Appreciation is expressed to Douglas D. Alder, David M. Knight, and Jane Maienschein for having read various drafts of this essay, and to Dickinson College for a faculty grant that enabled me to complete my research.

¹ For an exposition of the mandarin thesis, see Ringer, Fritz K., The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890–1933, Cambridge, Mass., 1969Google Scholar. Russell McCormmach has considered the relationship of the natural scientists in Germany to the mandarin ideology in the period after 1890. See his ‘On Academic Scientists in Wilhelmian Germany’, in Science and Its Public: The Changing Relationship (ed. Holton, Gerald and Blanpied, W. A.), Boston, 1976, pp. 157–171.Google Scholar

² Ringer, , op. cit., pp. 6, 111.Google Scholar

³ Virchow is generally not associated directly with the ‘reductionists’ du Bois-Reymond, Helmholtz, and their compatriots Ernst Brücke and Carl Ludwig. There are many other factors, however, which suggest that these three natural scientists have much in common. For additional possibilities, see Mendelsohn, Everett, ‘Revolution and Reduction: The Sociology of Methodological and Philosophical Concerns in Nineteenth-Century Biology’, in The Interaction between Science and Philosophy (ed. Elkana, Yehuda), New York, 1973, pp. 407–426.Google Scholar

⁴ Their relation to philosophical idealism, however, remained partially ambivalent; see Mosse, George L., The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich, New York, 1964, pp. 63–66, 93–97Google Scholar. Despite explicit rejection of idealistic thinking, residues of idealism persisted in some of their own scientific investigations; cf., Culotta, Charles A., ‘German Biophysics, Objective Knowledge, and Romanticism’, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 1974, 4, pp. 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Lenoir, Timothy, The Strategy of Life: Teleology and Mechanics in Nineteenth Century German Biology, Boston, 1982.Google Scholar

⁶ The standard history of the German universities is Paulsen, Friedrich, Die deutschen Universitäten und das Universitätsstudium, Berlin, 1902Google Scholar. Recently, Riese, Reinhard has published a valuable complement to Paulsen entitled Die Hochschule auf dem Wege zum wissensckaftlichen Grossbetrieb, Stuttgart, 1977Google Scholar. Also see Farrar, W. V., ‘Science and the German University System, 1790–1850’, in The Emergence of Science in Weslern Europe (ed. Grosland, Maurice P.), London, 1975, pp. 179–185Google Scholar; and Hahn, Erich J. C., ‘The Junior Faculty in ‘Revolt’: Reform Plans for Berlin University in 1848’, American Historical Review, 1977, 82, pp. 876–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ The major treatises on this theme by Schelling, , Fichte, , Schleiermacher, , Steffens, , and Humboldt, are collected in Die Idee der deutschen Universität (ed. Anrich, E.), Darmstadt, 1964Google Scholar. For Wolf's ideas see Uber Erziehung, Schule, Universität (ed. Korte, W.), Leipzig, 1835.Google Scholar

⁸ See Turner, Steven R., ‘The Growth of Professional Research in Prussia, 1818–1848—Causes and Context’, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 1971, 3, pp. 139–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ The Berlin statutes are reprinted in Leng, Max, Geschichte der Koniglichen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin, Halle, 1910 18, IV, pp. 223–263.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Paulsen, , op. cit. (6), pp. 67–68.Google Scholar

¹¹ A thorough examination of the German educational system as it developed from the early years of the nineteenth century, particularly, for our purposes, the debate over the Gymnasium v. the Realschule, is given by Ringer, Fritz, Education and Society in Modern Europe, Bloomington, Indiana, 1979, pp. 32–112.Google Scholar

