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

The Animals Or Plants Themselves,  In Consequence Of Changed Sense Of

Need Under Changed Conditions.

I Should Say That The Sketch So Often Referred To Is At First Sight

Now No Longer Imperfect In Mr. Darwin's Opinion.  It Was "Brief But

Imperfect" In 1861 And In 1866,  But In 1876 I See That It Is Brief

Only.  Of Course,  Discovering That It Was No Longer Imperfect,  I

Expected To Find It Briefer.  What,  Then,  Was My Surprise At Finding

That It Had Become Rather Longer?  I Have Found No Perfectly

Satisfactory Explanation Of This Inconsistency,  But,  On The Whole,

Incline To Think That The "Greatest Of Living Men" Felt Himself

Unequal To Prolonging His Struggle With The Word "But," And Resolved

To Lay That Conjunction At All Hazards,  Even Though The Doing So

Might Cost Him The Balance Of His Adjectives; For I Think He Must

Know That His Sketch Is Still Imperfect.

From Isidore Geoffroy I Turned To Buffon Himself,  And Had Not Long To

Wait Before I Felt That I Was Now Brought Into Communication With The

Master-Mind Of All Those Who Have Up To The Present Time Busied

Themselves With Evolution.  For A Brief And Imperfect Sketch Of Him,

I Must Refer My Readers To "Evolution,  Old And New."

I Have No Great Respect For The Author Of The "Vestiges Of Creation,"

Who Behaved Hardly Better To The Writers Upon Whom His Own Work Was

Founded Than Mr. Darwin Himself Has Done.  Nevertheless,  I Could Not

Forget The Gravity Of The Misrepresentation With Which He Was

Assailed On Page 3 Of The First Edition Of The "Origin Of Species,"

Nor Impugn The Justice Of His Rejoinder In The Following Year,  {34}

When He Replied That It Was To Be Regretted Mr. Darwin Had Read His

Work "Almost As Much Amiss As If,  Like Its Declared Opponents,  He Had

An Interest In Misrepresenting It." {35a}  I Could Not,  Again,  Forget

That,  Though Mr. Darwin Did Not Venture To Stand By The Passage In

Question,  It Was Expunged Without A Word Of Apology Or Explanation Of

How It Was That He Had Come To Write It.  A Writer With Any Claim To

Our Consideration Will Never Fall Into Serious Error About Another

Writer Without Hastening To Make A Public Apology As Soon As He

Becomes Aware Of What He Has Done.

Reflecting Upon The Substance Of What I Have Written In The Last Few

Pages,  I Thought It Right That People Should Have A Chance Of Knowing

More About The Earlier Writers On Evolution Than They Were Likely To

Hear From Any Of Our Leading Scientists (No Matter How Many Lectures

They May Give On The Coming Of Age Of The "Origin Of Species") Except

Professor Mivart.  A Book Pointing The Difference Between

Teleological And Non-Teleological Views Of Evolution Seemed Likely To

Be Useful,  And Would Afford Me The Opportunity I Wanted For Giving A

Resume Of The Views Of Each One Of The Three Chief Founders Of The

Theory,  And Of Contrasting Them With Those Of Mr. Charles Darwin,  As

Well As For Calling Attention To Professor Hering's Lecture.  I

Accordingly Wrote "Evolution,  Old And New," Which Was Prominently

Announced In The Leading Literary Periodicals At The End Of February,

Or On The Very First Days Of March 1879,  {35b} As "A Comparison Of

The Theories Of Buffon,  Dr. Erasmus Darwin,  And Lamarck,  With That Of

Mr. Charles Darwin,  With Copious Extracts From The Works Of The Three

First-Named Writers."  In This Book I Was Hardly Able To Conceal The

Fact That,  In Spite Of The Obligations Under Which We Must Always

Remain To Mr. Darwin,  I Had Lost My Respect For Him And For His Work.

I Should Point Out That This Announcement,  Coupled With What I Had

Written In "Life And Habit," Would Enable Mr. Darwin And His Friends

To Form A Pretty Shrewd Guess As To What I Was Likely To Say,  And To

Quote From Dr. Erasmus Darwin In My Forthcoming Book.  The

Announcement,  Indeed,  Would Tell Almost As Much As The Book Itself To

Those Who Knew The Works Of Erasmus Darwin.

