MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS 123 
Both the Reviewer and Mr. Mivart reproach Mr. 
Darwin with being, “like so many other physic- 
ists,” entangled in a radically false metaphysical 
system, Eid ith setting at nought the first 
_ principles of both philosophy and religion. Both 
enlarge upon the necessity of a sound philo- 
sophical basis, and both, I venture to add, make a 
conspicuous exhibition of its absence. The 
~ Quarterly Reviewer believes that man “ differs 
more from an elephant or a gorilla than do these 
from the dust of the earth on which they tread,” 
and Mr. Mivart has expressed the opinion that 
there is more difference between man and an ape 
than there is between an ape and a piece of 
granite.) 2 
And even when Mr. Mivart (p. 86) trips ina 
matter of anatomy, and creates a difficulty for Mr. 
Darwin out of a supposed close similarity between 
the eyes of fishes and cephalopods, which (as 
Gegenbaur and others have clearly shown) does 
not exist, the Quarterly Reviewer adopts the 
argument without hesitation (p. 66). 
There is another important point, however, in 
which it is hard to say whether Mr. Mivart 
diverges from the Quarterly Reviewer or not. 
The Reviewer declares that Mr. Darwin has, 
“with needless opposition, set at nought the first 
principles of both philosophy and religion” (p. 
1 See the Tablet for March 11, 1871. 
