OF NATURE. 553 



powers of the human mind, which was conceived as 

 itself producing, on the provocation of an unknown 

 external (Kant) or internal (Fichte) impulse, all the 

 manifold and interesting features of the scenery which 

 surrounded it. 



Now it was the conviction that this view of nature 

 was slighting, unpoetical, and degrading, which prompted 

 Schelling to elaborate his " Philosophy of Nature." In 

 his mind the contrast w T hich we are now accus- 

 tomed to emphasise between " Philosophy of Nature " 

 and " Natural Philosophy " was not clearly marked. 

 Among the members of his school were many of the . , 1( !- 



> Biological 



foremost naturalists, and indeed some of his ideas s^f/ing. 

 were adopted from an eminent biologist, K. F. Kiel- 

 meyer, 1 who published in 1793 his well-known address 

 on the ' Eelation of Organic Forces.' He was an elder 

 contemporary and friend of the celebrated Cuvier, the 

 foremost naturalist of the age, who subsequently became 

 one of the most strenuous opponents of Schelling's 

 teachings. Nor can it be denied that Cuvier himself, 

 in spite of his virulent attacks on the " Philosophy of 

 Nature," inherited likewise many of the philosophical 

 prejudices of earlier times, and that he moreover failed 

 to recognise the great truth which that philosophy 

 contained, and which was to play such a great part in 

 the second half of the nineteenth century : the idea of 



1 Through his influence on Cuvier history of a truly philosophical 



(see preface to the ' Le9ons d'An- conception of animated nature, 



atomie coinparee'), on Humboldt ; He published little, but his Lectures 



(who dedicated to him a zoological ' as a Professor at Tubingen, which 



tract on 'Comparative Anatomy,' ! were copied and circulated in manu- 



1806), and on Schelling, we may 

 look upon Kielmeyer (1765-1844) 

 as a central figure in the early 



script, had an important and wide- 

 spread influence. 



