,,freedom   ,,in   ,,science ,,and      
,,teaching4     ,,from ,,the ,,german   
,,of   ,,ernst ,,haeckel4     ,,with ,a 
,,prefatory ,,note   ,by ,t4 ,h4        
,,huxley1 ,f4,r4,s4    ,,der ,,teleolog 
,welche ,verehrung verdient der         
,weltenschoepfer der gnaedig4   ,als er 
den ,korkbaum schuf1 gleich auch die    
,stoepfel erfand4       ,,xenien4       
,,new ,,york3   ,d4 ,,appleton ,,and    
,,company1   #edi ,,and #eea ,,broadway4
   #ahgi4     ,,prefatory ,,note4   ,in 
complying with the wish of the          
publishers of ,professor ,haeckel's     
reply to ,professor ,virchow1 that ,i   
should furnish a prefatory note         
expressing my own opinion in respect of 
the subject-matter of the controversy1  
,gay's homely lines1 prophetic of the   
fate of those who in quarrels interpose1
 emerge from some brain-cupboard in     
which they have been hidden since my    
childish days4 ,in fact1 the            
hard-hitting with which both the attack 
and the defence abound1 makes me think  

with a shudder upon the probable        
sufferings of the unhappy man whose     
intervention should lead two such       
gladiators to turn their weapons from   
one another upon him4 ,in my youth1 ,i  
once attempted to stop a street fight1  
and ,i have never forgotten the brief   
but impressive lesson on the value of   
the policy of non-intervention which ,i 
then received4  ,but there is1 happily1 
no need for me to place myself in a     
position which1 besides being fraught   
with danger1 would savour of            
presumption3 ,careful study of both the 
attack and the reply leaves me without  
the inclination to become either a      
partisan or a peacemaker3 not a         
partisan1 for there is a great deal with
 which ,i fully agree said on both      
sides2 not a peacemaker1 because ,i     
think it is highly desirable that the   
important questions which underlie the  
discussion1 apart from the more personal
 phases of the dispute1 should be       
thoroughly discussed4 ,and if it were   

possible to have controversy without    
bitterness in human affairs1 ,i should  
be disposed1 for the general good1 to   
use to both of the eminent antagonists  
the famous phrase of a late ,president  
of the ,french ,chamber--,tape dessus4  
,no profound acquaintance with the      
history of science is needed to produce 
the conviction1 that the advancement of 
natural knowledge has been effected by  
the successive or concurrent efforts of 
men1 whose minds are characterised by   
tendencies so opposite that they are    
forced into conflict with one another4  
,the one intellect is imaginative and   
synthetic2 its chief aim is to arrive at
 a broad and coherent conception of the 
relations of phenomena2 the other is    
positive1 critical1 analytic1 and sets  
the highest value upon the exact        
determination and statement of the      
phenomena themselves4  ,if the man of   
the critical school takes the pithy     
aphorism ,melius autem est naturam      
secare quam abstrahere#a for his motto1 

the champion of free speculation may    
retort with another from the same hand1 
,citius enim emergit veritas e falsitate
 quam e confusione2#b and each may      
adduce abundant historical proof that   
his method has contributed as much to   
the progress of knowledge as that of his
 rival4 ,every science has been largely 
indebted to bold1 nay1 even to wild     
hypotheses1 for the power of ordering   
and grasping the endless details of     
natural fact which they confer2 for the 
moral stimulus which arises out of the  
desire to confirm or to confute them2   
and last1 but not least1 for the        
suggestion of paths of fruitful inquiry1
 which1 without them1 would never have  
been followed4 ,from the days of        
,columbus and ,kepler to those of ,oken1
 ,lamarck1 and ,boucher de ,perthes1    
,saul1 who1 seeking his father's asses1 
found a kingdom1 is the prototype of    
many a renowned discoverer who has      
lighted upon verities while following   
illusions1 which1 had they deluded      

lesser men1 might possibly have been    
considered more or less asinine4  ,on   
the other hand1 there is no branch of   
science which does not owe at least an  
equal obligation to those cool heads1   
which are not to be seduced into the    
acceptance of symmetrical formulae and  
bold generalisations for solid truths   
because of their brilliancy and         
grandeur2 to the men who cannot overlook
 those small exceptions and             
insignificant residual phenomena which1 
when tracked to their causes1 are so    
often the death of brilliant hypotheses2
 to the men1 finally1 who1 by           
demonstrating the limits to human       
knowledge which are set by the very     
conditions of thought1 have warned      
mankind against fruitless efforts to    
overstep those limits4  ,neither of the 
eminent men of science1 whose opinions  
are at present under consideration1 can 
be said to be a one-sided representative
 either of the synthetic or of the      
analytic school4 ,haeckel1 no less than 

,virchow1 is distinguished by the       
number1 variety1 and laborious accuracy 
of his contributions to positive        
knowledge2 while ,virchow1 no less than 
,haeckel1 has dealt in wide             
generalisations1 and1 until the         
obscurantists thought they could turn   
his recent utterances to account1 no one
 was better abused by them as a typical 
free-thinker and materialist4 ,but1 as  
happened to the two women grinding at   
the same mill1 one has been taken and   
the other left4 ,since the publication  
of his famous oration1 ,virchow has been
 received into the bosom of orthodoxy   
and respectability1 while ,haeckel      
remains an outcast6  ,to those who pay  
attention to the actual facts of the    
case1 this is a very surprising event2  
and ,i confess that nothing has ever    
perplexed me more than the reception    
which ,professor ,virchow's oration has 
met with1 in his own and in this        
country2 for it owes that reception1 not
 to the undoubted literary and          

scientific merits which it possesses1   
but to an imputed righteousness for     
which1 so far as ,i can discern1 it     
offers no foundation4 ,it is supposed to
 be a recantation2 ,i can find no word  
in it which1 if strictly construed1 is  
inconsistent with the most extreme of   
those opinions which are commonly       
attributed to its author4 ,it is        
supposed to be a deadly blow to the     
doctrine of evolution2 but1 though ,i   
certainly hold by that doctrine with    
some tenacity1 ,i am able1 ex animo1 to 
subscribe to every important general    
proposition which its author lays down4 
,in commencing his address1 ,virchow    
adverts to the complete freedom of      
investigation and publication in regard 
to scientific questions which obtains in
 ,germany2 he points out the obligation 
which lies upon men of science1 even if 
for no better reason than the           
maintenance of this state of things1 to 
exhibit a due sense of the              
responsibility which attaches to their  

speaking and writing1 and he dwells on  
the necessity of drawing a clear line of
 demarcation between those propositions 
which they have a fair right to regard  
as established truths1 and those which  
they know to be only more or less       
well-founded speculations4 ,is any one  
prepared to deny that this is the first 
great commandment of the ethics of      
teaching8 ,would any responsible        
scientific teacher like to admit that he
 had not done his best to separate facts
 from hypotheses in the minds of his    
hearers2 and that he had not made it his
 chief business to enable those whom he 
instructs to judge the latter by their  
knowledge of the former8  ,more         
particularly does this obligation weigh 
upon those who address the general      
public4 ,it is indubitable1 as          
,professor ,virchow observes1 that he   
who speaks to1 or writes for1 the public
 is doubly bound to test the objective  
truth of that which he says4 ,there is a
 sect of scientific pharisees who thank 

,god that they are not as those         
publicans who address the public4 ,if   
this sect includes anybody who has      
attempted the business without failing  
in it1 ,i suspect that he must have     
given up keeping a conscience4 ,for     
assuredly if a man of science1          
addressing the public1 bethinks him1 as 
he ought to do1 that the obligation to  
be accurate--to say no more than he has 
warranty for1 without clearly marking   
off so much as is hypothetical--is far  
heavier than if he were dealing with    
experts1 he will find his task a very   
admirable mental exercise4 ,for my own  
part1 ,i am inclined to doubt whether   
there is any method of self-discipline  
better calculated to clear up one's own 
ideas about a difficult subject1 than   
that which arises out of the effort to  
put them forth1 with fulness and        
precision1 in language which all the    
world can understand4 ,sheridan is said 
to have replied to some one who remarked
 on the easy flow of his style1 ,easy   

reading1 sir1 is--hard writing2 and any 
one who is above the level of a         
scientific charlatan will know that easy
 speaking is ----hard thinking4  ,again1
 when ,professor ,virchow enlarges on   
the extreme incompleteness of every     
man's knowledge beyond those provinces  
which he has made his own 7and he might 
well have added within these also71 and 
when he dilates on the inexpediency1 in 
the interests of science1 of putting    
forth as ascertained truths propositions
 which the progress of knowledge soon   
upsets--who will be disposed to gainsay 
him8 ,nor have ,i1 for one1 anything but
 cordial assent to give to his          
declaration1 that the modern development
 of science is essentially due to the   
constant encroachment of experiment and 
observation on the domain of            
hypothetical dogma2 and that the most   
difficult1 as well as the most          
important1 object of every honest worker
 is sich ent-subjectiviren--to get rid  
of his preconceived notions1 and to keep

 his hypotheses well in hand1 as the    
good servants and bad masters that they 
are4  ,i do not think ,i have omitted   
any one of ,professor ,virchow's main   
theses in this brief enumeration4 ,i do 
not find that they are disputed by      
,haeckel1 and ,i should be profoundly   
astonished if they were4 ,what1 then1 is
 all the coil about1 if we leave aside  
various irritating sarcasms1 which need 
not concern peaceable ,englishmen8      
,certainly about nothing that touches   
the present main issues of scientific   
thought4 ,the plastidule-soul and the   
potentialities of carbon may be sound   
scientific conceptions1 or they may be  
the reverse1 but they are no necessary  
part of the doctrine of evolution1 and  
,i leave their defence to ,professor    
,haeckel4  ,on the question of equivocal
 generation1 ,i have been compelled1    
more conspicuously and frequently than  
,i could wish1 during the last ten      
years1 to enunciate exactly the same    
views as those put forward by ,professor

 ,virchow2 so that1 to my mind1 at any  
rate1 the denial that any such process  
has as yet been proved to take place in 
the existing state of nature1 as little 
affects the general doctrine4#c  ,with  
respect to another side issue1 raised by
 ,professor ,virchow1 he appears to me  
to be entirely in the wrong4 ,he is     
careful to say that he has no           
unwillingness to accept the descent of  
man from some lower form of vertebrate  
life2 but1 reminding us of the special  
attention which1 of late years1 he has  
given to anthropology1 he affirms that  
such evidence as exists is not only     
insufficient to support that hypothesis1
 but is contrary to it4 ,every positive 
progress which we have made in the      
region of prehistoric anthropology has  
removed us further from the             
demonstration of this relation4  ,well1 
,i also have studied anthropological    
questions in my time2 and ,i feel bound 
to remark1 that this assertion of       
,professor ,virchow's appears to me to  

be a typical example of the kind of     
incautious over-statement which he so   
justly reprehends4  ,for1 unless ,i     
greatly err1 all the real knowledge     
which we possess of the fossil remains  
of man goes no farther back than the    
,quaternary epoch2 and the most that can
 be asserted on ,professor ,virchow's   
side respecting these remains is1 that  
none of them present us with more marked
 pithecoid characters than such as are  
to be found among the existing races of 
mankind4#d ,but1 if this be so1 then the
 only just conclusion to be drawn from  
the evidence as it stands is1 that the  
men of the ,quaternary epoch may have   
proceeded from a lower type of humanity1
 though their remains hitherto          
discovered show no definite approach    
towards that type4 ,the evidence is not 
inconsistent with the doctrine of       
evolution1 though it does not help it4  
,if ,professor ,virchow had paid as much
 attention to comparative anatomy and   
palaeontology as he has to anthropology1

 he would1 ,i doubt not1 be aware that  
the equine quadrupeds of the ,quaternary
 period do not differ from existing     
,equidae in any more important respect  
than these last differ from one another2
 and he would know that it is1          
nevertheless1 a well-established fact   
that1 in the course of the ,tertiary    
period1 the equine quadrupeds have      
undergone a series of changes exactly   
such as the doctrine of evolution       
requires4 ,hence sound analogical       
reasoning justifies the expectation     
that1 when we obtain the remains of     
,pliocene1 ,miocene1 and ,eocene        
,anthropidae1 they will present us with 
the like series of gradations1          
notwithstanding the fact1 if it be a    
fact1 that the ,quaternary men1 like the
 ,quaternary horses1 differ in no       
essential respect from those which now  
live4  ,i believe that the state of our 
knowledge on this question is still     
justly summed up in words written some  
seventeen years ago3--  ,in conclusion1 

,i may say1 that the fossil remains of  
man hitherto discovered do not seem to  
me to take us appreciably nearer to that
 lower pithecoid form by the            
modification of which he has probably   
become what he is4 ,and considering what
 is now known of the most ancient races 
of men2 seeing that they fashioned flint
 axes1 and flint knives1 and bone       
skewers of much the same pattern as     
those fabricated by the lowest savages  
at the present day1 and that we have    
every reason to believe the habits and  
modes of living of such people to have  
remained the same from the time of the  
mammoth and the tichorhine rhinoceros   
till now1 ,i do not know that the result
 is other than might be expected4#e  ,i 
have seen no reason to change the       
opinion here expressed1 and so far from 
the fact being in the slightest degree  
opposed to a belief in the evolution of 
man1 all that has been learned of late  
years respecting the relation of the    
,recent and ,quaternary to the ,tertiary

 mammalia appears to me to be in        
striking harmony with what we know      
respecting ,quaternary man1 supposing   
man to have followed the general law of 
evolution4  ,the only other collateral  
question of importance raised by        
,professor ,virchow is1 whether the     
doctrine of evolution should be         
generally taught in schools or not4 ,now
 ,i cannot find that ,professor ,virchow
 anywhere distinctly repudiates the     
doctrine2 all that he distinctly says is
 that it is not proven1 and that things 
which are not proven should not be      
authoritatively instilled into the minds
 of young people4  ,if ,professor       
,virchow will agree to make this        
excellent rule absolute1 and applicable 
to all subjects that are taught in      
schools1 ,i should be disposed heartily 
to concur with him4  ,but what will his 
orthodox allies say to this8 ,if not    
provenness is susceptible of the        
comparative degree1 by what factor must 
we multiply the imperfection of the     

evidence for evolution in order to      
express that of the evidence for special
 creation2 or to what fraction must the 
value of the evidence in favour of the  
uninterrupted succession of life be     
reduced in order to express that in     
support of the deluge8 ,nay1 surely even
 ,professor ,virchow's dearest foes1 the
 plastidule soul and ,carbon  ,co41 have
 more to say for themselves1 than the   
linguistic accomplishments of ,balaam's 
ass and the obedience of the sun and    
moon to the commander of a horde of     
bloodthirsty ,hebrews6 ,but the high    
principles of which ,professor ,virchow 
is so admirable an exponent do not admit
 of the application of two weights and  
two measures in education2 and it is    
surely to be regretted that a man of    
science of great eminence should        
advocate the stern bridling of that     
teaching which1 at any rate1 never      
outrages common sense1 nor refuses to   
submit to criticism1 while he has no    
whisper of remonstrance to offer to the 

authoritative propagation of the        
preposterous fables by which the minds  
of children are dazed and their sense of
 truth and falsehood perverted4         
,professor ,virchow solemnly warns us   
against the danger of attempting to     
displace the ,church by the religion of 
evolution4 ,what this last confession of
 faith may be ,i do not know1 but it    
must be bad indeed if it inculcates more
 falsities than are at present foisted  
upon the young in the name of the       
,church4  ,i make these remarks simply  
in the interests of fair play4 ,far be  
it from me to suggest that it is        
desirable that the inculcation of the   
doctrine of evolution should be made a  
prominent feature of general education4 
,i agree with ,professor ,virchow so    
far1 but for very different reasons4 ,it
 is not that ,i think the evidence of   
that doctrine insufficient1 but that ,i 
doubt whether it is the business of a   
teacher to plunge the young mind into   
difficult problems concerning the origin

 of the existing condition of things4 ,i
 am disposed to think that the brief    
period of school-life would be better   
spent in obtaining an acquaintance with 
nature1 as it is2 in fact1 in laying a  
firm foundation for the further         
knowledge ,which is needed for the      
critical examination of the dogmas1     
whether scientific or anti-scientific1  
which are presented to the adult mind4  
,at present1 education proceeds in the  
reverse way2 the teacher makes the most 
confident assertions on precisely those 
subjects of which he knows least2 while 
the habit of weighing evidence is       
discouraged1 and the means of forming a 
sound judgment are carefully withheld   
from the pupil4         99       99     
99       99       99  ,professor        
,virchow is known to me only as he is   
known to the world in general--by his   
high and well-earned scientific         
reputation4 ,with ,professor ,haeckel1  
on the other hand1 ,i have the good     
fortune to be on terms of personal      

friendship4 ,but in making the preceding
 observations1 ,i should be sorry to    
have it supposed that ,i am holding a   
brief for my friend1 or that ,i am      
disposed to adopt all the opinions which
 he has expressed in his reply4         
,nevertheless1 ,i do desire to express  
my hearty sympathy with his vigorous    
defence of the freedom of learning and  
teaching2 and ,i think ,i shall have all
 fair-minded men with me when ,i also   
give vent to my reprobation of the      
introduction of the sinister arts of    
unscrupulous political warfare into     
scientific controversy1 manifested in   
the attempt to connect the doctrines he 
advocates with those of a political     
party which is1 at present1 the object  
of hatred and persecution in his native 
land4 ,the one blot1 so far as ,i know1 
on the fair fame of ,edmund ,burke is   
his attempt to involve ,price and       
,priestley in the furious hatred of the 
,english masses against the authors and 
favourers of the revolution of #aghi4   

,burke1 however1 was too great a man to 
be absurd1 even in his errors2 and it is
 not upon record that he asked          
uninformed persons to consider what     
might be the effect of such an          
innovation as the discovery of oxygen on
 the minds of members of the ,jacobin   
,club4  ,professor ,virchow is a        
politician--maybe a ,german ,burke1 for 
anything that ,i know to the contrary2  
at any rate1 he knows the political     
value of words2 and1 as a man of        
science1 he is devoid of the excuses    
that might be made for ,burke4          
,nevertheless1 he gravely charges his   
hearers to imagine what shape the theory
 of descent takes in the head of a      
,socialist4  ,i have tried to comply    
with this request1 but ,i have utterly  
failed to call up the dread image2 ,i   
suppose because ,i do not sufficiently  
sympathise with ,socialists4 ,all the   
greater is my regret that ,professor    
,virchow did not himself unfold the     
links of the hidden bonds which unite   

evolution with revolution1 and bind     
together the community of descent with  
the community of goods4  ,professor     
,virchow is1 ,i doubt not1 an           
accomplished ,english scholar4 ,let me  
commend the ,rejected ,addresses to his 
attention4 ,for since the brothers      
,smith sang--    ,who makes the quartern
 loaf and ,luddites rise1--   ,who fills
 the butchers' shops with large blue    
flies1  there has been nothing in       
literature at all comparable to the     
attempt to frighten sober people by the 
suggestion that evolutionary            
speculations generate revolutionary     
schemes in ,socialist brains4 ,but then 
the authors of the ,rejected ,addresses 
were joking1 while ,professor ,virchow  
is in grim earnest2 and that makes a    
great difference in the moral aspect of 
the two achievements4   ,,footnotes3  #a
 ,novum ,organon1 li4  #b ,partis       
instaurationis secundae delineatio4  #c 
,i may remark parenthetically that      
,professor ,virchow's statement of the  

attitude of ,harvey towards equivocal   
generation is strangely misleading4 ,for
 ,harvey1 as every student of his works 
knows1 believed in equivocal generation2
 and1 in the sense in which he uses the 
word ovum1 nempe substantiam quandam    
corpoream vitam habentem potentia1 the  
truth of the axiom omne vivum ex ovo1   
popularly ascribed to him1 has in no    
wise been affected by the discoveries of
 later days in the manner asserted by   
,professor ,virchow4  #d ,i do not admit
 that so much can be said2 for the like 
of the ,neanderthal skull has yet to be 
produced from among the crania of       
existing men4  #e ,man's ,place in      
,nature1 p4 #aei4     ,,preface4   ,when
 the address delivered by ,rudolph      
,virchow on the #bb;d of ,september last
 year1 at the fiftieth meeting of       
,german ,naturalists and ,physicians at 
,munich1 on ,freedom of ,science in the 
,modern ,state1 appeared in print in the
 following ,october1 ,i was called upon1
 on many sides1 to prepare a reply4 ,and

 such a reply on my part seemed1 in     
fact1 justified by the severe strictures
 which ,virchow in his discourse had    
directed against one delivered by me    
only four days previously1 before the   
same meeting1 on ,the ,modern ,doctrine 
of ,evolution in its ,relation to       
,general ,science4 ,the general views   
which ,virchow then unfolded proved such
 a fundamental opposition in our        
principles1 and touched our dearest     
moral convictions so nearly1 that any   
reconciliation of such antagonistic     
views was no longer to be thought of4   
,nevertheless ,i forbore publishing the 
ready reply for two reasons3 one        
relating to the matter itself1 the other
 a personal one4  ,with regard to the   
matter itself1 ,i believed ,i might     
confidently leave it to futurity to     
decide in the contention that has       
declared itself between us4 ,for on one 
hand the doctrine of evolution which    
,virchow attacks has already so far     
become a sure basis of biological       

science and part of the most precious   
mental-stock of cultivated humanity1    
that neither the anathemas of the       
,church nor the contradiction of the    
greatest scientific authority--and such 
an one is ,virchow--can prevail against 
it2 and on the other hand most of the   
arguments which he specially adduces    
against the theory of descent have been 
so often discussed and so thoroughly    
refuted that any renewed discussion     
seems in fact superfluous4  ,personally1
 it was in the highest degree repugnant 
to me to come forward as the opponent of
 a man whom ,i learned1 a quarter of a  
century ago1 to acknowledge and to      
honour as the reformer of medical       
science2 a man whose most ardent        
disciple and most enthusiastic follower 
,i at that time was1 with whom ,i       
subsequently stood in the closest       
relation as his assistant1 and with whom
 ,i long after continued in the most    
friendly intercourse4 ,the more keenly  
,i lamented ,virchow's position1 for    

some years past1 as the antagonist of   
our modern doctrine of evolution1 and   
the more ,i felt myself challenged to a 
reply by his repeated attacks upon it1  
the less inclination ,i felt1           
nevertheless1 to come forward publicly  
as the opponent of this distinguished   
and highly-honoured man4  ,and if ,i    
find myself1 after all1 forced to reply1
 it is in the persuasion that a longer  
silence will add to the erroneous       
conclusions which my hitherto resigned  
attitude has already given rise to2 at  
the same time ,i believe that1 precisely
 by reason of the peculiar interest with
 which ,i have throughout followed      
,virchow's scientific achievements1 ,i  
am specially qualified to answer the    
question1 a hundred times repeated by   
letter or by word of mouth--,how is it  
possible that a man who so long stood at
 the head of a party of progress in     
science as in politics1 who in political
 life indeed1 has outwardly maintained  
this position1 has in science become an 

instrument of the most perilous         
reaction8  ,a verbal answer1 which ,i   
incidentally gave in ,march of last year
 at the ,concordia ,banquet at ,vienna1 
was reported in the daily papers in such
 a different sense1 and was in part so  
misunderstood or so intentionally       
misrepresented1 that ,i am forced at    
last1 on that account1 to publish a     
clear and unambiguous reply4 ,the       
,augsburger ,allgemeine ,zeitung1 which 
eagerly seizes every opportunity of     
expressing its unconquerable aversion to
 the evolution theory1 accused me1 in   
one of its hostile articles1 of a       
virulent and undignified attack on      
,virchow4 ,in contradiction of this     
misrepresentation in the ,augsburg      
paper--which was copied by other        
journals--,i must expressly assert that 
not ,virchow but ,i myself am the person
 attacked1 and that1 therefore1 the     
matter in question is not an            
unjustifiable attack by me on a formerly
 revered friend1 but a defence to which 

,i am compelled by repeated and sharp   
attacks on his part4  ,another reason   
which urges me at last to break silence 
consists in the continual and ample     
advantage that all the clerical and     
reactionary organs have been taking of  
,virchow's address1 during the last     
three-quarters of a year1 in favour of  
mental retrogression4 ,the shouts of    
triumph with which they at once hailed  
,virchow's grand moral action1 that is  
to say1 his perversion from a           
,free-thinker to the side of mental     
darkness1 was the first signal for that 
persistent utilisation of his authority 
of which the pernicious consequences can
 by no means be escaped4 ,friedrich von 
,hellwald1 in his discussion on the     
speeches made at ,munich1 has already   
strikingly pointed out#f the grave      
danger that exists when just such an one
 as ,virchow1 standing under the banner 
of political liberalism and wrapped in  
the mantle of severe science1 decisively
 combats against the freedom of science 

and of its doctrines4 ,this serious     
danger has never shown so threatening an
 aspect as at the present moment1 when  
our political and religious life appears
 to be encountering such a reaction as  
has not occurred for a long time4 ,the  
two insane attempts which1 within a few 
weeks1 have been made by                
,social-democracy against the revered   
and reverend person of the ,german      
,emperor have raised a storm of         
righteous indignation of such violence  
that calm judgment is entirely          
overthrown1 and that many even of the   
most liberal of liberal politicians not 
only impetuously urge us to the severest
 measures against the ,utopian doctrines
 of social democracy but1 far           
over-shooting the mark1 demand that     
free-doctrine and free-thought1 that    
freedom of the press and even freedom of
 conscience shall be thrown into the    
narrowest fetters4 ,can this reaction1  
lurking in the background1 find any more
 welcome support than is afforded by the

 mere demand of such a man as ,virchow  
for restriction of liberty in teaching8 
,and if he makes our present doctrines  
of evolution in general and the theory  
of descent in particular responsible for
 the mad doctrines of social-democracy1 
it is but a natural and just consequence
 when the famous ,new-,prussian         
,kreuz-,zeitung throws all the blame of 
these treasonable attempts of the       
democrats ,hoedel and ,nobiling--as in  
fact it quite lately did--directly on   
the theory of descent1 and especially on
 the hated doctrine of the descent of   
man from apes4 ,and the danger which    
threatens us shows a still graver aspect
 when we consider how great an influence
 ,virchow has at the present day as an  
advanced liberal1 and how he is regarded
 in the ,prussian diet as the highest   
practical authority1 and at the same    
time as the most liberal critic when    
educational questions are under         
consideration4 ,now it is well known    
that one of the most important problems 

lying before the ,prussian parliament is
 the consideration of a new             
education-law1 which will probably      
exercise its restricting influence for a
 long time to come1 not in ,prussia     
only1 but throughout ,germany2 what can 
we expect of such an education-law if in
 the course of the deliberations1 among 
the small number of those specialists   
who are generally listened to1 ,virchow 
raises his voice as a leading authority1
 and brings forward the principles that 
he proclaimed in his speech at ,munich  
as the surest guarantees for the freedom
 of science in the modern polity8       
,article ,,xx4 of the ,prussian         
,charter1 and ,sec4 #aeb of the ,code of
 the ,german ,empire1 say1 ,science and 
its doctrines are free4 ,and ,virchow's 
first step1 according to the principles 
he now declares1 must be a motion to    
abrogate this paragraph4  ,in the face  
of this imminent danger1 ,i dare no     
longer hesitate about my answer4 ,amicus
 ,socrates1 amicus ,plato1 magis amica  

