¹ Darwin, C., On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life, facsimile of 1st edn (1859), Cambridge MA, 1964.Google Scholar

² lam drawing here on Shapin's use of the term ‘cultural resource’ (Shapin, S., ‘History of science and its sociological reconstructions’, History of Science, (1982), 20, pp. 157–211)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. As for my use of the fraught term ‘secularization’, there are numerous senses in which I do not use it. Above all I do not use it in any Whig polemic to reify and legitimize an ineluctable, irreversible ‘process’ of social and intellectual history. Such abuse has been made and abundantly criticized (Martin, D., The Religious and the Secular, New York, 1969Google Scholar; Chadwick, O., The Secularization of the European Mind in the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge, 1975)Google Scholar. But abuse does not preclude appropriate use, and I deem secularization an appropriate designation for the translation of theologically-grounded cultural constructs into non-religious terms. Such translations may be hostile or neutral in intent and effect on the cognitive authority of religion. But one need not believe in secularization grosso modo to recognize that such translations have occurred and their study does throw light on certain carefully defined cultural events. Darwin's long encounter with the metaphysical substrate of natural history is such an event and can, I believe, be meaningfully treated as secularization.

³ Op. cit. (1) Origin, p. 488.Google Scholar

⁴ Darwin, F. (ed) The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, (3 vols), London, 1887, ii, pp. 311–312.Google Scholar

⁵ Barlow, Nora, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, New York, 1969.Google Scholar

⁶ Moore, J.R., ‘Darwin of Down: The evolutionist as squarson—naturalist’, in The Darwinian Heritage, (ed. by Kohn, D.), Princeton, 1985, pp. 435–81.Google Scholar

⁷ These challenges are ably reviewed and put into a rigorous framework by Brooke, J.H., ‘The relations between Darwin's science and his religion’, in Darwinism and Divinity, (ed. by Durant, J.), Oxford, 1985, pp. 40–75Google Scholar. See also the analysis of Brooke's structure in Shortland, M., ‘Darwinian structures’, History of Science, (1987), 25, p. 195–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is worth emphasizing Maurice Mandelbaum's rejection of the ‘cryptic coloration’ thesis and his insistence that Darwin's theistic language be taken seriously (Mandelbaum, M., ‘Darwin's religious views’, Journal of the History of Ideas, (1958), 19, pp. 363–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also History, Man and Reason: A study in nineteenth-century thought, Baltimore, 1971Google Scholar). Likewise John Greene's treatment of Darwin as an evolutionary deist stresses the religious significance of Darwin's difficulties with the idea of progress (Greene, J.C., ‘Darwin and religion’, Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., (1959), 103, pp. 716–25Google Scholar; also Darwin and the Modern World View, Baton Rouge, 1961Google Scholar; also ‘Darwinism as a world view’, in Science, Ideology and World-view: Essays in the history of evolutionary ideas, (Ed. by Greene, J.C.), Berkeley, 1981, pp. 128–157.Google Scholar

⁸ Gillispie, C.C., Genesis and Geology: A study in the relations of scientific thought, natural theology, and social opinion in Great Britain, 1790–1850, New York, 1951.Google Scholar

⁹ Cannon, W.F. (S.F.), ‘The bases of Darwin's achievement: a revaluation’, Victorian Studies, (1961), 5, 109–134.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Chadwick, O., The Victorian Church, (2 vols), London, 1966–1970.Google Scholar

¹¹ Young, R.M., ‘Malthus and the evolutionists: the common context of biological and social theory’, in Darwin's Metaphor: Nature's place in Victorian culture, 2nd edn, Cambridge, 1985, pp. 23–55.Google Scholar

