162 HAECKEL 



there is in the investigation of facts the better. 

 But the other side of the matter is that no power 

 in heaven or on earth has anything to say as 

 regards its work on things that it holds to be facts. 

 The only possible logical conclusion from this, 

 with reference to the question of the cell-soul, 

 was for the investigator of facts to say : Even in 

 respect of the psychic life we go our way and 

 look neither to right nor left, whatever conclusions 

 and assumptions the philosopher makes. Virchow 

 acted very differently. 



He first grants that this dissolution of man 

 into a federal unity of countless cells rrmst some- 

 how affect the '' unified soul." We are compelled 

 '* to set up a plurality even in the psychic life." 

 He has reached the limit of his radicalism. We 

 expect him to continue : Hence, as in the case 

 of the Mosaic story of creation, of Darwinism, of 

 the cell-theory as a whole, so here we men of 

 science go our way unmoved ; even if the whole 

 of the teaching that has hitherto prevailed in 

 philosophy and theology in regard to the soul 

 breaks down, we simply go our way, and do 

 not ask anybody's permission. This he does 

 not do. Take one step further, he says, and 

 we *'can easily believe that it is necessary to 

 split up our whole psychic life in this way and 

 ascribe a soul to each individual cell." Haeckel 

 believed a little later that this was necessary; 

 that the most rigorous logic compelled us to 

 do it. But, says Virchow suddenly, we must 

 protest most vigorously against this. This de- 