,veritas4 ,an unreserved and public     
opposition can be no longer postponed4  
,as a matter of fact1 at the ,munich    
meeting1 neither did ,virchow hear my   
speech nor ,i his4 ,i read my paper1 as 
it is printed1 on the #ahth ,september  
#ahgg1 and left on the #aith4 ,virchow  
came to ,munich only on the #bjth1 and  
delivered his speech on the #bb;d4      
,bearing in mind the gratitude which ,i 
owe to ,virchow as my former master and 
friend at ,wuerzburg--a gratitude which 
,i have at all times striven to prove by
 the further development of his         
mechanical theory--,i shall confine     
myself1 as far as possible1 to an       
objective and special confutation of his
 assertions4 ,certainly the temptation  
on this occasion was a strong one to pay
 the debt in like kind4 ,in my ,munich  
lecture1 among the few names to which ,i
 alluded1 ,i particularly mentioned that
 of ,virchow as the distinguished       
founder of cellular-pathology 7p4 #ab74g
 ,virchow's return for this was to heap 

scorn and ridicule on the doctrine of   
evolution in his usual manner4 ,the     
critic in the ,national-,zeitung1 ,herr 
,isidor ,kastan1 says of this with      
particular satisfaction1 ,the ridicule  
with which ,herr ,virchow treated this  
side of ,haeckel's visions was indeed   
caustic enough1 but this is ever        
,virchow's way2 only in this case1 if in
 any1 he was fully justified4  ,i could 
less easily ignore ,virchow's           
denunciation of me than his satire--a   
denunciation which gibbeted me as a     
confederate in the social-democratic    
cause1 and which made the theory of     
descent answerable for the horrors of   
the ,paris ,commune4 ,the opinion is now
 widely spread that by this intentional 
connection of the theory of descent with
 ,social ,democracy he has hit the      
hardest blow at that theory1 and that he
 aimed at nothing less than the removal 
of all ,darwinists from their academic  
chairs and professorships4 ,this is the 
inevitable consequence of his demands2  

for if ,virchow insists with the utmost 
determination that the theory of descent
 must not be taught 7because he does not
 regard it as true71 what is to become  
of the supporters of that theory who1   
like myself1 regard it as               
incontrovertibly true1 and teach it as a
 perfectly sound theory8 ,and at least  
nine-tenths of all the teachers of      
zoology and botany in ,europe are among 
its supporters from immutable conviction
 of its truth1 as well as all           
morphologists without exception4        
,virchow cannot expect that these       
teachers should collectively renounce   
that which they believe to be immutable 
truth1 and in its place set up the dogma
 of the ,church as the basis of their   
teaching1 in accordance with his wish6  
,nothing remains for them but to vacate 
their professors' chairs1 and--according
 to ,virchow and the ,germania--the     
,modern ,polity would be in duty bound  
to deprive them of their liberty of     
teaching if they did not voluntarily    

renounce it4  ,if this be indeed        
,virchow's purpose1 as it is generally  
supposed to be1 with regard to me1 at   
least1 he may spare himself the trouble4
 ,amongst us in ,jena quite other ideas 
prevail as to the ,freedom of science in
 the modern ,polity than those which    
obtain in the capital1 ,berlin4 ,and    
among us the ,berlin students' rhyme has
 no meaning1    ,who knows the truth and
 freely speaks1   ,on him the law its   
vengeance wreaks4#h  ,the ,jena         
students1 on the contrary1 sing the     
rhyme in its original form--    ,who    
knows the truth and speaks it not1   ,a 
feeble wretch is he1 ,god wot4#i  ,the  
,rector ,magnificentissimus of the      
,university of ,jena1 the ,grand ,duke  
of ,saxony1 who has proved himself the  
protector of the arts and sciences1 has 
besides far more liberal views as to the
 liberty of scientific investigation and
 teaching than the illustrious head of  
the party of progress at ,berlin4 ,the  
enlightened and liberal ,prince at      

,weimar1 under whose particular         
protection we in ,jena find ourselves1  
has never conceived it necessary to     
limit in any way the unbounded freedom  
of my teaching and my writing2 not even 
when in #ahff my ,general ,morphology1  
and #ahfh my ,history of ,creation first
 appeared1 and when many people         
attempted to make the youthful          
extravagances which were to be found in 
those works the ground of a serious     
accusation4 ,and what farther mischief  
have these extravagances done1 though ,i
 now sincerely lament them8  ,faithful  
to the glorious traditions of a past    
extending over three centuries1 the     
little ,thuringian university of ,jena  
will find a way to preserve her perfect 
and unlimited freedom4 ,she will ever   
bear in mind that she is the first      
,protestant university of ,germany1     
protesting against every                
strait-waistcoat which hierarchical     
obstinacy would force upon human reason1
 against every dogma by which the       

arrogance of the learned may try to     
suppress all freedom of teaching4 ,she  
will freely seek and freely teach in    
accordance with her highest convictions1
 untroubled by the fact that in the     
great university of ,berlin nothing may 
be taught1 as ,virchow insists1 but what
 is objectively ascertained1 absolutely 
sure2 that is to say1 nothing that rises
 above individual1 indubitable1 and     
intelligible facts2 not an idea1 not a  
conception1 not a theory1 in fact not   
any real science2 mathematics1 at most1 
excepted4 ,it is our conviction that    
,jena will continue to be an independent
 city of refuge for free science and    
free teaching as long as it remains     
under the faithful nurture and liberal  
protection of the princely house of ,sax
 ,weimar1 that enlightened race which is
 linked with the history of ,german     
intellect through the matchless         
traditions of its glorious past4 ,what  
the ,wartburg was to ,martin ,luther1   
what ,weimar has been to the foremost   

heroes of ,german literature1 what ,jena
 herself has been during three hundred  
years to a vast number of illustrious   
investigators1 that will the tried and  
tested ,jena of to-day undoubtedly      
continue to be to the modern doctrine of
 evolution1 as to every other doctrine  
which asks free development2 a          
strong-hold of free thought1 free       
investigation1 and free doctrine4       
,,ernst ,,haeckel4  ,,jena1 ,june #bdth1
 #ahgh4   ,,footnotes3  #f ,kosmos1     
,vol4 ,,ii4 p4 #agb4  #g ,of the        
,german4  #h    ,wer die ,wahrheit      
kennet und saget sie frei1    ,der kommt
 in ,berlin auf die ,stadt-,vogtei4  #i 
,wer die ,wahrheit kennet und saget sie 
nicht   ,der ist fuer wahr ein          
erbaermlicher ,wicht4     ,,contents4   
,,page         ,,prefatory ,,note       
v         ,,preface                     
xxi    ,,chap4      ,i4 ,,development   
,,and ,,creation                        
#a     ,,ii4 ,,certain ,,proofs ,,of    
,,the ,,doctrine ,,of ,,descent         

#aj    ,,iii4 ,,the ,,skull ,,theory    
,,and ,,the ,,ape ,,theory              
#bi     ,,iv4 ,,the ,,cell-,,soul ,,and 
,,cellular ,,psychology                 
#df      ,v4 ,,the ,,genetic ,,and      
,,dogmatic ,,methods ,,of ,,teaching    
#fa     ,,vi4 ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of     
,,descent ,,and ,,social ,,democracy    
#hh    ,,vii4 ,,ignorabimus ,,et        
,,restringamur                          
#ii     ,,freedom ,,in ,,science ,,and  
,,teaching4  ,,chapter ,i4              
,,development ,,and ,,creation4         
,nothing is more helpful for the        
understanding of scientific             
controversies1 or for the clearing of   
confused conceptions1 than a contrasted 
statement1 as defined and clear as      
possible1 of the simplest leading       
propositions of the contending          
doctrines4 ,hence it is highly          
favourable to the victory of our modern 
doctrine of evolution that its chief    
problem1 the question as to the origin  
of species1 is being more and more      

pressed by these opposite alternatives3 
,either all organisms are naturally     
evolved1 and must in that case be all   
descended from the simplest common      
parent-forms--or3 ,that is not the case1
 and the distinct species of organisms  
have originated independently of each   
other1 and in that case can only have   
been created in a supernatural way1 by a
 miracle4 ,natural evolution1 or        
supernatural creation of species--we    
must choose one of these two            
possibilities1 for a third there is not4
  ,but as ,virchow1 like many other     
opponents of the doctrine of evolution1 
constantly confounds this latter        
proposition with the doctrine of        
descent1 and that again with ,darwinism1
 it will not be superfluous to indicate 
here1 in a few words1 the limitation and
 subordination of these three great     
theories4  ,i4 ,the general doctrine of 
development1 the progenesis-theory or   
evolution-hypothesis 7in the widest     
sense71 as a comprehensive philosophical

 view of the universe1 assumes that a   
vast1 uniform1 uninterrupted and eternal
 process of development obtains         
throughout all nature2 and that all     
natural phenomena without exception1    
from the motions of the heavenly bodies 
and the fall of a rolling stone to the  
growth of plants and the consciousness  
of men1 obey one and the same great law 
of causation2 that all may be ultimately
 referred to the mechanics of atoms--the
 mechanical or mechanistic1 homogeneous 
or monistic view of the universe2 in one
 word1 ,monism4  ,,ii4 ,the doctrine of 
derivation1 or theory of descent1 as a  
comprehensive theory of the natural     
origin of all organisms1 assumes that   
all compound organisms are derived from 
simple ones1 all many-celled animals and
 plants from single-celled ones1 and    
these last from quite simple primary    
organisms--from monads4 ,as we see the  
organic species1 the multiform varieties
 of animals and plants1 vary under our  
eyes through adaptation1 while the      

similarity of their internal structure  
is reasonably explicable only by        
inheritance from common parent-forms1 we
 are forced to assume common            
parent-forms for at least the great main
 divisions of the animal and vegetable  
kingdoms1 and for the classes1 orders1  
and so forth4 ,thus the number of these 
will be very limited1 and the primitive 
archigonian parent-forms can be nothing 
else than monads4 ,whether we finally   
assume a single common parent-form 7the 
monophyletic hypothesis71 or several    
7the polyphyletic hypothesis71 is wholly
 immaterial to the essence of the theory
 of descent2 and it is equally          
immaterial to its fundamental idea what 
mechanical causes are assumed for the   
transformation of the varieties4 ,this  
assumption of a transformation or       
metamorphosis of species is1 however1   
indispensable1 and the theory of descent
 is very properly called also the       
metamorphosis hypothesis1 or doctrine of
 transmutation2 as well as ,lamarckism1 

after ,jean ,lamarck1 who first founded 
it in #ahji4  ,,iii4 ,the doctrine of   
elimination1 or the selection theory1 as
 the doctrine especially of choice of   
breed or selection1 assumes that almost 
all1 or at any rate most1 organic       
species have originated by a process of 
selection2 the artificial varieties     
under conditions of domestication--as   
the races of domestic animals and       
cultivated plants--through artificial   
choice of breeds2 and the natural       
varieties of animals and plants in their
 wild state by natural choice of breeds3
 in the first case1 the will of man     
effects the selection to suit a purpose2
 in the second1 it is effected in a     
purposeless way by the struggle for     
existence4 ,in both cases the           
transformation of the organic forms     
takes place through the reciprocal      
action of the laws of inheritance and of
 adaptation2 in both cases it depends on
 the survival or selection of the       
better-qualified minority4 ,this theory 

of elimination was first clearly        
recognised and appreciated in its full  
significance by ,charles ,darwin in     
#ahei1 and the selection-hypothesis     
which he founded on it is ,darwinism    
properly so called4  ,the relation that 
these three great theories1 which are   
frequently confounded1 bear to one      
another may1 according to the present   
position of science1 be simply defined  
as follows3--,i4 ,monism1 the universal 
theory of development1 or the monistic  
progenesis-hypothesis1 is the one only  
scientific theory which affords a       
rational interpretation of the whole    
universe and satisfies the craving of   
our human reason for causality1 by      
bringing all natural phenomena into a   
mechanical causal-connection as parts of
 a great uniform process of evolution4  
,,ii4 ,the theory of transmutation1 or  
descent1 is an essential and            
indispensable element in the monistic   
development hypothesis1 because it is   
the one only scientific theory which    

rationally explains the origin of       
organic species--that is to say1 by     
transformation--and reduces it to       
mechanical principles4 ,,iii4 ,the      
theory of ,selection or ,darwinism is1  
up to the present time1 the most        
important of the various theories which 
seek to explain the transformation of   
species by mechanical principles1 but it
 is by no means the only one4 ,if we    
assume that most species have originated
 through natural elimination1 we also   
now know1 on the other hand1 that many  
forms distinguished as varieties are    
hybrids between two different varieties1
 and can be propagated as such2 and it  
is equally well worthy of consideration 
that other causes are in activity in the
 formation of species of which1 up to   
the present time1 we have no conception4
 ,thus it is left to the judgment of    
individual naturalists to decide what   
share is to be attributed to natural    
selection in the origin of species1 and 
even at the present day authorities     

differ widely on the subject4 ,some give
 it a large share1 and some a very small
 one in the result4 ,moritz ,wagner1 for
 instance1 would substitute his own     
migration-hypothesis for ,darwin's      
theory of selection2 while ,i regard the
 action of migration1 which acts as     
isolation or separation1 as merely a    
special mode of selection4 ,but these   
differing estimates of ,darwinism are   
quite independent of the absolute import
 of the doctrine of descent or of       
transformation1 for the latter is as yet
 the only theory which rationally       
explains the origin of species4 ,if we  
discard it1 nothing remains but the     
irrational assumption of a miracle1 a   
supernatural creation4  ,in this crucial
 and unavoidable dilemma1 ,virchow has  
declared himself publicly in favour of  
the latter1 and against the former      
hypothesis4 ,every one who has          
attentively followed his occasional     
utterances on the theory of descent     
during the last decade with an          

unprejudiced eye and an unbiassed       
judgment1 must be convinced that he     
fundamentally rejects it4 ,still1 his   
dissent has always been so obscured1 and
 his judgment on ,darwinism in          
particular so wrapped in ambiguities1   
that an opportune conversion to the     
opposite side seemed not impossible2 and
 many1 even among those who stood near  
to ,virchow--his friends and            
disciples--did not know to what point he
 was in fact an opponent of the         
evolution hypothesis in general4        
,virchow took the last step towards     
clearing up this matter at ,munich2 for 
after his ,munich address there can be  
no farther doubt that he belongs to the 
most decided opponents of the whole     
theory of evolution1 including those of 
inheritance and selection4  ,if any one 
still has doubts on the matter1 let him 
read the jubilant hymns of triumph with 
which ,virchow's friend and             
collaborator1 ,adolf ,bastian1 greeted  
his ,munich discourse4 ,this enfant     

terrible of the school--this            
well-nicknamed ,acting privy counsellor 
of the board of confusion#aj--whose     
merits in involuntarily advancing the   
cause of metamorphism ,i have already   
done justice to in the preface to the   
third edition of my ,natural ,history of
 ,creation#aa--;expresses himself in the
 ,zeitschrift fuer ,ethnologie1 which is
 edited by him and ,virchow 7tenth      
yearly part1 ,x4 #ahgh1 p4 #ff7 as      
follows3--,at the ,munich meeting of    
naturalists1 ,virchow by a few weighty  
words cleared the atmosphere1 which was 
heavy and stifling under the pressure of
 the incubus called ,descent1 and once  
more freed science from that nightmare  
which it has so long--in many opinions  
so much too long--allowed to weigh upon 
it2 freed it1 let us hope1 once and for 
ever4 ,the forecasts of this storm were 
discernible many years since1 and its   
whole course has been a strictly normal 
one4 ,when the germs planted by ,darwin1
 and that promised so much1 were forced 

into growth by a feverish1 hot-house    
heat1 and began to sprout into sterile  
weeds1 their small vitality was plain to
 our eyes4 ,so long as the waves run too
 high under the pressure of a psychical 
storm1 it is almost useless to protest  
against it1 for every ear is too much   
deafened by the noise all round to hear 
the voice of individuals4 ,it is best to
 leave things to go their own way1      
deeper and deeper into the mire1 till   
they come to a stand-still there of     
their own accord2 for ',quos deus vult  
perdere prius dementat4' ,thus it is in 
this case4 ,when the extravagances of   
the descent hypothesis1 encouraged as   
they were by mutual incitement1 had     
reached their highest pitch in the      
ravings that were uttered at ,munich1   
the too pointed point broke in this     
superabundance of absurdity almost by   
its own pointedness1 and so we were quit
 of it with one blow4 ,now1 happily1 all
 is over with the theory of descent1 or 
ascent1 but natural science will not on 

that account fare any the worse1 for    
many of its adherents belong to her     
ablest youth1 and as they now need no   
longer waste their best time on romantic
 schemes1 they will have it to use at   
the orders and for the advancement of   
science1 so as to enrich her through    
real and solid contributions4           
,furthermore1 ,bastian quotes ,virchow's
 maxim3--,the plan of organisation is   
immutable within the limits of the      
species2 species is not produced from   
species4 ,the fundamental teleological  
idea of that school1 that each species  
has its constant and specific plan of   
structure1 certainly cannot be more     
emphatically expressed4 ,thus it is     
undoubtedly certain that ,virchow has   
become a ,dualist1 and is as thoroughly 
penetrated by the truth of his          
principles as ,i1 as a ,monist1 am of   
mine4 ,this is undoubtedly the upshot of
 his ,munich address1 though he is      
throughout careful to avoid             
acknowledging his chief standpoint in   

all its nakedness4 ,on the contrary1    
even now he still veils his antagonism  
under the phrase1 which is also a       
favourite with the clerical papers1 that
 the theory of descent is an unproved   
hypothesis4 ,now it is clear that this  
theory never will be proved if the      
proofs that already lie before us are   
not sufficient4 ,how often has it been  
repeated that the scientific certainty  
of the hypothesis of descent is not     
grounded in this or that isolated       
experiment1 but in the collective sum of
 biological phenomena2 in the causal    
nexus of evolution4 ,then what are the  
new proofs of the theory of descent     
which ,virchow demands of us8           
,,footnotes3  #aj ,wirkliche ,geheime   
,ober-,confusionsrath4  #aa ,translated 
under the supervision of ,e4 ,ray       
,lankester4 ,london3 ,c4 ,kegan ,paul   
,co4     ,,chapter ,,ii4  ,,certain     
,,proofs ,,of ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of     
,,descent4   ,all the common phenomena  
of ,morphology and ,physiology1 of      

,chorology and ,oekology1 of ,ontology  
and ,paleontology1 can be explained by  
the theory of descent1 and referred to  
simple mechanical causes4 ,it is        
precisely in this1 viz41 that the       
primary simple causes of all these      
complex aggregates of phenomena are     
common to them all1 and that other      
mechanical causes for them are          
unthinkable--it is in this that1 to us1 
the guarantee of their certainty        
consists4 ,for this reason all these    
vast and manifold aggregates of facts   
are so many evidences of the doctrine of
 descent4 ,this fundamental relation of 
facts has been so often expounded that  
,i need dwell no farther on it in this  
place2 those who wish for any closer    
discussion of it are referred to my     
,general ,morphology 7vol4 ii4 chap4    
xix471 or ,the ,history of ,creation1#ab
 or ,the ,evolution of ,man 7vol4 i4 p4 
#ic74ac  ,and where is yet farther proof
 of the truth of the theory of descent  
to be found8 ,neither ,virchow1 nor any 

one of the clerical opponents and the   
dualistic philosophers who are          
perpetually reiterating this cry for    
more certain evidence1 anywhere indicate
 where possibly such evidence is to be  
sought4 ,where in all the world can we  
discover facts which will speak more    
plainly or significantly for the truth  
of transmutation than the facts of      
comparative morphology and physiology2  
than the facts of the rudimentary organs
 and of embryonic development2 than the 
facts revealed by fossils and the       
geographical distribution of            
organisms--in short1 than the collective
 recognised facts of the most diverse   
provinces of biological science8  ,but  
,i am in error--the certain proof that  
,virchow demands in order to be         
perfectly satisfied with the evidence1  
is to be supplied by experiment1 the    
test as well as the highest means of    
evidence4 ,this demand1 that the        
doctrine of descent should be grounded  
on experiment1 is so perverse and shows 

such ignorance of the very essence of   
our theory1 that though we have never   
been surprised at hearing it continually
 repeated by ignorant laymen1 from the  
lips of a ,virchow it has positively    
astounded us4 ,what can in this case be 
proved by experiment1 and what can      
experiment prove8  ,the variability of  
species1 the transformation of species1 
the transition of a species into one or 
more new varieties1 is the answer4 ,now1
 so far as these facts can be proved by 
experiment1 they actually have long     
since been experimentally proved in the 
completest manner4 ,for what are the    
numberless trials of artificial         
selection for breeding purposes which   
men have practised for thousand of years
 in breeding domestic animals and       
cultivated plants1 but physiological    
experiments which prove the             
transformation of species8 ,as an       
example we may refer to the different   
races of horses and pigeons4 ,the swift 
race-horse and the heavy pack-horse1 the

 graceful carriage-horse and the sturdy 
cart-horse1 the huge dray-horse and the 
dwarfed pony--these and many other races
 are so different from each other1 that 
if we had found them wild we should     
certainly have described them as quite  
different varieties of one species1 or  
even representatives of different       
species4 ,undoubtedly1 these so-called  
races and sports of the horse tribe     
differ from each other in a much greater
 degree than do the zebra1 the quagga1  
the mountain horse1 and the other wild  
varieties of the horse1 which every     
zoologist distinguishes as bonae        
species4 ,and yet all these artificial  
varieties1 which man has designedly     
produced by selection1 are descended    
from a single common parent-form1 from  
one wild true variety4 ,the same is the 
case with the numerous and highly       
differing varieties of pigeons4         
,domestic pigeons and carrier-pigeons1  
turbits and cropper-pigeons1 fantail    
pigeons and owls1 tumblers and pouters1 

trumpeters and laughing pigeons 7or     
,indian doves71 and the rest1 are all1  
as ,darwin has convincingly proved1     
descendants of a single wild variety1   
the rock-pigeon 7,columba livia74 ,and  
how wonderfully various they are1 not   
only in general form1 size1 and         
colouring1 but in the particular form of
 the skull1 the beak1 the feet1 and so  
forth6 ,they differ much more in every  
respect each from the others than the   
numerous wild varieties which1 in       
systems of ornithology1 are recognised  
as true varieties1 and even as true     
species4 ,it is the same with the       
different artificial varieties of       
apples1 pears1 pansies1 dahlias1 and so 
on2 in short1 of almost all the domestic
 varieties of animals and plants4 ,we   
would lay particular stress on the fact 
that these artificial species which man 
has produced or created by artificial   
breeding and through experimental       
transformation out of one original      
species1 differ far more one from       

another in physiological as well as in  
morphological conditions than the       
natural species in a wild state4 ,with  
these it is self-evident that any proof 
by experiment of a common origin is     
wholly impossible4 ,for1 so soon as we  
subject any wild variety of animal or   
plant to such an experiment1 we bring it
 under the conditions of artificial     
breeding4  ,that the morphological      
conception of a ,species is not a       
positive but only a relative conception1
 and that it has no other absolute or   
positive value than those other similar 
system-categories--sports1 varieties1   
races1 tribes1 families1 classes--is now
 acknowledged by every systematiser who 
forms an honest and unprejudiced        
judgment of the practical systematic    
distinction of species4 ,from the very  
nature of the case there are no limits  
to arbitrary discretion in this         
department1 and there are no two        
systematists who are at one in every    
instance2 this one separating forms as  

true varieties which that one does not4 
7,compare on this point ,history of     
,creation1 vol4 i41 p4 #bgc47 ,the      
conception of variety or species has a  
different value in every small or large 
department of systematic ,zoology and   
,botany4  ,but the conception of species
 has just as little any fixed           
physiological value4 ,in respect to this
 we must especially insist that the     
question of hybrid offspring1 the last  
corner of refuge of all the defenders of
 the constancy of species1 has at       
present lost all significance as bearing
 on the conception of species4 ,for we  
know now1 through numerous and reliable 
experiences and experiments1 that two   
different true varieties can frequently 
unite and produce fertile hybrids 7as   
the hare and rabbit1 lion and tiger1    
many different kinds of the carp and    
trout tribes1 of willows1 brambles1 and 
others72 and in the second place1 the   
fact is equally certain that descendants
 of one and the same species which1     

according to the dogma of the old       
schools1 could always effect a fertile  
union under certain circumstances1      
either cannot effect such a union or    
produce only barren hybrids 7the        
,porto-,santo rabbit1 the different     
races of horses1 dogs1 roses1 hyacinths1
 c42 see ,history of ,creation1 vol4 i41
 p4 #adf74  ,for a certain proof that   
the conception of species rests on a    
subjective abstraction and has a merely 
relative value--like the conception of  
genus1 family1 order1 class1 c4--no     
class of animals is of so much          
importance as that of the ,sponges4 ,in 
it the fluctuating forms vary with such 
unexampled indefiniteness and           
variability as to make all distinction  
of species quite illusory4 ,oscar       
,schmidt has already pointed this out in
 the siliceous sponges and keratose     
sponges2 and ,i1 in my monograph1 in    
three volumes1 on the ,calcareous       
,sponges 7the result of five years of   
most accurate investigations of this    

small animal group71 have pointed out   
that we may at pleasure distinguish #c1 
or #ba1 or #aaa1 or #bhi1 or #eia       
different species4 ,i also believe that 
,i have thus convincingly demonstrated  
how all these different forms of the    
calcareous sponges may quite naturally1 
and without any forcing1 be traced to a 
single common parent-form1 the          
simple--and not hypothetical1 but       
existing at this present day--the simple
 ,olynthus4 ,hence ,i think ,i have here
 produced the most positive analytical  
evidence of the transformation of       
species1 and of the unity of the        
derivation of all the species of a given
 group of animals1 that is generally    
possible4  ,properly1 ,i might spare    
myself these disquisitions on the       
question of species1 for ,virchow does  
not go into this main question of the   
theory of descent--but this is very     
characteristic of his attitude4 ,and    
just as he nowhere thoroughly discusses 
the doctrine of transformation1 neither 

does he enter generally on the          
refutation of any of the other certain  
proofs of the doctrine of descent which 
we in fact possess at the present day4  
,neither the morphological nor the      
physiological arguments for the theory  
of descent1 neither the rudimentary     
organs nor the embryonic forms1 neither 
the paleontological nor the             
chronological argument are anywhere     
closely examined and tested as to their 
worth or their worthlessness as certain 
proofs4 ,on the contrary1 ,virchow takes
 them quite easily1 sets them aside1 and
 declares that certain proofs of the    
doctrine of descent do not exist1 but   
remain to be discovered4 ,to be sure1 he
 does not indicate where they are to be 
sought1 nor can he indicate it4 ,how is 
this strange conduct to be explained8   
,how is it possible that a distinguished
 naturalist should resist the most      
important step forward of modern natural
 science without in any way specially   
investigating it1 without even          

practically testing and refuting the    
most weighty arguments in its favour8   
,to this question there is but one      
answer4 ,virchow is not generally       
intimate with the modern doctrine of    
evolution1 and does not possess that    
knowledge of natural science which is   
indispensable for any well-grounded     
judgment on it4  ,after collecting and  
carefully reading all that ,virchow1    
during many years1 had written against  
evolution1 ,i arrived at the conviction 
that he had not thoroughly read either  
,darwin's great work on the ,origin of  
,species1 nor any other work on the     
theory of descent1 nor had he thought   
the matter out with such attention as so
 serious and intricate a subject        
absolutely demands4 ,virchow did with   
these works as it has been his          
well-known custom to do with many       
others--he hastily turned over the      
pages1 caught at a few leading words1   
and without any farther trouble he has  
discoursed upon them1 and1 which is     

worst of all1 has perpetuated these     
discourses through the press4  ,to      
excuse this conduct1 and to account for 
,virchow's enigmatical position in the  
battle of evolution1 we must consider   
what changes this highly-gifted and     
meritorious man has gone through in the 
course of the last thirty years4 ,the   
most important and fruitful part of his 
life and labours was indisputably during
 the eight years when he resided in     
,wuerzburg1 from #ahdh to #ahef4 ,there 
,virchow1 with all the keenness of his  
youthful intellect1 with a sacred       
enthusiasm for scientific truth1 with   
indefatigable powers of work and the    
rarest insight1 worked out that glorious
 reform of scientific medicine which    
will shine through all time as a star of
 the first magnitude in the history of  
medical science4 ,in ,wuerzburg1        
,virchow elaborated that comprehensive  
application of the cellular theory to   
pathology which culminates in the       
conception that the cell is an          

independent living elementary organism1 
and that our human organism1 like that  
of all the higher animals1 is merely a  
congeries of cells--a highly fertile    
conception1 which ,virchow now denies as
 resolutely as he then supported it4 ,in
 ,wuerzburg1 twenty-five years since1 ,i
 sat devoutly at his feet1 and received 
from him with enthusiasm that clear and 
simple doctrine of the mechanics of all 
vital activity--a truly monistic        
doctrine1 which ,virchow now undoubtedly
 opposes where formerly he defended it4 
,in ,wuerzburg1 finally1 he wrote those 
incomparable critical and historical    
leading articles which are the ornament 
of the first ten yearly series of his   
,archives of pathological anatomy4 ,all 
that ,virchow effected as the great     
pioneer of reform in medicine1 and by   
which he won imperishable honour in the 
scientific treatment of disease1--all   
this was either carried out or          
preconceived in ,wuerzburg2 and even the
 celebrated ,cellular ,pathology1 a     

course of lectures which he delivered   
during the first year and a half after  
quitting ,wuerzburg for ,berlin1        
consists only of the collected and      
matured fruits of which the blossoms are
 due to ,wuerzburg4  ,in the autumn of  
#ahef ,virchow left ,wuerzburg to settle
 in ,berlin4 ,the exchange of a narrow  
sphere of labours for a wider one1 of   
small means and appliances for greater  
ones1 proved unfavourable in this case1 
as in many similar cases4 ,since he has 
been in ,berlin1 in a great             
,institution1 and with luxurious        
appliances1 all the scientific results  
which ,virchow has as yet brought to    
light are not to be compared1 either as 
to quality or quantity1 to the grand and
 immortal achievements which he himself 
effected in the little institute of     
,wuerzburg with the scantiest means--a  
new proof of the maxim enunciated by me1
 and hitherto never confuted1 that the  
scientific results of an institute are  
in inverse proportion to its size4 7,see

