The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Ch. Darwin's anniversaries in welfare and cognitive contexts


Ch. Darwin's anniversaries in welfare and cognitive kontekstakh1

E.I. Kolchinsky

St. Petersburg branch of Institute of history of natural sciences and equipment of S.I. Vavilov RAS, St. Petersburg, Russia;

Welfare and scientific contexts of anniversaries of Ch. Darwin in 1909, 1932, 1959, 1984 are analyzed. It is shown how Darvinian anniversaries were used for promotion of the Darwinism and advance of various political and philosophical ideologies and also evolution of the relations to Darwinism from a number of Christian faiths. Special attention is paid to relationship of the theory of evolution and creationism and also achievements of the last two decades in the field of molecular biology, paleontology and anthropology, a position of Vatican, Anglican church and some other faiths in anniversaries of 2009. Short characteristic is given to a welfare and cognitive context of holding anniversary actions in the West and in Russia.

During lifetime of Ch. Darwin was the best-known and the most criticized scientist in the world. Today he became an original symbol of modern science, remaining at the same time main object of hatred of her opponents. But even they do not deny that Darvina's works hold a specific place in intellectual history of mankind. His works broke the concept of constancy of types and radically changed our ideas of the world. They presented the person as an integral part of the biosphere and result of long evolution as a result of natural selection. Each anniversary of Charles Darvina became a reason for summing up development of an evolutionary thought and reconsideration of world outlook and its common cultural value

1 Work is written with assistance of RGNF project No. 09-03-00166a.

© E.I. Kolchinsky

works, reflecting not only the level of knowledge of evolution, but also a socio-political and ideological situation in any given country. It is represented interesting to track as the welfare context and situation in evolutionary biology influenced holding Darvinian anniversaries in different years and in different countries. As a starting point the perception of Darwinism in different countries and sections of society, developed on the date of Darvina's death is taken.

Perception of the theory of natural selection during lifetime of Ch. Darwin

The few scientific theories extended as quickly as the theory of natural selection at once called darvinizmom2. The book by Ch. Darvina "Origin of species" was sold out in day of issue on November 24, 1859. Then within ten years about 10 various editions in England and the USA and also 15 translations in Germany, Holland, France, Denmark, Italy, Russia and Sweden were issued (The Reception of Charles Darwin..., 2009, p. XXIX \XXXV). In many cases they were followed by extensive comments, additions and criticism. Thanks to it people in many countries had practically at once an opportunity to read Darvinian work in the native language and to join in the first truly international scientific discussion (Browne, 2001, p. 496). Darvina's ideas concerned not only scientists, but also wide educated circles which listened to a scientific debate and perceived them according to own understanding. Forming idea of Darwinism of popular editions, art, philosophical and religious literature (sometimes even from pieces of music and the fine arts) and also political doctrines, people emotionally reacted to especially scientific ideas, about the validity or falsehood of which they could not tell anything intelligible owing to the incompetence. The situation was complicated by reaction of the most biological community which many authoritative members did not agree with the theory of natural selection undermining paradigms, traditional for biology. As her opponents large paleontologists (Zh.L. Agassis, R. Owen) and biologists (R. Virkhov, P. Flurans, etc.) acted,

Was much and biologists who, protecting the idea of evolution, considered themselves Darwinians though did not adopt the provision on the leading role of selection in evolution — among them T. Hexli in England, E. Gekkel in Germany, K.A. Timiryazev in Russia, A. Gray in the USA. In disputes with anti-evolutionists they at first did not concern a question of the evolution reasons, having focused on proofs of its reality. Creationism quickly lost the positions in biology. Rather fast refusal of creationism as from the scientific concept is called usually "Darvinian revolution" (Ghiselin, 1969; Mayr, 1991).

