Tired of reading? Add this page to your Bookmarks or Favorites and finish it later.
|
|
You must not say that this cannot be, or that that is contrary to
nature. You do not know what Nature is, or what she can do; and
nobody knows; not even Sir Roderick Murchison, or Professor Owen,
or Professor Sedgwick, or Professor Huxley, or Mr. Darwin, or
Professor Faraday, or Mr. Grove, or any other of the great men whom
good boys are taught to respect. They are very wise men; and you
must listen respectfully to all they say: but even if they should
say, which I am sure they never would, "That cannot exist. That is
contrary to nature," you must wait a little, and see; for perhaps
even they may be wrong. It is only children who read Aunt
Agitate's Arguments, or Cousin Cramchild's Conversations; or lads
who go to popular lectures, and see a man pointing at a few big
ugly pictures on the wall, or making nasty smells with bottles and
squirts, for an hour or two, and calling that anatomy or chemistry
- who talk about "cannot exist," and "contrary to nature." Wise
men are afraid to say that there is anything contrary to nature,
except what is contrary to mathematical truth; for two and two
cannot make five, and two straight lines cannot join twice, and a
part cannot be as great as the whole, and so on (at least, so it
seems at present): but the wiser men are, the less they talk about
"cannot." That is a very rash, dangerous word, that "cannot"; and
if people use it too often, the Queen of all the Fairies, who makes
the clouds thunder and the fleas bite, and takes just as much
trouble about one as about the other, is apt to astonish them
suddenly by showing them, that though they say she cannot, yet she
can, and what is more, will, whether they approve or not.
And therefore it is, that there are dozens and hundreds of things
in the world which we should certainly have said were contrary to
nature, if we did not see them going on under our eyes all day
long. If people had never seen little seeds grow into great plants
and trees, of quite different shape from themselves, and these
trees again produce fresh seeds, to grow into fresh trees, they
would have said, "The thing cannot be; it is contrary to nature."
And they would have been quite as right in saying so, as in saying
that most other things cannot be.
Or suppose again, that you had come, like M. Du Chaillu, a
traveller from unknown parts; and that no human being had ever seen
or heard of an elephant. And suppose that you described him to
people, and said, "This is the shape, and plan, and anatomy of the
beast, and of his feet, and of his trunk, and of his grinders, and
of his tusks, though they are not tusks at all, but two fore teeth
run mad; and this is the section of his skull, more like a mushroom
than a reasonable skull of a reasonable or unreasonable beast; and
so forth, and so forth; and though the beast (which I assure you I
have seen and shot) is first cousin to the little hairy coney of
Scripture, second cousin to a pig, and (I suspect) thirteenth or
fourteenth cousin to a rabbit, yet he is the wisest of all beasts,
and can do everything save read, write, and cast accounts." People
would surely have said, "Nonsense; your elephant is contrary to
nature;" and have thought you were telling stories - as the French
thought of Le Vaillant when he came back to Paris and said that he
had shot a giraffe; and as the king of the Cannibal Islands thought
of the English sailor, when he said that in his country water
turned to marble, and rain fell as feathers. They would tell you,
the more they knew of science, "Your elephant is an impossible
monster, contrary to the laws of comparative anatomy, as far as yet
known." To which you would answer the less, the more you thought.
|