THE CROWNING YEARS 305 



a deadly sin, and laughed Homeric laughter. 

 To-day we have, both in England and Germany, a 

 strong claim arising amongst the metaphysicians 

 themselves for a return to a realist basis. 

 Haeckel's second and chief sin was his claim to 

 have thrown light on the evolution of conscious- 

 ness and his disdain of all study of mind that 

 was not grounded on evolution. To-day Gram- 

 zow writes : " The criticism which he makes of 

 Kant's theory of knowledge from the evolutionary 

 point of view is the greatest advance that philo- 

 sophy has made in that branch since Kant's time." 

 The most violent critics of the Eidclle were the 

 theologians. It would be improper here to enter 

 into the controversy, and indeed Haeckel has 

 paid little attention to his critics of late years. 

 Some time ago a German religious magazine was 

 sent to me in which one of his leading critics had 

 written a shameful article with the aim of aliena- 

 ting him from me. I at once wrote to him, and 

 received a letter brimming over with his hearty 

 laughter at the idea that he might have taken any 

 notice of what they said. The eminent ecclesias- 

 tical historian, Professor Loofs, made a ponderous 

 attack on his incidental reference to the birth of 

 Christ. As Loofs himself denied the divinity and 

 supernatural birth of Christ, Haeckel felt little 

 inclination to enter on a serious argument about 

 the human parentage. The theologian was so 

 much hurt that he used language, as far as was 

 consistent with a broad view of the theological 

 dignity, that came within legal limits, and then 



20 



