Mr. Gladstone and Genesis | Page 9

the second suggestion, it would be presumptuous in me
to pretend to instruct Mr. Gladstone in matters which lie as much
within the province of Literature and History as in that of Science; but
if any one desirous of further knowledge will be so good as to turn to
that most excellent and by no means recondite source of information,
the "Encyclopaedia Britannica," he will find, under the letter E, the
word "Evolution," and a long article on that subject. Now, I do not
recommend him to read the first half of the article; but the second half,
by my friend Mr. Sully, is really very good. He will there find it said
that in some of the philosophies of ancient India, the idea of evolution

is clearly expressed: "Brahma is conceived as the eternal self-existent
being, which, on its material side, unfolds itself to the world by
gradually condensing itself to material objects through the gradations
of ether, fire, water, earth, and other elements." And again: "In the later
system of emanation of Sankhya there is a more marked approach to a
materialistic doctrine of evolution." What little knowledge I have of the
matter--chiefly derived from that very instructive book, "Die Religion
des Buddha," by C. F. Koeppen, supplemented by Hardy's interesting
works--leads me to think that Mr. Sully might have spoken much more
strongly as to the evolutionary character of Indian philosophy, and
especially of that of the Buddhists. But the question is too large to be
dealt with incidentally.
And, with respect to early Greek philosophy,<3> the seeker after
additional enlightenment need go no further than the same excellent
storehouse of information:--
The early Ionian physicists, including Thales, Anaximander,
and Anaximenes, seek to explain the world as generated out of a
primordial matter which is at the same time the universal support of
things. This substance is endowed with a generative or transmutative
force by virtue of which it passes into a succession of forms. They thus
resemble modern evolutionists since they regard the world, with its
infinite variety of forms, as issuing from a simple mode of matter. quote>
Further on, Mr. Sully remarks that "Heraclitus deserves a prominent
place in the history of the idea of evolution," and he states, with perfect
justice, that Heraclitus has foreshadowed some of the special
peculiarities of Mr. Darwin's views. It is indeed a very strange
circumstance that the philosophy of the great Ephesian more than
adumbrates the two doctrines which have played leading parts, the one
in the development of Christian dogma, the other in that of natural
science. The former is the conception of the Word [logos]
which took its Jewish shape in Alexandria, and its Christian form<4> in
that Gospel which is usually referred to an Ephesian source of some
five centuries later date; and the latter is that of the struggle for
existence. The saying that "strife is father and king of all" text>[...], ascribed to Heraclitus, would be a not inappropriate motto for
the "Origin of Species."

I have referred only to Mr. Sully's article, because his authority is quite
sufficient for my purpose. But the consultation of any of the more
elaborate histories of Greek philosophy, such as the great work of
Zeller, for example, will only bring out the same fact into still more
striking prominence. I have professed no "minute acquaintance" with
either Indian or Greek philosophy, but I have taken a great deal of pains
to secure that such knowledge as I do possess shall be accurate and
trustworthy.
In the third place, Mr. Gladstone appears to wish that I should discuss
with him the question whether the nebular hypothesis is, or is not,
confirmatory of the pentateuchal account of the origin of things. Mr.
Gladstone appears to be prepared to enter upon this campaign with a
light heart. I confess I am not, and my reason for this backwardness
will doubtless surprise Mr. Gladstone. It is that, rather more than a
quarter of a century ago (namely, in February 1859), when it was my
duty, as President of the Geological Society, to deliver the Anniversary
Address,<5> I chose a topic which involved a very careful study of the
remarkable cosmogonical speculation, originally promulgated by
Immanuel Kant and, subsequently, by Laplace, which is now known as
the nebular hypothesis. With the help of such little acquaintance with
the principles of physics and astronomy as I had gained, I endeavoured
to obtain a clear understanding of this speculation in all its bearings. I
am not sure that I succeeded; but of this I am certain, that the problems
involved are very difficult, even for those who possess the intellectual
discipline requisite for dealing with them. And it was this conviction
that led me to express my desire to leave the