DARWINISM AND ZIONISM: AHAD HA‘AM AND JOSEPH KLAUSNER

J. Philipson

Stockholm University, Department of Slavic Languages, National Library of Sweden

Stockholm, Sweden: joakim. philipson@kb. se

While the attitude to Darwin‘s theory of evolution among the Jewish population in the late 19th century Russian empire was generally one of indifference, Jewish intel — lectuals such as Ahad Ha‘am and Joseph Klausner used Darwinism for their own inter — est, as a kind of scientific warrant for the purported necessity of Zionism for the future preservation of Judaism. A primary source of this paper is a series of review articles published by Klausner in the Russian-Jewish literary journal Knizhki Voskhoda 1900 (July–Sept.), in which he presents the works of Ahad Ha‘am.

Keywords: Darwinism, Russian empire, Jews, Zionism, Ahad Ha‘am, Joseph Klausner.

Introduction: Darwinism, Jews and Zionism

Whatever Charles Darwin’s original intentions, Darwinian terms such as the «strug — gle for existence» have been used and misused far beyond the boundaries of biology. This paper gives an example of how Darwinism was used to support Zionism among Jews in the Russian empire around the turn of the century 1900 in a series of review articles of the writings of Ahad Ha‘am, published in the Russian-Jewish journal Knizhki Voskhoda by Joseph Klausner. Both Ahad Ha‘am and Klausner were important scholars of Jewish history, and both were ardent Zionists.

Interest in Darwinism among the Jews in the late 19th century and early 20th cen-tury Russian empire was generally rather weak. The common attitude was one of ig — norance or indifference, rather than either opposition or embracement. Most Russian Jews had more pressing issues to relate to than to the origin of species or the descent of mankind, such as, for example, how to get a decent education, how to escape pogroms, how to promote socialism or whether and how and to where one should emigrate. But, to the extent that Darwin’s theory was somehow seen as part of the answer to these questions, the idea of evolution did now and then find expression in the Russian-Jewish press of the time. In particular, Darwin’s theory was sometimes invoked, albeit only implicitly, in the defence against the mounting antisemitism. Recurrent in this context was the “argument of longevity” (Philipson, 2008), which claimed in essence that since the Jews had survived as a people until this day, for much longer time than many other ancient peoples, they had already proven their “fitness” in the “struggle for existence.” The argument was widely used by Russian-Jewish intellectuals of various inclinations from the 1860s well into the 1880s and beyond (e. g. Фин, 1860; [Передовая] // Сион,

1861; Гинстлинг, 1862; Цедербаум, 1871; Легуа, 1879; Рабинович, 1881; Гетц, 1884;

cf. Philipson, 2008).

The concept of «survival of the fittest» could also serve as an argument for Jewish separateness, against assimilation. In the American Hebrew journal it was used in this way by orthodox traditionalists opposing Reform Judaism, citing the «law of fittest surviving, aided by the breeding of hereditary qualities in a pure race» in their defence

of Jewish ritual practice and the maintenance of Jewish separateness (American He — brew, 14 March 1884; quoted from Swetlitz 1999, p. 227). The same type of argument, occasionally referring to the “purity of race” as a Jewish advantage in the struggle for existence, also occurred in the Russian-Jewish press, but rather within a secularist, na — tionalist discourse (e. g. Цедербаум, 1871; Легуа, 1879; Гетц, 1884). The ultimate case for separation between Jews and gentiles, however, was made by the proponents of the emerging Zionism among Russian Jews, as expressed in the example of Ahad Ha‘am and Joseph Klausner.

Another possible point of Jewish interest in Darwinism was the support that it lent to the idea of a common origin of all of mankind, as against the theories of polygenesis, which were largely dominant at least during the first half of the 19th century. If all of man — kind shared the same origin, as Darwin — and the Bible — stipulated, then the claim that different races had different origins and were distinguished by essential hereditary traits would become obsolete. This argument could be used in the defence against antisemitism. But here was a point of division between, on the one hand, Jewish “integrationists” and, on the other hand, the proponents of modern Zionism. The former, in their struggle for the emancipation and in some cases even complete assimilation of the Jews in their host societies, had a natural interest in downplaying the differences between Jews and gen — tiles, and so a theory supporting the common origin of all humans seemed to serve their cause well. The Zionists, on the other hand, wishing to promote the emigration of the Jews from Russia to Palestine, had a vested interest in preserving the notion of an es — sential, insurmountable difference between Jews and non-Jews, making the prospects of integration into a futile effort. Consequently, Zionists tended to accept, at least in princi — ple, the notion of the Jews as a Volk or even a “race” with distinct, hereditary, more or less immutable physiological or psychological traits that set them apart from other peoples (Hart, 1999, p. 275).

True, in one sense Darwin’s theory meant the “liquidation of immutable essences” and the “final victory of nominalism over realism, which had its last bulwark in the idea of natural species,” as the Jewish philosopher Hans Jonas once put it (Cherry, 2001, p. 242). Nevertheless, leading Zionists somehow managed to combine an essentialist belief in “na — tional characters” with an embracement of Darwinism. Perhaps it was also the emphasis on natural selection that appealed to them in Darwin’s theory; it helped in reinterpreting the traditional, religious Judaic notion of “chosenness” into a secular, political concept. If the Jews had proven “fit” and survived as a people until this day, it must be for a reason, but not necessarily a divine purpose. The reason, then, would be that the Jews should finally be able to “return” to to their ancient land of Israel, and there rediscover their true self, their essential national character.

The “integrationists,” on the other hand, even if they sometimes felt compelled to acknowledge the apparent differences between Jews and gentiles, typically shared a belief in the transformational impact of the environment, education and the living conditions of the individual. This made them more prone to embrace a Lamarckist idea of evolu — tion, which managed to survive among Jewish social theorists for a long time after the advent of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Schematically, thus, we get the somewhat paradoxical picture of the Zionists as Darwinists, in their adherence to the idea of the precedence of heredity and selection as the main sources of transmutation of species or races, rather than the impact of environment, while at the same time they tended to side with the typically polygenist essentialist claim of the fundamental differences between

the races. “The integrationists,” on the other hand, typically combined a Lamarckist em — phasis on the impact of the environment with a monogenist claim of the equality and common origin of humankind.

Ahad Ha‘am

Ahad Ha‘am was the well-known pseudonym for Asher Ginzberg (1856-1927), leader of “spiritual” Zionism, as opposed to the political Zionism of Theodor Herzl. Born in the small Ukrainian town of Skvire, “one of hasidism’s darkest Russian corner’s” as he described it himself as an adult (Zipperstein, 1993, p. 1), Ahad Ha‘am grew to become “the most modern of Hebrew writers” (Hertzberg, 1991) — at least in his own time. Darwin’s ideas of the evolution of man were among his most important influences, as was also the thinking of Herbert Spencer and Auguste Comte. They helped form his view of peoples and nations as biological organisms, struggling to live and survive by means of adaptation to the environment. For Ahad Ha‘am, with his well thought-out pen-name meaning “one of the people,” Judaism and Jewish law was no more than a self-invented means of survival of the Jewish people, and the “chosenness” of the Jews, thus, was only a kind of self-selection, by means of religion. But, since after Darwin the importance of religion had dramatically weakened, traditional Judaism could no longer serve that function. Hence, the Jews must find another way to assert their identity as a people. A new instrument to keep them alive as a nation was needed. For Ahad Ha‘am, at least, the answer to that need was clear: Zionism, that is, the “spiritual” or “cultural” attachment to the historical land of Israel.

Joseph Klausner

In a series of articles in the Russian-Jewish “scientific-literary and political journal” Knizhki Voskhoda, Joseph Klausner (1874–1958) gave a review in Russian of the He — brew works of Ahad Ha‘am. Klausner was a prolific writer in Hebrew, Yiddish, Russian and German. He had studied the Talmud at a yeshiva in Odessa, while also learning secular subjects. Later (1897–1902) he studied philosophy and Semitic languages at the university in Heidelberg, from where he earned his Ph. D. Among his writings is a work in Hebrew on the anthropology of primitive man, Ha-Adam ha-kadmon (War — saw, 1900). In Russian he wrote Novo-evreiskaia literatura, on the Hebrew literature of the nineteenth century, and Duchovnyi Sionism, on “spiritual Zionism” (St. Petersburg,

1900). Following his Zionist conviction he immigrated to Palestine in 1919.

In his review of Ahad Ha‘am’s works Klausner makes ample use of nationalist con-cepts such as “rebirth” (возрождение), “Jewish nation” (еврейская нация), “national

spirit” (национальный дух), and “national unity” (национальное единство). He makes

an explicit positive comparison between Zionism and Darwinism, as both representing

complete worldviews that “give a direction to all thoughts and views of the modern, intel-ligent man” (Клаузнер, 1900a, с. 139).

To orthodox Jewish detractors, who accused Ahad Ha‘am of advocating religious re-form, Klausner responded that for Ahad Ha‘am religious reform was only an “artificial

modification” (искусственное видоизменение) of religion1. First when the “heart of

1 Note that the Russian term видоизменение, here translated by ‘modification’, could also quite literally be rendered as “transformation of species.”

the people” is “revived”, once they can lead a normal life, only then will many of the present religious precepts change, almost without notice. “Modification of religion” will only happen “through natural historical evolution” (путем естественной исторической эволюции), and to make such “modification” possible, a “rebirth of the heart” by means of Zionism was necessary (Клаузнер, 1900a, с. 151).

Further we learn that, according to Klausner, Ahad Ha‘am “stands at the height of contemporary philosophico-historical and sociological science, can be counted as an evo- lutionist par excellence, and it is indeed on the foundation of the theory of evolution and thanks to the newest science, that he manages to prove that Zionism is a product of all of Jewish history until the present time…” (Клаузнер, 1900б, с. 67)

Indeed, in an essay entitled “Positive and negative” from 1891, Ahad Ha‘am appears in the introduction as a convinced hard-core social-Darwinist:

“Penetrate to the real life, be it of worms or of men, and beneath the veil of peace you will find an incessant struggle for existence, a constant round of aggression and spoliation, in which every victory involves a defeat and a death” (Ahad Ha‘am, 1891, see in: 1948, p. 53).

The essay presents an attempt to apply evolutionary thinking to the spiritual development of Judaism, from medieval Jewish philosophy, to modern Zionism. Klausner introduces the theme of the essay thus:

“The struggle for existence (борьба за существование) takes place not only among living organisms, but also among ideas and thoughts. «In the depths of slow evolution» (в недрах медленного развития), imperceptibly to all, accumulate insignificant devia — tions (накопляются незначительные уклонения) from generally accepted views and ruling attitudes, and when after the passing of a certain time these accumulations be- come significant, it is usually discovered that a completely new idea, the fruit of a slowly arising need, seemingly suddenly and sui generis appeared in God’s world” (Клаузнер,

1900б, с. 68).

The conclusion of this essay, according to Klausner, points to the “necessity of Zio- nism” as “an idea that unites all Jewry and which aspires to the formation of a national centre,” serving as a “primary source of their spiritual-national creation.” In this way, then, Zionism is “naturalized”, and made to appear as something almost self-evident, a necessary condition for Jewish survival, and a natural result of Jewish history.

Evolutionist concepts and metaphors in Klausner’s review, e. g. “struggle for exist — ence” and the comparison of a people with a developing “organism,” serve to strengthen the nationalist argument. However, it is made clear that whereas an organism natu — rally decays, a people, a nation may always rejuvenate, gain new force and once again become a “viable and strong nation” (жизнеспособной и сильной нацией). All it re — quires is a “goal in life, a national aspiration, hope and belief in the future” (Клаузнер,

1900б, с. 80).

Ahad Ha‘am’s argument for the naturalness, even innateness of nationalism was also

directed against the universalism of French Jewish intellectuals such as Adolphe Franck,

whose “strange self-defence against the completely natural inner national feeling” he de-scribed as “slavery in freedom”. The failure to acknowledge the existence of a Jewish na-tion left these intellectuals with religion, ethics or philosophy as their only Jewish iden-tity markers. But, since Darwin had made a Jewish identity based exclusively on religion

untenable, the only options left for the Jewish intellectuals were either complete assimila — tion, that is, to renounce their Jewishness, or affirming instead the “instinctive national feeling which they have inherited, which is independent of religious beliefs or practices” (Ahad Ha‘am 1948b, p. 183f).

Thus, Darwinism left the Jews, if they still wanted to remain Jews, with no other choice than nationalism. Once that choice was made, Ahad Ha‘am declared, scoffing at the “moral slavery” of the “emancipated” French Jews,

“I at least can speak my mind concerning the beliefs and opinions, which I have inherited from my ancestors, without fearing to snap the bond that unites me to my people. I can even adopt that ‘scientific heresy which bears the name of Darwin’, without any danger to my Judaism.” (Ahad Ha‘am 1948b, p. 194).

Further ahead in his review of Ahad Ha‘am’s essays, Klausner aims to explain the evolution of religion in general and the idea of a life after death as more or less a result of the hardened “struggle for existence.” But when this argument is applied to Juda — ism, the discourse again turns national. It is articulated through All it re — quires is a “goal in life, a national aspiration, hope and belief in the future” (Клаузнер,

1900б, с. 80).

Ahad Ha‘am’s argument for the naturalness, even innateness of nationalism was also

directed against the universalism of French Jewish intellectuals such as Adolphe Franck,

whose “strange self-defence against the completely natural inner national feeling” he de-scribed as “slavery in freedom”. The failure to acknowledge the existence of a Jewish na-tion left these intellectuals with religion, ethics or philosophy as their only Jewish iden-tity markers. But, since Darwin had made a Jewish identity based exclusively on religion

untenable, the only options left for the Jewish intellectuals were either complete assimila — tion, that is, to renounce their Jewishness, or affirming instead the “instinctive national feeling which they have inherited, which is independent of religious beliefs or practices” (Ahad Ha‘am 1948b, p. 183f).

Thus, Darwinism left the Jews, if they still wanted to remain Jews, with no other choice than nationalism. Once that choice was made, Ahad Ha‘am declared, scoffing at the “moral slavery” of the “emancipated” French Jews,

“I at least can speak my mind concerning the beliefs and opinions, which I have inherited from my ancestors, without fearing to snap the bond that unites me to my people. I can even adopt that ‘scientific heresy which bears the name of Darwin’, without any danger to my Judaism.” (Ahad Ha‘am 1948b, p. 194).

Further ahead in his review of Ahad Ha‘am’s essays, Klausner aims to explain the evolution of religion in general and the idea of a life after death as more or less a result of the hardened “struggle for existence.” But when this argument is applied to Juda — ism, the discourse again turns national. It is articulated through a series of dichoto — mies, where nationalism is associated with what is healthy, lively, natural, while op — posite properties such as illness, supernaturalism, weakness are seen as a result of the loss of Jewish national independence. The idea of national rebirth (возрождение), as described by Ahad Ha‘am, is associated with “truly progressive aspirations, with its new and completely scientific views on the Jewish question” (Клаузнер, 1900б, с. 91). Ahad Ha‘am is described as an “evolutionist par excellence” in his writing about the language question, and his view on the “science of Jewry” (науку еврейства) is said to emerge from “general scientific principles.”

Finally Klausner distinguishes the views of Ahad Ha‘am’s “spiritual Zionism,” from both the political Zionism of Theodor Herzl and Max Nordau, on the one hand, and from Simon Dubnow’s “spiritual nationalism,” on the other. An important rea — son for Ahad Ha‘ams opposition to Herzl’s idea to solve the Jewish question through the quick political fix of a “Judenstaat” is his “strict evolutionism and historicism” (строгий эволюционизм и историзм), which requires a Jewish state to develop only “gradually and organically” (постепенно и органически) (Клаузнер, 1900в, с. 44). The “real, gradually evolving (настоящее, медленно развившееся) organic Jewish state” (Клаузнер, 1900в, с. 48) is distinguished again from the “sudden and artificial” one of political Zionism. The Jewish state appears in Ahad Ha‘am not as the beginning, but as the end result of a long process.

