按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
what are claimed to be 〃exact analyses；〃 but are devoid of synoptic conclusions and a philosophical spirit。
Charles Darwin is not generally recognised as a great anthropologist； nor does the school of modern anthropologists regard him as a leading authority。 In Germany； especially； the great majority of the members of the anthropological societies took up an attitude of hostility to him from the very beginning of the controversy in 1860。 〃The Descent of Man〃 was not merely rejected； but even the discussion of it was forbidden on the ground that it was 〃unscientific。〃
The centre of this inveterate hostility for thirty yearsespecially after 1877was Rudolph Virchow of Berlin； the leading investigator in pathological anatomy； who did so much for the reform of medicine by his establishment of cellular pathology in 1858。 As a prominent representative of 〃exact〃 or 〃descriptive〃 anthropology； and lacking a broad equipment in comparative anatomy and ontogeny； he was unable to accept the theory of descent。 In earlier years； and especially during his splendid period of activity at Wurzburg （1848…1856）； he had been a consistent free…thinker； and had in a number of able articles （collected in his 〃Gesammelte Abhandlungen〃） （〃Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur wissenschaftlichen Medizin〃； Berlin； 1856。） upheld the unity of human nature； the inseparability of body and spirit。 In later years at Berlin； where he was more occupied with political work and sociology （especially after 1866）； he abandoned the positive monistic position for one of agnosticism and scepticism； and made concessions to the dualistic dogma of a spiritual world apart from the material frame。
In the course of a Scientific Congress at Munich in 1877 the conflict of these antithetic views of nature came into sharp relief。 At this memorable Congress I had undertaken to deliver the first address （September 18th） on the subject of 〃Modern evolution in relation to the whole of science。〃 I maintained that Darwin's theory not only solved the great problem of the origin of species； but that its implications； especially in regard to the nature of man； threw considerable light on the whole of science； and on anthropology in particular。 The discovery of the real origin of man by evolution from a long series of mammal ancestors threw light on his place in nature in every aspect； as Huxley had already shown in his excellent lectures of 1863。 Just as all the organs and tissues of the human body had originated from those of the nearest related mammals； certain ape…like forms； so we were bound to conclude that his mental qualities also had been derived from those of his extinct primate ancestor。
This monistic view of the origin and nature of man； which is now admitted by nearly all who have the requisite acquaintance with biology； and approach the subject without prejudice； encountered a sharp opposition at that time。 The opposition found its strongest expression in an address that Virchow delivered at Munich four days afterwards （September 22nd）； on 〃The freedom of science in the modern State。〃 He spoke of the theory of evolution as an unproved hypothesis； and declared that it ought not to be taught in the schools； because it was dangerous to the State。 〃We must not；〃 he said； 〃teach that man has descended from the ape or any other animal。〃 When Darwin； usually so lenient in his judgment； read the English translation of Virchow's speech； he expressed his disapproval in strong terms。 But the great authority that Virchow hadan authority well founded in pathology and sociologyand his prestige as President of the German Anthropological Society； had the effect of preventing any member of the Society from raising serious opposition to him for thirty years。 Numbers of journals and treatises repeated his dogmatic statement： 〃It is quite certain that man has descended neither from the ape nor from any other animal。〃 In this he persisted till his death in 1902。 Since that time the whole position of German anthropology has changed。 The question is no longer whether man was created by a distinct supernatural act or evolved from other mammals； but to which line of the animal hierarchy we must look for the actual series of ancestors。 The interested reader will find an account of this 〃battle of Munich〃 （1877） in my three Berlin lectures （April； 1905） （〃Der Kampf um die Entwickelungs…Gedanken〃。 （English translation； 〃Last Words on Evolution〃； London； 1906。）
The main points in our genealogical tree were clearly recognised by Darwin in the sixth chapter of the 〃Descent of Man〃。 Lowly organised fishes； like the lancelet （Amphioxus）； are descended from lower invertebrates resembling the larvae of an existing Tunicate （Appendicularia）。 From these primitive fishes were evolved higher fishes of the ganoid type and others of the type of Lepidosiren （Dipneusta）。 It is a very small step from these to the Amphibia：
〃In the class of mammals the steps are not difficult to conceive which led from the ancient Monotremata to the ancient Marsupials； and from these to the early progenitors of the placental mammals。 We may thus ascend to the Lemuridae； and the interval is not very wide from these to the Simiadae。 The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems； the New World and Old World monkeys； and from the latter； at a remote period； Man； the wonder and glory of the Universe； proceeded。〃 （〃Descent of Man〃 （Popular Edition）； page 255。）
In these few lines Darwin clearly indicated the way in which we were to conceive our ancestral series within the vertebrates。 It is fully confirmed by all the arguments of comparative anatomy and embryology； of palaeontology and physiology； and all the research of the subsequent forty years has gone to establish it。 The deep interest in geology which Darwin maintained throughout his life and his complete knowledge of palaeontology enabled him to grasp the fundamental importance of the palaeontological record more clearly than anthropologists and zoologists usually do。
There has been much debate in subsequent decades whether Darwin himself maintained that man was descended from the ape； and many writers have sought to deny it。 But the lines I have quoted verbatim from the conclusion of the sixth chapter of the 〃Descent of Man〃 （1871） leave no doubt that he was as firmly convinced of it as was his great precursor Jean Lamarck in 1809。 Moreover； Darwin adds； with particular explicitness； in the 〃general summary and conclusion〃 （chapter XXI。） of that standard work （〃Descent of Man〃； page 930。）：
〃By considering the embryological structure of manthe homologies which he presents with the lower animals；the rudiments which he retains；and the reversions to which he is liable； we can partly recall in imagination the former condition of our early progenitors； and can approximately place them in their proper place in the zoological series。 We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy； tailed quadruped； probably arboreal in its habits； and an inhabitant of the Old World。 This creature； if its whole structure had been examined by a naturalist； would have been classed amongst the Quadrumana； as surely as the still more ancient progenitor of the O