164 HAECKEL 



take Darwinism as an example of the thing to be 

 avoided, as he did at Munich fourteen years after- 

 wards. The kind of scientific inquiry that Vir- 

 chow advocated is what w^as called ** exact" at a 

 later period. It kept clear of all philosophical 

 speculation, and repeated over and over again that 

 it was only concerned with facts. It had, however, 

 another card to play — peace with *' the Churches." 

 Philosophy was shunned in order to leave a free 

 field for the Churches to build in. Then the exact 

 scientist took his hat and said, I am afraid I am 

 incompetent, and the philosopher is incompetent, 

 to do anything here ; let the Church take the 

 vacant chair, with my compliments. No philo- 

 sophy : on this we will make war to the knife. This 

 is '^ a point where science makes its compromise 

 with the Churches." No one can understand 

 Haeckel's career who does not grasp this anti- 

 thesis. The contrast between Haeckel and Yir- 

 chow, known to all the world since 1877, is clearly 

 indicated. Virchow's speech in 1877 is obscure. 

 We must go back to 1863 to get behind the 

 veil — the veil that hides Virchow, that is to say, 

 the most prominent representative of the hostility 

 to Haeckel. We cannot understand otherwise 

 how this yawning gulf came about between 

 Haeckel's ideas and a school that professed to 

 follow *' exact " research. Haeckel was building 

 up a natural philosophy which, starting from the 

 solid foundation of scientific research and its 

 results, went on to further, and greater, and more 

 far-reaching issues, that could not be seen, but 