However lack of knowledge of laws of heredity, about a ratio of historical and individual development of organisms, about genetic and ecological structure of types and especially — experimental proofs of natural selection on -

2 So suggested to call this theory of T. Hexli in the review of the book "Origin of species" in the April issue "Westminster Review" for 1860. The coauthor of a hypothesis of natural selection A. Wallace who at the same time preferred to call own views an uollesizm (wallaceism) agreed later with it also. Even earlier the terms "Darwinism", "Darwinian", "Darwinize" used for "zhizneopisatelny" poetry of Erasmus Darvina and his physiophilosophical speculation. Further the Darwinism will be understood as the central point of all creation of Darvina — the concept of natural selection as main reason of evolution.

formed a basis for growth of the critical relation to Darwinism. In paleontology, morphology and embryology, by P. Bouler's definition (Bowler, 1988), as a matter of fact "not Darvinian revolution" — contradictory process of coordination of the idea of evolution with the paradigms rooting in natural theology went. A number of erudite and religious thinkers, entering the idea of evolution into theological or teleologic outlook, considered that Darwin incorrectly specified the evolution reasons, and put forward own concepts.

Differences in the relation to Darwinism were caused also national traditsiyami3. If in France up to the 1970th the neolamarkizm dominated, then in Germany and Russia the Darwinism held a firm place in cultural and social and political life (Tchaikovsky, 1983, 1989; Vucinich, 1988; Todes, 1989). Fast inclusion of Darwinism in cultural tradition of Russia and Germany was caused by absence in these countries of sharp opposition between transformist and creationists and also tendency of many biologists to comprehend processes in large space-time scales and their commitment of physiophilosophy. Perception of Darwinism in these countries was promoted also by popularity of natural sciences, faith in them as in a basis of rational transformation of society. E. Gekkel with his philosophy of a monizm and tendency to global speculation (Gregorio, 2005) became the true master of thoughts of many generations of the German and Russian intellectuals. Starting with the Russian radicals of the 1860th (D.I. Pisarev, M.A. Antonovich, V.A. Zaytsev, N.D. Nozhkin) and founders of Marxism (K. Marx and F. Engels), the Darwinism both in Germany, and in Russia was considered as a cornerstone revolutionary ideologii4. Comparison of the main postulates of Marxism and Darwinism became favourite occupation of leaders of social democracy in both countries (A. Bebel, P. Lafarg, W. Liebknecht, K. Kautsky, G.V. Plekhanov) (Kolchinsky, 2009, river 525-526).

There were also differences in perception of Darwinism. The main thing that was acquired by the German biologists in Darwinism - it is fight for existence which was treated literally as rough, physical collision with suppression or extermination of the competitor. Most of the Russian evolutionists (for example, A.N. Beketov or K.A. Timiryazev) considered fight for existence an unsuccessful metaphor, emphasizing the leading value of cooperation in the intraspecific relations. The evolutionary doctrine was adapted to national intellectual tradition and transformed during promotion of own concepts. Already during lifetime of Darvina the teleologic concept of K.E. fon Bera, the concept of mutual aid as factor of evolution of K.F. Kessler and P.A. Kropotkin, and later the theory of heterogenesis of S.I. Korzhin-were offered

3 The comparative analysis of perception of the theory of natural selection was in different countries begun in the classical work under T. Glik's edition republished in 1988 with the new preface (The Comparative..., 1988). Further this problem was discussed in the book by A. Ellegard "the Reader. Perception of the Darvinian theory of evolution in the British press" (Ellegard, 1990). Long time exemplary in this question also books "Darvinian Inheritance" (The Darwinian., 1985) and "Considered distribution of Darwinism: Role of the place, race, religion and floor" (Disseminating., 1999), "Correspondence Charles Darwin" (The Correspondence., 1983-1999) and "Perception of the evolutionary theory in the 19th century" (Die Rezeption Evolutionstheorie., 1995). In 2009 under editorial office E. - M. Engels and T.V. Glika was published the fundamental two-volume work "Darwin's Perception in Europe" — result of ten years' work of big collective of the scientific different countries (The Reception of Charles Darwin., 2009). See also: "The review of anniversary publications of Darvinian subject)" in this number.
4 During lifetime of Ch. Darwin in Russia appeared three editions "Origins of species".

sky, hypothesis of a simbiogenez of A.S. Famintsyn and K.S. Merezhkovsky, etc. (Zavadsky, 1973; Hakhina, 1973)5.

