Pictures of evolution and charges of fraud: Ernst Haeckel's embryological illustrations

ISIS

Volumn 97, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 260-301

  Hopwood, Nick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY; ANIMAL; ANIMAL EMBRYO; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT; EMBRYOLOGY; EVOLUTION; GERMANY; HISTOLOGY; HISTORY; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL ILLUSTRATION; PHYLOGENY;

ANATOMY, ARTISTIC; ANIMALS; EMBRYO, NONMAMMALIAN; EMBRYOLOGY; EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT; EVOLUTION; GERMANY; HISTORY, 19TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL ILLUSTRATION; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 33746330149     PISSN: 00211753     EISSN: 15456994     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/504734     Document Type: Article

References (303)

1. On the older controversies see esp. Reinhard Gursch, Die Illustrationen Ernst Haeckels zur Abstammungs-und Entwicklungsgeschichte: Diskussion im wissenschaftlichen und nichtwissenschaftlichen Schrifttum (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1981).
2. See also Eberhard Dennert, Die Wahrheit über Ernst Haeckel und seine "Welträtsel": Nach dem Urteil seiner Fachgenossen, 2nd ed. (Halle: Müller, 1901);
3. Heinrich Schmidt, Haeckels Embryonenbilder: Dokumente zum Kampf um die Weltanschauung in der Gegenwart (Frankfurt am Main: Neuer Frankfurter Verlag, 1909);
4. Wilhelm Teudt, "Im Interesse der Wissenschaft!" Haeckels "Fälschungen" und die 46 Zoologen etc.: Die wichtigsten Dokumente zum Fall Brass-Haeckel nebst Erläuterungen und Ergebnis (Godesberg: Naturwissenschaftlicher Verlag des Keplerbundes, 1909);
5. J. Assmuth and Ernest R. Hull, Haeckel's Frauds and Forgeries (Bombay: Examiner, 1915);
6. Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., "'Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,'" Creation Research Society Annual, 1969, 6(1):27-34;
7. Britta Rupp-Eisenreich, "Haeckel: La querelle des embryons," in Dictionnaire du darwinisme et de l'évolution, ed. Patrick Tort, 3 vols. (Paris: Presses Univ. France, 1996), Vol. 2: F-N, pp. 2090-2114;
8. and Nick Hopwood, "Producing Development: The Anatomy of Human Embryos and the Norms of Wilhelm His," Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 2000, 74:29-79.
9. On and in relation to the recent debate see Stephen Jay Gould, "Abscheulich! (Atrocious!): Haeckel's Distortions Did Not Help Darwin," Natural History, 2000, no. 3, pp. 42-49;
10. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution Is Wrong (New York: Regnery, 2000), pp. 81-109, 285-293;
11. Alan D. Gishlick, "Icons of Evolution? Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes about Evolution Is Wrong: Icon #4: Haeckel's Embryos," http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon4haeckel.html (accessed 12 June 2005);
12. Klaus Sander, "Ernst Haeckel's Ontogenetic Recapitulation: Irritation and Incentive from 1866 to Our Time," Annals of Anatomy, 2002, 184:523-533;
13. and Michael K. Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, "Haeckel's ABC of Evolution and Development," Biological Reviews, 2002, 77:495-528,
14. which gives the revised and extended views of the developmental biologist who started the debate. Richardson's Haeckel appears in Horace Freeland Judson, The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science (Orlando, Fla.: Harcourt, 2004), pp. 82-83.
15. Jan Sapp, Where the Truth Lies: Franz Moewus and the Origins of Molecular Biology (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990), pp. 1-26;
16. N. J. Mackintosh, ed., Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed? (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995);
17. Daniel J. Kevles, The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character (New York: Norton, 1998), pp. 107-109;
18. James W. Cook, The Arts of Deception: Playing with Fraud in the Age of Barnum (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 2001);
19. Ralph H. Lutts, The Nature Fakers: Wildlife, Science, and Sentiment (Charlottesville: Univ. Press Virginia, 2001);
20. and Judson, Great Betrayal, pp. 43-98.
21. On forgery in relation to changing representational standards see Jennifer Tucker, "Photography as Witness, Detective, and Impostor: Visual Representation in Victorian Science," in Victorian Science in Context, ed. Bernard Lightman (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1997), pp. 378-408;
22. and Emma Spary, "Forging Nature at the Republican Muséum," in The Faces of Nature in Enlightenment Europe, ed. Lorraine Daston and Gianna Pomata (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2003), pp. 163-180.
23. Jane M. Oppenheimer, "Haeckel's Variations on Darwin," in Biological Metaphor and Cladistic Classification: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed. Henry M. Hoenigswald and Linda F. Wiener (London: Pinter, 1987), pp. 123-135, on p. 134, criticized Haeckel for not accurately representing the knowledge of her day, and this was Michael Richardson's starting point too;
24. Rupp-Eisenreich, "Haeckel," pp. 2106-2107, critiques this approach.
25. Richardson has even argued - implausibly, given the inevitable theory-ladenness of so much drawing - that tendentious copying proves intent to deceive: Michael K. Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, "A Question of Intent: When Is a 'Schematic' Illustration a Fraud?" Nature, 2001, 410:144. This certainly cannot be shown by comparison with figures produced over thirty years after the event.
26. For entry points to the literature on science and the visual see Caroline A. Jones and Peter Galison, eds., Picturing Science, Producing Art (New York: Routledge, 1998);
27. Alex Soojung-Kim Pang, "Visual Representation and Post-Constructivist History of Science," Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 1997, 28:139-171;
28. Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, eds., Iconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion, and Art (Karlsruhe: ZKM; Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002);
29. and Soraya de Chadarevian and Nick Hopwood, eds., Models: The Third Dimension of Science (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 2004).
30. On visual novelties see, e.g., Alberto Cambrosio, Daniel Jacobi, and Peter Keating, "Ehrlich's 'Beautiful Pictures' and the Controversial Beginnings of Immunological Imagery," Isis, 1993, 84:662-699;
31. Lisa Cartwright, Screening the Body: Tracing Medicine's Visual Culture (Minneapolis: Univ. Minnesota Press, 1995);
32. and Thomas Schlich, "Repräsentationen von Krankheitserregern: Wie Robert Koch Bakterien als Krankheitsursache dargestellt hat," in Räume des Wissens: Repräsentation, Codierung, Spur, ed. Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, Michael Hagner, and Bettina Wahrig-Schmidt (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1997), pp. 165-190.
33. Specifically on developmental icons see Martin J. S. Rudwick, Scenes from Deep Time: Early Pictorial Representations of the Prehistoric World (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1992);
34. Stephen Jay Gould, "Ladders and Cones: Constraining Evolution by Canonical Icons," in Hidden Histories of Science, ed. Robert B. Silvers (London: Granta, 1997), pp. 37-67;
35. Hopwood, "Producing Development" (cit. n. 1);
36. Constance Areson Clark, "Evolution for John Doe: Pictures, the Public, and the Scopes Trial Debate," Journal of American History, 2001, 87:1275-1303;
37. and Julia Voss, Darwins Diagramme: Bilder von der Entdeckung der Unordnung, Preprint 249 (Berlin: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 2003).
38. Erik Nordenskiöld, The History of Biology: A Survey, trans. Leonard Bucknall Eyre (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1929), p. 515.
39. The only recent English-language biography - Mario A. Di Gregorio, From Here to Eternity: Ernst Haeckel and Scientific Faith (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005) - all but excludes the Schöpfungsgeschichte because it "lacks... theoretical significance" (p. 19),
40. while Andreas W. Danm, Wissenschaftspopularisierung im 19. Jahrhundert. Bürgerliche Kultur, naturwissenschaftliche Bildung und die deutsche Öffentlichkeit, 1848-1914 (Munich: Beek, 1998), p. 307, stresses limits to its popularity.
