their own opinions. Similar evaluation of Baer's views in 

 many cases depends upon an arbitrary interpretation of his 

 separate discussions, sometimes pulled out of context: in 

 addition to this, this evaluation does not reflect the 

 contradictions within Baer's views, so natural in his era, 

 when religious dogma and philosophical idealism resisted 

 the tendency to interpret natural phenomena by a simplified 

 materialism. 



In the remarks on his list of works published in his 

 autobiography, in particular in the remarks to UBER 

 ENTWICKLUNGSGESCHICHTE, Baer wrote: 



On the subject of my general opinions situated 

 in both parts of this work, the reproach was 

 made that they were too mechanical . I confess 

 that I take this reproach for praise , because 

 it is better to stand on solid ground than to 

 be up in the clouds . For the naturalistic 

 point of view the rule generally answers of 

 talking only about what I have really seen, 

 and concluding ideas from observations, and 

 not basing observations on preconceived ideas. 

 That is what I took for myself from the rule. ^ 



Baer's philosophical terms must not be judged by present' 

 day standards. When Baer accepted the statement about his 

 "mechanical" opinions as praise, it must be taken as his 

 recognition of the materialistic character of his thought. 

 Baer wanted to assert that his views were opposite to an 

 idealistic "being up in the clouds." His naturalistic 

 approach, based on observations of actually existing phenom- 

 ena, free from preconceived ideas, must be regarded as a 

 progressive outlook for a naturalist of the first third of 

 the nineteenth century. 



In this remark Baer recalled his studies of the history 

 of embryology, in particular the work of Fabricius ab 



44. Baer, NACHRICHTEN UBER LEBEN UND SCHRIFTEN, 

 p. 441. 



508 



