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
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
Chapter 3 Pg 47Question, 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
Chapter 3 Pg 48That 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.
Chapter 4 Pg 49
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,
Chapter 4 Pg 50Which 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
Comments (0)