VOLTAIRE VERSUS NEEDHAM: ATHEISM, MATERIALISM, AND THE GENERATION OF LIFE BY SHIRLEYA. ROE During the mid-eighteenth century, the relationship between biolog- ical theories and materialism became a source of increasing concern to a number of individuals, among them Voltaire. In the last fourteen years of his life, Voltaire (1694-1778) showed a keen interest in biological subjects, especially those having to do with the nature of generation. He supported the doctrine of preformation, the popular eighteenth-century view that all organisms had preexisted from the Creation;and he opposed several mid-century attempts, notably by Maupertuis, Needham, and Buffon, to challenge this theory. As in so many other areas of contem- porary thought, Voltaire's critique served to crystallize many of the underlying concerns of Enlightenment biology. Voltaire was not alone in using preformation to combat biological materialism. Charles Bonnet, Albrecht von Haller, and Lazzaro Spallan- zani, preformation's major proponents in the 1760s and 1770s, were similarly concerned about the materialist and atheistic implications of epigenetic theories. The theory of preexistence of germs, or emboitement, had first been proposed, in the late seventeenth century, within an explicit religious and mechanistic context.1The belief that the clockwork universe had been created by an intelligent and all-powerful God demanded that God's involvement in the creation of living creatures play a fundamental role in explanations of their generation. For there was always a danger in the mechanist world view that God as Creator might be a superfluous entity and that matter and motion might themselves be responsible for all of the phenomena of the universe, including the creation of life and the existence of the human soul. Preformation undercut these dangers by making both God and mechanical laws essential to the explanation of generation. On the theory of preexistence, all organisms had been formed at the Creation and encased within one another, but their de- velopment from miniature to full-fledged organisms occurred through mechanical means during each instance of reproduction. In the 1740s, three epigenetic theories of generation arose to challenge the dominance of preformation. The first appeared in Maupertuis's Dis- sertation physique a l'occasion du negre blanc in 1744, followed by the 1 On eighteenth-century theories of generation, see Jacques Roger, Les Sciences de la vie dans la pensee franqaise du XVIIIe siecle: La generation des animaux de Descartes a l'Encyclopedie (Paris, 1963, 1971); and Shirley A. Roe, Matter, Life, and Generation: Eighteenth-Century Embryology and the Haller-Wolff Debate (Cambridge, 1981), Chap. 1. 65 Copyright Jan. 1985 by JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS, INC. This content downloaded from 62.122.79.81 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:56:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 66 SHIRLEY A. ROE theories of Needham and Buffon, presented in 1748 and 1749. Mau- pertuis argued that the embryo is formed through the agency of an attractive force acting on particles that issue from all parts of the body and that possess a kind of instinct for their eventual organization. Buffon's theory, similar in several respects to Maupertuis's, added to the idea that representative particles come from all parts of the body the concept of an "internal mold" that organizes the particles into a new organism. Finally, Needham argued in a more general manner for the existence of a vegetative force that operates at all levels of nature to produce gen- eration. In this paper, I examine Voltaire's biological views within the context of his opposition to atheism and materialism. As with many aspects of Voltaire's thought, his own opinions were expressed principally in his critiques of the views of others. He was adamantly opposed to the theories of Maupertuis, Buffon, and Needham, and all three suffered the sting of his witticisms and ridicule. Needham's work in particularraised Voltaire's ire, for Needham became a symbol of all that Voltaire opposed in the new biological theories of the mid-eighteenth century. A controversy ensued between the two of them, arising originally over the subject of miracles and lasting for over a decade. Yet although Needham figures frequently in Voltaire's writings in the 1760s and 1770s, few historians have fully investigated this episode in Voltaire's career.3 My purpose, therefore, is threefold: to dispel some erroneous conceptions about Need- ham's work that have arisen in the Voltaire literature, to examine the events of the Needham-Voltaire clash, and to elucidate the motivations underlying each of their attitudes toward biological subjects. Needham's Biological Views.