¹² Gruber, H.E. and Barrett, P.M., Darwin on Man, a Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity: Together with Darwin's early and unpublished notebooks, Chicago, 1974Google Scholar; Herbert, S., ‘The place of man in the development of Darwin's theory of transmutation. Part I’, Journal of the History of Biology, (1974), 7, pp. 217–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also ‘The place of man in the development of Darwin's theory of transmutation. Part II’, Journal of the History of Biology, (1977), 10, pp. 155–227Google Scholar; Gillespie, N.C., Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, Chicago, 1979Google Scholar; Schweber, S.S., ‘The origin of the Origin revisited’, Journal of the History of Biology, (1977), 10, pp. 229–316CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Ospovat, D., ‘Perfect adaption and teleological explanation: approaches to the problem of the history of life in the mid-nineteenth century’, Studies in the History of Biology, (1978), 2, pp. 33–56Google Scholar; also The Development of Darwin's Theory: Natural history, natural theology, and natural selection, 1838–1859, Cambridge, 1981Google Scholar; Manier, E., The Young Darwin and his Cultural Circle: A study of influences which helped shape the language and logic of the first drafts of the theory of natural selection, Dordrecht, 1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moore, J.R., The post-Darwinian Controversies: A study of the Protestant struggle to come to terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, Cambridge, 1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kohn, D., ‘Theories to work by: rejected theories, reproduction and Darwin's path to natural selection’, Studies in the History of Biology, (1980), 4, pp. 67–170Google ScholarPubMed; Richards, R.J., ‘Instinct and intelligence in British natural theology: some contributions to Darwin's theory of the evolution of behaviour’. Journal of the History of Biology, (1981), 14, pp. 193–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Brooke, J.H., op. cit. (7)Google Scholar. Although Darwin's religion was ripe for historical revision by the early 1960s, an egregious accident of publication forestalled that reinterpretation. Between 1960 and 1967 Gavin De Beer published Darwin's Notebooks B-E (1837–1839) on the transmutation of species (De Beer, G., Rowlands, M.J. and Skramovsky, B.M. (eds), ‘Darwin's notebooks on transmutation of species’, Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Hist.Ser., (1960–1967), ii, (2–6), pp. 23–183Google Scholar; iii, (5), pp. 129–176). But he chose not to publish Darwin's notebooks M — N, which dealt with Man and metaphysical questions. Notwithstanding the bald fact that Notebooks D and M are of identical manufacture and were probably opened on the same day and that the same parallel holds true for Notebooks E and N, De Beer apparently did not regard metaphysical enquiries on a par with transmutation. This disruption of archival context was corrected by Paul Barrett and Howard Gruber with the separate publication of Darwin's Notebooks M — N and related metaphysical notes in 1974. The wound has been finally healed with the recent unified edition of the Notebooks (Barrett, P.H., Herbert, S., Gautrey, P.J., Kohn, D. and Smith, S., (eds), Charles Darwin's Notebooks, 1836–1844: Geology, transmutation of species, metaphysical enquiries [Red Notebook ed. by S. Herbert; Notebooks B—E ed. by D. Kohn; Notebooks M—N, Old & Useless Notes and Macculloch Abstract ed. by P.H. Barrett], Cambridge and Ithaca, 1987).Google Scholar

¹³ Op. cit. (12) Ospovat (1981)Google Scholar, Gillespie, (1979), Moore (1979)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Op. cit. (12) Brooke.

¹⁵ Limoges, Camille, La Sélection naturelle: étude sur la première constitution d'un concept (1837–1859), Paris, 1970Google Scholar; Kohn, D., op. cit. (12), 1980.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Op. cit. (6) Moore.

¹⁷ Op. cit. (12) Schweber and Manier.

¹⁸ Beer, Gillian, ‘Darwin's plots: evolutionary narrative in Darwin, George Eliot, and nineteenth-century fiction, London, 1983Google Scholar; also ‘Darwin's reading and the fictions of development’, in The Darwinian Heritage, op. cit. (6) pp. 543–588.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Manier's extremely helpful discussion of Darwin, and materialism, op. cit. (12), pp. 56–68Google Scholar. Beer, (op. cit. 18, 1983, p. 53)Google Scholar gives a sophisticated twist to the ‘cryptic coloration’ position: ‘Natural history was still imbued with natural theology … Darwin was therefore obliged to dramatize his struggle with natural theological assumptions within a language weighted towards natural theology. He must write against the grain of his discourse.’

²⁰ Robert Richards seems to be a recent dissenter. He proposes an ‘evolutionary historiography’ of ‘conceptual evolution’ and couches his work in terms of evolutionary epistemology. Richards is consistently critical of those who would give a social construction. Richards, R.J., Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behaviour, Chicago, 1987. pp. 11–13, 152–156.Google Scholar

²¹ Op. cit. (12) Ospovat, 1981.Google Scholar

²² Morrell, J.B. and Thackray, A., Gentlemen of Science: Early years of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Oxford, 1981.Google Scholar

²³ Corsi, P., Science and Religion: Baden Powell and the Anglican debate, 1800–1860, Cambridge, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Ospovat, (op. cit. 12, 1981, pp. 6–38)Google Scholar describes the efforts of Whewell, Owen, Carpenter and Agassiz in this direction. One could also add Sedgwick.

