Essays on Life, Art and Science | Page 4

necessary to apologise for the miscellaneous character of
the following collection of essays. Samuel Butler was a man of such
unusual versatility, and his interests were so many and so various that
his literary remains were bound to cover a wide field. Nevertheless it
will be found that several of the subjects to which he devoted much
time and labour are not represented in these pages. I have not thought it
necessary to reprint any of the numerous pamphlets and articles which
he wrote upon the Iliad and Odyssey, since these were all merged in
"The Authoress of the Odyssey," which gives his matured views upon
everything relating to the Homeric poems. For a similar reason I have
not included an essay on the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus
Christ, which he printed in 1865 for private circulation, since he
subsequently made extensive use of it in "The Fair Haven."
Two of the essays in this collection were originally delivered as
lectures; the remainder were published in The Universal Review during
1888, 1889, and 1890.
I should perhaps explain why two other essays of his, which also
appeared in The Universal Review, have been omitted.
The first of these, entitled "L'Affaire Holbein-Rippel," relates to a
drawing of Holbein's "Danse des Paysans," in the Basle Museum,
which is usually described as a copy, but which Butler believed to be
the work of Holbein himself. This essay requires to be illustrated in so
elaborate a manner that it was impossible to include it in a book of this

size.
The second essay, which is a sketch of the career of the sculptor
Tabachetti, was published as the first section of an article entitled "A
Sculptor and a Shrine," of which the second section is here given under
the title, "The Sanctuary of Montrigone." The section devoted to the
sculptor represents all that Butler then knew about Tabachetti, but since
it was written various documents have come to light, principally owing
to the investigations of Cavaliere Francesco Negri, of Casale
Monferrato, which negative some of Butler's most cherished
conclusions. Had Butler lived he would either have rewritten his essay
in accordance with Cavaliere Negri's discoveries, of which he fully
recognised the value, or incorporated them into the revised edition of
"Ex Voto," which he intended to publish. As it stands, the essay
requires so much revision that I have decided to omit it altogether, and
to postpone giving English readers a full account of Tabachetti's career
until a second edition of "Ex Voto" is required. Meanwhile I have given
a brief summary of the main facts of Tabachetti's life in a note (page
154) to the essay on "Art in the Valley of Saas." Any one who wishes
for further details of the sculptor and his work will find them in
Cavaliere Negri's pamphlet, "Il Santuario di Crea" (Alessandria, 1902).
The three essays grouped together under the title of "The Deadlock in
Darwinism" may be regarded as a postscript to Butler's four books on
evolution, viz., "Life and Habit," "Evolution, Old and New,"
"Unconscious Memory" and "Luck or Cunning." An occasion for the
publication of these essays seemed to be afforded by the appearance in
1889 of Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace's "Darwinism"; and although nearly
fourteen years have elapsed since they were published in the Universal
Review, I have no fear that they will be found to be out of date. How
far, indeed, the problem embodied in the deadlock of which Butler
speaks is from solution was conclusively shown by the correspondence
which appeared in the Times in May 1903, occasioned by some
remarks made at University College by Lord Kelvin in moving a vote
of thanks to Professor Henslow after his lecture on "Present Day
Rationalism." Lord Kelvin's claim for a recognition of the fact that in
organic nature scientific thought is compelled to accept the idea of
some kind of directive power, and his statement that biologists are
coming once more to a firm acceptance of a vital principle, drew from

several distinguished men of science retorts heated enough to prove
beyond a doubt that the gulf between the two main divisions of
evolutionists is as wide to-day as it was when Butler wrote. It will be
well, perhaps, for the benefit of readers who have not followed the
history of the theory of evolution during its later developments, to state
in a few words what these two main divisions are. All evolutionists
agree that the differences between species are caused by the
accumulation and transmission of variations, but they do not agree as to
the causes to which the variations are due. The view held by the older
evolutionists, Buffon, Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck, who have been
followed by many modern thinkers, including Herbert Spencer and
Butler, is that the