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

Animal And Vegetable Nature Is Covered.  The Passage Referred To Is

Only One Of Many To The Same Effect,  And Must Be Connected With One

Quoted In "Evolution,  Old And New," {28b} From P. 13 Of Buffon's

First Volume,  Which Appeared In 1749,  And Than Which Nothing Can Well

Point More Plainly In The Direction Of Evolution.  It Is Not Easy,

Therefore,  To Understand Why Professor Huxley Should Give 1753-78 As

The Date Of Buffon's Work,  Nor Yet Why He Should Say That Buffon Was

"At First A Partisan Of The Absolute Immutability Of Species," {29a}

Unless,  Indeed,  We Suppose He Has Been Content To Follow That Very

Unsatisfactory Writer,  Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire (Who Falls Into

This Error,  And Says That Buffon's First Volume On Animals Appeared

1753),  Without Verifying Him,  And Without Making Any Reference To

Him.

Professor Huxley Quotes A Passage From The "Palingenesie

Philosophique" Of Bonnet,  Of Which He Says That,  Making Allowance For

His Peculiar Views On The Subject Of Generation,  They Bear No Small

Resemblance To What Is Understood By "Evolution" At The Present Day.

The Most Important Parts Of The Passage Quoted Are As Follows:-

"Should I Be Going Too Far If I Were To Conjecture That The Plants

And Animals Of The Present Day Have Arisen By A Sort Of Natural

Evolution From The Organised Beings Which Peopled The World In Its

Original State As It Left The Hands Of The Creator? . . .  In The

Outset Organised Beings Were Probably Very Different From What They

Are Now--As Different As The Original World Is From Our Present One.

We Have No Means Of Estimating The Amount Of These Differences,  But

It Is Possible That Even Our Ablest Naturalist,  If Transplanted To

The Original World,  Would Entirely Fail To Recognise Our Plants And

Animals Therein." {29b}

But This Is Feeble In Comparison With Buffon,  And Did Not Appear Till

1769,  When Buffon Had Been Writing On Evolution For Fully Twenty

Years With The Eyes Of Scientific Europe Upon Him.  Whatever

Concession To The Opinion Of Buffon Bonnet May Have Been Inclined To

Make In 1769,  In 1764,  When He Published His "Contemplation De La

Nature," And In 1762 When His "Considerations Sur Les Corps Organes"

Appeared,  He Cannot Be Considered To Have Been A Supporter Of

Evolution.  I Went Through These Works In 1878 When I Was Writing

"Evolution,  Old And New," To See Whether I Could Claim Him As On My

Side; But Though Frequently Delighted With His Work,  I Found It

Impossible To Press Him Into My Service.

The Pre-Eminent Claim Of Buffon To Be Considered As The Father Of The

Modern Doctrine Of Evolution Cannot Be Reasonably Disputed,  Though He

Was Doubtless Led To His Conclusions By The Works Of Descartes And

Leibnitz,  Of Both Of Whom He Was An Avowed And Very Warm Admirer.

His Claim Does Not Rest Upon A Passage Here Or There,  But Upon The

Spirit Of Forty Quartos Written Over A Period Of About As Many Years.

Nevertheless He Wrote,  As I Have Shown In "Evolution,  Old And New,"

Of Set Purpose Enigmatically,  Whereas There Was No Beating About The

Bush With Dr. Darwin.  He Speaks Straight Out,  And Dr. Krause Is

Justified In Saying Of Him "That He Was The First Who Proposed And

Persistently Carried Out A Well-Rounded Theory" Of Evolution.

I Now Turned To Lamarck.  I Read The First Volume Of The "Philosophie

Zoologique," Analysed It And Translated The Most Important Parts.

The Second Volume Was Beside My Purpose,  Dealing As It Does Rather

With The Origin Of Life Than Of Species,  And Travelling Too Fast And

Too Far For Me To Be Able To Keep Up With Him.  Again I Was

Astonished At The Little Mention Mr. Darwin Had Made Of This

Illustrious Writer,  At The Manner In Which He Had Motioned Him Away,

As It Were,  With His Hand In The First Edition Of The "Origin Of

Species," And At The Brevity And Imperfection Of The Remarks Made

Upon Him In The Subsequent Historical Sketch.

I Got Isidore Geoffroy's "Histoire Naturelle Generale," Which Mr.

Darwin Commends In The Note On The Second Page Of The Historical

Sketch,  As Giving "An Excellent History Of Opinion" Upon The Subject

Of Evolution,  And A Full Account Of Buffon's Conclusions Upon The

Same Subject.  This At Least Is What I Supposed Mr. Darwin To Mean.

What He Said Was That Isidore Geoffroy Gives An Excellent History Of

Opinion On The Subject Of The Date Of The First Publication Of

Lamarck,  And That In His Work There Is A Full Account Of Buffon's

Fluctuating Conclusions Upon The Same Subject. {31}  But Mr. Darwin

Is A More Than Commonly Puzzling Writer.  I Read What M. Geoffroy Had

To Say Upon Buffon,  And Was Surprised To Find That,  After All,

According To M. Geoffroy,  Buffon,  And Not Lamarck,  Was The Founder Of

The Theory Of Evolution.  His Name,  As I Have Already Said,  Was Never

Mentioned In The First Edition Of The "Origin Of Species."