 ,the ,aim and ,methods of ,modern      
,evolution4#ad7  ,still more grave is   
the circumstance that1 since settling in
 ,berlin1 ,virchow has more and more    
exchanged his theoretical scientific    
activity for practical political life4  
,it is well known how prominent a part  
he plays there in the ,prussian ,chamber
 of ,representatives1 how he raised     
himself to be the leader of the party of
 progress1 and1 to give this political  
position a broader basis1 took part in  
the representation of the citizens of   
the capital2 how he has taken a most    
active interest1 as city commissioner1  
in all the petty anxieties and concerns 
which the charge of such a city as      
,berlin entails4 ,i am far from blaming1
 as many have blamed1 the political and 
civic activity to which ,virchow has    
indefatigably devoted his best powers4  
,if a man feels in himself the          
inclination and vocation with strength  
and talent enough1 to play a conspicuous
 political part1 by all means let him do

 so2 but verily ,i do not envy him2 for 
the satisfaction which is derived from  
the most successful and fruitful        
political activity is not1 to my taste1 
to be compared with that pure and       
disinterested satisfaction of the mind  
which results from absorption in serious
 and difficult scientific labours4 ,in  
the turmoil of the political and social 
struggle1 even the most splendid civic  
crown will be dulled by the stifling    
dust of practical life1 which never     
reaches the ethereal heights of pure    
science and never rests on the laurels  
of the thoughtful investigator4         
,however1 as ,i have said1 that is a    
matter of taste4 ,if ,virchow really    
believes that he is doing a greater     
service to humanity by his practical    
political life in ,berlin than he       
formerly did by his theoretical         
scientific work in ,wuerzburg1 that is  
his affair2 but for all that1 in his    
former sphere he was incomparable1 and  
cannot be replaced2 in the latter this  

is not the case4  ,if a distinguished   
man1 be he never so remarkable for      
uncommon power of work and universal    
gifts1 passes the whole day in the      
friction of political party-struggles1  
and throws himself as well into all the 
petty and wearisome details of daily    
civic life1 it is impossible for him to 
maintain the requisite feeling for the  
progress of science--particularly when  
it advances so rapidly and incessantly  
as is the case in our day4 ,it is       
therefore quite intelligible that       
,virchow should soon have lost this     
feeling1 and in the course of the last  
two decades have become more and more   
estranged from science4 ,and this       
estrangement has at last led to so      
complete a change in his fundamental    
views1 to such a metapsychosis1 that the
 present ,virchow of #ahgh is hardly in 
a position to understand the youthful   
,virchow of #ahdh4  ,we have seen a     
similar mental change occur             
contemporaneously in our greatest       

naturalist1 ,carl ,ernst von ,baer4     
,this gifted and profound thinker and   
biologist1 whose name marks a new epoch 
in the history of evolution1 had in his 
later years become wholly incompetent   
even to understand those most important 
problems of his youthful labours which  
opened up new paths of inquiry4 ,while  
in his early years he laid down         
principles of the greatest value to our 
modern doctrine of evolution1 and even  
went very near to adopting this         
hypothesis into his system1 at a later  
period he utterly denied it1 and by his 
writings on ,darwinism proved that he   
was no longer generally capable of      
mastering this difficult problem4 ,as ,i
 am one of ,von ,baer's warmest         
admirers1 and in my ,evolution of ,man1 
as well as in the ,history of ,creation1
 and in other places1 have most         
emphatically expressed that sincere     
esteem1 ,i thought ,i might venture to  
forbear from calling attention to the   
discrepancy between the lucid1 monistic 

principles of ,von ,baer in his youth1  
and the confused dualistic views of his 
old age4 ,but as many opponents of      
,darwinism--and among them particularly 
the ,old ,catholic philosopher of       
,munich1 ,huber1 who has written a      
series of articles in the ,augsburger   
,zeitung--have made constant capital out
 of the harmless talk of the feeble old 
,von ,baer1 ,i must in this place       
explicitly declare that this dualistic  
prating of the old man is quite         
incapable of shaking the monistic       
principles of the young and enterprising
 pioneers of science1 or of giving them 
the lie4  ,in his autobiography ,von    
,baer gives us the explanation of this  
striking contradiction4 ,in #ahcd he    
entirely and for ever abandoned the     
province of the history of development1 
at which for twenty years he had        
laboured incessantly1 and where he had  
earned splendid laurels4 ,to escape from
 the haunting and importunate ideas of  
the science which had so wholly absorbed

 him1 he fled from ,koenigsberg to      
,petersburg1 and subsequently busied    
himself in scientific inquiries of a    
quite different character4 ,twenty-five 
long years passed by1 and when ,darwin's
 work appeared in #ahei1 ,von ,baer had 
too long undergone a metapsychosis to be
 able to understand it4 ,in ,von ,baer1 
as in ,virchow1 the course of this      
remarkable metapsychosis is highly      
instructive1 and will itself afford to  
the thoughtful psychologist an          
interesting evidence of the doctrine of 
evolution4  ,however1 the lack of       
comprehension of our modern             
evolution-hypothesis is easier to       
explain in ,virchow's case than in ,von 
,baer's1 for this reason3 morphological 
knowledge was greatly lacking to        
,virchow1 while ,von ,baer possessed it 
in the highest degree4 ,now morphology  
is precisely that very department of    
inquiry in which our theory of descent  
has its deepest and strongest roots1 and
 has matured the most glorious fruits of

 knowledge4 ,the study of organic forms1
 or morphology1 is thus1 more than any  
other science1 interested in the        
doctrine of descent1 because through    
this doctrine it first obtained a       
practical knowledge of effective causes1
 and was able to raise itself from the  
humble rank of a descriptive study of   
forms to the high position of an        
analytical science of form4 ,it is true 
that by the beginning of this century   
the most comprehensive branch of        
morphology--i4e41 comparative           
anatomy--which was founded by ,cuvier   
and splendidly developed by ,johannes   
,mueller1 had laid the foundations on   
which to build a truly philosophical    
science of form4 ,the enormous mass of  
various empirical material1 which had   
been accumulated by descriptive         
systematists and by the dissections of  
zootomists since the time of ,linnaeus  
and ,pallas1 had already been abundantly
 matured and utilised in many ways for  
philosophic purposes by the synthetic   

principles of comparative anatomy4 ,but 
even the most important universal laws  
of organisation--of which the old system
 of comparative anatomy was one--had to 
take refuge in mystical ideas of a plan 
of structure and of creative final      
causes 7causae finales72 they were      
incapable of arriving at a true and     
clear perception of effective mechanical
 causes 7causae efficientes74 ,this     
last1 most difficult1 and grandest      
problem1 ,charles ,darwin was the first 
to solve in #ahei1 by setting ,lamarck's
 theory of descent1 which was already   
fifty years old1 on a firm footing by   
his own theory of selection4 ,by this   
hypothesis it was first made possible to
 fit together the rich materials which  
had been previously amassed1 into the   
splendid edifice of the mechanical      
science of form4 7,see my ,general      
,morphology1 vol4 i4 chap4 iv47  ,the   
immeasurable step which ,darwin thus    
made in organic morphology can be       
adequately appreciated only by those    

who1 like myself1 were brought up in the
 school of the old teleological         
morphology1 and whose eyes were suddenly
 opened by the theory of selection to a 
comprehension of that greatest of all   
biological riddles1 the creation of     
specific forms4 ,the dogma of creation1 
the mystic and dualistic doctrine of the
 isolated creation of each separate     
variety1 was annihilated at one blow2   
the belief in transmutation has now for 
ever taken its place--the mechanistic   
and monistic doctrine of the            
metamorphosis of organic forms1 of the  
descent of all the species of one       
natural class from a common parent-form4
 ,how complete a change the science of  
mechanical morphology has by this means 
been compelled to undergo1 ,i have      
endeavoured to point out in my ,general 
,morphology2 and any one who wishes to  
convince himself clearly of what an     
enormous revolution has been brought    
about1 particularly in comparative      
anatomy1 may compare the ,outlines of   

,comparative ,anatomy 7,grundzuege der  
vergleichenden ,anatomie71 by ,carl     
,gegenbaur1 #ahgj1 and the latest       
edition of his ,elements 7,grundrisses71
 with the old text-books of that        
science4  ,virchow has no suspicion even
 of all these immeasurable strides in   
morphology1 for this department always  
lay out of his ken4 ,his great reforms  
in pathology were founded in the        
province of physiology1 and more        
especially in cellular physiology4 ,but 
within the last twenty years these two  
main branches of biological inquiry have
 grown more and more apart4 ,the great  
,johannes ,mueller was the last         
biologist who was able to keep these    
departments of organic inquiry together1
 and who won equally immortal honours in
 both divisions of the subject4 ,after  
,mueller's death in #aheh they fell     
asunder4 ,physiology1 as the science    
especially of the functions or living   
activity of the organism1 addressed     
itself more and more to exact and       

experimental methods3 morphology1 on the
 contrary1 as the science of the forms  
and structure of animals and plants1    
could naturally make but very small use 
of this method2 it must take refuge more
 and more in the history of evolution1  
and so constitute an historical natural 
science4 ,it was on this very historical
 and genetic method of morphology1 in   
contradistinction to the exact and      
experimental method of physiology1 that 
,i based my ,munich address2 and if     
,virchow in his answer had really and   
thoroughly refuted this position1       
instead of fighting with mere phrases   
and denunciations1 this radical         
opposition would have been well worthy  
of the fullest discussion4 ,at the same 
time ,i have no wish to reproach        
,virchow for being wholly fettered by   
the one-sided views of the modern       
school-physiology1 nor because          
morphology lies so far out of his ken   
that he has not been able to form an    
independent judgment of its aims and    

methods2 but when1 in spite of all this1
 he on every occasion lets fall a       
disparaging judgment of it1 we must     
dispute his competence4 ,it is true that
 in his ,munich address he emphasises   
the statement1 ,that which graces me    
best is that ,i know my ignorance1 by   
printing it in italics4 ,i only regret  
that ,i am forced to deny his possession
 of this very grace4 ,virchow does not  
know how ignorant he is of morphology1  
else he would never have uttered his    
annihilating verdict on it1 else he     
would not continually designate the     
study of the theory of descent as       
dilettanteism and vain dreaming1 as a   
fanciful private speculation which is   
now making its way in several           
departments of natural science4 ,in     
truth1 ,virchow does me greatly too much
 honour when he designates as my        
personal crotchet an idea which for the 
last ten years has been the most        
precious common possession of all       
morphological science4 ,if ,virchow were

 not so unfamiliar with the literature  
of morphology1 he must have known that  
it is penetrated throughout by this     
principle of descent1 that every        
morphological inquiry which             
conscientiously pursues a               
well-considered problem now assumes the 
doctrine of descent as granted and      
indisputable4 ,of all this he is        
ignorant1 and so it is intelligible that
 he should continue to demand certain   
proofs of this hypothesis1 although     
those proofs have long since been       
produced4   ,,footnotes3  #ab ,vol4 ii41
 p4 #ccd of translation4  #ac ,london3  
,c4 ,kegan ,paul  ,co4 #ahgi4  #ad      
,jena1 ,zeitschriften fuer              
,naturwissenschaft1 #ahge4 ,vol4 x4     
,supplement4     ,,chapter ,,iii4  ,,the
 ,,skull ,,theory ,,and ,,the ,,ape     
,,theory4   ,inasmuch as ,virchow       
persists in treating the theory of      
descent as an unproved hypothesis1      
inasmuch as he ignores all the forcible 
evidences of that hypothesis1 he        

deprives himself of the right of        
speaking a decisive word in this1 the   
most important scientific dispute of the
 present day4 ,virchow is1 in fact1     
simply incompetent in the great question
 of evolution1 as he is deficient in the
 greater part of that knowledge--more   
especially morphological                
knowledge--which is indispensable to    
forming a judgment upon it4 ,hence on   
the turning-point of the whole          
matter--viz41 the problem as to the     
origin of species--he can have no       
opinion1 as he has never turned his     
attention to the systematic treatment of
 species3 those transitions of one      
species into another1 which he asks to  
see1 abound on all sides1 as is well    
known to every systematic naturalist4   
,only consider1 for example1 the genera 
of ,rubus and ,salix among the living   
plants of the present period1 and the   
,ammonites and ,brachiopoda among       
extinct animals4 ,hence1 too1 ,virchow  
can have no independent views as to the 

historical development of the higher    
from the lower animals1 because the     
abundant living forms of the lower      
animals are almost unknown to him1 and  
because he has hardly any conception of 
the marvellous strides which hundreds of
 industrious workers have made in this  
very department within the last twenty  
years4 ,but there can be no doubt1      
indeed it is already universally        
acknowledged1 that it is precisely the  
comparative anatomy of the lower--nay1  
of the very lowest animals--that has    
solved the greatest riddles of life1 and
 removed the greatest obstacles from the
 path of the doctrine of descent4 ,he   
simply ignores the fact that true       
,monads actually exist1 and have been   
positively identified by many different 
observers as structureless organisms    
without organs1 and he turns out the    
poor ,bathybius with a kick4 ,and yet ,i
 believe that in ,kosmos#ae ,i have     
conclusively proved that ,monads must   
retain their vast elementary importance 

whether the ,bathybius actually exists  
or not4  ,but even as regards the higher
 animals--nay1 even as to the           
comparative anatomy of the highest next 
to man1 the apes--,virchow stands apart1
 not understanding the views of modern  
morphology4  ,we must here examine more 
closely into this1 because it is        
precisely in this department that       
,virchow's only morphological           
experiments have been made2 viz41 his   
investigations as to the skulls of apes 
and of men4 ,this is precisely the one  
only point on which he has sought a     
closer acquaintance with morphology1 and
 precisely here it is most clearly to be
 seen how little he is acquainted with  
the recent advances our science has     
made1 and that he has hardly any        
conception of the extraordinary         
importance to that science of the theory
 of descent4  ,the skull theory1 as is  
well known1 has for a long time been a  
very favourite theme1 not only with     
prominent naturalists1 but also with    

talented amateurs4 ,undoubtedly the     
skull1 viewed as the bony capsule which 
encloses our most important organ of    
sense1 our brain1 has a special claim to
 morphological importance2 for the      
general conformation of the skull       
corresponds on the whole to the         
development of the brain1 and its inner 
surface gives an approximate idea of the
 outer surface of the brain4 ,in this   
correspondence lies the only sound      
kernel of the sickly1 overgrown fancies 
of phrenology4 ,the various development 
of the skull allows of an approximate   
inference as to the various degrees of  
development of the brain and of the     
mental faculties4 ,the comparative study
 of the skulls of the vertebrate animals
 had excited the lively interest of     
morphologists by the end of the last    
century1 when comparative anatomy was   
beginning to constitute a special       
science2 and the genetic inquiry as to  
the morphological significance and      
development of the skull soon grew out  

of it4 ,it was no less a man than our   
greatest ,german poet who first answered
 this question1 and propounded the      
theory that the skull was neither more  
nor less than the modified foremost end 
of the vertebral column1 and that the   
separate groups of bones which lie      
behind one another in the human skull1  
as in that of all the higher vertebrata1
 answer to the separate modified        
vertebrae4 ,this vertebral theory of the
 skull1 which ,von ,goethe and ,oken    
simultaneously and independently        
attempted to prove1 aroused universal   
interest and maintained its ground for  
seventy years1 while many attempts were 
made to improve and enlarge upon it in  
detail4  ,a quite new light was thrown  
on this1 as on every other morphological
 question1 as soon as ,darwin in #ahei  
had once more put into our hands the    
torch of the doctrine of descent4 ,the  
inquiry as to the origin of the skull   
now assumed a real and tangible form4   
,since all vertebrate animals1 from     

fishes up to man1 agree so completely as
 to their essential internal structure  
that they can be rationally conceived of
 no otherwise than as branches of one   
stock and as descendants of one         
parent-form1 the distinctly formulated  
question as to the skull theory which   
now started into prominence was this3   
,how1 historically1 has the skull of man
 and of the higher animals originated   
from that of the lower animals8 ,how is 
the development of the bones of the     
skull from the vertebrae to be proved8  
,the answer to these difficult questions
 was supplied by the first comparative  
anatomist of the present day1 by ,carl  
,gegenbaur4 ,after ,huxley had pointed  
out that the ontogenesis or individual  
development of the skull by no means    
favoured the older hypothesis of ,goethe
 and ,oken1 ,gegenbaur brought forward  
evidence that the fundamental idea of   
that theory was correct2 that the skull 
does in fact correspond to a series of  
coalescent vertebrae1 but that the      

separate bones of the skull are not to  
be regarded as representing parts of    
such modified vertebrae4 ,the           
skull-bones of all recent vertebrate    
animals are rather1 for the most part1  
dermal bones1 which have come into      
closer connection as supplementary to   
the cartilaginous primitive skull4 ,we  
can even now trace the number and       
position of the original vertebrae1 from
 which this primitive skull originated1 
by the number of the vertebral arches   
7gill-arches7 which are attached to it1 
as well as by the number and position of
 those vertebrae1 from nine to ten4 ,of 
all the recent vertebrata1 the          
cartilaginous fishes1 or ,selachians1   
have most nearly preserved the form and 
structure of this primordial skull4     
,these ,selachians1 the ,rays and       
,sharks1 are on the whole the creatures 
which throw the clearest light on the   
history of the lineage of the vertebrata
 and on the organisation of our primeval
 fish-natured ancestors4 ,it is one of  

the particular merits of ,gegenbaur that
 he clearly and firmly established the  
place in nature of the ,selachians as   
the common ancestors of all vertebrate  
animals from fish up to man4  ,none but 
those who have thoroughly studied the   
comparative morphology of the           
vertebrata1 who have sought the genetic 
issue from that labyrinth of intricate  
morphological problems at the hands of  
the theory of descent1 can duly value   
the immeasurable service which          
,gegenbaur has done by this and other   
,investigations into the ,comparative   
,anatomy of the ,vertebrata4 ,these     
investigations are as much distinguished
 by a profound knowledge and careful    
working out of the wonderfully-extensive
 empirical materials for the subject1 as
 by their critical acumen and           
philosophic grasp4 ,at the same time    
they set in the clearest light the      
immeasurable value of the theory of     
descent in the causal explanation of the
 most difficult morphological problems4 

,gegenbaur might1 therefore1 with       
perfect right1 enunciate this axiom in  
the ,introduction to his ,comparative   
,anatomy4 ,the theory of descent will at
 once find a touchstone of proof in     
comparative anatomy4 ,up to this time no
 experience in comparative anatomy has  
transpired which contradicts that       
theory2 on the contrary1 they all lead  
up to it4 ,thus it will receive back    
from science that which it has given to 
scientific method3 clearness and        
certainty4 ,in point of fact we can     
adduce no morphological investigations  
which better support this declaration   
than those very phylogenetic researches 
as to the cranium of the ,selachians1 as
 a basis for the critical examination of
 the genesis of the cranium of the      
vertebrata1 #ahgb4 ,as ,virchow had     
formerly thoroughly studied the old     
skull-hypothesis1 and in his admirable  
discourse on ,goethe as a ,naturalist1  
#ahfa1 had given an excellent exposition
 of it2 as moreover he had produced most

 valuable contributions to the normal   
and pathological anatomy of the human   
skull1 we might have expected that he   
would have received ,gegenbaur's grand  
reform of the theory of the skull1 and  
historical solution of the              
skull-problem1 with the greatest        
interest1 and have made it the clue to  
his own further researches4 ,but we seek
 in vain through ,virchow's latest      
contributions to the study of the human 
skull1 for any indication of his knowing
 or appreciating ,gegenbaur's           
investigations4 ,on the contrary1 we see
 him persistently moving1 without any   
clear goal in view1 on that trodden and 
devious path of investigation which     
finds the highest aim of craniological  
science in the measuring of skulls1 or  
craniometry4  ,we are far from          
undervaluing the full significance of   
the results of exact and careful        
descriptions and measurements of various
 conformations of the skull as an       
empirical basis for a true and          

scientific study of the skull--i4e41 for
 comparative and genetic craniology4    
,but still we must say that the way and 
method by which this skull measurement  
has1 for ten years now1 been pursued by 
numerous craniologists can never yield  
corresponding scientific results2 on the
 contrary1 though it is cried up as the 
exact morphology of the skull1 it simply
 loses itself in the domains of harmless
 trifling4 ,a large amount of time has  
in the last ten years been squandered in
 disputes as to the best method of      
measuring skulls1 while the             
craniologists concerned have not1 in the
 first place1 answered the obviously    
most important question3 ,what end they 
propose to gain by this specialist      
measuring1 what proposition they mean to
 prove by it8 ,most of those numerous   
skull measurers know nothing beyond the 
perfect human skull1 or at most the     
skulls of a few other mammalia1 while   
the comparative morphology and          
historical development of the crania of 

the lower vertebrata are wholly unknown 
to them2 and yet these last contain the 
true key to the comprehension of the    
others4 ,one single month devoted by    
these exact skull measurers to the study
 of ,gegenbaur's theory of the skull1   
and to testing the hypothesis by the    
skulls of ,selachians1 would have       
yielded them more fruit and have given  
them more light than long years of      
describing and measuring human skulls1  
however various4  ,virchow himself      
affords the most striking example of the
 usual results of this so-called exact  
method of studying skulls4 ,in his      
popular essay on ,the ,skulls of ,men   
and ,apes1 #ahgj1 he concludes with this
 notable proposition3--,it is therefore 
self-evident that ,man can never by any 
progressive development have originated 
from the ,apes4 ,every evolutionist who 
is familiar with the surprising facts of
 comparative morphology will draw from  
them the opposite conclusion3 ,it is    
self-evident that ,man could only have  

originated from the progressive         
development of the ,ape 7organism74     
,this brings us to that question which1 
in the popular treatment of the theory  
of descent1 is justly considered as its 
most important outcome and as the       
keystone of the evolutionist edifice--to
 the well-known proposition1 ,man is    
descended from the ,ape4 ,while we      
simply ignore all the misrepresentation1
 distortion1 and misinterpretation which
 this ape1 or pithecoid hypothesis1 has 
met with on all sides1 we will only     
remark that this fundamental            
proposition1 in the sense of our modern 
doctrine of evolution1 can rationally   
have only this plain meaning3 that the  
human species as a whole was long since 
developed from the order of apes1 indeed
 actually from one 7or perhaps more7    
long since extinct form of ape2 the     
immediate progenitors of man in the long
 series of his vertebrate ancestry were 
apes or ape-like animals4 ,of course    
none of the now surviving species of    

apes is to be regarded as the unaltered 
posterity of that primeval parent-form4 
,virchow1 however1 understanding the ape
 question in this sense1 answers it1 as 
,bastian also does1 with the most       
positive contradiction4 ,we cannot teach
 the doctrine that man is descended from
 apes or from any other animal1 for we  
cannot regard it as a real acquisition  
of science 7p4 #ca74 ,although ,i       
myself1 in direct opposition to this    
view1 and in agreement with almost all  
my professional colleagues1 look upon   
the descent of man from apes as one of  
the surest of phylogenetic hypotheses1  
,i will here expressly admit that the   
relative certainty of this1 as of all   
other historical hypotheses of descent1 
is not comparable with the absolute     
certainty of the general theory of      
descent4 ,it is now ten years since ,i  
first explicitly stated 7in my ,natural 
,history of ,creation1 vol4 ii4 p4      
#ceh73 ,the pedigree of the human race1 
like that of every animal or plant1     

remains in detail a more or less        
approximate general hypothesis4 ,this1  
however1 in no way affects the          
application of the theory of descent to 
man4 ,in this1 as in all researches into
 the derivation of our organism1 we must
 distinguish between the general theory 
of descent and the specific hypothesis  
of descent4 ,the general theory of      
descent claims full and permanent value1
 because it is inductively based on the 
whole range of common biological        
phenomena and on their internal causal  
connection4 ,each special hypothesis of 
descent1 on the other hand1 is          
conditional as to its specific value on 
the existing state of our biological    
information1 and on the extent of those 
objective empirical grounds on which we 
deductively found the hypothesis1 by our
 subjective inferences4 ,and ,i must    
here emphatically add that ,i have on   
every opportunity repeated that         
reservation1 and have always insisted on
 the difference which exists between the

 absolute certainty of transmutation in 
general and the relative certainty of   
each individual specific pedigree4 ,so  
that when ,semper and others of my      
opponents assert that ,i teach my       
specific genealogies as infallible      
dogmas1 it is simply false4 ,i have1 on 
the contrary1 pointed out on all        
occasions that ,i regard them only as   
heuristic or provisional hypotheses1 and
 as a means of investigating the actual 
relations of cognate races of organic   
forms more and more approximately4      
,since the conception of the natural    
animal system as a hypothetical         
genealogical tree1 and the phylogenetic 
interpretation of morphological affinity
 which that conception involves1 afford 
in fact the only rational interpretation
 of that affinity in general1 my first  
genealogical attempts soon found many   
imitators1 and at the present time      
numerous industrious labourers in the   
different departments of systematic     
zoology are endeavouring to find in the 

construction of such hypothetical       
genealogies the shortest and completest 
expression of the modern conception of  
structural affinity4 ,if ,virchow had   
not been as ignorant of the true        
significance and method of systematic   
morphology as he is of its progress and 
scientific contents1 he must certainly  
have known this1 and then he would      
surely have withheld his mockery of all 
these grave phylogenetic studies as     
personal crotchets and worthless dreams4
  ,what mighty strides towards a        
mechanical morphology we have made by   
this phylogenetic working out of the    
system1 and how much light and life it  
has at once thrown into the system that 
before was dead and cold1 can only be   
known to those who have long and deeply 
studied specific systematisation and the
 grouping of species2 ,virchow has not  
the remotest suspicion of it4 ,moreover1
 these attempts have now proceeded so   
far1 that a large proportion of the     
phylogenetic hypotheses are regarded as 

very nearly certain1 and can hardly     
undergo any further essential           
modifications2 while the greater number 
of them are still in an unfixed state1  
and one systematist tries to improve    
them in this direction1 and another in  
that4  ,the following phylogenetic      
hypotheses are held to be almost        
certain3----,the descent of many-celled 
animals from single-celled1 of the      
,medusae from the hydroid ,polyps1 of   
the jointed from the unjointed worms1 of
 the sucking from the gnawing insects1  
of amphibious animals from fishes1 of   
birds from reptiles1 of the placental   
mammalia from the marsupials1 and so    
forth4 ,i personally consider the       
descent of man from the apes as equally 
certain2 nay1 ,i regard this most       
important and pregnant genealogical     
hypothesis as one of those which1 up to 
the present time1 rest on the best      
empirical basis4  ,huxley1 in           
particular1 fifteen years ago1 in his   
celebrated ,man's ,place in ,nature1    

