diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53639-0.txt | 3834 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53639-0.zip | bin | 78497 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53639-h.zip | bin | 979214 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53639-h/53639-h.htm | 4698 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53639-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 117375 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53639-h/images/frontis.jpg | bin | 37869 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53639-h/images/i_119.jpg | bin | 44569 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53639-h/images/i_plate1-large.jpg | bin | 188274 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53639-h/images/i_plate1.jpg | bin | 55948 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53639-h/images/i_plate2-large.jpg | bin | 247456 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53639-h/images/i_plate2.jpg | bin | 34361 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53639-h/images/i_plate3-large.jpg | bin | 164840 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53639-h/images/i_plate3.jpg | bin | 43605 -> 0 bytes |
16 files changed, 17 insertions, 8532 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2088719 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #53639 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53639) diff --git a/old/53639-0.txt b/old/53639-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index b1c8a63..0000000 --- a/old/53639-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,3834 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, Last Words on Evolution , by Ernst Haeckel, -Translated by Joseph McCabe - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - - -Title: Last Words on Evolution - A Popular Retrospect and Summary - - -Author: Ernst Haeckel - - - -Release Date: November 30, 2016 [eBook #53639] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LAST WORDS ON EVOLUTION *** - - -E-text prepared by MWS, Adrian Mastronardi, John Campbell, and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images -generously made available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org) - - - -Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this - file which includes the original illustrations. - See 53639-h.htm or 53639-h.zip: - (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/53639/53639-h/53639-h.htm) - or - (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/53639/53639-h.zip) - - - Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive. See - https://archive.org/details/lastwordsonevolu00haeciala - - -Transcriber's note: - - Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_). - - More details of transcription can be found at the end of the - book. - - - - - -LAST WORDS ON EVOLUTION - - -[Illustration: Bräunlich & Tesch (Emil Tesch), Hofphot. Jena. -Published by A. Owen & Co., London. - -Ernst Haeckel.] - - -LAST WORDS ON EVOLUTION - -A Popular Retrospect and Summary - -by - -ERNST HAECKEL - -Professor at Jena University - -Translated from the Second Edition by Joseph McCabe - -With Portrait and Three Plates - - - - - - - -London -A. Owen & Co. -28 Regent Street, S.W. -1906 - - - - -CONTENTS - - - PAGE - - INTRODUCTION 7 - - PREFACE 11 - - - CHAPTER I - - THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT CREATION - - Evolution and Dogma 15 - - PLATE I.--Genealogical Tree of the Vertebrates 17 - - - CHAPTER II - - THE STRUGGLE OVER OUR GENEALOGICAL TREE - - Our Ape-Relatives and the Vertebrate-Stem 49 - - PLATE II.--Skeletons of Five Anthropoid Apes 51 - - - CHAPTER III - - THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE SOUL - - The Ideas of Immortality and God 83 - - PLATE III.--Embryos of Three Mammals 85 - - - APPENDIX - - EVOLUTIONARY TABLES - - Geological Ages and Periods 115 - - Man's Genealogical Tree--_First Half_ 116 - - Man's Genealogical Tree--_Second Half_ 117 - - Classification of the Primates 118 - - Genealogical Tree of the Primates 119 - - Explanation of Genealogical Table 1. 120 - - - POSTSCRIPT - - Evolution and Jesuitism 121 - - - - -INTRODUCTION - - -A few months ago the sensational announcement was made that -Professor Haeckel had abandoned Darwinism and given public support -to the teaching of a Jesuit writer. There was something piquant -in the suggestion that the "Darwin of Germany" had recanted the -conclusions of fifty years of laborious study. Nor could people -forget that only two years before Haeckel had written with some -feeling about the partial recantation of some of his colleagues. -Many of our journals boldly declined to insert the romantic news, -which came through one of the chief international press agencies. -Others drew the attention of their readers, in jubilant editorial -notes, to the lively prospect it opened out. To the many inquiries -addressed to me as the "apostle of Professor Haeckel," as Sir -Oliver Lodge dubs me in a genial letter, I timidly represented that -even a German reporter sometimes drank. But the correction quickly -came that the telegram had exactly reversed the position taken up -by the great biologist. It is only just to the honourable calling -of the reporter to add that, according to the theory current in -Germany, the message was tampered with by subtle and ubiquitous -Jesuistry. Did they not penetrate even into the culinary service at -Hatfield? - -I have pleasure in now introducing the three famous lectures -delivered by Professor Haeckel at Berlin, and the reader will -see the grotesqueness of the original announcement. They are the -last public deliverance that the aged professor will ever make. -His enfeebled health forbids us to hope that his decision may yet -be undone. He is now condemned, he tells me, to remain a passive -spectator of the tense drama in which he has played so prominent -a part for half a century. For him the red rays fall level on the -scene and the people about him. It may be that they light up too -luridly, too falsely, the situation in Germany; but the reader will -understand how a Liberal of Haeckel's temper must feel his country -to be between Scylla and Charybdis--between an increasingly clear -alternative of Catholicism or Socialism--with a helmsman at the -wheel whose vagaries inspire no confidence. - -The English reader will care to be instructed on the antithesis of -Virchow and Haeckel which gives point to these lectures, and which -is often misrepresented in this country. Virchow, the greatest -pathologist and one of the leading anthropologists of Germany, had -much to do with the inspiring of Haeckel's Monistic views in the -fifties. Like several other prominent German thinkers, Virchow -subsequently abandoned the positive Monistic position for one of -agnosticism and scepticism, and a long and bitter conflict ensued. -It is hardly too much to say that Virchow's ultra-timid reserve in -regard to the evolution of man and other questions has died with -him. Apart from one or two less prominent anthropologists, and -the curious distinction drawn by Dr. A. R. Wallace, science has -accepted the fact of evolution, and has, indeed, accepted the main -lines of Haeckel's ancestral tree of the human race. - -In any case, Haeckel had the splendid revenge of surviving his old -teacher and almost lifelong opponent. Berlin had for years been -dominated by the sceptical temper of Virchow and Du Bois-Reymond. -The ardent evolutionist and opponent of Catholicism was impatient -of a reserve that he felt to be an anachronism in science and an -effective support of reactionary ideas. It was, therefore, with -a peculiar satisfaction that he received the invitation, after -Virchow's death, to address the Berlin public. Among the many and -distinguished honours that have been heaped upon him in the last -ten years this was felt by him to hold a high place. He could at -last submit freely, in the capital of his country, the massive -foundations and the imposing structure of a doctrine which he holds -to be no less established in science than valuable in the general -cause of progress. - -The lectures are reproduced here not solely because of the -interest aroused in them by the "Jesuit" telegram. They contain a -very valuable summary of his conclusions, and include the latest -scientific confirmation. Rarely has the great biologist written -in such clear and untechnical phrases, so that the general reader -will easily learn the outlines of his much-discussed Monism. To -closer students, who are at times impatient of the Lamarckian -phraseology of Haeckel--to all, in fact, who would like to see how -the same evolutionary truths are expressed without reliance on the -inheritance of acquired characters--I may take the opportunity -to say that I have translated, for the same publishers, Professor -Guenther's "Darwinism and the Problems of Life," which will shortly -be in their hands. - - JOSEPH MCCABE. - - _November, 1905._ - - - - -PREFACE - - -In the beginning of April, 1905, I received from Berlin a very -unexpected invitation to deliver a popular scientific lecture -at the Academy of Music in that city. I at first declined this -flattering invitation, with thanks, sending them a copy of a -printed declaration, dated 17th July, 1901, which I had made -frequent use of, to the effect that "I could not deliver any more -public lectures, on account of the state of my health, my advanced -age, and the many labours that were still incumbent on me." - -I was persuaded to make one departure from this fixed resolution, -firstly, by the pressing entreaties of many intimate friends -at Berlin. They represented to me how important it was to give -an account myself to the educated Berlin public of the chief -evolutionary conclusions I had advocated for forty years. They -pointed out emphatically that the increasing reaction in higher -circles, the growing audacity of intolerant orthodoxy, the -preponderance of Ultramontanism, and the dangers that this involved -for freedom of thought in Germany, for the university and the -school, made it imperative to take vigorous action. It happened -that I had just been following the interesting efforts that the -Church has lately made to enter into a peaceful compromise with -its deadly enemy, Monistic science. It has decided to accept -to a certain extent, and to accommodate to its creed (in a -distorted and mutilated form) the doctrine of evolution, which it -has vehemently opposed for thirty years. This remarkable change -of front on the part of the Church militant seemed to me so -interesting and important, and at the same time so misleading and -mischievous, that I chose it as the subject of a popular lecture, -and accepted the invitation to Berlin. - -After a few days, when I had written my discourse, I was advised -from Berlin that the applications for admission were so numerous -that the lecture must either be repeated or divided into two. I -chose the latter course, as the material was very abundant. In -compliance with an urgent request, I repeated the two lectures -(17th and 18th April); and as demands for fresh lectures continued -to reach me, I was persuaded to add a "farewell lecture" (on 19th -April), in which I dealt with a number of important questions that -had not been adequately treated. - -The noble gift of effective oratory has been denied me by Nature. -Though I have taught for eighty-eight terms at the little -University of Jena, I have never been able to overcome a certain -nervousness about appearing in public, and have never acquired -the art of expressing my thoughts in burning language and with -appropriate gesture. For these and other reasons, I have rarely -consented to take part in scientific and other congresses; the few -speeches that I have delivered on such occasions, and are issued -in collected form, were drawn from me by my deep interest in the -great struggle for the triumph of truth. However, in the three -Berlin lectures--my _last_ public addresses--I had no design of -winning my hearers to my opinions by means of oratory. It was -rather my intention to put before them, in connected form, the -great groups of biological facts, by which they could, on impartial -consideration, convince themselves of the truth and importance of -the theory of evolution. - -Readers who are interested in the evolution-controversy, as I -here describe it, will find in my earlier works (_The History of -Creation_, _The Evolution of Man_, _The Riddle of the Universe_, -and _The Wonders of Life_) a thorough treatment of the views I -have summarily presented. I do not belong to the amiable group -of "men of compromise," but am in the habit of giving candid and -straightforward expression to the convictions which a half-century -of serious and laborious study has led me to form. If I seem to be -a tactless and inconsiderate "fighter," I pray you to remember that -"conflict is the father of all things," and that the victory of -pure reason over current superstition will not be achieved without -a tremendous struggle. But I regard _ideas_ only in my struggles: -to the _persons_ of my opponents I am indifferent, bitterly as they -have attacked and slandered my own person. - -Although I have lived in Berlin for many years as student and -teacher, and have always been in communication with scientific -circles there, I have only once before delivered a public lecture -in that city. That was on "The Division of Labour in Nature and -Human Life" (17th December, 1868). I was, therefore, somewhat -gratified to be able to speak there again (and for the last time), -after thirty-six years, especially as it was in the very spot, the -hall of the Academy of Music, in which I had heard the leaders of -the Berlin University speak fifty years ago. - -It is with great pleasure that I express my cordial thanks to those -who invited me to deliver these lectures, and who did so much to -make my stay in the capital pleasant; and also to my many hearers -for their amiable and sympathetic attention. - - ERNST HAECKEL. - - JENA, _9th May, 1905_. - - - - -CHAPTER I - -THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT CREATION - -EVOLUTION AND DOGMA - - -EXPLANATION OF PLATE I - -GENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE VERTEBRATES - - - The genetic relationship of all vertebrates, from the earliest - acrania and fishes up to the apes and man, is proved in its - main lines by the concordant testimony of paleontology, - comparative anatomy, and embryology. All competent and - impartial zoologists now agree that the vertebrates are all - descended from a _single_ stem, and that the root of this is - to be sought in extinct pre-Silurian _Acrania_ (1), somewhat - similar to the living lancelet. The _Cyclostoma_ (2) represent - the transition from the latter to the _Fishes_ (3); and the - _Dipneusts_ (4) the transition from these to the _Amphibia_ - (5). From the latter have been developed the _Reptiles_ (6) - on the one hand, and the _Mammals_ (7) on the other. The - most important branch of this most advanced class is the - _Primates_ (8); from the half-apes, or lemurs, a direct line - leads, through the baboons, to the anthropoid apes, and - through these on to man. (_Cf._ the tables on pp. 115-120). - Further information will be found in chapters xxiv.-xxvii. of - the _History of Creation_, and chapters xxi.-xxiii. of the - _Evolution of Man_. - - -PLATE I. - -[Illustration: GENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE VERTEBRATES] - - -LAST WORDS ON EVOLUTION - - -CHAPTER I - -THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT CREATION - -EVOLUTION AND DOGMA - - -The controversy over the idea of evolution is a prominent feature -in the mental life of the nineteenth century. It is true that a -few great thinkers had spoken of a natural evolution of all things -several thousand years ago. They had, indeed, partly investigated -the laws that control the birth and death of the world, and the -rise of the earth and its inhabitants; even the creation-stories -and the myths of the older religions betray a partial influence -of these evolutionary ideas. But it was not until the nineteenth -century that the idea of evolution took definite shape and was -scientifically grounded on various classes of evidence; and it -was not until the last third of the century that it won general -recognition. The intimate connection that was proved to exist -between all branches of knowledge, once the continuity of -historical development was realised, and the union of them all -through the Monistic philosophy, are achievements of the last few -decades. - -The great majority of the older ideas that thoughtful men had -formed on the origin and nature of the world and their own frame -were far removed from the notion of "self-development." They -culminated in more or less obscure creation-myths, which generally -put in the foreground the idea of a personal Creator. Just as man -has used intelligence and design in the making of his weapons and -tools, his houses and his boats, so it was thought that the Creator -had fashioned the world with art and intelligence, according to -a definite plan. Among the many legends of this kind the ancient -Semitic story of creation, familiar to us as the Mosaic narrative, -but drawn for the most part from Babylonian sources, has obtained -a very great influence on European culture owing to the general -acceptance of the Bible. The belief in miracles, that is involved -in these religious legends, was bound to come in conflict, -at an early date, with the evolutionary ideas of independent -philosophical research. On the one hand, in the prevalent religious -teaching, we had the supernatural world, the miraculous, teleology: -on the other hand, in the nascent science of evolution, only -natural law, pure reason, mechanical causality. Every step that was -made by this science brought into greater relief its inconsistency -with the predominant religion.[1] - -If we glance for a moment at the various fields in which the idea -of evolution is scientifically applied we find that, firstly, -the whole universe is conceived as a unity; secondly, our earth; -thirdly, organic life on the earth; fourthly, man, as its highest -product; and fifthly, the soul, as a special immaterial entity. -Thus we have, in historical succession, the evolutionary research -of cosmology, geology, biology, anthropology, and psychology. - -The first comprehensive idea of cosmological evolution was put -forth by the famous critical philosopher Immanuel Kant, in 1755, -in the great work of his earlier years, _General Natural History -of the Heavens, or an Attempt to Conceive and to Explain the -Origin of the Universe mechanically, according to the Newtonian -Laws_. This remarkable work appeared anonymously, and was -dedicated to Frederick the Great, who, however, never saw it. It -was little noticed, and was soon entirely forgotten, until it -was exhumed ninety years afterwards by Alexander von Humboldt. -Note particularly that on the title-page stress is laid on the -_mechanical_ origin of the world and its explanation on Newtonian -principles; in this way the strictly Monistic character of the -whole cosmogony and the absolutely universal rule of natural law -are clearly expressed. It is true that Kant speaks much in it of -God and his wisdom and omnipotence; but this is limited to the -affirmation that God created once for all the unchangeable laws of -nature, and was henceforward bound by them and only able to work -through them. The Dualism which became so pronounced subsequently -in the philosopher of Koenigsberg counts for very little here. - -The idea of a natural development of the world occurs in a clearer -and more consistent form, and is provided with a firm mathematical -basis, forty years afterwards, in the remarkable _Mécanique -Céleste_ of Pierre Laplace. His popular _Exposition du Système du -Monde_ (1796) destroyed at its roots the legend of creation that -had hitherto prevailed, or the Mosaic narrative in the Bible. -Laplace, who had become Minister of the Interior, Count, and -Chancellor of the Senate, under Napoleon, was merely honourable -and consistent when he replied to the emperor's question, "What -room there was for God in his system?": "Sire, I had no need -for that unfounded hypothesis." What strange ministers there -are sometimes![2] The shrewdness of the Church soon recognised -that the personal Creator was dethroned, and the creation-myth -destroyed, by this Monistic and now generally received theory -of cosmic development. Nevertheless it maintained towards it -the attitude which it had taken up 250 years earlier in regard -to the closely related and irrefutable system of Copernicus. It -endeavoured to conceal the truth as long as possible, or to oppose -it with Jesuitical methods, and finally it yielded. If the Churches -now silently admit the Copernican system and the cosmogony of -Laplace and have ceased to oppose them, we must attribute the fact, -partly to a feeling of their spiritual impotence, partly to an -astute calculation that the ignorant masses do not reflect on these -great problems. - -In order to obtain a clear idea and a firm conviction of this -cosmic evolution by natural law, the eternal birth and death of -millions of suns and stars, one needs some mathematical training -and a lively imagination, as well as a certain competence in -astronomy and physics. The evolutionary process is much simpler, -and more readily grasped in geology. Every shower of rain or wave -of the sea, every volcanic eruption and every pebble, gives us a -direct proof of the changes that are constantly taking place on -the surface of our planet. However, the historical significance -of these changes was not properly appreciated until 1822, by Karl -von Hoff of Gotha, and modern geology was only founded in 1830 -by Charles Lyell, who explained the whole origin and composition -of the solid crust of the earth, the formation of the mountains, -and the periods of the earth's development, in a connected system -by natural laws. From the immense thickness of the stratified -rocks, which contain the fossilised remains of extinct organisms, -we discovered the enormous length--running into millions of -years--of the periods during which these sedimentary rocks were -deposited in water. Even the duration of the _organic_ history of -the earth--that is to say, the period during which the plant and -animal population of our planet was developing--must itself be put -at more than a hundred million years. These results of geology and -paleontology destroyed the current legend of the six days' work of -a personal Creator. Many attempts were made, it is true, and are -still being made, to reconcile the Mosaic supernatural story of -creation with modern geology.[3] All these efforts of believers -are in vain. We may say, in fact, that it is precisely the study -of geology, the reflection it entails on the enormous periods of -evolution, and the habit of seeking the simple mechanical causes -of their constant changes, that contribute very considerably to -the advance of enlightenment. Yet in spite of this (or, possibly, -because of this), geological instruction is either greatly -neglected or entirely suppressed in most schools. It is certainly -eminently calculated (in connection with geography) to enlarge -the mind, and acquaint the child with the idea of evolution. An -educated person who knows the elements of geology will never -experience _ennui_. He will find everywhere in surrounding nature, -in the rocks and in the water, in the desert and on the mountains, -the most instructive stimuli to reflection. - -The evolutionary process in organic nature is much more difficult -to grasp. Here we must distinguish two different series of -biological development, which have only been brought into proper -causal connection by means of our biogenetic law (1866); one series -is found in embryology (or ontogeny), the other in phylogeny (or -race-development). In Germany "evolution" always meant embryology, -or a part of the whole, until forty years ago. It stood for a -microscopic examination of the wonderful processes by means of -which the elaborate structure of the plant or animal body is -formed from the simple seed of the plant or the egg of the bird. -Until the beginning of the nineteenth century the erroneous -view was generally received that this marvellously complicated -structure existed, completely formed, in the simple ovum, and that -the various organs had merely to grow and to shape themselves -independently by a process of "evolution" (or unfolding), before -they entered into activity. An able German scientist, Caspar -Friedrich Wolff (son of a Berlin tailor), had already shown the -error of this "pre-formation theory" in 1759. He had proved, in his -dissertation for the doctorate, that no trace of the later body, -of its bones, muscles, nerves, and feathers, can be found in the -hen's egg (the commonest and most convenient object for study), -but merely a small round disk, consisting of two thin superimposed -layers. He had further showed that the various organs are only -built up gradually out of these simple elements, and that we can -trace, step by step, a series of real new growths. However, these -momentous discoveries, and the sound "theory of epigenesis" that -he based on them, were wholly ignored for fifty years, and even -rejected by the leading authorities. It was not until Oken had -re-discovered these important facts at Jena (1806), Pander had more -carefully distinguished the germinal layers (1817), and finally -Carl Ernst von Baer had happily combined observation and reflection -in his classical _Animal Embryology_ (1828), that embryology -attained the rank of an independent science with a sound empirical -base. - -A little later it secured a well-merited recognition in botany -also, especially owing to the efforts of Matthias Schleiden of -Jena, the distinguished student who provided biology with a new -foundation in the "cell theory" (1838). But it was not until the -middle of the nineteenth century that people generally recognised -that the ovum of the plant or animal is itself only a simple cell, -and that the later tissues and organs gradually develop from this -"elementary organism" by a repeated cleavage of, and division of -labour in, the cells. The most important step was then made of -recognising that our human organism also develops from an ovum -(first discovered by Baer in 1827), in virtue of the same laws, and -that its embryonic development resembles that of the other mammals, -especially that of the ape. Each of us was, at the beginning of -his existence, a simple globule of protoplasm, surrounded by a -membrane, about 1/120 of an inch in diameter, with a firmer nucleus -inside it. These important embryological discoveries confirmed the -rational conception of the human organism that had been attained -much earlier by comparative anatomy: the conviction that the -human frame is built in the same way, and develops similarly from -a simple ovum, as the body of all other mammals. Even Linné had -already (1735) given man a place in the mammal class in his famous -_System of Nature_. - -Differently from these embryological facts, which can be directly -observed, the phenomena of phylogeny (the development of species), -which are needed to set the former in their true light, are usually -outside the range of immediate observation. What was the origin of -the countless species of animals and plants? How can we explain the -remarkable relationships which unite similar species into genera -and these into classes? Linné answers the question very simply -with the belief in creation, relying on the generally accepted -Mosaic narrative: "There are as many different species of animals -and plants as there were different forms created by God in the -beginning." The first scientific answer was given in 1809 by the -great French scientist, Lamarck. He taught, in his suggestive -_Philosophie Zoologique_, that the resemblances in form and -structure of groups of species are due to real affinity, and that -all organisms descend from a few very simple primitive forms (or, -possibly, from a single one). These primitive forms were developed -out of lifeless matter by spontaneous generation. The resemblances -of related groups of species are explained by _inheritance_ from -common stem-forms; their dissimilarities are due to _adaptation_ -to different environments, and to variety in the action of the -modifiable organs. The human race has arisen in the same way, by -transformation of a series of mammal ancestors, the nearest of -which are ape-like primates. - -These great ideas of Lamarck, which threw light on the whole -field of organic life, and were closely approached by Goethe in -his own speculations, gave rise to the theory that we now know -as transformism, or the theory of evolution or descent. But the -far-seeing Lamarck was--as Caspar Friedrich Wolff had been fifty -years before--half a century before his time. His theory obtained -no recognition, and was soon wholly forgotten. - -It was brought into the light once more in 1859 by the genius -of Charles Darwin, who had been born in the very year that the -_Philosophie Zoologique_ was published. The substance and the -success of his system, which has gone by the name of Darwinism -(in the wider sense) for forty-six years, are so generally known -that I need not dwell on them. I will only point out that the -great success of Darwin's epoch-making works is due to two causes: -firstly, to the fact that the English scientist most ingeniously -worked up the empirical material that had accumulated during -fifty years into a systematic proof of the theory of descent; and -secondly, to the fact that he gave it the support of a second -theory of his own, the theory of natural selection. This theory, -which gives a causal explanation of the transformation of species, -is what we ought to call "Darwinism" in the strict sense. We cannot -go here into the question how far this theory is justified, or how -far it is corrected by more recent theories, such as Weismann's -theory of germ-plasm (1844), or De Vries's theory of mutations -(1900). Our concern is rather with the unparalleled influence that -Darwinism, and its application to man, have had during the last -forty years on the whole province of science; and at the same time, -with its irreconcilable opposition to the dogmas of the Churches. - -The extension of the theory of evolution to man was, naturally, -one of the most interesting and momentous applications of it. If -all other organisms arose, not by a miraculous creation, but by a -natural modification of earlier forms of life, the presumption is -that the human race also was developed by the transformation of the -most man-like mammals, the primates of Linné--the apes and lemurs. -This natural inference, which Lamarck had drawn in his simple way, -but Darwin had at first explicitly avoided, was first thoroughly -established by the gifted zoologist, Thomas Huxley, in his three -lectures on _Man's Place in Nature_ (1863). He showed that this -"question of questions" is unequivocally answered by three chief -witnesses--the natural history of the anthropoid apes, the anatomic -and embryological relations of man to the animals immediately -below him, and the recently discovered fossil human remains. -Darwin entirely accepted these conclusions of his friend eight -years afterwards, and, in his two-volume work, _The Descent of Man -and Sexual Selection_ (1871), furnished a number of new proofs in -support of the dreaded "descent of man from the ape." I myself -then (1874) completed the task I had begun in 1866, of determining -approximately the whole series of the extinct animal ancestors of -the human race, on the ground of comparative anatomy, embryology, -and paleontology. This attempt was improved, as our knowledge -advanced, in the five editions of my _Evolution of Man_. In the -last twenty years a vast literature on the subject has accumulated. -I must assume that you are acquainted with the contents of one -or other of these works, and will turn to the question, that -especially engages our attention at present, how the inevitable -struggle between these momentous achievements of modern science and -the dogmas of the Churches has run in recent years. - -It was obvious that both the general theory of evolution and -its extension to man in particular must meet from the first -with the most determined resistance on the part of the Churches. -Both were in flagrant contradiction to the Mosaic story of -creation, and other Biblical dogmas that were involved in it, -and are still taught in our elementary schools. It is creditable -to the shrewdness of the theologians and their associates, the -metaphysicians, that they at once rejected Darwinism, and made a -particularly energetic resistance in their writings to its chief -consequence, the descent of man from the ape. This resistance -seemed the more justified and hopeful as, for seven or eight years -after Darwin's appearance, few biologists accepted his theory, and -the general attitude amongst them was one of cold scepticism. I can -well testify to this from my own experience. When I first openly -advocated Darwin's theory at a scientific congress at Stettin in -1863, I was almost alone, and was blamed by the great majority -for taking up seriously so fantastic a theory, "the dream of an -after-dinner nap," as the Göttinger zoologist, Keferstein, called -it. - -The general attitude towards Nature fifty years ago was so -different from that we find everywhere to-day, that it is difficult -to convey a clear idea of it to a young scientist or philosopher. -The great question of creation, the problem how the various species -of plants and animals came into the world, and how man came into -being, did not exist yet in exact science. There was, in fact, no -question of it. - -Seventy-seven years ago Alexander von Humboldt delivered, in this -very spot, the lectures which afterwards made up his famous -work, _Cosmos, the Elements of a Physical Description of the -World_. As he touched, in passing, the obscure problem of the -origin of the organic population of our planet, he could only say -resignedly: "The mysterious and unsolved problem of how things -came to be does not belong to the empirical province of objective -research, the description of what _is_." It is instructive to -find Johannes Müller, the greatest of German biologists in the -nineteenth century, speaking thus in 1852, in his famous essay, -"On the Generation of Snails in Holothurians": "The entrance of -various species of animals into creation is certain--it is a -fact of paleontology; but it is _supernatural_ as long as this -entrance cannot be perceived in the act and become an element of -observation." I myself had a number of remarkable conversations -with Müller, whom I put at the head of all my distinguished -teachers, in the summer of 1854. His lectures on comparative -anatomy and physiology--the most illuminating and stimulating I -ever heard--had captivated me to such an extent that I asked and -obtained his permission to make a closer study of the skeletons and -other preparations in his splendid museum of comparative anatomy -(then in the right wing of the buildings of the Berlin University), -and to draw them. Müller (then in his fifty-fourth year) used to -spend the Sunday afternoon alone in the museum. He would walk to -and fro for hours in the spacious rooms, his hands behind his -back, buried in thought about the mysterious affinities of the -vertebrates, the "holy enigma" of which was so forcibly impressed -by the row of skeletons. Now and again my great master would turn -to a small table at the side, at which I (a student of twenty -years) was sitting in the angle of a window, making conscientious -drawings of the skulls of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes. - -I would then beg him to explain particularly difficult points in -anatomy, and once I ventured to put the question: "Must not all -these vertebrates, with their identity in internal skeleton, in -spite of all their external differences, have come originally from -a common form?" The great master nodded his head thoughtfully, and -said: "Ah, if we only knew that! If ever you solve that riddle, -you will have accomplished a supreme work." Two months afterwards, -in September, 1854, I had to accompany Müller to Heligoland, and -learned under his direction the beautiful and wonderful inhabitants -of the sea. As we fished together in the sea, and caught the lovely -medusæ, I asked him how it was possible to explain their remarkable -alternation of generations; if the medusæ, from the ova of which -polyps develop to-day, must not have come originally from the more -simply organised polyps? To this precocious question, I received -the same resigned answer: "Ah, that is a very obscure problem! We -know nothing whatever about the origin of species." - -Johannes Müller was certainly one of the greatest scientists of the -nineteenth century. He takes rank with Cuvier, Baer, Lamarck, and -Darwin. His insight was profound and penetrating, his philosophic -judgment comprehensive, and his mastery of the vast province -of biology was enormous. Emil du Bois-Reymond happily compared -him, in his fine commemorative address, to Alexander the Great, -whose kingdom was divided into several independent realms at his -death. In his lectures and works Müller treated no less than four -different subjects, for which four separate chairs were founded -after his death in 1858--human anatomy, physiology, pathological -anatomy, and comparative anatomy. In fact, we ought really to add -two more subjects--zoology and embryology. Of these, also, we -learned more from Müller's classic lectures than from the official -lectures of the professors of those subjects. The great master died -in 1858, a few months before Charles Darwin and Alfred R. Wallace -made their first communications on their new theory of selection -in the Journal of the Linnæan Society. I do not doubt in the least -that this surprising answer of the riddle of creation would have -profoundly moved Müller, and have been fully admitted by him on -mature reflection. - -To these leading masters in biology, and to all other anatomists, -physiologists, zoologists, and botanists up to 1858, the question -of organic creation was an unsolved problem; the great majority -regarded it as insoluble. The theologians and their allies, the -metaphysicians, built triumphantly on this fact. It afforded a -clear proof of the limitations of reason and science. A miracle -only could account for the origin of these ingenious and carefully -designed organisms; nothing less than the Divine wisdom and -omnipotence could have brought man into being. But this general -resignation of reason, and the dominance of supernatural ideas -which it encouraged, were somewhat paradoxical in the thirty years -between Lyell and Darwin, between 1830 and 1859, since the natural -evolution of the earth, as conceived by the great geologist, had -come to be universally recognised. Since the earlier of these dates -the iron necessity of natural law had ruled in inorganic nature, -in the formation of the mountains and the movement of the heavenly -bodies. In organic nature, on the contrary, in the creation and the -life of animals and plants, people saw only the wisdom and power of -an intelligent Creator and Controller; in other words, everything -was ruled by mechanical causality in the inorganic world, but by -teleological finality in the realm of biology. - -Philosophy, strictly so called, paid little or no attention to -this dilemma. Absorbed almost exclusively in metaphysical and -dialectical speculations, it looked with supreme contempt or -indifference on the enormous progress that the empirical sciences -were making. It affected, in its character of "purely mental -science," to build up the world out of its own head, and to have no -need of the splendid material that was being laboriously gathered -by observation and experiment. This is especially true of Germany, -where Hegel's system of "absolute idealism" had secured the highest -regard, particularly since it had been made obligatory as "the -royal State-philosophy of Prussia"--mainly because, according to -Hegel, "in the State the Divine will itself and the monarchical -constitution alone represent the development of reason; all -other forms of constitution are lower stages of the development -of reason." Hegel's abstruse metaphysics has also been greatly -appreciated because it has made so thorough and consistent a use -of the idea of evolution. But this pretended "evolution of reason" -floated far above real nature in the pure ether of the absolute -spirit, and was devoid of all the material ballast that the -empirical science of the evolution of the world, the earth, and its -living population, had meantime accumulated. Moreover, it is well -known how Hegel himself declared, with humorous resignation, that -only _one_ of his many pupils had understood him, and this one had -misunderstood him. - -From the higher standpoint of general culture the difficult -question forces itself on us: What is the real value of the idea -of evolution in the whole realm of science? We are bound to -answer that it varies considerably. The facts of the evolution of -the individual, or of ontogeny, were easy to observe and grasp: -the evolution of the crust of the earth and of the mountains in -geology seemed to have an equally sound empirical foundation; the -physical evolution of the universe seemed to be established by -mathematical speculation. There was no longer any serious question -of _creation_, in the literal sense, of the deliberate action -of a personal Creator, in these great provinces. But this made -people cling to the idea more than ever in regard to the origin of -the countless species of animals and plants, and especially the -creation of man. This transcendental problem seemed to be entirely -beyond the range of natural development; and the same was thought -of the question of the nature and origin of the soul, the mystic -entity that was appropriated by metaphysical speculation as its -subject. Charles Darwin suddenly brought a clear light into this -dark chaos of contradictory notions in 1859. His epoch-making work, -_The Origin of Species_, proved convincingly that this historical -process is not a supernatural mystery, but a physiological -phenomenon; and that the preservation of improved races in the -struggle for life had produced, by a natural evolution, the whole -wondrous world of organic life. - -To-day, when evolution is almost universally recognised in biology, -when thousands of anatomic and physiological works are based on -it every year, the new generation can hardly form an idea of the -violent resistance that was offered to Darwin's theory and the -impassioned struggles it provoked. In the first place, the Churches -at once raised a vigorous protest; they rightly regarded their -new antagonist as the deadly enemy of the legend of creation, -and saw the very foundations of their creed threatened. The -Churches found a powerful ally in the dualistic metaphysics that -still claims to represent the real "idealist philosophy" at most -universities. But most dangerous of all to the young theory -was the violent resistance it met almost everywhere in its own -province of empirical science. The prevailing belief in the fixity -and the independent creation of the various species was much more -seriously menaced by Darwin's theory than it had been by Lamarck's -transformism. Lamarck had said substantially the same thing fifty -years before, but had failed to convince through the lack of -effective evidence. Many scientists, some of great distinction, -opposed Darwin because either they had not an adequate acquaintance -with the whole field of biology, or it seemed to them that his bold -speculation advanced too far from the secure base of experience. - -When Darwin's work appeared in 1859, and fell like a flash of -lightning on the dark world of official biology, I was engaged in a -scientific expedition to Sicily and taken up with a thorough study -of the graceful radiolarians, those wonderful microscopic marine -animals that surpass all other organisms in the beauty and variety -of their forms. The special study of this remarkable class of -animals, of which I afterwards described more than 4,000 species, -after more than ten years of research, provided me with one of the -solid foundation-stones of my Darwinian ideas. But when I returned -from Messina to Berlin in the spring of 1860, I knew nothing as yet -of Darwin's achievement. I merely heard from my friends at Berlin -that a remarkable work by a crazy Englishman had attracted great -attention, and that it turned upside down all previous ideas as to -the origin of species. - -I soon perceived that almost all the experts at Berlin--chief -amongst them were the famous microscopist, Ehrenberg; the -anatomist, Reichert; the zoologist, Peters; and the geologist, -Beyrich--were unanimous in their condemnation of Darwin. The -brilliant orator of the Berlin Academy, Emil du Bois-Reymond, -hesitated. He recognised that the theory of evolution was -the only natural solution of the problem of creation; but he -laughed at the application of it as a poor romance, and declared -that the phylogenetic inquiries into the relationship of the -various species had about as much value as the research of -philologists into the genealogical tree of the Homeric heroes. -The distinguished botanist, Alexander Braun, stood quite alone -in his full and warm assent to the theory of evolution. I found -comfort and encouragement with this dear and respected teacher, -when I was deeply moved by the first reading of Darwin's book, -and soon completely converted to his views. In Darwin's great and -harmonious conception of Nature, and his convincing establishment -of evolution, I had an answer to all the doubts that had beset me -since the beginning of my biological studies. - -My famous teacher, Rudolf Virchow, whom I had met at Würtzburg in -1852, and was soon associated with in the most friendly relations -as special pupil and admiring assistant, played a very curious -part in this great controversy. I am, I think, one of those -elderly men who have followed Virchow's development, as man and -thinker, with the greatest interest during the last fifty years. -I distinguish three periods in his psychological metamorphoses. -In the first decade of his academic life, from 1847 to 1858, -mainly at Würtzburg, he effected the great reform of medicine that -culminated brilliantly in his cellular pathology. In the following -twenty years (1858-1877) he was chiefly occupied with politics -and anthropology. He was at first favourable to Darwinism, then -sceptical, and finally rejected it. His powerful and determined -opposition to it dates from 1877, when, in is famous speech on "The -Freedom of Science in the Modern State," he struck a heavy blow -at that freedom, denounced the theory of evolution as dangerous -to the State, and demanded its exclusion from the schools. This -remarkable metamorphosis is so important, and has had so much -influence, yet has been so erroneously described, that I will -deal with it somewhat fully in the next chapter, especially as -I have then to treat one chief problem, the descent of man from -the ape. For the moment, I will merely recall the fact that in -Berlin, the "metropolis of intelligence," as it has been called, -the theory of evolution, now generally accepted, met with a more -stubborn resistance than in most of our other leading educational -centres, and that this opposition was due above all to the powerful -authority of Virchow. - -We can only glance briefly here at the victorious struggle that -the idea of evolution has conducted in the last three decades of -the nineteenth century. The violent resistance that Darwinism -encountered nearly everywhere in its early years was paralysed -towards the end of the first decade. In the years 1866-1874 many -works were published in which not only were the foundations of the -theory scientifically strengthened, but its general recognition -was secured by popular treatment of the subject. I made the first -attempt in 1866, in my _General Morphology_, to present connectedly -the whole subject of evolution and make it the foundation of a -consistent Monistic philosophy; and I then gave a popular summary -of my chief conclusions in the ten editions of my _History of -Creation_. In my _Evolution of Man_ I made the first attempt to -apply the principles of evolution thoroughly and consistently to -man, and to draw up a hypothetical list of his animal ancestors. -The three volumes of my _Systematic Phylogeny_ (1894-1896) -contain a fuller outline of a natural classification of organisms -on the basis of their stem-history. There have been important -contributions to the science of evolution in all its branches in -the Darwinian periodical, _Cosmos_, since 1877; and a number of -admirable popular works helped to spread the system. - -However, the most important and most welcome advance was made by -science when, in the last thirty years, the idea of evolution -penetrated into every branch of biology, and was recognised as -fundamental and indispensable. Thousands of new discoveries and -observations in all sections of botany, zoology, protistology, -and anthropology, were brought forward as empirical evidence of -evolution. This is especially true of the remarkable progress of -paleontology, comparative anatomy, and embryology, but it applies -also to physiology, chorology (the science of the distribution -of living things), and œcology (the description of the habits of -animals). How much our horizon was extended by these, and how -much the unity of our Monistic system gained, can be seen in any -modern manual of biology. If we compare them with those that gave -us extracts of natural history forty or fifty years ago, we see -at once what an enormous advance has taken place. Even the more -remote branches of anthropological science, ethnography, sociology, -ethics, and jurisprudence, are entering into closer relations with -the theory of evolution, and can no longer escape its influence. In -view of all this, it is ridiculous for theological and metaphysical -journals to talk, as they do, of the failure of evolution and "the -death-bed of Darwinism." - -Our science of evolution won its greatest triumph when, at the -beginning of the twentieth century, its most powerful opponents, -the Churches, became reconciled to it, and endeavoured to bring -their dogmas into line with it. A number of timid attempts to -do so had been made in the preceding ten years by different -free-thinking theologians and philosophers, but without much -success. The distinction of accomplishing this in a comprehensive -and well-informed manner was reserved for a Jesuit, Father Erich -Wasmann of Luxemburg. This able and learned entomologist had -already earned some recognition in zoology by a series of admirable -observations on the life of ants, and the captives that they -always keep in their homes, certain very small insects which have -themselves been curiously modified by adaptation to their peculiar -environment. He showed that these striking modifications can only -be rationally explained by descent from other free-living species -of insects. The various papers in which Wasmann gave a thoroughly -Darwinian explanation of the biological phenomena first appeared -(1901-1903) in the Catholic periodical, _Stimmen aus Maria-Laach_, -and are now collected in a special work entitled, _Modern Biology -and the Theory of Evolution_. - -This remarkable book of Wasmann's is a masterpiece of Jesuitical -sophistry. It really consists of three entirely different sections. -The first third gives, in the introduction, what is, for Catholics, -a clear and instructive account of modern biology, especially the -cell-theory, and the theory of evolution (chapters i.