-In 1745, John Turberville Needham (1713-81) published his first major work, An Account of some New Mi- croscopicalDiscoveries,which contained observations made with the mi- croscope on a number of organisms, among them tiny eels found in the grains of blighted wheat.4 Needham found that the grains affected with 2 Maupertuis's Dissertation was republished the following year as the first part of the Venusphysique (Leiden, 1745). John Turberville Needham, "A Summary of some late Observations upon the Generation, Composition, and Decomposition of Animal and Vegetable Substances," Philosophical Transactions, 45 (1748), 615-66; Georges Louis Leclerc, comte de Buffon, Histoire Naturelle, generale et particuliere, II (Paris, 1749). 3 On Voltaire's biological views, including his controversy with Needham, see Roger, op. cit., Les Sciences, 732-48; Jean A. Perkins, "Voltaire and the Natural Sciences," Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 37 (1965), 61-76; and Jacques Marx, "Voltaire et les sciences," Episteme, 9 (1975), 270-84. 4 Chap. 8, 85-89. Needham's discovery of eels (nematode larvae) in blighted wheat was first briefly reported in "A Letter from Mr. Turbevil Needham, to the President; concerning certain chalky tubulous Concretions, called Malm: With some Microscopical Observations on the Farina of the Red Lily, and of Worms discovered in Smutty Corn," Phil. Trans., 42 (1743), 634-41. On Needham's scientific and philosophical beliefs, see Roger, Les Sciences, 494-520; and Shirley A. Roe, "John Turberville Needham and the Generation of Living Organisms," Isis, 74 (1983), 159-84. This content downloaded from 62.122.79.81 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:56:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions VOLTAIRE VERSUS NEEDHAM 67 this malady contained whitish fibers that, to his surprise, exhibited signs of life when put into water. Furthermore, he reported that the same phenomenon had occurred two years later on grains from the same original lot. Needham did not propose any explanation for the origins of these unusual animals at this time, suggesting only that humid con- ditions in the ground or in grain storage might cause the onset of blight. Needham also observed microscopic eels in paste made of flour and water. Some of these observations were made jointly with James Sher- wood, who reported in a paper published in 1746 that he and Needham had discovered, partly by accident, that these eels contained offspring inside them, and thus reproduced viviparously.5Again, no explanation of their origin in flour was suggested, only that being viviparous, they could not arise from eggs deposited from the air. Needham's first major statement of his views on the generation of living organisms was presented to the Royal Society in 1748 and published in the Philosophical Transactions. Two years later a greatly expanded French version of this paper appeared as Nouvelles observationsmicros- copiques.6 Here Needham proposed a theory of universal vegetation based on observations he had made, partly with Buffon, on microscopic bodies produced in organic infusions. Needham and Buffon had joined forces in the spring of 1748 to investigate Buffon's hypothesis that all micro- organisms, spermatozoa included, are the product of random combina- tions of organic particles. Many of their infusions were made of seeds and grains, in which they observed, after a few days, a prodigious number of moving microscopic beings. Needham's most well-known infusion was made with mutton broth, which he sealed and heated to exclude con- tamination from the air and to kill any existing organisms in the broth. Even in this infusion, he reported, microorganisms could be observed after only a few days.7 Needham postulated that there exists a universal vegetative force responsible for the generation of living organisms from the lowest to the highest levels. Rejecting the theory of preexistent germs, Needham pro- posed instead an epigenetic account of generation. He claimed that veg- etation operates through two component agents, an expansive force and a force of resistance that together govern the decomposition and com- position of living organisms. When living material is infused or when it decomposes after death; it attains a state of exaltation, in which the expansive force acts to produce a succession of microorganisms. With 5 James Sherwood, "A Letter from Mr. James Sherwood, Surgeon, to Martin Folkes, Esq.; President of the Royal Society, concerning the minute Eels in Paste being vivipa- rous," Phil. Trans., 44 (1746), 67-69. 6 The Nouvelles observationsmicroscopiques,avec des decouvertesinteressantessur la composition & la decompositiondes corps organises (Paris, 1750), contained also a French translation of Needham's New MicroscopicalDiscoveries. This had been published sepa- rately as Nouvelles decouvertesfaites avec le microscope (Leiden, 1747). 