ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Nature was not bound to give up her secret, or was bound only in a mocking covenant with an impossible condition: Si coelum digito tetigeris; if only some fortunate hand could touch the inaccessible firmament, and bring down the golden chain to earth! But fruition seemed out of sight. Even those who were most willing to advance in this direction, could only regret that they saw no road clear. There was a tempting vision, but nothing proven-many would have said nothing provable. A few years passed, and all this was changed. The doubtful speculation had become a firm and connected theory. In the room of scattered foragers and scouts, there was an irresistibly advancing column. Nature had surrendered her stronghold, and was disarmed of her secret. And if we ask who were the men by whom this was done, the answer is notorious, and there is but one answer possible: the names that are for ever associated with this great triumph are those of Charles Darwin and Wallace." 1

I gave the lady or gentleman who wrote this an opportunity of acknowledging the authorship; but she or he preferred, not, I think, unnaturally, to remain

anonymous.

The only other criticism of Evolution, Old and New to which I would call attention, appeared in Nature, in a review of Unconscious Memory, by Mr. Romanes, and contained the following passages:

"But to be serious, if in charity we could deem Mr. Butler a lunatic, we should not be unprepared for any aberration of common sense that he might display. A certain nobody writes a book [Evolution, Old and New] accusing the most illustrious man in his generation of burying the claims of certain illustrious predecessors out of the sight of all men. In the hope of gaining some 1 Saturday Review, 31st May 1879, pp. 682-683.

notoriety by deserving, and perhaps receiving a contemptuous refutation from the eminent man in question, he publishes this book which, if it deserved serious consideration, would be not more of an insult to the particular man of science whom it accuses of conscious and wholesale plagiarism [there is no such accusation in Evolution, Old and New] than it would be to men of science in general for requiring such elementary instruction on some of the most famous literature in science from an upstart ignoramus, who, until two or three years ago, considered himself a painter by profession.” -Nature, 27th January 1881.

*

In a subsequent letter to Nature, Mr. Romanes said he had been "acting the part of policeman" by writing as he had done. Any unscrupulous reviewer may call himself a policeman if he likes, but he must not expect those whom he assails to recognize his pretensions. Evolution, Old and New was not written for the kind of people whom Mr. Romanes calls men of science; if "men of science" means men like Mr. Romanes, I trust they say well who maintain that I am not a man of science; I believe the men to whom Mr. Romanes refers to be men, not of that kind of science which desires to know, but of that kind whose aim is to thrust itself upon the public as actually knowing. Evolution, Old and New could be of no use to these; certainly, it was not intended as an insult to them, but if they are insulted by it, I do not know that I am sorry, for I value their antipathy and opposition as much as I should dislike their approbation: of one thing, however, I am certain-namely, that before Evolution, Old and New was written, Professors Huxley and Tyndall, for example, knew very little of the earlier history of Evolution.

Professor Huxley, in his article on Evolution in the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, published in 1878, says of the two great pioneers of Evolution, that Buffon "contributed nothing to the general doctrine of Evolution," and that Erasmus Darwin can hardly be said to have made any real advance on his predecessors."

2

Professor Haeckel evidently knew little of Erasmus Darwin, and still less, apparently, about Buffon. Professor Tyndall, in 1878, spoke of Evolution as "Darwin's theory "; and I have just read Mr. Grant Allen as saying that Evolutionism " is an almost exclusively English impulse." 5

Since Evolution, Old and New was published, I have observed several of the so-called men of scienceamong them Professor Huxley and Mr. Romanesairing Buffon; but I never observed any of them do this till within the last three years. I maintain that " men of science" were, and still are, very ignorant concerning the history of Evolution; but, whether they were or were not, I did not write Evolution, Old and New for them; I wrote for the general public, who have been kind enough to testify their appreciation of it in a sufficiently practical manner.

The way in which Mr. Charles Darwin met Evolution, Old and New has been so fully dealt with in my book, Unconscious Memory, in the Athenaeum, 31st January 1880; the St. James's Gazette, 8th December 1880; and Nature, 3rd February 1881, that I need not return to it here, more especially as Mr. Darwin has, by his silence, admitted that he has no defence to make.

I have quoted by no means the most exceptionable See pp. 62-64 of this book. pp. 360, 361.

a Ibid.

1 Page 748.
• Nineteenth Century for November,
Fortnightly Review, March 1882.

[ocr errors]

parts of Mr. Romanes' article, and have given them a permanence they would not otherwise attain, inasmuch as nothing can better show the temper of the kind of men who are now-as I said in the body of the foregoing work-clamouring for endowment, and who would step into the Pope's shoes to-morrow if we would only let them.

E

CHAPTER TWO: ROME AND PANTHEISM

VOLUTION WOULD AFTER ALL BE A poor doctrine if it did not affect human affairs at every touch and turn. I propose to devote the second chapter of this Appendix to the consideration of an aspect of Evolution which will always interest a very large number of people-the development of the relation that may exist between religion and science. /If the Church of Rome would only develop some doctrine or, I know not how, provide some means by which men like myself, who cannot pretend to believe in the miraculous element of Christianity, could yet join her as a conservative stronghold, I, for one, should gladly do so. I believe the difference between her faith and that of all who can be called gentlemen to be one of words rather than things. Our practical working ideal is much the same as hers; when we use the word 'gentleman " we mean the same thing that the Church of Rome does; so that, if we get down below the words that formulate her teaching, there are few points upon which we should not agree. But, alas! words are often so very important.

66

How is it possible for myself, for example, to give people to understand that I believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception or in the Lourdes miracles? If the Pope could spare time to think about so insignificant a person, would he wish me to pretend such beliefs or think better of me if I did pretend them? I should be sorry to see him turn suddenly round and deny his own faith, and I am persuaded that, in like manner, he would have me continue to hold my own in peace; nevertheless, the duty of subordinating private judgment to the avoidance of schism is so obvious that, if we could see a practicable way of bridging the gulf between ourselves and Rome, we should be heartily glad to bridge it.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »