7 o THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



After that, can any rational being doubt that Mr. Darwin has much to 

 answer for ? " Such," the author triumphantly cries, " being some of 

 the Darwinian theory's proved results (!), its suppression on the ground 

 of being contrary to Nature and her true interpretation is clearly an 

 object much to be desired " ! ! 



When our author descends from generalities and comes to tackle 

 Mr. Darwin on his own ground, his intellectual feats are simply marvel- 

 ous. In answer to the philosopher's question whether differences of 

 bodily structure and mental faculties are transmitted to offspring, he 

 replies that the " answer is in the negative, because we every day see 

 tall fathers with short sons, and the reverse wise men and thrifty, with 

 fools and spendthrifts for children ! " Nevertheless, he naively con- 

 fesses a little further on that " hereditary peculiarities certainly exist." 

 His reflections are both profound and elevating: "Facially there are 

 men and women who bear strong resemblance to owls, baboons, and 

 other of the lower order of animals. In fact, an illustrated book has 

 been published concerning these peculiarities ; but these are not to the 

 point, and prove nothing." Then why adduce them ? a poor heathen 

 might demand ; but really we can not follow our author through the 

 phases of his deep and dangerous argument. He gives it to Mr. Dar- 

 win tremendously, and is very high and haughty with him whenever 

 he catches him prevaricating. Sometimes, indeed, he is barely civil : 

 " This argument is of the lucus a non lucendo order, and the premises 

 are as false as the conclusion." When the poor philosopher mildly 

 dissents, he is ready to disconcert him altogether with an aside to the 

 reader : " And here I may remark that the French Academy deliber- 

 ately and wisely refused him (Mr. Darwin) admission into their body 

 (three times, I have heard), for the reason that his views of Nature 

 were not legitimately founded on facts or science." jHe adds loftily, 

 in the finest manner of Mr. Podsnap : " Of this I have not personal 

 knowledge ; I have only been told so." 



Here and there he is almost too hard on Mr. Darwin, as when he 

 says : " His approach to the deep mysteries of Nature is in the veni, 

 vidi, vici style, little affected by the fact that he has no power of him- 

 self to make the lowest living form of being." Really, Mr. Darwin 

 makes no pretense to any powers of creation, unless it be in a modest 

 literary way. Again, our critic says that, on a review of the whole 

 " Descent of Man," this strikes him : " That any one, who can discover 

 legitimate proof of the origin of man in its assumption, may truly be 

 said to see with the eyes of Darwin, and not with those of God." 

 Really, all an ordinary man can do is to see with his own eyes, if he 

 possesses any, and not even a critic of superhuman stupidity could do 

 much more. We regret to see these blemishes on so characteristic a 

 book, for we are sure that it is one that will be welcomed by many a 

 frightened matron, and by not a few seraphic spinsters. Such a work 

 was wanted, not only to exhibit the dangers of Darwinism in its pos- 



