diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/lckc10h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/lckc10h.htm | 9052 |
1 files changed, 9052 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/lckc10h.htm b/old/lckc10h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b509b85 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/lckc10h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,9052 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> +<html> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> +<title>Luck or Cunning?</title> +</head> +<body> +<h2> +<a href="#startoftext">Luck or Cunning?, by Samuel Butler</a> +</h2> +<pre> +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Luck or Cunning?, by Samuel Butler +(#11 in our series by Samuel Butler) + +Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the +copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing +this or any other Project Gutenberg eBook. + +This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project +Gutenberg file. Please do not remove it. Do not change or edit the +header without written permission. + +Please read the "legal small print," and other information about the +eBook and Project Gutenberg at the bottom of this file. Included is +important information about your specific rights and restrictions in +how the file may be used. You can also find out about how to make a +donation to Project Gutenberg, and how to get involved. + + +**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts** + +**eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971** + +*****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!***** + + +Title: Luck or Cunning? + +Author: Samuel Butler + +Release Date: January, 2004 [EBook #4967] +[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of schedule] +[This file was first posted on April 5, 2002] +[Most recently updated: April 5, 2002] + +Edition: 10 + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII +</pre> +<p> +<a name="startoftext"></a> +Transcribed by David Price, email ccx074@coventry.ac.uk, from the +1922 Jonathan Cape edition. +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +LUCK, OR CUNNING AS THE MAIN MEANS OF ORGANIC MODIFICATION<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +NOTE<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +This second edition of <i>Luck, or Cunning? </i>is a reprint of the +first edition, dated 1887, but actually published in November, 1886. +The only alterations of any consequence are in the Index, which has +been enlarged by the incorporation of several entries made by the author +in a copy of the book which came into my possession on the death of +his literary executor, Mr. R. A. Streatfeild. I thank Mr. G. W. +Webb, of the University Library, Cambridge, for the care and skill with +which he has made the necessary alterations; it was a troublesome job +because owing to the re-setting, the pagination was no longer the same.<br> +<br> +<i>Luck, or Cunning? </i>is the fourth of Butler’s evolution books; +it was followed in 1890 by three articles in <i>The Universal Review +</i>entitled “The Deadlock in Darwinism” (republished in +<i>The Humour of Homer), </i>after which he published no more upon that +subject.<br> +<br> +In this book, as he says in his Introduction, he insists upon two main +points: (1) the substantial identity between heredity and memory, and +(2) the reintroduction of design into organic development; and these +two points he treats as though they have something of that physical +life with which they are so closely associated. He was aware that +what he had to say was likely to prove more interesting to future generations +than to his immediate public, “but any book that desires to see +out a literary three-score years and ten must offer something to future +generations as well as to its own.” By next year one half +of the three-score years and ten will have passed, and the new generation +by their constant enquiries for the work have already begun to show +their appreciation of Butler’s method of treating the subject, +and their readiness to listen to what was addressed to them as well +as to their fathers.<br> +<br> +HENRY FESTING JONES.<br> +<i>March, </i>1920.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +This book, as I have said in my concluding chapter, has turned out very +different from the one I had it in my mind to write when I began it. +It arose out of a conversation with the late Mr. Alfred Tylor soon after +his paper on the growth of trees and protoplasmic continuity was read +before the Linnean Society - that is to say, in December, 1884 - and +I proposed to make the theory concerning the subdivision of organic +life into animal and vegetable, which I have broached in my concluding +chapter, the main feature of the book. One afternoon, on leaving +Mr. Tylor’s bedside, much touched at the deep disappointment he +evidently felt at being unable to complete the work he had begun so +ably, it occurred to me that it might be some pleasure to him if I promised +to dedicate my own book to him, and thus, however unworthy it might +be, connect it with his name. It occurred to me, of course, also +that the honour to my own book would be greater than any it could confer, +but the time was not one for balancing considerations nicely, and when +I made my suggestion to Mr. Tylor on the last occasion that I ever saw +him, the manner in which he received it settled the question. +If he had lived I should no doubt have kept more closely to my +plan, and should probably have been furnished by him with much that +would have enriched the book and made it more worthy of his acceptance; +but this was not to be.<br> +<br> +In the course of writing I became more and more convinced that no progress +could be made towards a sounder view of the theory of descent until +people came to understand what the late Mr. Charles Darwin’s theory +of natural selection amounted to, and how it was that it ever came to +be propounded. Until the mindless theory of Charles Darwinian +natural selection was finally discredited, and a mindful theory of evolution +was substituted in its place, neither Mr. Tylor’s experiments +nor my own theories could stand much chance of being attended to. +I therefore devoted myself mainly, as I had done in “Evolution +Old and New,” and in “Unconscious Memory,” to considering +whether the view taken by the late Mr. Darwin, or the one put forward +by his three most illustrious predecessors, should most command our +assent.<br> +<br> +The deflection from my original purpose was increased by the appearance, +about a year ago, of Mr. Grant Allen’s “Charles Darwin,” +which I imagine to have had a very large circulation. So important, +indeed, did I think it not to leave Mr. Allen’s statements unchallenged, +that in November last I recast my book completely, cutting out much +that I had written, and practically starting anew. How far Mr. +Tylor would have liked it, or even sanctioned its being dedicated to +him, if he were now living, I cannot, of course, say. I never +heard him speak of the late Mr. Darwin in any but terms of warm respect, +and am by no means sure that he would have been well pleased at an attempt +to connect him with a book so polemical as the present. On the +other hand, a promise made and received as mine was, cannot be set aside +lightly. The understanding was that my next book was to be dedicated +to Mr. Tylor; I have written the best I could, and indeed never took +so much pains with any other; to Mr. Tylor’s memory, therefore, +I have most respectfully, and regretfully, inscribed it.<br> +<br> +Desiring that the responsibility for what has been done should rest +with me, I have avoided saying anything about the book while it was +in progress to any of Mr Tylor’s family or representatives. +They know nothing, therefore, of its contents, and if they did, would +probably feel with myself very uncertain how far it is right to use +Mr. Tylor’s name in connection with it. I can only trust +that, on the whole, they may think I have done most rightly in adhering +to the letter of my promise.<br> +<br> +<i>October </i>15, 1886.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +I shall perhaps best promote the acceptance of the two main points on +which I have been insisting for some years past, I mean, the substantial +identity between heredity and memory, and the reintroduction of design +into organic development, by treating them as if they had something +of that physical life with which they are so closely connected. +Ideas are like plants and animals in this respect also, as in so many +others, that they are more fully understood when their relations to +other ideas of their time, and the history of their development are +known and borne in mind. By development I do not merely mean their +growth in the minds of those who first advanced them, but that larger +development which consists in their subsequent good or evil fortunes +- in their reception, favourable or otherwise, by those to whom they +were presented. This is to an idea what its surroundings are to +an organism, and throws much the same light upon it that knowledge of +the conditions under which an organism lives throws upon the organism +itself. I shall, therefore, begin this new work with a few remarks +about its predecessors.<br> +<br> +I am aware that what I may say on this head is likely to prove more +interesting to future students of the literature of descent than to +my immediate public, but any book that desires to see out a literary +three-score years and ten must offer something to future generations +as well as to its own. It is a condition of its survival that +it shall do this, and herein lies one of the author’s chief difficulties. +If books only lived as long as men and women, we should know better +how to grow them; as matters stand, however, the author lives for one +or two generations, whom he comes in the end to understand fairly well, +while the book, if reasonable pains have been taken with it, should +live more or less usefully for a dozen. About the greater number +of these generations the author is in the dark; but come what may, some +of them are sure to have arrived at conclusions diametrically opposed +to our own upon every subject connected with art, science, philosophy, +and religion; it is plain, therefore, that if posterity is to be pleased, +it can only be at the cost of repelling some present readers. +Unwilling as I am to do this, I still hold it the lesser of two evils; +I will be as brief, however, as the interests of the opinions I am supporting +will allow.<br> +<br> +In “Life and Habit” I contended that heredity was a mode +of memory. I endeavoured to show that all hereditary traits, whether +of mind or body, are inherited in virtue of, and as a manifestation +of, the same power whereby we are able to remember intelligently what +we did half an hour, yesterday, or a twelvemonth since, and this in +no figurative but in a perfectly real sense. If life be compared +to an equation of a hundred unknown quantities, I followed Professor +Hering of Prague in reducing it to one of ninety-nine only, by showing +two of the supposed unknown quantities to be so closely allied that +they should count as one. I maintained that instinct was inherited +memory, and this without admitting more exceptions and qualifying clauses +than arise, as it were, by way of harmonics from every proposition, +and must be neglected if thought and language are to be possible.<br> +<br> +I showed that if the view for which I was contending was taken, many +facts which, though familiar, were still without explanation or connection +with our other ideas, would remain no longer isolated, but be seen at +once as joined with the mainland of our most assured convictions. +Among the things thus brought more comfortably home to us was the principle +underlying longevity. It became apparent why some living beings +should live longer than others, and how any race must be treated whose +longevity it is desired to increase. Hitherto we had known that +an elephant was a long-lived animal and a fly short-lived, but we could +give no reason why the one should live longer than the other; that is +to say, it did not follow in immediate coherence with, or as intimately +associated with, any familiar principle that an animal which is late +in the full development of its reproductive system will tend to live +longer than one which reproduces early. If the theory of “Life +and Habit” be admitted, the fact of a slow-growing animal being +in general longer lived than a quick developer is seen to be connected +with, and to follow as a matter of course from, the fact of our being +able to remember anything at all, and all the well-known traits of memory, +as observed where we can best take note of them, are perceived to be +reproduced with singular fidelity in the development of an animal from +its embryonic stages to maturity.<br> +<br> +Take this view, and the very general sterility of hybrids from being +a <i>crux </i>of the theory of descent becomes a stronghold of defence. +It appears as part of the same story as the benefit derived from judicious, +and the mischief from injudicious, crossing; and this, in its turn, +is seen as part of the same story, as the good we get from change of +air and scene when we are overworked. I will not amplify; but +reversion to long-lost, or feral, characteristics, the phenomena of +old age, the fact of the reproductive system being generally the last +to arrive at maturity - few further developments occurring in any organism +after this has been attained - the sterility of many animals in confinement, +the development in both males and females under certain circumstances +of the characteristics of the opposite sex, the latency of memory, the +unconsciousness with which we grow, and indeed perform all familiar +actions, these points, though hitherto, most of them, so apparently +inexplicable that no one even attempted to explain them, became at once +intelligible, if the contentions of “Life and Habit” were +admitted.<br> +<br> +Before I had finished writing this book I fell in with Professor Mivart’s +“Genesis of Species,” and for the first time understood +the distinction between the Lamarckian and Charles-Darwinian systems +of evolution. This had not, so far as I then knew, been as yet +made clear to us by any of our more prominent writers upon the subject +of descent with modification; the distinction was unknown to the general +public, and indeed is only now beginning to be widely understood. +While reading Mr. Mivart’s book, however, I became aware that +I was being faced by two facts, each incontrovertible, but each, if +its leading exponents were to be trusted, incompatible with the other.<br> +<br> +On the one hand there was descent; we could not read Mr. Darwin’s +books and doubt that all, both animals and plants, were descended from +a common source. On the other, there was design; we could not +read Paley and refuse to admit that design, intelligence, adaptation +of means to ends, must have had a large share in the development of +the life we saw around us; it seemed indisputable that the minds and +bodies of all living beings must have come to be what they are through +a wise ordering and administering of their estates. We could not, +therefore, dispense either with descent or with design, and yet it seemed +impossible to keep both, for those who offered us descent stuck to it +that we could have no design, and those, again, who spoke so wisely +and so well about design would not for a moment hear of descent with +modification.<br> +<br> +Each, moreover, had a strong case. Who could reflect upon rudimentary +organs, and grant Paley the kind of design that alone would content +him? And yet who could examine the foot or the eye, and grant +Mr. Darwin his denial of forethought and plan?<br> +<br> +For that Mr. Darwin did deny skill and contrivance in connection with +the greatly preponderating part of organic developments cannot be and +is not now disputed. In the first chapter of “Evolution +Old and New” I brought forward passages to show how completely +he and his followers deny design, but will here quote one of the latest +of the many that have appeared to the same effect since “Evolution +Old and New” was published; it is by Mr. Romanes, and runs as +follows:-<br> +<br> +“It is the <i>very essence </i>of the Darwinian hypothesis that +it only seeks to explain the <i>apparently </i>purposive variations, +or variations of an adaptive kind.” <a name="citation17a"></a><a href="#footnote17a">{17a}</a><br> +<br> +The words “apparently purposive” show that those organs +in animals and plants which at first sight seem to have been designed +with a view to the work they have to do - that is to say, with a view +to future function - had not, according to Mr. Darwin, in reality any +connection with, or inception in, effort; effort involves purpose and +design; they had therefore no inception in design, however much they +might present the appearance of being designed; the appearance was delusive; +Mr. Romanes correctly declares it to be “the very essence” +of Mr. Darwin’s system to attempt an explanation of these seemingly +purposive variations which shall be compatible with their having arisen +without being in any way connected with intelligence or design.<br> +<br> +As it is indisputable that Mr. Darwin denied design, so neither can +it be doubted that Paley denied descent with modification. What, +then, were the wrong entries in these two sets of accounts, on the detection +and removal of which they would be found to balance as they ought?<br> +<br> +Paley’s weakest place, as already implied, is in the matter of +rudimentary organs; the almost universal presence in the higher organisms +of useless, and sometimes even troublesome, organs is fatal to the kind +of design he is trying to uphold; granted that there is design, still +it cannot be so final and far-foreseeing as he wishes to make it out. +Mr. Darwin’s weak place, on the other hand, lies, firstly, in +the supposition that because rudimentary organs imply no purpose now, +they could never in time past have done so - that because they had clearly +not been designed with an eye to all circumstances and all time, they +never, therefore, could have been designed with an eye to any time or +any circumstances; and, secondly, in maintaining that “accidental,” +“fortuitous,” “spontaneous” variations could +be accumulated at all except under conditions that have never been fulfilled +yet, and never will be; in other words, his weak place lay in the contention +(for it comes to this) that there can be sustained accumulation of bodily +wealth, more than of wealth of any other kind, unless sustained experience, +watchfulness, and good sense preside over the accumulation. In +“Life and Habit,” following Mr. Mivart, and, as I now find, +Mr. Herbert Spencer, I showed (pp. 279-281) how impossible it was for +variations to accumulate unless they were for the most part underlain +by a sustained general principle; but this subject will be touched upon +more fully later on.<br> +<br> +The accumulation of accidental variations which owed nothing to mind +either in their inception, or their accumulation, the pitchforking, +in fact, of mind out of the universe, or at any rate its exclusion from +all share worth talking about in the process of organic development, +this was the pill Mr. Darwin had given us to swallow; but so thickly +had he gilded it with descent with modification, that we did as we were +told, swallowed it without a murmur, were lavish in our expressions +of gratitude, and, for some twenty years or so, through the mouths of +our leading biologists, ordered design peremptorily out of court, if +she so much as dared to show herself. Indeed, we have even given +life pensions to some of the most notable of these biologists, I suppose +in order to reward them for having hoodwinked us so much to our satisfaction.<br> +<br> +Happily the old saying, <i>Naturam expellas furcâ, tamen usque +recurret, </i>still holds true, and the reaction that has been gaining +force for some time will doubtless ere long brush aside the cobwebs +with which those who have a vested interest in Mr. Darwin’s reputation +as a philosopher still try to fog our outlook. Professor Mivart +was, as I have said, among the first to awaken us to Mr. Darwin’s +denial of design, and to the absurdity involved therein. He well +showed how incredible Mr Darwin’s system was found to be, as soon +as it was fully realised, but there he rather left us. He seemed +to say that we must have our descent and our design too, but he did +not show how we were to manage this with rudimentary organs still staring +us in the face. His work rather led up to the clearer statement +of the difficulty than either put it before us in so many words, or +tried to remove it. Nevertheless there can be no doubt that the +“Genesis of Species” gave Natural Selection what will prove +sooner or later to be its death-blow, in spite of the persistence with +which many still declare that it has received no hurt, and the sixth +edition of the” Origin of Species,” published in the following +year, bore abundant traces of the fray. Moreover, though Mr. Mivart +gave us no overt aid, he pointed to the source from which help might +come, by expressly saying that his most important objection to Neo-Darwinism +had no force against Lamarck.<br> +<br> +To Lamarck, therefore, I naturally turned, and soon saw that the theory +on which I had been insisting in” Life and Habit” was in +reality an easy corollary on his system, though one which he does not +appear to have caught sight of. I saw also that his denial of +design was only, so to speak, skin deep, and that his system was in +reality teleological, inasmuch as, to use Isidore Geoffroy’s words, +it makes the organism design itself. In making variations depend +on changed actions, and these, again, on changed views of life, efforts, +and designs, in consequence of changed conditions of life, he in effect +makes effort, intention, will, all of which involve design (or at any +rate which taken together involve it), underlie progress in organic +development. True, he did not know he was a teleologist, but he +was none the less a teleologist for this. He was an unconscious +teleologist, and as such perhaps more absolutely an upholder of teleology +than Paley himself; but this is neither here nor there; our concern +is not with what people think about themselves, but with what their +reasoning makes it evident that they really hold.<br> +<br> +How strange the irony that hides us from ourselves! When Isidore +Geoffroy said that according to Lamarck organisms designed themselves, +<a name="citation20a"></a><a href="#footnote20a">{20a}</a> and endorsed +this, as to a great extent he did, he still does not appear to have +seen that either he or Lamarck were in reality reintroducing design +into organism; he does not appear to have seen this more than Lamarck +himself had seen it, but, on the contrary, like Lamarck, remained under +the impression that he was opposing teleology or purposiveness.<br> +<br> +Of course in one sense he did oppose it; so do we all, if the word design +be taken to intend a very far-foreseeing of minute details, a riding +out to meet trouble long before it comes, a provision on academic principles +for contingencies that are little likely to arise. We can see +no evidence of any such design as this in nature, and much everywhere +that makes against it. There is no such improvidence as over providence, +and whatever theories we may form about the origin and development of +the universe, we may be sure that it is not the work of one who is unable +to understand how anything can possibly go right unless he sees to it +himself. Nature works departmentally and by way of leaving details +to subordinates. But though those who see nature thus do indeed +deny design of the prescient-from-all-eternity order, they in no way +impugn a method which is far more in accord with all that we commonly +think of as design. A design which is as incredible as that a +ewe should give birth to a lion becomes of a piece with all that we +observe most frequently if it be regarded rather as an aggregation of +many small steps than as a single large one. This principle is +very simple, but it seems rather difficult to understand. It has +taken several generations before people would admit it as regards organism +even after it was pointed out to them, and those who saw it as regards +organism still failed to understand it as regards design; an inexorable +“Thus far shalt thou go and no farther” barred them from +fruition of the harvest they should have been the first to reap. +The very men who most insisted that specific difference was the accumulation +of differences so minute as to be often hardly, if at all, perceptible, +could not see that the striking and baffling phenomena of design in +connection with organism admitted of exactly the same solution as the +riddle of organic development, and should be seen not as a result reached +<i>per saltum, </i>but as an accumulation of small steps or leaps in +a given direction. It was as though those who had insisted on +the derivation of all forms of the steam-engine from the common kettle, +and who saw that this stands in much the same relations to the engines, +we will say, of the Great Eastern steamship as the amœba to man, +were to declare that the Great Eastern engines were not designed at +all, on the ground that no one in the early kettle days had foreseen +so great a future development, and were unable to understand that a +piecemeal <i>solvitur ambulando </i>design is more omnipresent, all-seeing, +and all-searching, and hence more truly in the strictest sense design, +than any speculative leap of fancy, however bold and even at times successful.<br> +<br> +From Lamarck I went on to Buffon and Erasmus Darwin - better men both +of them than Lamarck, and treated by him much as he has himself been +treated by those who have come after him - and found that the system +of these three writers, if considered rightly, and if the corollary +that heredity is only a mode of memory were added, would get us out +of our dilemma as regards descent and design, and enable us to keep +both. We could do this by making the design manifested in organism +more like the only design of which we know anything, and therefore the +only design of which we ought to speak - I mean our own.<br> +<br> +Our own design is tentative, and neither very far-foreseeing nor very +retrospective; it is a little of both, but much of neither; it is like +a comet with a little light in front of the nucleus and a good deal +more behind it, which ere long, however, fades away into the darkness; +it is of a kind that, though a little wise before the event, is apt +to be much wiser after it, and to profit even by mischance so long as +the disaster is not an overwhelming one; nevertheless, though it is +so interwoven with luck, there is no doubt about its being design; why, +then, should the design which must have attended organic development +be other than this? If the thing that has been is the thing that +also shall be, must not the thing which is be that which also has been? +Was there anything in the phenomena of organic life to militate against +such a view of design as this? Not only was there nothing, but +this view made things plain, as the connecting of heredity and memory +had already done, which till now had been without explanation. +Rudimentary organs were no longer a hindrance to our acceptance of design, +they became weighty arguments in its favour.<br> +<br> +I therefore wrote “Evolution Old and New,” with the object +partly of backing up “Life and Habit,” and showing the easy +rider it admitted, partly to show how superior the old view of descent +had been to Mr. Darwin’s, and partly to reintroduce design into +organism. I wrote “Life and Habit” to show that our +mental and bodily acquisitions were mainly stores of memory: I wrote +“Evolution Old and New” to add that the memory must be a +mindful and designing memory.<br> +<br> +I followed up these two books with “Unconscious Memory,” +the main object of which was to show how Professor Hering of Prague +had treated the connection between memory and heredity; to show, again, +how substantial was the difference between Von Hartmann and myself in +spite of some little superficial resemblance; to put forward a suggestion +as regards the physics of memory, and to meet the most plausible objection +which I have yet seen brought against “Life and Habit.”<br> +<br> +Since writing these three books I have published nothing on the connection +between heredity and memory, except a few pages of remarks on Mr. Romanes’ +“Mental Evolution in Animals” in my book, <a name="citation23a"></a><a href="#footnote23a">{23a}</a> +from which I will draw whatever seems to be more properly placed here. +I have collected many facts that make my case stronger, but am precluded +from publishing them by the reflection that it is strong enough already. +I have said enough in “Life and Habit” to satisfy any who +wish to be satisfied, and those who wish to be dissatisfied would probably +fail to see the force of what I said, no matter how long and seriously +I held forth to them; I believe, therefore, that I shall do well to +keep my facts for my own private reading and for that of my executors.<br> +<br> +I once saw a copy of “Life and Habit” on Mr. Bogue’s +counter, and was told by the very obliging shopman that a customer had +just written something in it which I might like to see. I said +of course I should like to see, and immediately taking the book read +the following - which it occurs to me that I am not justified in publishing. +What was written ran thus:-<br> +<br> +“As a reminder of our pleasant hours on the broad Atlantic, will +Mr. -- please accept this book (which I think contains more truth, and +less evidence of it, than any other I have met with) from his friend +-- ?”<br> +<br> +I presume the gentleman had met with the Bible - a work which lays itself +open to a somewhat similar comment. I was gratified, however, +at what I had read, and take this opportunity of thanking the writer, +an American, for having liked my book. It was so plain he had +been relieved at not finding the case smothered to death in the weight +of its own evidences, that I resolved not to forget the lesson his words +had taught me.<br> +<br> +The only writer in connection with “Life and Habit” to whom +I am anxious to reply is Mr. Herbert Spencer, but before doing this +I will conclude the present chapter with a consideration of some general +complaints that have been so often brought against me that it may be +worth while to notice them.<br> +<br> +These general criticisms have resolved themselves mainly into two.<br> +<br> +Firstly, it is said that I ought not to write about biology on the ground +of my past career, which my critics declare to have been purely literary. +I wish I might indulge a reasonable hope of one day becoming a literary +man; the expression is not a good one, but there is no other in such +common use, and this must excuse it; if a man can be properly called +literary, he must have acquired the habit of reading accurately, thinking +attentively, and expressing himself clearly. He must have endeavoured +in all sorts of ways to enlarge the range of his sympathies so as to +be able to put himself easily <i>en rapport </i>with those whom he is +studying, and those whom he is addressing. If he cannot speak +with tongues himself, he is the interpreter of those who can - without +whom they might as well be silent. I wish I could see more signs +of literary culture among my scientific opponents; I should find their +books much more easy and agreeable reading if I could; and then they +tell me to satirise the follies and abuses of the age, just as if it +was not this that I was doing in writing about themselves.<br> +<br> +What, I wonder, would they say if I were to declare that they ought +not to write books at all, on the ground that their past career has +been too purely scientific to entitle them to a hearing? They +would reply with justice that I should not bring vague general condemnations, +but should quote examples of their bad writing. I imagine that +I have done this more than once as regards a good many of them, and +I dare say I may do it again in the course of this book; but though +I must own to thinking that the greater number of our scientific men +write abominably, I should not bring this against them if I believed +them to be doing their best to help us; many such men we happily have, +and doubtless always shall have, but they are not those who push to +the fore, and it is these last who are most angry with me for writing +on the subjects I have chosen. They constantly tell me that I +am not a man of science; no one knows this better than I do, and I am +quite used to being told it, but I am not used to being confronted with +the mistakes that I have made in matters of fact, and trust that this +experience is one which I may continue to spare no pains in trying to +avoid.<br> +<br> +Nevertheless I again freely grant that I am not a man of science. +I have never said I was. I was educated for the Church. +I was once inside the Linnean Society’s rooms, but have no present +wish to go there again; though not a man of science, however, I have +never affected indifference to the facts and arguments which men of +science have made it their business to lay before us; on the contrary, +I have given the greater part of my time to their consideration for +several years past. I should not, however, say this unless led +to do so by regard to the interests of theories which I believe to be +as nearly important as any theories can be which do not directly involve +money or bodily convenience.<br> +<br> +The second complaint against me is to the effect that I have made no +original experiments, but have taken all my facts at second hand. +This is true, but I do not see what it has to do with the question. +If the facts are sound, how can it matter whether A or B collected them? +If Professor Huxley, for example, has made a series of valuable original +observations (not that I know of his having done so), why am I to make +them over again? What are fact-collectors worth if the fact co-ordinators +may not rely upon them? It seems to me that no one need do more +than go to the best sources for his facts, and tell his readers where +he got them. If I had had occasion for more facts I daresay I +should have taken the necessary steps to get hold of them, but there +was no difficulty on this score; every text-book supplied me with all, +and more than all, I wanted; my complaint was that the facts which Mr. +Darwin supplied would not bear the construction he tried to put upon +them; I tried, therefore, to make them bear another which seemed at +once more sound and more commodious; rightly or wrongly I set up as +a builder, not as a burner of bricks, and the complaint so often brought +against me of not having made experiments is about as reasonable as +complaint against an architect on the score of his not having quarried +with his own hands a single one of the stones which he has used in building. +Let my opponents show that the facts which they and I use in common +are unsound, or that I have misapplied them, and I will gladly learn +my mistake, but this has hardly, to my knowledge, been attempted. +To me it seems that the chief difference between myself and some of +my opponents lies in this, that I take my facts from them with acknowledgment, +and they take their theories from me - without.<br> +<br> +One word more and I have done. I should like to say that I do +not return to the connection between memory and heredity under the impression +that I shall do myself much good by doing so. My own share in +the matter was very small. The theory that heredity is only a +mode of memory is not mine, but Professor Hering’s. He wrote +in 1870, and I not till 1877. I should be only too glad if he +would take his theory and follow it up himself; assuredly he could do +so much better than I can; but with the exception of his one not lengthy +address published some fifteen or sixteen years ago he has said nothing +upon the subject, so far at least as I have been able to ascertain; +I tried hard to draw him in 1880, but could get nothing out of him. +If, again, any of our more influential writers, not a few of whom evidently +think on this matter much as I do, would eschew ambiguities and tell +us what they mean in plain language, I would let the matter rest in +their abler hands, but of this there does not seem much chance at present.<br> +<br> +I wish there was, for in spite of the interest I have felt in working +the theory out and the information I have been able to collect while +doing so, I must confess that I have found it somewhat of a white elephant. +It has got me into the hottest of hot water, made a literary Ishmael +of me, lost me friends whom I have been sorry to lose, cost me a good +deal of money, done everything to me, in fact, which a good theory ought +not to do. Still, as it seems to have taken up with me, and no +one else is inclined to treat it fairly, I shall continue to report +its developments from time to time as long as life and health are spared +me. Moreover, Ishmaels are not without their uses, and they are +not a drug in the market just now.<br> +<br> +I may now go on to Mr. Spencer.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER II - MR. HERBERT SPENCER<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +Mr. Herbert Spencer wrote to the <i>Athenæum </i>(April 5, 1884), +and quoted certain passages from the 1855 edition of his “Principles +of Psychology,” “the meanings and implications” from +which he contended were sufficiently clear. The passages he quoted +were as follows:-<br> +<br> +Though it is manifest that reflex and instinctive sequences are not +determined by the experiences of the <i>individual </i>organism manifesting +them, yet there still remains the hypothesis that they are determined +by the experiences of the <i>race </i>of organisms forming its ancestry, +which by infinite repetition in countless successive generations have +established these sequences as organic relations (p. 526).<br> +<br> +The modified nervous tendencies produced by such new habits of life +are also bequeathed (p. 526).<br> +<br> +That is to say, the tendencies to certain combinations of psychical +changes have become organic (p. 527).<br> +<br> +The doctrine that the connections among our ideas are determined by +experience must, in consistency, be extended not only to all the connections +established by the accumulated experiences of every individual, but +to all those established by the accumulated experiences of every race +(p. 529).<br> +<br> +Here, then, we have one of the simpler forms of instinct which, under +the requisite conditions, must necessarily be established by accumulated +experiences (p. 547).<br> +<br> +And manifestly, if the organisation of inner relations, in correspondence +with outer relations, results from a continual registration of experiences, +&c. (p. 551).<br> +<br> +On the one hand, Instinct may be regarded as a kind of organised memory; +on the other hand, Memory may be regarded as a kind of incipient instinct +(pp. 555-6).<br> +<br> +Memory, then, pertains to all that class of psychical states which are +in process of being organised. It continues so long as the organising +of them continues; and disappears when the organisation of them is complete. +In the advance of the correspondence, each more complex class of phenomena +which the organism acquires the power of recognising is responded to +at first irregularly and uncertainly; and there is then a weak remembrance +of the relations. By multiplication of experiences this remembrance +becomes stronger, and the response more certain. By further multiplication +of experiences the internal relations are at last automatically organised +in correspondence with the external ones; and so conscious memory passes +into unconscious or organic memory. At the same time, a new and +still more complex order of experiences is thus rendered appreciable; +the relations they present occupy the memory in place of the simpler +one; they become gradually organised; and, like the previous ones, are +succeeded by others more complex still (p. 563).<br> +<br> +Just as we saw that the establishment of those compound reflex actions +which we call instincts is comprehensible on the principle that inner +relations are, by perpetual repetition, organised into correspondence +with outer relations; so the establishment of those consolidated, those +indissoluble, those instinctive mental relations constituting our ideas +of Space and Time, is comprehensible on the same principle (p. 579).<br> +<br> +<br> +In a book published a few weeks before Mr. Spencer’s letter appeared +<a name="citation29a"></a><a href="#footnote29a">{29a}</a> I had said +that though Mr. Spencer at times closely approached Professor Hering +and “Life and Habit,” he had nevertheless nowhere shown +that he considered memory and heredity to be parts of the same story +and parcel of one another. In his letter to the <i>Athenæum, +</i>indeed, he does not profess to have upheld this view, except “by +implications;” nor yet, though in the course of the six or seven +years that had elapsed since “Life and Habit” was published +I had brought out more than one book to support my earlier one, had +he said anything during those years to lead me to suppose that I was +trespassing upon ground already taken by himself. Nor, again, +had he said anything which enabled me to appeal to his authority - which +I should have been only too glad to do; at last, however, he wrote, +as I have said, to the <i>Athenæum </i>a letter which, indeed, +made no express claim, and nowhere mentioned myself, but “the +meanings and implications” from which were this time as clear +as could be desired, and amount to an order to Professor Hering and +myself to stand aside.<br> +<br> +The question is, whether the passages quoted by Mr. Spencer, or any +others that can be found in his works, show that he regarded heredity +in all its manifestations as a mode of memory. I submit that this +conception is not derivable from Mr. Spencer’s writings, and that +even the passages in which he approaches it most closely are unintelligible +till read by the light of Professor Hering’s address and of “Life +and Habit.”<br> +<br> +True, Mr. Spencer made abundant use of such expressions as “the +experience of the race,” “accumulated experiences,” +and others like them, but he did not explain - and it was here the difficulty +lay - how a race could have any experience at all. We know what +we mean when we say that an individual has had experience; we mean that +he is the same person now (in the common use of the words), on the occasion +of some present action, as the one who performed a like action at some +past time or times, and that he remembers how he acted before, so as +to be able to turn his past action to account, gaining in proficiency +through practice. Continued personality and memory are the elements +that constitute experience; where these are present there may, and commonly +will, be experience; where they are absent the word “experience” +cannot properly be used.<br> +<br> +Formerly we used to see an individual as one, and a race as many. +We now see that though this is true as far as it goes, it is by no means +the whole truth, and that in certain important respects it is the race +that is one, and the individual many. We all admit and understand +this readily enough now, but it was not understood when Mr. Spencer +wrote the passages he adduced in the letter to the <i>Athenæum +</i>above referred to. In the then state of our ideas a race was +only a succession of individuals, each one of them new persons, and +as such incapable of profiting by the experience of its predecessors +except in the very limited number of cases where oral teaching, or, +as in recent times, writing, was possible. The thread of life +was, as I have elsewhere said, remorselessly shorn between each successive +generation, and the importance of the physical and psychical connection +between parents and offspring had been quite, or nearly quite, lost +sight of. It seems strange how this could ever have been allowed +to come about, but it should be remembered that the Church in the Middle +Ages would strongly discourage attempts to emphasize a connection that +would raise troublesome questions as to who in a future state was to +be responsible for what; and, after all, for nine purposes of life out +of ten the generally received opinion that each person is himself and +nobody else is on many grounds the most convenient. Every now +and then, however, there comes a tenth purpose, for which the continued +personality side of the connection between successive generations is +as convenient as the new personality side is for the remaining nine, +and these tenth purposes - some of which are not unimportant - are obscured +and fulfilled amiss owing to the completeness with which the more commonly +needed conception has overgrown the other.<br> +<br> +Neither view is more true than the other, but the one was wanted every +hour and minute of the day, and was therefore kept, so to speak, in +stock, and in one of the most accessible places of our mental storehouse, +while the other was so seldom asked for that it became not worth while +to keep it. By-and-by it was found so troublesome to send out +for it, and so hard to come by even then, that people left off selling +it at all, and if any one wanted it he must think it out at home as +best he could; this was troublesome, so by common consent the world +decided no longer to busy itself with the continued personality of successive +generations - which was all very well until it also decided to busy +itself with the theory of descent with modification. On the introduction +of a foe so inimical to many of our pre-existing ideas the balance of +power among them was upset, and a readjustment became necessary, which +is still far from having attained the next settlement that seems likely +to be reasonably permanent.<br> +<br> +To change the illustration, the ordinary view is true for seven places +of decimals, and this commonly is enough; occasions, however, have now +arisen when the error caused by neglect of the omitted places is appreciably +disturbing, and we must have three or four more. Mr. Spencer showed +no more signs of seeing that he must supply these, and make personal +identity continue between successive generations before talking about +inherited (as opposed to post-natal and educational) experience, than +others had done before him; the race with him, as with every one else +till recently, was not one long individual living indeed in pulsations, +so to speak, but no more losing continued personality by living in successive +generations, than an individual loses it by living in consecutive days; +a race was simply a succession of individuals, each one of which was +held to be an entirely new person, and was regarded exclusively, or +very nearly so, from this point of view.<br> +<br> +When I wrote “Life and Habit” I knew that the words “experience +of the race” sounded familiar, and were going about in magazines +and newspapers, but I did not know where they came from; if I had, I +should have given their source. To me they conveyed no meaning, +and vexed me as an attempt to make me take stones instead of bread, +and to palm off an illustration upon me as though it were an explanation. +When I had worked the matter out in my own way, I saw that the illustration, +with certain additions, would become an explanation, but I saw also +that neither he who had adduced it nor any one else could have seen +how right he was, till much had been said which had not, so far as 1 +knew, been said yet, and which undoubtedly would have been said if people +had seen their way to saying it.<br> +<br> +“What is this talk,” I wrote, “which is made about +the experience of the race, as though the experience of one man could +profit another who knows nothing about him? If a man eats his +dinner it nourishes him and not his neighbour; if he learns a difficult +art it is he that can do it and not his neighbour” (“Life +and Habit,” p. 49).<br> +<br> +When I wrote thus in 1877, it was not generally seen that though the +father is not nourished by the dinners that the son eats, yet the son +was fed when the father ate before he begot him.<br> +<br> +“Is there any way,” I continued, “of showing that +this experience of the race about which so much is said without the +least attempt to show in what way it may, or does, become the experience +of the individual, is in sober seriousness the experience of one single +being only, who repeats on a great many different occasions, and in +slightly different ways, certain performances with which he has already +become exceedingly familiar?”<br> +<br> +I felt, as every one else must have felt who reflected upon the expression +in question, that it was fallacious till this was done. When I +first began to write “Life and Habit” I did not believe +it could be done, but when I had gone right up to the end, as it were, +of my <i>cu de sac, </i>I saw the path which led straight to the point +I had despaired of reaching - I mean I saw that personality could not +be broken as between generations, without also breaking it between the +years, days, and moments of a man’s life. What differentiates +“Life and Habit” from the “Principles of Psychology” +is the prominence given to continued personal identity, and hence to +<i>bonâ fide </i>memory, as between successive generations; but +surely this makes the two books differ widely.<br> +<br> +Ideas can be changed to almost any extent in almost any direction, if +the change is brought about gradually and in accordance with the rules +of all development. As in music we may take almost any possible +discord with pleasing effect if we have prepared and resolved it rightly, +so our ideas will outlive and outgrow almost any modification which +is approached and quitted in such a way as to fuse the old and new harmoniously. +Words are to ideas what the fairy invisible cloak was to the prince +who wore it - only that the prince was seen till he put on the cloak, +whereas ideas are unseen until they don the robe of words which reveals +them to us; the words, however, and the ideas, should be such as fit +each other and stick to one another in our minds as soon as they are +brought together, or the ideas will fly off, and leave the words void +of that spirit by the aid of which alone they can become transmuted +into physical action and shape material things with their own impress. +Whether a discord is too violent or no, depends on what we have been +accustomed to, and on how widely the new differs from the old, but in +no case can we fuse and assimilate more than a very little new at a +time without exhausting our tempering power - and hence presently our +temper.<br> +<br> +Mr. Spencer appears to have forgotten that though <i>de minimis non +curat lex</i>, - though all the laws fail when applied to trifles, - +yet too sudden a change in the manner in which our ideas are associated +is as cataclysmic and subversive of healthy evolution as are material +convulsions, or too violent revolutions in politics. This must +always be the case, for change is essentially miraculous, and the only +lawful home of the miracle is in the microscopically small. Here, +indeed, miracles were in the beginning, are now, and ever shall be, +but we are deadened if they are required of us on a scale which is visible +to the naked eye. If we are told to work them our hands fall nerveless +down; if, come what may, we must do or die, we are more likely to die +than to succeed in doing. If we are required to believe them - +which only means to fuse them with our other ideas - we either take +the law into our own hands, and our minds being in the dark fuse something +easier of assimilation, and say we have fused the miracle; or if we +play more fairly and insist on our minds swallowing and assimilating +it, we weaken our judgments, and <i>pro tanto </i>kill our souls. +If we stick out beyond a certain point we go mad, as fanatics, or at +the best make Coleridges of ourselves; and yet upon a small scale these +same miracles are the breath and essence of life; to cease to work them +is to die. And by miracle I do not merely mean something new, +strange, and not very easy of comprehension - I mean something which +violates every canon of thought which in the palpable world we are accustomed +to respect; something as alien to, and inconceivable by, us as contradiction +in terms, the destructibility of force or matter, or the creation of +something out of nothing. This, which when writ large maddens +and kills, writ small is our meat and drink; it attends each minutest +and most impalpable detail of the ceaseless fusion and diffusion in +which change appears to us as consisting, and which we recognise as +growth and decay, or as life and death.<br> +<br> +Claude Bernard says, <i>Rien ne nait, rien ne se crée, tout se +continue. La nature ne nous offre le spectacle d’aucune +création, elle est d’une éternelle continuation</i>; +<a name="citation35a"></a><a href="#footnote35a">{35a}</a> but surely +he is insisting upon one side of the truth only, to the neglect of another +which is just as real, and just as important; he might have said, <i>Rien +ne se continue, tout nait, tout se crée. La nature ne nous +offre le spectacle d’aucune continuation. Elle est d’une +éternelle création</i>; for change is no less patent a +fact than continuity, and, indeed, the two stand or fall together. +True, discontinuity, where development is normal, is on a very small +scale, but this is only the difference between looking at distances +on a small instead of a large map; we cannot have even the smallest +change without a small partial corresponding discontinuity; on a small +scale - too small, indeed, for us to cognise - these breaks in continuity, +each one of which must, so far as our understanding goes, rank as a +creation, are as essential a factor of the phenomena we see around us, +as is the other factor that they shall normally be on too small a scale +for us to find it out. Creations, then, there must be, but they +must be so small that practically they are no creations. We must +have a continuity in discontinuity, and a discontinuity in continuity; +that is to say, we can only conceive the help of change at all by the +help of flat contradiction in terms. It comes, therefore, to this, +that if we are to think fluently and harmoniously upon any subject into +which change enters (and there is no conceivable subject into which +it does not), we must begin by flying in the face of every rule that +professors of the art of thinking have drawn up for our instruction. +These rules may be good enough as servants, but we have let them become +the worst of masters, forgetting that philosophy is made for man, not +man for philosophy. Logic has been the true Tower of Babel, which +we have thought to build so that we might climb up into the heavens, +and have no more miracle, but see God and live - nor has confusion of +tongues failed to follow on our presumption. Truly St. Paul said +well that the just shall live by faith; and the question “By what +faith?” is a detail of minor moment, for there are as many faiths +as species, whether of plants or animals, and each of them is in its +own way both living and saving.<br> +<br> +All, then, whether fusion or diffusion, whether of ideas or things, +is miraculous. It is the two in one, and at the same time one +in two, which is only two and two making five put before us in another +shape; yet this fusion - so easy to think so long as it is not thought +about, and so unthinkable if we try to think it - is, as it were, the +matrix from which our more thinkable thought is taken; it is the cloud +gathering in the unseen world from which the waters of life descend +in an impalpable dew. Granted that all, whether fusion or diffusion, +whether of ideas or things, is, if we dwell upon it and take it seriously, +an outrage upon our understandings which common sense alone enables +us to brook; granted that it carries with it a distinctly miraculous +element which should vitiate the whole process <i>ab initio, </i>still, +if we have faith we can so work these miracles as Orpheus-like to charm +denizens of the unseen world into the seen again - provided we do not +look back, and provided also we do not try to charm half a dozen Eurydices +at a time. To think is to fuse and diffuse ideas, and to fuse +and diffuse ideas is to feed. We can all feed, and by consequence +within reasonable limits we can fuse ideas; or we can fuse ideas, and +by consequence within reasonable limits we can feed; we know not which +comes first, the food or the ideas, but we must not overtax our strength; +the moment we do this we taste of death.<br> +<br> +It is in the closest connection with this that we must chew our food +fine before we can digest it, and that the same food given in large +lumps will choke and kill which in small pieces feeds us; or, again, +that that which is impotent as a pellet may be potent as a gas. +Food is very thoughtful: through thought it comes, and back through +thought it shall return; the process of its conversion and comprehension +within our own system is mental as well as physical, and here, as everywhere +else with mind and evolution, there must be a cross, but not too wide +a cross - that is to say, there must be a miracle, but not upon a large +scale. Granted that no one can draw a clear line and define the +limits within which a miracle is healthy working and beyond which it +is unwholesome, any more than he can prescribe the exact degree of fineness +to which we must comminute our food; granted, again, that some can do +more than others, and that at all times all men sport, so to speak, +and surpass themselves, still we know as a general rule near enough, +and find that the strongest can do but very little at a time, and, to +return to Mr. Spencer, the fusion of two such hitherto unassociated +ideas as race and experience was a miracle beyond our strength.<br> +<br> +Assuredly when Mr. Spencer wrote the passages he quoted in the letter +to the <i>Athenæum </i>above referred to, we were not in the habit +of thinking of any one as able to remember things that had happened +before he had been born or thought of. This notion will still +strike many of my non-readers as harsh and strained; no such discord, +therefore, should have been taken unprepared, and when taken it should +have been resolved with pomp and circumstance. Mr Spencer, however, +though he took it continually, never either prepared it or resolved +it at all, but by using the words “experience of the race” +sprang this seeming paradox upon us, with the result that his words +were barren. They were barren because they were incoherent; they +were incoherent because they were approached and quitted too suddenly. +While we were realising “experience” our minds excluded +“race,” inasmuch as experience was an idea we had been accustomed +hitherto to connect only with the individual; while realising the idea +“race,” for the same reason, we as a matter of course excluded +experience. We were required to fuse two ideas that were alien +to one another, without having had those other ideas presented to us +which would alone flux them. The absence of these - which indeed +were not immediately ready to hand, or Mr. Spencer would have doubtless +grasped them - made nonsense of the whole thing; we saw the ideas propped +up as two cards one against the other, on one of Mr. Spencer’s +pages, only to find that they had fallen asunder before we had turned +over to the next, so we put down his book resentfully, as written by +one who did not know what to do with his meaning even if he had one, +or bore it meekly while he chastised us with scorpions, as Mr. Darwin +had done with whips, according to our temperaments.<br> +<br> +I may say, in passing, that the barrenness of incoherent ideas, and +the sterility of widely distant species and genera of animals and plants, +are one in principle - the sterility of hybrids being just as much due +to inability to fuse widely unlike and unfamiliar ideas into a coherent +whole, as barrenness of ideas is, and, indeed, resolving itself ultimately +into neither more nor less than barrenness of ideas - that is to say, +into inability to think at all, or at any rate to think as their neighbours +do.<br> +<br> +If Mr. Spencer had made it clear that the generations of any race are +<i>bonâ fide </i>united by a common personality, and that in virtue +of being so united each generation remembers (within, of course, the +limits to which all memory is subject) what happened to it while still +in the persons of its progenitors - then his order to Professor Hering +and myself should be immediately obeyed; but this was just what was +at once most wanted, and least done by Mr. Spencer. Even in the +passages given above - passages collected by Mr. Spencer himself - this +point is altogether ignored; make it clear as Professor Hering made +it - put continued personality and memory in the foreground as Professor +Hering did, instead of leaving them to be discovered “by implications,” +and then such expressions as “accumulated experiences” and +“experience of the race” become luminous; till this had +been done they were <i>Vox et præterea nihil.<br> +<br> +</i>To sum up briefly. The passages quoted by Mr. Spencer from +his “Principles of Psychology” can hardly be called clear, +even now that Professor Hering and others have thrown light upon them. +If, indeed, they had been clear Mr. Spencer would probably have seen +what they necesitated, and found the way of meeting the difficulties +of the case which occurred to Professor Hering and myself. Till +we wrote, very few writers had even suggested this. The idea that +offspring was only “an elongation or branch proceeding from its +parents” had scintillated in the ingenious brain of Dr. Erasmus +Darwin, and in that of the designer of Jesse tree windows, but it had +kindled no fire; it now turns out that Canon Kingsley had once called +instinct inherited memory, <a name="citation40a"></a><a href="#footnote40a">{40a}</a> +but the idea, if born alive at all, died on the page on which it saw +light: Professor Ray Lankester, again called attention to Professor +Hering’s address <i>(Nature, </i>July 13, 1876), but no discussion +followed, and the matter dropped without having produced visible effect. +As for offspring remembering in any legitimate sense of the words what +it had done, and what had happened to it, before it was born, no such +notion was understood to have been gravely mooted till very recently. +I doubt whether Mr. Spencer and Mr. Romanes would accept this even now, +when it is put thus undisguisedly; but this is what Professor Hering +and I mean, and it is the only thing that should be meant, by those +who speak of instinct as inherited memory. Mr Spencer cannot maintain +that these two startling novelties went without saying “by implication” +from the use of such expressions as “accumulated experiences” +or “experience of the race.”<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER III - MR. HERBERT SPENCER <i>(continued)<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +</i>Whether they ought to have gone or not, they did not go.<br> +<br> +When “Life and Habit” was first published no one considered +Mr. Spencer to be maintaining the phenomena of heredity to be in reality +phenomena of memory. When, for example, Professor Ray Lankester +first called attention to Professor Hering’s address, he did not +understand Mr. Spencer to be intending this. “Professor +Hering,” he wrote <i>(Nature, </i>July 13, 1876), “helps +us to a comprehensive view of the nature of heredity and adaptation, +by giving us the word ‘memory,’ conscious or unconscious, +for the continuity of Mr. Spencer’s polar forces or polarities +of physiological units.” He evidently found the prominence +given to memory a help to him which he had not derived from reading +Mr. Spencer’s works.<br> +<br> +When, again, he attacked me in the <i>Athenæum </i>(March 29, +1884), he spoke of my “tardy recognition” of the fact that +Professor Hering had preceded me “in treating all manifestations +of heredity as a form of memory.” Professor Lankester’s +words could have no force if he held that any other writer, and much +less so well known a writer as Mr. Spencer, had preceded me in putting +forward the theory in question.<br> +<br> +When Mr. Romanes reviewed “Unconscious Memory” in <i>Nature +</i>(January 27, 1881) the notion of a “race-memory,” to +use his own words, was still so new to him that he declared it “simply +absurd” to suppose that it could “possibly be fraught with +any benefit to science,” and with him too it was Professor Hering +who had anticipated me in the matter, not Mr. Spencer.<br> +<br> +In his “Mental Evolution in Animals” (p. 296) he said that +Canon Kingsley, writing in 1867, was the first to advance the theory +that instinct is inherited memory; he could not have said this if Mr. +Spencer had been understood to have been upholding this view for the +last thirty years.<br> +<br> +Mr. A. R. Wallace reviewed “Life and Habit” in <i>Nature +</i>(March 27, 1879), but he did not find the line I had taken a familiar +one, as he surely must have done if it had followed easily by implication +from Mr. Spencer’s works. He called it “an ingenious +and paradoxical explanation” which was evidently new to him. +He concluded by saying that “it might yet afford a clue to some +of the deepest mysteries of the organic world.”