-viii.). The -second third, the ninth chapter, is the most valuable part of the -work. It has the title: "The Theory of Fixity or the theory of -Evolution?" Here the learned entomologist gives an interesting -account of the results of his prolonged studies of the morphology -and the œcology of the ants and their captives, the myrmecophilæ. -He shows impartially and convincingly that these complicated and -remarkable phenomena can only be explained by evolution, and that -the older doctrine of the fixity and independent creation of the -various species is quite untenable. With a few changes this ninth -chapter could figure as a useful part of a work by Darwin or -Weismann or some other evolutionist. The succeeding chapter (the -last third) is flagrantly inconsistent with the ninth. It deals -most absurdly with the application of the theory of evolution to -man. The reader has to ask himself whether Wasmann really believes -these confused and ridiculous notions, or whether he merely aims at -befogging his readers, and so preparing the way for the acceptance -of the conventional creed. - -Wasmann's book has been well criticised by a number of competent -students, especially by Escherich and Francé. While fully -recognising his great services, they insist very strongly on -the great mischief wrought by this smuggling of the Jesuitical -spirit into biology. Escherich points out at length the glaring -inconsistencies and the obvious untruths of this "ecclesiastical -evolution." He summarises his criticism in the words: "If the -theory of evolution can really be reconciled with the dogmas of the -Church only in the way we find here, Wasmann has clearly proved -that any such reconciliation is impossible. Because what Wasmann -gives here as the theory of evolution is a thing mutilated beyond -recognition and incapable of any vitality." He tries, like a good -Jesuit, to prove that it does not tend to undermine, but to give a -firm foundation to, the story of supernatural creation, and that it -was really not Lamarck and Darwin, but St. Augustin and St. Thomas -of Aquin, who founded the science of evolution. "God does not -interfere directly in the order of Nature when he can act by means -of natural causes." Man alone constitutes a remarkable exception; -because "the human soul, being a spiritual entity, cannot be -derived from matter even by the Divine omnipotence, like the vital -forms of the plants and animals" (p. 299). - -In an instructive article on "Jesuitical Science" (in the Frankfort -_Freie Wort_, No. 22, 1904), R. H. Francé gives an interesting -list of the prominent Jesuits who are now at work in the various -branches of science. As he rightly says, the danger consists "in -a systematic introduction of the Jesuitical spirit into science, -a persistent perversion of all its problems and solutions, and an -astute undermining of its foundations; to speak more precisely, -the danger is that people are not sufficiently conscious of it, -and that they, and even science itself, fall into the cleverly -prepared pit of believing that there is such a thing as _Jesuitical -science_, the results of which may be taken seriously."[4] - -While fully recognising these dangers, I nevertheless feel that the -Jesuit Father Wasmann, and his colleagues, have--unwittingly--done -a very great service to the progress of pure science. The Catholic -Church, the most powerful and widespread of the Christian sects, -sees itself compelled to capitulate to the idea of evolution. It -embraces the most important application of the idea, Lamarck and -Darwin's theory of descent, which it had vigorously combated until -twenty years ago. It does, indeed, mutilate the great tree, cutting -off its roots and its highest branch; it rejects spontaneous -generation or archigony at the bottom, and the descent of man -from animal ancestors above. But these exceptions will not last. -Impartial biology will take no notice of them, and the religious -creed will at length determine that the more complex species have -been evolved from a series of simpler forms according to Darwinian -principles. The belief in a supernatural creation is restricted -to the production of the earliest and simplest stem-forms, from -which the "natural species" have taken their origin; Wasmann gives -that name to all species that are demonstrably descended from a -common stem-form; in other words, to what other classifiers call -"stems" or "phyla." The 4,000 species of ants in his system, which -he believes to be genetically related, are comprised by him in -one "natural species." On the other hand, man forms one isolated -"natural species" for himself, without any connection with the -other mammals. - -The Jesuitical sophistry that Wasmann betrays in this ingenious -distinction between "systematic and natural species" is also -found in his philosophic "Thoughts on Evolution" (chap. viii.), -his distinction between philosophic and scientific evolution, -or between evolution in one stem and in several stems. His -remarks (in chap. vii.) on "the cell and spontaneous generation" -are similarly marred by sophistry. The question of spontaneous -generation or archigony--that is to say, of the first appearance of -organic life on the earth, is one of the most difficult problems -in biology, one of those in which the most distinguished students -betray a striking weakness of judgment. Dr. Heinrich Schmidt, of -Jena, has lately written an able and popular little work on that -subject. In his _Spontaneous Generation and Professor Reinke_ -(1903), he has shown to what absurd consequences the ecclesiastical -ideas lead on this very question. The botanist Reinke, of Kiel, -is now regarded amongst religious people as the chief opponent of -Darwinism; for many conservatives this is because he is a member -of the Prussian Herrenhaus (a very intelligent body, of course!). -Although he is a strong evangelical, many of his mystic deductions -agree surprisingly with the Catholic speculations of Father -Wasmann. This is especially the case with regard to spontaneous -generation. They both declare that the first appearance of life -must be traced to a miracle, to the work of a personal deity, -whom Reinke calls the "cosmic intelligence." I have shown the -unscientific character of these notions in my last two works, -_The Riddle of the Universe_, and _The Wonders of Life_. I have -drawn attention especially to the widely distributed monera of the -chromacea class--organisms of the simplest type conceivable, whose -whole body is merely an unnucleated, green, structureless globule -of plasm (Chroococcus); their whole vital activity consists of -growth (by forming plasm) and multiplication (by dividing into -two). There is little theoretical difficulty in conceiving the -origin of these new simple monera from inorganic compounds of -albumen, or their later transformation into the simplest nucleated -cells. All this, and a good deal more that will not fit in his -Jesuitical frame, is shrewdly ignored by Wasmann. - -In view of the great influence that Catholicism still has on public -life in Germany, through the Centre party, this change of front -should be a great gain to education. Virchow demanded as late as -1877 that the dangerous doctrine of evolution should be excluded -from the schools. The Ministers of Instruction of the two chief -German States gratefully adopted this warning from the leader of -the progressive party, forbade the teaching of Darwinian ideas, -and made every effort to check the spread of biological knowledge. -Now, twenty-five years afterwards, the Jesuits come forward, and -demand the opposite. They recognise openly that the hated theory of -evolution is established, and try to reconcile it with the creed! -What an irony of history! And we find much the same story when we -read the struggles for freedom of thought and for the recognition -of evolution in the other educated countries of Europe. - -In Italy, its cradle and home, educated people generally look -upon the papacy with the most profound disdain. I have spent many -years in Italy, and have never met an educated Italian of such -bigoted and narrow views as we usually find amongst educated -German Catholics--represented with success in the Reichstag by the -Centre party. It is proof enough of the reactionary character of -German Catholics that the Pope himself describes them as his most -vigorous soldiers, and points them out as models to the faithful -of other nations. As the whole history of the Roman Church shows, -the charlatan of the Vatican is the deadly enemy of free science -and free teaching. The present German Emperor ought to regard it as -his most sacred duty to maintain the tradition of the Reformation, -and to promote the formation of the German people in the sense -of Frederick the Great. Instead of this we have to look on with -heavy hearts while the Emperor, badly advised and misled by those -in influence about him, suffers himself to be caught closer and -closer in the net of the Catholic clergy, and sacrifices to it -the intelligence of the rising generation. In September, 1904, -the Catholic journals announced triumphantly that the adoption of -Catholicism by the Emperor and his Chancellor was close at hand.[5] - -The firmness of the belief in conventional dogmas, which hampers -the progress of rational enlightenment in orthodox Protestant -circles as well as Catholic, is often admired as an expression of -the deep emotion of the German people. But its real source is their -confusion of thought and their credulity, the power of conservative -tradition, and the reactionary state of political education. While -our schools are bent under the yoke of the creeds, those of our -neighbours are free. France, the pious daughter of the Church, -gives anxious moments to her ambitious mother. She is breaking the -chains of the Concordat, and taking up the work of the Reformation. -In Germany, the birthplace of the Reformation, the Reichstag and -the Government vie with each other in smoothing the paths for the -Jesuits, and fostering, instead of suppressing, the intolerant -spirit of the sectarian school. Let us hope that the latest episode -in the history of evolution, its recognition by Jesuitical science, -will bring about the reverse of what they intend--the substitution -of rational science for blind faith. - - - - -CHAPTER II - -THE STRUGGLE OVER OUR GENEALOGICAL TREE - -OUR APE-RELATIVES AND THE VERTEBRATE-STEM - - -EXPLANATION OF PLATE II - -SKELETONS OF FIVE ANTHROPOID APES - - These skeletons of the five living genera of anthropomorpha - are reduced to a common size, in order to show better the - relative proportions of the various parts. The human skeleton - is 1/20th natural size, the gorilla 1/18th, the chimpanzee - 1/7th, the orang 1/7th, the gibbon 1/9th. Young specimens of - the chimpanzee and orang have been selected, because they - approach nearer to man than the adult. No one of the living - anthropoid apes is nearest to man in all respects; this cannot - be said of either of the African (gorilla and chimpanzee) or - the Asiatic (orang and gibbon). This anatomic fact is explained - phylogenetically on the ground that none of them are direct - ancestors of man; they represent divergent branches of the - stem, of which man is the crown. However, the small gibbon is - nearest related to the hypothetical common ancestor of all the - anthropomorpha to which we give the name of Prothylobates. - Further information will be found in my _Last Link_ and - _Evolution of Man_ (chap. xxiii.). - - -PLATE II. - -SKELETONS OF FIVE ANTHROPOID APES. - -[Illustration: - -1/20 MAN (Homo) - -1/18 GORILLA - -1/7 Young CHIMPANZEE (Anthropithecus) - -1/7 Young ORANG (Satyrus) - -1/9 GIBBON (Hylobates)] - - -CHAPTER II - -THE STRUGGLE OVER OUR GENEALOGICAL TREE - -OUR APE-RELATIVES AND THE VERTEBRATE-STEM - - -In the previous chapter I tried to give you a general idea of -the present state of the controversy in regard to evolution. -Comparing the various branches of thought we found that the older -mythological ideas of the creation of the world were driven long -ago out of the province of inorganic science, but that they did -not yield to the rational conception of natural development until -a much later date in the field of organic nature. Here the idea of -evolution did not prove completely victorious until the beginning -of the twentieth century, when its most zealous and dangerous -opponent, the Church, was forced to admit it. Hence the open -acknowledgment of the Jesuit, Father Wasmann, deserves careful -attention, and we may look forward to a further development. If his -force of conviction and his moral courage are strong enough, he -will go on to draw the normal conclusions from his high scientific -attainments and leave the Catholic Church, as the prominent -Jesuits, Count Hoensbroech and the able geologist, Professor Renard -of Ghent, one of the workers on the deep-sea deposits in the -_Challenger_ expedition, have lately done. But even if this does -not happen, his recognition of Darwinism, in the name of Christian -belief, will remain a landmark in the history of evolution. His -ingenious and very Jesuitical attempt to bring together the -opposite poles will have no very mischievous effect; it will -rather tend to hasten the victory of the scientific conception of -evolution over the mystic beliefs of the Churches. - -You will see this more clearly if we go on to consider the -important special problem of the "descent of man from the ape," -and its irreconcilability with the conventional belief that God -made man according to His own image. That this ape or pithecoid -theory is an irresistible deduction from the general principle -of evolution was clearly recognised forty-five years ago, when -Darwin's work appeared, by the shrewd and vigilant theologians; -it was precisely in this fact that they found their strongest -motive for vigorous resistance. It is quite clear. _Either_ man -was brought into existence, like the other animals, by a special -creative act, as Moses and Linné taught (an "embodied idea of the -Creator," as the famous Agassiz put it so late as 1858); _or_ he -has been developed naturally from a series of mammal ancestors, as -is claimed by the systems of Lamarck and Darwin. - -In view of the very great importance of this pithecoid theory, -we will first cast a brief glance at its founders and then -summarise the proofs in support of it. The famous French biologist, -Jean Lamarck, was the first scientist definitely to affirm the -descent of man from the ape and seek to give scientific proof -of it. In his splendid work, fifty years in advance of his time, -the _Philosophie Zoologique_ (1809), he clearly traced the -modifications and advances that must have taken place in the -transformation of the man-like apes (the primate forms similar to -the orang and the chimpanzee); the adaptation to walking upright, -the consequent modification of the hands and feet, and later, -the formation of speech and the attainment of a higher degree of -intelligence. Lamarck's remarkable theory, and this important -consequence of it, soon fell into oblivion. When Darwin brought -evolution to the front again fifty years afterwards, he paid no -attention to the special conclusion. He was content to make the -following brief prophetic observation in his work: "Light will be -thrown on the origin and the history of man." Even this innocent -remark seemed so momentous to the first German translator of the -work, Bronn, that he suppressed it. When Darwin was asked by -Wallace whether he would not go more fully into it, he replied: "I -think of avoiding the whole subject, as it is so much involved in -prejudice; though I quite admit that it is the highest and most -interesting problem for the thinker." - -The first thorough works of importance on the subject appeared -in 1863. Thomas Huxley in England, and Carl Vogt in Germany, -endeavoured to show that the descent of man from the ape was a -necessary consequence of Darwinism, and to provide an empirical -base for the theory by every available argument. Huxley's work -on _Man's Place in Nature_ was particularly valuable. He first -gave convincingly, in three lectures, the empirical evidence on -the subject--the natural history of the anthropoid apes, the -anatomical and embryological relations of man to the next lowest -animals, and the recently discovered fossil human remains. I then -(1866) made the first attempt to establish the theory of evolution -comprehensively by research in anatomy and embryology, and to -determine the chief stages in the natural classification of the -vertebrates that must have been passed through by our earlier -vertebrate ancestors. Anthropology thus becomes a part of zoology. -In my _History of Creation_ I further developed these early -evolutionary sketches, and improvements were made in the successive -editions. - -In the meantime, the great master, Darwin, had decided to deal -with this chief evolutionary problem in a special work. The two -volumes of his _Descent of Man_ appeared in 1871. They contained an -able discussion of sexual selection, or the selective influence of -sexual love and high psychic activities connected therewith, and -their significance in regard to the origin of man. As this part of -Darwin's work was afterwards attacked with particular virulence, I -will say that, in my opinion, it is of the greatest importance, not -only for the general theory of evolution, but also for psychology, -anthropology, and æsthetics. - -My own feeble early efforts (1866), not only to establish the -descent of man from the nearest related apes, but also to determine -more precisely the long series of our earlier and lower vertebrate -ancestors, had not at all satisfied me. In particular, I had had to -leave unanswered in my _General Morphology_ the very interesting -question: from which invertebrate animals the vertebrate stem -originally came. A clear and unexpected light was thrown on it some -time afterwards by the astounding discoveries of Kowalevsky, which -revealed an essential agreement in embryonic development between -the lowest vertebrate (Amphioxus) and a lowly tunicate (Ascidia). -In the succeeding years, the numerous discoveries in connection -with the formation of the germinal layers in different animals so -much enlarged our embryological outlook that I was able to prove -the complete homology of the two-layered _gastrula_ (a cup-shaped -embryonic form) in all the tissue-forming animals (_metazoa_) in -my _Monograph on the Sponges_. From this I inferred, in virtue of -the biogenetic law, the common descent of all the metazoa from -one and the same gastrula-shaped stem-form, the _gastræa_. This -hypothetical stem-form, to which man's earliest multicellular -ancestors also belong, was afterwards proved by Monticelli's -observations to be still in existence. The evolution of these -very simple tissue-forming animals from still simpler unicellular -forms (_protozoa_) is shown by the corresponding processes that -we witness in what is called the segmentation of the ovum or -gastrulation, in the development of the two-layered germ from the -single cell of the ovum. - -Encouraged by these great advances of modern phylogeny, and with -the support of many new discoveries in comparative anatomy and -embryology, in which a number of distinguished observers were at -work, I was able in 1874 to venture on the first attempt to trace -continuously the whole story of man's evolution. In doing so, I -took my stand on the firm ground of the biogenetic law, seeking -to give a phylogenetic cause for each fact of embryology. My -_Evolution of Man_, which made the first attempt to accomplish this -difficult task, was materially improved and enlarged as new and -important discoveries were made. The latest edition (1903 [1904 in -English]) contains thirty chapters distributed in two volumes, the -first of which deals with embryology (or ontogeny), and the second -with the development of species (or phylogeny). - -Though I was quite conscious that there were bound to be gaps -and weak points in these first attempts to frame a natural -anthropogeny, I had hoped they would have some influence on -modern anthropology, and especially that the first sketches of a -genealogical tree of the animal world would prove a stimulus to -fresh research and improvement. In this I was much mistaken. The -dominant school of anthropology, especially in Germany, declined to -suffer the introduction of the theory of evolution, declaring it to -be an unfounded hypothesis, and described our carefully prepared -ancestral trees as mere figments. This was due, in the first place, -to the great authority of the founder and president (for many -years) of the German Anthropological Society, Rudolf Virchow, as I -briefly pointed out in the previous chapter. In view of the great -regard that is felt for this distinguished scientist, and the -extent to which his powerful opposition prevented the spread of the -theory, it is necessary to deal more fully with his position on the -subject. I am still further constrained to do this because of the -erroneous views of it that are circulating, and my own fifty years' -acquaintance with my eminent teacher enables me to put them right. - -Not one of Virchow's numerous pupils and friends can appreciate -more than I do his real services to medical science. His _Cellular -Pathology_ (1858), his thorough application of the cell-theory to -the science of disease, is, in my opinion, one of the greatest -advances made by modern medicine. I had the good fortune to -begin my medical studies at Würzburg in 1852, and to spend six -valuable terms under the personal guidance of four biologists of -the first rank--Albert Kölliker, Rudolf Virchow, Franz Leydig -and Carl Gegenbaur. The great stimulus that I received from -these distinguished masters in every branch of comparative and -microscopic biology was the starting-point of my whole training -in that science, and enabled me subsequently to follow with ease -the higher intellectual flight of Johannes Müller. From Virchow -especially I learned, not only the analytic art of careful -observation and judicious appreciation of the detailed facts of -anatomy, but also the synthetic conception of the whole human -frame, the profound conviction of the _unity_ of our nature, the -inseparable connection of body and mind, to which Virchow gave a -fine expression in his classic essay on "The Efforts to bring about -Unity in Scientific Medicine" (1849). The leading articles which -he wrote at that time for the Journal of Pathological Anatomy and -Physiology, which he had founded, contain much new insight into the -wonders of life, and a number of excellent general reflections on -their significance--pregnant ideas that we can make direct use of -for Monistic purposes. In the controversy that broke out between -empirical rationalism and materialism and the older vitalism and -mysticism, he took the side of the former, and fought together -with Jacob Moleschott, Carl Vogt, and Ludwig Büchner. I owe the -firm conviction of the unity of organic and inorganic nature, of -the mechanical character of all vital and psychic activity, which -I have always held to be the foundation of my Monistic system, -in a great measure to Virchow's teaching and the exhaustive -conversations I had with him when I was his assistant. The profound -views of the nature of the cell and the independent individuality -of these elementary organisms, which he advanced in his great -work _Cellular Pathology_, remained guiding principles for me in -the prolonged studies that I made thirty years afterwards of the -organisation of the radiolaria and other unicellular protists; -and also in regard to the theory of the cell-soul, which followed -naturally from the psychological study of it. - -His life at Würtzburg was the most brilliant period of Virchow's -indefatigable scientific labours. A change took place when he -removed to Berlin in 1856. He then occupied himself chiefly with -political and social and civic interests. In the last respect -he has done so much for Berlin and the welfare of the German -people that I need not enlarge on it. Nor will I go into his -self-sacrificing and often thankless political work as leader of -the progressive party; there are differences of opinion as to its -value. But we must carefully examine his peculiar attitude towards -evolution, and especially its chief application, the ape-theory. -He was at first favourable to it, then sceptical, and finally -decidedly hostile. - -When the Lamarckian theory was brought to light again by Darwin in -1859, many thought that it was Virchow's vocation to take the lead -in defending it. He had made a thorough study of the problem of -heredity; he had realised the power of adaptation through his study -of pathological changes; and he had been directed to the great -question of the origin of man by his anthropological studies. He -was at that time regarded as a determined opponent of all dogmas; -he combated transcendentalism either in the form of ecclesiastical -creeds or anthropomorphism. After 1862 he declared that "the -possibility of a transition from species to species was a necessity -of science." When I opened the first public discussion of Darwinism -at the Stettin scientific congress in 1863, Virchow and Alexander -Braun were among the few scientists who would admit the subject -to be important and deserving of the most careful study. When I -sent to him in 1865 two lectures that I had delivered at Jena on -the origin and genealogical tree of the human race, he willingly -received them amongst his _Collection of Popular Scientific -Lectures_. In the course of many long conversations I had with -him on the matter, he agreed with me in the main, though with the -prudent reserve and cool scepticism that characterised him. He -adopts the same moderate attitude in the lecture that he delivered -to the Artisans' Union at Berlin in 1869 on "Human and Ape Skulls." - -His position definitely changed in regard to Darwinism from 1877 -onward. At the Scientific Congress that was then held at Munich I -had, at the pressing request of my Munich friends, undertaken the -first address (on 18th September) on "Modern Evolution in Relation -to the whole of Science." In this address I had substantially -advanced the same general views that I afterwards enlarged in my -_Monism_, _Riddle of the Universe_, and _Wonders of Life_. In the -ultramontane capital of Bavaria, in sight of a great university -which emphatically describes itself as Catholic, it was somewhat -bold to make such a confession of faith. The deep impression that -it had made was indicated by the lively manifestations of assent on -the one hand, and displeasure on the other, that were at once made -in the Congress itself and in the Press. On the following day I -departed for Italy (according to an arrangement made long before). -Virchow did not come to Munich until two days afterwards, when he -delivered (on 22nd September, in response to entreaties from people -of position and influence) his famous antagonistic speech on "The -Freedom of Science in the Modern State." The gist of the speech -was that this freedom ought to be restricted; that evolution is -an unproved hypothesis, and ought not to be taught in the school -because it is dangerous to the State: "We must not teach," he said, -"that man descends from the ape or any other animal." In 1849, the -young Monist, Virchow, had emphatically declared this conviction, -"that he would never be induced to deny the thesis of the unity -of human nature and its consequences"; now, twenty-eight years -afterwards, the prudent Dualistic politician entirely denied it. -He had formerly taught that all the bodily and mental processes in -the human organism depend on the mechanism of the cell-life; now -he declared the soul to be a special immaterial entity. But the -crowning feature of this reactionary speech was his compromise with -the Church, which he had fought so vigorously twenty years before. - -The character of Virchow's speech at Munich is best seen in the -delight with which it was at once received by the reactionary and -clerical papers, and the profound concern of all Liberal journals, -either in the political or the religious sense. When Darwin read -the English translation of the speech he--generally so gentle in -his judgments--wrote: "Virchow's conduct is shameful, and I hope he -will some day feel the shame." In 1878, I made a full reply to it -in my _Free Science and Free Teaching_, in which I collected the -most important press opinions on the matter.[6] - -From this very decided turn at Munich until his death, twenty-five -years afterwards, Virchow was an indefatigable and very influential -opponent of evolution. In his annual appearances at congresses he -has always contested it, and has obstinately clung to his statement -that "it is quite certain that man does not descend from the ape or -any other animal." To the question: "Whence does he come, then?" -he had no answer, and retired to the resigned position of the -Agnostic, which was common before Darwin's time: "We do not know -how life arose, and how the various species came into the world." -His son-in-law, Professor Rabl, has tried to draw attention once -more to his earlier conception, and has declared that even in -later years Virchow often recognised the truth of evolution in -private conversation. This only makes it the more regrettable that -he always said the contrary in public. The fact remains that ever -since the opponents of evolution, especially the reactionaries and -clericals, have appealed to the authority of Virchow. - -The wholly reactionary system that this led to has been well -described by Robert Drill (1902) in his _Virchow as a Reactionary_. -How little qualified the great pathologist was to appreciate the -scientific bases of the pithecoid theory is clear from the absurd -statement he made, in the opening speech of the Vienna Congress -of Anthropologists, in 1894, that man might just as well be -claimed to descend from a sheep or an elephant as from an ape. Any -competent zoologist can see from this the little knowledge Virchow -had of systematic zoology and comparative anatomy. However, he -retained his authority as president of the German Anthropological -Society, which remained impervious to Darwinian ideas. Even such -vigorous controversialists as Carl Vogt, and such scientific -partisans of the ape-man of Neanderthal as Schaafhausen, could -make no impression. Virchow's authority was equally great for -twenty years in the Berlin Press, both Liberal and Conservative. -The _Kreutzzeitung_ and the _Evangelische Kirchenzeitung_ were -delighted that "the learned progressist was conservative in the -best sense of the word as regards evolution." The ultramontane -_Germania_ rejoiced that the powerful representative of pure -science had, "with a few strokes of his cudgel, reduced to -impotence" the absurd ape-theory and its chief protagonist, Ernst -Haeckel. The _National-Zeitung_ could not sufficiently thank the -free-thinking, popular leader for having lifted from us for ever -the oppressive mountain of the theory of simian descent. The editor -of the _Volks-Zeitung_, Bernstein, who has done so much for the -spread of knowledge in his excellent popular manuals of science, -obstinately refused to admit articles that ventured to support the -erroneous ape-theory "refuted" by Virchow. - -It would take up too much space to attempt to give even a general -survey of the remarkable and enormous literature of the subject -that has accumulated in the last three decades in the shape of -thousands of learned treatises and popular articles. The greater -part of these works have been written under the influence of -conventional religious prejudice, and without the necessary -acquaintance with the subject, that can only be obtained by a -thorough training in biology. The most curious feature of them is -that most of the authors restrict their genealogical interests to -the most manlike apes, and do not deal with their origin, or with -the deeper roots of our common ancestral tree. They do not see the -wood for the trees. Yet it is far easier and safer to penetrate -the great mysteries of our animal origin, if we look at the -subject from the higher standpoint of vertebrate phylogeny and go -deeper into the earlier records of the evolutionary history of the -vertebrates. - -Since the great Lamarck established the idea of the vertebrate at -the beginning of the nineteenth century (1801), and his Parisian -colleague, Cuvier, shortly afterwards recognised the vertebrates -as one of his four chief animal groups, the natural unity of this -advanced section of the animal world has not been contested. In -all the vertebrates, from the lowest fishes and amphibians up to -the apes and man, we have the same type of structure, the same -characteristic disposition and relations of the chief organs; and -they differ materially from the corresponding features in all other -animals. The mysterious affinities of the vertebrates induced -Goethe, 140 years ago, long before Cuvier, to make prolonged and -laborious studies in their comparative anatomy at Jena and Weimar. -Just as he had, in his _Metamorphosis of Plants_, established the -unity of organisation by means of the leaf as the common primitive -organ, he, in the metamorphosis of the vertebrates, found this -common element in the vertebral theory of the skull. And when -Cuvier established comparative anatomy as an independent science, -this branch of biology was developed to such an extent by the -classic research of Johannes Müller, Carl Gegenbaur, Richard Owen, -Thomas Huxley, and many other morphologists, that Darwinism found -its most powerful weapons in this arsenal. The striking differences -of external form and internal structure that we find in the fishes, -amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, are due to _adaptation_ -to the various uses of their organs and their environments. -On the other hand, the astonishing agreement in their typical -character, that persists in spite of their differences, is due to -_inheritance_ from common ancestors. - -The evidence thus afforded by comparative anatomy is so cogent that -anyone who goes impartially and attentively through a collection of -skeletons can convince himself at once of the morphological unity -of the vertebrate stem. The evolutionary evidence of comparative -ontogeny, or embryology, is less easy to grasp and less accessible, -but not less important. It came to light at a much later date, and -its extreme value was only made clear, by means of the biogenetic -law, some forty years ago. It shows that every vertebrate, like -every other animal, develops from a single cell, but that the -course of its embryonic development is peculiar, and characterised -by embryonic forms that are not found in the invertebrates. We -find in them especially the _chordula_, or chorda-larva, a very -simple worm-shaped embryonic form, without limbs, head, or higher -sense-organs; the body consists merely of six very simple primitive -organs. From these are developed steadily the hundreds of different -bones, muscles, and other organs that we afterwards distinguish in -the mature vertebrate. The remarkable and very complex course of -this embryonic development is essentially the same in man and the -ape, and in the amphibians and fishes. We see in it, in accordance -with the biogenetic law, a new and important witness to the common -descent of all vertebrates from a single primitive form, the -_chordæa_. - -But, important as these arguments of comparative embryology are, -one needs many years' study in the unfamiliar and difficult -province of embryology before one can realise their evolutionary -force. There are, in fact, not a few embryologists (especially of -the modern school of experimental embryology) who do not succeed -in doing so. It is otherwise with the palpable proofs that we take -from a remote science, paleontology. The remarkable fossil remains -and impressions of extinct animals and plants give us directly the -historical evidence we need to understand the successive appearance -and disappearance of the various species and groups. Geology has -firmly established the chronological order of the sedimentary -rocks, which have been successively formed of mud at the floor of -the ocean, and has deduced their age from the thickness of the -strata, and determined the relative date of their formation. The -vast period during which organic life has been developing on the -earth runs to many million years. The number is variously estimated -at less than a hundred or at several hundred million years.[7] -If we take the smaller number of 200 million years, we find them -distributed amongst the five chief periods of the earth's organic -development in such a way that the earlier or archeozoic period -absorbs nearly one half. As the sedimentary rocks of this period, -chiefly gneisses and crystalline schists, are in a metamorphosed -condition, the fossil remains in them are unrecognisable. In -the next succeeding strata of the paleozoic period we find the -earliest remains of fossilised vertebrates, Silurian primitive -fishes (selachii) and ganoids. These are followed, in the Devonian -system, by the first dipneust fishes (a transitional form from the -fishes to the amphibia). In the next, the Carboniferous system, we -find the first terrestrial or four-footed vertebrates--amphibians -of the order of the stegocephala. A little later, in the Permian -rocks, the earliest amniotes, lowly, lizard-like reptiles -(tocosauria), make their appearance; the warm-blooded birds -and mammals are still wanting. We have the first traces of the -mammals in the Triassic, the earliest sedimentary rocks of the -mesozoic age; these are of the monotreme sub-class (pantotheria -and allotheria). They are succeeded by the first marsupials -(prodidelphia) in the Jurassic, the ancestral forms of the -placentals (mallotheria), in the Cretaceous. See p. 115. - -But the richest development of the mammal class takes place in -the next or Tertiary age. In the course of its four periods--the -eocene, oligocene, miocene, and pliocene--the mammal species -increase steadily in number, variety, and complexity, down to -the present time. From the lowest common ancestral group of the -placentals proceed four divergent branches, the legions of the -carnassia, rodents, ungulates, and primates. The primate legion -surpasses all the rest. In this Linné long ago included the -lemurs, apes, and man. The historical order in which the various -stages of vertebrate development make their successive appearance -corresponds entirely to the morphological order of their advance in -organisation, as we have learned it from the study of comparative -anatomy and embryology. - -These paleontological facts are among the most important proofs -of the descent of man from a long series of higher and lower -vertebrates. There is no other explanation possible except -evolution for the chronological succession of these classes, -which is in perfect harmony with the morphological and systematic -distribution. The anti-evolutionists have not even attempted to -give any other explanation. The fishes, dipneusts, amphibians, -reptiles, monotremes, marsupials, placentals, lemurs, apes, -anthropoid apes, and ape-men (pithecanthropi), are inseparable -links of a long ancestral chain, of which the last and most perfect -link is man. (_Cf._ the tables pp. 116-118.) - -One of the paleontological facts I have quoted, namely, the -late appearance of the mammal class in geology--is particularly -important. This most advanced group of the vertebrates comes on -the stage in the Triassic period, in the second and shorter half -of the organic history of the earth. It is represented only by -low and small forms in the whole of the mesozoic age, during the -domination of the reptiles. Throughout this long period, which is -estimated by some geologists at 8-11, by others at 20 or more, -million years, the dominant reptile class developed its many -remarkable and curious forms; there were swimming marine reptiles -(halisauria), flying reptiles (pterosauria), and colossal land -reptiles (dinosauria). It was much later, in the Tertiary period, -that the mammal class attained the wealth of large and advanced -placental forms that secured its predominance over this more recent -period. - -The many and thorough investigations made during the last few -decades into the ancestral history of the mammals have convinced -all zoologists who were engaged in them that they may be traced -to a common root. All the mammals, from the lowest monotremes and -marsupials to the ape and man, have a large number of striking -characteristics in common, and these distinguish them from all -other vertebrates: the hair and glands of the skin, the feeding of -the young with the mother's milk, the peculiar formation of the -lower jaw and the ear-bones connected therewith, and other features -in the structure of the skull; also, the possession of a knee-cap -(_patella_), and the loss of the nucleus in the red blood-cells. -Further, the complete diaphragm, which entirely separates the -pectoral cavity from the abdominal, is only found in the mammals; -in all the other vertebrates there is still an open communication -between the two cavities. The monophyletic (or single) origin -of the whole mammalian class is therefore now regarded by all -competent experts as an established fact. - -In the face of this important fact, what is called the -"ape-question" loses a good deal of the importance that was -formerly ascribed to it. All the momentous consequences that follow -from it in regard to our human nature, our past and future, and our -bodily and psychic life, remain undisturbed whether we derive man -directly from one of the primates, an ape or lemur, or from some -other branch, some unknown lower form, of the mammalian stem. It is -important to point this out, because certain dangerous attempts -have been made lately by Jesuitical zoologists and zoological -Jesuits to cause fresh confusion on the matter. - -In a richly illustrated and widely read work that Hans Kraemer -published a few years ago, under the title, _The Universe and -Man_, an able and learned anthropologist, Professor Klaatsch of -Heidelberg, deals with "the origin and development of the human -race," and admirably describes the primitive history of man and -his civilisation. However, he denounces the idea of man's descent -from the ape as "irrational, narrow-minded, and false"; he grounds -this severe censure on the fact that none of the living apes can -be the ancestor of humanity. But no competent scientist had ever -said anything so foolish. If we look closer into this fight with -windmills, we find that Klaatsch holds substantially the same -view of the pithecoid theory as I have done since 1866. He says -expressly: "The three anthropoid apes, the gorilla, chimpanzee, -and orang, seem to diverge from a common root, which was near -to that of the gibbon and man." I had long ago given the name -of _archiprimas_ to this single hypothetical root-form of the -primates, which he calls the "primatoid." It lived in the earliest -part of the Tertiary period, and had probably been developed in -the Cretaceous from older mammals. The very forced and unnatural -hypothesis by means of which Klaatsch goes on to make the primates -depart very widely from the other mammals, seems to me to be quite -untenable, like the similar hypothesis that Alsberg, Wilser, and -other anthropologists who deny our pithecoid descent, have lately -advanced. - -All these attempts have a common object--to save man's privileged -position in Nature, to widen as much as possible the gulf between -him and the rest of the mammals, and to conceal his real origin. It -is the familiar tendency of the _parvenu_, which we so often notice -in the aristocratic sons of energetic men who have won a high -position by their own exertions. This sort of vanity is acceptable -enough to the ruling powers and the Churches, because it tends -to support their own fossilised pretensions to a "Divine image" -in man and a special "Divine grace" in princes. The zoologist or -anthropologist who studies our genealogy in a strictly scientific -spirit takes no more notice of these tendencies than of the -_Almanach de Gotha_. He seeks to discover the naked truth, as it -is yielded by the great results of modern science, in which there -is no longer any doubt that man is really a descendant of the -ape--that is to say, of a long extinct anthropoid ape. As has been -pointed out over and over again by distinguished supporters of this -opinion, the proofs of it are exceptionally clear and simple--much -clearer and simpler than they are in regard to many other mammals. -Thus, for instance, the origin of the elephants, the armadilloes, -the sirena, or the whales, is a much more difficult problem than -the origin of man. - -When Huxley published his powerful essay on "Man's Place in Nature" -in 1863, he gave it a frontispiece showing the skeletons of man and -the four living anthropoid apes, the Asiatic orang and gibbon, -and the African chimpanzee and gorilla. Plate II. in the present -work differs from this in giving two young specimens of the orang -and the chimpanzee, and raising their size to correspond with the -other three skeletons. Candid comparison of these five skeletons -shows that they are not only very like each other generally, but -are _identical_ in the structure, arrangement, and connection of -all the parts. The same 200 bones compose the skeleton in man and -in the four tailless anthropoid apes, our nearest relatives. The -same 300 muscles serve to move the various parts of the skeleton. -The same hair covers the skin; the same mammary glands provide -food for the young. The same four-chambered heart acts as central -pump of the circulation; the same 32 teeth are found in our jaws; -the same reproductive organs maintain the species; the same groups -of neurona or ganglionic cells compose the wondrous structure -of the brain, and accomplish that highest function of the plasm -which we call the soul, and many still believe to be an immortal -entity. Huxley has thoroughly established this profound truth, and -by further comparison with the lower apes and lemurs he came to -formulate his important pithecometra principle: "Whatever organ -we take, the differences between man and the anthropoid apes are -slighter than the corresponding differences between the latter -and the lower apes." If we make a superficial comparison of our -skeletons of the anthropomorpha, we certainly notice a few salient -differences in the size of the various parts; but these are purely -quantitative, and are due to differences in growth, which in turn -are caused by adaptation to different environments. There are, as -is well known, similar differences between human beings; their arms -are sometimes long, sometimes short; the forehead may be high or -low, the hair thick or thin, and so on. - -These anatomic proofs of the pithecoid theory are most happily -supplemented and confirmed by certain recent brilliant discoveries -in physiology. Chief amongst these are the famous experiments of -Dr. Hans Friedenthal at Berlin. He showed that the human blood acts -poisonously on and decomposes the blood of the lower apes and other -mammals, but has not that effect on the blood of the anthropoid -apes.[8] - -From previous transfusion experiments it had been learned that the -affinity of mammals is connected to a certain extent with their -chemical blood-relationship. If the living blood of two nearly -related animals of the same family, such as the dog and the fox, or -the rabbit and the hare, is mixed together, the living blood-cells -of each species remain uninfluenced. But if we mix the blood of the -dog and the rabbit, or the fox and the hare, a struggle for life -immediately takes place between the two kinds of blood-cells. The -watery fluid or serum destroys the blood-cells of the rodent, and -_vice versâ_. It is the same with specimens of the blood of the -various primates. The blood of the lower apes and lemurs, which are -close to the common root of the primate stem, has a destructive -effect on the blood of the anthropoid apes and man, and _vice -versâ_. On the other hand, the human blood has no injurious effect -when it is mixed with that of the anthropoid apes. - -In recent years these interesting experiments have been continued -by other physiologists and physicians, such as Professor Uhlenhuth -at Greifswald and Nuttall at London, and they have proved directly -the blood-relationship of various mammals. Nuttall studied them -carefully in 900 different kinds of blood, which he tested by -16,000 reactions. He traced the gradation of affinity to the -lowest apes of the New World; and Uhlenhuth continued as far -as the lemurs. By these results the affinity of man and the -anthropoid apes, long established by anatomy, has now been proved -physiologically to be in real "blood-relationship."