THE "GENERAL MORPHOLOGY" 201 



ence and Knowledge)." Another heading runs: 

 " Analysis and Synthesis." Then there are : 

 "Induction and Deduction," "Dogmatism and 

 Criticism," " Teleology and Causality (Vitalism 

 and Mechanism)," "Dualism and Monism." The 

 last three antithetic headings are united under a 

 general title as "Critique of Scientific Methods 

 that are Mutually Exclusive." Such a title illu- 

 mines the whole situation like a flash of lightning. 

 Many years afterwards Haeckel himself said of his 

 General Morphology that it was a comprehensive 

 and difficult work that had found few readers. At 

 least the whole of this first and most difficult part 

 of the book must be defended against the criticism 

 of its parent. If it is far from adequately appre- 

 ciated to-day, especially by professional philoso- 

 phers, that is certainly not due to its style, which is 

 a model of clearness in the eyes of any one with the 

 least philosophical culture. The real evil was that 

 people did not look to it for instruction from the 

 philosophical side. The title, " Morphology of 

 Organisms," had a technical sound. The empty 

 space between professional philosophy and pro- 

 fessional zoology is wide enough to-day, but it 

 was far wider thirty-four years ago. Books like 

 Biichner's superficial and popular Force and 

 Mattery or Haeckel's own later work, the History 

 of GreatioUj that can only be regarded as a brief 

 and incomplete popular extract in comparison with 

 the General Morphology, with all its peculiar 

 literary charm, stole into the philosophy of the 

 time like foxes with burning straw tied to their 



