The Edinburgh Review 1 1 5 



interesting as a contrast to reviews which appeared 

 about the same time in the Edinburgh Rcvieiv and in 

 the Quarterly. Both these were not only exceedingly 

 iinfavourable, but were written in a spirit of personal 

 abuse singularly unworthy of their authors and still 

 more of their subject. The review in the Edhibiirgh 

 had come as a particularly great shock to Darwin, 

 Huxley, and their friends. Sir Richard Owen, in 

 many ways, was at that time the most distinguished 

 anatomist in England. He had been an ardent follower 

 of Cuvier, and in England had carried on the palseon- 

 tological work of the great Frenchman. He was a 

 personal friend of the court, a well-known man in the 

 best society, and in many ways a worthy upholder of 

 the best traditions of science. In the particular matter 

 of species, he was known to be by no means a firm sup- 

 porter of the orthodox views. When Darwin's paper 

 was read at the lyinnsean Society, and afterwards when 

 the Origin was published, the verdict of Owen was 

 looked to wdth the greatest interest b}^ the general 

 public. For a time he wavered, and even expressed 

 himself of the opinion that he had already in his pub- 

 lished works included a considerable portion of Dar- 

 win's views. But two things seemed to have influenced 

 him : First, Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford, and 

 Sedgwick and Whewell, the two best-known men at 

 Cambridge, urged him to stamp once for all, as he only 

 could do, upon this " new and pernicious doctrine." 

 Secondly, combined with his great abilities, he had 

 the keenest personal interest in his own position as the 

 leader of English science, and had no particular friend- 

 ship for men or for views that seemed likely to threaten 

 his own supreme position. In a ver}^ short time he 

 changed from being neutral, with a tendency in favour 



