Unconscious Memory(Fiscle Part-3) by Samuel Butler (best novels ever .TXT) 📖
- Author: Samuel Butler
Book online «Unconscious Memory(Fiscle Part-3) by Samuel Butler (best novels ever .TXT) 📖». Author Samuel Butler
From And Additions To The German Text. Let It Suffice That The So-
Called Translation Begins On P. 131 And Ends On P. 216 Of Mr.
Darwin's Book. There Is New Matter On Each One Of The Pp. 132-139,
While Almost The Whole Of Pp. 147-152 Inclusive, And The Whole Of Pp.
211-216 Inclusive, Are Spurious--That Is To Say, Not What The Purport
To Be, Not Translations From An Article That Was Published In
February 1879, And Before "Evolution, Old And New," But
Interpolations Not Published Till Six Months After That Book.
Bearing In Mind The Contents Of Two Of The Added Passages And The
Tenor Of The Concluding Sentence Quoted Above, {44b} I Could No
Longer Doubt That The Article Had Been Altered By The Light Of And
With A View To "Evolution, Old And New."
The Steps Are Perfectly Clear. First Dr. Krause Published His
Article In Kosmos And My Book Was Announced (Its Purport Being Thus
Made Obvious), Both In The Month Of February 1879. Soon Afterwards
Arrangements Were Made For A Translation Of Dr. Krause's Essay, And
Were Completed By The End Of April. Then My Book Came Out, And In
Some Way Or Other Dr. Krause Happened To Get Hold Of It. He Helped
Himself--Not To Much, But To Enough; Made What Other Additions To And
Omissions From His Article He Thought Would Best Meet "Evolution, Old
And New," And Then Fell To Condemning That Book In A Finale That Was
Meant To Be Crushing. Nothing Was Said About The Revision Which Dr.
Krause's Work Had Undergone, But It Was Expressly And Particularly
Declared In The Preface That The English Translation Was An Accurate
Version Of What Appeared In The February Number Of Kosmos, And No
Chapter 4 Pg 55Less Expressly And Particularly Stated That My Book Was Published
Subsequently To This. Both These Statements Are Untrue; They Are In
Mr. Darwin's Favour And Prejudicial To Myself.
All This Was Done With That Well-Known "Happy Simplicity" Of Which
The Pall Mall Gazette, December 12, 1879, Declared That Mr. Darwin
Was "A Master." The Final Sentence, About The "Weakness Of Thought
And Mental Anachronism Which No One Can Envy," Was Especially
Successful. The Reviewer In The Pall Mall Gazette Just Quoted From
Gave It In Full, And Said That It Was Thoroughly Justified. He Then
Mused Forth A General Gnome That The "Confidence Of Writers Who Deal
In Semi-Scientific Paradoxes Is Commonly In Inverse Proportion To
Their Grasp Of The Subject." Again My Vanity Suggested To Me That I
Was The Person For Whose Benefit This Gnome Was Intended. My Vanity,
Indeed, Was Well Fed By The Whole Transaction; For I Saw That Not
Only Did Mr. Darwin, Who Should Be The Best Judge, Think My Work
Worth Notice, But That He Did Not Venture To Meet It Openly. As For
Dr. Krause's Concluding Sentence, I Thought That When A Sentence Had
Been Antedated The Less It Contained About Anachronism The Better.
Only One Of The Reviews That I Saw Of Mr. Darwin's "Life Of Erasmus
Darwin" Showed Any Knowledge Of The Facts. The Popular Science
Review For January 1880, In Flat Contradiction To Mr. Darwin's
Preface, Said That Only Part Of Dr. Krause's Article Was Being Given
By Mr. Darwin. This Reviewer Had Plainly Seen Both Kosmos And Mr.
Darwin's Book.
In The Same Number Of The Popular Science Review, And Immediately
Following The Review Of Mr. Darwin's Book, There Is A Review Of
"Evolution, Old And New." The Writer Of This Review Quotes The
Passage About Mental Anachronism As Quoted By The Reviewer In The
Pall Mall Gazette, And Adds Immediately: "This Anachronism Has Been
Committed By Mr. Samuel Butler In A . . . Little Volume Now Before
Us, And It Is Doubtless To This, Which Appeared While His Own Work
Was In Progress [Italics Mine] That Dr. Krause Alludes In The
Foregoing Passage." Considering That The Editor Of The Popular
Science Review And The Translator Of Dr. Krause's Article For Mr.
Darwin Are One And The Same Person, It Is Likely The Popular Science
Review Is Well Informed In Saying That My Book Appeared Before Dr.
Krause's Article Had Been Transformed Into Its Present Shape, And
That My Book Was Intended By The Passage In Question.
Unable To See Any Way Of Escaping From A Conclusion Which I Could Not
Willingly Adopt, I Thought It Best To Write To Mr. Darwin, Stating
The Facts As They Appeared To Myself, And Asking An Explanation,
Which I Would Have Gladly Strained A Good Many Points To Have
Accepted. It Is Better, Perhaps, That I Should Give My Letter And
Darwin's Answer In Full. My Letter Ran Thus:-
January 2, 1880.
Chapter 4 Pg 56
Charles Darwin, Esq., F.R.S., &C.
