♦ KNOWLEDGE 



when clipped short ; nor will I take the trouble to shave. Is it, 

 then, to be supposed that in the struggle for existence the men 

 ■whose moustaches incline more outwards will have so much the 

 best of it that, after many hundred — or, if you will have it, let us 

 Bay, million — generations, all mankind will be found to have their 

 moustache hair pointing towards the outer edge of their eyes ? 



Then, again, animals have the power of adapting themselves to 

 circamstances. Everybody will, I suppose, admit that. It mani- 

 fests itself in many ways, as when a cat takes on a thicker fur in 

 cold countries, &c. In such cases there is no time for direct 

 evolution to come into play ; such adaptation sometimes takes place 

 in the life of a single animal. Now this power itself, say the 

 Darwinians, is a product of natural selection, since the possession 

 of such a power is evidently favourable to the species. But when 

 we come to look closer it becomes plain that this power in animals 

 is in itself quite sufficient to account for the whole process of 

 development. It is quite as effective for that purpose as the theory 

 of natural selection could be. Darwinianism, therefore, instead of 

 being the great panacea for the explanation of everything and 

 everybody, is in reality an explanation of nothing but this one 

 power. But by such a limitation Darwinianism loses its raison 

 d'Ure, for the only justification of a hypothesis is its power of co- 

 ordinating a great number of varied phenomena. 



P. J. Beveridge. 



[Mr. Beveridge's letter contains ample internal evidence that his 

 knowledge of the theory of evolution is derived from hearsay, and 

 that his personal acquaintance with it is of the very haziest and 

 most imperfect character. — Ed.] 



[When one considers Darwin's unwearying zeal and industry in 

 collecting and observing facts, his marvellous patience and skill in 

 analysing them, and his freedom from prejudice in interpreting 

 them, such facile and flippant comments as are passed on his work 

 by some who manifestly have never read with attention ten pages 

 of his master works, are amusing — to speak mildly of them. — R. P.] 



[1880]— Mr. Proctor, in his clever article entitled " George Eliot 

 on Mental Decay," has sufficiently exposed the false reasoning due 

 to theological bias ; but I think it will be found that in enforcing 

 his argument he has given undue prominence to mechanical doc- 

 trines, and has incurred the risk of being misunderstood upon a 

 very important subject. It is very natural to overstate a truth 

 when you have antagonists who can only dogmatise and assert; and 

 if I am right in my asEumption, I, for one, can sincerely sympathise 

 with the able Conductor of Knowledge in this respect. But I pre- 

 sume (and I hope I am right) that Mr. Proctor believes in some- 

 thing else than pure mechanism. It would not be unscientific for 

 him to suppose with Herbert Spencer that there is an unknowable 

 and infinite energj' underlying phenomena. [Why this is the very 

 religion of science, the soul of the worship of science, the founda- 

 tion of the whole system of duty inculcated by science. Where is 

 the man of science who does >wt believe this ? — R. P.] There is 

 nothing theological in the conception, and it would be more in 

 harmony with facts than causeless mechanism. Supposing this to 

 be the view of Mr. Proctor, it does not appear in his arguments j 

 and I call attention to the circumstance that he may correct any 

 misconception, if there is such. 



In supporting George Eliot's views by illustrations of his own, 

 drawn from music, he makes B. say : — 



" And yet, after all, there are musical passages, whose beauty 

 seems independent of the material qualities of the instrument." 



To which A. answers :-"Not one. . ." 



C. then asks : — " So music depends on mechanism after all ?" 



A. replies, and through A., Mr. Proctor : — " Undoubtedly. It 

 depends absolutely on mechanism." 



Now, I contend that this is not quite in harmony with the facts. 

 If mere beauty of sound were concerned the statement would be 

 perfectly true, but if musical thought and conception is referred to 

 as a part of music — which it is unquestionably — then it is not true 

 ■ ■■ )nlyto a small extent. Beethoven was deaf the greater part 



of h 



Of c 



md ha< 



withou 



tally hoard them, but instruments did 



>t create the music which c 



fli- ln<i ;..i ,■ ,.! :■■ \ ! . ■, II,' I .. , ,'. .! r ' ' I . ,■ !■ ndr the equal 



I may have niiBUiidorstood Mr. Proctor, but it seems to me that 

 ) has unduly emphasized the mechanical element in nature. 



Certainly, one school of " materialists " lay great stress upon this 

 feature; but the other school— to whom, I think, Herbert Spencer 

 belongs — while admitting final causes to be unknowable, yet admit 

 in that unknowable element the potency and creative energy for all 



[Although I think it unnecessary to explain that I meant what 

 I clearly said, I insert " Gamma's " letter, as presenting well 

 certain points which are often misunderstood. I said music depends 

 absolutely on mechanism, not music is mechanism. The same 

 mechanism may be used to bring out the mtisic of a Bach a 

 Beethoven a Handel or a Mozart, the melodies gay or sad which 

 move the musically untaught, the wearisome iteration of the 

 common sorts of dance music, or the meaningless thumping of a. 

 child. Every one of these products depends on the mechanism. 

 That they are so unlike shows that there ia something outside the 

 mere mechanism. As my object was specially to show that George 

 Eliot's words had not the meaning which "Gamma" thinks may 

 be found in mine,— and as I definitely showed this by the illustra- 

 tion I derived from music (note especially the distinction dwelt 

 upon in the last paragraph but two), " Gamma's " elucidation waa 

 unnecessary. But being good, in itself, let it stand. — R. P.] 



" DOUBLING UP TOUR HAVES." 



[1881] — I have a great respect for Mr. Proctor's opinions on most 

 subjects, but I must confess that I entirely agree with " Hallyards " 

 in considering " I should have like to have seen" an odious phrase, 

 and I am surprised to find Mr. Proctor defending it. And yet 

 similar phrases are constantly used, not only in common parlance, 

 but in books otherwise well written. Most persona will confess it 

 is incorrect when their attention is called to it, but a few maintain 

 that all the verbs in a sentence should be in the same tense. Mark 

 Twain calls it " Doubling up your haves," but then at present he is 

 not regarded as an authority by Knowledge. A similar erpression 

 is, "I meant to have gone," when what was originally " meant " was 

 "to go." E. C. H. 



[I did not defend the phrase, and I never use it. What I said 

 was that it conveys a certain meaning not quite conveyed by any 

 other form of expression. Mark Twain is not an authority here on 

 science ; but a writer of so much experience is necessarily an 

 authority on the use of words and forms of expression. — R. P.] 



"THE WELL OF ENGLISH UNDEFILED." 

 — Much has been said of late respecting the loose and 

 way of speaking and writing common among people who 

 presumably are fairly educated, and I may perhaps be allowed to 

 call attention to the following vulgar illiteratisms : — " Different 

 to," for different from. " Those sort of people," for that sort. 

 " Either side of the way," when the sense clearly indicates that 

 each should be used ; an error very common among popular 

 authors. " I shall have much pleasure in accepting," Ac, 

 instead of I have, cum multis aliis, .but the above are among 

 the most general errors of common parlance. With regard to 

 pronunciation, one may often suppose that the rule in our dic- 

 tionaries that the comma after and above a syllable indicates 

 that it is accentuated ia not generally understood, or we should 

 not so often hear such mistakes as, centrifn'gal, contripe'tal, 

 Ser'apis ; and among the clergy, inspi'ration is far more common 

 than the i in the second syllable pronounced like e short. 



These are a few indications of a faulty system of education in 

 the past, which in large schools especially apparently took for 

 granted that children were intuitively gifted with a fair knowledgo 

 of their own language, or were grounded as infants. 



P.S. — I heard the present Bishop of London called pedantic for 

 rightly pronouncing i'aolate, is'olate. 



[Prof. Young, of Princeton, N.J., assured me that "different to" 



ia a specially English mistake. It is such a bad mistake that I can 



dly think it as common in English writing as he says he finds it 



' Differin] 



vith" 

 )'bad, h 



a person is 

 fact c ■ 



listakc. 





