Notes
[1] In the last edition of the "Origin of Species" (1869) Mr. Darwin himself admits that "Natural Selection" has not been the exclusive means of modification, though he still contends it has been the most important one.
[2] See Mr. Wallace's recent work, entitled "Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection," where, at p. 302, it is very well and shortly stated.
[3] "Natural Selection" is happily so termed by Mr. Herbert Spencer in his "Principles of Biology."
[4] Biology is the science of life. It contains zoology, or the science of animals, and botany, or that of plants.
[5] For very interesting examples, see Mr. Wallace's "Malay Archipelago."
[6] See Müller's work, "Für Darwin," lately translated into English by Mr. Dallas. Mr. Wallace also predicts the discovery, in Madagascar, of a hawk-moth with an enormously long proboscis, and he does this on account of the discovery there of an orchid with a nectary from ten to fourteen inches in length. See Quarterly Journal of Science, October 1867, and "Natural Selection," p. 275.
[7] "Lectures on Man," translated by the Anthropological Society, 1864, p. 229.
[8] Ibid. p. 378.
[9] See Fifth Edition, 1869, p. 579.
[10] The Rambler, March 1860, vol. xii. p. 372.
[11] "In primâ institutione naturæ non quæritur miraculum, sed quid natura rerum habeat, ut Augustinus dicit, lib. ii. sup. Gen. ad lit. c. l." (St. Thomas, Sum. Iæ. lxvii. 4, ad 3.)
[12] "Hexaem." Hom. ix. p. 81.
[13] Suarez, Metaphysica. Edition Vivés. Paris, 1868. Vol. I. Disputatio xv. § 2.
[14] "Pangenesis" is the name of the new theory proposed by Mr. Darwin, in order to account for various obscure physiological facts, such, e.g., as the occasional reproduction, by individuals, of parts which they have lost; the appearance in offspring of parental, and sometimes of remote ancestral, characters, &c. It accounts for these phenomena by supposing that every creature possesses countless indefinitely-minute organic atoms, termed "gemmules," which atoms are supposed to be generated in every part of every organ, to be in constant circulation about the body, and to have the power of reproduction. Moreover, atoms from every part are supposed to be stored in the generative products.
[15] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii. p. 192.
[16] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii. p. 414.
[17] "Origin of Species," 5th edit., 1869, p. 110.
[18] Ibid. p. 111.
[19] Ibid. p. 227.
[20] The order Ungulata contains the hoofed beasts; that is, all oxen, deer, antelopes, sheep, goats, camels, hogs, the hippopotamus, the different kinds of rhinoceros, the tapirs, horses, asses, zebras, quaggas, &c.
[21] The elephants of Africa and India, with their extinct allies, constitute the order Proboscidea, and do not belong to the Ungulata.
[22] See "Natural Selection," pp. 60-75.
[23] "Principles of Biology," vol. i. p. 122.
[24] See "Natural Selection," chap. iii. p. 45.
[25] Loc. cit. p. 80.
[26] Ibid. p. 59.
[27] Loc. cit. p. 64.
[28] "Origin of Species," 5th edit. p. 104.
[29] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii. p. 351.
[30] Loc. cit. pp. 109, 110.
[31] Heredity is the term used to denote the tendency which there is in offspring to reproduce parental features.
[32] Loc. cit. p. 64.
[33] Loc. cit. p. 60.
[34] The term "Vertebrata" denotes that large group of animals which are characterized by the possession of a spinal column, commonly known as the "backbone." Such animals are ourselves, together with all beasts, birds, reptiles, frogs, toads, and efts, and also fishes.
[35] It is hardly necessary to observe that these "sea-snakes" have no relation to the often-talked-of "sea-serpent." They are small, venomous reptiles, which abound in the Indian seas.
[36] "Origin of Species," 5th edit., 1869, p. 179.
[37] "Origin of Species," 5th edit., p. 532.
[38] Mr. A. D. Bartlett, of the Zoological Society, informs me that at these periods female apes admit with perfect readiness the access of any males of different species. To be sure this is in confinement; but the fact is, I think, quite conclusive against any such sexual selection in a state of nature as would account for the local coloration referred to.
[39] Mr. Darwin, in the last (fifth) edition of "Natural Selection," 1869, p. 102, admits that all sexual differences are not to be attributed to the agency of sexual selection, mentioning the wattle of carrier pigeons, tuft of turkey-cock, &c. These characters, however, seem less inexplicable by sexual selection than those given in the text.
