132 'DESCENT OF MAN' — EXPRESSION. [187I. 



letters of kindred subject-matter, but gives perhaps a truer 

 picture of the mingled interests and labours of my father's life. 

 Nothing can give a better idea (in a small compass) of the 

 growth of Evolutionism, and its position at this time, than a 

 quotation from Mr. Huxley*: — 



" The gradual lapse of time has now separated us by more 

 than a decade from the date of the publication of the ' Origin 

 of Species ; ' and whatever may be thought or said about 

 Mr. Darwin's doctrines, or the manner in which he has pro- 

 pounded them, this much is certain, that in a dozen years the 

 ' Origin of Species ' has worked as complete a revolution in 

 Biological Science as the ' Principia ' did in Astronomy ; " and 

 it has done so, " because, in the words of Helmholtz, it 

 contains ' an essentially new creative thought.' And, as time 

 has slipped by, a happy change has come over Mr. Darwin's 

 critics. The mixture of ignorance and insolence which at 

 first characterised a large proportion of the attacks with which 

 he was assailed, is no longer the sad distinction of anti- 

 Darwinian criticism." 



A passage in the Introduction to the ' Descent of Man ' 

 shows that the author recognised clearly this improvement in 

 the position of Evolutionism. "When a naturalist like Carl 

 Vogt ventures to say in his address, as President of the 

 National Institution of Geneva (1869), ' personne, en Europe 

 au moins, n'ose plus soutenir la creation independante et 

 de toutes pieces, des especes,' it is manifest that at least 

 a large number of naturalists must admit that species are 

 the modified descendants of other species ; and this especi- 

 ally holds good with the younger and rising naturalists. 

 ... Of the older and honoured chiefs in natural science, 

 many, unfortunately, are still opposed to Evolution in every 

 form." 



In Mr. James Hague's pleasantly written article, "A Remin- 

 iscence of Mr. Darwin" ('Harper's Magazine,' October 1884), 



* J Contemporary Review,' 1871. 