41. On the making of facts in the traffic between esoteric and exoteric circles see Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, trans. Fred Bradley and Thaddeus J. Trenn, ed. Trenn and Robert K. Merton (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1979), pp. 111-125;
42. and Simon Schaffer, "The Leviathan of Parsonstown: Literary Technology and Scientific Representation," in Inscribing Science: Scientific Texts and the Materiality of Communication, ed. Timothy Lenoir (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 1998), pp. 182-222, on p. 221.
43. Fleck cited Haeckel's "biased illustrations appropriate for his theory" as exemplifying "creative fiction," "the liveliest stage of tenacity in systems of opinion": Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, pp. 32, 36.
44. Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, "The Image of Objectivity," Representations, 1992, 40:81-128;
45. and Daston, "Objectivity versus Truth," in Wissenschaft als kulturelle Praxis 1750-1900, ed. Hans Erich Bödeker, Peter Hanns Reill, and Jürgen Schlumbohm (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), pp. 17-32, on pp. 28-29.
46. On the main charge of invention see Hopwood, "Producing Development" (cit. n. 1).
47. For the importance of each step in book production see Robert Darnton, "What Is the History of Books?" in The Kiss of Lamourette: Reflections in Cultural History (New York: Norton, 1990), pp. 107-135.
48. On reading see James A. Secord, Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2000);
49. and Jonathan R. Topham, "Scientific Readers: A View from the Industrial Age," Isis, 2004, 95:431-442.
50. On viewing see Anne Secord, "Botany on a Plate: Pleasure and the Power of Pictures in Promoting Early Nineteenth-Century Scientific Knowledge," ibid., 2002, 93:28-57.
51. Gursch, Die Illustrationen Ernst Haeckels zur Abstammungs- und Entwicklungsgeschichte (cit. n. 1), pp. 137-138;
52. and, with reference to the 1908-1910 controversy only, Sapp, Where the Truth Lies (cit. n. 2), pp. 16-22.
53. Embryological representations are surveyed in Nick Hopwood, "Visual Standards and Disciplinary Change: Normal Plates, Tables, and Stages in Embryology," History of Science, 2005, 43:239-303, on pp. 245-253.
54. On the courses see Hopwood, Embryos in Wax: Models from the Ziegler Studio, with a Reprint of "Embryological Wax Models" by Friedrich Ziegler (Cambridge: Whipple Museum of the History of Science; Bern: Institute of the History of Medicine, 2002), pp. 33-39;
55. and Hopwood, "Plastic Publishing in Embryology," in Models, ed. de Chadarevian and Hopwood (cit n. 3), pp. 170-206, on pp. 182-186.
56. Alfred Kelly, The Descent of Darwin: The Popularization of Darwinism in Germany, 1860-1914 (Chapel Hill: Univ. North Carolina Press, 1981);
57. Kurt Bayertz, "Darwinismus als Politik: Zur Genese des Sozialdarwinismus in Deutschland 1860-1900," in Welträtsel und Lebenswunder: Ernst Haeckel - Werk, Wirkung und folgen, ed. Erna Aescht et al. (Linz: Oberösterreichisches Landesmuseum, 1998), pp. 229-288;
58. and Daum. Wissenschaftspopularisierung im 19. Jahrhundert (cit. n. 4).
59. On drawing in the German lands see Wolfgang Kemp, "... einen wahrhaft bildenden Zeichenunterricht überall einzuführen": Zeichnen und Zeichenunterricht der Laien 1500-1870. Ein Handbuch (Frankfurt am Main: Syndikat, 1979);
60. Clive Ashwin, Drawing and Education in German-Speaking Europe, 1800-1900 (Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, 1981);
61. and Elke Schulze, Nulla dies sine linea: Universitärer Zeichenunterricht: Eine problemgeschichtliche Studie (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2004), esp. pp. 105-125.
62. It would be worth exploring the relations between the varieties of lay drawing and the techniques Haeckel, his teachers, and his opponents employed as scientists. On his very important and underused archive see Erika Krauße and Uwe Hoßfeld, "Das Ernst-Haeckel-Haus in Jena: Von der privaten Stiftung zum Universitätsinstitut (1912-1979)," in Repräsentationsformen in den biologischen Wissenschaften: Beiträge zur 5. Jahrestagung der DGGTB in Wien 1996 und zur 7. Jahrestagung in Neuburg a. d. Donau 1998, ed. Armin Geus et al. (Verhandlungen zur Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie, 3) (Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung, 1999), pp. 203-232;
63. for a register of 39,220 letters see Hoßfeld and Olaf Breidbach, Haeckel-Korrespondenz: Übersicht über den Briefbestand des Ernst-Haeckel-Archivs (Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung, 2005).
64. For reviews see Frederick B. Churchill, "The Rise of Classical Descriptive Embryology," in A Conceptual History of Modern Embryology, ed. Scott F. Gilbert (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1994), pp. 1-29;
65. and Hopwood, "Visual Standards and Disciplinary Change" (cit. n. 7), pp. 241-248.
66. Hopwood, "Producing Development" (cit. n. 1);
67. Nick Hopwood, "Embryonen 'auf dem Altar der Wissenschaft zu opfern': Entwicklungsreihen im späten neunzehnten Jahrhundert," in Geschichte des Ungeborenen: Zur Erfahrungs- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Schwangerschaft, 17.-20. Jahrhundert, ed. Barbara Duden, Jürgen Schlumbohm, and Patrice Veit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), pp. 237-272;
68. and Hopwood, "Visual Standards and Disciplinary Change."
69. On the visual aids see Hopwood, Embryos in Wax (cit. n. 7), esp. pp. 33-39;
70. on microscopical discipline see L. S. Jacyna, "'A Host of Experienced Microscopists': The Establishment of Histology in Nineteenth-Century Edinburgh," Bull. Hist. Med., 2001, 75:225-253.
71. For Haeckel's enthusiastic attendance at embryology lectures see Haeckel to his parents, 14 May 1853, 17 May 1855, in Ernst Haeckel, Entwicklungsgeschichte einer Jugend: Briefe an die Eltern 1852/1856, ed. Heinrich Schmidt (Leipzig: Koehler, 1921), pp. 53, 137;
72. and Georg Uschmann, "Über die Beziehungen zwischen Albert Koelliker und Ernst Haeckel," NTM, 1974, 11:80-89, on p. 82.
73. For other students' difficulty and his own lectures see Haeckel, Anthropogenie oder Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen: Gemeinverständliche wissenschaftliche Vorträge über die Grundzüge der menschlichen Keimesund Stammes-Geschichte (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1874), p. xv;
74. and, further on his lectures, Uschmann, Geschichte der Zoologie und der zoologischen Anstalten in Jena 1779-1919 (Jena: Fischer, 1959), p. 46. The notes from which a page is reproduced in Figure 1, A support Uschman's assumption that Kölliker lectured Haeckel on embryology in 1853 as well as 1855, but the 1853 letter refers to a course by Franz Leydig.
75. None of these standard atlases and textbooks traditionally figures in histories of embryology. On wall charts, especially those that were later produced commercially, see Massimiano Bucchi, "Images of Science in the Classroom: Wallcharts and Science Education, 1850-1920," British Journal for the History of Science, 1998, 31:161-184;
76. and Carlo Alberto Redi et al., Visual Zoology: The Pavia Collection of Leuckart's Zoological Wall Charts (1877) (Como: Ibis, 2002). The embryological charts that survive in the Jena Zoological Institute, including some from Haeckel's time, appear more recent than the 1860s.
