Books: Luck or Cunning?
S >>
Samuel Butler >> Luck or Cunning?
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 | 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19
Again:-
"ON THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION, the great law of the
long-enduring but not immutable succession of the same types within
the same areas, is at once explained" (p. 340).
Again:-
"It must not be forgotten that, ON MY THEORY, all the species of the
same genus have descended from some one species" (p. 341).
"My theory" became "our theory" in 1869.
Again:-
"He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record,
will rightly reject MY WHOLE THEORY" (p. 342).
"My" became "our" in 1869.
Again:-
"Passing from these difficulties, the other great leading facts in
palaeontology agree admirably with THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH
MODIFICATION THROUGH VARIATION AND NATURAL SELECTION" (p. 343).
Again:-
The succession of the same types of structure within the same areas
during the later geological periods CEASES TO BE MYSTERIOUS, and IS
SIMPLY EXPLAINED BY INHERITANCE (p. 345).
I suppose inheritance was not when Mr. Darwin wrote considered
mysterious. The last few words have been altered to "and is
intelligible on the principle of inheritance." It seems as though
Mr. Darwin did not like saying that inheritance was not mysterious,
but had no objection to implying that it was intelligible.
The next paragraph begins--"If, then, the geological record be as
imperfect as I believe it to be, . . . the main objections TO THE
THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION are greatly diminished or disappear. On
the other hand, all the chief laws of palaeontology plainly
proclaim, AS IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT SPECIES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY
ORDINARY GENERATION."
Here again the claim to the theory of descent with modification is
unmistakable; it cannot, moreover, but occur to us that if species
"have been produced by ordinary generation," then ordinary
generation has as good a claim to be the main means of originating
species as natural selection has. It is hardly necessary to point
out that ordinary generation involves descent with modification, for
all known offspring differ from their parents, so far, at any rate,
as that practised judges can generally tell them apart.
Again:-
"We see in these facts some deep organic bond, prevailing throughout
space and time, over the same areas of land and water, and
independent of their physical condition. The naturalist must feel
little curiosity who is not led to inquire what this bond is.
"This bond, ON MY THEORY, IS SIMPLY INHERITANCE, that cause which
alone," &c. (p. 350).
This passage was altered in 1869 to "The bond is simply
inheritance." The paragraph concludes, "ON THIS PRINCIPLE OF
INHERITANCE WITH MODIFICATION, we can understand how it is that
sections of genera . . . are confined to the same areas," &c.
Again:-
"He who rejects it rejects the vera causa of ordinary generation,"
&c. (p. 352).
We naturally ask, Why call natural selection the "main means of
modification," if "ordinary generation" is a vera causa?
Again:-
"In discussing this subject, we shall be enabled at the same time to
consider a point equally important for us, namely, whether the
several distinct species of a genus, WHICH ON MY THEORY HAVE ALL
DESCENDED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR, can have migrated (undergoing
modification during some part of their migration) from the area
inhabited by their progenitor" (p. 354).
The words "on my theory" became "on our theory" in 1869.
Again:-
"With those organic beings which never intercross (if such exist)
THE SPECIES, ON MY THEORY, MUST HAVE DESCENDED FROM A SUCCESSION OF
IMPROVED VARIETIES," &c. (p. 355).
The words "on my theory" were cut out in 1869.
Again:-
"A slow southern migration of a marine fauna will account, ON THE
THEORY OF MODIFICATION, for many closely allied forms," &c. (p.
372).
Again:-
"But the existence of several quite distinct species, belonging to
genera exclusively confined to the southern hemisphere, is, ON MY
THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION, a far more remarkable case of
difficulty" (p. 381).
"My" became "the" in 1866 with the fourth edition. This was the
most categorical claim to the theory of descent with modification in
the "Origin of Species." The "my" here is the only one that was
taken out before 1869. I suppose Mr. Darwin thought that with the
removal of this "my" he had ceased to claim the theory of descent
with modification. Nothing, however, could be gained by calling the
reader's attention to what had been done, so nothing was said about
it.
Again:-
"Some species of fresh-water shells have a very wide range, AND
ALLIED SPECIES, WHICH, ON MY THEORY, ARE DESCENDED FROM A SINGLE
SOURCE, prevail throughout the world" (p. 385).
"My theory" became "our theory" in 1869.
Again:-
"In the following remarks I shall not confine myself to the mere
question of dispersal, but shall consider some other facts which
bear upon the truth of THE TWO THEORIES OF INDEPENDENT CREATION AND
OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION" (p. 389). What can be plainer than
that the theory which Mr. Darwin espouses, and has so frequently
called "my," is descent with modification?
