Butitwillbemorepleasantandmoreprofitabletoconsiderthosecriticisms，whichwereacknowledgedbywritersofscientificauthority，orwhichboreinternalevidenceofthegreaterorlesscompetencyand，often，ofthegoodfaith，oftheirauthors。Restrictingmysurveytoatwelvemonth，orthereabouts，afterthepublicationofthe’Origin，’IfindamongsuchcriticsLouisAgassiz（"TheargumentspresentedbyDarwininfavorofauniversalderivationfromoneprimaryformofallthepeculiaritiesexistingnowamonglivingbeingshavenotmadetheslightestimpressiononmymind。"
"UntilthefactsofNatureareshowntohavebeenmistakenbythosewhohavecollectedthem，andthattheyhaveadifferentmeaningfromthatnowgenerallyassignedtothem，Ishallthereforeconsiderthetransmutationtheoryasascientificmistake，untrueinitsfacts，unscientificinitsmethod，andmischievousinitstendency。"——Silliman’s’Journal，’July，1860，pages143，154。Extractfromthe3rdvolumeof’ContributionstotheNaturalHistoryoftheUnitedStates。’）;Murray，anexcellententomologist;
Harvey，abotanistofconsiderablerepute;andtheauthorofanarticleinthe’EdinburghReview，’allstronglyadversetoDarwin。Pictet，thedistinguishedandwidelylearnedpaleontogistofGeneva，treatsMr。Darwinwitharespectwhichformsagratefulcontrasttothetoneofsomeoftheprecedingwriters，butconsentstogowithhimonlyaverylittleway。（"I
seenoseriousobjectionstotheformationofvarietiesbynaturalselectionintheexistingworld，andthat，sofarasearlierepochsareconcerned，thislawmaybeassumedtoexplaintheoriginofcloselyalliedspecies，supposingforthispurposeaverylongperiodoftime。"
"Withregardtosimplevarietiesandcloselyalliedspecies，IbelievethatMr。Darwin’stheorymayexplainmanythings，andthrowagreatlightuponnumerousquestions。"——’Surl’Originedel’Espece。ParCharlesDarwin。’
’ArchivesdesSc。delaBibliothequeUniverselledeGeneve，’pages242，243，Mars1860。）Ontheotherhand，Lyell，uptothattimeapillaroftheanti—transmutationists（whoregardedhim，everafterwards，asPallasAthenemayhavelookedatDian，aftertheEndymionaffair），declaredhimselfaDarwinian，thoughnotwithoutputtinginaseriouscaveat。Nevertheless，hewasatowerofstrength，andhiscourageousstandfortruthasagainstconsistency，didhiminfinitehonour。Asevolutionists，sansphrase，IdonotcalltomindamongthebiologistsmorethanAsaGray，whofoughtthebattlesplendidlyintheUnitedStates;Hooker，whowasnolessvigoroushere;thepresentSirJohnLubbockandmyself。WallacewasfarawayintheMalayArchipelago;but，apartfromhisdirectshareinthepromulgationofthetheoryofnaturalselection，noenumerationoftheinfluencesatwork，atthetimeIamspeakingof，wouldbecompletewithoutthementionofhispowerfulessay’OntheLawwhichhasregulatedtheIntroductionofNewSpecies，’whichwaspublishedin1855。Onreadingitafresh，Ihavebeenastonishedtorecollecthowsmallwastheimpressionitmade。
InFrance，theinfluenceofEliedeBeaumontandofFlourens——theformerofwhomissaidtohave"damnedhimselftoeverlastingfame"byinventingthenicknameof"lasciencemoussante"forEvolutionism（Oneisremindedoftheeffectofanothersmallacademicepigram。Theso—calledvertebraltheoryoftheskullissaidtohavebeennippedinthebudinFrancebythewhisperofanacademiciantohisneighbour，that，inthatcase，one’sheadwasa"vertebrepensante。"），——tosaynothingoftheill—willofotherpowerfulmembersoftheInstitut，producedforalongtimetheeffectofaconspiracyofsilence;andmanyyearspassedbeforetheAcademyredeemeditselffromthereproachthatthenameofDarwinwasnottobefoundonthelistofitsmembers。However，anaccomplishedwriter，outoftherangeofacademicalinfluences，M。Laugel，gaveanexcellentandappreciativenoticeofthe’Origin’inthe’RevuedesDeuxMondes。’Germanytooktimetoconsider;BronnproducedaslightlyBowdlerizedtranslationofthe’Origin’;and’Kladderadatsch’cuthisjokesupontheapeoriginofman;