[9] - -Not less important are the embryological discoveries of the -deceased zoologist, Emil Selenka. He made two long journeys to the -East Indies, in order to study on the spot the embryology of the -Asiatic anthropoid apes, the orang and gibbon. By means of a number -of embryos that he collected he showed that certain remarkable -peculiarities in the formation of the placenta, that had up to -that time been considered as exclusively human, and regarded as a -special distinction of our species, were found in just the same way -in the closely related anthropoid apes, though not in the rest of -the apes. On the ground of these and other facts, I maintain that -the descent of man from extinct Tertiary anthropoid apes is proved -just as plainly as the descent of birds from reptiles, or the -descent of reptiles from amphibians, which no zoologist hesitates -to admit to-day. The relationship is as close as was claimed by my -former fellow-student, the Berlin anatomist, Robert Hartmann (with -whom I sat at the feet of Johannes Müller fifty years ago), in his -admirable work on the anthropoid apes (1883). He proposed to divide -the order of primates into two families, the _primarii_ (man and -the anthropoid apes), and _simianæ_ (the real apes, the catarrhine -or eastern, and the platyrrhine or western apes). - -Since the Dutch physician, Eugen Dubois, discovered the famous -remains of the fossil ape-man (_pithecanthropus erectus_) eleven -years ago in Java, and thus brought to light "the missing -link," a large number of works have been published on this very -interesting group of the primates. In this connection we may -particularly note the demonstration by the Strassburg anatomist, -Gustav Schwalbe, that the previously discovered Neanderthal skull -belongs to an extinct species of man, which was midway between the -pithecanthropus and the true human being--the _homo primigenus_. -After a very careful examination, Schwalbe at the same time refuted -all the biassed objections that Virchow had made to these and -other fossil discoveries, trying to represent them as pathological -abnormalities. In all the important relics of fossil men that -prove our descent from anthropoid apes Virchow saw pathological -modifications, due to unsound habits, gout, rickets, or other -diseases of the dwellers in the diluvial caves. He tried in every -way to impair the force of the arguments for our primate affinity. -So in the controversy over the pithecanthropus he raised the most -improbable conjectures, merely for the purpose of destroying its -significance as a real link between the anthropoid apes and man. - -Even now, in the controversy over this important ape-question, -amateurs and biassed anthropologists often repeat the false -statement that the gap between man and the anthropoid ape is not -yet filled up and the "missing link" not yet discovered. This is a -most perverse statement, and can only arise either from ignorance -of the anatomical, embryological, and paleontological facts, or -incompetence to interpret them aright. As a fact, the morphological -chain that stretches from the lemurs to the earlier western -apes, from these to the eastern tailed apes, and to the tailless -anthropoid apes, and from these direct to man, is now uninterrupted -and clear. It would be more plausible to speak of missing links -between the earliest lemurs and their marsupial ancestors, or -between the latter and their monotreme ancestors. But even these -gaps are unimportant, because comparative anatomy and embryology, -with the support of paleontology, have dissipated all doubt as -to the _unity of the mammalian stem_. It is ridiculous to expect -paleontology to furnish an unbroken series of positive data, when -we remember how scanty and imperfect its material is. - -I cannot go further here into the interesting recent research in -regard to special aspects of our simian descent; nor would it -greatly advance our object, because all the general conclusions as -to man's primate descent remain intact, whichever way we construct -hypothetically the special lines of simian evolution. On the other -hand, it is interesting for us to see how the most recent form of -Darwinism, so happily described by Escherich as "ecclesiastical -evolution," stands in regard to these great questions. What does -its astutest representative, Father Erich Wasmann, say about -them? The tenth chapter of his work, in which he deals at length -with "the application of the theory of evolution to man," is a -masterpiece of Jesuitical science, calculated to throw the clearest -truths into such confusion and so to misrepresent all discoveries -as to prevent any reader from forming a clear idea of them. When -we compare this tenth chapter with the ninth, in which Wasmann -represents the theory of evolution as an irresistible truth on the -strength of his own able studies, we can hardly believe that they -both came from the same pen--or, rather, we can only understand -when we recollect the rule of the Jesuit Congregation: "The end -justifies the means." Untruth is permitted and meritorious in the -service of God and his Church. - -The Jesuitical sophistry that Wasmann employs in order to save -man's unique position in Nature, and to prove that he was -immediately created by God, culminates in the antithesis of -his two natures. The "purely zoological conception of man," -which has been established beyond question by the anatomical and -embryological comparison with the ape, is said to fail because it -does not take into account the chief feature, his "mental life." -It is "psychology that is best fitted to deal with the nature and -origin of man." All the facts of anatomy and embryology that I -have gathered together in my _Evolution of Man_ in proof of the -series of his ancestors are either ignored or misconstrued and -made ridiculous by Wasmann. The same is done with the instructive -facts of anthropology, especially the rudimentary organs, which -Robert Wiedersheim has quoted in his _Man's Structure as a -Witness to his Past_. It is clear that the Jesuit writer lacks -competence in this department; that he has only a superficial and -inadequate acquaintance with comparative anatomy and embryology. If -Wasmann had studied the morphology and physiology of the mammals -as thoroughly as those of the ants, he would have concluded, -if he were impartial, that it is just as necessary to admit a -monophyletic (or single) origin for the former as for the latter. -If, in Wasmann's opinion, the 4,000 species of ants form a single -"natural system"--that is to say, descend from one original -species--it is just as necessary to admit the same hypothesis for -the 6,000 (2,400 living and 3,600 fossil) species of mammals, -including the human species. - -The severe strictures that I have passed on the sophisms and -trickery of this "ecclesiastical evolution" are not directed -against the person and the character of Father Wasmann, but the -Jesuitical system which he represents. I do not doubt that this -able naturalist (who is personally unknown to me) has written his -book in good faith, and has an honourable ambition to reconcile the -irreconcilable contradictions between natural evolution and the -story of supernatural creation. But this reconciliation of reason -and superstition is only possible at the price of a sacrifice -of the reason itself. We find this in the case of all the other -Jesuits--Fathers Cathrein, Braun, Besmer, Cornet, Linsmeier, and -Muckermann--whose ambiguous "Jesuitical science" is aptly dealt -with in the article of R. H. Francé that I mentioned before (No. 22 -of the _Freie Wort_, 16th February, 1904, Frankfort). - -This interesting attempt of Father Wasmann's does not stand alone. -Signs are multiplying that the Church militant is about to enter on -a systematic campaign. I heard from Vienna on the 17th of February, -that on the previous day (which happened to be my birthday), a -Jesuit, Father Giese, had, in a well-received address, admitted -not only evolution in general, but even its application to man, -and declared it to be reconcilable with Catholic dogmas--and this -at a crowded meeting of "catechists"! It is important to note that -in a new Catholic cyclopædia, Benziger's _Library of Science_, -the first three volumes (issued at Einsiedeln and Cologne, 1904) -deal very fully and ably with the chief problems of evolution: the -first with the formation of the earth, the second with spontaneous -generation, the third with the theory of descent. The author of -them, Father M. Gander, makes most remarkable concessions to our -theory, and endeavours to show that they are not inconsistent -with the Bible or the dogmatic treatises of the chief fathers -and schoolmen. But, though there is a profuse expenditure of -sophistical logic in these Jesuitical efforts, Gander will hardly -succeed in misleading thoughtful people. One of his characteristic -positions is that spontaneous generation (as the development -of organised living things by purely material processes) is -inconceivable, but that it might be made possible "by a special -Divine arrangement." In regard to the descent of man from other -animals (which he grants), he makes the reserve that the soul must -in any case have been produced by a special creative act. - -It would be useless to go through the innumerable fallacies -and untruths of these modern Jesuits in detail, and point out -the rational and scientific reply. The vast power of this most -dangerous religious congregation consists precisely in its device -of accepting one part of science in order to destroy the other part -more effectively with it. Their masterly act of sophistry, their -equivocal "probabilism," their mendacious "reservatio mentalis," -the principle that the higher aim sanctifies the worst means, the -pernicious casuistry of Liguori and Gury, the cynicism with which -they turn the holiest principles to the gratification of their -ambition, have impressed on the Jesuits that black character that -Carl Hoensbroech has so well exposed recently. - -The great dangers that menace real science, owing to this smuggling -into it of the Jesuitical spirit, must not be undervalued. They -have been well pointed out by Francé, Escherich, and others. -They are all the greater in Germany at the present time, as the -Government and the Reichstag are working together to prepare the -way for the Jesuits, and to yield a most pernicious influence -on the school to these deadly enemies of the free spirit of -the country. However, we will hope that this clerical reaction -represents only a passing episode in modern history. We trust that -one permanent result of it will be the recognition, in principle, -even by the Jesuits, of the great idea of evolution. We may then -rest assured that its most important consequence, the descent of -man from other primate forms, will press on victoriously, and soon -be recognised as a beneficent and helpful truth. - - - - -CHAPTER III - -THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE SOUL - -THE IDEAS OF IMMORTALITY AND GOD - - -EXPLANATION OF PLATE III - -EMBRYOS OF THREE MAMMALS AT THREE CORRESPONDING STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT - - The embryos of man (M), the anthropoid ape (gibbon, G), and - the bat (rhinolophus, B) can hardly be distinguished in the - earlier stage (the upper row), although the five cerebral - vesicles, the gill-clefts, and the three higher sense-organs - are already visible. On the curved dorsal surface we see the - sections of the primitive vertebræ. Even later, when the two - pairs of limbs have appeared in the form of roundish fins (the - middle row), the differences are not great. It is not until - a further development of the limbs and head has taken place - (lowest row) that the characteristic forms are clearly seen. It - is particularly notable that the primitive brain, the organ of - the mind, with its five cerebral vesicles, is the same in all. - - -PLATE III. - -[Illustration: EMBRYOS OF THREE MAMMALS - -(_At three corresponding stages of development_). - -B = BAT (Rhinolophus) G = GIBBON (Hylobates) M = MAN (Homo)] - - -CHAPTER III - -THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE SOUL - -THE IDEAS OF IMMORTALITY AND GOD - - -Though it was my original intention to deliver only two lectures, I -have been moved by several reasons to add a supplementary one. In -the first place, I notice with regret that I have been compelled -by pressure of time to leave untouched in my earlier lectures, or -to treat very inadequately, several important points in my theme; -there is, in particular, the very important question of the nature -of the soul. In the second place, I have been convinced by the -many contradictory press-notices during the last few days that -many of my incomplete observations have been misunderstood or -misinterpreted. And, thirdly, it seemed advisable to give a brief -and clear summary of the whole subject in this farewell lecture, -to take a short survey of the past, present, and future of the -theory of evolution, and especially its relation to the three great -questions of personal immortality, the freedom of the will, and the -personality of God. - -I must claim the reader's patience and indulgence even to a greater -extent than in the previous chapters, as the subject is one of the -most difficult and obscure that the human mind approaches. I have -dealt at length in my recent works, _The Riddle of the Universe_ -and _The Wonders of Life_, with the controversial questions of -biology that I treat cursorily here. But I would like to put before -you now, in a general survey, the powerful arguments that modern -science employs against the prevailing superstition in regard to -evolution, and to show that the Monistic system throws a clear -light on the great questions of God and the world, the soul and -life. - -In the previous chapters I have tried to give a general idea of -the present state of the theory of evolution and its victorious -struggle with the older legend of creation. We have seen that -even the most advanced organism, man, was not brought into being -by a creative act, but gradually developed from a long series of -mammal ancestors. We also saw that the most man-like mammals, -the anthropoid apes, have substantially the same structure as -man, and that the evolution of the latter from the former can -now be regarded as a fully established hypothesis, or, rather, -an historical fact. But in this study we had in view mainly the -structure of the body and its various organs. We touched very -briefly on the evolution of the human mind, or the immaterial -soul that dwells in the body for a time, according to a venerable -tradition. To-day we turn chiefly to the development of the soul, -and consider whether man's mental development is controlled by -the same natural laws as that of his body, and whether it also is -inseparably bound up with that of the rest of the mammals. - -At the very threshold of this difficult province we encounter -the curious fact that there are two radically distinct tendencies -in psychology at our universities to-day. On one side we have the -metaphysical and professional psychologists. They still cling -to the older view that man's soul is a special entity, a unique -independent individuality, which dwells for a time only in the -mortal frame, leaving it and living on as an immortal spirit after -death. This dualistic theory is connected with the doctrine of -most religions, and owes its high authority to the fact that it is -associated with the most important ethical, social, and practical -interests. Plato gave prominence to the idea of the immortality of -the soul in philosophy long ago. Descartes at a later date gave -emphasis to it by ascribing a true soul to man alone and refusing -it to the animals. - -This metaphysical psychology, which ruled alone for a considerable -period, began to be opposed in the eighteenth, and still more in -the nineteenth, century by _comparative psychology_. An impartial -comparison of the psychic processes in the higher and lower animals -proved that there were numerous transitions and gradations. A long -series of intermediate stages connects the psychic life of the -higher animals with that of man on the one side, and that of the -lower animals on the other. There was no such thing as a sharp -dividing line, as Descartes supposed. - -But the greatest blow was dealt at the predominant metaphysical -conception of the life of the soul thirty years ago by the -new methods of _psychophysics_. By means of a series of able -experiments the physiologists, Theodor Fechner and Ernst Heinrich -Weber of Leipsic, showed that an important part of the mental -activity can be measured and expressed in mathematical formulæ -just as well as other physiological processes, such as muscular -contractions. Thus the laws of physics control a part of the -life of the soul just as absolutely as they do the phenomena of -inorganic nature. It is true that psychophysics has only partially -realised the very high expectations that were entertained in regard -to its Monistic significance; but the fact remains that a part of -the mental life is just as unconditionally ruled by physical laws -as any other natural phenomena. - -Thus _physiological psychology_ was raised by psychophysics to -the rank of a physical and, in principle, exact science. But it -had already obtained solid foundations in other provinces of -biology. Comparative psychology had traced connectedly the long -gradation from man to the higher animals, from these to the lower, -and so on down to the very lowest. At the lowest stage it found -those remarkable beings, invisible with the naked eye, that were -discovered in stagnant water everywhere after the invention of -the microscope (in the second half of the seventeenth century) -and called "infusoria." They were first accurately described and -classified by Gottfried Ehrenberg, the famous Berlin microscopist. -In 1838 he published a large and beautiful work, illustrating on -64 folio pages the whole realm of microscopic life; and this is -still the base of all studies of the protists. Ehrenberg was a very -ardent and imaginative observer, and succeeded in communicating -his zeal for the study of microscopic organisms to his pupils. I -still recall with pleasure the stimulating excursions that I made -fifty years ago (in the summer of 1854) with my teacher, Ehrenberg, -and a few other pupils--including my student-friend, Ferdinand von -Richthofen, the famous geographer--to the Zoological Gardens at -Berlin. Equipped with fine nets and small glasses, we fished in -the ponds of the Zoological Gardens and in the Spree, and caught -thousands of invisible micro-organisms, which then richly rewarded -our curiosity by the beautiful forms and mysterious movements they -disclosed under the microscope. - -The way in which Ehrenberg explained to us the structure and the -vital movements of his infusoria was very curious. Misled by the -comparison of the real infusoria with the microscopic but highly -organised rotifers, he had formed the idea that all animals are -alike advanced in organisation, and had indicated this erroneous -theory in the very title of his work: _The Infusoria as Perfect -Organisms: a Glance at the Deeper Life of Organic Nature_. He -thought he could detect in the simplest infusoria the same distinct -organs as in the higher animals--stomach, heart, ovaries, kidneys, -muscles, and nerves--and he interpreted their psychic life on the -same peculiar principle of equally advanced organisation. - -Ehrenberg's theory of life was entirely wrong, and was radically -destroyed in the hour of its birth (1838) by the cell-theory which -was then formulated, and to which he never became reconciled. Once -Matthias Schleiden had shown the composition of all the plants, -tissues, and organs from microscopic cells, the last structural -elements of the living organism, and Theodor Schwann had done the -same for the animal body, the theory attained such an importance -that Kölliker and Leydig based on it the modern science of tissues, -or histology, and Virchow constructed his cellular pathology by -applying it to diseased human beings. These are the most important -advances of theoretical medicine. But it was still a long time -before the difficult question of the relation of these microscopic -beings to the cell was answered. Carl Theodor von Siebold had -already maintained (in 1845) that the real infusoria and the -closely related rhizopods were _unicellular organisms_, and had -distinguished these _protozoa_ from the rest of the animals. -At the same time, Carl Naegeli had described the lowest algæ -as "unicellular plants." But this important conception was not -generally admitted until some time afterwards, especially after I -brought all the unicellular organisms under the head of "protists" -(1872), and defined their psychic functions as the "cell-soul." - -I was led to make a very close study of these unicellular -protists and their primitive cell-soul through my research on the -radiolaria, a very remarkable class of microscopic organisms that -float in the sea. I was engaged most of my time for more than -thirty of the best years of my life (1856-87) in studying them -in every aspect, and if I came eventually to adopt a strictly -Monistic attitude on all the great questions of biology, I owe it -for the most part to my innumerable observations and uninterrupted -reflections on the wonderful vital movements that are disclosed by -these smallest and frailest, and at the same time most beautiful -and varied, of living things. - -I had undertaken the study of the radiolaria as a kind of souvenir -of my great master, Johannes Müller. He had loved to study these -animals (of which only a few species were discovered for the first -time in the year of my birth, 1834) in the last years of his -life, and had in 1855 set up the special group of the rhizopods -(protozoa). His last work, which appeared shortly after his death -(1858), and contained a description of 50 species of radiolaria, -went with me to the Mediterranean when I made my first long voyage -in the summer of 1859. I was so fortunate as to discover about 150 -new species of radiolaria at Messina, and based on these my first -monograph of this very instructive class of protists (1862). I -had no suspicion at that time that fifteen years afterwards the -deep-sea finds of the famous _Challenger_ expedition would bring -to light an incalculable wealth of these remarkable animals. In my -second monograph on them (1887), I was able to describe more than -4,000 different species of radiolaria, and illustrate most of them -on 140 plates. I have given a selection of the prettiest forms on -ten plates of my _Art-forms in Nature_. - -I have not space here to go into the forms and vital movements of -the radiolaria, of the general import of which my friend, Wilhelm -Bölsche, has given a very attractive account in his various -popular works. I must restrict myself to pointing out the general -phenomena that bear upon our particular subject, the question of -the mind. The pretty flinty skeletons of the radiolaria, which -enclose and protect the soft unicellular body, are remarkable, not -only for their extraordinary gracefulness and beauty, but also -for the geometrical regularity and relative constancy of their -forms. The 4,000 species of radiolaria are just as constant as the -4,000 known species of ants; and, as the Darwinian Jesuit, Father -Wasmann, has convinced himself that the latter have all descended -by transformation from a common stem-form, I have concluded on the -same principles that the 4,000 species of radiolaria have developed -from a primitive form in virtue of adaptation and heredity. This -primitive form, the stem-radiolarian (_Actissa_) is a simple round -cell, the soft living protoplasmic body of which is divided into -two different parts, an inner central capsule (in the middle of -which is the solid round nucleus) and an outer gelatinous envelope -(_calymma_). From the outer surface of the latter, hundreds and -thousands of fine plasmic threads radiate; these are mobile and -sensitive processes of the living internal substance, the plasm (or -protoplasm). These delicate microscopic threads, or pseudopodia, -are the curious organs that effect the sensations (of touch), -the locomotion (by pushing), and the orderly construction of the -flinty house; at the same time, they maintain the nourishment of -the unicellular body, by seizing infusoria, diatoms, and other -protists, and drawing them within the plasmic body, where they -are digested and assimilated. The radiolaria generally reproduce -by the formation of spores. The nucleus within the protoplasmic -globule divides into two small nuclei, each of which surrounds -itself with a quantity of plasm, and forms a new cell. - -What is this plasm? What is this mysterious "living substance" -that we find everywhere as the material foundation of the "wonders -of life"? Plasm, or protoplasm, is, as Huxley rightly said -thirty years ago, "the physical basis of organic life"; to speak -more precisely, it is a chemical compound of carbon that alone -accomplishes the various processes of life. In its simplest form -the living cell is merely a soft globule of plasm, containing -a firmer nucleus. The inner nuclear matter (called caryoplasm) -differs somewhat in chemical composition from the outer cellular -matter (or cytoplasm); but both substances are composed of carbon, -oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulphur; both belong to the -remarkable group of the albuminates, the nitrogenous carbonates -that are distinguished for the extraordinary size of their -molecules and the unstable arrangement of the numerous atoms (more -than a thousand) that compose them. - -There are, however, still simpler organisms in which the nucleus -and the body of the cell have not yet been differentiated. These -are the _monera_, the whole living body of which is merely a -homogeneous particle of plasm (the chromacea and bacteria). The -well-known bacteria which now play so important a part as the -causes of most dangerous infectious diseases, and the agents of -putrefaction, fermentation, etc., show very clearly that organic -life is only a chemical and physical process, and not the outcome -of a mysterious "vital force." - -We see this still more clearly in our radiolaria, and at the same -time they show us unmistakably that even the psychic activity is -such a physico-chemical process. All the different functions of -their cell-soul, the sense-perception of stimuli, the movement -of their plasm, their nutrition, growth, and reproduction, are -determined by the particular chemical composition of each of the -4,000 species; and they have all descended, in virtue of adaptation -and heredity, from the common stem-form of the naked, round -parent-radiolarian (_Actissa_). - -We may instance, as a peculiarly interesting fact in the psychic -life of the unicellular radiolaria, the extraordinary power of -memory in them. The relative constancy with which the 4,000 -species transmit the orderly and often very complex form of their -protective flinty structure from generation to generation can -only be explained by admitting in the builders, the invisible -plasma-molecules of the pseudopodia, a fine "plastic sense of -distance," and a tenacious recollection of the architectural -power of their fathers. The fine, formless plasma-threads are -always building afresh the same delicate flinty shells with an -artistic trellis-work, and with protective radiating needles -and supports always at the same points of their surface. The -physiologist, Ewald Hering (of Leipsic), had spoken in 1870 of -memory as "a general function of organised matter." I myself had -tried to explain the molecular features of heredity by the memory -of the plasma-molecules, in my essay on "The Perigenesis of the -Plastidules" (1875). Recently one of the ablest of my pupils, -Professor Richard Semon (of Munich, 1904), made a profound study -of "Mneme as the principle of constancy in the changes of organic -phenomena," and reduced the mechanical process of reproduction to a -purely physiological base. - -From the cell-soul and its memory in the radiolaria and other -unicellular protists, we pass directly to the similar phenomenon in -the ovum, the unicellular starting-point of the individual life, -from which the complex multicellular frame of all the histona, or -tissue-forming animals and plants, is developed. Even the human -organism is at first a simple nucleated globule of plasm, about -1/125 inch in diameter, barely visible to the naked eye as a tiny -point. This stem-cell (_cytula_) is formed at the moment when the -ovum is fertilised, or mingled with the small male spermatozoon. -The ovum transmits to the child by heredity the personal traits of -the mother, the sperm-cell those of the father; and this hereditary -transmission extends to the finest characteristics of the soul as -well as of the body. The modern research as to heredity, which -occupies so much space now in biological literature, but was only -started by Darwin in 1859, is directed immediately to the visible -material processes of impregnation. - -The very interesting and important phenomena of impregnation have -only been known to us in detail for thirty years. It has been -shown conclusively, after a number of delicate investigations, -that the individual development of the embryo from the stem-cell -or fertilised ovum is controlled by the same laws in all cases. -The stem-cell divides and subdivides rapidly into a number of -simple cells. From these a few simple organs, the germinal layers, -are formed at first; later on the various organs, of which there -is no trace in the early embryo, are built up out of these. The -biogenetic law teaches us how, in this development, the original -features of the ancestral history are reproduced or recapitulated -in the embryonic processes; and these facts in turn can only be -explained by the unconscious memory of the plasm, the "_mneme_ of -the living substance" in the germ-cells, and especially in their -nuclei. - -One important result of these modern discoveries was the prominence -given to the fact that the personal soul has a beginning of -existence, and that we can determine the precise moment in which -this takes place; it is when the parent cells, the ovum and -spermatozoon, coalesce. Hence what we call the soul of man or the -animal has not pre-existed, but begins its career at the moment of -impregnation; it is bound up with the chemical constitution of the -plasm, which is the material vehicle of heredity in the nucleus of -the maternal ovum and the paternal spermatozoon. One cannot see how -a being that thus has a beginning of existence can afterwards prove -to be "immortal." - -Further, a candid examination of the simple cell-soul in the -unicellular infusoria, and of the dawn of the individual soul in -the unicellular germ of man and the higher animals, proves at once -that psychic action does not necessarily postulate a fully formed -nervous system, as was previously believed. There is no such system -in many of the lower animals, or any of the plants, yet we find -psychic activities, especially sensation, irritability, and reflex -action everywhere. All living plasm has a psychic life, and in this -sense the psyche is a partial function of organic life generally. -But the higher psychic functions, particularly the phenomena of -consciousness, only appear gradually in the higher animals, in -which (in consequence of a division of labour among the organs) the -nervous system has assumed these functions. - -It is particularly interesting to glance at the central nervous -system of the vertebrates, the great stem of which we regard -ourselves as the crowning point. Here again the anatomical and -embryological facts speak a clear and unambiguous language. In all -vertebrates, from the lowest fishes up to man, the psychic organ -makes its appearance in the embryo in the same form--a simple -cylindrical tube on the dorsal side of the embryonic body, in -the middle line. The anterior section of this "medullary tube" -expands into a club-shaped vesicle, which is the beginning of -the brain; the posterior and thinner section becomes the spinal -cord. The cerebral vesicle divides, by transverse constrictions, -into three, then four, and eventually five vesicles. The most -important of these is the first, the _cerebrum_, the organ of -the highest psychic functions. The more the intelligence develops -in the higher vertebrates, the larger, more voluminous, and more -specialised does the cerebrum become. In particular, the grey -mantle or cortex of the cerebrum, its most important part, only -attains in the higher mammals the degree of quantitative and -qualitative development that qualifies it to be the "organ of mind" -in the narrower sense. Through the famous discoveries of Paul -Flechsig eleven years ago we were enabled to distinguish eight -fields in the cortex, four of which serve as the internal centres -of sense-perception, and the four that lie between these are the -thought-centres (or association-centres) of the higher psychic -faculties--the association of impressions, the formation of ideas -and concepts, induction and deduction. This real organ of mind, the -_phronema_, is not yet developed in the lower mammals. It is only -gradually built up in the more advanced, exactly in proportion as -their intelligence increases. It is only in the most intelligent -forms of the placentals, the higher ungulates (horse, elephant), -the carnivores (fox, dog), and especially the primates, that the -phronema attains the high grade of development that leads us from -the anthropoid apes direct to the savage, and from him to civilised -man. - -We have learned a good deal about the special significance of the -various parts of the brain, as organs of specific functions, by the -progress of the modern science of experimental physiology. Careful -experiments by Goltz, Munk, Bernard, and many other physiologists, -have shown that the normal consciousness, speech, and the internal -sense-perceptions, are connected with definite areas of the cortex, -and that these various _parts of the soul_ are destroyed when -the organic areas connected with them are injured. But in this -respect Nature has unconsciously given us the most instructive -experiments. Diseases in these various areas show how their -functions are partially or totally extinguished when the cerebral -cells that compose them (the _neurona_ or ganglionic cells) are -partially or entirely destroyed. Here again Virchow, who was the -first to make a careful microscopic study of the finest changes in -the diseased cells, and so explain the nature of the disease, did -pioneer work. I still remember very well a spectacle of this kind -(in the summer of 1855, at Würzburg), which made a deep impression -on me. Virchow's sharp eye had detected a small suspicious spot -in the cerebrum of a lunatic, though there seemed to be nothing -remarkable about it on superficial examination. He handed it to me -for microscopic examination, and I found that a large number of the -ganglionic cells were affected, partly by fatty degeneration and -partly by calcification. The luminous remarks that my great teacher -made on these and similar finds in other cases of mental disorder, -confirmed my conviction of the unity of the human organism and -the inseparable connection of mind and body, which he himself -at that time expressly shared. When he abandoned this Monistic -conception of the psychic life for Dualism and Mysticism twenty -years afterwards (especially after his Munich speech in 1877), we -must attribute this partly to his psychological metamorphosis, -and partly to the political motives of which I spoke in the last -chapter. - -We find another series of strong arguments in favour of our -Monistic psychology in the individual development of the soul in -the child and the young animal. We know that the new-born child -has as yet no consciousness, no intelligence, no independent -judgment and thought. We follow the gradual development of these -higher faculties step by step in the first years of life, in -strict proportion to the anatomical development of the cortex -with which they are bound up. The inquiries into the child-soul -which Wilhelm Preyer began in Jena twenty-five years ago, his -careful "observations of the mental development of man in his early -years," and the supplementary research of several more recent -physiologists, have shown, from the ontogenetic side, that the soul -is not a special immaterial entity, but the sum-total of a number -of connected functions of the brain. When the brain dies, the soul -comes to an end. - -We have further proof in the stem-history of the soul, which we -gather from the comparative psychology of the lower and higher -mammals, and of savage and civilised races. Modern ethnography -shows us in actual existence the various stages through which the -mind rose to its present height. The most primitive races, such as -the Veddahs of Ceylon, or the Australian natives, are very little -above the mental life of the anthropoid apes. From the higher -savages we pass by a complete gradation of stages to the most -civilised races. But what a gulf there is, even here, between -the genius of a Goethe, a Darwin, or a Lamarck, and an ordinary -philisthine or third-rate official. All these facts point to one -conclusion: the human soul has only reached its present height by -a long period of gradual evolution; it differs in degree, not in -kind, from the soul of the higher mammals; and thus it cannot in -any case be immortal. - -That a large number of educated people still cling to the dogma of -personal immortality in spite of these luminous proofs, is owing to -the great power of conservative tradition and the evil methods of -instruction that stamp these untenable dogmas deep on the growing -mind in early years. It is for that very reason that the Churches -strive to keep the schools under their power at any cost; they can -control and exploit the adults at will, if independent thought and -judgment have been stifled in the earlier years. - -This brings us to the interesting question: What is the position of -the "ecclesiastical evolution" of the Jesuits (the "latest course -of Darwinism"), as regards this great question of the soul? Man is, -according to Wasmann, the image of God and a unique, immaterial -being, differing from all other animals in the possession of an -immortal soul, and therefore having a totally different origin from -them. Man's immortal soul is, according to this Jesuit sophistry, -"spiritual and sensitive," while the animal soul is sensitive only. -God has implanted his own spirit in man, and associated it with -an animal soul for the period of life. It is true that Wasmann -believes even man's body to have been created directly by God; -but, in view of the overwhelming proofs of our animal descent, he -leaves open the possibility of a development from a series of other -animals, in which case the Divine spirit would be breathed into him -in the end. The Christian Fathers, who were much occupied with the -introduction of the soul into the human embryo, tell us that the -immortal soul enters the soulless embryo on the fortieth day after -conception in the case of the boy, and on the eightieth day in the -case of the girl. If Wasmann supposes that there was a similar -introduction of the soul in the development of the race, he must -postulate a moment in the history of the anthropoid apes when God -sent his spirit into the hitherto unspiritual soul of the ape. - -When we look at the matter impartially in the light of pure reason, -the belief in immortality is wholly inconsistent with the facts of -evolution and of physiology. The ontogenetic dogma of the older -Church, that the soul is introduced into the soulless body at a -particular moment of its embryonic development, is just as absurd -as the phylogenetic dogma of the most modern Jesuits, that the -Divine spirit was breathed into the frame of an anthropoid ape at -a certain period (in the Tertiary period), and so converted it -into an immortal soul. We may examine and test this belief as we -will, we can find in it nothing but a piece of mystic superstition. -It is maintained solely by the great power of tradition and the -support of Conservative governments, the leaders of which have no -personal belief in these "revelations," but cling to the practical -conviction that throne and altar must support each other. They -unfortunately overlook the circumstance that the throne is apt -to become merely the footstool to the altar, and that the Church -exploits the State for its own, not the State's, good. - -We learn further, from the history of this dogma, that the -belief in immortality did not find its way into science until a -comparatively late date. It is not found in the great Monistic -natural philosophers who, six centuries before the time of Christ, -evinced a profound insight into the real nature of the world. It -is not found in Democritus and Empedocles, in Seneca and Lucretius -Carus. It is not found in the older Oriental religions, Buddhism, -the ancient religion of the Chinese, or Confucianism; in fact, -there is no question of individual persistence after death in -the Pentateuch or the earlier books of the Old Testament (which -were written before the Babylonian Exile). It was Plato and his -pupil, Aristotle, that found a place for it in their dualistic -metaphysics; and its agreement with the Christian and Mohammedan -teaching secured for it a very widespread acceptance. - -Another psychological dogma, the belief in man's free-will, is -equally inconsistent with the truth of evolution. Modern physiology -shows clearly that the will is never really free in man or in the -animal, but determined by the organisation of the brain; this in -turn is determined in its individual character by the laws of -heredity and the influence of the environment. It is only because -the _apparent_ freedom of the will has such a great practical -significance in the province of religion, morality, sociology, and -law, that it still forms the subject of the most contradictory -claims. Theoretically, determinism, or the doctrine of the -necessary character of our volitions, was established long ago. - -With the belief in the absolute freedom of the will and the -personal immortality of the soul is associated, in the minds of -many highly educated people, a third article of faith, the belief -in a personal God. It is well known that this belief, often wrongly -represented as an indispensable foundation of religion, assumes -the most widely varied shapes. As a rule, however, it is an open -or covert anthropomorphism. God is conceived as the "Supreme -Being," but turns out, on closer examination, to be an idealised -man. According to the Mosaic narrative, "God made man to his own -image and likeness," but it is usually the reverse; "Man made -God according to his own image and likeness." This idealised man -becomes creator and architect and produces the world, forming the -various species of plants and animals like a modeller, governing -the world like a wise and all-powerful monarch, and, at the "Last -Judgment," rewarding the good and punishing the wicked like a -rigorous judge. The childish conceptions of this extramundane God, -who is set over against the world as an independent being, the -personal creator, maintainer, and ruler of all things, are quite -incompatible with the advanced science of the nineteenth century, -especially with its two greatest triumphs, the law of substance and -the law of Monistic evolution. - -Critical philosophy, moreover, long ago pronounced its doom. In -the first place, the most famous critical thinker, Immanuel Kant, -proved in his _Critique of Pure Reason_ that absolute science -affords no support to the three central dogmas of metaphysics, -the personal God, the immortality of the soul, and the freedom -of the will. It is true that he afterwards (in the course of his -dualistic and dogmatic metamorphosis) taught that we must _believe_ -these three great mystic forces, and that they are indispensable -postulates of practical reason; and that the latter must take -precedence over pure reason. Modern German philosophy, which -clamours for a "return to Kant," sees his chief distinction in this -impossible reconciliation of polar contradictions. The Churches, -and the ruling powers in alliance with them, accord a welcome to -this diametrical contradiction, recognised by all candid readers of -the Königsberg philosopher, between the two reasons. They use the -confusion that results for the purpose of putting the light of the -creeds in the darkness of doubting reason, and imagine that they -save religion in this way. - -Whilst we are engaged with the important subject of religion, we -must refute the charge, often made, and renewed of recent years, -that our Monistic philosophy and the theory of evolution that -forms its chief foundation destroy religion. It is only opposed -to those lower forms of religion that are based on superstition -and ignorance, and would hold man's reason in bondage by empty -formalism and belief in the miraculous, in order to control it -for political purposes. This is chiefly the case with Romanism -or Ultramontanism, that pitiful caricature of pure Christianity -that still plays so important a part in the world. Luther would -turn in his grave if he could see the predominance of the Roman -Centre party in the German Empire to-day. We find the papacy, the -deadly enemy of Protestant Germany, controlling its destiny, and -the Reichstag submitting willingly to be led by the Jesuits. Not -a voice do we hear raised in it against the three most dangerous -and mischievous institutions of Romanism--the obligatory celibacy -of the clergy, the confessional, and indulgences. Though these -later institutions of the Roman Church have nothing to do with the -original teaching of the Church and pure Christianity; though their -immoral consequences, so prejudicial to the life of the family and -the State, are known to all, they exist just as they did before the -Reformation. Unfortunately, many German princes foster the ambition -of the Roman clergy, making their "Canossa-journey" to Rome, and -bending the knee to the great charlatan at the Vatican. - -It is also very regrettable that the increasing tendency to -external show and festive parade at what is called "the new court" -does grave injury to real and inner religion. We have a striking -instance of this external religion in the new cathedral at Berlin, -which many would have us regard as "Catholic," not Protestant -and Evangelical. I often met in India priests and pilgrims who -believed they were pleasing their God by turning prayer-wheels, or -setting up prayer-mills that were set in motion by the wind. One -might utilise the modern invention of automatic machines for the -same purposes, and set up praying automata in the new cathedral, -or indulgence-machines that would give relief from lighter sins -for one mark [shilling], and from graver sins for twenty marks. It -would prove a great source of revenue to the Church, especially if -similar machines were set up in the other churches that have lately -been erected in Berlin at a cost of millions of marks. It would -have been better to have spent the money on schools. - -These observations on the more repellent characters of modern -orthodoxy and piety may be taken as some reply to the sharp attacks -to which I have been exposed for forty years, and which have lately -been renewed with great violence. The spokesmen of Catholic and -Evangelical beliefs, especially the Romanist _Germania_ and the -Lutheran _Reichsbote_, have vied with each other in deploring my -lectures as "a desecration of this venerable hall," and in damning -my theory of evolution--without, of course, making any attempt -to repute its scientific truth. They have, in their Christian -charity, thought fit to put sandwich-men at the doors of this room, -to distribute scurrilous attacks on my person and my teaching to -those who enter. They have made a generous use of the fanatical -calumnies that the court chaplain, Stöcker, the theologian, Loofs, -the philologist, Dennert, and other opponents of my _Riddle of the -Universe_, have disseminated, and to which I make a brief reply at -the end of that work. I pass by the many untruths of these zealous -protagonists of theology. We men of science have a different -conception of truth from that which prevails in ecclesiastical -circles.[10] - -As regards the relation of science to Christianity, I will only -point out that it is quite irreconcilable with the mystic and -supernatural Christian beliefs, but that it fully recognises the -high ethical value of Christian morality. It is true that the -highest commands of the Christian religion, especially those of -sympathy and brotherly love, are not discoveries of its own; the -golden rule was taught and practised centuries before the time of -Christ. However, Christianity has the distinction of preaching -and developing it with a fresh force. In its time it has had a -beneficial influence on the development of civilisation, though -in the Middle Ages the Roman Church became, with its Inquisition, -its witch-drowning, its burning of heretics, and its religious -wars, the bloodiest caricature of the gentle religion of love. -Orthodox _historical_ Christianity is not directly destroyed by -modern science, but by its own learned and zealous theologians. -The enlightened Protestantism that was so effectively advocated -by Schleiermacher in Berlin eighty years ago, the later works of -Feuerbach, the inquiries into the life of Jesus of David Strauss -and Ernest Renan, the lectures recently delivered here by Delitzsch -and Harnack, have left very little of what strict orthodoxy regards -as the indispensable foundations of historical Christianity. -Kalthoff, of Bremen, goes so far as to declare that all Christian -traditions are myths, and that the development of Christianity is a -necessary outcome of the civilisation of the time. - -In view of this broadening tendency in theology and philosophy -at the beginning of the twentieth century, it is an unfortunate -anachronism that the Ministers of Public Instruction of Prussia and -Bavaria sail in the wake of the Catholic Church, and seek to instil -the spirit of the Jesuits in both lower and higher education. It -is only a few weeks since the Prussian Minister of Worship made a -dangerous attempt to suppress academic freedom, the palladium of -mental life in Germany. This increasing reaction recalls the sad -days of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when thousands -of the finest citizens of Germany migrated to North America, in -order to develop their mental powers in a free atmosphere. This -selective process formed a blessing to the United States, but it -was certainly very injurious to Germany. Large numbers of weak -and servile characters and sycophants were thus favoured. The -fossilised ideas of many of our leading jurists seem to take us -back sometimes to the Cretaceous and Jurassic periods, while the -palæozoic rhetoric of our theologians and synods even goes back to -the Permian and Carboniferous epochs. - -However, we must not take too seriously the anxiety that this -increasing political and clerical reaction causes us. We must -remember the vast resources of civilisation that are seen to-day in -our enormous international intercourse, and must have confidence -in the helpful exchange of ideas between east and west that is -being effected daily by our means of transit. Even in Germany -the darkness that now prevails will at length give place to the -dazzling light of the sun. Nothing, in my opinion, will contribute -more to that end than the unconditional victory of the idea of -evolution. - -Beside the law of evolution, and closely connected with it, we have -that great triumph of modern science, the law of substance--the -law of the conservation of matter (Lavoisier, 1789), and of the -conservation of energy (Robert Mayer, 1842). These two laws are -irreconcilable with the three central dogmas of metaphysics, -which so many educated people still regard as the most precious -treasures of their spiritual life--the belief in a personal God, -the personal immortality of the soul, and the liberty of the human -will. But these great objects of belief, so intimately bound up -with numbers of our treasured achievements and institutions, are -not on that account driven out of the world. They merely cease -to pose as truths in the realm of pure science. As imaginative -creations, they retain a certain value in the world of poetry. -Here they will not only, as they have done hitherto, furnish -thousands of the finest and most lofty motives for every branch of -art--sculpture, painting, or music--but they will still have a high -ethical and social value in the education of the young and in the -organisation of society. Just as we derive artistic and ethical -inspiration from the legends of classical antiquity (such as the -Hercules myth, the _Odyssey_ and the _Iliad_) and the story of -William Tell, so we will continue to do in regard to the stories of -the Christian mythology. But we must do the same with the poetical -conceptions of other religions, which have given the most varied -forms to the transcendental ideas of God, freedom, and immortality. - -Thus the noble warmth of art will remain, together with--not in -opposition to, but in harmony with--the splendid light of science, -one of the most precious possessions of the human mind. As Goethe -said: "He who has science and art has religion; he who has not -these two had better have religion." Our Monistic system, the -"connecting link between religion and science," brings God and the -world into unity in the sense that Goethe willed, the sense that -Spinoza clearly expressed long ago and Giordano Bruno had sealed -with his martyrdom. It has been said repeatedly of late that Goethe -was an orthodox Christian. A few years ago a young orator quoted -him in support of the wonderful dogmas of the Christian religion. -We may point out that Goethe himself expressly said he was "a -decided non-Christian." The "great heathen of Weimar" has given -the clearest expression to his Pantheistic views in his noblest -poems, _Faust_, _Prometheus_, and _God and the World_. How could -so vigorous a thinker, in whose mind the evolution of organic life -ran through millions of years, have shared the narrow belief of a -Jewish prophet and enthusiast who sought to give up his life for -humanity 1,900 years ago? - -Our Monistic god, the all-embracing essence of the world, the -Nature-god of Spinoza and Goethe, is identical with the eternal, -all-inspiring energy, and is one, in eternal and infinite -substance, with space-filling matter. It "lives and moves in -all things," as the Gospel says. And as we see that the law of -substance is universal, that the conservation of matter and of -energy is inseparably connected, and that the ceaseless development -of this substance follows the same "eternal iron laws," we find God -in natural law itself. The will of God is at work in every falling -drop of rain and every growing crystal, in the scent of the rose -and the spirit of man. - - - - -APPENDIX - -EVOLUTIONARY TABLES - - - - -1.