170 HAECKEL 



made the starting-point of infinitely new and 

 more complex movements ? Or — was the work 

 of these natm'al laws but a ceaseless poking and 

 thrusting and bubble-blowing without any inner 

 meaning ? Was it the play of waves that rise 

 and fall, and rise and fall again, in the ocean, 

 an eternal melting into smoke and nothingness ? 

 Was the whole of ^'evolution" an absolutely 

 meaningless play of innumerable tendencies, not 

 one of which would ever come to anything? 



This note also was found in the first melody. 

 Something would have been lacking if it had 

 not been struck. Here again there could be a 

 parting of ways, not only in the crowd, but 

 amongst the thoughtful. The whole struggle of 

 optimism and pessimism might be dragged in. 

 At all events, the problem was bound to be 

 pointed out from the start. 



When Volger, not a bad opponent at the bottom, 

 and Haeckel had made their speeches, indicating 

 at once certain lasting antitheses within the 

 subtle philosophy of Darwinism, Virchow closes 

 the debates and the Congress with a most 

 dangerous blessing. In essentials he is once more 

 on the side of Haeckel. He suggests that geology 

 should be allowed to mature a little before final 

 judgment is passed. The strongest evidence for 

 evolution is found in embryology (the science of 

 the embryonic forms and uterine development of 

 living species of animals). The prophecy was 

 fulfilled, if ever prophecy was, and in Haeckel's 

 own most particular field of work. But, in fine — 