butIdonotcalltomindthatanyscientificnotabilitydeclaredhimselfpubliclyin1860。（However，themanwhostandsnexttoDarwininhisinfluenceonmodernbiologists，K。E。vonBaer，wrotetome，inAugust1860，expressinghisgeneralassenttoevolutionistviews。Hisphrase，"J’aienoncelesmemesidees……queM。Darwin"（volumeii。）isshownbyhissubsequentwritingstomeannomorethanthis。）Noneofusdreamedthat，inthecourseofafewyears，thestrength（andperhapsImayaddtheweakness）of"Darwinismus"wouldhaveitsmostextensiveandmostbrilliantillustrationsinthelandoflearning。Ifaforeignermaypresumetospeculateonthecauseofthiscuriousintervalofsilence，IfancyitwasthatonemoietyoftheGermanbiologistswereorthodoxatanyprice，andtheothermoietyasdistinctlyheterodox。Thelatterwereevolutionists，apriori，already，andtheymusthavefeltthedisgustnaturaltodeductivephilosophersatbeingofferedaninductiveandexperimentalfoundationforaconvictionwhichtheyhadreachedbyashortercut。Itisundoubtedlytryingtolearnthat，thoughyourconclusionsmaybeallright，yourreasonsforthemareallwrong，or，atanyrate，insufficient。
Onthewhole，then，thesupportersofMr。Darwin’sviewsin1860werenumericallyextremelyinsignificant。Thereisnottheslightestdoubtthat，ifageneralcounciloftheChurchscientifichadbeenheldatthattime，weshouldhavebeencondemnedbyanoverwhelmingmajority。Andthereisaslittledoubtthat，ifsuchacouncilgatherednow，thedecreewouldbeofanexactlycontrarynature。Itwouldindicatealackofsense，aswellasofmodesty，toascribetothemenofthatgenerationlesscapacityorlesshonestythantheirsuccessorspossess。What，then，arethecauseswhichledinstructedandfair—judgingmenofthatdaytoarriveatajudgmentsodifferentfromthatwhichseemsjustandfairtothosewhofollowthem？Thatisreallyoneofthemostinterestingofallquestionsconnectedwiththehistoryofscience，andIshalltrytoanswerit。IamafraidthatinordertodosoImustruntheriskofappearingegotistical。
However，ifItellmyownstoryitisonlybecauseIknowitbetterthanthatofotherpeople。
IthinkImusthavereadthe’Vestiges’beforeIleftEnglandin1846;but，ifIdid，thebookmadeverylittleimpressionuponme，andIwasnotbroughtintoseriouscontactwiththe’Species’questionuntilafter1850。
Atthattime，IhadlongdonewiththePentateuchalcosmogony，whichhadbeenimpresseduponmychildishunderstandingasDivinetruth，withalltheauthorityofparentsandinstructors，andfromwhichithadcostmemanyastruggletogetfree。Butmymindwasunbiassedinrespectofanydoctrinewhichpresenteditself，ifitprofessedtobebasedonpurelyphilosophicalandscientificreasoning。Itseemedtomethen（asitdoesnow）that"creation，"intheordinarysenseoftheword，isperfectlyconceivable。I
findnodifficultyinimaginingthat，atsomeformerperiod，thisuniversewasnotinexistence;andthatitmadeitsappearanceinsixdays（orinstantaneously，ifthatispreferred），inconsequenceofthevolitionofsomepre—existentBeing。Then，asnow，theso—calledaprioriargumentsagainstTheism;and，givenaDeity，againstthepossibilityofcreativeacts，appearedtometobedevoidofreasonablefoundation。Ihadnotthen，andIhavenotnow，thesmallestaprioriobjectiontoraisetotheaccountofthecreationofanimalsandplantsgivenin’ParadiseLost，’inwhichMiltonsovividlyembodiesthenaturalsenseofGenesis。Farbeitfrommetosaythatitisuntruebecauseitisimpossible。Iconfinemyselftowhatmustberegardedasamodestandreasonablerequestforsomeparticleofevidencethattheexistingspeciesofanimalsandplantsdidoriginateinthatway，asaconditionofmybeliefinastatementwhichappearstometobehighlyimprobable。
And，bywayofbeingperfectlyfair，Ihadexactlythesameanswertogivetotheevolutionistsof1851—8。Withintheranksofthebiologists，atthattime，Imetwithnobody，exceptDr。Grant，ofUniversityCollege，whohadawordtosayforEvolution——andhisadvocacywasnotcalculatedtoadvancethecause。Outsidetheseranks，theonlypersonknowntomewhoseknowledgeandcapacitycompelledrespect，andwhowas，atthesametime，athorough—goingevolutionist，wasMr。HerbertSpencer，whoseacquaintanceI