<br> +<br> +Professor Mivart, when he reviewed my books on Evolution in the <i>American +Catholic Quarterly Review </i>(July 1881), said, “Mr Butler is +not only perfectly logical and consistent in the startling consequences +he deduces from his principles, but,” &c. Professor +Mivart could not have found my consequences startling if they had already +been insisted upon for many years by one of the best-known writers of +the day.<br> +<br> +The reviewer of “Evolution Old and New” in the <i>Saturday +Review </i>(March 31, 1879), of whom all I can venture to say is that +he or she is a person whose name carries weight in matters connected +with biology, though he (for brevity) was in the humour for seeing everything +objectionable in me that could be seen, still saw no Mr. Spencer in +me. He said - “Mr Butler’s own particular contribution +to the terminology of Evolution is the phrase two or three times repeated +with some emphasis” (I repeated it not two or three times only, +but whenever and wherever I could venture to do so without wearying +the reader beyond endurance) “oneness of personality between parents +and offspring.” The writer proceeded to reprobate this in +language upon which a Huxley could hardly improve, but as he declares +himself unable to discover what it means, it may be presumed that the +idea of continued personality between successive generations was new +to him.<br> +<br> +When Dr. Francis Darwin called on me a day or two before “Life +and Habit” went to the press, he said the theory which had pleased +him more than any he had seen for some time was one which referred all +life to memory; <a name="citation44a"></a><a href="#footnote44a">{44a}</a> +he doubtless intended “which referred all the phenomena of heredity +to memory.” He then mentioned Professor Ray Lankester’s +article in <i>Nature</i>, of which I had not heard, but he said nothing +about Mr. Spencer, and spoke of the idea as one which had been quite +new to him.<br> +<br> +The above names comprise (excluding Mr. Spencer himself) perhaps those +of the best-known writers on evolution that can be mentioned as now +before the public; it is curious that Mr Spencer should be the only +one of them to see any substantial resemblance between the “Principles +of Psychology” and Professor Hering’s address and “Life +and Habit.”<br> +<br> +I ought, perhaps, to say that Mr. Romanes, writing to the <i>Athenæum +</i>(March 8, 1884), took a different view of the value of the theory +of inherited memory to the one he took in 1881.<br> +<br> +In 1881 he said it was “simply absurd” to suppose it could +“possibly be fraught with any benefit to science” or “reveal +any truth of profound significance;” in 1884 he said of the same +theory, that “it formed the backbone of all the previous literature +upon instinct” by Darwin, Spencer, Lewes, Fiske, and Spalding, +“not to mention their numerous followers, and is by all of them +elaborately stated as clearly as any theory can be stated in words.”<br> +<br> +Few except Mr. Romanes will say this. I grant it ought to “have +formed the backbone,” &c., and ought “to have been elaborately +stated,” &c., but when I wrote “Life and Habit” +neither Mr Romanes nor any one else understood it to have been even +glanced at by more than a very few, and as for having been “elaborately +stated,” it had been stated by Professor Hering as elaborately +as it could be stated within the limits of an address of only twenty-two +pages, but with this exception it had never been stated at all. +It is not too much to say that “Life and Habit,” when it +first came out, was considered so startling a paradox that people would +not believe in my desire to be taken seriously, or at any rate were +able to pretend that they thought I was not writing seriously.<br> +<br> +Mr. Romanes knows this just as well as all must do who keep an eye on +evolution; he himself, indeed, had said <i>(Nature, </i>January 27, +1881) that so long as I “aimed only at entertaining” my +“readers by such works as ‘Erewhon’ and ‘Life +and Habit’” (as though these books were of kindred character) +I was in my proper sphere. It would be doing too little credit +to Mr. Romanes’ intelligence to suppose him not to have known +when he said this that “Life and Habit” was written as seriously +as my subsequent books on evolution, but it suited him at the moment +to join those who professed to consider it another book of paradoxes +such as, I suppose, “Erewhon” had been, so he classed the +two together. He could not have done this unless enough people +thought, or said they thought, the books akin, to give colour to his +doing so.<br> +<br> +One alone of all my reviewers has, to my knowledge, brought Mr. Spencer +against me. This was a writer in the <i>St. James’s Gazette +</i>(December 2, 1880). I challenged him in a letter which appeared +(December 8, 1880), and said, “I would ask your reviewer to be +kind enough to refer your readers to those passages of Mr. Spencer’s +“Principles of Psychology” which in any direct intelligible +way refer the phenomena of instinct and heredity generally, to memory +on the part of offspring of the action it <i>bonâ fide </i>took +in the persons of its forefathers.” The reviewer made no +reply, and I concluded, as I have since found correctly, that he could +not find the passages.<br> +<br> +True, in his “Principles of Psychology” (vol. ii. p. 195) +Mr. Spencer says that we have only to expand the doctrine that all intelligence +is acquired through experience “so as to make it include with +the experience of each individual the experiences of all ancestral individuals,” +&c. This is all very good, but it is much the same as saying, +“We have only got to stand on our heads and we shall be able to +do so and so.” We did not see our way to standing on our +heads, and Mr. Spencer did not help us; we had been accustomed, as I +am afraid I must have said <i>usque ad nauseam </i>already, to lose +sight of the physical connection existing between parents and offspring; +we understood from the marriage service that husband and wife were in +a sense one flesh, but not that parents and children were so also; and +without this conception of the matter, which in its way is just as true +as the more commonly received one, we could not extend the experience +of parents to offspring. It was not in the bond or <i>nexus </i>of +our ideas to consider experience as appertaining to more than a single +individual in the common acceptance of the term; these two ideas were +so closely bound together that wherever the one went the other went +perforce. Here, indeed, in the very passage of Mr. Spencer’s +just referred to, the race is throughout regarded as “a series +of individuals” - without an attempt to call attention to that +other view, in virtue of which we are able to extend to many an idea +we had been accustomed to confine to one.<br> +<br> +In his chapter on Memory, Mr. Spencer certainly approaches the Heringian +view. He says, “On the one hand, Instinct may be regarded +as a kind of organised memory; on the other, Memory may be regarded +as a kind of incipient instinct” (“Principles of Psychology,” +ed. 2, vol. i. p. 445). Here the ball has fallen into his hands, +but if he had got firm hold of it he could not have written, “Instinct +<i>may</i> <i>be </i>regarded as <i>a kind of, </i>&c.;” to +us there is neither “may be regarded as” nor “kind +of” about it; we require, “Instinct is inherited memory,” +with an explanation making it intelligible how memory can come to be +inherited at all. I do not like, again, calling memory “a +kind of incipient instinct;” as Mr. Spencer puts them the words +have a pleasant antithesis, but “instinct is inherited memory” +covers all the ground, and to say that memory is inherited instinct +is surplusage.<br> +<br> +Nor does he stick to it long when he says that “instinct is a +kind of organised memory,” for two pages later he says that memory, +to be memory at all, must be tolerably conscious or deliberate; he, +therefore (vol. i. p. 447), denies that there can be such a thing as +unconscious memory; but without this it is impossible for us to see +instinct as the “kind of organised memory” which he has +just been calling it, inasmuch as instinct is notably undeliberate and +unreflecting.<br> +<br> +A few pages farther on (vol. i. p. 452) he finds himself driven to unconscious +memory after all, and says that “conscious memory passes into +unconscious or organic memory.” Having admitted unconscious +memory, he declares (vol. i. p. 450) that “as fast as those connections +among psychical states, which we form in memory, grow by constant repetition +automatic - they <i>cease to be part of memory</i>,” or, in other +words, he again denies that there can be an unconscious memory.<br> +<br> +Mr. Spencer doubtless saw that he was involved in contradiction in terms, +and having always understood that contradictions in terms were very +dreadful things - which, of course, under some circumstances they are +- thought it well so to express himself that his readers should be more +likely to push on than dwell on what was before them at the moment. +I should be the last to complain of him merely on the ground that he +could not escape contradiction in terms: who can? When facts conflict, +contradict one another, melt into one another as the colours of the +spectrum so insensibly that none can say where one begins and the other +ends, contradictions in terms become first fruits of thought and speech. +They are the basis of intellectual consciousness, in the same way that +a physical obstacle is the basis of physical sensation. No opposition, +no sensation, applies as much to the psychical as to the physical kingdom, +as soon as these two have got well above the horizon of our thoughts +and can be seen as two. No contradiction, no consciousness; no +cross, no crown; contradictions are the very small deadlocks without +which there is no going; going is our sense of a succession of small +impediments or deadlocks; it is a succession of cutting Gordian knots, +which on a small scale please or pain as the case may be; on a larger, +give an ecstasy of pleasure, or shock to the extreme of endurance; and +on a still larger, kill whether they be on the right side or the wrong. +Nature, as I said in “Life and Habit,” hates that any principle +should breed hermaphroditically, but will give to each an helpmeet for +it which shall cross it and be the undoing of it; and in the undoing, +do; and in the doing, undo, and so <i>ad infinitum</i>. Cross-fertilisation +is just as necessary for continued fertility of ideas as for that of +organic life, and the attempt to frown this or that down merely on the +ground that it involves contradiction in terms, without at the same +time showing that the contradiction is on a larger scale than healthy +thought can stomach, argues either small sense or small sincerity on +the part of those who make it. The contradictions employed by +Mr. Spencer are objectionable, not on the ground of their being contradictions +at all, but on the ground of their being blinked, and used unintelligently.<br> +<br> +But<i> </i>though it is not possible for any one to get a clear conception +of Mr. Spencer’s meaning, we may say with more confidence what +it was that he did not mean. He did not mean to make memory the +keystone of his system; he has none of that sense of the unifying, binding +force of memory which Professor Hering has so well expressed, nor does +he show any signs of perceiving the far-reaching consequences that ensue +if the phenomena of heredity are considered as phenomena of memory. +Thus, when he is dealing with the phenomena of old age (vol. i. p. 538, +ed. 2) he does not ascribe them to lapse and failure of memory, nor +surmise the principle underlying longevity. He never mentions +memory in connection with heredity without presently saying something +which makes us involuntarily think of a man missing an easy catch at +cricket; it is only rarely, however, that he connects the two at all. +I have only been able to find the word “inherited” or any +derivative of the verb “to inherit” in connection with memory +once in all the 1300 long pages of the “Principles of Psychology.” +It occurs in vol ii. p. 200, 2d ed., where the words stand, “Memory, +inherited or acquired.” I submit that this was unintelligible +when Mr. Spencer wrote it, for want of an explanation which he never +gave; I submit, also, that he could not have left it unexplained, nor +yet as an unrepeated expression not introduced till late in his work, +if he had had any idea of its pregnancy.<br> +<br> +At any rate, whether he intended to imply what he now implies that he +intended to imply (for Mr. Spencer, like the late Mr. Darwin, is fond +of qualifying phrases), I have shown that those most able and willing +to understand him did not take him to mean what he now appears anxious +to have it supposed that he meant. Surely, moreover, if he had +meant it he would have spoken sooner, when he saw his meaning had been +missed. I can, however, have no hesitation in saying that if I +had known the “Principles of Psychology” earlier, as well +as I know the work now, I should have used it largely.<br> +<br> +It may be interesting, before we leave Mr. Spencer, to see whether he +even now assigns to continued personality and memory the place assigned +to it by Professor Hering and myself. I will therefore give the +concluding words of the letter to the <i>Athenæum </i>already +referred to, in which he tells us to stand aside. He writes “I +still hold that inheritance of functionally produced modifications is +the chief factor throughout the higher stages of organic evolution, +bodily as well as mental (see ‘Principles of Biology,’ i. +166), while I recognise the truth that throughout the lower stages survival +of the fittest is the chief factor, and in the lowest the almost exclusive +factor.”<br> +<br> +This is the same confused and confusing utterance which Mr. Spencer +has been giving us any time this thirty years. According to him +the fact that variations can be inherited and accumulated has less to +do with the first development of organic life, than the fact that if +a square organism happens to get into a square hole, it will live longer +and more happily than a square organism which happens to get into a +round one; he declares “the survival of the fittest” - and +this is nothing but the fact that those who “fit” best into +their surroundings will live longest and most comfortably - to have +more to do with the development of the amœba into, we will say, +a mollusc than heredity itself. True, “inheritance of functionally +produced modifications” is allowed to be the chief factor throughout +the “higher stages of organic evolution,” but it has very +little to do in the lower; in these “the almost exclusive factor” +is not heredity, or inheritance, but “survival of the fittest.”<br> +<br> +Of course we know that Mr. Spencer does not believe this; of course, +also, all who are fairly well up in the history of the development theory +will see why Mr. Spencer has attempted to draw this distinction between +the “factors” of the development of the higher and lower +forms of life; but no matter how or why Mr. Spencer has been led to +say what he has, he has no business to have said it. What can +we think of a writer who, after so many years of writing upon his subject, +in a passage in which he should make his meaning doubly clear, inasmuch +as he is claiming ground taken by other writers, declares that though +hereditary use and disuse, or, to use his own words, “the inheritance +of functionally produced modifications,” is indeed very important +in connection with the development of the higher forms of life, yet +heredity itself has little or nothing to do with that of the lower? +Variations, whether produced functionally or not, can only be perpetuated +and accumulated because they can be inherited; - and this applies just +as much to the lower as to the higher forms of life; the question which +Professor Hering and I have tried to answer is, “How comes it +that anything can be inherited at all? In virtue of what power +is it that offspring can repeat and improve upon the performances of +their parents?” Our answer was, “Because in a very +valid sense, though not perhaps in the most usually understood, there +is continued personality and an abiding memory between successive generations.” +How does Mr. Spencer’s confession of faith touch this? If +any meaning can be extracted from his words, he is no more supporting +this view now than he was when he wrote the passages he has adduced +to show that he was supporting it thirty years ago; but after all no +coherent meaning can be got out of Mr. Spencer’s letter - except, +of course, that Professor Hering and myself are to stand aside. +I have abundantly shown that I am very ready to do this in favour of +Professor Hering, but see no reason for admitting Mr. Spencer’s +claim to have been among the forestallers of “Life and Habit.”<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER IV <a name="citation52a"></a><a href="#footnote52a">{52a}</a> +- Mr. Romanes’ “Mental Evolution in Animals”<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +Without raising the unprofitable question how Mr. Romanes, in spite +of the indifference with which he treated the theory of Inherited Memory +in 1881, came, in 1883, to be sufficiently imbued with a sense of its +importance, I still cannot afford to dispense with the weight of his +authority, and in this chapter will show how closely he not infrequently +approaches the Heringian position.<br> +<br> +Thus, he says that the analogies between the memory with which we are +familiar in daily life and hereditary memory “are so numerous +and precise” as to justify us in considering them to be of essentially +the same kind. <a name="citation52b"></a><a href="#footnote52b">{52b}</a><br> +<br> +Again, he says that although the memory of milk shown by new-born infants +is “at all events in large part hereditary, it is none the less +memory” of a certain kind. <a name="citation52c"></a><a href="#footnote52c">{52c}</a><br> +<br> +Two lines lower down he writes of “hereditary memory or instinct,” +thereby implying that instinct is “hereditary memory.” +“It makes no essential difference,” he says, “whether +the past sensation was actually experienced by the individual itself, +or bequeathed it, so to speak, by its ancestors. <a name="citation52d"></a><a href="#footnote52d">{52d}</a> +For it makes no essential difference whether the nervous changes . . +. were occasioned during the life-time of the individual or during that +of the species, and afterwards impressed by heredity on the individual.”<br> +<br> +Lower down on the same page he writes:-<br> +<br> +“As showing how close is the connection between hereditary memory +and instinct,” &c.<br> +<br> +And on the following page:-<br> +<br> +“And this shows how closely the phenomena of hereditary memory +are related to those of individual memory: at this stage . . . it is +practically impossible to disentangle the effects of hereditary memory +from those of the individual.”<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Another point which we have here to consider is the part which +heredity has played in forming the perceptive faculty of the individual +prior to its own experience. We have already seen that heredity +plays an important part in forming memory of ancestral experiences, +and thus it is that many animals come into the world with their power +of perception already largely developed. The wealth of ready-formed +information, and therefore of ready-made powers of perception, with +which many newly-born or newly-hatched animals are provided, is so great +and so precise that it scarcely requires to be supplemented by the subsequent +experience of the individual.” <a name="citation53a"></a><a href="#footnote53a">{53a}</a><br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Instincts probably owe their origin and development to one or +other of the two principles.<br> +<br> +“I. The first mode of origin consists in natural selection +or survival of the fittest, continuously preserving actions, &c. +&c.<br> +<br> +“II. The second mode of origin is as follows:- By the effects +of habit in successive generations, actions which were originally intelligent +become as it were stereotyped into permanent instincts. Just as +in the lifetime of the individual adjustive actions which were originally +intelligent may by frequent repetition become automatic, so in the lifetime +of species actions originally intelligent may by frequent repetition +and heredity so write their effects on the nervous system that the latter +is prepared, even before individual experience, to perform adjustive +actions mechanically which in previous generations were performed intelligently. +This mode of origin of instincts has been appropriately called (by Lewes +- see “Problems of Life and Mind” <a name="citation54a"></a><a href="#footnote54a">{54a}</a>) +the ‘lapsing of intelligence.’” <a name="citation54b"></a><a href="#footnote54b">{54b}</a><br> +<br> +I may say in passing that in spite of the great stress laid by Mr. Romanes +both in his “Mental Evolution in Animals” and in his letters +to the <i>Athenæum </i>in March 1884, on Natural Selection as +an originator and developer of instinct, he very soon afterwards let +the Natural Selection part of the story go as completely without saying +as I do myself, or as Mr. Darwin did during the later years of his life. +Writing to <i>Nature, </i>April 10, 1884, he said: “To deny <i>that +experience in the course of successive generations is the source of +instinct, </i>is not to meet by way of argument the enormous mass of +evidence which goes to prove <i>that this is the case</i>.” +Here, then, instinct is referred, without reservation, to “experience +in successive generations,” and this is nonsense unless explained +as Professor Hering and I explain it. Mr. Romanes’ words, +in fact, amount to an unqualified acceptance of the chapter “Instinct +as Inherited Memory” given in “Life and Habit,” of +which Mr. Romanes in March 1884 wrote in terms which it is not necessary +to repeat.<br> +<br> +Later on:-<br> +<br> +“That ‘practice makes perfect’ is a matter, as I have +previously said, of daily observation. Whether we regard a juggler, +a pianist, or a billiard-player, a child learning his lesson or an actor +his part by frequently repeating it, or a thousand other illustrations +of the same process, we see at once that there is truth in the cynical +definition of a man as a ‘bundle of habits.’ And the +same, of course, is true of animals.” <a name="citation55a"></a><a href="#footnote55a">{55a}</a><br> +<br> +From this Mr. Romanes goes on to show “that automatic actions +and conscious habits may be inherited,” <a name="citation55b"></a><a href="#footnote55b">{55b}</a> +and in the course of doing this contends that “instincts may be +lost by disuse, and conversely that they may be acquired as instincts +by the hereditary transmission of ancestral experience.”<br> +<br> +On another page Mr. Romanes says:-<br> +<br> +“Let us now turn to the second of these two assumptions, viz., +that some at least among migratory birds must possess, by inheritance +alone, a very precise knowledge of the particular direction to be pursued. +It is without question an astonishing fact that a young cuckoo should +be prompted to leave its foster parents at a particular season of the +year, and without any guide to show the course previously taken by its +own parents, but this is a fact which must be met by any theory of instinct +which aims at being complete. Now upon our own theory it can only +be met by taking it to be due to inherited memory.”<br> +<br> +A little lower Mr. Romanes says: “Of what kind, then, is the inherited +memory on which the young cuckoo (if not also other migratory birds) +depends? We can only answer, of the same kind, whatever this may +be, as that upon which the old bird depends.” <a name="citation55c"></a><a href="#footnote55c">{55c}</a><br> +<br> +I have given above most of the more marked passages which I have been +able to find in Mr. Romanes’ book which attribute instinct to +memory, and which admit that there is no fundamental difference between +the kind of memory with which we are all familiar and hereditary memory +as transmitted from one generation to another.<br> +<br> +But throughout his work there are passages which suggest, though less +obviously, the same inference.<br> +<br> +The passages I have quoted show that Mr. Romanes is upholding the same +opinions as Professor Hering’s and my own, but their effect and +tendency is more plain here than in Mr Romanes’ own book, where +they are overlaid by nearly 400 long pages of matter which is not always +easy of comprehension.<br> +<br> +Moreover, at the same time that I claim the weight of Mr. Romanes’ +authority, I am bound to admit that I do not find his support satisfactory. +The late Mr. Darwin himself - whose mantle seems to have fallen more +especially and particularly on Mr. Romanes - could not contradict himself +more hopelessly than Mr. Romanes often does. Indeed in one of +the very passages I have quoted in order to show that Mr. Romanes accepts +the phenomena of heredity as phenomena of memory, he speaks of “heredity +as playing an important part <i>in forming memory </i>of ancestral experiences;” +so that, whereas I want him to say that the phenomena of heredity are +due to memory, he will have it that the memory is due to the heredity, +which seems to me absurd.<br> +<br> +Over and over again Mr. Romanes insists that it is heredity which does +this or that. Thus it is “<i>heredity with natural selection +which adapt </i>the anatomical plan of the ganglia.” <a name="citation56a"></a><a href="#footnote56a">{56a}</a> +It is heredity which impresses nervous changes on the individual. <a name="citation56b"></a><a href="#footnote56b">{56b}</a> +“In the lifetime of species actions originally intelligent may +by frequent repetition and heredity,” &c.; <a name="citation56c"></a><a href="#footnote56c">{56c}</a> +but he nowhere tells us what heredity is any more than Messrs. Herbert +Spencer, Darwin, and Lewes have done. This, however, is exactly +what Professor Hering, whom I have unwittingly followed, does. +He resolves all phenomena of heredity, whether in respect of body or +mind, into phenomena of memory. He says in effect, “A man +grows his body as he does, and a bird makes her nest as she does, because +both man and bird remember having grown body and made nest as they now +do, or very nearly so, on innumerable past occasions.” He +thus, as I have said on an earlier page, reduces life from an equation +of say 100 unknown quantities to one of 99 only by showing that heredity +and memory, two of the original 100 unknown quantities, are in reality +part of one and the same thing.<br> +<br> +That he is right Mr. Romanes seems to me to admit, though in a very +unsatisfactory way.<br> +<br> +What, for example, can be more unsatisfactory than the following? - +Mr. Romanes says that the most fundamental principle of mental operation +is that of memory, and that this “is the <i>conditio sine quâ +non </i>of all mental life” (page 35).<br> +<br> +I do not understand Mr. Romanes to hold that there is any living being +which has no mind at all, and I do understand him to admit that development +of body and mind are closely interdependent.<br> +<br> +If, then, “the most fundamental principle” of mind is memory, +it follows that memory enters also as a fundamental principle into development +of body. For mind and body are so closely connected that nothing +can enter largely into the one without correspondingly affecting the +other.<br> +<br> +On a later page Mr. Romanes speaks point-blank of the new-born child +as “<i>embodying </i>the results of a great mass of <i>hereditary +experience</i>” (p. 77), so that what he is driving at can be +collected by those who take trouble, but is not seen until we call up +from our own knowledge matter whose relevancy does not appear on the +face of it, and until we connect passages many pages asunder, the first +of which may easily be forgotten before we reach the second. There +can be no doubt, however, that Mr. Romanes does in reality, like Professor +Hering and myself, regard development, whether of mind or body, as due +to memory, for it is now pretty generally seen to be nonsense to talk +about “hereditary experience” or “hereditary memory” +if anything else is intended.<br> +<br> +I have said above that on page 113 of his recent work Mr. Romanes declares +the analogies between the memory with which we are familiar in daily +life, and hereditary memory, to be “so numerous and precise” +as to justify us in considering them as of one and the same kind.<br> +<br> +This is certainly his meaning, but, with the exception of the words +within inverted commas, it is not his language. His own words +are these:-<br> +<br> +“Profound, however, as our ignorance unquestionably is concerning +the physical substratum of memory, I think we are at least justified +in regarding this substratum as the same both in ganglionic or organic, +and in the conscious or psychological memory, seeing that the analogies +between them are so numerous and precise. Consciousness is but +an adjunct which arises when the physical processes, owing to infrequency +of repetition, complexity of operation, or other causes, involve what +I have before called ganglionic friction.”<br> +<br> +I submit that I have correctly translated Mr. Romanes’ meaning, +and also that we have a right to complain of his not saying what he +has to say in words which will involve less “ganglionic friction” +on the part of the reader.<br> +<br> +Another example may be found on p. 43 of Mr. Romanes’ book. +“Lastly,” he writes, “just as innumerable special +mechanisms of muscular co-ordinations are found to be inherited, innumerable +special associations of ideas are found to be the same, and in one case +as in the other the strength of the organically imposed connection is +found to bear a direct proportion to the frequency with which in the +history of the species it has occurred.”<br> +<br> +Mr. Romanes is here intending what the reader will find insisted on +on p. 51 of “Life and Habit;” but how difficult he has made +what could have been said intelligibly enough, if there had been nothing +but the reader’s comfort to be considered. Unfortunately +that seems to have been by no means the only thing of which Mr. Romanes +was thinking, or why, after implying and even saying over and over again +that instinct is inherited habit due to inherited memory, should he +turn sharply round on p. 297 and praise Mr. Darwin for trying to snuff +out “the well-known doctrine of inherited habit as advanced by +Lamarck”? The answer is not far to seek. It is because +Mr. Romanes did not merely want to tell us all about instinct, but wanted +also, if I may use a homely metaphor, to hunt with the hounds and run +with the hare at one and the same time.<br> +<br> +I remember saying that if the late Mr. Darwin “had told us what +the earlier evolutionists said, why they said it, wherein he differed +from them, and in what way he proposed to set them straight, he would +have taken a course at once more agreeable with usual practice, and +more likely to remove misconception from his own mind and from those +of his readers.” <a name="citation59a"></a><a href="#footnote59a">{59a}</a> +This I have no doubt was one of the passages which made Mr. Romanes +so angry with me. I can find no better words to apply to Mr. Romanes +himself. He knows perfectly well what others have written about +the connection between heredity and memory, and he knows no less well +that so far as he is intelligible at all he is taking the same view +that they have taken. If he had begun by saying what they had +said, and had then improved on it, I for one should have been only too +glad to be improved upon.<br> +<br> +Mr. Romanes has spoiled his book just because this plain old-fashioned +method of procedure was not good enough for him. One-half the +obscurity which makes his meaning so hard to apprehend is due to exactly +the same cause as that which has ruined so much of the late Mr. Darwin’s +work - I mean to a desire to appear to be differing altogether from +others with whom he knew himself after all to be in substantial agreement. +He adopts, but (probably quite unconsciously) in his anxiety to avoid +appearing to adopt, he obscures what he is adopting.<br> +<br> +Here, for example, is Mr. Romanes’ definition of instinct:-<br> +<br> +“Instinct is reflex action into which there is imported the element +of consciousness. The term is therefore a generic one, comprising +all those faculties of mind which are concerned in conscious and adaptive +action, antecedent to individual experience, without necessary knowledge +of the relation between means employed and ends attained, but similarly +performed under similar and frequently recurring circumstances by all +the individuals of the same species.” <a name="citation60a"></a><a href="#footnote60a">{60a}</a><br> +<br> +If Mr. Romanes would have been content to build frankly upon Professor +Hering’s foundation, the soundness of which he has elsewhere abundantly +admitted, he might have said -<br> +<br> +“Instinct is knowledge or habit acquired in past generations - +the new generation remembering what happened to it before it parted +company with the old. More briefly, Instinct is inherited memory.” +Then he might have added a rider -<br> +<br> +“If a habit is acquired as a new one, during any given lifetime, +it is not an instinct. If having been acquired in one lifetime +it is transmitted to offspring, it is an instinct in the offspring, +though it was not an instinct in the parent. If the habit is transmitted +partially, it must be considered as partly instinctive and partly acquired.”<br> +<br> +This is easy; it tells people how they may test any action so as to +know what they ought to call it; it leaves well alone by avoiding all +such debatable matters as reflex action, consciousness, intelligence, +purpose, knowledge of purpose. &c.; it both introduces the feature +of inheritance which is the one mainly distinguishing instinctive from +so-called intelligent actions, and shows the manner in which these last +pass into the first, that is to say, by way of memory and habitual repetition; +finally it points the fact that the new generation is not to be looked +upon as a new thing, but (as Dr. Erasmus Darwin long since said <a name="citation61a"></a><a href="#footnote61a">{61a}</a>) +as “a branch or elongation” of the one immediately preceding +it.<br> +<br> +In Mr. Darwin’s case it is hardly possible to exaggerate the waste +of time, money and trouble that has been caused, by his not having been +content to appear as descending with modification like other people +from those who went before him. It will take years to get the +evolution theory out of the mess in which Mr. Darwin has left it. +He was heir to a discredited truth; he left behind him an accredited +fallacy. Mr. Romanes, if he is not stopped in time, will get the +theory connecting heredity and memory into just such another muddle +as Mr. Darwin has got evolution, for surely the writer who can talk +about <i>“heredity being able to work up </i>the faculty of homing +into the instinct of migration,” <a name="citation61b"></a><a href="#footnote61b">{61b}</a> +or of “the principle of (natural) selection combining with that +of lapsing intelligence to the formation of a joint result,” <a name="citation61c"></a><a href="#footnote61c">{61c}</a> +is little likely to depart from the usual methods of scientific procedure +with advantage either to himself or any one else. Fortunately +Mr. Romanes is not Mr. Darwin, and though he has certainly got Mr. Darwin’s +mantle, and got it very much too, it will not on Mr. Romanes’ +shoulders hide a good deal that people were not going to observe too +closely while Mr. Darwin wore it.<br> +<br> +I ought to say that the late Mr. Darwin appears himself eventually to +have admitted the soundness of the theory connecting heredity and memory. +Mr. Romanes quotes a letter written by Mr. Darwin in the last year of +his life, in which he speaks of an intelligent action gradually becoming +<i>“instinctive, i.e., memory transmitted from one generation +to another</i>.” <a name="citation62a"></a><a href="#footnote62a">{62a}</a><br> +<br> +Briefly, the stages of Mr. Darwin’s opinion upon the subject of +hereditary memory are as follows:-<br> +<br> +1859. “It would be <i>the most serious error </i>to suppose +that the greater number of instincts have been acquired by habit in +one generation and transmitted by inheritance to succeeding generations.” +<a name="citation62b"></a><a href="#footnote62b">{62b}</a> And +this more especially applies to the instincts of many ants.<br> +<br> +1876. “It would be a <i>serious error </i>to suppose,” +&c., as before. <a name="citation62c"></a><a href="#footnote62c">{62c}</a><br> +<br> +1881. “We should remember <i>what a mass of inherited knowledge +</i>is crowded into the minute brain of a worker ant.” <a name="citation62d"></a><a href="#footnote62d">{62d}</a><br> +<br> +1881 or 1882. Speaking of a given habitual action Mr. Darwin writes: +“It does not seem to me at all incredible that this action [and +why this more than any other habitual action?] should then become instinctive:” +i.e., <i>memory transmitted from one generation to another</i>. <a name="citation62e"></a><a href="#footnote62e">{62e}</a><br> +<br> +And yet in 1839, or thereabouts, Mr. Darwin had pretty nearly grasped +the conception from which until the last year or two of his life he +so fatally strayed; for in his contribution to the volumes giving an +account of the voyages of the <i>Adventure </i>and <i>Beagle, </i>he +wrote: “Nature by making habit omnipotent and its effects hereditary, +has fitted the Fuegian for the climate and productions of his country” +(p. 237).<br> +<br> +What is the secret of the long departure from the simple common-sense +view of the matter which he took when he was a young man? I imagine +simply what I have referred to in the preceding chapter, over-anxiety +to appear to be differing from his grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, +and Lamarck.<br> +<br> +I believe I may say that Mr. Darwin before he died not only admitted +the connection between memory and heredity, but came also to see that +he must readmit that design in organism which he had so many years opposed. +For in the preface to Hermann Muller’s “Fertilisation of +Flowers,” <a name="citation63a"></a><a href="#footnote63a">{63a}</a> +which bears a date only a very few weeks prior to Mr. Darwin’s +death, I find him saying:- “Design in nature has for a long time +deeply interested many men, and though the subject must now be looked +at from a somewhat different point of view from what was formerly the +case, it is not on that account rendered less interesting.” +This is mused forth as a general gnome, and may mean anything or nothing: +the writer of the letterpress under the hieroglyph in Old Moore’s +Almanac could not be more guarded; but I think I know what it does mean.<br> +<br> +I cannot, of course, be sure; Mr. Darwin did not probably intend that +I should; but I assume with confidence that whether there is design +in organism or no, there is at any rate design in this passage of Mr. +Darwin’s. This, we may be sure, is not a fortuitous variation; +and, moreover, it is introduced for some reason which made Mr. Darwin +think it worth while to go out of his way to introduce it. It +has no fitness in its connection with Hermann Muller’s book, for +what little Hermann Müller says about teleology at all is to condemn +it; why, then, should Mr. Darwin muse here of all places in the world +about the interest attaching to design in organism? Neither has +the passage any connection with the rest of the preface. There +is not another word about design, and even here Mr. Darwin seems mainly +anxious to face both ways, and pat design as it were on the head while +not committing himself to any proposition which could be disputed.<br> +<br> +The explanation is sufficiently obvious. Mr Darwin wanted to hedge. +He saw that the design which his works had been mainly instrumental +in pitchforking out of organisms no less manifestly designed than a +burglar’s jemmy is designed, had nevertheless found its way back +again, and that though, as I insisted in “Evolution Old and New,” +and “Unconscious Memory,” it must now be placed within the +organism instead of outside it, as “was formerly the case,” +it was not on that account any the less - design, as well as interesting.<br> +<br> +I should like to have seen Mr. Darwin say this more explicitly. +Indeed I should have liked to have seen Mr. Darwin say anything at all +about the meaning of which there could be no mistake, and without contradicting +himself elsewhere; but this was not Mr. Darwin’s manner.<br> +<br> +In passing I will give another example of Mr Darwin’s manner when +he did not quite dare even to hedge. It is to be found in the +preface which he wrote to Professor Weismann’s “Studies +in the Theory of Descent,” published in 1881.<br> +<br> +“Several distinguished naturalists,” says Mr. Darwin, “maintain +with much confidence that organic beings tend to vary and to rise in +the scale, independently of the conditions to which they and their progenitors +have been exposed; whilst others maintain that all variation is due +to such exposure, though the manner in which the environment acts is +as yet quite unknown. At the present time there is hardly any +question in biology of more importance than this of the nature and causes +of variability; and the reader will find in the present work an able +discussion on the whole subject, which will probably lead him to pause +before he admits the existence of an innate tendency to perfectibility” +- or towards <i>being able to be perfected.<br> +<br> +</i>I could find no able discussion upon the whole subject in Professor +Weismann’s book. There was a little something here and there, +but not much.<br> +<br> +It may be expected that I should say something here about Mr. Romanes’ +latest contribution to biology - I mean his theory of physiological +selection, of which the two first instalments have appeared in <i>Nature +</i>just as these pages are leaving my hands, and many months since +the foregoing, and most of the following chapters were written. +I admit to feeling a certain sense of thankfulness that they did not +appear earlier; as it is, my book is too far advanced to be capable +of further embryonic change, and this must be my excuse for saying less +about Mr. Romanes’ theory than I might perhaps otherwise do. +I cordially, however, agree with the <i>Times, </i>which says that “Mr. +George Romanes appears to be the biological investigator on whom the +mantle of Mr. Darwin has most conspicuously descended” (August +16, 1886). Mr. Romanes is just the person whom the late Mr. Darwin +would select to carry on his work, and Mr. Darwin was just the kind +of person towards whom Mr. Romanes would find himself instinctively +attracted.<br> +<br> +The <i>Times </i>continues - “The position which Mr. Romanes takes +up is the result of his perception shared by many evolutionists, that +the theory of natural selection is not really a theory of the origin +of species. . . .” What, then, becomes of Mr. Darwin’s +most famous work, which was written expressly to establish natural selection +as the main means of organic modification? “The new factor +which Mr. Romanes suggests,” continues the <i>Times, </i>“is +that at a certain stage of development of varieties in a state of nature +a change takes place in their reproductive systems, rendering those +which differ in some particulars mutually infertile, and thus the formation +of new permanent species takes place without the swamping effect of +free intercrossing. . . . How his theory can be properly termed +one of selection he fails to make clear. If correct, it is a law +or principle of operation rather than a process of selection. +It has been objected to Mr. Romanes’ theory that it is the re-statement +of a fact. This objection is less important than the lack of facts +in support of the theory.” The <i>Times, </i>however, implies +it as its opinion that the required facts will be forthcoming by and +by, and that when they have been found Mr. Romanes’ suggestion +will constitute “the most important addition to the theory of +evolution since the publication of the ‘Origin of Species.’” +Considering that the <i>Times </i>has just implied the main thesis of +the “Origin of Species” to be one which does not stand examination, +this is rather a doubtful compliment.<br> +<br> +Neither Mr. Romanes nor the writer in the <i>Times </i>appears to perceive +that the results which may or may not be supposed to ensue on choice +depend upon what it is that is supposed to be chosen from; they do not +appear to see that though the expression natural selection must be always +more or less objectionable, as too highly charged with metaphor for +purposes of science, there is nevertheless a natural selection which +is open to no other objection than this, and which, when its metaphorical +character is borne well in mind, may be used without serious risk of +error, whereas natural selection from variations that are mainly fortuitous +is chimerical as well as metaphorical. Both writers speak of natural +selection as though there could not possibly be any selection in the +course of nature, or natural survival, of any but accidental variations. +Thus Mr. Romanes says: <a name="citation66a"></a><a href="#footnote66a">{66a}</a> +“The swamping effect of free inter-crossing upon an individual +variation constitutes perhaps the most formidable difficulty with which +<i>the theory of natural selection </i>is beset.” And the +writer of the article in the <i>Times </i>above referred to says: “In +truth <i>the theory of natural selection </i>presents many facts and +results which increase rather than diminish the difficulty of accounting +for the existence of species.” The assertion made in each +case is true if the Charles-Darwinian selection from fortuitous variations +is intended, but it does not hold good if the selection is supposed +to be made from variations under which there lies a general principle +of wide and abiding application. It is not likely that a man of +Mr. Romanes’ antecedents should not be perfectly awake to considerations +so obvious as the foregoing, and I am afraid I am inclined to consider +his whole suggestion as only an attempt upon the part of the wearer +of Mr. Darwin’s mantle to carry on Mr. Darwin’s work in +Mr. Darwin’s spirit.<br> +<br> +I have seen Professor Hering’s theory adopted recently more unreservedly +by Dr. Creighton in his “Illustrations of Unconscious Memory in +Disease.” <a name="citation67a"></a><a href="#footnote67a">{67a}</a> +Dr. Creighton avowedly bases his system on Professor Hering’s +address, and endorses it; it is with much pleasure that I have seen +him lend the weight of his authority to the theory that each cell and +organ has an individual memory. In “Life and Habit” +I expressed a hope that the opinions it upheld would be found useful +by medical men, and am therefore the more glad to see that this has +proved to be the case. I may perhaps be pardoned if I quote the +passage in” Life and Habit” to which I am referring. +It runs:-<br> +<br> +<i>“Mutatis mutandis, </i>the above would seem to hold as truly +about medicine as about politics. We cannot reason with our cells, +for they know so much more” (of course I mean “about their +own business”) “than we do, that they cannot understand +us; - but though we cannot reason with them, we can find out what they +have been most accustomed to, and what, therefore, they are most likely +to expect; we can see that they get this as far as it is in our power +to give it them, and may then generally leave the rest to them, only +bearing in mind that they will rebel equally against too sudden a change +of treatment and no change at all” (p. 305).<br> +<br> +Dr. Creighton insists chiefly on the importance of change, which - though +I did not notice his saying so - he would doubtless see as a mode of +cross-fertilisation, fraught in all respects with the same advantages +as this, and requiring the same precautions against abuse; he would +not, however, I am sure, deny that there could be no fertility of good +results if too wide a cross were attempted, so that I may claim the +weight of his authority as supporting both the theory of an unconscious +memory in general, and the particular application of it to medicine +which I had ventured to suggest.<br> +<br> +“Has the word ‘memory,’” he asks, “a real +application to unconscious organic phenomena, or do we use it outside +its ancient limits only in a figure of speech?”<br> +<br> +“If I had thought,” he continues later, “that unconscious +memory was no more than a metaphor, and the detailed application of +it to these various forms of disease merely allegorical, I should still +have judged it not unprofitable to represent a somewhat hackneyed class +of maladies in the light of a parable. None of our faculties is +more familiar to us in its workings than the memory, and there is hardly +any force or power in nature which every one knows so well as the force +of habit. To say that a neurotic subject is like a person with +a retentive memory, or that a diathesis gradually acquired is like an +over-mastering habit, is at all events to make comparisons with things +that we all understand.<br> +<br> +“For reasons given chiefly in the first chapter, I conclude that +retentiveness, with reproduction, is a single undivided faculty throughout +the whole of our life, whether mental or bodily, conscious or unconscious; +and I claim the description of a certain class of maladies according +to the phraseology of memory and habit as a real description and not +a figurative.” (p. 2.)<br> +<br> +As a natural consequence of the foregoing he regards “alterative +action” as “habit-breaking action.”<br> +<br> +As regards the organism’s being guided throughout its development +to maturity by an unconscious memory, Dr. Creighton says that “Professor +Bain calls reproduction the acme of organic complication.” +“I should prefer to say,” he adds, “the acme of organic +implication; for the reason that the sperm and germ elements are perfectly +simple, having nothing in their form or structure to show for the marvellous +potentialities within them.<br> +<br> +“I now come to the application of these considerations to the +doctrine of unconscious memory. If generation is the acme of organic +implicitness, what is its correlative in nature, what is the acme of +organic explicitness? Obviously the fine flower of consciousness. +Generation is implicit memory, consciousness is explicit memory; generation +is potential memory, consciousness is actual memory.”<br> +<br> +I am not sure that I understand the preceding paragraph as clearly as +I should wish, but having quoted enough to perhaps induce the reader +to turn to Dr. Creighton’s book, I will proceed to the subject +indicated in my title.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER V - Statement of the Question at Issue<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +Of the two points referred to in the opening sentence of this book - +I mean the connection between heredity and memory, and the reintroduction +of design into organic modification - the second is both the more important +and the one which stands most in need of support. The substantial +identity between heredity and memory is becoming generally admitted; +as regards my second point, however, I cannot flatter myself that I +have made much way against the formidable array of writers on the neo-Darwinian +side; I shall therefore devote the rest of my book as far as possible +to this subject only. Natural selection (meaning by these words +the preservation in the ordinary course of nature of favourable variations +that are supposed to be mainly matters of pure good luck and in no way +arising out of function) has been, to use an Americanism than which +I can find nothing apter, the biggest biological boom of the last quarter +of a century; it is not, therefore, to be wondered at that Professor +Ray Lankester, Mr. Romanes, Mr. Grant Allen, and others, should show +some impatience at seeing its value as prime means of modification called +in question. Within the last few months, indeed, Mr. Grant Allen +<a name="citation70a"></a><a href="#footnote70a">{70a}</a> and Professor +Ray Lankester <a name="citation70b"></a><a href="#footnote70b">{70b}</a> +in England, and Dr. Ernst Krause <a name="citation70c"></a><a href="#footnote70c">{70c}</a> +in Germany, have spoken and written warmly in support of the theory +of natural selection, and in opposition to the views taken by myself; +if they are not to be left in possession of the field the sooner they +are met the better.<br> +<br> +Stripped of detail the point at issue is this; - whether luck or cunning +is the fitter to be insisted on as the main means of organic development. +Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck answered this question in favour of cunning. +They settled it in favour of intelligent perception of the situation +- within, of course, ever narrower and narrower limits as organism retreats +farther backwards from ourselves - and persistent effort to turn it +to account. They made this the soul of all development whether +of mind or body.<br> +<br> +And they made it, like all other souls, liable to aberration both for +better and worse. They held that some organisms show more ready +wit and <i>savoir faire </i>than others; that some give more proofs +of genius and have more frequent happy thoughts than others, and that +some have even gone through waters of misery which they have used as +wells.<br> +<br> +The sheet anchor both of Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck is in good sense +and thrift; still they are aware that money has been sometimes made +by “striking oil,” and ere now been transmitted to descendants +in spite of the haphazard way in which it was originally acquired. +No speculation, no commerce; “nothing venture, nothing have,” +is as true for the development of organic wealth as for that of any +other kind, and neither Erasmus Darwin nor Lamarck hesitated about admitting +that highly picturesque and romantic incidents of developmental venture +do from time to time occur in the race histories even of the dullest +and most dead-level organisms under the name of “sports;” +but they would hold that even these occur most often and most happily +to those that have persevered in well-doing for some generations. +Unto the organism that hath is given, and from the organism that hath +not is taken away; so that even “sports” prove to be only +a little off thrift, which still remains the sheet anchor of the early +evolutionists. They believe, in fact, that more organic wealth +has been made by saving than in any other way. The race is not +in the long run to the phenomenally swift nor the battle to the phenomenally +strong, but to the good average all-round organism that is alike shy +of Radical crotchets and old world obstructiveness. <i>Festina, +</i>but <i>festina lente </i>- perhaps as involving so completely the +contradiction in terms which must underlie all modification - is the +motto they would assign to organism, and <i>Chi va piano va lontano, +</i>they hold to be a maxim as old, if not as the hills (and they have +a hankering even after these), at any rate as the amœba.<br> +<br> +To repeat in other words. All enduring forms establish a <i>modus +vivendi </i>with their surroundings. They can do this because +both they and the surroundings are plastic within certain undefined +but somewhat narrow limits. They are plastic because they can +to some extent change their habits, and changed habit, if persisted +in, involves corresponding change, however slight, in the organs employed; +but their plasticity depends in great measure upon their failure to +perceive that they are moulding themselves. If a change is so +great that they are seriously incommoded by its novelty, they are not +likely to acquiesce in it kindly enough to grow to it, but they will +make no difficulty about the miracle involved in accommodating themselves +to a difference of only two or three per cent. <a name="citation72a"></a><a href="#footnote72a">{72a}</a><br> +<br> +As long as no change exceeds this percentage, and as long, also, as +fresh change does not supervene till the preceding one is well established, +there seems no limit to the amount of modification which may be accumulated +in the course of generations - provided, of course, always, that the +modification continues to be in conformity with the instinctive habits +and physical development of the organism in their collective capacity. +Where the change is too great, or where an organ has been modified cumulatively +in some one direction, until it has reached a development too seriously +out of harmony with the habits of the organism taken collectively, then +the organism holds itself excused from further effort, throws up the +whole concern, and takes refuge in the liquidation and reconstruction +of death. It is only on the relinquishing of further effort that +this death ensues; as long as effort endures, organisms go on from change +to change, altering and being altered - that is to say, either killing +themselves piecemeal in deference to the surroundings or killing the +surroundings piecemeal to suit themselves. There is a ceaseless +higgling and haggling, or rather a life-and-death struggle between these +two things as long as life lasts, and one or other or both have in no +small part to re-enter into the womb from whence they came and be born +again in some form which shall give greater satisfaction.<br> +<br> +All change is <i>pro tanto </i>death or <i>pro tanto </i>birth. +Change is the common substratum which underlies both life and death; +life and death are not two distinct things absolutely antagonistic to +one another; in the highest life there is still much death, and in the +most complete death there is still not a little life. <i>La vie, +</i>says Claud Bernard, <a name="citation73a"></a><a href="#footnote73a">{73a}</a> +<i>c’est la mort: </i>he might have added, and perhaps did, <i>et +la mort ce n’est que la vie transformée</i>. Life +and death are the extreme modes of something which is partly both and +wholly neither; this something is common, ordinary change; solve any +change and the mystery of life and death will be revealed; show why +and how anything becomes ever anything other in any respect than what +it is at any given moment, and there will be little secret left in any +other change. One is not in its ultimate essence more miraculous +that another; it may be more striking - a greater <i>congeries </i>of +shocks, it may be more credible or more incredible, but not more miraculous; +all change is <i>quâ </i>us absolutely incomprehensible and miraculous; +the smallest change baffles the greatest intellect if its essence, as +apart from its phenomena, be inquired into.<br> +<br> +But however this may be, all organic change is either a growth or a +dissolution, or a combination of the two. Growth is the coming +together of elements with <i>quasi </i>similar characteristics. +I understand it is believed to be the coming together of matter in certain +states of motion with other matter in states so nearly similar that +the rhythms of the one coalesce with and hence reinforce the rhythms +pre-existing in the other - making, rather than marring and undoing +them. Life and growth are an attuning, death and decay are an +untuning; both involve a succession of greater or smaller attunings +and untunings; organic life is “the diapason closing full in man”; +it is the fulness of a tone that varies in pitch, quality, and in the +harmonics to which it gives rise; it ranges through every degree of +complexity from the endless combinations of life-and-death within life-and-death +which we find in the mammalia, to the comparative simplicity of the +amœba. Death, again, like life, ranges through every degree +of complexity. All pleasant changes are recreative; they are <i>pro +tanto </i>births; all unpleasant changes are wearing, and, as such, +<i>pro tanto </i>deaths, but we can no more exhaust either wholly of +the other, than we can exhaust all the air out of a receiver; pleasure +and pain lurk within one another, as life in death, and death in life, +or as rest and unrest in one another.<br> +<br> +There is no greater mystery in life than in death. We talk as +though the riddle of life only need engage us; this is not so; death +is just as great a miracle as life; the one is two and two making five, +the other is five splitting into two and two. Solve either, and +we have solved the other; they should be studied not apart, for they +are never parted, but together, and they will tell more tales of one +another than either will tell about itself. If there is one thing +which advancing knowledge makes clearer than another, it is that death +is swallowed up in life, and life in death; so that if the last enemy +that shall be subdued is death, then indeed is our salvation nearer +than what we thought, for in strictness there is neither life nor death, +nor thought nor thing, except as figures of speech, and as the approximations +which strike us for the time as most convenient. There is neither +perfect life nor perfect death, but a being ever with the Lord only, +in the eternal φορα<i>, </i>or going to and fro +and heat and fray of the universe. When we were young we thought +the one certain thing was that we should one day come to die; now we +know the one certain thing to be that we shall never wholly do so. +<i>Non omnis moriar, </i>says Horace, and “I die daily,” +says St. Paul, as though a life beyond the grave, and a death on this +side of it, were each some strange thing which happened to them alone +of all men; but who dies absolutely once for all, and for ever at the +hour that is commonly called that of death, and who does not die daily +and hourly? Does any man in continuing to live from day to day +or moment to moment, do more than continue in a changed body, with changed +feelings, ideas, and aims, so that he lives from moment to moment only +in virtue of a simultaneous dying from moment to moment also? +Does any man in dying do more than, on a larger and more complete scale, +what he has been doing on a small one, as the most essential factor +of his life, from the day that he became “he” at all? +When the note of life is struck the harmonics of death are sounded, +and so, again, to strike death is to arouse the infinite harmonics of +life that rise forthwith as incense curling upwards from a censer. +If in the midst of life we are in death, so also in the midst of death +we are in life, and whether we live or whether we die, whether we like +it and know anything about it or no, still we do it to the Lord - living +always, dying always, and in the Lord always, the unjust and the just +alike, for God is no respecter of persons.<br> +<br> +Consciousness and change, so far as we can watch them, are as functionally +interdependent as mind and matter, or condition and substance, are - +for the condition of every substance may be considered as the expression +and outcome of its mind. Where there is consciousness there is +change; where there is no change there is no consciousness; may we not +suspect that there is no change without a <i>pro tanto </i>consciousness +however simple and unspecialised? Change and motion are one, so +that we have substance, feeling, change (or motion), as the ultimate +three-in-one of our thoughts, and may suspect all change, and all feeling, +attendant or consequent, however limited, to be the interaction of those +states which for want of better terms we call mind and matter. +Action may be regarded as a kind of middle term between mind and matter; +it is the throe of thought and thing, the quivering clash and union +of body and soul; commonplace enough in practice; miraculous, as violating +every canon on which thought and reason are founded, if we theorise +about it, put it under the microscope, and vivisect it. It is +here, if anywhere, that body or substance is guilty of the contradiction +in terms of combining with that which is without material substance +and cannot, therefore, be conceived by us as passing in and out with +matter, till the two become a body ensouled and a soul embodied.<br> +<br> +All body is more or less ensouled. As it gets farther and farther +from ourselves, indeed, we sympathise less with it; nothing, we say +to ourselves, can have intelligence unless we understand all about it +- as though intelligence in all except ourselves meant the power of +being understood rather than of understanding. We are intelligent, +and no intelligence, so different from our own as to baffle our powers +of comprehension deserves to be called intelligence at all. The +more a thing resembles ourselves, the more it thinks as we do - and +thus by implication tells us that we are right, the more intelligent +we think it; and the less it thinks as we do, the greater fool it must +be; if a substance does not succeed in making it clear that it understands +our business, we conclude that it cannot have any business of its own, +much less understand it, or indeed understand anything at all. +But letting this pass, so far as we are concerned, χρηματων +παντων μετρον +ανθρωπος; we are body ensouled, +and soul embodied, ourselves, nor is it possible for us to think seriously +of anything so unlike ourselves as to consist either of soul without +body, or body without soul. Unmattered condition, therefore, is +as inconceivable by us as unconditioned matter; and we must hold that +all body with which we can be conceivably concerned is more or less +ensouled, and all soul, in like manner, more or less embodied. +Strike either body or soul - that is to say, effect either a physical +or a mental change, and the harmonics of the other sound. So long +as body is minded in a certain way - so long, that is to say, as it +feels, knows, remembers, concludes, and forecasts one set of things +- it will be in one form; if it assumes a new one, otherwise than by +external violence, no matter how slight the change may be, it is only +through having changed its mind, through having forgotten and died to +some trains of thought, and having been correspondingly born anew by +the adoption of new ones. What it will adopt depends upon which +of the various courses open to it it considers most to its advantage.