[40] I am again indebted to the kindness of Mr. A. D. Bartlett, amongst others. That gentleman informs me that, so far from any mental emotion being produced in rabbits by the presence and movements of snakes, that he has actually seen a male and female rabbit satisfy the sexual instinct in that presence, a rabbit being seized by a snake when in coitu.
[41] "Habit and Intelligence," vol. i. p. 319.
[42] The reader may consult Huxley's "Lessons in Elementary Physiology," p. 204.
[43] "Natural Selection," p. 350.
[44] Bivalve shell-fish are creatures belonging to the oyster, scallop, and cockle group, i.e. to the class Lamellibranchiata.
[45] The attempt has been made to explain these facts as owing to "manner and symmetry of growth, and to colour being incidental on the chemical nature of the constituents of the shell." But surely beauty depends on some such matters in all cases!
[46] It has been suggested in opposition to what is here said, that there is no real resemblance, but that the likeness is "fanciful!" The denial, however, of the fact of a resemblance which has struck so many observers, reminds one of the French philosopher's estimate of facts hostile to his theory—"Tant pis pour les faits!"
[47] Fifth Edition, p. 236.
[48] Mr. Smith, of the Entomological department of the British Museum, has kindly informed me that the individuals intermediate in structure are very few in number—not more than five per cent.—compared with the number of distinctly differentiated individuals. Besides, in the Brazilian kinds these intermediate forms are wanting.
[49] By accidental variations Mr. Darwin does not, of course, mean to imply variations really due to "chance," but to utterly indeterminate antecedents.
[50] "Origin of Species," 5th edition, p. 235.
[51] I.e. warm-blooded animals which suckle their young, such as apes, bats, hoofed beasts, lions, dogs, bears, weasels, rats, squirrels, armadillos, sloths, whales, porpoises, kangaroos, opossums, &c.
[52] "Journal of Anatomy and Physiology" (1868), vol. ii. p. 139.
[53] See "Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist." for August 1870, p. 140.
[54] See "Proceedings of the Royal Institution," vol. v. part iv. p. 278: Report of a Lecture delivered February 7, 1868. Also "Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society," February 1870: "Contributions to the Anatomy and Taxonomy of the Dinosauria."
[55] "Proceedings of Geological Society," November 1869, p. 38.
[56] The archeopteryx of the oolite has the true carinate shoulder structure.
[57] "Proceedings of the Royal Institution," vol. v. p. 279.
[58] This remark is made without prejudice to possible affinities in the direction of the Ascidians,—an affinity which, if real, would be irrelevant to the question here discussed.
[59] "Lectures on the Comp. Anat. of the Invertebrate Animals," 2nd edit. 1855, p. 619; and Todd's "Cyclopædia of Anatomy," vol. i. p. 554.
[60] See "Habit and Intelligence," vol. i. p. 321.
[61] A view recently propounded by Kowalewsky.
[62] "Natural Selection," p. 167.
[63] "Natural Selection," p. 173.
[64] Ibid. p. 177.
[65] "Malay Archipelago," vol. i. p. 439.
[66] "Natural Selection," p. 177.
[67] "Origin of Species," 5th edition, p. 166.
[68] Vol. ii. p. 280.
[69] See "Natural Selection," p. 64.
[70] The italics are not Mr. Wallace's.
[71] "Malay Archipelago," vol. ii. p. 150; and "Natural Selection," p. 104.
[72] See "Malay Archipelago," vol. ii. chap. xxxviii.
[73] Loc. cit. p. 314.
[74] Fortnightly Review, New Series, vol. iii (April 1868), p. 372.
[75] "Lay Sermons," p. 339.
[76] "Hereditary Genius, an Inquiry into its Laws," &c. By Francis Galton, F.R.S. (London: Macmillan.)
[77] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. i. p. 37.
[78] Ibid. p. 47.
[79] Ibid. p. 52.
[80] Carpenter's "Comparative Physiology," p. 987, quoted by Mr. J. J. Murphy, "Habit and Intelligence," vol. i. p. 171.
[81] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. i. p. 72.
[82] Ibid. p. 76.
[83] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. i. p. 71.
[84] Ibid. p. 114.
[85] Quoted, Ibid. p. 274.
[86] Ibid. p. 324.
[87] Ibid. p. 322.
[88] Ibid. vol. ii. p. 414.
[89] Proc. Zool. Soc. of London, April 24, 1860.
[90] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. i. p. 291.
[91] Extracted by J. J. Murphy, vol. i. p. 197, from the Quarterly Journal of Science, of October 1867, p. 527.
