5 
i88o.] The History of Evolutionism > 
ologists were everywhere expounding their favourite dogma 
of “ Man, the measure and the purpose of all things.” 
Foremost among them stood Paley, utterly incapable of 
rising to any true biological conception, but bold, plausible, 
and popular, on account of his a posteriori demonstration of 
the existence of God. No small part of his works may be 
said to have been written at Erasmus Darwin, though the 
latter is never mentioned by name. Still more unfortunate, 
in the state of public opinion then prevalent in England, 
was the fa<5t that Darwin’s predecessor, Buffon, and his 
immediate successor, Lamarck, were both Frenchmen.. As 
such they were at once set down as atheists and “jacobins,” 
and an unmerited and groundless stigma was thus attached 
to the very idea of Evolution. Dr. Darwin s “ Loves of the 
Plants ” was burlesqued by the Anti-Jacobin in a humorous 
effusion entitled the “ Loves of the Triangles,” and he him- 
self was very openly accused of atheism. The wanton 
malice or the gross ignorance displayed in this charge must 
be apparent to all who have taken the trouble to read his 
works. It would be easy to quote, from the writings of this 
so-called “ atheist,” ascriptions of praise and glory to God 
which almost rise to the fervour and dignity of psalms. 
But even in our own — as we would fain hope — more candid 
times we see but too clearly on what slender evidence such 
accusations are made. Has not the younger Darwin him- 
self been denounced, by some who certainly know better, as 
the conscious and intentional apostle of infidelity ? 
A little later on in the century the influence of Cuvier 
and his school was no less hostile to a candid consideration 
of the arguments in favour of Evolution. Acute, laborious, 
and, in some departments at least, a keen and indefatigable 
collector of fa<fts, the great French professor was wanting 
in the true philosophic spirit, and tainted to the core with 
that “ aletheophobia ” which is the bane of official science. 
Of him it has been well said that his influence threw back 
scientific biology for at least one generation. 
In England we suffered, in addition, from the predomi- 
nance of the Quinarian school, as represented by Swainson. 
Until the atmosphere was cleared of all these .mists and 
clouds no true progress could be effected, and it is there- 
fore no wonder if the clue given by the elder Darwin 
was negledted and his methods of investigation not fol- 
lowed up. 
But we may go further : another cause remains why 
Erasmus Darwin failed to convince his contemporaries and 
his more immediate successors, and upon this we cannot 
