Unconscious Memory(Fiscle Part-3) - Samuel Butler (digital e reader TXT) 📗

Some Fifty Or Eighty Years Hence As

The Enthusiasm Of Our Grandfathers For The Poetry Of Dr. Erasmus

Darwin Does To Ourselves; And As One Who Has Yielded To None In

Respect Of The Fascination Mr. Darwin Has Exercised Over Him,  I Would

Chapter 1 Pg 26

Fain Say A Few Words Of Explanation Which May Make The Matter Clearer

To Our Future Historians.  I Do This The More Readily Because I Can

At The Same Time Explain Thus Better Than In Any Other Way The Steps

Which Led Me To The Theory Which I Afterwards Advanced In "Life And

Habit."

 

This Last,  Indeed,  Is Perhaps The Main Purpose Of The Earlier

Chapters Of This Book.  I Shall Presently Give A Translation Of A

Lecture By Professor Ewald Hering Of Prague,  Which Appeared Ten Years

Ago,  And Which Contains So Exactly The Theory I Subsequently

Advocated Myself,  That I Am Half Uneasy Lest It Should Be Supposed

That I Knew Of Professor Hering's Work And Made No Reference To It.

A Friend To Whom I Submitted My Translation In Ms.,  Asking Him How

Closely He Thought It Resembled "Life And Habit," Wrote Back That It

Gave My Own Ideas Almost In My Own Words.  As Far As The Ideas Are

Concerned This Is Certainly The Case,  And Considering That Professor

Hering Wrote Between Seven And Eight Years Before I Did,  I Think It

Due To Him,  And To My Readers As Well As To Myself,  To Explain The

Steps Which Led Me To My Conclusions,  And,  While Putting Professor

Hering's Lecture Before Them,  To Show Cause For Thinking That I

Arrived At An Almost Identical Conclusion,  As It Would Appear,  By An

Almost Identical Road,  Yet,  Nevertheless,  Quite Independently,  I Must

Ask The Reader,  Therefore,  To Regard These Earlier Chapters As In

Some Measure A Personal Explanation,  As Well As A Contribution To The

History Of An Important Feature In The Developments Of The Last

Twenty Years.  I Hope Also,  By Showing The Steps By Which I Was Led

To My Conclusions,  To Make The Conclusions Themselves More Acceptable

And Easy Of Comprehension.

 

Being On My Way To New Zealand When The "Origin Of Species" Appeared,

I Did Not Get It Till 1860 Or 1861.  When I Read It,  I Found "The

Theory Of Natural Selection" Repeatedly Spoken Of As Though It Were A

Synonym For "The Theory Of Descent With Modification"; This Is

Especially The Case In The Recapitulation Chapter Of The Work.  I

Failed To See How Important It Was That These Two Theories--If Indeed

"Natural Selection" Can Be Called A Theory--Should Not Be Confounded

Together,  And That A "Theory Of Descent With Modification" Might Be

True,  While A "Theory Of Descent With Modification Through Natural

Selection" {4} Might Not Stand Being Looked Into.

 

If Any One Had Asked Me To State In Brief What Mr. Darwin's Theory

Was,  I Am Afraid I Might Have Answered "Natural Selection," Or

"Descent With Modification," Whichever Came First,  As Though The One

Meant Much The Same As The Other.  I Observe That Most Of The Leading

Writers On The Subject Are Still Unable To Catch Sight Of The

Distinction Here Alluded To,  And Console Myself For My Want Of Acumen

By Reflecting That,  If I Was Misled,  I Was Misled In Good Company.

 

I--And I May Add,  The Public Generally--Failed Also To See What The

Unaided Reader Who Was New To The Subject Would Be Almost Certain To

Overlook.  I Mean,  That,  According To Mr. Darwin,  The Variations

Whose Accumulation Resulted In Diversity Of Species And Genus Were

Indefinite,  Fortuitous,  Attributable But In Small Degree To Any Known

Causes,  And Without A General Principle Underlying Them Which Would

Chapter 1 Pg 27

Cause Them To Appear Steadily In A Given Direction For Many

Successive Generations And In A Considerable Number Of Individuals At

The Same Time.  We Did Not Know That The Theory Of Evolution Was One

That Had Been Quietly But Steadily Gaining Ground During The Last

Hundred Years.  Buffon We Knew By Name,  But He Sounded Too Like

"Buffoon" For Any Good To Come From Him.  We Had Heard Also Of

Lamarck,  And Held Him To Be A Kind Of French Lord Monboddo; But We

Knew Nothing Of His Doctrine Save Through The Caricatures Promulgated

By His Opponents,  Or The Misrepresentations Of Those Who Had Another

Kind Of Interest In Disparaging Him.  Dr. Erasmus Darwin We Believed

To Be A Forgotten Minor Poet,  But Ninety-Nine Out Of Every Hundred Of

Us Had Never So Much As Heard Of The "Zoonomia."  We Were Little

Likely,  Therefore,  To Know That Lamarck Drew Very Largely From

Buffon,  And Probably Also From Dr. Erasmus Darwin,  And That This

Last-Named Writer,  Though Essentially Original,  Was Founded Upon

Buffon,  Who Was Greatly More In Advance Of Any Predecessor Than Any

Successor Has Been In Advance Of Him.

