I have thus stated what are the two hypotheses on this question. There is only one more preliminary which it is needful to notice here, and that is, to caution the reader against the tendency, unhappily too common, of supposing that an adversary holds opinions which are transparently absurd. When we hear an hypothesis which is either novel, or unacceptable to us, we are apt to draw some very ridiculous conclusion from it, and to assume that this conclusion is seriously held by its upholders. Thus the zoologists who maintain the variability of species are sometimes asked if they believe a goose was developed out of an oyster, or a rhinoceros from a mouse? the questioner apparently having no misgiving as to the candour of his ridicule. There are three modes of combating a doctrine. The first is to point out its strongest positions, and then show them to be erroneous or incomplete; but this plan is generally difficult, and sometimes impossible; it is not, therefore, much in vogue. The second is to render the doctrine ridiculous, by pretending that it includes certain extravagant propositions, of which it is entirely innocent. The third is to render the doctrine odious, by forcing on it certain conclusions, which it would repudiate, but which are declared to be “the inevitable consequences” of such a doctrine. Now it is undoubtedly true that men frequently maintain very absurd opinions; but it is neither candid, nor wise, to assume that men who otherwise are certainly not fools, hold opinions the absurdity of which is transparent. Let us not, therefore, tax the followers of Lamarck, Geoffroy St. Hilaire, or Mr. Darwin with absurdities they have not advocated; but rather endeavour to see what solid argument they have for the basis of their hypothesis. FOOTNOTES [10] DARWIN: _Origin of Species_, p. 414. [11] DARWIN: _Origin of Species_, p. 420. [12] CUVIER says, in so many words, that classes, orders, and genera, are abstractions, _et rien de pareil n’existe dans la nature_; but species is _not_ an abstraction!—See _Lettres à Pfaff_, p. 179. [13] See _Oxford Essays_, 1856. Strangers Yet! Strangers yet! After years of life together, After fair and stormy weather, After travel in far lands, After touch of wedded hands,— Why thus joined? why ever met? If they must be strangers yet. Strangers yet! After childhood’s winning ways, After care, and blame, and praise, Counsel asked, and wisdom given, After mutual prayers to Heaven, Child and parent scarce regret When they part—are strangers yet Strangers yet! After strife for common ends, After title of old friends, After passion fierce and tender, After cheerful self-surrender, Hearts may beat and eyes be wet, And the souls be strangers yet.