7 "A Summary," 634-39. This content downloaded from 62.122.79.81 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:56:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 68 SHIRLEY A. ROE these same forces, Needham maintained, one could account for the for- mation of the embryo in higher organisms. Needham now explained the origin of eels in blighted wheat on the basis of vegetation as well. A humid atmosphere, he argued, produced a vegetation of the contents of the grains into a state of exaltation, resulting in the formation of fibers that then exhibited characteristics of life. Need- ham suggested that one could account in a similar manner for the origins of paste eels from the vegetation of flour and water, even though these eels could later produce other eels viviparously. He did however admit that he was not completely satisfied with his account of their generation.8 Needham argued that his theory of universal vegetation was not a theory of equivocal generation, that is, of generation through chance events, but rather one that proposed a regular, lawlike process that always resulted in the proper organism. At higher levels, an offspring similar to the parent was produced. And in the microscopic world, he claimed, one always observed the same succession of microorganismsin infusions made of the same material. All generation, he concluded, occurs through laws that had been established at the Creation by God. Therefore, in no way could one interpret his theory as one based on equivocal, or chance, causes. Needham was also concerned to defend his theory against the charge of materialism. If one was called a materialist in the eighteenth century, it generally meant two things: the denial of the separate, incorporeal, and eternal existence of the human soul; and second, the attribution of creative powers to matter. Furthermore, materialism also often included the idea that the universe had arisen by chance through material causation. All of these components added up to materialism's most disturbing aspect- a denial of the existence of God and any divine role in the creation and preservation of the world. Needham continually argued that his theory had nothing in common with materialism, although, as we shall see, his biological views were used by materialists in ways he did not approve. Needham maintained that his theory of generation did not challenge the existence of the human soul, for he believed that animals possess a sensitive principle and humans an intellectual soul, neither of which arise through the process of vege- tation. In his later works, Needham defined a new class of organisms, "vital beings," to denote microscopic organisms that multiply by dividing, distinct from true sensitive animals that reproduce through normal means.9 He also argued against the materialists that God played just as central a role in his theory as in the theory of preexistence. What difference 8Ibid., 647-48, 659. 9 Lazzaro Spallanzani, Nouvelles recherchessur les decouvertesmicroscopiques,et la generationdes corpsorganises,trans. abbe Regley, with notes by John TurbervilleNeedham (London & Paris, 1769), 150. This content downloaded from 62.122.79.81 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:56:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions VOLTAIRE VERSUS NEEDHAM 69 did it make, Needham asked, if God made all organisms at the beginning of the world or if, instead, he simply established the laws through which future generation would take place? Needham's theory of generation met with little positive reaction among his preformationist contemporaries. Spallanzani published a ref- utation of his observations in 1765, followed by an even more thorough disproof in 1776.10Bonnet and Haller rejected in particular Needham's concept of a vegetative force, for neither could accept the idea that a force could be capable of forming life on its own."1And although they both accepted Needham's defense of his theory against equivocal gen- eration and materialism, they were clearly worried about the implications of any epigenetic theory for the existence of God. This concern was reflected and amplified by Voltaire, whose opposition to Needham's work stemmed almost entirely from what he perceived as its materialist and atheistic overtones. But before I discuss the particulars of the Voltaire- Needham exchange, I turn to Voltaire's own scientific and religious beliefs. Voltaire'sNewtonian Deism. -From the 1730s Voltaire was a con- firmed Newtonian. His Lettresphilosophiques (LettersConcerning the English Nation), published first in 1733, contained his famous comparison of Cartesian Paris and Newtonian London, of a world that is full with one that is empty, moved by impulsion in Paris and by gravity in London. Only a year before these letters were published, Voltaire had written to Maupertuis, perhaps the earliest proponent of Newtonianism in France, "Here I am a Newtonian of your kind; ... The more I glimpse of this philosophy, the more I admire it. One finds at each step that the whole universe is arranged by mathematical laws that are eternal and neces- sary."'2 During these years Voltaire also composed his best known sci- entific work, Elements de la philosophie de Newton, published in its complete form in 1741. The three principal conceptions that Voltaire adopted from the New- 10Spallanzani, Saggio di osservazionimicroscopicheconcernenti il sistema della gener- azione dei signori di Needham e Buffon in Dissertazionidue (Modena, 1765), and Opuscoli di fisica animale e vegetabile (Modena, 1776). " Charles Bonnet, Considerations sur les corpsorganises(Amsterdam, 1762) in Oeuvres d'histoirenaturelle et de philosophie, 18 vols. (Neuchatel, 1779-83), VI, 299-300; Albrecht von Haller, Elementa physiologiae corporishumani, 8 vols. (Lausanne/Berne, 1757-66), VIII, pt. 1, 112. 