206 
Charles Darwin : 
[April 
We must protest against the assertion — “ All agree that 
his introducing a Creator to breathe the breath of life into 
the first form was mere subterfuge.” All do not so agree 1 
Few of those who have studied Darwin fairly and faithfully 
in his works — fewer still of the more fortunate circle who 
have enjoyed his personal intimacy — will be ready to accuse 
him of a “ subterfuge.” A chivalrous devotion to truth, 
quite independent of its possible bearings upon his theories, 
his reputation, or his interests, was one of the most strongly 
marked features of his character. Whether in the latter 
part of his life he adopted atheistic opinions — as is asserted 
by Prof. Haeckel, Dr. Aveling, and others both among his 
admirers and his enemies — is not here the question. But 
that he wrote the memorable concluding passage of the 
“ Origin of Species ” in good faith we shall uphold until we 
meet with very decisive evidence to the contrary. 
The joint verdift of Thomas Carlyle and of Mr. Henry 
George Atkinson, that Darwin was a man of “ very little 
intellect, ” is too ridiculous for formal examination, and will 
be endorsed only by those who cherish the well-known aspi- 
ration of Dogberry. To give a new impulse and a new 
direction to every department of Organic Science, to breathe 
into research a new spirit, a veritable breath of life, must be 
recognised as a very different task from writing essays and 
histories, in however striking or grotesque language. 
It is common for the religious world to infer that every 
atheist, everyone who can be included under the ill-defined 
classes of “ infidels ” and “skeptics,” must of necessity be 
Evolutionists and admirers of Darwin. Let them remember 
that Auguste Comte, and his followers the “ Positivists,” 
with perhaps the single exception of the late George Henry 
Lewes, are decidedly hostile to Evolution. And here we 
find a most contemptuous estimate of Darwin formed by 
such heresiarchs as Carlyle and Mr. H. G. Atkinson. 
But enough of these worthies : let us turn to a more 
pleasing task, and examine the judgment pronounced upon 
our great naturalist by competent authorities — his friends 
and fellow-workers. 
Prof. Huxley, in his “ Introductory Notice,” appreciative 
as it is, and breathing a noble affeCtion for the Departed, 
contains one unfortunate passage to the effeCt that “ One 
could not converse with Darwin without being reminded of 
Socrates.” Perhaps had Prof. Huxley ever conversed with 
Socrates he would not have ventured on this comparison. 
The vast difference between the two was explained in the 
“ Journal of Science ” for June last. 