#ahfc1 so admirably proved the undoubted
 descent of man from apes1 and so       
clearly discussed all the relations that
 had to be taken into consideration1    
that very little was left to others to  
do4 ,the result of his comparative      
morphological investigations is         
contained in this proposition---- ,if we
 take up a system of organs1 be it which
 we will1 the comparison of its         
modifications throughout the series of  
apes leads us to the same conclusion3   
that in every single visible character  
man differs less from the higher apes   
than these do from the lower members of 
the same order4 ,it is therefore        
impossible for any objective zoologist1 
according to the principles of          
comparative systematisation1 to ascribe 
to man any other place in the animal    
world than in the order of apes2 and it 
is quite immaterial whether we designate
 this individual group as the ,order of 
,apes1 or1 with ,linnaeus1 as the       
,primates4 ,for the phylogenetic        

construction of the system1 the common  
descent of man and of apes from one     
common parent-form1 necessarily follows 
from this inevitable grouping1 and on   
this proposition only all the general   
inferences of the ape-hypothesis depend4
 ,as to what that common parent-form of 
men and apes may have been1 very        
different views might probably be       
brought on opposite sides2 but any one  
who knows the collected facts that bear 
upon the matter1 and estimates them     
impartially1 must1 in conclusion1 arrive
 at the certain conviction that that    
hypothetical and long-since extinct     
parent-form can only have been genuine  
apes2 that is to say1 of the placental  
mammalian type1 such as when we see them
 now living before our eyes we          
unhesitatingly class1 on the ground of  
their zoological characters1 as true    
apes1 in the order of ,apes or          
,primates4  ,in this1 and all other     
sound phylogenetic hypotheses1 we may   
most easily attain to a conviction of   

their truth by taking into consideration
 and comparison the other possible      
hypotheses4 ,but in fact no single      
opponent of the ape-hypothesis has been 
able to combat it with any other        
phylogenetic hypothesis that has the    
faintest glimmer of probability4 ,not   
one opponent has suggested1 or can      
suggest1 any other animal form that can 
serve as our nearest ancestor than the  
ape4 ,no one has ever reproached me by  
saying that ,mother ,nature has endowed 
me with too little imagination2 on the  
contrary1 ,i am often accused of having 
a superfluity of that gift of the gods2 
but ,i have often and repeatedly exerted
 my imagination to picture to myself any
 known or unknown animal-form as the    
nearest parent-form to man in the place 
of the apes1 and have always found      
myself under the necessity of falling   
back upon the stock of apes4 ,let me    
conceive of the outward conformation and
 the internal structure of the nearest  
mammalian ancestors of men as ,i will1  

,i am always forced to acknowledge that 
this hypothetical parent-form ranges    
under the zoologically-conceived order  
of apes1 and cannot possibly be         
separated from the ,simiadoe or         
,primates4 ,if1 in spite of this1 any   
one chooses1 out of a personal crotchet1
 to accept some other series of unknown 
animal ancestors of man that have       
nothing to do with apes1 that is but a  
mere empty hypothesis floating in the   
air4 ,our ape-hypothesis1 on the other  
hand1 is objectively and thoroughly     
proved by the essential agreement of the
 internal bodily structure of man and of
 apes1 and by the identity of their     
embryonic development1 as ,i have fully 
shown in my ,evolution of ,man 7chaps4  
xix4 and xxvi47 ,the mode and manner in 
which he here puts palaeontology in the 
foreground1 and throws on the theory of 
descent the task of producing an        
unbroken gradation of fossil            
transitional forms between the apes and 
man1 is very indicative of ,virchow's   

ignorance of this zoological            
question--in which ,i1 as a professional
 zoologist1 must decisively declare his 
incompetence4 ,the reasons why such a   
solution of the problem is not to be    
expected1 the extraordinary imperfection
 of the palaeontological record1 the    
natural impediments to the              
palaeontological evidence of the        
genealogical table1 have been so lucidly
 unfolded by ,darwin himself 7chaps4 ix4
 and x4 of the ,origin of ,species7 that
 ,i am obliged once more to come to the 
conclusion that ,virchow has never read 
it with any attention4  ,besides1 long  
before ,darwin1 the gifted ,lyell1 the  
great originator of modern geology1     
showed clearly and convincingly how1 for
 many reasons1 the greater part of the  
fossil series must remain most          
imperfect1 and these reasons were at a  
later period so often and so fully      
discussed 7by myself among others1 in   
chap4 xv4 of the ,history of ,creation1 
vol4 ii4 pp4 #bd-cb7 that it is wholly  

superfluous once more and in this place 
to state these well-known and time-worn 
questions4 ,it only shows how little    
,virchow was acquainted with geology and
 palaeontology1 and what a limited      
judgment he can form of these historical
 causal relations4   ,,footnotes3  #ae  
,vol4 i4 p4 #bic4     ,,chapter ,,iv4   
,,the ,,cell-,,soul ,,and ,,cellular    
,,psychology4   ,no attack in ,virchow's
 ,munich address surprised me so much1  
and none so plainly betrayed the        
subversion of his most important        
scientific views1 as that which he      
directed against my observations on     
psychology and cellular physiology4 ,a  
mystic dualism in his fundamental views 
is here revealed1 which stands in the   
sharpest contrast to the mechanical     
monism formerly upheld by the famous    
pathologist of ,wuerzburg4  ,in my      
,munich discourse 7p4 #ab71 ,i had      
alluded to the grand and fruitful       
application which ,virchow had made1 in 
his system of cellular pathology1 of the

 cell-theory to the general province of 
theoretic medicine2 and as a logical    
amplification of that idea1 ,i asserted 
emphatically that we must ascribe an    
independent soul-life to every          
individual organic cell4 ,this          
conception is validly proved by the     
study of infusoria1 amoebae1 and other  
one-celled organisms2 for1 in these     
individual1 isolated1 living cells we   
find the same manifestations of         
soul-life--feelings1 and ideas 7mental  
images71 will and motion1 as is in the  
higher animals compounded of many cells 
7p4 #ac74 ,virchow now rises up in the  
strongest protest against this theory of
 a cellular sensibility1 which ,i regard
 as the inevitable consequence of his   
early views of cellular physiology2 it  
is to him mere trifling with words4 ,he 
combats with equal decisiveness the     
scientific necessity of extending the   
province of psychical processes beyond  
the circle of those bodies in and by    
which we actually see them exhibited4   

,he further says1 ,if ,i explain        
attraction and repulsion as psychical   
phenomena1 ,i simply throw the psyche   
out of the window2 the psyche ceases to 
be a psyche4 ,finally he says1 ,i assert
 without any hesitation that for us the 
sum total of psychical phenomena is     
connected with certain animals only1 and
 not with the collective mass of all    
organic beings2 nay1 not even with all  
animals in general4 ,we have no ground  
as yet for speaking of the lowest       
animals as possessing psychical         
properties2 we find such properties only
 in the higher grades1 and with perfect 
certainty only in the very highest4     
,when ,i first read this and other      
astounding statements in ,virchow's     
paper1 ,i involuntarily asked myself1   
,can this be the same ,virchow from     
whom1 twenty-five years ago1 ,i learnt  
in ,wuerzburg that the soul-functions of
 man and animals depend on mechanical   
processes in the soul-organs2 that these
 organs are1 like all other organs1     

composed of cells1 and that the         
functional activity of an organ is      
nothing more than the sum of the        
activity of all the cells which compose 
it8 ,is this the same ,virchow whose    
most vital doctrine it was that all the 
physical and psychical processes of the 
human organism were to be referred to   
the mechanics of cell life2 who         
supported the view of the unity of all  
the phenomena of life with the same     
emphasis with which we are now obliged  
to defend it against his attacks8  ,in  
fact1 and beyond a doubt1 we have here a
 new proof of ,virchow's complete change
 in all fundamental scientific          
principles4 ,for the cellular psychology
 which ,i advance is only a necessary   
consequence of the cellular physiology  
promulgated by ,virchow4 ,his present   
opposition to the former is either a    
renunciation of the latter or an        
untenable and inconsequent position4 ,to
 explain this astonishing metapsychosis1
 we shall do well first to glance at the

 soul in general1 and then give         
particular consideration to the         
cell-soul4  ,what is the ,soul or       
,psyche8 ,the innumerable different     
answers which have been given to this   
crowning question of psychology1 may    
collectively1 when freed from all       
extraneous matter1 be brought under two 
groups which we may shortly designate as
 the dualistic and the monistic         
soul-hypothesis4 ,according to the      
monistic 7or realistic7 soul-hypothesis1
 the soul is nothing more than the sum  
or aggregate of a multitude of special  
cell-activities1 among which sensation  
and volition--sensual perception and    
voluntary movement--are the most        
important1 the most common1 and the most
 widely diffused2 associated with these 
in the higher animals and in man1 we    
find the more developed activities of   
the ganglionic cells which are included 
under the conceptions of ,thought1      
,consciousness1 ,intellect1 and ,reason4
 ,like all the other                    

functional-activities of the organic    
cells1 these soul-functions depend      
ultimately on material phenomena of     
motion1 and more particularly on the    
motions of the plasson-molecules or     
plastidules1 the ultimate atoms of the  
protoplasma1 and perhaps of the nucleus 
also2 therefore we should be able       
actually to grasp and explain them1 as  
well as every other cognisable natural  
process1 if we were in a position to    
refer them to the mechanics of atoms4   
,this monistic soul-hypothesis1 then1 is
 at bottom mechanistic4 ,if psychical   
mechanics--psychophysics--were not so   
infinitely complex and involved1 if we  
were in a position to take a complete   
view of the historical evolution of the 
psychic functions1 we could reduce the  
whole of them 7including consciousness7 
to a mathematical soul-formula4         
,according to the opposite1 or dualistic
 7or spiritualistic7 soul-hypothesis1   
the soul is1 on the contrary1 a peculiar
 substance1 which most people somewhat  

grossly conceive of as a gaseous body1  
while others picture it with more       
subtlety1 as an immaterial essence4     
,this soul-substance subsists           
independently of the animal-body1 and   
stands in only a temporary connection   
with certain organs of that body--the   
soul-1 or mental-organs4 ,it has been   
imagined that this soul-matter1 which   
resembles that imponderable ether which 
is the medium of light1 is diffused     
between the ponderable molecules of the 
soul-organs and especially of the       
nerve-cells1 and that this connection of
 the imponderable soul with the         
ponderable body subsists only so long as
 the individual life lasts4 ,at the     
instant of the first beginning of the   
individual organism1 at the moment of   
generation1 this imponderable soul      
passes into the body1 and at the instant
 of death1 at the annihilation of the   
living individual1 it again quits the   
body4 ,this mystical or dualistic       
soul-hypothesis1 which1 as is well      

known1 is to this day universally       
accepted1 is fundamentally vitalistic1  
inasmuch as it regards the force which  
is bound up with the soul-substance1    
like the vital force of a past time1 as 
a peculiar force quite independent of   
mechanical forces4 ,this force does not 
depend on the material phenomena of     
motion1 and is quite independent of the 
mechanics of atoms4 ,the highest law of 
modern natural science1 the law of the  
conservation of force1 has1 therefore1  
no application in the region of         
soul-life1 and that mechanical causality
 which prevails throughout all the      
processes of nature does not exist for  
the soul4 ,the ,psyche1 in a word1 is a 
supernatural phenomenon1 and the        
supernatural department of the spiritual
 world stands free and independent of   
the natural department of the material  
world4  ,if we now compare the          
psychological views of the youthful and 
unprejudiced ,virchow of ,wuerzburg with
 those of the older and mystical        

,virchow of ,berlin1 there can be no    
doubt in the minds of the impartial that
 the former1 a quarter of a century ago1
 was as decided and logical a monist as 
the latter is at present a confessed and
 convicted dualist4 ,the distinguished  
position which ,virchow1 twenty-five    
years since1 won by his natural         
conception of the nature of man1 and the
 great fame which he then earned in the 
fight for the truth1 rest precisely on  
this1 that on every occasion he         
maintained with his utmost vigour the   
unity of all vital phenomena1 and       
asserted their mechanical character4    
,all organic life1 even the soul-life1  
rests on mechanical principles1 on that 
causal mechanism of which ,kant said    
that it alone contained a practical     
interpretation of nature1 and that      
without it no natural science can exist4
 ,on this point ,virchow says well in   
his discourse on ,efforts at ,unity in  
,scientific ,medicine1 #ahdi3--,life is 
only a peculiar sort of mechanics1      

though it is indeed the most complex    
form of mechanics2 that in which the    
usual mechanical laws fall under the    
most unusual and manifold conditions4   
,thus life1 compared with the universal 
processes of motion in nature1 is a     
thing peculiar in itself2 but it does   
not constitute a diametrical1 dualistic 
opposition to those laws2 it is only a  
peculiar species of motion4 ,the motion 
itself is a mechanical one1 for how     
should we become cognisant of it if it  
were not based on the sensible          
properties of bodies8 ,the media of the 
motion are certain chemical matters1 for
 we recognise none but chemical matter  
in bodies4 ,the individual acts of      
motion reduce themselves to mechanical1 
or physico-chemical1 modifications of   
the constituent elements of the organic 
unities1 the cells and their            
equivalents4 ,these and many similar    
utterances in ,virchow's earlier        
writings1 and especially in the essay ,i
 have mentioned1 ,on the ,mechanical    

,conception of ,life1 leave no doubt    
that he formerly supported1 with a clear
 conscience and his utmost energy1 in   
psychology as in the other collected    
departments of physiology1 that very    
mechanical standpoint which we to-day   
accept as the essential basis of our    
monism1 and which stands in             
irreconcilable antagonism to the dualism
 of the vitalistic doctrine4 ,to none of
 my teachers am ,i so deeply indebted   
for my emancipation from all the        
prejudices of the dualistic doctrine1   
and for my conversion to the monistic1  
as to ,rudolf ,virchow2 for it was his  
superior guidance which most firmly     
convinced me1 and many others1 of the   
exclusive importance of the mechanical  
view of nature4 ,he led me to a clear   
recognition of the fact that the nature 
of man1 like every other organism1 can  
only be rightly understood as a united  
whole1 that this spiritual and corporeal
 being are inseparable1 and that the    
phenomena of the soul-life depend1 like 

all other vital phenomena1 on material  
motion only--on mechanical 7or          
physico-chemical7 modifications of      
cells4 ,and it was in perfect agreement 
with my most honoured master that ,i    
subscribed then1 and at this day still  
subscribe1 to the proposition with which
 he1 in ,september #ahdi1 closed the    
preface to the above-mentioned ,efforts 
at ,unity4 ,it is possible that ,i may  
have erred in details2 in the future ,i 
shall be ready and willing to           
acknowledge my mistakes and to rectify  
them1 but ,i enjoy this conviction1 that
 ,i shall never find myself in the      
position of denying the principle of the
 unity of the human nature with all its 
consequences6  ,to err is human6 ,who   
can say to what diametrical             
contradiction to his firmest convictions
 man may not in the future be driven by 
his adaptation to new relations in life8
 ,if we compare these stout monistic    
declarations of #ahdi and #aheh with the
 equally decided dualistic utterances in

 ,virchow's ,munich address of #ahgg1 we
 perceive that he could not give the lie
 more fiercely to his former fundamental
 opinions than he has there done4 ,not  
quite twenty years have passed by1 and  
yet1 in the course of that time1 in     
,virchow's views of the universe1 in his
 conception of human nature1 and of the 
soul-life1 a change has been effected   
than which we can conceive of no        
greater4 ,we learn to our surprise that 
psychical and corporeal processes are   
wholly different phenomena2 that no     
scientific necessity whatever exists for
 extending the province of psychical    
processes beyond the circle of those    
bodies in which1 and by which1 we see   
them actually exhibited4 ,we may        
ultimately explain the processes of the 
human mind as chemical1 but at any rate1
 it is not yet our business to          
amalgamate these two subjects6  ,from   
the whole psychological discussion which
 is involved in ,virchow's ,munich      
address1 it is made clear that at the   

present time he regards the soul in a   
purely dualistic sense as a substance1  
an immaterial essence which only        
temporarily takes up its abode in the   
body4 ,highly characteristic of this is 
the remarkable sentence1 ,if ,i explain 
attraction and repulsion as psychical   
phenomena1 ,i simply throw the psyche   
out of the window2 the psyche ceases to 
be a psyche4 ,if we substitute for the  
word psyche the word which corresponds  
to ,virchow's earlier mechanistic       
view--the word motion 7or peculiar mode 
of motion7--the sentence runs thus3 ,if 
,i explain attraction and repulsion as  
phenomena of motion1 ,i simply throw    
motion out of the window4  ,almost more 
remarkable is ,virchow's assertion that 
the lowest animals have no psychic      
properties2 that1 on the contrary1 these
 are only to be found in the higher1    
and1 with perfect certainty1 only in the
 highest animals4 ,it is only to be     
regretted that ,virchow has not here    
stated what he understands by the higher

 and the highest animals2 where that    
remarkable dividing line is1 beyond     
which the soul suddenly appears in the  
hitherto soulless body4 ,every zoologist
 who is in some degree familiar with the
 results of comparative morphology and  
physiology will here clasp his hands in 
astonishment1 for by this proposition   
,virchow seems to mean that we must     
ascribe a soul-life only to those       
animals in which special soul-organs1 in
 the form of a central and peripheral   
nerve-system1 are developed from        
sense-organs and muscles4 ,but it is    
admitted that all these different       
soul-organs with their characteristic   
properties have originated from single  
cells through the division of labour    
7differentiation72 and the nerves and   
muscles especially have been developed  
by differentiation from the             
neuro-muscular cells4 ,the cells from   
which all these different nerve-cells1  
muscle-cells1 mind-cells1 and so forth1 
are derived1 are originally the simple  

neutral cells of the epithelium of the  
ectoderm or exterior germ-layer1 and    
these cells1 again1 like all the cells  
of many-celled animal bodies1 originated
 in the repeated division of one single 
original cell1 the ovum-cell4  ,the     
individual development or ontogenesis of
 each of these many-celled animal-forms1
 brings this histological process of    
development so clearly and evidently    
before our eyes that we can but directly
 infer from it the truth of the         
phylogenesis1 or gradual historical     
evolution of the soul-organs4 ,the      
association of cells and the division of
 labour among them are the modes by     
which1 in the first instance1 the       
compound many-celled organism has       
originated1 historically1 from the      
simple one-celled organism4 ,and an     
impartial comparative consideration     
teaches us in the clearest way that a   
functional-activity of the soul-cells   
exists in the lowest one-celled animals 
as well as in the highest and           

many-celled2 in the infusoria as well as
 in man4 ,volition and sensation1 the   
universal and unmistakable signs of     
soul-life1 may be observed among the    
former as well as in the latter4        
,voluntary motion and conscious         
sensation 7of pressure1 light1 warmth1  
c47 come under our observation so       
undoubtedly in the commonest forms of   
infusorial animals--for instance the    
,ciliata1 that one of their most        
persevering observers1 ,ehrenberg1      
asserted undeviatingly to the day of his
 death that all ,infusoria must possess 
nerves and muscles1 organs of sense and 
of soul1 as well as the higher animals4 
,it is well known that the enormous     
advance which our science has lately    
made in the natural history of these    
lowest organisms culminates in the      
statement--clearly made by ,siebold     
thirty years since1 but only recently   
ascertained as proved--that these minute
 creatures are one-celled1 and that in  
the case of these infusoria one single  

cell is capable of all the various vital
 functions--including                   
soul-functions--which in the zoophytes  
7plant-animals71 as the hydra and the   
sponges1 are distributed among the cells
 of the two germ-layers1 and in all the 
higher animals among the different      
tissues1 organs1 and apparatus of a     
highly developed and constructed        
organism4 ,the psychic functions of     
sensation and voluntary motion1 which   
are here distributed to such very       
various organs and tissues1 are in the  
infusoria fulfilled by the neutral      
plasson material of the cell1 by the    
protoplasma1 and possibly also by the   
nucleus 7compare my treatise ,the       
,morphology of the ,infusoria4 ,jena1   
,zeitschriften1 #ahgc1 vol4 vii4 p4     
#eaf74 ,and just as we must attribute to
 these primary animal forms an          
independent soul1 just as we must       
plainly be convinced that the single    
independent cell has a psyche1 we must  
as decidedly attribute a soul to every  

other cell2 for the most important      
active constituent of the cell1 the     
protoplasm1 everywhere exhibits the same
 psychic properties of sensibility or   
irritability1 and motive power or will4 
,the only difference is this1 that in   
the organism of the higher animals and  
plants the numerous collected cells1 to 
a great extent1 give up their individual
 independence1 and are subject1 like    
good citizens1 to the soul-polity which 
represents the unity of the will and    
sensations in the cell community4 ,we   
here also must distinguish clearly      
between the central soul of the whole   
many-celled organism or the personal    
psyche 7the person-soul71 and the       
particular individual soul or elementary
 soul of the individual cells           
constituting that organism 7the         
cell-soul74 ,their relations are        
strikingly illustrated in the           
instructive group of ,siphonophora1 as  
,i have briefly shown in my article on  
,the ,cell-soul and ,soul-cells         

