Chapter Nine—
Darwinian Anniversaries
Ceremonial Recounting of Achievement
In 1909 a group of leading European and American evolutionary biologists gathered at Cambridge University to commemorate the one-hundredth anniversary of Darwin's birth and to observe the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species . The distinguished participants in the academic proceedings represented the full spectrum of evolutionary thought ranging from Haeckel's version of Darwinian orthodoxy and Weismann's neo-Darwinism to de Vries's mutation theory and Bateson's genetics built upon Mendel's mathematical theory of heredity. The speakers differed in their choice of Darwin's strengths for special emphasis, but they were united in considering the English naturalist the architect of one of the most fateful turning points in the history of scientific thought. The dual anniversary was marked by ceremonial gatherings sponsored by scientific institutions, learned societies, and universities throughout the civilized world.
Taking the anniversary dates with the utmost seriousness, the Russian scientific community sponsored a wide variety of commemorative activities paying homage to the man who, by changing the course of science, changed the world view and self-image of modern man. The high point in the solemn expressions of gratitude to the great man was the publication of In Memory of Darwin in 1910.[1] Consisting of new and previously published essays, all by Russian scholars, the volume was dominated by a single theme: the vast and continuously growing scope of Darwin's influence on modern scientific thought and world outlook.
With minor exceptions, the writers paid no attention to the formidable challenges coming from the achievements and stirrings in experimental biology.
Ivan Pavlov and Il'ia Mechnikov were the most noted contributors to In Memory of Darwin . Pavlov's essay, originally presented at the Twelfth Congress of Russian Naturalists and Physicians in December 1909, did not refer specifically to Darwin or his theory. By inference, however, Pavlov drew attention to the close relationship between the evolutionary process, as Darwin saw it, and the adaptive functions of neurophysiological processes, as he saw them. The presence of Pavlov's name made both the symposium and the Darwinian celebration all the more appealing, impressive, and authoritative. In his contribution Mechnikov was particularly eager to point out the essential role of comparative material in the study of inflammation and immunity. He predicted the growing role of microbiology in the search for specific causes of variation in plants and animals, and of the origin of new species.[2] Referring to the experimental work of Louis Pasteur and his assistants, he also envisaged an increasing participation of microbiology in the general study of heredity, the key to the understanding of organic evolution. The high status of Pavlov and Mechnikov in the scientific community made it all the more difficult for scientists who were critical of Darwin's legacy to give full sway to their heretic ideas. Most of these scientists found it advantageous to accommodate their heterodox ideas to the substance and the spirit of Darwinian evolutionism.
In their contributions to In Memory of Darwin, Pavlov and Mechnikov looked at Darwin from the vantage points of their scientific specialties. K.A. Timiriazev, by contrast, offered a general analysis of the Darwinian revolution. During the fifty-year period after the publication of the Origin of Species, he wrote, continuous efforts to "denigrate that book" had been unsuccessful. The Origin had continued to serve as the only sound "philosophy of biology." "It alone gives the key for the full understanding of the general structure of organic nature, and it alone continues to serve as the North Star for modern biologists whenever they look beyond the narrow vision of daily work in hope of catching a new glimpse of the biological universe."[3] Timiriazev took this opportunity to assure his readers that the developments in experimental biology triggered by the work of Mendel and de Vries were minor developments in comparison with the universal significance and permanence of Darwinian contributions. He resented Bateson's view of genetics as a "new province of knowledge" rather than as a "branch of physiology."[4]
By attacking the legacy of "the golden age" of biology—the age of Darwin—Bateson and Bergson, each in his own way, hoped to return to "the dark ages of scholasticism and irresponsible thought."[5]
Nor did Timiriazev's wrath bypass the two main neo-Lamarckian groups: one looking for a "physical explanation" of the emergence of new forms of life, the other linking the idea of organic evolution to an "immanent teleology of the purposefully acting environment," "a purposefully directed process of the development of organisms," or "a conscious protoplasm envisaged by the supporters of German panpsychism."[6]
Learned societies of the most diverse allegiances and interests were particularly active and articulate in paying homage to Darwin and his contributions to modern science. At the end of 1908 the Moscow Society of Naturalists held a special meeting at which N. A. Umov, a physicist with a strong philosophical predisposition, was the featured speaker.[7] Evolution, he thought, reinforced the idea of the unity of nature. Every component of nature—from the lowly atoms to the most elaborate structures of human thought—occupied a place in the cosmic sequence of natural objects. He treated human psychology as a unique mirror of cosmic order and harmony. In the mental growth of man he saw both a recapitulation and an extension of the evolution of the universe. To study evolution, as he saw it, was to study the ascending levels of the organization of nature. The cosmic scope of the psychological foundations of evolution formed the only sound basis for the study of the most sublime questions of ethics. Discerning listeners recognized in Umov's address an effort to blend a strong interest in psychology with Newtonian atomism and Darwinian evolutionism. Umov wanted to show that the study of evolution stood at the threshold of a new era, which promised to give the Darwinian theoretical legacy a cosmic meaning and a psychological essence.
D. N. Anuchin, a popular anthropologist and geographer, read a paper before 1,200 members and guests of the Moscow Society of the Friends of Natural Science, Anthropology, and Ethnography in which he recounted the achievements of Darwinian biology.[8] Not all biologists, he said, were convinced that Darwin's explanation of organic evolution was necessarily correct. But no scientist would deny that Darwin gave science "a powerful impulse for broader and more penetrating research undertakings, methods of inquiry, and modes of explanation." Thanks to Darwinism, systematics embraced new concerns, and many areas of biology, biogeography, and biometrics were transformed from
secondary to primary scientific concerns. Paleontology became a major discipline concerned with phylogeny, and medicine recognized new research perspectives and challenges. Anthropology acquired the status of a major science. The studies of culture and behavior also gained a stronger scientific footing. Darwin's theory invited an empirical study of the moral foundations of human society.