12Voltaire, Correspondenceand Related Documents, definitive edition by Theodore Besterman, vols. 85-135 of Les Oeuvres completes de Voltaire (Geneva and Oxford, 1968- ), D534, 3 November 1732. Hereafter Best. D. On Voltaire's Newtonianism and scientific beliefs, see Margaret Sherwood Libby, The Attitude of Voltaire to Magic and the Sciences (New York, 1935); Ira Wade, Studies on Voltaire (Princeton, 1947); Colm Kiernan, The Enlightenment and Science in Eighteenth-CenturyFrance, Stud. Volt., 59a (1973); and Martin S. Staum, "Newton and Voltaire: Constructive Sceptics," Stud. Volt., 62 (1968), 29-56. See also note 3 above. This content downloaded from 62.122.79.81 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:56:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 70 SHIRLEY A. ROE tonian world view were the uniformity and constancy of physical law, the passivity of matter, and the existence of an intelligent and free designer of the universe. Voltaire's deistic belief that the order and harmony of the universe testified to the existence of an intelligent cause, that a watch demanded a watchmaker, as he put it, pervaded his scientific writings until his death. He opposed Cartesian and Leibnizian conceptions of matter, arguing that matter is helpless on its own, and that motion and other active principles are given to it by God. Furthermore, he adopted Newtonian voluntarism in claiming that the world is a product of divine will rather than necessity. Finally, Voltaire asciibed to scientific skep- ticism, that is, he believed that human beings could understand the operations of the universe to only a limited extent: "We will know the first causes [of things] when we are gods," he wrote. "It is given to us to calculate, to weigh, to measure, to observe: this is natural philosophy; almost all the rest is chimera."13 Although during these early years Voltaire published no works de- voted exclusively to biological topics, a section of his Metaphysiquede Newton, written in 1740, clearly indicated the direction his future attitudes toward biology would take. Arguing against the Cartesian notion that at its basic level matter is uniform in nature, Voltaire asked how such matter could produce the diversity we observe in the world; specifically, how could living organisms, uniform within species yet so diverse from one another, be the result of matter and motion: Now if no movement, no art has everbeenableto producefish insteadof wheat in a field, nor medlarsinsteadof a lamb in the womb of a sheep,nor roses at the top of an oak, nor sole in a beehive,etc.; if all species are invariably the same, should I not believe first, with some reason,that all specieshave been determined by the Masterof the world;that thereare as manydifferent designs as there are differentspecies, and that from matter and motion only eternal chaos could be born withoutthese designs? All experienceconfirmsme in this belief. If I examineon the one hand a man or a silkworm,and on the other a bird or a fish, I see them all formed from the beginningof things;I see in them only a development.14 This is Voltaire's first indication of his acceptance of the theory of pre- formation. His belief in the preexistence of originally created germs, coupled with his rejection of the formative powers of matter, became a central tenet of his biological views. Voltaire's scientific interests in the 1730s and early 1740s were con- fined principally to physics. Although he published two papers in the 13 Voltaire, Oeuvres completes, ed. Louis Moland, 52 vols. (Paris, 1877-85), XVIII, 56. Hereafter M. 14 M. XXII, 429. See also Roger, Les Sciences, 736. The Metaphysique de Newton, ou, parallele des sentimens de Newton et de Leibniz (Amsterdam, 1740) was incorporated into the 1741 edition of the Elements de la philosophie de Newton (London [Paris]). This content downloaded from 62.122.79.81 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:56:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions VOLTAIRE VERSUS NEEDHAM 71 mid-1740s on the albino Negro and on geological subjects,'5his preoc- cupation with topics in the life sciences really did not begin until 1764. Yet for the remaining fourteen years of his life, biological subjects, par- ticularly the nature of generation, figured widely in his writings. His support for preformation, his opposition to, and ridicule of, the theories of generation proposed by Maupertuis, Buffon, and Needham, and his belief in the manifest design of the living world found expression in a variety of his publications. Voltaire first indicated his familiarity with Maupertuis's views on generation in 1752, when he published a review of Maupertuis's Oeuvres, containing the Venusphysique. 