77. On branching diagrams see Voss, Darwins Diagramme (cit. n. 3);
78. for the dearth of comparative images in earlier embryology see Hopwood, "Visual Standards and Disciplinary Change" (cit. n. 7), pp. 247-248.
79. Among the most striking is Rudolph Wagner, Icones physiologicae: Tabulae physiologiam et geneseos historiam illustrantes: Erläuterungstafeln zur Physiologie und Entwickelungsgeschichte (Leipzig: Voss, 1839),
80. Plate V. Schematics of the embryonic membranes of human and dog are on the same page in Carl Vogt, Zoologische Briefe: Naturgeschichte der lebenden und untergegangenen Thiere, für Lehrer, höhere Schulen und Gebildete aller Stände, 2 vols. (Frankfurt am Main: Literarische Anstalt, 1851), Vol. 1, pp. 422, 546.
81. Chick development is pictured in Lorenz Oken, "Einleitung" to Abbildungen zu Oken's Naturgeschichte für alle Stände (Stuttgart: Hoffmann 1843), pp. 1-3.
82. Vogt, Physiologische Briefe für Gebildete aller Stände, 2nd ed. (Giessen: Ricker, 1854), p. 436,
83. decided to discuss reproduction as part of the physiology of generation and development in view of the success of advice books "in duodecimo or even smaller format," on which see Janet Farrell Brodie, Contraception and Abortion in Nineteenth-Century America (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell Univ. Press, 1994), pp. 87-203.
84. On Huxley's frontispiece see Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: A Biography, Vol. 2: The Power of Place (London: Pimlico, 2003), p. 221.
85. For the distinction between those who could and could not make their own figures see Ludwig Rütimeyer, rev. of Haeckel, Ueber die Entstehung und den Stammbaum des Menschengeschlechts and Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, Archiv für Anthropologie, 1868, 3:301-302.
86. On Haeckel see, most recently, Di Gregorio, From Here to Eternity (cit n. 4), especially on relations with Gegenbaur;
87. Bernhard Kleeberg, Theophysis: Ernst Haeckels Philosophie des Naturganzen (Cologne: Böhlau, 2005);
88. and Robert J. Richards, "If This Be Heresy: Haeckel's Conversion to Darwinism," in Darwinian Heresies, ed. Abigail Lustig, Richards, and Michael Ruse (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004), pp. 101-130.
89. For a variety of other perspectives see Daniel Gasman, The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League (London: Macdonald; New York: American Elsevier, 1971);
90. Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, Belknap, 1977);
91. Erika Krauße, Ernst Haeckel (Leipzig: Teubner, 1984);
92. Paul Weindling, "Ernst Haeckel, Darwinismus, and the Secularization of Nature," in History, Humanity, and Evolution: Essays for John C. Greene, ed. James R. Moore (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989), pp. 311-327;
93. Lynn K. Nyhart, Biology Takes Form: Animal Morphology and the German Universities, 1800-1900 (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1995), pp. 143-206;
94. and Aescht et al., eds., Welträtsel und Lebenswunder (cit. n. 8).
95. On Bismarck see Haeckel to T. H. Huxley, 12 May 1867, in Georg Uschmann and Ilse Jahn, eds., "Der Briefwechsel zwischen Thomas Henry Huxley und Ernst Haeckel: Ein Beitrag zum Darwin-Jahr," Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe, 1959/1960, 9:7-33, on p. 12.
96. On Vogt's relations to Haeckel see Christoph Kockerbeck, ed., Carl Vogt, Jacob Moleschott, Ludwig Büchner, Ernst Haeckel: Briefwechsel (Marburg: Basilisken-Presse, 1999).
97. Haeckel to Georg Reimer, 18 Sept. 1868, 17 Jan. 1869 (quotation), Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preussischer Kulturbesitz: Dep. 42 (Archiv Walter de Gruyter), R1: Haeckel, Ernst (hereafter cited as SBB); and G. Reimer to Haeckel, 21 Jan. 1869, Ernst-Haeckel-Haus, Jena (hereafter cited as EHH). On the Reimers see S.W., "Deutsche Buchhändler, 5: Georg Reimer," Illustrirte Zeitung, 1867, 49:223-226;
98. and Rudolf Virchow, "Nachruf an Ernst Reimer," Archiv für Pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für Klinische Medicin, 1897, 150:388-390.
99. On the book trade see Reinhard Wittmann, Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels: Ein Überblick, 2nd ed. (Munich: Beck, 1999).
100. On the lectures see Uschmann, Geschichte der Zoologie (cit. n. 12), pp. 43-45.
101. Ernst Haeckel, Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte: Gemeinverständliche wissenschaftliche Vorträge über die Entwickelungslehre im Allgemeinen und diejenige von Darwin, Goethe und Lamarck im Besonderen, über die Anwendung derselben auf den Ursprung des Menschen und andere damit zusammenhängende Grundfragen der Naturwissenschaft (Berlin: Reimer, 1868), pp. iii-v.
102. On the Sammlung gemeinverständlicher wissenschaftlicher Vorträge, edited by Rudolf Virchow and Franz von Holtzendorff, see Constantin Goschler, Rudolf Virchow: Mediziner - Anthropologe - Politiker (Cologne: Böhlau, 2002), pp. 202-203;
103. the "Prospekt" on the inside wrappers of the first few issues in this series gives the aims. On Haeckel's relations to pre-Darwinian transformism see Kleeberg, Theophysis (cit. n. 15), pp. 67-79.
104. These numbers are on Haeckel's diagram in Figure 6.
105. Wilhelm His, Unsere Körperform und das physiologische Problem ihrer Entstehung: Briefe an einen befreundeten Naturforscher (Leipzig: Vogel, 1874), p. 170.
106. Vogt dispensed with credits altogether, for a justification see his Physiologische Briefe (cit. n. 14). pp. 10- 11. Huxley acknowledged only some borrowings; see legend to Figure 3.
107. For the proposal see Richardson and Keuck, "Haeckel's ABC of Evolution and Development" (cit. n. 1), p. 521. Ecker described this specimen as five, not four, weeks old. For Haeckel's account see Haeckel to Carl Theodor von Siebold, 4 Jan. 1869 (Haeckel wrote "1868"), EHH. Here is the whole passage, from which I translate further below: "Was die von Bischoff gerügte zu große Ähnlichkeit der Embryonen von Mensch und Hund betrift so erklärt sich diese einfach daher, daß ich die beiderlei Embryonen auf meinen Tafeln (S. 240, b, c) auf gleiche Größe reducirt, in gleiche Stellung gebracht, und in gleicher Manier ausgeführt habe. Im Übrigen sind die Formen derselben ganz genau theils nach der Natur copirt, theils aus allen, bisher über diese frühen Stadien bekannt gewordenen Abhildungen zusammengestellt. Dabei möchte ich Bischoff noch besonders darauf aufmerksam machen, daß die verschiedenen Abbildungen menschlicher Embryonen von gleichem Alter (aus der IV-VIII Woche) bei den verschiedenen Autoren unter sich mehr verschieden sind, als von den Hunde-Embryonen gleichen Alters! Dies kann man schon aus den Embryonen-Tafeln in Eckers "Icones physiolog." sehen! Übrigens wird Bischoff wohl selbst nicht läugnen wollen, daß in einem wenig früheren Stadium geradezu gar keine Unterschiede zwischen Mensch und Hund vorhanden sein können!"
108. Daston and Galison, "Image of Objectivity" (cit n. 5), pp. 88-98;
109. see also Lorraine Daston, "Type Specimens and Scientific Memory," Critical Inquiry, 2004, 31:153-182.