Nor did Anuchin overlook the distinctive features of Russian Darwiniana. Darwin's ideas, he noted, were received most favorably in Russia. In addition to bolstering the empirical base of Darwin's theory and to popularizing Darwin's ideas, the leading Russian biologists and paleontologists were also engaged in translating Darwin's works into Russian. This group included V. O. Kovalevskii, I. M. Sechenov, K. A. Timiriazev, M. A. Menzbir, A. N. Beketov, and A. P. Pavlov. He noted that the struggle between Darwinists and anti-Darwinists in Russia was much milder than in Germany, where the conflict between Haeckelians and anti-Haeckelians was particularly intense and bitter. The attacks on Darwin in Russia were motivated primarily by "moral" and "social" considerations.
On March 21, 1909, the St. Petersburg Society of Naturalists needed the largest hall at St. Petersburg University to accommodate the crowd that came to take part in the Darwin celebration. All widely recognized experts in evolutionary theory, the speakers covered the main topics of Darwinian thought. V. M. Shimkevich spoke on "the historical significance of Darwin's contributions to zoology." He took the opportunity to lament the conditions that prevented the rise of Russian Darwins.[9] V. A. Vagner spoke about "Darwin and the social sciences," and V. L. Komarov about Darwin's sizable contributions to botany.
Much smaller in attendance but equally impressive because of the topics discussed was the celebration sponsored by the student Circle of the Friends of Nature at Kharkov University. In addition to the "fundamental questions of Darwinism," the speakers concentrated on the relationship of Darwin's ideas to current developments in evolutionary biology: N. F. Belousov spoke on the theme of "Darwin and Weismann," and V. I. Taliev on "Darwin and de Vries."
Vladimir Vagner, the leading Russian expert in the psychological aspects of organic evolution, was the featured speaker at the Darwinian convocation sponsored by the Pedagogical Museum of Military Schools. A comparison of the Cours élémentaire d'histoire naturelle, a high school textbook written by Milne-Edwards in 1857, with the Origin of Species led Vagner to point out Darwin's original contributions to the
study of the origin and variability of instincts, of genetic links between the mental characteristics of man and animals, and of the elementary reasoning capacity not only among higher mammals (which Milne-Edwards was ready to recognize) but also among the invertebrates of "almost all levels of classification."[10] Vagner criticized comparative psychologists for their one-sided and generally inadequate exploration of Darwin's legacy. While staying too close to the ideas presented in the Origin of Species —and to the Darwinian emphasis on the struggle for existence and natural selection—the comparative psychologists were unpardonably lax in exploring The Descent of Man, particularly the chapters dealing with moral sentiment as a foundation of social solidarity and cultural values.[11] In The Descent Vagner saw an invitation to explore the links between the theory of organic evolution and social psychology as an academic discipline.
The succession of commemorative events ended in late December 1909, at one of the sessions of the Twelfth Congress of Russian Naturalists and Physicians. On that occasion, V. I. Taliev presented a paper entitled "Darwinism, Lamarckism, and the Mutation Theory," which was followed by a lively discussion. Emphasizing the interdependence of current orientations in evolutionary biology, he placed particular stress on the complementary relations of the "experimental method" of modern biology and "careful scientific speculation of the old school," which depended on comparative-morphological facts and other data obtained with the help of systematic observation. He also emphasized the complementary relations of "leaps" and "slight modifications" in the evolutionary process and looked optimistically toward a theoretical reconciliation of autogenesis and Lamarckian sources of evolution. The future of biology, as he saw it on this occasion, lay in a recognition of the multiple aspects of the evolutionary process and of the interdependence of various theories. Darwin deserved major credit for accelerating the growth of modern biology and for opening up limitless avenues to new research.[12]
Addressing the same congress, A. N. Severtsov chose to defend Darwinism from the attacks mounted by the supporters of neovitalism led by Driesch and strongly espoused by Rádl, a widely read historian of biology.[13] The neovitalists, he said, considered purposiveness not only an essential aspect of life but also a "constant" of nature, which cannot be analyzed into component parts and therefore cannot be subjected to scientific treatment. Darwinism, by contrast, regarded purposiveness as a phylogenetic development made up of simpler and scientifically scru-
table components. It closed the door on metaphysical interference with the work of science.
The St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences did not hold a special convocation to honor Darwin. It did delegate two eminent biologists—the plant physiologist I. P. Borodin and the embryologist V. V. Zalenskii—to participate in the Cambridge celebration.[14] In its official greeting to the Cambridge gathering, the Academy paid homage to the grandeur of Darwin's contributions to science. A catalyst of epochal developments in biology after 1859, the Origin of Species, according to the Academy's salutatory message, stimulated the growth of a strong tradition in Russian embryology, "a science closely allied with evolution."[15]
An impressive number of journals joined the anniversary celebrations by publishing essays on Darwinian themes. The journals Education and Natural Science and Geography marked the occasion by publishing a Russian translation of the commemorative speech Richard Hertwig had delivered before the members of the Munich Society of Naturalists. Hertwig presented a warm and human picture of personal strengths that contributed to the greatness of Darwin's scientific stature. He mentioned Darwin's intellectual perseverance, disciplined adherence to the rules and perspectives of the inductive method, mild temperament, high moral standards, sense of justice, and exemplary modesty.[16]
The journal Natural Science and Geography published also a Russian translation of Haeckel's paper on the world views of Darwin and Lamarck, presented in Jena in observance of the one-hundredth anniversary of Darwin's birth. In addition to reaffirming his unlimited devotion to the extraordinary power of Darwinian thought, Haeckel called Lamarck and Goethe the chief contributors to the triumph of evolutionary thought, which opened "wide cosmological perspectives," carried the searching human mind "far beyond the limits of space and time," and brought full victory to the idea of the unity of nature. Darwin's destruction of anthropocentrism belonged to the same level of scientific accomplishment as Copernicus's destruction of geocentrism.[17] To appear more realistic and judicious, Natural Science and Geography also carried a sample of articles that were somewhat less ecstatic about Darwin's scholarly acumen. In an excerpt from the writings of Raoul Francé, a German representative of psychological Lamarckism, Darwin is portrayed as a scholar who could be labeled a "researcher" but not a "thinker."[18] Darwin's frame of mind and temperament made analysis, rather than synthesis, his main concern. He was too involved in a study of the parts of the organic universe to take a closer look at the harmony,
unity, and symmetry of the infinite manifestations of life. He described the substance of the living world, not its architecture. On his part, Francé belonged to the group of biologists who sought a modern synthesis of biological theory and idealistic metaphysics.
