72 



TEE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTELY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



tersely styled the "essential bestiality of man" 

 have been accepted by many, both of those who 

 think, and those (a far greater number) who al- 

 low others to think for them. But the number 

 of those who are qualified to form any judgment 

 whatever on such a point is exceedingly limited, 

 and certainly many of the most distinguished 

 authorities by no means accept these views. 

 Where in England is there a more accomplished 

 naturalist than Mr. Mivart ? and his verdict is 

 well known and remembered both by friend and 

 foe — that it is a " puerile hypothesis." Is it sup- 

 ported by the great name of Von Baer on the 

 Continent, or by the philosophic Ulrici ? But 

 why enumerate individuals ? The height of a 

 crowd is the height of the tallest man in the 

 crowd. Among naturalists the name of the late 

 Prof. Agassiz stands easily with the very first in 

 all lands. A few weeks ago, I had a letter from 

 his widow in America, sending me the last sheets 

 to which he put his corrections, in which these 

 theories are subjected to the most pitiless and 

 destructive criticism. In Germany, where evolu- 

 tionary doctrines at one time obtained consider- 

 able sway, there is now a great reaction in favor 

 of the " indisputable conclusions of experience." 

 When Haeckel, in the course of last autumn's 

 meeting of natural philosophers at Munich, vent- 

 ured to give, in a somewhat flippant style, his 

 summary account of the development of man's 

 body and soul from inorganic matter, he received 

 what can only be called a severe rebuke from the 

 veteran Virchow. The Times correspondent gives 

 this sketch of the effect of Haeckel's address 

 on the meeting : 



" When this confession was uttered before the 

 assembled professors and other aiders and abet- 

 tors of the Muses, a shudder seems to have passed 

 through the august conclave. The meeting, being 

 the fiftieth since the institution of these annual 

 assemblies, had a more solemn character than 

 usually belongs to scientific gatherings. The ex- 

 treme bias of the views expounded formed too 

 marked a contrast to the lofty tone that pervaded 

 the assembly to be ignored by the more moderate 

 elements present. It was felt that, skeptically 

 inclined as the nation and its learned professors 

 might be, the majority were hardly disposed to 

 adopt the materialist philosophy recommended to 

 them as the only teaching consistent with'the ra- 

 tional enlightenment of the times." 



Four days afterward Dr. Virchow ascended 

 the speaker's tribune, to enter a solemn protest 

 against the unscientific mode of teaching that 

 was so frequently adopted. He reminded the 

 assembly that the production of the first or- 



ganism from inorganic matter had never been 

 proved ; that the manner in which certain chem- 

 ical elements were alleged to grow into a soul 

 was incomprehensible to unprejudiced investi- 

 gators ; and that the connection between mon- 

 key and man, to say nothing of that between 

 crab and man, was unintelligible to those zoolo- 

 gists content to argue from what came under 

 their observation. The report of the Times is 

 thus continued : 



" This declaration coming from such a man as 

 Prof. Virchow made no little noise in German 

 lands. The great pathologist being considered a 

 luminary in natural science, opposed to every spe- 

 cies of orthodoxy and altogether innocent of faith, 

 the cautious distinction he drew between fact and 

 conjecture went far to convince the uninitiated 

 that the production of man in the chemist's retort 

 was not likely to be recorded among the discov- 

 eries of the age. The cold water the professor 

 dashed into the face of these vain imaginings has 

 sobered public opinion and contributed to a whole- 

 some reaction. Still, much is left unsaid in his 

 speech. A dim notion of coming intellectual re- 

 vulsion is pervading Germany at this moment." 



Let me add to this the weighty testimony of 

 one whose claims to be heard on all questions of 

 philosophy are of the highest order : 



" The question really stands thus : Is life phys- 

 ical or no ? For if it be in any sense, however 

 slight and restricted, physical, it is to that extent 

 a subject for the natural philosopher, and for him 

 alone. 



" There must always be a wide field of uncer- 

 tainty (unless we choose to look upon physics as 

 a necessarily finite science) concerning the exact 

 boundary between the attainable and the unattain- 

 able. One herd of ignorant people, with the sole 

 prestige of rapidly-increasing numbers, and with 

 the adhesion of a few fanatical deserters from the 

 ranks of science, refuse to admit that all the 

 phenomena even of ordinary dead matter are 

 strictly and exclusively in the domain of physical 

 science. On the other hand, there is a numerous 

 group, not in the slightest degree entitled to rank 

 as physicists (though in general they assume the 

 proud title of philosophers), who assert that not 

 merely life, but even volition and consciousness, are 

 merely physical manifestations. These opposite 

 errors, into neither of which is it possible for a 

 genuine scientific man to fall, so long at least as 

 he retains his reason, are easily seen to be very 

 closely allied. They are both to be attributed 

 to that credulity which is characteristic alike 

 of ignorance and of incapacity. Unfortunately, 

 there is no cure ; the case is hopeless, for great 

 ignorance almost necessarily presumes incapacity, 

 whether it show itself in the comparatively harm- 



