1
10
2
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/865e0b692a93a9b59d85d79b27cf8160.pdf?Expires=1781740800&Signature=tD9Y972EEr5dVbobimu4-tUSPJ5EQADm9qywujuEzdEc8X7%7EbcbPI2KIYOVVKqjEPcIPws0FtsnBYaLC04XLQDJ4rmAK1I7iH88rmiqVydtlRgXfud%7E9IJty1z7B2PmFFtKF8HFRt5iJGrS96Ob3dnmr0M-y8ISY6ntm%7EAR-iIooCjrGV03M59lD%7E9cahCs1rwEdkME7yFtq0HdvHU-vqTZ-Fj%7EWmjvY6lqXAKbq4jSp1qUkNzU8b30tszOAYLF5%7Ev5FQ66r6RhKlqqt0dTyVPtyMuVg%7ExNxIgozvi3RXaS3cY3DiYjgpwzEHiaHTmO3mM894FkvMaZf%7EKe81MZmrg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7df7f59351ed46853c89876c7fc71451
PDF Text
Text
PROFESSOR HAECKEL
AND HIS PHILOSOPHY1
By
the
Rev. JOHN GERARD, S.J.
We are constantly assured that it is the first prin
ciple of science to take nothing on faith or authority,
and that we are bound to believe only what we can
prove by our own reason. It is evident, however,
that a large number of those who boast of being
above all things scientific, and who style themselves
“ rationalists,” as going by reason more than others,
rely in fact not on it but on the authority of men
whose word they are content to take for what they do
not and cannot ascertain for themselves ; so that their
professed scientific creed is found to resolve itself
into blind acceptance of the teaching of a master.
It is of course undeniable that submission to
authority is right and proper, as a means of attaining
to the truth, and is even truly scientific—as in
many instances it is actually necessary—but only in
cases in which we have reasonably convinced our
selves that such authority is good and capable of teach
ing what for ourselves we cannot learn. Accordingly,
when we are told to submit to the teaching of a
master, the first question must be as to his qualifica
tions, and unless we find good reason to believe that
he may be trusted, we should act irrationally in
taking him as our guide, philosopher, and friend.
Amongst those to whom this office is now widely
1 Reprinted from The Month for October,
iqio.
�2
Professor Haeckel
assigned, none is so much in evidence as Professor
Ernst Haeckel, of Jena. No doubt, in his own
country his authority is largely on the wane, and
amongst real men of science it has never been
seriously regarded. But, as it is cynically said, bad
German philosophies come to England after they
are dead, and amongst the mass of our public it is
generally supposed that in his Riddle of the Universe,
is to be found the last word of Science concerning
all things divine and human, so that armed with this
the man in the street is competent to confute all the
philosophers and theologians who have so long
striven to keep mankind in the dark. This,
“ Haeckel’s Great Work,” is scattered broadcast at
the price of a few pence, so as to be within the
reach of all, and we are exultingly informed, as
though it were a conclusive testimony to its value,
that it is selling by hundreds of thousands ; which at
least certainly shows how wide is its influence. It is
therefore necessary strictly to examine how far this
famous work merits the character which it is sought
to ascribe to it, and how far its author deserves to
be taken as a genuine representative of science in
the conclusions which his readers are bidden to
accept. To such an inquiry, however rigorously
conducted, Professor Haeckel cannot properly
object; for no one is more outspoken than he in
his criticism of all with whom he does not agree.
His mode of arguing with opponents we should be
sorry to emulate, but it will be needful clearly to
exhibit what his method is.
Professor Otto Hamann thus introduces our whole
subject :—1
Why, it will be asked, do you, at this time of day, undertake
to combat this ‘ Champion of Darwinism ’ ? Has not the man
1 E. Haeckel mid seine Kampfwcise, p. 2.
�and his Philosophy
3
been long ago found guilty of untruths ever afresh charged
against him, of which his own works are evidence ? True, I
reply, so it is ; but the great public cannot conceive and com
prehend that all which is proffered by Haeckel as fact and
truth is fancy, or at best hypothesis. Moreover, he is the
leader of an entire school, and his words have greater influ
ence than those of any other professor, however great a
favourite.”
