Virchow's opposition to Danviii 145 



as a leadino^ authority. In Germany, especially, the great majority 

 of the members of the anthropological societies took up an attitude 

 of hostility to him from tlie very beginning of the controversy in 

 1860. The Descent of Man was not merely rejected, but even the 

 discussion of it was forbidden on the gi'ound that it was "unscientific." 



The centre of this inveterate hostility for thirty years — especially 

 after 1877 — was Rudolph Virchow of Bci-lin, the leading investigator 

 in pathological anatomy, who did so much for the reform of medicine 

 by his establishment of cellular pathology in 1858. As a prominent 

 representative of "exact" or "descriptive" anthropology, and lacking 

 a broad equipment in comparative anatomy and ontogeny, he was 

 unable to accept the theory of descent. In earlier years, and 

 especially during his splendid period of activity at WUrzburg (1848 — 

 1856), he had been a consistent fi'ce-thinker, and had in a number of 

 able articles (collected in his Gesammelte Abhandlungeny upheld 

 the unity of human nature, the inseparability of body and spirit. 

 In later years at Berlin, where he was more occupied with political 

 work and sociology' (especially after 1866), he abandoned the positive 

 monistic position for one of agnosticism and scepticism, and made 

 concessions to the dualistic dogma of a spiritual world apart from 

 the material frame. 



In the course of a Scientific Congress at Munich in 1877 the 

 conflict of these antithetic views of nature came into sharp relief. 

 At this memorable Congress I had undertaken to deliver the first 

 address (September 18th) on the subject of "Modern evolution in 

 relation to the whole of science." I maintained that Darwin's theory 

 not only solved the great problem of the origin of species, but that 

 its imi)lications, especially in regard to the nature of man, threw 

 considerable light on the whole of science, and on anthropology in 

 particular. The discovery of the real origin of man by evolution 

 from a long series of mammal ancestors threw light on his place in 

 nature in every aspect, as Huxley had already sho>\i) in his excellent 

 lectines of 186:5. Just as all the organs and tissues of the human 

 body had originated from those of the nearest related mammals, 

 certJiin ape-like forms, so we were bound to conclude that his mental 

 (luulitics also had been derived from those of his extinct primate 

 ancestor. 



This monistic view of the origin and nature of man, which is now 

 !i(hiiittcd by nearly all who have the re(iuisite ac(piaintance with 

 biology, and ai)proach the subject without prejudice, encountered a 

 sharp opposition at that time. The opposition found its strongest 

 cxjjression in an address that Virchow delivered at Munich four 

 days afterwards (Sej)tember 22nd), on "The freedom of science in 



* Oesammelle AbJiandlungen zur wisaeiucha/tlichen Medizin, Berlin, 1856. 

 D. 10 