7,deutsche ,rundschau1 ,july #ahgh74    
,beyond a doubt the whole stock or      
polity of ,siphonophora has a very      
definite united will and a united       
sensibility1 and yet each of the        
individual persons of which this stock  
7or ,cormus7 is composed has its own    
personal will and its own particular    
sensations4 ,each of these persons      
indeed was originally a separate        
,medusa1 and the individual             
,siphonophora stock originated1 by      
association and division of labour1 out 
of these united ,medusa communities4    
,when ,i developed this theory of the   
cell-soul and designated it in my       
,munich address as the surest foundation
 of empirical psychology1 ,i believed ,i
 was drawing an inference quite to      
,virchow's mind1 from his own views of  
mechanical and cellular-physiology2 and 
for that reason ,i took the same        
occasion specially to celebrate his very
 great services to the cell theory4 ,how
 astonished then was ,i when in his     

reply this very theory was violently    
attacked and satirised as mere trifling 
with words4 ,it never could have        
occurred to me that ,virchow had long   
since become unfaithful to his most     
important biological principles1 and had
 deserted his own mechanical theory of  
cells2 it never had occurred to me that 
,virchow could be in great measure      
wanting in that zoological knowledge    
which is requisite for a practical      
comprehension of the cell-soul theory4  
,he has never thoroughly studied either 
the one-celled ,protozoa1 the ,infusoria
 and ,lobosa1 nor the ,coelenterata1 the
 highly instructive ,sponges1 ,hydroids1
 ,medusae1 or ,siphonophora2 and thus he
 is wanting in those genetic principles 
of comparative zoology on which our     
theory rests4 ,it is in no other way    
conceivable that ,virchow should contemn
 the most important consequences of the 
cell theory as mere trifling with words4
  ,next to the one-celled infusoria no  
phenomenon throws such direct light on  

our cellular psychology as the fact that
 the human ovum1 like the ova of all    
other animals1 is a single1 simple cell4
 ,in accordance with our monistic       
conception of the cell-soul1 we must    
conclude that the fertilised ovum-cell  
already virtually possesses those       
psychical properties which1 by the      
special combination of the peculiarities
 inherited from both parents1           
characterise the individual soul of the 
new person2 in the course of the        
development of the germ1 the cell-soul  
of the fertilised ovum naturally is     
developed simultaneously with its       
material substratum1 and subsequently1  
after birth1 it appears in full         
activity4  ,according to ,virchow's     
dualistic conception of the psyche1 we  
must1 on the contrary1 assume that this 
immaterial essence at some period of its
 embryonic development 7apparently when 
the spine separates itself from the     
external germ-layer7 informs the        
soulless germ4 ,of course1 the bare     

miracle is thus complete1 and the       
natural and unbroken continuity of      
development is superfluous4             
,,chapter ,v4  ,,the ,,genetic ,,and    
,,dogmatic ,,methods ,,of ,,teaching4   
,the very justifiable surprise which    
,virchow's ,munich address has excited  
in many circles is due only in part to  
his opposition to the theory of descent2
 for the rest1 and in much greater part1
 it is due to the astounding arguments  
which he has connected with it1         
particularly as to freedom for          
instruction4 ,these arguments so closely
 resemble those of the ,jesuits that    
they might have been inspired direct    
from the ,vatican1 or1 which is the same
 thing1 the notorious court-chaplain    
party in ,berlin4 ,no wonder1 then1 that
 these propositions1 which would        
undermine the whole liberty of science1 
have met with the loudest approbation   
from the ,germania1 the ,new            
,evangelical ,church ,times 7,neue      
,evangelischen ,kirchenzeitung71 and    

other leading1 equivocating organs of   
the ,church militant4 ,on the other     
hand1 these odious principles are       
already so extensively discussed1 and   
have been so clearly laid down in all   
their indefensibility1 that ,i may here 
deal with them briefly4  ,virchow's     
politics as a pedagogue reach their     
highest pitch in this demand3 that in   
all schools1 from the poor schools to   
the universities1 nothing shall be      
taught that is not absolutely certain4  
,none but objective and absolutely      
ascertained knowledge is to be imparted 
by the teacher to the learner2 nothing  
subjective1 no knowledge that is open to
 correction1 only facts1 no hypotheses4 
,the investigation of such problems as  
the whole nation may be interested in   
must not be restricted2 that is liberty 
of inquiry2 but the problem ought not1  
without anything farther1 to be the     
subject of teaching4 ,when we teach we  
must restrict ourselves to the smaller1 
and yet how great1 departments which we 

are actually masters of4  ,rarely indeed
 has such a treasonable attempt on      
liberty of doctrine been made by a      
prominent representative of science1 and
 a leader of the intellectual movement  
too1 as this by ,virchow4 ,only inquiry 
is to be free and not teaching6 ,and    
where in the whole history of science is
 there one single scientific inquirer to
 be found who would not have felt       
himself quite justified in teaching his 
own subjective convictions with as much 
right as he had to construct them from  
inquiry into objective facts4 ,and      
where1 generally speaking1 is the limit 
to be found between objective and       
subjective knowledge8 ,is there1 in     
fact1 any objective science8  ,this     
question ,virchow answers in the        
affirmative1 for he goes on to say3 ,we 
must not forget that there is a boundary
 line between the speculative           
departments of natural science and those
 that are actually conquered and firmly 
established 7p4 #h74 ,in my opinion1    

there is no such boundary line2 on the  
contrary1 all human knowledge as such is
 subjective4 ,an objective science which
 consists merely of facts without any   
subjective theories is inconceivable4   
,for evidence in favour of this view we 
must take a rapid survey of the whole   
domain of human science1 and test the   
chief departments of it to see how far  
they contain1 on the one hand1 objective
 knowledge and facts1 and on the other1 
subjective knowledge and hypotheses4 ,we
 may begin directly with ,kant's        
assertion that in every science only so 
much true--that is objective--knowledge 
is to be found as it contains of        
mathematics4 ,unquestionably mathematics
 stand at the head of all the sciences  
as regards the certainty of its         
teaching4 ,but how as to those deepest  
and simplest fundamental axioms which   
constitute the firm basis on which the  
proud edifice of mathematical teaching  
rests8 ,are these certain and proved8   
,certainly not4 ,the bases of its       

teaching are simply axioms which are    
incapable of proof4 ,to give only one   
example of how the very first principles
 of mathematics might be attacked by    
scepticism and shaken by philosophical  
speculation1 we may remember the recent 
discussions as to the three dimensions  
of space and the possibility of a fourth
 dimension2 disputes which are carried  
on even at the present day by the most  
eminent mathematicians1 physicists1 and 
philosophers4 ,so much as this is       
certain1 that mathematics as little     
constitute an absolutely objective      
science as any other1 but by the very   
nature of man are subjectively          
conditioned4 ,a man's subjective power  
of knowing can only discern the         
objective facts of the outer world in   
general so far as his organs of sense   
and his brain admit in his own          
individual degree of cultivation4       
,however1 granting that mathematics     
practically constitute an absolutely    
certain and objective science1 how is it

 with the rest of the sciences8         
,undoubtedly the most certain among them
 are those exact sciences whose         
principles are to be directly proved by 
mathematics2 thus1 in the first place1 a
 great part of physics4 ,we say1 a great
 part1 for another large part--to speak 
accurately1 by far the greatest--is     
incapable of any exact mathematical     
proof4 ,for what do we know for certain 
of the essential nature of matter1 or   
the essential nature of force8 ,what do 
we know for certain of gravitation1 of  
the attraction of mass1 of its effects  
at great distances1 and so on8 ,newton's
 theory of gravitation is regarded as   
the most important and certain theory of
 physics1 and yet gravitation itself is 
a hypothesis4 ,then1 as to the other    
branches of physics--electricity and    
magnetism4 ,the whole scheme of these   
important sciences rests on the         
hypothesis of electric fluidity1 or of  
imponderable matter of which the        
existence is nothing less than proved4  

,or optics8 ,optics certainly appertain 
to the most important and completest    
branch of physics1 and yet the          
undulatory theory of light1 which we    
accept now as the indispensable basis of
 optics1 rests on an unproved           
hypothesis1 on the subjective assumption
 of an ethereal medium1 whose existence 
no one is in a position to prove        
objectively in any way4 ,nay1 further1  
before ,young set up the undulatory     
theory of light1 for a hundred years the
 emanation theory as taught by ,newton  
obtained exclusively in physics2 a      
theory which at the present day is      
universally regarded as untenable4 ,in  
our opinion the mighty ,newton won the  
greatest honours in the development of  
the science of optics1 inasmuch as he   
was the first to connect and explain the
 vast mass of objective optical facts by
 a subjective and pregnant hypothesis4  
,but1 according to ,virchow's view1     
,newton on the contrary transgressed    
greatly by teaching this erroneous      

hypothesis2 for even in exact physics   
none but independent and certain facts  
are to be taught and established by     
experiment as the highest means of      
proof4 ,physics as a whole1 as resting  
on mere unproved hypotheses1 may be     
indeed an object of inquiry but not of  
teaching4  ,of course the same is true  
of chemistry2 nay1 this stands on much  
weaker feet1 and is even less proved    
than physics4 ,the whole theoretical    
side of chemistry is an airy structure  
of hypotheses such as does not exist in 
any other science4 ,in the last three   
decades we have seen a whole series of  
the most different theories rapidly     
succeed each other1 none of which can be
 positively proved1 though at least one 
of them is taught by every professor of 
chemistry4 ,but what is worst of all1   
the common basis of all the most        
dissimilar chemical theories1 viz41 the 
atomic theory1 is as unproved and       
unprovable as any hypothesis can be4 ,no
 chemist has ever seen an atom1 but he  

nevertheless considers the mechanism of 
atoms as the highest term of his        
science1 he nevertheless describes and  
constructs the connection of atoms in   
their various combinations as though he 
had them before him on the              
dissecting-table6 ,all the conceptions  
which we possess as to chemical         
structure and the affinities of matter1 
are subjective hypotheses1 mere         
conceptions as to the position and      
changes of position of the various      
atoms1 whose very existence is incapable
 of proof4 ,away1 then1 with chemistry  
from our schools6 ,the chemist must only
 describe the properties of the         
different elements and those            
combinations which can be put before the
 pupil as ascertained facts founded in  
experiment1 the highest means of proof4 
,everything that goes beyond this is    
mischievous1 particularly every         
suggestion as to the essence and        
chemical constituents of bodies2 matters
 as to which1 in the nature of things1  

we can only form uncertain hypotheses4  
,for as all chemistry1 viewed as a      
system of doctrine1 rests solely on such
 hypotheses1 it may be indeed a subject 
of investigation but not of teaching4   
,having thus convinced ourselves that   
chemistry as well as physics1 those     
exact sciences1 those mechanical bases  
of all other sciences1 rest on mere     
unproved hypotheses1 and so must not be 
taught1 we may make short work of the   
other faculties4 ,for they collectively 
are more or less historical sciences and
 dispense wholly or in part with even   
those half-exact1 fundamental principles
 on which physics and chemistry are     
based4 ,in the first place1 there is    
that grand1 historical1 natural science1
 geology2 the great doctrine of the     
structure and composition1 the origin   
and development of our globe4 ,according
 to ,virchow this too must be limited to
 the description of ascertained facts1  
such as the structure of mountain       
masses1 the character of the fossils    

they contain1 the formation of crystals1
 and so forth4 ,but not for the world   
must anything be taught as to the       
evolution of this globe2 for this rests 
from beginning to end on unproved       
hypotheses4 ,for even to the present day
 the ,plutonic and ,neptunic theories   
are disputing the field1 and to this day
 we know not as to many of the most     
important rocks1 whether they originated
 by the agency of fire or of water4 ,the
 new and remarkable discoveries of the  
great ,challenger-expedition threaten to
 subvert a great many geological notions
 which had long been regarded as        
certain4 ,then again1 as to fossils4    
,who can prove with any certainty that  
these petrifactions are in truth the    
fossilised remains of extinct organisms8
 ,they may be--as many distinguished    
naturalists of even the last century    
maintained--marvellous sports of nature1
 mysterious ,lusus naturae1 or mere     
rough1 inorganic models of the labouring
 ,creator into which ,he subsequently   

breathed the breath of life2 or perhaps 
stone-flesh 7caro fossilis7 brought into
 existence1 on the dead rocks by the    
fertilising air 7aura seminalis71 and so
 forth4  ,but ,i am wrong6 for with     
regard to petrifactions1 ,virchow is in 
the highest degree speculative1 and     
accepts without any hesitation the rash 
hypothesis that fossils are actually the
 remains of extinct organisms1 although 
no certain proof whatever can be offered
 in its favour1 and although experiment1
 the highest means of proof1 has never  
yet produced a single fossil4 ,according
 to him these are actual objective1     
material evidences1 only here we must go
 no further than certain experience     
teaches us1 and base no subjective      
conclusions on these objective facts4   
,thus1 for instance1 in the long series 
of the mesozoic formations1 in the      
different strata of the ,trias1         
,jurassic1 and ,chalk formations1 for   
the deposition of which a lapse of many 
millions of years has been required1 we 

find absolutely no remains of fossil    
mammalia beyond lower jaws2 seek where  
we will1 nothing is anywhere to be found
 but lower jaws1 and no other bones     
whatever4 ,the simple reasons of this   
striking imperfection of the            
palaeontological record have been       
clearly expounded by ,lyell1 ,huxley1   
and others4 7,comp4 my ,history of      
,creation1 vol4 ii4 p4 #cb47 ,these     
great investigators1 in accordance with 
all other palaeontologists1 have        
demonstrated that these jaw-bones of the
 mesozoic period are the remains of     
mammalia1 accurately speaking of        
marsupials1 on the simple ground that   
the nether jaws of the extant recent    
marsupials show a similar characteristic
 form with the fossil ones4 ,they       
therefore unhesitatingly assume that the
 rest of the bones in the bodies of     
these extinct animals corresponded to   
those of living mammals4 ,but this is a 
quite inadmissible hypothesis devoid of 
any certain proof6 ,where1 then1 are the

 other bones8 ,let us see them6 till    
then we decline to believe in them4     
,according to ,virchow1 we ought rather 
to assume that the lower jaw was the    
only bone in the body of these          
extraordinary beasts4 ,are there not1 in
 fact1 snails1 in which an upper jaw is 
the only representation of a skeleton4  
,we cannot omit taking this opportunity 
of casting a side glance at the very    
hazardous position which ,virchow1 in   
total opposition to his boasted cool    
scepticism1 has taken up in anthropology
 as it is called1 now his favourite     
branch of science4 ,in his ,munich      
address he tells us that he is pursuing 
the study of anthropology with delight1 
and then asserts that the quarternary   
man is an universally-accepted fact4    
,quite apart from this statement1 we    
have seen that ,virchow can never attain
 to a profound and really scientific    
study of anthropology simply for this   
reason1 that he is lacking in that      
comprehensive knowledge of comparative  

morphology which is indispensable to it2
 nay1 comparative anatomy and           
ontogenesis must be1 according to him1  
unpermitted speculations and the        
phylogenesis of man1 the key to all the 
most important questions of             
anthropology1 being based upon these1 is
 devoid of all certain proof4 ,all the  
more must we wonder at the speculative  
levity with which even the sceptic      
,virchow in the ,primeval ,history of   
,man and ,fossil ,anthropology1 embarks 
in the most hazardous conjectures1 and  
gives out uncertain1 subjective         
hypotheses as certain1 objective facts4 
,there is1 in fact1 at the present day  
no department of science in which the   
wildest and most untenable hypotheses   
have blossomed out so freely as in      
anthropology and ethnology1 so-called4  
,all the phylogenetic hypotheses which  
,i myself have put forward in my        
,evolution of ,man as to the animal     
ancestry of man1 or in my ,natural      
,history of ,creation as to the         

affinities of animal races--all the     
other genealogical hypotheses which are 
now advanced by numerous zoologists and 
botanists as to the phylogenetic        
evolution of the animal and plant       
worlds--all these hypotheses together1  
which ,virchow rejects in a lump1 are1  
critically considered as hypotheses1 far
 better grounded in facts1 far better   
supported by facts1 than the majority of
 those innumerable airy and fanciful    
hypotheses with which1 for the last     
twelve years1 the ,archiv fuer          
,anthropologie and ,zeitschrift fuer    
,ethnologie1 edited by ,virchow and     
,bastian1 have filled their columns4    
,this last periodical has at least the  
merit of being a tolerably consistent   
opponent of the doctrine of evolution1  
while in the former1 during twelve      
years1 essays on both sides have been   
mixed up in cheerful confusion4 ,and how
 fanciful are the short-sighted         
hypotheses which there blossom forth    
from the mixed mass of facts1           

chaotically flung together4 ,only think 
of the disputes over the stone age1     
bronze age1 and iron age2 think of the  
motley discussions as to the varieties  
of skull-conformation and their         
significance2 on the races of man1 the  
migrations of peoples and the like4     
,most of these very intricate historical
 problems are far more buried in        
obscurity1 and the hypotheses to explain
 them dispense far more largely with any
 basis of facts1 than is the case with  
our phylogenetic hypotheses2 for these  
are more or less objectively based on   
the facts of comparative anatomy and    
ontogenesis4  ,but no one of these      
historical hypotheses is so daring1 so  
little certainly proved1 as the group of
 very various and contradictory         
hypotheses which have been put forward  
as to the antiquity and first appearance
 of the human species2 and ,virchow     
asserts positively ,the pleistocene man 
is an universally accepted fact4 ,the   
tertiary man is1 on the other hand1 a   

problem1 though indeed a problem which  
is already under substantial discussion6
 ,as if the distinction between the     
tertiary and quarternary periods were   
not itself a geological hypothesis1 and 
as if the significance of the fossil    
animal-remains1 which play the largest  
part in it1 did not also rest on mere   
hypotheses which escape all certain     
proof6 ,where1 then1 is the actual      
experiment as the highest means of      
proof1 which gives evidence for these   
certain facts8 ,the whole discussion in 
general about prehistoric man1 which    
,virchow has mixed up with his ,munich  
address 7pp4 #cj1 #ca71 is the clearest 
evidence of the uncritical spirit in    
which he deals with these historical    
problems as exact natural sciences4 ,he 
assures us that not one single ape's    
skull1 nor skull of an anthropoid ape1  
has ever been found which could actually
 have belonged to a human owner6 and he 
adds this sentence1 in italics1 ,we     
cannot teach1 for we cannot regard it as

 a real acquisition of science1 that man
 is descended from the ape or from any  
other animal6 ,then evidently no        
alternative remains but that he is      
descended from a god1 or from a clod6   
,but let us go over the rest of the     
sciences to see what1 according to      
,virchow1 may be taught in each without 
endangering the safety of science4 ,in  
the whole department of biology1 as well
 as in zoology--including               
anthropology--and in botany1 instruction
 must be limited to imparting those     
trifling fragments of knowledge which   
either consist of mere descriptions of  
dry facts1 or which supply an           
explanation of them by mathematical     
formulas4 ,morphology must be taught as 
mere descriptive anatomy and            
systematising1 the history of           
development as mere descriptive         
ontogenesis4 ,comparative anatomy and   
phylogenesis1 which by their explanatory
 hypotheses raise those dead masses of  
facts to the place of true and living   

sciences--these must not be taught at   
all4 ,and how then do matters stand with
 regard to the cell-theory1 that        
fundamental theory on which every       
element of our morphology and physiology
 depends1 and by applying which ,virchow
 himself reached his grandest results8  
,since ,schleiden in ,jena1 forty years 
ago1 first put forward the cell-theory1 
and ,schwann immediately after applied  
it to the animal kingdom and so to the  
whole organic world1 this fundamental   
doctrine has undergone very important   
modifications1 for it is indeed a       
biological theory1 but not a fact4 ,we  
may recollect under what different      
aspects its main principles have        
appeared in the course of these four    
decades3 what changes have taken place  
in the conception of the cell itself4   
,after the organic cell had originally  
been conceived of as a vesicle1         
consisting of a firm capsule and a fluid
 content1 we subsequently discerned it  
to be composed of a glutinous semi-fluid

 cell-substance1 the protoplasm1 and    
convinced ourselves that this protoplasm
 and the cell-core or nucleus enclosed  
in it are the most important and        
indispensable constituent parts of the  
cell1 while the external firm capsule1  
the cell-membrane1 is not essential and 
very frequently wanting4 ,but even now  
opinions widely differ as to how the    
conception of a cell should be precisely
 defined1 and what consequences must be 
inferred from the cell-theory1 and      
attempts have not been wanting to upset 
it altogether and to treat it as        
worthless4 ,the anatomist ,henle1 of    
,goettingen1 in particular1 has         
repeatedly made such an attempt1 that   
gifted anatomist who1 in the preface to 
his bulky text-book of human anatomy1   
declared that scientific ideas are mere 
worthless paper money1 and that the     
noble metal of facts1 on the contrary1  
is the only genuine article4 ,not long  
since a bulky volume in quarto appeared1
 by one ,herr ,nathusius-,koenigsborn1  

in which the cell is explained to be a  
subordinate plastic element1 and the    
cell-theory is eliminated as            
superfluous2 and this monstrous volume1 
full of the most amusing nonsense1 is   
dedicated to ,herr ,henle4 ,virchow     
formerly was one of the victorious      
opponents of the ,goettingen physician1 
and wrote brilliant articles against the
 rational pathology of irrational ,herr 
,henle2 now apparently he agrees with   
him that the paper money of ideas is    
worthless as compared with the noble    
metal of facts4 ,of course the          
cell-theory then loses all its value1   
and cannot be a subject of instruction2 
for the cell itself is not a certain and
 undoubted fact1 but only an            
abstraction1 a philosophical idea4      
,nothing more clearly shows what a      
complete change ,virchow has undergone  
in his most important principles1 and   
what an utter metapsychosis in this     
special province1 than his famous axiom1
 uttered in #ahee--,omnis cellula e     

cellula4 ,that is unquestionably the    
boldest generalisation to which the     
youthful1 independent ,virchow ever     
attained1 and one on which he justly    
prided himself not a little4 ,he himself
 repeatedly compared it with ,harvey's  
saying1 which marked an epoch--,omne    
vivum ex ovo4 ,but neither of these     
axioms is universally correct4 ,on the  
contrary1 we now know that every cell   
does not necessarily originate from a   
cell1 any more than that every organic  
individual originates from an ovum4 ,in 
many cases true nucleated cells proceed 
from un-nucleated cytods1 as in the     
,gregarinae1 ,myxomycetae and others4   
,nay more1 the primordial organic cells 
could only have originated in the first 
instance from non-cellular plastides or 
monads by their homogeneous plasson     
resolving itself into an internal       
nucleus and an external protoplasm4     
,thus1 as we subsequently learnt to know
 most of the exceptions to this         
generalisation of ,virchow1 it appeared 

all the bolder2 the more so as we were  
at that time far from being able to     
refer all the different tissues of the  
higher animals with any certainty to    
cells1 and as not a few experiments     
seemed to point to the hypothesis of    
free cell-formation4 ,that guiding      
axiom1 which so powerfully furthered the
 cell-theory1 ,virchow1 from his present
 standpoint1 must wholly condemn as a   
crime against exact science1 and he     
surely can never forgive himself for    
having propounded this hypothesis--which
 was afterwards found to be not         
universally true--as an important       
doctrinal axiom4  ,we shall indeed find 
much worse sins against his own         
principles of to-day if we turn to      
,virchow's own special department of    
science1 namely1 pathological anatomy   
and physiology1 the most important      
division of theoretic medicine4 ,the    
great and incomparable services which   
,virchow here effected do not depend on 
the numerous independent new facts which

 he discovered1 but on the theories and 
hypotheses by which1 like an inspired   
pioneer1 he sought to open a way through
 the dead waste of pathological         
knowledge and to form it into a living  
science4 ,these new theories and the    
hypotheses on which they were founded1  
,virchow then propounded to us1 his     
disciples1 with such incisive assurance 
that every one of us was convinced of   
their truth2 and yet later experience   
has shown that they were in part        
insufficiently proved and in part wholly
 false4 ,for example1 ,i will only here 
recall his famous theory of the         
connective-tissue1 for which ,i myself  
in several of my early works 7#ahef to  
#aheh7 broke a lance4 ,his theory seemed
 to explain a host of the most important
 physiological and pathological         
phenomena in the simplest manner1 and   
yet it was afterwards proved to be      
false4 ,in spite of this1 ,i declare to 
this day that it was of the greatest    
service for the development of our      

acquaintance with the formation of the  
connective-tissue2 as a guiding         
hypothesis and as a provisional clue to 
our investigations4 ,virchow1 on the    
contrary1 if he impartially reflects on 
the part he took in the diffusion of    
this misleading doctrine1 must reproach 
himself severely for it4 ,for we must   
draw a hard and fast line between what  
we are to teach and what we are to      
investigate4 ,what we investigate are   
problems1 but the problem ought not to  
be the subject of teaching4 ,that       
,virchow1 in his course of instruction1 
every day belied this1 his present view 
of teaching1 that he every hour taught  
his disciples some unproved theory and  
problematical hypothesis1 every one     
knows who1 like myself1 for years and   
with the deepest interest1 enjoyed his  
distinguished instruction4 ,still the   
captivating charm of this               
instruction--in spite of the defective  
method of unprepared lectures--lay      
precisely in this1 that ,virchow as a   

teacher constantly let us1 his pupils1  
enter into those problems with which he 
himself at the moment was occupied2 that
 he propounded to us his personal       
hypothesis for the elucidation of the   
given facts4 ,and what really gifted    
teacher who lives in his science would  
not do the same8 ,where is there1 or    
where has there ever been1 a great      
master who in his teaching has confined 
himself to only imparting certain and   
undoubtedly ascertained facts8 ,who has 
not1 on the contrary1 found that the    
charm and value of his instruction lay  
precisely in propounding the problems   
which link themselves with those facts1 
and in teaching the uncertain theories  
and fluctuating hypotheses which may    
serve to solve these problems8 ,or is   
there for the young and struggling mind 
anything better1 or more conducive to   
culture1 than to exercise the           
intelligence in problems of             
investigation8  ,how unpractical and how
 absurd is ,virchow's demand--that only 

ascertained facts and no problematic    
theories shall be admitted in           
teaching--will be still more strikingly 
shown by a glance over the remaining    
provinces of human knowledge4 ,what1    
indeed1 will be left of history1 of     
philology1 of political science1 of     
jurisprudence1 if we restrict the       
teaching of them to                     
absolutely-ascertained and established  
facts4 ,what of science will remain to  
them if the idea which endeavours to    
discern the causes of the facts is      
banished8 if the problems1 the theories1
 the hypotheses1 which seek these causes
 may not be generally taught8 ,and that 
philosophy--the science of knowing--by  
which all the common results of human   
knowledge are to be bound up into one   
grand and harmonious whole--that        
philosophy1 ,i say1 must not be         
generally taught1 is1 according to      
,virchow1 quite self-evident4  ,finally1
 there remains nothing but theology4    
,theology alone is the one true science1

 and its dogmas alone may be taught as  
certain4 ,of course6 for it proceeds    
directly from revelation1 and only      
divine revelation can be quite certain2 
it alone can never err4 ,yes1 incredible
 as it sounds1 ,virchow1 the sceptical  
opponent of dogma1 the leader of the    
fight for liberty of science1 ,virchow  
now finds the only sure basis for       
instruction in the dogmas of the        
,church4 ,after all that has gone       
before1 the following memorable sentence
 leaves no doubt on this score3--,every 
attempt to transform our problems into  
dogmas1 to introduce our conjectures as 
a basis of instruction1 particularly any
 attempt simply to dispossess the       
,church and to supplant her dogma by a  
creed of descent--ay1 gentlemen--this   
attempt must fail1 and in its ruin will 
entail the greatest peril on the        
position of science in general4  ,the   
shouts of triumph of the whole clerical 
press over ,virchow's ,munich address is
 thus rendered perfectly intelligible1  

for it is well known that there is more 
joy in heaven over one sinner that      
repenteth than over ten just men4 ,when 
,rudolf ,virchow1 the notorious         
materialist1 the advanced radical1 the  
great supporter of the atheism of       
science1 is so suddenly converted1 when 
he proclaims loudly and publicly that   
the dogmas of the ,church are the only  
sure basis of instruction1 then the     
,church militant may well sing ,hosanna 
in the highest6 ,only one thing is to be
 regretted1 that ,virchow has not more  
clearly defined which of the many       
different church-religions is the only  
true one1 and which of the innumerable  
and contradictory dogmas are to form the
 sure basis of instruction4 ,we all know
 that each ,church regards itself as the
 only truly saving one1 and her own     
dogma as the only true one4 ,but as to  
whether it is to be ,protestantism or   
,catholicism1 the ,reformed or the      
,lutheran confession1 whether the       
,anglican or the ,presbyterian dogma1   