Amongst the articles of human belief there are none
against which Professor Haeckel declares war more
fiercely, or which he assails with greater obloquy,
than God, and Christianity, and the Immortality of
our souls, against which he exerts his controversial
methods to the full. God Himself, he defines as
“ a gaseous vertebrate/’ in which it is hard to find
either point, or humour, or even sense. As to
Christianity, it will be sufficient to give a specimen,
though we must be allowed to omit the most
outrageous of all, an offensive and utterly baseless
slander concerning the paternity of Christ. It will be
enough to consider what he tells us concerning the
four Gospels :—1
“As to the four canonical gospels [he writes],'we now know
that they were selected from a host of contradictory and forged
manuscripts of the first three centuries, by the 318 bishops who
assembled at the Council of Nicaea in 327. The entire list of
gospels numbered forty ; the canonical list contains four. As
the contending and mutually abusive bishops could not agree
about the choice, they determined to leave the selection to
a miracle. They put all the books (according to the Synodicon
of Pappus'), together underneath the altar, and prayed that
the apocryphal books, of human origin, might remain there,
and the genuine inspired books might be miraculously placed
on the table of the Lord. And this, says tradition, really
occurred.”
But, as is acknowledged by Haeckel’s devoted
disciple, Mr. Joseph McCabe,2 there is not a word
of truth in the above account of the matter. Tradi
tion says nothing of the kind. The story of the
Synodicon “ is not to be taken seriously,” and “ is
1 Riddle, p. no.
2 Haeckel's Critics Answered, p. 83.
�4
Professor Haeckel
not worthy of consideration ; ” “ the Canon of the
Gospels was substantially settled long before the
Council of Nicaea.” Moreover, Pappus was not
the author of the Synodicon, but only the editor.
Nevertheless, in the opinion of this apologist, the
authority of Professor Haeckel is nowise impaired
by the exhibition he thus makes of himself. For,
it is argued, he never pretends to be a theologian
or ecclesiastical historian, and 11 here was on the face
of it a department of thought where no one will
suspect him to have spent much of his valuable
time.” Accordingly (it is said), to found a serious
charge on this count is simply “ ludicrous.”
But is it not quite plain that if Haeckel knew
nothing on the subject, he should have said nothing,
and should not have adopted the positive and
supercilious tone which we heard above, and from
which readers must inevitably suppose that he had
taken at least ordinary pains to learn the truth. A
very slight expenditure of his valuable time, and
the use of an elementary text-book, would have
saved him from volunteering such a display of
ignorance.
In confirmation of what he writes upon the above
subject, as also upon the still more objectionable
matter to which reference has been made, Professor
Haeckel cites “ Saladin,” the pseudonym of a scur
rilous English free-thinker, to whom nobody who
has any knowledge of such things would attach the
least importance ; and as Mr. McCabe again con
fesses, u Haeckel had been wholly misinformed as
to his standing in this country, and thus had been
betrayed into a reliance on what he understood to
be his expert knowledge.” But then, we are told,
Professor Haeckel ‘‘has acknowledged his defects,
and has inserted in the cheap German edition of his
�and his Philosophy
5
work a notification that the authority he followed
was unsound,” which is seemingly thought to clear
him from blame. Something more should, however,
be mentioned. While in later English editions
which circulate where something is probably known
concerning “ Saladin,” the passages dealing with
his Scripture history are suppressed, and re-written
by Mr. McCabe himself ; in those destined for
German readers, “ Saladin ” is still presented as a
good authority, and one of his most disreputable
productions specially indicated as an authority, is
described by Haeckel as “ an admirable work, the
study of which cannot be too strongly recommended
to every honest and truth-seeking theologian.” In
all this it is not easy to discover that delicate regard
for truth which should characterize the genuine man
of science.
But after all, it will probably be said, these are
matters comparatively trivial and beside the actual
question. It is to his pre-eminent position in the
domain of science that the authority of Professor
Haeckel is due, and it is because of its supremely
scientific character that his famous Riddle, as we
are assured,1 “ is unanswered, because it is un
answerable.”
