Preyer's ideas have been revived of late, especially in the romantic form, as, for instance, in w.i.l.l.y Pastor's "Lebensgeschichte der Erde" ("Leben und Wissen," Vol. I., Leipzig, 1903). And in certain circles, characterised by a simultaneous veneration for and combination of modern natural science-Haeckel, Romanticism, Novalis and other ant.i.theses-Fechner appears to have come to life again. The type of this group is W. Bolsche. Naturally enough, Pastor has turned his attention also to the recent views of Schroen in regard to crystallisation. The fact, _omne crystallum e crystallo_, like the corresponding fact, _omne vivum e vivo_, was long a barrier against mechanistic derivation. But Schroen draws a parallel between crystallisation and organic processes, so that the alleged clearness and obviousness of the inorganic can no longer be carried over-in the old fashion-into the realm of life, but, conversely, the mystery of life must be extended downwards, and continued into the inorganic.

81 Worthy of note and much cited is a somewhat indefinite essay on "Neovitalism," by the Wurzburg pathologist, E. von Rindfleisch (in "Deutsche Medizinische Wochensehrift," 1895, No. 38).

82 Already given in detail in his "Lehrbuch der phys. und pathol.

Chemie" (Second Edition, 1889), in the first chapter, "Vitalism and Mechanism." In the meantime a fifth revised and enlarged edition of Bunge's book has appeared as a "Lehrbuch der Physiologie des Menschen" (Leipzig, 1901), The relevant early essays appear here again under the t.i.tle "Idealism and Mechanism." The arguments are the same. It is often supposed that it is merely a question of time, and that in the long run we must succeed in finding proofs that the whole process of life is only a complex process of movement; but the history of physiology shows that the contrary is the case. All the processes which can be explained mechanically are those which are not vital phenomena at all. It is in activity that the riddle of life lies. The solution of this riddle is looked for, more decidedly than before but still somewhat vaguely, in the "idealism" of self-consciousness and its implications, "_Physiologus nemo nisi psychologus_." These views have been also stated in a separate lecture: G. Bunge, "Vitalismus und Mechanismus," (Leipzig, 1886).

83 "Allgemeine Biologie" (2 vols.), Vienna, 1899.

84 Jena, 1903.

_ 85 Cf._ especially Verworn's example of the manufacture of sulphuric acid. See what we have previously said on the "second line" of mechanistic theory, along which Neumeister's thought mainly moves.

See especially p. 198. As regards the "fifth line," the problem of the development of form in its present phase, there is an instructive short essay by Fr. Merkel (Nachrichten der K.

Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Gottingen. Geschaftl. Mitt. 1897, Heft 2)-"Welche Krafte wirken gestaltend auf den Korper der Menschen und Tiere?" This essay avoids, obviously intentionally, the shibboleths of controversy. The mechanical point of view and the play with mechanical a.n.a.logies and models are abruptly dismissed.

"If things, which were in themselves susceptible of mechanical explanations, occur in the absence of the mechanical antecedent conditions, then we must seek for other forces to enable us to understand them." And quite calmly a return is made to the old, simple conception of a "regulative" and a "formative force,"

inherent as a capacity _sui generis_ within the "energids," the really living parts of the cell. The cell-energid carries within it the "pattern" of the organisation, and the partial or perfect "capacity" ("Fertigkeit") for producing and reproducing the whole organism. But these two forces "make use of" the physico-chemical forces as tools to work out details. So to describe the state of the case is not of course a solution of the problem; it is only a figurative formulation of it. But that, at the present day, we can and must return to doing this if we are to describe things simply and as they actually occur, is precisely what is most instructive in the matter.

86 "Beitrage zur Kritik der Darwinschen Lehre," which was first published in the "Biologisches Zentralblatt," 1898.

87 Leipzig, 1892.

88 Before Wigand's larger works there had appeared F. Delpino: "Applicazione della Teoria Darwinia ai Fiori ed agli Insetti Visitatori dei Fiori" (Bull. della Societa Entomologica Ital., Florence 1870). He says: "Un principio intrinsico, reagente, finche dura la vita, contro le influenze estrinseche ossia contro gli agenti chimici e fisici."

89 "Elemente der Wissenschaftlichen Botanik. Biologie der Pflanzen."

1889.

90 "Lehrbuch der Biologie der Pflanzen." Stuttgart, 1895.

_ 91 Cf._ Cohn, "Beitrage zur Biologie der Pflanzen," vii. 407, See especially the concluding chapter, "Einiges uber Functionen der einzelnen Zellorgane." From Zoology we may cite E. Teichmann's investigation, "Ueber die Beziehung zwischen Astrospharen und Furchen." "Experimentelle Untersuchungen am Seeigelei" ("Archiv. f.

Entw. Mech." xvi. 2, 1903). This paper contains no references to "psychical phenomena," "power," or "will," and we cannot but approve of this in technical research. But it is pointed out that the mechanistic interpretation of the detailed processes of development has definite limitations, and we are referred to "fundamental characters of living matter which we must take for granted."

This is even more decidedly the case in Tad. Garbowski's beautiful "Morphogenetische Studien, als Beitrag zur Methodologie zoologischer Forschung." These belong to the line of thought followed by Driesch and Wolff, who are both frequently and approvingly quoted, and they afford an excellent instance of that mood of dissatisfaction with and protest against the "dogmas" of descent, selection and phylogeny, which is observable in many quarters among the younger generation of investigators. Garbowski vigorously combats Haeckel's theories of development, especially "the fundamental biogenetic law, and the Gastraea theory." He criticises "mechanistic" interpretations of the development of the embryo, which "treat the living being morphologically, as if the matter were one of vesicles, cylinders and plates, and not of vital units": and he does not look with favour on "artificial amoebae," which can move, creep, and do everything except live. The ideal of biology is of course always a science with laws and equations, but the key to these will not be found in mechanics. Garbowski's studies may be highly recommended as giving a sharp and vivid impression of the modern anti-mechanistic tendencies observable even in technical research.