Again:-
"But as these animals and their spawn are known to be immediately
killed by sea-water, ON MY VIEW, we can see that there would be
great difficulty in their transportal across the sea, and therefore
why they do not exist on any oceanic island. But why, ON THE THEORY
OF CREATION, they should not have been created there, it would be
very difficult to explain" (p. 393).
"On my view" was cut out in 1869.
On the following page we read--"On my view this question can easily
be answered." "On my view" is retained in the latest edition.
Again:-
"Yet there must be, ON MY VIEW, some unknown but highly efficient
means for their transportation" (p. 397).
"On my view" became "according to our view" in 1869.
Again:-
"I believe this grand fact can receive no sort of explanation ON THE
ORDINARY VIEW OF INDEPENDENT CREATION; whereas, ON THE VIEW HERE
MAINTAINED, it is obvious that the Galapagos Islands would be likely
to receive colonists . . . from America, and the Cape de Verde
Islands from Africa; and that such colonists would be liable to
modification; the principle of inheritance still betraying their
original birth-place" (p. 399).
Again:-
"With respect to the distinct species of the same genus which, ON MY
THEORY, must have spread from one parent source, if we make the same
allowances as before," &c.
"On my theory" became "on our theory" in 1869.
Again:-
"ON MY THEORY these several relations throughout time and space are
intelligible; . . . the forms within each class have been connected
by the same bond of ordinary generation; . . . in both cases the
laws of variation have been the same, and modifications have been
accumulated by the same power of natural selection" (p. 410).
"On my theory" became "according to our theory" in 1869, and natural
selection is no longer a power, but has become a means.
Again:-
"I BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING MORE IS INCLUDED, and that propinquity of
descent--the only known cause of the similarity of organic beings--
is the bond, hidden as it is by various degrees of modification,
which is partially revealed to us by our classification" (p. 418).
Again:-
"THUS, ON THE VIEW WHICH I HOLD, the natural system is genealogical
in its arrangement, like a pedigree" (p. 422).
"On the view which I hold" was cut out in 1872.
Again:-
"We may feel almost sure, ON THE THEORY OF DESCENT, that these
characters have been inherited from a common ancestor" (p. 426).
Again:-
"ON MY VIEW OF CHARACTERS BEING OF REAL IMPORTANCE FOR
CLASSIFICATION ONLY IN SO FAR AS THEY REVEAL DESCENT, we can clearly
understand," &c. (p. 427).
"On my view" became "on the view" in 1872.
Again:-
"The more aberrant any form is, the greater must be the number of
connecting forms which, ON MY THEORY, have been exterminated and
utterly lost" (p. 429).
The words "on my theory" were excised in 1869.
Again:-
"Finally, we have seen that NATURAL SELECTION. . . EXPLAINS that
great and universal feature in the affinities of all organic beings,
namely, their subordination in group under group. WE USE THE
ELEMENT OF DESCENT in classing the individuals of both sexes, &c.; .
. . WE USE DESCENT in classing acknowledged varieties; . . . and I
believe this element of descent is the hidden bond of connection
which naturalists have sought under the term of the natural system"
(p. 433).
Lamarck was of much the same opinion, as I showed in "Evolution Old
and New." He wrote:- "An arrangement should be considered
systematic, or arbitrary, when it does not conform to the
genealogical order taken by nature in the development of the things
arranged, and when, by consequence, it is not founded on well-
considered analogies. There is a natural order in every department
of nature; it is the order in which its several component items have
been successively developed." {195a} The point, however, which
should more particularly engage our attention is that Mr. Darwin in
the passage last quoted uses "natural selection" and "descent" as
though they were convertible terms.
Again:-
"Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this
similarity of pattern in members of the same class by utility or the
doctrine of final causes . . . ON THE ORDINARY VIEW OF THE
INDEPENDENT CREATION OF EACH BEING, we can only say that so it is .
. . THE EXPLANATION IS MANIFEST ON THE THEORY OF THE NATURAL
SELECTION OF SUCCESSIVE SLIGHT modifications," &c. (p. 435).
This now stands--"The explanation is to a large extent simple, on
the theory of the selection of successive, slight modifications." I
do not like "a large extent" of simplicity; but, waiving this, the
point at issue is not whether the ordinary course of things ensures
a quasi-selection of the types that are best adapted to their
surroundings, with accumulation of modification in various
directions, and hence wide eventual difference between species
descended from common progenitors--no evolutionist since 1750 has
doubted this--but whether a general principle underlies the
modifications from among which the quasi-selection is made, or
whether they are destitute of such principle and referable, as far
as we are concerned, to chance only. Waiving this again, we note
that the theories of independent creation and of natural selection
are contrasted, as though they were the only two alternatives;
knowing the two alternatives to be independent creation and descent
with modification, we naturally took natural selection to mean
descent with modification.