²⁵ For example Herschel (Herschel, J.F.W., Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, London, 1830)Google Scholar, Baden Powell and Babbage (Babbage, C., The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise. A Fragment, 2nd edn, London, 1838)Google Scholar whom Ospovat, (op. cit. 12, 1981)Google Scholar does not adequately take into account.

²⁶ I am indebted to Simon Schaffer for this term.

²⁷ Desmond, A., ‘Artisan resistance and evolution in Britain, 1819–1848’, Osiris, (1987), 3, pp. 77–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ For example, the work of Browne (Browne, E.J., ‘Darwin's botanical arithmetic and the principle of divergence, 1854–1858’, Journal of the History of Biology, (1980), 13, pp. 53–89)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, Schweber (Schweber, S., ‘Darwin and the political economists: divergence of character’, Journal of the History of Biology, 13, pp. 157–211)Google Scholar. Ospovat, (op. cit. 12, 1981)Google Scholar and Kohn (Kohn, D., ‘Darwin's principle of divergence as internal dialogue’ in The Darwinian Heritage, (op. cit. 6, pp. 245–257)Google Scholar on the interrelation of biogeography and systematics in the principle of divergence clarifies the development of Darwin's thought on one major obstacle: the evolutionary account of diversity. The excellent work of Richards, (op. cit. 20, 1987)Google Scholar and Burkhardt (Burkhardt, R.W., ‘Darwin on animal behavior and evolution’ in The Darwinian Heritage (op. cit. 6, pp. 327–365)Google Scholar clarifies a parallel development: the evolutionary account of complex instincts. The history of a number of other ‘technical obstacles’ remains to be explored.

²⁹ Op. cit. (7), p. 43.Google Scholar

³⁰ Although the scholarship revising our understanding of religion and Darwin's development has been extremely fruitful, it is important to remember that this scholarship has left in place much that actually supports the conventional antithesis between Paley and the Darwin of the Origin. For example, Ospovat, (op. cit. 12, 1981)Google Scholar places Darwin beyond the thrall of natural theology on the key issue of relative adaptation before he writes the Origin. Similarly, Moore dates the end of Darwin's supposed Christianity to the aftermath of his daughter Annie's death in 1851. I don't see that Brooke (op. cit. 7) adds new evidence that would alter this assessment. What I would stress is that our understanding of the nature of the antithesis has altered. It is Darwin's reform of Paley that actually sets up the conventional antithesis.

³¹ Levine, G., ‘Darwin and the evolution of fiction’, New York Times Book Review, 5 10, 1986.Google Scholar

³² Desmond, A., ‘The Kentish Hog’, London Review of Books, 15 10, 1987.Google Scholar

³³ Provine, W., ‘Evolution and the foundation of ethics’, MBL Science, (1988), 3, pp. 25–29.Google Scholar

³⁴ See Kohn, (op. cit. 12)Google Scholar and Hodge, M.J.S. and Kohn, D., ‘The immediate origins of natural selection’, in The Darwinian Heritage (op. cit. 6, pp. 185–206)Google Scholar. This interpretation also addresses the subsequent excellent contributions of Sulloway (Sulloway, S., ‘Darwin's conversion: the Beagle voyage and its aftermath’, Journal of the History of Biology, (1982), 15, pp. 327–398)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, Richards, (op. cit. 20)Google Scholar and Ospovat, (op. cit. 12, 1981).Google Scholar

³⁵ Barlow, Nora, ‘Darwin's ornithological notes’, Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Hist. Ser., (1963), ii, p. 262Google Scholar. Sulloway, (op. cit. 34)Google Scholar has carefully dated these notes.

³⁶ See Cannon, W.F. (S.F.), ‘The impact of uniformitarianism: two letters from John Herschel to Charles Lyell, 1836–1837’, Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., (1961), 105, pp. 301–314Google Scholar. Herschel's letter was privately circulated in London and then published by Babbage (op. cit. 25).

³⁷ I gratefully acknowledge Pietro Corsi who suggested this hypothesis to me in conversation in 1982. However, I have been reluctant to accept this hypothesis without manuscript evidence. But there is direct evidence in Darwin's Red Notebook (RN 32) that Herschel spoke to him about the geological contents of his letter. (Op. cit. 12, Charles Darwin's Notebooks, Red Notebook, n. 32–1.Google Scholar) As the letter had already been circulated in London, there seems little grounds for presuming that Herschel did not also speak of its metaphysical contents with Darwin.