whether the ,roman or the ,greek        
,church1 the ,mosaic or the ,mohammedan 
dispensation1 whether ,buddhism or      
,brahmanism1 whether1 finally1 it is to 
be one of the many fetish-religions of  
the ,indians and ,negroes that is to    
form the permanent and sure basis of    
instruction1 let us hope that ,virchow  
will at the next meeting of ,german     
naturalists and physicians divulge his  
opinion4  ,at any rate1 the instruction 
of the future1 according to ,virchow1   
will be greatly simplified if he will do
 this4 ,for the dogma of the ,trinity in
 ,unity as a basis of mathematics1 the  
dogma of the resurrection of the body as
 a basis of medicine1 the dogma of      
infallibility as a basis of psychology1 
the dogma of the immaculate conception  
as a basis of genetic science1 the dogma
 of the staying of the sun as a basis of
 astronomy1 the dogma of the creation of
 the earth1 animals1 and plants as a    
basis of geology and phylogenesis--these
 or any other dogma1 at pleasure1 from  

any other church will make all other    
doctrine quite superfluous4 ,virchow1   
that critical spirit1 knows as well as  
,i1 and as every other naturalist1 that 
these dogmas are not true1 and          
nevertheless1 in his opinion1 they are  
not to be supplanted as the basis of    
instruction by those theories and       
hypotheses of modern natural science of 
which ,virchow himself says that they   
may be true1 that in a great measure    
they probably are true1 but are not yet 
quite certainly proved4  ,at pages #ae1 
#bd1 #bf1 #bh1 and elsewhere in his     
,munich address1 ,virchow strongly      
insists that only that objective        
knowledge may be taught which we possess
 as absolutely certain fact6 and then at
 page #bi he requires us to conclude    
that the basis of instruction shall     
continue to be the purely subjective    
dogmas of the ,church2 revelations and  
dogmas which not only are not proved by 
any facts whatever1 but on the contrary1
 stand in the most trenchant            

contradiction to the most obvious facts 
of natural experience and fly in the    
face of all human reason4 ,these        
contradictions1 to be sure1 are no      
greater than some others which stand out
 conspicuous and incomprehensible in    
,virchow's discourse4 ,thus at the      
beginning of his address he glorifies   
,lorenz ,oken and deeply laments that   
he1 that highly-valued and honoured     
master1 that ornament of the high school
 of ,munich1 had been forced to die in  
exile6 ,that cruel exile which oppressed
 ,oken's latter years1 which left him to
 perish far from those cities to which  
he had sacrificed the best powers of his
 life1 that exile will be remembered as 
the note of the time which we have      
passed through4 ,and so long as there   
continue to be meetings of ,german      
naturalists1 so long may we gratefully  
remember that this man to his death bore
 upon him all the signs of a martyr1 so 
long shall we point to him as one of the
 witnesses who have fought for us and   

for the liberty of science4 ,verily     
these words from ,virchow's lips sound  
like the bitterest irony2 for was not   
,lorenz ,oken one of the foremost and   
most zealous champions of that monistic 
doctrine of development against which   
,rudolf ,virchow at this day is most    
violently striving8 ,did not ,oken      
himself proceed farther in the          
construction of bold hypotheses and     
comprehensive theories than any         
supporter of the doctrine of evolution  
at the present time8 ,is not ,oken      
justly considered as the one typical    
representative of that older period of  
natural philosophy who rose to much     
higher and bolder flights of fancy1 and 
left the solid ground of facts much     
farther behind him than any tyro of the 
new philosophy8 ,and this makes the     
irony seem all the greater with which   
,virchow at the beginning of his address
 glorifies ,oken the free teacher1 as a 
martyr to the freedom of science1 and at
 the end of it insists that this freedom

 applies only to inquiry and not to     
teaching1 and that the master must teach
 no problem1 no theory1 no hypothesis4  
,while this unheard-of demand sets      
,virchow's views of teaching in the most
 extraordinary light1 and while every   
unprejudiced and experienced teacher    
must most emphatically protest against  
this strait-waistcoat for instruction1  
he will feel no less bound to resist    
,virchow's other strange demand1 that   
every ascertained truth shall forthwith 
be taught in all schools1 down to the   
elementary schools4 ,i myself1 in my    
,munich address1 sought the             
instructional value of our monistic     
evolution theory above all in the       
genetic method1 in the inquiry1 that is 
to say1 for the effective causes of the 
facts taught2 and ,i added these        
words--,how far the principles of the   
doctrine of universal evolution ought to
 be at once introduced into our schools1
 and in what succession its most        
important branches ought to be taught in

 the different classes--cosmogony1      
geology1 the phylogenesis of animals and
 plants1 and anthropology--this we must 
leave to practical teachers to settle4  
,but we believe that an extensive reform
 of instruction in this direction is    
inevitable1 and will be crowned by the  
fairest results4 ,i purposely avoided   
any closer discussion of this specialist
 question1 as ,i felt not even          
approximately capable of solving it1 and
 ,i believe1 in fact1 that none but     
skilled and experienced practical       
teachers can undertake the solution of  
it with any success4  ,for ,virchow     
these specialist difficulties seem not  
to exist2 he regards my reticence as a  
mere postponement of the task1 and he   
answers in the following astonishing    
sentences3--,if the theory of descent is
 as certain as ,herr ,haeckel assumes1  
then we must demand--for it is a        
necessary consequence--that it shall be 
taught in schools4 ,how is it           
conceivable that a doctrine of such     

importance1 which must effect such a    
total revolution in all our mental      
consciousness1 which directly tends to  
create a new kind of religion1 should   
not be included in the school scheme of 
instruction8 ,how is it possible that   
such a--revelation1 shall ,i say--should
 be in any measure suppressed1 or that  
the promulgation of the greatest and    
most important advance which has been   
made in our views during the present    
century should be left to the discretion
 of schoolmasters8 ,ay1 gentlemen1 that 
would indeed be a renunciation of the   
hardest kind1 and practically it could  
never be carried out6 ,every            
schoolmaster who assumes this doctrine  
for himself will involuntarily teach it1
 how can it be otherwise8  ,i must here 
be permitted to take ,virchow exactly at
 his word4 ,i endorse almost all that he
 has said in these and the following    
sentences4 ,the only difference in our  
views is this1 that ,virchow regards the
 theory of descent as an unproved and   

unproveable hypothesis2 ,i1 on the      
contrary1 as a fully established and    
indispensable theory4 ,how then will it 
be if the teachers of whom ,virchow     
speaks agree with my views1 if--apart1  
of course1 from all special theories of 
descent--they1 like me1 consider the    
general theory of descent as the        
indispensable basis of all biological   
teaching8 ,and that that is actually the
 case ,virchow may easily convince      
himself if he looks over the recent     
literature of zoology and botany6 ,our  
whole morphological literature in       
particular is already so deeply and     
completely penetrated by the doctrine of
 descent1 phylogenetic principles       
already prevail so universally as a     
certain and indispensable instrument of 
inquiry1 that no man for the future     
would deprive himself of their help4 ,as
 ,oscar ,schmidt justly                 
observes--,perhaps ninety-nine per cent4
 of all living1 or rather of all working
 zoologists1 are convinced by inductive 

methods of the truth of the doctrine of 
descent4 ,and ,virchow with his         
magisterial requirements will attain    
only the very reverse of what he aims   
at4 ,how often has it not been said     
already that science must either have   
perfect freedom or else none at all8    
,this is as true of teaching as it is of
 inquiry1 for the two are intrinsically 
and inseparably connected4 ,and so it is
 not in vain that it is written in      
section #aeb of the ,german ,code1 and  
in section #bj of the ,prussian         
,charter1 ,science and her teaching     
shall be free6     ,,chapter ,,vi4      
,,the ,,doctrine ,,of ,,descent ,,and   
,,social ,,democracy4   ,every great and
 comprehensive theory which affects the 
foundations of human science1 and which1
 consequently1 influences the systems of
 philosophy1 will1 in the first place1  
not only further our theoretical views  
of the universe1 but will also react on 
practical philosophy1 ethics1 and the   
correlated provinces of religion and    

politics4 ,in my paper read at ,munich  
,i only briefly pointed out the happy   
results which1 in my opinion1 the modern
 doctrine of evolution will entail when 
the true1 natural religion1 founded on  
reason1 takes the place of the dogmatic 
religion of the ,church1 and its leading
 principle derives the human sense of   
duty from the social instincts of       
animals4  ,the references to the social 
instincts which ,i1 in common with      
,darwin and many others1 regard as the  
proper source and origin of all moral   
development1 appear to have afforded    
,virchow an opportunity in his reply for
 designating the doctrine of inheritance
 as a socialist theory1 and for         
attributing to it the most dangerous and
 objectionable character which1 at the  
present time1 any political theory can  
have2 and these startling denunciations 
so soon as they were known called forth 
such just indignation and such          
comprehensive refutation that ,i might  
very properly pass them over here4      

,still we must at least shortly examine 
them1 in so far as they supply a further
 proof that ,virchow is unacquainted    
with the most important principles of   
the development-theory of the day1 and  
therefore is incompetent to judge it4   
,moreover1 ,virchow1 as a politician1   
manifestly attributed special importance
 to this political application of his   
paper1 for he gave it the title1 which  
otherwise would have been hardly        
suitable1 of ,the ,freedom of ,science  
in the ,modern ,polity4 ,unfortunately  
he forgot to add to this title the two  
words in which the special tendency of  
his discourse culminates2 the two       
pregnant words1 must cease6  ,the       
surprising disclosures in which ,virchow
 denounces the doctrine of evolution1   
and particularly the doctrine of        
descent1 as socialist theories and      
dangerous to the community1 run as      
follows3--,now1 picture to yourself the 
theory of descent as it already exists  
in the brain of a socialist4 ,ay1       

gentlemen1 it may seem laughable to     
many1 but it is in truth very serious1  
and ,i only hope that the theory of     
descent may not entail on us all the    
horrors which similar theories have     
actually brought upon neighbouring      
countries4 ,at all times this theory1 if
 it is logically carried out to the end1
 has an uncommonly suspicious aspect1   
and the fact that it has gained the     
sympathy of socialism has not1 it is to 
be hoped1 escaped your notice4 ,we must 
make that quite clear to ourselves4  ,on
 reading this statement1 which seems    
extracted from the ,berlin              
,kreuz-,zeitung1 or the ,vienna         
,vaterland1 ,i ask myself in surprise1  
,what in the world has the doctrine of  
descent to do with socialism8 ,it has   
already been abundantly proved on many  
sides1 and long since1 that these two   
theories are about as compatible as fire
 and water4 ,oscar ,schmidt might with  
justice retort1 ,if the socialists would
 think clearly they would feel that they

 must do all they can to choke the      
doctrine of descent1 for it declares    
with express distinctness that socialist
 ideas are impracticable4 ,and he       
proceeds to add1 ,and why has not       
,virchow made the gentle doctrines of   
,christianity responsible for the       
excesses of socialism8 ,that would have 
had some sense4 ,his denunciation flung 
so mysteriously and so confidently      
before the great public1 as though it   
concerned 'a sure and attested          
scientific truth1' is1 at the same time1
 so hollow that it cannot be brought    
into harmony with the dignity of        
science4  ,with all these empty         
accusations1 as with all the empty      
reproaches and groundless objections    
which ,virchow brings against the       
doctrine of evolution1 he takes good    
care in no way to touch the kernel of   
the matter4 ,how1 indeed1 would it have 
been possible without arriving at       
conclusions wholly opposed to those     
which he has declared8 ,for the theory  

of descent proclaims more clearly than  
any other scientific theory1 that that  
equality of individuals which socialism 
strives after is an impossibility1 that 
it stands1 in fact1 in irreconcilable   
contradiction to the inevitable         
inequality of individuals which actually
 and everywhere subsists4 ,socialism    
demands equal rights1 equal duties1     
equal possessions1 equal enjoyments for 
every citizen alike2 the theory of      
descent proves1 in exact opposition to  
this1 that the realisation of this      
demand is a pure impossibility1 and that
 in the constitutionally organised      
communities of men1 as of the lower     
animals1 neither rights nor duties1     
neither possessions nor enjoyments have 
ever been equal for all the members     
alike nor ever can be4 ,throughout the  
evolutionist theory1 as in its          
biological branch1 the theory of        
descent--the great law of specialisation
 or differentiation--teaches us that a  
multiplicity of phenomena is developed  

from original unity1 heterogeneity from 
original similarity1 and the composite  
organism from original simplicity4 ,the 
conditions of existence are dissimilar  
for each individual from the beginning  
of its existence2 even the inherited    
qualities1 the natural disposition1 are 
more or less unlike2 how1 then1 can the 
problems of life and their solution be  
alike for all8 ,the more highly         
political life is organised1 the more   
prominent is the great principle of the 
division of labour1 and the more        
requisite it becomes for the lasting    
security of the whole state that its    
members should be variously distributed 
in the manifold tasks of life2 and as   
the work to be performed by different   
individuals is of the most various kind1
 as well as the corresponding outlay of 
strength1 skill1 property1 c41 the      
reward of the work must naturally be    
also extremely various4 ,these are such 
simple and tangible facts that one would
 suppose that every reasonable and      

unprejudiced politician would recommend 
the theory of descent1 and the evolution
 hypothesis in general1 as the best     
antidote to the fathomless absurdity of 
extravagant socialist levelling4        
,besides1 ,darwinism1 the theory of     
natural selection--which ,virchow aimed 
at in his denunciation1 much more       
especially than at transformation1 the  
theory of descent--which is often       
confounded with it--,darwinism1 ,i say1 
is anything rather than socialist6 ,if  
this ,english hypothesis is to be       
compared to any definite political      
tendency--as is1 no doubt1              
possible--that tendency can only be     
aristocratic1 certainly not democratic1 
and least of all socialist4 ,the theory 
of selection teaches that in human life1
 as in animal and plant life everywhere1
 and at all times1 only a small and     
chosen minority can exist and flourish1 
while the enormous majority starve and  
perish miserably and more or less       
prematurely4 ,the germs of every species

 of animal and plant and the young      
individuals which spring from them are  
innumerable1 while the number of those  
fortunate individuals which develop to  
maturity and actually reach their       
hardly-won life's goal is out of all    
proportion trifling4 ,the cruel and     
merciless struggle for existence which  
rages throughout all living nature1 and 
in the course of nature must rage1 this 
unceasing and inexorable competition of 
all living creatures1 is an             
incontestable fact2 only the picked     
minority of the qualified fittest is in 
a position to resist it successfully1   
while the great majority of the         
competitors must necessarily perish     
miserably4 ,we may profoundly lament    
this tragical state of things1 but we   
can neither controvert it nor alter it4 
,many are called but few are chosen4    
,the selection1 the picking out of these
 chosen ones1 is inevitably connected   
with the arrest and destruction of the  
remaining majority4 ,another ,english   

naturalist1 therefore1 designates the   
kernel of ,darwinism very frankly as the
 survival of the fittest1 as the victory
 of the best4 ,at any rate1 this        
principle of selection is nothing less  
than democratic1 on the contrary1 it is 
aristocratic in the strictest sense of  
the word4 ,if1 therefore1 ,darwinism1   
logically carried out1 has1 according to
 ,virchow1 an uncommonly suspicious     
aspect1 this can only be found in the   
idea that it offers a helping hand to   
the efforts of the aristocrats4 ,but how
 the socialism of the day can find any  
encouragement in these efforts1 and how 
the horrors of the ,paris ,commune can  
be traced to them1 is to me1 ,i must    
frankly confess1 absolutely             
incomprehensible4  ,moreover1 we must   
not omit this opportunity of pointing   
out how dangerous such a direct and     
unqualified transfer of the theories of 
natural science to the domain of        
practical politics must be4 ,the highly 
elaborate conditions of our modern      

civilised life require from the         
practical politician such circumspect   
and impartial consideration1 such       
thorough historical training and powers 
of critical comparison1 that he will not
 venture to make such an application of 
a natural law to the practice of        
civilised life1 but with the greatest   
caution and reserve4 ,how1 then1 is it  
possible that ,virchow1 the experienced 
and skilled politician1 who1 above all  
things1 preaches caution and reserve in 
theory1 suddenly makes just such an     
application of transformation and       
,darwinism--an application so radically 
perverse that it actually flies in the  
face of the fundamental ideas of these  
doctrines8 ,i myself am nothing less    
than a politician4 ,in direct contrast  
with ,virchow1 ,i lack alike the gift   
and the training for it1 as well as     
taste and vocation4 ,hence ,i neither   
shall play any political part in the    
future1 nor have ,i hitherto made any   
attempt of the kind4 ,though here and   

there ,i have occasionally uttered a    
political opinion1 or have made a       
political application of some theory of 
natural science1 these subjective       
opinions have no objective value4 ,in   
point of fact ,i have by so doing       
overstepped the limits of my competence1
 just as ,virchow has by going into     
questions of zoology and particularly   
that of the transformation of apes3 ,i  
am a layman in political practice1 as   
,virchow is in the province of          
zoological hypothesis4 ,moreover1 such  
success as ,virchow has attained during 
the twenty years of his painful1        
wearisome1 and exhausting activity as a 
politician does not1 in truth1 make me  
pine for such laurels4  ,but this at    
least ,i1 as a theoretical naturalist1  
may demand of practical politicians1    
that in utilising our theories for      
political ends they should first make   
themselves exactly acquainted with them2
 they then1 for the future1 would       
forbear drawing conclusions from them1  

the very opposite to those which ought  
reasonably to be inferred4              
,misunderstandings would never thus be  
wholly avoided1 it is true1 but what    
doctrine is universally secure against  
misunderstanding8 ,and from what theory1
 however sound and true1 may not the    
most unsound and frantic inferences be  
drawn8  ,nothing1 perhaps1 shows so     
plainly as the history of ,christianity 
how little theory and practice harmonise
 in human life2 how little pains are    
taken1 even by those whose calling it is
 to uphold established doctrines1 to    
apply their natural consequences to     
practical life4 ,the ,christian         
religion1 no doubt1 as well as the      
,buddhist1 when stripped of all dogmatic
 and fabulous nonsense1 contains an     
admirable human kernel1 and precisely   
that human portion of ,christian        
teaching--in the best sense             
social-democratic--which preaches the   
equality of all men before ,god1 the    
loving of your neighbour as yourself1   

love in general in the noblest sense1 a 
fellow-feeling with the poor and        
wretched1 and so forth--precisely1 those
 truly human sides of the ,christian    
doctrine are so natural1 so noble1 so   
pure1 that we unhesitatingly adopt them 
into the moral doctrine of our monistic 
natural religion4 ,nay1 the social      
instincts of the higher animals on which
 we found this religion 7for instance   
the marvellous sense of duty of ants1   
c47 are in this best sense strictly     
,christian4  ,and what--we may ask--what
 have the professed supporters1 the     
learned divines of this religion of love
 done8 ,their deeds are written in      
letters of blood in the history of the  
civilisation of mankind during the last 
#ahjj years4 ,all else that differing   
church-religions have accomplished for  
the forcible extension of their         
doctrines and for the extirpation of    
heretics of other creeds1 all that the  
,jews have been guilty of towards the   
heathen1 the ,roman emperors towards the

 ,christians1 the ,mohammedans towards  
,christians and ,jews alike--all this is
 outdone by the hecatombs of human      
victims which ,christianity has demanded
 for the spread of her doctrines4 ,and  
these were ,christians against          
,christians--orthodox ,christians       
against heterodox ,christians6 think    
only of the ,inquisition in the ,middle 
,ages1 of the inconceivable and inhuman 
barbarities committed by the most       
,christian kings of ,spain1 by their    
worthy colleagues in ,frankfort1 in     
,italy1 and elsewhere4 ,hundreds of     
thousands then died that most horrible  
death by fire1 simply because they would
 not bend their reason to pass under the
 yoke of the grossest superstition1 and 
because their loyalty to their          
convictions forbade them to deny the    
natural truth that they clearly         
discerned4 ,there are no deeds more     
hideous1 base1 and inhuman than those   
that at that time were committed--nay1  
are still committed--in the name and on 

account of true ,christianity4  ,and    
finally1 how do matters stand with      
regard to the morality of the priests   
who announce themselves as the ministers
 of ,god's ,word1 and whose duty is     
therefore above all others to carry out 
the saving doctrines of ,christianity in
 their own lives8 ,the long1 unbroken1  
and horrible series of crimes of every  
kind which is offered by the history of 
the ,roman ,popes is the best answer to 
this question4 ,and just as these       
,vicars of ,god on earth did1 so did    
their subordinates and accomplices1 so1 
too1 have the orthodox priests of other 
sects done2 never failing to set the    
practice of their own course of life in 
the strongest possible contrast to those
 noble doctrines of ,christian love     
which were constantly on their lips4    
,and as with ,christianity so it is with
 every other religious and moral        
doctrine which ought to have proved its 
power in the wide domain of practical   
philosophy1 in the education of youth1  

in the civilisation of nations4 ,the    
theoretic kernel of this doctrine may   
always and everywhere stand in the most 
glaring contradiction to its practical  
working-out1 testifying to the endless  
inconsistency of human nature3 but what 
can all this matter to the scientific   
inquirer8 ,his sole and only task is to 
seek for truth and to teach what he has 
discerned to be the truth1 indifferent  
as to what consequences the various     
parties of state or church may happen to
 draw from it4     ,,chapter ,,vii4     
,,ignorabimus ,,et ,,restringamur4      
,the dangerous attempt which ,virchow   
made in ,munich against the freedom of  
science is not the first of its kind4   
,on the contrary1 five years before1 it 
experienced a similar attack which is   
most intimately connected with this     
later one1 so that1 in conclusion1 we   
must here add a few words on the        
subject4 ,undoubtedly the famous        
,ignorabimus-speech of ,du              
,bois-,reymond1 which he delivered in   

#ahgb at the forty-fifth meeting of     
,german naturalists and physicians in   
,leipzig1 forms only the first portion  
of that same crusade against the freedom
 of science of which ,virchow's         
,restringamur speech of #ahgg1 at the   
fiftieth meeting of the same society1   
forms the second part4  ,that brilliant 
and powerful essay by ,du ,bois-,reymond
 on the ,limitation of ,natural         
,knowledge has already been discussed so
 often1 and from such different sides1  
that it might seem superfluous to say   
another word about it4 ,it seems to me1 
nevertheless1 that by most people the   
centre-of-gravity of its contents was   
overlooked in admiration of the         
brilliant accessories of the essay4     
,indeed this frequently happens with ,du
 ,bois-,reymond's articles1 for he knows
 too well how to conceal the weakness of
 his argument and evidence1 and the     
shallowness of his thought1 by striking 
images and flowery metaphors1 and by all
 the phraseology of rhetoric in which   

the versatile ,french nature is so      
superior to our sober ,german one4 ,it  
is all the more important that we should
 not let ourselves be dazzled by these  
seductive tricks1 and particularly by   
adduced facts which bear upon the most  
important and fundamental questions of  
human science1 but that we should       
extract the hard kernel from the savoury
 and fragrant fruit4 ,in the preface to 
my ,evolution of ,man1 and in the notes 
#bb and #bc of my ,munich address1 ,i   
have already incidentally alluded to the
 chief weaknesses of the                
,ignorabimus-speech2 but ,i must here   
return somewhat more fully to the       
subject4  ,there are1 as is well known1 
two problems which ,du ,bois-,reymond   
propounds as the impassable boundary of 
human knowledge of nature2 limits which 
indeed the human mind is not only       
incapable of passing at the present     
stage of its development1 but which it  
never can be capable of passing in any  
more advanced stage4 ,the first problem 

is the nature and connection of matter  
and force2 the second is human          
consciousness4 ,now1 first of all1 as   
has already been said in the preface to 
the ,evolution of ,man1 we must raise a 
decided protest against the air of      
infallibility with which ,du            
,bois-,reymond pronounces that these two
 problems are insoluble1 not only at the
 present time but to all futurity4 ,the 
power of development inherent in science
 and knowledge is hereby simply swept   
away with a word4 ,almost every great   
and difficult problem of knowledge seems
 to most or all contemporary thinkers   
insoluble1 and every path to the        
solution of it seems closed1 till at    
last the bold genius appears whose clear
 sight detects the right path which till
 then was hidden1 and which leads to the
 required knowledge4 ,we need only call 
to mind our present doctrine of         
evolution4 ,the problem of creation--the
 question as to the origin of animal and
 vegetable species--was universally     

looked upon as transcendental and       
perfectly insoluble1 till the genius of 
,lamarck established the principles of  
the theory of descent in his admirable  
,philosophie ,zoologique in #ahji4 ,nay1
 even then most--and among them the most
 distinguished--biologists thought the  
problem of creation a quite insoluble   
mystery1 and ,darwin was the first to   
solve it1 fifty years later1 by his     
theory of selection in #ahei4 ,hence we 
venture to assert that there is no      
scientific problem of which we may dare 
to say that the mind of man will never  
solve it even in the remotest future4   
,well does ,darwin say1 in the          
introduction to his ,descent of ,man1   
,ignorance more frequently begets       
confidence than does knowledge3 it is   
those who know little and not those who 
know much who so positively assert that 
this or that problem will never be      
solved by science4 ,as far as concerns  
the two separate limits which ,du       
,bois-,reymond fixes for human          

knowledge1 in my opinion they are       
undoubtedly identical4 ,the problem of  
the origin and nature of consciousness  
is only a special case of the general   
problem of the connection of matter and 
force4 ,du ,bois-,reymond himself       
indicates that this is possible at the  
close of his paper2 for he says1        
,finally1 the question arises whether   
the two limitations to our natural      
knowledge may not perhaps be identical2 
that is to say1 whether if we could     
conceive of the true essence of matter  
and force1 we should not also understand
 how the substance which lies at their  
root can1 under certain given           
conditions1 feel1 desire1 and think4    
,this conception is1 no doubt1 the      
simplest1 and according to admitted     
principles of inquiry it is to be       
preferred to that other which it        
confutes1 and according to which1 as has
 been said1 the world appears doubly    
incomprehensible4 ,but it is in the very
 nature of things that we cannot on this

 point come to any clear conclusion1 and
 all further words on the subject are   
idle--and so1 ',ignorabimus4'  ,the     
light way in which ,du ,bois-,reymond   
here passes over the most important part
 of his subject is truly surprising2 as 
if it were ultimately indifferent       
whether we have before us one single    
insoluble fundamental problem or two    
quite different ones2 and as if mature  
reflection did not lead to the          
conviction that1 in fact1 the second    
problem is only a special case of the   
first general problem4 ,i1 for my part1 
cannot conceive of them in any other    
relation2 ,i think1 too1 that all       
further words are by no means           
superfluous1 but on the contrary conduce
 to a very strong conviction of the     
unity of the problem4 ,that ,du         
,bois-,reymond also has not come to any 
clear conclusion on this point lies1 not
 alone in the nature of things1 but1 as 
in ,virchow's case1 in the nature of the
 investigator himself2 in his lack of   

knowledge of the history of evolution1  
and in his neglect of those comparative 
and genetic methods of study1 without   
which1 in my opinion1 not even an       
approximate solution of this highest and
 most difficult question is to be looked
 for4  ,nothing appears to me to be of  
more importance for the mechanical      
explanation of consciousness than the   
comparative consideration of its        
development4 ,we know that a new-born   
child has no consciousness1 but that it 
is slowly and gradually acquired and    
developed4 ,we perceive for ourselves   
how unconscious actions become          
conscious1 and vice versa4 ,innumerable 
actions which at first are troublesome  
and have to be learnt with consciousness
 and reflection--as for instance        
walking1 swimming1 singing1 and so      
forth--become unconscious only by       
repetition1 practice1 and the habit of  
using the organs4 ,on the contrary1     
unconscious actions become conscious as 
soon as we direct our attention to them 