92 Trans. by Levinsohn. "Beilage zur Allgemeinen Zeitung," Munich, 1898, No. 166.

93 Butschli, _op. cit._, p. 200.

94 "The Monist," 1899, p. 179.

_ 95 Cf._ "Entwicklung der Biologie in 19. Jahrhundert" ("Naturforscher Versammlung," 1900), and "Zeit- und Streit-fragen der Biologie,"

1894-7, especially Part II., "Mechanik und Zoologie."

96 "Die Organismen und ihr Ursprung," published in "Nord und Sud,"

xviii., p. 201 _seq._-"Die Welt als Tat," Berlin 1899, since then in second edition.-"Einleitung in die theoretische Biologie," 1901.-And "Der Ursprung des Lebens auf der Erde," in the "Turmer-Jahrbuch,"

1903.

_ 97 Cf._, the discussion by A. Drews in the "Preuss. Jahrbuch,"

October, 1902, p. 101, a review of Reinke's "Einleitung in die theoretische Biologie."

98 Of all the bad Greek zoology has produced, "Ontogenesis" is probably the worst. The Becoming of the Being! The word is used in contrast to Phylogenesis, the becoming of the race or of the species, and it denotes the development of the individual.

_ 99 Cf._ p. 130. Excellent observations on "purpose." If two or more chains of causes meet, we call it "chance;" if they do so constantly and in a typical manner, we call it "purpose."

100 "Biolog. Centralbl.," 1896, p. 363.

101 "Die Lokalisation (= spatial determination) morphogenetischer Vorgange, ein Beweis vitalistischen Geschehens," 1899 (in "Archiv.

f. Entw.-Mechanik," viii., 1, and separately published), and "Die organischen Regulationen: Vorbereitungen zu einer Theorie des Lebens," Leipzig, 1901. Also "Die 'Seele' als elementarer Natur-factor," (studies on the movements of organisms), Leipzig, 1903. He gives a general review of his own evolution in the "Suddeutsche Monatshefte," January 1904, under the t.i.tle "Die Selbstandigkeit der Biologie und ihre Probleme."

102 In the "Biol. Zentralbl.," June 1903, p. 427, Driesch is criticised by Moszkowski, who rejects Driesch's teleological standpoint. But even this criticism shows us how far the untenability of the mechanistic position has been recognised. It is based upon a somewhat vague dynamism, which admits that the physico-chemical and all other mechanical interpretations have been destructively criticised by Driesch, and recognises entelechy ("?? ?a?t? t? t????

????"). An entelechy without t????!

103 "Vorfragen der Biologie," 1899. "Die 'Ueberwindung des Mechanismus'

in der Biologie." "Biolog. Zentralbl.," 1901, p. 130.

_ 104 Cf._ Tad. Garbowski, "Morphogenetische Studien," p. 167. The ill.u.s.tration here employed of the arc and the "explanation of form by form" would be a good criticism of many of Albrecht's statements.

105 Schneider has expounded his physiological and morphological view in his "Comparative Histology." In "Vitalismus" ("Elementare Lebensfunctionen," Vienna, 1903) he sums up his vitalistic views. It is a comprehensive work which goes deeper than others of its cla.s.s into the detailed description and a.n.a.lysis of the intimate phenomena of life. Indeed it almost amounts to an independent biology. But the most essential vital problems, the development of form, regeneration, and inheritance, to which Driesch gives the fullest consideration, are all too briefly treated. In Chapters XI. and XII.

the question of vitalism expands into a far-reaching discussion of the general outlook upon nature. We need not here concern ourselves with his more general views. Schneider must be regarded as a representative of the most modern tendency of "Psychism," which, stimulated by Mach, Avenarius, and the school of "immanence-philosophy," finds expression among the younger physiologists and biologists, from Schneider to Driesch, Verworn, Albrecht, and others. To overthrow "materialism" and "realism," they utilise, with impetuous delight, the ancient self-evident idea that what is given to us is sensation. They confuse and identify such opposites as Kant and Berkeley, and their own position with that of "solipsism." This outlook is still vague and vacillating, and it may perhaps compel epistemology to return on its old path from the sophists to Plato, from Hume to Kant. In Schneider's case, however, the thin stream of this new sensualism is intermingled with so many intuitions and perceptions of the deeper nature of knowledge that one is now curious to know how this strange mixture of semi-materialism, idealism, solipsism, and a priorism is to make the transition from its present extremely labile phase to a condition of stable equilibrium. One fears lest sooner or later a reaction against the contortions of this empiricism and psychism should lead to a modern rehabilitation of mysticism or occultism. (_Cf._ p. 295 ff.)

In an essay on "Vitalism" in the "Preuss. Jahrbuch," Aug. 1903, p.

276, Schneider has supplemented his previous work.

106 If the protest of natural science against these means no more than that they should be excluded as inaccessible to scientific understanding, from the domain of its investigation, but not from reality, it is perhaps fully justified in its methods.

107 Though somewhat inconsequent, since at any rate the enthusiasm for truth could not result from a naturalistic, but only from some kind of idealistic basis.

108 Schleiermacher, "Reden uber die Religion," ii.