110. Haeckel has long been seen as an artist as much as a scientist, but attention has focused on his 1904 "Art Forms in Nature." See Christoph Kockerbeck, Ernst Haeckels "Kunstformen der Natur" und ihr Einfluß auf die deutsche bildende Kunst der Jahrhundertwende: Studie zum Verhältnis von Kunst und Naturwissenschaften im Wilhelminischen Zeitalter (Frankfurt: Lang, 1986);
111. Erika Krauße, "Haeckel: Promorphologie und 'evolutionistische' ästhetische Theorie: Konzept und Wirkung," in Die Rezeption von Evolutionstheorien im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Eve-Marie Engels (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1995), pp. 347-394;
112. Bernd Lötsch, "Gibt es Kunstformen der Natur? Radiolarien: Haeckels biologische ßAsthetik und ihre Überschreitung," in Welträtsel und Lebenswunder, ed. Aescht et al. (cit. n. 8), pp. 339-372;
113. Rainald Franz, "Stilvermeidung und Naturnachahmung: Ernst Haeckels 'Kunstformen der Natur' und ihr Einfluß auf die Ornamentik des Jugendstils in Österreich," ibid., pp. 475-480;
114. and Olaf Breidbach, "Kurze Anleitung zum Bildgebrauch," in Ernst Haeckel, Kunstformen der Natur, ed. Breidbach (Munich: Prestel, 1998), pp. 7-16.
115. Haeckel used charts for a lecture in Berlin later that year; see Ernst Haeckel to Agnes Haeckel, née Huschke, 19 Dec. 1868, in Ernst und Agnes Haeckel: Ein Briefwechsel, ed. Konrad Huschke (Jena: Urania, 1950), p. 56.
116. Rütimeyer, rev. of Haeckel, Ueber die Entstehung und den Stammbaum des Menschengeschlechts and Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschickte (cit. n. 14);
117. and Ernst Haeckel, Ziele und Wege der heutigen Entwickelungsgeschichte (Jena: Dufft, 1875), pp. 37-38.
118. Haeckel referred to his own figures in the Generelle Morphologie der Organismen: Allgemeine Grundzüge der organischen Formen-Wissenschaft, mechanisch begründet durch die von Charles Darwin reformirte Descendenz-Theorie, 2 vols. (Berlin: Reimer, 1866; facsimile ed., Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), Vol. 1: Allgemeine Anatomie der Organismen: Kritische Grundzüge der mechanischen Wissenschaft von den entwickelten Formen der Organismen, begründet durch die Descendenz-Theorie, p. 559, as "schematic outlines" in the narrow sense; for the term applied generally and positively to the illustrations in his Anthropogenie see Carl Hasse to Haeckel, 19 Oct. 1874, EHH.
119. See also Alexander Ecker, Hundert Jahre einer Freiburger Professoren-Familie: Biographische Aufzeichnungen (Freiburg i. B.: Mohr, 1886), pp. 140-141: "for even seeing, especially seeing through a microscope, must be learned and for this purpose schematic drawings serve above all else.... Of course, however, such blackboard drawings can only be linear sketches.... Complicated schemata, physical, perspectival drawings with shade and light cannot be done by hand; for this purpose carefully executed plates on a larger scale are called for."
120. Ernst Haeckel, "Apologetisches Schlusswort," in Anthropogenie oder Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen: Keimes- und Stammes-Geschichte, 4th ed., 2 parts (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1891), Pt. 2: Stammesgeschichte des Menschen: Wissenschaftliche Vorträge über die Grundzüge der menschlichen Phylogenie, pp. 857-864, on pp. 859-860;
121. and Sapp, Where the Truth Lies (cit. n. 2), pp. 17-20.
122. Some admirers excused Haeckel's schemata as the products of the all too lively, synthetic fantasy that was also responsible for his many positive contributions, a view his personal assistant rejected; see Schmidt, Haeckels Embryonenbilder (cit. n. 1). pp. 66, 68, 88.
123. Haeckel to Siebold, 4 Jan. 1869 (cit. n. 20);
124. and Karl Ernst von Baer, Über Entwickelungsgeschichte der Thiere: Beobachtung und Reflexion, 2 parts, Pt. 1 (Königsberg: Gebrüder Bornträger, 1828; facsimile ed., Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1967), pp. 4-6 (individual variation), 221 (unlabeled embryos).
125. Haeckel to Siebold, 4 Jan. 1869.
126. The Reimers disliked Haeckel's "strong hint of godlessness" and worried as they read the proofs that it would prejudice enlightened Christians against him (Ernst Reimer to Haeckel, 5 June 1868, EHH), but they did not raise the accusations against his figures in the letters. They probably believed that as laymen and publishers it was best to keep out of scientific disputes (see E. Reimer to Haeckel, 19 July 1878, EHH, on the Haeckel-Virchow controversy), and they might have chosen to raise delicate issues face to face.
127. For cases in which new technologies were crucial see, e.g., Alex Soojung-Kim Pang, "Victorian Observing Practices, Printing Technology, and Representations of the Solar Corona," Journal for the History of Astronomy, 1994, 25:249-274, 1995, 26.63-76;
128. and Phillip Prodger, "Illustration as Strategy in Charles Darwin's 'The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals,"' in Inscribing Science, ed. Lenoir (cit. n. 4), pp. 140-181.
129. Haeckel, "Apologetisches Schlusswort" (cit. n. 25), pp. 861-862.
130. The figures are in Haeckel, Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (cit. n. 17), pp. 146, 242, 248.
131. Haeckel to G. Reimer, 26 Mar. 1868, SBB (for "softness and delicacy").
132. For the other points see G. Reimer to Haeckel, 27 Mar. 1868 ("not difficult"), and E. Reimer to Haeckel, 5 June 1868 (υnrecognizable"), EHH;
133. and Haeckel to G. Reimer, 4 May 1868 ("very good"), and Haeckel to E. Reimer, 22 June 1868 (Frommarm's lack of practice and Haeckel's intervention), SBB.
134. On Frommann see Gerhard Menz, Deutsche Buchhändler: Vierundwanzig Lebensbilder führender Männer des Buchhandels (Leipzig: Werner Lehmann, 1925), pp. 75-82, on p. 78;
135. and Frank Wogawa, "'Zu sehr Bürger...'? Die Jenaer Verleger- und Buchhändlerfamilie Frommann im 19. Jahrhundert," in Bürgertum in Thüringen: Lebenswelt und Lebenswege im frühen 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Hans-Werner Hahn, Werner Greiling, and Klaus Ries (Rudolstadt: Hain, 2001), pp. 81-107.
136. Giltsch had recommended lithography for the embryo plate, but the lithographer Gustav Müller, who appears to have lived and worked separately (Frau Mann, Stadtarchiv Jena, to Nick Hopwood, 9 Mar. 2006), did the frontispiece (unsatisfactorily) later that summer,
137. see E. Haeckel to A. Haeckel, 31 Aug. 1868, in Ernst und Agnes Haeckel, ed. Huschke (cit. n. 22), p. 49.
138. On the Giltsches, but with no mention of this job, see Ernst Haeckel, "Adolf Giltsch: Ein Nachruf," Altes und Neues aus der Heimat: Beilage zum Jenaer Volksblatt, 1911, no. 11.
139. Haeckel to G. Reimer, 26 Mar. 1868, SBB. The legends refer to "rows" (Querreihen), but not columns.
140. On physiognomical developmental series see Karl Clausberg, "Psychogenese und Historismus: Verworfene Leitbilder und übergangene Kontroversen," in Natur der Ästhetik, Ästhetik der Natur ed. Olaf Breidbach (Veinna: Springer, 1997), pp. 139-166;
141. and Uwe Schögl, "Vom Frosch zum Dichter-Apoll: Morphologische Entwicklungsreihen bei Lavater," in Das Kunstkabinett des Johann Caspar Lavater, ed. Gerda Mraz and Schögl (Vienna: Böhlau, 1999), pp. 164-171.