³⁸ See Sulloway, (op. cit. 34)Google Scholar for a superb account of this scrunity and the part played by Darwin's integration in the London natural history community.

³⁹ I cannot accept Richards' psychocentric revision of this episode, but space precludes clarification of the issues here (Richards, , op. cit. 34, pp. 124–126)Google Scholar. He does coin a nice term — Deus ex sexuale — for my reading of Darwin's special reliance on reproduction. To return the favour, might we not call Darwin's reliance on hereditary habit a Deus ex mentale? Indeed Darwin's materialist mechanism is a Deus ex sexuale et mentale.

⁴⁰ See Richards, (op. cit. 20)Google Scholar for an excellent account of Lamarck's similarities with Cabanis.

⁴¹ Given the Herschelian frame, we should not be surprised to find him grandly claiming the ‘whole (of) metaphysics’ as a domain for evolutionary explanation on a par with comparative anatomy (Notebook B, 228). Nor should we be surprised at Darwin's nasty jibes at the theological narrowness of creationism which begin in Notebook B and carry through to the Origin.

⁴² According to Herschel's rules of play, science could not lead to atheism ‘No doubt, the testimony of natural reason … while it places the existence and principle attributes of a Deity on such grounds as to render doubt absurd and atheism ridiculous, it unquestionably opposes no natural or necessary obstacle to further progress…’ (Herschel, J.F.W., Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, London, 1830, p. 7).Google Scholar

⁴³ For the sake of brevity, I take as given the reality of that threat as witnessed in the tradition of political repression that linked materialism to atheism. Darwin's awareness of that tradition forms the background for the conceptual moves he made between March and September 1838.

⁴⁴ Op.cit. (2).

⁴⁵ Richards, (op. cit. 34, p. 94)Google Scholar incorrectly dates Darwin's reading of Müller (Müller, J., Elements of Physiology, 2nd edn, vol. i, London, 1838)Google Scholar to 1840; see Notebook E 83.

⁴⁶ Abercrombie, J., Inquiries Concerning the Intellectual Powers and the Investigation of Truth, 8th edn, London 1838.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Barclay, J., An Inquiry into the Opinions, Ancient and Modern, concerning Life and Organisation, Edingburgh, 1822.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Op. cit. 12, Charles Darwin's Notebooks, Notebook C 166.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ It is advice Darwin takes to heart. It has often been observed that for a book called the Orgin, there is a conspicuous avoidance of some kinds of origins. Here we see that avoidance is ancient and self-conscious.

⁵⁰ Op. cit. 12, Charles Darwin's NotebooksGoogle Scholar, Notebook M 57.

⁵¹ In April 1837 she wrote to her brother Hensleigh about the state of her father's mind on religious subjects, confiding that: ‘For years & years it has been the one anxious spot in my mind, and I have felt so helpless & powerless to do anything but pray — hoping & hoping that it is not possible God should finally leave a soul so full of all virtues, uprightness, purity, simple-mindedness, love of all good, humanity and unselfishness, — without communicating to it the love of Himself, and a desire to know His truth.’ (Wedgwood papers, Keele University Library) I gratefully acknowledge Terry Kidner Kohn for sharing her research on Emma Wedgwood with me.

⁵² We know that Emma's power as a censor and a source of internalized self-censorship was palpable enough to alter the construction of Darwin's texts. To me this means one crucial thing, not a word of the ambiguous God-talk in the Origin can be taken at face value. We know that some of what is there is indeed ‘cryptic coloration’ for Darwin's feelings and what is not there may be consciously omitted. We are left with an irresolvable ambiguity. Some of Darwin's God-talk is ‘cryptic coloration’, some is honest appeal for Darwin's higher notion of God. We must factor Emma in. Ironically, when we do that we only complicate matters. We cannot know the extent to which the position shaped by Darwin's internalized self-censorship became his sincere position; we cannot know the extent to which Darwin became convinced of the orthodoxy of his own position.

⁵³ Op. cit. 12, Charles Darwin's NotebooksGoogle Scholar, Notebook M 72–74.

⁵⁴ Op. cit. 12, Charles Darwin's NotebooksGoogle Scholar, Old and Useless Notes.

⁵⁵ Manier, (op. cit. 12, p. 87)Google Scholar notes ‘an unmistakable ironic tone’ in an analogous comment in the 1844 Essay, where Darwin speaks of ‘the stamp of inutility on some parts’.

