’Qui n’etes rien,
     Pas meme Academicien;’

what do you mean by asserting the contrary?” Being devoid of the blessings of an Academy in England, we are unaccustomed to see our ablest men treated in this fashion even by a “Perpetual Secretary.”

Or again, considering that if there is any one quality of Mr. Darwin’s work to which friends and foes have alike borne witness, it is his candour and fairness in admitting and discussing objections, what is to be thought of M. Flourens’ assertion, that

     “M.  Darwin ne cite que les auteurs qui partagent ses opinions.” (P.
     40.)

Once more (p. 65): 

“Enfin l’ouvrage de M. Darwin a paru.  On ne peut qu’etre frappe du talent de l’auteur.  Mais que d’idees obscures, que d’idees fausses!  Quel jargon metaphysique jete mal a propos dans l’histoire naturelle, qui tombe dans le galimatias des qu’elle sort des idees claires, des idees justes!  Quel langage pretentieux et vide!  Quelles personifications pueriles et surannees!  O lucidite!  O solidite de l’esprit Francais, que devenez-vous?”

“Obscure ideas,” “metaphysical jargon,” “pretentious and empty language,” “puerile and superannuated personifications.”  Mr. Darwin has many and hot opponents on this side of the Channel and in Germany, but we do not recollect to have found precisely these sins in the long catalogue of those hitherto laid to his charge.  It is worth while, therefore, to examine into these discoveries effected solely by the aid of the “lucidity and solidity” of the mind of M. Flourens.

According to M. Flourens, Mr. Darwin’s great error is that he has personified Nature (p. 10), and further that he has

“imagined a natural selection:  he imagines afterwards that this power of selecting (pouvoir d’elire) which he gives to Nature is similar to the power of man.  These two suppositions admitted, nothing stops him:  he plays with Nature as he likes, and makes her do all he pleases.” (P. 6.)

And this is the way M. Flourens extinguishes natural selection: 

     “Voyons donc encore une fois, ce qu’il peut y avoir de fonde dans
     ce qu’on nomme election naturelle.

     “L’election naturelle n’est sous un autre nom que la nature.  Pour
     un etre organise, la nature n’est que l’organisation, ni plus ni
     moins.

“Il faudra donc aussi personnifier l’organisation, et dire que l’organisation choisit l’organisation. L’election naturelle est cette forme substantielle dont on jonait autrefois avec tant de facilite.  Aristote disait que ’Si l’art de batir etait dans le bois, cet art agirait comme la nature.’  A la place de l’art de batir M. Darwin met l’election naturelle, et c’est tout un:  l’un n’est pas plus chimerique que l’autre.” (P. 31.)

And this is really all that M. Flourens can make of Natural Selection.  We have given the original, in fear lest a translation should be regarded as a travesty; but with the original before the reader, we may try to analyse the passage.  “For an organized being, Nature is only organization, neither more nor less.”