J. R.

Baker
乃e Controversy on FTeedo17

soul must necessarily arise from their combination, there should be no

though it contained an importa]
teaching on the subject in the schools.
of years, Virchow cla血s that
In a remarkable and unexpected passage, reminiscent of Polanyi,s
stlldents.
Science･ Faith, and Society,9 virchow admitted that faith has its place
With some justice, Haeckel 1
even in science ('Es gibt in der Thai auch in der Wissenschafi ein gewisses
morphology, especially so far as
Gebiet des Glaubens')･ In both science and rehgion there were three parts-
not hesitate to agree with the k
a certain quantum of objective truth, a broadmiddle path of faith, and a
own knowledge.
region of subjective and fanciful ideas･ He hlmselfcould not enti,ely
Haeckel ridicules the ideath.
renounce the subjective spirit in science, but he saw how necessary lt Was
to be objective.
proved by experiment. Virchow
remains of extinct animals,th
He stated clearly the necessity for freedom of inquiry (die F,eiheit de,
brought forward, and no expe.
Forschung), and recognized that research-workers must pose and discuss
Mesozoic mammalia areknOwn
their Probleme ; but these must not be taught to the public as doctrines. He
to assume that the rest of the ske
himselfwould not be surprised if it were found that man had animal ances-
to be consistent, must suppose tl
tors, but there was no proof yet･ Intermediatesmight be found in the fu-
skeletal element was the lower 3;
ture, but the known fossil men were not more ape-like than the most
Haeckel uses his full capacity
primitive people living at the present time. suggestion that the doctrine of e
Virchow ended by assuring the audience that scientists would receive
ism. Virchow's vague remarks a
from the govemment all necessary secmity and supportinwhatever direc-
as meaning that the horrors of tl
tions their Pyoblememight lead them･ His speech made a profound
to be regarded as a consequence
impression, not only on those present, but throughout Germany.
points out with some eFect that
It is to be noted that Virchow drew a clear distinction between die
be used, on the contrary, to suppI
Freiheit dell Forschung and die Fyeiheit der wissenschajuichen Leh,e. The
should try to sti且e the doctrine, f
former he demanded as a necessity ; but he feared the teaching of specula-
tive ideas in schools, because he thought that the reputation of science progress. He makes it clear tha
savagely on 'den bodenlosen Wit
would be endangered.
He expresses his surprise that
their teaching to demonstrable fZ
Haeckel had left Munich before Virchow arrived, but the latter,S
their pupils onmiracles and reh;
speech was already available in print next month. Haeckel was not the
Here and there Haeckel desce
man to leave such criticism unanswered･ His reply took the form of a small
describes Bastian (a supporter.
book,点rst published Pin the year after the Munich conference,10 and sub-
Councillor of Confusion'. He bl
sequently translated into English and providedwith a preface by T. H.
up ln POlitical life, for arguing lil
Huxley･8 This work is less fanciful than many of Haeckel,s writings. It
ing human skulls, and for movin
gives the impression of car血l compositon･ The argument is eifective,
large one (Berlin). Heviews Ⅵ
despite the polemical style.
sciencemight be centrally planl
Haeekel's main purpose appears to have been to discredit Virchow by a
city,and castigates the biologistl
Personal attack･ He pays tribute to all that he owes to his former teacher,
standing and disregard of the th･
and even allows that it was Virchow who first converted him to monism,
Huxley's preface to the Englis]
the philosophy that dominated the rest of his life･ He claims, however, that
little essay in characteristic vein.
Virchow has undergone a profound change in outlook. The latter was
to come down heavily on Haect
formerly an insp"ing teacher just because he was willing to discuss his
friends and both were public chZ
ideas with his students, instead of con血ing himself to the recitation of

demonstrable facts ; he did not by any means rej･ect the publication of

gives full credit, however, to Vi]
impressed. indeed, he finds hin]
hypotheses in his earlier days･ His famous generalization, Omnis cellula e
general proposition in Virchow'!
cellula, was only a theory, not a fact ; indeed･ it was not universally valid,
have been so unfavotlrably r∝ei.

92