Again:-
"ON THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION we can satisfactorily answer
these questions" (p. 437).
"Satisfactorily" now stands "to a certain extent."
Again:-
"ON MY VIEW these terms may be used literally" (pp. 438, 439).
"On my view" became "according to the views here maintained such
language may be," &c., in 1869.
Again:-
"I believe all these facts can be explained as follows, ON THE VIEW
OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION" (p. 443).
This sentence now ends at "follows."
Again:-
"Let us take a genus of birds, DESCENDED, ON MY THEORY, FROM SOME
ONE PARENT SPECIES, and of which the several new species HAVE BECOME
MODIFIED THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION in accordance with their divers
habits" (p. 446).
The words "on my theory" were cut out in 1869, and the passage now
stands, "Let us take a group of birds, descended from some ancient
form and modified through natural selection for different habits."
Again:-
"ON MY VIEW OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION, the origin of rudimentary
organs is simple" (p. 454).
"On my view" became "ON THE VIEW" in 1869.
Again:-
"ON THE VIEW OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION," &c. (p. 455).
Again:-
"ON THIS SAME VIEW OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION all the great facts
of morphology become intelligible" (p. 456).
Again:-
"That many and grave objections may be advanced against THE THEORY
OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION, I do not
deny" (p. 459).
This now stands, "That many and serious objections may be advanced
against THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION THROUGH VARIATION
AND NATURAL SELECTION, I do not deny."
Again:-
"There are, it must be admitted, cases of special difficulty ON THE
THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION" (p. 460).
"On" has become "opposed to;" it is not easy to see why this
alteration was made, unless because "opposed to" is longer.
Again:-
"Turning to geographical distribution, the difficulties encountered
ON THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION are grave enough."
"Grave" has become "serious," but there is no other change (p. 461).
Again:-
"As ON THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION an interminable number of
intermediate forms must have existed," &c.
"On" has become "according to"--which is certainly longer, but does
not appear to possess any other advantage over "on." It is not easy
to understand why Mr. Darwin should have strained at such a gnat as
"on," though feeling no discomfort in such an expression as "an
interminable number."
Again:-
"This is the most forcible of the many objections which may be urged
AGAINST MY THEORY . . . For certainly, ON MY THEORY," &c. (p. 463).
The "my" in each case became "the" in 1869.
Again:-
"Such is the sum of the several chief objections and difficulties
which may be justly urged AGAINST MY THEORY" (p. 465).
"My" became "the" in 1869.
Again:-
"Grave as these several difficulties are, IN MY JUDGMENT they do not
overthrow THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATIONS" (p. 466).
This now stands, "Serious as these several objections are, in my
judgment they are by no means sufficient to overthrow THE THEORY OF
DESCENT WITH SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION;" which, again, is longer, and
shows at what little, little gnats Mr. Darwin could strain, but is
no material amendment on the original passage.
Again:-
"THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION, even if we looked no further than
this, SEEMS TO ME TO BE IN ITSELF PROBABLE" (p. 469).
This now stands, "The theory of natural selection, even if we look
no further than this, SEEMS TO BE IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE PROBABLE."
It is not only probable, but was very sufficiently proved long
before Mr. Darwin was born, only it must be the right natural
selection and not Mr. Charles Darwin's.
Again:-
"It is inexplicable, ON THE THEORY OF CREATION, why a part
developed, &c., . . . BUT, ON MY VIEW, this part has undergone," &c.
(p. 474).
"On my view" became "on our view" in 1869.
Again:-
"Glancing at instincts, marvellous as some are, they offer no
greater difficulty than does corporeal structure ON THE THEORY OF
THE NATURAL SELECTION OF SUCCESSIVE, SLIGHT, BUT PROFITABLE
MODIFICATIONS" (p. 474).
Again:-
"ON THE VIEW OF ALL THE SPECIES OF THE SAME GENUS HAVING DESCENDED
FROM A COMMON PARENT, and having inherited much in common, we can
understand how it is," &c. (p. 474).
Again:-
"If we admit that the geological record is imperfect in an extreme
degree, then such facts as the record gives, support THE THEORY OF
DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION.
" . . . The extinction of species . . . almost inevitably follows on
THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL SELECTION" (p. 475).
The word "almost" has got a great deal to answer for.