<br> +<br> +What it will think to its advantage depends mainly on the past habits +of its race. Its past and now invisible lives will influence its +desires more powerfully than anything it may itself be able to add to +the sum of its likes and dislikes; nevertheless, over and above preconceived +opinion and the habits to which all are slaves, there is a small salary, +or, as it were, agency commission, which each may have for himself, +and spend according to his fancy; from this, indeed, income-tax must +be deducted; still there remains a little margin of individual taste, +and here, high up on this narrow, inaccessible ledge of our souls, from +year to year a breed of not unprolific variations build where reason +cannot reach them to despoil them; for <i>de gustibus non est disputandum.<br> +<br> +</i>Here we are as far as we can go. Fancy, which sometimes sways +so much and is swayed by so little, and which sometimes, again, is so +hard to sway, and moves so little when it is swayed; whose ways have +a method of their own, but are not as our ways - fancy, lies on the +extreme borderland of the realm within which the writs of our thoughts +run, and extends into that unseen world wherein they have no jurisdiction. +Fancy is as the mist upon the horizon which blends earth and sky; where, +however, it approaches nearest to the earth and can be reckoned with, +it is seen as melting into desire, and this as giving birth to design +and effort. As the net result and outcome of these last, living +forms grow gradually but persistently into physical conformity with +their own intentions, and become outward and visible signs of the inward +and spiritual faiths, or wants of faith, that have been most within +them. They thus very gradually, but none the less effectually, +design themselves.<br> +<br> +In effect, therefore, Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck introduce uniformity +into the moral and spiritual worlds as it was already beginning to be +introduced into the physical. According to both these writers +development has ever been a matter of the same energy, effort, good +sense, and perseverance, as tend to advancement of life now among ourselves. +In essence it is neither more nor less than this, as the rain-drop which +denuded an ancient formation is of the same kind as that which is denuding +a modern one, though its effect may vary in geometrical ratio with the +effect it has produced already. As we are extending reason to +the lower animals, so we must extend a system of moral government by +rewards and punishments no less surely; and if we admit that to some +considerable extent man is man, and master of his fate, we should admit +also that all organic forms which are saved at all have been in proportionate +degree masters of their fate too, and have worked out, not only their +own salvation, but their salvation according, in no small measure, to +their own goodwill and pleasure, at times with a light heart, and at +times in fear and trembling. I do not say that Erasmus Darwin +and Lamarck saw all the foregoing as clearly as it is easy to see it +now; what I have said, however, is only the natural development of their +system.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER VI - Statement of the Question at Issue <i>(continued)<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +</i>So much for the older view; and now for the more modern opinion. +According to Messrs. Darwin and Wallace, and ostensibly, I am afraid +I should add, a great majority of our most prominent biologists, the +view taken by Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck is not a sound one. Some +organisms, indeed, are so admirably adapted to their surroundings, and +some organs discharge their functions with so much appearance of provision, +that we are apt to think they must owe their development to sense of +need and consequent contrivance, but this opinion is fantastic; the +appearance of design is delusive; what we are tempted to see as an accumulated +outcome of desire and cunning, we should regard as mainly an accumulated +outcome of good luck.<br> +<br> +Let us take the eye as a somewhat crucial example. It is a seeing-machine, +or thing to see with. So is a telescope; the telescope in its +highest development is a secular accumulation of cunning, sometimes +small, sometimes great; sometimes applied to this detail of the instrument, +and sometimes to that. It is an admirable example of design; nevertheless, +as I said in “Evolution Old and New,” he who made the first +rude telescope had probably no idea of any more perfect form of the +instrument than the one he had himself invented. Indeed, if he +had, he would have carried his idea out in practice. He would +have been unable to conceive such an instrument as Lord Rosse’s; +the design, therefore, at present evidenced by the telescope was not +design all on the part of one and the same person. Nor yet was +it unmixed with chance; many a detail has been doubtless due to an accident +or coincidence which was forthwith seized and made the best of. +Luck there always has been and always will be, until all brains are +opened, and all connections made known, but luck turned to account becomes +design; there is, indeed, if things are driven home, little other design +than this. The telescope, therefore, is an instrument designed +in all its parts for the purpose of seeing, and, take it all round, +designed with singular skill.<br> +<br> +Looking at the eye, we are at first tempted to think that it must be +the telescope over again, only more so; we are tempted to see it as +something which has grown up little by little from small beginnings, +as the result of effort well applied and handed down from generation +to generation, till, in the vastly greater time during which the eye +has been developing as compared with the telescope, a vastly more astonishing +result has been arrived at. We may indeed be tempted to think +this, but, according to Mr. Darwin, we should be wrong. Design +had a great deal to do with the telescope, but it had nothing or hardly +anything whatever to do with the eye. The telescope owes its development +to cunning, the eye to luck, which, it would seem, is so far more cunning +than cunning that one does not quite understand why there should be +any cunning at all. The main means of developing the eye was, +according to Mr. Darwin, not use as varying circumstances might direct +with consequent slow increase of power and an occasional happy flight +of genius, but natural selection. Natural selection, according +to him, though not the sole, is still the most important means of its +development and modification. <a name="citation81a"></a><a href="#footnote81a">{81a}</a> +What, then, is natural selection?<br> +<br> +Mr. Darwin has told us this on the title-page of the “Origin of +Species.” He there defines it as “The Preservation +of Favoured Races;” “Favoured” is “Fortunate,” +and “Fortunate” “Lucky;” it is plain, therefore, +that with Mr. Darwin natural selection comes to “The Preservation +of Lucky Races,” and that he regarded luck as the most important +feature in connection with the development even of so apparently purposive +an organ as the eye, and as the one, therefore, on which it was most +proper to insist. And what is luck but absence of intention or +design? What, then, can Mr. Darwin’s title-page amount to +when written out plainly, but to an assertion that the main means of +modification has been the preservation of races whose variations have +been unintentional, that is to say, not connected with effort or intention, +devoid of mind or meaning, fortuitous, spontaneous, accidental, or whatever +kindred word is least disagreeable to the reader? It is impossible +to conceive any more complete denial of mind as having had anything +to do with organic development, than is involved in the title-page of +the “Origin of Species” when its doubtless carefully considered +words are studied - nor, let me add, is it possible to conceive a title-page +more likely to make the reader’s attention rest much on the main +doctrine of evolution, and little, to use the words now most in vogue +concerning it, on Mr. Darwin’s own “distinctive feature.”<br> +<br> +It should be remembered that the full title of the “Origin of +Species” is, “On the origin of species by means of natural +selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for +life.” The significance of the expansion of the title escaped +the greater number of Mr. Darwin’s readers. Perhaps it ought +not to have done so, but we certainly failed to catch it. The +very words themselves escaped us - and yet there they were all the time +if we had only chosen to look. We thought the book was called +“On the Origin of Species,” and so it was on the outside; +so it was also on the inside fly-leaf; so it was on the title-page itself +as long as the most prominent type was used; the expanded title was +only given once, and then in smaller type; so the three big “Origins +of Species” carried us with them to the exclusion of the rest.<br> +<br> +The short and working title, “On the Origin of Species,” +in effect claims descent with modification generally; the expanded and +technically true title only claims the discovery that luck is the main +means of organic modification, and this is a very different matter. +The book ought to have been entitled, “On Natural Selection, or +the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life, as the +main means of the origin of species;” this should have been the +expanded title, and the short title should have been “On Natural +Selection.” The title would not then have involved an important +difference between its working and its technical forms, and it would +have better fulfilled the object of a title, which is, of course, to +give, as far as may be, the essence of a book in a nutshell. We +learn on the authority of Mr. Darwin himself <a name="citation83a"></a><a href="#footnote83a">{83a}</a> +that the “Origin of Species” was originally intended to +bear the title “Natural Selection;” nor is it easy to see +why the change should have been made if an accurate expression of the +contents of the book was the only thing which Mr. Darwin was considering. +It is curious that, writing the later chapters of “Life and Habit” +in great haste, I should have accidentally referred to the “Origin +of Species” as “Natural Selection;” it seems hard +to believe that there was no intention in my thus unconsciously reverting +to Mr. Darwin’s own original title, but there certainly was none, +and I did not then know what the original title had been.<br> +<br> +If we had scrutinised Mr. Darwin’s title-page as closely as we +should certainly scrutinise anything written by Mr. Darwin now, we should +have seen that the title did not technically claim the theory of descent; +practically, however, it so turned out that we unhesitatingly gave that +theory to the author, being, as I have said, carried away by the three +large “Origins of Species” (which we understood as much +the same thing as descent with modification), and finding, as I shall +show in a later chapter, that descent was ubiquitously claimed throughout +the work, either expressly or by implication, as Mr. Darwin’s +theory. It is not easy to see how any one with ordinary instincts +could hesitate to believe that Mr. Darwin was entitled to claim what +he claimed with so much insistance. If <i>ars est celare artem +</i>Mr. Darwin must be allowed to have been a consummate artist, for +it took us years to understand the ins and outs of what had been done.<br> +<br> +I may say in passing that we never see the “Origin of Species” +spoken of as “On the Origin of Species, &c.,” or as +“The Origin of Species, &c.” (the word “on” +being dropped in the latest editions). The distinctive feature +of the book lies, according to its admirers, in the “&c.,” +but they never give it. To avoid pedantry I shall continue to +speak of the “Origin of Species.”<br> +<br> +At any rate it will be admitted that Mr. Darwin did not make his title-page +express his meaning so clearly that his readers could readily catch +the point of difference between himself and his grandfather and Lamarck; +nevertheless the point just touched upon involves the only essential +difference between the systems of Mr. Charles Darwin and those of his +three most important predecessors. All four writers agree that +animals and plants descend with modification; all agree that the fittest +alone survive; all agree about the important consequences of the geometrical +ratio of increase; Mr. Charles Darwin has said more about these last +two points than his predecessors did, but all three were alike cognisant +of the facts and attached the same importance to them, and would have +been astonished at its being supposed possible that they disputed them. +The fittest alone survive; yes - but the fittest from among what? +Here comes the point of divergence; the fittest from among organisms +whose variations arise mainly through use and disuse? In other +words, from variations that are mainly functional? Or from among +organisms whose variations are in the main matters of luck? From +variations into which a moral and intellectual system of payment according +to results has largely entered? Or from variations which have +been thrown for with dice? From variations among which, though +cards tell, yet play tells as much or more? Or from those in which +cards are everything and play goes for so little as to be not worth +taking into account? Is “the survival of the fittest” +to be taken as meaning “the survival of the luckiest” or +“the survival of those who know best how to turn fortune to account”? +Is luck the only element of fitness, or is not cunning even more indispensable?<br> +<br> +Mr. Darwin has a habit, borrowed, perhaps, <i>mutatis mutandis, </i>from +the framers of our collects, of every now and then adding the words +“through natural selection,” as though this squared everything, +and descent with modification thus became his theory at once. +This is not the case. Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck believed +in natural selection to the full as much as any follower of Mr. Charles +Darwin can do. They did not use the actual words, but the idea +underlying them is the essence of their system. Mr. Patrick Matthew +epitomised their doctrine more tersely, perhaps, than was done by any +other of the pre-Charles-Darwinian evolutionists, in the following passage +which appeared in 1831, and which I have already quoted in “Evolution +Old and New” (pp. 320, 323). The passage runs:-<br> +<br> +“The self-regulating adaptive disposition of organised life may, +in part, be traced to the extreme fecundity of nature, who, as before +stated, has in all the varieties of her offspring a prolific power much +beyond (in many cases a thousandfold) what is necessary to fill up the +vacancies caused by senile decay. As the field of existence is +limited and preoccupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better +suited to circumstance individuals, who are able to struggle forward +to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have +superior adaptation and greater power of occupancy than any other kind; +the weaker and less circumstance-suited being prematurely destroyed. +This principle is in constant action; it regulates the colour, the figure, +the capacities, and instincts; those individuals in each species whose +colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from +enemies, or defence from inclemencies or vicissitudes of climate, whose +figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support; +whose capacities and instincts can best regulate the physical energies +to self-advantage according to circumstances - in such immense waste +of primary and youthful life those only come forward to maturity from +<i>the strict ordeal by which nature tests their adaptation to her standard +of perfection </i>and fitness to continue their kind by reproduction.” +<a name="citation86a"></a><a href="#footnote86a">{86a}</a> A little +lower down Mr. Matthew speaks of animals under domestication <i>“not +having undergone selection by the law of nature, of which we have spoken, +</i>and hence being unable to maintain their ground without culture +and protection.”<br> +<br> +The distinction between Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism is generally believed +to lie in the adoption of a theory of natural selection by the younger +Darwin and its non-adoption by the elder. This is true in so far +as that the elder Darwin does not use the words “natural selection,” +while the younger does, but it is not true otherwise. Both writers +agree that offspring tends to inherit modifications that have been effected, +from whatever cause, in parents; both hold that the best adapted to +their surroundings live longest and leave most offspring; both, therefore, +hold that favourable modifications will tend to be preserved and intensified +in the course of many generations, and that this leads to divergence +of type; but these opinions involve a theory of natural selection or +quasi-selection, whether the words “natural selection” are +used or not; indeed it is impossible to include wild species in any +theory of descent with modification without implying a quasi-selective +power on the part of nature; but even with Mr. Charles Darwin the power +is only quasi-selective; there is no conscious choice, and hence there +is nothing that can in strictness be called selection.<br> +<br> +It is indeed true that the younger Darwin gave the words “natural +selection” the importance which of late years they have assumed; +he probably adopted them unconsciously from the passage of Mr. Matthew’s +quoted above, but he ultimately said, <a name="citation87a"></a><a href="#footnote87a">{87a}</a> +“In the literal sense of the word <i>(sic) </i>no doubt natural +selection is a false term,” as personifying a fact, making it +exercise the conscious choice without which there can be no selection, +and generally crediting it with the discharge of functions which can +only be ascribed legitimately to living and reasoning beings. +Granted, however, that while Mr. Charles Darwin adopted the expression +natural selection and admitted it to be a bad one, his grandfather did +not use it at all; still Mr. Darwin did not mean the natural selection +which Mr. Matthew and those whose opinions he was epitomising meant. +Mr. Darwin meant the selection to be made from variations into which +purpose enters to only a small extent comparatively. The difference, +therefore, between the older evolutionists and their successor does +not lie in the acceptance by the more recent writer of a quasi-selective +power in nature which his predecessors denied, but in the background +- hidden behind the words natural selection, which have served to cloak +it - in the views which the old and the new writers severally took of +the variations from among which they are alike agreed that a selection +or quasi-selection is made.<br> +<br> +It now appears that there is not one natural selection, and one survival +of the fittest only, but two natural selections, and two survivals of +the fittest, the one of which may be objected to as an expression more +fit for religious and general literature than for science, but may still +be admitted as sound in intention, while the other, inasmuch as it supposes +accident to be the main purveyor of variations, has no correspondence +with the actual course of things; for if the variations are matters +of chance or hazard unconnected with any principle of constant application, +they will not occur steadily enough, throughout a sufficient number +of successive generations, nor to a sufficient number of individuals +for many generations together at the same time and place, to admit of +the fixing and permanency of modification at all. The one theory +of natural selection, therefore, may, and indeed will, explain the facts +that surround us, whereas the other will not. Mr. Charles Darwin’s +contribution to the theory of evolution was not, as is commonly supposed, +“natural selection,” but the hypothesis that natural selection +from variations that are in the main fortuitous could accumulate and +result in specific and generic differences.<br> +<br> +In the foregoing paragraph I have given the point of difference between +Mr. Charles Darwin and his predecessors. Why, I wonder, have neither +he nor any of his exponents put this difference before us in such plain +words that we should readily apprehend it? Erasmus Darwin and +Lamarck were understood by all who wished to understand them; why is +it that the misunderstanding of Mr. Darwin’s “distinctive +feature” should have been so long and obstinate? Why is +it that, no matter how much writers like Mr. Grant Allen and Professor +Ray Lankester may say about “Mr. Darwin’s master-key,” +nor how many more like hyperboles they brandish, they never put a succinct +<i>résumé </i>of Mr. Darwin’s theory side by side +with a similar <i>résumé </i>of his grandfather’s +and Lamarck’s? Neither Mr. Darwin himself, not any of those +to whose advocacy his reputation is mainly due, have done this. +Professor Huxley is the man of all others who foisted Mr. Darwin most +upon us, but in his famous lecture on the coming of age of the “Origin +of Species” he did not explain to his hearers wherein the Neo-Darwinian +theory of evolution differed from the old; and why not? Surely, +because no sooner is this made clear than we perceive that the idea +underlying the old evolutionists is more in accord with instinctive +feelings that we have cherished too long to be able now to disregard +them than the central idea which underlies the “Origin of Species.”<br> +<br> +What should we think of one who maintained that the steam-engine and +telescope were not developed mainly through design and effort (letting +the indisputably existing element of luck go without saying), but to +the fact that if any telescope or steam-engine “happened to be +made ever such a little more conveniently for man’s purposes than +another,” &c., &c.?<br> +<br> +Let us suppose a notorious burglar found in possession of a jemmy; it +is admitted on all hands that he will use it as soon as he gets a chance; +there is no doubt about this; how perverted should we not consider the +ingenuity of one who tried to persuade us we were wrong in thinking +that the burglar compassed the possession of the jemmy by means involving +ideas, however vague in the first instance, of applying it to its subsequent +function.<br> +<br> +If any one could be found so blind to obvious inferences as to accept +natural selection, “or the preservation of favoured machines,” +as the main means of mechanical modification, we might suppose him to +argue much as follows:- “I can quite understand,” he would +exclaim, “how any one who reflects upon the originally simple +form of the earliest jemmies, and observes the developments they have +since attained in the hands of our most accomplished housebreakers, +might at first be tempted to believe that the present form of the instrument +has been arrived at by long-continued improvement in the hands of an +almost infinite succession of thieves; but may not this inference be +somewhat too hastily drawn? Have we any right to assume that burglars +work by means analogous to those employed by other people? If +any thief happened to pick up any crowbar which happened to be ever +such a little better suited to his purpose than the one he had been +in the habit of using hitherto, he would at once seize and carefully +preserve it. If it got worn out or broken he would begin searching +for a crowbar as like as possible to the one that he had lost; and when, +with advancing skill, and in default of being able to find the exact +thing he wanted, he took at length to making a jemmy for himself, he +would imitate the latest and most perfect adaptation, which would thus +be most likely to be preserved in the struggle of competitive forms. +Let this process go on for countless generations, among countless burglars +of all nations, and may we not suppose that a jemmy would be in time +arrived at, as superior to any that could have been designed as the +effect of the Niagara Falls is superior to the puny efforts of the landscape +gardener?”<br> +<br> +For the moment I will pass over the obvious retort that there is no +sufficient parallelism between bodily organs and mechanical inventions +to make a denial of design in the one involve in equity a denial of +it in the other also, and that therefore the preceding paragraph has +no force. A man is not bound to deny design in machines wherein +it can be clearly seen because he denies it in living organs where at +best it is a matter of inference. This retort is plausible, but +in the course of the two next following chapters but one it will be +shown to be without force; for the moment, however, beyond thus calling +attention to it, I must pass it by.<br> +<br> +I do not mean to say that Mr. Darwin ever wrote anything which made +the utility of his contention as apparent as it is made by what I have +above put into the mouth of his supposed follower. Mr. Darwin +was the Gladstone of biology, and so old a scientific hand was not going +to make things unnecessarily clear unless it suited his convenience. +Then, indeed, he was like the man in “The Hunting of the Snark,” +who said, “I told you once, I told you twice, what I tell you +three times is true.” That what I have supposed said, however, +above about the jemmy is no exaggeration of Mr. Darwin’s attitude +as regards design in organism will appear from the passage about the +eye already referred to, which it may perhaps be as well to quote in +full. Mr. Darwin says:-<br> +<br> +“It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. +We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued +efforts of the highest human intellects, and we naturally infer that +the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may +not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume +that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of men? +If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination +to take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with a nerve sensitive +to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually +changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers of different +densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, +and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further, +we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each +slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers, and carefully +selecting each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in +any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a distincter image. +We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by +the million, and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and +then the old ones to be destroyed. In living bodies variation +will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost +infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill +each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions +of years, and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; +and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be +formed as superior to one of glass as the works of the Creator are to +those of man?” <a name="citation92a"></a><a href="#footnote92a">{92a}</a><br> +<br> +Mr. Darwin does not in this passage deny design, or cunning, point blank; +he was not given to denying things point blank, nor is it immediately +apparent that he is denying design at all, for he does not emphasize +and call attention to the fact that the <i>variations </i>on whose accumulation +he relies for his ultimate specific difference are accidental, and, +to use his own words, in the passage last quoted, caused by <i>variation</i>. +He does, indeed, in his earlier editions, call the variations “accidental,” +and accidental they remained for ten years, but in 1869 the word “accidental” +was taken out. Mr. Darwin probably felt that the variations had +been accidental as long as was desirable; and though they would, of +course, in reality remain as accidental as ever, still, there could +be no use in crying “accidental variations” further. +If the reader wants to know whether they were accidental or no, he had +better find out for himself. Mr. Darwin was a master of what may +be called scientific chiaroscuro, and owes his reputation in no small +measure to the judgment with which he kept his meaning dark when a less +practised hand would have thrown light upon it. There can, however, +be no question that Mr. Darwin, though not denying purposiveness point +blank, was trying to refer the development of the eye to the accumulation +of small accidental improvements, which were not as a rule due to effort +and design in any way analogous to those attendant on the development +of the telescope.<br> +<br> +Though Mr. Darwin, if he was to have any point of difference from his +grandfather, was bound to make his variations accidental, yet, to do +him justice, he did not like it. Even in the earlier editions +of the “Origin of Species,” where the “alterations” +in the passage last quoted are called “accidental” in express +terms, the word does not fall, so to speak, on a strong beat of the +bar, and is apt to pass unnoticed. Besides, Mr. Darwin does not +say point blank “we may believe,” or “we ought to +believe;” he only says “may we not believe?” +The reader should always be on his guard when Mr. Darwin asks one of +these bland and child-like questions, and he is fond of asking them; +but, however this may be, it is plain, as I pointed out in “Evolution +Old and New” <a name="citation93a"></a><a href="#footnote93a">{93a}</a> +that the only “skill,” that is to say the only thing that +can possibly involve design, is “the unerring skill” of +natural selection.<br> +<br> +In the same paragraph Mr. Darwin has already said: “Further, we +must suppose that there is a power represented by natural selection +or the survival of the fittest always intently watching each slight +alteration, &c.” Mr. Darwin probably said “a power +represented by natural selection” instead of “natural selection” +only, because he saw that to talk too frequently about the fact that +the most lucky live longest as “intently watching” something +was greater nonsense than it would be prudent even for him to write, +so he fogged it by making the intent watching done by “a power +represented by” a fact, instead of by the fact itself. As +the sentence stands it is just as great nonsense as it would have been +if “the survival of the fittest” had been allowed to do +the watching instead of “the power represented by” the survival +of the fittest, but the nonsense is harder to dig up, and the reader +is more likely to pass it over.<br> +<br> +This passage gave Mr. Darwin no less trouble than it must have given +to many of his readers. In the original edition of the “Origin +of Species” it stood, “Further, we must suppose that there +is a power always intently watching each slight accidental variation.” +I suppose it was felt that if this was allowed to stand, it might be +fairly asked what natural selection was doing all this time? If +the power was able to do everything that was necessary now, why not +always? and why any natural selection at all? This clearly would +not do, so in 1861 the power was allowed, by the help of brackets, actually +to become natural selection, and remained so till 1869, when Mr. Darwin +could stand it no longer, and, doubtless for the reason given above, +altered the passage to “a power represented by natural selection,” +at the same time cutting out the word “accidental.”<br> +<br> +It may perhaps make the workings of Mr. Darwin’s mind clearer +to the reader if I give the various readings of this passage as taken +from the three most important editions of the “Origin of Species.”<br> +<br> +In 1859 it stood, “Further, we must suppose that there is a power +always intently watching each slight accidental alteration,” &c.<br> +<br> +In 1861 it stood, “Further, we must suppose that there is a power +(natural selection) always intently watching each slight accidental +alteration,” &c.<br> +<br> +And in 1869, “Further, we must suppose that there is a power represented +by natural selection or the survival of the fittest always intently +watching each slight alteration,” &c. <a name="citation94a"></a><a href="#footnote94a">{94a}</a><br> +<br> +The hesitating feeble gait of one who fears a pitfall at every step, +so easily recognisable in the “numerous, successive, slight alterations” +in the foregoing passage, may be traced in many another page of the +“Origin of Species” by those who will be at the trouble +of comparing the several editions. It is only when this is done, +and the working of Mr. Darwin’s mind can be seen as though it +were the twitchings of a dog’s nose, that any idea can be formed +of the difficulty in which he found himself involved by his initial +blunder of thinking he had got a distinctive feature which entitled +him to claim the theory of evolution as an original idea of his own. +He found his natural selection hang round his neck like a millstone. +There is hardly a page in the “Origin of Species” in which +traces of the struggle going on in Mr. Darwin’s mind are not discernible, +with a result alike exasperating and pitiable. I can only repeat +what I said in “Evolution Old and New,” namely, that I find +the task of extracting a well-defined meaning out of Mr. Darwin’s +words comparable only to that of trying to act on the advice of a lawyer +who has obscured the main issue as much as he can, and whose chief aim +has been to leave as many loopholes as possible for himself to escape +by, if things should go wrong hereafter. Or, again, to that of +one who has to construe an Act of Parliament which was originally drawn +with a view to throwing as much dust as possible in the eyes of those +who would oppose the measure, and which, having been found utterly unworkable +in practice, has had clauses repealed up and down it till it is now +in an inextricable tangle of confusion and contradiction.<br> +<br> +The more Mr. Darwin’s work is studied, and more especially the +more his different editions are compared, the more impossible is it +to avoid a suspicion of <i>arrière pensée </i>as pervading +it whenever the “distinctive feature” is on the <i>tapis</i>. +It is right to say, however, that no such suspicion attaches to Mr. +A. R. Wallace, Mr. Darwin’s fellow discoverer of natural selection. +It is impossible to doubt that Mr. Wallace believed he had made a real +and important improvement upon the Lamarckian system, and, as a natural +consequence, unlike Mr. Darwin, he began by telling us what Lamarck +had said. He did not, I admit, say quite all that I should have +been glad to have seen him say, nor use exactly the words I should myself +have chosen, but he said enough to make it impossible to doubt his good +faith, and his desire that we should understand that with him, as with +Mr. Darwin, variations are mainly accidental, not functional. +Thus, in his memorable paper communicated to the Linnean Society in +1858 he said, in a passage which I have quoted in “Unconscious +Memory”:<br> +<br> +“The hypothesis of Lamarck - that progressive changes in species +have been produced by the attempts of the animals to increase the development +of their own organs, and thus modify their structures and habits - has +been repeatedly and easily refuted by all writers on the subject of +varieties and species; . . . but the view here developed renders such +an hypothesis quite unnecessary. . . . The powerful retractile +talons of the falcon and cat tribes have not been produced or increased +by the volition of those animals; . . . neither did the giraffe acquire +its long neck by desiring to reach the foliage of the more lofty shrubs, +and constantly stretching its neck for this purpose, but because any +varieties which occurred among its antitypes with a longer neck than +usual <i>at once secured a fresh range of pasture over the same ground +as their shorter-necked companions, and on the first scarcity of food +were thus enabled to outlive them” </i>(italics in original). +<a name="citation96a"></a><a href="#footnote96a">{96a}</a><br> +<br> +“Which occurred” is obviously “which happened to occur, +by some chance or accident entirely unconnected with use and disuse;” +and though the word “accidental” is never used, there can +be no doubt about Mr. Wallace’s desire to make the reader catch +the fact that with him accident, and not, as with Erasmus Darwin and +Lamarck, sustained effort, is the main purveyor of the variations whose +accumulation amounts ultimately to specific difference. It is +a pity, however, that instead of contenting himself like a theologian +with saying that his opponent had been refuted over and over again, +he did not refer to any particular and tolerably successful attempt +to refute the theory that modifications in organic structure are mainly +functional. I am fairly well acquainted with the literature of +evolution, and have never met with any such attempt. But let this +pass; as with Mr. Darwin, so with Mr. Wallace, and so indeed with all +who accept Mr. Charles Darwin’s natural selection as the main +means of modification, the central idea is luck, while the central idea +of the Erasmus-Darwinian system is cunning.<br> +<br> +I have given the opinions of these contending parties in their extreme +development; but they both admit abatements which bring them somewhat +nearer to one another. Design, as even its most strenuous upholders +will admit, is a difficult word to deal with; it is, like all our ideas, +substantial enough until we try to grasp it - and then, like all our +ideas, it mockingly eludes us; it is like life or death - a rope of +many strands; there is design within design, and design within undesign; +there is undesign within design (as when a man shuffles cards designing +that there shall be no design in their arrangement), and undesign within +undesign; when we speak of cunning or design in connection with organism +we do not mean cunning, all cunning, and nothing but cunning, so that +there shall be no place for luck; we do not mean that conscious attention +and forethought shall have been bestowed upon the minutest details of +action, and nothing been left to work itself out departmentally according +to precedent, or as it otherwise best may according to the chapter of +accidents.<br> +<br> +So, again, when Mr. Darwin and his followers deny design and effort +to have been the main purveyors of the variations whose accumulation +results in specific difference, they do not entirely exclude the action +of use and disuse - and this at once opens the door for cunning; nevertheless, +according to Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck, the human eye and the long +neck of the giraffe are alike due to the accumulation of variations +that are mainly functional, and hence practical; according to Charles +Darwin they are alike due to the accumulation of variations that are +accidental, fortuitous, spontaneous, that is to say, mainly cannot be +reduced to any known general principle. According to Charles Darwin +“the preservation of favoured,” or lucky, “races” +is by far the most important means of modification; according to Erasmus +Darwin effort <i>non sibi res sed se rebus subjungere </i>is unquestionably +the most potent means; roughly, therefore, there is no better or fairer +way of putting the matter, than to say that Charles Darwin is the apostle +of luck, and his grandfather, and Lamarck, of cunning.<br> +<br> +It should be observed also that the distinction between the organism +and its surroundings - on which both systems are founded - is one that +cannot be so universally drawn as we find it convenient to allege. +There is a debatable ground of considerable extent on which <i>res </i>and +<i>me, </i>ego and non ego, luck and cunning, necessity and freewill, +meet and pass into one another as night and day, or life and death. +No one can draw a sharp line between ego and non ego, nor indeed any +sharp line between any classes of phenomena. Every part of the +ego is non ego <i>quâ </i>organ or tool in use, and much of the +non ego runs up into the ego and is inseparably united with it; still +there is enough that it is obviously most convenient to call ego, and +enough that it is no less obviously most convenient to call non ego, +as there is enough obvious day and obvious night, or obvious luck and +obvious cunning, to make us think it advisable to keep separate accounts +for each.<br> +<br> +I will say more on this head in a following chapter; in this present +one my business should be confined to pointing out as clearly and succinctly +as I can the issue between the two great main contending opinions concerning +organic development that obtain among those who accept the theory of +descent at all; nor do I believe that this can be done more effectually +and accurately than by saying, as above, that Mr. Charles Darwin (whose +name, by the way, was “Charles Robert,” and not, as would +appear from the title-pages of his books, “Charles” only), +Mr. A. R. Wallace, and their supporters are the apostles of luck, while +Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck, followed, more or less timidly, by the Geoffroys +and by Mr. Herbert Spencer, and very timidly indeed by the Duke of Argyll, +preach cunning as the most important means of organic modification.<br> +<br> +NOTE. - It appears from “Samuel Butler: A Memoir” (II, 29) +that Butler wrote to his father (Dec. 1885) about a passage in Horace +(near the beginning of the First Epistle of the First Book) -<br> +<br> +Nunc in Aristippi furtim praecepta relabor,<br> +Et mihi res, non me rebus subjungere conor.<br> +<br> +On the preceding page he is adapting the second of these two verses +to his own purposes. - H. F. J.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER VII - <i>(Intercalated) </i>Mr. Spencer’s “The +Factors of Organic Evolution”<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +Since the foregoing and several of the succeeding chapters were written, +Mr. Herbert Spencer has made his position at once more clear and more +widely understood by his articles “The Factors of Organic Evolution” +which appeared in the <i>Nineteenth Century </i>for April and May, 1886. +The present appears the fittest place in which to intercalate remarks +concerning them.<br> +<br> +Mr. Spencer asks whether those are right who regard Mr. Charles Darwin’s +theory of natural selection as by itself sufficient to account for organic +evolution.<br> +<br> +“On critically examining the evidence” (modern writers never +examine evidence, they always “critically,” or “carefully,” +or “patiently,” examine it), he writes, we shall find reason +to think that it by no means explains all that has to be explained. +Omitting for the present any consideration of a factor which may be +considered primordial, it may be contended that one of the factors alleged +by Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck must be recognised as a co-operator. +Unless that increase of a part resulting from extra activity, and that +decrease of it resulting from inactivity, are transmissible to descendants, +we are without a key to many phenomena of organic evolution. <i>Utterly +inadequate to explain the major part of the facts as is the hypothesis +of the inheritance of functionally produced modifications, </i>yet there +is a minor part of the facts very extensive though less, which must +be ascribed to this cause.” (Italics mine.)<br> +<br> +Mr. Spencer does not here say expressly that Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck +considered inheritance of functionally produced modifications to be +the sole explanation of the facts of organic life; modern writers on +evolution for the most part avoid saying anything expressly; this nevertheless +is the conclusion which the reader naturally draws - and was doubtless +intended to draw - from Mr. Spencer’s words. He gathers +that these writers put forward an “utterly inadequate” theory, +which cannot for a moment be entertained in the form in which they left +it, but which, nevertheless, contains contributions to the formation +of a just opinion which of late years have been too much neglected.<br> +<br> +This inference would be, as Mr. Spencer ought to know, a mistaken one. +Erasmus Darwin, who was the first to depend mainly on functionally produced +modifications, attributes, if not as much importance to variations induced +either by what we must call chance, or by causes having no connection +with use and disuse, as Mr. Spencer does, still so nearly as much that +there is little to choose between them. Mr. Spencer’s words +show that he attributes, if not half, still not far off half the modification +that has actually been produced, to use and disuse. Erasmus Darwin +does not say whether he considers use and disuse to have brought about +more than half or less than half; he only says that animal and vegetable +modification is “in part produced” by the exertions of the +animals and vegetables themselves; the impression I have derived is, +that just as Mr. Spencer considers rather less than half to be due to +use and disuse, so Erasmus Darwin considers decidedly more than half +- so much more, in fact, than half as to make function unquestionably +the factor most proper to be insisted on if only one can be given. +Further than this he did not go. I will quote enough of Dr. Erasmus +Darwin’s own words to put his position beyond doubt. He +writes:-<br> +<br> +“Thirdly, when we enumerate the great changes produced in the +species of animals before their nativity, as, for example, when the +offspring reproduces the effects produced upon the parent by accident +or culture, or the changes produced by the mixture of species, as in +mules; or the changes produced probably by exuberance of nourishment +supplied to the foetus, as in monstrous births with additional limbs; +many of these enormities are propagated and continued as a variety at +least, if not as a new species of animal. I have seen a breed +of cats with an additional claw on every foot; of poultry also with +an additional claw and with wings to their feet; and of others without +rumps. Mr. Buffon” (who, by the way, surely, was no more +“Mr. Buffon” than Lord Salisbury is “Mr. Salisbury”) +“mentions a breed of dogs without tails which are common at Rome +and Naples - which he supposes to have been produced by a custom long +established of cutting their tails close off.” <a name="citation102a"></a><a href="#footnote102a">{102a}</a><br> +<br> +Here not one of the causes of variation adduced is connected with use +and disuse, or effort, volition, and purpose; the manner, moreover, +in which they are brought forward is not that of one who shows signs +of recalcitrancy about admitting other causes of modification as well +as use and disuse; indeed, a little lower down he almost appears to +assign the subordinate place to functionally produced modifications, +for he says - “Fifthly, from their first rudiments or primordium +to the termination of their lives, all animals undergo perpetual transformations; +<i>which are in part produced </i>by their own exertions in consequence +of their desires and aversions, of their pleasures and their pains, +or of irritations or of associations; and many of these acquired forms +or propensities are transmitted to their posterity.”<br> +<br> +I have quoted enough to show that Dr. Erasmus Darwin would have protested +against the supposition that functionally produced modifications were +an adequate explanation of all the phenomena of organic modification. +He declares accident and the chances and changes of this mortal life +to be potent and frequent causes of variations, which, being not infrequently +inherited, result in the formation of varieties and even species, but +considers these causes if taken alone as no less insufficient to account +for observable facts than the theory of functionally produced modifications +would be if not supplemented by inheritance of so-called fortuitous, +or spontaneous variations. The difference between Dr. Erasmus +Darwin and Mr. Spencer does not consist in the denial by the first, +that a variety which happens, no matter how accidentally, to have varied +in a way that enables it to comply more fully and readily with the conditions +of its existence, is likely to live longer and leave more offspring +than one less favoured; nor in the denial by the second of the inheritance +and accumulation of functionally produced modifications; but in the +amount of stress which they respectively lay on the relative importance +of the two great factors of organic evolution, the existence of which +they are alike ready to admit.<br> +<br> +With Erasmus Darwin there is indeed luck, and luck has had a great deal +to do with organic modification, but no amount of luck would have done +unless cunning had known how to take advantage of it; whereas if cunning +be given, a very little luck at a time will accumulate in the course +of ages and become a mighty heap. Cunning, therefore, is the factor +on which, having regard to the usage of language and the necessity for +simplifying facts, he thinks it most proper to insist. Surely +this is as near as may be the opinion which common consent ascribes +to Mr. Spencer himself. It is certainly the one which, in supporting +Erasmus Darwin’s system as against his grandson’s, I have +always intended to support. With Charles Darwin, on the other +hand, there is indeed cunning, effort, and consequent use and disuse; +nor does he deny that these have produced some, and sometimes even an +important, effect in modifying species, but he assigns by far the most +important <i>rôle </i>in the whole scheme to natural selection, +which, as I have already shown, must, with him, be regarded as a synonym +for luck pure and simple. This, for reasons well shown by Mr. +Spencer in the articles under consideration, is so untenable that it +seems only possible to account for its having been advanced at all by +supposing Mr. Darwin’s judgment to have been perverted by some +one or more of the many causes that might tend to warp them. What +the chief of those causes may have been I shall presently point out.<br> +<br> +Buffon erred rather on the side of ignoring functionally produced modifications +than of insisting on them. The main agency with him is the direct +action of the environment upon the organism. This, no doubt, is +a flaw in Buffon’s immortal work, but it is one which Erasmus +Darwin and Lamarck easily corrected; nor can we doubt that Buffon would +have readily accepted their amendment if it had been suggested to him. +Buffon did infinitely more in the way of discovering and establishing +the theory of descent with modification than any one has ever done either +before or since. He was too much occupied with proving the fact +of evolution at all, to dwell as fully as might have been wished upon +the details of the process whereby the amœba had become man, but +we have already seen that he regarded inherited mutilation as the cause +of establishing a new breed of dogs, and this is at any rate not laying +much stress on functionally produced modifications. Again, when +writing of the dog, he speaks of variations arising <i>“by some +chance </i>common enough with nature,” <a name="citation104a"></a><a href="#footnote104a">{104a}</a> +and clearly does not contemplate function as the sole cause of modification. +Practically, though I grant I should be less able to quote passages +in support of my opinion than I quite like, I do not doubt that his +position was much the same as that of his successors, Erasmus Darwin +and Lamarck.<br> +<br> +Lamarck is more vulnerable than either Erasmus Darwin or Buffon on the +score of unwillingness to assign its full share to mere chance, but +I do not for a moment believe his comparative reticence to have been +caused by failure to see that the chapter of accidents is a fateful +one. He saw that the cunning or functional side had been too much +lost sight of, and therefore insisted on it, but he did not mean to +say that there is no such thing as luck. “Let us suppose,” +he says, “that a grass growing in a low-lying meadow, gets carried +<i>by some accident </i>to the brow of a neighbouring hill, where the +soil is still damp enough for the plant to be able to exist.” +<a name="citation105a"></a><a href="#footnote105a">{105a}</a> +Or again - “With sufficient time, favourable conditions of life, +successive changes in the condition of the globe, and the power of new +surroundings and habits to modify the organs of living bodies, all animal +and vegetable forms have been imperceptibly rendered such as we now +see them.” <a name="citation105b"></a><a href="#footnote105b">{105b}</a> +Who can doubt that accident is here regarded as a potent factor of evolution, +as well as the design that is involved in the supposition that modification +is, in the main, functionally induced? Again he writes, “As +regards the circumstances that give rise to variation, the principal +are climatic changes, different temperatures of any of a creature’s +environments, differences of abode, of habit, of the most frequent actions, +and lastly of the means of obtaining food, self-defence, reproduction,” +&c. <a name="citation105c"></a><a href="#footnote105c">{105c}</a> +I will not dwell on the small inconsistencies which may be found in +the passages quoted above; the reader will doubtless see them, and will +also doubtless see that in spite of them there can be no doubt that +Lamarck, while believing modification to be effected mainly by the survival +in the struggle for existence of modifications which had been induced +functionally, would not have hesitated to admit the survival of favourable +variations due to mere accident as also a potent factor in inducing +the results we see around us.<br> +<br> +For the rest, Mr. Spencer’s articles have relieved me from the +necessity of going into the evidence which proves that such structures +as a giraffe’s neck, for example, cannot possibly have been produced +by the accumulation of variations which had their origin mainly in accident. +There is no occasion to add anything to what Mr. Spencer has said on +this score, and I am satisfied that those who do not find his argument +convince them would not be convinced by anything I might say; I shall, +therefore, omit what I had written on this subject, and confine myself +to giving the substance of Mr. Spencer’s most telling argument +against Mr. Darwin’s theory that accidental variations, if favourable, +would accumulate and result in seemingly adaptive structures. +Mr. Spencer well shows that luck or chance is insufficient as a motive-power, +or helm, of evolution; but luck is only absence of design; if, then, +absence of design is found to fail, it follows that there must have +been design somewhere, nor can the design be more conveniently placed +than in association with function.<br> +<br> +Mr. Spencer contends that where life is so simple as to consist practically +in the discharge of only one function, or where circumstances are such +that some one function is supremely important (a state of things, by +the way, more easily found in hypothesis than in nature - at least as +continuing without modification for many successive seasons), then accidental +variations, if favourable, would indeed accumulate and result in modification, +without the aid of the transmission of functionally produced modification. +This is true; it is also true, however, that only a very small number +of species in comparison with those we see around us could thus arise, +and that we should never have got plants and animals as embodiments +of the two great fundamental principles on which it is alone possible +that life can be conducted, <a name="citation107a"></a><a href="#footnote107a">{107a}</a> +and species of plants and animals as embodiments of the details involved +in carrying out these two main principles.<br> +<br> +If the earliest organism could have only varied favourably in one direction, +the one possible favourable accidental variation would have accumulated +so long as the organism continued to exist at all, inasmuch as this +would be preserved whenever it happened to occur, while every other +would be lost in the struggle of competitive forms; but even in the +lowest forms of life there is more than one condition in respect of +which the organism must be supposed sensitive, and there are as many +directions in which variations may be favourable as there are conditions +of the environment that affect the organism. We cannot conceive +of a living form as having a power of adaptation limited to one direction +only; the elasticity which admits of a not being “extreme to mark +that which is done amiss” in one direction will commonly admit +of it in as many directions as there are possible favourable modes of +variation; the number of these, as has been just said, depends upon +the number of the conditions of the environment that affect the organism, +and these last, though in the long run and over considerable intervals +of time tolerably constant, are over shorter intervals liable to frequent +and great changes; so that there is nothing in Mr. Charles Darwin’s +system of modification through the natural survival of the lucky, to +prevent gain in one direction one year from being lost irretrievably +in the next, through the greater success of some in no way correlated +variation, the fortunate possessors of which alone survive. This, +in its turn, is as likely as not to disappear shortly through the arising +of some difficulty in some entirely new direction, and so on; nor, if +function be regarded as of small effect in determining organism, is +there anything to ensure either that, even if ground be lost for a season +or two in any one direction, it shall be recovered presently on resumption +by the organism of the habits that called it into existence, or that +it shall appear synchronously in a sufficient number of individuals +to ensure its not being soon lost through gamogenesis.<br> +<br> +How is progress ever to be made if races keep reversing, Penelope-like, +in one generation all that they have been achieving in the preceding? +And how, on Mr. Darwin’s system, of which the accumulation of +strokes of luck is the greatly preponderating feature, is a hoard ever +to be got together and conserved, no matter how often luck may have +thrown good things in an organism’s way? Luck, or absence +of design, may be sometimes almost said to throw good things in our +way, or at any rate we may occasionally get more through having made +no design than any design we should have been likely to have formed +would have given us; but luck does not hoard these good things for our +use and make our wills for us, nor does it keep providing us with the +same good gifts again and again, and no matter how often we reject them.<br> +<br> +I had better, perhaps, give Mr. Spencer’s own words as quoted +by himself in his article in the <i>Nineteenth Century </i>for April, +1886. He there wrote as follows, quoting from § 166 of his +“Principles of Biology,” which appeared in 1864:-<br> +<br> +“Where the life is comparatively simple, or where surrounding +circumstances render some one function supremely important, the survival +of the fittest” (which means here the survival of the luckiest) +“may readily bring about the appropriate structural change, without +any aid from the transmission of functionally-acquired modifications” +(into which effort and design have entered). “But in proportion +as the life grows complex - in proportion as a healthy existence cannot +be secured by a large endowment of some one power, but demands many +powers; in the same proportion do there arise obstacles to the increase +of any particular power, by ‘the preservation of favoured races +in the struggle for life’” (that is to say, through mere +survival of the luckiest). “As fast as the faculties are +multiplied, so fast does it become possible for the several members +of a species to have various kinds of superiority over one another. +While one saves its life by higher speed, another does the like by clearer +vision, another by keener scent, another by quicker hearing, another +by greater strength, another by unusual power of enduring cold or hunger, +another by special sagacity, another by special timidity, another by +special courage; and others by other bodily and mental attributes. +Now it is unquestionably true that, other things equal, each of these +attributes, giving its possessor an equal extra chance of life, is likely +to be transmitted to posterity. But there seems no reason to believe +it will be increased in subsequent generations by natural selection. +That it may be thus increased, the animals not possessing more than +average endowments of it must be more frequently killed off than individuals +highly endowed with it; and this can only happen when the attribute +is one of greater importance, for the time being, than most of the other +attributes.<br> +<br> +If those members of the species which have but ordinary shares of it, +nevertheless survive by virtue of other superiorities which they severally +possess, then it is not easy to see how this particular attribute can +be developed by natural selection in subsequent generations.” +(For if some other superiority is a greater source of luck, then natural +selection, or survival of the luckiest, will ensure that this other +superiority be preserved at the expense of the one acquired in the earlier +generation.) “The probability seems rather to be, that by +gamogenesis, this extra endowment will, on the average, be diminished +in posterity - just serving in the long run to compensate the deficient +endowments of other individuals, whose special powers lie in other directions; +and so to keep up the normal structure of the species. The working +out of the process is here somewhat difficult to follow” (there +is no difficulty as soon as it is perceived that Mr. Darwin’s +natural selection invariably means, or ought to mean, the survival of +the luckiest, and that seasons and what they bring with them, though +fairly constant on an average, yet individually vary so greatly that +what is luck in one season is disaster in another); “but it appears +to me that as fast as the number of bodily and mental faculties increases, +and as fast as the maintenance of life comes to depend less on the amount +of any one, and more on the combined action of all, so fast does the +production of specialities of character by natural selection alone become +difficult. Particularly does this seem to be so with a species +so multitudinous in powers as mankind; and above all does it seem to +be so with such of the human powers as have but minor shares in aiding +the struggle for life - the aesthetic faculties, for example.<br> +<br> +“Dwelling for a moment on this last illustration of the class +of difficulties described, let us ask how we are to interpret the development +of the musical faculty; how came there that endowment of musical faculty +which characterises modern Europeans at large, as compared with their +remote ancestors? The monotonous chants of low savages cannot +be said to show any melodic inspiration; and it is not evident that +an individual savage who had a little more musical perception than the +rest would derive any such advantage in the maintenance of life as would +secure the spread of his superiority by inheritance of the variation,” +&c.<br> +<br> +It should be observed that the passage given in the last paragraph but +one appeared in 1864, only five years after the first edition of the +“Origin of Species,” but, crushing as it is, Mr. Darwin +never answered it. He treated it as nonexistent - and this, doubtless +from a business standpoint, was the best thing he could do. How +far such a course was consistent with that single-hearted devotion to +the interests of science for which Mr. Darwin developed such an abnormal +reputation, is a point which I must leave to his many admirers to determine.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER VIII - Property, Common Sense, and Protoplasm<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +One would think the issue stated in the three preceding chapters was +decided in the stating. This, as I have already implied, is probably +the reason why those who have a vested interest in Mr. Darwin’s +philosophical reputation have avoided stating it.