made，Ithink，in1852，andthenenteredintothebondsofafriendshipwhich，Iamhappytothink，hasknownnointerruption。Manyandprolongedwerethebattleswefoughtonthistopic。Butevenmyfriend’sraredialecticskillandcopiousnessofaptillustrationcouldnotdrivemefrommyagnosticposition。Itookmystandupontwogrounds:firstly，thatuptothattime，theevidenceinfavouroftransmutationwaswhollyinsufficient;andsecondly，thatnosuggestionrespectingthecausesofthetransmutationassumed，whichhadbeenmade，wasinanywayadequatetoexplainthephenomena。Lookingbackatthestateofknowledgeatthattime，Ireallydonotseethatanyotherconclusionwasjustifiable。
InthosedaysIhadneverevenheardofTreviranus’’Biologie。’However，I
hadstudiedLamarckattentivelyandIhadreadthe’Vestiges’withduecare;butneitherofthemaffordedmeanygoodgroundforchangingmynegativeandcriticalattitude。Asforthe’Vestiges，’Iconfessthatthebooksimplyirritatedmebytheprodigiousignoranceandthoroughlyunscientifichabitofmindmanifestedbythewriter。Ifithadanyinfluenceonmeatall，itsetmeagainstEvolution;andtheonlyreviewI
everhavequalmsofconscienceabout，onthegroundofneedlesssavagery，isoneIwroteonthe’Vestiges’whileunderthatinfluence。
Withrespecttothe’PhilosophieZoologique，’itisnoreproachtoLamarcktosaythatthediscussionoftheSpeciesquestioninthatwork，whatevermightbesaidforitin1809，wasmiserablybelowtheleveloftheknowledgeofhalfacenturylater。Inthatintervaloftimetheelucidationofthestructureoftheloweranimalsandplantshadgivenrisetowhollynewconceptionsoftheirrelations;histologyandembryology，inthemodernsense，hadbeencreated;physiologyhadbeenreconstituted;thefactsofdistribution，geologicalandgeographical，hadbeenprodigiouslymultipliedandreducedtoorder。Toanybiologistwhosestudieshadcarriedhimbeyondmerespecies—mongeringin1850，one—halfofLamarck’sargumentswereobsoleteandtheotherhalferroneous，ordefective，invirtueofomittingtodealwiththevariousclassesofevidencewhichhadbeenbroughttolightsincehistime。Moreoverhisonesuggestionastothecauseofthegradualmodificationofspecies——effortexcitedbychangeofconditions——was，onthefaceofit，inapplicabletothewholevegetableworld。Idonotthinkthatanyimpartialjudgewhoreadsthe’PhilosophieZoologique’now，andwhoafterwardstakesupLyell’strenchantandeffectualcriticism（publishedasfarbackas1830），willbedisposedtoallottoLamarckamuchhigherplaceintheestablishmentofbiologicalevolutionthanthatwhichBaconassignstohimselfinrelationtophysicalsciencegenerally，——buccinatortantum。（ErasmusDarwinfirstpromulgatedLamarck’sfundamentalconceptions，and，withgreaterlogicalconsistency，hehadappliedthemtoplants。Buttheadvocatesofhisclaimshavefailedtoshowthathe，inanyrespect，anticipatedthecentralideaofthe’OriginofSpecies。’）
But，byacuriousironyoffate，thesameinfluencewhichledmetoputaslittlefaithinmodernspeculationsonthissubject，asinthevenerabletraditionsrecordedinthefirsttwochaptersofGenesis，wasperhapsmorepotentthananyotherinkeepingaliveasortofpiousconvictionthatEvolution，afterall，wouldturnouttrue。Ihaverecentlyreadafreshthefirsteditionofthe’PrinciplesofGeology’;andwhenIconsiderthatthisremarkablebookhadbeennearlythirtyyearsineverybody’shands，andthatitbringshometoanyreaderofordinaryintelligenceagreatprincipleandagreatfact——theprinciple，thatthepastmustbeexplainedbythepresent，unlessgoodcausebeshowntothecontrary;andthefact，that，sofarasourknowledgeofthepasthistoryoflifeonourglobegoes，nosuchcausecanbeshown（Thesameprincipleandthesamefactguidetheresultfromallsoundhistoricalinvestigation。Grote’s’HistoryofGreece’isaproductofthesameintellectualmovementasLyell’s’Principles。’）——I
cannotbutbelievethatLyell，forothers，asformyself，wasthechiefagentforsmoothingtheroadforDarwin。Forconsistentuniformitarianismpostulatesevolutionasmuchintheorganicasintheinorganicworld。Theoriginofanewspeciesbyotherthanordinaryagencieswouldbeavastlygreater"catastrophe"thananyofthosewhichLyellsuccessfullyeliminatedfromsobergeologicalspeculation。
