Vir chow's opposition to Darwin 145 



as a leading authority. In Germany, especially, the great majority 

 of the members of the anthropological societies took up an attitude 

 of hostility to him from the 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 ground that it was "unscientific." 



The centre of this inveterate hostility for thirty years — especially 

 after 1877 — was Rudolph Virchow of Berlin, 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 free-thinker, and had in a number of 

 able articles (collected in his Gesammelte Abhandhmgen) 1 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 implications, 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 shown in his excellent 

 lectures of 1863. Just as all the organs and tissues of the human 

 body had originated from those of the nearest related mammals, 

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

 qualities also had been derived from those of his extinct primate 

 ancestor. 



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

 admitted by nearly all who have the requisite acquaintance with 

 biology, and approach the subject without prejudice, encountered a 

 sharp opposition at that time. The opposition found its strongest 

 expression in an address that Virchow delivered at Munich four 

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



1 Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur wissenschaftlichen Medizin, Berlin, 1856. 

 D. 10 