Quickly differentiation of views in the Darwinism began. In the middle of the 1870th there was an eclectic combination of Darwinism to a lamarkizm (gekkelevsky Darwinism or a lamarkodarvinizm) which supporters considered inheritance of the acquired signs more important factor of evolution, than selection. As reaction to it in the 1880th there was a neodarwinism at which origins A. Veysman explaining all signs of organisms with selection action stood. There were also not Darvinian concepts of evolution (a neolamarkizm, teleogenez, neocatastrophism-saltatsionizm) which authors or rejected reality of natural selection, or allocated for it function of elimination of impractical individuals and types.

The relation of various faiths both to Darwinism, and to Ch. Darwin who passed in spiritual development a way from commitment of natural theology to agnosticism was ambiguous (Darwin, 1958). Unlike some followers he never criticized church, identifying himself publicly rather as deist, than atheist (Darwin, 2001, page 418). On requests to express clearly the relation to religion Darwin refused, including the views in this question especially personal record and pleading incompetence, employment, a disease and even unwillingness to hurt blizkim6. More frank he was in letters to the colleagues T. Hexli, A. Gray, J. Guker, L. Dzhennis, Ch. Layel, J. Fordyce, J. Macintosh, but also here observed big care (The Correspondence..., 1983 — 1999). Externally he was always an adherent of Anglican church, graduated from theological faculty of Kraysts-college in Kembridzhe7, prepared for spiritual career. Until the end of days fulfilled the churchwarden's duties at local church of St Mary near Down. Every Sunday all family visited this church. On its churchyard Ch. Darwin's children — Mari, Elisabeth, Charles, his brother Erasmus, the wife Emma and her sister are buried.

Nevertheless Darwin for the first time faced sharp rejection of the views from Anglican church. In several months after issue of "Origin of species" in Oxford there was a debate between the archbishop S. Wil-berforsom and T. Hexli after whom both participants considered themselves winners. And until the end of Darwin's life the adherents of Anglican church branded his "immoral" theory as undermining fundamentals of religion, and they tried to find natural science arguments against it.

In religious circles of the USA the Darwinism received opposite estimates. The orthodox Christian, the botanist A. Gray in 1860 said that

5 Russia was often called "the second Homeland of Darwinism". As any cliche, this characteristic only partially reflects the truth. Considering the range of critical performances in the Russian scientific community against the doctrine about natural selection from positions of clericalism, a teleogenez, a mekhanolamarkizm and a saltatsionizm from K.E. fon Bera to T.D. Lysenko, Russia with not the smaller basis can be called "the first Homeland of anti-Darwinism" (see in more detail: Kolchinsky, 2007, page 174-184).
6 About Darvina's relation to religion in general and to Anglican church in particular there are many books, articles and dozens of the websites on the Internet. In Russian-speaking literature recently this question was investigated by T. Volobuyeva in article "Religious Views of Ch. Darvina" placed on the Orthodox educational Word portal on November 11, 2008// of 1трге£ £юш$т/39454.ркр.
7 On its gate Darvina's bas-relief is established.

thanks to Darwin it became known how God carried out creation of types (Gray, 1963, river 130). On the contrary, the famous paleontologist Zh.L. Agassis agreed not with removal of God from process of changes in the geological past of the whole florae and faunae (Agassis, 1860). Professor of theology of Princeton University Ch. Hodge accepting the fact of evolution categorically said concerning Darwinism: "It is atheism" (Hodge..., 1874, river 174).