⁵⁶ Given this evidence, I do not think one can preclude the possibility that in the closet with his physical materialism, there remained the apprehension that the logic of his hereditarian theory of mind led ‘all metaphysics’ to materialist atheism. But here the textual trail of metaphysical materialism disappears. Given his self-censorship, we may not be able to trust anything he wrote on metaphysical subjects for publication. All we know is that we find Darwin wavering towards atheism and about to marry a very religious woman. All the rest on that score may be underground.

⁵⁷ I am not suggesting that Darwin drops the theory of hereditary instinct. Rather, it loses its place as the central mechanism of transmutation. Instinct recedes to become a major domain for the application of evolutionary theory. The theory of hereditary instinct is later integrated into the theory of natural selection. Another way of expressing this is that hereditary behaviour moves from the domain of vera causa to the domain of consilience, from Part I of Darwin's theoretical structure to Part II (op. cit. 34). Although Richards (op. cit. 20) describes superbly the subsequent development of Darwin's work in this important area, again his psychocentrism leads him to distort its centrality; see n. 39.

⁵⁸ Op. cit. 12, Kohn, 1980.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Macculloch, J., Proofs and illustrations of the attributes of God, from the facts and laws of the physical universe: being the foundation of natural and revealed religion, (3 vols), London, 1837.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Op. cit. 12, Charles Darwin's Notebooks, Macculloch Abstract, 71: 54v.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ibid.

⁶² Ibid. 71:58r.

⁶³ Whewell, W., Astronomy and general physics considered with reference to natural theology. The Bridgewater treatises on the power, wisdom, and goodness of God as manifested in the creation. Treatise III, 2nd edn, London, 1833.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Kohn, (op. cit. 12, pp. 146–148)Google Scholar details that striking shift in Notebook E. Subsequent commentaries seem to have ignored the importance of this immediate and persistent reaction to Malthus.

⁶⁵ ‘At about the same time that perfect adaptation ceased to be a theoretically important assumption in Darwin's thought, he concluded that adaptation is relative. In discussing increasing and dying genera, Darwin argued that the inhabitants of two different continents are probably not equally well adapted and that if put into competition with each other the productions of one continent would probably “prevail considerably” over the other.’ Ospovat, , op. cit. 12, 1981, p. 205Google Scholar. [In Theoretical Geographical Distrib. DAR 205.9:304, Natural Selection, p. 582, 11 1854Google Scholar, to be found in Charles Darwin's Natural Selection; being the second part of his big species book written from 1856 to 1858, (ed. by Stauffer, R.C., London, 1975.]Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ospovat, op. cit. 12, 1981, p. 206Google Scholar, citing Origin 201.

⁶⁷ Brooke (op. cit. 7) has critically engaged and supports Ospovat's understanding of perfect adaptation. However, it is only this that legitimates Moore's treatment of Darwin as a ‘Christian’ until the death of Annie in 1853 (Moore, J.R., ‘Of love and death: Why Darwin “gave up Christianity”’, Paper read at History of Science Society annual meeting, Raleigh NC, 1987)Google Scholar. As to Ospovat's claims about the 1842 Sketch and the 1844 Essay, I would argue that the dominant influence in determining the scope of natural selection in 1839, 1842 and 1844 is not natural theology lingering in the form of perfect adaptation but the tempo of evolution permitted by Lyell's geology, which envisioned not only the gradual accumulation of geological change, but also its sudden expression, as when an isthmus at last separates.

⁶⁸ Op. cit. 1, Origins, p. 201.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Seen. 71.

⁷⁰ Note that this passage is the prelude to Darwin's oft-quoted three principles that ‘will account for all’ (op. cit. 12, Charles Darwin's Notebooks, Notebook E 58).

⁷¹ Ospovat distinguishes between two meanings of perfect adaptation: close adaptation and differential adaptation. Close adaptation is perfect in the sense that the organism is the best possible for its place in the economy of nature. Close adaptation only applies to the pre-selectionist theory. One would assume that only a providential Creator could act through close adaptation. Ospovat, (op. cit. 12, 1981)Google Scholar followed my interpretation that Darwin's ‘automatic adaptation’ in the pre-Malthus period meant that he accommodated Paleyan close perfect adaptation in his early transformist theory. Ospovat used this interpretation to launch his argument for the long post-selectionist perduration of perfect adaptation. However, in the light of the present paper, one has to wonder how comfortable the metaphysically alert Darwin would have been with a concept of adaptation that implied a providential Creator.