--GEOLOGICAL AGES AND PERIODS - - -----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------ - Ages in the | | |Approximate length - Organic History | Periods of | Vertebrate |of Paleontological - of the Earth. | Geology | Fossils. | Periods. - -----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------ - | {1. Laurentian | | - I. Archeozoic age| { | | 52 million years - (primordial) | { | No fossil |Sedimentary strata - | {2. Huronian | remains of | 63,000 ft. thick - | | vertebrates | - Age of | 3. Cambrian | | - invertebrates | | | - -----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------ - | | | - | 4. Silurian | Fishes | - | | | - II. Paleozoic age| 5. Devonian | Dipneusts | 34 million years - (primary) | | |Sedimentary strata - Age of fishes | 6. Carboniferous| Amphibia | 41,200 ft. thick - | | | - | 7. Permian | Reptiles | - -----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------ - | | | - | 8. Triassic | Monotremes | - III. Mesozoic age| | | 11 million years - (secondary) | 9. Jurassic | Marsupials |Sedimentary strata - Age of reptiles| | | 12,200 ft. thick - | 10. Cretaceous | {_Mallotheria_ | - | | {Pro-placentals | - -----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------ - | | | - | 11. Eocene | {_Prosimiæ_ | - | | { Lemurs | - | | | - | 12. Oligocene | {_Cynopitheca_ | - IV. Cenozoic age | | { Baboons | - (tertiary) | | | 3 million years - Age of mammals | 13. Miocene | {_Anthropoides_ | 3,600 ft. thick - | | { Man-like apes | - | | | - | 14. Pliocene | {_Pithecanthropi_| - | | { Ape-men | - -----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------ - | | | - V. Anthropozoic | 15. Glacial | Pre-historic man | - age (quaternary)| | | 300,000 years - Age of man | 16. Post-glacial | Savage and |Sedimentary strata - | | civilised man | little thickness - -----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------ - - - - -2A.--MAN'S GENEALOGICAL TREE--_First Half_ - -EARLIER ANCESTRAL SERIES, WITHOUT FOSSIL REMAINS, BEFORE THE -SILURIAN PERIOD - - -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+----- - Chief Stages.| Ancestral | Living Relatives |Pale-|Onto-|Mor- - | Stem-Groups. | of our Ancestors. |onto-|geny.|phol- - | | |logy.| |ogy. - -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+----- - Stages 1-5: | { 1. MONERA | 1. CHROMACEA | O | I? | I - PROTIST- | { (Plasmodoma) | (_Chroococcus_) | | | - ANCESTORS | { without nuclei | _Phycochromacea_ | | | - Unicellular | { 2. ALGARIA | 2. PAULOTOMEA | O | I? | I - organisms | { Unicellular algæ | _Palmellacea_ | | | - | { with nuclei | _Eremosphaera_ | | | - | | | | | - | { 3. LOBOSA | 3. AMŒBINA | O | II | II - | { Unicellular | _Amœba_ | | | - | { (Amœboid) | _Lecocyta_ | | | - 1-2: | { Rhizopods | | | | - Plasmodomous | { 4. INFUSORIA | 4. FLAGELLATA | O | ? | II - Protophyta | { (Unicellular) | _Euflagellata_ | | | - 3-5: | { | _Zoomonades_ | | | - Plasmophagous| { 5. BLASTÆADES | 5. CATALLACTA | O | III | III - Protozoa | { Multicellular | _Magosphaera_ | | | - | { cell-colonies | _Volvocina_ | | | - | { | _Blastula?_ | | | - -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+----- - | { 6. GASTRÆADES | 6. GASTRULA | O | III | III - Stages 6-11: | { with two | _Hydra, Olynthus_,| | | - INVERTEBRATE | { germinal layers | _Orthonectida_ | | | - METAZOA- | { 7. PLATODES I. | 7. CRYPTOCŒLA | O | ? | I - ANCESTORS | { _Platodaria_ | (_Convoluta_) | | | - 6-8: | { (without nephridia)| (_Proporus_) | | | - Cœlenteria, | { 8. PLATODES II. | 8. RHABDOCŒLA | O | ? | I - without anus | { _Platodinia_ | (_Vortex_) | | | - anus or | { (with nephridia) | (_Monotus_) | | | - body-cavity | | | | | - | | | | | - | { 9. PROVERMALIA | 9. GASTROTRICHA | O | ? | I - | { _Rotatoria_ | _Trochozoa_ | | | - | { Primitive worms | _Trochophora_ | | | - 9-11: | {10. FRONTONIA | 10. ENTEROPNEUSTA | O | ? | I - Vermalia, | {(_Rhynchelminthes_)| _Balanoglossus_ | | | - with anus and| { Snouted worms | _Cephalodiscus_ | | | - body-cavity | {11. PROCHORDONIA | 11. COPELATA | O | II | II - | Worms with chorda | _Appendicaria_ | | | - ------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+----- - | {12. ACRANIA I. | 12. LARVÆ OF | O | III | II - | { (Prospondylia) | AMPHIOXUS | | | - Stages 12-15:| {13. ACRANIA II. | 13. LEPTOCARDIA | O | I | III - MONORRHINA- | { Later skull-less | Amphioxus | | | - ANCESTORS | { animals | (Lancelet) | | | - Earliest | {14. CYCLOSTOMA I. | 14. LARVÆ OF | O | III | II - vertebrates, | { (Archicrania) | PETROMYZON | | | - without jaws| {15. CYCLOSTOMA II. | 15. MARSIPOBRAN- | O | I | III - or pairs of | { Later round- | CHIA | | | - limbs, with | { mouthed animals | Myxinoides | | | - single | { | Petromyzontes | | | - nostril | | | | | - -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+----- - - - - -2B.--MAN'S GENEALOGICAL TREE--_Second Half_ - -LATER ANCESTRAL SERIES, WITH FOSSIL REMAINS, BEGINNING IN THE -SILURIAN - - -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+----- - Geological | Stem-Groups of | Living Relatives |Pale-|Onto-|Mor- - Periods. | Ancestors. | of our Ancestors. |onto-|geny.|phol- - | | |logy.| |logy. - -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+----- - |{16. SELACHII |16. NOTIDANIDES | I | II | III - Silurian |{ Primitive fishes| Chlamydoselachus| | | - |{ _Proselachii_ | _Heptanchus_ | | | - |{17. GANOIDES |17. ACCIPENSERIDES | II | I | II - Silurian |{ Plated fishes | Sturgeon, | | | - |{ _Proganoides_ | Polypterus | | | - |{18. DIPNEUSTA |18. NEODIPNEUSTA | I | II | II - Devonian |{ _Paladipneusta_ | Ceratodus, | | | - |{ | Protopterus | | | - |{19. AMPHIBIA |19. PHANEROBRANCHIA| III | III | III - Carboniferous|{ _Stegocephala_ | and Salamandrina | | | - |{ | (Proteus, Triton)| | | - |{20. REPTILIA |20. RHYNCOCEPHALIA | III | II | II - Permian |{ _Proreptilia_ | Primitive lizards| | | - |{ | Hatteria | | | - -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+----- - |{21. MONOTREMA |21. ORNITHODELPHIA | I | III | III - Triassic |{ _Promammalia_ | Echnida | | | - |{ | Ornithorhyncus | | | - |{22. MARSUPIALIA |22. DIDELPHIA | I | II | II - Jurassic |{ _Prodidelphia_ | Didelphys, | | | - |{ | Perameles | | | - |{23. MALLOTHERIA |23. INSECTIVORA | III | I | I - Cretaceous |{ _Prochoriata_ | Erinaceida | | | - |{ | (Ictopsida+) | | | - -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+----- - |{24. LEMURAVIDA |24. PACHYLEMURES | III | I? | II - Older Eocene |{ Earlier lemurs | (_Hypopsodus_+) | | | - |{ Dent. 3, 1, 4, 3 | (_Adapis_+) | | | - |{25. LEMUROGONA |25. AUTOLEMURES | II | I? | II - Later Eocene |{ Later lemurs | (_Eulemur_) | | | - |{ Dent. 2, 1, 4, 3 | (_Stenops_) | | | - |{26. DYSMOPITHECA |26. PLATYRRHINÆ | I | I | II - Oligocene |{ Western apes | (_Anthropops_+) | | | - |{ Dent. 2, 1, 3, 3 | (_Homunculus_+) | | | - |{27. CYNOPITHECA |27. PAPIOMORPHA | I | I | III - Older Miocene|{ Baboons (tailed) | (_Cynocephalus_)| | | - |{28. ANTHROPOIDES |28. HYLOBATIDA | I | II | III - Later Miocene|{ Anthropoid apes | Hylobates | | | - |{ (tailless) | Satyrus | | | - |{29. PITHECANTHROPI |29. ANTHROPITHECA | II | III | III - Pliocene |{ Ape-like men | Chimpanzee | | | - |{ (alali=speechless) | Gorilla | | | - |{30. HOMINES |30. WEDDAHS | I | III | III - Pleistocene |{ (loquaces=with | Australian | | | - |{ speech) | natives | | | - -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+----- - - - - -3.--CLASSIFICATION OF THE PRIMATES - - [[TRANSCRIBER NOTE: This 4-column Table has been split into two parts. - The first part has columns 1, 2 and 3. The second part has columns - 2, 3 and 4 (2 and 3 are repeated from the first part).]] - -_N.B_.-- * indicates extinct forms, + living groups, ++ the -hypothetical stem-form. _Cf._ _History of Creation_, chap. xxvii.; -_Evolution of Man_, chap. xxiii. - - [[First Part]] - ----------------------+------------------------+-------------------------- - Orders. | Sub-Orders. | Families. - ----------------------+------------------------+-------------------------- - | | - I | | - PROSIMIAE | { 1. LEMURAVIDA | {1. PACHYLEMURES* - Lemurs | { (_Palalemures_) | {(_Hypopsodina_) - (Hemipitheci) | { Early lemurs | { - The orbits imper- | { (generalists) | {Dent. 44=3.1.4.3/3.1.4.3 - fectly separated | { Originally with | {Primitive dentition - from the temporal | { claws on all or | { - depression by a | { most fingers: later | {2. NECROLEMURES - bony arch. Womb | { transition to nails. | {(_Anaptomorpha_) - double or two-horned. | { Tarsus primitive. | { - Placenta diffuse, in- | { | {Dent. 40=2.1.4.3/2.1.4.3 - deciduate (as a rule).| { | {Reduced dentition - Cerebrum relatively | { | - small, smooth, or | { | {3. AUTOLEMURES+ - little furrowed. | { | {(_Lemurida_) - | { 2. LEMUROGONA | { - | { (_Neolemures_) | {Dent. 36=2.1.3.3/2.1.3.3 - | { Modern lemures | {Specialised dentition - | { (specialists) | { - | { All fingers usually | {4. CHIROLEMURES+ - | { have nails (except | {(_Chiromyida_) - | { the second toe). | { - | { Tarsus modified. | {Dent. 18=1.0.1.3/1.0.0.3 - | | {Rodent dentition - | | - ----------------------+------------------------+-------------------------- - | | - II | | {5. ARCTOPITHECA+ - SIMIAE | { 3. PLATYRRHINAE | { - Apes | { Flat-nosed apes | {Dent. 32=2.1.3.2/2.1.3.2 - (_Pitheci_ or | { _Hesperopitheca_ | {Nail on hallux only - _simiales_) | { Western apes | { - Orbits completely | { (American) | {6. DYSMOPITHECA+ - separated from the | { Nostrils lateral, | { - temporal depression | { with wide partition | {Dent. 36=2.1.3.3/2.1.3.3 - by a bony septum. | { 3 premolars | {Nails on all fingers - Womb simple, pear- | { | - shaped. Placenta | { | {7. CYNOPITHECA+ - discoid, deciduate. | { | { - Cerebrum relatively | { | {Dent 32=2.1.2.3/2.1.2.3 - large and much | { | {Generally with tail - furrowed. | { 4. CATARRHINAE | {and cheek-pouches - | { Narrow-nosed | {Sacrum with 3 or - | { apes | {4 vertebræ - | { _Eopitheca_ | { - | { Eastern apes | {8. ANTHROPOMORPHA+ - | { (Arctogoea) | { - | { Europe, Asia, and | {Dent. 32=2.1.2.3/2.1.2.3 - | { Africa. | {No tail or cheek-pouches - | { Nostrils forward, | {Sacrum with 5 - | { with narrow septum | {vertebræ - | { 2 premolars | - | { Nails on all | - | { fingers | - | | - ----------------------+------------------------+-------------------------- - - - [[Second Part]] - -----------------------+---------------------------+----------------- - Sub-Orders. | Families. | Genera. - -----------------------+---------------------------+----------------- - | | - | | {_Archiprimas_++ - { 1. LEMURAVIDA | {1. PACHYLEMURES* | {_Lemuravus_* - { (_Palalemures_) | {(_Hypopsodina_) | { Early Eocene - { Early lemurs | { | {_Pelycodus_* - { (generalists) | {Dent. 44=3.1.4.3/3.1.4.3 | { Early Eocene - { Originally with | {Primitive dentition | {_Hypopsodus_* - { claws on all or | { | { Late Eocene - { most fingers: later | {2. NECROLEMURES | - { transition to nails. | {(_Anaptomorpha_) | {_Adapis_* - { Tarsus primitive. | { | {_Plesiadapis_* - { | {Dent. 40=2.1.4.3/2.1.4.3 | {Necrolemur* - { | {Reduced dentition | - { | | {_Eulemur_ - { | {3. AUTOLEMURES+ | {_Hapalemur_ - { | {(_Lemurida_) | {_Lepilemur_ - { 2. LEMUROGONA | { | {_Nycticebus_ - { (_Neolemures_) | {Dent. 36=2.1.3.3/2.1.3.3 | {_Stenops_ - { Modern lemures | {Specialised dentition | {_Galago_ - { (specialists) | { | - { All fingers usually | {4. CHIROLEMURES+ | {_Chiromys_ - { have nails (except | {(_Chiromyida_) | { (Claws on all - { the second toe). | { | { fingers except - { Tarsus modified. | {Dent. 18=1.0.1.3/1.0.0.3 | { first) - | {Rodent dentition | - | | - -----------------------+---------------------------+----------------- - | | - | {5. ARCTOPITHECA+ | {_Hapale_ - { 3. PLATYRRHINAE | { | {_Midas_ - { Flat-nosed apes | {Dent. 32=2.1.3.2/2.1.3.2 | - { _Hesperopitheca_ | {Nail on hallux only | - { Western apes | { | {_Callithrix_ - { (American) | {6. DYSMOPITHECA+ | {_Nyctipithecus_ - { Nostrils lateral, | { | {_Cebus_ - { with wide partition | {Dent. 36=2.1.3.3/2.1.3.3 | {_Mycetes_ - { 3 premolars | {Nails on all fingers | {_Ateles_ - { | | - { | {7. CYNOPITHECA+ | {_Cynocephalus_ - { | { | {_Cercopithecus_ - { | {Dent 32=2.1.2.3/2.1.2.3 | {_Inuus_ - { | {Generally with tail | {_Semnopithecus_ - { 4. CATARRHINAE | {and cheek-pouches | {_Colobus_ - { Narrow-nosed | {Sacrum with 3 or 4 | {_Nasalis_ - { apes | {vertebræ | - { _Eopitheca_ | { | {_Hylobates_ - { Eastern apes | {8. ANTHROPOMORPHA+ | {_Satyrus_ - { (Arctogoea) | { | {_Pliopithecus_* - { Europe, Asia, and | {Dent. 32=2.1.2.3/2.1.2.3 | {_Gorilla_ - { Africa. | {No tail or cheek-pouches | {_Anthropithecus_ - { Nostrils forward, | {Sacrum with 5 | {_Dryopithecus_* - { with narrow septum | {vertebræ | {_Pithe- - { 2 premolars | | { canthropus_* - { Nails on all | | {_Homo_ - { fingers | | - | | - -----------------------+---------------------------+----------------- - - - - -4.--GENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE PRIMATES - -[Illustration: Anthropomorpha] - - -EXPLANATION OF GENEALOGICAL TABLE 1 - -CHRONOMETRIC REDUCTION OF BIOGENETIC PERIODS - -The enormous length of the biogenetic periods (_i.e._, the periods -during which organic life has been evolving on our planet) is still -very differently estimated by geologists and paleontologists, -astronomers and physicists, because the empirical data of the -calculation are very incomplete and admit great differences of -estimate. However, most modern experts aver that their length -runs to 100 and 200 million years (some say double this, and even -more). If we take the lesser figure of 100 millions, we find this -distributed over the five chief periods of organic geology very -much as is shown on Table 1. In order to get a clearer idea of the -vast duration of these evolutionary periods, and to appreciate -the relative shortness of the "historical period," Dr. H. Schmidt -(Jena) has reduced the 100,000,000 years to a day. In this scheme -the twenty-four hours of "creation-day" are distributed as follows -over the five evolutionary periods: - - I. Archeozoic period (52 million years) = 12h. 30m. - II. Paleozoic period (34 million years) = 8h. 7m. - III. Mesozoic period (11 million years) = 2h. 38m. - IV. Cenozoic period (3 million years) = 43m. - V. Anthropozoic period (0·1-0·2 million years) = 2m. - -If we put the length of the "historic period" at 6,000 years, it -only makes _five seconds_ of "creation-day"; the Christian era -would amount to _two_ seconds. - - - - -POSTSCRIPT - -EVOLUTION AND JESUITISM - - -The relation of the theory of evolution to the teaching of -the Jesuits is in many respects so important and so liable to -misunderstanding that I have felt it very desirable to make it -clear in the present work. I have, I think, clearly showed that -the two doctrines are diametrically and irreconcilably opposed, -and that the attempt of the modern Jesuits to reconcile the two -antagonists is mere sophistry. I wrote with special reference -to the works of the learned Jesuit, Father Erich Wasmann, not -only because that writer deals with the subject more ably and -comprehensively than most of his colleagues, but because he is more -competent to make a scientific defence of his views on account of -his long studies of the ants and his general knowledge of biology. -He has made a vigorous reply to my strictures in an "open letter" -to me, which appeared on 2nd May, 1905, in the Berlin (or Roman) -_Germania_, and in the _Kölnische Volkszeitung_. - -The sophistical objections that Wasmann raises to my lectures, and -his misleading statement of the most important problems, oblige me -to make a brief reply in this "Postscript." It will be impossible, -of course, to meet all his points here, and convince him of their -futility. Not even the clearest and most rigorous logic makes a man -a match for a Jesuit; he adroitly employs the facts themselves for -the purpose of concealing the truth by his perverse misstatements. -It is vain to hope to convince my opponent by rational argument, -when he believes that religious faith is "higher than all reason." -A good idea can be formed of his position from the conclusion of -the eleventh chapter of his work, _Modern Biology and the Theory -of Evolution_ (p. 307). "There can never be a real contradiction -between natural knowledge and supernatural revelation, because -both have their origin in the same Divine spirit." This is a -fine comment on the incessant struggle that "natural science" is -compelled to maintain against "supernatural revelation," and that -fills the whole philosophical and theological literature of the -last half century. - -Wasmann's orthodox position is shown most clearly by the following -statement: "The theory of evolution, to which I subscribe as a -scientist and a philosopher, rests on the foundations of the -Christian doctrine which I hold to be the only true one: 'In the -beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'" Unfortunately, -he does not tell us how he conceives this "creation out of -nothing," and what he means by "God" and "heavens." I would -recommend him to consult Troelslund's excellent work, _The Idea of -Heaven and of the World_. - -Almost at the same time that I was delivering my lectures at -Berlin, Wasmann was giving a series of thoroughly Jesuitical -lectures on the subject at Lucerne. The Catholic Lucerne journal, -_Vaterland_, describes these lectures as "a work of emancipation" -and "a critical moment in the intellectual struggle." It quotes -the following sentence: "At the highest stage of the theistic -philosophy of evolution is God, the omnipotent creator of heaven -and earth; next to him, created by him, is the immortal soul of -man. We reach this conclusion, not only by faith, but by inductive -and strictly scientific methods. The system that is reared on the -theistic doctrine of evolution is the sole rational and truly -scientific system; the atheistic position is irrational and -unscientific." - -In order to see the untruth of this and the succeeding statements -of the modern Jesuits, we have to remember that the Churches--both -Protestant and Catholic--have vigorously combated the theory of -evolution with all their power for thirty years, ever since the -first appearance of Darwinism. The shrewd clergy saw more clearly -than many of our naïve philosophers that Darwin's theory of descent -is the inevitable key-stone of the whole theory of evolution, -and that "the descent of man from other mammals" is a rigorous -deduction from it. As Karl Escherich well says: "Hitherto we read -in the faces of our clerical opponents only hatred, bitterness, -contempt, mockery, or pity in regard to the new invader of their -dogmatic structure, the idea of evolution. Now (since Wasmann's -apostasy) the assurances of the Catholic journals, that the Church -has admitted the theory of evolution for decades, make us smile. -Evolution has now pressed on to its final victory, and these people -would have us believe that they were never unfriendly to it, never -shrieked and stormed against it. How, they say, could anyone have -been so foolish, when the theory of evolution puts the wisdom -and power of the creator in a nobler light than ever." We find -a similar diplomatic retreat in the popular work of the Jesuit, -Father Martin Gander, _The Theory of Descent_ (1904): "Thus the -modern forms of matter were not immediately created by God; they -are effects of the formative forces, which were put by the creator -in the primitive matter, and gradually came into view in the course -of the earth's history, when the external conditions were given in -the proper combination." That is a remarkable change of front on -the part of the clergy. - -We see the astonishing system of the Jesuits, and of the papacy of -which they are the bodyguard, not only in this impossible jumble -of evolution and theology, but also in other passages of Wasmann, -Gander, Gutberlet, and their colleagues. The serious dangers that -threaten our schools, and the whole of our higher culture, from -this Jesuitical sham-science, have been well pointed out lately -by Count von Hoensbroech in the preface to his famous work, _The -Papacy in its Social and Intellectual Activity_ (1901). "The -papacy," he says, "in its claim to a Divine authority, transmitted -to it by Christ, endowed with infallibility in all questions -of faith and morals, is the greatest, the most fatal, the most -successful error in the whole of history. This great error is -girt about by the thousands of lies of its supporters; this error -and these lies work for a system of power and domination, for -ultramontanism. The truth can but struggle against it.... Nowhere -do we find so much and such systematic lying as in Catholic -science, and in the history of the Church and the papacy; nowhere -are the lies and misrepresentations more pernicious than here; they -have become part and parcel of the Catholic religion. The facts -of history tell plainly enough that the papacy is anything but a -Divine institution; that it has brought more curses and ruin, more -bloody turmoil and profanation, into humanity's holiest of holies, -religion, than any other power in the world." - -This severe judgment on the papacy and Jesuitism is the more -valuable as Count von Hoensbroech was himself in the service of the -Jesuit Congregation for forty years, and learned thoroughly all -its tricks and intrigues. In making them public, and basing his -charges on numerous official documents, he has done great service -to the cause of truth and civilisation. I was merely repeating -his well-founded verdict when, at the close of my first lecture, -I described the papacy as the greatest swindle the world has ever -submitted to. - -A curious irony of Fate gave me an opportunity, the same evening, -to experience in my own person the correctness of this verdict. A -Berlin reporter telegraphed to London that I had fully accepted -the new theory of Father Wasmann, and recognised the error of -Darwinism; that the theory of evolution is not applicable to man on -account of his mental superiority. This welcome intelligence passed -from London to America and many other countries. The result was a -flood of letters from zealous adherents of the theory of evolution, -interrogating me as to my unintelligible change of front. I thought -at first that the telegram was due to the misunderstanding or the -error of a reporter, but I was afterwards informed from Berlin that -the false message was probably due to a deliberate corruption by -some religious person who thought to render a service to his faith -by this untruth. He had substituted "supported" for "refuted," and -"error" for "truth." - -The struggle for the triumph of truth, in which I have had the most -curious experiences during the last forty years, has brought me a -number of new impressions through my Berlin lectures. The flood -of calumnies of all kinds that the religious press (especially -the Lutheran _Reichsbote_ and the Catholic _Germania_) poured -over me exceeded any that had gone before. Dr. Schmidt gave a -selection from them in the _Freie Wort_ (No. 4, p. 144). I have -already pointed out, in the Appendix to the popular edition of the -_Riddle of the Universe_ [German edition], what unworthy means are -employed by my clerical and metaphysical opponents for the purpose -of bringing my popular scientific works into disrepute. I can only -repeat here that the calumniation of my person does not move me, -and does not injure the cause of truth which I serve. It is just -this unusually loud alarm of my clerical enemies that tells me my -sacrifices have not been in vain, and that I have put the modest -key-stone to the work of my life--"The advancement of knowledge by -the spread of the idea of evolution." - - - THE END - - - _Printed by Cowan & Co., Limited, Perth._ - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] The word "evolution" is still used in so many different ways -in various sciences that it is important to fix it in the general -significance which we here give it. By "evolution," in the widest -sense, I understand the unceasing "mutations of substance," -adopting Spinoza's fundamental conception of substance; it unites -inseparably in itself "matter and force (or energy)," or "nature -and mind" (= the world and God). Hence the science of evolution in -its broader range is "the history of substance," which postulates -the general validity of "the law of substance." In the latter are -combined "the law of the constancy of matter" (Lavoisier, 1789) -and "the law of the conservation of energy" (Robert Mayer, 1842), -however varied may be the changes of _form_ of these elements in -the world-process. _Cf._ Chapter XII. of _The Riddle_. - -[2] Certain orthodox periodicals have lately endeavoured to deny -this famous atheistical confession of the great Laplace, which was -merely a candid deduction of his splendid cosmic system. They say -that this Monistic natural philosopher acknowledged the Catholic -faith on his death-bed; and in proof of this they offer us the -later testimony of an Ultramontane priest. We need not point out -how uncertain is the love of truth of these heated partisans. When -testimony of this kind tends to "the good of religion" (_i.e._, -their own good), it is held to be a pious work (_pia fraus_). On -the other hand, it is interesting to recall the reply of a Prussian -Minister of Religion, Von Zedlitz, 120 years ago, to the Breslau -Consistory, when it urged that "those who believe most are the best -subjects." He wrote in reply: "His majesty [Frederick the Great] is -not disposed to rest the security of his State on the stupidity of -his subjects." - -[3] See, for instance, _Moses and Geology, or Harmony of the Bible -with Science_, by Samuel Kinns (1882). In this work the pious -Biblical astronomer executes the most incredible and Jesuitical -manœuvres in order to bring about an impossible reconciliation -between science and the Biblical narrative. - -[4] The eel-like sophistry of the Jesuits, which has been brought -to such a wonderful pitch in their political system, cannot, as -a rule, be met by argument. An interesting illustration of this -was given by Father Wasmann himself in his controversy with the -physician, Dr. Julian Marcuse. The "scientific" Wasmann had gone so -far in his zeal for religion as to support a downright swindle of -a "miraculous cure" in honour of the "Mother of God of Oostacker" -(the Belgian Lourdes). Dr. Marcuse succeeded in exposing the -whole astounding story of this "pious fraud" (_Deutsche Stimmen_, -Berlin, 1903, iv. Jahrg., No. 20). Instead of giving a scientific -refutation, the Jesuit replied with sophistic perversion and -personal invective (Scientific [?] Supplement to _Germania_, -Berlin, 1902, No. 43, and 1903, No. 13). In his final reply, Dr. -Marcuse said: "I have accomplished my object--to let thoughtful -people see once more the kind of ideas that are found in the -world of dead and literal faith, which tries to put the crudest -superstition and reverence for the myth of miraculous cures in the -place of science, truth and knowledge" (_Deutsche Stimmen_, 1903, -v. Jahrgang, No. 3). - -[5] While these pages are in the press the journals announce a -fresh humiliation of the German empire that will cause great -grief. On the 9th of May the nation celebrated the centenary of -the death of Friedrich Schiller. With rare unanimity all the -political parties of Germany, and all the German associations -abroad, came together to do honour to the great poet of German -idealism. Professor Theobald Ziegler delivered a very fine address -at Strassburg University. The Emperor, who happened to be in the -town, was invited, but did not attend; instead of doing so, he held -a military parade in the vicinity. A few days afterwards he sat at -table with the German Catholic cardinals and bishops, amongst them -being the fanatical Bishop Benzler, who declared that a Christian -cemetery was desecrated by the interment of a Protestant. At these -festive dinners German Catholics always give the first toast to the -Pope, the second to the Emperor; they rejoice at present that the -Emperor and Pope are _allies_. But the whole history of the papacy -(a pitiful caricature of the ancient Catholic faith) shows clearly -that they are natural and irreconcilable enemies. Either emperor -must rule _or_ pope. - -[6] The manuscript letter in which the gentle Darwin expresses so -severe a judgment on Virchow is printed in my Cambridge lecture, -_The Last Link_. My answer to Virchow's speech is contained in the -second volume of my _Popular Lectures_, and has lately appeared in -the _Freie Wort_ (April, 1905). - -[7] In his presidential speech at the last meeting of the British -Association, Professor Darwin said: "It does not seem unreasonable -to suppose that 500 to 1,000 million years may have elapsed since -the birth of the moon." [Trans.] - -[8] See account of similar experiments in the _Lancet_, 18th -January, 1902. [Trans.] - -[9] Wasmann meets these convincing experiments with mere Jesuitical -sophistry. Of the same character is his attack on my _Evolution of -Man_, and on the instructive work of Robert Wiedersheim, _Man's -Structure as a Witness to his Past_. - -[10] I may remind those who think that the hall of the Musical -Academy is "desecrated" by my lectures, that it was in the very -same place that Alexander von Humboldt delivered, seventy-seven -years ago (1828), the remarkable lectures that afterwards made up -his _Cosmos_. The great traveller, whose clear mind had recognised -the unity of Nature, and had, with Goethe, discovered therein -the real knowledge of God, endeavoured to convey his thoughts in -popular form to the educated Berlin public, and to establish the -universality of natural law. It was my aim to establish, as regards -the organic world, precisely what Humboldt had proved to exist -in inorganic nature. I wanted to show how the great advance of -modern biology (since Darwin's time) enables us to solve the most -difficult of all problems, the historical development of plants and -animals in humanity. Humboldt in his day earned the most lively -approval and gratitude of all free-thinking and truth-seeking men, -and the displeasure and suspicion of the orthodox and conservative -courtiers at Berlin. - - - - - * * * * * * - - - - -Transcriber's note: - - In Tables 2A and 2B, 'Ontogeny' column, the character ! was used in - the original text. This was probably a printer's error, and has been - replaced with I. So ! !! and !!! are displayed as I II and III. - - Notation for dentition in Table 2B (p. 117), where lower dentition is - assumed the same as upper, is unchanged; for example "3, 1, 4, 3". - In Table 3 (p.118) it is given as a fraction, and represented in the - etext as "upper/lower"; for example "44 = 3.1.4.3/3.1.4.3". - - Table 3 has been split into two parts in the etext. - - Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been - corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within - the text and consultation of external sources. - - Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, - and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained. For example, - manlike, man-like; paleozoic, palæozoic; to-day; unspiritual; instil. - - Pg 44, 'Christain sects' replaced by 'Christian sects'. - - Pg 53, '_Philosophie Zoologique_ (1899)' replaced by - '_Philosophie Zoologique_ (1809)'. - - Pg 53, 'and the champanzee)' replaced by 'and the chimpanzee)'. - - Pg 72, 'familar tendency' replaced by 'familiar tendency'. - - Pg 88, 'acurately described' replaced by 'accurately described'. - - Pg 115, '5. Jurassic' replaced by '9. Jurassic'. - - Pg 123, 'irrational and inscientific' replaced by 'irrational and - unscientific'. - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LAST WORDS ON EVOLUTION *** - - -******* This file should be named 53639-0.txt or 53639-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/3/6/3/53639 - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/53639-0.zip b/old/53639-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 6e52a63..0000000 --- a/old/53639-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53639-h.zip b/old/53639-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 8d09680..0000000 --- a/old/53639-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53639-h/53639-h.htm b/old/53639-h/53639-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 64f3f8d..0000000 --- a/old/53639-h/53639-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4698 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> -<head> -<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> -<title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Last Words on Evolution , by Ernst Haeckel</title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - - h1,h2,h3 { - text-align: center; - clear: both; - margin-top: 1.5em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - word-spacing: 0.2em; - letter-spacing: 0.1em; - font-weight: normal; -} - -h2 {font-size: 125%;} -h3 {font-size: 100%;} - -p { - margin-top: .5em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .3em; - text-indent: 1em; -} - -.p1 {margin-top: 1em;} -.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} -.p6 {margin-top: 6em;} - - -.noindent {text-indent: 0em;} - -.pfs240 {font-size: 240%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} -.pfs150 {font-size: 150%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} -.pfs120 {font-size: 120%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} -.pfs100 {font-size: 100%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} -.pfs90 {font-size: 90%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} -.pfs80 {font-size: 80%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} -.pfs70 {font-size: 70%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} - - -.xs {font-size: x-small;} -.small {font-size: small;} - -.fs70 {font-size: 70%; font-style: normal;} -.fs80 {font-size: 80%; font-style: normal;} - -.chapter {page-break-before: always; page-break-inside: avoid; margin-top: 2em;} - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; -} - -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} -hr.r30a {width: 30%; margin-left: 35%; margin-right: 35%; - margin-top: 0em; margin-bottom: 0em;} - -@media handheld { -hr { - width: 0%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - clear: both; - } - -hr.chap {width: 0%;} -hr.r30a {width: 0%; margin-top: 0em; margin-bottom: 0em;} -} - -.corr { - text-decoration: none; - border-bottom: thin dotted blue; -} - -@media handheld { - .corr { - text-decoration: none; - border-bottom: none; - } -} - -.screenonly { display: block; } - -@media handheld { - .screenonly { display: none; } -} - -.blka {display: block; text-align: center; font-size: 60%; font-weight: bold;} -.blkb {display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle;} - -table { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - -} - -td {padding: .15em .3em 0 .3em;} - -.tdpp {padding-top: 1em;} - -.tdl {text-align: left; padding-left: 1.5em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: middle; } -.tdr {text-align: right;} -.tdc {text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; } - -.tdlx {text-align: left; padding-left: 0.4em; line-height: 2em;} -.tdlxx {text-align: left; padding-left: 0.4em; line-height: 3em;} -.tdly {text-align: left; padding: .2em 0 0 0; vertical-align: top; font-size: 250%;} -.tdlyy {text-align: left; padding: .2em 0 0 0; vertical-align: top; font-size: 200%; line-height: 1.5em;} -.tdlz {text-align: left; padding-left: 0.4em; line-height: 1em;} - -.tdct {text-align: center; vertical-align: top;} - -.tdcbt {text-align: center; border-top: solid 1px;} -.tdcbb {text-align: center; border-bottom: solid 1px;} -.tdcbl {text-align: center; border-left: solid 1px;} - -.tdlbt {text-align: left; border-top: solid 1px;} -.tdlbl {text-align: left; border-left: solid 1px;} - -.wd1 {width: 1%;} -.wd5 {width: 5%;} -.wd20 {width: 20%;} -.wd25 {width: 25%;} -.wd80 {width: 80%;} - -.pad2 {padding-left: 2em;} -.pad4 {padding-left: 4em;} - -.pad5pc {padding-left: 5%;} -.pad10pc {padding-left: 10%;} -.pad15pc {padding-left: 15%;} -.pad20pc {padding-left: 20%;} -.pad40pc {padding-left: 40%;} - -.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - color: #A9A9A9; - left: 92%; - font-size: small; - font-weight: normal; - font-style: normal; - text-align: right; - text-indent: .5em; -} - -.blockquot { margin: 1.5em 5% 1.5em 5%; font-size: 85%;} - -.center {text-align: center; text-indent: 0em;} -.right {text-align: right; margin-right: 1em;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} -.over {text-decoration: overline;} - -.wsp {word-spacing: 0.3em;} -.lsp {letter-spacing: 0.15em;} -.lht {line-height: 1.2em;} - -.caption {font-weight: normal; - padding-bottom: 0.50em;} - -.antiqua {font-family: Diploma, England, Gothic, serif;} - -.pg-brk {page-break-before: always;} -.no-brk {page-break-before: avoid;} - -/* Images */ -img {border: none; max-width: 100%; height: auto;} - -.figcenter { - margin: auto; - padding-top: 0em; - padding-bottom: 1em; - text-align: center; - page-break-inside: avoid; -} - -/* Footnotes */ -.footnotes {border: dashed 1px; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 3em; - padding-bottom: 1em;} - -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 90%;} -.footnote p {text-indent: 0em;} -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: - none; -} - -/* Transcriber's notes */ -.transnote { - background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:90%; - padding:0.5em; - margin-top:5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; -} - -.transnote p {text-indent: 0em;} - -.customcover {visibility: hidden; display: none;} -@media handheld { - .customcover {visibility: visible; display: block;} -} - - h1,pg { margin-top: 0em; - word-spacing: 0em; - letter-spacing: 0em; - font-weight: bold; } - h2.pg { word-spacing: 0em; - letter-spacing: 0em; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: 135%; } - h3.pg { word-spacing: 0em; - letter-spacing: 0em; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: 110%; } - h4 { text-align: center; - clear: both; } - hr.full { width: 100%; - margin-top: 3em; - margin-bottom: 0em; - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - height: 4px; - border-width: 4px 0 0 0; /* remove all borders except the top one */ - border-style: solid; - border-color: #000000; - clear: both; } - </style> -</head> -<body> -<h1 class="pg">The Project Gutenberg eBook, Last Words on Evolution , by Ernst Haeckel, -Translated by Joseph McCabe</h1> -<p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States -and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no -restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it -under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this -eBook or online at <a -href="http://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you are not -located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this ebook.</p> -<p>Title: Last Words on Evolution </p> -<p> A Popular Retrospect and Summary</p> -<p>Author: Ernst Haeckel</p> -<p>Release Date: November 30, 2016 [eBook #53639]</p> -<p>Language: English</p> -<p>Character set encoding: UTF-8</p> -<p>***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LAST WORDS ON EVOLUTION ***</p> -<p> </p> -<h4>E-text prepared by MWS, Adrian Mastronardi, John Campbell,<br /> - and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team<br /> - (<a href="http://www.pgdp.net">http://www.pgdp.net</a>)<br /> - from page images generously made available by<br /> - Internet Archive<br /> - (<a href="https://archive.org">https://archive.org</a>)</h4> -<p> </p> -<table border="0" style="background-color: #ccccff;margin: 0 auto;" cellpadding="10"> - <tr> - <td valign="top"> - Note: - </td> - <td> - Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive. See - <a href="https://archive.org/details/lastwordsonevolu00haeciala"> - https://archive.org/details/lastwordsonevolu00haeciala</a> - </td> - </tr> -</table> -<p> </p> -<hr class="full" /> -<p> </p> -<p> </p> -<p> </p> - -<h1>LAST WORDS ON EVOLUTION</h1> - -<div class="figcenter pg-brk"> -<img src="images/frontis.jpg" width="500" alt="" /> -<div class="caption"> -<span class="fs70">Bräunlich & Tesch (Emil Tesch), Hofphot. Jena. -<span class="pad2">Published by A. Owen & Co., London.<br /></span></span><br /> -Ernst Haeckel. -</div></div> - - -<hr class="chap pg-brk" /> - -<p class="pfs240">Last Words on Evolution</p> - -<p class="p4 pfs120 antiqua">A Popular Retrospect and Summary</p> - -<p class="p6 pfs70">BY</p> -<p class="pfs120 lsp wsp">ERNST HAECKEL</p> -<p class="pfs70"><em>Professor at Jena University</em></p> - -<p class="p4 pfs70">TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND EDITION</p> -<p class="pfs70">BY</p> -<p class="pfs120">JOSEPH McCABE</p> - -<p class="p4 pfs70"><em>With Portrait and Three Plates</em></p> - -<p class="p4 pfs90">LONDON</p> -<p class="pfs120">A. OWEN & CO.</p> -<p class="pfs90">28 REGENT STREET, S.W.</p> -<p class="pfs80">1906</p> - - -<hr class="chap pg-brk" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="CONTENTS" id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS</a></h2> - -<div class="center"> -<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" width="95%" summary=""> -<tr><td class="tdl"></td><td class="tdr fs70">PAGE</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl fs80 wd80">INTRODUCTION</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#INTRODUCTION">7</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl fs80">PREFACE</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#PREFACE">11</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdc tdpp" colspan="2">CHAPTER I</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdc smcap" colspan="2">The Controversy about Creation</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Evolution and Dogma</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_I">15</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Plate I.</span>—Genealogical Tree of the Vertebrates</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#PLATE_I">17</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdc tdpp" colspan="2">CHAPTER II</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdc smcap" colspan="2">The Struggle over our Genealogical Tree</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Our Ape-Relatives and the Vertebrate-Stem</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_II">49</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Plate II.</span>—Skeletons of Five Anthropoid Apes</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#PLATE_II">51</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdc tdpp" colspan="2">CHAPTER III</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdc smcap" colspan="2">The Controversy over the Soul</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">The Ideas of Immortality and God</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_III">83</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Plate III.</span>—Embryos of Three Mammals</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#PLATE_III">85</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdc tdpp" colspan="2">APPENDIX</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdc smcap" colspan="2">Evolutionary Tables</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Geological Ages and Periods</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#TABLE_1">115</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Man's Genealogical Tree—<em>First Half</em></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#TABLE_2A">116</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Man's Genealogical Tree—<em>Second Half</em></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#TABLE_2B">117</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Classification of the Primates</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#TABLE_3">118</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Genealogical Tree of the Primates</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#TABLE_4">119</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Explanation of Genealogical Table 1.</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#TABLE_5">120</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdc tdpp smcap" colspan="2">Postscript</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Evolution and Jesuitism</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#POSTSCRIPT">121</a></td></tr> -</table></div> - - -<hr class="chap" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span><br /> - <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="INTRODUCTION" id="INTRODUCTION"></a><a href="#CONTENTS">INTRODUCTION</a></h2> - - -<p class="noindent">A few months ago the sensational announcement was -made that Professor Haeckel had abandoned Darwinism -and given public support to the teaching of a Jesuit -writer. There was something piquant in the suggestion -that the "Darwin of Germany" had recanted the conclusions -of fifty years of laborious study. Nor could -people forget that only two years before Haeckel had -written with some feeling about the partial recantation of -some of his colleagues. Many of our journals boldly -declined to insert the romantic news, which came -through one of the chief international press agencies. -Others drew the attention of their readers, in jubilant -editorial notes, to the lively prospect it opened out. -To the many inquiries addressed to me as the -"apostle of Professor Haeckel," as Sir Oliver Lodge -dubs me in a genial letter, I timidly represented that -even a German reporter sometimes drank. But the -correction quickly came that the telegram had exactly -reversed the position taken up by the great biologist. -It is only just to the honourable calling of the reporter -to add that, according to the theory current in -Germany, the message was tampered with by subtle -and ubiquitous Jesuistry. Did they not penetrate even -into the culinary service at Hatfield?</p> - -<p>I have pleasure in now introducing the three famous<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span> -lectures delivered by Professor Haeckel at Berlin, and -the reader will see the grotesqueness of the original -announcement. They are the last public deliverance -that the aged professor will ever make. His enfeebled -health forbids us to hope that his decision may yet be -undone. He is now condemned, he tells me, to remain -a passive spectator of the tense drama in which he has -played so prominent a part for half a century. For him -the red rays fall level on the scene and the people about -him. It may be that they light up too luridly, too -falsely, the situation in Germany; but the reader will -understand how a Liberal of Haeckel's temper must -feel his country to be between Scylla and Charybdis—between -an increasingly clear alternative of Catholicism -or Socialism—with a helmsman at the wheel whose -vagaries inspire no confidence.</p> - -<p>The English reader will care to be instructed on the -antithesis of Virchow and Haeckel which gives point to -these lectures, and which is often misrepresented in this -country. Virchow, the greatest pathologist and one of -the leading anthropologists of Germany, had much to do -with the inspiring of Haeckel's Monistic views in the -fifties. Like several other prominent German thinkers, -Virchow subsequently abandoned the positive Monistic -position for one of agnosticism and scepticism, and a -long and bitter conflict ensued. It is hardly too much -to say that Virchow's ultra-timid reserve in regard to -the evolution of man and other questions has died with -him. Apart from one or two less prominent anthropologists, -and the curious distinction drawn by Dr. A. R.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span> -Wallace, science has accepted the fact of evolution, and -has, indeed, accepted the main lines of Haeckel's ancestral -tree of the human race.</p> - -<p>In any case, Haeckel had the splendid revenge of -surviving his old teacher and almost lifelong opponent. -Berlin had for years been dominated by the sceptical -temper of Virchow and Du Bois-Reymond. The ardent -evolutionist and opponent of Catholicism was impatient -of a reserve that he felt to be an anachronism in science -and an effective support of reactionary ideas. It was, -therefore, with a peculiar satisfaction that he received the -invitation, after Virchow's death, to address the Berlin -public. Among the many and distinguished honours -that have been heaped upon him in the last ten years -this was felt by him to hold a high place. He could at -last submit freely, in the capital of his country, the -massive foundations and the imposing structure of a -doctrine which he holds to be no less established in -science than valuable in the general cause of progress.</p> - -<p>The lectures are reproduced here not solely because -of the interest aroused in them by the "Jesuit" telegram. -They contain a very valuable summary of his conclusions, -and include the latest scientific confirmation. Rarely has -the great biologist written in such clear and untechnical -phrases, so that the general reader will easily learn the -outlines of his much-discussed Monism. To closer -students, who are at times impatient of the Lamarckian -phraseology of Haeckel—to all, in fact, who would like -to see how the same evolutionary truths are expressed -without reliance on the inheritance of acquired characters—I<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span> -may take the opportunity to say that I have translated, -for the same publishers, Professor Guenther's -"Darwinism and the Problems of Life," which will -shortly be in their hands.</p> - -<p class="right smcap">JOSEPH McCABE.</p> - -<p class="fs80"><em>November, 1905.</em></p> - - -<hr class="chap" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="PREFACE" id="PREFACE"></a><a href="#CONTENTS">PREFACE</a></h2> - - -<p class="noindent">In the beginning of April, 1905, I received from Berlin -a very unexpected invitation to deliver a popular -scientific lecture at the Academy of Music in that city. -I at first declined this flattering invitation, with thanks, -sending them a copy of a printed declaration, dated 17th -July, 1901, which I had made frequent use of, to the -effect that "I could not deliver any more public lectures, -on account of the state of my health, my advanced age, -and the many labours that were still incumbent on me."</p> - -<p>I was persuaded to make one departure from this -fixed resolution, firstly, by the pressing entreaties of many -intimate friends at Berlin. They represented to me how -important it was to give an account myself to the -educated Berlin public of the chief evolutionary conclusions -I had advocated for forty years. They pointed -out emphatically that the increasing reaction in higher -circles, the growing audacity of intolerant orthodoxy, the -preponderance of Ultramontanism, and the dangers that -this involved for freedom of thought in Germany, for -the university and the school, made it imperative to -take vigorous action. It happened that I had just been -following the interesting efforts that the Church has -lately made to enter into a peaceful compromise with -its deadly enemy, Monistic science. It has decided to -accept to a certain extent, and to accommodate to its<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span> -creed (in a distorted and mutilated form) the doctrine of -evolution, which it has vehemently opposed for thirty -years. This remarkable change of front on the part of -the Church militant seemed to me so interesting and -important, and at the same time so misleading and -mischievous, that I chose it as the subject of a popular -lecture, and accepted the invitation to Berlin.</p> - -<p>After a few days, when I had written my discourse, -I was advised from Berlin that the applications for -admission were so numerous that the lecture must -either be repeated or divided into two. I chose the -latter course, as the material was very abundant. In -compliance with an urgent request, I repeated the two -lectures (17th and 18th April); and as demands for fresh -lectures continued to reach me, I was persuaded to add -a "farewell lecture" (on 19th April), in which I dealt -with a number of important questions that had not been -adequately treated.</p> - -<p>The noble gift of effective oratory has been denied -me by Nature. Though I have taught for eighty-eight -terms at the little University of Jena, I have never been -able to overcome a certain nervousness about appearing -in public, and have never acquired the art of expressing -my thoughts in burning language and with appropriate -gesture. For these and other reasons, I have rarely -consented to take part in scientific and other congresses; -the few speeches that I have delivered on such occasions, -and are issued in collected form, were drawn from me -by my deep interest in the great struggle for the triumph -of truth. However, in the three Berlin lectures—my<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span> -<em>last</em> public addresses—I had no design of winning my -hearers to my opinions by means of oratory. It was -rather my intention to put before them, in connected -form, the great groups of biological facts, by which they -could, on impartial consideration, convince themselves of -the truth and importance of the theory of evolution.