 

We Did Not Know,  Then,  That According To The Earlier Writers The

Variations Whose Accumulation Results In Species Were Not Fortuitous

And Definite,  But Were Due To A Known Principle Of Universal

Application--Namely,  "Sense Of Need"--Or Apprehend The Difference

Between A Theory Of Evolution Which Has A Backbone,  As It Were,  In

The Tolerably Constant Or Slowly Varying Needs Of Large Numbers Of

Individuals For Long Periods Together,  And One Which Has No Such

Backbone,  But According To Which The Progress Of One Generation Is

Always Liable To Be Cancelled And Obliterated By That Of The Next.

We Did Not Know That The New Theory In A Quiet Way Professed To Tell

Us Less Than The Old Had Done,  And Declared That It Could Throw

Little If Any Light Upon The Matter Which The Earlier Writers Had

Endeavoured To Illuminate As The Central Point In Their System.  We

Took It For Granted That More Light Must Be Being Thrown Instead Of

Less; And Reading In Perfect Good Faith,  We Rose From Our Perusal

With The Impression That Mr. Darwin Was Advocating The Descent Of All

Existing Forms Of Life From A Single,  Or From,  At Any Rate,  A Very

Few Primordial Types; That No One Else Had Done This Hitherto,  Or

That,  If They Had,  They Had Got The Whole Subject Into A Mess,  Which

Mess,  Whatever It Was--For We Were Never Told This--Was Now Being

Removed Once For All By Mr. Darwin.

 

The Evolution Part Of The Story,  That Is To Say,  The Fact Of

Evolution,  Remained In Our Minds As By Far The Most Prominent Feature

In Mr. Darwin's Book; And Being Grateful For It,  We Were Very Ready

To Take Mr. Darwin's Work At The Estimate Tacitly Claimed For It By

Himself,  And Vehemently Insisted Upon By Reviewers In Influential

Journals,  Who Took Much The Same Line Towards The Earlier Writers On

Evolution As Mr. Darwin Himself Had Taken.  But Perhaps Nothing More

Prepossessed Us In Mr. Darwin's Favour Than The Air Of Candour That

Was Omnipresent Throughout His Work.  The Prominence Given To The

Arguments Of Opponents Completely Carried Us Away; It Was This Which

Threw Us Off Our Guard.  It Never Occurred To Us That There Might Be

Other And More Dangerous Opponents Who Were Not Brought Forward.  Mr.

Darwin Did Not Tell Us What His Grandfather And Lamarck Would Have

Had To Say To This Or That.  Moreover,  There Was An Unobtrusive

Chapter 1 Pg 28

Parade Of Hidden Learning And Of Difficulties At Last Overcome Which

Was Particularly Grateful To Us.  Whatever Opinion Might Be

Ultimately Come To Concerning The Value Of His Theory,  There Could Be

But One About The Value Of The Example He Had Set To Men Of Science

Generally By The Perfect Frankness And Unselfishness Of His Work.

Friends And Foes Alike Combined To Do Homage To Mr. Darwin In This

Respect.

 

For,  Brilliant As The Reception Of The "Origin Of Species" Was,  It

Met In The First Instance With Hardly Less Hostile Than Friendly

Criticism.  But The Attacks Were Ill-Directed; They Came From A

Suspected Quarter,  And Those Who Led Them Did Not Detect More Than

The General Public Had Done What Were The Really Weak Places In Mr.

Darwin's Armour.  They Attacked Him Where He Was Strongest; And Above

All,  They Were,  As A General Rule,  Stamped With A Disingenuousness

Which At That Time We Believed To Be Peculiar To Theological Writers

And Alien To The Spirit Of Science.  Seeing,  Therefore,  That The Men

Of Science Ranged Themselves More And More Decidedly On Mr. Darwin's

Side,  While His Opponents Had Manifestly--So Far As I Can Remember,

All The More Prominent Among Them--A Bias To Which Their Hostility

Was Attributable,  We Left Off Looking At The Arguments Against

"Darwinism," As We Now Began To Call It,  And Pigeon-Holed The Matter

To The Effect That There Was One Evolution,  And That Mr. Darwin Was

Its Prophet.

 

The Blame Of Our Errors And Oversights Rests Primarily With Mr.

Darwin Himself.  The First,  And Far The Most Important,  Edition Of

The "Origin Of Species" Came Out As A Kind Of Literary Melchisedec,

Without Father And Without Mother In The Works Of Other People.  Here

Is Its Opening Paragraph:-

 

 

 

 

 

"When On Board H.M.S. 'Beagle' As Naturalist,  I Was Much Struck With

Certain Facts In The Distribution Of The Inhabitants Of South

America,  And In The Geological Relations Of The Present To The Past

Inhabitants Of That Continent.  These Facts Seemed To Me To Throw

Some Light On The Origin Of Species--That Mystery Of Mysteries,  As It

Has Been Called By One Of Our Greatest Philosophers.  On My Return

Home,  It Occurred To Me,  In 1837,  That Something Might Be Made Out On

This Question By Patiently Accumulating And Reflecting Upon All Sorts

Of Facts Which Could Possibly Have Any Bearing On It.  After Five

Years' Work I Allowed Myself To Speculate On The Subject,  And Drew Up

Some Short Notes; These I Enlarged In 1844 Into A Sketch Of The

Conclusions Which Then Seemed To Me Probable:  From That Period To

The Present Day I Have Steadily Pursued The Same Object.  I Hope That

I May Be Excused For Entering On These Personal Details,  As I Give

Them To Show That I Have Not Been Hasty In Coming To A Decision."

{8a}