impossible that any individual animal species of this type 

 could have been logically thought to exist in such a way 

 that the species could not possibly live," Q>. 560) Further 

 on, Wolff gave the case of the sheep embryo monstrosity 

 described by Antonelli in 1703, which consisted of an abdomen 

 with an umbilicus and hind legs, but without head, anterior 

 legs and thoracic cavity; in the abdominal cavity there 

 was nothing except a mesentry with the intestine and a deformed 

 stomach, i.e. there was neither a liver, nor a kidney and 

 moreover no heart and lungs. 



The monster described by Barfolome Zeifart, in addition 

 to its other imperfections, was characterized by the presence 

 of one well -formed eye at the base of the forehead, which was 

 at the same time devoid of the optic nerve, "What is the 

 purpose of such an eye," Wolff asked. "If it could see, why 

 was there not an optic nerve? If it could not see, why, in 

 this monster, was such an incomplete eye formed?" The general 

 conclusion Wolff reached is stated in the following sentences: 

 "I am sure that these examples are sufficient for proving 

 that monsters are not the production of God, but of nature; 

 however, there are productions which have developed unsuc- 

 cessfully." Cp- 567) The report is terminated by short 

 statements showing the importance of studying monsters in 

 order to establish the historical theory of development, i.e. 

 for the substantiation of epigenesis. 



Not in any other single report did Wolff mention God 

 so frequently and constantly as in this work, where he 

 names Him as the High Power, sometimes as the High Creator, 

 or as the very wise Founder, or as the Essence of intelligence. 

 All these names were set up in capital letters and were 

 sharply pronounced throughout the text. The work is produced 

 in such a way as to create the impression that it is 

 theological in origin. Actually it was evaluated as such by 

 observers in the period of Queen Catherine II when the latter 

 actively pursued the representatives of progressive thought 

 in Russia. 



Wolff's argument itself does not look usual here. In 

 the letter of Wolff to Haller, 4 written in answer to Haller's 



4. The translation of this letter is given in B. E. Raikov's 

 book, pp. 67-78. 



98 



