To Miss Grace Notion.

June 6, 1871.

... I have finished, in the mean time, an article of nearly forty pages for the “North American Review,” against Mr. Mivart’s book, and in the defence and illustration of the theory of Natural Selection. The Genesis of Species: North American Review, July, 1871; Philosophical Discussions, p. 126. ⁶³

I might give you as a foretaste a few of the plums of the meditations which have so lately filled my mind; but I have too much respect for the individuality of a letter and for its true source in one’s present imagination, however shallow, to fill it from the memory of past inspirations, however profound. If such had not been my pride, what epistles I might have copied and sent out to you last winter! I will say, however, that among the boldest positions I have taken against Mr. Mivart’s theological science are the theses that the doctrine of Final Causes in natural science is not Christian, but Platonic; and that the principle of the theory of Natural Selection is taught in the discourse of Jesus with Nicodemus the Pharisee. Don’t imagine, however, that I have given much space to such considerations. Most of the article is devoted to a discussion of the proper evidences of the theory.

. . . What public events, too, have altered the face of the world! I wish we could hope that the bloody peace just conquered in Paris would last; or that there were cunning enough in the supporters of the present order of things in Europe to forestall such revolutions by a wise as well as strong conduct of public affairs. But I don’t despair of the millennium, or doubt absolutely that the human race may yet find out the secret of peaceful progress, and finally lose the character through which it has risen from animality by

greater powers of destruction than belong to any other race. We cannot hope that any such change will come by the decay of evil passions, or through the influence of good sentiments, until a field for such a culture is prepared through the permanent conquest of strength by wisdom, — that is, by cunning: so that the king shall need no longer to depend on his dukes, or send them before him in bloody battles, and the statesmen have no more need of generals in governing, than men now have of their eye-teeth in securing food or captives. Till then, men cannot be made sufficiently Christian to keep the peace. It may be, or doubtless is, true that Paris has brought destruction on itself, because it was not Christian; but this is as little pertinent to a practical view of the matter as is the fact that its palaces were burnt because they were not fireproof. If it were a question whether the barbarism of to day in Europe were best subdued by priests or schoolmasters, by preaching or teaching, such a fact as the irreligious character of the communists would be important to the statesman. But their ignorance is really the more important fact, since priests cannot reach them now, but schoolmasters may. Priests were themselves the schoolmasters, the teachers of the best learning, in their best and truly effective days. And the question is not so much between religious and secular instruction as between the effete and the effective; or what needs support from society, and what gives support to it. The latter, doubtless, still includes, and must always include, a more or less special culture ; that is, a culture of feelings and habits, especially the social and practical.

But one of the chief difficulties with otherwise clear-sighted thinkers, on this theme, is that they are anxious about a substitute for the effete religion, which shall still be, as the old has been, a culture separated out from all the other enlightening and refining influences of civilization. They are searchers for a new religion,—for a new set of propped-up

and protected institutes of culture, — for a new church; recognizing, as the old Romans did, by what was doubtless an early compromise in the formation of the state, two sources of authority in law, and two sets of laws, the divine and human. But new churches are essentially schismatic, and none can be catholic; and these thinkers, though earnest and liberal, are not utilitarian. Utilitarianism is indeed their natural enemy, as they instinctively know, though they have their attention distracted from its true position, which is that there is one source of culture and refinement, — namely, the best that civilization affords; and one source of authority in laws and customs, — namely, the needs of human security, progress, and happiness; and one priesthood, — namely, of the educated and refined, those who feel and understand most deeply the needs and conditions of human or social happiness.

I almost forgot to tell you that I was invited by the Committee of the Free Religious Association to address them in the anniversary week, just past, on “The Attitude of Science toward Religion,” — or rather to follow the Rev. John Weiss, who was to make the chief remarks on this theme. They wanted one scientific man to speak, who was not a minister. I must not forget to add that I did not hesitate to decline the honor.