Infact，noonewasbetterawareofthisthanLyellhimself。（Lyell，withperfectright，claimsthispositionforhimself。Hespeaksofhaving"advocatedalawofcontinuityevenintheorganicworld，sofaraspossiblewithoutadoptingLamarck’stheoryoftransmutation"……
"ButwhileItaughtthatasoftenascertainformsofanimalsandplantsdisappeared，forreasonsquiteintelligibletous，otherstooktheirplacebyvirtueofacausationwhichwasbeyondourcomprehension;itremainedforDarwintoaccumulateproofthatthereisnobreakbetweentheincomingandtheoutgoingspecies，thattheyaretheworkofevolution，andnotofspecialcreation……
"Ihadcertainlypreparedthewayinthiscountry，insixeditionsofmyworkbeforethe’VestigesofCreation’appearedin1842[1844]，forthereceptionofDarwin’sgradualandinsensibleevolutionofspecies。"——’LifeandLetters，’LettertoHaeckel，volumeii。page436。November23，1868。）
Ifonereadsanyoftheearliereditionsofthe’Principles’carefully（especiallybythelightoftheinterestingseriesoflettersrecentlypublishedbySirCharlesLyell’sbiographer），itiseasytoseethat，withallhisenergeticoppositiontoLamarck，ontheonehand，andtotheidealquasi—progressionismofAgassiz，ontheother，Lyell，inhisownmind，wasstronglydisposedtoaccountfortheoriginationofallpastandpresentspeciesoflivingthingsbynaturalcauses。Buthewouldhaveliked，atthesametime，tokeepthenameofcreationforanaturalprocesswhichheimaginedtobeincomprehensible。
InaletteraddressedtoMantell（datedMarch2，1827），LyellspeaksofhavingjustreadLamarck;heexpresseshisdelightatLamarck’stheories，andhispersonalfreedomfromanyobjectionbasedontheologicalgrounds。
AndthoughheisevidentlyalarmedatthepithecoidoriginofmaninvolvedinLamarck’sdoctrine，heobserves:——
"But，afterall，whatchangesspeciesmayreallyundergo！Howimpossiblewillitbetodistinguishandlaydownaline，beyondwhichsomeoftheso—
calledextinctspecieshaveneverpassedintorecentones。"
Again，thefollowingremarkablepassageoccursinthepostscriptofaletteraddressedtoSirJohnHerschelin1836:——
"Inregardtotheoriginationofnewspecies，Iamverygladtofindthatyouthinkitprobablethatitmaybecarriedonthroughtheinterventionofintermediatecauses。Ileftthisrathertobeinferred，notthinkingitworthwhiletooffendacertainclassofpersonsbyembodyinginwordswhatwouldonlybeaspeculation。"（Inthesamesense，seethelettertoWhewell，March7，1837，volumeii。，page5:——
"Inregardtothislastsubject[thechangesfromonesetofanimalandvegetablespeciestoanother]……yourememberwhatHerschelsaidinhislettertome。IfIhadstatedasplainlyashehasdonethepossibilityoftheintroductionororiginationoffreshspeciesbeinganatural，incontradistinctiontoamiraculousprocess，Ishouldhaveraisedahostofprejudicesagainstme，whichareunfortunatelyopposedateverysteptoanyphilosopherwhoattemptstoaddressthepubliconthesemysterioussubjects。"SeealsolettertoSedgwick，January12，1838ii。page35。）Hegoesontorefertothecriticismswhichhavebeendirectedagainsthimonthegroundthat，byleavingspeciestobeoriginatedbymiracle，heisinconsistentwithhisowndoctrineofuniformitarianism;andheleavesittobeunderstoodthathehadnotreplied，onthegroundofhisgeneralobjectiontocontroversy。
Lyell’scontemporarieswerenotwithoutsomeinklingofhisesotericdoctrine。Whewell’s’HistoryoftheInductiveSciences，’whateveritsphilosophicalvalue，isalwaysworthreadingandalwaysinteresting，ifundernootheraspectthanthatofanevidenceofthespeculativelimitswithinwhichahighly—placeddivinemight，atthattime，safelyrangeatwill。Inthecourseofhisdiscussionofuniformitarianism，theencyclopaedicMasterofTrinityobserves:——
"Mr。Lyell，indeed，hasspokenofanhypothesisthat’thesuccessivecreationofspeciesmayconstitutearegularpartoftheeconomyofnature，’buthehasnowhere，Ithink，sodescribedthisprocessastomakeitappearinwhatdepartmentofsciencewearetoplacethehypothesis。
