Haeckel - Richards 2008

The tragic sense of life - Richards 2008

I - Introduction

• 'Foremost champion of Darwinism ... throughout the world' 'Chief source of the world's knowledge of Darwinism'. Vendeu muito mais que Darwin. 2
• Outros historiadores sobre Haeckel 5-6:
• ES Russell: trabalho prédarwiniano, mistura de materialismo dogmático, morfologia idealística e teoria evolutiva.
• De Beer: amarrou a embriologia
• Bowler: progressão linear em direção ao homem sem levar a sério o branching descent de Darwin. Lei biogenética é o que diferencia.
• Gasman: darwinismo social haeckeliano levou ao nazismo.
• Gould: Mesma coisa de Gasman. Lei biogenética é o que diferencia.
• Desmond e Moore: pensamento místico
• Sandmann: 'to have broken with the humanitarian tradition by their biologizing of ethics'
• 'Haeckel was not Darwin' 8 'But not even Darwin was Darwin, at least as he is usually depicted in contrast to Haeckel.' 13
• Arquétipo e deus natural: 
• Such Ur-types focused consideration on the whole of the creature in order to explain the features of its individual parts. When the theory of the archetype became historicized in evolutionary theory, it yielded the biogenetic law, the lever by which Haeckel attempted to lift biological science to a new plane of understanding. The Romantic thinkers to whom Haeckel owed much regarded nature as displaying the attributes of the God now in hiding; for them, and Haeckel as well, it was Deus sive natura—God and nature were one 9
•  Metodologia: rejeita a tese de contingência de Shapin e Schafer. 14
• Espiritualistas e crentes foram darwinistas também, contudo
• During the late nineteenth and through the twentieth century, however, the cultural representation of the evolutionary doctrine took on a different cast: evolutionary theory became popularly understood as materialistic and a-theistic, if not atheistic. I believe this cultural understanding is principally due to the tremendous impact and polarizing infl uence of Ernst Haeckel. Had Haeckel not lived, evolutionary theory would have turned a less strident face to the general public. At least, the antagonism with religion would not have been so severe. It was Haeckel’s formulations that, as I will maintain, created the texture of modern evolutionary theory as a cultural product. 15

II - Formation of a romantic biologist

• Aluno de Kölliker e Virchow. 27
• Kant: julgamento teleológico captura o aspecto proposital da natureza. Harmonização das partes. Julgamento não propositivo, não demonstrativo. 32-3 Ligado as artes por Schelling: 'the creation of beautiful objects by an artistic genius supplies the model by which to understand nature’s productions of organic beings ... artistic perception and scientifi c perception are one.' 33-4
• Humboldt era bem assim. Buscava a harmonia da natureza pela ciência e pela poesia e estética. 34
• Mesmo vale para Goethe, dentro de suas especificidades 36-7
• Contato forte com Scheiermacher em questões religiosas. Defendia segregação da religião e fé (como os ministérios de Gould) 44-5, 48
• Haeckel era protestante no início e avesso ao catolicismo e sua epistemologia. Passa  a defender uma religião pessoal para cada um 45-6
• Racionalismo materialista 47

III - Research in Italy and Conversion to Darwinism

• Já nos Radiolaria adotou a prática de formar relações de parentesco inspirado por Darwin. 68
• Sobre sua leitura do Origin:
• Haeckel said he was inspired to attempt a natural system because of the extraordinary book he had read while preparing his specimens—Über die Entstehung der Arten im Thier- und Pfl anzen-Reich durch natürliche Züchtung; oder, Erhaltung der vervollkommneten Rassen in Kampfe um’s Daseyn by the English naturalist Charles Darwin.33 Haeckel fi rst looked into Heinrich Georg Bronn’s (1800–1862) German translation of Darwin’s Origin of Species while at the Berlin Museum in the summer of 1860, just after he had returned from Messina. Being an anti-authoritarian—in his later days to the point of dogmatism—Haeckel was probably enticed to read the new work because Ehrenberg and Peters both regarded it as a “completely mad book.” 34 Though anti-authoritarian, Haeckel was not foolish 68
• Efeito de Bronn 69-70
• Parece ter 'provacado' haeckel a tentar estabelecer o darwinismo empiricamente.
• Bronn acredita que a teoria como proposta por darwin não teria direcionalidade. Contudo era simpático a teoria de maneira geral, semelhante a sua (que contudo envolvia intervenção divina).
• Não traduziu a parte do 'light will be trown on the origin of man and his history'. Mas isso não impediu Haeckel de fazer isso [nota 63, p. 99].
• Apenas uma hipótese não demonstrativa para Bronn.
• Haeckel acreditava que poderia produzir provas com os radiolaria.
• In this light, Haeckel constructed a genealogical table that indicated, in part, the kind of descent relations these animals might actually express.40 I say “in part,” because the table had not abandoned principles employed in the older morphological tradition ... The Darwinian conception had not yet matured in Haeckel’s thought. But the roots had found favorable soil. 70
• 3 facilitadores: situação dos radiolaria favorecia a interpretação evolutiva, o materialismo de Virchow assumia transmutação, tradição morfológica enfatizava homologia e se relacionava bem com uma explicação evolutiva.
• Critica de Haeckel
• The greatest confusion of the Darwinian theory lies probably herein, that it does not rest upon the origin of the Ur-organism—most probably a simple cell— whence all others have been developed. When Darwin assumes for this fi rst species a special creative act, it seems of little consequence, and it seems to me not seriously meant. 71-2
• Seguia o paradigma de arquétipo. 74