Now, unquestionably, Professor Haeckel is in his
own department a scientific authority of the first
order, and his researches into the life history of
calcareous sponges, radiolaria, medusae, and other
lower forms of life, combined with his accomplished
draughtsmanship, give him every right to speak as
a master on such subjects ; while even as to other
branches of zoology it would be improper to deny
him a respectful hearing. But, unfortunately, it is
with no such matters that his famous book generally
1 Translator’s Preface (cheap edition).
�6
.
Professor Haeckel
deals. Of the Riddle, less than one-sixth part treats
of what by any stretch of language can be described
as science at all, and still less of that branch of
science which Haeckel can claim as his own.
“ Science,” as the term is now understood, is con
fined to that which we can observe or with
which we can make experiments; whereas the
Riddle deals with what is eternal, illimitable,
and infinite, about which, therefore, we may specu
late or philosophize, but cannot learn anything
by “ scientific ” methods. But, as is evident,
the most accomplished zoologist is not necessarily
on that account a trustworthy guide as a philoso
pher ; as to the philosophical doctrines, therefore,
which form the great bulk of Professor Haeckel’s
book, we must estimate their value quite in
dependently of his scientific reputation, and we shall speedily find itestimony on the philosophical
side which manifestly is due to no theological pre
possessions against him. Thus Professor Paulsen,
of Berlin, whom none will accuse of being a clerical
partisan, concludes a careful examination of the
Riddle in these terms :—
“ I have read this book with burning shame ; shame for the
condition of our people in general and philosophic culture,
that such a work should be possible, that it should be produced,
printed, bought, read, and admired amongst a people that has
had a Kant, a Goethe, and a Schopenhauer—this is truly
lamentable.
J
Moieover, as to “science ” itself, strictly so called,
that upon which Haeckel chiefly insists, and wherein
he discovers evidence for the principles which he
regards as of supreme moment, is not within his own
piovince of Zoology, but in that of Physics, where he
can make no claim to be more of an expert than in
Philosophy itself. It is here, nevertheless, that he
finds the famous “ Law of Substance,” which as he
�and his Philosophy
J
declares/ “ has become the pole-star that guides our
monistic Philosophy through the mighty labyrinth
to a solution of the world-problem.”
But here the physicists, in their turn, are not at
all inclined to assent to his doctrine.
Professor
Chwolson, of the University of St. Petersburg, thus
writes :—2
“ We had set ourselves the task to inquire how Haeckel
behaves towards the Twelfth Commandment [‘Thou shalt
never write of aught about which thou knowest nothing ’] ;
whether in regard of scientific questions which lie outside his
special branch, he exhibits that thoroughness and deep serious
ness which have made him one of the great leaders in his own
line ; or whether, slighting this Commandment, he writes of
matters concerning which he has no glimmer of an idea. To
settle this question we carefully studied all that the Riddle con
tains concerning Physics. Material there was in plenty, for
questions of Physics play a large part in the book, and one of
these is for the author the sure Lodestar guiding his philosophy
through the mighty labyrinth of the world problems. The result
of our examination is startling, not to say astounding. Every
thing— yes, everything — touching physical questions which
Haeckel says, expounds, or affirms, is wrong ; is grounded on mis
understanding, or exhibits an almost incredible ignorance of the
most elementary points. Even of the law which he declares to
be the ‘ Lodestar ’ of his philosophy he has not the most elemen
tary school-boy knowledge ; and, on the strength of such entire
ignorance, he is prepared to demonstrate and declare that the
very foundation of modern Physics must be renounced as
unsound.”
Our own distinguished physicist, Sir Oliver Lodge,
is no more favourable to the views of Professor
Haeckel, and has devoted a special treatise 3 to their
refutation.
Referring to Professor Huxley’s essay on the
philosophy of Hume, he writes,
“ he [Huxley] speaks concerning ‘ substance ’—that substance
which constitutes the foundation of Haeckel’s philosophy—
almost as if he were purposely refuting that rather fly-blown
production.”
1 Riddle, p. 2.
2 Hegel, Haeckel, Kossuth und das zwolfte Gebot (German trans
lation).