Arethesenewspeciescreatedbytheproduction，atlongintervals，ofanoffspringdifferentinspeciesfromtheparents？Orarethespeciessocreatedproducedwithoutparents？Aretheygraduallyevolvedfromsomeembryosubstance？Ordotheysuddenlystartfromtheground，asinthecreationofthepoet？……
"Someselectionofoneoftheseformsofthehypothesis，ratherthantheothers，withevidencefortheselection，isrequisitetoentitleustoplaceitamongtheknowncausesofchange，whichinthischapterweareconsidering。Thebareconvictionthatacreationofspecieshastakenplace，whetheronceormanytimes，solongasitisunconnectedwithourorganicalsciences，isatenetofNaturalTheologyratherthanofPhysicalPhilosophy。"（Whewell’s’History，’volumeiii。page639—640（Edition2，1847。））
Theearlierpartofthiscriticismappearsperfectlyjustandappropriate;
but，fromtheconcludingparagraph，Whewellevidentlyimaginesthatby"creation"LyellmeansapreternaturalinterventionoftheDeity;whereasthelettertoHerschelshowsthat，inhisownmind，Lyellmeantnaturalcausation;andIseenoreasontodoubt（ThefollowingpassagesinLyell’slettersappeartomedecisiveonthispoint:——
ToDarwin，October3，1859（ii，325），onfirstreadingthe’Origin。’
"Ihavelongseenmostclearlythatifanyconcessionismade，allthatyouclaiminyourconcludingpageswillfollow。
"Itisthiswhichhasmademesolonghesitate，alwaysfeelingthatthecaseofManandhisRaces，andofotheranimals，andthatofplants，isoneandthesame，andthatifaveracausabeadmittedforoneinstant，[instead]ofapurelyunknownandimaginaryone，suchastheword’creation，’alltheconsequencesmustfollow。"
ToDarwin，March15，1863（volumeii。page365）。
"Irememberthatitwastheconclusionhe[Lamarck]cametoaboutmanthatfortifiedmethirtyyearsagoagainstthegreatimpressionwhichhisargumentsatfirstmadeonmymind，allthegreaterbecauseConstantPrevost，apupilofCuvier’sfortyyearsago，toldmehisconviction’thatCuvierthoughtspeciesnotreal，butthatsciencecouldnotadvancewithoutassumingthattheywereso。’"
ToHooker，March9，1863（volumeii。page361），inreferencetoDarwin’sfeelingaboutthe’AntiquityofMan。’
"He[Darwin]seemsmuchdisappointedthatIdonotgofartherwithhim，ordonotspeakoutmore。IcanonlysaythatIhavespokenouttothefullextentofmypresentconvictions，andevenbeyondmystateofFEELINGastoman’sunbrokendescentfromthebrutes，andIfindIamhalfconvertingnotafewwhowereinarmsagainstDarwin，andareevennowagainstHuxley。"
Hespeaksofhavinghadtoabandon"oldandlongcherishedideas，whichconstitutedthecharmtomeofthetheoreticalpartofthescienceinmyearlierday，whenIbelievedwithPascalinthetheory，asHallamtermsit，of’thearch—angelruined。’"
SeethesamesentimentinthelettertoDarwin，March11，1863，page363:——
"Ithinktheold’creation’isalmostasmuchrequiredasever，butofcourseittakesanewformifLamarck’sviewsimprovedbyyoursareadopted。"）that，ifSirCharlescouldhaveavoidedtheinevitablecorollaryofthepithecoidoriginofman——forwhich，totheendofhislife，heentertainedaprofoundantipathy——hewouldhaveadvocatedtheefficiencyofcausesnowinoperationtobringabouttheconditionoftheorganicworld，asstoutlyashechampionedthatdoctrineinreferencetoinorganicnature。
Thefactis，thatadiscerningeyemighthaveseenthatsomeformorotherofthedoctrineoftransmutationwasinevitable，fromthetimewhenthetruthenunciatedbyWilliamSmiththatsuccessivestrataarecharacterisedbydifferentkindsoffossilremains，becameafirmlyestablishedlawofnature。Noonehassetforththespeculativeconsequencesofthisgeneralisationbetterthanthehistorianofthe’InductiveSciences’:——
"Butthestudyofgeologyopenstousthespectacleofmanygroupsofspecieswhichhave，inthecourseoftheearth’shistory，succeededeachotheratvastintervalsoftime;onesetofanimalsandplantsdisappearing，asitwouldseem，fromthefaceofourplanet，andothers，whichdidnotbeforeexist，becomingtheonlyoccupantsoftheglobe。Andthedilemmathenpresentsitselftousanew:——eitherwemustacceptthedoctrineofthetransmutationofspecies，andmustsupposethattheorganizedspeciesofonegeologicalepochweretransmutedintothoseofanotherbysomelong—continuedagencyofnaturalcauses;orelse，wemustbelieveinmanysuccessiveactsofcreationandextinctionofspecies，outofthecommoncourseofnature;actswhich，therefore，wemayproperlycallmiraculous。"（Whewell’s’HistoryoftheInductiveSciences。’Editionii。，1847，volumeiii。pages624—625。Seefortheauthor’sverdict，pages638—
