ular ones, pass a varying judgment on the book according 

 to the intellectual bent of their book reviewers ; but no one 

 of the eminent and leading naturalists has publicly ex- 

 pressed his opinion regarding it. They all maintain a very 

 significant silence, which speaks for itself. Now, however, 

 just at the proper time a book, Die Descendenz-theorie has 

 appeared from the pen of the zoologist. Professor Fleisciv 

 mann of Erlangen, in which Haeckel is severely con- 

 demned. (See Chapter IX.) 



The press-notices of the Weltraetsel, which are quoted 

 in the book will be considered presently. It appears that 

 with reference to natural science, only "laymen" discuss 

 the book and approve of Haeckel's views. This is a point 

 of great importance since it proves satisfactorily that men 

 of science will have nothing to do with the "Weltraetsel." 

 The large number of replies would, however, not allow 

 Haeckel's friends to remain silent. The most extensive 

 defense forthcoming was a pamphlet published by a certain 

 Heinrich Schmidt of Jena. It cannot be gathered from his 

 book (Der Kampf um die Weltraetsel, Bonn, E. Strauss 

 1900) to what profession the author belongs, hence I am 

 unable to judge whence he derives the right to treat 

 Haeckel's opponents in summary a manner. It is sig- 

 nificant to note what class of men, according to Schmidt, 

 received the "Weltraetsel" with enthusiasm and joy. They 

 are August Specht, the free-church editor of "Mensch- 

 entum" and of the "Freien Glocken," Julius Hart, Profes- 

 sor Keller-Zuerich, the philosopher and "Neokantian" Pro- 

 fessor Spitzer of Graz, the popular literateur W. Boelsche, 



110 



