EDITOR'S TABLE. 



267 



either as boy or man, that shall he also reap, 

 holds of necessity of man's entire nature ! 

 Not to occupy too much of your space, Mr. 

 Editor, I conclude by expressing the hope 

 that the readers of the " Monthly " will not 

 adopt the views expressed in " The Savage- 

 ry of Boyhood," till they have some sounder 

 basis for them than has yet been furnished. 



T. Wesley Mills. 

 Phtsiolooical Laboratory, McGill College, 

 Montreal, October 8, 1887. 



TOLSTOI'S ASTRONOMY. 



Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



Sir : The great Russian novelist. Count 

 Leo Tolstoi, in his powerful story, "Anna 

 Kar^nina," makes a curious mistake in de- 

 scribing the phenomena of the heavens, 

 which will do to put with those you have 

 noted in regard to the moon. After de- 

 scribing with great beauty and fidelity to 

 nature a spring day, he says (page 1Y6, 

 Crowell's edition, Xew York) : 



" It grew darker and darker. Venus, 

 with silvery light, shone out in the west ; 

 and in the east Arcturus gleamed with his 

 sombre, reddish fire. At intervals Levin 

 saw the Great Bear. No more snipe ap- 

 peared ; but Levin resolved to wait until Ve- 

 nus, which was visible through the branches 

 of his birch-tree, rose clear above the hills 

 on the horizon, and till the Great Bear was 

 entirely visible. The star had passed be- 

 yond the birch-trees, and the Wain of the 

 Bear was shining out clear in the sky," 

 etc. 



Venus, when seen in the west as evening 

 star, would, on the same evening, sink lower 

 instead of rising higher. It is curious that 

 Count Tolstoi, who is in general an accurate 

 observer of Nature, and who shows, in this 

 very passage, that he has watched the heav- 

 ens on spring evenings, should make such 

 a mistake. He has confused the apparent 

 and real motions of Venus evidently. 



Eliza A. Bowen. 



September 20, 1887. 



EDITOR'S TABLE. 



AN ALLEGED ABGUMENT AGAINST 

 EVOLUTION 



THE "Journal of Commerce" of 

 this city has been occupying itself 

 lately with the question of the origin of 

 the human race ; and, as the result of 

 its studies and reflections, feels Justified 

 in pronouncing that " the development 

 theory is refuted by all human experi- 

 ence." The main argument on which 

 our contemporary relies to support this 

 opinion is that there is no "organic 

 tendency toward constant improvement 

 and greater uprightness," that it is not 

 natural for man to be good, and that he 

 only attains to any moral excellence 

 through unceasing struggle. No text- 

 book in theology — so we are informed 

 — is needed to tell us that the race is 

 not attaining to moral goodness by the 

 slow process of natural development; 

 the conflict in every man's breast being 

 sufficient to assure him that the ideal 

 which he pursues is the original image 

 of perfect righteousness that has been 

 defaced by manifold transgressions. 

 Such is the argument of our contempo- 

 rary, stated, as nearly as possible, in 



its own words. We need hardly say 

 that we are glad to find a paper like 

 the "Journal of Commerce" present- 

 ing subjects of this character for the 

 consideration of its readers; and we 

 feel assured that it will be prepared to 

 examine in a candid spirit the com- 

 ments we propose to offer on the view 

 above outlined. 



In the first place, we would observe, 

 the theory of evolution is one of a very 

 wide compass ; and, if it is applied with 

 some degree of confidence to the his- 

 tory of morals, it is because, in so many 

 other fields, it has proved itself the key 

 to phenomena otherwise nnexplainable. 

 The language held by Professor Morse 

 before the American Association for the 

 Advancement of Science, and by Profes- 

 sors Roscoe, Newton, and others before 

 the similar British Association, suffi- 

 ciently proves in w^hat light the doctrine 

 of evolution is regarded by the most emi- 

 nent scientific investigators of our day. 

 The question, therefore, presents itself as 

 to whether man's moral nature has been 

 formed upon principles, and by a meth- 

 od, wholly different from those illus- 



