NATURE : 
309 
THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1870 
MR. DARWIN AND THE FRENCH INSTITUTE 
HE judgment of foreign nations gives the best clue 
to that of posterity ; anditis therefore with peculiar 
interest that the countrymen of Mr. Darwin have watched 
the reception of his works in France and Germany. 
In the latter country his theory of the origin of species 
has been more or less completely accepted by those 
best qualified to judge, including men like Gegenbaur 
and Haeckel ; and it has produced a complete literature of 
arguments and facts “fiir Darwin,” without encountering 
any very serious opposition. In France, the truth of the 
theory is far less extensively admitted, and has been lately 
the subject of prolonged discussion in the Academy of 
Sciences. The debate on Mr. Darwin’s claims has now 
been adjourned for three months, but so far as it was 
reported in our last number it furnishes much ground for 
reflection. 
At the present time, Imperial France is, perhaps, the 
most conservative in science of any country in Europe. 
It is not, therefore, surprising that, with a few exceptions 
like M. Claparéde, French naturalists refuse to accept the 
theory of Natural Selection, and do not see (as others, 
and notably the Germans do) that it has already made a 
new epoch in human knowledge. Some, like M. Robin, 
object that it is not “demonstrable,” and therefore not 
scientific at all; as if gravitation or the atomic theory 
had been, or could ever be, demonstrated like a proposi- 
tion of Euclid. The Darwinian theory offers an explana- 
tion of acknowledged facts by the help of others equally 
indisputable, and it will only be “ disproved ” when it ceases 
to furnish an adequate explanation, or is superseded by a 
more simple and equally sufficienthypothesis. Meanwhileit 
fulfils, at any rate, one object of every theory, by stimulating 
research in all directions, and awakening new interests for 
the fresh investigations which it suggests. The speeches 
of MM. Milne-Edwards and de Quatrefages are especially 
worthy of note ; though opposed to the conclusions of 
“The Origin of Species,” both these distinguished men dis- 
cuss them with the intelligence and clearness of French- 
men and the tolerance of philosophers : and both accord 
to the earlier works of Mr, Darwin the hearty praise 
which they deserve. 
Two points come out very clearly in the course of this 
debate. First, that the wide extent of a scientific man’s 
labours may hinder them from being properly appreciated. 
Geologists, whoknow wellthe value of Mr. Darwin’s writings 
on the formation of coral islands, are ignorant of his admi- 
rable series of observations on the fertilisation of orchids ; 
and many who are startled by the boldness of his specu- 
lations in zoology would feel more confidence in his judg- 
ment, were they acquainted with his work on barnacles— 
“ ouvrage, selon M. Milne-Edwards, qui depuis sa publi- 
cation suffit 4 tous les besoins de la science.” The field 
of natural history is now so cut up, that a great dipterist 
may be almost ignorant of many orders of insects, and 
quite so of other animals. Few professed geologists have 
an adequate knowledge of physiology, botany, and 
geology, and thus we fear science often loses in breadth 
what is gained in minuteness. One cannot, of course, 
VOL. II. 
hope even to touch upon all the provinces which Aristotle 
“ruled as his demesne,” and the extent of Hunter’s or of 
Cuvier’s range is probably too great for modern times ; 
but, after all, the theory of natural selection would scarcely 
have been framed by one who had studied nature in a less 
comprehensive spirit than Mr. Darwin. 
Another remarkable point, which was brought forward in 
the Academy as a reproach to the English naturalist, is 
that his researches are those of an amateur. M. Milne- 
Edwards met the accusation in the best possible way,—by 
admitting it: “Si lon entend par amateur un homme 
qui aime passionnément la science, et qui s’y consacre 
tout entier sans en attendre aucune rétribution—oui, 
M. Darwin est un amateur, un grand amateur.” But for 
us in England it is a serious consideration how far it is 
wise to rely so exclusively as we do upona continued 
succession of such amateurs. The result upon the 
English character of our entire disregard of science as a 
pursuit of national importance is what might have been 
expected. When with us a man by his own independent 
energies comes tothefront rank, heis pretty sureto make an 
epoch in science, be he never so much an amateur in French 
eyes. Such were Hunter and Faraday. Of such men we 
can boast at the present moment among the greatest 
living historians, philosophers, and political economists of 
Europe. 
But, on the other hand, we have never had a continuous 
“school” in any branch of learning, and as a distinct re- 
sult the mass of our scientific work is much below the 
standard of average excellence abroad. Nowhere, pro- 
bably, are text-books so slovenly and imperfect as in Eng- 
land ; nowhere are even good workers inthe rank and file 
of science so narrow and unenlightened ; and nowhere does 
the attainment of equal results so little affect the cha- 
racter of the nation. Whether we shall ever succeed in 
uniting the discipline and organisation of French science 
with the freedom and individuality of our own is hard to 
say, but unless something be done in this direction, we 
must be content every now and then to see a whole branch 
like Physiology become almost extinct in this country. 
The success which has attended the efforts made in Ger- 
many (chiefly within this century alone) to establish 
scientific research in a durable manner, and as a part of 
the national organisation, may at least encourage us to 
forward the attempt here. In the meantime, as we have 
no system of establishing and fostering schools, we must 
hope for men who cannot be repressed. 
Another point introduced by M. Robin was, that con- 
sidered in respect of demonstrable facts which Darwin 
had introduced into science, there would be a hundred 
zoologists who should have precedence over him. 
“Si des publications de M. Darwin, on élimine les 
vues dont ni la réalité ni la fausseté ne sont démon- 
trables, et qui dés lors ne sont plus objets de science, il 
lui reste un ensemble de titres qui est inférieur A celui 
que représentent les données scientifiques bien démon- 
trées introduites dans la science par M. Bischoff; il lui 
reste méme moins de titres 4 nos souffrages qu’ a quel- 
ques-uns des savants qui sont placés ex @guo avec lui sur 
notre liste de présentation. Ce sont 1a les raisons qui 
mont conduit a ne pas porter M. Darwin au premier 
rang, et il m’ a paru qu’elles ont influé sur le vote des autres 
membres de la majorité do la section.” 
R 