¹² For an excellent survey of the nature of German science during this period, see Knight, David M., ‘German Science in the Romantic Period’Google Scholar, in Crosland, , op. cit. (6), pp. 161–178Google Scholar. Knight makes it clear that Naturphilosophie did not dominate all of German science; rather, it impacted on those areas in which science had been closely involved with a complete world-view, particularly chemistry and physiology. For an analysis of salient features of Naturphilosophie, see von Engelhardt, Dietrich, Hegel and die Chemie: Studie zur Philosophie und Wissenschaft der Natur um 1800, Wiesbaden, 1976, pp. 1–30Google Scholar; LeNoir, Timothy, ‘Generational Factors in the Origin of Romantische Naturphilosophie’, Journal of the History of Biology, 1978, 11, pp. 57–100Google Scholar; and Gower, Barry, ‘Speculation in Physics: The History and Practice of Naturphilosophie’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 1973, 3, pp. 301–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ Not all Naturphilosophen, however, ignored experimentation. For many (e.g., Johann W. Ritter and Hans C. Oersted) experimentation was a legitimate expression of Romantic ideas. See Stauffer, Robert, ‘Speculations and Experimentation in the Background of Oersted's Discovery of Electromagnetism’, Isis, 1957, 48, pp. 33–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knight, David M., ‘The Scientist as Sage’, Studies in Romanticism, 1967, 6, pp. 65–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Oersted and Humphrey Davy); Wetzels, W. D., ‘Aspects of Natural Science in German Romanticism’, Studies in Romanticism, 1971, 10, pp. 44–59 (Ritter)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gower, , op. cit. (12), pp. 327–349 (Ritter and Oersted).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Kuhn, Thomas S., ‘Energy Conservation as an Example of Simultaneous Discovery’, in Critical Problems in the History of Science (ed. Clagett, Marshall), Madison, 1959, pp. 321–56Google Scholar. Recently, this view has been seriously challenged; see Lenoir, , op. cit. (5) pp. 197–215Google Scholar. On Naturphilosophie as inspiring science, see Williams, Pearce L., ‘Kant, Naturphilosophie, and Scientific Method’, in Foundations of Scientific Method: The Nineteenth Century, (ed. Giere, Ronald N. and Westfall, Richard S.), Bloomington, 1973, p. 17.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Lenoir, , op. cit. (5) passim.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Blunck, Richard, Justus von Liebig: Die Lebensgeschichte eines Chemikers, 2nd edn., Hamburg, 1946, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See ibid., p. 21–24. For a discussion of the technical background of these developments, see Löw, Reinhard, Pflanzenchemie zwischen Lavoisier und Liebig, Stuttgart/Munich, 1977Google Scholar, particularly chapters 8 and 9. Also see Liebig, Justus, ‘Ueber das Studium der Naturwissenschaften und uber den Zustand der Chemie in Preussen’, in his Reden und Abhandlungen, (ed. Carriere, M.), Leipzig and Heidelberg, 1874, pp. 34.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Leibig, Justus, ‘Der Zustand der Chemie in Preussen’, Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie, 1840, 34, p. 120Google Scholar; my translation.

¹⁹ See Koenigsberger, Leo, Hermann von Helmholtz, Braunschweig, 1902–1903, II, 18Google Scholar, translated by Welby, Francis A. as Hermann von Helmholtz, Oxford, 1906, pp. 211–212Google Scholar; and Lilge, Frederic, The Abuse of Learning: The Failure of the German University, New York, 1948, pp. 61–62Google Scholar. Also see Helmholtz, Hermann von, ‘Adresse an Hrn. E. du Bois-Reymond bei Gelegenheit seines 50 jahrigen Doctorjubilaums verfasst im Auftrage der Konigl. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin’, Berliner Sitzunqsberichte, (16 02 1893), pp. 93–97Google Scholar, reprinted in Koenigsberger, III, 69–73.