or our self-observation is attracted to 
them2 as for instance when we miss a    
step in going up stairs or touch a wrong
 note on the piano2 and beyond a doubt1 
conscious and unconscious actions pass  
into each other without any distinct    
line of demarcation4 ,finally1 we see no
 less plainly by a comparative          
consideration of the soul-life of       
animals1 that their consciousness is    
slowly1 gradually1 and serially         
developed1 and that a long unbroken     
series of steps leads from unconscious  
to conscious existence4 ,from these     
comparative and genetic experiences we  
may draw the conclusion that            
consciousness1 like sensation and       
volition1 like all the other            
soul-activities1 is a function of the   
organism1 a mechanical activity of the  
cells2 and1 as such1 is referable to    
chemical and physical processes4 ,hence1
 if we were in a position to understand 
force as a necessary function of matter1
 we could explain consciousness1 as well

 as the soul in general1 as a necessary 
function of certain cells4  ,how little 
,du ,bois-,reymond is acquainted with   
the facts of comparative and genetic    
psychology1 nothing shows more          
strikingly than the following astounding
 proposition in the                     
,ignorabimus-speech3--,where the        
material conditions for psychical       
activity1 in the form of a nervous      
system1 are wanting1 as in plants1 the  
naturalist cannot recognise a soul-life1
 and1 on this point1 he but seldom meets
 with contradiction4 ,begging your      
pardon6 ,every naturalist who is        
familiar with the comparative morphology
 and physiology of the lower animals    
will here put in a decided              
contradiction1 for he can no more refuse
 to admit the undoubted sensation and   
voluntary motion of the one-celled      
,infusoria than of the many-celled      
hydroid polyps4 ,the body of the true   
,infusoria 7,ciliata1 ,acineta1 c471 and
 many other ,protista1 remain throughout

 life one single cell1 and1             
nevertheless1 this cell is as fully     
furnished with all the most important   
attributes of the soul1 with sensation  
and volition1 as any one of the higher  
animals with a nervous system4 ,the same
 obtains of the ,hydra and the related  
hydroid polyps1 in which the            
neuro-muscular cells1 or other          
distributed cells of the outer          
germ-layer1 fulfil the soul-functions4  
,but as these cells1 besides this1      
exercise motor and other functions as   
well1 we cannot as yet designate them as
 nerve-cells1 at any rate there can be  
no idea of a special nervous-system4    
,the characteristic soul-organs of the  
higher animals1 which we include under  
the conception of a nervous-system1 in  
fact originated by the division of      
labour of the cells out of those neutral
 cell-groups in their lower-typed       
ancestors4  ,in the great ,soul-question
 ,du ,bois-,reymond1 like ,virchow1     
still keeps his position on the         

standpoint of neural-psychology1        
according to which no personal soul-life
 is conceivable without a nervous       
system4 ,we look upon this standpoint as
 left far behind1 and set up in         
opposition to it ,cellular-psychology1  
the doctrine that every animal cell has 
a soul2 that is to say1 that its        
protoplasm is endowed with sensation and
 motion4 ,in the one-celled ,infusoria1 
which are so highly sensitive and have  
such an energetic will1 this conception 
will be clear without any farther       
explanation4 ,but we cannot refuse to   
allow that plant-cells as well as       
animal-cells have psychic functions1    
since we know that the phenomena of     
irritability1 and of automatic motion1  
are the universal attributes of all     
protoplasm4 ,no doubt the specific      
mechanism1 the cause of motion1 in the  
irritable ,mimosa and other sensitive   
plants1 is quite different from the     
muscular motions of animals2 but these1 
like those1 are only specifically       

different forms of development of the   
cell-soul1 and both proceed from the    
mechanical energy of the protoplasm4    
,the sensibility of the irritable       
protoplasm is the same in the           
vegetable-cell of the ,mimosa as in the 
animal-cell of the ,hydra4 ,how far ,du 
,bois-,reymond is from discerning this1 
and how deeply he is still entangled in 
neuro-psychological views is shown most 
clearly in the astonishing sentence     
which he has thought good to append to  
his above-quoted1 erroneous assertion4  
,and what could we reply to the         
naturalist if1 before he could agree to 
the assumption of a ,world-soul he      
required that we should show him--bedded
 in neuroglia and nourished by warm     
arterial blood--anywhere in the world a 
convolution of ganglionic centres       
co-extensive with the psychic capacity  
of such a ,soul 767  ,in other respects 
we will not deny that ,du ,bois-,reymond
 stands far nearer to our recent        
evolution-theory than ,virchow2 nay1    

that from year to year he has always    
pronounced more and more emphatically in
 favour of the theory of descent as the 
one possible explanation of             
morphological phenomena2 indeed1 ,du    
,bois-,reymond has lately counted       
himself as one of those naturalists who 
were convinced of the truth of evolution
 even before ,darwin6 ,then it is only  
to be wondered why so acute and gifted  
an inquirer1 who is certainly not       
lacking in scientific ambition1 left it 
to ,charles ,darwin to place the egg of 
,columbus on the ring and to point out  
to biological science a new method of   
unlimited capacity by giving the theory 
of descent a definite and reliable      
basis6  ,it is clear from some remarks  
in his discourse bearing the title      
,darwin versus ,galiani 7#ahgf71 that   
,du ,bois-,reymond is still far from    
understanding the full significance of  
transmutation as affording a mechanical 
explanation of morphological problems4  
,in this paper the ,history of ,creation

 is treated simply as a romance1 and the
 genealogies of phylogenesis are in his 
eyes of about as much value as the      
pedigrees of the ,homeric heroes are in 
the eyes of historical critics4         
,geologists may be extremely grateful   
for this estimate of their science1 for 
undoubtedly geology1 as a structure of  
hypotheses1 is neither more nor less    
justifiable than phylogenesis1 as ,i    
have already pointed out in my ,munich  
address3 ,our phylogenetic hypotheses   
may claim to have equal value with the  
universally-admitted hypotheses of      
geology2 the only difference is this1   
that the mighty structure of hypotheses 
called geology is incomparably more     
complete1 simpler1 and easier to grasp  
than that more youthful one called      
phylogenesis4 ,but as to the            
much-talked-of genealogies1 though they 
are nothing more than the simplest1     
barest1 and most superficial expression 
of the hypotheses of phylogenesis1 as   
provisional hypotheses they are just as 

indispensable to specific phylogenesis  
as the theoretical section-tables of the
 strata of the earth's crust are to     
geology4  ,if ,du ,bois-,reymond is so  
convinced of the truth of transmutation 
as he has lately given himself out to   
be1 why does not he make at least one   
earnest attempt to test the interpreting
 power of the theory of descent in      
physiology--his own most special        
province of inquiry8 ,why does he not   
labour at that hitherto quite           
unworked-out branch1 physiogenesis1 at  
the history of the evolution of         
functions1 at the ontogenesis and       
phylogenesis of vital processes8 ,the   
one idea which has lately been often    
spoken of as an important discovery of  
,du ,bois-,reymond's--the idea which had
 already been anticipated by ,leibnitz1 
that the innate ideas1--intuitions a    
priori--have originated by transmission 
from primordial experience1 i4e41       
empirical1 a posteriori convictions1 was
 distinctly enunciated by me long before

 ,du ,bois-,reymond 7as he omits to     
mention71 in #ahff1 in my ,general      
,morphology 7vol4 ii4 p4 #ddf71 and in  
#ahfh in the ,history of ,creation 7vol4
 i4 p4 #ca1 vol4 ii4 p4 #cdd74 ,if ,du  
,bois-,reymond had practically busied   
himself with these problems he would    
certainly have thought a little about   
the development of consciousness1 and   
not have set down as an eternally       
insoluble problem1 ,how is it possible  
that matter can think8--a form of words1
 be it observed1 which has about as much
 sense as how matter runs1 or how matter
 strikes the hours4 ,surely he would    
have guarded himself in that case from  
uttering the ponderous ,ignorabimus4    
,the question has been repeatedly asked 
why two such prominent ,berlin          
biologists as ,virchow and ,du          
,bois-,reymond availed themselves of the
 particularly solemn occasions of the   
fiftieth anniversary and of the fiftieth
 meeting of the ,german naturalists and 
physicians to lay lance in rest against 

the progress and freedom of science4    
,the eager approbation which they both  
promptly met with from the party of the 
clergy and of all other enemies of free 
thought--,virchow1 indeed1 in much      
greater measure than ,du                
,bois-,reymond--appears to justify this 
inquiry4 ,i believe ,i can contribute   
something towards answering it1 and as  
,i am not fettered by any reverence for 
the ,berlin tribunal of science or by   
any anxiety as to vexing influential    
,berlin connections1 as most of my      
colleagues are who think as ,i do1 ,i do
 not hesitate1 here as elsewhere1 to    
express my honest conviction in the     
freest and frankest manner1 not         
troubling myself about the wrath which  
may be roused in many actual--and not   
actual--officials in ,berlin at this    
exposition of the unvarnished truth4    
,the primary cause of their             
misunderstanding1 and the best excuse   
that can be offered for it1 in ,virchow 
and ,du ,bois-,reymond alike1 lies in   

their unacquaintance with the advance of
 modern morphology4 ,as has been        
repeatedly stated1 no natural science is
 so directly to be referred to the      
doctrine of evolution--and more         
particularly to the theory of           
descent--as morphology4 ,it is because  
we morphologists can neither explain nor
 comprehend all the manifold and        
infinitely complex form-phenomena of the
 animal and plant worlds without this   
theory1 because to us transmutation     
contains the only possible1 rational    
explanation of organic types1 that we   
all regard it as the indispensable basis
 of the scientific doctrine of form1 and
 as demanding no further proofs of its  
certainty than those which now lie in   
abundance before us4  ,du               
,bois-,reymond1 and still more ,virchow1
 ignore these proofs1 because they are  
to a great extent ignorant alike of the 
inquiries and results1 of the methods   
and the aims of our modern morphology1  
and this ignorance may be accounted for 

partly by the one-sided direction which 
their biological studies have taken1    
partly by the fact that there are few   
universities where the study of         
morphology is so behindhand as at the   
,university of ,berlin4 ,fully twenty   
years have now elapsed since the great  
,johannes ,mueller died1 the last       
naturalist who could command all the    
departments of biology4 ,the three great
 provinces of science which had been    
reunited into a triune kingdom under his
 powerful sceptre1 were then divided    
among three professors' chairs3 ,du     
,bois-,reymond took that of physiology1 
,virchow1 theoretical pathology         
7pathological anatomy and physiology71  
and the third1 and most important chair1
 that of morphology 7human and          
comparative anatomy1 including the      
history of evolution7 fell to ,boguslaus
 ,reichert4 ,this choice was1 as is now 
universally admitted1 an                
incomprehensible mistake4 ,instead of   
calling ,carl ,gegenbaur1 or ,max       

,schultze1 or some one else of youthful 
capacity and vigour to the chair of     
morphology--a science which is the first
 foundation of zoology as well as of    
medicine--in ,reichert they selected an 
elderly school anatomist cramped by     
strong old-fashioned notions1 who had   
done some good and useful specialist    
work1 but whose general views had       
developed all awry1 and who for the     
unexampled obscurity of his conceptions 
and the confusion of his ideas1 was     
outdone by none save only ,adolf        
,bastian4 ,for twenty years this man has
 represented animal morphology in the   
second university of ,germany1 and in   
these twenty years hardly any work worth
 mentioning has been done there in the  
whole of this vast department--neither  
by the master nor by his pupils4 ,we    
have only to compare the many worthless 
anatomical productions of ,berlin during
 these two decades 7for instance1 the   
recent confused work by ,fritsch on the 
brain of fishes7 with the rich mine of  

invaluable work produced during the     
preceding twenty years by ,johannes     
,mueller and his crowd of disciples4    
,but1 as if this were not enough1       
,reichert took advantage of his         
influential position to hinder as far as
 possible all scientific study of       
morphology4 ,for example1 he1 with the  
co-operation of his colleagues1 carried 
through that pretended reform of medical
 examination which puts the so-called   
,tentamen physicum in the place of the  
philosophicum2 philosophy was entirely  
eliminated4 ,zoology and botany1 which  
for centuries have been very justly     
regarded as the indispensable foundation
 of all instruction in natural science  
for the young medical student1          
disappeared from the curriculum4 ,only1 
as if in scorn of these sciences1 in    
each examination a small place was      
reserved for comparative anatomy--for   
that most difficult and philosophical   
part of animal morphology which cannot  
be at all understood without some       

previous knowledge of the other branches
 of zoology4 ,and yet comparative       
anatomy and the history of development  
are the indispensable preliminary steps 
to a true scientific comprehension of   
human anatomy1 that most essential      
foundation of all medical knowledge4    
,without the vivifying idea of          
development1 mere anatomical knowledge  
is an empty and lifeless cramming of the
 memory4  ,in the place of morphology1  
thus degraded from its office1 a        
detailed study of physiology was        
introduced1 but always in a one-sided   
direction4 ,now these two great branches
 of biology1 which are equally important
 and have an equal claim on our         
attention1 are so dependent the one on  
the other1 that a real scientific       
understanding of organic life can never 
be obtained without due relative study  
of both4 ,the masterly and incomparable 
teaching of ,johannes ,mueller owed a   
great part of its captivating charm to  
his equitable regard for morphology and 

physiology1 as well as to his           
comprehensive treatment1 from the       
broadest point of view1 of the enormous 
mass of details to be dealt with4 ,i    
therefore have not the smallest doubt   
that the morphological training of      
medical students1 as at present         
conducted at ,berlin under the influence
 of ,reichert and his colleagues1 is as 
far behind that of ,mueller's day1      
twenty or thirty years ago1 in all      
general comprehension of the typical    
organism1 as it is in advance of it in  
specialist acquirements4  ,in medical1  
as in all other scientific learning1 the
 highest aim does not consist in seeking
 to accumulate a vast chaotic mass of   
isolated items of knowledge1 but in a   
general comprehension of the science1   
its aims and problems4 ,the teacher     
should1 above everything1 guide the     
pupil to this general knowledge1 and    
then it will be easy to him1 by the aid 
of proper methods1 to acquire mastery in
 each individual and special branch4    

,thus in medicine1 as in every other    
science1 he is not the best qualified   
who1 on ,bastian's method1 has loaded   
his memory with a confused mass of      
undigested facts1 and has flung them all
 together into his brain without any    
order2 but1 on the contrary1 he who has 
practically digested a considerable     
number of the most important facts1 and 
has critically co-ordinated them to a   
harmonious whole4 ,it is precisely under
 this aspect that transmutation is of   
such inestimable value to morphology2 it
 enables us to rise from the bare       
empirical knowledge of numberless       
isolated facts to a philosophical       
conception of their efficient causes4   
,the aversion and contempt which the    
theories of descent and selection have  
met with at ,berlin1 more than in any   
other place1 is in great measure to be  
explained by the circumstance that1     
during the last two decades1            
morphological studies have been more    
neglected in that university than any   

others4 ,in no other city of ,germany   
has evolution in general1 as well as    
,darwinism in particular1 been so little
 valued1 so utterly misunderstood1 and  
treated with such sovereign disdain as  
in ,berlin4 ,nay1 ,adolf ,bastian1 the  
most zealous of all the ,berlin         
opponents of our doctrines1 has insisted
 on these facts with peculiar           
satisfaction4 ,of all the conspicuous   
naturalists of ,berlin only one accepted
 the doctrine of transmutation from the 
beginning with sincere warmth and full  
conviction1 being1 indeed1 persuaded of 
its truth even before ,darwin himself4  
,this was the gifted botanist ,alexander
 ,braun1 who is lately dead--a          
morphologist who was equally            
distinguished by the extent of his      
comprehensive knowledge of details1 as  
by his philosophical mastery over them4 
,his firm conviction of the truth of the
 theory of descent is all the more      
remarkable because he was at the same   
time a spotless character1 a pious      

,christian in the best sense of the     
word1 and an extremely conservative     
politician2 a striking example that     
these convictions can dwell side by side
 with the principles of the recent      
doctrines of evolution in one and the   
same person4 ,but in comparison with the
 powerful influence of the rest of the  
,berlin naturalists who1 for the most   
part1 are decided opponents of          
transmutation1 and who have only        
lately--a few of them1 to follow the    
fashion--become converts to it1 a man   
like ,alexander ,braun could have no    
effect in procuring that it should be   
taught4  ,however1 this is not the first
 time that this very ,berlin society of 
learned men has set itself with         
remarkable firmness against the most    
important advances of science4          
,virchow's former colleague1 the        
deceased ,stahl1 with a similar purpose 
and with great success1 preached this   
principle3 ,science must turn back      
again4 ,just as at the present day the  

,berlin biologists have opposed the most
 obstinate and pertinacious resistance  
to the greatest scientific stride of    
this century1 so did it happen in former
 times with regard to other doctrines of
 progress4 ,we have only to recall      
,caspar ,friedrich ,wolff1 the great    
inquirer1 who in #agei first detected   
the nature of the individual processes  
of development in the animal ovum1 and  
founded on it his observations in his   
,theoria ,generationes1 which marked an 
epoch in biological science4 ,the       
,berlin savants1 full of the prevailing 
prejudices1 so contrived at that time   
that ,wolff never once could obtain the 
permission which he craved1 to lecture  
publicly1 and in consequence found      
himself compelled to retire to ,st4     
,petersburg for the sake of peace4 ,and 
yet in that instance there was no       
question of a theory properly so-called4
 ,for the fundamental theory of         
generation--the theory of epigenesis--as
 propounded by ,wolff was nothing more  

than a simple1 general exposition of    
embryological facts which he had been   
the first to recognise1 and of whose    
truth every one might convince himself  
by direct observation4 ,in spite of     
this1 for another half century1 the     
predominant error of the                
,preformation-theory continued to be    
universally accepted--the ludicrous and 
nonsensical doctrine1 supported by the  
authority of ,haller1 that all the      
successive generations of animals exist 
preconceived and enclosed one within the
 other1 and that no individual          
development ever takes place6 ,nulla est
 epigenesis6 7,compare my ,evolution of 
,man1 vol4 i4 p4 #ca47  ,but it would   
appear that it is the fate of that most 
interesting of all sciences1 the history
 of evolution1 to find its most         
important steps and its greatest        
discoveries met by the firmest and most 
persistent opposition4 ,for while       
,wolff's fundamental theory of          
epigenesis1 which was promulgated in    

#agei1 was not recognised until #ahab1  
,lamarck's theory of descent1 founded in
 #ahji1 had to wait fully fifty years   
before ,darwin1 in #ahei1 showed it to  
be the greatest acquisition of modern   
science2 and during that period1 in     
spite of all the progress made in       
empirical science1 how persistently this
 most comprehensive of all biological   
theories was combated4 ,we need only    
recollect how1 in #ahcj1 the celebrated 
,george ,cuvier silenced its most       
eloquent supporter1 ,geoffroy ,st4      
,hilaire1 in the midst of the ,paris    
,academy1 and how almost at the same    
time its founder1 the great ,lamarck1   
ended his life in blindness1 misery and 
want1 while his opponent ,cuvier was    
enjoying the highest honours and the    
greatest splendour4 ,and yet we know now
 that the despised and contemned        
,lamarck and ,geoffroy had already      
grasped truths of the highest           
significance1 while ,cuvier's           
much-admired and universally-accepted   

theory of creation is now on all hands  
neglected as an absurd and untenable    
delusion4 ,but as neither ,haller as    
against ,wolff1 nor ,cuvier as against  
,lamarck1 could permanently hinder the  
progress of free inquiry1 neither will  
,virchow succeed in turning back the    
course of ,darwin's admirable           
achievement2 no1 not even when he is    
supported by the discourses of his      
friend ,bastian4  ,while we cannot but  
earnestly lament ,virchow's inimical    
attitude in this great struggle for     
truth1 we must not overlook the effects 
of his well-founded authority in a yet  
wider sphere4 ,for instance1 the hostile
 attitude which the greater part of the 
,berlin press persistently maintains    
towards the doctrine of development     
7particularly the ,liberal              
,national-,zeitung7 is to be referred to
 the influence of his authority4 ,but   
much as this reactionary vein1 in this  
and in other intelligent circles at     
,berlin1 must be regretted on the one   

hand1 on the other we must observe that 
by this evil we have been preserved from
 a far greater one4 ,this greater       
evil--the greatest1 in fact1 which      
,german science could have to           
encounter--would be the monopoly of     
knowledge at ,berlin2 a ,centralisation 
of ,science4 ,the injurious fruits of   
this system of centralisation in        
,france1 for instance1 the continual    
deterioration of ,french science through
 the ,parisian ,monopoly of ,knowledge1 
and its steady decline during half a    
century from the sublimest              
heights--these are all well known4 ,from
 such a centralisation of ,german       
science--which would be especially      
dangerous if it occurred in the capital1
 ,berlin--we may hope to be preserved2  
in the first place by the manifold      
differences and the many-sided          
individuality of the ,german national   
spirit1 the much-abused ,german         
provincialism 7,particularismus74 ,while
 these provincial modes of thought can  

never have any permanent political      
value1 nor be productive of a desirable 
form of government1 it is beyond a doubt
 that their outcome has been fruitful   
and happy for ,german science4 ,for it  
owes its splendid pre-eminence over that
 of other countries precisely to the    
many centres of culture which were      
offered by those numerous petty capitals
 of the minor ,german ,states which     
strove to outdo each other in eager     
emulation4 ,it is to be hoped that this 
happy decentralisation of science in our
 politically united fatherland may      
continue to subsist6  ,and next to this 
centrifugal tendency of our ,german     
national mind nothing will so greatly   
contribute to it as a vigorous          
opposition to the free advance of       
science1 such as is just now declaring  
itself in the metropolis4 ,for by just  
so much as ,berlin is dragged back by it
 in the mighty onward stream of free    
intellectual movement1 by so much will  
it see itself outstripped by the other  

seats of culture in ,germany1 which     
follow the stream with enthusiasm1 or at
 least without resistance4 ,if ,emil du 
,bois-,reymond raises the cry of        
,ignorabimus1 and ,rudolf ,virchow his  
still more audacious one of             
,restringamur1 as the watchwords of     
science1 then1 from ,jena1 let the shout
 be raised and echoed from a hundred    
other universities--,impavidi           
progrediamur6   ,,the ,,end4          99
       99       99       99       99    
,,works ,,of ,,professor ,,ernst        
,,haeckel4  ,,freedom ,,in ,,science    
,,and ,,teaching4 ,from the ,german of  
,,ernst ,,haeckel4 ,with a ,prefatory   
,note by ,t4 ,h4 ,huxley1 ,f4,r4,s4 #a  
vol41 #abmo4  ,,the ,,evolution ,,of    
,,man4 ,a ,popular ,exposition of the   
,principal ,points of ,human ,ontogeny  
and ,phylogeny4 ,from the ,german of    
,,ernst ,,haeckel1 ,professor in the    
,university of ,jena1 author of ,the    
,history of ,creation1 etc4 ,with       
numerous ,illustrations4 ,in two vols41 

#abmo4 ,cloth4 ,price1 #e4jj4  ,from the
 ,london ,saturday ,review4    ,in this 
excellent translation of ,professor     
,haeckel's   work1 the ,english reader  
has access to the latest   doctrines of 
the ,continental school of evolution1 in
 its   application to the history of    
man4 ,it is in ,germany1   beyond any   
other ,european country1 that the       
impulse given   by ,darwin twenty years 
ago to the theory of evolution has      
influenced the whole tenor of           
philosophical opinion4 ,there   may be1 
and are1 differences in the degree to   
which the   doctrine may be held capable
 of extension into the domain   of mind 
and morals2 but there is no denying1 in 
scientific   circles at least1 that as  
regards the physical history of         
organic nature much has been done toward
 making good a   continuous scheme of   
being4   ,,the ,,history ,,of           
,,creation2 or1 the ,development of the 
,earth and its ,inhabitants by the      
,action of ,natural ,causes4 ,a ,popular

 ,exposition of the ,doctrine of        
,evolution in general1 and of that of   
,darwin1 ,goethe1 and ,lamarck in       
particular4 ,from the ,german of ,,ernst
 ,,haeckel1 ,professor in the           
,university of ,jena4 ,the translation  
revised by ,professor ,e4 ,ray          
,lankester1 ,m4,a41 ,f4,r4,s41 ,fellow  
of ,exeter ,college1 ,oxford4           
,illustrated with ,lithographic ,plates4
 ,in #b vols41 #abmo4 ,cloth1 #e4jj4    
99       99       99       99       99  
,,works ,,of ,,thomas ,h4 ,,huxley1     
,,ll4 ,d41 ,f4,r4,s4   ,,man',s ,,place 
,,in ,,nature4 #a vol41 #abmo4 ,cloth1  
#a4be4  ,,on ,,the ,,origin ,,of        
,,species4 #a vol41 #abmo4 ,cloth1      
#a4jj4  ,,more ,,criticisms ,,on        
,,darwin1 ,,and ,,administrative        
,,nihilism4 #a vol41 #abmo4 ,limp cloth1
 #ej cents4  ,a ,,manual ,,of ,,the     
,,anatomy ,,of ,,vertebrated ,,animals4 
,illustrated4 #a vol41 #abmo4 ,cloth1   
#b4ej4  ,a ,,manual ,,of ,,the ,,anatomy
 ,,of ,,invertebrated ,,animals4 #b4ej4 

,,lay ,,sermons1 ,,addresses1 ,,and     
,,reviews4 #a vol41 #abmo4 ,cloth1      
#a4ge4  ,,critiques ,,and ,,addresses4  
#abmo4 ,cloth1 #a4ej4  ,,american       
,,addresses2 with a ,lecture on the     
,study of ,biology4 #abmo4 ,cloth1      
#a4be4  ,,physiography3 an ,introduction
 to the ,study of ,nature4 ,with        
,illustrations and ,colored ,plates4    
#abmo4 ,cloth1 #b4ej4  ,,elements ,,of  
,,physiology ,,and ,,hygiene4 ,by ,t4   
,h4 ,,huxley and ,w4 ,j4 ,,youmans4 #a  
vol41 #abmo4 #a4ej4          99       99
       99       99       99   ,,recent  
,,educational ,,works4  ,principles and 
,practice of ,teaching4  ,by ,,james    
,,johonnot4  #a volume1 #abmo4 ,cloth4  
#cif pages4 ,price1 #a4ej4   ,,contents4
       ,i4 ,,what ,,is ,,education8     
,,ii4 ,,the ,,mental ,,powers3 their    
,order of ,development1 and the         
,methods most conducive to ,normal      
,growth4     ,,iii4 ,,objective         
,,teaching3 its ,methods1 ,aims1 and    
,principles4      ,,iv4 ,,subjective    