III - Triumph and tragedy in Jena

• Fazia conferências públicas. 82, 93
• Schleicher influenciou o monismo, representação por árvores e a teoria do homem. 84
• Na palestra que comentou com Darwin buscou expor ao público o darwinismo. Lamarck, Saint-Hilaire e Oken seriam predecessores. Richards discorda quanto a Oken. Já usa a árvore (talvez por sugestão de Darwin, mas também de Bronn e Schleicher) e desqualifica a criação especial 94-6
• Em publicação subsequente dá menos corda ainda para os religiosos. 96
• Defendia a seleção natural 'seemingly nonmaterialistic, virtually divine'. Rapidamente aplicada ao homem 97
• Entendia a evolução como desenvolvimento progressivo de organismos cada vez mais complexos 98
• Análise da tradução sobre a percepção de Haeckel e a percepção dos historiadores sobre Haeckel:
• This, however, is not the usual judgment made about Haeckel’s understanding of Darwin’s theory. Most historians believe that the progressivist note that Haeckel sounded was a false one, perhaps deceptively scaled by Bronn’s German translation of the Origin. Bronn, after all, did frequently raise the pitch of the terms he rendered—“improvement,” for instance, usually came out “Vervollkommnung,” which might naturally be backtranslated as “perfection.” Add to this distinctively orchestrated translation Haeckel’s own Naturphilosophische inclinations, and, it is often believed, we get that peculiar rendition of evolution that marks it as nonDarwinian—“non-Darwinian” because Darwin’s theory, these historians believe, certainly was not progressivist in character.[58 The idea that Darwin allowed only for relative progress—i.e., local improvements, which would be washed out with any migration or change of environment—dominates the current historical interpretation] 98 ver Nyhart 1995: 111-2
• Para Richards a trad de Bronn não exagera tanto no progressivimos. Parte do que já há em Darwin. 99
• Haeckel himself represents what I believe to be the authentic Darwinian strain of interpretation, a strain that, in a Romantic fashion, is progressivist and totalizing: all of nature, including human nature, develops temporally through more progressive forms, both in the microcosm of the individual and in the macrocosm of the phylum. The other two fi gures who addressed the question of evolution dissented from either the progressivist or the totalizing feature of Haeckel’s construction. 100-1
• Haeckel se apoiava no tripé embriologia, sistemática e desenvolvimento paleontológico individual. 100
• A partir dessa conferência e discussão com os ouvintes ganha passa a ser visto como defensor do darwinismo. 102
• Gerou celeuma com Virchow depois que defendia uma separação entre ciência e religião 102-4.
• Após a morte de sua esposa fica mais radical. Darwinismo forçado contra os anti-progressistas no Generelle Morphologie. Mesmo Huxley disse que seu livro só poderia ser traduzido se as partes polêmicas fossem retiradas.
• Sumarizando:
• With Haeckel, aesthetic judgment would be fused with Darwinian under standing through a love now lifted beyond the individual. The Generelle Morphologie would exhibit fundamental features of this new union, both in the bitter polemics—the other side of love—against the scientifi cally benighted and religiously stupefi ed, and in the metaphysical effort to absorb the individual into the whole, each life into Deus sive natura that would preserve it eternally. Monistic metaphysics, which would be voiced in the concluding chapter of the Generelle Morphologie, would be the substitute for traditional religion, a metaphysics that made no false promises of personal survival but that revealed a preservation of a different order 110-1

