The Reception of the Origin of Species | Page 4

of Evolution, in the attitude of claimant to the throne of the
world of thought, from the limbo of hated and, as many hoped,
forgotten things, is the most portentous event of the nineteenth century.
But the most effective weapons of the modern champions of Evolution
were fabricated by Darwin; and the 'Origin of Species' has enlisted a
formidable body of combatants, trained in the severe school of Physical
Science, whose ears might have long remained deaf to the speculations
of a priori philosophers.
I do not think any candid or instructed person will deny the truth of that
which has just been asserted. He may hate the very name of Evolution,
and may deny its pretensions as vehemently as a Jacobite denied those
of George the Second. But there it is-- not only as solidly seated as the
Hanoverian dynasty, but happily independent of Parliamentary
sanction--and the dullest antagonists have come to see that they have to
deal with an adversary whose bones are to be broken by no amount of
bad words.
Even the theologians have almost ceased to pit the plain meaning of
Genesis against the no less plain meaning of Nature. Their more candid,
or more cautious, representatives have given up dealing with Evolution

as if it were a damnable heresy, and have taken refuge in one of two
courses. Either they deny that Genesis was meant to teach scientific
truth, and thus save the veracity of the record at the expense of its
authority; or they expend their energies in devising the cruel ingenuities
of the reconciler, and torture texts in the vain hope of making them
confess the creed of Science. But when the peine forte et dure is over,
the antique sincerity of the venerable sufferer always reasserts itself.
Genesis is honest to the core, and professes to be no more than it is, a
repository of venerable traditions of unknown origin, claiming no
scientific authority and possessing none.
As my pen finishes these passages, I can but be amused to think what a
terrible hubbub would have been made (in truth was made) about any
similar expressions of opinion a quarter of a century ago. In fact, the
contrast between the present condition of public opinion upon the
Darwinian question; between the estimation in which Darwin's views
are now held in the scientific world; between the acquiescence, or at
least quiescence, of the theologians of the self-respecting order at the
present day and the outburst of antagonism on all sides in 1858-9, when
the new theory respecting the origin of species first became known to
the older generation to which I belong, is so startling that, except for
documentary evidence, I should be sometimes inclined to think my
memories dreams. I have a great respect for the younger generation
myself (they can write our lives, and ravel out all our follies, if they
choose to take the trouble, by and by), and I should be glad to be
assured that the feeling is reciprocal; but I am afraid that the story of
our dealings with Darwin may prove a great hindrance to that
veneration for our wisdom which I should like them to display. We
have not even the excuse that, thirty years ago, Mr. Darwin was an
obscure novice, who had no claims on our attention. On the contrary,
his remarkable zoological and geological investigations had long given
him an assured position among the most eminent and original
investigators of the day; while his charming 'Voyage of a Naturalist'
had justly earned him a wide-spread reputation among the general
public. I doubt if there was any man then living who had a better right
to expect that anything he might choose to say on such a question as the
Origin of Species would be listened to with profound attention, and
discussed with respect; and there was certainly no man whose personal

character should have afforded a better safeguard against attacks,
instinct with malignity and spiced with shameless impertinences.
Yet such was the portion of one of the kindest and truest men that it
was ever my good fortune to know; and years had to pass away before
misrepresentation, ridicule, and denunciation, ceased to be the most
notable constituents of the majority of the multitudinous criticisms of
his work which poured from the press. I am loth to rake any of these
ancient scandals from their well- deserved oblivion; but I must make
good a statement which may seem overcharged to the present
generation, and there is no piece justificative more apt for the purpose,
or more worthy of such dishonour, than the article in the 'Quarterly
Review' for July, 1860. (I was not aware when I wrote these passages
that the authorship of the article had been publicly acknowledged.
Confession unaccompanied by penitence,