88 LUCK, OR CUNNING? 



descent; practically, however, it so turned out that 

 we unhesitatingly gave that theory to the author, 

 being, as I have said, carried away by the three large 

 " Origins of Species " (which we understood as much 

 the same thing as descent with modification), and 

 finding, as I shall show in a later chapter, that descent 

 was ubiquitously claimed throughout the work, either 

 expressly or by implication, as Mr. Darwin's theory. 

 It is not easy to see how any one with ordinary 

 instincts could hesitate to believe that Mr. Darwin 

 was entitled to claim what he claimed with so much 

 insistance. If " ars est celare artem " Mr. Darwin must 

 be allowed to have been a consummate artist, for it 

 took us years to understand the ins and outs of what 

 had been done. 



I may say in passing that we never see the " Origin 

 of Species " spoken of as " On the Origin of Species, 

 &c.," or as "The Origin of Species, &c." (the word 

 "on" being dropped in the latest editions). The 

 distinctive feature of the book lies, according to its 

 admirers, in the "&c," but they never give it. To 

 avoid pedantry I shall continue to speak of the 

 " Origin of Species.'' 



At any rate it will be admitted that Mr. Darwin 

 did not make his title-page express his meaning so 

 clearly that his readers could readily catch the point 

 of difference between himself and his grandfather and 

 Lamarck; nevertheless the point just touched upon 

 involves the only essential difference between the 

 systems of Mr. Charles Darwin and those of his three 

 most important predecessors. All four writers agree 



