Evolution, Old New | Page 2

about which there is no difference of opinion
among either his admirers or his opponents.
April 21, 1882.

PREFACE.
Contrary to the advice of my friends, who caution me to avoid all
appearance of singularity, I venture upon introducing a practice, the
expediency of which I will submit to the judgment of the reader. It is
one which has been adopted by musicians for more than a century--to
the great convenience of all who are fond of music--and I observe that
within the last few years two such distinguished painters as Mr.
Alma-Tadema and Mr. Hubert Herkomer have taken to it. It is a matter
for regret that the practice should not have been general at an earlier
date, not only among painters and musicians, but also among the
people who write books. It consists in signifying the number of a piece
of music, picture, or book by the abbreviation "Op." and the number
whatever it may happen to be.
No work can be judged intelligently unless not only the author's
relations to his surroundings, but also the relation in which the work
stands to the life and other works of the author, is understood and borne
in mind; nor do I know any way of conveying this information at a

glance, comparable to that which I now borrow from musicians. When
we see the number against a work of Beethoven, we need ask no further
to be informed concerning the general character of the music. The same
holds good more or less with all composers. Handel's works were not
numbered--not at least his operas and oratorios. Had they been so, the
significance of the numbers on Susanna and Theodora would have been
at once apparent, connected as they would have been with the number
on Jephthah, Handel's next and last work, in which he emphatically
repudiates the influence which, perhaps in a time of self-distrust, he had
allowed contemporary German music to exert over him. Many painters
have dated their works, but still more have neglected doing so, and
some of these have been not a little misconceived in consequence. As
for authors, it is unnecessary to go farther back than Lord Beaconsfield,
Thackeray, Dickens, and Scott, to feel how much obliged we should
have been to any custom that should have compelled them to number
their works in the order in which they were written. When we think of
Shakespeare, any doubt which might remain as to the advantage of the
proposed innovation is felt to disappear.
My friends, to whom I urged all the above, and more, met me by saying
that the practice was doubtless a very good one in the abstract, but that
no one was particularly likely to want to know in what order my books
had been written. To which I answered that even a bad book which
introduced so good a custom would not be without value, though the
value might lie in the custom, and not in the book itself; whereon,
seeing that I was obstinate, they left me, and interpreting their doing so
into at any rate a modified approbation of my design, I have carried it
into practice.
The edition of the 'Philosophie Zoologique' referred to in the following
volume, is that edited by M. Chas. Martins, Paris, Librairie F. Savy, 24,
Rue de Hautefeuille, 1873.
The edition of the 'Origin of Species' is that of 1876, unless another
edition be especially named.
The italics throughout the book are generally mine, except in the
quotations from Miss Seward, where they are all her own.

I am anxious also to take the present opportunity of acknowledging the
obligations I am under to my friend Mr. H. F. Jones, and to other
friends (who will not allow me to mention their names, lest more errors
should be discovered than they or I yet know of), for the invaluable
assistance they have given me while this work was going through the
press. If I am able to let it go before the public with any comfort or
peace of mind, I owe it entirely to the carefulness of their supervision.
I am also greatly indebted to Mr. Garnett, of the British Museum, for
having called my attention to many works and passages of which
otherwise I should have known nothing.
March 31, 1879.

CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
Statement of the Question--Current Opinion adverse to Teleology 1
CHAPTER II.
The Teleology of Paley and the Theologians 12
CHAPTER III.
Impotence of Paley's Conclusion--The Teleology of the Evolutionist 24
CHAPTER IV.
Failure of the First Evolutionists to see their Position as Teleological 34
CHAPTER V.
The Teleological Evolution of Organism--The Philosophy of the
Unconscious 43

CHAPTER VI.
Scheme of the Remainder of the Work--Historical Sketch of the Theory
of Evolution 60
CHAPTER VII.
Pre-Buffonian Evolution, and