The Reception of the Origin of Species | Page 6

to simple varieties and closely allied species, I believe
that Mr. Darwin's theory may explain many things, and throw a great
light upon numerous questions."--'Sur l'Origine de l'Espece. Par
Charles Darwin.' 'Archives des Sc. de la Bibliotheque Universelle de
Geneve,' pages 242, 243, Mars 1860.) On the other hand, Lyell, up to
that time a pillar of the anti- transmutationists (who regarded him, ever
afterwards, as Pallas Athene may have looked at Dian, after the
Endymion affair), declared himself a Darwinian, though not without
putting in a serious caveat. Nevertheless, he was a tower of strength,
and his courageous stand for truth as against consistency, did him
infinite honour. As evolutionists, sans phrase, I do not call to mind
among the biologists more than Asa Gray, who fought the battle
splendidly in the United States; Hooker, who was no less vigorous here;
the present Sir John Lubbock and myself. Wallace was far away in the
Malay Archipelago; but, apart from his direct share in the promulgation
of the theory of natural selection, no enumeration of the influences at
work, at the time I am speaking of, would be complete without the
mention of his powerful essay 'On the Law which has regulated the
Introduction of New Species,' which was published in 1855. On reading
it afresh, I have been astonished to recollect how small was the
impression it made.
In France, the influence of Elie de Beaumont and of Flourens--the
former of whom is said to have "damned himself to everlasting fame"
by inventing the nickname of "la science moussante" for Evolutionism
(One is reminded of the effect of another small academic epigram. The
so-called vertebral theory of the skull is said to have been nipped in the

bud in France by the whisper of an academician to his neighbour, that,
in that case, one's head was a "vertebre pensante."),--to say nothing of
the ill-will of other powerful members of the Institut, produced for a
long time the effect of a conspiracy of silence; and many years passed
before the Academy redeemed itself from the reproach that the name of
Darwin was not to be found on the list of its members. However, an
accomplished writer, out of the range of academical influences, M.
Laugel, gave an excellent and appreciative notice of the 'Origin' in the
'Revue des Deux Mondes.' Germany took time to consider; Bronn
produced a slightly Bowdlerized translation of the 'Origin'; and
'Kladderadatsch' cut his jokes upon the ape origin of man; but I do not
call to mind that any scientific notability declared himself publicly in
1860. (However, the man who stands next to Darwin in his influence
on modern biologists, K.E. von Baer, wrote to me, in August 1860,
expressing his general assent to evolutionist views. His phrase, "J'ai
enonce les memes idees...que M. Darwin" (volume ii.) is shown by his
subsequent writings to mean no more than this.) None of us dreamed
that, in the course of a few years, the strength (and perhaps I may add
the weakness) of "Darwinismus" would have its most extensive and
most brilliant illustrations in the land of learning. If a foreigner may
presume to speculate on the cause of this curious interval of silence, I
fancy it was that one moiety of the German biologists were orthodox at
any price, and the other moiety as distinctly heterodox. The latter were
evolutionists, a priori, already, and they must have felt the disgust
natural to deductive philosophers at being offered an inductive and
experimental foundation for a conviction which they had reached by a
shorter cut. It is undoubtedly trying to learn that, though your
conclusions may be all right, your reasons for them are all wrong, or, at
any rate, insufficient.
On the whole, then, the supporters of Mr. Darwin's views in 1860 were
numerically extremely insignificant. There is not the slightest doubt
that, if a general council of the Church scientific had been held at that
time, we should have been condemned by an overwhelming majority.
And there is as little doubt that, if such a council gathered now, the
decree would be of an exactly contrary nature. It would indicate a lack
of sense, as well as of modesty, to ascribe to the men of that generation
less capacity or less honesty than their successors possess. What, then,

are the causes which led instructed and fair-judging men of that day to
arrive at a judgment so different from that which seems just and fair to
those who follow them? That is really one of the most interesting of all
questions connected with the history of science, and I shall try to
answer it. I am afraid that in order to do so I must run the risk of
appearing egotistical. However, if I tell my own story it