Part 19 (1/2)

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 fas.h.i.+on-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 s.h.i.+bboleths 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,”