,transcribed from the #aibb ,jonathan ,cape edition by ,david ,price1 email ccx#jgdpglaf4org ,luck1 or ,cunning ,as the ,main ,means of ,organic ,modification8 ,picture3 ,decorative graphic 99 99 99 99 99 ,jonathan ,cape ,eleven ,gower ,street1 ,london 99 99 99 99 99 ,first ,published #ahhg ,second ,edition #aibj ,re-issued #aibb 99 99 99 99 99 ,,to ,,the ,,memory ,,of ,,the ,,late ,,alfred ,,taylor1 ,,esq41 c4 ,,whose ,,experiments ,,at ,,carshalton ,,in ,,the ,,years #ahhc ,,and #ahhd ,,established ,,that ,,plants ,,also ,,are ,,endowed ,,with ,,intelligential ,,and ,,volitional ,,faculties ,,this ,,book ,,begun ,,at ,,his ,,instigation ,,is ,,gratefully ,,and ,,affectionately ,,inscribed ,note ,,this second edition of ,luck1 or ,cunning8 is a reprint of the first edition1 dated #ahhg1 but actually published in ,november1 #ahhf4 ,the only alterations of any consequence are in the ,index1 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 executor1 ,mr4 ,r4 ,a4 ,streatfeild4 ,i thank ,mr4 ,g4 ,w4 ,webb1 of the ,university ,library1 ,cambridge1 for the care and skill with which he has made the necessary alterations2 it was a troublesome job because owing to the re-setting1 the pagination was no longer the same4 ,luck1 or ,cunning8 is the fourth of ,butler's evolution books2 it was followed in #ahij by three articles in ,the ,universal ,review entitled 8,the ,deadlock in ,darwinism0 7republished in ,the ,humour of ,homer71 after which he published no more upon that subject4 ,in this book1 as he says in his ,introduction1 he insists upon two main points3 7#a7 the substantial identity between heredity and memory1 and 7#b7 the reintroduction of design into organic development2 and these two points he treats as though they have something of that physical life with which they are so closely associated4 ,he was aware that what he had to say was likely to prove more interesting to future generations than to his immediate public1 8but 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 own40 ,by next year one half of the three-score years and ten will have passed1 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 subject1 and their readiness to listen to what was addressed to them as well as to their fathers4 ,,henry ,,festing ,,jones4 ,march1 #aibj4 ,author's ,preface to ,first ,edition ,,this book1 as ,i have said in my concluding chapter1 has turned out very different from the one ,i had it in my mind to write when ,i began it4 ,it arose out of a conversation with the late ,mr4 ,alfred ,tylor soon after his paper on the growth of trees and protoplasmic continuity was read before the ,linnean ,society--that is to say1 in ,december1 #ahhd--;and ,i proposed to make the theory concerning the subdivision of organic life into animal and vegetable1 which ,i have broached in my concluding chapter1 the main feature of the book4 ,one afternoon1 on leaving ,mr4 ,tylor's bedside1 much touched at the deep disappointment he evidently felt at being unable to complete the work he had begun so ably1 it occurred to me that it might be some pleasure to him if ,i promised to dedicate my own book to him1 and thus1 however unworthy it might be1 connect it with his name4 ,it occurred to me1 of course1 also that the honour to my own book would be greater than any it could confer1 but the time was not one for balancing considerations nicely1 and when ,i made my suggestion to ,mr4 ,tylor on the last occasion that ,i ever saw him1 the manner in which he received it settled the question4 ,if he had lived ,i should no doubt have kept more closely to my plan1 and should probably have been furnished by him with much that would have enriched the book and made it more worthy of his acceptance2 but this was not to be4 ,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 ,mr4 ,charles ,darwin's theory of natural selection amounted to1 and how it was that it ever came to be propounded4 ,until the mindless theory of ,charles ,darwinian natural selection was finally discredited1 and a mindful theory of evolution was substituted in its place1 neither ,mr4 ,tylor's experiments nor my own theories could stand much chance of being attended to4 ,i therefore devoted myself mainly1 as ,i had done in 8,evolution ,old and ,new10 and in 8,unconscious ,memory10 to considering whether the view taken by the late ,mr4 ,darwin1 or the one put forward by his three most illustrious predecessors1 should most command our assent4 ,the deflection from my original purpose was increased by the appearance1 about a year ago1 of ,mr4 ,grant ,allen's 8,charles ,darwin10 which ,i imagine to have had a very large circulation4 ,so important1 indeed1 did ,i think it not to leave ,mr4 ,allen's statements unchallenged1 that in ,november last ,i recast my book completely1 cutting out much that ,i had written1 and practically starting anew4 ,how far ,mr4 ,tylor would have liked it1 or even sanctioned its being dedicated to him1 if he were now living1 ,i cannot1 of course1 say4 ,i never heard him speak of the late ,mr4 ,darwin in any but terms of warm respect1 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 present4 ,on the other hand1 a promise made and received as mine was1 cannot be set aside lightly4 ,the understanding was that my next book was to be dedicated to ,mr4 ,tylor2 ,i have written the best ,i could1 and indeed never took so much pains with any other2 to ,mr4 ,tylor's memory1 therefore1 ,i have most respectfully1 and regretfully1 inscribed it4 ,desiring that the responsibility for what has been done should rest with me1 ,i have avoided saying anything about the book while it was in progress to any of ,mr ,tylor's family or representatives4 ,they know nothing1 therefore1 of its contents1 and if they did1 would probably feel with myself very uncertain how far it is right to use ,mr4 ,tylor's name in connection with it4 ,i can only trust that1 on the whole1 they may think ,i have done most rightly in adhering to the letter of my promise4 ,october #ae1 #ahhf4 ,contents ,page ,,note1 ,,by ,,henry ,,festing ,,jones #f ,,author',s ,,preface ,,to ,,first ,,edition #g ,i4 ,,introduction #ac ,,ii4 ,,mr4 ,,herbert ,,spencer #bh ,,iii4 ,,mr4 ,,herbert ,,spencer 7continued7 #db ,,iv4 ,,mr4 ,,romanes' 8,,mental ,,evolution ,,in ,,animals0 #eb ,v4 ,,statement ,,of ,,the ,,question ,,at ,,issue #gj ,,vi4 ,,statement ,,of ,,the ,,question ,,at ,,issue #hj 7continued7 ,,vii4 ,,mr4 ,,spencer',s 8,,the ,,factors ,,of ,,organic #ajj ,,evolution0 ,,viii4 ,,property1 ,,common ,,sense1 ,,and ,,protoplasm #aab ,,ix4 ,,property1 ,,common ,,sense1 ,,and ,,protoplasm #abe 7continued7 ,x4 ,,the ,,attempt ,,to ,,eliminate ,,mind #ace ,,xi4 ,,the ,,way ,,of ,,escape #adg ,,xii4 ,,why ,,darwin',s ,,variations ,,were ,,accidental #aef ,,xiii4 ,,darwin',s ,,claim ,,to ,,descent ,,with ,,modification #afh ,,xiv4 ,,darwin ,,and ,,descent ,,with ,,modification #agg 7continued7 ,,xv4 ,,the ,,excised 8,,my',s0 #bjb ,,xvi4 ,,mr4 ,,grant ,,allen',s 8,,charles ,,darwin0 #baa ,,xvii4 ,,professor ,,ray ,,lankester ,,and ,,lamarck #bbe ,,xviii4 ,,per ,,contra #bci ,,xix4 ,,conclusion #bea ,chapter ,i ,introduction ,i ,,shall perhaps best promote the acceptance of the two main points on which ,i have been insisting for some years past1 ,i mean1 the substantial identity between heredity and memory1 and the reintroduction of design into organic development1 by treating them as if they had something of that physical life with which they are so closely connected4 ,ideas are like plants and animals in this respect also1 as in so many others1 that they are more fully understood when their relations to other ideas of their time1 and the history of their development are known and borne in mind4 ,by development ,i do not merely mean their growth in the minds of those who first advanced them1 but that larger development which consists in their subsequent good or evil fortunes--in their reception1 favourable or otherwise1 by those to whom they were presented4 ,this is to an idea what its surroundings are to an organism1 and throws much the same light upon it that knowledge of the conditions under which an organism lives throws upon the organism itself4 ,i shall1 therefore1 begin this new work with a few remarks about its predecessors4 ,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 public1 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 own4 ,it is a condition of its survival that it shall do this1 and herein lies one of the author's chief difficulties4 ,if books only lived as long as men and women1 we should know better how to grow them2 as matters stand1 however1 the author lives for one or two generations1 whom he comes in the end to understand fairly well1 while the book1 if reasonable pains have been taken with it1 should live more or less usefully for a dozen4 ,about the greater number of these generations the author is in the dark2 but come what may1 some of them are sure to have arrived at conclusions diametrically opposed to our own upon every subject connected with art1 science1 philosophy1 and religion2 it is plain1 therefore1 that if posterity is to be pleased1 it can only be at the cost of repelling some present readers4 ,unwilling as ,i am to do this1 ,i still hold it the lesser of two evils2 ,i will be as brief1 however1 as the interests of the opinions ,i am supporting will allow4 ,in 8,life and ,habit0 ,i contended that heredity was a mode of memory4 ,i endeavoured to show that all hereditary traits1 whether of mind or body1 are inherited in virtue of1 and as a manifestation of1 the same power whereby we are able to remember intelligently what we did half an hour1 yesterday1 or a twelvemonth since1 and this in no figurative but in a perfectly real sense4 ,if life be compared to an equation of a hundred unknown quantities1 ,i followed ,professor ,hering of ,prague in reducing it to one of ninety-nine only1 by showing two of the supposed unknown quantities to be so closely allied that they should count as one4 ,i maintained that instinct was inherited memory1 and this without admitting more exceptions and qualifying clauses than arise1 as it were1 by way of harmonics from every proposition1 and must be neglected if thought and language are to be possible4 ,i showed that if the view for which ,i was contending was taken1 many facts which1 though familiar1 were still without explanation or connection with our other ideas1 would remain no longer isolated1 but be seen at once as joined with the mainland of our most assured convictions4 ,among the things thus brought more comfortably home to us was the principle underlying longevity4 ,it became apparent why some living beings should live longer than others1 and how any race must be treated whose longevity it is desired to increase4 ,hitherto we had known that an elephant was a long-lived animal and a fly short-lived1 but we could give no reason why the one should live longer than the other2 that is to say1 it did not follow in immediate coherence with1 or as intimately associated with1 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 early4 ,if the theory of 8,life and ,habit0 be admitted1 the fact of a slow-growing animal being in general longer lived than a quick developer is seen to be connected with1 and to follow as a matter of course from1 the fact of our being able to remember anything at all1 and all the well-known traits of memory1 as observed where we can best take note of them1 are perceived to be reproduced with singular fidelity in the development of an animal from its embryonic stages to maturity4 ,take this view1 and the very general sterility of hybrids from being a crux of the theory of descent becomes a stronghold of defence4 ,it appears as part of the same story as the benefit derived from judicious1 and the mischief from injudicious1 crossing2 and this1 in its turn1 is seen as part of the same story1 as the good we get from change of air and scene when we are overworked4 ,i will not amplify2 but reversion to long-lost1 or feral1 characteristics1 the phenomena of old age1 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 confinement1 the development in both males and females under certain circumstances of the characteristics of the opposite sex1 the latency of memory1 the unconsciousness with which we grow1 and indeed perform all familiar actions1 these points1 though hitherto1 most of them1 so apparently inexplicable that no one even attempted to explain them1 became at once intelligible1 if the contentions of 8,life and ,habit0 were admitted4 ,before ,i had finished writing this book ,i fell in with ,professor ,mivart's 8,genesis of ,species10 and for the first time understood the distinction between the ,lamarckian and ,charles-,darwinian systems of evolution4 ,this had not1 so far as ,i then knew1 been as yet made clear to us by any of our more prominent writers upon the subject of descent with modification2 the distinction was unknown to the general public1 and indeed is only now beginning to be widely understood4 ,while reading ,mr4 ,mivart's book1 however1 ,i became aware that ,i was being faced by two facts1 each incontrovertible1 but each1 if its leading exponents were to be trusted1 incompatible with the other4 ,on the one hand there was descent2 we could not read ,mr4 ,darwin's books and doubt that all1 both animals and plants1 were descended from a common source4 ,on the other1 there was design2 we could not read ,paley and refuse to admit that design1 intelligence1 adaptation of means to ends1 must have had a large share in the development of the life we saw around us2 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 estates4 ,we could not1 therefore1 dispense either with descent or with design1 and yet it seemed impossible to keep both1 for those who offered us descent stuck to it that we could have no design1 and those1 again1 who spoke so wisely and so well about design would not for a moment hear of descent with modification4 ,each1 moreover1 had a strong case4 ,who could reflect upon rudimentary organs1 and grant ,paley the kind of design that alone would content him8 ,and yet who could examine the foot or the eye1 and grant ,mr4 ,darwin his denial of forethought and plan8 ,for that ,mr4 ,darwin did deny skill and contrivance in connection with the greatly preponderating part of organic developments cannot be and is not now disputed4 ,in the first chapter of 8,evolution ,old and ,new0 ,i brought forward passages to show how completely he and his followers deny design1 but will here quote one of the latest of the many that have appeared to the same effect since 8,evolution ,old and ,new0 was published2 it is by ,mr4 ,romanes1 and runs as follows3-- 8,it is the very essence of the ,darwinian hypothesis that it only seeks to explain the apparently purposive variations1 or variations of an adaptive kind40 #ag;a ,the words 8apparently purposive0 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 say1 with a view to future function--had not1 according to ,mr4 ,darwin1 in reality any connection with1 or inception in1 effort2 effort involves purpose and design2 they had therefore no inception in design1 however much they might present the appearance of being designed2 the appearance was delusive2 ,mr4 ,romanes correctly declares it to be 8the very essence0 of ,mr4 ,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 design4 ,as it is indisputable that ,mr4 ,darwin denied design1 so neither can it be doubted that ,paley denied descent with modification4 ,what1 then1 were the wrong entries in these two sets of accounts1 on the detection and removal of which they would be found to balance as they ought8 ,paley's weakest place1 as already implied1 is in the matter of rudimentary organs2 the almost universal presence in the higher organisms of useless1 and sometimes even troublesome1 organs is fatal to the kind of design he is trying to uphold2 granted that there is design1 still it cannot be so final and far-foreseeing as he wishes to make it out4 ,mr4 ,darwin's weak place1 on the other hand1 lies1 firstly1 in the supposition that because rudimentary organs imply no purpose now1 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 time1 they never1 therefore1 could have been designed with an eye to any time or any circumstances2 and1 secondly1 in maintaining that 8accidental10 8fortuitous10 8spontaneous0 variations could be accumulated at all except under conditions that have never been fulfilled yet1 and never will be2 in other words1 his weak place lay in the contention 7for it comes to this7 that there can be sustained accumulation of bodily wealth1 more than of wealth of any other kind1 unless sustained experience1 watchfulness1 and good sense preside over the accumulation4 ,in 8,life and ,habit10 following ,mr4 ,mivart1 and1 as ,i now find1 ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer1 ,i showed 7pp4 #bgi-bha7 how impossible it was for variations to accumulate unless they were for the most part underlain by a sustained general principle2 but this subject will be touched upon more fully later on4 ,the accumulation of accidental variations which owed nothing to mind either in their inception1 or their accumulation1 the pitchforking1 in fact1 of mind out of the universe1 or at any rate its exclusion from all share worth talking about in the process of organic development1 this was the pill ,mr4 ,darwin had given us to swallow2 but so thickly had he gilded it with descent with modification1 that we did as we were told1 swallowed it without a murmur1 were lavish in our expressions of gratitude1 and1 for some twenty years or so1 through the mouths of our leading biologists1 ordered design peremptorily out of court1 if she so much as dared to show herself4 ,indeed1 we have even given life pensions to some of the most notable of these biologists1 ,i suppose in order to reward them for having hoodwinked us so much to our satisfaction4 ,happily the old saying1 ,naturam expellas furc1 tamen usque recurret1 still holds true1 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 ,mr4 ,darwin's reputation as a philosopher still try to fog our outlook4 ,professor ,mivart was1 as ,i have said1 among the first to awaken us to ,mr4 ,darwin's denial of design1 and to the absurdity involved therein4 ,he well showed how incredible ,mr ,darwin's system was found to be1 as soon as it was fully realised1 but there he rather left us4 ,he seemed to say that we must have our descent and our design too1 but he did not show how we were to manage this with rudimentary organs still staring us in the face4 ,his work rather led up to the clearer statement of the difficulty than either put it before us in so many words1 or tried to remove it4 ,nevertheless there can be no doubt that the 8,genesis of ,species0 gave ,natural ,selection what will prove sooner or later to be its death-blow1 in spite of the persistence with which many still declare that it has received no hurt1 and the sixth edition of the 8,origin of ,species10 published in the following year1 bore abundant traces of the fray4 ,moreover1 though ,mr4 ,mivart gave us no overt aid1 he pointed to the source from which help might come1 by expressly saying that his most important objection to ,neo-,darwinism had no force against ,lamarck4 ,to ,lamarck1 therefore1 ,i naturally turned1 and soon saw that the theory on which ,i had been insisting in 8,life and ,habit0 was in reality an easy corollary on his system1 though one which he does not appear to have caught sight of4 ,i saw also that his denial of design was only1 so to speak1 skin deep1 and that his system was in reality teleological1 inasmuch as1 to use ,isidore ,geoffroy's words1 it makes the organism design itself4 ,in making variations depend on changed actions1 and these1 again1 on changed views of life1 efforts1 and designs1 in consequence of changed conditions of life1 he in effect makes effort1 intention1 will1 all of which involve design 7or at any rate which taken together involve it71 underlie progress in organic development4 ,true1 he did not know he was a teleologist1 but he was none the less a teleologist for this4 ,he was an unconscious teleologist1 and as such perhaps more absolutely an upholder of teleology than ,paley himself2 but this is neither here nor there2 our concern is not with what people think about themselves1 but with what their reasoning makes it evident that they really hold4 ,how strange the irony that hides us from ourselves6 ,when ,isidore ,geoffroy said that according to ,lamarck organisms designed themselves1 #bj;a and endorsed this1 as to a great extent he did1 he still does not appear to have seen that either he or ,lamarck were in reality reintroducing design into organism2 he does not appear to have seen this more than ,lamarck himself had seen it1 but1 on the contrary1 like ,lamarck1 remained under the impression that he was opposing teleology or purposiveness4 ,of course in one sense he did oppose it2 so do we all1 if the word design be taken to intend a very far-foreseeing of minute details1 a riding out to meet trouble long before it comes1 a provision on academic principles for contingencies that are little likely to arise4 ,we can see no evidence of any such design as this in nature1 and much everywhere that makes against it4 ,there is no such improvidence as over providence1 and whatever theories we may form about the origin and development of the universe1 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 himself4 ,nature works departmentally and by way of leaving details to subordinates4 ,but though those who see nature thus do indeed deny design of the prescient-from-all-eternity order1 they in no way impugn a method which is far more in accord with all that we commonly think of as design4 ,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 one4 ,this principle is very simple1 but it seems rather difficult to understand4 ,it has taken several generations before people would admit it as regards organism even after it was pointed out to them1 and those who saw it as regards organism still failed to understand it as regards design2 an inexorable 8,thus far shalt thou go and no farther0 barred them from fruition of the harvest they should have been the first to reap4 ,the very men who most insisted that specific difference was the accumulation of differences so minute as to be often hardly1 if at all1 perceptible1 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 development1 and should be seen not as a result reached per saltum1 but as an accumulation of small steps or leaps in a given direction4 ,it was as though those who had insisted on the derivation of all forms of the steam-engine from the common kettle1 and who saw that this stands in much the same relations to the engines1 we will say1 of the ,great ,eastern steamship as the amba to man1 were to declare that the ,great ,eastern engines were not designed at all1 on the ground that no one in the early kettle days had foreseen so great a future development1 and were unable to understand that a piecemeal solvitur ambulando design is more omnipresent1 all-seeing1 and all-searching1 and hence more truly in the strictest sense design1 than any speculative leap of fancy1 however bold and even at times successful4 ,from ,lamarck ,i went on to ,buffon and ,erasmus ,darwin--better men both of them than ,lamarck1 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 writers1 if considered rightly1 and if the corollary that heredity is only a mode of memory were added1 would get us out of our dilemma as regards descent and design1 and enable us to keep both4 ,we could do this by making the design manifested in organism more like the only design of which we know anything1 and therefore the only design of which we ought to speak--,i mean our own4 ,our own design is tentative1 and neither very far-foreseeing nor very retrospective2 it is a little of both1 but much of neither2 it is like a comet with a little light in front of the nucleus and a good deal more behind it1 which ere long1 however1 fades away into the darkness2 it is of a kind that1 though a little wise before the event1 is apt to be much wiser after it1 and to profit even by mischance so long as the disaster is not an overwhelming one2 nevertheless1 though it is so interwoven with luck1 there is no doubt about its being design2 why1 then1 should the design which must have attended organic development be other than this8 ,if the thing that has been is the thing that also shall be1 must not the thing which is be that which also has been8 ,was there anything in the phenomena of organic life to militate against such a view of design as this8 ,not only was there nothing1 but this view made things plain1 as the connecting of heredity and memory had already done1 which till now had been without explanation4 ,rudimentary organs were no longer a hindrance to our acceptance of design1 they became weighty arguments in its favour4 ,i therefore wrote 8,evolution ,old and ,new10 with the object partly of backing up 8,life and ,habit10 and showing the easy rider it admitted1 partly to show how superior the old view of descent had been to ,mr4 ,darwin's1 and partly to reintroduce design into organism4 ,i wrote 8,life and ,habit0 to show that our mental and bodily acquisitions were mainly stores of memory3 ,i wrote 8,evolution ,old and ,new0 to add that the memory must be a mindful and designing memory4 ,i followed up these two books with 8,unconscious ,memory10 the main object of which was to show how ,professor ,hering of ,prague had treated the connection between memory and heredity2 to show1 again1 how substantial was the difference between ,von ,hartmann and myself in spite of some little superficial resemblance2 to put forward a suggestion as regards the physics of memory1 and to meet the most plausible objection which ,i have yet seen brought against 8,life and ,habit40 ,since writing these three books ,i have published nothing on the connection between heredity and memory1 except a few pages of remarks on ,mr4 ,romanes' 8,mental ,evolution in ,animals0 in my book1 #bc;a from which ,i will draw whatever seems to be more properly placed here4 ,i have collected many facts that make my case stronger1 but am precluded from publishing them by the reflection that it is strong enough already4 ,i have said enough in 8,life and ,habit0 to satisfy any who wish to be satisfied1 and those who wish to be dissatisfied would probably fail to see the force of what ,i said1 no matter how long and seriously ,i held forth to them2 ,i believe1 therefore1 that ,i shall do well to keep my facts for my own private reading and for that of my executors4 ,i once saw a copy of 8,life and ,habit0 on ,mr4 ,bogue's counter1 and was told by the very obliging shopman that a customer had just written something in it which ,i might like to see4 ,i said of course ,i should like to see1 and immediately taking the book read the following--which it occurs to me that ,i am not justified in publishing4 ,what was written ran thus3-- 8,as a reminder of our pleasant hours on the broad ,atlantic1 will ,mr4 -- please accept this book 7which ,i think contains more truth1 and less evidence of it1 than any other ,i have met with7 from his friend --80 ,i presume the gentleman had met with the ,bible--a work which lays itself open to a somewhat similar comment4 ,i was gratified1 however1 at what ,i had read1 and take this opportunity of thanking the writer1 an ,american1 for having liked my book4 ,it was so plain he had been relieved at not finding the case smothered to death in the weight of its own evidences1 that ,i resolved not to forget the lesson his words had taught me4 ,the only writer in connection with 8,life and ,habit0 to whom ,i am anxious to reply is ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer1 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 them4 ,these general criticisms have resolved themselves mainly into two4 ,firstly1 it is said that ,i ought not to write about biology on the ground of my past career1 which my critics declare to have been purely literary4 ,i wish ,i might indulge a reasonable hope of one day becoming a literary man2 the expression is not a good one1 but there is no other in such common use1 and this must excuse it2 if a man can be properly called literary1 he must have acquired the habit of reading accurately1 thinking attentively1 and expressing himself clearly4 ,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 en rapport with those whom he is studying1 and those whom he is addressing4 ,if he cannot speak with tongues himself1 he is the interpreter of those who can--without whom they might as well be silent4 ,i wish ,i could see more signs of literary culture among my scientific opponents2 ,i should find their books much more easy and agreeable reading if ,i could2 and then they tell me to satirise the follies and abuses of the age1 just as if it was not this that ,i was doing in writing about themselves4 ,what1 ,i wonder1 would they say if ,i were to declare that they ought not to write books at all1 on the ground that their past career has been too purely scientific to entitle them to a hearing8 ,they would reply with justice that ,i should not bring vague general condemnations1 but should quote examples of their bad writing4 ,i imagine that ,i have done this more than once as regards a good many of them1 and ,i dare say ,i may do it again in the course of this book2 but though ,i must own to thinking that the greater number of our scientific men write abominably1 ,i should not bring this against them if ,i believed them to be doing their best to help us2 many such men we happily have1 and doubtless always shall have1 but they are not those who push to the fore1 and it is these last who are most angry with me for writing on the subjects ,i have chosen4 ,they constantly tell me that ,i am not a man of science2 no one knows this better than ,i do1 and ,i am quite used to being told it1 but ,i am not used to being confronted with the mistakes that ,i have made in matters of fact1 and trust that this experience is one which ,i may continue to spare no pains in trying to avoid4 ,nevertheless ,i again freely grant that ,i am not a man of science4 ,i have never said ,i was4 ,i was educated for the ,church4 ,i was once inside the ,linnean ,society's rooms1 but have no present wish to go there again2 though not a man of science1 however1 ,i have never affected indifference to the facts and arguments which men of science have made it their business to lay before us2 on the contrary1 ,i have given the greater part of my time to their consideration for several years past4 ,i should not1 however1 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 convenience4 ,the second complaint against me is to the effect that ,i have made no original experiments1 but have taken all my facts at second hand4 ,this is true1 but ,i do not see what it has to do with the question4 ,if the facts are sound1 how can it matter whether ,a or ,b collected them8 ,if ,professor ,huxley1 for example1 has made a series of valuable original observations 7not that ,i know of his having done so71 why am ,i to make them over again8 ,what are fact-collectors worth if the fact co-ordinators may not rely upon them8 ,it seems to me that no one need do more than go to the best sources for his facts1 and tell his readers where he got them4 ,if ,i had had occasion for more facts ,i daresay ,i should have taken the necessary steps to get hold of them1 but there was no difficulty on this score2 every text-book supplied me with all1 and more than all1 ,i wanted2 my complaint was that the facts which ,mr4 ,darwin supplied would not bear the construction he tried to put upon them2 ,i tried1 therefore1 to make them bear another which seemed at once more sound and more commodious2 rightly or wrongly ,i set up as a builder1 not as a burner of bricks1 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 building4 ,let my opponents show that the facts which they and ,i use in common are unsound1 or that ,i have misapplied them1 and ,i will gladly learn my mistake1 but this has hardly1 to my knowledge1 been attempted4 ,to me it seems that the chief difference between myself and some of my opponents lies in this1 that ,i take my facts from them with acknowledgment1 and they take their theories from me--without4 ,one word more and ,i have done4 ,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 so4 ,my own share in the matter was very small4 ,the theory that heredity is only a mode of memory is not mine1 but ,professor ,hering's4 ,he wrote in #ahgj1 and ,i not till #ahgg4 ,i should be only too glad if he would take his theory and follow it up himself2 assuredly he could do so much better than ,i can2 but with the exception of his one not lengthy address published some fifteen or sixteen years ago he has said nothing upon the subject1 so far at least as ,i have been able to ascertain2 ,i tried hard to draw him in #ahhj1 but could get nothing out of him4 ,if1 again1 any of our more influential writers1 not a few of whom evidently think on this matter much as ,i do1 would eschew ambiguities and tell us what they mean in plain language1 ,i would let the matter rest in their abler hands1 but of this there does not seem much chance at present4 ,i wish there was1 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 so1 ,i must confess that ,i have found it somewhat of a white elephant4 ,it has got me into the hottest of hot water1 made a literary ,ishmael of me1 lost me friends whom ,i have been sorry to lose1 cost me a good deal of money1 done everything to me1 in fact1 which a good theory ought not to do4 ,still1 as it seems to have taken up with me1 and no one else is inclined to treat it fairly1 ,i shall continue to report its developments from time to time as long as life and health are spared me4 ,moreover1 ,ishmaels are not without their uses1 and they are not a drug in the market just now4 ,i may now go on to ,mr4 ,spencer4 ,chapter ,,ii ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer ,,mr4 ,,herbert ,,spencer wrote to the ,athenum 7,april #e1 #ahhd71 and quoted certain passages from the #ahee edition of his 8,principles of ,psychology10 8the meanings and implications0 from which he contended were sufficiently clear4 ,the passages he quoted were as follows3-- ,though it is manifest that reflex and instinctive sequences are not determined by the experiences of the individual organism manifesting them1 yet there still remains the hypothesis that they are determined by the experiences of the race of organisms forming its ancestry1 which by infinite repetition in countless successive generations have established these sequences as organic relations 7p4 #ebf74 ,the modified nervous tendencies produced by such new habits of life are also bequeathed 7p4 #ebf74 ,that is to say1 the tendencies to certain combinations of psychical changes have become organic 7p4 #ebg74 ,the doctrine that the connections among our ideas are determined by experience must1 in consistency1 be extended not only to all the connections established by the accumulated experiences of every individual1 but to all those established by the accumulated experiences of every race 7p4 #ebi74 ,here1 then1 we have one of the simpler forms of instinct which1 under the requisite conditions1 must necessarily be established by accumulated experiences 7p4 #edg74 ,and manifestly1 if the organisation of inner relations1 in correspondence with outer relations1 results from a continual registration of experiences1 c4 7p4 #eea74 ,on the one hand1 ,instinct may be regarded as a kind of organised memory2 on the other hand1 ,memory may be regarded as a kind of incipient instinct 7pp4 #eee-f74 ,memory1 then1 pertains to all that class of psychical states which are in process of being organised4 ,it continues so long as the organising of them continues2 and disappears when the organisation of them is complete4 ,in the advance of the correspondence1 each more complex class of phenomena which the organism acquires the power of recognising is responded to at first irregularly and uncertainly2 and there is then a weak remembrance of the relations4 ,by multiplication of experiences this remembrance becomes stronger1 and the response more certain4 ,by further multiplication of experiences the internal relations are at last automatically organised in correspondence with the external ones2 and so conscious memory passes into unconscious or organic memory4 ,at the same time1 a new and still more complex order of experiences is thus rendered appreciable2 the relations they present occupy the memory in place of the simpler one2 they become gradually organised2 and1 like the previous ones1 are succeeded by others more complex still 7p4 #efc74 ,just as we saw that the establishment of those compound reflex actions which we call instincts is comprehensible on the principle that inner relations are1 by perpetual repetition1 organised into correspondence with outer relations2 so the establishment of those consolidated1 those indissoluble1 those instinctive mental relations constituting our ideas of ,space and ,time1 is comprehensible on the same principle 7p4 #egi74 ,in a book published a few weeks before ,mr4 ,spencer's letter appeared #bi;a ,i had said that though ,mr4 ,spencer at times closely approached ,professor ,hering and 8,life and ,habit10 he had nevertheless nowhere shown that he considered memory and heredity to be parts of the same story and parcel of one another4 ,in his letter to the ,athenum1 indeed1 he does not profess to have upheld this view1 except 8by implications20 nor yet1 though in the course of the six or seven years that had elapsed since 8,life and ,habit0 was published ,i had brought out more than one book to support my earlier one1 had he said anything during those years to lead me to suppose that ,i was trespassing upon ground already taken by himself4 ,nor1 again1 had he said anything which enabled me to appeal to his authority--which ,i should have been only too glad to do2 at last1 however1 he wrote1 as ,i have said1 to the ,athenum a letter which1 indeed1 made no express claim1 and nowhere mentioned myself1 but 8the meanings and implications0 from which were this time as clear as could be desired1 and amount to an order to ,professor ,hering and myself to stand aside4 ,the question is1 whether the passages quoted by ,mr4 ,spencer1 or any others that can be found in his works1 show that he regarded heredity in all its manifestations as a mode of memory4 ,i submit that this conception is not derivable from ,mr4 ,spencer's writings1 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 8,life and ,habit40 ,true1 ,mr4 ,spencer made abundant use of such expressions as 8the experience of the race10 8accumulated experiences10 and others like them1 but he did not explain--and it was here the difficulty lay--how a race could have any experience at all4 ,we know what we mean when we say that an individual has had experience2 we mean that he is the same person now 7in the common use of the words71 on the occasion of some present action1 as the one who performed a like action at some past time or times1 and that he remembers how he acted before1 so as to be able to turn his past action to account1 gaining in proficiency through practice4 ,continued personality and memory are the elements that constitute experience2 where these are present there may1 and commonly will1 be experience2 where they are absent the word 8experience0 cannot properly be used4 ,formerly we used to see an individual as one1 and a race as many4 ,we now see that though this is true as far as it goes1 it is by no means the whole truth1 and that in certain important respects it is the race that is one1 and the individual many4 ,we all admit and understand this readily enough now1 but it was not understood when ,mr4 ,spencer wrote the passages he adduced in the letter to the ,athenum above referred to4 ,in the then state of our ideas a race was only a succession of individuals1 each one of them new persons1 and as such incapable of profiting by the experience of its predecessors except in the very limited number of cases where oral teaching1 or1 as in recent times1 writing1 was possible4 ,the thread of life was1 as ,i have elsewhere said1 remorselessly shorn between each successive generation1 and the importance of the physical and psychical connection between parents and offspring had been quite1 or nearly quite1 lost sight of4 ,it seems strange how this could ever have been allowed to come about1 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 what2 and1 after all1 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 convenient4 ,every now and then1 however1 there comes a tenth purpose1 for which the continued personality side of the connection between successive generations is as convenient as the new personality side is for the remaining nine1 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 other4 ,neither view is more true than the other1 but the one was wanted every hour and minute of the day1 and was therefore kept1 so to speak1 in stock1 and in one of the most accessible places of our mental storehouse1 while the other was so seldom asked for that it became not worth while to keep it4 ,by-and-by it was found so troublesome to send out for it1 and so hard to come by even then1 that people left off selling it at all1 and if any one wanted it he must think it out at home as best he could2 this was troublesome1 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 modification4 ,on the introduction of a foe so inimical to many of our pre-existing ideas the balance of power among them was upset1 and a readjustment became necessary1 which is still far from having attained the next settlement that seems likely to be reasonably permanent4 ,to change the illustration1 the ordinary view is true for seven places of decimals1 and this commonly is enough2 occasions1 however1 have now arisen when the error caused by neglect of the omitted places is appreciably disturbing1 and we must have three or four more4 ,mr4 ,spencer showed no more signs of seeing that he must supply these1 and make personal identity continue between successive generations before talking about inherited 7as opposed to post-natal and educational7 experience1 than others had done before him2 the race with him1 as with every one else till recently1 was not one long individual living indeed in pulsations1 so to speak1 but no more losing continued personality by living in successive generations1 than an individual loses it by living in consecutive days2 a race was simply a succession of individuals1 each one of which was held to be an entirely new person1 and was regarded exclusively1 or very nearly so1 from this point of view4 ,when ,i wrote 8,life and ,habit0 ,i knew that the words 8experience of the race0 sounded familiar1 and were going about in magazines and newspapers1 but ,i did not know where they came from2 if ,i had1 ,i should have given their source4 ,to me they conveyed no meaning1 and vexed me as an attempt to make me take stones instead of bread1 and to palm off an illustration upon me as though it were an explanation4 ,when ,i had worked the matter out in my own way1 ,i saw that the illustration1 with certain additions1 would become an explanation1 but ,i saw also that neither he who had adduced it nor any one else could have seen how right he was1 till much had been said which had not1 so far as ,i knew1 been said yet1 and which undoubtedly would have been said if people had seen their way to saying it4 8,what is this talk10 ,i wrote1 8which is made about the experience of the race1 as though the experience of one man could profit another who knows nothing about him8 ,if a man eats his dinner it nourishes him and not his neighbour2 if he learns a difficult art it is he that can do it and not his neighbour0 78,life and ,habit10 p4 #di74 ,when ,i wrote thus in #ahgg1 it was not generally seen that though the father is not nourished by the dinners that the son eats1 yet the son was fed when the father ate before he begot him4 8,is there any way10 ,i continued1 8of showing that this experience of the race about which so much is said without the least attempt to show in what way it may1 or does1 become the experience of the individual1 is in sober seriousness the experience of one single being only1 who repeats on a great many different occasions1 and in slightly different ways1 certain performances with which he has already become exceedingly familiar80 ,i felt1 as every one else must have felt who reflected upon the expression in question1 that it was fallacious till this was done4 ,when ,i first began to write 8,life and ,habit0 ,i did not believe it could be done1 but when ,i had gone right up to the end1 as it were1 of my cu de sac1 ,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 generations1 without also breaking it between the years1 days1 and moments of a man's life4 ,what differentiates 8,life and ,habit0 from the 8,principles of ,psychology0 is the prominence given to continued personal identity1 and hence to bon fide memory1 as between successive generations2 but surely this makes the two books differ widely4 ,ideas can be changed to almost any extent in almost any direction1 if the change is brought about gradually and in accordance with the rules of all development4 ,as in music we may take almost any possible discord with pleasing effect if we have prepared and resolved it rightly1 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 harmoniously4 ,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 cloak1 whereas ideas are unseen until they don the robe of words which reveals them to us2 the words1 however1 and the ideas1 should be such as fit each other and stick to one another in our minds as soon as they are brought together1 or the ideas will fly off1 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 impress4 ,whether a discord is too violent or no1 depends on what we have been accustomed to1 and on how widely the new differs from the old1 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 temper4 ,mr4 ,spencer appears to have forgotten that though de minimis non curat lex1--though all the laws fail when applied to trifles1--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 convulsions1 or too violent revolutions in politics4 ,this must always be the case1 for change is essentially miraculous1 and the only lawful home of the miracle is in the microscopically small4 ,here1 indeed1 miracles were in the beginning1 are now1 and ever shall be1 but we are deadened if they are required of us on a scale which is visible to the naked eye4 ,if we are told to work them our hands fall nerveless down2 if1 come what may1 we must do or die1 we are more likely to die than to succeed in doing4 ,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 hands1 and our minds being in the dark fuse something easier of assimilation1 and say we have fused the miracle2 or if we play more fairly and insist on our minds swallowing and assimilating it1 we weaken our judgments1 and pro tanto kill our souls4 ,if we stick out beyond a certain point we go mad1 as fanatics1 or at the best make ,coleridges of ourselves2 and yet upon a small scale these same miracles are the breath and essence of life2 to cease to work them is to die4 ,and by miracle ,i do not merely mean something new1 strange1 and not very easy of comprehension--,i mean something which violates every canon of thought which in the palpable world we are accustomed to respect2 something as alien to1 and inconceivable by1 us as contradiction in terms1 the destructibility of force or matter1 or the creation of something out of nothing4 ,this1 which when writ large maddens and kills1 writ small is our meat and drink2 it attends each minutest and most impalpable detail of the ceaseless fusion and diffusion in which change appears to us as consisting1 and which we recognise as growth and decay1 or as life and death4 ,claude ,bernard says1 ,rien ne nait1 rien ne se cre1 tout se continue4 ,la nature ne nous offre le spectacle d'aucune cration1 elle est d'une ternelle continuation2 #ce;a but surely he is insisting upon one side of the truth only1 to the neglect of another which is just as real1 and just as important2 he might have said1 ,rien ne se continue1 tout nait1 tout se cre4 ,la nature ne nous offre le spectacle d'aucune continuation4 ,elle est d'une ternelle cration2 for change is no less patent a fact than continuity1 and1 indeed1 the two stand or fall together4 ,true1 discontinuity1 where development is normal1 is on a very small scale1 but this is only the difference between looking at distances on a small instead of a large map2 we cannot have even the smallest change without a small partial corresponding discontinuity2 on a small scale--too small1 indeed1 for us to cognise--these breaks in continuity1 each one of which must1 so far as our understanding goes1 rank as a creation1 are as essential a factor of the phenomena we see around us1 as is the other factor that they shall normally be on too small a scale for us to find it out4 ,creations1 then1 there must be1 but they must be so small that practically they are no creations4 ,we must have a continuity in discontinuity1 and a discontinuity in continuity2 that is to say1 we can only conceive the help of change at all by the help of flat contradiction in terms4 ,it comes1 therefore1 to this1 that if we are to think fluently and harmoniously upon any subject into which change enters 7and there is no conceivable subject into which it does not71 we must begin by flying in the face of every rule that professors of the art of thinking have drawn up for our instruction4 ,these rules may be good enough as servants1 but we have let them become the worst of masters1 forgetting that philosophy is made for man1 not man for philosophy4 ,logic has been the true ,tower of ,babel1 which we have thought to build so that we might climb up into the heavens1 and have no more miracle1 but see ,god and live--nor has confusion of tongues failed to follow on our presumption4 ,truly ,st4 ,paul said well that the just shall live by faith2 and the question 8,by what faith80 is a detail of minor moment1 for there are as many faiths as species1 whether of plants or animals1 and each of them is in its own way both living and saving4 ,all1 then1 whether fusion or diffusion1 whether of ideas or things1 is miraculous4 ,it is the two in one1 and at the same time one in two1 which is only two and two making five put before us in another shape2 yet this fusion--so easy to think so long as it is not thought about1 and so unthinkable if we try to think it--is1 as it were1 the matrix from which our more thinkable thought is taken2 it is the cloud gathering in the unseen world from which the waters of life descend in an impalpable dew4 ,granted that all1 whether fusion or diffusion1 whether of ideas or things1 is1 if we dwell upon it and take it seriously1 an outrage upon our understandings which common sense alone enables us to brook2 granted that it carries with it a distinctly miraculous element which should vitiate the whole process ab initio1 still1 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 back1 and provided also we do not try to charm half a dozen ,eurydices at a time4 ,to think is to fuse and diffuse ideas1 and to fuse and diffuse ideas is to feed4 ,we can all feed1 and by consequence within reasonable limits we can fuse ideas2 or we can fuse ideas1 and by consequence within reasonable limits we can feed2 we know not which comes first1 the food or the ideas1 but we must not overtax our strength2 the moment we do this we taste of death4 ,it is in the closest connection with this that we must chew our food fine before we can digest it1 and that the same food given in large lumps will choke and kill which in small pieces feeds us2 or1 again1 that that which is impotent as a pellet may be potent as a gas4 ,food is very thoughtful3 through thought it comes1 and back through thought it shall return2 the process of its conversion and comprehension within our own system is mental as well as physical1 and here1 as everywhere else with mind and evolution1 there must be a cross1 but not too wide a cross--that is to say1 there must be a miracle1 but not upon a large scale4 ,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 unwholesome1 any more than he can prescribe the exact degree of fineness to which we must comminute our food2 granted1 again1 that some can do more than others1 and that at all times all men sport1 so to speak1 and surpass themselves1 still we know as a general rule near enough1 and find that the strongest can do but very little at a time1 and1 to return to ,mr4 ,spencer1 the fusion of two such hitherto unassociated ideas as race and experience was a miracle beyond our strength4 ,assuredly when ,mr4 ,spencer wrote the passages he quoted in the letter to the ,athenum above referred to1 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 of4 ,this notion will still strike many of my non-readers as harsh and strained2 no such discord1 therefore1 should have been taken unprepared1 and when taken it should have been resolved with pomp and circumstance4 ,mr ,spencer1 however1 though he took it continually1 never either prepared it or resolved it at all1 but by using the words 8experience of the race0 sprang this seeming paradox upon us1 with the result that his words were barren4 ,they were barren because they were incoherent2 they were incoherent because they were approached and quitted too suddenly4 ,while we were realising 8experience0 our minds excluded 8race10 inasmuch as experience was an idea we had been accustomed hitherto to connect only with the individual2 while realising the idea 8race10 for the same reason1 we as a matter of course excluded experience4 ,we were required to fuse two ideas that were alien to one another1 without having had those other ideas presented to us which would alone flux them4 ,the absence of these--which indeed were not immediately ready to hand1 or ,mr4 ,spencer would have doubtless grasped them--made nonsense of the whole thing2 we saw the ideas propped up as two cards one against the other1 on one of ,mr4 ,spencer's pages1 only to find that they had fallen asunder before we had turned over to the next1 so we put down his book resentfully1 as written by one who did not know what to do with his meaning even if he had one1 or bore it meekly while he chastised us with scorpions1 as ,mr4 ,darwin had done with whips1 according to our temperaments4 ,i may say1 in passing1 that the barrenness of incoherent ideas1 and the sterility of widely distant species and genera of animals and plants1 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 whole1 as barrenness of ideas is1 and1 indeed1 resolving itself ultimately into neither more nor less than barrenness of ideas--that is to say1 into inability to think at all1 or at any rate to think as their neighbours do4 ,if ,mr4 ,spencer had made it clear that the generations of any race are bon fide united by a common personality1 and that in virtue of being so united each generation remembers 7within1 of course1 the limits to which all memory is subject7 what happened to it while still in the persons of its progenitors--then his order to ,professor ,hering and myself should be immediately obeyed2 but this was just what was at once most wanted1 and least done by ,mr4 ,spencer4 ,even in the passages given above--passages collected by ,mr4 ,spencer himself--this point is altogether ignored2 make it clear as ,professor ,hering made it--put continued personality and memory in the foreground as ,professor ,hering did1 instead of leaving them to be discovered 8by implications10 and then such expressions as 8accumulated experiences0 and 8experience of the race0 become luminous2 till this had been done they were ,vox et prterea nihil4 ,to sum up briefly4 ,the passages quoted by ,mr4 ,spencer from his 8,principles of ,psychology0 can hardly be called clear1 even now that ,professor ,hering and others have thrown light upon them4 ,if1 indeed1 they had been clear ,mr4 ,spencer would probably have seen what they necesitated1 and found the way of meeting the difficulties of the case which occurred to ,professor ,hering and myself4 ,till we wrote1 very few writers had even suggested this4 ,the idea that offspring was only 8an elongation or branch proceeding from its parents0 had scintillated in the ingenious brain of ,dr4 ,erasmus ,darwin1 and in that of the designer of ,jesse tree windows1 but it had kindled no fire2 it now turns out that ,canon ,kingsley had once called instinct inherited memory1 #dj;a but the idea1 if born alive at all1 died on the page on which it saw light3 ,professor ,ray ,lankester1 again called attention to ,professor ,hering's address 7,nature1 ,july #ac1 #ahgf71 but no discussion followed1 and the matter dropped without having produced visible effect4 ,as for offspring remembering in any legitimate sense of the words what it had done1 and what had happened to it1 before it was born1 no such notion was understood to have been gravely mooted till very recently4 ,i doubt whether ,mr4 ,spencer and ,mr4 ,romanes would accept