upon the facts that bore upon it, it should have occurred to us in
our turn, that when people betray a return of consciousness upon such
matters as this, they are on the confines of that state in which
other and not less elementary matters will not "occur to" them. The
introduction of the word "patiently" should have been conclusive. I
will not analyse more of the sentence, but will repeat the next two
lines:- "After five years of work, I allowed myself to speculate upon
the subject, and drew up some short notes." We read this, thousands
of us, and were blind.

If Dr. Erasmus Darwin's name was not mentioned in the first edition
of the "Origin of Species," we should not be surprised at there being
no notice taken of Buffon, or at Lamarck's being referred to only
twice--on the first occasion to be serenely waved aside, he and all
his works; {9a} on the second, {9b} to be commended on a point of
detail. The author of the "Vestiges of Creation" was more widely
known to English readers, having written more recently and nearer
home. He was dealt with summarily, on an early and prominent page,
by a misrepresentation, which was silently expunged in later editions
of the "Origin of Species." In his later editions (I believe first
in his third, when 6000 copies had been already sold), Mr. Darwin did
indeed introduce a few pages in which he gave what he designated as a
"brief but imperfect sketch" of the progress of opinion on the origin
of species prior to the appearance of his own work; but the general
impression which a book conveys to, and leaves upon, the public is
conveyed by the first edition--the one which is alone, with rare
exceptions, reviewed; and in the first edition of the "Origin of
Species" Mr. Darwin's great precursors were all either ignored or
misrepresented. Moreover, the "brief but imperfect sketch," when it
did come, was so very brief, but, in spite of this (for this is what