142. Haeckel, Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (cit. n. 17), pp. 239-240;
143. and von Baer, Über Entwickelungsgeschichte der Thiere (cit. n. 26), Pt. 2 (Königsberg: Gebrüder Bornträger, 1837; facsimile ed., Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1967), p. 8.
144. For the proposed cover see Haeckel to E. Reimer, 22 June 1868, SBB;
145. and E. Reimer to Haeckel, 23 June 1868, EHH.
146. On the frontispiece see Di Gregorio, From Here to Eternity (cit. n. 4), pp. 249-252, which applies Gegenbaur's criticism of an illustration in the Anthropogenie to this plate. Writing from a holiday in the Tyrol, Haeckel was unhappy that the lithographer Müller's proof strayed too far from his original. He asked his wife Agnes, an anatomist's daughter, to have figure 1, in particular, corrected and the eyes made "more expressive throughout." She and Müller judged the plate "in general quite successful," but she agreed that the eyes were "too expressionless" and checked a revision.
147. See E. Haeckel to A. Haeckel, 31 Aug. 1868, and A. Haeckel to E. Haeckel, 6 Sept. 1868, in Ernst und Agnes Haeckel, ed. Huschke (cit. n. 22), pp. 49, 50-51. The frontispiece was apparently the last item finished;
148. Haeckel checked the embryo plates in Jena himself: Haeckel to E. Reimer, 22 June 1868, SBB.
149. Haeckel, Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, pp. 235 (tailed embryos), 238-241 (uses of "fact"), 249 (figs. 9-11). 317 ("approximate hypothesis");
150. and Thomas Henry Huxley, Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature (London: Williams & Norgate, 1863), pp. 64-65.
151. Gould, "Abscheulich!" (cit. n. 1), p. 46.
152. For professorial reading and reviewing see Secord, Vectorian Sensation (cit. n. 6), pp. 222-260.
153. Siebold to Haeckel, 28 Dec. 1868 (quotation; and the book's Munich success), 31 July 1870, and Haeckel to Siebold, 4 Jan. 1869, 22 Feb. 1873 (first Duzen), EHH.
154. For Haeckel's Munich reception see E. Haeckel to A. Haeckel, 27 Aug. 1868, in Ernst und Agnes Haeckel, ed. Huschke (cit. n. 22), p. 47;
155. for his wish to succeed Siebold see Uschmann, Geschichte der Zoologie (cit. n. 12), pp. 81-82.
156. On Siebold see Ernst Ehlers, "Carl Theodor Ernst von Siebold: Eine biographische Skizze," Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 1885, 42:i-xxxiv;
157. and Hans Körner, Die Warzburger Siebold: Eine Gelehrtenfamilie des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts (Neustadt a. d. Aisch: Degener, 1967), pp. 291-355.
158. On his relations to Haeckel see ibid, pp. 324, 327-328;
159. and Nyhart, Biology Takes Form (cit. n. 15). p. 186.
160. Theodor Bischoff, "Entwicklungsgeschichte, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Mißbildungen," in Handwörterbuch der Physiologie mit Rücksicht auf physiologische Pathologie, ed. Rudolph Wagner, 4 vols., Vol. 1 (Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1842), pp. 860-928, on p. 893;
161. and Bischoff, Entwicklungsgeschichte des Meerschweinchens (Giessen: Ricker, 1852), p. 7.
162. On Bischoff see Christian Giese, "Theodor Ludwig Wilhelm von Bischoff (1807-1882): Anatom und Physiologe" (Habilitationsschrift, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen, 1990).
163. Siebold would have to wait for daylight and often used a magnifying glass to decipher the wood engravings in the Anthropogenie: Siebold to Haeckel, 14 Feb. 1875, EHH.
164. Gould, "Abscheulichr!" (cit. n. 1), pp. 45, 49.
165. Since, for Agassiz, particular turtles existed materially, but the species only as divine thoughts, representing individuals was a duty; see Ann Shelby Blum, Picturing Nature: American Nineteenth-Century Zoological Illustration (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1993), pp. 210-227.
166. Victor Hensen, "Generationslehre und Embryologie," Jahresbericht über die Leistungen und Fortschritte in der Gesammten Medicin, 1869, 3(1):56-65, on p. 58;
167. and Charles Darwin's Marginalia, Vol. 1, ed. Mario A. Di Gregorio (New York: Garland, 1990), col. 358.
168. Though the Jahresbericht was a bland annual report, evaluations were given, including by Hensen. For his later accusations see Hensen, Die Planktonexpedition und Haeckel's Darwinismus: Ueber einige Aufgaben und Ziele der beschreibenden Naturwissenschaften (Kiel: Lipsius & Tischer, 1891), pp. 9-11.
169. Haeckel to E. Reimer, 19 Oct. 1868, EHH. Haeckel either judged that Rütimeyer would like the book or wanted to make it harder for him to attack it. On Rütimeyer see Carl Schmidt, "Ludwig Rütimeyer," Verhandlungen der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft 1896, 78:213-256;
170. L. E. Iselin, Carl Ludwig Rütimeyer (Basel: Reich, 1897), p. 29 (Darwin quotation);
171. Eduard His, Basler Gelehrte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Basel: Schwabe, 1941), pp. 202-212;
172. and Clifford M. Nelson, "Karl Ludwig Rütimeyer," in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 18 vols., Vol. 12, ed. Charles Coulston Gillispie (New York. Charles Scribner, 1975), pp. 37-39.
173. On anthropological empiricism see Andrew Zimmerman, Anthropology and Antihumanism in Imperial Germany (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2001).
174. Rütimeyer, rev. of Haeckel, Ueber die Entstehung und den Stammbaum des Menschengeschlechts and Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (cit. n. 14);
175. and Ludwig Rütimeyer, "Die Grenzen der Thierwelt: Eine Betrachtung zu Darwin's Lehre: Zwei in Basel gehaltene Vorträge, 1868," in Gesammelte kleine Schriften allgemeinen Inhalts aus dem Gebiete der Naturwissenschaft: Nebst einer autobiographischen Skizze, ed. Hans G. Stehlin, 2 vols. (Basel: Georg, 1898), Vol. 1: Autobiogrophie. Zoologische Schriften, pp. 225-288, on p. 254.
176. University professors tended to judge Haeckel's books accessible; see Daum, Wissenschaftspopularisierung im 19. Jahrhundert (cit. n. 4), p. 307.
177. Rütimeyer, rev. of Haeckel, Ueber die Entstehung und den Stammbaum des Menschengeschlechts and Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte; it is not clear in what respect the woodcuts were supposed to be misinterpreted. Darwin also made genealogical trees in private;
178. see Voss, Darwins Diagramme (cit. n. 3), p. 41.
179. Rütimeyer's attendance at the course on "Entwickelungsgeschichte" in winter 1868/1869 is documented in an "Inskriptionsbuch der Studenten von W. His, WS 1856/57 his SS 1872," Öffentliche Universitätsbibliothek Basel: His Papers (Nachlaß 229), 13.
180. On His's mechanical embryology see Nick Hopwood, "'Giving Body' to Embryos: Modeling, Mechanism, and the Microtome in Late Nineteenth-Century Anatomy," Isis, 1999, 90;462-496.
181. The address is Wilhelm His, Ueber die Bedeutung der Entwickelungsgeschichte für die Auffassung der organischen Natur: Rectoratsrede, gehalten den 4. November 1869 (Leipzig: Vogel, 1870), pp. 35, 24.