3 Life and Matter.
�8
Professor Haeckel
Dealing with Haeckel’s cardinal contention, that
organic life is but a form of material energy, and
mentioning Mr. McCabe’s interpretation of this
doctrine—while he is careful to observe that he does
not wish to hold Haeckel responsible for the utter
ances of his disciple, since “ he must surely know
better,” Sir Oliver thus proceeds as to the master’s
own teaching :—
“ If it were true, that vital energy turns into, or was anyhow
convertible into, inorganic energy ; if it were true, that a dead
body had more inorganic energy than a live one ; if it were true,
that these ‘ inorganic energies ’ always, or ever, ‘ reappear on
the dissolution of life,’ then undoubtedly cadit quaestio ; life
would immediately be proved to be a form of energy, and
would enter into the scheme of physics. But, inasmuch as all
this is untrue—the direct contrary of the truth—I maintain that
life is not a form of energy, that it is not included in our physical
categories, that its explanation is still to seek.”
Even more to the point is the following. After
severely criticizing various particulars of Professor
Haeckel’s work, Sir Oliver goes on :—
“ It is just these superficial, and hypothetical, and as they seem
to me rather rash, excursions into side issues, which have
attracted the attention of the average man, and have succeeded
in misleading the ignorant.”
In regard of the point which Haeckel evidently
regards as of supreme importance, that is to say
his assumption that the study of inorganic nature
makes it impossible to believe in a designing or
directing Creator, Sir Oliver Lodge is no less ex
plicit :—
“The serious mistake [he writes] which people are apt to
make concerning this law of energy, is to imagine that it denies
the possibility of guidance, control, or directing agency, whereas
really it has nothing to say on these topics ; it relates to amount
alone. Philosophers have been far too apt to jump to the con
clusion that because energy is constant, therefore no guidance
is possible. Physicists however know better.”
Finally he again quotes Professor Huxley, who
declared :—
“ That which I very strongly object to is the habit, which a
great many non-philosophical materialists unfortunately fall into,
�and his Philosophy
9
of forgetting very obvious considerations. They talk as if the
proof that the ‘ substance of matter ’ was the 1 substance ’ of
all things, cleared up all the mysteries of existence. In point of
fact, it leaves them exactly where they were.”
To come now, at last, to that department ot
science in which Professor Haeckel is recognized
as an authority of the first class, it must be inquired
whether this constitutes him such a guide as it is safe
to follow where he would lead us in the work we are
discussing.
As to this, it must first be observed that in the
Riddle itself, as has already been intimated, we shall
find very little about zoology, and still less about those
departments of it which he has made his special
study. But in his other publications he has spoken
much concerning it, and of these there is much to
be said. To begin with, being here on his own
ground, Haeckel allows himself freely to indulge in
a style of controversy, which even in his own land
is unusual, and has greatly exercised the minds of
his foreign admirers. Any one who presumes to
contradict him is summarily dismissed as a simple
ton, an ignoramus, or a slanderous liar, and not only
his scientific attainments, but his private character
becomes the object of gross invective. Louis Agassiz,
for example, was widely respected alike for his
personal qualities and for his scientific eminence.
He had however the audacity to differ with Haeckel
on the subject of Darwinism, and was accordingly
thus described by his antagonist:—1
“Louis Agassiz was the most ingenious and most active
swindler who ever worked in the field of Natural History.”
Having likewise a difference of opinion with a
yet more renowned man of science, his own former
teacher, Professor Virchow, he engaged with him in
‘ Revue Scientifique de France et de VEtranger, 1876 (transl.).
�tO
Professor Haeckel
a dispute, “ exhibiting,” observes M. de Quatrefages,
"no greater courtesy than is apt to characterize such
controversies beyond the Rhine.”
It would not be difficult to make an anthology of
the flowers of speech which Professor Haeckel thus
scatters when on the warpath ; as when he says that
a work of Hamann’s is “ from beginning to end one
big lie ; ” that one of Wigand’s is an exhibition of
u incredible and truly stupendous folly; ” while as to
Adolf Bastian, the ethnologist, whose critique of
Darwinism is set down as replete with “ bombastic
fustian,” “ shallow twaddle,” and “ boundless
absurdity,” it is moreover pointed out, as an in
teresting and instructive circumstance, that those
are most angry and scornful regarding the doctrine
of our ape origin who are manifestly most closely
connected with their simian ancestors.
