212 The Bible of Nature 



his own, still more if he is to make progress. It 

 is useful inasmuch as it emphasizes the fact that 

 ethical progress must always be a struggle, an en- 

 deavor, a fight as St. Paul said. On the other 

 hand, we would dissent from Huxley's reasoning 

 on the following grounds: 



(1) Huxley does not appear to us to have given a 

 just picture of the cosmic process. He used far too 

 much red. Is it not the case that, while the logic 

 of organic evolution always remains the same, 

 the significance of the process changes when we 

 observe that the milk of animal kindness is se- 

 lected as well as teeth and claws, that maternal 

 care is selected as well as paternal belligerence, 

 that the world is not merely the battlefield of the 

 strong, but the home of the loving ? According to 

 Huxley, life has been and is a continual free fight, 

 and beyond the limited and temporary relations 

 of the family, the Hobbesian war of each against 

 all has been and is the normal state of existence. 

 But, as Kropotkin observes, this has as little claim 

 to be taken as a scientific deduction as the opposite 

 view of Rousseau, who saw in nature nothing but 

 love, peace, and harmony (disturbed by the ac- 

 cession of man). 



Almost every critic has pointed out that Huxley 

 could not himself adhere to his gladiatorial show 

 picture. Somewhat contradictorily and some- 

 what grudgingly he added in the appendix a note 