39。）
Dr。Whewelldecidesinfavourofthelatterconclusion。AndifanyonehadpliedhimwiththefourquestionswhichheputstoLyellinthepassagealreadycited，allthatcanbesaidnowisthathewouldcertainlyhaverejectedthefirst。ButwouldhereallyhavehadthecouragetosaythataRhinocerostichorhinus，forinstance，"wasproducedwithoutparents;"orwas"evolvedfromsomeembryosubstance;"orthatitsuddenlystartedfromthegroundlikeMilton’slion"pawingtogetfreehishinderparts。"I
permitmyselftodoubtwhethereventheMasterofTrinity’swell—triedcourage——physical，intellectual，andmoral——wouldhavebeenequaltothisfeat。Nodoubtthesuddenconcurrenceofhalf—a—tonofinorganicmoleculesintoaliverhinocerosisconceivable，andthereforemaybepossible。Butdoessuchaneventliesufficientlywithintheboundsofprobabilitytojustifythebeliefinitsoccurrenceonthestrengthofanyattainable，or，indeed，imaginable，evidence？
Inviewoftheassertion（oftenrepeatedintheearlydaysoftheoppositiontoDarwin）thathehadaddednothingtoLamarck，itisveryinterestingtoobservethatthepossibilityofafifthalternative，inadditiontothefourhehasstated，hasnotdawneduponDr。Whewell’smind。
Thesuggestionthatnewspeciesmayresultfromtheselectiveactionofexternalconditionsuponthevariationsfromtheirspecifictypewhichindividualspresent——andwhichwecall"spontaneous，"becauseweareignorantoftheircausation——isaswhollyunknowntothehistorianofscientificideasasitwastobiologicalspecialistsbefore1858。Butthatsuggestionisthecentralideaofthe’OriginofSpecies，’andcontainsthequintessenceofDarwinism。
Thus，lookingbackintothepast，itseemstomethatmyownpositionofcriticalexpectancywasjustandreasonable，andmusthavebeentakenup，onthesamegrounds，bymanyotherpersons。IfAgassiztoldmethattheformsoflifewhichhadsuccessivelytenantedtheglobeweretheincarnationsofsuccessivethoughtsoftheDeity;andthathehadwipedoutonesetoftheseembodimentsbyanappallinggeologicalcatastropheassoonasHisideastookamoreadvancedshape，Ifoundmyselfnotonlyunabletoadmittheaccuracyofthedeductionsfromthefactsofpaleontology，uponwhichthisastoundinghypothesiswasfounded，butIhadtoconfessmywantofanymeansoftestingthecorrectnessofhisexplanationofthem。Andbesidesthat，Icouldbynomeansseewhattheexplanationexplained。
Neitherdidithelpmetobetoldbyaneminentanatomistthatspecieshadsucceededoneanotherintime，invirtueof"acontinuouslyoperativecreationallaw。"Thatseemedtometobenomorethansayingthatspecieshadsucceededoneanother，intheformofavote—catchingresolution，with"law"topleasethemanofscience，and"creational"todrawtheorthodox。
SoItookrefugeinthat"thatigeSkepsis"whichGoethehassowelldefined;and，reversingtheapostolicprecepttobeallthingstoallmen，Iusuallydefendedthetenabilityofthereceiveddoctrines，whenIhadtodowiththetransmutationists;andstoodupforthepossibilityoftransmutationamongtheorthodox——thereby，nodoubt，increasinganalreadycurrent，butquiteundeserved，reputationforneedlesscombativeness。
Iremember，inthecourseofmyfirstinterviewwithMr。Darwin，expressingmybeliefinthesharpnessofthelinesofdemarcationbetweennaturalgroupsandintheabsenceoftransitionalforms，withalltheconfidenceofyouthandimperfectknowledge。Iwasnotaware，atthattime，thathehadthenbeenmanyyearsbroodingoverthespecies—question;andthehumoroussmilewhichaccompaniedhisgentleanswer，thatsuchwasnotaltogetherhisview，longhauntedandpuzzledme。Butitwouldseemthatfourorfiveyears’hardworkhadenabledmetounderstandwhatitmeant;forLyell（’LifeandLetters，’volumeii。page212。），writingtoSirCharlesBunbury（underdateofApril30，1856），says:——