²⁰ See von Helmholtz, Hermann, ‘Zum Gedachtniss an Gustav Magnus’, in his Vorträge und Reden, 5th ed., Braunschweig, 1903, II, pp. 41, 43–45Google Scholar; translated by Atkinson, E. as ‘Gustav Magnus in Memorian’Google Scholar, in von Helmholtz, Hermann, Popular Lectures on Scientific Subjects, 2nd series, New York, 1881, pp. 10, 14–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see Helmholtz, , ‘Das Denken in der Medicin’, Vorträge und Reden, II, 168–179Google Scholar; translated by Kahl, Russell, Selected Writings of Hermann von Helmholtz, Middletown, Conn., 1971, pp. 341–350Google Scholar. (Unless otherwise indicated, all Helmholtz translations are by Kahl.)

²¹ See von Helmholtz, Hermann, ‘Ueber das Verhältniss der Naturwissenschaften zur Gesammtheit der Wissenschaft’, Vorträge und Reden, 1, 163–64Google Scholar; translated in Kahl, , pp. 125–26.Google Scholar

²² See du Bois-Reymond, Emil, Goethe and Kein Ende, Leipzig, 1883, pp. 23–29Google Scholar. Also see Williams, Pearce L., ‘Critical Commentary’, in The Influence of Early Enlightenment Thought upon German Classical Science and Letters, (ed. Scott, Wilson L.), New York, 1972, pp. 39–41Google Scholar. Also in the same volume see Marchard, James W., ‘The Reception of Science among Men of Letters in the Late Eighteenth Century’, pp. 20–21Google Scholar. For additional details of this lecture, see Rothschuh, Karl E., ‘Du Bois-Reymond, Emil’, in DSB (ed. Gillispie, Charles C.), New York, 1970 76, IV, p. 203.Google Scholar

²³ Rather, Lelland J., ‘Harvey, Virchow, Bernard, and the Methodology of Science’, in Disease, Life and Man: Selected Essays by Rudolf Virchow (ed. Rather, Lelland J.), Stanford, 1958, p. 23.Google Scholar

²⁴ Virchow, Rudolf, ‘Die Gruendung der Berliner Universität und der Uebergang aus dem Philosophischen in das naturwissenschaftliche Zeitalter’, Berlin, 1893, 32 pagesGoogle Scholar. Given as a rectorship address, this talk is difficult to obtain; reference here will be made to the readily accessible translation ‘The Founding of the Berlin University and the Transition from the Philosophic to the Scientific Age’, Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, (1894), pp. 694–95.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Mosse, George L., Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism, New York, 1978, pp. 90–93Google Scholar, and Ackerknecht, Erwin, Rudolf Virchow: Doctor, Statesman, Anthropologist, Madison, 1953, pp. 209–16.Google Scholar

²⁶ For example, see the pamphlet by Paasch, Carl, Geheimrath Professor Dr. Rudolf Virchow aus Schietelbein, Unser, Grosser Gelehrter, Leipzig, 1892, passim.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Stern, Fritz, The Politics of Cultural Despair, New York, 1965, passim.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ringer, , op. cit. (1), pp. 96–98.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Iggers, G. G., ‘The Dissolution of German Historism’, in Ideas in History (ed. Herr, Richard and Parker, Harold T.), Durham, North Carolina, 1965, pp. 288–329.Google Scholar

³⁰ Koenigsberger, , I, 45Google Scholar, translated in Welby, , p. 22Google Scholar. Even in political matters, Müller's relationship to the budding scientists was for a period somewhat ambivalent. As rector of the University of Berlin in 1848, Müller represented the conservative, reactionary regime, while Virchow and others were agitating for sweaping reforms in the university structure. On Müller's political skill, see the reports by Virchow, Rudolf, Johannes Müller: Eine Gedachtnissrede, Berlin, 1858, pp. 46–48Google Scholar; and du Bois-Reymond, Emil, Reden von Emil du Bois-Reymond (ed. du Bois-Reymond, Estelle), Leipzig, 1912, II, pp. 259–61.Google Scholar

