16 FIFTY YEARS OF DARWINISM 



a judge.' 1 And even when naturalists began to 

 be shaken by the force of Darwin's reasoning, 

 they were often afraid to own it. Thus Darwin 

 wrote to H. Fawcett, on Sept. 18, 1861 : 



'Many are so fearful of speaking out. A German 

 naturalist came here the other day; and he tells me that 

 there are many in Germany on our side, but that all seem 

 fearful of speaking out, and waiting for some one to speak, 

 and then many will follow. The naturalists seem as timid 

 as young ladies should be, about their scientific reputation.' 2 



Among the commonest criticisms in the early 

 days, and one that Darwin felt acutely, 3 was the 

 assertion that he had deserted the true method of 

 scientific investigation. One of the best exam- 

 ples of this is to be found in the letter of Darwin's 

 old teacher in geology, Adam Sedgwick : 



' You have deserted after a start in that tram-road of all 

 solid physical truth the true method of induction, and 

 started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins's 

 locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.' 4 



This ill-aimed criticism was soon set to rest by 

 Henry Fawcett's article in Macmillan's Magazine 



1 From a letter written by Darwin to Hooker, Nov. 4, 1862. 

 More Letters, i. 468. 



a More Letters, i. 196. 



8 See Darwin's letter to Henslow, May 8, 1860. More Letters, i. 

 149, 150. 



4 Life and Letters, ii. 248. Sedgwick's letter is dated Dec. 24, 

 1859, but the editors of More Letters (i. 150 n.) express the opinion 

 that it must have been written in November at latest. See also 

 the Quarterly Review for July, 1860. Sedgwick's review in the 

 Spectator, Mar. 24, 1860, contains the following passage : 

 '. . . I cannot conclude without expressing my detestation of the 

 theory, because of its unflinching materialism ; because it has 

 deserted the inductive track, the only track that leads to physical 

 truth ; because it utterly repudiates final causes, and thereby 

 indicates a demoralised understanding on the part of its advocates.' 

 Quoted in Life and Letters, ii. 298. 



