1.  THE ancients, says Mr. Buffon, understood much better, and made a greater progress in the natural history of animals and minerals than we have done. They abounded more in real observations; and we ought to have made much better advantage of their illustrations and remarks. Yet he does not often support his sentiment by their authority: hence one might be led to believe, that he did not himself perceive the analogy which every where reigns between his system, and that of the ancients. Let the reader himself determine of it, upon perusing what I have to offer. Meanwhile, it is but right to observe, that it cannot be concluded from Mr. Buffon’s not supporting himself by the authority of the ancients, that he was not acquainted with their sentiments, and still much less, that having studied them, he did not discern the conformity between theirs and his own. And I make this observation with the less repugnance, because I do not hereby detract from the reputation of that able writer, who will always possess the merit of having, with the greatest sagacity, apprehended the principles of the Greek philosophers, and revived their reasonings; the greatest part of which had been ravaged by the injuries of time.

2.    I cannot but look upon the restorer of the system of any great man, the frame of which only shows itself in a few remaining fragments, as upon an able sculptor, who, from the broken bust of Phidias, or any other famous ancient, is capable, by the strength of his own genius, and the skill he has in his art, exactly to judge by that single piece, of the proportions which ought to take place in every. member, so as to form and unite them together in so just a manner, that his statute shall be as perfect as the other. The merit of such a modern artist, doubtless, deserves great praise; but the glory of the ancient one will still be superior, because the idea of the proportions of the adjusted members, was taken from that of those in the broken bust. It is easy to apply this comparison to modern philosophers, of whom the most eminent, so far from seeking to avoid the charge of having borrowed their opinions from the ancients, have often been the first to own it; of which Descartes, and the principal Newtonians, furnish us with striking examples.

3.  Diogenus Laertius, Plutarch and Aristotle inform us, that Anax agoras thought bodies were composed of similar or homogeneous particles; that those bodies, however, admitted a certain quantity of small particles that were heterogeneous, or of another kind; but that to constitute any body of a particular species, it sufficed that it was composed of a great number of small particles, similar and constitutive of that species. Different bodies were masses of particles similar among themselves; dissimilar however, relatively to those of any other body or to the mass of small particles, belonging to a different species. They believed, for example, that blood Was formed of many particles, each of which had blood in it; that a bone was formed of many small bones, which from their extreme littleness evaded our view. Likewise according to this philosopher, nothing was properly liable to birth or. to death; generations of every kind, being no other than an assemblage of small particles, constituent of the kind; and the destruction of a body being no other, than the disunion of many small bodies of the same sort, which always preserving a natural tendency to reunite, produce again by their conjunction with other similar particles, other bodies of the same species. Vegetation and nutrition were but means employed by nature for the continuation of beings: thus, the different juices of the earth, being composed of a collection of innumerable small particles intermixed, constituting the different parts of a tree or flower, take according to the law of nature, different arrangements; and by the motion originally impressed upon them, proceed, till arriving at the places designed and proper for them, they collect themselves and halt to form all the different parts of that tree or flower: in the same manner as many small imperceptible leaves go to the formation of the leaves we see; many little parts of the fruits of different kinds, to the composition of those which we eat; and so of the rest. The case was the same, according to that philosopher, with respect to the nutrition of animals. The bread we eat, and the other aliments we take, turn themselves according to this system, into hair, veins; arteries, nerves and all the other parts of our bodies; because there are in those ailments, the constituent parts of blood, nerves, bones, hair, &c. which uniting with one another, make themselves by their coalition perceptible, which they were not before, because of their infinite smallness.

