[From the _Press_, 17 January, 1863.]
Dugald Stewart in his _Dissertation on the Progress of Metaphysics_ says:
“On reflecting on the repeated reproduction of ancient paradoxes by
modern authors one is almost tempted to suppose that human invention is
limited, like a barrel-organ, to a specific number of tunes.”
It would be a very amusing and instructive task for a man of reading and
reflection to note down the instances he meets with of these old tunes
coming up again and again in regular succession with hardly any change of
note, and with all the old hitches and involuntary squeaks that the
barrel-organ had played in days gone by. It is most amusing to see the
old quotations repeated year after year and volume after volume, till at
last some more careful enquirer turns to the passage referred to and
finds that they have all been taken in and have followed the lead of the
first daring inventor of the mis-statement. Hallam has had the courage,
in the supplement to his _History of the Middle Ages_, p. 398, to
acknowledge an error of this sort that he has been led into.
But the particular instance of barrel-organism that is present to our
minds just now is the Darwinian theory of the development of species by
natural selection, of which we hear so much. This is nothing new, but a
_réchauffée_ of the old story that his namesake, Dr. Darwin, served up in
the end of the last century to Priestley and his admirers, and Lord
Monboddo had cooked in the beginning of the same century. We have all
heard of his theory that man was developed directly from the monkey, and
that we all lost our tails by sitting too much upon that appendage.
We learn from that same great and cautious writer Hallam in his _History
of Literature_ that there are traces of this theory and of other popular
theories of the present day in the works of Giordano Bruno, the
Neapolitan who was burnt at Rome by the Inquisition in 1600. It is
curious to read the titles of his works and to think of Dugald Stewart’s
remark about barrel-organs. For instance he wrote on “The Plurality of
Worlds,” and on the universal “Monad,” a name familiar enough to the
readers of _Vestiges of Creation_. He was a Pantheist, and, as Hallam
says, borrowed all his theories from the eclectic philosophers, from
Plotinus and the Neo-Platonists, and ultimately they were no doubt of
Oriental origin. This is just what has been shown again and again to be
the history of German Pantheism; it is a mere barrel-organ repetition of
the Brahman metaphysics found in Hindu cosmogonies. Bruno’s theory
regarding development of species was in Hallam’s words: “There is nothing
so small or so unimportant but that a portion of spirit dwells in it; and
this spiritual substance requires a proper subject to become a plant or
an animal”; and Hallam in a note on this passage observes how the modern
theories of equivocal generation correspond with Bruno’s.
No doubt Hallam is right in saying that they are all of Oriental origin.
Pythagoras borrowed from thence his kindred theory of the metempsychosis,
or transmigration of souls. But he was more consistent than modern
philosophers; he recognised a downward development as well as an upward,
and made morality and immorality the crisis and turning-point of change—a
bold lion developed into a brave warrior, a drunken sot developed into a
wallowing pig, and Darwin’s slave-making ants, p. 219, would have been
formerly Virginian cotton and tobacco growers.
Perhaps Prometheus was the first Darwin of antiquity, for he is said to
have begun his creation from below, and after passing from the
invertebrate to the sub-vertebrate, from thence to the backbone, from the
backbone to the mammalia, and from the mammalia to the manco-cerebral, he
compounded man of each and all:—
Fertur Prometheus addere principi
Limo coactus particulam undique
Desectam et insani leonis
Vim stomacho apposuisse nostro.
One word more about barrel-organs. We have heard on the undoubted
authority of ear and eyewitnesses, that in a neighbouring province there
is a church where the psalms are sung to a barrel-organ, but
unfortunately the psalm tunes come in the middle of the set, and the jigs
and waltzes have to be played through before the psalm can start. Just
so is it with Darwinism and all similar theories. All his fantasias, as
we saw in a late article, are made to come round at last to religious
questions, with which really and truly they have nothing to do, but were
it not for their supposed effect upon religion, no one would waste his
time in reading about the possibility of Polar bears swimming about and
catching flies so long that they at last get the fins they wish for.
Darwin on Species
[From the _Press_, 21 February, 1863.]
To the Editor of the _Press_.
Sir—In two of your numbers you have already taken notice of Darwin’s
theory of the origin of species; I would venture to trespass upon your
space in order to criticise briefly both your notices.