In declining, however, I felt bound to give a reason beside what modesty suggested, or at least a sentiment; and I said in effect, while disclaiming any special knowledge or other than a very subordinate interest in this subject, that I believed no necessary conflict existed between inquisitiveness and proper reverence, and that whatever free inquiry might effect towards destroying our respect for old doctrines of science or philosophy, which have received the sanction and support of religious authorities, there will yet be room enough for human improvement in directions in which reverence will still lead and teach,—at least the practical nature of man. But I

preferred rather to subscribe to this article of faith than to expound or defend it.

Your picture of the view from the spot where, as you imagine, Galileo, seeing the same old moon rising over the same old city, thought his great heresy over, — is a sketch of one of the attitudes of science towards religion, which I might have expatiated on, if I had had the skill or courage to do it, though the theme is far from new. Few things could be more instructive concerning the present position of biological science than the series of such independent attitudes that the history of science presents. I have drawn a parallel, in my article, between Darwinism and Newtonism in their relations to the methods and demands of “experimental philosophy.” This seems to me to be, on the whole, the better way,—better than the invidious reproach of religious authority for its series of blind oppositions and failures, or the glorification of science for its successes; since such a simple induction, or series of instances in the “chemical method,” is apt to be fallacious when applied to such questions. For the latest claim against authority, in the name of science, is not more apt to be true on account of such arguments, — to which, indeed, charlatans are generally more ready to appeal than the true philosophers. The same sort of argument is easily invented by the other side. Thus, Darwinism might be put down similarly by showing how often the same heresy has previously undergone miserable condemnation, even at the hands of scientific authority. The only way is to analyze the instances, and, accounting for the success of some and the failure of others, to try the new by the principle of philosophizing thus established. “Sentimental relations with poor, dear Galileo” are, therefore, of little avail for the defence of new heresy. Many a village Galileo or Kepler has doubtless thought himself a martyr (and been one too) at the hands of village hierarchs and schoolmasters, who knew no better than

he how foolish his ideas were, but only how obstinate and schismatic he was.

... It was pleasant to see Mr. Myers back again, so fresh and full of the most agreeable recollections of his journeys and visits. I have met him several times, and a few evenings ago had a very bright and pleasant call from him.

Of the article on “The Genesis of Species,” Chauncey sent proof-sheets to Mr. Darwin; and in a letter to him, dated June 21, 1871, he wrote: —

“I send, in the same mail with this, revised proofs of an article which will be published in the July number of the ‘North American Review,’ sending it in the hope that it will interest or even be of greater value to you. Mr. Mivart’s book, of which this article is substantially a review, seems to me a very good background from which to present the considerations which I have endeavored to set forth in the article, in defence and illustration of the theory of Natural Selection. My special purpose has been to contribute to the theory by placing it in its proper relations to philosophical inquiries in general.”

This was the beginning of a correspondence with Mr. Darwin which continued up to the last year of Chauncey’s life, and gave him much pleasure. Mr. Darwin replied to this letter, on July 14, with great cordiality, and asked leave to reprint the article in the form of a pamphlet. “I have hardly ever in my life,” he writes, “received an article which has given me so much satisfaction as the review which you have been so kind as to send me. I agree to almost every thing which you say. Your memory must be wonderfully accurate, for you know my works as well as I do myself, and your power of grasping other men’s thoughts is something quite surprising; and this, as far as my experience goes, is a very rare quality. As I read on, I perceived how you have acquired

this power; namely, by thoroughly analyzing each word. . . . Now I am going to beg a favor. Will you provisionally give me permission to reprint your article as a pamphlet? I ask it only provisionally, as I have not yet had time to reflect on the subject.”

On July 17, Mr. Darwin again wrote: “I have been looking over your review again; and it seems to me and others so excellent that, if I receive your permission, with a title, I will republish it, notwithstanding that I am afraid pamphlets on literary or scientific subjects never will sell in England.”