But this, after all, has no direct or essential
connection with the subject of our inquiry. A man,
however rude and foul-mouthed, may yet be a
competent scientific instructor, and though there is
nothing to be learnt from him in regard of
manners, Professor Haeckel may be a trustworthy
guide in zoology. Has he a right to such a
character ? That is the question.
Of all the doctrines which he seeks to propagate,
none, it is clear, is dearer to him than the descent
of man from lower animals and his essential
similarity to them.
The “ Law of Substance ”
itself seems to be valued chiefly as preparing the
way for this supreme conclusion, which in all his
works he loses no opportunity of preaching.
At the bottom of his scale of life, to furnish the
all-important lowest rung of his ladder, Haeckel
places the Monera, structureless particles of proto
plasm, in which, as he supposes, life assumes its
�and his Philosophy
it
simplest form. That such creatures have any real
existence in nature, other biologists are by no means
agreed. He, however, is quite positive on the sub
ject, and no doubt something of the kind is needed
for the first stage of development as he conceives it.
On this fundamental question Professor Delage,
of the Paris Sorbonne, speaks thus :—1
“ To judge of Haeckel’s theory aright, we must distinguish in
it two elements altogether different : on the one hand an
attempt to explain the phenomena of biology on mechanical
principles, an attempt the value and originality of which may
be questionable, but which is quite legitimate ; on the other
hand a wretched farrago of metaphysics unworthy of a
naturalist at the present day.”
As to the genesis of man, which is more properly
within the province of zoology, Haeckel has adopted
various means of convincing his readers of what he
styles the demonstrable fact that our race has been
evolved by purely natural forces from lower animals,
and ultimately from the most primitive forms of
life. To this end he has constructed a purely
imaginary human pedigree, concerning which an
authority so unlikely to be influenced by theo
logical prejudice as Du Bois-Reymond declared that
it is worth about as much as are Homer’s genealogies
of heroes whom he derives from Hercules or
Jupiter.
Another demonstration of this descent is exhibited
as being furnished by the supposed recapitulation of
race-history in embryonic development. According
to this theory, the embryo of every creature high in
the scale of life passes in the course of its develop
ment from the original “ ovum ” through all the
various stages through which its progenitors arrived
at the term they have now attained ; so that the
future man, for instance, is for a period indis1 La structure du protoplasma ct les the'ories sur I'heredity
p. 464.
�j2
Professor Haeckel
tinguishable from a fish, a reptile, or a puppy.
That such resemblance is absolutely exact in every
respect, was a point which at the very outset of his
career Professor Haeckel sought to make manifest
in the following manner. In his Natural History oj
Creation (German original), published in 1868, were
given 1 three woodcuts purporting to represent the
ova of a man, a monkey, and a dog, and2 three
other woodcuts as the embryos of a dog, a fowl, and
a tortoise ; and it was pointed out in the text that
in neither instance was any difference to be dis
covered between the three. But presently it was
found, and could not be denied, that in each case
the same identical woodcut was thrice repeated, the
title alone being changed, so that the resemblance
was not very wonderful.
So audacious a device did not long escape notice.
Being first detected by Professor Riitimeyer of Basle,
it was denounced by him as an outrage against
scientific honesty. Other distinguished biologists
were of the same opinion, as His and Hamann, who
declared that by such a proceeding Haeckel had
forfeited the right to be ranked amongst serious
men of science.
The facts being indeed too notorious for denial,
Haeckel attempted no defence except the extra
ordinary plea, that inasmuch as the various ova and
embryos are exactly similar, it is lawful so to depict
them. “ Were you to compare the rudimentary
embryos themselves,” said he to his adversaries,
“ you would be unable to detect any difference.” It
is obvious, however, that even were the fact as he
assumes, this would afford no justification for the
deception he practised. It is likewise clear that
competent embryologists utterly deny his assump-
�and his Philosophy
13
tion, as, for instance, Professor Lieberkuhn of Mar
burg, who declared that if Haeckel could find no
difference between the embryos, he himself would
have no difficulty.