"WhenHuxley，Hooker，andWollastonwereatDarwin’slastweekthey（allfourofthem）ranatiltagainstspecies——further，Ibelieve，thantheyarepreparedtogo。"
IrecollectnothingofthisbeyondthefactofmeetingMr。Wollaston;andexceptforSirCharles’distinctassuranceasto"allfour，"Ishouldhavethoughtmy"outrecuidance"wasprobablyacounterblasttoWollaston’sconservatism。WithregardtoHooker，hewasalready，likeVoltaire’sHabbakuk，"capabledutout"inthewayofadvocatingEvolution。
AsIhavealreadysaid，Iimaginethatmostofthoseofmycontemporarieswhothoughtseriouslyaboutthematter，wereverymuchinmyownstateofmind——inclinedtosaytobothMosaistsandEvolutionists，"aplagueonbothyourhouses！"anddisposedtoturnasidefromaninterminableandapparentlyfruitlessdiscussion，tolabourinthefertilefieldsofascertainablefact。AndImay，therefore，furthersupposethatthepublicationoftheDarwinandWallacepapersin1858，andstillmorethatofthe’Origin’in1859，hadtheeffectuponthemoftheflashoflight，whichtoamanwhohaslosthimselfinadarknight，suddenlyrevealsaroadwhich，whetherittakeshimstraighthomeornot，certainlygoeshisway。Thatwhichwewerelookingfor，andcouldnotfind，wasahypothesisrespectingtheoriginofknownorganicforms，whichassumedtheoperationofnocausesbutsuchascouldbeprovedtobeactuallyatwork。Wewanted，nottopinourfaithtothatoranyotherspeculation，buttogetholdofclearanddefiniteconceptionswhichcouldbebroughtfacetofacewithfactsandhavetheirvaliditytested。The’Origin’provideduswiththeworkinghypothesiswesought。Moreover，itdidtheimmenseserviceoffreeingusforeverfromthedilemma——refusetoacceptthecreationhypothesis，andwhathaveyoutoproposethatcanbeacceptedbyanycautiousreasoner？In1857，Ihadnoanswerready，andIdonotthinkthatanyoneelsehad。Ayearlater，wereproachedourselveswithdullnessforbeingperplexedbysuchaninquiry。Myreflection，whenIfirstmademyselfmasterofthecentralideaofthe’Origin，’was，"Howextremelystupidnottohavethoughtofthat！"IsupposethatColumbus’companionssaidmuchthesamewhenhemadetheeggstandonend。Thefactsofvariability，ofthestruggleforexistence，ofadaptationtoconditions，werenotoriousenough;butnoneofushadsuspectedthattheroadtotheheartofthespeciesproblemlaythroughthem，untilDarwinandWallacedispelledthedarkness，andthebeacon—fireofthe’Origin’guidedthebenighted。
Whethertheparticularshapewhichthedoctrineofevolution，asappliedtotheorganicworld，tookinDarwin’shands，wouldprovetobefinalornot，was，tome，amatterofindifference。Inmyearliestcriticismsofthe’Origin’Iventuredtopointoutthatitslogicalfoundationwasinsecuresolongasexperimentsinselectivebreedinghadnotproducedvarietieswhichweremoreorlessinfertile;andthatinsecurityremainsuptothepresenttime。But，withanyandeverycriticaldoubtwhichmyscepticalingenuitycouldsuggest，theDarwinianhypothesisremainedincomparablymoreprobablethanthecreationhypothesis。Andifwehadnoneofusbeenabletodiscerntheparamountsignificanceofsomeofthemostpatentandnotoriousofnaturalfacts，untiltheywere，sotospeak，thrustunderournoses，whatforceremainedinthedilemma——creationornothing？Itwasobviousthat，hereafter，theprobabilitywouldbeimmenselygreater，thatthelinksofnaturalcausationwerehiddenfromourpurblindeyes，thanthatnaturalcausationshouldbeincompetenttoproduceallthephenomenaofnature。Theonlyrationalcourseforthosewhohadnootherobjectthantheattainmentoftruth，wastoaccept"Darwinism"asaworkinghypothesis，andseewhatcouldbemadeofit。Eitheritwouldproveitscapacitytoelucidatethefactsoforganiclife，oritwouldbreakdownunderthestrain。Thiswassurelythedictateofcommonsense;and，foronce，commonsensecarriedtheday。Theresulthasbeenthatcompletevolte—faceofthewholescientificworld，whichmustseemsosurprisingtothepresentgeneration。IdonotmeantosaythatalltheleadersofbiologicalsciencehaveavowedthemselvesDarwinians;butIdonotthinkthatthereisasinglezoologist，orbotanist，orpalaeontologist，amongthemultitudeofactiveworkersofthisgeneration，whoisotherthananevolutionist，profoundlyinfluencedbyDarwin’sviews。