</p> - -<p>Readers who are interested in the evolution-controversy, -as I here describe it, will find in my earlier works (<cite>The -History of Creation</cite>, <cite>The Evolution of Man</cite>, <cite>The Riddle of -the Universe</cite>, and <cite>The Wonders of Life</cite>) a thorough treatment -of the views I have summarily presented. I do not -belong to the amiable group of "men of compromise," -but am in the habit of giving candid and straightforward -expression to the convictions which a half-century of -serious and laborious study has led me to form. If I -seem to be a tactless and inconsiderate "fighter," I pray -you to remember that "conflict is the father of all -things," and that the victory of pure reason over -current superstition will not be achieved without a -tremendous struggle. But I regard <em>ideas</em> only in my -struggles: to the <em>persons</em> of my opponents I am -indifferent, bitterly as they have attacked and slandered -my own person.</p> - -<p>Although I have lived in Berlin for many years as -student and teacher, and have always been in communication -with scientific circles there, I have only once -before delivered a public lecture in that city. That -was on "The Division of Labour in Nature and Human -Life" (17th December, 1868). I was, therefore, somewhat -gratified to be able to speak there again (and for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span> -the last time), after thirty-six years, especially as it was -in the very spot, the hall of the Academy of Music, in -which I had heard the leaders of the Berlin University -speak fifty years ago.</p> - -<p>It is with great pleasure that I express my cordial -thanks to those who invited me to deliver these lectures, -and who did so much to make my stay in the capital -pleasant; and also to my many hearers for their amiable -and sympathetic attention.</p> - -<p class="right">ERNST HAECKEL.</p> - -<p class="fs80"><span class="smcap">Jena</span>, <em>9th May, 1905</em>.</p> - - - <div class="chapter"></div> -<hr class="chap" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span></p> - -<p class="p4" /> -<h2><a name="CHAPTER_I" id="CHAPTER_I"></a><a href="#CONTENTS">CHAPTER I</a></h2> - -<p class="pfs100">THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT CREATION</p> - -<p class="p2 pfs80">EVOLUTION AND DOGMA</p> -<p class="p4" /> - - -<hr class="chap pg-brk" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span></p> - -<p class="p4 pfs90">EXPLANATION OF PLATE I</p> - -<p class="p2 pfs70">GENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE VERTEBRATES</p> - - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="noindent">The genetic relationship of all vertebrates, from the earliest acrania -and fishes up to the apes and man, is proved in its main lines by -the concordant testimony of paleontology, comparative anatomy, and -embryology. All competent and impartial zoologists now agree that -the vertebrates are all descended from a <em>single</em> stem, and that the root -of this is to be sought in extinct pre-Silurian <i>Acrania</i> (1), somewhat -similar to the living lancelet. The <i>Cyclostoma</i> (2) represent the -transition from the latter to the <em>Fishes</em> (3); and the <em>Dipneusts</em> (4) the -transition from these to the <i>Amphibia</i> (5). From the latter have been -developed the <em>Reptiles</em> (6) on the one hand, and the <em>Mammals</em> (7) on -the other. The most important branch of this most advanced class is -the <em>Primates</em> (8); from the half-apes, or lemurs, a direct line leads, -through the baboons, to the anthropoid apes, and through these on to -man. (<em>Cf.</em> the tables on <a href="#Page_115">pp. 115-120</a>). Further information will be -found in chapters xxiv.-xxvii. of the <cite>History of Creation</cite>, and chapters -xxi.-xxiii. of the <cite>Evolution of Man</cite>.</p></div> - - -<div><a name="PLATE_I" id="PLATE_I"></a></div> -<p class="pfs80 smcap pg-brk">Plate I.</p> - -<p><a href="images/i_plate1-large.jpg"> -<span class="xs screenonly">View Larger Image Here.</span></a></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/i_plate1.jpg" width="500" alt="" /> -<div class="caption"> -<span class="smcap">Genealogical Tree of the VERTEBRATES</span> -</div></div> - - -<hr class="chap pg-brk" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span></p> - -<p class="p4 pfs150">LAST WORDS ON EVOLUTION</p> - -<p class="p2 pfs120">CHAPTER I</p> - -<p class="p2 pfs90">THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT CREATION</p> - -<p class="p2 pfs80">EVOLUTION AND DOGMA</p> - - -<p class="p1 noindent">The controversy over the idea of evolution is a -prominent feature in the mental life of the nineteenth -century. It is true that a few great thinkers had -spoken of a natural evolution of all things several -thousand years ago. They had, indeed, partly investigated -the laws that control the birth and death of -the world, and the rise of the earth and its -inhabitants; even the creation-stories and the myths -of the older religions betray a partial influence of -these evolutionary ideas. But it was not until the -nineteenth century that the idea of evolution took -definite shape and was scientifically grounded on -various classes of evidence; and it was not until the -last third of the century that it won general recognition. -The intimate connection that was proved to -exist between all branches of knowledge, once the -continuity of historical development was realised, and -the union of them all through the Monistic philosophy, -are achievements of the last few decades.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span></p> - -<p>The great majority of the older ideas that thoughtful -men had formed on the origin and nature of the -world and their own frame were far removed from -the notion of "self-development." They culminated -in more or less obscure creation-myths, which generally -put in the foreground the idea of a personal -Creator. Just as man has used intelligence and -design in the making of his weapons and tools, his -houses and his boats, so it was thought that the -Creator had fashioned the world with art and intelligence, -according to a definite plan. Among the many -legends of this kind the ancient Semitic story of -creation, familiar to us as the Mosaic narrative, but -drawn for the most part from Babylonian sources, has -obtained a very great influence on European culture -owing to the general acceptance of the Bible. The -belief in miracles, that is involved in these religious -legends, was bound to come in conflict, at an early -date, with the evolutionary ideas of independent -philosophical research. On the one hand, in the -prevalent religious teaching, we had the supernatural -world, the miraculous, teleology: on the other hand, -in the nascent science of evolution, only natural law, -pure reason, mechanical causality. Every step that -was made by this science brought into greater relief -its inconsistency with the predominant religion.<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span></p> -<p>If we glance for a moment at the various fields in -which the idea of evolution is scientifically applied we -find that, firstly, the whole universe is conceived as -a unity; secondly, our earth; thirdly, organic life on -the earth; fourthly, man, as its highest product; and -fifthly, the soul, as a special immaterial entity. Thus -we have, in historical succession, the evolutionary -research of cosmology, geology, biology, anthropology, -and psychology.</p> - -<p>The first comprehensive idea of cosmological evolution -was put forth by the famous critical philosopher -Immanuel Kant, in 1755, in the great work of his -earlier years, <cite>General Natural History of the Heavens, -or an Attempt to Conceive and to Explain the Origin -of the Universe mechanically, according to the Newtonian -Laws</cite>. This remarkable work appeared anonymously, -and was dedicated to Frederick the Great, who, however, -never saw it. It was little noticed, and was soon -entirely forgotten, until it was exhumed ninety years -afterwards by Alexander von Humboldt. Note particularly -that on the title-page stress is laid on the -<em>mechanical</em> origin of the world and its explanation on -Newtonian principles; in this way the strictly Monistic -character of the whole cosmogony and the absolutely<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span> -universal rule of natural law are clearly expressed. It -is true that Kant speaks much in it of God and his -wisdom and omnipotence; but this is limited to the -affirmation that God created once for all the unchangeable -laws of nature, and was henceforward bound by -them and only able to work through them. The -Dualism which became so pronounced subsequently in -the philosopher of Koenigsberg counts for very little -here.</p> - -<p>The idea of a natural development of the world -occurs in a clearer and more consistent form, and is -provided with a firm mathematical basis, forty years -afterwards, in the remarkable <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Mécanique Céleste</cite> of -Pierre Laplace. His popular <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Exposition du Système -du Monde</cite> (1796) destroyed at its roots the legend -of creation that had hitherto prevailed, or the -Mosaic narrative in the Bible. Laplace, who had -become Minister of the Interior, Count, and -Chancellor of the Senate, under Napoleon, was -merely honourable and consistent when he replied to -the emperor's question, "What room there was for -God in his system?": "Sire, I had no need for -that unfounded hypothesis." What strange ministers -there are sometimes!<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> The shrewdness of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span>Church soon recognised that the personal Creator -was dethroned, and the creation-myth destroyed, by -this Monistic and now generally received theory of -cosmic development. Nevertheless it maintained -towards it the attitude which it had taken up 250 -years earlier in regard to the closely related and -irrefutable system of Copernicus. It endeavoured to -conceal the truth as long as possible, or to oppose it -with Jesuitical methods, and finally it yielded. If -the Churches now silently admit the Copernican -system and the cosmogony of Laplace and have -ceased to oppose them, we must attribute the fact, -partly to a feeling of their spiritual impotence, partly -to an astute calculation that the ignorant masses do -not reflect on these great problems.</p> - -<p>In order to obtain a clear idea and a firm conviction -of this cosmic evolution by natural law, the -eternal birth and death of millions of suns and stars, -one needs some mathematical training and a lively -imagination, as well as a certain competence in -astronomy and physics. The evolutionary process is -much simpler, and more readily grasped in geology. -Every shower of rain or wave of the sea, every -volcanic eruption and every pebble, gives us a direct -proof of the changes that are constantly taking place<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span> -on the surface of our planet. However, the historical -significance of these changes was not properly -appreciated until 1822, by Karl von Hoff of Gotha, -and modern geology was only founded in 1830 by -Charles Lyell, who explained the whole origin and -composition of the solid crust of the earth, the -formation of the mountains, and the periods of the -earth's development, in a connected system by natural -laws. From the immense thickness of the stratified -rocks, which contain the fossilised remains of extinct -organisms, we discovered the enormous length—running -into millions of years—of the periods during -which these sedimentary rocks were deposited in -water. Even the duration of the <em>organic</em> history of -the earth—that is to say, the period during which the -plant and animal population of our planet was -developing—must itself be put at more than a -hundred million years. These results of geology -and paleontology destroyed the current legend of -the six days' work of a personal Creator. Many -attempts were made, it is true, and are still being -made, to reconcile the Mosaic supernatural story of -creation with modern geology.<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> All these efforts of -believers are in vain. We may say, in fact, that it -is precisely the study of geology, the reflection it -entails on the enormous periods of evolution, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span> -the habit of seeking the simple mechanical causes of -their constant changes, that contribute very considerably -to the advance of enlightenment. Yet in spite -of this (or, possibly, because of this), geological -instruction is either greatly neglected or entirely -suppressed in most schools. It is certainly eminently -calculated (in connection with geography) to enlarge -the mind, and acquaint the child with the idea of -evolution. An educated person who knows the -elements of geology will never experience <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ennui</i>. He -will find everywhere in surrounding nature, in the -rocks and in the water, in the desert and on the -mountains, the most instructive stimuli to reflection.</p> - -<p>The evolutionary process in organic nature is much -more difficult to grasp. Here we must distinguish two -different series of biological development, which have -only been brought into proper causal connection by -means of our biogenetic law (1866); one series is -found in embryology (or ontogeny), the other in -phylogeny (or race-development). In Germany -"evolution" always meant embryology, or a part of -the whole, until forty years ago. It stood for a -microscopic examination of the wonderful processes by -means of which the elaborate structure of the plant or -animal body is formed from the simple seed of the plant -or the egg of the bird. Until the beginning of the -nineteenth century the erroneous view was generally -received that this marvellously complicated structure -existed, completely formed, in the simple ovum, and -that the various organs had merely to grow and to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span> -shape themselves independently by a process of -"evolution" (or unfolding), before they entered into -activity. An able German scientist, Caspar Friedrich -Wolff (son of a Berlin tailor), had already shown the -error of this "pre-formation theory" in 1759. He -had proved, in his dissertation for the doctorate, that no -trace of the later body, of its bones, muscles, nerves, -and feathers, can be found in the hen's egg (the -commonest and most convenient object for study), but -merely a small round disk, consisting of two thin -superimposed layers. He had further showed that -the various organs are only built up gradually out -of these simple elements, and that we can trace, step -by step, a series of real new growths. However, -these momentous discoveries, and the sound "theory -of epigenesis" that he based on them, were wholly -ignored for fifty years, and even rejected by the leading -authorities. It was not until Oken had re-discovered -these important facts at Jena (1806), Pander had more -carefully distinguished the germinal layers (1817), and -finally Carl Ernst von Baer had happily combined -observation and reflection in his classical <cite>Animal -Embryology</cite> (1828), that embryology attained the rank -of an independent science with a sound empirical base.</p> - -<p>A little later it secured a well-merited recognition -in botany also, especially owing to the efforts of -Matthias Schleiden of Jena, the distinguished student -who provided biology with a new foundation in the -"cell theory" (1838). But it was not until the middle of -the nineteenth century that people generally recognised<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span> -that the ovum of the plant or animal is itself only -a simple cell, and that the later tissues and organs -gradually develop from this "elementary organism" by -a repeated cleavage of, and division of labour in, the -cells. The most important step was then made of -recognising that our human organism also develops -from an ovum (first discovered by Baer in 1827), in -virtue of the same laws, and that its embryonic development -resembles that of the other mammals, especially -that of the ape. Each of us was, at the beginning of -his existence, a simple globule of protoplasm, surrounded -by a membrane, about<span class="blkb"> - <span class="blka">1</span> - <span class="blka over">120</span> -</span> -of an inch in -diameter, with a firmer nucleus inside it. These important -embryological discoveries confirmed the rational -conception of the human organism that had been -attained much earlier by comparative anatomy: the -conviction that the human frame is built in the same -way, and develops similarly from a simple ovum, as the -body of all other mammals. Even Linné had already -(1735) given man a place in the mammal class in his -famous <cite>System of Nature</cite>.</p> - -<p>Differently from these embryological facts, which -can be directly observed, the phenomena of phylogeny -(the development of species), which are needed to set -the former in their true light, are usually outside the -range of immediate observation. What was the origin -of the countless species of animals and plants? How -can we explain the remarkable relationships which unite -similar species into genera and these into classes? -Linné answers the question very simply with the belief<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span> -in creation, relying on the generally accepted Mosaic -narrative: "There are as many different species of -animals and plants as there were different forms created -by God in the beginning." The first scientific answer -was given in 1809 by the great French scientist, -Lamarck. He taught, in his suggestive <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Philosophie -Zoologique</cite>, that the resemblances in form and structure -of groups of species are due to real affinity, and that -all organisms descend from a few very simple primitive -forms (or, possibly, from a single one). These primitive -forms were developed out of lifeless matter by spontaneous -generation. The resemblances of related groups -of species are explained by <em>inheritance</em> from common -stem-forms; their dissimilarities are due to <em>adaptation</em> -to different environments, and to variety in the action -of the modifiable organs. The human race has arisen -in the same way, by transformation of a series of mammal -ancestors, the nearest of which are ape-like primates.</p> - -<p>These great ideas of Lamarck, which threw light -on the whole field of organic life, and were closely -approached by Goethe in his own speculations, gave -rise to the theory that we now know as transformism, -or the theory of evolution or descent. But the far-seeing -Lamarck was—as Caspar Friedrich Wolff had been -fifty years before—half a century before his time. His -theory obtained no recognition, and was soon wholly -forgotten.</p> - -<p>It was brought into the light once more in 1859 by -the genius of Charles Darwin, who had been born in -the very year that the <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Philosophie Zoologique</cite> was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span> -published. The substance and the success of his -system, which has gone by the name of Darwinism -(in the wider sense) for forty-six years, are so generally -known that I need not dwell on them. I will only point -out that the great success of Darwin's epoch-making -works is due to two causes: firstly, to the fact that the -English scientist most ingeniously worked up the -empirical material that had accumulated during fifty years -into a systematic proof of the theory of descent; and -secondly, to the fact that he gave it the support of a second -theory of his own, the theory of natural selection. This -theory, which gives a causal explanation of the transformation -of species, is what we ought to call "Darwinism" -in the strict sense. We cannot go here into the question -how far this theory is justified, or how far it is corrected -by more recent theories, such as Weismann's theory of -germ-plasm (1844), or De Vries's theory of mutations -(1900). Our concern is rather with the unparalleled -influence that Darwinism, and its application to man, -have had during the last forty years on the whole province -of science; and at the same time, with its irreconcilable -opposition to the dogmas of the Churches.</p> - -<p>The extension of the theory of evolution to man was, -naturally, one of the most interesting and momentous -applications of it. If all other organisms arose, not by -a miraculous creation, but by a natural modification of -earlier forms of life, the presumption is that the human -race also was developed by the transformation of the -most man-like mammals, the primates of Linné—the apes -and lemurs. This natural inference, which Lamarck<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span> -had drawn in his simple way, but Darwin had at first -explicitly avoided, was first thoroughly established by -the gifted zoologist, Thomas Huxley, in his three -lectures on <cite>Man's Place in Nature</cite> (1863). He showed -that this "question of questions" is unequivocally -answered by three chief witnesses—the natural history -of the anthropoid apes, the anatomic and embryological -relations of man to the animals immediately below him, -and the recently discovered fossil human remains. -Darwin entirely accepted these conclusions of his friend -eight years afterwards, and, in his two-volume work, -<cite>The Descent of Man and Sexual Selection</cite> (1871), -furnished a number of new proofs in support of the -dreaded "descent of man from the ape." I myself then -(1874) completed the task I had begun in 1866, of -determining approximately the whole series of the -extinct animal ancestors of the human race, on the -ground of comparative anatomy, embryology, and -paleontology. This attempt was improved, as our -knowledge advanced, in the five editions of my -<cite>Evolution of Man</cite>. In the last twenty years a vast -literature on the subject has accumulated. I must -assume that you are acquainted with the contents of -one or other of these works, and will turn to the -question, that especially engages our attention at -present, how the inevitable struggle between these -momentous achievements of modern science and the -dogmas of the Churches has run in recent years.</p> - -<p>It was obvious that both the general theory of -evolution and its extension to man in particular must<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span> -meet from the first with the most determined resistance -on the part of the Churches. Both were in flagrant -contradiction to the Mosaic story of creation, and other -Biblical dogmas that were involved in it, and are still -taught in our elementary schools. It is creditable to -the shrewdness of the theologians and their associates, -the metaphysicians, that they at once rejected -Darwinism, and made a particularly energetic resistance -in their writings to its chief consequence, the descent -of man from the ape. This resistance seemed the more -justified and hopeful as, for seven or eight years after -Darwin's appearance, few biologists accepted his theory, -and the general attitude amongst them was one of cold -scepticism. I can well testify to this from my own -experience. When I first openly advocated Darwin's -theory at a scientific congress at Stettin in 1863, I was -almost alone, and was blamed by the great majority for -taking up seriously so fantastic a theory, "the dream -of an after-dinner nap," as the Göttinger zoologist, -Keferstein, called it.</p> - -<p>The general attitude towards Nature fifty years ago -was so different from that we find everywhere to-day, -that it is difficult to convey a clear idea of it to a young -scientist or philosopher. The great question of creation, -the problem how the various species of plants and -animals came into the world, and how man came into -being, did not exist yet in exact science. There was, -in fact, no question of it.</p> - -<p>Seventy-seven years ago Alexander von Humboldt -delivered, in this very spot, the lectures which afterwards<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span> -made up his famous work, <cite>Cosmos, the Elements of a -Physical Description of the World</cite>. As he touched, in -passing, the obscure problem of the origin of the organic -population of our planet, he could only say resignedly: -"The mysterious and unsolved problem of how things -came to be does not belong to the empirical province -of objective research, the description of what <em>is</em>." It is -instructive to find Johannes Müller, the greatest of -German biologists in the nineteenth century, speaking -thus in 1852, in his famous essay, "On the Generation -of Snails in Holothurians": "The entrance of various -species of animals into creation is certain—it is a fact of -paleontology; but it is <em>supernatural</em> as long as this -entrance cannot be perceived in the act and become an -element of observation." I myself had a number of -remarkable conversations with Müller, whom I put at -the head of all my distinguished teachers, in the summer -of 1854. His lectures on comparative anatomy and -physiology—the most illuminating and stimulating I -ever heard—had captivated me to such an extent that -I asked and obtained his permission to make a closer -study of the skeletons and other preparations in his -splendid museum of comparative anatomy (then in the -right wing of the buildings of the Berlin University), -and to draw them. Müller (then in his fifty-fourth year) -used to spend the Sunday afternoon alone in the -museum. He would walk to and fro for hours in the -spacious rooms, his hands behind his back, buried in -thought about the mysterious affinities of the vertebrates, -the "holy enigma" of which was so forcibly impressed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span> -by the row of skeletons. Now and again my great -master would turn to a small table at the side, at which -I (a student of twenty years) was sitting in the angle of -a window, making conscientious drawings of the skulls -of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes.</p> - -<p>I would then beg him to explain particularly difficult -points in anatomy, and once I ventured to put the -question: "Must not all these vertebrates, with their -identity in internal skeleton, in spite of all their -external differences, have come originally from a -common form?" The great master nodded his head -thoughtfully, and said: "Ah, if we only knew that! -If ever you solve that riddle, you will have -accomplished a supreme work." Two months afterwards, -in September, 1854, I had to accompany Müller -to Heligoland, and learned under his direction the -beautiful and wonderful inhabitants of the sea. As we -fished together in the sea, and caught the lovely -medusæ, I asked him how it was possible to explain -their remarkable alternation of generations; if the -medusæ, from the ova of which polyps develop to-day, -must not have come originally from the more simply -organised polyps? To this precocious question, I -received the same resigned answer: "Ah, that is a -very obscure problem! We know nothing whatever -about the origin of species."</p> - -<p>Johannes Müller was certainly one of the greatest -scientists of the nineteenth century. He takes rank -with Cuvier, Baer, Lamarck, and Darwin. His insight -was profound and penetrating, his philosophic judgment<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span> -comprehensive, and his mastery of the vast province -of biology was enormous. Emil du Bois-Reymond -happily compared him, in his fine commemorative -address, to Alexander the Great, whose kingdom -was divided into several independent realms at his -death. In his lectures and works Müller treated -no less than four different subjects, for which four -separate chairs were founded after his death in 1858—human -anatomy, physiology, pathological anatomy, -and comparative anatomy. In fact, we ought really -to add two more subjects—zoology and embryology. -Of these, also, we learned more from Müller's classic -lectures than from the official lectures of the professors -of those subjects. The great master died in 1858, a -few months before Charles Darwin and Alfred R. -Wallace made their first communications on their new -theory of selection in the Journal of the Linnæan -Society. I do not doubt in the least that this surprising -answer of the riddle of creation would have profoundly -moved Müller, and have been fully admitted by him -on mature reflection.</p> - -<p>To these leading masters in biology, and to all other -anatomists, physiologists, zoologists, and botanists up -to 1858, the question of organic creation was an -unsolved problem; the great majority regarded it as -insoluble. The theologians and their allies, the metaphysicians, -built triumphantly on this fact. It afforded -a clear proof of the limitations of reason and science. -A miracle only could account for the origin of these -ingenious and carefully designed organisms; nothing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span> -less than the Divine wisdom and omnipotence could -have brought man into being. But this general -resignation of reason, and the dominance of supernatural -ideas which it encouraged, were somewhat paradoxical -in the thirty years between Lyell and Darwin, between -1830 and 1859, since the natural evolution of the earth, -as conceived by the great geologist, had come to be -universally recognised. Since the earlier of these -dates the iron necessity of natural law had ruled in -inorganic nature, in the formation of the mountains -and the movement of the heavenly bodies. In organic -nature, on the contrary, in the creation and the life -of animals and plants, people saw only the wisdom -and power of an intelligent Creator and Controller; -in other words, everything was ruled by mechanical -causality in the inorganic world, but by teleological -finality in the realm of biology.</p> - -<p>Philosophy, strictly so called, paid little or no -attention to this dilemma. Absorbed almost exclusively -in metaphysical and dialectical speculations, -it looked with supreme contempt or indifference on -the enormous progress that the empirical sciences -were making. It affected, in its character of "purely -mental science," to build up the world out of its own -head, and to have no need of the splendid material -that was being laboriously gathered by observation -and experiment. This is especially true of Germany, -where Hegel's system of "absolute idealism" had -secured the highest regard, particularly since it had -been made obligatory as "the royal State-philosophy<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span> -of Prussia"—mainly because, according to Hegel, "in -the State the Divine will itself and the monarchical -constitution alone represent the development of -reason; all other forms of constitution are lower -stages of the development of reason." Hegel's -abstruse metaphysics has also been greatly appreciated -because it has made so thorough and consistent a -use of the idea of evolution. But this pretended -"evolution of reason" floated far above real nature -in the pure ether of the absolute spirit, and was -devoid of all the material ballast that the empirical -science of the evolution of the world, the earth, and -its living population, had meantime accumulated. -Moreover, it is well known how Hegel himself -declared, with humorous resignation, that only <em>one</em> -of his many pupils had understood him, and this one -had misunderstood him.</p> - -<p>From the higher standpoint of general culture the -difficult question forces itself on us: What is the real -value of the idea of evolution in the whole realm of -science? We are bound to answer that it varies -considerably. The facts of the evolution of the -individual, or of ontogeny, were easy to observe and -grasp: the evolution of the crust of the earth and of -the mountains in geology seemed to have an equally -sound empirical foundation; the physical evolution of -the universe seemed to be established by mathematical -speculation. There was no longer any serious -question of <em>creation</em>, in the literal sense, of the -deliberate action of a personal Creator, in these great<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span> -provinces. But this made people cling to the idea -more than ever in regard to the origin of the -countless species of animals and plants, and especially -the creation of man. This transcendental problem -seemed to be entirely beyond the range of natural -development; and the same was thought of the -question of the nature and origin of the soul, the -mystic entity that was appropriated by metaphysical -speculation as its subject. Charles Darwin suddenly -brought a clear light into this dark chaos of contradictory -notions in 1859. His epoch-making work, -<cite>The Origin of Species</cite>, proved convincingly that this -historical process is not a supernatural mystery, but -a physiological phenomenon; and that the preservation -of improved races in the struggle for life had -produced, by a natural evolution, the whole wondrous -world of organic life.</p> - -<p>To-day, when evolution is almost universally -recognised in biology, when thousands of anatomic -and physiological works are based on it every year, -the new generation can hardly form an idea of the -violent resistance that was offered to Darwin's theory -and the impassioned struggles it provoked. In the -first place, the Churches at once raised a vigorous -protest; they rightly regarded their new antagonist -as the deadly enemy of the legend of creation, and saw -the very foundations of their creed threatened. The -Churches found a powerful ally in the dualistic -metaphysics that still claims to represent the real -"idealist philosophy" at most universities. But most<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span> -dangerous of all to the young theory was the violent -resistance it met almost everywhere in its own province -of empirical science. The prevailing belief in the -fixity and the independent creation of the various -species was much more seriously menaced by Darwin's -theory than it had been by Lamarck's transformism. -Lamarck had said substantially the same thing fifty -years before, but had failed to convince through the -lack of effective evidence. Many scientists, some of -great distinction, opposed Darwin because either they -had not an adequate acquaintance with the whole field -of biology, or it seemed to them that his bold speculation -advanced too far from the secure base of experience.</p> - -<p>When Darwin's work appeared in 1859, and fell like -a flash of lightning on the dark world of official biology, -I was engaged in a scientific expedition to Sicily and -taken up with a thorough study of the graceful -radiolarians, those wonderful microscopic marine -animals that surpass all other organisms in the -beauty and variety of their forms. The special study -of this remarkable class of animals, of which I afterwards -described more than 4,000 species, after more -than ten years of research, provided me with one of -the solid foundation-stones of my Darwinian ideas. -But when I returned from Messina to Berlin in the -spring of 1860, I knew nothing as yet of Darwin's -achievement. I merely heard from my friends at -Berlin that a remarkable work by a crazy Englishman -had attracted great attention, and that it turned upside -down all previous ideas as to the origin of species.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span></p> - -<p>I soon perceived that almost all the experts at -Berlin—chief amongst them were the famous microscopist, -Ehrenberg; the anatomist, Reichert; the -zoologist, Peters; and the geologist, Beyrich—were -unanimous in their condemnation of Darwin. The -brilliant orator of the Berlin Academy, Emil du Bois-Reymond, -hesitated. He recognised that the theory -of evolution was the only natural solution of the -problem of creation; but he laughed at the application -of it as a poor romance, and declared that the -phylogenetic inquiries into the relationship of the -various species had about as much value as the -research of philologists into the genealogical tree of -the Homeric heroes. The distinguished botanist, -Alexander Braun, stood quite alone in his full and -warm assent to the theory of evolution. I found -comfort and encouragement with this dear and -respected teacher, when I was deeply moved by the -first reading of Darwin's book, and soon completely -converted to his views. In Darwin's great and -harmonious conception of Nature, and his convincing -establishment of evolution, I had an answer to all the -doubts that had beset me since the beginning of my -biological studies.</p> - -<p>My famous teacher, Rudolf Virchow, whom I had met -at Würtzburg in 1852, and was soon associated with in -the most friendly relations as special pupil and admiring -assistant, played a very curious part in this great -controversy. I am, I think, one of those elderly men -who have followed Virchow's development, as man and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span> -thinker, with the greatest interest during the last fifty -years. I distinguish three periods in his psychological -metamorphoses. In the first decade of his academic life, -from 1847 to 1858, mainly at Würtzburg, he effected the -great reform of medicine that culminated brilliantly in -his cellular pathology. In the following twenty years -(1858-1877) he was chiefly occupied with politics and -anthropology. He was at first favourable to Darwinism, -then sceptical, and finally rejected it. His powerful and -determined opposition to it dates from 1877, when, in -is famous speech on "The Freedom of Science in the -Modern State," he struck a heavy blow at that freedom, -denounced the theory of evolution as dangerous to the -State, and demanded its exclusion from the schools. -This remarkable metamorphosis is so important, and has -had so much influence, yet has been so erroneously -described, that I will deal with it somewhat fully in the -next chapter, especially as I have then to treat one chief -problem, the descent of man from the ape. For the -moment, I will merely recall the fact that in Berlin, the -"metropolis of intelligence," as it has been called, the -theory of evolution, now generally accepted, met with a -more stubborn resistance than in most of our other -leading educational centres, and that this opposition was -due above all to the powerful authority of Virchow.</p> - -<p>We can only glance briefly here at the victorious -struggle that the idea of evolution has conducted in -the last three decades of the nineteenth century. The -violent resistance that Darwinism encountered nearly -everywhere in its early years was paralysed towards the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span> -end of the first decade. In the years 1866-1874 many -works were published in which not only were the -foundations of the theory scientifically strengthened, but -its general recognition was secured by popular treatment -of the subject. I made the first attempt in 1866, in my -<cite>General Morphology</cite>, to present connectedly the whole -subject of evolution and make it the foundation of a -consistent Monistic philosophy; and I then gave a -popular summary of my chief conclusions in the ten -editions of my <cite>History of Creation</cite>. In my <cite>Evolution -of Man</cite> I made the first attempt to apply the principles -of evolution thoroughly and consistently to man, and -to draw up a hypothetical list of his animal ancestors. -The three volumes of my <cite>Systematic Phylogeny</cite> (1894-1896) -contain a fuller outline of a natural classification -of organisms on the basis of their stem-history. There -have been important contributions to the science of -evolution in all its branches in the Darwinian periodical, -<cite>Cosmos</cite>, since 1877; and a number of admirable popular -works helped to spread the system.</p> - -<p>However, the most important and most welcome -advance was made by science when, in the last thirty -years, the idea of evolution penetrated into every branch -of biology, and was recognised as fundamental and -indispensable. Thousands of new discoveries and -observations in all sections of botany, zoology, protistology, -and anthropology, were brought forward as -empirical evidence of evolution. This is especially -true of the remarkable progress of paleontology, comparative -anatomy, and embryology, but it applies also<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span> -to physiology, chorology (the science of the distribution -of living things), and œcology (the description of the -habits of animals). How much our horizon was extended -by these, and how much the unity of our -Monistic system gained, can be seen in any modern -manual of biology. If we compare them with those -that gave us extracts of natural history forty or fifty -years ago, we see at once what an enormous advance -has taken place. Even the more remote branches of -anthropological science, ethnography, sociology, ethics, -and jurisprudence, are entering into closer relations -with the theory of evolution, and can no longer escape -its influence. In view of all this, it is ridiculous for -theological and metaphysical journals to talk, as they -do, of the failure of evolution and "the death-bed of -Darwinism."</p> - -<p>Our science of evolution won its greatest triumph -when, at the beginning of the twentieth century, its -most powerful opponents, the Churches, became reconciled -to it, and endeavoured to bring their dogmas into -line with it. A number of timid attempts to do so had -been made in the preceding ten years by different free-thinking -theologians and philosophers, but without much -success. The distinction of accomplishing this in a -comprehensive and well-informed manner was reserved -for a Jesuit, Father Erich Wasmann of Luxemburg. -This able and learned entomologist had already earned -some recognition in zoology by a series of admirable -observations on the life of ants, and the captives that -they always keep in their homes, certain very small<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span> -insects which have themselves been curiously modified -by adaptation to their peculiar environment. He -showed that these striking modifications can only -be rationally explained by descent from other free-living -species of insects. The various papers in which -Wasmann gave a thoroughly Darwinian explanation -of the biological phenomena first appeared (1901-1903) -in the Catholic periodical, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Stimmen aus Maria-Laach</cite>, -and are now collected in a special work entitled, <cite>Modern -Biology and the Theory of Evolution</cite>.</p> - -<p>This remarkable book of Wasmann's is a masterpiece -of Jesuitical sophistry. It really consists of three -entirely different sections. The first third gives, in -the introduction, what is, for Catholics, a clear and -instructive account of modern biology, especially the cell-theory, -and the theory of evolution (chapters i.-viii.). -The second third, the ninth chapter, is the most valuable -part of the work. It has the title: "The Theory of -Fixity or the theory of Evolution?" Here the learned -entomologist gives an interesting account of the results -of his prolonged studies of the morphology and the -œcology of the ants and their captives, the myrmecophilæ. -He shows impartially and convincingly that -these complicated and remarkable phenomena can only -be explained by evolution, and that the older doctrine -of the fixity and independent creation of the various -species is quite untenable. With a few changes this -ninth chapter could figure as a useful part of a work -by Darwin or Weismann or some other evolutionist. -The succeeding chapter (the last third) is flagrantly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span> -inconsistent with the ninth. It deals most absurdly with -the application of the theory of evolution to man. The -reader has to ask himself whether Wasmann really -believes these confused and ridiculous notions, or -whether he merely aims at befogging his readers, and -so preparing the way for the acceptance of the -conventional creed.</p> - -<p>Wasmann's book has been well criticised by a number -of competent students, especially by Escherich and -Francé. While fully recognising his great services, -they insist very strongly on the great mischief wrought -by this smuggling of the Jesuitical spirit into biology. -Escherich points out at length the glaring inconsistencies -and the obvious untruths of this "ecclesiastical evolution." -He summarises his criticism in the words: "If the -theory of evolution can really be reconciled with the -dogmas of the Church only in the way we find here, -Wasmann has clearly proved that any such reconciliation -is impossible. Because what Wasmann gives here -as the theory of evolution is a thing mutilated beyond -recognition and incapable of any vitality." He tries, -like a good Jesuit, to prove that it does not tend to -undermine, but to give a firm foundation to, the story -of supernatural creation, and that it was really not -Lamarck and Darwin, but St. Augustin and St. Thomas -of Aquin, who founded the science of evolution. "God -does not interfere directly in the order of Nature when -he can act by means of natural causes." Man alone -constitutes a remarkable exception; because "the -human soul, being a spiritual entity, cannot be derived<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span> -from matter even by the Divine omnipotence, like the -vital forms of the plants and animals" (p. 299).</p> - -<p>In an instructive article on "Jesuitical Science" (in the -Frankfort <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Freie Wort</cite>, No. 22, 1904), R. H. Francé -gives an interesting list of the prominent Jesuits who -are now at work in the various branches of science. -As he rightly says, the danger consists "in a systematic -introduction of the Jesuitical spirit into science, a persistent -perversion of all its problems and solutions, and -an astute undermining of its foundations; to speak more -precisely, the danger is that people are not sufficiently -conscious of it, and that they, and even science itself, -fall into the cleverly prepared pit of believing that there -is such a thing as <em>Jesuitical science</em>, the results of which -may be taken seriously."<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p> - -<p>While fully recognising these dangers, I nevertheless -feel that the Jesuit Father Wasmann, and his colleagues, -have—unwittingly—done a very great service to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span> -progress of pure science. The Catholic Church, the -most powerful and widespread of the <ins class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—Original text: 'Christain sects'">Christian sects</ins>, -sees itself compelled to capitulate to the idea of evolution. -It embraces the most important application of the idea, -Lamarck and Darwin's theory of descent, which it had -vigorously combated until twenty years ago. It does, -indeed, mutilate the great tree, cutting off its roots and -its highest branch; it rejects spontaneous generation or -archigony at the bottom, and the descent of man from -animal ancestors above. But these exceptions will not -last. Impartial biology will take no notice of them, and -the religious creed will at length determine that the more -complex species have been evolved from a series of -simpler forms according to Darwinian principles. The -belief in a supernatural creation is restricted to the -production of the earliest and simplest stem-forms, from -which the "natural species" have taken their origin; -Wasmann gives that name to all species that are demonstrably -descended from a common stem-form; in other -words, to what other classifiers call "stems" or "phyla." -The 4,000 species of ants in his system, which he believes -to be genetically related, are comprised by him in one -"natural species." On the other hand, man forms one -isolated "natural species" for himself, without any -connection with the other mammals.</p> - -<p>The Jesuitical sophistry that Wasmann betrays in -this ingenious distinction between "systematic and -natural species" is also found in his philosophic -"Thoughts on Evolution" (chap. viii.), his distinction -between philosophic and scientific evolution, or between<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span> -evolution in one stem and in several stems. His -remarks (in chap. vii.) on "the cell and spontaneous -generation" are similarly marred by sophistry. The -question of spontaneous generation or archigony—that is -to say, of the first appearance of organic life on the -earth, is one of the most difficult problems in biology, -one of those in which the most distinguished students -betray a striking weakness of judgment. Dr. Heinrich -Schmidt, of Jena, has lately written an able and popular -little work on that subject. In his <cite>Spontaneous Generation -and Professor Reinke</cite> (1903), he has shown to what -absurd consequences the ecclesiastical ideas lead on this -very question. The botanist Reinke, of Kiel, is now -regarded amongst religious people as the chief opponent -of Darwinism; for many conservatives this is because -he is a member of the Prussian Herrenhaus (a very -intelligent body, of course!). Although he is a strong -evangelical, many of his mystic deductions agree surprisingly -with the Catholic speculations of Father -Wasmann. This is especially the case with regard to -spontaneous generation. They both declare that the -first appearance of life must be traced to a miracle, to -the work of a personal deity, whom Reinke calls the -"cosmic intelligence." I have shown the unscientific -character of these notions in my last two works, <cite>The -Riddle of the Universe</cite>, and <cite>The Wonders of Life</cite>. I -have drawn attention especially to the widely distributed -monera of the chromacea class—organisms of the -simplest type conceivable, whose whole body is merely -an unnucleated, green, structureless globule of plasm<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span> -(Chroococcus); their whole vital activity consists of -growth (by forming plasm) and multiplication (by dividing -into two). There is little theoretical difficulty in -conceiving the origin of these new simple monera from -inorganic compounds of albumen, or their later transformation -into the simplest nucleated cells. All this, -and a good deal more that will not fit in his Jesuitical -frame, is shrewdly ignored by Wasmann.</p> - -<p>In view of the great influence that Catholicism still -has on public life in Germany, through the Centre -party, this change of front should be a great gain to -education. Virchow demanded as late as 1877 that -the dangerous doctrine of evolution should be excluded -from the schools. The Ministers of Instruction of -the two chief German States gratefully adopted this -warning from the leader of the progressive party, -forbade the teaching of Darwinian ideas, and made -every effort to check the spread of biological knowledge. -Now, twenty-five years afterwards, the Jesuits -come forward, and demand the opposite. They -recognise openly that the hated theory of evolution -is established, and try to reconcile it with the creed! -What an irony of history! And we find much the -same story when we read the struggles for freedom -of thought and for the recognition of evolution in -the other educated countries of Europe.