Again:-
"We can understand, ON THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION, most
of the great leading facts in Distribution" (p. 476).
Again:-
"The existence of closely allied or representative species in any
two areas, implies, ON THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION, that
the same parents formerly inhabited both areas . . . It must be
admitted that these facts receive no explanation ON THE THEORY OF
CREATION . . . The fact . . . is intelligible ON THE THEORY OF
NATURAL SELECTION, with its contingencies of extinction and
divergence of character" (p. 478).
Again:-
"Innumerable other such facts at once explain themselves ON THE
THEORY OF DESCENT WITH SLOW AND SLIGHT SUCCESSIVE MODIFICATIONS" (p.
479).
"Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to
unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number
of facts, WILL CERTAINLY REJECT MY THEORY" (p. 482).
"My theory" became "the theory" in 1869.
From this point to the end of the book the claim is so ubiquitous,
either expressly or by implication, that it is difficult to know
what not to quote. I must, however, content myself with only a few
more extracts. Mr. Darwin says:-
"It may be asked HOW FAR I EXTEND THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODIFICATION
OF SPECIES" (p. 482).
Again:-
"Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that
all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype . . .
Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic
beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some
one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."
From an amoeba--Adam, in fact, though not in name. This last
sentence is now completely altered, as well it might be.
Again:-
"When THE VIEWS ENTERTAINED IN THIS VOLUME ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES,
OR WHEN ANALOGOUS VIEWS ARE GENERALLY ADMITTED, we can dimly foresee
that there will be a considerable revolution in natural history" (p.
434).
Possibly. This now stands, "When the views advanced by me in this
volume, and by Mr. Wallace, or when analogous views on the origin of
species are generally admitted, we can dimly foresee," &c. When the
"Origin of Species" came out we knew nothing of any analogous views,
and Mr. Darwin's words passed unnoticed. I do not say that he knew
they would, but he certainly ought to have known.
Again:-
"A GRAND AND ALMOST UNTRODDEN FIELD OF INQUIRY WILL BE OPENED, on
the causes and laws of variation, on correlation of growth, on the
effects of use and disuse, on the direct action of external
conditions, and so forth" (p. 486).
Buffon and Lamarck had trodden this field to some purpose, but not a
hint to this effect is vouchsafed to us. Again; -
"WHEN I VIEW ALL BEINGS NOT AS SPECIAL CREATIONS, BUT AS THE LINEAL
DESCENDANTS OF SOME FEW BEINGS WHICH LIVED LONG BEFORE the first bed
of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become
ennobled . . . We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity
as to foretell that it will be the common and widely spread species,
belonging to the larger and dominant groups, which will ultimately
prevail and procreate new and dominant species."
There is no alteration in this except that "Silurian" has become
"Cambrian."
The idyllic paragraph with which Mr. Darwin concludes his book
contains no more special claim to the theory of descent en bloc than
many another which I have allowed to pass unnoticed; it has been,
moreover, dealt with in an earlier chapter (Chapter XII.)
CHAPTER XV--The Excised "My's"
I have quoted in all ninety-seven passages, as near as I can make
them, in which Mr. Darwin claimed the theory of descent, either
expressly by speaking of "my theory" in such connection that the
theory of descent ought to be, and, as the event has shown, was,
understood as being intended, or by implication, as in the opening
passages of the "Origin of Species," in which he tells us how he had
thought the matter out without acknowledging obligation of any kind
to earlier writers. The original edition of the "Origin of Species"
contained 490 pp., exclusive of index; a claim, therefore, more or
less explicit, to the theory of descent was made on the average
about once in every five pages throughout the book from end to end;
the claims were most prominent in the most important parts, that is
to say, at the beginning and end of the work, and this made them
more effective than they are made even by their frequency. A more
ubiquitous claim than this it would be hard to find in the case of
any writer advancing a new theory; it is difficult, therefore, to
understand how Mr. Grant Allen could have allowed himself to say
that Mr. Darwin "laid no sort of claim to originality or
proprietorship" in the theory of descent with modification.
Nevertheless I have only found one place where Mr. Darwin pinned
himself down beyond possibility of retreat, however ignominious, by
using the words "my theory of descent with modification." {202a} He
often, as I have said, speaks of "my theory," and then shortly
afterwards of "descent with modification," under such circumstances
that no one who had not been brought up in the school of Mr.
Gladstone could doubt that the two expressions referred to the same
thing. He seems to have felt that he must be a poor wriggler if he
could not wriggle out of this; give him any loophole, however small,
and Mr. Darwin could trust himself to get out through it; but he did
not like saying what left no loophole at all, and "my theory of
descent with modification" closed all exits so firmly that it is
surprising he should ever have allowed himself to use these words.