WhatevermaybetheultimatefateoftheparticulartheoryputforthbyDarwin，Iventuretoaffirmthat，sofarasmyknowledgegoes，alltheingenuityandallthelearningofhostilecriticshavenotenabledthemtoadduceasolitaryfact，ofwhichitcanbesaid，thisisirreconcilablewiththeDarwiniantheory。Intheprodigiousvarietyandcomplexityoforganicnature，therearemultitudesofphenomenawhicharenotdeduciblefromanygeneralisationswehaveyetreached。Butthesamemaybesaidofeveryotherclassofnaturalobjects。Ibelievethatastronomerscannotyetgetthemoon’smotionsintoperfectaccordancewiththetheoryofgravitation。
Itwouldbeinappropriate，evenifitwerepossible，todiscussthedifficultiesandunresolvedproblemswhichhavehithertomettheevolutionist，andwhichwillprobablycontinuetopuzzlehimforgenerationstocome，inthecourseofthisbriefhistoryofthereceptionofMr。Darwin’sgreatwork。Buttherearetwoorthreeobjectionsofamoregeneralcharacter，based，orsupposedtobebased，uponphilosophicalandtheologicalfoundations，whichwereloudlyexpressedintheearlydaysoftheDarwiniancontroversy，andwhich，thoughtheyhavebeenansweredoverandoveragain，cropupnowandthentothepresentday。
Themostsingularofthese，perhapsimmortal，fallacies，whichliveon，Tithonus—like，whensenseandforcehavelongdesertedthem，isthatwhichchargesMr。Darwinwithhavingattemptedtoreinstatetheoldpagangoddess，Chance。Itissaidthathesupposesvariationstocomeabout"bychance，"andthatthefittestsurvivethe"chances"ofthestruggleforexistence，andthus"chance"issubstitutedforprovidentialdesign。
Itisnotalittlewonderfulthatsuchanaccusationasthisshouldbebroughtagainstawriterwhohas，overandoveragain，warnedhisreadersthatwhenheusestheword"spontaneous，"hemerelymeansthatheisignorantofthecauseofthatwhichissotermed;andwhosewholetheorycrumblestopiecesiftheuniformityandregularityofnaturalcausationforillimitablepastagesisdenied。ButprobablythebestanswertothosewhotalkofDarwinismmeaningthereignof"chance，"istoaskthemwhattheythemselvesunderstandby"chance"？Dotheybelievethatanythinginthisuniversehappenswithoutreasonorwithoutacause？Dotheyreallyconceivethatanyeventhasnocause，andcouldnothavebeenpredictedbyanyonewhohadasufficientinsightintotheorderofNature？Iftheydo，itistheywhoaretheinheritorsofantiquesuperstitionandignorance，andwhosemindshaveneverbeenilluminedbyarayofscientificthought。
Theoneactoffaithintheconverttoscience，istheconfessionoftheuniversalityoforderandoftheabsolutevalidityinalltimesandunderallcircumstances，ofthelawofcausation。Thisconfessionisanactoffaith，because，bythenatureofthecase，thetruthofsuchpropositionsisnotsusceptibleofproof。Butsuchfaithisnotblind，butreasonable;
becauseitisinvariablyconfirmedbyexperience，andconstitutesthesoletrustworthyfoundationforallaction。
Ifoneofthesepeople，inwhomthechance—worshipofourremoterancestorsthusstrangelysurvives，shouldbewithinreachoftheseawhenaheavygaleisblowing，lethimbetakehimselftotheshoreandwatchthescene。
Lethimnotetheinfinitevarietyofformandsizeofthetossingwavesoutatsea;orofthecurvesoftheirfoam—crestedbreakers，astheydashagainsttherocks;lethimlistentotheroarandscreamoftheshingleasitiscastupandtorndownthebeach;orlookattheflakesoffoamastheydrivehitherandthitherbeforethewind;ornotetheplayofcolours，whichanswersagleamofsunshineasitfallsuponthemyriadbubbles。
Surelyhere，ifanywhere，hewillsaythatchanceissupreme，andbendthekneeasonewhohasenteredtheverypenetraliaofhisdivinity。Butthemanofscienceknowsthathere，aseverywhere，perfectorderismanifested;
thatthereisnotacurveofthewaves，notanoteinthehowlingchorus，notarainbow—glintonabubble，whichisotherthananecessaryconsequenceoftheascertainedlawsofnature;andthatwithasufficientknowledgeoftheconditions，competentphysico—mathematicalskillcouldaccountfor，andindeedpredict，everyoneofthese"chance"events。