V - Evolutionary morphology in the Darwinian mode

• A morte de Anna afetou o conteúdo epistêmico do Morphologie.
• . The problem of the individual would not have occupied the theoretical place it does in the book or retain its hold on his subsequent investigations. And the chapter on evolutionary monism might well have been muted or eliminated had he not needed to preserve Anna as yet living in the bosom of a transcendent nature. 115
• Haeckel queria fazer da morfologia uma ciência com leis naturais bem descritas para a formação externa e interna das estruturas animais. 120
• Kant. Organismos vivos tem propriedades mecânicas e não-mecânicas. Mas tinha ciência de que havia pontos não redutíveis ao nível mecânico devido aos aspectos teleológicos. 
• 'But Schelling argued—and Goethe was persuaded by his younger colleague—that if teleological assumptions were epistemically necessary to make (biological) experience intelligible, they hardly differed in that regard from mechanistic principles' 121
• Para Haeckel
• But Schelling argued—and Goethe was persuaded by his younger colleague—that if teleological assumptions were epistemically necessary to make (biological) experience intelligible, they hardly differed in that regard from mechanistic principles.
• According to Haeckel, the higher regularities—those characteristic, say, of trait structure and inheritance—expressed more fundamental, mechanistic relationships at the atomic level. Both living and nonliving matter obeyed the same chemical and physical laws. 122-3
• Certainly many of his critics, especially those of a neo-Kantian bent or of a religious inclination, dismissed his version of evolution as sheer mechanistic materialism.31 But to contend that the same laws govern both the organic and inorganic could, nonetheless, be interpreted as a vitalization of matter as much as a materialization of life. ... forces led Haeckel to the ultimate conviction that the living and nonliving could not be distinguished, that one was simply a phase of the other. 124
•  [Monism] also allowed Haeckel to believe that the force of a once-living soul might be brought back into the beating heart of nature, since the conservation laws indicated that neither force nor matter could be destroyed 128
• Contra às forças vitais. 123
• Monismo derivado de Schleicher e Goethe. Schleicher também leu Darwin por Bronn. 125
• Monismo como fundamento metafísico. '“God is the comprehensive causal law.” He is, in this doctrine, “the summation of all power, and consequently of all matter.” God is thus one with nature. “Monism,” as Haeckel portrayed it, was “the purest kind of monotheism.”' 128. Ateísmo disfarçado para Richards.
• Discute individualidade 132-4:
• Morfológica: partes conjuntas não separáveis.
• Fisiológica: Auto-manutenção.
• Genealógico: ciclo reprodutivo, espécies (coleção de ciclos reprodutivos), filo (espécies com descendência comum).
• Seis níveis de individualidade: plastídeo, órgão, oposicional, segmental, bion e colônia.
• Darwinismo de Haeckel: descent, NS, divergência, adaptações hereditárias, avanço progressivo, recapitulação da filogenia pela ontogenia, aplicação ao homem. 135
• Reconhecia três hipótese para a origem da vida. Primeiro a sugerir a origem protozoa para os metazoa 166

139

• Haeckel tinha árvores focadas em uma espécie (que parecem teleológicas) e gerais. 140 O que confunde historiadores 141-2, 161-2
• Era um proponente do mecanismo da SN e o entendia bem e até corrigia Darwin, não era um mero lamarckista 142-3
• Propôs a ecologia e a biogeografia 144
• Diferia herança conservativa (herança dos traços sem modificação) e progressiva (caracteres adquiridos)
• Progressiva indireta (alteração nas células sexuais, hereditária mas não fenotípica) ou direta (herança de característica adquirida não necessariamente pré adaptativas). 145
• Dava importância para a Nutrição diferencial. 145
• Acreditava no progresso geral mas não necessário das espécies. 146 'To read Darwin otherwise is to make him into a neo-Darwinian, which, needless to say, he was not.' 147
• Recapitulação não é original de Haeckel, mas ele deu sua interpretação. 148

• Darwin hesitou em adotar essa questão até Müller 155
• Já aplicava ao homem em suas palestras. Foi desenvolvendo isso com o tempo em seus escritos. 157
• Tinha uma visão bem racista científica. 158
• Intelecto diferente em grau, não em tipo, dos outros animais. Desenvolvido por seleção sexual 158
• As árvores de Haeckel, diferente de Bronn e Darwin representavam hipóteses verdadeira, não modelos. 159
• Questão da tradução:
• For an English audience, however, the bulk would have to be trimmed and the war paint removed. Haeckel speedily acquiesced to these restrictions and outlined a plan to cut the work by over half and to eliminate all harsh asides.141 The Ray Society agreed to sponsor the publication, and Haeckel began the task of abridging his two fat volumes and excising the offensive language.142 The translation, however, never appeared, since a more likely candidate became available.143 Because the Generelle Morphologie, even in Germany, failed to reach beyond a small number of dedicated friends and committed enemies, Haeckel quickly revised a series of popular lectures he gave during the 1867–68 term and from them constructed a more compact and accessible book, which yet advanced essentially the same arguments as his technical monograph. His lectures were published as Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte in 1868; and after some delay, the fi rst English translation appeared, in 1876, as The History of Creation. 165
• Ênfase na questão morfológica e filogenética. 166
• Não é anti-darwin, mas um de seus herdeiros mais próximos 167

VI - Travel to England and the Canary Islands: Experimental Justification of Evolution

• Sinóforos como modelos. Com os sinóforos quis testar a variabilidade das larvas. 'Though Haeckel did not explicitly draw the conclusion, his extraordinary experiments demonstrated that all embryonic cells, at least early in development, were totipotent' 185-6
• Fundamentou Driesch e Roux. Contudo não seguiu um programa embriológico, obscurecendo seu trabalho. 194
• Propõe a teoria embriológica da gástrula 203, 210
• Gastrea como organismo hipotético na raiz dos metazoa 208
• 'Yet his own success as a popularizer, ironically, did as much to cast his extraordinary science into the shadows as did the negligent attitude of subsequent scholars,' 213