The editors of the Herald of Knowledge, deeply involved in the popularization of current developments in science, added to the festivities by dedicating the February 1909 issue of the journal to Darwin's memory.[19] Seven of the eight commemorative articles were translations from the German language. They were selected with the view of touching on the main areas of Darwin's scholarly activities and of providing a general assessment of Darwinian positions in evolutionary thought.[20] Some invited criticism of Darwin's more tenuous ideas. All provided insightful details on Darwin's style of thought, exemplary dedication to scholarship, and high standards of moral behavior. In 1910 the journal published and distributed an "inexpensive" edition of the Origin of Species as well as the part of The Descent of Man dealing with sexual selection. In the same year it asked its subscribers to name their favorite writers and scientists. The answers showed that the subscribers favored Tolstoy, Turgenev, and Dostoevsky, among writers, and Darwin among natural scientists.[21]
The Herald of Europe marked the celebration in a most auspicious manner: it published Timiriazev's two papers offering a defense of Darwinism and a description of the Cambridge festivities respectively. "Charles Darwin," the first paper, was quickly reprinted in In Memory of Darwin . It provided both the most glowing and the most dogmatic accolades for Darwin's achievement. The second paper, "Cambridge and Darwin," gave a detailed account of the commemorative ceremonies at the old English university. Timiriazev was particularly pleased with—and recounted in some detail—the paper read by Ray Lankester, a strong Darwinist from Oxford University. Lankester argued that fifty years after the publication of the Origin of Species Darwin's evolutionary principles continued to be indestructible despite all efforts to undermine them.[22] Natural selection, the main principle of Darwin's theory, continued to be incontestable as the main agent of organic transformation. Mendel added a statistical approach to the study of heredity, but in no way did he challenge the accuracy of Darwin's thought. Darwin rejected the idea of mutations (he called them sports) as the basic—or the only—source of evolution, but only after he subjected them to serious scrutiny. Timiriazev was obviously displeased with the favorable attention Korzhinskii's mutationist ideas received in the Cambridge proceed-
ings. Nor was he satisfied with the state of evolutionary biology at Cambridge University, where William Bateson's "anti-Darwinism" was rapidly becoming a dominant factor.[23]
In yet another commemorative article, published in the newspaper Russkie vedomostii on January 30 and 31, 1909, Timiriazev described his visit to Darwin at his home in Down in early February 1877. Timiriazev thus became the first Russian who not only visited Darwin but also made his impressions accessible to the reading public. He noted Darwin's familiarity with the development of the theory of evolution in Russia. Darwin, he recorded, recognized the enormous scope of the contributions of the Kovalevskii brothers to the evolutionary theory. Timiriazev also noted that Darwin considered the contributions of Vladimir to paleontology more valuable than the contributions of Aleksandr to comparative embryology.[24] Darwin informed Timiriazev that his and his family's "sympathies" were with Russia and that he was particularly pleased with the favorable reception of Buckle's, Lyell's, and his own works in Russia.
The Herald of Europe did not stop with Timiriazev's articles recounting the highlights of Darwin's contributions to modern science. In the May 1910 issue it portrayed Darwinism as a high point in the development of modern science and as a cultural force of immense magnitude. In addition to causing a revolution in science, it placed the mainstream of modern thought on a new course. By showing that the differences between human beings and animals are differences of degree rather than of kind, it showed that man's intellectual capacities, esthetic feelings, and moral rules are products of a long and inexorable evolutionary process, propelled by natural causes. Darwin's theory has shown that animals are our "little brothers"—that they too "have nerves and feelings of joy."[25] The journal stated that Darwinism, "interpreted correctly," posed no threat either to religious beliefs or to religious morality. In fact, it added new strength to both. It noted that the theologians could benefit enormously by relying on Darwinism in their study of the natural sources of "altruism, sense of duty, and conscience."[26] The author of the article expressed gratitude to Darwin for laying the foundations for a new world outlook based on a firm unity of modern science and traditional culture expressed in intellectual, moral, and religious values.
