The Controversy on Freedcm in Science in the Nineteenth Century
3e required the collaboration of
ntellect is imaginative and syn-
lnd coherent conception of the
live, Critical, analytic, and sets
ination and statement of the
that neither Haeckel nor Vir_
e schools. Hemight have said
nd也at Virchow himself could
Ever much hemight admire it.14
Ⅵrchow, be rebukes him fb∫
t evolutionary doctrine on one
otber.
ble observation tllat it was fわr
l･ There lS, indeed, no freedom
血ed the curricula of all the
is essential that some at least
utonomous. Article 20 of the
755enschaft und ihre Lehre ist
Lg Of all education under a
rchow, for he forbade school_
me time he excluded biology
ools.15 This was a result of the
low COuld have foreseen and
)m in science in the 'seventies
:any it di飴red from the more
1930s and '40S･ In the latter,
paganda for the central plan-
science could scarcely have
tention of restricting the free-
:ts of their investigations. The
t丘eld, and it is not possible
low prOpOSed･ Did he really
I should not be permitted to
ら? It seems scarcely credible,
:nt to this effect. It seems that
appropriate that the instruc-
: was genuinely alarmed. He
ight be a recrudescence of the
come under Oken's sway ln
phie, had revolted against it,
y would have丑ared up as it
did, if it had not been concemedwith the origin of man. It is curious that
neither of the contestants gave any serious consideration to the direct fossil
evidence on this subject･ Indeed, Haeckel stated specifically that fossns
showing characters intermediate between those of ape and man were not
to be expected,16 and Virchow remarked that no fossd man was more ape-
1ike than certain existing men･17 Yet Neanderthal man, who had been
known for many years, does show ape-like charactersinmany parts of his
skeleton･ Although nowadays he is not thought to be on the direct line of
ancestry of modem man, yet it is surprlSlng that the early Darwinians
paid so httle attention to him･ Darwin himself dismissed him in a sentence,
merely remarking on his large cramial capacity･18 Huxley'however, in his
preface to the Enghsh edition of Haeckel,s book,19 demies (inafootnote)
Virchow's claim that no intermediate fossd is known･ He says that no
modern human cranium is so pithecoid as that of Neanderthal man.
Although this is true, yet foss止evidence of man,Sancestry was scanty in
the 1870S, and Virchow's attitude was justifiable.
NOTES
l･ M･ PoLANYT, 'Rights and Duties of Science/ Manch. School Econ. Soc.
Stud･, Oct., 1939, p. 175.
2･ ANON･, The Society for Freedom in Science: its Origin, Objects, and
constitution･ 3rd edition･ Oxford･ 1953 (published by the Society).
3･ R･ VIRCHOW, Die Cellularpathologie in ihrer Begrぷndung aufphysiologis-
cher und pathologischer Gewebelehre･ Berlin, Hirschwald, i 859.
4･ E･ HABCKEL･ Die Perigenesis der Plastidule oder die Wellenzeugung der
Lebensteilchen, Berlin, Reimer, 1 876.
5･ E･ HAECKEL, `Ueber die heutige Entwickelungslehre im Verhaltnisse
zur Gesamtwissenschaft/ Versamm･ deut･ Naturf･ Aerzte, 50, 1877, pp.
Y一一7 一 一J A〉 ' 'J YJJ A
Virchow, Versamm･ deut･ Naturj: Aerzte, 50, 1877, pp. 65-78
14122. R. Virchow_ Vf,rで〟mm.ん,.′ ^T.仙川p J^一._一_ Z., .m,1 __ _ ′′ _(
(no title).
6･ C･ DARWIN, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
London, Murray, 1859.
7･ R･ VZRCHOW, ` Ueber die Standpunkte in derwissenschaftlichen Medicin,,
Arch･ Path･ Anat･ Physiol･ klin･ Med･, 70, 1877, pp.ト10.
8･ R･ VZRCHOW, Versamm･ deut･ Natwf･ Aerzte, 50, 1877, pp. 65178; Die
Ereiheit der Wissenschaft im modernen Stoat (reprint of previous title),
Berlin, Wiegandt, 1877 ;乃e Freedom of Science in the Modeyn State,
2nd edition, translatedwith a new preface by the author, London,
Murray, 1 878.
9･ M･ PoLANYZ, Science, Faith, and Society･ London, 0Ⅹford miversity
Press, 1946.
10･ EI HAECKEL, ETreie Wissenschaft und freie Lehre･ Eine Entgegnung auf
Rudulf Virchow's Mdncher Rede uber i Die Ereiheit der Wissenschafi im
modernen Staat ', Stuttgart, schweizerbart, 1 878.
11･ E･ HAECKEL, Freedom in Science and Teaching (translated)･ With a pre-
fatory note by T･ H･ Huxley･ London, Kegan Pad, 1879.
12･ R･ VIRCHOW, Die Cellularpathologie (see note 3 above).
13･ E･ HAECKEL, Freedom in Science (see note ll above).
14･ It may be mentioned in passing that Virchow has been too much praised
95