6 Yet although he was critical of Mau- pertuis's theory, it was not until after the mid-1760s that Maupertuis's views on generation began to be ridiculed on a regular basis by Voltaire. In 1764 Voltaire published a review of Bonnet's Considerationssur les corps organises, a strongly preformationist work that had appeared in 1762.17Voltaire's review endorsed preexistence and criticized Mauper- tuis's and Buffon's views on generation, although Voltaire had probably not yet read Buffon directly, relying rather on Bonnet's account of Buf- fon's theory.'8In Des singularitesde la nature, published in 1768, Voltaire reiterated his belief in preformation: "... It is today demonstrated to the eyes and to reason that there is neither vegetable nor animal that does not have a germ. One finds it in the egg of a chicken as in the acorn of an oak. A formative power presides at all these developments from one end of the universe to the other." '9 After 1764, Voltaire became increasingly concerned over materialism and atheism, and the scientific, especially biological, grounds upon which these heretical positions might be based. Moreover, he began to see in preformation a defense against these dangerous biological positions. As he remarked in the article "Athee, Atheisme" of the Dictionnaire phi- losophique (1764), "there are fewer atheists today than ever, since phi- losophers have recognized that there is no vegetating being without a germ, no germ without design, etc., and that wheat does not come from corruption."20 His subsequent attacks on Needham stemmed not so much 15 "Relation touchant un maure blanc amen6 d'Afrique a Paris en 1744" (1744), M. XXIII, 189-91; "Dissertation sur les changements arrives dans notre globe et sur les petrifications qu'on pretend en etre encore les temoignages" (1746), M. XXIII, 219-30. 16 Bibliotheque raisonnee (juillet, aoiit, septembre, 1752), M. XXIII, 535-43. Voltaire owned only a 1751 edition of the Venusphysique. See Biblioteka Vol'tera:Katalog knig; Bibliotheque de Voltaire:Catalogue des livres (Moscow & Leningrad, 1961), 604. 17 Gazette litteraire de l'Europe (4 April 1764), M. XXV, 153-58. 18 See Voltaire's marginal markings in his copy of Bonnet's Considrations in Corpus des notes marginales de Voltaire(Berlin, 1979), I, 393-94. Although Voltaire marked the preceding and succeeding chapters, he made no marks in Bonnet's chapter on Needham. On Voltaire's first reading of Buffon see note 38 below. 19M. XXVII, 161. 20 M. XVII, 476. This content downloaded from 62.122.79.81 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:56:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 72 SHIRLEY A. ROE from the particulars of Needham's work, which Voltaire never fully understood, as from what Needham's views symbolized for Voltaire. Voltaire's entire scientific world view was called into play in his defense of a preordained, ordered universe against what he saw as the chaos of materialism. And it was through Voltaire's critiques of Needham's work that this defense was most explicitly voiced. The Clash. Voltaire first learned of Needham's work from Mau- pertuis's Lettres, published in 1752. In Letter XVII, which was devoted to the subject of generation, Maupertuis referred to Needham's obser- vations on calamary, a type of squid, then continuing, But there are even greatermarvels! In dilutedflour one immediately finds eels large enoughto be seen by simple sight:these eels are full of other small eels to whichthey give birth.One sees the grainsof blighted wheatseparate in water into filaments,each of which immediately becomesanimated,and looks to the eye like a smallfish;whichwhenallowedto dry and to be withoutlife for entire years,is alwaysreadyto be revivedwhen one returnsit to its element.Where does this leave us? Does not all of this plungethe mysteryof generation back into an obscurityeven more profoundthan that from which we had wantedto draw it? 21 Maupertuis did not mention Needham's observations on infusions, nor did he amplify these remarks concerning Needham's work on the eels of flour paste and blighted wheat. As I mentioned, Voltaire reviewed an edition of Maupertuis's works in 1752. Here Voltaire briefly criticized Maupertuis's Venusphysique, which he characterized as "Venus trop peu physique et trop indecente," citing in particular Maupertuis's use of attraction and instinct in ex- plaining the formation of the embryo. During 1752 and 1753 Voltaire also wrote several pamphlets in which he satirized Maupertuis and several aspects of his work. Prompted by Maupertuis's priority dispute with Koenig over the law of least action, Voltaire's pamphlets included a humorously written examination of Maupertuis'sLettres by an Inquisitor from Rome. "We will pass over several things that would fatigue the patience of the reader and the intelligence of M. the inquisitor;"Voltaire wrote, "but