Theologians and theological journals did not overlook the rising tide of pro-Darwinian sentiment. S. S. Glagolev, one of the more erudite theologians, marked the occasion in 1909 by publishing an article in the Theological Herald dealing specifically with the evolutionary theory of
the origin of man. Bitterly critical of Haeckel's interpretation of Pithecanthropus erectus as a link between man and ape, and unbending in his rejection of the cardinal principles of the theory of natural selection, he did take time, however, to make a salutatory comment on Darwin's dual anniversary. In Darwin's Origin —as well as in Lamarck's Philosophie —he saw the kind of books that "do not appear every decade" and that contain "valuable observations and ideas that have become a permanent property of science."[27] After paying homage to Darwin's science in general, he proceeded to argue against the role of human paleontology in adducing anticreationist arguments. Glagolev spared Darwin by directing his heaviest arguments against Haeckel. Saddened by the threat of Darwinian menace, he stated with a strong dose of rhetorical exaggeration: "If a person would appear in Moscow or St. Petersburg with a public lecture on 'the evolution of man from donkey' he would face a full auditorium. If, in the same cities, a speaker would offer to talk about 'the scriptural description of the creation of man' he would face an empty auditorium."[28]
The publication of two monographs made the Darwinian festivities richer and more appealing. In Charles Darwin: The One-Hundredth Anniversary of His Birth, V. I. Taliev emphasized the commanding position of Darwinism in the swelling stream of contemporary evolutionary thought. The struggle for existence, he wrote, continued to be the only satisfactory way to apply the principle of causality to the study of organic evolution as a unique expression of the universal harmony of nature.[29] The book offered one of the earliest bibliographic surveys of Russian studies in Darwinism. A. A. Ostroumov, professor of zoology at Kazan University, published The Origin of Species and Natural Selection: Fifty Years of Darwinism, a collection of empirical and logical arguments in favor of the "granite stability" of the main principles built into Darwin's theory.[30] With a minimum of technical involvement, both books were clearly expected to appeal to a diverse and rapidly expanding reading public.
The anniversary celebrations received strong support from yet another momentous development: a new publication of Darwin's collected works in a Russian translation. The new edition, richly illustrated, brought together all the books Darwin had written, some in new translations. Published in eight volumes, the new edition was the result of a deliberate and carefully planned effort to comb out errors that marred earlier translations. Timiriazev, Menzbir, and the geologist A. P. Pavlov deserved the main credit for making the new collection a noted success
both academically and commercially.[31] During the tsarist era thirty-five thousand copies of the Origin of Species were published in various Russian translations.
The festive atmosphere of the celebration encouraged the participating scholars and popular writers to take a broad view of the inner makeup and scientific potential of the evolutionary idea in biology. The generalizing mood helped make the difference between orthodox and unorthodox Darwinism precise and fixed. Speaking for the rapidly shrinking group of orthodox Darwinists, K. A. Timiriazev argued that Darwin became a giant of modern biology because he not only identified evolution as a universal attribute of organic nature but also was successful in explaining the general mechanisms of the evolutionary process. Without his explanations of the struggle for existence and natural selection he would not have been recognized as the founder of modern biology. Lamarck, he said, had failed because he did not match his pronouncement of the universality of organic evolution with acceptable explanations of the mechanisms of the evolutionary process.[32]
In 1909 the journal Russian Wealth published a seventy-page essay on Darwin's key contributions to evolutionary biology. The author of the paper was Sinai Chulok, a Ukrainian native associated with the Zurich Polytechnical Institute, first as a student and then as a privatdocent. In 1910 he published Das System der Biologie in Forschung und Lehre, a noted effort to present a comprehensive and integrated picture of the methodological and theoretical foundations of the biological sciences. The Russian Wealth essay was intended to be part of Darwin's anniversary festivities. In response to the attacks mounted by geneticists, Chulok noted that the victory of the evolutionary view in biology rather than the recognition of natural selection as the basic mechanism of evolution was Darwin's primary—and unchallengeable—contribution to modern science.
In Chulok's view Darwin took three steps that placed him far ahead of his predecessors.[33] First, he concentrated strictly on the origin of species, for he knew that this question must be answered independently of that on the origin of life. This enabled him to reduce the intensity of philosophical interference with his scientific concerns. It also gave him a decided advantage over his predecessors, who were often handicapped by asking questions that scientific wisdom was not yet in a position to tackle successfully. Second, Darwin was the first scientist who asserted that the successful construction of a genealogical tree required not only an accumulation of relevant empirical data but also the support of a
general law of the transformation of species. The work on a universal genealogy must synchronize inductive and deductive approaches. Third, Darwin was the first to show that the facts of systematics, biogeography, and paleontology would be meaningless as building blocks of science without a thorough consideration of evolution as a process of organic transformation. He showed that change in form and function is the essence of life.
No Russian writer had written more extensively about the general theoretical fermentation in biology than V. V. Lunkevich. He held no academic position and published all his biological articles in popular journals. The Basis of Life, his major work, appeared in several editions. It treated every trend in modern biology, ranging from Le Dantec's effort to reconcile Lamarckism and Darwinism on a physicochemical basis to Erich Wasmann's bold effort to reconcile Darwinism and Christian theology. He expressed two general judgments about the state of the field. First, Darwinism explained some of the basic factors that accounted for the transformation of species. It showed the evolutionary role of the struggle for existence, adaptation, and divergence of characters. Second, Darwinism did not explain some of the other pivotal aspects of organic evolution. Above everything else, it did not explain the growing "complexity" and the "progress" of living forms.[34] In order to tackle these problems successfully, the evolutionary theory of the future must be built upon a synthesis of Darwinism and the streams of new theories advanced by various branches of experimental biology. Lunkevich gave a clear impression that a future synthesis of evolutionary thought would assign Darwinism a role of primary significance.[35]
In general, the commemorative literature was more implicit than explicit in recognizing the serious need for blending Darwinism with Mendelian genetics. A careful reading of the voluminous material published in connection with the celebration suggests that a typical speaker or essayist felt that much preparatory work was needed to set the stage for a successful reconciliation of apparently discordant views held by the Darwinists and geneticists. In the festive atmosphere, the writers dealt much more with the heights of Darwinian achievement than with the ways of resolving the conflict between Darwinian principles and the current products of experimental studies in biology.