</p> - -<p>In Italy, its cradle and home, educated people -generally look upon the papacy with the most -profound disdain. I have spent many years in Italy, -and have never met an educated Italian of such<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span> -bigoted and narrow views as we usually find amongst -educated German Catholics—represented with success -in the Reichstag by the Centre party. It is proof -enough of the reactionary character of German -Catholics that the Pope himself describes them as -his most vigorous soldiers, and points them out as -models to the faithful of other nations. As the whole -history of the Roman Church shows, the charlatan -of the Vatican is the deadly enemy of free science -and free teaching. The present German Emperor -ought to regard it as his most sacred duty to -maintain the tradition of the Reformation, and to -promote the formation of the German people in the -sense of Frederick the Great. Instead of this we -have to look on with heavy hearts while the Emperor, -badly advised and misled by those in influence about -him, suffers himself to be caught closer and closer -in the net of the Catholic clergy, and sacrifices to it -the intelligence of the rising generation. In September, -1904, the Catholic journals announced triumphantly -that the adoption of Catholicism by the Emperor and -his Chancellor was close at hand.<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></p> - -<p>The firmness of the belief in conventional dogmas,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span> -which hampers the progress of rational enlightenment -in orthodox Protestant circles as well as Catholic, is -often admired as an expression of the deep emotion -of the German people. But its real source is their -confusion of thought and their credulity, the power -of conservative tradition, and the reactionary state -of political education. While our schools are bent -under the yoke of the creeds, those of our neighbours -are free. France, the pious daughter of the Church, -gives anxious moments to her ambitious mother. She -is breaking the chains of the Concordat, and taking -up the work of the Reformation. In Germany, the -birthplace of the Reformation, the Reichstag and the -Government vie with each other in smoothing the -paths for the Jesuits, and fostering, instead of -suppressing, the intolerant spirit of the sectarian -school. Let us hope that the latest episode in the -history of evolution, its recognition by Jesuitical -science, will bring about the reverse of what they -intend—the substitution of rational science for blind -faith.</p> - - - <div class="chapter"></div> -<hr class="chap" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span></p> - -<p class="p4" /> -<h2><a name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II"></a><a href="#CONTENTS">CHAPTER II</a></h2> - -<p class="pfs100">THE STRUGGLE OVER OUR GENEALOGICAL TREE</p> - -<p class="p2 pfs80">OUR APE-RELATIVES AND THE VERTEBRATE-STEM</p> -<p class="p4" /> - -<hr class="chap pg-brk" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span></p> - -<p class="p4 pfs90">EXPLANATION OF PLATE II</p> - -<p class="p2 pfs70">SKELETONS OF FIVE ANTHROPOID APES</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="noindent">These skeletons of the five living genera of anthropomorpha are -reduced to a common size, in order to show better the relative -proportions of the various parts. The human skeleton is <span class="blkb"> - <span class="blka">1</span> - <span class="blka over">20</span> -</span>th natural -size, the gorilla <span class="blkb"> - <span class="blka">1</span> - <span class="blka over">18</span> -</span>th, the chimpanzee <span class="blkb"> - <span class="blka">1</span> - <span class="blka over">7</span> -</span>th, the orang <span class="blkb"> - <span class="blka">1</span> - <span class="blka over">7</span> -</span>th, the gibbon <span class="blkb"> - <span class="blka">1</span> - <span class="blka over">9</span> -</span>th. Young specimens of the chimpanzee and orang have been selected, -because they approach nearer to man than the adult. No one of the -living anthropoid apes is nearest to man in all respects; this cannot be -said of either of the African (gorilla and chimpanzee) or the Asiatic -(orang and gibbon). This anatomic fact is explained phylogenetically -on the ground that none of them are direct ancestors of man; they -represent divergent branches of the stem, of which man is the crown. -However, the small gibbon is nearest related to the hypothetical -common ancestor of all the anthropomorpha to which we give the -name of Prothylobates. Further information will be found in my -<cite>Last Link</cite> and <cite>Evolution of Man</cite> (chap. xxiii.).</p></div> - - -<div><a name="PLATE_II" id="PLATE_II"></a></div> -<p class="pfs80 smcap pg-brk">Plate II.</p> -<p class="pfs80">SKELETONS OF FIVE ANTHROPOID APES.</p> - -<p><a href="images/i_plate2-large.jpg"> -<span class="xs screenonly">View Larger Image Here.</span></a></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/i_plate2.jpg" width="650" alt="" /> -<div class="caption"> -<p><span class="xs"> -<span class="pad40pc">Young</span><span class="pad20pc">Young</span><br /> - -<span class="pad10pc">1/20</span> -<span class="pad15pc">1/18</span> -<span class="pad15pc">1/7</span> -<span class="pad15pc">1/7</span> -<span class="pad15pc">1/9</span><br /> - -<span class="pad10pc">MAN</span> -<span class="pad10pc">GORILLA</span> -<span class="pad10pc">CHIMPANZEE</span> -<span class="pad5pc">ORANG</span> -<span class="pad10pc">GIBBON</span> -<br /> - -<span class="pad10pc">(Homo)</span> -<span class="pad15pc"> </span> -<span class="pad10pc">(Anthropithecus)</span> -<span class="pad5pc">(Satyrus)</span> -<span class="pad10pc">(Hylobates)</span> -</span> -</p> - -</div> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap pg-brk" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span></p> - -<p class="p2 pfs120">CHAPTER II</p> - -<p class="p2 pfs90">THE STRUGGLE OVER OUR GENEALOGICAL TREE</p> - -<p class="p2 pfs80">OUR APE-RELATIVES AND THE VERTEBRATE-STEM</p> - - -<p class="p1 noindent">In the previous chapter I tried to give you a general -idea of the present state of the controversy in regard to -evolution. Comparing the various branches of thought -we found that the older mythological ideas of the -creation of the world were driven long ago out of the -province of inorganic science, but that they did not -yield to the rational conception of natural development -until a much later date in the field of organic nature. -Here the idea of evolution did not prove completely -victorious until the beginning of the twentieth century, -when its most zealous and dangerous opponent, the -Church, was forced to admit it. Hence the open -acknowledgment of the Jesuit, Father Wasmann, -deserves careful attention, and we may look forward to -a further development. If his force of conviction and -his moral courage are strong enough, he will go on to -draw the normal conclusions from his high scientific -attainments and leave the Catholic Church, as the -prominent Jesuits, Count Hoensbroech and the able -geologist, Professor Renard of Ghent, one of the workers -on the deep-sea deposits in the <em>Challenger</em> expedition,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span> -have lately done. But even if this does not happen, -his recognition of Darwinism, in the name of Christian -belief, will remain a landmark in the history of evolution. -His ingenious and very Jesuitical attempt to bring -together the opposite poles will have no very -mischievous effect; it will rather tend to hasten the -victory of the scientific conception of evolution over the -mystic beliefs of the Churches.</p> - -<p>You will see this more clearly if we go on to consider -the important special problem of the "descent of man -from the ape," and its irreconcilability with the conventional -belief that God made man according to His -own image. That this ape or pithecoid theory is an -irresistible deduction from the general principle of -evolution was clearly recognised forty-five years ago, -when Darwin's work appeared, by the shrewd and -vigilant theologians; it was precisely in this fact that -they found their strongest motive for vigorous resistance. -It is quite clear. <em>Either</em> man was brought into existence, -like the other animals, by a special creative act, -as Moses and Linné taught (an "embodied idea of the -Creator," as the famous Agassiz put it so late as 1858); -<em>or</em> he has been developed naturally from a series of -mammal ancestors, as is claimed by the systems of -Lamarck and Darwin.</p> - -<p>In view of the very great importance of this pithecoid -theory, we will first cast a brief glance at its founders -and then summarise the proofs in support of it. The -famous French biologist, Jean Lamarck, was the first -scientist definitely to affirm the descent of man from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span> -the ape and seek to give scientific proof of it. In his -splendid work, fifty years in advance of his time, the -<ins class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—Original text: '1899'"> -<cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Philosophie Zoologique</cite> (1809)</ins>, he clearly traced the -modifications and advances that must have taken place -in the transformation of the man-like apes (the primate -forms similar to the orang <ins class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—Original text: 'and the champanzee)'">and the chimpanzee)</ins>; the -adaptation to walking upright, the consequent modification -of the hands and feet, and later, the formation -of speech and the attainment of a higher degree of -intelligence. Lamarck's remarkable theory, and this -important consequence of it, soon fell into oblivion. -When Darwin brought evolution to the front again fifty -years afterwards, he paid no attention to the special -conclusion. He was content to make the following -brief prophetic observation in his work: "Light will -be thrown on the origin and the history of man." Even -this innocent remark seemed so momentous to the first -German translator of the work, Bronn, that he suppressed -it. When Darwin was asked by Wallace -whether he would not go more fully into it, he replied: -"I think of avoiding the whole subject, as it is so much -involved in prejudice; though I quite admit that it is -the highest and most interesting problem for the -thinker."</p> - -<p>The first thorough works of importance on the subject -appeared in 1863. Thomas Huxley in England, and -Carl Vogt in Germany, endeavoured to show that the -descent of man from the ape was a necessary consequence -of Darwinism, and to provide an empirical base -for the theory by every available argument. Huxley's<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span> -work on <cite>Man's Place in Nature</cite> was particularly valuable. -He first gave convincingly, in three lectures, the -empirical evidence on the subject—the natural history -of the anthropoid apes, the anatomical and embryological -relations of man to the next lowest animals, and the -recently discovered fossil human remains. I then (1866) -made the first attempt to establish the theory of evolution -comprehensively by research in anatomy and embryology, -and to determine the chief stages in the natural classification -of the vertebrates that must have been passed -through by our earlier vertebrate ancestors. Anthropology -thus becomes a part of zoology. In my <cite>History -of Creation</cite> I further developed these early evolutionary -sketches, and improvements were made in the successive -editions.</p> - -<p>In the meantime, the great master, Darwin, had -decided to deal with this chief evolutionary problem -in a special work. The two volumes of his <cite>Descent -of Man</cite> appeared in 1871. They contained an able -discussion of sexual selection, or the selective influence -of sexual love and high psychic activities connected -therewith, and their significance in regard to the -origin of man. As this part of Darwin's work was -afterwards attacked with particular virulence, I will -say that, in my opinion, it is of the greatest importance, -not only for the general theory of evolution, but -also for psychology, anthropology, and æsthetics.</p> - -<p>My own feeble early efforts (1866), not only to -establish the descent of man from the nearest -related apes, but also to determine more precisely<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span> -the long series of our earlier and lower vertebrate -ancestors, had not at all satisfied me. In particular, -I had had to leave unanswered in my <cite>General -Morphology</cite> the very interesting question: from which -invertebrate animals the vertebrate stem originally -came. A clear and unexpected light was thrown -on it some time afterwards by the astounding -discoveries of Kowalevsky, which revealed an essential -agreement in embryonic development between the -lowest vertebrate (Amphioxus) and a lowly tunicate -(Ascidia). In the succeeding years, the numerous -discoveries in connection with the formation of the -germinal layers in different animals so much enlarged -our embryological outlook that I was able to prove -the complete homology of the two-layered <i>gastrula</i> (a -cup-shaped embryonic form) in all the tissue-forming -animals (<i>metazoa</i>) in my <cite>Monograph on the Sponges</cite>. -From this I inferred, in virtue of the biogenetic law, -the common descent of all the metazoa from one and -the same gastrula-shaped stem-form, the <i>gastræa</i>. This -hypothetical stem-form, to which man's earliest multicellular -ancestors also belong, was afterwards proved -by Monticelli's observations to be still in existence. -The evolution of these very simple tissue-forming -animals from still simpler unicellular forms (<i>protozoa</i>) -is shown by the corresponding processes that we -witness in what is called the segmentation of the -ovum or gastrulation, in the development of the -two-layered germ from the single cell of the ovum.</p> - -<p>Encouraged by these great advances of modern<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span> -phylogeny, and with the support of many new discoveries -in comparative anatomy and embryology, in -which a number of distinguished observers were at -work, I was able in 1874 to venture on the first -attempt to trace continuously the whole story of man's -evolution. In doing so, I took my stand on the -firm ground of the biogenetic law, seeking to give -a phylogenetic cause for each fact of embryology. -My <cite>Evolution of Man</cite>, which made the first attempt -to accomplish this difficult task, was materially -improved and enlarged as new and important discoveries -were made. The latest edition (1903 [1904 -in English]) contains thirty chapters distributed in -two volumes, the first of which deals with embryology -(or ontogeny), and the second with the -development of species (or phylogeny).</p> - -<p>Though I was quite conscious that there were -bound to be gaps and weak points in these first -attempts to frame a natural anthropogeny, I had -hoped they would have some influence on modern -anthropology, and especially that the first sketches -of a genealogical tree of the animal world would -prove a stimulus to fresh research and improvement. -In this I was much mistaken. The dominant school -of anthropology, especially in Germany, declined to -suffer the introduction of the theory of evolution, -declaring it to be an unfounded hypothesis, and -described our carefully prepared ancestral trees as -mere figments. This was due, in the first place, to -the great authority of the founder and president (for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span> -many years) of the German Anthropological Society, -Rudolf Virchow, as I briefly pointed out in the -previous chapter. In view of the great regard that -is felt for this distinguished scientist, and the extent -to which his powerful opposition prevented the spread -of the theory, it is necessary to deal more fully with -his position on the subject. I am still further constrained -to do this because of the erroneous views -of it that are circulating, and my own fifty years' -acquaintance with my eminent teacher enables me to -put them right.</p> - -<p>Not one of Virchow's numerous pupils and friends -can appreciate more than I do his real services to -medical science. His <cite>Cellular Pathology</cite> (1858), his -thorough application of the cell-theory to the science of -disease, is, in my opinion, one of the greatest advances -made by modern medicine. I had the good fortune to -begin my medical studies at Würzburg in 1852, and to -spend six valuable terms under the personal guidance -of four biologists of the first rank—Albert Kölliker, -Rudolf Virchow, Franz Leydig and Carl Gegenbaur. -The great stimulus that I received from these distinguished -masters in every branch of comparative and -microscopic biology was the starting-point of my whole -training in that science, and enabled me subsequently to -follow with ease the higher intellectual flight of Johannes -Müller. From Virchow especially I learned, not only -the analytic art of careful observation and judicious -appreciation of the detailed facts of anatomy, but also -the synthetic conception of the whole human frame, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span> -profound conviction of the <em>unity</em> of our nature, the -inseparable connection of body and mind, to which -Virchow gave a fine expression in his classic essay on -"The Efforts to bring about Unity in Scientific Medicine" -(1849). The leading articles which he wrote at that -time for the Journal of Pathological Anatomy and -Physiology, which he had founded, contain much new -insight into the wonders of life, and a number of excellent -general reflections on their significance—pregnant ideas -that we can make direct use of for Monistic purposes. -In the controversy that broke out between empirical -rationalism and materialism and the older vitalism and -mysticism, he took the side of the former, and fought -together with Jacob Moleschott, Carl Vogt, and Ludwig -Büchner. I owe the firm conviction of the unity of -organic and inorganic nature, of the mechanical character -of all vital and psychic activity, which I have always -held to be the foundation of my Monistic system, in a -great measure to Virchow's teaching and the exhaustive -conversations I had with him when I was his assistant. -The profound views of the nature of the cell and the -independent individuality of these elementary organisms, -which he advanced in his great work <cite>Cellular Pathology</cite>, -remained guiding principles for me in the prolonged -studies that I made thirty years afterwards of the -organisation of the radiolaria and other unicellular -protists; and also in regard to the theory of the cell-soul, -which followed naturally from the psychological -study of it.</p> - -<p>His life at Würtzburg was the most brilliant period<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span> -of Virchow's indefatigable scientific labours. A change -took place when he removed to Berlin in 1856. He -then occupied himself chiefly with political and social -and civic interests. In the last respect he has done so -much for Berlin and the welfare of the German people -that I need not enlarge on it. Nor will I go into his -self-sacrificing -and often thankless political work as leader -of the progressive party; there are differences of -opinion as to its value. But we must carefully examine -his peculiar attitude towards evolution, and especially -its chief application, the ape-theory. He was at first -favourable to it, then sceptical, and finally decidedly -hostile.</p> - -<p>When the Lamarckian theory was brought to light -again by Darwin in 1859, many thought that it was -Virchow's vocation to take the lead in defending it. -He had made a thorough study of the problem of -heredity; he had realised the power of adaptation -through his study of pathological changes; and he had -been directed to the great question of the origin of man -by his anthropological studies. He was at that time -regarded as a determined opponent of all dogmas; he -combated transcendentalism either in the form of -ecclesiastical creeds or anthropomorphism. After 1862 -he declared that "the possibility of a transition from -species to species was a necessity of science." When -I opened the first public discussion of Darwinism at -the Stettin scientific congress in 1863, Virchow and -Alexander Braun were among the few scientists who -would admit the subject to be important and deserving<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span> -of the most careful study. When I sent to him in 1865 -two lectures that I had delivered at Jena on the origin -and genealogical tree of the human race, he willingly -received them amongst his <cite>Collection of Popular -Scientific Lectures</cite>. In the course of many long conversations -I had with him on the matter, he agreed with -me in the main, though with the prudent reserve and -cool scepticism that characterised him. He adopts the -same moderate attitude in the lecture that he delivered -to the Artisans' Union at Berlin in 1869 on "Human -and Ape Skulls."</p> - -<p>His position definitely changed in regard to -Darwinism from 1877 onward. At the Scientific -Congress that was then held at Munich I had, at -the pressing request of my Munich friends, undertaken -the first address (on 18th September) on "Modern -Evolution in Relation to the whole of Science." In -this address I had substantially advanced the same -general views that I afterwards enlarged in my <cite>Monism</cite>, -<cite>Riddle of the Universe</cite>, and <cite>Wonders of Life</cite>. In the -ultramontane capital of Bavaria, in sight of a great -university which emphatically describes itself as Catholic, -it was somewhat bold to make such a confession of -faith. The deep impression that it had made was -indicated by the lively manifestations of assent on the -one hand, and displeasure on the other, that were at -once made in the Congress itself and in the Press. On -the following day I departed for Italy (according to -an arrangement made long before). Virchow did not -come to Munich until two days afterwards, when he<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span> -delivered (on 22nd September, in response to entreaties -from people of position and influence) his famous -antagonistic speech on "The Freedom of Science in -the Modern State." The gist of the speech was that -this freedom ought to be restricted; that evolution is -an unproved hypothesis, and ought not to be taught in -the school because it is dangerous to the State: "We -must not teach," he said, "that man descends from the -ape or any other animal." In 1849, the young Monist, -Virchow, had emphatically declared this conviction, -"that he would never be induced to deny the thesis -of the unity of human nature and its consequences"; -now, twenty-eight years afterwards, the prudent Dualistic -politician entirely denied it. He had formerly taught -that all the bodily and mental processes in the human -organism depend on the mechanism of the cell-life; -now he declared the soul to be a special immaterial -entity. But the crowning feature of this reactionary -speech was his compromise with the Church, -which he had fought so vigorously twenty years -before.</p> - -<p>The character of Virchow's speech at Munich is best -seen in the delight with which it was at once received -by the reactionary and clerical papers, and the profound -concern of all Liberal journals, either in the political or -the religious sense. When Darwin read the English -translation of the speech he—generally so gentle in his -judgments—wrote: "Virchow's conduct is shameful, -and I hope he will some day feel the shame." In 1878, -I made a full reply to it in my <cite>Free Science and Free<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span> -Teaching</cite>, in which I collected the most important -press opinions on the matter.<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p> - -<p>From this very decided turn at Munich until his -death, twenty-five years afterwards, Virchow was an -indefatigable and very influential opponent of evolution. -In his annual appearances at congresses he has always -contested it, and has obstinately clung to his statement -that "it is quite certain that man does not descend from -the ape or any other animal." To the question: -"Whence does he come, then?" he had no answer, -and retired to the resigned position of the Agnostic, -which was common before Darwin's time: "We do not -know how life arose, and how the various species came -into the world." His son-in-law, Professor Rabl, has -tried to draw attention once more to his earlier conception, -and has declared that even in later years -Virchow often recognised the truth of evolution in -private conversation. This only makes it the more -regrettable that he always said the contrary in public. -The fact remains that ever since the opponents of -evolution, especially the reactionaries and clericals, have -appealed to the authority of Virchow.</p> - -<p>The wholly reactionary system that this led to has -been well described by Robert Drill (1902) in his -<cite>Virchow as a Reactionary</cite>. How little qualified the -great pathologist was to appreciate the scientific<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span> -bases of the pithecoid theory is clear from the -absurd statement he made, in the opening speech -of the Vienna Congress of Anthropologists, in 1894, -that man might just as well be claimed to descend -from a sheep or an elephant as from an ape. Any -competent zoologist can see from this the little -knowledge Virchow had of systematic zoology and -comparative anatomy. However, he retained his -authority as president of the German Anthropological -Society, which remained impervious to Darwinian -ideas. Even such vigorous controversialists as Carl -Vogt, and such scientific partisans of the ape-man -of Neanderthal as Schaafhausen, could make no -impression. Virchow's authority was equally great -for twenty years in the Berlin Press, both Liberal -and Conservative. The <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Kreutzzeitung</cite> and the <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Evangelische -Kirchenzeitung</cite> were delighted that "the -learned progressist was conservative in the best -sense of the word as regards evolution." The -ultramontane <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Germania</cite> rejoiced that the powerful -representative of pure science had, "with a few -strokes of his cudgel, reduced to impotence" the -absurd ape-theory and its chief protagonist, Ernst -Haeckel. The <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">National-Zeitung</cite> could not sufficiently -thank the free-thinking, popular leader for having -lifted from us for ever the oppressive mountain of -the theory of simian descent. The editor of the -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Volks-Zeitung</cite>, Bernstein, who has done so much for -the spread of knowledge in his excellent popular -manuals of science, obstinately refused to admit<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span> -articles that ventured to support the erroneous -ape-theory "refuted" by Virchow.</p> - -<p>It would take up too much space to attempt to -give even a general survey of the remarkable and -enormous literature of the subject that has accumulated -in the last three decades in the shape of -thousands of learned treatises and popular articles. -The greater part of these works have been written -under the influence of conventional religious prejudice, -and without the necessary acquaintance with the -subject, that can only be obtained by a thorough -training in biology. The most curious feature of -them is that most of the authors restrict their -genealogical interests to the most manlike apes, and -do not deal with their origin, or with the deeper -roots of our common ancestral tree. They do not -see the wood for the trees. Yet it is far easier and -safer to penetrate the great mysteries of our animal -origin, if we look at the subject from the higher -standpoint of vertebrate phylogeny and go deeper -into the earlier records of the evolutionary history -of the vertebrates.</p> - -<p>Since the great Lamarck established the idea of -the vertebrate at the beginning of the nineteenth -century (1801), and his Parisian colleague, Cuvier, -shortly afterwards recognised the vertebrates as one -of his four chief animal groups, the natural unity of -this advanced section of the animal world has not -been contested. In all the vertebrates, from the -lowest fishes and amphibians up to the apes and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span> -man, we have the same type of structure, the same -characteristic disposition and relations of the chief -organs; and they differ materially from the corresponding -features in all other animals. The mysterious -affinities of the vertebrates induced Goethe, 140 years -ago, long before Cuvier, to make prolonged and -laborious studies in their comparative anatomy at -Jena and Weimar. Just as he had, in his <cite>Metamorphosis -of Plants</cite>, established the unity of -organisation by means of the leaf as the common -primitive organ, he, in the metamorphosis of the -vertebrates, found this common element in the -vertebral theory of the skull. And when Cuvier -established comparative anatomy as an independent -science, this branch of biology was developed to -such an extent by the classic research of Johannes -Müller, Carl Gegenbaur, Richard Owen, Thomas -Huxley, and many other morphologists, that Darwinism -found its most powerful weapons in this arsenal. -The striking differences of external form and internal -structure that we find in the fishes, amphibians, -reptiles, birds, and mammals, are due to <em>adaptation</em> -to the various uses of their organs and their -environments. On the other hand, the astonishing -agreement in their typical character, that persists in -spite of their differences, is due to <em>inheritance</em> from -common ancestors.</p> - -<p>The evidence thus afforded by comparative anatomy -is so cogent that anyone who goes impartially and -attentively through a collection of skeletons can<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span> -convince himself at once of the morphological unity -of the vertebrate stem. The evolutionary evidence -of comparative ontogeny, or embryology, is less easy -to grasp and less accessible, but not less important. -It came to light at a much later date, and its -extreme value was only made clear, by means of the -biogenetic law, some forty years ago. It shows that -every vertebrate, like every other animal, develops -from a single cell, but that the course of its embryonic -development is peculiar, and characterised by embryonic -forms that are not found in the invertebrates. We -find in them especially the <i>chordula</i>, or chorda-larva, -a very simple worm-shaped embryonic form, without -limbs, head, or higher sense-organs; the body consists -merely of six very simple primitive organs. From -these are developed steadily the hundreds of different -bones, muscles, and other organs that we afterwards -distinguish in the mature vertebrate. The remarkable -and very complex course of this embryonic development -is essentially the same in man and the ape, and -in the amphibians and fishes. We see in it, in -accordance with the biogenetic law, a new and -important witness to the common descent of all -vertebrates from a single primitive form, the <i>chordæa</i>.</p> - -<p>But, important as these arguments of comparative -embryology are, one needs many years' study in the -unfamiliar and difficult province of embryology before -one can realise their evolutionary force. There are, -in fact, not a few embryologists (especially of the -modern school of experimental embryology) who do<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span> -not succeed in doing so. It is otherwise with the -palpable proofs that we take from a remote science, -paleontology. The remarkable fossil remains and -impressions of extinct animals and plants give us -directly the historical evidence we need to understand -the successive appearance and disappearance of the -various species and groups. Geology has firmly -established the chronological order of the sedimentary -rocks, which have been successively formed of mud -at the floor of the ocean, and has deduced their age -from the thickness of the strata, and determined the -relative date of their formation. The vast period -during which organic life has been developing on the -earth runs to many million years. The number is -variously estimated at less than a hundred or at -several hundred million years.<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> If we take the -smaller number of 200 million years, we find them -distributed amongst the five chief periods of the -earth's organic development in such a way that the -earlier or archeozoic period absorbs nearly one half. -As the sedimentary rocks of this period, chiefly -gneisses and crystalline schists, are in a metamorphosed -condition, the fossil remains in them are unrecognisable. -In the next succeeding strata of the paleozoic -period we find the earliest remains of fossilised -vertebrates, Silurian primitive fishes (selachii) and -ganoids. These are followed, in the Devonian system,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span> -by the first dipneust fishes (a transitional form from -the fishes to the amphibia). In the next, the -Carboniferous system, we find the first terrestrial or -four-footed vertebrates—amphibians of the order of -the stegocephala. A little later, in the Permian -rocks, the earliest amniotes, lowly, lizard-like reptiles -(tocosauria), make their appearance; the warm-blooded -birds and mammals are still wanting. We have the -first traces of the mammals in the Triassic, the earliest -sedimentary rocks of the mesozoic age; these are of -the monotreme sub-class (pantotheria and allotheria). -They are succeeded by the first marsupials -(prodidelphia) in the Jurassic, the ancestral forms of the -placentals (mallotheria), in the Cretaceous. See <a href="#Page_115">p. 115.</a></p> - -<p>But the richest development of the mammal class -takes place in the next or Tertiary age. In the -course of its four periods—the eocene, oligocene, -miocene, and pliocene—the mammal species increase -steadily in number, variety, and complexity, down to -the present time. From the lowest common ancestral -group of the placentals proceed four divergent branches, -the legions of the carnassia, rodents, ungulates, and -primates. The primate legion surpasses all the rest. -In this Linné long ago included the lemurs, apes, -and man. The historical order in which the various -stages of vertebrate development make their successive -appearance corresponds entirely to the morphological -order of their advance in organisation, as we have -learned it from the study of comparative anatomy -and embryology.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span></p> - -<p>These paleontological facts are among the most -important proofs of the descent of man from a long -series of higher and lower vertebrates. There is no -other explanation possible except evolution for the -chronological succession of these classes, which is in -perfect harmony with the morphological and systematic -distribution. The anti-evolutionists have not even -attempted to give any other explanation. The fishes, -dipneusts, amphibians, reptiles, monotremes, marsupials, -placentals, lemurs, apes, anthropoid apes, and ape-men -(pithecanthropi), are inseparable links of a long ancestral -chain, of which the last and most perfect link is man. -(<em>Cf.</em> the tables <a href="#Page_116">pp. 116-118</a>.)</p> - -<p>One of the paleontological facts I have quoted, -namely, the late appearance of the mammal class in -geology—is particularly important. This most advanced -group of the vertebrates comes on the stage in the -Triassic period, in the second and shorter half of the -organic history of the earth. It is represented only by -low and small forms in the whole of the mesozoic age, -during the domination of the reptiles. Throughout this -long period, which is estimated by some geologists at -8-11, by others at 20 or more, million years, the -dominant reptile class developed its many remarkable -and curious forms; there were swimming marine reptiles -(halisauria), flying reptiles (pterosauria), and colossal -land reptiles (dinosauria). It was much later, in the -Tertiary period, that the mammal class attained the -wealth of large and advanced placental forms that -secured its predominance over this more recent period.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span></p> - -<p>The many and thorough investigations made during -the last few decades into the ancestral history of the -mammals have convinced all zoologists who were -engaged in them that they may be traced to a common -root. All the mammals, from the lowest monotremes -and marsupials to the ape and man, have a large number -of striking characteristics in common, and these -distinguish them from all other vertebrates: the hair -and glands of the skin, the feeding of the young with -the mother's milk, the peculiar formation of the lower -jaw and the ear-bones connected therewith, and other -features in the structure of the skull; also, the possession -of a knee-cap (<i>patella</i>), and the loss of the nucleus in -the red blood-cells. Further, the complete diaphragm, -which entirely separates the pectoral cavity from the -abdominal, is only found in the mammals; in all the -other vertebrates there is still an open communication -between the two cavities. The monophyletic (or single) -origin of the whole mammalian class is therefore now -regarded by all competent experts as an established -fact.</p> - -<p>In the face of this important fact, what is called the -"ape-question" loses a good deal of the importance -that was formerly ascribed to it. All the momentous -consequences that follow from it in regard to our human -nature, our past and future, and our bodily and psychic -life, remain undisturbed whether we derive man directly -from one of the primates, an ape or lemur, or from some -other branch, some unknown lower form, of the -mammalian stem. It is important to point this out,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span> -because certain dangerous attempts have been made -lately by Jesuitical zoologists and zoological Jesuits to -cause fresh confusion on the matter.</p> - -<p>In a richly illustrated and widely read work that -Hans Kraemer published a few years ago, under the -title, <cite>The Universe and Man</cite>, an able and learned -anthropologist, Professor Klaatsch of Heidelberg, deals -with "the origin and development of the human race," -and admirably describes the primitive history of man -and his civilisation. However, he denounces the idea -of man's descent from the ape as "irrational, narrow-minded, -and false"; he grounds this severe censure -on the fact that none of the living apes can be the -ancestor of humanity. But no competent scientist had -ever said anything so foolish. If we look closer into -this fight with windmills, we find that Klaatsch holds -substantially the same view of the pithecoid theory -as I have done since 1866. He says expressly: "The -three anthropoid apes, the gorilla, chimpanzee, and -orang, seem to diverge from a common root, which -was near to that of the gibbon and man." I had long -ago given the name of <em>archiprimas</em> to this single -hypothetical root-form of the primates, which he calls -the "primatoid." It lived in the earliest part of the -Tertiary period, and had probably been developed in -the Cretaceous from older mammals. The very -forced and unnatural hypothesis by means of which -Klaatsch goes on to make the primates depart very -widely from the other mammals, seems to me to be -quite untenable, like the similar hypothesis that Alsberg,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span> -Wilser, and other anthropologists who deny our -pithecoid descent, have lately advanced.</p> - -<p>All these attempts have a common object—to save -man's privileged position in Nature, to widen as much -as possible the gulf between him and the rest of the -mammals, and to conceal his real origin. It is the -<ins class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—Original text: 'familar tendency'">familiar tendency</ins> of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">parvenu</i>, which we so often -notice in the aristocratic sons of energetic men who -have won a high position by their own exertions. -This sort of vanity is acceptable enough to the ruling -powers and the Churches, because it tends to support -their own fossilised pretensions to a "Divine image" -in man and a special "Divine grace" in princes. The -zoologist or anthropologist who studies our genealogy -in a strictly scientific spirit takes no more notice of -these tendencies than of the <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Almanach de Gotha</cite>. He -seeks to discover the naked truth, as it is yielded by -the great results of modern science, in which there -is no longer any doubt that man is really a descendant -of the ape—that is to say, of a long extinct anthropoid -ape. As has been pointed out over and over again -by distinguished supporters of this opinion, the -proofs of it are exceptionally clear and simple—much -clearer and simpler than they are in regard to many -other mammals. Thus, for instance, the origin of -the elephants, the armadilloes, the sirena, or the whales, -is a much more difficult problem than the origin of man.</p> - -<p>When Huxley published his powerful essay on -"Man's Place in Nature" in 1863, he gave it a frontispiece -showing the skeletons of man and the four living<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span> -anthropoid apes, the Asiatic orang and gibbon, and the -African chimpanzee and gorilla. Plate II. in the present -work differs from this in giving two young specimens of -the orang and the chimpanzee, and raising their size -to correspond with the other three skeletons. Candid -comparison of these five skeletons shows that they are -not only very like each other generally, but are <em>identical</em> -in the structure, arrangement, and connection of all the -parts. The same 200 bones compose the skeleton in -man and in the four tailless anthropoid apes, our nearest -relatives. The same 300 muscles serve to move the -various parts of the skeleton. The same hair covers the -skin; the same mammary glands provide food for the -young. The same four-chambered heart acts as central -pump of the circulation; the same 32 teeth are found in -our jaws; the same reproductive organs maintain the -species; the same groups of neurona or ganglionic cells -compose the wondrous structure of the brain, and -accomplish that highest function of the plasm which we -call the soul, and many still believe to be an immortal -entity. Huxley has thoroughly established this profound -truth, and by further comparison with the lower apes -and lemurs he came to formulate his important pithecometra -principle: "Whatever organ we take, the -differences between man and the anthropoid apes are -slighter than the corresponding differences between the -latter and the lower apes." If we make a superficial -comparison of our skeletons of the anthropomorpha, we -certainly notice a few salient differences in the size of -the various parts; but these are purely quantitative, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span> -are due to differences in growth, which in turn are caused -by adaptation to different environments. There are, as -is well known, similar differences between human beings; -their arms are sometimes long, sometimes short; the -forehead may be high or low, the hair thick or thin, and -so on.</p> - -<p>These anatomic proofs of the pithecoid theory are -most happily supplemented and confirmed by certain -recent brilliant discoveries in physiology. Chief amongst -these are the famous experiments of Dr. Hans -Friedenthal at Berlin. He showed that the human -blood acts poisonously on and decomposes the blood of -the lower apes and other mammals, but has not that -effect on the blood of the anthropoid apes.<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p> - -<p>From previous transfusion experiments it had been -learned that the affinity of mammals is connected to a -certain extent with their chemical blood-relationship. -If the living blood of two nearly related animals of the -same family, such as the dog and the fox, or the rabbit -and the hare, is mixed together, the living blood-cells -of each species remain uninfluenced. But if we mix the -blood of the dog and the rabbit, or the fox and the hare, -a struggle for life immediately takes place between the -two kinds of blood-cells. The watery fluid or serum -destroys the blood-cells of the rodent, and <em>vice versâ</em>. -It is the same with specimens of the blood of the various -primates. The blood of the lower apes and lemurs, -which are close to the common root of the primate stem,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span> -has a destructive effect on the blood of the anthropoid -apes and man, and <em>vice versâ</em>. On the other hand, the -human blood has no injurious effect when it is mixed -with that of the anthropoid apes.</p> - -<p>In recent years these interesting experiments have -been continued by other physiologists and physicians, -such as Professor Uhlenhuth at Greifswald and Nuttall -at London, and they have proved directly the blood-relationship -of various mammals. Nuttall studied -them carefully in 900 different kinds of blood, which -he tested by 16,000 reactions. He traced the gradation -of affinity to the lowest apes of the New World; -and Uhlenhuth continued as far as the lemurs. By -these results the affinity of man and the anthropoid -apes, long established by anatomy, has now been -proved physiologically to be in real "blood-relationship."<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a></p> - -<p>Not less important are the embryological discoveries -of the deceased zoologist, Emil Selenka. He made -two long journeys to the East Indies, in order to -study on the spot the embryology of the Asiatic -anthropoid apes, the orang and gibbon. By means -of a number of embryos that he collected he showed -that certain remarkable peculiarities in the formation -of the placenta, that had up to that time been considered -as exclusively human, and regarded as a -special distinction of our species, were found in just -the same way in the closely related anthropoid apes,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span> -though not in the rest of the apes. On the ground -of these and other facts, I maintain that the descent -of man from extinct Tertiary anthropoid apes is proved -just as plainly as the descent of birds from reptiles, -or the descent of reptiles from amphibians, which no -zoologist hesitates to admit to-day. The relationship -is as close as was claimed by my former fellow-student, -the Berlin anatomist, Robert Hartmann (with whom -I sat at the feet of Johannes Müller fifty years ago), -in his admirable work on the anthropoid apes (1883). -He proposed to divide the order of primates into -two families, the <i>primarii</i> (man and the anthropoid -apes), and <i>simianæ</i> (the real apes, the catarrhine or -eastern, and the platyrrhine or western apes).</p> - -<p>Since the Dutch physician, Eugen Dubois, discovered -the famous remains of the fossil ape-man -(<i>pithecanthropus erectus</i>) eleven years ago in Java, and -thus brought to light "the missing link," a large -number of works have been published on this very -interesting group of the primates. In this connection -we may particularly note the demonstration by the -Strassburg anatomist, Gustav Schwalbe, that the -previously discovered Neanderthal skull belongs to an -extinct species of man, which was midway between -the pithecanthropus and the true human being—the -<i>homo primigenus</i>. After a very careful examination, -Schwalbe at the same time refuted all the biassed -objections that Virchow had made to these and other -fossil discoveries, trying to represent them as pathological -abnormalities. In all the important relics of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span> -fossil men that prove our descent from anthropoid -apes Virchow saw pathological modifications, due to -unsound habits, gout, rickets, or other diseases of -the dwellers in the diluvial caves. He tried in -every way to impair the force of the arguments for -our primate affinity. So in the controversy over -the pithecanthropus he raised the most improbable -conjectures, merely for the purpose of destroying its -significance as a real link between the anthropoid -apes and man.</p> - -<p>Even now, in the controversy over this important -ape-question, amateurs and biassed anthropologists often -repeat the false statement that the gap between man -and the anthropoid ape is not yet filled up and the -"missing link" not yet discovered. This is a most -perverse statement, and can only arise either from -ignorance of the anatomical, embryological, and -paleontological facts, or incompetence to interpret -them aright. As a fact, the morphological chain that -stretches from the lemurs to the earlier western apes, -from these to the eastern tailed apes, and to the tailless -anthropoid apes, and from these direct to man, is now -uninterrupted and clear. It would be more plausible -to speak of missing links between the earliest lemurs -and their marsupial ancestors, or between the latter and -their monotreme ancestors. But even these gaps -are unimportant, because comparative anatomy and -embryology, with the support of paleontology, have -dissipated all doubt as to the <em>unity of the mammalian -stem</em>. It is ridiculous to expect paleontology to furnish<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span> -an unbroken series of positive data, when we remember -how scanty and imperfect its material is.</p> - -<p>I cannot go further here into the interesting recent -research in regard to special aspects of our simian -descent; nor would it greatly advance our object, -because all the general conclusions as to man's primate -descent remain intact, whichever way we construct -hypothetically the special lines of simian evolution. On -the other hand, it is interesting for us to see how the -most recent form of Darwinism, so happily described by -Escherich as "ecclesiastical evolution," stands in regard -to these great questions. What does its astutest representative, -Father Erich Wasmann, say about them? -The tenth chapter of his work, in which he deals at -length with "the application of the theory of evolution -to man," is a masterpiece of Jesuitical science, calculated -to throw the clearest truths into such confusion -and so to misrepresent all discoveries as to prevent any -reader from forming a clear idea of them. When we -compare this tenth chapter with the ninth, in which -Wasmann represents the theory of evolution as an -irresistible truth on the strength of his own able studies, -we can hardly believe that they both came from the -same pen—or, rather, we can only understand when we -recollect the rule of the Jesuit Congregation: "The -end justifies the means." Untruth is permitted and -meritorious in the service of God and his Church.</p> - -<p>The Jesuitical sophistry that Wasmann employs in -order to save man's unique position in Nature, and -to prove that he was immediately created by God,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span> -culminates in the antithesis of his two natures. The -"purely zoological conception of man," which has -been established beyond question by the anatomical -and embryological comparison with the ape, is said -to fail because it does not take into account the chief -feature, his "mental life." It is "psychology that is -best fitted to deal with the nature and origin of -man." All the facts of anatomy and embryology that -I have gathered together in my <cite>Evolution of Man</cite> in -proof of the series of his ancestors are either ignored -or misconstrued and made ridiculous by Wasmann. -The same is done with the instructive facts of -anthropology, especially the rudimentary organs, -which Robert Wiedersheim has quoted in his <cite>Man's -Structure as a Witness to his Past</cite>. It is clear that -the Jesuit writer lacks competence in this department; -that he has only a superficial and inadequate acquaintance -with comparative anatomy and embryology. If -Wasmann had studied the morphology and physiology -of the mammals as thoroughly as those of the ants, -he would have concluded, if he were impartial, that -it is just as necessary to admit a monophyletic (or -single) origin for the former as for the latter. If, in -Wasmann's opinion, the 4,000 species of ants form -a single "natural system"—that is to say, descend -from one original species—it is just as necessary to -admit the same hypothesis for the 6,000 (2,400 living -and 3,600 fossil) species of mammals, including the -human species.