THE PLACE OF LYELL AND DARWIN IN HISTORY

From the account given in the foregoing pages, it will be seen that—without detracting from the merits of their predecessors or the value of the labours of their contemporaries—we must ascribe the work of establishing on a firm foundation of observation and reasoning the doctrine of evolution—both in the inorganic and the organic world—to the investigations and writings of Lyell and Darwin.

Lyell had to oppose the geologists of his day, who led by Buckland in this country and by Cuvier on the continent, were almost, without exception, hopelessly wedded to the doctrines of 'Catastrophism,' and bitterly antagonistic to all ideas savouring of continuity or evolution. And, in the same way, Darwin, at the outset, found himself face to face with a similarly hostile attitude, on the part of biologists, with respect to the mode of appearance of new species of plants and animals.

While Darwin doubtless derived his inspiration, and much valuable aid, from the Principles of Geology, and its gifted author, yet Lyell, with all his clearness of vision, logical faculty and literary skill, did not possess the strong faith and resolute courage—to say nothing of that wonderful tenacity of purpose and power of research which were such striking characteristics of Darwin—which would have enabled him to do for the organic what he did for the inorganic world. If it be true, as Darwin used to suggest, that the Origin of Species might never have been written had not Lyell first produced the Principles of Geology, I believe it is no less certain that the crowning of Lyell's great edifice, by the full application of his principles to the world of living beings, could only have been accomplished by a man possessing, in unique combination, the powers of observation, experiment, reasoning and criticism, joined to unswerving determination, which distinguished Darwin.

Starting from Lyell's most advanced post, Darwin boldly advanced into regions in which his friend was unable to lead, and indeed long hesitated to follow. Together, for nearly forty years, the two men—influencing one another 'as iron sharpeneth iron'—thought and communed and worked, aided at all times by the wide knowledge and judicious criticism of the sagacious Hooker; and together the fame of these men will go down to posterity.

There is a tendency, when a great man has passed from our midst, to estimate his merits and labours with undiscriminating, and often perhaps exaggerated, admiration; and this excessive praise is too often followed by a reaction, as the result of which the idol of one generation becomes almost commonplace to the next. A still further period is required before the proper position of mental perspective is reached by us, and a just judgment can be formed of the man's real place in history. The reputations of both Lyell and Darwin have, I think, passed through both these two earlier phases of thought, and we may have arrived at the third stage.

There was one respect in which both Lyell and Darwin failed to satisfy many both of their contemporaries and successors. Lyell, like Hutton, always deprecated attempts to go back to a 'beginning,' while Darwin, who strongly supported Lyell in his geological views, was equally averse to speculations concerning the 'origin of life on the globe.' Scrope[146], and also Huxley[147] in his earlier days, held the opinion that it was legitimate to assume or imagine a beginning, from which, with ever diminishing energy, the existing 'comparatively quiet conditions,' thought to characterise the present order of the world, would be reached. Both Lyell and Darwin insisted that geology is a historical science, and must be treated as such quite distinct from Cosmogony. And in the end, Huxley accepted the same view[148]. 'Geology,' he asserted, 'is as much a historical science as archaeology.'

The sober historian has always had to contend against the traditional belief that 'there were giants on the earth in those days!' The love of the marvellous has always led to the ascription of past events to the work of demigods who were not of like powers and passions with ourselves. Hence the invention of those 'catastrophies'—in which the reputations of deities as well as of men and women have often suffered. It is the same tendency in the human mind which makes it so difficult to conceive of all the changes in the earth's surface-features and its inhabitants being due to similar operations to those still going on around us.

Lyell's views have constantly been misrepresented by the belief being ascribed to him that 'the forces operating on the globe have never acted with greater intensity than at the present day.' But his real position in this matter was a frankly 'agnostic' one. 'Bring me evidence,' he would have said, 'that changes have taken place on the globe, which cannot be accounted for by agencies still at work when operating through sufficiently long periods of time, and I will abandon my position.' But such evidence was not forthcoming in his day, and I do not think has ever been discovered since. Professor Sollas has very justly said, 'Geology has no need to return to the catastrophism of its youth; in becoming evolutional it does not cease to remain essentially uniformitarian[149].'

Alfred Russel Wallace, who has always been as stout a defender of the views of Lyell as he has of those of Darwin, has given me his permission to quote from a letter he wrote me in 1888. After referring to what he regards as the weak and mistaken attacks on Lyell's teachings, 'which have of late years been so general among geologists,' he says:—