Lunkevich's comparison of Darwinism and de Vries's mutationism favored the former. The mutation theory, as Lunkevich interpreted it, was sound in its full acceptance of two Darwinian principles: the struggle for existence and natural selection. In its digression from the Darwinian
course, however, it showed strong weaknesses: its basic propositions were doubtful, its logic was full of strained interpretations, and its argumentation followed a path of distorted Darwinism.[36] De Vries's entire system of theoretical considerations rested on the observation of a single plant—Oenothera Lamarckiana . Almost as an afterthought, he noted the primary significance of the idea of mutation in the modern scheme of evolutionary principles. No doubt, Lunkevich's writing at this time was influenced more by the celebration of Darwin's anniversary dates than by the desire to undertake a careful scrutiny of the achievements in a vital branch of modern biology.
Darwin and Lamarck
The participants in the anniversary celebrations frequently compared Darwin and Lamarck. Published in a Russian translation in 1910, Haeckel's essay "The World View of Darwin and Lamarck" stimulated a lively and sustained discussion of the place of Lamarck in the pre-Darwinian evolutionary tradition. Haeckel considered Lamarck Darwin's truest and most formidable predecessor: both were thorough, consistent, and categorical in claiming that only natural causes can solve the riddle of evolution. Lamarck's theory of evolution generated little enthusiasm: its labyrinthine structure could not find support in the empirical data available at the time. Lamarck asked more questions than science was ready to answer. Darwin, by contrast, was eminently successful because the rapid accumulation of empirical information invited and made possible a serious concern with the theory of evolution. Darwin succeeded because he answered all the basic questions he undertook to answer.
Haeckel helped reinforce the view of Lamarck as a central link in the chain of developments that culminated in the appearance of the Origin of Species . His intent was to recognize the great historical value of Zoological Philosophy without taking anything away from the Origin of Species . Darwin, he said, did not negate Lamarck's work but carried it to a successful completion. The intent of Haeckel's address was not only to pay respect to the French scientist on an important anniversary but also to fight the rising tide of neo-Lamarckism, a heresy that considered Darwin guilty of digressing from the evolutionary path Lamarck had taken and that pleaded for a return to Lamarck's original thought. By praising Lamarck, Haeckel was protecting the interests of Darwinism.
Ieronim Iasinskii, a popular writer with a long list of publications, honored not only the Darwinian commemoration but also the one-hundredth anniversary of the publication of Lamarck's classic Zoological Philosophy . In "Darwin and Lamarck," published in the journal New Word, he relied on Félix Le Dantec, the well-known French scholar who combined a profound involvement in evolutionary physiology with a strong flair for philosophy. Le Dantec recommended a combination of the idea of evolution as a random process, Darwin's main concern, with the idea of evolution as a universal law of nature, the center of Lamarck's attention. Iasinskii recommended the search for regularities hidden behind the random occurrence of variation in plants and animals. In other words, he, too, recommended a synthesis of Lamarckian and Darwinian approaches to organic evolution. Although Darwin's pangenesis, a unique search for universal regularities in the living universe, did not lead to a formulation of empirically verifiable laws of nature, it was a solid move in the right direction. While the full development of evolutionary theory belonged to the future, "the basic principles built into the great Darwinian theory of the origin of species" will continue to be as "unassailable" as the laws of Kepler and Newton.[37] Implicit in Iasinskii's argument were two ideas: first, the future of evolutionary theory lay in building upon Darwinian foundations; and second, the future of Darwin's theory lay in closer cooperation with the Lamarckian tradition. In making his plea, Iasinskii, like Haeckel, referred to Lamarck, not to various branches of neo-Lamarckists.
Speaking at a session of the Twelfth Congress of Russian Naturalists and Physicians at the very end of 1909, V. I. Taliev found a new task for Darwinism: to serve as a conciliatory force between the extreme positions of renewed Lamarckism and the mutation theory, the former stressing the primacy of environment as a factor of evolution and the inheritance of acquired characteristics, the latter minimizing the evolutionary role of environment and rejecting the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. He believed in the possibility of bringing the contradictory evolutionary theories under one roof, but he argued that the new unity could be forged under the auspices, and through the well-established intellectual equipment, of Darwin's theory.
The zoopsychologist Vladimir Vagner presented a unique and rather amusing comparison of Darwin and Lamarck.[38] In terms of their scientific work, the two men, he wrote, were more similar than dissimilar. They relied on essentially the same general views of organic nature and arrived at basically the same evolutionary conclusions. Despite these
similarities, they represented two distinct kinds of scholars. Darwin was a strict empiricist, operating within a relatively narrow but carefully and precisely delimited framework. Lamarck, by contrast, had a mind prone to speculation unrestrained by empirical considerations and constantly searching for answers to problems of universal significance. Darwin allowed science to set the limits to his generalizations; Lamarck depended on philosophical imagination when the facts of science happened to be in short supply. Vagner expressed a firm conviction that evolutionary biology was so much richer because of striking differences in the mental makeup, temperament, and style of work of its two most eminent architects. The evolutionary theory achieved great victories because Lamarck was a philosopher in science and Darwin was a scientist in philosophy.
In a lengthy essay published in Russian Wealth in 1910, V. V. Lunkevich compared Darwinism with Lamarckism and mutationism. He noted that various branches of neo-Lamarckism, particularly of a "psychological" variety, did not have much in common with Lamarck's scientific legacy: unlike true Lamarckists, they violated the modes and canons of scientific reasoning and verification and allowed themselves to sink in the morass of metaphysical elaborations. Relying heavily on the address Delage had delivered in the Jardin des Plantes in Paris on the occasion of the unveiling of a statue of Lamarck in celebration of the centennial of Philosophie zoologique, he noted that, despite their basic differences, the theories of Lamarck and Darwin mutually reinforced each other. He also added that, had Lamarck lived in the twentieth century, he would most probably have accepted Darwin's idea of transformation.[39]
Most biologists who commented on the theoretical views of the two illustrious celebrants treated Lamarck's ideas as integral parts of the Darwinian evolutionary framework. P. F. Lesgaft represented a small group of biologists who took an opposite position: he thought that Lamarck's theory was more advanced and more general than any other theory, including Darwin's. In a polemical article published in 1909 in connection with the one-hundredth anniversary of the publication of Philosophie zoologique, Lesgaft gave a forthright expression to his evaluation of the two theories. In comparison with Darwin's views, he thought that Lamarck placed a stronger and more explicit emphasis on the unity of inorganic and organic nature.[40] He created a more solid basis for making biology an integral part of Newtonian science. By recognizing spontaneous generation, Lamarck linked the theory of the origin of life with the theory of organic evolution.