</p> - -<p>The severe strictures that I have passed on the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span> -sophisms and trickery of this "ecclesiastical evolution" -are not directed against the person and the character -of Father Wasmann, but the Jesuitical system which -he represents. I do not doubt that this able naturalist -(who is personally unknown to me) has written his -book in good faith, and has an honourable ambition -to reconcile the irreconcilable contradictions between -natural evolution and the story of supernatural -creation. But this reconciliation of reason and -superstition is only possible at the price of a sacrifice -of the reason itself. We find this in the case of all -the other Jesuits—Fathers Cathrein, Braun, Besmer, -Cornet, Linsmeier, and Muckermann—whose ambiguous -"Jesuitical science" is aptly dealt with in the article -of R. H. Francé that I mentioned before (No. 22 of -the <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Freie Wort</cite>, 16th February, 1904, Frankfort).</p> - -<p>This interesting attempt of Father Wasmann's does -not stand alone. Signs are multiplying that the -Church militant is about to enter on a systematic -campaign. I heard from Vienna on the 17th of -February, that on the previous day (which happened -to be my birthday), a Jesuit, Father Giese, had, in a -well-received address, admitted not only evolution in -general, but even its application to man, and declared -it to be reconcilable with Catholic dogmas—and this -at a crowded meeting of "catechists"! It is important -to note that in a new Catholic cyclopædia, Benziger's -<cite>Library of Science</cite>, the first three volumes (issued at -Einsiedeln and Cologne, 1904) deal very fully and ably -with the chief problems of evolution: the first with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span> -the formation of the earth, the second with spontaneous -generation, the third with the theory of descent. The -author of them, Father M. Gander, makes most -remarkable concessions to our theory, and endeavours -to show that they are not inconsistent with the Bible -or the dogmatic treatises of the chief fathers and schoolmen. -But, though there is a profuse expenditure of -sophistical logic in these Jesuitical efforts, Gander will -hardly succeed in misleading thoughtful people. One -of his characteristic positions is that spontaneous generation -(as the development of organised living things by -purely material processes) is inconceivable, but that it -might be made possible "by a special Divine arrangement." -In regard to the descent of man from other -animals (which he grants), he makes the reserve that -the soul must in any case have been produced by a -special creative act.</p> - -<p>It would be useless to go through the innumerable -fallacies and untruths of these modern Jesuits in detail, -and point out the rational and scientific reply. The -vast power of this most dangerous religious congregation -consists precisely in its device of accepting one -part of science in order to destroy the other part more -effectively with it. Their masterly act of sophistry, -their equivocal "probabilism," their mendacious -"reservatio mentalis," the principle that the higher -aim sanctifies the worst means, the pernicious casuistry -of Liguori and Gury, the cynicism with which they -turn the holiest principles to the gratification of their -ambition, have impressed on the Jesuits that black<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span> -character that Carl Hoensbroech has so well exposed -recently.</p> - -<p>The great dangers that menace real science, owing -to this smuggling into it of the Jesuitical spirit, must -not be undervalued. They have been well pointed -out by Francé, Escherich, and others. They are all -the greater in Germany at the present time, as the -Government and the Reichstag are working together -to prepare the way for the Jesuits, and to yield a -most pernicious influence on the school to these -deadly enemies of the free spirit of the country. -However, we will hope that this clerical reaction -represents only a passing episode in modern history. -We trust that one permanent result of it will be the -recognition, in principle, even by the Jesuits, of the -great idea of evolution. We may then rest assured -that its most important consequence, the descent of -man from other primate forms, will press on victoriously, -and soon be recognised as a beneficent and -helpful truth.</p> - - - <div class="chapter"></div> -<hr class="chap" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span></p> - -<p class="p4" /> -<h2><a name="CHAPTER_III" id="CHAPTER_III"></a><a href="#CONTENTS">CHAPTER III</a></h2> - -<p class="pfs100">THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE SOUL</p> - -<p class="pfs80">THE IDEAS OF IMMORTALITY AND GOD</p> -<p class="p4" /> - -<hr class="chap pg-brk" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span></p> - -<p class="p4 pfs90">EXPLANATION OF PLATE III</p> - -<p class="p2 pfs70">EMBRYOS OF THREE MAMMALS AT THREE CORRESPONDING -STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="noindent">The embryos of man (M), the anthropoid ape (gibbon, G), and the -bat (rhinolophus, B) can hardly be distinguished in the earlier stage -(the upper row), although the five cerebral vesicles, the -gill-clefts, and -the three higher sense-organs are already visible. On the curved -dorsal surface we see the sections of the primitive vertebræ. Even -later, when the two pairs of limbs have appeared in the form of -roundish fins (the middle row), the differences are not great. It is -not until a further development of the limbs and head has taken -place (lowest row) that the characteristic forms are clearly seen. It -is particularly notable that the primitive brain, the organ of the mind, -with its five cerebral vesicles, is the same in all.</p></div> - - -<div><a name="PLATE_III" id="PLATE_III"></a></div> -<p class="pfs80 smcap pg-brk">PLATE III.</p> - -<p class="pfs80">EMBRYOS OF THREE MAMMALS<br /> -(<em>At three corresponding stages of development</em>).</p> - -<p><a href="images/i_plate3-large.jpg"> -<span class="xs screenonly">View Larger Image Here.</span></a></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/i_plate3.jpg" width="500" alt="" /> -<div class="caption"> -<span class="small">B = <span class="smcap">Bat</span> (Rhinolophus) -<span class="pad4">G = <span class="smcap">Gibbon</span> (Hylobates)</span> -<span class="pad4">M = <span class="smcap">Man</span> (Homo)</span> -</span></div> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap pg-brk" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span></p> - -<p class="p2 pfs120">CHAPTER III</p> - -<p class="p2 pfs90">THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE SOUL</p> - -<p class="p2 pfs80">THE IDEAS OF IMMORTALITY AND GOD</p> - - -<p class="p1 noindent">Though it was my original intention to deliver only -two lectures, I have been moved by several reasons -to add a supplementary one. In the first place, I -notice with regret that I have been compelled by -pressure of time to leave untouched in my earlier -lectures, or to treat very inadequately, several important -points in my theme; there is, in particular, the very -important question of the nature of the soul. In the -second place, I have been convinced by the many -contradictory press-notices during the last few days -that many of my incomplete observations have been -misunderstood or misinterpreted. And, thirdly, it -seemed advisable to give a brief and clear summary -of the whole subject in this farewell lecture, to take -a short survey of the past, present, and future of the -theory of evolution, and especially its relation to the -three great questions of personal immortality, the -freedom of the will, and the personality of God.</p> - -<p>I must claim the reader's patience and indulgence -even to a greater extent than in the previous chapters, -as the subject is one of the most difficult and obscure<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span> -that the human mind approaches. I have dealt at -length in my recent works, <cite>The Riddle of the Universe</cite> -and <cite>The Wonders of Life</cite>, with the controversial questions -of biology that I treat cursorily here. But I would like -to put before you now, in a general survey, the powerful -arguments that modern science employs against the prevailing -superstition in regard to evolution, and to show -that the Monistic system throws a clear light on the great -questions of God and the world, the soul and life.</p> - -<p>In the previous chapters I have tried to give a general -idea of the present state of the theory of evolution and -its victorious struggle with the older legend of creation. -We have seen that even the most advanced organism, -man, was not brought into being by a creative act, but -gradually developed from a long series of mammal -ancestors. We also saw that the most man-like -mammals, the anthropoid apes, have substantially the -same structure as man, and that the evolution of the -latter from the former can now be regarded as a fully -established hypothesis, or, rather, an historical fact. But -in this study we had in view mainly the structure of the -body and its various organs. We touched very briefly on -the evolution of the human mind, or the immaterial soul -that dwells in the body for a time, according to a -venerable tradition. To-day we turn chiefly to the -development of the soul, and consider whether man's -mental development is controlled by the same natural -laws as that of his body, and whether it also is inseparably -bound up with that of the rest of the mammals.</p> - -<p>At the very threshold of this difficult province we<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span> -encounter the curious fact that there are two radically -distinct tendencies in psychology at our universities -to-day. On one side we have the metaphysical -and professional psychologists. They still cling to -the older view that man's soul is a special entity, a -unique independent individuality, which dwells for a time -only in the mortal frame, leaving it and living on as an -immortal spirit after death. This dualistic theory is -connected with the doctrine of most religions, and owes -its high authority to the fact that it is associated with the -most important ethical, social, and practical interests. -Plato gave prominence to the idea of the immortality of -the soul in philosophy long ago. Descartes at a later -date gave emphasis to it by ascribing a true soul to man -alone and refusing it to the animals.</p> - -<p>This metaphysical psychology, which ruled alone for a -considerable period, began to be opposed in the eighteenth, -and still more in the nineteenth, century by <em>comparative -psychology</em>. An impartial comparison of the psychic -processes in the higher and lower animals proved that -there were numerous transitions and gradations. A long -series of intermediate stages connects the psychic life of -the higher animals with that of man on the one side, -and that of the lower animals on the other. There was no -such thing as a sharp dividing line, as Descartes supposed.</p> - -<p>But the greatest blow was dealt at the predominant -metaphysical conception of the life of the soul thirty years -ago by the new methods of <em>psychophysics</em>. By means of -a series of able experiments the physiologists, Theodor -Fechner and Ernst Heinrich Weber of Leipsic, showed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span> -that an important part of the mental activity can be -measured and expressed in mathematical formulæ just -as well as other physiological processes, such as muscular -contractions. Thus the laws of physics control a part -of the life of the soul just as absolutely as they do the -phenomena of inorganic nature. It is true that psychophysics -has only partially realised the very high -expectations that were entertained in regard to its -Monistic significance; but the fact remains that a part -of the mental life is just as unconditionally ruled by -physical laws as any other natural phenomena.</p> - -<p>Thus <em>physiological psychology</em> was raised by psychophysics -to the rank of a physical and, in principle, exact -science. But it had already obtained solid foundations -in other provinces of biology. Comparative psychology -had traced connectedly the long gradation from man to -the higher animals, from these to the lower, and so on -down to the very lowest. At the lowest stage it found those -remarkable beings, invisible with the naked eye, that were -discovered in stagnant water everywhere after the invention -of the microscope (in the second half of the seventeenth -century) and called "infusoria." They were first -<ins class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—Original text: 'acurately described'">accurately described</ins> and classified by Gottfried Ehrenberg, -the famous Berlin microscopist. In 1838 he published -a large and beautiful work, illustrating on 64 folio pages -the whole realm of microscopic life; and this is still the -base of all studies of the protists. Ehrenberg was a -very ardent and imaginative observer, and succeeded in -communicating his zeal for the study of microscopic -organisms to his pupils. I still recall with pleasure the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span> -stimulating excursions that I made fifty years ago (in -the summer of 1854) with my teacher, Ehrenberg, and -a few other pupils—including my student-friend, -Ferdinand von Richthofen, the famous geographer—to -the Zoological Gardens at Berlin. Equipped with fine -nets and small glasses, we fished in the ponds of the -Zoological Gardens and in the Spree, and caught -thousands of invisible micro-organisms, which then richly -rewarded our curiosity by the beautiful forms and -mysterious movements they disclosed under the -microscope.</p> - -<p>The way in which Ehrenberg explained to us the -structure and the vital movements of his infusoria was -very curious. Misled by the comparison of the real -infusoria with the microscopic but highly organised -rotifers, he had formed the idea that all animals are -alike advanced in organisation, and had indicated this -erroneous theory in the very title of his work: <cite>The -Infusoria as Perfect Organisms: a Glance at the Deeper -Life of Organic Nature</cite>. He thought he could detect -in the simplest infusoria the same distinct organs as in -the higher animals—stomach, heart, ovaries, kidneys, -muscles, and nerves—and he interpreted their psychic -life on the same peculiar principle of equally advanced -organisation.</p> - -<p>Ehrenberg's theory of life was entirely wrong, and -was radically destroyed in the hour of its birth (1838) -by the cell-theory which was then formulated, and to -which he never became reconciled. Once Matthias -Schleiden had shown the composition of all the plants,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span> -tissues, and organs from microscopic cells, the last -structural elements of the living organism, and Theodor -Schwann had done the same for the animal body, the -theory attained such an importance that Kölliker and -Leydig based on it the modern science of tissues, or -histology, and Virchow constructed his cellular pathology -by applying it to diseased human beings. These are the -most important advances of theoretical medicine. But -it was still a long time before the difficult question of -the relation of these microscopic beings to the cell was -answered. Carl Theodor von Siebold had already -maintained (in 1845) that the real infusoria and the -closely related rhizopods were <em>unicellular organisms</em>, -and had distinguished these <i>protozoa</i> from the rest of -the animals. At the same time, Carl Naegeli had -described the lowest algæ as "unicellular plants." But -this important conception was not generally admitted -until some time afterwards, especially after I brought all -the unicellular organisms under the head of "protists" -(1872), and defined their psychic functions as the -"cell-soul."</p> - -<p>I was led to make a very close study of these -unicellular protists and their primitive cell-soul through -my research on the radiolaria, a very remarkable class -of microscopic organisms that float in the sea. I was -engaged most of my time for more than thirty of the -best years of my life (1856-87) in studying them in every -aspect, and if I came eventually to adopt a strictly -Monistic attitude on all the great questions of biology, -I owe it for the most part to my innumerable observations<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span> -and uninterrupted reflections on the wonderful vital -movements that are disclosed by these smallest and -frailest, and at the same time most beautiful and varied, -of living things.</p> - -<p>I had undertaken the study of the radiolaria as a -kind of souvenir of my great master, Johannes Müller. -He had loved to study these animals (of which only a -few species were discovered for the first time in the -year of my birth, 1834) in the last years of his life, and -had in 1855 set up the special group of the rhizopods -(protozoa). His last work, which appeared shortly after -his death (1858), and contained a description of 50 -species of radiolaria, went with me to the Mediterranean -when I made my first long voyage in the summer of -1859. I was so fortunate as to discover about 150 new -species of radiolaria at Messina, and based on these my -first monograph of this very instructive class of protists -(1862). I had no suspicion at that time that fifteen -years afterwards the deep-sea finds of the famous -<em>Challenger</em> expedition would bring to light an incalculable -wealth of these remarkable animals. In my -second monograph on them (1887), I was able to describe -more than 4,000 different species of radiolaria, and -illustrate most of them on 140 plates. I have given a -selection of the prettiest forms on ten plates of my -<cite>Art-forms in Nature</cite>.</p> - -<p>I have not space here to go into the forms and -vital movements of the radiolaria, of the general import -of which my friend, Wilhelm Bölsche, has given a very -attractive account in his various popular works. I must<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span> -restrict myself to pointing out the general phenomena -that bear upon our particular subject, the question of -the mind. The pretty flinty skeletons of the radiolaria, -which enclose and protect the soft unicellular body, are -remarkable, not only for their extraordinary gracefulness -and beauty, but also for the geometrical regularity and -relative constancy of their forms. The 4,000 species -of radiolaria are just as constant as the 4,000 known -species of ants; and, as the Darwinian Jesuit, Father -Wasmann, has convinced himself that the latter have -all descended by transformation from a common stem-form, -I have concluded on the same principles that the -4,000 species of radiolaria have developed from a -primitive form in virtue of adaptation and heredity. -This primitive form, the stem-radiolarian (<i>Actissa</i>) is -a simple round cell, the soft living protoplasmic body of -which is divided into two different parts, an inner -central capsule (in the middle of which is the solid round -nucleus) and an outer gelatinous envelope (<i>calymma</i>). -From the outer surface of the latter, hundreds and -thousands of fine plasmic threads radiate; these are -mobile and sensitive processes of the living internal -substance, the plasm (or protoplasm). These delicate -microscopic threads, or pseudopodia, are the curious -organs that effect the sensations (of touch), the locomotion -(by pushing), and the orderly construction of the -flinty house; at the same time, they maintain the -nourishment of the unicellular body, by seizing infusoria, -diatoms, and other protists, and drawing them -within the plasmic body, where they are digested and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span> -assimilated. The radiolaria generally reproduce by the -formation of spores. The nucleus within the protoplasmic -globule divides into two small nuclei, each of -which surrounds itself with a quantity of plasm, and -forms a new cell.</p> - -<p>What is this plasm? What is this mysterious "living -substance" that we find everywhere as the material -foundation of the "wonders of life"? Plasm, or protoplasm, -is, as Huxley rightly said thirty years ago, "the -physical basis of organic life"; to speak more precisely, -it is a chemical compound of carbon that alone accomplishes -the various processes of life. In its simplest -form the living cell is merely a soft globule of plasm, -containing a firmer nucleus. The inner nuclear matter -(called caryoplasm) differs somewhat in chemical composition -from the outer cellular matter (or cytoplasm); -but both substances are composed of carbon, oxygen, -hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulphur; both belong to the -remarkable group of the albuminates, the nitrogenous -carbonates that are distinguished for the extraordinary -size of their molecules and the unstable arrangement -of the numerous atoms (more than a thousand) that -compose them.</p> - -<p>There are, however, still simpler organisms in -which the nucleus and the body of the cell have not -yet been differentiated. These are the <i>monera</i>, the -whole living body of which is merely a homogeneous -particle of plasm (the chromacea and bacteria). The -well-known bacteria which now play so important a -part as the causes of most dangerous infectious<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span> -diseases, and the agents of putrefaction, fermentation, -etc., show very clearly that organic life is only a -chemical and physical process, and not the outcome -of a mysterious "vital force."</p> - -<p>We see this still more clearly in our radiolaria, and -at the same time they show us unmistakably that -even the psychic activity is such a physico-chemical -process. All the different functions of their cell-soul, -the sense-perception of stimuli, the movement of their -plasm, their nutrition, growth, and reproduction, are -determined by the particular chemical composition of -each of the 4,000 species; and they have all -descended, in virtue of adaptation and heredity, from -the common stem-form of the naked, round parent-radiolarian -(<i>Actissa</i>).</p> - -<p>We may instance, as a peculiarly interesting fact in -the psychic life of the unicellular radiolaria, the extraordinary -power of memory in them. The relative -constancy with which the 4,000 species transmit the -orderly and often very complex form of their -protective flinty structure from generation to generation -can only be explained by admitting in the -builders, the invisible plasma-molecules of the -pseudopodia, a fine "plastic sense of distance," and a -tenacious recollection of the architectural power of -their fathers. The fine, formless plasma-threads are -always building afresh the same delicate flinty shells -with an artistic trellis-work, and with protective -radiating needles and supports always at the same -points of their surface. The physiologist, Ewald<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[95]</a></span> -Hering (of Leipsic), had spoken in 1870 of memory as -"a general function of organised matter." I myself had -tried to explain the molecular features of heredity by -the memory of the plasma-molecules, in my essay on -"The Perigenesis of the Plastidules" (1875). Recently -one of the ablest of my pupils, Professor Richard Semon -(of Munich, 1904), made a profound study of "Mneme -as the principle of constancy in the changes of organic -phenomena," and reduced the mechanical process of -reproduction to a purely physiological base.</p> - -<p>From the cell-soul and its memory in the radiolaria -and other unicellular protists, we pass directly to the -similar phenomenon in the ovum, the unicellular -starting-point of the individual life, from which the -complex multicellular frame of all the histona, or -tissue-forming animals and plants, is developed. -Even the human organism is at first a simple -nucleated globule of plasm, about<span class="blkb"> - <span class="blka">1</span> - <span class="blka over">125</span> -</span> inch in diameter, -barely visible to the naked eye as a tiny point. -This stem-cell (<i>cytula</i>) is formed at the moment when -the ovum is fertilised, or mingled with the small -male spermatozoon. The ovum transmits to the -child by heredity the personal traits of the mother, -the sperm-cell those of the father; and this hereditary -transmission extends to the finest characteristics of -the soul as well as of the body. The modern research -as to heredity, which occupies so much space now in -biological literature, but was only started by Darwin -in 1859, is directed immediately to the visible material -processes of impregnation.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[96]</a></span></p> - -<p>The very interesting and important phenomena of -impregnation have only been known to us in detail for -thirty years. It has been shown conclusively, after a -number of delicate investigations, that the individual -development of the embryo from the stem-cell or fertilised -ovum is controlled by the same laws in all cases. The -stem-cell divides and subdivides rapidly into a number -of simple cells. From these a few simple organs, the -germinal layers, are formed at first; later on the various -organs, of which there is no trace in the early embryo, -are built up out of these. The biogenetic law teaches -us how, in this development, the original features of the -ancestral history are reproduced or recapitulated in the -embryonic processes; and these facts in turn can only be -explained by the unconscious memory of the plasm, the -"<i>mneme</i> of the living substance" in the germ-cells, and -especially in their nuclei.</p> - -<p>One important result of these modern discoveries was -the prominence given to the fact that the personal soul -has a beginning of existence, and that we can determine -the precise moment in which this takes place; it is when -the parent cells, the ovum and spermatozoon, coalesce. -Hence what we call the soul of man or the animal has -not pre-existed, but begins its career at the moment of -impregnation; it is bound up with the chemical constitution -of the plasm, which is the material vehicle of -heredity in the nucleus of the maternal ovum and the -paternal spermatozoon. One cannot see how a being -that thus has a beginning of existence can afterwards -prove to be "immortal."</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[97]</a></span></p> - -<p>Further, a candid examination of the simple cell-soul in -the unicellular infusoria, and of the dawn of the individual -soul in the unicellular germ of man and the higher -animals, proves at once that psychic action does not -necessarily postulate a fully formed nervous system, as -was previously believed. There is no such system in -many of the lower animals, or any of the plants, yet we -find psychic activities, especially sensation, irritability, and -reflex action everywhere. All living plasm has a psychic -life, and in this sense the psyche is a partial function of -organic life generally. But the higher psychic functions, -particularly the phenomena of consciousness, only appear -gradually in the higher animals, in which (in consequence -of a division of labour among the organs) the nervous -system has assumed these functions.</p> - -<p>It is particularly interesting to glance at the central -nervous system of the vertebrates, the great stem of -which we regard ourselves as the crowning point. Here -again the anatomical and embryological facts speak a -clear and unambiguous language. In all vertebrates, -from the lowest fishes up to man, the psychic organ -makes its appearance in the embryo in the same form—a -simple cylindrical tube on the dorsal side of the -embryonic body, in the middle line. The anterior -section of this "medullary tube" expands into a club-shaped -vesicle, which is the beginning of the brain; the -posterior and thinner section becomes the spinal cord. -The cerebral vesicle divides, by transverse constrictions, -into three, then four, and eventually five vesicles. The -most important of these is the first, the <i>cerebrum</i>, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[98]</a></span> -organ of the highest psychic functions. The more the -intelligence develops in the higher vertebrates, the -larger, more voluminous, and more specialised does the -cerebrum become. In particular, the grey mantle or -cortex of the cerebrum, its most important part, only -attains in the higher mammals the degree of quantitative -and qualitative development that qualifies it to be the -"organ of mind" in the narrower sense. Through the -famous discoveries of Paul Flechsig eleven years ago we -were enabled to distinguish eight fields in the cortex, -four of which serve as the internal centres of sense-perception, -and the four that lie between these are the -thought-centres (or association-centres) of the higher -psychic faculties—the association of impressions, the -formation of ideas and concepts, induction and deduction. -This real organ of mind, the <i>phronema</i>, is not yet -developed in the lower mammals. It is only gradually -built up in the more advanced, exactly in proportion -as their intelligence increases. It is only in the most -intelligent forms of the placentals, the higher ungulates -(horse, elephant), the carnivores (fox, dog), and especially -the primates, that the phronema attains the high -grade of development that leads us from the anthropoid -apes direct to the savage, and from him to civilised -man.</p> - -<p>We have learned a good deal about the special significance -of the various parts of the brain, as organs of -specific functions, by the progress of the modern science -of experimental physiology. Careful experiments by -Goltz, Munk, Bernard, and many other physiologists,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[99]</a></span> -have shown that the normal consciousness, speech, and -the internal sense-perceptions, are connected with -definite areas of the cortex, and that these various <em>parts -of the soul</em> are destroyed when the organic areas connected -with them are injured. But in this respect -Nature has unconsciously given us the most instructive -experiments. Diseases in these various areas show how -their functions are partially or totally extinguished when -the cerebral cells that compose them (the <i>neurona</i> or -ganglionic cells) are partially or entirely destroyed. -Here again Virchow, who was the first to make a careful -microscopic study of the finest changes in the diseased -cells, and so explain the nature of the disease, did -pioneer work. I still remember very well a spectacle -of this kind (in the summer of 1855, at Würzburg), -which made a deep impression on me. Virchow's sharp -eye had detected a small suspicious spot in the cerebrum -of a lunatic, though there seemed to be nothing remarkable -about it on superficial examination. He handed it -to me for microscopic examination, and I found that a -large number of the ganglionic cells were affected, partly -by fatty degeneration and partly by calcification. The -luminous remarks that my great teacher made on these -and similar finds in other cases of mental disorder, confirmed -my conviction of the unity of the human organism -and the inseparable connection of mind and body, which -he himself at that time expressly shared. When he -abandoned this Monistic conception of the psychic life for -Dualism and Mysticism twenty years afterwards (especially -after his Munich speech in 1877), we must attribute<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[100]</a></span> -this partly to his psychological metamorphosis, and partly -to the political motives of which I spoke in the last -chapter.</p> - -<p>We find another series of strong arguments in favour -of our Monistic psychology in the individual development -of the soul in the child and the young animal. -We know that the new-born child has as yet no consciousness, -no intelligence, no independent judgment -and thought. We follow the gradual development of -these higher faculties step by step in the first years -of life, in strict proportion to the anatomical development -of the cortex with which they are bound up. The inquiries -into the child-soul which Wilhelm Preyer began in -Jena twenty-five years ago, his careful "observations of -the mental development of man in his early years," and -the supplementary research of several more recent physiologists, -have shown, from the ontogenetic side, that the -soul is not a special immaterial entity, but the sum-total -of a number of connected functions of the brain. When -the brain dies, the soul comes to an end.</p> - -<p>We have further proof in the stem-history of the soul, -which we gather from the comparative psychology of the -lower and higher mammals, and of savage and civilised -races. Modern ethnography shows us in actual -existence the various stages through which the mind -rose to its present height. The most primitive races, -such as the Veddahs of Ceylon, or the Australian -natives, are very little above the mental life of the -anthropoid apes. From the higher savages we pass by -a complete gradation of stages to the most civilised<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[101]</a></span> -races. But what a gulf there is, even here, between -the genius of a Goethe, a Darwin, or a Lamarck, -and an ordinary philisthine or third-rate official. All -these facts point to one conclusion: the human soul -has only reached its present height by a long period -of gradual evolution; it differs in degree, not in kind, -from the soul of the higher mammals; and thus it -cannot in any case be immortal.</p> - -<p>That a large number of educated people still cling -to the dogma of personal immortality in spite of these -luminous proofs, is owing to the great power of -conservative tradition and the evil methods of instruction -that stamp these untenable dogmas deep -on the growing mind in early years. It is for that -very reason that the Churches strive to keep the -schools under their power at any cost; they can -control and exploit the adults at will, if independent -thought and judgment have been stifled in the earlier -years.</p> - -<p>This brings us to the interesting question: What -is the position of the "ecclesiastical evolution" of the -Jesuits (the "latest course of Darwinism"), as regards -this great question of the soul? Man is, according -to Wasmann, the image of God and a unique, immaterial -being, differing from all other animals in the -possession of an immortal soul, and therefore having -a totally different origin from them. Man's immortal -soul is, according to this Jesuit sophistry, "spiritual -and sensitive," while the animal soul is sensitive only. -God has implanted his own spirit in man, and associated<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[102]</a></span> -it with an animal soul for the period of life. It is -true that Wasmann believes even man's body to have -been created directly by God; but, in view of the -overwhelming proofs of our animal descent, he leaves -open the possibility of a development from a series -of other animals, in which case the Divine spirit would -be breathed into him in the end. The Christian -Fathers, who were much occupied with the introduction -of the soul into the human embryo, tell us that the -immortal soul enters the soulless embryo on the -fortieth day after conception in the case of the boy, -and on the eightieth day in the case of the girl. If -Wasmann supposes that there was a similar introduction -of the soul in the development of the race, he must -postulate a moment in the history of the anthropoid -apes when God sent his spirit into the hitherto -unspiritual soul of the ape.</p> - -<p>When we look at the matter impartially in the light -of pure reason, the belief in immortality is wholly -inconsistent with the facts of evolution and of physiology. -The ontogenetic dogma of the older Church, -that the soul is introduced into the soulless body at a -particular moment of its embryonic development, is just -as absurd as the phylogenetic dogma of the most modern -Jesuits, that the Divine spirit was breathed into the frame -of an anthropoid ape at a certain period (in the Tertiary -period), and so converted it into an immortal soul. We -may examine and test this belief as we will, we can find -in it nothing but a piece of mystic superstition. It is -maintained solely by the great power of tradition and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[103]</a></span> -the support of Conservative governments, the leaders -of which have no personal belief in these "revelations," -but cling to the practical conviction that throne and -altar must support each other. They unfortunately -overlook the circumstance that the throne is apt to -become merely the footstool to the altar, and that -the Church exploits the State for its own, not the -State's, good.</p> - -<p>We learn further, from the history of this dogma, -that the belief in immortality did not find its way into -science until a comparatively late date. It is not found -in the great Monistic natural philosophers who, six -centuries before the time of Christ, evinced a profound -insight into the real nature of the world. It is not -found in Democritus and Empedocles, in Seneca and -Lucretius Carus. It is not found in the older Oriental -religions, Buddhism, the ancient religion of the Chinese, -or Confucianism; in fact, there is no question of -individual persistence after death in the Pentateuch -or the earlier books of the Old Testament (which -were written before the Babylonian Exile). It was -Plato and his pupil, Aristotle, that found a place for -it in their dualistic metaphysics; and its agreement with -the Christian and Mohammedan teaching secured for it -a very widespread acceptance.</p> - -<p>Another psychological dogma, the belief in man's -free-will, is equally inconsistent with the truth of evolution. -Modern physiology shows clearly that the will is -never really free in man or in the animal, but determined -by the organisation of the brain; this in turn<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[104]</a></span> -is determined in its individual character by the laws -of heredity and the influence of the environment. It -is only because the <em>apparent</em> freedom of the will has -such a great practical significance in the province of -religion, morality, sociology, and law, that it still forms -the subject of the most contradictory claims. Theoretically, -determinism, or the doctrine of the necessary -character of our volitions, was established long ago.</p> - -<p>With the belief in the absolute freedom of the will -and the personal immortality of the soul is associated, -in the minds of many highly educated people, a third -article of faith, the belief in a personal God. It is well -known that this belief, often wrongly represented as an -indispensable foundation of religion, assumes the most -widely varied shapes. As a rule, however, it is an open -or covert anthropomorphism. God is conceived as the -"Supreme Being," but turns out, on closer examination, -to be an idealised man. According to the Mosaic -narrative, "God made man to his own image and -likeness," but it is usually the reverse; "Man made -God according to his own image and likeness." This -idealised man becomes creator and architect and produces -the world, forming the various species of plants -and animals like a modeller, governing the world like -a wise and all-powerful monarch, and, at the "Last -Judgment," rewarding the good and punishing the -wicked like a rigorous judge. The childish conceptions -of this extramundane God, who is set over against the -world as an independent being, the personal creator, -maintainer, and ruler of all things, are quite incompatible<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[105]</a></span> -with the advanced science of the nineteenth century, -especially with its two greatest triumphs, the law of -substance and the law of Monistic evolution.</p> - -<p>Critical philosophy, moreover, long ago pronounced -its doom. In the first place, the most famous critical -thinker, Immanuel Kant, proved in his <cite>Critique of Pure -Reason</cite> that absolute science affords no support to the -three central dogmas of metaphysics, the personal God, -the immortality of the soul, and the freedom of the -will. It is true that he afterwards (in the course of -his dualistic and dogmatic metamorphosis) taught that -we must <em>believe</em> these three great mystic forces, and -that they are indispensable postulates of practical -reason; and that the latter must take precedence -over pure reason. Modern German philosophy, which -clamours for a "return to Kant," sees his chief -distinction in this impossible reconciliation of polar -contradictions. The Churches, and the ruling powers -in alliance with them, accord a welcome to this -diametrical contradiction, recognised by all candid readers -of the Königsberg philosopher, between the two reasons. -They use the confusion that results for the purpose -of putting the light of the creeds in the darkness of -doubting reason, and imagine that they save religion -in this way.</p> - -<p>Whilst we are engaged with the important subject -of religion, we must refute the charge, often made, and -renewed of recent years, that our Monistic philosophy -and the theory of evolution that forms its chief -foundation destroy religion. It is only opposed to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[106]</a></span> -those lower forms of religion that are based on -superstition and ignorance, and would hold man's -reason in bondage by empty formalism and belief in -the miraculous, in order to control it for political -purposes. This is chiefly the case with Romanism or -Ultramontanism, that pitiful caricature of pure Christianity -that still plays so important a part in the world. -Luther would turn in his grave if he could see the -predominance of the Roman Centre party in the -German Empire to-day. We find the papacy, the -deadly enemy of Protestant Germany, controlling its -destiny, and the Reichstag submitting willingly to be -led by the Jesuits. Not a voice do we hear raised -in it against the three most dangerous and mischievous -institutions of Romanism—the obligatory celibacy of -the clergy, the confessional, and indulgences. Though -these later institutions of the Roman Church have -nothing to do with the original teaching of the Church -and pure Christianity; though their immoral consequences, -so prejudicial to the life of the family and -the State, are known to all, they exist just as they did -before the Reformation. Unfortunately, many German -princes foster the ambition of the Roman clergy, making -their "Canossa-journey" to Rome, and bending the -knee to the great charlatan at the Vatican.</p> - -<p>It is also very regrettable that the increasing tendency -to external show and festive parade at what is called -"the new court" does grave injury to real and inner -religion. We have a striking instance of this external -religion in the new cathedral at Berlin, which many<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[107]</a></span> -would have us regard as "Catholic," not Protestant -and Evangelical. I often met in India priests and -pilgrims who believed they were pleasing their God -by turning prayer-wheels, or setting up prayer-mills -that were set in motion by the wind. One might -utilise the modern invention of automatic machines for -the same purposes, and set up praying automata in the -new cathedral, or indulgence-machines that would give -relief from lighter sins for one mark [shilling], and from -graver sins for twenty marks. It would prove a great -source of revenue to the Church, especially if similar -machines were set up in the other churches that have -lately been erected in Berlin at a cost of millions of -marks. It would have been better to have spent the -money on schools.</p> - -<p>These observations on the more repellent characters -of modern orthodoxy and piety may be taken as some -reply to the sharp attacks to which I have been exposed -for forty years, and which have lately been renewed -with great violence. The spokesmen of Catholic and -Evangelical beliefs, especially the Romanist <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Germania</cite> -and the Lutheran <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Reichsbote</cite>, have vied with each other -in deploring my lectures as "a desecration of this -venerable hall," and in damning my theory of evolution—without, -of course, making any attempt to repute its -scientific truth. They have, in their Christian charity, -thought fit to put sandwich-men at the doors of this -room, to distribute scurrilous attacks on my person and -my teaching to those who enter. They have made a -generous use of the fanatical calumnies that the court<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[108]</a></span> -chaplain, Stöcker, the theologian, Loofs, the philologist, -Dennert, and other opponents of my <cite>Riddle of the -Universe</cite>, have disseminated, and to which I make a -brief reply at the end of that work. I pass by -the many untruths of these zealous protagonists of -theology. We men of science have a different conception -of truth from that which prevails in ecclesiastical -circles.<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></p> - -<p>As regards the relation of science to Christianity, I will -only point out that it is quite irreconcilable with the -mystic and supernatural Christian beliefs, but that it -fully recognises the high ethical value of Christian -morality. It is true that the highest commands of the -Christian religion, especially those of sympathy and -brotherly love, are not discoveries of its own; the -golden rule was taught and practised centuries before -the time of Christ. However, Christianity has the distinction -of preaching and developing it with a fresh force. -In its time it has had a beneficial influence on the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[109]</a></span> -development of civilisation, though in the Middle Ages -the Roman Church became, with its Inquisition, its -witch-drowning, its burning of heretics, and its religious -wars, the bloodiest caricature of the gentle religion of -love. Orthodox <em>historical</em> Christianity is not directly -destroyed by modern science, but by its own learned and -zealous theologians. The enlightened Protestantism that -was so effectively advocated by Schleiermacher in Berlin -eighty years ago, the later works of Feuerbach, the -inquiries into the life of Jesus of David Strauss and -Ernest Renan, the lectures recently delivered here by -Delitzsch and Harnack, have left very little of what -strict orthodoxy regards as the indispensable foundations -of historical Christianity. Kalthoff, of Bremen, goes so -far as to declare that all Christian traditions are myths, -and that the development of Christianity is a necessary -outcome of the civilisation of the time.</p> - -<p>In view of this broadening tendency in theology and -philosophy at the beginning of the twentieth century, -it is an unfortunate anachronism that the Ministers of -Public Instruction of Prussia and Bavaria sail in the -wake of the Catholic Church, and seek to instil the spirit -of the Jesuits in both lower and higher education. It is -only a few weeks since the Prussian Minister of Worship -made a dangerous attempt to suppress academic -freedom, the palladium of mental life in Germany. -This increasing reaction recalls the sad days of the -eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when thousands -of the finest citizens of Germany migrated to North -America, in order to develop their mental powers in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[110]</a></span> -a free atmosphere. This selective process formed a -blessing to the United States, but it was certainly -very injurious to Germany. Large numbers of weak -and servile characters and sycophants were thus -favoured. The fossilised ideas of many of our leading -jurists seem to take us back sometimes to the Cretaceous -and Jurassic periods, while the palæozoic rhetoric of -our theologians and synods even goes back to the -Permian and Carboniferous epochs.</p> - -<p>However, we must not take too seriously the -anxiety that this increasing political and clerical -reaction causes us. We must remember the vast -resources of civilisation that are seen to-day in our -enormous international intercourse, and must have -confidence in the helpful exchange of ideas between -east and west that is being effected daily by our -means of transit. Even in Germany the darkness -that now prevails will at length give place to the -dazzling light of the sun. Nothing, in my opinion, -will contribute more to that end than the unconditional -victory of the idea of evolution.</p> - -<p>Beside the law of evolution, and closely connected -with it, we have that great triumph of modern science, -the law of substance—the law of the conservation of -matter (Lavoisier, 1789), and of the conservation of -energy (Robert Mayer, 1842). These two laws are -irreconcilable with the three central dogmas of -metaphysics, which so many educated people still -regard as the most precious treasures of their -spiritual life—the belief in a personal God, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[111]</a></span> -personal immortality of the soul, and the liberty of -the human will. But these great objects of belief, -so intimately bound up with numbers of our treasured -achievements and institutions, are not on that account -driven out of the world. They merely cease to pose -as truths in the realm of pure science. As imaginative -creations, they retain a certain value in the world of -poetry. Here they will not only, as they have done -hitherto, furnish thousands of the finest and most lofty -motives for every branch of art—sculpture, painting, -or music—but they will still have a high ethical and -social value in the education of the young and in -the organisation of society. Just as we derive artistic -and ethical inspiration from the legends of classical -antiquity (such as the Hercules myth, the <cite>Odyssey</cite> -and the <cite>Iliad</cite>) and the story of William Tell, so we -will continue to do in regard to the stories of the -Christian mythology. But we must do the same with -the poetical conceptions of other religions, which have -given the most varied forms to the transcendental -ideas of God, freedom, and immortality.</p> - -<p>Thus the noble warmth of art will remain, together -with—not in opposition to, but in harmony with—the -splendid light of science, one of the most precious -possessions of the human mind. As Goethe said: "He -who has science and art has religion; he who has not -these two had better have religion." Our Monistic -system, the "connecting link between religion and -science," brings God and the world into unity in the -sense that Goethe willed, the sense that Spinoza clearly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[112]</a></span> -expressed long ago and Giordano Bruno had sealed with -his martyrdom. It has been said repeatedly of late that -Goethe was an orthodox Christian. A few years ago a -young orator quoted him in support of the wonderful -dogmas of the Christian religion. We may point out -that Goethe himself expressly said he was "a decided -non-Christian." The "great heathen of Weimar" has -given the clearest expression to his Pantheistic views -in his noblest poems, <cite>Faust</cite>, <cite>Prometheus</cite>, and <cite>God and -the World</cite>. How could so vigorous a thinker, in whose -mind the evolution of organic life ran through millions -of years, have shared the narrow belief of a Jewish -prophet and enthusiast who sought to give up his life -for humanity 1,900 years ago?