[92] "Anatomy of Vertebrates," vol. iii. p. 795.
[93] Ibid. p. 807.
[94] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii. p. 318.
[95] "Habit and Intelligence," vol. i. p. 344.
[96] See Dec. 2, 1869, vol. i. p. 132.
[97] "Über die Darwin'sche Schöpfungstheorie:" ein Vortrag, von Kölliker; Leipzig, 1864.
[98] See "Lay Sermons," p. 342.
[99] "Anatomy of the Lemuroidea." By James Murie, M.D., and St. George Mivart. Trans. Zool. Soc., March 1866, p. 91.
[100] "Principles of Geology," last edition, vol. i. p. 163.
[101] Quarterly Journal of Science, April 1866, pp. 257-8.
[102] "Habit and Intelligence," vol. i. p. 178.
[103] This animal belongs to the order Primates, which includes man, the apes, and the lemurs. The lemurs are the lower kinds of the order, and differ much from the apes. They have their head-quarters in the Island of Madagascar. The aye-aye is a lemur, but it differs singularly from all its congeners, and still more from all apes. In its dentition it strongly approximates to the rodent (rat, squirrel, and guinea-pig) order, as it has two cutting teeth above, and two below, growing from permanent pulps, and in the adult condition has no canines.
[104] North British Review, New Series, vol. vii., March 1867, p. 282.
[105] "Habit and Intelligence," vol. i. p. 75.
[106] "Habit and Intelligence," vol. i. p. 202.
[107] "Comparative Physiology," p. 214, note.
[108] See Nature, June and July 1870, Nos. 35, 36, and 37, pp. 170, 193, and 219.
[109] "Natural Selection," p. 293.
[110] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. i. pp. 289-295.
[111] "Origin of Species," 5th edition, 1869, p. 45.
[112] Ibid. p. 13.
[113] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. i. p. 115.
[114] Ibid. vol. i. p. 114.
[115] Ibid. vol. i. p. 243.
[116] Ibid. vol. ii. p. 361.
[117] Ibid. vol. ii. p. 16.
[118] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii. p. 57.
[119] This has been shown by my late friend, Mr. H. N. Turner, jun., in an excellent paper by him in the "Proceedings of the Zoological Society for 1849," p. 147. The untimely death, through a dissecting wound, of this most promising young naturalist, was a very great loss to zoological science.
[120] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii. p. 189.
[121] "Origin of Species," 5th edition, 1839, p. 115.
[122] Ibid. p. 322.
[123] Ibid. p. 314.
[124] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii. p. 104.
[125] North British Review, New Series, vol. vii., March 1867, p. 317.
[126] "Origin of Species," 5th edition, 1869, p. 212.
[127] See also the Popular Science Review for July 1868.
[128] A bird with a keeled breast-bone, such as almost all existing birds possess.
[129] "Anatomy of Vertebrates," vol. iii. p. 792.
[130] Ibid. p. 793.
[131] As a tadpole is the larval form of a frog.
[132] As Professor Huxley, with his characteristic candour, fully admitted in his lecture on the Dinosauria before referred to.
[133] "Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow," vol. iii.
[134] "Origin of Species," 5th edition, p. 354.
[135] See his address to the Geological Society, on February 19, 1869.
[136] See Nature, vol. i. p. 399, February 17, 1870.
[137] Ibid. vol. i. p. 454.
[138] "Habit and Intelligence," vol. i. p. 344.
[139] "Habit and Intelligence," vol. i. p. 345.
[140] "Origin of Species," 5th edition, p. 353.
[141] "Origin of Species," 5th edition, p. 381.
[142] "Origin of Species," 5th edition, 1869, p. 463.
[143] See his Catalogue of Acanthopterygian Fishes in the British Museum, vol. iii. p. 540.
[144] Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 102, and Ann. Mag. of Nat. Hist. vol. xx. p. 110.
[145] See Catalogue, vol. iii. p. 469.
[146] Ibid. vol. v. p. 311.
[147] Ibid. p. 345.
[148] Ibid. p. 13.
[149] Ibid. p. 21.
[150] See Catalogue, vol. v. p. 24.
[151] Ibid. p. 52.
[152] Ibid. p. 109.
[153] Ibid. vol. vi. 208.
[154] Ibid. vol. viii. p. 507.
[155] Ibid. p. 509.
[156] Proc. Zool. Soc. 1868, p. 482
[157] "Origin of Species," 5th edition, 1869, p. 454.
[158] "Origin of Species," 5th edition, p. 459.