⁷² Ospovat, op. cit. 12, 1981, p. 77.Google Scholar

⁷³ For example, in the 1844 Essay, Darwin saw species as ‘admirably adapted (but not necessarily better adapted than every other species)’ (p. 171)Google Scholar, and ‘exquisitely adapted’ (p. 134)Google Scholar, as well as ‘not perfectly adapted’ meaning ‘only that a few other organisms can generally be found better adapted to the country than some of the aborigines’ (p. 153)Google Scholar. In Darwin, F. (ed), The foundations of the ‘Origin of species’: Two essays written in 1842 and 1844, Cambridge, 1909.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Op. cit. 12, Charles Darwin's Notebooks, Macculloch Abstract 71: 58vGoogle Scholar. Just how different is the use of ‘perfect’ here from that in the Origin? ‘Natural selection tends only to makes each organic being as perfect as, or slightly more perfect than, the other inhabitants of the same country with which its has to struggle for existence.’ (Op. cit. 1, p. 201.)

⁷⁵ Beatty, J., ‘Speaking of species, Darwin's strategy’, in The Darwinian Heritage, op. cit. 6, pp. 265–281.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ In the latter role, Darwin shares symbolic status with biblical criticism. Both are sustained by the hopeful convergence of post-millenial expectation with industrial progress and national might.

⁷⁷ Op. cit. 1, Origin, p. 61Google Scholar, my emphasis.

⁷⁸ Barrett, P.M., Weinshank, D.J. and Gottleber, T.T., A Concordance of Darwin's ‘Origin of Species’, 1st edn, Ithaca, 1981.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Op. cit. 12, Charles Darwin's Notebooks, Macculloch Abstract, 167.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Op. cit. 18, 1983.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Abrams, M.H., Natural Supernaturalism: Tradition and Revolution in Romantic Literature, New York, 1971.Google Scholar

⁸² Op. cit. 1, Origin, p. 489.Google Scholar

⁸³ Ibid.

⁸⁴ Ibid., p. 62.

⁸⁵ Ibid., p. 489.

⁸⁶ Novak, Barbara, Nature and Culture: American landscape and painting, 1825–1875, New York, 1980.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Darwin, C., Journal of researches into the geology and natural history of various countries visited by H.M.S. Beagle, facsimile of 1st edn, 1839, New York, 1952, p. 227, my italics.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Ibid. Tierra del Fuego evoked in Darwin the sort of Humboldtian excess of ennobled rhetoric that his sister Caroline complained of in his depiction of the Brazilian tropics: ‘My dear Charles— I have been reading with the greatest interest your journal, & I found it very entertaining & interesting…I am very doubtful whether it is not pert in me to criticize,… — but I will say just what I think — I mean as to your style. I thought in the first part (of this last journal) that you had, presumably from reading so much of Humboldt, got his phraseology & occasionally made use of the kind of flowery French expressions which he uses, instead of your own simple straight forward & far more agreeable style. I have no doubt you have without perceiving it got to embody your ideas in his poetic language & from his being a foreigner it does not sound unnatural in him — (23 October 1833). Burkhardt, F., Smith, S. et al. (eds), The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Cambridge, 1985, vol. i, p. 345.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Op. cit. 87, p. 231, my italics.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Op. cit. 1, Origin, pp. 481, 86–87, 201–202.Google Scholar

⁹¹ For surveys of the Protestant response, see Moore, (op. cit. 12, Livingstone, D.N., Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The encounter between evangelical theology and evolutionary thought, Grand Rapids MI, 1987Google Scholar and Roberts, J.H., Darwinism and the Divine in America: Protestant intellectuals and organic evolution, 1859–1900, New York, 1988Google Scholar. Without gainsaying the excellent historiography these works represent, they tell a tale that, from a Darwinian perspective, might be entitled The Varieties of Religious Avoidance.

⁹² Of course, the lights never do go out for some people, right down to the present. See Whitehead (Whitehead, A.N., Science and the Modern World, Lowell Lectures 1925, New York 1967)Google Scholar and Peacocke (Peacocke, A.R, The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, South Bend, IN, 1979)Google Scholar and representatives of the process theology movement.

⁹³ Op. cit. 1, Origin, p. 488.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Temple, F. et al. Essays and Reviews, London, 1860.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Brock, W.H. and Macleod, R.M., ‘The Scientists’ Declaration: reflections on Science and Belief in the wakeof “Essays and Reviews”, 1864–1865’, British Journal for the History of Science, (1976), 11, pp. 39–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁶ Hutchinson, H.G., Life of Sir John Lubbock, Lord Avebury, (2 vols), London, 1914, i, p. 57.Google Scholar