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

From And Additions To The German Text.  Let It Suffice That The So-

Called Translation Begins On P. 131 And Ends On P. 216 Of Mr.

Darwin's Book.  There Is New Matter On Each One Of The Pp. 132-139,

While Almost The Whole Of Pp. 147-152 Inclusive,  And The Whole Of Pp.

211-216 Inclusive,  Are Spurious--That Is To Say,  Not What The Purport

To Be,  Not Translations From An Article That Was Published In

February 1879,  And Before "Evolution,  Old And New," But

Interpolations Not Published Till Six Months After That Book.

Bearing In Mind The Contents Of Two Of The Added Passages And The

Tenor Of The Concluding Sentence Quoted Above,  {44b} I Could No

Longer Doubt That The Article Had Been Altered By The Light Of And

With A View To "Evolution,  Old And New."

The Steps Are Perfectly Clear.  First Dr. Krause Published His

Article In Kosmos And My Book Was Announced (Its Purport Being Thus

Made Obvious),  Both In The Month Of February 1879.  Soon Afterwards

Arrangements Were Made For A Translation Of Dr. Krause's Essay,  And

Were Completed By The End Of April.  Then My Book Came Out,  And In

Some Way Or Other Dr. Krause Happened To Get Hold Of It.  He Helped

Himself--Not To Much,  But To Enough; Made What Other Additions To And

Omissions From His Article He Thought Would Best Meet "Evolution,  Old

And New," And Then Fell To Condemning That Book In A Finale That Was

Meant To Be Crushing.  Nothing Was Said About The Revision Which Dr.

Krause's Work Had Undergone,  But It Was Expressly And Particularly

Declared In The Preface That The English Translation Was An Accurate

Version Of What Appeared In The February Number Of Kosmos,  And No

Less Expressly And Particularly Stated That My Book Was Published

Subsequently To This.  Both These Statements Are Untrue; They Are In

Mr. Darwin's Favour And Prejudicial To Myself.

All This Was Done With That Well-Known "Happy Simplicity" Of Which

The Pall Mall Gazette,  December 12,  1879,  Declared That Mr. Darwin

Was "A Master."  The Final Sentence,  About The "Weakness Of Thought

And Mental Anachronism Which No One Can Envy," Was Especially

Successful.  The Reviewer In The Pall Mall Gazette Just Quoted From

Gave It In Full,  And Said That It Was Thoroughly Justified.  He Then

Mused Forth A General Gnome That The "Confidence Of Writers Who Deal

In Semi-Scientific Paradoxes Is Commonly In Inverse Proportion To

Their Grasp Of The Subject."  Again My Vanity Suggested To Me That I

Was The Person For Whose Benefit This Gnome Was Intended.  My Vanity,

Indeed,  Was Well Fed By The Whole Transaction; For I Saw That Not

Only Did Mr. Darwin,  Who Should Be The Best Judge,  Think My Work

Worth Notice,  But That He Did Not Venture To Meet It Openly.  As For

Dr. Krause's Concluding Sentence,  I Thought That When A Sentence Had

Been Antedated The Less It Contained About Anachronism The Better.

Only One Of The Reviews That I Saw Of Mr. Darwin's "Life Of Erasmus

Darwin" Showed Any Knowledge Of The Facts.  The Popular Science

Review For January 1880,  In Flat Contradiction To Mr. Darwin's

Preface,  Said That Only Part Of Dr. Krause's Article Was Being Given

By Mr. Darwin.  This Reviewer Had Plainly Seen Both Kosmos And Mr.

Darwin's Book.

In The Same Number Of The Popular Science Review,  And Immediately

Following The Review Of Mr. Darwin's Book,  There Is A Review Of

"Evolution,  Old And New."  The Writer Of This Review Quotes The

Passage About Mental Anachronism As Quoted By The Reviewer In The

Pall Mall Gazette,  And Adds Immediately:  "This Anachronism Has Been

Committed By Mr. Samuel Butler In A . . . Little Volume Now Before

Us,  And It Is Doubtless To This,  Which Appeared While His Own Work

Was In Progress [Italics Mine] That Dr. Krause Alludes In The

Foregoing Passage."  Considering That The Editor Of The Popular

Science Review And The Translator Of Dr. Krause's Article For Mr.

Darwin Are One And The Same Person,  It Is Likely The Popular Science

Review Is Well Informed In Saying That My Book Appeared Before Dr.

Krause's Article Had Been Transformed Into Its Present Shape,  And

That My Book Was Intended By The Passage In Question.

Unable To See Any Way Of Escaping From A Conclusion Which I Could Not

Willingly Adopt,  I Thought It Best To Write To Mr. Darwin,  Stating

The Facts As They Appeared To Myself,  And Asking An Explanation,

Which I Would Have Gladly Strained A Good Many Points To Have

Accepted.  It Is Better,  Perhaps,  That I Should Give My Letter And

Darwin's Answer In Full.  My Letter Ran Thus:-

January 2,  1880.

Charles Darwin,  Esq.,  F.R.S.,  &C.

