|
Introduction
The nature of the following work will be best understood by a brief account
of how it came to be written. During many years I collected notes on the
origin or descent of man, without any intention of publishing on the
subject, but rather with the determination not to publish, as I thought
that I should thus only add to the prejudices against my views. It seemed
to me sufficient to indicate, in the first edition of my 'Origin of
Species,' that by this work "light would be thrown on the origin of man and
his history;" and this implies that man must be included with other organic
beings in any general conclusion respecting his manner of appearance on
this earth. Now the case wears a wholly different aspect. When a
naturalist like Carl Vogt ventures to say in his address as President of
the National Institution of Geneva (1869), "personne, en Europe au moins,
n'ose plus soutenir la creation independante et de toutes pieces, des
especes," it is manifest that at least a large number of naturalists must
admit that species are the modified descendants of other species; and this
especially holds good with the younger and rising naturalists. The greater
number accept the agency of natural selection; though some urge, whether
with justice the future must decide, that I have greatly overrated its
importance. Of the older and honoured chiefs in natural science, many
unfortunately are still opposed to evolution in every form.
In consequence of the views now adopted by most naturalists, and which will
ultimately, as in every other case, be followed by others who are not
scientific, I have been led to put together my notes, so as to see how far
the general conclusions arrived at in my former works were applicable to
man. This seemed all the more desirable, as I had never deliberately
applied these views to a species taken singly. When we confine our
attention to any one form, we are deprived of the weighty arguments derived
from the nature of the affinities which connect together whole groups of
organisms--their geographical distribution in past and present times, and
their geological succession. The homological structure, embryological
development, and rudimentary organs of a species remain to be considered,
whether it be man or any other animal, to which our attention may be
directed; but these great classes of facts afford, as it appears to me,
ample and conclusive evidence in favour of the principle of gradual
evolution. The strong support derived from the other arguments should,
however, always be kept before the mind.
The sole object of this work is to consider, firstly, whether man, like
every other species, is descended from some pre-existing form; secondly,
the manner of his development; and thirdly, the value of the differences
between the so-called races of man. As I shall confine myself to these
points, it will not be necessary to describe in detail the differences
between the several races--an enormous subject which has been fully
described in many valuable works. The high antiquity of man has recently
been demonstrated by the labours of a host of eminent men, beginning with
M. Boucher de Perthes; and this is the indispensable basis for
understanding his origin. I shall, therefore, take this conclusion for
granted, and may refer my readers to the admirable treatises of Sir Charles
Lyell, Sir John Lubbock, and others. Nor shall I have occasion to do more
than to allude to the amount of difference between man and the
anthropomorphous apes; for Prof. Huxley, in the opinion of most competent
judges, has conclusively shewn that in every visible character man differs
less from the higher apes, than these do from the lower members of the same
order of Primates.
This work contains hardly any original facts in regard to man; but as the
conclusions at which I arrived, after drawing up a rough draft, appeared to
me interesting, I thought that they might interest others. It has often
and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: but
ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is
those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively
assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. The
conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other species of some
ancient, lower, and extinct form, is not in any degree new. Lamarck long
ago came to this conclusion, which has lately been maintained by several
eminent naturalists and philosophers; for instance, by Wallace, Huxley,
Lyell, Vogt, Lubbock, Buchner, Rolle, etc. (1. As the works of the first-
named authors are so well known, I need not give the titles; but as those
of the latter are less well known in England, I will give them:--'Sechs
Vorlesungen uber die Darwin'sche Theorie:' zweite Auflage, 1868, von Dr L.
Buchner; translated into French under the title 'Conferences sur la Theorie
Darwinienne,' 1869. 'Der Mensch im Lichte der Darwin'sche Lehre,' 1865,
von Dr. F. Rolle. I will not attempt to give references to all the authors
who have taken the same side of the question. Thus G. Canestrini has
published ('Annuario della Soc. d. Nat.,' Modena, 1867, page 81) a very
curious paper on rudimentary characters, as bearing on the origin of man.
Another work has (1869) been published by Dr. Francesco Barrago, bearing in
Italian the title of "Man, made in the image of God, was also made in the
image of the ape."), and especially by Haeckel. This last naturalist,
besides his great work, 'Generelle Morphologie' (1866), has recently (1868,
with a second edition in 1870), published his 'Naturliche
Schopfungsgeschichte,' in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man.
If this work had appeared before my essay had been written, I should
probably never have completed it. Almost all the conclusions at which I
have arrived I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many
points is much fuller than mine. Wherever I have added any fact or view
from Prof. Haeckel's writings, I give his authority in the text; other
statements I leave as they originally stood in my manuscript, occasionally
giving in the foot-notes references to his works, as a confirmation of the
more doubtful or interesting points.
During many years it has seemed to me highly probable that sexual selection
has played an important part in differentiating the races of man; but in my
'Origin of Species' (first edition, page 199) I contented myself by merely
alluding to this belief. When I came to apply this view to man, I found it
indispensable to treat the whole subject in full detail. (2. Prof.
Haeckel was the only author who, at the time when this work first appeared,
had discussed the subject of sexual selection, and had seen its full
importance, since the publication of the 'Origin'; and this he did in a
very able manner in his various works.) Consequently the second part of
the present work, treating of sexual selection, has extended to an
inordinate length, compared with the first part; but this could not be
avoided.
I had intended adding to the present volumes an essay on the expression of
the various emotions by man and the lower animals. My attention was called
to this subject many years ago by Sir Charles Bell's admirable work. This
illustrious anatomist maintains that man is endowed with certain muscles
solely for the sake of expressing his emotions. As this view is obviously
opposed to the belief that man is descended from some other and lower form,
it was necessary for me to consider it. I likewise wished to ascertain how
far the emotions are expressed in the same manner by the different races of
man. But owing to the length of the present work, I have thought it better
to reserve my essay for separate publication.
< BackForward >
|