M. Geoffroy Goes Into The Accusations Of Having Fluctuated In His

Opinions,  Which He Tells Us Have Been Brought Against Buffon,  And

Comes To The Conclusion That They Are Unjust,  As Any One Else Will Do

Who Turns To Buffon Himself.  Mr. Darwin,  However,  In The "Brief But

Imperfect Sketch," Catches At The Accusation,  And Repeats It While

Saying Nothing Whatever About The Defence.  The Following Is Still

All He Says:  "The First Author Who In Modern Times Has Treated"

Evolution "In A Scientific Spirit Was Buffon.  But As His Opinions

Fluctuated Greatly At Different Periods,  And As He Does Not Enter On

The Causes Or Means Of The Transformation Of Species,  I Need Not Here

Enter On Details."  On The Next Page,  In The Note Last Quoted,  Mr.

Darwin Originally Repeated The Accusation Of Buffon's Having Been

Fluctuating In His Opinions,  And Appeared To Give It The Imprimatur

Of Isidore Geoffroy's Approval; The Fact Being That Isidore Geoffroy

Only Quoted The Accusation In Order To Refute It; And Though,  I

Suppose,  Meaning Well,  Did Not Make Half The Case He Might Have Done,

And Abounds With Misstatements.  My Readers Will Find This Matter

Particularly Dealt With In "Evolution,  Old And New," Chapter X.

I Gather That Some One Must Have Complained To Mr. Darwin Of His

Saying That Isidore Geoffroy Gave An Account Of Buffon's "Fluctuating

Conclusions" Concerning Evolution,  When He Was Doing All He Knew To

Maintain That Buffon's Conclusions Did Not Fluctuate; For I See That

In The Edition Of 1876 The Word "Fluctuating" Has Dropped Out Of The

Note In Question,  And We Now Learn That Isidore Geoffroy Gives "A

Full Account Of Buffon's Conclusions," Without The "Fluctuating."

But Buffon Has Not Taken Much By This,  For His Opinions Are Still

Left Fluctuating Greatly At Different Periods On The Preceding Page,

And Though He Still Was The First To Treat Evolution In A Scientific

Spirit,  He Still Does Not Enter Upon The Causes Or Means Of The

Transformation Of Species.  No One Can Understand Mr. Darwin Who Does

Not Collate The Different Editions Of The "Origin Of Species" With

Some Attention.  When He Has Done This,  He Will Know What Newton

Meant By Saying He Felt Like A Child Playing With Pebbles Upon The

Seashore.

One Word More Upon This Note Before I Leave It.  Mr. Darwin Speaks Of

Isidore Geoffroy's History Of Opinion As "Excellent," And His Account

Of Buffon's Opinions As "Full."  I Wonder How Well Qualified He Is To

Be A Judge Of These Matters?  If He Knows Much About The Earlier

Writers,  He Is The More Inexcusable For Having Said So Little About

Them.  If Little,  What Is His Opinion Worth?

To Return To The "Brief But Imperfect Sketch."  I Do Not Think I Can

Ever Again Be Surprised At Anything Mr. Darwin May Say Or Do,  But If

I Could,  I Should Wonder How A Writer Who Did Not "Enter Upon The

Causes Or Means Of The Transformation Of Species," And Whose Opinions

"Fluctuated Greatly At Different Periods," Can Be Held To Have

Treated Evolution "In A Scientific Spirit."  Nevertheless,  When I

Reflect Upon The Scientific Reputation Mr. Darwin Has Attained,  And

The Means By Which He Has Won It,  I Suppose The Scientific Spirit

Must Be Much What He Here Implies.  I See Mr. Darwin Says Of His Own

Father,  Dr. Robert Darwin Of Shrewsbury,  That He Does Not Consider

Him To Have Had A Scientific Mind.  Mr. Darwin Cannot Tell Why He

Does Not Think His Father's Mind To Have Been Fitted For Advancing

Science,  "For He Was Fond Of Theorising,  And Was Incomparably The

Best Observer" Mr. Darwin Ever Knew. {33a}  From The Hint Given In

The "Brief But Imperfect Sketch," I Fancy I Can Help Mr. Darwin To

See Why He Does Not Think His Father's Mind To Have Been A Scientific

One.  It Is Possible That Dr. Robert Darwin's Opinions Did Not

Fluctuate Sufficiently At Different Periods,  And That Mr. Darwin

Considered Him As Having In Some Way Entered Upon The Causes Or Means

Of The Transformation Of Species.  Certainly Those Who Read Mr.

Darwin's Own Works Attentively Will Find No Lack Of Fluctuation In

His Case; And Reflection Will Show Them That A Theory Of Evolution

Which Relies Mainly On The Accumulation Of Accidental Variations

Comes Very Close To Not Entering Upon The Causes Or Means Of The

Transformation Of Species. {33b}

I Have Shown,  However,  In "Evolution,  Old And New," That The

Assertion That Buffon Does Not Enter On The Causes Or Means Of The

Transformation Of Species Is Absolutely Without Foundation,  And That,

On The Contrary,  He Is Continually Dealing With This Very Matter,  And

Devotes To It One Of His Longest And Most Important Chapters,  {33c}

But I Admit That He Is Less Satisfactory On This Head Than Either Dr.

Erasmus Darwin Or Lamarck.

As A Matter Of Fact,  Buffon Is Much More Of A Neo-Darwinian Than

Either Dr. Erasmus Darwin Or Lamarck,  For With Him The Variations Are

Sometimes Fortuitous.  In The Case Of The Dog,  He Speaks Of Them As

Making Their Appearance "By Some Chance Common Enough With Nature,"

{33d} And Being Perpetuated By Man's Selection.  This Is Exactly The

"If Any Slight Favourable Variation Happen To Arise" Of Mr. Charles

Darwin.  Buffon Also Speaks Of The Variations Among Pigeons Arising

"Par Hasard."  But These Expressions Are Only Ships; His Main Cause

Of Variation Is The Direct Action Of Changed Conditions Of Existence,

While With Dr. Erasmus Darwin And Lamarck The Action Of The

Conditions Of Existence