394 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



might be, lent him the ability that was to restore synthesis to its lost 

 place in scientific method. Still, fertile though he proved along theo- 

 retical lines, his caution prevented him from riding off, heedless, upon 

 preconceived notions. In this connection, it is a fact worthy of con- 

 stant note that he refused to discuss questions about the origin of life, 

 and the genesis of the earliest living organisms — subjects fraught with 

 wandering lights. My own ignorance of the field wherein he labored 

 may lead me into error, but, nevertheless, I do not think I am far 

 wrong when I affirm that the adjuncts of his systematization which 

 have least stood the test of time, thanks to manifold discoveries, his 

 fruitage, were precisely those framed as concessions to the opinions of 

 others. His ver}^ inability to dogmatize, and his readiness to enter 

 into the standpoint of colleagues, illustrated his mighty virtue of second 

 thought, nigh in the act of overreaching itself. Accordingly, it makes 

 small difference to what extent further investigation may have com- 

 plicated the problem of the means of evolution; his illuminating and 

 thorough presentation of the fact stands untouched. The dilemma 

 becomes plainer every day — either evolution, or irrational chaos. 



On what may be called the ethical side, his personality exercised 

 immense influence over his intimates and won upon them deeply. A 

 brilliant and witty conversationalist, his refinement and sensitiveness 

 placed even the youngest at ease, while his benevolent wisdom tied men 

 to him by bands stronger than steel. Like all real masters of those who 

 know, he was charmingly unconscious of his eminent genius, and his 

 unaffected modesty led him to see achievements surpassing his own in 

 many a one. "What he wrote of Henslow offers a most apposite com- 

 mentary upon himself. 



Reflecting over his character with gratitude and reverence, his moral 

 attributes rise, as they should do in the highest characters, in preeminence 

 over his intellect. 



But, to my mind, the most impressive testimony to Darwin's personal 

 nobility comes, not from any of his devoted friends, but from Leslie 

 Stephen, a critic averse constitutionally from ecstatic praise of any one. 

 He even says : " I should like to succeed in praising somebody some 

 day."^^ Remember, too, that Stephen was on terms of familiarity with 

 the chief figures of the Victorian era, that his own family had produced 

 men of high distinction, and that he married a daughter of Thackeray. 

 Yet, temperament and opportunity notwithstanding, Darwin overtopped 

 all others with him. The venerable naturalist had been to see him in 

 London, and Stephen writes to Charles Eliot Norton, in 1877 : 



You may believe that I was proud to welcome him, for of all eminent 

 men that I have ever seen he is beyond comparison the most attractive to 

 me. There is something almost pathetic in his simplicity and friendliness. 



" " The Life and Letters of Leslie Stephen," p. 307. 



