will, or the wit, to make themselves masters of his doctrine;
hardly any possessed the knowledge required to follow him through
the immense range of biological and geological science which the
'Origin' covered; while, too commonly, they had prejudiced the
case on theological grounds, and, as seems to be inevitable when
this happens, eked out lack of reason by superfluity of railing.

But it will be more pleasant and more profitable to consider
those criticisms, which were acknowledged by writers of
scientific authority, or which bore internal evidence of the
greater or less competency and, often, of the good faith, of
their authors. Restricting my survey to a twelvemonth, or
thereabouts, after the publication of the 'Origin,' I find among
such critics Louis Agassiz ("The arguments presented by Darwin in
favor of a universal derivation from one primary form of all the
peculiarities existing now among living beings have not made the
slightest impression on my mind."

"Until the facts of Nature are shown to have been mistaken by
those who have collected them, and that they have a different
meaning from that now generally assigned to them, I shall
therefore consider the transmutation theory as a scientific
mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and
mischievous in its tendency."--Silliman's 'Journal,' July, 1860,
pages 143, 154. Extract from the 3rd volume of 'Contributions to
the Natural History of the United States.'); Murray, an excellent
entomologist; Harvey, a botanist of considerable repute; and the
author of an article in the 'Edinburgh Review,' all strongly
adverse to Darwin. Pictet, the distinguished and widely learned
paleontogist of Geneva, treats Mr. Darwin with a respect which