182. For his deference see His, Untersuchungen über die erste Anlage des Wirbelthierleibes: Die erste Entwickelung des Hühnchens im Ei (Leipzig: Vogel, 1868), pp. 223-224;
183. see also His, "Ludwig Rütimeyer," Anatomischer Anzeiger, 1896, 11:508-512.
184. Haeckel to Charles Darwin, 12 Oct. 1872, Cambridge University Library, MSS.DAR.166:58; Haeckel also likened the "pseudo-Darwinist" Rütimeyer to "a dog that barks because it is annoyed at a fast horse running past."
185. Lionel Gossman, Basel in the Age of Burckhardt: A Study in Unseasonable Ideas (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2000), p. 8.
186. On the characteristics of the Basel scholar, including lack of interest in popularization, see E. His, Basler Gelehrte des 19. Jahrhunderts (cit. n. 40), pp. 408-417.
187. Wilhelm His had deep roots in the city, though some held his grandfather's role in founding the Helvetic Republic against his patrician family. See ibid., pp. 218-229;
188. and Eduard His, Chronik der Familie Ochs genannt His (Basel, 1943).
189. Rütimeyer was made an honorary citizen only in 1867: Schmidt, "Ludwig Rütimeyer" (cit. n. 40), p. 221.
190. His's seventieth-birthday tributes and obituaries evidence Baselers' approval of his stance. See, e.g., Rudolf Burckhardt, "Zum siebenzigsten Geburtstage von Wilhelm His," Correspondenz-Blatt für Schweizer Aerzte, 1901, no. 13, 1-7, on pp. 3-4 (pagination of offprint);
191. and Anon., "† Wilhelm His," Basler Nachrichten, 3 May 1904. While Wilhelm His took on Haeckel, his brother, the silk-ribbon merchant and art connoisseur Eduard His-Heusler, contributed documents to authenticate one of two paintings attributed to a distant ancestor, Hans Holbein the Younger.
192. See Daniel Burckhardt-Werthemann, "Eduard His-Heusler," Basler Jahrbuch, 1907, pp. 112-159;
193. and Oskar Bätschmann and Pascal Griener, Hans Holbein d. J. Die Darmstädter Madonna: Original gegen Fälschung (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 1998).
194. M[oritzl W[agner], "Neueste Beiträge zu den Streitfragen der Entwicklungslehre (Fortsetzung)," Allgemeine Zeitung, 3 Apr. 1873, no. 93B, pp. 1406-1408, on p. 1408.
195. For the print runs see G. Reimer to Haeckel, 3 Nov. 1869 (2nd ed., more review copies), 7 Jan. 1874 (5th ed.),
196. and E. Reimer to Haeckel, 1 Nov. 1871 (3rd ed.), 8 Jan. 1873 (Reimer wrote "1872"; 4th ed.), EHH.
197. For the culture of progress see David Blackbourn, The Fontana History of Germany, 1780-1918: The Long Nineteenth Century (London: Fontana, 1997), pp. 270-283.
198. Ernst Haeckel, Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschicke: Gemeinverständliche wissenschaftliche Vorträge über die Entwickelungslehre im Allgemeinen und diejenige von Darwin, Goethe und Lamarck im Besonderen, über die Anwendung derselben auf den Ursprung des Menschen und andere damit zusammenhängende Grundfragen der Naturwissenschaft, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Reimer, 1870), pp. xxi-xxx, 170, 264-265,271.
199. On the waves of controversy stoked by new editions see Julius Sponholz, "Häckel und seine Gegner," Allg. Z., 21 Oct. 1875, no. 294B, pp. 4601-4602.
200. For Haeckel's criticism of the lithographer see E. Haeckel to A. Haeckel, 31 Aug. 1868, in Ernst und Agnes Haeckel, ed. Huschke (cit. n. 22), p. 49;
201. and E. Haeckel to Huxley, 20 Oct. 1868, in Uschmann and Jahn, eds., "Der Briefwechsel zwischen Thomas Henry Huxley und Ernst Haeckel" (cit. n. 15), p. 19.
202. But Haeckel rebutted the sympathetic Charles Lyell's widely shared criticism that the Australian, African, and Tasmanian were drawn "too 'pithecoid."' In older travel books, Haeckel claimed, "one often finds even more apelike faces": Haeckel to Charles Lyell, 27 Nov. 1868, Edinburgh University Library, Lyell Correspondence, 1798.
203. Anon., "Ernst Haeckels natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, 1: Die Abstammungslehre," Das Ausland, 1870, 43:673-679, on p. 678;
204. and M.F., "Haeckel's Natural History of Creation," Nature, 1870, 3:102-103.
205. On Hellwald, a former Austrian officer and war ministry official and increasingly prominent apologist for the "right of the stronger," see Bayertz, "Darwinismus als Politik" (cit. n. 8), pp. 244-246.
206. Michael Foster - the Nature review's only likely author - is a still more telling witness because he was just back from a German tour, during which he had "a very pleasant interview" with Haeckel and "a long chat with His and saw many of his preparations and photographs"; see Alan H. Sykes, Sharpey's Fibres: The Life of William Sharpey, the Father of Modern Physiology in England (York: Sessions, 2001), pp. 151-152.
207. Haeckel to Darwin, 24 Feb. 1871, Cambridge University Library, MSS.DAR.166:55 (and for "triumph");
208. and Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2 vols. (London: Murray, 1871), Vol. 1, pp. 4, 14-16.
209. On Huxley's and Darwin's illustrations see Robert J. Richards, The Meaning of Evolution: The Morphological Construction and Ideological Reconstruction of Darwin's Theory (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1992), pp. 158-164.
210. For Darwin's borrowing from Huxley see Darwin to Huxley, 20 June [1870], Imperial College London, Library, Archives and Special Collections, Huxley Papers, 5.269.
211. Ernst Haeckel, Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte: Gemeinverständliche wissenschaftliche Vorträge über die Entwickelungslehre im Allgemeinen und diejenige von Darwin, Goethe und Lamarck im Besonderen, 3rd ed. (Berlin: Reimer, 1872), pp. xxxiii-xxxvi;
212. and Darwin to Haeckel, 2 Sept. 1872, EHH.
213. On His see Hopwood, "'Giving Body' to Embryos" (cit. n. 43), pp. 468-469, 473-475.
214. Regarding the steel facing see E. Reimer to Haeckel, 1 Feb. 1873, 13 Dec. 1888, EHH. They agreed not to reinstate "the ape plate" in the fourth edition in case this push "many pedantic owners of the 3rd" to ask for one too: E. Reimer to Haeckel, 1 Feb. 1873, EHH. The ninth (1898) edition carries a new double embryo plate showing six mammals at three stages.
215. Otto Zacharias, "Ernst Heinrich Häckel," Illus. Z, 1874, 63:235-238;
216. Johannes Huber, "Wissenschaftliche Tagesfragen, I: Darwins Wandlungen und Häckels 'natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte,'" Allg. Z., 8 June 1874, no. 159, pp. 2465-2466 (quotation),
217. 10 June 1874, no. 161B, pp. 2498-2499;
218. Haeckel, Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, 3rd ed., p. xxxvii (insulting Bastian);
219. and Adolf Bastian, Offner Brief an Herrn Professor Dr. E. Häckel, Verfasser der "Natürlichen Schöpfungsgeschichte" (Berlin: Wiegandt, Hempel & Parey, 1874), pp. 8-9, 24.
220. The reasons for including the portrait are in Haeckel to G. Reimer, 13 Jan. 1873, SBB.
221. For zoologists' unease see Nyhart, Biology Takes Form (cit. n. 15), pp. 168-206.
222. For praise for Haeckel's support for morphology see, e.g., Siebold to Haeckel, 30 Oct. 1874, EHH.
223. For reservations about going public see Carl Vogt, "Apostel-, Propheten- und Orakelthum in der Wissenschaft, I," Frankfurter Zeitung, 15 Mar. 1877, no. 74, Morgenblatt, pp. 1-3, on p. 2.
224. For Gegenbaur's candid perspective see Carl Gegenbaur to Haeckel, 15 Sept. 1874, 10 Jan. 1875, 5 Apr. 1875, 17 Apr. 1875, EHH.
225. For general works as mediating between esoteric and exoteric circles see Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (cit. n. 4), esp. p. 112.
226. Haeckel, Anthropogenie (cit. n. 12), pp. xi-xvi.
227. On the Kulturkampf see Blackbourn, Fontana History of Germany, 1780-1918 (cit. n. 46), pp. 261-263, 296-302.
228. On scientists' roles see Keith M. Anderton, "The Limits of Science: A Social, Political, and Moral Agenda for Epistemology in Nineteenth-Century Germany" (Ph.D. diss., Harvard Univ., 1993);
229. and Goschler, Rudolf Virchow (cit. n. 17), pp. 244-246.
230. "Haeckel to G. Reimer, 13 Jan. 1873, SBB.
231. Engelmann also offered a higher honorarium than Reimer paid for the largest editions of the Schöpfungsgeschichte. On Engelmann see - r, "Deutsche Buchhändler, 12: Wilhelm Engelmann," Illus. Z. 1869, 52:347-348;
232. and Verlagsbuchhandlung Wilhelm Engelmann 1811-1911: Jubiläumskatalog der Verlagsbuchhandlung Wilhelm Engelmann in Leipzig (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1911).
233. Hasse to Haeckel, 19 Oct. 1874 (concerns about the title page and Plate XI), EHH;
234. and Gegenbaur to Haeckel, 10 Nov. 1874 (quotations), 4 Dec. 1874, EHH. "Fig. 41 is quite strange to me," Gegenbaur wrote in the second letter - surely meaning to refer to figure 42 (which is original, while figure 41 is from Kölliker) - "and is presumably supposed to be only a schema, but you have not indicated this, so that readers could believe it be observed. In addition the woodcut looks very crude. Fig. 83 presents the brain shaped like a Liebig five-bulb apparatus and a mammalian brain never looks like that." Gegenbaur also queried figure 122 and the general crudity of the new wood engravings compared to those from Kölliker. It was too late to act on this advice for the second edition, but Haeckel took some account of it for the third. His objected to figures 42 and 83, among others, but picked on a different aspect of figure 83.
235. Otto Zacharias, "Ernst Häckel's 'Anthropogenie,'" Illus. Z., 1875, 64:42, 68-69, 119, 140-142;
236. on the significance of wood engravings see "Vorwort," Illus. Z., 1875, 64:iii-iv.
237. For Haeckel's plan see Haeckel to E. Reimer, 3 Jan. 1873, SBB;
238. and E. Reimer to Haeckel, 8 Jan. 1873 (he wrote "1872"), EHH.
239. For the run see Wilhelm Engelmann to Haeckel, 4 Aug. 1874, EHH.
240. For a physician's difficulty see [Hinrich] N[itsch]e, rev. of Haeckel, Anthropogenie, Literarisches Centralblatt, 1875, no. 40, cols. 1291-1293;
241. and for Hellwald's see Friedrich von Hellwald to Haeckel, 13 Oct. 1874, EHH.
242. The Bremen review is "Häckel's Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen," Weser-Zeitung, 1874, nos. 9987 (quotations), 9989, 9995.
243. On Zacharias see August Thienemann, "Otto Zacharias †: Ein Nachruf," Archiv für Hydrobiologie und Planktonkunde, 1917, 11:i-xxiv.
244. Haeckel to Hellwald, 7 Feb. 1875, EHH;
245. Anon., "Ultradarwinismus und Dilettantismus: Aus der Laienperspective," Allg. Z., 15 Apr. 1875, no. 105B, pp. 1625-1626, 16 Apr. 1875, no. 106B, pp. 1643-1645 (the quotation is from p. 1644, where the reviewer pointed out that Vogt had already criticized Haeckel's evolutionary trees).
246. Haeckel, Anthropogenie (cit. n. 12), pp. 52 (quotation), 161, 627-629;
247. His, Unsere Körperform (cit. n. 19), pp. 168-171, 193, 201;
248. Hopwood, "'Giving Body' to Embryos" (cit. n. 43);
249. and Hopwood, "Producing Development" (cit. n. 1).
250. Richardson and Keuck, "Question of Intent" (cit. n. 2), point out that His presented stages too advanced to clinch his case against Haeckel; as far as I know, this objection was not raised in the 1870s.
251. At the urging of his nephew, Fritz Miescher, His was already planning his letters in the spring and summer before the Anthropogenie appeared; see Wilhelm His to Antonie Miescher-His, 26 July 1874, Staatsarchiv Basel-Stadt: PA 633, Schublade 15. Without Haeckel's book, however, His would have lacked some prominent targets and his would have had less impact. Later, welcoming Wilhelm Roux's work as combining phylogenetic and mechanical approaches, His confessed that "it was perhaps undiplomatic of me that, for all my great respect for the [Darwinist] theory and its founder,... I took a stand against the uncritical approach of its prophet. I should have associated myself much more definitely with the general view than I did and arranged my particular endeavors within it. That cannot now be changed, and it has never especially troubled me to see myself ostracized by certain parties": His to Paul Sarasin, 30 Oct. 1889, Stantsarchiv Basel-Stadt: PA 212 T2 118.
252. His, Unsere Körperform, pp. 171, 214-215.
253. Carl Vogt, "Wissenschaftliche und unwissenschaftliche Bücherei, IV," Frankfurt. Z., 31 Mar. 1875, no. 90, Morgenblatt, pp. 1-2, was reminded of battles between Leipzig and Jena fraternity students.
254. Haeckel, Ziele und Wege der heutigen Entwickelungsgeschichte (cit. n. 23), pp. 36-39;
255. on the new specimen and its fate at His's hands see Hopwood, "Producing Development" (cit. n. 1).
256. The advertisement is in Die Gegenwart, 1875, 7:208; at 5M. 50Pf.
257. Unsere Körperform was just over a third the price of the Anthropogenie (14M.; see, e.g., N[itsch]e, rev. of Haeckel, Anthropogenie [cit. n. 58]).
258. For the responses see Otto Zacharias, "Ziele und Wege der heutigen Entwickelungsgeschichte," Ausland, 1876, 49:29-32, on p. 30;
259. Carus Sterne, "Menschliche Erbschaften aus dem. Thierreiche," Die Gartenlaube, 1875, 23:266-268, on p. 267;
260. and Hermann Müller to Haeckel, 21 Nov. 1875, EHH. Müller's use of Haeckel later figured prominently in a debate that led to a long-term restriction of school biology teaching; see Philipp Depdolla, "Hermann Müller-Lippstadt (1829-1883) und die Entwicklung des biologischen Unterrichts," Sudhoffs Archiv, 1941, 34:261-334.
261. For scientists' support see Gegenbaur to Haeckel, 25 Nov. 1875, EHH;
262. and Theodor W. Engelmann (a physiologist, the publisher's son, and Haeckel's former student) to Haeckel, 28 Dec. 1875, in Deutsche Ärztebriefe des 19. Jahrhunderts, ed. Manfred Sürzbecher (Göttingen: Musterschmidt, 1975), pp. 132-135.
263. The Darwinist Ludwig Overzier studied His and still concluded that vertebrate embryos were almost identical: L. Overzier, "Ueber die Darwin-Häckel'sche Auffassung der organischen Natur," Gaea, 1875, 11:357-363.
