49 8 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



ly poured forth. The following passage 

 from an elaborate article on Prof. Ag- 

 assiz, iu one of our leading morning 

 papers, is a fair example of a good deal 

 of the talk that has been latterly in- 

 dulged in by the press : " His views of 

 the development of animal species, op- 

 posed entirely to the gloomy theory of 

 Darwin, which has fallen so oppressive- 

 ly upon the world, while they neglect no 

 fact and break no link in the chain of 

 progress, are marked by a recognition 

 of a distinct humanity and a high crea- 

 tive purpose in the Divine origin of all 

 things which elevate and cheer and 

 relieve us of the sickening conscious- 

 ness that man, 'the paragon of ani- 

 mals,' is merely a growth from some 

 shapeless, loathsome jelly." 



"We have here a moral estimate of 

 "jelly," and a vehement denial of its 

 fitness to be the material from which 

 the " paragon of animals " originates ; 

 the bare idea being declared sufficient 

 to shroud the universe in gloom, and 

 fairly to make one sick. But perplex- 

 ing questions here arise. Omnes vivum 

 ex ovo, and the substance of all eggs 

 is jelly; but, if this substance was not 

 fit to use at the primal start of life, 

 why is it so extensively employed 

 now? If not fit for the elaboration 

 of the lowest creatures, how came it 

 to be employed, in unfolding the "par- 

 agon ? " and, if not always used, pray 

 when and why was it introduced ? 

 One would think, from the writer's 

 horror of "jelly," that he regarded 

 it as a diabolical invention of Darwin ; 

 threatening a kind of gelatinous " fall of 

 man," from which Prof. Agassiz has had 

 the happiness of rescuing the world, and 

 restoring it to cheerfulness. But really 

 Mr. Darwin is responsible for neither 

 the existence nor the office nor the ex- 

 tent of "jelly" in Nature; and of all 

 men Prof. Agassiz is the last to lead a 

 crusade against it. As an eminent em- 

 bryologist, he might properly be called 

 the high-priest of "jelly." He was 

 never weary of explaining that all liv- I 



ing things — each man, as well as every 

 inferior animal — is actually evolved 

 from a little mass of "jelly;" and, 

 while he would probably have agreed 

 as to its shapelessness, he would cer- 

 tainly have protested against its 

 "loathsomeness." He who said that 

 " our philosophers and theologians ' 

 (and, he might have added, our editors) 

 require to be taught that " a physical 

 fact is as sacred as a moral principle," 

 would hardly have sickened over the 

 "loathsomeness" of that plastic mate- 

 rial which we know to be the starting- 

 point of all organic development. 



Agassiz held that Nature is to be re- 

 garded as the material embodiment of 

 divine ideas, and, after dwelling with 

 delight upon the curious forms and con- 

 stitutions of creatures composed almost 

 wholly of "jelly," he would say, " These 

 are the thoughts of the Almighty,"* 

 On his view, "jelly " was the chosen 

 and specially honored material for the 

 expression of the divine conceptions. 

 Prof. Agassiz would certainly have con- 

 sidered the little protoplasmic speck, 

 which, in the course of natural opera- 

 tions, can evolve in a few years into a 

 Newton, a Shakespeare, or even a 

 President of the United States, as an 

 exceedingly interesting portion of the 

 divine order. If the germ contains 

 potentially the future being, and if a 

 highly-developed race transmits its ap- 

 titudes and capacities from generation 

 to generation, then is "jelly" an insti- 

 tution of God for the conservation of 

 perfected man, and the civilization that 

 he carries with him. 



With such evidences as this of the 

 prevailing state of mind, no wonder 

 that the great naturalist was vehement 

 almost to fanaticism in his advocacy of 

 scientific education. In old prescientific 

 times, Nature was held accursed ; and 

 that such stuff as we have here quoted 

 could find entrance into a widely-cir- 

 culated organ of public opinion, is 

 proof to how great an extent we are 

 still dominated by middle-age ideas. 



