paleontology, upon which this astounding hypothesis was founded,
but I had to confess my want of any means of testing the
correctness of his explanation of them. And besides that, I
could by no means see what the explanation explained. Neither
did it help me to be told by an eminent anatomist that species
had succeeded one another in time, in virtue of "a continuously
operative creational law." That seemed to me to be no more than
saying that species had succeeded one another, in the form of a
vote-catching resolution, with "law" to please the man of
science, and "creational" to draw the orthodox. So I took refuge
in that "thatige Skepsis" which Goethe has so well defined; and,
reversing the apostolic precept to be all things to all men, I
usually defended the tenability of the received doctrines, when I
had to do with the transmutationists; and stood up for the
possibility of transmutation among the orthodox--thereby, no
doubt, increasing an already current, but quite undeserved,
reputation for needless combativeness.

I remember, in the course of my first interview with Mr. Darwin,
expressing my belief in the sharpness of the lines of demarcation
between natural groups and in the absence of transitional forms,
with all the confidence of youth and imperfect knowledge. I was
not aware, at that time, that he had then been many years
brooding over the species-question; and the humorous smile which
accompanied his gentle answer, that such was not altogether his
view, long haunted and puzzled me. But it would seem that four
or five years' hard work had enabled me to understand what it
meant; for Lyell ('Life and Letters,' volume ii. page 212.),
writing to Sir Charles Bunbury (under date of April 30, 1856),
says:--