VII - The Popular Presentation of Evolution

• Reformulação do Generelle entre 1867 e 8. Escrita do Naturliche a partir de 24 palestras públicas. 222
• Livro mais bem suscedido 223
• Abordagem deísta 224 'He maintained that the anthropomorphic God of Agassiz had to be replaced by the monistic God of Goethe'. Base do monismo 227-8
• Foco no história evolutiva do homem 224
• Usava uma ilustração nas duas primeiras eds inicialmente mais racista e depois corrigida. 225-6
• Proveu uma longa introdução histórica 227 Darwin teria contribuído com a descrição mais sintética da descendència comum e com a SN. 228
• Resumo dos mecanismos:
•  two general classes of variable traits that produced changes in species: direct and indirect traits. Direct variations occurred when the parent acquired some adaptive properties and passed them to offspring—the Lamarckian moment. Indirect variations initially arose in the parent through some accidental impingements of the environment; these covert alterations remained unexpressed in the parent but appeared in the offspring and were preserved if they gave advantage to the individual.28 Since these two sources of variability and adaptation were so closely intertwined, Haeckel did not think one could determine which was the more important. In both instances, though, alterations were ultimately induced in the molecular structure of the heritable protoplasm of egg and sperm. And if the traits caused by the protoplasmic change proved successful, they and, consequently, their carriers would be preserved; that is, they would be naturally selected. 228-9
• Progressão gradativa da vida que poderia ser vista na organização social também. 229
• NS, força redutiva, de extinção, eliminação do inferior. 229
• Duas forças de seleção artificial: médica (eugenia) e militar. 230-2
• Recapitulação interferida pelas leis de herança abreviada e alternada.
• The former stipulates that as adaptations build up over thousands of generations, they elide one another in the smaller space of ontogenetic representation. Thus some morphological structures present in phylogenetic history might simply fall out of ontogenetic development. The law of alternating adaptation indicates that new modifi cations in phylogenetic history might be introduced earlier or later in ontogeny, thus giving a skewed picture of descent. 233
• a “palingenetic” recapitulation in which structures appearing in the embryo (e.g., initially two germ layers) accurately pictured those of ancestor organisms (e.g., the double germ layer of the gastraea), and a “cenogenetic” distortion of the original phylogenetic sequence.37 These distortions would originate, according to Haeckel, because of special conditions of recent adaptations and thus would not represent the more ancient evolutionary sequence. ... two types of cenogenetic distortions—those of place and those of time 233
• Aristocratas e trabalhadores iguais 235
• Ilustrações não tão detalhadas pois seriam projetadas e porque não eram diretas. 236
• Várias acusações de plágio, que provavelmente era mesmo, mas não que isso seja grande coisa ou que Haeckel negasse diz Richards. 238 'series of public lectures in which the niceties of thorough reference could be omitted' 240-1
• O dos embriões nem foram tão problema. A questão foi a repetição das gravuras para fortalecer o argumento que manchou sua reputação para sempre mesmo com retificação. 243
• Poder dos gráficos. 244
• Primeiro trabalho dentro do programa de pesquisa darwinista para detemrinação de relações filogenéticas. Incluía a raça humana (com hipóteses modificadas a cada edição). 244
• Lemuria. Monogenetic origin 251-2
• Homem e linguagem:
• Haeckel believed that the aesthetics of human morphology allowed a hierarchical placement of the races, but he also acknowledged the uncertain and variable nature of that particular criterion of ordering. He knew the ultimate standard of progressive development of the races of mankind had to be mental quality. But then, how objectively to calibrate high- mindedness? His friend August Schleicher pointed the way. 255
• Evidências
• Haeckel judged that Darwin had advanced powerful synthetic evidence—embryology, biogeography, systematics, and so on—for descent; but he agreed with Bronn that direct analytic evidence was wanted. This he believed he had provided in his work on sponges. Schleicher likewise thought he could furnish direct evidence for Darwin’s theory. Language descent, he proclaimed, was already an empirically wellestablished phenomenon. 256-7
• Para Schleicher, monista, a evolução das linguas correspondia com a evolução humana. 257 'Only the Indo-Germanic and Semitic languages reached a kind of perfection not realized in the other groups. Here, then, was Haeckel’s solution to the evolution of the various human species and their mental capacities' 259
• No Descent Darwin usa as ideias de Schleicher e Haeckel no contexto do problema de explicar as faculdade mentais do homem. 261 'This continued use of a developing language over generations, Darwin thus believed, would produce “heritable modifi cations” through “the principle of the inherited effects of use.”' 262
• Para Richards
• The attribution of weak-mindedness to Haeckel, as I have already suggested, stems from several sources: a belief that he had misrepresented Darwin’s theory; a lack of appreciation of his technical and empirical accomplishments, particularly in marine biology; and an inadequate measure of his impact on the science of his time—and ours. Moreover, such historical attitudes presume clear distinction between what passes as popular science and what is commonly recognized as real science, and, insofar as the distinction can be made, a pejorative assessment of the techniques of popular science— 263-4
• Oito pontos da ciencia popular: 1) audiência ampla (mas Haeckel se referia a audiência ampla qualificada); 2) claridade de fala com boa retórica e lógica; 3) minimização do jargão; 4) menos citações; 5) ilustrações; 6) intimidade com o leitor; 7) amplitude de assuntos; 8) fundamentação metafísica (monismo no caso de Haeckel). 264-8
• Poder das ilustrações:
• Graphic representations speak a language that transcends the peculiar argot of a given discipline, and they have an immediacy not easily imitated by the written word. Moreover, a picture or graphic compresses into a few strokes many lines of argument, conveying the gist of a particular thesis intuitively and directly. Further, if you can picture a phenomenon, the impression usually lasts. As the verbal descriptions of Haeckel’s book fade in memory, the illustrations remain vivid 267
• Gasman e Weikart acusam Haeckel de contribuir fortemente para o Nazismo. 270 Para Richards ele não era pior que seus pares na questão do racismo (271-3) e as acusações de racismo não se sustentam 275. Também não haveria ligação forte do nazismo com o darwinismo 276.

