Buffon's Natural History, Volume 02 (of 10) / Containing a Theory of the Earth, a General History of Man, of the Brute Creation, and of Vegetables, Mineral, &c. &c

by comte de Georges Louis Leclerc Buffon

I do not mean to say that the organic molecules of either could unite to form small organized bodies of themselves, but that it is necessary a mixture of the seminal fluid of both sexes should take place, and that it is only those formed in that mixture which can expand and become individuals. These small moving bodies, called spermatic animals, are seen, by a microscope, in the seminal liquor of every male, and are, probably, small organized bodies, proceeding from the individual which contains them, but which cannot expand or produce any thing of themselves. We shall evince that there are the same in the seminal liquor of the female, and shall indicate the place where this liquor is to be found.

It is very possible that organical molecules are, at first, only a kind of fœtus of a small organized body, in which there are only essential parts. We shall not enter into a detail of proofs, in this respect, but content ourselves with remarking, that the pretended spermatic animals, which we have been speaking of, might possibly be but imperfectly organized, or that these pretended animals are only living organic particles, common both to animals and vegetables, or, at most, only the first union of those particles.

But let us return to our principal object. How can we conceive, it may be asked, that the superfluous particles can be sent back from every part of the body, and afterwards unite when the seminal liquor of the two sexes are mixed? Besides, is it certain that this mixture is made? Has it not been pretended that the female did not furnish any fluid of this kind? Is it certain that the liquor of the male enters the matrix, &c.

To the first question I answer, if what I have said on the subject of the penetration of the internal mould by organic molecules, in nutrition or expansion, be well understood, it will easily be conceived that these molecules, not being able any longer to penetrate those parts they did before, they will be necessitated to take a different road, and consequently arrive at some part, as the testicles or seminal vessels; for to explain the animal economy, and the different movements of the human body, solely by mechanical principles, is the same as if a man would give an account of a picture by shutting his eyes and feeling on it; for it is evident that neither the circulation of the blood, nor the motion of the muscles, nor the animal functions, can be explained by impulsion, nor other common laws of mechanics: it is as evident that nutrition, expansion, and reproduction, is made by other laws, why therefore not admit of acting and penetrating powers on the masses of bodies, since we have examples of it in gravity, in magnetical attractions, and in chemical affinities? And as we are now convinced by facts, and the multitude of constant and uniform observations, that there exists in nature powers which do not act by the mode of impulsion, why should we not make use of those powers as mechanical principles? Why should we exclude them from the explanations of effects, which we are convinced they produce? Why should we be confined to employ only the power of impulsion? Is not this like judging of a picture by the touch, and explaining the phenomena of the mass by those of the surface, and the penetrating power by superficial action? Is not this making use of one sense instead of another; and, on the whole, is it not confining the faculty of reasoning on a small number of mechanical principles, totally inadequate to follow the various productions of nature.

But those penetrating powers being once admitted, is it not natural to suppose that the most analogous particles will unite and bind themselves intimately together; that each part of the body will appropriate the most agreeable to itself, and that from the superfluity of all these particles there will be formed a seminal fluid, which will contain all the organic molecules necessary to form a small organized body, perfectly like that from which this fluid is extracted? A power like that which was necessary to make them penetrate into each part, and produce expansion, may be sufficient to collect them in an organized form, like that of the body in which they originated.

I conceive, that in the aliments we take there is a great quantity of organical molecules, which needs no serious proof, since we live on animals and vegetables, which are organized substances. In the stomach and intestines a separation is made of the gross parts, which are thrown off by the excretories. The chyle, which is the purest part of the aliment, enters into the lacteal vessels, and from thence is transported into every part of the body. By the motion of the circulation it purifies itself from all inorganical molecules, which are thrown off by secretion and transpiration; but the organic particles remain, because they are analogous to the blood, and that from thence there is a power of affinity which retains them afterwards; for as the whole mass of blood passes many times through the body, I apprehend, that in this continual circulation every particular part of the body attracts the particles most analogous to it, without interrupting the course of the others. In this manner every part is expanded and nourished, not, as it is commonly said, by a simple addition of the parts, and a superficial increase, but by an intimate penetration of substance, produced by a power which acts on every point of the mass; and when the parts of the body are at a certain growth, and almost filled with these analogous particles, as their substance is become more solid, I conceive they then lose the faculty of attracting or receiving those particles, but as the circulation will continue to carry them to every part of the body, which not being any longer able to admit them as before, must necessarily be deposited in some particular part, as in the testicles or seminal vessels. This fluid extract of the male, when mixed with that of the female, the similar particles, possessing a penetrating force, unite and form a small organized body like one of the two sexes, and no more than expansion is wanting to render it a similar individual, and which it afterwards receives in the womb of the female.

The second question, Whether the female has really a seminal liquor similar to the male? demands some discussion. I shall first observe, as a certain matter, that if such a fluid exists, the manner in which the emission of the female is made is not so apparent as by the male, being in general retained within the body.[BJ] The ancients so little doubted of the female having a seminal liquor, that it was by the different mode of its emission that they distinguished the male from the female. But physicians, who have endeavoured to explain generation by the egg, or by spermatic animalcules, insinuate that females have no particular fluid, that we have been deceived by taking the mucus for the seminal, and that the supposition of the ancients upon this subject was destitute of all foundation. Nevertheless this fluid does exist, and it has only been doubted by those who chose to give way to systems, and from the difficulty of discovering the parts which serve for its reservoirs. The fluid which issues from the glands at the neck of the womb, and at the orifice of the urethra, has no apparent reservoir, and as it flows outwardly it cannot be thought to be the prolific liquor, since it cannot concur in the formation of the fœtus which is performed within the matrix. The prolific fluid of the female must have a reservoir in another part. It flows even in great plenty, although such a quantity is not necessary, no more than in the male, for the production of the embryo. It is sufficient for propagation if ever so little of the male fluid enters the matrix, so it meets with the smallest drop of that of the female; therefore the observations of some anatomists, who have pretended that the seminal liquor of the male does not enter the womb, makes nothing against what we have advanced, especially as other anatomists, who rely on observations, have pretended the contrary. But the subject will be better discussed in the subsequent pages.

[BJ] Quod intra se semen jacit fæmina vocatur; quod in hac jacit, mas, Aristotle, art. 18 de Animalibus.

Having thus given answers to possible objections, let us now look into the reasons which may serve as proofs to our explanation. The first is derived from the analogy there is between expansion and reproduction; expansion cannot be explained in a satisfactory manner, without employing those penetrating powers, and those affinities or attractions we have already made use of to explain the formation of small organized beings, resembling the great ones which contain them. A second analogy is, that nutrition and reproduction are both not only produced by the same efficient, but also by the same material cause, the organic particles of the nutriment. And a proof that it is the superfluity of those particles which serves for reproduction, is the body not being in a condition to propagate before they have done growing; and we daily see in dogs, and other animals, who more exactly follow the laws of nature than we, that they nearly attain their full growth before they attempt to copulate, and by which we may know whether a dog will increase any more or not; for we may be assured he will not after being in a condition to engender.