General Views and Assessments
The commemorative literature was not only an important part of the celebration of Darwin's scientific achievement but also a parade of Darwinian forces in Russia. Although it did not produce a critical and objective appraisal of the current state of Darwinian studies, it did create a strong and basically accurate impression of the vast respect for Darwin in both the scientific community and the general public. The remarkable feature of this literature was that only in very rare cases did praise of Darwin's achievements involve an attack on the mushrooming biological orientations outside the Darwinian tradition. It was most successful in linking the philosophical foundations of Darwin's biology to the accelerated growth of the scientific world outlook in Russia.
Nor was the commemorative literature without major flaws. In the first place, it missed a golden opportunity to make a methodical survey of Russia's direct contributions to the evolution of Darwinian thought. Expansive in their references to Western sources, the Russian biologists were generally reluctant to cite their compatriots. In the second place, the commemorative literature made only isolated and fortuitous efforts to comment on recent advances in genetics and their relevance for Darwinism. Russia did not follow the model of the Cambridge commemorative celebration, where the likes of de Vries and Bateson were invited to speak on Darwinism from the vantage point of the burgeoning field of genetics. Since genetics was rather slow to take root in Russia, the participants in Darwin's ceremonies did not feel sufficient pressure to present it as a critical problem requiring special scrutiny. In his introductory remarks to the Russian translation of T. H. Morgan's Experimental Zoology, published in 1909, the translator, N. Iu. Zograf, noted that it was a "bitter experience" to realize that the country that "only recently had produced such giants in science as Mendeleev, Butlerov, Aleksandr Kovalevskii, and Mechnikov" had chosen to overlook the rise of genetics and related branches of experimental biology.[41]
The commemorative literature was basically realistic in portraying Darwinism as a reigning orientation in evolutionary thought. University textbooks in zoology and related fields, which customarily provided the most detailed discussion of theoretical orientations in evolutionary biology, expressed this attitude vividly.[42] Typical textbooks—such as the Biological Foundations of Zoology, by V. L. Shimkevich, Textbook in Zoology and Comparative Anatomy, by N. A. Kholodkovskii, Short Course in Zoology, by N. M. Knipovich, and Short Course in Zoology,
by Ia. P. Shchelkanovtsev—supported Darwin's theory with three sets of arguments.
First, they treated the Origin of Species as a turning point in the history of modern biology. Darwin received the primary credit for giving biology a historical orientation and for moving the idea of organic evolution from the realm of "hazy hypotheses" to the solid ground of established scientific disciplines. Darwinism was considered the only general theory of organic evolution; all other theories covered only specific problems of the vast reality of evolution.
Second, they stressed the need for the utmost caution and fairness in interpreting Darwin's legacy. They pointed out specific cases of deliberate misrepresentation of Darwin's ideas, particularly by anti-Darwinists writing "popular books." Although he was falsely criticized for it, Darwin never claimed that natural selection caused modifications in plants and animals, which in due time produced new species. Darwin stated explicitly that natural selection has nothing to do with the origin of variation; it works solely to preserve the existing variations that have proven useful to organisms in their struggle for survival. In Darwin's words, natural selection means "the preservation of favorable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious."[43]
Third, they presented the current advances in the scientific study of the nature and mechanisms of organic evolution as essential components of the larger system of Darwinian thought. Most textbook writers, for example, interpreted the birth of genetics as a development called for by the Darwinian paradigm of evolutionary biology. They relied on Darwinism to legitimate the streams of new biological knowledge—to make various branches of experimental biology a certified component of established knowledge. In one breath, they paid homage to Darwin and recounted the achievements and promises of modern experimental biology. They saw the future of biology in a symbiosis of Darwinism and the most promising branches of experimentally oriented studies of life. In this symbiosis, however, they were sure to assign Darwinism a position of strategic importance.
The Progress of Science, a luxurious multivolume survey of current developments in the major sciences, published in 1912, provided a more guarded but less theoretical assessment of the current state of Darwin's principles. The authors of the papers on biological themes, all recognized scholars, shared three general ideas. First, they rejected all "metaphysical" orientations, represented most typically by neovitalism and psycho-Lamarckism. Second, they recognized Mendel's theory and the
mutation theory as firmly established components of modern biology. Consistently, however, they treated these theories as separate and unrelated bodies of knowledge, rather than as interdependent pillars of genetics. In no instance did they place these theories in opposition to Darwinism. Third, they viewed Darwin's theory as the mainstay of evolutionary biology. The triumph of the idea of evolution, in turn, made embryology, comparative anatomy, and paleontology "sciences of genetic relations within and between groups of organisms."[44] All contributors recognized the acute need for expanding the research domain of organic evolution beyond Darwinian limits.