[159] See Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist., July 1870, p. 37.
[160] Professor Huxley's Lectures on the Elements of Comp. Anat. p. 184.
[161] For an enumeration of the more obvious homological relationships see Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. for August 1870, p. 118.
[162] See Ann. and Mag, of Nat. Hist., July 1870.
[163] Treatise on the Human Skeleton, 1858.
[164] Hunterian Lectures for 1864.
[165] Linnæan Transactions, vol. xxv. p. 395, 1866.
[166] Hunterian Lectures for 1870, and Journal of Anat. for May 1870.
[167] See a Paper on the "Axial Skeleton of the Urodela," in Proc. Zool. Soc. 1870, p. 266.
[168] Just as Button's superfluous lament over the unfortunate organization of the sloth has been shown, by the increase of our knowledge, to have been uncalled for and absurd, so other supposed instances of non-adaptation will, no doubt, similarly disappear. Mr. Darwin, in his "Origin of Species," 5th edition, p. 220, speaks of a woodpecker (Colaptes campestris) as having an organization quite at variance with its habits, and as never climbing a tree, though possessed of the special arboreal structure of other woodpeckers. It now appears, however, from the observations of Mr. W. H. Hudson, C.M.Z.S., that its habits are in harmony with its structure. See Mr. Hudson's third letter to the Zoological Society, published in the Proceedings of that Society for March 24, 1870, p. 159.
[169] Dr. Cobbold has informed the Author that he has never observed a planaria divide spontaneously, and he is sceptical as to that process taking place at all. Dr. H. Charlton Bastian has also stated that, in spite of much observation, he has never seen the process in vorticella.
[170] Professor Huxley's Hunterian Lecture, March 16, 1868.
[171] Ibid. March 18.
[172] "Principles of Biology," vol. ii. p. 105.
[173] "Principles of Biology," vol. ii. p. 203.
[174] Quoted by H. Stannius in his "Handbuch der Anatomie der Wirbelthiere," Zweite Auflage, Erstes Buch, § 7, p. 17.
[175] In his last Hunterian Course of Lectures, 1869.
[176] "The Science of Abnormal Forms."
[177] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii. p. 322; and "Origin of Species," 5th edition, 1869, p. 178.
[178] A remarkable woman exhibited in London a few years ago.
[179] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii. p. 328.
[180] "Ueber das Gliedmaassenskelet der Enaliosaurier, Jenaischen Zeitschrift," Bd. v. Heft 3, Taf. xiii.
[181] In his work on the Carpus and Tarsus.
[182] An excellent specimen displaying this resemblance is preserved in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons.
[183] Phil. Trans. 1867, p. 353.
[184] Proc. Zool. Soc. 1865, p. 255.
[185] Ibid. p. 351.
[186] "Hist. Générale des Anomalies," t. i. p. 228. Bruxelles, 1837.
[187] Nov. Comment. Petrop. t. ix. p. 269.
[188] Read on June 2, 1868, before the Massachusetts Medical Society. See vol. ii. No. 3.
[189] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii. p. 322.
[190] "Lectures on Surgical Pathology," 1853, vol. i. p. 18.
[191] "Lectures on Surgical Pathology," 1853, vol. i. p. 22.
[192] See "Medico-Chirurgical Transactions," vol. xxv. (or vii. of 2nd series), 1842, p. 100, Pl. III.
[193] Med.-Chirurg. Trans, vol. xxv. (or vii. of 2nd series), 1842, p. 122.
[194] See Boston Medical and Surgical Journal for April 5, 1866, vol. lxxiv. p. 189.
[195] "Principles of Biology," vol. i. p. 180.
[196] See the "Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History," vol. xi. June 5, 1867.
[197] "Habit and Intelligence," vol. i. p. 75.
[198] Ibid. p. 112.
[199] Ibid. p. 170.
[200] "Habit and Intelligence," vol. i. p. 229.
[201] It is hardly necessary to say that the Author does not mean that there is, in addition to a real objective crystal, another real, objective separate thing beside it, namely the "force" directing it. All that is meant is that the action of the crystal in crystallizing must be ideally separated from the crystal itself, not that it is really separate.
[202] "Origin of Species," 5th edition, 1869, p. 577.
[203] Vol. ii. p. 122.
[204] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. i p. 295.
[205] "Natural Selection," p. 350.
[206] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii.
[207] See 2nd edition, vol. i. p. 214.
[208] Page 103.
[209] I have not the merit of having noticed this inconsistency; it was pointed out to me by my friend the Rev. W. W. Roberts.