³¹ Haberling, Wilhelm, Johannes Müller: Das Leben da rhenischen Naturforschers, Leipzig, 1924, pp. 103–04Google Scholar. Recently, it has been suggested that Müller's vitalism is more accurately captured by the term ‘Vital materialism’, and that it was not rooted in the idealism of Naturphilosophie; see Lenoir, Timothy, ‘Kant, Blumenbach, and Vital Materialism in German Biology’, ISIS, 1980, 71, pp. 77–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar, et passim, and Lenoir, , op. cit. (5) pp. 103–111 and 143–55.Google Scholar

³² See Rothschuh, Karl E., Geschichte der Physiologie, Berlin, 1953, pp. 114–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar, translated and edited by Risse, Guenter B. as A History of Physiology, New York, 1973, pp. 198–99.Google Scholar

³³ It has been suggested that Liebig's introduction of a vital principle in his 1840 Die organische Chemie in ihre Anwendung auf Agricultur und Physiologie, Brunswick, and his extensive discussion of the vital principle in his 1842 Die Thierchemie oder die organisch Chemie in ihre Anwendung auf Physiologie und Pathologie, Brunswick, can be interpreted as metaphysical speculation. This is not the case, however. For Liebig the vital force could be scientifically understood in terms of its laws, just as any other force is explicable in terms of its laws; see Lipman, Timothy O., ‘Vitalism and Reductionism in Liebig's Physiological Thought’, Isis, 1967, 58, pp. 167–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an interesting discussion of the different types of vitalism, see Benton, E., ‘Vitalism in Nineteenth-Century Scientific Thought: A Typology and Reassessment’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 1974, 5, pp. 17–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

³⁴ See Cranefield, Paul, ‘The Organic Physics of 1847 and the Biophysics of Today’, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 1957, 12, pp. 407–423CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and Hall, Thomas S., Ideas of Life and Matter, Chicago, 1969, pp. 258–287.Google Scholar

³⁵ Quoted in Jugendbriefe von Emil du Bois-Reymond an Eduard Hallman (ed. du Bois-Reymond, Estelle), Berlin, 1918, p. 108.Google Scholar

³⁶ von Helmholtz, Hermann, ‘Ueber die Erhaltung der Kraft (1847)’, Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, 1, 12–68Google Scholar; translated in Kahl, , pp. 3–55.Google Scholar

³⁷ See the excellent study by Ackerknecht, , op. cit. (25), pp. 3–23.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ackerknecht, , op. cit. (25), p. 6.Google Scholar

³⁹ Virchow, Rudolf, ‘Ueber die Standpunkte in der wissenschaftlichen Medicin’, Virchows Archiv, (1847), 1, p. 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; translated in Rather, , op. cit. (23), p. 31Google Scholar. (Unless otherwise indicated, all Virchow translations are by Rather.)

⁴⁰ Virchow, , ‘Wissenschaftliche Methode und therapeutische Standpunkte’, Virchows Archiv, 2 (1849), p. 7 and p. 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; translated in Rather, , op. cit. (23), pp. 43 and p. 45, resp.Google Scholar

⁴¹ These are Virchow's words as quoted in Ackerknecht, , op. cit. (25), p. 49.Google Scholar

⁴² Virchow, Rudolf, ‘Ueber die mechanische Auffassung des Lebens’, in Vier Reden uber Leben und Kranksein, Berlin, 1862.Google Scholar