</p> - -<p>Our Monistic god, the all-embracing essence of the -world, the Nature-god of Spinoza and Goethe, is -identical with the eternal, all-inspiring energy, and is one, -in eternal and infinite substance, with space-filling matter. -It "lives and moves in all things," as the Gospel says. -And as we see that the law of substance is universal, -that the conservation of matter and of energy is inseparably -connected, and that the ceaseless development of this -substance follows the same "eternal iron laws," we find -God in natural law itself. The will of God is at work -in every falling drop of rain and every growing crystal, -in the scent of the rose and the spirit of man.</p> - - - <div class="chapter"></div> -<hr class="chap" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[113]</a></span></p> - -<p class="p4" /> -<h2><a name="APPENDIX" id="APPENDIX"></a><a href="#CONTENTS">APPENDIX</a></h2> - -<p class="pfs100">EVOLUTIONARY TABLES</p> -<p class="p4" /> - - -<hr class="chap pg-brk" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[114]</a></span><br /> - <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[115]</a></span></p> - - -<div><a name="TABLE_1" id="TABLE_1"></a></div> -<h3><a href="#CONTENTS">1.—GEOLOGICAL AGES AND PERIODS</a></h3> - -<div class="center fs80"> -<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="98%" summary=""> -<tr><td class="tdcbt wd25">Ages in the<br />Organic History of the Earth.</td><td class="tdcbt tdcbl wd25" colspan="2">Periods of Geology.</td> - <td class="tdcbt tdcbl wd25" colspan="2">Vertebrate Fossils.</td><td class="tdcbt tdcbl wd25">Approximate length<br />of Paleontological Periods.</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td> - <td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdlbt">I. Archeozoic age (primordial)<br /><br /><br />Age of invertebrates</td> - <td class="tdly tdlbl tdlbt wd1">{</td><td class="tdlx tdlbt">1. Laurentian<br />2. Huronian<br />3. Cambrian</td> - <td class="tdcbt tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbt">No fossil remains of vertebrates</td> - <td class="tdcbl tdcbt">52 million years Sedimentary strata<br />63,000 ft. thick</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdlbt">II. Paleozoic age (primary)<br />Age of fishes</td> - <td class="tdly tdlbl tdlbt"></td><td class="tdlx tdlbt">4. Silurian<br />5. Devonian<br />6. Carboniferous<br />7. Permian</td> - <td class="tdcbt tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdlz tdlbt">Fishes<br /><br />Dipneusts<br /><br />Amphibia<br /><br />Reptiles</td> - <td class="tdcbl tdcbt">34 million years Sedimentary strata<br />41,200 ft. thick</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdlbt">III. Mesozoic age (secondary)<br />Age of reptiles</td> - <td class="tdly tdlbl tdlbt"></td><td class="tdlx tdlbt">8. Triassic<br /><ins class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—Original text: '5. Jurassic'">9. Jurassic</ins><br />10. Cretaceous</td> - <td class="tdlyy tdlbl tdlbt"></td><td class="tdlz tdlbt">Monotremes<br /><br />Marsupials<br /><br /><i>Mallotheria</i><br />Pro-placentals</td> - <td class="tdcbl tdcbt">11 million years Sedimentary strata<br />12,200 ft. thick</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdlbt">IV. Cenozoic age (tertiary)<br />Age of mammals</td> - <td class="tdly tdlbl tdlbt"></td><td class="tdlxx tdlbt">11. Eocene<br />12. Oligocene<br />13. Miocene<br />14. Pliocene</td> - <td class="tdlyy tdlbl tdlbt">{<br />{<br />{<br />{</td><td class="tdlz tdlbt"><i>Prosimiæ</i><br /> Lemurs<br /><br /><i>Cynopitheca</i><br /> Baboons<br /><br /> - <i>Anthropoides</i><br /> Man-like apes<br /><br /><i>Pithecanthropi</i><br /> Ape-men</td> - <td class="tdcbl tdcbt">3 million years<br />3,600 ft. thick</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdlbt">V. Anthropozoic age (quaternary)<br />Age of man</td> - <td class="tdly tdlbl tdlbt"></td><td class="tdlxx tdlbt">15. Glacial<br />16. Post-glacial</td> - <td class="tdly tdlbl tdlbt"></td><td class="tdc tdcbt">Pre-historic man<br /><br />Savage and civilised man</td> - <td class="tdcbl tdcbt">300,000 years Sedimentary strata<br />little thickness</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td> - <td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> -</table></div> - - -<p class="p4 pg-brk" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[116]</a></span></p> - -<div><a name="TABLE_2A" id="TABLE_2A"></a></div> -<h3><a href="#CONTENTS"><span class="fs80">2A.</span>—MAN'S GENEALOGICAL TREE—<em>First Half</em></a></h3> - -<p class="pfs80">EARLIER ANCESTRAL SERIES, WITHOUT FOSSIL REMAINS, -BEFORE THE SILURIAN PERIOD</p> -<p class="p2" /> - -<div class="center fs80 lht"> -<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="98%" summary=""> -<tr><td class="tdcbt wd25">Chief Stages.</td><td class="tdcbt tdcbl wd25" colspan="2">Ancestral Stem-Groups.</td> - <td class="tdcbt tdcbl wd25">Living Relatives of our Ancestors.</td> - <td class="tdcbt tdcbl">Paleon- tology.</td><td class="tdcbt tdcbl">Onto- geny.</td><td class="tdcbt tdcbl">Morph- ology.</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td> - <td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdct">Stages 1-5: <span class="smcap">Protist- Ancestors</span> Unicellular organisms</td> - <td class="tdly tdct tdcbl">{</td> <td class="tdct">1. <span class="smcap">Monera</span> (Plasmodoma) without nuclei</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">1. <span class="smcap">Chromacea</span> (<i>Chroococcus</i>) <i>Phycochromacea</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">O</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I?</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdct"><br />1-2: Plasmodomous Protophyta</td> - <td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td> <td class="tdct">2. <span class="smcap">Algaria</span> Unicellular algæ with nuclei</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">2. <span class="smcap">Paulotomea</span> <i>Palmellacea</i> <i>Eremosphaera</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">O</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I?</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td> - <td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -<tr><td></td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td> <td class="tdct">3. <span class="smcap">Lobosa</span> Unicellular (Amœboid) Rhizopods</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">3. <span class="smcap">Amœbina</span> <i>Amœba</i> <i>Lecocyta</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">O</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdct">3-5: Plasmophagous Protozoa</td> - <td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td> <td class="tdct">4. <span class="smcap">Infusoria</span> (Unicellular) <i>Zoomonades</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">4. <span class="smcap">Flagellata</span> <i>Euflagellata</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">O</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">?</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td></tr> - -<tr><td></td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">5. <span class="smcap">Blastæades</span> Multicellular cell-colonies <i>Blastula?</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">5. <span class="smcap">Catallacta</span> <i>Magosphaera</i> <i>Volvocina</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">O</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td> - <td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdct">Stages 6-11: <span class="smcap">Invertebrate Metazoa- Ancestors</span></td> - <td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td> <td class="tdct">6. <span class="smcap">Gastræades</span> with two germinal layers</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">6. <span class="smcap">Gastrula</span> <i>Hydra</i>, <i>Olynthus</i>, <i>Orthonectida</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">O</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdct" rowspan="2"><br />6-8: Cœlenteria, without anus or body-cavity</td> - <td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td> <td class="tdct">7. <span class="smcap">Platodes I.</span> <i>Platodaria</i> (without nephridia)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">7. <span class="smcap">Cryptocœla</span> (<i>Convoluta</i>) (<i>Proporus</i>)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">O</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">?</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">8. <span class="smcap">Platodes II.</span> <i>Platodinia</i> (with nephridia)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">8. <span class="smcap">Rhabdocœla</span> (<i>Vortex</i>) (<i>Monotus</i>)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">O</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">?</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td> - <td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdct" rowspan="3"><br />9-11: Vermalia, with anus and body-cavity</td> - <td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">9. <span class="smcap">Provermalia</span> <i>Rotatoria</i> Primitive worms</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">9. <span class="smcap">Gastrotricha</span> <i>Trochozoa</i> <i>Trochophora</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">O</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">?</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td> <td class="tdct">10. <span class="smcap">Frontonia</span> (<i>Rhynchelminthes</i>) Snouted worms</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">10. <span class="smcap">Enteropneusta</span> <i>Balanoglossus</i> <i>Cephalodiscus</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">O</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">?</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">11. <span class="smcap">Prochordonia</span> Worms with chorda</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">11. <span class="smcap">Copelata</span> <i>Appendicaria</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">O</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td> - <td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdct" rowspan="4"><br />Stages 12-15: <span class="smcap">Monorrhina- Ancestors</span> Earliest vertebrates, without jaws or pairs of limbs, with single nostril</td> - <td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">12. <span class="smcap">Acrania I.</span><br />(Prospondylia)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">12. <span class="smcap">Larvæ of Amphioxus</span></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">O</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td> <td class="tdct">13. <span class="smcap">Acrania II.</span> Later skull-less animals</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">13. <span class="smcap">Leptocardia</span> Amphioxus (Lancelet)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">O</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">14. <span class="smcap">Cyclostoma I.</span> (Archicrania)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">14. <span class="smcap">Larvæ of Petromyzon</span></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">O</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">15. <span class="smcap">Cyclostoma II.</span> Later round- mouthed animals</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">15. <span class="smcap">Marsipobranchia</span> Myxinoides Petromyzontes</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">O</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td> - <td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -</table></div> - - -<p class="p4 pg-brk" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[117]</a></span></p> - -<div><a name="TABLE_2B" id="TABLE_2B"></a></div> -<h3><a href="#CONTENTS"><span class="fs80">2B.</span>—MAN'S GENEALOGICAL TREE—<em>Second Half</em></a></h3> - -<p class="pfs80">LATER ANCESTRAL SERIES, WITH FOSSIL REMAINS, -BEGINNING IN THE SILURIAN</p> -<p class="p2" /> - -<div class="center fs80 lht"> -<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="98%" summary=""> -<tr><td class="tdcbt wd25">Geological Periods.</td><td class="tdcbt tdcbl wd25" colspan="2">Stem-Groups of Ancestors.</td> - <td class="tdcbt tdcbl wd25">Living Relatives of our Ancestors.</td> - <td class="tdcbt tdcbl">Paleon- tology.</td><td class="tdcbt tdcbl">Onto- geny.</td><td class="tdcbt tdcbl">Morpho- logy.</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td> - <td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc">Silurian</td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">16. <span class="smcap">Selachii</span> Primitive fishes <i>Proselachii</i></td> - <td class="tdcbl">16. <span class="smcap">Notidanides</span> Chlamydoselachus <i>Heptanchus</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc">Silurian</td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">17. <span class="smcap">Ganoides</span> Plated fishes <i>Proganoides</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">17. <span class="smcap">Accipenserides</span> Sturgeon, Polypterus</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc">Devonian</td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">18. <span class="smcap">Dipneusta</span> <i>Paladipneusta</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">18. <span class="smcap">Neodipneusta</span> Ceratodus, Protopterus</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc">Carboniferous</td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">19. <span class="smcap">Amphibia</span> <i>Stegocephala</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">19. <span class="smcap">Phanerobranchia</span> and Salamandrina (Proteus, Triton)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc">Permian</td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">20. <span class="smcap">Reptilia</span> <i>Proreptilia</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">20. <span class="smcap">Rhyncocephalia</span> Primitive lizards Hatteria</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td> - <td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc">Triassic</td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">21. <span class="smcap">Monotrema</span> <i>Promammalia</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">21. <span class="smcap">Ornithodelphia</span> Echnida Ornithorhyncus</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc">Jurassic</td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">22. <span class="smcap">Marsupialia</span> <i>Prodidelphia</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">22. <span class="smcap">Didelphia</span> Didelphys, Perameles</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc">Cretaceous</td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">23. <span class="smcap">Mallotheria</span> <i>Prochoriata</i></td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">23. <span class="smcap">Insectivora</span> Erinaceida (Ictopsida+)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td> - <td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc">Older Eocene</td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">24. <span class="smcap">Lemuravida</span> Earlier lemurs Dent. 3, 1, 4, 3</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">24. <span class="smcap">Pachylemures</span> (<i>Hypopsodus</i>+) (<i>Adapis</i>+)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I?</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc">Later Eocene</td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">25. <span class="smcap">Lemurogona</span> Later lemurs Dent. 2, 1, 4, 3</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">25. <span class="smcap">Autolemures</span> (<i>Eulemur</i>) (<i>Stenops</i>)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I?</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc">Oligocene</td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">26. <span class="smcap">Dysmopitheca</span> Western apes Dent. 2, 1, 3, 3</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">26. <span class="smcap">Platyrrhinæ</span> (<i>Anthropops</i>+) (<i>Homunculus</i>+)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc">Older Miocene</td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">27. <span class="smcap">Cynopitheca</span> Baboons (tailed)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">27. <span class="smcap">Papiomorpha</span> (<i>Cynocephalus</i>)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc">Later Miocene</td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">28. <span class="smcap">Anthropoides</span> Anthropoid apes (tailless)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">28. <span class="smcap">Hylobatida</span> Hylobates Satyrus</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc">Pliocene</td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">29. <span class="smcap">Pithecanthropi</span> Ape-like men (alali = speechless)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">29. <span class="smcap">Anthropitheca</span> Chimpanzee Gorilla</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">II</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc">Pleistocene</td><td class="tdly tdcbl">{</td><td class="tdct">30. <span class="smcap">Homines</span> (loquaces = with speech)</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">30. <span class="smcap">Weddahs</span> Australian natives</td> - <td class="tdct tdcbl">I</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td><td class="tdct tdcbl">III</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td> - <td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -</table></div> - - -<p class="p4 pg-brk" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[118]</a></span></p> - -<div><a name="TABLE_3" id="TABLE_3"></a></div> -<h3><a href="#CONTENTS">3.—CLASSIFICATION OF THE PRIMATES</a></h3> - -<p class="fs80"><em>N.B</em>.— * indicates extinct forms, + living groups, ++ the hypothetical stem-form. -<em>Cf.</em> <cite>History of Creation</cite>, chap. xxvii.; <cite>Evolution of Man</cite>, chap. xxiii.</p> - - -<div class="center fs80"> -<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="98%" summary=""> - -<tr><td class="tdcbt tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbt tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbt tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbt tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdct">Orders.</td><td class="tdct tdcbl wd25">Sub-Orders.</td><td class="tdct tdcbl wd25">Families.</td><td class="tdct tdcbl wd20">Genera.</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc" rowspan="4">I<br /><span class="smcap">Prosimiae</span><br />Lemurs (Hemipitheci)<br /><p>The orbits imperfectly separated from the temporal depression by a bony - arch. Womb double or two-horned. Placenta diffuse, indeciduate (as a rule). Cerebrum relatively small, smooth, or little furrowed.</p></td> - <td class="tdcbl" rowspan="2">1. <span class="smcap">Lemuravida</span> (<i>Palalemures</i>) Early lemurs (generalists)<br /><p>Originally with claws on all or most fingers: later transition to nails. Tarsus primitive.</p></td> - <td class="tdcbl">1. <span class="smcap">Pachylemures*</span> (<i>Hypopsodina</i>)<br />Dent. 44 = 3.1.4.3/3.1.4.3<br />Primitive dentition</td> - <td class="tdcbl"><i>Archiprimas</i>++<br /> <i>Lemuravus</i>*<br /> Early Eocene<br /> <i>Pelycodus</i>*<br /> Early Eocene<br /> <i>Hypopsodus</i>*<br /> Late Eocene</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdcbl">2. <span class="smcap">Necrolemures</span> (<i>Anaptomorpha</i><br />Dent. 40 = 2.1.4.3/2.1.4.3<br />Reduced dentition</td> - <td class="tdcbl"><i>Adapis</i>*<br /> <i>Plesiadapis</i>*<br /> Necrolemur*</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdcbl" rowspan="2">2. <span class="smcap">Lemurogona</span> (<i>Neolemures</i>) Modern lemures (specialists)<p>All fingers usually have nails (except the second toe). Tarsus modified.</p></td> - <td class="tdcbl">3. <span class="smcap">Autolemures+</span> (<i>Lemurida</i>)<br />Dent. 36 = 2.1.3.3/2.1.3.3<br />Specialised dentition</td> - <td class="tdcbl"><i>Eulemur</i><br /> <i>Hapalemur</i><br /> <i>Lepilemur</i><br /> <i>Nycticebus</i><br /> <i>Stenops</i><br /> <i>Galago</i></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdcbl">4. <span class="smcap">Chirolemures+</span> (<i>Chiromyida</i>) Dent. 18 = 1.0.1.3/1.0.0.3 Rodent dentition</td> - <td class="tdcbl"><i>Chiromys</i><br />(Claws on all<br />fingers except first)</td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdcbt tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbt tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbt tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbt tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdc" rowspan="4">II<br /><span class="smcap">Simiae</span><br />Apes (<i>Pitheci</i> or <i>simiales</i>)<p>Orbits completely separated from the temporal depression by a bony septum. - Womb simple, pear-shaped. Placenta discoid, deciduate. Cerebrum relatively large and much furrowed.</p></td> - <td class="tdcbl" rowspan="2">3. <span class="smcap">Platyrrhinae</span> Flat-nosed apes <i>Hesperopitheca</i> Western apes (American). Nostrils lateral, with wide partition 3 premolars</td> - <td class="tdcbl">5. <span class="smcap">Arctopitheca+</span><br />Dent. 32 = 2.1.3.2/2.1.3.2<br />Nail on hallux only</td> - <td class="tdcbl"><i>Hapale</i><br /> <i>Midas</i></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdcbl">6. <span class="smcap">Dysmopitheca+</span><br />Dent. 36 = 2.1.3.3/2.1.3.3<br />Nails on all fingers</td> - <td class="tdcbl"><i>Callithrix</i><br /> <i>Nyctipithecus</i><br /> <i>Cebus</i><br /> <i>Mycetes</i><br /> <i>Ateles</i></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdcbl" rowspan="2">4. <span class="smcap">Catarrhinae</span> Narrow-nosed apes <i>Eopitheca</i> Eastern apes (Arctogoea) Europe, Asia, and Africa. Nostrils forward, with narrow septum 2 premolars. Nails on all fingers</td> - <td class="tdcbl">7. <span class="smcap">Cynopitheca+</span><br />Dent 32 = 2.1.2.3/2.1.2.3<br />Generally with tail and cheek-pouches. Sacrum with 3 or 4 vertebræ</td> - <td class="tdcbl"><br /><i>Cynocephalus</i><br /> <i>Cercopithecus</i><br /> <i>Inuus</i><br /> <i>Semnopithecus</i><br /> <i>Colobus</i><br /> <i>Nasalis</i></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdcbl">8. <span class="smcap">Anthropomorpha+</span><br />Dent. 32 = 2.1.2.3/2.1.2.3<br />No tail or cheek-pouches Sacrum with 5 vertebræ</td> - <td class="tdcbl"><br /><i>Hylobates</i><br /> <i>Satyrus</i><br /> <i>Pliopithecus</i>*<br /> <i>Gorilla</i><br /> <i>Anthropithecus</i><br /> <i>Dryopithecus</i>*<br /> <i>Pithecanthropus</i>*<br /> <i>Homo</i></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdcbb tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td><td class="tdcbb tdcbl tdpp"></td></tr> -</table></div> - - -<p class="p4 pg-brk" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[119]</a></span></p> - -<div><a name="TABLE_4" id="TABLE_4"></a></div> -<h3><a href="#CONTENTS">4.—GENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE PRIMATES</a></h3> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/i_119.jpg" width="500" alt="" /> -<div class="caption">Anthropomorpha</div> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap pg-brk" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[120]</a></span></p> - -<div><a name="TABLE_5" id="TABLE_5"></a></div> -<p class="p4 pfs90"><a href="#CONTENTS">EXPLANATION OF GENEALOGICAL TABLE 1</a></p> - -<p class="p2 pfs70">CHRONOMETRIC REDUCTION OF BIOGENETIC PERIODS</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="noindent">The enormous length of the biogenetic periods (<em>i.e.</em>, the periods -during which organic life has been evolving on our planet) is still -very differently estimated by geologists and paleontologists, astronomers -and physicists, because the empirical data of the calculation are very -incomplete and admit great differences of estimate. However, most -modern experts aver that their length runs to 100 and 200 million -years (some say double this, and even more). If we take the lesser -figure of 100 millions, we find this distributed over the five chief -periods of organic geology very much as is shown on Table 1. -In order to get a clearer idea of the vast duration of these -evolutionary periods, and to appreciate the relative shortness of -the "historical period," Dr. H. Schmidt (Jena) has reduced the -100,000,000 years to a day. In this scheme the twenty-four hours of -"creation-day" are distributed as follows over the five evolutionary -periods:</p> - - -<div class="center"> -<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="90%" summary=""> -<tr><td class="tdr">I.</td><td class="tdl">Archeozoic period (52 million years)</td><td class="tdr wd5">=</td><td class="tdr wd5">12h.</td><td class="tdr wd5">30m.</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdr">II.</td><td class="tdl">Paleozoic period (34 million years)</td><td class="tdr">=</td><td class="tdr">8h.</td><td class="tdr">7m.</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdr">III.</td><td class="tdl">Mesozoic period (11 million years)</td><td class="tdr">=</td><td class="tdr">2h.</td><td class="tdr">38m.</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdr">IV.</td><td class="tdl">Cenozoic period (3 million years)</td><td class="tdr">=</td><td class="tdr"></td><td class="tdr">43m.</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdr">V.</td><td class="tdl">Anthropozoic period (0·1-0·2 million years)</td><td class="tdr">=</td><td class="tdr"></td><td class="tdr">2m.</td></tr> -</table></div> - -<p>If we put the length of the "historic period" at 6,000 years, it -only makes <em>five seconds</em> of "creation-day"; the Christian era would -amount to <em>two</em> seconds.</p></div> - - - <div class="chapter"></div> -<hr class="chap" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[121]</a></span></p> - -<p class="p4" /> -<h2><a name="POSTSCRIPT" id="POSTSCRIPT"></a><a href="#CONTENTS">POSTSCRIPT</a></h2> - -<p class="p2 pfs80">EVOLUTION AND JESUITISM</p> - - -<p class="p1 noindent">The relation of the theory of evolution to the teaching -of the Jesuits is in many respects so important and so -liable to misunderstanding that I have felt it very -desirable to make it clear in the present work. I have, -I think, clearly showed that the two doctrines are -diametrically and irreconcilably opposed, and that the -attempt of the modern Jesuits to reconcile the two -antagonists is mere sophistry. I wrote with special -reference to the works of the learned Jesuit, Father -Erich Wasmann, not only because that writer deals with -the subject more ably and comprehensively than most of -his colleagues, but because he is more competent to -make a scientific defence of his views on account of -his long studies of the ants and his general knowledge -of biology. He has made a vigorous reply to my -strictures in an "open letter" to me, which appeared -on 2nd May, 1905, in the Berlin (or Roman) <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Germania</cite>, -and in the <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Kölnische Volkszeitung</cite>.</p> - -<p>The sophistical objections that Wasmann raises to my -lectures, and his misleading statement of the most important -problems, oblige me to make a brief reply in this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[122]</a></span> -"Postscript." It will be impossible, of course, to meet -all his points here, and convince him of their futility. -Not even the clearest and most rigorous logic makes a -man a match for a Jesuit; he adroitly employs the facts -themselves for the purpose of concealing the truth by -his perverse misstatements. It is vain to hope to -convince my opponent by rational argument, when he -believes that religious faith is "higher than all reason." -A good idea can be formed of his position from the -conclusion of the eleventh chapter of his work, <cite>Modern -Biology and the Theory of Evolution</cite> (p. 307). "There can -never be a real contradiction between natural knowledge -and supernatural revelation, because both have their -origin in the same Divine spirit." This is a fine comment -on the incessant struggle that "natural science" is -compelled to maintain against "supernatural revelation," -and that fills the whole philosophical and theological -literature of the last half century.</p> - -<p>Wasmann's orthodox position is shown most clearly -by the following statement: "The theory of evolution, -to which I subscribe as a scientist and a philosopher, -rests on the foundations of the Christian doctrine which -I hold to be the only true one: 'In the beginning -God created the heavens and the earth.'" Unfortunately, -he does not tell us how he conceives this -"creation out of nothing," and what he means by -"God" and "heavens." I would recommend him to -consult Troelslund's excellent work, <cite>The Idea of Heaven -and of the World</cite>.</p> - -<p>Almost at the same time that I was delivering my<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[123]</a></span> -lectures at Berlin, Wasmann was giving a series of -thoroughly Jesuitical lectures on the subject at Lucerne. -The Catholic Lucerne journal, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Vaterland</cite>, describes these -lectures as "a work of emancipation" and "a critical -moment in the intellectual struggle." It quotes the -following sentence: "At the highest stage of the -theistic philosophy of evolution is God, the omnipotent -creator of heaven and earth; next to him, created by -him, is the immortal soul of man. We reach this -conclusion, not only by faith, but by inductive and -strictly scientific methods. The system that is reared -on the theistic doctrine of evolution is the sole rational -and truly scientific system; the atheistic position is -<ins class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—Original text: 'irrational and inscientific'">irrational and unscientific</ins>."</p> - -<p>In order to see the untruth of this and the succeeding -statements of the modern Jesuits, we have to remember -that the Churches—both Protestant and Catholic—have -vigorously combated the theory of evolution with all -their power for thirty years, ever since the first appearance -of Darwinism. The shrewd clergy saw more -clearly than many of our naïve philosophers that -Darwin's theory of descent is the inevitable key-stone -of the whole theory of evolution, and that "the descent -of man from other mammals" is a rigorous deduction -from it. As Karl Escherich well says: "Hitherto we -read in the faces of our clerical opponents only hatred, -bitterness, contempt, mockery, or pity in regard to the -new invader of their dogmatic structure, the idea of -evolution. Now (since Wasmann's apostasy) the assurances -of the Catholic journals, that the Church has<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[124]</a></span> -admitted the theory of evolution for decades, make us -smile. Evolution has now pressed on to its final victory, -and these people would have us believe that they were -never unfriendly to it, never shrieked and stormed -against it. How, they say, could anyone have been so -foolish, when the theory of evolution puts the wisdom -and power of the creator in a nobler light than ever." -We find a similar diplomatic retreat in the popular work -of the Jesuit, Father Martin Gander, <cite>The Theory of -Descent</cite> (1904): "Thus the modern forms of matter were -not immediately created by God; they are effects of the -formative forces, which were put by the creator in the -primitive matter, and gradually came into view in the -course of the earth's history, when the external conditions -were given in the proper combination." That -is a remarkable change of front on the part of the -clergy.</p> - -<p>We see the astonishing system of the Jesuits, and of -the papacy of which they are the bodyguard, not only -in this impossible jumble of evolution and theology, but -also in other passages of Wasmann, Gander, Gutberlet, -and their colleagues. The serious dangers that threaten -our schools, and the whole of our higher culture, from -this Jesuitical sham-science, have been well pointed out -lately by Count von Hoensbroech in the preface to his -famous work, <cite>The Papacy in its Social and Intellectual -Activity</cite> (1901). "The papacy," he says, "in its claim -to a Divine authority, transmitted to it by Christ, -endowed with infallibility in all questions of faith and -morals, is the greatest, the most fatal, the most successful<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[125]</a></span> -error in the whole of history. This great error is -girt about by the thousands of lies of its supporters; -this error and these lies work for a system of power and -domination, for ultramontanism. The truth can but -struggle against it.... Nowhere do we find so much -and such systematic lying as in Catholic science, and in -the history of the Church and the papacy; nowhere are -the lies and misrepresentations more pernicious than -here; they have become part and parcel of the Catholic -religion. The facts of history tell plainly enough that -the papacy is anything but a Divine institution; that it -has brought more curses and ruin, more bloody turmoil -and profanation, into humanity's holiest of holies, religion, -than any other power in the world."</p> - -<p>This severe judgment on the papacy and Jesuitism -is the more valuable as Count von Hoensbroech was -himself in the service of the Jesuit Congregation for -forty years, and learned thoroughly all its tricks and -intrigues. In making them public, and basing his -charges on numerous official documents, he has done -great service to the cause of truth and civilisation. I -was merely repeating his well-founded verdict when, -at the close of my first lecture, I described the -papacy as the greatest swindle the world has ever -submitted to.</p> - -<p>A curious irony of Fate gave me an opportunity, -the same evening, to experience in my own person -the correctness of this verdict. A Berlin reporter -telegraphed to London that I had fully accepted the -new theory of Father Wasmann, and recognised the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[126]</a></span> -error of Darwinism; that the theory of evolution is -not applicable to man on account of his mental -superiority. This welcome intelligence passed from -London to America and many other countries. The -result was a flood of letters from zealous adherents of -the theory of evolution, interrogating me as to my -unintelligible change of front. I thought at first that -the telegram was due to the misunderstanding or the -error of a reporter, but I was afterwards informed -from Berlin that the false message was probably due -to a deliberate corruption by some religious person -who thought to render a service to his faith by this -untruth. He had substituted "supported" for -"refuted," and "error" for "truth."</p> - -<p>The struggle for the triumph of truth, in which I -have had the most curious experiences during the last -forty years, has brought me a number of new -impressions through my Berlin lectures. The flood -of calumnies of all kinds that the religious press -(especially the Lutheran <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Reichsbote</cite> and the Catholic -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Germania</cite>) poured over me exceeded any that had -gone before. Dr. Schmidt gave a selection from -them in the <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Freie Wort</cite> (No. 4, p. 144). I have -already pointed out, in the Appendix to the popular -edition of the <cite>Riddle of the Universe</cite> [German edition], -what unworthy means are employed by my clerical -and metaphysical opponents for the purpose of -bringing my popular scientific works into disrepute. I -can only repeat here that the calumniation of my -person does not move me, and does not injure the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[127]</a></span> -cause of truth which I serve. It is just this unusually -loud alarm of my clerical enemies that tells me my -sacrifices have not been in vain, and that I have put -the modest key-stone to the work of my life—"The -advancement of knowledge by the spread of the idea -of evolution."</p> - - -<p class="p4" /> -<p class="pfs90">THE END</p> - -<p class="p4" /> -<hr class="r30a" /> -<p class="pfs70"><em>Printed by Cowan & Co., Limited, Perth.</em></p> - - -<div class="footnotes pg-brk"><h2>FOOTNOTES:</h2> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> The word "evolution" is still used in so many different ways in -various sciences that it is important to fix it in the general significance -which we here give it. By "evolution," in the widest sense, I understand -the unceasing "mutations of substance," adopting Spinoza's -fundamental conception of substance; it unites inseparably in itself -"matter and force (or energy)," or "nature and mind" (= the world -and God). Hence the science of evolution in its broader range is -"the history of substance," which postulates the general validity of -"the law of substance." In the latter are combined "the law of the -constancy of matter" (Lavoisier, 1789) and "the law of the conservation -of energy" (Robert Mayer, 1842), however varied may be the -changes of <em>form</em> of these elements in the world-process. <em>Cf.</em> Chapter -XII. of <cite>The Riddle</cite>.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Certain orthodox periodicals have lately endeavoured to deny this -famous atheistical confession of the great Laplace, which was merely a -candid deduction of his splendid cosmic system. They say that this -Monistic natural philosopher acknowledged the Catholic faith on his -death-bed; and in proof of this they offer us the later testimony of an -Ultramontane priest. We need not point out how uncertain is the -love of truth of these heated partisans. When testimony of this kind -tends to "the good of religion" (<em>i.e.</em>, their own good), it is held to be -a pious work (<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">pia fraus</i>). On the other hand, it is interesting to recall -the reply of a Prussian Minister of Religion, Von Zedlitz, 120 years -ago, to the Breslau Consistory, when it urged that "those who believe -most are the best subjects." He wrote in reply: "His majesty -[Frederick the Great] is not disposed to rest the security of his State -on the stupidity of his subjects."</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> See, for instance, <cite>Moses and Geology, or Harmony of the Bible with -Science</cite>, by Samuel Kinns (1882). In this work the pious Biblical -astronomer executes the most incredible and Jesuitical manœuvres in -order to bring about an impossible reconciliation between science and -the Biblical narrative.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> The eel-like sophistry of the Jesuits, which has been brought to such -a wonderful pitch in their political system, cannot, as a rule, be met by -argument. An interesting illustration of this was given by Father -Wasmann himself in his controversy with the physician, Dr. Julian -Marcuse. The "scientific" Wasmann had gone so far in his zeal for -religion as to support a downright swindle of a "miraculous cure" in -honour of the "Mother of God of Oostacker" (the Belgian Lourdes). -Dr. Marcuse succeeded in exposing the whole astounding story of this -"pious fraud" (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Deutsche Stimmen</cite>, Berlin, 1903, iv. Jahrg., No. 20). -Instead of giving a scientific refutation, the Jesuit replied with sophistic -perversion and personal invective (Scientific [?] Supplement to -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Germania</cite>, Berlin, 1902, No. 43, and 1903, No. 13). In his final -reply, Dr. Marcuse said: "I have accomplished my object—to let -thoughtful people see once more the kind of ideas that are found in the -world of dead and literal faith, which tries to put the crudest superstition -and reverence for the myth of miraculous cures in the place of science, -truth and knowledge" (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Deutsche Stimmen</cite>, 1903, v. Jahrgang, No. 3).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> While these pages are in the press the journals announce a fresh -humiliation of the German empire that will cause great grief. On the -9th of May the nation celebrated the centenary of the death of -Friedrich Schiller. With rare unanimity all the political parties of -Germany, and all the German associations abroad, came together to do -honour to the great poet of German idealism. Professor Theobald -Ziegler delivered a very fine address at Strassburg University. The -Emperor, who happened to be in the town, was invited, but did not -attend; instead of doing so, he held a military parade in the vicinity. -A few days afterwards he sat at table with the German Catholic -cardinals and bishops, amongst them being the fanatical Bishop -Benzler, who declared that a Christian cemetery was desecrated by -the interment of a Protestant. At these festive dinners German -Catholics always give the first toast to the Pope, the second to the -Emperor; they rejoice at present that the Emperor and Pope are <em>allies</em>. -But the whole history of the papacy (a pitiful caricature of the ancient -Catholic faith) shows clearly that they are natural and irreconcilable -enemies. Either emperor must rule <em>or</em> pope.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> The manuscript letter in which the gentle Darwin expresses so -severe a judgment on Virchow is printed in my Cambridge lecture, -<cite>The Last Link</cite>. My answer to Virchow's speech is contained in the -second volume of my <cite>Popular Lectures</cite>, and has lately appeared in the -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Freie Wort</cite> (April, 1905).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> In his presidential speech at the last meeting of the British -Association, Professor Darwin said: "It does not seem unreasonable -to suppose that 500 to 1,000 million years may have elapsed since the -birth of the moon." [Trans.]</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> See account of similar experiments in the <cite>Lancet</cite>, 18th January, -1902. [Trans.]</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Wasmann meets these convincing experiments with mere Jesuitical -sophistry. Of the same character is his attack on my <cite>Evolution of Man</cite>, -and on the instructive work of Robert Wiedersheim, <cite>Man's Structure -as a Witness to his Past</cite>.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> I may remind those who think that the hall of the Musical Academy -is "desecrated" by my lectures, that it was in the very same place that -Alexander von Humboldt delivered, seventy-seven years ago (1828), the -remarkable lectures that afterwards made up his <cite>Cosmos</cite>. The great -traveller, whose clear mind had recognised the unity of Nature, and had, -with Goethe, discovered therein the real knowledge of God, endeavoured -to convey his thoughts in popular form to the educated Berlin public, -and to establish the universality of natural law. It was my aim to -establish, as regards the organic world, precisely what Humboldt had -proved to exist in inorganic nature. I wanted to show how the great -advance of modern biology (since Darwin's time) enables us to solve -the most difficult of all problems, the historical development of plants -and animals in humanity. Humboldt in his day earned the most lively -approval and gratitude of all free-thinking and truth-seeking men, and -the displeasure and suspicion of the orthodox and conservative courtiers -at Berlin.</p></div></div> - - -<div class="transnote pg-brk"> -<p><strong>TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE</strong></p> - -<p>In <a href="#TABLE_2A">Tables 2A</a> and <a href="#TABLE_2B">2B</a>, -'Ontogeny' column, the character ! was used in -the original text. This was probably a printer's error, and has been -replaced with I. So ! !! and !!! are displayed as I II and III.</p> - -<p>Notation for dentition in <a href="#TABLE_2B">Table 2B</a> (p. 117), where lower dentition is -assumed the same as upper, is unchanged; for example "3, 1, 4, 3". -In <a href="#TABLE_3">Table 3</a> (p.118) it is given as a fraction, and represented in the -etext as "upper/lower"; for example "44 = 3.1.4.3/3.1.4.3".</p> - -<p>Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been -corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within -the text and consultation of external sources.</p> - -<p>Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, -and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained. For example, -manlike, man-like; paleozoic, palæozoic; to-day; unspiritual; instil.</p> - -<p> -<a href="#Page_44">Pg 44</a>, 'Christain sects' replaced by 'Christian sects'.<br /> -<a href="#Page_53">Pg 53</a>, '_Philosophie Zoologique_ (1899)' replaced by - '_Philosophie Zoologique_ (1809)'.<br /> -<a href="#Page_53">Pg 53</a>, 'and the champanzee)' replaced by 'and the chimpanzee)'.<br /> -<a href="#Page_72">Pg 72</a>, 'familar tendency' replaced by 'familiar tendency'.<br /> -<a href="#Page_88">Pg 88</a>, 'acurately described' replaced by 'accurately described'.<br /> -<a href="#Page_115">Pg 115</a>, '5. Jurassic' replaced by '9. Jurassic'.<br /> -<a href="#Page_123">Pg 123</a>, 'irrational and inscientific' replaced by 'irrational and - unscientific'.<br /> -</p> -<p class="customcover">The cover image was created by the transcriber -and is placed in the public domain.</p> -</div> - -<p> </p> -<hr class="full" /> -<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LAST WORDS ON EVOLUTION ***</p> -<p>******* This file should be named 53639-h.htm or 53639-h.zip *******</p> -<p>This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:<br /> -<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/3/6/3/53639">http://www.gutenberg.org/5/3/6/3/53639</a></p> -<p> -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed.</p> - -<p>Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. -</p> - -<h2 class="pg">START: FULL LICENSE<br /> -<br /> -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br /> -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</h2> - -<p>To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license.</p> - -<h3 class="pg">Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works</h3> - -<p>1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8.</p> - -<p>1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.</p> - -<p>1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others.</p> - -<p>1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States.</p> - -<p>1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:</p> - -<p>1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed:</p> - -<blockquote><p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United - States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost - no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use - it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with - this eBook or online - at <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this - ebook.</p></blockquote> - -<p>1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.</p> - -<p>1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work.</p> - -<p>1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.</p> - -<p>1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License.</p> - -<p>1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.</p> - -<p>1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.</p> - -<p>1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that</p> - -<ul> -<li>You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation."</li> - -<li>You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works.</li> - -<li>You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work.</li> - -<li>You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.</li> -</ul> - -<p>1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.</p> - -<p>1.F.</p> - -<p>1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment.</p> - -<p>1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE.</p> - -<p>1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem.</p> - -<p>1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.</p> - -<p>1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions.</p> - -<p>1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. </p> - -<h3 class="pg">Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm</h3> - -<p>Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life.</p> - -<p>Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org.</p> - -<h3 class="pg">Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation</h3> - -<p>The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.</p> - -<p>The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact</p> - -<p>For additional contact information:</p> - -<p> Dr. Gregory B. Newby<br /> - Chief Executive and Director<br /> - gbnewby@pglaf.org</p> - -<h3 class="pg">Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation</h3> - -<p>Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS.</p> - -<p>The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/donate">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>.</p> - -<p>While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate.</p> - -<p>International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.</p> - -<p>Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate</p> - -<h3 class="pg">Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.</h3> - -<p>Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support.</p> - -<p>Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition.</p> - -<p>Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org</p> - -<p>This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.</p> - -</body> -</html> - diff --git a/old/53639-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/53639-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 8bfa292..0000000 --- a/old/53639-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53639-h/images/frontis.jpg b/old/53639-h/images/frontis.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 225fbd8..0000000 --- a/old/53639-h/images/frontis.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53639-h/images/i_119.jpg b/old/53639-h/images/i_119.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index ef125e1..0000000 --- a/old/53639-h/images/i_119.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53639-h/images/i_plate1-large.jpg b/old/53639-h/images/i_plate1-large.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index bec9471..0000000 --- a/old/53639-h/images/i_plate1-large.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53639-h/images/i_plate1.jpg b/old/53639-h/images/i_plate1.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1623fa5..0000000 --- a/old/53639-h/images/i_plate1.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53639-h/images/i_plate2-large.jpg b/old/53639-h/images/i_plate2-large.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 4697c7d..0000000 --- a/old/53639-h/images/i_plate2-large.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53639-h/images/i_plate2.jpg b/old/53639-h/images/i_plate2.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 92332b1..0000000 --- a/old/53639-h/images/i_plate2.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53639-h/images/i_plate3-large.jpg b/old/53639-h/images/i_plate3-large.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 9546fae..0000000 --- a/old/53639-h/images/i_plate3-large.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53639-h/images/i_plate3.jpg b/old/53639-h/images/i_plate3.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 931d0f8..0000000 --- a/old/53639-h/images/i_plate3.jpg +++ /dev/null |