this even now1 when it is put thus undisguisedly2 but this is what ,professor ,hering and ,i mean1 and it is the only thing that should be meant1 by those who speak of instinct as inherited memory4 ,mr ,spencer cannot maintain that these two startling novelties went without saying 8by implication0 from the use of such expressions as 8accumulated experiences0 or 8experience of the race40 ,chapter ,,iii ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer 7continued7 ,,whether they ought to have gone or not1 they did not go4 ,when 8,life and ,habit0 was first published no one considered ,mr4 ,spencer to be maintaining the phenomena of heredity to be in reality phenomena of memory4 ,when1 for example1 ,professor ,ray ,lankester first called attention to ,professor ,hering's address1 he did not understand ,mr4 ,spencer to be intending this4 8,professor ,hering10 he wrote 7,nature1 ,july #ac1 #ahgf71 8helps us to a comprehensive view of the nature of heredity and adaptation1 by giving us the word #8memory1' conscious or unconscious1 for the continuity of ,mr4 ,spencer's polar forces or polarities of physiological units40 ,he evidently found the prominence given to memory a help to him which he had not derived from reading ,mr4 ,spencer's works4 ,when1 again1 he attacked me in the ,athenum 7,march #bi1 #ahhd71 he spoke of my 8tardy recognition0 of the fact that ,professor ,hering had preceded me 8in treating all manifestations of heredity as a form of memory40 ,professor ,lankester's words could have no force if he held that any other writer1 and much less so well known a writer as ,mr4 ,spencer1 had preceded me in putting forward the theory in question4 ,when ,mr4 ,romanes reviewed 8,unconscious ,memory0 in ,nature 7,january #bg1 #ahha7 the notion of a 8race-memory10 to use his own words1 was still so new to him that he declared it 8simply absurd0 to suppose that it could 8possibly be fraught with any benefit to science10 and with him too it was ,professor ,hering who had anticipated me in the matter1 not ,mr4 ,spencer4 ,in his 8,mental ,evolution in ,animals0 7p4 #bif7 he said that ,canon ,kingsley1 writing in #ahfg1 was the first to advance the theory that instinct is inherited memory2 he could not have said this if ,mr4 ,spencer had been understood to have been upholding this view for the last thirty years4 ,mr4 ,a4 ,r4 ,wallace reviewed 8,life and ,habit0 in ,nature 7,march #bg1 #ahgi71 but he did not find the line ,i had taken a familiar one1 as he surely must have done if it had followed easily by implication from ,mr4 ,spencer's works4 ,he called it 8an ingenious and paradoxical explanation0 which was evidently new to him4 ,he concluded by saying that 8it might yet afford a clue to some of the deepest mysteries of the organic world40 ,professor ,mivart1 when he reviewed my books on ,evolution in the ,american ,catholic ,quarterly ,review 7,july #ahha71 said1 8,mr ,butler is not only perfectly logical and consistent in the startling consequences he deduces from his principles1 but10 c4 ,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 day4 ,the reviewer of 8,evolution ,old and ,new0 in the ,saturday ,review 7,march #ca1 #ahgi71 of whom all ,i can venture to say is that he or she is a person whose name carries weight in matters connected with biology1 though he 7for brevity7 was in the humour for seeing everything objectionable in me that could be seen1 still saw no ,mr4 ,spencer in me4 ,he said--8,mr ,butler's own particular contribution to the terminology of ,evolution is the phrase two or three times repeated with some emphasis0 7,i repeated it not two or three times only1 but whenever and wherever ,i could venture to do so without wearying the reader beyond endurance7 8oneness of personality between parents and offspring40 ,the writer proceeded to reprobate this in language upon which a ,huxley could hardly improve1 but as he declares himself unable to discover what it means1 it may be presumed that the idea of continued personality between successive generations was new to him4 ,when ,dr4 ,francis ,darwin called on me a day or two before 8,life and ,habit0 went to the press1 he said the theory which had pleased him more than any he had seen for some time was one which referred all life to memory2 #dd;a he doubtless intended 8which referred all the phenomena of heredity to memory40 ,he then mentioned ,professor ,ray ,lankester's article in ,nature1 of which ,i had not heard1 but he said nothing about ,mr4 ,spencer1 and spoke of the idea as one which had been quite new to him4 ,the above names comprise 7excluding ,mr4 ,spencer himself7 perhaps those of the best-known writers on evolution that can be mentioned as now before the public2 it is curious that ,mr ,spencer should be the only one of them to see any substantial resemblance between the 8,principles of ,psychology0 and ,professor ,hering's address and 8,life and ,habit40 ,i ought1 perhaps1 to say that ,mr4 ,romanes1 writing to the ,athenum 7,march #h1 #ahhd71 took a different view of the value of the theory of inherited memory to the one he took in #ahha4 ,in #ahha he said it was 8simply absurd0 to suppose it could 8possibly be fraught with any benefit to science0 or 8reveal any truth of profound significance20 in #ahhd he said of the same theory1 that 8it formed the backbone of all the previous literature upon instinct0 by ,darwin1 ,spencer1 ,lewes1 ,fiske1 and ,spalding1 8not to mention their numerous followers1 and is by all of them elaborately stated as clearly as any theory can be stated in words40 ,few except ,mr4 ,romanes will say this4 ,i grant it ought to 8have formed the backbone10 c41 and ought 8to have been elaborately stated10 c41 but when ,i wrote 8,life and ,habit0 neither ,mr ,romanes nor any one else understood it to have been even glanced at by more than a very few1 and as for having been 8elaborately stated10 it had been stated by ,professor ,hering as elaborately as it could be stated within the limits of an address of only twenty-two pages1 but with this exception it had never been stated at all4 ,it is not too much to say that 8,life and ,habit10 when it first came out1 was considered so startling a paradox that people would not believe in my desire to be taken seriously1 or at any rate were able to pretend that they thought ,i was not writing seriously4 ,mr4 ,romanes knows this just as well as all must do who keep an eye on evolution2 he himself1 indeed1 had said 7,nature1 ,january #bg1 #ahha7 that so long as ,i 8aimed only at entertaining0 my 8readers by such works as #8,erewhon' and #8,life and ,habit'0 7as though these books were of kindred character7 ,i was in my proper sphere4 ,it would be doing too little credit to ,mr4 ,romanes' intelligence to suppose him not to have known when he said this that 8,life and ,habit0 was written as seriously as my subsequent books on evolution1 but it suited him at the moment to join those who professed to consider it another book of paradoxes such as1 ,i suppose1 8,erewhon0 had been1 so he classed the two together4 ,he could not have done this unless enough people thought1 or said they thought1 the books akin1 to give colour to his doing so4 ,one alone of all my reviewers has1 to my knowledge1 brought ,mr4 ,spencer against me4 ,this was a writer in the ,st4 ,james's ,gazette 7,december #b1 #ahhj74 ,i challenged him in a letter which appeared 7,december #h1 #ahhj71 and said1 8,i would ask your reviewer to be kind enough to refer your readers to those passages of ,mr4 ,spencer's 8,principles of ,psychology0 which in any direct intelligible way refer the phenomena of instinct and heredity generally1 to memory on the part of offspring of the action it bon fide took in the persons of its forefathers40 ,the reviewer made no reply1 and ,i concluded1 as ,i have since found correctly1 that he could not find the passages4 ,true1 in his 8,principles of ,psychology0 7vol4 ii4 p4 #aie7 ,mr4 ,spencer says that we have only to expand the doctrine that all intelligence is acquired through experience 8so as to make it include with the experience of each individual the experiences of all ancestral individuals10 c4 ,this is all very good1 but it is much the same as saying1 8,we have only got to stand on our heads and we shall be able to do so and so40 ,we did not see our way to standing on our heads1 and ,mr4 ,spencer did not help us2 we had been accustomed1 as ,i am afraid ,i must have said usque ad nauseam already1 to lose sight of the physical connection existing between parents and offspring2 we understood from the marriage service that husband and wife were in a sense one flesh1 but not that parents and children were so also2 and without this conception of the matter1 which in its way is just as true as the more commonly received one1 we could not extend the experience of parents to offspring4 ,it was not in the bond or nexus of our ideas to consider experience as appertaining to more than a single individual in the common acceptance of the term2 these two ideas were so closely bound together that wherever the one went the other went perforce4 ,here1 indeed1 in the very passage of ,mr4 ,spencer's just referred to1 the race is throughout regarded as 8a series of individuals0--without an attempt to call attention to that other view1 in virtue of which we are able to extend to many an idea we had been accustomed to confine to one4 ,in his chapter on ,memory1 ,mr4 ,spencer certainly approaches the ,heringian view4 ,he says1 8,on the one hand1 ,instinct may be regarded as a kind of organised memory2 on the other1 ,memory may be regarded as a kind of incipient instinct0 78,principles of ,psychology10 ed4 #b1 vol4 i4 p4 #dde74 ,here the ball has fallen into his hands1 but if he had got firm hold of it he could not have written1 8,instinct may be regarded as a kind of1 c420 to us there is neither 8may be regarded as0 nor 8kind of0 about it2 we require1 8,instinct is inherited memory10 with an explanation making it intelligible how memory can come to be inherited at all4 ,i do not like1 again1 calling memory 8a kind of incipient instinct20 as ,mr4 ,spencer puts them the words have a pleasant antithesis1 but 8instinct is inherited memory0 covers all the ground1 and to say that memory is inherited instinct is surplusage4 ,nor does he stick to it long when he says that 8instinct is a kind of organised memory10 for two pages later he says that memory1 to be memory at all1 must be tolerably conscious or deliberate2 he1 therefore 7vol4 i4 p4 #ddg71 denies that there can be such a thing as unconscious memory2 but without this it is impossible for us to see instinct as the 8kind of organised memory0 which he has just been calling it1 inasmuch as instinct is notably undeliberate and unreflecting4 ,a few pages farther on 7vol4 i4 p4 #deb7 he finds himself driven to unconscious memory after all1 and says that 8conscious memory passes into unconscious or organic memory40 ,having admitted unconscious memory1 he declares 7vol4 i4 p4 #dej7 that 8as fast as those connections among psychical states1 which we form in memory1 grow by constant repetition automatic--they cease to be part of memory10 or1 in other words1 he again denies that there can be an unconscious memory4 ,mr4 ,spencer doubtless saw that he was involved in contradiction in terms1 and having always understood that contradictions in terms were very dreadful things--which1 of course1 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 moment4 ,i should be the last to complain of him merely on the ground that he could not escape contradiction in terms3 who can8 ,when facts conflict1 contradict one another1 melt into one another as the colours of the spectrum so insensibly that none can say where one begins and the other ends1 contradictions in terms become first fruits of thought and speech4 ,they are the basis of intellectual consciousness1 in the same way that a physical obstacle is the basis of physical sensation4 ,no opposition1 no sensation1 applies as much to the psychical as to the physical kingdom1 as soon as these two have got well above the horizon of our thoughts and can be seen as two4 ,no contradiction1 no consciousness2 no cross1 no crown2 contradictions are the very small deadlocks without which there is no going2 going is our sense of a succession of small impediments or deadlocks2 it is a succession of cutting ,gordian knots1 which on a small scale please or pain as the case may be2 on a larger1 give an ecstasy of pleasure1 or shock to the extreme of endurance2 and on a still larger1 kill whether they be on the right side or the wrong4 ,nature1 as ,i said in 8,life and ,habit10 hates that any principle should breed hermaphroditically1 but will give to each an helpmeet for it which shall cross it and be the undoing of it2 and in the undoing1 do2 and in the doing1 undo1 and so ad infinitum4 ,cross-fertilisation is just as necessary for continued fertility of ideas as for that of organic life1 and the attempt to frown this or that down merely on the ground that it involves contradiction in terms1 without at the same time showing that the contradiction is on a larger scale than healthy thought can stomach1 argues either small sense or small sincerity on the part of those who make it4 ,the contradictions employed by ,mr4 ,spencer are objectionable1 not on the ground of their being contradictions at all1 but on the ground of their being blinked1 and used unintelligently4 ,but though it is not possible for any one to get a clear conception of ,mr4 ,spencer's meaning1 we may say with more confidence what it was that he did not mean4 ,he did not mean to make memory the keystone of his system2 he has none of that sense of the unifying1 binding force of memory which ,professor ,hering has so well expressed1 nor does he show any signs of perceiving the far-reaching consequences that ensue if the phenomena of heredity are considered as phenomena of memory4 ,thus1 when he is dealing with the phenomena of old age 7vol4 i4 p4 #ech1 ed4 #b7 he does not ascribe them to lapse and failure of memory1 nor surmise the principle underlying longevity4 ,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 cricket2 it is only rarely1 however1 that he connects the two at all4 ,i have only been able to find the word 8inherited0 or any derivative of the verb 8to inherit0 in connection with memory once in all the #acjj long pages of the 8,principles of ,psychology40 ,it occurs in vol ii4 p4 #bjj1 #b;d ed41 where the words stand1 8,memory1 inherited or acquired40 ,i submit that this was unintelligible when ,mr4 ,spencer wrote it1 for want of an explanation which he never gave2 ,i submit1 also1 that he could not have left it unexplained1 nor yet as an unrepeated expression not introduced till late in his work1 if he had had any idea of its pregnancy4 ,at any rate1 whether he intended to imply what he now implies that he intended to imply 7for ,mr4 ,spencer1 like the late ,mr4 ,darwin1 is fond of qualifying phrases71 ,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 meant4 ,surely1 moreover1 if he had meant it he would have spoken sooner1 when he saw his meaning had been missed4 ,i can1 however1 have no hesitation in saying that if ,i had known the 8,principles of ,psychology0 earlier1 as well as ,i know the work now1 ,i should have used it largely4 ,it may be interesting1 before we leave ,mr4 ,spencer1 to see whether he even now assigns to continued personality and memory the place assigned to it by ,professor ,hering and myself4 ,i will therefore give the concluding words of the letter to the ,athenum already referred to1 in which he tells us to stand aside4 ,he writes 8,i still hold that inheritance of functionally produced modifications is the chief factor throughout the higher stages of organic evolution1 bodily as well as mental 7see #8,principles of ,biology1' i4 #aff71 while ,i recognise the truth that throughout the lower stages survival of the fittest is the chief factor1 and in the lowest the almost exclusive factor40 ,this is the same confused and confusing utterance which ,mr4 ,spencer has been giving us any time this thirty years4 ,according to him the fact that variations can be inherited and accumulated has less to do with the first development of organic life1 than the fact that if a square organism happens to get into a square hole1 it will live longer and more happily than a square organism which happens to get into a round one2 he declares 8the survival of the fittest0--and this is nothing but the fact that those who 8fit0 best into their surroundings will live longest and most comfortably--to have more to do with the development of the amba into1 we will say1 a mollusc than heredity itself4 ,true1 8inheritance of functionally produced modifications0 is allowed to be the chief factor throughout the 8higher stages of organic evolution10 but it has very little to do in the lower2 in these 8the almost exclusive factor0 is not heredity1 or inheritance1 but 8survival of the fittest40 ,of course we know that ,mr4 ,spencer does not believe this2 of course1 also1 all who are fairly well up in the history of the development theory will see why ,mr4 ,spencer has attempted to draw this distinction between the 8factors0 of the development of the higher and lower forms of life2 but no matter how or why ,mr4 ,spencer has been led to say what he has1 he has no business to have said it4 ,what can we think of a writer who1 after so many years of writing upon his subject1 in a passage in which he should make his meaning doubly clear1 inasmuch as he is claiming ground taken by other writers1 declares that though hereditary use and disuse1 or1 to use his own words1 8the inheritance of functionally produced modifications10 is indeed very important in connection with the development of the higher forms of life1 yet heredity itself has little or nothing to do with that of the lower8 ,variations1 whether produced functionally or not1 can only be perpetuated and accumulated because they can be inherited2--and this applies just as much to the lower as to the higher forms of life2 the question which ,professor ,hering and ,i have tried to answer is1 8,how comes it that anything can be inherited at all8 ,in virtue of what power is it that offspring can repeat and improve upon the performances of their parents80 ,our answer was1 8,because in a very valid sense1 though not perhaps in the most usually understood1 there is continued personality and an abiding memory between successive generations40 ,how does ,mr4 ,spencer's confession of faith touch this8 ,if any meaning can be extracted from his words1 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 ago2 but after all no coherent meaning can be got out of ,mr4 ,spencer's letter--except1 of course1 that ,professor ,hering and myself are to stand aside4 ,i have abundantly shown that ,i am very ready to do this in favour of ,professor ,hering1 but see no reason for admitting ,mr4 ,spencer's claim to have been among the forestallers of 8,life and ,habit40 ,chapter ,,iv #eb;a ,mr4 ,romanes' 8,mental ,evolution in ,animals0 ,,without raising the unprofitable question how ,mr4 ,romanes1 in spite of the indifference with which he treated the theory of ,inherited ,memory in #ahha1 came1 in #ahhc1 to be sufficiently imbued with a sense of its importance1 ,i still cannot afford to dispense with the weight of his authority1 and in this chapter will show how closely he not infrequently approaches the ,heringian position4 ,thus1 he says that the analogies between the memory with which we are familiar in daily life and hereditary memory 8are so numerous and precise0 as to justify us in considering them to be of essentially the same kind4 #eb;b ,again1 he says that although the memory of milk shown by new-born infants is 8at all events in large part hereditary1 it is none the less memory0 of a certain kind4 #eb;c ,two lines lower down he writes of 8hereditary memory or instinct10 thereby implying that instinct is 8hereditary memory40 8,it makes no essential difference10 he says1 8whether the past sensation was actually experienced by the individual itself1 or bequeathed it1 so to speak1 by its ancestors4 #eb;d ,for it makes no essential difference whether the nervous changes 4 4 4 were occasioned during the life-time of the individual or during that of the species1 and afterwards impressed by heredity on the individual40 ,lower down on the same page he writes3-- 8,as showing how close is the connection between hereditary memory and instinct10 c4 ,and on the following page3-- 8,and this shows how closely the phenomena of hereditary memory are related to those of individual memory3 at this stage 4 4 4 it is practically impossible to disentangle the effects of hereditary memory from those of the individual40 ,again3-- 8,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 experience4 ,we have already seen that heredity plays an important part in forming memory of ancestral experiences1 and thus it is that many animals come into the world with their power of perception already largely developed4 ,the wealth of ready-formed information1 and therefore of ready-made powers of perception1 with which many newly-born or newly-hatched animals are provided1 is so great and so precise that it scarcely requires to be supplemented by the subsequent experience of the individual40 #ec;a ,again3-- 8,instincts probably owe their origin and development to one or other of the two principles4 8,i4 ,the first mode of origin consists in natural selection or survival of the fittest1 continuously preserving actions1 c4 c4 8,,ii4 ,the second mode of origin is as follows3--,by the effects of habit in successive generations1 actions which were originally intelligent become as it were stereotyped into permanent instincts4 ,just as in the lifetime of the individual adjustive actions which were originally intelligent may by frequent repetition become automatic1 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 prepared1 even before individual experience1 to perform adjustive actions mechanically which in previous generations were performed intelligently4 ,this mode of origin of instincts has been appropriately called 7by ,lewes--see 8,problems of ,life and ,mind0 #ed;a7 the #8lapsing of intelligence4'0 #ed;b ,i may say in passing that in spite of the great stress laid by ,mr4 ,romanes both in his 8,mental ,evolution in ,animals0 and in his letters to the ,athenum in ,march #ahhd1 on ,natural ,selection as an originator and developer of instinct1 he very soon afterwards let the ,natural ,selection part of the story go as completely without saying as ,i do myself1 or as ,mr4 ,darwin did during the later years of his life4 ,writing to ,nature1 ,april #aj1 #ahhd1 he said3 8,to deny that experience in the course of successive generations is the source of instinct1 is not to meet by way of argument the enormous mass of evidence which goes to prove that this is the case40 ,here1 then1 instinct is referred1 without reservation1 to 8experience in successive generations10 and this is nonsense unless explained as ,professor ,hering and ,i explain it4 ,mr4 ,romanes' words1 in fact1 amount to an unqualified acceptance of the chapter 8,instinct as ,inherited ,memory0 given in 8,life and ,habit10 of which ,mr4 ,romanes in ,march #ahhd wrote in terms which it is not necessary to repeat4 ,later on3-- 8,that #8practice makes perfect' is a matter1 as ,i have previously said1 of daily observation4 ,whether we regard a juggler1 a pianist1 or a billiard-player1 a child learning his lesson or an actor his part by frequently repeating it1 or a thousand other illustrations of the same process1 we see at once that there is truth in the cynical definition of a man as a #8bundle of habits4' ,and the same1 of course1 is true of animals40 #ee;a ,from this ,mr4 ,romanes goes on to show 8that automatic actions and conscious habits may be inherited10 #ee;b and in the course of doing this contends that 8instincts may be lost by disuse1 and conversely that they may be acquired as instincts by the hereditary transmission of ancestral experience40 ,on another page ,mr4 ,romanes says3-- 8,let us now turn to the second of these two assumptions1 viz41 that some at least among migratory birds must possess1 by inheritance alone1 a very precise knowledge of the particular direction to be pursued4 ,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 year1 and without any guide to show the course previously taken by its own parents1 but this is a fact which must be met by any theory of instinct which aims at being complete4 ,now upon our own theory it can only be met by taking it to be due to inherited memory40 ,a little lower ,mr4 ,romanes says3 8,of what kind1 then1 is the inherited memory on which the young cuckoo 7if not also other migratory birds7 depends8 ,we can only answer1 of the same kind1 whatever this may be1 as that upon which the old bird depends40 #ee;c ,i have given above most of the more marked passages which ,i have been able to find in ,mr4 ,romanes' book which attribute instinct to memory1 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 another4 ,but throughout his work there are passages which suggest1 though less obviously1 the same inference4 ,the passages ,i have quoted show that ,mr4 ,romanes is upholding the same opinions as ,professor ,hering's and my own1 but their effect and tendency is more plain here than in ,mr ,romanes' own book1 where they are overlaid by nearly #djj long pages of matter which is not always easy of comprehension4 ,moreover1 at the same time that ,i claim the weight of ,mr4 ,romanes' authority1 ,i am bound to admit that ,i do not find his support satisfactory4 ,the late ,mr4 ,darwin himself--whose mantle seems to have fallen more especially and particularly on ,mr4 ,romanes--could not contradict himself more hopelessly than ,mr4 ,romanes often does4 ,indeed in one of the very passages ,i have quoted in order to show that ,mr4 ,romanes accepts the phenomena of heredity as phenomena of memory1 he speaks of 8heredity as playing an important part in forming memory of ancestral experiences20 so that1 whereas ,i want him to say that the phenomena of heredity are due to memory1 he will have it that the memory is due to the heredity1 which seems to me absurd4 ,over and over again ,mr4 ,romanes insists that it is heredity which does this or that4 ,thus it is 8heredity with natural selection which adapt the anatomical plan of the ganglia40 #ef;a ,it is heredity which impresses nervous changes on the individual4 #ef;b 8,in the lifetime of species actions originally intelligent may by frequent repetition and heredity10 c42 #ef;c but he nowhere tells us what heredity is any more than ,messrs4 ,herbert ,spencer1 ,darwin1 and ,lewes have done4 ,this1 however1 is exactly what ,professor ,hering1 whom ,i have unwittingly followed1 does4 ,he resolves all phenomena of heredity1 whether in respect of body or mind1 into phenomena of memory4 ,he says in effect1 8,a man grows his body as he does1 and a bird makes her nest as she does1 because both man and bird remember having grown body and made nest as they now do1 or very nearly so1 on innumerable past occasions40 ,he thus1 as ,i have said on an earlier page1 reduces life from an equation of say #ajj unknown quantities to one of #ii only by showing that heredity and memory1 two of the original #ajj unknown quantities1 are in reality part of one and the same thing4 ,that he is right ,mr4 ,romanes seems to me to admit1 though in a very unsatisfactory way4 ,what1 for example1 can be more unsatisfactory than the following8--,mr4 ,romanes says that the most fundamental principle of mental operation is that of memory1 and that this 8is the conditio sine qu non of all mental life0 7page #ce74 ,i do not understand ,mr4 ,romanes to hold that there is any living being which has no mind at all1 and ,i do understand him to admit that development of body and mind are closely interdependent4 ,if1 then1 8the most fundamental principle0 of mind is memory1 it follows that memory enters also as a fundamental principle into development of body4 ,for mind and body are so closely connected that nothing can enter largely into the one without correspondingly affecting the other4 ,on a later page ,mr4 ,romanes speaks point-blank of the new-born child as 8embodying the results of a great mass of hereditary experience0 7p4 #gg71 so that what he is driving at can be collected by those who take trouble1 but is not seen until we call up from our own knowledge matter whose relevancy does not appear on the face of it1 and until we connect passages many pages asunder1 the first of which may easily be forgotten before we reach the second4 ,there can be no doubt1 however1 that ,mr4 ,romanes does in reality1 like ,professor ,hering and myself1 regard development1 whether of mind or body1 as due to memory1 for it is now pretty generally seen to be nonsense to talk about 8hereditary experience0 or 8hereditary memory0 if anything else is intended4 ,i have said above that on page #aac of his recent work ,mr4 ,romanes declares the analogies between the memory with which we are familiar in daily life1 and hereditary memory1 to be 8so numerous and precise0 as to justify us in considering them as of one and the same kind4 ,this is certainly his meaning1 but1 with the exception of the words within inverted commas1 it is not his language4 ,his own words are these3-- 8,profound1 however1 as our ignorance unquestionably is concerning the physical substratum of memory1 ,i think we are at least justified in regarding this substratum as the same both in ganglionic or organic1 and in the conscious or psychological memory1 seeing that the analogies between them are so numerous and precise4 ,consciousness is but an adjunct which arises when the physical processes1 owing to infrequency of repetition1 complexity of operation1 or other causes1 involve what ,i have before called ganglionic friction40 ,i submit that ,i have correctly translated ,mr4 ,romanes' meaning1 and also that we have a right to complain of his not saying what he has to say in words which will involve less 8ganglionic friction0 on the part of the reader4 ,another example may be found on p4 #dc of ,mr4 ,romanes' book4 8,lastly10 he writes1 8just as innumerable special mechanisms of muscular co-ordinations are found to be inherited1 innumerable special associations of ideas are found to be the same1 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 occurred40 ,mr4 ,romanes is here intending what the reader will find insisted on on p4 #ea of 8,life and ,habit20 but how difficult he has made what could have been said intelligibly enough1 if there had been nothing but the reader's comfort to be considered4 ,unfortunately that seems to have been by no means the only thing of which ,mr4 ,romanes was thinking1 or why1 after implying and even saying over and over again that instinct is inherited habit due to inherited memory1 should he turn sharply round on p4 #big and praise ,mr4 ,darwin for trying to snuff out 8the well-known doctrine of inherited habit as advanced by ,lamarck08 ,the answer is not far to seek4 ,it is because ,mr4 ,romanes did not merely want to tell us all about instinct1 but wanted also1 if ,i may use a homely metaphor1 to hunt with the hounds and run with the hare at one and the same time4 ,i remember saying that if the late ,mr4 ,darwin 8had told us what the earlier evolutionists said1 why they said it1 wherein he differed from them1 and in what way he proposed to set them straight1 he would have taken a course at once more agreeable with usual practice1 and more likely to remove misconception from his own mind and from those of his readers40 #ei;a ,this ,i have no doubt was one of the passages which made ,mr4 ,romanes so angry with me4 ,i can find no better words to apply to ,mr4 ,romanes himself4 ,he knows perfectly well what others have written about the connection between heredity and memory1 and he knows no less well that so far as he is intelligible at all he is taking the same view that they have taken4 ,if he had begun by saying what they had said1 and had then improved on it1 ,i for one should have been only too glad to be improved upon4 ,mr4 ,romanes has spoiled his book just because this plain old-fashioned method of procedure was not good enough for him4 ,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 ,mr4 ,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 agreement4 ,he adopts1 but 7probably quite unconsciously7 in his anxiety to avoid appearing to adopt1 he obscures what he is adopting4 ,here1 for example1 is ,mr4 ,romanes' definition of instinct3-- 8,instinct is reflex action into which there is imported the element of consciousness4 ,the term is therefore a generic one1 comprising all those faculties of mind which are concerned in conscious and adaptive action1 antecedent to individual experience1 without necessary knowledge of the relation between means employed and ends attained1 but similarly performed under similar and frequently recurring circumstances by all the individuals of the same species40 #fj;a ,if ,mr4 ,romanes would have been content to build frankly upon ,professor ,hering's foundation1 the soundness of which he has elsewhere abundantly admitted1 he might have said-- 8,instinct is knowledge or habit acquired in past generations--the new generation remembering what happened to it before it parted company with the old4 ,more briefly1 ,instinct is inherited memory40 ,then he might have added a rider-- 8,if a habit is acquired as a new one1 during any given lifetime1 it is not an instinct4 ,if having been acquired in one lifetime it is transmitted to offspring1 it is an instinct in the offspring1 though it was not an instinct in the parent4 ,if the habit is transmitted partially1 it must be considered as partly instinctive and partly acquired40 ,this is easy2 it tells people how they may test any action so as to know what they ought to call it2 it leaves well alone by avoiding all such debatable matters as reflex action1 consciousness1 intelligence1 purpose1 knowledge of purpose1 c42 it both introduces the feature of inheritance which is the one mainly distinguishing instinctive from so-called intelligent actions1 and shows the manner in which these last pass into the first1 that is to say1 by way of memory and habitual repetition2 finally it points the fact that the new generation is not to be looked upon as a new thing1 but 7as ,dr4 ,erasmus ,darwin long since said #fa;a7 as 8a branch or elongation0 of the one immediately preceding it4 ,in ,mr4 ,darwin's case it is hardly possible to exaggerate the waste of time1 money and trouble that has been caused1 by his not having been content to appear as descending with modification like other people from those who went before him4 ,it will take years to get the evolution theory out of the mess in which ,mr4 ,darwin has left it4 ,he was heir to a discredited truth2 he left behind him an accredited fallacy4 ,mr4 ,romanes1 if he is not stopped in time1 will get the theory connecting heredity and memory into just such another muddle as ,mr4 ,darwin has got evolution1 for surely the writer who can talk about 8heredity being able to work up the faculty of homing into the instinct of migration10 #fa;b or of 8the principle of 7natural7 selection combining with that of lapsing intelligence to the formation of a joint result10 #fa;c is little likely to depart from the usual methods of scientific procedure with advantage either to himself or any one else4 ,fortunately ,mr4 ,romanes is not ,mr4 ,darwin1 and though he has certainly got ,mr4 ,darwin's mantle1 and got it very much too1 it will not on ,mr4 ,romanes' shoulders hide a good deal that people were not going to observe too closely while ,mr4 ,darwin wore it4 ,i ought to say that the late ,mr4 ,darwin appears himself eventually to have admitted the soundness of the theory connecting heredity and memory4 ,mr4 ,romanes quotes a letter written by ,mr4 ,darwin in the last year of his life1 in which he speaks of an intelligent action gradually becoming 8instinctive1 i4e41 memory transmitted from one generation to another40 #fb;a ,briefly1 the stages of ,mr4 ,darwin's opinion upon the subject of hereditary memory are as follows3-- #ahei4 8,it would be the most serious error to suppose that the greater number of instincts have been acquired by habit in one generation and transmitted by inheritance to succeeding generations40 #fb;b ,and this more especially applies to the instincts of many ants4 #ahgf4 8,it would be a serious error to suppose10 c41 as before4 #fb;c #ahha4 8,we should remember what a mass of inherited knowledge is crowded into the minute brain of a worker ant40 #fb;d #ahha or #ahhb4 ,speaking of a given habitual action ,mr4 ,darwin writes3 8,it does not seem to me at all incredible that this action and why this more than any other habitual action8 should then become instinctive30 i4e41 memory transmitted from one generation to another4 #fb;e ,and yet in #ahci1 or thereabouts1 ,mr4 ,darwin had pretty nearly grasped the conception from which until the last year or two of his life he so fatally strayed2 for in his contribution to the volumes giving an account of the voyages of the ,adventure and ,beagle1 he wrote3 8,nature by making habit omnipotent and its effects hereditary1 has fitted the ,fuegian for the climate and productions of his country0 7p4 #bcg74 ,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 man8 ,i imagine simply what ,i have referred to in the preceding chapter1 over-anxiety to appear to be differing from his grandfather1 ,dr4 ,erasmus ,darwin1 and ,lamarck4 ,i believe ,i may say that ,mr4 ,darwin before he died not only admitted the connection between memory and heredity1 but came also to see that he must readmit that design in organism which he had so many years opposed4 ,for in the preface to ,hermann ,mller's 8,fertilisation of ,flowers10 #fc;a which bears a date only a very few weeks prior to ,mr4 ,darwin's death1 ,i find him saying3--8,design in nature has for a long time deeply interested many men1 and though the subject must now be looked at from a somewhat different point of view from what was formerly the case1 it is not on that account rendered less interesting40 ,this is mused forth as a general gnome1 and may mean anything or nothing3 the writer of the letterpress under the hieroglyph in ,old ,moore's ,almanac could not be more guarded2 but ,i think ,i know what it does mean4 ,i cannot1 of course1 be sure2 ,mr4 ,darwin did not probably intend that ,i should2 but ,i assume with confidence that whether there is design in organism or no1 there is at any rate design in this passage of ,mr4 ,darwin's4 ,this1 we may be sure1 is not a fortuitous variation2 and1 moreover1 it is introduced for some reason which made ,mr4 ,darwin think it worth while to go out of his way to introduce it4 ,it has no fitness in its connection with ,hermann ,mller's book1 for what little ,hermann ,mller says about teleology at all is to condemn it2 why1 then1 should ,mr4 ,darwin muse here of all places in the world about the interest attaching to design in organism8 ,neither has the passage any connection with the rest of the preface4 ,there is not another word about design1 and even here ,mr4 ,darwin seems mainly anxious to face both ways1 and pat design as it were on the head while not committing himself to any proposition which could be disputed4 ,the explanation is sufficiently obvious4 ,mr ,darwin wanted to hedge4 ,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 designed1 had nevertheless found its way back again1 and that though1 as ,i insisted in 8,evolution ,old and ,new10 and 8,unconscious ,memory10 it must now be placed within the organism instead of outside it1 as 8was formerly the case10 it was not on that account any the less--design1 as well as interesting4 ,i should like to have seen ,mr4 ,darwin say this more explicitly4 ,indeed ,i should have liked to have seen ,mr4 ,darwin say anything at all about the meaning of which there could be no mistake1 and without contradicting himself elsewhere2 but this was not ,mr4 ,darwin's manner4 ,in passing ,i will give another example of ,mr ,darwin's manner when he did not quite dare even to hedge4 ,it is to be found in the preface which he wrote to ,professor ,weismann's 8,studies in the ,theory of ,descent10 published in #ahha4 8,several distinguished naturalists10 says ,mr4 ,darwin1 8maintain with much confidence that organic beings tend to vary and to rise in the scale1 independently of the conditions to which they and their progenitors have been exposed2 whilst others maintain that all variation is due to such exposure1 though the manner in which the environment acts is as yet quite unknown4 ,at the present time there is hardly any question in biology of more importance than this of the nature and causes of variability2 and the reader will find in the present work an able discussion on the whole subject1 which will probably lead him to pause before he admits the existence of an innate tendency to perfectibility0--or towards being able to be perfected4 ,i could find no able discussion upon the whole subject in ,professor ,weismann's book4 ,there was a little something here and there1 but not much4 ,it may be expected that ,i should say something here about ,mr4 ,romanes' latest contribution to biology--,i mean his theory of physiological selection1 of which the two first instalments have appeared in ,nature just as these pages are leaving my hands1 and many months since the foregoing1 and most of the following chapters were written4 ,i admit to feeling a certain sense of thankfulness that they did not appear earlier2 as it is1 my book is too far advanced to be capable of further embryonic change1 and this must be my excuse for saying less about ,mr4 ,romanes' theory than ,i might perhaps otherwise do4 ,i cordially1 however1 agree with the ,times1 which says that 8,mr4 ,george ,romanes appears to be the biological investigator on whom the mantle of ,mr4 ,darwin has most conspicuously descended0 7,august #af1 #ahhf74 ,mr4 ,romanes is just the person whom the late ,mr4 ,darwin would select to carry on his work1 and ,mr4 ,darwin was just the kind of person towards whom ,mr4 ,romanes would find himself instinctively attracted4 ,the ,times continues--8,the position which ,mr4 ,romanes takes up is the result of his perception shared by many evolutionists1 that the theory of natural selection is not really a theory of the origin of species4 4 4 40 ,what1 then1 becomes of ,mr4 ,darwin's most famous work1 which was written expressly to establish natural selection as the main means of organic modification8 8,the new factor which ,mr4 ,romanes suggests10 continues the ,times1 8is that at a certain stage of development of varieties in a state of nature a change takes place in their reproductive systems1 rendering those which differ in some particulars mutually infertile1 and thus the formation of new permanent species takes place without the swamping effect of free intercrossing4 4 4 4 ,how his theory can be properly termed one of selection he fails to make clear4 ,if correct1 it is a law or principle of operation rather than a process of selection4 ,it has been objected to ,mr4 ,romanes' theory that it is the re-statement of a fact4 ,this objection is less important than the lack of facts in support of the theory40 ,the ,times1 however1 implies it as its opinion that the required facts will be forthcoming by and by1 and that when they have been found ,mr4 ,romanes' suggestion will constitute 8the most important addition to the theory of evolution since the publication of the #8,origin of ,species4'0 ,considering that the ,times has just implied the main thesis of the 8,origin of ,species0 to be one which does not stand examination1 this is rather a doubtful compliment4 ,neither ,mr4 ,romanes nor the writer in the ,times 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 from2 they do not appear to see that though the expression natural selection must be always more or less objectionable1 as too highly charged with metaphor for purposes of science1 there is nevertheless a natural selection which is open to no other objection than this1 and which1 when its metaphorical character is borne well in mind1 may be used without serious risk of error1 whereas natural selection from variations that are mainly fortuitous is chimerical as well as metaphorical4 ,both writers speak of natural selection as though there could not possibly be any selection in the course of nature1 or natural survival1 of any but accidental variations4 ,thus ,mr4 ,romanes says3 #ff;a 8,the swamping effect of free inter-crossing upon an individual variation constitutes perhaps the most formidable difficulty with which the theory of natural selection is beset40 ,and the writer of the article in the ,times above referred to says3 8,in truth the theory of natural selection presents many facts and results which increase rather than diminish the difficulty of accounting for the existence of species40 ,the assertion made in each case is true if the ,charles-,darwinian selection from fortuitous variations is intended1 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 application4 ,it is not likely that a man of ,mr4 ,romanes' antecedents should not be perfectly awake to considerations so obvious as the foregoing1 and ,i am afraid ,i am inclined to consider his whole suggestion as only an attempt upon the part of the wearer of ,mr4 ,darwin's mantle to carry on ,mr4 ,darwin's work in ,mr4 ,darwin's spirit4 ,i have seen ,professor ,hering's theory adopted recently more unreservedly by ,dr4 ,creighton in his 8,illustrations of ,unconscious ,memory in ,disease40 #fg;a ,dr4 ,creighton avowedly bases his system on ,professor ,hering's address1 and endorses it2 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 memory4 ,in 8,life and ,habit0 ,i expressed a hope that the opinions it upheld would be found useful by medical men1 and am therefore the more glad to see that this has proved to be the case4 ,i may perhaps be pardoned if ,i quote the passage in 8,life and ,habit0 to which ,i am referring4 ,it runs3-- 8,mutatis mutandis1 the above would seem to hold as truly about medicine as about politics4 ,we cannot reason with our cells1 for they know so much more0 7of course ,i mean 8about their own business07 8than we do1 that they cannot understand us2--but though we cannot reason with them1 we can find out what they have been most accustomed to1 and what1 therefore1 they are most likely to expect2 we can see that they get this as far as it is in our power to give it them1 and may then generally leave the rest to them1 only bearing in mind that they will rebel equally against too sudden a change of treatment and no change at all0 7p4 #cje74 ,dr4 ,creighton insists chiefly on the importance of change1 which--though ,i did not notice his saying so--he would doubtless see as a mode of cross-fertilisation1 fraught in all respects with the same advantages as this1 and requiring the same precautions against abuse2 he would not1 however1 ,i am sure1 deny that there could be no fertility of good results if too wide a cross were attempted1 so that ,i may claim the weight of his authority as supporting both the theory of an unconscious memory in general1 and the particular application of it to medicine which ,i had ventured to suggest4 8,has the word #8memory1'0 he asks1 8a real application to unconscious organic phenomena1 or do we use it outside its ancient limits only in a figure of speech80 8,if ,i had thought10 he continues later1 8that unconscious memory was no more than a metaphor1 and the detailed application of it to these various forms of disease merely allegorical1 ,i should still have judged it not unprofitable to represent a somewhat hackneyed class of maladies in the light of a parable4 ,none of our faculties is more familiar to us in its workings than the memory1 and there is hardly any force or power in nature which every one knows so well as the force of habit4 ,to say that a neurotic subject is like a person with a retentive memory1 or that a diathesis gradually acquired is like an over-mastering habit1 is at all events to make comparisons with things that we all understand4 8,for reasons given chiefly in the first chapter1 ,i conclude that retentiveness1 with reproduction1 is a single undivided faculty throughout the whole of our life1 whether mental or bodily1 conscious or unconscious2 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 figurative40 7p4 #b47 ,as a natural consequence of the foregoing he regards 8alterative action0 as 8habit-breaking action40 ,as regards the organism's being guided throughout its development to maturity by an unconscious memory1 ,dr4 ,creighton says that 8,professor ,bain calls reproduction the acme of organic complication40 8,i should prefer to say10 he adds1 8the acme of organic implication2 for the reason that the sperm and germ elements are perfectly simple1 having nothing in their form or structure to show for the marvellous potentialities within them4 8,i now come to the application of these considerations to the doctrine of unconscious memory4 ,if generation is the acme of organic implicitness1 what is its correlative in nature1 what is the acme of organic explicitness8 ,obviously the fine flower of consciousness4 ,generation is implicit memory1 consciousness is explicit memory2 generation is potential memory1 consciousness is actual memory40 ,i am not sure that ,i understand the preceding paragraph as clearly as ,i should wish1 but having quoted enough to perhaps induce the reader to turn to ,dr4 ,creighton's book1 ,i will proceed to the subject indicated in my title4 ,chapter ,v ,statement of the ,question at ,issue ,,of the two points referred to in the opening sentence of this book--,i mean the connection between heredity and memory1 and the reintroduction of design into organic modification--the second is both the more important and the one which stands most in need of support4 ,the substantial identity between heredity and memory is becoming generally admitted2 as regards my second point1 however1 ,i cannot flatter myself that ,i have made much way against the formidable array of writers on the neo-,darwinian side2 ,i shall therefore devote the rest of my book as far as possible to this subject only4 ,natural selection 7meaning 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 function7 has been1 to use an ,americanism than which ,i can find nothing apter1 the biggest biological boom of the last quarter of a century2 it is not1 therefore1 to be wondered at that ,professor ,ray ,lankester1 ,mr4 ,romanes1 ,mr4 ,grant ,allen1 and others1 should show some impatience at seeing its value as prime means of modification called in question4 ,within the last few months1 indeed1 ,mr4 ,grant ,allen #gj;a and ,professor ,ray ,lankester #gj;b in ,england1 and ,dr4 ,ernst ,krause #gj;c in ,germany1 have spoken and written warmly in support of the theory of natural selection1 and in opposition to the views taken by myself2 if they are not to be left in possession of the field the sooner they are met the better4 ,stripped of detail the point at issue is this2--whether luck or cunning is the fitter to be insisted on as the main means of organic development4 ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck answered this question in favour of cunning4 ,they settled it in favour of intelligent perception of the situation--within1 of course1 ever narrower and narrower limits as organism retreats farther backwards from ourselves--and persistent effort to turn it to account4 ,they made this the soul of all development whether of mind or body4 ,and they made it1 like all other souls1 liable to aberration both for better and worse4 ,they held that some organisms show more ready wit and savoir faire than others2 that some give more proofs of genius and have more frequent happy thoughts than others1 and that some have even gone through waters of misery which they have used as wells4 ,the sheet anchor both of ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck is in good sense and thrift2 still they are aware that money has been sometimes made by 8striking oil10 and ere now been transmitted to descendants in spite of the haphazard way in which it was originally acquired4 ,no speculation1 no commerce2 8nothing venture1 nothing have10 is as true for the development of organic wealth as for that of any other kind1 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 8sports20 but they would hold that even these occur most often and most happily to those that have persevered in well-doing for some generations4 ,unto the organism that hath is given1 and from the organism that hath not is taken away2 so that even 8sports0 prove to be only a little off thrift1 which still remains the sheet anchor of the early evolutionists4 ,they believe1 in fact1 that more organic wealth has been made by saving than in any other way4 ,the race is not in the long run to the phenomenally swift nor the battle to the phenomenally strong1 but to the good average all-round organism that is alike shy of ,radical crotchets and old world obstructiveness4 ,festina1 but festina lente--perhaps as involving so completely the contradiction in terms which must underlie all modification--is the motto they would assign to organism1 and ,chi va piano va lontano1 they hold to be a maxim as old1 if not as the hills 7and they have a hankering even after these71 at any rate as the amba4 ,to repeat in other words4 ,all enduring forms establish a modus vivendi with their surroundings4 ,they can do this because both they and the surroundings are plastic within certain undefined but somewhat narrow limits4 ,they are plastic because they can to some extent change their habits1 and changed habit1 if persisted in1 involves corresponding change1 however slight1 in the organs employed2 but their plasticity depends in great measure upon their failure to perceive that they are moulding themselves4 ,if a change is so great that they are seriously incommoded by its novelty1 they are not likely to acquiesce in it kindly enough to grow to it1 but they will make no difficulty about the miracle involved in accommodating themselves to a difference of only two or three per cent4 #gb;a ,as long as no change exceeds this percentage1 and as long1 also1 as fresh change does not supervene till the preceding one is well established1 there seems no limit to the amount of modification which may be accumulated in the course of generations--provided1 of course1 always1 that the modification continues to be in conformity with the instinctive habits and physical development of the organism in their collective capacity4 ,where the change is too great1 or where an organ has been modified cumulatively in some one direction1 until it has reached a development too seriously out of harmony with the habits of the organism taken collectively1 then the organism holds itself excused from further effort1 throws up the whole concern1 and takes refuge in the liquidation and reconstruction of death4 ,it is only on the relinquishing of further effort that this death ensues2 as long as effort endures1 organisms go on from change to change1 altering and being altered--that is to say1 either killing themselves piecemeal in deference to the surroundings or killing the surroundings piecemeal to suit themselves4 ,there is a ceaseless higgling and haggling1 or rather a life-and-death struggle between these two things as long as life lasts1 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 satisfaction4 ,all change is pro tanto death or pro tanto birth4 ,change is the common substratum which underlies both life and death2 life and death are not two distinct things absolutely antagonistic to one another2 in the highest life there is still much death1 and in the most complete death there is still not a little life4 ,la vie1 says ,claud ,bernard1 #gc;a c'est la mort3 he might have added1 and perhaps did1 et la mort ce n'est que la vie transforme4 ,life and death are the extreme modes of something which is partly both and wholly neither2 this something is common1 ordinary change2 solve any change and the mystery of life and death will be revealed2 show why and how anything becomes ever anything other in any respect than what it is at any given moment1 and there will be little secret left in any other change4 ,one is not in its ultimate essence more miraculous that another2 it may be more striking--a greater congeries of shocks1 it may be more credible or more incredible1 but not more miraculous2 all change is qu us absolutely incomprehensible and miraculous2 the smallest change baffles the greatest intellect if its essence1 as apart from its phenomena1 be inquired into4 ,but however this may be1 all organic change is either a growth or a dissolution1 or a combination of the two4 ,growth is the coming together of elements with quasi similar characteristics4 ,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--making1 rather than marring and undoing them4 ,life and growth are an attuning1 death and decay are an untuning2 both involve a succession of greater or smaller attunings and untunings2 organic life is 8the diapason closing