<br> +<br> +It may be said that, seeing the result is a joint one, inasmuch as both +“res” and “me,” or both luck and cunning, enter +so largely into development, neither factor can claim pre-eminence to +the exclusion of the other. But life is short and business long, +and if we are to get the one into the other we must suppress details, +and leave our words pregnant, as painters leave their touches when painting +from nature. If one factor concerns us greatly more than the other, +we should emphasize it, and let the other go without saying, by force +of association. There is no fear of its being lost sight of; association +is one of the few really liberal things in nature; by liberal, I mean +precipitate and inaccurate; the power of words, as of pictures, and +indeed the power to carry on life at all, vests in the fact that association +does not stick to the letter of its bond, but will take the half for +the whole without even looking closely at the coin given to make sure +that it is not counterfeit. Through the haste and high pressure +of business, errors arise continually, and these errors give us the +shocks of which our consciousness is compounded. Our whole conscious +life, therefore, grows out of memory and out of the power of association, +in virtue of which not only does the right half pass for the whole, +but the wrong half not infrequently passes current for it also, without +being challenged and found out till, as it were, the accounts come to +be balanced, and it is found that they will not do so.<br> +<br> +Variations are an organism’s way of getting over an unexpected +discrepancy between its resources as shown by the fly-leaves of its +own cheques and the universe’s passbook; the universe is generally +right, or would be upheld as right if the matter were to come before +the not too incorruptible courts of nature, and in nine cases out of +ten the organism has made the error in its own favour, so that it must +now pay or die. It can only pay by altering its mode of life, +and how long is it likely to be before a new departure in its mode of +life comes out in its own person and in those of its family? Granted +it will at first come out in their appearance only, but there can be +no change in appearance without some slight corresponding organic modification. +In practice there is usually compromise in these matters. The +universe, if it does not give an organism short shrift and eat it at +once, will commonly abate something of its claim; it gets tricked out +of an additional moiety by the organism; the organism really does pay +something by way of changed habits; this results in variation, in virtue +of which the accounts are cooked, cobbled, and passed by a series of +those miracles of inconsistency which was call compromises, and after +this they cannot be reopened - not till next time.<br> +<br> +Surely of the two factors which go to the making up of development, +cunning is the one more proper to be insisted on as determining the +physical and psychical well or ill being, and hence, ere long, the future +form of the organism. We can hardly open a newspaper without seeing +some sign of this; take, for example, the following extract from a letter +in the <i>Times </i>of the day on which I am writing (February 8, 1886) +- “You may pass along a road which divides a settlement +of Irish Celts from one of Germans. They all came to the country +equally without money, and have had to fight their way in the forest, +but the difference in their condition is very remarkable; on the German +side there is comfort, thrift, peace, but on the other side the spectacle +is very different.” Few will deny that slight organic differences, +corresponding to these differences of habit, are already perceptible; +no Darwinian will deny that these differences are likely to be inherited, +and, in the absence of intermarriage between the two colonies, to result +in still more typical difference than that which exists at present. +According to Mr. Darwin, the improved type of the more successful race +would not be due mainly to transmitted perseverance in well-doing, but +to the fact that if any member of the German colony “happened” +to be born “ever so slightly,” &c. Of course this +last is true to a certain extent also; if any member of the German colony +does “happen to be born,” &c., then he will stand a +better chance of surviving, and, if he marries a wife like himself, +of transmitting his good qualities; but how about the happening? +How is it that this is of such frequent occurrence in the one colony, +and is so rare in the other? <i>Fortes creantur fortibus et bonis</i>. +True, but how and why? Through the race being favoured? +In one sense, doubtless, it is true that no man can have anything except +it be given him from above, but it must be from an above into the composition +of which he himself largely enters. God gives us all things; but +we are a part of God, and that part of Him, moreover, whose department +it more especially is to look after ourselves. It cannot be through +luck, for luck is blind, and does not pick out the same people year +after year and generation after generation; shall we not rather say, +then, that it is because mind, or cunning, is a great factor in the +achievement of physical results, and because there is an abiding memory +between successive generations, in virtue of which the cunning of an +earlier one enures to the benefit of its successors?<br> +<br> +It is one of the commonplaces of biology that the nature of the organism +(which is mainly determined by ancestral antecedents) is greatly more +important in determining its future than the conditions of its environment, +provided, of course, that these are not too cruelly abnormal, so that +good seed will do better on rather poor soil, than bad seed on rather +good soil; this alone should be enough to show that cunning, or individual +effort, is more important in determining organic results than luck is, +and therefore that if either is to be insisted on to the exclusion of +the other, it should be cunning, not luck. Which is more correctly +said to be the main means of the development of capital - Luck? or Cunning? +Of course there must be something to be developed - and luck, that is +to say, the unknowable and unforeseeable, enters everywhere; but is +it more convenient with our oldest and best-established ideas to say +that luck is the main means of the development of capital, or that cunning +is so? Can there be a moment’s hesitation in admitting that +if capital is found to have been developed largely, continuously, by +many people, in many ways, over a long period of time, it can only have +been by means of continued application, energy, effort, industry, and +good sense? Granted there has been luck too; of course there has, +but we let it go without saying, whereas we cannot let the skill or +cunning go without saying, inasmuch as we feel the cunning to have been +the essence of the whole matter.<br> +<br> +Granted, again, that there is no test more fallacious on a small scale +than that of immediate success. As applied to any particular individual, +it breaks down completely. It is unfortunately no rare thing to +see the good man striving against fate, and the fool born with a silver +spoon in his mouth. Still on a large scale no test can be conceivably +more reliable; a blockhead may succeed for a time, but a succession +of many generations of blockheads does not go on steadily gaining ground, +adding field to field and farm to farm, and becoming year by year more +capable and prosperous. Given time - of which there is no scant +in the matter of organic development - and cunning will do more with +ill luck than folly with good. People do not hold six trumps every +hand for a dozen games of whist running, if they do not keep a card +or two up their sleeves. Cunning, if it can keep its head above +water at all, will beat mere luck unaided by cunning, no matter what +start luck may have had, if the race be a fairly long one. Growth +is a kind of success which does indeed come to some organisms with less +effort than to others, but it cannot be maintained and improved upon +without pains and effort. A foolish organism and its fortuitous +variation will be soon parted, for, as a general rule, unless the variation +has so much connection with the organism’s past habits and ways +of thought as to be in no proper sense of the word “fortuitous,” +the organism will not know what to do with it when it has got it, no +matter how favourable it may be, and it is little likely to be handed +down to descendants. Indeed the kind of people who get on best +in the world - and what test to a Darwinian can be comparable to this? +- commonly do insist on cunning rather than on luck, sometimes perhaps +even unduly; speaking, at least, from experience, I have generally found +myself more or less of a failure with those Darwinians to whom I have +endeavoured to excuse my shortcomings on the score of luck.<br> +<br> +It may be said that the contention that the nature of the organism does +more towards determining its future than the conditions of its immediate +environment do, is only another way of saying that the accidents which +have happened to an organism in the persons of its ancestors throughout +all time are more irresistible by it for good or ill than any of the +more ordinary chances and changes of its own immediate life. I +do not deny this; but these ancestral accidents were either turned to +account, or neglected where they might have been taken advantage of; +they thus passed either into skill, or want of skill; so that whichever +way the fact is stated the result is the same; and if simplicity of +statement be regarded, there is no more convenient way of putting the +matter than to say that though luck is mighty, cunning is mightier still. +Organism commonly shows its cunning by practising what Horace preached, +and treating itself as more plastic than its surroundings; those indeed +who have had the greatest the first to admit that they had gained their +ends more by reputation as moulders of circumstances have ever been +shaping their actions and themselves to suit events, than by trying +to shape events to suit themselves and their actions. Modification, +like charity, begins at home.<br> +<br> +But however this may be, there can be no doubt that cunning is in the +long run mightier than luck as regards the acquisition of property, +and what applies to property applies to organism also. Property, +as I have lately seen was said by Rosmini, is a kind of extension of +the personality into the outside world. He might have said as +truly that it is a kind of penetration of the outside world within the +limits of the personality, or that it is at any rate a prophesying of, +and essay after, the more living phase of matter in the direction of +which it is tending. If approached from the dynamical or living +side of the underlying substratum, it is the beginning of the comparatively +stable equilibrium which we call brute matter; if from the statical +side, that is to say, from that of brute matter, it is the beginning +of that dynamical state which we associate with life; it is the last +of ego and first of non ego, or <i>vice versâ, </i>as the case +may be; it is the ground whereon the two meet and are neither wholly +one nor wholly the other, but a whirling mass of contradictions such +as attends all fusion.<br> +<br> +What property is to a man’s mind or soul that his body is also, +only more so. The body is property carried to the bitter end, +or property is the body carried to the bitter end, whichever the reader +chooses; the expression “organic wealth” is not figurative; +none other is so apt and accurate; so universally, indeed, is this recognised +that the fact has found expression in our liturgy, which bids us pray +for all those who are any wise afflicted “in mind, body, or estate;” +no inference, therefore, can be more simple and legitimate than the +one in accordance with which the laws that govern the development of +wealth generally are supposed also to govern the particular form of +health and wealth which comes most closely home to us - I mean that +of our bodily implements or organs. What is the stomach but a +living sack, or purse of untanned leather, wherein we keep our means +of subsistence? Food is money made easy; it is petty cash in its +handiest and most reduced form; it is our way of assimilating our possessions +and making them indeed our own. What is the purse but a kind of +abridged extra corporeal stomach wherein we keep the money which we +convert by purchase into food, as we presently convert the food by digestion +into flesh and blood? And what living form is there which is without +a purse or stomach, even though it have to job it by the meal as the +amœba does, and exchange it for some other article as soon as +it has done eating? How marvellously does the analogy hold between +the purse and the stomach alike as regards form and function; and I +may say in passing that, as usual, the organ which is the more remote +from protoplasm is at once more special, more an object of our consciousness, +and less an object of its own.<br> +<br> +Talk of ego and non ego meeting, and of the hopelessness of avoiding +contradiction in terms - talk of this, and look, in passing, at the +amœba. It is itself <i>quâ </i>maker of the stomach +and being fed; it is not itself <i>quâ </i>stomach and <i>quâ +</i>its using itself as a mere tool or implement to feed itself with. +It is active and passive, object and subject, <i>ego </i>and <i>non +ego </i>- every kind of Irish bull, in fact, which a sound logician +abhors - and it is only because it has persevered, as I said in “Life +and Habit,” in thus defying logic and arguing most virtuously +in a most vicious circle, that it has come in the persons of some of +its descendants to reason with sufficient soundness. And what +the amœba is man is also; man is only a great many amœbas, +most of them dreadfully narrow-minded, going up and down the country +with their goods and chattels like gipsies in a caravan; he is only +a great many amœbas that have had much time and money spent on +their education, and received large bequests of organised intelligence +from those that have gone before them.<br> +<br> +The most incorporate tool - we will say an eye, or a tooth, or the closed +fist when used to strike - has still something of the <i>non ego </i>about +it in so far as it is used; those organs, again, that are the most completely +separate from the body, as the locomotive engine, must still from time +to time kiss the soil of the human body, and be handled and thus crossed +with man again if they would remain in working order. They cannot +be cut adrift from the most living form of matter (I mean most living +from our point of view), and remain absolutely without connection with +it for any length of time, any more than a seal can live without coming +up sometimes to breathe; and in so far as they become linked on to living +beings they live. Everything is living which is in close communion +with, and interpermeated by, that something which we call mind or thought. +Giordano Bruno saw this long ago when he made an interlocutor in one +of his dialogues say that a man’s hat and cloak are alive when +he is wearing them. “Thy boots and spurs live,” he +exclaims, “when thy feet carry them; thy hat lives when thy head +is within it; and so the stable lives when it contains the horse or +mule, or even yourself;” nor is it easy to see how this is to +be refuted except at a cost which no one in his senses will offer.<br> +<br> +It may be said that the life of clothes in wear and implements in use +is no true life, inasmuch as it differs from flesh and blood life in +too many and important respects; that we have made up our minds about +not letting life outside the body too decisively to allow the question +to be reopened; that if this be tolerated we shall have societies for +the prevention of cruelty to chairs and tables, or cutting clothes amiss, +or wearing them to tatters, or whatever other absurdity may occur to +idle and unkind people; the whole discussion, therefore, should be ordered +out of court at once.<br> +<br> +I admit that this is much the most sensible position to take, but it +can only be taken by those who turn the deafest of deaf ears to the +teachings of science, and tolerate no going even for a moment below +the surface of things. People who take this line must know how +to put their foot down firmly in the matter of closing a discussion. +Some one may perhaps innocently say that some parts of the body are +more living and vital than others, and those who stick to common sense +may allow this, but if they do they must close the discussion on the +spot; if they listen to another syllable they are lost; if they let +the innocent interlocutor say so much as that a piece of well-nourished +healthy brain is more living than the end of a finger-nail that wants +cutting, or than the calcareous parts of a bone, the solvent will have +been applied which will soon make an end of common sense ways of looking +at the matter. Once even admit the use of the participle “dying,” +which involves degrees of death, and hence an entry of death in part +into a living body, and common sense must either close the discussion +at once, or ere long surrender at discretion.<br> +<br> +Common sense can only carry weight in respect of matters with which +every one is familiar, as forming part of the daily and hourly conduct +of affairs; if we would keep our comfortable hard and fast lines, our +rough and ready unspecialised ways of dealing with difficult questions, +our impatience of what St. Paul calls “doubtful disputations,” +we must refuse to quit the ground on which the judgments of mankind +have been so long and often given that they are not likely to be questioned. +Common sense is not yet formulated in manners of science or philosophy, +for only few consider them; few decisions, therefore, have been arrived +at which all hold final. Science is, like love, “too young +to know what conscience,” or common sense, is. As soon as +the world began to busy itself with evolution it said good-bye to common +sense, and must get on with uncommon sense as best it can. The +first lesson that uncommon sense will teach it is that contradiction +in terms is the foundation of all sound reasoning - and, as an obvious +consequence, compromise, the foundation of all sound practice. +This, it follows easily, involves the corollary that as faith, to be +of any value, must be based on reason, so reason, to be of any value, +must be based on faith, and that neither can stand alone or dispense +with the other, any more than culture or vulgarity can stand unalloyed +with one another without much danger of mischance.<br> +<br> +It may not perhaps be immediately apparent why the admission that a +piece of healthy living brain is more living than the end of a finger-nail, +is so dangerous to common sense ways of looking at life and death; I +had better, therefore, be more explicit. By this admission degrees +of livingness are admitted within the body; this involves approaches +to non-livingness. On this the question arises, “Which are +the most living parts?” The answer to this was given a few +years ago with a flourish of trumpets, and our biologists shouted with +one voice, “Great is protoplasm. There is no life but protoplasm, +and Huxley is its prophet.” Read Huxley’s “Physical +Basis of Mind.” Read Professor Mivart’s article, “What +are Living Beings?” in the <i>Contemporary Review, </i>July, 1879. +Read Dr. Andrew Wilson’s article in the <i>Gentleman’s Magazine, +</i>October, 1879. Remember Professor Allman’s address to +the British Association, 1879; ask, again, any medical man what is the +most approved scientific attitude as regards the protoplasmic and non-protoplasmic +parts of the body, and he will say that the thinly veiled conclusion +arrived at by all of them is, that the protoplasmic parts are alone +truly living, and that the non-protoplasmic are non-living.<br> +<br> +It may suffice if I confine myself to Professor Allman’s address +to the British Association in 1879, as a representative utterance. +Professor Allman said:-<br> +<br> +“Protoplasm lies at the base of every vital phenomenon. +It is, as Huxley has well expressed it, ‘the physical basis of +life;’ wherever there is life from its lowest to its highest manifestation +there is protoplasm; wherever there is protoplasm there is life.” +<a name="citation122a"></a><a href="#footnote122a">{122a}</a><br> +<br> +To say wherever there is life there is protoplasm, is to say that there +can be no life without protoplasm, and this is saying that where there +is no protoplasm there is no life. But large parts of the body +are non-protoplasmic; a bone is, indeed, permeated by protoplasm, but +it is not protoplasm; it follows, therefore, that according to Professor +Allman bone is not in any proper sense of words a living substance. +From this it should follow, and doubtless does follow in Professor Allman’s +mind, that large tracts of the human body, if not the greater part by +weight (as bones, skin, muscular tissues, &c.), are no more alive +than a coat or pair of boots in wear is alive, except in so far as the +bones, &c., are more closely and nakedly permeated by protoplasm +than the coat or boots, and are thus brought into closer, directer, +and more permanent communication with that which, if not life itself, +still has more of the ear of life, and comes nearer to its royal person +than anything else does. Indeed that this is Professor Allman’s +opinion appears from the passage on page 26 of the report, in which +he says that in “protoplasm we find the only form of matter in +which life can manifest itself.”<br> +<br> +According to this view the skin and other tissues are supposed to be +made from dead protoplasm which living protoplasm turns to account as +the British Museum authorities are believed to stuff their new specimens +with the skins of old ones; the matter used by the living protoplasm +for this purpose is held to be entirely foreign to protoplasm itself, +and no more capable of acting in concert with it than bricks can understand +and act in concert with the bricklayer. As the bricklayer is held +to be living and the bricks non-living, so the bones and skin which +protoplasm is supposed to construct are held non-living and the protoplasm +alone living. Protoplasm, it is said, goes about masked behind +the clothes or habits which it has fashioned. It has habited itself +as animals and plants, and we have mistaken the garment for the wearer +- as our dogs and cats doubtless think with Giordano Bruno that our +boots live when we are wearing them, and that we keep spare paws in +our bedrooms which lie by the wall and go to sleep when we have not +got them on.<br> +<br> +If, in answer to the assertion that the osseous parts of bone are non-living, +it is said that they must be living, for they heal if broken, which +no dead matter can do, it is answered that the broken pieces of bone +do not grow together; they are mended by the protoplasm which permeates +the Haversian canals; the bones themselves are no more living merely +because they are tenanted by something which really does live, than +a house lives because men and women inhabit it; and if a bone is repaired, +it no more repairs itself than a house can be said to have repaired +itself because its owner has sent for the bricklayer and seen that what +was wanted was done.<br> +<br> +We do not know, it is said, by what means the structureless viscid substance +which we call protoplasm can build for itself a solid bone; we do not +understand how an amœba makes its test; no one understands how +anything is done unless he can do it himself; and even then he probably +does not know how he has done it. Set a man who has never painted, +to watch Rembrandt paint the Burgomaster Six, and he will no more understand +how Rembrandt can have done it, than we can understand how the amœba +makes its test, or the protoplasm cements two broken ends of a piece +of bone. <i>Ces choses se font mais ne s’expliquent pas. +</i>So some denizen of another planet looking at our earth through a +telescope which showed him much, but still not quite enough, and seeing +the St. Gothard tunnel plumb on end so that he could not see the holes +of entry and exit, would think the trains there a kind of caterpillar +which went through the mountain by a pure effort of the will - that +enabled them in some mysterious way to disregard material obstacles +and dispense with material means. We know, of course, that it +is not so, and that exemption from the toil attendant on material obstacles +has been compounded for, in the ordinary way, by the single payment +of a tunnel; and so with the cementing of a bone, our biologists say +that the protoplasm, which is alone living, cements it much as a man +might mend a piece of broken china, but that it works by methods and +processes which elude us, even as the holes of the St. Gothard tunnel +may be supposed to elude a denizen of another world.<br> +<br> +The reader will already have seen that the toils are beginning to close +round those who, while professing to be guided by common sense, still +parley with even the most superficial probers beneath the surface; this, +however, will appear more clearly in the following chapter. It +will also appear how far-reaching were the consequences of the denial +of design that was involved in Mr. Darwin’s theory that luck is +the main element in survival, and how largely this theory is responsible +for the fatuous developments in connection alike with protoplasm and +automatism which a few years ago seemed about to carry everything before +them.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER IX - Property, Common Sense, and Protoplasm <i>(continued)<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +</i>The position, then, stands thus. Common sense gave the inch +of admitting some parts of the body to be less living than others, and +philosophy took the ell of declaring the body to be almost all of it +stone dead. This is serious; still if it were all, for a quiet +life, we might put up with it. Unfortunately we know only too +well that it will not be all. Our bodies, which seemed so living +and now prove so dead, have served us such a trick that we can have +no confidence in anything connected with them. As with skin and +bones to-day, so with protoplasm to-morrow. Protoplasm is mainly +oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon; if we do not keep a sharp look +out, we shall have it going the way of the rest of the body, and being +declared dead in respect, at any rate, of these inorganic components. +Science has not, I believe, settled all the components of protoplasm, +but this is neither here nor there; she has settled what it is in great +part, and there is no trusting her not to settle the rest at any moment, +even if she has not already done so. As soon as this has been +done we shall be told that nine-tenths of the protoplasm of which we +are composed must go the way of our non-protoplasmic parts, and that +the only really living part of us is the something with a new name that +runs the protoplasm that runs the flesh and bones that run the organs +-<br> +<br> +Why stop here? Why not add “which run the tools and properties +which are as essential to our life and health as much that is actually +incorporate with us?” The same breach which has let the +non-living effect a lodgment within the body must, in all equity, let +the organic character - bodiliness, so to speak - pass out beyond its +limits and effect a lodgment in our temporary and extra-corporeal limbs. +What, on the protoplasmic theory, the skin and bones are, that the hammer +and spade are also; they differ in the degree of closeness and permanence +with which they are associated with protoplasm, but both bones and hammers +are alike non-living things which protoplasm uses for its own purposes +and keeps closer or less close at hand as custom and convenience may +determine.<br> +<br> +According to this view, the non-protoplasmic parts of the body are tools +of the first degree; they are not living, but they are in such close +and constant contact with that which really lives, that an aroma of +life attaches to them. Some of these, however, such as horns, +hooves, and tusks, are so little permeated by protoplasm that they cannot +rank much higher than the tools of the second degree, which come next +to them in order.<br> +<br> +These tools of the second degree are either picked up ready-made, or +are manufactured directly by the body, as being torn or bitten into +shape, or as stones picked up to throw at prey or at an enemy.<br> +<br> +Tools of the third degree are made by the instrumentality of tools of +the second and first degrees; as, for example, chipped flint, arrow-heads, +&c.<br> +<br> +Tools of the fourth degree are made by those of the third, second, and +first. They consist of the simpler compound instruments that yet +require to be worked by hand, as hammers, spades, and even hand flour-mills.<br> +<br> +Tools of the fifth degree are made by the help of those of the fourth, +third, second, and first. They are compounded of many tools, worked, +it may be, by steam or water and requiring no constant contact with +the body.<br> +<br> +But each one of these tools of the fifth degree was made in the first +instance by the sole instrumentality of the four preceding kinds of +tool. They must all be linked on to protoplasm, which is the one +original tool-maker, but which can only make the tools that are more +remote from itself by the help of those that are nearer, that is to +say, it can only work when it has suitable tools to work with, and when +it is allowed to use them in its own way. There can be no direct +communication between protoplasm and a steam-engine; there may be and +often is direct communication between machines of even the fifth order +and those of the first, as when an engine-man turns a cock, or repairs +something with his own hands if he has nothing better to work with. +But put a hammer, for example, to a piece of protoplasm, and the protoplasm +will no more know what to do with it than we should be able to saw a +piece of wood in two without a saw. Even protoplasm from the hand +of a carpenter who has been handling hammers all his life would be hopelessly +put off its stroke if not allowed to work in its usual way but put bare +up against a hammer; it would make a slimy mess and then dry up; still +there can be no doubt (so at least those who uphold protoplasm as the +one living substance would say) that the closer a machine can be got +to protoplasm and the more permanent the connection, the more living +it appears to be, or at any rate the more does it appear to be endowed +with spontaneous and reasoning energy, so long, of course, as the closeness +is of a kind which protoplasm understands and is familiar with. +This, they say, is why we do not like using any implement or tool with +gloves on, for these impose a barrier between the tool and its true +connection with protoplasm by means of the nervous system. For +the same reason we put gloves on when we box so as to bar the connection.<br> +<br> +That which we handle most unglovedly is our food, which we handle with +our stomachs rather than with our hands. Our hands are so thickly +encased with skin that protoplasm can hold but small conversation with +what they contain, unless it be held for a long time in the closed fist, +and even so the converse is impeded as in a strange language; the inside +of our mouths is more naked, and our stomachs are more naked still; +it is here that protoplasm brings its fullest powers of suasion to bear +on those whom it would proselytise and receive as it were into its own +communion - whom it would convert and bring into a condition of mind +in which they shall see things as it sees them itself, and, as we commonly +say, “agree with”<i> </i>it, instead of standing out stiffly +for their own opinion. We call this digesting our food; more properly +we should call it being digested by our food, which reads, marks, learns, +and inwardly digests us, till it comes to understand us and encourage +us by assuring us that we were perfectly right all the time, no matter +what any one might have said, or say, to the contrary. Having +thus recanted all its own past heresies, it sets to work to convert +everything that comes near it and seems in the least likely to be converted. +Eating is a mode of love; it is an effort after a closer union; so we +say we love roast beef. A French lady told me once that she adored +veal; and a nurse tells her child that she would like to eat it. +Even he who caresses a dog or horse <i>pro tanto </i>both weds and eats +it. Strange how close the analogy between love and hunger; in +each case the effort is after closer union and possession; in each case +the outcome is reproduction (for nutrition is the most complete of reproductions), +and in each case there are <i>residua. </i>But to return.<br> +<br> +I have shown above that one consequence of the attempt so vigorously +made a few years ago to establish protoplasm as the one living substance, +is the making it clear that the non-protoplasmic parts of the body and +the simpler extra-corporeal tools or organs must run on all fours in +the matter of livingness and non-livingness. If the protoplasmic +parts of the body are held living in virtue of their being used by something +that really lives, then so, though in a less degree, must tools and +machines. If, on the other hand, tools and machines are held non-living +inasmuch as they only owe what little appearance of life they may present +when in actual use to something else that lives, and have no life of +their own - so, though in a less degree, must the non-protoplasmic parts +of the body. Allow an overflowing aroma of life to vivify the +horny skin under the heel, and from this there will be a spilling which +will vivify the boot in wear. Deny an aroma of life to the boot +in wear, and it must ere long be denied to ninety-nine per cent. of +the body; and if the body is not alive while it can walk and talk, what +in the name of all that is unreasonable can be held to be so?<br> +<br> +That the essential identity of bodily organs and tools is no ingenious +paradoxical way of putting things is evident from the fact that we speak +of bodily organs at all. Organ means tool. There is nothing +which reveals our most genuine opinions to us so unerringly as our habitual +and unguarded expressions, and in the case under consideration so completely +do we instinctively recognise the underlying identity of tools and limbs, +that scientific men use the word “organ” for any part of +the body that discharges a function, practically to the exclusion of +any other term. Of course, however, the above contention as to +the essential identity of tools and organs does not involve a denial +of their obvious superficial differences - differences so many and so +great as to justify our classing them in distinct categories so long +as we have regard to the daily purposes of life without looking at remoter +ones.<br> +<br> +If the above be admitted, we can reply to those who in an earlier chapter +objected to our saying that if Mr. Darwin denied design in the eye he +should deny it in the burglar’s jemmy also. For if bodily +and non-bodily organs are essentially one in kind, being each of them +both living and non-living, and each of them only a higher development +of principles already admitted and largely acted on in the other, then +the method of procedure observable in the evolution of the organs whose +history is within our ken should throw light upon the evolution of that +whose history goes back into so dim a past that we can only know it +by way of inference. In the absence of any show of reason to the +contrary we should argue from the known to the unknown, and presume +that even as our non-bodily organs originated and were developed through +gradual accumulation of design, effort, and contrivance guided by experience, +so also must our bodily organs have been, in spite of the fact that +the contrivance has been, as it were, denuded of external evidences +in the course of long time. This at least is the most obvious +inference to draw; the burden of proof should rest not with those who +uphold function as the most important means of organic modification, +but with those who impugn it; it is hardly necessary, however, to say +that Mr. Darwin never attempted to impugn by way of argument the conclusions +either of his grandfather or of Lamarck. He waved them both aside +in one or two short semi-contemptuous sentences, and said no more about +them - not, at least, until late in life he wrote his “Erasmus +Darwin,” and even then his remarks were purely biographical; he +did not say one syllable by way of refutation, or even of explanation.<br> +<br> +I am free to confess that, overwhelming as is the evidence brought forward +by Mr. Spencer in the articles already referred to, as showing that +accidental variations, unguided by the helm of any main general principle +which should as it were keep their heads straight, could never accumulate +with the results supposed by Mr. Darwin; and overwhelming, again, as +is the consideration that Mr. Spencer’s most crushing argument +was allowed by Mr. Darwin to go without reply, still the considerations +arising from the discoveries of the last forty years or so in connection +with protoplasm, seem to me almost more overwhelming still. This +evidence proceeds on different lines from that adduced by Mr. Spencer, +but it points to the same conclusion, namely, that though luck will +avail much if backed by cunning and experience, it is unavailing for +any permanent result without them. There is an irony which seems +almost always to attend on those who maintain that protoplasm is the +only living substance which ere long points their conclusions the opposite +way to that which they desire - in the very last direction, indeed, +in which they of all people in the world would willingly see them pointed.<br> +<br> +It may be asked why I should have so strong an objection to seeing protoplasm +as the only living substance, when I find this view so useful to me +as tending to substantiate design - which I admit that I have as much +and as seriously at heart as I can allow myself to have any matter which, +after all, can so little affect daily conduct; I reply that it is no +part of my business to inquire whether this or that makes for my pet +theories or against them; my concern is to inquire whether or no it +is borne out by facts, and I find the opinion that protoplasm is the +one living substance unstable, inasmuch as it is an attempt to make +a halt where no halt can be made. This is enough; but, furthermore, +the fact that the protoplasmic parts of the body are <i>more </i>living +than the non-protoplasmic - which I cannot deny, without denying that +it is any longer convenient to think of life and death at all - will +answer my purpose to the full as well or better.<br> +<br> +I pointed out another consequence, which, again, was cruelly the reverse +of what the promoters of the protoplasm movement might be supposed anxious +to arrive at - in a series of articles which appeared in the <i>Examiner +</i>during the summer of 1879, and showed that if protoplasm were held +to be the sole seat of life, then this unity in the substance vivifying +all, both animals and plants, must be held as uniting them into a single +corporation or body - especially when their community of descent is +borne in mind - more effectually than any merely superficial separation +into individuals can be held to disunite them, and that thus protoplasm +must be seen as the life of the world - as a vast body corporate, never +dying till the earth itself shall pass away. This came practically +to saying that protoplasm was God Almighty, who, of all the forms open +to Him, had chosen this singularly unattractive one as the channel through +which to make Himself manifest in the flesh by taking our nature upon +Him, and animating us with His own Spirit. Our biologists, in +fact, were fast nearing the conception of a God who was both personal +and material, but who could not be made to square with pantheistic notions +inasmuch as no provision was made for the inorganic world; and, indeed, +they seem to have become alarmed at the grotesqueness of the position +in which they must ere long have found themselves, for in the autumn +of 1879 the boom collapsed, and thenceforth the leading reviews and +magazines have known protoplasm no more. About the same time bathybius, +which at one time bade fair to supplant it upon the throne of popularity, +died suddenly, as I am told, at Norwich, under circumstances which did +not transpire, nor has its name, so far as I am aware, been ever again +mentioned.<br> +<br> +So much for the conclusions in regard to the larger aspect of life taken +as a whole which must follow from confining life to protoplasm; but +there is another aspect - that, namely, which regards the individual. +The inevitable consequences of confining life to the protoplasmic parts +of the body were just as unexpected and unwelcome here as they had been +with regard to life at large; for, as I have already pointed out, there +is no drawing the line at protoplasm and resting at this point; nor +yet at the next halting-point beyond; nor at the one beyond that. +How often is this process to be repeated? and in what can it end but +in the rehabilitation of the soul as an ethereal, spiritual, vital principle, +apart from matter, which, nevertheless, it animates, vivifying the clay +of our bodies? No one who has followed the course either of biology +or psychology during this century, and more especially during the last +five-and-twenty years, will tolerate the reintroduction of the soul +as something apart from the substratum in which both feeling and action +must be held to inhere. The notion of matter being ever changed +except by other matter in another state is so shocking to the intellectual +conscience that it may be dismissed without discussion; yet if bathybius +had not been promptly dealt with, it must have become apparent even +to the British public that there were indeed but few steps from protoplasm, +as the only living substance, to vital principle. Our biologists +therefore stifled bathybius, perhaps with justice, certainly with prudence, +and left protoplasm to its fate.<br> +<br> +Any one who reads Professor Allman’s address above referred to +with due care will see that he was uneasy about protoplasm, even at +the time of its greatest popularity. Professor Allman never says +outright that the non-protoplasmic parts of the body are no more alive +than chairs and tables are. He said what involved this as an inevitable +consequence, and there can be no doubt that this is what he wanted to +convey, but he never insisted on it with the outspokenness and emphasis +with which so startling a paradox should alone be offered us for acceptance; +nor is it easy to believe that his reluctance to express his conclusion +<i>totidem verbis </i>was not due to a sense that it might ere long +prove more convenient not to have done so. When I advocated the +theory of the livingness, or quasi-livingness of machines, in the chapters +of “Erewhon” of which all else that I have written on biological +subjects is a development, I took care that people should see the position +in its extreme form; the non-livingness of bodily organs is to the full +as startling a paradox as the livingness of non-bodily ones, and we +have a right to expect the fullest explicitness from those who advance +it. Of course it must be borne in mind that a machine can only +claim any appreciable even aroma of livingness so long as it is in actual +use. In “Erewhon” I did not think it necessary to +insist on this, and did not, indeed, yet fully know what I was driving +at.<br> +<br> +The same disposition to avoid committing themselves to the assertion +that any part of the body is non-living may be observed in the writings +of the other authorities upon protoplasm above referred to; I have searched +all they said, and cannot find a single passage in which they declare +even the osseous parts of a bone to be non-living, though this conclusion +was the <i>raison d’être </i>of all they were saying and +followed as an obvious inference. The reader will probably agree +with me in thinking that such reticence can only have been due to a +feeling that the ground was one on which it behoved them to walk circumspectly; +they probably felt, after a vague, ill-defined fashion, that the more +they reduced the body to mechanism the more they laid it open to an +opponent to raise mechanism to the body, but, however this may be, they +dropped protoplasm, as I have said, in some haste with the autumn of +1879.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER X - The Attempt to Eliminate Mind<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +What, it may be asked, were our biologists really aiming at? - for men +like Professor Huxley do not serve protoplasm for nought. They +wanted a good many things, some of them more righteous than others, +but all intelligible. Among the more lawful of their desires was +a craving after a monistic conception of the universe. We all +desire this; who can turn his thoughts to these matters at all and not +instinctively lean towards the old conception of one supreme and ultimate +essence as the source from which all things proceed and have proceeded, +both now and ever? The most striking and apparently most stable +theory of the last quarter of a century had been Sir William Grove’s +theory of the conservation of energy; and yet wherein is there any substantial +difference between this recent outcome of modern amateur, and hence +most sincere, science - pointing as it does to an imperishable, and +as such unchangeable, and as such, again, for ever unknowable underlying +substance the modes of which alone change - wherein, except in mere +verbal costume, does this differ from the conclusions arrived at by +the psalmist?<br> +<br> +“Of old,” he exclaims, “hast Thou laid the foundation +of the earth; and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. They +shall perish, but Thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old +like a garment; as a vesture shalt Thou change them and they shall be +changed; but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall have no end.” +<a name="citation135a"></a><a href="#footnote135a">{135a}</a><br> +<br> +I know not what theologians may think of this passage, but from a scientific +point of view it is unassailable. So again, “O Lord,” +he exclaims, “Thou hast searched me out, and known me: Thou knowest +my down-sitting and mine up-rising; Thou understandest my thoughts long +before. Thou art about my path, and about my bed: and spiest out +all my ways. For lo, there is not a word in my tongue but Thou, +O Lord, knowest it altogether . . . Whither shall I go, then, from Thy +Spirit? Or whither shall I go, then, from Thy presence? +If I climb up into heaven Thou art there: if I go down to hell, Thou +art there also. If I take the wings of the morning, and remain +in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there also shall Thy hand lead +me and Thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Peradventure the +darkness shall cover me, then shall my night be turned to day. +Yea, the darkness is no darkness with Thee, but . . . the darkness and +light to Thee are both alike.” <a name="citation136a"></a><a href="#footnote136a">{136a}</a><br> +<br> +What convention or short cut can symbolise for us the results of laboured +and complicated chains of reasoning or bring them more aptly and concisely +home to us than the one supplied long since by the word God? What +can approach more nearly to a rendering of that which cannot be rendered +- the idea of an essence omnipresent in all things at all times everywhere +in sky and earth and sea; ever changing, yet the same yesterday, to-day, +and for ever; the ineffable contradiction in terms whose presence none +can either ever enter, or ever escape? Or rather, what convention +would have been more apt if it had not been lost sight of as a convention +and come to be regarded as an idea in actual correspondence with a more +or less knowable reality? A convention was converted into a fetish, +and now that its worthlessness as a fetish is being generally felt, +its great value as a hieroglyph or convention is in danger of being +lost sight of. No doubt the psalmist was seeking for Sir William +Grove’s conception, if haply he might feel after it and find it, +and assuredly it is not far from every one of us. But the course +of true philosophy never did run smooth; no sooner have we fairly grasped +the conception of a single eternal and for ever unknowable underlying +substance, then we are faced by mind and matter. Long-standing +ideas and current language alike lead us to see these as distinct things +- mind being still commonly regarded as something that acts on body +from without as the wind blows upon a leaf, and as no less an actual +entity than the body. Neither body nor mind seems less essential +to our existence than the other; not only do we feel this as regards +our own existence, but we feel it also as pervading the whole world +of life; everywhere we see body and mind working together towards results +that must be ascribed equally to both; but they are two, not one; if, +then, we are to have our monistic conception, it would seem as though +one of these must yield to the other; which, therefore, is it to be?<br> +<br> +This is a very old question. Some, from time immemorial, have +tried to get rid of matter by reducing it to a mere concept of the mind, +and their followers have arrived at conclusions that may be logically +irrefragable, but are as far removed from common sense as they are in +accord with logic; at any rate they have failed to satisfy, and matter +is no nearer being got rid of now than it was when the discussion first +began. Others, again, have tried materialism, have declared the +causative action of both thought and feeling to be deceptive, and posit +matter obeying fixed laws of which thought and feeling must be admitted +as concomitants, but with which they have no causal connection. +The same thing has happened to these men as to their opponents; they +made out an excellent case on paper, but thought and feeling still remain +the mainsprings of action that they have been always held to be. +We still say, “I gave him £5 because I felt pleased with +him, and thought he would like it;”<i> </i>or, “I knocked +him down because I felt angry, and thought I would teach him better +manners.” Omnipresent life and mind with appearances of +brute non-livingness - which appearances are deceptive; this is one +view. Omnipresent non-livingness or mechanism with appearances +as though the mechanism were guided and controlled by thought - which +appearances are deceptive; this is the other. Between these two +views the slaves of logic have oscillated for centuries, and to all +appearance will continue to oscillate for centuries more.<br> +<br> +People who think - as against those who feel and act - want hard and +fast lines - without which, indeed, they cannot think at all; these +lines are as it were steps cut on a slope of ice without which there +would be no descending it. When we have begun to travel the downward +path of thought, we ask ourselves questions about life and death, ego +and non ego, object and subject, necessity and free will, and other +kindred subjects. We want to know where we are, and in the hope +of simplifying matters, strip, as it were, each subject to the skin, +and finding that even this has not freed it from all extraneous matter, +flay it alive in the hope that if we grub down deep enough we shall +come upon it in its pure unalloyed state free from all inconvenient +complication through intermixture with anything alien to itself. +Then, indeed, we can docket it, and pigeon-hole it for what it is; but +what can we do with it till we have got it pure? We want to account +for things, which means that we want to know to which of the various +accounts opened in our mental ledger we ought to carry them - and how +can we do this if we admit a phenomenon to be neither one thing nor +the other, but to belong to half-a-dozen different accounts in proportions +which often cannot even approximately be determined? If we are +to keep accounts we must keep them in reasonable compass; and if keeping +them within reasonable compass involves something of a Procrustean arrangement, +we may regret it, but cannot help it; having set up as thinkers we have +got to think, and must adhere to the only conditions under which thought +is possible; life, therefore, must be life, all life, and nothing but +life, and so with death, free will, necessity, design, and everything +else. This, at least, is how philosophers must think concerning +them in theory; in practice, however, not even John Stuart Mill himself +could eliminate all taint of its opposite from any one of these things, +any more than Lady Macbeth could clear her hand of blood; indeed, the +more nearly we think we have succeeded the more certain are we to find +ourselves ere long mocked and baffled; and this, I take it, is what +our biologists began in the autumn of 1879 to discover had happened +to themselves.<br> +<br> +For some years they had been trying to get rid of feeling, consciousness, +and mind generally, from active participation in the evolution of the +universe. They admitted, indeed, that feeling and consciousness +attend the working of the world’s gear, as noise attends the working +of a steam-engine, but they would not allow that consciousness produced +more effect in the working of the world than noise on that of the steam-engine. +Feeling and noise were alike accidental unessential adjuncts and nothing +more. Incredible as it may seem to those who are happy enough +not to know that this attempt is an old one, they were trying to reduce +the world to the level of a piece of unerring though sentient mechanism. +Men and animals must be allowed to feel and even to reflect; this much +must be conceded, but granted that they do, still (so, at least, it +was contended) it has no effect upon the result; it does not matter +as far as this is concerned whether they feel and think or not; everything +would go on exactly as it does and always has done, though neither man +nor beast knew nor felt anything at all. It is only by maintaining +things like this that people will get pensions out of the British public.<br> +<br> +Some such position as this is a <i>sine quâ non </i>for the Neo-Darwinistic +doctrine of natural selection, which, as Von Hartmann justly observes, +involves an essentially mechanical mindless conception of the universe; +to natural selection’s door, therefore, the blame of the whole +movement in favour of mechanism must be justly laid. It was natural +that those who had been foremost in preaching mindless designless luck +as the main means of organic modification, should lend themselves with +alacrity to the task of getting rid of thought and feeling from all +share in the direction and governance of the world. Professor +Huxley, as usual, was among the foremost in this good work, and whether +influenced by Hobbes, or Descartes, or Mr. Spalding, or even by the +machine chapters in “Erewhon” which were still recent, I +do not know, led off with his article “On the hypothesis that +animals are automata” (which it may be observed is the exact converse +of the hypothesis that automata are animated) in the <i>Fortnightly +Review </i>for November 1874. Professor Huxley did not say outright +that men and women were just as living and just as dead as their own +watches, but this was what his article came to in substance. The +conclusion arrived at was that animals were automata; true, they were +probably sentient, still they were automata pure and simple, mere sentient +pieces of exceedingly elaborate clockwork, and nothing more.<br> +<br> +“Professor Huxley,” says Mr. Romanes, in his Rede Lecture +for 1885, <a name="citation140a"></a><a href="#footnote140a">{140a}</a> +“argues by way of perfectly logical deduction from this statement, +that thought and feeling have nothing to do with determining action; +they are merely the bye-products of cerebration, or, as he expresses +it, the indices of changes which are going on in the brain. Under +this view we are all what he terms conscious automata, or machines which +happen, as it were by chance, to be conscious of some of their own movements. +But the consciousness is altogether adventitious, and bears the same +ineffectual relation to the activity of the brain as a steam whistle +bears to the activity of a locomotive, or the striking of a clock to +the time-keeping adjustments of the clockwork. Here, again, we +meet with an echo of Hobbes, who opens his work on the commonwealth +with these words:-<br> +<br> +“‘Nature, the art whereby God hath made and governs the +world, is by the <i>art </i>of man, as in many other things, in this +also imitated, that it can make an artificial animal. For seeing +life is but a motion of limbs, the beginning whereof is in the principal +part within; why may we not say that all automata (engines that move +themselves by springs and wheels as doth a watch) have an artificial +life? For what is the <i>heart </i>but a spring, and the <i>nerves +</i>but so many <i>strings; </i>and the <i>joints </i>but so many <i>wheels +</i>giving motion to the whole body, such as was intended by the artificer?’<br> +<br> +“Now this theory of conscious automatism is not merely a legitimate +outcome of the theory that nervous changes are the causes of mental +changes, but it is logically the only possible outcome. Nor do +I see any way in which this theory can be fought on grounds of physiology.”<br> +<br> +In passing, I may say the theory that living beings are conscious machines, +can be fought just as much and just as little as the theory that machines +are unconscious living beings; everything that goes to prove either +of these propositions goes just as well to prove the other also. +But I have perhaps already said as much as is necessary on this head; +the main point with which I am concerned is the fact that Professor +Huxley was trying to expel consciousness and sentience from any causative +action in the working of the universe. In the following month +appeared the late Professor Clifford’s hardly less outspoken article, +“Body and Mind,” to the same effect, also in the <i>Fortnightly +Review, </i>then edited by Mr. John Morley. Perhaps this view +attained its frankest expression in an article by the late Mr. Spalding, +which appeared in <i>Nature, </i>August 2, 1877; the following extracts +will show that Mr. Spalding must be credited with not playing fast and +loose with his own conclusions, and knew both how to think a thing out +to its extreme consequences, and how to put those consequences clearly +before his readers. Mr. Spalding said:-<br> +<br> +“Against Mr. Lewes’s proposition that the movements of living +beings are prompted and guided by feeling, I urged that the amount and +direction of every nervous discharge must depend solely on physical +conditions. And I contended that to see this clearly is to see +that when we speak of movement being guided by feeling, we use the language +of a less advanced stage of enlightenment. This view has since +occupied a good deal of attention. Under the name of automatism +it has been advocated by Professor Huxley, and with firmer logic by +Professor Clifford. In the minds of our savage ancestors feeling +was the source of all movement . . . Using the word feeling in its ordinary +sense . . . <i>we assert not only that no evidence can be given that +feeling ever does guide or prompt action, but that the process of its +doing so is inconceivable. </i>(Italics mine.) How can we +picture to ourselves a state of consciousness putting in motion any +particle of matter, large or small? Puss, while dozing before +the fire, hears a light rustle in the corner, and darts towards the +spot. What has happened? Certain sound-waves have reached +the ear, a series of physical changes have taken place within the organism, +special groups of muscles have been called into play, and the body of +the cat has changed its position on the floor. Is it asserted +that this chain of physical changes is not at all points complete and +sufficient in itself?”<br> +<br> +I have been led to turn to this article of Mr. Spalding’s by Mr. +Stewart Duncan, who, in his “Conscious Matter,” <a name="citation142a"></a><a href="#footnote142a">{142a}</a> +quotes the latter part of the foregoing extract. Mr. Duncan goes +on to quote passages from Professor Tyndall’s utterances of about +the same date which show that he too took much the same line - namely, +that there is no causative connection between mental and physical processes; +from this it is obvious he must have supposed that physical processes +would go on just as well if there were no accompaniment of feeling and +consciousness at all.<br> +<br> +I have said enough to show that in the decade, roughly, between 1870 +and 1880 the set of opinion among our leading biologists was strongly +against mind, as having in any way influenced the development of animal +and vegetable life, and it is not likely to be denied that the prominence +which the mindless theory of natural selection had assumed in men’s +thoughts since 1860 was one of the chief reasons, if not the chief, +for the turn opinion was taking. Our leading biologists had staked +so heavily upon natural selection from among fortuitous variations that +they would have been more than human if they had not caught at everything +that seemed to give it colour and support. It was while this mechanical +fit was upon them, and in the closest connection with it, that the protoplasm +boom developed. It was doubtless felt that if the public could +be got to dislodge life, consciousness, and mind from any considerable +part of the body, it would be no hard matter to dislodge it, presently, +from the remainder; on this the deceptiveness of mind as a causative +agent, and the sufficiency of a purely automatic conception of the universe, +as of something that will work if a penny be dropped into the box, would +be proved to demonstration. It would be proved from the side of +mind by considerations derivable from automatic and unconscious action +where mind <i>ex hypothesi </i>was not, but where action went on as +well or better without it than with it; it would be proved from the +side of body by what they would doubtless call the “most careful +and exhaustive” examination of the body itself by the aid of appliances +more ample than had ever before been within the reach of man.<br> +<br> +This was all very well, but for its success one thing was a <i>sine +quâ non </i>- I mean the dislodgment must be thorough; the key +must be got clean of even the smallest trace of blood, for unless this +could be done all the argument went to the profit not of the mechanism, +with which, for some reason or other, they were so much enamoured, but +of the soul and design, the ideas which of all others were most distasteful +to them. They shut their eyes to this for a long time, but in +the end appear to have seen that if they were in search of an absolute +living and absolute non-living, the path along which they were travelling +would never lead them to it. They were driving life up into a +corner, but they were not eliminating it, and, moreover, at the very +moment of their thinking they had hedged it in and could throw their +salt upon it, it flew mockingly over their heads and perched upon the +place of all others where they were most scandalised to see it - I mean +upon machines in use. So they retired sulkily to their tents baffled +but not ashamed.<br> +<br> +<br> +Some months subsequent to the completion of the foregoing chapter, and +indeed just as this book is on the point of leaving my hands, there +appears in <i>Nature </i><a name="citation144a"></a><a href="#footnote144a">{144a}</a> +a letter from the Duke of Argyll, which shows that he too is impressed +with the conviction expressed above - I mean that the real object our +men of science have lately had in view has been the getting rid of mind +from among the causes of evolution. The Duke says:-<br> +<br> +“The violence with which false interpretations were put upon this +theory (natural selection) and a function was assigned to it which it +could never fulfil, will some day be recognised as one of the least +creditable episodes in the history of science. With a curious +perversity it was the weakest elements in the theory which were seized +upon as the most valuable, particularly the part assigned to blind chance +in the occurrence of variations. This was valued not for its scientific +truth, - for it could pretend to none, - but because of its assumed +bearing upon another field of thought and the weapon it afforded for +expelling mind from the causes of evolution.”<br> +<br> +The Duke, speaking of Mr. Herbert Spencer’s two articles in the +<i>Nineteenth Century </i>for April and May, 1886, to which I have already +called attention, continues:-<br> +<br> +“In these two articles we have for the first time an avowed and +definite declaration against some of the leading ideas on which the +mechanical philosophy depends; and yet the caution, and almost timidity, +with which a man so eminent approaches the announcement of conclusions +of the most self-evident truth is a most curious proof of the reign +of terror which has come to be established.”