There is also a reference to the Dreyfus case as showing the futility of “humanism” and “emancipation,” while “Judeophobia” has become almost “hereditary” (наслед — ственным) (Клаузнер, 1900в, с. 47).

Everything that seems to support Zionism is described by Ahad Ha‘am and Klaus — ner as something essential, natural, and in a curious “non-Darwinian” fashion — immu — table: national characters, nationalism, antisemitism, Jewishness. On the other hand, everything that seems to stand in the way of Zionism is described as only artificial, temporary effects of the influence of the environment, e. g. illness, weakness, loss of national independence.

Conclusion

From the eclectic use of elements of Darwinism by both Ahad Ha‘am and Joseph Klausner for the purpose of promoting Zionism among Russian Jews, it seems that Darwin was little more than a pawn among others in their game. Neither Ahad Ha‘am, nor Joseph Klausner shared the more common contemporary Jewish attitude of indifference to Darwinism. But their engagement with Darwin represented a vested interest. Darwinism for them was only an instrument to be used for a specific purpose. From their point of view, what was at stake was no more and no less than the survival of Jewry, and of Judaism. In that perspective, questions about the origin of species and the descent of man were only of secondary importance.

References

Гетц Ф. В чем мы особенно отстали? Статья 1-я // Еврейское обозрение. 1884. № 3. С. 74–82. Гинстлинг В. Философия восточного права // Приложение к Гакармелю. 1862. № 3. С. 10–12. Клаузнер И. Духовный сионизм и его главный представитель (Ахад Гаам) // Книжки Вос — хода : журнал учено-литературный и политический. 1900а. Т. 20. Июль. С. 128–151.

Клаузнер И. Духовный сионизм и его главный представитель (Ахад Гаам) // Книжки Вос — хода : журнал учено-литературный и политический. 1900б. Т. 20. Август. С. 67–97.

Клаузнер И. Духовный сионизм и его главный представитель (Ахад Гаам) // Книжки Вос — хода : журнал учено-литературный и политический. 1900в. Т. 20. Сентябрь. С. 42–64.

Легуа М. А. Из этюдов сравнительной статистики Легуа // Русский еврей. 1879. № 2. Стлб. 58. [Передовая] // Сион:

Ключевые слова: Дарвинизм, Российская империя, евреи, сионизм, Ахад Гаам, Йосиф Клаузнер.

EARLY FRENCH AND GERMAN REVIEWS

AND TRANSLATIONS OF DARWIN’S ‘ORIGIN OF SPECIES’

Elinor Shaffer

Institute of Germanic & Romance Studies, University of London

London, UK: Elinor. Shaffer@sas. ac. uk

The French and German responses to Darwin came soon after the publication of the

‘Origin of Species’ (1) and the earliest English reviews, and both recognized the im-portance of the publication and laid down some lines of opposition or reinterpretation

that would have a long history in the reception of his theory. In part (in the French

translation by Clémence Royer (1862)) they were conscious revisionist interpretations,

in part (in the German translation by H. G. Bronn (1860)) reinterpretations through

changes in meaning brought about by or implied through translation of key phrases.

The response that probably reached the widest public was the ample review by Auguste

Laugel in «La Revue des Deux Mondes» (April 1861), a French-language literary and

cultural journal of high standing and long life which reached all parts of educated Europe,

from Britain to Russia. In all these cases, Darwin had direct contact with the commen-tators and translators, and took an active role, intervening in their work to correct,

praise or blame.

Keywords: France, Germany, reviews, translations, Darwin’s “Origin of Species”.

It is a great pleasure to be here with you in St Petersburg and to have the honour of addressing the Academy of Sciences. I am grateful to Prof. Eduard Kolchinsky, who has been one of our colleagues in the Project on the Reception of British and Irish Authors in Europe since 2000. That was the year in which our work on Darwin began, which was published at the end of 2008 in two volumes, “The Reception of Charles Darwin in Europe”, by Continuum Books (London and New York). I am here also in the name of our volume editors Prof. Eve-Marie Engels (University of Tű bingen) and Prof. Thomas F. Glick (Boston University) and of all the contributors to this long and arduous but re — warding undertaking. In what follows I am indebted to their work.

In order to set the study of Darwin’s European reception going, we received a grant from the European Science Foundation for the first EURESCO Conference on “Explana — tory Models and Public Understanding: The Debate between Science and Religion 1800–

1918’” Focussing on “Leaders of the Debate: Individuals and Institutions”, the Conference was held at the University of Exeter in 2001, chaired by myself and as Vice-Chair, Prof. John Neubauer (Amsterdam). In this context we held our first editorial meeting on the Project of The Reception of Darwin in Europe, with a nucleus of collaborators from a wide variety of European countries. Both Yasha Gall and Eduard Kolchinsky were there, and will remember those early days.

The origins of the project in fact lay further back, in the British Academy in 1996. The Academy had the task laid upon it by the Government to allocate research resources, and felt obliged to reconsider its own research and that of the Fellowship, and its capacity to handle the range of research proposals that were now presented to it, especially by candi — dates for Research Fellowships, that is by excellent young recipients of the doctorate. The Academy was determined, in order to meet this public challenge, to broaden the range of the Fellowship (that is, the elected members of the Academy), and of the research projects

undertaken or supported by the Academy. A call was made to its own Fellows for new pro — posals in the Modern period — that is, from the Renaissance onwards — that would have the substantial and long-term importance of its past projects in the Classics (Greek and Latin) and Classical archaeology. In my Section, Modern Languages and Literatures, as we had a number of colleagues concerned with modern subjects, we felt called upon to come forward. I made the proposal of the project on the Reception of British and Irish Authors in Europe, and the Project was launched in the Academy in April 1998 with a Colloquium. I made the proposal in the knowledge that “reception” or “afterlife” of such figures normally referred exclusively to their reputation in English-speaking circles. It was my conviction, which has since been borne out by our research and the publication of seventeen volumes in this project, that there was a shared intellectual history of Europe, and that only with full knowledge of the reception of British authors in Continental countries could we begin to understand our own authors — and our own history. If “globalization” is now a catchphrase, we feel all the more persuaded that the History of Europe refers to a distinctive develop — ment of thought, literature and culture whose nature and value even among groups con- cerned to stress their own national significance above all is not exhausted, indeed has only begun to be fully explored and made conscious. Moreover, we stressed that Russia had a major place in the history of Europe, and that we would do our utmost to cover the Russian reception of all our subjects, an aim that has been carried out with rewarding results.

By “authors” we meant figures from any discipline or calling who had had an intel — lectual or cultural impact; and this of course included a wide range, from poets like Byron and Shelley to scientists such as Ch. Darwin and I. Newton. We have also attended to the philosophers and historians, having published a book on D. Hume’s reception, and with other volumes well under way on Fr. Bacon, J. Locke, and G. E. Burke. If Byron has long been known across Europe, not least in Russia, we were pleased to find when we prepared our S. Coleridge volume in 2007 that none other than Leo Tolstoy had read Coleridge’s fine prose work “Aids to Reflection” (1825), an aphoristic exploration of the possibilities of religious faith in a period of secular scrutiny of Biblical texts and of probing philosophi — cal inquiries such as Kant’s into traditional attempts at proofs of God’s existence. Tolstoy read it in an English copy brought to him by a friend, and used an epigraph from it in defending himself against the charge of atheism.

From a theoretical point of view, we began with the idea that we must link the modern reception theory which has guided research in literary matters since the Constance School in the 1970s, led by H-.R. Jauss and W. Iser, with the “history of the book”, that is, the more prac — tical study of book-making, including publishers’ histories, legal constraints such as copyright laws, technical advances, and methods of diffusion. The classic study here is Robert Darnton’s brilliant discovery — after twenty years’ labour in publisher’s archives in Switzerland — of the list of subscribers to the French “Encyclopédie», edited by D. Diderot, and widely credited with moving minds towards the French Revolution (Darnton, 1979). Darnton was able to show exactly who — mainly French aristocrats — had subscribed to the work; and he went on to show how the volumes — banned in France — were in fact smuggled across the Alps on donkeys and distributed throughout France, concealed in hay wagons. This is one of the most exciting of all stories of the diffusion of knowledge and enlightenment. A further book pub — lished a correspondence of one of the agents in France with the publisher, which revealed that the agent, while he was master of the art of letter-writing so prized at the time, in fact never remitted the money he collected to the publisher. The enterprise of importing banned books was fraught with every kind of danger. These are the heroic tales of “book history”. Another

kind of research was carried out by one of the mentors of our Project, Prof. Bernhard Fabian (Mű nster), who has traced the location of the many libraries and their contents, destroyed, or successfully hidden, or looted or displaced as a whole during World War II. This monumental work amounts to a new catalogue of the libraries of Germany.

If both the literary-philosophical reception theory still based in texts and the inter- pretation of modes of reading (by the audience), on the one hand, and on the other, the objective tracing of the production of solid objects, trade and remuneration have been essential to the growth of reception studies, they are nevertheless not always easily recon — cilable; and those who are devoted to the interpretation of texts are not easily persuaded to consider matters of production, distribution, numbers of copies or modes of calculating monetary values across historical time. Nevertheless, our database for the Project makes it possible to do further research on these and related topics.

I should perhaps confess at this point that my own background is largely in the hu — manities, and especially comparative literature, which of course has a European focus (if a worldwide scope), with J. G. Herder, J. W. von Goethe, Matthew Arnold, usually counted among its modern founders. But my own work on the Romantic movement, and Coleridge’s philosophical ideas, took me to the research subject of ideas of “organism” in Europe in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, which I worked on as a Re — search Fellow at Cambridge, where I also gave several lecture series in the Department of the History and Philosophy of Science, and so to the roots of modern developmental or evolutionary thought.

In approaching our volumes on “The Reception of Darwin in Europe”, it was clear to me that here was the crux where all the previous ideas on the theme came together and “struggled for existence”. One mark of the reception is that so many at the time of the publication of the “Origin of Species” (1859) also perceived this, with great excite — ment, whatever their understanding of Darwin’s ideas and whatever their response, whether negative or affirmative. The recognition of the importance of the “Origin of Species” was immediate. The filtering of Darwin through already existing development theories, which both furnished a language yet subtly altered the meaning of his terms and the purport of his ideas, forms the history of his reception in Europe. There can be few more interesting cases.

The strength of already existing traditions, the awareness of the need for a mechanism of development, and the recognition of a new hypothesis came together in the rapidity of the response to the publication of the “Origin of Species” (1859). The early responses include reviews and translations, and all these factors then bear upon the reviews and translations, as in turn the translations bear upon the further reception in Europe.

The nature of the translation process is always an early consideration in any case of reception. In the case of a literary work this may seem a truism; in the case of a scientific work, it may not be so evident. But the case of Darwin’s “Origin” shows that a scientific work too depends upon and may be altered by the factors affecting the translator’s choic — es and the audience’s understanding of them.

The two most important translations were the first, the German by H. G. Bronn, and the French by Clémence Royer, both following within a very short time after the publication of “Origin” in English and the first reviews, in French and in German in

1860, the translations in 1860 (Bronn) and 1862 (Royer; an earlier offer to translate by P. A. Talandier, though accepted by Darwin, had been turned down by three French publishers in the year 1860). One of the first reviews on the Continent, in April 1860,

appeared in the French journal, the «Revue des Deux Mondes», a journal not of science but of general culture widely circulated and read all over Europe, from Britain to Rus — sia. Darwin quickly became aware of the review and its author. He wrote a brief letter acknowledging his receipt of Auguste Laugel’s review of «Origin of Species» in the «Re — vue des Deux Mondes» (Laugel, 1860). This copy of the review, lightly annotated, is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection in the Cambridge University Library. He also wrote to Hooker in April: “On Sunday we had a call from M. Laugel, geologist & litterateur, a very agreeable, clever, & charming man: just returned from N. America…”

Antoine Auguste Laugel (1830–1914) was indeed a very agreeable, clever, and charming man. Trained in the Ecole Polytechnique as an «ingénieur des mines», he wrote widely on scientific topics of the day, reviewing major books such as Louis Agas — siz (1856) and Alexander von Humboldt and Darwin, in very fluent and graceful es — say style, at generous Victorian length (about 30 pages). The title of the review, «Une Nouvelle théorie d’Histoire naturelle; l’Origine des espèces théorie de M. Darwin », published 1 April 1860, shows his awareness of the substantial claim being made by the book — nothing less than ‘a new theory of natural history’. His title in the case of his review of Alexander von Humboldt’s «Kosmos» was ‘The Earth as seen from Mr Von Humboldt’s Cosmos’ — a witty title, displaying but not acquiescing in the far-reach — ing claims of the book. Darwin’s subject allows the well-versed reviewer to illustrate from nature and from art, contrasting, for example, Breughel’s paintings of topsy-turvy nature with Darwin’s capacity to make order within the immense diversity of nature (Laugel, 1860). He went on to write books on a wide variety of topics, including history, politics, and the leading British philosopher of the period, John Stuart Mill; he gains the accolade of ‘philosophe’ in his obituary.

Laugel’s review took a generally approving view of Darwin’s book, though it conduct — ed a detailed inquiry into the unsatisfactory results from breeding experiments (which would only begin to be understood with Mendel), was sensitive to the problematic nature of some of Darwin’s key terms, which as we shall see affected all the translators, and fi- nally grounded his enthusiasm in the practical possibilities it opened for the transplanta — tion of species to new environments. It was most probably through Laugel’s review, and translations of it, sometimes in shortened form, in local journals, that the widest general reading public came to know about Darwin.

In both France and Germany Laugel (1830–1914) was indeed a very agreeable, clever, and charming man. Trained in the Ecole Polytechnique as an «ingénieur des mines», he wrote widely on scientific topics of the day, reviewing major books such as Louis Agas — siz (1856) and Alexander von Humboldt and Darwin, in very fluent and graceful es — say style, at generous Victorian length (about 30 pages). The title of the review, «Une Nouvelle théorie d’Histoire naturelle; l’Origine des espèces théorie de M. Darwin », published 1 April 1860, shows his awareness of the substantial claim being made by the book — nothing less than ‘a new theory of natural history’. His title in the case of his review of Alexander von Humboldt’s «Kosmos» was ‘The Earth as seen from Mr Von Humboldt’s Cosmos’ — a witty title, displaying but not acquiescing in the far-reach — ing claims of the book. Darwin’s subject allows the well-versed reviewer to illustrate from nature and from art, contrasting, for example, Breughel’s paintings of topsy-turvy nature with Darwin’s capacity to make order within the immense diversity of nature (Laugel, 1860). He went on to write books on a wide variety of topics, including history, politics, and the leading British philosopher of the period, John Stuart Mill; he gains the accolade of ‘philosophe’ in his obituary.

Laugel’s review took a generally approving view of Darwin’s book, though it conduct — ed a detailed inquiry into the unsatisfactory results from breeding experiments (which would only begin to be understood with Mendel), was sensitive to the problematic nature of some of Darwin’s key terms, which as we shall see affected all the translators, and fi- nally grounded his enthusiasm in the practical possibilities it opened for the transplanta — tion of species to new environments. It was most probably through Laugel’s review, and translations of it, sometimes in shortened form, in local journals, that the widest general reading public came to know about Darwin.

In both France and Germany there were strong national traditions shaping the formu — lations. In France, the powerful tradition stemming from Georges-Louis de Buffon, who perceived the long duration of geological time (though he was forced to recant it by the Church), an assumption then carried out by British geologists including Darwin’s mentor Charles Lyell, the long time span being essential to Darwin’s theory, had been followed by Georges Cuvier’s domination of the scientific establishment in Napoleonic France; para — doxically, the publication of Darwin’s “Origin” served to restore Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who had died in poverty and neglect in 1829, as an important contributor to the subject.