⁴³ Rather, , op. cit. (23), p. 22.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Virchow, , Hundert Jahre allgemeiner Pathologie, Berlin, 1895, p. 37Google Scholar; translated in Rather, , op. cit. (23), p. 207.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Virchow, Rudolf, Die Cellularpathologie in ihrer Begrundung auf physiologische und pathologische Gewebelehre, Berlin, 1858.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ackerknecht, , op. cit. (25), p. 55.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Pagel, Walter, Virchow und die Grundlagen der Medizin des 19. Jahrhunderts, Jena, 1931, pp. 1–44Google Scholar; also see Pagel, W., ‘The Speculative Basis of Modern Pathology: Jahn, Virchow, and the Philosophy of Pathology’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 1945, 18, pp. 1–43.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Virchow, , ‘Wissenschaftliche Methode und therapeutische Standpunkte’, p. 9Google Scholar, translated in Rather, , op. cit. (23), p. 44Google Scholar. Also see Ackerknecht, , op. cit. (25), p. 49.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ On the issue of cell structure compare Müller, Johannes, Handbuch der Physiologie des Menschen für Vorlesungen, Coblenz, 1840Google Scholar, and Virchow, , Die CellularpathologieGoogle Scholar. Also see Schmidt, Peter, Zu den geistigen Wurzeln von Johannes Müller (1801–1858): Eine quantitative Analyse der im ‘Handbuch der Physiologie’ von J. Müller (1840–1844) zitierten und terwerteten Autoren, Munster, 1973Google Scholar, passim, and Mazumdar, Pauline M. H., ‘Johannes Müller on the Blood, the Lymph, and the Chyle’, ISIS, 1975, 66, pp. 242–53.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Gregory, Frederick, Scientific Materialism in Nineteenth-Century Germany, Boston, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵¹ Virchow, Rudolf, Die Freiheit der Wissenschaft im modernen Staat, Munich, 1877.Google Scholar

⁵² For Haeckel's most comprehensive expression of his philosophy, see his Naturliche Schopfungs Gaschichte, Berlin, 1868Google Scholar, and his Die Welträthsel. Gemeinverstandliche Studien über monistische Philosophie, Bonn, 1899Google Scholar. For a thorough account of Haeckel's evolutionary views see Paulsen, Freidrich, ‘Ernst Haeckel als Philosoph’, Philosophia Militans, Berlin, 1901, pp. 119–92Google Scholar; Carus, Paul, ‘God-Nature: A Discussion of Haeckel's Religion’, Open Court, 1914, 28, pp. 385–404Google Scholar; and Gasman, Daniel, The Scientific Origin of Nationalism Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League, New York, 1971.Google Scholar

⁵³ Sudhoff, K.(ed.), Rudolf Virchow und die deutschen Naturforscherversammlungen, Leipzig, 1922, p. 207Google Scholar; also see Ackerknecht, , op. cit. (25), pp. 200–201.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ For Haeckel's reply to Virchow on this subject see Haeckel, 's Freie Wissenschaft und freie Lehre, 1878Google Scholar, translated as ‘Freedom in Science and Teaching’, The Humboldt Library of Popular Science Literature, no. 105 (1888), 6–53Google Scholar. Concerning the controversy between Virchow and Haeckel see Baker, J. R., The Controversy on Freedom in Science in the 19th Century, Oxford, The Society for Freedom in Science, 1962.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Huxley, Thomas H., ‘Prefatory note’, to Haeckel's ‘Freedom in Science and Teaching’, op. cit. (54), p. 6.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See Gregory, , op. cit. (50), pp. 189–212Google Scholar. Marxian materialism and so-called scientific materialism were not coextensive; see Mitchell, Ian, ‘Marxism and German Scientific Materialism’, Annals of Science, 1978, 35, pp. 379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁷ Virchow, who coined the term Kulterkampf, was Bismarck's foremost political opponent and leader of the liberal party.