full in man02 it is the fulness of a tone that varies in pitch1 quality1 and in the harmonics to which it gives rise2 it ranges through every degree of complexity from the endless combinations of life-and-death within life-and-death which we find in the mammalia1 to the comparative simplicity of the amba4 ,death1 again1 like life1 ranges through every degree of complexity4 ,all pleasant changes are recreative2 they are pro tanto births2 all unpleasant changes are wearing1 and1 as such1 pro tanto deaths1 but we can no more exhaust either wholly of the other1 than we can exhaust all the air out of a receiver2 pleasure and pain lurk within one another1 as life in death1 and death in life1 or as rest and unrest in one another4 ,there is no greater mystery in life than in death4 ,we talk as though the riddle of life only need engage us2 this is not so2 death is just as great a miracle as life2 the one is two and two making five1 the other is five splitting into two and two4 ,solve either1 and we have solved the other2 they should be studied not apart1 for they are never parted1 but together1 and they will tell more tales of one another than either will tell about itself4 ,if there is one thing which advancing knowledge makes clearer than another1 it is that death is swallowed up in life1 and life in death2 so that if the last enemy that shall be subdued is death1 then indeed is our salvation nearer than what we thought1 for in strictness there is neither life nor death1 nor thought nor thing1 except as figures of speech1 and as the approximations which strike us for the time as most convenient4 ,there is neither perfect life nor perfect death1 but a being ever with the ,lord only1 in the eternal 1 or going to and fro and heat and fray of the universe4 ,when we were young we thought the one certain thing was that we should one day come to die2 now we know the one certain thing to be that we shall never wholly do so4 ,non omnis moriar1 says ,horace1 and 8,i die daily10 says ,st4 ,paul1 as though a life beyond the grave1 and a death on this side of it1 were each some strange thing which happened to them alone of all men2 but who dies absolutely once for all1 and for ever at the hour that is commonly called that of death1 and who does not die daily and hourly8 ,does any man in continuing to live from day to day or moment to moment1 do more than continue in a changed body1 with changed feelings1 ideas1 and aims1 so that he lives from moment to moment only in virtue of a simultaneous dying from moment to moment also8 ,does any man in dying do more than1 on a larger and more complete scale1 what he has been doing on a small one1 as the most essential factor of his life1 from the day that he became 8he0 at all8 ,when the note of life is struck the harmonics of death are sounded1 and so1 again1 to strike death is to arouse the infinite harmonics of life that rise forthwith as incense curling upwards from a censer4 ,if in the midst of life we are in death1 so also in the midst of death we are in life1 and whether we live or whether we die1 whether we like it and know anything about it or no1 still we do it to the ,lord--living always1 dying always1 and in the ,lord always1 the unjust and the just alike1 for ,god is no respecter of persons4 ,consciousness and change1 so far as we can watch them1 are as functionally interdependent as mind and matter1 or condition and substance1 are--for the condition of every substance may be considered as the expression and outcome of its mind4 ,where there is consciousness there is change2 where there is no change there is no consciousness2 may we not suspect that there is no change without a pro tanto consciousness however simple and unspecialised8 ,change and motion are one1 so that we have substance1 feeling1 change 7or motion71 as the ultimate three-in-one of our thoughts1 and may suspect all change1 and all feeling1 attendant or consequent1 however limited1 to be the interaction of those states which for want of better terms we call mind and matter4 ,action may be regarded as a kind of middle term between mind and matter2 it is the throe of thought and thing1 the quivering clash and union of body and soul2 commonplace enough in practice2 miraculous1 as violating every canon on which thought and reason are founded1 if we theorise about it1 put it under the microscope1 and vivisect it4 ,it is here1 if anywhere1 that body or substance is guilty of the contradiction in terms of combining with that which is without material substance and cannot1 therefore1 be conceived by us as passing in and out with matter1 till the two become a body ensouled and a soul embodied4 ,all body is more or less ensouled4 ,as it gets farther and farther from ourselves1 indeed1 we sympathise less with it2 nothing1 we say to ourselves1 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 understanding4 ,we are intelligent1 and no intelligence1 so different from our own as to baffle our powers of comprehension deserves to be called intelligence at all4 ,the more a thing resembles ourselves1 the more it thinks as we do--and thus by implication tells us that we are right1 the more intelligent we think it2 and the less it thinks as we do1 the greater fool it must be2 if a substance does not succeed in making it clear that it understands our business1 we conclude that it cannot have any business of its own1 much less understand it1 or indeed understand anything at all4 ,but letting this pass1 so far as we are concerned1 2 we are body ensouled1 and soul embodied1 ourselves1 nor is it possible for us to think seriously of anything so unlike ourselves as to consist either of soul without body1 or body without soul4 ,unmattered condition1 therefore1 is as inconceivable by us as unconditioned matter2 and we must hold that all body with which we can be conceivably concerned is more or less ensouled1 and all soul1 in like manner1 more or less embodied4 ,strike either body or soul--that is to say1 effect either a physical or a mental change1 and the harmonics of the other sound4 ,so long as body is minded in a certain way--so long1 that is to say1 as it feels1 knows1 remembers1 concludes1 and forecasts one set of things--it will be in one form2 if it assumes a new one1 otherwise than by external violence1 no matter how slight the change may be1 it is only through having changed its mind1 through having forgotten and died to some trains of thought1 and having been correspondingly born anew by the adoption of new ones4 ,what it will adopt depends upon which of the various courses open to it it considers most to its advantage4 ,what it will think to its advantage depends mainly on the past habits of its race4 ,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 dislikes2 nevertheless1 over and above preconceived opinion and the habits to which all are slaves1 there is a small salary1 or1 as it were1 agency commission1 which each may have for himself1 and spend according to his fancy2 from this1 indeed1 income-tax must be deducted2 still there remains a little margin of individual taste1 and here1 high up on this narrow1 inaccessible ledge of our souls1 from year to year a breed of not unprolific variations build where reason cannot reach them to despoil them2 for de gustibus non est disputandum4 ,here we are as far as we can go4 ,fancy1 which sometimes sways so much and is swayed by so little1 and which sometimes1 again1 is so hard to sway1 and moves so little when it is swayed2 whose ways have a method of their own1 but are not as our ways--fancy1 lies on the extreme borderland of the realm within which the writs of our thoughts run1 and extends into that unseen world wherein they have no jurisdiction4 ,fancy is as the mist upon the horizon which blends earth and sky2 where1 however1 it approaches nearest to the earth and can be reckoned with1 it is seen as melting into desire1 and this as giving birth to design and effort4 ,as the net result and outcome of these last1 living forms grow gradually but persistently into physical conformity with their own intentions1 and become outward and visible signs of the inward and spiritual faiths1 or wants of faith1 that have been most within them4 ,they thus very gradually1 but none the less effectually1 design themselves4 ,in effect1 therefore1 ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck introduce uniformity into the moral and spiritual worlds as it was already beginning to be introduced into the physical4 ,according to both these writers development has ever been a matter of the same energy1 effort1 good sense1 and perseverance1 as tend to advancement of life now among ourselves4 ,in essence it is neither more nor less than this1 as the rain-drop which denuded an ancient formation is of the same kind as that which is denuding a modern one1 though its effect may vary in geometrical ratio with the effect it has produced already4 ,as we are extending reason to the lower animals1 so we must extend a system of moral government by rewards and punishments no less surely2 and if we admit that to some considerable extent man is man1 and master of his fate1 we should admit also that all organic forms which are saved at all have been in proportionate degree masters of their fate too1 and have worked out1 not only their own salvation1 but their salvation according1 in no small measure1 to their own goodwill and pleasure1 at times with a light heart1 and at times in fear and trembling4 ,i do not say that ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck saw all the foregoing as clearly as it is easy to see it now2 what ,i have said1 however1 is only the natural development of their system4 ,chapter ,,vi ,statement of the ,question at ,issue 7continued7 ,,so much for the older view2 and now for the more modern opinion4 ,according to ,messrs4 ,darwin and ,wallace1 and ostensibly1 ,i am afraid ,i should add1 a great majority of our most prominent biologists1 the view taken by ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck is not a sound one4 ,some organisms1 indeed1 are so admirably adapted to their surroundings1 and some organs discharge their functions with so much appearance of provision1 that we are apt to think they must owe their development to sense of need and consequent contrivance1 but this opinion is fantastic2 the appearance of design is delusive2 what we are tempted to see as an accumulated outcome of desire and cunning1 we should regard as mainly an accumulated outcome of good luck4 ,let us take the eye as a somewhat crucial example4 ,it is a seeing-machine1 or thing to see with4 ,so is a telescope2 the telescope in its highest development is a secular accumulation of cunning1 sometimes small1 sometimes great2 sometimes applied to this detail of the instrument1 and sometimes to that4 ,it is an admirable example of design2 nevertheless1 as ,i said in 8,evolution ,old and ,new10 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 invented4 ,indeed1 if he had1 he would have carried his idea out in practice4 ,he would have been unable to conceive such an instrument as ,lord ,rosse's2 the design1 therefore1 at present evidenced by the telescope was not design all on the part of one and the same person4 ,nor yet was it unmixed with chance2 many a detail has been doubtless due to an accident or coincidence which was forthwith seized and made the best of4 ,luck there always has been and always will be1 until all brains are opened1 and all connections made known1 but luck turned to account becomes design2 there is1 indeed1 if things are driven home1 little other design than this4 ,the telescope1 therefore1 is an instrument designed in all its parts for the purpose of seeing1 and1 take it all round1 designed with singular skill4 ,looking at the eye1 we are at first tempted to think that it must be the telescope over again1 only more so2 we are tempted to see it as something which has grown up little by little from small beginnings1 as the result of effort well applied and handed down from generation to generation1 till1 in the vastly greater time during which the eye has been developing as compared with the telescope1 a vastly more astonishing result has been arrived at4 ,we may indeed be tempted to think this1 but1 according to ,mr4 ,darwin1 we should be wrong4 ,design had a great deal to do with the telescope1 but it had nothing or hardly anything whatever to do with the eye4 ,the telescope owes its development to cunning1 the eye to luck1 which1 it would seem1 is so far more cunning than cunning that one does not quite understand why there should be any cunning at all4 ,the main means of developing the eye was1 according to ,mr4 ,darwin1 not use as varying circumstances might direct with consequent slow increase of power and an occasional happy flight of genius1 but natural selection4 ,natural selection1 according to him1 though not the sole1 is still the most important means of its development and modification4 #ha;a ,what1 then1 is natural selection8 ,mr4 ,darwin has told us this on the title-page of the 8,origin of ,species40 ,he there defines it as 8,the ,preservation of ,favoured ,races20 8,favoured0 is 8,fortunate10 and 8,fortunate0 8,lucky20 it is plain1 therefore1 that with ,mr4 ,darwin natural selection comes to 8,the ,preservation of ,lucky ,races10 and that he regarded luck as the most important feature in connection with the development even of so apparently purposive an organ as the eye1 and as the one1 therefore1 on which it was most proper to insist4 ,and what is luck but absence of intention or design8 ,what1 then1 can ,mr4 ,darwin's title-page amount to when written out plainly1 but to an assertion that the main means of modification has been the preservation of races whose variations have been unintentional1 that is to say1 not connected with effort or intention1 devoid of mind or meaning1 fortuitous1 spontaneous1 accidental1 or whatever kindred word is least disagreeable to the reader8 ,it is impossible to conceive any more complete denial of mind as having had anything to do with organic development1 than is involved in the title-page of the 8,origin of ,species0 when its doubtless carefully considered words are studied--nor1 let me add1 is it possible to conceive a title-page more likely to make the reader's attention rest much on the main doctrine of evolution1 and little1 to use the words now most in vogue concerning it1 on ,mr4 ,darwin's own 8distinctive feature40 ,it should be remembered that the full title of the 8,origin of ,species0 is1 8,on the origin of species by means of natural selection1 or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life40 ,the significance of the expansion of the title escaped the greater number of ,mr4 ,darwin's readers4 ,perhaps it ought not to have done so1 but we certainly failed to catch it4 ,the very words themselves escaped us--and yet there they were all the time if we had only chosen to look4 ,we thought the book was called 8,on the ,origin of ,species10 and so it was on the outside2 so it was also on the inside fly-leaf2 so it was on the title-page itself as long as the most prominent type was used2 the expanded title was only given once1 and then in smaller type2 so the three big 8,origins of ,species0 carried us with them to the exclusion of the rest4 ,the short and working title1 8,on the ,origin of ,species10 in effect claims descent with modification generally2 the expanded and technically true title only claims the discovery that luck is the main means of organic modification1 and this is a very different matter4 ,the book ought to have been entitled1 8,on ,natural ,selection1 or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life1 as the main means of the origin of species20 this should have been the expanded title1 and the short title should have been 8,on ,natural ,selection40 ,the title would not then have involved an important difference between its working and its technical forms1 and it would have better fulfilled the object of a title1 which is1 of course1 to give1 as far as may be1 the essence of a book in a nutshell4 ,we learn on the authority of ,mr4 ,darwin himself #hc;a that the 8,origin of ,species0 was originally intended to bear the title 8,natural ,selection20 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 ,mr4 ,darwin was considering4 ,it is curious that1 writing the later chapters of 8,life and ,habit0 in great haste1 ,i should have accidentally referred to the 8,origin of ,species0 as 8,natural ,selection20 it seems hard to believe that there was no intention in my thus unconsciously reverting to ,mr4 ,darwin's own original title1 but there certainly was none1 and ,i did not then know what the original title had been4 ,if we had scrutinised ,mr4 ,darwin's title-page as closely as we should certainly scrutinise anything written by ,mr4 ,darwin now1 we should have seen that the title did not technically claim the theory of descent2 practically1 however1 it so turned out that we unhesitatingly gave that theory to the author1 being1 as ,i have said1 carried away by the three large 8,origins of ,species0 7which we understood as much the same thing as descent with modification71 and finding1 as ,i shall show in a later chapter1 that descent was ubiquitously claimed throughout the work1 either expressly or by implication1 as ,mr4 ,darwin's theory4 ,it is not easy to see how any one with ordinary instincts could hesitate to believe that ,mr4 ,darwin was entitled to claim what he claimed with so much insistance4 ,if ars est celare artem ,mr4 ,darwin must be allowed to have been a consummate artist1 for it took us years to understand the ins and outs of what had been done4 ,i may say in passing that we never see the 8,origin of ,species0 spoken of as 8,on the ,origin of ,species1 c410 or as 8,the ,origin of ,species1 c40 7the word 8on0 being dropped in the latest editions74 ,the distinctive feature of the book lies1 according to its admirers1 in the 8c410 but they never give it4 ,to avoid pedantry ,i shall continue to speak of the 8,origin of ,species40 ,at any rate it will be admitted that ,mr4 ,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 ,lamarck2 nevertheless the point just touched upon involves the only essential difference between the systems of ,mr4 ,charles ,darwin and those of his three most important predecessors4 ,all four writers agree that animals and plants descend with modification2 all agree that the fittest alone survive2 all agree about the important consequences of the geometrical ratio of increase2 ,mr4 ,charles ,darwin has said more about these last two points than his predecessors did1 but all three were alike cognisant of the facts and attached the same importance to them1 and would have been astonished at its being supposed possible that they disputed them4 ,the fittest alone survive2 yes--but the fittest from among what8 ,here comes the point of divergence2 the fittest from among organisms whose variations arise mainly through use and disuse8 ,in other words1 from variations that are mainly functional8 ,or from among organisms whose variations are in the main matters of luck8 ,from variations into which a moral and intellectual system of payment according to results has largely entered8 ,or from variations which have been thrown for with dice8 ,from variations among which1 though cards tell1 yet play tells as much or more8 ,or from those in which cards are everything and play goes for so little as to be not worth taking into account8 ,is 8the survival of the fittest0 to be taken as meaning 8the survival of the luckiest0 or 8the survival of those who know best how to turn fortune to account08 ,is luck the only element of fitness1 or is not cunning even more indispensable8 ,mr4 ,darwin has a habit1 borrowed1 perhaps1 mutatis mutandis1 from the framers of our collects1 of every now and then adding the words 8through natural selection10 as though this squared everything1 and descent with modification thus became his theory at once4 ,this is not the case4 ,buffon1 ,erasmus ,darwin1 and ,lamarck believed in natural selection to the full as much as any follower of ,mr4 ,charles ,darwin can do4 ,they did not use the actual words1 but the idea underlying them is the essence of their system4 ,mr4 ,patrick ,matthew epitomised their doctrine more tersely1 perhaps1 than was done by any other of the pre-,charles-,darwinian evolutionists1 in the following passage which appeared in #ahca1 and which ,i have already quoted in 8,evolution ,old and ,new0 7pp4 #cbj1 #cbc74 ,the passage runs3-- 8,the self-regulating adaptive disposition of organised life may1 in part1 be traced to the extreme fecundity of nature1 who1 as before stated1 has in all the varieties of her offspring a prolific power much beyond 7in many cases a thousandfold7 what is necessary to fill up the vacancies caused by senile decay4 ,as the field of existence is limited and preoccupied1 it is only the hardier1 more robust1 better suited to circumstance individuals1 who are able to struggle forward to maturity1 these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater power of occupancy than any other kind2 the weaker and less circumstance-suited being prematurely destroyed4 ,this principle is in constant action2 it regulates the colour1 the figure1 the capacities1 and instincts2 those individuals in each species whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies1 or defence from inclemencies or vicissitudes of climate1 whose figure is best accommodated to health1 strength1 defence1 and support2 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 the strict ordeal by which nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind by reproduction40 #hf;a ,a little lower down ,mr4 ,matthew speaks of animals under domestication 8not having undergone selection by the law of nature1 of which we have spoken1 and hence being unable to maintain their ground without culture and protection40 ,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 elder4 ,this is true in so far as that the elder ,darwin does not use the words 8natural selection10 while the younger does1 but it is not true otherwise4 ,both writers agree that offspring tends to inherit modifications that have been effected1 from whatever cause1 in parents2 both hold that the best adapted to their surroundings live longest and leave most offspring2 both1 therefore1 hold that favourable modifications will tend to be preserved and intensified in the course of many generations1 and that this leads to divergence of type2 but these opinions involve a theory of natural selection or quasi-selection1 whether the words 8natural selection0 are used or not2 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 nature2 but even with ,mr4 ,charles ,darwin the power is only quasi-selective2 there is no conscious choice1 and hence there is nothing that can in strictness be called selection4 ,it is indeed true that the younger ,darwin gave the words 8natural selection0 the importance which of late years they have assumed2 he probably adopted them unconsciously from the passage of ,mr4 ,matthew's quoted above1 but he ultimately said1 #hg;a 8,in the literal sense of the word 7sic7 no doubt natural selection is a false term10 as personifying a fact1 making it exercise the conscious choice without which there can be no selection1 and generally crediting it with the discharge of functions which can only be ascribed legitimately to living and reasoning beings4 ,granted1 however1 that while ,mr4 ,charles ,darwin adopted the expression natural selection and admitted it to be a bad one1 his grandfather did not use it at all2 still ,mr4 ,darwin did not mean the natural selection which ,mr4 ,matthew and those whose opinions he was epitomising meant4 ,mr4 ,darwin meant the selection to be made from variations into which purpose enters to only a small extent comparatively4 ,the difference1 therefore1 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 denied1 but in the background--hidden behind the words natural selection1 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 made4 ,it now appears that there is not one natural selection1 and one survival of the fittest only1 but two natural selections1 and two survivals of the fittest1 the one of which may be objected to as an expression more fit for religious and general literature than for science1 but may still be admitted as sound in intention1 while the other1 inasmuch as it supposes accident to be the main purveyor of variations1 has no correspondence with the actual course of things2 for if the variations are matters of chance or hazard unconnected with any principle of constant application1 they will not occur steadily enough1 throughout a sufficient number of successive generations1 nor to a sufficient number of individuals for many generations together at the same time and place1 to admit of the fixing and permanency of modification at all4 ,the one theory of natural selection1 therefore1 may1 and indeed will1 explain the facts that surround us1 whereas the other will not4 ,mr4 ,charles ,darwin's contribution to the theory of evolution was not1 as is commonly supposed1 8natural selection10 but the hypothesis that natural selection from variations that are in the main fortuitous could accumulate and result in specific and generic differences4 ,in the foregoing paragraph ,i have given the point of difference between ,mr4 ,charles ,darwin and his predecessors4 ,why1 ,i wonder1 have neither he nor any of his exponents put this difference before us in such plain words that we should readily apprehend it8 ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck were understood by all who wished to understand them2 why is it that the misunderstanding of ,mr4 ,darwin's 8distinctive feature0 should have been so long and obstinate8 ,why is it that1 no matter how much writers like ,mr4 ,grant ,allen and ,professor ,ray ,lankester may say about 8,mr4 ,darwin's master-key10 nor how many more like hyperboles they brandish1 they never put a succinct rsum of ,mr4 ,darwin's theory side by side with a similar rsum of his grandfather's and ,lamarck's8 ,neither ,mr4 ,darwin himself1 not any of those to whose advocacy his reputation is mainly due1 have done this4 ,professor ,huxley is the man of all others who foisted ,mr4 ,darwin most upon us1 but in his famous lecture on the coming of age of the 8,origin of ,species0 he did not explain to his hearers wherein the ,neo-,darwinian theory of evolution differed from the old2 and why not8 ,surely1 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 8,origin of ,species40 ,what should we think of one who maintained that the steam-engine and telescope were not developed mainly through design and effort 7letting the indisputably existing element of luck go without saying71 but to the fact that if any telescope or steam-engine 8happened to be made ever such a little more conveniently for man's purposes than another10 c41 c48 ,let us suppose a notorious burglar found in possession of a jemmy2 it is admitted on all hands that he will use it as soon as he gets a chance2 there is no doubt about this2 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 ideas1 however vague in the first instance1 of applying it to its subsequent function4 ,if any one could be found so blind to obvious inferences as to accept natural selection1 8or the preservation of favoured machines10 as the main means of mechanical modification1 we might suppose him to argue much as follows3--8,i can quite understand10 he would exclaim1 8how any one who reflects upon the originally simple form of the earliest jemmies1 and observes the developments they have since attained in the hands of our most accomplished housebreakers1 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 thieves2 but may not this inference be somewhat too hastily drawn8 ,have we any right to assume that burglars work by means analogous to those employed by other people8 ,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 hitherto1 he would at once seize and carefully preserve it4 ,if it got worn out or broken he would begin searching for a crowbar as like as possible to the one that he had lost2 and when1 with advancing skill1 and in default of being able to find the exact thing he wanted1 he took at length to making a jemmy for himself1 he would imitate the latest and most perfect adaptation1 which would thus be most likely to be preserved in the struggle of competitive forms4 ,let this process go on for countless generations1 among countless burglars of all nations1 and may we not suppose that a jemmy would be in time arrived at1 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 gardener80 ,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 also1 and that therefore the preceding paragraph has no force4 ,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 inference4 ,this retort is plausible1 but in the course of the two next following chapters but one it will be shown to be without force2 for the moment1 however1 beyond thus calling attention to it1 ,i must pass it by4 ,i do not mean to say that ,mr4 ,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 follower4 ,mr4 ,darwin was the ,gladstone of biology1 and so old a scientific hand was not going to make things unnecessarily clear unless it suited his convenience4 ,then1 indeed1 he was like the man in 8,the ,hunting of the ,snark10 who said1 8,i told you once1 ,i told you twice1 what ,i tell you three times is true40 ,that what ,i have supposed said1 however1 above about the jemmy is no exaggeration of ,mr4 ,darwin's attitude as regards design in organism will appear from the passage about the eye already referred to1 which it may perhaps be as well to quote in full4 ,mr4 ,darwin says3-- 8,it is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope4 ,we know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects1 and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process4 ,but may not this inference be presumptuous8 ,have we any right to assume that the ,creator works by intellectual powers like those of men8 ,if we must compare the eye to an optical instrument1 we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue1 with a nerve sensitive to light beneath1 and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density1 so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses1 placed at different distances from each other1 and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form4 ,further1 we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers1 and carefully selecting each alteration which1 under varied circumstances1 may in any way1 or in any degree1 tend to produce a distincter image4 ,we must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million1 and each to be preserved till a better be produced1 and then the old ones to be destroyed4 ,in living bodies variation will cause the slight alterations1 generation will multiply them almost infinitely1 and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement4 ,let this process go on for millions on millions of years1 and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds2 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 man80 #ib;a ,mr4 ,darwin does not in this passage deny design1 or cunning1 point blank2 he was not given to denying things point blank1 nor is it immediately apparent that he is denying design at all1 for he does not emphasize and call attention to the fact that the variations on whose accumulation he relies for his ultimate specific difference are accidental1 and1 to use his own words1 in the passage last quoted1 caused by variation4 ,he does1 indeed1 in his earlier editions1 call the variations 8accidental10 and accidental they remained for ten years1 but in #ahfi the word 8accidental0 was taken out4 ,mr4 ,darwin probably felt that the variations had been accidental as long as was desirable2 and though they would1 of course1 in reality remain as accidental as ever1 still1 there could be no use in crying 8accidental variations0 further4 ,if the reader wants to know whether they were accidental or no1 he had better find out for himself4 ,mr4 ,darwin was a master of what may be called scientific chiaroscuro1 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 it4 ,there can1 however1 be no question that ,mr4 ,darwin1 though not denying purposiveness point blank1 was trying to refer the development of the eye to the accumulation of small accidental improvements1 which were not as a rule due to effort and design in any way analogous to those attendant on the development of the telescope4 ,though ,mr4 ,darwin1 if he was to have any point of difference from his grandfather1 was bound to make his variations accidental1 yet1 to do him justice1 he did not like it4 ,even in the earlier editions of the 8,origin of ,species10 where the 8alterations0 in the passage last quoted are called 8accidental0 in express terms1 the word does not fall1 so to speak1 on a strong beat of the bar1 and is apt to pass unnoticed4 ,besides1 ,mr4 ,darwin does not say point blank 8we may believe10 or 8we ought to believe20 he only says 8may we not believe80 ,the reader should always be on his guard when ,mr4 ,darwin asks one of these bland and child-like questions1 and he is fond of asking them2 but1 however this may be1 it is plain1 as ,i pointed out in 8,evolution ,old and ,new0 #ic;a that the only 8skill10 that is to say the only thing that can possibly involve design1 is 8the unerring skill0 of natural selection4 ,in the same paragraph ,mr4 ,darwin has already said3 8,further1 we must suppose that there is a power represented by natural selection or the survival of the fittest always intently watching each slight alteration1 c40 ,mr4 ,darwin probably said 8a power represented by natural selection0 instead of 8natural selection0 only1 because he saw that to talk too frequently about the fact that the most lucky live longest as 8intently watching0 something was greater nonsense than it would be prudent even for him to write1 so he fogged it by making the intent watching done by 8a power represented by0 a fact1 instead of by the fact itself4 ,as the sentence stands it is just as great nonsense as it would have been if 8the survival of the fittest0 had been allowed to do the watching instead of 8the power represented by0 the survival of the fittest1 but the nonsense is harder to dig up1 and the reader is more likely to pass it over4 ,this passage gave ,mr4 ,darwin no less trouble than it must have given to many of his readers4 ,in the original edition of the 8,origin of ,species0 it stood1 8,further1 we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental variation40 ,i suppose it was felt that if this was allowed to stand1 it might be fairly asked what natural selection was doing all this time8 ,if the power was able to do everything that was necessary now1 why not always8 and why any natural selection at all8 ,this clearly would not do1 so in #ahfa the power was allowed1 by the help of brackets1 actually to become natural selection1 and remained so till #ahfi1 when ,mr4 ,darwin could stand it no longer1 and1 doubtless for the reason given above1 altered the passage to 8a power represented by natural selection10 at the same time cutting out the word 8accidental40 ,it may perhaps make the workings of ,mr4 ,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 8,origin of ,species40 ,in #ahei it stood1 8,further1 we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration10 c4 ,in #ahfa it stood1 8,further1 we must suppose that there is a power 7natural selection7 always intently watching each slight accidental alteration10 c4 ,and in #ahfi1 8,further1 we must suppose that there is a power represented by natural selection or the survival of the fittest always intently watching each slight alteration10 c4 #id;a ,the hesitating feeble gait of one who fears a pitfall at every step1 so easily recognisable in the 8numerous1 successive1 slight alterations0 in the foregoing passage1 may be traced in many another page of the 8,origin of ,species0 by those who will be at the trouble of comparing the several editions4 ,it is only when this is done1 and the working of ,mr4 ,darwin's mind can be seen as though it were the twitchings of a dog's nose1 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 own4 ,he found his natural selection hang round his neck like a millstone4 ,there is hardly a page in the 8,origin of ,species0 in which traces of the struggle going on in ,mr4 ,darwin's mind are not discernible1 with a result alike exasperating and pitiable4 ,i can only repeat what ,i said in 8,evolution ,old and ,new10 namely1 that ,i find the task of extracting a well-defined meaning out of ,mr4 ,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 can1 and whose chief aim has been to leave as many loopholes as possible for himself to escape by1 if things should go wrong hereafter4 ,or1 again1 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 measure1 and which1 having been found utterly unworkable in practice1 has had clauses repealed up and down it till it is now in an inextricable tangle of confusion and contradiction4 ,the more ,mr4 ,darwin's work is studied1 and more especially the more his different editions are compared1 the more impossible is it to avoid a suspicion of arrire pense as pervading it whenever the 8distinctive feature0 is on the tapis4 ,it is right to say1 however1 that no such suspicion attaches to ,mr4 ,a4 ,r4 ,wallace1 ,mr4 ,darwin's fellow discoverer of natural selection4 ,it is impossible to doubt that ,mr4 ,wallace believed he had made a real and important improvement upon the ,lamarckian system1 and1 as a natural consequence1 unlike ,mr4 ,darwin1 he began by telling us what ,lamarck had said4 ,he did not1 ,i admit1 say quite all that ,i should have been glad to have seen him say1 nor use exactly the words ,i should myself have chosen1 but he said enough to make it impossible to doubt his good faith1 and his desire that we should understand that with him1 as with ,mr4 ,darwin1 variations are mainly accidental1 not functional4 ,thus1 in his memorable paper communicated to the ,linnean ,society in #aheh he said1 in a passage which ,i have quoted in 8,unconscious ,memory03 8,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 organs1 and thus modify their structures and habits--has been repeatedly and easily refuted by all writers on the subject of varieties and species2 4 4 4 but the view here developed renders such an hypothesis quite unnecessary4 4 4 4 ,the powerful retractile talons of the falcon and cat tribes have not been produced or increased by the volition of those animals2 4 4 4 neither did the giraffe acquire its long neck by desiring to reach the foliage of the more lofty shrubs1 and constantly stretching its neck for this purpose1 but because any varieties which occurred among its antitypes with a longer neck than usual at once secured a fresh range of pasture over the same ground as their shorter-necked companions1 and on the first scarcity of food were thus enabled to outlive them0 7italics in original74 #if;a 8,which occurred0 is obviously 8which happened to occur1 by some chance or accident entirely unconnected with use and disuse20 and though the word 8accidental0 is never used1 there can be no doubt about ,mr4 ,wallace's desire to make the reader catch the fact that with him accident1 and not1 as with ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck1 sustained effort1 is the main purveyor of the variations whose accumulation amounts ultimately to specific difference4 ,it is a pity1 however1 that instead of contenting himself like a theologian with saying that his opponent had been refuted over and over again1 he did not refer to any particular and tolerably successful attempt to refute the theory that modifications in organic structure are mainly functional4 ,i am fairly well acquainted with the literature of evolution1 and have never met with any such attempt4 ,but let this pass2 as with ,mr4 ,darwin1 so with ,mr4 ,wallace1 and so indeed with all who accept ,mr4 ,charles ,darwin's natural selection as the main means of modification1 the central idea is luck1 while the central idea of the ,erasmus-,darwinian system is cunning4 ,i have given the opinions of these contending parties in their extreme development2 but they both admit abatements which bring them somewhat nearer to one another4 ,design1 as even its most strenuous upholders will admit1 is a difficult word to deal with2 it is1 like all our ideas1 substantial enough until we try to grasp it--and then1 like all our ideas1 it mockingly eludes us2 it is like life or death--a rope of many strands2 there is design within design1 and design within undesign2 there is undesign within design 7as when a man shuffles cards designing that there shall be no design in their arrangement71 and undesign within undesign2 when we speak of cunning or design in connection with organism we do not mean cunning1 all cunning1 and nothing but cunning1 so that there shall be no place for luck2 we do not mean that conscious attention and forethought shall have been bestowed upon the minutest details of action1 and nothing been left to work itself out departmentally according to precedent1 or as it otherwise best may according to the chapter of accidents4 ,so1 again1 when ,mr4 ,darwin and his followers deny design and effort to have been the main purveyors of the variations whose accumulation results in specific difference1 they do not entirely exclude the action of use and disuse--and this at once opens the door for cunning2 nevertheless1 according to ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck1 the human eye and the long neck of the giraffe are alike due to the accumulation of variations that are mainly functional1 and hence practical2 according to ,charles ,darwin they are alike due to the accumulation of variations that are accidental1 fortuitous1 spontaneous1 that is to say1 mainly cannot be reduced to any known general principle4 ,according to ,charles ,darwin 8the preservation of favoured10 or lucky1 8races0 is by far the most important means of modification2 according to ,erasmus ,darwin effort non sibi res sed se rebus subjungere is unquestionably the most potent means2 roughly1 therefore1 there is no better or fairer way of putting the matter1 than to say that ,charles ,darwin is the apostle of luck1 and his grandfather1 and ,lamarck1 of cunning4 ,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 allege4 ,there is a debatable ground of considerable extent on which res and me1 ego and non ego1 luck and cunning1 necessity and freewill1 meet and pass into one another as night and day1 or life and death4 ,no one can draw a sharp line between ego and non ego1 nor indeed any sharp line between any classes of phenomena4 ,every part of the ego is non ego qu organ or tool in use1 and much of the non ego runs up into the ego and is inseparably united with it2 still there is enough that it is obviously most convenient to call ego1 and enough that it is no less obviously most convenient to call non ego1 as there is enough obvious day and obvious night1 or obvious luck and obvious cunning1 to make us think it advisable to keep separate accounts for each4 ,i will say more on this head in a following chapter2 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 all2 nor do ,i believe that this can be done more effectually and accurately than by saying1 as above1 that ,mr4 ,charles ,darwin 7whose name1 by the way1 was 8,charles ,robert10 and not1 as would appear from the title-pages of his books1 8,charles0 only71 ,mr4 ,a4 ,r4 ,wallace1 and their supporters are the apostles of luck1 while ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck1 followed1 more or less timidly1 by the ,geoffroys and by ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer1 and very timidly indeed by the ,duke of ,argyll1 preach cunning as the most important means of organic modification4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,note4--,it appears from 8,samuel ,butler3 ,a ,memoir0 7,,ii1 #bi7 that ,butler wrote to his father 7,dec4 #ahhe7 about a passage in ,horace 7near the beginning of the ,first ,epistle of the ,first ,book7-- ,nunc in ,aristippi furtim praecepta relabor1 ,et mihi res1 non me rebus subjungere conor4 ,on the preceding page he is adapting the second of these two verses to his own purposes4--,h4 ,f4 ,j4 ,chapter ,,vii 7,intercalated7 ,mr4 ,spencer's 8,the ,factors of ,organic ,evolution0 ,,since the foregoing and several of the succeeding chapters were written1 ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer has made his position at once more clear and more widely understood by his articles 8,the ,factors of ,organic ,evolution0 which appeared in the ,nineteenth ,century for ,april and ,may1 #ahhf4 ,the present appears the fittest place in which to intercalate remarks concerning them4 ,mr4 ,spencer asks whether those are right who regard ,mr4 ,charles ,darwin's theory of natural selection as by itself sufficient to account for organic evolution4 8,on critically examining the evidence0 7modern writers never examine evidence1 they always 8critically10 or 8carefully10 or 8patiently10 examine it71 he writes1 8we shall find reason to think that it by no means explains all that has to be explained4 ,omitting for the present any consideration of a factor which may be considered primordial1 it may be contended that one of the factors alleged by ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck must be recognised as a co-operator4 ,unless that increase of a part resulting from extra activity1 and that decrease of it resulting from inactivity1 are transmissible to descendants1 we are without a key to many phenomena of organic evolution4 ,utterly inadequate to explain the major part of the facts as is the hypothesis of the inheritance of functionally produced modifications1 yet there is a minor part of the facts very extensive though less1 which must be ascribed to this cause40 7,italics mine47 ,mr4 ,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 life2 modern writers on evolution for the most part avoid saying anything expressly2 this nevertheless is the conclusion which the reader naturally draws--and was doubtless intended to draw--from ,mr4 ,spencer's words4 ,he gathers that these writers put forward an 8utterly inadequate0 theory1 which cannot for a moment be entertained in the form in which they left it1 but which1 nevertheless1 contains contributions to the formation of a just opinion which of late years have been too much neglected4 ,this inference would be1 as ,mr4 ,spencer ought to know1 a mistaken one4 ,erasmus ,darwin1 who was the first to depend mainly on functionally produced modifications1 attributes1 if not as much importance to variations induced either by what we must call chance1 or by causes having no connection with use and disuse1 as ,mr4 ,spencer does1 still so nearly as much that there is little to choose between them4 ,mr4 ,spencer's words show that he attributes1 if not half1 still not far off half the modification that has actually been produced1 to use and disuse4 ,erasmus ,darwin does not say whether he considers use and disuse to have brought about more than half or less than half2 he only says that animal and vegetable modification is 8in part produced0 by the exertions of the animals and vegetables themselves2 the impression ,i have derived is1 that just as ,mr4 ,spencer considers rather less than half to be due to use and disuse1 so ,erasmus ,darwin considers decidedly more than half--so much more1 in fact1 than half as to make function unquestionably the factor most proper to be insisted on if only one can be given4 ,further than this he did not go4 ,i will quote enough of ,dr4 ,erasmus ,darwin's own words to put his position beyond doubt4 ,he writes3-- 8,thirdly1 when we enumerate the great changes produced in the species of animals before their nativity1 as1 for example1 when the offspring reproduces the effects produced upon the parent by accident or culture1 or the changes produced by the mixture of species1 as in mules2 or the changes produced probably by exuberance of nourishment supplied to the foetus1 as in monstrous births with additional limbs2 many of these enormities are propagated and continued as a variety at least1 if not as a new species of animal4 ,i have seen a breed of cats with an additional claw on every foot2 of poultry also with an additional claw and with wings to their feet2 and of others without rumps4 ,mr4 ,buffon0 7who1 by the way1 surely1 was no more 8,mr4 ,buffon0 than ,lord ,salisbury is 8,mr4 ,salisbury07 8mentions 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 off40 #ajb;a ,here not one of the causes of variation adduced is connected with use and disuse1 or effort1 volition1 and purpose2 the manner1 moreover1 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 disuse2 indeed1 a little lower down he almost appears to assign the subordinate place to functionally produced modifications1 for he says--8,fifthly1 from their first rudiments or primordium to the termination of their lives1 all animals undergo perpetual transformations2 which are in part produced by their own exertions in consequence of their desires and aversions1 of their pleasures and their pains1 or of irritations or of associations2 and many of these acquired forms or propensities are transmitted to their posterity40 ,i have quoted enough to show that ,dr4 ,erasmus ,darwin would have protested against the supposition that functionally produced modifications were an adequate explanation of all the phenomena of organic modification4 ,he declares accident and the chances and changes of this mortal life to be potent and frequent causes of variations1 which1 being not infrequently inherited1 result in the formation of varieties and even species1 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 fortuitous1 or spontaneous variations4 ,the difference between ,dr4 ,erasmus ,darwin and ,mr4 ,spencer does not consist in the denial by the first1 that a variety which happens1 no matter how accidentally1 to have varied in a way that enables it to comply more fully and readily with the conditions of its existence1 is likely to live longer and leave more offspring than one less favoured2 nor in the denial by the second of the inheritance and accumulation of functionally produced modifications2 but in the amount of stress which they respectively lay on the relative importance of the two great factors of organic evolution1 the existence of which they are alike ready to admit4 ,with ,erasmus ,darwin there is indeed luck1 and luck has had a great deal to do with organic modification1 but no amount of luck would have done unless cunning had known how to take advantage of it2 whereas if cunning be given1 a very little luck at a time will accumulate in the course of ages and become a mighty heap4 ,cunning1 therefore1 is the factor on which1 having regard to the usage of language and the necessity for simplifying facts1 he thinks it most proper to insist4 ,surely this is as near as may be the opinion which common consent ascribes to ,mr4 ,spencer himself4 ,it is certainly the one which1 in supporting ,erasmus ,darwin's system as against his grandson's1 ,i have always intended to support4 ,with ,charles ,darwin1 on the other hand1 there is indeed cunning1 effort1 and consequent use and disuse2 nor does he deny that these have produced some1 and sometimes even an important1 effect in modifying species1 but he assigns by far the most important rle in the whole scheme to natural selection1 which1 as ,i have already shown1 must1 with him1 be regarded as a synonym for luck pure and simple4 ,this1 for reasons well shown by ,mr4 ,spencer in the articles under consideration1 is so untenable that it seems only possible to account for its having been advanced at all by supposing ,mr4 ,darwin's judgment to have been perverted by some one or more of the many causes that might tend to warp them4 ,what the chief of those causes may have been ,i shall presently point out4 ,buffon erred rather on the side of ignoring functionally produced modifications than of insisting on them4 ,the main agency with him is the direct action of the environment upon the organism4 ,this1 no doubt1 is a flaw in ,buffon's immortal work1 but it is one which ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck easily corrected2 nor can we doubt that ,buffon would have readily accepted their amendment if it had been suggested to him4 ,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 since4 ,he was too much occupied with proving the fact of evolution at all1 to dwell as fully as might have been wished upon the details of the process whereby the amba had become man1 but we have already seen that he regarded inherited mutilation as the cause of establishing a new breed of dogs1 and this is at any rate not laying much stress on functionally produced modifications4 ,again1 when writing of the dog1 he speaks of variations arising 8by some chance common enough with nature10 #ajd;a and clearly does not contemplate function as the sole cause of modification4 ,practically1 though ,i grant ,i should be less able to quote passages in support of my opinion than ,i quite like1 ,i do not doubt that his position was much the same as that of his successors1 ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck4 ,lamarck is more vulnerable than either ,erasmus ,darwin or ,buffon on the score of unwillingness to assign its full share to mere chance1 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 one4 ,he saw that the cunning or functional side had been too much lost sight of1 and therefore insisted on it1 but he did not mean to say that there is no such thing as luck4 8,let us suppose10 he says1 8that a grass growing in a low-lying meadow1 gets carried by some accident to the brow of a neighbouring hill1 where the soil is still damp enough for the plant to be able to exist40 #aje;a ,or again--8,with sufficient time1 favourable conditions of life1 successive changes in the condition of the globe1 and the power of new surroundings and habits to modify the organs of living bodies1 all animal and vegetable forms have been imperceptibly rendered such as we now see them40 #aje;b ,who can doubt that accident is here regarded as a potent factor of evolution1 as well as the design that is involved in the supposition that modification is1 in the main1 functionally induced8 ,again he writes1 8,as regards the circumstances that give rise to variation1 the principal are climatic changes1 different temperatures of any of a creature's environments1 differences of abode1 of habit1 of the most frequent actions1 and lastly of the means of obtaining food1 self-defence1 reproduction10 c4 #aje;c ,i will not dwell on the small inconsistencies which may be found in the passages quoted above2 the reader will doubtless see them1 and will also doubtless see that in spite of them there can be no doubt that ,lamarck1 while believing modification to be effected mainly by the survival in the struggle for existence of modifications which had been induced functionally1 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 us4 ,for the rest1 ,mr4 ,spencer's articles have relieved me from the necessity of going into the evidence which proves that such structures as a giraffe's neck1 for example1 cannot possibly have been produced by the accumulation of variations which had their origin mainly in accident4 ,there is no occasion to add anything to what ,mr4 ,spencer has said on this score1 and ,i am satisfied that those who do not find his argument convince them would not be convinced by anything ,i might say2 ,i shall1 therefore1 omit what ,i had written on this subject1 and confine myself to giving the substance of ,mr4 ,spencer's most telling argument against ,mr4 ,darwin's theory that accidental variations1 if favourable1 would accumulate and result in seemingly adaptive structures4 ,mr4 ,spencer well shows that luck or chance is insufficient as a motive-power1 or helm1 of evolution2 but luck is only absence of design2 if1 then1 absence of design is found to fail1 it follows that there must have been design somewhere1 nor can the design be more conveniently placed than in association with function4 ,mr4 ,spencer contends that where life is so simple as to consist practically in the discharge of only one function1 or where circumstances are such that some one function is supremely important 7a state of things1 by the way1 more easily found in hypothesis than in nature--at least as continuing without modification for many successive seasons71 then accidental variations1 if favourable1 would indeed accumulate and result in modification1 without the aid of the transmission of functionally produced modification4 ,this is true2 it is also true1 however1 that only a very small number of species in comparison with those we see around us could thus arise1 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 conducted1 #ajg;a and species of plants and animals as embodiments of the details involved in carrying out these two main principles4 ,if the earliest organism could have only varied favourably in one direction1 the one possible favourable accidental variation