Dear Sir,--Will You Kindly Refer Me To The Edition Of Kosmos Which
Contains The Text Of Dr. Krause's Article On Dr. Erasmus Darwin, As
Translated By Mr. W. S. Dallas?
I Have Before Me The Last February Number Of Kosmos, Which Appears By
Your Preface To Be The One From Which Mr. Dallas Has Translated, But
His Translation Contains Long And Important Passages Which Are Not In
The February Number Of Kosmos, While Many Passages In The Original
Article Are Omitted In The Translation.
Among The Passages Introduced Are The Last Six Pages Of The English
Article, Which Seem To Condemn By Anticipation The Position I Have
Taken As Regards Dr. Erasmus Darwin In My Book, "Evolution, Old And
New," And Which I Believe I Was The First To Take. The Concluding,
And Therefore, Perhaps, Most Prominent Sentence Of The Translation
You Have Given To The Public Stands Thus:-
"Erasmus Darwin's System Was In Itself A Most Significant First Step
In The Path Of Knowledge Which His Grandson Has Opened Up For Us, But
To Wish To Revive It At The Present Day, As Has Actually Been
Seriously Attempted, Shows A Weakness Of Thought And A Mental
Anachronism Which No Man Can Envy."
The Kosmos Which Has Been Sent Me From Germany Contains No Such
Passage.
As You Have Stated In Your Preface That My Book, "Evolution, Old And
New," Appeared Subsequently To Dr. Krause's Article, And As No
Intimation Is Given That The Article Has Been Altered And Added To
Since Its Original Appearance, While The Accuracy Of The Translation
As Though From The February Number Of Kosmos Is, As You Expressly
Say, Guaranteed By Mr. Dallas's "Scientific Reputation Together With
His Knowledge Of German," Your Readers Will Naturally Suppose That
All They Read In The Translation Appeared In February Last, And
Therefore Before "Evolution, Old And New," Was Written, And Therefore
Independently Of, And Necessarily Without Reference To, That Book.
I Do Not Doubt That This Was Actually The Case, But Have Failed To
Obtain The Edition Which Contains The Passage Above Referred To, And
Several Others Which Appear In The Translation.
I Have A Personal Interest In This Matter, And Venture, Therefore, To
Ask For The Explanation Which I Do Not Doubt You Will Readily Give
Me.--Yours Faithfully,
S. Butler.
Chapter 4 Pg 57
The Following Is Mr. Darwin's Answer:-
January 3, 1880.
My Dear Sir, Dr. Krause, Soon After The Appearance Of His Article In
Kosmos Told Me That He Intended To Publish It Separately And To Alter
It Considerably, And The Altered Ms. Was Sent To Mr. Dallas For
Translation. This Is So Common A Practice That It Never Occurred To
Me To State That The Article Had Been Modified; But Now I Much Regret
That I Did Not Do So. The Original Will Soon Appear In German, And I
Believe Will Be A Much Larger Book Than The English One; For, With
Dr. Krause's Consent, Many Long Extracts From Miss Seward Were
Omitted (As Well As Much Other Matter), From Being In My Opinion
Superfluous For The English Reader. I Believe That The Omitted Parts
Will Appear As Notes In The German Edition. Should There Be A
Reprint Of The English Life I Will State That The Original As It
Appeared In Kosmos Was Modified By Dr. Krause Before It Was
Translated. I May Add That I Had Obtained Dr. Krause's Consent For A
Translation, And Had Arranged With Mr. Dallas Before Your Book Was
Announced. I Remember This Because Mr. Dallas Wrote To Tell Me Of
The Advertisement.--I Remain, Yours Faithfully,
C. Darwin."
This Was Not A Letter I Could Accept. If Mr. Darwin Had Said That By
Some Inadvertence, Which He Was Unable To Excuse Or Account For, A
Blunder Had Been Made Which He Would At Once Correct So Far As Was In
His Power By A Letter To The Times Or The Athenaeum, And That A
Notice Of The Erratum Should Be Printed On A Flyleaf And Pasted Into
All Unsold Copies Of The "Life Of Erasmus Darwin," There Would Have
Been No More Heard About The Matter From Me; But When Mr. Darwin
Maintained That It Was A Common Practice To Take Advantage Of An
Opportunity Of Revising A Work To Interpolate A Covert Attack Upon An
Opponent, And At The Same Time To Misdate The Interpolated Matter By
Expressly Stating That It Appeared Months Sooner Than It Actually
Did, And Prior To The Work Which It Attacked; When He Maintained That
What Was Being Done Was "So Common A Practice That It Never
Occurred," To Him--The Writer Of Some Twenty Volumes--To Do What All
Literary Men Must Know To Be Inexorably Requisite, I Thought This Was
Going Far Beyond What Was Permissible In Honourable Warfare, And That
It Was Time, In The Interests Of Literary And Scientific Morality,
Even More Than In My Own, To Appeal To Public Opinion. I Was
Particularly Struck With The Use Of The Words "It Never Occurred To
Me," And Felt How Completely Of A Piece It Was With The Opening
Paragraph Of The "Origin Of Species." It Was Not Merely That It Did
Not Occur To Mr. Darwin To State That The Article Had Been Modified
Chapter 4 Pg 58
Comments (0)