Unconscious Memory(Fiscle Part-3) by Samuel Butler (classic books to read .TXT) 📕

This Showed That,  According To Mr. Darwin,  I Had Fallen Into Serious

Error,  And My Faith In Him,  Though Somewhat Shaken,  Was Far Too Great

To Be Destroyed By A Few Days' Course Of Professor Mivart,  The Full

Importance Of Whose Work I Had Not Yet Apprehended.  I Continued To

Read,  And When I Had Finished The Chapter Felt Sure That I Must

Indeed Have Been Blundering.  The Concluding Words,  "I Am Surprised

That No One Has Hitherto Advanced This Demonstrative Case Of Neuter

Insects Against The Well-Known Doctrine Of Inherited Habit As

Advanced By Lamarck," {23b} Were Positively Awful.  There Was A Quiet

Consciousness Of Strength About Them Which Was More Convincing Than

Any Amount Of More Detailed Explanation.  This Was The First I Had

Heard Of Any Doctrine Of Inherited Habit As Having Been Propounded By

Lamarck (The Passage Stands In The First Edition,  "The Well-Known

Doctrine Of Lamarck," P. 242); And Now To Find That I Had Been Only

Busying Myself With A Stale Theory Of This Long-Since Exploded

Charlatan--With My Book Three Parts Written And Already In The Press-

-It Was A Serious Scare.

On Reflection,  However,  I Was Again Met With The Overwhelming Weight

Of The Evidence In Favour Of Structure And Habit Being Mainly Due To

Memory.  I Accordingly Gathered As Much As I Could Second-Hand Of

What Lamarck Had Said,  Reserving A Study Of His "Philosophie

Zoologique" For Another Occasion,  And Read As Much About Ants And

Bees As I Could Find In Readily Accessible Works.  In A Few Days I

Saw My Way Again; And Now,  Reading The "Origin Of Species" More

Closely,  And I May Say More Sceptically,  The Antagonism Between Mr.

Darwin And Lamarck Became Fully Apparent To Me,  And I Saw How

Incoherent And Unworkable In Practice The Later View Was In

Comparison With The Earlier.  Then I Read Mr. Darwin's Answers To

Miscellaneous Objections,  And Was Met,  And This Time Brought Up,  By

The Passage Beginning "In The Earlier Editions Of This Work," {24a}

&C.,  On Which I Wrote Very Severely In "Life And Habit"; {24b} For I

Felt By This Time That The Difference Of Opinion Between Us Was

Radical,  And That The Matter Must Be Fought Out According To The

Rules Of The Game.  After This I Went Through The Earlier Part Of My

Book,  And Cut Out The Expressions Which I Had Used Inadvertently,  And

Which Were Inconsistent With A Teleological View.  This Necessitated

Only Verbal Alterations; For,  Though I Had Not Known It,  The Spirit

Of The Book Was Throughout Teleological.

I Now Saw That I Had Got My Hands Full,  And Abandoned My Intention Of

Touching Upon "Pangenesis."  I Took Up The Words Of Mr. Darwin Quoted

Above,  To The Effect That It Would Be A Serious Error To Ascribe The

Greater Number Of Instincts To Transmitted Habit.  I Wrote Chapter

Xi. Of "Life And Habit," Which Is Headed "Instincts As Inherited

Memory"; I Also Wrote The Four Subsequent Chapters,  "Instincts Of

Neuter Insects," "Lamarck And Mr. Darwin," "Mr. Mivart And Mr.

Darwin," And The Concluding Chapter,  All Of Them In The Month Of

October And The Early Part Of November 1877,  The Complete Book

Leaving The Binder's Hands December 4,  1877,  But,  According To Trade

Custom,  Being Dated 1878.  It Will Be Seen That These Five Concluding

Chapters Were Rapidly Written,  And This May Account In Part For The

Directness With Which I Said Anything I Had To Say About Mr. Darwin;

Partly This,  And Partly I Felt I Was In For A Penny And Might As Well

Be In For A Pound.  I Therefore Wrote About Mr. Darwin's Work Exactly

As I Should About Any One Else's,  Bearing In Mind The Inestimable

Services He Had Undoubtedly--And Must Always Be Counted To Have--

Rendered To Evolution.

How I Came To Write "Evolution,  Old And New"--Mr Darwin's "Brief But

Imperfect" Sketch Of The Opinions Of The Writers On Evolution Who Had

Preceded Him--The Reception Which "Evolution,  Old And New," Met With.