VIII - The Rage of the Critics

• Rütimeyer. Acusa primeiro sobre a triplicação das gravuras. 279
• His. Não aprovava a lei biogenética. 283 
• Preocupava-se com a estabilidade da ciência, limites de expertise e sobre os seres humanos. 284
• Criticava a teoria de herança de Haeckel. 286
• Achava a lei biogenética uma intrusão indevida na embriologia. Além disso não era lei pois não se baseava em evidências duras. 286
• Acusa modificações nas imagens de outros. Mas, diz Richards, não leva em conta a normalização intencional de Haeckel 286
• Após retirada, muitos anos depois von Spee corroborou Haeckel que inseriu uma nova figura no Anthropogenie 287-8
• Quanto ao alantoide, Haeckel lavou as mãos pois era um assunto mais controverso. 289
• Assim
• Both of the charges by His do seem to have caught Haeckel projecting features onto the human embryo on the basis of general vertebrate embryology. The projections were ultimately vindicated, since the human embryo does show a primitive streak at about the stage Haeckel proposed and the allantois is a distinguishable saclike structure in the very early human embryo.37 Yet he does seem to have gone beyond what could be clearly demonstrated at the time. He thus felt the rhetorical punches of His’s series of expostulations of erfunden—invented! 289-90
• His did neglect to mention, however, that Haeckel, in the Anthropogenie, never claimed the embryos were identical at early stages, only very similar; and in later editions of his book, the displayed embryos grew more dissimilar as the depictions grew more graphically refi ned. 291
• Goette: Rejeitou a NS. ' the principle assumed that creatures must initially display a modifi ed or varied form, which was then supposed to be selected; but if the modifi cation had to be prior to the operation of selection, selection could not explain the altered form in the fi rst place.' Em suma, um problema com a variação. 291
• Também critica a herança e sua falta de poder de lei, criticando a falta de poder explanatório 292
• Tinha uma law of form para o desenvolvimento do embrião que soava muito teológica para Haeckel 293
• Kolliker:
• Problema da adaptação. Todos os traços são os melhores. Perfeita harmonia. Harmonia acontece também fora da biologia sem precisar de NS e 'there was no reason to suspect that all traits of organisms should be useful'. 'General law seemed to Kolliker a sufficient explanation of harmony in the world.' Derivada de poderes superiores 294-5
• Lei biogenética não explica herança e o que se fixaria nas formas embriológicas. 296
• Lei biogenética, para Richards:
• Haeckel’s biogenetic law displayed two related defects: it focused on external and remote determination of individual development, instead of respecting more proximate causes; and it lacked the epistemological stability of the sort provided by mechanical laws in the physical sciences. Behind these explicit objections, however, lay both the professional defense of a discipline and subtle theological concerns. 296
• Haeckel responde em três pontos principais: ter ido além de Darwin, ser materialista e ateu.
• Haeckel responded to the fi rst charge by admitting that he did move beyond the founder’s original doctrine, though insisting that he nonetheless worked within the Darwinian framework and that he offered his phylogenetic reconstructions only as a tentative basis for further development.55 Those protesting that evolutionary theory was materialistic failed to distinguish two kinds of materialism: ethical materialism and natural-philosophic materialism, or monism. The former regarded sensuous pleasure rather than knowledge of nature to be the goal of life and, as Haeckel provocatively suggested, was more often to be found in the “palaces of ecclesiastical princes.” 56 The latter kind of materialism simply recognized what Kant took to be the chief explanatory principle of natural science, namely, mechanism. The monistic philosophy, however, regarded whatever might be called matter as equally entitled to be considered spirit. This meant, in Haeckel’s view, that there was a fundamental unity between the inorganic and the organic, between body and mind—and thus no insurmountable barriers had to be traversed at the dawn of life or at the inception of consciousness. Here again Haeckel invoked the Goethean understanding of reality, a metaphysics that he had sketched in the Generelle Morphologie. He also reiterated his endorsement of Goethe’s Spinozistic naturalism, which he regarded as the only true monotheism: Deus sive natura. 297
• Descent ajudou a cimentar a concordância entre Haeckel e Darwin 297.
• Defletiu Rutimeyer com sucesso 298
• His concordava com a visão de ilustração pedagógica, essencialista, inventada, diferente de fotografia. 299, 308.  'Haeckel seems like a throwback to an earlier time com relação ao papel da ilustração na ciência 304
• Victor Hensen reaquece o debta tem 1891, mais ou menos 15 anos depois. 300
• Sumário até aqui:
• First, he acknowledged that most of his illustrations in the Anthropogenie were adopted from well-known biologists—a practice with considerable precedent (and, in fact, he had labeled his borrowings as such).75 Second, most of the fi gures were not “exact and perfectly faithful-to-nature illustrations,” but “diagrams and schematic fi gures, that is, illustrations, which show only the essential features of the object and dispense with the inessential”—of the sort His himself employed. Third, all such illustrations found in handbooks and used for instruction are as such “invented” (erfunden), that is, the researcher “alters the real form of his object to correspond to the conception that he has formed of the essence of the thing and dispenses with all unnecessary and distorting accidents.” Fourth, His should recognize that all thinking morphologists—von Baer, Müller, Gegenbaur, Huxley—produce comparably contrived illustrations. “They all represent the object to be illustrated in their diagrams, not as they actually see it but as they think it!” 76 Fifth, “accordingly, only the photograph is, in the view of His (and many other ‘exact’ pedants), completely free of blemish and virtuously pure.” 302
• Michael Richardson e Cia (incluindo criacionistas) reavivam o debate em 1997. 305-6
• Faz uma comparação de certa ma fé entre fotografias e as ilustrações segundo richards. 306-7
• Normalização em busca do essencial, arquetípico. 310
• Questão epistemológica
• On questions of epistemology, His and Hensen, as well as Virchow and Du Bois-Reymond, profoundly differed from Haeckel, Goethe, and Darwin. But the differences were not centered on mechanical versus nonmechanical means of representation but on the roles of fact and of theory in science. The former group, who might be dubbed “paleo-positivists,” maintained that theory and facts were quite independent of one another and that theory had to be derived by a kind of mathematical induction from a comprehensive and virtually exceptionless set of facts. They regarded anything less as speculation, not science. In decided contrast, Haeckel, along with Goethe and Darwin, held that theory and fact inextricably interpenetrated one another and that theory led to the discovery of new facts. 311
• Já em Munique (1877) deu uma palestra onde abordou sua visão da biologia como uma ciencia histórica distinta das nomotéticas, evolução do homem, e que a evolução deveria ser ensinada na Alemanha. 313
• Plastitude theory, uma teoria celular para explicar a consciência. 314
• Virchow associa evo com socialismo. Evo não deveria ser ensinada pois era muito especulativa. Não explicava origem do homem e da vida propriamente. 322-3
• Virchow did allow that evolutionary theory could be a proper subject for research, in an effort to fi nd demonstrable evidence for it, but stipulated that it should never be a subject for teaching, which ought only propound authenticated science. This small bone of appeasement, though, had no real meat. 323
• Haeckel responde com o Freedom of Science and Teaching de 1878. Haeckel nega relação com o socialismo, defendendo uma interpretação liberal. 325-6
• Haeckel focused on the evolutionary assumption of variability of organisms even of the same species as a ground for the denial of socialism’s demands. He also advanced the fundamental instinct of competition as another barrier to the success of extreme forms of that political doctrine.122 If rights and duties are founded in the nature of human beings and if that nature is fundamentally biological (and surely it is), then one might forthwith conclude with Haeckel that socialism and communism (at least in their extreme forms) must fail as political and economic philosophies by which to organize human beings. In the last part of the twentieth century, the Western democracies—as well as former Eastern Bloc nations—seem to have drawn this same political conclusion. 326
• Bebel, Kautsky e Bernstein. Pensadores que retornaram a fazer a associação. 326 Mas não se abstinha uma relação com o desenvolvimento natural da ética. 327
• Haeckel não dava muita bola para a ideia de ideologia misturada na ciência. 327
• Nordenskiöld, por sua vez, acha que o Darwinismo é puramente liberal. 442
• Darwin e Huxley aprovaram o livro. Buchner também. Teve certo impacto negativo para a imprensa alemã.
• Veredito
