toed mammal, as thus demonstrated, supplies all that was required to complete the proof of the Darwinian theory. The theory not only alleges a vera causa and is not only confirmed by the unanimous import of the facts of classification, embryology, morphology, distribution, and succession; but it has further succeeded in tracing the actual origination of one generic type from another, through gradual "descent with modifications." And thus, within a score of years from its first announcement, the daring hypothesis of Mr. Darwin may fairly claim to be regarded as one of the established truths of science.

December, 1876.

II.

MR. MIVART ON DARWINISM.

IT can hardly be said that in this volume1 Mr. Mivart has brought any new contribution to the discussion of evolution and its consequences, though he has succeeded in marshalling together, in a goodly phalanx, the various doubts, objections, and misconceptions with which the question has disturbed the peace of his mind. The book is so polemic as quite to belie its placid and decorous title. The Lessons from Nature turn out to be a series of eager assaults upon "Darwinians" and "Agnostics," mingled with jeremiads over the tendency of the times when such perverted thinkers can obtain such extensive following. Though it would be unfair to say that there is no trace of a disposition to interrogate nature calmly

1 Lessons from Nature, as manifested in Mind and Matter. By St. George Mivart. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1876.

and accept the results, yet this disposition is wellnigh paralysed by a strong mental bias towards considering facts only in their supposed bearing on certain assumed practical needs of theology. An evident struggle between theological predispositions and acquired scientific habits has interfered seriously with the author's balance of mind; and the net result is a book by no means commendable for scientific spirit, though it exhibits praiseworthy industry, and often considerable ingenuity and dialectical skill.

Mr.

So far is Mr. Mivart from occupying the position of a disinterested student of nature that his numerous misrepresentations can be explained without necessarily charging him with a conscious willingness to be unfair. Sometimes, at least, he appears to misrepresent scientific thinkers through sheer incapacity to comprehend the motives which guide them. Darwin's candour, for example, in modifying or retracting hasty inferences, implies an attitude of mind which our author seems quite unable to appreciate. The nature of Mr. Darwin's inquiries involves him in the consideration of thousands of exceedingly complex cases of causation, for the unravelling of which a vast experience, the most delicate analytic power, and a prodigious memory for details are absolutely essential. The general sagacity of his

D

conclusions shows that Mr. Darwin possesses these qualities in a degree rarely if ever surpassed by any scientific inquirer; yet once in a while he makes a slip, forgets or overlooks some inconspicuous but important fact, or sets down an inference without his customary caution. Ordinary writers in such cases too often prefer to stand by what they have written, quietly ignoring criticisms that are hard to dispose of, very much as Mr. Mivart, in reprinting his rejoinder to Mr. Chauncey Wright, takes care not to inform the reader of the surrejoinder which came from his powerful antagonist. But Mr. Darwin finds it easy to acknowledge himself mistaken. His interest in his personal reputation for infallibility, and his zeal in behalf of the doctrine he is defending, are held in entire subordination to the main purpose of getting the facts presented as fairly and completely as possible. This is the true scientific spirit—the spirit in which to acquire lessons from nature, whether in the world of mind or in the world of matter; and when a writer manifests this spirit so consistently as Mr. Darwin, he is sure to win the respect and confidence of his readers in the highest degree. An occasional error goes for little when weighed in the scales against entire disinterestedness.

To a disinterested critic all this, one would think,

should be self-evident. Yet so far is Mr. Mivart from recognising anything of the sort that he cites Mr. Darwin's scrupulous self-corrections as evidence of his utter untrustworthiness! What confidence can we place, he asks, in a thinker who makes so many hasty inferences? overlooking the fact that, in daily experience, those who are the most rash in forming their opinions are apt to be likewise the most indisposed to reconsider them. If Mr. Mivart had any genuine sympathy with the scientific temper of mind, this particular kind of misrepresentation would never have occurred to him.

Along with this inability to appreciate disinterested thinking, Mr. Mivart has one or two other peculiarities which, taken together, give him a real genius for twisting things. He is characterised by a sort of cantankerousness which prompts him to put a controversial aspect on points which properly require only a judicial estimate of the bearings of circumstances. On the question as to just how much effectiveness is to be allowed to the principle of natural selection, he approaches Mr. Darwin with the air of a lawyer browbeating a witness; and when Mr. Darwin admits that formerly his attention was somewhat too exclusively directed toward this cause of the modification of species, his belligerent critic