,,teaching3 its ,aims and ,place in the 
,course of         ,instruction4        
,v4 ,,object-,,lessons3 their ,value and
 ,limitations4      ,,vi4 ,,relative    
,,value ,,of ,,the ,,different ,,studies
 in a ,course of         ,instruction4  
,,vii4 ,,pestalozzi1 and his            
,contributions to ,educational ,science4
    ,,viii4 ,,froebel ,,and ,,the       
,,kindergarten4      ,,ix4 ,,agassiz2   
and ,,science ,,in ,,its ,,relation ,,to
 ,,teaching4       ,x4 ,,contrasted     
,,systems ,,of ,,education4      ,,xi4  
,,physical ,,culture4     ,,xii4        
,,aesthetic ,,culture4    ,,xiii4       
,,moral ,,culture4     ,,xiv4 ,a        
,,course ,,of ,,study4      ,,xv4       
,,country ,,schools4   ,extract from    
,preface4    ,experience is beginning to
 show that teaching1 like every   other 
department of human thought and         
activity1 must   change with the        
changing conditions of society1 or it   
will   fall in the rear of civilization1
 and become an obstacle   to            

improvement4444 ,in this volume an      
endeavor has been   made to examine     
education from the standpoint of modern 
thought1 and to contribute something to 
the solution of   the problems that are 
forcing themselves upon the   attention 
of educators4 ,to these ends1 a concise 
statement   of the well-settled         
principles of psychology has been       
made1 and a connected view of the       
interdependence of the   sciences given1
 to serve as a guide to methods of      
instruction1 and to determine the       
subject-matter best   adapted to each   
stage of development4 ,the systems of   
several of the great educational        
reformers have been   analyzed1 with a  
view to ascertain precisely what each   
has   contributed to the science of     
teaching1 and how far their   ideas     
conform to psychological laws2 and an   
endeavor has   been made to combine the 
principles derived from both            
experience and philosophy into one      
coherent system4   ,,elementary         

,,lessons ,,in ,,historical ,,english   
,,grammar1 containing ,accidence and    
,word-,formation4 ,by the ,rev4         
,,richard ,,morris1 ,,ll4 ,d41          
,president of the ,philological         
,society1 ,london4 #ahmo4 ,cloth1 #bed  
pages4 ,price1 #a4jj4  ,,words1 and how 
to put them together4 ,by ,,harlan ,h4  
,,ballard1 ,principal of ,lenox         
,high-,school1 ,lenox1 ,mass4 #ahmo4    
,cloth4 ,price1 #dj cents4  ,,general   
,,history1 from ,b4 ,c4 #hjj to ,a4 ,d4 
#ahgf4 ,outlined in ,diagrams and       
,tables2 with ,index and ,genealogies4  
,for ,general ,reference1 and for       
,schools and ,colleges4 ,by ,,samuel    
,,willard1 ,a4 ,m41 ,m4 ,d41 ,professor 
of ,history in ,chicago ,high-,school4  
#hvo4 ,cloth4 ,price1 #b4jj4            
,,harkness',s ,,preparatory ,,course    
,,in ,,latin ,,prose ,,authors1         
comprising four books of ,caesar's      
,gallic ,war1 ,sallust's ,catiline1 and 
eight ,orations of ,cicero4 ,with       
,notes1 ,illustrations1 a ,map of ,gaul1

 and a ,special ,dictionary4 #abmo4     
,cloth4 ,price1 #a4ge4  ,,harkness',s   
,,sallust',s ,,catiline1 with ,notes and
 a ,special ,vocabulary4 #abmo4 ,cloth4 
,price1 #a4ae4  ,,the ,,latin ,,speaker4
 ,easy ,dialogues1 and other ,selections
 for ,memorizing and ,declaiming in the 
,latin ,language4 ,by ,,frank ,,sewall1 
,a4 ,m4 #abmo4 ,cloth4 ,price1 #a4jj4   
99       99       99       99       99  
,new ,volume of ,the ,international     
,scientific ,series4  ,,education ,,as  
,a ,,science4  ,,by  ,,alexander ,,bain1
 ,,ll4 ,d41  ,,professor ,,of ,,logic   
,,in ,,the ,,university ,,of ,,aberdeen4
  #a vol41 #abmo4 ,cloth1 price1 #a4ge4 
,in the present work ,i have surveyed   
the ,teaching ,art1 as far as possible1 
from a scientific point of view2 which  
means1 among other things1 that the     
maxims of ordinary experience are tested
 and amended by bringing them under the 
best ascertained laws of the            
mind4--,from ,preface4  ,dr4 ,bain's    
renovated curriculum is certainly       

extensive enough1 even if it omits      
,greek and ,latin4 ,according to this1  
higher education should embrace--first1 
science2 second1 the humanities1        
including history and the social        
science1 and some portions of the       
universal literature2 and1 third1       
,english composition and                
literature4--,new ,york ,evening        
,express4  ,the work should become a    
text-book for teachers1 not to be       
followed servilely or thoughtlessly1 but
 used for its suggestiveness4--,boston  
,gazette4  ,professor ,bain is not a    
novice in this field4 ,his work is      
admirable in many respects for teacher1 
parent1 and pupil4--,philadelphia ,north
 ,american4  ,a work of great value to  
all teachers who study it               
intelligently4--,boston ,advertiser4    
,at once speculative and practical1     
entering largely into the philosophy of 
teaching1 and manfully handling         
facts4--,philadelphia ,press4           
99       99       99       99       99  

,,primers  ,,in ,,science1 ,,history and
 ,,literature4  #ahmo4 ,flexible cloth1 
#de cents each4   ,i4--,edited by       
,professors ,,huxley1 ,,roscoe1 and     
,,balfour ,,stewart4  ,,science         
,,primers4    ,chemistry                
,h4 ,e4 ,,roscoe4   ,physics            
,,balfour ,,stewart4   ,physical        
,geography           ,a4 ,,geikie4      
,geology                      ,a4       
,,geikie4   ,physiology                 
,m4 ,,foster4   ,astronomy              
,j4 ,n4 ,,lockyer4   ,botany            
,j4 ,d4 ,,hooker4   ,logic              
,w4 ,s4 ,,jevons4   ,inventional        
,geometry         ,w4 ,g4 ,,spencer4    
,pianoforte                   ,,franklin
 ,,taylor4   ,political ,economy        
,w4 ,s4 ,,jevons4   ,,ii4--,edited by   
,j4 ,r4 ,,green1 ,m4,a41 ,examiner in   
the ,school of ,modern ,history at      
,oxford4  ,,history ,,primers4          
,greece                       ,c4 ,a4   
,,fyffe4   ,rome                        
,m4 ,,creighton4   ,europe              

,e4 ,a4 ,,freeman4   ,old ,greek ,life  
,j4 ,p4 ,,mahaffy4   ,roman ,antiquities
            ,a4 ,s4 ,,wilkins4          
,geography                    ,,george  
,,grove4   ,,iii4--,edited by ,j4 ,r4   
,,green1 ,m4,a4  ,,literature ,,primers4
    ,english ,grammar              ,r4  
,,morris4   ,english ,literature        
,,stopford ,,brooke4   ,philology       
,j4 ,,peile4   ,classical ,geography    
,m4 ,f4 ,,tozer   ,shakespeare          
,e4 ,,dowden4   ,studies in ,bryant     
,j4 ,,alden4   ,greek ,literature       
,r4 ,c4 ,,jebb4   ,english ,grammar     
,exercises    ,r4 ,,morris4   ,homer    
,w4 ,e4 ,,gladstone4   7,others in      
preparation47  ,the object of these     
primers is to convey information in such
 a manner as to make it both            
intelligible and interesting to very    
young pupils1 and so to discipline their
 minds as to incline them to more       
systematic after-studies4 ,they are not 
only an aid to the pupil1 but to the    
teacher1 lightening the task of each by 

an agreeable1 easy1 and natural method  
of instruction4 ,in the ,science ,series
 some simple experiments have been      
devised1 leading up to the chief truths 
of each science4 ,by this means the     
pupil's interest is excited1 and the    
memory is impressed so as to retain     
without difficulty the facts brought    
under observation4 ,the woodcuts which  
illustrate these primers serve the same 
purpose1 embellishing and explaining the
 text at the same time4          99     
99       99       99       99           
,,appletons' ,,school ,,readers1        
,,consisting ,,of ,,five ,,books4  ,,by 
,w4 ,t4 ,,harris1 ,,ll4 ,d41            
,superintendent of ,schools1     ,st4   
,louis1 ,mo4      ,a4 ,j4 ,,rickoff1 ,a4
 ,m41     ,superintendent of            
,instruction1     ,cleveland1 ,o4       
,,mark ,,bailey1 ,a4 ,m41               
,instructor in ,elocution1     ,yale    
,college4                               
,,retail ,,prices4      ,,appletons'    
,,first ,,reader        #j4be           

,,appletons' ,,second ,,reader          
4#dj     ,,appletons' ,,third ,,reader  
4#eb     ,,appletons' ,,fourth ,,reader 
4#gj     ,,appletons' ,,fifth ,,reader  
#a4be   ,,chief ,,merits4  ,these       
,readers1 while avoiding extremes and   
one-sided tendencies1 combine into one  
harmonious whole the several results    
desirable to be attained in a series of 
school reading-books4 ,these include    
good pictorial illustrations1 a         
combination of the word and phonic      
methods1 careful grading1 drill on the  
peculiar combinations of letters that   
represent vowel-sounds1 correct         
spelling1 exercises well arranged for   
the pupil's preparation by himself 7so  
that he shall learn the great lessons of
 self-help1 self-dependence1 the habit  
of application71 exercises that develop 
a practical command of correct forms of 
expression1 good literary taste1 close  
critical power of thought1 and ability  
to interpret the entire meaning of the  
language of others4   ,,the ,,authors4  

,the high rank which the authors have   
attained in the educational field and   
their long and successful experience in 
practical school-work especially fit    
them for the preparation of text-books  
that will embody all the best elements  
of modern educative ideas4 ,in the      
schools of ,st4 ,louis and ,cleveland1  
over which two of them have long        
presided1 the subject of reading has    
received more than usual attention1 and 
with results that have established for  
them a wide reputation for superior     
elocutionary discipline and             
accomplishments4 ,feeling the need of a 
series of reading-books harmonizing in  
all respects with the modes of          
instruction growing out of their long   
tentative work1 they have carefully     
prepared these volumes in the belief    
that the special features enumerated    
will commend them to practical teachers 
everywhere4  ,of ,professor ,bailey1    
,instructor of ,elocution in ,yale      
,college1 it is needless to speak1 for  

he is known throughout the ,union as    
being without a peer in his profession4 
,his methods make natural1 not          
mechanical readers4          99       99
       99       99       99   ,a ,,short
 ,,history  ,,of  ,natural ,science and 
the ,progress of ,discovery1  ,,from    
,,the ,,time ,,of ,,the ,,greeks ,,to   
,,the ,,present ,,day4  ,,for ,,schools 
,,and ,,young ,,persons4  ,by ,,arabella
 ,b4 ,,buckley4  ,with ,illustrations4  
#abmo4 ,cloth1 #b4jj4   ,during many    
years the author acted as secretary to  
,sir ,charles ,lyell1 and was brought in
 contact with many of the leading       
scientific men of the day1 and felt very
 forcibly how many important facts and  
generalizations of science1 which are of
 great value both in the formation of   
character and in giving a true estimate 
of life and its conditions1 are totally 
unknown to the majority of otherwise    
well-educated persons4 ,this work has   
been written for this purpose1 and it is
 not too much to say that it will effect

 its purpose4--,european ,mail4  ,the   
volume is attractive as a book of       
anecdotes of men of science and their   
discoveries4 ,its remarkable features   
are the sound judgment with which the   
true landmarks of scientific history are
 selected1 the conciseness of the       
information conveyed1 and the interest  
with which the whole subject is         
nevertheless invested4 ,its style is    
strictly adapted to its avowed purpose  
of furnishing a text-book for the use of
 schools and young persons4--,london    
,daily ,news4  ,before we had read      
half-a-dozen pages of this book we laid 
it down with an expression of admiration
 of the wonderful powers of the writer4 
,and our opinion has increased in       
intensity as we have gone on1 till we   
have come to the conclusion that it is a
 book worthy of being ranked with       
,whewell's ',history of the ,inductive  
,sciences'2 it is one which should be   
first placed in the hands of every one  
who proposes to become a student of     

natural science1 and it would be well if
 it were adopted as a standard volume in
 all our schools4--,popular ,science    
,review4  ,a most admirable little      
volume4 ,it is a classified resume of   
the chief discoveries in physical       
science4 ,to the young student it is a  
book to open up new worlds with every   
chapter4--,graphic4  ,we have nothing   
but praise for this interesting book4   
,miss ,buckley has the rare faculty of  
being able to write for young           
people4--,london ,spectator4  ,the book 
will be a valuable aid in the study of  
the elements of natural                 
science4--,journal of ,education4       
99       99       99       99       99  
,,fairy-,,land ,,of ,,science4  ,,by    
,,arabella ,b4 ,,buckley1  ,author of ,a
 ,short ,history of ,natural ,science1  
etc4  ,,with ,,numerous ,,illustrations4
  #abmo ,cloth1 price1 #a4ej4   ,a      
child's reading-book admirably adapted  
to the purpose intended4 ,the young     
reader is referred to nature itself     

rather than to books1 and is taught to  
observe and investigate1 and not to rest
 satisfied with a collection of dull    
definitions learned by rote and         
worthless to the possessor4 ,the present
 work will be found a valuable and      
interesting addition to the somewhat    
overcrowded child's library4--,boston   
,gazette4  ,written in a style so simple
 and lucid as to be within the          
comprehension of an intelligent child1  
and yet it will be found entertaining to
 maturer minds4--,baltimore ,gazette4   
,it deserves to take a permanent place  
in the literature of youth4--,london    
,times4  ,the ease of her style1 the    
charm of her illustrations1 and the     
clearness with which she explains what  
is abstruse1 are no doubt the result of 
much labor2 but there is nothing labored
 in her pages1 and the reader must be   
dull indeed who takes up this volume    
without finding much to attract         
attention and to stimulate              
inquiry4--,pall ,mall ,gazette4  ,so    

interesting that having once opened it  
we do not know how to leave off         
reading4--,saturday ,review4  ,we are   
compelled to admit that there is indeed 
a fairy-land of science4 ,this is the   
fairy-land upon which ,miss ,arabella   
,buckley lectured last year1 and upon   
which she has now produced a child's    
reading-book1 which is most charmingly  
illustrated1 and which is in every way  
rendered especially interesting to the  
juvenile reader4--,london ,athenaeum4   
99       99       99       99       99  
,,the ,,experimental ,,science ,,series4
  ,in neat #abmo volumes1 bound in      
cloth1 fully illustrated4 ,price per    
volume1 #a4jj4  ,this series of         
scientific books for boys1 girls1 and   
students of every age1 was designed by  
,prof4 ,alfred ,m4 ,mayer1 ,ph4 ,d41 at 
the ,stevens ,institute of ,technology1 
,hoboken1 ,new ,jersey4 ,every book is  
addressed directly to the young student1
 and he is taught to construct his own  
apparatus out of the cheapest and most  

common materials to be found4 ,should   
the reader make all the apparatus       
described in the first book of this     
series1 he will spend only #ab4dj4      
,,now ,,ready3  ,i4--,,light4  ,a       
,series of ,simple1 ,entertaining1 and  
,inexpensive ,experiments in the        
,phenomena of ,light1 for ,students of  
every ,age4  ,by ,,alfred ,m4 ,,mayer   
and ,,charles ,,barnard4                
,,ii4--,,sound3  ,a ,series of ,simple1 
,entertaining1 and ,inexpensive         
,experiments in the ,phenomena of       
,sound1 for the ,use of ,students of    
every ,age4  ,by ,,alfred ,,marshall    
,,mayer1  ,professor of ,physics in the 
,stevens ,institute of ,technology2     
,member of the ,national ,academy of    
,sciences2 of the ,american             
,philosophical ,society1 ,philadelphia2 
of the ,american ,academy of ,arts and  
,sciences1 ,boston2 of the ,new ,york   
,academy of ,sciences2 of the ,german   
,astronomical ,society2 of the ,american
 ,otological ,society2 and ,honorary    

,member of the ,new ,york               
,ophthalmological ,society4   ,,in      
,,active ,,preparation3  ,,iii4 ,vision 
and the ,nature of ,light4  ,,iv4       
,electricity and ,magnetism4  ,v4 ,heat4
  ,,vi4 ,mechanics4  ,,vii4 ,chemistry4 
,,viii4 ,the ,art of experimenting with 
,cheap and ,simple ,instruments4        
99       99       99       99       99  
,,light3  ,a ,series of ,simple1        
,entertaining1 and ,inexpensive         
,experiments in the ,phenomena of       
,light1 for the ,use of ,students of    
,every ,age4  ,,by ,,alfred ,m4 ,,mayer 
and ,,charles ,,barnard4  ,,neat #ab,,mo
 ,,volume1 ,,fully ,,illustrated4       
,,cloth1 ,,price1 #a4jj4  ,professor    
,mayer has invented a series of         
experiments in ,light which are         
described by ,mr4 ,barnard4 ,nothing is 
more necessary for sound-teaching than  
experiments made by the pupil1 and this 
book1 by considering the difficulty of  
costly apparatus1 has rendered an       
important service to teacher and student

 alike4 ,it deals with the sources of   
light1 reflection1 refraction1 and      
decomposition of light4 ,the experiments
 are extremely simple and well suited to
 young people4--,westminster ,review4   
,this work describes1 in simple         
language1 a number of experiments       
illustrating the principal properties of
 light1 by means of a beam of sunlight  
admitted into a dark room1 and various  
contrivances4 ,the experiments are      
highly ingenious1 and the young student 
can not fail to learn a great deal from 
the book4 ,as an example of the         
effective experimental method employed1 
we may specially mention the device for 
illustrating the refraction of light4   
,this book is specially designed 'to    
give to every teacher and scholar the   
knowledge of the art of                 
experimenting4'--,the ,quarterly        
,journal of ,science 7,london74  ,a     
singularly excellent little hand-book   
for the use of teachers1 parents1 and   
children4 ,the book is admirable both in

 design and execution4 ,the experiments 
for which it provides are so simple that
 an intelligent boy or girl can easily  
make them1 and so beautiful and         
interesting that even the youngest      
children must enjoy the exhibition4 ,the
 experiments here described are         
abundantly worth all that they cost in  
money and time in any family where there
 are boys and girls to be               
entertained4--,new ,york ,evening ,post4
  ,the experiments are capitally        
selected1 and equally as well described4
 ,the book is conspicuously free from   
the multiplicity of confusing directions
 with which works of the kind too often 
abound4 ,there is an abundance of       
excellent illustrations4--,new ,york    
,scientific ,american4  ,the experiments
 are for the most part new1 and have the
 merit of combining precision in the    
methods with extreme simplicity and     
elegance of design4 ,the value of the   
book is further enhanced by the numerous
 carefully-drawn cuts1 which add greatly

 to its beauty4--,american ,journal of  
,science and ,arts4          99       99
       99       99       99   ,,sound3  
,a ,series of ,simple1 ,entertaining1   
and ,inexpensive ,experiments in the    
,phenomena of ,sound1 for the ,use of   
,students of ,every ,age4  ,by ,,alfred 
,,marshall ,,mayer1  ,professor of      
,physics in the ,stevens ,institute of  
,technology2 ,member of the ,national   
,academy of ,sciences1 etc4  ,uniform   
with ,,light1 first volume of the       
,series4  ,neat #abmo volume1 fully     
illustrated4 ,cloth1 price1 #a4jj4  ,it 
would be difficult to find a better     
example of a series which is excellent  
throughout4 ,this little work is        
accurate in detail1 popular in style1   
and lucid in arrangement4 ,every        
statement is accompanied with ample     
illustrations4 ,we can heartily         
recommend it1 either as an introduction 
to the subject or as a satisfactory     
manual for those who have no time for   
perusing a larger work4 ,it contains an 

excellent description1 with diagrams1 of
 ,faber's ,talking ,machine and of      
,edison's ,talking ,phonograph1 which   
can not fail to be interesting to any   
reader who takes an interest in the     
marvelous progress of natural           
science4--,british ,quarterly4  ,the    
style of the book is very clear1 and the
 experiments interesting4 ,it can not   
fail to have an important educational   
influence4--,westminster ,review4  ,it  
would really be difficult to exaggerate 
the merit1 in the sense of consummate   
adaptation to its modest end1 of this   
little treatise on ',sound4' ,it teaches
 the youthful student how to make       
experiments for himself1 without the    
help of a trained operator1 and at very 
little expense4 ,these hand-books of    
,professor ,mayer should be in the hands
 of every teacher of the young4--,new   
,york ,sun4  ,an admirably clear and    
interesting collection of experiments1  
described with just the right amount of 
abstract information and no more1 and   

placed in progressive order4 ,the recent
 inventions of the phonograph and       
microphone lend an extraordinary        
interest to this whole field of         
experiment1 which makes ,professor      
,mayer's manual especially              
opportune4--,boston ,courier4           
99       99       99       99       99  
,the ,works of ,professor ,e4 ,l4       
,,youmans1 ,m4 ,d4  ,class-book of      
,chemistry4  ,new edition4 #abmo4       
,cloth1 #a4ej4   ,the ,hand-book of     
,household ,science4  ,a ,popular       
,account of ,heat1 ,light1 ,air1        
,aliment1 and ,cleansing1 in their      
,scientific ,principles and ,domestic   
,applications4 #abmo4 ,illustrated4     
,cloth1 #a4ge4   ,the ,culture demanded 
by ,modern ,life4  ,a ,series of        
,addresses and ,arguments on the ,claims
 of ,scientific ,education4 ,edited1    
with an ,introduction on ,mental        
,discipline in ,education4 #a vol41     
#abmo4 ,cloth1 #b4jj4   ,correlation and
 ,conservation of ,forces4  ,a ,series  

of ,expositions by ,professor ,grove1   
,professor ,helmholtz1 ,dr4 ,mayer1 ,dr4
 ,faraday1 ,professor ,liebig1 and ,dr4 
,carpenter4 ,edited1 with an            
,introduction and ,brief ,biographical  
,notices of the ,chief ,promoters of the
 ,new ,views1 by ,,edward ,l4 ,,youmans1
 ,m4 ,d4 #a vol41 #abmo4 ,cloth1 #b4jj4 
99       99       99       99       99  
,the ,popular ,science ,monthly4        
,conducted by ,e4 ,l4 and ,w4 ,j4       
,,youmans4  ,containing instructive and 
interesting articles and abstracts of   
articles1 original1 selected1 and       
illustrated1 from the pens of the       
leading scientific men of different     
countries2  ,accounts of important      
scientific discoveries2  ,the           
application of science to the practical 
arts2  ,the latest views put forth      
concerning natural phenomena1 by savants
 of the highest authority4  ,,terms3    
,five dollars per annum2 or fifty cents 
per number4 ,a ,club of five will be    
sent to any address for #bj4jj per      

annum4  ,the volumes begin ,may and     
,november of each year4 ,subscriptions  
may begin at any time4  ,,the ,,popular 
,,science ,,monthly and ,,appletons'    
,,journal1 together1 for #g4jj per      
annum1 postage prepaid4          99     
99       99       99       99   ,a ,new 
and ,valuable ,work for the ,practical  
,mechanic and ,engineer4  ,,appletons'  
,,cyclopaedia ,,of ,,applied            
,,mechanics4  ,a ,,dictionary ,,of      
,,mechanical ,,engineering ,,and ,,the  
,,mechanical ,,arts4  ,,illustrated ,,by
 #e1jjj ,,engravings4  ,edited by ,,park
 ,,benjamin1 ,ph4 ,d4   ,,contributors4 
,t4 ,a4 ,,edison1 ,,ph4 ,d4   ,,richard 
,h4 ,,bull1 ,c4 ,e4   ,,samuel ,,webber1
 ,c4 ,e4   ,,prof4 ,,de ,,volson ,,wood4
   ,,charles ,e4 ,,emery1 ,c4 ,e4       
,,joshua ,,rose1 ,m4 ,e4   ,,pierre ,,de
 ,p4 ,,ricketts1 ,,ph4 ,d4   ,,hon4     
,,orestes ,,cleveland4   ,w4 ,t4 ,j4    
,,krajewski1 ,c4 ,e4   ,s4 ,w4 ,,green1 
,,esq4   ,,john ,,birkinbine1 ,c4 ,e4   
,,henry ,l4 ,,brevoort1 ,c4 ,e4         

,,lieut4 ,a4 ,a4 ,,boyd1 ,u4 ,s4 ,n4    
,,abram ,l4 ,,holley1 ,c4 ,e4           
,,coleman ,,sellers1 ,m4 ,e4   ,,prof4  
,c4 ,w4 ,mc,c,o,r,d4   ,,irving ,m4     
,,scott1 ,,esq4   ,f4 ,a4 ,,mcdowell1   
,c4 ,e4   ,h4 ,a4 ,,mott1 ,,jr41 ,,ph4  
,d4   ,w4 ,h4 ,,payne1 ,c4 ,e4          
,,george ,h4 ,,benjamin1 ,m4 ,d4        
,,theron ,,skell1 ,c4 ,e4   ,,william   
,,kent1 ,c4 ,e4   ,w4 ,e4 ,,kelly1      
,,esq4   ,f4 ,t4 ,,thurston1 ,c4 ,e4    
,,john ,,hollingsworth1 ,,esq4          
,,appletons' ,,cyclopaedia ,,of         
,,applied ,,mechanics of #ahgi is a new 
work1 and not a revision of the former  
,dictionary of ,mechanics of #ahej4 ,it 
aims to present the best and latest     
,american practice in the mechanical    
arts1 and to compare the same with that 
of other nations4 ,it also exhibits the 
extent to which ,american invention and 
discovery have contributed to the       
world's progress during the last quarter
 century4 ,its production is deemed     
timely in view of the existing popular  

interest in the labors of the mechanic  
and inventor which has been awakened by 
the great ,international ,expositions of
 the last decade1 and by the wonderful  
discoveries made by ,american inventors 
during the past three years4  ,the      
,,contributors whose names are given    
above number many of the most eminent   
,american mechanical experts and        
engineers4 ,several of their            
contributions contain the results of    
original research and thought1 never    
before published4 ,their efforts have in
 all cases tended to simplify the       
subjects treated1 to avoid              
technicalities1 and so to render all    
that is presented easily understood by  
the general reader as well as by the    
mechanical student4 ,examples are       
appended to all rules1 explanations to  
all tables1 and in such matters as the  
uses of tools and management of machines
 the instructions are unusually minute  
and accurate4  ,in semi-monthly ,parts1 
#ej cents each4  ,subscriptions received

 only for the entire work of            
,twenty-four ,parts4         99       99
       99       99       99  ,d4        
,,appleton  ,,co41 ,,publishers1 #edi   
#eea ,,broadway1 ,,new ,,york4