Pre-Darwinian Evolutionists 9 



the labours of his predecessors, whereas, as a matter of fact, he knew ^ 

 very little about them till after he had been for years at work. To 

 wTite, as Samuel Butler did, "BufFon planted, Erasmus Dar^Wn and 

 Lamarck watered, but it was Mr Darwin who said 'That fruit is 

 ripe,' and shook it into his lap "...seems to us a quite misleading 

 version of the facts of the case. The second fallacy which the 

 historical citation is a little apt to suggest is that the filiation of 

 ideas is a simple problem. On the contrary, the history of an idea, 

 like the pedigree of an organism, is often very intricate, and the 

 evolution of the evolution-idea is bound up with the whole progi-ess 

 of the world. Tims in order to interpret Darwin's clear formulation 

 of the idea of organic evolution and his convincing presentation of it, 

 we have to do more than go back to his immediate predecessors, such 

 as BufFon, Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck ; we have to inquire into 

 the acceptance of evolutionary conceptions in regard to other orders 

 of facts, such as the earth and the solar system^; we have to realise 

 how the gi'owing success of scientific interpretation along other lines 

 gave confidence to those who refused to admit that there was any 

 domain from which science could be excluded as a trespasser ; we 

 have to take account of the development of philosophical thought, 

 and even of theological and religious movements ; we should also, 

 if we are Avise enough, consider social changes. In short, we must 

 abandon the idea that we can understand the history of any science 

 as such, without reference to contemporary evolution in other depart- 

 ments of activity. 



While there were many evolutionists before Darwin, few of 

 them were expert naturalists and few were known outside a small 

 circle ; what was of much more importance was that the genetic 

 view of nature was insinuating itself in regard to other than bio- 

 logical orders of facts, here a little and there a little, and that the 

 scientific spirit had ripened since the days when Cuvier laughed 

 Lamarck out of court. How was it that Darwin succeeded where 

 others had failed ? Because, in the first place, he had clear visions — 

 " pens^es de la jeunesse, executees par I'Sge mflr " — which a University 

 curriculum had not made impossible, which the Beagle voyage made 

 vivid, which an unrivalled British doggedness made real — visions 

 of the web of life, of the fountain of change within the organism, of 

 the struggle for existence and its winnowing, and of the spreading 

 genealogical tree. Because, in the second place, he put so much grit 

 into the verification of his visions, putting them to the proof in an 

 argmnent which is of its kind — direct demonstration being out of the 

 question— quite une(jualled. Because, in the third place, he broke 



1 See Chapter n, "The Genetic View of Nature" in J. T. Merz's HUtory of European 

 Thought in the Nineteenth Century, Vol. 2, Edinburph and London, 190.1. 



