Was there ever a great theory yet which was not more or less
developed from previous speculations which were all to a certain
extent wrong, and all ridiculed, perhaps not undeservedly, at the
time of their appearance? There is a wide difference between a
speculation and a theory. A speculation involves the notion of a man
climbing into a lofty position, and descrying a somewhat remote
object which he cannot fully make out. A theory implies that the
theorist has looked long and steadfastly till he is clear in his own
mind concerning the nature of the thing which he is beholding. I
submit that the "Savoyard" has unfairly made use of the failure of
certain speculations in order to show that a distinct theory is
untenable.

Let it be granted that Darwin's theory has been foreshadowed by
numerous previous writers. Grant the "Savoyard" his Giordano Bruno,
and give full weight to the barrel-organ in a neighbouring
settlement, I would still ask, has the theory of natural development
of species ever been placed in anything approaching its present clear
and connected form before the appearance of Mr. Darwin's book? Has
it ever received the full attention of the scientific world as a duly
organised theory, one presented in a tangible shape and demanding
investigation, as the conclusion arrived at by a man of known
scientific attainments after years of patient toil? The upshot of
the barrel-organs article was to answer this question in the
affirmative and to pooh-pooh all further discussion.

It would be mere presumption on my part either to attack or defend
Darwin, but my indignation was roused at seeing him misrepresented
and treated disdainfully. I would wish, too, that the "Savoyard"
would have condescended to notice that little matter of the bear. I