1884.] 
Analyses of Books. 
289 
Had he said “to Darwin or Haeckel, to Agassiz or Leconte,” this 
dialogue would have had a greater semblance of probability. 
The refrain “ 0 God ! O Montreal ! ” is little suited to English 
tastes. To the Theist of every grade it seems irreverent, and to 
the Agnostic and the Atheist simply foolish. 
From an examination of the Preface, as well as from other 
portions of the book before us, we learn that Mr. Butler’s rela- 
tions with his brother-evolutionists are, as diplomatists say, in a 
state of tension. He has a difference with Mr. Romanes, and 
remarks that “ It is no longer usual for men of any but the 
lowest scientific standing to corredt their misstatements when 
they are brought to book. Science is made for Fellows of the 
Royal Society, and for no one else, not Fellows of the Royal 
Society for Science ; and if the having achieved a certain posi- 
tion should still involve being obliged to be as scrupulous and 
accurate as other people, what is the good of the position ? ” 
Again, “ If I had not ere now had reason to set down Mr. 
Romanes as one who was not likely to be squeamish about 
trifles.” These passages, which we find in the Preface, refer to 
an error made by Mr. Romanes in asserting that the late Canon 
Kingsley had sent to “ Nature,” in January, 1867, a letter on 
inherited memory. In reality, as Mr. Romanes has since shown, 
the quotation should have been from “ Fraser” for June, 1867. 
Canon Kingsley there and then, treating of the migration of 
birds, writes : — “ Something told him (the wood wren) that his 
mother had done it before him, and he was flesh of her flesh, 
life of her life, and had inherited her instinct, as we call heredi- 
tary memory, in order to avoid the trouble of finding out what it 
is and how it comes.” Mr. Butler, however, is by no means fully 
satisfied. He writes : — “ It is plain that he (Mr. Romanes) in- 
tends to convey the idea that Canon Kingsley advanced the 
theory that instincft generally is inherited memory, which indeed 
his words do ; but it is hardly credible that he should have left 
them where he did if he had realised their importance.” 
At any rate the publication of Canon Kingsley’s words with 
the exadt reference to their source should exculpate Mr. Romanes 
from the charges brought against him in the Preface. Mr. Butler 
is not of this opinion. He writes : — “ The late Mr. Darwin 
himself, indeed, — whose mantle seems to have fallen more espe- 
cially and particularly on Mr. Romanes, — could not contradidt 
himself more hopelessly than Mr. Romanes does.” Again : — 
“ Fortunately Mr. Romanes is not Mr. Darwin ; and though he 
has certainly got Mr. Darwin's mantle, and got it very much too, 
it will not on Mr. Romanes’ shoulders hide a good deal that 
people were not going to observe too closely while Mr. Darwin 
wore it.” It is somewhat singular that whilst Darwin had, in 
the earlier part of his career, enemies so many, so influential, 
and so able, any faults or shortcomings of his could remain hid- 
den to be ultimately detected by Mr. Butler! 