would have accumulated so long as the organism continued to exist at all1 inasmuch as this would be preserved whenever it happened to occur1 while every other would be lost in the struggle of competitive forms2 but even in the lowest forms of life there is more than one condition in respect of which the organism must be supposed sensitive1 and there are as many directions in which variations may be favourable as there are conditions of the environment that affect the organism4 ,we cannot conceive of a living form as having a power of adaptation limited to one direction only2 the elasticity which admits of a not being 8extreme to mark that which is done amiss0 in one direction will commonly admit of it in as many directions as there are possible favourable modes of variation2 the number of these1 as has been just said1 depends upon the number of the conditions of the environment that affect the organism1 and these last1 though in the long run and over considerable intervals of time tolerably constant1 are over shorter intervals liable to frequent and great changes2 so that there is nothing in ,mr4 ,charles ,darwin's system of modification through the natural survival of the lucky1 to prevent gain in one direction one year from being lost irretrievably in the next1 through the greater success of some in no way correlated variation1 the fortunate possessors of which alone survive4 ,this1 in its turn1 is as likely as not to disappear shortly through the arising of some difficulty in some entirely new direction1 and so on2 nor1 if function be regarded as of small effect in determining organism1 is there anything to ensure either that1 even if ground be lost for a season or two in any one direction1 it shall be recovered presently on resumption by the organism of the habits that called it into existence1 or that it shall appear synchronously in a sufficient number of individuals to ensure its not being soon lost through gamogenesis4 ,how is progress ever to be made if races keep reversing1 ,penelope-like1 in one generation all that they have been achieving in the preceding8 ,and how1 on ,mr4 ,darwin's system1 of which the accumulation of strokes of luck is the greatly preponderating feature1 is a hoard ever to be got together and conserved1 no matter how often luck may have thrown good things in an organism's way8 ,luck1 or absence of design1 may be sometimes almost said to throw good things in our way1 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 us2 but luck does not hoard these good things for our use and make our wills for us1 nor does it keep providing us with the same good gifts again and again1 and no matter how often we reject them4 ,i had better1 perhaps1 give ,mr4 ,spencer's own words as quoted by himself in his article in the ,nineteenth ,century for ,april1 #ahhf4 ,he there wrote as follows1 quoting from #aff of his 8,principles of ,biology10 which appeared in #ahfd3-- 8,where the life is comparatively simple1 or where surrounding circumstances render some one function supremely important1 the survival of the fittest0 7which means here the survival of the luckiest7 8may readily bring about the appropriate structural change1 without any aid from the transmission of functionally-acquired modifications0 7into which effort and design have entered74 8,but in proportion as the life grows complex--in proportion as a healthy existence cannot be secured by a large endowment of some one power1 but demands many powers2 in the same proportion do there arise obstacles to the increase of any particular power1 by #8the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life'0 7that is to say1 through mere survival of the luckiest74 8,as fast as the faculties are multiplied1 so fast does it become possible for the several members of a species to have various kinds of superiority over one another4 ,while one saves its life by higher speed1 another does the like by clearer vision1 another by keener scent1 another by quicker hearing1 another by greater strength1 another by unusual power of enduring cold or hunger1 another by special sagacity1 another by special timidity1 another by special courage2 and others by other bodily and mental attributes4 ,now it is unquestionably true that1 other things equal1 each of these attributes1 giving its possessor an equal extra chance of life1 is likely to be transmitted to posterity4 ,but there seems no reason to believe it will be increased in subsequent generations by natural selection4 ,that it may be thus increased1 the animals not possessing more than average endowments of it must be more frequently killed off than individuals highly endowed with it2 and this can only happen when the attribute is one of greater importance1 for the time being1 than most of the other attributes4 ,if those members of the species which have but ordinary shares of it1 nevertheless survive by virtue of other superiorities which they severally possess1 then it is not easy to see how this particular attribute can be developed by natural selection in subsequent generations40 7,for if some other superiority is a greater source of luck1 then natural selection1 or survival of the luckiest1 will ensure that this other superiority be preserved at the expense of the one acquired in the earlier generation47 8,the probability seems rather to be1 that by gamogenesis1 this extra endowment will1 on the average1 be diminished in posterity--just serving in the long run to compensate the deficient endowments of other individuals1 whose special powers lie in other directions2 and so to keep up the normal structure of the species4 ,the working out of the process is here somewhat difficult to follow0 7there is no difficulty as soon as it is perceived that ,mr4 ,darwin's natural selection invariably means1 or ought to mean1 the survival of the luckiest1 and that seasons and what they bring with them1 though fairly constant on an average1 yet individually vary so greatly that what is luck in one season is disaster in another72 8but it appears to me that as fast as the number of bodily and mental faculties increases1 and as fast as the maintenance of life comes to depend less on the amount of any one1 and more on the combined action of all1 so fast does the production of specialities of character by natural selection alone become difficult4 ,particularly does this seem to be so with a species so multitudinous in powers as mankind2 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 sthetic faculties1 for example4 8,dwelling for a moment on this last illustration of the class of difficulties described1 let us ask how we are to interpret the development of the musical faculty2 how came there that endowment of musical faculty which characterises modern ,europeans at large1 as compared with their remote ancestors8 ,the monotonous chants of low savages cannot be said to show any melodic inspiration2 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 variation10 c4 ,it should be observed that the passage given in the last paragraph but one appeared in #ahfd1 only five years after the first edition of the 8,origin of ,species10 but1 crushing as it is1 ,mr4 ,darwin never answered it4 ,he treated it as nonexistent--and this1 doubtless from a business standpoint1 was the best thing he could do4 ,how far such a course was consistent with that single-hearted devotion to the interests of science for which ,mr4 ,darwin developed such an abnormal reputation1 is a point which ,i must leave to his many admirers to determine4 ,chapter ,,viii ,property1 ,common ,sense1 and ,protoplasm ,,one would think the issue stated in the three preceding chapters was decided in the stating4 ,this1 as ,i have already implied1 is probably the reason why those who have a vested interest in ,mr4 ,darwin's philosophical reputation have avoided stating it4 ,it may be said that1 seeing the result is a joint one1 inasmuch as both 8res0 and 8me10 or both luck and cunning1 enter so largely into development1 neither factor can claim pre-eminence to the exclusion of the other4 ,but life is short and business long1 and if we are to get the one into the other we must suppress details1 and leave our words pregnant1 as painters leave their touches when painting from nature4 ,if one factor concerns us greatly more than the other1 we should emphasize it1 and let the other go without saying1 by force of association4 ,there is no fear of its being lost sight of2 association is one of the few really liberal things in nature2 by liberal1 ,i mean precipitate and inaccurate2 the power of words1 as of pictures1 and indeed the power to carry on life at all1 vests in the fact that association does not stick to the letter of its bond1 but will take the half for the whole without even looking closely at the coin given to make sure that it is not counterfeit4 ,through the haste and high pressure of business1 errors arise continually1 and these errors give us the shocks of which our consciousness is compounded4 ,our whole conscious life1 therefore1 grows out of memory and out of the power of association1 in virtue of which not only does the right half pass for the whole1 but the wrong half not infrequently passes current for it also1 without being challenged and found out till1 as it were1 the accounts come to be balanced1 and it is found that they will not do so4 ,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 passbook2 the universe is generally right1 or would be upheld as right if the matter were to come before the not too incorruptible courts of nature1 and in nine cases out of ten the organism has made the error in its own favour1 so that it must now pay or die4 ,it can only pay by altering its mode of life1 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 family8 ,granted it will at first come out in their appearance only1 but there can be no change in appearance without some slight corresponding organic modification4 ,in practice there is usually compromise in these matters4 ,the universe1 if it does not give an organism short shrift and eat it at once1 will commonly abate something of its claim2 it gets tricked out of an additional moiety by the organism2 the organism really does pay something by way of changed habits2 this results in variation1 in virtue of which the accounts are cooked1 cobbled1 and passed by a series of those miracles of inconsistency which was call compromises1 and after this they cannot be reopened--not till next time4 ,surely of the two factors which go to the making up of development1 cunning is the one more proper to be insisted on as determining the physical and psychical well or ill being1 and hence1 ere long1 the future form of the organism4 ,we can hardly open a newspaper without seeing some sign of this2 take1 for example1 the following extract from a letter in the ,times of the day on which ,i am writing 7,february #h1 #ahhf7--8,you may pass along a road which divides a settlement of ,irish ,celts from one of ,germans4 ,they all came to the country equally without money1 and have had to fight their way in the forest1 but the difference in their condition is very remarkable2 on the ,german side there is comfort1 thrift1 peace1 but on the other side the spectacle is very different40 ,few will deny that slight organic differences1 corresponding to these differences of habit1 are already perceptible2 no ,darwinian will deny that these differences are likely to be inherited1 and1 in the absence of intermarriage between the two colonies1 to result in still more typical difference than that which exists at present4 ,according to ,mr4 ,darwin1 the improved type of the more successful race would not be due mainly to transmitted perseverance in well-doing1 but to the fact that if any member of the ,german colony 8happened0 to be born 8ever so slightly10 c4 ,of course this last is true to a certain extent also2 if any member of the ,german colony does 8happen to be born10 c41 then he will stand a better chance of surviving1 and1 if he marries a wife like himself1 of transmitting his good qualities2 but how about the happening8 ,how is it that this is of such frequent occurrence in the one colony1 and is so rare in the other8 ,fortes creantur fortibus et bonis4 ,true1 but how and why8 ,through the race being favoured8 ,in one sense1 doubtless1 it is true that no man can have anything except it be given him from above1 but it must be from an above into the composition of which he himself largely enters4 ,god gives us all things2 but we are a part of ,god1 and that part of ,him1 moreover1 whose department it more especially is to look after ourselves4 ,it cannot be through luck1 for luck is blind1 and does not pick out the same people year after year and generation after generation2 shall we not rather say1 then1 that it is because mind1 or cunning1 is a great factor in the achievement of physical results1 and because there is an abiding memory between successive generations1 in virtue of which the cunning of an earlier one enures to the benefit of its successors8 ,it is one of the commonplaces of biology that the nature of the organism 7which is mainly determined by ancestral antecedents7 is greatly more important in determining its future than the conditions of its environment1 provided1 of course1 that these are not too cruelly abnormal1 so that good seed will do better on rather poor soil1 than bad seed on rather good soil2 this alone should be enough to show that cunning1 or individual effort1 is more important in determining organic results than luck is1 and therefore that if either is to be insisted on to the exclusion of the other1 it should be cunning1 not luck4 ,which is more correctly said to be the main means of the development of capital--,luck8 or ,cunning8 ,of course there must be something to be developed--and luck1 that is to say1 the unknowable and unforeseeable1 enters everywhere2 but is it more convenient with our oldest and best-established ideas to say that luck is the main means of the development of capital1 or that cunning is so8 ,can there be a moment's hesitation in admitting that if capital is found to have been developed largely1 continuously1 by many people1 in many ways1 over a long period of time1 it can only have been by means of continued application1 energy1 effort1 industry1 and good sense8 ,granted there has been luck too2 of course there has1 but we let it go without saying1 whereas we cannot let the skill or cunning go without saying1 inasmuch as we feel the cunning to have been the essence of the whole matter4 ,granted1 again1 that there is no test more fallacious on a small scale than that of immediate success4 ,as applied to any particular individual1 it breaks down completely4 ,it is unfortunately no rare thing to see the good man striving against fate1 and the fool born with a silver spoon in his mouth4 ,still on a large scale no test can be conceivably more reliable2 a blockhead may succeed for a time1 but a succession of many generations of blockheads does not go on steadily gaining ground1 adding field to field and farm to farm1 and becoming year by year more capable and prosperous4 ,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 good4 ,people do not hold six trumps every hand for a dozen games of whist running1 if they do not keep a card or two up their sleeves4 ,cunning1 if it can keep its head above water at all1 will beat mere luck unaided by cunning1 no matter what start luck may have had1 if the race be a fairly long one4 ,growth is a kind of success which does indeed come to some organisms with less effort than to others1 but it cannot be maintained and improved upon without pains and effort4 ,a foolish organism and its fortuitous variation will be soon parted1 for1 as a general rule1 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 8fortuitous10 the organism will not know what to do with it when it has got it1 no matter how favourable it may be1 and it is little likely to be handed down to descendants4 ,indeed the kind of people who get on best in the world--and what test to a ,darwinian can be comparable to this8--commonly do insist on cunning rather than on luck1 sometimes perhaps even unduly2 speaking1 at least1 from experience1 ,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 luck4 ,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 do1 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 life4 ,i do not deny this2 but these ancestral accidents were either turned to account1 or neglected where they might have been taken advantage of2 they thus passed either into skill1 or want of skill2 so that whichever way the fact is stated the result is the same2 and if simplicity of statement be regarded1 there is no more convenient way of putting the matter than to say that though luck is mighty1 cunning is mightier still4 ,organism commonly shows its cunning by practising what ,horace preached1 and treating itself as more plastic than its surroundings2 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 events1 than by trying to shape events to suit themselves and their actions4 ,modification1 like charity1 begins at home4 ,but however this may be1 there can be no doubt that cunning is in the long run mightier than luck as regards the acquisition of property1 and what applies to property applies to organism also4 ,property1 as ,i have lately seen was said by ,rosmini1 is a kind of extension of the personality into the outside world4 ,he might have said as truly that it is a kind of penetration of the outside world within the limits of the personality1 or that it is at any rate a prophesying of1 and essay after1 the more living phase of matter in the direction of which it is tending4 ,if approached from the dynamical or living side of the underlying substratum1 it is the beginning of the comparatively stable equilibrium which we call brute matter2 if from the statical side1 that is to say1 from that of brute matter1 it is the beginning of that dynamical state which we associate with life2 it is the last of ego and first of non ego1 or vice vers1 as the case may be2 it is the ground whereon the two meet and are neither wholly one nor wholly the other1 but a whirling mass of contradictions such as attends all fusion4 ,what property is to a man's mind or soul that his body is also1 only more so4 ,the body is property carried to the bitter end1 or property is the body carried to the bitter end1 whichever the reader chooses2 the expression 8organic wealth0 is not figurative2 none other is so apt and accurate2 so universally1 indeed1 is this recognised that the fact has found expression in our liturgy1 which bids us pray for all those who are any wise afflicted 8in mind1 body1 or estate20 no inference1 therefore1 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 organs4 ,what is the stomach but a living sack1 or purse of untanned leather1 wherein we keep our means of subsistence8 ,food is money made easy2 it is petty cash in its handiest and most reduced form2 it is our way of assimilating our possessions and making them indeed our own4 ,what is the purse but a kind of abridged extra corporeal stomach wherein we keep the money which we convert by purchase into food1 as we presently convert the food by digestion into flesh and blood8 ,and what living form is there which is without a purse or stomach1 even though it have to job it by the meal as the amba does1 and exchange it for some other article as soon as it has done eating8 ,how marvellously does the analogy hold between the purse and the stomach alike as regards form and function2 and ,i may say in passing that1 as usual1 the organ which is the more remote from protoplasm is at once more special1 more an object of our consciousness1 and less an object of its own4 ,talk of ego and non ego meeting1 and of the hopelessness of avoiding contradiction in terms--talk of this1 and look1 in passing1 at the amba4 ,it is itself qu maker of the stomach and being fed2 it is not itself qu stomach and qu its using itself as a mere tool or implement to feed itself with4 ,it is active and passive1 object and subject1 ego and non ego--every kind of ,irish bull1 in fact1 which a sound logician abhors--and it is only because it has persevered1 as ,i said in 8,life and ,habit10 in thus defying logic and arguing most virtuously in a most vicious circle1 that it has come in the persons of some of its descendants to reason with sufficient soundness4 ,and what the amba is man is also2 man is only a great many ambas1 most of them dreadfully narrow-minded1 going up and down the country with their goods and chattels like gipsies in a caravan2 he is only a great many ambas that have had much time and money spent on their education1 and received large bequests of organised intelligence from those that have gone before them4 ,the most incorporate tool--we will say an eye1 or a tooth1 or the closed fist when used to strike--has still something of the non ego about it in so far as it is used2 those organs1 again1 that are the most completely separate from the body1 as the locomotive engine1 must still from time to time kiss the soil of the human body1 and be handled and thus crossed with man again if they would remain in working order4 ,they cannot be cut adrift from the most living form of matter 7,i mean most living from our point of view71 and remain absolutely without connection with it for any length of time1 any more than a seal can live without coming up sometimes to breathe2 and in so far as they become linked on to living beings they live4 ,everything is living which is in close communion with1 and interpermeated by1 that something which we call mind or thought4 ,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 them4 8,thy boots and spurs live10 he exclaims1 8when thy feet carry them2 thy hat lives when thy head is within it2 and so the stable lives when it contains the horse or mule1 or even yourself20 nor is it easy to see how this is to be refuted except at a cost which no one in his senses will offer4 ,it may be said that the life of clothes in wear and implements in use is no true life1 inasmuch as it differs from flesh and blood life in too many and important respects2 that we have made up our minds about not letting life outside the body too decisively to allow the question to be reopened2 that if this be tolerated we shall have societies for the prevention of cruelty to chairs and tables1 or cutting clothes amiss1 or wearing them to tatters1 or whatever other absurdity may occur to idle and unkind people2 the whole discussion1 therefore1 should be ordered out of court at once4 ,i admit that this is much the most sensible position to take1 but it can only be taken by those who turn the deafest of deaf ears to the teachings of science1 and tolerate no going even for a moment below the surface of things4 ,people who take this line must know how to put their foot down firmly in the matter of closing a discussion4 ,some one may perhaps innocently say that some parts of the body are more living and vital than others1 and those who stick to common sense may allow this1 but if they do they must close the discussion on the spot2 if they listen to another syllable they are lost2 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 cutting1 or than the calcareous parts of a bone1 the solvent will have been applied which will soon make an end of common sense ways of looking at the matter4 ,once even admit the use of the participle 8dying10 which involves degrees of death1 and hence an entry of death in part into a living body1 and common sense must either close the discussion at once1 or ere long surrender at discretion4 ,common sense can only carry weight in respect of matters with which every one is familiar1 as forming part of the daily and hourly conduct of affairs2 if we would keep our comfortable hard and fast lines1 our rough and ready unspecialised ways of dealing with difficult questions1 our impatience of what ,st4 ,paul calls 8doubtful disputations10 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 questioned4 ,common sense is not yet formulated in manners of science or philosophy1 for only few consider them2 few decisions1 therefore1 have been arrived at which all hold final4 ,science is1 like love1 8too young to know what conscience10 or common sense1 is4 ,as soon as the world began to busy itself with evolution it said good-bye to common sense1 and must get on with uncommon sense as best it can4 ,the first lesson that uncommon sense will teach it is that contradiction in terms is the foundation of all sound reasoning--and1 as an obvious consequence1 compromise1 the foundation of all sound practice4 ,this1 it follows easily1 involves the corollary that as faith1 to be of any value1 must be based on reason1 so reason1 to be of any value1 must be based on faith1 and that neither can stand alone or dispense with the other1 any more than culture or vulgarity can stand unalloyed with one another without much danger of mischance4 ,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-nail1 is so dangerous to common sense ways of looking at life and death2 ,i had better1 therefore1 be more explicit4 ,by this admission degrees of livingness are admitted within the body2 this involves approaches to non-livingness4 ,on this the question arises1 8,which are the most living parts80 ,the answer to this was given a few years ago with a flourish of trumpets1 and our biologists shouted with one voice1 8,great is protoplasm4 ,there is no life but protoplasm1 and ,huxley is its prophet40 ,read ,huxley's 8,physical ,basis of ,mind40 ,read ,professor ,mivart's article1 8,what are ,living ,beings80 in the ,contemporary ,review1 ,july1 #ahgi4 ,read ,dr4 ,andrew ,wilson's article in the ,gentleman's ,magazine1 ,october1 #ahgi4 ,remember ,professor ,allman's address to the ,british ,association1 #ahgi2 ask1 again1 any medical man what is the most approved scientific attitude as regards the protoplasmic and non-protoplasmic parts of the body1 and he will say that the thinly veiled conclusion arrived at by all of them is1 that the protoplasmic parts are alone truly living1 and that the non-protoplasmic are non-living4 ,it may suffice if ,i confine myself to ,professor ,allman's address to the ,british ,association in #ahgi1 as a representative utterance4 ,professor ,allman said3-- 8,protoplasm lies at the base of every vital phenomenon4 ,it is1 as ,huxley has well expressed it1 #8the physical basis of life2' wherever there is life from its lowest to its highest manifestation there is protoplasm2 wherever there is protoplasm there is life40 #abb;a ,to say wherever there is life there is protoplasm1 is to say that there can be no life without protoplasm1 and this is saying that where there is no protoplasm there is no life4 ,but large parts of the body are non-protoplasmic2 a bone is1 indeed1 permeated by protoplasm1 but it is not protoplasm2 it follows1 therefore1 that according to ,professor ,allman bone is not in any proper sense of words a living substance4 ,from this it should follow1 and doubtless does follow in ,professor ,allman's mind1 that large tracts of the human body1 if not the greater part by weight 7as bones1 skin1 muscular tissues1 c471 are no more alive than a coat or pair of boots in wear is alive1 except in so far as the bones1 c41 are more closely and nakedly permeated by protoplasm than the coat or boots1 and are thus brought into closer1 directer1 and more permanent communication with that which1 if not life itself1 still has more of the ear of life1 and comes nearer to its royal person than anything else does4 ,indeed that this is ,professor ,allman's opinion appears from the passage on page #bf of the report1 in which he says that in 8protoplasm we find the only form of matter in which life can manifest itself40 ,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 ones2 the matter used by the living protoplasm for this purpose is held to be entirely foreign to protoplasm itself1 and no more capable of acting in concert with it than bricks can understand and act in concert with the bricklayer4 ,as the bricklayer is held to be living and the bricks non-living1 so the bones and skin which protoplasm is supposed to construct are held non-living and the protoplasm alone living4 ,protoplasm1 it is said1 goes about masked behind the clothes or habits which it has fashioned4 ,it has habited itself as animals and plants1 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 them1 and that we keep spare paws in our bedrooms which lie by the wall and go to sleep when we have not got them on4 ,if1 in answer to the assertion that the osseous parts of bone are non-living1 it is said that they must be living1 for they heal if broken1 which no dead matter can do1 it is answered that the broken pieces of bone do not grow together2 they are mended by the protoplasm which permeates the ,haversian canals2 the bones themselves are no more living merely because they are tenanted by something which really does live1 than a house lives because men and women inhabit it2 and if a bone is repaired1 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 done4 ,we do not know1 it is said1 by what means the structureless viscid substance which we call protoplasm can build for itself a solid bone2 we do not understand how an amba makes its test2 no one understands how anything is done unless he can do it himself2 and even then he probably does not know how he has done it4 ,set a man who has never painted1 to watch ,rembrandt paint the ,burgomaster ,six1 and he will no more understand how ,rembrandt can have done it1 than we can understand how the amba makes its test1 or the protoplasm cements two broken ends of a piece of bone4 ,ces choses se font mais ne s'expliquent pas4 ,so some denizen of another planet looking at our earth through a telescope which showed him much1 but still not quite enough1 and seeing the ,st4 ,gothard tunnel plumb on end so that he could not see the holes of entry and exit1 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 means4 ,we know1 of course1 that it is not so1 and that exemption from the toil attendant on material obstacles has been compounded for1 in the ordinary way1 by the single payment of a tunnel2 and so with the cementing of a bone1 our biologists say that the protoplasm1 which is alone living1 cements it much as a man might mend a piece of broken china1 but that it works by methods and processes which elude us1 even as the holes of the ,st4 ,gothard tunnel may be supposed to elude a denizen of another world4 ,the reader will already have seen that the toils are beginning to close round those who1 while professing to be guided by common sense1 still parley with even the most superficial probers beneath the surface2 this1 however1 will appear more clearly in the following chapter4 ,it will also appear how far-reaching were the consequences of the denial of design that was involved in ,mr4 ,darwin's theory that luck is the main element in survival1 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 them4 ,chapter ,,ix ,property1 ,common ,sense1 and ,protoplasm 7continued7 ,,the position1 then1 stands thus4 ,common sense gave the inch of admitting some parts of the body to be less living than others1 and philosophy took the ell of declaring the body to be almost all of it stone dead4 ,this is serious2 still if it were all1 for a quiet life1 we might put up with it4 ,unfortunately we know only too well that it will not be all4 ,our bodies1 which seemed so living and now prove so dead1 have served us such a trick that we can have no confidence in anything connected with them4 ,as with skin and bones to-day1 so with protoplasm to-morrow4 ,protoplasm is mainly oxygen1 hydrogen1 nitrogen1 and carbon2 if we do not keep a sharp look out1 we shall have it going the way of the rest of the body1 and being declared dead in respect1 at any rate1 of these inorganic components4 ,science has not1 ,i believe1 settled all the components of protoplasm1 but this is neither here nor there2 she has settled what it is in great part1 and there is no trusting her not to settle the rest at any moment1 even if she has not already done so4 ,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 parts1 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-- ,why stop here8 ,why not add 8which run the tools and properties which are as essential to our life and health as much that is actually incorporate with us80 ,the same breach which has let the non-living effect a lodgment within the body must1 in all equity1 let the organic character--bodiliness1 so to speak--pass out beyond its limits and effect a lodgment in our temporary and extra-corporeal limbs4 ,what1 on the protoplasmic theory1 the skin and bones are1 that the hammer and spade are also2 they differ in the degree of closeness and permanence with which they are associated with protoplasm1 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 determine4 ,according to this view1 the non-protoplasmic parts of the body are tools of the first degree2 they are not living1 but they are in such close and constant contact with that which really lives1 that an aroma of life attaches to them4 ,some of these1 however1 such as horns1 hooves1 and tusks1 are so little permeated by protoplasm that they cannot rank much higher than the tools of the second degree1 which come next to them in order4 ,these tools of the second degree are either picked up ready-made1 or are manufactured directly by the body1 as being torn or bitten into shape1 or as stones picked up to throw at prey or at an enemy4 ,tools of the third degree are made by the instrumentality of tools of the second and first degrees2 as1 for example1 chipped flint1 arrow-heads1 c4 ,tools of the fourth degree are made by those of the third1 second1 and first4 ,they consist of the simpler compound instruments that yet require to be worked by hand1 as hammers1 spades1 and even hand flour-mills4 ,tools of the fifth degree are made by the help of those of the fourth1 third1 second1 and first4 ,they are compounded of many tools1 worked1 it may be1 by steam or water and requiring no constant contact with the body4 ,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 tool4 ,they must all be linked on to protoplasm1 which is the one original tool-maker1 but which can only make the tools that are more remote from itself by the help of those that are nearer1 that is to say1 it can only work when it has suitable tools to work with1 and when it is allowed to use them in its own way4 ,there can be no direct communication between protoplasm and a steam-engine2 there may be and often is direct communication between machines of even the fifth order and those of the first1 as when an engine-man turns a cock1 or repairs something with his own hands if he has nothing better to work with4 ,but put a hammer1 for example1 to a piece of protoplasm1 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 saw4 ,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 hammer2 it would make a slimy mess and then dry up2 still there can be no doubt 7so at least those who uphold protoplasm as the one living substance would say7 that the closer a machine can be got to protoplasm and the more permanent the connection1 the more living it appears to be1 or at any rate the more does it appear to be endowed with spontaneous and reasoning energy1 so long1 of course1 as the closeness is of a kind which protoplasm understands and is familiar with4 ,this1 they say1 is why we do not like using any implement or tool with gloves on1 for these impose a barrier between the tool and its true connection with protoplasm by means of the nervous system4 ,for the same reason we put gloves on when we box so as to bar the connection4 ,that which we handle most unglovedly is our food1 which we handle with our stomachs rather than with our hands4 ,our hands are so thickly encased with skin that protoplasm can hold but small conversation with what they contain1 unless it be held for a long time in the closed fist1 and even so the converse is impeded as in a strange language2 the inside of our mouths is more naked1 and our stomachs are more naked still2 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 itself1 and1 as we commonly say1 8agree with0 it1 instead of standing out stiffly for their own opinion4 ,we call this digesting our food2 more properly we should call it being digested by our food1 which reads1 marks1 learns1 and inwardly digests us1 till it comes to understand us and encourage us by assuring us that we were perfectly right all the time1 no matter what any one might have said1 or say1 to the contrary4 ,having thus recanted all its own past heresies1 it sets to work to convert everything that comes near it and seems in the least likely to be converted4 ,eating is a mode of love2 it is an effort after a closer union2 so we say we love roast beef4 ,a ,french lady told me once that she adored veal2 and a nurse tells her child that she would like to eat it4 ,even he who caresses a dog or horse pro tanto both weds and eats it4 ,strange how close the analogy between love and hunger2 in each case the effort is after closer union and possession2 in each case the outcome is reproduction 7for nutrition is the most complete of reproductions71 and in each case there are residua4 ,but to return4 ,i have shown above that one consequence of the attempt so vigorously made a few years ago to establish protoplasm as the one living substance1 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-livingness4 ,if the protoplasmic parts of the body are held living in virtue of their being used by something that really lives1 then so1 though in a less degree1 must tools and machines4 ,if1 on the other hand1 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 lives1 and have no life of their own--so1 though in a less degree1 must the non-protoplasmic parts of the body4 ,allow an overflowing aroma of life to vivify the horny skin under the heel1 and from this there will be a spilling which will vivify the boot in wear4 ,deny an aroma of life to the boot in wear1 and it must ere long be denied to ninety-nine per cent4 of the body2 and if the body is not alive while it can walk and talk1 what in the name of all that is unreasonable can be held to be so8 ,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 all4 ,organ means tool4 ,there is nothing which reveals our most genuine opinions to us so unerringly as our habitual and unguarded expressions1 and in the case under consideration so completely do we instinctively recognise the underlying identity of tools and limbs1 that scientific men use the word 8organ0 for any part of the body that discharges a function1 practically to the exclusion of any other term4 ,of course1 however1 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 ones4 ,if the above be admitted1 we can reply to those who in an earlier chapter objected to our saying that if ,mr4 ,darwin denied design in the eye he should deny it in the burglar's jemmy also4 ,for if bodily and non-bodily organs are essentially one in kind1 being each of them both living and non-living1 and each of them only a higher development of principles already admitted and largely acted on in the other1 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 inference4 ,in the absence of any show of reason to the contrary we should argue from the known to the unknown1 and presume that even as our non-bodily organs originated and were developed through gradual accumulation of design1 effort1 and contrivance guided by experience1 so also must our bodily organs have been1 in spite of the fact that the contrivance has been1 as it were1 denuded of external evidences in the course of long time4 ,this at least is the most obvious inference to draw2 the burden of proof should rest not with those who uphold function as the most important means of organic modification1 but with those who impugn it2 it is hardly necessary1 however1 to say that ,mr4 ,darwin never attempted to impugn by way of argument the conclusions either of his grandfather or of ,lamarck4 ,he waved them both aside in one or two short semi-contemptuous sentences1 and said no more about them--not1 at least1 until late in life he wrote his 8,erasmus ,darwin10 and even then his remarks were purely biographical2 he did not say one syllable by way of refutation1 or even of explanation4 ,i am free to confess that1 overwhelming as is the evidence brought forward by ,mr4 ,spencer in the articles already referred to1 as showing that accidental variations1 unguided by the helm of any main general principle which should as it were keep their heads straight1 could never accumulate with the results supposed by ,mr4 ,darwin2 and overwhelming1 again1 as is the consideration that ,mr4 ,spencer's most crushing argument was allowed by ,mr4 ,darwin to go without reply1 still the considerations arising from the discoveries of the last forty years or so in connection with protoplasm1 seem to me almost more overwhelming still4 ,this evidence proceeds on different lines from that adduced by ,mr4 ,spencer1 but it points to the same conclusion1 namely1 that though luck will avail much if backed by cunning and experience1 it is unavailing for any permanent result without them4 ,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 direction1 indeed1 in which they of all people in the world would willingly see them pointed4 ,it may be asked why ,i should have so strong an objection to seeing protoplasm as the only living substance1 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 which1 after all1 can so little affect daily conduct2 ,i reply that it is no part of my business to inquire whether this or that makes for my pet theories or against them2 my concern is to inquire whether or no it is borne out by facts1 and ,i find the opinion that protoplasm is the one living substance unstable1 inasmuch as it is an attempt to make a halt where no halt can be made4 ,this is enough2 but1 furthermore1 the fact that the protoplasmic parts of the body are more living than the non-protoplasmic--which ,i cannot deny1 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 better4 ,i pointed out another consequence1 which1 again1 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 ,examiner during the summer of #ahgi1 and showed that if protoplasm were held to be the sole seat of life1 then this unity in the substance vivifying all1 both animals and plants1 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 them1 and that thus protoplasm must be seen as the life of the world--as a vast body corporate1 never dying till the earth itself shall pass away4 ,this came practically to saying that protoplasm was ,god ,almighty1 who1 of all the forms open to ,him1 had chosen this singularly unattractive one as the channel through which to make ,himself manifest in the flesh by taking our nature upon ,him1 and animating us with ,his own ,spirit4 ,our biologists1 in fact1 were fast nearing the conception of a ,god who was both personal and material1 but who could not be made to square with pantheistic notions inasmuch as no provision was made for the inorganic world2 and1 indeed1 they seem to have become alarmed at the grotesqueness of the position in which they must ere long have found themselves1 for in the autumn of #ahgi the boom collapsed1 and thenceforth the leading reviews and magazines have known protoplasm no more4 ,about the same time bathybius1 which at one time bade fair to supplant it upon the throne of popularity1 died suddenly1 as ,i am told1 at ,norwich1 under circumstances which did not transpire1 nor has its name1 so far as ,i am aware1 been ever again mentioned4 ,so much for the conclusions in regard to the larger aspect of life taken as a whole which must follow from confining life to protoplasm2 but there is another aspect--that1 namely1 which regards the individual4 ,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 large2 for1 as ,i have already pointed out1 there is no drawing the line at protoplasm and resting at this point2 nor yet at the next halting-point beyond2 nor at the one beyond that4 ,how often is this process to be repeated8 and in what can it end but in the rehabilitation of the soul as an ethereal1 spiritual1 vital principle1 apart from matter1 which1 nevertheless1 it animates1 vivifying the clay of our bodies8 ,no one who has followed the course either of biology or psychology during this century1 and more especially during the last five-and-twenty years1 will tolerate the reintroduction of the soul as something apart from the substratum in which both feeling and action must be held to inhere4 ,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 discussion2 yet if bathybius had not been promptly dealt with1 it must have become apparent even to the ,british public that there were indeed but few steps from protoplasm1 as the only living substance1 to vital principle4 ,our biologists therefore stifled bathybius1 perhaps with justice1 certainly with prudence1 and left protoplasm to its fate4 ,any one who reads ,professor ,allman's address above referred to with due care will see that he was uneasy about protoplasm1 even at the time of its greatest popularity4 ,professor ,allman never says outright that the non-protoplasmic parts of the body are no more alive than chairs and tables are4 ,he said what involved this as an inevitable consequence1 and there can be no doubt that this is what he wanted to convey1 but he never insisted on it with the outspokenness and emphasis with which so startling a paradox should alone be offered us for acceptance2 nor is it easy to believe that his reluctance to express his conclusion totidem verbis was not due to a sense that it might ere long prove more convenient not to have done so4 ,when ,i advocated the theory of the livingness1 or quasi-livingness of machines1 in the chapters of 8,erewhon0 of which all else that ,i have written on biological subjects is a development1 ,i took care that people should see the position in its extreme form2 the non-livingness of bodily organs is to the full as startling a paradox as the livingness of non-bodily ones1 and we have a right to expect the fullest explicitness from those who advance it4 ,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 use4 ,in 8,erewhon0 ,i did not think it necessary to insist on this1 and did not1 indeed1 yet fully know what ,i was driving at4 ,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 to2 ,i have searched all they said1 and cannot find a single passage in which they declare even the osseous parts of a bone to be non-living1 though this conclusion was the raison d'tre of all they were saying and followed as an obvious inference4 ,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 circumspectly2 they probably felt1 after a vague1 ill-defined fashion1 that the more they reduced the body to mechanism the more they laid it open to an opponent to raise mechanism to the body1 but1 however this may be1 they dropped protoplasm1 as ,i have said1 in some haste with the autumn of #ahgi4 ,chapter ,x ,the ,attempt to ,eliminate ,mind ,,what1 it may be asked1 were our biologists really aiming at8--for men like ,professor ,huxley do not serve protoplasm for nought4 ,they wanted a good many things1 some of them more righteous than others1 but all intelligible4 ,among the more lawful of their desires was a craving after a monistic conception of the universe4 ,we all desire this2 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 proceeded1 both now and ever8 ,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 energy2 and yet wherein is there any substantial difference between this recent outcome of modern amateur1 and hence most sincere1 science--pointing as it does to an imperishable1 and as such unchangeable1 and as such1 again1 for ever unknowable underlying substance the modes of which alone change--wherein1 except in mere verbal costume1 does this differ from the conclusions arrived at by the psalmist8 8,of old10 he exclaims1 8hast ,thou laid the foundation of the earth2 and the heavens are the work of ,thy hands4 ,they shall perish1 but ,thou shalt endure2 yea1 all of them shall wax old like a garment2 as a vesture shalt ,thou change them and they shall be changed2 but ,thou art the same1 and ,thy years shall have no end40 #ace;a ,i know not what theologians may think of this passage1 but from a scientific point of view it is unassailable4 ,so again1 8,o ,lord10 he exclaims1 8,thou hast searched me out1 and known me3 ,thou knowest my down-sitting and mine up-rising2 ,thou understandest my thoughts long before4 ,thou art about my path1 and about my bed3 and spiest out all my ways4 ,for lo1 there is not a word in my tongue but ,thou1 ,o ,lord1 knowest it altogether 4 4 4 ,whither shall ,i go1 then1 from ,thy ,spirit8 ,or whither shall ,i go1 then1 from ,thy presence8 ,if ,i climb up into heaven ,thou art there3 if ,i go down to hell1 ,thou art there also4 ,if ,i take the wings of the morning1 and remain in the uttermost parts of the sea1 even there also shall ,thy hand lead me and ,thy right hand shall hold me4 ,if ,i say1 ,peradventure the darkness shall cover me1 then shall my night be turned to day4 ,yea1 the darkness is no darkness with ,thee1 but 4 4 4 the darkness and light to ,thee are both alike40 #acf;a ,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 ,god8 ,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 sea2 ever changing1 yet the same yesterday1 to-day1 and for ever2 the ineffable contradiction in terms whose presence none can either ever enter1 or ever escape8 ,or rather1 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 reality8 ,a convention was converted into a fetish1 and now that its worthlessness as a fetish is being generally felt1 its great value as a hieroglyph or convention is in danger of being lost sight of4 ,no doubt the psalmist was seeking for ,sir ,william ,grove's conception1 if haply he might feel after it and find it1 and assuredly it is not far from every one of us4 ,but the course of true philosophy never did run smooth2 no sooner have we fairly grasped the conception of a single eternal and for ever unknowable underlying substance1 then we are faced by mind and matter4 ,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 leaf1 and as no less an actual entity than the body4 ,neither body nor mind seems less essential to our existence than the other2 not only do we feel this as regards our own existence1 but we feel it also as pervading the whole world of life2 everywhere we see body and mind working together towards results that must be ascribed equally to both2 but they are two1 not one2 if1 then1 we are to have our monistic conception1 it would seem as though one of these must yield to the other2 which1 therefore1 is it to be8 ,this is a very old question4 ,some1 from time immemorial1 have tried to get rid of matter by reducing it to a mere concept of the mind1 and their followers have arrived at conclusions that may be logically irrefragable1 but are as far removed from common sense as they are in accord with logic2 at any rate they have failed to satisfy1 and matter is no nearer being got rid of now than it was when the discussion first began4 ,others1 again1 have tried materialism1 have declared the causative action of both thought and feeling to be deceptive1 and posit matter obeying fixed laws of which thought and feeling must be admitted as concomitants1 but with which they have no causal connection4 ,the same thing has happened to these men as to their opponents2 they made out an excellent case on paper1 but thought and feeling still remain the mainsprings of action that they have been always held to be4 ,we still say1 8,i gave him #e because ,i felt pleased with him1 and thought he would like it20 or1 8,i knocked him down because ,i felt angry1 and thought ,i would teach him better manners40 ,omnipresent life and mind with appearances of brute non-livingness--which appearances are deceptive2 this is one view4 ,omnipresent non-livingness or mechanism with appearances as though the mechanism were guided and controlled by thought--which appearances are deceptive2 this is the other4 ,between these two views the slaves of logic have oscillated for centuries1 and to all appearance will continue to oscillate for centuries more4 ,people who think--as against those who feel and act--want hard and fast lines--without which1 indeed1 they cannot think at all2 these lines are as it were steps cut on a slope of ice without which there would be no descending it4 ,when we have begun to travel the downward path of thought1 we ask ourselves questions about life and death1 ego and non ego1 object and subject1 necessity and free will1 and other kindred subjects4 ,we want to know where we are1 and in the hope of simplifying matters1 strip1 as it were1 each subject to the skin1 and finding that even this has not freed it from all extraneous matter1 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 itself4 ,then1 indeed1 we can docket it1 and pigeon-hole it for what it is2 but what can we do with it till we have got it pure8 ,we want to account for things1 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 other1 but to belong to half-a-dozen different accounts in proportions which often cannot even approximately be determined8 ,if we are to keep accounts we must keep them in reasonable compass2 and if keeping them within reasonable compass involves something of a ,procrustean arrangement1 we may regret it1 but cannot help it2 having set up as thinkers we have got to think1 and must adhere to the only conditions under which thought is possible2 life1 therefore1 must be life1 all life1 and nothing but life1 and so with death1 free will1 necessity1 design1 and everything else4 ,this1 at least1 is how philosophers must think concerning them in theory2 in practice1 however1 not even ,john ,stuart ,mill himself could eliminate all taint of its opposite from any one of these things1 any more than ,lady ,macbeth could clear her hand of blood2 indeed1 the more nearly we think we have succeeded the more certain are we to find ourselves ere long mocked and baffled2 and this1 ,i take it1 is what our biologists began in the autumn of #ahgi to discover had happened to themselves4 ,for some years they had been trying to get rid of feeling1 consciousness1 and mind generally1 from active participation in the evolution of the universe4 ,they admitted1 indeed1 that feeling and consciousness attend the working of the world's gear1 as noise attends the working of a steam-engine1 but they would not allow that consciousness produced more effect in the working of the world than noise on that of the steam-engine4 ,feeling and noise were alike accidental unessential adjuncts and nothing more4 ,incredible as it may seem to those who are happy enough not to know that this attempt is an old one1 they were trying to reduce the world to the level of a piece of unerring though sentient mechanism4 ,men and animals must be allowed to feel and even to reflect2 this much must be conceded1 but granted that they do1 still 7so1 at least1 it was contended7 it has no effect upon the result2 it does not matter as far as this is concerned whether they feel and think or not2 everything would go on exactly as it does and always has done1 though neither man nor beast knew nor felt anything at all4 ,it is only by maintaining things like this that people will get pensions out of the ,british public4 ,some such position as this is a sine qu non for the ,neo-,darwinistic doctrine of natural selection1 which1 as ,von ,hartmann justly observes1 involves an essentially mechanical mindless conception of the universe2 to natural selection's door1 therefore1 the blame of the whole movement in favour of mechanism must be justly laid4 ,it was natural that those who had been foremost in preaching mindless designless luck as the main means of organic modification1 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 world4 ,professor ,huxley1 as usual1 was among the foremost in this good work1 and whether influenced by ,hobbes1 or ,descartes1 or ,mr4 ,spalding1 or even by the machine chapters in 8,erewhon0 which were still recent1 ,i do not know1 led off with his article 8,on the hypothesis that animals are automata0 7which it may be observed is the exact converse of the hypothesis that automata are animated7 in the ,fortnightly ,review for ,november #ahgd4 ,professor ,huxley did not say outright that men and women were just as living and just as dead as their own watches1 but this was what his article came to in substance4 ,the conclusion arrived at was that animals were automata2 true1 they were probably sentient1 still they were automata pure and simple1 mere sentient pieces of exceedingly elaborate clockwork1 and nothing more4 8,professor ,huxley10 says ,mr4 ,romanes1 in his ,rede ,lecture for #ahhe1 #adj;a 8argues by way of perfectly logical deduction from this statement1 that thought and feeling have nothing to do with determining action2 they are merely the bye-products of cerebration1 or1 as he expresses it1 the indices of changes which are going on in the brain4 ,under this view we are all what he terms conscious automata1 or machines which happen1 as it were by chance1 to be