As may be supposed, "Evolution, Old and New," met with a very
unfavourable reception at the hands of many of its reviewers. The
Saturday Review was furious. "When a writer," it exclaimed, "who has
not given as many weeks to the subject as Mr. Darwin has given years,
is not content to air his own crude though clever fallacies, but
assumes to criticise Mr. Darwin with the superciliousness of a young
schoolmaster looking over a boy's theme, it is difficult not to take
him more seriously than he deserves or perhaps desires. One would
think that Mr. Butler was the travelled and laborious observer of
Nature, and Mr. Darwin the pert speculator who takes all his facts at
secondhand." {36}

The lady or gentleman who writes in such a strain as this should not
be too hard upon others whom she or he may consider to write like
schoolmasters. It is true I have travelled--not much, but still as
much as many others, and have endeavoured to keep my eyes open to the
facts before me; but I cannot think that I made any reference to my
travels in "Evolution, Old and New." I did not quite see what that
had to do with the matter. A man may get to know a good deal without
ever going beyond the four-mile radius from Charing Cross. Much less
did I imply that Mr. Darwin was pert: pert is one of the last words
that can be applied to Mr. Darwin. Nor, again, had I blamed him for
taking his facts at secondhand; no one is to be blamed for this,
provided he takes well-established facts and acknowledges his
sources. Mr. Darwin has generally gone to good sources. The ground
of complaint against him is that he muddied the water after he had
drawn it, and tacitly claimed to be the rightful owner of the spring,
on the score of the damage he had effected.