we believe that he would be very surprised to learn that the young student [Maupertuis] ... causes eels pregnant with other eels to be born from diluted flour, and fish from grains of wheat." In a "seance memorable," a parody of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, of which Maupertuis was president from 1746 to 1756, Voltaire had the "galant" 21 Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis, Oeuvres(Lyon, 1756), II, 281 (Letter XIV in this edition). Maupertuis cited Needham's Nouvelles observations microscopiques and Buffon's report of Needham's observations in his Histoire naturelle, II, chap. 9. For a translation of Maupertuis's letter on generation, see Michael H. Hoffheimer, "Maupertuis and the Eighteenth-Century Critique of Preexistence," Journal of the History of Biology, 15 (1982), 119-44. This content downloaded from 62.122.79.81 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:56:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions VOLTAIRE VERSUS NEEDHAM 73 presidentserve the ladies present "a superbdish composedof pate of eels all one withinthe otherand bornsuddenlyfroma mixtureof diluted flour" as well as "greatplattersof fish that were formed immediately from grainsof germinated wheat." 22 In 1753,Voltairewas not particularly worriedby Needham'sobser- vations.They simplyservedas furthergrist for the mill in his attackon Maupertuis, providingyet anotherbeliefof Maupertuis's to be ridiculed. Voltaire's realclashwith Needhambeganin the mid-1760sandcontinued in one form or anotheruntil Voltaire'sdeath in 1778.Withinthe Need- ham-Voltairecontroversywe can discern three fairly distinct periods comprising,first, the debateover miraclesof 1765;second, the rash of worksdealingwith sciencepublished by Voltairein 1767and 1768;and, finally,Voltaire's effortsto refuted'Holbach's Systeme de la nature,which appeared in 1770. TheQuestion ofMiracles.-In 1765,whiletraveling as a schoolmaster, Needhamspent severalmonths in Geneva.There he encountered some anonymously publishedpamphletson the subjectof miracles,writtenby Voltairein reply to Claparede's Considerations sur les miracles,which had appearedearlierin the year. Claparede's book was itself a reply to Rousseau's Lettresecritesde la montagne of 1764.The themeof all these workswas whetheror not miraclescould occur and what role they had played and should play in the promotionof religiousbelief. Voltaire,who was residingat Ferney (near Geneva),wrote the first of his letterson miraclesin July 1765. By the end of the year these had grownto twenty.23 Manythemesarepresentin thesepamphlets, including Voltaire'sfamiliarattackson churchdogmas,here directedat the Cal- vinists, and on the massacresand martyrdoms of organizedreligion,as well as a criticalassessmentof Genevanpolitics. I concentratehere on those aspects of these pamphletsthat shed light on Voltaire'sattitude towardNeedham. Afterthe firstthreeof Voltaire's lettershadappeared, Needhambegan to write his own replies in the form of three anonymouspamphlets.24 22 M. XXIII, 568, 573. On the Voltaire-Maupertuis controversy, see "L'Akakia de Voltaire," ed. Charles Fleischauer, Stud. Volt., 30 (1964), 7-145; and the Introduction to Voltaire, Histoire du docteur Akakia et du natif de St-Malo, ed. Jacques Tuffet (Paris, 1967). 23 On the dating of these pamphlets, see the editorial comments in M. XXV, 357-58; and Georges Bengesco, Voltaire:bibliographiede ses oeuvres (Paris, 1882-90), II, 153-59. 24 Needham's pamphlets were titled Reponse d'un theologien au docte proposant des autres questions, Parodie de la troisieme lettre du proposant addressee a un philosophe, and Projetde notes instructives,veridiques,theologiques,historiques& critiquessur certaines brochurespolemiques du tem[p]s, adressees aux dignes editeurs des doctes ouvrages du proposant. Needham's Reponse and Parodie were written in August 1765, and the Projet probably in November 1765. Needham also published a second edition of the Parodie in February 1766. For a more detailed discussion of these pamphlets, see Renato G. Maz- zolini and Shirley A. Roe, eds., Science against the Unbelievers:The Correspondenceof This content downloaded from 62.122.79.81 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:56:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 74 SHIRLEY A. ROE The first of these, intendedto answerVoltaire'ssecond letter, discussed the questionof whethermiraclesare reasonable from a scientificpoint of view, an issue that had been raisedin Rousseau's Lettresecritesde la montagne. Voltairehad arguedthat it seemedridiculous that God would violate the laws of natureand the eternalplain of the universeonly for a particular reason.Why, for example,wouldHe have madethe sun and moon stand still in the heavensfor severalhours so that Joshuacould massacre the Amoritesif the resultwouldhavebeen a majordisturbance of the planetary system?The only conceivable reason,Voltaireremarked, was "so that on this small pile of mud called earth, the Popes might finally seize Rome, the benedictines might become too rich, Anne Du- bourgmightbe hangedin Parisand Servetus burnedalive in Geneva." 