<br> +<br> +Against this I must protest; the Duke cannot seriously maintain that +the main scope and purpose of Mr. Herbert Spencer’s articles is +new. Their substance has been before us in Mr. Spencer’s +own writings for some two-and-twenty years, in the course of which Mr. +Spencer has been followed by Professor Mivart, the Rev. J. J. Murphy, +the Duke of Argyll himself, and many other writers of less note. +When the Duke talks about the establishment of a scientific reign of +terror, I confess I regard such an exaggeration with something like +impatience. Any one who has known his own mind and has had the +courage of his opinions has been able to say whatever he wanted to say +with as little let or hindrance during the last twenty years, as during +any other period in the history of literature. Of course, if a +man will keep blurting out unpopular truths without considering whose +toes he may or may not be treading on, he will make enemies some of +whom will doubtless be able to give effect to their displeasure; but +that is part of the game. It is hardly possible for any one to +oppose the fallacy involved in the Charles-Darwinian theory of natural +selection more persistently and unsparingly than I have done myself +from the year 1877 onwards; naturally I have at times been very angrily +attacked in consequence, and as a matter of business have made myself +as unpleasant as I could in my rejoinders, but I cannot remember anything +having been ever attempted against me which could cause fear in any +ordinarily constituted person. If, then, the Duke of Argyll is +right in saying that Mr. Spencer has shown a caution almost amounting +to timidity in attacking Mr. Darwin’s theory, either Mr. Spencer +must be a singularly timid person, or there must be some cause for his +timidity which is not immediately obvious. If terror reigns anywhere +among scientific men, I should say it reigned among those who have staked +imprudently on Mr. Darwin’s reputation as a philosopher. +I may add that the discovery of the Duke’s impression that there +exists a scientific reign of terror, explains a good deal in his writings +which it has not been easy to understand hitherto.<br> +<br> +As regards the theory of natural selection, the Duke says:-<br> +<br> +“From the first discussions which arose on this subject, I have +ventured to maintain that . . . the phrase ‘natural-selection’ +represented no true physical cause, still less the complete set of causes +requisite to account for the orderly procession of organic forms in +Nature; that in so far as it assumed variations to arise by accident +it was not only essentially faulty and incomplete, but fundamentally +erroneous; in short, that its only value lay in the convenience with +which it groups under one form of words, highly charged with metaphor, +an immense variety of causes, some purely mental, some purely vital, +and others purely physical or mechanical.”<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER XI - The Way of Escape<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +To sum up the conclusions hitherto arrived at. Our philosophers +have made the mistake of forgetting that they cannot carry the rough-and-ready +language of common sense into precincts within which politeness and +philosophy are supreme. Common sense sees life and death as distinct +states having nothing in common, and hence in all respects the antitheses +of one another; so that with common sense there should be no degrees +of livingness, but if a thing is alive at all it is as much alive as +the most living of us, and if dead at all it is stone dead in every +part of it. Our philosophers have exercised too little consideration +in retaining this view of the matter. They say that an amœba +is as much a living being as a man is, and do not allow that a well-grown, +highly educated man in robust health is more living than an idiot cripple. +They say he differs from the cripple in many important respects, but +not in degree of livingness. Yet, as we have seen already, even +common sense by using the word “dying” admits degrees of +life; that is to say, it admits a more and a less; those, then, for +whom the superficial aspects of things are insufficient should surely +find no difficulty in admitting that the degrees are more numerous than +is dreamed of in the somewhat limited philosophy which common sense +alone knows. Livingness depends on range of power, versatility, +wealth of body and mind - how often, indeed, do we not see people taking +a new lease of life when they have come into money even at an advanced +age; it varies as these vary, beginning with things that, though they +have mind enough for an outsider to swear by, can hardly be said to +have yet found it out themselves, and advancing to those that know their +own minds as fully as anything in this world does so. The more +a thing knows its own mind the more living it becomes, for life viewed +both in the individual and in the general as the outcome of accumulated +developments, is one long process of specialising consciousness and +sensation; that is to say, of getting to know one’s own mind more +and more fully upon a greater and greater variety of subjects. +On this I hope to touch more fully in another book; in the meantime +I would repeat that the error of our philosophers consists in not having +borne in mind that when they quitted the ground on which common sense +can claim authority, they should have reconsidered everything that common +sense had taught them.<br> +<br> +The votaries of common sense make the same mistake as philosophers do, +but they make it in another way. Philosophers try to make the +language of common sense serve for purposes of philosophy, forgetting +that they are in another world, in which another tongue is current; +common sense people, on the other hand, every now and then attempt to +deal with matters alien to the routine of daily life. The boundaries +between the two kingdoms being very badly defined, it is only by giving +them a wide berth and being so philosophical as almost to deny that +there is any either life or death at all, or else so full of common +sense as to refuse to see one part of the body as less living than another, +that we can hope to steer clear of doubt, inconsistency, and contradiction +in terms in almost every other word we utter. We cannot serve +the God of philosophy and the Mammon of common sense at one and the +same time, and yet it would almost seem as though the making the best +that can be made of both these worlds were the whole duty of organism.<br> +<br> +It is easy to understand how the error of philosophers arose, for, slaves +of habit as we all are, we are more especially slaves when the habit +is one that has not been found troublesome. There is no denying +that it saves trouble to have things either one thing or the other, +and indeed for all the common purposes of life if a thing is either +alive or dead the small supplementary residue of the opposite state +should be neglected as too small to be observable. If it is good +to eat we have no difficulty in knowing when it is dead enough to be +eaten; if not good to eat, but valuable for its skin, we know when it +is dead enough to be skinned with impunity; if it is a man, we know +when he has presented enough of the phenomena of death to allow of our +burying him and administering his estate; in fact, I cannot call to +mind any case in which the decision of the question whether man or beast +is alive or dead is frequently found to be perplexing; hence we have +become so accustomed to think there can be no admixture of the two states, +that we have found it almost impossible to avoid carrying this crude +view of life and death into domains of thought in which it has no application. +There can be no doubt that when accuracy is required we should see life +and death not as fundamentally opposed, but as supplementary to one +another, without either’s being ever able to exclude the other +altogether; thus we should indeed see some things as more living than +others, but we should see nothing as either unalloyedly living or unalloyedly +non-living. If a thing is living, it is so living that it has +one foot in the grave already; if dead, it is dead as a thing that has +already re-entered into the womb of Nature. And within the residue +of life that is in the dead there is an element of death; and within +this there is an element of life, and so <i>ad infinitum - </i>again, +as reflections in two mirrors that face one another.<br> +<br> +In brief, there is nothing in life of which there are not germs, and, +so to speak, harmonics in death, and nothing in death of which germs +and harmonics may not be found in life. Each emphasizes what the +other passes over most lightly - each carries to its extreme conceivable +development that which in the other is only sketched in by a faint suggestion +- but neither has any feature rigorously special to itself. Granted +that death is a greater new departure in an organism’s life, than +any since that <i>congeries </i>of births and deaths to which the name +embryonic stages is commonly given, still it is a new departure of the +same essential character as any other - that is to say, though there +be much new there is much, not to say more, old along with it. +We shrink from it as from any other change to the unknown, and also +perhaps from an instinctive sense that the fear of death is a <i>sine +quâ non </i>for physical and moral progress, but the fear is like +all else in life, a substantial thing which, if its foundations be dug +about, is found to rest on a superstitious basis.<br> +<br> +Where, and on what principle, are the dividing lines between living +and non-living to be drawn? All attempts to draw them hitherto +have ended in deadlock and disaster; of this M. Vianna De Lima, in his +“Exposé Sommaire des Théories transformistes de +Lamarck, Darwin, et Haeckel,” <a name="citation150a"></a><a href="#footnote150a">{150a}</a> +says that all attempts to trace <i>une ligne de démarcation nette +et profonde entre la matière vivante et la matière inerte +</i>have broken down. <a name="citation150b"></a><a href="#footnote150b">{150b}</a> +<i>Il y a un reste de vie dans le cadavre, </i>says Diderot, <a name="citation150c"></a><a href="#footnote150c">{150c}</a> +speaking of the more gradual decay of the body after an easy natural +death, than after a sudden and violent one; and so Buffon begins his +first volume by saying that “we can descend, by almost imperceptible +degrees, from the most perfect creature to the most formless matter +- from the most highly organised matter to the most entirely inorganic +substance.” <a name="citation150d"></a><a href="#footnote150d">{150d}</a><br> +<br> +Is the line to be so drawn as to admit any of the non-living within +the body? If we answer “yes,” then, as we have seen, +moiety after moiety is filched from us, till we find ourselves left +face to face with a tenuous quasi immaterial vital principle or soul +as animating an alien body, with which it not only has no essential +underlying community of substance, but with which it has no conceivable +point in common to render a union between the two possible, or give +the one a grip of any kind over the other; in fact, the doctrine of +disembodied spirits, so instinctively rejected by all who need be listened +to, comes back as it would seem, with a scientific <i>imprimatur; </i>if, +on the other hand, we exclude the non-living from the body, then what +are we to do with nails that want cutting, dying skin, or hair that +is ready to fall off? Are they less living than brain? Answer +“yes,” and degrees are admitted, which we have already seen +prove fatal; answer “no,” and we must deny that one part +of the body is more vital than another - and this is refusing to go +as far even as common sense does; answer that these things are not very +important, and we quit the ground of equity and high philosophy on which +we have given ourselves such airs, and go back to common sense as unjust +judges that will hear those widows only who importune us.<br> +<br> +As with the non-living so also with the living. Are we to let +it pass beyond the limits of the body, and allow a certain temporary +overflow of livingness to ordain as it were machines in use? Then +death will fare, if we once let life without the body, as life fares +if we once let death within it. It becomes swallowed up in life, +just as in the other case life was swallowed up in death. Are +we to confine it to the body? If so, to the whole body, or to +parts? And if to parts, to what parts, and why? The only +way out of the difficulty is to rehabilitate contradiction in terms, +and say that everything is both alive and dead at one and the same time +- some things being much living and little dead, and others, again, +much dead and little living. Having done this we have only got +to settle what a thing is - when a thing is a thing pure and simple, +and when it is only a <i>congeries </i>of things - and we shall doubtless +then live very happily and very philosophically ever afterwards.<br> +<br> +But here another difficulty faces us. Common sense does indeed +know what is meant by a “thing” or “an individual,” +but philosophy cannot settle either of these two points. Professor +Mivart made the question “What are Living Beings?”<i> </i>the +subject of an article in one of our leading magazines only a very few +years ago. He asked, but he did not answer. And so Professor +Moseley was reported <i>(Times, </i>January 16, 1885) as having said +that it was “almost impossible” to say what an individual +was. Surely if it is only “almost” impossible for +philosophy to determine this, Professor Moseley should have at any rate +tried to do it; if, however, he had tried and failed, which from my +own experience I should think most likely, he might have spared his +“almost.” “Almost” is a very dangerous +word. I once heard a man say that an escape he had had from drowning +was “almost” providential. The difficulty about defining +an individual arises from the fact that we may look at “almost” +everything from two different points of view. If we are in a common-sense +humour for simplifying things, treating them broadly, and emphasizing +resemblances rather than differences, we can find excellent reasons +for ignoring recognised lines of demarcation, calling everything by +a new name, and unifying up till we have united the two most distant +stars in heaven as meeting and being linked together in the eyes and +souls of men; if we are in this humour individuality after individuality +disappears, and ere long, if we are consistent, nothing will remain +but one universal whole, one true and only atom from which alone nothing +can be cut off and thrown away on to something else; if, on the other +hand, we are in a subtle philosophically accurate humour for straining +at gnats and emphasizing differences rather than resemblances, we can +draw distinctions, and give reasons for subdividing and subdividing, +till, unless we violate what we choose to call our consistency somewhere, +we shall find ourselves with as many names as atoms and possible combinations +and permutations of atoms. The lines we draw, the moments we choose +for cutting this or that off at this or that place, and thenceforth +the dubbing it by another name, are as arbitrary as the moments chosen +by a South-Eastern Railway porter for leaving off beating doormats; +in each case doubtless there is an approximate equity, but it is of +a very rough and ready kind.<br> +<br> +What else, however, can we do? We can only escape the Scylla of +calling everything by one name, and recognising no individual existences +of any kind, by falling into the Charybdis of having a name for everything, +or by some piece of intellectual sharp practice like that of the shrewd +but unprincipled Ulysses. If we were consistent honourable gentlemen, +into Charybdis or on to Scylla we should go like lambs; every subterfuge +by the help of which we escape our difficulty is but an arbitrary high-handed +act of classification that turns a deaf ear to everything not robust +enough to hold its own; nevertheless even the most scrupulous of philosophers +pockets his consistency at a pinch, and refuses to let the native hue +of resolution be sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought, +nor yet fobbed by the rusty curb of logic. He is right, for assuredly +the poor intellectual abuses of the time want countenancing now as much +as ever, but so far as he countenances them, he should bear in mind +that he is returning to the ground of common sense, and should not therefore +hold himself too stiffly in the matter of logic.<br> +<br> +As with life and death so with design and absence of design or luck. +So also with union and disunion. There is never either absolute +design rigorously pervading every detail, nor yet absolute absence of +design pervading any detail rigorously, so, as between substances, there +is neither absolute union and homogeneity, not absolute disunion and +heterogeneity; there is always a little place left for repentance; that +is to say, in theory we should admit that both design and chance, however +well defined, each have an aroma, as it were, of the other. Who +can think of a case in which his own design - about which he should +know more than any other, and from which, indeed, all his ideas of design +are derived - was so complete that there was no chance in any part of +it? Who, again, can bring forward a case even of the purest chance +or good luck into which no element of design had entered directly or +indirectly at any juncture? This, nevertheless, does not involve +our being unable ever to ascribe a result baldly either to luck or cunning. +In some cases a decided preponderance of the action, whether seen as +a whole or looked at in detail, is recognised at once as due to design, +purpose, forethought, skill, and effort, and then we properly disregard +the undesigned element; in others the details cannot without violence +be connected with design, however much the position which rendered the +main action possible may involve design - as, for example, there is +no design in the way in which individual pieces of coal may hit one +another when shot out of a sack, but there may be design in the sack’s +being brought to the particular place where it is emptied; in others +design may be so hard to find that we rightly deny its existence, nevertheless +in each case there will be an element of the opposite, and the residuary +element would, if seen through a mental microscope, be found to contain +a residuary element of <i>its </i>opposite, and this again of <i>its +</i>opposite, and so on <i>ad infinitum, </i>as with mirrors standing +face to face. This having been explained, and it being understood +that when we speak of design in organism we do so with a mental reserve +of <i>exceptis excipiendis, </i>there should be no hesitation in holding +the various modifications of plants and animals to be in such preponderating +measure due to function, that design, which underlies function, is the +fittest idea with which to connect them in our minds.<br> +<br> +We will now proceed to inquire how Mr. Darwin came to substitute, or +try to substitute, the survival of the luckiest fittest, for the survival +of the most cunning fittest, as held by Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck; +or more briefly how he came to substitute luck for cunning.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER XII - Why Darwin’s Variations were Accidental<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +Some may perhaps deny that Mr. Darwin did this, and say he laid so much +stress on use and disuse as virtually to make function his main factor +of evolution.<br> +<br> +If, indeed, we confine ourselves to isolated passages, we shall find +little difficulty in making out a strong case to this effect. +Certainly most people believe this to be Mr. Darwin’s doctrine, +and considering how long and fully he had the ear of the public, it +is not likely they would think thus if Mr. Darwin had willed otherwise, +nor could he have induced them to think as they do if he had not said +a good deal that was capable of the construction so commonly put upon +it; but it is hardly necessary, when addressing biologists, to insist +on the fact that Mr. Darwin’s distinctive doctrine is the denial +of the comparative importance of function, or use and disuse, as a purveyor +of variations, - with some, but not very considerable, exceptions, chiefly +in the cases of domesticated animals.<br> +<br> +He did not, however, make his distinctive feature as distinct as he +should have done. Sometimes he said one thing, and sometimes the +directly opposite. Sometimes, for example, the conditions of existence +“included natural selection”<i> </i>or the fact that the +best adapted to their surroundings live longest and leave most offspring; +<a name="citation156a"></a><a href="#footnote156a">{156a}</a> sometimes +“the principle of natural selection”<i> </i>“fully +embraced” “the expression of conditions of existence.” +<a name="citation156b"></a><a href="#footnote156b">{156b}</a> +It would not be easy to find more unsatisfactory writing than this is, +nor any more clearly indicating a mind ill at ease with itself. +Sometimes “ants work <i>by inherited instincts </i>and inherited +tools;”<i> </i><a name="citation157a"></a><a href="#footnote157a">{157a}</a> +sometimes, again, it is surprising that the case of ants working by +inherited instincts has not been brought as a demonstrative argument +“against the well-known doctrine of <i>inherited habit, </i>as +advanced by Lamarck.” <a name="citation157b"></a><a href="#footnote157b">{157b}</a> +Sometimes the winglessness of beetles inhabiting ocean islands is “mainly +due to natural selection,” <a name="citation157c"></a><a href="#footnote157c">{157c}</a> +and though we might be tempted to ascribe the rudimentary condition +of the wing to disuse, we are on no account to do so - though disuse +was probably to some extent “combined with”<i> </i>natural +selection; at other times “it is probable that disuse has been +the main means of rendering the wings of beetles living on small exposed +islands” rudimentary. <a name="citation157d"></a><a href="#footnote157d">{157d}</a> +We may remark in passing that if disuse, as Mr. Darwin admits on this +occasion, is the main agent in rendering an organ rudimentary, use should +have been the main agent in rendering it the opposite of rudimentary +- that is to say, in bringing about its development. The ostensible +<i>raison d’être, </i>however, of the “Origin of Species”<i> +</i>is to maintain that this is not the case.<br> +<br> +There is hardly an opinion on the subject of descent with modification +which does not find support in some one passage or another of the “Origin +of Species.” If it were desired to show that there is no +substantial difference between the doctrine of Erasmus Darwin and that +of his grandson, it would be easy to make out a good case for this, +in spite of Mr. Darwin’s calling his grandfather’s views +“erroneous,” in the historical sketch prefixed to the later +editions of the “Origin of Species.” Passing over +the passage already quoted on p. 62 of this book, in which Mr. Darwin +declares “habit omnipotent and its effects hereditary” - +a sentence, by the way, than which none can be either more unfalteringly +Lamarckian or less tainted with the vices of Mr. Darwin’s later +style - passing this over as having been written some twenty years before +the “Origin of Species” - the last paragraph of the “Origin +of Species” itself is purely Lamarckian and Erasmus-Darwinian. +It declares the laws in accordance with which organic forms assumed +their present shape to be - “Growth with reproduction; Variability +from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life +and from use and disuse, &c.” <a name="citation158a"></a><a href="#footnote158a">{158a}</a> +Wherein does this differ from the confession of faith made by Erasmus +Darwin and Lamarck? Where are the accidental fortuitous, spontaneous +variations now? And if they are not found important enough to +demand mention in this peroration and <i>stretto, </i>as it were, of +the whole matter, in which special prominence should be given to the +special feature of the work, where ought they to be made important?<br> +<br> +Mr. Darwin immediately goes on: “A ratio of existence so high +as to lead to a struggle for life, and as a consequence to natural selection, +entailing divergence of character and the extinction of less improved +forms;” so that natural selection turns up after all. Yes +- in the letters that compose it, but not in the spirit; not in the +special sense up to this time attached to it in the “Origin of +Species.” The expression as used here is one with which +Erasmus Darwin would have found little fault, for it means not as elsewhere +in Mr. Darwin’s book and on his title-page the preservation of +“favoured” or lucky varieties, but the preservation of varieties +that have come to be varieties through the causes assigned in the preceding +two or three lines of Mr. Darwin’s sentence; and these are mainly +functional or Erasmus-Darwinian; for the indirect action of the conditions +of life is mainly functional, and the direct action is admitted on all +hands to be but small.<br> +<br> +It now appears more plainly, as insisted upon on an earlier page, that +there is not one natural selection and one survival of the fittest, +but two, inasmuch as there are two classes of variations from which +nature (supposing no exception taken to her personification) can select. +The bottles have the same labels, and they are of the same colour, but +the one holds brandy, and the other toast and water. Nature can, +by a figure of speech, be said to select from variations that are mainly +functional or from variations that are mainly accidental; in the first +case she will eventually get an accumulation of variation, and widely +different types will come into existence; in the second, the variations +will not occur with sufficient steadiness for accumulation to be possible. +In the body of Mr. Darwin’s book the variations are supposed to +be mainly due to accident, and function, though not denied all efficacy, +is declared to be the greatly subordinate factor; natural selection, +therefore, has been hitherto throughout tantamount to luck; in the peroration +the position is reversed <i>in toto; </i>the selection is now made from +variations into which luck has entered so little that it may be neglected, +the greatly preponderating factor being function; here, then, natural +selection is tantamount to cunning. We are such slaves of words +that, seeing the words “natural selection” employed - and +forgetting that the results ensuing on natural selection will depend +entirely on what it is that is selected from, so that the gist of the +matter lies in this and not in the words “natural selection” +- it escaped us that a change of front had been made, and a conclusion +entirely alien to the tenor of the whole book smuggled into the last +paragraph as the one which it had been written to support; the book +preached luck, the peroration cunning.<br> +<br> +And there can be no doubt Mr. Darwin intended that the change of front +should escape us; for it cannot be believed that he did not perfectly +well know what he had done. Mr. Darwin edited and re-edited with +such minuteness of revision that it may be said no detail escaped him +provided it was small enough; it is incredible that he should have allowed +this paragraph to remain from first to last unchanged (except for the +introduction of the words “by the Creator,” which are wanting +in the first edition) if they did not convey the conception he most +wished his readers to retain. Even if in his first edition he +had failed to see that he was abandoning in his last paragraph all that +it had been his ostensible object most especially to support in the +body of his book, he must have become aware of it long before he revised +the “Origin of Species” for the last time; still he never +altered it, and never put us on our guard.<br> +<br> +It was not Mr. Darwin’s manner to put his reader on his guard; +we might as well expect Mr. Gladstone to put us on our guard about the +Irish land bills. Caveat<i> lector </i>seems to have been his +motto. Mr. Spencer, in the articles already referred to, is at +pains to show that Mr. Darwin’s opinions in later life underwent +a change in the direction of laying greater stress on functionally produced +modifications, and points out that in the sixth edition of the “Origin +of Species” Mr. Darwin says, “I think there can be no doubt +that use in our domestic animals has strengthened and enlarged certain +parts, and disuse diminished them;” whereas in his first edition +he said, “I think there can be <i>little </i>doubt” of this. +Mr. Spencer also quotes a passage from “The Descent of Man,” +in which Mr. Darwin said that <i>even in the first edition </i>of the +“Origin of Species” he had attributed great effect to function, +as though in the later ones he had attributed still more; but if there +was any considerable change of position, it should not have been left +to be toilsomely collected by collation of editions, and comparison +of passages far removed from one another in other books. If his +mind had undergone the modification supposed by Mr. Spencer, Mr. Darwin +should have said so in a prominent passage of some later edition of +the “Origin of Species.” He should have said - “In +my earlier editions I underrated, as now seems probable, the effects +of use and disuse as purveyors of the slight successive modifications +whose accumulation in the ordinary course of things results in specific +difference, and I laid too much stress on the accumulation of merely +accidental variations;” having said this, he should have summarised +the reasons that had made him change his mind, and given a list of the +most important cases in which he has seen fit to alter what he had originally +written. If Mr. Darwin had dealt thus with us we should have readily +condoned all the mistakes he would have been at all likely to have made, +for we should have known him as one who was trying to help us, tidy +us up, keep us straight, and enable us to use our judgments to the best +advantage. The public will forgive many errors alike of taste +and judgment, where it feels that a writer persistently desires this.<br> +<br> +I can only remember a couple of sentences in the later editions of the +“Origin of Species” in which Mr. Darwin directly admits +a change of opinion as regards the main causes of organic modification. +How shuffling the first of these is I have already shown in “Life +and Habit,” p. 260, and in “Evolution, Old and New,” +p. 359; I need not, therefore, say more here, especially as there has +been no rejoinder to what I then said. Curiously enough the sentence +does not bear out Mr. Spencer’s contention that Mr. Darwin in +his later years leaned more decidedly towards functionally produced +modifications, for it runs: <a name="citation161a"></a><a href="#footnote161a">{161a}</a> +- “In the earlier editions of this work I underrated, as now seems +probable, the frequency and importance of modifications due,” +not, as Mr. Spencer would have us believe, to use and disuse, but “to +spontaneous variability,” by which can only be intended, “to +variations in no way connected with use and disuse,” as not being +assignable to any known cause of general application, and referable +as far as we are concerned to accident only; so that he gives the natural +survival of the luckiest, which is indeed his distinctive feature, if +it deserve to be called a feature at all, greater prominence than ever. +Nevertheless there is no change in his concluding paragraph, which still +remains an embodiment of the views of Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck.<br> +<br> +The other passage is on p. 421 of the edition of 1876. It stands:<i>- +</i>“I have now recapitulated the facts and considerations which +have thoroughly” (why “thoroughly”?) “convinced +me that species have been modified during a long course of descent. +This has been effected chiefly through the natural selection of numerous, +successive, slight, favourable variations; aided in an important manner +by the inherited effects of the use and disuse of parts; and in an unimportant +manner, that is, in relation to adaptive structures, whether past or +present, by the direct action of external conditions, and by variations +which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously. It appears +that I formerly underrated the frequency and value of these latter forms +of variation as leading to permanent modifications of structure independently +of natural selection.”<br> +<br> +Here, again, it is not use and disuse which Mr. Darwin declares himself +to have undervalued, but spontaneous variations. The sentence +just given is one of the most confusing I ever read even in the works +of Mr Darwin. It is the essence of his theory that the “numerous +successive, slight, favourable variations,” above referred to, +should be fortuitous, accidental, spontaneous; it is evident, moreover, +that they are intended in this passage to be accidental or spontaneous, +although neither of these words is employed, inasmuch as use and disuse +and the action of the conditions of existence, whether direct or indirect, +are mentioned specially as separate causes which purvey only the minor +part of the variations from among which nature selects. The words +“that is, in relation to adaptive forms” should be omitted, +as surplusage that draws the reader’s attention from the point +at issue; the sentence really amounts to this - that modification has +been effected <i>chiefly through selection </i>in the ordinary course +of nature <i>from among spontaneous variations, aided in an unimportant +manner by variations which quâ us are spontaneous</i>. Nevertheless, +though these spontaneous variations are still so trifling in effect +that they only aid spontaneous variations in an unimportant manner, +in his earlier editions Mr. Darwin thought them still less important +than he does now.<br> +<br> +This comes of tinkering. We do not know whether we are on our +heads or our heels. We catch ourselves repeating “important,” +“unimportant,” “unimportant,” “important,” +like the King when addressing the jury in “Alice in Wonderland;” +and yet this is the book of which Mr. Grant Allen <a name="citation163a"></a><a href="#footnote163a">{163a}</a> +says that it is “one of the greatest, and most learned, the most +lucid, the most logical, the most crushing, the most conclusive, that +the world has ever seen. Step by step, and principle by principle, +it proved every point in its progress triumphantly before it went on +to the next. So vast an array of facts so thoroughly in hand had +never before been mustered and marshalled in favour of any biological +theory.” The book and the eulogy are well mated.<br> +<br> +I see that in the paragraph following on the one just quoted, Mr. Allen +says, that “to the world at large Darwinism and evolution became +at once synonymous terms.” Certainly it was no fault of +Mr. Darwin’s if they did not, but I will add more on this head +presently; for the moment, returning to Mr. Darwin, it is hardly credible, +but it is nevertheless true, that Mr Darwin begins the paragraph next +following on the one on which I have just reflected so severely, with +the words, “It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would +explain in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, +the several large classes of facts above specified.” If +Mr. Darwin found the large classes of facts “satisfactorily” +explained by the survival of the luckiest irrespectively of the cunning +which enabled them to turn their luck to account, he must have been +easily satisfied. Perhaps he was in the same frame of mind as +when he said <a name="citation164a"></a><a href="#footnote164a">{164a}</a> +that “even an imperfect answer would be satisfactory,” but +surely this is being thankful for small mercies.<br> +<br> +On the following page Mr. Darwin says:<i>- </i>“Although I am +fully” (why “fully”?) “convinced of the truth +of the views given in this volume under the form of an abstract, I by +no means expect to convince experienced naturalists,” &c. +I have not quoted the whole of Mr. Darwin’s sentence, but it implies +that any experienced naturalist who remained unconvinced was an old-fashioned, +prejudiced person. I confess that this is what I rather feel about +the experienced naturalists who differ in only too great numbers from +myself, but I did not expect to find so much of the old Adam remaining +in Mr. Darwin; I did not expect to find him support me in the belief +that naturalists are made of much the same stuff as other people, and, +if they are wise, will look upon new theories with distrust until they +find them becoming generally accepted. I am not sure that Mr. +Darwin is not just a little bit flippant here.<br> +<br> +Sometimes I ask myself whether it is possible that, not being convinced, +I may be an experienced naturalist after all; at other times, when I +read Mr. Darwin’s works and those of his eulogists, I wonder whether +there is not some other Mr. Darwin, some other “Origin of Species,” +some other Professors Huxley, Tyndal, and Ray Lankester, and whether +in each case some malicious fiend has not palmed off a counterfeit upon +me that differs <i>toto cælo </i>from the original. I felt +exactly the same when I read Goethe’s “Wilhelm Meister”; +I could not believe my eyes, which nevertheless told me that the dull +diseased trash I was so toilsomely reading was a work which was commonly +held to be one of the great literary masterpieces of the world. +It seemed to me that there must be some other Goethe and some other +Wilhelm Meister. Indeed I find myself so depressingly out of harmony +with the prevailing not opinion only, but spirit - if, indeed, the Huxleys, +Tyndals, Miss Buckleys, Ray Lankesters, and Romaneses express the prevailing +spirit as accurately as they appear to do - that at times I find it +difficult to believe I am not the victim of hallucination; nevertheless +I know that either every canon, whether of criticism or honourable conduct, +which I have learned to respect is an impudent swindle, suitable for +the cloister only, and having no force or application in the outside +world; or else that Mr. Darwin and his supporters are misleading the +public to the full as much as the theologians of whom they speak at +times so disapprovingly. They sin, moreover, with incomparably +less excuse. Right as they doubtless are in much, and much as +we doubtless owe them (so we owe much also to the theologians, and they +also are right in much), they are giving way to a temper which cannot +be indulged with impunity. I know the great power of academicism; +I know how instinctively academicism everywhere must range itself on +Mr. Darwin’s side, and how askance it must look on those who write +as I do; but I know also that there is a power before which even academicism +must bow, and to this power I look not unhopefully for support.<br> +<br> +As regards Mr. Spencer’s contention that Mr. Darwin leaned more +towards function as he grew older, I do not doubt that at the end of +his life Mr. Darwin believed modification to be mainly due to function, +but the passage quoted on page 62 written in 1839, coupled with the +concluding paragraph of the “Origin of Species” written +in 1859, and allowed to stand during seventeen years of revision, though +so much else was altered - these passages, when their dates and surroundings +are considered, suggest strongly that Mr. Darwin thought during all +the forty years or so thus covered exactly as his grandfather and Lamarck +had done, and indeed as all sensible people since Buffon wrote have +done if they have accepted evolution at all.<br> +<br> +Then why should he not have said so? What object could he have +in writing an elaborate work to support a theory which he knew all the +time to be untenable? The impropriety of such a course, unless +the work was, like Buffon’s, transparently ironical, could only +be matched by its fatuousness, or indeed by the folly of one who should +assign action so motiveless to any one out of a lunatic asylum.<br> +<br> +This sounds well, but unfortunately we cannot forget that when Mr. Darwin +wrote the “Origin of Species” he claimed to be the originator +of the theory of descent with modification generally; that he did this +without one word of reference either to Buffon or Erasmus Darwin until +the first six thousand copies of his book had been sold, and then with +as meagre, inadequate notice as can be well conceived. Lamarck +was just named in the first editions of the “Origin of Species,” +but only to be told that Mr. Darwin had not got anything to give him, +and he must go away; the author of the “Vestiges of Creation” +was also just mentioned, but only in a sentence full of such gross misrepresentation +that Mr. Darwin did not venture to stand by it, and expunged it in later +editions, as usual, without calling attention to what he had done. +It would have been in the highest degree imprudent, not to say impossible, +for one so conscientious as Mr. Darwin to have taken the line he took +in respect of descent with modification generally, if he were not provided +with some ostensibly distinctive feature, in virtue of which, if people +said anything, he might claim to have advanced something different, +and widely different, from the theory of evolution propounded by his +illustrious predecessors; a distinctive theory of some sort, therefore, +had got to be looked for - and if people look in this spirit they can +generally find.<br> +<br> +I imagine that Mr. Darwin, casting about for a substantial difference, +and being unable to find one, committed the Gladstonian blunder of mistaking +an unsubstantial for a substantial one. It was doubtless because +he suspected it that he never took us fully into his confidence, nor +in all probability allowed even to himself how deeply he distrusted +it. Much, however, as he disliked the accumulation of accidental +variations, he disliked not claiming the theory of descent with modification +still more; and if he was to claim this, accidental his variations had +got to be. Accidental they accordingly were, but in as obscure +and perfunctory a fashion as Mr. Darwin could make them consistently +with their being to hand as accidental variations should later developments +make this convenient. Under these circumstances it was hardly +to be expected that Mr. Darwin should help the reader to follow the +workings of his mind - nor, again, that a book the writer of which was +hampered as I have supposed should prove clear and easy reading.<br> +<br> +The attitude of Mr. Darwin’s mind, whatever it may have been in +regard to the theory of descent with modification generally, goes so +far to explain his attitude in respect to the theory of natural selection +(which, it cannot be too often repeated, is only one of the conditions +of existence advanced as the main means of modification by the earlier +evolutionists), that it is worth while to settle the question once for +all whether Mr. Darwin did or did not believe himself justified in claiming +the theory of descent as an original discovery of his own. This +will be a task of some little length, and may perhaps try the reader’s +patience, as it assuredly tried mine; if, however, he will read the +two following chapters, he will probably be able to make up his mind +upon much that will otherwise, if he thinks about it at all, continue +to puzzle him.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER XIII - Darwin’s Claim to Descent with Modification<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +Mr. Allen, in his “Charles Darwin,” <a name="citation168a"></a><a href="#footnote168a">{168a}</a> +says that “in the public mind Mr. Darwin is commonly regarded +as the discoverer and founder of the evolution hypothesis,” and +on p. 177 he says that to most men Darwinism and evolution mean one +and the same thing. Mr. Allen declares misconception on this matter +to be “so extremely general” as to be “almost universal;”<i> +</i>this is more true than creditable to Mr. Darwin.<br> +<br> +Mr. Allen says <a name="citation168b"></a><a href="#footnote168b">{168b}</a> +that though Mr. Darwin gained “far wider general acceptance”<i> +</i>for both the doctrine of descent in general, and for that of the +descent of man from a simious or semi-simious ancestor in particular, +“he laid no sort of claim to originality or proprietorship in +either theory.” This is not the case. No one can claim +a theory more frequently and more effectually than Mr. Darwin claimed +descent with modification, nor, as I have already said, is it likely +that the misconception of which Mr. Allen complains would be general, +if he had not so claimed it. The “Origin of Species” +begins:-<br> +<br> +“When on board H.M.S. <i>Beagle, </i>as naturalist, I was much +struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of +South America, and in the geological relation of the present to the +past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to +throw some light on the origin of species - that mystery of mysteries, +as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. On +my return home it occurred to me, in 1837, that something might perhaps +be made out on this question by patiently accumulating and reflecting +upon all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it. +After five years’ work I allowed myself to speculate upon the +subject, and drew up some short notes; these I enlarged in 1844 <a name="citation169a"></a><a href="#footnote169a">{169a}</a> +into a sketch of the conclusions which then seemed to me probable. +From that period to the present day I have steadily pursued the same +object. I hope I may be excused these personal details, as I give +them to show that I have not been hasty in coming to a decision.”<br> +<br> +This is bland, but peremptory. Mr. Darwin implies that the mere +asking of the question how species has come about opened up a field +into which speculation itself had hardly yet ventured to intrude. +It was the mystery of mysteries; one of our greatest philosophers had +said so; not one little feeble ray of light had ever yet been thrown +upon it. Mr. Darwin knew all this, and was appalled at the greatness +of the task that lay before him; still, after he had pondered on what +he had seen in South America, it really did occur to him, that if he +was very very patient, and went on reflecting for years and years longer, +upon all sorts of facts, good, bad, and indifferent, which could possibly +have any bearing on the subject - and what fact might not possibly have +some bearing? - well, something, as against the nothing that had been +made out hitherto, might by some faint far-away possibility be one day +dimly seem. It was only what he had seen in South America that +made all this occur to him. He had never seen anything about descent +with modification in any book, nor heard any one talk about it as having +been put forward by other people; if he had, he would, of course, have +been the first to say so; he was not as other philosophers are; so the +mountain went on for years and years gestating, but still there was +no labour.<br> +<br> +“My work,” continues Mr. Darwin, “is now nearly finished; +but as it will take me two or three years to complete it, and as my +health is far from strong, I have been urged to publish this abstract. +I have been more especially induced to do this, as Mr. Wallace, who +is now studying the natural history of the Malay Archipelago, has arrived +at almost exactly the same general conclusions that I have on the origin +of species.” Mr. Darwin was naturally anxious to forestall +Mr. Wallace, and hurried up with his book. What reader, on finding +descent with modification to be its most prominent feature, could doubt +- especially if new to the subject, as the greater number of Mr. Darwin’s +readers in 1859 were - that this same descent with modification was +the theory which Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace had jointly hit upon, and +which Mr. Darwin was so anxious to show that he had not been hasty in +adopting? When Mr. Darwin went on to say that his abstract would +be very imperfect, and that he could not give references and authorities +for his several statements, we did not suppose that such an apology +could be meant to cover silence concerning writers who during their +whole lives, or nearly so, had borne the burden and heat of the day +in respect of descent with modification in its most extended application. +“I much regret,” says Mr. Darwin, “that want of space +prevents my having the satisfaction of acknowledging the generous assistance +I have received from very many naturalists, some of them personally +unknown to me.” This is like what the Royal Academicians +say when they do not intend to hang our pictures; they can, however, +generally find space for a picture if they want to hang it, and we assume +with safety that there are no master-works by painters of the very highest +rank for which no space has been available. Want of space will, +indeed, prevent my quoting from more than one other paragraph of Mr. +Darwin’s introduction; this paragraph, however, should alone suffice +to show how inaccurate Mr. Allen is in saying that Mr. Darwin “laid +no sort of claim to originality or proprietorship” in the theory +of descent with modification, and this is the point with which we are +immediately concerned. Mr. Darwin says:-<br> +<br> +“In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable +that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, +on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological +succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that +each species had not been independently created, but had descended like +varieties from other species.”<br> +<br> +It will be observed that not only is no hint given here that descent +with modification was a theory which, though unknown to the general +public, had been occupying the attention of biologists for a hundred +years and more, but it is distinctly implied that this was not the case. +When Mr. Darwin said it was “conceivable that a naturalist might” +arrive at the theory of descent, straightforward readers took him to +mean that though this was conceivable, it had never, to Mr. Darwin’s +knowledge, been done. If we had a notion that we had already vaguely +heard of the theory that men and the lower animals were descended from +common ancestors, we must have been wrong; it was not this that we had +heard of, but something else, which, though doubtless a little like +it, was all wrong, whereas this was obviously going to be all right.<br> +<br> +To follow the rest of the paragraph with the closeness that it merits +would be a task at once so long and so unpleasant that I will omit further +reference to any part of it except the last sentence. That sentence +runs:-<br> +<br> +“In the case of the mistletoe, which draws its nourishment from +certain trees, which has seeds that must be transported by certain birds, +and which has flowers with separate sexes absolutely requiring the agency +of certain insects to bring pollen from one flower to the other, it +is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite, +with its relations to several distinct organic beings, by the effects +of the external conditions, or of habit, or of the volition of the plant +itself.”<br> +<br> +Doubtless it would be preposterous to refer the structure of either +woodpecker or mistletoe to the single agency of any one of these three +causes; but neither Lamarck nor any other writer on evolution has, so +far as I know, even contemplated this; the early evolutionists supposed +organic modification to depend on the action and interaction of all +three, and I venture to think that this will ere long be considered +as, to say the least of it, not more preposterous than the assigning +of the largely preponderating share in the production of such highly +and variously correlated organisms as the mistletoe and woodpecker mainly +to luck pure and simple, as is done by Mr. Charles Darwin’s theory.<br> +<br> +It will be observed that in the paragraph last quoted from, Mr. Darwin, +<i>more suo, </i>is careful not to commit himself. All he has +said is, that it would be preposterous to do something the preposterousness +of which cannot be reasonably disputed; the impression, however, is +none the less effectually conveyed, that some one of the three assigned +agencies, taken singly, was the only cause of modification ever yet +proposed, if, indeed, any writer had even gone so far as this. +We knew we did not know much about the matter ourselves, and that Mr. +Darwin was a naturalist of long and high standing; we naturally, therefore, +credited him with the same good faith as a writer that we knew in ourselves +as readers; it never so much as crossed our minds to suppose that the +head which he was holding up all dripping before our eyes as that of +a fool, was not that of a fool who had actually lived and written, but +only of a figure of straw which had been dipped in a bucket of red paint. +Naturally enough we concluded, since Mr. Darwin seemed to say so, that +if his predecessors had nothing better to say for themselves than this, +it would not be worth while to trouble about them further; especially +as we did not know who they were, nor what they had written, and Mr. +Darwin did not tell us. It would be better and less trouble to +take the goods with which it was plain Mr. Darwin was going to provide +us, and ask no questions. We have seen that even tolerably obvious +conclusions were rather slow in occurring to poor simple-minded Mr. +Darwin, and may be sure that it never once occurred to him that the +British public would be likely to argue thus; he had no intention of +playing the scientific confidence trick upon us. I dare say not, +but unfortunately the result has closely resembled the one that would +have ensued if Mr. Darwin had had such an intention.<br> +<br> +The claim to originality made so distinctly in the opening sentences +of the” Origin of Species”<i> </i>is repeated in a letter +to Professor Haeckel, written October 8, 1864, and giving an account +of the development of his belief in descent with modification. +This letter, part of which is quoted by Mr. Allen, <a name="citation173a"></a><a href="#footnote173a">{173a}</a> +is given on p. 134 of the English translation of Professor Haeckel’s +“History of Creation,” <a name="citation173b"></a><a href="#footnote173b">{173b}</a> +and runs as follows:-<br> +<br> +“In South America three classes of facts were brought strongly +before my mind. Firstly, the manner in which closely allied species +replace species in going southward. Secondly, the close affinity +of the species inhabiting the islands near South America to those proper +to the continent. This struck me profoundly, especially the difference +of the species in the adjoining islets in the Galapagos Archipelago. +Thirdly, the relation of the living Edentata and Rodentia to the extinct +species. I shall never forget my astonishment when I dug out a +gigantic piece of armour like that of the living armadillo.<br> +<br> +“Reflecting on these facts, and collecting analogous ones, it +seemed to me probable that allied species were descended from a common +ancestor. But during several years I could not conceive how each +form could have been modified so as to become admirably adapted to its +place in nature. I began, therefore, to study domesticated animals +and cultivated plants, and after a time perceived that man’s power +of selecting and breeding from certain individuals was the most powerful +of all means in the production of new races. Having attended to +the habits of animals and their relations to the surrounding conditions, +I was able to realise the severe struggle for existence to which all +organisms are subjected, and my geological observations had allowed +me to appreciate to a certain extent the duration of past geological +periods. Therefore, when I happened to read Malthus on population, +the idea of natural selection flashed on me. Of all minor points, +the last which I appreciated was the importance and cause of the principle +of divergence.”<br> +<br> +This is all very naïve, and accords perfectly with the introductory +paragraphs of the “Origin of Species;” it gives us the same +picture of a solitary thinker, a poor, lonely, friendless student of +nature, who had never so much as heard of Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, or +Lamarck. Unfortunately, however, we cannot forget the description +of the influences which, according to Mr. Grant Allen, did in reality +surround Mr. Darwin’s youth, and certainly they are more what +we should have expected than those suggested rather than expressly stated +by Mr. Darwin. “Everywhere around him,” says Mr. Allen, +<a name="citation174a"></a><a href="#footnote174a">{174a}</a> “in +his childhood and youth these great but formless” (why “formless”?) +“evolutionary ideas were brewing and fermenting. The scientific +society of his elders and of the contemporaries among whom he grew up +was permeated with the leaven of Laplace and Lamarck, of Hutton and +of Herschel. Inquiry was especially everywhere rife as to the +origin and nature of specific distinctions among plants and animals. +Those who believed in the doctrine of Buffon and of the ‘Zoonomia,’ +and those who disbelieved in it, alike, were profoundly interested and +agitated in soul by the far-reaching implications of that fundamental +problem. On every side evolutionism, in its crude form.” +(I suppose Mr. Allen could not help saying “in its crude form,” +but descent with modification in 1809 meant, to all intents and purposes, +and was understood to mean, what it means now, or ought to mean, to +most people.) “The universal stir,” says Mr. Allen +on the following page, “and deep prying into evolutionary questions +which everywhere existed among scientific men in his early days was +naturally communicated to a lad born of a scientific family and inheriting +directly in blood and bone the biological tastes and tendencies of Erasmus +Darwin.”<br> +<br> +I confess to thinking that Mr. Allen’s account of the influences +which surrounded Mr. Darwin’s youth, if tainted with picturesqueness, +is still substantially correct. On an earlier page he had written:<i>- +</i>“It is impossible to take up any scientific memoirs or treatises +of the first half of our own century without seeing at a glance how +every mind of high original scientific importance was permeated and +disturbed by the fundamental questions aroused, but not fully answered, +by Buffon, Lamarck, and Erasmus Darwin. In Lyell’s letters, +and in Agassiz’s lectures, in the ‘Botanic Journal’ +and in the ‘Philosophical Transactions,’ in treatises on +Madeira beetles and the Australian flora, we find everywhere the thoughts +of men profoundly influenced in a thousand directions by this universal +evolutionary solvent and leaven.<br> +<br> +“And while the world of thought was thus seething and moving restlessly +before the wave of ideas set in motion by these various independent +philosophers, another group of causes in another field was rendering +smooth the path beforehand for the future champion of the amended evolutionism. +Geology on the one hand and astronomy on the other were making men’s +minds gradually familiar with the conception of slow natural development, +as opposed to immediate and miraculous creation.<br> +<br> +. . .<br> +<br> +“The influence of these novel conceptions upon the growth and +spread of evolutionary ideas was far-reaching and twofold. In +the first place, the discovery of a definite succession of nearly related +organic forms following one another with evident closeness through the +various ages, inevitably suggested to every inquiring observer the possibility +of their direct descent one from the other. In the second place, +the discovery that geological formations were not really separated each +from its predecessor by violent revolutions, but were the result of +gradual and ordinary changes, discredited the old idea of frequent fresh +creations after each catastrophe, and familiarised the minds of men +of science with the alternative notion of slow and natural evolutionary +processes. The past was seen in effect to be the parent of the +present; the present was recognised as the child of the past.”<br> +<br> +This is certainly not Mr. Darwin’s own account of the matter. +Probably the truth will lie somewhere between the two extreme views: +and on the one hand, the world of thought was not seething quite so +badly as Mr. Allen represents it, while on the other, though “three +classes of fact,” &c., were undoubtedly “brought strongly +before” Mr. Darwin’s “mind in South America,” +yet some of them had perhaps already been brought before it at an earlier +time, which he did not happen to remember at the moment of writing his +letter to Professor Haeckel and the opening paragraph of the “Origin +of Species.”<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER XIV - Darwin and Descent with Modification <i>(continued)<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +</i>I have said enough to show that Mr. Darwin claimed I to have been +the originator of the theory of descent with modification as distinctly +as any writer usually claims any theory; but it will probably save the +reader trouble in the end if I bring together a good many, though not, +probably, all (for I much disliked the task, and discharged it perfunctorily), +of the passages in the “Origin of Species” in which the +theory of descent with modification in its widest sense is claimed expressly +or by implication. I shall quote from the original edition, which, +it should be remembered, consisted of the very unusually large number +of four thousand copies, and from which no important deviation was made +either by addition or otherwise until a second edition of two thousand +further copies had been sold; the “Historical Sketch,” &c., +being first given with the third edition. The italics, which I +have employed so as to catch the reader’s eye, are mine, not Mr. +Darwin’s. Mr. Darwin writes:-<br> +<br> +“Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, +<i>I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate +judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists +entertain, and which I formerly entertained - namely that each species +has been independently created - is erroneous</i>. I am fully +convinced that species are not immutable, but that those belonging to +what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other +and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged +varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. +Furthermore, I am convinced that natural selection” (or the preservation +of fortunate races) “has been the main but not exclusive means +of modification” (p. 6).<br> +<br> +It is not here expressly stated that the theory of the mutability of +species is Mr. Darwin’s own; this, nevertheless, is the inference +which the great majority of his readers were likely to draw, and did +draw, from Mr. Darwin’s words.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“It is not that all large genera are now varying much, and are +thus increasing in the number of their species, or that no small genera +are now multiplying and increasing; for if this had been so it would +have been fatal to <i>my</i> <i>theory; </i>inasmuch as geology,” +&c. (p. 56).<br> +<br> +The words “my theory” stand in all the editions. Again:<i>-<br> +<br> +</i>“This relation has a clear meaning <i>on my view </i>of the +subject; I look upon all the species of any genus as having as certainly +descended from the same progenitor, as have the two sexes of any one +of the species” (p. 157).<br> +<br> +“My view” here, especially in the absence of reference to +any other writer as having held the same opinion, implies as its most +natural interpretation that descent pure and simple is Mr. Darwin’s +view. Substitute “the theory of descent” for “my +view,” and we do not feel that we are misinterpreting the author’s +meaning. The words “my view” remain in all editions.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of +difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are +so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being +staggered; but to the best of my belief the greater number are only +apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, <i>fatal to my theory.<br> +<br> +</i>“These difficulties and objections may be classed under the +following heads:- Firstly, if species have descended from other species +by insensibly fine gradations, why do we not everywhere see?” +&c. (p. 171).<br> +<br> +We infer from this that “my theory” is the theory “that +species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations” +- that is to say, that it is the theory of descent with modification; +for the theory that is being objected to is obviously the theory of +descent <i>in toto, </i>and not a mere detail in connection with that +theory.<br> +<br> +The words “my theory” were altered in 1872, with the sixth +edition of the “Origin of species,” into “the theory;” +but I am chiefly concerned with the first edition of the work, my object +being to show that Mr. Darwin was led into his false position as regards +natural selection by a desire to claim the theory of descent with modification; +if he claimed it in the first edition, this is enough to give colour +to the view which I take; but it must be remembered that descent with +modification remained, by the passage just quoted “my theory,” +for thirteen years, and even when in 1869 and 1872, for a reason that +I can only guess at, “my theory” became generally “the +theory,” this did not make it become any one else’s theory. +It is hard to say whose or what it became, if the words are to be construed +technically; practically, however, with all ingenuous readers, “the +theory” remained as much Mr. Darwin’s theory as though the +words “my theory” had been retained, and Mr. Darwin cannot +be supposed so simple-minded as not to have known this would be the +case. Moreover, it appears, from the next page but one to the +one last quoted, that Mr. Darwin claimed the theory of descent with +modification generally, even to the last, for we there read, “<i>By +my theory </i>these allied species have descended from a common parent,” +and the “my” has been allowed, for some reason not quite +obvious, to survive the general massacre of Mr. Darwin’s “my’s”<i> +</i>which occurred in 1869 and 1872.