At a later period (1891) Professor Haeckel pleaded
guilty to the trick he had practised with the wood
cuts, styling it an “unpardonable piece of folly,”
which seems a scarcely adequate description. Nor
does he appear to have subsequently amended his
practice to any great extent. On the contrary, it is
declared by such authorities as His, Semper, Hensen,
Bischoff, Hamann, and others, that of the plates
which illustrate his works some are pure “ fabrica
tions,” and others are arbitrarily “doctored” to
serve his purpose. In particular, Dr. Arnold Brass
declares that in recent years (1905 and onwards)
Haeckel has grossly falsified the figures he has pub
lished, as by giving fewer vertebrae to the embryo of
a monkey and more to that of a man. Against this
charge, which involves much intricacy of detail, it
still remains for Haeckel to vindicate himself.1
He has, however, raised a plea in his defence
which must not be passed in silence. Acknow
ledging that a certain proportion of his plates have
been manipulated so as not to give an exact repre
sentation of the actual objects, he declares that
these are not meant for faithful pictures, but are
merely diagrammatic (schematische Figureri), drawing
attention to those points which are really important,
and of which we learn not by observation, but by
scientific inference. He further asserts that if he is
guilty in this respect, so likewise are hundreds of the
most renowned men of science who do the same.
To this it is replied that such a plea is quite
1 A full account of all this matter is given by Father Erich
Wasmann, S.J., in the Stimmen aus Maiia-Lacich, February,
March, April, 1909.
�i4
Professor Haeckel
inadmissible : that no one has a right to present
such diagrams as actual pictures unless he make it
clearly understood what they are ; that his fellow
men of science are not in the habit of doing anything
of the kind ; and that he begs the question by
treating inference from the theory which he has to
prove as though it were an established truth.
More than this. The main point of the indictment
is not merely that Professor Haeckel has foisted his
“ schematic figures ” upon the world, but that he
has actually manipulated what purport to be copies
of plates published by other writers, and that he
has by such gerrymandering procured the evidence
which Nature has omitted to furnish for the com
pletion of the unbroken chain of man’s descent
from the brutes, which he declares to be guaranteed
by science. That the objects thus depicted by him
are correct representations of any actually known
originals cannot be pretended, for, as he himself
acknowledges, links of the chain are missing, and
these have to be supplied by “comparative syn
thesis,” that is to say, by hypothesis, and scientific, or
unscientific, use of the imagination. The charge against
him has been most definitely formulated ; in support
of it illustrations are published to show with what
originals he has made free, and how he has misused
them. Were the allegations untrue, they would be
easily disproved ; but this he has not attempted.1
Evidence on this matter given by Professor Franz
Keibel, of Freiburg, is the more remarkable, inas
much as it is furnished by one who clearly is far
from hostile to Professor Haeckel and has scant
sympathy with his antagonists.2
1 See article by Fr. E. Wasmann in the Afiolozetisclie Rund
schau, translated in the New Ireland Review, May, 1909.
2 From the Deutsche Mcdizinalische Wochenschrift, quoted
in the Keplerbund's brochure Ini Interesse der Wissenscliaft.
�and his Philosophy
i5
Keibel examines in detail the question whether
Haeckel’s plates have been so manipulated as to
make them serve his purpose, and also whether,
as he declares, the figures found in most scientific
text-books and manuals have been similarly prepared.
As the result of a minute examination of the evidence,
he finds that illustrations have undoubtedly been
borrowed from works by other authors—as by
himself, Selenka, Spree, Koelliker, Hertwig, and
His. Of Haeckel’s reproductions, some, says Keibel,
are pure inventions of his own, and must be de
scribed as “ fancy pictures ” ; others are materially
modified, nor only in cases where there are genea
logical gaps to be filled ; some are poor copies of
their originals ; others are “ violently diagramma
tized ” (sehr stark schematisierf). Moreover, nothing
of the kind is to be found in respectable text-books
and manuals, and such performances must be stigma
tized as thoroughly unscientific.
