i8 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



changing environment — external factor ; and, 2, Modification of or- 

 gans by use and disuse — internal factor. In both cases the modifica- 

 tions are inherited and increased from generation to generation, with- 

 out limit. This second factor seems to have taken, in the mind of 

 Lamarck, the somewhat vague and transcendental form of aspiration 

 or upward striving of the animal toward higher conditions. These 

 are acknowledged to-day as true factors of evolution, but the distinct- 

 ively Darwinian factor, viz., "divergent variation and natural selec- 

 tion," was not then thought of. The publication of Lamarck's views 

 produced a powerful impression, but only for a little while. Pierced 

 by the shafts of ridicule shot by nimble wits of Paris, and crushed 

 beneath the heavy weight of the autliority of Cuvier, the greatest nat- 

 uralist and comparative anatomist of that or jaerhaps of any time, it 

 fell almost still-born, I believe it was best that it should thus perish. 

 Its birth was premature ; it was not fit to live. The world was not 

 yet prejjared for a true scientific theory. Nevertheless, the work was 

 not without its effect upon some of the most advanced thinkers of that 

 time ; upon Saint-Hilaire and Comte in France, and upon Goethe and 

 Oken in Germany. It was good seed sown and destined to spring up 

 and bear fruit in suitable environment ; but not yet. 



The next attempt worthy of attention in this rapid sketch is that 

 of Robert Chambers, in a little volumcentitled "Vestiges of a Natural 

 History of Creation," published in 1844. It was essentially a repro- 

 duction of Lamarck's views in a more popular form. It was not a 

 truly scientific work nor written by a scientific man. It was rather 

 an appeal from the too technical court of science to the supposed wider 

 and more unprejudiced court of popular intelligence. It was there- 

 fore far more eloquent than accurate ; far more specious than pro- 

 found. It was, indeed, full of false facts and inconsequent reasonings. 

 Nevertheless, it produced a veiy strong impression on the thinking, 

 popular mind. But it also quickly fell, pierced by keen shafts of ridi- 

 cule, and crushed beneath the heavy weight of the authority of all the 

 most prominent naturalists of that time, with Agassiz at their head. 

 The question for the time seemed closed. I believe, again, it was best 

 so, for the time was not yet fully ripe. 



I know full well that many think with Haeckel that biology was 

 kept back half a century by the baneful authority of Cuvier and Agas- 

 siz ; but I can not think so. The hypothesis was contrary to the facts 

 of science as then Jcnoicn and understood. It was conceived in the 

 spirit of baseless speculation, rather than of cautious induction ; of 

 skillful elaboration rather than of earnest truth-seeking. Its general 

 acceptance would have debauched the true spirit of science. I repeat 

 it : the time v/as not yet ripe for a scientific theory. The ground 

 must first be cleared and a solid foundation built ; an insuperable 

 obstacle to hearty rational acceptance must first be removed, and an 

 inductive basis must be laid. 