Among the contributors to the Progress of Science, V. L. Komarov, professor of botany at St. Petersburg University, and N. M. Knipovich, senior zoologist at the Zoological Museum of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences and professor of zoology at the Psychoneurological Institute, expressed the most favorable views on Darwin's contributions. Komarov referred to Darwin's overall contribution when he stated: "Highly convincing generalizations and the skillful use of illustrative material from the life of plants and animals have produced brilliant victories for Darwin's ideas."[45] He represented most biologists when he said that the advances in evolutionary biology after 1859 consisted mainly of improvements in methodology, substituting more exact research techniques for Darwin's "descriptive method."[46] Knipovich referred to the struggle for existence, the key notion of Darwin's evolutionary theory. He stated: "The struggle for existence in all its different forms . . . is the most general mode of biological relations, embracing the entire organic world. There is not a single organism that stands outside that struggle."[47]
The longest and most profusely illustrated essay dealt with the origin of man. Written by the geographer-anthropologist D. N. Anuchin, it summed up the current evidence supporting the idea of the anthropoid origin of man: the salient clues distilled from the history of the idea of organic evolution from Lamarck to Darwin, Huxley, and Haeckel; the relevant embryological and anatomical data; and the information presented by paleontology. Darwin received ample recognition for advancing the first "complete" theory of organic evolution from which the idea of the anthropoid origin of man followed as a logical conclusion.[48] Anuchin presented a mass of information supporting the thesis Darwin elaborated in The Descent of Man . Numerous lacunae in paleontological knowledge and complex controversies in interpreting the available data led him, however, to conclude that science was not yet in a position to
draw incontrovertible conclusions on the origin of man. In this essay—as well as in his article on the same subject contributed to the popular Brockhaus-Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary[49] —he helped confirm the idea that the empirical base of Darwinism was becoming more substantial and more encompassing. It should be noted, however, that Anuchin showed much stronger interest in evolution as a body of empirical facts than as a system of theoretical principles.
Anuchin's surveys of human paleontology kept Russian readers well informed about the growing list of hominid fossils and about the general anthropological interpretations of the evolution of man. For example, Anuchin surveyed the significant details of Hermann Klaatsch's involved effort to advance a polytypic interpretation of human ancestry, which claimed the dominance of different anthropoid strains in various human groups.[50] To play it safe, Anuchin assumed that the evolution of human society and culture should in no way be interpreted as a correlate of biological evolution. Of all Darwinian studies in Russia, the work on the biological evolution of man was easily the least advanced. This was the branch of science that experienced the most vigilant policing by the guardians of traditional values. Despite all the restrictive pressure, the educated segment of the population took the idea of the anthropoid origin of man as a foregone conclusion.
The commemorative literature, the zoology textbooks, and the Progress of Science volumes were different ways of recording a deep allegiance to Darwin's theory. The differences between the individual categories of surveys were minor: they showed up primarily in the intensity of sentiment expressed and in the choice of rhetoric. This entire complex of evolutionary literature elaborated and defended unorthodox Darwinism, the strongest theoretical orientation in contemporary Russian biology. It saw that the future of biology lay in combining the new advances in experimental biology with Darwinian tradition. The emphasis was not on the search for a certified evolutionary theory but on the recognition of complementary contributions of particular orientations.
Nikolai Konstantinovich Kol'tsov:
The Prophet of Evolutionary Synthesis
As the memories of the celebration of 1909 receded, Darwinism faced a formidable challenge from the rising power of genetics, a new science that opposed some of the basic principles built into Darwin's theory. Timiriazev met the challenge by changing his strategy from a de-
fense of Darwinism to a furious attack on the main representatives of genetics—particularly on Mendel, Bateson, Johannsen, de Vries, and Korzhinskii. A. N. Severtsov worked on giving Darwin's theory more precision and conceptual unity as a prerequisite for forging more productive relations with the avalanches of developments in the key branches of experimental biology. A rapprochement of the two wings of evolutionary thought could take place only after Darwinism had put its own house in order. N. K. Kol'tsov, a junior member of the academic community, distinguished himself as the main advocate of the immediate search for the unity of Darwinism and genetics.
A graduate of Moscow University, Kol'tsov was deeply imbued with the spirit of Darwinism. Selected as a "professorial candidate" by his university, he received sufficient funds at the turn of the century to continue postgraduate studies in Western universities of his choice. On this tour he spent some time in the university laboratories at Kiel and Heidelberg and at the Russian marine research station in Ville Franche, near Nice, France.[51] It was at this time that he initiated and completed a study of metameric features of the vertebrate head. His Western travel took place at a time of rapid reorientation in biology signaled by the rise of genetics. Deeply moved by the promises of new biology, Kol'tsov became convinced that to study the inner structure and dynamics of the cell is the same as to study the first spark of life and the prime motor of organic evolution. To study the cell, in turn, is to study the ties of life with the physical universe. He agreed with Umov's prophetic announcement that the study of life should be covered by the "third law of thermodynamics," expressing the work of natural forces opposite to entropy.[52] To study the cell is to study it as a "molecule of life." In the study of the physics and chemistry of the cell Kol'tsov saw the safest path to a scientific study of the foundations of biology.
In 1903 Kol'tsov returned to Russia and was immediately appointed a zoology instructor at Moscow University. His extensive and too conspicuous participation in the 1905 revolution on the side of the forces opposed to the government and his unorthodox scientific orientation prevented him from climbing professionally above the lowly rank of privatdocent. He even took time to write a book on police terrorism in the university community in 1905. In 1909 M. A. Menzbir, annoyed with Kol'tsov's criticism of the national government's university policies, denied him access to Moscow University's zoological laboratory. In 1911 Kol'tsov was among the professors and instructors who resigned from Moscow University in protest against the efforts of the Ministry of Public Education to curb academic autonomy. Menzbir, who previously oc-
cupied a high position in the university administrative hierarchy, was also among the professors who chose to resign. In 1914 Kol'tsov established a small laboratory for experimental zoology at Shaniavskii University, a recently founded private institution. The laboratory emphasized research in genetics.[53]
Before the October Revolution, Kol'tsov published a series of papers reporting the results of his inquiry into the principal forms of cells. Influenced and inspired by the German biochemist O. Bütschli, he was guided by the idea that twentieth-century biology should combine the comparative method and observation, standard research tools of nineteenth-century biology, with the analytical method of modern physics and chemistry. The introduction of the modern experimental method in biology, he wrote, did not imply a turn in an anti-Darwinian direction: on the contrary, it meant making Darwinism a twentieth-century scientific orientation. His writing and, particularly, his leading role in editing the journal Nature —which placed strong emphasis on developments in genetics and related disciplines—made him known as one of the most ardent supporters of new developments in experimental biology, including genetics. At the same time, his consistent and eloquent defense of Darwin's theory made him a model Darwinist.