[210] Vol. i. p. 215.
[211] "Malay Archipelago," vol. ii. p. 365.
[212] "The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man," p. 261. Longmans, 1870.
[213] "Primitive Man," p. 248.
[214] "Fiji and the Fijians," vol. i. p. 183.
[215] "Essays," Second Series, vol. ii. p. 13.
[216] See No. 117, July 1869, p. 272.
[217] Macmillan's Magazine, No. 117, July 1869.
[218] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii. p. 403.
[219] Ibid. p. 366.
[220] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii. p. 402.
[221] See Fortnightly Review, New Series, vol. iii. April 1868, p. 352.
[222] This appeared in the Rivista Contemporanea Nazionale Italiana, and was translated and given to the English public in Scientific Opinion for September 29, October 6, and October 13, 1869, pp. 365, 391, and 407.
[223] See Scientific Opinion, of October 13, 1869, p. 407.
[224] See Scientific Opinion of September 29, 1869, p. 366.
[225] Fortnightly Review, New Series, vol. iii. April 1868, p. 508.
[226] Scientific Opinion, of October 13, 1869, p. 408.
[227] Fortnightly Review, New Series, vol. iii. April 1868, p. 509.
[228] "Histoire Naturelle, générale et particulière," tome ii. 1749, p. 327. "Ces liqueurs séminales sont toutes deux un extrait de toutes les parties du corps," &c.
[229] See Nature, March 3, 1870, p. 454. Mr. Wallace says (referring to Mr. Croll's paper in the Phil. Mag.), "As we are now, and have been for 60,000 years, in a period of low eccentricity, the rate of change of species during that time may be no measure of the rate that has generally obtained in past geological epochs."
[230] "Habit and Intelligence," vol. i. p. 344.
[231] If anyone were to contend that beside the opium there existed a real distinct objective entity, "its soporific virtue," he would be open to ridicule indeed. But the constitution of our minds is such that we cannot but distinguish ideally a thing from its even essential attributes and qualities. The joke is sufficiently amusing, however, regarded as the solemn enunciation of a mere truism.
[232] Noticed by Professor Owen in his "Archetype," p. 76. Recently it has been attempted to discredit Darwinism in France by speaking of it as "de la science mousseuse!"
[233] "Lay Sermons," p. 342.
[234] Introductory Lecture of February 14, 1870, pp. 24-30, Figs. 1-4. (Churchill and Sons.)
[235] See especially "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii. chap. xviii.
[236] "Origin of Species," 5th edition, pp. 323, 324.
[237] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii. p. 2.
[238] Ibid. p. 25.
[239] Ibid. p. 151.
[240] Ibid. p. 157.
[241] Ibid. p. 158.
[242] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. i. p. 291.
[243] Though hardly necessary, it may be well to remark that the views here advocated in no way depend upon the truth of the doctrine of Spontaneous Generation.
[244] Vol. iii. p. 808.
[245] This is hardly an exact representation of Mr. Darwin's view. On his theory, if a favourable variation happens to arise (the external circumstances remaining the same), it will yet be preserved.
[246] See 2nd edition, p. 113.
[247] "Essays, Philosophical and Theological," Trübner and Co., First Series, 1866, p. 190. "Every relative disability may be read two ways. A disqualification in the nature of thought for knowing x is, from the other side, a disqualification in the nature of x from being known. To say then that the First Cause is wholly removed from our apprehension is not simply a disclaimer of faculty on our part: it is a charge of inability against the First Cause too. The dictum about it is this: 'It is a Being that may exist out of knowledge, but that is precluded from entering within the sphere of knowledge.' We are told in one breath that this Being must be in every sense 'perfect, complete, total—including in itself all power, and transcending all law' (p. 38); and in another that this perfect and omnipotent One is totally incapable of revealing any one of an infinite store of attributes. Need we point out the contradictions which this position involves? If you abide by it, you deny the Absolute and Infinite in the very act of affirming it, for, in debarring the First Cause from self-revelation, you impose a limit on its nature. And in the very act of declaring the First Cause incognizable, you do not permit it to remain unknown. For that only is unknown, of which you can neither affirm nor deny any predicate; here you deny the power of self-disclosure to the 'Absolute,' of which therefore something is known;—viz., that nothing can be known!"
[248] Loc. cit. p. 108.
[249] Loc. cit. p. 43.
[250] Loc. cit. p. 46.