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“He who believes that each being has been created as we now see +it, must occasionally have felt surprise when he has met,” &c. +(p. 185).<br> +<br> +Here the argument evidently lies between descent and independent acts +of creation. This appears from the paragraph immediately following, +which begins, “He who believes in separate and innumerable acts +of creation,” &c. We therefore understand descent to +be the theory so frequently spoken of by Mr. Darwin as “my.”<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise +that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained +<i>by the theory of descent, </i>ought not to hesitate to go farther, +and to admit that a structure even as perfect as an eagle’s eye +might be formed <i>by natural selection, </i>although in this case he +does not know any of the transitional grades” (p. 188).<br> +<br> +The natural inference from this is that descent and natural selection +are one and the same thing.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which +could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight +modifications, <i>my theory </i>would absolutely break down. But +I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which +we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to +much-isolated species, round which, according to my <i>theory, </i>there +has been much extinction” (p. 189).<br> +<br> +This makes “my theory” to be “the theory that complex +organs have arisen by numerous, successive, slight modifications;” +that is to say, to be the theory of descent with modification. +The first of the two “my theory’s” in the passage +last quoted has been allowed to stand. The second became “the +theory” in 1872. It is obvious, therefore, that “the +theory” means “my theory;” it is not so obvious why +the change should have been made at all, nor why the one “my theory” +should have been taken and the other left, but I will return to this +question.<br> +<br> +Again, Mr. Darwin writes:-<br> +<br> +“Although we must be extremely cautious in concluding that any +organ could not possibly have been produced by small successive transitional +gradations, yet, undoubtedly grave cases of difficulty occur, some of +which will be discussed in my future work”<i> </i>(p. 192).<br> +<br> +This, as usual, implies descent with modification to be the theory that +Mr. Darwin is trying to make good.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“I have been astonished how rarely an organ can be named towards +which no transitional variety is known to lead . . . Why, <i>on the +theory of creation, </i>should this be so? Why should not nature +have taken a leap from structure to structure? <i>On the theory +of natural selection </i>we can clearly understand why she should not; +for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive +variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the slowest +and shortest steps” (p. 194).<br> +<br> +Here “the theory of natural selection” is opposed to “the +theory of creation;” we took it, therefore, to be another way +of saying “the theory of descent with modification.”<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“We have in this chapter discussed some of the difficulties and +objections which may be urged against <i>my theory. </i>Many of +them are very grave, but I think that in the discussion light has been +thrown on several facts which, <i>on the theory of independent acts +of creation, </i>are utterly obscure” (p. 203).<br> +<br> +Here we have, on the one hand, “my theory,” on the other, +“independent acts of creation.” The natural antithesis +to independent acts of creation is descent, and we assumed with reason +that Mr. Darwin was claiming this when he spoke of “my theory.” +“My theory” became “the theory” in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“On the theory of natural selection we can clearly understand +the full meaning of that old canon in natural history, ‘<i>Natura +non facit saltum</i>.’ This canon, if we look only to the +present inhabitants of the world is not strictly correct, but if we +include all those of past times, it must <i>by my theory </i>be strictly +true” (p. 206).<br> +<br> +Here the natural interpretation of “by my theory” is “by +the theory of descent with modification;” the words “on +the theory of natural selection,” with which the sentence opens, +lead us to suppose that Mr. Darwin regarded natural selection and descent +as convertible terms. “My theory” was altered to “this +theory” in 1872. Six lines lower down we read, “<i>On +my theory </i>unity of type is explained by unity of descent.” +The “my” here has been allowed to stand.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Again, as in the case of corporeal structure, and conformably +with <i>my theory, </i>the instinct of each species is good for itself, +but has never,” &c. (p. 210).<br> +<br> +Who was to see that “my theory” did not include descent +with modification? The “my” here has been allowed +to stand.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“The fact that instincts . . . are liable to make mistakes; - +that no instinct has been produced for the exclusive good of other animals, +but that each animal takes advantage of the instincts of others; - that +the canon of natural history, <i>‘Natura non facit saltum</i>,’ +is applicable to instincts as well as to corporeal structure, and is +plainly explicable on the foregoing views, but is otherwise inexplicable, +- <i>all tend to corroborate the theory of natural selection</i>” +(p. 243).<br> +<br> +We feel that it is the theory of evolution, or descent with modification, +that is here corroborated, and that it is this which Mr. Darwin is mainly +trying to establish; the sentence should have ended “all tend +to corroborate the theory of descent with modification;”<i> </i>the +substitution of “natural selection” for descent tends to +make us think that these conceptions are identical. That they +are so regarded, or at any rate that it is the theory of descent in +full which Mr. Darwin has in his mind, appears from the immediately +succeeding paragraph, which begins “<i>This theory,</i>”<i> +</i>and continues six lines lower, “For instance, we can understand, +on the <i>principle of inheritance, </i>how it is that,” &c.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort +of intermediate forms must, <i>on my theory, </i>formerly have existed” +(p. 280).<br> +<br> +“My theory” became “the theory” in 1869. +No reader who read in good faith could doubt that the theory of descent +with modification was being here intended.<br> +<br> +“It is just possible <i>by my theory, </i>that one of two living +forms might have descended from the other; for instance, a horse from +a tapir; but in this case <i>direct </i>intermediate links will have +existed between them” (p. 281).<br> +<br> +“My theory” became “the theory” in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“<i>By the theory of natural selection </i>all living species +have been connected with the parent species of each genus,” &c. +We took this to mean, “By the theory of descent with modification +all living species,” &c. (p. 281).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Some experienced conchologists are now sinking many of the very +fine species of D’Orbigny and others into the rank of varieties; +and on this view we do find the kind of evidence of change which <i>on +my theory </i>we ought to find” (p. 297).<br> +<br> +“My theory” became “the theory” in 1869.<br> +<br> +In the fourth edition (1866), in a passage which is not in either of +the two first editions, we read (p. 359), “So that here again +we have undoubted evidence of change in the direction required by <i>my +theory</i>.” “My theory” became “the theory” +in 1869; the theory of descent with modification is unquestionably intended.<br> +<br> +Again<i>:-<br> +<br> +</i>“Geological research has done scarcely anything in breaking +down the distinction between species, by connecting them together by +numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been effected, +is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections +which may be urged against <i>my views</i>”<i> </i>(p. 299).<br> +<br> +We naturally took “my views” to mean descent with modification. +The “my” has been allowed to stand.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“If, then, there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we +have no right to expect to find in our geological formations an infinite +number of those transitional forms which <i>on my theory </i>assuredly +have connected all the past and present species of the same group in +one long and branching chain of life . . . But I do not pretend that +I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved +geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional +links between the species which lived at the commencement and at the +close of each formation pressed so hardly <i>on my theory</i>”<i> +</i>(pp. 301, 302).<br> +<br> +Substitute “descent with modification” for “my theory” +and the meaning does not suffer. The first of the two “my +theories” in the passage last quoted was altered in 1869 into +“our theory;” the second has been allowed to stand.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear +in some formations, has been urged by several palæontologists +. . . as a fatal objection <i>to the belief in the transmutation of +species</i>. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera +or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would +be fatal <i>to the theory of descent with slow modification through +natural selection</i>”<i> </i>(p. 302).<br> +<br> +Here “the belief in the transmutation of species,” or descent +with modification, is treated as synonymous with “the theory of +descent with slow modification through natural selection; “but +it has nowhere been explained that there are two widely different “theories +of descent with slow modification through natural selection,” +the one of which may be true enough for all practical purposes, while +the other is seen to be absurd as soon as it is examined closely. +The theory of descent with modification is not properly convertible +with either of these two views, for descent with modification deals +with the question whether species are transmutable or no, and dispute +as to the respective merits of the two natural selections deals with +the question how it comes to be transmuted; nevertheless, the words +“the theory of descent with slow modification through the ordinary +course of things” (which is what “descent with modification +through natural selection” comes to) may be considered as expressing +the facts with practical accuracy, if the ordinary course of nature +is supposed to be that modification is mainly consequent on the discharge +of some correlated function, and that modification, if favourable, will +tend to accumulate so long as the given function continues important +to the wellbeing of the organism; the words, however, have no correspondence +with reality if they are supposed to imply that variations which are +mainly matters of pure chance and unconnected in any way with function +will accumulate and result in specific difference, no matter how much +each one of them may be preserved in the generation in which it appears. +In the one case, therefore, the expression natural selection may be +loosely used as a synonym for descent with modification, and in the +other it may not. Unfortunately with Mr. Charles Darwin the variations +are mainly accidental. The words “through natural selection,” +therefore, in the passage last quoted carry no weight, for it is the +wrong natural selection that is, or ought to be, intended; practically, +however, they derived a weight from Mr. Darwin’s name to which +they had no title of their own, and we understood that “the theory +of descent with slow modification” through the kind of natural +selection ostensibly intended by Mr. Darwin was a quasi-synonymous expression +for the transmutation of species. We understood - so far as we +understood anything beyond that we were to believe in descent with modification +- that natural selection was Mr. Darwin’s theory; we therefore +concluded, since Mr. Darwin seemed to say so, that the theory of the +transmutation of species generally was so also. At any rate we +felt as regards the passage last quoted that the theory of descent with +modification was the point of attack and defence, and we supposed it +to be the theory so often referred to by Mr. Darwin as “my.”<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Some of the most ancient Silurian animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, +&c., do not differ much from the living species; and it cannot <i>on +my theory </i>be supposed that these old species were the progenitors,” +&c. (p. 306) . . . “Consequently <i>if my theory be true, +</i>it is indisputable,” &c. (p. 307).<br> +<br> +Here the two “my theories” have been altered, the first +into “our theory,” and the second into “the theory,” +both in 1869; but, as usual, the thing that remains with the reader +is the theory of descent, and it remains morally and practically as +much claimed when called “the theory” - as during the many +years throughout which the more open “my”<i> </i>distinctly +claimed it.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“All the most eminent palæontologists, namely, Cuvier, Owen, +Agassiz, Barrande, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, +as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, +maintained <i>the immutability of species. </i>. . . I feel how rash +it is to differ from these great authorities . . . Those who think the +natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach +much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds brought forward +in this volume, will undoubtedly at once <i>reject my theory</i>”<i> +</i>(p. 310).<br> +<br> +What is “my theory”<i> </i>here, if not that of the mutability +of species, or the theory of descent with modification? “My +theory” became “the theory” in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Let us now see whether the several facts and rules relating to +the geological succession of organic beings, better accord with the +common view of the immutability of species, or with that of their <i>slow +and gradual modification, through descent and natural selection</i>”<i> +</i>(p. 312).<br> +<br> +The words “natural selection” are indeed here, but they +might as well be omitted for all the effect they produce. The +argument is felt to be about the two opposed theories of descent, and +independent creative efforts.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“These several facts accord well with <i>my theory</i>”<i> +</i>(p. 314). That “my theory” is the theory of descent +is the conclusion most naturally drawn from the context. “My +theory”<i> </i>became “our theory”<i> </i>in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“This gradual increase in the number of the species of a group +is strictly conformable <i>with my theory; </i>for the process of modification +and the production of a number of allied forms must be slow and gradual, +. . . like the branching of a great tree from a single stem, till the +group becomes large” (p. 314).<br> +<br> +“My theory” became “the theory” in 1869. +We took “my theory” to be the theory of descent; that Mr. +Darwin treats this as synonymous with the theory of natural selection +appears from the next paragraph, on the third line of which we read, +“On <i>the theory of natural selection </i>the extinction of old +forms,” &c.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“<i>The theory of natural selection </i>is grounded on the belief +that each new variety and ultimately each new species, is produced and +maintained by having some advantage over those with which it comes into +competition; and the consequent extinction of less favoured forms almost +inevitably follows” (p. 320). Sense and consistency cannot +be made of this passage. Substitute “The theory of the preservation +of favoured races in the struggle for life” for “The theory +of natural selection” (to do this is only taking Mr. Darwin’s +own synonym for natural selection) and see what the passage comes to. +“The preservation of favoured races”<i> </i>is not a theory, +it is a commonly observed fact; it is not “grounded on the belief +that each new variety,” &c., it is one of the ultimate and +most elementary principles in the world of life. When we try to +take the passage seriously and think it out, we soon give it up, and +pass on, substituting “the theory of descent”<i> </i>for +“the theory of natural selection,” and concluding that in +some way these two things must be identical.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“The manner in which single species and whole groups of species +become extinct accords well with <i>the theory of natural selection</i>”<i> +</i>(p. 322).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“This great fact of the parallel succession of the forms of life +throughout the world, is explicable <i>on the theory of natural selection</i>”<i> +</i>(p. 325).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Let us now look to the mutual affinities of extinct and living +species. They all fall into one grand natural system; and this +is at once explained <i>on the principle of descent</i>” (p. 329).<br> +<br> +Putting the three preceding passages together, we naturally inferred +that “the theory of natural selection” and “the principle +of descent” were the same things. We knew Mr. Darwin claimed +the first, and therefore unhesitatingly gave him the second at the same +time.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Let us see how far these several facts and inferences accord +with <i>the theory of descent with modification</i>”<i> </i>(p. +331)<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Thus, <i>on the theory of descent with modification, </i>the +main facts with regard to the mutual affinities of the extinct forms +of life to each other and to living forms, seem to me explained in a +satisfactory manner. And they are wholly inexplicable <i>on any +other view</i>”<i> </i>(p. 333).<br> +<br> +The words “seem to me” involve a claim in the absence of +so much as a hint in any part of the book concerning indebtedness to +earlier writers.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“<i>On the theory of descent, </i>the full meaning of the fossil +remains,” &c. (p. 336).<br> +<br> +In the following paragraph we read:-<br> +<br> +“But in one particular sense the more recent forms must, <i>on +my theory, </i>be higher than the more ancient.”<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Agassiz insists that ancient animals resemble to a certain extent +the embryos of recent animals of the same classes; or that the geological +succession of extinct forms is in some degree parallel to the embryological +development of recent forms. . . . This doctrine of Agassiz accords +well with <i>the theory of natural selection</i>”<i> </i>(p. 338).<br> +<br> +“The theory of natural selection” became “our theory” +in 1869. The opinion of Agassiz accords excellently with the theory +of descent with modification, but it is not easy to see how it bears +upon the fact that lucky races are preserved in the struggle for life +- which, according to Mr. Darwin’s title-page, is what is meant +by natural selection.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“<i>On the theory of descent with modification, </i>the great +law of the long-enduring but not immutable succession of the same types +within the same areas, is at once explained” (p. 340).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“It must not be forgotten that, <i>on my theory, </i>all the species +of the same genus have descended from some one species” (p. 341).<br> +<br> +“My theory” became “our theory” in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, +will rightly reject <i>my whole theory</i>” (p. 342).<br> +<br> +“My” became “our” in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Passing from these difficulties, the other great leading facts +in palæontology agree admirably with <i>the theory of descent +with modification through variation and natural selection</i>”<i> +</i>(p. 343).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +The succession of the same types of structure within the same areas +during the later geological periods <i>ceases to be mysterious, </i>and +<i>is simply explained by inheritance </i>(p. 345).<br> +<br> +I suppose inheritance was not when Mr. Darwin wrote considered mysterious. +The last few words have been altered to “and is intelligible on +the principle of inheritance.” It seems as though Mr. Darwin +did not like saying that inheritance was not mysterious, but had no +objection to implying that it was intelligible.<br> +<br> +The next paragraph begins - “If, then, the geological record be +as imperfect as I believe it to be, . . . the main objections <i>to +the theory of natural selection </i>are greatly diminished or disappear. +On the other hand, all the chief laws of palæontology plainly +proclaim, <i>as it seems to me, that species have been produced by ordinary +generation.</i>”<br> +<br> +Here again the claim to the theory of descent with modification is unmistakable; +it cannot, moreover, but occur to us that if species “have been +produced by ordinary generation,” then ordinary generation has +as good a claim to be the main means of originating species as natural +selection has. It is hardly necessary to point out that ordinary +generation involves descent with modification, for all known offspring +differ from their parents, so far, at any rate, as that practised judges +can generally tell them apart.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“We see in these facts some deep organic bond, prevailing throughout +space and time, over the same areas of land and water, and independent +of their physical condition. The naturalist must feel little curiosity +who is not led to inquire what this bond is.<br> +<br> +“This bond, <i>on my theory, is simply inheritance, </i>that cause +which alone,” &c. (p. 350).<br> +<br> +This passage was altered in 1869 to “The bond is simply inheritance.” +The paragraph concludes, “<i>On this principle of inheritance +with modification, </i>we can understand how it is that sections of +genera . . . are confined to the same areas,” &c.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“He who rejects it rejects the <i>vera causa of ordinary </i>generation,” +&c. (p. 352).<br> +<br> +We naturally ask, Why call natural selection the “main means of +modification,” if “ordinary generation” is a <i>vera +causa</i>?<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“In discussing this subject, we shall be enabled at the same time +to consider a point equally important for us, namely, whether the several +distinct species of a genus, <i>which on my theory have all descended +from a common ancestor, </i>can have migrated (undergoing modification +during some part of their migration) from the area inhabited by their +progenitor” (p. 354).<br> +<br> +The words “on my theory” became “on our theory” +in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“With those organic beings which never intercross (if such exist) +<i>the species, on my theory, must have descended from a succession +of improved varieties,</i>”<i> </i>&c. (p. 355).<br> +<br> +The words “on my theory” were cut out in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“A slow southern migration of a marine fauna will account, <i>on +the theory of modification, </i>for many closely allied forms,” +&c. (p. 372).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“But the existence of several quite distinct species, belonging +to genera exclusively confined to the southern hemisphere, is, <i>on +my theory of descent with modification, </i>a far more remarkable case +of difficulty” (p. 381).<br> +<br> +“My” became “the” in 1866 with the fourth edition. +This was the most categorical claim to the theory of descent with modification +in the “Origin of Species.” The “my” here +is the only one that was taken out before 1869. I suppose Mr. +Darwin thought that with the removal of this “my” he had +ceased to claim the theory of descent with modification. Nothing, +however, could be gained by calling the reader’s attention to +what had been done, so nothing was said about it.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Some species of fresh-water shells have a very wide range, <i>and +allied species, which, on my theory, are descended from a single source, +</i>prevail throughout the world” (p. 385).<br> +<br> +“My theory” became “our theory” in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“In the following remarks I shall not confine myself to the mere +question of dispersal, but shall consider some other facts which bear +upon the truth of <i>the two theories of independent creation and of +descent with modification</i>”<i> </i>(p. 389). What can +be plainer than that the theory which Mr. Darwin espouses, and has so +frequently called “my,” is descent with modification?<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“But as these animals and their spawn are known to be immediately +killed by sea-water, <i>on my view, </i>we can see that there would +be great difficulty in their transportal across the sea, and therefore +why they do not exist on any oceanic island. But why, <i>on the +theory of creation, </i>they should not have been created there, it +would be very difficult to explain” (p. 393).<br> +<br> +“On my view” was cut out in 1869.<br> +<br> +On the following page we read - “On my view this question can +easily be answered.” “On my view” is retained +in the latest edition.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Yet there must be, <i>on my view, </i>some unknown but highly +efficient means for their transportation” (p. 397).<br> +<br> +“On my view” became “according to our view” +in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“I believe this grand fact can receive no sort of explanation +<i>on the ordinary view of independent creation; </i>whereas, <i>on +the view here maintained, </i>it is obvious that the Galapagos Islands +would be likely to receive colonists . . . from America, and the Cape +de Verde Islands from Africa; and that such colonists would be liable +to modification; the principle of inheritance still betraying their +original birth-place” (p. 399).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“With respect to the distinct species of the same genus which, +<i>on my theory, </i>must have spread from one parent source, if we +make the same allowances as before,” &c.<br> +<br> +“On my theory” became “on our theory” in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“<i>On my theory </i>these several relations throughout time and +space are intelligible; . . . the forms within each class have been +connected by the same bond of ordinary generation; . . . in both cases +the laws of variation have been the same, and modifications have been +accumulated by the same power of natural selection” (p. 410).<br> +<br> +“On my theory” became “according to our theory” +in 1869, and natural selection is no longer a power, but has become +a means.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“<i>I believe that something more is included, </i>and that propinquity +of descent - the only known cause of the similarity of organic beings +- is the bond, hidden as it is by various degrees of modification, which +is partially revealed to us by our classification” (p. 418).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“<i>Thus, on the view which I hold, </i>the natural system is +genealogical in its arrangement, like a pedigree” (p. 422).<br> +<br> +“On the view which I hold” was cut out in 1872.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“We may feel almost sure, <i>on the theory of descent, </i>that +these characters have been inherited from a common ancestor” (p. +426).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“<i>On my view of characters being of real importance for classification +only in so far as they reveal descent, </i>we can clearly understand,” +&c. (p. 427).<br> +<br> +“On my view”<i> </i>became “on the view”<i> +</i>in 1872.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“The more aberrant any form is, the greater must be the number +of connecting forms which, <i>on my theory, </i>have been exterminated +and utterly lost” (p. 429).<br> +<br> +The words “on my theory” were excised in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Finally, we have seen that <i>natural selection. </i>. . <i>explains +</i>that great and universal feature in the affinities of all organic +beings, namely, their subordination in group under group. <i>We +use the element of descent </i>in classing the individuals of both sexes, +&c.; . . . <i>we use descent </i>in classing acknowledged varieties; +. . . and I believe this element of descent is the hidden bond of connection +which naturalists have sought under the term of the natural system” +(p. 433).<br> +<br> +Lamarck was of much the same opinion, as I showed in “Evolution +Old and New.” He wrote:<i>- </i>“An arrangement should +be considered systematic, or arbitrary, when it does not conform to +the genealogical order taken by nature in the development of the things +arranged, and when, by consequence, it is not founded on well-considered +analogies. There is a natural order in every department of nature; +it is the order in which its several component items have been successively +developed.” <a name="citation195a"></a><a href="#footnote195a">{195a}</a> +The point, however, which should more particularly engage our attention +is that Mr. Darwin in the passage last quoted uses “natural selection”<i> +</i>and “descent” as though they were convertible terms.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this +similarity of pattern in members of the same class by utility or the +doctrine of final causes . . . <i>On the ordinary view of the +independent creation of each being, </i>we can only say that so it is +. . . <i>The explanation is manifest on the theory of the natural selection +of successive slight </i>modifications,” &c. (p. 435).<br> +<br> +This now stands - “The explanation is to a large extent simple, +on the theory of the selection of successive, slight modifications.” +I do not like “a large extent” of simplicity; but, waiving +this, the point at issue is not whether the ordinary course of things +ensures a quasi-selection of the types that are best adapted to their +surroundings, with accumulation of modification in various directions, +and hence wide eventual difference between species descended from common +progenitors - no evolutionist since 1750 has doubted this - but whether +a general principle underlies the modifications from among which the +quasi-selection is made, or whether they are destitute of such principle +and referable, as far as we are concerned, to chance only. Waiving +this again, we note that the theories of independent creation and of +natural selection are contrasted, as though they were the only two alternatives; +knowing the two alternatives to be independent creation and descent +with modification, we naturally took natural selection to mean descent +with modification.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“<i>On the theory of natural selection </i>we can satisfactorily +answer these questions” (p. 437).<br> +<br> +“Satisfactorily” now stands “to a certain extent.”<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“<i>On my view </i>these terms may be used literally”<i> +</i>(pp. 438, 439).<br> +<br> +“On my view” became “according to the views here maintained +such language may be,” &c., in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“I believe all these facts can be explained as follows, <i>on +the view of descent with modification</i>”<i> </i>(p. 443).<br> +<br> +This sentence now ends at “follows.”<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Let us take a genus of birds, <i>descended, on my theory, from +some one parent species, </i>and of which the several new species <i>have +become modified through natural selection </i>in accordance with their +divers habits” (p. 446).<br> +<br> +The words “on my theory” were cut out in 1869, and the passage +now stands, “Let us take a group of birds, descended from some +ancient form and modified through natural selection for different habits.”<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“<i>On my view of descent with modification, </i>the origin of +rudimentary organs is simple” (p. 454).<br> +<br> +“On my view” became “<i>on the view</i>”<i> +</i>in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“<i>On the view of descent with modification,</i>”<i> </i>&c. +(p. 455).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“<i>On this same view of descent with modification </i>all the +great facts of morphology become intelligible” (p. 456).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“That many and grave objections may be advanced against <i>the +theory of descent with modification through natural selection, </i>I +do not deny” (p. 459).<br> +<br> +This now stands, “That many and serious objections may be advanced +against <i>the theory of descent with modification through variation +and natural selection, </i>I do not deny.”<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“There are, it must be admitted, cases of special difficulty <i>on +the theory of natural selection</i>”<i> </i>(p. 460).<br> +<br> +“On” has become “opposed to;” it is not easy +to see why this alteration was made, unless because “opposed to” +is longer.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Turning to geographical distribution, the difficulties encountered +<i>on the theory of descent with modification </i>are grave enough.”<br> +<br> +“Grave” has become “serious,” but there is no +other change (p. 461).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“As <i>on the theory of natural selection </i>an interminable +number of intermediate forms must have existed,” &c.<br> +<br> +“On” has become “according to” - which is certainly +longer, but does not appear to possess any other advantage over “on.” +It is not easy to understand why Mr. Darwin should have strained at +such a gnat as “on,” though feeling no discomfort in such +an expression as “an interminable number.”<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“This is the most forcible of the many objections which may be +urged <i>against my theory </i>. . . For certainly, <i>on my theory,</i>”<i> +</i>&c. (p. 463).<br> +<br> +The “my” in each case became “the” in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Such is the sum of the several chief objections and difficulties +which may be justly urged <i>against my theory</i>”<i> </i>(p. +465).<br> +<br> +“My” became “the”<i> </i>in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Grave as these several difficulties are, <i>in my judgment </i>they +do not overthrow <i>the theory of descent with modifications</i>”<i> +</i>(p. 466).<br> +<br> +This now stands, “Serious as these several objections are, in +my judgment they are by no means sufficient to overthrow <i>the theory +of descent with subsequent modification;</i>”<i> </i>which, again, +is longer, and shows at what little, little gnats Mr. Darwin could strain, +but is no material amendment on the original passage.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“<i>The theory of natural selection, </i>even if we looked no +further than this, <i>seems to me to be in itself probable</i>”<i> +</i>(p. 469).<br> +<br> +This now stands, “The theory of natural selection, even if we +look no further than this, <i>seems to be in the highest degree probable</i>.” +It is not only probable, but was very sufficiently proved long before +Mr. Darwin was born, only it must be the right natural selection and +not Mr. Charles Darwin’s.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“It is inexplicable, <i>on the theory of creation, </i>why a part +developed, &c., . . . <i>but, on my view, </i>this part has undergone,” +&c. (p. 474).<br> +<br> +“On my view” became “on our view” in 1869.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Glancing at instincts, marvellous as some are, they offer no +greater difficulty than does corporeal structure <i>on the theory of +the natural selection of successive, slight, but profitable modifications</i>”<i> +</i>(p. 474).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +<i>“On the view of all the species of the same genus having descended +from a common parent, </i>and having inherited much in common, we can +understand how it is,” &c. (p. 474).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“If we admit that the geological record is imperfect in an extreme +degree, then such facts as the record gives, support <i>the theory of +descent with modification.<br> +<br> +</i>“ . . . The extinction of species . . . almost inevitably +follows on <i>the principle of natural selection</i>”<i> </i>(p. +475).<br> +<br> +The word “almost” has got a great deal to answer for.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“We can understand, <i>on the theory of descent with modification, +</i>most of the great leading facts in Distribution” (p. 476).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“The existence of closely allied or representative species in +any two areas, implies, <i>on the theory of descent with modification, +</i>that the same parents formerly inhabited both areas . . . It must +be admitted that these facts receive no explanation <i>on the theory +of creation </i>. . . The fact . . . is intelligible <i>on the theory +of natural selection, </i>with its contingencies of extinction and divergence +of character” (p. 478).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Innumerable other such facts at once explain themselves <i>on +the theory of descent with slow and slight successive modifications</i>”<i> +</i>(p. 479).<br> +<br> +“Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to +unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number +of facts, <i>will certainly reject my theory</i>”<i> </i>(p. 482).<br> +<br> +“My theory” became “the theory” in 1869.<br> +<br> +<br> +From this point to the end of the book the claim is so ubiquitous, either +expressly or by implication, that it is difficult to know what not to +quote. I must, however, content myself with only a few more extracts. +Mr. Darwin says:-<br> +<br> +“It may be asked <i>how far I extend the doctrine of the modification +of species</i>” (p. 482).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief +that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype . +. . Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic +beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some +one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”<br> +<br> +From an amœba - Adam, in fact, though not in name. This +last sentence is now completely altered, as well it might be.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“When <i>the views entertained in this volume on the origin of +species, or when analogous views are generally admitted, </i>we can +dimly foresee that there will be a considerable revolution in natural +history” (p. 434).<br> +<br> +Possibly. This now stands, “When the views advanced by me +in this volume, and by Mr. Wallace, or when analogous views on the origin +of species are generally admitted, we can dimly foresee,” &c. +When the “Origin of Species” came out we knew nothing of +any analogous views, and Mr. Darwin’s words passed unnoticed. +I do not say that he knew they would, but he certainly ought to have +known.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“<i>A grand and almost untrodden field of inquiry will be opened, +</i>on the causes and laws of variation, on correlation of growth, on +the effects of use and disuse, on the direct action of external conditions, +and so forth” (p. 486).<br> +<br> +Buffon and Lamarck had trodden this field to some purpose, but not a +hint to this effect is vouchsafed to us. Again; -<br> +<br> +“<i>When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the +lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before </i>the +first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become +ennobled . . . We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as +to foretell that it will be the common and widely spread species, belonging +to the larger and dominant groups, which will ultimately prevail and +procreate new and dominant species.”<br> +<br> +There is no alteration in this except that “Silurian” has +become “Cambrian.”<br> +<br> +The idyllic paragraph with which Mr. Darwin concludes his book contains +no more special claim to the theory of descent <i>en bloc </i>than many +another which I have allowed to pass unnoticed; it has been, moreover, +dealt with in an earlier chapter (Chapter XII.)<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER XV - The Excised “My’s”<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +I have quoted in all ninety-seven passages, as near as I can make them, +in which Mr. Darwin claimed the theory of descent, either expressly +by speaking of “my theory” in such connection that the theory +of descent ought to be, and, as the event has shown, was, understood +as being intended, or by implication, as in the opening passages of +the “Origin of Species,” in which he tells us how he had +thought the matter out without acknowledging obligation of any kind +to earlier writers. The original edition of the “Origin +of Species” contained 490 pp., exclusive of index; a claim, therefore, +more or less explicit, to the theory of descent was made on the average +about once in every five pages throughout the book from end to end; +the claims were most prominent in the most important parts, that is +to say, at the beginning and end of the work, and this made them more +effective than they are made even by their frequency. A more ubiquitous +claim than this it would be hard to find in the case of any writer advancing +a new theory; it is difficult, therefore, to understand how Mr. Grant +Allen could have allowed himself to say that Mr. Darwin “laid +no sort of claim to originality or proprietorship” in the theory +of descent with modification.<br> +<br> +Nevertheless I have only found one place where Mr. Darwin pinned himself +down beyond possibility of retreat, however ignominious, by using the +words “my theory of descent with modification.” <a name="citation202a"></a><a href="#footnote202a">{202a}</a> +He often, as I have said, speaks of “my theory,” and then +shortly afterwards of “descent with modification,” under +such circumstances that no one who had not been brought up in the school +of Mr. Gladstone could doubt that the two expressions referred to the +same thing. He seems to have felt that he must be a poor wriggler +if he could not wriggle out of this; give him any loophole, however +small, and Mr. Darwin could trust himself to get out through it; but +he did not like saying what left no loophole at all, and “my theory +of descent with modification” closed all exits so firmly that +it is surprising he should ever have allowed himself to use these words. +As I have said, Mr. Darwin only used this direct categorical form of +claim in one place; and even here, after it had stood through three +editions, two of which had been largely altered, he could stand it no +longer, and altered the “my” into “the” in 1866, +with the fourth edition of the “Origin of Species.”<br> +<br> +This was the only one of the original forty-five my’s that was +cut out before the appearance of the fifth edition in 1869, and its +excision throws curious light upon the working of Mr. Darwin’s +mind. The selection of the most categorical my out of the whole +forty-five, shows that Mr. Darwin knew all about his my’s, and, +while seeing reason to remove this, held that the others might very +well stand. He even left “On my <i>view </i>of descent with +modification,” <a name="citation203a"></a><a href="#footnote203a">{203a}</a> +which, though more capable of explanation than “my theory,” +&c., still runs it close; nevertheless the excision of even a single +my that had been allowed to stand through such close revision as those +to which the “Origin of Species” had been subjected betrays +uneasiness of mind, for it is impossible that even Mr. Darwin should +not have known that though the my excised in 1866 was the most technically +categorical, the others were in reality just as guilty, though no tower +of Siloam in the shape of excision fell upon them. If, then, Mr. +Darwin was so uncomfortable about this one as to cut it out, it is probable +he was far from comfortable about the others.<br> +<br> +This view derives confirmation from the fact that in 1869, with the +fifth edition of the “Origin of Species,” there was a stampede +of my’s throughout the whole work, no less than thirty out of +the original forty-five being changed into “the,” “our,” +“this,” or some other word, which, though having all the +effect of my, still did not say “my” outright. These +my’s were, if I may say so, sneaked out; nothing was said to explain +their removal to the reader or call attention to it. Why, it may +be asked, having been considered during the revisions of 1861 and 1866, +and with only one exception allowed to stand, why should they be smitten +with a homing instinct in such large numbers with the fifth edition? +It cannot be maintained that Mr. Darwin had had his attention called +now for the first time to the fact that he had used my perhaps a little +too freely, and had better be more sparing of it for the future. +The my excised in 1866 shows that Mr. Darwin had already considered +this question, and saw no reason to remove any but the one that left +him no loophole. Why, then, should that which was considered and +approved in 1859, 1861, and 1866 (not to mention the second edition +of 1859 or 1860) be retreated from with every appearance of panic in +1869? Mr. Darwin could not well have cut out more than he did +- not at any rate without saying something about it, and it would not +be easy to know exactly what say. Of the fourteen my’s that +were left in 1869, five more were cut out in 1872, and nine only were +allowed eventually to remain. We naturally ask, Why leave any +if thirty-six ought to be cut out, or why cut out thirty-six if nine +ought to be left - especially when the claim remains practically just +the same after the excision as before it?<br> +<br> +I imagine complaint had early reached Mr. Darwin that the difference +between himself and his predecessors was unsubstantial and hard to grasp; +traces of some such feeling appear even in the late Sir Charles Lyell’s +“Principles of Geology,” in which he writes that he had +reprinted his abstract of Lamarck’s doctrine word for word, “in +justice to Lamarck, in order to show how nearly the opinions taught +by him at the beginning of this century resembled those now in vogue +among a large body of naturalists respecting the infinite variability +of species, and the progressive development in past time of the organic +world.” <a name="citation205a"></a><a href="#footnote205a">{205a}</a> +Sir Charles Lyell could not have written thus if he had thought that +Mr. Darwin had already done “justice to Lamarck,” nor is +it likely that he stood alone in thinking as he did. It is probable +that more reached Mr. Darwin than reached the public, and that the historical +sketch prefixed to all editions after the first six thousand copies +had been sold - meagre and slovenly as it is - was due to earlier manifestation +on the part of some of Mr. Darwin’s friends of the feeling that +was afterwards expressed by Sir Charles Lyell in the passage quoted +above. I suppose the removal of the my that was cut out in 1866 +to be due partly to the Gladstonian tendencies of Mr. Darwin’s +mind, which would naturally make that particular my at all times more +or less offensive to him, and partly to the increase of objection to +it that must have ensued on the addition of the “brief but imperfect” +historical sketch in 1861; it is doubtless only by an oversight that +this particular my was not cut out in 1861. The stampede of 1869 +was probably occasioned by the appearance in Germany of Professor Haeckel’s +“History of Creation.” This was published in 1868, +and Mr. Darwin no doubt foresaw that it would be translated into English, +as indeed it subsequently was. In this book some account is given +- very badly, but still much more fully than by Mr. Darwin - of Lamarck’s +work; and even Erasmus Darwin is mentioned - inaccurately - but still +he is mentioned. Professor Haeckel says:-<br> +<br> +“Although the theory of development had been already maintained +at the beginning of this century by several great naturalists, especially +by Lamarck and Goethe, it only received complete demonstration and causal +foundation nine years ago through Darwin’s work, and it is on +this account that it is now generally (though not altogether rightly) +regarded as exclusively Mr. Darwin’s theory.” <a name="citation206a"></a><a href="#footnote206a">{206a}</a><br> +<br> +Later on, after giving nearly a hundred pages to the works of the early +evolutionists - pages that would certainly disquiet the sensitive writer +who had cut out the “my” which disappeared in 1866 - he +continued:-<br> +<br> +“We must distinguish clearly (though this is not usually done) +between, firstly, the theory of descent as advanced by Lamarck, which +deals only with the fact of all animals and plants being descended from +a common source, and secondly, Darwin’s theory of natural selection, +which shows us <i>why </i>this progressive modification of organic forms +took place” (p. 93).<br> +<br> +This passage is as inaccurate as most of those by Professor Haeckel +that I have had occasion to examine have proved to be. Letting +alone that Buffon, not Lamarck, is the foremost name in connection with +descent, I have already shown in “Evolution Old and New” +that Lamarck goes exhaustively into the how and why of modification. +He alleges the conservation, or preservation, in the ordinary course +of nature, of the most favourable among variations that have been induced +mainly by function; this, I have sufficiently explained, is natural +selection, though the words “natural selection” are not +employed; but it is the true natural selection which (if so metaphorical +an expression is allowed to pass) actually does take place with the +results ascribed to it by Lamarck, and not the false Charles-Darwinian +natural selection that does not correspond with facts, and cannot result +in specific differences such as we now observe. But, waiving this, +the “my’s,” within which a little rift had begun to +show itself in 1866, might well become as mute in 1869 as they could +become without attracting attention, when Mr. Darwin saw the passages +just quoted, and the hundred pages or so that lie between them.<br> +<br> +I suppose Mr. Darwin cut out the five more my’s that disappeared +in 1872 because he had not yet fully recovered from his scare, and allowed +nine to remain in order to cover his retreat, and tacitly say that he +had not done anything and knew nothing whatever about it. Practically, +indeed, he had not retreated, and must have been well aware that he +was only retreating technically; for he must have known that the absence +of acknowledgment to any earlier writers in the body of his work, and +the presence of the many passages in which every word conveyed the impression +that the writer claimed descent with modification, amounted to a claim +as much when the actual word “my” had been taken out as +while it was allowed to stand. We took Mr. Darwin at his own estimate +because we could not for a moment suppose that a man of means, position, +and education, - one, moreover, who was nothing if he was not unself-seeking +- could play such a trick upon us while pretending to take us into his +confidence; hence the almost universal belief on the part of the public, +of which Professors Haeckel and Ray Lankester and Mr. Grant Allen alike +complain - namely, that Mr. Darwin is the originator of the theory of +descent, and that his variations are mainly functional. Men of +science must not be surprised if the readiness with which we responded +to Mr. Darwin’s appeal to our confidence is succeeded by a proportionate +resentment when the peculiar shabbiness of his action becomes more generally +understood. For myself, I know not which most to wonder at - the +meanness of the writer himself, or the greatness of the service that, +in spite of that meanness, he unquestionably rendered.<br> +<br> +If Mr. Darwin had been dealing fairly by us, when he saw that we had +failed to catch the difference between the Erasmus-Darwinian theory +of descent through natural selection from among variations that are +mainly functional, and his own alternative theory of descent through +natural selection from among variations that are mainly accidental, +and, above all, when he saw we were crediting him with other men’s +work, he would have hastened to set us right. “It is with +great regret,” he might have written, “and with no small +surprise, that I find how generally I have been misunderstood as claiming +to be the originator of the theory of descent with modification; nothing +can be further from my intention; the theory of descent has been familiar +to all biologists from the year 1749, when Buffon advanced it in its +most comprehensive form, to the present day.” If Mr. Darwin +had said something to the above effect, no one would have questioned +his good faith, but it is hardly necessary to say that nothing of the +kind is to be found in any one of Mr. Darwin’s many books or many +editions; nor is the reason why the requisite correction was never made +far to seek. For if Mr. Darwin had said as much as I have put +into his mouth above, he should have said more, and would ere long have +been compelled to have explained to us wherein the difference between +himself and his predecessors precisely lay, and this would not have +been easy. Indeed, if Mr. Darwin had been quite open with us he +would have had to say much as follows:-<br> +<br> +“I should point out that, according to the evolutionists of the +last century, improvement in the eye, as in any other organ, is mainly +due to persistent, rational, employment of the organ in question, in +such slightly modified manner as experience and changed surroundings +may suggest. You will have observed that, according to my system, +this goes for very little, and that the accumulation of fortunate accidents, +irrespectively of the use that may be made of them, is by far the most +important means of modification. Put more briefly still, the distinction +between me and my predecessors lies in this; - my predecessors thought +they knew the main normal cause or principle that underlies variation, +whereas I think that there is no general principle underlying it at +all, or that even if there is, we know hardly anything about it. +This is my distinctive feature; there is no deception; I shall not consider +the arguments of my predecessors, nor show in what respect they are +insufficient; in fact, I shall say nothing whatever about them. +Please to understand that I alone am in possession of the master key +that can unlock the bars of the future progress of evolutionary science; +so great an improvement, in fact, is my discovery that it justifies +me in claiming the theory of descent generally, and I accordingly claim +it. If you ask me in what my discovery consists, I reply in this; +- that the variations which we are all agreed accumulate are caused +- by variation. <a name="citation209a"></a><a href="#footnote209a">{209a}</a> +I admit that this is not telling you much about them, but it is as much +as I think proper to say at present; above all things, let me caution +you against thinking that there is any principle of general application +underlying variation.”<br> +<br> +This would have been right. This is what Mr. Darwin would have +had to have said if he had been frank with us; it is not surprising, +therefore, that he should have been less frank than might have been +wished. I have no doubt that many a time between 1859 and 1882, +the year of his death, Mr. Darwin bitterly regretted his initial error, +and would have been only too thankful to repair it, but he could only +put the difference between himself and the early evolutionists clearly +before his readers at the cost of seeing his own system come tumbling +down like a pack of cards; this was more than he could stand, so he +buried his face, ostrich-like, in the sand. I know no more pitiable +figure in either literature or science.<br> +<br> +As I write these lines (July 1886) I see a paragraph in <i>Nature </i>which +I take it is intended to convey the impression that Mr. Francis Darwin’s +life and letters of his father will appear shortly. I can form +no idea whether Mr. F. Darwin’s forthcoming work is likely to +appear before this present volume; still less can I conjecture what +it may or may not contain; but I can give the reader a criterion by +which to test the good faith with which it is written. If Mr. +F. Darwin puts the distinctive feature that differentiates Mr. C. Darwin +from his predecessors clearly before his readers, enabling them to seize +and carry it away with them once for all - if he shows no desire to +shirk this question, but, on the contrary, faces it and throws light +upon it, then we shall know that his work is sincere, whatever its shortcomings +may be in other respects; and when people are doing their best to help +us and make us understand all that they understand themselves, a great +deal may be forgiven them. If, on the other hand, we find much +talk about the wonderful light which Mr. Charles Darwin threw on evolution +by his theory of natural selection, without any adequate attempt to +make us understand the difference between the natural selection, say, +of Mr. Patrick Matthew, and that of his more famous successor, then +we may know that we are being trifled with; and that an attempt is being +again made to throw dust in our eyes.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER XVI - Mr. Grant Allen’s “Charles Darwin”<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +It is here that Mr. Grant Allen’s book fails. It is impossible +to believe it written in good faith, with no end in view, save to make +something easy which might otherwise be found difficult; on the contrary, +it leaves the impression of having been written with a desire to hinder +us, as far as possible, from understanding things that Mr. Allen himself +understood perfectly well.<br> +<br> +After saying that “in the public mind Mr. Darwin is perhaps most +commonly regarded as the discoverer and founder of the evolution hypothesis,” +he continues that “the grand idea which he did really originate +was not the idea of ‘descent with modification,’ but the +idea of ‘natural selection,’” and adds that it was +Mr. Darwin’s “peculiar glory” to have shown the “nature +of the machinery” by which all the variety of animal and vegetable +life might have been produced by slow modifications in one or more original +types. “The theory of evolution,” says Mr. Allen, +“already existed in a more or less shadowy and undeveloped shape;” +it was Mr. Darwin’s “task in life to raise this theory from +the rank of a mere plausible and happy guess to the rank of a highly +elaborate and almost universally accepted biological system” (pp. +3-5).<br> +<br> +We all admit the value of Mr. Darwin’s work as having led to the +general acceptance of evolution. No one who remembers average +middle-class opinion on this subject before 1860 will deny that it was +Mr. Darwin who brought us all round to descent with modification; but +Mr. Allen cannot rightly say that evolution had only existed before +Mr. Darwin’s time in “a shadowy, undeveloped state,” +or as “a mere plausible and happy guess.” It existed +in the same form as that in which most people accept it now, and had +been carried to its extreme development, before Mr. Darwin’s father +had been born. It is idle to talk of Buffon’s work as “a +mere plausible and happy guess,” or to imply that the first volume +of the “Philosophie Zoologique” of Lamarck was a less full +and sufficient demonstration of descent with modification than the “Origin +of Species” is. It has its defects, shortcomings, and mistakes, +but it is an incomparably sounder work than the “Origin of Species;” +and though it contains the deplorable omission of any reference to Buffon, +Lamarck does not first grossly misrepresent Buffon, and then tell him +to go away, as Mr. Darwin did to the author of the “Vestiges” +and to Lamarck. If Mr. Darwin was believed and honoured for saying +much the same as Lamarck had said, it was because Lamarck had borne +the brunt of the laughing. The “Origin of Species” +was possible because the “Vestiges” had prepared the way +for it. The “Vestiges” were made possible by Lamarck +and Erasmus Darwin, and these two were made possible by Buffon. +Here a somewhat sharper line can be drawn than is usually found possible +when defining the ground covered by philosophers. No one broke +the ground for Buffon to anything like the extent that he broke it for +those who followed him, and these broke it for one another.<br> +<br> +Mr. Allen says (p. 11) that, “in Charles Darwin’s own words, +Lamarck ‘first did the eminent service of arousing attention to +the probability of all change in the organic as well as in the inorganic +world being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.’” +Mr. Darwin did indeed use these words, but Mr. Allen omits the pertinent +fact that he did not use them till six thousand copies of his work had +been issued, and an impression been made as to its scope and claims +which the event has shown to be not easily effaced; nor does he say +that Mr. Darwin only pays these few words of tribute in a quasi-preface, +which, though prefixed to his later editions of the “Origin of +Species,” is amply neutralised by the spirit which I have shown +to be omnipresent in the body of the work itself. Moreover, Mr. +Darwin’s statement is inaccurate to an unpardonable extent; his +words would be fairly accurate if applied to Buffon, but they do not +apply to Lamarck.<br> +<br> +Mr. Darwin continues that Lamarck “seems to attribute all the +beautiful adaptations in nature, such as the long neck of the giraffe +for browsing on the branches of trees,” to the effects of habit. +Mr. Darwin should not say that Lamarck “seems” to do this. +It was his business to tell us what led Lamarck to his conclusions, +not what “seemed” to do so. Any one who knows the +first volume of the “Philosophie Zoologique” will be aware +that there is no “seems” in the matter. Mr. Darwin’s +words “seem” to say that it really could not be worth any +practical naturalist’s while to devote attention to Lamarck’s +argument; the inquiry might be of interest to antiquaries, but Mr. Darwin +had more important work in hand than following the vagaries of one who +had been so completely exploded as Lamarck had been. “Seem” +is to men what “feel” is to women; women who feel, and men +who grease every other sentence with a “seem,” are alike +to be looked on with distrust.<br> +<br> +“Still,” continues Mr. Allen, “Darwin gave no sign. +A flaccid, cartilaginous, unphilosophic evolutionism had full possession +of the field for the moment, and claimed, as it were, to be the genuine +representative of the young and vigorous biological creed, while he +himself was in truth the real heir to all the honours of the situation. +He was in possession of the master-key which alone could unlock the +bars that opposed the progress of evolution, and still he waited. +He could afford to wait. He was diligently collecting, amassing, +investigating; eagerly reading every new systematic work, every book +of travels, every scientific journal, every record of sport, or exploration, +or discovery, to extract from the dead mass of undigested fact whatever +item of implicit value might swell the definite co-ordinated series +of notes in his own commonplace books for the now distinctly contemplated +‘Origin of Species.’ His way was to make all sure +behind him, to summon up all his facts in irresistible array, and never +to set out upon a public progress until he was secure against all possible +attacks of the ever-watchful and alert enemy in the rear,” &c. +(p. 73).<br> +<br> +It would not be easy to beat this. Mr. Darwin’s worst enemy +could wish him no more damaging eulogist.<br> +<br> +Of the “Vestiges” Mr. Allen says that Mr. Darwin “felt +sadly” the inaccuracy and want of profound technical knowledge +everywhere displayed by the anonymous author. Nevertheless, long +after, in the “Origin of Species,” the great naturalist +wrote with generous appreciation of the “Vestiges of Creation” +- “In my opinion it has done excellent service in this country +in calling attention to the subject, in removing prejudice, and in thus +preparing the ground for the reception of analogous views.”<br> +<br> +I have already referred to the way in which Mr. Darwin treated the author +of the “Vestiges,” and have stated the facts at greater +length in “Evolution Old and New,” but it may be as well +to give Mr. Darwin’s words in full; he wrote as follows on the +third page of the original edition of the “Origin of Species”:-<br> +<br> +“The author of the ‘Vestiges of Creation’ would, I +presume, say that, after a certain unknown number of generations, some +bird had given birth to a woodpecker, and some plant to the mistletoe, +and that these had been produced perfect as we now see them; but this +assumption seems to me to be no explanation, for it leaves the case +of the coadaptation of organic beings to each other and to their physical +conditions of life untouched and unexplained.”