In Russia the Darwinism originally did not meet serious opposition from orthodox church which since the time of Peter I usually did not interfere with discussions of scientists. The theological dogmatism presented in articles and brochures by professor of the St. Petersburg spiritual academy of the mathematician and theologian E.I. Lovyagin (1861) or professor of the Moscow university historian Srednevekovya and the theologian A.P. Lebedev (1878) isolated the orthodox press from evolutionary discussions while the Western European clericals actively participated in them, and among the western evolutionists there were always many deeply believing Catholics and Protestants. In process of growth of popularity of Darwinism the attendants of a religious cult and censorship in tsarist Russia tried not to allow distribution of the ideas of Darvina in a people at large, being afraid that they will undermine foundations of the state and church dogmas (Harakhorkin, 1960). Priests and theologians opposed Darwinism in the sermons, called this theory "blasphemous", "immoral" and politically dangerous (Grekulov, 1964)8. However during lifetime of Darvina only works E were subjected to the ban and burning. Gek-kelya "Natural history of a mirotvoreniye" (1873) and "The history of breeding development of organisms" (1879) in which spiritual censors fairly saw mockery over bible legends on origin of the universe and the person and impetuous physiophilosophical speculation. Later the religious philosopher V.S. Solovyov in the book "Justification of Good" (1894) made the first attempt to connect scientific and evolutionary and Christian ideas of space evolution.

The idea about animal origin of the person pushed away from Darwinism of his many initial supporters for religious and moral reasons (V.A. Popov, N.N. Strakhov. I.F. Tsion, etc.). From now on it was quite often criticized from positions of clericalism and opposed Darvina as the preacher of atheism and materialism (Kudryavtsev, 1883). Many outstanding Russian biologists rejecting Darwinism in terms of a teleogenez, a mekhanolamarkizm or a sal-tatsionizm also participated in this criticism (F.F. Brandt, A.P. Bogdanov, N.P. Wagner, P.F. Lesgaft, etc.).

Thus though to the 25 anniversary from the date of issue of "Origin of species" the creationism was almost forced out from biology, in other spheres of science and culture in evolutionism saw threat of morals, to ethics and the society for a long time. For many the Darwinism got negative coloring in connection with the aspiration of some thinkers to use laws of biological evolution for improvement of society for what initiators of social Darwinism G. Spencer, E. Gekkel, A. Sheffle, L. Vilzer, P. Liliyenfeld and also the ancestors of eugenics and racial hygiene F. Galton, A. Plyotts, V. Shalmayer stood up.

In process of strengthening of positions of Darwinism in biology practically all political forces began to use it for scientific justification of the programs. Everyone found in it that it was necessary to it. Where G. Spencer saw fight for existence, P.A. Kropotkin saw cooperation and mutual aid. Liberals A. Carnegie and J.D. Rockefeller found justification of the society constructed on econo-in Darwinism

8 Cm K.V. Manoylenko's publication "Pros and cons" in this issue of the magazine.

Fig. 1. Ch. Darwin's grave in the Westminster abbey. Photo of the author of article

the michesky competition, and K. Marx assured that it is a natural-historical basis of his views. E. Gekkel and V. Byolshe considered Darwinism as release from religion, A. Gray — as glorification of wisdom of God. A number of erudite and religious thinkers, having refused the concept of the invariance of types, tried to unite the idea of evolution with ideas of God as to its initial reason and the purpose (A. Vigand, Ch. Layel). Many considered that Darwin only proved the evolution fact, but incorrectly specified its laws, and perceived it as Copernicus, but not Newton of biology.

Nevertheless nobody doubted huge value of its theory of evolution for mankind. Contrary to initial plans of the family of Ch. Darvina which was going to bury him in Down, at the initiative of the London Royal society, the supported prime minister of Great Britain V. Glandston and deputies of the House of Commons, made the decision on Darvina's burial in the Westminster abbey near tombs of other outstanding scientists of England (astronomers V., J. and Y. Gershelyami, physicists I. Newton, M. Faraday and J. Maxwell) 9. At a funeral there were representatives of many universities and scientific organizations, large public figures, diplomatic representatives of Russia, France, Italy, Germany and Spain. As fairly noted J. Brown (Browne, 2008), burial of Ch. Darvina in the Westminster abbey was on April 26, 1882 attempt to convince society that science, one of the main symbols of which at that time was already Ch. Darwin, not only is not threat for moral values of society, but, on the contrary, is extremely important for its stability. Thus, before the first anniversary — the 25 anniversary from the date of the publication "Origins of species" — Darvina was entered into a circle of the most outstanding people of Great Britain. Since 1890. The London Royal society awards each two years a medal the scientist of the different countries for an outstanding contribution to development of fields of knowledge in which Darwin worked.