Lamarck’s views as expressed in his “Philosophie Zoologique” (1807) had not found favour in his lifetime; but the success of Darwin’s “Origin” bestowed significance on him in part as an evolutionary model and in part as a rival to the new claimant. This effect was forwarded by the first French translator, Clémence Royer, who, not a scientist though she had the help of the zoologist René-Edouard Claparède with the translation, claimed in her somewhat idiosyncratic preface that Darwin’s work supported Lamarck. Darwin, though he

approved a second edition in 1865, took his distance; but others supported her1. Lamarck’s resuscitation was to be an influential and long enduring one, as those in this hall know.

In Germany, the tradition of development theory was equally long, reaching well back into the eighteenth century, but it had passed through the hands of the Naturphi — losophen, the idealist-tinged philosophers and scientists who are known for their wish to see the “organism” rather than the “mechanism” as the dominant model, and who viewed the “type” as an Urform which developed over time. Schelling’s philosophical model in — fluenced scientists such as the Scandinavian H. Steffens, the anatomist Lorenz Oken, and Johannes Mueller, who sought the “type” within the variations of life forms. Our pub — lished volume does not try to trace this complex prehistory in detail; but it emerges in the particular biases and expectations and interpretations laid on Darwin’s work by leading scientists such as Ernst Haeckel.

Early German reviews are very different in tone and style from Laugel’s genial essay; one decisive difference is that they come from inside the science establishment. One of the earliest reviews in German (antedating Laugel’s) is O. Peschel’s “A New Doctrine of the History of Creation of the Organic World” („Eine neue Lehre über die Schöpfungsges- chichte der organischen Welt“). The first part was published on January 29, 1860, as “Die Darwin’sche Theorie” (“Darwin’s Theory”). Peschel’s review is based on the first English edition of the “Origin” of 1859. He begins with an exposition of Darwin’s initial problem and presents Darwin’s line of argument in an informative and objective way. His tone is generally favourable, but he concludes:

„Dieß ist die neue und großartige Theorie Darwins. Sie scheint auf den ersten An — blick geradezu überwältigend und unendlich verführerisch. Sie wird sich jedoch schwer beweisen lassen, weil dazu eben eine fortgesetzte Beobachtung durch Jahrtausende nöthig wäre. Sie läßt sich auch nicht völlig widerlegen, weil dazu Hunderttausende von Jahren gehören würden. Es gibt aber innere Schwierigkeiten und Einwände gegen die Lehre, die uns das nächstemal beschäftigen werden2 (Peschel, 1860, p. 97–101, 135–140)“.

In the second part, which appeared in the next issue, Peschel presents „Die Einwände gegen die Darwin’sche Theorie“ (“The Objections against Darwin’s Theory”), following Darwin’s own treatment of difficulties in his book: the scarcity of the fossil record, means of transition, organs displaying extreme perfection, issues of hybridism and others.

The response of Darwin’s early German readers including his translator H. G. Bronn is an important gauge of what they hoped and expected from a theory of development, and of the alterations of Darwin’s meaning that gained currency through the translation. We shall be particularly concerned with those alterations of meaning and emphasis today, for they largely determined the understanding of Darwin in circles across Europe that took German science as their model or authority.

H. G. Bronn was himself an eminent scientist, a palaeontologist and zoologist, and Professor had been awarded a prize in 1857 in a competition announced by the French Academy of Sciences. Bronn himself had been working on the subject of a scientific explanation of the origin of species for a long time. Darwin carefully read volume two of his “Handbuch” in February 1846 (Complete Works… 1988, vol. 4 [1847–1850], Appendix IV, p. 119); his comments and annotations fill 15 columns in the “Marginalia” (Charles Darwin’s Marginalia, 1990, p. 76–90). It is essential to remember how closely Darwin monitored com — ments, translations, and relevant work by others in the field, and how directly he intervened when he thought he was misinterpreted. Bronn’s was a more authoritative scientific voice than the early French commentators and translators; but he was also a competitor.

However, Bronn was divided in his mind. He reiterated Peschel’s point that very long-term observation would be needed to begin to authenticate Darwin’s views. More — over, he argued that the theory did not account for the origin of matter — which indeed it did not, and Darwin of course claimed no such thing. Only by accounting for it, however, Bronn felt, could the claims of religious or theological creation stories be refuted.

Moreover, surprisingly, he belittles Darwin in another way, by claiming that Lamarck preceded him in his theory, and that Darwin’s advantage is only that of the increase of knowledge in the period that had elapsed since Lamarck and Geoffroi St. Hilaire wrote.

It is, however, through his construals of meaning in the translation of key terms of the “Origin” that this early translation was to have such a wide-ranging impact on the under — standing of Darwin’s arguments wherever the German translation was the main text relied on. The impact of the translation depended on the high reputation of German science as well as on territorial and linguistic considerations. Included are the Austro-Hungarian Em — pire, the German-language University of Prague, parts of Scandinavia, and parts of the Low Countries as well as parts of the Baltic lands. Switzerland was especially vital for both the French and German receptions. To determine the extent of any translation’s reach requires detailed attention to particular, often shifting political boundaries, minority populations in particular regions and cities, university arrangements and even the personnel of individual departments and laboratories, as well as their sojourns, long or short, in other places.

Bronn died in 1862, and did not live to see the reception of his own translation or its second edition (1863) (prepared by J. V. Carus, and omitting Bronn’s notes), nor did he have the chance to rethink his own choices. The key terms that seem to have caused difficulty include the major terms in Darwin’s discussion. First, “natural selection”: Bronn translated it as “Wahl der Lebens-Weise”, “choice of the way of living” or “choice of life-style”. His own interpretation suggests an explanation of a Lamarckist cast, and Darwin explicitly objected to the translation on these grounds. It is not the individuals’ “life choice” that determines the outcome; the “selection” is not made by themselves. As Darwin protested, in a letter to Bronn of 14 February 1860, calling this translation into question:

“It leaves the impression on my mind of the Lamarckian doctrine (which I reject) of habits of life being all important”.

He goes on to insist instead on the parallel of horse-breeders selecting for certain characters.

Yet it may be held that the objections to Darwin’s occasional use of artificial “breeding metaphors” had itself suggested to Bronn the counteracting shift in the direction of the individual’s own selection of his habitat or activities which lent his translation the Lamarc- kian cast in terms of “use” and “disuse” as decisive factors. Finally, however, he opted for translating “natural selection” as „natürliche Züchtung“, “natural breeding”. The physician and materialist philosopher Ludwig Büchner commented on this translation critically, pre — ferring the term ‘Auswahl’ (selection) since according to Büchner this expression reflected Darwin’s ideas more accurately and precisely than the word „Züchtung“ (breeding) which had misleading associations. Yet Darwin had himself criticized „Wahl“ as implying “choice” and drawn attention to his intended parallel with artificial breeding. „Züchtung“, however, had the unfortunate consequence of giving support to a later eugenic interpretation.

Perhaps the most unfortunate reinterpretation slipped in when Bronn translated “fa — voured races” as „vervollkommnete Rassen“, “perfected races”, thus suggesting that evo — lution implies the tendency to perfection. An anonymous reviewer wrote as early as 1860 (in “Literarisches Zentralblatt für Deutschland”, “Literary Newspaper for Germany”) a review of Darwin’s “Origin”, based on Bronn’s translation. In his informative and objec — tive article the author emphasises Darwin’s special achievements, “that a lot of otherwise incomprehensible facts of animal — and plant geography are explained by his theory eas — ily and without strain, finally and mainly, that the laws of the unity of type and of the adaptation of organisms to their conditions of life are included in his doctrine”’ (Rezen- sion… 1860, 613f). The reviewer also mentions that the numerous objections to which the theory is open are discussed by Darwin himself in detail. However, he also points out that Bronn’s translation leaves something to be desired. He pounces on the translation

„vervollkommnet“, “perfected” for “favoured” in the title of the work and points out that the text is thus given an essentially different meaning from the original and, moreover, one which the author rejected. There is no doubt that „vervollkommnet“, “perfected”, has other connotations than “favoured”; Carus chose the German „begünstigt“ for “fa — voured”, a more modest and limited term than „vervollkommnet“. Although Darwin used the terms ”lower” and “higher” in his works and he also used the expression “ascending organic scale” thus maintaining the old terminology of “the great chain of being” of natu — ral philosophy, he explicitly questioned the underlying assumptions of these terms and was aware of the problem created by continuing to use this language (see: Engels, 2007, s. 74f, 98–101, 150). We have to be aware of the fact that in Darwin’s thinking in spite of its revolutionary implications different modes of thought and familiar terminology from the past were still in evidence. Furthermore, in his translation of “Origin” Bronn used the word „Vollkommenheit“, “perfection”, unnecessarily often, for instance where Dar — win Newspaper for Germany”) a review of Darwin’s “Origin”, based on Bronn’s translation. In his informative and objec — tive article the author emphasises Darwin’s special achievements, “that a lot of otherwise incomprehensible facts of animal — and plant geography are explained by his theory eas — ily and without strain, finally and mainly, that the laws of the unity of type and of the adaptation of organisms to their conditions of life are included in his doctrine”’ (Rezen- sion… 1860, 613f). The reviewer also mentions that the numerous objections to which the theory is open are discussed by Darwin himself in detail. However, he also points out that Bronn’s translation leaves something to be desired. He pounces on the translation

„vervollkommnet“, “perfected” for “favoured” in the title of the work and points out that the text is thus given an essentially different meaning from the original and, moreover, one which the author rejected. There is no doubt that „vervollkommnet“, “perfected”, has other connotations than “favoured”; Carus chose the German „begünstigt“ for “fa — voured”, a more modest and limited term than „vervollkommnet“. Although Darwin used the terms ”lower” and “higher” in his works and he also used the expression “ascending organic scale” thus maintaining the old terminology of “the great chain of being” of natu — ral philosophy, he explicitly questioned the underlying assumptions of these terms and was aware of the problem created by continuing to use this language (see: Engels, 2007, s. 74f, 98–101, 150). We have to be aware of the fact that in Darwin’s thinking in spite of its revolutionary implications different modes of thought and familiar terminology from the past were still in evidence. Furthermore, in his translation of “Origin” Bronn used the word „Vollkommenheit“, “perfection”, unnecessarily often, for instance where Dar — win only talked of “high/low comparisons” or complexity of organisation and did not use words like “perfection” or “perfected” (Darwin, 1860, p. 134). The words „Vollkom — menheit“ and „vervollkommnet“ have much stronger normative and indeed theological connotations than “favoured” (referring to Darwin’s full title: “most favoured races”). But species were “favoured” in Darwin’s system not by a Creator, nor by any intrinsic su — periority, but simply by the fact of survival in a particular ecological niche. Terminology referring to “perfection” could lead to a normative biologism which claims that the proc — ess of natural selection and adaptation is in itself a process in which “better” and ”higher” forms of life are selected and “worse” and ”lower” forms are eliminated. Under the cloak of

scientific authority various value systems could be imported, as with “social Darwinism” (Engels, 2009). Thus some occasional slippages in Darwin’s own usage were hardened and exaggerated by the translator’s choices.

This was the case also with the most central of Darwin’s terms. Darwin’s term “the struggle for existence” was translated by Bronn as „der Kampf um das Dasein“, a ring — ing phrase that was to have unforeseen consequences. Even more than Herbert Spen — cer’s coinage “the survival of the fittest”, adopted later by Darwin (but which means no more than the tautology, those who are most fit to survive, are those who in fact survive),

„Kampf“ suggests “battle” or “war” not as a metaphor but a reality, and turns “strug — gle” — which in English while it can mean a fight, does not necessarily signify more than “effort”, as in vernacular phrases such as “I struggle to make ends meet” or (humorous) “I struggle to earn enough to keep my children in computer games”. Moreover, not only is „Kampf“ more extreme than “struggle”, but „Dasein“, “Being”, in German has a pro — founder philosophical implication that in English is not attached to “existence” except in references to (foreign!) philosophical systems. „Dasein“, like „Vervollkommnung“, may have a moral and a theological implication. The „Kampf ums Dasein“, then, is far more than a “struggle for existence”: it is a “battle for Being“.

This terminology of “war”, “perfecting”, and “being” in the widely circulated German translation by Bronn and Carus undoubtedly affected the construction placed on Dar — win’s “Origin of Species” by others, and was taken up by eugenics theorists and “Social Darwinists”, as well as by philosophers, visual and literary artists (beyond our scope in this paper).

In our third volume, on Darwin’s Cultural Reception in Europe, we will pursue the matters of early reviews and translations in a variety of languages as well as his cultural impact, on literature, the arts, museum exhibition, and the celebrations surrounding his various festivals, half-centenaries and centenaries. The boundary between scientists and other professions was much less firm in 1860 than it is today, and Darwin’s readers came from across a wide spectrum. There was also a shared European set of references and a language of nature which made Darwin accessible. Yet the early responses outlined here had a lasting impact on the ways in which he was interpreted and misinterpreted.

References

Charles Darwin und seine Wirkung / Hrsg. von E.-M. Engels. Frankfurt-am-Mein : Suhrkamp Ta- schenbuch, 2009. 466 s.

Charles Darwin’s Marginalia / ed. by M. Di Gregorio. Vol. 1. N. Y. ; L. : Garland Publishing, 1990.

LXI, 895 p.

Conry Y. Introduction de Darwinisme en France au XIX siecle. P. : Vrin, 1974. 480 p.

The Correspondence of Charles Darwin / ed. by F. H. Burkhardt et al. Vols. 1–15. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1985–2005.

Darnton R. The Business of Enlightenment: a publishing history of the “Encyclopédie”, 1775–1800.

Cambridge, MA ; L. : Belknap Press, 1979. XIV, 624 p.

Darwin Ch. Über die Entstehung der Arten im Thier — und Pflanzen-Reich durch natürliche Züchtung, oder, Erhaltung der vervollkommneten Rassen im Kamprwin, über die Entstehung der Arten im Thier — und Pflanzenreich durch natürliche

Züchtung, oder Erhaltung der vervollkommneten Rassen im Kampfe um’s Daseyn. Nach der 2.

Aufl. Aus dem Englischen übers. Von Dr. H. G. Bronn. Stuttgart, 1860 // Literarisches Zentralblatt

für Deutschland. 1860. № 11. P. 611f.

Первые немецкие и французские переводчики и рецензенты

«Происхождения видов» Ч. Дарвина

Э. Шаффер

Институт германской и романской филологии, Лондонский университет

Лондон, Великобритания: Elinor. Shaffer@sas. ac. uk

Вскоре после публикации «Происхождения видов» (1859) и самых первых англий — ских рецензий появились также французские и немецкие отклики на эту книгу Дар — вина. В них признавалось значение этого сочинения, но в то же время наметились и возражения, и попытки переосмысления некоторых положений Дарвина, которые на протяжении многих лет оказывали влияние на восприятие теории Дарвина в Ев — ропе. Во французском переводе К. Руайе (1862) многие положения теории Дарвина были сознательно пересмотрены. В немецком издании Г. Бронна (1860) при пере — воде ключевых терминов изменился их смысл, за счет чего несколько вся теория предстала в несколько ином виде. Возможно, самое большое число читателей впер — вые узнало о сочинении Дарвина из подробной рецензии А. Лажеля в «La Revue des Deux Mondes» (апрель, 1861) — качественном литературно-публицистическом журнале, выходившем на французском языке на протяжении многих лет и пользо — вавшемся вниманием образованной публики во всей Европе, от Великобритании до России. Во всех случаях Дарвин поддерживал прямые контакты с рецензентами и переводчиками и активно участвовал в их работе, внося исправления, высказывая похвалу или критические суждения.

Ключевые слова: Франция, Германия, отклики, рецензии, переводы, Ч. Дарвин, «Про — исхождение видов».