conscious of some of their own movements4 ,but the consciousness is altogether adventitious1 and bears the same ineffectual relation to the activity of the brain as a steam whistle bears to the activity of a locomotive1 or the striking of a clock to the time-keeping adjustments of the clockwork4 ,here1 again1 we meet with an echo of ,hobbes1 who opens his work on the commonwealth with these words3-- 8#8,nature1 the art whereby ,god hath made and governs the world1 is by the art of man1 as in many other things1 in this also imitated1 that it can make an artificial animal4 ,for seeing life is but a motion of limbs1 the beginning whereof is in the principal part within2 why may we not say that all automata 7engines that move themselves by springs and wheels as doth a watch7 have an artificial life8 ,for what is the heart but a spring1 and the nerves but so many strings2 and the joints but so many wheels giving motion to the whole body1 such as was intended by the artificer8' 8,now this theory of conscious automatism is not merely a legitimate outcome of the theory that nervous changes are the causes of mental changes1 but it is logically the only possible outcome4 ,nor do ,i see any way in which this theory can be fought on grounds of physiology40 ,in passing1 ,i may say the theory that living beings are conscious machines1 can be fought just as much and just as little as the theory that machines are unconscious living beings2 everything that goes to prove either of these propositions goes just as well to prove the other also4 ,but ,i have perhaps already said as much as is necessary on this head2 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 universe4 ,in the following month appeared the late ,professor ,clifford's hardly less outspoken article1 8,body and ,mind10 to the same effect1 also in the ,fortnightly ,review1 then edited by ,mr4 ,john ,morley4 ,perhaps this view attained its frankest expression in an article by the late ,mr4 ,spalding1 which appeared in ,nature1 ,august #b1 #ahgg2 the following extracts will show that ,mr4 ,spalding must be credited with not playing fast and loose with his own conclusions1 and knew both how to think a thing out to its extreme consequences1 and how to put those consequences clearly before his readers4 ,mr4 ,spalding said3-- 8,against ,mr4 ,lewes's proposition that the movements of living beings are prompted and guided by feeling1 ,i urged that the amount and direction of every nervous discharge must depend solely on physical conditions4 ,and ,i contended that to see this clearly is to see that when we speak of movement being guided by feeling1 we use the language of a less advanced stage of enlightenment4 ,this view has since occupied a good deal of attention4 ,under the name of automatism it has been advocated by ,professor ,huxley1 and with firmer logic by ,professor ,clifford4 ,in the minds of our savage ancestors feeling was the source of all movement 4 4 4 ,using the word feeling in its ordinary sense 4 4 4 we assert not only that no evidence can be given that feeling ever does guide or prompt action1 but that the process of its doing so is inconceivable4 7,italics mine47 ,how can we picture to ourselves a state of consciousness putting in motion any particle of matter1 large or small8 ,puss1 while dozing before the fire1 hears a light rustle in the corner1 and darts towards the spot4 ,what has happened8 ,certain sound-waves have reached the ear1 a series of physical changes have taken place within the organism1 special groups of muscles have been called into play1 and the body of the cat has changed its position on the floor4 ,is it asserted that this chain of physical changes is not at all points complete and sufficient in itself80 ,i have been led to turn to this article of ,mr4 ,spalding's by ,mr4 ,stewart ,duncan1 who1 in his 8,conscious ,matter10 #adb;a quotes the latter part of the foregoing extract4 ,mr4 ,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--namely1 that there is no causative connection between mental and physical processes2 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 all4 ,i have said enough to show that in the decade1 roughly1 between #ahgj and #ahhj the set of opinion among our leading biologists was strongly against mind1 as having in any way influenced the development of animal and vegetable life1 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 #ahfj was one of the chief reasons1 if not the chief1 for the turn opinion was taking4 ,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 support4 ,it was while this mechanical fit was upon them1 and in the closest connection with it1 that the protoplasm boom developed4 ,it was doubtless felt that if the public could be got to dislodge life1 consciousness1 and mind from any considerable part of the body1 it would be no hard matter to dislodge it1 presently1 from the remainder2 on this the deceptiveness of mind as a causative agent1 and the sufficiency of a purely automatic conception of the universe1 as of something that will work if a penny be dropped into the box1 would be proved to demonstration4 ,it would be proved from the side of mind by considerations derivable from automatic and unconscious action where mind ex hypothesi was not1 but where action went on as well or better without it than with it2 it would be proved from the side of body by what they would doubtless call the 8most careful and exhaustive0 examination of the body itself by the aid of appliances more ample than had ever before been within the reach of man4 ,this was all very well1 but for its success one thing was a sine qu non--,i mean the dislodgment must be thorough2 the key must be got clean of even the smallest trace of blood1 for unless this could be done all the argument went to the profit not of the mechanism1 with which1 for some reason or other1 they were so much enamoured1 but of the soul and design1 the ideas which of all others were most distasteful to them4 ,they shut their eyes to this for a long time1 but in the end appear to have seen that if they were in search of an absolute living and absolute non-living1 the path along which they were travelling would never lead them to it4 ,they were driving life up into a corner1 but they were not eliminating it1 and1 moreover1 at the very moment of their thinking they had hedged it in and could throw their salt upon it1 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 use4 ,so they retired sulkily to their tents baffled but not ashamed4 99 99 99 99 99 ,some months subsequent to the completion of the foregoing chapter1 and indeed just as this book is on the point of leaving my hands1 there appears in ,nature #add;a a letter from the ,duke of ,argyll1 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 evolution4 ,the ,duke says3-- 8,the violence with which false interpretations were put upon this theory 7natural selection7 and a function was assigned to it which it could never fulfil1 will some day be recognised as one of the least creditable episodes in the history of science4 ,with a curious perversity it was the weakest elements in the theory which were seized upon as the most valuable1 particularly the part assigned to blind chance in the occurrence of variations4 ,this was valued not for its scientific truth1--for it could pretend to none1--but because of its assumed bearing upon another field of thought and the weapon it afforded for expelling mind from the causes of evolution40 ,the ,duke1 speaking of ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer's two articles in the ,nineteenth ,century for ,april and ,may1 #ahhf1 to which ,i have already called attention1 continues3-- 8,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 depends2 and yet the caution1 and almost timidity1 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 established40 ,against this ,i must protest2 the ,duke cannot seriously maintain that the main scope and purpose of ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer's articles is new4 ,their substance has been before us in ,mr4 ,spencer's own writings for some two-and-twenty years1 in the course of which ,mr4 ,spencer has been followed by ,professor ,mivart1 the ,rev4 ,j4 ,j4 ,murphy1 the ,duke of ,argyll himself1 and many other writers of less note4 ,when the ,duke talks about the establishment of a scientific reign of terror1 ,i confess ,i regard such an exaggeration with something like impatience4 ,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 years1 as during any other period in the history of literature4 ,of course1 if a man will keep blurting out unpopular truths without considering whose toes he may or may not be treading on1 he will make enemies some of whom will doubtless be able to give effect to their displeasure2 but that is part of the game4 ,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 #ahgg onwards2 naturally ,i have at times been very angrily attacked in consequence1 and as a matter of business have made myself as unpleasant as ,i could in my rejoinders1 but ,i cannot remember anything having been ever attempted against me which could cause fear in any ordinarily constituted person4 ,if1 then1 the ,duke of ,argyll is right in saying that ,mr4 ,spencer has shown a caution almost amounting to timidity in attacking ,mr4 ,darwin's theory1 either ,mr4 ,spencer must be a singularly timid person1 or there must be some cause for his timidity which is not immediately obvious4 ,if terror reigns anywhere among scientific men1 ,i should say it reigned among those who have staked imprudently on ,mr4 ,darwin's reputation as a philosopher4 ,i may add that the discovery of the ,duke's impression that there exists a scientific reign of terror1 explains a good deal in his writings which it has not been easy to understand hitherto4 ,as regards the theory of natural selection1 the ,duke says3-- 8,from the first discussions which arose on this subject1 ,i have ventured to maintain that 4 4 4 the phrase #8natural-selection' represented no true physical cause1 still less the complete set of causes requisite to account for the orderly procession of organic forms in ,nature2 that in so far as it assumed variations to arise by accident it was not only essentially faulty and incomplete1 but fundamentally erroneous2 in short1 that its only value lay in the convenience with which it groups under one form of words1 highly charged with metaphor1 an immense variety of causes1 some purely mental1 some purely vital1 and others purely physical or mechanical40 ,chapter ,,xi ,the ,way of ,escape ,,to sum up the conclusions hitherto arrived at4 ,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 supreme4 ,common sense sees life and death as distinct states having nothing in common1 and hence in all respects the antitheses of one another2 so that with common sense there should be no degrees of livingness1 but if a thing is alive at all it is as much alive as the most living of us1 and if dead at all it is stone dead in every part of it4 ,our philosophers have exercised too little consideration in retaining this view of the matter4 ,they say that an amba is as much a living being as a man is1 and do not allow that a well-grown1 highly educated man in robust health is more living than an idiot cripple4 ,they say he differs from the cripple in many important respects1 but not in degree of livingness4 ,yet1 as we have seen already1 even common sense by using the word 8dying0 admits degrees of life2 that is to say1 it admits a more and a less2 those1 then1 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 knows4 ,livingness depends on range of power1 versatility1 wealth of body and mind--how often1 indeed1 do we not see people taking a new lease of life when they have come into money even at an advanced age2 it varies as these vary1 beginning with things that1 though they have mind enough for an outsider to swear by1 can hardly be said to have yet found it out themselves1 and advancing to those that know their own minds as fully as anything in this world does so4 ,the more a thing knows its own mind the more living it becomes1 for life viewed both in the individual and in the general as the outcome of accumulated developments1 is one long process of specialising consciousness and sensation2 that is to say1 of getting to know one's own mind more and more fully upon a greater and greater variety of subjects4 ,on this ,i hope to touch more fully in another book2 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 authority1 they should have reconsidered everything that common sense had taught them4 ,the votaries of common sense make the same mistake as philosophers do1 but they make it in another way4 ,philosophers try to make the language of common sense serve for purposes of philosophy1 forgetting that they are in another world1 in which another tongue is current2 common sense people1 on the other hand1 every now and then attempt to deal with matters alien to the routine of daily life4 ,the boundaries between the two kingdoms being very badly defined1 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 all1 or else so full of common sense as to refuse to see one part of the body as less living than another1 that we can hope to steer clear of doubt1 inconsistency1 and contradiction in terms in almost every other word we utter4 ,we cannot serve the ,god of philosophy and the ,mammon of common sense at one and the same time1 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 organism4 ,it is easy to understand how the error of philosophers arose1 for1 slaves of habit as we all are1 we are more especially slaves when the habit is one that has not been found troublesome4 ,there is no denying that it saves trouble to have things either one thing or the other1 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 observable4 ,if it is good to eat we have no difficulty in knowing when it is dead enough to be eaten2 if not good to eat1 but valuable for its skin1 we know when it is dead enough to be skinned with impunity2 if it is a man1 we know when he has presented enough of the phenomena of death to allow of our burying him and administering his estate2 in fact1 ,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 perplexing2 hence we have become so accustomed to think there can be no admixture of the two states1 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 application4 ,there can be no doubt that when accuracy is required we should see life and death not as fundamentally opposed1 but as supplementary to one another1 without either's being ever able to exclude the other altogether2 thus we should indeed see some things as more living than others1 but we should see nothing as either unalloyedly living or unalloyedly non-living4 ,if a thing is living1 it is so living that it has one foot in the grave already2 if dead1 it is dead as a thing that has already re-entered into the womb of ,nature4 ,and within the residue of life that is in the dead there is an element of death2 and within this there is an element of life1 and so ad infinitum--again1 as reflections in two mirrors that face one another4 ,in brief1 there is nothing in life of which there are not germs1 and1 so to speak1 harmonics in death1 and nothing in death of which germs and harmonics may not be found in life4 ,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 itself4 ,granted that death is a greater new departure in an organism's life1 than any since that congeries of births and deaths to which the name embryonic stages is commonly given1 still it is a new departure of the same essential character as any other--that is to say1 though there be much new there is much1 not to say more1 old along with it4 ,we shrink from it as from any other change to the unknown1 and also perhaps from an instinctive sense that the fear of death is a sine qu non for physical and moral progress1 but the fear is like all else in life1 a substantial thing which1 if its foundations be dug about1 is found to rest on a superstitious basis4 ,where1 and on what principle1 are the dividing lines between living and non-living to be drawn8 ,all attempts to draw them hitherto have ended in deadlock and disaster2 of this ,m4 ,vianna ,de ,lima1 in his 8,expos ,sommaire des ,thories transformistes de ,lamarck1 ,darwin1 et ,haeckel10 #aej;a says that all attempts to trace une ligne de dmarcation nette et profonde entre la matire vivante et la matire inerte have broken down4 #aej;b ,il y a un reste de vie dans le cadavre1 says ,diderot1 #aej;c speaking of the more gradual decay of the body after an easy natural death1 than after a sudden and violent one2 and so ,buffon begins his first volume by saying that 8we can descend1 by almost imperceptible degrees1 from the most perfect creature to the most formless matter--from the most highly organised matter to the most entirely inorganic substance40 #aej;d ,is the line to be so drawn as to admit any of the non-living within the body8 ,if we answer 8yes10 then1 as we have seen1 moiety after moiety is filched from us1 till we find ourselves left face to face with a tenuous quasi immaterial vital principle or soul as animating an alien body1 with which it not only has no essential underlying community of substance1 but with which it has no conceivable point in common to render a union between the two possible1 or give the one a grip of any kind over the other2 in fact1 the doctrine of disembodied spirits1 so instinctively rejected by all who need be listened to1 comes back as it would seem1 with a scientific imprimatur2 if1 on the other hand1 we exclude the non-living from the body1 then what are we to do with nails that want cutting1 dying skin1 or hair that is ready to fall off8 ,are they less living than brain8 ,answer 8yes10 and degrees are admitted1 which we have already seen prove fatal2 answer 8no10 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 does2 answer that these things are not very important1 and we quit the ground of equity and high philosophy on which we have given ourselves such airs1 and go back to common sense as unjust judges that will hear those widows only who importune us4 ,as with the non-living so also with the living4 ,are we to let it pass beyond the limits of the body1 and allow a certain temporary overflow of livingness to ordain as it were machines in use8 ,then death will fare1 if we once let life without the body1 as life fares if we once let death within it4 ,it becomes swallowed up in life1 just as in the other case life was swallowed up in death4 ,are we to confine it to the body8 ,if so1 to the whole body1 or to parts8 ,and if to parts1 to what parts1 and why8 ,the only way out of the difficulty is to rehabilitate contradiction in terms1 and say that everything is both alive and dead at one and the same time--some things being much living and little dead1 and others1 again1 much dead and little living4 ,having done this we have only got to settle what a thing is--when a thing is a thing pure and simple1 and when it is only a congeries of things--and we shall doubtless then live very happily and very philosophically ever afterwards4 ,but here another difficulty faces us4 ,common sense does indeed know what is meant by a 8thing0 or 8an individual10 but philosophy cannot settle either of these two points4 ,professor ,mivart made the question 8,what are ,living ,beings80 the subject of an article in one of our leading magazines only a very few years ago4 ,he asked1 but he did not answer4 ,and so ,professor ,moseley was reported 7,times1 ,january #af1 #ahhe7 as having said that it was 8almost impossible0 to say what an individual was4 ,surely if it is only 8almost0 impossible for philosophy to determine this1 ,professor ,moseley should have at any rate tried to do it2 if1 however1 he had tried and failed1 which from my own experience ,i should think most likely1 he might have spared his 8almost40 8,almost0 is a very dangerous word4 ,i once heard a man say that an escape he had had from drowning was 8almost0 providential4 ,the difficulty about defining an individual arises from the fact that we may look at 8almost0 everything from two different points of view4 ,if we are in a common-sense humour for simplifying things1 treating them broadly1 and emphasizing resemblances rather than differences1 we can find excellent reasons for ignoring recognised lines of demarcation1 calling everything by a new name1 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 men2 if we are in this humour individuality after individuality disappears1 and ere long1 if we are consistent1 nothing will remain but one universal whole1 one true and only atom from which alone nothing can be cut off and thrown away on to something else2 if1 on the other hand1 we are in a subtle philosophically accurate humour for straining at gnats and emphasizing differences rather than resemblances1 we can draw distinctions1 and give reasons for subdividing and subdividing1 till1 unless we violate what we choose to call our consistency somewhere1 we shall find ourselves with as many names as atoms and possible combinations and permutations of atoms4 ,the lines we draw1 the moments we choose for cutting this or that off at this or that place1 and thenceforth the dubbing it by another name1 are as arbitrary as the moments chosen by a ,south-,eastern ,railway porter for leaving off beating doormats2 in each case doubtless there is an approximate equity1 but it is of a very rough and ready kind4 ,what else1 however1 can we do8 ,we can only escape the ,scylla of calling everything by one name1 and recognising no individual existences of any kind1 by falling into the ,charybdis of having a name for everything1 or by some piece of intellectual sharp practice like that of the shrewd but unprincipled ,ulysses4 ,if we were consistent honourable gentlemen1 into ,charybdis or on to ,scylla we should go like lambs2 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 own2 nevertheless even the most scrupulous of philosophers pockets his consistency at a pinch1 and refuses to let the native hue of resolution be sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought1 nor yet fobbed by the rusty curb of logic4 ,he is right1 for assuredly the poor intellectual abuses of the time want countenancing now as much as ever1 but so far as he countenances them1 he should bear in mind that he is returning to the ground of common sense1 and should not therefore hold himself too stiffly in the matter of logic4 ,as with life and death so with design and absence of design or luck4 ,so also with union and disunion4 ,there is never either absolute design rigorously pervading every detail1 nor yet absolute absence of design pervading any detail rigorously1 so1 as between substances1 there is neither absolute union and homogeneity1 not absolute disunion and heterogeneity2 there is always a little place left for repentance2 that is to say1 in theory we should admit that both design and chance1 however well defined1 each have an aroma1 as it were1 of the other4 ,who can think of a case in which his own design--about which he should know more than any other1 and from which1 indeed1 all his ideas of design are derived--was so complete that there was no chance in any part of it8 ,who1 again1 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 juncture8 ,this1 nevertheless1 does not involve our being unable ever to ascribe a result baldly either to luck or cunning4 ,in some cases a decided preponderance of the action1 whether seen as a whole or looked at in detail1 is recognised at once as due to design1 purpose1 forethought1 skill1 and effort1 and then we properly disregard the undesigned element2 in others the details cannot without violence be connected with design1 however much the position which rendered the main action possible may involve design--as1 for example1 there is no design in the way in which individual pieces of coal may hit one another when shot out of a sack1 but there may be design in the sack's being brought to the particular place where it is emptied2 in others design may be so hard to find that we rightly deny its existence1 nevertheless in each case there will be an element of the opposite1 and the residuary element would1 if seen through a mental microscope1 be found to contain a residuary element of its opposite1 and this again of its opposite1 and so on ad infinitum1 as with mirrors standing face to face4 ,this having been explained1 and it being understood that when we speak of design in organism we do so with a mental reserve of exceptis excipiendis1 there should be no hesitation in holding the various modifications of plants and animals to be in such preponderating measure due to function1 that design1 which underlies function1 is the fittest idea with which to connect them in our minds4 ,we will now proceed to inquire how ,mr4 ,darwin came to substitute1 or try to substitute1 the survival of the luckiest fittest1 for the survival of the most cunning fittest1 as held by ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck2 or more briefly how he came to substitute luck for cunning4 ,chapter ,,xii ,why ,darwin's ,variations were ,accidental ,,some may perhaps deny that ,mr4 ,darwin did this1 and say he laid so much stress on use and disuse as virtually to make function his main factor of evolution4 ,if1 indeed1 we confine ourselves to isolated passages1 we shall find little difficulty in making out a strong case to this effect4 ,certainly most people believe this to be ,mr4 ,darwin's doctrine1 and considering how long and fully he had the ear of the public1 it is not likely they would think thus if ,mr4 ,darwin had willed otherwise1 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 it2 but it is hardly necessary1 when addressing biologists1 to insist on the fact that ,mr4 ,darwin's distinctive doctrine is the denial of the comparative importance of function1 or use and disuse1 as a purveyor of variations1--with some1 but not very considerable1 exceptions1 chiefly in the cases of domesticated animals4 ,he did not1 however1 make his distinctive feature as distinct as he should have done4 ,sometimes he said one thing1 and sometimes the directly opposite4 ,sometimes1 for example1 the conditions of existence 8included natural selection0 or the fact that the best adapted to their surroundings live longest and leave most offspring2 #aef;a sometimes 8the principle of natural selection0 8fully embraced0 8the expression of conditions of existence40 #aef;b ,it would not be easy to find more unsatisfactory writing than this is1 nor any more clearly indicating a mind ill at ease with itself4 ,sometimes 8ants work by inherited instincts and inherited tools20 #aeg;a sometimes1 again1 it is surprising that the case of ants working by inherited instincts has not been brought as a demonstrative argument 8against the well-known doctrine of inherited habit1 as advanced by ,lamarck40 #aeg;b ,sometimes the winglessness of beetles inhabiting ocean islands is 8mainly due to natural selection10 #aeg;c and though we might be tempted to ascribe the rudimentary condition of the wing to disuse1 we are on no account to do so--though disuse was probably to some extent 8combined with0 natural selection2 at other times 8it is probable that disuse has been the main means of rendering the wings of beetles living on small exposed islands0 rudimentary4 #aeg;d ,we may remark in passing that if disuse1 as ,mr4 ,darwin admits on this occasion1 is the main agent in rendering an organ rudimentary1 use should have been the main agent in rendering it the opposite of rudimentary--that is to say1 in bringing about its development4 ,the ostensible raison d'tre1 however1 of the 8,origin of ,species0 is to maintain that this is not the case4 ,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 8,origin of ,species40 ,if it were desired to show that there is no substantial difference between the doctrine of ,erasmus ,darwin and that of his grandson1 it would be easy to make out a good case for this1 in spite of ,mr4 ,darwin's calling his grandfather's views 8erroneous10 in the historical sketch prefixed to the later editions of the 8,origin of ,species40 ,passing over the passage already quoted on p4 #fb of this book1 in which ,mr4 ,darwin declares 8habit omnipotent and its effects hereditary0--a sentence1 by the way1 than which none can be either more unfalteringly ,lamarckian or less tainted with the vices of ,mr4 ,darwin's later style--passing this over as having been written some twenty years before the 8,origin of ,species0--the last paragraph of the 8,origin of ,species0 itself is purely ,lamarckian and ,erasmus-,darwinian4 ,it declares the laws in accordance with which organic forms assumed their present shape to be--8,growth with reproduction2 ,variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life and from use and disuse1 c40 #aeh;a ,wherein does this differ from the confession of faith made by ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck8 ,where are the accidental fortuitous1 spontaneous variations now8 ,and if they are not found important enough to demand mention in this peroration and stretto1 as it were1 of the whole matter1 in which special prominence should be given to the special feature of the work1 where ought they to be made important8 ,mr4 ,darwin immediately goes on3 8,a ratio of existence so high as to lead to a struggle for life1 and as a consequence to natural selection1 entailing divergence of character and the extinction of less improved forms20 so that natural selection turns up after all4 ,yes--in the letters that compose it1 but not in the spirit2 not in the special sense up to this time attached to it in the 8,origin of ,species40 ,the expression as used here is one with which ,erasmus ,darwin would have found little fault1 for it means not as elsewhere in ,mr4 ,darwin's book and on his title-page the preservation of 8favoured0 or lucky varieties1 but the preservation of varieties that have come to be varieties through the causes assigned in the preceding two or three lines of ,mr4 ,darwin's sentence2 and these are mainly functional or ,erasmus-,darwinian2 for the indirect action of the conditions of life is mainly functional1 and the direct action is admitted on all hands to be but small4 ,it now appears more plainly1 as insisted upon on an earlier page1 that there is not one natural selection and one survival of the fittest1 but two1 inasmuch as there are two classes of variations from which nature 7supposing no exception taken to her personification7 can select4 ,the bottles have the same labels1 and they are of the same colour1 but the one holds brandy1 and the other toast and water4 ,nature can1 by a figure of speech1 be said to select from variations that are mainly functional or from variations that are mainly accidental2 in the first case she will eventually get an accumulation of variation1 and widely different types will come into existence2 in the second1 the variations will not occur with sufficient steadiness for accumulation to be possible4 ,in the body of ,mr4 ,darwin's book the variations are supposed to be mainly due to accident1 and function1 though not denied all efficacy1 is declared to be the greatly subordinate factor2 natural selection1 therefore1 has been hitherto throughout tantamount to luck2 in the peroration the position is reversed in toto2 the selection is now made from variations into which luck has entered so little that it may be neglected1 the greatly preponderating factor being function2 here1 then1 natural selection is tantamount to cunning4 ,we are such slaves of words that1 seeing the words 8natural selection0 employed--and forgetting that the results ensuing on natural selection will depend entirely on what it is that is selected from1 so that the gist of the matter lies in this and not in the words 8natural selection0--it escaped us that a change of front had been made1 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 support2 the book preached luck1 the peroration cunning4 ,and there can be no doubt ,mr4 ,darwin intended that the change of front should escape us2 for it cannot be believed that he did not perfectly well know what he had done4 ,mr4 ,darwin edited and re-edited with such minuteness of revision that it may be said no detail escaped him provided it was small enough2 it is incredible that he should have allowed this paragraph to remain from first to last unchanged 7except for the introduction of the words 8by the ,creator10 which are wanting in the first edition7 if they did not convey the conception he most wished his readers to retain4 ,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 book1 he must have become aware of it long before he revised the 8,origin of ,species0 for the last time2 still he never altered it1 and never put us on our guard4 ,it was not ,mr4 ,darwin's manner to put his reader on his guard2 we might as well expect ,mr4 ,gladstone to put us on our guard about the ,irish land bills4 ,caveat lector seems to have been his motto4 ,mr4 ,spencer1 in the articles already referred to1 is at pains to show that ,mr4 ,darwin's opinions in later life underwent a change in the direction of laying greater stress on functionally produced modifications1 and points out that in the sixth edition of the 8,origin of ,species0 ,mr4 ,darwin says1 8,i think there can be no doubt that use in our domestic animals has strengthened and enlarged certain parts1 and disuse diminished them20 whereas in his first edition he said1 8,i think there can be little doubt0 of this4 ,mr4 ,spencer also quotes a passage from 8,the ,descent of ,man10 in which ,mr4 ,darwin said that even in the first edition of the 8,origin of ,species0 he had attributed great effect to function1 as though in the later ones he had attributed still more2 but if there was any considerable change of position1 it should not have been left to be toilsomely collected by collation of editions1 and comparison of passages far removed from one another in other books4 ,if his mind had undergone the modification supposed by ,mr4 ,spencer1 ,mr4 ,darwin should have said so in a prominent passage of some later edition of the 8,origin of ,species40 ,he should have said--8,in my earlier editions ,i underrated1 as now seems probable1 the effects of use and disuse as purveyors of the slight successive modifications whose accumulation in the ordinary course of things results in specific difference1 and ,i laid too much stress on the accumulation of merely accidental variations20 having said this1 he should have summarised the reasons that had made him change his mind1 and given a list of the most important cases in which he has seen fit to alter what he had originally written4 ,if ,mr4 ,darwin had dealt thus with us we should have readily condoned all the mistakes he would have been at all likely to have made1 for we should have known him as one who was trying to help us1 tidy us up1 keep us straight1 and enable us to use our judgments to the best advantage4 ,the public will forgive many errors alike of taste and judgment1 where it feels that a writer persistently desires this4 ,i can only remember a couple of sentences in the later editions of the 8,origin of ,species0 in which ,mr4 ,darwin directly admits a change of opinion as regards the main causes of organic modification4 ,how shuffling the first of these is ,i have already shown in 8,life and ,habit10 p4 #bfj1 and in 8,evolution1 ,old and ,new10 p4 #cei2 ,i need not1 therefore1 say more here1 especially as there has been no rejoinder to what ,i then said4 ,curiously enough the sentence does not bear out ,mr4 ,spencer's contention that ,mr4 ,darwin in his later years leaned more decidedly towards functionally produced modifications1 for it runs3 #afa;a--8,in the earlier editions of this work ,i underrated1 as now seems probable1 the frequency and importance of modifications due10 not1 as ,mr4 ,spencer would have us believe1 to use and disuse1 but 8to spontaneous variability10 by which can only be intended1 8to variations in no way connected with use and disuse10 as not being assignable to any known cause of general application1 and referable as far as we are concerned to accident only2 so that he gives the natural survival of the luckiest1 which is indeed his distinctive feature1 if it deserve to be called a feature at all1 greater prominence than ever4 ,nevertheless there is no change in his concluding paragraph1 which still remains an embodiment of the views of ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck4 ,the other passage is on p4 #dba of the edition of #ahgf4 ,it stands3--8,i have now recapitulated the facts and considerations which have thoroughly0 7why 8thoroughly087 8convinced me that species have been modified during a long course of descent4 ,this has been effected chiefly through the natural selection of numerous1 successive1 slight1 favourable variations2 aided in an important manner by the inherited effects of the use and disuse of parts2 and in an unimportant manner1 that is1 in relation to adaptive structures1 whether past or present1 by the direct action of external conditions1 and by variations which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously4 ,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 selection40 ,here1 again1 it is not use and disuse which ,mr4 ,darwin declares himself to have undervalued1 but spontaneous variations4 ,the sentence just given is one of the most confusing ,i ever read even in the works of ,mr ,darwin4 ,it is the essence of his theory that the 8numerous successive1 slight1 favourable variations10 above referred to1 should be fortuitous1 accidental1 spontaneous2 it is evident1 moreover1 that they are intended in this passage to be accidental or spontaneous1 although neither of these words is employed1 inasmuch as use and disuse and the action of the conditions of existence1 whether direct or indirect1 are mentioned specially as separate causes which purvey only the minor part of the variations from among which nature selects4 ,the words 8that is1 in relation to adaptive forms0 should be omitted1 as surplusage that draws the reader's attention from the point at issue2 the sentence really amounts to this--that modification has been effected chiefly through selection in the ordinary course of nature from among spontaneous variations1 aided in an unimportant manner by variations which qu us are spontaneous4 ,nevertheless1 though these spontaneous variations are still so trifling in effect that they only aid spontaneous variations in an unimportant manner1 in his earlier editions ,mr4 ,darwin thought them still less important than he does now4 ,this comes of tinkering4 ,we do not know whether we are on our heads or our heels4 ,we catch ourselves repeating 8important10 8unimportant10 8unimportant10 8important10 like the ,king when addressing the jury in 8,alice in ,wonderland20 and yet this is the book of which ,mr4 ,grant ,allen #afc;a says that it is 8one of the greatest1 and most learned1 the most lucid1 the most logical1 the most crushing1 the most conclusive1 that the world has ever seen4 ,step by step1 and principle by principle1 it proved every point in its progress triumphantly before it went on to the next4 ,so vast an array of facts so thoroughly in hand had never before been mustered and marshalled in favour of any biological theory40 ,the book and the eulogy are well mated4 ,i see that in the paragraph following on the one just quoted1 ,mr4 ,allen says1 that 8to the world at large ,darwinism and evolution became at once synonymous terms40 ,certainly it was no fault of ,mr4 ,darwin's if they did not1 but ,i will add more on this head presently2 for the moment1 returning to ,mr4 ,darwin1 it is hardly credible1 but it is nevertheless true1 that ,mr ,darwin begins the paragraph next following on the one on which ,i have just reflected so severely1 with the words1 8,it can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection1 the several large classes of facts above specified40 ,if ,mr4 ,darwin found the large classes of facts 8satisfactorily0 explained by the survival of the luckiest irrespectively of the cunning which enabled them to turn their luck to account1 he must have been easily satisfied4 ,perhaps he was in the same frame of mind as when he said #afd;a that 8even an imperfect answer would be satisfactory10 but surely this is being thankful for small mercies4 ,on the following page ,mr4 ,darwin says3--8,although ,i am fully0 7why 8fully087 8convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume under the form of an abstract1 ,i by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists10 c4 ,i have not quoted the whole of ,mr4 ,darwin's sentence1 but it implies that any experienced naturalist who remained unconvinced was an old-fashioned1 prejudiced person4 ,i confess that this is what ,i rather feel about the experienced naturalists who differ in only too great numbers from myself1 but ,i did not expect to find so much of the old ,adam remaining in ,mr4 ,darwin2 ,i did not expect to find him support me in the belief that naturalists are made of much the same stuff as other people1 and1 if they are wise1 will look upon new theories with distrust until they find them becoming generally accepted4 ,i am not sure that ,mr4 ,darwin is not just a little bit flippant here4 ,sometimes ,i ask myself whether it is possible that1 not being convinced1 ,i may be an experienced naturalist after all2 at other times1 when ,i read ,mr4 ,darwin's works and those of his eulogists1 ,i wonder whether there is not some other ,mr4 ,darwin1 some other 8,origin of ,species10 some other ,professors ,huxley1 ,tyndal1 and ,ray ,lankester1 and whether in each case some malicious fiend has not palmed off a counterfeit upon me that differs toto clo from the original4 ,i felt exactly the same when ,i read ,goethe's 8,wilhelm ,meister02 ,i could not believe my eyes1 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 world4 ,it seemed to me that there must be some other ,goethe and some other ,wilhelm ,meister4 ,indeed ,i find myself so depressingly out of harmony with the prevailing not opinion only1 but spirit--if1 indeed1 the ,huxleys1 ,tyndals1 ,miss ,buckleys1 ,ray ,lankesters1 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 hallucination2 nevertheless ,i know that either every canon1 whether of criticism or honourable conduct1 which ,i have learned to respect is an impudent swindle1 suitable for the cloister only1 and having no force or application in the outside world2 or else that ,mr4 ,darwin and his supporters are misleading the public to the full as much as the theologians of whom they speak at times so disapprovingly4 ,they sin1 moreover1 with incomparably less excuse4 ,right as they doubtless are in much1 and much as we doubtless owe them 7so we owe much also to the theologians1 and they also are right in much71 they are giving way to a temper which cannot be indulged with impunity4 ,i know the great power of academicism2 ,i know how instinctively academicism everywhere must range itself on ,mr4 ,darwin's side1 and how askance it must look on those who write as ,i do2 but ,i know also that there is a power before which even academicism must bow1 and to this power ,i look not unhopefully for support4 ,as regards ,mr4 ,spencer's contention that ,mr4 ,darwin leaned more towards function as he grew older1 ,i do not doubt that at the end of his life ,mr4 ,darwin believed modification to be mainly due to function1 but the passage quoted on page #fb written in #ahci1 coupled with the concluding paragraph of the 8,origin of ,species0 written in #ahei1 and allowed to stand during seventeen years of revision1 though so much else was altered--these passages1 when their dates and surroundings are considered1 suggest strongly that ,mr4 ,darwin thought during all the forty years or so thus covered exactly as his grandfather and ,lamarck had done1 and indeed as all sensible people since ,buffon wrote have done if they have accepted evolution at all4 ,then why should he not have said so8 ,what object could he have in writing an elaborate work to support a theory which he knew all the time to be untenable8 ,the impropriety of such a course1 unless the work was1 like ,buffon's1 transparently ironical1 could only be matched by its fatuousness1 or indeed by the folly of one who should assign action so motiveless to any one out of a lunatic asylum4 ,this sounds well1 but unfortunately we cannot forget that when ,mr4 ,darwin wrote the 8,origin of ,species0 he claimed to be the originator of the theory of descent with modification generally2 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 sold1 and then with as meagre1 inadequate notice as can be well conceived4 ,lamarck was just named in the first editions of the 8,origin of ,species10 but only to be told that ,mr4 ,darwin had not got anything to give him1 and he must go away2 the author of the 8,vestiges of ,creation0 was also just mentioned1 but only in a sentence full of such gross misrepresentation that ,mr4 ,darwin did not venture to stand by it1 and expunged it in later editions1 as usual1 without calling attention to what he had done4 ,it would have been in the highest degree imprudent1 not to say impossible1 for one so conscientious as ,mr4 ,darwin to have taken the line he took in respect of descent with modification generally1 if he were not provided with some ostensibly distinctive feature1 in virtue of which1 if people said anything1 he might claim to have advanced something different1 and widely different1 from the theory of evolution propounded by his illustrious predecessors2 a distinctive theory of some sort1 therefore1 had got to be looked for--and if people look in this spirit they can generally find4 ,i imagine that ,mr4 ,darwin1 casting about for a substantial difference1 and being unable to find one1 committed the ,gladstonian blunder of mistaking an unsubstantial for a substantial one4 ,it was doubtless because he suspected it that he never took us fully into his confidence1 nor in all probability allowed even to himself how deeply he distrusted it4 ,much1 however1 as he disliked the accumulation of accidental variations1 he disliked not claiming the theory of descent with modification still more2 and if he was to claim this1 accidental his variations had got to be4 ,accidental they accordingly were1 but in as obscure and perfunctory a fashion as ,mr4 ,darwin could make them consistently with their being to hand as accidental variations should later developments make this convenient4 ,under these circumstances it was hardly to be expected that ,mr4 ,darwin should help the reader to follow the workings of his mind--nor1 again1 that a book the writer of which was hampered as ,i have supposed should prove clear and easy reading4 ,the attitude of ,mr4 ,darwin's mind1 whatever it may have been in regard to the theory of descent with modification generally1 goes so far to explain his attitude in respect to the theory of natural selection 7which1 it cannot be too often repeated1 is only one of the conditions of existence advanced as the main means of modification by the earlier evolutionists71 that it is worth while to settle the question once for all whether ,mr4 ,darwin did or did not believe himself justified in claiming the theory of descent as an original discovery of his own4 ,this will be a task of some little length1 and may perhaps try the reader's patience1 as it assuredly tried mine2 if1 however1 he will read the two following chapters1 he will probably be able to make up his mind upon much that will otherwise1 if he thinks about it at all1 continue to puzzle him4 ,chapter ,,xiii ,darwin's ,claim to ,descent with ,modification ,,mr4 ,,allen1 in his 8,charles ,darwin10 #afh;a says that 8in the public mind ,mr4 ,darwin is commonly regarded as the discoverer and founder of the evolution hypothesis10 and on p4 #agg he says that to most men ,darwinism and evolution mean one and the same thing4 ,mr4 ,allen declares misconception on this matter to be 8so extremely general0 as to be 8almost universal20 this is more true than creditable to ,mr4 ,darwin4 ,mr4 ,allen says #afh;b that though ,mr4 ,darwin gained 8far wider general acceptance0 for both the doctrine of descent in general1 and for that of the descent of man from a simious or semi-simious ancestor in particular1 8he laid no sort of claim to originality or proprietorship in either theory40 ,this is not the case4 ,no one can claim a theory more frequently and more effectually than ,mr4 ,darwin claimed descent with modification1 nor1 as ,i have already said1 is it likely that the misconception of which ,mr4 ,allen complains would be general1 if he had not so claimed it4 ,the 8,origin of ,species0 begins3-- 8,when on board ,h4,m4,s4 ,beagle1 as naturalist1 ,i was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of ,south ,america1 and in the geological relation of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent4 ,these facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species--that mystery of mysteries1 as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers4 ,on my return home it occurred to me1 in #ahcg1 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 it4 ,after five years' work ,i allowed myself to speculate upon the subject1 and drew up some short notes2 these ,i enlarged in #ahdd #afi;a into a sketch of the conclusions which then seemed to me probable4 ,from that period to the present day ,i have steadily pursued the same object4 ,i hope ,i may be excused these personal details1 as ,i give them to show that ,i have not been hasty in coming to a decision40 ,this is bland1 but peremptory4 ,mr4 ,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 intrude4 ,it was the mystery of mysteries2 one of our greatest philosophers had said so2 not one little feeble ray of light had ever yet been thrown upon it4 ,mr4 ,darwin knew all this1 and was appalled at the greatness of the task that lay before him2 still1 after he had pondered on what he had seen in ,south ,america1 it really did occur to him1 that if he was very very patient1 and went on reflecting for years and years longer1 upon all sorts of facts1 good1 bad1 and indifferent1 which could possibly have any bearing on the subject--and what fact might not possibly have some bearing8--well1 something1 as against the nothing that had been made out hitherto1 might by some faint far-away possibility be one day dimly seem4 ,it was only what he had seen in ,south ,america that made all this occur to him4 ,he had never seen anything about descent with modification in any book1 nor heard any one talk about it as having been put forward by other people2 if he had1 he would1 of course1 have been the first to say so2 he was not as other philosophers are2 so the mountain went on for years and years gestating1 but still there was no labour4 8,my work10 continues ,mr4 ,darwin1 8is now nearly finished2 but as it will take me two or three years to complete it1 and as my health is far from strong1 ,i have been urged to publish this abstract4 ,i have been more especially induced to do this1 as ,mr4 ,wallace1 who is now studying the natural history of the ,malay ,archipelago1 has arrived at almost exactly the same general conclusions that ,i have on the origin of species40 ,mr4 ,darwin was naturally anxious to forestall ,mr4 ,wallace1 and hurried up with his book4 ,what reader1 on finding descent with modification to be its most prominent feature1 could doubt--especially if new to the subject1 as the greater number of ,mr4 ,darwin's readers in #ahei were--that this same descent with modification was the theory which ,mr4 ,darwin and ,mr4 ,wallace had jointly hit upon1 and which ,mr4 ,darwin was so anxious to show that he had not been hasty in adopting8 ,when ,mr4 ,darwin went on to say that his abstract would be very imperfect1 and that he could not give references and authorities for his several statements1 we did not suppose that such an apology could be meant to cover silence concerning writers who during their whole lives1 or nearly so1 had borne the burden and heat of the day in respect of descent with modification in its most extended application4 8,i much regret10 says ,mr4 ,darwin1 8that want of space prevents my having the satisfaction of acknowledging the generous assistance ,i have received from very many naturalists1 some of them personally unknown to me40 ,this is like what the ,royal ,academicians say when they do not intend to hang our pictures2 they can1 however1 generally find space for a picture if they want to hang it1 and we assume with safety that there are no master-works by painters of the very highest rank for which no space has been available4 ,want of space will1 indeed1 prevent my quoting from more than one other paragraph of ,mr4 ,darwin's introduction2 this paragraph1 however1 should alone suffice to show how inaccurate ,mr4 ,allen is in saying that ,mr4 ,darwin 8laid no sort of claim to originality or proprietorship0 in the theory of descent with modification1 and this is the point with which we are immediately concerned4 ,mr4 ,darwin says3-- 8,in considering the origin of species1 it is quite conceivable that a naturalist1 reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings1 on their embryological relations1 their geographical distribution1 geological succession1 and other such facts1 might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created1 but had descended like varieties from other species40 ,it will be observed that not only is no hint given here that descent with modification was a theory which1 though unknown to the general public1 had been occupying the attention of biologists for a hundred years and more1 but it is distinctly implied that this was not the case4 ,when ,mr4 ,darwin said it was 8conceivable that a naturalist might0 arrive at the theory of descent1 straightforward readers took him to mean that though this was conceivable1 it had never1 to ,mr4 ,darwin's knowledge1 been done4 ,if we had a notion that we had already vaguely heard of the theory that men and the lower animals were descended from common ancestors1 we must have been wrong2 it was not this that we had heard of1 but something else1 which1 though doubtless a little like it1 was all wrong1 whereas this was obviously going to be all right4 ,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 sentence4 ,that sentence runs3-- 8,in the case of the mistletoe1 which draws its nourishment from certain trees1 which has seeds that must be transported by certain birds1 and which has flowers with separate sexes absolutely requiring the agency of certain insects to bring pollen from one flower to the other1 it is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite1 with its relations to several distinct organic beings1 by the effects of the external conditions1 or of habit1 or of the volition of the plant itself40 ,doubtless it would be preposterous to refer the structure of either woodpecker or mistletoe to the single agency of any one of these three causes2 but neither ,lamarck nor any other writer on evolution has1 so far as ,i know1 even contemplated this2 the early evolutionists supposed organic modification to depend on the action and interaction of all three1 and ,i venture to think that this will ere long be considered as1 to say the least of it1 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 simple1 as is done by ,mr4 ,charles ,darwin's theory4 ,it will be observed that in the paragraph last quoted from1 ,mr4 ,darwin1 more suo1 is careful not to commit himself4 ,all he has said is1 that it would be preposterous to do something the preposterousness of which cannot be reasonably disputed2 the impression1 however1 is none the less effectually conveyed1 that some one of the three assigned agencies1 taken singly1 was the only cause of modification ever yet proposed1 if1 indeed1 any writer had even gone so far as this4 ,we knew we did not know much about the matter ourselves1 and that ,mr4 ,darwin was a naturalist of long and high standing2 we naturally1 therefore1 credited him with the same good faith as a writer that we knew in ourselves as readers2 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 fool1 was not that of a fool who had actually lived and written1 but only of a figure of straw which had been dipped in a bucket of red paint4 ,naturally enough we concluded1 since ,mr4 ,darwin seemed to say so1 that if his predecessors had nothing better to say for themselves than this1 it would not be worth while to trouble about them further2 especially as we did not know who they were1 nor what they had written1 and ,mr4 ,darwin did not tell us4 ,it would be better and less trouble to take the goods with which it was plain ,mr4 ,darwin was going to provide us1 and ask no questions4 ,we have seen that even tolerably obvious conclusions were rather slow in occurring to poor simple-minded ,mr4 ,darwin1 and may be sure that it never once occurred to him that the ,british public would be likely to argue thus2 he had no intention of playing the scientific confidence trick upon us4 ,i dare say not1 but unfortunately the result has closely resembled the one that would have ensued if ,mr4 ,darwin had had such an intention4 ,the claim to originality made so distinctly in the opening sentences of the 8,origin of ,species0 is repeated in a letter to ,professor ,haeckel1 written ,october #h1 #ahfd1 and giving an account of the development of his belief in descent with modification4 ,this letter1 part of which is quoted by ,mr4 ,allen1 #agc;a is given on p4 #acd of the ,english translation of ,professor ,haeckel's 8,history of ,creation10 #agc;b and runs as follows3-- 8,in ,south ,america three classes of facts were brought strongly before my mind4 ,firstly1 the manner in which closely allied species replace species in going southward4 ,secondly1 the close affinity of the species inhabiting the islands near ,south ,america to those proper to the continent4 ,this struck me profoundly1 especially the difference of the species in the adjoining islets in the ,galapagos ,archipelago4 ,thirdly1 the relation of the living ,edentata and ,rodentia to the extinct species4 ,i shall never forget my astonishment when ,i dug out a gigantic piece of armour like that of the living armadillo4 8,reflecting on these facts1 and collecting analogous ones1 it seemed to me probable that allied species were descended from a common ancestor4 ,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 nature4 ,i began1 therefore1 to study domesticated animals and cultivated plants1 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 races4 ,having attended to the habits of animals and their relations to the surrounding conditions1 ,i was able to realise the severe struggle for existence to which all organisms are subjected1 and my geological observations had allowed me to appreciate to a certain extent the duration of past geological periods4 ,therefore1 when ,i happened to read ,malthus on population1 the idea of natural selection flashed on me4 ,of all minor points1 the last which ,i appreciated was the importance and cause of the principle of divergence40 ,this is all very nave1 and accords perfectly with the introductory paragraphs of the 8,origin of ,species20 it gives us the same picture of a solitary thinker1 a poor1 lonely1 friendless student of nature1 who had never so much as heard of ,buffon1 ,erasmus ,darwin1 or ,lamarck4 ,unfortunately1 however1 we cannot forget the description of the influences which1 according to ,mr4 ,grant ,allen1 did in reality surround ,mr4 ,darwin's youth1 and certainly they are more what we should have expected than those suggested rather than expressly stated by ,mr4 ,darwin4 8,everywhere around him10 says ,mr4 ,allen1 #agd;a 8in his childhood and youth these great but formless0 7why 8formless087 8evolutionary ideas were brewing and fermenting4 ,the scientific society of his elders and of the contemporaries among whom he grew up was permeated with the leaven of ,laplace and ,lamarck1 of ,hutton and of ,herschel4 ,inquiry was especially everywhere rife as to the origin and nature of specific distinctions among plants and animals4 ,those who believed in the doctrine of ,buffon and of the #8,zoonomia1' and those who disbelieved in it1 alike1 were profoundly interested and agitated in soul by the far-reaching implications of that fundamental problem4 ,on every side evolutionism1 in its crude form40 7,i suppose ,mr4 ,allen could not help saying 8in its crude form10 but descent with modification in #ahji meant1 to all intents and purposes1 and was understood to mean1 what it means now1 or ought to mean1 to most people47 8,the universal stir10 says ,mr4 ,allen on the following page1 8and 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 ,darwin40 ,i confess to thinking that ,mr4 ,allen's account of the influences which surrounded ,mr4 ,darwin's youth1 if tainted with picturesqueness1 is still substantially correct4 ,on an earlier page he had written3--8,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 aroused1 but not fully answered1 by ,buffon1 ,lamarck1 and ,erasmus ,darwin4 ,in ,lyell's letters1 and in ,agassiz's lectures1 in the #8,botanic ,journal' and in the #8,philosophical ,transactions1' in treatises on ,madeira beetles and the ,australian flora1 we find everywhere the thoughts of men profoundly influenced in a thousand directions by this universal evolutionary solvent and leaven4 8,and while the world of thought was thus seething and moving restlessly before the wave of ideas set in motion by these various independent philosophers1 another group of causes in another field was rendering smooth the path beforehand for the future champion of the amended evolutionism4 ,geology on the one hand and astronomy on the other were making men's minds gradually familiar with the conception of slow natural development1 as opposed to immediate and miraculous creation4 4 4 4 8,the influence of these novel conceptions upon the growth and spread of evolutionary ideas was far-reaching and twofold4 ,in the first place1 the discovery of a definite succession of nearly related organic forms following one another with evident closeness through the various ages1 inevitably suggested to every inquiring observer the possibility of their direct descent one from the other4 ,in the second place1 the discovery that geological formations were not really separated each from its predecessor by violent revolutions1 but were the result of gradual and ordinary changes1 discredited the old idea of frequent fresh creations after each catastrophe1 and familiarised the minds of men of science with the alternative notion of slow and natural evolutionary processes4 ,the past was seen in effect to be the parent of the present2 the present was recognised as the child of the past40 ,this is certainly not ,mr4 ,darwin's own account of the matter4 ,probably the truth will lie somewhere between the two extreme views3 and on the one hand1 the world of thought was not seething quite so badly as ,mr4 ,allen represents it1 while on the other1 though 8three classes of fact10 c41 were undoubtedly 8brought strongly before0 ,mr4 ,darwin's 8mind in ,south ,america10 yet some of them had perhaps already been brought before it at an earlier time1 which he did not happen to remember at the moment of writing his letter to ,professor ,haeckel and the opening paragraph of the 8,origin of ,species40 ,chapter ,,xiv ,darwin and ,descent with ,modification 7continued7 ,i ,,have said enough to show that ,mr4 ,darwin claimed ,i to have been the originator of the theory of descent with modification as distinctly as any writer usually claims any theory2 but it will probably save the reader trouble in the end if ,i bring together a good many1 though not1 probably1 all 7for ,i much disliked the task1 and discharged it perfunctorily71 of the passages in the 8,origin of ,species0 in which the theory of descent with modification in its widest sense is claimed expressly or by implication4 ,i shall quote from the original edition1 which1 it should be remembered1 consisted of the very unusually large number of four thousand copies1 and from which no important deviation was made either by addition or otherwise until a second edition of two thousand further copies had been sold2 the 8,historical ,sketch10 c41 being first given with the third edition4 ,the italics1 which ,i have employed so as to catch the reader's eye1 are mine1 not ,mr4 ,darwin's4 ,mr4 ,darwin writes3-- 8,although much remains obscure1 and will long remain obscure1 ,i can entertain no doubt1 after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which ,i am capable1 that the view which most naturalists entertain1 and which ,i formerly entertained--namely that each species has been independently created--is erroneous4 ,i am fully convinced that species are not immutable1 but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species1 in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species4 ,furthermore1 ,i am convinced that natural selection0 7or the preservation of fortunate races7 8has been the main but not exclusive means of modification0 7p4 #f74 ,it is not here expressly stated that the theory of the mutability of species is ,mr4 ,darwin's own2 this1 nevertheless1 is the inference which the great majority of his readers were likely to draw1 and did draw1 from ,mr4 ,darwin's words4 ,again3-- 8,it is not that all large genera are now varying much1 and are thus increasing in the number of their species1 or that no small genera are now multiplying and increasing2 for if this had been so it would have been fatal to my theory2 inasmuch as geology10 c4 7p4 #ef74 ,the words 8my theory0 stand in all the editions4 ,again3-- 8,this relation has a clear meaning on my view of the subject2 ,i look upon all the species of any genus as having as certainly descended from the same progenitor1 as have the two sexes of any one of the species0 7p4 #aeg74 8,my view0 here1 especially in the absence of reference to any other writer as having held the same opinion1 implies as its most natural interpretation that descent pure and simple is ,mr4 ,darwin's view4 ,substitute 8the theory of descent0 for 8my view10 and we do not feel that we are misinterpreting the author's meaning4 ,the words 8my view0 remain in all editions4 ,again3-- 8,long before having arrived at this part of my work1 a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader4 ,some of them are so grave that to this day ,i can never reflect on them without being staggered2 but to the best of my belief the greater number are only apparent1 and those that are real are not1 ,i think1 fatal to my theory4 8,these difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads3--,firstly1 if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations1 why do we not everywhere see80 c4 7p4 #aga74 ,we infer from this that 8my theory0 is the theory 8that species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations0--that is to say1 that it is the theory of descent with modification2 for the theory that is being objected to is obviously the theory of descent in toto1 and not a mere detail in connection with that theory4 ,the words 8my theory0 were altered in #ahgb1 with the sixth edition of the 8,origin of species10 into 8the theory20 but ,i am chiefly concerned with the first edition of the work1 my object being to show that ,mr4 ,darwin was led into his false position as regards natural selection by a desire to claim the theory of descent with modification2 if he claimed it in the first edition1 this is enough to give colour to the view which ,i take2 but it must be remembered that descent with modification remained1 by the passage just quoted 8my theory10 for thirteen years1 and even when in #ahfi and #ahgb1 for a reason that ,i can only guess at1 8my theory0 became generally 8the theory10 this did not make it become any one else's theory4 ,it is hard to say whose or what it became1 if the words are to be construed technically2 practically1 however1 with all ingenuous readers1 8the theory0 remained as much ,mr4 ,darwin's theory as though the words 8my theory0 had been retained1 and ,mr4 ,darwin cannot be supposed so simple-minded as not to have known this would be the case4 ,moreover1 it appears1 from the next page but one to the one last quoted1 that ,mr4 ,darwin claimed the theory of descent with modification generally1 even to the last1 for we there read1 8,by my theory these allied species have descended from a common parent10 and the 8my0 has been allowed1 for some reason not quite obvious1 to survive the general massacre of ,mr4 ,darwin's 8my's0 which occurred in #ahfi and #ahgb4 ,again3-- 8,he who believes that each being has been created as we now see it1 must occasionally have felt surprise when he has met10 c4 7p4 #ahe74 ,here the argument evidently lies between descent and independent acts of creation4 ,this appears from the paragraph immediately following1 which begins1 8,he who believes in separate and innumerable acts of creation10 c4 ,we therefore understand descent to be the theory so frequently spoken of by ,mr4 ,darwin as 8my40 ,again3-- 8,he who will go thus far1 if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts1 otherwise inexplicable1 can be explained by the theory of descent1 ought not to hesitate to go farther1 and to admit that a structure even as perfect as an eagle's eye might be formed by natural selection1 although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades0 7p4 #ahh74 ,the natural inference from this is that descent and natural selection are one and the same thing4 ,again3-- 8,if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous1 successive1 slight modifications1 my theory would absolutely break down4 ,but ,i can find out no such case4 ,no doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades1 more especially if we look to much-isolated species1 round which1 according to my theory1 there has been much extinction0 7p4 #ahi74 ,this makes 8my theory0 to be 8the theory that complex organs have arisen by numerous1 successive1 slight modifications20 that is to say1 to be the theory of descent with modification4 ,the first of the two 8my theory's0 in the passage last quoted has been allowed to stand4 ,the second became 8the theory0 in #ahgb4 ,it is obvious1 therefore1 that 8the theory0 means 8my theory20 it is not so obvious why the change should have been made at all1 nor why the one 8my theory0 should have been taken and the other left1 but ,i will return to this question4 ,again1 ,mr4 ,darwin writes3-- 8,although we must be extremely cautious in concluding that any organ could not possibly have been produced by small successive transitional gradations1 yet1 undoubtedly grave cases of difficulty occur1 some of which will be discussed in my future work0 7p4 #aib74 ,this1 as usual1 implies descent with modification to be the theory that ,mr4 ,darwin is trying to make good4 ,again3-- 8,i have been astonished how rarely an organ can be named towards which no transitional variety is known to lead 4 4 4 ,why1 on the theory of creation1 should this be so8 ,why should not nature have taken a leap from structure to structure8 ,on the theory of natural selection we can clearly understand why she should not2 for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations2 she can never take a leap1 but must advance by the slowest and shortest steps0 7p4 #aid74 ,here 8the theory of natural selection0 is opposed to 8the theory of creation20 we took it1 therefore1 to be another way of saying 8the theory of descent with modification40 ,again3-- 8,we have in this chapter discussed some of the difficulties and objections which may be urged against my theory4 ,many of them are very grave1 but ,i think that in the discussion light has been thrown on several facts which1 on the theory of independent acts of creation1 are utterly obscure0 7p4 #bjc74 ,here we have1 on the one hand1 8my theory10 on the other1 8independent acts of creation40 ,the natural antithesis to independent acts of creation is descent1 and we assumed with reason that ,mr4 ,darwin was claiming this when he spoke of 8my theory40 8,my theory0 became 8the theory0 in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,on the theory of natural selection we can clearly understand the full meaning of that old canon in natural history1 #8,natura non facit saltum4' ,this canon1 if we look only to the present inhabitants of the world is not strictly correct1 but if we include all those of past times1 it must by my theory be strictly true0 7p4 #bjf74 ,here the natural interpretation of 8by my theory0 is 8by the theory of descent with modification20 the words 8on the theory of natural selection10 with which the sentence opens1 lead us to suppose that ,mr4 ,darwin regarded natural selection and descent as convertible terms4 8,my theory0 was altered to 8this theory0 in #ahgb4 ,six lines lower down we read1 8,on my theory unity of type is explained by unity of descent40 ,the 8my0 here has been allowed to stand4 ,again3-- 8,again1 as in the case of corporeal structure1 and conformably with my theory1 the instinct of each species is good for itself1 but has never10 c4 7p4 #baj74 ,who was to see that 8my theory0 did not include descent with modification8 ,the 8my0 here has been allowed to stand4 ,again3-- 8,the fact that instincts 4 4 4 are liable to make mistakes2--that no instinct has been produced for the exclusive good of other animals1 but that each animal takes advantage of the instincts of others2--that the canon of natural history1 #8,natura non facit saltum1' is applicable to instincts as well as to corporeal structure1 and is plainly explicable on the foregoing views1 but is otherwise inexplicable1--all tend to corroborate the theory of natural selection0 7p4 #bdc74 ,we feel that it is the theory of evolution1 or descent with modification1 that is here corroborated1 and that it is this which ,mr4 ,darwin is mainly trying to establish2 the sentence should have ended 8all tend to corroborate the theory of descent with modification20 the substitution of 8natural selection0 for descent tends to make us think that these conceptions are identical4 ,that they are so regarded1 or at any rate that it is the theory of descent in full which ,mr4 ,darwin has in his mind1 appears from the immediately succeeding paragraph1 which begins 8,this theory10 and continues six lines lower1 8,for instance1 we can understand1 on the principle of inheritance1 how it is that10 c4 ,again3-- 8,in the first place1 it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must1 on my theory1 formerly have existed0 7p4 #bhj74 8,my theory0 became 8the theory0 in #ahfi4 ,no reader who read in good faith could doubt that the theory of descent with modification was being here intended4 8,it is just possible by my theory1 that one of two living forms might have descended from the other2 for instance1 a horse from a tapir2 but in this case direct intermediate links will have existed between them0 7p4 #bha74 8,my theory0 became 8the theory0 in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,by the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent species of each genus10 c4 ,we took this to mean1 8,by the theory of descent with modification all living species10 c4 7p4 #bha74 ,again3-- 8,some experienced conchologists are now sinking many of the very fine species of ,d',orbigny and others into the rank of varieties2 and on this view we do find the kind of evidence of change which on my theory we ought to find0 7p4 #big74 8,my theory0 became 8the theory0 in #ahfi4 ,in the fourth edition 7#ahff71 in a passage which is not in either of the two first editions1 we read 7p4 #cei71 8,so that here again we have undoubted evidence of change in the direction required by my theory40 8,my theory0 became 8the theory0 in #ahfi2 the theory of descent with modification is unquestionably intended4 ,again3-- 8,geological research has done scarcely anything in breaking down the distinction between species1 by connecting them together by numerous1 fine1 intermediate varieties2 and this not having been effected1 is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which may be urged against my views0 7p4 #bii74 ,we naturally took 8my views0 to mean descent with modification4 ,the 8my0 has been allowed to stand4 ,again3-- 8,if1 then1 there be some degree of truth in these remarks1 we have no right to expect to find in our geological formations an infinite number of those transitional forms which on my theory assuredly have connected all the past and present species of the same group in one long and branching chain of life 4 4 4 ,but ,i do not pretend that ,i should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections1 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 on my theory0 7pp4 #cja1 #cjb74 ,substitute 8descent with modification0 for 8my theory0 and the meaning does not suffer4 ,the first of the two 8my theories0 in the passage last quoted was altered in #ahfi into 8our theory20 the second has been allowed to stand4 ,again3-- 8,the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in some formations1 has been urged by several palontologists 4 4 4 as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species4 ,if numerous species1 belonging to the same genera or families1 have really started into life all at once1 the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection0 7p4 #cjb74 ,here 8the belief in the transmutation of species10 or descent with modification1 is treated as synonymous with 8the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection20 but it has nowhere been explained that there are two widely different 8theories of descent with slow modification through natural selection10 the one of which may be true enough for all practical purposes1 while the other is seen to be absurd as soon as it is examined closely4 ,the theory of descent with modification is not properly convertible with either of these two views1 for descent with modification deals with the question whether species are transmutable or no1 and dispute as to the respective merits of the two natural selections deals with the question how it comes to be transmuted2 nevertheless1 the words 8the theory of descent with slow modification through the ordinary course of things0 7which is what 8descent with modification through natural selection0 comes to7 may be considered as expressing the facts with practical accuracy1 if the ordinary course of nature is supposed to be that modification is mainly consequent on the discharge of some correlated function1 and that modification1 if favourable1 will tend to accumulate so long as the given function continues important to the wellbeing of the organism2 the words1 however1 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 difference1 no matter how much each one of them may be preserved in the generation in which it appears4 ,in the one case1 therefore1 the expression natural selection may be loosely used as a synonym for descent with modification1 and in the other it may not4 ,unfortunately with ,mr4 ,charles ,darwin the variations are mainly accidental4 ,the words 8through natural selection10 therefore1 in the passage last quoted carry no weight1 for it is the wrong natural selection that is1 or ought to be1 intended2 practically1 however1 they derived a weight from ,mr4 ,darwin's name to which they had no title of their own1 and we understood that 8the theory of descent with slow modification0 through the kind of natural selection ostensibly intended by ,mr4 ,darwin was a quasi-synonymous expression for the transmutation of species4 ,we understood--so far as we understood anything beyond that we were to believe in descent with modification--that natural selection was ,mr4 ,darwin's theory2 we therefore concluded1 since ,mr4 ,darwin seemed to say so1 that the theory of the transmutation of species generally was so also4 ,at any rate we felt as regards the passage last quoted that the theory of descent with modification was the point of attack and defence1 and we supposed it to be the theory so often referred to by ,mr4 ,darwin as 8my40 ,again3-- 8,some of the most ancient ,silurian animals1 as the ,nautilus1 ,lingula1 c41 do not differ much from the living species2 and it cannot on my theory be supposed that these old species were the progenitors10 c4 7p4 #cjf7 4 4 4 8,consequently if my theory be true1 it is indisputable10 c4 7p4 #cjg74 ,here the two 8my theories0 have been altered1 the first into 8our theory10 and the second into 8the theory10 both in #ahfi2 but1 as usual1 the thing that remains with the reader is the theory of descent1 and it remains morally and practically as much claimed when called 8the theory0--as during the many years throughout which the more open 8my0 distinctly claimed it4 ,again3-- 8,all the most eminent palontologists1 namely1 ,cuvier1 ,owen1 ,agassiz1 ,barrande1 ,e4 ,forbes1 c41 and all our greatest geologists1 as ,lyell1 ,murchison1 ,sedgwick1 c41 have unanimously1 often vehemently1 maintained the immutability of species4 4 4 4 ,i feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities 4 4 4 ,those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect1 and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds brought forward in this volume1 will undoubtedly at once reject my theory0 7p4 #caj74 ,what is 8my theory0 here1 if not that of the mutability of species1 or the theory of descent with modification8 8,my theory0 became 8the theory0 in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,let us now see whether the several facts and rules relating to the geological succession of organic beings1 better accord with the common view of the immutability of species1 or with that of their slow and gradual modification1 through descent and natural selection0 7p4 #cab74 ,the words 8natural selection0 are indeed here1 but they might as well be omitted for all the effect they produce4 ,the argument is felt to be about the two opposed theories of descent1 and independent creative efforts4 ,again3-- 8,these several facts accord well with my theory0 7p4 #cad74 ,that 8my theory0 is the theory of descent is the conclusion most naturally drawn from the context4 8,my theory0 became 8our theory0 in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,this gradual increase in the number of the species of a group is strictly conformable with my theory2 for the process of modification and the production of a number of allied forms must be slow and gradual1 4 4 4 like the branching of a great tree from a single stem1 till the group becomes large0 7p4 #cad74 8,my theory0 became 8the theory0 in #ahfi4 ,we took 8my theory0 to be the theory of descent2 that ,mr4 ,darwin treats this as synonymous with the theory of natural selection appears from the next paragraph1 on the third line of which we read1 8,on the theory of natural selection the extinction of old forms10 c4 ,again3-- 8,the theory of natural selection is grounded on the belief that each new variety and ultimately each new species1 is produced and maintained by having some advantage over those with which it comes into competition2 and the consequent extinction of less favoured forms almost inevitably follows0 7p4 #cbj74 ,sense and consistency cannot be made of this passage4 ,substitute 8,the theory of the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life0 for 8,the theory of natural selection0 7to do this is only taking ,mr4 ,darwin's own synonym for natural selection7 and see what the passage comes to4 8,the preservation of favoured races0 is not a theory1 it is a commonly observed fact2 it is not 8grounded on the belief that each new variety10 c41 it is one of the ultimate and most elementary principles in the world of life4 ,when we try to take the passage seriously and think it out1 we soon give it up1 and pass on1 substituting 8the theory of descent0 for 8the theory of natural selection10 and concluding that in some way these two things must be identical4 ,again3-- 8,the manner in which single species and whole groups of species become extinct accords well with the theory of natural selection0 7p4 #cbb74 ,again3-- 8,this great fact of the parallel succession of the forms of life throughout the world1 is explicable on the theory of natural selection0 7p4 #cbe74 ,again3-- 8,let us now look to the mutual affinities of extinct and living species4 ,they all fall into one grand natural system2 and this is at once explained on the principle of descent0 7p4 #cbi74 ,putting the three preceding passages together1 we naturally inferred that 8the theory of natural selection0 and 8the principle of descent0 were the same things4 ,we knew ,mr4 ,darwin claimed the first1 and therefore unhesitatingly gave him the second at the same time4 ,again3-- 8,let us see how far these several facts and inferences accord with the theory of descent with modification0 7p4 #cca7 ,again3-- 8,thus1 on the theory of descent with modification1 the main facts with regard to the mutual affinities of the extinct forms of life to each other and to living forms1 seem to me explained in a satisfactory manner4 ,and they are wholly inexplicable on any other view0 7p4 #ccc74 ,the words 8seem to me0 involve a claim in the absence of so much as a hint in any part of the book concerning indebtedness to earlier writers4 ,again3-- 8,on the theory of descent1 the full meaning of the fossil remains10 c4 7p4 #ccf74 ,in the following paragraph we read3-- 8,but in one particular sense the more recent forms must1 on my theory1 be higher than the more ancient40 ,again3-- 8,agassiz insists that ancient animals resemble to a certain extent the embryos of recent animals of the same classes2 or that the geological succession of extinct forms is in some degree parallel to the embryological development of recent forms4 4 4 4 ,this doctrine of ,agassiz accords well with the theory of natural selection0 7p4 #cch74 8,the theory of natural selection0 became 8our theory0 in #ahfi4 ,the opinion of ,agassiz accords excellently with the theory of descent with modification1 but it is not easy to see how it bears upon the fact that lucky races are preserved in the struggle for life--which1 according to ,mr4 ,darwin's title-page1 is what is meant by natural selection4 ,again3-- 8,on the theory of descent with modification1 the great law of the long-enduring but not immutable succession of the same types within the same areas1 is at once explained0 7p4 #cdj74 ,again3-- 8,it must not be forgotten that1 on my theory1 all the species of the same genus have descended from some one species0 7p4 #cda74 8,my theory0 became 8our theory0 in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,he who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record1 will rightly reject my whole theory0 7p4 #cdb74 8,my0 became 8our0 in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,passing from these difficulties1 the other great leading facts in palontology agree admirably with the theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection0 7p4 #cdc74 ,again3-- ,the succession of the same types of structure within the same areas during the later geological periods ceases to be mysterious1 and is simply explained by inheritance 7p4 #cde74 ,i suppose inheritance was not when ,mr4 ,darwin wrote considered mysterious4 ,the last few words have been altered to 8and is intelligible on the principle of inheritance40 ,it seems as though ,mr4 ,darwin did not like saying that inheritance was not mysterious1 but had no objection to implying that it was intelligible4 ,the next paragraph begins--8,if1 then1 the geological record be as imperfect as ,i believe it to be1 4 4 4 the main objections to the theory of natural selection are greatly diminished or disappear4 ,on the other hand1 all the chief laws of palontology plainly proclaim1 as it seems to me1 that species have been produced by ordinary generation40 ,here again the claim to the theory of descent with modification is unmistakable2 it cannot1 moreover1 but occur to us that if species 8have been produced by ordinary generation10 then ordinary generation has as good a claim to be the main means of originating species as natural selection has4 ,it is hardly necessary to point out that ordinary generation involves descent with modification1 for all known offspring differ from their parents1 so far1 at any rate1 as that practised judges can generally tell them apart4 ,again3-- 8,we see in these facts some deep organic bond1 prevailing throughout space and time1 over the same areas of land and water1 and independent of their physical condition4 ,the naturalist must feel little curiosity who is not led to inquire what this bond is4 8,this bond1 on my theory1 is simply inheritance1 that cause which alone10 c4 7p4 #cej74 ,this passage was altered in #ahfi to 8,the bond is simply inheritance40 ,the paragraph concludes1 8,on this principle of inheritance with modification1 we can understand how it is that sections of genera 4 4 4 are confined to the same areas10 c4 ,again3-- 8,he who rejects it rejects the vera causa of ordinary generation10 c4 7p4 #ceb74 ,we naturally ask1 ,why call natural selection the 8main means of modification10 if 8ordinary generation0 is a vera causa8 ,again3-- 8,in discussing this subject1 we shall be enabled at the same time to consider a point equally important for us1 namely1 whether the several distinct species of a genus1 which on my theory have all descended from a common ancestor1 can have migrated 7undergoing modification during some part of their migration7 from the area inhabited by their progenitor0 7p4 #ced74 ,the words 8on my theory0 became 8on our theory0 in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,with those organic beings which never intercross 7if such exist7 the species1 on my theory1 must have descended from a succession of improved varieties10 c4 7p4 #cee74 ,the words 8on my theory0 were cut out in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,a slow southern migration of a marine fauna will account1 on the theory of modification1 for many closely allied forms10 c4 7p4 #cgb74 ,again3-- 8,but the existence of several quite distinct species1 belonging to genera exclusively confined to the southern hemisphere1 is1 on my theory of descent with modification1 a far more remarkable case of difficulty0 7p4 #cha74 8,my0 became 8the0 in #ahff with the fourth edition4 ,this was the most categorical claim to the theory of descent with modification in the 8,origin of ,species40 ,the 8my0 here is the only one that was taken out before #ahfi4 ,i suppose ,mr4 ,darwin thought that with the removal of this 8my0 he had ceased to claim the theory of descent with modification4 ,nothing1 however1 could be gained by calling the reader's attention to what had been done1 so nothing was said about it4 ,again3-- 8,some species of fresh-water shells have a very wide range1 and allied species1 which1 on my theory1 are descended from a single source1 prevail throughout the world0 7p4 #che74 8,my theory0 became 8our theory0 in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,in the following remarks ,i shall not confine myself to the mere question of dispersal1 but shall consider some other facts which bear upon the truth of the two theories of independent creation and of descent with modification0 7p4 #chi74 ,what can be plainer than that the theory which ,mr4 ,darwin espouses1 and has so frequently called 8my10 is descent with modification8 ,again3-- 8,but as these animals and their spawn are known to be immediately killed by sea-water1 on my view1 we can see that there would be great difficulty in their transportal across the sea1 and therefore why they do not exist on any oceanic island4 ,but why1 on the theory of creation1 they should not have been created there1 it would be very difficult to explain0 7p4 #cic74 8,on my view0 was cut out in #ahfi4 ,on the following page we read--8,on my view this question can easily be answered40 8,on my view0 is retained in the latest edition4 ,again3-- 8,yet there must be1 on my view1 some unknown but highly efficient means for their transportation0 7p4 #cig74 8,on my view0 became 8according to our view0 in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,i believe this grand fact can receive no sort of explanation on the ordinary view of independent creation2 whereas1 on the view here maintained1 it is obvious that the ,galapagos ,islands would be likely to receive colonists 4 4 4 from ,america1 and the ,cape de ,verde ,islands from ,africa2 and that such colonists would be liable to modification2 the principle of inheritance still betraying their original birth-place0 7p4 #cii74 ,again3-- 8,with respect to the distinct species of the same genus which1 on my theory1 must have spread from one parent source1 if we make the same allowances as before10 c4 8,on my theory0 became 8on our theory0 in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,on my theory these several relations throughout time and space are intelligible2 4 4 4 the forms within each class have been connected by the same bond of ordinary generation2 4 4 4 in both cases the laws of variation have been the same1 and modifications have been accumulated by the same power of natural selection0 7p4 #daj74 8,on my theory0 became 8according to our theory0 in #ahfi1 and natural selection is no longer a power1 but has become a means4 ,again3-- 8,i believe that something more is included1 and that propinquity of descent--the only known cause of the similarity of organic beings--is the bond1 hidden as it is by various degrees of modification1 which is partially revealed to us by our classification0 7p4 #dah74 ,again3-- 8,thus1 on the view which ,i hold1 the natural system is genealogical in its arrangement1 like a pedigree0 7p4 #dbb74 8,on the view which ,i hold0 was cut out in #ahgb4 ,again3-- 8,we may feel almost sure1 on the theory of descent1 that these characters have been inherited from a common ancestor0 7p4 #dbf74 ,again3-- 8,on my view of characters being of real importance for classification only in so far as they reveal descent1 we can clearly understand10 c4 7p4 #dbg74 8,on my view0 became 8on the view0 in #ahgb4 ,again3-- 8,the more aberrant any form is1 the greater must be the number of connecting forms which1 on my theory1 have been exterminated and utterly lost0 7p4 #dbi74 ,the words 8on my theory0 were excised in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,finally1 we have seen that natural selection 4 4 4 explains that great and universal feature in the affinities of all organic beings1 namely1 their subordination in group under group4 ,we use the element of descent in classing the individuals of both sexes1 c42 4 4 4 we use descent in classing acknowledged varieties2 4 4 4 and ,i believe this element of descent is the hidden bond of connection which naturalists have sought under the term of the natural system0 7p4 #dcc74 ,lamarck was of much the same opinion1 as ,i showed in 8,evolution ,old and ,new40 ,he wrote3--8,an arrangement should be considered systematic1 or arbitrary1 when it does not conform to the genealogical order taken by nature in the development of the things arranged1 and when1 by consequence1 it is not founded on well-considered analogies4 ,there is a natural order in every department of nature2 it is the order in which its several component items have been successively developed40 #aie;a ,the point1 however1 which should more particularly engage our attention is that ,mr4 ,darwin in the passage last quoted uses 8natural selection0 and 8descent0 as though they were convertible terms4 ,again3-- 8,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 4 4 4 ,on the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being1 we can only say that so it is 4 4 4 ,the explanation is manifest on the theory of the natural selection of successive slight modifications10 c4 7p4 #dce74 ,this now stands--8,the explanation is to a large extent simple1 on the theory of the selection of successive1 slight modifications40 ,i do not like 8a large extent0 of simplicity2 but1 waiving this1 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 surroundings1 with accumulation of modification in various directions1 and hence wide eventual difference between species descended from common progenitors--no evolutionist since #agej has doubted this--but whether a general principle underlies the modifications from among which the quasi-selection is made1 or whether they are destitute of such principle and referable1 as far as we are concerned1 to chance only4 ,waiving this again1 we note that the theories of independent creation and of natural selection are contrasted1 as though they were the only two alternatives2 knowing the two alternatives to be independent creation and descent with modification1 we naturally took natural selection to mean descent with modification4 ,again3-- 8,on the theory of natural selection we can satisfactorily answer these questions0 7p4 #dcg74 8,satisfactorily0 now stands 8to a certain extent40 ,again3-- 8,on my view these terms may be used literally0 7pp4 #dch1 #dci74 8,on my view0 became 8according to the views here maintained such language may be10 c41 in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,i believe all these facts can be explained as follows1 on the view of descent with modification0 7p4 #ddc74 ,this sentence now ends at 8follows40 ,again3-- 8,let us take a genus of birds1 descended1 on my theory1 from some one parent species1 and of which the several new species have become modified through natural selection in accordance with their divers habits0 7p4 #ddf74 ,the words 8on my theory0 were cut out in #ahfi1 and the passage now stands1 8,let us take a group of birds1 descended from some ancient form and modified through natural selection for different habits40 ,again3-- 8,on my view of descent with modification1 the origin of rudimentary organs is simple0 7p4 #ded74 8,on my view0 became 8on the view0 in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,on the view of descent with modification10 c4 7p4 #dee74 ,again3-- 8,on this same view of descent with modification all the great facts of morphology become intelligible0 7p4 #def74 ,again3-- 8,that many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection1 ,i do not deny0 7p4 #dei74 ,this now stands1 8,that many and serious objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection1 ,i do not deny40 ,again3-- 8,there are1 it must be admitted1 cases of special difficulty on the theory of natural selection0 7p4 #dfj74 8,on0 has become 8opposed to20 it is not easy to see why this alteration was made1 unless because 8opposed to0 is longer4 ,again3-- 8,turning to geographical distribution1 the difficulties encountered on the theory of descent with modification are grave enough40 8,grave0 has become 8serious10 but there is no other change 7p4 #dfa74 ,again3-- 8,as on the theory of natural selection an interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed10 c4 8,on0 has become 8according to0--which is certainly longer1 but does not appear to possess any other advantage over 8on40 ,it is not easy to understand why ,mr4 ,darwin should have strained at such a gnat as 8on10 though feeling no discomfort in such an expression as 8an interminable number40 ,again3-- 8,this is the most forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory 4 4 4 ,for certainly1 on my theory10 c4 7p4 #dfc74 ,the 8my0 in each case became 8the0 in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,such is the sum of the several chief objections and difficulties which may be justly urged against my theory0 7p4 #dfe74 8,my0 became 8the0 in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,grave as these several difficulties are1 in my judgment they do not overthrow the theory of descent with modifications0 7p4 #dff74 ,this now stands1 8,serious as these several objections are1 in my judgment they are by no means sufficient to overthrow the theory of descent with subsequent modification20 which1 again1 is longer1 and shows at what little1 little gnats ,mr4 ,darwin could strain1 but is no material amendment on the original passage4 ,again3-- 8,the theory of natural selection1 even if we looked no further than this1 seems to me to be in itself probable0 7p4 #dfi74 ,this now stands1 8,the theory of natural selection1 even if we look no further than this1 seems to be in the highest degree probable40 ,it is not only probable1 but was very sufficiently proved long before ,mr4 ,darwin was born1 only it must be the right natural selection and not ,mr4 ,charles ,darwin's4 ,again3-- 8,it is inexplicable1 on the theory of creation1 why a part developed1 c41 4 4 4 but1 on my view1 this part has undergone10 c4 7p4 #dgd74 8,on my view0 became 8on our view0 in #ahfi4 ,again3-- 8,glancing at instincts1 marvellous as some are1 they offer no greater difficulty than does corporeal structure on the theory of the natural selection of successive1 slight1 but profitable modifications0 7p4 #dgd74 ,again3-- 8,on the view of all the species of the same genus having descended from a common parent1 and having inherited much in common1 we can understand how it is10 c4 7p4 #dgd74 ,again3-- 8,if we admit that the geological record is imperfect in an extreme degree1 then such facts as the record gives1 support the theory of descent with modification4 8 4 4 4 ,the extinction of species 4 4 4 almost inevitably follows on the principle of natural selection0 7p4 #dge74 ,the word 8almost0 has got a great deal to answer for4 ,again3-- 8,we can understand1 on the theory of descent with modification1 most of the great leading facts in ,distribution0 7p4 #dgf74 ,again3-- 8,the existence of closely allied or representative species in any two areas1 implies1 on the theory of descent with modification1 that the same parents formerly inhabited both areas 4 4 4 ,it must be admitted that these facts receive no explanation on the theory of creation 4 4 4 ,the fact 4 4 4 is intelligible on the theory of natural selection1 with its contingencies of extinction and divergence of character0 7p4 #dgh74 ,again3-- 8,innumerable other such facts at once explain themselves on the theory of descent with slow and slight successive modifications0 7p4 #dgi74 8,any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts1 will certainly reject my theory0 7p4 #dhb74 8,my theory0 became 8the theory0 in #ahfi4 99 99 99 99 99 ,from this point to the end of the book the claim is so ubiquitous1 either expressly or by implication1 that it is difficult to know what not to quote4 ,i must1 however1 content myself with only a few more extracts4 ,mr4 ,darwin says3-- 8,it may be asked how far ,i extend the doctrine of the modification of species0 7p4 #dhb74 ,again3-- 8,analogy would lead me one step further1 namely1 to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype 4 4 4 ,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 form1 into which life was first breathed40 ,from an amba--,adam1 in fact1 though not in name4 ,this last sentence is now completely altered1 as well it might be4 ,again3-- 8,when the views entertained in this volume on the origin of species1 or when analogous views are generally admitted1 we can dimly foresee that there will be a considerable revolution in natural history0 7p4 #dcd74 ,possibly4 ,this now stands1 8,when the views advanced by me in this volume1 and by ,mr4 ,wallace1 or when analogous views on the origin of species are generally admitted1 we can dimly foresee10 c4 ,when the 8,origin of ,species0 came out we knew nothing of any analogous views1 and ,mr4 ,darwin's words passed unnoticed4 ,i do not say that he knew they would1 but he certainly ought to have known4 ,again3-- 8,a grand and almost untrodden field of inquiry will be opened1 on the causes and laws of variation1 on correlation of growth1 on the effects of use and disuse1 on the direct action of external conditions1 and so forth0 7p4 #dhf74 ,buffon and ,lamarck had trodden this field to some purpose1 but not a hint to this effect is vouchsafed to us4 ,again2-- 8,when ,i view all beings not as special creations1 but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the ,silurian system was deposited1 they seem to me to become ennobled 4 4 4 ,we can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely spread species1 belonging to the larger and dominant groups1 which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species40 ,there is no alteration in this except that 8,silurian0 has become 8,cambrian40 ,the idyllic paragraph with which ,mr4 ,darwin concludes his book contains no more special claim to the theory of descent en bloc than many another which ,i have allowed to pass unnoticed2 it has been1 moreover1 dealt with in an earlier chapter 7,chapter ,,xii47 ,chapter ,,xv ,the ,excised 8,my's0 ,i ,,have quoted in all ninety-seven passages1 as near as ,i can make them1 in which ,mr4 ,darwin claimed the theory of descent1 either expressly by speaking of 8my theory0 in such connection that the theory of descent ought to be1 and1 as the event has shown1 was1 understood as being intended1 or by implication1 as in the opening passages of the 8,origin of ,species10 in which he tells us how he had thought the matter out without acknowledging obligation of any kind to earlier writers4 ,the original edition of the 8,origin of ,species0 contained #dij pp41 exclusive of index2 a claim1 therefore1 more or less explicit1 to the theory of descent was made on the average about once in every five pages throughout the book from end to end2 the claims were most prominent in the most important parts1 that is to say1 at the beginning and end of the work1 and this made them more effective than they are made even by their frequency4 ,a more ubiquitous claim than this it would be hard to find in the case of any writer advancing a new theory2 it is difficult1 therefore1 to understand how ,mr4 ,grant ,allen could have allowed himself to say that ,mr4 ,darwin 8laid no sort of claim to originality or proprietorship0 in the theory of descent with modification4 ,nevertheless ,i have only found one place where ,mr4 ,darwin pinned himself down beyond possibility of retreat1 however ignominious1 by using the words 8my theory of descent with modification40 #bjb;a ,he often1 as ,i have said1 speaks of 8my theory10 and then shortly afterwards of 8descent with modification10 under such circumstances that no one who had not been brought up in the school of ,mr4 ,gladstone could doubt that the two expressions referred to the same thing4 ,he seems to have felt that he must be a poor wriggler if he could not wriggle out of this2 give him any loophole1 however small1 and ,mr4 ,darwin could trust himself to get out through it2 but he did not like saying what left no loophole at all1 and 8my theory of descent with modification0 closed all exits so firmly that it is surprising he should ever have allowed himself to use these words4 ,as ,i have said1 ,mr4 ,darwin only used this direct categorical form of claim in one place2 and even here1 after it had stood through three editions1 two of which had been largely altered1 he could stand it no longer1 and altered the 8my0 into 8the0 in #ahff1 with the fourth edition of the 8,origin of ,species40 ,this was the only one of the original forty-five my's that was cut out before the appearance of the fifth edition in #ahfi1 and its excision throws curious light upon the working of ,mr4 ,darwin's mind4 ,the selection of the most categorical my out of the whole forty-five1 shows that ,mr4 ,darwin knew all about his my's1 and1 while seeing reason to remove this1 held that the others might very well stand4 ,he even left 8,on my view of descent with modification10 #bjc;a which1 though more capable of explanation than 8my theory10 c41 still runs it close2 nevertheless the excision of even a single my that had been allowed to stand through such close revision as those to which the 8,origin of ,species0 had been subjected betrays uneasiness of mind1 for it is impossible that even ,mr4 ,darwin should not have known that though the my excised in #ahff was the most technically categorical1 the others were in reality just as guilty1 though no tower of ,siloam in the shape of excision fell upon them4 ,if1 then1 ,mr4 ,darwin was so uncomfortable about this one as to cut it out1 it is probable he was far from comfortable about the others4 ,this view derives confirmation from the fact that in #ahfi1 with the fifth edition of the 8,origin of ,species10 there was a stampede of my's throughout the whole work1 no less than thirty out of the original forty-five being changed into 8the10 8our10 8this10 or some other word1 which1 though having all the effect of my1 still did not say 8my0 outright4 ,these my's were1 if ,i may say so1 sneaked out2 nothing was said to explain their removal to the reader or call attention to it4 ,why1 it may be asked1 having been considered during the revisions of #ahfa and #ahff1 and with only one exception allowed to stand1 why should they be smitten with a homing instinct in such large numbers with the fifth edition8 ,it cannot be maintained that ,mr4 ,darwin had had his attention called now for the first time to the fact that he had used my perhaps a little too freely1 and had better be more sparing of it for the future4 ,the my excised in #ahff shows that ,mr4 ,darwin had already considered this question1 and saw no reason to remove any but the one that left him no loophole4 ,why1 then1 should that which was considered and approved in #ahei1 #ahfa1 and #ahff 7not to mention the second edition of #ahei or #ahfj7 be retreated from with every appearance of panic in #ahfi8 ,mr4 ,darwin could not well have cut out more than he did--not at any rate without saying something about it1 and it would not be easy to know exactly what say4 ,of the fourteen my's that were left in #ahfi1 five more were cut out in #ahgb1 and nine only were allowed eventually to remain4 ,we naturally ask1 ,why leave any if thirty-six ought to be cut out1 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 it8 ,i imagine complaint had early reached ,mr4 ,darwin that the difference between himself and his predecessors was unsubstantial and hard to grasp2 traces of some such feeling appear even in the late ,sir ,charles ,lyell's 8,principles of ,geology10 in which he writes that he had reprinted his abstract of ,lamarck's doctrine word for word1 8in justice to ,lamarck1 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 species1 and the progressive development in past time of the organic world40 #bje;a ,sir ,charles ,lyell could not have written thus if he had thought that ,mr4 ,darwin had already done 8justice to ,lamarck10 nor is it likely that he stood alone in thinking as he did4 ,it is probable that more reached ,mr4 ,darwin than reached the public1 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 ,mr4 ,darwin's friends of the feeling that was afterwards expressed by ,sir ,charles ,lyell in the passage quoted above4 ,i suppose the removal of the my that was cut out in #ahff to be due partly to the ,gladstonian tendencies of ,mr4 ,darwin's mind1 which would naturally make that particular my at all times more or less offensive to him1 and partly to the increase of objection to it that must have ensued on the addition of the 8brief but imperfect0 historical sketch in #ahfa2 it is doubtless only by an oversight that this particular my was not cut out in #ahfa4 ,the stampede of #ahfi was probably occasioned by the appearance in ,germany of ,professor ,haeckel's 8,history of ,creation40 ,this was published in #ahfh1 and ,mr4 ,darwin no doubt foresaw that it would be translated into ,english1 as indeed it subsequently was4 ,in this book some account is given--very badly1 but still much more fully than by ,mr4 ,darwin--of ,lamarck's work2 and even ,erasmus ,darwin is mentioned--inaccurately--but still he is mentioned4 ,professor ,haeckel says3-- 8,although the theory of development had been already maintained at the beginning of this century by several great naturalists1 especially by ,lamarck and ,goethe1 it only received complete demonstration and causal foundation nine years ago through ,darwin's work1 and it is on this account that it is now generally 7though not altogether rightly7 regarded as exclusively ,mr4 ,darwin's theory40 #bjf;a ,later on1 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 8my0 which disappeared in #ahff--;he continued3-- 8,we must distinguish clearly 7though this is not usually done7 between1 firstly1 the theory of descent as advanced by ,lamarck1 which deals only with the fact of all animals and plants being descended from a common source1 and secondly1 ,darwin's theory of natural selection1 which shows us why this progressive modification of organic forms took place0 7p4 #ic74 ,this passage is as inaccurate as most of those by ,professor ,haeckel that ,i have had occasion to examine have proved to be4 ,letting alone that ,buffon1 not ,lamarck1 is the foremost name in connection with descent1 ,i have already shown in 8,evolution ,old and ,new0 that ,lamarck goes exhaustively into the how and why of modification4 ,he alleges the conservation1 or preservation1 in the ordinary course of nature1 of the most favourable among variations that have been induced mainly by function2 this1 ,i have sufficiently explained1 is natural selection1 though the words 8natural selection0 are not employed2 but it is the true natural selection which 7if so metaphorical an expression is allowed to pass7 actually does take place with the results ascribed to it by ,lamarck1 and not the false ,charles-,darwinian natural selection that does not correspond with facts1 and cannot result in specific differences such as we now observe4 ,but1 waiving this1 the 8my's10 within which a little rift had begun to show itself in #ahff1 might well become as mute in #ahfi as they could become without attracting attention1 when ,mr4 ,darwin saw the passages just quoted1 and the hundred pages or so that lie between them4 ,i suppose ,mr4 ,darwin cut out the five more my's that disappeared in #ahgb because he had not yet fully recovered from his scare1 and allowed nine to remain in order to cover his retreat1 and tacitly say that he had not done anything and knew nothing whatever about it4 ,practically1 indeed1 he had not retreated1 and must have been well aware that he was only retreating technically2 for he must have known that