4.  Empedocles hath acknowledged the same with respect to animal nutrition, which be says, forms itself out of the substance of aliments proper and accommodated to the animal nature. He also taught, that matter had in it a living, principle, a subtile active fire, which put all in motion; and which Mr. de Buffon calls by another name, organized matter, always active; or, animated organic matter. And this matter, according to Empedocles, was distributed through the four elements among which it had an uniting force to bind them, and a separating, to put them asunder, for the small parts either mutually embraced, or repelled one another; whence nothing in reality perished, “but every thing was in perpetual vicissitude.” Whence it follows, according to the system of Empedocles, as well as that of Anaxagoras, nothing had either life or death, properly so called, but that the essence of things consisted in that active principle, whence they arose, and into which they all reduced themselves at last. He bad also a sentiment respecting generation, which Mr. de Buffon bath followed, expressing it in the very same terms ; where he says, that the seminal juices of the two sexes contain all the small parts analogous to the body of an animal, and necessary to its production.

5.  Plotinus, following the idea of Empedocles, and investigating the reason of this sympathy in nature, discovered it to proceed from such a harmony and assimilation of the parts, as bound them together when they met, or repelled them when they were dissimilar; he says. that it is the variety of these assimilations that concur to the formation of an animal; and calls that binding or dissolving force, the magic of the universe: and his able interpreter, Marsilius Ficinus, explaining the sense of that passage, says, that the different parts of every animal, have an attractive virtue in them, by means of which they assimilate such parts of the aliment as best agree with them.

6.  I come now to the system of Mr. de Buffon. He thinks with Anaxagoras, that there is in nature a common matter to animals and vegetables, which serves for the nutrition and expansion of all that lives or vegetates; and with Plotinus, that this matter contributes to their nutrition and expansion, in being assimilated to each part of an animal or vegetative body, and entering into their inmost pores. This nutritive and productive matter, is universally spread through all, and composed of organic particles, ever active, tending towards organization, and of themselves assuming a variety of forms according to their situations; so that with Anaxagoras, he thinks there is no pre-existent seed, involving infinite numbers of the same kind, one within another:

but an ever active organic matter, always ready so to adapt itself, as to assimilate, and render other things conformable to that wherein it resides : the species of animals and vegetables can never therefore exhaust themselves: but as long as an individual subsists, the species will be renewed. It is as extensive now, as it was at the beginning and all will subsist till they are annihilated by the Creator. It follows from these principles, that generation and corruption are only a differ. ent association or disjunction of similar parts, which after the dissolution of an animal or vegetable body, serve to reproduce another, of the species: provided, according to Mr. de Buffon, that those small constituent parts meet in a place proper for the expansion of them selves, so as to unclose what ought thence to result for the generation of an animal, or that they pass through the interior mould of an animal or vegetable, and assimilate themselves to the different parts in intimately adhering to them; and it is in this last respect only, that any difference subsists between the opinions of the ancients last mentioned, and the theory of Mr. de Buffon. He thinks that the similar and organic parts do not become specific, till after they have assimilated themselves to the different parts of the bodies, into whose composition they enter ; whereas Anaxagoras believed them always specific, and did not think that they had need to enter the inside of the parts in order to assimilate.

7.  Another principle of Mr. de Buffon is, that when the nutritive matter abounds more than sufficient for the nourishment and expansion of an animal or vegetable body, it is remitted through all parts of the body, into one or more reservoirs, in form of a liquor, which is the semen of the two sexes, which mingled together, contributes to the’ formation of a foetus, which becomes male or female in proportion as the seed of the male or female abounds more or less in the organic assemblages; and resembles father or mother, according to the different combinations of the two seeds. One finds all the origin of this idea in Pythagoras, Aristotle, Hippocrates.

8.  It would be to stray from my subject, were I to treat of the merit of one or other of these systems. My scope will be sufficiently attained, if I make the analogy of them appear. It seems to me, that both of them are the productions of very fine geniuses; that of Anaxagoras is more intricate, and not supported by the exact experiments, which sustain that of Mr. de Buffon; it were to be wished, therefore, that the Greek philosopher had discovered the principles traced out by the modern; but the advantage the one had of making use of a microscope, ought not to turn to, the disadvantage of the other; yet hereafter, we shall see, that the ancients, in this respect, did not long remain behind.

There is another system, which is no less ingenious than this, and of which we find equal traces among the ancients.

Chapter 8