[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
win commends in the note on the second page of the historical sketch, as
giving an excellent history of opinion upon the subject of evolution,
and a full account of Buffon s conclusions upon the same subject. This
at least is what I supposed Mr. Darwin to mean. What he said was that
Isidore Geoffroy gives an excellent history of opinion on the subject of
the date of the first publication of Lamarck, and that in his work there is
a full account of Buffon s fluctuating conclusions upon the same subject.
{31} But Mr. Darwin is a more than commonly puzzling writer. I read
what M. Geoffroy had to say upon Buffon, and was surprised to find
that, after all, according to M. Geoffroy, Buffon, and not Lamarck, was
the founder of the theory of evolution. His name, as I have already said,
was never mentioned in the first edition of the Origin of Species.
M. Geoffroy goes into the accusations of having fluctuated in his opin-
ions, which he tells us have been brought against Buffon, and comes to
the conclusion that they are unjust, as any one else will do who turns to
Buffon himself. Mr. Darwin, however, in the brief but imperfect
sketch, catches at the accusation, and repeats it while saying nothing
whatever about the defence. The following is still all he says: The first
author who in modern times has treated evolution in a scientific spirit
was Buffon. But as his opinions fluctuated greatly at different periods,
and as he does not enter on the causes or means of the transformation of
species, I need not here enter on details. On the next page, in the note
last quoted, Mr. Darwin originally repeated the accusation of Buffon s
having been fluctuating in his opinions, and appeared to give it the im-
primatur of Isidore Geoffroy s approval; the fact being that Isidore Geof-
froy only quoted the accusation in order to refute it; and though, I sup-
pose, meaning well, did not make half the case he might have done, and
abounds with misstatements. My readers will find this matter particu-
larly dealt with in Evolution, Old and New, Chapter X.
I gather that some one must have complained to Mr. Darwin of his say-
ing that Isidore Geoffroy gave an account of Buffon s fluctuating con-
clusions concerning evolution, when he was doing all he knew to main-
tain that Buffon s conclusions did not fluctuate; for I see that in the edi-
tion of 1876 the word fluctuating has dropped out of the note in ques-
tion, and we now learn that Isidore Geoffroy gives a full account of
Buffon s conclusions, without the fluctuating. But Buffon has not
taken much by this, for his opinions are still left fluctuating greatly at
different periods on the preceding page, and though he still was the first
to treat evolution in a scientific spirit, he still does not enter upon the
causes or means of the transformation of species. No one can under-
stand Mr. Darwin who does not collate the different editions of the Ori-
gin of Species with some attention. When he has done this, he will
know what Newton meant by saying he felt like a child playing with
pebbles upon the seashore.
One word more upon this note before I leave it. Mr. Darwin speaks of
Isidore Geoffroy s history of opinion as excellent, and his account of
Buffon s opinions as full. I wonder how well qualified he is to be a
judge of these matters? If he knows much about the earlier writers, he is
the more inexcusable for having said so little about them. If little, what
is his opinion worth?
To return to the brief but imperfect sketch. I do not think I can ever
again be surprised at anything Mr. Darwin may say or do, but if I could,
I should wonder how a writer who did not enter upon the causes or
means of the transformation of species, and whose opinions fluctuated
greatly at different periods, can be held to have treated evolution in a
scientific spirit. Nevertheless, when I reflect upon the scientific reputa-
tion Mr. Darwin has attained, and the means by which he has won it, I
suppose the scientific spirit must be much what he here implies. I see
Mr. Darwin says of his own father, Dr. Robert Darwin of Shrewsbury,
that he does not consider him to have had a scientific mind. Mr. Darwin
cannot tell why he does not think his father s mind to have been fitted
for advancing science, for he was fond of theorising, and was incompa-
rably the best observer Mr. Darwin ever knew. {33a} From the hint
given in the brief but imperfect sketch, I fancy I can help Mr. Darwin
to see why he does not think his father s mind to have been a scientific
one. It is possible that Dr. Robert Darwin s opinions did not fluctuate
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]