• There were two kinds of indictment: that Haeckel had replicated the three woodcuts of vertebrate eggs and vertebrate embryos; and that he had altered illustrations he had borrowed from other authors, so as to make embryos of animals and humans appear more similar. As to the fi rst of these damning claims, one has to keep in mind that the initial edition of Haeckel’s Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte started life as a lecture series in which large, instructive wall charts were employed. The redaction of notes taken by Haeckel’s students yielded the book manuscript, which was completed by Haeckel in just a few months. Schematic wall charts served as the model for the illustrations that appeared in the book. Given the cost of woodcuts and the fact that the morphological structures of vertebrate eggs and early embryos are almost impossible to distinguish, it might seem a reasonable economy simply to replicate the same images and use them as a device to pound home the message in a popular work meant for a nonprofessional audience. The book, nonetheless, quickly became enmeshed in the professional literature. And Haeckel made the mistake of suggesting that the woodcuts constituted evidence of similar- ity. This was a lapse that he regretted. He quickly altered the second edition of the Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte to eliminate the replication, though not his conclusion that at the earliest stages of embryonic development, related creatures were, indeed, quite similar. Yet there is little doubt that his use of the replicated woodcuts was a moral failure, one borne out of rushed confi dence in his conclusions and condescension to his readers. The failure, though, slid along at a rather low level, a level where carelessness, inattention, and precipitous choice occluded sensitive awareness of the perilous way. The lapse did not, I believe, approach standards of gross fraud. Moreover, the conclusions he attempted to draw about embryonic similarity, given the level of then-contemporary knowledge, were sound enough. 
• In the early editions of Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte and Anthropogenie, Haeckel set out illustrations of embryos borrowed from various authors. Though he had observed vertebrate embryos at fi rsthand, he did not attempt to render them with the precision he found already exhibited by experts. When the illustrations taken from others were lined up, the morphological structures of, say, Bischoff’s dog embryo and Ecker’s human embryo appeared strikingly similar. Neither Bischoff nor Ecker intended the kind of argument advanced by Haeckel, yet their juxtaposed illustrations seemed to support the basic claim of the biogenetic law. Haeckel did alter some of these images (particularly standardizing their sizes to make similarities more obvious), and he reduced his images to the essential features of the organisms he represented. The authors from whom he adapted the images had already themselves eliminated most of the particularizing and non-essential features. Thus at one level, Haeckel’s biogenetic law had more convincing support by reason of the comparisons of borrowed images than if he himself had rendered the illustrations from fi rsthand examination of vertebrate embryos. 333
• Some judicious selection from Haeckel’s repertoire of images was required to give the modern charge of fraud an air of plausibility. ... Haeckel’s illustrations and modern photographs do not allow one to assess intention.139 Instead they now suggest that fraudulent intention can be revealed if one can detect dramatic alterations of borrowed illustrations. The kind of slight alterations that His complained of simply do not allow the impartial critic to make a confi dent judgment—especially when both Haeckel and His recognized the need to rectify abnormalities in a specimen, fi ll in gaps, and produce an “ideal” representation. Richardson and Keuck have focused on the kind of change made by Haeckel that has the requisite dramatic character 334
• Gilbert uses the Romanes-Haeckel illustration without qualm— and without recognition of its true provenance—to represent what he takes to be von Baer’s law that embryological development in an archetype goes from the general morphological structure of a group to increasingly more particular specifi cation, from characteristics of the class and order to those of the species and individual. To the eye of this experienced embryologist, Haeckel’s images (in the guise of an illustration from Romanes) conformed to the best biological knowledge of the late twentieth century. However, in an interview done by Science magazine, devoted to Richardson’s reassessment of Haeckel, Gilbert endorsed Richardson’s view that embryos at early stages show more variation than Haeckel had misleadingly represented.149 Thus, Haeckel’s images seemed, by the light of the best scientifi c knowledge of the late twentieth century, perfectly adequate to indicate embryological similarity—until, that is, they were discovered to be Haeckel’s. 341