As I have said, Mr. Darwin only used this direct categorical form of
claim in one place; and even here, after it had stood through three
editions, two of which had been largely altered, he could stand it
no longer, and altered the "my" into "the" in 1866, with the fourth
edition of the "Origin of Species."
This was the only one of the original forty-five my's that was cut
out before the appearance of the fifth edition in 1869, and its
excision throws curious light upon the working of Mr. Darwin's mind.
The selection of the most categorical my out of the whole forty-
five, shows that Mr. Darwin knew all about his my's, and, while
seeing reason to remove this, held that the others might very well
stand. He even left "On my VIEW of descent with modification,"
{203a} which, though more capable of explanation than "my theory,"
&c., still runs it close; nevertheless the excision of even a single
my that had been allowed to stand through such close revision as
those to which the "Origin of Species" had been subjected betrays
uneasiness of mind, for it is impossible that even Mr. Darwin should
not have known that though the my excised in 1866 was the most
technically categorical, the others were in reality just as guilty,
though no tower of Siloam in the shape of excision fell upon them.
If, then, Mr. Darwin was so uncomfortable about this one as to cut
it out, it is probable he was far from comfortable about the others.
This view derives confirmation from the fact that in 1869, with the
fifth edition of the "Origin of Species," there was a stampede of
my's throughout the whole work, no less than thirty out of the
original forty-five being changed into "the," "our," "this," or some
other word, which, though having all the effect of my, still did not
say "my" outright. These my's were, if I may say so, sneaked out;
nothing was said to explain their removal to the reader or call
attention to it. Why, it may be asked, having been considered
during the revisions of 1861 and 1866, and with only one exception
allowed to stand, why should they be smitten with a homing instinct
in such large numbers with the fifth edition? It cannot be
maintained that Mr. Darwin had had his attention called now for the
first time to the fact that he had used my perhaps a little too
freely, and had better be more sparing of it for the future. The my
excised in 1866 shows that Mr. Darwin had already considered this
question, and saw no reason to remove any but the one that left him
no loophole. Why, then, should that which was considered and
approved in 1859, 1861, and 1866 (not to mention the second edition
of 1859 or 1860) be retreated from with every appearance of panic in
1869? Mr. Darwin could not well have cut out more than he did--not
at any rate without saying something about it, and it would not be
easy to know exactly what say. Of the fourteen my's that were left
in 1869, five more were cut out in 1872, and nine only were allowed
eventually to remain. We naturally ask, Why leave any if thirty-six
ought to be cut out, or why cut out thirty-six if nine ought to be
left--especially when the claim remains practically just the same
after the excision as before it?
I imagine complaint had early reached Mr. Darwin that the difference
between himself and his predecessors was unsubstantial and hard to
grasp; traces of some such feeling appear even in the late Sir
Charles Lyell's "Principles of Geology," in which he writes that he
had reprinted his abstract of Lamarck's doctrine word for word, "in
justice to Lamarck, in order to show how nearly the opinions taught
by him at the beginning of this century resembled those now in vogue
among a large body of naturalists respecting the infinite
variability of species, and the progressive development in past time
of the organic world." {205a} Sir Charles Lyell could not have
written thus if he had thought that Mr. Darwin had already done
"justice to Lamarck," nor is it likely that he stood alone in
thinking as he did. It is probable that more reached Mr. Darwin
than reached the public, and that the historical sketch prefixed to
all editions after the first six thousand copies had been sold--
meagre and slovenly as it is--was due to earlier manifestation on
the part of some of Mr. Darwin's friends of the feeling that was
afterwards expressed by Sir Charles Lyell in the passage quoted
above. I suppose the removal of the my that was cut out in 1866 to
be due partly to the Gladstonian tendencies of Mr. Darwin's mind,
which would naturally make that particular my at all times more or
less offensive to him, and partly to the increase of objection to it
that must have ensued on the addition of the "brief but imperfect"
historical sketch in 1861; it is doubtless only by an oversight that
this particular my was not cut out in 1861. The stampede of 1869
was probably occasioned by the appearance in Germany of Professor
Haeckel's "History of Creation." This was published in 1868, and
Mr. Darwin no doubt foresaw that it would be translated into
English, as indeed it subsequently was. In this book some account
is given--very badly, but still much more fully than by Mr. Darwin--
of Lamarck's work; and even Erasmus Darwin is mentioned--
inaccurately--but still he is mentioned. Professor Haeckel says:-
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 | 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19