CONTROVERSIES ABOUT DARWIN’S CONCEPT AT PRUSSIAN HIGHER-SCHOOLS: THE CASE OF HERMANN MÜLLER (1829–1883) — OR “AFFEN MÜLLER” AND THE FREEDOM OF TEACHING BIOLOGY

M. Heinemann

Leibniz University

Germany, Hannover: m. heinemann@zzbw. uni-hannover. de

Charles Darwin’s book “On the origin of species” was translated into German language and published in Stuttgart 1860, fifth edition in 1872. In the higher education school sys — tem in Prussia it was Dr. Hermann Müller (1829–1883), a teacher at the Realschule (to- day Ostendorf-Gymnasium) in Lippstadt, Westphalia, who discovered Darwin’s theory in

1866 and in 1867 started his exchange of letters with Darwin. Müller was the first known propagator of Darwin’s concept. Using the new concept of Darwin he published in 1869 first results. Müller today is rated as a founder of flower-biology. He discovered not only new species but the relation between bees and the pollenization of flowers as an evidence of Darwin’s theory. Müller drafted the first known modern curriculum in natural-science teaching in 1865 (second edition in 1876 including Darwins theory) and in chemistry. Müller in spite of his controversies in public was seconded by the authorities and awarded in 1883 with the honorary title of a Professor. His methods of teaching resulted in a new type of educated students. Many of them continued their studies in natural science at a university. Some of them became very influential in the monistic and anti-modernistic movements about 1900. The article opens for the inclusion of influences by schools into the legacy of Darwin.

Keywords: Hermann Müller, Fritz Müller, Ostendorf-Gymnasium, Realschule I. Ordnung, Lippstadt, history of biology, Germany, Prussia, natural science education, flower biology, pollenization of flowers.

I

Teaching the History of Nature, Biology, Chemistry etc., in Prussian schools of high — er education (“Gymnasien”) during the 19th century in connection with Darwin’s ideas is a widely unknown field of research.

The most important in biology is the instance of professor Dr. Hermann Müller

(nicknamed “Affen Müller”) during Bismarck’s “Kulturkampf” (cultural struggle) from

1871–1878/79 primarily against the status of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany.

It involves not only a case study about the academic freedom, the reaction of school adminis-tration, while giving insight into the development and change of school ideology towards the introduction of teaching of Natural Science versus traditional humanistic education.1

Müller appears to be among the first teachers at a Prussian Gymnasium to include Darwin’s way of thinking into the Natural Science curriculum thus turning the concept of higher

1 Aside of some details out of Prussian school history this article is based on the recent publication of contributions and available literature for he 125-years anniversary of Müller’s day of death: Heinrich Münz and Michael Morkramer (ed.): Hermann Müller — Lippstadt (1829–1883). Naturforscher und Pädagoge. Rangsdorf: Basilisken-Presse. 2010. Cited as: Münz/Morkramer. The author thanks Michael Morkramer (Lippstadt) and Joachim Knoll (Altwarmbüchen) for assistance and comments. For a board general overview and more details about Darwin reception in Germany see Daum, 2002.

education drastically to the Natural Science side, which we see clearly in the list of his pub — lications put together by E. Höxtermann and St. Schneckenburger (Münz/Morkramer,

2010, pp. 195–205). The “Realschule” in Lippstadt, Prussian province of Westphalia, was granted by the Ministry and “Provinzialschulkollegium” (the State School inspection in the province) the status of a “Realschule I. Ordnung”. It was then privileged to administer the “Abitur” (school leaving examination) for university studies. This school had devel — oped since 1815 into one of the four schools of this level in the province, for which the development was organized and secured by the famous school director, Julius Ostendorf (1823–1877), for whom the Realschule was later named the “Ostendorf-Gymnasium”2.

The case of Hermann Müller therefore is one of rare school examples by which the interest of the public and academia resulted in extensive documentation about the vari — ous sides of conflict. These ranged from the new theoretical and scientific approaches in academia brought to school education as well as the opposition at the local level. Müller’s kind of teaching new subjects in Chemistry and Biology, as well as Natural Science lec — tures in a university-styled manner included Darwin’s approach which not only offended traditional church-based socialization in the community, but in school pedagogy using the pedagogical freedom to introduce a more materialistic “Weltanschauung” based on re — search and hypothesis in Prussian Germany. Müller was successful in teaching a new type of student. Some of them at the turn of century became leading figures in the monistic, materialistic and anti-monistic movements, as well as in school reform. The most signifi- cant of these were Wilhelm Breitenbach3, Eberhard Dennert4 and Wilhelm Wetekamp5 (Morkramer, Hoffmann, 2010, p. 163–173).

Breitenbach, like Dennert and Wetekamp, in 1910 recollected the exceptional and impressive teaching methods of Müller: From Hermann Müller, he had learned of Dar — win’s publications, as well as those of Ernst Haeckel, Fritz Müller and other natural sci — entists. In Lippstadt he was introduced into the use of microscope, biological observa — tions in the open nature and laboratory experiments in chemistry. “From Müller I learned

2 The author of this article passed the school-leaving examination (“Abitur”) in 1962. He remembers very well being educated in the old building of 1865 in the original classrooms of biology, chemistry and physics. The biology room was stocked with Müller’s collections of animals, displays of human fetus etc. Two alligators were hanging from the ceiling just across the very large working table. The smell was impressive like the artifacts. The building was completely destroyed in 1969 giving space for a new theatre. Müller’s collection is still existing and needs a re-use. See: www. ostendorf-gymnasium. de

3 Wilhelm Breitenbach (1856–1937) did his school-leaving–certificate (“Abitur”) in 1877 and went to the university of Jena for studies with Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) in zoology. He became a great popularizer of development theories. He translated articles of Darwin and Huxley, published in “Nature” and corresponded still as student at the Gymnasium with Darwin.

4 Eberhard Dennert (1861–1942) passed his Abitur in 1880 and studied at the University of Marburg with professor Albert Wigand botany. Wigand made Dennert a strong opponent of Darwin’s theories. But in spite of his later opposition Dennert reported very positive about Müller’s teaching, especially about the experiments in Müller’s lessons in chemistry. Dennert founded the “Kepler-Bund zur Förderung der Naturerkenntnis” and propagated a strong anti-Darwin position. Dennert published 94 books with app. 300.000 editions and 3.000 pamphlets.

5 Wilhelm Wetekamp (1859–1945) studied in Berlin, Jena and Breslau and continued as teacher in higher education. As a member of the Prussian lower parliament 1893–1903 he fought for nature-protection like the US National-Park-Movement. In favor of self-administration of schools including the students he was a well-known school-reformer.

first natural sciences and the origins of …the monistic Weltanschauung.”6 (ibid, p. 164). Breitenbach as student assistant took part in Müller’s excursions and outdoor teaching with younger students. He additionally described his experience with the public contro — versies about Darwin in Lippstadt (the “Lippstadt Case”)7 (Ibid, p. 166).

II

Hermann Müller, born in Thuringia 1829, was the son of a Protestant minister of a well-educated large family. In 1848, he passed the Abitur at the Gymnasium in Erfurt, started studies at the University of Halle-Wittenberg and continued from 1849–1852 studies of Zoology, Chemistry and Geology at the Berlin University. His doctoral thesis in 1855 “Beiträge zu einem natürlichen System der Käfer” was accepted by the Philosophi — cal Faculty of the University of Jena. His specific qualifications for higher education in detail were: Natural-History (“Naturgeschichte”) and Chemistry for all classes and Math- ematics and German for classes below the upper school level. By means of additional examinations, Müller added the facultas docendi for Latin and French. His brothers, Fritz Müller and Wilhelm Müller, were also well known biologists (Friese, 2010, pp.13–33). Before starting his career as Gymnasium teacher in Lippstadt, he worked on probation at the Friedrich-Wilhelm-Gymnasium in Berlin, and as a substitute-teacher in Schwerin. From 1853 onward, he travelled several times to the Alpine areas (Tenbergen, 2010, p. 51). He discovered an unknown species, one of which was Lathrobium Glyptomerus cavicola, an eyeless beatle. He died on such an excursion 1883, August 25, in Prad, in southern Tyrol, where he was buried. His death was made public for England in the “Times” of January 8, 1884, by a letter to the editor of Professor E. Perceval Wright, of Dublin Uni — versity. Two months after, the translation of Müller’s work: “Fertilization of Flowery” was announced (Friese, 2010, p. 29). Darwin himself had supported the translation and wrote the introduction. Wright announced the foundation of a prize bearing Müller’s name and collected money. Müller left behind three children of his own as well as those of his wife Sophie, a widow with five own children,8 whom he had married in 1856.

6 “…durch Müller persönlich habe ich als Sekundaner und Primaner die Schriften Darwins, Haeckels, Fritz Müllers und anderer Naturforscher der Darwin´schen Zeit kennen gelernt; in Lipp — stadt wurde ich in die ersten Arbeiten mit dem Mikroskop eingeführt; hier lernte ich biologische Beobachtungen in der freien Natur ebenso anstellen wie chemische Versuche im Laboratorium. Kurzum Hermann Müller war es, dem ich meine Bekanntschaft mit der modernen Naturwissen — schaft verdanke; er ist es auch gewesen, der in die Seele des Jünglings die Keime legte, aus denen dann später in Jena, der damaligen Hochburg des Darwinismus, die feste Überzeugung von der Richtigkeit der monistischen Weltanschauung hervorgegangen ist.” Citation from: Breitenbach W. Populäre Vorträge aus dem Gebiete der Entwicklungslehre. Brackwede, 1910. 264 p.

7 Morkramer and Hoffmann discovered Breitenbach’s library and an unpublished ms about Müller’s geology in the archive of the Helmholtz-Gymnasium in Bielefeld established in 1896, privileged in 1906 with the right of Abitur-examination.

8 His son Wilhelm Hermann after natural-science study in Jena, Straßburg and Göttingen followed him 1877–1880 as teacher in Lippstadt, continued in London 1880, returned to Liegnitz. He, a publisher and owner of a Newspaper started an career as politician 1892–1907 as member of the Reichstag and 1899–1912 as member of the Prussian diet and became 1906 party leader of the “Freisinnige Volkspartei”. His daughter Dorothea engaged herself in the women’s movement.

In September 1855, he started his probationary teaching at the Realschule in Lipp — stadt, while continuing his research and publishing about plants of the region. In 1865, with consent of the school administration of the Prussian province, Müller in cooperation with Eduard Lottner (a mathematician fascinated from Müller’s experimental teaching) published in Prussia the first curriculum about his Natural-History teaching experiences (“Über den Lehrplan für den naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht”) (Trommer, 2010, pp.

138–141), which was awarded in 1865 by his promotion to the position of Oberlehrer. He advanced in 1871 to the second position of the rank of Oberlehrer. In the files of the Ministry of Education (Centralblatt, 1882, p. 237) in Berlin, he was mentioned the “most competent teacher of Natural-Science in the province”. This curriculum was fundamen — tal for the instruction of 1866 for Natural Science training for teachers in Prussia. He amended this concept in 1876 by including Darwin’s theory, internationally mentioned and recognized by the journal “Nature” in 1876. Shortly after this publication, the Prus — sian Ministry of Education 1882 as part of the reorganization of teaching at Gymnasia re — duced the lesson hours in natural sciences in the upper level to zero, excluding the teach — ing of “theoretical hypothesis” — one of Müller’s key issue of reform — for the next thirty years (Centralblatt, 1882, p. 237). Thus approach was transferred to university studies.

The year 1866 saw Müller discover the publications of Charles Darwin through the publication of his brother Fritz from 1864 “Für Darwin”: “On the Origin of the Species” which had been translated into German in 1860. This had a fifth edition in 1872. Later, in 1867, Müller started the exchange of letters with Darwin9. He discussed also with his brother Fritz his experience in flower biology and informed Darwin about his findings in the adaptation of flowers and its pollenizers. Darwin wrote Breitenbach his comments about Müller’s observations (Barenthin, 2010, p. 37). Müller under the influence of Dar — win’s theory now reorganized his way of collecting biological and other items. He wrote: “Thatsachen der Laubmooskunde für Darwin” in 1866. With assistance of his brother Fritz, he included statistical methods to find new ways to understand the creation of species. Darwin accepted the idea of interrelation between the flowers, its colours and the polli — nation as “One of the most extraordinary, I have ever read.” (cit. Schneckenburger, 2010, p. 75). Fritz then helped Herman to organize further questions and answers and experi — ments. Darwin included the problem of forms and colours of the “organic world” into his theories including the way he thought about the bees detecting colours. Müller’s research and observation into the pollination of Westphalian orchids described the work of the bees, including the new Darwin interpretation about the survival of the species. Darwin: “It is hardly an exaggeration to say that Nature tells us, in the most emphatic manner, that she abhors perpetual self-fertilization.” (ibid, p. 79).

In 1869, Müller published “Über die Anwendung der Darwin’schen Theorie auf Blu — men und blumensuchende Insekten” which was to be translated into Italian and English. Müller’s main study “Die Befruchtung der Blumen durch Insekten und die gegenseitigen Anpassungen beider: Ein Beitrag zur Erkenntniss des ursächlichen Zusammenhanges in der organischen Natur” followed in 1873. It was about insects and flowers, while looking at their interrelations. A second volume followed in 1881.

Today, Müller is rated as one of the pioneers of flower biology. Darwin in his introduc — tion stated: “For instance, he has discovered the singular fact that with certain species

9 Letters were collected and translated by Heiner Kresse (1914–2005), teacher at the Osten — dorf-Gymnasium: http://mueller. ostendorf-gymnasium. de/naturforscher. htm

two kinds of plants are regularly produced, one bearing inconspicuous flowers fitted for self fertilization, and the other kind with more conspicuous flowers fitted for cross ferti — lization.” (ibid, p. 86).

Aside o his theories including the way he thought about the bees detecting colours. Müller’s research and observation into the pollination of Westphalian orchids described the work of the bees, including the new Darwin interpretation about the survival of the species. Darwin: “It is hardly an exaggeration to say that Nature tells us, in the most emphatic manner, that she abhors perpetual self-fertilization.” (ibid, p. 79).

In 1869, Müller published “Über die Anwendung der Darwin’schen Theorie auf Blu — men und blumensuchende Insekten” which was to be translated into Italian and English. Müller’s main study “Die Befruchtung der Blumen durch Insekten und die gegenseitigen Anpassungen beider: Ein Beitrag zur Erkenntniss des ursächlichen Zusammenhanges in der organischen Natur” followed in 1873. It was about insects and flowers, while looking at their interrelations. A second volume followed in 1881.

Today, Müller is rated as one of the pioneers of flower biology. Darwin in his introduc — tion stated: “For instance, he has discovered the singular fact that with certain species

9 Letters were collected and translated by Heiner Kresse (1914–2005), teacher at the Osten — dorf-Gymnasium: http://mueller. ostendorf-gymnasium. de/naturforscher. htm

two kinds of plants are regularly produced, one bearing inconspicuous flowers fitted for self fertilization, and the other kind with more conspicuous flowers fitted for cross ferti — lization.” (ibid, p. 86).

Aside ormal>Twelve Catholic priests from the Paderborn Diocese in a public declaration opposed this policy. The struggle caused newspaper fights across the western Prussian provinces and intensified as director Ostendorf defended the position of the State. Hermann Müller in 1976 heated the conflict by presenting himself in the second version of his Natural — History curriculum as a Darwinist. The new director of the Realschule Ludwig Aust (1833–1890) defended him. The quarrels went on and resulted in the province capital Münster school-authority notification to Müller not to continue his teaching of Dar — win’s Theory. When Müller had allowed the reading of the three chapters of Krause’s book, the dispute in the newspapers resumed a new feud denouncing the teaching of Müller as a sacrilege. Parents were warned not to hand over their children to such a school: “Nehmt Eure Kinder in Acht”. Müller went to court and in 1879 was relieved by its decision. 31 former students of the Realschule opposed such accusations and denunciations about his teaching.

The struggle increased and reached Berlin. The Kulturkampf in Prussia now centered around school-developments, caused a debate in the Prussian Diet of 1879/80. The school

director following Ostendorf Ludwig Aust was cleverly replaced by his brother Eduard. Ludwig left Prussia and travelled to Brazil, where he met Hermann Müller’s brother Fritz and continued teaching. Hermann Müller complained to Darwin about his case and criti — cized the administration not to have him defended openly against the “Bildungsfeinde” (the school enemies). The cultural controversies ended in February 1879 when the Prus — sian administration after Falks leave softened its policy against the Roman Catholic Church in its territories.