25 Needham,who was a Catholicpriest,repliedthat miraclesare only local exceptions,that God does not need to disturbthe generalsystem, and that miracles have servedto establish moralityamongmankind. Miracles, Needhammaintained,are "veryintelligibleand very believablefor the loyal Christianwho, knowingthe voice of God, relies on his power,his wisdom, and his veracity." 26 AlthoughVoltairedevotedhis fourthletter to answering Needham's first pamphlet,he did not yet know that Needhamhad been its author. He soon learned,however;and in his fifth letter,Voltairebegana series of personalattackson Needhamthat wereto run throughthe remaining fifteenlettershe wrote.WhatpiquedVoltaire's ire even morethanNeed- ham's specific argumentson miracleswas that Needham had alluded directlyto Voltaire,even mentioninghis name, in his pamphlet.7Yet it was Needham's biologicalviews that Voltairefoundmost worrisome. As he remarkedin his fifth letter, "You had made a small reputationfor yourselfamong atheistsby having made eels from flour, and from that you have concludedthat if flourproduceseels, all animals,startingwith Charles Bonnet and John TurbervilleNeedham, 1760-1780, Introduction, sect. 5, Stud. Volt. (forthcoming). See also Graham Gargett, Voltaire and Protestantism, Stud. Volt., 188 (1980), 226-28. Voltaire anonymously published annotated versions of Needham's pamphlets, along with his own twenty letters, as Collection des lettres sur les miracles, ecrites a Geneve et a Neufchatel par Mr. le proposant Thero, Monsieur Covelle, Monsieur Needham, Mr. Beaudinet & Mr. de Montmolin, &c. (Neufchatel, 1765 and 1767). Need- ham published an edition of his own pamphlets (with some additions), including extracts from four of Voltaire's pamphlets, as Questions sur les miracles, a Mr. Claparede, Pro- fesseur de Theologie a Geneve,par un proposant: ou extrait de diverses lettres de M. de Voltaire,avec des reponsespar M. Needham (London/Paris, 1769). Spelling modernized. 25 M. XXV, 373. 26 Reponse, 14; Questions sur les miracles, 45. 27 Neither of Needham's references to Voltaire (Reponse, 6, 9; Questions sur les miracles, 37, 39-40) stated directly that Voltaire was the proposant. The impropriety of Needham's allusions, however, was noted in November 1765 in the Correspondance litteraire (Paris, 1877-83), VI, 408. This content downloaded from 62.122.79.81 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:56:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions VOLTAIRE VERSUS NEEDHAM 75 man, could have been born in approximately the same manner." 28In the Avertissement that Voltaireaddedto this pamphletin his Collection, he madehis concernover the implications of Needham'sbiologicalwork even more explicit.Falsely characterizing Needhamas an Irish Jesuit29 who was disguisedin secularclothingand who roamedthe countryside spreadingpapist dogma, Voltaireremarked,"Whatwas even more as- tonishingis that this disguisedpriestwas the sameone who, severalyears earlier,meddledwith experiments on insects and who believedhe had discoveredwith his microscopethat the flour of blightedwheat, diluted in water, at once changedinto small animalsresembling eels. The fact was false, as an Italian savanthas demonstrated...." Voltairehere re- ferredto Spallanzani's experimental refutation of Needham's work,which hadjust beenpublished. But, Voltairecontinued,Needham'sclaim "was false for another even more superiorreason, namely, that the fact is impossible.If animalsare born withoutgerms,therewould no longerbe a cause of generation: a man could be born from a lump of earthjust as well as an eel froma pieceof paste.Thisridiculous systemwouldmoreover obviouslylead to atheism.Indeedit happenedthat severalphilosophers, believingin the experiment of Needhamwithouthavingseen it, claimed that mattercould organizeitself;and the microscopeof Needhamcame to be seen as the laboratory of atheists." 30 Needham now became the butt of Voltaire'ssatire throughoutthe remaining pamphlets. DubbingNeedham"l'Anguillard," the eelmonger, callinghim a "slanderous jesuit"andan Irishpapistwho madedangerous miracles,Voltairechargedthat Needhameven confusedhis own name with that of Jesus Christ:"If one says that Jesus Christchangedwater into wine, immediately Needhamthinksof his flourthat he has changed into eels...." 31 And in Voltaire's finalpamphlet, Needhamwassubjected to a mock trialin Neufchateland sentencedto be stonedoutsidethe city walls. Many other themes emerge from the Needham-Voltaire exchange over miracles,but the most significant thing aboutthis controversy with regardto Voltaire'sbiologicalviews is that these lettersprovideus with the first evidence that Voltaire had identified Needham's work with atheism.This was to be the underlyingtheme of all of Voltaire'ssub- 28 M. XXV, 394. 