{"collection":"aor","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/aor/darwin/descent/dmintro.htm","path":"aor/darwin/descent/dmintro.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/aor/darwin/descent/dmintro.htm","text":"Introduction\n THE NATURE of the following work will be best understood by a\nbrief account of how it came to be written. During many years I\ncollected notes on the origin or descent of man, without any intention\nof publishing on the subject, but rather with the determination not to\npublish, as I thought that I should thus only add to the prejudices\nagainst my views. It seemed to me sufficient to indicate, in the first\nedition of my Origin of Species, that by this work \"light would be\nthrown on the origin of man and his history\"; and this implies that\nman must be included with other organic beings in any general\nconclusion respecting his manner of appearance on this earth. Now\nthe case wears a wholly different aspect. When a naturalist like\nCarl Vogt ventures to say in his address as President of the\nNational Institution of Geneva (1869), \"personne, en Europe au\nmoins, n'ose plus soutenir la creation independante et de toutes\npieces, des especes,\" it is manifest that at least a large number of\nnaturalists must admit that species are the modified descendants of\nother species; and this especially holds good with the younger and\nrising naturalists. The greater number accept the agency of natural\nselection; though some urge, whether with justice the future must\ndecide, that I have greatly overrated its importance. Of the older and\nhonoured chiefs in natural science, many unfortunately are still\nopposed to evolution in every form.\n In consequence of the views now adopted by most naturalists, and\nwhich will ultimately, as in every other case, be followed by others\nwho are not scientific, I have been led to put together my notes, so\nas to see how far the general conclusions arrived at in my former\nworks were applicable to man. This seemed all the more desirable, as I\nhad never deliberately applied these views to a species taken\nsingly. When we confine our attention to any one form, we are deprived\nof the weighty arguments derived from the nature of the affinities\nwhich connect together whole groups of organisms- their geographical\ndistribution in past and present times, and their geological\nsuccession. The homological structure, embryological development,\nand rudimentary organs of a species remain to be considered, whether\nit be man or any other animal, to which our attention may be directed;\nbut these great classes of facts afford, as it appears to me, ample\nand conclusive evidence in favour of the principle of gradual\nevolution. The strong support derived from the other arguments should,\nhowever, always be kept before the mind.\n The sole object of this work is to consider, firstly, whether man,\nlike every other species, is descended from some pre-existing form;\nsecondly, the manner of his development; and thirdly, the value of the\ndifferences between the so-called races of man. As I shall confine\nmyself to these points, it will not be necessary to describe in detail\nthe differences between the several races- an enormous subject which\nhas been fully discussed in many valuable works. The high antiquity of\nman has recently been demonstrated by the labours of a host of eminent\nmen, beginning with M. Boucher de Perthes; and this is the\nindispensable basis for understanding his origin. I shall,\ntherefore, take this conclusion for granted, and may refer my\nreaders to the admirable treatises of Sir Charles Lyell, Sir John\nLubbock, and others. Nor shall I have occasion to do more than to\nallude to the amount of difference between man and the\nanthropomorphous apes; for Prof. Huxley, in the opinion of most\ncompetent judges, has conclusively shewn that in every visible\ncharacter man differs less from the higher apes, than these do from\nthe lower members of the same order of primates.\n This work contains hardly any original facts in regard to man; but\nas the conclusions at which I arrived, after drawing up a rough draft,\nappeared to me interesting, I thought that they might interest others.\nIt has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can\nnever be known: but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than\ndoes knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know\nmuch, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be\nsolved by science. The conclusion that man is the co-descendant with\nother species of some ancient, lower, and extinct form, is not in\nany degree new. Lamarck long ago came to this conclusion, which has\nlately been maintained by several eminent naturalists and\nphilosophers; for instance, by Wallace, Huxley, Lyell, Vogt,\nLubbock, Buchner, Rolle, &c.,* and especially by Haeckel. This last\nnaturalist, besides his great work, Generelle Morphologie (1866),\nhas recently (1868, with a second edit. in 1870), published his\nNaturliche Schopfungsgeschichte, in which he fully discusses the\ngenealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay had been\nwritten, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all the\nconclusions at which I have arrived I find confirmed by this\nnaturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine.\nWherever I have added any fact or view from Prof. Haeckel's\nwritings, I give his authority in the text; other statements I leave\nas they originally stood in my manuscript, occasionally giving in\nthe foot-notes references to his works, as a confirmation of the\nmore doubtful or interesting points.\n * As the works of the first-named authors are so well known, I\nneed not give the titles; but as those of the latter are less well\nknown in England, I will give them:- Sechs Vorlesungen uberdie\nDarwin'sche Theorie: zweite Auflage, 1868, von Dr. L. Buchner;\ntranslated into French under the title Conferences sur la Theorie\nDarwinienne, 1869. Der Mensch, im Lichte der Darwin'schen Lehre, 1865,\nvon Dr. F. Rolle. I will not attempt to give references to all the\nauthors who have taken the same side of the question. Thus G.\nCanestrini has published (Annuario della Soc. dei Naturalisti, Modena,\n1867, p. 81) a very curious paper on rudimentary characters, as\nbearing on the origin of man. Another work has (1869) been published\nby Dr. Francesco Barrago, bearing in Italian the title of \"Man, made\nin the image of God, was also made in the image of the ape.\"\n During many years it has seemed to me highly probable that sexual\nselection has played an important part in differentiating the races of\nman; but in my Origin of Species I contented myself by merely alluding\nto this belief. When I came to apply this view to man, I found it\nindispensable to treat the whole subject in full detail.* Consequently\nthe second part of the present work, treating of sexual selection, has\nextended to an inordinate length, compared with the first part; but\nthis could not be avoided.\n * Prof. Haeckel was the only author who, at the time when this\nwork first appeared, had discussed the subject of sexual selection,\nand had seen its full importance, since the publication of the Origin;\nand this he did in a very able manner in his various works.\n I had intended adding to the present volumes an essay on the\nexpression of the various emotions by man and the lower animals. My\nattention was called to this subject many years ago by Sir Charles\nBell's admirable work. This illustrious anatomist maintains that man\nis endowed with certain muscles solely for the sake of expressing\nhis emotions. As this view is obviously opposed to the belief that man\nis descended from some other and lower form, it was necessary for me\nto consider it. I likewise wished to ascertain how far the emotions\nare expressed in the same manner by the different races of man. But\nowing to the length of the present work, I have thought it better to\nreserve my essay for separate publication.","title":"Introduction","type":"page"}