In spite of all controversies Müller’s scientific reputation remained untouched. In

1883, the Prussian Ministry of Education offered Müller for his work the honorary title of

a Professor. He died shortly after in 1883 in the Alps and was paid homage by obituaries

in “Nature” and “Science” (Sauer, 2010, p. 100).

One hundred years later, in 1983 a street in Lippstadt was named after Hermann

Müller.

IV

Müller’s publication about the “Hypothesis in School Education” in Prussia opened a wide new understanding of Natural Science theoretical thinking at the school level.

Müller’s contribution to the popularization of Darwin can be valued as an exemplary example of academic interaction and influx of Darwin into the advancement of Prussian and German higher school education.

He was not alone: A publication published in the nearby city of Bielefeld with a similar title in 1867 was mentioning Darwin: “Die Befruchtung der Pflanzen durch Hülfe der Insekten und die Theorie Darwin’s von der Entstehung der Arten”. The author, Fritz Ludwig, was in a comparable position like Müller teaching at the “Städtische Realschule Straßburg” in Elsaß-Lothringen (in French: Elsasse-Loraine) and 1878 he was the author of “Die Weiterentwicklung der Realschule”.

Two other prominent contemporary supporters and disciples of Darwin during this time were: – Ludwig Büchner (1824–1899), physician and author of popular materialis — tic publications among his central publication: “Kraft und Stoff”, published in more than

50 editions, a forerunner of Ernst Haeckel. – Julius Dub, natural scientist and researcher about electric magnetism, opening for the broader a never-ending debate about Darwin among theologians, philosophers, natural scientists.

Others have yet to be found by future research.

Looking into the surviving 37 letters written by Müller and Darwin (edited and

translated by Dr. Heiner Kresse (1914–2005), teacher of biology at the Ostendorf-Gym-nasium) one will find details about Müller’s following of Darwin’s rather than that of

Linné’s thinking and very detailed discussions about plant experiments. One congenial

participant in this exchange again was Fritz Müller, Hermann Müller’s brother. Thirty

letters addressed to him have survived in the University of Cambridge Library, while

others could be added from other German sources.

It is said that Darwin himself did not care for letters and burned many after respond-ing. The letters in Cambridge present Fritz Müller’s research activity. The first letter

mentions his ecological understanding; others described behavioral studies with bees,

while studying their reactions to colours. Detailed descriptions are now opening for his

studies into heredity transmission. Insects and their interrelations to flowers, crossbreed-ing experiments, etc. were also researched.

Darwin in every respect assisted Hermann and Fritz Müller as much as possible. This is mentioned positively in a letter to Breitenbach as to Mueller’s exact observations and very sharp reflections.

Final observation:

The discussion about Hermann Müller still continues. The recent notes of visitors

about the exhibition of “Hermann Müller’s Life and Work” at the Dortmund Univer-sity Library reveal the ongoing misunderstanding of Hermann Müller as a fighter against

the traditional Religion. That prejudice is ever there and ever persistent.

References

Reorganized by M. Morkramer the archive of the Ostendorf-Gymnasium contains an impressive collection of documents, articles and books of Hermann Müller.

Barenthin G. Der of

Linné’s thinking and very detailed discussions about plant experiments. One congenial

participant in this exchange again was Fritz Müller, Hermann Müller’s brother. Thirty

letters addressed to him have survived in the University of Cambridge Library, while

others could be added from other German sources.

It is said that Darwin himself did not care for letters and burned many after respond-ing. The letters in Cambridge present Fritz Müller’s research activity. The first letter

mentions his ecological understanding; others described behavioral studies with bees,

while studying their reactions to colours. Detailed descriptions are now opening for his

studies into heredity transmission. Insects and their interrelations to flowers, crossbreed-ing experiments, etc. were also researched.

Darwin in every respect assisted Hermann and Fritz Müller as much as possible. This is mentioned positively in a letter to Breitenbach as to Mueller’s exact observations and very sharp reflections.

Final observation:

The discussion about Hermann Müller still continues. The recent notes of visitors

about the exhibition of “Hermann Müller’s Life and Work” at the Dortmund Univer-sity Library reveal the ongoing misunderstanding of Hermann Müller as a fighter against

the traditional Religion. That prejudice is ever there and ever persistent.

References

Reorganized by M. Morkramer the archive of the Ostendorf-Gymnasium contains an impressive collection of documents, articles and books of Hermann Müller.

Barenthin G. Der Naturforscher und Pädagoge Hermann Müller // Hermann Müller-Lipp — stadt (1829–1883). Naturforscher und Pädagoge / eds. H. Münz, M. Morkramer. Rangsdorf : Basilisken-Presse, 2010. P. 35–44.

Centralblatt für die gesamte Unterrichtsverwaltung in Preußen. 1882. Bd. 24. S. 233–234.

Daum A. W. Wissenschaftspopularisierung im 19. Jahrhundert bürgerliche Kultur, naturwissen-schaftliche Bildung und die deutsche Öffentlichkeit, 1848–1914. München : Oldenbourg,

2002. XII, 619 S.

Münz H., Dalhoff B. Zur Aktualität von Hermann Müllers Wirken // Hermann Müller-Lippstadt

(1829–1883). Naturforscher und Pädagoge / eds. H. Münz, M. Morkramer. Rangsdorf : Basi-lisken-Presse, 2010. P. 177–192.

Friese R. Die Thüringer Familie Müller aus Sömmerda und Erfurt. Pfarrer, Pädagogen und

Naturforscher // Ibid. P. 12–33.

Morkramer M. Der “Lippstädter Fall” — Hermann Müller und der Kampf um die Lippstädter

Schule // Ibid. P. 113–129.

Morkramer M., Hoffmann P. “Selbstbetätigung und Schaffensfreude”. Müllers Erbe: Die Müller-Schüler

Wilhelm Breitenbach, Eberhard Dennert und Wilhelm Wetekamp // Ibid. P. 162–175.

Rellecke G. Die schreckliche Moritat vom Affenmüller. Ein Intermezzo // Ibid. P. 130–133.

Sauer K. P. Hermann Müller. Naturforscher und Frühdarwinist // Ibid. P. 99–111.

Schneckenburger St. Hermann Müller und die Blütenbiologie // Ibid. P. 71–96.

Tenbergen B. Bleiglanz, Azurit, Kalspat und Co. Hermann Müller als Fossilien-, Gesteins — und

Mineraliensammler // Ibid. P. 47–68.

Trommer G. Der Prüfstein. Die Hypothese im Biologieunterricht Hermann Müllers // Ibid.

P. 135–161.

Критика концепции Дарвина в прусских высших учебных заведениях:

случай Германа Мюллера (1829–1883), или «Аффен Мюллера»,

и свобода преподавания биологии

М. Хайнеманн

Университет Лейбница

Германия, Ганновер: m. heinemann@zzbw. uni-hannover. de

Книга Чарльза Дарвина «Происхождение видов» была переведена на немецкий язык и опубликована в Штутгарте в 1860 г., а в 1872 г. вышло пятое издание. В си- стеме высшего образования Пруссии именно доктор Герман Мюллер (1829–1883),

преподаватель реального училища в Липпштадте в Вестфалии, открыл теорию Дарвина в 1866 г. и в 1867 г. начал переписку с Дарвином. Мюллер был первым известным пропагандистом дарвинской концепции. Используя эту концепцию, он опубликовал в 1869 г. свои первые выводы. Он открыл не только новые виды, но и связь между пчелами и опылением цветов, что являлось доказательством теории Дарвина. В 1865 г. Мюллер издал первую известную нам современную програм — му преподавания естественных наук (второе издание включало теорию Дарвина и вышло в 1876 г.) и химии. Несмотря на критику со стороны общественности, Мюллер был поддержан властями и в 1883 г. получил почетное звание профессора. Его методы преподавания привели к возникновению нового типа образованных студентов, многие из которых продолжили изучение естественных наук в универ — ситете. Некоторые из них стали весьма влиятельными деятелями монистического и антимодернистского движений на рубеже веков. Данная статья вводит тему воз — действия на систему debated aspects in evolutionary thinking. Interpreta — tions of Darwin’s views on human evolution (Darwin, 1859, 1871) raised a number of ideological/socio-political issues, among which conflicts with religious dogma and fundamentalisms, discussions over the influence of Darwin’s selectionism on Eugenics and “Nazi science”, debates and critiques over socio-cultural applications of Darwin- ian processes (social Darwinism, cultural evolutionism, sociobiology, evolutionary psy — chology), and finally, issues regarding the relationship between Man and Animals. Dar — win had strongly insisted on evolutionary, behavioral and even “cultural” resemblance between Man and Animals: his thinking has been seminal in particular in criticizing the concept of the “human difference”.

Here I propose to explore the way Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian concepts made their way into palaeoanthropological knowledge all through the 20th century. The cen — tral focus of this paper will be the discussions over the construction of Hominid phylog — eny, and in particular debates over the definition of the different taxa of the genus Homo (H. habilis, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens) and their evolutionary status1.

Evolutionary schemes

In a manuscript of 1868, which had remained unpublished in his time, Darwin drew a “tree” representing the evolution of Primates: in this scheme, the Hominid branch stems from Old world Monkeys, and seems to emerge from a common ancestor with Chim-1 For further discussion on this topic, see Cohen, 2004.

panzee. However, during the following decades, a number of Darwin’s disciples took up the subject of Human evolution in a rather different way. Works by prehistorian Gabriel de Mortillet (1869, in Mortillet, 1881), anatomist Thomas-Henry Huxley (1863), em- bryologist Ernst Haeckel (1866, 1868), sociologist Herbert Spencer (1898), developed Darwinian thinking on Human origin and evolution, but represented hominid phylogeny less like a tree than as a linear descent.

In the first decades of the 20th century, this gradual and linear scheme was strongly criticized. Research through a more extensive geographic scope, the diversification of dis — coveries of hominid remains and cultural vestiges, the breakdown of cultural evolution — ism, and the rise of “Neolamarckian” concepts often coloured with spiritualism, modified the vision of human evolution. Instead of scenarios integrating all known fossil forms within a linear and progressive scheme, new evolutionary representations recognized the simultaneous existence of several Hominid types in the history of the Human family. Ho — minid fossils which were judged too “primitive” to be our ancestors were ranged into evolutionary dead-ends, while the “noble” branch which led to us, H. sapiens, was given a privileged status.

French palaeontologist Marcellin Boule2, who became one major authority in the field, at the turn of the 20th century, considered that several Hominid lineages existed since the early Palaeolithic, and more evolved Pre-sapiens coexisted with the brutish Ne — anderthal, which they eventually slaughtered to extinction (Boule, 1911–1912). In the first half of the 20th century, Boule’s treatise Les Hommes fossiles was published in 1920 (Boule, 1920), became a cornerstone to the discipline of paleoanthropology.

The myth of European pre-sapiens (1900–1950)

In England, paleontologist Arthur Keith, a professor at Cambridge and a world au — thority in the domain, became like Boule a supporter of the European Presapiens theory (Keith, 1915). Until his death in 1955, he claimed the authenticity of the Piltdown Man, a fossil skull and jaw whose scientific name was Eoanthropus dawsoni, and that was un — earthed in 1908–1912 from the lower Paleolithic layers of Sussex (England)3. With its large braincase and his ape-like jaw, it appears like the ideal ancestor to modern sapiens. “Piltdown Man” was accepted by a number of anthropologists of the period who wanted to isolate the «noble» origins of Europeans from those of lower races of mankind. But the supposed Eoanthropus was in fact a fraud, a skull of a modern human associated with a grossly made up orang-utan mandible… Despite suspicion expressed by some paleontolo — gists during several decades, the Piltdown fraud will not be unmasked before 1953, by Joseph Wiener, Wilfried Le Gros Clark and Kenneth Oakley (Weiner, 1955) when abso — lute Carbon 14 dating methods made possible to prove its recent age. However the myth of European “pre-sapiens” and the privilege granted to brain development as a factor of human evolution did not disappear from the scientific scene: later into the century, other European fossil hominids, discovered in Germany (Mauer and Steinheim), in England (Swanscombe), in France (Fontéchevade) will still be interpreted, in the works of French

2 Marcellin Boule (1861–1942) was a leading authority in Europe in Paleoanthropology, Professor of Paleoanthopology at the Paris Museum of Natural History and one of the creators of the Institut de paleontology humaine in Paris.

3 On the Piltdown hoax, see Spencer, 1990a, b; see also Thomas, 2002.

anthropologist Henri Vallois for example, as Lower Paleolithic ancestors of European sa — piens (Vallois, 1949; Cohen, 2007).

The Creation of the taxon H. erectus (1930–1960)

Breaking with these speculations, Neodarwinism settled a novel theoretical frame — work for thinking about Human evolution, which led, in 1949, to the definition of a sin — gle taxon of the fossil genus Homo, H. erectus, gathering under this name the different Hominids known until then from the Lower to the Middle Paleolithic. From the 1930s in the United States, the Neodarwinian Synthesis, which resulted in the collaboration of geneticists, paleontologists and taxonomists (Huxley, 1942; Mayr, 1982) elaborated the biological and historical notion of population, as fundamentally opposed to the de — scriptive typological and hierarchical notion of race (Dobzhanski, 1944). A population is, within a species, the totality of individuals between which exist actual genetical exchang — es. For the New Synthesis scientists, the Human species is characterized by a variability which cannot be reduced to rigid racial categories that 19th century anthropology had constructed. To scientific reasons were added ethical and political issues relating with the context of the outcome of WWII, and the view that “ethnic purification”, and the Holocaust of the Jews by Nazis had been sustained and justified by racialist and racist constructions of anthropology (UNESCO, 1950).

Starting in 1944, Geneticist Theodozius Dobzhanski (1944, 1963), Paleontolo — gist Georges G. Simpson, and taxinomist Ernst Mayr declared that, just like in to — day’s Human populations, the diversity of fossil Hominids at a given period should be understood in terms of intra-specific variability, and does not justify the differentia- tion of species.

In this, the scientists of the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis followed the conceptions of Franz Weidenreich, a Jewish German paleoanthropologist who had emigrated first to China in the 1930s then to the United States in the 1940s, and proposed a novel view of the question of the paleontological origin of human diversity (Weidenreich, 1946; Cohen,

2001). Weidenreich opened a debate on the monocentrism vs polycentrism of the human species. Were modern human races diversified from a single and late H. sapiens stock — or is today’s human diversity a result of geographic specializations which occurred much earlier at a primitive sapiens stage — or even at a pre-human stage identified as the differ — ent forms known then in the lower Paleolithic? Weidenreich’s own works on the Fossils Hominids of China, the Sinanthrops, led him to the view “that there was not one, but several centers of human evolution”. “But on another hand, he added, genetic exchanges went on between these populations, who continued to form one single species up to the present” (Weidenreich, 1943).

Weidenreich’s ideas, which are still today taken up by “multiregionalists”, strongly asserted the unity of the Human species since Lower Paleolithic times. They played a major role in constructing H. erectus as the primeval Man, who travels and colonizes all the territories of the old Continent, from South Eastern and Eastern Asia to the confines of Western Europe. With his high stature, his heavy skeleton and his cranial capacity of around 800 cm3, he becomes the inventor of the bifacial hand axe, develops hunting tech — niques and domesticates fire.

Thus by 1950, Human evolution generally appeared as a continuous series of suc — cessive “stages”: erectus, Neanderthal, sapiens, Neanderthal being considered either as

an intermediary stage between erectus and sapiens (this is the position of American an — thropologist Ales Hrdlicka (1927), and to a certain extent of Weidenreich), either as a sub-species of H. sapiens, H. sapiens neanderthalensis: in addition, in the 1930s, a team conducted by British archaeologist Dorothy Garrod discovers in sites of the Middle Pal — aeolithic of Palestine, (Skuhl and Tabun caves) several skeletons more or less contempo — rary, which seemed to cover a very large scope of variability between Neanderthal and sapiens. This discovery played a role in influencing the defenders of the New Synthesis toward a “rehabilitation” of Neanderthals and their integration into the variability of our species. Until the end of the 1960s many anthropologists use the continuous sequence of Neanthropines for Modern Humans, Paleanthropines for Neanderthals, to which should be now added Archanthropines, according to the name given by Weidenreich to Lower Palaeolithic Hominids (equivalent of H. erectus) (Piveteau, 1964, p. 176–177). In the beginning of the 1960, French prehistorian André Leroi-Gourhan (1965) coins the term Australanthropines, as he is convinced that these Hominids must be considered as direct ancestors to the Human lineage and the genus Homo.

Revisions of the Genus Homo (1975–2003)

This construction was going to be strongly criticized and eventually dismantled dur — ing the following decades. By the 1970’s, a new generation of evolutionary biologists and paleontologists in the United states proposed to revisit the heritage from the masters of the New Synthesis and in particular to reconsider the processes of macro-evolution (cf. in particular Eldredge, Gould, 1972). Paleoanthropologists in their turn started tearing into pieces the models elaborated by their masters of the previous generation. In these years, new phylogenetic classifications elaborated by cladistics contributed in transforming the vision of human evolution, and the “Punctuated equilibria” model elaborated by Nile El — dredge and Sephen Jay Gould insisted on quick and sudden speciation events instead of slow progression, and on “bushing” rather than linear evolutionary schemes (Eldredge, Gould, 1972; Gould, 2002).

In his important book “Ontogeny and Phylogeny” Gould (1977) insisted on the role of heterochronies (accelerations or retardations in the course of embryological or ontoge- netical development) in evolutionary processes. Indeed neoteny, which consists in the conservation, in the adult stage, of juvenile characters, seems well to play a part in Human evolution. Humans could well be neotenic animals whose Primate ancestor (the common ancestor they share with Chimpanzees) kept in the adult age the features of the young, (high forehead, big eyes, absence of cranial substructures, short arms, taste for playing and learning) and transmitted them to its forebears4.

Relying on the empirical studies of fossil remains as well as on theoretical considera — tions (Eldredge, Tattersall, 1982), paleoanthropologists in the 1980’s criticized the prin — ciple of a stadial evolution of the Genus Homo, and the concept of a direct evolution of H. habilis into H. erectus and H. sapiens. Moreover, the origins of the genus Homo in Africa remain confused and controversial. The taxon H. habilis, which was discussed even when it was defined in 1964, appeared even more fragile 30 years later. A better knowledge of its post-cranial skeleton had as a consequence to view it as closer to Australopithecines

4 This idea, which had been proposed by embryologists at the beginning of the 20th century, was more recently taken up and developed by Gould, 1977.

than to the genus Homo. And indeed, the famous fossil specimen KNM-ER 1470 cannot today be integrated into H. habilis any more: its reconstruction, its taxonomic position, and even its geological age, are highly controversial. It was finally included by Russian paleontologist Valerij Alexeiev in 1984 into a new taxon, H. rudolphensis, while other paleontologists today place it outside the Homo genus descent5.

Dates and Itineraries of early Homo out of Africa were also reconsidered. The exten — sion of H. erectus, whose geographic and temporal scope, from Africa to Asia and to Eu — rope, had become very large, is now strongly reduced. The name of H. erectus is only given to Asian fossils (form China and Indonesia), that now appear too specialized to belong to the same species as African and European Homo specimens known in the same periods of the Lower Paleolithic. For this reason, African Homo fossils are now classified in the taxon H. ergaster: in 1984, the skeleton of an adolescent was discovered in Kenya and dated of

1,8 millions years. It was almost complete and remarkably preserved, giving precise ele — ments to determine the diagnose of this species (Walker, Leakey, 1993).

Since 1991 a number of Hominid remains discovered in South Caucasus at Dmanisi (Georgia) (Gabunia et al, 2000) and dated of -1,8 million years raised the question of the presence of primitive Homo at this very early date out of the African continent: punctual presence of a small population, or effective migration of Hominids at this very early date, to the Eurasian continent.

By the same time, excavations in South Spain, at Gran Dolina cave yielded the re — mains of four individuals attributed to early Homo and dated of -780 000 years, providing new elements to the question of migrations of the genus Homo in Western Europe in the Lower Paleolithic. Nearby, the site of Sima de los Huesos in the mountains of Atapuerca (Spain), yielded in 1994 some 30 skeletons of mainly young adults whose features seems to anticipate Neandertals, and which were dated of 300 000 years ago (Arsuaga et al.,

1993). The paleontological study of their remains concluded in their resemblance with H. heidelbergensis, whose diagnose, relying in the past on a single mandible, the Mauer jaw (Schoetensack, 1908) discovered in 1907 in Germany, became now rich of the knowl — edge of a whole fossil population. The taxon H. heidelbergensis is now used to name all ante-neanderthal european forms, including those which were called until then erectus or pre-sapiens). With H. heidelbergensis, we seem to be very close to the emergence of Neanderthals, a West-European specializations of H. erectus that emerged several hun — dred thousand years ago as an independent lineage from H. sapiens, and spread as far as the Middle East and Kurdistan.

In the 1980’s, with the falling apart of the unitary taxon H. erectus, the multiregional — ist concept of the origin of H. sapiens collapsed as well. To the idea that Modern humans were rooted in different regional forms of H. erectus, monocentrists opposed the argu — ment of a single and recent origin of the species H. sapiens6. The “monocentrist” scenario conceives of a quick replacement of all local Hominid species by anatomically modern forms (H. sapiens) deriving from a single event of speciation: this probably affected only one small population, which quickly proliferated and migrated in all the parts of the old world, eliminating all other local Hominid species which had lived there.

Against paleontological evidences brought forward by “multiregionalists” (Wolpoff et al., 1984), it became possible to produce proofs derived from research in molecular

5 On Kenyanthropus platyops see: Leakey et al., 2001. P. 433.

6 For a synthesis of research on this question, see (Hublin, Tillier, 1991).

biology. A first research of this type was performed in 1987, by a Californian team com — posed by Rebecca Cann, Alan Wilson, Robert Sarich, and Svent Paabö (Cann et al.,

1987). The comparison of mitochondrial DNA of 147 living women aimed to calcu — late the genetic distance between them, and to evaluate the common matrilinear origin of today’s existing human populations. The evaluation of the molecular clock gives a number between 100 000 and 200 000 years BP. As they presented the results of this study, researchers gave to this genetical abstraction the name of “mitochondrial Eve”, or “African Eve”. Some biological indicators point to Africa as the likely origin of all present day human populations (the widest genetic diversity can be found in regions of East Africa). Conceiving of a single origin of all human populations and of sapiens going out of Africa some 200 000 years ago, would mean that present-day “races” were formed recently, and only bear small differences between them. This African origin of H. sapiens seems now to be supported by a good number of paleontological evidence. Parallel inquiries into the diversity of human languages have put into light a number of common features, which aim to confirm the thesis of their single origin, converging with the single and recent origin of the whole diversity of human populations. Teams of geneticists and linguists are now combining their efforts to retrieve the origin and itineraries of sapiens populations on the old continent (Ruhlen, 1996).

Origin and status of the Neanderthals

Revisiting the issue of the origin and itineraries of H. sapiens also led to revisit the issue of the origin and status of the Neanderthals (Stringer, Gamble, 1993) and of cultural and interbreeding relationships between the two species.

Neanderthal does not appear any more today as a marginal or degenerated stem in Human phylogeny, but as a result of a long West-European specialization of a branch of the Genus Homo, — as a descendant of local populations which had remained isolated during hundred of thousand years in these regions. A new examination of known speci — men belonging to the genus Homo in the Lower Paleolithic of Western Europe (Mauer, Steinheim, Petralona, l’Arago…) led to the conclusion that these fossils should not be considered as ancestors of sapiens, but rather as early Neanderthals. Moreover, all lower Paleolithic Hominids should now be viewed as precursors of Neanderthals, and classified within the taxon H. heidelbergensis7.

Important discoveries made between 1965 et 1985 in Israë l by Bernard Vandermeer — sch, and in Irak (Shanidar) by Ralph Solecki, had opened new questions. In Israel the excavation of Qafzeh Cave, which had already been explored in the 30s, yielded between

1965 and 1980 the intentionally buried remains of at least 14 archaic Sapiens (Vander — meersch, 1969), while Kebara Cave, 40 kilometers from there, yielded in 1984 a Nean — dertal burial with a remarkably preserved skeleton except for the head, which had prob — ably been taken off deliberately (Arensburg et al., 1985). Absolute dating confirmed the precedence of Qafzeh sapiens (-90 000 years circa) over Kebara Neandertals (-60 000 years circa): in these sites of the Middle East, Neanderthals are neither chronologically

«older», nor culturally more primitive, than archaic sapiens. Moreover, cultural remains show that Neanderthals and sapiens shared for several millennial the Mousterian culture

7 This taxon had become obsolete since the Mauer Jaw had been classified into H. erectus, en

1950.

and the habit of burying their dead. In Irak, the Shanidar burial, excavated by Ralph Soleki in 1960, reveals a quantity of flower pollens, which were interpreted as remain of flower offerings to the dead. Between -90 and et -50 000 BP in the middle east, already diversified death rituals were associated not to one biological type of Hominid, Sapiens or Neanderthal, but to the Mousterian culture in association with them both.

Further finds of Neanderthal remains at Saint-Césaire in France in 1979 gave more evidence of this proximity. 36 000 years ago, this late Neanderthal made and used a “chatelperronian” (Levê que, Vandermeersch, 1980) lithic industry, which had been until then generally attributed to sapiens. It now seemed that for some 10 000 years in Western Europe, the industry of Châ telperron was shared by sapiens and Neanderthals: one more time, it appeared that separations between these two groups may not be so sharp as they used to be, especially in what regards cultural features. It is now clear that Neanderthals did not become suddenly extinct at the dawn of the Upper Paleolithic. They survived for several thousand years after the arrival of H. sapiens in Western Europe, and real ex — changes, including interbreeding, existed between them.

Other finds of late Neanderthals made in recent years at Zafarraya (Andalusia, Spain) at Vindija (Croatia), an in North-West Caucasus in the cave of Mezmaiskaya, 60 kilom — eters from the Eastern shore of the Black sea, show that Neanderthal did survive up to

-28 000 BP or even perhaps -24 000 years in Gorham Cave at Gibraltar (Finlayson et al., 2006). The Iberic peninsula and the Balkans seem to have been the last refuge of the Neanderthals.

These discoveries open new questions: should we look for the causes of Neander — thals extinction in their biological, behavioral and adaptive features, or in the irruption of a new, better equipped hominid, who strived in a similar ecological niche? In any case, the arrival of a new Hominid, H. sapiens, with a more complex culture and more efficient means of communication, may have played a major role, for example to discard Neander — thals to inhospitable regions where subsistence was more difficult, or to slowdown their reproduction rate and make their lives shorter.

These constructions remain hypothetical and the causes of the extinction of Nean — derthal are uncertain. The question of a possible hybridization between Neanderthal and sapiens is periodically raised when a fossil with presumed “intermediary” characters is dis — covered. Thus the recently finds of the skeleton of Lagar Veiho in Portugal (Duarte et al.,

1999) dated of — 24 500 BP bears features “in mosaic”, which resemble that of a hybrid. Although it is a 4 years old child, whose characters are difficult to identify, and although the specimen is difficult to date, this hypothesis remains plausible. Moreover, there are today discussions between molecular biologists over the conclusions drawn from recent research on Neanderthal DNA: a study of the polymorphism of 135 human genes put into light repeated differences between European and West African populations: could the existence of genetic markers particular to European populations be explained by a con — tribution of 5% of Neanderthals to today’s humans genome? Were geneticists too fast in separating thoroughly the two species? Some anthropologists note that there might be a methodological circle in considering that only Neanderthal gene sequences different from those of modern man are authentic (bear no contamination). Old Prejudices, in favor, for more than a century, of the separation of the two species, may have played a role in these perhaps too quick conclusions.

Conclusion

It took more than a century to see the establishment of a «branching scheme» in phylogenetic representations of human evolution.

The history of human phylogenies all through the 20th century shows an alternation

of linear and branching schemes, depending on the quantity of available empirical mate — rial (the abundance of remains leading more easily to branching schemes), but also on theoretical or philosophical considerations over the patterns and processes of evolution, and finally on religious and ideological considerations over human diversity and the unity of our species.

Today, thanks to field and laboratory research, the evolutionary tree of the Human family is rooted far into the Tertiary, 7 million years ago, and Darwin’s abstract tree has been peopled with a number of unexpected forms, which for millions of years were con — temporaries in Africa or in Europe. Several general are known between 4 million years and 1 million years BP, and the Australopithecines are distributed in different parts of Africa and a number of species. The roots of the genus Homo, are beginning to be well known in Africa and the itineraries of the early genus Homo have proved to be much more complicated than previously believed. We know now that several specialized species of the genus Homo lived in Europe in the middle Palaeolithic and that Neanderthals people western Europe before the arrival of H. sapiens.

The revision of the genus Homo and the rejection of typological, descriptive and hi — erarchical notion of race which was implied in the re-evaluation of the origin of Human diversity, was consistent with ideas proposed not only by the Neodarwinians, but also by Darwin himself. However, many discussions still remain open in the field of Paleoanthro — pology, dealing in particular with questions such as the extinction of Neanderthal, the Origin of West European sapiens, and the nature of the relationship of these two groups. “Light will be thrown on the origin of Man and his history”, had mysteriously pre — dicted Darwin (1859). As we have seen, Darwin’s prediction has been amply fulfilled, and our knowledge of Human evolution is today, if more complex, much more elaborate than it was a century ago. If we try to evaluate the importance of the impact of Darwinian thinking upon the current scientific understanding of human evolution, we must agree that it was essential to the development of 20th century paleoanthropology, and that it

remains today at the center of current discussions over Human origin and evolution.

References

Arensburg C. Bar Yosef O., Chech M., Goldberg P., Laville M., Meignen L., Rak Y., Tchernov E., Tillier A.-M., Vandermeersch B. Une sépulture néandertalienne dans la grotte de Kebara (Israë l) // Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences. Série II. Vol. 300. P., 1985. P. 227–230.

Arsuaga J.-L., Martínez I., Gracia A., Carretero J.-M., Carbonell E. Three new human skulls from the

Sima de los Huesos Middle Pleistocene site in Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain // Nature. 1993. Vol.

362. P. 534–537.

Aux origines d’Homo sapiens / eds. J.-J. Hublin, A-M. Tillier. P. : Presses Univ. de France, 1991.

404 p.

Boule M. L’Homme fossile de la Chapelle aux Saints // Annales de paléontologie. 1911. Vol. 6. P. 1–64;

1912 . Vol. 7. P. 65–208 ; 1913. Vol. 8. P. 209–276, 12–14.

Boule M. Les hommes fossiles — Éléments de paléontologie humaine. Paris: Masson et cie, 1920.

XI, 491 p.

Cann R. L., Stoneking M., Wilson A. C. Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution // Nature. 1987.

Vol. 325. P. 31–36.

Cohen C. Les origines de la diversité humaine: paléontologie et génétique // L’Aventure humaine,

savoirs, libertés, pouvoirs. 2001. Vol. 12. La société et ses races. P. 137–149.

Cohen C. Histoire de la paléoanthropologie // Manuel de Paléontologie humaine / ed. by J.-J. Hub-lin, B. Vandermeersch. Vol. 1. P. : CTHS, 2004. P. 21–49.

Cohen C. Henri Vallois // Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 2007.

Cohen C., Hublin J. J. Boucher de Perthes (1788–1868), Les Origines romantiques de la préhistoire.

P. : Belin, 1989. 271 p.

Darwin C. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured

Races in the Struggle for Life. L. : John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859. IX, 502 p.

Darwin C. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: Murray, 1871. Vol. 1.

VIII, 423 p. ; Vol. 2. VIII, 475 s.

Dobzhanski T. On species and races of living and fossil Man // American Journal of Physical

Anthropology. 1944. Vol. 2. P. 251–265.

Dobzhanski T. Genetic entities in Hominid Evolution // Classifications in Hominid Evolution /

ed. by S. L. Washburn. Chicago : Aldine, 1963. P. 347–362.

Duarte C., Mauricio J., Pettitt P. B., Souto P., Trinkaus E., van der Plicht H. et al. The early upper

Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human

emergence in Iberia // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 1999.

Vol. 96. P. 7604–7609.

Eldredge N., Gould S. J. Punctuated equilibria as an alternative to phyletic gradualism // Models in

paleobiology / ed. by Schopf, T. J.M. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Co, 1972. P. 82–115.

Eldredge N., Tattersall I. The Myths of Human Evolution. N. Y. : Columbia Univ. Press, 1982. 197 p.

Evolution: the modern synthesis / ed. by J. S. Huxley. L. : Allen & Unwin, 1942. 645 p.

Finlayson C. et al. Late survival of Neanderthals at the southernmost extreme of Europe // Nature.

2006. Vol. 443. P. 850–853.

Gabunia L., Vekua A., Lordkipanidze D. et al. Earliest Pleistocene hominid cranial remains from

Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia: taxonomy, geological setting, and age // Science. 2000. Vol. 288.

P. 1019–1025.

Gould S. J. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1977. IX, 501 p.

Gould S. J. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, Mass. : Belknap Press of Harvard

Univ. Press, 2002. XXII, 1433 p.

Green R. Eh., Krause J., Briggs A. W., Maricic T., Stenzel U., Kircher M., Patterson N., Li H., Zhai W.,

Hsi-Yang Fritz M., Hansen N. F., Durand E. Y, Malaspinas A.-S., Jensen J. D., Marques-Bonet T.,

Alkan C., Prüfer K., Meyer M., Burbano H. A, Good J. M., Schultz R., Aximu-Petri A., Butthof A.,

Höber B., Höffner B., Siegemund M., Weihmann A., Nusbaum Ch., Lander E. S., Russ C., Novod N.,

Affourtit J., Egholm M., Verna Ch., Rudan P., Brajkovic D., Kucan Ž ., Gu ic I., Doronichev V. B.,

Golovanova L. V., Lalueza-Fox C., Marco de la Rasilla, Fortea J., Rosas A., Schmitz R. W.,

Johnson P. L. F., Eichler E. E., Falush D., Birney E., Mullikin J. C., Slatkin M., Nielsen R., Kelso J.,

Lachmann M., Reich D., Pääbo S. A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome // Science.

2010. Vol. 328. No. 5979. P. 710–722.

Haeckel E. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Berlin : Reimer, 1866. Bd. 1. XXXII, 574 s.;

Bd. 2. CLX, 462 s.

Haeckel E. Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte. Berlin : Reimer, 1868. XVI, 568 s.

Hrdlicka A. The Neandertal Phase of Man // Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 1927.

Vol. 56. P. 249–274.

Huxley T.-H. Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature. L. : Williams & Norgate, 1863. 159 p.

Keith A. The Antiquity of Man. L. , 1915. XX, 519 p.

Leakey M. G., Spoor F., Brown F., Gathogo P. N., Kiarie C., Leakey L. N., McDougall. I. New hominin

genus from eastern Africa shows diverse middle Pliocene lineages // Nature. 2001 Vol. 410.

P. 433–440.

Leroi-Gourhan A. Le Geste et la Parole. Vol. 1. P. : Michel, 1965. 323 p.

Levê que F., Vandermeersch B. Les découvertes de restes humains dans un horizon castelperronien de Saint-Cézaire (Charente Maritime) // Bulletin de la Société préhistorique de France. 1980. Vol. 77. p. 35.

Mayr E. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1982. IX, 974 p.

Mortillet G. de Essai d’une classification des cavernes et des stations sous abri, fondée sur les produits de l’industrie humaine // Le Préhistorique, Antiquité de l’Homme. P. : Reinwald, 1881.

Piveteau J. Des premiers Vertébrés à l’Homme. P. : Albin Michel, 1963. 212 p.

Ruhlen M. L‘Origine des Langues. P. : Belin, 1996. 287 p.

Spencer H. A System of Synthetic Philosophy. Principles of Biology. Vol. 1. First Principles. New

York: Appleton & Co, 1898.

Spencer F. Piltdown, A Scientific Forgery. L. : Natural History Museum Publications, 1990a. XXVI,

272 p.

Spencer F. The Piltdown Papers (1908–1955). L. : Natural History Museum Publications, 1990b.

XII, 282 p.

Schoetensack O. Der Unterkiefer des Homo heidelbergensis aus den Sanden von Mauer bei

Heidelberg. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1908. 67, [51] s.

Stringer C., Gamble C. In Search of the Neanderthals: solving the puzzle of human origins. L. : Thames &d Hudson, 1993. 247 p.

Thomas H. Le Mystère de l’Homme de Piltdown, Une extraordinaire imposture scientifique. P. : Belin, 2002. 287 p.

UNESCO. Declaration on race. July 1950. Vallois H. The Fontéchevade Fossil Men // American

Journal of Anthropology. 1949. Vol. 7. № 3. P. 339–362.

Walker A., Leakey R. The Nariokotome Homo erectus skeleton. Cambridge : Harvard Univ. Press,

1993. 457 p.

Vandermeersch B. Les nouveaux squelettes moustériens découverts à Qafzeh (Israë l) et leur signification // Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Sciences. 1969. Vol. 268. P. 2562–2565.

Weidenreich F. The Skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis: A Comparative Study of a Primitive Hominid

Skull // Paleontologica Sinica. New Séries. Vol. 10. Pekin, 1943. XXI + 298 p., 93 plates. Weidenreich F. Apes, Giants and Man. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1946. VII, 122 p. Wiener J. The Piltdown Forgery, L. : Oxford University Press, 1955. XII, 214 s.

Wolpoff M. H., Wu Z. X., Thorne A. G. Modern Homo sapiens origins // The Origins of Modern Humans: a World Survey of the Fossil Evidence / ed. by F. H. Smith, F. Spencer. N. Y. : Alan R. Liss, 1984. P. 411–483.

Идеи Дарвина и развитие палеоантропологии в XX веке

Клoдин Коэн

Институт социальных наук

Париж, Франция: Claudine. Cohen@ehess. fr

В статье исследуется путь концепций дарвинизма и неодарвинизма в антропологии ХХ в. Центральное место занимает дискуссия о таксономии и филогении гоминид, в частности дебаты об определении различных таксонов в роде Homo (H. habilis, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens) и их эволюционном статусе.

Ключевые слова: Дарвин, неодарвинизм, палеоантропология ХХ в., филогения че — ловека, эволюция рода Homo.

ПРЕПОДАВАНИЕ ЭВОЛЮЦИОННОЙ ТЕОРИИ В СРЕДНЕЙ ШКОЛЕ В РОССИИ–СССР

А. В. Самокиш

Санкт-Петербургский филиал Института истории естествознания и техники РАН Санкт-Петербург, Россия: tomasina84@mail. ru

История введения дарвинизма в среднюю школу является одним из важных аспек — тов истории развития эволюционного учения в России и СССР. При написании данной работы были использованы учебные и методические пособия, материалы периодической печати и воспоминания современников. Осмысление событий на — чала преподавания дарвинизма в средних учебных заведениях представляется осо — бенно важным в свете современных дискуссий о преподавании общей биологии в школе.

Попытки введения эволюционного учения в школу были сделаны в России очень рано. Практически сразу после выхода книги Дарвина его теория нашла отражение в русских учебниках. Но все препятствия к ее развитию в школьной программе ис — чезли лишь после Октябрьской революции 1917 г. Первые послереволюционные годы стали временем расцвета школьной методики преподавания естествознания, которое получило статус одного из важнейших предметов цикла средней школы. Особенно активно процесс внедрения эволюционизма в преподавание естествозна — ния происходил в Петрограде–Ленинграде, где еще до революции этим занимались многие педагоги-естественники. Первые послереволюционные программы, содержа — щие эволюционную теорию, появились в 1918 г. (сост. В. М. Шимкевич). Кроме того, появлялись проекты, предлагающие ввести отдельный курс эволюционного учения в школе (В. М. Исаев, 1923). Серьезные проблемы с преподаванием эволюционизма возникли в сер. 1920-х гг. при введении так называемых комплексных программ Государственного ученого совета (ГУСа), в которых естествознание не предусматри — валось как отдельный предмет. Однако уже в 1930-е гг. при написании «стабильных» программ учение Дарвина вернулось на свое законное место в учебниках.

Ключевые слова: дарвинизм, эволюционное учение, методика преподавания естествознания, Государственный ученый совет, Б. Е. Райков, В. М. Шимкевич, В. М. Исаев.

В настоящее время школьная система в России снова подвергается реформи — рованию, в том числе и программы по естествознанию. Показательным стал не — давно закончившийся процесс Марии Шрайбер, прошедший в Петербурге по иску Марии Шрайбер и ее отца Кирилла Шрайбера к Министерству образования РФ и Комитету по образованию Санкт-Петербурга за нарушение прав человека путем

«безальтернативного навязывания» теории Дарвина об эволюции видов в общеоб — разовательных школах. Хотя процесс школьницей был проигран, однако введение в школах предмета «Духовно-нравственное воспитание»1 ставит преподавание об — щей биологии в очень сложное положение. В данной статье рассмотрена ситуация в некотором смысле обратная современной, когда на обломках практически пол — ностью уничтоженной дореволюционной системы преподавания естествознания, ограниченной религиозным воспитанием, строилась новая, основанная на отрицании

1 Об этом было объявлено министром образования и науки А. Фурсенко в августе 2009 г.

религии и полностью подчиненная идеологически подходящей теории эволюции. Кроме того, хотелось бы обратить внимание и на введение такой сложной темы в преподавание естествознания и в дореволюционной школе.

Первые попытки введения дарвинизма в преподавание школьного естествозна — ния были сделаны в России очень рано. Еще в 1862 г. вышел учебник по зоологии А. П. Богданова (1862), где подробно была изложена теория Дарвина и Ламарка и все содержание было проникнуто эволюционным духом. В 60–70-е гг. XIX в. за широкое введение эволюционизма в школе высказывались многие ученые, однако в конце века все эти призывы затихли и не нашли практического выхода в связи с внешними, политическими и идеологическими, причинами. В большинстве школ преподавание естествознания было сокращено или вообще прекращено. В начале XX в. процесс несколько оживился, существенную роль в этом сыграл учебник по зоологии В. Н. Львова (1902–1903), написанный в смешанно-восходящем порядке и умело отражающий эволюционную теорию. Попытки ввести общую биологию от — дельным курсом предпринимались в частных гимназиях и училищах педагогами — энтузиастами, как правило, имеющими непосредственное отношение к биологи — ческой науке. Так, например, общую биологию читал в одной из петербургских гимназий Ю. А. Филипченко. В статье «Опыт постановки общей биологии в сред — ней школе» он дал даже подробную программу по данному курсу. В основу его про — граммы была положена эволюционная теория в историческом изложении, от Лин — нея до Дарвина. Однако серьезное вмешательство церкви в школьное образование препятствовало развитию эволюционной теории в рамках школьной программы.

После революции 1917 г. вопрос о введении эволюционного учения в школу по — лучил решительный импульс, так как было уничтожено большинство препятствий, ранее его тормозивших. Естествознание получило статус одного из важнейших школьных предметов. В 1918 г. Герд писал: «Из гонимого предмета, который шаг за шагом завоевывал себе позиции в школах различного типа и в борьбе со своими противниками заострял свое оружие, естествознание после революции преврати — лось в фаворита. Оно, как основа материалистического мировоззрения, стало про — возглашаться главным школьным предметом» (Герд, 1918, с. 29).

Если наука оказалась под идеологическим гнетом и многие ученые восприни — мали приход большевиков к власти как зло, то методисты естествознания изна — чально восприняли произошедшие события с энтузиазмом и начали активнейшее программное творчество. Церковь была отделена от школы, а для новой идеологии эволюционизм оказался очень кстати, не случайно практически каждая статья, свя- занная с преподаванием его в школе, и каждый учебник начинается со слов о важно- сти эволюционной теории для формирования материалистического мировоззрения (как это написано у Герда), его соответствия марксизму.

Петроград–Ленинград и Москва стали центрами педагогической мысли. Пе — троград во многом опирался на уже накопленный до революции опыт школ, нахо — дившихся вне системы Министерства народного просвещения, в которых препода — вание естествознания было меньше ограничено2. Уже в 1918 г. появились первые программы по естествознанию, составленные про требованию Учительского союза

2 Такими школами являлись, например, коммерческие училища, находившиеся в веде — нии Министерства торговли и промышленности, а до 1910 г. — Министерства финансов.

Обществом распространения естественно-исторического образования. Согласно этим программам в последнем классе была введена эволюционная теория отдель — ным курсом. В составлении этих программ принимали участие известные ученые: Б. Е. Райков, Ф. Е. Тур, И. И. Полянский, В. М. Шимкевич (именно он занимался составлением программы по зоологии и общей биологии). Программа Шимкевича содержала в себе описание общебиологических явлений в связи с приспособляе — мостью организмов, косвенные доказательства изменяемости организмов, прямые доказательства изменяемости животных (понятие о мутациях, борьба за существо — вание) и эволюции организмов вообще. Программа намечала широкий простор для преподавателя в деле перегруппировки материала и последовательности изложе — ния, но обязательно требовала проведения идеи эволюции. Лишь вопрос о проис — хождении человека эта программа практически не рассматривала. Но эта программа в практику жизни не вошла, оставшись лишь историческим документам на страни — цах журнала «Естествознание в школе» (Программы, 1918).

Первая официальная программа в Петрограде вышла в 1919 г., это так называе — мая «розовая книжка» под общей редакцией А. П. Пинкевича. Автором программы по общей биологии был профессор Н. М. Книпович, поэтому и программа по суще — ству повторяла его университетский курс общей зоологии. В объяснительной за — писке указывалось, что задача подобного курса — в подведении итогов полученных знаний по живой природе и углублении понятий, способствующих выработке обще — го понимания живой природы. Программа в целом была систематична, но очевидно перенасыщена материалом (при 2–3 уроках в неделю пройти ее было невозможно), кроме того, в ней не хватало новейших научных данных. Работа по сокращению и переработке этой программы была проделана летом 1920 г. Б. Е. Райковым. В таком виде она была принята Отделом Единой трудовой школы на совещании в Москве (Примерные программы, 1920).

Фактически эти программы опирались на дореволюционный опыт, на опыт школ, где эволюционный принцип являлся идейной осью всей работы. Но он ло — жился на исследовательский подход к материалу, большое количество экскурсий и практических занятий и систематическое изложение материала. Как станет видно позже, при сохранении основной идеей эволюционного принципа методы его про — ведения кардинально изменятся после победы московской точки зрения.

Тем не менее на практике дело продвинулось достаточно слабо. Как писал В. М. Исаев в 1923 г., «Эволюционной теории в школе не повезло. Прежде она не преподавалась, потому что это было запрещено. В настоящее время эти запре — ты отпали, но эволюционная теория все же не преподается. И по двум причинам: во-первых, оказалось, что преподавать этот предмет некому — из-за отсутствия специально подготовленных педагогов. Во-вторых, выяснилось, что преподавать нечего, так как никакого сколько-нибудь связного курса выработано не было» (Исаев, 1924, с. 22). Реалии гражданской войны сказывались и на школьной педа — гогике. Не было учебников, простейших приборов и таблиц, практически не было достаточно осведомленных педагогов. На самой верхушке айсберга находились профессионалы-энтузиасты, с увлечением писавшие статьи в журналах «Есте- ствознание в школе», «Живая природа», «Естествознание в трудовой школе» и

«Педагогическая мысль». Но эти работы оставались лишь декларацией, находив — шей какое-то реальное воплощение только в единичных школах столиц и на био — станциях, возникших в начале 1920-х гг.