As May Be Supposed,  "Evolution,  Old And New," Met With A Very

Unfavourable Reception At The Hands Of Many Of Its Reviewers.  The

Saturday Review Was Furious.  "When A Writer," It Exclaimed,  "Who Has

Not Given As Many Weeks To The Subject As Mr. Darwin Has Given Years,

Is Not Content To Air His Own Crude Though Clever Fallacies,  But

Assumes To Criticise Mr. Darwin With The Superciliousness Of A Young

Schoolmaster Looking Over A Boy's Theme,  It Is Difficult Not To Take

Him More Seriously Than He Deserves Or Perhaps Desires.  One Would

Think That Mr. Butler Was The Travelled And Laborious Observer Of

Nature,  And Mr. Darwin The Pert Speculator Who Takes All His Facts At

Secondhand." {36}

The Lady Or Gentleman Who Writes In Such A Strain As This Should Not

Be Too Hard Upon Others Whom She Or He May Consider To Write Like

Schoolmasters.  It Is True I Have Travelled--Not Much,  But Still As

Much As Many Others,  And Have Endeavoured To Keep My Eyes Open To The

Facts Before Me; But I Cannot Think That I Made Any Reference To My

Travels In "Evolution,  Old And New."  I Did Not Quite See What That

Had To Do With The Matter.  A Man May Get To Know A Good Deal Without

Ever Going Beyond The Four-Mile Radius From Charing Cross.  Much Less

Did I Imply That Mr. Darwin Was Pert:  Pert Is One Of The Last Words

That Can Be Applied To Mr. Darwin.  Nor,  Again,  Had I Blamed Him For

Taking His Facts At Secondhand; No One Is To Be Blamed For This,

Provided He Takes Well-Established Facts And Acknowledges His

Sources.  Mr. Darwin Has Generally Gone To Good Sources.  The Ground

Of Complaint Against Him Is That He Muddied The Water After He Had

Drawn It,  And Tacitly Claimed To Be The Rightful Owner Of The Spring,

On The Score Of The Damage He Had Effected.

Notwithstanding,  However,  The Generally Hostile,  Or More Or Less

Contemptuous,  Reception Which "Evolution,  Old And New," Met With,

There Were Some Reviews--As,  For Example,  Those In The Field,  {37a}

The Daily Chronicle,  {37b} The Athenaeum,  {37c} The Journal Of

Science,  {37d} The British Journal Of Homaeopathy,  {37e} The Daily

News,  {37f} The Popular Science Review {37g}--Which Were All I Could

Expect Or Wish.

The Manner In Which Mr. Darwin Met "Evolution,  Old And New."

By Far The Most Important Notice Of "Evolution,  Old And New," Was

That Taken By Mr. Darwin Himself; For I Can Hardly Be Mistaken In

Believing That Dr. Krause's Article Would Have Been Allowed To Repose

Unaltered In The Pages Of The Well-Known German Scientific Journal,

Kosmos,  Unless Something Had Happened To Make Mr. Darwin Feel That

His Reticence Concerning His Grandfather Must Now Be Ended

Mr. Darwin,  Indeed,  Gives Me The Impression Of Wishing Me To

Understand That This Is Not The Case.  At The Beginning Of This Year

He Wrote To Me,  In A Letter Which I Will Presently Give In Full,  That

He Had Obtained Dr. Krause's Consent For A Translation,  And Had

Arranged With Mr. Dallas,  Before My Book Was "Announced."  "I

Remember This," He Continues,  "Because Mr. Dallas Wrote To Tell Me Of

The Advertisement."  But Mr. Darwin Is Not A Clear Writer,  And It Is

Impossible To Say Whether He Is Referring To The Announcement Of

"Evolution,  Old And New"--In Which Case He Means That The

Arrangements For The Translation Of Dr. Krause's Article Were Made

Before The End Of February 1879,  And Before Any Public Intimation

Could Have Reached Him As To The Substance Of The Book On Which I Was

Then Engaged--Or To The Advertisements Of Its Being Now Published,

Which Appeared At The Beginning Of May; In Which Case,  As I Have Said

Above,  Mr. Darwin And His Friends Had For Some Time Had Full

Opportunity Of Knowing What I Was About.  I Believe,  However,  Mr.

Darwin To Intend That He Remembered The Arrangements Having Been Made

Before The Beginning Of May--His Use Of The Word "Announced," Instead

Of "Advertised," Being An Accident; But Let This Pass.

Some Time After Mr. Darwin's Work Appeared In November 1879,  I Got

It,  And Looking At The Last Page Of The Book,  I Read As Follows:-

"They" (The Elder Darwin And Lamarck) "Explain The Adaptation To

Purpose Of Organisms By An Obscure Impulse Or Sense Of What Is

Purpose-Like; Yet Even With Regard To Man We Are In The Habit Of

Saying,  That One Can Never Know What So-And-So Is Good For.  The

Purpose-Like Is That Which Approves Itself,  And Not Always That Which

Is Struggled For By Obscure Impulses And Desires.  Just In The Same

Way The Beautiful Is What Pleases."

I Had A Sort Of Feeling As Though The Writer Of The Above Might Have

Had "Evolution,  Old And New," In His Mind,  But Went On To The Next

Sentence,  Which Ran -

"Erasmus Darwin's System Was In Itself A Most Significant First Step

In The Path Of Knowledge Which His Grandson Has Opened Up For Us,  But

To Wish To Revive It At The Present Day,  As Has Actually Been

Seriously Attempted,  Shows A Weakness Of Thought And A Mental

Anachronism Which No One Can Envy."

"That's Me," Said I To Myself Promptly.  I Noticed Also The Position

In Which The Sentence Stood,  Which Made It Both One Of The First That

Would Be Likely To Catch A Reader's Eye,  And The Last He Would Carry

Away With Him.  I Therefore Expected To Find An Open Reply To Some

Parts Of "Evolution,  Old And New," And