphasizes this point. He discussed how certain potentialities (germs and predispositions) unfold under the right conditions to explain how organisms adapt to environmental changes. Racial traits, in this sense, are viewed as nature’s way of ensuring that certain groups of humans are equipped to thrive in specific climates. This framework places Kant’s theory of race in a larger teleological context, where races are not arbitrary or incidental but part of a natural order designed to perpetuate human life in various forms across different regions of the globe.
His use of the notion of germs does not imply that Kant returned to classical preformationist theories that he had already rejected in 1763. In fact, he redefined the concept of germs (Mensch Reference Mensch2013: 102-3). He adopted the concept of germs because it allowed him to maintain the idea of stable organic forms. However, unlike the more classical understanding of germs, it was not procreation but environmental factors that triggered the development of a germ. Moreover, Kant acknowledged the significance of hereditary traits from both parents – something that classical preformationist theories struggled to account for. In interbreeding between racial classes, characteristics of each class are consistently passed on to the offspring. Racial characteristics are invariably transmitted in mixed-race unions, with no exceptions. However, this also meant that he had to distance himself from his earlier views when he was comparing the origination of the Black race with that of physiological defects. Consequently, Kant warned his readers not to mistake a monstrosity for a race; it would be a misunderstanding, Kant wrote, to claim to take ‘an albino or kakerlak (both deformities) for whites’ (CHR, 8: 95).
In his infamous review of Herder’s book (1784–1785), Kant praised the rejection of, on the one hand, the ‘system of evolution’ (referring to preformationist ideas where traits are preordained and merely unfold over time), and on the other hand, the notion that mere mechanical external forces can sufficiently explain the formation of organisms. Instead, Herder formulated a theory about the internal self-forming faculty of the organism. Although Kant largely agreed with Herder, he had a crucial caveat: the internal self-forming faculty of the organism has to be inherently limited to certain fixed possibilities, that is, there is a finite range of forms or adaptations it can take on. Kant underlined that this was what he meant by germs and predispositions. This reservation obviously allowed Kant to hold on to his racial theory. He explained that these germs and predispositions should not be understood as ‘primordially implanted machines and buds that unfold themselves only when occasioned’, as in traditional evolutionary models. Rather, they represent constraints or ‘limitations’ on the organism’s self-forming capacity – something that is not fully explicable or comprehensible (Review, 8: 62-3; Zammito Reference Zammito1992: 205).
6. Conclusion
Winthrop D. Jordan has emphasized the significance of Maupertuis’ and Baker’s speculations: ‘Only two European naturalists seem to have come close to detecting the true importance of accidental variation in a hereditary trait. In the middle of the eighteenth century Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis … and Henry Baker … saw that an accidental abnormality in one individual might become the source of an entire race of men bearing that abnormality’ (Jordan Reference Jordan1968: 244). His claim that no ‘other commentaries picked up these suggestions’ (Jordan Reference Jordan1968: 245), however, overlooks Kant’s engagement with these hypotheses. These speculations enabled Kant to link the origination of defects to the emergence of races. In 1763, Kant had already indicated that he was seeking a theory that ‘granted to the initial divine organisation of plants and animals a capacity [Tauglichkeit], not merely to develop [entwickeln] their kind [ihres Gleichen] thereafter in accordance with a natural law, but truly to generate [erzeugen] their kind’ (OPA, 2: 115). To uphold the notion of (the generation of) stable organic forms (ihres Gleichen), Kant chose to speak of ‘human races’ rather than species. A decade later, he thought that he could resolve the issue of inheritance by introducing the idea of germs and natural predispositions, for these allowed him to link contingent occasioning causes (air, sun) to preformed adaptive potentialities in the human phylum (Mensch Reference Mensch2013: 103).
In this article, I have tried to sketch on the basis of student notes developments in Kant’s early ideas on racial differences. This sheds light on how his more mature ideas on heredity and adaptation had come about. It helps us understand why later attempts at explaining differences between human beings must have frustrated him. Herder did not seem to have forgotten the lesson taught by Kant when the latter told his students about Bilfinger and Lambert. After asserting in the second part of his Outline of a Philosophy of the History of Man (1785) that climatic factors played a role in forming the mythology of a people, Herder asked whether there are any innate ideas. Although he rejected a certain comprehension of these ideas, he also noted that, if ‘a child can inherit six fingers, if the family of the porcupine-man in England could derive [erben] from their parent his unnatural excrescences, if the external form of the head and face be often transmitted, as it evidently is, from father to son; would it not be strange, that the form of the brain perhaps even in its finest organic divisions, should not be hereditary [sich vererbte] likewise?’ (Herder Reference Herder and Churchill1800: 217; see also Nisbet Reference Nisbet1970: 217). Herder did not dismiss the influence of environmental factors, yet he was equally unwilling to overlook the role of inheritance.Footnote 16
By this time, however, Kant had moved beyond the ideas he was developing during Herder’s years as his student. This explains why, when Herder dismissed the usefulness of Kant’s concept of race (Herder Reference Herder and Churchill1800: 166), Kant believed that a precise definition of the concept would suffice to address the criticism, leading to the publication of his second essay on races in 1785, aptly titled ‘Determination of the Concept of a Human Race’ (Mensch Reference Mensch, Dyck and Wunderlich2018: 197). In that text, Kant wrote: ‘The concept of a race is therefore: the classificatory difference of the animals of one and the same phylum [eines und desselben Stammes] in so far as this difference is unfailingly hereditary [unausbleiblich erblich]’ (CHR, 8: 100). Scientists kept revisiting examples of ichthyosis and polydactyly, speculating about the formation of ‘an extraordinary race of humans’, as Eberhard August Wilhelm von Zimmermann (1743–1815) remarked in 1778, if such individuals were isolated and married within their own family (Zimmermann Reference Zimmermann1778: 105). When it became evident that Lambert’s only surviving son had children who also inherited the same condition (Blumenbach Reference Blumenbach1802), scientists obviously remained captivated by ichthyosis (and polydactyly) for many decades (Prichard Reference Prichard1813: 72-6; Quatrefages de Bréau Reference Quatrefages de Bréau1861: 209-11). However, by the time Edward Lambert’s grandchildren were exhibited in Germany in 1801, Kant’s concept of race had gained widespread acceptance (Bernasconi Reference Bernasconi and Bernasconi2001: 17). Thus, in popularizing Kant’s ideas on race, Christoph Girtanner (1760–1800) ensured that hereditary defects, such as ‘hands with six fingers’ or the ‘so-called porcupine-man in England’, were classified as varieties (Varietäten) rather than as distinct races (Girtanner Reference Girtanner1796: 7-8, 234-7).
