EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION xxv 



faction with Agassiz — and especially with his popular attacks on 

 evolution — they seemed to expect that he would somehow take a 

 position quite contrary to his entire philosophical background and 

 public role since the beginning of his career. Even in their case, 

 such were the shadings of opinion surrounding the theory of evolu- 

 tion that, while giving private and public encouragement to Darwin, 

 these two men did not commit themselves so forthrightly to the 

 concept as Darwin later wished they had. Indeed, Agassiz's ability 

 to search out weaknesses in the theory forced Darwinians to seek 

 further philosophical and scientific substantiation for the concept. 

 Although Darwin had placed the idea of development on a new 

 plane of objectivity, he left unresolved certain fundamental prob- 

 lems in the evolutionary synthesis — the nature of heredity, the 

 mechanics of variation, and the manner in which evolution oper- 

 ated as a phenomenon affecting entire populations. Yet, given the 

 state of scientific knowledge in 1857, if Darwin was justified in ex- 

 pecting ultimate validation of his beliefs, Agassiz, in the light of his 

 own experience and education, was equally justified in a firm reliance 

 on his principles. 



As expressed in the Essay, these principles comprised the most 

 affirmative and articulate exposition of classical biology published 

 in the nineteenth century. Constant reliance upon the assumptions 

 of special creationism in every aspect examined resulted in Agassiz's 

 view that "the combined intellectual efforts of hundreds of investi- 

 gators" proved "the intervention of a Supreme Intellect" in the 

 "combinations of nature." Significantly enough, in all his surveys 

 of prior taxonomical and zoological research, Agassiz fails to give ade- 

 quate representation to men of a different outlook. Thus, the work 

 of Hooker on the geographical distribution of plants goes unnoticed, 

 he refers to Darwin solely for a paper on marine biology while the 

 Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle (1840) is ignored, Lyell's pio- 

 neering Principles of Geology (1830-33) receives mention only as a 

 text book, and Huxley is cited primarily to correct his erroneous 

 interpretation of the work of von Baer. On the other hand, Sir 

 Richard Owen, who pronounced the Essay "the most important con- 

 tribution to the right progress of zoological science in all parts of the 

 world where progress permits its cultivation," receives prominent 

 attention. 