Describing the situation in Russia during the 1910s, Kol'tsov noted the bewildering diversity of evolutionary views. He also noted that all Russian biologists were evolutionists, which, in his opinion, made them Darwinists as well. "It appears to me," he wrote, "that Darwin's great contribution—the high-level generality of his theory and the wide scope of the influence of his ideas on modern biologists—allows us to claim that there is no difference between Darwinists and evolutionists."[54]
Kol'tsov went on to say that although Darwin had established evolution as a universal feature of the living world, he did not explain the mechanisms of the transformation process. He noted two major efforts to answer the question of transformation. One group of evolutionists built on Darwin's view of evolution as a process of accumulating small random variations in heritable characteristics. The second group made Darwin's view of "genes" the key to the understanding of evolution. The interpreters of "genes" as carriers of the evolutionary process were, in turn, divided into two subgroups: while de Vries and his followers considered "genes" mutable in the same way that atoms of radioactive elements are mutable, the pure Mendelians undertook the difficult task of combining the notion of evolution with the notion of the immutability of "genes."
Kol'tsov made his view unambiguous and unwavering: "Genes, Men-
delian characteristics, mutations, pure lines, and isogens, all these are important discoveries of our time that do not in any way contradict the foundations of Darwin's theory, but, on the contrary, give it more scope and more depth. These notions play the main role in artificial experiments in which the scientist controls crossbreeding—the main factor of evolution."[55]
Behind Kol'tsov's reasoning was a quiet recognition of two complementary facts of the riddle of Darwinism. First, Darwin did not give a clear and incontrovertible explanation of heredity and variation as mechanisms of evolution. His theory was much in need of further clarification and amplification. In this respect, Darwinian scholarship found it necessary to welcome the help of research perspectives presented by experimental genetics and related disciplines. Second, Darwin, more than any other scholar, contributed to making evolution the pivotal idea of modern biology. In this sense, every modern biologist, whether he admitted it or not, was a Darwinian scholar. In this respect, it was the recognized duty of all biologists to build on the tradition Darwin had originated. Kol'tsov noted, however, that the major task of these scientists was not merely to refine Darwinian thought but to add new research areas, new methods of inquiry, and new challenges to traditional thought.
Kol'tsov did not intend to say that "evolutionism" was not different from "Darwinism." He meant to say that under all conditions Darwin's ideas would continue to form a strategic component of the general notion of organic evolution. More than most of his colleagues, he fully realized that the future of Darwinism qua evolutionism was primarily in advancing the frontiers of genetics, a science well on its way to answering questions that, despite their great importance, did not attract Darwin's attention. He dedicated his scholarship to strengthening the cause of Darwinism by helping genetics develop deeper roots in Russian culture. His papers on "the molecules of life," published in the 1920s, may rightfully be considered an important step in the series of developments that laid the foundations for molecular biology.
There was the strong possibility that Kol'tsov used Darwinism as a shield to protect the burgeoning research in genetics. An established orientation, Darwinism drew strength not only from its own scientific and philosophical triumphs but also from the vested interests in the leading universities and from popular support, so clearly manifested during the anniversary celebrations in 1909. By making genetics a component of the Darwinian scientific framework, Kol'tsov hoped, first, to placate the
leaders of Darwinian orthodoxy, who looked with the utmost suspicion at most new developments in experimental biology, and second, to accelerate the acceptance of genetics as a legitimate academic field. He knew that the inordinate strength of Darwinism in the major universities was one of the major reasons for pronounced sluggishness in the early development of Russian genetics. Kol'tsov's strategy helped to mitigate the initial conflict between genetics and Darwinism and to create a tradition working in favor of an evolutionary synthesis.
Praiseful recountings of Darwin's contributions to science, rekindled by the anniversary celebrations in 1909, soon gave way to more realistic assessments. The rising criticism, however, did not prevent the scientific community from continuing to credit Darwin with making biology a true science, a study of natural causes operating in the world of life. Darwin received credit also for making the historical method the main tool of biological analysis. In all other respects, Darwin's legacy invited varied, and often contradictory, assessments. In the maze of interpretations of the place of Darwinism in the mainstream of biology, four names were clearly in the limelight. (1) Timiriazev represented a small but influential group that considered genetics a passing aberration that was in no position to challenge the dominant status of Darwin's theory. (2) Kol'tsov saw the future of evolutionary biology in a synthesis of Darwinism and genetics—a synthesis in which Darwinism would provide the basic frame of reference. (3) Filipchenko also was inclined to look toward a synthesis of Darwinism and genetics, but a synthesis in which genetics would provide the basic framework and Darwinism would play an auxiliary role. (4) Komarov thought that evolutionary biology had entered a new state of development, marked by the coexistence of independently functioning theoretical and methodological orientations. He emphasized the autonomy, rather than the synthesis, of various biological orientations. In his view, Darwinism was destined to provide only one of the many possible approaches to the scientific study of the organic world. He wrote that the reign of "universal theories" belonged to the past and that modern biology preferred specific theories explaining separate categories of problems.[56] He appreciated the gigantic proportions of Darwin's contributions to the triumph of the evolutionary view in biology; at the same time, however, he was firmly convinced that answers to many key questions on the origin of species were outside the competence of the theory of natural selection.