IX - The Religious Response to Evolutionism

• Religião autocentrada de Schleiermacher. Oposto ao dogmatismo.343
• Em 1882 deu uma palestra na qual reforçou quatro pontos:
•  that Darwin fulfi lled the promise of higher German thought—especially that of Goethe;
•  that the evolutionary theories of Goethe, Lamarck, and Darwin were as vital to modern culture and as substantial as the locomotive and the steamship, the telegraph and the photograph—and the thousand indispensable discoveries of physics and chemistry; 
• that Darwinism yielded an ethics and social philosophy that balanced altruism against egoism; 
• and, in summary, that Darwinian theory and its spread represented the triumph of reason over the benighted minions of the anti-progressive and the superstitious, particularly as shrouded in the black robes of the Catholic Church. 
• In Haeckel’s analysis, then, Darwinism was thoroughly modern, liberal, and decidedly opposed to religious dogmatism. 351
• Mostrou carta de Darwin dizendo 'science has nothing to do with Christ'. 351
• Apoiado pelo materialista Moleschott. 352
• Monismo
•  From the inorganic, through the simplest organisms, right up to man, no unbridgeable barriers arise separating one kind of substance from another; rather a continuous, law-governed unity runs through the whole. Even what might be called man’s soul—his central nervous system—appeared over the course of ages by slow increments out of antecedents in the lower animals. Though Haeckel’s enemies thought this cosmology the sheerest materialism, he yet maintained it was a strict monism: all matter had its mental side, just as all examples of mind displayed a material face. 353
• Wasmann, jesuíta entomologista anti-darwin. Era contra Darwin com diversos argumentos, especialmente contra a continuidade das faculdades mentais. 362-3, 366-7
• Formação do Monistenbund em 1904. 372
• Brass, do Keplerbund, retoma a questão das ilutrações com novos casos em 1908.
• Brass contended that Haeckel had made the human too stooped, the gorilla too erect, the apes with their feet fl at on the ground, and the gorilla displaying his teeth in an all-too-human grin.96 Concerning the second plate, which shows embryos of a pig, rabbit, and human being at three very early “sandal” stages, Brass mostly suggested they lacked other surrounding features (e.g., yolk) and that they were too symmetrical.97 Finally, concerning the third plate of the embryonic stages of the bat, gibbon, and human being (fi g. 9.9), Brass simply dropped his original charge that Haeckel had swapped the heads of the gibbon and human embryos. He found other falsifi cations, however: the bat was the common bat (Vespertilio murinus) instead of the horseshoe nosed bat (Rhinolophus) that Haeckel claimed; the human embryo in MII was represented with forty-six vertebrae instead of the thirty-three to thirtyfi ve normally present; and the so-called gibbon at GII was really a macaque that had its tail removed. 380-1
• Haeckel acknowledged that like virtually every illustrator he had “schematized” his depictions, removing features inessential to the point of the discussion.99 While Haeckel often acted injudiciously—perhaps recklessly—in deploying his illustrations, an impartial judge would recognize, I believe, that his schematizations did not materially alter his essential message, namely, that the embryonic structures of vertebrates at comparable stages were strikingly similar and that the best explanation of the similarity was common descent. 382

Ver Moore Post-Darwinian Controversies (1979) e Roberts Darwinism and the Divine in America (1988) para casos onde a retórica conciliatória de Darwin funcionou com os religiosos.

X - Love in a Time of War

• Monismo
• Haeckel’s view of the accomplishments of modern science, in broadest outline, is the one widely shared by scientists today. The details of the physical theory he described, then at the leading edge of science, have been greatly modifi ed during the last hundred years. But the idea of continuity between the nonliving and living worlds; the application of natural law to account for all physical phenomena; the ultimate resources of observation, experiment, and logical analyses in the discovery of new knowledge; the validity of evolution by natural selection—all of these have been sanctioned by scientists in the modern day.
• In conformity to the physics of his day, Haeckel asserted that the universe consisted of congregations of atomic elements swimming in a sea of ether; the behavior of the elements and the sea itself ran in currents strictly governed by what he called the laws of substance—that is, the conservation of matter and the conservation of energy. The known elements—about seventy in Haeckel’s day—exhibited chemical affinities that formed larger molecules, the very stuff of macroscopic physical bodies. In Haeckel’s monistic reading, physical objects—even down to elemental atoms—had a quasi-mental side, which was displayed at the lowest level by bonding inclinations among constituents, their elective affinities. Among larger complexes, as found in living organisms, these fundamental forces were expressed in sensation, volition, and ultimately consciousness. What this monistic image precluded was an independent, nonphysical soul or distinct mental entity. 400
• No mais capítulo bem pessoal, focado em seu caso amoroso com outra mulher, últimas expedições, seu envolvimento com o museu e suas opiniões sobre a primeira Guerra.

XI - Conclusion: The Tragic Sense of Ernst Haeckel

• Revisão da historiografia sobre Haeckel do fim do XIX até recentemente. Cobre o sentimento anti-Haeckel as associações com o nazismo, entre outros pontos.

Appendix I - A Brief History of Morphology

• Bronn 474-8

Appendix II - The Moral Grammar of Narratives in the History of Biology: The Case of Haeckel and Nazi Biology

Não adiciona coisas novas sobre Haeckel e o Nazismo em relação ao capítulo 7.

• Estruturas morais do historiador:
• Apreciação explícita: julgamento moral aberto. Raro.
• Apreciação contemporânea: Revisão do que foi dito sobre o assunto em sua época. Mesmo partindo do mesmo ponto, podem chegar a lugares distintos. O historiador enfatiza umas e critica outras segundo seu julgamento tácito
• Apreciação da conexão causal: Historiador aproxima as decisões do ator com suas consequências. Responsabilidade histórica.
• Apreciação estética: Visão positiva ou negativa do ator pelo historiador. 508-9
• Princípios morais de julgamento.
• Princípio supremo: regra de ouro, imperativo categórico.
• Intenção do ator
• Motivo.
• Crenças. 509-510
• Conclui que não há causa moral ligando Haeckel aos nazistas. 512