[251] Mr. J. Martineau, in his "Essays," vol. i. p. 211, observes, "Mr. Spencer's conditions of pious worship are hard to satisfy; there must be between the Divine and human no communion of thought, relations of conscience, or approach of affection." ... "But you cannot constitute a religion out of mystery alone, any more than out of knowledge alone; nor can you measure the relation of doctrines to humility and piety by the mere amount of conscious darkness which they leave. All worship, being directed to what is above us and transcends our comprehension, stands in presence of a mystery. But not all that stands before a mystery is worship."
[252] "Lay Sermons," p. 20.
[253] Loc. cit. p. 109.
[254] Loc. cit. p. 111.
[255] In this criticism on Mr. Herbert Spencer, the Author finds he has been anticipated by Mr. James Martineau. (See "Essays," vol. i. p. 208.)
[256] Loc. cit. p. 29.
[257] The Author means by this, that it is directly and immediately the act of God, the word "supernatural" being used in a sense convenient for the purposes of this work, and not in its ordinary theological sense.
[258] The phrase "order of nature" is not here used in its theological sense as distinguished from the "order of grace," but as a term, here convenient, to denote actions not due to direct and immediate Divine intervention.
[259] "A Free Examination of Darwin's Treatise," p. 29, reprinted from the Atlantic Monthly for July, August, and October, 1860.
[260] "Origin of Species," 5th edition, p. 571.
[261] "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii. p. 431.
[262] The Rev. Baden Powell says, "All sciences approach perfection as they approach to a unity of first principles,—in all cases recurring to or tending towards certain high elementary conceptions which are the representatives of the unity of the great archetypal ideas according to which the whole system is arranged. Inductive conceptions, very partially and imperfectly realized and apprehended by human intellect, are the exponents in our minds of these great principles in nature."
"All science is but the partial reflexion in the reason of man, of the great all-pervading reason of the universe. And thus the unity of science is the reflexion of the unity of nature, and of the unity of that supreme reason and intelligence which pervades and rules over nature, and from whence all reason and all science is derived." (Unity of Worlds, Essay i., § ii.; Unity of Sciences, pp. 79 and 81.) Also he quotes from Oersted's "Soul in Nature" (pp. 12, 16, 18, 87, 92, and 377). "If the laws of reason did not exist in nature, we should vainly attempt to force them upon her: if the laws of nature did not exist in our reason, we should not be able to comprehend them." ... "We find an agreement between our reason and works which our reason did not produce." ... "All existence is a dominion of reason." "The laws of nature are laws of reason, and altogether form an endless unity of reason; ... one and the same throughout the universe."
[263] In the same way Mr. Lewes, in criticising the Duke of Argyll's "Reign of Law" (Fortnightly Review, July 1867, p. 100), asks whether we should consider that man wise who spilt a gallon of wine in order to fill a wineglass? But, because we should not do so, it by no means follows that we can argue from such an action to the action of God in the visible universe. For the man's object, in the case supposed, is simply to fill the wine-glass, and the wine spilt is so much loss. With God it may be entirely different in both respects. All these objections are fully met by the principle thus laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas: "Quod si aliqua causa particularis deficiat a suo effectu, hoc est propter aliquam causam particularem impediantem quæ continetur sub ordine causæ universalis. Unde effectus ordinem causæ universalis nullo modo potest exire." ... "Sicut indigestio contingit præter ordinem virtutis nutritivæ ex aliquo impedimento, puta ex grossitie cibi, quam necesse est reducere in aliam causam, et sic usque ad causam primam universalem. Cum igitur Deus sit prima causa universalis non unius generi tantum, sed universaliter totius entis, impossibile est quod aliquid contingat præter ordinem divinæ gubernationis; sed ex hoc ipso quod aliquid ex unâ parte videtur exire ab ordine divinæ providentiæ, quo consideratur secundam aliquam particularem causam, necesse est quod in eundem ordinem relabatur secundum aliam causam."—Sum. Theol. p. i. q. 19, a. 6, and q. 103, a. 7.
[264] "Unity of Worlds," Essay ii., § ii., p. 260.
[265] See the exceedingly good passage on this subject by the Rev. Dr. Newman, in his "Discourses for Mixed Congregations," 1850, p. 345.
[266] See Mr. G. H. Lewes's "Sea-Side Studies," for some excellent remarks, beginning at p. 329, as to the small susceptibility of certain animals to pain.
[267] "Philosophy of Creation," Essay iii., § iv., p. 480.