the absence of acknowledgment to any earlier writers in the body of his work1 and the presence of the many passages in which every word conveyed the impression that the writer claimed descent with modification1 amounted to a claim as much when the actual word 8my0 had been taken out as while it was allowed to stand4 ,we took ,mr4 ,darwin at his own estimate because we could not for a moment suppose that a man of means1 position1 and education1--one1 moreover1 who was nothing if he was not unself-seeking--could play such a trick upon us while pretending to take us into his confidence2 hence the almost universal belief on the part of the public1 of which ,professors ,haeckel and ,ray ,lankester and ,mr4 ,grant ,allen alike complain--namely1 that ,mr4 ,darwin is the originator of the theory of descent1 and that his variations are mainly functional4 ,men of science must not be surprised if the readiness with which we responded to ,mr4 ,darwin's appeal to our confidence is succeeded by a proportionate resentment when the peculiar shabbiness of his action becomes more generally understood4 ,for myself1 ,i know not which most to wonder at--the meanness of the writer himself1 or the greatness of the service that1 in spite of that meanness1 he unquestionably rendered4 ,if ,mr4 ,darwin had been dealing fairly by us1 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 functional1 and his own alternative theory of descent through natural selection from among variations that are mainly accidental1 and1 above all1 when he saw we were crediting him with other men's work1 he would have hastened to set us right4 8,it is with great regret10 he might have written1 8and with no small surprise1 that ,i find how generally ,i have been misunderstood as claiming to be the originator of the theory of descent with modification2 nothing can be further from my intention2 the theory of descent has been familiar to all biologists from the year #agdi1 when ,buffon advanced it in its most comprehensive form1 to the present day40 ,if ,mr4 ,darwin had said something to the above effect1 no one would have questioned his good faith1 but it is hardly necessary to say that nothing of the kind is to be found in any one of ,mr4 ,darwin's many books or many editions2 nor is the reason why the requisite correction was never made far to seek4 ,for if ,mr4 ,darwin had said as much as ,i have put into his mouth above1 he should have said more1 and would ere long have been compelled to have explained to us wherein the difference between himself and his predecessors precisely lay1 and this would not have been easy4 ,indeed1 if ,mr4 ,darwin had been quite open with us he would have had to say much as follows3-- 8,i should point out that1 according to the evolutionists of the last century1 improvement in the eye1 as in any other organ1 is mainly due to persistent1 rational1 employment of the organ in question1 in such slightly modified manner as experience and changed surroundings may suggest4 ,you will have observed that1 according to my system1 this goes for very little1 and that the accumulation of fortunate accidents1 irrespectively of the use that may be made of them1 is by far the most important means of modification4 ,put more briefly still1 the distinction between me and my predecessors lies in this2--my predecessors thought they knew the main normal cause or principle that underlies variation1 whereas ,i think that there is no general principle underlying it at all1 or that even if there is1 we know hardly anything about it4 ,this is my distinctive feature2 there is no deception2 ,i shall not consider the arguments of my predecessors1 nor show in what respect they are insufficient2 in fact1 ,i shall say nothing whatever about them4 ,please to understand that ,i alone am in possession of the master key that can unlock the bars of the future progress of evolutionary science2 so great an improvement1 in fact1 is my discovery that it justifies me in claiming the theory of descent generally1 and ,i accordingly claim it4 ,if you ask me in what my discovery consists1 ,i reply in this2--that the variations which we are all agreed accumulate are caused--by variation4 #bji;a ,i admit that this is not telling you much about them1 but it is as much as ,i think proper to say at present2 above all things1 let me caution you against thinking that there is any principle of general application underlying variation40 ,this would have been right4 ,this is what ,mr4 ,darwin would have had to have said if he had been frank with us2 it is not surprising1 therefore1 that he should have been less frank than might have been wished4 ,i have no doubt that many a time between #ahei and #ahhb1 the year of his death1 ,mr4 ,darwin bitterly regretted his initial error1 and would have been only too thankful to repair it1 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 cards2 this was more than he could stand1 so he buried his face1 ostrich-like1 in the sand4 ,i know no more pitiable figure in either literature or science4 ,as ,i write these lines 7,july #ahhf7 ,i see a paragraph in ,nature which ,i take it is intended to convey the impression that ,mr4 ,francis ,darwin's life and letters of his father will appear shortly4 ,i can form no idea whether ,mr4 ,f4 ,darwin's forthcoming work is likely to appear before this present volume2 still less can ,i conjecture what it may or may not contain2 but ,i can give the reader a criterion by which to test the good faith with which it is written4 ,if ,mr4 ,f4 ,darwin puts the distinctive feature that differentiates ,mr4 ,c4 ,darwin from his predecessors clearly before his readers1 enabling them to seize and carry it away with them once for all--if he shows no desire to shirk this question1 but1 on the contrary1 faces it and throws light upon it1 then we shall know that his work is sincere1 whatever its shortcomings may be in other respects2 and when people are doing their best to help us and make us understand all that they understand themselves1 a great deal may be forgiven them4 ,if1 on the other hand1 we find much talk about the wonderful light which ,mr4 ,charles ,darwin threw on evolution by his theory of natural selection1 without any adequate attempt to make us understand the difference between the natural selection1 say1 of ,mr4 ,patrick ,matthew1 and that of his more famous successor1 then we may know that we are being trifled with2 and that an attempt is being again made to throw dust in our eyes4 ,chapter ,,xvi ,mr4 ,grant ,allen's 8,charles ,darwin0 ,,it is here that ,mr4 ,grant ,allen's book fails4 ,it is impossible to believe it written in good faith1 with no end in view1 save to make something easy which might otherwise be found difficult2 on the contrary1 it leaves the impression of having been written with a desire to hinder us1 as far as possible1 from understanding things that ,mr4 ,allen himself understood perfectly well4 ,after saying that 8in the public mind ,mr4 ,darwin is perhaps most commonly regarded as the discoverer and founder of the evolution hypothesis10 he continues that 8the grand idea which he did really originate was not the idea of #8descent with modification1' but the idea of #8natural selection1'0 and adds that it was ,mr4 ,darwin's 8peculiar glory0 to have shown the 8nature of the machinery0 by which all the variety of animal and vegetable life might have been produced by slow modifications in one or more original types4 8,the theory of evolution10 says ,mr4 ,allen1 8already existed in a more or less shadowy and undeveloped shape20 it was ,mr4 ,darwin's 8task 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 system0 7pp4 #c-e74 ,we all admit the value of ,mr4 ,darwin's work as having led to the general acceptance of evolution4 ,no one who remembers average middle-class opinion on this subject before #ahfj will deny that it was ,mr4 ,darwin who brought us all round to descent with modification2 but ,mr4 ,allen cannot rightly say that evolution had only existed before ,mr4 ,darwin's time in 8a shadowy1 undeveloped state10 or as 8a mere plausible and happy guess40 ,it existed in the same form as that in which most people accept it now1 and had been carried to its extreme development1 before ,mr4 ,darwin's father had been born4 ,it is idle to talk of ,buffon's work as 8a mere plausible and happy guess10 or to imply that the first volume of the 8,philosophie ,zoologique0 of ,lamarck was a less full and sufficient demonstration of descent with modification than the 8,origin of ,species0 is4 ,it has its defects1 shortcomings1 and mistakes1 but it is an incomparably sounder work than the 8,origin of ,species20 and though it contains the deplorable omission of any reference to ,buffon1 ,lamarck does not first grossly misrepresent ,buffon1 and then tell him to go away1 as ,mr4 ,darwin did to the author of the 8,vestiges0 and to ,lamarck4 ,if ,mr4 ,darwin was believed and honoured for saying much the same as ,lamarck had said1 it was because ,lamarck had borne the brunt of the laughing4 ,the 8,origin of ,species0 was possible because the 8,vestiges0 had prepared the way for it4 ,the 8,vestiges0 were made possible by ,lamarck and ,erasmus ,darwin1 and these two were made possible by ,buffon4 ,here a somewhat sharper line can be drawn than is usually found possible when defining the ground covered by philosophers4 ,no one broke the ground for ,buffon to anything like the extent that he broke it for those who followed him1 and these broke it for one another4 ,mr4 ,allen says 7p4 #aa7 that1 8in ,charles ,darwin's own words1 ,lamarck #8first 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 law1 and not of miraculous interposition4'0 ,mr4 ,darwin did indeed use these words1 but ,mr4 ,allen omits the pertinent fact that he did not use them till six thousand copies of his work had been issued1 and an impression been made as to its scope and claims which the event has shown to be not easily effaced2 nor does he say that ,mr4 ,darwin only pays these few words of tribute in a quasi-preface1 which1 though prefixed to his later editions of the 8,origin of ,species10 is amply neutralised by the spirit which ,i have shown to be omnipresent in the body of the work itself4 ,moreover1 ,mr4 ,darwin's statement is inaccurate to an unpardonable extent2 his words would be fairly accurate if applied to ,buffon1 but they do not apply to ,lamarck4 ,mr4 ,darwin continues that ,lamarck 8seems to attribute all the beautiful adaptations in nature1 such as the long neck of the giraffe for browsing on the branches of trees10 to the effects of habit4 ,mr4 ,darwin should not say that ,lamarck 8seems0 to do this4 ,it was his business to tell us what led ,lamarck to his conclusions1 not what 8seemed0 to do so4 ,any one who knows the first volume of the 8,philosophie ,zoologique0 will be aware that there is no 8seems0 in the matter4 ,mr4 ,darwin's words 8seem0 to say that it really could not be worth any practical naturalist's while to devote attention to ,lamarck's argument2 the inquiry might be of interest to antiquaries1 but ,mr4 ,darwin had more important work in hand than following the vagaries of one who had been so completely exploded as ,lamarck had been4 8,seem0 is to men what 8feel0 is to women2 women who feel1 and men who grease every other sentence with a 8seem10 are alike to be looked on with distrust4 8,still10 continues ,mr4 ,allen1 8,darwin gave no sign4 ,a flaccid1 cartilaginous1 unphilosophic evolutionism had full possession of the field for the moment1 and claimed1 as it were1 to be the genuine representative of the young and vigorous biological creed1 while he himself was in truth the real heir to all the honours of the situation4 ,he was in possession of the master-key which alone could unlock the bars that opposed the progress of evolution1 and still he waited4 ,he could afford to wait4 ,he was diligently collecting1 amassing1 investigating2 eagerly reading every new systematic work1 every book of travels1 every scientific journal1 every record of sport1 or exploration1 or discovery1 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 #8,origin of ,species4' ,his way was to make all sure behind him1 to summon up all his facts in irresistible array1 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 rear10 c4 7p4 #gc74 ,it would not be easy to beat this4 ,mr4 ,darwin's worst enemy could wish him no more damaging eulogist4 ,of the 8,vestiges0 ,mr4 ,allen says that ,mr4 ,darwin 8felt sadly0 the inaccuracy and want of profound technical knowledge everywhere displayed by the anonymous author4 ,nevertheless1 long after1 in the 8,origin of ,species10 the great naturalist wrote with generous appreciation of the 8,vestiges of ,creation0--8,in my opinion it has done excellent service in this country in calling attention to the subject1 in removing prejudice1 and in thus preparing the ground for the reception of analogous views40 ,i have already referred to the way in which ,mr4 ,darwin treated the author of the 8,vestiges10 and have stated the facts at greater length in 8,evolution ,old and ,new10 but it may be as well to give ,mr4 ,darwin's words in full2 he wrote as follows on the third page of the original edition of the 8,origin of ,species03-- 8,the author of the #8,vestiges of ,creation' would1 ,i presume1 say that1 after a certain unknown number of generations1 some bird had given birth to a woodpecker1 and some plant to the mistletoe1 and that these had been produced perfect as we now see them2 but this assumption seems to me to be no explanation1 for it leaves the case of the coadaptation of organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life untouched and unexplained40 ,the author of the 8,vestiges0 did1 doubtless1 suppose that 8some bird0 had given birth to a woodpecker1 or more strictly1 that a couple of birds had done so--and this is all that ,mr4 ,darwin has committed himself to--but no one better knew that these two birds would1 according to the author of the 8,vestiges10 be just as much woodpeckers1 and just as little woodpeckers1 as they would be with ,mr4 ,darwin himself4 ,mr4 ,chambers did not suppose that a woodpecker became a woodpecker per saltum though born of some widely different bird1 but ,mr4 ,darwin's words have no application unless they convey this impression4 ,the reader will note that though the impression is conveyed1 ,mr4 ,darwin avoids conveying it categorically4 ,i suppose this is what ,mr4 ,allen means by saying that he 8made all things sure behind him40 ,mr4 ,chambers did indeed believe in occasional sports2 so did ,mr4 ,darwin1 and we have seen that in the later editions of the 8,origin of ,species0 he found himself constrained to lay greater stress on these than he had originally done4 ,substantially1 ,mr4 ,chambers held much the same opinion as to the suddenness or slowness of modification as ,mr4 ,darwin did1 nor can it be doubted that ,mr4 ,darwin knew this perfectly well4 ,what ,i have said about the woodpecker applies also to the mistletoe4 ,besides1 it was ,mr4 ,darwin's business not to presume anything about the matter2 his business was to tell us what the author of the 8,vestiges0 had said1 or to refer us to the page of the 8,vestiges0 on which we should find this4 ,i suppose he was too busy 8collecting1 amassing1 investigating10 c41 to be at much pains not to misrepresent those who had been in the field before him4 ,there is no other reference to the 8,vestiges0 in the 8,origin of ,species0 than this suave but singularly fraudulent passage4 ,in his edition of #ahfj the author of the 8,vestiges0 showed that he was nettled1 and said it was to be regretted ,mr4 ,darwin had read the 8,vestiges0 8almost as much amiss as if1 like its declared opponents1 he had an interest in misunderstanding it20 and a little lower he adds that ,mr4 ,darwin's book 8in no essential respect contradicts the #8,vestiges1'0 but that1 on the contrary1 8while adding to its explanations of nature1 it expressed the same general ideas40 #baf;a ,this is substantially true2 neither ,mr4 ,darwin's nor ,mr4 ,chambers's are good books1 but the main object of both is to substantiate the theory of descent with modification1 and1 bad as the 8,vestiges0 is1 it is ingenuous as compared with the 8,origin of ,species40 ,subsequently to ,mr4 ,chambers' protest1 and not till1 as ,i have said1 six thousand copies of the 8,origin of ,species0 had been issued1 the sentence complained of by ,mr4 ,chambers was expunged1 but without a word of retractation1 and the passage which ,mr4 ,allen thinks so generous was inserted into the 8brief but imperfect0 sketch which ,mr4 ,darwin prefixed--after ,mr4 ,chambers had been effectually snuffed out--to all subsequent editions of his 8,origin of ,species40 ,there is no excuse for ,mr4 ,darwin's not having said at least this much about the author of the 8,vestiges0 in his first edition2 and on finding that he had misrepresented him in a passage which he did not venture to retain1 he should not have expunged it quietly1 but should have called attention to his mistake in the body of his book1 and given every prominence in his power to the correction4 ,let us now examine ,mr4 ,allen's record in the matter of natural selection4 ,for years he was one of the foremost apostles of ,neo-,darwinism1 and any who said a good word for ,lamarck were told that this was the 8kind of mystical nonsense0 from which ,mr4 ,allen 8had hoped ,mr4 ,darwin had for ever saved us40 #baf;b ,then in ,october #ahhc came an article in 8,mind10 from which it appeared as though ,mr4 ,allen had abjured ,mr4 ,darwin and all his works4 8,there are only two conceivable ways10 he then wrote1 8in which any increment of brain power can ever have arisen in any individual4 ,the one is the ,darwinian way1 by spontaneous variation1 that is to say1 by variation due to minute physical circumstances affecting the individual in the germ4 ,the other is the ,spencerian way1 by functional increment1 that is to say1 by the effect of increased use and constant exposure to varying circumstances during conscious life40 ,mr4 ,allen calls this the ,spencerian view1 and so it is in so far as that ,mr4 ,spencer has adopted it4 ,most people will call it ,lamarckian4 ,this1 however1 is a detail4 ,mr4 ,allen continues3-- 8,i venture to think that the first way1 if we look it clearly in the face1 will be seen to be practically unthinkable2 and that we have no alternative1 therefore1 but to accept the second40 ,i like our looking a 8way0 which is 8practically unthinkable0 8clearly in the face40 ,i particularly like 8practically unthinkable40 ,i suppose we can think it in theory1 but not in practice4 ,i like almost everything ,mr4 ,allen says or does2 it is not necessary to go far in search of his good things2 dredge up any bit of mud from him at random and we are pretty sure to find an oyster with a pearl in it1 if we look it clearly in the face2 ,i mean1 there is sure to be something which will be at any rate 8almost0 practically unthinkable4 ,but however this may be1 when ,mr4 ,allen wrote his article in 8,mind0 two years ago1 he was in substantial agreement with myself about the value of natural selection as a means of modification--by natural selection ,i mean1 of course1 the commonly known ,charles-,darwinian natural selection from fortuitous variations2 now1 however1 in #ahhe1 he is all for this same natural selection again1 and in the preface to his 8,charles ,darwin0 writes 7after a handsome acknowledgment of 8,evolution ,old and ,new07 that he 8differs from0 me 8fundamentally in0 my 8estimate of the worth of ,charles ,darwin's distinctive discovery of natural selection40 ,this he certainly does1 for on page #ha of the work itself he speaks of 8the distinctive notion of natural selection0 as having1 8like all true and fruitful ideas1 more than once flashed10 c4 ,i have explained usque ad nauseam1 and will henceforth explain no longer1 that natural selection is no 8distinctive notion0 of ,mr4 ,darwin's4 ,mr4 ,darwin's 8distinctive notion0 is natural selection from among fortuitous variations4 ,writing again 7p4 #hi7 of ,mr4 ,spencer's essay in the 8,leader10 #bah;a ,mr4 ,allen says3-- 8,it contains1 in a very philosophical and abstract form1 the theory of #8descent with modification' without the distinctive ,darwinian adjunct of #8natural selection' or survival of the fittest4 ,yet it was just that lever dexterously applied1 and carefully weighted with the whole weight of his endlessly accumulated inductive instances1 that finally enabled our modern ,archimedes to move the world40 ,again3-- 8,to account for adaptation1 for the almost perfect fitness of every plant and every animal to its position in life1 for the existence 7in other words7 of definitely correlated parts and organs1 we must call in the aid of survival of the fittest4 ,without that potent selective agent1 our conception of the becoming of life is a mere chaos2 order and organisation are utterly inexplicable save by the brilliant illuminating ray of the ,darwinian principle0 7p4 #ic74 ,and yet two years previously this same principle1 after having been thinkable for many years1 had become 8unthinkable40 ,two years previously1 writing of the ,charles-,darwinian scheme of evolution1 ,mr4 ,allen had implied it as his opinion 8that all brains are what they are in virtue of antecedent function40 8,the one creed10 he wrote--referring to ,mr ,darwin's--8makes the man depend mainly upon the accidents of molecular physics in a colliding germ cell and sperm cell2 the other makes him depend mainly on the doings and gains of his ancestors as modified and altered by himself40 ,this second creed is pure ,erasmus-,darwinism and ,lamarck4 ,again3-- 8,it seems to me easy to understand how survival of the fittest may result in progress starting from such functionally produced gains 7italics mine71 but impossible to understand how it could result in progress1 if it had to start in mere accidental structural increments due to spontaneous variation alone40 #bai;a ,which comes to saying that it is easy to understand the ,lamarckian system of evolution1 but not the ,charles-,darwinian4 ,mr4 ,allen concluded his article a few pages later on by saying3-- 8,the first hypothesis0 7,mr4 ,darwin's7 8is one that throws no light upon any of the facts4 ,the second hypothesis0 7which is unalloyed ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck7 8is one that explains them all with transparent lucidity40 ,yet in his 8,charles ,darwin0 ,mr4 ,allen tells us that though ,mr4 ,darwin 8did not invent the development theory1 he made it believable and comprehensible0 7p4 #d74 ,in his 8,charles ,darwin0 ,mr4 ,allen does not tell us how recently he had1 in another place1 expressed an opinion about the value of ,mr4 ,darwin's 8distinctive contribution0 to the theory of evolution1 so widely different from the one he is now expressing with characteristic appearance of ardour4 ,he does not explain how he is able to execute such rapid changes of front without forfeiting his claim on our attention2 explanations on matters of this sort seem out of date with modern scientists4 ,i can only suppose that ,mr4 ,allen regards himself as having taken a brief1 as it were1 for the production of a popular work1 and feels more bound to consider the interests of the gentleman who pays him than to say what he really thinks2 for surely ,mr4 ,allen would not have written as he did in such a distinctly philosophical and scientific journal as 8,mind0 without weighing his words1 and nothing has transpired lately1 apropos of evolution1 which will account for his present recantation4 ,i said in my book 8,selections10 c41 that when ,mr4 ,allen made stepping-stones of his dead selves1 he jumped upon them to some tune4 ,i was a little scandalised then at the completeness and suddenness of the movement he executed1 and spoke severely2 ,i have sometimes feared ,i may have spoken too severely1 but his recent performance goes far to warrant my remarks4 ,if1 however1 there is no dead self about it1 and ,mr4 ,allen has only taken a brief1 ,i confess to being not greatly edified4 ,i grant that a good case can be made out for an author's doing as ,i suppose ,mr4 ,allen to have done2 indeed ,i am not sure that both science and religion would not gain if every one rode his neighbour's theory1 as at a donkey-race1 and the least plausible were held to win2 but surely1 as things stand1 a writer by the mere fact of publishing a book professes to be giving a bon fide opinion4 ,the analogy of the bar does not hold1 for not only is it perfectly understood that a barrister does not necessarily state his own opinions1 but there exists a strict though unwritten code to protect the public against the abuses to which such a system must be liable4 ,in religion and science no such code exists--the supposition being that these two holy callings are above the necessity for anything of the kind4 ,science and religion are not as business is2 still1 if the public do not wish to be taken in1 they must be at some pains to find out whether they are in the hands of one who1 while pretending to be a judge1 is in reality a paid advocate1 with no one's interests at heart except his client's1 or in those of one who1 however warmly he may plead1 will say nothing but what springs from mature and genuine conviction4 ,the present unsettled and unsatisfactory state of the moral code in this respect is at the bottom of the supposed antagonism between religion and science4 ,these two are not1 or never ought to be1 antagonistic4 ,they should never want what is spoken of as reconciliation1 for in reality they are one4 ,religion is the quintessence of science1 and science the raw material of religion2 when people talk about reconciling religion and science they do not mean what they say2 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 easy4 ,mr4 ,allen says3-- 8,at the same time it must be steadily remembered that there are many naturalists at the present day1 especially among those of the lower order of intelligence1 who1 while accepting evolutionism in a general way1 and therefore always describing themselves as ,darwinians1 do not believe1 and often cannot even understand1 the distinctive ,darwinian addition to the evolutionary doctrine--namely1 the principle of natural selection4 ,such hazy and indistinct thinkers as these are still really at the prior stage of ,lamarckian evolution0 7p4 #aii74 ,considering that ,mr4 ,allen was at that stage himself so recently1 he might deal more tenderly with others who still find 8the distinctive ,darwinian adjunct0 8unthinkable40 ,it is perhaps1 however1 because he remembers his difficulties that ,mr4 ,allen goes on as follows3-- 8,it is probable that in the future1 while a formal acceptance of ,darwinism becomes general1 the special theory of natural selection will be thoroughly understood and assimilated only by the more abstract and philosophical minds40 ,by the kind of people1 in fact1 who read the ,spectator and are called thoughtful2 and in point of fact less than a twelvemonth after this passage was written1 natural selection was publicly abjured as 8a theory of the origin of species0 by ,mr4 ,romanes himself1 with the implied approval of the ,times4 8,thus10 continues ,mr4 ,allen1 8the name of ,darwin will often no doubt be tacked on to what are in reality the principles of ,lamarck40 ,it requires no great power of prophecy to foretell this1 considering that it is done daily by nine out of ten who call themselves ,darwinians4 ,ask ten people of ordinary intelligence how ,mr4 ,darwin explains the fact that giraffes have long necks1 and nine of them will answer 8through continually stretching them to reach higher and higher boughs40 ,they do not understand that this is the ,lamarckian view of evolution1 not the ,darwinian2 nor will ,mr4 ,allen's book greatly help the ordinary reader to catch the difference between the two theories1 in spite of his frequent reference to ,mr4 ,darwin's 8distinctive feature10 and to his 8master-key40 ,no doubt the ,british public will get to understand all about it some day1 but it can hardly be expected to do so all at once1 considering the way in which ,mr4 ,allen and so many more throw dust in its eyes1 and will doubtless continue to throw it as long as an honest penny is to be turned by doing so4 ,mr4 ,allen1 then1 is probably right in saying that 8the name of ,darwin will no doubt be often tacked on to what are in reality the principles of ,lamarck10 nor can it be denied that ,mr4 ,darwin1 by his practice of using 8the theory of natural selection0 as though it were a synonym for 8the theory of descent with modification10 contributed to this result4 ,i do not myself doubt that he intended to do this1 but ,mr4 ,allen would say no less confidently he did not4 ,he writes of ,mr4 ,darwin as follows3-- 8,of ,darwin's pure and exalted moral nature no ,englishman of the present generation can trust himself to speak with becoming moderation40 ,he proceeds to trust himself thus3-- 8,his love of truth1 his singleness of heart1 his sincerity1 his earnestness1 his modesty1 his candour1 his absolute sinking of self and selfishness--these1 indeed are all conspicuous to every reader on the very face of every word he ever printed40 ,this 8conspicuous sinking of self0 is of a piece with the 8delightful unostentatiousness which every one must have noticed0 about which ,mr4 ,allen writes on page #fe4 ,does he mean that ,mr4 ,darwin was 8ostentatiously unostentatious10 or that he was 8unostentatiously ostentatious08 ,i think we may guess from this passage who it was that in the old days of the ,pall ,mall ,gazelle called ,mr4 ,darwin 8a master of a certain happy simplicity40 ,mr4 ,allen continues3-- 8,like his works themselves1 they must long outlive him4 ,but his sympathetic kindliness1 his ready generosity1 the staunchness of his friendship1 the width and depth and breadth of his affections1 the manner in which #8he 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 him0 7pp4 #agd1 #age74 ,again3-- 8,he began early in life to collect and arrange a vast encyclopdia of facts1 all finally focussed with supreme skill upon the great principle he so clearly perceived and so lucidly expounded4 ,he brought to bear upon the question an amount of personal observation1 of minute experiment1 of world-wide book knowledge1 of universal scientific ability1 such as never1 perhaps1 was lavished by any other man upon any other department of study4 ,his conspicuous and beautiful love of truth1 his unflinching candour1 his transparent fearlessness and honesty of purpose1 his childlike simplicity1 his modesty of demeanour1 his charming manner1 his affectionate disposition1 his kindliness to friends1 his courtesy to opponents1 his gentleness to harsh and often bitter assailants1 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 learning4 ,his name became a rallying-point for the children of light in every country0 7pp4 #aif1 #aig74 ,i need not quote more2 the sentence goes on to talk about 8firmly grounding0 something which philosophers and speculators might have taken a century or two more 8to establish in embryo20 but those who wish to see it must turn to ,mr4 ,allen's book4 ,if ,i have formed too severe an estimate of ,mr4 ,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 excuse4 ,we grow tired even of hearing ,aristides called just1 but what is so freely said about ,mr4 ,darwin puts us in mind more of what the people said about ,herod--that he spoke with the voice of a ,god1 not of a man4 ,so we saw ,professor ,ray ,lankester hail him not many years ago as the 8greatest of living men40 #bbd;a ,it is ill for any man's fame that he should be praised so extravagantly4 ,nobody ever was as good as ,mr4 ,darwin looked1 and a counterblast to such a hurricane of praise as has been lately blowing will do no harm to his ultimate reputation1 even though it too blow somewhat fiercely4 ,art1 character1 literature1 religion1 science 7,i have named them in alphabetical order71 thrive best in a breezy1 bracing air2 ,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 now1 ,i have a fair chance of succeeding in not succeeding4 ,chapter ,,xvii ,professor ,ray ,lankester and ,lamarck ,,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 inception1 or more briefly against the ,erasmus-,darwinian and ,lamarckian systems1 ,i can find nothing more to the point1 or more recent1 than ,professor ,ray ,lankester's letter to the ,athenum of ,march #bi1 #ahhd1 to the latter part of which1 however1 ,i need alone call attention4 ,professor ,ray ,lankester says3-- 8,and then we are introduced to the discredited speculations of ,lamarck1 which have found a worthy advocate in ,mr4 ,butler1 as really solid contributions to the discovery of the ver caus of variation6 ,a much more important attempt to do something for ,lamarck's hypothesis1 of the transmission to offspring of structural peculiarities acquired by the parents1 was recently made by an able and experienced naturalist1 ,professor ,semper of ,wurzburg4 ,his book on #8,animal ,life1' c41 is published in the #8,international ,scientific ,series4' ,professor ,semper adduces an immense number and variety of cases of structural change in animals and plants brought about in the individual by adaptation 7during its individual life-history7 to new conditions4 ,some of these are very marked changes1 such as the loss of its horny coat in the gizzard of a pigeon fed on meat2 but in no single instance could ,professor ,semper show--although it was his object and desire to do so if possible--that such change was transmitted from parent to offspring4 ,lamarckism looks all very well on paper1 but1 as ,professor ,semper's book shows1 when put to the test of observation and experiment it collapses absolutely40 ,i should have thought it would have been enough if it had collapsed without the 8absolutely10 but ,professor ,ray ,lankester does not like doing things by halves4 ,few will be taken in by the foregoing quotation1 except those who do not greatly care whether they are taken in or not2 but to save trouble to readers who may have neither ,lamarck nor ,professor ,semper at hand1 ,i will put the case as follows3-- ,professor ,semper writes a book to show1 we will say1 that the hour-hand of the clock moves gradually forward1 in spite of its appearing stationary4 ,he makes his case sufficiently clear1 and then might have been content to leave it2 nevertheless1 in the innocence of his heart1 he adds the admission that though he had often looked at the clock for a long time together1 he had never been able actually to see the hour-hand moving4 8,there now10 exclaims ,professor ,ray ,lankester on this1 8,i told you so2 the theory collapses absolutely2 his whole object and desire is to show that the hour-hand moves1 and yet when it comes to the point1 he is obliged to confess that he cannot see it do so40 ,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 8,the ,neanderthal ,skull on ,evolution0 in the 8,monthly ,journal of ,science0 for ,june1 #ahhe 7p4 #cfb73-- 8,on the very next page the author reproduces the threadbare objection that the #8supporters of the theory have never yet succeeded in observing a single instance in all the millions of years invented 767 in its support of one species of animal turning into another4' ,now1 ex hypothesi1 one species turns into another not rapidly1 as in a transformation scene1 but in successive generations1 each being born a shade different from its progenitors4 ,hence to observe such a change is excluded by the very terms of the question4 ,does ,mr4 ,saville forget ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer's apologue of the ephemeron which had never witnessed the change of a child into a man80 ,the apologue1 ,i may say in passing1 is not ,mr4 ,spencer's2 it is by the author of the 8,vestiges10 and will be found on page #afa of the #ahec edition of that book2 but let this pass4 ,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 8,nature10 ,march #c1 #ahha4 ,the tenor of the remarks last quoted shows that though what ,i am about to quote is now more than five years old1 it may be taken as still giving us the position which ,professor ,ray ,lankester takes on these matters4 ,he wrote3-- 8,it is necessary10 he exclaims1 8to plainly and emphatically state0 7,why so much emphasis8 ,why not 8it should be stated087 8that ,professor ,semper and a few other writers of similar views0 #bbg;a 7,i have sent for the number of 8,modern ,thought0 referred to by ,professor ,ray ,lankester but find no article by ,mr4 ,henslow1 and do not1 therefore1 know what he had said7 8are not adding to or building on ,mr4 ,darwin's theory1 but are actually opposing all that is essential and distinctive in that theory1 by the revival of the exploded notion of #8directly transforming agents' advocated by ,lamarck and others40 ,it may be presumed that these writers know they are not 8adding to or building on0 ,mr4 ,darwin's theory1 and do not wish to build on it1 as not thinking it a sound foundation4 ,professor ,ray ,lankester says they are 8actually opposing10 as though there were something intolerably audacious in this2 but it is not easy to see why he should be more angry with them for 8actually opposing0 ,mr4 ,darwin than they may be with him1 if they think it worth while1 for 8actually defending0 the exploded notion of natural selection--for assuredly the ,charles-,darwinian system is now more exploded than ,lamarck's is4 ,what ,professor ,ray ,lankester says about ,lamarck and 8directly transforming agents0 will mislead those who take his statement without examination4 ,lamarck does not say that modification is effected by means of 8directly transforming agents20 nothing can be more alien to the spirit of his teaching4 ,with him the action of the external conditions of existence 7and these are the only transforming agents intended by ,professor ,ray ,lankester7 is not direct1 but indirect4 ,change in surroundings changes the organism's outlook1 and thus changes its desires2 desires changing1 there is corresponding change in the actions performed2 actions changing1 a corresponding change is by-and-by induced in the organs that perform them2 this1 if long continued1 will be transmitted2 becoming augmented by accumulation in many successive generations1 and further modifications perhaps arising through further changes in surroundings1 the change will amount ultimately to specific and generic difference4 ,lamarck knows no drug1 nor operation1 that will medicine one organism into another1 and expects the results of adaptive effort to be so gradual as to be only perceptible when accumulated in the course of many generations4 ,when1 therefore1 ,professor ,ray ,lankester speaks of ,lamarck as having 8advocated directly transforming agents10 he either does not know what he is talking about1 or he is trifling with his readers4 ,professor ,ray ,lankester continues3-- 8,they do not seem to be aware of this1 for they make no attempt to examine ,mr4 ,darwin's accumulated facts and arguments40 ,professor ,ray ,lankester need not shake ,mr4 ,darwin's 8accumulated facts and arguments0 at us4 ,we have taken more pains to understand them than ,professor ,ray ,lankester has taken to understand ,lamarck1 and by this time know them sufficiently4 ,we thankfully accept by far the greater number1 and rely on them as our sheet-anchors to save us from drifting on to the quicksands of ,neo-,darwinian natural selection2 few of them1 indeed1 are ,mr4 ,darwin's1 except in so far as he has endorsed them and given them publicity1 but ,i do not know that this detracts from their value4 ,we have paid great attention to ,mr4 ,darwin's facts1 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 at4 ,we believe we understand this to the full as well as ,mr4 ,darwin intended us to do1 and perhaps better4 ,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's1 or as those of ,erasmus ,darwin or ,lamarck1 and have nothing to say against them2 where1 on the other hand1 they aim at proving that the main means of modification has been the fact that if an animal has been 8favoured0 it will be 8preserved0--then we think that the animal's own exertions will1 in the long run1 have had more to do with its preservation than any real or fancied 8favour40 ,professor ,ray ,lankester continues3-- 8,the doctrine of evolution has become an accepted truth0 7,professor ,ray ,lankester writes as though the making of truth and falsehood lay in the hollow of ,mr4 ,darwin's hand4 ,surely 8has become accepted0 should be enough2 ,mr4 ,darwin did not make the doctrine true7 8entirely in consequence of ,mr4 ,darwin's having demonstrated the mechanism40 7,there is no mechanism in the matter1 and if there is1 ,mr4 ,darwin did not show it4 ,he made some words which confused us and prevented us from seeing that 8the preservation of favoured races0 was a cloak for 8luck10 and that this was all the explanation he was giving7 8by which the evolution is possible2 it was almost universally rejected1 while such undemonstrable agencies as those arbitrarily asserted to exist by ,professor ,semper and ,mr4 ,george ,henslow were the only means suggested by its advocates40 ,undoubtedly the theory of descent with modification1 which received its first sufficiently ample and undisguised exposition in #ahji with the 8,philosophie ,zoologique0 of ,lamarck1 shared the common fate of all theories that revolutionise opinion on important matters1 and was fiercely opposed by the ,huxleys1 ,romaneses1 ,grant ,allens1 and ,ray ,lankesters of its time4 ,it had to face the reaction in favour of the ,church which began in the days of the ,first ,empire1 as a natural consequence of the horrors of the ,revolution2 it had to face the social influence and then almost ,darwinian reputation of ,cuvier1 whom ,lamarck could not1 or would not1 square2 it was put forward by one who was old1 poor1 and ere long blind4 ,what theory could do more than just keep itself alive under conditions so unfavourable8 ,even under the most favourable conditions descent with modification would have been a hard plant to rear1 but1 as things were1 the wonder is that it was not killed outright at once4 ,we all know how large a share social influences have in deciding what kind of reception a book or theory is to meet with2 true1 these influences are not permanent1 but at first they are almost irresistible2 in reality it was not the theory of descent that was matched against that of fixity1 but ,lamarck against ,cuvier2 who can be surprised that ,cuvier for a time should have had the best of it8 ,and yet it is pleasant to reflect that his triumph was not1 as triumphs go1 long lived4 ,how is ,cuvier best known now8 ,as one who missed a great opportunity2 as one who was great in small things1 and stubbornly small in great ones4 ,lamarck died in #ahca2 in #ahfa descent with modification was almost universally accepted by those most competent to form an opinion4 ,this result was by no means so exclusively due to ,mr4 ,darwin's 8,origin of ,species0 as is commonly believed4 ,during the thirty years that followed #ahca ,lamarck's opinions made more way than ,darwinians are willing to allow4 ,granted that in #ahfa the theory was generally accepted under the name of ,darwin1 not under that of ,lamarck1 still it was ,lamarck and not ,darwin that was being accepted2 it was descent1 not descent with modification by means of natural selection from among fortuitous variations1 that we carried away with us from the 8,origin of ,species40 ,the thing triumphed whether the name was lost or not4 ,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 public4 ,the theory of descent has become accepted as rapidly1 if ,i am not mistaken1 as the ,copernican theory1 or as ,newton's theory of gravitation4 ,when ,professor ,ray ,lankester goes on to speak of the 8undemonstrable agencies0 8arbitrarily asserted0 to exist by ,professor ,semper1 he is again presuming on the ignorance of his readers4 ,professor ,semper's agencies are in no way more undemonstrable than ,mr4 ,darwin's are4 ,mr4 ,darwin was perfectly cogent as long as he stuck to ,lamarck's demonstration2 his arguments were sound as long as they were ,lamarck's1 or developments of1 and riders upon1 ,buffon1 ,erasmus ,darwin1 and ,lamarck1 and almost incredibly silly when they were his own4 ,fortunately the greater part of the 8,origin of ,species0 is devoted to proving the theory of descent with modification1 by arguments against which no exception would have been taken by ,mr4 ,darwin's three great precursors1 except in so far as the variations whose accumulation results in specific difference are supposed to be fortuitous--and1 to do ,mr4 ,darwin justice1 the fortuitousness1 though always within hail1 is kept as far as possible in the background4 8,mr4 ,darwin's arguments10 says ,professor ,ray ,lankester1 8rest on the proved existence of minute1 many-sided1 irrelative variations not produced by directly transforming agents40 ,mr4 ,darwin throughout the body of the 8,origin of ,species0 is not supposed to know what his variations are or are not produced by2 if they come1 they come1 and if they do not come1 they do not come4 ,true1 we have seen that in the last paragraph of the book all this was changed1 and the variations were ascribed to the conditions of existence1 and to use and disuse1 but a concluding paragraph cannot be allowed to override a whole book throughout which the variations have been kept to hand as accidental4 ,mr4 ,romanes is perfectly correct when he says #bcb;a that 8natural selection0 7meaning the ,charles-,darwinian natural selection7 8trusts to the chapter of accidents in the matter of variation0 this is all that ,mr4 ,darwin can tell us2 whether they come from directly transforming agents or no he neither knows nor says4 ,those who accept ,lamarck will know that the agencies are not1 as a rule1 directly transforming1 but the followers of ,mr4 ,darwin cannot4 8,but showing themselves10 continues ,professor ,ray ,lankester1 8at each new act of reproduction1 as part of the phenomena of heredity such minute #8sports' or #8variations' are due to constitutional disturbance0 7,no doubt4 ,the difference1 however1 between ,mr4 ,darwin and ,lamarck consists in the fact that ,lamarck believes he knows what it is that so disturbs the constitution as generally to induce variation1 whereas ,mr4 ,darwin says he does not know71 8and appear not in individuals subjected to new conditions0 7,what organism can pass through life without being subjected to more or less new conditions8 ,what life is ever the exact fac-simile of another8 ,and in a matter of such extreme delicacy as the adjustment of psychical and physical relations1 who can say how small a disturbance of established equilibrium may not involve how great a rearrangement871 8but in the offspring of all1 though more freely in the offspring of those subjected to special causes of constitutional disturbance4 ,mr4 ,darwin has further proved that these slight variations can be transmitted and intensified by selective breeding40 ,mr4 ,darwin did1 indeed1 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 readers1 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 ,mr4 ,darwin was born1 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 axis4 ,every breeder throughout the world had known it for centuries4 ,i believe even ,virgil knew it4 8,they have10 continues ,professor ,ray ,lankester1 8in reference to breeding1 a remarkably tenacious1 persistent character1 as might be expected from their origin in connection with the reproductive process40 ,the variations do not normally 8originate in connection with the reproductive process10 though it is during this process that they receive organic expression4 ,they originate mainly1 so far as anything originates anywhere1 in the life of the parent or parents4 ,without going so far as to say that no variation can arise in connection with the reproductive system--for1 doubtless1 striking and successful sports do occasionally so arise--it is more probable that the majority originate earlier4 ,professor ,ray ,lankester proceeds3-- 8,on the other hand1 mutilations and other effects of directly transforming agents are rarely1 if ever1 transmitted40 ,professor ,ray ,lankester ought to know the facts better than to say that the effects of mutilation are rarely1 if ever1 transmitted4 ,the rule is1 that they will not be transmitted unless they have been followed by disease1 but that where disease has supervened they not uncommonly descend to offspring4 #bcd;a ,i know ,brown-,squard considered it to be the morbid state of the nervous system consequent upon the mutilation that is transmitted1 rather than the immediate effects of the mutilation1 but this distinction is somewhat finely drawn4 ,when ,professor ,ray ,lankester talks about the 8other effects of directly transforming agents0 being rarely transmitted1 he should first show us the directly transforming agents4 ,lamarck1 as ,i have said1 knows them not4 8,it is little short of an absurdity10 he continues1 8for people to come forward at this epoch1 when evolution is at length accepted solely because of ,mr4 ,darwin's doctrine1 and coolly to propose to replace that doctrine by the old notion so often tried and rejected40 ,whether this is an absurdity or no1 ,professor ,lankester will do well to learn to bear it without showing so much warmth1 for it is one that is becoming common4 ,evolution has been accepted not 8because of0 ,mr4 ,darwin's doctrine1 but because ,mr4 ,darwin so fogged us about his doctrine that we did not understand it4 ,we thought we were backing his bill for descent with modification1 whereas we were in reality backing it for descent with modification by means of natural selection from among fortuitous variations4 ,this last really is ,mr4 ,darwin's theory1 except in so far as it is also ,mr4 ,a4 ,r4 ,wallace's2 descent1 alone1 is just as much and just as little ,mr4 ,darwin's doctrine as it is ,professor ,ray ,lankester's or mine4 ,i grant it is in great measure through ,mr4 ,darwin's books that descent has become so widely accepted2 it has become so through his books1 but in spite of1 rather than by reason of1 his doctrine4 ,indeed his doctrine was no doctrine1 but only a back-door for himself to escape by in the event of flood or fire2 the flood and fire have come2 it remains to be seen how far the door will work satisfactorily4 ,professor ,ray ,lankester1 again1 should not say that ,lamarck's doctrine has been 8so often tried and rejected40 ,m4 ,martins1 in his edition of the 8,philosophie ,zoologique10 #bce;a said truly that ,lamarck's theory had never yet had the honour of being seriously discussed4 ,it never has--not at least in connection with the name of its propounder4 ,to mention ,lamarck's name in the presence of the conventional ,english society naturalist has always been like shaking a red rag at a cow2 he is at once infuriated2 8as if it were possible10 to quote from ,isidore ,geoffroy ,st4 ,hilaire1 whose defence of ,lamarck is one of the best things in his book1 #bce;b 8that so great labour on the part of so great a naturalist should have led him to #8a fantastic conclusion' only--to #8a flighty error1' and1 as has been often said1 though not written1 to #8one absurdity the more4' ,such was the language which ,lamarck heard during his protracted old age1 saddened alike by the weight of years and blindness2 this was what people did not hesitate to utter over his grave1 yet barely closed1 and what1 indeed1 they are still saying--commonly too1 without any knowledge of what ,lamarck maintained1 but merely repeating at second hand bad caricatures of his teaching4 8,when will the time come when we may see ,lamarck's theory discussed1 and ,i may as well at once say refuted1 in some important points1 with at any rate the respect due to one of the most illustrious masters of our science8 ,and when will this theory1 the hardihood of which has been greatly exaggerated1 become freed from the interpretations and commentaries by the false light of which so many naturalists have formed their opinion concerning it8 ,if its author is to be condemned1 let it1 at any rate1 not be before he has been heard40 ,lamarck was the ,lazarus of biology4 ,i wish his more fortunate brethren1 instead of intoning the old ,church argument that he has 8been refuted over and over again10 would refer us to some of the best chapters in the writers who have refuted him4 ,my own reading has led me to become moderately well acquainted with the literature of evolution1 but ,i have never come across a single attempt fairly to grapple with ,lamarck1 and it is plain that neither ,isidore ,geoffroy nor ,m4 ,martins knows of such an attempt any more than ,i do4 ,when ,professor ,ray ,lankester puts his finger on ,lamarck's weak places1 then1 but not till then1 may he complain of those who try to replace ,mr4 ,darwin's doctrine by ,lamarck's4 ,professor ,ray ,lankester concludes his note thus3-- 8,that such an attempt should be made is an illustration of a curious weakness of humanity4 ,not infrequently1 after a long contested cause has triumphed1 and all have yielded allegiance thereto1 you will find1 when few generations have passed1 that men have clean forgotten what and who it was that made that cause triumphant1 and ignorantly will set up for honour the name of a traitor or an impostor1 or attribute to a great man as a merit deeds and thoughts which he spent a long life in opposing40 ,exactly so2 that is what one rather feels1 but surely ,professor ,ray ,lankester should say 8in trying to filch while pretending to oppose and to amend40 ,he is complaining here that people persistently ascribe ,lamarck's doctrine to ,mr4 ,darwin4 ,of course they do2 but1 as ,i have already perhaps too abundantly asked1 whose fault is this8 ,if a man knows his own mind1 and wants others to understand it1 it is not often that he is misunderstood for any length of time4 ,if he finds he is being misapprehended in a way he does not like1 he will write another book and make his meaning plainer4 ,he will go on doing this for as long time as he thinks necessary4 ,i do not suppose1 for example1 that people will say ,i originated the theory of descent by means of natural selection from among fortunate accidents1 or even that ,i was one of its supporters as a means of modification2 but if this impression were to prevail1 ,i cannot think ,i should have much difficulty in removing it4 ,at any rate no such misapprehension could endure for more than twenty years1 during which ,i continued to address a public who welcomed all ,i wrote1 unless ,i myself aided and abetted the mistake4 ,mr4 ,darwin wrote many books1 but the impression that ,darwinism and evolution1 or descent with modification1 are identical is still nearly as prevalent as it was soon after the appearance of the 8,origin of ,species20 the reason of this is1 that ,mr4 ,darwin was at no pains to correct us4 ,where1 in any one of his many later books1 is there a passage which sets the matter in its true light1 and enters a protest against the misconception of which ,professor ,ray ,lankester complains so bitterly8 ,the only inference from this is1 that ,mr4 ,darwin was not displeased at our thinking him to be the originator of the theory of descent with modification1 and did not want us to know more about ,lamarck than he could help4 ,if we wanted to know about him1 we must find out what he had said for ourselves1 it was no part of ,mr4 ,darwin's business to tell us2 he had no interest in our catching the distinctive difference between himself and that writer2 perhaps not2 but this approaches closely to wishing us to misunderstand it4 ,when ,mr4 ,darwin wished us to understand this or that1 no one knew better how to show it to us4 ,we were aware1 on reading the 8,origin of ,species10 that there was a something about it of which we had not full hold2 nevertheless we gave ,mr4 ,darwin our confidence at once1 partly because he led off by telling us that we must trust him to a great extent1 and explained that the present book was only an instalment of a larger work which1 when it came out1 would make everything perfectly clear2 partly1 again1 because the case for descent with modification1 which was the leading idea throughout the book1 was so obviously strong1 but perhaps mainly because every one said ,mr4 ,darwin was so good1 and so much less self-heeding than other people2 besides1 he had so 8patiently0 and 8carefully0 accumulated 8such a vast store of facts0 as no other naturalist1 living or dead1 had ever yet even tried to get together2 he was so kind to us with his1 8,may we not believe80 and his 8,have we any right to infer that the ,creator80 c4 8,of course we have not10 we exclaimed1 almost with tears in our eyes--8not if you ask us in that way40 ,now that we understand what it was that puzzled us in ,mr4 ,darwin's work we do not think highly either of the chief offender1 or of the accessories after the fact1 many of whom are trying to brazen the matter out1 and on a smaller scale to follow his example4 ,chapter ,,xviii ,per ,contra 8#8,,the evil that men do lives after them0 #bci;a is happily not so true as that the good lives after them1 while the ill is buried with their bones1 and to no one does this