29 Needham was in fact neither Irish nor a Jesuit. He was born in London, educated under the secular clergy at the English College at Douai, and ordained a Catholic priest in 1738. For Needham's biography, see the abb6Mann's eulogy in Memoiresde l'Academie Imperiale et Royale des Sciences et Belles-Lettres de Bruxelles, 4 (1783), xxxiii-xli. See also Biographie nationale, publiee par l'Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, XV, 520-28; and the Dictionary of National Biography, XIV, 157-59. 30 M. XXV, 393-94. 31 Ibid., 395. This content downloaded from 62.122.79.81 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:56:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 76 SHIRLEY A. ROE sequentattackson Needham.Voltaire'serroneousdescriptionof Need- ham as an IrishJesuit,when Needhamwas in fact Englishand a secular priest,was not a simple erroron Voltaire'spart;it was ratherhis way of heightening bothhis ridiculefororganized Catholicism andhis growing uneaseover the implications of Needham'sviews. Whathad changedwith regardto Voltaire's knowledge of Needham's work in the years between 1753 and 1765?It is clear from Voltaire's remarkson Needham'sobservations in the pamphletson miraclesthat he had not yet read Needham'sscientificworks directly and was still relyingon the commentson Needham'sobservations that Maupertuis hadincludedin his Lettres. 32 TheseVoltaireslightlydistorted, erroneously conflatingNeedham'sobservations on flourpaste and on blightedwheat into observationson the flour of blighted wheat. What clearly had changed, however,was Voltaire's connection of certainkindsof biological views with atheism.As he succinctlyexpressedthis duringthe miracles dispute,"he who writesthat animalsgrowwithoutgerms,writesagainst God." 33 Pommeau,in his book on Voltaire'sreligion,has claimedthat it was a visit that Damilavillepaid to Voltairethat promptedVoltaire's worriesover the rise of atheismand materialism.34 Damilavillehad ap- parentlypresentedpro-atheism argumentsto Voltaire,partlyunderthe exhortation of Diderot,35 and had explainedDiderot'sgrowingbelief in biological materialism. Damilaville wasin GenevafromJulyto September of 1765, overlappingNeedham'svisit and the publicationof most of Voltaire'sand Needham'spamphletson miracles,so that it is likely that he andVoltairediscussed Needham's observations.36 It wasquiteprobably fromtheseconversations that Voltairebeganto connectNeedham's work with atheism. After the letterson miracles,Voltairewas to repeatthe same line of argument againstNeedhamin a numberof subsequent works.If eels can form from flour, could not man originate from matter as well, and, consequently, is thereany needfor a creativeGod?Voltairedid not fully understand Needham'sobservations, but he had no doubts about why he opposed them. Writing a congratulatory letter to Spallanzaniafter receivinghis refutationof Needham'swork, Voltairestated, "You are most right to combatthe allegedexperiments of Mr. Needham.He was 32 In addition to Needham's pamphlets on miracles, Voltaire owned, but did not annotate, the volume of the Philosophical Transactions in which Needham's paper had appeared in 1748 and the Nouvelles recherches of 1769. See Biblioteka Vol'tera, 648-49, 689. 33 M. XXV, 403 n.2. 34 Rene Pomeau, La Religion de Voltaire, rev. ed. (Paris, 1969), 393-94. 35See Diderot's letter to Damilaville, sent to him at Ferney on 12 September 1765. Diderot, Correspondance,ed. Georges Roth, 16 vols. (Paris, 1955-70), V, 117-21. 36 See Voltaire's letter to Damilaville of 13 November [1765], Besterman, D12979, where Needham's work on eels is mentioned. This content downloaded from 62.122.79.81 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:56:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions VOLTAIRE VERSUS NEEDHAM 77 attackednot long ago in Genevaon miracles.He could boast indeedof havingmademiraclesif he had been able to produceeels withoutgerms. One must be waryof all these dangerous experiments that contradict the laws of nature." 37 Voltaire'sPublicationsofl 767-1768.-After the miracles episode, two eventsrekindled Voltaire's attackson Needham-his readingof Buffon's Histoirenaturelle in 1767and of an anonymous translation of Lucretius's De rerumnaturain 1768.Both worksbroughtonce againto his attention someof the moredangerous tendencies of contemporary biologicalviews. And in both, Needham'sworkplayeda key role. Althoughthe first two volumesof Buffon'sHistoirenaturellewere publishedoriginallyin 1749, evidence existsto suggestthatVoltairedidnot receiveor readanyvolumes until 1767.38 There are numerousmarginalnotes in Voltaire'scopies of the firsttwo volumesof the Histoirenaturelle,which dealt with Buffon's theoryof the earthand his views on generation. AlthoughBuffon'sideas on the originsof mountainsand fossils disturbed Voltaireas much as or more than his theoryof generation,I do not concentrate on these here. Sufficeit to say that Voltaireopposeda naturalistic explanation for the originsof both fossils and the earth'sfeatures,preferring to believethat God had createdthe earthas we see it and that fossils were the remains of travelers' meals.39 Many passagesin