52 Prof. Ernst Haeckel 



DR. LEWIS G. JANES : 



Evolution has a very broad back. It can carry all sorts of theories 

 of the universe, and not break down under the load. Our biographical 

 lectures have at least been successful in demonstrating that the doc- 

 trine of evolution can be held in connection with a great variety of 

 theological and anti-theological speculations. Yet, when any complete 

 philosophical statement of the doctrine is attempted, we find, I think, 

 substantial agreement in fundamental principles. Darwin, as has been 

 said, did not assume to have any consistent, well-ordered explanation 

 of the general philosophy of evolution. He appeared to incline at one 

 time to theistic, at another to materialistic views of the world, yet he 

 named Herbert Spencer " our greatest philosopher," and did not ex- 

 pressly dissent from his main doctrines. Asa Gray was a pronounced 

 theist, who did not regard the doctrine of evolution as inconsistent 

 with his Presbyterian profession of faith. Wallace is a spiritualist, 

 and Prof. Haeckel a monist, but not more of one, as I understand 

 it, than Darwin or Spencer. The doctrine of evolution is unquestion- 

 ably indebted to Prof. Haeckel more than to any living biological 

 investigator for an immense and orderly array of facts in its support. 

 He has also contributed something of value to its broader field of 

 philosophical thought. Mr'. Wakeman's interpretation of Haeckel's 

 monisfic philosophy, however, to my mind, is not entirely correct or 

 adequate. It is not, as I understand it from his writings, inconsistent 

 with the recognition of the psychological principle of the relativity of 

 our knowledge, on which rests Herbert Spencer's doctrine of the un- 

 knowable. On the contrary, it expressly recognizes this principle. 

 Prof. Haeckel clearly states the doctrine of relativity in numerous 

 passages in his writings. In his History of Creation he says : " We 

 nowhere arrive at a knowledge of first causes. ... In explaining the 

 most simple physical or chemical phenomena, as the falling of a stone, 

 or the formation of chemical combinations, we arrive ... at other 

 remoter phenomena which are in themselves mysterious. This arises 

 from the limitation or relativity of our powers of understanding. We 

 must not forget that human knowledge is absolutely limited, and pos- 

 sesses only a relative extension. It is, in its essence, limited by the 

 very nature of our senses and of our brains." He also evidently be- 

 lieves that life is no mere by-play of nature, as Mr. Wakeman has 

 represented it to be, but a constant and eternal ingredient in the uni- 

 verse. He speaks of " the animating of all matter, the inseparability 

 of mental power and corporeal substance." He quotes approvingly 

 Goethe's assertion that " matter can never exist and be active without 

 mind, nor can mind without matter." With Mr. Spencer he recognizes 