correction of ,shakespeare's unwonted spleen apply more fully than to ,mr4 ,darwin4 ,indeed it was somewhat thus that we treated his books even while he was alive2 the good1 descent1 remained with us1 while the ill1 the deification of luck1 was forgotten as soon as we put down his work4 ,let me now1 therefore1 as far as possible1 quit the ungrateful task of dwelling on the defects of ,mr4 ,darwin's work and character1 for the more pleasant one of insisting upon their better side1 and of explaining how he came to be betrayed into publishing the 8,origin of ,species0 without reference to the works of his predecessors4 ,in the outset ,i would urge that it is not by any single book that ,mr4 ,darwin should be judged4 ,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 ourselves2 nevertheless1 if asked to say who was the man of our own times whose work had produced the most important1 and1 on the whole1 beneficial effect1 ,i should perhaps wrongly1 but still both instinctively and on reflection1 name him to whom ,i have1 unfortunately1 found myself in more bitter opposition than to any other in the whole course of my life4 ,i refer1 of course1 to ,mr4 ,darwin4 ,his claim upon us lies not so much in what is actually found within the four corners of any one of his books1 as in the fact of his having written them at all--in the fact of his having brought out one after another1 with descent always for its keynote1 until the lesson was learned too thoroughly to make it at all likely that it will be forgotten4 ,mr4 ,darwin wanted to move his generation1 and had the penetration to see that this is not done by saying a thing once for all and leaving it4 ,it almost seems as though it matters less what a man says than the number of times he repeats it1 in a more or less varied form4 ,it was here the author of the 8,vestiges of ,creation0 made his most serious mistake4 ,he relied on new editions1 and no one pays much attention to new editions--the mark a book makes is almost always made by its first edition4 ,if1 instead of bringing out a series of amended editions during the fifteen years' law which ,mr4 ,darwin gave him1 ,mr4 ,chambers had followed up the 8,vestiges0 with new book upon new book1 he would have learned much more1 and1 by consequence1 not have been snuffed out so easily once for all as he was in #ahei when the 8,origin of ,species0 appeared4 ,the tenacity of purpose which appears to have been one of ,mr4 ,darwin's most remarkable characteristics was visible even in his outward appearance4 ,he always reminded me of ,raffaelle's portrait of ,pope ,julius the ,second1 which1 indeed1 would almost do for a portrait of ,mr4 ,darwin himself4 ,i imagine that these two men1 widely as the sphere of their action differed1 must have been like each other in more respects than looks alone4 ,each1 certainly1 had a hand of iron2 whether ,pope ,julius wore a velvet glove or no1 ,i do not know2 ,i rather think not1 for1 if ,i remember rightly1 he boxed ,michael ,angelo's ears for giving him a saucy answer4 ,we cannot fancy ,mr4 ,darwin boxing any one's ears2 indeed there can be no doubt he wore a very thick velvet glove1 but the hand underneath it was none the less of iron4 ,it was to his tenacity of purpose1 doubtless1 that his success was mainly due2 but for this he must inevitably have fallen before the many inducements to desist from the pursuit of his main object1 which beset him in the shape of ill health1 advancing years1 ample private means1 large demands upon his time1 and a reputation already great enough to satisfy the ambition of any ordinary man4 ,i do not gather from those who remember ,mr4 ,darwin as a boy1 and as a young man1 that he gave early signs of being likely to achieve greatness2 nor1 as it seems to me1 is there any sign of unusual intellectual power to be detected in his earliest book4 ,opening this 8almost0 at random ,i read--8,earthquakes alone are sufficient to destroy the prosperity of any country4 ,if1 for instance1 beneath ,england the now inert subterraneous forces should exert those powers which most assuredly in former geological ages they have exerted1 how completely would the entire condition of the country be changed6 ,what would become of the lofty houses1 thickly-packed cities1 great manufacturies 7sic71 the beautiful public and private edifices8 ,if the new period of disturbance were to commence by some great earthquake in the dead of night1 how terrific would be the carnage6 ,england would be at once bankrupt2 all papers1 records1 and accounts would from that moment be lost4 ,government being unable to collect the taxes1 and failing to maintain its authority1 the hand of violence and rapine would go uncontrolled4 ,in every large town famine would be proclaimed1 pestilence and death following in its train40 #bdj;a ,great allowance should be made for a first work1 and ,i admit that much interesting matter is found in ,mr4 ,darwin's journal2 still1 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 time4 ,i have not sufficient technical knowledge to enable me to speak certainly1 but ,i question his having been the great observer and master of experiment which he is generally believed to have been4 ,his accuracy was1 ,i imagine1 generally to be relied upon as long as accuracy did not come into conflict with his interests as a leader in the scientific world2 when these were at stake he was not to be trusted for a moment4 ,unfortunately they were directly or indirectly at stake more often than one could wish4 ,his book on the action of worms1 however1 was shown by ,professor ,paley and other writers #bdb;a to contain many serious errors and omissions1 though it involved no personal question2 but ,i imagine him to have been more or less hbt when he wrote this book4 ,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 history4 ,presumptuous as ,i am aware it must appear to say so1 ,i am unable to see more than average intellectual power even in ,mr4 ,darwin's later books4 ,his great contribution to science is supposed to have been the theory of natural selection1 but enough has been said to show that this1 if understood as he ought to have meant it to be understood1 cannot be rated highly as an intellectual achievement4 ,his other most important contribution was his provisional theory of pan-genesis1 which is admitted on all hands to have been a failure4 ,though1 however1 it is not likely that posterity will consider him as a man of transcendent intellectual power1 he must be admitted to have been richly endowed with a much more valuable quality than either originality or literary power--,i mean with savoir faire4 ,the cards he held--and1 on the whole1 his hand was a good one--he played with judgment2 and though not one of those who would have achieved greatness under any circumstances1 he nevertheless did achieve greatness of no mean order4 ,greatness1 indeed1 of the highest kind--that of one who is without fear and without reproach--will not ultimately be allowed him1 but greatness of a rare kind can only be denied him by those whose judgment is perverted by temper or personal ill-will4 ,he found the world believing in fixity of species1 and left it believing--in spite of his own doctrine--in descent with modification4 ,i have said on an earlier page that ,mr4 ,darwin was heir to a discredited truth1 and left behind him an accredited fallacy4 ,this is true as regards men of science and cultured classes who understood his distinctive feature1 or thought they did1 and so long as ,mr4 ,darwin lived accepted it with very rare exceptions2 but it is not true as regards the unreading1 unreflecting public1 who seized the salient point of descent with modification only1 and troubled themselves little about the distinctive feature4 ,it would almost seem as if ,mr4 ,darwin had reversed the usual practice of philosophers and given his esoteric doctrine to the world1 while reserving the exoteric for his most intimate and faithful adherents4 ,this1 however1 is a detail2 the main fact is1 that ,mr4 ,darwin brought us all round to evolution4 ,true1 it was ,mr4 ,darwin backed by the ,times and the other most influential organs of science and culture1 but it was one of ,mr4 ,darwin's great merits to have developed and organised this backing1 as part of the work which he knew was essential if so great a revolution was to be effected4 ,this is an exceedingly difficult and delicate thing to do4 ,if people think they need only write striking and well-considered books1 and that then the ,times will immediately set to work to call attention to them1 ,i should advise them not to be too hasty in basing action upon this hypothesis4 ,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 it4 ,no one who has not a strong social position should ever advance a new theory1 unless a life of hard fighting is part of what he lays himself out for4 ,it was one of ,mr4 ,darwin's great merits that he had a strong social position1 and had the good sense to know how to profit by it4 ,the magnificent feat which he eventually achieved was unhappily tarnished by much that detracts from the splendour that ought to have attended it1 but a magnificent feat it must remain4 ,whose work in this imperfect world is not tarred and tarnished by something that detracts from its ideal character8 ,it is enough that a man should be the right man in the right place1 and this ,mr4 ,darwin pre-eminently was4 ,if he had been more like the ideal character which ,mr4 ,allen endeavours to represent him1 it is not likely that he would have been able to do as much1 or nearly as much1 as he actually did2 he would have been too wide a cross with his generation to produce much effect upon it4 ,original thought is much more common than is generally believed4 ,most people1 if they only knew it1 could write a good book or play1 paint a good picture1 compose a fine oratorio2 but it takes an unusually able person to get the book well reviewed1 persuade a manager to bring the play out1 sell the picture1 or compass the performance of the oratorio2 indeed1 the more vigorous and original any one of these things may be1 the more difficult will it prove to even bring it before the notice of the public4 ,the error of most original people is in being just a trifle too original4 ,it was in his business qualities--and these1 after all1 are the most essential to success1 that ,mr4 ,darwin showed himself so superlative4 ,these are not only the most essential to success1 but it is only by blaspheming the world in a way which no good citizen of the world will do1 that we can deny them to be the ones which should most command our admiration4 ,we are in the world2 surely so long as we are in it we should be of it1 and not give ourselves airs as though we were too good for our generation1 and would lay ourselves out to please any other by preference4 ,mr4 ,darwin played for his own generation1 and he got in the very amplest measure the recognition which he endeavoured1 as we all do1 to obtain4 ,his success was1 no doubt1 in great measure due to the fact that he knew our little ways1 and humoured them2 but if he had not had little ways of his own1 he never could have been so much au fait with ours4 ,he knew1 for example1 we should be pleased to hear that he had taken his boots off so as not to disturb his worms when watching them by night1 so he told us of this1 and we were delighted4 ,he knew we should like his using the word 8sag10 so he used it1 #bde;a and we said it was beautiful4 ,true1 he used it wrongly1 for he was writing about tesselated pavement1 and builders assure me that 8sag0 is a word which applies to timber only1 but this is not to the point2 the point was1 that ,mr4 ,darwin should have used a word that we did not understand2 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 unacquainted4 ,we do not deal the same measure to man and to the lower animals in the matter of intelligence2 the less we understand these last1 the less1 we say1 not we1 but they can understand2 whereas the less we can understand a man1 the more intelligent we are apt to think him4 ,no one should neglect by-play of this description2 if ,i live to be strong enough to carry it through1 ,i mean to play 8cambre10 and ,i shall spell it 8camber40 ,i wonder ,mr4 ,darwin never abused this word4 ,laugh at him1 however1 as we may for having said 8sag10 if he had not been the kind of man to know the value of these little hits1 neither would he have been the kind of man to persuade us into first tolerating1 and then cordially accepting1 descent with modification4 ,there is a correlation of mental as well as of physical growth1 and we could not probably have had one set of ,mr4 ,darwin's qualities without the other4 ,if he had been more faultless1 he might have written better books1 but we should have listened worse4 ,a book's prosperity is like a jest's--in the ear of him that hears it4 ,mr4 ,spencer would not--at least one cannot think he would--have been able to effect the revolution which will henceforth doubtless be connected with ,mr4 ,darwin's name4 ,he had been insisting on evolution for some years before the 8,origin of ,species0 came out1 but he might as well have preached to the winds1 for all the visible effect that had been produced4 ,on the appearance of ,mr4 ,darwin's book the effect was instantaneous2 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 failed4 ,granted that it was comparatively easy for ,mr4 ,darwin1 as having been born into the household of one of the prophets of evolution1 to arrive at conclusions about the fixity of species which1 if not so born1 he might never have reached at all2 this does not make it any easier for him to have got others to agree with him4 ,any one1 again1 may have money left him1 or run up against it1 or have it run up against him1 as it does against some people1 but it is only a very sensible person who does not lose it4 ,moreover1 once begin to go behind achievement and there is an end of everything4 ,did the world give much heed to or believe in evolution before ,mr4 ,darwin's time8 ,certainly not4 ,did we begin to attend and be persuaded soon after ,mr4 ,darwin began to write8 ,certainly yes4 ,did we ere long go over en masse8 ,assuredly4 ,if1 as ,i said in 8,life and ,habit10 any one asks who taught the world to believe in evolution1 the answer to the end of time must be that it was ,mr4 ,darwin4 ,and yet the more his work is looked at1 the more marvellous does its success become4 ,it seems as if some organisms can do anything with anything4 ,beethoven picked his teeth with the snuffers1 and seems to have picked them sufficiently to his satisfaction4 ,so ,mr4 ,darwin with one of the worst styles imaginable did all that the clearest1 tersest writer could have done4 ,strange1 that such a master of cunning 7in the sense of my title7 should have been the apostle of luck1 and one so terribly unlucky as ,lamarck1 of cunning1 but such is the irony of nature4 ,buffon planted1 ,erasmus ,darwin and ,lamarck watered1 but it was ,mr4 ,darwin who said1 8,that fruit is ripe10 and shook it into his lap4 ,with this ,mr4 ,darwin's best friends ought to be content2 his admirers are not well advised in representing him as endowed with all sorts of qualities which he was very far from possessing4 ,thus it is pretended that he was one of those men who were ever on the watch for new ideas1 ever ready to give a helping hand to those who were trying to advance our knowledge1 ever willing to own to a mistake and give up even his most cherished ideas if truth required them at his hands4 ,no conception can be more wantonly inexact4 ,i grant that if a writer was sufficiently at once incompetent and obsequious ,mr4 ,darwin was 8ever ready10 c4 ,so the ,emperors of ,austria wash a few poor people's feet on some one of the festivals of the ,church1 but it would not be safe to generalise from this yearly ceremony1 and conclude that the ,emperors of ,austria are in the habit of washing poor people's feet4 ,i can understand ,mr4 ,darwin's not having taken any public notice1 for example1 of 8,life and ,habit10 for though ,i did not attack him in force in that book1 it was abundantly clear that an attack could not be long delayed1 and a man may be pardoned for not doing anything to advertise the works of his opponents2 but there is no excuse for his never having referred to ,professor ,hering's work either in 8,nature10 when ,professor ,ray ,lankester first called attention to it 7,july #ac1 #ahgf71 or in some one of his subsequent books4 ,if his attitude towards those who worked in the same field as himself had been the generous one which his admirers pretend1 he would have certainly come forward1 not necessarily as adopting ,professor ,hering's theory1 but still as helping it to obtain a hearing4 ,his not having done so is of a piece with his silence about ,buffon1 ,erasmus ,darwin1 and ,lamarck in the early editions of the 8,origin of ,species10 and with the meagre reference to them which is alone found in the later ones4 ,it is of a piece also with the silence which ,mr4 ,darwin invariably maintained when he saw his position irretrievably damaged1 as1 for example1 by ,mr4 ,spencer's objection already referred to1 and by the late ,professor ,fleeming ,jenkin in the ,north ,british ,review 7,june #ahfg74 ,science1 after all1 should form a kingdom which is more or less not of this world4 ,the ideal scientist should know neither self nor friend nor foe--he should be able to hob-nob with those whom he most vehemently attacks1 and to fly at the scientific throat of those to whom he is personally most attached2 he should be neither grateful for a favourable review nor displeased at a hostile one2 his literary and scientific life should be something as far apart as possible from his social2 it is thus1 at least1 alone that any one will be able to keep his eye single for facts1 and their legitimate inferences4 ,we have seen ,professor ,mivart lately taken to task by ,mr4 ,romanes for having said #bdh;a that ,mr4 ,darwin was singularly sensitive to criticism1 and made it impossible for ,professor ,mivart to continue friendly personal relations with him after he had ventured to maintain his own opinion4 ,i see no reason to question ,professor ,mivart's accuracy1 and find what he has said to agree alike with my own personal experience of ,mr4 ,darwin1 and with all the light that his works throw upon his character4 ,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 ,lamarck1 ,mr4 ,patrick ,matthew1 the author of the 8,vestiges of ,creation10 and ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer1 and1 again1 in the total absence of complaint which this practice met with4 ,if ,lamarck might write the 8,philosophie ,zoologique0 without1 so far as ,i remember1 one word of reference to ,buffon1 and without being complained of1 why might not ,mr4 ,darwin write the 8,origin of ,species0 without more than a passing allusion to ,lamarck8 ,mr4 ,patrick ,matthew1 again1 though writing what is obviously a rsum of the evolutionary theories of his time1 makes no mention of ,lamarck1 ,erasmus ,darwin1 or ,buffon4 ,i have not the original edition of the 8,vestiges of ,creation0 before me1 but feel sure ,i am justified in saying that it claimed to be a more or less ,minerva-like work1 that sprang full armed from the brain of ,mr4 ,chambers himself4 ,this at least is how it was received by the public2 and1 however violent the opposition it met with1 ,i cannot find that its author was blamed for not having made adequate mention of ,lamarck4 ,when ,mr4 ,spencer wrote his first essay on evolution in the ,leader 7,march #bj1 #aheb7 he did indeed begin his argument1 8,those who cavalierly reject the doctrine of ,lamarck10 c41 so that his essay purports to be written in support of ,lamarck2 but when he republished his article in #aheh1 the reference to ,lamarck was cut out4 ,i make no doubt that it was the bad example set him by the writers named in the preceding paragraph which betrayed ,mr4 ,darwin into doing as they did1 but being more conscientious than they1 he could not bring himself to do it without having satisfied himself that he had got hold of a more or less distinctive feature1 and this1 of course1 made matters worse4 ,the distinctive feature was not due to any deep-laid plan for pitchforking mind out of the universe1 or as part of a scheme of materialistic philosophy1 though it has since been made to play an important part in the attempt to further this2 ,mr4 ,darwin was perfectly innocent of any intention of getting rid of mind1 and did not1 probably1 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 modification1 and the distinctive feature was an adjunct with which his nervous1 sensitive1 ,gladstonian nature would not allow him to dispense4 ,and why1 it may be asked1 should not the palm be given to ,mr4 ,darwin if he wanted it1 and was at so much pains to get it8 ,why1 if science is a kingdom not of this world1 make so much fuss about settling who is entitled to what8 ,at best such questions are of a sorry personal nature1 that can have little bearing upon facts1 and it is these that alone should concern us4 ,the answer is1 that if the question is so merely personal and unimportant1 ,mr4 ,darwin may as well yield as ,buffon1 ,erasmus ,darwin1 and ,lamarck2 ,mr4 ,darwin's admirers find no difficulty in appreciating the importance of a personal element as far as he is concerned2 let them not wonder1 then1 if others1 while anxious to give him the laurels to which he is entitled1 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 him4 ,palmam qui meruit ferat4 ,the instinct which tells us that no man in the scientific or literary world should claim more than his due is an old and1 ,i imagine1 a wholesome one1 and if a scientific self-denying ordinance is demanded1 we may reply with justice1 ,que messieurs les ,charles-,darwinies commencent4 ,mr4 ,darwin will have a crown sufficient for any ordinary brow remaining in the achievement of having done more than any other writer1 living or dead1 to popularise evolution4 ,this much may be ungrudgingly conceded to him1 but more than this those who have his scientific position most at heart will be well advised if they cease henceforth to demand4 ,chapter ,,xix ,conclusion ,,and now ,i bring this book to a conclusion4 ,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 bear4 ,i have omitted much that ,i had meant to deal with1 and have been tempted sometimes to introduce matter the connection of which with my subject is not immediately apparent4 ,such however1 as the book is1 it must now go in the form into which it has grown almost more in spite of me than from malice prepense on my part4 ,i was afraid that it might thus set me at defiance1 and in an early chapter expressed a doubt whether ,i should find it redound greatly to my advantage with men of science2 in this concluding chapter ,i may say that doubt has deepened into something like certainty4 ,i regret this1 but cannot help it4 ,among the points with which it was most incumbent upon me to deal was that of vegetable intelligence4 ,a reader may well say that unless ,i give plants much the same sense of pleasure and pain1 memory1 power of will1 and intelligent perception of the best way in which to employ their opportunities that ,i give to low animals1 my argument falls to the ground4 ,if ,i declare organic modification to be mainly due to function1 and hence in the closest correlation with mental change1 ,i must give plants1 as well as animals1 a mind1 and endow them with power to reflect and reason upon all that most concerns them4 ,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 own4 ,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 ourselves4 ,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 conducted1 or on any signs on the plant's part of a capacity for understanding things that do not concern it1 and there will be no further difficulty about supposing that in its own sphere a plant is just as intelligent as an animal1 and keeps a sharp look-out upon its own interests1 however indifferent it may seem to be to ours4 ,so strong has been the set of recent opinion in this direction that with botanists the foregoing now almost goes without saying1 though few five years ago would have accepted it4 ,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 ,mr4 ,alfred ,tylor4 ,mr4 ,tylor was not the discoverer of the protoplasmic continuity that exists in plants1 but he was among the very first to welcome this discovery1 and his experiments at ,carshalton in the years #ahhc and #ahhd demonstrated that1 whether there was protoplasmic continuity in plants or no1 they were at any rate endowed with some measure of reason1 forethought1 and power of self-adaptation to varying surroundings4 ,it is not for me to give the details of these experiments4 ,i had the good fortune to see them more than once while they were in progress1 and was present when they were made the subject of a paper read by ,mr4 ,sydney ,b4 ,j4 ,skertchly before the ,linnean ,society1 ,mr4 ,tylor being then too ill to read it himself4 ,the paper has since been edited by ,mr4 ,skertchly1 and published4 #bec;a ,anything that should be said further about it will come best from ,mr4 ,skertchly2 it will be enough here if ,i give the rsum of it prepared by ,mr4 ,tylor himself4 ,in this ,mr4 ,tylor said3--8,the principles which underlie this paper are the individuality of plants1 the necessity for some co-ordinating system to enable the parts to act in concert1 and the probability that this also necessitates the admission that plants have a dim sort of intelligence4 8,it is shown that a tree1 for example1 is something more than an aggregation of tissues1 but is a complex being performing acts as a whole1 and not merely responsive to the direct influence of light1 c4 ,the tree knows more than its branches1 as the species know more than the individual1 the community than the unit4 8,moreover1 inasmuch as my experiments show that many plants and trees possess the power of adapting themselves to unfamiliar circumstances1 such as1 for instance1 avoiding obstacles by bending aside before touching1 or by altering the leaf arrangement1 it seems probable that at least as much voluntary power must be accorded to such plants as to certain lowly organised animals4 8,finally1 a connecting system by means of which combined movements take place is found in the threads of protoplasm which unite the various cells1 and which ,i have now shown to exist even in the wood of trees4 8,one of the important facts seems to be the universality of the upward curvature of the tips of growing branches of trees1 and the power possessed by the tree to straighten its branches afterwards1 so that new growth shall by similar means be able to obtain the necessary light and air4 8,a house1 to use a sanitary analogy1 is functionally useless without it obtains a good supply of light and air4 ,the architect strives so to produce the house as to attain this end1 and still leave the house comfortable4 ,but the house1 though dependent upon1 is not produced by1 the light and air4 ,so a tree is functionally useless1 and cannot even exist without a proper supply of light and air2 but1 whereas it has been the custom to ascribe the heliotropic and other motions to the direct influence of those agents1 ,i would rather suggest that the movements are to some extent due to the desire of the plant to acquire its necessaries of life40 ,the more ,i have reflected upon ,mr4 ,tylor's ,carshalton experiments1 the more convinced ,i am of their great value4 ,no one1 indeed1 ought to have doubted that plants were intelligent1 but we all of us do much that we ought not to do1 and ,mr4 ,tylor supplied a demonstration which may be henceforth authoritatively appealed to4 ,i will take the present opportunity of insisting upon a suggestion which ,i made in 8,alps and ,sanctuaries0 7,new edition1 pp4 #aeb1 #aec71 with which ,mr4 ,tylor was much pleased1 and which1 at his request1 ,i made the subject of a few words that ,i ventured to say at the ,linnean ,society's rooms after his paper had been read4 8,admitting10 ,i said1 8the common protoplasmic origin of animals and plants1 and setting aside the notion that plants preceded animals1 we are still faced by the problem why protoplasm should have developed into the organic life of the world1 along two main lines1 and only two--the animal and the vegetable4 ,why1 if there was an early schism--and this there clearly was--should there not have been many subsequent ones of equal importance8 ,we see innumerable sub-divisions of animals and plants1 but we see no other such great subdivision of organic life as that whereby it ranges itself1 for the most part readily1 as either animal or vegetable4 ,why any subdivision8--but if any1 why not more than two great classes80 ,the two main stems of the tree of life ought1 one would think1 to have been formed on the same principle as the boughs which represent genera1 and the twigs which stand for species and varieties4 ,if specific differences arise mainly from differences of action taken in consequence of differences of opinion1 then1 so ultimately do generic2 so1 therefore1 again1 do differences between families2 so therefore1 by analogy1 should that greatest of differences in virtue of which the world of life is mainly animal1 or vegetable4 ,in this last case as much as in that of specific difference1 we ought to find divergent form the embodiment and organic expression of divergent opinion4 ,form is mind made manifest in flesh through action3 shades of mental difference being expressed in shades of physical difference1 while broad fundamental differences of opinion are expressed in broad fundamental differences of bodily shape4 ,or to put it thus3-- ,if form and habit be regarded as functionally interdependent1 that is to say1 if neither form nor habit can vary without corresponding variation in the other1 and if habit and opinion concerning advantage are also functionally interdependent1 it follows self-evidently that form and opinion concerning advantage 7and hence form and cunning7 will be functionally interdependent also1 and that there can be no great modification of the one without corresponding modification of the other4 ,let there1 then1 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 life1 according as the one view or the other was taken4 ,it is obvious that the pros and cons for either course must be supposed very nearly equal1 otherwise the course which presented the fewest advantages would be attended with the probable gradual extinction of the organised beings that adopted it1 but there being supposed two possible modes of action very evenly balanced as regards advantage and disadvantages1 then the ultimate appearance of two corresponding forms of life is a sequitur from the admission that form varies as function1 and function as opinion concerning advantage4 ,if there are three1 four1 five1 or six such opinions tenable1 we ought to have three1 four1 five1 or six main subdivisions of life4 ,as things are1 we have two only4 ,can we1 then1 see a matter on which opinion was likely to be easily and early divided into two1 and only two1 main divisions--no third course being conceivable8 ,if so1 this should suggest itself as the probable source from which the two main forms of organic life have been derived4 ,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 way1 or to go about in search of what one can find4 ,of course we1 as animals1 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 comes2 but there is still so much to be said on the other side1 that many classes of animals have settled down into sessile habits1 while a perhaps even larger number are1 like spiders1 habitual liers in wait rather than travellers in search of food4 ,i would ask my reader1 therefore1 to see the opinion that it is better to go in search of prey as formulated1 and finding its organic expression1 in animals2 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 plants4 ,some few intermediate forms still record to us the long struggle during which the schism was not yet complete1 and the halting between two opinions which it might be expected that some organisms should exhibit4 8,neither class10 ,i said in 8,alps and ,sanctuaries10 8has been quite consistent4 ,who ever is or can be8 ,every extreme--every opinion carried to its logical end--will prove to be an absurdity4 ,plants throw out roots and boughs and leaves2 this is a kind of locomotion2 and1 as ,dr4 ,erasmus ,darwin long since pointed out1 they do sometimes approach nearly to what may be called travelling2 a man of consistent character will never look at a bough1 a root1 or a tendril without regarding it as a melancholy and unprincipled compromise0 7,new edition1 p4 #aec74 ,having called attention to this view1 and commended it to the consideration of my readers1 ,i proceed to another which should not have been left to be touched upon only in a final chapter1 and which1 indeed1 seems to require a book to itself--,i refer to the origin and nature of the feelings1 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 volition4 ,volition grows out of ideas1 ideas from feelings4 ,what1 then1 is feeling1 and the subsequent mental images or ideas8 ,the image of a stone formed in our minds is no representation of the object which has given rise to it4 ,not only1 as has been often remarked1 is there no resemblance between the particular thought and the particular thing1 but thoughts and things generally are too unlike to be compared4 ,an idea of a stone may be like an idea of another stone1 or two stones may be like one another2 but an idea of a stone is not like a stone2 it cannot be thrown at anything1 it occupies no room in space1 has no specific gravity1 and when we come to know more about stones1 we find our ideas concerning them to be but rude1 epitomised1 and highly conventional renderings of the actual facts1 mere hieroglyphics1 in fact1 or1 as it were1 counters or bank-notes1 which serve to express and to convey commodities with which they have no pretence of analogy4 ,indeed we daily find that1 as the range of our perceptions becomes enlarged either by invention of new appliances or after use of old ones1 we change our ideas though we have no reason to think that the thing about which we are thinking has changed4 ,in the case of a stone1 for instance1 the rude1 unassisted1 uneducated senses see it as above all things motionless1 whereas assisted and trained ideas concerning it represent motion as its most essential characteristic2 but the stone has not changed4 ,so1 again1 the uneducated idea represents it as above all things mindless1 and is as little able to see mind in connection with it as it lately was to see motion2 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 motion1 but the stone will not have changed4 ,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 them1 as by what was in the outset voluntary1 conventional arrangement in whatever way we found convenient1 of sensation and perception-symbols1 which had nothing whatever to do with the objects1 and were simply caught hold of as the only things we could grasp4 ,it would seem as if1 in the first instance1 we must have arbitrarily attached some one of the few and vague sensations which we could alone at first command1 to certain motions of outside things as echoed by our brain1 and used them to think and feel the things with1 so as to docket them1 and recognise them with greater force1 certainty1 and clearness--much as we use words to help us to docket and grasp our feelings and thoughts1 or written characters to help us to docket and grasp our words4 ,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 writing4 ,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 paper2 he supposes this power to be a part of our nature1 to have come of itself by luck and not by cunning1 but a little reflection will show that feeling is not more likely to have 8come by nature0 than reading and writing are4 ,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 organs2 its development must be supposed to have followed the same lines as that of our other arts1 and indeed of the body itself1 which is the ars artium--for growth of mind is throughout coincident with growth of organic resources1 and organic resources grow with growing mind4 ,feeling is the art the possession of which differentiates the civilised organic world from that of brute inorganic matter1 but still it is an art2 it is the outcome of a mind that is common both to organic and inorganic1 and which the organic has alone cultivated4 ,it is not a part of mind itself2 it is no more this than language and writing are parts of thought4 ,the organic world can alone feel1 just as man can alone speak2 but as speech is only the development of powers the germs of which are possessed by the lower animals1 so feeling is only a sign of the employment and development of powers the germs of which exist in inorganic substances4 ,it has all the characteristics of an art1 and though it must probably rank as the oldest of those arts that are peculiar to the organic world1 it is one which is still in process of development4 ,none of us1 indeed1 can feel well on more than a very few subjects1 and many can hardly feel at all4 ,but1 however this may be1 our sensations and perceptions of material phenomena are attendant on the excitation of certain motions in the anterior parts of the brain4 ,whenever certain motions are excited in this substance1 certain sensations and ideas of resistance1 extension1 c41 are either concomitant1 or ensue within a period too brief for our cognisance4 ,it is these sensations and ideas that we directly cognise1 and it is to them that we have attached the idea of the particular kind of matter we happen to be thinking of4 ,as this idea is not like the thing itself1 so neither is it like the motions in our brain on which it is attendant4 ,it is no more like these than1 say1 a stone is like the individual characters1 written or spoken1 that form the word 8stone10 or than these last are1 in sound1 like the word 8stone0 itself1 whereby the idea of a stone is so immediately and vividly presented to us4 ,true1 this does not involve that our idea shall not resemble the object that gave rise to it1 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 reflected2 the shifting nature1 however1 of our ideas and conceptions is enough to show that they must be symbolical1 and conditioned by changes going on within ourselves as much as by those outside us2 and if1 going behind the ideas which suffice for daily use1 we extend our inquiries in the direction of the reality underlying our conception1 we find reason to think that the brain-motions which attend our conception correspond with exciting motions in the object that occasions it1 and that these1 rather than anything resembling our conception itself1 should be regarded as the reality4 ,this leads to a third matter1 on which ,i can only touch with extreme brevity4 ,different modes of motion have long been known as the causes of our different colour perceptions1 or at any rate as associated therewith1 and of late years1 more especially since the promulgation of ,newlands' #bfj;a law1 it has been perceived that what we call the kinds or properties of matter are not less conditioned by motion than colour is4 ,the substance or essence of unconditioned matter1 as apart from the relations between its various states 7which we believe to be its various conditions of motion7 must remain for ever unknown to us1 for it is only the relations between the conditions of the underlying substance that we cognise at all1 and where there are no conditions1 there is nothing for us to seize1 compare1 and1 hence1 cognise2 unconditioned matter must1 therefore1 be as inconceivable by us as unmattered condition2 #bfa;a but though we can know nothing about matter as apart from its conditions or states1 opinion has been for some time tending towards the belief that what we call the different states1 or kinds1 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 substratum4 ,our conception1 then1 concerning the nature of any matter depends solely upon its kind and degree of unrest1 that is to say1 on the characteristics of the vibrations that are going on within it4 ,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 vibrations1 it must be considered as to all intents and purposes the vibrations themselves--plus1 of course1 the underlying substance that is vibrating4 ,if1 for example1 a pat of butter is a portion of the unknowable underlying substance in such-and-such a state of molecular disturbance1 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 substance3 a pat of butter is such-and-such a disturbance of the unknowable underlying substance1 and such-and-such a disturbance of the underlying substance is a pat of butter4 ,in communicating its vibrations1 therefore1 to our brain a substance does actually communicate what is1 as far as we are concerned1 a portion of itself4 ,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 itself4 ,our recollection of it is occasioned by a feeble continuance of this feeble state in our brains1 becoming less feeble through the accession of fresh but similar vibrations from without4 ,the molecular vibrations which make the thing an idea of which is conveyed to our minds1 put within our brain a little feeble emanation from the thing itself--if we come within their reach4 ,this being once put there1 will remain as it were dust1 till dusted out1 or till it decay1 or till it receive accession of new vibrations4 ,the vibrations from a pat of butter do1 then1 actually put butter into a man's head4 ,this is one of the commonest of expressions1 and would hardly be so common if it were not felt to have some foundation in fact4 ,at first the man does not know what feeling or complex of feelings to employ so as to docket the vibrations1 any more than he knows what word to employ so as to docket the feelings1 or with what written characters to docket his word2 but he gets over this1 and henceforward the vibrations of the exterior object 7that is to say1 the thing7 never set up their characteristic disturbances1 or1 in other words1 never come into his head1 without the associated feeling presenting itself as readily as word and characters present themselves1 on the presence of the feeling4 ,the more butter a man sees and handles1 the more he gets butter on the brain--till1 though he can never get anything like enough to be strictly called butter1 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 mind4 ,if this view is adopted1 our memory of a thing is our retention within the brain of a small leaven of the actual thing itself1 or of what qu us is the thing that is remembered1 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 system1 and therefore its material substance1 which we have already settled to be only our way of docketing molecular disturbances4 ,the same vibrations1 therefore1 form the substance remembered1 introduce an infinitesimal dose of it within the brain1 modify the substance remembering1 and1 in the course of time1 create and further modify the mechanism of both the sensory and motor nerves4 ,thought and thing are one4 ,i commend these two last speculations to the reader's charitable consideration1 as feeling that ,i am here travelling beyond the ground on which ,i can safely venture2 nevertheless1 as it may be some time before ,i have another opportunity of coming before the public1 ,i have thought it1 on the whole1 better not to omit them1 but to give them thus provisionally4 ,i believe they are both substantially true1 but am by no means sure that ,i have expressed them either clearly or accurately2 ,i cannot1 however1 further delay the issue of my book4 ,returning to the point raised in my title1 is luck1 ,i would ask1 or cunning1 the more fitting matter to be insisted upon in connection with organic modification8 ,do animals and plants grow into conformity with their surroundings because they and their fathers and mothers take pains1 or because their uncles and aunts go away8 ,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 continued1 and who are therefore only uncles and aunts of the survivors4 ,i can quite understand its being a good thing for any race that its uncles and aunts should go away1 but ,i do not believe the accumulation of lucky accidents could result in an eye1 no matter how many uncles and aunts may have gone away during how many generations4 ,i would ask the reader to bear in mind the views concerning life and death expressed in an early chapter4 ,they seem to me not1 indeed1 to take away any very considerable part of the sting from death2 this should not be attempted or desired1 for with the sting of death the sweets of life are inseparably bound up so that neither can be weakened without damaging the other4 ,weaken the fear of death1 and the love of life would be weakened4 ,strengthen it1 and we should cling to life even more tenaciously than we do4 ,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 being1 which1 until lately1 it must have seemed to those who have been unable to accept the grosser view of the resurrection with which we were familiarised in childhood4 ,we too now know that though worms destroy this body1 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 body2 and1 moreover1 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 us4 ,the thread of life cannot be shorn between successive generations1 except upon grounds which will in equity involve its being shorn between consecutive seconds1 and fractions of seconds4 ,on the other hand1 it cannot be left unshorn between consecutive seconds without necessitating that it should be left unshorn also beyond the grave1 as well as in successive generations4 ,death is as salient a feature in what we call our life as birth was1 but it is no more than this4 ,as a salient feature1 it is a convenient epoch for the drawing of a defining line1 by the help of which we may better grasp the conception of life1 and think it more effectually1 but it is a faon de parler only2 it is1 as ,i said in 8,life and ,habit10 #bfd;a 8the most inexorable of all conventions10 but our idea of it has no correspondence with eternal underlying realities4 ,finally1 we must have evolution2 consent is too spontaneous1 instinctive1 and universal among those most able to form an opinion1 to admit of further doubt about this4 ,we must also have mind and design4 ,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 forgotten4 ,nevertheless the old1 far-foreseeing ,deus ex machin design as from a point outside the universe1 which indeed it directs1 but of which it is no part1 is negatived by the facts of organism4 ,what1 then1 remains1 but the view that ,i have again in this book endeavoured to uphold--,i mean1 the supposition that the mind or cunning of which we see such abundant evidence all round us1 is1 like the kingdom of heaven1 within us1 and within all things at all times everywhere8 ,there is design1 or cunning1 but it is a cunning not despotically fashioning us from without as a potter fashions his clay1 but inhering democratically within the body which is its highest outcome1 as life inheres within an animal or plant4 ,all animals and plants are corporations1 or forms of democracy1 and may be studied by the light of these1 as democracies1 not infrequently1 by that of animals and plants4 ,the solution of the difficult problem of reflex action1 for example1 is thus facilitated1 by supposing it to be departmental in character2 that is to say1 by supposing it to be action of which the department that attends to it is alone cognisant1 and which is not referred to the central government so long as things go normally4 ,as long1 therefore1 as this is the case1 the central government is unconscious of what is going on1 but its being thus unconscious is no argument that the department is unconscious also4 ,i know that contradiction in terms lurks within much that ,i have said1 but the texture of the world is a warp and woof of contradiction in terms2 of continuity in discontinuity1 and discontinuity in continuity2 of unity in diversity1 and of diversity in unity4 ,as in the development of a fugue1 where1 when the subject and counter subject have been enounced1 there must henceforth be nothing new1 and yet all must be new1 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 excepted4 ,it crosses and thwarts what comes next to it with difference that involves resemblance1 and resemblance that involves difference1 and there is no juxtaposition of things that differ too widely by omission of necessary links1 or too sudden departure from recognised methods of procedure4 ,to conclude2 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 substance4 ,it is as a million pounds formed by accumulated millionths of farthings2 more compendiously it arises normally from1 and through1 action4 ,action arises normally from1 and through1 opinion4 ,opinion1 from1 and through1 hypothesis4 8,hypothesis10 as the derivation of the word itself shows1 is singularly near akin to 8underlying1 and only in part knowable1 substratum20 and what is this but 8,god0 translated from the language of ,moses into that of ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer8 ,the conception of ,god is like nature--it returns to us in another shape1 no matter how often we may expel it4 ,vulgarised as it has been by ,michael ,angelo1 ,raffaelle1 and others who shall be nameless1 it has been like every other corruptio optimi--pessimum3 used as a hieroglyph by the help of which we may better acknowledge the height and depth of our own ignorance1 and at the same time express our sense that there is an unseen world with which we in some mysterious way come into contact1 though the writs of our thoughts do not run within it--used in this way1 the idea and the word have been found enduringly convenient4 ,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 creatures1 ,he in them and they in ,him1 is only expressed in other words by declaring that the main means of organic modification is1 not luck1 but cunning4 ,footnotes #ag;a 8,nature10 ,nov4 #ab1 #ahhe4 #bj;a 8,hist4 ,nat4 ,gn410 tom4 ii4 p4 #daa1 #ahei4 #bc;a 8,selections1 c40 ,trbner ,co41 #ahhd4 ,out of print4 #bi;a 8,selections1 c41 and ,remarks on ,romanes' #8,mental ,intelligence in ,animals1'0 ,trbner ,co41 #ahhd4 pp4 #bbh1 #bbi4 ,out of print4 #ce;a ,quoted by ,m4 ,vianna ,de ,lima in his 8,expos ,sommaire10 c41 p4 #f4 ,paris1 ,delagrave1 #ahhf4 #dj;a ,i have given the passage in full on p4 #bed;a of my 8,selections10 c4 ,now out of print4 ,i observe that ,canon ,kingsley felt exactly the same difficulty that ,i had felt myself1 and saw also how alone it could be met4 ,he makes the wood-wren say1 8,something told him his mother had done it before him1 and he was flesh of her flesh1 life of her life1 and had inherited her instinct 7as we call hereditary memory1 to avoid the trouble of finding out what it is and how it comes740--,fraser1 ,june1 #ahfg4 ,canon ,kingsley felt he must insist on the continued personality of the two generations before he could talk about inherited memory4 ,on the other hand1 though he does indeed speak of this as almost a synonym for instinct1 he seems not to have realised how right he was1 and implies that we should find some fuller and more satisfactory explanation behind this1 only that we are too lazy to look for it4 #dd;a #bf ,sept41 #ahgg4 8,unconscious ,memory40 ch4 ii4 #eb;a ,this chapter is taken almost entirely from my book1 8,selections1 c44 and ,remarks on ,romanes' #8,mental ,evolution in ,animals4'0 ,trbner1 #ahhd4 ,now out of print4 #eb;b 8,mental ,evolution in ,animals10 p4 #aac4 ,kegan ,paul1 ,nov41 #ahhc4 #eb;c ,ibid4 p4 #aae4 #eb;d ,ibid4 p4 #aaf4 #ec;a 8,mental ,evolution in ,animals40 p4 #aca4 ,kegan ,paul1 ,nov41 #ahhc4 #ed;a ,vol4 ,i1 #crd ed41 #ahgd1 p4 #ada1 and ,problem ,i4 #ba4 #ed;b 8,mental ,evolution in ,animals10 pp4 #agg1 #agh4 ,nov41 #ahhc4 #ee;a 8,mental ,evolution in ,animals10 p4 #aib4 #ee;b ,ibid4 p4 #aie4 #ee;c ,ibid4 p4 #bif4 ,nov41 #ahhc4 #ef;a 8,mental ,evolution in ,animals10 p4 #cc4 ,nov41 #ahhc4 #ef;b ,ibid41 p4 #aaf4 #ef;c ,ibid41 p4 #agh4 #ei;a 8,evolution ,old and ,new10 pp4 #ceg1 #ceh4 #fj;a 8,mental ,evolution in ,animals10 p4 #aei4 ,kegan ,paul ,co41 #ahhc4 #fa;a 8,zoonomia10 vol4 i4 p4 #dhd4 #fa;b 8,mental ,evolution in ,animals10 p4 #big4 ,kegan ,paul ,co41 #ahhc4 #fa;c ,ibid41 p4 #bja4 ,kegan ,paul ,co41 #ahhc4 #fb;a 8,mental ,evolution in ,animals10 p4 #cja4 ,november1 #ahhc4 #fb;b 8,origin of ,species10 ed4 i4 p4 #bji4 #fb;c ,ibid41 ed4 vi41 #ahgf4 p4 #bjf4 #fb;d 8,formation of ,vegetable ,mould10 etc41 p4 #ih4 #fb;e ,quoted by ,mr4 ,romanes as written in the last year of ,mr4 ,darwin's life4 #fc;a ,macmillan1 #ahhc4 #ff;a 8,nature10 ,august #e1 #ahhf4 #fg;a ,london1 ,h4 ,k4 ,lewis1 #ahhf4 #gj;a 8,charles ,darwin40 ,longmans1 #ahhe4 #gj;b ,lectures at the ,london ,institution1 ,feb41 #ahhf4 #gj;c 8,charles ,darwin40 ,leipzig4 #ahhe4 #gb;a ,see ,professor ,hering's 8,zur ,lehre von der ,beziehung zwischen ,leib und ,seele4 ,mittheilung ber ,fechner's psychophysisches ,gesetz40 #gc;a ,quoted by ,m4 ,vianna ,de ,lima in his 8,expos ,sommaire des ,thories ,transformistes de ,lamarck1 ,darwin1 et ,hckel40 ,paris1 #ahhf1 p4 #bc4 #ha;a 8,origin of ,species10 ed4 i41 p4 #f2 see also p4 #dc4 #hc;a 8,i think it can be shown that there is such a power at work in #8,natural ,selection' 7the title of my book740--8,proceedings of the ,linnean ,society for #aheh10 vol4 iii41 p4 #ea4 #hf;a 8,on ,naval ,timber and ,arboriculture10 #ahca1 pp4 #chd1 #che4 ,see also 8,evolution ,old and ,new10 pp4 #cbj1 #cba4 #hg;a 8,origin of ,species10 p4 #di1 ed4 vi4 #ib;a 8,origin of ,species10 ed4 i41 pp4 #ahh1 #ahi4 #ic;a ,page #i4 #id;a ,page #bbf4 #if;a 8,journal of the ,proceedings of the ,linnean ,society40 ,williams and ,norgate1 #aheh1 p4 #fa4 #ajb;a 8,zoonomia10 vol4 i41 p4 #eje4 #ajd;a ,see 8,evolution ,old and ,new40 p4 #abb4 #aje;a 8,phil4 ,zool410 i41 p4 #hj4 #aje;b ,ibid41 i4 #hb4 #aje;c ,ibid4 vol4 i41 p4 #bcg4 #ajg;a ,see concluding chapter4 #abb;a ,report1 #i1 #bf4 #ace;a ,ps4 cii4 #be-bg1 ,bible version4 #acf;a ,ps4 cxxxix41 ,prayer-book version4 #adj;a ,contemporary ,review1 ,august1 #ahhe1 p4 #hd4 #adb;a ,london1 ,david ,bogue1 #ahha1 p4 #fj4 #add;a ,august #ab1 #ahhf4 #aej;a ,paris1 ,delagrave1 #ahhf4 #aej;b ,page #fj4 #aej;c 8uvre compltes10 tom4 ix4 p4 #dbb4 ,paris1 ,garnier frres1 #ahge4 #aej;d 8,hist4 ,nat410 tom4 i41 p4 #ac1 #agdi1 quoted 8,evol4 ,old and ,new10 p4 #ajh4 #aef;a 8,origin of ,species10 ed4 vi41 p4 #ajg4 #aef;b ,ibid41 ed4 vi41 p4 #aff4 #aeg;a 8,origin of ,species10 ed4 vi41 p4 #bcc4 #aeg;b ,ibid4 #aeg;c ,ibid41 ed4 vi41 p4 #aji4 #aeg;d ,ibid41 ed4 vi41 p4 #dja4 #aeh;a 8,origin of ,species10 ed4 i41 p4 #dij4 #afa;a 8,origin of ,species10 ed4 vi41 #ahgf1 p4 #aga4 #afc;a 8,charles ,darwin10 p4 #aac4 #afd;a 8,animals and ,plants under ,domestication10 vol4 ii41 p4 #cfg1 ed4 #ahge4 #afh;a ,page #c4 #afh;b ,page #d4 #afi;a ,it should be remembered this was the year in which the 8,vestiges of ,creation0 appeared4 #agc;a 8,charles ,darwin10 p4 #fg4 #agc;b ,h4 ,s4 ,king ,co41 #ahgf4 #agd;a ,page #ag4 #aie;a 8,phil4 ,zool410 tom4 i41 pp4 #cd1 #ce4 #bjb;a 8,origin of ,species10 p4 #cha1 ed4 i4 #bjc;a ,page #ded1 ed4 i4 #bje;a 8,principles of ,geology10 vol4 ii41 chap4 xxxiv41 ed4 #ahgb4 #bjf;a 8,natrliche ,schpfungsgeschichte10 p4 #c4 ,berlin1 #ahfh4 #bji;a ,see 8,evolution ,old and ,new10 pp4 #h1 #i4 #baf;a 8,vestiges10 c41 ed4 #ahfj2 ,proofs1 ,illustrations1 c41 p4 xiv4 #baf;b ,examiner1 ,may #ag1 #ahgi1 review of 8,evolution ,old and ,new40 #bah;a ,given in part in 8,evolution ,old and ,new40 #bai;a 8,mind10 p4 #dih1 ,oct41 #ahhc4 #bbd;a 8,degeneration10 #ahhj1 p4 #aj4 #bbg;a ,e4g4 the ,rev4 ,george ,henslow1 in 8,modern ,thought10 vol4 ii41 ,no4 #e1 #ahha4 #bcb;a 8,nature10 ,aug4 #f1 #ahhf4 #bcd;a ,see ,mr4 ,darwin's 8,animals and ,plants under ,domestication10 vol4 i41 p4 #dff1 c41 ed4 #ahge4 #bce;a ,paris1 #ahgc1 ,introd41 p4 vi4 #bce;b 8,hist4 ,nat4 ,gen410 ii4 #djd1 #ahei4 #bci;a ,as these pages are on the point of going to press1 ,i see that the writer of an article on ,liszt in the 8,athenum0 makes the same emendation on ,shakespeare's words that ,i have done4 #bdj;a 8,voyages of the ,adventure and ,beagle10 vol4 iii41 p4 #cgc4 ,london1 #ahci4 #bdb;a ,see ,professor ,paley1 8,fraser10 ,jan41 #ahhb1 8,science ,gossip10 ,nos4 #afb1 #afc1 ,june and ,july1 #ahgh1 and 8,nature10 ,jan4 #c1 ,jan4 #aj1 ,feb4 #bh1 and ,march #bg1 #ahhd4 #bde;a 8,formation of ,vegetable ,mould10 etc41 p4 #bag4 ,murray1 #ahhb4 #bdh;a 8,fortnightly ,review10 ,jan41 #ahhf4 #bec;a 8,on the ,growth of ,trees and ,protoplasmic ,continuity40 ,london1 ,stanford1 #ahhf4 #bfj;a ,sometimes called ,mendelejeff's 7see 8,monthly ,journal of ,science10 ,april1 #ahhd74 #bfa;a ,i am aware that attempts have been made to say that we can conceive a condition of matter1 although there is no matter in connection with it--as1 for example1 that we can have motion without anything moving 7see 8,nature10 ,march #e1 ,march #ab1 and ,april #i1 #ahhe7--;but ,i think it little likely that this opinion will meet general approbation4 #bfd;a ,page #ec4