Little need be said here of the Haeckel controversy in this country. I remember well the day when the German work was submitted to me with a view to publication. It did not seem to have the stuff of a conflagration in it. I hazarded a guess that it would sell a thousand copies, and thought that it contained so valuable a description of the evolution of mind that it should be published. It has sold, with rather less than the usual advertising, with no special machinery for pressing it such as is at the command of religious works—it has sold about 100,000 copies. The success of the work astounded us. While we were being accused of “thrusting it down people’s throats” we could not have arrested its circulation, had we wished, without positively refusing to republish it. Indeed, the last library edition has long been out of print, though still in frequent demand. It has made Haeckel’s a familiar name in circles where even Spencer has been heard to be described as “a great balloonist.” Clergymen have written to their journals saying how they heard the Monistic philosophy discussed by groups of paviors. Sir Leslie Stephen told me, on his death-bed, but with a momentary flash of his old humour, how an Orkney clergyman had written to him for consolation, as it was circulating amongst the fishers of that _ultima thule_.[10] Footnote 10: The reader who desires a summary of the criticisms passed on the work may consult Dr. Schmidt’s _Der Kampf um die Welträthsel_ for Germany, and my own _Haeckel’s Critics Answered_ for England. The only biologist of competence who has written on it in this country is Prof. Lloyd-Morgan (_Contemporary Review_, 1903), but his reply is indirect. Sir Oliver Lodge has recently dealt with it at length in his _Life and Matter_, but the distinguished physicist’s conception of life is in extreme and general disfavour with the biologists of England.