quoted, caused by VARIATION. He does, indeed, in his earlier
editions, call the variations "accidental," and accidental they
remained for ten years, but in 1869 the word "accidental" was taken
out. Mr. Darwin probably felt that the variations had been
accidental as long as was desirable; and though they would, of
course, in reality remain as accidental as ever, still, there could
be no use in crying "accidental variations" further. If the reader
wants to know whether they were accidental or no, he had better find
out for himself. Mr. Darwin was a master of what may be called
scientific chiaroscuro, and owes his reputation in no small measure
to the judgment with which he kept his meaning dark when a less
practised hand would have thrown light upon it. There can, however,
be no question that Mr. Darwin, though not denying purposiveness
point blank, was trying to refer the development of the eye to the
accumulation of small accidental improvements, which were not as a
rule due to effort and design in any way analogous to those
attendant on the development of the telescope.

Though Mr. Darwin, if he was to have any point of difference from
his grandfather, was bound to make his variations accidental, yet,
to do him justice, he did not like it. Even in the earlier editions
of the "Origin of Species," where the "alterations" in the passage
last quoted are called "accidental" in express terms, the word does
not fall, so to speak, on a strong beat of the bar, and is apt to
pass unnoticed. Besides, Mr. Darwin does not say point blank "we
may believe," or "we ought to believe;" he only says "may we not
believe?" The reader should always be on his guard when Mr. Darwin
asks one of these bland and child-like questions, and he is fond of
asking them; but, however this may be, it is plain, as I pointed out
in "Evolution Old and New" {93a} that the only "skill," that is to