Unconscious Memory(Fiscle Part-3) - Samuel Butler (digital e reader TXT) 📗
- Author: Samuel Butler
Book online «Unconscious Memory(Fiscle Part-3) - Samuel Butler (digital e reader TXT) 📗». Author Samuel Butler
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
Chapter 3 Pg 44"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
Chapter 3 Pg 45Fluctuating 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
Chapter 3 Pg 46Comes 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
Comments (0)