Though My Book Was Out In 1877,  It Was Not Till January 1878 That I

Took An Opportunity Of Looking Up Professor Ray Lankester's Account

Of Professor Hering's Lecture.  I Can Hardly Say How Relieved I Was

To Find That It Sprung No Mine Upon Me,  But That,  So Far As I Could

Gather,  Professor Hering And I Had Come To Pretty Much The Same

Conclusion.  I Had Already Found The Passage In Dr. Erasmus Darwin

Which I Quoted In "Evolution,  Old And New," But May Perhaps As Well

Repeat It Here.  It Runs -

"Owing To The Imperfection Of Language,  The Offspring Is Termed A New

Animal; But Is,  In Truth,  A Branch Or Elongation Of The Parent,  Since

A Part Of The Embryon Animal Is Or Was A Part Of The Parent,  And,

Therefore,  In Strict Language,  Cannot Be Said To Be Entirely New At

The Time Of Its Production,  And,  Therefore,  It May Retain Some Of The

Habits Of The Parent System." {26}

When,  Then,  The Athenaeum Reviewed "Life And Habit" (January 26,

1878),  I Took The Opportunity To Write To That Paper,  Calling

Attention To Professor Hering's Lecture,  And Also To The Passage Just

Quoted From Dr. Erasmus Darwin.  The Editor Kindly Inserted My Letter

In His Issue Of February 9,  1878.  I Felt That I Had Now Done All In

The Way Of Acknowledgment To Professor Hering Which It Was,  For The

Time,  In My Power To Do.

I Again Took Up Mr. Darwin's "Origin Of Species," This Time,  I Admit,

In A Spirit Of Scepticism.  I Read His "Brief But Imperfect" Sketch

Of The Progress Of Opinion On The Origin Of Species,  And Turned To

Each One Of The Writers He Had Mentioned.  First,  I Read All The

Parts Of The "Zoonomia" That Were Not Purely Medical,  And Was

Astonished To Find That,  As Dr. Krause Has Since Said In His Essay On

Erasmus Darwin,  "He Was The First Who Proposed And Persistently

Carried Out A Well-Rounded Theory With Regard To The Development Of

The Living World" {27} (Italics In Original).

This Is Undoubtedly The Case,  And I Was Surprised At Finding

Professor Huxley Say Concerning This Very Eminent Man That He Could

"Hardly Be Said To Have Made Any Real Advance Upon His Predecessors."

Still More Was I Surprised At Remembering That,  In The First Edition

Of The "Origin Of Species," Dr. Erasmus Darwin Had Never Been So Much

As Named; While In The "Brief But Imperfect" Sketch He Was Dismissed

With A Line Of Half-Contemptuous Patronage,  As Though The Mingled

Tribute Of Admiration And Curiosity Which Attaches To Scientific

Prophecies,  As Distinguished From Discoveries,  Was The Utmost He Was

Entitled To.  "It Is Curious," Says Mr. Darwin Innocently,  In The

Middle Of A Note In The Smallest Possible Type,  "How Largely My

Grandfather,  Dr. Erasmus Darwin,  Anticipated The Views And Erroneous

Grounds Of Opinion Of Lamarck In His 'Zoonomia' (Vol. I. Pp. 500-

510),  Published In 1794"; This Was All He Had To Say About The

Founder Of "Darwinism," Until I Myself Unearthed Dr. Erasmus Darwin,

And Put His Work Fairly Before The Present Generation In "Evolution,

Old And New."  Six Months After I Had Done This,  I Had The

Satisfaction Of Seeing That Mr. Darwin Had Woke Up To The Propriety

Of Doing Much The Same Thing,  And That He Had Published An

Interesting And Charmingly Written Memoir Of His Grandfather,  Of

Which More Anon.

Not That Dr. Darwin Was The First To Catch Sight Of A Complete Theory

Of Evolution.  Buffon Was The First To Point Out That,  In View Of The

Known Modifications Which Had Been Effected Among Our Domesticated

Animals And Cultivated Plants,  The Ass And The Horse Should Be

Considered As,  In All Probability,  Descended From A Common Ancestor;

Yet,  If This Is So,  He Writes--If The Point "Were Once Gained That

Among Animals And Vegetables There Had Been,  I Do Not Say Several

Species,  But Even A Single One,  Which Had Been Produced In The Course

Of Direct Descent From Another Species; If,  For Example,  It Could Be

Once Shown That The Ass Was But A Degeneration From The Horse,  Then

There Is No Further Limit To Be Set To The Power Of Nature,  And We

Should Not Be Wrong In Supposing That,  With Sufficient Time,  She Has

Evolved All Other Organised Forms From One Primordial Type" {28a} (Et

L'on N'auroit Pas Tort De Supposer,  Que D'un Seul Etre Elle A Su

Tirer Avec Le Temps Tous Les Autres Etres Organises).

This,  I Imagine,  In Spite Of Professor Huxley's Dictum,  Is

Contributing A Good Deal To The General Doctrine Of Evolution; For

Though Descartes And Leibnitz May Have Thrown Out Hints Pointing More

Or Less Broadly In The Direction Of Evolution,  Some Of Which

Professor Huxley Has Quoted,  He Has Adduced Nothing Approaching To

The Passage From Buffon Given Above,  Either In Respect Of The

Clearness With Which The Conclusion Intended To Be Arrived At Is

Pointed Out,  Or The Breadth Of View