9 In London like to remember how in day of a funeral of Ch. Darwin said that "this place became the most magnificent collection of intelligence which ever was in England".

Crisis of Darwinism. The first celebration of anniversary of Ch. Darwin and his theory

Reopening in 1900 of laws of G. Mendel who established the discrete nature of hereditary variability objectively eliminated one of the major objections against the theory of natural selection about the "bogging-up" effect of crossing. However the first geneticists opposed the experiments to evolutionary speculation, postulating the invariance of genes and their independence of external factors. Besides V. Iogannsen's experiments showed powerlessness of selection in clean lines. There was a number of the new not Darvinian concepts of evolution which were based on data of genetics: mutatsio-nizm (G. de Friz), hybridgenesis (U. Batson, Ya. Lotsi) and preadaptatsionizm (L. Queneau). Still the mekhanolamarkizm which supporters tried to prove experimentally inheritance of the acquired properties enjoyed wide popularity, influencing various agents ontogenesis.

As a result and the 50 anniversary of issue of "Origin of species" took place the 100 anniversary since the birth of Ch. Darvina in a situation of total criticism of the theory of natural selection. Nevertheless in many countries the anniversary actions designed to show the width of impact of the evolutionary idea on all spheres of human spirit took place. They started on July 1, 1908 at a ceremonial meeting of the London Linnean society which founded Darwin-Wallace's medal in honor of a memorable meeting on June 17, 1858 at which Ch. Darvina and A. Wallace's reports were read. To the audience dozens of congratulations from the English and foreign scientific organizations arrived. The only gold medal was got by A. Wallace. Other awards were divided equally by scientists of England (J. Guker, Fr. Galton, R. Lancaster) and Germany (E. Gekkel, A. Veysman, E. Strasburger) 10. Then in honor of winners and foreign guests it was banqueted. On the same day the exhibition was open and short reports on evolution are heard. Within eight months in the British Natural History Museum the big exhibition devoted to Darwin and which attracted huge interest of public worked.

On June 22 — 24, 1909 235 scientists from 167 different countries and 68 British institutions and also more than 150 high-ranking officials gathered in Cambridge for participation in anniversary actions (Richmond, 2006, river 447; Wyhe, 2009, river 58—59)11. Never earlier anniversaries of scientists noted as an event of world value. Celebration began in the evening on June 22 with the banquet in the Fitzvilliamsky museum given in honor of delegates and guests by the Nobel laureate, the rector of the university lord O. Rayleigh on behalf of the king of England Eduard of VII12. Next day in the House of the Senate of the university the hearing of greetings and reports took place. In the short opening speech Rayleigh remembered a shock which was endured by the scientific world and the English society in November, 1859, in connection with issue of the book of Darvina. Then with greetings

10 Further Ch. Darwin's medal was handed in 1958 and 2008
11 From Russia representatives of Imperial Academy of Sciences (I.P. Borodin and V.V. Zalensky), the universities participated in the celebration of anniversary in Cambridge: N.I. Kuznetsov (Yuryevsky university), F. Elfving (Gelsingforsky Aleksandrovsky university), K.A. Timiryazev (Moscow university and Moscow society of testers of the nature), as well as. I. Mechnikov to whom in 1908 the Nobel Prize was awarded. Many of them shared in the press the impressions about these celebrations subsequently. I thank K.V. Manoylenko who reported to me about the extensive materials which are stored in I.P. Borodin's fund connected with Ch. Darwin's anniversary in 1909 (PFA. T. 125. Op. 1. 62).
12 Order of the Proceedings at the Darwin Celebration//ttp://darwin-on!

delegates acted: from Germany O. Gertvig, from France and Russia I.I. Mechnikov, from the USA G.F. Osborne and from Great Britain E.R. Lancaster. All spoke about huge impact of works of Darvina for their fields of knowledge, and Lancaster said that the basic principles of the theory of Darvina will be coordinated with Mendel's opening. After reports there was a reception in a garden of Kraysts-college, and in the evening in the new Examination hall the banquet in honor of delegations at which also eldest son of the author of the theory of natural selection — William Darwin made a speech took place.

