392 EVOLUTION, OLD AND NEW. 



accusation in 'Evolution, Old and New'] than it would 

 be to men of science in general for requiring such ele- 

 mentary instruction on some of the most famous litera- 

 ture in science from an upstart ignoramus, who, until 

 two or three years ago, considered himself a painter by 

 profession." 'Nature,' Jan. 27, 1881. 



* * * * * 



In a subsequent letter to 'Nature,' Mr. Romanes said 

 he had been "acting the part of policeman" by writing 

 as he had done. Any unscrupulous reviewer may call 

 himself a policeman if he likes, but he must not expect 

 those whom he assails to recognize his pretensions. 

 'Evolution, Old and New,' was not written for the kind 

 of people whom Mr. Eomanes calls men of science ; if 

 "men of science" means men like Mr. Eomanes, I trust 

 they say well who maintain that I am not a man of 

 science; I believe the men to whom Mr. Eomanes refers 

 to be men, not of that kind of science which desires to 

 know, but of that kind whose aim is to thrust itself 

 upon the public as actually knowing. ' Evolution, Old 

 and New,' could be of no use to these; certainly, it was 

 not intended as an insult to them, but if they are 

 insulted by it, I do not know that I am sorry, for I value 

 their antipathy and opposition as much as I should 

 dislike their approbation : of one thing, however, I am 

 certain namely, that before 'Evolution, Old and New/ 

 was written,Professors Huxley andTyndall,forexample, 

 knew very little of the earlier history of Evolution. 

 Professor Huxley, in his article on Evolution in the 

 ninth edition of the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica,' pub- 

 lished in 1878, says of the two great pioneers of 



