234 



Mr. Emerson asked what had been the antecedents to the pub- 

 lication of the work on the " Origin of Species." He did not 

 quite understand the attitude of the mind of the author ; he 

 thought that the mind of an investigator into the laws of nature 

 ought to be judicial, prepared to weigh impartially the evidence 

 afforded bv all the facts, and to let the balance incline accord- 

 inglj. But Darwin comes before the reader at once as an advo- 

 cate of a seemingly foregone conclusion, and argues, not for the 

 purpose of finding in what direction the evidence of any particu- 

 lar fact would lead the mind, but for the purpose of finding some- 

 thing in the fact favorable to his preconceived opinion. Admit- 

 ting the difficulties in his theory, he tries to explain them away 

 by various suppositions and ifs, which by frequent repetition and 

 consideration seem in the mind of the author to become estab- 

 lished truths, and are used as arguments. 



Prof. Rogers stated in reply that the present work of Darwin 

 is a resume of his conviction on the subject, without the presenta- 

 tion of the facts upon which it rests, which he has not had time 

 to arrange. The problem is admitted to be of transcendent diffi- 

 culty, and such as no observer or theorist can hope now or per- 

 haps ever positively to resolve. Mr. Darwin makes no preten- 

 sions to an absolute demonstration, but, after an impartial survey 

 of the facts bearing on the subject and a candid appreciation of the 

 opposing considerations, adopts the view set forth in his book, as 

 offering, in his opinion, a more rational and satisfactory explana- 

 tion of the history of living nature than the hypothesis of innu- 

 merable successive creations. Prof. Rogers regarded the work 

 as marked in an extraordinary degree by fairness in the state- 

 ment of opposing as well as favorable arguments, by the absence 

 of dogmatism, and by all other evidences of a truth-loving spirit, 

 as well as by the extent and variety of its knowledge and the 

 breadth of its philosophical views. 



As regards the statement that the most ancient types of life 

 were higher or more perfect than recent ones, he had always 

 considered Prof. Agassiz as maintaining that these earlier forms 

 w^re of an embryonic character ; and in this connection he re- 

 marked that the term " perfection " is just as indefinite as the 

 word " species." He considered perfection as specialization in 