On June 24 honorary rewards in the Senate House were presented. A speech under the name "Darwin as Geologist" was delivered by the president of the London Royal society A. Geyki. In the second half of day Ch. Darwin's children gave a reception in the Trinity College park. On June 23 and 24 guests could visit Darwin's room in Kraysts-college. In its old library the exhibition of portraits, busts, notebooks, letters and manuscripts of the scientist and also the tools and devices used by him during the travel by the Beagle ship was open (Darwin centerary..., 1909). Darwin's library which is stored in Botanical school and a collection of minerals in the Geological museum of A. Sedgwick were available to visitors. Anniversary celebrations widely covered in the world press, and they became history of science as one of the most grandiose events of this sort.

The anniversary collection "Darwin and Modern Science" (Darwin and modern., 1909) prepared under A. Seward's edition included 28 articles and J. Guker's letter. Among authors there were patriarchs of Darwinism E. Gekkel and A. Veysman, the leading geneticists and cytologists V. Batson, E. Strasburger, experimental biologists Zh. Lyob and G. Klebs, paleontologists V. and D. Scott, the anthropologist G. Shvalbe, etc. A part of articles was devoted to influence of the ideas of Darwin on various branches of biology and geology and also philosophy, physics, history, sociology, religion, linguistics. Only A. Veysman, E. Gekkel, J. Dzhed, F. Darwin, L. Morgan, A. Sedgwick, J. Thomson discussed Darwin's works and their influence on biology, other reports were devoted to the humanities or raised the issues with which Darwin did not deal.

In the USA for the celebration of anniversary of Darvina the committee into which the largest biologists evolutionists and paleontologists G. Bempes, Ch. Devenport, G. Krem-pton, T. Morgan, G. Osborne, V. Scott, etc. entered was created (Hovey, 1909). On February 12, 1909 the ceremonial meeting in the American Museum of Natural History where the president of the New York academy of Sciences Ch. Finney presented to the director of the museum G. Osborne a bronze bust of Ch. Darvina took place. J. Stephenson's reports "Darwin and geology", N. Britton "Darwin and botany" both G. Bempes "Darwin and zoology" were heard. From February 15 to March 14 in halls of the Museum the exhibition devoted to Darwin was open. From anniversary publications of the American authors for further development of biology the book by V. Kellogg "Darwinism today" [1907] and also T. Morgan's articles "For Darvina" [1909] and "Accident or a namerennost in origin and evolution of adaptations" [1910] were of particular importance.

In February, 1909 at many universities, institutes and scientific organizations of Russia the scientific meetings devoted to Ch. Darwin took place. The main scientific institution of the country the Imperial Academy of Sciences took active part in celebration of it yubileya13. Both many universities and scientific organizations which were sending to Cambridge of the representatives or sent congratulations followed its example. Unlike them the University of St. Vladimir in Kiev refused to participate in anniversary

13 Cm in this number the publication A.V. Samokish "Charles Darwin and Imperial Academy of Sciences. Documentary evidences".

actions for a number of reasons religious, scientific, socio-political, ideological and moral poryadka14.