В 1923 г. в Петрограде состоялся первый Всероссийский съезд по естественно — историческому образованию. На нем присутствовало 1460 человек, из которых

600 приехали из других городов (Райков, 1924). Среди вопросов, стоявших на по — вестке дня, был и вопрос о преподавании эволюционной теории в средней школе. На соединенном заседании всех секций были заслушаны доклады В. Л. Комарова

«Современное положение эволюционной теории» и В. М. Исаева «Современные проблемы эволюционного учения», которые отражали новейшие взгляды ученых на этот вопрос. Эти доклады вызвали живейший интерес, кроме того, они помог — ли школьным педагогам быть в курсе происходящего в науке. В секции зоологии животных Исаев выступил с отдельным докладом, посвященным уже преподава — нию эволюционной теории в средней школе. Его доклад представлял собой по- пытку связного изложения эволюционного учения применительно к школьной обстановке, рассчитанную на последний год обучения. Докладчик предлагал уничтожить курс общей биологии, который преподавался или должен был пре — подаваться в школах того времени и заменить его полноценным курсом эволю — ционного учения. При этом он довольно подробно описал программу такого кур — са, с экскурсиями и практическими занятиями, рассчитанную на весь последний год обучения. Курс «Эволюция как учение об историческом развитии органиче — ского мира» включал в себя восемнадцать тем. Он начинался с темы «Изменчи — вость» и «Наследственность» и подробно рассматривал доказательства эволюции (сравнительно-анатомическое, эмбриологическое, палеонтологические, зоопсихо — логические), завершаясь темой «Эволюция Солнечной системы, происхождение Земли и происхождение жизни на Земле» (Исаев, 1924, с. 25–29).

Этот доклад вызвал продолжительные прения. Все единодушно приветствова — ли введение эволюционизма в школьное преподавание, но большинство не соглаша — лось с предложенной Исаевым системой — она казалась слишком сложной, практи — чески невозможной к проведению средним школьным педагогом (часто не имевшим представления о многих предложенных вопросах), перенасыщенной материалом (который легко можно было отнести к более ранним курсам, например к зоологии). Говорилось о том, что центр тяжести следует перенести не столько на объяснение причин эволюции, сколько на утверждение самого факта таковой. Б. Е. Райков пи — сал, что «надо позаботиться о том, чтобы все преподавание, даже на первой ступени, пропитать эволюционизмом. И давать такой материал в курсе зоологии, ботаники, который подготовлял бы ум учащихся к постепенному усвоению эволюционной те — ории… Вводя эволюционизм в школу, надо подробнее осветить теорию Дарвина, как такое объяснение эволюции, которое является первым по времени и имело такое колоссальное историческое значение, а кроме того, и с педагогической точки зрения легко усваивается…» (Райков, 1924а, с. 7). Заключительная резолюция съезда по во — просу об эволюционном учении объединила эти мнения. В ней было сказано, что эволюционный момент должен всецело проникнуть в школьное преподавание, но вопрос о концентрированном курсе в старших классах следует на данный момент отложить ввиду слишком малой методической разработки приемов преподавания данного предмета и соответственно подготовленных специалистов.

В Москве от этой программы, однако, практически сразу отказались. Этим вопро — сом там занимался Центральный естественно-педагогический институт (ЦЕПИ), где в составлении программ принимали участие А. А. Яхонтов, Б. В. Игнатьев, Н. Ф. Золотницкий и др. В то же время в Москве при схожести провозглашаемых

лозунгов разрабатывалась совершенно иная концепция программ. Педагогическая секция Государственного ученого совета (ГУС) разрабатывала так называемые

«комплексные программы», подразумевавшие замену привычного разделения на предметы разделением на отдельные темы, которые разносились по трем разделам:

«Природа», «Человек» и «Общество». Например, концентрацию преподавания во- круг времен года и связанных с ними явлений в природе и трудовой деятельности человека. Обосновывался такой подход тем, что предметное деление — это пережит — ки старой школы. Кроме того, деление по темам интуитивно понятно и позволяет приблизить ученика к реальной жизни, включить его в нее и как бы по ходу дела прививать ему научные знания. К делению по темам добавился еще и сельскохо — зяйственный принцип, то есть упор на агрономические сведения. При указанной специфике эволюционный принцип в преподавании стремились сохранить, так как он слишком хорошо соответствовал идеологии. Хотя здесь уже ни о конкретных серьезных знаниях, ни, тем более, о новейших достижениях науки речь не шла. Если в начале 1920-х гг. комплексные программы воспринимались лишь как экс — перимент, то к середине они уже вводились практически повсеместно (исключая Ленинград). Согласно новым программам, естествознание практически перестало существовать в школе как предмет. Во второй половине 20-х гг. началась настоящая травля петроградских–ленинградских педагогов. В печати появилось разделение на ленинградскую и московскую группы педагогов-естественников, на «академиче — ское» и «педагогическое» направления в педагогике.

В программах 1925 г. (их еще называли «программами в красной обложке») со — держался более-менее самостоятельный (насколько это было возможно в условиях комплекса) курс эволюционного учения. Но программа была перегружена факти — ческим материалом, педагоги подчеркивали, что ученик на седьмом году обучения этот материал усвоить не может.

Программы 1925 г., составлявшиеся под руководством Б. В. Игнатьева, были за — менены в 1927 г. новыми — под редакцией Б. В. Всесвятского, создателя юннатского движения в СССР. Если подробно посмотреть на программы ГУСа в редакции 1927 г., то заметно, что на седьмом году обучения оставлено очень мало. «Вопросы эволю — ции в программе вклиниваются в курс изучения человека и нужны нам, главным об — разом, для лучшего понимания учащимися происхождения человека», и далее: «для углубленной проработки вопросов эволюционного учения здесь также не будет вре — мени. Главная цель этого коротенького курса — это заинтересовать учащихся вопро — сами эволюции», — указывалось в объяснительной записке (цит. по: Натали, 1927, с. 67). Причем и предыдущие курсы не дают никакой основы для подытоживания в этом «коротеньком» курсе, который становится догматическим, не основанным на достаточном фактическом материале, и теряет большую часть своего значения. Того самого, на которое так обращали внимание методисты — для формирования мате — риалистического мировоззрения. Основной материал был оставлен для девятого класса. Но с учетом того, что содержание естествознания в предыдущие годы было заменено практическим сельским хозяйством, довольно большой фактический ма — териал в краткие сроки преподаватели даже не пытались дать ученикам так, чтобы те его усвоили.

Сами составители программ писали: «Не пострадает ли эволюционная идея, если у нас не будет систематического курса ботаники и зоологии? Конечно, постра — дает, если мы эволюционную идею знаем только в книге и не хотим или не можем,

не умеем ее увидеть в жизни — в густоте посадки растений, в плохом урожае… нуж — но находить помимо их хозяйственной сущности, еще и отражение общих вопросов эволюционной теории, то эта теория, при таком ежедневном ее около нас осязаемом появлении перед нашим умственным взором, конечно, только выиграет, ибо ока — жется действенной» (цит. по: Райков, 1926, с. 451). Так биология вчто ученик на седьмом году обучения этот материал усвоить не может.

Программы 1925 г., составлявшиеся под руководством Б. В. Игнатьева, были за — менены в 1927 г. новыми — под редакцией Б. В. Всесвятского, создателя юннатского движения в СССР. Если подробно посмотреть на программы ГУСа в редакции 1927 г., то заметно, что на седьмом году обучения оставлено очень мало. «Вопросы эволю — ции в программе вклиниваются в курс изучения человека и нужны нам, главным об — разом, для лучшего понимания учащимися происхождения человека», и далее: «для углубленной проработки вопросов эволюционного учения здесь также не будет вре — мени. Главная цель этого коротенького курса — это заинтересовать учащихся вопро — сами эволюции», — указывалось в объяснительной записке (цит. по: Натали, 1927, с. 67). Причем и предыдущие курсы не дают никакой основы для подытоживания в этом «коротеньком» курсе, который становится догматическим, не основанным на достаточном фактическом материале, и теряет большую часть своего значения. Того самого, на которое так обращали внимание методисты — для формирования мате — риалистического мировоззрения. Основной материал был оставлен для девятого класса. Но с учетом того, что содержание естествознания в предыдущие годы было заменено практическим сельским хозяйством, довольно большой фактический ма — териал в краткие сроки преподаватели даже не пытались дать ученикам так, чтобы те его усвоили.

Сами составители программ писали: «Не пострадает ли эволюционная идея, если у нас не будет систематического курса ботаники и зоологии? Конечно, постра — дает, если мы эволюционную идею знаем только в книге и не хотим или не можем,

не умеем ее увидеть в жизни — в густоте посадки растений, в плохом урожае… нуж — но находить помимо их хозяйственной сущности, еще и отражение общих вопросов эволюционной теории, то эта теория, при таком ежедневном ее около нас осязаемом появлении перед нашим умственным взором, конечно, только выиграет, ибо ока — жется действенной» (цит. по: Райков, 1926, с. 451). Так биология все более превра — щалась в предмет, метко названный многими методистами «хлевологией».

В своем докладе об эволюционном учении в школьном естествознании на мо- сковском совещании по вопросам преподавания естествознания 2–3 марта 1928 г. один из ведущих московских методистов Ф. Ф. Дучинский пояснял, что даже Ч. Дар — вин к построению своей теории пришел от изучения практики скотоводов и садо — водов — изучая метод искусственного отбора, он пришел к теории естественного отбора. А эволюционная теория теснейшим образом связана с практикой, ведет к важнейшим практическим выводам, указывает методы получения новых сортов растений и выведения новых пород животных. Собственно, основной сутью этого доклада, ставшего некой апологией ГУСовских программ в деле эволюционного учения, было утверждение о необходимости максимальной увязки эволюционной теории с сельскохозяйственной практикой (Дучинский, 1928).

Стоит отметить, что вышеупомянутое совещание стало одним из моментов куль — минации в борьбе московского и ленинградского направлений. Открытой полемики доклад Ф. Ф. Дучинского не вызвал, однако в ответном докладе К. П. Ягодовского программа ГУСа была подвергнута критике, причем с подробным разбором отдель — ных недочетов, в результате суммирования которых усвоение эволюционной теории становилось невозможным. После анализа был сделан вывод о том, что программы ГУСа не годны к преподаванию в школе и требуют доработки (Ягодовский, 1928). Очередной раз большинство методистов заявило, что программа имеет большое ко — личество недочетов и работа над ней должна быть продолжена.

10 февраля 1928 г. ленинградские педагоги-естественники собрались на сове — щание с целью выработать единую общую платформу по спорным вопросам ме — тодики естествознания и дать заключение по вопросу о согласовании программ ГУСа и действующих в Ленинграде в связи с намеченным в Москве педагогиче — ским совещанием. Были пояснены основные методические и идеологические не — дочеты программ. В резолюции совещания было сказано, что «задача курса есте — ствознания в школе — дать учащимся правильное миропонимание, согласное с выводами опытных наук. Это понимание материалистичекое, и основой его яв — ляется эволюционно-биологический подход к явлениям окружающей жизни и к человеку» (Ленинградские педагоги… 1928, с. 140). Было пояснено, что производ — ственный подход необходимо дополнить образовательно-методическим и эволю — ционно-биологическим.

Следующим столкновением ленинградского и московского течений стала Все — российская конференция преподавателей естествознания школ повышенного типа (22–27 января 1929 г.). На ней был заслушан доклад К. П. Ягодовского «Эволюци — онный принцип в школьном естествознании». Он подчеркнул, что эволюционный принцип — это не только эволюционная теория, не только заключительный курс, но это основная идея, которая должна пропитать весь курс естествознания, чтобы на последнем этапе уже эволюционное учение не явилось посторонним теоретическим придатком, а прочно вошло в мировоззрение учащегося. Основным итогом кон- ференции явился фактический разгром так называемой ленинградской группы,

пытавшейся как-то сохранить систематичность курса, а не разбросанность вопросов эволюционного учения по программе (Всероссийская конференция… 1929).

В 1930–1931 гг. были изданы так называемые комплексно-проектные програм — мы. Ничего нового в преподавание эволюционной теории они не внесли. Комплекс — ный принцип полностью показал свою несостоятельность и был отвергнут.

12 февраля 1932 г. было издано постановление ЦК ВКП(б) об издании ста — бильных учебников, которые обеспечили бы школе повышенного типа //

Естествознание в трудовой школе. 1929. № 2. С. 35–99.

Герд В. Н. Естествознание в начальной школе // Педагогическая мысль.1922. № 3–4. С. 29–40.

Дучинский Ф. Ф. Эволюционное учение в школьном естествознании // Естествознание в тру-довой школе. 1928. № 2(4). С. 36–49.

Исаев В. М. Преподавание эволюционной теории в средней школе // Естествознание в школе.

1924. № 1. С. 22–29.

Ленинградские педагоги-естественники об основных задачах курса естествознания // Живая

природа. 1928. № 5. С. 138–142.

Львов В. Н. Начальный учебник зоологии. Для средних учебных заведений : в 2 т. М. : Изд-во

М. и С. Сабашниковых, 1902. Т. 1. 216 с. ; 1903. Т. 2. 196 с.

Мельников М. И., Шибанов А. А., Яхонтов А. А. Основы дарвинизма. М. : Учпедгиз, 1941. 320 с.

Натали В. Ф. В защиту эволюционного учения в школе // Живая природа. 1927. № 3. С. 65–69.

Новые программы по естествознанию в современной школе // Естествознание в школе. 1918.

№ 5–6. С. 186–223.

Примерные программы по естествознанию на первой и второй ступени. Пг. : Отд. Подготов — ки учителей и Ком. Нар. Прос. Союза коммун Сев. обл., 1919. 100 с.

Примерные программы по естествознанию Народного комиссариата по просвещению. М.,

1920.

Райков Б. Е. Давно пора // Живая природа. 1926. № 15. С. 449–452.

Райков Б. Е. Естественно-историческое образование в СССР по данным I Всероссийского съез-да педагогов-естественников 10–16 августа 1923 г. : в 2 ч. Л. : Начатки знаний, 1924. 367 с.

Райков Б. Е. Итоги I Всероссийского съезда по естественноисторическому образованию

в 1923 г. // Естествознание в школе. 1924. № 1. С. 1–21.

Ягодовский К. П. Эволюционное учение и программа трудовой школы // Естествознание в тру-довой школе. 1928. № 2(4). С. 67–81.

The Teaching of Evolutionary Theory in Russian Secondary Schools

A. V. Samokish

St. Petersburg Branch of the Institut for the History of Science and Technology RAS St. Petersburg, Russia: tomasina84@mail. ru

The history of teaching of Darwinism in secondary school is an important aspect of the Evolutionary theory development in Russia. The main object of this work is making the general vision of teaching of evolutionism in Russin and Soviet secondary schools between the Great Wars. Textbooks, educational and methodical materials, some periodi — cals and the contemporaries’ memoirs were used for this research.

For the first time the evolution theory appears in school natural science very early. But only after the October Revolution (1917) all the obstacles, religious and political, had burst and the question of teaching evolutionism at school was dealt with. Natural science became one of the main school subjects. The first years after the 1917 revolution were the time for rise of teaching natural science methods. This process was especially active in Petrograd-Leningrad where the methodists had worked on the problems of Darwinism in secondary school even at the beginning of the XX century and had a great experience. Their first natural science school program (by prof. V. Shimkevich and others) was pub- lished in 1918. In the middle of twenties the new programs (named “complex programs”) were appeared but there wasn’t a natural science as a subject. During that time evolution — ism existed in school as a general idea which was very convenient for the political situa — tion. When the “stable programs” were put in (1931) the natural science and Darwinism returned to textbooks and secondary school.

Keywords: Darwinism, evolutionism, methods of natural science, B. Raykov, V. Shim — kevich, V. Isaev.

Материал взят из: Чарльз Дарвин и современная биология. Труды Международной научной конференции (21–23 сентября 2009 г., Санкт — Петербург)