Dear Sir,--Will You Kindly Refer Me To The Edition Of Kosmos Which

Contains The Text Of Dr. Krause's Article On Dr. Erasmus Darwin,  As

Translated By Mr. W. S. Dallas?

I Have Before Me The Last February Number Of Kosmos,  Which Appears By

Your Preface To Be The One From Which Mr. Dallas Has Translated,  But

His Translation Contains Long And Important Passages Which Are Not In

The February Number Of Kosmos,  While Many Passages In The Original

Article Are Omitted In The Translation.

Among The Passages Introduced Are The Last Six Pages Of The English

Article,  Which Seem To Condemn By Anticipation The Position I Have

Taken As Regards Dr. Erasmus Darwin In My Book,  "Evolution,  Old And

New," And Which I Believe I Was The First To Take.  The Concluding,

And Therefore,  Perhaps,  Most Prominent Sentence Of The Translation

You Have Given To The Public Stands Thus:-

"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 Man Can Envy."

The Kosmos Which Has Been Sent Me From Germany Contains No Such

Passage.

As You Have Stated In Your Preface That My Book,  "Evolution,  Old And

New," Appeared Subsequently To Dr. Krause's Article,  And As No

Intimation Is Given That The Article Has Been Altered And Added To

Since Its Original Appearance,  While The Accuracy Of The Translation

As Though From The February Number Of Kosmos Is,  As You Expressly

Say,  Guaranteed By Mr. Dallas's "Scientific Reputation Together With

His Knowledge Of German," Your Readers Will Naturally Suppose That

All They Read In The Translation Appeared In February Last,  And

Therefore Before "Evolution,  Old And New," Was Written,  And Therefore

Independently Of,  And Necessarily Without Reference To,  That Book.

I Do Not Doubt That This Was Actually The Case,  But Have Failed To

Obtain The Edition Which Contains The Passage Above Referred To,  And

Several Others Which Appear In The Translation.

I Have A Personal Interest In This Matter,  And Venture,  Therefore,  To

Ask For The Explanation Which I Do Not Doubt You Will Readily Give

Me.--Yours Faithfully,

S. Butler.

The Following Is Mr. Darwin's Answer:-

January 3,  1880.

My Dear Sir,  Dr. Krause,  Soon After The Appearance Of His Article In

Kosmos Told Me That He Intended To Publish It Separately And To Alter

It Considerably,  And The Altered Ms. Was Sent To Mr. Dallas For

Translation.  This Is So Common A Practice That It Never Occurred To

Me To State That The Article Had Been Modified; But Now I Much Regret

That I Did Not Do So.  The Original Will Soon Appear In German,  And I

Believe Will Be A Much Larger Book Than The English One; For,  With

Dr. Krause's Consent,  Many Long Extracts From Miss Seward Were

Omitted (As Well As Much Other Matter),  From Being In My Opinion

Superfluous For The English Reader.  I Believe That The Omitted Parts

Will Appear As Notes In The German Edition.  Should There Be A

Reprint Of The English Life I Will State That The Original As It

Appeared In Kosmos Was Modified By Dr. Krause Before It Was

Translated.  I May Add That I Had Obtained Dr. Krause's Consent For A

Translation,  And Had Arranged With Mr. Dallas Before Your Book Was

Announced.  I Remember This Because Mr. Dallas Wrote To Tell Me Of

The Advertisement.--I Remain,  Yours Faithfully,

C. Darwin."

This Was Not A Letter I Could Accept.  If Mr. Darwin Had Said That By

Some Inadvertence,  Which He Was Unable To Excuse Or Account For,  A

Blunder Had Been Made Which He Would At Once Correct So Far As Was In

His Power By A Letter To The Times Or The Athenaeum,  And That A

Notice Of The Erratum Should Be Printed On A Flyleaf And Pasted Into

All Unsold Copies Of The "Life Of Erasmus Darwin," There Would Have

Been No More Heard About The Matter From Me; But When Mr. Darwin

Maintained That It Was A Common Practice To Take Advantage Of An

Opportunity Of Revising A Work To Interpolate A Covert Attack Upon An

Opponent,  And At The Same Time To Misdate The Interpolated Matter By

Expressly Stating That It Appeared Months Sooner Than It Actually

Did,  And Prior To The Work Which It Attacked; When He Maintained That

What Was Being Done Was "So Common A Practice That It Never

Occurred," To Him--The Writer Of Some Twenty Volumes--To Do What All

Literary Men Must Know To Be Inexorably Requisite,  I Thought This Was

Going Far Beyond What Was Permissible In Honourable Warfare,  And That

It Was Time,  In The Interests Of Literary And Scientific Morality,

Even More Than In My Own,  To Appeal To Public Opinion.  I Was

Particularly Struck With The Use Of The Words "It Never Occurred To

Me," And Felt How Completely Of A Piece It Was With The Opening

Paragraph Of The "Origin Of Species."  It Was Not Merely That It Did

Not Occur To Mr. Darwin To State That The Article Had Been Modified