I delayed these pages some weeks in order to give Mr. Romanes an
opportunity of explaining his statement that Canon Kingsley wrote about
instinct and inherited memory in _Nature_, Jan. 18, 1867. {iii} I wrote
to the _Athenaeum_ (Jan. 26, 1884) and pointed out that _Nature_ did not
begin to appear till nearly three years after the date given by Mr.
Romanes, and that there was nothing from Canon Kingsley on the subject of
instinct and inherited memory in any number of _Nature_ up to the date of
Canon Kingsley's death. I also asked for the correct reference.
This Mr. Romanes has not thought it incumbent upon him to give. I am
told I ought not to have expected him to give it, inasmuch as it is no
longer usual for men of any but the lowest scientific standing to correct
their misstatements when they are brought to book. Science is made for
Fellows of the Royal Society, and for no one else, not Fellows of the
Royal Society for science; and if the having achieved a certain position
should still involve being obliged to be as scrupulous and accurate as
other people, what is the good of the position? This view of the matter
is practical, but I regret that Mr. Romanes should have taken it, for his
having done so has prevented my being able to tell the reader what Canon
Kingsley said about memory and instinct, and this he might have been glad
to know.
I suspect, however, that what Canon Kingsley said was after all not very
important. If it had been, Mr. Romanes would have probably told us what
it was in his own book. I should think it possible that Mr. Romanes--not
finding Canon Kingsley's words important enough to be quoted, or even
referred to correctly, or never having seen them himself and not knowing
exactly what they were, yet being anxious to give every one, and more
particularly Canon Kingsley, his due--felt that this was an occasion on
which he might fairly take advantage of his position and say at large
whatever he was in the humour for saying at the moment.
I should not have thought this possible if I had not ere now had reason
to set Mr. Romanes down as one who was not likely to be squeamish about
trifles. Nevertheless, on this present occasion I certainly did think
that he had only made a slip such as we all make sometimes, and such as
he would gladly take the earliest opportunity to correct. As it is, I do
not know what to think, except that D.C.L.'s and F.R.S.'s seem to be made
of much the same frail materials as we ordinary mortals are.
As regards the extracts from my previous books given in this volume, I
should say that I have revised and corrected the original text
throughout, and introduced a sentence or two here and there, but have
nowhere made any important alteration. I regret greatly that want of
space has prevented me from being able to give the chapters from Life and
Habit on "The Abeyance of Memory," and "What we should expect to find if
Differentiations of Structure and Instinct are mainly due to Memory;" it
is in these chapters that an explanation of many phenomena is given, of
which, so far as I know, no explanation of any kind had been previously
attempted, and in which phenomena having apparently so little connection
as the sterility of hybrids, the principle underlying longevity, the
resumption of feral characteristics, the sterility of many animals under
confinement, are not only made intelligible but are shown to be all part
and parcel of the same story--all being explicable as soon as Memory is
made the main factor of heredity.
_Feb._ 16, 1884.