[268] It seems almost strange that modern English thought should so long hold aloof from familiar communion with Christian writers of other ages and countries. It is rarely indeed that acquaintance is shown with such authors, though a bright example to the contrary was set by Sir William Hamilton. Sir Charles Lyell (in his "Principles of Geology," 7th edition, p. 35) speaks with approval of the early Italian geologists. Of Vallisneri he says, "I return with pleasure to the geologists of Italy who preceded, as has been already shown, the naturalists of other countries in their investigations into the ancient history of the earth, and who still maintained a decided pre-eminence. They refuted and ridiculed the physico-theological systems of Burnet, Whiston, and Woodward; while Vallisneri, in his comments on the Woodwardian theory, remarked how much the interests of religion, as well as of those of sound philosophy, had suffered by perpetually mixing up the sacred writings with questions of physical science." Again, he quotes the Carmelite friar Generelli, who, illustrating Moro before the Academy of Cremona in 1749, strongly opposed those who would introduce the supernatural into the domain of nature. "I hold in utter abomination, most learned Academicians! those systems which are built with their foundations in the air, and cannot be propped up without a miracle, and I undertake, with the assistance of Moro, to explain to you how these marine monsters were transported into the mountains by natural causes."
Sir Charles Lyell notices with exemplary impartiality the spirit of intolerance on both sides. How in France, Buffon, on the one hand, was influenced by the theological faculty of the Sorbonne to recant his theory of the earth, and how Voltaire, on the other, allowed his prejudices to get the better, if not of his judgment, certainly of his expression of it. Thinking that fossil remains of shells, &c., were evidence in favour of orthodox views, Voltaire, Sir Charles Lyell (Principles, p. 56) tells us, "endeavoured to inculcate scepticism as to the real nature of such shells, and to recall from contempt the exploded dogma of the sixteenth century, that they were sports of nature. He also pretended that vegetable impressions were not those of real plants." ... "He would sometimes, in defiance of all consistency, shift his ground when addressing the vulgar; and, admitting the true nature of the shells collected in the Alps and other places, pretend that they were Eastern species, which had fallen from the hats of pilgrims coming from Syria. The numerous essays written by him on geological subjects were all calculated to strengthen prejudices, partly because he was ignorant of the real state of the science, and partly from his bad faith." As to the harmony between many early Church writers of great authority and modern views as regards certain matters of geology, see "Geology and Revelation," by the Rev. Gerald Molloy, D.D., London, 1870.
[269] "De Genesi ad Litt.," lib. v., cap. v., No. 14 in Ben. Edition, voi. iii. p. 186.
[270] Lib. cit., cap. xxii., No. 44.
[271] Lib. cit., "De Trinitate," lib. iii., cap. viii, No. 14.
[272] Lib. cit., cap. ix., No. 16.
[273] St. Thomas, Summa, i., quest. 67, art. 4, ad 3.
[274] Primæ Partis, vol. ii., quest. 74, art. 2.
[275] Lib. cit., quest. 71, art. 1.
[276] Lib. cit., quest. 45, art. 8.
[277] Vide In Genesim Comment, cap. i.
[278] Roger Bacon, Opus tertium, c. ix. p. 27, quoted in the Rambler for 1859, vol. xii. p. 375.
[279] See Nature, June and July, 1870. Those who, like Professors Huxley and Tyndall, do not accept his conclusions, none the less agree with him in principle, though they limit the evolution of the organic world from the inorganic to a very remote period of the world's history. (See Professor Huxley's address to the British Association at Liverpool, 1870, p. 17.)
[280] "Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic," vol. i. Lecture ii., p. 40.
[281] In the same way that an undue cultivation of any one kind of knowledge is prejudicial to philosophy. Mr. James Martineau well observes, "Nothing is more common than to see maxims, which are unexceptionable as the assumptions of particular sciences, coerced into the service of a universal philosophy, and so turned into instruments of mischief and distortion. That "we can know nothing but phenomena,"—that "causation is simply constant priority,"—that "men are governed invariably by their interests," are examples of rules allowable as dominant hypotheses in physics or political economy, but exercising a desolating tyranny when thrust on to the throne of universal empire. He who seizes upon these and similar maxims, and carries them in triumph on his banner, may boast of his escape from the uncertainties of metaphysics, but is himself all the while the unconscious victim of their very vulgarest deception." ("Essays," Second Series, A Plea for Philosophical Studies, p. 421.)
[282] Lecky's "History of Rationalism," vol. i. p. 73.
[283] "Lectures on University Subjects," by J. H. Newman, D.D., p. 322.
[284] Loc. cit. p. 324.