To Darvina's anniversary there were 2 collected works of his works. Publishing house Yu. Lep-kovsky was let out by the first and only eight-volume edition "Illyustrirovannoye Sobraniye Sochineny Ch. Darvina» (1907—1909) supplied with fine portraits of the scientist and also some photos of places where he studied lived and worked in Cambridge, Down, London, etc. Whether in preparation and transfer of separate volumes of uchastv masters of the Russian biology I.M. Sechenov, P.P. Sushkin, K.A. Timiryazev, etc. In 1909 under V.V. Bittner's edition as the free application to "The messenger of knowledge" under the general name "Collected Works of Charles Darvina" separate releases the illustrated volumes of works of Darvina in A.A. Nikolaev's translation also began to leave (the 6th volume is translated by E.A. Serebryakov, 4, 5 and 6 volumes left as the annex to "Week of the messenger of knowledge"). 14 releases were issued everything, and the first 3 volumes left in the Library of Systematic Knowledge series. The collection "Darvina's Memories" (Memories..., 1910) was published in which I.I. Mechnikov, K.A. Timiryazev, M.A. Menzbir, I.P. Pavlov, N.A. Umov and M.M. Kowalewski participated. N.V. Tsinger's researches about speciation by means of natural selection, the book by I.I. Mechnikov "Etudes of optimism", the first version of the theory of a filembriogenez of A.N. Severtsov and also the publication of zoologists A.A. Ostroumov and A.M. Nikolsky, the botanist V.I. Taliyev, etc. were dated for anniversary

The given material J. Brown that anniversary celebrations of 1909 were organized by small group of naturalists and members of the family of Darvina to remind of the theory of natural selection and to show its advantages before other evolutionary concepts does not confirm opinion (Browne, 2008, river 324). It is unlikely the small group of scientists would manage to impose the will to scientific community of such different countries as Great Britain, the USA, Germany and Russia, and to force to hold so grandiose anniversary events. Closer to the truth M. Richmond which believes that scientists gathered not only to do justice to one of "heroes", but once again to estimate durability of his design in a critical situation (Richmond, 2006). Anniversary showed that even at the time of peak of crisis of Darwinism there were many biologists of the different generations which were acting in his protection and correctly estimating his ratio with a mendelizm, the mutational theory of G. de Friz and opening of meiosis by V. Setton and T. Bo-veri. Nobody, however, knew that in the next months T. Morgan will open the mutation of "white" at a drosophila which became starting point in development of the chromosomal theory of heredity — the most important element of synthesis of genetics and Darwinism. Anniversary, undoubtedly, gave an additional incentive to search of recovery from the crisis of Darwinism by combination of the theory of natural selection with the latest opening in genetics.

It is important to emphasize valid character of all participants of anniversary actions, irrespective of their evolutionary views, and to Darwin, and to his doctrine. Scientists of the different countries and different generations continued to realize themselves members of the uniform international community; scientific discussions did not prevent to keep the friendly relations and did not induce to look for neither in science in general, nor in Darwinism in particular responsible for social and economic and political cataclysms. It will become fashionable only after World War I and the revolutionary shocks which led three empires to crash: Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary. The spirit of a celebration reflected respect of society for science in pre-war Europe.

14 Cm in this number K.V. Manoylenko's publication "Pros and cons: the relation to a celebration of memory of Charles Darvina in 1909".

World crisis, the evolutionary theory and Darvinian anniversary in the early thirties in the USSR and Nazi Germany

In the first 15 post-war years the intellectuals constantly spoke about crisis of outlook, morals, religion, art, economy, policy. The philosopher and the historian of culture O. Spengler predicting close death of European civilization in the book "Decline of Europe" became the spokesman of these moods. Crisis in society and culture was deeply connected with knowledge crisis (Ringer, 1969). Welfare and political environment directly, sometimes the rudely, influenced science in all its aspects. Scientists felt got lost in the sea of socio-political demagogy, occultism, mysticism and Theosophy (Forman, 1971; Harwood, 1996). In the literate the atmosphere of quasireligious addresses from one faith in another dominated, be this belief philosophical or political and ideological. The principles and values of science were called into question: rationalism, materialism, causality and regularity. In the conditions of domination of cultural pessimism of scientists accused of positivism, empiricism, a mekhanitsizm, scepticism, dogmatism, a technokratizm, of a separation from everyday life and so on.