⁵⁸ Virchow, , ‘Der Mensch’, in his Die einheitsbestrebungen in der wissenschaftlichen Medicin, Berlin, 1849, pp. 5–6Google Scholar; partially translated in Rather, , op. cit. (23), pp. 69–70.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Virchow, , ‘Wissenschaftliche Methode und therapeutische Standpunkte’, p. 36–7Google Scholar; translated in Rather, , op. cit. (23), p. 66.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Mosse, , op. cit. (4), pp. 149–70, 268–72Google Scholar, Ringer, , op. cit. (1), p. 250.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Cf., Hahn, , op. cit. (6), p. 894.Google Scholar

⁶² Virchow, Rudolf, ‘Lernen und Forschen’, Berlin, 1892Google Scholar. Because this work is difficult to obtain, reference will here be made to the generally accessible translation, ‘Study and Research’, Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution (1894), p. 661, p. 660, and pp. 662–63, resp.Google Scholar

⁶³ Koenigsberger, , I, 11Google Scholar; translated in Welby, , p. 7Google Scholar. Also see Turner, Steven R., ‘Helmholtz, Hermann von’, in DSB, VI, 241.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Koenigsberger, , I, 1–8 and 14, 42–50Google Scholar; translated in Welby, , pp. 1–5 and pp. 9, 21–25.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Helmholtz, , ‘Preface’, Vorträge and Reden, I, viii.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ In a letter to his father in 1858, Helmholtz wrote: ‘Your letter implies that you suspect me of believing in the trivial tirades of (the materialists) Vogt and Moleschott. Not in the very least. And I must protest vigorously against your taking these two men as representative of natural science. Neither has so far shown by any special scientific achievement that he possesses either the respect for facts, or the discretion in accepting conclusions, that is acquired in the discipline of science’; quoted in Koenigsberger, , I, 291–92Google Scholar; translated in Welby, , p. 160.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Quoted in Koenigsberger, , I, 292Google Scholar; translated in Welby, , p. 160.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Helmholtz, , ‘Ueber das Sehen des Menschen’, Vorträge und Reden, I, 95Google Scholar. It has been asserted that this address opened a new era in philosophical respectability among natural scientists and philosophers in Germany; see Riehl, Alois, ‘Helmholtz als Erkentnistheoretiker’, Die Naturwissenschaften, 1929, 9, p. 702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁹ Heimann, P. M., ‘Helmholtz and Kant: The Metaphysical Foundations of Ueber die Erhaltung der Kraft’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 1974, 5, pp. 205–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Residues from the idealist philosopher J. G. Fichte are also evident in Helmholtz; see Turner, Steven R., ‘Hermann von Helmholtz and the Empiricist Vision’, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 1977, 13, pp. 48–58.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁰ von Helmholtz, Hermann, ‘Die Thatsachen in der Wahrnehmung’, Vorträge und Reden, II, 218Google Scholar; translated in Kahl, , p. 368Google Scholar. On Helmholtz's philosophical ideas and his interest in providing a scientific grounding for Kantian epistemology, see Erdmann, Benno, ‘Die philosophische Grundlagen von Helmholtz' Wahrnehmungstheorie, kritisch erlautert’, Abhandlungen der preussishen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Berlin, 1921, Nr. 1, pp. 1–45Google Scholar. Also see Lenzen, Victor F., ‘Helmholtz's Theory of Knowledge’, in Studies and Essays in the History of Science and Teaching (ed. Montague, Ashley), New York, 1947, pp. 315–318.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Helmholtz, , ‘Die Thatsachen in der Wahrnehmung’, II, 222Google Scholar; translated in Kahl, , p. 372.Google Scholar

⁷² Helmholtz, , ‘Die Thatsachen in der Wahrnehmung’, II, 224–25Google Scholar; translated in Kahl, , p. 374.Google Scholar

⁷³ Richards, Joan L., ‘The Evolution of Empiricism: Hermann von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Geometry’, British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, 1977, 28, p. 243CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the detailed arguments, see Helmholtz, , ‘Ueber den Ursprung und die Bedeutung der geometrischen Axiome’, Vorträge und Reden, II, 1–31, 381–83Google Scholar; ‘Ueber den Ursprung und Sinn der geometrische Satze; Antwort gegen Herrn Professor Land’, Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, II, 640–60Google Scholar; both translated in Kahl, , pp. 246–65 and pp. 360–65, 399–408, respectively.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Helmholtz, , ‘Die Thatsachen in der Wahrnehmung’, II, 239Google Scholar; translated in Kahl, , p. 385.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Helmholtz, , ‘Die Thatsachen in der Wahrnehmung’, II, 239Google Scholar; translated in Kahl, , p. 385.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Wilhelm Humboldt, quoted in Lilge, , op. cit. (19), p. 11.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Helmholtz, , ‘Ueber die akademische Freiheit der deutschen Universität’, Vorträge und Reden, II, 205Google Scholar; translated in Helmholtz, , op. cit. (20), p. 255.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Helmholtz, , ‘Ueber das Verhältniss der Naturwissenschaften zur Gesammtheit der Wissenschaft’, Vorträge und Reden, 1, 172Google Scholar; translated in Kahl, , p. 132.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Helmholtz, , ‘Ueber das Verhältniss der Naturwissenschaften zur Gesammtheit der Wissenschaft’, 1, 180Google Scholar; translated in Kahl, , pp. 138–39.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Helmholtz, , ‘Ueber das Verhältniss der Naturwissenschaften zur Gesammtheit der Wissenschaft’, 1, 183Google Scholar; translated in Kahl, , p. 141.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Helmholtz, quoted in Koenigsberger, , III, 32Google Scholar; translated in Welby, , p. 392Google Scholar

⁸² Rothschuh, , op. cit. (22), 200–05.Google Scholar

⁸³ Rothschuh, , op. cit. (22), 204.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ du Bois-Reymond, Emil, ‘Ueber die Lebenskraft’, prologue to his Untersuchungen über Thierische Elektricital, 1848.Google Scholar

⁸³ Haeckel, , op. cit. (54), p. 54Google Scholar; translated as ‘Freedom in Science and Teaching’, p. 45Google Scholar. Also see Rothschuh, , op. cit. (22), p. 204.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Haeckel, , op. cit. (54), pp. 54–62Google Scholar; translated as ‘Freedom in Science and Teaching’, pp. 45–53.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ du Bois-Reymond, Emil, Ueber die Grenzen des Naturerkennens: Zwei Vorträge, 4th edn., Leipzig, 1898.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See Brittan, Gordon G., Kant's Theory of Science, Princeton, 1978, chs. 5 and 6, et passim.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ du Bois-Reymond, Emil, op. cit. (87), p. 51.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ du Bois-Reymond, Emil, Die sieben Welträthsel:Zwei Vorträge, 4th edn., Leipzig, 1898, p. 70.Google Scholar

⁹¹ See Haeckel, , Die Welträthsel, op. cit. (52), pp. 208–09.Google Scholar

⁹² Du Bois-Reymond, , op. cit. (90), pp. 83–95.Google Scholar

⁹³ See Gladston, I., ‘Physiology and the Recurrent Problem of Vitalism’, in The Historical Development of Physiological Thought (ed. Brooks, C. and Cranefield, Paul), New York, 1959, pp. 298–99.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See du Bois-Reymond, , ‘Kulturgeschichte und Kulturwissenschaft’, (1877) in his Reden von Emil du Bois-Reymond (ed. by du Bois-Reymond, Estelle;, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1912.Google Scholar

⁹³ Borscheid, Peter, Natunwissenschaft, Staat und Industrie in Baden (1848–1914), Stuttgart, 1976, passim.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See above n. 52.

⁹⁷ See Ostwald, Wilhelm, Systematische Philosophie, Berlin, 1907, pp. 138–72.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Gay, Peter, The Dilemma of Democratic Socialism, New York, 1952, pp. 151–52.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Ringer, , op. cit. (1), pp. 57–58.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ McCormmach has shown that some German scientists, particularly after 1890, also complained about the affect of over-specialization on Wissenschaft. See McCormmach, , op. cit. (1), pp. 159–65.Google Scholar