[285] Thus Professor Tyndall, in the Pall Mall Gazette of June 15, 1868, speaking of physical science, observes, "The logical feebleness of science is not sufficiently borne in mind. It keeps down the weed of superstition, not by logic, but by slowly rendering the mental soil unfit for its cultivation."
[286] By this it is not, of course, meant to deny that the existence of God can be demonstrated so as to demand the assent of the intellect taken, so to speak, by itself.
[287] See some excellent remarks in the Rev. Dr. Newman's Parochial Sermons—the new edition (1869), vol. i. p. 211.
[288] American Journal of Science, July 1860, p. 143, quoted in Dr. Asa Gray's pamphlet, p. 47.
[289] See The Academy for October 1869, No. 1, p. 13.
[290] Professor Huxley goes on to say that the mechanist may, in turn, demand of the teleologist how the latter knows it was so intended. To this it may be replied he knows it as a necessary truth of reason deduced from his own primary intuitions, which intuitions cannot be questioned without absolute scepticism.
[291] The Professor doubtless means the direct and immediate result. (See Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. v. p. 90.)
[292] "Natural Selection," p. 280.
[293] Dr. Asa Gray, e.g., has thus understood Mr. Darwin. The Doctor says in his pamphlet, p. 38, "Mr. Darwin uses expressions which imply that the natural forms which surround us, because they have a history or natural sequence, could have been only generally, but not particularly designed,—a view at once superficial and contradictory; whereas his true line should be, that his hypothesis concerns the order and not the cause, the how and not the why of the phenomena, and so leaves the question of design just where it was before."
[294] "All science is but the partial reflexion in the reason of man, of the great all-pervading reason of the universe. And the unity of science is the reflexion of the unity of nature and of the unity of that supreme reason and intelligence which pervades and rules over nature, and from whence all reason and all science is derived." (Rev. Baden Powell, "Unity of the Sciences," Essay i. § ii. p. 81.)
[295] "The Reign of Law," p. 40.
[296] Though Mr. Darwin's epithets denoting design are metaphorical, his admiration of the result is unequivocal, nay, enthusiastic!
[297] See "Habit and Intelligence," vol. i. p. 348.
[298] The term, as before said, not being used in its ordinary theological sense, but to denote an immediate Divine action as distinguished from God's action through the powers conferred on the physical universe.
[299] See "Natural Selection," pp. 332 to 360.
[300] Loc. cit., p. 349.
[301] See Professor Huxley's "Lessons in Elementary Physiology," p. 218.
[302] It may be objected, perhaps, that excessive delicacy of the ear might have been produced by having to guard against the approach of enemies, some savages being remarkable for their keenness of hearing at great distances. But the perceptions of intensity and quality of sound are very different. Some persons who have an extremely acute ear for delicate sounds, and who are fond of music, have yet an incapacity for detecting whether an instrument is slightly out of tune.
[303] Loc. cit., pp. 351, 352.
[304] Loc. cit., p. 368.
[305] Loc. cit., p. 350.
[306] Published by John Churchill.
[307] Natural Selection, p. 324.
[308] The italics are not Mr. Wallace's.
[309] "Unity of Worlds," Essay ii. § ii. p. 247.
[310] Ibid. Essay i. § ii. p. 76.
[311] Ibid. Essay iii. § iv. p. 466.
[312] A good exposition of how an inferior action has to yield to one higher is given by Dr. Newman in his "Lectures on University Subjects," p. 372. "What is true in one science, is dictated to us indeed according to that science, but not according to another science, or in another department.
"What is certain in the military art, has force in the military art, but not in statesmanship; and if statesmanship be a higher department of action than war, and enjoins the contrary, it has no force on our reception and obedience at all. And so what is true in medical science, might in all cases be carried out, were man a mere animal or brute without a soul; but since he is a rational, responsible being, a thing may be ever so true in medicine, yet may be unlawful in fact, in consequence of the higher law of morals and religion coming to some different conclusion."
[313] Quoted from the Rambler of March 1860, p. 364: "Ὅπου μὲν οὖν ἅπαντα συνέβη, ὥσπερ κᾲν εἰ ἕνεκα του ἐγίνετο, ταῦτα μὲν ἐσώθη ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτομάτου συστάντα ἐπιτηδείως ὅσα δὲ μὴ οὕτως ἀπώλετο καὶ ἀπόλλυται, καθάπεο Ἐμπεδοκλῆς λέγει τὰ βουγενῆ καὶ ἀνδρόπρωρα."—Arist. Phys. ii. c. 8.