410 Goodale — Development of Botany Since 1818. 



win and Agassiz, "for this contrast brings out most 

 prominently and sets in strongest light and shade the 

 main features of the theory of the origination of species 

 by means of Natural Selection.' ' He then states both 

 sides with great fairness, and proceeds : 



"Who shall decide between such extreme views so ably main- 

 tained on either hand, and say how much truth there may be 

 in each. The present reviewer has not the presumption to under- 

 take such a task. Having no prepossession in favor of natur- 

 alistic theories, but struck with the eminent ability of Mr. 

 Darwin's work, and charmed with its fairness, our humbler duty 

 will be performed if, laying aside prejudice as much as we can, 

 we shall succeed in giving a fair account of its method and argu- 

 ment, offering by the way a few suggestions such as might occur 

 to any naturalist of an inquiring mind. An editorial character 

 for this article must in justice be disclaimed. The plural pro- 

 noun is employed not to give editorial weight, but to avoid even 

 the appearance of egotism and also the circumlocution which 

 attends a rigorous adherence to the impersonal style. ' ' 



In this review he moves slowly and thoughtfully, but 

 not timidly, over the new paths. There is no clear indi- 

 cation in the review that he has yet made up his mind as 

 to the validity of Darwin's hypothesis. But, in a sec- 

 ond article appearing in the Journal for September of 

 the same year (30, 226), under the title "Discussion 

 between two readers of Darwin's treatise on the origin 

 of species upon its natural theology" Gray plainly begins 

 to incline to take a very favorable view of the. Darwinian 

 theory, and makes use of the following ingenious illus- 

 tration to show that it is not inconsistent with theistic 

 design. A few paragraphs here quoted show the felicity 

 of his style in a controverted matter : 



"Recall a woman of a past generation and show her a web 

 of cloth; ask her how it was made, and she will say that the 

 wool or cotton was carded, spun, and woven by hand. When 

 you tell her it was not made by manual labor, that probably no 

 hands have touched the materials throughout the process, it is 

 possible that she might at first regard your statement as tanta- 

 mount to the assertion that the cloth was made without design. 

 If she did, she would not credit your statement. If you 

 patiently explained to her the theory of carding-machines, spin- 

 ning-jennies, and power-looms, would her reception of your 

 explanation weaken her conviction that the cloth was the result 

 of design? It is certain that she would believe in design as 

 firmly as before, and that this belief would be attended by a 



