REVIEWS OF 'EVOLUTION, OLD AND NEW? 391 



passed, and all this was changed. The doubtful specu- 

 lation had become a firm and connected theory. In the 

 room of scattered foragers and scouts, there was an 

 irresistibly advancing column. Nature had surrendered 

 her stronghold, and was disarmed of her secret. And if 

 we ask who were the men by whom this was done, the 

 answer is notorious, and there is but one answer possible : 

 the names that are for ever associated with this great 

 triumph are those of Charles Darwin and Wallace."* 



I gave the lady or gentleman who wrote this an oppor- 

 tunity of acknowledging the authorship ; but she or he 

 preferred, not I think unnaturally, to remain anony- 

 mous. 



The only other criticism of 'Evolution, Old and New,' 

 to which I would call attention, appeared in 'Nature,' in 

 a review of ' Unconscious Memory,' by Mr. Komanes, and 

 contained the following passages: 



" But to be serious, if in charity we could deem Mr, 

 Butler a lunatic, we should not be unprepared for any 

 aberration of common sense that he might display. . . . 

 A certain nobody writes a book ['Evolution, Old and 

 New '] accusing the most illustrious man in his genera- 

 tion of burying the claims of certain illustrious prede- 

 cessors out of the sight of all men. In the hope of 

 gaining some notoriety by deserving, and perhaps 

 receiving a contemptuous refutation from the eminent 

 man in question, he publishes this book which, if it 

 deserved serious consideration, would be not more of an 

 insult to the particular man of science whom it accuses 

 of conscious and wholesale plagiarism [there is no such 



'Saturday Review,' May 81, 1879, pp. 682-3. 



