v MR. DARWIN S CRITICS 123 



Both the Reviewer and Mr. Mivart reproach Mr. 

 Darwin with being, &quot; like so many other physic 

 ists,&quot; entangled in a radically false metaphysical 

 system, and with 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 &quot; differs 

 more from an elephant or a gorilla than do these 

 from the dust of the earth on which they tread,&quot; 

 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. 1 



And even when Mr. Mivart (p. 8G) trips in a 

 matter of anatomy, and creates a difficulty for Mr. 

 Darwin out of a supposed close similarity between 

 the eyes of fishes and cephalopoda, which (as 

 Gegenbaur and others have clearly shown) does 

 not exist, the Quarterly Reviewer adopts the 

 argument without hesitation (p. CC). 



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, 

 &quot; with needless opposition, set at nought the first 

 principles of both philosophy and religion &quot; (p. 

 90). 



1 See the Tablet for March 11, 1871. 