<br> +<br> +The author of the “Vestiges” did, doubtless, suppose that +<i>“some </i>bird” had given birth to a woodpecker, or more +strictly, that a couple of birds had done so - and this is all that +Mr. Darwin has committed himself to - but no one better knew that these +two birds would, according to the author of the “Vestiges,” +be just as much woodpeckers, and just as little woodpeckers, as they +would be with Mr. Darwin himself. Mr. Chambers did not suppose +that a woodpecker became a woodpecker <i>per saltum </i>though born +of some widely different bird, but Mr. Darwin’s words have no +application unless they convey this impression. The reader will +note that though the impression is conveyed, Mr. Darwin avoids conveying +it categorically. I suppose this is what Mr. Allen means by saying +that he “made all things sure behind him.” Mr. Chambers +did indeed believe in occasional sports; so did Mr. Darwin, and we have +seen that in the later editions of the “Origin of Species” +he found himself constrained to lay greater stress on these than he +had originally done. Substantially, Mr. Chambers held much the +same opinion as to the suddenness or slowness of modification as Mr. +Darwin did, nor can it be doubted that Mr. Darwin knew this perfectly +well.<br> +<br> +What I have said about the woodpecker applies also to the mistletoe. +Besides, it was Mr. Darwin’s business not to presume anything +about the matter; his business was to tell us what the author of the +“Vestiges” had said, or to refer us to the page of the “Vestiges” +on which we should find this. I suppose he was too busy “collecting, +amassing, investigating,” &c., to be at much pains not to +misrepresent those who had been in the field before him. There +is no other reference to the “Vestiges” in the “Origin +of Species” than this suave but singularly fraudulent passage.<br> +<br> +In his edition of 1860 the author of the “Vestiges” showed +that he was nettled, and said it was to be regretted Mr. Darwin had +read the “Vestiges” “almost as much amiss as if, like +its declared opponents, he had an interest in misunderstanding it;” +and a little lower he adds that Mr. Darwin’s book “in no +essential respect contradicts the ‘Vestiges,’” but +that, on the contrary, “while adding to its explanations of nature, +it expressed the same general ideas.” <a name="citation216a"></a><a href="#footnote216a">{216a}</a> +This is substantially true; neither Mr. Darwin’s nor Mr. Chambers’s +are good books, but the main object of both is to substantiate the theory +of descent with modification, and, bad as the “Vestiges” +is, it is ingenuous as compared with the “Origin of Species.” +Subsequently to Mr. Chambers’ protest, and not till, as I have +said, six thousand copies of the “Origin of Species” had +been issued, the sentence complained of by Mr. Chambers was expunged, +but without a word of retractation, and the passage which Mr. Allen +thinks so generous was inserted into the “brief but imperfect” +sketch which Mr. Darwin prefixed - after Mr. Chambers had been effectually +snuffed out - to all subsequent editions of his “Origin of Species.” +There is no excuse for Mr. Darwin’s not having said at least this +much about the author of the “Vestiges” in his first edition; +and on finding that he had misrepresented him in a passage which he +did not venture to retain, he should not have expunged it quietly, but +should have called attention to his mistake in the body of his book, +and given every prominence in his power to the correction.<br> +<br> +Let us now examine Mr. Allen’s record in the matter of natural +selection. For years he was one of the foremost apostles of Neo-Darwinism, +and any who said a good word for Lamarck were told that this was the +“kind of mystical nonsense” from which Mr. Allen “had +hoped Mr. Darwin had for ever saved us.” <a name="citation216b"></a><a href="#footnote216b">{216b}</a> +Then in October 1883 came an article in “Mind,” from which +it appeared as though Mr. Allen had abjured Mr. Darwin and all his works.<br> +<br> +“There are only two conceivable ways,” he then wrote, “in +which any increment of brain power can ever have arisen in any individual. +The one is the Darwinian way, by spontaneous variation, that is to say, +by variation due to minute physical circumstances affecting the individual +in the germ. The other is the Spencerian way, by functional increment, +that is to say, by the effect of increased use and constant exposure +to varying circumstances during conscious life.”<br> +<br> +Mr. Allen calls this the Spencerian view, and so it is in so far as +that Mr. Spencer has adopted it. Most people will call it Lamarckian. +This, however, is a detail. Mr. Allen continues:-<br> +<br> +“I venture to think that the first way, if we look it clearly +in the face, will be seen to be practically unthinkable; and that we +have no alternative, therefore, but to accept the second.”<br> +<br> +I like our looking a “way” which is “practically unthinkable” +“clearly in the face.” I particularly like “practically +unthinkable.” I suppose we can think it in theory, but not +in practice. I like almost everything Mr. Allen says or does; +it is not necessary to go far in search of his good things; dredge up +any bit of mud from him at random and we are pretty sure to find an +oyster with a pearl in it, if we look it clearly in the face; I mean, +there is sure to be something which will be at any rate “almost” +practically unthinkable. But however this may be, when Mr. Allen +wrote his article in “Mind” two years ago, he was in substantial +agreement with myself about the value of natural selection as a means +of modification - by natural selection I mean, of course, the commonly +known Charles-Darwinian natural selection from fortuitous variations; +now, however, in 1885, he is all for this same natural selection again, +and in the preface to his “Charles Darwin” writes (after +a handsome acknowledgment of “Evolution Old and New”) that +he “differs from” me “fundamentally in” my “estimate +of the worth of Charles Darwin’s distinctive discovery of natural +selection.”<br> +<br> +This he certainly does, for on page 81 of the work itself he speaks +of “the distinctive notion of natural selection” as having, +“like all true and fruitful ideas, more than once flashed,” +&c. I have explained <i>usque ad nauseam, </i>and will henceforth +explain no longer, that natural selection is no “distinctive notion” +of Mr. Darwin’s. Mr. Darwin’s “distinctive notion” +is natural selection from among fortuitous variations.<br> +<br> +Writing again (p. 89) of Mr. Spencer’s essay in the “Leader,” +<a name="citation218a"></a><a href="#footnote218a">{218a}</a> Mr. Allen +says:-<br> +<br> +“It contains, in a very philosophical and abstract form, the theory +of ‘descent with modification’ without the distinctive Darwinian +adjunct of ‘natural selection’ or survival of the fittest. +Yet it was just that lever dexterously applied, and carefully weighted +with the whole weight of his endlessly accumulated inductive instances, +that finally enabled our modern Archimedes to move the world.”<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“To account for adaptation, for the almost perfect fitness of +every plant and every animal to its position in life, for the existence +(in other words) of definitely correlated parts and organs, we must +call in the aid of survival of the fittest. Without that potent +selective agent, our conception of the becoming of life is a mere chaos; +order and organisation are utterly inexplicable save by the brilliant +illuminating ray of the Darwinian principle” (p. 93).<br> +<br> +And yet two years previously this same principle, after having been +thinkable for many years, had become “unthinkable.”<br> +<br> +Two years previously, writing of the Charles-Darwinian scheme of evolution, +Mr. Allen had implied it as his opinion “that all brains are what +they are in virtue of antecedent function.” “The one +creed,” he wrote - referring to Mr Darwin’s - “makes +the man depend mainly upon the accidents of molecular physics in a colliding +germ cell and sperm cell; the other makes him depend mainly on the doings +and gains of his ancestors as modified and altered by himself.”<br> +<br> +This second creed is pure Erasmus-Darwinism and Lamarck.<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“It seems to me easy to understand how survival of the fittest +may result in progress <i>starting from such functionally produced gains +</i>(italics mine), but impossible to understand how it could result +in progress, if it had to start in mere accidental structural increments +due to spontaneous variation alone.” <a name="citation219a"></a><a href="#footnote219a">{219a}</a><br> +<br> +Which comes to saying that it is easy to understand the Lamarckian system +of evolution, but not the Charles-Darwinian. Mr. Allen concluded +his article a few pages later on by saying<br> +<br> +“The first hypothesis” (Mr. Darwin’s) “is one +that throws no light upon any of the facts. The second hypothesis” +(which is unalloyed Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck) “is one that explains +them all with transparent lucidity.” Yet in his “Charles +Darwin” Mr. Allen tells us that though Mr. Darwin “did not +invent the development theory, he made it believable and comprehensible” +(p. 4).<br> +<br> +In his “Charles Darwin” Mr. Allen does not tell us how recently +he had, in another place, expressed an opinion about the value of Mr. +Darwin’s “distinctive contribution” to the theory +of evolution, so widely different from the one he is now expressing +with characteristic appearance of ardour. He does not explain +how he is able to execute such rapid changes of front without forfeiting +his claim on our attention; explanations on matters of this sort seem +out of date with modern scientists. I can only suppose that Mr. +Allen regards himself as having taken a brief, as it were, for the production +of a popular work, and feels more bound to consider the interests of +the gentleman who pays him than to say what he really thinks; for surely +Mr. Allen would not have written as he did in such a distinctly philosophical +and scientific journal as “Mind” without weighing his words, +and nothing has transpired lately, <i>apropos </i>of evolution, which +will account for his present recantation. I said in my book “Selections,” +&c., that when Mr. Allen made stepping-stones of his dead selves, +he jumped upon them to some tune. I was a little scandalised then +at the completeness and suddenness of the movement he executed, and +spoke severely; I have sometimes feared I may have spoken too severely, +but his recent performance goes far to warrant my remarks.<br> +<br> +If, however, there is no dead self about it, and Mr. Allen has only +taken a brief, I confess to being not greatly edified. I grant +that a good case can be made out for an author’s doing as I suppose +Mr. Allen to have done; indeed I am not sure that both science and religion +would not gain if every one rode his neighbour’s theory, as at +a donkey-race, and the least plausible were held to win; but surely, +as things stand, a writer by the mere fact of publishing a book professes +to be giving a <i>bonâ fide </i>opinion. The analogy of +the bar does not hold, for not only is it perfectly understood that +a barrister does not necessarily state his own opinions, but there exists +a strict though unwritten code to protect the public against the abuses +to which such a system must be liable. In religion and science +no such code exists - the supposition being that these two holy callings +are above the necessity for anything of the kind. Science and +religion are not as business is; still, if the public do not wish to +be taken in, they must be at some pains to find out whether they are +in the hands of one who, while pretending to be a judge, is in reality +a paid advocate, with no one’s interests at heart except his client’s, +or in those of one who, however warmly he may plead, will say nothing +but what springs from mature and genuine conviction.<br> +<br> +The present unsettled and unsatisfactory state of the moral code in +this respect is at the bottom of the supposed antagonism between religion +and science. These two are not, or never ought to be, antagonistic. +They should never want what is spoken of as reconciliation, for in reality +they are one. Religion is the quintessence of science, and science +the raw material of religion; when people talk about reconciling religion +and science they do not mean what they say; they mean reconciling the +statements made by one set of professional men with those made by another +set whose interests lie in the opposite direction - and with no recognised +president of the court to keep them within due bounds this is not always +easy.<br> +<br> +Mr. Allen says:-<br> +<br> +“At the same time it must be steadily remembered that there are +many naturalists at the present day, especially among those of the lower +order of intelligence, who, while accepting evolutionism in a general +way, and therefore always describing themselves as Darwinians, do not +believe, and often cannot even understand, the distinctive Darwinian +addition to the evolutionary doctrine - namely, the principle of natural +selection. Such hazy and indistinct thinkers as these are still +really at the prior stage of Lamarckian evolution” (p. 199).<br> +<br> +Considering that Mr. Allen was at that stage himself so recently, he +might deal more tenderly with others who still find “the distinctive +Darwinian adjunct” “unthinkable.” It is perhaps, +however, because he remembers his difficulties that Mr. Allen goes on +as follows:-<br> +<br> +“It is probable that in the future, while a formal acceptance +of Darwinism becomes general, the special theory of natural selection +will be thoroughly understood and assimilated only by the more abstract +and philosophical minds.”<br> +<br> +By the kind of people, in fact, who read the <i>Spectator </i>and are +called thoughtful; and in point of fact less than a twelvemonth after +this passage was written, natural selection was publicly abjured as +“a theory of the origin of species” by Mr. Romanes himself, +with the implied approval of the <i>Times.<br> +<br> +</i>“Thus,” continues Mr. Allen, “the name of Darwin +will often no doubt be tacked on to what are in reality the principles +of Lamarck.”<br> +<br> +It requires no great power of prophecy to foretell this, considering +that it is done daily by nine out of ten who call themselves Darwinians. +Ask ten people of ordinary intelligence how Mr. Darwin explains the +fact that giraffes have long necks, and nine of them will answer “through +continually stretching them to reach higher and higher boughs.” +They do not understand that this is the Lamarckian view of evolution, +not the Darwinian; nor will Mr. Allen’s book greatly help the +ordinary reader to catch the difference between the two theories, in +spite of his frequent reference to Mr. Darwin’s “distinctive +feature,” and to his “master-key.” No doubt +the British public will get to understand all about it some day, but +it can hardly be expected to do so all at once, considering the way +in which Mr. Allen and so many more throw dust in its eyes, and will +doubtless continue to throw it as long as an honest penny is to be turned +by doing so. Mr. Allen, then, is probably right in saying that +“the name of Darwin will no doubt be often tacked on to what are +in reality the principles of Lamarck,” nor can it be denied that +Mr. Darwin, by his practice of using “the theory of natural selection” +as though it were a synonym for “the theory of descent with modification,” +contributed to this result.<br> +<br> +I do not myself doubt that he intended to do this, but Mr. Allen would +say no less confidently he did not. He writes of Mr. Darwin as +follows:-<br> +<br> +“Of Darwin’s pure and exalted moral nature no Englishman +of the present generation can trust himself to speak with becoming moderation.”<br> +<br> +He proceeds to trust himself thus:-<br> +<br> +“His love of truth, his singleness of heart, his sincerity, his +earnestness, his modesty, his candour, his absolute sinking of self +and selfishness - these, indeed are all conspicuous to every reader +on the very face of every word he ever printed.”<br> +<br> +This “conspicuous sinking of self” is of a piece with the +“delightful unostentatiousness <i>which every one must have noticed</i>” +about which Mr. Allen writes on page 65. Does he mean that Mr. +Darwin was “ostentatiously unostentatious,” or that he was +“unostentatiously ostentatious”? I think we may guess +from this passage who it was that in the old days of the <i>Pall Mall +Gazelle </i>called Mr. Darwin “a master of a certain happy simplicity.”<br> +<br> +Mr. Allen continues:-<br> +<br> +“Like his works themselves, they must long outlive him. +But his sympathetic kindliness, his ready generosity, the staunchness +of his friendship, the width and depth and breadth of his affections, +the manner in which ‘he bore with those who blamed him unjustly +without blaming them again’ - these things can never be so well +known to any other generation of men as to the three generations that +walked the world with him” (pp. 174, 175).<br> +<br> +Again:-<br> +<br> +“He began early in life to collect and arrange a vast encyclopædia +of facts, all finally focussed with supreme skill upon the great principle +he so clearly perceived and so lucidly expounded. He brought to +bear upon the question an amount of personal observation, of minute +experiment, of world-wide book knowledge, of universal scientific ability, +such as never, perhaps, was lavished by any other man upon any other +department of study. His conspicuous and beautiful love of truth, +his unflinching candour, his transparent fearlessness and honesty of +purpose, his childlike simplicity, his modesty of demeanour, his charming +manner, his affectionate disposition, his kindliness to friends, his +courtesy to opponents, his gentleness to harsh and often bitter assailants, +kindled in the minds of men of science everywhere throughout the world +a contagious enthusiasm only equalled perhaps among the disciples of +Socrates and the great teachers of the revival of learning. His +name became a rallying-point for the children of light in every country” +(pp. 196, 197).<br> +<br> +I need not quote more; the sentence goes on to talk about “firmly +grounding” something which philosophers and speculators might +have taken a century or two more “to establish in embryo;” +but those who wish to see it must turn to Mr. Allen’s book.<br> +<br> +If I have formed too severe an estimate of Mr. Darwin’s work and +character - and this is more than likely - the fulsomeness of the adulation +lavished on him by his admirers for many years past must be in some +measure my excuse. We grow tired even of hearing Aristides called +just, but what is so freely said about Mr. Darwin puts us in mind more +of what the people said about Herod - that he spoke with the voice of +a God, not of a man. So we saw Professor Ray Lankester hail him +not many years ago as the “greatest of living men.” <a name="citation224a"></a><a href="#footnote224a">{224a}</a><br> +<br> +It is ill for any man’s fame that he should be praised so extravagantly. +Nobody ever was as good as Mr. Darwin looked, and a counterblast to +such a hurricane of praise as has been lately blowing will do no harm +to his ultimate reputation, even though it too blow somewhat fiercely. +Art, character, literature, religion, science (I have named them in +alphabetical order), thrive best in a breezy, bracing air; I heartily +hope I may never be what is commonly called successful in my own lifetime +- and if I go on as I am doing now, I have a fair chance of succeeding +in not succeeding.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER XVII - Professor Ray Lankester and Lamarck<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +Being anxious to give the reader a sample of the arguments against the +theory of natural selection from among variations that are mainly either +directly or indirectly functional in their inception, or more briefly +against the Erasmus-Darwinian and Lamarckian systems, I can find nothing +more to the point, or more recent, than Professor Ray Lankester’s +letter to the <i>Athenæum </i>of March 29, 1884, to the latter +part of which, however, I need alone call attention. Professor +Ray Lankester says:-<br> +<br> +“And then we are introduced to the discredited speculations of +Lamarck, which have found a worthy advocate in Mr. Butler, as really +solid contributions to the discovery of the <i>veræ causæ +</i>of variation! A much more important attempt to do something +for Lamarck’s hypothesis, of the transmission to offspring of +structural peculiarities acquired by the parents, was recently made +by an able and experienced naturalist, Professor Semper of Wurzburg. +His book on ‘Animal Life,’ &c., is published in the +‘International Scientific Series.’ Professor Semper +adduces an immense number and variety of cases of structural change +in animals and plants brought about in the individual by adaptation +(during its individual life-history) to new conditions. Some of +these are very marked changes, such as the loss of its horny coat in +the gizzard of a pigeon fed on meat; <i>but in no single instance could +Professor Semper show</i> - although it was his object and desire to +do so if possible - that such change was transmitted from parent to +offspring. Lamarckism looks all very well on paper, but, as Professor +Semper’s book shows, when put to the test of observation and experiment +it collapses absolutely.”<br> +<br> +I should have thought it would have been enough if it had collapsed +without the “absolutely,” but Professor Ray Lankester does +not like doing things by halves. Few will be taken in by the foregoing +quotation, except those who do not greatly care whether they are taken +in or not; but to save trouble to readers who may have neither Lamarck +nor Professor Semper at hand, I will put the case as follows:-<br> +<br> +Professor Semper writes a book to show, we will say, that the hour-hand +of the clock moves gradually forward, in spite of its appearing stationary. +He makes his case sufficiently clear, and then might have been content +to leave it; nevertheless, in the innocence of his heart, he adds the +admission that though he had often looked at the clock for a long time +together, he had never been able actually to see the hour-hand moving. +“There now,” exclaims Professor Ray Lankester on this, “I +told you so; the theory collapses absolutely; his whole object and desire +is to show that the hour-hand moves, and yet when it comes to the point, +he is obliged to confess that he cannot see it do so.” It +is not worth while to meet what Professor Ray Lankester has been above +quoted as saying about Lamarckism beyond quoting the following passage +from a review of “The Neanderthal Skull on Evolution” in +the “Monthly Journal of Science” for June, 1885 (p. 362):-<br> +<br> +“On the very next page the author reproduces the threadbare objection +that the ‘supporters of the theory have never yet succeeded in +observing a single instance in all the millions of years invented (!) +in its support of one species of animal turning into another.’ +Now, <i>ex hypothesi, </i>one species turns into another not rapidly, +as in a transformation scene, but in successive generations, each being +born a shade different from its progenitors. Hence to observe +such a change is excluded by the very terms of the question. Does +Mr. Saville forget Mr. Herbert Spencer’s apologue of the ephemeron +which had never witnessed the change of a child into a man?”<br> +<br> +The apologue, I may say in passing, is not Mr. Spencer’s; it is +by the author of the “Vestiges,” and will be found on page +161 of the 1853 edition of that book; but let this pass. How impatient +Professor Ray Lankester is of any attempt to call attention to the older +view of evolution appears perhaps even more plainly in a review of this +same book of Professor Semper’s that appeared in “Nature,” +March 3, 1881. The tenor of the remarks last quoted shows that +though what I am about to quote is now more than five years old, it +may be taken as still giving us the position which Professor Ray Lankester +takes on these matters. He wrote:-<br> +<br> +“It is necessary,” he exclaims, “to plainly and emphatically +state” (Why so much emphasis? Why not “it should be +stated”?) “that Professor Semper and a few other writers +of similar views” <a name="citation227a"></a><a href="#footnote227a">{227a}</a> +(I have sent for the number of “Modern Thought” referred +to by Professor Ray Lankester but find no article by Mr. Henslow, and +do not, therefore, know what he had said) “are not adding to or +building on Mr. Darwin’s theory, but are actually opposing all +that is essential and distinctive in that theory, by the revival of +the exploded notion of ‘directly transforming agents’ advocated +by Lamarck and others.”<br> +<br> +It may be presumed that these writers know they are not “adding +to or building on” Mr. Darwin’s theory, and do not wish +to build on it, as not thinking it a sound foundation. Professor +Ray Lankester says they are “actually opposing,” as though +there were something intolerably audacious in this; but it is not easy +to see why he should be more angry with them for “actually opposing” +Mr. Darwin than they may be with him, if they think it worth while, +for “actually defending” the exploded notion of natural +selection - for assuredly the Charles-Darwinian system is now more exploded +than Lamarck’s is.<br> +<br> +What Professor Ray Lankester says about Lamarck and “directly +transforming agents” will mislead those who take his statement +without examination. Lamarck does not say that modification is +effected by means of “directly transforming agents;” nothing +can be more alien to the spirit of his teaching. With him the +action of the external conditions of existence (and these are the only +transforming agents intended by Professor Ray Lankester) is not direct, +but indirect. Change in surroundings changes the organism’s +outlook, and thus changes its desires; desires changing, there is corresponding +change in the actions performed; actions changing, a corresponding change +is by-and-by induced in the organs that perform them; this, if long +continued, will be transmitted; becoming augmented by accumulation in +many successive generations, and further modifications perhaps arising +through further changes in surroundings, the change will amount ultimately +to specific and generic difference. Lamarck knows no drug, nor +operation, that will medicine one organism into another, and expects +the results of adaptive effort to be so gradual as to be only perceptible +when accumulated in the course of many generations. When, therefore, +Professor Ray Lankester speaks of Lamarck as having “advocated +directly transforming agents,” he either does not know what he +is talking about, or he is trifling with his readers. Professor +Ray Lankester continues:-<br> +<br> +“They do not seem to be aware of this, for they make no attempt +to examine Mr. Darwin’s accumulated facts and arguments.” +Professor Ray Lankester need not shake Mr. Darwin’s “accumulated +facts and arguments” at us. We have taken more pains to +understand them than Professor Ray Lankester has taken to understand +Lamarck, and by this time know them sufficiently. We thankfully +accept by far the greater number, and rely on them as our sheet-anchors +to save us from drifting on to the quicksands of Neo-Darwinian natural +selection; few of them, indeed, are Mr. Darwin’s, except in so +far as he has endorsed them and given them publicity, but I do not know +that this detracts from their value. We have paid great attention +to Mr. Darwin’s facts, and if we do not understand all his arguments +- for it is not always given to mortal man to understand these - yet +we think we know what he was driving at. We believe we understand +this to the full as well as Mr. Darwin intended us to do, and perhaps +better. Where the arguments tend to show that all animals and +plants are descended from a common source we find them much the same +as Buffon’s, or as those of Erasmus Darwin or Lamarck, and have +nothing to say against them; where, on the other hand, they aim at proving +that the main means of modification has been the fact that if an animal +has been “favoured” it will be “preserved” - +then we think that the animal’s own exertions will, in the long +run, have had more to do with its preservation than any real or fancied +“favour.” Professor Ray Lankester continues:-<br> +<br> +“The doctrine of evolution has become an accepted truth” +(Professor Ray Lankester writes as though the making of truth and falsehood +lay in the hollow of Mr. Darwin’s hand. Surely “has +become accepted” should be enough; Mr. Darwin did not make the +doctrine true) “entirely in consequence of Mr. Darwin’s +having demonstrated the mechanism.” (There is no mechanism +in the matter, and if there is, Mr. Darwin did not show it. He +made some words which confused us and prevented us from seeing that +“the preservation of favoured races” was a cloak for “luck,” +and that this was all the explanation he was giving) “by which +the evolution is possible; it was almost universally rejected, while +such undemonstrable agencies as those arbitrarily asserted to exist +by Professor Semper and Mr. George Henslow were the only means suggested +by its advocates.”<br> +<br> +Undoubtedly the theory of descent with modification, which received +its first sufficiently ample and undisguised exposition in 1809 with +the “Philosophie Zoologique” of Lamarck, shared the common +fate of all theories that revolutionise opinion on important matters, +and was fiercely opposed by the Huxleys, Romaneses, Grant Allens, and +Ray Lankesters of its time. It had to face the reaction in favour +of the Church which began in the days of the First Empire, as a natural +consequence of the horrors of the Revolution; it had to face the social +influence and then almost Darwinian reputation of Cuvier, whom Lamarck +could not, or would not, square; it was put forward by one who was old, +poor, and ere long blind. What theory could do more than just +keep itself alive under conditions so unfavourable? Even under +the most favourable conditions descent with modification would have +been a hard plant to rear, but, as things were, the wonder is that it +was not killed outright at once. We all know how large a share +social influences have in deciding what kind of reception a book or +theory is to meet with; true, these influences are not permanent, but +at first they are almost irresistible; in reality it was not the theory +of descent that was matched against that of fixity, but Lamarck against +Cuvier; who can be surprised that Cuvier for a time should have had +the best of it?<br> +<br> +And yet it is pleasant to reflect that his triumph was not, as triumphs +go, long lived. How is Cuvier best known now? As one who +missed a great opportunity; as one who was great in small things, and +stubbornly small in great ones. Lamarck died in 1831; in 1861 +descent with modification was almost universally accepted by those most +competent to form an opinion. This result was by no means so exclusively +due to Mr. Darwin’s “Origin of Species” as is commonly +believed. During the thirty years that followed 1831 Lamarck’s +opinions made more way than Darwinians are willing to allow. Granted +that in 1861 the theory was generally accepted under the name of Darwin, +not under that of Lamarck, still it was Lamarck and not Darwin that +was being accepted; it was descent, not descent with modification by +means of natural selection from among fortuitous variations, that we +carried away with us from the “Origin of Species.” +The thing triumphed whether the name was lost or not. I need not +waste the reader’s time by showing further how little weight he +need attach to the fact that Lamarckism was not immediately received +with open arms by an admiring public. The theory of descent has +become accepted as rapidly, if I am not mistaken, as the Copernican +theory, or as Newton’s theory of gravitation.<br> +<br> +When Professor Ray Lankester goes on to speak of the “undemonstrable +agencies” “arbitrarily asserted” to exist by Professor +Semper, he is again presuming on the ignorance of his readers. +Professor Semper’s agencies are in no way more undemonstrable +than Mr. Darwin’s are. Mr. Darwin was perfectly cogent as +long as he stuck to Lamarck’s demonstration; his arguments were +sound as long as they were Lamarck’s, or developments of, and +riders upon, Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck, and almost incredibly +silly when they were his own. Fortunately the greater part of +the “Origin of Species” is devoted to proving the theory +of descent with modification, by arguments against which no exception +would have been taken by Mr. Darwin’s three great precursors, +except in so far as the variations whose accumulation results in specific +difference are supposed to be fortuitous - and, to do Mr. Darwin justice, +the fortuitousness, though always within hail, is kept as far as possible +in the background.<br> +<br> +“Mr. Darwin’s arguments,” says Professor Ray Lankester, +“rest on the <i>proved </i>existence of minute, many-sided, irrelative +variations <i>not </i>produced by directly transforming agents.” +Mr. Darwin throughout the body of the “Origin of Species” +is not supposed to know what his variations are or are not produced +by; if they come, they come, and if they do not come, they do not come. +True, we have seen that in the last paragraph of the book all this was +changed, and the variations were ascribed to the conditions of existence, +and to use and disuse, but a concluding paragraph cannot be allowed +to override a whole book throughout which the variations have been kept +to hand as accidental. Mr. Romanes is perfectly correct when he +says <a name="citation232a"></a><a href="#footnote232a">{232a}</a> that +“natural selection” (meaning the Charles-Darwinian natural +selection) “trusts to the chapter of accidents in the matter of +variation” this is all that Mr. Darwin can tell us; whether they +come from directly transforming agents or no he neither knows nor says. +Those who accept Lamarck will know that the agencies are not, as a rule, +directly transforming, but the followers of Mr. Darwin cannot.<br> +<br> +“But showing themselves,” continues Professor Ray Lankester, +“at each new act of reproduction, as part of the phenomena of +heredity such minute ‘sports’ or ‘variations’ +are due to constitutional disturbance” (No doubt. The difference, +however, between Mr. Darwin and Lamarck consists in the fact that Lamarck +believes he knows what it is that so disturbs the constitution as generally +to induce variation, whereas Mr. Darwin says he does not know), “and +appear not in individuals subjected to new conditions” (What organism +can pass through life without being subjected to more or less new conditions? +What life is ever the exact fac-simile of another? And in a matter +of such extreme delicacy as the adjustment of psychical and physical +relations, who can say how small a disturbance of established equilibrium +may not involve how great a rearrangement?), “but in the offspring +of all, though more freely in the offspring of those subjected to special +causes of constitutional disturbance. Mr. Darwin has further proved +that these slight variations can be transmitted and intensified by selective +breeding.”<br> +<br> +Mr. Darwin did, indeed, follow Buffon and Lamarck in at once turning +to animals and plants under domestication in order to bring the plasticity +of organic forms more easily home to his readers, but the fact that +variations can be transmitted and intensified by selective breeding +had been so well established and was so widely known long before Mr. +Darwin was born, that he can no more be said to have proved it than +Newton can be said to have proved the revolution of the earth on its +own axis. Every breeder throughout the world had known it for +centuries. I believe even Virgil knew it.<br> +<br> +“They have,” continues Professor Ray Lankester, “in +reference to breeding, a remarkably tenacious, persistent character, +as might be expected from their origin in connection with the reproductive +process.”<br> +<br> +The variations do not normally “originate in connection with the +reproductive process,” though it is during this process that they +receive organic expression. They originate mainly, so far as anything +originates anywhere, in the life of the parent or parents. Without +going so far as to say that no variation can arise in connection with +the reproductive system - for, doubtless, striking and successful sports +do occasionally so arise - it is more probable that the majority originate +earlier. Professor Ray Lankester proceeds:-<br> +<br> +“On the other hand, mutilations and other effects of directly +transforming agents are rarely, if ever, transmitted.” Professor +Ray Lankester ought to know the facts better than to say that the effects +of mutilation are rarely, if ever, transmitted. The rule is, that +they will not be transmitted unless they have been followed by disease, +but that where disease has supervened they not uncommonly descend to +offspring. <a name="citation234a"></a><a href="#footnote234a">{234a}</a> +I know Brown-Séquard considered it to be the morbid state of +the nervous system consequent upon the mutilation that is transmitted, +rather than the immediate effects of the mutilation, but this distinction +is somewhat finely drawn.<br> +<br> +When Professor Ray Lankester talks about the “other effects of +directly transforming agents” being rarely transmitted, he should +first show us the directly transforming agents. Lamarck, as I +have said, knows them not. “It is little short of an absurdity,” +he continues, “for people to come forward at this epoch, when +evolution is at length accepted solely because of Mr. Darwin’s +doctrine, and coolly to propose to replace that doctrine by the old +notion so often tried and rejected.”<br> +<br> +Whether this is an absurdity or no, Professor Lankester will do well +to learn to bear it without showing so much warmth, for it is one that +is becoming common. Evolution has been accepted not “because +of” Mr. Darwin’s doctrine, but because Mr. Darwin so fogged +us about his doctrine that we did not understand it. We thought +we were backing his bill for descent with modification, whereas we were +in reality backing it for descent with modification by means of natural +selection from among fortuitous variations. This last really is +Mr. Darwin’s theory, except in so far as it is also Mr. A. R. +Wallace’s; descent, alone, is just as much and just as little +Mr. Darwin’s doctrine as it is Professor Ray Lankester’s +or mine. I grant it is in great measure through Mr. Darwin’s +books that descent has become so widely accepted; it has become so through +his books, but in spite of, rather than by reason of, his doctrine. +Indeed his doctrine was no doctrine, but only a back-door for himself +to escape by in the event of flood or fire; the flood and fire have +come; it remains to be seen how far the door will work satisfactorily.<br> +<br> +Professor Ray Lankester, again, should not say that Lamarck’s +doctrine has been “so often tried and rejected.” M. +Martins, in his edition of the “Philosophie Zoologique,” +<a name="citation235a"></a><a href="#footnote235a">{235a}</a> said truly +that Lamarck’s theory had never yet had the honour of being seriously +discussed. It never has - not at least in connection with the +name of its propounder. To mention Lamarck’s name in the +presence of the conventional English society naturalist has always been +like shaking a red rag at a cow; he is at once infuriated; “as +if it were possible,” to quote from Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire, +whose defence of Lamarck is one of the best things in his book, <a name="citation235b"></a><a href="#footnote235b">{235b}</a> +“that so great labour on the part of so great a naturalist should +have led him to ‘a fantastic conclusion’ only - to ‘a +flighty error,’ and, as has been often said, though not written, +to ‘one absurdity the more.’ Such was the language +which Lamarck heard during his protracted old age, saddened alike by +the weight of years and blindness; this was what people did not hesitate +to utter over his grave, yet barely closed, and what, indeed, they are +still saying - commonly too, without any knowledge of what Lamarck maintained, +but merely repeating at second hand bad caricatures of his teaching.<br> +<br> +“When will the time come when we may see Lamarck’s theory +discussed, and I may as well at once say refuted, in some important +points, with at any rate the respect due to one of the most illustrious +masters of our science? And when will this theory, the hardihood +of which has been greatly exaggerated, become freed from the interpretations +and commentaries by the false light of which so many naturalists have +formed their opinion concerning it? If its author is to be condemned, +let it, at any rate, not be before he has been heard.”<br> +<br> +Lamarck was the Lazarus of biology. I wish his more fortunate +brethren, instead of intoning the old Church argument that he has “been +refuted over and over again,” would refer us to some of the best +chapters in the writers who have refuted him. My own reading has +led me to become moderately well acquainted with the literature of evolution, +but I have never come across a single attempt fairly to grapple with +Lamarck, and it is plain that neither Isidore Geoffroy nor M. Martins +knows of such an attempt any more than I do. When Professor Ray +Lankester puts his finger on Lamarck’s weak places, then, but +not till then, may he complain of those who try to replace Mr. Darwin’s +doctrine by Lamarck’s.<br> +<br> +Professor Ray Lankester concludes his note thus:-<br> +<br> +“That such an attempt should be made is an illustration of a curious +weakness of humanity. Not infrequently, after a long contested +cause has triumphed, and all have yielded allegiance thereto, you will +find, when few generations have passed, that men have clean forgotten +what and who it was that made that cause triumphant, and ignorantly +will set up for honour the name of a traitor or an impostor, or attribute +to a great man as a merit deeds and thoughts which he spent a long life +in opposing.”<br> +<br> +Exactly so; that is what one rather feels, but surely Professor Ray +Lankester should say “in trying to filch while pretending to oppose +and to amend.” He is complaining here that people persistently +ascribe Lamarck’s doctrine to Mr. Darwin. Of course they +do; but, as I have already perhaps too abundantly asked, whose fault +is this? If a man knows his own mind, and wants others to understand +it, it is not often that he is misunderstood for any length of time. +If he finds he is being misapprehended in a way he does not like, he +will write another book and make his meaning plainer. He will +go on doing this for as long time as he thinks necessary. I do +not suppose, for example, that people will say I originated the theory +of descent by means of natural selection from among fortunate accidents, +or even that I was one of its supporters as a means of modification; +but if this impression were to prevail, I cannot think I should have +much difficulty in removing it. At any rate no such misapprehension +could endure for more than twenty years, during which I continued to +address a public who welcomed all I wrote, unless I myself aided and +abetted the mistake. Mr. Darwin wrote many books, but the impression +that Darwinism and evolution, or descent with modification, are identical +is still nearly as prevalent as it was soon after the appearance of +the “Origin of Species;” the reason of this is, that Mr. +Darwin was at no pains to correct us. Where, in any one of his +many later books, is there a passage which sets the matter in its true +light, and enters a protest against the misconception of which Professor +Ray Lankester complains so bitterly? The only inference from this +is, that Mr. Darwin was not displeased at our thinking him to be the +originator of the theory of descent with modification, and did not want +us to know more about Lamarck than he could help. If we wanted +to know about him, we must find out what he had said for ourselves, +it was no part of Mr. Darwin’s business to tell us; he had no +interest in our catching the distinctive difference between himself +and that writer; perhaps not; but this approaches closely to wishing +us to misunderstand it. When Mr. Darwin wished us to understand +this or that, no one knew better how to show it to us.<br> +<br> +We were aware, on reading the “Origin of Species,” that +there was a something about it of which we had not full hold; nevertheless +we gave Mr. Darwin our confidence at once, partly because he led off +by telling us that we must trust him to a great extent, and explained +that the present book was only an instalment of a larger work which, +when it came out, would make everything perfectly clear; partly, again, +because the case for descent with modification, which was the leading +idea throughout the book, was so obviously strong, but perhaps mainly +because every one said Mr. Darwin was so good, and so much less self-heeding +than other people; besides, he had so “patiently” and “carefully” +accumulated “such a vast store of facts” as no other naturalist, +living or dead, had ever yet even tried to get together; he was so kind +to us with his, “May we not believe?” and his “Have +we any right to infer that the Creator?” &c. “Of +course we have not,” we exclaimed, almost with tears in our eyes +- “not if you ask us in that way.” Now that we understand +what it was that puzzled us in Mr. Darwin’s work we do not think +highly either of the chief offender, or of the accessories after the +fact, many of whom are trying to brazen the matter out, and on a smaller +scale to follow his example.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER XVIII - Per Contra<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +“‘The evil that men do lives after them” <a name="citation239a"></a><a href="#footnote239a">{239a}</a> +is happily not so true as that the good lives after them, while the +ill is buried with their bones, and to no one does this correction of +Shakespeare’s unwonted spleen apply more fully than to Mr. Darwin. +Indeed it was somewhat thus that we treated his books even while he +was alive; the good, descent, remained with us, while the ill, the deification +of luck, was forgotten as soon as we put down his work. Let me +now, therefore, as far as possible, quit the ungrateful task of dwelling +on the defects of Mr. Darwin’s work and character, for the more +pleasant one of insisting upon their better side, and of explaining +how he came to be betrayed into publishing the “Origin of Species” +without reference to the works of his predecessors.<br> +<br> +In the outset I would urge that it is not by any single book that Mr. +Darwin should be judged. I do not believe that any one of the +three principal works on which his reputation is founded will maintain +with the next generation the place it has acquired with ourselves; nevertheless, +if asked to say who was the man of our own times whose work had produced +the most important, and, on the whole, beneficial effect, I should perhaps +wrongly, but still both instinctively and on reflection, name him to +whom I have, unfortunately, found myself in more bitter opposition than +to any other in the whole course of my life. I refer, of course, +to Mr. Darwin.<br> +<br> +His claim upon us lies not so much in what is actually found within +the four corners of any one of his books, as in the fact of his having +written them at all - in the fact of his having brought out one after +another, with descent always for its keynote, until the lesson was learned +too thoroughly to make it at all likely that it will be forgotten. +Mr. Darwin wanted to move his generation, and had the penetration to +see that this is not done by saying a thing once for all and leaving +it. It almost seems as though it matters less what a man says +than the number of times he repeats it, in a more or less varied form. +It was here the author of the “Vestiges of Creation” made +his most serious mistake. He relied on new editions, and no one +pays much attention to new editions - the mark a book makes is almost +always made by its first edition. If, instead of bringing out +a series of amended editions during the fifteen years’ law which +Mr. Darwin gave him, Mr. Chambers had followed up the “Vestiges” +with new book upon new book, he would have learned much more, and, by +consequence, not have been snuffed out so easily once for all as he +was in 1859 when the “Origin of Species” appeared.<br> +<br> +The tenacity of purpose which appears to have been one of Mr. Darwin’s +most remarkable characteristics was visible even in his outward appearance. +He always reminded me of Raffaelle’s portrait of Pope Julius the +Second, which, indeed, would almost do for a portrait of Mr. Darwin +himself. I imagine that these two men, widely as the sphere of +their action differed, must have been like each other in more respects +than looks alone. Each, certainly, had a hand of iron; whether +Pope Julius wore a velvet glove or no, I do not know; I rather think +not, for, if I remember rightly, he boxed Michael Angelo’s ears +for giving him a saucy answer. We cannot fancy Mr. Darwin boxing +any one’s ears; indeed there can be no doubt he wore a very thick +velvet glove, but the hand underneath it was none the less of iron. +It was to his tenacity of purpose, doubtless, that his success was mainly +due; but for this he must inevitably have fallen before the many inducements +to desist from the pursuit of his main object, which beset him in the +shape of ill health, advancing years, ample private means, large demands +upon his time, and a reputation already great enough to satisfy the +ambition of any ordinary man.<br> +<br> +I do not gather from those who remember Mr. Darwin as a boy, and as +a young man, that he gave early signs of being likely to achieve greatness; +nor, as it seems to me, is there any sign of unusual intellectual power +to be detected in his earliest book. Opening this “almost” +at random I read - “Earthquakes alone are sufficient to destroy +the prosperity of any country. If, for instance, beneath England +the now inert subterraneous forces should exert those powers which most +assuredly in former geological ages they have exerted, how completely +would the entire condition of the country be changed! What would +become of the lofty houses, thickly-packed cities, great manufacturies +<i>(sic), </i>the beautiful public and private edifices? If the +new period of disturbance were to commence by some great earthquake +in the dead of night, how terrific would be the carnage! England +would be at once bankrupt; all papers, records, and accounts would from +that moment be lost. Government being unable to collect the taxes, +and failing to maintain its authority, the hand of violence and rapine +would go uncontrolled. In every large town famine would be proclaimed, +pestilence and death following in its train.” <a name="citation240a"></a><a href="#footnote240a">{240a}</a> +Great allowance should be made for a first work, and I admit that much +interesting matter is found in Mr. Darwin’s journal; still, it +was hardly to be expected that the writer who at the age of thirty-three +could publish the foregoing passage should twenty years later achieve +the reputation of being the profoundest philosopher of his time.<br> +<br> +I have not sufficient technical knowledge to enable me to speak certainly, +but I question his having been the great observer and master of experiment +which he is generally believed to have been. His accuracy was, +I imagine, generally to be relied upon as long as accuracy did not come +into conflict with his interests as a leader in the scientific world; +when these were at stake he was not to be trusted for a moment. +Unfortunately they were directly or indirectly at stake more often than +one could wish. His book on the action of worms, however, was +shown by Professor Paley and other writers <a name="citation242a"></a><a href="#footnote242a">{242a}</a> +to contain many serious errors and omissions, though it involved no +personal question; but I imagine him to have been more or less <i>hébété +</i>when he wrote this book. On the whole I should doubt his having +been a better observer of nature than nine country gentlemen out of +ten who have a taste for natural history.<br> +<br> +Presumptuous as I am aware it must appear to say so, I am unable to +see more than average intellectual power even in Mr. Darwin’s +later books. His great contribution to science is supposed to +have been the theory of natural selection, but enough has been said +to show that this, if understood as he ought to have meant it to be +understood, cannot be rated highly as an intellectual achievement. +His other most important contribution was his provisional theory of +pan-genesis, which is admitted on all hands to have been a failure. +Though, however, it is not likely that posterity will consider him as +a man of transcendent intellectual power, he must be admitted to have +been richly endowed with a much more valuable quality than either originality +or literary power - I mean with <i>savoir faire</i>. The cards +he held - and, on the whole, his hand was a good one - he played with +judgment; and though not one of those who would have achieved greatness +under any circumstances, he nevertheless did achieve greatness of no +mean order. Greatness, indeed, of the highest kind - that of one +who is without fear and without reproach - will not ultimately be allowed +him, but greatness of a rare kind can only be denied him by those whose +judgment is perverted by temper or personal ill-will. He found +the world believing in fixity of species, and left it believing - in +spite of his own doctrine - in descent with modification.<br> +<br> +I have said on an earlier page that Mr. Darwin was heir to a discredited +truth, and left behind him an accredited fallacy. This is true +as regards men of science and cultured classes who understood his distinctive +feature, or thought they did, and so long as Mr. Darwin lived accepted +it with very rare exceptions; but it is not true as regards the unreading, +unreflecting public, who seized the salient point of descent with modification +only, and troubled themselves little about the distinctive feature. +It would almost seem as if Mr. Darwin had reversed the usual practice +of philosophers and given his esoteric doctrine to the world, while +reserving the exoteric for his most intimate and faithful adherents. +This, however, is a detail; the main fact is, that Mr. Darwin brought +us all round to evolution. True, it was Mr. Darwin backed by the +<i>Times </i>and the other most influential organs of science and culture, +but it was one of Mr. Darwin’s great merits to have developed +and organised this backing, as part of the work which he knew was essential +if so great a revolution was to be effected.<br> +<br> +This is an exceedingly difficult and delicate thing to do. If +people think they need only write striking and well-considered books, +and that then the <i>Times </i>will immediately set to work to call +attention to them, I should advise them not to be too hasty in basing +action upon this hypothesis. I should advise them to be even less +hasty in basing it upon the assumption that to secure a powerful literary +backing is a matter within the compass of any one who chooses to undertake +it. No one who has not a strong social position should ever advance +a new theory, unless a life of hard fighting is part of what he lays +himself out for. It was one of Mr. Darwin’s great merits +that he had a strong social position, and had the good sense to know +how to profit by it. The magnificent feat which he eventually +achieved was unhappily tarnished by much that detracts from the splendour +that ought to have attended it, but a magnificent feat it must remain.<br> +<br> +Whose work in this imperfect world is not tarred and tarnished by something +that detracts from its ideal character? It is enough that a man +should be the right man in the right place, and this Mr. Darwin pre-eminently +was. If he had been more like the ideal character which Mr. Allen +endeavours to represent him, it is not likely that he would have been +able to do as much, or nearly as much, as he actually did; he would +have been too wide a cross with his generation to produce much effect +upon it. Original thought is much more common than is generally +believed. Most people, if they only knew it, could write a good +book or play, paint a good picture, compose a fine oratorio; but it +takes an unusually able person to get the book well reviewed, persuade +a manager to bring the play out, sell the picture, or compass the performance +of the oratorio; indeed, the more vigorous and original any one of these +things may be, the more difficult will it prove to even bring it before +the notice of the public. The error of most original people is +in being just a trifle too original. It was in his business qualities +- and these, after all, are the most essential to success, that Mr. +Darwin showed himself so superlative. These are not only the most +essential to success, but it is only by blaspheming the world in a way +which no good citizen of the world will do, that we can deny them to +be the ones which should most command our admiration. We are in +the world; surely so long as we are in it we should be of it, and not +give ourselves airs as though we were too good for our generation, and +would lay ourselves out to please any other by preference. Mr. +Darwin played for his own generation, and he got in the very amplest +measure the recognition which he endeavoured, as we all do, to obtain.<br> +<br> +His success was, no doubt, in great measure due to the fact that he +knew our little ways, and humoured them; but if he had not had little +ways of his own, he never could have been so much <i>au fait </i>with +ours. He knew, for example, we should be pleased to hear that +he had taken his boots off so as not to disturb his worms when watching +them by night, so he told us of this, and we were delighted. He +knew we should like his using the word “sag,” so he used +it, <a name="citation245a"></a><a href="#footnote245a">{245a}</a> and +we said it was beautiful. True, he used it wrongly, for he was +writing about tesselated pavement, and builders assure me that “sag” +is a word which applies to timber only, but this is not to the point; +the point was, that Mr. Darwin should have used a word that we did not +understand; this showed that he had a vast fund of knowledge at his +command about all sorts of practical details with which he might have +well been unacquainted. We do not deal the same measure to man +and to the lower animals in the matter of intelligence; the less we +understand these last, the less, we say, not we, but they can understand; +whereas the less we can understand a man, the more intelligent we are +apt to think him. No one should neglect by-play of this description; +if I live to be strong enough to carry it through, I mean to play “cambre,” +and I shall spell it “camber.” I wonder Mr. Darwin +never abused this word. Laugh at him, however, as we may for having +said “sag,” if he had not been the kind of man to know the +value of these little hits, neither would he have been the kind of man +to persuade us into first tolerating, and then cordially accepting, +descent with modification. There is a correlation of mental as +well as of physical growth, and we could not probably have had one set +of Mr. Darwin’s qualities without the other. If he had been +more faultless, he might have written better books, but we should have +listened worse. A book’s prosperity is like a jest’s +- in the ear of him that hears it.<br> +<br> +Mr. Spencer would not - at least one cannot think he would - have been +able to effect the revolution which will henceforth doubtless be connected +with Mr. Darwin’s name. He had been insisting on evolution +for some years before the “Origin of Species” came out, +but he might as well have preached to the winds, for all the visible +effect that had been produced. On the appearance of Mr. Darwin’s +book the effect was instantaneous; it was like the change in the condition +of a patient when the right medicine has been hit on after all sorts +of things have been tried and failed. Granted that it was comparatively +easy for Mr. Darwin, as having been born into the household of one of +the prophets of evolution, to arrive at conclusions about the fixity +of species which, if not so born, he might never have reached at all; +this does not make it any easier for him to have got others to agree +with him. Any one, again, may have money left him, or run up against +it, or have it run up against him, as it does against some people, but +it is only a very sensible person who does not lose it. Moreover, +once begin to go behind achievement and there is an end of everything. +Did the world give much heed to or believe in evolution before Mr. Darwin’s +time? Certainly not. Did we begin to attend and be persuaded +soon after Mr. Darwin began to write? Certainly yes. Did +we ere long go over <i>en masse</i>? Assuredly. If, as I +said in “Life and Habit,” any one asks who taught the world +to believe in evolution, the answer to the end of time must be that +it was Mr. Darwin. And yet the more his work is looked at, the +more marvellous does its success become. It seems as if some organisms +can do anything with anything. Beethoven picked his teeth with +the snuffers, and seems to have picked them sufficiently to his satisfaction. +So Mr. Darwin with one of the worst styles imaginable did all that the +clearest, tersest writer could have done. Strange, that such a +master of cunning (in the sense of my title) should have been the apostle +of luck, and one so terribly unlucky as Lamarck, of cunning, but such +is the irony of nature. Buffon planted, Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck +watered, but it was Mr. Darwin who said, “That fruit is ripe,” +and shook it into his lap.<br> +<br> +With this Mr. Darwin’s best friends ought to be content; his admirers +are not well advised in representing him as endowed with all sorts of +qualities which he was very far from possessing. Thus it is pretended +that he was one of those men who were ever on the watch for new ideas, +ever ready to give a helping hand to those who were trying to advance +our knowledge, ever willing to own to a mistake and give up even his +most cherished ideas if truth required them at his hands. No conception +can be more wantonly inexact. I grant that if a writer was sufficiently +at once incompetent and obsequious Mr. Darwin was “ever ready,” +&c. So the Emperors of Austria wash a few poor people’s +feet on some one of the festivals of the Church, but it would not be +safe to generalise from this yearly ceremony, and conclude that the +Emperors of Austria are in the habit of washing poor people’s +feet. I can understand Mr. Darwin’s not having taken any +public notice, for example, of “Life and Habit,” for though +I did not attack him in force in that book, it was abundantly clear +that an attack could not be long delayed, and a man may be pardoned +for not doing anything to advertise the works of his opponents; but +there is no excuse for his never having referred to Professor Hering’s +work either in “Nature,” when Professor Ray Lankester first +called attention to it (July 13, 1876), or in some one of his subsequent +books. If his attitude towards those who worked in the same field +as himself had been the generous one which his admirers pretend, he +would have certainly come forward, not necessarily as adopting Professor +Hering’s theory, but still as helping it to obtain a hearing.<br> +<br> +His not having done so is of a piece with his silence about Buffon, +Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck in the early editions of the “Origin +of Species,” and with the meagre reference to them which is alone +found in the later ones. It is of a piece also with the silence +which Mr. Darwin invariably maintained when he saw his position irretrievably +damaged, as, for example, by Mr. Spencer’s objection already referred +to, and by the late Professor Fleeming Jenkin in the <i>North British +Review </i>(June 1867). Science, after all, should form a kingdom +which is more or less not of this world. The ideal scientist should +know neither self nor friend nor foe - he should be able to hob-nob +with those whom he most vehemently attacks, and to fly at the scientific +throat of those to whom he is personally most attached; he should be +neither grateful for a favourable review nor displeased at a hostile +one; his literary and scientific life should be something as far apart +as possible from his social; it is thus, at least, alone that any one +will be able to keep his eye single for facts, and their legitimate +inferences. We have seen Professor Mivart lately taken to task +by Mr. Romanes for having said <a name="citation248a"></a><a href="#footnote248a">{248a}</a> +that Mr. Darwin was singularly sensitive to criticism, and made it impossible +for Professor Mivart to continue friendly personal relations with him +after he had ventured to maintain his own opinion. I see no reason +to question Professor Mivart’s accuracy, and find what he has +said to agree alike with my own personal experience of Mr. Darwin, and +with all the light that his works throw upon his character.