Yet, when all is said, Dr. Keibel will not tax
Haeckel with dishonesty or deceit, being sure that
he acted from no bad motive, being moved only
by fanaticism as the apostle of a new creed. But
to most men it will seem to be comparatively
unimportant by what precise motive Professor
Haeckel was actuated in practising such deceptions.
The fact remains that they are deceptions, and that
no sensible person can trust him. No less damaging
is the judgement of another high authority, Professor
Kohlbrugge, who pronounces Haeckel’s pedigree
of man to be the production of a fanatic.
Still less disputable are the manifest self-con
tradictions of which Professor Haeckel is guilty
in regard of matters vitally affecting his whole
teaching. In his works designed for popular use,
such as the Riddle and Mciischenfrroblein (ed. 1908),
�16 Professor Haeckel and his Philosophy
he roundly declares that the descent of men from
monkeys is “an historically established fact." But in
his Progonotaxis Hominis (1908), which is addressed
to the learned, we are informed that “ all conclu
sions which the most exact scientific researches
enable us to form on the race-history of any
organism, are and remain hypothetical.” What shall
the plain man think of such discordant voices from
the same lips ?
We will conclude with another example which to
scientific men will appear no less discreditable than
any given above. On occasion of the bicentenary
of the birth of Linnaeus, May 24, 1907, Haeckel
published a tribute to that great naturalist, in which,
under the guise of honour to his memory, he was
claimed, by a mere verbal fallacy, as a witness for
the doctrine of man’s simian origin, a doctrine
which, had he ever heard of it, Linnaeus would
have utterly repudiated.
So scandalous a mis
representation naturally aroused amongst those
acquainted with the truth of the matter an indig
nation to which expression was given by Dr. Julius
Wiesner, a distinguished Austrian botanist, who thus
delivered himself :—
“ Whosoever rightly considers Haeckel’s production, will fail
to. discover in it a tribute to the memory of the great Linnaeus.
Linnaeus, the most scientific of inquirers, who was ever solici
tous to serve the truth, who was at the greatest pains to correct
any mistake he could discover, who ever treated his opponents
with the utmost courtesy,—is honoured by Haeckel, who in his
most recent writings exhibits himself as a fanatical misleader of
the people, one who with delusive assurance enunciates what
have long been recognized for errors and mistakes as if they
were verities, and who treats his opponents with unexampled
insolence.”
And this is the man who is put forward as one of
the greatest and best instructors the world has ever
known !
PRINTED ANU PUBLISHED BY THE CATHOLIC TROTH SOCIETY, LONDON.
U,
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Professor Haeckel and his philosophy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Gerard, John [1840-1912]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1910]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1532
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (Professor Haeckel and his philosophy), identified by <span><a href="www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Haeckel
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Darwinism
Ernst Haeckel
Man-Origin
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bf871c89a27f9ed71da292254f09e9b1.pdf?Expires=1781740800&Signature=n3x5L1s4K4%7EVqg-9Wfo%7EJndInnRlPVREH40ldq-QJox5CaDfGbbkGbW5NJBeyaye4e7MVMz4cbPvA4kVa6lGtkbshoD5wQx3QtCaqaxy4l3r6PiaNRBFrnyciPTULMlm3WWjvyn0dx-ObpRtDtOAKgV%7ECW1KYvPXP1j4IlFjUIbTZ01%7EItf9aBqBhKb4KDQqmG1N8kwgRZwuZ9fwNMaLUlZMu9c5qmtMLRwirq0n-wWeAYm108s9acFuUZIz9lBqi3TPagM-unnimpQ8JnWKxyLAPgv9Z6M0qt4rzcEu14OUp2wUto0wS6CGFs7zIoLU8lbQjE7wJyWymzCKXGr5vA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
376902b582b76faed11d28aedb8f4024
PDF Text
Text
��������������������������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The origin of man: being a paper read before the Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bardsley, John W.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 28,4, p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Information on the Society and an application form on numbered pages at the end. John Bardsley was the Archdeacon of Warrington. Tentative date of publication from KVK (OCLC WorldCat).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
E. Stanford
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1884]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5083
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philosophy
Anthropology
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The origin of man: being a paper read before the Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Man-Origin