Hostile public environment inevitably influenced the world outlook and moral and value bases of scientific community shaken still during the war (Science, the equipment and society..., 2007). Scientists of the different countries joined in political struggle and ideologo-philosophical discussions. More and stronger rejection of values of the bourgeois civilization which cast the world into awful war extended. Among scientific elite there was a split on those who supported modernization, and those who connected it with social degradation. This split affected also in natural science disciplines (Harwood, 1993, river of XV). Especially scientific discussions between lamarkist and Darwinians accepted political character, becoming way of detection of political religion and loyalty (Evolution von Darwin., 1999). For example, in the Weimar republic, as well as to the USSR, a neolamarkizm considered politically left and, respectively, the Jewish doctrine while his opponents were ranked as the right political camp. This political question gained the increasing sharpness and reached the culmination after suicide in 1926 of P. Kammerer.

Even before World War I the movement for biological improvement of the person by positive and negative selection in Germany gained radical character. Founders of racial hygiene V. Shalmayer, A. Plyotts, L. Voltman stood up for strict and state control over genetic structure of human populations (Becker, 1988). After war these installations became more extremist, turning into frank nationalism and anti-Semitism. After war the leaders of the German society of racial hygiene M. von Grubber, E. Krepelin, A. Plyotts, etc. came into contacts with the right radical currents which became forerunners of the National Socialist Party. In the program composition "My fight" Hitler widely used two-volume work E. Baur, O. Fischer and F. Lenz "Essays according to the doctrine about heredity of the person and racial hygiene" (Baur, Fischer, Lenz, 1921), sustained 5 editions and translated into the Swedish and English languages. The second volume of this book "Selection at the Person and Racial Hygiene" was written by F. Lenz whom national socialists called later "the grandfather of racial hygiene". In the conditions of post-war time this book caused enthusiastic responses of most of the world scientific community and sharp objections of minority (Fangerau, 2001). Compositions of racial hygienists (E. Ryudin, F. fon Lenz, etc.) contradicted the dominating moral values. They ra-

toval for change of ethics to bring its norms and values allegedly into accord with modern genetics and the evolutionary theory.

Biologists technocrats suggested to develop new reference points in the field of demography and health care for the purpose of biological improvement of society. It was necessary to decide what hereditary signs of the person socially good, and what bad. Similar estimates depended on many social factors including from government policy. From the idea of regulation of the population by means of science the ideology of future Third Reich within which became possible grew ripe to conduct policy of mass destruction, being guided by the recommendations of experts-biologists and physicians. National socialists promised to provide biological improvement of Germany, their political program included many elements of racial and hygienic technology that did it attractive in the opinion of a part of the academic establishment. In the Weimar republic shaken by consequences of the lost war and the November revolution, the hyperinflation, declines in production, unemployment happening against the background of "a degeneration of society" biologists, being guided allegedly this sciences, proved superiority of Aryan race. The Weimar eugenics and racial hygiene came to the end with the offer of the law on sterilization of people with physical or intellectual defects which became a prototype of racial laws of the Third Reich.

In the conditions of praise of Aryan science the main figure for the celebration of the 75 anniversary of issue of "Origin of species" in the Third Reich chose not Ch. Darwin, but E. Gekkel. In 1934 solemnly celebrated its 100-year anniversary, glorifying it as prophet of national socialism (Gasman, 1998). Later, in 1942, in Yen the members of the league of supporters of a monizm organized Society of Ernst Gekkel (Ernst-Haeckel-Gesellschaft) which chairman was a large German Darwinian W. Franz. the Action got support from the gauleiter of Thuringia F. Zaukel and one of the main ideologists of national socialism A. Rosenberg. The last, referring to the Fuhrer, claimed that the original scientific outlook can be created only on the basis of national socialist achievements and the idea of selection which together with mutations is the cause of human races.

In the years preceding Darvinian anniversary of 1934 the eugenics as an order of the day among biologists and doctors, was beyond natural sciences and medicine, winning more and more supporters in political numbers of the different countries though far not everywhere risked to start implementation of its recommendations. The British traditions in the field of human rights were incompatible with sterilization of people, and all attempts to carry out similar laws through the House of Commons were failed in 1927. Unsuccessful were attempts to introduce eugenical actions and in the USSR where N.K. Koltsov, A.S. Serebrovsky, Yu.A. Filipchenko, as well as their foreign colleagues, were full of optimism concerning opportunities of eugenics and about

Madsen Magnhild
Other scientific works: