DARWIN AND AFTER DARWIN. 313 



dogmatic theory of supernatural design. To begin with, we must 

 remember that the fact of evolution — or, which is the same thing, 

 the fact of continuity in natural causation — has now been un- 

 questionably proved in so many other and analogous departments 

 of nature, that to suppose any interruption of this method as 

 between species and species becomes, on grounds of such analogy 

 alone, well-nigh incredible. For example, it is now a matter of 

 demonstrated fact that throughout the range of inorganic nature 

 the principles of evolution have obtained." 



How would the founders of evolution relish this method of 

 exposition? Fifteen pages before this astonishing passage— and in 

 fact on the second page of his volume — Mr. Romanes is eloquent 

 about "the revolt against the purely subjective methods," the 

 "addiction to a priori methods," &c. One is tempted to wonder 

 whether words bear their meaning to this teacher. The precise 

 meaning of "subjective" is frequently missed, and, since it is a 

 favourite word of this writer, it would be well if he studied its 

 import a little more closely. It seems to embrace all for which he 

 has a fine contempt, and the above-quoted passage may be recom- 

 mended to him for inclusion. He begins with the gaseous statement 

 about fetishism, &c, comes to the admirable platitudes in the first 

 sentence quoted— next to the argument (?) of the " It must be 

 obvious to any mind" pattern, and in the following sentence to the 

 fact of evolution, which, by an amazing assumption, is taken for 

 the same thing as " the fact of continuity in natural causation." 



He regards the fact of evolution to have been so proved by 

 "analogy alone " that any other hypothesis is "well nigh incredible. ,, 

 What blind idiots all the naturalists (but one or two) in the early 

 half of this century must have been ! What was Bobert Brown 

 thinking of, or Bentham before his conversion— if evolution be so 

 easily established! Analogy is all that is needed. Why did 

 Darwin toil? Let us return to Mr. Bomanes' analogy of the 

 inorganic world, with its "demonstrated fact" of evolution. "It 

 is no longer possible for anyone to believe" — but really, why 

 quote passages beginning in this way. Mr. Bomanes goes on to 

 state that there have been gradual changes of relative positions in 

 oceans, continents and mountain-chains (by-the-bye, he should be 

 more cautious about the want of permanence in continents). That 

 is all— one sentence ; geology has shown us that, and we are back 

 to animate nature. That is the whole analogy of the inorganic 

 world ! Is change, then, the same thing as evolution in Mr. 

 Romanes' judgment ? There may be "an overwhelming weight of 

 antecedent presumption" in favour of the theory of evolution ; it is 

 not denied here, and nobody cares ; but there is not a little of the 

 same quality residing in this attempt to expound the views of Mr. 

 Darwin. It would be easy to multiply instances— they abound in 

 this book— of this kind of argument, if I may be pardoned for 



robbing the word of its dignity. 



We are not concerned here with the zoological part of the work, 

 the major part, nor is there any attempt here made to consider the 



evidence in favour of natural selection; these subjects stand or fall by 