<br> +<br> +The most substantial apology that can be made for his attempt to claim +the theory of descent with modification is to be found in the practice +of Lamarck, Mr. Patrick Matthew, the author of the “Vestiges of +Creation,” and Mr. Herbert Spencer, and, again, in the total absence +of complaint which this practice met with. If Lamarck might write +the “Philosophie Zoologique” without, so far as I remember, +one word of reference to Buffon, and without being complained of, why +might not Mr. Darwin write the “Origin of Species” without +more than a passing allusion to Lamarck? Mr. Patrick Matthew, +again, though writing what is obviously a <i>résumé </i>of +the evolutionary theories of his time, makes no mention of Lamarck, +Erasmus Darwin, or Buffon. I have not the original edition of +the “Vestiges of Creation” before me, but feel sure I am +justified in saying that it claimed to be a more or less Minerva-like +work, that sprang full armed from the brain of Mr. Chambers himself. +This at least is how it was received by the public; and, however violent +the opposition it met with, I cannot find that its author was blamed +for not having made adequate mention of Lamarck. When Mr. Spencer +wrote his first essay on evolution in the <i>Leader </i>(March 20, 1852) +he did indeed begin his argument, “Those who cavalierly reject +the doctrine of Lamarck,” &c., so that his essay purports +to be written in support of Lamarck; but when he republished his article +in 1858, the reference to Lamarck was cut out.<br> +<br> +I make no doubt that it was the bad example set him by the writers named +in the preceding paragraph which betrayed Mr. Darwin into doing as they +did, but being more conscientious than they, he could not bring himself +to do it without having satisfied himself that he had got hold of a +more or less distinctive feature, and this, of course, made matters +worse. The distinctive feature was not due to any deep-laid plan +for pitchforking mind out of the universe, or as part of a scheme of +materialistic philosophy, though it has since been made to play an important +part in the attempt to further this; Mr. Darwin was perfectly innocent +of any intention of getting rid of mind, and did not, probably, care +the toss of sixpence whether the universe was instinct with mind or +no - what he did care about was carrying off the palm in the matter +of descent with modification, and the distinctive feature was an adjunct +with which his nervous, sensitive, Gladstonian nature would not allow +him to dispense.<br> +<br> +And why, it may be asked, should not the palm be given to Mr. Darwin +if he wanted it, and was at so much pains to get it? Why, if science +is a kingdom not of this world, make so much fuss about settling who +is entitled to what? At best such questions are of a sorry personal +nature, that can have little bearing upon facts, and it is these that +alone should concern us. The answer is, that if the question is +so merely personal and unimportant, Mr. Darwin may as well yield as +Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck; Mr. Darwin’s admirers find +no difficulty in appreciating the importance of a personal element as +far as he is concerned; let them not wonder, then, if others, while +anxious to give him the laurels to which he is entitled, are somewhat +indignant at the attempt to crown him with leaves that have been filched +from the brows of the great dead who went before him. <i>Palmam +qui meruit ferat</i>. The instinct which tells us that no man +in the scientific or literary world should claim more than his due is +an old and, I imagine, a wholesome one, and if a scientific self-denying +ordinance is demanded, we may reply with justice, <i>Que messieurs les +Charles</i>-<i>Darwinies commencent</i>. Mr. Darwin will have +a crown sufficient for any ordinary brow remaining in the achievement +of having done more than any other writer, living or dead, to popularise +evolution. This much may be ungrudgingly conceded to him, but +more than this those who have his scientific position most at heart +will be well advised if they cease henceforth to demand.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +CHAPTER XIX - Conclusion<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +And now I bring this book to a conclusion. So many things requiring +attention have happened since it was begun that I leave it in a very +different shape to the one which it was originally intended to bear. +I have omitted much that I had meant to deal with, and have been tempted +sometimes to introduce matter the connection of which with my subject +is not immediately apparent. Such however, as the book is, it +must now go in the form into which it has grown almost more in spite +of me than from <i>malice prepense </i>on my part. I was afraid +that it might thus set me at defiance, and in an early chapter expressed +a doubt whether I should find it redound greatly to my advantage with +men of science; in this concluding chapter I may say that doubt has +deepened into something like certainty. I regret this, but cannot +help it.<br> +<br> +Among the points with which it was most incumbent upon me to deal was +that of vegetable intelligence. A reader may well say that unless +I give plants much the same sense of pleasure and pain, memory, power +of will, and intelligent perception of the best way in which to employ +their opportunities that I give to low animals, my argument falls to +the ground. If I declare organic modification to be mainly due +to function, and hence in the closest correlation with mental change, +I must give plants, as well as animals, a mind, and endow them with +power to reflect and reason upon all that most concerns them. +Many who will feel little difficulty about admitting that animal modification +is upon the whole mainly due to the secular cunning of the animals themselves +will yet hesitate before they admit that plants also can have a reason +and cunning of their own.<br> +<br> +Unwillingness to concede this is based principally upon the error concerning +intelligence to which I have already referred - I mean to our regarding +intelligence not so much as the power of understanding as that of being +understood by ourselves. Once admit that the evidence in favour +of a plant’s knowing its own business depends more on the efficiency +with which that business is conducted than either on our power of understanding +how it can be conducted, or on any signs on the plant’s part of +a capacity for understanding things that do not concern it, and there +will be no further difficulty about supposing that in its own sphere +a plant is just as intelligent as an animal, and keeps a sharp look-out +upon its own interests, however indifferent it may seem to be to ours. +So strong has been the set of recent opinion in this direction that +with botanists the foregoing now almost goes without saying, though +few five years ago would have accepted it.<br> +<br> +To no one of the several workers in this field are we more indebted +for the change which has been brought about in this respect than to +my late valued and lamented friend Mr. Alfred Tylor. Mr. Tylor +was not the discoverer of the protoplasmic continuity that exists in +plants, but he was among the very first to welcome this discovery, and +his experiments at Carshalton in the years 1883 and 1884 demonstrated +that, whether there was protoplasmic continuity in plants or no, they +were at any rate endowed with some measure of reason, forethought, and +power of self-adaptation to varying surroundings. It is not for +me to give the details of these experiments. I had the good fortune +to see them more than once while they were in progress, and was present +when they were made the subject of a paper read by Mr. Sydney B. J. +Skertchly before the Linnean Society, Mr. Tylor being then too ill to +read it himself. The paper has since been edited by Mr. Skertchly, +and published. <a name="citation253a"></a><a href="#footnote253a">{253a}</a> +Anything that should be said further about it will come best from Mr. +Skertchly; it will be enough here if I give the <i>résumé +</i>of it prepared by Mr. Tylor himself.<br> +<br> +In this Mr. Tylor said:- “The principles which underlie this paper +are the individuality of plants, the necessity for some co-ordinating +system to enable the parts to act in concert, and the probability that +this also necessitates the admission that plants have a dim sort of +intelligence.<br> +<br> +“It is shown that a tree, for example, is something more than +an aggregation of tissues, but is a complex being performing acts as +a whole, and not merely responsive to the direct influence of light, +&c. The tree knows more than its branches, as the species +know more than the individual, the community than the unit.<br> +<br> +“Moreover, inasmuch as my experiments show that many plants and +trees possess the power of adapting themselves to unfamiliar circumstances, +such as, for instance, avoiding obstacles by bending aside before touching, +or by altering the leaf arrangement, it seems probable that at least +as much voluntary power must be accorded to such plants as to certain +lowly organised animals.<br> +<br> +“Finally, a connecting system by means of which combined movements +take place is found in the threads of protoplasm which unite the various +cells, and which I have now shown to exist even in the wood of trees.<br> +<br> +“One of the important facts seems to be the universality of the +upward curvature of the tips of growing branches of trees, and the power +possessed by the tree to straighten its branches afterwards, so that +new growth shall by similar means be able to obtain the necessary light +and air.<br> +<br> +“A house, to use a sanitary analogy, is functionally useless without +it obtains a good supply of light and air. The architect strives +so to produce the house as to attain this end, and still leave the house +comfortable. But the house, though dependent upon, is not produced +by, the light and air. So a tree is functionally useless, and +cannot even exist without a proper supply of light and air; but, whereas +it has been the custom to ascribe the heliotropic and other motions +to the direct influence of those agents, I would rather suggest that +the movements are to some extent due to the desire of the plant to acquire +its necessaries of life.”<br> +<br> +The more I have reflected upon Mr. Tylor’s Carshalton experiments, +the more convinced I am of their great value. No one, indeed, +ought to have doubted that plants were intelligent, but we all of us +do much that we ought not to do, and Mr. Tylor supplied a demonstration +which may be henceforth authoritatively appealed to.<br> +<br> +I will take the present opportunity of insisting upon a suggestion which +I made in “Alps and Sanctuaries” (New edition, pp. 152, +153), with which Mr. Tylor was much pleased, and which, at his request, +I made the subject of a few words that I ventured to say at the Linnean +Society’s rooms after his paper had been read. “Admitting,” +I said, “the common protoplasmic origin of animals and plants, +and setting aside the notion that plants preceded animals, we are still +faced by the problem why protoplasm should have developed into the organic +life of the world, along two main lines, and only two - the animal and +the vegetable. Why, if there was an early schism - and this there +clearly was - should there not have been many subsequent ones of equal +importance? We see innumerable sub-divisions of animals and plants, +but we see no other such great subdivision of organic life as that whereby +it ranges itself, for the most part readily, as either animal or vegetable. +Why any subdivision? - but if any, why not more than two great classes?”<br> +<br> +The two main stems of the tree of life ought, one would think, to have +been formed on the same principle as the boughs which represent genera, +and the twigs which stand for species and varieties. If specific +differences arise mainly from differences of action taken in consequence +of differences of opinion, then, so ultimately do generic; so, therefore, +again, do differences between families; so therefore, by analogy, should +that greatest of differences in virtue of which the world of life is +mainly animal, or vegetable. In this last case as much as in that +of specific difference, we ought to find divergent form the embodiment +and organic expression of divergent opinion. Form is mind made +manifest in flesh through action: shades of mental difference being +expressed in shades of physical difference, while broad fundamental +differences of opinion are expressed in broad fundamental differences +of bodily shape.<br> +<br> +Or to put it thus:-<br> +<br> +If form and habit be regarded as functionally interdependent, that is +to say, if neither form nor habit can vary without corresponding variation +in the other, and if habit and opinion concerning advantage are also +functionally interdependent, it follows self-evidently that form and +opinion concerning advantage (and hence form and cunning) will be functionally +interdependent also, and that there can be no great modification of +the one without corresponding modification of the other. Let there, +then, be a point in respect of which opinion might be early and easily +divided - a point in respect of which two courses involving different +lines of action presented equally-balanced advantages - and there would +be an early subdivision of primordial life, according as the one view +or the other was taken.<br> +<br> +It is obvious that the pros and cons for either course must be supposed +very nearly equal, otherwise the course which presented the fewest advantages +would be attended with the probable gradual extinction of the organised +beings that adopted it, but there being supposed two possible modes +of action very evenly balanced as regards advantage and disadvantages, +then the ultimate appearance of two corresponding forms of life is a +<i>sequitur </i>from the admission that form varies as function, and +function as opinion concerning advantage. If there are three, +four, five, or six such opinions tenable, we ought to have three, four, +five, or six main subdivisions of life. As things are, we have +two only. Can we, then, see a matter on which opinion was likely +to be easily and early divided into two, and only two, main divisions +- no third course being conceivable? If so, this should suggest +itself as the probable source from which the two main forms of organic +life have been derived.<br> +<br> +I submit that we can see such a matter in the question whether it pays +better to sit still and make the best of what comes in one’s way, +or to go about in search of what one can find. Of course we, as +animals, naturally hold that it is better to go about in search of what +we can find than to sit still and make the best of what comes; but there +is still so much to be said on the other side, that many classes of +animals have settled down into sessile habits, while a perhaps even +larger number are, like spiders, habitual liers in wait rather than +travellers in search of food. I would ask my reader, therefore, +to see the opinion that it is better to go in search of prey as formulated, +and finding its organic expression, in animals; and the other - that +it is better to be ever on the look-out to make the best of what chance +brings up to them - in plants. Some few intermediate forms still +record to us the long struggle during which the schism was not yet complete, +and the halting between two opinions which it might be expected that +some organisms should exhibit.<br> +<br> +“Neither class,” I said in “Alps and Sanctuaries,” +“has been quite consistent. Who ever is or can be? +Every extreme - every opinion carried to its logical end - will prove +to be an absurdity. Plants throw out roots and boughs and leaves; +this is a kind of locomotion; and, as Dr. Erasmus Darwin long +since pointed out, they do sometimes approach nearly to what may be +called travelling; a man of consistent character will never look at +a bough, a root, or a tendril without regarding it as a melancholy and +unprincipled compromise” (New edition, p. 153).<br> +<br> +Having called attention to this view, and commended it to the consideration +of my readers, I proceed to another which should not have been left +to be touched upon only in a final chapter, and which, indeed, seems +to require a book to itself - I refer to the origin and nature of the +feelings, which those who accept volition as having had a large share +in organic modification must admit to have had a no less large share +in the formation of volition. Volition grows out of ideas, ideas +from feelings. What, then, is feeling, and the subsequent mental +images or ideas?<br> +<br> +The image of a stone formed in our minds is no representation of the +object which has given rise to it. Not only, as has been often +remarked, is there no resemblance between the particular thought and +the particular thing, but thoughts and things generally are too unlike +to be compared. An idea of a stone may be like an idea of another +stone, or two stones may be like one another; but an idea of a stone +is not like a stone; it cannot be thrown at anything, it occupies no +room in space, has no specific gravity, and when we come to know more +about stones, we find our ideas concerning them to be but rude, epitomised, +and highly conventional renderings of the actual facts, mere hieroglyphics, +in fact, or, as it were, counters or bank-notes, which serve to express +and to convey commodities with which they have no pretence of analogy.<br> +<br> +Indeed we daily find that, as the range of our perceptions becomes enlarged +either by invention of new appliances or after use of old ones, we change +our ideas though we have no reason to think that the thing about which +we are thinking has changed. In the case of a stone, for instance, +the rude, unassisted, uneducated senses see it as above all things motionless, +whereas assisted and trained ideas concerning it represent motion as +its most essential characteristic; but the stone has not changed. +So, again, the uneducated idea represents it as above all things mindless, +and is as little able to see mind in connection with it as it lately +was to see motion; it will be no greater change of opinion than we have +most of us undergone already if we come presently to see it as no less +full of elementary mind than of elementary motion, but the stone will +not have changed.<br> +<br> +The fact that we modify our opinions suggests that our ideas are formed +not so much in involuntary self-adjusting mimetic correspondence with +the objects that we believe to give rise to them, as by what was in +the outset voluntary, conventional arrangement in whatever way we found +convenient, of sensation and perception-symbols, which had nothing whatever +to do with the objects, and were simply caught hold of as the only things +we could grasp. It would seem as if, in the first instance, we +must have arbitrarily attached some one of the few and vague sensations +which we could alone at first command, to certain motions of outside +things as echoed by our brain, and used them to think and feel the things +with, so as to docket them, and recognise them with greater force, certainty, +and clearness - much as we use words to help us to docket and grasp +our feelings and thoughts, or written characters to help us to docket +and grasp our words.<br> +<br> +If this view be taken we stand in much the same attitude towards our +feelings as a dog may be supposed to do towards our own reading and +writing. The dog may be supposed to marvel at the wonderful instinctive +faculty by which we can tell the price of the different railway stocks +merely by looking at a sheet of paper; he supposes this power to be +a part of our nature, to have come of itself by luck and not by cunning, +but a little reflection will show that feeling is not more likely to +have “come by nature” than reading and writing are. +Feeling is in all probability the result of the same kind of slow laborious +development as that which has attended our more recent arts and our +bodily organs; its development must be supposed to have followed the +same lines as that of our other arts, and indeed of the body itself, +which is the <i>ars artium</i> - for growth of mind is throughout coincident +with growth of organic resources, and organic resources grow with growing +mind.<br> +<br> +Feeling is the art the possession of which differentiates the civilised +organic world from that of brute inorganic matter, but still it is an +art; it is the outcome of a mind that is common both to organic and +inorganic, and which the organic has alone cultivated. It is not +a part of mind itself; it is no more this than language and writing +are parts of thought. The organic world can alone feel, just as +man can alone speak; but as speech is only the development of powers +the germs of which are possessed by the lower animals, so feeling is +only a sign of the employment and development of powers the germs of +which exist in inorganic substances. It has all the characteristics +of an art, and though it must probably rank as the oldest of those arts +that are peculiar to the organic world, it is one which is still in +process of development. None of us, indeed, can feel well on more +than a very few subjects, and many can hardly feel at all.<br> +<br> +But, however this may be, our sensations and perceptions of material +phenomena are attendant on the excitation of certain motions in the +anterior parts of the brain. Whenever certain motions are excited +in this substance, certain sensations and ideas of resistance, extension, +&c., are either concomitant, or ensue within a period too brief +for our cognisance. It is these sensations and ideas that we directly +cognise, and it is to them that we have attached the idea of the particular +kind of matter we happen to be thinking of. As this idea is not +like the thing itself, so neither is it like the motions in our brain +on which it is attendant. It is no more like these than, say, +a stone is like the individual characters, written or spoken, that form +the word “stone,” or than these last are, in sound, like +the word “stone” itself, whereby the idea of a stone is +so immediately and vividly presented to us. True, this does not +involve that our idea shall not resemble the object that gave rise to +it, any more than the fact that a looking-glass bears no resemblance +to the things reflected in it involves that the reflection shall not +resemble the things reflected; the shifting nature, however, of our +ideas and conceptions is enough to show that they must be symbolical, +and conditioned by changes going on within ourselves as much as by those +outside us; and if, going behind the ideas which suffice for daily use, +we extend our inquiries in the direction of the reality underlying our +conception, we find reason to think that the brain-motions which attend +our conception correspond with exciting motions in the object that occasions +it, and that these, rather than anything resembling our conception itself, +should be regarded as the reality.<br> +<br> +This leads to a third matter, on which I can only touch with extreme +brevity.<br> +<br> +Different modes of motion have long been known as the causes of our +different colour perceptions, or at any rate as associated therewith, +and of late years, more especially since the promulgation of Newlands’ +<a name="citation260a"></a><a href="#footnote260a">{260a}</a> law, it +has been perceived that what we call the kinds or properties of matter +are not less conditioned by motion than colour is. The substance +or essence of unconditioned matter, as apart from the relations between +its various states (which we believe to be its various conditions of +motion) must remain for ever unknown to us, for it is only the relations +between the conditions of the underlying substance that we cognise at +all, and where there are no conditions, there is nothing for us to seize, +compare, and, hence, cognise; unconditioned matter must, therefore, +be as inconceivable by us as unmattered condition; <a name="citation261a"></a><a href="#footnote261a">{261a}</a><i> +</i>but though we can know nothing about matter as apart from its conditions +or states, opinion has been for some time tending towards the belief +that what we call the different states, or kinds, of matter are only +our ways of mentally characterising and docketing our estimates of the +different kinds of motion going on in this otherwise uncognisable substratum.<br> +<br> +Our conception, then, concerning the nature of any matter depends solely +upon its kind and degree of unrest, that is to say, on the characteristics +of the vibrations that are going on within it. The exterior object +vibrating in a certain way imparts some of its vibrations to our brain +- but if the state of the thing itself depends upon its vibrations, +it must be considered as to all intents and purposes the vibrations +themselves - plus, of course, the underlying substance that is vibrating. +If, for example, a pat of butter is a portion of the unknowable underlying +substance in such-and-such a state of molecular disturbance, and it +is only by alteration of the disturbance that the substance can be altered +- the disturbance of the substance is practically equivalent to the +substance: a pat of butter is such-and-such a disturbance of the unknowable +underlying substance, and such-and-such a disturbance of the underlying +substance is a pat of butter. In communicating its vibrations, +therefore, to our brain a substance does actually communicate what is, +as far as we are concerned, a portion of itself. Our perception +of a thing and its attendant feeling are symbols attaching to an introduction +within our brain of a feeble state of the thing itself. Our recollection +of it is occasioned by a feeble continuance of this feeble state in +our brains, becoming less feeble through the accession of fresh but +similar vibrations from without. The molecular vibrations which +make the thing an idea of which is conveyed to our minds, put within +our brain a little feeble emanation from the thing itself - if we come +within their reach. This being once put there, will remain as +it were dust, till dusted out, or till it decay, or till it receive +accession of new vibrations.<br> +<br> +The vibrations from a pat of butter do, then, actually put butter into +a man’s head. This is one of the commonest of expressions, +and would hardly be so common if it were not felt to have some foundation +in fact. At first the man does not know what feeling or complex +of feelings to employ so as to docket the vibrations, any more than +he knows what word to employ so as to docket the feelings, or with what +written characters to docket his word; but he gets over this, and henceforward +the vibrations of the exterior object (that is to say, the thing) never +set up their characteristic disturbances, or, in other words, never +come into his head, without the associated feeling presenting itself +as readily as word and characters present themselves, on the presence +of the feeling. The more butter a man sees and handles, the more +he gets butter on the brain - till, though he can never get anything +like enough to be strictly called butter, it only requires the slightest +molecular disturbance with characteristics like those of butter to bring +up a vivid and highly sympathetic idea of butter in the man’s +mind.<br> +<br> +If this view is adopted, our memory of a thing is our retention within +the brain of a small leaven of the actual thing itself, or of what <i>quâ +</i>us is the thing that is remembered, and the ease with which habitual +actions come to be performed is due to the power of the vibrations having +been increased and modified by continual accession from without till +they modify the molecular disturbances of the nervous system, and therefore +its material substance, which we have already settled to be only our +way of docketing molecular disturbances. The same vibrations, +therefore, form the substance remembered, introduce an infinitesimal +dose of it within the brain, modify the substance remembering, and, +in the course of time, create and further modify the mechanism of both +the sensory and motor nerves. Thought and thing are one.<br> +<br> +I commend these two last speculations to the reader’s charitable +consideration, as feeling that I am here travelling beyond the ground +on which I can safely venture; nevertheless, as it may be some time +before I have another opportunity of coming before the public, I have +thought it, on the whole, better not to omit them, but to give them +thus provisionally. I believe they are both substantially true, +but am by no means sure that I have expressed them either clearly or +accurately; I cannot, however, further delay the issue of my book.<br> +<br> +Returning to the point raised in my title, is luck, I would ask, or +cunning, the more fitting matter to be insisted upon in connection with +organic modification? Do animals and plants grow into conformity +with their surroundings because they and their fathers and mothers take +pains, or because their uncles and aunts go away? For the survival +of the fittest is only the non-survival or going away of the unfittest +- in whose direct line the race is not continued, and who are therefore +only uncles and aunts of the survivors. I can quite understand +its being a good thing for any race that its uncles and aunts should +go away, but I do not believe the accumulation of lucky accidents could +result in an eye, no matter how many uncles and aunts may have gone +away during how many generations.<br> +<br> +I would ask the reader to bear in mind the views concerning life and +death expressed in an early chapter. They seem to me not, indeed, +to take away any very considerable part of the sting from death; this +should not be attempted or desired, for with the sting of death the +sweets of life are inseparably bound up so that neither can be weakened +without damaging the other. Weaken the fear of death, and the +love of life would be weakened. Strengthen it, and we should cling +to life even more tenaciously than we do. But though death must +always remain as a shock and change of habits from which we must naturally +shrink - still it is not the utter end of our being, which, until lately, +it must have seemed to those who have been unable to accept the grosser +view of the resurrection with which we were familiarised in childhood. +We too now know that though worms destroy this body, yet in our flesh +shall we so far see God as to be still in Him and of Him - biding our +time for a resurrection in a new and more glorious body; and, moreover, +that we shall be to the full as conscious of this as we are at present +of much that concerns us as closely as anything can concern us.<br> +<br> +The thread of life cannot be shorn between successive generations, except +upon grounds which will in equity involve its being shorn between consecutive +seconds, and fractions of seconds. On the other hand, it cannot +be left unshorn between consecutive seconds without necessitating that +it should be left unshorn also beyond the grave, as well as in successive +generations. Death is as salient a feature in what we call our +life as birth was, but it is no more than this. As a salient feature, +it is a convenient epoch for the drawing of a defining line, by the +help of which we may better grasp the conception of life, and think +it more effectually, but it is a <i>façon de parler </i>only; +it is, as I said in “Life and Habit,” <a name="citation264a"></a><a href="#footnote264a">{264a}</a> +“the most inexorable of all conventions,” but our idea of +it has no correspondence with eternal underlying realities.<br> +<br> +Finally, we must have evolution; consent is too spontaneous, instinctive, +and universal among those most able to form an opinion, to admit of +further doubt about this. We must also have mind and design. +The attempt to eliminate intelligence from among the main agencies of +the universe has broken down too signally to be again ventured upon +- not until the recent rout has been forgotten. Nevertheless the +old, far-foreseeing <i>Deus ex machinâ </i>design as from a point +outside the universe, which indeed it directs, but of which it is no +part, is negatived by the facts of organism. What, then, remains, +but the view that I have again in this book endeavoured to uphold - +I mean, the supposition that the mind or cunning of which we see such +abundant evidence all round us, is, like the kingdom of heaven, within +us, and within all things at all times everywhere? There is design, +or cunning, but it is a cunning not despotically fashioning us from +without as a potter fashions his clay, but inhering democratically within +the body which is its highest outcome, as life inheres within an animal +or plant.<br> +<br> +All animals and plants are corporations, or forms of democracy, and +may be studied by the light of these, as democracies, not infrequently, +by that of animals and plants. The solution of the difficult problem +of reflex action, for example, is thus facilitated, by supposing it +to be departmental in character; that is to say, by supposing it to +be action of which the department that attends to it is alone cognisant, +and which is not referred to the central government so long as things +go normally. As long, therefore, as this is the case, the central +government is unconscious of what is going on, but its being thus unconscious +is no argument that the department is unconscious also.<br> +<br> +I know that contradiction in terms lurks within much that I have said, +but the texture of the world is a warp and woof of contradiction in +terms; of continuity in discontinuity, and discontinuity in continuity; +of unity in diversity, and of diversity in unity. As in the development +of a fugue, where, when the subject and counter subject have been enounced, +there must henceforth be nothing new, and yet all must be new, so throughout +organic life - which is as a fugue developed to great length from a +very simple subject - everything is linked on to and grows out of that +which comes next to it in order - errors and omissions excepted. +It crosses and thwarts what comes next to it with difference that involves +resemblance, and resemblance that involves difference, and there is +no juxtaposition of things that differ too widely by omission of necessary +links, or too sudden departure from recognised methods of procedure.<br> +<br> +To conclude; bodily form may be almost regarded as idea and memory in +a solidified state - as an accumulation of things each one of them so +tenuous as to be practically without material substance. It is +as a million pounds formed by accumulated millionths of farthings; more +compendiously it arises normally from, and through, action. Action +arises normally from, and through, opinion. Opinion, from, and +through, hypothesis. “Hypothesis,” as the derivation +of the word itself shows, is singularly near akin to “underlying, +and only in part knowable, substratum;” and what is this but “God” +translated from the language of Moses into that of Mr. Herbert Spencer? +The conception of God is like nature - it returns to us in another shape, +no matter how often we may expel it. Vulgarised as it has been +by Michael Angelo, Raffaelle, and others who shall be nameless, it has +been like every other <i>corruptio optimi - pessimum: </i>used as a +hieroglyph by the help of which we may better acknowledge the height +and depth of our own ignorance, and at the same time express our sense +that there is an unseen world with which we in some mysterious way come +into contact, though the writs of our thoughts do not run within it +- used in this way, the idea and the word have been found enduringly +convenient. The theory that luck is the main means of organic +modification is the most absolute denial of God which it is possible +for the human mind to conceive - while the view that God is in all His +creatures, He in them and they in Him, is only expressed in other words +by declaring that the main means of organic modification is, not luck, +but cunning.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +Footnotes:<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote17a"></a><a href="#citation17a">{17a}</a> “<i>Nature</i>,” +Nov. 12, 1885.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote20a"></a><a href="#citation20a">{20a}</a> “Hist. +Nat. Gén.,” tom. ii. p. 411, 1859.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote23a"></a><a href="#citation23a">{23a}</a> “Selections, +&c.” Trübner & Co., 1884. [Out of print.]<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote29a"></a><a href="#citation29a">{29a}</a> “Selections, +&c., and Remarks on Romanes’ ‘Mental Intelligence in +Animals,’” Trübner & Co., 1884. pp. 228, 229. +[Out of print.]<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote35a"></a><a href="#citation35a">{35a}</a> Quoted +by M. Vianna De Lima in his “Exposé Sommaire,” &c., +p. 6. Paris, Delagrave, 1886.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote40a"></a><a href="#citation40a">{40a}</a> I have +given the passage in full on p. 254a of my “Selections,” +&c. [Now out of print.] I observe that Canon Kingsley +felt exactly the same difficulty that I had felt myself, and saw also +how alone it could be met. He makes the wood-wren say, “Something +told him his mother had done it before him, and he was flesh of her +flesh, life of her life, and had inherited her instinct (as we call +hereditary memory, to avoid the trouble of finding out what it is and +how it comes).” - <i>Fraser, </i>June, 1867. Canon +Kingsley felt he must insist on the continued personality of the two +generations before he could talk about inherited memory. On the +other hand, though he does indeed speak of this as almost a synonym +for instinct, he seems not to have realised how right he was, and implies +that we should find some fuller and more satisfactory explanation behind +this, only that we are too lazy to look for it.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote44a"></a><a href="#citation44a">{44a}</a> 26 +Sept., 1877. “Unconscious Memory.” ch. ii.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote52a"></a><a href="#citation52a">{52a}</a> This +chapter is taken almost entirely from my book, “Selections, &c.. +and Remarks on Romanes’ ‘Mental Evolution in Animals.’” +Trübner, 1884. [Now out of print.]<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote52b"></a><a href="#citation52b">{52b}</a> “Mental +Evolution in Animals,” p. 113. Kegan Paul, Nov., 1883.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote52c"></a><a href="#citation52c">{52c}</a> Ibid. +p. 115.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote52d"></a><a href="#citation52d">{52d}</a> Ibid. +p. 116.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote53a"></a><a href="#citation53a">{53a}</a> “Mental +Evolution in Animals.” p. 131. Kegan Paul, Nov., 1883.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote54a"></a><a href="#citation54a">{54a}</a> Vol. +I, 3rd ed., 1874, p. 141, and Problem I. 21.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote54b"></a><a href="#citation54b">{54b}</a> “Mental +Evolution in Animals,” pp. 177, 178. Nov., 1883.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote55a"></a><a href="#citation55a">{55a}</a> “Mental +Evolution in Animals,” p. 192.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote55b"></a><a href="#citation55b">{55b}</a> <i>Ibid. +</i>p. 195.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote55c"></a><a href="#citation55c">{55c}</a> <i>Ibid. +</i>p. 296. Nov., 1883.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote56a"></a><a href="#citation56a">{56a}</a> “Mental +Evolution in Animals,” p. 33. Nov., 1883.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote56b"></a><a href="#citation56b">{56b}</a> <i>Ibid</i>., +p. 116.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote56c"></a><a href="#citation56c">{56c}</a> <i>Ibid., +</i>p. 178.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote59a"></a><a href="#citation59a">{59a}</a> “Evolution +Old and New,” pp. 357, 358.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote60a"></a><a href="#citation60a">{60a}</a> “Mental +Evolution in Animals,” p. 159. Kegan Paul & Co., 1883.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote61a"></a><a href="#citation61a">{61a}</a> “Zoonomia,” +vol. i. p. 484.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote61b"></a><a href="#citation61b">{61b}</a> “Mental +Evolution in Animals,” p. 297. Kegan Paul & Co., 1883.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote61c"></a><a href="#citation61c">{61c}</a> <i>Ibid</i>., +p. 201. Kegan Paul & Co., 1883.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote62a"></a><a href="#citation62a">{62a}</a> “Mental +Evolution in Animals,” p. 301. November, 1883.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote62b"></a><a href="#citation62b">{62b}</a> Origin +of Species,” ed. i. p. 209.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote62c"></a><a href="#citation62c">{62c}</a> <i>Ibid</i>., +ed. vi., 1876. p. 206.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote62d"></a><a href="#citation62d">{62d}</a> “Formation +of Vegetable Mould,” etc., p. 98.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote62e"></a><a href="#citation62e">{62e}</a> Quoted +by Mr. Romanes as written in the last year of Mr. Darwin’s life.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote63a"></a><a href="#citation63a">{63a}</a> Macmillan, +1883.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote66a"></a><a href="#citation66a">{66a}</a> “Nature,” +August 5, 1886.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote67a"></a><a href="#citation67a">{67a}</a> London, +H. K. Lewis, 1886.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote70a"></a><a href="#citation70a">{70a}</a> “Charles +Darwin.” Longmans, 1885.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote70b"></a><a href="#citation70b">{70b}</a> Lectures +at the London Institution, Feb., 1886.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote70c"></a><a href="#citation70c">{70c}</a> “Charles +Darwin.” Leipzig. 1885.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote72a"></a><a href="#citation72a">{72a}</a> See +Professor Hering’s “Zur Lehre von der Beziehung zwischen +Leib und Seele. Mittheilung über Fechner’s psychophysisches +Gesetz.”<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote73a"></a><a href="#citation73a">{73a}</a> Quoted +by M. Vianna De Lima in his “Exposé Sommaire des Théories +Transformistes de Lamarck, Darwin, et Hæckel.” Paris, +1886, p. 23.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote81a"></a><a href="#citation81a">{81a}</a> “Origin +of Species,” ed. i., p. 6; see also p. 43.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote83a"></a><a href="#citation83a">{83a}</a> “I +think it can be shown that there is such a power at work in ‘Natural +Selection’ (the title of my book).” - “Proceedings +of the Linnean Society for 1858,” vol. iii., p. 51.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote86a"></a><a href="#citation86a">{86a}</a> “On +Naval Timber and Arboriculture,” 1831, pp. 384, 385. See +also “Evolution Old and New,” pp. 320, 321.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote87a"></a><a href="#citation87a">{87a}</a> “Origin +of Species,” p. 49, ed. vi.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote92a"></a><a href="#citation92a">{92a}</a> “Origin +of Species,” ed. i., pp. 188, 189.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote93a"></a><a href="#citation93a">{93a}</a> Page +9.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote94a"></a><a href="#citation94a">{94a}</a> Page +226.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote96a"></a><a href="#citation96a">{96a}</a> “Journal +of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society.” Williams and +Norgate, 1858, p. 61.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote102a"></a><a href="#citation102a">{102a}</a> +“Zoonomia,” vol. i., p. 505.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote104a"></a><a href="#citation104a">{104a}</a> +See “Evolution Old and New.” p. 122.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote105a"></a><a href="#citation105a">{105a}</a> +“Phil. Zool.,” i., p. 80.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote105b"></a><a href="#citation105b">{105b}</a> +<i>Ibid., </i>i. 82.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote105c"></a><a href="#citation105c">{105c}</a> +<i>Ibid. </i>vol. i., p. 237.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote107a"></a><a href="#citation107a">{107a}</a> +See concluding chapter.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote122a"></a><a href="#citation122a">{122a}</a> +Report, 9, 26.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote135a"></a><a href="#citation135a">{135a}</a> +Ps. cii. 25-27, Bible version.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote136a"></a><a href="#citation136a">{136a}</a> +Ps. cxxxix., Prayer-book version.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote140a"></a><a href="#citation140a">{140a}</a> +<i>Contemporary Review, </i>August, 1885, p. 84.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote142a"></a><a href="#citation142a">{142a}</a> +London, David Bogue, 1881, p. 60.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote144a"></a><a href="#citation144a">{144a}</a> +August 12, 1886.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote150a"></a><a href="#citation150a">{150a}</a> +Paris, Delagrave, 1886.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote150b"></a><a href="#citation150b">{150b}</a> +Page 60.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote150c"></a><a href="#citation150c">{150c}</a> +“Œuvre complètes,” tom. ix. p. 422. Paris, +Garnier frères, 1875.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote150d"></a><a href="#citation150d">{150d}</a> +“Hist. Nat.,” tom. i., p. 13, 1749, quoted “Evol. +Old and New<i>,</i>”<i> </i>p. 108.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote156a"></a><a href="#citation156a">{156a}</a> +“Origin of Species,” ed. vi., p. 107.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote156b"></a><a href="#citation156b">{156b}</a> +<i>Ibid., </i>ed. vi., p. 166.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote157a"></a><a href="#citation157a">{157a}</a> +“Origin of Species,” ed. vi., p. 233.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote157b"></a><a href="#citation157b">{157b}</a> +<i>Ibid.<br> +<br> +</i><a name="footnote157c"></a><a href="#citation157c">{157c}</a> +<i>Ibid., </i>ed. vi., p. 109.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote157d"></a><a href="#citation157d">{157d}</a> +<i>Ibid., </i>ed. vi., p. 401.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote158a"></a><a href="#citation158a">{158a}</a> +“Origin of Species,” ed. i., p. 490.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote161a"></a><a href="#citation161a">{161a}</a> +<i> </i>“Origin of Species,” ed. vi., 1876, p. 171.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote163a"></a><a href="#citation163a">{163a}</a> +“Charles Darwin,” p. 113.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote164a"></a><a href="#citation164a">{164a}</a> +“Animals and Plants under Domestication,” vol. ii., p. 367, +ed. 1875.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote168a"></a><a href="#citation168a">{168a}</a> +Page 3.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote168b"></a><a href="#citation168b">{168b}</a> +Page 4.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote169a"></a><a href="#citation169a">{169a}</a> +It should be remembered this was the year in which the “Vestiges +of Creation” appeared.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote173a"></a><a href="#citation173a">{173a}</a> +“Charles Darwin,” p. 67.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote173b"></a><a href="#citation173b">{173b}</a> +H. S. King & Co., 1876.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote174a"></a><a href="#citation174a">{174a}</a> +Page 17.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote195a"></a><a href="#citation195a">{195a}</a> +“Phil. Zool.,” tom. i., pp. 34, 35.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote202a"></a><a href="#citation202a">{202a}</a> +“Origin of Species,” p. 381, ed. i.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote203a"></a><a href="#citation203a">{203a}</a> +Page 454, ed. i.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote205a"></a><a href="#citation205a">{205a}</a> +“Principles of Geology,” vol. ii., chap. xxxiv., ed. 1872.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote206a"></a><a href="#citation206a">{206a}</a> +“Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte,” p. 3. +Berlin, 1868.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote209a"></a><a href="#citation209a">{209a}</a> +See “Evolution Old and New,” pp. 8, 9.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote216a"></a><a href="#citation216a">{216a}</a> +“Vestiges,” &c., ed. 1860; Proofs, Illustrations, &c., +p. xiv.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote216b"></a><a href="#citation216b">{216b}</a> +<i>Examiner, </i>May 17, 1879, review of “Evolution Old and New.”<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote218a"></a><a href="#citation218a">{218a}</a> +Given in part in “Evolution Old and New.”<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote219a"></a><a href="#citation219a">{219a}</a> +“Mind,” p. 498, Oct., 1883.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote224a"></a><a href="#citation224a">{224a}</a> +“Degeneration,” 1880, p. 10.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote227a"></a><a href="#citation227a">{227a}</a> +E.g. the Rev. George Henslow, in “Modern Thought,” vol. +ii., No. 5, 1881.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote232a"></a><a href="#citation232a">{232a}</a> +“Nature,” Aug. 6, 1886.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote234a"></a><a href="#citation234a">{234a}</a> +See Mr. Darwin’s “Animals and Plants under Domestication,” +vol. i., p. 466, &c., ed. 1875.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote235a"></a><a href="#citation235a">{235a}</a> +Paris, 1873, Introd., p. vi.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote235b"></a><a href="#citation235b">{235b}</a> +“Hist. Nat. Gen.,” ii. 404, 1859.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote239a"></a><a href="#citation239a">{239a}</a> +As these pages are on the point of going to press, I see that the writer +of an article on Liszt in the “Athenæum” makes the +same emendation on Shakespeare’s words that I have done.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote240a"></a><a href="#citation240a">{240a}</a> +“Voyages of the <i>Adventure </i>and <i>Beagle</i>,” vol. +iii., p. 373. London, 1839.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote242a"></a><a href="#citation242a">{242a}</a> +See Professor Paley, “Fraser,” Jan., 1882, “Science +Gossip,” Nos. 162, 163, June and July, 1878, and “Nature,” +Jan. 3, Jan. 10, Feb. 28, and March 27, 1884.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote245a"></a><a href="#citation245a">{245a}</a> +“Formation of Vegetable Mould,” etc., p. 217. Murray, +1882.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote248a"></a><a href="#citation248a">{248a}</a> +“Fortnightly Review,” Jan., 1886.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote253a"></a><a href="#citation253a">{253a}</a> +“On the Growth of Trees and Protoplasmic Continuity.” +London, Stanford, 1886.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote260a"></a><a href="#citation260a">{260a}</a> +Sometimes called Mendelejeff’s (see “Monthly Journal of +Science,” April, 1884).<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote261a"></a><a href="#citation261a">{261a}</a> +I am aware that attempts have been made to say that we can conceive +a condition of matter, although there is no matter in connection with +it - as, for example, that we can have motion without anything moving +(see “Nature,” March 5, March 12, and April 9, 1885) - but +I think it little likely that this opinion will meet general approbation.<br> +<br> +<a name="footnote264a"></a><a href="#citation264a">{264a}</a> +Page 53.<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK, LUCK OR CUNNING? ***<br> +<pre> + +******This file should be named lckc10h.htm or lckc10h.zip****** +Corrected EDITIONS of our EBooks get a new NUMBER, lckc11h.htm +VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, lckc10ah.htm + +Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we usually do not +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +We are now trying to release all our eBooks one year in advance +of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing. +Please be encouraged to tell us about any error or corrections, +even years after the official publication date. + +Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til +midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement. +The official release date of all Project Gutenberg eBooks is at +Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month. A +preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment +and editing by those who wish to do so. + +Most people start at our Web sites at: +http://gutenberg.net or +http://promo.net/pg + +These Web sites include award-winning information about Project +Gutenberg, including how to donate, how to help produce our new +eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter (free!). + + +Those of you who want to download any eBook before announcement +can get to them as follows, and just download by date. This is +also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the +indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an +announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter. + +http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03 or +ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext03 + +Or /etext02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90 + +Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want, +as it appears in our Newsletters. + + +Information about Project Gutenberg (one page) + +We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work. The +time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours +to get any eBook selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright +searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc. Our +projected audience is one hundred million readers. If the value +per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2 +million dollars per hour in 2002 as we release over 100 new text +files per month: 1240 more eBooks in 2001 for a total of 4000+ +We are already on our way to trying for 2000 more eBooks in 2002 +If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total +will reach over half a trillion eBooks given away by year's end. + +The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away 1 Trillion eBooks! +This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers, +which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users. + +Here is the briefest record of our progress (* means estimated): + +eBooks Year Month + + 1 1971 July + 10 1991 January + 100 1994 January + 1000 1997 August + 1500 1998 October + 2000 1999 December + 2500 2000 December + 3000 2001 November + 4000 2001 October/November + 6000 2002 December* + 9000 2003 November* +10000 2004 January* + + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created +to secure a future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium. + +We need your donations more than ever! + +As of February, 2002, contributions are being solicited from people +and organizations in: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, +Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, +Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, +Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New +Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, +Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South +Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West +Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. + +We have filed in all 50 states now, but these are the only ones +that have responded. + +As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list +will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states. +Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state. + +In answer to various questions we have received on this: + +We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally +request donations in all 50 states. If your state is not listed and +you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have, +just ask. + +While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are +not yet registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting +donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to +donate. + +International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about +how to make them tax-deductible, or even if they CAN be made +deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are +ways. + +Donations by check or money order may be sent to: + +Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +PMB 113 +1739 University Ave. +Oxford, MS 38655-4109 + +Contact us if you want to arrange for a wire transfer or payment +method other than by check or money order. + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been approved by +the US Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN +[Employee Identification Number] 64-622154. Donations are +tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law. As fund-raising +requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be +made and fund-raising will begin in the additional states. + +We need your donations more than ever! + +You can get up to date donation information online at: + +http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html + + +*** + +If you can't reach Project Gutenberg, +you can always email directly to: + +Michael S. Hart hart@pobox.com + +Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message. + +We would prefer to send you information by email. + + +**The Legal Small Print** + + +(Three Pages) + +***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS**START*** +Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers. +They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with +your copy of this eBook, even if you got it for free from +someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our +fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement +disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how +you may distribute copies of this eBook if you want to. + +*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS EBOOK +By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +eBook, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept +this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive +a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this eBook by +sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person +you got it from. If you received this eBook on a physical +medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request. + +ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM EBOOKS +This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBooks, +is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart +through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project"). +Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright +on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and +distribute it in the United States without permission and +without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth +below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this eBook +under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark. + +Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market +any commercial products without permission. + +To create these eBooks, the Project expends considerable +efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain +works. Despite these efforts, the Project's eBooks and any +medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other +things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged +disk or other eBook medium, a computer virus, or computer +codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. + +LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES +But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below, +[1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any other party you may +receive this eBook from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook) disclaims +all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including +legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR +UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT, +INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE +OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE +POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. + +If you discover a Defect in this eBook within 90 days of +receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) +you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that +time to the person you received it from. If you received it +on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and +such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement +copy. If you received it electronically, such person may +choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to +receive it electronically. + +THIS EBOOK IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS +TO THE EBOOK OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A +PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or +the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the +above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you +may have other legal rights. + +INDEMNITY +You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation, +and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated +with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm +texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including +legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the +following that you do or cause: [1] distribution of this eBook, +[2] alteration, modification, or addition to the eBook, +or [3] any Defect. + +DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm" +You may distribute copies of this eBook electronically, or by +disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this +"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg, +or: + +[1] Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this + requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the + eBook or this "small print!" statement. You may however, + if you wish, distribute this eBook in machine readable + binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form, + including any form resulting from conversion by word + processing or hypertext software, but only so long as + *EITHER*: + + [*] The eBook, when displayed, is clearly readable, and + does *not* contain characters other than those + intended by the author of the work, although tilde + (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may + be used to convey punctuation intended by the + author, and additional characters may be used to + indicate hypertext links; OR + + [*] The eBook may be readily converted by the reader at + no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent + form by the program that displays the eBook (as is + the case, for instance, with most word processors); + OR + + [*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at + no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the + eBook in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC + or other equivalent proprietary form). + +[2] Honor the eBook refund and replacement provisions of this + "Small Print!" statement. + +[3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the + gross profits you derive calculated using the method you + already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you + don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are + payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation" + the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were + legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent + periodic) tax return. Please contact us beforehand to + let us know your plans and to work out the details. + +WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO? +Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of +public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed +in machine readable form. + +The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time, +public domain materials, or royalty free copyright licenses. +Money should be paid to the: +"Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or +software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at: +hart@pobox.com + +[Portions of this eBook's header and trailer may be reprinted only +when distributed free of all fees. Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 by +Michael S. Hart. Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be +used in any sales of Project Gutenberg eBooks or other materials be +they hardware or software or any other related product without +express permission.] + +*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS*Ver.02/11/02*END* +</pre></body> +</html> |