The first is evidently the composition of a warm adherent of the theory
in question; the writer overlooks all the real difficulties in the way of
accepting it, and, caught by the obvious truth of much that Darwin says,
has rushed to the conclusion that all is equally true. He writes with
the tone of a partisan, of one deficient in scientific caution, and from
the frequent repetition of the same ideas manifest in his dialogue one
would be led to suspect that he was but little versed in habits of
literary composition and philosophical argument. Yet he may fairly claim
the merit of having written in earnest. He has treated a serious subject
seriously according to his lights; and though his lights are not
brilliant ones, yet he has apparently done his best to show the theory on
which he is writing in its most favourable aspect. He is rash, evidently
well satisfied with himself, very possibly mistaken, and just one of
those persons who (without intending it) are more apt to mislead than to
lead the few people that put their trust in them. A few will always
follow them, for a strong faith is always more or less impressive upon
persons who are too weak to have any definite and original faith of their
own. The second writer, however, assumes a very different tone. His
arguments to all practical intents and purposes run as follows:—
Old fallacies are constantly recurring. Therefore Darwin’s theory is a
fallacy.
They come again and again, like tunes in a barrel-organ. Therefore
Darwin’s theory is a fallacy.
Hallam made a mistake, and in his _History of the Middle Ages_, p. 398,
he corrects himself. Therefore Darwin’s theory is wrong.
Dr. Darwin in the last century said the same thing as his son or grandson
says now—will the writer of the article refer to anything bearing on
natural selection and the struggle for existence in Dr. Darwin’s
work?—and a foolish nobleman said something foolish about monkey’s tails.
Therefore Darwin’s theory is wrong.
Giordano Bruno was burnt in the year 1600 A.D.; he was a Pantheist;
therefore Darwin’s theory is wrong.
And finally, as a clinching argument, in one of the neighbouring
settlements there is a barrel-organ which plays its psalm tunes in the
middle of its jigs and waltzes. After this all lingering doubts
concerning the falsehood of Darwin’s theory must be at an end, and any
person of ordinary common sense must admit that the theory of development
by natural selection is unwarranted by experience and reason.
The articles conclude with an implied statement that Darwin supposes the
Polar bear to swim about catching flies for so long a period that at last
it gets the fins it wishes for.
Now, however sceptical I may yet feel about the truth of all Darwin’s
theory, I cannot sit quietly by and see him misrepresented in such a
scandalously slovenly manner. What Darwin does say is that sometimes
diversified and changed habits may be observed in individuals of the same
species; that is that there are eccentric animals just as there are
eccentric men. He adduces a few instances and winds up by saying that
“in North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours
with widely open mouth, thus catching—almost like a whale—insects in the
water.” This and nothing more. (See pp. 201 and 202.)
Because Darwin says that a bear of rather eccentric habits happened to be
seen by Hearne swimming for hours and catching insects almost like a
whale, your writer (with a carelessness hardly to be reprehended in
sufficiently strong terms) asserts by implication that Darwin supposes
the whale to be developed from the bear by the latter having had a strong
desire to possess fins. This is disgraceful.
I can hardly be mistaken in supposing that I have quoted the passage your
writer alludes to. Should I be in error, I trust he will give the
reference to the place in which Darwin is guilty of the nonsense that is
fathered upon him in your article.
It must be remembered that there have been few great inventions in
physics or discoveries in science which have not been foreshadowed to a
certain extent by speculators who were indeed mistaken, but were yet more
or less on the right scent. Day is heralded by dawn, Apollo by Aurora,
and thus it often happens that a real discovery may wear to the careless
observer much the same appearance as an exploded fallacy, whereas in fact
it is widely different. As much caution is due in the rejection of a
theory as in the acceptation of it. The first of your writers is too
hasty in accepting, the second in refusing even a candid examination.
Now, when the _Saturday Review_, the _Cornhill Magazine_, _Once a Week_,
and _Macmillan’s Magazine_, not to mention other periodicals, have either
actually and completely as in the case of the first two, provisionally as
in the last mentioned, given their adherence to the theory in question,
it may be taken for granted that the arguments in its favour are
sufficiently specious to have attracted the attention and approbation of
a considerable number of well-educated men in England. Three months ago
the theory of development by natural selection was openly supported by
Professor Huxley before the British Association at Cambridge. I am not
adducing Professor Huxley’s advocacy as a proof that Darwin is right
(indeed, Owen opposed him tooth and nail), but as a proof that there is
sufficient to be said on Darwin’s side to demand more respectful
attention than your last writer has thought it worth while to give it. A
theory which the British Association is discussing with great care in
England is not to be set down by off-hand nicknames in Canterbury.
To those, however, who do feel an interest in the question, I would
venture to give a word or two of advice. I would strongly deprecate
forming a hurried opinion for or against the theory. Naturalists in
Europe are canvassing the matter with the utmost diligence, and a few
years must show whether they will accept the theory or no. It is
plausible; that can be decided by no one. Whether it is true or no can
be decided only among naturalists themselves. We are outsiders, and most
of us must be content to sit on the stairs till the great men come forth
and give us the benefit of their opinion.