264. On the response to His see further Hopwood, "'Giving Body' to Embryos" (cit. n. 43), pp. 473-475.
265. Carl Semper, Der Haeckelismus in der Zoologie: Ein Vortrag gehalten am 28. October 1875 im Verein für Kunst und Wissenschaft zu Hamburg, unter dem Titel "Der neue Glaube und die moderne Zoologie" (Hamburg: Mauke's Söhne, 1876), pp. 35-36 ("forgeries");
266. the other quotation is from an advertisement for this pamphlet in Gegenwart, 1 Jan. 1876, 9:16.
267. On Semper see August Schuberg, "Carl Semper †," in Semper, Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen, Pt. 2: Wissenschaftliche Resultate, suppl. (Wiesbaden: Kreidel, 1895), pp. vii-xxi;
268. see also Semper's "Kritische Gänge," Arbeiten aus dem Zoologisch-Zoolomischen Institut in Würzburg, 1874, 1:73-82, 208-238.
269. For other scientists' criticisms see Gursch, Die Illustrationen Ernst Haeckels zur Abstammungs-und Entwicklungsgeschichte (cit n. 1), pp. 42-60.
270. Carl Scheidemacher, "Ueber den Stand des Darwinismus, 10. Artikel: Kritik der Abstammung des Menschen," Periodische Blätter zur Wissenschaftlichen Besprechung der Großen Religiösen Fragen der Gegenwart, 1874, 3:362-371, on pp. 369-370 (critique of Darwin's similarity argument);
271. Scheidemacher, "Häckels Ziele und Wege der heutigen Entwickelungsgeschichte." ibid, 1876, 5:38-48 (quotations from pp. 44, 48);
272. Scheidemacher, "Neue Beiträge zu Häckel'schen Schwindel in der sogen. Culturwissenschaft mit Randglossen," ibid., pp. 135-142 (Semper);
273. and Scheidemacher, "Ueber das Schicksal E. Haeckels vor dem Forum der fachgenössischen Wissenschaft," Natur und Offenbarung, 1876, 22:646-655, 705-714.
274. The Periodische Blätter had a regular section on "Moderne Cultur als Feindin von Religion und Kirche." On the Catholic reception of Darwinism see Hermann Josef Dörpinghaus, "Darwins Theorie und der deutsche Vulgärmaterialismus im Urteil deutscher katholischer Zeitschriften zwischen 1854 und 1914" (D.Phil. diss., Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau, 1969), esp. pp. 43-48;
275. for liberal newspaper readers viewed from the Catholic milieu see August Reichensperger, Phrasen und Schlagwörter: Ein Noth- und Hülfsbüchlein für Zeitungsleser, 3rd ed. (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1872).
276. The Protestant botanist Albert Wigand, an influential critic, also used His's charges against Haeckel; see Wigand, Der Darwinismus, ein Zeichen der Zeit (Heilbronn: Gebr. Henninger, 1878), p. 49.
277. Revisions in the third edition include suppression of figure 42, improvement of figure 83, and partial re-drawing of Plate XI; see Ernst Haeckel, Anthropogenie oder Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen: Gemeinverständliche wissenschaftliche Vortr⊣ge über die Grundzüge der menschlichen Keimes- und Stammes-Geschichte, 3rd ed. (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1877), pp. 240, 304, and Plate XIV.
278. The conviction story, much repeated in the recent controversy, could have its source in a misunderstanding of either Haeckel's invocations of imaginary trials - see, e.g., "Apologetisches Schlusswort" (cit. n. 25), p. 858 - or the 1893 libel case involving a disgruntled former student, Otto Hamann, who abandoned Darwinism and used the Rütimeyer/His charges against Haeckel; both were fined, but Hamann much more.
279. See Gursch, Die Illustrationen Ernst Haeckels zur Abstammungs- und Entwicklungsgeschichte (cit. n. 1), pp. 69-72.
280. On other controversies, especially with Virchow, see Dietrich von Engelhardt, "Polemik und Kontroversen um Haeckel," Medizinhistorisches Journal, 1980, 15:284-304;
281. Jutta Kolkenbrock-Netz, "Wissenschaft als nationaler Mythos: Anmerkungen zur Haeckel-Virchow-Kontroverse auf der 50. Jahresversammlung deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte in München (1877)," in Nationale Mythen und Symbole in der zweiren Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts, ed. Jürgen Link and Wulf Wülfing (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1991), pp. 212-236;
282. and Bayertz, "Darwinismus als Politik" (cit. n. 8), pp. 253-265.
283. Hopwood, "Visual Standards and Disciplinary Change" (cit. n. 7);
284. and Nyhart, Biology Takes Form (cit. n. 15), pp. 278-305.
285. Haeckel, "Apologetisches Schlusswort" (cit. n. 25), pp. 861-862;
286. Assmuth and Hull, Haeckel's Frauds and Forgeries (cit. n. 1);
287. Gursch, Die Illustrationen Ernst Haeckels zur Abstammungs- und Entwicklungsgeschichte (cit. n. 1), pp. 84-136;
288. and Daum, Wissenschaftspopularisierung im 19. Jahrhundert (cit. n. 4), pp. 210-235.
289. The majority emerges from analysis of the signatories of a 1909 declaration, for which see Schmidt, Haeckels Embryonenbilder (cit. n. 1), pp. 50-51.
290. Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (cit. n. 15), refers to and quotes from His's accusation only in n. 22, on p. 430.
291. Reproductions include George John Romanes, Darwin and after Darwin: An Exposition of the Darwinian Theory and a Discussion of Post-Darwinian Questions, 3 vols., Vol. 1: The Darwinian Theory (London: Longman, Green, 1892), pp. 152-153, an especially important source for twentieth-century textbooks;
292. Theodore W. Torrey, Morphogenesis of the Vertebrates (New York: Wiley, 1962), title page and p. 9 (redrawn);
293. and Harold W. Manner, Elements of Comparative Vertebrate Embryology (New York: Macmillan, 1964), p. 7.
294. For further examples see Rusch, "'Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny'" (cit. n. 1), p. 34;
295. and Richardson and Keuck, "Haeckel's ABC of Evolution and Developmene, (cit. n. 1), pp. 515, 518-519.
296. Gould, "Abscheulich!" (cit. n. 1), p. 45.
297. Philip F. Rehbock, "Huxley, Haeckel, and the Oceanographers: The Case of Bathybius haeckelii," Isis, 1975, 66:504-533.
298. See Charles F. O'Brien, "Eozaön Canadense: 'The Dawn Animal of Canada,'" ibid., 1970, 61:206-223, on pp. 215-216, for an accusation of the deliberate use of inaccurate figures.
299. Daston, "Objectivity versus Truth" (cit. n. 5), pp. 28-29;
300. see also Daston and Galison, "Image of Objectivity" (cit. n. 5). Haeckel's earlier praise for the camera lucida as producing "objective" plates with "almost mathematical exactitude" is compatible with a search for truth to nature, provided we are not too fussy about terms (whether or not his radiolaria are exact is another matter);
301. see Ernst Haeckel, Die Radiolarien (Rhizopoda radiaria): Eine Monographie (Berlin: Reimer, 1862), p. xi.
302. For the rejection of stages see Hopwood, "Visual Standards and Disciplinary Change" (cit. n. 7), pp. 253, 256-259.
303. A successful spoof of the Anthropogenie could assume enough familiarity to base a visual gag on the frontispiece, which the Illustrirte Zeitung had not reproduced: Moritz Reymond, Das neue Laienbrevier des Haeckelismus: Genesis oder die Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts: Nach Häkel's Anthropogenie in zierliche Reimlein gebracht (Bern: Frobeen, 1877), pp. 25-26.